Evaluation of targeting methods for implementation of best management practices in the Saginaw River Watershed.

Increasing concerns regarding water quality in the Great Lakes region are mainly due to changes in urban and agricultural landscapes. Both point and non-point sources contribute pollution to Great Lakes surface waters. Best management practices (BMPs) are a common tool used to reduce both point and non-point source pollution and improve water quality. Meanwhile, identification of critical source areas of pollution and placement of BMPs plays an important role in pollution reduction. The goal of this study is to evaluate the performance of different targeting methods in 1) identifying priority areas (high, medium, and low) based on various factors such as pollutant concentration, load, and yield, 2) comparing pollutant (sediment, total nitrogen-TN, and total phosphorus-TP) reduction in priority areas defined by all targeting methods, 3) determine the BMP relative sensitivity index among all targeting methods. Ten BMPs were implemented in the Saginaw River Watershed using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model following identification of priority areas. Each targeting method selected distinct high priority areas based on the methodology of implementation. The concentration based targeting method was most effective at reduction of TN and TP, likely because it selected the greatest area of high priority for BMP implementation. The subbasin load targeting method was most effective at reducing sediment because it tended to select large, highly agricultural subbasins for BMP implementation. When implementing BMPs, native grass and terraces were generally the most effective, while conservation tillage and residue management had limited effectiveness. The BMP relative sensitivity index revealed that most combinations of targeting methods and priority areas resulted in a proportional decrease in pollutant load from the subbasin level and watershed outlet. However, the concentration and yield methods were more effective at subbasin reduction, while the stream load method was more effective at reducing pollutants at the watershed outlet. The results of this study indicate that emphasis should be placed on selection of the proper targeting method and BMP to meet the needs and goals of a BMP implementation project because different targeting methods produce varying results.

[1]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009 , 2011 .

[2]  Ralph A. Wurbs,et al.  Scale-dependent soil and climate variability effects on watershed water balance of the SWAT model , 2002 .

[3]  Scott H. Stoodley,et al.  Evaluating nonpoint source critical source area contributions at the watershed scale. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[4]  Philip W. Gassman,et al.  Targeting land-use change for nitrate-nitrogen load reductions in an agricultural watershed , 2010, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[5]  Kyle R. Douglas-Mankin,et al.  Mechanical properties of some bioplastics under different soil types used as biodegradable drip tubes. , 2010 .

[6]  Abdolreza Karbassi,et al.  Environmental management of coastal regions in the Caspian Sea , 2008 .

[7]  P. Krause,et al.  COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT EFFICIENCY CRITERIA FOR HYDROLOGICAL MODEL ASSESSMENT , 2005 .

[8]  Sean A. Woznicki,et al.  ASSESSING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS , 2011 .

[9]  Wanhong Yang,et al.  Spatial Targeting of Conservation Tillage to Improve Water Quality and Carbon Retention Benefits , 2005 .

[10]  J. Arnold,et al.  VALIDATION OF THE SWAT MODEL ON A LARGE RWER BASIN WITH POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES 1 , 2001 .

[11]  K. Schilling,et al.  Modeling Nitrate-Nitrogen Load Reduction Strategies for the Des Moines River, Iowa Using SWAT , 2009, Environmental management.

[12]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions , 2007 .

[13]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[14]  H. Gao,et al.  USE OF A GENETIC ALGORITHM AND MULTI-OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING FOR CALIBRATION OF A HYDROLOGIC MODEL , 1998 .

[15]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .

[16]  Indrajeet Chaubey,et al.  Development of a multiobjective optimization tool for the selection and placement of best management practices for nonpoint source pollution control , 2009 .

[17]  L. Bundy,et al.  Management practice effects on phosphorus losses in runoff in corn production systems. , 2001, Journal of environmental quality.

[18]  A. Karbassi,et al.  Evaluation of spatial and seasonal variations in surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques , 2009 .

[19]  Z. Qiu Assessing Critical Source Areas in Watersheds for Conservation Buffer Planning and Riparian Restoration , 2009, Environmental management.

[20]  Kyle R. Mankin,et al.  Applicability of targeting vegetative filter strips to abate fecal bacteria and sediment yield using SWAT , 2008 .

[21]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations , 2007 .

[22]  W. J. Gburek,et al.  FARM-LEVEL OPTIMIZATION OF BMP PLACEMENT FOR COST-EFFECTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION , 2004 .

[23]  Tammo S. Steenhuis,et al.  WATERSHED SCALE MODELING OF CRITICAL SOURCE AREAS OF RUNOFF GENERATION AND PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT 1 , 2005 .

[24]  P. Tuppad,et al.  Bosque River Environmental Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Phase II BMP Modeling Report , 2008 .

[25]  M. Arabi,et al.  Representation of agricultural conservation practices with SWAT , 2008 .

[26]  M. P. Tripathi,et al.  Identification and Prioritisation of Critical Sub-watersheds for Soil Conservation Management using the SWAT Model , 2003 .

[27]  R. Srinivasan,et al.  A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models , 2006 .