Evaluating watershed-based optimized decision support framework for conservation practice placement in Plum Creek Minnesota

Abstract Targeting field-scale implementation of conservation practices (CPs) in agricultural watersheds is critical to meeting sustainable resource management goals. This not only needs accurate and extensive field-scale assessment, but also incorporation of willingness of the farmers to adopt the suite of practices. Many useful watershed models have not only lacked in accurate siting of field-scale practices based on rigorous physiographic/terrain criteria and hydro-conditioned digital elevation models (DEMs), but also limited in mathematically incorporating farmer’s uncertain, diverse and conflicting viewpoints into the model, which is pivotal to TMDL scenario assessment. This study develops an integrated decision support framework (DSF) to site CP opportunities at the field-scale using high-resolution Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)-hydro-conditioned DEM and other secondary data. Using python coding, DSF integrates three robust models namely Prioritize, Target and Measure Application (PTMApp), Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) and Hydrological Simulation Program FORTRAN-Scenario Application Manager (HSPF-SAM). The novel nature of this framework is its ability to facilitate precision planning at field-scale by siting the optimized conservation practices to achieve TMDL’s based on (i) rigorous terrain derivatives and siting criteria; (ii) simulation of accurate stream flow network (extensive hydro-conditioning and D infinity approach for flow accumulation); and (iii) incorporating diverse, conflicting and uncertain preferences of farmers using fuzzy logic. The framework offers a simplified interface to the locals to simultaneously address agronomical (siting practices to improve soil health and crop productivity), hydrological (improving water quality, TMDL’s), ecological (delineation of sites for riparian buffers) and socio-economic (farmer preferences and cost-analysis) objectives with moderate technical expertise. Besides field-scale practice siting, one of the superior features of the model is its flexibility to filter out even technically feasible cost-effective practices if they are not preferred by farmers, and thus giving a realistic assessment of TMDL’s. The model is applicable to any Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-12) sub-watershed and has been demonstrated for Plum Creek watershed in Minnesota. Results showed 537 cost-effective practices including bioreactors, grassed waterways, nutrient removal wetlands, water and sediment control basins and riparian buffers yielded an 8.5% reduction in total nitrogen constrained with a budget of $250,000. Field-scale maps generated through this DSF empowers practitioners and farmers to work together to make implementation decisions based on sound agronomic, water quality, and economic considerations.

[1]  Indrajeet Chaubey,et al.  Adaptive Targeting: Engaging Farmers to Improve Targeting and Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Practices , 2015 .

[3]  Subhasis Giri,et al.  Evaluation of targeting methods for implementation of best management practices in the Saginaw River Watershed. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[4]  T. Wöhling,et al.  Estimating climate-change effects on a Mediterranean catchment under various irrigation conditions , 2015 .

[5]  R. Dahlgren,et al.  Chapter one. Mitigating nonpoint source pollution in agriculture with constructed and restored wetlands. , 2010 .

[6]  R. Neves,et al.  Different modelling approaches to evaluate nitrogen transport and turnover at the watershed scale , 2016 .

[7]  L. Brocca,et al.  Downscaling near-surface soil moisture from field to plot scale: A comparative analysis under different environmental conditions , 2018 .

[8]  Naresh Pai,et al.  Field_SWAT: A tool for mapping SWAT output to field boundaries , 2012, Comput. Geosci..

[9]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Spatial modeling of agricultural land use change at global scale , 2013 .

[10]  D. Jaynes,et al.  Reconnecting tile drainage to riparian buffer hydrology for enhanced nitrate removal. , 2014, Journal of environmental quality.

[11]  Kyle R. Mankin,et al.  Comparison of AnnAGNPS and SWAT model simulation results in USDA‐CEAP agricultural watersheds in south‐central Kansas , 2009 .

[12]  D. Bossio,et al.  Managing water by managing land: Addressing land degradation to improve water productivity and rural livelihoods , 2010 .

[13]  T. Cochrane,et al.  Quantifying and modeling sediment yields from interrill erosion under armouring , 2019 .

[14]  Ajit Pratap Singh,et al.  Water quality management of a stretch of river Yamuna: An interactive fuzzy multi-objective approach , 2007 .

[15]  R. E. Turner,et al.  Predicting summer hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico: redux. , 2012, Marine pollution bulletin.

[16]  K. Abbaspour,et al.  A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model , 2015 .

[17]  Qian Hong,et al.  A comparison of WEPP and SWAT for modeling soil erosion of the Zhangjiachong Watershed in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area , 2009 .

[18]  M. Tomer,et al.  Agricultural conservation planning framework: 2. Classification of riparian buffer design types with application to assess and map stream corridors. , 2015, Journal of environmental quality.

[19]  M. Helmers,et al.  Nutrient removal by prairie filter strips in agricultural landscapes , 2014, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[20]  Chirag Garg,et al.  Sustainable management of a river basin by integrating an improved fuzzy based hybridized SWOT model and geo-statistical weighted thematic overlay analysis , 2018, Journal of Hydrology.

[21]  Ajit Pratap Singh,et al.  A Scenario Based Impact Assessment of Trace Metals on Ecosystem of River Ganges Using Multivariate Analysis Coupled with Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach , 2017, Water Resources Management.

[22]  Ajay S. Singh,et al.  Lessons learned from using a decision-support tool for precision placement of conservation practices in six agricultural watersheds in the US midwest. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[23]  Richard A C Cooke,et al.  Nitrogen balance in and export from agricultural fields associated with controlled drainage systems and denitrifying bioreactors , 2010 .

[24]  R. Horan,et al.  Reforming agricultural nonpoint pollution policy in an increasingly budget-constrained environment. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[25]  U. C. Kothyari,et al.  Estimation of soil erosion and sediment yield using GIS , 2000 .

[26]  Nathan S. Bosch,et al.  Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Ajit Pratap Singh,et al.  An integrated fuzzy-based advanced eutrophication simulation model to develop the best management scenarios for a river basin , 2018, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[28]  Subhasis Giri,et al.  Evaluating the capabilities of watershed-scale models in estimating sediment yield at field-scale. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[29]  A. Singh,et al.  An evidence based integrated watershed modelling system to assess the impact of non-point source pollution in the riverine ecosystem , 2020 .

[30]  Mark D. Tomer,et al.  Combining precision conservation technologies into a flexible framework to facilitate agricultural watershed planning , 2013, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.