Loading…

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

Increasing concerns regarding water quality in the Great Lakes region are mainly due to changes in urban and agricultural landscapes. Both point and non-point sources contribute pollution to Great Lakes surface waters. Best management practices (BMPs) are a common tool used to reduce both point and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of environmental management 2012-07, Vol.103, p.24-40
Main Authors: Giri, Subhasis, Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan, Woznicki, Sean A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c513t-bfe3b6a2624d6878219abca5602173e2ca6b674a0dd9f7b661a09c2191624f2a3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c513t-bfe3b6a2624d6878219abca5602173e2ca6b674a0dd9f7b661a09c2191624f2a3
container_end_page 40
container_issue
container_start_page 24
container_title Journal of environmental management
container_volume 103
creator Giri, Subhasis
Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan
Woznicki, Sean A.
description Increasing concerns regarding water quality in the Great Lakes region are mainly due to changes in urban and agricultural landscapes. Both point and non-point sources contribute pollution to Great Lakes surface waters. Best management practices (BMPs) are a common tool used to reduce both point and non-point source pollution and improve water quality. Meanwhile, identification of critical source areas of pollution and placement of BMPs plays an important role in pollution reduction. The goal of this study is to evaluate the performance of different targeting methods in 1) identifying priority areas (high, medium, and low) based on various factors such as pollutant concentration, load, and yield, 2) comparing pollutant (sediment, total nitrogen-TN, and total phosphorus-TP) reduction in priority areas defined by all targeting methods, 3) determine the BMP relative sensitivity index among all targeting methods. Ten BMPs were implemented in the Saginaw River Watershed using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model following identification of priority areas. Each targeting method selected distinct high priority areas based on the methodology of implementation. The concentration based targeting method was most effective at reduction of TN and TP, likely because it selected the greatest area of high priority for BMP implementation. The subbasin load targeting method was most effective at reducing sediment because it tended to select large, highly agricultural subbasins for BMP implementation. When implementing BMPs, native grass and terraces were generally the most effective, while conservation tillage and residue management had limited effectiveness. The BMP relative sensitivity index revealed that most combinations of targeting methods and priority areas resulted in a proportional decrease in pollutant load from the subbasin level and watershed outlet. However, the concentration and yield methods were more effective at subbasin reduction, while the stream load method was more effective at reducing pollutants at the watershed outlet. The results of this study indicate that emphasis should be placed on selection of the proper targeting method and BMP to meet the needs and goals of a BMP implementation project because different targeting methods produce varying results. ► In this study performance of four targeting methods and 10 control practices were evaluated. ► The concentration based targeting methods were most effective at nutrient reduction. ► The su
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.033
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027673260</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0301479712001090</els_id><sourcerecordid>2659292581</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c513t-bfe3b6a2624d6878219abca5602173e2ca6b674a0dd9f7b661a09c2191624f2a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0V2L1DAUBuAiijuu_gQ1III3HfPRJu3VIsv6AQuC6-JlOE1POyltOibpiP_e1BlX8MaFQCA8OedNTpY9Z3TLKJNvh-2A7jCB23LK-JamJcSDbMNoXeaVFPRhtqGCsrxQtTrLnoQwUEoFZ-pxdsZ5UdZUVpvMXR1gXCDa2ZG5IxF8j9G6nkwYd3MbSDd7Yqf9iBO6eOcaDJGk5tD_Pid7DyZag4FYR-IOyQ301sEP8sUe0JNvENGHHbZPs0cdjAGfnfbz7Pb91dfLj_n15w-fLt9d56ZkIuZNh6KRwCUvWlmpirMaGgOlpCm_QG5ANlIVQNu27lQjJQNam6RYutFxEOfZm2PdvZ-_LymsnmwwOI7gcF6CZpQrqQSX9B6UpR8UFRP3oawUsqI80Vf_0GFevEtvXhUvpaqLIqnyqIyfQ_DY6b23E_ifCa1O6kGfxqzXMWualliDvDhVX5oJ27tbf-aawOsTgGBg7Dw4Y8NfV1ZKMbG6l0fXwayh98nc3qROBU2vTiFVEhdHgWlcB4teB2PRGWytRxN1O9v_hP0FtB7QrA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1012567944</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of targeting methods for implementation of best management practices in the Saginaw River Watershed</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Giri, Subhasis ; Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan ; Woznicki, Sean A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Giri, Subhasis ; Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan ; Woznicki, Sean A.</creatorcontrib><description>Increasing concerns regarding water quality in the Great Lakes region are mainly due to changes in urban and agricultural landscapes. Both point and non-point sources contribute pollution to Great Lakes surface waters. Best management practices (BMPs) are a common tool used to reduce both point and non-point source pollution and improve water quality. Meanwhile, identification of critical source areas of pollution and placement of BMPs plays an important role in pollution reduction. The goal of this study is to evaluate the performance of different targeting methods in 1) identifying priority areas (high, medium, and low) based on various factors such as pollutant concentration, load, and yield, 2) comparing pollutant (sediment, total nitrogen-TN, and total phosphorus-TP) reduction in priority areas defined by all targeting methods, 3) determine the BMP relative sensitivity index among all targeting methods. Ten BMPs were implemented in the Saginaw River Watershed using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model following identification of priority areas. Each targeting method selected distinct high priority areas based on the methodology of implementation. The concentration based targeting method was most effective at reduction of TN and TP, likely because it selected the greatest area of high priority for BMP implementation. The subbasin load targeting method was most effective at reducing sediment because it tended to select large, highly agricultural subbasins for BMP implementation. When implementing BMPs, native grass and terraces were generally the most effective, while conservation tillage and residue management had limited effectiveness. The BMP relative sensitivity index revealed that most combinations of targeting methods and priority areas resulted in a proportional decrease in pollutant load from the subbasin level and watershed outlet. However, the concentration and yield methods were more effective at subbasin reduction, while the stream load method was more effective at reducing pollutants at the watershed outlet. The results of this study indicate that emphasis should be placed on selection of the proper targeting method and BMP to meet the needs and goals of a BMP implementation project because different targeting methods produce varying results. ► In this study performance of four targeting methods and 10 control practices were evaluated. ► The concentration based targeting methods were most effective at nutrient reduction. ► The subbasin load targeting method was most effective at reducing sediment. ► The concentration and yield methods are more effective at pollution reduction at subbasins. ► The stream load method is more effective at reducing pollutants at the watershed outlet.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-4797</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-8630</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.033</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22459068</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JEVMAW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Best management practice ; best management practices ; Best practice ; Biological and medical sciences ; conservation tillage ; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ; Critical source area ; Environmental Monitoring - methods ; Fresh water ecosystems ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Great Lakes Region ; indigenous species ; landscapes ; Management ; Methodology ; Methods ; nonpoint source pollution ; point source pollution ; Pollutants ; Pollution abatement ; Pollution control ; pollution load ; Priorities ; Reduction ; Relative sensitivity index ; Rivers ; Saginaw River Watershed ; Soil and Water Assessment Tool model ; Strategic planning ; Stream pollution ; surface water ; Synecology ; Targeting method ; U.S.A ; Water conservation ; Water management ; Water pollution ; Water Pollution - analysis ; Water Quality ; Watershed management ; Watersheds</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental management, 2012-07, Vol.103, p.24-40</ispartof><rights>2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Academic Press Ltd. Jul 30, 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c513t-bfe3b6a2624d6878219abca5602173e2ca6b674a0dd9f7b661a09c2191624f2a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c513t-bfe3b6a2624d6878219abca5602173e2ca6b674a0dd9f7b661a09c2191624f2a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,33222,33223</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25877138$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22459068$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Giri, Subhasis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woznicki, Sean A.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of targeting methods for implementation of best management practices in the Saginaw River Watershed</title><title>Journal of environmental management</title><addtitle>J Environ Manage</addtitle><description>Increasing concerns regarding water quality in the Great Lakes region are mainly due to changes in urban and agricultural landscapes. Both point and non-point sources contribute pollution to Great Lakes surface waters. Best management practices (BMPs) are a common tool used to reduce both point and non-point source pollution and improve water quality. Meanwhile, identification of critical source areas of pollution and placement of BMPs plays an important role in pollution reduction. The goal of this study is to evaluate the performance of different targeting methods in 1) identifying priority areas (high, medium, and low) based on various factors such as pollutant concentration, load, and yield, 2) comparing pollutant (sediment, total nitrogen-TN, and total phosphorus-TP) reduction in priority areas defined by all targeting methods, 3) determine the BMP relative sensitivity index among all targeting methods. Ten BMPs were implemented in the Saginaw River Watershed using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model following identification of priority areas. Each targeting method selected distinct high priority areas based on the methodology of implementation. The concentration based targeting method was most effective at reduction of TN and TP, likely because it selected the greatest area of high priority for BMP implementation. The subbasin load targeting method was most effective at reducing sediment because it tended to select large, highly agricultural subbasins for BMP implementation. When implementing BMPs, native grass and terraces were generally the most effective, while conservation tillage and residue management had limited effectiveness. The BMP relative sensitivity index revealed that most combinations of targeting methods and priority areas resulted in a proportional decrease in pollutant load from the subbasin level and watershed outlet. However, the concentration and yield methods were more effective at subbasin reduction, while the stream load method was more effective at reducing pollutants at the watershed outlet. The results of this study indicate that emphasis should be placed on selection of the proper targeting method and BMP to meet the needs and goals of a BMP implementation project because different targeting methods produce varying results. ► In this study performance of four targeting methods and 10 control practices were evaluated. ► The concentration based targeting methods were most effective at nutrient reduction. ► The subbasin load targeting method was most effective at reducing sediment. ► The concentration and yield methods are more effective at pollution reduction at subbasins. ► The stream load method is more effective at reducing pollutants at the watershed outlet.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Best management practice</subject><subject>best management practices</subject><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>conservation tillage</subject><subject>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</subject><subject>Critical source area</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Fresh water ecosystems</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Great Lakes Region</subject><subject>indigenous species</subject><subject>landscapes</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>nonpoint source pollution</subject><subject>point source pollution</subject><subject>Pollutants</subject><subject>Pollution abatement</subject><subject>Pollution control</subject><subject>pollution load</subject><subject>Priorities</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Relative sensitivity index</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Saginaw River Watershed</subject><subject>Soil and Water Assessment Tool model</subject><subject>Strategic planning</subject><subject>Stream pollution</subject><subject>surface water</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><subject>Targeting method</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>Water conservation</subject><subject>Water management</subject><subject>Water pollution</subject><subject>Water Pollution - analysis</subject><subject>Water Quality</subject><subject>Watershed management</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><issn>0301-4797</issn><issn>1095-8630</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0V2L1DAUBuAiijuu_gQ1III3HfPRJu3VIsv6AQuC6-JlOE1POyltOibpiP_e1BlX8MaFQCA8OedNTpY9Z3TLKJNvh-2A7jCB23LK-JamJcSDbMNoXeaVFPRhtqGCsrxQtTrLnoQwUEoFZ-pxdsZ5UdZUVpvMXR1gXCDa2ZG5IxF8j9G6nkwYd3MbSDd7Yqf9iBO6eOcaDJGk5tD_Pid7DyZag4FYR-IOyQ301sEP8sUe0JNvENGHHbZPs0cdjAGfnfbz7Pb91dfLj_n15w-fLt9d56ZkIuZNh6KRwCUvWlmpirMaGgOlpCm_QG5ANlIVQNu27lQjJQNam6RYutFxEOfZm2PdvZ-_LymsnmwwOI7gcF6CZpQrqQSX9B6UpR8UFRP3oawUsqI80Vf_0GFevEtvXhUvpaqLIqnyqIyfQ_DY6b23E_ifCa1O6kGfxqzXMWualliDvDhVX5oJ27tbf-aawOsTgGBg7Dw4Y8NfV1ZKMbG6l0fXwayh98nc3qROBU2vTiFVEhdHgWlcB4teB2PRGWytRxN1O9v_hP0FtB7QrA</recordid><startdate>20120730</startdate><enddate>20120730</enddate><creator>Giri, Subhasis</creator><creator>Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan</creator><creator>Woznicki, Sean A.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Academic Press Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120730</creationdate><title>Evaluation of targeting methods for implementation of best management practices in the Saginaw River Watershed</title><author>Giri, Subhasis ; Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan ; Woznicki, Sean A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c513t-bfe3b6a2624d6878219abca5602173e2ca6b674a0dd9f7b661a09c2191624f2a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Best management practice</topic><topic>best management practices</topic><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>conservation tillage</topic><topic>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</topic><topic>Critical source area</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Fresh water ecosystems</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Great Lakes Region</topic><topic>indigenous species</topic><topic>landscapes</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>nonpoint source pollution</topic><topic>point source pollution</topic><topic>Pollutants</topic><topic>Pollution abatement</topic><topic>Pollution control</topic><topic>pollution load</topic><topic>Priorities</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Relative sensitivity index</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Saginaw River Watershed</topic><topic>Soil and Water Assessment Tool model</topic><topic>Strategic planning</topic><topic>Stream pollution</topic><topic>surface water</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><topic>Targeting method</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>Water conservation</topic><topic>Water management</topic><topic>Water pollution</topic><topic>Water Pollution - analysis</topic><topic>Water Quality</topic><topic>Watershed management</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Giri, Subhasis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woznicki, Sean A.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of environmental management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Giri, Subhasis</au><au>Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan</au><au>Woznicki, Sean A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of targeting methods for implementation of best management practices in the Saginaw River Watershed</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental management</jtitle><addtitle>J Environ Manage</addtitle><date>2012-07-30</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>103</volume><spage>24</spage><epage>40</epage><pages>24-40</pages><issn>0301-4797</issn><eissn>1095-8630</eissn><coden>JEVMAW</coden><abstract>Increasing concerns regarding water quality in the Great Lakes region are mainly due to changes in urban and agricultural landscapes. Both point and non-point sources contribute pollution to Great Lakes surface waters. Best management practices (BMPs) are a common tool used to reduce both point and non-point source pollution and improve water quality. Meanwhile, identification of critical source areas of pollution and placement of BMPs plays an important role in pollution reduction. The goal of this study is to evaluate the performance of different targeting methods in 1) identifying priority areas (high, medium, and low) based on various factors such as pollutant concentration, load, and yield, 2) comparing pollutant (sediment, total nitrogen-TN, and total phosphorus-TP) reduction in priority areas defined by all targeting methods, 3) determine the BMP relative sensitivity index among all targeting methods. Ten BMPs were implemented in the Saginaw River Watershed using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model following identification of priority areas. Each targeting method selected distinct high priority areas based on the methodology of implementation. The concentration based targeting method was most effective at reduction of TN and TP, likely because it selected the greatest area of high priority for BMP implementation. The subbasin load targeting method was most effective at reducing sediment because it tended to select large, highly agricultural subbasins for BMP implementation. When implementing BMPs, native grass and terraces were generally the most effective, while conservation tillage and residue management had limited effectiveness. The BMP relative sensitivity index revealed that most combinations of targeting methods and priority areas resulted in a proportional decrease in pollutant load from the subbasin level and watershed outlet. However, the concentration and yield methods were more effective at subbasin reduction, while the stream load method was more effective at reducing pollutants at the watershed outlet. The results of this study indicate that emphasis should be placed on selection of the proper targeting method and BMP to meet the needs and goals of a BMP implementation project because different targeting methods produce varying results. ► In this study performance of four targeting methods and 10 control practices were evaluated. ► The concentration based targeting methods were most effective at nutrient reduction. ► The subbasin load targeting method was most effective at reducing sediment. ► The concentration and yield methods are more effective at pollution reduction at subbasins. ► The stream load method is more effective at reducing pollutants at the watershed outlet.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>22459068</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.033</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0301-4797
ispartof Journal of environmental management, 2012-07, Vol.103, p.24-40
issn 0301-4797
1095-8630
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027673260
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024
subjects Animal and plant ecology
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Applied ecology
Best management practice
best management practices
Best practice
Biological and medical sciences
conservation tillage
Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife
Critical source area
Environmental Monitoring - methods
Fresh water ecosystems
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General aspects
Great Lakes Region
indigenous species
landscapes
Management
Methodology
Methods
nonpoint source pollution
point source pollution
Pollutants
Pollution abatement
Pollution control
pollution load
Priorities
Reduction
Relative sensitivity index
Rivers
Saginaw River Watershed
Soil and Water Assessment Tool model
Strategic planning
Stream pollution
surface water
Synecology
Targeting method
U.S.A
Water conservation
Water management
Water pollution
Water Pollution - analysis
Water Quality
Watershed management
Watersheds
title Evaluation of targeting methods for implementation of best management practices in the Saginaw River Watershed
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T01%3A44%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20targeting%20methods%20for%20implementation%20of%20best%20management%20practices%20in%20the%20Saginaw%20River%20Watershed&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20management&rft.au=Giri,%20Subhasis&rft.date=2012-07-30&rft.volume=103&rft.spage=24&rft.epage=40&rft.pages=24-40&rft.issn=0301-4797&rft.eissn=1095-8630&rft.coden=JEVMAW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.033&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2659292581%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c513t-bfe3b6a2624d6878219abca5602173e2ca6b674a0dd9f7b661a09c2191624f2a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1012567944&rft_id=info:pmid/22459068&rfr_iscdi=true