Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about Chesapeake Bay watershed

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

86 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2013

Total nutrient and sediment loads, trends, yields, and nontidal water-quality indicators for selected nontidal stations, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985–2011

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partners, routinely reports long-term concentration trends and monthly and annual constituent loads for stream water-quality monitoring stations across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This report documents flow-adjusted trends in sediment and total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations for 31 stations in the years 1985–2011 and for 32 stations in the years 2002–2011. Sediment and total nitrogen and phosphorus yields for 65 stations are presented for the years 2006–2011. A combined nontidal water-quality indicator (based on both trends and yields) indicates there are more stations classified as “improving water-quality trend and a low yield” than “degrading water-quality trend and a high yield” for total nitrogen. The same type of 2-way classification for total phosphorus and sediment results in equal numbers of stations in each indicator class.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, West V↗
USGS2011

Interdisciplinary environmental project probes Chesapeake Bay down to the core

Interrelated environmental concerns about Chesapeake Bay are being addressed in an interdisciplinary project using paleoecological and geochemical records from sediment cores to investigate Holocene climate and human encroachment. The research is looking at interannual through millennial-scale variability of bay salinity, sediment accumulation, and dissolved oxygen, temperature, and faunal and floral trends. Current and planned research is expected to result in better restoration strategies by improving our understanding of the linkages between the bay's ecosystem, climate, and land use. Chesapeake Bay, the United States' largest and most productive estuary, faces several complex environmental issues, including eutrophication and anoxia in the main channel and tributaries, high turbidity and rates of sedimentation, outbreaks of the toxic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida , and coastal erosion and submergence tied to sea-level rise. Such problems often are attributed to human activities in the bay's watershed, including pollution, urbanization, and deforestation, but it now is recognized that climatic factors also strongly influence bay salinity, temperature, and water quality.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2007

Changes in streamflow, concentrations, and loads in selected nontidal basins in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985-2006

Water-quality and streamflow data from 34 sites in nontidal parts of the Chesapeake Bay watershed are presented to document annual nutrient and sediment loads and trends for 1985 through 2006, as part of an annual evaluation of water-quality conditions by the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. This study presents the results of trends analysis for streamflow, loads, and concentrations. Annual mean flow to the bay for 2006 (78,650 cubic feet per second) was approximately 1 percent above the long-term annual mean flow from 1937 to 2005. Total freshwater flow entering the bay for the summer season (July-August-September) was the only season classified as 'wet' in 2006. For the period 1985 through 2006, streamflow was significantly increasing at two of the 34 sites. Observed (bias-corrected) concentration summaries indicate higher ranges in concentrations of total nitrogen in the northern major river basins (Pennsylvania, Maryland, and northern Virginia) than in the southern basins in Virginia. Results indicate almost half of the monitoring sites in the northern basins exhibited significant downward bias-corrected concentration trends in total nitrogen over time; results were similar for total phosphorus and sediment. Generally, loads for all constituents at the nine River Input Monitoring Program (RIM) sites, which comprise 78 percent of the streamflow entering the bay, were lower in 2006 than in 2005. The loads for total nitrogen are below the long-term average loads at eight of the nine RIM sites and total phosphorus and sediment loads are also below the long-term average at seven RIM sites. Combined annual mean total nitrogen flow-weighted concentrations from the nine RIM sites indicated an upward tendency in 2006; in contrast, total phosphorus and sediment indicated a downward tendency. From 1990 to 2006 for the 9 RIM sites, the mean concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment were 3.49, 0.195, and 116 milligrams per liter, respectively. Flow-weighted concentrations for phosphorus and sediment were lowest in the Susquehanna River at Conowingo, Md., most likely because of the trapping efficiency of three large reservoirs upstream from the sampling point. For all 34 sites and all constituents, trends in concentrations (not adjusted for flow) showed 12 statistically significant upward trends and 59 statistically significant downward trends for the period 1985 through 2006. When trends in concentrations are adjusted for flow, they can be used as indicators of human activity and effectiveness of management actions. The flow-adjusted trends indicated significant downward trends at approximately 74, 68, and 32 percent of the sites for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment, respectively. This may indicate that management actions are having some effect in reducing nutrients and sediments.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS2006

Development of land segmentation, stream-reach network, and watersheds in support of hydrological simulation program: Fortran (HSPF) modeling, Chesapeake Bay watershed, and adjacent parts of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia

The U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Maryland Department of the Environment, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science are collaborating on the Chesapeake Bay Regional Watershed Model, using Hydrological Simulation Program - FORTRAN to simulate streamflow and concentrations and loads of nutrients and sediment to Chesapeake Bay. The model will be used to provide information for resource managers. In order to establish a framework for model simulation, digital spatial datasets were created defining the discretization of the model region (including the Chesapeake Bay watershed, as well as the adjacent parts of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia outside the watershed) into land segments, a stream-reach network, and associated watersheds. Land segmentation was based on county boundaries represented by a 1:100,000-scale digital dataset. Fifty of the 254 counties and incorporated cities in the model region were divided on the basis of physiography and topography, producing a total of 309 land segments. The stream-reach network for the Chesapeake Bay watershed part of the model region was based on the U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay SPARROW (SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes) model stream-reach network. Because that network was created only for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the rest of the model region uses a 1:500,000-scale stream-reach network. Streams with mean annual streamflow of less than 100 cubic feet per second were excluded based on attributes from the dataset. Additional changes were made to enhance the data and to allow for inclusion of stream reaches with monitoring data that were not part of the original network. Thirty-meter-resolution Digital Elevation Model data were used to delineate watersheds for each stream reach. State watershed boundaries replaced the Digital Elevation Model-derived watersheds where coincident. After a number of corrections, the watersheds were coded to indicate major and minor basin, mean annual streamflow, and each watershed's unique identifier as well as that of the downstream watershed. Land segments and watersheds were intersected to create land-watershed segments for the model.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2006

Changes in streamflow and water quality in selected nontidal basins in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985-2004

As part of an annual evaluation of water-quality conditions by the Chesapeake Bay Program, water-quality and streamflow data from 32 sites in nontidal parts of the Chesapeake Bay watershed were analyzed to document annual nutrient and sediment trends for 1985 through 2004. This study also formalized different trend tests and methodologies used in assessing the effectiveness of man-agement actions in reducing nutrients and sediments to the Chesapeake Bay. Trends in streamflow were tested at multiple time scales (daily, seasonal, and annual), resulting in only one significant trend (annual-mean streamflow for the Choptank River near Greensboro, Md.). Total freshwater flow entering the bay for the July-August-September 'summer' season 2004 was the highest ever estimated for that 3-month period (1937-2004). Observed (unbiased) concentration summaries indi-cate higher ranges in total-nitrogen concentrations in the northern major river basins, those in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and northern Virginia, compared to the more southern basins in Virginia. Almost half of the monitoring sites in the northern basins exhibited significant downward trends in total nitrogen with time. Comparisons with total phosphorus and sediment showed similar results to total nitrogen. Monthly and annual loads were available for the River Input Monitoring Program sites from the U.S. Geological Survey. Although loads were significantly reduced from 2003, in 2004, the combined estimated total nitrogen loads were the third highest since 1990, whereas total phosphorus and sediment loads were the fifth highest. A flow-weighted concentration (FWC) is useful in evaluating changes through time. Combined annual mean total nitrogen FWC from the 9 River Input Monitoring Program sites indicated a downward tendency from 1985 through 1998 and an upward tendency since 2001. From 1990 to 2004, the mean concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment were 1.58, 0.085, and 51 milligrams per liter, respectively. Flow-weighted concentrations for phosphorus and sediment were lower in the Susquehanna River at Conowingo, Md., most likely due to the trapping efficiency of three large reservoirs upstream from the sampling point. Trends in concentrations, not adjusted for flow, identified 10 statistically significant upward trends, and 50 statistically significant downward trends in concentration for the period 1985 through 2004. 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 downward trends at approx-imately 72, 81, and 43 percent of the sites for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment, respectively. This indicates that management actions are having some effect in reducing nutrients and sediments.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania↗
USGS2004

Digital data used to relate nutrient inputs to water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, version 3.0

Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts are focused on improving water quality, living resources, and ecological habitats by 2010. One aspect of the water-quality restoration is the refinement of strategies designed to implement nutrient-reduction practices within the Bay watershed. These strategies are being refined and implemented by resource managers of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), a partnership comprised of various Federal, State, and local agencies that includes jurisdictions within Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), an active member of the CBP, provides necessary water-quality information for these Chesapeake Bay nutrient-reduction strategy revisions and evaluations. The formulation and revision of effective nutrient-reduction strategies requires detailed scientific information and an analytical understanding of the sources, transport, and delivery of nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay. The USGS is supporting these strategies by providing scientific information to resource managers that can help them evaluate and understand these processes. One statistical model available to resource managers is a collection of SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed (SPARROW) attributes, which uses a nonlinear regression approach to spatially relate nutrient sources and watershed characteristics to nutrient loads of streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Developed by the USGS, information generated by SPARROW can help resource managers determine the geographical distribution and relative contribution of nutrient sources and the factors that affect their transport to the Bay. Nutrient source information representing the late 1990s time period was obtained from several agencies and used to create and compile digital spatial datasets of total nitrogen and total phosphorus contributions that served as input sources to the SPARROW models. These data represent atmospheric deposition, point-source locations, land-use, land-cover, and agricultural sources such as commercial fertilizer and manure applications. Watershed-characteristics datasets representing factors that affect the transport of nutrients also were compiled from previous applications of the SPARROW models in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Datasets include average-annual precipitation and temperature, slope, soil permeability, and hydrogeomorphic regions. Nutrient-input and watershed-characteristics datasets representing conditions during the late 1990s were merged with a connected network of stream reaches and watersheds to provide the spatial detail required by SPARROW. Stream-nutrient load estimates for 125 sampling sites (87 for total nitrogen and 103 for total phosphorus) served as the dependent variables for the regressions, and were used to calibrate models of total nitrogen and total phosphorus depicting late 1990s conditions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Spatial data generated for the models can be used to identify the location of nutrient sources, while the models' nutrient estimates can be used to evaluate stream-nutrient load contributed locally by each source evaluated, the amount of local load generated that is transported to the Bay, and the factors that affect the nutrient transport. Applying the SPARROW methodology to late 1990s information completes three time periods (late 1980s, early 1990s, and late 1990s) of viable data that resource managers can use to evaluate the water-quality conditions within the Bay watershed in order to refine restoration goals and nutrient-reduction strategies.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2003

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↗
USGS2002

The U.S. Geological Survey and the Chesapeake Bay – The role of science in environmental restoration

The Chesapeake Bay is the Nation's largest estuary and historically supported one of the most productive fisheries in the world. In addition to supporting aquatic communities and wildlife, the bay's watershed serves the economic and recreational needs of 15 million people. The fertile soils of the watershed support significant agricultural production. Unfortunately, the commercial, economic, and recreational value of the bay and its watershed has been degraded by poor water quality, loss of habitat, and overharvesting of living resources. Since the early 1980's, the Chesapeake Bay Program, which is a partnership among Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Federal Government, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, has been formulating and implementing restoration goals to restore living resources, minimize habitat loss, and reduce the amount of nutrients, sediment, and toxic substances entering the bay. The U.S. Geological Survey has the critical role of providing unbiased scientific information to be used in helping to formulate, implement, and assess the effectiveness of restoration goals in the bay and its watershed.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2001

Preliminary lithogeochemical map showing near-surface rock types in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, Virginia and Maryland

This preliminary experimental lithogeochemical map shows the distribution of rock types in the Virginia and Maryland parts of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The map was produced digitally by classifying geologic-map units according to composition, mineralogy, and texture; rather than by age and stratigraphic relationships as shown on traditional geologic maps. This map differs from most lithologic maps in that the lithogeochemical unit classification distinguishes those rock units having key water-reactive minerals that may induce acid neutralization, or reduction, of hosted water at the weathering interface. The validity of these rock units, however, is independent of water chemistry, because the rock units are derived from geologic maps and rock descriptions. Areas of high soil carbon content, and sulfide metal deposits are also shown. Water-reactive minerals and their weathering reactions yield five lithogeochemical unit classes: 1) carbonate rock and calcareous rocks and sediments, the most acid-neutralizing; 2)carbonaceous-sulfidic rocks and sediments, oxygen-depleting and reducing; 3) quartzofeldspathic rocks and siliciclastic sediments, relatively weakly reactive with water; 4) mafic silicate rocks/sediments, oxygen consuming and high solute-load delivering; and, 5) the rarer calcareous-sulfidic (carbonaceous) rocks, neutralizing and reducing. Earlier studies in some parts of the map area have related solute loads in ground and stream waters to some aspects of bedrock lithology. More recent preliminary tests of relationships between four of the classes of mapped lithogeochemical units and ground water chemistry, in the Mid-Atlantic area using this map, have focused on and verified the nitrate-reducing and acid-neutralizing properties of some bedrock and unconsolidated aquifer rock types. Sulfide mineral deposits and their mine-tailings effects on waters are beginning to be studied by others. Additional testing of relationships among the lithogeochemical units and aspects of ground and surface water chemistry could help to refine the lithogeochemical classification, and this map. The testing could also improve the usefulness of the map for assessing aquifer reactivity and the transport properties of reactive contaminants such as acid rain, and nitrate from agricultural sources, in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2000

Factors affecting nutrient trends in major rivers of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Trends in nutrient loads and flow-adjusted concentrations in the major rivers entering Chesapeake Bay were computed on the basis of water-quality data collected between 1985 and 1998 at 29 monitoring stations in the Susquehanna, Potomac, James, Rappahannock, York, Patuxent, and Choptank River Basins. Two computer models-the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (WSM) and the U.S. Geological Survey's 'Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes' (SPARROW) Model-were used to help explain the major factors affecting the trends. Results from WSM simulations provided information on temporal changes in contributions from major nutrient sources, and results from SPARROW model simulations provided spatial detail on the distribution of nutrient yields in these basins. Additional data on nutrient sources, basin characteristics, implementation of management practices, and ground-water inputs to surface water were analyzed to help explain the trends. The major factors affecting the trends were changes in nutrient sources and natural variations in streamflow. The dominant source of nitrogen and phosphorus from 1985 to 1998 in six of the seven tributary basins to Chesapeake Bay was determined to be agriculture. Because of the predominance of agricultural inputs, changes in agricultural nutrient sources such as manure and fertilizer, combined with decreases in agricultural acreage and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), had the greatest impact on the trends in flow-adjusted nutrient concentrations. Urban acreage and population, however, were noted to be increasing throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and as a result, delivered loads of nutrients from urban areas increased during the study period. Overall, agricultural nutrient management, in combination with load decreases from point sources due to facility upgrades and the phosphate detergent ban, led to downward trends in flow-adjusted nutrient concentrations atmany of the monitoring stations in the watershed. The loads of nutrients, however, were not reduced significantly at most of the monitoring stations. This is due primarily to higher streamflow in the latter years of the monitoring period, which led to higher loading in those years. Results of this study indicate a need for more detailed information on BMP effectiveness under a full range of hydrologic conditions and in different areas of the watershed; an internally consistent fertilizer data set; greater consideration of the effects of watershed processes on nutrient transport; a refinement of current modeling efforts; and an expansion of the non-tidal monitoring network in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS1999

Application of spatially referenced regression modeling for the evaluation of total nitrogen loading in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

The reduction of stream nutrient loads is an important part of current efforts to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. To design programs that will effectively reduce stream nutrient loading, resource managers need spatially detailed information that describes the location of nutrient sources and the watershed factors that affect delivery of nutrients to the Bay. To address this need, the U.S. Geological Survey has developed a set of spatially referenced regression models for the evaluation of nutrient loading in the watershed. The technique applied for this purpose is referred to as ?SPARROW? (SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes), which is a statistical modeling approach that retains spatial referencing for illustrating predictions, and for relating upstream nutrient sources to downstream nutrient loads. SPARROW is based on a digital stream-network data set that is composed of stream segments (reaches) that are attributed with traveltime and connectivity information. Drainage-basin boundaries are defined for each stream reach in the network data set through the use of a digital elevation model. For the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the spatial network was developed using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?s River Reach File 1 digital stream network, and is composed of 1,408 stream reaches and watershed segments. To develop a SPARROW model for total nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, data sets for sources and basin characteristics were incorporated into the spatial network and related to stream-loading information by using a nonlinear regression model approach. Total nitrogen source variables that were statistically significant in the model include point sources, urban area, fertilizer application, manure generation and atmospheric deposition. Total nitrogen loss variables that were significant in the model include soil permeability and instream-loss rates for four stream-reach classes. Applications of SPARROW for evaluating total nitrogen loading in the Chesapeake Bay watershed include the illustration of the spatial distributions of total nitrogen yields and of the potential for delivery of those yields to the Bay. This information is being used by the Chesapeake Bay Program to target nutrient-reduction areas (Priority Nutrient Reduction Areas) and to design nutrient-load reduction plans that are specific to each tributary (Tributary Strategies).

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS1998

Ground-water discharge and base-flow nitrate loads of nontidal streams, and their relation to a hydrogeomorphic classification of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, middle Atlantic Coast

Existing data on base-flow and groundwater nitrate loads were compiled and analyzed to assess the significance of groundwater discharge as a source of the nitrate load to nontidal streams of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These estimates were then related to hydrogeomorphic settings based on lithology and physiographic province to provide insight on the areal distribution of ground-water discharge. Base-flow nitrate load accounted for 26 to about 100 percent of total-flow nitrate load, with a median value of 56 percent, and it accounted for 17 to 80 percent of total-flow total-nitrogen load, with a median value of 48 percent. Hydrograph separations were conducted on continuous streamflow records from 276 gaging stations within the watershed. The values for base flow thus calculated were considered an estimate of ground-water discharge. The ratio of base flow to total flow provided an estimate of the relative importance of ground-water discharge within a basin. Base-flow nitrate loads, total-flow nitrate loads, and total-flow total-nitrogen loads were previously computed from water-quality and discharge measurements by use of a regression model. Base-flow nitrate loads were available from 78 stations, total-flow nitrate loads were available from 86 stations, and total-flow total-nitrogen loads were available for 48 stations. The percentage of base-flow nitrate load to total-flow nitrate load could be computed for 57 stations, whereas the percentage of base-flow nitrate load to totalflow total-nitrogen load could be computed for 36 stations. These loads were divided by the basin area to obtain yields, which were used to compare the nitrate discharge from basins of different sizes. The results indicate that ground-water discharge is a significant source of water and nitrate to the total streamflow and nitrate load. Base flow accounted for 16 to 92 percent of total streamflow at the 276 sampling sites, with a median value of 54 percent. It is estimated that of the 50 billion gallons of water that reaches the Chesapeake Bay each day, nearly 27 billion gallons is base flow. Generalized lithology (siliciclastic, carbonate, crystalline, and unconsolidated) was combined with physiographic province (the Appalachian Plateau, the Valley and Ridge, the Blue Ridge, the Piedmont, including the Mesozoic Lowland section, and the Coastal Plain) to delineate 11 hydrogeomorphic regions. Areal variation of base flow and base-flow nitrate yield were assessed by means of nonparametric, one-way analysis of variance on basins grouped by the dominant hydrogeomorphic region and by correlation analysis of base flow or base-flow nitrate yield with the percentage of land area of a given hydrogeomorphic region within a basin. Base flow appeared to have a significant relation to the hydrogeomorphic regions. The highest percentages of base flow were found in areas underlain by carbonate rock, crystalline rock with relatively low relief, and unconsolidated sediments. Lower percentages were found in areas underlain by siliclastic rocks and crystalline rocks with relatively high relief. The relation between base-flow nitrate yield and hydrogeomorphic region is less clear. Although there is a relation between low nitrate yields and areas underlain by highrelief siliciclastic rocks, and a relation between high yields and carbonate rocks, much of this relation can be explained by the strong association between the hydrogeomorphic units and land use. In addition, most basins are mixtures of several hydrogeomorphic regions, so the nitrate yield from a basin depends on a large number of complex interacting factors. These unclear results indicate that the sample of available data used here may not be adequate to fully assess the relation between base-flow nitrate yield and the hydrogeomorphic setting of the basin. The results appear to show, however, that ground-water discharge is an important component of the total nontidal streamflow, and that ground-water discharge varies according to the hydrogeomorphic regions. Environmental management of the nontidal streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed will thus have to consider the prevention of nutrient infiltration into aquifers as well as prevention of overland runoff of high-nitrogen waters.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS1996

January 1996 floods deliver large loads of nutrients and sediment to the Chesapeake Bay

The Blizzard of 1996 struck the Mid-Atlantic region in January, depositing a record amount of snowfall. Within two weeks of the paralyzing blizzard, warm and extremely humid air entered the region, followed by a major rainstorm. The combination of warm, humid air and heavy rainfall melted the snow at an unprecedented rate. In just over one day, two to five inches of water from snowmelt combined with two to five inches of rainfall, resulting in widespread major flooding throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, including the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The January 1996 storm caused severe flooding on many Chesapeake Bay tributaries. As a result of the flooding, large amounts of nutrients and sediment entered the Bay. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitored the amount of streamflow, nutrients, and sediment that entered the Chesapeake Bay as a result of the flood. This information is used to evaluate the effect of hydrologic events of this magnitude on the Bay's health and living resources.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS1976

Infection and mortality in captive wild-trapped canvasback ducks

Fungal, bacterial and malarial infections, as well as malnutrition caused heavy mortality in a group of wild-trapped canvasbacks ( Aythya valisineria ) held in 10 × 3 × 2 m open water pens. Deaths occurred between 21 and 158 days after confinement and were associated with infections of Aspergillus fumigatus , Escherichia coli , Staphylococcus sp., Streptococcus sp., Klebsiella sp., Enterobacter sp., and Plasmodium sp. Infection and mortality was believed to result from reduced resistance associated with confinement. Fourteen canvasbacks released onto large ponds survived throughout the period during which the penned birds died.

Maryland, Virginia↗