Improving understanding and coordination of science activities for PFAS in the Chesapeake watershed
No abstract available.
Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
Geology topics
Scott W. Phillips
Publications and source records attributed to Scott W. Phillips.
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↗
U.S. Geological Survey landscape science strategy 2020–2030
Across our Nation, multiple Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments are working with stakeholders and landowners to restore, conserve, and manage lands and resources to benefit fish, wildlife, and people. One of the largest Federal efforts is led by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), with multiple DOI agencies working to conserve and manage public lands, resources, and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations. As a science provider within the DOI, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has an important role in developing actionable science products that can inform decision making on public lands and across all of our Nation’s landscapes. Our landscapes and resources are undergoing continual change from a complex and interacting suite of stressors that include traditional and nontraditional land uses, a changing climate, a dynamic economy, and a culturally diverse and ever-changing society. Landscape science seeks to understand how the physical, biological, and social components of ecosystems and landscapes interact with each other and are affected by these stressors across local to global scales. The USGS has developed this landscape science strategy to focus and strengthen the agency’s efforts to inform critical conservation, restoration, and management decisions for American landscapes. The strategy directly supports the overarching 21st-century science strategy of the USGS and expands our perspective and focus on partnerships, including with internal, external, traditional, and nontraditional partners. The vision for USGS landscape science is to integrate multiple disciplines and approaches to create and deliver relevant, timely, and scientifically sound products that enable our partners to make informed decisions about how to manage complex interacting natural and human systems across changing American landscapes. This strategy seeks to leverage the expertise, data, analytical capacity, and tools of the agency and to strengthen integration of science efforts across programs and scales. A cornerstone of the strategy is working closely with landowners and resource managers to identify the science that is needed to inform management actions, and then working collaboratively with those same partners to coproduce science and data products that are timely, practical, and useful for their decision making. Many individual efforts within the USGS already embrace landscape science ideas and practices. With the development of this strategy, we are seeking to build on these efforts and to focus agency attention and expertise on expanding, connecting, and institutionalizing core practices and approaches for landscape science that produces actionable science products and tools that decision makers can use to help conserve and manage American landscapes.
Circular↗
Nutrient trends and drivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
The Chesapeake Bay Program maintains an extensive nontidal monitoring network, measuring nitrogen and phosphorus (nutrients) at more than 100 locations on rivers and streams in the watershed. Data from these locations are used by United States Geological Survey to assess the ecosystem’s response to nutrient-reduction efforts. This fact sheet summarizes recent trends in nitrogen and phosphorus in nontidal tributaries and identifies some of the complex factors that affect local water quality, and ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay.
Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylv↗
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↗
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↗
The U.S. Geological Survey and the Chesapeake Bay – The role of science in environmental restoration
The Chesapeake Bay is the Nation's largest estuary and historically supported one of the most productive fisheries in the world. In addition to supporting aquatic communities and wildlife, the bay's watershed serves the economic and recreational needs of 15 million people. The fertile soils of the watershed support significant agricultural production. Unfortunately, the commercial, economic, and recreational value of the bay and its watershed has been degraded by poor water quality, loss of habitat, and overharvesting of living resources. Since the early 1980's, the Chesapeake Bay Program, which is a partnership among Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Federal Government, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, has been formulating and implementing restoration goals to restore living resources, minimize habitat loss, and reduce the amount of nutrients, sediment, and toxic substances entering the bay. The U.S. Geological Survey has the critical role of providing unbiased scientific information to be used in helping to formulate, implement, and assess the effectiveness of restoration goals in the bay and its watershed.
Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
Water-quality characteristics of five tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay at the Fall Line, Virginia, July 1988 through June 1993
Development in the Chesapeake Bay region has adversely affected the water quality of the Bay. The general degradation in the Bay has resulted in the decline of commercial fishing industries and has reduced the area of aquatic vegetation that provides food and habitat for fish and shellfish. In order to assess the effectiveness of programs aimed at reducing the effects of excess nutrients and suspended solids on Chesapeake Bay, it is necessary to quantify the loads of these constituents into the Bay, and to evaluate the trends in water quality. This report presents the results of a study funded by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Programs and the U.S. Geological Survey, to monitor and estimate loads of selected nutrients and suspended solids discharged to Chesapeake Bay from five major tributaries in Virginia. The water-quality data and load estimates provided in this report also will be used to calibrate computer models of Chesapeake Bay. Water-quality constituents were monitored in the James and Rappahannock Rivers over a 5-year period, and in the Pamunkey, Appomattox, and Mattaponi Rivers over a 4-year period. Water-quality samples were collected from July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1993, for the James and Rappahannock Rivers; from July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1993, for the Pamunkey and Appomattox Rivers; and from September 1,1989 through June 30, 1993, for the Mattaponi River. Water-quality samples were collected on a scheduled basis and during stormflow to cover a range in discharge conditions. Monitore water-quality constituents, for which loads were estimated include total suspended solids (residue, total at 105° Celsius), dissolved nitrite-plus-nitrate nitrogen, dissolved ammonia nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, total organic carbon, and dissolved silica. Organic nitrogen concentrations were calculated from measurements of ammonia and total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and organic nitrogen loads were estimated using these calculations. Other selected water-quality constituents were monitored for which loads were not calculated. Daily mean load estimates of each constituent were computed by use of a seven-parameter log-linear regression model that uses variables of time, discharge, and seasonality. Concentration of total nitrogen ranged from less than 0.14 to 3.41 mg/L (milligrams per liter), with both extreme values occurring at the Rappahannock River. Concentration of total Kjeldahl nitrogen ranged from less than 0.1 mg/L in the James, Rappahannock, and Appomattox Rivers to 3.0 mg/L in the James River. Organic nitrogen was the predominant form of nitrogen at all stations except the Rappahannock River, where nitrite plus-nitrate nitrogen was predominant, and organic nitrogen comprised the majority of the measured total Kjeldahl nitrogen at all stations, ranging from 0.01 mg/L in the Appomattox River to 2.86 mg/L in the James River. Concentration of dissolved ammonia nitrogen ranged from 0.01 mg/L in the Pamunkey River to 0.54 mg/L at the James River. Concentration of nitrite-plusnitrate nitrogen ranged from 0.02 to 1.05 mg/L in the James River. Concentrations of total phosphorus ranged from less than 0.01 mg/L in the Rappahannock and the Mattaponi Rivers to 1.4 mg/L in the James River. Dissolved orthophosphorus ranged from less than 0.01 mg/L in all five rivers to 0.51 mg/L in the James River. Total suspended solids ranged from a concentration of less than 1 mg/L in all five rivers to 844 mg/L in the Rappahannock River. Total organic carbon ranged from 1.1 mg/L in the Appomattox River to 110 mg/L in the Rappahannock River. Dissolved silica ranged from 2.4 mg/L in the James River to 18 mg/L in the Appomattox River. The James and Rappahannock Rivers had high median concentrations and large ranges in concentrations for most constituents, probably because of a greater number of point and nonpoint sources of nutrients and suspended solids, and differences in land use when compared with the other basins. A significantly higher median concentration and greater range of dissolved orthophosphorus generally occurred at the James River than in all other rivers, which primarily is due to the greater number of point sources, such as municipal waste-water treatment plants. The Rappahannock River had significantly higher median concentrations and greater ranges of dissolved nitrite-plus-nitrate nitrogen and total nitrogen than other rivers, probably derived from agricultural sources. Total organic carbon was highest in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey River Basins that contain expanses of wetlands. The Appomattox River had the highest concentration of dissolved silica. The median monthly load of total nitrogen ranged from 16,500 kg (kilogram) in the Mattaponi River to 371,000 kg in the James River. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen ranged from a median monthly load of 12,500 kg in the Mattaponi River to 205,500 kg, also in the James River. Organic nitrogen comprised the majority of the total Kjeldahl nitrogen load in all five rivers, ranging from a median monthly load of 11,251 kg in the Mattaponi River to 3,299,500 kg in the James River. The median monthly load of dissolved ammonia nitrogen was 1,130 kg in the Mattaponi River and was as much as 21,050 kg in the James River, whereas nitrite-plus-nitrate nitrogen ranged from a median monthly load of 4,065 kg in the Mattaponi River to 156,500 kg in the James River. The median monthly load of total phosphorus ranged from 1,670 kg in the Mattaponi River to 61,600 kg in the James River, whereas the median monthly load of dissolved orthophosphorus ranged from 350 kg in the Mattaponi River to 25,900 kg in the James River. Total suspended solids ranged from a median monthly load of 241,500 kg in the Mattaponi River to 20,050,000 kg in the James River. Total organic carbon ranged from a median monthly load of 167,000 kg in the Mattaponi River to 2,100,000 kg in the James River. The median monthly load of dissolved silica ranged from 209,500 kg in the Mattaponi River to 3,625,000 kg in the James River. In general, annual loads for complete years of data collection were greatest at the James River for all constituents, probably because of the much higher discharge, greater basin size, and higher rates of runoff. Yields, or computations of loads per square mile of basin area, were generally highest at the Rappahannock River for total suspended solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrite-plusnitrate nitrogen, and total nitrogen. Dissolved orthophosphorus was the only constituent with a yield consistently greater at the James River. Yields of total phosphorus were highest for the James and Rappahannock River basins, whereas yields of dissolved ammonia nitrogen, total organic carbon, and dissolved silica were similar for all five river basins. Quality-assurance analyses that compare the results of the Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services and the U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory indicate that there are statistically significant differences between the laboratories for several constituents. Differences between laboratories were found to be caused by differences in analytical reporting limits, differences in analytical technique, or a slight bias at both laboratories. Quality-assurance data were used to address analytical technique problems, and to qualify final concentrations and loads.
Virginia↗