Quantifying Ecosystem Services Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Citation:
Rossi, R., C. Bisland, W. Jenkins, V. Van Note, James Williams, E. Trentacoste, AND S. Yee. Quantifying Ecosystem Services Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chesapeake Bay Program STAC Workshop: Using Ecosystem Services to Increase Progress Toward, and Quantify the Benefits of, Multiple CBP Outcomes, Kent Island, MD, March 16, 2023.
Impact/Purpose:
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:
One potential way to improve progress toward Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement goals is to demonstrate how Bay restoration and conservation related 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 (i.e., nutrient, sediment loading to the bay) by identifying and quantifying additional ecosystem services benefits that may result from habitat restoration and conservation related BMPs, particularly to communities upstream of the Bay. 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 comprehensive list of ecosystem services provided by each BMP, and the potential user groups (or beneficiaries) most likely to benefit from those ecosystem services (published as a journal article, Rossi et al., 2022). We used the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Scoping Tool, in combination with a review of existing management documents and Chesapeake Bay Program partner feedback, to assign importance weights to ecosystem services and generate a prioritized list for further assessment based on those which had the potential to be provided by multiple BMPs and had broad relevance across many different stakeholder groups: air quality, bird species for wildlife viewing, carbon sequestration, flood control, temperature reduction, open space, pathogen reduction, pollinator supply, soil quality, and water quantity. For each priority ecosystem service, we identified candidate metrics based on the availability of data and models to translate information on biological condition (i.e., acres of BMP implementation) into potential supply of ecosystem services. 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 values 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. Modeling results are summarized in an EPA Report (Rossi et al. 2022, in review). 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 tools, including the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST), a spatial modeling tool that lets users estimate nutrient reductions from BMPs, and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Data Dashboard, which lets users see information for each county in the watershed, to potentially target areas where ecosystem services could be improved. 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.
