An Integrated Approach To Precision Conservation Planning In The South Fork Watershed
Richard M. Cruse1, Thomas Paulson1, Seth M. Dabney2, Elena Polush3, Jamie Ridgely4, and Thomas J. Buman4
1Iowa State University; 2USDA‐ARS Oxford, MS; 3Ball State University; and 4Agren, Inc., Carroll, IA
8.8 T/A
2.8 T/A 8.8 T/A
3.6 T/A 10.6 T/A
4.8 T/A 1.6 T/A
5.4 T/A5.4 T/A 8.0 T/A
State Wide Average5.7 T/A/YR
Loss
REST of the STORY
Erosion you see is NOT included!
How to educate stakeholders, engage land managers, and maximize return on
conservation investment?
?
Validate predictions of a recently developed ephemeral gully calculator
Compare predicted ephemeral gully channel locations and properties with ground‐truth observations
Work with ag educators to develop instructional units to educate high‐school FFA students on types of water erosion, erosion control practices, and the water quality benefits associated with precision conservation
Utilize precision conservation planning technologies to target and fully‐plan BMPs for watershed ephemeral gully control
Direct market plans for ephemeral gully control practices to landowners of high‐priority sites
Engage watershed stakeholders in identifying areas of ephemeral gully erosion and planning and installing appropriate best management practices.
Objectives
Combined sheet, rill, and ephemeral gully erosion with no grassed waterway
33 Mg ha-1 y-1 delivered from watershed
Combined sheet, rill, and ephemeral gully erosion with grassed waterway
17 Mg ha-1 y-1 delivered from watershed
Validate predictions of a recently developed ephemeral gully calculator
10
Wirelessrouter Camera
Ground controlpoints
Photography
11
Wirelessrouter
Camera
Ground controlpoints
Photography
13
H. Li
S. Lee
Photogrammetry
ANALYSISPhotoModeler Scanner
OUTPUTPoint cloud
INPUTImage pair
Control points
Profile extraction
15
Field Evaluation
Sediment yield Average: 8.30 Mg ha‐1
0.02 to 30.54 Mg ha‐1
Gully erosion Range: 2.0 to 18.2 Mg ha‐1
Contribution: 19% to 45%
Poesen et al., 2003; Helmers et al., 2012 16
Interpretation
Sediment loss per unit area Field area Fill area
Example 6.6 Mg ephemeral gully erosion Per field area 0.73 ha:9 Mg ha‐1
Per fill area 0.05 ha:136 Mg ha‐1
17
Pre‐erosion
Post Gully Formation
Post Fill
Compare predicted ephemeral gully channel locations and properties with ground‐truth observations obtained using
survey and photogrammetric techniques
Compare predicted ephemeral gully channel locations and properties with ground‐truth observations obtained using
survey and photogrammetric techniques
Of 19 meeting attendees, 11 engaged with conservation planners to assess water way needs
2015 list narrowed to 143 land owners with highest ephemeral gully risk 28 responded 16 working with Land Owner advisor on property assessment
Summer 2015 refine list to 50 land owners Educate on ephemeral gully
Risks Importance of control Control tools and strategies
Engage watershed stakeholders in identifying areas of ephemeral gully erosion and planning and installing
appropriate best management practices.
Two newsletters, postcard invitation, and phone calls were used with 811 landowners to educate them on different forms of erosion and ways to control ephemeral erosion. Landowners were invited to meeting Goal: increase the knowledge and awareness of erosion
sources and control practices in the South Fork Nineteen landowners attended the meeting 11 met with
a conservation planner to assess waterway needs on their property
Direct market plans for ephemeral gully control practices to landowners of high‐priority sites
Developed and implemented a new Precision Conservation Curriculum (Spring 2014 – Spring 2015) With four agricultural education teachers from four partner high
school in the South Fork Watershed Developed Tested Revised
Strong interest in making this curriculum as part of their permanent class structure.
Trained agricultural education teachers for statewide implementation (Iowa) – TRAINING DONE BY PROJECT HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS June 23: Two Curriculum training workshops at the 2015 Summer
Conference of Iowa Association of Agricultural Educators: 65 voluntary attendees
Planted ‘seeds,’ hoping for growth.
Work with ag educators to develop instructional units
Sites Trained. Color indicates willingness to participate in research study.
