You are here:
Chesapeake Bay RESES
Citation:
Rossi, R., C. Bisland, B. Jenkins, V. Van Note, Bo Williams, E. Trentacoste, AND S. Yee. Chesapeake Bay RESES. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-22/170, 2023.
Impact/Purpose:
The objective of this project is to identify, prioritize, and quantify ecosystem services associated with restoration or conservation-related Best Management Practices (BMPs), particularly those relevant to upstream communities far removed from the Bay. The research provides estimates of potential ecosystem service supply from acres of BMP implementation. We worked with Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) and their partners to select a short list of BMPs on which to focus. Then, we worked with CBPO and their partners to identify ecosystem services and create a prioritized list of 14 ecosystem services to quantify for each of the BMPs selected. We then identified metrics and models to quantify the priority ecosystem services in order to compare potential provisioning of ecosystem services across BMPs, and create baseline estimates of ecosystem services for each county in the watershed. This project also recognizes that BMP implementation targets, as well as the ecosystem services gained through BMP implementation, contribute to accomplishment of Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Outcomes. Quantifying ecosystem services for lagging implementation actions and connecting them with stakeholder interests can help communities understand benefits and tradeoffs of different BMPs, thus empowering communities to participate in restoration efforts in ways that resonate with them and address their own local priorities.
Description:
The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed have been the focus of restoration efforts since the 1980s when the first watershed agreement was signed. Six states and Washington, D.C. created Watershed Implementation Plans that outlined best management practices (BMPs) to address sediment and nutrient impairments and improve water quality standards in the Bay. In 2014 a new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement was adopted that included headwater states for the first time and outlined numeric goals for implementation of several BMPs focused on restoration and conservation of vital habitats. At the watershed scale, however, implementation goals associated with vital habitats are lagging, especially in upstream areas of the watershed. One potential way to improve progress toward Watershed Agreement goals is to demonstrate how these actions may align with the priorities of local communities upstream in the watersheds where they would be implemented. This project extends beyond water quality outcomes by identifying and quantifying additional ecosystem services benefits that may result from habitat restoration and conservation related BMPs. We reviewed existing management documents and worked with Chesapeake Bay Program partners to generate a target list of BMPs based on the following criteria: 1) related to Watershed Agreement goals that are lagging in implementation, 2) related to habitat restoration, creation, or conservation, and 3) likely relevant to upstream or headwater communities. A total of eleven BMPs were selected: agricultural forest buffer, agricultural grass buffer, agriculture tree planting, cover crops, forest conservation, impervious surface reduction, urban forest buffers, urban forest planting, urban tree planting, wetland creation, and wetland restoration. Next, we used the National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS Plus), a review of Chesapeake Bay planning documents, and feedback from partners to identify a prioritized list of ecosystem services that had the potential to be provided by multiple BMPs and had broad relevance across many different stakeholder groups. For each priority ecosystem service, we identified candidate metrics based on the availability of data and models to be able to translate information on biological condition (i.e., acres of BMP implementation) into potential supply of ecosystem services. These models, known as ecological or ecosystem service production functions, can range from simple lookup tables to statistical models to complex biophysical models. In general, we assumed each of the target BMPs would result in new acres of landcover based on the Chesapeake Bay Conservancy 2013-2014 landcover types assigned in the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) (e.g., natural tree canopy, low vegetation, wetland), and reviewed literature to assemble metrics of ecosystem services supply by landcover type, reviewed existing models to translate landcover into ecosystem services supply, or used available data to generate statistical relationships between known acres of landcover and observed measures of ecosystem services. Models were used to quantify potential supply of ecosystem services with acres of implementation for each of the eleven focal restoration or conservation related BMPs. This information is being used to help communicate the co-benefits associated with BMPs in the watershed. The models and data are designed to work with existing Chesapeake Bay Program tools, including the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST), a spatial modeling tool that lets users estimate nutrient reductions from BMPs. Results are also being integrated into the Watershed data dashboard, which lets users see information for each county in the watershed, to potentially target areas where ecosystem services could be improved.