Geology topics

James E. Colgin

Publications and source records attributed to James E. Colgin.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Sediment response to stream restoration in an agricultural watershed

Despite widespread implementation of stream restoration there is limited research of its effectiveness in impaired agricultural settings. To quantify the effects of stream restoration on sediment load, we investigated erosion and deposition along 9 stream reach sites (4 restored, 4 unrestored, and 1 downstream) in Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania, United States - a representative agricultural subbasin of the Chesapeake Bay. These stream restoration projects had the goal of reducing sediment load primarily by installing log structures and regrading streambanks in order to stabilize streambanks and reconnect floodplains. Floodplain and streambank sediment fluxes were quantified over a 3-year period through repeated measurement of clay pads and pins and measurement of sediment bulk density. Uncrewed aerial imagery was collected at 3 of the sites, then processed using structure from motion (SfM) to create high-resolution digital elevation models. Terrain analysis enabled three-dimensional understanding of the generality of the specific field flux measurement locations to the larger stream reach. Restored sites on average had deposition on streambanks compared to streambank erosion along unrestored sites, and approximately two times greater floodplain deposition than unrestored sites. Overall, restored stream had an average seven-fold increase in the net balance (sum of streambank and floodplain) of sediment flux, a 81.2 kg/m/yr increase in retention, compared to unrestored stream. The measured larger streambed particle size distribution (D 50 ) in restored streams also suggests additional improvements to instream habitat quality. Terrain analysis confirmed that the field-based measurements were representative of the larger reach. These results indicate that stream restoration in agricultural watersheds using less-engineered designs can reduce sediment loading and improve stream habitat and health goals.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2025

Tracking status and trends in seven key indicators of river and stream condition in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Freshwater streams and rivers are recognized as vital habitats within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which has been undergoing extensive restoration efforts for more than 30 years. Resource managers need to understand stream and river condition and how these conditions are changing over time to determine whether regional long-term restoration and conservation goals are being met. The objective of this report was to document the spatial and temporal variability of conditions for seven indicators of river and stream health across the nontidal Chesapeake Bay watershed. The framework for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Nontidal Network (NTN), a network of more than 100 nutrient and suspended sediment monitoring locations, was extended to assess conditions for six additional indicators of stream health: temperature, salinity, toxic contaminants, streamflow, hydromorphology, and biological aquatic communities. For each indicator, the latest available data from multiple sources were compiled and harmonized, and key metrics were identified to describe indicator conditions across space and time. A status condition was defined for each indicator to describe overall spatial variability in recent condition, and trend analyses were used to describe changes in each indicator metric over time. The analysis revealed clear differences in spatial and temporal data coverage across the seven indicators, so individual indicator trend analyses were not constrained to a common time interval. However, a status snapshot was conducted across all indicators for the 2015–17 period to simultaneously explore spatial variability across all indicators. The status snapshot highlighted general degraded conditions across multiple indicators in large metropolitan regions, such as the Baltimore–Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Regression analysis between indicator status metrics and major land cover for the sites suggest urbanization as a potential driver of degraded conditions for many of the indicator metrics, including total phosphorus, salinity, temperature, high-flow frequency, and metrics of habitat and biological assemblage quality. A final analysis exploring the spatial representation of each indicator network showed that some indicator monitoring networks did not cover certain settings, such as small watersheds. These results provided an initial assessment of stream health status and trends and will continue to be leveraged to describe conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed to help inform local and regional management decisions. These results also highlighted the need for improved coordination among monitoring organizations to support long-term multi-indicator monitoring and assessment.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗

USGS2024

Estimation and comparison of 1-percent annual exceedance probability flood flows at Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance study flow locations across Pennsylvania

Flood-flow estimates were computed at over 5,000 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance study (FIS) flow locations across Pennsylvania for the 1-percent annual exceedance probability flood event (1-percent AEP). Depending on a point of interest’s proximity to a streamgage, weighting techniques may be applied to obtain flood-flow estimates for ungaged flow locations using observed peak-flow data from a nearby streamgage. Following the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) published guidance, stream segments were identified where the drainage-area ratio method could be leveraged. Using updated regional regression equations and recently published flood-flow estimates at USGS streamgage locations following USGS Bulletin 17C guidelines, weighted and transferred flood flows were computed, where appropriate. For locations not applicable for the drainage-area ratio method, regression equations were used to compute flood-flow estimates. These flood-flow estimates were then compared to FEMA FIS 1-percent AEP flood-flow estimates. Percentage-difference values were computed for 3,599 FIS flow locations determined to be suitable for analysis, finding that USGS-derived flood-flow estimates were consistently lower than FEMA FIS flood-flow estimates with a statewide median percentage difference of −10.1 percent. The dataset was normally distributed with a standard deviation of 45.7 percent. Allegheny County was found to have 74 FIS flow locations with percentage-difference values greater than or equal to 67 percent or less than or equal to −67 percent. The flood-flow region in which Allegheny County is contained, Region 2, had a median percentage-difference value of −39 percent. Although removed from the final analysis, flow locations with drainage-area values above the recommended threshold for regression-based estimation (about 1,000 square miles [mi 2 ]) were observed to have consistently higher percentage-difference values; a reminder of the limitations of use for regression-based flood-flow estimates. This report, the comparisons within, and a companion data release are intended to serve as tools to FEMA in assisting with the ongoing assessment of FIS flow locations across Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2023

Tracking status and trends in seven key indicators of stream health in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

“The Bay Connects us, the Bay reflects us” writes Tom Horton in the book “Turning the Tide—Saving the Chesapeake Bay”. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains the largest estuary in the United States. The watershed stretches north to Cooperstown, New York, south to Lynchburg and Virginia Beach, Virginia, west to Pendleton County, West Virginia, and east to Seaford, Delaware, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. The watershed is more than 64,000 square miles that contain 150 major rivers and streams, hereafter referred to collectively as streams, that total more than 100,000 miles in length. The watershed contains thousands of smaller creeks and tributaries, large numbers of plants and animals, and, in 2020, more than 18.4 million people. As changes occur in population, land use, and climate within the watershed, so too do the diversity and health of the Bay's ecosystems.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗