Geology topics

Research about Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Long-term predictive modeling of stream condition suggests wide-spread changes within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA

Stream ecosystems worldwide face ongoing degradation, underscoring the urgent need for conservation and restoration. Regional analyses of stream condition have been limited by sparse spatial and temporal data, particularly at long time scales. To address this gap, we used observed data to predict annual biological condition for 360,893 small, nontidal stream reaches in the Chesapeake Bay watershed from 1985 to 2023 (39 years). Predictions were generated using random forest models trained on extensive benthic macroinvertebrate data sets and predictors including natural landscape features, land cover, and climate variables. Four biological metrics were assessed: percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera excluding Hydropsychidae (EPT-H), percent Ephemeroptera, percent clinger functional group, and the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI). Results revealed degraded biological conditions near Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland, with declining trends across all metrics in these urbanized areas. Spatial heterogeneity was evident: IBI and clinger percentages increased in many southern streams but declined in northern streams, whereas EPT-H and Ephemeroptera decreased watershed wide except in the Southeastern Plains bioregion. By 2021, watershed wide IBI improvements were predicted for 0.9–1.1% of stream length, falling short of management goals. This study demonstrates the utility of long-term data and machine learning for predicting stream condition, identifying key stressors, and guiding restoration and conservation site selection.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2025

Assessing streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to guide conservation and restoration activities

Freshwater streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are home to numerous aquatic organisms (like fish, amphibians, mussels, and insects) and provide drinking water and recreational opportunities to people living in or visiting the watershed. Land-use changes, such as urban development and increased activities in certain agricultural sectors, have degraded water quality and altered conditions in these streams, thereby affecting their health and function. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is working with Federal, State, and local partners to develop modeled assessments of stream health in freshwater streams and rivers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The USGS compiled large datasets for multiple stream health indicators, including instream stressors (salinity, water temperature, physical habitat, and streambank erosion) and living resources (macroinvertebrates and fish communities; fig. 1). These datasets were used by USGS scientists to develop models to predict stream health conditions across the entire region, including areas with little or no monitoring data. Collectively, these stream health assessments provide critical information to natural resource managers who implement restoration and conservation activities in the region.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2022

Quantifying connectivity and its effects on sediment budgeting for an agricultural basin, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, United States

Excessive sediment runoff as a result of anthropogenic activities is a major concern for watershed ecologic health. This study sought to determine the sources, storage, and delivery of sediment using a sediment budget approach for the predominantly pasture and forested Smith Creek watershed, Virginia United States, a tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. Utilizing a novel combination of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) model and an index of connectivity along with field surveys of channels, this study indicated that streambanks and pastures were major sources of sediment. Overestimation of fine-grained sediment flux exported from the watershed according to this study's models (3811 Mg/year) compared to export measured at the outlet (2918 Mg/year) most likely indicates underestimation of storage in the watershed from unaccounted for geomorphic features (ponds, toe slopes, and colluvial slopes). Sediment budget results indicating that streambanks are a major source of sediment in the watershed support previous sediment fingerprinting results and provide a framework for managers to address the sediment problem in Smith Creek and similar tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2022

Identifying key stressors driving biological impairment in freshwater streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA

Biological communities in freshwater streams are often impaired by multiple stressors (e.g., flow or water quality) originating from anthropogenic activities such as urbanization, agriculture, or energy extraction. Restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA seek to improve biological conditions in 10% of freshwater tributaries and to protect the biological integrity of existing healthy watersheds. To achieve these goals, resource managers need to better understand which stressors are most likely driving biological impairment. Our study addressed this knowledge gap through two approaches: 1) reviewing and synthesizing published multi-stressor studies, and 2) examining 303(d) listed impairments linked to biological impairment as identified by jurisdiction regulatory agencies (the states within the watershed and the District of Columbia). Results identified geomorphology (i.e., physical habitat), salinity, and toxic contaminants as important for explaining variability in benthic community metrics in the literature review. Geomorphology (i.e., physical habitat and sediment), salinity, and nutrients were the most reported stressors in the jurisdictional impairment analysis. Salinity is likely a major stressor in urban and mining settings, whereas geomorphology was commonly reported in agricultural settings. Toxic contaminants, such as pesticides, were rarely measured; more research is needed to quantify the extent of their effects in the region. Flow alteration was also highlighted as an important urban stressor in the literature review but was rarely measured in the literature or reported by jurisdictions as a cause of impairment. These results can be used to prioritize stressor monitoring by managers, and to improve stressor identification methods for identifying causes of biological impairment.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2022

Explainable machine learning improves interpretability in the predictive modeling of biological stream conditions in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA

Anthropogenic alterations have resulted in widespread degradation of stream conditions. To aid in stream restoration and management, baseline estimates of conditions and improved explanation of factors driving their degradation are needed. We used random forests to model biological conditions using a benthic macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity for small, non-tidal streams (upstream area ≤200 km 2 ) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (CBW) of the mid-Atlantic coast of North America. We utilized several global and local model interpretation tools to improve average and site-specific model inferences, respectively. The model was used to predict condition for 95,867 individual catchments for eight periods (2001, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2016, 2019). Predicted conditions were classified as Poor, FairGood, or Uncertain to align with management needs and individual reach lengths and catchment areas were summed by condition class for the CBW for each period. Global permutation and local Shapley importance values indicated percent of forest, development, and agriculture in upstream catchments had strong impacts on predictions. Development and agriculture negatively influenced stream condition for model average (partial dependence [PD] and accumulated local effect [ALE] plots) and local (individual condition expectation and Shapley value plots) levels. Friedman's H-statistic indicated large overall interactions for these three land covers, and bivariate global plots (PD and ALE) supported interactions among agriculture and development. Total stream length and catchment area predicted in FairGood conditions decreased then increased over the 19-years (length/area: 66.6/65.4% in 2001, 66.3/65.2% in 2011, and 66.6/65.4% in 2019). Examination of individual catchment predictions between 2001 and 2019 showed those predicted to have the largest decreases in condition had large increases in development; whereas catchments predicted to exhibit the largest increases in condition showed moderate increases in forest cover. Use of global and local interpretative methods together with watershed-wide and individual catchment predictions support conservation practitioners that need to identify widespread and localized patterns, especially acknowledging that management actions typically take place at individual-reach scales.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2020

Substantially greater carbon emissions estimated based on annual land-use transition data

Quantifying land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) effects on carbon sources and sinks has been very challenging because of the availability and quality of LULCC data. As the largest estuary in the United States, Chesapeake Bay is a rapidly changing region and is affected by human activities. A new annual land-use and land-cover (LULC) data product developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Land Change Monitoring and Analysis Program (LCMAP) from 2001 to 2011 was analyzed for transitions between agricultural land, developed land, grassland, forest land and wetland. The Land Use and Carbon Scenario Simulator was used to simulate effects of LULCC and ecosystem disturbance in the south of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW) on carbon storage and fluxes, with carbon parameters derived from the Integrated Biosphere Simulator. We found that during the study period: (1) areas of forest land, disturbed land, agricultural land and wetland decreased by 90, 82, 57, and 65 km 2 , respectively, but developed lands gained 293 km 2 (29 km 2 annually); (2) total ecosystem carbon stock in the CBW increased by 13 Tg C from 2001 to 2011, mainly due to carbon sequestration of the forest ecosystem; (3) carbon loss was primarily attributed to urbanization (0.224 Tg C·yr −1 ) and agricultural expansion (0.046 Tg C·yr −1 ); and (4) estimated carbon emissions and harvest wood products were greater when estimated with the annual LULC input. We conclude that a dense time series of LULCC, such as that of the LCMAP program, may provide a more accurate accounting of the effects of land use change on ecosystem carbon, which is critical to understanding long-term ecosystem carbon dynamics.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗

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

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↗

USGS2019

River‐valley morphology, basin size, and flow‐event magnitude interact to produce wide variation in flooding dynamics

Inundation dynamics are a key driver of ecosystem form and function in river‐valley bottoms. Inundation itself is an outcome of multi‐scalar interactions and can vary strongly within and among river reaches. As a result, establishing to what degree and how inundation dynamics vary spatially both within and among river reaches can be challenging. The objective of this study was to understand how river‐valley morphology, basin size, and flow‐event magnitude interact to affect inundation dynamics in river‐valley bottoms. We used 2D hydraulic models to simulate inundation in four river reaches from Maryland's Piedmont physiographic province, and qualitatively and quantitatively summarized within‐ and among‐reach patterns of inundation extent, duration, depth, shear stress, and wetting frequencies. On average, reaches from confined valley settings experienced less extensive flooding, shorter durations and shallower depths, stronger gradients of maximum shear stress, and relatively infrequent wetting compared to reaches from unconfined settings. These patterns were generally consistent across flow‐event magnitudes. Patterns of within‐reach flooding across event magnitudes revealed complex interactions between hydrology and surface topography. We concluded that valley morphology had a greater impact on flooding patterns than basin size: Inundation patterns were more consistent across reaches of similar morphology than similar basin size, but absolute values of inundation characteristics varied between large and small basins. Our results showed that the manifestation of out‐of‐bank flows in valley floors can vary widely depending on geomorphic context, even within a single physiographic province, which suggests that hydrologic and hydraulic conditions experienced on the valley floor may not be well represented by existing hydrologic metrics derived from discharge data alone. We thus support the notion that 2D hydraulic models can be useful hydrometric tools for cross‐scale investigations of floodplain ecosystems.

Maryland↗

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

Manure and fertilizer inputs to land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 1950–2012

Understanding changing nutrient concentrations in surface waters requires quantitative information on changing nutrient sources in contributing watersheds. For example, the proportion of nutrient inputs reaching streams and rivers is directly affected by when and where those nutrients enter the landscape. The goal of this report is to contribute to the U.S. Geological Survey’s efforts to describe spatial and temporal patterns in nutrient inputs to the landscape in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, thereby informing efforts to understand changes in riverine and estuarine conditions. The magnitude, spatial variability, and changes over time in nutrient inputs from manure and fertilizer were evaluated in the context of changes in land use and agricultural practices from 1950 through 2012 at three spatial scales: the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed, the 53 8-digit hydrologic units (HUC8s) that are contained within the watershed, and a set of 7 regions that were determined by aggregating geographically similar HUC8s. The expected effect of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) on agricultural nutrient inputs from 1985 through 2012 was also investigated. Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) inputs from manure increased gradually over time at the scale of the entire watershed. Fertilizer-N inputs showed steeper increases, with greater inter-annual fluctuations. Fertilizer-P inputs were less variable, increasing moderately from 1950 through the mid-1970s, and declining thereafter. Nutrient inputs and farming practices varied geographically within the watershed, with implications for the potential impact of these inputs on downstream water quality and ecosystem health. Both temporal and spatial patterns in the intensity of agricultural nutrient inputs were consistent with the magnitude and concentration of livestock and poultry populations and the intensity of row crop agriculture. Reported implementation of the animal and land-use change BMPs that were evaluated were expected to have little effect on agricultural N inputs. Animal BMPs were expected to have a more measurable impact on manure-P inputs, particularly in areas with large poultry populations. Understanding these patterns is important for explaining the changes that have been observed in nutrient loads to the rivers and streams of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and their impacts on the water quality and ecosystem health of Chesapeake Bay itself.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2015

Understanding nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and implications for management and restoration: The Eastern Shore

The Eastern Shore includes only a small part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, but contributes disproportionately large loads of the excess nitrogen and phosphorus that have contributed to ecological and economic degradation of the bay in recent decades. Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and a vital ecological and economic resource. The bay and its tributaries have been degraded in recent decades by excessive nitrogen and phosphorus in the water column, however, which cause harmful algal blooms and decreased water clarity, submerged aquatic vegetation, and dissolved oxygen. The disproportionately large nitrogen and phosphorus yields from the Eastern Shore to Chesapeake Bay are attributable to human land-use practices as well as natural hydrogeologic and soil conditions. Applications of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds to the Eastern Shore from human activities are intensive. More than 90 percent of nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the land in the Eastern Shore is applied as part of inorganic fertilizers or manure, or (for nitrogen) fixed directly from the atmosphere in cropland. Also, hydrogeologic and soil conditions promote the movement of these compounds from application areas on the landscape to groundwater and (or) surface waters, and the proximity of much of the Eastern Shore to tidal waters limits opportunities for natural removal of these compounds in the landscape. The Eastern Shore only includes 7 percent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, but receives nearly twice as much nitrogen and phosphorus applications (per area) as the remainder of the watershed and yields greater nitrogen and phosphorus, on average, to the bay. Nitrogen and phosphorus commonly occur in streams at concentrations that may adversely affect aquatic ecosystems and have increased in recent decades.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennylvania, Virgini↗

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↗

USGS2013

Assessing winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency using a water quality simulation model

Winter cover crops are an effective conservation management practice with potential to improve water quality. Throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW), which is located in the Mid-Atlantic US, winter cover crop use has been emphasized and federal and state cost-share programs are available to farmers to subsidize the cost of winter cover crop establishment. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term effect of planting winter cover crops at the watershed scale and to identify critical source areas of high nitrate export. A physically-based watershed simulation model, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), was calibrated and validated using water quality monitoring data and satellite-based estimates of winter cover crop species performance to simulate hydrological processes and nutrient cycling over the period of 1991–2000. Multiple scenarios were developed to obtain baseline information on nitrate loading without winter cover crops planted and to investigate how nitrate loading could change with different winter cover crop planting scenarios, including different species, planting times, and implementation areas. The results indicate that winter cover crops had a negligible impact on water budget, but significantly reduced nitrate leaching to groundwater and delivery to the waterways. Without winter cover crops, annual nitrate loading was approximately 14 kg ha −1 , but it decreased to 4.6–10.1 kg ha −1 with winter cover crops resulting in a reduction rate of 27–67% at the watershed scale. Rye was most effective, with a potential to reduce nitrate leaching by up to 93% with early planting at the field scale. Early planting of winter cover crops (~30 days of additional growing days) was crucial, as it lowered nitrate export by an additional ~2 kg ha −1 when compared to late planting scenarios. The effectiveness of cover cropping increased with increasing extent of winter cover crop implementation. Agricultural fields with well-drained soils and those that were more frequently used to grow corn had a higher potential for nitrate leaching and export to the waterways. This study supports the effective implement of winter cover crop programs, in part by helping to target critical pollution source areas for winter cover crop implementation.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

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

Spatial and temporal trends in runoff at long-term streamgages within and near the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Long-term streamflow data within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and surrounding area were analyzed in an attempt to identify trends in streamflow. Data from 30 streamgages near and within the Chesapeake Bay watershed were selected from 1930 through 2010 for analysis. Streamflow data were converted to runoff and trend slopes in percent change per decade were calculated. Trend slopes for three runoff statistics (the 7-day minimum, the mean, and the 1-day maximum) were analyzed annually and seasonally. The slopes also were analyzed both spatially and temporally. The spatial results indicated that trend slopes in the northern half of the watershed were generally greater than those in the southern half. The temporal analysis was done by splitting the 80-year flow record into two subsets; records for 28 streamgages were analyzed for 1930 through 1969 and records for 30 streamgages were analyzed for 1970 through 2010. The mean of the data for all sites for each year were plotted so that the following datasets were analyzed: the 7-day minimum runoff for the north, the 7-day minimum runoff for the south, the mean runoff for the north, the mean runoff for the south, the 1-day maximum runoff for the north, and the 1-day maximum runoff for the south. Results indicated that the period 1930 through 1969 was statistically different from the period 1970 through 2010. For the 7-day minimum runoff and the mean runoff, the latter period had significantly higher streamflow than did the earlier period, although within those two periods no significant linear trends were identified. For the 1-day maximum runoff, no step trend or linear trend could be shown to be statistically significant for the north, although the south showed a mixture of an upward step trend accompanied by linear downtrends within the periods. In no case was a change identified that indicated an increasing rate of change over time, and no general pattern was identified of hydrologic conditions becoming "more extreme" over time.

Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West V↗