Pollution and Runoff in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
This story map will look at nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay.
![](https://cdn.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/2e23bac3f4e341dcb60bbbc192ad3e3c/resources/firA6V-AIWGiqdK20YxUq.jpeg?w=20)
Project Description: We examined trends in nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay that were taken from nine United States Geological Survey River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations. This highlighted how the current restoration efforts have improved the conditions in the Chesapeake Bay. However, it will also highlight where efforts have fallen short thus far. We wanted to find the monitoring stations that have shown degrading water quality levels over the ten-year trend and were located within a 5-mile buffer zone of either a major road or an interstate. We focused on proximity to major roads and interstates because one way that restoration efforts could be enhanced is through the implementation of pervious surfaces in the more urbanized areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These areas experience high levels of runoff over the impervious surfaces that dominate the area.
Methods: We obtained data from the United States Geological Survey River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations on nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay over both the long term (1985-2021) and a ten-year term (2012-2021). We also used data on the land cover in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, data on the most populated areas, and data on where the major roads and interstates are located. This allowed us to determine where it would be most advantageous to implement pervious surfaces to help reduce stormwater runoff into the Chesapeake Bay.
This map shows the Chesapeake Bay watershed which spans over 6 states and Washington DC.
Watershed
Monitoring Station | Nitrogen Long-Term Trend (1985-2021) | Nitrogen Ten-Year Trend (2012-2021) | Phosphorus Long-Term Trend (1985-2021) | Phosphorus Ten-Year Trend (2012-2021) | Sediment Long-Term Trend (1985-2021) | Sediment Ten-Year Trend (2012-2021) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Susquehanna River (Conowingo, MD) | Improving | Improving | No Trend | Improving | No Trend | Improving |
Potomac River (Washington, DC) | Improving | Improving | Improving | Improving | Improving | No Trend |
James River (Cartersville, VA) | Improving | Improving | Improving | Improving | No Trend | Improving |
Rappahannock River (Fredericksburg, VA) | Improving | Degrading | Degrading | No Trend | Degrading | No Trend |
Appomattox River (Matoaca, VA) | Degrading | Degrading | Degrading | Degrading | Degrading | Degrading |
Pamunkey River (Hanover, VA) | No Trend | No Trend | Degrading | Improving | Degrading | Improving |
Mattaponi River (Beulahville, VA) | Improving | Degrading | No Trend | Improving | No Trend | Degrading |
Patuxent River (Bowie, MD) | Improving | Improving | Improving | Improving | Improving | Improving |
Choptank River (Greensboro, MD) | Degrading | Degrading | Degrading | Degrading | Improving | Degrading |
This table is an overview of the input data that will be used in the following ArcGIS maps.
Instructions on Interpretation: This is a legend for the land cover layer of our maps and the pollution trends in our map. The areas of focus for the land cover layer are the developed areas (Red and Dark Red). For the pollution trends layer the downwards-facing red arrow shows that the water quality at that monitoring station is getting worse over the indicated time period, the upwards-facing green arrow shows that the water quality at that monitoring station is improving over the indicated time period, and the horizontal black line shows that there is no trend in the water quality at that monitoring station of the indicated time period. The darker clay color represents highways/interstates and the lighter tan color represents major roads. The first map on each slideshow is the long-term trends of pollution levels with the whole watershed landcover, the second map in each slideshow is the ten-year trends of pollution levels with the whole watershed landcover, the third map in each slideshow is the long-term trends of pollution levels with only a 5-mile buffer of watershed landcover, and the fourth map in each slide show is the ten-year trends of pollution levels with only a 5-mile buffer of watershed landcover.
Sediment Pollution Trends in the Chesapeake Bay.
Phosphorus Pollution Trends in the Chesapeake Bay.
Sediment Pollution Trends in the Chesapeake Bay.
Monitoring Stations for Pervious Pavement
Conclusions: After looking at all of the pollution trends over both the long-term and over a ten-year term to see where water quality is degrading and matching those sites to areas where there are either major roads or highways or where there is developed areas, it would make the most sense to invest in pervious pavement in the areas near the Potomac River water quality monitoring station and the Rappahannock River water quality monitoring station. These are shown on the map above.
The use of these maps: Having a visual representation of the status of these areas can be quite beneficial for those in the water quality sector. Pinning down the spots with degrading water quality can help contribute to locating and providing a remedy to the point sources of pollution. Water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has been a recurring issue, therefore contributions of any kind can make a big difference that has plagued an area for so long.
Additionally, these maps can be a learning tool for the public. Those living in the area can refer to it in order to have a better idea of where they can trust the water sources and where the water may not be the best to use. This can be a great resource, especially for those who have pre-existing health conditions, are of old age, or are very young (those the most vulnerable to health compromise).
Moving forward, there are always further contributions to tackling the Chesapeake Bay Watershed's water quality issue. Our hope for the future is to develop proactive measures that can act to prevent, instead of being limited to action in the aftermath.
Problems Encountered: One of the main problems we encountered was finding geospatial data for the nine United States Geological Survey RIM stations. Since the RIM station water quality data was obtained from an Excel file, it needed to be related or joined to another data set that gave it a geographical location so it could be represented on the map. This proved to be a bigger challenge than we anticipated.
Work Cited
“Water Quality Standards Attainment and Monitoring.” Chesapeake Progress, Feb. 2023, www.chesapeakeprogress.com/clean-water/water-quality. Accessed 06 Nov. 2023.
“Chesapeake Bay Watershed Boundary” [Feature Layer]. June 1, 2021. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/ChesBay::chesapeake-bay-watershed-boundary/about . (November 3, 2023)
Jon Dewitz. “National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2021 Land Cover Conterminous United States” [remote-sensing image]. June 30, 2023. https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2021-land-cover-conus . (November 3, 2023)
Chesapeake Geoplatform. “Chesapeake Bay 92 Segments” [Feature Layer]. Mar 27, 2020. https://data-chesbay.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ChesBay::chesapeake-bay-92-segments/about Accessed 06 Nov. 2023 .
Layers used from the usdatabase from class:
States
Cities
Major Roads
Interstates