Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Scott Phillips

Publications and source records attributed to Scott Phillips.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake science strategy, 2015-2025—Informing ecosystem management of America’s largest estuary

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has the critical role of providing scientific information to improve the understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The USGS works with Federal, State, and academic science partners to provide research and monitoring, and communicate results of these activities to enhance ecosystem management for both the Chesapeake and other National ecosystems. The USGS Chesapeake Science Strategy was prepared to guide science activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (2014–2025), to support the Department of the Interior (DOI) involvement in the Bay restoration efforts, and align with the USGS Mission Area (MA) Science strategies. The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation’s largest estuary, and provides critical goods and services to the people, fish, and wildlife that use the 64,000-square-mile watershed. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains over 3,600 species of fish, wildlife, and plants and provides spawning grounds for many ecologically and economically important species including striped bass and blue crabs. The Bay watershed lies in the heart of the Atlantic Flyway and has 29 species of waterfowl, about 1 million of which winter in the region. The size of the Chesapeake seafood harvest is third in the Nation, only behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Along with agricultural production, tourism, and recreation, the estimated economic value of the services from the Chesapeake Bay watershed is about $100 billion annually. However, the health of the Bay ecosystem began to decline at the beginning of the 20th century due to overfishing and increasing human population and associated land change. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is the Federal-State cooperative effort that started in 1983 to restore the Bay and watershed. Given the ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake ecosystem, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) in 2009 for increased Federal leadership in the CBP to enhance the pace of restoration, and the supporting strategy was released in 2010. The EO directed the Federal Government, including the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), represented by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), and the USGS, to expand its efforts and increase leadership to restore the Bay and its watershed. The USGS and other Federal agencies expanded their activities in 2011 to meet the President’s Chesapeake EO. Since the EO was released, there have been several important changes in the USGS, DOI, and the CBP including: (1) the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, (2) increased DOI leadership in the CBP, and (3) the release of the USGS MA science strategies. The EO strategy served as a foundation for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement that was signed in 2014 by the CBP Partners, and has goals and outcomes to be met by 2025. The USGS developed the Chesapeake Science Strategy to guide our activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, DOI leadership in the CBP, and USGS MA strategies. Improving the understanding of fish and wildlife population and health, and the factors affecting their condition is the emphasis of the Strategy. The science focuses on documenting the critical ecosystem connections in the Chesapeake, and providing implications to enhance decision making for restoration and conservation activities. The revised Strategy has four themes that address 7 of the 10 goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement: Enhance science to support restoration, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and critical habitats. Characterize and explain changes in water quality, and its effect on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. Assess and forecast effects of climate and land change on ecosystem conditions. Synthesize and provide information to support ecosystem management. The structure and function of biological communities of the Bay and its watershed are extremely complex and are affected by a variety of stressors and conditions. To better define the issues being addressed, the USGS has developed cross-cutting questions that define some of the most important scientific challenges where multiple disciplines and collaborators are needed to address an issue. The initial questions include: How do land and climate changes affect freshwater fish communities, health, and habitats? What are the relations among land use, water quality, contaminants, and the health of fish and wildlife? How are coastal wetlands and their carrying capacity for waterbirds affected by changing climate and land use? How is the water quality of rivers and estuaries responding to restoration actions, and changing land use? What are some of the best opportunities for management actions to benefit multiple restoration outcomes?

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin

Expanded USGS science in the Chesapeake Bay restoration

In May 2009, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13508 for Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. For the first time since the creation of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) in 1983, the full weight of the Federal Government will be used to address the challenges facing the Chesapeake Bay. The EO directs the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), represented by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to expand its efforts and increase leadership to restore the Bay and its watershed. A Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) was established to ensure coordination of Federal activities and consult with states and stakeholders to align restoration efforts.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Facilitating adaptive management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through the use of online decision support tools

The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is attempting to more strategically implement management actions to improve the health of the Nation’s largest estuary. In 2007 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) CBP office began a joint effort to develop a suite of Internetaccessible decision-support tools and to help meet the needs of CBP partners to improve water quality and habitat conditions in the Chesapeake Bay and its watersheds. An adaptive management framework is being used to provide a structured decision process for information and individual tools needed to implement and assess practices to improve the condition of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The Chesapeake Online Adaptive Support Toolkit (COAST) is a collection of web-based analytical tools and information, organized in an adaptive management framework, intended to aid decisionmakers in protecting and restoring the integrity of the Bay ecosystem. The initial version of COAST is focused on water quality issues. During early and mid- 2008, initial ideas for COAST were shared and discussed with various CBP partners and other potential user groups. At these meetings, test cases were selected to help improve understanding of the types of information and analytical functionality that would be most useful for specific partners’ needs. These discussions added considerable knowledge about the nature of decisionmaking for Federal, State, local and nongovernmental partners. Version 1.0 of COAST, released in early winter of 2008, will be further reviewed to determine improvements needed to address implementation and assessment of water quality practices. Future versions of COAST may address other aspects of ecosystem restoration, including restoration of habitat and living resources and maintaining watershed health.

Conference Paper

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Studies: Scientific Solutions for a Healthy Bay and Watershed

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the science agency for the Department of Interior (DOI), has the critical role of providing objective science to document and understand ecosystem change in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. The human population in the Bay watershed , which grew from 8.1 million in 1950 to almost 16 million in 2000, has resulted in degraded water quality, loss of habitat, and declines in fish and bird populations. USGS scientists are leaders in understanding cause and effect of human activities and natural changes on water quality and the health of the ecosystem. The USGS interacts with resource managers and policy makers to use the science to adapt approaches for implementation, and assess effectiveness of, management actions for ecosystem conservation, restoration, and sustainability. Since the mid-1980s, the USGS has been an active partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) , a multi-agency partnership led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working to achieve the restoration goals set forth in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement . This agreement established over 100 restoration commitments to be addressed by 2010. In 2005, which was the mid-point of the agreement, there was growing concern at all levels of government and by the public that ecological conditions in the Bay and its watershed had not significantly improved. The slow rate of improvement, coupled with the projected impact of human-population increase in the Bay watershed (fig. 1) , implied that many desired ecological conditions will not be achieved by 2010. To address these challenges, the USGS wrote a new science plan for 2006-2011 , and is synthesizing key findings to highlight the accomplishments from science activities for 2000-2005.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin

Changes in streamflow and water quality in selected nontidal sites in the Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1985-2003

Water-quality and streamflow data from 33 sites in nontidal portions of the Chesapeake Bay Basin were analyzed to document annual nutrient and sediment loads and trends for 1985 through 2003 as part of an annual evaluation of water-quality conditions by the Chesapeake Bay Program. As part of this study, different trend tests and methodologies were evaluated for future use in assessment of the effectiveness of management actions in reducing nutrients and sediments to the Chesapeake Bay. Trends in streamflow were tested at multiple time scales (daily, monthly, seasonal, and annual), resulting in only one significant trend (annual flow for Choptank River near Greensboro, Md.). Data summaries for observed concentrations indicate higher ranges in total-nitrogen concentrations in the northern five major river basins in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia compared to the southern five basins in Virginia. Similar comparisons showed no distinct differences for total phosphorus. Flow-weighted concentration is useful in evaluating changes through time for the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James Rivers. Results indicate the Potomac River had the highest flow-weighted concentrations (2.5 milligrams per liter) for total nitrogen, and the Potomac and James Rivers averaged about the same (0.15 milligram per liter) for total-phosphorus concentrations. Flow-weighted concentrations were lowest in the Susquehanna River for phosphorus and sediment because of the trapping efficiency of three large reservoirs upstream from the sampling point. Annual loads were estimated by use of the U.S. Geological Surveys ESTIMATOR model. Annual nutrient and sediment loads in 2003 were the second highest total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment loads for the River Input Monitoring sites since 1990. Trends in concentrations, when adjusted for flow, can be used as an indicator of human activity and management actions. The flow-adjusted trends indicated significant decreasing trends at approximately 55, 75, and 48 percent of the sites for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment, respectively. This suggests management actions are having some effect in reducing nutrients and sediments. Sampling protocols for the river inputs to the bay have targeted high flows. Because this sampling strategy creates the potential for bias in estimated loads and trends, calculations are limited to flow-adjusted loads and trends in this report.

Scientific Investigations Report

Residence times and nitrate transport in ground water discharging to streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

One of the major water-quality problems in the Chesapeake Bay is an overabundance of nutrients from the streams and rivers that discharge to the Bay. Some of these nutrients are from nonpoint sources such as atmospheric deposition, agricultural manure and fertilizer, and septic systems. The effects of efforts to control nonpoint sources, however, can be difficult to quantify because of the lag time between changes at the land surface and the response in the base-flow (ground water) component of streams. To help resource managers understand the lag time between implementation of management practices and subsequent response in the nutrient concentrations in the base-flow component of streamflow, a study of ground-water discharge, residence time, and nitrate transport in springs throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and in four smaller watersheds in selected hydrogeomorphic regions (HGMRs) was conducted. The four watersheds were in the Coastal Plain Uplands, Piedmont crystalline, Valley and Ridge carbonate, and Valley and Ridge siliciclastic HGMRs. A study of springs to estimate an apparent age of the ground water was based on analyses for concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons in water samples collected from 48 springs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Results of the analysis indicate that median age for all the samples was 10 years, with the 25th percentile having an age of 7 years and the 75th percentile having an age of 13 years. Although the number of samples collected in each HGMR was limited, there did not appear to be distinct differences in the ages between the HGMRs. The ranges were similar between the major HGMRs above the Fall Line (modern to about 50 years), with only two HGMRs of small geographic extent (Piedmont carbonate and Mesozoic Lowland) having ranges of modern to about 10 years. The median values of all the HGMRs ranged from 7 to 11 years. Not enough samples were collected in the Coastal Plain for comparison. Spring samples showed slightly younger water under wet conditions than under dry conditions. The apparent age of water from wells, springs, and other ground-water discharge points in the four targeted watersheds was modern to 60 years, which was similar to the apparent ages from the spring study. In the Pocomoke River Watershed in the Coastal Plain Uplands HGMR, the apparent age of ground-water samples ranged from 0 to 60 years; the ages in the vicinity of the streams ranged from 0 to 23 years. The apparent ages of ground water in the Polecat Creek Watershed in the Piedmont crystalline HGMR ranged from 2 to 30 years. The apparent ages of water from wells in the Muddy Creek Watershed in the Valley and Ridge carbonate HGMR ranged from 10 to 20 years (except for a single sample that was 45 years). The ages in the East Mahantango Creek Watershed in the Valley and Ridge siliciclastic HGMR ranged from 0 to 50 years. The distribution in apparent age of water from wells in the targeted watersheds, however, generally is older than that for water from the springs. The median age of water from wells in the Muddy Creek Watershed, for example, was 15 years, compared to 11 years for the water from the springs in that watershed, and less than 10 years for water from all springs in the spring study. The similarity in the ranges in apparent age of water from the wells and from the springs shows that the samples from the targeted watersheds and springs have bracketed the range of apparent ages that would be expected in the shallow ground-water-flow systems throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The apparent age of water from individual wells does not necessarily represent the entire distribution of ages of the discharging ground water, and it is this distribution of ages that affects the response of nutrient concentrations in stream base flow. Nutrient-reduction scenarios were modeled for two watersheds for which the distribution of apparent ground-water ages was available, the East Mahantango Creek Watershed in the Valley and Ridge siliciclastic HGMR and the Locust Grove Watershed in the Coastal Plain Uplands HGMR. A nutrient-reduction scenario was created for East Mahantango Creek, where the average residence time was determined to be approximately 10 years on the basis of the output of particle tracking from a ground-water-flow model. This scenario showed decreases of nearly 50 percent in base-flow concentrations of nitrate in streams within the first year after the reduction in nitrogen input; smaller reductions in nitrate concentration occurred in each subsequent year. A second scenario for that same watershed, in which the same 10-year average residence time was assumed and an exponential model was used for analysis, showed that a 50-percent reduction in base-flow concentrations of nitrate could take up to 5 years. For the Locust Grove Watershed, in which an average residence time of 32 years was assumed, simulation with the exponential model showed that it may take more than 20 years to achieve a 50-percent reduction in base-flow concentra-tions of nitrate. Although it was not possible to construct such scenarios for all watersheds, these examples show the range of possible responses to changes in nutrient inputs in two very different types of watersheds. Findings from this study include information on factors that affect ground-water age, spatial distribution of ages, and nitrogen transport. In the East Mahantango Creek Watershed and the Polecat Creek Watershed, the residence time varied spatially depending on the position of the flow path, and temporally depending on the recharge conditions. Generally, ground water in areas near the stream had short residence times and the water in upland areas had longer residence times. Water traveling through deep layers had longer residence times than water traveling through shallow layers, and residence times were faster under high recharge conditions than low recharge conditions. Ground water in the Pocomoke Watershed exhibits a similar pattern: younger water discharges to small order streams in headwater basins and older water discharges to larger streams near the basin outlet. Factors affecting nitrogen transport in ground water include spatial and temporal variation in input sources, ground-water age, and aquifer processes that lead to denitrification. Spatial and temporal variations in nitrogen sources affect all the watersheds. Tributaries with higher inputs of nitrogen have higher concentrations in stream base flow. Areas where nitrogen application rates have increased over time show an age-nitrate relation in ground-water samples. The age-nitrate relation can be affected by denitrification, which occurs in Pocomoke and East Mahantango Creeks but is not evident in Polecat and Muddy Creeks. In East Mahantango Creek, the level of denitrification is significant in water with residence times greater than 20 years, but because this is a small component of overall ground-water discharge to a stream, it may not remove a significant quantity of nitrogen from the system. Denitrification in Pocomoke Creek is significant and appears to affect mostly older water discharging to streams. Therefore, if most of the nitrogen entering these two streams is associated with the discharge of younger ground water, denitrification may not greatly affect the overall nitrogen delivery to these streams. Other findings of this study show that nitrate in ground water discharging along preferential flow paths may not be affected by natural processes, such as denitrification or uptake by riparian vegetation. Seeps to swales and ditches beneath the north uplands at Polecat Creek indicate a shallow water table and discharge of young ground water whereas the absence of such seeps on the south side indicates a deep water table and a lack of young ground water. Similarly, discharge at the base of the slope and to the valley wetland south of the creek but not north of the creek indicates a different role for the riparian forest on the two sides of the creek. In many of the systems where water discharges at the base of slopes to wetlands, ditches have been dug to drain the valley. Such drainage circumvents possible removal of nitrate by riparian vegetation. Because ground-water residence times do not appear directly related to the HGMRs, the targeting of management practices will achieve the most rapid response in water quality if directed at 1) watersheds with large agricultural sources of nitrate, 2) areas with the shortest ground-water-flow paths and 3) areas not affected by significant denitrification. The fastest response in stream base-flow concentrations of nitrogen to implementation of management practices would be to implement practices in those areas with the highest loads rather than attempt to target practices on the basis of HGMR stratification. Overall findings of the study indicate that 1) ground-water contributions to nitrogen in streamflow are significant, 2) some response to management practices should be evident in base-flow concentrations of nitrogen and loads within 1 to 5 years in watersheds with the shortest average residence times, but response time may be closer to 20 years in watersheds with longer average ground-water residence times, 3) the majority of the response in ground-water discharge to any changes in management practices will be distributed over a 10-year time period even in the watersheds with the fastest response times, and 4) given that half the streamflow is from ground-water discharge and the other half is runoff or soil water, about 90 percent of total water being discharged to a stream will be less than about a decade old; therefore, full implementation of nutrient reductions may result in improved streamwater quality in about a decade. In the more-likely scenario of gradual source reduction, the reduction in concentrations of nitrate in streams and aquifers would take longer than the examples shown here.

Chesapeake Bay watershed

Effects of climate variability and human activities on Chesapeake Bay and the implications for ecosystem restoration

Chesapeake Bay, the Nation’s largest and most productive estuary (fig. 1), faces complex environmental issues related to nutrients and oxygen, turbidity and sedimentation, toxic dinoflagellates, sea-level rise, and coastal erosion. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a partnership among the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Federal Government, the District of Columbia, and the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The CBP is working to preserve, restore, and protect the bay’s living resources, vital habitats, and water quality, to protect human health, and to promote sound land-use policies in the watershed. The CBP began to set restoration goals for the ecosystem in the mid-1980’s and is now refining current goals and setting new ones as part of a new bay agreement— Chesapeake 2000. As the CBP sets restoration goals for the next 10–20 years, it will be critical to understand the long-term changes of the bay ecosystem due to climate variability and the influence of past and future human activities. For the past 4 years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been engaged in research designed to provide objective scientific answers to questions about long-term changes in the bay ecosystem: What paleoecological and geochemical methods are best for documenting trends in the bay ecosystem? How does climate variability, including drought, affect the bay? What are historical trends in dissolved oxygen? What is the relationship between sedimentation and water clarity, and what is the effect of turbidity on living resources? How have past land-use changes affected bay habitats and living resources?

Chesapeake Bay Watershed