Model for Prioritizing Best Management Practice Implementation: Sediment Load Reduction

Understanding the best way to allocate limited resources is a constant challenge for water quality improvement efforts. The synoptic approach is a tool for geographic prioritization of these efforts. It uses a benefit-cost framework to calculate indices for functional criteria in subunits (watersheds, counties) of a region and then rank the subunits. The synoptic approach was specifically designed to incorporate best professional judgment in cases where information and resources are limited. To date, the synoptic approach has been applied primarily to local or regional wetland restoration prioritization projects. The goal of this work was to develop a synoptic model for prioritizing watersheds within which suites of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) can be implemented to reduce sediment load at the watershed outlets. The model ranks candidate watersheds within an ecoregion or river basin so that BMP implementation within the highest ranked watersheds will result in the most sediment load reduction per conservation dollar invested. The model can be applied anywhere and at many scales provided that the selected suite of BMPs is appropriate for the evaluation area’s biophysical and climatic conditions. The model was specifically developed as a tool for prioritizing BMP implementation efforts in ecoregions containing watersheds associated with the USDA-NRCS conservation effects assessment project (CEAP). This paper presents the testing of the model in the little river experimental watershed (LREW) which is located near Tifton, Georgia, USA and is the CEAP watershed representing the southeastern coastal plain. The application of the model to the LREW demonstrated that the model represents the physical drivers of erosion and sediment loading well. The application also showed that the model is quite responsive to social and economic drivers and is, therefore, best applied at a scale large enough to ensure differences in social and economic drivers across the candidate watersheds. The prioritization model will be used for planning purposes. Its results are visualized as maps which enable resource managers to identify watersheds within which BMP implementation would result in the most water quality improvement per conservation dollar invested.

[1]  Jae-Pil Cho,et al.  Water quality effects of simulated conservation practice scenarios in the Little River Experimental watershed , 2010, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[2]  G. Jenks The Data Model Concept in Statistical Mapping , 1967 .

[3]  Indrajeet Chaubey,et al.  Selection and placement of best management practices used to reduce water quality degradation in Lincoln Lake watershed , 2011 .

[4]  D. Sullivan,et al.  Hydrologic impacts of land-use changes in coastal plain watersheds , 2005 .

[5]  Ashish Pandey,et al.  Application of the WEPP model for prioritization and evaluation of best management practices in an Indian watershed , 2009 .

[6]  G. R. Foster,et al.  WEPP: A new generation of erosion prediction technology , 1991 .

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

[8]  Stream discharge database, Little River Experimental Watershed, Georgia, United States , 2007 .

[9]  William J. Elliot WEPP Internet Interfaces for Forest Erosion Prediction , 2004 .

[10]  D. Bosch,et al.  Little River Experimental Watershed, Tifton, Georgia, United States: A geographic database , 2007 .

[11]  E Tasmanian,et al.  Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders , 2006 .

[12]  Kerry O'banion,et al.  Use of value functions in environmental decisions , 1980 .

[13]  David D. Bosch,et al.  Precipitation, soil moisture, and climate database, Little River Experimental Watershed, Georgia, United States , 2007 .

[14]  William E. Cesanek,et al.  Estimating relative wetland values for regional planning , 1995, Wetlands.

[15]  R. K. Hubbard,et al.  Little River Experimental Watershed database , 2007 .

[16]  E. G. Bekele,et al.  Multiobjective management of ecosystem services by integrative watershed modeling and evolutionary algorithms , 2005 .

[17]  L. Prokopy,et al.  Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature , 2008, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[18]  S. Leibowitz,et al.  A synoptic assessment for prioritizing wetland restoration efforts to optimize flood attenuation , 2000, Wetlands.

[19]  Frank W. Davis,et al.  Prioritizing farmland preservation cost-effectively for multiple objectives , 2006 .

[20]  Tammo S. Steenhuis,et al.  Hydrologically sensitive areas: Variable source area hydrology implications for water quality risk assessment , 2000 .

[21]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Economic Incentives to Improve Water Quality in Agricultural Landscapes: Some New Variations on Old Ideas , 2011 .

[22]  James S. Shortle,et al.  Economics of Nonpoint Pollution , 2013 .

[23]  David Zilberman,et al.  The Economics of a Public Fund for Environmental Amenities: A Study of Crp Contracts , 1996 .

[24]  Hayri Önal,et al.  Cost‐Effective Targeting of Land Retirement to Improve Water Quality with Endogenous Sediment Deposition Coefficients , 2003 .

[25]  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 .

[26]  Paul G. R. Smith,et al.  Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: Theory and practice , 1987 .

[27]  Jim Monke and Renée Johnson,et al.  Actual Farm Bill Spending and Cost Estimates , 2010 .

[28]  J. Sheridan RAINFALL-STREAMFLOW RELATIONS FOR COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHEDS , 1997, Applied Engineering in Agriculture.

[29]  D. K. Borah,et al.  SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT MODELING FOR TMDL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION , 2006 .

[30]  D. Osmond USDA water quality projects and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed studies , 2010, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[31]  David D. Bosch,et al.  RAINFALL CHARACTERISTICS AND SPATIAL CORRELATION FOR THE GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN , 1999 .

[32]  R. K. Hubbard,et al.  Nutrient transport in a restored riparian wetland. , 2003, Journal of environmental quality.

[33]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  A General Framework for Prioritizing Land Units for Ecological Protection and Restoration , 2000, Environmental management.

[34]  Joseph R. Makuch,et al.  The first five years of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project , 2008, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[35]  Richard D. Horan,et al.  The Economics of Nonpoint Pollution Control , 2002 .

[36]  M. Arabi,et al.  Cost‐effective allocation of watershed management practices using a genetic algorithm , 2006 .

[37]  Daniel W. Llewellyn,et al.  A Decision-Support System for Prioritizing Restoration Sites on the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain , 1996 .

[38]  David D. Bosch,et al.  Long‐term water chemistry database, Little River Experimental Watershed, southeast Coastal Plain, United States , 2007 .

[39]  Margaret Skutsch,et al.  Measurement Techniques in Environmental Impact Assessment , 1976, Environmental Conservation.

[40]  L. E. Asmussen,et al.  Nutrient Budgets for Agricultural Watersheds in the Southeastern Coastal Plain , 1985 .

[41]  David D. Bosch,et al.  Effect of spatial distribution of rainfall on temporal and spatial uncertainty of SWAT output. , 2009 .

[42]  L. D. Hopkins,et al.  Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps : A Comparative Evaluation , 2013 .

[43]  Douglas J. Norton,et al.  A Method for Comparative Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters Restoration Planning , 2009, Environmental management.

[44]  Brooke Abbruzzese,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING: A Synoptic Approach for Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands , 1997, Environmental management.

[45]  H. L. Batten,et al.  Little River Experimental Watershed, Tifton, Georgia, United States: A historical geographic database of conservation practice implementation , 2007 .

[46]  C. Kling,et al.  Environmental Conservation in Agriculture: Land Retirement versus Changing Practices on Working Land , 2004 .

[47]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  Use of Scale Invariance in Evaluating Judgement Indicators , 1999 .

[48]  Y. Her,et al.  Effect of Watershed Subdivision and Filter Width on SWAT Simulation of a Coastal Plain Watershed 1 , 2010 .

[49]  Mark Walbridge,et al.  Enhancing conservation on agricultural landscapes: A new direction for the Conservation Effects Assessment Project , 2008, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[50]  R. Lowrance,et al.  A conceptual model for assessing ecological risk to water quality function of bottomland hardwood forests , 1995 .

[51]  Seungbong Han,et al.  Landscape Planning for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction III: Assessing Phosphorus and Sediment Reduction Potential , 2009, Environmental management.

[52]  S. Leibowitz,et al.  Prioritizing Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction: A Conceptual Model , 2003, Environmental management.

[53]  L. E. Asmussen,et al.  Riparian Forests as Nutrient Filters in Agricultural Watersheds , 1984 .

[54]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  JSEM: A Framework for Identifying and Evaluating Indicators , 2001, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[55]  R. Lowrance,et al.  Nitrogen Cycling in a Multiple‐Crop Vegetable Production System , 1988 .

[56]  David D. Bosch,et al.  Long-term stream chemistry trends in the southern Georgia Little River Experimental Watershed , 2008, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[57]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  Synoptic assessment of wetland function: a planning tool for protection of wetland species biodiversity , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[58]  Rodger B. Grayson,et al.  Before and after riparian management: sediment and nutrient exports from a small agricultural catchment, Western Australia , 2003 .

[59]  S. Diane Eckles,et al.  Conservation effects assessment Project , 2008 .