Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Cooperative Report”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2020

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2019 year in review

Acting Chief’s Message Dear Cooperators: Members of the Cooperative Research Units are pleased to provide you with the “2019 Year in Review” report for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs). You will first note that this report looks a little different than those published in the past few years, as we opted for a shorter, more concise format this year. Inside you will find brief descriptions of just a few highlighted activities of unit scientists, students, and cooperators in support of our joint mission. Because of the shorter format, we are not able to include activities from every unit or State, but rest assured that we continue to value the great work that all of you do across the country and around the world. In fiscal year 2019, the CRU program was very productive despite challenging conditions, including budget uncertainty, a month-long furlough, and hiring delays. John Organ, Chief of the CRU program, retired in January 2019. The process to replace John was delayed several times, but as I write this, the position has been announced on the Federal Government recruitment site. I am hopeful that by the time you read this, we will have a new permanent chief. Congress provided an increase of $1 million in our allocation for the express purpose of filling some of the vacancies in our scientific workforce. Since receiving that increase, the management team has been working to fill vacancies. The program is fortunate to have excellent research scientists, dedicated leadership, and an outstanding administrative staff. However, our accomplishments depend on the tremendous support from all of you. We look forward to a productive 2020. John D. Thompson

Circular↗
USGS2013

Modeled future peak streamflows in four coastal Maine rivers

To safely and economically design bridges and culverts, it is necessary to compute the magnitude of peak streamflows that have specified annual exceedance probabilities (AEPs). Annual precipitation and air temperature in the northeastern United States are, in general, projected to increase during the 21st century. It is therefore important for engineers and resource managers to understand how peak flows may change in the future. This report, prepared in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), presents modeled changes in peak flows at four basins in coastal Maine on the basis of projected changes in air temperature and precipitation. To estimate future peak streamflows at the four basins in this study, historical values for climate (temperature and precipitation) in the basins were adjusted by different amounts and input to a hydrologic model of each study basin. To encompass the projected changes in climate in coastal Maine by the end of the 21st century, air temperatures were adjusted by four different amounts, from -3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) (-2 degrees Celsius (ºC)) to +10.8 ºF (+6 ºC) of observed temperatures. Precipitation was adjusted by three different percentage values from -15 percent to +30 percent of observed precipitation. The resulting 20 combinations of temperature and precipitation changes (includes the no-change scenarios) were input to Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) watershed models, and annual daily maximum peak flows were calculated for each combination. Modeled peak flows from the adjusted changes in temperature and precipitation were compared to unadjusted (historical) modeled peak flows. Annual daily maximum peak flows increase or decrease, depending on whether temperature or precipitation is adjusted; increases in air temperature (with no change in precipitation) lead to decreases in peak flows, whereas increases in precipitation (with no change in temperature) lead to increases in peak flows. As the magnitude of air temperatures increase in the four basins, peak flows decrease by larger amounts. If precipitation is held constant (no change from historical values), 17 to 26 percent decreases in peak flow occur at the four basins when temperature is increased by 7.2°F. If temperature is held constant, 26 to 38 percent increases in peak flow result from a 15-percent increase in precipitation. The largest decreases in peak flows at the four basins result from 15-percent decreases in precipitation combined with temperature increases of 10.8°F. The largest increases in peak flows generally result from 30-percent increases in precipitation combined with 3.6 °F decreases in temperatures. In many cases when temperature and precipitation both increase, small increases or decreases in annual daily maximum peak flows result. For likely changes projected for the northeastern United States for the middle of the 21st century (temperature increase of 3.6 °F and precipitation increases of 0 to 15 percent), peak-flow changes at the four coastal Maine basins in this study are modeled to be evenly distributed between increases and decreases of less than 25 percent. Peak flows with 50-percent and 1-percent AEPs (equivalent to 2-year and 100-year recurrence interval peak flows, respectively) were calculated for the four basins in the study using the PRMS-modeled annual daily maximum peak flows. Modeled peak flows with 50-percent and 1-percent AEPs with adjusted temperatures and precipitation were compared to unadjusted (historical) modeled values. Changes in peak flows with 50-percent AEPs are similar to changes in annual daily maximum peak flow; changes in peak flows with 1-percent AEPs are similar in pattern to changes in annual daily maximum peak flow, but some of the changes associated with increasing precipitation are much larger than changes in annual daily maximum peak flow. Substantial decreases in maximum annual winter snowpack water equivalent are modeled to occur with increasing air temperatures at the four basins in the study. (Snowpack is the snow on the ground that accumulates during a winter, and water equivalent is the amount of water in a snowpack if it were melted.) The decrease in modeled peak flows with increasing air temperature, given no change in precipitation amount, is likely caused by these decreases in winter snowpack and resulting decreases in snowmelt runoff. This Scientific Investigations Report, prepared in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation, presents a summary of modeled changes in peak flows at four basins in coastal Maine on the basis of projected changes in air temperature and precipitation. The full Fact Sheet (Hodgkins and Dudley, 2013) is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2013/3021/.

Maine↗
USGS2009

Algal and Water-Quality Data for the Yellowstone River and Tributaries, Montana and Wyoming, 1999-2000

Streams of the Yellowstone River Basin in Montana and Wyoming were sampled as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Algal communities were sampled in 1999 in conjunction with other ecological sampling and in 2000 during synoptic sampling. Water-quality measurements related to the algal sampling included light attenuation and dissolved-oxygen concentrations. Sites were sampled on the main-stem Yellowstone River, major tributaries such as the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River and the Bighorn River, and selected minor tributaries. Some of the data collected, such as the phytoplankton chlorophyll-a data, were referenced or summarized in previous U.S. Geological Survey reports but were not previously published in tabular form, and therefore are presented in this report, prepared in cooperation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Data presented in this report include chlorophyll-a concentrations in phytoplankton and periphyton samples, as well as light attenuation and dissolved-oxygen production data from 1999-2000.

Data Series↗
USGS2002

Water-level altitudes in the Jasper Aquifer, greater Houston area, Texas, January–February 2001

This report, prepared in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, is the second annual report that depicts water-level altitudes in the Jasper aquifer in the greater Houston area (Montgomery County and parts of Harris, Grimes, Walker, and Waller Counties). The first water-level-altitude map for the Jasper aquifer in the area published by the U.S. Geological Survey (Coplin, 2001) depicts water levels in wells measured in spring 2000.

Texas↗
USGS1987

Water-resources activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Wyoming, fiscal years 1986 and 1987

The two types of water-resources activities of the Wyoming District are collection of hydrologic data and water-resources-appraisal projects. Much of the work is done in cooperation with other agencies; during fiscal year 1986 and 1987 cooperators included eight State agencies, two counties, one municipality and seven Federal agencies. This report serves both as a biennial progress report to the cooperating agencies and the general public, and as one means of coordination of water-resources activities with other agencies. Lists and location maps are included for 162 streamflow stations, 15 reservoirs stations, 107 surface-water-quality stations, 24 sediment stations, and 89 groundwater observation wells, all of which were in operation at the beginning of water year 1987. During fiscal years 1985 and 1986, 12 streamflow stations, 39 surface-water-quality stations, six sediment stations, and five groundwater-observation wells were discontinued. Descriptions, location maps, and progress statements are given for four data-collection projects and 23 water-resources-appraisal projects that were active (funded) during fiscal year 1986 and (or) fiscal year 1987. Also included are a list of nine projects for which funding ended prior to 1986 and that are completed except for the final report(s), and a list of four new projects that will be funded during fiscal year 1987. The final section of the report is a bibliographic listing of reports about the water resources of Wyoming, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey authors. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗
USGS2026

Living with wildfire in Cooper Landing, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska: 2023 data report

Homeowner wildfire risk mitigation and preparedness are important components of community wildfire readiness. This report describes the data collected through two efforts conducted in the Cooper Landing, Alaska, study area: (1) parcel-level rapid wildfire risk assessments performed by trained assessors and (2) homeowner surveys in which respondents provided self-assessments of their parcel-level wildfire risk. This project was undertaken to support the Kenai Peninsula Borough Office of Emergency Management and Cooper Landing Emergency Services to inform decisions about wildfire adaptation. The household surveys explored the social dimensions of wildfire, including understanding of wildfire risk, outreach or communication preferences, mitigation and evacuation preparedness activities, and perceptions of community risk reduction strategies. Overall, the study indicated a community that was engaged in preparing for and mitigating the risk of wildfire yet had more that could be done to reduce its risk.

Alaska↗
USGS2013

Wildfire and invasive species in the west: challenges that hinder current and future management and protection of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem: a Gap Report

The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to satisfy the 45-day report requirement identified in Cooperative Agreement (F13AC00353) between WAFWA and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submit this “Gap Report”. This report summarizes the policy, fiscal and science challenges that land managers encounter related to the control and reduction of the invasive plant/fire complex, especially as it relates to the threaten or endangered species listing status of the Greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ). While this Gap Report identifies 22 technical, policy, planning and funding gaps, it should be considered a “work in-progress”. To address this effort a Wildfire/Invasive Initiative Work Group (WG) was formed. The WG consist of nationally recognized experts in fire ecology, Sage-grouse ecology and management, range management and plant ecology. The WG developed this Gap Report and will be developing the final report for this Cooperative Agreement. Thus, as the WG evaluates the wildfire/invasive issue and makes recommendation to address scientific and management shortcomings, additional gaps will be identified and included in the final report. Within this report, the WG has suggested the top 5 gaps. However, the actual priority of what should be addressed first will depend on the significance and sequence of the limiting factor, available funding, current work, roles and responsibilities of the specific agencies, etc. The WG will continue to meet on a regular basis to further develop and expand this list of gaps. Additionally, the WG will offer specific options to address the identified gaps. However, the WG recommends that the FWS, possibly through the State/Federal (Western Governors Association) Sage Grouse Task Force or the National Sage-grouse Executive Oversight Committee, establish a Subcommittee to specifically review this Gap Report and develop a multi-agency approach on how to address each gap. The WG will continue to endeavor to establish a priority list and identify the “low hanging fruit” that can be addressed in the short-term to affect the listing decision. Additionally, the WG will propose a longer-term strategy. However, to successfully establish such a strategy it will take buy-in and commitment at the highest levels in federal and state governments. In an effort to provide managers an opportunity to address the most important issues this coming fiscal year, we offer the following top 5 gaps. Beyond these top 5, the WG has identified 17 additional gaps that should be evaluated by both federal and state agencies as a means to help better manage the wildfire/invasive threat in the west.

Report↗
USGS2021

Water-level data for the Albuquerque Basin and adjacent areas, central New Mexico, period of record through September 30, 2020

The Albuquerque Basin, located in central New Mexico, is about 100 miles long and 25–40 miles wide. The basin is hydrologically defined as the extent of consolidated and unconsolidated deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary age that encompasses the structural Rio Grande Rift between San Acacia to the south and Cochiti Lake to the north. A 20-percent population increase in the basin from 1990 to 2000 and a 22-percent population increase from 2000 to 2010 resulted in an increased demand for water in areas within the basin. Drinking-water supplies throughout the basin were obtained solely from groundwater resources until December 2008, when the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) began treatment and distribution of surface water from the Rio Grande through the San Juan-Chama Drinking Water Project. An initial network of wells was established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Albuquerque from April 1982 through September 1983 to monitor changes in groundwater levels throughout the Albuquerque Basin. In 1983, this network consisted of 6 wells with analog-to-digital recorders and 27 wells where water levels were measured monthly. As of 2020, the network consisted of 120 wells and piezometers. A piezometer is a specialized well open to a specific depth in the aquifer, often of small diameter and nested with other piezometers screened at different depths. The USGS, in cooperation with the ABCWUA, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, and Bernalillo County, measures water levels from the wells and piezometers in the network; this report, prepared in cooperation with the ABCWUA, presents water-level data collected by USGS personnel at the sites through water year 2020 (October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020). Water levels that were collected from discontinued wells in previous water years were published in previous USGS reports.

New Mexico↗
USGS2022

Water-level data for the Albuquerque Basin and adjacent areas, central New Mexico, period of record through September 30, 2021

The Albuquerque Basin, located in central New Mexico, is about 100 miles long and 25–40 miles wide. The basin is hydrologically defined as the extent of consolidated and unconsolidated deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary age that encompasses the structural Rio Grande Rift between San Acacia to the south and Cochiti Lake to the north. A 20-percent population increase in the basin from 1990 to 2000 and a 22-percent population increase from 2000 to 2010 resulted in an increased demand for water in areas within the basin. Drinking-water supplies throughout the basin were obtained primarily from groundwater resources until December 2008, when the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) began treatment and distribution of surface water from the Rio Grande through the San Juan-Chama Drinking Water Project. An initial network of wells was established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Albuquerque from April 1982 through September 1983 to monitor changes in groundwater levels throughout the Albuquerque Basin. In 1983, this network consisted of 6 wells with analog-to-digital recorders and 27 wells where water levels were measured monthly. As of water year 2021, the network consisted of 120 wells and piezometers at 54 locations. The USGS, in cooperation with the ABCWUA, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, and Bernalillo County, measures water levels at the wells and piezometers in the network; this report, prepared in cooperation with the ABCWUA, presents water-level data collected by USGS personnel at the sites through water year 2021 (October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021). Water-level data that were collected in previous water years from wells that were later discontinued were published in previous USGS reports.

New Mexico↗
USGS2023

Water-level data for the Albuquerque Basin and adjacent areas, central New Mexico, period of record through September 30, 2022

The Albuquerque Basin, located in central New Mexico, is about 100 miles long and 25–40 miles wide. The basin is hydrologically defined as the extent of consolidated and unconsolidated deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary age that encompasses the structural Rio Grande Rift between San Acacia to the south and Cochiti Lake to the north. Drinking-water supplies throughout the basin were obtained primarily from groundwater resources until December 2008, when the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) began treatment and distribution of surface water from the Rio Grande through the San Juan-Chama Drinking Water Project. An initial network of wells was established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Albuquerque from April 1982 through September 1983 to monitor changes in groundwater levels throughout the Albuquerque Basin. In 1983, this network consisted of 6 wells with analog-to-digital recorders and 27 wells where water levels were measured monthly. As of water year 2022, the network consisted of 120 wells and piezometers at 54 locations. The USGS, in cooperation with the ABCWUA, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, and Bernalillo County, measures water levels at the wells and piezometers in the network; this report, prepared in cooperation with the ABCWUA, presents water-level data collected by USGS personnel at the sites through water year 2022 (October 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022). Water-level data that were collected in previous water years from wells that were later discontinued were published in previous USGS reports.

New Mexico↗
USGS2019

Water-level data for the Albuquerque Basin and adjacent areas, central New Mexico, period of record through September 30, 2018

The Albuquerque Basin, located in central New Mexico, is about 100 miles long and 25–40 miles wide. The basin is hydrologically defined as the extent of consolidated and unconsolidated deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary age that encompasses the structural Rio Grande Rift between San Acacia to the south and Cochiti Lake to the north. A 20-percent population increase in the basin from 1990 to 2000 and a 22-percent population increase from 2000 to 2010 resulted in an increased demand for water in areas within the basin. Drinking-water supplies throughout the basin were obtained solely from groundwater resources until December 2008, when the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) began treatment and distribution of surface water from the Rio Grande through the San Juan-Chama Drinking Water Project. An initial network of wells was established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Albuquerque from April 1982 through September 1983 to monitor changes in groundwater levels throughout the Albuquerque Basin. In 1983, this network consisted of 6 wells with analog-to-digital recorders and 27 wells where water levels were measured monthly. As of 2018, the network consisted of 120 wells and piezometers. (A piezometer is a specialized well open to a specific depth in the aquifer, often of small diameter and nested with other piezometers open to different depths.) The USGS, in cooperation with the ABCWUA, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, and Bernalillo County, measures water levels from the 120 wells and piezometers in the network; this report, prepared in cooperation with the ABCWUA, presents water-level data collected by USGS personnel at those 120 sites through water year 2018 (October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018). Water levels that were collected from wells in previous water years were published in previous USGS reports.

New Mexico↗
USGS2020

Water-level data for the Albuquerque Basin and adjacent areas, central New Mexico, period of record through September 30, 2019

The Albuquerque Basin, located in central New Mexico, is about 100 miles long and 25–40 miles wide. The basin is hydrologically defined as the extent of consolidated and unconsolidated deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary age that encompasses the structural Rio Grande Rift between San Acacia to the south and Cochiti Lake to the north. A 20-percent population increase in the basin from 1990 to 2000 and a 22-percent population increase from 2000 to 2010 resulted in an increased demand for water in areas within the basin. Drinking-water supplies throughout the basin were obtained solely from groundwater resources until December 2008, when the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) began treatment and distribution of surface water from the Rio Grande through the San Juan-Chama Drinking Water Project. An initial network of wells was established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Albuquerque from April 1982 through September 1983 to monitor changes in groundwater levels throughout the Albuquerque Basin. In 1983, this network consisted of 6 wells with analog-to-digital recorders and 27 wells where water levels were measured monthly. As of 2019, the network consisted of 120 wells and piezometers. (A piezometer is a specialized well open to a specific depth in the aquifer, often of small diameter and nested with other piezometers screened at different depths.) The USGS, in cooperation with the ABCWUA, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, and Bernalillo County, measures water levels from the 120 wells and piezometers in the network; this report, prepared in cooperation with the ABCWUA, presents water-level data collected by USGS personnel at those 120 sites through water year 2019 (October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019). Water levels that were collected from those discontinued wells in previous water years were published in previous USGS reports.

New Mexico↗
USGS2014

Simulation of groundwater flow and the interaction of groundwater and surface water in the Willamette Basin and Central Willamette subbasin, Oregon

Full appropriation of tributary streamflow during summer, a growing population, and agricultural needs are increasing the demand for groundwater in the Willamette Basin. Greater groundwater use could diminish streamflow and create seasonal and long-term declines in groundwater levels. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) cooperated in a study to develop a conceptual and quantitative understanding of the groundwater-flow system of the Willamette Basin with an emphasis on the Central Willamette subbasin. This final report from the cooperative study describes numerical models of the regional and local groundwater-flow systems and evaluates the effects of pumping on groundwater and surface‑water resources. The models described in this report can be used to evaluate spatial and temporal effects of pumping on groundwater, base flow, and stream capture. The regional model covers about 6,700 square miles of the 12,000-square mile Willamette and Sandy River drainage basins in northwestern Oregon—referred to as the Willamette Basin in this report. The Willamette Basin is a topographic and structural trough that lies between the Coast Range and the Cascade Range and is divided into five sedimentary subbasins underlain and separated by basalts of the Columbia River Basalt Group (Columbia River basalt) that crop out as local uplands. From north to south, these five subbasins are the Portland subbasin, the Tualatin subbasin, the Central Willamette subbasin, the Stayton subbasin, and the Southern Willamette subbasin. Recharge in the Willamette Basin is primarily from precipitation in the uplands of the Cascade Range, Coast Range, and western Cascades areas. Groundwater moves downward and laterally through sedimentary or basalt units until it discharges locally to wells, evapotranspiration, or streams. Mean annual groundwater withdrawal for water years 1995 and 1996 was about 400 cubic feet per second; irrigation withdrawals accounted for about 80 percent of that total. The upper 180 feet of productive aquifers in the Central Willamette and Southern Willamette subbasins produced about 70 percent of the total pumped volume. In this study, the USGS constructed a three-dimensional numerical finite-difference groundwater-flow model of the Willamette Basin representing the six hydrogeologic units, defined in previous investigations, as six model layers. From youngest to oldest, and [generally] uppermost to lowermost they are the: upper sedimentary unit, Willamette silt unit, middle sedimentary unit, lower sedimentary unit, Columbia River basalt unit, and basement confining unit. The high Cascade unit is not included in the groundwater-flow model because it is not present within the model boundaries. Geographic boundaries are simulated as no-flow (no water flowing in or out of the model), except where the Columbia River is simulated as a constant hydraulic head boundary. Streams are designated as head-dependent-flux boundaries, in which the flux depends on the elevation of the stream surface. Groundwater recharge from precipitation was estimated using the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS), a watershed model that accounts for evapotranspiration from the unsaturated zone. Evapotranspiration from the saturated zone was not considered an important component of groundwater discharge. Well pumping was simulated as specified flux and included public supply, irrigation, and industrial pumping. Hydraulic conductivity values were estimated from previous studies through aquifer slug and permeameter tests, specific capacity data, core analysis, and modeling. Upper, middle and lower sedimentary unit horizontal hydraulic conductivity values were differentiated between the Portland subbasin and the Tualatin, Central Willamette, and Southern Willamette subbasins based on preliminary model results.

Oregon↗
USGS1986

Maps showing altitude of the potentiometric surface and changes in water levels in the aquifer in the Sparta and Memphis Sands in eastern Arkansas, spring 1985

Aquifers in the Tertiary Sparta and Memphis Sands are a major source of water supply for much of eastern and south-central Arkansas. Major withdrawals occur from the aquifer for industrial and public supply, with generally lesser but locally significant amounts withdrawn for agricultural uses. Water level data from wells tapping the artesian aquifer in the Sparta and Memphis Sands indicate steadily declining water levels in some areas where relatively large withdrawals occur. In addition, a simulation of water levels using projected withdrawals to the year 1990 indicated increasing water level declines in the aquifer. Because of the potential quantity and quality problems, the continual monitoring of water levels in the aquifer in the Sparta and Memphis Sands is essential for proper aquifer management and the continuation of the use of the aquifer as a major source of water for much of eastern and south-central Arkansas. The U.S. Geological Survey with the cooperation of the Arkansas Geological Commission has been monitoring water levels in the aquifer in the Sparta and Memphis Sands annually throughout the aquifer 's extent within the State of Arkansas. This report, prepared in cooperation with the Arkansas Geological Commission and the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission interprets water level data through hydrologic maps of the potentiometric surface and water level changes. The potentiometric surface map is based on water levels collected in the spring of 1985. The water level change map is based on a comparison of water levels collected in the spring of 1980 and 1985. This report includes the Sparta Sand and most of the Memphis Sand aquifer within the State of Arkansas. Little or no data are available in the northeastern part of the State where limited withdrawals from the aquifer occur. (Lantz-PTT)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2007

Water-level altitudes 2007 and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and compaction 1973-2006 in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas

This report, done in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, the City of Houston, the Fort Bend Subsidence District, and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, is one in an annual series of reports that depicts water-level altitudes and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, and compaction in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston, Texas, region. The report contains 18 sheets and 17 tables: 3 sheets are maps showing current-year (2007) water-level altitudes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 1-year (2006-07) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 5-year (2002-07) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 4 sheets are maps showing long-term (1990-2007 and 1977-2007) water-level changes for the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, respectively; 1 sheet is a map showing long-term (2000-2007) water-level change for the Jasper aquifer; 2 sheets are revisions of previously published water-level-altitude maps for the Jasper aquifer for 2000 and 2002, respectively; 1 sheet is a map showing site locations of borehole extensometers; and 1 sheet comprises graphs showing measured compaction of subsurface material at the sites from 1973 or later through 2006, respectively. Tables listing the data used to construct the aquifer-data maps and the compaction graphs also are included.

Texas↗
USGS2008

Water-level altitudes 2008 and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper Aquifers and compaction 1973-2007 in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers, Houston-Galveston Region, Texas

This report, done in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, the City of Houston, the Fort Bend Subsidence District, and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, is one in an annual series of reports that depicts water-level altitudes and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, and compaction in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas. The report contains 17 sheets and 16 tables: 3 sheets are maps showing current-year (2008) water-level altitudes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 1-year (2007-08) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 5-year (2003-08) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 4 sheets are maps showing long-term (1990-2008 and 1977-2008) water-level changes for the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, respectively; 1 sheet is a map showing long-term (2000-2008) water-level change for the Jasper aquifer; 1 sheet is a revision of a previously published water-level-altitude map for the Jasper aquifer for 2003; 1 sheet is a map showing site locations of borehole extensometers; and 1 sheet comprises graphs showing measured compaction of subsurface material at the sites from 1973 or later through 2007, respectively. Tables listing the data used to construct the aquifer-data maps and the compaction graphs are included.

Texas↗
USGS2009

Water-level altitudes 2009 and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper Aquifers and compaction 1973-2008 in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers, Houston-Galveston Region, Texas

This report, done in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, the City of Houston, the Fort Bend Subsidence District, and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, is one in an annual series of reports that depicts water-level altitudes and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, and compaction in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas. The report (excluding appendixes) contains 16 sheets and 15 tables: 3 sheets are maps showing current-year (2009) water-level altitudes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 1-year (2008-09) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 5-year (2004-09) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 4 sheets are maps showing long-term (1990-2009 and 1977-2009) water-level changes for the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, respectively; 1 sheet is a map showing long-term (2000-2009) water-level change for the Jasper aquifer; 1 sheet is a map showing site locations of borehole extensometers; and 1 sheet comprises graphs showing measured compaction of subsurface material at the sites from 1973 or later through 2008, respectively. Tables listing the data used to construct the aquifer-data maps and the compaction graphs are included.

Texas↗
USGS2024

The effects of human-caused mortality on mammalian cooperative breeders: A synthesis

Human-caused mortality can be pervasive and even highly selective for individuals in groups of cooperative breeders. Many studies of cooperative breeders, however, do not address human-caused mortality. Similarly, studies focused on the effects of human-caused mortality on wildlife populations often do not consider the ecology of cooperative breeders. We searched the literature and identified 58 studies where human-caused mortality affected a group characteristic, vital rate, or population state of a cooperative breeder. Of studies reporting population growth or decline, 80% reported a link between human-caused mortality and population declines in cooperative breeders. Such studies often did not identify the mechanism behind population declines, but 28% identified concurrent declines in adult survival and another 21% reported concurrent declines in recruitment or reproduction. There was little overlap between the cooperative breeding and human-caused mortality literatures, limiting our ability to accrue knowledge. Future work would be beneficial if it ( i ) identified the vital rate(s) causing population declines, ( ii ) leveraged management actions such as lethal removal to ask questions about the ecology of group-living in cooperative breeders, and ( iii ) used insights from cooperative breeding theory to inform management actions and conservation of group-living species.

Biological Reviews↗