Supporting cost-effective watershed management strategies for Chesapeake Bay using a modeling and optimization framework

Kaufman, Daniel E.; Shenk, Gary W.; Bhatt, G.; Asplen, Kevin W.; Devereux, Olivia H.; Rigelman, Jessica R.; Ellis, J.; Hobbs, Benjamin F.; Bosch, Darrell J.; Houtven, George Van; McGarity, Arthur E.; Linker, Lewis C.; Ball, William P.

doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105141

Cited by 24 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It draws upon the strengths of multiple models and incorporates improvements in data as well as new science on numerous aspects of the model for supporting management decisions. Some of the significant updates include changes to the overall model structure to integrate multiple models and lines of evidence, incorporation of lag times in the nutrient transport, use of fine‐scale estimation of sediment erosion, new science and understanding on the behavior of phosphorus, the representation of the Conowingo Reservoir infill, an expanded and refined simulation of impoundments, new methods for estimating nutrient inputs, high‐resolution land cover data, and the characterization of best management practices (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020; Hood et al, 2021; Kaufman et al, 2021). For brevity, only a general overview of the main features of the Phase 6 Watershed Model is provided, and we refer to the model documentation page for a comprehensive description of the model structure, including a detailed analysis of model performance (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water quality impacts of climate change, land use, and population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Bhatt

Linker

Shenk

et al. 2023

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load was established for the water quality and ecological restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. In 2017, the latest science, data, and modeling tools were used to develop revised Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs). In this article, we examine the vulnerability of the Chesapeake Bay watershed to the combined pressures of climate change and growth in population, agricultural intensity, and economic activity for the 60‐year period 1995–2055. The results will be used to revise WIPs, as needed, to account for expected increases in loads. Assessing changes relative to 1995 for the years 2025, 2035, 2045, and 2055, mean annual precipitation increases of 3.11%, 4.21%, 5.34%, and 6.91%, respectively, air temperature increases of 1.12, 1.45, 1.84, and 2.12°C, respectively, and potential evapotranspiration increases of 3.36%, 4.43%, 5.54%, and 6.35%, respectively, are projected. Population in the watershed is expected to grow by 3.5 million between 2025 and 2055. Watershed model results show incremental increases in streamflow (2.3%–6.2%), nitrogen (2.6%–10.8%), phosphorus (4.5%–26.7%), and sediment (3.8%–18.8%) loads to the tidal Bay due to climate change. Growth in population, agricultural intensity, development, and economic activity resulted in relatively smaller increases in loads compared to climate change.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water quality impacts of climate change, land use, and population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Bhatt

Linker

Shenk

et al. 2023

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RBEROST currently includes a relatively modest number of BMPs. As a comparison, the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool also uses an annual time resolution, includes approximately 300 BMPs (more than RBEROST), and contains 1925 spatial units (fewer than RBEROST) and has both model generation times and execution times that are similar to running RBEROST without uncertainty (Kaufman et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most optimization studies focus on one type of land use (e.g., Gallo et al, 2020; Jiang et al, 2021; Shojaeizadeh et al, 2021), and optimize practices in smaller areas on the order of hectares to hundreds of square kilometers (Detenbeck, ten Brink, et al, 2018; Jiang et al, 2021; Shojaeizadeh et al, 2021). Strokal et al (2020) and Kaufman et al (2021) provide notable exceptions for large, multiple land‐use, optimization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River Basin Export Reduction Optimization Support Tool; a tool to screen options for reducing nutrient loads while minimizing cost

Chamberlin

Brink

Munson

et al. 2022

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to estimates presented in the Sanitation ATLAS (ANA, 2017), which has data for the year 2013, 43% of the Brazilian population is served with sewage collection and treatment, 18% have sewage collected but not treated, 12% have individual solutions, while the rest have no collection or treatment. As a result of this lack of sanitation infrastructure, the quality of the receiving water bodies deteriorates, which has adverse consequences for biodiversity and society (Pujol-Vila et al, 2016;Kaufman et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical-financial analysis of conventional and alternative technologies for the treatment of sewage in small to large cities

Gomides

Soares

et al. 2023

Rev. ambiente água

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Brazil, there is low coverage of sewage collection and treatment, a condition that is even more critical in smaller cities. One reason for this is the lack of resources for investment in conventional reactors. The present study therefore compared the costs of different treatment alternatives based on the average values of construction and operation present in the literature, the values of the price per square meter for land acquisition, electricity tariffs, and final sludge disposal by considering different operating times of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). This allowed inferences about the costs associated with the choice of the configuration of a municipal WWTP. Based on the scenarios studied, it was observed that the conventional systems evaluated are, in general, more costly, especially after several years of operation. However, the choice of these treatment units may be more interesting in scenarios with high cost per square metre and lower electricity rates or where there is no area availability. For smaller cities and with lower real estate pressure, the natural systems evaluated are more indicated due to the low total costs (construction and operation) and adequate pollutant-removal efficiencies. Keywords: choice of wwtp, methodology of choice sewage treatment, natural systems, treatment costs.

show abstract

Supporting cost-effective watershed management strategies for Chesapeake Bay using a modeling and optimization framework

Cited by 24 publications

References 53 publications

Water quality impacts of climate change, land use, and population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Water quality impacts of climate change, land use, and population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

River Basin Export Reduction Optimization Support Tool; a tool to screen options for reducing nutrient loads while minimizing cost

Technical-financial analysis of conventional and alternative technologies for the treatment of sewage in small to large cities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About