Geology topics

Research about Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Stressor-driven changes in freshwater biological indicators inform spatial management strategies using expert knowledge, observational data, and hierarchical models

Stream ecosystems face continuous pressures from multiple anthropogenic stressors that reshape biological communities and impact ecosystem health and services. Managers can encounter challenges in stewarding ecosystems threatened by multiple stressors, in part because most multiple stressor studies are experimental and, while valuable, offer limited management relevance in targeting these stressors on the landscape. Recent advances in causal inference coupled with large biomonitoring data sets could further understanding of observational stressor-response relationships, aiding management. In this study, we use bioassessment data in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States to identify how water quality and physical habitat stressors influence key benthic macroinvertebrate response metrics, considering hierarchical relationships using Bayesian networks. Results suggest water temperature and specific conductivity were prevalent stressors in a mountainous region (northern Appalachians), whereas in an agriculturally dominated region (southern Appalachians) physical habitat alterations were the predominant stressor. In mixed-land use regions (Piedmont & Coastal Plains), specific conductivity was a key stressor, but habitat heterogeneity was important for macroinvertebrate metrics. To illustrate how these stressor-response relationships can be used to guide management decisions, we applied the resist-accept-direct (RAD) framework to develop a portfolio of management options based on predicted changes in macroinvertebrate metrics in response to physical habitat and water quality stressors. For example, accepting changes in areas with co-occurring stressors may be the most feasible option, whereas directing changes through stream restoration or water quality improvements may be effective in areas with single stressor groups. By leveraging observational bioassessment data and causal inference to identify key stressor-response relationships, this research supports decision making by building a simple, strategic management portfolio.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2025

Physical habitat is more than a sediment issue: A multi-dimensional habitat assessment indicates new approaches for river management

Degraded physical habitat is a common stressor affecting river ecosystems and typically addressed in the United States (US) through a regulatory focus on sediment. However, a narrow regulatory focus on sediment may overlook other aspects of physical habitat and the processes for its creation, maintenance, and degradation. In addition, there exist few “ready-to-use” regional assessments of the multiple dimensions of physical habitat to better understand continuous patterns of condition and prioritize management efforts across a large spatial scale. In this study, we use rapid habitat monitoring data to train a machine-learning ( i.e., random forest) model to predict twelve physical habitat metrics for nearly 120,000 km of nontidal rivers and streams across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, US. We capture a range of habitat conditions driven by both natural variables and anthropogenic pressures. Covariation among habitat metrics indicated two major dimensions of habitat variation: 1) coarse bed substrate and hydromorphic heterogeneity and 2) bank stability and riparian condition. The model predicted localized changes from 2001 to 2019, and the predicted areas of deterioration roughly balanced improvements across the watershed, indicating little progress towards long-term watershed management goals. To evaluate connections to regulatory and management endpoints, we compared our physical habitat predictions to paired estimates of sediment and flow alteration across the region. Sediment concentrations were greater in reaches with less bank stability and lower riparian quality; however, the relation was weak for coarse bed condition metrics, including embeddedness, which is frequently used for establishing regulatory sediment restrictions. For flow alteration, most habitat metrics had lower scores with altered flow metrics, but metrics of instream habitat heterogeneity and coarse substrate condition were most strongly affected. Increased flashy, high flows negatively affected most metrics, but coarse substrate metrics were also negatively affected by greater low flow severity. This study highlights a potential disconnect between a narrow focus on regulatory sediment targets given the multiple dimensions and responses of physical habitat. A more holistic approach to physical habitat in management interventions – one that considers hydromorphic processes, diversity and variability in microhabitats, and explicit consideration of alterations to both low and high flows – may be warranted. By providing direct estimates of multiple aspects of physical habitat, this model can help support managers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to better understand the range of habitat conditions, identify high-quality reaches for conservation, and target potential management actions tailored to localized conditions.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2024

Tissue distribution and temporal and spatial assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) in the mid-Atlantic United States

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have become an environmental issue worldwide. A first step to assessing potential adverse effects on fish populations is to determine if concentrations of concern are present in a region and if so, in which watersheds. Hence, plasma from adult smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu collected at 10 sites within 4 river systems in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States, from 2014 to 2019, was analyzed for 13 PFAS. These analyses were directed at better understanding the presence and associations with land use attributes in an important sportfish. Four substances, PFOS, PFDA, PFUnA, and PFDoA, were detected in every plasma sample, with PFOS having the highest concentrations. Sites with mean plasma concentrations of PFOS below 100 ng/ml had the lowest percentage of developed landcover in the upstream catchments. Sites with moderate plasma concentrations (mean PFOS concentrations between 220 and 240 ng/ml) had low (< 7.0) percentages of developed land use but high (> 30) percentages of agricultural land use. Sites with mean plasma concentrations of PFOS > 350 ng/ml had the highest percentage of developed land use and the highest number PFAS facilities that included military installations and airports. Four of the sites were part of a long-term monitoring project, and PFAS concentrations of samples collected in spring 2017, 2018, and 2019 were compared. Significant annual differences in plasma concentrations were noted that may relate to sources and climatic factors. Samples were also collected at two sites for tissue (plasma, whole blood, liver, gonad, muscle) distribution analyses with an expanded analyte list of 28 PFAS. Relative tissue distributions were not consistent even within one species of similar ages. Although the long-chained legacy PFAS were generally detected more frequently and at higher concentrations, emerging compounds such as 6:2 FTS and GEN X were detected in a variety of tissues.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

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↗

USGS2021

USGS Chesapeake Science Strategy 2021-2025

The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is a national treasure that provides almost $100 billion annually of goods and services. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), is one of the largest federal-state restoration partnerships in the United States and is underpinned by rigorous science. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a pivotal role as a science provider for assessing ecosystem condition and response in the Chesapeake watershed. Despite significant CBP accomplishments, the pressures of climate change and competing demands on land use and change require an acceleration of progress towards the 10 goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. USGS Chesapeake studies are increasing efforts to provide integrated science and are engaging stakeholders to inform the multi-faceted restoration and conservation decisions to improve habitat for fish and waterfowl, and socio-economic benefits to the 18 million people living in the watershed.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2020

Estimating streamflow and base flow within the nontidal Chesapeake Bay riverine system

Daily mean streamflow was estimated for all the nontidal parts of the Chesapeake Bay riverine system with the Unit Flows in Networks of Channels computer application using measured streamflow at the most downstream gage of selected rivers. The streamflows estimated by the Unit Flows in Networks of Channels computer application were aggregated at the 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code level, after which base flow was estimated by two hydrograph-separation methods. Based on six sites selected for comparison, modeled streamflows are typically within an order of magnitude of measured streamflows, and monthly mean streamflows are in better agreement than daily streamflows. For the six selected sites, the base-flow values calculated by the two hydrograph-separation methods were compared. The monthly base-flow values also were in better agreement than the daily base-flow values. The modeled data were animated to better visualize spatial and temporal variability of streamflow and base-flow index.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2020

Disentangling the potential effects of land-use and climate change on stream conditions

Land‐use and climate change are significantly affecting stream ecosystems, yet understanding of their long‐term impacts is hindered by the few studies that have simultaneously investigated their interaction and high variability among future projections. We modeled possible effects of a suite of 2030, 2060, and 2090 land‐use and climate scenarios on the condition of 70,772 small streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, United States. The Chesapeake Basin‐wide Index of Biotic Integrity, a benthic macroinvertebrate multimetric index, was used to represent stream condition. Land‐use scenarios included four Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (A1B, A2, B1, and B2) representing a range of potential landscape futures. Future climate scenarios included quartiles of future climate changes from downscaled Coupled Model Intercomparison Project ‐ Phase 5 (CMIP5) and a watershed‐wide uniform scenario (Lynch2016). We employed random forests analysis to model individual and combined effects of land‐use and climate change on stream conditions. Individual scenarios suggest that by 2090, watershed‐wide conditions may exhibit anywhere from large degradations (e.g., scenarios A1B, A2, and the CMIP5 25th percentile) to small degradations (e.g., scenarios B1, B2, and Lynch2016). Combined land‐use and climate change scenarios highlighted their interaction and predicted, by 2090, watershed‐wide degradation in 16.2% (A2 CMIP5 25th percentile) to 1.0% (B2 Lynch2016) of stream kilometers. A goal for the Chesapeake Bay watershed is to restore 10% of stream kilometers over a 2008 baseline; our results suggest meeting and sustaining this goal until 2090 may require improvement in 11.0%–26.2% of stream kilometers, dependent on land‐use and climate scenario. These results highlight inherent variability among scenarios and the resultant uncertainty of predicted conditions, which reinforces the need to incorporate multiple scenarios of both land‐use (e.g., development, agriculture, etc.) and climate change in future studies to encapsulate the range of potential future conditions.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2020

Ecological risk assessment of environmental stress and bioactive chemicals to riverine fish populations: An individual-based model of smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu

Ecological risk assessments play an important role in environmental management and decision-making. Although empirical measurements of the effects of habitat changes and chemical exposure are often made at molecular and individual levels, environmental decision-making often requires the quantification of management-relevant, population-level outcomes. In this study, we generalized a modeling framework to evaluate population-level ecological risk of environmental stress and bioactive chemicals. The modeling framework includes (1) a biological model module that incorporates complex and interacting biological and ecological processes, and environmental stochasticity, (2) an effect module that links the impacts of environmental changes and chemical exposure to individual characteristics, and (3) a population module that makes decisions on the choice of population-level properties to best capture the effects and thus to track in the model based on the target species and the research and management interest. This framework is a 3-module procedure that provides an alternative way for researchers to organize, present and communicate the risk assessment modeling studies. To demonstrate this framework, we used a socioeconomically important riverine fish species, smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu , as the model species. We developed an individual-based model as the biological model module. We evaluated the impacts of changing water temperature and flow regimes, and the impacts of exposure to estrogenic endocrine disrupting compounds (EEDC) on smallmouth bass populations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA. Warm summer water temperatures and year-round high flows had the most severe impacts on the smallmouth bass population. An increase in exposure level to EEDC, both year-round and in summer months, substantially reduced population size, spawner and recruit abundance, and the proportion of quality-length individuals. Acute exposure to EEDC was more detrimental to the population than chronic exposure. Acute exposure during spawning season had the most severe impacts. This modeling framework can be extended to other species, environmental factors and chemicals, and can be used to inform management and conservation decisions.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2020

Spatiotemporal variation in occurrence and co-occurrence of pesticides, hormones, and other organic contaminants in rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, United States

Investigating the spatiotemporal dynamics of contaminants in surface water is crucial to better understand how introduced chemicals are interacting with and potentially influencing aquatic organisms and environments. Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA, there are concerns about the potential role of contaminant exposure on fish health. Evidence suggests that exposure to contaminants in surface water is causing immunosuppression and intersex in freshwater fish species. Despite these concerns, there is a paucity of information regarding the complex dynamics of contaminant occurrence and co-occurrence in surface water across both space and time. To address these concerns, we applied a Bayesian hierarchical joint-contaminant model to describe the occurrence and co-occurrence patterns of 28 contaminants and total estrogenicity across six river sites and over three years. We found that seasonal occurrence patterns varied by contaminant, with the highest occurrence probabilities during the spring and summer months. Additionally, we found that the proportion of agricultural landcover in the immediate catchment, as well as stream discharge, did not have a significant effect on the occurrence probabilities of most compounds. Four pesticides (atrazine, metolachlor, fipronil and simazine) co-occurred across sites after accounting for environmental covariates. These results provide baseline information on the contaminant occurrence patterns of several classes of compounds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Understanding the spatiotemporal dynamics of contaminants in surface water is the first step in investigating the effects of contaminant exposure on fisheries and aquatic environments.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2019

Response of nitrogen loading to the Chesapeake Bay to source reduction and land use change scenarios: A SPARROW‐informed analysis

In response to concerns regarding the health of streams and receiving waters, the United States Environmental Protection Agency established a total maximum daily load for nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay watershed for which practices must be in place by 2025 resulting in an expected 25% reduction in load from 2009 levels. The response of total nitrogen (TN) loads delivered to the Bay to nine source reduction and land use change scenarios was estimated using a Spatially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes model. The largest predicted reduction in TN load delivered to the Bay was associated with a scenario in which the mass of TN as fertilizer applied to agricultural lands was decreased. A 25% decrease in the mass of TN applied as fertilizer resulted in a predicted reduction in TN loading to the Bay of 11.3%, which was 2.5–5 times greater than the reductions predicted by other scenarios. Eliminating fertilizer application to all agricultural land in the watershed resulted in a predicted reduction in TN load to the Bay of 45%. It was estimated that an approximate 25% reduction in TN loading to the Bay could be achieved by eliminating fertilizer applied to the 7% of subwatersheds contributing the greatest fertilizer‐sourced TN loads to the Bay. These results indicate that management strategies aimed at decreasing loading from a small number of subwatersheds may be effective for reducing TN loads to the Bay, and similar analyses are possible in other watersheds.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2019

Point sources and agricultural practices control spatial-temporal patterns of orthophosphate in tributaries to Chesapeake Bay

Orthophosphate (PO 4 ) is the most bioavailable form of phosphorus (P). Excess PO 4 may cause harmful algal blooms in aquatic ecosystems. A major restoration effort is underway for Chesapeake Bay (CB) to reduce P, nitrogen, and sediment loading to CB. Although PO 4 cycling and delivery to streams has been characterized in small-scale studies, regional drivers of PO 4 patterns remain poorly understood because most water quality trend assessment focus on total P. Moreover, these trend assessments are usually at an annual timestep. To address this research gap, we analyzed PO 4 patterns over a 9-year period at 53 monitoring stations across the CB watershed to: 1) characterize the role of PO 4 in total P fluxes and trends; 2) describe spatial and temporal patterns of PO 4 concentrations across seasons and streamflow ; and 3) explore factors explaining these patterns. Agricultural watersheds exported the most total P compared with watersheds under different land uses (e.g., urban or forest), with PO 4 comprising up to 50% of those exports. Although PO 4 exports are declining at many sites, some agricultural regions are experiencing increasing trends at a rate sufficient to drive total P trends. Regression modeling results suggest that point source load reductions are likely responsible for decreasing PO 4 concentrations observed at many sites. Watersheds with more Conservation Reserve Program enrollment had lower summer PO 4 concentrations, highlighting the effectiveness of this practice. Manure inputs strongly predicted PO 4 concentrations at high flows across all seasons. Both manure applications and conservation tillage were correlated with changes in PO 4 concentrations at high flow, suggesting these activities could contribute to increasing PO 4 concentrations. This study highlights the effectiveness of point source control for reducing PO 4 exports and underscores the need for management strategies to target sources, practices, and landscape factors determining PO 4 loss from soils where manure inputs remain high.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2018

Accuracy assessment of NLCD 2011 impervious cover data for the Chesapeake Bay region, USA

The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) contains three eras (2001, 2006, 2011) of percentage urban impervious cover (%IC) at the native pixel size (30 m-x-30 m) of the Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite. These data are potentially valuable to environmental managers and stakeholders because of the utility of %IC as an indicator of watershed and aquatic condition, but lack an accuracy assessment because of the absence of suitable reference data. Recently developed 1 m2 land cover data for the Chesapeake Bay region makes it possible to assess NLCD %IC accuracy for a 262,000 km2 region based on a census rather than a sample of reference data. We report agreement between the two %IC datasets for watersheds and the riparian zones within watersheds and four additional square units. The areas of the six assessment units were 40 ha cell, 433 ha (riparian unit average), 2,756 ha cell, 5,626 ha cell, 8,569 ha (watershed unit average) and 22,500 ha cell. Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) was ≤ 1.6% for each of the six assessment units and Mean Deviation (MD) was only slightly less, indicating NLCD reliably reproduced %IC from the 1 m2 data with a small (≤ 1.6%) and consistent tendency for underestimation. Results were sensitive to assessment unit choice. The results for the four largest assessment units had very similar regression parameters, R2 values, and patterns of bias. Results for the riparian assessment were different from those for the watershed unit and the other three larger units. MAD was about 50% less for the riparian zones than it was for the watersheds, the direction of bias was less consistent, and NLCD %IC was uniformly higher than 1 m2 %IC in urbanized riparian zones. For the smallest unit, bias patterns were more similar to the riparian unit and regression results were more similar to the four larger units. MAD and MD were also sensitive to the amount of urbanization, increasing as NLCD %IC increased. The low overall bias and positive relationship between bias and level of urbanization suggest that the benefits of obtaining 1 m2 IC data outside of urban areas may not outweigh the costs of obtaining such data.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Science—Improving the value of the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Introduction Congress directed the Federal Government to work with States to restore the Nation’s largest estuary. Chesapeake Bay restoration provides important economic and ecological benefits: 18 million people live and work in the Bay watershed and enjoy its benefits. 3,600 types of fish, wildlife, and plants underpin the economic value of the Bay ecosystem. Poor water quality and habitat loss threaten restoration and negatively impact the economy. 10 Goals to meet by 2025 through the Chesapeake Bay Program, a voluntary partnership.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2015

Air- and stream-water-temperature trends in the Chesapeake Bay region, 1960-2014

Water temperature is a basic, but important, measure of the condition of all aquatic environments, including the flowing waters in the streams that drain our landscape and the receiving waters of those streams. Climatic conditions have a strong influence on water temperature, which is therefore naturally variable both in time and across the landscape. Changes to natural water-temperature regimes, however, can result in a myriad of effects on aquatic organisms, water quality, circulation patterns, recreation, industry, and utility operations. For example, most species of fish, insects, and other organisms, as well as aquatic vegetation, are highly dependent on water temperature. Warming waters can result in shifts in floral and faunal species distributions, including invasive species and pathogens previously unable to inhabit the once cooler streams. Many chemical processes are temperature dependent, with reactions occurring faster in warmer conditions, leading to degraded water quality as contaminants are released into waterways at greater rates. Circulation patterns in receiving waters, such as bays and estuaries, can change as a result of warmer inflows from streams, thereby affecting organisms in those receiving waters. Changes in abundance of some aquatic species and (or) degradation of water quality can reduce the recreational value of water bodies as waters are perceived as less desirable for water-related activities or as sportfish become less available for anglers. Finally, increasing water temperatures can affect industry and utilities as the thermal capacity is reduced, making the water less effective for cooling purposes. Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. Eutrophication, the enrichment of a water body with excess nutrients, has plagued the bay for decades and has led to extensive restoration efforts throughout the bay watershed. The warming of stream water can exacerbate eutrophication through increased release of nutrients from in-stream sediments, so understanding changes in stream-water temperature throughout the bay watershed is critical to resource managers seeking to restore the bay ecosystem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses indicators that “represent the state or trend of certain environmental or societal conditions … to track and better understand the effects of changes in the Earth’s climate” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Updates to these indicators are published biennially by the EPA. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the EPA, has completed analyses of air- and stream-water-temperature trends in the Chesapeake Bay region to be included as an indicator in a future release of the EPA report.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2015

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↗

USGS2012

Chesapeake Bay Watershed - Protecting the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers through science, restoration, and partnership

The Chesapeake Bay, the Nation's largest estuary, has been degraded due to the impact of human-population increase, which has doubled since 1950, resulting in degraded water quality, loss of habitat, and declines in populations of biological communities. Since the mid-1980s, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), a multi-agency partnership which includes the Department of Interior (DOI), has worked to restore the Bay ecosystem. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has the critical role of providing unbiased scientific information that is utilized to document and understand ecosystem change to help assess the effectiveness of restoration strategies in the Bay and its watershed. The USGS revised its Chesapeake Bay science plan for 2006-2011 to address the collective needs of the CBP, DOI, and USGS with a mission to provide integrated science for improved understanding and management of the Bay ecosystem. The USGS science themes for this mission are: Causes and consequences of land-use change; Impact of climate change and associated hazards; Factors affecting water quality and quantity; Ability of habitat to support fish and bird populations; and Synthesis and forecasting to improve ecosystem assessment, conservation, and restoration.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2012

Nutrient and suspended-sediment trends, loads, and yields and development of an indicator of streamwater quality at nontidal sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 1985-2010

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) updates information on loads of, and trends in, nutrients and sediment annually to help the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) investigators assess progress toward improving water-quality conditions in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. CBP scientists and managers have worked since 1983 to improve water quality in the bay. In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL specifies nutrient and sediment load allocations that need to be achieved in the watershed to improve dissolved oxygen, water-clarity, and chlorophyll conditions in the bay. The USEPA, USGS, and state and local jurisdictions in the watershed operate a CBP nontidal water-quality monitoring network and associated database that are used to update load and trend information to help assess progress toward reducing nutrient and sediment inputs to the bay. Data collected from the CBP nontidal network were used to estimate loads and trends for two time periods: a long-term period (1985-2010) at 31 "primary" sites (with storm sampling) and a 10-year period (2001-10) at 33 primary sites and 16 "secondary" sites (without storm sampling). In addition, loads at 64 primary sites were estimated for the period 2006 to 2010. Results indicate improving flow-adjusted trends for nitrogen and phosphorus for 1985 to 2010 at most of the sites in the network. For nitrogen, 21 of the 31 sites showed downward (improving) trends, whereas 2 sites showed upward (degrading) trends, and 8 sites showed no trends. The results for phosphorus were similar: 22 sites showed improving trends, 4 sites showed degrading trends, and 5 sites indicated no trends. For sediment, no trend was found at 40 percent of the sites, with 10 sites showing improving trends and 8 sites showing degrading trends. The USGS, working with CBP partners, developed a new water-quality indicator that combines the results of the 10-year trend analysis with results from a greater number of sites (64 primary sites) where loads and yields of total nitrogen and phosphorus and sediment could be calculated. The new indicator shows fewer significant trends for the 10-year time period than for the long-term time period (1985-2010). For 2001-10, total nitrogen trends were downward (improving) at 14 sites and upward (degrading) at 2 sites; no trend was found at 17 sites. For total phosphorus, 12 sites showed improving trends, 4 sites showed degrading trends, and 17 sites showed no trend. For total sediment, most sites (21) did not exhibit a significant trend; 3 sites showed improving trends, and 10 sites showed degrading trends. Few significant trends were seen at the 16 secondary sites: improving trends for total nitrogen at 4 sites, improving trends for total phosphorus at 2 sites, and a degrading trend for sediment at 1 site. Total streamflow to the Chesapeake Bay was 20 percent higher in 2010 than in 2009 and is considered to be within the normal range of flow, whereas annual streamflow at 28 sites was greater in 2010 than in 2009. No trends in daily streamflow were detected at the 31 long-term sites. Combined loads for the farthest downstream nontidal monitoring sites (called "River Input Monitoring sites") increased 33 percent for total nitrogen, 120 percent for total phosphorus, and 330 percent for total sediment from 2009 to 2010. The large increase in phosphorus and sediment loads in 2010 was caused in large part by two large storm events that occurred during the spring in the Potomac River Basin. Yields (load per watershed area) of total nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay watershed decreased from north to south (New York to Virginia). No spatial patterns were discernible for total phosphorus or sediment.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2012

Comparison of two regression-based approaches for determining nutrient and sediment fluxes and trends in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Nutrient and sediment fluxes and changes in fluxes over time are key indicators that water resource managers can use to assess the progress being made in improving the structure and function of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The U.S. Geological Survey collects annual nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment flux data and computes trends that describe the extent to which water-quality conditions are changing within the major Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Two regression-based approaches were compared for estimating annual nutrient and sediment fluxes and for characterizing how these annual fluxes are changing over time. The two regression models compared are the traditionally used ESTIMATOR and the newly developed Weighted Regression on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS). The model comparison focused on answering three questions: (1) What are the differences between the functional form and construction of each model? (2) Which model produces estimates of flux with the greatest accuracy and least amount of bias? (3) How different would the historical estimates of annual flux be if WRTDS had been used instead of ESTIMATOR? One additional point of comparison between the two models is how each model determines trends in annual flux once the year-to-year variations in discharge have been determined. All comparisons were made using total nitrogen, nitrate, total phosphorus, orthophosphorus, and suspended-sediment concentration data collected at the nine U.S. Geological Survey River Input Monitoring stations located on the Susquehanna, Potomac, James, Rappahannock, Appomattox, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, Patuxent, and Choptank Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Two model characteristics that uniquely distinguish ESTIMATOR and WRTDS are the fundamental model form and the determination of model coefficients. ESTIMATOR and WRTDS both predict water-quality constituent concentration by developing a linear relation between the natural logarithm of observed constituent concentration and three explanatory variables—the natural log of discharge, time, and season. ESTIMATOR uses two additional explanatory variables—the square of the log of discharge and time-squared. Both models determine coefficients for variables for a series of estimation windows. ESTIMATOR establishes variable coefficients for a series of 9-year moving windows; all observed constituent concentration data within the 9-year window are used to establish each coefficient. Conversely, WRTDS establishes variable coefficients for each combination of discharge and time using only observed concentration data that are similar in time, season, and discharge to the day being estimated. As a result of these distinguishing characteristics, ESTIMATOR reproduces concentration-discharge relations that are closely approximated by a quadratic or linear function with respect to both the log of discharge and time. Conversely, the linear model form of WRTDS coupled with extensive model windowing for each combination of discharge and time allows WRTDS to reproduce observed concentration-discharge relations that are more sinuous in form. Another distinction between ESTIMATOR and WRTDS is the reporting of uncertainty associated with the model estimates of flux and trend. ESTIMATOR quantifies the standard error of prediction associated with the determination of flux and trends. The standard error of prediction enables the determination of the 95-percent confidence intervals for flux and trend as well as the ability to test whether the reported trend is significantly different from zero (where zero equals no trend). Conversely, WRTDS is unable to propagate error through the many (over 5,000) models for unique combinations of flow and time to determine a total standard error. As a result, WRTDS flux estimates are not reported with confidence intervals and a level of significance is not determined for flow-normalized fluxes. The differences between ESTIMATOR and WRTDS, with regard to model form and determination of model coefficients, have an influence on the determination of nutrient and sediment fluxes and associated changes in flux over time as a result of management activities. The comparison between the model estimates of flux and trend was made for combinations of five water-quality constituents at nine River Input Monitoring stations. The major findings with regard to nutrient and sediment fluxes are as follows: (1)WRTDS produced estimates of flux for all combinations that were more accurate, based on reduction in root mean squared error, than flux estimates from ESTIMATOR; (2) for 67 percent of the combinations, WRTDS and ESTIMATOR both produced estimates of flux that were minimally biased compared to observed fluxes(flux bias = tendency to over or underpredict flux observations); however, for 33 percent of the combinations, WRTDS produced estimates of flux that were considerably less biased (by at least 10 percent) than flux estimates from ESTIMATOR; (3) the average percent difference in annual fluxes generated by ESTIMATOR and WRTDS was less than 10 percent at 80 percent of the combinations; and (4) the greatest differences related to flux bias and annual fluxes all occurred for combinations where the pattern in observed concentration-discharge relation was sinuous (two points of inflection) rather than linear or quadratic (zero or one point of inflection). The major findings with regard to trends are as follows: (1) both models produce water-quality trends that have factored in the year-to-year variations in flow; (2) trends in water-quality condition are represented by ESTIMATOR as a trend in flow-adjusted concentration and by WRTDS as a flow normalized flux; (3) for 67 percent of the combinations with trend estimates, the WRTDS trends in flow-normalized flux are in the same direction and magnitude to the ESTIMATOR trends in flow-adjusted concentration, and at the remaining 33 percent the differences in trend magnitude and direction are related to fundamental differences between concentration and flux; and (4) the majority (85 percent) of the total nitrogen, nitrate, and orthophosphorus combinations exhibited long-term (1985 to 2010) trends in WRTDS flow-normalized flux that indicate improvement or reduction in associated flux and the majority (83 percent) of the total phosphorus (from 1985 to 2010) and suspended sediment (from 2001 to 2010) combinations exhibited trends in WRTDS flow-normalized flux that indicate degradation or increases in the flux delivered.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗