Geology topics

Peter R. Claggett

Publications and source records attributed to Peter R. Claggett.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Mapping stream and floodplain geomorphometry with the Floodplain and Channel Evaluation Tool

Broad-scale mapping of stream channel and floodplain geomorphic metrics is critical to improve the understanding of geomorphic change, biogeochemical processes, riverine habitat quality, and opportunities for management intervention. The Floodplain and Channel Evaluation Tool (FACET) was developed to provide an open-source tool for automated processing of digital elevation models (DEMs) to generate regional-scale estimates of bank height, channel width, floodplain width, and a suite of other fluvial geomorphic dimensions that can be summarized at the stream reach- or catchment-scale. FACET was tested on 3-m DEMs covering the Delaware River watershed and 85% of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the United States (U.S.) and on 1-m DEMs for a subset of the study area. Accuracy was assessed from data collected at 67 field sites in the study area. FACET successfully measured geomorphometry for over 270,000 stream reaches (88% of streams attempted) in the study area. Factors that reduced the ability of FACET to accurately estimate geomorphic metrics included errors in DEM hydro-conditioning, gradually sloping banks, incised stream channels, and the use of fixed input parameters to define buffer lengths. Even with these limitations, FACET was able to map regional patterns in stream and floodplain geomorphometry providing a robust dataset that can enhance modeling and management efforts throughout the mid-Atlantic region, U.S.

Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Pennsylv↗

USGS2021

Nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—A century of change, 1950–2050

Foreword Sustaining the quality of the Nation’s water resources and the health of our diverse ecosystems depends on the availability of sound water-resources data and information to develop effective, science-based policies. Effective management of water resources also brings more certainty and efficiency to important economic sectors. Taken together, these actions lead to immediate and long-term economic, social, and environmental benefits that will make a difference to the lives of the almost 400 million people projected to live in the United States by 2050. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest and most productive estuary in the United States and is a vital environmental and economic resource. Approximately half of the water volume of the Chesapeake Bay originates from streams and rivers that drain the 64,243 mi 2 Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Bay and its tributaries have been degraded by excessive nutrients, such as nitrogen, from contributing watersheds. Inputs of nitrogen to the Bay lead to increased algal growth, decreased dissolved oxygen, and declining fisheries. In 2000, the Chesapeake Bay was listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for nutrients and sediment have been established to assist with management actions aimed at nutrient reductions. Effective nutrient management requires an understanding of past, present, and future nutrient sources, fate, and transport in the watershed. The Chesapeake Bay community has been a pioneer in science, management, and regulation to improve water quality. Factors like climate, hydrology, source inputs, and management controls play a vital role in determining the delivery and magnitude of nitrogen inputs to the Bay. Science in the form of monitoring data, predictive tools, and interpretive reports can help inform decisions to better balance the use and control of nitrogen in coastal areas. The findings in this report can contribute to effective management of the Bay and its watershed by providing a synthesis of the understanding of how human activities and environmental change in the watershed in the past, present, and future will influence the export of nitrogen to the Bay. We hope this publication will provide you with insights and information to meet your water resource needs and will foster increased civilian awareness and involvement in the protection and restoration of our Nation’s waters. The information in this report is intended primarily for those interested or involved in resource management and protection, conservation, regulation, and policymaking at the regional and national levels.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗

USGS2020

Sustaining Environmental Capital Initiative summary report

Federal agencies need credible scientific information to determine the production and value of ecosystem services in an efficient and timely manner. The U.S. Geological Survey addresses this scientific information need through the Sustaining Environmental Capital Initiative project. The project has relied on U.S. Geological Survey expertise related to water, fisheries, advanced modeling, and economics and other social sciences to conduct eight case studies across a range of environment types, including water-based environments, deserts, sagebrush ecosystems, floodplains, and forests. The Sustaining Environmental Capital Initiative also supported the development and expansion of four tools with the intent of adding content and usability for partners’ decision-making needs. The tools are the Natural Value Resource Center, Benefit Transfer Toolkit, Riverine Environmental Flow Decision Support System, and Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services modeling platform.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2020

Mapping stream and floodplain geomorphic characteristics with the Floodplain and Channel Evaluation Tool (FACET) in the Mid-Atlantic Region, United States

Quantifying channel and floodplain geomorphic characteristics is essential for understanding and modeling sediment and nutrient dynamics in fluvial systems. The increased availability of high-resolution elevation data from light detection and ranging (lidar) has helped improve methods for extracting these metrics at a greater accuracy across regional scales. The Floodplain and Channel Evaluation Tool (FACET) was developed as an open source tool to calculate a suite of geomorphic metrics describing channel and floodplain geometry from high-resolution digital elevation models (DEMs), providing estimates of channel width, bank height, cross-sectional area, and floodplain extent. Field data from sites in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds were used to calibrate and validate FACET within five physiographic provinces in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Stream banks were identified using either a slope-threshold method at cross sections which are automatically generated at a user-defined interval along the delineated stream network, or by applying a curvature-threshold method for grid cells within a buffered distance from the stream network. The floodplain extent was mapped using a height above nearest drainage (HAND) grid and empirical regression models built for each physiographic province relating the HAND threshold to drainage area. Other user-defined input parameters within FACET control the sensitivity of calculations to DEM resolution, relief, and stream order, allowing for the ability to optimize FACET at multiple scales and/or regions if field survey data are available for calibration. Geomorphic metrics derived from FACET are currently being used to develop predictive models to estimate bank erosion and floodplain deposition to enhance our understanding of watershed sediment and nutrient budgets.

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylv↗

USGS2018

Sensitivity of streamflow simulation in the Delaware River Basin to forecasted land‐cover change for 2030 and 2060

In order to simulate the potential effect of forecasted land‐cover change on streamflow and water availability, there has to be confidence that the hydrologic model used is sensitive to small changes in land cover (<10%) and that this land‐cover change exceeds the inherent uncertainty in forecasted conditions. To investigate this, a 26‐year streamflow record was simulated for 33 basins (54–928 km 2 ) in the Delaware River Basin using three dates of land cover: the 2011 National Land‐Cover Dataset (Homer, Fry, & Barnes, 2012 ), 2030 land‐cover conditions representing median values from 101 equally‐likely forecasts, and 2060 land‐cover conditions corresponding to the same iterations used to represent 2030. Streamflow was simulated using a process‐based hydrologic model that includes both pervious and impervious methods as parameterized by three land‐cover‐based hydrologic response units (HRUs)—forested, agricultural, and developed land. Small, but significant differences in streamflow magnitude, variability, and seasonality were seen among the three time periods—2011, 2030, and 2060. Temporal differences were discernible from the range of conditions simulated with 101 equally likely forecasts for 2030. Development was co‐located with the most frequent landscape components, as characterized by topographic wetness index, resulting in a change in hydrology for each HRU, highlighting that knowing the location of disturbance is key to understanding potential streamflow changes. These results show that streamflow simulation using regional calibration that incorporates land‐cover‐based HRUs can be sensitive to relatively small changes in land‐cover and that temporal trends resulting from land‐cover change can be isolated in order to evaluate other changes that might affect water resources.

Delaware River Basin↗

USGS2018

A method to quantify and value floodplain sediment and nutrient retention ecosystem services

Floodplains provide critical ecosystem services to local and downstream communities by retaining floodwaters, sediments, and nutrients. The dynamic nature of floodplains is such that these areas can both accumulate sediment and nutrients through deposition, and export material downstream through erosion. Therefore, estimating floodplain sediment and nutrient retention should consider the net flux of both depositional and erosive processes. An ecosystem services framework was used to quantify and value the sediment and nutrient ecosystem service provided by floodplains in the Difficult Run watershed, a small (151 km 2 ) suburban watershed located in the Piedmont of Virginia (USA). A sediment balance was developed for Difficult Run and two nested watersheds. The balance included upland sediment delivery to streams, stream bank flux, floodplain flux, and stream load. Upland sediment delivery was estimated using geospatial datasets and a modified Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. Predictive models were developed to extrapolate field measurements of the flux of sediment, sediment-bound nitrogen (N), and sediment-bound phosphorus (P) from stream banks and floodplains to 3232 delineated stream segments in the study area. A replacement cost approach was used to estimate the economic value of the sediment and nutrient retention ecosystem service based on estimated net stream bank and floodplain flux of sediment-bound N for all streams in the study area. Results indicated the net fluvial fluxes of sediment, sediment-bound N, and sediment-bound P were −10,439 Mg yr −1 (net export), 57,300 kg-N yr −1 (net trapping), and 98 kg-P yr −1 (net trapping), respectively. For sediment, floodplain retention was offset by substantial losses from stream bank erosion, particularly in headwater catchments, resulting in a net export of sediment. Nutrient retention in the floodplain exceeded that lost through stream bank erosion resulting in net retention of nutrients (TN and TP). Using a conservative cost estimate of \$12.69 (USD) per kilogram of nitrogen, derived from wastewater treatment costs, the estimated annual value for sediment and nutrient retention on Difficult Run floodplains was \$727,226 ± 194,220 USD/yr. Values and differences in floodplain nitrogen retention among stream reaches can be used to target areas for floodplain conservation and stream restoration. The methods presented are scalable and transferable to other areas if appropriate datasets are available for validation.

Virginia↗

USGS2015

Summary of hydrologic modeling for the Delaware River Basin using the Water Availability Tool for Environmental Resources (WATER)

The Water Availability Tool for Environmental Resources (WATER) is a decision support system for the nontidal part of the Delaware River Basin that provides a consistent and objective method of simulating streamflow under historical, forecasted, and managed conditions. In order to quantify the uncertainty associated with these simulations, however, streamflow and the associated hydroclimatic variables of potential evapotranspiration, actual evapotranspiration, and snow accumulation and snowmelt must be simulated and compared to long-term, daily observations from sites. This report details model development and optimization, statistical evaluation of simulations for 57 basins ranging from 2 to 930 km 2 and 11.0 to 99.5 percent forested cover, and how this statistical evaluation of daily streamflow relates to simulating environmental changes and management decisions that are best examined at monthly time steps normalized over multiple decades. The decision support system provides a database of historical spatial and climatic data for simulating streamflow for 2001–11, in addition to land-cover and general circulation model forecasts that focus on 2030 and 2060. WATER integrates geospatial sampling of landscape characteristics, including topographic and soil properties, with a regionally calibrated hillslope-hydrology model, an impervious-surface model, and hydroclimatic models that were parameterized by using three hydrologic response units: forested, agricultural, and developed land cover. This integration enables the regional hydrologic modeling approach used in WATER without requiring site-specific optimization or those stationary conditions inferred when using a statistical model.

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylv↗

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↗

USGS2015

Historic and forecasted population and land-cover change in eastern North Carolina, 1992-2030

The Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS) was formed in 2005 as a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) and State and Federal agencies to promote better collaboration in making resource-use decisions. In support of this goal, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a study to evaluate historic population growth and land-cover change, and to model future change, for the 13-county SERPPAS study area in southeastern North Carolina (fig. 1). Improved understanding of trends in land-cover change and the ability to forecast land-cover change that is consistent with these trends will be a key component of efforts to accommodate local military-mission imperatives while also promoting sustainable economic growth throughout the 13-county study area. The study had three principal objectives: 1. Evaluate historic changes in population and land cover for the period 1992–2006 using both previously existing as well as newly generated land-cover data. 2. Develop models to forecast future change in land cover using the data gathered in objective 1 in conjunction with ancillary data on the suitability of the various sub-areas within the study area for low- and high-intensity urban development. 3. Deliver these results—including an executive-level briefing and a USGS technical report—to DOD, other project cooperators, and local counties in hard-copy and digital formats and via the Web through a map-based data viewer. This report provides a general overview of the study and is intended for general distribution to non-technical audiences.

North Carolina↗

USGS2013

Estimating the extent of impervious surfaces and turf grass across large regions

The ability of researchers to accurately assess the extent of impervious and pervious developed surfaces, e.g., turf grass, using land-cover data derived from Landsat satellite imagery in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is limited due to the resolution of the data and systematic discrepancies between developed land-cover classes, surface mines, forests, and farmlands. Estimates of impervious surface and turf grass area in the Mid-Atlantic, United States that were based on 2006 Landsat-derived land-cover data were substantially lower than estimates based on more authoritative and independent sources. New estimates of impervious surfaces and turf grass area derived using land-cover data combined with ancillary information on roads, housing units, surface mines, and sampled estimates of road width and residential impervious area were up to 57 and 45% higher than estimates based strictly on land-cover data. These new estimates closely approximate estimates derived from authoritative and independent sources in developed counties.

Delaware;Maryl;New York;Pennsylvania↗

USGS2013

Landscape indicators and land cover change in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States, 1973-2001

Landscape indicators, derived from land use and land cover data as well as other data, were used to calculate the ecological consequences of land cover change in terms of nitrate loading and physical bird habitat. Both were modeled from 1973, 1992, and 2001 land cover data in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Land cover statistics and trends are calculated for three time periods. In general, forest gain and agricultural loss was found in areas of improving landscape indicators and forest loss and agricultural gain was found to occur in areas of declining indicators, which was confirmed by high-resolution aerial photographic analysis.

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Ca↗

USGS2013

Clarity versus complexity: land-use modeling as a practical tool for decision-makers

The last decade has seen a remarkable increase in the number of modeling tools available to examine future land-use and land-cover (LULC) change. Integrated modeling frameworks, agent-based models, cellular automata approaches, and other modeling techniques have substantially improved the representation of complex LULC systems, with each method using a different strategy to address complexity. However, despite the development of new and better modeling tools, the use of these tools is limited for actual planning, decision-making, or policy-making purposes. LULC modelers have become very adept at creating tools for modeling LULC change, but complicated models and lack of transparency limit their utility for decision-makers. The complicated nature of many LULC models also makes it impractical or even impossible to perform a rigorous analysis of modeling uncertainty. This paper provides a review of land-cover modeling approaches and the issues causes by the complicated nature of models, and provides suggestions to facilitate the increased use of LULC models by decision-makers and other stakeholders. The utility of LULC models themselves can be improved by 1) providing model code and documentation, 2) through the use of scenario frameworks to frame overall uncertainties, 3) improving methods for generalizing key LULC processes most important to stakeholders, and 4) adopting more rigorous standards for validating models and quantifying uncertainty. Communication with decision-makers and other stakeholders can be improved by increasing stakeholder participation in all stages of the modeling process, increasing the transparency of model structure and uncertainties, and developing user-friendly decision-support systems to bridge the link between LULC science and policy. By considering these options, LULC science will be better positioned to support decision-makers and increase real-world application of LULC modeling results.

Journal of Environmental Management↗

USGS2013

Integrating Federal and State data records to report progress in establishing agricultural conservation practices on Chesapeake Bay farms

In response to the Executive Order for Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration (E.O. #13508, May 12, 2009), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) took on the task of acquiring and assessing agricultural conservation practice data records for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs, and transferred those datasets in aggregated format to State jurisdictional agencies for use in reporting conservation progress to the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership (CBP Partnership). Under the guidelines and regulations that have been developed to protect and restore water-quality in the Chesapeake Bay, the six State jurisdictions that fall within the Chesapeake Bay watershed are required to report their progress in promoting agricultural conservation practices to the CBP Partnership on an annual basis. The installation and adoption of agricultural best management practices is supported by technical and financial assistance from both Federal and State conservation programs. The farm enrollment data for USDA conservation programs are confidential, but agencies can obtain access to the privacy-protected data if they are established as USDA Conservation Cooperators. The datasets can also be released to the public if they are first aggregated to protect farmer privacy. In 2012, the USGS used its Conservation Cooperator status to obtain implementation data for conservation programs sponsored by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) for farms within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Three jurisdictions (Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) used the USGS-provided aggregated dataset to report conservation progress in 2012, whereas the remaining three jurisdictions (Maryland, New York, and Virginia) used jurisdictional Conservation Cooperator Agreements to obtain privacy-protected data directly from the USDA. This report reviews the status of conservation data sharing between the USDA and the various jurisdictions, discusses the methods that were used by the USGS in 2012 to collect and process USDA agricultural conservation data, and also documents methods that were used by the jurisdictions to integrate Federal and State data records, reduce double counting, and provide an accurate reporting of conservation practices to the CBP Partnership’s Annual Progress Review. A similar tracking, reporting, and assessment will occur in future years, as State and Federal governments and nongovernmental organizations continue to work with farmers and conservation districts to reduce the impacts of agriculture on water-quality.

Delaware; Maryland; New York; Pennsylvania;Virgini↗

USGS2010

Designing and implementing a regional urban modeling system using the SLEUTH cellular urban model

This paper presents a fine-scale (30 meter resolution) regional land cover modeling system, based on the SLEUTH cellular automata model, that was developed for a 257000 km 2 area comprising the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin in the eastern United States. As part of this effort, we developed a new version of the SLEUTH model (SLEUTH-3r), which introduces new functionality and fit metrics that substantially increase the performance and applicability of the model. In addition, we developed methods that expand the capability of SLEUTH to incorporate economic, cultural and policy information, opening up new avenues for the integration of SLEUTH with other land-change models. SLEUTH-3r is also more computationally efficient (by a factor of 5) and uses less memory (reduced 65%) than the original software. With the new version of SLEUTH, we were able to achieve high accuracies at both the aggregate level of 15 sub-regional modeling units and at finer scales. We present forecasts to 2030 of urban development under a current trends scenario across the entire Chesapeake Bay drainage basin, and three alternative scenarios for a sub-region within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to illustrate the new ability of SLEUTH-3r to generate forecasts across a broad range of conditions.

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems↗

USGS2010

Chesapeake bay watershed land cover data series

To better understand how the land is changing and to relate those changes to water quality trends, the USGS EGSC funded the production of a Chesapeake Bay Watershed Land Cover Data Series (CBLCD) representing four dates: 1984, 1992, 2001, and 2006. EGSC will publish land change forecasts based on observed trends in the CBLCD over the coming year. They are in the process of interpreting and publishing statistics on the extent, type and patterns of land cover change for 1984-2006 in the Bay watershed, major tributaries and counties.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2009

A landscape indicator approach to the identification and articulation of the consequences of land-cover change in the Mid-Atlantic Region, 1973-2001

Landscape indicators, derived from land-use and land-cover data, hydrology, nitrate deposition, and elevation data, were used by Jones and others (2001a) to calculate the ecological consequences of land-cover change. Nitrate loading and physical bird habitat were modeled from 1973 and 1992 land-cover and other spatial data for the Mid-Atlantic region. Utilizing the same methods, this study extends the analysis another decade with the use of the 2001 National Land Cover Dataset. Land-cover statistics and trends are calculated for three time periods: 1973-1992, 1992-2001 and 1973-2001. In addition, high-resolution aerial photographs (1 meter or better ground-sample distance) were acquired and analyzed for thirteen pairs of adjacent USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps in areas where distinct positive or negative changes to nitrogen loading and bird habitat were previously calculated. During the entire 30 year period, the data show that there was extensive loss of agriculture and forest area and a major increase in urban land-cover classes. However, the majority of the conversion of other classes to urban occurred during the 1992-2001 period. During the 1973-1992 period, there was only moderate increase in urban area, while there was an inverse relationship between agricultural change and forest change. In general, forest gain and agricultural loss was found in areas of improving landscape indicators, and forest loss and agricultural gain was found to occur in areas of declining indicators related to habitat and nitrogen loadings, which was generally confirmed by the aerial photographic analysis. In terms of the specific model results, bird habitat, which is mainly related to the extent of forest cover, declined overall with forest extent, but was also affected more in the decline of habitat quality. Nitrate loading, which is mainly related to agricultural land cover actually improved from 1992-2001, and in the overall study, mainly due to the conversion of agriculture to forests and urban. The high-resolution imagery analysis was significant in that it confirmed, at a very local level, the specific land-cover changes that were driving the landscape metrics and model results that were calculated from moderate resolution land-cover data and models. These were generally subtle changes in patch size of agriculture, forest, and urban areas, but had substantial effects on bird habitat and nitrogen loadings. This analysis of high-resolution imagery demonstrates and confirms the important ability of moderate-resolution land-cover data to capture significant landscape-level activity that is directly related to specific metrics of ecological significance. It also demonstrates consistent landscape-scale relationships between data derived from high-resolution, moderate-resolution and landscape-model sources. Finally, many of the areas of improvement and decline in bird habitat and nitrogen loadings appear to be potentially regional in nature and likely reflect some local trend in landscape activity. Although the use of ecoregions as sampling units has been criticized in recent years, these results show that basic changes in Level 1 land-cover categories, such as forest and agriculture, may still reflect ecoregional patterns and considerations at some scale of mapping and analysis. This is a potentially important area for future landscape-indicator research. This and other follow-on research opportunities are discussed.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Development and Evaluation of a Riparian Buffer Mapping Tool

Land use and land cover within riparian areas greatly affect the conditions of adjacent water features. In particular, riparian forests provide many environmental benefits, including nutrient uptake, bank stabilization, steam shading, sediment trapping, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and stream organic matter. In contrast, residential and commercial development and associated transportation infrastructure increase pollutant and nutrient loading and change the hydrologic characteristics of the landscape, thereby affecting both water quality and habitat. Restoring riparian areas is a popular and cost effective restoration technique to improve and protect water quality. Recognizing this, the Chesapeake Executive Council committed to restoring 10,000 miles of riparian forest buffers throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed by the year 2010. In 2006, the Chesapeake Executive Council further committed to 'using the best available...tools to identify areas where retention and expansion of forests is most needed to protect water quality'. The Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses 64,000 square miles, including portions of six States and Washington, D.C. Therefore, the interpretation of remotely sensed imagery provides the only effective technique for comprehensively evaluating riparian forest protection and restoration opportunities throughout the watershed. Although 30-meter-resolution land use and land cover data have proved useful on a regional scale, they have not been equally successful at providing the detail required for local-scale assessment of riparian area characteristics. Use of high-resolution imagery (HRI) provides sufficient detail for local-scale assessments, although at greater cost owing to the cost of the imagery and the skill and time required to process the data. To facilitate the use of HRI for monitoring the extent of riparian forest buffers, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Survey Eastern Geographic Science Center funded the development of a prototype semiautomated image classification tool, RBMapper, that is designed for use by technicians with limited image processing training. This document provides an overview of the RBMapper tool, includes instructions on how to obtain the RBMapper tool and tutorial datasets, and contains a summary evaluation of the tool

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Synthesis of U.S. Geological Survey science for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and implications for environmental management

The purpose of this report is to present a synthesis of the USGS Chesapeake Bay science related to the 2001-06 goals and provide implications for environmental management. The report provides USGS findings that address the science needs of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) restoration goals and includes summaries of 1. land-use change; 2. water quality in the watershed, including nutrients, sediment, and contaminants; 3. long-term changes in climate and estuarine water quality; 4. estuary habitats, focusing on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and tidal wetlands; and 5. factors affecting fish and waterbird populations.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗