Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prioritizing Watersheds for Conservation Actions in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Ecoregion

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to apply and evaluate a recently developed prioritization model which uses the synoptic approach to geographically prioritize watersheds in which Best Management Practices (BMPs) can be implemented to reduce water quality problems resulting from erosion and sedimentation. The model uses a benefit–cost framework to rank candidate watersheds within an ecoregion or river basin so that BMP implementation within the highest ranked watersheds will result in the most water quality improvement per conservation dollar invested. The model was developed to prioritize BMP implementation efforts in ecoregions containing watersheds associated with the USDA-NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). We applied the model to HUC-8 watersheds within the southeastern Coastal Plain ecoregion (USA) because not only is it an important agricultural area but also because it contains a well-studied medium-sized CEAP watershed which is thought to be representative of the ecoregion. The results showed that the three HUC-8 watersheds with the highest rankings (most water quality improvement expected per conservation dollar invested) were located in the southern Alabama, northern Florida, and eastern Virginia. Within these watersheds, measures of community attitudes toward conservation practices were highly ranked, and these indicators seemed to push the watersheds to the top of the rankings above other similar watersheds. The results, visualized as maps, can be used to screen and reduce the number of watersheds that need further assessment by managers and decision-makers within the study area. We anticipate that this model will allow agencies like USDA-NRCS to geographically prioritize BMP implementation efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Information can also be found at: www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/index.html.

  2. Information can also be found at: http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gapanalysis.

References

  • Abbruzzese B, Leibowitz SG (1997) A synoptic approach for assessing cumulative impacts to wetlands. Environ Manag 21:457–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arabi M, Govindaraju RS, Hantush MM (2006) Cost-effective allocation of watershed management practices using a genetic algorithm. Water Resour Res 42:W10429

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock BA, Laksminarayan PG, Wu J, Zilberman D (1996) The economics of a public fund for environmental amenities: a study of CRP contracts. Am J Agric Econ 78:961–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RG (1983) Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environ Manag 7:365–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekele EG, Nicklow JW (2005) Multiobjective management of ecosystem services by integrative watershed modeling and evolutionary algorithms. Water Resour Res 41:W10406

    Google Scholar 

  • Boll J, Brooks E, Easton Z, Steenhuis T, Wulfhurst JD, Vellidis G, Kurkalova L, Jang TI (2011) CEAP synthesis: analysis and tools for selection of the optimal suite of conservation practices. In: 2011 land and sea grant water conference. Washington, DC

  • Brooks E, Boll J (2011) Building process-based understanding for improved adaptation and management. In: International symposium erosion & landscape evolution, ISELE paper no. 11077, Alaska

  • Brooks ES, Saia SM, Boll J, Wetzel L, Easton Z, Steenhuis TS (2013) Hydrologic characterization tool: development and applications of a simple pollutant transport decision support tool. J Am Water Resour Assoc (under review)

  • Cho J, Vellidis G, Bosch DD, Lowrance R, Strickland T (2010) Water quality effects of simulated conservation practice scenarios in the Little River Experimental Watershed. J Soil Water Conserv 45:463–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng H, Kurkalova LA, Kling CL, Gassman PW (2006) Environmental conservation in agriculture: land retirement vs. changing practices on working land. J Environ Econ Manag 52:600–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Game ET, Kareiva P, Possingham HP (2013) Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conserv Biol 27:480–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genskow K, Prokopy LS (2009) Lessons learned in developing social indicators for regional water quality management. J Soc Nat Resour 23:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins LD (1977) Methods for generating land suitability maps: a comparative evaluation. J Am Inst Plan 43:386–400

  • Hyman JB, Leibowitz SG (2000) A general framework for prioritizing land units for ecological protection and restoration. Environ Manag 25:23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang T, Vellidis G, Hyman JB, Brooks E, Kurkalova LA, Boll J, Cho JP (2013) A prioritizing model for sediment load reduction. Environ Manag 51:209–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping. Int Yearb Cartogr 7:186–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Khare D, Singh KS, Dhore KA, Bhatnagar T (2007) Watershed prioritization conservation soil erosion status: a case study of India. In: McFarland, Saleh A, San Antonio (eds) Watershed management to meet water quality standards and TMDLS procedure of the 10–14 March 2007, ASABE publication no. 701P0207, Texas

  • Leibowitz SG, Hyman JB (1999) Use of scale invariance in evaluating judgment indicators. Environ Monit Assess 58:283–303

  • Limbrunner J, Vogel R, Chapra S, Kirshen P (2013a) Classic optimization techniques applied to stormwater and nonpoint source pollution management at the watershed scale. J Water Resour Plan Manag 139:486–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limbrunner J, Vogel R, Chapra S, Kirshen P (2013b) Optimal location of sediment-trapping best management practices for nonpoint source load management. J Water Resour Plan Manag 139:478–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance R, Vellidis G (1995) A conceptual model for assessing ecological risk to water quality function of Bottomland Hardwood forests. Environ Manag 19:239–258

  • Machado EA, Stoms DM, Davis FW, Kreitler J (2006) Prioritizing farmland preservation cost-effectively for multiple objectives. J Soil Water Conserv 61:250–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Maringanti C, Chaubey I, Popp J (2009) Development of a multiobjective optimization tool for the selection and placement of best management practices for nonpoint source pollution control. Water Resour Res 45:W06406

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon G, Gregonis SM, Waltman SW, Omernik JM, Thorson TD, Freeouf JA, Rorick AH, Keys JE (2001) Developing a spatial framework of common Ecological Regions for the Conterminous United States. Environ Manag 28:293–316

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted J, Diebel M, Vander Zanden M (2009) Landscape planning for agricultural non-point source pollution reduction II, balancing watershed size, number of watersheds, and implementation effort. Environ Manag 43:60–68

  • Meals D, Vellidis G, Cho J, Crow S, Hawkins G, Mullen J, Bosch D, Sullivan D, Lowrance R, Wall A, Luloff A, Hoag D, Arabi M, Jennings G, Osmond D (2012) Little River Experimental Watershed, Georgia: National Institute of Food and Agriculture-Conservation Effects Assessment Project Watershed Project. In: Osmond D, Meals D, Hoag D, Arabi M (eds) How to Build Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to Protect Water Quality: The NIFA-CEAP Experience. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigel R, Rughooputh SD (2010) Soil erosion risk mapping with new datasets: an improved identification and prioritisation of high erosion risk areas. Catena 82:191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton DJ, Wickham JD, Wade TG, Kunert K, Thomas JV, Zeph P (2009) A method for comparative analysis of recovery potential in impaired waters restoration planning. Environ Manag 44:356–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Banion K (1980) Use of value functions in environmental decisions. Environ Manag 4:3–6

  • Osmond D (2010) USDA water quality projects and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed studies. J Soil Water Conserv 65:142A–146A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandey A, Chowdary VM, Mal BC, Billib M (2009) Application of the WEPP model for prioritization and evaluation of best management practices in an Indian watershed. Hydrol Process 23:2997–3005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy LS (2011) Agricultural human dimensions research: the role of qualitative research methods. J Soil Water Conserv 66:9A–12A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer AP, Thompson AW, Prokopy LS (2012) The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption. Agric Human Values 29:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez HG, Popp J, Maringanti C, Chaubey I (2011) Selection and placement of best management practices used to reduce water quality degradation in Lincoln Lake watershed. Water Resour Res 47:W01507

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval-Solis S, McKinney D, Loucks D (2011) Sustainability index for water resources planning and management. J. Water Resour Plan Manag 137:381–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger EW, Leibowitz SG, Hyman JB, Foster WE, Downing MC (2002) Synoptic assessment of wetland function: a planning tool for protection of wetland species and biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 11:379–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secchi S, Kling CL, Feng H, Gassman PW, Jha M, Campbell T, Kurkalova LA (2007) The cost of cleaner water: assessing agricultural pollution reduction at the watershed scale. J Soil Water Conserv 62:10–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen Z, Hong Q, Chu Z, Gong Y (2011) A framework for priority non-point source area identification and load estimation integrated with APPI and PLOAD model in Fujiang Watershed, China. Agric Water Manag 98:977–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skutch MM, Flowerdew RTN (1976) Measurement techniques in environmental impact assessment. Environ Conserv 3:209–217

  • Smith PGR, Theberge JB (1987) Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: theory and practice. Environ Manag 11: 447–460

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1996) Nonpoint sources pollution: the nation’s largest water quality problem. US US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water EPA841-F96-004A

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2005) Contaminated sediment remediation guidance for hazardous waste sites. Report EPA-540-R-05-012. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2012) Social context indicator: recovery potential screening. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/recovery/indicatorssocial.cfm. Accessed 14 Aug 2012

  • Vellidis G, Leibowitz SG, Ainslie WB, Pruitt BA (2003) Prioritizing wetland restoration for sediment yield reduction: a conceptual model. Environ Manag 31:301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Wu B, Ling F, Zeng Y, Yan N, Yuan C (2010) Identification of priority areas for controlling soil erosion. Catena 83:76–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the USDA-CSREES Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program—National Integrated Water Quality Program, Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) (Award No. 2007-51130-03992). This research was also supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [NRF-2013R1A1A1057929].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rural Construction Engineering Department, Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju-si, Jeollabuk-do, 561-756, Republic of Korea

    Taeil Jang

  2. Crop and Soil Sciences Department, University of Georgia, 2360 Rainwater Road, Tifton, GA, 31793-5766, USA

    George Vellidis

  3. Economic & Finance Department, and Energy and Environmental Systems Program, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, 27411, USA

    Lyubov A. Kurkalova

  4. Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 83844, USA

    Jan Boll

  5. Conservation Law Center, Bloomington, IN, 47408, USA

    Jeffrey B. Hyman

Authors
  1. Taeil Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Vellidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lyubov A. Kurkalova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Boll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeffrey B. Hyman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Vellidis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jang, T., Vellidis, G., Kurkalova, L.A. et al. Prioritizing Watersheds for Conservation Actions in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Ecoregion. Environmental Management 55, 657–670 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0421-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0421-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation