Societal benefits of floodplains in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds: Sediment, nutrient, and flood regulation ecosystem services.

Floodplains provide critical ecosystem services to people by regulating floodwaters and retaining sediments and nutrients. Geospatial analyses, field data collection, and modeling were integrated to quantify a portfolio of services that floodplains provide to downstream communities within the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds. The portfolio of services included floodplain sediment and nutrient retention and flood regulation. Sediment and nutrient retention were quantified and valued for all non-tidal wadable streams in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds. Predicted nitrogen fluxes from measurements of streambanks and floodplain geomorphic changes were summarized at various scales (river basin, state, and county) and valued using a benefits transfer approach. Floodplain flood regulation services were assessed through a pilot study focused on the Schuylkill River watershed in the Delaware River watershed. Geospatial analysis and published flood frequency estimates were used to assess baseline and counterfactual (i.e., floodplain storage removed) scenarios. Flood regulation was valued using the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazus model to compare differences in structural damage to private residences under baseline and counterfactual scenarios. The estimated value of floodplain sediment and nutrient retention was $223 million United States dollars (USD) per year in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and $38 million USD per year in the Delaware River watershed. Sediment and nutrient retention benefits were offset by a streambank erosion cost of $123 million and $14 million USD annually in the Chesapeake and Delaware watersheds, respectively. In the Schuylkill River watershed floodplain flood regulation was valued at $860,000 USD per year, with an additional $7.2 million USD annually provided through floodplain sediment and nutrient retention. Together this portfolio of floodplain ecosystem services indicates that floodplains provide substantial benefits to people by trapping nutrients and storing floodwaters.

The Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling System: Overview and Recommendations for Future Development.

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest, most productive, and most biologically diverse estuary in the continental United States providing crucial habitat and natural resources for culturally and economically important species. Pressures from human population growth and associated development and agricultural intensification have led to excessive nutrient and sediment inputs entering the Bay, negatively affecting the health of the Bay ecosystem and the economic services it provides. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique program formally created in 1983 as a multi-stakeholder partnership to guide and foster restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Since its inception, the CBP Partnership has been developing, updating, and applying a complex linked modeling system of watershed, airshed, and estuary models as a planning tool to inform strategic management decisions and Bay restoration efforts. This paper provides a description of the 2017 CBP Modeling System and the higher trophic level models developed by the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, along with specific recommendations that emerged from a 2018 workshop designed to inform future model development. Recommendations highlight the need for simulation of watershed inputs, conditions, processes, and practices at higher resolution to provide improved information to guide local nutrient and sediment management plans. More explicit and extensive modeling of connectivity between watershed landforms and estuary sub-areas, estuarine hydrodynamics, watershed and estuarine water quality, the estuarine-watershed socioecological system, and living resources will be important to broaden and improve characterization of responses to targeted nutrient and sediment load reductions. Finally, the value and importance of maintaining effective collaborations among jurisdictional managers, scientists, modelers, support staff, and stakeholder communities is emphasized. An open collaborative and transparent process has been a key element of successes to date and is vitally important as the CBP Partnership moves forward with modeling system improvements that help stakeholders evolve new knowledge, improve management strategies, and better communicate outcomes.

A method to quantify and value floodplain sediment and nutrient retention ecosystem services.

Floodplains provide critical ecosystem services to local and downstream communities by retaining floodwaters, sediments, and nutrients. The dynamic nature of floodplains is such that these areas can both accumulate sediment and nutrients through deposition, and export material downstream through erosion. Therefore, estimating floodplain sediment and nutrient retention should consider the net flux of both depositional and erosive processes. An ecosystem services framework was used to quantify and value the sediment and nutrient ecosystem service provided by floodplains in the Difficult Run watershed, a small (151 km2) suburban watershed located in the Piedmont of Virginia (USA). A sediment balance was developed for Difficult Run and two nested watersheds. The balance included upland sediment delivery to streams, stream bank flux, floodplain flux, and stream load. Upland sediment delivery was estimated using geospatial datasets and a modified Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. Predictive models were developed to extrapolate field measurements of the flux of sediment, sediment-bound nitrogen (N), and sediment-bound phosphorus (P) from stream banks and floodplains to 3232 delineated stream segments in the study area. A replacement cost approach was used to estimate the economic value of the sediment and nutrient retention ecosystem service based on estimated net stream bank and floodplain flux of sediment-bound N for all streams in the study area. Results indicated the net fluvial fluxes of sediment, sediment-bound N, and sediment-bound P were -10,439 Mg yr-1 (net export), 57,300 kg-N yr-1 (net trapping), and 98 kg-P yr-1(net trapping), respectively. For sediment, floodplain retention was offset by substantial losses from stream bank erosion, particularly in headwater catchments, resulting in a net export of sediment. Nutrient retention in the floodplain exceeded that lost through stream bank erosion resulting in net retention of nutrients (TN and TP). Using a conservative cost estimate of $12.69 (USD) per kilogram of nitrogen, derived from wastewater treatment costs, the estimated annual value for sediment and nutrient retention on Difficult Run floodplains was $727,226 ±â€¯194,220 USD/yr. Values and differences in floodplain nitrogen retention among stream reaches can be used to target areas for floodplain conservation and stream restoration. The methods presented are scalable and transferable to other areas if appropriate datasets are available for validation.

Clarity versus complexity: land-use modeling as a practical tool for decision-makers.

The last decade has seen a remarkable increase in the number of modeling tools available to examine future land-use and land-cover (LULC) change. Integrated modeling frameworks, agent-based models, cellular automata approaches, and other modeling techniques have substantially improved the representation of complex LULC systems, with each method using a different strategy to address complexity. However, despite the development of new and better modeling tools, the use of these tools is limited for actual planning, decision-making, or policy-making purposes. LULC modelers have become very adept at creating tools for modeling LULC change, but complicated models and lack of transparency limit their utility for decision-makers. The complicated nature of many LULC models also makes it impractical or even impossible to perform a rigorous analysis of modeling uncertainty. This paper provides a review of land-cover modeling approaches and the issues causes by the complicated nature of models, and provides suggestions to facilitate the increased use of LULC models by decision-makers and other stakeholders. The utility of LULC models themselves can be improved by 1) providing model code and documentation, 2) through the use of scenario frameworks to frame overall uncertainties, 3) improving methods for generalizing key LULC processes most important to stakeholders, and 4) adopting more rigorous standards for validating models and quantifying uncertainty. Communication with decision-makers and other stakeholders can be improved by increasing stakeholder participation in all stages of the modeling process, increasing the transparency of model structure and uncertainties, and developing user-friendly decision-support systems to bridge the link between LULC science and policy. By considering these options, LULC science will be better positioned to support decision-makers and increase real-world application of LULC modeling results.

Assessing development pressure in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: an evaluation of two land-use change models.

Natural resource lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are increasingly susceptible to conversion into developed land uses, particularly as the demand for residential development grows. We assessed development pressure in the Baltimore-Washington, DC region, one of the major urban and suburban centers in the watershed. We explored the utility of two modeling approaches for forecasting future development trends and patterns by comparing results from a cellular automata model, SLEUTH (slope, land use, excluded land, urban extent, transportation), and a supply/demand/allocation model, the Western Futures Model. SLEUTH can be classified as a land-cover change model and produces projections on the basis of historic trends of changes in the extent and patterns of developed land and future land protection scenarios. The Western Futures Model derives forecasts from historic trends in housing units, a U.S. Census variable, and exogenously supplied future population projections. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, and combining the two has advantages and limitations.