Geology topics

Peter Claggett

Publications and source records attributed to Peter Claggett.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

The Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model (CBLCM): Simulating future land use scenarios and potential impacts on water quality

The Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model (CBLCM) is an open-source pseudo-cellular automata land change model tailored for loose coupling with watershed models. The CBLCM simulates infill development, residential and commercial development, natural land and agricultural land conversion, and growth served by sewer or septic wastewater treatment. The CBLCM is unique among land change models by simulating multiple types of development and explicitly accounting for infill development and the spatial patterns of development densities. The CBLCM was used to simulate five future land use scenarios, holding population constant, for all counties within and adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay watershed from 2013 to 2055. Results are presented here for the state of Maryland over the period 2013–2025 to illustrate model functionality and validation. The growth management (GM) scenario achieved the least development and potential impacts to natural and agricultural lands while accommodating the same amount of population growth as the other four scenarios. Scenarios focusing exclusively on natural or agricultural land protection shifted development to unprotected areas resulting in unforeseen water quality consequences. Simultaneously achieving more compact development while protecting the most valued natural and agricultural lands requires a combination of GM and land conservation policies and actions.

Maryland↗

USGS2023

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

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

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗

USGS2023

Geospatial standard operating procedures of the Chesapeake Bay Program

Introduction The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has operated a geographic information system (GIS) program since the early 1990s to address the established and growing need for and use of geospatial data, maps, and analysis within the CBP Partnership. This report is intended to detail the standard operating procedures of the CBP GIS program and address the quality assurance, quality control, and other technical activities that CBP will implement to ensure the commitment of the CBP GIS Team to performance standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). The report is intended as an update to the 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). For specialized tasks or analytical projects beyond the scope of this QAPP, a separate specialized QAPP with details on quality control, assurance procedures, and the geospatial methods associated with all aspects of the project may be required.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2023

Societal benefits of floodplains in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds: Sediment, nutrient, and flood regulation ecosystem services

Floodplains provide critical ecosystem services to people by regulating floodwaters and retaining sediments and nutrients. Geospatial analyses, field data collection, and modeling were integrated to quantify a portfolio of services that floodplains provide to downstream communities within the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds. The portfolio of services included floodplain sediment and nutrient retention and flood regulation. Sediment and nutrient retention were quantified and valued for all non-tidal wadable streams in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds. Predicted nitrogen fluxes from measurements of streambanks and floodplain geomorphic changes were summarized at various scales (river basin, state, and county) and valued using a benefits transfer approach. Floodplain flood regulation services were assessed through a pilot study focused on the Schuylkill River watershed in the Delaware River watershed. Geospatial analysis and published flood frequency estimates were used to assess baseline and counterfactual (i.e., floodplain storage removed) scenarios. Flood regulation was valued using the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazus model to compare differences in structural damage to private residences under baseline and counterfactual scenarios. The estimated value of floodplain sediment and nutrient retention was \$223 million United States dollars (USD) per year in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and \$38 million USD per year in the Delaware River watershed. Sediment and nutrient retention benefits were offset by a streambank erosion cost of \$123 million and \$14 million USD annually in the Chesapeake and Delaware watersheds, respectively. In the Schuylkill River watershed floodplain flood regulation was valued at \$860,000 USD per year, with an additional \$7.2 million USD annually provided through floodplain sediment and nutrient retention. Together this portfolio of floodplain ecosystem services indicates that floodplains provide substantial benefits to people by trapping nutrients and storing floodwaters.

Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds↗

USGS2022

Streambank and floodplain geomorphic change and contribution to watershed material budgets

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

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗

USGS2021

The Chesapeake Bay program modeling system: Overview and recommendations for future development

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest, most productive, and most biologically diverse estuary in the continental United States providing crucial habitat and natural resources for culturally and economically important species. Pressures from human population growth and associated development and agricultural intensification have led to excessive nutrient and sediment inputs entering the Bay, negatively affecting the health of the Bay ecosystem and the economic services it provides. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique program formally created in 1983 as a multi-stakeholder partnership to guide and foster restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Since its inception, the CBP Partnership has been developing, updating, and applying a complex linked modeling system of watershed, airshed, and estuary models as a planning tool to inform strategic management decisions and Bay restoration efforts. This paper provides a description of the 2017 CBP Modeling System and the higher trophic level models developed by the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, along with specific recommendations that emerged from a 2018 workshop designed to inform future model development. Recommendations highlight the need for simulation of watershed inputs, conditions, processes, and practices at higher resolution to provide improved information to guide local nutrient and sediment management plans. More explicit and extensive modeling of connectivity between watershed landforms and estuary sub-areas, estuarine hydrodynamics, watershed and estuarine water quality, the estuarine-watershed socioecological system, and living resources will be important to broaden and improve characterization of responses to targeted nutrient and sediment load reductions. Finally, the value and importance of maintaining effective collaborations among jurisdictional managers, scientists, modelers, support staff, and stakeholder communities is emphasized. An open collaborative and transparent process has been a key element of successes to date and is vitally important as the CBP Partnership moves forward with modeling system improvements that help stakeholders evolve new knowledge, improve management strategies, and better communicate outcomes.

Chesapeake Bay estuary and watershed↗

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↗