Geology topics

Jennifer L. D. Keisman

Publications and source records attributed to Jennifer L. D. Keisman.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2021

Nutrient improvements in Chesapeake Bay: Direct effect of load reductions and implications for coastal management

In Chesapeake Bay in the United States, decades of management efforts have resulted in modest reductions of nutrient loads from the watershed, but corresponding improvements in estuarine water quality have not clearly materialized. Generalized additive models were used to directly link river flows and nutrient loads from the watershed to nutrient trends in the estuary on a station-by-station basis, which allowed for identification of exactly when and where responses are happening. Results show that Chesapeake Bay total nitrogen and total phosphorus conditions are mostly improving after accounting for variation in freshwater flow. Almost all of these improving nutrient concentrations in the estuary can be explained by reductions in watershed loads entering through 16 rivers and 145 nearby point sources. These two major types of loads from multiple locations across the watershed are together necessary and responsible for improving estuarine nutrient conditions, a finding that is highly relevant to managing valuable estuarine resources worldwide.

Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2020

Sediment dynamics and implications for management: State of the science from long‐term research in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA

This review aims to synthesize the current knowledge of sediment dynamics using insights from long‐term research conducted in the watershed draining to the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., to inform management actions to restore the estuary and its watershed. The sediment dynamics of the Chesapeake are typical of many impaired watersheds and estuaries around the world, and this synthesis is intended to be relevant and transferable to other sediment‐impaired systems. The watershed's sediment sources, transport, delivery, and impacts are discussed with implications for effectively implementing best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate sediment issues. This synthesis revealed three key issues to consider when planning actions to reduce sediment loading: Scale, time, and land use. Geology and historical land use generated a template that current land use and climate, in addition to management, are acting upon to control sediment delivery. Important sediment sources in the Chesapeake include the Piedmont physiographic region, urban, and agricultural land use, and streambank erosion of headwater streams, whereas floodplain trapping is important along larger streams and rivers. Implementation of BMPs is widespread and is predicted to lead to decreased sediment loading; however, reworking of legacy sediment stored in stream valleys, with potentially long residence times in storage, can delay and complicate detection of the effects of BMPs on sediment loads. In conclusion, the improved understanding of sediment sources, storage areas, and transport lag times reviewed here can help target choices of BMP types and locations to better manage sediment problems—for both local streams and receiving waters.

New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virgin↗

USGS2019

Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Best Management Practice Implementation in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985–2014

Efforts to restore water quality in Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries often include extensive Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation on agricultural and developed lands. These BMPs include a variety of methods to reduce nutrient and sediment loads, such as cover crops, conservation tillage, urban filtering systems, and other practices. Estimates of BMP implementation throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed were provided for each year from 1985 through 2014 by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). This dataset of BMP implementation is a compilation of actions reported by New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and includes a wide array of management activities. Management actions vary among the jurisdictions and generally reflect the typical land use in each region. The amount of implementation also varies according to different priorities, reporting practices, and special programs within each jurisdiction. For example, extensive cover crop implementation was reported in Maryland whereas Pennsylvania, in general, has lower levels of BMP implementation reported on cropland. Pennsylvania and Maryland have higher levels of infiltration BMPs on developed land compared to those in Virginia. Conservation tillage BMPs accounted for the majority of reported agricultural BMP implementation in 1985. By 2014, however, a more diverse collection of agricultural BMPs was reported and conservation tillage BMPs accounted for a smaller proportion of overall reported agricultural BMP implementation. After the year 2000, land-use change BMPs, such as land retirement, pasture fencing, and forest buffers, were more commonly reported across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Expected changes in nutrient and sediment loads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed due to BMP implementation were estimated by use of specially designed annual scenarios of the CBP Partnership Phase 5.3.2 Watershed Model. Nitrogen loads to streams were estimated to be reduced by 11 percent from 1985 to 2014 due to the implementation of BMPs. Compared with 1985, phosphorus loads were estimated to be 19 percent lower and sediment loads were estimated to be 23 percent lower by 2014 due to the effects of BMPs. Reductions in total nitrogen from 1985 to 2014 due to BMPs varied spatially across the watershed and were estimated to be as high as 42 percent in areas of the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Reductions in phosphorus and sediment also varied spatially, with the largest reductions occurring in the Potomac watershed upstream of Washington, D.C. and the Eastern Shore of Maryland, according to the CBP model results. Additional model scenarios were developed to estimate the effect of individual BMP types. The largest estimated reductions in total nitrogen loads on agricultural lands in 2014 were attributed to land retirement, animal waste management systems, and conservation tillage. The largest estimated reductions in total phosphorus loads on agricultural lands were attributed to animal waste management systems, pasture fencing, and phytase feed additives in 2014. The largest estimated reduction in total sediment loads on agricultural lands was attributed to conservation tillage, pasture fencing, and conservation plans. Dry ponds, wet ponds, and constructed wetlands were reported extensively throughout the watershed. These BMPs accounted for about half of the reduction in nitrogen loads from developed land to streams, half of the phosphorus reduction, and about a third of the sediment reduction.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2018

Agricultural conservation practice implementation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides cost-share funding and technical assistance to support the implementation of agricultural conservation practices on farms throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Conservation implementation has been substantial in the time period for which digital records are available (from 2007 through 2017). Farmer participation in USDA conservation programs is voluntary and the implementation data are privacy protected. In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and USDA formed a cooperative partnership to analyze the effects of agricultural conservation on sediment, nutrient, and pesticide transport to the Chesapeake Bay. The USDA provides conservation implementation records for Chesapeake Bay farms to the USGS, with strict limitations on the use of the data to maintain confidentiality of site-specific farm data. The USGS aggregates the data to maintain farmer privacy, and subsequently provides the aggregated datasets to the public to inform conservation decision making processes. As part of that process, the USGS collaborates with the USDA to increase the understanding and quality of the USDA datasets and informs the interpretation of data records by Chesapeake Bay Program partners. The USGS obtains USDA conservation datasets in October of each year, performs data handling and quality checks as described in this document, and delivers aggregated summaries to the six Chesapeake Bay state jurisdictions for use in reporting conservation implementation to the Chesapeake Bay Partnership’s Annual Progress Review, which occurs in December of each year. The privacy protected, site-specific datasets are also used by USGS scientists to understand the effects of agricultural conservation on sediment, nutrient, and pesticide transport to the Chesapeake Bay at the small watershed scale. This publication describes the methods used to aggregate the datasets herein made available to the public at county and eight-digit hydrologic unit code watershed scales, reporting annual implementation from 2007 through 2017. It also documents the effect of geographic aggregation scale on the reportability of records and provides details regarding appropriate use and interpretation of the data records.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2018

Chesapeake Bay's water quality condition has been recovering: Insights from a multimetric indicator assessment of thirty years of tidal monitoring data

To protect the aquatic living resources of Chesapeake Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership has developed guidance for state water quality standards, which include ambient water quality criteria to protect designated uses (DUs), and associated assessment procedures for dissolved oxygen (DO), water clarity/underwater bay grasses, and chlorophyll-a. For measuring progress toward meeting the respective states' water quality standards, a multimetric attainment indicator approach was developed to estimate combined standards attainment. We applied this approach to three decades of monitoring data of DO, water clarity/underwater bay grasses, and chlorophyll-a data on annually updated moving 3-year periods to track the progress in all 92 management segments of tidal waters in Chesapeake Bay. In 2014–2016, 40% of tidal water segment-DU-criterion combinations in the Bay (n = 291) are estimated to meet thresholds for attainment of their water quality criteria. This index score marks the best 3-year status in the entire record. Since 1985–1987, the indicator has followed a nonlinear trajectory, consistent with impacts from extreme weather events and subsequent recoveries. Over the period of record (1985–2016), the indicator exhibited a positive and statistically significant trend ( p < 0.05), indicating that the Bay has been recovering since 1985. Patterns of attainment of individual DUs are variable, but improvements in open water DO, deep channel DO, and water clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation have combined to drive the improvement in the Baywide indicator in 2014–2016 relative to its long-term median. Finally, the improvement in estimated Baywide attainment was statistically linked to the decline of total nitrogen, indicating responsiveness of attainment status to the reduction of nutrient load through various management actions since at least the 1980s.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗