Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Cooperator 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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2013

Adaptive harvest management for the Svalbard population of pink-footed geese: cooperator report

This document describes progress to date on the development of a harvest‐management strategy for maintaining pink‐footed goose abundance near their target level by providing for sustainable harvests in Norway and Denmark. Many goose populations in western Europe have increased dramatically in recent decades. The Svalbard population of pink‐footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus) is a good example, increasing from about 10 thousand individuals in the early 1960’s to roughly 80 thousand today. Although these geese are a highly valued resource, the growing numbers of geese are causing agricultural conflicts in wintering and staging areas. The African‐Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA; http://www.unep‐aewa.org/) calls for means to manage populations which cause conflicts with certain human economic activities. We compiled relevant demographic and weather data and specified an annual‐cycle model for pink-footed geese that reconciles the different dates of monitoring activities and the timing of harvest-management decisions. We then developed dynamic models for survival and reproductive processes and parameterized them using available data. By combining varying hypotheses about survival and reproduction, we developed a suite of nine models that represent a wide range of possibilities concerning the extent to which demographic rates are density dependent or independent, and the extent to which spring temperatures are important. These nine models varied significantly in their predictions of the harvest required to stabilize current population size, ranging from a low of about 500 to a high of about 17 thousand. For comparison, the harvest in Norway and Denmark was about 11 thousand in 2011 and the population increased from 70 to 80 thousand. We relied on the passive form of adaptive management in formulating a harvest strategy. In passive adaptive management, alternative population models and their associated weights of evidence are explicitly considered in the development of an optimal harvest strategy. Unlike active adaptive management, however, there is no explicit consideration of how harvest management actions could reduce uncertainty as to the most appropriate model of population dynamics. In optimizing a harvest strategy, we assumed equal probabilities for all nine models and assumed relatively course control over harvest. We used a management objective that seeks to maximize sustainable harvest, but avoids harvest decisions that are expected to result in a subsequent population size different than the population goal of 60 thousand. Optimal harvest strategies were calculated using stochastic dynamic programming, and Monte Carlo simulations were used to investigate expected strategy performance. The optimal passive adaptive‐management strategy is expected to maintain mean population size near 60 thousand, regardless of the most appropriate model. However, mean harvest rates and harvests varied substantially depending on the most appropriate model of population dynamics. With an average number of days above freezing in May in Svalbard, optimal harvest rates (i.e., the proportion of the population to be harvested in autumn) increase rapidly once there are more than about 50 thousand birds in the population. Generally, optimal harvests were on the order of 10 – 20 thousand for population sizes > 60 thousand, and 0 – 5 thousand for population sizes < 60 thousand. For the observations of young of 15.4 thousand and adults of 54.6 thousand in autumn 2010, and 10 days above freezing in May 2011 (a relatively warm spring compared to the average of about 7), the optimal harvest rate in autumn of 2011 would have been 0.16, or a harvest of about 14 thousand. Based on the optimal strategy, hunting‐season closures would be required as the number of adults in the autumn population falls below about 52 thousand, regardless of the number of young in the population. As the number of adults and young decrease, the number of warm days in May required to keep the hunting season open increases. We also investigated the ability of the optimal strategy to stabilize the population at around 60 thousand birds, assuming varying values of the maximum harvest rate that could be implemented. Harvest strategies that contained a maximum harvest rate of 0.16 (equivalent to a harvest of about 17 thousand) were effective at stabilizing the population at 60 thousand within 4‐5 years, regardless of climate scenario. Harvest strategies with a maximum harvest rate of 0.12 (harvest ≈ 13 thousand) were also able to stabilize the population near 60 thousand, although it took more time. Harvest strategies with a maximum harvest rate of 0.08 (harvest ≈ 8 thousand) were unsuccessful at stabilizing the population at 60 thousand. Continued monitoring of the pink‐footed goose population on an annual basis is critical to an informed harvest management strategy. At a minimum, the ground census in November should be continued to determine population size and proportion of young. Continued estimates of harvest from Norway and Denmark are also necessary to help judge the credibility of the alternative population models. However, an adaptive management process that relies on periodic updating of model weights will depend on acquiring either estimates of the realized harvest rate of adults or the age composition of the harvest. We also recommend that a census conducted during spring migration be operationalized, and that estimates of survival based on mark‐recapture data be updated. Finally, the International Working Group has expressed a desire to adopt a three‐year cycle of decision making related to the regulation of pink‐footed goose harvests. The idea is that once a target harvest level is adopted, it would remain in place for three years, after which time population status would be assessed and a potentially new management action chosen. We have developed a preliminary framework to implement a three‐year cycle using stochastic dynamic programming, and we hope to have it fully operational later this year . We note, however, that application of this 3‐year framework will still require annual resource monitoring and assessments to facilitate learning, and to allow managers the opportunity to respond to any unforeseen change in resource conditions.

Report↗
USGS1938

Report of cooperative stream measurements, U.S. Geological Survey: A part of chapter 9 in Twenty-first biennial report of the State Engineer to the governor of Utah: 1936-1938

Investigations for the surface-water resources of the State have been continued during the biennium under the standard form of co-operative agreement between the U.S. Geological Survey and the State of Utah through their respective agents. The nature, extent, and value of these co-operative investigations are discussed in the State Engineer’s Twentieth Biennial Report (pp. 51-58, incl.).

Utah↗
USGS1954

Progress report of cooperative ground-water investigations for Connecticut for the year ended June 30, 1954

Ground-water investigations were continued under the Water Commission- U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Program at four project area in Connecticut during the year ended June 30, 1954. Substantial progress was made in the collection of basic water information in the lower Farmington River basin. Both surface and subsurface geological area were assembled for use by prospective well owners. The preparation of a report on the geology and ground-water resources of the agricultural area of north-central Connecticut was continued during the year. As a continuation of investigations on the ground-water resources of the industrial areas of New Haven and Waterbury, observations of water level and samples of water were taken bi-monthly from 5 well at 5 industrial plants in Waterbury and anaysed for sulfate concentration in order to measure the degree of infiltration of acid-contaminated water to the water-bearing formations.

Connecticut↗
USGS2020

Preliminary analyses of volcanic hazards at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai‘i, 2017–2018

From 2017 to 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) responded to ongoing and changing eruptions at Kīlauea Volcano as part of its mission to monitor volcanic processes, issue warnings of dangerous activity, and assess volcanic hazards. To formalize short-term hazards assessments—and, in some cases, issue prognoses for future activity—and make results discoverable to both the public and the authorities, HVO released reports online. These reports were published rapidly, received peer review under the USGS’s Fundamental Science Practice guidelines, and were intended to address a focused question posed by one or more cooperating agencies—for this reason, they were called “cooperator reports.” This Open-File Report concatenates four such products issued in 2017 and 2018 into a single publication. These reports have been reformatted and lightly edited for clarity, but the content has not otherwise been changed from the versions first publicly released.

Hawaii↗
USGS2015

Integrating climate change into northeast and midwest State Wildlife Action Plans

The Department of Interior Northeast Climate Science Center (NE CSC) conducts research that responds to the regional natural resource management community’s needs to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change. The NE CSC is supported by a consortium of partners that includes the University of Massachusetts Amherst, College of Menominee Nation, Columbia University, Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri Columbia, and University of Wisconsin. The NE CSC also engages and collaborates with a diversity of other federal, state, academic, tribal, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to conduct collaborative, stakeholder-driven, and climate-focused work. The State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) are revised every 10 years; states are currently working towards a target deadline of October 2015. SWAP coordinators have been challenged to incorporate climate change impacts and species responses into their current revisions. This synthesis is intended to inform the science going into Northeast and Midwest SWAPs across the 22 NE CSC states ranging from Maine to Virginia, and Minnesota and Missouri in the eastern United States. It is anticipated that this synthesis will help guide SWAP authors in writing specific sections, help revise and finalize existing sections, or be incorporated as an appendix or addendum. The purpose of this NE CSC-led cooperative report is to provide a synthesis of what is known and what is uncertain about climate change and its impacts across the NE CSC region, with a particular focus on the responses and vulnerabilities of Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN) and the habitats they depend on. Another goal is to describe a range of climate change adaptation approaches, processes, tools, and potential partnerships that are available to State natural resource managers across the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States. Through illustrative case studies submitted by the NE CSC and partners, we demonstrate climate change adaptation efforts being explored and implemented across local and large-landscape scales. This document is divided into four sections and addresses the following climate and management relevant questions: Climate Change in the Northeast and Midwest United States: How is the climate changing and projected to change across the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States? Northeast and Midwest regional species and habitats at greatest risk and most vulnerable to climate impacts: What are the relative vulnerabilities of fish and wildlife species and their habitats to climate change in the Northeast and Midwest? Biological responses to climate impacts with a focus on Northeast and Midwest Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN): How are threatened fish and wildlife likely to respond or adapt to climate change in the Northeast and Midwest? Scale-appropriate adaptation strategies and actions in the Northeast and Midwest United States: What approaches, strategies, and actions could be taken to sustain fish, wildlife and their habitats in the short and long term across the Northeast and Midwest? The outline and content for this document were developed with input from State Coordinators, members of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, DOI Northeast Climate Science Center affiliated researchers, and other partners including the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and The Nature Conservancy. Terwilliger Consulting, Inc., was especially instrumental in helping connect and coordinate the authors of this report with State representatives through conference calls and email surveys to develop the most needed and effective information for current SWAP revisions. On a final note, the SWAPs are living documents that can be added to and evolve on timescales beyond the 10-year revision cycle. The development of this report was timed such that SWAP coordinators and writers would have sufficient time to implement this input before their October 2015 deadline. However, this document is also meant to serve as a starting point for coordinated and collaborative climate science and adaptation across the region; the NE CSC 5 endeavors to continue to provide actionable science during the coming years in collaboration with its diverse federal, state, NGO, and academic partners.

Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ke↗
USGS2019

Managing effects of drought and other water resource challenges in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest

This is a Cooperator Report. As such, there is no specific abstract. The physical, ecological, and social environments of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region of the United States are extremely diverse. Alaska ranges from the Arctic Ocean and the very cold, dry environments of the North Slope to the cool and very rainy coastal North Pacific region of Southeast Alaska. Most precipitation falls as snow at higher elevations. In Arctic Alaska, average annual temperature is 14.6 F, and average annual precipitation is 11 inches. By contrast, in Southeast Alaska, average annual temperature is 35.8 F, and annual average precipitation is 143 inches. The PNW, defined here as Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, ranges from the Pacific Coast (annual precipitation of 200 inches) to interior semi-arid regions (annual precipitation of 8 inches). Precipitation patterns in the PNW are strongly governed by orographic phenomena, with high, persistent snowpack in the higher mountains (e.g., record annual snowfall of 1,130 in at Mount Baker, Washington in 1999-2000). Ecosystems in the PNW include productive temperate coniferous forests near the Pacific coast and along the (wet) west slope of the Cascade Range, less productive mixed-conifer forest along the (dry) east slope of the Cascades and in interior mountain ranges, and sagebrush-steppe and shrublands at lower elevations in much of the interior and mountain valleys. Large rivers and thousands of smaller tributaries form an extensive network of riparian, wetland, and estuarine systems that provide both critical hydrologic function and biological diversity at broad and fine spatial scales. Although Alaska and the Pacific Northwest differ in important physical, ecological, and social features, the importance of natural resources is evident in both regions. Water is important for wildlife and people. Water provides critical habitat for salmon, which are culturally and economically valuable species. Timber production has declined in recent decades. Recreation has emerged as a major revenue source.

Alaska, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2019

Selected water-quality data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids well fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

The Cedar River alluvial aquifer is the primary source of municipal water in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Municipal wells are completed in the alluvial aquifer about 40 to 80 feet below land surface. The City of Cedar Rapids and the U.S. Geological Survey have led a cooperative study of the groundwater-flow system and water quality of the aquifer since 1992. Cooperative reports between the City of Cedar Rapids and the U.S. Geological Survey have documented hydrologic and water-quality data, geochemistry, and groundwater models. Water-quality samples were collected for studies involving well field monitoring, trends, source-water protection, groundwater geochemistry, surface-water–groundwater interaction, and pesticides in groundwater and surface water. Water-quality analyses were completed for major ions (boron, bromide, calcium, chloride, fluoride, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, silica, sodium, and sulfate), nutrients (ammonia as nitrogen, ammonia plus organic nitrogen as nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, nitrite as nitrogen, orthophosphate as phosphorus, and phosphorus), dissolved organic carbon, selected pesticides, bacteria, and viral pathogens. Physical characteristics (alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and water temperature) were measured onsite and recorded for each water sample collected. This report presents the results of routine water-quality data-collection activities from water years 2010 through 2017, and additional viral pathogen data from May 2008 to August 2017. A water year is the period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated by the year in which it ends; for example, water year 2015 was from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015. Methods of data collection, quality assurance, water-quality analyses, and statistical procedures are presented. Data include the results of water-quality analyses from quarterly sampling from monitoring wells, municipal wells, two water treatment plants, and the Cedar River, as well as monthly nutrient sampling from the Cedar River.

Iowa↗
USGS2012

Selected water-quality data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids well fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2006-10

The Cedar River alluvial aquifer is the primary source of municipal water in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area. Municipal wells are completed in the alluvial aquifer approximately 40 to 80 feet below land surface. The City of Cedar Rapids and the U.S. Geological Survey have been conducting a cooperative study of the groundwater-flow system and water quality of the aquifer since 1992. Cooperative reports between the City of Cedar Rapids and the U.S. Geological Survey have documented hydrologic and water-quality data, geochemistry, and groundwater models. Water-quality samples were collected for studies involving well field monitoring, trends, source-water protection, groundwater geochemistry, surface-water-groundwater interaction, and pesticides in groundwater and surface water. Water-quality analyses were conducted for major ions (boron, bromide, calcium, chloride, fluoride, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, silica, sodium, and sulfate), nutrients (ammonia as nitrogen, nitrite as nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, and orthophosphate as phosphorus), dissolved organic carbon, and selected pesticides including two degradates of the herbicide atrazine. Physical characteristics (alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance and water temperature) were measured in the field and recorded for each water sample collected. This report presents the results of routine water-quality data-collection activities from January 2006 through December 2010. Methods of data collection, quality-assurance, and water-quality analyses are presented. Data include the results of water-quality analyses from quarterly sampling from monitoring wells, municipal wells, and the Cedar River.

Iowa↗
USGS1957

Seventh progress report on the cooperative investigation of springs and streamflow in the Tecolote tunnel area of Santa Barbara County, California

This report is the seventh in a a continuing series of progress reports giving the results of discharge measurements made at selected springs and streams in the Tecolote Tunnel are area of the Santa Ynez Mountains. The mountains. The measurement program was begun on its present scale in the latter part of 1948 by the Geological Survey at the request of the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and is being continued under a cooperative agreement whereby each agency pays half the cost of the investigation. The purpose of the program is to obtain sufficient factual data to determine what effect, if any, the inflow of ground water into Tecolote Tunnel will have on the flow of springs and streams in the vicinity of the tunnel. The area involved in the study, shown by plate 1, was made large enough to include a number of springs and steams believe to be outside the zone of influence of the tunnel. Tecolote Tunnel, completed late in 1955, was built by the Bureau of Reclamation for the purpose of conveying water stored in Cachuma Reservoir to the city of Santa Barbara and adjacent coastal communities. The alinement of the tunnel is roughly north and south through the center of the arbitrarily chosen study area which extends from the Painted Cave area on the east to Refugio Pass on the west and from the Santa Ynez River on the North to the Pacific Ocean on the south. The purpose of this report is to make available the factual data obtained from July 1954 to June 1956, together with a brief presentation of precipitation, springflow, and tunnel outflow for the entire period of investigation.

California↗
USGS1959

Eighth progress report on the cooperative investigation of springs and streamflow in the Tecolote Tunnel area of Santa Barbara County, California

This report is the eighth in a continuing series of progress reports giving the results of discharge measurements made at selected springs and streams in the Tecolote Tunnel area of the Santa Ynez Mountains. The measurement program was begun on its present scale in the latter part of 1948 by the U. S. Geological Survey at the request of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and has been continued under a cooperative agreement with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency since July 1, 1949, under which each agency pays half the cost of the investigation. The purpose of the program is to obtain factual data to assist in determining what effect, if any, the inflow of ground water into Tecolote Tunnel will have on surface-water resources in the vicinity of the tunnel. The area involved in the program, shown on plate 1, was made large enough to include a number of springs and streams believed to be outside the zone of influence of the tunnel. Tecolote Tunnel, completed in March 1956, was built by the Bureau of Reclamation for the purpose of conveying water from Cachuma Reservoir to the city of Santa Barbara and adjacent coastal communities. The alinement of the tunnel is essentially north and south through the center of a region that extends from the Painted Cave area on the east to Refugio Pass on the west and from the Santa Ynez River on the north to the Pacific Ocean on the south. Storage, in Cachuma Reservoir began November 16, 1952. Roads within the area covered by Cachuma Reservoir have been relocated since plate 1 was prepared. The purpose of this progress report is to make available the factual data obtained from July 1956 to June 1958.

California↗
USGS1953

Fifth progress report on the cooperative investigation of springs and streamflow in the Tecolote Tunnel area of Santa Barbara County, California

This report is the fifth in a continuing series of annual progress reports giving the results of discharge measurements made at more than 120 selected sites in the "Tecolote Tunnel Area" of the Santa Ynez Mountains. This area derives its name from the tunnel now being built by the Bureau of Reclamation for the purpose of diverting the flood waters of the Santa Ynez River as stored in Cachuma Reservoir to the city of Santa Barbara and adjacent coastal communities. The tunnel alignment is roughly north and south through the center of this area, which extends from Refugio Pass on the west to San Marcos Pass and the Painted Cave area on the east. The program of measuring the developed springs and headwater streams in the Tecolote Tunnel area was started on its present scale in the latter part of 1948 at the request of the Santa Barbara County Water Agency. The primary purpose of the program is to obtain sufficient factual data to determine what effect, if any, the construction and use of the Tecolote Tunnel will have on the outflow of the springs in the area. The area covered by this study was made large enough to include all springs that could possibly be affected by the tunnel, as well as springs believed to be outside the zone of influence. The program is being carried on by the Geological Survey under a cooperative agreement with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency whereby each pays one half the cost. Prior to January 1953 the flow at each of the more than 120 locations was generally measured monthly. Since then, the number of sites at which monthly measurements are made has been reduced to about 40, with measurements made every other month or quarterly at the remaining locations. The purpose of this report is to make available the factual data obtained from May 1, 1952 to June 30, 1953.

California↗
USGS1950

Second progress report on the cooperative investigation of springs and stream flow in the Tecolote Tunnel area of Santa Barbara County, California

This report represents the second of a series of progress reports giving the results of discharge measurements made at more than 100 locations in the Santa Ynez Mountains from the Refugio Canyon on the west to the San Marcos Pass and Painted Cave area on the east. The flow in all the developed springs and headwater streams within this area, here designated as the Tecolote Tunnel Area of the purpose of this report, is generally measured monthly. The primary purpose of this second progress report is to make available to the public all factual data regarding the flow at these locations obtained since the preparation of the first progress report, issued in May 1949. Near the mid-point of this area the Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency proposed a tunnel, known as Tecolote Tunnel, for the purpose of diverting a portion of the runoff of the Santa Ynez River drainage area into water-deficient Santa Barbara and the coastal areas to the east and west, Because the water users of the mountain springs in the Tecolote Tunnel Area are somewhat apprehensive as to the influence this tunnel may have on their present water supply, the Santa Barbara Water Agency has requested the Geological Survey to obtain records of flow in their springs at frequent and regular intervals. During the current fiscal year these observations have been made as a result of a cooperative agreement between the Geological Survey and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency whereby each paid half the cost of the investigation. During the previous fiscal year all the costs to the Geological Survey in obtaining these observations were completely reimbursed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

California↗
USGS1955

Sixth progress report on the cooperative investigation of springs and streamflow in the Tecolote Tunnel area of Santa Barbara County, California

This report is the sixth in a continuing series of progress reports giving the results of discharge measurements obtained at more than 120 selected sites in the "Tecolote Tunnel Area" of the Santa Ynez Mountains. The area derives its name from the tunnel now being completed by the Bureau of Reclamation for the purpose of diverting the flood waters of the Santa Ynez River stored in Cachuma Reservoir into urban and agricultural areas in and near the city of Santa barbara. The observational area for purposes of this investigation extends from Refugio Pass on the west to San Marcos Pass and the Painted Cave area on the east. The tunnel alignment is rouhly north and south through the center of this area.

California↗
USGS1952

Fourth progress report on the cooperative investigation of springs and streamflow in the Tecolote Tunnel area of Santa Barbara County, California

This is a continuation of annual progress reports giving the results of discharge measurements made in the Santa Ynez Mountains between Refugio Canyon on the west to San Marcos Pass and the Painted Cave area on the east. This portion of Santa Barbara County has been designated as the "Tecolote Tunnel Area" because a tunnel by that name, now being built by the Bureau of Reclamation, passes through it. The purpose of this tunnel is to divert flood runoff from the Santa Ynez River, stored in Cachuma Reservoir, to the city of Santa Barbara and adjacent areas. During the construction of this tunnel, the seepage from the south portal has averaged 6.4 second-feet for the year ending April 30, 1952, the average being 8.7 second-feet for the last 6 months of that period. Both of these values exceed the average total discharge prior to April 30, 1951, for more than 120 springs measured in the Tecolote Tunnel Area. As, it was not known what effect the seepage from this tunnel might have on the flow of springs and streams in the immediate vicinity, the Santa Barbara County Water Agency requested the U. S. Geological Survey to institute an observational program. This program was started in 1948—about 2 years before work was started on the tunnel. The area covered by the observational program was made sufficiently large to include all the springs that could possibly be affected, as well as certain border springs believed to be outside the zone of influence. The purpose of this, the fourth progress report, is to make available factual data obtained during the year ending April 30, 1952. This program is operated under a cooperative agreement between the U. S. Geological Survey and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency whereby each pays half the cost of the investigation.

California↗