Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about Chesapeake Bay watershed

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Chesapeake Bay watershed.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2024

Using local monitoring results to inform the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Watershed Model

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Watershed Model (CBWM) has been used as an accounting tool for the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). However, some of the fundamental parameters that underpin the watershed model may not represent local watershed characteristics at all scales. Significant investments have been made by state and local governments, and other local stakeholders, who are interested in validating loads and progress in implementing measures to achieve the pollutant reductions called for in the TMDL through local monitoring data. For the purposes of this STAC workshop, local monitoring is considered any relevant data collected by a local, regional, state, or federal organization that has not been used previously in the development, calibration, or validation of the CBWM. Some of these local monitoring efforts have been collecting data over the past 5-10 years, with some datasets extending back over more than two decades. However, the data and the CBWM are often not directly comparable due to differences in temporal and spatial scales or because the water quality parameters being monitored are not those estimated by the model. Therefore, a Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) workshop was convened to bring together Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) modelers, local and state government stakeholders, and scientists who are monitoring and analyzing local water quality data to recommend ways in which local monitoring data can be used to inform the CBWM, identify gaps between modeled and monitored data, and validate model predictions at the local scale. The workshop, “Using Local Monitoring Results to Inform the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Watershed Model”, was held in March 2023 to provide insight on the scope of local water quality monitoring efforts within and outside of the Bay watershed that could be used to inform the CBWM. Scientists and managers developed recommendations that could be used by modelers for either calibration or knowledge generation to inform the Phase 7 version of the CBWM currently under development for a 2027 decision by the CBP, recommendations for how local monitoring efforts could be designed or altered to better inform the CBWM, and recommendations for how monitored trends could be used in management. The preliminary presentations for the workshop provided essential background information on the CBWM and data used to parameterize it. This information was the foundation for discussions on existing data gaps, the importance of current local monitoring networks, and best practices for developing future monitoring networks. More information on this STAC-funded effort including workshop presentation slides and recordings can be accessed on the workshop webpage. Confidence in the loading estimates of the CBWM is critical because of its role as the accounting mechanism for measuring progress toward the Bay TMDL’s nutrient and sediment reduction goals. Those who are being asked or required to pay for these reductions, from state and local government managers to farmers, property owners and developers, must have confidence in the scientific validity of the CBWM’s loading estimates or trust in the restoration effort will dissipate. Toward that end, several local entities have invested in extensive urban, suburban, and agricultural monitoring programs to characterize nutrient and sediment loading (among other water quality parameters) at a relatively fine scale (from a few acres to 5 square miles). Monitoring networks outside of the Bay watershed were also included as their relevance and similarities to Bay watershed landscapes, hydrology, and climate conditions can help build the body of knowledge necessary for better parameterization of the CBWM. Local monitoring results could be analyzed for loads and trends for calibration of Phase 7, comparison against trends, informing the structure and parameterization of the model, and potentially in policy evaluation. The effectiveness of management practices at the small watershed scale is a primary question of watershed managers that could be addressed by local monitoring, but to do so study design and statistical techniques may need to be altered if these datasets are intended to inform parameterization of the Bay modeling tools. The partnership would benefit from the redesign of some existing monitoring programs so that they are hypothesis-driven, with fully described inputs, outputs, and practices. New statistical tools could be applied to evaluate the relative importance of various drivers affecting water quality and influenced by hydrogeologic setting and watershed condition.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2024

Evaluating an improved systems approach to wetland crediting: Consideration of wetland ecosystem services

The Chesapeake Bay Agreement (CBA) has numerous direct goals for improving habitat, living resources, and water quality, conserving lands, engaging communities and addressing a changing climate. To date, the progress toward the wetlands outcome (creation/ restoration of 85,000 acres and enhancement of 150,000 acres) has been very slow and the outcome is projected to be off course for 2025. Two specific confounding issues arise in efforts to achieve the Bay wetlands goal: 1) the idea that restoration is driven, and incentivized and accounted for, in order to meet the TMDL’s water quality (WQ) benefits, leaving habitat benefits undervalued; and 2) there is often tension between competing restoration priorities and financial resources among different Best Management Practice (BMP) types that include wetlands, such as wetland restoration/creation/rehabilitation, stream restoration, and the creation or restoration of forest buffers. The collaborative workshop “ Evaluating an Improved Systems Approach to Wetland Crediting: Consideration of Wetland Ecosystem Services ” was held March 22-23, 2022 to explore the wetland accounting system and provide insight on improved approaches to promote wetland projects toward the wetlands outcome. Four sessions were organized around topics of 1) Accounting, 2) Landscape Systems Approach, 3) Wetlands Projects and Co-Benefits, and 4) Management Implications and Recommendation Development with 21 presentations, Q and A and facilitated discussions. Acknowledgement of the limitations of the current management framework to achieve significant gains in wetland area supports the conclusion that absent significant adaptive management of wetlands efforts, any outcome for net wetlands gains beyond 2025 will be similarly confounded. Workshop findings included suggestions for how to approach restoration projects at a systems level (e.g., creek, shoreline reach, watershed) in order to maximize synergies for multiple ecological outcomes and ecosystem services. Recommendations for improvement on existing efforts, as well as new processes, tools and partnerships are suggested from the workshop’s analysis of the state of the science as considerations to increase implementation of wetlands projects.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2024

The state of the science and practice of stream restoration in the Chesapeake: Lessons learned to inform better implementation, assessment and outcomes

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) organized and led a workshop on the science and practice of stream restoration in order to summarize the state of knowledge in order to identify ways to improve stream restoration outcomes. The workshop identified a general framework for explaining the main factors leading to stream restoration outcomes: stream degradation has occurred, leading to regulatory and policy motivations that prioritize project goals, which leads to restoration approaches, assessment and monitoring efforts, and ultimately stream restoration outcomes. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, stream restoration often occurs in response to Clean Water Act (CWA) mandates to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads to the Bay. Reviews of stream restoration outcomes summarized at the workshop showed that, in general, stream restorations have led to minimal improvement to stream aquatic biota, effective ‘stabilization’ of channel form over time, moderate improvements to water quality, and short-term negative impacts to riparian vegetation. The fundamental finding of the workshop was that often the primary goal of stream restoration projects is to improve geomorphic stability in the restored reach and downstream water quality, and not to improve local ecological conditions through ‘uplift’ (improvement of one or more ecosystem functions through a restorative activity; a term defined in Appendix D), and therefore these projects often do not improve aquatic macroinvertebrate or fish communities. This conflict in goals is a shortcoming of the currently most common regulatory driver for stream restoration (reducing downstream loads of N, P, and sediment) that could be addressed directly through diversifying goals to include biotic uplift, as biological benefit is an assumed condition for the permitting and crediting of stream restoration projects. It is also likely that current understanding of stressors and drivers of stream ecosystem health is insufficient, and that reach-scale restoration focused on geomorphic restoration is not removing the actual sources of stream health impairment that may arise in the upstream watershed. More science could help to identify how to improve the ecological condition of streams through management. The outcome of stream restoration monitoring has revealed that while geomorphic and hydrodynamic functions of stream restoration projects may be achieved, biotic stream function improvements remain elusive. As such, ensuring uplift may be achieved by avoiding restoration projects that risk resources in higher-quality streams and riparian corridors. Reach-scale restoration often does not effectively mitigate the watershed-scale stressors of stream ecosystems. If a desired outcome of stream restoration includes ecological uplift, then focusing efforts on improving stream ecology could help meet that goal.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2023

Your land, your water—Using research to guide conservation practices on local farms in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Agricultural lands are an important part of the economy and heritage of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and are a focus of conservation activities. Streams and rivers around farms provide communities with drinking water and recreational opportunities, but these local benefits can be impaired by elevated nutrient and sediment concentrations. Compared to inputs from the atmosphere, wastewater, and urban and suburban areas, agricultural lands are the largest source of nutrients and sediment in many Chesapeake Bay streams. Farmers are voluntary conservation partners and have an important role in improving water-quality conditions. This fact sheet summarizes recent scientific insights from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that can help farmers use conservation practices and their knowledge of local site conditions to achieve cleaner water.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2023

Water quality impacts of climate change, land use, and population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

The 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load was established for the water quality and ecological restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. In 2017, the latest science, data, and modeling tools were used to develop revised Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs). In this article, we examine the vulnerability of the Chesapeake Bay watershed to the combined pressures of climate change and growth in population, agricultural intensity, and economic activity for the 60-year period 1995–2055. The results will be used to revise WIPs, as needed, to account for expected increases in loads. Assessing changes relative to 1995 for the years 2025, 2035, 2045, and 2055, mean annual precipitation increases of 3.11%, 4.21%, 5.34%, and 6.91%, respectively, air temperature increases of 1.12, 1.45, 1.84, and 2.12°C, respectively, and potential evapotranspiration increases of 3.36%, 4.43%, 5.54%, and 6.35%, respectively, are projected. Population in the watershed is expected to grow by 3.5 million between 2025 and 2055. Watershed model results show incremental increases in streamflow (2.3%–6.2%), nitrogen (2.6%–10.8%), phosphorus (4.5%–26.7%), and sediment (3.8%–18.8%) loads to the tidal Bay due to climate change. Growth in population, agricultural intensity, development, and economic activity resulted in relatively smaller increases in loads compared to climate change.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2023

Progress in reducing nutrient and sediment loads to Chesapeake Bay: Three decades of monitoring data and implications for restoring complex ecosystems

For over three decades, Chesapeake Bay (USA) has been the focal point of a coordinated restoration strategy implemented through a partnership of governmental and nongovernmental entities, which has been a classical model for coastal restoration worldwide. This synthesis aims to provide resource managers and estuarine scientists with a clearer perspective of the magnitude of changes in water quality within the Bay watershed, including nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and sediment for the River Input Monitoring (RIM) watershed and the unmonitored below-RIM watershed. The flow-normalized N load from the RIM watershed has declined in the period of 1985–2017, but P and sediment loads have lacked progress. Reductions of riverine N are largely driven by reductions of point sources and atmospheric deposition. Future reductions will require significant progress in managing agricultural nonpoint sources. The below-RIM watershed, which comprises a disproportionately high fraction of inputs to the Bay, has shown long-term declines in major sources, including point sources (N and P), atmospheric deposition (N), manure (N and P) and fertilizer (P), based on a combination of monitoring and modeling assessments. To date, the Bay cleanup efforts have achieved some progress toward reducing nutrients from the watershed, which have resulted in improving water quality in the estuary. However, further reductions are critical to achieve the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load goals, and emerging challenges due to Conowingo Reservoir, legacy nutrients, climate change, and population growth should be considered. Continued monitoring, modeling, and assessment are critically important for informing the restoration of this complex ecosystem.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2023

Estimated reduction of nitrogen in streams of the Chesapeake Bay in areas with agricultural conservation practices

Spatial data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service representing implementation at the field-level for a selection of agricultural conservation practices were incorporated within a spatially referenced regression model to estimate their effects on nitrogen loads in streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Conservation practices classified as “high-impact” were estimated to be effective ( p = 0.017) at reducing contemporary nitrogen loads to streams of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in areas where groundwater ages are estimated to be less than 14-years old. Watershed-wide, high-impact practices were estimated to reduce nitrogen loads to streams by 1.45%, with up to 60% reductions in areas with shorter groundwater ages and larger amounts of implementation. Effects of “other-impact” practices and practices in areas with groundwater ages of 14 years or more showed less evidence of effectiveness. That the discernable impact of high-impact practices was limited to areas with a median groundwater age of less than 14 years does not imply that conservation practices are not effective in areas with older groundwater ages. A model recalibrated using high-impact agricultural conservation practice data summarized by county suggests effects may also be detectable using implementation data available at such coarser resolution. Despite increasing investment, effects of agricultural conservation practices on regional water quality remain difficult to quantify due to factors such as groundwater travel times, varying modes-of-action, and the general lack of high-quality spatial datasets representing practice implementation.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2023

Tracking status and trends in seven key indicators of stream health in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

“The Bay Connects us, the Bay reflects us” writes Tom Horton in the book “Turning the Tide—Saving the Chesapeake Bay”. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains the largest estuary in the United States. The watershed stretches north to Cooperstown, New York, south to Lynchburg and Virginia Beach, Virginia, west to Pendleton County, West Virginia, and east to Seaford, Delaware, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. The watershed is more than 64,000 square miles that contain 150 major rivers and streams, hereafter referred to collectively as streams, that total more than 100,000 miles in length. The watershed contains thousands of smaller creeks and tributaries, large numbers of plants and animals, and, in 2020, more than 18.4 million people. As changes occur in population, land use, and climate within the watershed, so too do the diversity and health of the Bay's ecosystems.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2023

Estrogenic activity response to best management practice implementation in agricultural watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Best management practices (BMPs) have been predominantly used throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed (CBW) to reduce nutrients and sediments entering streams, rivers, and the bay. These practices have been successful in reducing loads entering the estuary and have shown the potential to reduce other contaminants (pesticides, hormonally active compounds, pathogens) in localized studies and modeled load estimates. However, further understanding of relationships between BMPs and non-nutrient contaminant reductions at regional scales using sampled data would be beneficial. Total estrogenic activity was measured in surface water samples collected over a decade (2008–2018) in 211 undeveloped NHDPlus V2.1 watersheds within the CBW. Bayesian hierarchical modeling between total estrogenic activity and landscape predictors including landcover, runoff, BMP intensity, and a BMP*agriculture intensity interaction term indicates a 96% posterior probability that BMP intensity on agricultural land is reducing total estrogenic activity. Additionally, watersheds with high agriculture and low BMPs had a 49% posterior probability of exceeding an effects-based threshold in aquatic organisms of 1 ng/L but only a 1% posterior probability of exceeding this threshold in high-agriculture, high-BMP watersheds.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2023

White perch health relative to urbanization and habitat degradation in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. I. Biliary neoplasms and hepatic lesions

White perch Morone americana (Gmelin, 1789) from the Chesapeake Bay (USA) watershed have a high incidence of liver disease, including neoplasms of bile duct origin. Fish collected seasonally from spring 2019 to winter 2020 from the urban Severn River and the more rural Choptank River were evaluated for hepatic lesions. Biliary hyperplasia (64.1%), neoplasms (cholangioma and cholangiocarcinoma, 27%), and dysplasia (24.9%) were significantly higher in Severn River fish compared to Choptank River fish (52.9, 16.2, and 15.8%, respectively). Hepatocellular lesions were less common, including foci of hepatocellular alteration (FHA, 13.3%) and hepatocellular neoplasms (1%). There was also a progressive age-related increase in copper-laden granules in hepatocytes, which was a significant risk factor for FHA and could be a source of oxidative stress in the liver. Significant risk factors for biliary neoplasms included age, bile duct fibrosis, and infections by the myxozoan parasite Myxidium murchelanoi , but the prevalence and relative intensity of M. murchelanoi infections did not differ significantly between fish populations. Hepatic disease in this species appears to be chronic and may stem from an age-related accumulation of damage, possibly from parasitic infections and contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and copper. Watershed development and exposures to PCBs and PAHs were generally higher for white perch in the Severn River, but similar suites of chemical contaminants were detected in the Choptank River. A broader survey of white perch within and outside Chesapeake Bay may allow determination of the extent of biliary neoplasia in this species.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2023

White perch health relative to urbanization and habitat degradation in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. II. Hepatic and splenic macrophage aggregates

Macrophage aggregate (MA) abundance in fish is a useful general biomarker of contaminant exposures and environmental stress. Hepatic and splenic MAs were evaluated in semi-anadromous white perch Morone americana (Gmelin, 1789) from the urbanized Severn River (S) and the more rural Choptank River (C), Chesapeake Bay. Fish were collected from different sites in the annual migratory circuit in each river that corresponded to active spawning in late winter-early spring, summer regenerating, autumn developing, and winter spawning-capable phases. An age-associated progressive increase in the total volume of MAs (MAV) was evident in the liver and spleen. Mean hepatic MAV (range in seasonal means, C: 6.4-23.1 mm 3 ; S: 15.7-48.7 mm 3 ) and mean splenic MAV (C: 7.3-12.6 mm 3 ; S: 16.0-33.0 mm 3 ) differed significantly among seasons and were significantly greater in females and in Severn River fish. Age and river were the most influential factors, suggesting that increased MAV in Severn River fish resulted from chronic exposures to higher concentrations of environmental contaminants. Hepatic MAV was directly related to the relative volume of copper granules in the liver. Less influential factors on splenic MAV included fish condition, trematode infections, and granulomas, indicating possible functional differences in MAs by organ. While organ volumes were strongly linked to gonadosomatic index (GSI) and reproductive phase, the reason for seasonal differences in MAV was less clear. Water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen were not significantly related to MAV, and indicators of reproductive phase (hepatosomatic index and GSI) were significant but less important in explaining variation in MAV.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2022

Predicting near-term effects of climate change on nitrogen transport to Chesapeake Bay

Understanding effects of climate change on nitrogen fate and transport in the environment is critical to nutrient management. We used climate projections within a previously calibrated spatially referenced regression (SPARROW) model to predict effects of expected climate change over 1995 through 2025 on total nitrogen fluxes to Chesapeake Bay and in watershed streams. Assuming nitrogen inputs and other watershed conditions remain at 2012 levels, effects of increasing temperature, runoff, streamflow, and stream velocity expected between 1995 and 2025 will include an estimated net 6.5% decline in annual nitrogen delivery to the bay from its watershed. This predicted decline is attributable to declines in the delivery of nitrogen from upland nonpoint sources to streams due to predicted warmer temperatures. Such temperature-driven declines in the delivery of nitrogen to streams more than offset predicted increased delivery to and within streams due to increased runoff and streamflow and may be attributable to increasing rates of denitrification or ammonia volatilization or to changes in plant phenology. Predicted climate-driven declines in nitrogen flux are generally similar across the watershed but vary slightly among major nonpoint source sectors and tributary watersheds. Nitrogen contributions to the bay from point sources are not affected by temperature-driven changes in delivery from uplands and are therefore predicted to increase slightly between 1995 and 2025.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2022

Streambank and floodplain geomorphic change and contribution to watershed material budgets

Stream geomorphic change is highly spatially variable but critical to landform evolution, human infrastructure, habitat, and watershed pollutant transport. However, measurements and process models of streambank erosion and floodplain deposition and resulting sediment fluxes are currently insufficient to predict these rates in all perennial streams over large regions. Here we measured long-term lateral streambank and vertical floodplain change and sediment fluxes using dendrogeomorphology in streams around the U.S. Mid-Atlantic, and then statistically modeled and extrapolated these rates to all 74 133 perennial, nontidal streams in the region using watershed- and reach-scale predictors. Measured long-term rates of streambank erosion and floodplain deposition were highly spatially variable across the landscape from the mountains to the coast. Random Forest regression identified that geomorphic change and resulting fluxes of sediment and nutrients, for both streambank and floodplain, were most influenced by urban and agricultural land use and the drainage area of the upstream watershed. Modeled rates for headwater streams were net erosional whereas downstream reaches were on average net depositional, leading to regional cumulative sediment loads from streambank erosion (−5.1 Tg yr −1 ) being nearly balanced by floodplain deposition (+5.3 Tg yr −1 ). Geomorphic changes in stream valleys had substantial influence on watershed sediment, phosphorus, carbon, and nitrogen budgets in comparison to existing predictions of upland erosion and delivery to streams and of downstream sediment loading. The unprecedented scale of these novel findings provides important insights into the balance of erosion and deposition in streams within disturbed landscapes and the importance of geomorphic change to stream water quality and carbon sequestration, and provides vital understanding for targeting management actions to restore watersheds.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2022

Major point and nonpoint sources of nutrient pollution to surface water have declined throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Understanding drivers of water quality in local watersheds is the first step for implementing targeted restoration practices. Nutrient inventories can inform water quality management decisions by identifying shifts in nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) balances over space and time while also keeping track of the likely urban and agricultural point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The Chesapeake Bay Program's Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) provides N and P balance data for counties throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and these data were leveraged to create a detailed nutrient inventory for all the counties in the watershed from 1985–2019. This study focuses on three primary watershed nutrient balance components—agricultural surplus, atmospheric deposition, and point source loads—which are thought to be the leading anthropogenic drivers of nutrient loading trends across the watershed. All inputs, outputs, and derived metrics (n=53) like agricultural surplus and nutrient use efficiency, were subjected to short- and long-term trend analyses to discern how sources of pollution to surface water have changed over time. Across the watershed from 1985–2019, downward trends in atmospheric deposition were ubiquitous. Though there are varying effects, long-term declines in agricultural surplus were observed, likely because nutrients are being managed more efficiently. Multiple counties' point source loads declined, primarily associated with upgrades at major cities that discharge treated wastewater directly to tidal waters. Despite all of these positive developments, recent increases in agricultural surpluses from 2009–2019 highlight that water quality gains may soon be reversed in many agricultural areas of the basin. Besides tracking progress and jurisdictional influence on pollution sources, the nutrient inventory can be used for retrospective water quality analysis to highlight drivers of past improvement/degradation of water quality trends and for decision makers to develop and track their near- and long-term watershed restoration strategies.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2022

Using fish community and population indicators to assess the biological condition of streams and rivers of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA

The development of indicators to assess relative freshwater condition is critical for management and conservation. Predictive modeling can enhance the utility of indicators by providing estimates of condition for unsurveyed locations. Such approaches grant understanding of where “good” and “poor” conditions occur and provide insight into landscape contexts supporting such conditions. However, as assessments are conducted at large extents crossing jurisdictional boundaries, combined datasets are likely not suited for traditional assessment approaches which rely on jurisdictionally-specific reference sites. Here, we used a large dataset compiled from multiple providers to assess the condition of fish habitat for non-tidal streams and rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (CBW), USA. We concurrently used community and species-level analyses to provide a more holistic view of habitat conditions by using random forest models to predict selected metrics and species occurrence with landscape data for inland CBW stream reaches. Community analyses included metrics describing composition, tolerances, habitat preferences, and functional traits of fish communities whereas species-level analyses consisted of distribution models for key sensitive and gamefish species. For community analyses, a final index was calculated as the average of selected metric deciles with higher scores inferring less biologically altered (i.e., better) conditions, providing an alternative to using reference sites. For species analyses, species occurrence was predicted for stream reaches, with presence indicating suitable habitat. Uncertainty was calculated for both approaches using model prediction intervals. Results indicated different numbers of suitable metrics for each region, with most in the Northern Appalachian (15) and least in the Southern Appalachian Piedmont (3). Four species (three sensitive) were suitable for modeling. At the CBW scale, predictions did not vary greatly among deciles for the community or species analyses for 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016. Most stream reaches did not vary in mean decile rank or in species occurrence between 2001 and 2016; however, the largest community changes occurred in large rivers in the Coastal Plains ecoregion and the largest species occurrence changes occurred in Torrent Suckers in medium-sized rivers. When compared, results from community analyses agreed for one sensitive species (Brook Trout) but not the other three, potentially due to regionally inappropriate tolerance assignment. Comparisons also demonstrated substantial variation among approaches suggesting a lack of redundancy. While each approach traditionally has its targeted audience and respective strengths and weaknesses, concurrent use of these approaches permits direct comparisons and may assuage shortcomings of each approach when considered separately.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2022

Power analysis for detecting the effects of best management practices on reducing nitrogen and phosphorus fluxes to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA

In 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) which is a “pollution diet” that aims to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, by 25 and 24% percent, respectively. To achieve this goal the TMDL requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are accepted land management practices for reducing pollutant runoff to nearby bodies of water. While the TMDL requires that the necessary management actions be in place by 2025 to eventually reach targeted nutrient loads, the ability to detect an effect of BMPs while assuming that one has occurred (i.e. statistical power) is still not well understood. The goal of this study was to investigate the power and required timelines to detect nutrient reductions in streams and rivers as the result of BMP implementation at the Chesapeake Watershed scale. Power estimates were produced using SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) models, which offer a flexible statistical framework and were recently extended to allow for modeling multiple time steps. Nitrogen and phosphorus focused models were calibrated to estimate the power to detect reductions in flux from numerous constituent sources. To confidently detect a decrease in constituent flux reaching the Chesapeake Bay’s tidal waters from a specific constituent source, reductions ranging from 30–60% were required for the nitrogen model. In contrast, reductions of up to 80% were not detectable under the phosphorus model. The timelines necessary to detect reductions in nitrogen flux ranged from 11 to several hundred years under different rates-of-change and management scenarios. The approach proposed here can help better understand the ability to detect the effects of BMPs on a regional scale and help guide future management actions and monitoring programs.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗