Geology topics

Mark Bennett

Publications and source records attributed to Mark Bennett.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

USGS2014

Coastal storm monitoring in Virginia

Coastal communities in Virginia are prone to flooding, particularly during hurricanes, nor’easters, and other coastal low-pressure systems. These weather systems affect public safety, personal and public property, and valuable infrastructure, such as transportation, water and sewer, and electric-supply networks. Local emergency managers, utility operators, and the public are tasked with making difficult decisions regarding evacuations, road closures, and post-storm recovery efforts as a result of coastal flooding. In coastal Virginia these decisions often are made on the basis of anecdotal knowledge from past events or predictions based on data from monitoring sites located far away from the affected area that may not reflect local conditions. Preventing flood hazards, such as hurricane-induced storm surge, from becoming human disasters requires an understanding of the relative risks that flooding poses to specific communities. The risk to life and property can be very high if decisions about evacuations and road closures are made too late or not at all.

Virginia↗

USGS2011

Simulated changes in salinity in the York and Chickahominy Rivers from projected sea-level rise in Chesapeake Bay

As a result of climate change and variability, sea level is rising throughout the world, but the rate along the east coast of the United States is higher than the global mean rate. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Newport News, Virginia, conducted a study to evaluate the effects of possible future sea-level rise on the salinity front in two tributaries to Chesapeake Bay, the York River, and the Chickahominy/James River estuaries. Numerical modeling was used to represent sea-level rise and the resulting hydrologic effects. Estuarine models for the two tributaries were developed and model simulations were made by use of the Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic-Eutrophication Model (HEM-3D), developed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. HEM-3D was used to simulate tides, tidal currents, and salinity for Chesapeake Bay, the York River and the Chickahominy/James River. The three sea-level rise scenarios that were evaluated showed an increase of 30, 50, and 100 centimeters (cm). Model results for both estuaries indicated that high freshwater river flow was effective in pushing the salinity back toward Chesapeake Bay. Model results indicated that increases in mean salinity will greatly alter the existing water-quality gradients between brackish water and freshwater. This will be particularly important for the freshwater part of the Chickahominy River, where a drinking-water-supply intake for the City of Newport News is located. Significant changes in the salinity gradients for the York River and Chickahominy/James River estuaries were predicted for the three sea-level rise scenarios. When a 50-cm sea-level rise scenario on the York River during a typical year (2005) was used, the model simulation showed a salinity of 15 parts per thousand (ppt) at river kilometer (km) 39. During a dry year (2002), the same salinity (15 ppt) was simulated at river km 45, which means that saltwater was shown to migrate 6 km farther upstream during a dry year than a typical year. The same was true of the Chickahominy River for a 50-cm sea-level rise scenario but to a greater extent; a salinity of 4 ppt was simulated at river km 13 during a typical year and at river km 28 during a dry year, indicating that saltwater migrated 15 km farther upstream during a dry year. Near a drinking-water intake on the Chickahominy River, for a dry year, salinity is predicted to more than double for all three sea-level rise scenarios, relative to a typical year. During a typical year at this location, salinity is predicted to increase to 0.006, 0.07, and more than 2 ppt for the 30-, 50-, and 100-cm rise scenarios, respectively.

Virginia↗

USGS2007

Development of relations of stream stage to channel geometry and discharge for stream segments simulated with Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF), Chesapeake Bay Watershed and adjacent parts of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB), Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VADCR), and University of Maryland (UMD) are collaborating to improve the resolution of the Chesapeake Bay Regional Watershed Model (CBRWM). This watershed model uses the Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF) to simulate the fate and transport of nutrients and sediment throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed and extended areas of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Information from the CBRWM is used by the CBP and other watershed managers to assess the effectiveness of water-quality improvement efforts as well as guide future management activities. A critical step in the improvement of the CBRWM framework was the development of an HSPF function table (FTABLE) for each represented stream channel. The FTABLE is used to relate stage (water depth) in a particular stream channel to associated channel surface area, channel volume, and discharge (streamflow). The primary tool used to generate an FTABLE for each stream channel is the XSECT program, a computer program that requires nine input variables used to represent channel morphology. These input variables are reach length, upstream and downstream elevation, channel bottom width, channel bankfull width, channel bankfull stage, slope of the floodplain, and Manning's roughness coefficient for the channel and floodplain. For the purpose of this study, the nine input variables were grouped into three categories: channel geometry, Manning's roughness coefficient, and channel and floodplain slope. Values of channel geometry for every stream segment represented in CBRWM were obtained by first developing regional regression models that relate basin drainage area to observed values of bankfull width, bankfull depth, and bottom width at each of the 290 USGS streamflow-gaging stations included in the areal extent of the model. These regression models were developed on the basis of data from stations in four physiographic provinces (Appalachian Plateaus, Valley and Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain) and were used to predict channel geometry for all 738 stream segments in the modeled area from associated basin drainage area. Manning's roughness coefficient for the channel and floodplain was represented in the XSECT program in two forms. First, all available field-estimated values of roughness were compiled for gaging stations in each physiographic province. The median of field-estimated values of channel and floodplain roughness for each physiographic province was applied to all respective stream segments. The second representation of Manning's roughness coefficient was to allow roughness to vary with channel depth. Roughness was estimated at each gaging station for each 1-foot depth interval. Median values of roughness were calculated for each 1-foot depth interval for all stations in each physiographic province. Channel and floodplain slope were determined for every stream segment in CBRWM using the USGS National Elevation Dataset. Function tables were generated by the XSECT program using values of channel geometry, channel and floodplain roughness, and channel and floodplain slope. The FTABLEs for each of the 290 USGS streamflow-gaging stations were evaluated by comparing observed discharge to the XSECT-derived discharge. Function table stream discharge derived using depth-varying roughness was found to be more representative of and statistically indistinguishable from values of observed stream discharge. Additionally, results of regression analysis showed that XSECT-derived discharge accounted for approximately 90 percent of the variability associated with observed discharge in each of the four physiographic provinces. The results of this study indicate that the methodology developed to generate FTABLEs for every s

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗