J? JS>" ^ JS>- &
^ # &
Figure 2.4.2. Relative supply of ecosystem services, each
scaled from 0.1 to 0.9 to indicate supply by cover crops
relative to the minimum (0.1) and maximum (0.9) across
all focal BMPs. Missing values are due to lack of data to
quantify that particular ecosystem service.
~00-23
~2.4- 12
¦ 13-50
¦51 - 210
¦220 - 850
¦ 860 - 3500
¦ 3600 - 14000
¦15000 - 59000
2.4. Cover Crops
-------
Best Management Practices
BMPs... provide ecosystem services... which benefit...
Figure 2.4.3. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem services
(blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi et al.
2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box; left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12). The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
What watershed outcomes may benefit from cover crops?
We identified a direct connection between cover crops and several Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement outcomes (Table 2.4.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.4.1. Connections between the cover crop BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025 WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like cover crops, expected to reduce
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in the Chesapeake Bay.
Fish Habitat
Cover crops can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make waters
unhealthy for fish.
Oyster
Cover crops can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make waters
unhealthy for oysters.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Cover crops lead to reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that leads to low
amounts of dissolved oxygen, and traps the sediment that can reduce water
clarity, allowing light to reach the SAV.
Toxic Contaminants
Policy & Prevention
Cover crops can trap toxic contaminants before they reach our waterways
ensures we have clean water for drinking and the ecosystem.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Guide factsheet: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/BMP-
Guide A.4 Cover-Crops-Traditional .pdf
NRCS factsheet: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdbl263481.pdf
2.4. Cover Crops
10
-------
Best Management Practices
2.5. Forest Conservation
What is forest conservation?
Forest conservation is a land policy BMP.
Organizations and governments are proactively
pursuing a variety of actions to conserve forests,
which provide benefits to wildlife, human safety, and
water quality. Example priority areas include riparian
zones, large contiguous forest tracts, and other high-
priority forest conservation areas (Chesapeake Bay
Program, 2018).
What are the additional benefits of forest
conservation?
Forest conservation, and land preservation in
general, is important to preserve habitats that may
serve multiple purposes. Quantitative modeling (see
Chapter 3) estimated forest conservation lands to be
particularly important for providing shading to
reduce heat risk, flood control, buffering air
pollution, and for providing natural open space for
habitat or recreational uses (Fig. 2.5.1).
In total, we identified 27 potential ecosystem services provided by forests that would benefit 33
potential user groups (Rossi et al., 2022a), some of which are illustrated in Fig. 2.5.2. For example,
conserving large tracts of forest open space may provide recreation opportunities for people interested
in experiences like hiking, hunting, and wildlife viewing.
lich benefit...
Artists/Inspirational Users
Fishermen/Watermen
Experiencers/Viewers
Low Income/Disadvantage Residents
Residential Property Owners/Renters
Educators/Students
Citizens/Public Health
Resource Dependent Businesses
Researchers
Subsistence Users
Farmers/Rural landowners
H unters/Gatherers
Military/Coast Guard
Public Sector/Government
Pharmaceutical/Food Supplement Suppliers
Timber/Forestry
Figure 2.5.2. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem services
(blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi et al.
2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box, left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12). The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
11
2.5. Forest Conservation
Forest Conservation
1 r
Figure 2.5.1. Relative supply of ecosystem services,
each scaled from 0.1 to 0.9 to indicate supply by
forest conservation relative to the minimum (0.1)
and maximum (0.9) across all focal BMPs. Missing
values are lack of data to quantify that service.
-------
Best Management Practices
What watershed outcomes may benefit from forest conservation?
We identified a direct connection between forest conservation and several Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement outcomes (Table 2.5.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.5.1. Connections between the forest conservation BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025 WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like forest conservation, expected to
reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Black Duck
Forest conservation can help create black duck habitat.
Blue Crab
Abundance
Forest conservation can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for crabs.
Brook Trout
Forest conservation can help create cooler temperatures and healthy streams
for fish.
Climate Adaptation
Creating natural lands through forest conservation can enhance resilience to
flooding and coastal erosion.
Fish Habitat
Forest conservation can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for fish.
Forest Buffer
Acres of riparian forest buffers, and their capacity to provide water quality and
habitat benefits, can be increased through forest conservation.
Healthy
Watersheds
Forest conservation, by increasing trees and forests, help to maintain
watersheds of high quality and high ecological value, which provide critical
ecosystem services like habitat and clean water.
Oyster
Forest conservation can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for oysters.
Protected Lands
Protecting lands in permanent easements and other natural lands preservation
programs through forest conservation ensures that natural landscapes will
persist for future generations.
Public Access Site
Development
Ensuring access to natural lands through forest conservation allows humans to
enjoy the beauty and peace of natural landscapes and water.
Stream Health
Increasing trees through forest conservation can reduce temperatures in
streams, filter nutrient and sediment runoff, and maintain stable flow.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Forest conservation leads to reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that leads
to low amounts of dissolved oxygen, and traps the sediment that can reduce
water clarity, allowing light to reach the SAV.
Tree Canopy
Outcome
Forest conservation increases tree and forest canopy to provide air quality,
water quality and habitat benefits if adjacent to urban areas.
Additional Resources
NRCS factsheet: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/nrcsl44p2 025454.pdf
2.5. Forest Conservation
12
-------
Best Management Practices
Grass Buffers
, s
0.7
2.6. Grass Buffers
What is a grass buffer?
Grass buffers are linear strips of grass
or other non-woody vegetation placed
between the edge of a field and
streams, rivers, or tidal waters to help
filter nutrients, sediment and other
pollutants from runoff. The
recommended buffer width is 100 feet,
with a 35 feet minimum width required.
Grass buffers can be placed on
agricultural or pasture land
(Chesapeake Bay Program, 2018).
As of 2019, grass buffers were
implemented at various acreages across
the watershed with the largest
implementation in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania (Fig. 2.6.1), based on
county-level reporting data.
What are the additional benefits of
implementing a grass buffer BMP?
Grass buffers help reduce nitrogen,
phosphorous, and sediment loads while
also providing additional ecosystem
services. Quantitative modeling (see
Chapter 3) estimated grass buffers to
be particularly important for reducing
pathogen runoff, providing pollinator
habitat, and for providing natural open
space for habitat or recreational uses
(Fig. 2.6.2).
Figure 2.6.1. Cumulative acres of grass buffers (fenced arid
unfenced) implemented at the county level through 2019.
Figure 2.6.2. Relative supply of ecosystem services, each scaled
from 0.1 to 0.9 to indicate supply by grass buffers relative to
the minimum (0.1) and maximum (0.9) across all focal BMPs.
13
2.6. Grass Buffers
-------
Best Management Practices
In total, we identified 30 potential ecosystem services provided by grass buffer BMPs that would benefit
33 potential user groups (Rossi et al., 2022a), some of which are illustrated in Fig. 2.6.3. For example,
grass buffers help with flood control by slowing runoff which benefits farmers and residents in the area.
Grass buffers can also reduce pathogens from reaching waterways, which benefits farmers whose
livestock use streams for water sources.
BMPs... provide ecosystem services... which benefit...
Artists/Inspirational Users
Educators/Students
Experiencers/Viewers
Farmers/Rural landowners
Military/Coast Guard
Energy Generators
Low Income/Disadvantage Residents
Residential Property Owners/Renters
Public Sector/Government
Researchers
Resource Dependent Businesses
Hunters/Gatherers
Drinking Water/Water Treatment Providers
Subsistence Users
Pharmaceutical/Food Supplement Suppliers
Figure 2.6.3. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem services
(blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi et al.
2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box, left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12). The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
What watershed outcomes may benefit from grass buffers?
We identified a direct connection between grass buffers and several Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement outcomes (Table 2.6.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.6.1. Connections between the grass buffer BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like grass buffers, expected to reduce
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in the Chesapeake Bay.
Black Duck
Grass buffers can help create black duck habitat.
Blue Crab
Abundance
Grass buffers can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for crabs.
Brook Trout
Grass buffers can help create cooler temperatures and healthy streams for fish.
Climate Adaptation
Creating natural iands through grass buffers can enhance resilience to flooding
and coastal erosion.
Agricultural grass buffers
Pest, predators
Pathogen.reduction
2.6. Grass Buffers
14
-------
Best Management Practices
Fish Habitat
Grass buffers can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for fish.
Healthy
Watersheds
Grass buffers help to maintain watersheds of high quality and high ecological
value by providing critical ecosystem services like habitat and water filtration.
Oyster
Grass buffers can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for oysters.
Protected Lands
Protecting lands in permanent easements and other natural lands preservation
programs through creation of grass buffers ensures that natural landscapes will
persist for future generations.
Public Access Site
Development
Ensuring access to natural lands through grass buffers allows humans to enjoy
the beauty and peace of natural landscapes and water.
Stream Health
Increasing vegetation through grass buffers can reduce temperatures in
streams, filter nutrient and sediment runoff, and maintain stable flow.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Grass buffers lead to reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that leads to low
amounts of dissolved oxygen. They also trap the sediment that can reduce
water clarity, allowing light to reach the SAV.
Wetlands
Grass buffers at the edge of wetlands can help to maintain and increase the
capacity of wetlands to provide habitat and water quality benefits throughout
the watershed.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Guide factsheet:
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/BMP-Guide A. 12 Forest-Buffers-and-Grass-
Buffers .pdf
NRCS BMP factsheets:
https://www.blogs.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/16/nrcseprdl499250.pdf
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdbl255Q21.pdf
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdbl241319.pdf
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdbl255Q19.pdf
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdbl263483.pdf
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/archived-fact-
sheets/practice cp8a grass waterway iul2015.pdf
2.6. Grass Buffers
15
-------
Best Management Practices
2.7 Impervious Surface Reduction
What is Impervious surface
reduction?
Impervious cover can either be physically
removed (ICR; Impervious cover removal)
or simply disconnected so that some
portion of the runoff filters or infiltrates
into adjacent pervious soils (ICD;
Impervious cover disconnection). ICR in
particular replaces impervious surfaces
with pervious surfaces that have been
de-compacted and amended to promote
infiltration.
As of 2019, Fairfax County, Virginia has
the greatest acreage of Impervious
surface reduction BMP implemented (Fig.
2.7.1), based on county-level reporting
data.
What are the additional benefits of
implementing the impervious surface
reduction BMP?
Impervious surface reduction helps
reduce nitrogen, phosphorous, and
sediment loads while also providing
additional ecosystem services.
Quantitative modeling (see Chapter 3)
estimated impervious surface reductions
to be particularly important for
sequestering carbon, improving soil
conditions, providing pollinator habitat,
and providing natural open space for
habitat or recreational uses (Fig. 2.7.2).
Chesapeake Bay Program
Figure 2.7.1. Cumulative acres of impervious surface reduction
implemented at the county level through 2019.
y r f ,
-------
Best Management Practices
In total, we identified 19 potential ecosystem services provided by impervious surface reduction that
would benefit 33 potential user groups (Rossi et al., 2022a), some of which are illustrated in Fig. 2.7.3.
For example, impervious reduction may provide pathogen reduction which may benefit residents and
local governments.
BMPs... provide ecosystem services... which benefit...
Artists/Inspirational Users
Educators/Students
Experiencers/Viewers
Low Income/Disadvantage Residents
Citizens/Public Health
Residential Property Owners/Renters
Resource Dependent Businesses
Researchers
Military/Coast Guard
Hunters/Gatherers
Drinking Water/Water Treatment Providers
Public Sector/Government
Subsistence Users
Energy Generators
Figure 2.7.3. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem services
(blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi et al.
2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box, left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12). The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
What watershed outcomes may benefit from impervious surface reduction?
We identified a direct connection between impervious surface reduction and several Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement outcomes (Table 2.7.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.7.1. Connections between the agricultural forest buffer BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like impervious surface reduction,
expected to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in
the Chesapeake Bay.
Blue Crab
Abundance
Impervious surface reduction increases vegetation and soil infiltration that can
help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make waters unhealthy for
crabs.
Brook Trout
Impervious surface reduction increases vegetation that can help create cooler
temperatures and healthy streams for fish.
Fish Habitat
Impervious surface reduction increases vegetation and soil infiltration that can
help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make waters unhealthy for
fish.
Healthy
Watersheds
Impervious surface reduction, by increasing vegetation and soil infiltration, help
to maintain watersheds of high quality and high ecological value, which provide
critical ecosystem services like habitat and clean water.
17
2.7 Impervious Surface Reduction
-------
Best Management Practices
Oyster
Impervious surface reduction increases vegetation and soil infiltration that can
help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make waters unhealthy for
oysters.
Public Access Site
Development
Ensuring access to natural lands by converting impervious surface to
greenspace allows humans to enjoy the beauty and peace of natural landscapes
and water.
Stream Health
Increasing vegetation and soil infiltration through impervious surface reduction
can reduce temperatures in streams, filter nutrient and sediment runoff, and
maintain stable flow.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Impervious surface reduction increases vegetation and soil infiltration that lead
to reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that leads to low amounts of
dissolved oxygen. They also trap the sediment that can reduce water clarity,
allowing light to reach the SAV.
Toxic Contaminants
Policy & Prevention
Impervious surface reduction increases vegetation and soil infiltration that can
trap toxic contaminants before they reach our waterways ensures we have
clean water for drinking and the ecosystem.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Guide factsheet:
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel files/40324/draft impervious cover bmp cleanup memo 9
¦ 15.20.pdf
2.7 Impervious Surface Reduction
18
-------
Best Management Practices
2.8. Urban Forest Buffers
What are urban forest buffers?
Forest buffers are linear wooded areas
placed along the edge of streams, rivers,
or tidal waters that help filter nutrients,
sediment and other pollutants from
runoff as well as remove nutrients from
groundwater. The recommended buffer
width is 100 feet, with a 35 feet minimum
width required. Urban forest buffers
must be planted in developed areas
(Chesapeake Bay Program, 2Q18).
Implementation of urban forest buffers
varies throughout the watershed with the
highest implementation in Allegany
County, Maryland, as of 2019 (Fig. 2.8.1),
based on county-level reporting data.
What are the additional benefits of
implementing an urban forest buffer
BMP?
Urban forest buffers help reduce
nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment
loads while also providing additional
ecosystem services. Quantitative
modeling (see Chapter 3) estimated
forest buffers to be particularly
important for providing shade to reduce
heat risk, improving air quality, flood
control, and for providing natural open
space for habitat or recreational uses
(Fig. 2.8.2).
~ 0.00
EH0.01 - 0.36
¦ 0.37 - 2.34
¦¦2.35 - 6.20
¦¦6.21 - 13.40
¦ 13.41 - 170.95
Chesapeake Bay Program
Figure 2.8.1. Cumulative acres of urban forest buffers
implemented by county through 2019.
Figure 2.8.2. Relative supply of ecosystem services, each
scaled from 0.1 to 0.9 to indicate supply by urban forest
buffers relative to the minimum (0.1) and maximum (0.9)
across all focal BMPs.
2.8. Urban Forest Buffers
19
-------
Best Management Practices
In total, we identified 30 potential ecosystem services provided by urban forest buffer BMPs that would
benefit 34 potential user groups (Rossi et al., 2022a), some of which are illustrated in Fig. 2.8.3. For
example, forest buffers may provide green space for residents, educators and students, and wildlife
viewers to enjoy.
BMPs... provide ecosystem services... which benefit...
Artists/Inspirational Users
Citizens/Public Health
Educators/Students
Fishermen/Watermen
Low Income/Disadvantage Residents
Residential Property Owners/Renters
ExperiencersA/iewers
Resource Dependent Businesses
Drinking WaterA/Vater Treatment Providers
Hunters/Gatherers
Subsistence Users
Public Sector/Government
Researchers
Military/Coast Guard
Pharmaceutical/Food Supplement Suppliers
Figure 2.8.3. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem services
(blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi et al.
2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box, left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12). The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
What watershed outcomes may benefit from urban forest buffers?
We identified a direct connection between urban forest buffers and several Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement outcomes (Table 2.8.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.8.1. Connections between the agricultural forest buffer BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025 WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like urban forest buffers, expected to
reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Black Duck
Urban forest buffers can help create black duck habitat.
Blue Crab
Abundance
Urban forest buffers can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that
make waters unhealthy for crabs.
Brook Trout
Urban forest buffers can help create cooler temperatures and healthy streams
for fish.
Climate Adaptation
Creating natural lands through urban forest buffers can enhance resilience to
flooding and coastal erosion.
20
2.8. Urban Forest Buffers
-------
Best Management Practices
Fish Habitat
Urban forest buffers can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that
make waters unhealthy for fish.
Healthy
Watersheds
Urban forest buffers, by increasing trees and forests, help to maintain
watersheds of high quality and high ecological value, which provide critical
ecosystem services like habitat and clean water.
Oyster
Urban forest buffers can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that
make waters unhealthy for oysters.
Protected Lands
Protecting lands in permanent easements and other natural lands preservation
programs through creation of urban forest buffers ensures that natural
landscapes will persist for future generations.
Public Access Site
Development
Ensuring access to natural lands through urban forest buffers allows humans to
enjoy the beauty and peace of natural landscapes and water.
Stream Health
Increasing trees and forest through urban forest buffers can reduce
temperatures in streams, filter nutrient and sediment runoff, and maintain
stable flow.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Urban forest buffers lead to reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that leads
to low amounts of dissolved oxygen. They also trap the sediment that can
reduce water clarity, allowing light to reach the SAV.
Toxic Contaminants
Policy & Prevention
Urban forest buffers can trap toxic contaminants before they reach our
waterways ensures we have clean water for drinking and the ecosystem.
Tree Canopy
Outcome
Urban forest buffers increase urban tree and forest canopy to provide air
quality, water quality and habitat benefits in urban areas.
Wetlands
Urban forest buffers at the edge of wetlands can help to maintain and increase
the capacity of wetlands to provide habitat and water quality benefits
throughout the watershed.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Guide factsheet: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/BMP-
Guide D.7 Urban-Tree-Planting-BMPs .pdf
2.8. Urban Forest Buffers
21
-------
Best Management Practices
2.9 Urban Forest Planting
What is urban forest planting?
Urban forest planting projects are in urban
or suburban areas that are not specifically
part of a riparian buffer (see Section 2.8),
urban tree canopy (see Section 2,10), or
structural BMP (e.g., tree planter) and
must have the intent of establishing forest
ecosystem processes and function. This
requires urban forest plantings to be
documented in a planting and
maintenance plan that meets state
planting density and associated standards
for establishing forest conditions, including
no fertilization and minimal mowing as
needed to aid tree and understory
establishment. Under this BMP, trees are
planted in a contiguous area as
documented in the planting plan, and the
acreage of this BMP is converted from the
developed turfgrass land use into forest in
the modeling tools (Chesapeake Bay
Program, 2018).
The highest implementation of urban
forest planting, through 2019, was in
Baltimore County, Maryland (Fig. 2.9.1),
based on county-level reporting data.
What are the additional benefits of
implementing an urban forest planting
BMP?
Urban forest planting helps reduce
nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment
loads while also providing additional
ecosystem services. Quantitative modeling
(see Chapter 3) estimated forest planting
to be particularly important for providing
shading to reduce heat risk, improving air
quality by buffering pollutants, controlling
flooding through rainwater retention, and
for providing natural space for recreational
or habitat or uses (Fig. 2.9.2).
30.00
~ 0.01 - 1.00
11.01 - 10.00
110.01 -25.00
125.01 -50.00
150.01 - 100.00
1100.01 - 250.00
1250.01 - 888.70
Chesapea«e Bay Program
Figure 2.9.1. Cumulative acres of urban forest planting by
county through 2019.
Urban Forest Planting
Figure 2.9.2. Relative supply of ecosystem services, each
scaled from 0.1 to 0.9 to indicate supply by urban forest
planting relative to the minimum (0.1) and maximum (0.9)
across all focal BMPs.
2.9 Urban Forest Planting
22
-------
Best Management Practices
In total, we identified 30 potential ecosystem services provided by urban forest planting BMPs that
would benefit 35 potential user groups (Rossi et al., 2022a), some of which are illustrated in Fig. 2.9.3.
For example, planting an urban forest may help create shade and reduce air temperature during peak
summer months which benefits residents and businesses nearby.
BMPs... provide ecosystem services... which benefit...
Artists/Inspirational Users
Citizens/Public Health
Educators/Students
Fishermen/Watermen
Low Income/Disadvantage Residents
Residential Property Owners/Renters
Experiencers/Viewers
Resource Dependent Businesses
Drinking Water/Water Treatment Providers
Hunters/Gatherers
Subsistence Users
Public Sector/Government
Researchers
Military/Coast Guard
Pharmaceutical/Food Supplement Suppliers
Figure 2.9.3. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem services
(blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi et al.
2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box, left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12I. The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
What watershed outcomes may benefit from urban forest planting?
We identified a direct connection between urban forest planting and several Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement outcomes (Table 2.9.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.9.1. Connections between the agricultural forest buffer BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025 WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like urban forest planting, expected to
reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Black Duck
Urban forest planting can help create black duck habitat.
Blue Crab
Abundance
Urban forest planting can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that
make waters unhealthy for crabs.
Brook Trout
Urban forest planting can help create cooler temperatures and healthy streams
for fish.
Climate Adaptation
Creating natural lands through urban forest planting can enhance resilience to
flooding and coastal erosion.
23
Carbon.
Pathogen.reci
Urban forest planting
Air.quality
Habitat.for.broi
Heat.risk.reduction
Flood.control
2.9 Urban Forest Planting
-------
Best Management Practices
Fish Habitat
Urban forest planting can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that
make waters unhealthy for fish.
Healthy
Watersheds
Urban forest planting, by increasing trees and forests, help to maintain
watersheds of high quality and high ecological value, which provide critical
ecosystem services like habitat and clean water.
Oyster
Urban forest planting can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that
make waters unhealthy for oysters.
Protected Lands
Protecting lands in permanent easements and other natural lands preservation
programs through urban forest planting ensures that natural landscapes will
persist for future generations.
Public Access Site
Development
Ensuring access to natural lands through urban forest planting allows humans
to enjoy the beauty and peace of natural landscapes and water.
Stream Health
Increasing trees and forest through urban forest planting can reduce
temperatures in streams, filter nutrient and sediment runoff, and maintain
stable flow.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Urban forest planting leads to reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that
leads to low amounts of dissolved oxygen. They also trap the sediment that can
reduce water clarity, allowing light to reach the SAV.
Toxic Contaminants
Policy & Prevention
Urban forest planting can trap toxic contaminants before they reach our
waterways ensures we have clean water for drinking and the ecosystem.
Tree Canopy
Outcome
Urban forest planting increases urban tree and forest canopy to provide air
quality, water quality and habitat benefits in urban areas.
Wetlands
Urban forest planting at the edge of wetlands can help to maintain and increase
the capacity of wetlands to provide habitat and water quality benefits
throughout the watershed.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Guide factsheet: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/BMP-
Guide D.7 Urban-Tree-Planting-BMPs .pdf
2.9 Urban Forest Planting
24
-------
Best Management Practices
2.10. Urban Tree Planting
What is urban tree planting?
The planting of trees in an urban area
that are not part of a riparian forest
buffer (see Section 2.8), urban forest
planting (see Section 2.9), or a structural
BMP (e.g., bioretention, tree planter).
The land use area conversion factor is
based on the panel's recommendation of
144 square foot average of canopy per
tree planted. Thus, 300 newly planted
trees are equivalent to one acre of tree
canopy land use; however, this is not a
planting density requirement, and each
tree converts 1/300 of an acre of either
pervious or impervious developed area to
tree canopy land uses. This BMP does not
require trees to be planted in a
contiguous area (Chesapeake Bay
Program, 2018).
As of 2019, Howard County, Maryland
had the most acres of urban tree planting
in the watershed (Fig. 2.10.1), based on
county-level reporting data.
What are the additional benefits of
implementing an urban tree planting
BMP?
Urban tree planting helps reduce
nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment
loads while also providing additional
ecosystem services. Quantitative
modeling (see Chapter 3) estimated
urban tree planting to be particularly
important for providing shading to
reduce heat risk, improving air quality by
buffering pollutants, maintaining water
availability and flow, and for providing
natural open space for habitat or
recreational uses (Fig. 2.10.2).
~ 0.00
~ 0.01 - 1.00
*1.01 - 5.00
¦ 5.01 - 10.00
*10.01 -50.00
*50.01 - 100.00
*100.01 - 300.00
*300.01 - 1246.29
Chesapeake Bay Program
Figure 2.10.1. Cumulative acres of urban tree planting by
county through 2019.
Urban Tree Planting
Figure 2.10.2. Relative supply of ecosystem services, each
scaled from 0.1 to 0.9 to indicate supply by urban tree
planting relative to the minimum (0.1) and maximum (0.9)
across all focal BMPs. Missing values are due to lack of data
to quantify that particular service.
2.10. Urban Tree Planting
25
-------
Best Management Practices
In total, we identified 21 potential ecosystem services provided by Urban Tree Planting BMPs that would
benefit 27 potential user groups (Rossi et al., 2022a), some of which are illustrated in Fig. 2.10.3. For
example, urban tree planting may provide shade which helps reduce air temperatures during extreme
heat which benefits residents and businesses.
Pathogen.rq^iKtioi
Urban tree planting
Carbon.si
Air.quality
BMPs...
provide ecosystem services
which benefit...
Fishermen/Watermen
Artists/Inspirational Users
Citizens/Public Health
Flood.control
ExperiencersA/iewers
Low Income/Disadvantage Residents
Residential Property Owners/Renters
Resource Dependent Businesses
Drinking Water/Water Treatment Providers
Educators/Students
Hunters/Gatherers
Public Sector/Government
Researchers
Subsistence Users
Figure 2.10.3. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem
services (blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi
et al. 2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box, left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12). The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
What watershed outcomes may benefit from urban tree planting?
We identified a direct connection between urban tree planting and several Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement outcomes (Table 2.10.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.10.1. Connections between agricultural forest buffer BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like urban tree planting, expected to
reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Black Duck
Urban tree planting can help create black duck habitat.
Blue Crab
Abundance
Urban tree planting can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for crabs.
Brook Trout
Urban tree planting can help create cooler temperatures and healthy streams
for fish.
Climate Adaptation
Creating natural lands through urban tree planting can enhance resilience to
flooding and coastal erosion.
26
2.10. Urban Tree Planting
-------
Best Management Practices
Fish Habitat
Urban tree planting can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for fish.
Forest Buffer
Acres of riparian forest buffers, and their capacity to provide water quality and
habitat benefits, can be increased through urban tree planting.
Healthy
Watersheds
Urban tree planting, by increasing trees and forests, help to maintain
watersheds of high quality and high ecological value, which provide critical
ecosystem services like habitat and clean water.
Oyster
Urban tree planting can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for oysters.
Protected Lands
Protecting lands in permanent easements and other natural lands preservation
programs through urban tree planting ensures that natural landscapes will
persist for future generations.
Public Access Site
Development
Ensuring access to natural lands through urban tree planting allows humans to
enjoy the beauty and peace of natural landscapes and water.
Stream Health
Increasing trees and forest through urban tree planting can reduce
temperatures in streams, filter nutrient and sediment runoff, and maintain
stable flow.
Toxic Contaminants
Policy & Prevention
Urban tree planting can trap toxic contaminants before they reach our
waterways ensures we have clean water for drinking and the ecosystem.
Tree Canopy
Outcome
Urban tree planting increases urban tree and forest canopy to provide air
quality, water quality and habitat benefits in urban areas.
Wetlands
Urban tree planting at the edge of wetlands can help to maintain and increase
the capacity of wetlands to provide habitat and water quality benefits
throughout the watershed.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Guide factsheet: https://www.chesapeakebav.net/documents/BMP-
Guide D.7 Urban-Tree-Planting-BMPs .pdf
2.10. Urban Tree Planting
27
-------
Best Management Practices
2.11. Wetland Creation
What is wetland creation?
Wetland creation is the manipulation
of the physical; chemical, or biological
characteristics present to develop a
wetland that did not previously exist
at a site. Wetland creation can be
done in tidal and non-tidal wetland
areas, but here we focus on nontidal
wetland areas (Chesapeake Bay
Program, 2018).
The maximum acres of wetland
creation implemented in the
watershed, as of 2019, was about 330
acres in Queen Anne's County,
Maryland (Fig. 2.11.1), based on
county-level reporting data.
What are the additional benefits
of implementing a wetland
creation BMP?
Wetland creation helps reduce
nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment
loads while also providing additional
ecosystem services. Quantitative
modeling (see Chapter 3) estimated
wetland creation to be particularly
important for supporting bird
biodiversity, carbon sequestration,
quality soils, and open space for
habitat or recreational uses (Fig.
2.11.2).
~ 0.00
~ 0.01 - 2.70
6KI2.71 - 4.10
¦ 4.11 - 8.35
¦ 8.36- 16.70
*16.71 -31.50
¦ 31.51 - 117.90
¦ 117.91 - 332.61
ChesapeaKe Bay Program
Figure 2.11.1. Cumulative acres of wetland creation by county
through 2019.
Wetland Creation
til I..I
//////////
/* ~ *
Figure 2.11.2. Relative supply of ecosystem services, each scaled
from 0.1 to 0.9 to indicate supply by wetland creation relative
to the minimum (0.1) and maximum (0.9) across all focal BMPs.
2.11. Wetland Creation
28
-------
Best Management Practices
In total, we identified 34 potential ecosystem services provided by wetland creation that would benefit
43 potential user groups (Rossi et al., 2022a), some of which are illustrated in Fig. 2.11.3. For example,
creating a wetland may provide flood control which would benefit nearby residents, farms, and
businesses.
BMPs... provide ecosystem services... which benefit...
Farmers/Rural landowners
Industrial dischargers
Aquaculturists
Experiencers/Viewers
Boaters/Kayakers
Drinking Water/Water Treatment Providers
Artists/Inspirational Users
Fishermen/Watermen
Low Income/Disadvantage Residents
Residential Property Owners/Renters
Resource Dependent Businesses
Waders/Swimmers/Divers
Citizens/Public Health
Military/Coast Guard
Public Sector/Government
Educators/Students
Hunters/Gatherers
Researchers
Subsistence Users
Pharmaceutical/Food Supplement Suppliers
Figure 2.11.3. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem
sen/ices (blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi
et al. 2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box, left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12). The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
What watershed outcomes may benefit from wetland creation?
We identified a direct connection between wetland creation and several Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement outcomes (Table 2.11.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.11.1. Connections between the wetland creation BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025 WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like wetland creation, expected to
reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Black Duck
Wetland creation can help create black duck habitat.
Blue Crab
Abundance
Wetland creation can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for crabs.
Brook Trout
Wetland creation can help create cooler temperatures and healthy streams for
fish.
Climate Adaptation
Creating natural lands through wetland creation can enhance resilience to
flooding and coastal erosion.
2.11. Wetland Creation
29
-------
Best Management Practices
Fish Habitat
Wetland creation can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for fish.
Forest Buffer
Acres of riparian forest, and their capacity to provide water quality and habitat
benefits, can be increased through forested wetland creation.
Healthy
Watersheds
Wetland creation helps to maintain watersheds of high quality and high
ecological value, which provide critical ecosystem services like habitat and clean
water.
Oyster
Wetland creation can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for oysters.
Protected Lands
Protecting lands in permanent easements and other natural lands preservation
programs through wetland creation ensures that natural landscapes will persist
for future generations.
Public Access Site
Development
Ensuring access to natural lands through wetland creation allows humans to
enjoy the beauty and peace of natural landscapes and water.
Stream Health
Wetland creation can reduce temperatures in streams, filter nutrient and
sediment runoff, and maintain stable flow.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Wetland creation leads to reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that leads
to low amounts of dissolved oxygen. They also trap the sediment that can
reduce water clarity, allowing light to reach the SAV.
Toxic Contaminants
Policy & Prevention
Wetland creation can trap toxic contaminants before they reach our waterways
ensures we have clean water for drinking and the ecosystem.
Tree Canopy
Outcome
Forested wetland creation increases urban tree and forest canopy to provide air
quality, water quality and habitat benefits if adjacent to urban areas.
Wetlands
Wetland creation can help to maintain and increase the capacity of wetlands to
provide habitat and water quality benefits throughout the watershed.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Guide factsheet: https://www.chesapeakebav.net/documents/BMP-
Guide A.25 Wetland-Restoration .pdf
NRCS factsheet: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdbl255219.pdf
2.11. Wetland Creation
30
-------
Best Management Practices
Wetland Restoration
//////////
+ s/s / <* / *
-------
Best Management Practices
In total, we identified 34 potential ecosystem services provided by wetland restoration that would
benefit 43 potential user groups (Rossi et al., 2022a), some of which are illustrated in Fig. 2.12.3. For
example, restoring a wetland may provide flood control which would benefit nearby residents, and
public property owners.
BMPs... provide ecosystem services... which benefit...
Farmers/Rural landowners
Industrial dischargers
Aquaculturists
Experiencers/Viewers
Boaters/Kayakers
Drinking Water/Water Treatment Providers
Artists/Inspirational Users
Fishermen/Watermen
Low Income/Disadvantage Residents
Residential Property Owners/Renters
Resource Dependent Businesses
Waders/Swimmers/Divers
Citizens/Public Health
Military/Coast Guard
Public Sector/Government
Educators/Students
Hunters/Gatherers
Researchers
Subsistence Users
Pharmaceutical/Food Supplement Suppliers
Figure 2.12.3. Diagram of user groups (yellow boxes, right) most likely to benefit from priority ecosystem
services (blue/green/purple boxes, center) identified through initial scoping and prioritization efforts (see Rossi
et al. 2022a) if this BMP is implemented (red box, left). Some priority ecosystem services (purple boxes) were not
quantified as part of this report (see Appendix A12). The full suite of potential ecosystem services benefits and
beneficiaries associated with each BMP is available in Rossi et al. 2022a.
What watershed outcomes may benefit from wetland restoration?
We identified a direct connection between wetland restoration and several Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement outcomes (Table 2.12.1). Outcomes are further described in Chapter 4.
Table 2.12.1. Connections between the wetland restoration BMP and Watershed Agreement outcomes.
OUTCOME
RELATIONSHIP
2025 WIP
The WIPs include management practices, like wetland restoration, expected to
reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in local waters and in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Black Duck
Wetland restoration can help create black duck habitat.
Blue Crab
Abundance
Wetland restoration can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for crabs.
Brook Trout
Wetland restoration can help create cooler temperatures and healthy streams
for fish.
Climate Adaptation
Creating natural lands through wetland restoration can enhance resilience to
flooding and coastal erosion.
Wetland restoration
Air.quality
Edible.ftora
2.12. Wetland Restoration
32
-------
Best Management Practices
Fish Habitat
Wetland restoration can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for fish.
Forest Buffer
Acres of riparian forest, and their capacity to provide water quality and habitat
benefits, can be increased through forested wetland restoration.
Healthy
Watersheds
Wetland restoration helps to maintain watersheds of high quality and high
ecological value, which provide critical ecosystem services like habitat and clean
water.
Oyster
Wetland restoration can help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that make
waters unhealthy for oysters.
Protected Lands
Protecting lands in permanent easements and other natural lands preservation
programs through wetland restoration ensures that natural landscapes will
persist for future generations.
Public Access Site
Development
Ensuring access to natural lands through wetland restoration allows humans to
enjoy the beauty and peace of natural landscapes and water.
Stream Health
Wetland restoration can reduce temperatures in streams, filter nutrient and
sediment runoff, and maintain stable flow.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Wetland restoration leads to reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that
leads to low amounts of dissolved oxygen. They also trap the sediment that can
reduce water clarity, allowing light to reach the SAV.
Toxic Contaminants
Policy & Prevention
Wetland restoration can trap toxic contaminants before they reach our
waterways ensures we have clean water for drinking and the ecosystem.
Tree Canopy
Outcome
Forested wetland restoration increases urban tree and forest canopy to provide
air quality, water quality and habitat benefits if adjacent to urban areas.
Wetlands
Wetland restoration can help to maintain and increase the capacity of wetlands
to provide habitat and water quality benefits throughout the watershed.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Guide factsheet: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/BMP-
Guide A.25 Wetland-Restoration .pdf
NRCS factsheet: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdbl255218.pdf
2.12. Wetland Restoration
33
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
Chapter 3. Ecosystem Services
3.1. What are Final Ecosystem Goods and Services?
Ecosystem services are "the benefits humans obtain from ecosystems that support (directly or
indirectly) their survival and quality of life" (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Intermediate
ecosystem services such as water or habitat quality may be impacted by management actions, but they
may not resonate with local stakeholders because they are not directly connected to or used by
stakeholders (Boyd et al., 2015). To connect to stakeholders more directly, we use the concept of Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). FEGS are "outputs from nature that are directly used or
appreciated by humans in diverse ways" (Newcomer-Johnson et al., 2021). Each FEGS comprise three
components: 1) the beneficiary or user that cares about or uses them, 2) the biophysical attributes that
beneficiaries or users cares about, and 3) the ecosystem producing the biophysical attributes that
provide the good or service. For example, minimal levels of pathogens in coastal waters used by
swimmers or anglers.
3.1.1. How did we arrive at our short list of FEGS?
To arrive at a short list of ecosystem services for quantitative assessment, we first generated a long list
of potential FEGS provided by each BMP. The initial list was developed using the National Ecosystem
Services Classification System (NESCS Plus) to identify beneficiary groups and ecosystem services
attributes for each BMP habitat, which was refined and supplemented by reviewing existing relevant
documents from the CBP (Newcomer-Johnson et al., 2021). To scope the long list of potential FEGS to a
short list of 10-15 FEGS, we solicited CBP partner feedback to help identify priority FEGS and we also
used a decision support tool, The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Scoping Tool (FEGS Scoping Tool),
to help prioritize (Rossi et al., 2022a; Sharpe et al., 2020). Below we outline a summary of our
prioritization steps but for more details see Rossi et al. (2022).
We used the FEGS Scoping Tool to help prioritize ecosystem services for further analysis using CBP
partner feedback and information gleaned from document analysis. We weighted FEGS identified by
partner feedback and/or from CBP documents more than other FEGS (such as those from NESCS Plus) to
generate a list of priority FEGS. In our feedback from partners, there were multiple specific comments
about ensuring that user groups such as farmers and underrepresented communities would benefit
from the final set of prioritized FEGS. To account for these comments, we again used the FEGS Scoping
Tool and weighted any FEGS that would be directly used by a farmer and/or someone in an
underrepresented community more than other FEGS. We compared the prioritized lists from the FEGS
Scoping Tool and narrowed the final FEGS to the following: air quality, bird species, clean water*1, edible
flora*2, flood control, green space, heat risk, pathogen reduction, pest predator supply*3, pollinator
supply, soil quality, water clarity*4, and water quantity.
1 Clean water was not quantified since CAST provides estimates of nutrient reductions for BMPs already. See
Appendix A12 for more details.
2 Edible flora was not quantified because we could not find adequate data on species planted in forest and grass
buffer BMPs to estimate this. See Appendix A12 for more details.
3 Pest predator supply was not quantified due to lack of sufficient data on species of interest. See Appendix A12 for
more details.
4 Water clarity was not quantified due to insufficient data. See Appendix A12 for more details.
34
Chapter 3. Ecosystem Services
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
We presented this list to partners for one last round of feedback and ultimately added carbon
sequestration because partners were very interested in beginning to quantify carbon sequestration for
management practices.
3.1.2. Quantifying Measures ofFEGS
Once priority FEGS have been identified, the next step is to identify a metric (or set of metrics) that may
be modeled, measured, or monitored to quantify each ecosystem service. 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 (Rossi et al., 2022a). These models, known as ecological production functions (Bruins
et al., 2017), can range from fairly simple lookup tables to statistical models to complex biophysical
models. Recent examples have used such models to translate maps of land cover into ecosystem
services in Florida (Russell et al., 2013) and Puerto Rico (Smith et al., 2020).
¦
1.
Open Water
¦
2.
Wetlands
¦
3.
Tree canopy
¦
4.
Shrubland
~
5.
Low Vegetation
ED
6.
Barren
¦
7.
Human-constructed Impervious Structures > 2 meters height
¦
8.
Impervious Surfaces < 2 meters height
¦
9.
Impervious Roads
¦
10.
Tree Canopy over Structures
~
11.
Tree Canopy over Impervious Surfaces
~
12.
Tree Canopy over Impervious Roads
¦
13.
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Figure 3.1.1. 2013/2014 land use land cover data in CAST.
To maintain compatibility with tools used by Chesapeake Bay Program and their partners, we based our
ecosystem services analysis on the Chesapeake Bay Conservancy 1 meter resolution 2013/2014 land use
land cover maps used with the Chesapeake Bay Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST;
https://cast.chesapeakebay.nety) (Fig. 3.1.1).
35
Chapter 3. Ecosystem Services
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
In general, we assumed each of our target BMPs would result in new acres of a landcover, such as
natural tree canopy or wetland (see Appendix A1 for more details). We then reviewed literature to
assemble average values of FEGS supply by landcover type, reviewing existing models to translate
landcover into FEGS supply or using available data to generate statistical relationships between known
acres of landcover and observed measures of ecosystem services. This kind of landcover-based approach
allows compatibility with landcover-based tools or assessments, we note that ultimately ecosystem
services provisioning by the BMP will depend on i) what the BMP acres are replacing, for example if the
BMP replaces a habitat that is comparable or even better at providing a particular ecosystem service, ii)
finer details of landcover not captured by the existing categories, such as the species of cover crop, and
iii) the quality or condition of the BMP habitat, such as the density, diversity, or maturity of tree
planting. Ecosystem services estimates can be refined over time as more detailed information becomes
available.
3.1.3. FEGS fact sheet overview
For each of the assessed ecosystem services, we have created a fact sheet that contains the following
information:
• Why that FEGS matters
• Who is impacted by that FEGS
• Current estimate of that FEGS by county
• How the FEGS is quantified
• Data limitations
• How to use the information
• What BMPs (described in Chapter 2) provide the FEGS
• Examples of Watershed Agreement outcomes (described in Chapter 4) that may also
increase FEGS provisioning or that may benefit from actions to improve FEGS
Further details on how each ecosystem service was quantified are provided in Appendix A.
Chapter 3. Ecosystem Services
36
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.2. Air Quality
Why is air quality important?
Air quality can impact human health and ecosystem health.
Who is impacted by air quality?
There are many beneficiaries, or users of an
ecosystem, that benefit from the final
ecosystem service of air quality. All humans,
public sector property owners, residents who
own property, residents who rent, residents in
low income or disadvantaged areas, and
resource dependent businesses are examples of
beneficiaries.
How do we quantify the ability of
ecosystems to improve air quality?
There are many variables that can impact air
quality including concentration of pollutants in
the air, pollen, air temperature, and weather
patterns. We have chosen to focus on
pollutants such as CO, S02, N02, 03, PM2.5, PM10
and quantify how tree cover contributes to air
pollutant removal using methods developed by
(Tree (https://www.itreetools.org/). Briefly, we
used multipliers of air pollutant removal rates
developed by iTree and multiplied by tree cover
to determine air pollutant removal potential for
each of the six pollutants (Appendix A2). Tree
cover was determined for each county using the
Chesapeake Bay Conservancy 2013/2014 1
meter land use landcover dataset. Counties
throughout the watershed had different levels
of air pollutant removal depending on tree
canopy cover (Fig. 3.2.1).
Limitations
This method is based on iTree methods that were developed for the entire United States, as a result, we
are using averages from the entire US to provide pollutant removal estimates.
How can this information be used?
The current pollutant removal rate estimates can be used to determine where in the watershed to
consider planting more trees to aid with pollutant removal.
37
3.2. Air Quality
~
~
Chesapeake Bay Program
Figure 3.2.1. Current air pollutant removal potential of
PM10 by county within Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Counties with lower removal potential may want to take
actions to increase tree cover.
5439 - 238277
238278 - 1526672
1526673 - 2173212
2173213 - 2716499
2716500 - 3216228
3216229 - 4043067
4043068 - 5786442
5786443 - 11691241
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to improve air quality?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of improving air
quality may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented to improve air quality
• Stream health - continually improve stream health and function, such as by reducing
atmospheric deposition
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including the air
• Public access development - public access opportunities for boating, swimming, fishing, such as
where air is clean and safe for human activity
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may help improve air quality?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to air quality:
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including the ability to buffer and filter air pollutants
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including the ability to buffer and filter air pollutants
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including the
ability to buffer and filter air pollutants
• Protected lands - protect lands identified as high conservation priorities, including wetlands and
forests that help to filter air pollutants
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
leading to potential benefits for improving air quality
What best management practices (BMPs) may help improve air quality?
BMPs that increase tree cover are especially important in improving air quality because trees can
capture pollutants in the air. For BMPs implemented on agricultural lands, a rural multiplier is used (see
Appendix A2 for details). For BMPs implemented on urban lands, an urban multiplier is used. Once we
determined which multiplier to use, we simply multiplied the number of acres of a BMP times the
correct multiplier. Table 3.2.1 and Figure 3.2.2 below shows estimates for different pollutant removals
based on 20 acres of a BMP implemented. Units are Ib/acre/yr.
Table 3.2.1. Rates of air pollutant removal (Ib/acre/yr) for each BMP.
BMP
CO
o3
S02
NOz
PMz.5
o
rH
CL
AG FOREST BUFFER
17.86
981.05
61.97
97.34
47.51
330.59
AG TREE PLANTING
17.86
981.05
61.97
97.34
47.51
330.59
COVER CROPS
—
433.6
24.98
44.61
5.35
—
FOREST CONSERVATION
17.86
981.05
61.97
97.34
47.51
330.59
GRASS BUFFER
—
433.6
24.98
44.61
5.35
—
3.2. Air Quality
38
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
—
522.82
28.55
64.24
7.14
—
URBAN FOREST BUFFER
22.68
965.15
61.44
125.02
49.29
273.97
URBAN FOREST PLANTING
22.68
965.15
61.44
125.02
49.29
273.97
URBAN TREE PLANTING
22.68
965.15
61.44
125.02
49.29
273.97
WETLAND CREATION
—
433.6
24.98
44.61
5.35
—
WETLAND RESTORATION
—
433.6
24.98
44.61
5.35
—
Figure 3.2.2. Air pollutant removal ofPM2.sfor20 acres of different BMPs.
Additional Resources
iTree: https://www.itreetools.org/
Gopalakrishnan, V., S. Hirabayashi, G. Ziv, and B. R. Bakshi. 2018. Air quality and human health impacts
of grasslands and shrublands in the United States. Atmospheric Environment 182:193-199.
3.2. Air Quality
39
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.3. Bird Species Diversity
Why are bird species important as an
ecosystem service?
Marty people enjoy birdwatching, especially
for some of the more well known, or large
birds. Additionally, the presence or absence of
bird species may be a useful indicator for
habitat quality.
Who is impacted by bird species?
There are many beneficiaries, or users of an
ecosystem, that benefit from birds. Some
beneficiaries to consider are artists,
experiencers and viewers (e.g., birdwatchers),
hunters, farmers, subsistence users of food
and medicinal flora or fauna, and resource
dependent businesses.
How do we quantify bird species?
For bird species, we have chosen to use bird
species richness (number of bird species).
Briefly, we used species area curves to
determine the relationship between habitat
area and bird species richness for every
different land use in the watershed. Then we
used each curve to estimate how many bird
species may be in a certain area of each land
use (Appendix A3). Counties throughout the
watershed had different levels of bird species
richness depending on land cover (Fig. 3.3.1).
Figure 3.3.1. Estimated number of bird species in each
county in Chesapeake Bay Watershed based on USGS GAP
data.
Limitations
USGS GAP species richness data is based on modeling predicted habitat which includes habitat that may
be used for breeding, overwintering, or year-round use. It is not based on wildlife counts.
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the current estimate of bird species richness for their county and then explore the
relationships between different land uses and bird species richness to determine if there are certain
land uses that can be restored or created to potentially increase (or decrease) bird species richness.
3.3. Bird Species Diversity
40
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to improve bird species?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with the primary goal to improve bird
species diversity may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented to improve bird diversity
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including
biodiversity
• Public access site development - public access opportunities for boating, swimming, fishing,
including presence of charismatic fauna attractive to public activity
• Protected lands - protect lands identified as high conservation priorities, including lands for bird
habitat
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may directly help improve bird species?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to bird species diversity:
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including habitat for birds
• Black duck - enhance and preserve habitats supporting wintering black ducks, which could
provide habitat for other co-occuring bird species
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including as habitat for birds
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including as
habitat for birds
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
leading to potential benefits for bird species diversity
What best management practices (BMPs) may help improve bird species richness?
Some best management practices may help improve bird species richness (Fig. 3.3.2). BMPs that
increase habitat used by birds are especially important. We quantified how BMPs that increase potential
bird habitat contribute to changes in bird species richness using a species-area curve describing how
species richness (S) changes with acres of habitat (A). Table 3.3.1 below shows estimates for bird species
richness for different BMPs based on 20 acres of BMP implementation.
Table 3.3.1. Species area curves to describe species richness for acres of BMP implementation, and
potential richness with 20 acres.
BMP NAME
POTENTIAL BIRD
SPECIES RICHNESS
EQUATION TO ESTIMATE
SPECIES RICHNESS
AG FOREST BUFFERS
77
S=68.97505379* AA0.0382277
AG TREE PLANTING
77
S=68.97505379* AA0.0382277
COVER CROPS
76
S=67.089448* AA0.04234895
3.3. Bird Species Diversity
41
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
FOREST CONSERVATION
77
S=68.97505379* AA0.0382277
GRASS BUFFERS
76
S=67.089448* AA0.04234895
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
76
S=67.089448* AA0.04234895
URBAN FOREST BUFFER
83
S=71.361518* AA0.0535650
URBAN FOREST PLANTING
83
S=71.361518* AA0.0535650
URBAN TREE PLANTING
85
S=73.325800* AA0.0502914
WETLAND CREATION
92
S=84.59380187* AA0.0293969
WETLAND RESTORATION
92
S=84.59380187* AA0.0293969
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.4. Carbon Sequestration
Why is carbon sequestration important?
Carbon sequestration is important to consider
in combatting climate change and sea level rise,
and in ecosystem resiliency.
Who is impacted by carbon sequestration?
Carbon sequestration benefits many user
groups including residents and the global
community. Farmers, municipalities, and other
organizations may benefit from carbon
sequestration if they implement practices that
can be used in carbon markets, or as blue
carbon credits for coastal ecosystems.
How do we quantify carbon sequestration?
To quantify carbon sequestration, we chose the
metric of soil carbon sequestration. Rates of
burial of carbon into soil are often associated
with long-term removal of carbon from the
atmosphere (in support of mitigating climate
change) than other sources of temporary
carbon removal with faster turnover (such as
into vegetative biomass). The amount, or stock,
of sequestered carbon stored in soil can be a
measure of soil nutrient quality (see Section
3.10). Briefly, we used literature and existing
tools (e.g., COMET-Planner) to identify rates of
soil carbon sequestration from different land
uses and common best management practices.
We took an average of these reported rates and
multiplied them by the respective land use or
BMP to estimate total soil carbon sequestration
for a certain area (Appendix A4). Counties
throughout the watershed had different levels
of carbon sequestration depending on land
cover (Fig. 3.4.1).
Limitations
Soil carbon sequestration rates were found in the literature and existing tools (e.g., COMET-Planner) and
we used the average of the reported rates per land use and/or best management practice.
Figure 3.4.1. Estimated soil carbon sequestration (US
tons per year) by county based on landuse.
19 -1707
1708 -4152
4153-6109
6110-7868
7869 - 9925
9926- 14245
14246 - 18807
18808 - 26083
3.4. Carbon Sequestration
43
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the current estimate of soil carbon sequestration for their county and then explore
the relationships between different BMPs and soil carbon sequestration to determine if there are
practices that may optimize soil carbon sequestration.
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to improve carbon
sequestration?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of sequestering
carbon may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented to sequester carbon (blue carbon, carbon markets)
• Adaptation - enhance resiliency of Bay and aquatic ecosystems to climate change, including by
sequestering carbon from the atmosphere
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including their
abilities to sequester and cycle carbon
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may help improve carbon sequestration?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to carbon sequestration:
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including sequestering carbon
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including sequestering carbon
• Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) - sustain and increase the habitat benefits of SAV, including
sequestering carbon
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including
sequestering carbon
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
leading to potential benefits to carbon sequestration
What best management practices may help improve carbon sequestration?
Some best management practices may be better at sequestering carbon in soil than others (Fig. 3.4.2).
Table 3.4.1 below shows estimates for soil carbon sequestration for different BMPs based on 20 acres of
BMP implementation. Units are US tons of carbon/acre/yr.
Table 3.4.1. Estimates for soil carbon sequestration for different BMPs based on 20 acres of BMP
implementation. Units are US tons/acre/yr.
BMP
SOIL CARBON
MULTIPLIER (US
TONS/ACRE/YR)
SOIL CARBON
SEQUESTERED
IN 20 ACRES
SOURCE OF
MULTIPLIER
AG FOREST BUFFERS
0.18
3.60
COMET
AG TREE PLANTING
0.16
3.27
COMET
44
3.4. Carbon Sequestration
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
COVER CROPS
0.13
2.63
COMET
FOREST CONSERVATION
0.54
10.72
literature
GRASS BUFFERS
0.15
3.01
COMET
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
0.62
12.41
literature
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS
0.06
1.26
literature
URBAN FOREST PLANTING
0.06
1.26
literature
URBAN TREE PLANTING
0.06
1.26
literature
WETLAND CREATION
0.76
15.12
literature
WETLAND RESTORATION
0.76
15.12
literature
Figure 3.4.2. Soil C sequestration for 20 acres of different BMPs. Missing values are due to insufficient data to
calculate the metric for that BMP.
Additional Resources
COMET: http://comet-farm.com/
3.4. Carbon Sequestration
45
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.5. Flood Control
Why is flood control important?
Flood control is important because floods can be
devastating to ecosystems, humans and property.
Understanding what actions may aid flood control
is particularly important in areas that are more
susceptible to flooding events.
~
Who is impacted by flood control?
There are many beneficiaries, or users of an
ecosystem, that benefit from flood control. For
example, business owners, homeowners and
renters all benefit when flood control is improved,
and their homes and businesses do not flood.
Similarly, farmers benefit from flood control for
crop and livestock protection.
Limitations
This method relies on remotely sensed data from 2013/2014 and as such may not entirely reflect
current (2021/2022) land use conditions. Additionally, the curve number method is a simple way to
estimate water retention on the landscape and should be used as an estimate.
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the current estimate of flood risk for their county and estimated maximum water
retention. Then they can explore the relationships between different land uses and water retention to
determine if there are certain land uses that can be restored or created to potentially increase (or
decrease) flood control.
How do we quantify flood control?
One way to quantify flood control is to quantify the
capacity of the landscape to retain excess water.
We quantified the maximum retention volume
(in3/in2) for each landcover class in the watershed
using the curve number (CN) method. The ability of
a landscape to absorb rainwater depends on
vegetation intercepting precipitation and the
ability of soil to retain moisture. We associated
landcover and soil types with each BMP in order to
estimate maximum retention (Appendix A5).
Counties throughout the watershed had different
levels of water retention depending on land cover
(Fig. 3.5.1).
Figure 3.5.1. Estimated maximum water retention for
each county in the watershed based on soil type and
land use land cover using curve number methods.
46
3.5. Flood Control
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to promote flood control?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of flood control may
contribute toward achieving the following outcomes
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented for flood control
• Adaptation - enhance resiliency of Bay and aquatic ecosystems to climate change, including by
mitigating impacts of flood events
• Black duck - enhance and preserve habitats supporting wintering black ducks, including
reducing impacts of flooding that can destroy nests
• Blue crab abundance - maintain a sustainable blue crab population, including reducing impacts
of flooding that can alter salinity levels, impact crab distributions, and flood burrows
• Fish habitat - improve fish habitat, critical spawning, nursery and forage areas, including
reducing impacts of flooding that can inundate critical habitats, alter salinity levels, or
redistribute sediments and pollutants
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including reducing
impacts of extreme flood events
• Public access site development - public access opportunities for boating, swimming, fishing,
including by reducing flood impacts to public access and safety
• Stream health - continually improve stream health and function, including reducing extreme
flood events
• Toxic contaminants policy and prevention - reduce and prevent effects of toxic contaminants
that harm aquatic systems and humans, including flood events that can redistribute
contaminants or increase likelihood of human contact with contaminated waters
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may directly impact flood control?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to flood control:
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including mitigating flooding events
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including mitigating flooding events
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including
mitigating flooding events
• Protected lands - protect lands identified as high conservation priorities, including wetlands and
forests that help to mitigate flooding events
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
leading to potential benefits to flood control
What best management practices (BMPs) may help improve flood control?
Some best management practices may help improve flood control by increasing water retention (Fig.
3.5.2). BMPs that may slow and/or trap runoff may be especially important. We quantified how BMPs
contribute to changes in flood control. Table 3.5.1 below shows estimates flood control potential for
different BMPs.
47
3.5. Flood Control
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
Table 3.5.1. Estimates of rainwater retention volume as a proxy for flood control for each BMP. Cubic
inches of water retained per square inch were converted to cubic yards per acre of BMP implementation.
BMP NAME
MAX RETENTION
VOLUME (IN3/IN2)
MAX RETENTION
VOLUME (YD3/ACRE)
AG FOREST BUFFERS
8.16
1097.13
AG TREE PLANTING
8.16
1097.13
COVER CROPS
3.27
439.66
FOREST CONSERVATION
8.16
1097.13
GRASS BUFFERS
3.27
439.66
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
3.27
439.66
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS
8.16
1097.13
URBAN FOREST PLANTING
8.16
1097.13
URBAN TREE PLANTING
1.47
197.64
WETLAND CREATION
1.1
147.90
WETLAND RESTORATION
1.1
147.90
> 20000
c
o
'¦£ 15000
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
The curve number methodology is a fairly simple approach to measure the maximum rainwater storage
capacity of the landscape during a major precipitation event, and has been used as a component toward
estimating flood risk (e.g., First Street Foundation, Fig. 3.5.3).
Avg Flood Risk Score in 2020 for 100 yr flood
Figure 3.5.3. Average flood risk score in each county
in the watershed for a 100-year flood event, where
1 is minimal risk and 10 is extreme risk. Data
adapted from First Street Flood Foundation publicly
available data. Flood risk data is provided by Flood
Factor®, a product of First Street Foundation16. The
Flood Factor model is designed to approximate
flood risk and not intended to include all possible
risks of flood.
Additional Resources
Flood Risk Scores from First Street Foundation®: https://firststreet.org/data-access/public-access/
USDA and NRCS 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds.
3.5. Flood Control
49
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.6. Heat Risk Reduction
Why is reducing extreme heat important?
Understanding trends in temperature and potential
tools to reduce temperature is important because
of climate change and associated health risks with
extreme heat.
~
Who is impacted by reducing temperature
extremes?
There are many beneficiaries, or users of an
ecosystem, that may benefit from reduced air
temperature. For example, energy providers may
have less demand during peak summer
temperatures if indoor temperatures can be
reduced through natural solutions, such as shading.
Likewise, residents may benefit if they experience
cooler outdoor spaces for recreation during peak
summer temperatures.
Limitations
This method relies on remotely sensed data from 2013/2014 and as such may not entirely reflect
current (2021/2022) land use conditions. Only BMPs that have the potential to impact tree canopy were
considered, as tree canopy was the only land cover with a significant cooling effect in predictive models
(see Appendix A6 for details). Model estimates are based on county scale or sub-watershed scale
average temperatures, which may be appreciably smaller than local scale cooling effects (i.e., the
reduction in air temperature under a single tree).
How do we quantify reduced air
temperature?
We quantified cooling impact of tree canopy to
estimate temperature reduction. Briefly, we
obtained daily average July temperatures for every
county and land river segment in the watershed
from CAST. Then, we plotted acres of tree canopy
against the average daily air temperature to
determine if a relationship existed (see Appendix
A6 for details). We found that tree canopy alone
explained ~44% of the differences in temperatures.
Counties throughout the watershed had different
levels of air temperature reduction related to the
amount of tree canopy cover (Fig. 3.6.1).
Figure 3.6.1. Estimated cooling impact from trees by
county, measured as reduction in mean July daily air
temperatures (°F) due to presence of tree canopy.
3.6. Heat Risk Reduction
50
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the current estimate of cooling due to tree canopy for their county and consider
whether it would be beneficial to add more tree canopy.
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to reduce extreme
temperatures?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of regulating extreme
temperatures may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented to regulate temperatures through shading
• Adaptation - enhance resiliency of Bay and aquatic ecosystems to climate change, including
reducing extreme temperature fluctuations
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including
reducing extreme temperatures
• Brook trout - restore and sustain naturally reproducing brook trout in headwater streams,
including reducing temperature extremes through shading
• Fish habitat - improve fish habitat, critical spawning, nursery, and forage areas, including
reducing temperature extremes through shading
• Stream health - continually improve stream health and function, including reducing
temperature extremes through shading
• Public access site development - public access opportunities for boating, swimming, fishing,
including regulating temperatures favorable and safe for human activity
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may help improve or reduce extreme temperatures?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to temperatures:
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including to create shading and regulate extreme temperatures
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including to
create shading and regulate extreme temperatures
• Protected lands - protect lands identified as high conservation priorities, including forests that
help to create shading and regulate extreme temperatures
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
leading to potential benefits to regulating extreme temperatures
What best management practices (BMPs) may help mitigate extreme air temperatures?
Some best management practices may help reduce air temperature and therefore reduce heat risk.
BMPs that provide shade are likely to help to reduce air temperatures. We quantified how BMPs may
contribute to changes in mean summer air temperatures at the county scale. Table 3.6.1 and Fig. 3.6.2
below shows estimates of mean temperature differences at the county scale for different BMPs based
on 20 acres of BMP implementation. Units are in °F. Because models are based on contiguous tree
canopy cover, BMPs which do not appreciably change tree canopy (e.g., cover crops, herbaceous
wetlands, impervious surface reduction) are assumed to not appreciably reduce temperatures.
51
3.6. Heat Risk Reduction
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
Table 3.6.1. Estimates of temperature reduction due to 20 acres of tree canopy.
BMP NAME
TEMPERATURE REDUCTION (°F)
PER ACRE OF TREE CANOPY
TEMPERATURE REDUCTION
(°F) BY 20 ACRES OF TREE
CANOPY
AG FOREST BUFFERS
AG TREE PLANTING
FOREST CONSERVATION
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS
URBAN FOREST PLANTING
URBAN TREE PLANTING
-0.00001584 x acres of tree canopy
-0.00032
/ y ^ ^ ^ i?
y& ^ o° ^ N
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.7. Open Space
Why is open space important?
Open space, or green space, provides many
benefits to many different user groups. It
provides opportunities for recreation and
aesthetic enjoyment which can lead to positive
health outcomes such as increased physical
activity.
Who is impacted by presence of open
space?
There are many user groups that benefit from
open space. For example, residents may benefit
from open space as a place to walk or enjoy the
outdoors. Hunters and anglers benefit from open
space where they can safely hunt or fish. Open
space may also be a part of scenic landscapes,
even if direct public access is iimited.
Limitations
This is based on remotely sensed land cover from 2013/2014 and may be an overestimate of usable
open space as this dataset does not include access (e.g., discerning private vs public lands).
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the current estimate of open space per capita for their county and then consider what
best management practices could be implemented to help increase open space available.
How do we quantify open space?
For open space, we have chosen to quantify open
space available per capita. First, we quantified
total acres of open space per county which
included the following land uses: wetlands, tree
canopy, shrubland, and low vegetation. We
assume open space is contiguous of an
appreciable size (e.g., more than a single tree),
and accessible to people. We used census data
(2010) to determine the population per county.
Next, we divided total acres of open space by the
county population. Counties throughout the
watershed had different levels of open space per
person (Fig. 3.7.1).
Figure 3.7.1. Total acres of open space per capita. Here
open space is defined as wetland, tree canopy, shrubland,
and low vegetation in a contiguous area and accessible to
people for recreational or aesthetic enjoyment.
3.7. Open Space
53
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to improve open space?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of creating open
space may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented to create open space or green space
• Black duck - enhance and preserve habitats supporting wintering black ducks, including by
creating or restoring green space such as wetlands
• Blue crab abundance - maintain a sustainable blue crab population, including by creating or
restoring green space such as wetlands
• Fish habitat - improve fish habitat, critical spawning, nursery and forage areas, including by
creating or restoring green space such as wetlands
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including by creating forested green space
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including by
preserving and creating green space
• Oysters - restore native oyster habitat and populations, including by creating or restoring green
space such as wetlands
• Protected lands - protect additional acres of land throughout the watershed, including forested
or wetland green space
• Public access site development - public access opportunities for boating, swimming, fishing,
including access to open space or green space
• Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) - sustain and increase the habitat benefits of SAV, including
by creating or restoring green space such as wetlands
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including by
creating forested green space
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including by creating or restoring acres of wetland green space
What best management practices (BMPs) may help improve open space?
Some best management practices may help improve open space (Fig. 3.7.2). BMPs that increase
wetland, tree canopy, shrubland and/or low vegetation cover would have positive impacts on open
space (see Appendix A7 for details). Urban tree plantings and impervious surface reduction are assumed
to contribute to open areas if they are planted in a contiguous area of appreciable size (i.e., more than a
single tree). Agricultural tree plantings, such as to reduce erosion, and cover crops are assumed here not
to be open space that is accessible to the public for recreational or aesthetic enjoyment. As BMPs add
acres of land use considered open space, then open space will increase. Per capita value of open space
depends on the specific location of implementation.
3.7. Open Space
54
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
(ILuiiiui
•/
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.8. Pathogen Reduction
Why is pathogen reduction important?
Reducing pathogen loads in water sources is important for ecosystem health, livestock health and
human health.
Who is impacted by reducing pathogens in
water?
There are many beneficiaries, or users of an
ecosystem, that benefit from reducing pathogens
in waterbodies. For example, reduced pathogens in
water keeps waterbodies open for recreation
which benefits resident and tourists.
How do we quantify pathogen reduction?
To quantify pathogen reduction in water, we chose
the metric percent fecal indicator bacteria (FIB)
removal. This metric includes fecal coliform and E.
coli removal rates which are often used as
indicators for other pathogens (Wainger et al.,
2015; Richkus et al., 2016). Counties throughout
the watershed have different levels of pathogen
loading, depending on land cover (Fig. 3.8.1). The
potential reduction in FIB by each BMP land cover
depends on the land use on which they are
applied. At a county-scale, the % FIB removal
resulting from BMP implementation can be
calculated as the relative contribution of FIB
removal of the new BMP acres relative to the total
acres of landuse on which they were applied
(Wainger et al., 2015; Richkus et al., 2016). Forest
buffer, for example, has a removal efficiency of
50% for FIB entering the buffer from pasture land.
At a county scale, if 100 acres of forest buffer are
implemented on 1000 acres of pasture, an overall
reduction of 100/1000 x 50% = 5% could be
estimated due to the presence of the forest buffer.
Limitations
% FIB removal efficiencies are based on literature values from a variety of locations and may not be
specific to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and are not inclusive of all BMPs implemented, therefore this is
likely an underestimate of total % FIB removal. This method also relies on remotely sensed data from
2013/2014 and as such may not entirely reflect current (2021/2022) land use conditions in the watershed.
56
3.8. Pathogen Reduction
Figure 3.8.1. Estimated total pathogen load (fecal
coliform, CFU per year) per county based on pasture
and urban loads. A portion of fecal bacteria are
filtered by ecosystems before reaching streams or
other waterbodies.
j 7.7e+13 -
j 3.6e+15 -
)14e+16-
| 2.0e+16 -
| 2.7e+16 •
| 3.4e+16 ¦
| 4.7e+16 ¦
I 7.2e+16 ¦
3.5e+15
1.3e+16
1.9e+16
2.6e+16
3.3e+16
4 6e+16
7.1e+16
1.5e+17
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the total potential % FIB removal due to the proposed acres for Forest Buffers, Grass
Buffers, Impervious Surface Reduction and Wetland Restoration in their county. Users can compare % FIB
removal efficiencies between these BMPs and determine if they would like to optimize pathogen reduction.
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to reduce pathogen loading?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of reducing pathogen
loads may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented for reducing pathogen loads
• Black duck - enhance and preserve habitats supporting wintering black ducks, including
reducing pathogens
• Brook trout - restore and sustain naturally reproducing brook trout in headwater streams,
including reducing pathogens
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including reducing
pathogens
• Oysters - restore native oyster habitat and populations, including reducing pathogens
• Public access site development - public access opportunities for boating, swimming, fishing,
including by reducing pathogens that could impact public safety
• Stream health - continually improve stream health and function, including reducing pathogens
• Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) - sustain and increase the habitat benefits of SAV, including
reducing pathogens
• Toxic contaminants policy and prevention - reduce and prevent effects of toxic contaminants
that harm aquatic systems and humans, including reducing pathogens
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may help reduce pathogen loading?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to reducing pathogens:
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including buffering pathogens
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including buffering pathogens
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including
buffering pathogens
• Protected lands - protect lands identified as high conservation priorities, including forests and
wetlands that reduce pathogen loads
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
leading to potential benefits to reducing pathogen loads
What best management practices (BMPs) may help reduce pathogen loading?
There are many BMPs that may help with pathogen reduction (Fig. 3.8.2). Here we focused specifically
on Forest buffers, Grass buffers, Impervious Surface Reduction and Wetland restoration. The table
below shows estimates for average % FIB reduction of county-wide loadings for different BMPs based on
57
3.8. Pathogen Reduction
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
20 acres of BMP implementation in each county. Total land acres where the BMPs were applied were
assumed to be either low vegetation in agricultural/rural areas or impervious surfaces in urban areas
(see Appendix A8 for details). Units are % FIB removal.
Table 3.8.1. Estimates of mean %FIB removal due to 20 acres of BMP implementation on either low
vegetation or urban lands in each county.
BMP NAME
% FIB
REMOVAL
% FIB REMOVAL EQUATION
AG FOREST BUFFERS
0.0434
(Acres of BMP / total land acres where BMP applied) * 50%
AG FOREST BUFFERS FENCED
0.045136
(Acres of BMP / total land acres where BMP applied) * 52%
GRASS BUFFERS
0.0616
(Acres of BMP / total land acres where BMP applied) * 71%
GRASS BUFFERS FENCED
0.0616
(Acres of BMP / total land acres where BMP applied) * 71%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
REDUCTION
0.0001
(Acres of BMP / total land acres where BMP applied) * 57%
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS
0.000088
(Acres of BMP / total land acres where BMP applied) * 50%
URBAN FOREST PLANTING
0.000088
(Acres of BMP / total land acres where BMP applied) * 50%
WETLAND
CREATION/RESTORATION
0.0304
(Acres of BMP / total land acres where BMP applied) * 35%
Figure 3.8.2. Percent reduction in county-wide FIB loading with 20 acres of BMP implementation. Missing bars
are BMPs for which FIB reductions were not calculated.
Additional Resources
Wainger, L., J. Richkus, M. Barber. 2015. Additional Beneficial Outcomes Of Implementing The
Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Quantification And Description Of Ecosystem Services Not Monetized. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
58
3.8. Pathogen Reduction
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.9. Pollinators
Why is pollinator supply important to
people?
Pollinator supply is important to maintain for
any plants requiring pollination. This is
especially important for agriculture.
Who is impacted by pollinator supply?
There are many beneficiaries, or users of an
ecosystem, that benefit from pollinators. For
example, farmers may benefit from natural
pollinators depending on the crop they harvest.
Residents may benefit from pollinators (e.g.,
butterflies) through wildlife viewing.
How do we quantify pollinator supply?
To quantify pollinator supply we chose to use a
model developed by InVEST (Sharpe et al.,
2020). This model considers floral resource
availability and pollinator activity during a
particular season. For our purposes we looked
at summer season pollinator habitat suitability
for a handful of species (though we only show
bumblebee in the map in Fig. 3.9.1). Higher
suitability scores indicate sources of greater
relative bee abundance. Counties throughout
the watershed had different suitability as
bumblebee habitat (Fig. 3.9.1).
Figure 3.9.1. Bumblebee abundance Index ranges from 0-
1 and reflects where bumblebees are active as a result of
floral resources during the given season (here, summer).
Limitations
We used the InVEST model to determine an index of pollinator supply and abundance (see Appendix A9
for details). This method relies on land cover land use data from 2013/14 and is not the most up to date
land use for the watershed.
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the current estimate of a pollinator species abundance for their county and then
explore the relationships between different land uses and pollinator abundance to determine if there
are certain land uses that can be restored or created to potentially increase (or decrease) a certain
pollinator abundance.
3.9. Pollinators
59
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to improve pollinator supply?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of increasing and
improving pollinator habitat may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those creating or restoring pollinator habitat
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including
protecting critical pollinators
• Protected lands - protect additional acres of land throughout the watershed, including habitats
favorable for pollinators
• Public access site development - public access opportunities for boating, swimming, fishing,
including access to wildlife viewing of pollinator species
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may help improve pollinator supply?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to improving pollinator supply:
• Black duck - enhance and preserve habitats supporting wintering black ducks, which may also
provide shared habitat for pollinators
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including as habitat for pollinators
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including as
habitat for pollinators
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including as habitat for pollinators
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
some of which may contribute to pollinator habitat
What best management practices (BMPs) may help improve pollinator supply?
Some best management practices may help improve pollinator supply and abundance (Fig. 3.9.2). BMPs
that increase floral resources are especially important. Table 3.9.1 below shows estimates of mean index
of abundance (0-1) in summer for four bee species for different land uses in the watershed.
Table 3.9.1. Estimates of abundance index (0-1) in summer for four bee species for BMP land covers.
BMP NAME
BUMBLEBEE
BICOLOR
BLUE
ORCHARD
SWEAT BEE
SWEAT BEE
BEE
AG FOREST BUFFERS & TREE PLANTING
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.008
CROP COVER
0.044
0.020
0.015
0.013
FOREST CONSERVATION
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.008
GRASS BUFFERS
0.044
0.020
0.015
0.013
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
0.044
0.020
0.015
0.013
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS/PLANTING
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.008
URBAN TREE PLANTING
0.015
0.007
0.006
0.006
WETLAND CREATION/RESTORATION
0.024
0.008
0.008
0.008
60
3.9. Pollinators
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
0.05
« 0.04
y 0.03
3 0.02
«) 0.01
E o
CO
lllllllllll
ItF
& ^ , JJS J? .$> ^ „•£- *
^ JJ? sf3
*
Figure 3.9.2. Bumblebee Abundance Index for different BMPs.
Additional Resources
Sharp, R., J. Douglass, S. Wolny, K. Arkema, J. Bernhardt, W. Bierbower, N. Chaumont, D. Denu, D. Fisher,
K. Glowinski, R. Griffin, G. Guannel, A. Guerry, J. Johnson, P. Hamel, C. Kennedy, C. K. Kim, M.
Lacayo, E. Lonsdorf, L. Mandle, L. Rogers, J. Silver, J. Toft, G. Verutes, A. L. Vogl, S. Wood, K. Wyatt.
2020. InVEST 3.8.9 User's Guide.
3.9. Pollinators
61
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.10. Soil Quality
Why is soil quality important?
Soil quality is important for crops, and healthy
ecosystems.
Who is impacted by soil quality?
Soil quality benefits many user groups. Farmers may
benefit from improved soil quality by potentially
reducing their need for fertilizer and improving crop
production.
How do we quantify soil quality?
To quantify soil quality, we chose to focus on carbon
content in soil. Soil carbon is one of many metrics
that could be used to determine soil health (e.g., soil
moisture, nitrogen content). Soil carbon is a food
source for important microorganisms in soil. Briefly,
we used literature and existing tools to identify soil
carbon stocks from different land uses and common
best management practices (see Appendix A10 for
details). Then, we took an average of these reported
rates and multiplied them by the respective land use
or BMP to estimate total soil carbon stock for a
certain area. Counties throughout the watershed
had different levels of carbon stock depending on
land cover (Fig. 3.10.1).
Figure 3.10.1. Estimated soil C stock (US tons) by
county based on land use type.
Limitations
Soil carbon stock estimates were found in the literature, and we used the average of the reported stocks
per land use and/or best management practice. Soil carbon is only one aspect of soil quality, and may
take years to reach the levels of an established ecosystem after implementation. Soil carbon stock, while
related to rates of carbon sequestration that remove atmospheric carbon (see Sectfori 3.4). measures
the current availability of carbon (e.g., as a nutrient) in soil,
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the current estimate of soil carbon stock for their county and then explore the
relationships between different BMPs and soil carbon stock to determine if there are practices that may
optimize soil carbon stock.
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to improve soil quality?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of increasing and
improving pollinator habitat may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
62
3.10. Soil Quality
I 2322-121084
H 121085 - 341368
341369 - 496945
¦ 496946 - 649070
649071 -809978
¦1809979-1181986
IB 1181987- 1579289
¦¦ 1579290-2158474
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented to sequester carbon into soil (blue carbon, carbon markets)
• Adaptation - enhance resiliency of Bay and aquatic ecosystems to climate change, including by
sequestering carbon from the atmosphere into soil
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including their
abilities to sequester and cycle carbon
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may help improve soil quality?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to improving soil quality:
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including storing and retaining carbon, nutrients, and moisture in soil
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including storing and retaining carbon, nutrients, and moisture in soil
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including storing
and retaining carbon, nutrients, and moisture in soil
• Protected lands - protect lands identified as high conservation priorities, including storing and
retaining carbon, nutrients, and moisture in soil
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
leading to potential benefits to soil quality
What best management practices (BMPs) may help improve soil quality?
Some best management practices may improve soil quality through increasing soil carbon stocks (Fig.
3.10.2). The table below shows estimates for soil carbon stocks for different BMPs based on 20 acres of
BMP implementation. Units are US tons carbon/acre.
Table 3.10.1. Estimates for soil carbon stocks for different BMPs based on 20 acres of BMP
implementation. Units are US tons carbon/acre
BMP NAME
SOIL CARBON MULTIPLIER
(US TONS/ACRE)
ESTIMATED SOIL CARBON
STOCK FOR 20 ACRES
AG FOREST BUFFERS
14.47
289.33
AG TREE PLANTING
14.47
289.33
COVER CROP
1.32
26.31
FOREST CONSERVATION
14.47
289.33
GRASS BUFFERS
12.75
254.93
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
64.30
1285.92
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS
47.91
958.19
URBAN FOREST PLANTING
47.91
958.19
URBAN TREE PLANTING
47.91
958.19
WETLAND CREATION
65.83
1316.50
WETLAND RESTORATION
65.83
1316.50
3.10. Soil Quality
63
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
1400 r
Figure 3.10.2. Soil Carbon stock for 20 acres of different BMPs.
Additional Resources
Pouyat, Richard V., Ian D. Yesilonis, and David J. Nowak. 2006. Carbon storage by urban soils in the
United States. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:1566-1575.
3.10. Soil Quality
64
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
3.11. Water Quantity
Why is water quantity important?
Water quantity, or availability, is important
for many user groups. Estimating water
quantity is important for understanding the
movement of water across the landscape.
Who is impacted by water quantity?
There are many beneficiaries, or users of an
ecosystem, that benefit from water quantity.
For example, it is important to know the
water available upstream from a
hydropower facility or drinking water facility.
How do we quantify water quantity?
To quantify water quantity, we have chosen
to use estimates of annual surface water
flow as a proxy to water quantity available
on the landscape. This metric considers land
cover, elevation, and precipitation (among
other factors) to estimate how water flows
across a landscape. Water flow is related to
flood control (see Section 3.5) in that the
amount of runoff from the landscape
depends in part on the capacity of the land
to absorb initial precipitation (curve number
method). In general, landscapes (such as
impervious surface) with a low capacity to
absorb water, will have higher runoff and
flow, depending on elevation, slope,
distance from stream, and other factors.
Figure 3.11.1. Mean annual water flow per county based
on landcover and many other factors. NA indicates land-
river segments predominantly outside the watershed for
which stream flow was not estimated.
Limitations
Annual water flow is estimated by a model that uses remotely sensed land cover data (Chesapeake Bay
Program, 2020). Land covers such as roads typically have higher average flow as there is less structure in
the way to slow water down, and less ability of the land to retain rainwater through infiltration, which
can also contribute to more variable (less stable) streamflow. Under extreme precipitation scenarios,
high flows can become dangerous and the capacity of the land to retain rainwater can be an indicator of
flood risk (see Section 3.5).
3.11. Water Quantity
65
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
How can this information be used?
Users can explore the current estimate of annual water flow for their county and then explore the
relationships between different land uses and annual water flow to determine if there are certain land
uses that can be restored or created to potentially increase or decrease water flow. Counties throughout
the watershed had different levels of water flow based on land cover and other factors (Fig. 3.11.1).
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may benefit from actions to improve water quantity?
Implementation of restoration and conservation related BMPs with a primary goal of increasing and
improving water flow may contribute toward achieving the following outcomes:
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
including those implemented to create open space or green space
• Blue crab abundance - maintain a sustainable blue crab population, including by improving and
maintaining water flow
• Brook trout - restore and sustain naturally reproducing brook trout in headwater streams,
including by improving and maintaining water flow
• Fish habitat - improve fish habitat, critical spawning, nursery and forage areas, including by
improving and maintaining water flow
• Healthy watersheds - current healthy watersheds and waters remain healthy, including by
improving and maintaining water flow
• Stream health - continually improve stream health and function, including by improving and
maintaining water flow
What Watershed Agreement outcomes may help improve water quantity?
Implementation of BMPs to achieve the following watershed agreement outcomes may also lead to
additional benefits to improving water flow:
• Forest buffers - restore, converse, and increase capacity of forest buffers to provide benefits,
including regulating flow of water
• Tree canopy - expand and increase capacity of tree canopy to provide benefits, including
regulating flow of water
• Wetlands - create, reestablish, enhance function and capacity of wetlands to provide benefits,
including regulating the flow of water
• Protected lands - protect lands identified as high conservation priorities, including forests and
wetlands that help regulate the flow of water
• 2025 WIP - all articulated practices from Chesapeake Bay TMDL document in place by 2025,
leading to potential benefits to water flow
What best management practices (BMPs) may impact water quantity?
Some best management practices may help improve annual water flow (Fig. 3.11.2). Table 3.11.1 below
shows estimates for annual water flow for different BMPs based on land cover type (see Appendix All
for more details). Units are inches per year.
3.11. Water Quantity
66
-------
Final Ecosystem Services
Table 3.11.1. Estimates for annual water flow for different BMPs based on land cover type. Units are
inches per year.
BMP NAME
MEAN ANNUAL FLOW (IN/YEAR)
AG FOREST BUFFERS, TREE PLANTING
13.75
COVER CROP
15.62
FOREST CONSERVATION
13.70
GRASS BUFFERS
15.09
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
19.91
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS AND PLANTING
13.75
URBAN TREE PLANTING
26.17
WETLAND CREATION/RESTORATION
13.70
Figure 3.11.2. Annual water flow (in/yr)for different BMPs.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020. Chesapeake Assessment and Scenario Tool (CAST) Version 2019.
https://cast.chesapeakebav.net/Documentation/ModelDocumentation
3.11. Water Quantity
67
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Chapter 4. Watershed Outcomes
4.1. What are Watershed Outcomes?
The purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement is to help guide the restoration of the
watershed by setting mutual goals and tracking progress related to those goals, which helps hold
signatories accountable. In 2014 a new Watershed Agreement was adopted and signed by 7 jurisdictions
in the watershed, EPA for the federal government, and the tri-state Chesapeake Bay Commission that
includes Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The Watershed Agreement specifies 10 goals for
sustainable fisheries, vital habitats, water quality, toxic contaminants, healthy watersheds, stewardship,
land conservation, public access, environmental literacy, and climate resiliency (Chesapeake Bay
Program, 2014). For each goal, there are measurable outcomes resulting in a total of 31 outcomes
across all 10 goals.
4.1.1. Identifying Connections to Watershed Outcomes
We identified connections to most, but not all, of the 31 Watershed Agreement outcomes. In total, we
identified connections to 16 out of 31 outcomes for the selected BMPs we present in this report. We
limited connections and discussion of how BMPs may be related to watershed outcomes to those that
had clear and simple explanations for direct and indirect connections. For example, we include
Adaptation as an outcome because several BMPs we focus on (e.g., wetland restoration or forest
buffers) contribute to flood control which is directly linked to the Adaptation outcome. We did not
include Citizen Stewardship because while the BMPs may provide ecosystem services citizens are
interested in, there was not a clear connection to the services provided resulting in increased citizen
participation. See Appendix B for more on the difficulty of connecting certain outcomes to BMPs to shed
light on why some outcomes are not highlighted in this report. We also include some outcomes that are
more Bay focused (e.g., Oyster, Blue Crab Abundance, Fish habitat, SAV) because there were obvious
connections between the BMPs we focused on and these Bay-centric outcomes (e.g., wetland
restoration or creation may create fish habitat).
4.1.2. Watershed Outcome Factsheet Overview
For each Watershed Outcome, we have created a fact sheet that contains the following information:
• Outcome description
• Conceptual figure
• Importance of outcome
• Status of outcome
• BMPs (described in Chapter 2) and example ecosystem services that may contribute to
the outcome
• Example of who benefits from the outcome
Chapter 4. Watershed Outcomes
68
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.2. Adaptation
Description
Continually pursue, design and construct restoration and protection projects to enhance the resiliency
of Bay and aquatic ecosystems from the impacts of coastal erosion, coastal flooding, more intense and
more frequent storms, and sea level rise.
BMPs...
Agricultural.Forest.Buffer
Forest.Conservation
Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
Urban.Forest.Buffi
Tree. Planting
Urban.Forest.Planting
Urban.Tree.Planting
Wetland.Creation
~
Wetland.Restoration
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
Flood.control
could help
achieve
outcomes..
Adaptation
Soil.quality
Carbon.sequestration
Heat. risk, reduction
Figure 4.2.1. Examples of how Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented for the primary purpose of
providing ecosystem sen/ices such flood control, soil quality, carbon sequestration, and reducing extreme
temperatures (blue boxes) may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Climate Adaptation (orange
box).
Why does Adaptation matter?
The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed is susceptible to climate change driven impacts. Attaining this
Watershed Agreement outcome will help communities throughout the watershed as they make plans to
adapt to these changes and will likely help protect critical infrastructure susceptible to flooding and
other impacts (Chesapeake Bay Program 2010).
What is the status of the Adaptation outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Adaptation outcome was classified as "no change". As of November
2021, this outcome has been classified as "off course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for more
information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as habitat and flood control which may directly or indirectly
contribute to meeting the Adaptation outcome (Fig. 4.2.1). Conservation and restoration BMPs
implemented for the primary purpose of providing ecosystem services such flood control, soil quality,
carbon sequestration, and reducing extreme temperatures may contribute to meeting the watershed
outcome of Climate Adaptation
69
4.2. Adaptation
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Strategy for protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
EPA-903-S-10-001.
https://www.chesapeakebav.net/what/publications/strategy for protecting and restoring the ch
esapeake bay watershed executiv
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.2. Adaptation
70
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.3. Black Duck Habitat
Description
By 2025, restore, enhance and preserve wetland habitats that support a wintering population of
100,000 black ducks, a species representative of the health of tidal marshes across the watershed.
Refine population targets through 2025 based on best available science.
BMPs..
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
could help achieve
outcomes...
leading to additional
benefits of...
-orest.Buffer
Agricultural.Grass. Buffer
Forest.Conservation
Tree.Planting
Urban. Forest. Buffers
Urban.Tree.Planting
¦M
~| Urban.Ti
Wetland.Creation
Wetland. Restoration
Flood.control
Pathogen.reduction
Forested.Wetland.Open.space
J Herbaceous.Wetland.Open.space
Black Duck Habitat
Bird.species.diversity
Pollinators
Figure 4.3.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to provide ecosystem services (blue boxes)
such as flood control, pathogen reduction, and wetland habitat may contribute to meeting the watershed
outcome of Black Duck Habitat (orange box). Actions to improve black duck habitat may in turn have unintended
benefits for bird species diversity and pollinators (blue boxes, right) that share habitat with black ducks.
Why does the Black Duck Outcome matter?
Black ducks are an important indicator species that inform wetland health and food availability. Black
duck abundance is especially important as an additional indicator for the wetland outcome because
black ducks are dependent on wetland habitat so increases in black ducks is typically associated with
increases in wetland habitat and/or wetland health.
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Black Duck outcome was classified as "increase". As of November
2021, this outcome has been classified as "off course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for more
information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as habitat and flood control which may directly or indirectly
contribute to meeting the Black Duck outcome (Fig. 4.3.1). BMPs implemented to provide ecosystem
services such as flood control, pathogen reduction, and wetland habitat may contribute to meeting the
watershed outcome of Black Duck Habitat. Actions to improve black duck habitat may in turn have
unintended benefits for bird species diversity and pollinators that share habitat with black ducks.
71
4.3. Black Duck Habitat
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Who benefits from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Black Duck outcome, various
user groups may benefit. For example, residents and businesses benefit from flood control and hunters
benefit from increased habitat for black ducks.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.3. Black Duck Habitat
72
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.4. Blue Crab Abundance
Description
Maintain a sustainable blue crab population based on the current 2012 target of 215 million adult
females. Refine population targets through 2025 based on best available science.
BMPs...
Agricultural. Forest. Buffer
~ Forest.Conservatiof^^*
Ag ricu Itu ra I. G rass. B uffer
rlfmr*4"
Impervious.Surface.Reduction
Urban. Forest. Buffers
Urban.Tree.Planting
¦¦¦ZA
Wetland.Creation
Wetland. Restoration
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
Clean.water
Flood.control
could help
achieve
outcomes-
Blue Crab Abundance
Forested. Wetland.Open.space
Water.clarity
J Herbaceous.Wetland.Open.space
Water.quantity
Figure 4.4.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to provide ecosystem services (blue boxes,
quantified in this report) such as flood control, water quantity, wetland habitat, or water quality and clarity
(purple boxes, not quantified) may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Blue Crab Abundance
(orange box).
Why does the Blue Crab Abundance outcome matter?
Blue crabs, and other aquatic fauna, are an important fishery species both recreationally and
commercially in the Chesapeake Bay. Improving the abundance of blue crab is important for a
sustainable fishery which helps ensure the people of the Chesapeake Bay watershed can enjoy blue crab
in the future. Additionally, blue crab can act as an indicator species for Bay health (Federal Leadership
Committee for the Chesapeake Bay 2010).
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Blue Crab Abundance outcome was classified as "increase". As of
November 2021, this outcome has been classified as "on course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for
more information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as habitat and flood control which may directly or indirectly
contribute to meeting the Blue Crab Abundance outcome (Fig. 4.4.1). BMPs implemented to provide
ecosystem services such as flood control, water quantity, wetland habitat, water quality, and water
clarity may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Blue Crab Abundance.
4.4. Blue Crab Abundance
73
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. Executive order 13508: Strategy for protecting
and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 12 May 2010. EPA number: 903R10003
4.4. Blue Crab Abundance
74
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.5. Brook Trout
Description
Restore arid sustain naturally reproducing brook trout populations in Chesapeake headwater streams
with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
BMPs...
Itural.Forest.Buffer
Forest.Conservation
Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
Urban. Forest. Buffers
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
Pathogen.reduction
Urban.Tree.Planting
Habitat.for.brook.trout
Wetland.Creation
Heat.risk.reduction
J Wetland.Restoration
Water.quantity
could help
achieve
outcomes..
Brook Trout
Figure 4.5.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to provide ecosystem services (blue boxes;
quantified in this report) such as pathogen reduction, temperature regulation, water quantity, or habitat for
brook trout (purple box; not quantified) may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Brook Trout
(orange box).
Why does the Brook Trout outcome matter?
Brook trout are an important recreationally fished species throughout the watershed. They can act as an
indicator for stream health because they are sensitive to temperature changes (Federal Leadership
Committee for the Chesapeake Bay 2010).
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2019, recent progress for the Brook Trout outcome was classified as "no change". As of November
2021, this outcome has been classified as "off course". See Chesapeake Progress for more information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as reduced water temperature and pathogen reduction which
may indirectly contribute to meeting the Brook Trout outcome (Fig. 4.5.1). BMPs implemented to
provide ecosystem services such as pathogen reduction, temperature regulation, water quantity, or
habitat for brook trout may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Brook Trout.
Who benefits from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Brook Trout outcome,
different user groups may benefit. For example, anglers may benefit from reduced stream temperatures
and pathogen reduction.
75
4.5. Brook Trout
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. Executive order 13508: Strategy for protecting
and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 12 May 2010. EPA number: 903R10003
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.5. Brook Trout
76
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.6. Fish Habitat
Description
Continually improve effectiveness offish habitat conservation and restoration efforts by identifying and
characterizing critical spawning, nursery and forage areas within the Bay and tributaries for important
fish and shellfish, and use existing and new tools to integrate information and conduct assessments to
inform restoration and conservation efforts.
BMPs...
<=> Agricultural. Cover.Crops
Agricultural.Forest.Buffer
Forest. Conservation
I 1 Tree.Planting
J Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
3 Impervious.Surface.Reduction
Urban.Forest.Buffers
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
Habitat.for.brook.trout
Clean.water
could help
achieve
outcomes...
Flood.control
j Wetlai
Wetland.Creation
Wetland. Restoration
Water.clarity
Forested .Wetland. Open .space
Fish Habitat
Urban.Tree.Planting
t
Herbaceous. Wetland.Open.space
n Heat.risk.reduction
I' Water.quantity
Figure 4.6.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to provide ecosystem services (blue boxes;
quantified in this report) such as flood control, temperature regulation, water quantity, and wetland habitat, or
clean water and habitat for brook trout (purple box; not quantified) may contribute to meeting the watershed
outcome of Fish Habitat (orange box).
Why does the Fish Habitat outcome matter?
The fish habitat outcome is important because the Chesapeake Bay is an important fisheries production
region on the East Coast. Improving conservation offish habitat is important for many recreational and
commercial species such as shad, striped bass, and flounder (Federal Leadership Committee for the
Chesapeake Bay 2010).
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Fish Habitat outcome was classified as "increase". As of November
2021, this outcome has been classified as "on course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for more
information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as reduced water temperature and habitat for fish which may
indirectly or directly contribute to meeting the Fish Habitat outcome (Fig. 4.6.1). BMPs implemented to
provide ecosystem services such as flood control, temperature regulation, water quantity, and wetland
4.6. Fish Habitat
77
-------
Watershed Outcomes
habitat, or clean water and habitat for brook trout may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome
of Fish Habitat.
Who benefits from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Fish Habitat outcome, various
user groups may benefit. For example, anglers may benefit from reduced water temperatures and
residents may benefit from improved flood control.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. Executive order 13508: Strategy for protecting
and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 12 May 2010. EPA number: 903R10003
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.6. Fish Habitat
78
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.7. Forest Buffer
Description
Continually increase the capacity of forest buffers to provide water quality and habitat benefits
throughout the watershed. Restore 900 miles per year of riparian forest buffer and conserve existing
buffers until at least 70 percent of riparian areas throughout the watershed are forested.
BMPs...
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
could help achieve
outcomes...
Tree.and.Forest.Open.space
Forested. Wetland.Open.space
Forest Buffer
leading to additional
benefits of...
Air.quality
Q Bird.species.diversity
J Carbon.sequestration
Clean .water
Flood.control
J Heat.risk.reduction
Pathogen.reduction
Pollinators
]] Soil.quality
Water.clarity
Water.quantity
Figure 4.7.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to conserve and create acres of forest space
(blue boxes) contribute to meeting the Forest Buffer watershed outcome (orange box). Achievement of the
Forest Buffer outcome in turn could lead to additional ecosystem services benefits (blue/purple boxes, right)
provided by forests.
J Agricultural.Forest.Buffer
J Forest.Conservation
J Urban.Forest.Buffers
Wetland.Creation
Wetland.Restoration
Why does the Forest Buffer outcome matter?
Forest buffers are important because they restore riparian forest which can improve streambank
stabilization and reduce erosion, provide habitat, and provide shade which can reduce stream
temperatures. (Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay 2010).
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Forest Buffer outcome was classified as "decrease". As of November
2021, this outcome has been classified as "off course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for more
information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs directly provide forest buffers (e.g., forest buffer BMPs) or provide ecosystem services that
improve general habitat quality (Fig. 4.7.1). BMPs implemented to conserve and create acres of forest
space may contribute to meeting the Forest Buffer watershed outcome. Achievement of the Forest
Buffer outcome in turn could lead to additional ecosystem services benefits provided by forests.
4.7. Forest Buffer
79
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. Executive order 13508: Strategy for protecting
and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 12 May 2010. EPA number: 903R10003
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.7. Forest Buffer
80
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.8. Healthy Watersheds
Description
100 percent of state-identified currently healthy waters and watersheds remain healthy by 2025.
Flood.control
could help
achieve
outcomes...
Healthy
Watersheds
BMPs...
Agricultural.Forest.Buffer
Forest.Conservation
] Urban.Forest.Buffers
Tree.Planti
Urban.Tree.Planting
Wetland.Creation
Wetland. Restoration
| Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
[ I Impervious.Surface.Reduction
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
Air.quality
Carbon.sequestration
Bird.species.diversity
Clean.water
Pathogen.reduction
^ Heat.risk.reduction
] Soil.quality
Open.space
] Pollinators
1 Water.quantity
Figure 4.8.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to provide ecosystem services (blue boxes,
quantified this report) such as flood control, pathogen reduction, pollinators, bird diversity, or clean water
(purple box, not quantified) among others, may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Healthy
Watersheds (orange box).
Why does the Healthy Watersheds outcome matter?
Maintaining healthy watersheds is important because doing so maintains existing benefits from those
watersheds like clean water and critical habitat. This outcome is also important because protecting
already healthy streams is less expensive than restoring impaired waters.
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Healthy Watersheds outcome was classified as "no change". As of
November 2021, this outcome has been classified as "uncertain". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for
more information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as reduced air temperature and flood control which may
indirectly or directly contribute to meeting the Healthy Watersheds outcome (Fig. 4.8.1). BMPs
implemented to provide ecosystem services such as flood control, pathogen reduction, pollinators, bird
diversity, or clean water among others, may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Healthy
Watersheds.
4.8. Healthy Watersheds
81
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Who benefits from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Healthy Watersheds outcome,
various user groups may benefit. For example, anglers may benefit from reduced water temperatures
and residents may benefit from improved flood control.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.8. Healthy Watersheds
82
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.9. Oyster
Description
Continually increase finfish and shellfish habitat and water quality benefits from restored oyster
populations. Restore native oyster habitat and populations in 10 tributaries by 2025 and ensure their
protection.
BMPs...
Agricultural.Cover. Crops
Agricultural. Forest.Buffer
Forest. Conservation
Tree.Planting
Agricultural.Grass. Buffer
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
could help
achieve
outcomes..
Urban. Forest. Buffers
Impervious.Surface. Reduction
^S
Wetland.Creation - ¦»-
Urban.Tree.Planting
Wetland. Restoration
~
Clean.water
Pathogen.reduction
Forested. Wetland. Open.space
Water.clarity
Herbaceous. Wetland.Open.space
J Oyster
Figure 4.9.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to provide ecosystem services (blue boxes;
quantified in this report) such as pathogen reduction, wetland habitat, or water quality and clarity (purple
boxes; not quantified) may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Oyster habitat (orange box).
Why does the Oyster outcome matter?
Oysters, and other aquatic fauna, are an important fishery species both recreationally and commercially
in the Chesapeake Bay. Oysters act as an indicator species for Bay health and are also important for
water filtration (Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay 2010).
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Oyster outcome was classified as "increase". As of November 2021,
this outcome has been classified as "on course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for more information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as habitat for oyster and pathogen reduction which may
indirectly or directly contribute to meeting the Oyster outcome (Fig. 4.9.1). BMPs implemented to
provide ecosystem services such as pathogen reduction, wetland habitat, or water quality and clarity
may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Oyster habitat.
Who benefits from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Oyster outcome, various user
groups may benefit. For example, anglers may benefit from water clarity.
4.9. Oyster
83
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. Executive order 13508: Strategy for protecting
and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 12 May 2010. EPA number: 903R10003
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.9. Oyster
84
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.10. Protected Lands
Description
By 2025, protect an additional two million acres of lands throughout the watershed—currently
identified as high conservation priorities at the federal, state or local level—including 225,000 acres of
wetlands and 695,000 acres of forest land of highest value for maintaining water quality (2010 baseline
year).
BMPs...
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
orest.Buffer
could help
achieve
outcomes...
Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
J Forest.Conservation
Urban.Forest.Buffers
Urban.Tree.Planting
Wetland.Creation
rs
Ml
Bird.species. Habitat
Open.space
Protected Lands
¦n
Wetland.Restoration
Pollinator.Habitat
leading to additional
benefits of...
Air.quality
Bird.species.diversity
Carbon .seq uestration
Clean.water
Flood.control
Heat.risk.reduction
Pathogen.reduction
Pollinators
Soil.quality
Water.clarity
Water.quantity
Figure 4.10.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to create acres of forest, wetland, bird
habitat, or pollinator habitat (blue boxes) may contribute to meeting the Protected Lands watershed outcome
(orange box). Achievement of the Protected Lands outcome in turn could lead to additional ecosystem services
benefits (blue/purple boxes, right) provided by these habitats.
Why does the Protected Lands outcome matter?
Protected lands are important because of the ecological, cultural, historical, economic, and recreational
importance of lands throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Increasing protection of these lands
preserves the benefits to people and communities throughout the watershed.
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Protected lands outcome was classified as "increase". As of
November 2021, this outcome has been classified as "on course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for
more information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as habitat for birds and greenspace which may indirectly or
directly contribute to meeting the Protected lands outcome (Fig. 4.10.1). BMPs implemented to create
acres of forest, wetland, bird habitat, or pollinator habitat may indirectly contribute to meeting the
Protected Lands watershed outcome, if paired with policy decisions to identify them as protected or
priority conservation lands. Achievement of the Protected Lands outcome in turn couid lead to
additional ecosystem services benefits provided by these habitats.
4.10. Protected Lands
85
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Who benefits from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Protected lands outcome,
various user groups may benefit. For example, residents may benefit from increased green space.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.10. Protected Lands
86
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.11. Public Access Site Development
Description
By 2025, add 300 new public access sites, with a strong emphasis on providing opportunities for boating,
swimming, and fishing, where feasible. (2010 baseline year)
BMPs...
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
could help achieve
outcomes...
Agricultural. Forest.Buffer
| Forest.Conservation ,
Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
Urban. Forest. Buffers
Impervious.Surface.Reduction
Urban.Tree.Planting
Wetland.Creation
Bird.species.diversity
Clean.water
Flood.control
Open.space
Pathogen.reduction
Air.quality
~
Public Access
Site Development
1 Wetland. Restoration
m
~ Pollinators
Water.clarity
Heat.risk.reduction
Figure 4.11.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to improve bird and pollinator diversity,
control flooding, create open space, regulate air quality and air temperatures, reduce water-borne pathogens
(blue boxes, quantified this report) or improve water clarity and quality (purple boxes, not quantified) may
contribute to meeting the Public Access watershed outcome (orange box) by helping to create conditions
favorable and safe for public activities.
Why does the Public Access Site outcome matter?
Public access site development is important because of the ecological, cultural, historical, economic, and
recreational important of lands throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Increasing public access to
these lands benefits the people and communities throughout the watershed.
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Public Access Site Development outcome was classified as
"increase". As of November 2021, this outcome has been classified as "on course". See Chesapeake
Progress 2022 for more information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as green space and pathogen reduction which may indirectly or
directly contribute to meeting the Public Access Site Development outcome (Fig. 4.11.1). BMPs
implemented to improve bird and pollinator diversity, control flooding, create open space, regulate air
quality and air temperatures, reduce water-borne pathogens, or improve water clarity and quality may
indirectly contribute to meeting the Public Access watershed outcome by helping to create conditions
favorable and safe for public activities.
4.11. Public Access Site Development
87
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Who benefits from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Public Access Site
Development outcome, various user groups may benefit. For example, residents may benefit from
increased green space and anglers may benefit from pathogen reduction.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.11. Public Access Site Development
88
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.12. Stream Health
Description
Continually improve stream health and function throughout the watershed. Improve health and function
of ten percent of stream miles above the 2008 baseline for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
BMPs...
J Agricultural.Forest.Buffer
] Forest. Conservation^^
Tree.Planting
[=) Impervious.Surface.Reduction
J Urban.Forest.Buffers
_| Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
3 Urban.Tree.Planting
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
could help
achieve
outcomes..
Wetland.Creation
] Wetland
.Restoration
Habitat.for.brook.trout
Clean.water
Flood.control
Air.quality
Pathogen, reduction
J Water.clarity
Heat.risk.reduction
: Water.quantity
~
Stream Health
Figure 4.12.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to improve ecosystem services (blue boxes,
quantified in this report) flood control, water quantity, mitigate extreme temperatures, reduce pathogens and
atmospheric deposition of pollutants bird and pollinator diversity, control flooding, create open space, regulate
air quality and air temperatures, or provide clean water and improve habitat for brook trout (purple boxes, not
quantified) may contribute to meeting the Stream Health watershed outcome (orange box).
Why does the Stream Health outcome matter?
Stream health is important because improving stream health throughout the watershed will benefit the
Bay by reducing nutrients, sediments, and contaminants from being deposited into the Bay.
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Stream Health outcome was classified as "no change". As of
November 2021, this outcome has been classified as "uncertain". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for
more information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as reduced air and water temperature and pathogen reduction
which may indirectly or directly contribute to meeting the Stream Health outcome (Fig. 4.12.1). BMPs
implemented to improve ecosystem services flood control, water quantity, mitigate extreme
temperatures, reduce pathogens and atmospheric deposition of pollutants bird and pollinator diversity,
control flooding, create open space, regulate air quality and air temperatures, or provide clean water
and improve habitat for brook trout may contribute to meeting the Stream Health watershed outcome.
4.12. Stream Health
89
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Who benefits from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Stream Health outcome,
various user groups may benefit. For example, residents and anglers may benefit from reduced air and
stream temperatures.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.12. Stream Health
90
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.13. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
Description
Sustain arid increase the habitat benefits of SAV (underwater grasses) in the Chesapeake Bay. Achieve
and sustain the ultimate outcome of 185,000 acres of SAV Bay-wide necessary for a restored Bay.
Progress toward this ultimate outcome will be measured against a target of 90,000 acres by 2017 and
130,000 acres by 2025.
leading to additional
benefits of...
Carbon.sequestration
Figure 4.13.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to provide ecosystem services (blue boxes;
quantified in this report) such as pathogen reduction, wetland habitat; or improve water clarity and quality
(purple boxes; not quantified) may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of SAV (orange box), which in
turn can help to sequester carbon.
Why does the SAV Outcome matter?
Submerged aquatic vegetation is considered a critical priority habitat in tidal waters for numerous
aquatic species (Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay 2010), and for storing organic
matter or 'blue carbon' as part of a climate adaptation strategy (Chesapeake Bay Progress 2022).
What is the status of this outcome?
An estimated 60% of segments are expected to meet water quality standards for underwater grasses
(SAV) in the bay and tidal tributaries by 2025 (Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay
2010).
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as water clarity and pathogen reduction which may indirectly or
directly contribute to meeting the SAV outcome. (Fig. 4.13.1). BMPs implemented to provide ecosystem
services such as pathogen reduction, wetland habitat, or improve water clarity and quality may
contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of SAV, which in turn can help to sequester carbon.
Who may benefit from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the SAV outcome, various user
groups may benefit. For example, residents benefit from improved water clarity.
91
4.13. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
BMPs.,
J Agricultural.Grass
Buffer
Wetland.Creation
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
Clean, water
Impervious. Surface. Redi
Urban. Forest.Buffers
Wetland. Restoration
Pathogen.reduction
could help
achieve
outcomes..
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Water.clarity
Herbaceous. Wetland.Open.space
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. Executive order 13508: Strategy for protecting
and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 12 May 2010. EPA number: 903R10003
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.13. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
92
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.14. Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention
Description
Continually improve practices and controls that reduce and prevent the effects of toxic contaminants
below levels that harm aquatic systems and humans. Build on existing programs to reduce the amount
and effects of PCBs in the Bay and watershed. Use research findings to evaluate the implementation of
additional policies, programs and practices for other contaminants that need to be further reduced or
eliminated.
BMPs...
1=1 Agricultural.Cover.Crops
Agricultural.
Impervious.Surface. Reduction
Tree.Planting
Urban.Forest.E
Urban.Tree.Planting
Wetland.Creation
Wetland.Restoration
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
Clean.water
could help
achieve
outcomes..
Flood.control
Pathogen. red uction
~
Toxic Contaminants
Policy and Prevention
Water.clarity
Figure 4.14.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to provide ecosystem services (blue boxes;
quantified in this report) that reduce pathogens and human contact with flood waters, or improve water clarity
and quality (purple boxes; not quantified) may contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Toxic
Contaminants Policy and Prevention (orange box).
Why does Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention matter?
Tracking and reducing toxic contaminants in waterways benefits humans as it reduces their risk to
potentially deleterious diseases. It also benefits aquatic life, including the many species humans enjoy
harvesting recreationally or commercially. Reducing toxic contaminants from entering waterways can
also help improve fisheries by reducing exposure of fish or oysters to toxics that would prevent them
from being harvested and sold.
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention outcome was classified as
"decrease". As of November 2021, this outcome has been classified as "off course". See Chesapeake
Progress 2022 for more information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs provide ecosystem services such as water clarity and flood control which may indirectly contribute
to meeting the Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention outcome. (Fig. 4.14.1). BMPs implemented to
provide ecosystem services that reduce pathogens and human contact with flood waters, or improve
water clarity and quality may indirectly contribute to meeting the watershed outcome of Toxic
Contaminants Policy and Prevention.
93
4.14. Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Who may benefit from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Toxic Contaminants Policy and
Prevention outcome, various user groups may benefit. For example, residents benefit from flood
control.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
94
4.14. Toxic Contaminants Policy and Prevention
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.15. Tree Canopy
Description
Continually increase urban tree canopy capacity to provide air quality, water quality and habitat benefits
throughout the watershed. Expand urban tree canopy by 2,400 acres by 2025. Here, urban tree canopy
is broadly defined as tree plantings in communities of any size that are not on agricultural lands.
BMPs...
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
could help achieve
outcomes...
leading to additional
benefits of...
Forest. Conservation
Urban.Forest.Buffers
Urban .Forest.Planting
Urban.Tree. Planting
I ii Wetland.Creation
I 1 Wetland. Restoration
Tree.and.Forest.Open.space
Forested.Wetland.Open.space .
Tree Canopy
] Air.quality
Bird.species.diversity
] Carbon.sequestration
I I Clean.water
1 I Flood.control
I I Heat.risk.reduction
I I Pathogen.reduction
I I Pollinators
II Soil.quality
I I Water.clarity
I 1 Water.quantity
Figure 4.15.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to plant trees and create forest habitat (blue
boxes) contribute to meeting the Tree Canopy watershed outcome (orange box). Achievement of the Tree
Canopy outcome in turn could lead to additional ecosystem services benefits (blue/purple boxes, right) provided
by trees and forests.
Why does the Tree Canopy outcome matter?
Tree canopy is important in urban areas because it provides capacity for air quality, water quality and
habitat improvements.
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Tree Canopy outcome was classified as "no change". As of November
2021, this outcome has been classified as "off course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for more
information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs either directly contribute to the Tree Canopy outcome (e.g., urban tree planting) or provide
ecosystem services that benefit trees. (Fig. 4.15.1). BMPs implemented to plant trees and create forest
habitat could contribute to meeting the Tree Canopy watershed outcome. Achievement of the Tree
Canopy outcome in turn could lead to additional ecosystem services benefits provided by trees and
forests.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
95
4.15. Tree Canopy
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.16. Wetlands
Description
Continually increase the capacity of wetlands to provide water quality and habitat benefits throughout
the watershed. Create or reestablish 85,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and enhance the
function of an additional 150,000 acres of degraded wetlands by 2025. These activities may occur in any
land use (including urban) but primarily occur in agricultural or natural landscapes.
BMPs...
I I AgricuItural.Forest.Buffer
Forest.Conservatlon
Urban. Forest.Buffers
~~\ Urban.Forest.Planting
Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
| Urban.Tree.Planting
Wetland. Creation
Wetland.Restoration
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
could help achieve
outcomes...
~
Forested. Wetland.Open.space
Herbaceous.Wetland.Open.space —
Wetlands
leading to additional
benefits of...
ID Air.quality
_ Bird.species.diversity
I Carbon.sequestration
Clean.water
Flood .control
| Pathogen.reduction
] Pollinators
! Soil.quality
j Water.clarity
| Water.quantity
Figure 4.16.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to restore and create wetland habitat (blue
boxes) contribute to meeting the Wetland watershed outcome (orange box). Achievement of the Wetland
outcome in turn could lead to additional ecosystem services benefits (blue/purple boxes, right) provided by
wetlands.
Why do Wetlands matter?
Restoring habitat throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is important, and wetlands are one
habitat that provides many resources for many species, including humans. Wetlands provide many
ecosystem services ranging from water filtration to reducing coastal storm surge and providing habitat
for commercially valuable fauna such as blue crab and black duck
What is the status of this outcome?
As of 2018, recent progress for the Wetlands outcome was classified as "increase". As of November
2021, this outcome has been classified as "off course". See Chesapeake Progress 2022 for more
information.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs directly contribute to the Wetlands outcome (e.g., wetland restoration) or provide ecosystem
services which may indirectly or directly contribute to meeting the Wetlands outcome. (Fig. 4.16.1).
BMPs implemented to restore and create wetland habitat could contribute to meeting the Wetland
watershed outcome. Achievement of the Wetland outcome in turn could lead to additional ecosystem
services benefits provided by wetlands.
4.16. Wetlands
96
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Who may benefit from this outcome?
By implementing BMPs that provide ecosystem services to help meet the Wetlands outcome, various
user groups may benefit. For example, residents benefit from flood control.
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Progress 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.16. Wetlands
97
-------
Watershed Outcomes
4.17. 2025 Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Outcome
Description
By 2025, have all practices and controls installed to achieve the Bay's dissolved oxygen, water
clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation and chlorophyll a standards as articulated in the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL document.
leading to
additional
benefits of...
i
t
Figure 4.17.1. Best Management Practices (red boxes) implemented to improve water clarity or clean water, or
for other reasons such as to achieve other ecosystem services (blue boxes, quantified in this report; purple boxes,
not quantified) not related to TMDL requirements, such as improving air quality or bird diversity, contribute to
meeting the 2025 WIP watershed outcome (orange box). Achievement of the 2025 WIP outcome in turn could
lead to additional ecosystem benefits, even if not the direct target of BMP implementation.
Why does the 2025 WIP matter?
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL requires nutrient and sediment reductions and watershed implementation
plans (WIPS) layout the actions that jurisdictions within the Bay will take to achieve the water quality
standards required by the TMDL The 2025 WIP outline actions each jurisdiction will implement to meet
the restoration goals between 2019 and 2025.
What BMPs contribute to this outcome?
BMPs are implemented in order to meet the TMDL, so all BMPs included in this report, and all BMPs
recommended to meet the TMDL would contribute to meeting the 2025 WIP outcome. BMPs
implemented to improve water clarity or clean water, or for other reasons not directly related to TMDL
requirements, such as create pollinator habitat, bird habitat, or buffer air pollution, could contribute to
meeting the 2025 WIP watershed outcome. Achievement of the 2025 WIP outcome in turn could lead to
additional ecosystem benefits, even if not the direct target of BMP implementation.
J Agricultural.Forest.Buffer
] Forest.Conservation
—i
| | Urban.Forest.Buffers
Urban. Forest.Planting
Tree.Planting
Urban.Tree.Planting §£
~1 Wetland.Creation
Wetland. Restoration
I 1 Agricultural.Grass.Buffer
L J Impervious.Surface.Reduction^
I^H Agricultural.Cover.Crops
BMPs.
implemented for the
primary purpose of...
I Habitat.for.brook.trout
Air.quality
Carbon.sequestration
Heat.risk.reduction
Pathogen.reduction
Flood.control
Open.space
Bird.species.diversity
Clean,water
Soil.quality
Water.clarity
Pollinators
Pest.predators
Water.quantity
could help
achieve
outcomes...
2025 WIP
4.17. 2025 Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Outcome
98
-------
Watershed Outcomes
Additional Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Strategy for protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
EPA-903-S-10-001.
https://www.chesapeakebav.net/what/publications/strategy for protecting and restoring the ch
esapeake bay watershed executiv
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
4.17. 2025 Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Outcome
99
-------
Summary and Future Directions
Chapter 5. Summary and Future Directions
5.1. Summary
Here we share information on the connections between BMPs, Ecosystem Services, and Watershed
Outcomes for a select number of BMPs that were lagging in implementation, associated with habitat
restoration or creation and relevant to upstream communities. We scoped BMPs and Ecosystem
Services with CBP partners and created individual fact sheets for every BMP, Watershed Outcome and
Ecosystem service. We provide current estimates of ecosystem service supply for the watershed for 10
ecosystem services and detail how the selected BMPs may influence the supply of those services
depending on the number of acres implemented.
5.1.1. How can this information be used?
We have intentionally organized the report into fact sheets so that this information can be built on by
communication and outreach specialists in the watershed and we intend for these fact sheets to be the
first step in using this information. In addition, estimates of the select ecosystem services will be
incorporated into Chesapeake Bay Program tools. For example, estimates of ecosystem services
provided by select BMPs can be incorporated into CAST (https://cast.chesapeakebay.net/) so that users
will receive a report on how BMP scenarios not only impact nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment
reductions, but also a select number of ecosystem services. Additionally, estimates of current ecosystem
service supply for the watershed can be integrated with other existing tools such as:
• Watershed Data Dashboard: https://gis.chesapeakebay.net/wip/dashboard/
• Geographic Targeting Portal: https://gis.chesapeakebav.net/targeting/
• Chesapeake Bay Environmental Justice and Equity Dashboard:
https://gis.chesapeakebay.net/diversity/dashboard/
• The Eco-Health Relationship Browser: https://cast.chesapeakebav.net/ecohealth/index
This will allow users to get a sense of hot and cold spots of ecosystem service supply and consider
whether they want to prioritize BMPs or other management actions in areas with fewer ecosystem
services.
5.1.2. Next steps
This report builds on previous work (e.g., Tetra Tech, 2017) by quantifying ecosystem services, in
addition to identifying connections between BMPs, ecosystem services, and watershed outcomes. There
are many additional steps that can be taken to build on this work (and the work that came before it),
and ultimately to fully integrate ecosystem services information into policies and management actions
that improve progress toward achieving habitat and living resource watershed goals (Rossi et al. 2022b,
2023). For example, most of the methods to quantify ecosystem service supply in this report are based
on remotely sensed data and are therefore broader and not specific to a certain location, although we
chose to focus at a county scale. Future work could be completed to update the quantification methods
or metrics used in this report to be more location specific (e.g., on the ground field data), to be applied
to finer spatial scales, updated as newer data becomes available, or modified to adjust to alternative
landcover classifications. Additionally, quantification of more ecosystem services could be completed to
expand this short list of FEGS.
Chapter 5. Summary and Future Directions
100
-------
References
References
Assessment, M.E. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island press United States of America.
Boesch, D. F., R.B. Brinsfield, and R.E. Magnien. 2001. Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication: Scientific
Understanding, Ecosystem Restoration, and Challenges for Agriculture. Journal of Environmental
Quality 30:303-320.
Boyd, J., P. Ringold, A. Krupnick, R. Johnson, M. Weber, K.M. Hall. 2015. Ecosystem services indicators:
improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses. Resources for the Future
Discussion paper, 15-40.
Bruins R.J.F., T.J. Canfield, C. Duke, L. Kapustka, A.M. Nahlik, R.B. Schafer. 2017. Using ecological
production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 13(1):52-61.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Strategy for protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
EPA-903-S-10-001.
https://www.chesapeakebav.net/what/publications/strategy for protecting and restoring the ch
esapeake bay watershed executiv
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2014. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management
Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to
the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters. CBP/TRS-323-18.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. A-12 Forest Buffers and Grass Buffers. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick
Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce
Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, 08 10, 2018.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. A-4 Cover Crops-Traditional. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference
Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, 08 10, 2018.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. A-23 Tree Planting (Agricultural). Chesapeake Bay Program Quick
Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce
Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, 08 10, 2018.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. D-7 Urban Tree Planting BMPs. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick
Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce
Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, 08 10, 2018.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. A-25 Nontidal Wetland Restoration. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick
Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce
Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, 08 10, 2018.
Chesapeake Progress. 2022. https://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/climate-change/climate-adaptation
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2020. Chesapeake Assessment and Scenario Tool (CAST) Version 2019.
Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
101
References
-------
References
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. 2010. Executive order 13508: Strategy for
protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 12 May 2010. EPA number: 903R10003
Hoyt, R., R. M. Summers, and D. Cameron. 2017. Strategic Outreach Education Program for Local Elected
Officials in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
McGee, B., M. Bryer, J. Davis-Martin, L. Wainger, R. Batiuk, J. Greiner, S. Newbold, K. Saunders, S.
Phillips, and R. Dixon. 2017. Quantifying Ecosystem Services and Co-Benefits of Nutrient and
Sediment Pollutant Reducing BMPs. Edgewater, MD.
Newcomer-Johnson, T., F. Andrews, J. Corona, Ted DeWitt, M. Harwell, C. Rhodes, P. Ringold, M. Russell,
P. Sinha, AND G. Van Houtven. 2020. National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS Plus).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/267.
Richkus J, Wainger LA, Barber MC. 2016. Pathogen reduction co-benefits of nutrient best management
practices. PeerJ 4:e2713 https://doi.org/10.7717/peeri.2713
Rossi, R., C. Bisland, L. Sharpe, E. Trentacoste, B. Williams, and S. Yee. 2022a. Identifying and Aligning
Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries Associated with Best Management Practices in Chesapeake
Bay Watershed. Environmental Management 69:384-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/sQ0267-021-
01561-z
Rossi, R., C. Bisland, L. Sharpe, E. Trentacoste, V. Van Note, B. Williams, S. Yee. 2022b. Quantifying
ecosystem services associated with BMPs: Wetland Creation and Restoration. Chesapeake Bay
Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) Workshop: Evaluating an Improved
Systems Approach to Crediting: Consideration of Wetland Ecosystem Services (March 2022).
https://www.chesapeake.org/stac/events/evaluating-a-systems-approach-to-bmp-crediting-a-stac-
programmatic-workshop/
Rossi, R.E., C. Bisland, B. Jenkins, V. Van Note, B. Williams, E. Trentacoste, S. Yee. 2023. Quantifying
Ecosystem Services Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
(STAC) Workshop: Using Ecosystem Services to Increase Progress Toward, and Quantify the Benefits
of, Multiple CBP Outcomes (March 2023). https://www.chesapeake.org/stac/events/dav-l-using-
ecosvstem-services-to-increase-progress-toward-and-quantifv-the-benefits-of-multiple-cbp-
outcomes
Russell M., A.Teague, F. Alvarez, D. Dantin, M. Osland, J. Harvey, J. Nestlerode, J. Rogers, L. Jackson, D.
Pilant, F. Genthner, M. Lewis, A. Spivak, M. Harwell, A. Neale. 2013. Neighborhood scale
quantification of ecosystem goods and services. EPA/600/R-13/295. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida.
Sharpe L.M., C.L. Hernandez, C.A. Jackson. 2020. Prioritizing Stakeholders, Beneficiaries, and
Environmental Attributes: A Tool for Ecosystem-Based Management. In: O'Higgins T., Lago M.,
DeWitt T. (eds) Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity.
Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03Q-45843-0 10
Sharp, R., J. Douglass, S. Wolny, K. Arkema, J. Bernhardt, W. Bierbower, N. Chaumont, D. Denu, D. Fisher,
K. Glowinski, R. Griffin, G. Guannel, A. Guerry, J. Johnson, P. Hamel, C. Kennedy, C.K. Kim, M. Lacayo,
E. Lonsdorf, L. Mandle, L. Rogers, J. Silver, J. Toft, G. Verutes, A.L. Vogl, S. Wood, and K. Wyatt.
102
References
-------
References
2020, InVEST 3.10.0.post28+ug.gb377061 User's Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford
University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.
Smith, A., S.H. Yee, M. Russell, J. Awkerman, W.S. Fisher. 2017. Linking ecosystem service supply to
stakeholder concerns on both land and sea: An example from Guanica Bay watershed, Puerto Rico.
Ecological Indicators 74:371-383.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Estimation of BMP Impact on Chesapeake Bay Program Management Strategies.
Fairfax VA.
United States, Executive Office of the President [Barack Obama], 2009. Executive order 13508:
Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. 12 May 2009. Federal Register, 74, 57675.
US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Wainger, L., J. Richkus, and M. Barber. 2015. Additional Beneficial Outcomes of Implementing the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Quantification and Description of Ecosystem Services Not Monetized. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/052.
Yee, S., G. Cicchetti, T.H. DeWitt, M.C. Harwell, S.K. Jackson, M. Pryor, K. Rocha, D.L. Santavy, L. Sharpe,
and E. Shumchenia. 2020. The ecosystem services gradient: A descriptive model for identifying
thresholds of meaningful change. In T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, & T. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based
management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: Theory, tools and applications (pp. 291-
308). Amsterdam: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03Q-45843-0 15
References
103
-------
Appendix A
Appendix A. Ecosystem Services Quantification
Methods
Al. Land Cover
Approach
To maintain compatibility with tools used by the Chesapeake Bay Program and their partners, we based
our ecosystem services analysis on the Chesapeake Bay Conservancy 1 meter resolution 2013/2014 land
use land cover maps in the Chesapeake Bay Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST;
https://cast.chesapeakebav.net/). In general, we assumed each of our target BMPs would result in new
acres of landcover (e.g., natural tree canopy, wetland), and reviewed literature to assemble values of
FEGS supply by landcover type, reviewed existing models to translate landcover into FEGS supply, or
used available data to generate statistical relationships between known acres of landcover and observed
measures of ecosystem services.
Because many BMP land covers were not explicitly mapped in the Chesapeake Bay Conservancy LULC
data (e.g., forest, cover crops), we compared maps from the 2016 National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
to identify the landcover which best represented the BMP (Fig. Al.l). Crops and pasture in NLCD, for
example, predominantly mapped onto low vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay data (Fig. A1.2). Rural or
agricultural forest in NLCD predominantly mapped onto natural tree canopy in CAST, whereas tree
canopy over impervious surfaces or roads in CAST was predominantly associated with urban (or
developed) areas in NLCD. Wetlands in CAST were predominantly associated with emergent herbaceous
wetlands in NLCD, with less than 18% of wetland area associated with woody wetlands.
11. Open Water
21. Developed Open Space
22. Developed Low Intensity
23. Developed Med Intensity
24. Developed High Intensity
31. Barren Land
41. Deciduous Forest
42. Evergreen Forest
43. Mixed Forest
52. Shrub/Scrub
71. Grassland/Herbaceous
81. Pasture/Hay
82. Cultivated Crops
90. Woody Wetlands
95. Emergent Herbacous Wetlands
104
Al. Land Cover
CAST Land Cover
NLCD Land Cover
I.Open Water
2.Wetlands
3.Tree canopy
4.Shrubland
5. Low Vegetation
6. Barren
7. Structures
8. Impervious Surfaces
9. Impervious Roads
10.Tree Canopy over Structures
II.Tree Canopy over Impervious
12.Tree Canopy over Roads
13.Aberdeen Proving Ground
Figure Al.l. Comparison of landcover maps from 2013/2014 CAST and 2016 NLCD.
-------
Appendix A
3
u
a)
>
o
o
T3
I Aberdeen Proving Ground
Tree Canopy over Roads
Tree Canopy over Impervious Surface
I Tree Canopy over Structure
I Roads
I Impervious Surfaces
I Structures
Barren
Low Vegetation
Shrubland
I Tree Canopy
I Wetlands
I Open Water
National Land Cover Database Class
Figure A1.2. Relative contribution of CAST landcover classes to each NLCD land cover class in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
In general, each BMP was assigned to a Chesapeake Bay land cover category (Table Al.l). For
compatibility with Chesapeake Bay Program tools, acres of implementation of each BMP would be
associated with increased acres of the corresponding land cover type.
Table Al.l. Assignment of each BMP to preserving or increasing acres of landcover in Chesapeake Bay
Conservancy 1 m 2013/2014 land cover data.
BMP CHESAPEAKE BAY 1 M LAND COVER CLASS
Agricultural Forest Buffer Natural Tree Canopy
Agricultural Tree Planting Natural Tree Canopy
Cover Crop
Low Vegetation
Forest Conservation
Natural Tree Canopy
Grass Buffer
Low Vegetation
Impervious Surface Reduction
Low Vegetation
Urban Forest Buffer
Tree Canopy Over Impervious Surfaces or Roads
Urban Forest Planting Tree Canopy Over Impervious Surfaces or Roads
Urban Tree Planting
Tree Canopy Over Impervious Surfaces or Roads
Wetland Creation
Wetland
Wetland Restoration
Wetland
105
Al. Land Cover
-------
Appendix A
A2. Air Quality
Metric
Air pollutant removal of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), ozone (03), large particulate
matter (PMio), small particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (S02)
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map air pollutant removal for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.2.
1. For BMPs that involved trees we used iTree Canopy rural and urban removal multipliers and area of
tree cover, we obtained and converted rural multiplier and urban multiplier from iTree Canopy Air
Pollutant Removal methods to lb acre"1 yr"1 (Table A2.1).
Table A2.1: Air pollutant removal multipliers adapted from iTree Canopy. Units are lb acre'1 yr1
POLLUTANT
RURAL MULTIPLIER
URBAN MULTIPLIER
CO
0.893
1.13411
NOz
4.86685
6.251
03
49.05249
48.25772
PM10
16.52943
13.69862
PM2.5
2.37538
2.46468
S02
3.09871
3.07192
1. For BMPs with low vegetation or grassland, we used urban and rural multipliers from
Gopalakrishnan et al. (2018) and area of grassland or low vegetation (Table A2.2). Rural multiplier
and urban multiplier from Gopalakrishnan et al. (2018) were converted to lb acre"1 yr"1.
Table A2.2. Air pollutant removal multipliers adapted from Gopalakrishnan et al. 2018. Units lb acre1 yr1
POLLUTANT
RURAL MULTIPLIER
URBAN MULTIPLIER
NOz
2.2304475
3.211844
03
21.6799497
26.14084
PM2.5
0.2676537
0.356872
S02
1.2490506
1.427486
2. To quantify current air pollutant removal per county:
a. Calculate acres of tree cover per county and multiply by the rural multipliers to estimate
"natural" tree canopy removal potential.
b. Calculate acres of tree cover over impervious, roads and structures and multiply by the urban
removal multipliers to estimate urban tree canopy removal potential.
c. Calculate total removal potential by summing the urban and rural estimates for each county.
106
A2. Air Quality
-------
Appendix A
4. To quantify potential pollutant removal for specific tree canopy BMPs:
a. For urban BMPs (Urban Forest buffers, forest planting, tree planting) multiply acres of BMP by
urban multipliers to estimate removal potential for implementing the BMP (Table A2.3).
b. For agriculture BMPs (forest buffers, tree planting) multiply acres of BMP by rural multipliers to
estimate removal potential for implementing the BMP (Table A2.3).
c. For forest conservation, multiply acres of BMP by rural multipliers to estimate removal
potentials (Table A2.3).
5. To quantify potential pollutant removal for low vegetation or grassland BMPs:
a. For urban BMPs (Impervious surface reduction) multiply acres of BMP by urban multipliers to
estimate removal potential for implementing the BMP (Table A2.3).
b. For agriculture BMPs (Agricultural grass buffers) multiply acres of BMP by rural multipliers to
estimate removal potential for implementing the BMP (Table A2.3).
6. BMPs not specifically linked to tree canopy cover or grass (i.e., wetland or cover crop) could not be
explicitly quantified, so we assumed wetlands, which are primarily emergent herbaceous, and cover
crops to be comparable to rural low vegetation based on the overlap between CAST land coverages
and NLCD (see Appendix Al).
Table A2.3: BMPs and the corresponding air pollutant removal multiplier used to quantify Ib/acre/yr of
each air pollutant removed. Multipliers are based on iTree multipliers in Tables A2.1 and A2.2.
BMP
CO
MULTIPLIER
Ob
MULTIPLIER
SOz
MULTIPLIER
NOz
MULTIPLIER
PMz.5
MULTIPLIER
PMio
MULTIPLIER
AG FOREST
BUFFER
0.893
49.05249
3.09871
4.86685
2.37538
16.52943
AG TREE
PLANTING
0.893
49.05249
3.09871
4.86685
2.37538
16.52943
COVER CROPS
—
21.67995
1.249051
2.230448
0.267654
—
FOREST
CONSERVATION
0.893
49.05249
3.09871
4.86685
2.37538
16.52943
GRASS BUFFER
—
21.67995
1.249051
2.230448
0.267654
—
IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE
REDUCTION
—
26.14084
1.427486
3.211844
0.356872
—
URBAN FOREST
BUFFER
1.13411
48.25772
3.07192
6.251
2.46468
13.69862
URBAN FOREST
PLANTING
1.13411
48.25772
3.07192
6.251
2.46468
13.69862
URBAN TREE
PLANTING
1.13411
48.25772
3.07192
6.251
2.46468
13.69862
WETLAND
CREATION
—
21.67995
1.249051
2.230448
0.267654
—
WETLAND
RESTORATION
—
21.67995
1.249051
2.230448
0.267654
—
107
A2. Air Quality
-------
Appendix A
References
Gopalakrishnan, V., S. Hirabayashi, G. Ziv, and B. R. Bakshi. 2018. Air quality and human health impacts
of grasslands and shrublands in the United States. Atmospheric Environment 182:193-199.
Hirabayashi, S., and D. J. Nowak. 2016. Comprehensive national database of tree effects on air quality
and human health in the United States. Environmental Pollution 215:48-57.
i-Tree Canopy, https://canopy.itreetools.org/
Nowak, D. J., S. Hirabayashi, A. Bodine, and E. Greenfield. 2014. Tree and forest effects on air quality and
human health in the United States. Environmental Pollution 193:119-129.
A2. Air Quality
108
-------
Appendix A
A3. Bird Species for Wildlife Viewing
Metric
Bird species richness
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map bird species richness for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.3.
To quantify bird species richness for specific BMPS
Use USGS GAP bird species richness maps for US and identify the max bird species found in varying areas
of land use type (from lm 2013/2014 CAST LULC dataset). Then, use these results to build species area
curves for each land use type. In theory number of species (S) will change with area (A) depending on
constants c and z (Gotelli 1998) as
S = C*AZ, (Eq. A3.1)
which on a log-log axis can be linearized as
log(S)= z*log(A) + log(c), (Eq. A3.2)
where c (y-intercept) and z (slope) are constants are determined from model output. Tree plantings
were assumed to have comparable results to tree canopy if implemented over large areas; plantings of a
single or few trees would have much less impact on species richness. Cover crops, which are not
explicitly mapped in the CAST land cover data, were assumed to be comparable to low vegetation (see
Appendix Al).
To estimate mean species richness for a certain land use based on an area, plug the known area (in
acres) into the equation (Table A3.1). Because species-area curves are non-linear, fewer bird species are
added with each acre as the total number of contiguous acres becomes large. Additional bird richness
per acre of BMP implementation can be calculated as the difference between estimated richness on
existing contiguous acres of habitat and estimated richness on the total number of acres after BMP
implementation (existing plus new).
Table A3.1: Species area curves for each land use category from the 2013/2014 lm dataset and the
corresponding BMP. Area (A) is in acres.
LAND USE
SPECIES AREA EQUATION:
BMP ASSOCIATED WITH
NATURAL TREE CANOPY
S=68.97505379* AA0.0382277
Agricultural Forest Buffer;
Agricultural Tree Planting;
Forest Conservation
LOW VEGETATION
S=67.089448* AA0.04234895
Grass Buffer;
Impervious Surface Reduction;
Cover crop
WETLAND
S=84.59380187* AA0.0293969
Wetland Creation;
Wetland Restoration
SHRUBLAND
S=62.57623 *AA0.043156
—
STRUCTURES
S=64.336495 *AA0.0626076
—
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
S=63.974424* AA0.0667202
—
109
A3. Bird Species for Wildlife Viewing
-------
Appendix A
IMPERVIOUS ROADS
S=69.258172* AA0.0578431
—
TREE CANOPY OVER STRUCUTURE
S=74.044526* AA0.0550576
—
TREE CANOPY OVER IMPERVIOUS
S=71.361518*AA0.0535650
Urban Forest Buffer-
SURFACES
Urban Forest Planting
TREE CANOPY OVER IMPERVIOUS
S=73.325800* AA0.0502914
Urban Tree Planting
ROADS
WATER
S=44.462915 *AA0.0519981
—
Detailed steps in GIS
1. Create a Random Raster (extent and snap to USGS Bird Species Richness Raster); This will be used
for the random subsampling of all cells later.
2. Create a New raster of Species Richness only on "Forest" habitat using RasterCalculator and SetNull
to remove (i.e., set as empty or NA) any Non-forest cells. This will be used to calculate the max
Richness in neighborhoods of varying sizes, but only on Forest habitat.
3. Create a New raster that flags "Forest" cells as 1, and non-Forest as 0, also using RasterCalculator
and SetNull; this will be used to calculate the Area of Forest habitat (by summing the Is) in
neighborhoods of varying sizes.
4. Use Focal Statistics to calculate the MAX richness in Rectangle neighborhoods of varying sizes (lxl
cells to 30x30 cells) around each focal cell. This will indicate the dependent variable of species
richness "S" in the species-area equation (Eq. A3.1).
5. Use Focal Statistics to calculate the sum total number of Forest cells in those rectangle
neighborhoods. This will indicate the independent variable of area "A" in the species-area equation
(Eq. A3.1).
6. Use the Random Raster (Step 1) to randomly sample 10% of the Forest Cells (using Raster Calculator
and Set Null). Convert this Subset Raster to Points (makes next step faster).
7. Use Sample raster to export the subsampled raster data as a table for each Max Richness "S" and
corresponding Area "A" for each neighborhood size. Area here is measured in terms of # of 30x30
meter cells which need to be converted to total acres.
8. The randomly sampled richness and area data are linearized by converting to a log-scale (Eq. A3.2)
and analyzed using linear regression to estimate coefficients z (slope) and log(c) (intercept).
9. Repeat steps 2-9 for next land type.
To quantify current bird species richness per county
1. Calculate mean bird species richness in each county using zonal statistics tool in ArcGIS. Note that the
USGS GAP bird species richness is based on 2011 NLCD land use land cover data and is at 30x30m
resolution.
References
Gotelli, N.J. 1998. A Primer of Ecology, Second Edition. Sinauer Associations, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
USGS Gap: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-svstems/science-analvtics-and-svnthesis/gap
A3. Bird Species for Wildlife Viewing
110
-------
Appendix A
A4. Carbon Sequestration
Metric
Rate of carbon sequestration into soil
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map carbon sequestration for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.4.
1. Conducted literature search and used COMET planner to identify reported soil carbon sequestration
values for different BMPs (Table A4.1). Where possible, we attempted to match literature
descriptions to BMP descriptions (e.g., riparian forest, not just forest). Detailed literature
information is in Appendix A10 (Table A10.2). COMET values were used preferentially over literature
values, if available.
2. Calculate the average of the report values for each different BMP, where multiple values available.
3. Converted literature values to US tons acre 1 yr"1.
4. To estimate US tons yr1 sequestered, multiply the acres of BMP implemented to the corresponding
estimated soil carbon sequestration rate.
5. Baseline soil carbon sequestration per county was estimated by multiplying the acres of landcover in
the CAST landcover dataset by the corresponding rate per acre for tree canopy over impervious
roads, surfaces, or structures (same as urban forest buffers), tree canopy (same as agricultural forest
buffer), wetland (same as wetland creation), or low vegetation (same as grassland).
Table A4.1. Literature search results for Soil Carbon Sequestration for specific BMPs. The soil carbon
sequestration estimate is based on the mean of all literature in the references per BMP. Detailed values
for each citation in Table A10.2.
BMP
SOIL CARBON
SEQUESTRATION
(US TONS ACRE1
YR1)
REFERENCE
AG FOREST
BUFFER
0.18
COMET PLANNER
AG TREE
PLANTING
0.16
COMET PLANNER
COVER CROP
0.13
COMET PLANNER
GRASS BUFFER
0.15
COMET PLANNER
AG FOREST
BUFFER, AG
TREE PLANTING
0.54
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a riparian
buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central Iowa, USA."
Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998): 133-140.
COVER CROP
0.13
Chambers, Adam, Rattan Lai, and Keith Paustian. "Soil carbon
sequestration potential of US croplands and grasslands:
Implementing the 4 per Thousand Initiative." Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 71.3 (2016): 68A-74A.;
Ill
A4. Carbon Sequestration
-------
Appendix A
Poeplau, Christopher, and Axel Don. "Carbon sequestration in
agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops-A meta-analysis."
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200 (2015): 33-41.;
Ruis, S.J., and H. Blanco-Canqui. 2017. Cover Crops Could Offset Crop
Residue Removal Effects on Soil Carbon and Other Properties: A
Review. Agronomy Journal 109(5): 1785.
FOREST
CONSERVATION
0.54
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a riparian
buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central Iowa, USA."
Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998): 133-140.
GRASS BUFFER
0.40
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a riparian
buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central Iowa, USA."
Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998): 133-140.
IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE
REDUCTION
0.62
Qian, Y., Follett, R.F. and Kimble, J.M. (2010), Soil Organic Carbon
Input from Urban Turfgrasses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 74: 366-371.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0078
URBAN FOREST
BUFFERS,
URBAN FOREST
PLANTING,
URBAN TREE
PLANTING
0.06
Pouyat, Richard V., Ian D. Yesilonis, and Nancy E. Golubiewski. "A
comparison of soil organic carbon stocks between residential turf
grass and native soil." Urban Ecosystems 12.1 (2009): 45-62.
WETLAND
CREATION,
WETLAND
RESTORATION
0.76
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W.J. (2012), Comparing carbon sequestration in
temperate freshwater wetland communities. Glob Change Biol, 18:
1636-1647. https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1365-2486.2011.02619.x
Craft C., Washburn C., Parker A. (2008) Latitudinal Trends in Organic
Carbon Accumulation in Temperate Freshwater Peatlands. In:
Vymazal J. (eds) Wastewater Treatment, Plant Dynamics and
Management in Constructed and Natural Wetlands. Springer,
Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-l-4020-8235-l_3
Ensign, S. H., Noe, G. B., Hupp, C. R., and Skalak, K. J. (2015), Head-of-
tide bottleneck of particulate material transport from watersheds to
estuaries, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42,10,671- 10,679,
doi: 10.1002/2015G L066830.
Fennessy, M. S., et al. "Soil carbon sequestration in freshwater
wetlands varies across a gradient of ecological condition and by
ecoregion." Ecological Engineering 114 (2018): 129-136.
Gary J. Whiting & Jeffrey P. Chanton (2001) Greenhouse carbon
balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon
sequestration, Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 53:5,
521-528, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v53i5.16628
Loomis, M.J. and Craft, C.B. (2010), Carbon Sequestration and
Nutrient (Nitrogen, Phosphorus) Accumulation in River-Dominated
Tidal Marshes, Georgia, USA. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 74: 1028-1036.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0171
Campbell, Elliott, Rachel Marks, and Christine Conn. "Spatial modeling
of the biophysical and economic values of ecosystem services in
Maryland, USA." Ecosystem Services 43 (2020): 101093.
112
A4. Carbon Sequestration
-------
Appendix A
A5. Flood Control
Metric
Maximum retained water volume (in3/in2 or yd3/acre)
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map maximum rainwater retention for counties
throughout the watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.5. We calculated the
maximum retained water volume using the Curve Number method (USDA/NRCS 1986). The capacity of
landscape to retain water is one factor in determining rainwater runoff and streamflow (Section 3.11).
along with other factors such as the intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) of precipitation, elevation, slope,
and distance from stream.
To quantify maximum retained water volume per county:
1. Use USDA NRCS SSURGO database and create raster of soil hydrologic groups for each state in the
watershed.
2. Mosaic the rasters together to form a single raster of all states and the corresponding soil groups.
3. Reclassify the soil hydrologic groups to numbers such that A, B, C, D are 1,2,3,4.
4. Use the combine tool to multiply the land cover land use raster (Chesapeake Bay 2013/2014 data)
by the soil hydrologic group raster. This creates a new raster with every unique LULC x soil group
value. Note: this raster is 10x10m because that is the resolution of the soil data raster.
5. Assign a curve number (CN) to each unique LULC x soil group based (Table A5.1, Tillman (2015)) and
add this to the raster created in step 4.
Table A5.1. Curve Number values for different soil types and different land use land cover classes. Table
adapted from Tillman 2015.
LULC
SOIL A/1
SOIL B/2
SOIL C/3
SOIL D/4
REFERENCE
WATER
100
100
100
100
Westenbroek and others (2010).
WETLAND
89
90
91
92
Westenbroek and others (2010).
TREE CANOPY
35.5
53
65
71.5
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-2; Oak-aspen, fair; except A
(Westenbroek and others, 2010); United
States Department of Agriculture (2004),
Table 9-2; Pinyon-juniper, fair; except A
(Westenbroek and others, 2010).
SHRUB
49
68
79
84
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-2; Desert shrub, good
condition
LOW
VEGETATION
64
71
81
89
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-2; Herbaceous, fair; except A
(Westenbroek and others, 2010).
A5. Flood Control
113
-------
Appendix A
BARREN
77
86
91
94
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-1; Fallow, bare soil.
STRUCTURE
98
98
98
98
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-5; Paved parking lots, roofs,
driveways, etc.
IMPERVIOUS
SURFACES
98
98
98
98
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-5; Paved parking lots, roofs,
driveways, etc.
ROADS
98
98
98
98
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-5; Paved parking lots, roofs,
driveways, etc.
TREE CANOPY
OVER
STRUCTURE
89
92
94
95
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-5; Urban districts,
commercial and business.
TREE CANOPY
OVER
IMPERVIOUS
77
86
91
94
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-5; Developing urban areas
TREE CANOPY
OVER ROADS
77
86
91
94
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-5; Developing urban areas
ABERDEEN
PROVING
GROUND
TREE CANOPY
35.5
53
65
71.5
United States Department of Agriculture
(2004), Table 9-2; Oak-aspen, fair; except A
(Westenbroek and others, 2010); United
States Department of Agriculture (2004),
Table 9-2; Pinyon-juniper, fair; except A
(Westenbroek and others, 2010).
7. Open a shapefile that contains counties within the watershed. Use the tabulate area tool to
calculate the area of each unique curve number in each county. Export these results to excel using
the table to excel conversion tool.
8. In excel, calculate the percentage of each unique CN in each county by dividing the area of a unique
CN by total area of the county. This will be used as the weighting factor.
9. Calculate a weighted mean for each county by summing all unique CN * Percent of area of that CN
divided by the sum of all percent area CN for that county.
Yjcounty CN * Percent area of CN
Zcounty Percent area CN
10. Calculate Maximum Retained Volume (in3/in2) per county using the following equation, where CN is
the weighted mean CN for each county.
1000
1.05 * 10
CN
114
A5. Flood Control
-------
Appendix A
To quantify maximum retained water volume per BMP
1. Calculate the average CN for each land use in the watershed that corresponds to a BMP (Table
A5.2). Cover crops, which are not explicitly mapped in CAST land cover data, were assumed to be
low vegetation based on correspondence with NLCD land cover data (see Appendix Al). Urban
forest buffers and forest plantings were assumed to be of sufficient area to have soil rainwater
retention comparable to natural tree canopy, whereas urban tree plantings were assumed to be
primarily over impervious surfaces.
Table A5.2. Mean Curve Number (CN) and Max retention volume associated with each land cover and
corresponding BMP.
LULC
BMP
MEAN CN
MAX RETENTION
VOLUME (IN3/IN2)
ABERDEEN PROVING
GROUND TREE CANOPY
"
63.17
6.12
BARREN
-
87.00
1.57
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
-
98.00
0.21
LOW VEGETATION
Cover Crops, Grass Buffers,
Impervious surface reduction
76.27
3.27
ROADS
-
98.00
0.21
SHRUBLAND
-
70.00
4.50
STRUCTURE
-
98.00
0.21
TREE CANOPY
Ag Forest buffers, AgTree planting,
Forest Conservation, Urban Forest
Buffers, Urban forest planting
56.28
8.16
TREE CANOPY OVER
IMPERVIOUS
Urban tree planting
87.75
1.47
TREE CANOPY OVER
ROADS
87.33
1.52
TREE CANOPY OVER
STRUCTURE
"
91.75
0.94
WATER
-
100.00
0.00
WETLAND
Wetland creation, restoration
90.50
1.10
2. Calculate maximum retained volume using the equation in step 10 above.
3. Multiply the maximum retained volume by the area of BMP implemented to get maximum retained
volume in that area.
A5. Flood Control
115
-------
Appendix A
References
Staff, S. S. 2007. Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for the Conterminous United
States, in N. R. C. S. United States Department of Agriculture, editor.
Tillman, F. D. 2015. Documentation of input datasets for the soil-water balance groundwater recharge
model of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Report 2015-1160, Reston, VA.
USDA, and NRCS. 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds.
A5. Flood Control
116
-------
Appendix A
A6. Heat Risk or Extreme Temperature Reduction
Metric
Potential reduction in temperature due to presence of tree canopy
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map temperature reduction for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.6. Methods adapted from linear regression
models to predict change in temperature in response to vegetative land cover (Murphy et al. 2011) and
the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Cambridge, MA report.
To calculate baseline cooling potential:
1. Get average air temperature (°C) for July 2014 for each land river segment (LRS). This data was
provided by CAST. River segments with large acres of tree canopy (100000 acres or 156 square
miles) had average July temperatures 1°F cooler or more than segments with substantially less tree
canopy.
2. Convert temperature from °C to °F.
3. Get average tree canopy cover for each LRS (or county) using ArcGIS zonal statistics
4. Plot air temperature (°F) against tree canopy cover and calculate a simple linear regression:
o Y= -1.584 x 10"5 * (acres of tree canopy) + 79.12
o Multiple R2= 0.4481; adjusted R2=0.4453
5. Use standard linear regression equation to estimate the cooling impact of tree canopy. Based on the
best fit regression equation, each acre increase in tree canopy decreases air temperature by about -
1.584 x 10"5 °F. River segments with large acres of tree canopy (>100000 acres) had average July
temperatures 1°F cooler or more than segments with little tree canopy. To estimate cooling impact,
multiply acres of tree canopy by the slope of the regression:
o Cooling = -1.584 x 10"5 * (acres of tree canopy)
To calculate cooling potential for BMPs:
1. This method only applies to BMPs with tree canopy. Using multiple regression, we also investigated
the relationships between temperature and low vegetation, impervious surface, wetland, and other
CAST landcovers, but only tree canopy had a significant cooling effect.
2. Use the Cooling impact equation from step 4 above and enter the acres of a BMP that would
produce tree canopy. This includes BMPs such as forest buffers and tree planting.
o Example: 100 acres of forest buffer
Cooling = -1.584 x 10"5 * (100 acres of forest buffer) = -0.001584 °F
References
City of Cambridge Massachusetts. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Part 1. City of
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Murphy, D.J., M.H. Hall, C.A.S. Hall, G.M. Heisler, S.V. Stehman, and C. Anselmi-Molina. 2011. The
relationship between land cover and the urban heat island in northeastern Puerto Rico.
International Journal of Climatology 31:1222-1239.
A6. Heat Risk or Extreme Temperature Reduction
117
-------
Appendix A
A7. Open Space
Metric
Acres of open space per capita
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map open space availability for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.7. Open space was estimated as the
accessibility of natural or semi-natural areas to people (Smith et al., 2014).
1. Get 2010 US census data (www.census.gov) and summarize to county level
2. Use tabulate area in ArcGIS to calculate land use acres per county
3. Summarize land covers to open space. Open space was assumed to include contiguous area of
tree canopy, low vegetation, shrubland, or wetlands.
4. Calculate open space acres/capita by dividing total open space acres by population in each county.
>45 BMP acres are added, recalculate open space acres/capita:
Classify each BMP as adding contiguous acres of wetland, natural tree canopy, shrubland, or low
vegetation in agricultural or urban areas. Urban tree plantings and impervious surface reduction are
assumed to contribute to open areas if they are planted in a contiguous area of appreciable size (i.e.,
more than a single tree). Agricultural tree plantings, such as to reduce erosion, and cover crops are
assumed here not to be open space accessible to people for recreational or aesthetic enjoyment.
1. Summarize land covers to open space. Open space includes the following:
a. Wetland, tree canopy, shrubland, low vegetation (this is based on the lm LULC)
2. Calculate open space acres/capita by dividing open space acres by population in each county.
Table A7.1. Land cover associated with each BMP.
BMP
CONVERTS TO LAND COVER (FOR
PURPOSES OF CALCULATING OPEN SPACE)
GRASS BUFFERS,
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
Low vegetation
AG FOREST BUFFERS,
FOREST CONSERVATION,
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS,
URBAN FOREST PLANTING,
URBAN TREE PLANTING
Tree canopy
WETLAND CREATION
WETLAND RESTORATION
Wetland
References
Smith, L.M., C.M. Wade, K.R. Straub, L.C. Harwell, J.L. Case, M. Harwell, J.K. Summers. 2014. Indicators
and Methods for Evaluating Economic, Ecosystem, and Social Services Provisioning. US
Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/R-14/184.
A7. Open Space
118
-------
Appendix A
A8. Pathogen Reduction
Metric
% FIB (Fecal Indicator Bacteria) Removed
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map pathogen reduction for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.8. We adapted methods used in Wainger
(2015), Richkus et al. (2016) that were based on Potomac watershed modeling study by Vann et al.
(2002). We estimated the pathogen reductions (as percent removal FIB) likely to be associated with the
following BMPs: forest buffers, grass buffers, wetland restoration, impervious surface reduction, urban
forest buffers and urban forest planting.
To quantify % Potential FIB removed for specific BMPs:
1. We calculated the area of each land use per county using tabulate area in ArcGIS. Then we
summarized the lm dataset land uses into the following categories for the purposes of calculating
baseline fecal loads: pasture, forest, and urban (Table A8.1). We did not separate cropland from
pasture because the lm CAST land cover dataset only differentiates low vegetation.
Table A8.1. Description of how land use was recategorized to calculate baseline loads.
NEW CATEGORY
1M LULC NAME
PASTURE
Low vegetation
FOREST
Tree canopy
URBAN
Structure, impervious surfaces, impervious roads,
tree canopy over structure, tree canopy over
impervious surfaces, tree canopy over impervious
roads
2. We identified FIB removal efficiencies from Wainger 2015 and Richkus et al. 2016 (Table A8.2).
Removal efficiencies for different BMPs depend on the land use category they are applied on. We
used the same efficiency for urban forest buffers and urban forest planting. We also used the
efficiency for wetland restoration based on cropland for our summarized pasture category as we
assume some of the land classified as low vegetation is cropland.
Table A8.2. List of FIB efficiencies adapted from Wainger et al. 2015 and Richkus et al. 2016.
BMP
FIB EFFICIENCY
LAND USE CATEGORY
FOREST BUFFER UNFENCED
50%
Pasture, Urban
FOREST BUFFER FENCED
52%
Pasture
GRASS BUFFER (FENCED OR
UNFENCED)
71%
Pasture
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
57%
Urban
WETLANDS
48%
Urban
WETLAND RESTORATION
35%
Cropland, but we applied to
pasture.
119
A8. Pathogen Reduction
-------
Appendix A
3. Then we used the following equation to estimate % Potential FIB reduction:
, . Credited BMP acres rr. .
% FIB reduction = * % FIB efficiency
Total land use acres the BMP was implemented on
Example: 100 acres of forest buffer were implemented on pasture (i.e., low vegetation) in a county
with 1000 acres of pasture (low vegetation):
% FIB reduction = 100/1000 * .5 = 0.05
To quantify an estimate of current pathogen loading for each county:
1. We used the modeled loadings from the Potomac River basin to estimate edge of stream delivery of
fecal coliform (cfu/yr/acre) for pasture and urban land uses in each county (Table A8.3).
Table A8.3. Edge of stream delivery of fecal coliform for pasture and urban land uses adapted from
Wainger et a I. 2015.
LAND USE
EDGE OF STREAM DELIVERY PER ACRE
(CFU/AC/YR)
PASTURE
3.88E+11
URBAN
1.82E+10
2. We multiplied the edge of stream delivery per acre for pasture and urban land cover for each county
by the total acres of land cover. Then we calculated the total edge of stream delivery per county by
summing the edge of stream delivery for pasture and urban in each county.
References
Richkus, J., L. A. Wainger, and M. C. Barber. 2016. Pathogen reduction co-benefits of nutrient best
management practices. PeerJ 4:e2713-e2713.
Vann, D. T., R. Mandel, J. M. Miller, E. Hagen, A. Buda, and D. Cordalis. 2002. The District of Columbia
Source Water Assessment. Pages 6.1-6.40. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
Retrieved from http://www.potomacriver.org/publicationspdf/DC_SWA_redacted.pdf
Wainger, L., J. Richkus, M. Barber. 2015. Additional Beneficial Outcomes Of Implementing The
Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Quantification And Description Of Ecosystem Services Not Monetized. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
A8. Pathogen Reduction
120
-------
Appendix A
A9. Pollination
Metric
Index of pollinator supply based on habitat suitability
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map pollinator supply for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.9. Use InVEST Crop Pollination (Pollinator
Abundance) spatial model (Sharp et al., 2020). This model creates an index of suitability for bees nesting
on each cell (0-1; pollinator abundance index) and bees visiting each cell on a landscape (0-1; pollinator
supply index). Higher scores indicate sources of greater relative bee abundance. The model requires a
land use land cover map, land cover attributes, guilds or species of pollinators, and their flight ranges.
To run the model, we used the following data:
1. We used the Chesapeake Conservancy lm dataset for the land cover map.
2. We identified four species generally present throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed to model
abundance for: Bumblebees, Bicolor sweat bee, blue sweat bee and orchard bee (Table A9.1). For
each species we used literature to determine type of nesting (cavity or ground; 1 indicating suitable
nesting), foraging activity in spring and summer (range 0-1), alpha (foraging distance in m), and
relative abundance to each other in the watershed.
Table A9.1. Bee species characteristic values used in InVEST model.
SPECIES
CAVITY
NESTING
GROUND
NESTING
FORAGING
ACTIVITY IN
SPRING
FORAGING
ACTIVITY IN
SUMMER
ALPHA
REL.
ABUNDANCE
BICOLORED STRIPED
SWEAT BEE
0
1
0.8
0.8
500
0.5
AMERICAN
BUMBLEBEE
0
1
0.8
1
3000
1
BLUE SWEAT BEE
1
0
0.7
0.7
750
0.5
BLUE ORCHARD BEE
1
0
1
0.5
500
0.7
3. We used expert opinion from an East Mount Zion, Pennsylvania case study (Sharpe et al., 2022) to
determine nesting availability and floral resource availability for different land use land cover
categories (Table A9.2).
A9. Pollination
121
-------
Appendix A
Table A9.2. Land use nesting and floral resource characteristics used in the InVEST model.
LULC CATEGORY
NESTING
NESTING
FLORAL
FLORAL
CAVITY
GROUND
RESOURCES
RESOURCES
AVAILABILITY
AVAILABILITY
SPRING
SUMMER
INDEX
INDEX
INDEX
INDEX
OPEN WATER
0
0
0
0.3
EMERGENT WETLANDS
0.1
0
0.4
0.8
TREE CANOPY
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.35
SHRUBLAND
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
LOW VEGETATION
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.8
BARREN
0
0.3
0
0
STRUCTURES
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
IMPERVIOUS ROADS
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
TREE CANOPY OVER STRUCTURE
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
TREE CANOPY OVER IMP SURFACE
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
TREE CANOPY OVER IMP ROADS
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
0
0
0
0
4. We uploaded this data to the InVEST model and it produced several rasters including pollinator
abundance for each species during each season (depending on what seasons we input to the model)
and pollinator supply for each species during each season. The pollinator abundance raster provides
per-pixel abundance of each pollinator during each season, which was used to calculate a mean
value per LULC category (Table A9.3). The pollinator supply raster provides the per pixel index of
each pollinator that could be on a pixel given land cover attributes including habitat suitability and
floral resources that a pollinator could reach from that pixel.
Table A9.3. Pollinator abundance index for each species for each land use category.
LULC CATEGORY
BUMBLEBEE
BICOLOR SWEAT
BLUE SWEAT
ORCHARD
BEE
BEE
BEE
WATER
0.009
0.003
0.002
0.002
EMERGENT WETLAND
0.024
0.008
0.008
0.008
TREE CANOPY
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.008
SHRUBLAND
0.033
0.015
0.015
0.014
LOW VEG
0.044
0.020
0.015
0.013
BARREN
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
STRUCTURE
0.010
0.005
0.004
0.003
IMP SURFACES
0.010
0.005
0.004
0.003
IMP ROADS
0.011
0.005
0.004
0.004
TC OVER STRUCTURE
0.016
0.007
0.006
0.006
TC OVER IMP SURF
0.015
0.007
0.006
0.006
TC OVER IMP ROADS
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
A9. Pollination
122
-------
Appendix A
5. Then we assigned pollinator abundances for each species to each BMP based on the most similar
land use (Table A9.4).
Table A9.4: Pollinator abundance index for each BMP based on Table A9.3.
BMP NAME
BUMBLEBEE
BICOLOR
BLUE
ORCHARD
SWEAT BEE
SWEAT BEE
BEE
AG FOREST BUFFERS & TREE PLANTING
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.008
COVER COVER
0.044
0.020
0.015
0.013
FOREST CONSERVATION
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.008
GRASS BUFFERS
0.044
0.020
0.015
0.013
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION
0.044
0.020
0.015
0.013
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS/PLANTING
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.008
URBAN TREE PLANTING
0.015
0.007
0.006
0.006
WETLAND CREATION/RESTORATION
0.024
0.008
0.008
0.008
References
Sharp, R., J. Douglass, S. Wolny, K. Arkema, J. Bernhardt, W. Bierbower, N. Chaumont, D. Denu, D. Fisher,
K. Glowinski, R. Griffin, G. Guannel, A. Guerry, J. Johnson, P. Hamel, C. Kennedy, C. K. Kim, M.
Lacayo, E. Lonsdorf, L. Mandle, L. Rogers, J. Silver, J. Toft, G. Verutes, A. L. Vogl, S. Wood, and K.
Wyatt. 2020. InVEST 3.8.9 User's Guide.
Sharpe et al. 2022. Use of Ecosystem Goods and Services and Community Engagement in the
Restoration and Revitalization of Contaminated Sites: East Mount Zion Landfill Revitalization Project.
EPA Report (In prep.)
A9. Pollination
123
-------
Appendix A
A10. Soil Quality
Metric
Soil carbon stock
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map carbon stock in soil for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.10.
1. Conducted literature search for reported soil carbon stock values for different BMPs and land uses
(Table A10.1).
2. Calculate the average of the reported values for each different BMP and/or land use, where multiple
values available.
3. Converted literature values to US tons acre 1 (Table A10.1)
4. To estimate lb acre 1 stock, multiply the acres of BMP implemented to the corresponding estimated
soil carbon stock.
5. Baseline soil carbon stock per county was estimated by multiplying the acres of landcover in the
CAST landcover dataset by the corresponding soil carbon stock per acre for tree canopy over
impervious roads, surfaces, or structures (same as urban forest buffers), tree canopy (same as
agricultural forest buffer), wetland (same as wetland creation), or low vegetation (same as
grassland).
Table A10.1. Literature search results for BMPs and Soil Carbon stock estimates. Soil carbon stock is based
on the average of listed references for each BMP. Detailed values for each citation in Table A10.2.
BMP
SOIL CARBON
STOCK (US TONS
PER ACRE)
REFERENCES
AG FOREST BUFFER;
AG TREE PLANTING;
FOREST CONSERVATION
14.47
Dybala, Kristen E., et al. "Carbon sequestration in riparian
forests: A global synthesis and meta-analysis." Global
change biology 25.1 (2019): 57-67;
Kim, Dong-Gill, et al. "Methane flux in cropland and
adjacent riparian buffers with different vegetation
covers." Journal of environmental quality 39.1 (2010):
97-105;
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a
riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in
central Iowa, USA." Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998):
133-140;
Udawatta, Ranjith P., and Shibu Jose. "Carbon
sequestration potential of agroforestry practices in
temperate North America." Carbon sequestration
potential of agroforestry systems. Springer, Dordrecht,
2011. 17-42
A10. Soil Quality
124
-------
Appendix A
COVER CROP
1.32
Chambers, Adam, Rattan Lai, and Keith Paustian. "Soil
carbon sequestration potential of US croplands and
grasslands: Implementing the 4 per Thousand
Initiative." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 71.3
(2016): 68A-74A;
Tautges, Nicole E., et al. "Deep soil inventories reveal that
impacts of cover crops and compost on soil carbon
sequestration differ in surface and subsurface
soils." Global change biology 25.11 (2019): 3753-3766
GRASS BUFFER
12.75
Kim, Dong-Gill, et al. "Methane flux in cropland and
adjacent riparian buffers with different vegetation
covers." Journal of environmental quality 39.1 (2010):
97-105;
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a
riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in
central Iowa, USA." Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998):
133-140;
Salehin, S..M.-U.-; Ghimire, R.; Angadi, S.V.; Idowu, O.J.
Grass Buffer Strips Improve Soil Health and Mitigate
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Center-Pivot Irrigated
Cropping Systems. Sustainability 2020,12, 6014.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sul2156014
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
REDUCTION
64.30
Pouyat, Richard V., Ian D. Yesilonis, and David J. Nowak.
"Carbon storage by urban soils in the United
States." Journal of environmental quality 35.4 (2006):
1566-1575
URBAN FOREST
BUFFERS;
URBAN FOREST
PLANTING;
URBAN TREE PLANTING
47.91
Pouyat, Richard V., Ian D. Yesilonis, and David J. Nowak.
"Carbon storage by urban soils in the United
States." Journal of environmental quality 35.4 (2006):
1566-1575;
Pouyat, Richard V., Ian D. Yesilonis, and Nancy E.
Golubiewski. "A comparison of soil organic carbon stocks
between residential turf grass and native soil." Urban
Ecosystems 12.1 (2009): 45-62
WETLAND CREATION
AND RESTORATION
65.83
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W.J. (2012), Comparing carbon
sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland
communities. Glob Change Biol, 18:1636-
1647. https://doi.0rg/lO.llll/j. 1365-
2486.2011.02619.x;
Krauss, K. W., Noe, G. B., Duberstein, J. A., Conner, W.
H., Stagg, C. L, Cormier, N., et al. (2018). The role of the
upper tidal estuary in wetland blue carbon storage and
flux. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 32, 817-839. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB00
5897
A10. Soil Quality
125
-------
Appendix A
Table A10.2. Detailed information from literature search for soil carbon stock (Appendix A10) and sequestration (Appendix A4) for different BMPs
and land use land cover.
LAND USE
Location
SOIL
CARBON
UNITS
SOIL
DEPTH
TIMEFRAM
E (YEARS)
ADDITIONAL
INFO
SOURCE
CONSTRUCTED
MARSH
North
Carolina
42
g C m-2
yr-1
Craft, C., Megonigal, P., Broome, S., Stevenson, J., Freese, R.,
Cornell, J., Zheng, L. and Sacco, J. (2003), THE PACE OF
ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTED SPARTINA
ALTERNIFLORA MARSHES. Ecological Applications, 13: 1417-
1432. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-5086
COVER CROPS
Global
0.32
mg C
ha-lyr-
1
25 studies
Poeplau, Christopher, and Axel Don. "Carbon sequestration
in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops-A meta-
analysis." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200 (2015):
33-41.
COVER CROPS
Global
0.48
mg C
ha-lyr-
1
—
based on 26
studies
Ruis, S.J., and H. Blanco-Canqui. 2017. Cover Crops Could
Offset Crop Residue Removal Effects on Soil Carbon and
Other Properties: A Review. Agronomy Journal 109(5): 1785.
COVER CROPS
USA
0.15
mg C
ha-lyr-
1
0.2
Chambers, Adam, Rattan Lai, and Keith Paustian. "Soil carbon
sequestration potential of US croplands and grasslands:
Implementing the 4 per Thousand Initiative." Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 71.3 (2016): 68A-74A.
COVER CROPS
USA
0.22
mg C
ha-lyr-
1
0.2
Chambers, Adam, Rattan Lai, and Keith Paustian. "Soil carbon
sequestration potential of US croplands and grasslands:
Implementing the 4 per Thousand Initiative." Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 71.3 (2016): 68A-74A.
COVER CROPS
USA
3
Mg ha-
1
0.2
20
Based on 20
years.
Chambers, Adam, Rattan Lai, and Keith Paustian. "Soil carbon
sequestration potential of US croplands and grasslands:
Implementing the 4 per Thousand Initiative." Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 71.3 (2016): 68A-74A.
COVER CROPS
USA
4.4
Mg ha-
1
0.2
20
Based on 20
years.
Chambers, Adam, Rattan Lai, and Keith Paustian. "Soil carbon
sequestration potential of US croplands and grasslands:
Implementing the 4 per Thousand Initiative." Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 71.3 (2016): 68A-74A.
A10. Soil Quality
126
-------
Appendix A
LAND USE
Location
SOIL
CARBON
UNITS
SOIL
DEPTH
TIMEFRAM
E (YEARS)
ADDITIONAL
INFO
SOURCE
COVER CROPS
Ca, USA
1.44
Mg ha-
1
0.3
19
tomato-
maize
system
Tautges, Nicole E., et al. "Deep soil inventories reveal that
impacts of cover crops and compost on soil carbon
sequestration differ in surface and subsurface soils." Global
change biology 25.11 (2019): 3753-3766.
FOREST
Baltimore
5.44
kg m-2
1
100
mention
Raciti, S.M., Groffman, P.M., Jenkins, J.C. et al. Accumulation
REMNANT
, MD
preserved
for ~100yrs
of Carbon and Nitrogen in Residential Soils with Different
Land-Use Histories. Ecosystems 14, 287-297 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0021-010-9409-3
FOREST
Baltimore
0.0544
kg C m-
1
100
divided
Raciti, S.M., Groffman, P.M., Jenkins, J.C. et al. Accumulation
REMNANT
, MD
2 yr-1
above by
#years to get
annual
estimate
of Carbon and Nitrogen in Residential Soils with Different
Land-Use Histories. Ecosystems 14, 287-297 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0021-010-9409-3
FRESHWATER
Virginia
105
g C m-2
.3-.5
1964-2008
dismal
Craft C., Washburn C., Parker A. (2008) Latitudinal Trends in
WETLAND
yr-1
swamp
Organic Carbon Accumulation in Temperate Freshwater
Peatlands. In: Vymazal J. (eds) Wastewater Treatment, Plant
Dynamics and Management in Constructed and Natural
Wetlands. Springer, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4020-8235-1_3
FRESHWATER
Virginia
97
g C m-2
—
—
arum arrow
Gary J. Whiting & Jeffrey P. Chanton (2001) Greenhouse
WETLAND
yr-1
marsh
carbon balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon
sequestration, Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology,
53:5, 521-528, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v53i5.16628
FRESHWATER
Ohio, PA
75
g C m-2
.4-.5
1964-
mean of
Fennessy, M. S., et al. "Soil carbon sequestration in
WETLAND
yr-1
2010/11
ohio and PA
sites
freshwater wetlands varies across a gradient of ecological
condition and by ecoregion." Ecological Engineering 114
(2018): 129-136.
FRESHWATER
Maryland
105
g C m-2
—
—
fw forested,
Ensign, S. H., Noe, G. B., Hupp, C. R., and Skalak, K. J. (2015),
WETLAND
yr-1
range 105-
182
Head-of-tide bottleneck of particulate material transport
from watersheds to estuaries, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42,
10,671- 10,679, doi: 10.1002/2015GL066830.
A10. Soil Quality
127
-------
Appendix A
LAND USE
Location
SOIL
CARBON
UNITS
SOIL
DEPTH
TIMEFRAM
E (YEARS)
ADDITIONAL
INFO
SOURCE
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Georgia
124
g C m-2
yr-1
fw tidal
Loomis, M.J. and Craft, C.B. (2010), Carbon Sequestration and
Nutrient (Nitrogen, Phosphorus) Accumulation in River-
Dominated Tidal Marshes, Georgia, USA. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
74:1028-1036. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0171
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Waccama
w River
386.1
Mg ha-
1
,5m
fw tidal, 0-
,5m
Krauss, K. W., Noe, G. B., Duberstein, J. A., Conner, W. H.,
Stagg, C. L, Cormier, N., et al. (2018). The role of the upper
tidal estuary in wetland blue carbon storage and flux. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 32, 817- 839.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB005897
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Savannah
River
146.8
Mg ha-
1
,5m
fw tidal, 0-
,5m
Krauss, K. W., Noe, G. B., Duberstein, J. A., Conner, W. H.,
Stagg, C. L, Cormier, N., et al. (2018). The role of the upper
tidal estuary in wetland blue carbon storage and flux. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 32, 817- 839.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB005897
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Ohio
4.18
kg m-2
0.35
1964-2012
mean of SOC
concentratio
n isolated
wetlands
from study
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W.J. (2012), Comparing carbon
sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland
communities. Glob Change Biol, 18:1636-1647.
https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1365-2486.2011.02619.x
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Ohio
1.5
kg m-2
0.35
1964-2012
mean of
riverine SOC
concentratio
n wetlands
from study
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W.J. (2012), Comparing carbon
sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland
communities. Glob Change Biol, 18:1636-1647.
https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1365-2486.2011.02619.x
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Ohio
41.8
Mg ha-
1
0.35
1964-2012
mean of SOC
concentratio
n isolated
wetlands
from study,
0-.35m
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W.J. (2012), Comparing carbon
sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland
communities. Glob Change Biol, 18:1636-1647.
https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1365-2486.2011.02619.x
A10. Soil Quality
128
-------
Appendix A
LAND USE
Location
SOIL
CARBON
UNITS
SOIL
DEPTH
TIMEFRAM
E (YEARS)
ADDITIONAL
INFO
SOURCE
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Ohio
15
Mg ha-
1
0.35
1964-2012
mean of
riverine SOC
concentratio
n wetlands
from study,
0-.35m
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W.J. (2012), Comparing carbon
sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland
communities. Glob Change Biol, 18:1636-1647.
https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1365-2486.2011.02619.x
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Ohio
317
g C m-2
yr-1
0.35
1964-2012
mean of C
sequestratio
n rate
isolated
wetlands
from study
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W.J. (2012), Comparing carbon
sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland
communities. Glob Change Biol, 18:1636-1647.
https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1365-2486.2011.02619.x
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Ohio
140
g C m-2
yr-1
0.35
1964-2012
mean of
riverine C
sequestratio
n rate
wetlands
from study
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W.J. (2012), Comparing carbon
sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland
communities. Glob Change Biol, 18:1636-1647.
https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1365-2486.2011.02619.x
GRASS BUFFER
Iowa
1.8
Mg ha-
1
6
switchgrass,
6 yrs
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a
riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central
Iowa, USA." Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998): 133-140.
GRASS BUFFER
Iowa
1.8
Mg ha-
1
6
cool season
grass, 6 yrs
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a
riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central
Iowa, USA." Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998): 133-140.
GRASS BUFFER
Iowa
47.2
Mg ha-
1
7 to 17
warm
season
grass, 7-17
yrs
Kim, Dong-Gill, et al. "Methane flux in cropland and adjacent
riparian buffers with different vegetation covers." Journal of
environmental quality 39.1 (2010): 97-105.
GRASS BUFFER
Iowa
55.3
Mg ha-
1
7 to 17
cool season
grass, 7-17
yrs
Kim, Dong-Gill, et al. "Methane flux in cropland and adjacent
riparian buffers with different vegetation covers." Journal of
environmental quality 39.1 (2010): 97-105.
A10. Soil Quality
129
-------
Appendix A
LAND USE
Location
SOIL
CARBON
UNITS
SOIL
DEPTH
TIMEFRAM
E (YEARS)
ADDITIONAL
INFO
SOURCE
GRASS BUFFER
Iowa
56.2
Mg ha-
1
16 to 26
warm
season
grass, 16-26
yrs
Kim, Dong-Gill, et al. "Methane flux in cropland and adjacent
riparian buffers with different vegetation covers." Journal of
environmental quality 39.1 (2010): 97-105.
GRASS BUFFER
Iowa
57.8
Mg ha-
1
16 to 26
cool season
grass, 16-26
yrs
Kim, Dong-Gill, et al. "Methane flux in cropland and adjacent
riparian buffers with different vegetation covers." Journal of
environmental quality 39.1 (2010): 97-105.
GRASS BUFFER
Missouri
1.7
% mass
Paudel, B. R., Udawatta, R. P., & Anderson, S. H. (2011).
Agroforestry and grass buffer effects on soil quality
parameters for grazed pasture and row-crop systems.
Applied Soil Ecology, 48(2), 125-132.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.04.004
GRASS BUFFER
New
Mexico
13.83
Mg ha-
1
measured in
spring,
summer, fall
and
presented as
mean +/ SE
Salehin, S..M.-U.-; Ghimire, R.; Angadi, S.V.; Idowu, O.J. Grass
Buffer Strips Improve Soil Health and Mitigate Greenhouse
Gas Emissions in Center-Pivot Irrigated Cropping Systems.
Sustainability 2020,12, 6014.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sul2156014
GRASS BUFFER
New
Mexico
11.87
Mg ha-
1
Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D. and Nowak, D.J. (2006), Carbon
Storage by Urban Soils in the United States. J. Environ. Qual.,
35: 1566-1575. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0215
GRASS BUFFER
New
Mexico
11.14
Mg ha-
1
Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D. and Nowak, D.J. (2006), Carbon
Storage by Urban Soils in the United States. J. Environ. Qual.,
35: 1566-1575. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0215
GRASS BUFFER
Iowa
0.9
Mg C
ha-lyr-
1
6
switchgrass,
6 yrs
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a
riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central
Iowa, USA." Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998): 133-140.
PLANTED
WETLAND
Midwest,
USA
190
g C m-2
yr-1
10
measured
after lOyrs
Anderson CJ, Mitsch WJ (2006) Sediment, carbon, and
nutrientaccumulation at two 10-year-old created riverine
marshes.Wetlands 26:779-792
A10. Soil Quality
130
-------
Appendix A
LAND USE
Location
SOIL
CARBON
UNITS
SOIL
DEPTH
TIMEFRAM
E (YEARS)
ADDITIONAL
INFO
SOURCE
PLANTED
Midwest,
242
g C m-2
15
measured
Bernal, Blanca, and William J. Mitsch. "Carbon sequestration
WETLAND
USA
yr-1
after 15 yrs
in two created riverine wetlands in the Midwestern United
States." Journal of Environmental Quality 42.4 (2013): 1236-
1244.
RESIDENTIAL
14.4
kg m-2
lm
...
older
Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D. and Nowak, D.J. (2006), Carbon
LAWN
residential
lawns at lm
Storage by Urban Soils in the United States. J. Environ. Qual.,
35: 1566-1575. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0215
RIPARIAN
USA,
3.6
Mg ha-
...
...
mean from
Udawatta, R. P. and S. Jose. 2012. Agroforestry strategies to
BUFFER
Mostly
Iowa
1
all studies in
paper.
Unclear
exactly what
studies were
used to
calculate
this.
sequester carbon in temperate North America. Agroforestry
systems, 86, 225-242. doi: 10.1007/sl0457-012-9561-l
RIPARIAN
Iowa
2.4
Mg ha-
...
6
poplar
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a
BUFFER
1
dominated
and 6 yr old
riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central
Iowa, USA." Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998): 133-140.
RIPARIAN
Iowa
50.2
Mg ha-
...
7 to 17
7-17 yr old
Kim, Dong-Gill, et al. "Methane flux in cropland and adjacent
BUFFER
1
riparian buffers with different vegetation covers." Journal of
environmental quality 39.1 (2010): 97-105.
RIPARIAN
Iowa
70.8
Mg ha-
...
16 to 26
16-26 yr old
Kim, Dong-Gill, et al. "Methane flux in cropland and adjacent
BUFFER
1
riparian buffers with different vegetation covers." Journal of
environmental quality 39.1 (2010): 97-105.
RIPARIAN
Global
35
Mg ha-
...
...
this is the
Dybala, KE, Matzek, V, Gardali, T, Seavy, NE. Carbon
BUFFER
1
median at
maturity
sequestration in riparian forests: A global synthesis and
meta-analysis. Glob Change Biol. 2019; 25: 57- 67.
https://doi.org/10.llll/gcb.14475
RIPARIAN
Iowa
1.2
Mg ha-
...
...
poplar
Marquez, Carmen Omaira, et al. "Assessing soil quality in a
BUFFER
1 yr-1
dominated
riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central
Iowa, USA." Agroforestry Systems 44.2 (1998): 133-140.
A10. Soil Quality
131
-------
Appendix A
LAND USE
Location
SOIL
CARBON
UNITS
SOIL
DEPTH
TIMEFRAM
E (YEARS)
ADDITIONAL
INFO
SOURCE
TURF GRASS
1.39
Mg ha-
lyr-1
4
fine fescue
Qian, Y., Follett, R.F. and Kimble, J.M. (2010), Soil Organic
Carbon Input from Urban Turfgrasses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 74:
366-371. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0075
TURF GRASS
3.35
Mg ha-
lyr-1
4
fine fescue
irrigated
Qian, Y., Follett, R.F. and Kimble, J.M. (2010), Soil Organic
Carbon Input from Urban Turfgrasses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 74:
366-371. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0076
TURF GRASS
2.05
Mg ha-
lyr-1
4
kentucky
bluegrass
Qian, Y., Follett, R.F. and Kimble, J.M. (2010), Soil Organic
Carbon Input from Urban Turfgrasses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 74:
366-371. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0077
TURF GRASS
2.28
Mg ha-
lyr-1
4
creeping
bentgrass
Qian, Y., Follett, R.F. and Kimble, J.M. (2010), Soil Organic
Carbon Input from Urban Turfgrasses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 74:
366-371. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0078
TURF GRASS
0.082
kg C m-
2 yr-1
residential
lawn
Raciti, S.M., Groffman, P.M., Jenkins, J.C. et al. Accumulation
of Carbon and Nitrogen in Residential Soils with Different
Land-Use Histories. Ecosystems 14, 287-297 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0021-010-9409-3
TURF GRASS
0.1
kg C m-
2 yr-1
golf course
Qian, Y.L, and R.F. Follett. 2002. Assessing soil carbon
sequestration in turfgrasssystems using long-term soil testing
data. Agron. J. 94:930-935
TURF GRASS
USA
2.8
Mg ha-
1 yr-1
0.15
mean for
several us
cities
Selhorst, A., Lai, R. Net Carbon Sequestration Potential and
Emissions in Home Lawn Turfgrasses of the United States.
Environmental Management 51,198-208 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9967-6
URBAN FOREST
REMNANT
Baltimore
, MD
12.1
kg m-2
1
~80
soil organic
carbon
density
Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D. & Golubiewski, N.E. A comparison
of soil organic carbon stocks between residential turf grass
and native soil. Urban Ecosyst 12, 45-62 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sll252-008-0059-6
URBAN FOREST
REMNANT
Baltimore
, MD
10.5
kg m-2
1
~80
soil organic
carbon
density
Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D. & Golubiewski, N.E. A comparison
of soil organic carbon stocks between residential turf grass
and native soil. Urban Ecosyst 12, 45-62 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sll252-008-0059-6
A10. Soil Quality
132
-------
Appendix A
LAND USE
Location
SOIL
CARBON
UNITS
SOIL
DEPTH
TIMEFRAM
E (YEARS)
ADDITIONAL
INFO
SOURCE
URBAN FOREST
Baltimore
0.15125
kg C m-
1
~80
divided total
Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D. & Golubiewski, N.E. A comparison
REMNANT
, MD
2 yr-1
carbon
density by #
years
of soil organic carbon stocks between residential turf grass
and native soil. Urban Ecosyst 12, 45-62 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sll252-008-0059-6
URBAN FOREST
Baltimore
0.13125
kg C m-
1
~80
Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D. & Golubiewski, N.E. A comparison
REMNANT
, MD
2 yr-1
of soil organic carbon stocks between residential turf grass
and native soil. Urban Ecosyst 12, 45-62 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sll252-008-0059-6
URBAN FOREST
Mean Of
9.6
kg m-2
...
—
: Atlanta,
Pouyat RV, Yesilonis 1, Russell-Anelli J, Neerchal NK (2007)
REMNANT
Select Us
Cities
Baltimore.
Boston,
Chicago,
Oakland.
and
Syracuse
Soilchemical and physical properties that differentiate urban
land-useand cover. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(3):1010-1019
FRESHWATER
Maryland
391.72
g C m-2
...
—
based on
Campbell, Elliott, Rachel Marks, and Christine Conn. "Spatial
WETLAND
yr-1
values from
30 sites
modeling of the biophysical and economic values of
ecosystem services in Maryland, USA." Ecosystem Services 43
(2020): 101093.
A10. Soil Quality
133
-------
Appendix A
All. Water Quantity
Metric
Surface water flow
Approach
The following approach was used to spatially map water quantity for counties throughout the
watershed, and compare across BMPs as shown in Section 3.11. The capacity of landscape to retain
water (Section 3.5) is one factor in determining rainwater runoff and streamflow, along with other
factors such as the intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) of precipitation, elevation, slope, and distance
from stream.
To quantify current water quantity per county:
1. Obtain annual surface water flow for each land use generated from the CAST model
(https://cast.chesapeakebav.net/Documentation/ModelDocumentation) at the resolution of land
river segments
2. Aggregate data at the land river segment scale to county by taking the average of annual surface
water flow for all land river segments in the county
To quantify water quantity for specific BMPs:
1. Obtain annual surface water flow for each land use generated from the CAST model at the
resolution of land river segments
2. Assign CAST land use categories to BMPs based on whether the BMP would become a certain land
use (e.g., Ag forest buffers could become true forest) (Table All.l).
3. Calculate the average annual surface water flow for each BMP based on the CAST land use
categories (Table All.l).
Table All.l. Mean annual flow (in/yr)for BMPs and corresponding CAST land use categories.
BMP NAME
CAST MODELED LANDUSE CATEGORIES
MEAN ANNUAL
FLOW (IN/YEAR)
AG FOREST BUFFERS
CSS Forest, True Forest
13.75
AG GRASS BUFFERS
Agricultural Open Space
15.09
COVER CROP
Leguminous Hay, Other Hay, Pasture, Double Cropped Land,
Full Season Soybeans, Grain with Manure, Grain without
Manure, Other Agronomic Crops, Silage with Manure, Silage
without Manure, Small Grains and Grains, Specialty Crop
High, Specialty Crop Low
15.62
FOREST CONSERVATION
True Forest
13.70
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
REDUCTION
CSS Turf Grass, MS4 Turf Grass, Non-regulated Turf Grass
19.91
URBAN FOREST BUFFERS
AND PLANTING
CSS Forest, True Forest
13.75
134
All. Water Quantity
-------
Appendix A
URBAN TREE PLANTING
MS4 Tree Canopy over Impervious, MS4 Tree Canopy over
Turf Grass, Non-regulated Tree Canopy over Impervious, Non-
regulated Tree Canopy over Turf Grass, CSS Tree Canopy over
Impervious, CSSTree Canopy overTurf Grass
26.17
WETLAND CREATION/
RESTORATION
Non-tidal Floodplain wetland, Headwater or Isolated wetland
13.70
4. To map baseline surface water flow based on the Chesapeake Bay Conservancy 2013/2014 1 meter
land use land cover data, CAST model detailed land use classes were assigned to LULC classes in the
1 meter data set (Table All.2).
Table All.2. Mean annual flow
in/yr)for BMPs and corresponding CAST land use categories.
LAND USE LAND COVER CLASS
(2013/2014 1M DATASET)
CAST MODELED LANDUSE CATEGORIES
MEAN
ANNUAL
FLOW
(IN/YEAR)
EMERGENT WETLAND
Non-tidal floodplain wetland, headwater or isolated
wetland
13.70
TREE CANOPY
True forest, CSS forest, harvested forest
14.64
SHRUBLAND
Mixed open, CSS mixed open
14.30
LOW VEG
Ag Open Space, Non-Regulated Turf Grass, MS4Turf
Grass, CSS Turf Grass, Leguminous Hay, Other Hay,
Pasture, Double Cropped Land, Full Season Soybeans,
Grain with Manure, Grain without Manure, Other
Agronomic Crops, Silage with Manure, Silage without
Manure, Small Grains and Grains, Specialty Crop High,
Specialty Crop Low, Non-Permitted Feeding Space,
Permitted Feeding Space
18.04
STRUCTURE
MS4 buildings and other, CSS buildings and other, non-
regulated building and other
32.42
IMP SURFACES
CSS construction, regulated construction
20.81
IMP ROADS
MS4 roads, non-regulated roads, CSS roads
32.42
TC OVER IMP SURF
MS4 tree canopy over impervious, non-regulated tree
canopy over impervious, CSS tree canopy over impervious
32.42
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2020. Chesapeake Assessment and Scenario Tool (CAST) Version 2019.
https://cast.chesapeakebay.net/Documentation/ModelDocumentation
All. Water Quantity
135
-------
Appendix A
A12. Additional Ecosystem Services Not Quantified
A12.1. Clean Water
Clean water with respect to nutrients was an important FEGS identified in our scoping. We did not focus
efforts to quantify this FEGS because the CAST model already quantifies how BMPs impact nutrient
delivery. Additional work could be done to quantify the impact of BMPs on nitrates in groundwater.
A12.2. Water Clarity
We attempted to quantify water clarity using a metric of turbidity. We did obtain water quality data
from monitoring stations throughout the watershed that do collect water clarity metrics such as
turbidity. However, after further exploration of this data, there were too many "NAs" in the datasetto
use and clarity measures that were reported were often from the same site.
A12.3. Edible Flora
We included edible flora in our short list of FEGS due to scoping and the idea that forest buffers could
contain edible plants. However, we did not have access to what species of plants are used in forest
buffer BMPs and were unable to quantify this further than suggesting that this could be provided if
those who implement the BMP choose to.
A12.4. Pest Predators
We included pest predators in our short list of ecosystem services to quantify because it was highly tied
to farmers, and we know that farmers are some of the biggest stakeholders in terms of BMP
implementation. Unfortunately, we lacked information on the particular species of highest concern to
prioritize for analysis. This FEGS could be revisited when information is available about what type of
pests are of most concern. We know that providing different habitats, such as forest and grass buffers
on agricultural land, often increases biodiversity, and biodiversity may be generally associated with
increases in pest predator supply.
A12.5. Habitat Quality for Brook Trout
Initially we wanted to quantify a metric related to birds and brook trout. We were able to quantify a
metric for birds, but we struggled to find a metric for brook trout that would work. We focused on
stream temperature as a metric for assessing brook trout habitat quality, however, finding relationships
between stream temperature and land use was difficult (Fig. A12.1). We suspect this is due to resolution
of land use land cover data and lack of specific data on where BMPs are implemented. Below are basic
steps we followed:
1. Use background knowledge/previous work by Fink, 2008 (and the riparian planning tool) as outline
for approach.
2. Downloaded stream temperature (C) data from Chesapeake Bay water quality data website for non-
tidal streams.
3. Chose HUC12 level for the "smallest" resolution.
4. Total of 146 HUC12 catchments with data available from 2016-2020.
5. Extracted landcover area for each HUC12 in the watershed to determine percent land use for each
LULC in each HUC12 area.
136
A12. Additional Ecosystem Services Not Quantified
-------
Appendix A
6. Determine if relationships between water temp and percent LULC cover exists for any LULCs (Fig.
A12.1). None of the land covers has an R2 over 0.1.
Figure A12.1. Stream water temperature (C) plotted against percent LULC cover. Each tile corresponds to one
land use category.
References
Fink, D. B. 2008. Artificial shading and stream temperature modeling for watershed restoration and
Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) management. Master's thesis. James Madison University,
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Riparian planning tool: https://www.landscapepartnership.org/maps-data/gis-planning/gis-tools-
resources/riparian-restoration-decision-support-tool-l/riparian-restoration-decision-support-tool
A12. Additional Ecosystem Services Not Quantified
137
-------
Appendix B
Appendix B. Watershed Agreement Outcomes Not
Included
Bl. List of Watershed Agreement Outcomes Not Included in this Report
Table Bl. List of Watershed Agreement outcomes not included in this report and reason for not including.
WATERSHED
OUTCOME
DESCRIPTION
WHY WAS THIS OUTCOME
NOT INCLUDED?
2017 WATERSHED
IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS (WIP)
By 2017, have practices and controls in place
that are expected to achieve 60 percent of the
nutrient and sediment pollution load reductions
necessary to achieve applicable water quality
standards compared to 2009 levels.
This outcome was excluded
because the deadline for this
objective (2017) had already
passed when this research
project began.
BLUE CRAB
MANAGEMENT
Manage for a stable and productive crab fishery
including working with the industry,
recreational crabbers and other stakeholders to
improve commercial and recreational harvest
accountability. By 2018, evaluate the
establishment of a Bay-wide, allocation-based
management framework with annual levels set
by the jurisdictions for the purpose of
accounting for and adjusting harvest by each
jurisdiction.
This outcome was excluded
because none of the BMPs we
have focused on are tied to
management of the blue crab
fishery.
DIVERSITY
Identify stakeholder groups not currently
represented in leadership, decision-making or
implementation of current conservation and
restoration activities and create meaningful
opportunities and programs to recruit and
engage these groups in the partnership's
efforts.
This outcome was excluded
because we found it difficult
to consider a direct link
between the BMPs and this
outcome based on its
description which is focused
on identifying groups not
represented in decision-
making or implementation
and creating opportunities to
do so.
ENVIRONMENTAL
LITERACY
PLANNING
Each participating Bay jurisdiction should
develop a comprehensive and systemic
approach to environmental literacy for all
students in the region that includes policies,
practices and voluntary metrics that support the
environmental literacy Goals and Outcomes of
this Agreement.
This outcome was excluded
because it is difficult to
consider a direct link between
developing a comprehensive
and systemic approach to
environmental literacy from
implementing BMPs.
Bl. List of Watershed Agreement Outcomes Not Included in this Report
138
-------
Appendix B
WATERSHED
OUTCOME
DESCRIPTION
WHY WAS THIS OUTCOME
NOT INCLUDED?
FISH PASSAGE
Continually increase access to habitat to
support sustainable migratory fish populations
in Chesapeake Bay freshwater rivers and
streams. By 2025, restore historical historic fish
migratory routes by opening an additional 132
miles every two years to fish passage, with
restoration success indicated by the consistent
presence of alewife, blueback herring, American
shad, hickory shad, American eel and brook
trout, to be monitored in accordance with
available agency resources and collaboratively
developed methods.
This outcome is focused on
restoring historical fish
migratory routes which is
related to other BMPs not
included in this report (e.g.,
stream restoration) so we did
not include it for the BMPs we
focused on.
LAND USE
OPTIONS
By the end of 2017, with the direct involvement
of local governments or their representatives,
evaluate policy options, incentives and planning
tools that could assist them in continually
improving their capacity to reduce the rate of
conversion of agricultural lands, forests and
wetlands as well as the rate of changing
landscapes from more natural lands that soak
up pollutants to those that are paved over,
hardscaped or otherwise impervious. Strategies
should be developed for supporting local
governments' and others' efforts in reducing
these rates by 2025 and beyond.
This outcome was excluded
because the description of this
outcome includes "by the end
of 2017" so we felt this
outcome was already
addressed.
LOCAL LEADERSHIP
Continually increase the knowledge and
capacity of local officials on issues related to
water resources and in the implementation of
economic and policy incentives that will support
local conservation actions.
This outcome was excluded
because the description of this
outcome is focused on
increasing knowledge of local
leaders and BMP
implementation does not
necessarily do that; however
this report may contribute to
this outcome.
MONITORING AND
ASSESSMENT
Continually monitor and assess the trends and
likely impacts of changing climatic and sea level
conditions on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem,
including the effectiveness of restoration and
protection policies, programs and projects.
This outcome was excluded
because it is focused on
monitoring changes due to
climate and sea level rise, not
necessarily BMPs.
Bl. List of Watershed Agreement Outcomes Not Included in this Report
139
-------
Appendix B
WATERSHED
OUTCOME
DESCRIPTION
WHY WAS THIS OUTCOME
NOT INCLUDED?
STUDENT
Continually increase students' age-appropriate
understanding of the watershed through
participation in teacher-supported, meaningful
watershed educational experiences and
rigorous, inquiry-based instruction, with a
target of at least one meaningful watershed
educational experience in elementary, middle
and high school depending on available
resources.
This outcome was excluded
because it was not clear if
BMP implementation could be
a part of an engaging
watershed experience for
students (based on the
outcome description).
TOXIC
CONTAMINANTS
RESEARCH
Continually increase our understanding of the
impacts and mitigation options for toxic
contaminants. Develop a research agenda and
further characterize the occurrence,
concentrations, sources and effects of mercury,
PCBs and other contaminants of emerging and
widespread concern. In addition, identify which
best management practices might provide
multiple benefits of reducing nutrient and
sediment pollution as well as toxic
contaminants in waterways.
This outcome was excluded
because it is focused on
developing research and
characterizing presence of
toxics in the watershed and
therefore is not necessarily
related to implementing
BMPs.
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
ATTAINMENT AND
MONITORING
Continually improve the capacity to monitor
and assess the effects of management actions
being undertaken to implement the Bay TMDL
and improve water quality. Use the monitoring
results to report annually to the public on
progress made in attaining established Bay
water quality standards and trends in reducing
nutrients and sediment in the watershed.
This outcome was excluded
because it is focused on
improving capacity to
monitor, which is not
necessarily associated with
BMP implementation but
more general monitoring in
the watershed and monitoring
of BMPs after
implementation.
SUSTAINABLE
SCHOOLS
Continually increase the number of schools in
the region that reduce the impact of their
buildings and grounds on their local watershed,
environment and human health through best
practices, including student-led protection and
restoration projects
This outcome was excluded
because it is unclear whether
BMPs we focused on could be
implemented at schools and
have students involved in the
implementation.
Bl. List of Watershed Agreement Outcomes Not Included in this Report
140
-------
Appendix B
WATERSHED
OUTCOME
DESCRIPTION
WHY WAS THIS OUTCOME
NOT INCLUDED?
CITIZEN
STEWARDSHIP
Increase the number and diversity of trained
and mobilized citizen volunteers with the
knowledge and skills needed to enhance the
health of their local watersheds.
This outcome was excluded
because it is focused on
increasing the number of
trained volunteers and it is
unclear if that could be a
byproduct of BMP
implementation. It is possible
that identifying links to
ecosystem services promotes
stewardship but we need
evidence.
FORAGE FISH
Continually improve the Partnership's capacity
to understand the role of forage fish
populations in the Chesapeake Bay. By 2016,
develop a strategy for assessing the forage fish
base available as food for predatory species in
the Chesapeake Bay.
This outcome was excluded
because the goal is to
understand the role of forage
fish and the focal BMPs for
this report do not seem
directly related to that.
LAND USE
METHODS AND
METRICS
DEVELOPMENT
Continually improve our knowledge of land
conversion and the associated impacts
throughout the watershed. By December 2021,
develop a watershed-wide methodology and
local-level metrics for characterizing the rate of
farmland, forest and wetland conversion,
measuring the extent and rate of change in
impervious surface coverage and quantifying
the potential impacts of land conversion to
water quality, healthy watersheds and
communities. Launch a public awareness
campaign to share this information with local
governments, elected officials and stakeholders.
This outcome was excluded
because it has a deadline of
December 2021 so it is already
completed. It is also focused
on land conversion metrics so
our short list of BMPs does
not adequately meet the
outcome description.
Bl. List of Watershed Agreement Outcomes Not Included in this Report
141
-------
v>EPA
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of
50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free
-------