RP195

Targeting of
Watershed Management
Practices for
Water Quality Protection
EPA Region VII
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Iowa State University
Kansas State University
University of Missouri-Columbia
USDA-ARS
USDA-NRCS
Corresponding author
Charles S. Wortmann, Nutrient Management Specialist
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
[email protected]
Co-authors
Iowa State University
Matt Helmers, Agricultural and Water Resources Engineer
Brian Gelder, Soil Scientist, Agriculture Engineering
Lois Wright Morton, Sociologist
Kansas State University
Daniel Devlin, Water Quality Specialist
Charles Barden, Forestry Specialist
University of Missouri
Steve Anderson, Soil Scientist
Robert Broz, Water Quality Specialist
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Thomas Franti, Surface Water Management Engineer
Teshome Regassa, Extension Water Quality Specialist
Patrick Shea, Environmental Chemist
USDA-ARS
Mark Tomer, Soil Scientist/Hydrologist
USDA-NRCS
Lyle Frees, Water Quality Specialist
David Griffith, Watershed Planner

The Heartland Regional Water Coordination Initiative is a partnership of Iowa

State University, Kansas State University, the University of Missouri, the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln, and the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service. The Heartland Initiative creates and strengthens multi-state, multi-institutional
partnerships and collaboration to make research, education, and extension resources of
the land grant universities more accessible to federal, state, and local efforts on regional
priority water issues.

This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement
No. 2004-51130-02249.

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Partners in the Heartland
Regional Initiative are also equal opportunity providers and employers.
Agency.

© 2008, The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska on behalf of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension. All rights reserved.
Introduction

E nsuring a clean and adequate water supply implies using water conservatively and protecting water
resources from pollution. Sediment, nutrient, and pesticide losses in runoff are major pollutants of
surface waters in the Midwest. This publication addresses targeting best management practices (BMPs) in
watersheds or landscapes to maximize the impact of investments in water quality protection. It is intended
as a resource for those who advise on or practice land and water management. The authors recognize
the ecological and social diversity of watersheds and land managers, and that agricultural pollutants
often come from small parts of watersheds as a result of landscape sensitivity coupled with management
inappropriate for water quality protection. Targeting BMPs to important source or mitigation areas is
likely to have the most cost-effective impact on water quality.

Abbreviations used in this publication

BMPs – best management practices

CLU – common land unit
GIS – geographic information system
GPS – geographic positioning system
HRU – hydrologic response unit
HUC – hydrologic unit code
IDEP – Iowa Daily Erosion Project
LIDAR – light detection and ranging
NRCS – United States Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service
PFC – Proper Functioning Condition
RWA – Rapid Watershed Appraisal
RUSLE – Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
SVAP – Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
SWAT– Soil and Water Assessment Tool
USDA-ARS – United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS – United States Geological Survey
USLE – Universal Soil Loss Equation
WEPP – Water Erosion Prediction Project

© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

3
 Watersheds and Watershed Management

A watershed is a unique land area generally bordered by hills and ridges

that ultimately drains to a common basin or outlet such as a stream, river,
lake, or wetland (Walter et al., 2007). Watersheds consist of multifunction
landscapes and are composed of diverse but interconnected agricultural and
nonagricultural land units, drainage basins, and streams. Varied hydrologic
processes interact with soil type and land use at different spatial scales,
resulting in areas within landscapes that can potentially generate, intercept,
and treat pollutants. Most pollutants originate from relatively small parts of
the watershed, thus the cost-effectiveness of BMPs differs across landscapes.
Targeting practices is an approach to treat areas that are major pollutant
sources and effectively mitigate pollutant movement. A
common goal of watershed management is to protect the
environment while maximizing the aesthetic, social, and
economic benefits of the watershed. Each watershed is
Key Resource Materials different and its unique attributes must be characterized and
diagnosed when planning, developing, and implementing a
watershed management plan.
Several papers have been cited in this publication
but the following five papers are especially valuable Watershed management is the implementation of a set
sources of information on targeting best management of resource management practices with the goal of ensuring
practices. water quality while sustaining the ecosystems (Tomer, 2004).
Watershed management is interdisciplinary and seeks to
A Buffer Capability Index For Water Quality balance human needs with restoration of degraded lands or
Planning. Dosskey, M.G., M.J. Helmers, D.E. impaired water bodies, reduced pollutant loading or natural
Eisenhauer, T.G. Franti, and K.D. Hoagland. 2006. J. resource preservation, and/or enhanced resilience to human-
Soil Water Conserv. 61:344-354. induced and natural impacts. Water quality goals extend
beyond agricultural production to encompass economic
Vegetative Barriers for Erosion Control. Los, P., and social concerns as well as the beliefs and concerns of
S.H. Anderson, and C.J. Gantzer. 2001. MU Guide stakeholders, including farmers, other landowners, and
G1653, University of Missouri Cooperative Extension, community residents. Effective watershed management
Columbia. requires long-term planning and commitment on the part of
these stakeholders.
New Thinking About Farmer Decision Makers.
McCown, R. 2005. p.11-44. In J.L. Hatfield (ed.) The
Farmer’s Decision: Balancing Economic Successful
What is Targeting?
Agriculture Production with Environmental Quality.
Walter et al. (2007) defined targeting as focusing
Soil and Water Conservation Society: Ankeny, IA.
preservation, conservation, and/or other practices on areas
of the landscape at particular times where and when they
Watershed Management. Tomer, M.D. 2004. P.
will have the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. This assumes
306-314. In D. Hillel. Encyclopedia of Soils in the
that targeted areas in the landscape are either especially
Environment (Vol. 4). Elsevier Ltd. Oxford, UK.
sensitive to or strategically located for mitigation of the effects
of human activities or natural events. Targeting identifies
The Science of Targeting Within Landscapes and
disproportionately large pollutant sources and targets BMPs to
Watersheds to Improve Conservation Effectiveness.
reduce pollutant delivery.
Walter, T, M. Dosskey, M. Khanna, J. Miller, M.
Tomer, and J. Weins. 2007. P. 63-89. In M. Schnepf
Targeting addresses the interaction of management,
and C. Cox.
biophysical and socio-cultural systems, and objectives of the
watershed plan while acknowledging that we are dealing with
a changing situation. Accomplishing these objectives requires
addressing different problem sources, regulatory requirements,

4 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

and environmental objectives. An
understanding of the nature and
source of pollution, the hydrologic Management
pathways of pollutant transport (e.g.,
F
upland erosion, sediment deposition,
and channel bed erosion), the desired
load reduction, the inventory of
alternative practices, and measurable A
B Systems trended
criteria for monitoring and assessing D (local and global
progress and impact are necessary. Objectives changing)
Targeting enables cost-effective Biophysical
and efficient use of local, state, and G C and
federal resources to improve water socio-cultural E
quality by promoting effective
systems
practices and/or focusing education,
lobbying, or policy change efforts to
Time
the major pollutant sources.

A successful plan is dynamic Figure 1. The interaction of objectives with management actions and the biophysical
and adapts to changes in the and socio-cultural systems under consideration. Targeting can aim to align objectives
system that may occur from project with management actions (A), management with the systems (B), or objectives with
activities, the emergence of new the biophysical and socio-cultural systems (C). Ideally, targeting should aim to align
problems or opportunities, or all three components simultaneously (D) with a clear understanding of where the
changed perspectives and values system is going (E). Certain management options and objectives (F and G) are not in
(Figure 1). Stakeholders fine-tune synchrony with the trends in the system (adapted from Walter et al., 2007).
their objectives, management
plan, and activities based on
improved understanding of
ecosystem processes and impacts
of interventions gained through
experience, monitoring, and analysis
of additional information (Walter et Implementation
Monitoring
al., 2007; Watzin, 2007) (Figure 2).
Monitoring and impact assessment
might use modeling, research, and Adaptive
other evaluation methods to assess Management
progress toward established goals. Goals

Targeting ability has increased Strategic and

operational Evaluation
with improved understanding of
planning or assessment
watershed dynamics and advances
in geographic information systems
(GIS), remote sensing, other spatial
data availability, and models for
processing spatial and temporal data.
However, effective targeting still Figure 2. The adaptive management cycle of watershed management (adapted from
requires quality information, good Walter at al., 2007).
analytical tools, and motivated land
managers to implement practices.

Engaged stakeholders and their

needs, current conditions, acceptable
timeframes for achieving impact, and
the potential of alternative practices
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.
5
 are essential considerations of successful targeting. A number of questions will
Phosphorus loading of water arise as community-level stakeholders, agency professionals and scientists seek
bodies typically originates from to target interventions: 1) What changes in watershed management will result
small areas of the watershed that in improved water quality? 2) What criteria are required for prioritizing the
have relatively great runoff and problems and potential solutions? 3) What are the stakeholder roles, including
the sharing of costs, lost income, and inconveniences? 4) What incentive
erosion potential from a few rainfall
payments are available and will payments be given based on resource targeting
events, while nitrogen loading of or on entitlement? 5) How long will it take to achieve measurable and desired
groundwater is spatially and impact?
temporally more diffuse.
Targeting Considerations
The nature of pollutants. Agricultural pollutants differ in the dynamics
and interaction of source and transport (e.g., leaching, runoff, and erosion)
with implications for choice of targeting method and conservation practice.
For example, phosphorus loading of water bodies typically originates from
small areas of the watershed that have relatively great runoff and erosion
potential from a few rainfall events, while nitrogen loading of groundwater
is spatially and temporally more diffuse. Targeting is most feasible for
pollutants with more concentrated sources, while those with more diffuse
sources are likely to require specific management over much of the watershed
to be effective. This suggests that not one model but a variety of models and
tools will be used by watershed residents, depending on the types of priority
pollutants.

Field-level versus landscape. Scale is important in watershed planning and

targeting. Pollutant delivery depends on inter-related processes occurring over
interconnected fields and landscapes. Decreased sediment loss from a field may
not result in reduced sediment loading downstream. Management effects on
processes along the whole flow path need to be considered, including upland
erosion, sediment deposition, and channel bed erosion. GIS tools can aid in
such landscape analysis.

Individual farmers versus communities. Watersheds typically span

Target the problematic landscape multiple farms, small lot landowners, and large or small urban areas. Thus
positions rather than the people. stakeholders in the environmental quality of a watershed are diverse with
varied beliefs, attitudes, and values about protecting local waters and how it
can be done most effectively. Problem identification, prioritization, planning,
and selection and targeting of alternative practices should involve such diverse
stakeholders in order to develop a watershed management plan that meets the
needs of farmers and communities. When stakeholders participate in targeted
management they are more likely to support and implement appropriate
changes.

Incentive and/or cost-share payments may be made to individual farmers

implementing an alternative practice as a means to more effective targeting, but
should be allocated according to a stakeholder-approved watershed plan. Cost-
effective environmental protection requires maximization of the interaction
of incentive and/or cost-share payments with efficient targeting; that is,
target the problematic landscape positions rather than the people. However,
stakeholders engaged in allocating incentive payments may face pressure by
stakeholders desiring different benefits such as recreation, landscape aesthetics,
environmental protection, conservation, industrial development, and tourism,
as well as production agriculture. Negotiated agreements for subsidized and
voluntary actions addressing a range of needs will be valuable in assuring
support by many stakeholders rather than a few.
6 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.
 Local versus distant water bodies. Land managers and community
members are more likely to act to protect or rehabilitate local waters than
distant downstream water bodies. Protection of the local waters may or may
not benefit downstream waters and implementation of upstream BMPs that
are not locally beneficial may require more incentive payment.

Unintended consequences. A practice that is appropriate in one part of

the watershed or agricultural cycle may be inappropriate in another. Similarly,
a practice that is effective in containing one potential pollutant may result in
increased loading of another pollutant. No-till production of grain sorghum,
for example, may reduce sediment and P loading of downstream waters but
may increase atrazine loading because of a high probability of runoff events at
the time when atrazine is commonly applied without incorporation.

Absentee landowners. Absentee landowners are often not community

members but are essential partners, as conservation practices often require
more years than the typical lease agreement to be effective and compensate
for the investment. Stakeholders may need to motivate absentee and other
non-operator landowners to participate in planning and implementing
management actions.
A practice that is effective in contain-
Urban situations. Urbanization often results in pollution because of ing one potential pollutant may re-
littering, landscape disturbances during construction, increased impervious sult in increased loading of another
surface area, and other activities that impair water quality. This often results
pollutant.
in use of costly technology, such as storm water control and water treatment
plants, to recover lost services. Obstacles to urban watershed management
may include conflicting management objectives, political fragmentation,
diverse public and private interests, unfunded federal mandates, bureaucracy,
and changes in personnel (www.umass.edu/ecologicalcities/watershed/index.
htm#issues; verified 20 March 2008).

Residents need to realize that they live in a watershed but must also
understand how to minimize their impact on it. Education may be needed
to address: 1) basic watershed awareness using signs, storm drain stenciling,
stream walks, and maps; 2) the role residents play in the watershed and
communicating specific messages about positive and negative behaviors; 3)
educating the development community, including the professionals, on how to
apply the tools of watershed protection; and 4) providing opportunities for the
public to actively engage in watershed protection and restoration.

Developing a Watershed Management Plan

A watershed management plan can be a voluntary, comprehensive plan
for a watershed that considers the natural resource base as well as social and
economic considerations. Watershed management planning, implementation,
and/or assessment may be done by a formal or informal group of stakeholders,
such as agricultural land owners or managers, urban landowners, homeowner
associations, state and/or federal agencies, conservation clubs, schools, or other
individuals or organizations. Local motivation and facilitation of the group is
important. Stakeholder understanding of the bio-physical and socio-cultural
components of the watershed, and their interactions, is also important to
crafting an effective management plan that matches the unique characteristics
of the watershed.

© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

7
 Planning Process One approach to planning watershed
Inventory management is a three-phase, nine-step
resources
planning process (Figure 3). The process
Identity Analyze I.
resource begins with data collection and analysis to
problems data Collection and analysis assess the natural resource conditions, needs
Determine and opportunities. Alternative solutions
objectives are formulated and evaluated, and a plan
is developed. Solutions are implemented
Formulate Evaluate II. and successes are measured by collecting
alternatives alternatives Decision
support quality natural resource data. Decision
Make makers, who can influence change within
decisions
the watershed, need to assess the current
Implement activities and attitudes of the watershed
the plan
community and develop a promising plan
III. for implementation. Changes in water
Evaluate Application and Evaluation
the plan quality may not be immediately apparent
and the decision makers need to motivate
the watershed community to continue with
Figure 3. Watershed management planning may be viewed as a dynamic
implementation until the desired outcome is
three-part, nine-step process (USDA-NRCS, 2003).
achieved.

Tomer (2004) presents the watershed management planning process

in four phases: 1) problem identification; 2) watershed assessment;
3) identification and selection of management alternatives; and 4)
implementation and evaluation. For each phase, key questions are raised,
sources of information and analysis tools are suggested, and stakeholder roles
are identified. Regardless of which approach is used for watershed management
planning, local producers and landowners need to participate in the decision
making process and buy-in to the watershed management plan; otherwise, the
plan is destined to fail.

Targeting Tools
Computerized mapping technology enables us to efficiently identify
vulnerable locations and map them for conservation targeting. Identifying
target locations can involve a variety of mapped data sources, including
soil survey, topographic data, aerial photographs, and remote sensing data
(often classified according to vegetation or land-cover type). With the wide
availability of such data, overlaying of map layers to identify locations meeting
targeting criteria can be a straightforward process once the criteria are known
and accepted. For example, steep erodible soils that are near water bodies can
be easily identified with GIS software and publicly available data; these areas
are then targeted for erosion control practices. Refinements could be based
on slope gradient, proximity to water, or erosion risks associated with specific
practices on the targeted lands. As targeting criteria become more refined,
however, stakeholder acceptance of these criteria may become more difficult. It
is important to bear this in mind as targeting technologies evolve from simple
map overlays to output from sophisticated models.

Rapid Watershed Assessment (RWA). The RWAs of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) are summaries of resource concerns and
opportunities (www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/rwa/index.html; verified 20 March
2008). They provide initial estimates of which conservation investments will
best address resource concerns. The RWAs typically are done on an average of

8 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

1 million acre basis (8-digit hydrologic
unit) and rely heavily on existing Broad General
information incorporated through
GIS. These data are combined with

(Geography and resource issues)

meetings with landowners and other NRCS Strategic management plan (national/region/state)
stakeholders to assess current levels of
resource management in the identified

Decision making
Conservation district business plan/strategic plan
areas and to make recommendations

Scope
for the local or watershed area.
Rapid watershed assessments
The RWA is limited in detail
because of the large land areas, with Watershed/areawide plans
results tending to be qualitative rather
than quantitative (Figure 4). The Conservation plans
assessment is used to target areas from Narrow Specific
which more detailed information is
collected for area-wide planning or Low Detail of information High
development of community-based (Data, alternatives, decisions)
conservation plans. Figure 4. Rapid watershed assessment detail in relation to other types of plans
(USDA-NRCS, 2007).
Sediment delivery. The delivery
of sediment from a source area to surface water is influenced by conservation
practices, the distance to the water body, sediment delivery efficiency, and other
factors. Targeting requires identification of major sources of sediment delivery
to downstream water bodies and assessment of the cost-effectiveness of
alternative practices for reducing sediment delivery. Various sediment delivery
calculators have been developed to estimate sediment delivery to downstream
water bodies and can be important tools in prioritizing areas for investing
resources. These calculators account for soil erosion using models such as the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) or Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE), and factor in the potential of sediment delivery to the downstream
water body by considering implemented or proposed BMPs. These tools can be
use in targeting BMP implementation.

The USDA-ARS Water Erosion Prediction Project model (WEPP; Flanagan
and Nearing, 1995) is an alternative mechanistic, process-based erosion model
for estimating event-based sediment loss and deposition on two-dimensional
complex terrain under multiple vegetation scenarios. Runoff, erosion, soil
moisture, evapotranspiration, biomass yield, and other factors are estimated
on a daily basis. The Iowa Daily Erosion Project (IDEP; Cruse et al., 2006)
brings NEXRAD radar-sensed rainfall, Iowa Mesonet weather data, and the
Natural Resource Inventory (soils, topography, crop rotations, and tillage
practices) together with WEPP to estimate erosion, runoff, and soil moisture
status at the township level on a daily basis across Iowa. A methodology has
been developed to estimate crop rotations and residue cover at the field level
in order to reconstruct the rotation and tillage data needed to run the WEPP
model (Gelder et al., 2007); this update will enable IDEP to estimate erosion at
the field level using one year old crop data rather than 10 to 15 year-old crop
rotations at the township level. Resource conservationists will be able to use
the WEPP user interface to target the most erosive fields within a watershed or
a state for conservation practices and to evaluate the effectiveness of targeted
practices.

© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

9
 Simulation modeling.
Computer modeling of spatial
processes at landscape and
watershed scales to identify
priority conservation targets
has been used in a variety of
settings. One of the models
commonly employed is the Soil
and Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT; Arnold and Fohrer,
2005). This model provides
comprehensive simulation of
hydrologic and nutrient cycling
processes for “hydrologic
response units” (HRUs), which
are major combinations of
land management and soil type
within watershed sub-basins.
SWAT simulates hydrologic
routing and stream processes to
move losses from the sub-basins
Figure 5. Example map of digital terrain modeling output highlighting variable source to the watershed outlet, the
areas for runoff generation, where conservation measures would most be needed (Tomer, sub-basin losses being weighted
2004).
averages of the HRU simulation
results. The model is not spatially explicit but can be used to identify, and
then target, HRUs that may be critical to watershed water quality. The model
is flexible and its utility for targeting will improve with ongoing research and
model development expanding into new areas including watershed simulation
of tile drainage (Green et al., 2006) and riparian buffer effects (Liu et al., 2007).

Hydrologic characterization through digital terrain modeling also provides

spatially specific maps. Topographic data are used to calculate runoff flow
directions across the landscape and the flow routing from uplands toward
streams (Moore et al., 1991). Model output can then be used to locate areas on
the landscape that are sources of runoff and/or sediment (Figure 5). Runoff-
generating areas usually occupy a small fraction of a watershed area. These
areas are sometimes called variable source areas, because they vary in size
depending on rainfall amounts and intensities as well as antecedent moisture
conditions. Low-lying areas prone to saturation and areas where overland
(sheet) flow accumulate, and possibly form gullies, are the types of features
that are typically mapped based on terrain modeling software. These areas
must be addressed in conservation systems to reduce sediment movement and
filter runoff (Gburek et al., 2002).

Soil Survey. Soil survey reports contain important information such as soil
type, slope, and hydrologic characteristics which are important in targeting
BMPs. Dosskey et al. (2006) developed an approach for using soil surveys
to guide the placement of buffers considering the potential performance
of buffers for sediment and water trapping (Figure 6). This screening tool
can guide planners to areas where buffers may have the greatest benefit. In
addition, the screening tool can be useful in evaluating the design of a buffer
in a particular location because areas with lower sediment and water trapping
may need a wider buffer to achieve a certain reduction in sediment or water
loss.

10 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

a.

b.

Figure 6. (a) Sediment trapping efficiency (STE; in percent) and (b) water trapping efficiency (WTE) for soil map units in the
Cameron-Grindstone watershed in northwestern Missouri (the apparent discontinuity in the middle of the watershed is located
along a county line) (adapted from Dosskey et al., 2006).
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.
11
 Field assessments. Mobile
computer equipment and GPS
receivers are valuable for field-
based assessment and targeting of
watershed conservation efforts. Data
from such equipment can be used
to assess conservation practices in
fields or along riparian corridors.
Geo-referenced aerial photographs
can provide a template to confirm
map position, and then digitize and
annotate conservation practices or
other features that are of interest.
Customized GIS software can be
written for specific field applications
that can greatly simplify the effort
involved in field surveys and collation
of results. Riparian assessments can
be made based on visual observations.
Aerial imagery provides rapid
documentation of riparian corridor
Figure 7. Linking aerial video with global positioning receiver data provides the
conditions within a watershed
ability to map and target priority areas for riparian restoration efforts.
(Figure 7), which can be classified
and transferred to computer mapping applications. These efforts to assess
The Common Land Unit (CLU) is the distribution of vegetation, grazing practices, bank stability, and fluvial
a digital map and data base of processes provide an understanding of stream mechanics and how hydraulic
agricultural field boundaries that forces are influencing stream channel morphology and development (Figure
7). All these types of information may need to be considered in assessing a
is maintained by the USDA Farm
riparian corridor and determining where to target conservation efforts.
Service Agency.
LIDAR topographic surveys. LIDAR stands for “LIght Detection And
Ranging.” The survey data are obtained through an airborne system that uses
laser pulse return signals to map the land-surface elevation in great detail,
providing a finished map product with grid cell sizes of 1 m (3 ft) or less.
At this writing, LIDAR map data are available for limited areas. However,
statewide LIDAR coverage is being acquired for Iowa and availability
is expected to increase. This scale of topographic information provides
opportunities and technical challenges to conservation planning. One of
the challenges is the level of detail involved, and how to scale from field- to
watershed-scale planning tools. Capability to process LIDAR maps to provide
conservation targeting information will be developed through research and
experience.

Land use inventories and farm records. Land use inventories are useful in
identifying areas within a watershed that are significant pollutant sources. The
inventories may include soil, slope, land use, and land treatment information.
Land treatment information, however, has typically been gathered field by field;
however, this process can be prohibitively time consuming and expensive for
larger watersheds.

The Common Land Unit (CLU) is a digital map and database of

agricultural field boundaries that is maintained by the USDA Farm Service
Agency. A public version of the CLU layer is available at datagateway.nrcs.usda.
gov/; verified 20 March 2008. The CLU database can be used as a tool to assess

12 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

land use across larger areas. Land treatment, conservation practices, cropping
systems, and other variables can be added to the digitized CLU as attributes. Targeting must go beyond the
The CLU layer can be overlain with other layers such as soils to indicate areas environmental issues and
susceptible to soil erosion. The potential exists to update CLU information encompass stakeholder beliefs,
with real-time estimation of crop rotations and residue cover at the field level goals, experiences, skills, and social
(Gelder et al., 2007).
relationships.
Integrating Local and Outside Knowledge in Targeting
Targeting must go beyond the environmental issues and encompass
stakeholder beliefs, goals, experiences, skills, and social relationships. The
experiences of farmers and other local stakeholders are linked to science
and technology in setting priorities and targets and in selection and
implementation of interventions. Farmers’ knowledge of their fields and
watershed provides a source of information for planning. Farmers know from
observation over time and experience where their wet spots are located, which
streams flood easily, where erosion, as well as sedimentation, is greatest, and
where and when conservation practices may be most effective.

Agency and Extension personnel bring outside tools, information, and

expertise to integrate with local knowledge. The challenge and opportunity is
to integrate farmer knowledge with outside knowledge and tools, such as GIS,
to enhance stakeholder understanding of the watershed and better manage
lands for profitability and environmental sustainability. Decision support
models that target solutions to water pollution must be relevant to the needs,
habits, and experiences of the decision makers. Models should complement
the knowledge and judgments of local stakeholders and facilitate appropriate
Table 1. Effective strategic targeting
interventions (McCown, 2005). Watershed management can be most effective
by integrating local knowledge with outside knowledge, decision support tools,
and land use techniques.
1. Integrate rules and regulations to
Local knowledge and setting priorities. People set priorities based on   support unified policies.
their understanding of their situation and are influenced by past experiences. 2. Create flexible policies that
When new real or perceived challenges or opportunities occur, new knowledge   include social, economic, and
may be needed to enable adoption of practices and tools to adjust to the new   biophysical conditions.
situation. The listing of a water body as impaired, a fine for non-compliance 3. Use planning and management
with a regulation, and citations for excessive pollutant loss to water bodies   processes to stimulate learning.
can alert watershed stakeholders to a problem. Acknowledgment of the 4. Link monitoring activities to
problem(s) requires action that in turn requires stakeholders to become more
  intervention strategies on
knowledgeable, generally building on personal beliefs and experiences, and
integrating these with outside information. Knowledge of the problem may   a systematic basis.
be increased through discussions with others experiencing similar situations. 5. Recognize that policies and
These conversations dissuade weak beliefs and unsupported information,   interventions are often
and generate more robust and dependable ideas and beliefs (McCown, 2005).   experimental and can be
Through such discussions, stakeholders can identify common areas of concern   improved with on-going
and share information to expand their knowledge base and focus their efforts.   evaluation and revision.
6. Build local lnowledge while
Strategic targeting by stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement in strategic
targeting integrates local landscape and social information in developing and   providing public information.
implementing watershed management plans and local watershed policies.  
Such involvement can foster ongoing learning while reducing potential for Adapted from C. S. Holling, 1995
conflicts and decision gridlocks (Table 1). The process enables farmers and
other watershed residents to learn and apply their knowledge and perspectives
in the decision-making process as well as in implementation, evaluation of
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.
13
 impact, and plan revision. This requires a partnership and trust relationship
among farmers and with water and land use professionals to develop planning,
management, and monitoring strategies that address economic, social, and
biophysical concerns.

The decision to accept alternative practices necessitates that the local

Targeting implies that incentive stakeholder will compare current management with alternative practices.
payments will largely be Outside knowledge may be important to such judgments, but firsthand
observations and conversations with local people have been found to be
performance-based, with allocation
major reasons given for change-of-mind decisions on environmental issues
to only some stakeholders and
(Morton and Brown, 2007). Making watershed-level decisions requires looking
problems. beyond individual fields and farms to the overall watershed. This means that
knowledge of field and farm-level experiences needs to be integrated with
watershed characterization and BMP evaluation using GIS or other tools.
Management practices are selected based on technical information as well as
the beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge of the community.

Extension and natural resource professionals may facilitate local learning

by improving stakeholder access to new information, providing decision
support tools, and facilitating stakeholder discussions about water problems
and potential solutions. They can facilitate enhanced interest in issues and
potential solutions and encourage willingness to challenge existing practices
and evaluate potential solutions. Stakeholders are more likely to learn and
apply scientific and technical information when they understand the benefits.

Incentive payments. Incentive payments will probably continue to

be important in targeting BMPs in watersheds. Incentive payments can
be practice-based or performance-based. Targeting implies that incentive
payments will largely be performance-based, with allocation to only some
stakeholders and problems. Efficient targeting of the most sensitive areas with
performance-based payments requires estimation of the minimum payment
acceptable to farmers for a specific BMP and ensuring that the right producers
are in the applicant pool (Claassen, 2007).

Incentive payments are potential sources of conflict and decision gridlock

leading to distrust, frustration, and declining cooperation. Targeting may
solve one problem but upset the balance of other local social and ecological
systems (Holling, 1995). Such conflicts can be minimized by involving local
stakeholders in the discussions of watershed goals, environmental problems,
and targeting of solutions at field, farm, watershed, and basin levels with
stakeholders sharing their situations, perspectives, experiences, and knowledge.
Opportunities are created to apply local knowledge and perspectives in
identifying solutions and allocating resources to priority problems while
addressing the complexities of aligning stakeholders’ objectives and
expectations.

Barriers to Targeting
The targeting of conservation practices may be affected by technical and
institutional barriers and challenges.

Technical barriers. The effectiveness of targeting may be limited by

inadequate data quality. For example, the USGS National Elevation Database
is usually available at a 30-m (100 ft) grid size and lacks the detail needed for
14 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.
terrain modeling in flat or gently rolling terrain (Tomer and James, 2004).
Most of the agricultural production across the Heartland region is on such
terrain. Thus, superior analytical methods for targeting are limited by input
data quality. LIDAR provides a quantum leap in elevation data quality, but may
provide too much detail for effective watershed modeling. These scaling issues
are critical and require more research. Staying current with developments in
watershed modeling and other technologies challenge researchers and other
stakeholders who want to understand GIS targeting information.

Institutional barriers. Voluntary, first-come, first-served approaches have

been part of the operating procedures in conservation planning agencies.
Effective targeting may mean that landowners who are among the least
interested in implementing new BMPs become the focus of conservation
efforts. Implementing targeted conservation strategies may require that
incentive payments be distributed differently than at present.

The technical and institutional barriers to targeting are related. A technical

watershed characterization used to target conservation must be presented in
formats that conservation planners and landowners can intuitively understand
and apply to conservation planning. Conservation policies to support targeted
implementation may depart from traditional approaches and political-legal
processes may require that targeting technologies and criteria be defensible
in court (Walter et al., 2007). Despite these challenges, however, the potential
advantages of targeted conservation for natural resource management to
society are clear (Khanna et al., 2003). These advantages warrant efforts to
obtain the funding and implementation vehicles to practice conservation
targeting on a watershed-specific basis.

Targeting for Specific Situations

Wetland nitrate reduction in tile-drained landscapes. Since the 1980s,
state and federal programs have been used to promote wetland restoration in
the U.S. corn belt. However, most of these restorations have been primarily
concerned with waterfowl habitat. Site selection has not focused on water
quality functions such as nitrate removal. For maximum water quality benefits Effective targeting may mean that
of wetlands, wetland restoration needs to be well targeted. In tile-drained landowners who are among the least
landscapes, much nitrate is exported with the drainage water. Wetlands for interested in implementing new BMPs
nitrate reduction should be sited to intercept as much of this nitrate as feasible. become the focus of conservation
Through modeling, Crumpton (2001) found that for Walnut Creek in central efforts.
Iowa nitrate export from the watershed was reduced by less than 4 percent
with conventional siting approaches, but by 35 percent with better placement
of wetlands.

Drainage water management for nitrate reduction in tile-drained

landscapes. Subsurface drainage water management can reduce nitrate delivery
to water bodies through reduced drainage flow that results in reduced nitrate
export. Drainage water management can include placing the tiles at a shallower
depth, a practice that is widely applicable, and controlling drainage by water
table management.

Controlled drainage is most suited to fields that need drainage and have
less than 0.5 percent slope so that the number of control structures can be
minimized. However, only about 3.5 percent of approximately 120,000 acres in
a tile-drained area in north-central Iowa have slopes less than 0.5 percent and
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.
15
 soils presumed to
need tile drainage.
Even when
using controlled
drainage on slopes
less than 1 percent,
its applicability
is limited (Figure
8). Therefore,
controlled
drainage can
be effective in
reducing nitrate
export but its
feasibility of broad
application is
limited because
of topographic
conditions.
Finally, the cost-
effectiveness of
the practice is
improved where
control structures
can serve relatively
large areas.
Overall, the
practice should be
targeted to where
the practice can be
most cost-effective
and have the
greatest impact of
water quality.

Placement of
vegetative buffers
on hillsides.
Hillside vegetative
Stream network
buffers, spaced
Slope 0 - 1.0% to accommodate
District boundry specific widths
1000 0 1000 2000 feet
Somewhat poor and wetter soils of equipment for
field operations,
can reduce
Figure 8. Map of a portion of a drainage area in north-central Iowa showing the 0-1 percent slope areas
combined with the somewhat poor and wetter soils (Source: Helmers, M., Iowa State University).
sediment,
nutrient, and
pesticide losses from watersheds (Los et al., 2001). One type of vegetative buffer
for hillsides consists of hedges of narrow strips of stiff-stemmed, erect grass
(e.g. switchgrass and eastern gamagrass) of about 1 m width (Figure 9). The
hedges, along with water-borne crop residues that lodge in the upslope edge
of the grass, slow runoff velocity and cause ponding upslope from the hedges
to enhance the deposition of transported sediments. The hedges capitalize on,

16 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

rather than minimize, the formation of berms with
sediment deposited upslope and within hedges.
Benefits of grass hedge systems include delayed
and reduced surface runoff, trapped sediments,
and facilitated benching of sloping cropland from
soil movement by tillage operations. Stiff-stemmed
grass hedges can substitute for steep-back or
broad-based terraces. Vegetative barriers have
been used on slopes of up to 15 percent gradient.
Steeper slopes should probably have terraces.

Care must be taken during hedge

establishment to prevent concentrated flow from
eroding buffers. Once established, maintenance
within concentrated flow areas and periodic
monitoring for potential failure are required. Stiff-
stemmed grass hedge systems can help stabilize Figure 9. The photos show parallel switchgrass hedges in a field of
waterways during establishment of cool-season soybeans in southwest Iowa. Grass hedges are placed on the contour
grasses by redistributing the flow and preventing to form barriers for reducing sediment, nutrient, and pesticide losses.
advancement of head-cuts up the slope. Grass These grass hedges were installed in a field where steep-back terraces
are traditionally used.
hedge systems provide wildlife habitat and increase
the biodiversity of the ecosystem.

Choice and placement of riparian buffers. Riparian buffers are streamside

plantings of trees, shrubs, and grasses that can intercept contaminants from
both surface and ground water before they reach a stream and help restore
impaired streams. Riparian buffers are typically planted along the edge of a
crop field, adjacent to a stream. Buffers can intercept sediment and sediment-
bound nutrients from runoff, but are less effective in removing dissolved
nutrients and pesticides. Riparian buffers can also remove nutrients from
shallow groundwater.

Riparian buffers can protect water quality through functions beyond

sediment trapping and nutrient uptake. Infiltration rates are much greater
within the buffer than the adjacent crop field, reducing runoff volume.
Nitrate-N is taken up, transformed into biomass, and returned to the stream’s
aquatic life as organic nitrogen via leaf and litter fall.

© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

17
 A limitation, however, of USDA-sponsored riparian buffers is that they
must be adjacent to a perennial stream, while many crop fields drain off to
ephemeral streams or even roadside ditches that may convey the unfiltered
runoff to streams. Figure 10 shows a topographical map of a field in north-
central Kansas, with a buffer established along the stream, but much of the field
actually drains to a road ditch on the opposite side.

Buffers are most effective when shallow, slow moving sheet flow conveys
runoff across the buffer. Small topographical differences, however, can cause
most of a field’s runoff to flow through the buffer at a few concentrated areas,
thus leading to deeper, faster runoff velocity. This reduces runoff contact with
the buffer surface area (organic mulch layer, plant roots, etc) and reduces
trapping efficiencies because of increased flow velocities and reduced contact
time with the buffer.

Effective buffer designs account for individual field topography, possibly

with width varying according to the expected runoff volume that will pass
through sections of the buffer. Typically riparian buffers are 75-150 feet wide,
but much narrower buffers may be adequate for small, gently sloping fields. In
other situations, much wider buffers may be needed.

Tomer at al. (2003) developed a protocol for selecting buffer placement for
maximum effectiveness at the watershed level by analyzing topography. This
protocol prioritizes buffer placement on nearly level sites below long slopes
to maximum effectiveness so that the buffers receive large volumes of runoff,

Figure 10. Buffers must fit the field topography. A buffer was established along a stream on the north edge of the field, as shown
by the curved green line. However, much of the field drains into roadside ditches on the south and east sides.

18 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

but the water moves through slowly
because of the small slope gradient. Table 2. Effectiveness of three types of riparian buffer vegetation for various purposes.
Wider buffers are installed where
more runoff is intercepted. Vegetative type
Benefit Grass Shrubs Trees
The stream condition
should also be considered when
designing riparian buffers. If a Streambank stability low high high
stream is actively cutting deeper
or wider, with vertical banks, a
Filter sediment high low low
planted buffer may erode into Nutrient retention medium medium high
the stream. Such erosion can be
reduced by setting the buffer Pesticide buffering medium med/high med/high
back from the stream to allow Flood damage protection low medium high
for lateral movement of flowing
water, or by stabilizing the Adapted from Dosskey et al., 1997.
streambank (such as with rock
or cedar revetments).

Two qualitative methods for evaluating stream condition are the

Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) developed by NRCS and Proper
Functioning Condition (PFC) developed by the USDA Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management. The SVAP uses 10-point scales to rate various
parameters, resulting in a mean overall score interpreted as: 7.5-8.9 good;
6.1-7.4 fair; and ≤6.0 poor. The PFC assessment uses a 17-point checklist that
relies on the collective professional judgment of the team to assign a rating:
functioning properly; functioning at risk — upward trend; functioning at
risk — downward trend; or non-functioning.

The stream assessment may identify the primary impairment to the stream
such as sedimentation, excessive nutrients, or high levels of fecal coliform
bacteria. Matching vegetation type to the pollutant impacting the stream will
lead to a more effective buffer. Information of riparian vegetation types (Table
2) can be used with stream assessment to match buffer types to the primary
pollutants of concern.

Targeting pesticide BMPs. Pesticide movement in soil and water is affected

by its solubility in water, adsorption (retention) by soil and persistence, as
well as volatilization and photodecomposition. Hydrophilic (water-loving)
pesticides generally have more potential for movement in water than lipophilic
(oil-loving) pesticides. Pesticides with greater adsorption by soil, indicated by
greater values for the soil adsorption coefficient (Kd) or the organic carbon
partition coefficient (Koc), are less likely to be moved by leaching or runoff
than pesticides with low Kd or Koc. Pesticides with large Kd or Koc values
can be transported to surface waters with soil particles by erosion. Adsorption
and solubility are generally inversely related with less adsorption expected as
solubility increases. The persistence of an applied pesticide is indicated by its
half-life, with degradation primarily through direct or indirect microbial action
and therefore greater under conditions of high microbial activity. Pesticide
loss by volatilization following surface application increases as the pesticide’s
vapor pressure increases, and as air temperature and wind speed increase.
Soil incorporation or irrigation shortly after surface application of highly
volatile pesticides is recommended to reduce vapor loss. Photodecomposition

© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

19
 Leaching Solution runoff Adsorbed particle runoff

High Low High Low High Low

Water: blue Atrazine 100 Koc; 60d half-life, acid sensitive

1:635.000

Figure 11. Pesticide properties affect the potential for movement to ground or surface water. The spatial variability in the poten-
tial for atrazine transport a) by leaching, b) in solution runoff, and c) through adsorption to soil particles that may be moved by
erosion is illustrated for Saunders County in Nebraska. The maps were created using a process-based index model, the Soil Survey
Geographic (SSURGO) database and the physicochemical properties of atrazine within a GIS framework (Source: Maribeth Milner,
University of Nebraska–Lincoln).

of light sensitive pesticides may be significant immediately following surface

application to soil or plants. Pesticide characteristics need to be considered
in targeting BMPs. Less mobile (large Kd or Koc) and less persistent (shorter
half-life or “low residual”) pesticides may be preferred where the risk of
leaching to groundwater is high, such as on sandy soils of low organic matter
and shallow depth to ground water. Such pesticides may be preferred where
there is a high risk of solution runoff to surface waters, such as on land with
or near concentrated water flow and with surface application (especially with
good ground cover by crop residues) at times when the probability of runoff
events is high. On highly erodible soils, the risk of transport to surface waters
is greater with less mobile and more persistent pesticides. The maps in Figure
11, created using a process-based index model, illustrate how spatial variability
in a landscape may be expected to influence atrazine movement to surface and
ground waters via leaching, solution runoff, and particle-adsorbed runoff.

Enhancing Capacity for Targeting in

Watershed Management
Efficient watershed management requires that the public, decision-makers,
and scientists cooperate in devising effective strategies through the integration
of ecological, social, and economic approaches. Better and more user-friendly
decision support systems are needed to help decision-makers understand
and evaluate alternatives (Pezzoli et al., 2006). Three areas in which advances
are needed include: GIS and cyberinfrastructure technology; connecting
policy and decision making; and determining program success and adaptive
management.

GIS and cyberinfrastructure technology. Developments in GIS and

cyberinfrastructure technology are enhancing the ability of scientists and
resource managers to analyze complex socio-environmental systems and
apply this analysis in watershed management. Remote and real-time data

20 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

acquisition, data management and computing abilities in GIS and related
tools are increasingly available for supporting identification and targeting
of pollution problems, and evaluation of practices and strategies. Further
advances are needed to better: 1) predict watershed responses to natural and
human-induced changes at different scales of time and space in order to select
efficient and cost-effective environmental monitoring programs; 2) transfer
results across space and time scales; and 3) facilitate outreach and stakeholder
participation through consensus-building and decision-making.

Improvements are needed in geospatial digital libraries and interactive,

web-based mapping portals (G-portals) that offer geo-referenced materials
(maps, images) and geospatial tools with which to analyze and visualize them.
One such tool integrates document and GIS approaches, allowing users to
select and navigate through a spatial interface, while jumping over at any
point to a document interface (Pezzoli et al., 2006). For example, one could
target a particular area, search for records matching various criteria (type
of project, type of record, best practice involved, type of habitat), bring up
matching records for that area, review and browse the documents, and further
explore the “digital watershed” database, through a combination of refinement
steps involving additional spatial-narrowing or record searches. Linking
environmental modeling efforts to advanced sensor webs and information
systems will provide new opportunities to initiate experimental forecasts of
new watershed management variables, assess impacts and responses, and
advance scientific knowledge of complex environmental systems.

Connecting policy and decision makers. Regulations are sometimes

needed to correct behavior, but such regulation may not give the desired
results. Environmental legislation is difficult to implement. Legislative
incentives and education are needed that will promote intelligent and
meaningful long-term decisions (Trevors and Saier, 2007). Unfortunately,
environmental policy is still largely driven by a highly problematic “command
and control” paradigm. Discretionary permits are typically conditioned with
performance criteria for mitigation success, but an easily accessible, standards-
based system for digitally storing impact or mitigation information is needed.
The lack of capacity to track, prioritize, compare, evaluate, or visualize
mitigation project data in a regional context, against other relevant data, raises
many problems. The formation of watershed partnerships, discussed elsewhere
in this document, has emerged as a favored strategy to improve regional
economic and regulatory efficiencies in environmental management, especially
water pollution prevention.
Improvements are needed in
geospatial digital libraries and
Determining program success and adaptive management. Success is interactive, web-based mapping
evaluated from monitoring data, including documentation of the baseline portals (G-portals) that offer
or current situation and implemented practices, and determination of geo-referenced materials (maps, im-
whether the desired outcomes are being achieved and if the assumptions and ages) and geospatial tools with which
hypotheses that drove the selection of practices and their placement were to analyze and visualize them.
correct. Indicators must be used that relate to the conservation practice and
desired outcome, along with a measurement schedule, and the timeframe
within which an outcome is expected. Open communication among
stakeholders is required, with plans on information sharing and corrective
action when progress is unsatisfactory. This provides a basis essential to
effective adaptive management that is discussed elsewhere in this document.

© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

21
 Research needs. There are significant gaps in our knowledge about
conservation practices that must be filled: 1) surface and ground water
interconnectivity and flow paths; 2) the contribution of eroding banks
and beds of actively adjusting stream and river channels to sediment and
nutrient load; 3) treatment thresholds necessary for positive impacts
in the watershed and downstream; 4) cost effectiveness of BMPs for
improved water quality; 5) the effects of interconnections of land use,
soil pollutant concentrations, hydrologic connections, geomorphic
conditions, and discharge at the farm and watershed scale on water
quality and ecological integrity; and 6) the timeframe or time lag within
which improvements in water quality are expected.

References
Arnold, J.G. and N. Fohrer. 2005. SWAT2000: Current capabilities and research
opportunities in applied watershed modeling. Hydrol. Process.
19:563-572.
Claassen, R. 2007. Buying environmental services: effective use of economic
tools. p 92-103. In M. Schnepf and C. Cox (ed.) Managing agricultural
landscapes for environmental quality: Strengthening the science base.
Soil Water Conserv. Soc., Ankeny. IA.
Crumpton, W.G. 2001. Using wetlands for water quality improvement in
agricultural watersheds; importance of a watershed scale approach.
Water Sci. Technol. 44:559-564.
Cruse, R.M., D. Flanagan, J. Frankenberger, B. Gelder, D. Herzmann,
D. James, W. Krajewski, M. Kraszewski, J. Laflen, J. Opsomer, and
D. Todey. 2006. Daily estimates of rainfall, water runoff, and soil
erosion in Iowa. J. Soil Water Conserv. 61:191-199.
Dosskey, M.G., M.J. Helmers, D.E. Eisenhauer, T.G. Franti, and
K.D. Hoagland. 2006. A buffer capability index for water quality
planning. J. Soil Water Conserv. 61: 344-354.
Dosskey, M., D. Schultz, and T. Isenhart. 1997. How to design a riparian buffer
for agricultural land. USDA National Agroforestry Center AF Note-4.
Flanagan, D.C, and M.A. Nearing. 1995. Hillslope profile and watershed
model documentation. In “USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project:
Technical Documentation“ NSERL Report No. 10. USDA-Agricultural
Resarch Service National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West
Lafayette, IN.
Gelder, B.K., R.M. Cruse, and A.L. Kaleita. 2008. Automated determination of
management units for precision conservation. J. Soil Water Conserv.
In press.
Gburek, W.J., C.C. Drungil, M.S. Srinivasan, B.A. Needleman, and
D.E. Woodward. 2002. Variable source area controls on phosphorus
transport: Bridging the gap between research and design. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 57:534-543.
Green, C.H., M.D. Tomer, M. DiLuzio, and J. Arnold. 2006.
Hydrologic calibration of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool for a
large tile-drained watershed in Iowa. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.
49:413-422.
Holling, C.S. 1995. “What Barriers? What Bridges?” p. 3-34 In L. H. Gunderson,
C.S. Holing, and S. S. Light (eds.) Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal
of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, NY.

22 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Khanna, M., W. Yang, R. Farnsworth, and H. Onal. 2003. Optimal targeting
of CREP to improve water quality: Determining land rental offers with
endogenous sediment deposition coefficients. Am. J Agric. Econ.
85:538-553.
Liu, Y., W. Yang, and X. Wang. 2007. GIS-based integration of SWAT and
REMM for estimating water quality benefits of riparian buffers in
agricultural watersheds. Trans. ASABE 50:1549-1563.
Los, P., S.H. Anderson, and C.J. Gantzer. 2001. Vegetative barriers for erosion
control. MU Guide G1653, University of Missouri Cooperative
Extension, Columbia.
McCown, R. 2005. New thinking about farmer decision makers. p. 11-44. In
J.L Hatfield, (ed.). The Farmer’s Decision: Balancing Economic
Successful Agriculture Production with Environmental Quality. Soil
Water Conserv. Soc., Ankeny, IA.
Moore, I.D., R.B. Grayson, and A.R. Ladson. 1991. Digital terrain modeling: A
review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications.
Hydrol. Process. 5:3-30.
Morton, L.W. and S. Brown. 2007. Water issues in Iowa: a survey of public
perceptions and attitudes about water. Heartland Regional Water
Coordination Initiative Bulletin #SP290, Iowa State University
Extension www.heartlandwq.iastate.edu; verified 20 March 2008.
Pezzoli, K., R. Marciano, and J. Robertus. 2006. Regionalizing integrated
watershed management: A strategic vision. Assoc. Computing
Machinery International Conf. Proc. Series 151:444-445 (Available at:
superfund.sdsc.edu/documents/digitalwatershed.pdf; verified 20
March 2008.
Tomer, M.D., D.E. James, and T.M. Isenhart. 2003. Optimizing the placement
of riparian practices in a watershed using terrain analysis. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 58:198-206.
Tomer, M.D. 2004. Watershed Management. p. 306-314. In D. Hillel (ed.)
Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment (Vol. 4). Elsevier
Ltd. Oxford, UK.
Tomer, M.D. and D.E. James. 2004. Do soil surveys and terrain analysis
identify similar priority sites for conservation? Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
68:1905-1915.
Trevors, J.T. and M.H. Saier, Jr. 2007. Environmental legislation: A necessity in
preserving our common biosphere? Water Air Soil Pollut. (in press).
USDA-NRCS. 2003. National planning procedures handbook (NPPH),
amendment 4. 600-A-11-2. NRCS. Washington DC. USA.
USDA-NRCS. 2007. NRCS Rapid Watershed Assessments Fact Sheet.
USDA-NRCS, Washington DC. USA. 2 pp. www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/rwa/RWA_Fact_Sheet_Final_5-15-07_8_5x11.pdf : verified 20
March 2008.
Walter, T, M. Dosskey, M. Khanna, J. Miller, M. Tomer, and J. Weins. 2007.
The science of targeting within landscapes and watersheds to improve
conservation effectiveness. p. 63-89. In M. Schnepf and C. Cox (ed.)
Managing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality:
Strengthening the Science Base. Soil Water Conserv. Soc.,
Ankeny, Iowa.

© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.

23
Applying knowledge to improve water quality

A Partnership of USDA CSREES

& Land Grant Colleges and Universities