Analysis of Sediment Basin Siting Locations using Components of the

Ecological Ranking Tool and the Agricultural Conservation Planning

Framework in a Sub-Watershed of Garvin Brook, Winona County,
Minnesota USA

Eric Lindberg, Resource Analysis, September, 2016

Objective
Assess site locations for implementation of Sediment
Basin conservation practices based on terrain analysis of
a LiDAR base DEM, soil loss risk calculation of erosive
areas, and proposed locations proximity to perennial
streams.
What is a sediment basin?
Asediment basinis a pond or basin constructed with the
intent of retaining eroding or disturbed soil found in
runoff. They are often used to protect the water quality
of proximate waters. Retained/Detained sediment-laden
water enters the basin and the sediment settles prior to

Study Area

Study Area
DNR Level 7 Sub-Watershed
(40029)
Portion of Larger Lower
Mississippi Watershed &
Local HUC12 Garvin Brook
Watershed, Winona County,
Minnesota USA
Under authority of the
Stockton-RollingstoneMinnesota City Watershed
District
average
-

9,809 Acres
15 square miles
Slope is 16.8%
58% is over 6% slope

Methods
Methodology is based on terrain analysis.
Terrain Analysis is a collection and study of terrain and terrain
based attributes based upon a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the
landscape.
Based on a 1 meter level LiDAR based Digital Elevation Model
(DEM)
A freeware toolset called the Agriculture Conservation Planning
Framework is used at length to establish primary terrain
attributes.
The DEM is clipped to the study area and spatial analyst tools such
as the ACPF are utilized to produce primary terrain attributes.

Methods - LiDAR
LiDAR data are created by sending rapid laser light pulses from
overflying aircraft towards ground locations and measuring the
distance or range with advanced Global Positioning System (GPS)
receiving devices.
Plotted return data are recorded to produce highly accurate
elevation readings which are processed into increasingly accurate
DEM data.
Terrain analysis and modeling techniques dependent on
topographic detection are direct beneficiaries of the advanced
resolution and accuracy of improved LiDAR technologies. The
resulting DEM can be stored and manipulated within a GIS.
This study uses the most advanced 1-meter LiDAR as made

Methods
Primary Terrain Attributes produced by the ACPF which
are essential to this study included
Elevation
Slope
Flow Direction
Flow Accumulation
Stream Networks

Methods
Assess risk of erosivity by utilizing terrain analysis
specifically Stream Power Index to delineate and
analyze watersheds or pointsheds within the larger
subwatershed.
Pointsheds delineated will be primarily agricultural
drainage paths where conservation practice is most
impactful.
Pointsheds are delineated from the highest 1% of
Stream Power Index measured point signatures.
Once delineated, 3 components from the Minnesota DNR

3 Components of the Ecological

Ranking Tool
1. Stream Power Index (SPI) Values
2. Sediment Loss delivered to drainage outlet as
modeled by
the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE)
3. Created Sedimentation Basin Priority Zones
flow distance
proximity to perennial streams
Create Tables/Map of Prioritized hierarchy of proposed
sediment basin locations based on weighted relative

Data
Winona County Planning
Department

Minnesota Geospatial
Commons

Hydrologically conditioned DEMs

1-meter filled and 1-meter unfilled
Garvin Brook HUC12 buffered
watershed
Existing sediment basin polygon
shapefile

Minnesota DNR level 7 minor

watershed feature class
Web Mapping Service (WMS) aerial
imagery
Minnesota roads layer polyline
shapefile

ACPF Data

NRCS Gateway / Data Viewer

6.2

Field boundary polygon feature class

2014 National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) crop data layer

Soil Survey Geographic Database

(SSURGO) soil unit shapefile
Microsoft Access soil table data
National Agriculture Imagery Program

Data Prep - Hydrologically Conditioned Digital

Elevation Model

Yellow Line ---- represents

the original stream flow
path from LiDAR derived
data.
Roadway and Ditches from
aerial vantage points
determine flow path.
Manual Cuts (as shown in
red) must be burned into
the Digital Elevation Model
for Culverts, Bridges, and
other subterranean
elevation changes.

Agricultural Field
Data
Ag Fields data was retrieved
from ACPF database.
A desktop review of parcels
revealed Ag related fields
were missed.
An additional 45 fields
amounting to 450 acres were
added to the original field
shapefile.
A 60 meter buffer of
agricultural field boundaries

The SPI is a secondary attribute measure of erosive power in

flowing water (Moore, Grayson, and Ladson, 1991). It is the product
of flow accumulation and slope and according to (Maathuis and
Wang, 2006) can be used to identify siting locations for
conservation practices to reduce concentrated surface flow. SPI
was calculated as:

SPI = ln((FA + .001) * (Slope + .

001))

Where:

FA is the flow accumulation

Slope is measured as percent

Blufftop
Field
Slope &
Ravines

The study area

encompasses over 39
million 1-meter cells
and each cell has a SPI
signature value.
This cutout area
illustrates SPI
signatures for every
cell.

In high-relief areas,
the top 1% or 2% of
SPI signature values
are considered
significant. A sample
was arrayed to
determine threshold
values. Values over
11.48 were
determined to
represent the top 1%
of values.
SPI signatures in
color (as in this
cutout) represent

SPI Point
Created
Near
intersection

SPI signatures
draining
agricultural
fields are
selected and
points are
manually
created near
intersections
with higher
order streams.
Snapping was
attempted but

Pointsheds or
watersheds were
delineated for
contributing
upstream areas
draining through
the SPI point.

3 Components of the Ecological

Ranking Tool
1. Stream Power Index (SPI) Values
2.Sediment Loss delivered to drainage
outlet as modeled
by the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
3.Created Sedimentation Basin Priority
Zones flow
distance proximity to
perennial streams

SPI Points
SPI points are
mapped with all
corresponding
pointshed areas.
There are 163 SPI
points and
pointsheds with
corresponding
attribute data.

Pointsheds (Yellow
boundary ---) were
clipped by a field
boundary buffer to
determine the on/near
field areas most subject
to rill and interrill
erosion.
Pointshed clipped
polygons (red) became
the areas used to
measure rill and interrill
soils detachment with the

RUSLE is the Revised Universal Soil

Loss Equation
An empiracle formula for measuring soil detachment
based on 6 factors.
and appears as:

A = R * K * LS * C * P

Where:
A is the amount of erosion for the specified field slope measure
in tons/acre/year
R represents the rainfall erosivity factor
K is the soil erodibility factor
LS is the combined product of slope length and slope steepness

R-Factor
R-Factor represents the
rainfall and overall
precipitation effect on
erosivity. Climatological
research reveals historic and
average precipitation both on
annual and daily averages as
well as storm intensity.
NRCS publishes iso-erodent
maps with R-Factor values.
While Minnesota variation and
extreme R-Factor values are
not as high as other regions of
the country, Winona County

K-Factor
The K-Factor represents the
propensity of the soil to erode
as a result of its structure.
37 different soil types in the
subwatershed. Silt loam soil
types which are highly erodible
are predominant.
Seaton Silt Loam makes up
29.7% of soil
Mt. Carroll Silt Loam occurs at
18.4%
La Crescent Silt Loam occurs at
13.2%

LS-Factor L-Factor portion

Measure of effect of slope length
The L-Factor or length of slope is predicated on the
observation erosion increases as length increases
(Renard, Weesies, McCool, and Yoder, 1997).
The length of slope is measured from the origin of
overland flow to either the point at which gradient
causes deposition or the point where runoff has become
concentrated in a channel Renard et al. (1997)
Wischmeier and Smith; 1978.
Ratio of observed soil-loss compared to observed soil

LS-Factor S-Factor portion

Measure of effect of slope steepness on erosivity.
The soil loss at the measured slope is compared to loss
at the unit plot standard of 9%.
Formulas differ for calculating the slope factor
depending on whether actual slope is more or less than
9% and alternatively based upon the shape of the slope
(Renard et al., 1997).
Slope steepness effects erosivity to a larger degree
than slope length

LS-Factor

Where:

FA = flow accumulation
m = modifying factor (.4 for
croplands)
n = modifying factor (1.4 for
croplands)

Crop Data
Layer

Vegetative cover both native and agricultural are

converted to a factor raster for their effect on the
erosivity of the landscape. Row crops such as corn
and soybeans have the highest C-factor as 0.2
whereas natural areas have much lower C-Factors.

Credit: PTMapp Users

Guide
(Houston Engineering,

C-Factor
Agricultural Row Crops appear
in Green and Light Green and
dominate the non-sloping
landscape. Sloped areas in the
study area often have natural
and mostly deciduous cover
which is primarily located
within the brown hues.
Agriculturally productive areas
prone to higher erosion can be
managed with cover crops
between rows and seasonally
when agricultural coverage is
low.

P-Factor
P-Factor represents the net
effect of farming practices.
Seasonal timing and
methodology of planting/till
factors as well as conservation
practices culminate in a net
effect on erosivity risk. A
smaller field level area study
would involve significant efforts
to document recent practices. In
a larger study area such as subwatershed level, consistent and
accurate spatial calculation of

RUSLE alone is a field scale model and cannot solely be used to estimate the amount of
sediment reaching the downstream area since eroded soil may get deposited during
transport to the outlet. To account for these processes, the Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR)
for a watershed should be used to estimate total sediment transported to the watershed
outlet (Lim, Sagong, Engel, Tang, Choi, and Kim, 2005). The SDR is expressed as:

SDR = SY / E
Where:

SDR = sediment delivery ratio

SY = sediment yield
E = gross erosion for entire watershed

The following SDR formula was utilized for determining the Sediment Delivery Ratio

-0.125

SDR = .0472 A
(Lim et al., 2005)

Where:

SDR = sediment delivery ratio

3 Components of the Ecological

Ranking Tool
1. Stream Power Index (SPI) Values
2.Sediment Loss delivered to drainage
outlet as modeled
by the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
3.Created Sedimentation Basin Priority
Zones flow
distance proximity to
perennial streams

Application of the SDR ratio and

zonal statistics reveal an amount
of estimated sediment both
detached and delivered to the
pointshed outlet on an annual
average.
The amount of sediment tonnage
delivered is highest in the red and
orange which are the largest
pointsheds by area. Secondarily,
slope variablility is a contributing
factor to increased sediment
delivery.

The SPI signatures

were vectorized (purple
and red). The SPI
signature found within
the Field Boundary
Zone (in red) was
buffered to determine a
priority zone (black) for
sediment basin
placement in field edge
and/or off field
locations.
Pointsheds could
contain many or one
main sediment basin

Ag Ring
Buffer

Zonal Max
SPI Value
SPI Buffer

A zonal maximum value

for SPI is located within
the Ag Ring Buffer and
SPI Buffer confluence.
This point coincides
with the strongest and
most downstream SPI
measured value within
each sediment basin
priority zone. This
point is hereafter used
to represent the closest
possible proximity of a
sediment basin to
downstream flow and is
used in determining the
starting point for the
distance of flow to the
perennial stream.

3 Components of the Ecological

Ranking Tool
1. Stream Power Index (SPI) Values
2.Sediment Loss delivered to drainage
outlet as modeled
by the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
3.Created Sedimentation Basin Priority
Zones flow
distance proximity to
perennial streams

The perennial stream or wet flow

area is represented in blue.
Points created at the SPI
maximum downstream point
were utilized to represent the
closest proximity of proposed
sediment basins. The closer
contributing flows are to the
perennial stream, the higher the
risk potential for sediment
entering the perennial stream.
Distance between the strongest
SPI signatures and perennial
stream as measured by the ACPF
toolset was determined by
meandering flow length rather
than Euclidean distance.

Relative
Ranking:

The values from the RUSLE sediment loss risk model, and SPI for water
quality assessment were ranked in relativity for catchments within the
watershed with the following formula:

Where:

Z is rank defined (0-1)

X is the population values

For the distance to stream the inverse is used to rank locations. Lowest
distances to the stream are representative of the highest risk values
while higher distances represent decreasing risk as determined with the
following formula:

Weighted Value Scoring of the 3

Components
of the Ecological Ranking Tool
1. Stream Power Index (SPI) Values X 50
2.Sediment Loss delivered to drainage
outlet as modeled
by the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) X 100
3.Created Sedimentation Basin Priority
Zones flow
distance proximity to

SPI Score
Stream Power Index (SPI)
Score from 0-50.
As such, each point has
been assigned a unique
rank relative to the other
point signatures.
SPI represents 25%
weighted contribution to
the total Ecological
Ranking Score.

RUSLE SDR Score

RUSLE SDR scored at (0100) is the highest
weighted factor
comprising 50% of the
Total Ecological Ranking
score. While raw tonnage
is used to determine the
highest delivered
sediment. The weighted
score is a relative
calculation allowing the
user to compare
pointsheds within the

Distance to
Stream Score
Distance to Stream Score
from 0-50.
As such, each point has
been assigned a unique
rank relative to the other
points.
Distance to Stream
represents 25% weighted
contribution to the total

Total Ecological
Ranking Tool Score
Finally the Ecological Ranking
Score totals are attributed to the
proposed sediment basin priority
zone for each pointshed by
primary key. The scores resulted
in a range from 7.8 to 169.3.
Conservation Managers and
Agricultural Producers can use
this map and related tables as a
tool to manage future sediment
basin siting as well as inventory
existing basin coverage with the

Sediment Damming can be one of the more

simple and least intensive methods of
establishing sediment basins. Damming
typically involves earthen fill to block erosive
flows to basins to allow sediment settling and
either controlled release of runoff through
standpipes or more permanent catchment with
evaporative/leaching release.
The Agriculture Conservation Practices
Framework tools were modified to search for
proposed sediment damming locations.
Search criteria included:
Search catchments ranging from 2 to 100
acres in size
Search along SPI signatures at 13.7-meter (45
foot) intervals to test for sediment basin
siting.
Existing soil profiles to ensure left and right
embankment heights of at least 3 meters with
60 meters of SPI signatures.
Testing of basin creation areas to determine if

Illustrative cutout area

shows comparison of
known existing basins and
proposed ranked areas for
sediment basin
implementation and
damming.
Cutout
Area

A cutout example of an
agricultural bluff-top field
with existing sediment
pond/basin location (in light
blue) in relation to predictive
potential sediment dam
locations (in black) and
within ranked sediment
priority zones (green, yellow,
orange).
In this example (3) existing
sediment basin ponds are
visible and are located within
sediment basin priority
zones with orange as high
ranking potential locations.
Proposed sediment damming

Results
High and Very High Risk Locations Table
45 locations are ranked at Very High or
High

IXP - Priority Zones intersecting

existing basins

PWI30 - Priority Zones within 30

meters of existing basins

SedDam Supporting terrain exists for

sedimentation damming within priority
zone

OBJID
23
49
102
89
88
91
126
132
8
78
24
73
43
21
82
47
37
77
25
16
63
60
57
153
32
38
74
129
71
108
40

Gridcode
503
1325
2609
2462
2320
2512
2640
2647
160
2160
595
2069
1147
397
2273
1293
984
2102
604
305
1827
1786
1707
2807
871
989
2075
2644
1975
2618
1065

Rating
VERY HIGH
VERY HIGH
VERY HIGH
VERY HIGH
VERY HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH

TotalRank
169.3
156.4
150.4
149.9
140.6
134.3
133.3
131.4
130.7
129.3
128.5
126.4
124.2
122.9
119.8
119.0
117.5
117.3
115.6
115.1
114.8
114.5
113.8
113.8
113.0
112.9
112.2
112.0
112.0
111.6
111.6

SPI_50
39.73
45.43
38.05
50.00
44.54
43.20
36.83
30.71
43.81
47.27
43.29
43.04
32.48
49.40
44.75
33.39
30.09
41.14
32.71
29.58
38.98
48.45
35.40
41.62
42.17
40.60
42.12
41.84
44.18
46.61
42.02

SDR_100
100.00
84.28
79.38
52.97
48.35
64.13
75.11
64.70
39.26
37.70
47.93
33.36
45.76
34.72
39.21
48.98
53.25
39.37
50.79
50.40
51.56
23.74
37.85
36.67
28.24
35.21
45.23
32.37
32.40
29.23
33.02

D2S_50
29.54
26.65
33.01
46.91
47.73
26.94
21.34
35.96
47.64
44.33
37.24
50.00
46.00
38.73
35.79
36.60
34.14
36.75
32.07
35.15
24.29
42.30
40.56
35.51
42.62
37.04
24.84
37.80
35.42
35.76
36.55

IXP
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES

PWI30
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES

SedDam
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

X_UTM
594825.605282
594787.946362
592367.475346
593851.287786
593164.623649
594769.017585
593476.728400
595457.095829
595039.932446
594698.581711
594166.402628
593509.521367
594746.858240
595682.582397
594733.034036
592736.477906
596755.898189
596396.704333
597508.260775
595867.567755
595038.858407
594317.701395
592912.494220
596144.832276
595751.808322
594888.514386
597966.141717
595908.375032
597365.483936
595392.996313
595837.080578

Y_UTM
4869682.04197
4875803.72604
4872245.12772
4872824.21639
4872783.84342
4875277.91451
4870181.00150
4870017.00029
4871116.70861
4871802.72310
4873488.00868
4872212.95698
4873043.90104
4873945.21539
4873474.79940
4872991.23092
4873221.47780
4874825.31954
4873923.16060
4871396.11700
4874450.60159
4873213.04615
4872781.31976
4871586.05171
4872024.28065
4873692.37352
4873674.59554
4872481.98420
4873516.19537
4875527.12391
4874200.51991

OBJID
20
97
52
70
31
157
148
26
145
103
66
98
152
42
114
104
9
44
61
85
113
124
28
127
75
99
90
55
4
130
59
135

Gridcode
394
2578
1385
1963
844
2899
2673
640
2661
2611
1884
2604
2802
1133
2624
2612
203
1167
1802
2292
2623
2638
741
2642
2083
2605
2507
1595
92
2645
1773
2650

Rating
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE

TotalRank
111.0
110.0
109.7
108.8
107.2
107.0
105.3
104.9
104.2
103.5
103.2
101.4
101.2
100.3
99.6
99.4
99.3
98.7
98.0
97.4
97.4
97.2
96.7
96.4
95.6
95.4
94.9
94.8
93.9
93.9
93.2
93.2

SPI_50
38.06
17.83
37.22
36.47
24.99
42.58
34.04
41.41
41.37
39.25
46.42
43.17
39.25
20.11
40.51
37.77
26.94
41.55
35.05
34.62
33.81
35.45
44.69
30.35
33.17
40.04
36.91
18.77
37.68
29.02
30.32
40.91

SDR_100
31.50
69.16
43.84
30.10
39.23
34.07
39.58
37.93
21.30
14.44
29.58
22.58
27.46
38.82
18.75
19.40
30.91
30.61
21.37
14.05
45.08
25.19
12.68
26.02
23.51
38.26
18.04
26.26
20.32
37.44
14.91
41.87

D2S_50
41.46
23.02
28.61
42.20
42.93
30.32
31.70
25.54
41.57
49.83
27.23
35.64
34.46
41.40
40.30
42.22
41.42
26.49
41.63
48.69
18.47
36.53
39.33
40.03
38.91
17.07
39.95
49.80
35.90
27.42
48.00
10.39

IXP
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES

PWI30
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES

SedDam
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

X_UTM
598253.652728
593676.576627
596694.138372
595817.155773
592937.962647
595348.634133
596777.791995
596691.553558
598138.683074
593646.151545
594120.636588
595693.947336
593816.494599
596161.247367
597053.775634
595059.102922
595227.745588
596935.448165
594689.026184
593859.046521
596675.670252
595976.414582
595854.833950
595848.286066
592720.521083
594408.990135
597293.916458
593502.747562
594549.648839
596306.650113
595542.672180
595066.572817

Y_UTM
4874780.25619
4870094.60715
4876620.21539
4870882.16150
4872396.26671
4874586.59869
4872994.67570
4876908.89680
4874737.68510
4872350.62204
4871297.57819
4874741.45474
4873541.67686
4874351.50847
4876027.98387
4873180.24016
4870196.90767
4872664.76909
4870823.47510
4872280.28027
4877378.04287
4871753.34852
4876039.75549
4870666.28157
4872408.18437
4874436.14037
4875961.40115
4872516.02691
4870241.35056
4872675.96429
4871558.04813
4876908.77006

OBJID
46
62
146
15
141
7
79
83
22
2
115
36
76
58
111
53
142
100
5
54
84
56
1
72
131
151
158
112
144
13
86
48
116

Gridcode
1246
1818
2662
295
2656
125
2166
2279
471
37
2626
892
2095
1742
2621
1492
2658
2606
101
1506
2285
1623
18
1990
2646
2798
2909
2622
2660
256
2309
1296
2627

Rating
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE

TotalRank
93.0
91.5
91.4
91.2
91.1
90.9
90.2
90.1
89.7
89.6
89.3
88.8
88.7
88.6
88.1
87.5
87.0
86.9
86.3
85.9
85.5
85.5
85.3
83.8
83.8
83.3
83.1
82.9
82.2
78.7
76.8
76.7
75.0

SPI_50
43.55
38.23
41.95
16.34
37.44
38.28
30.76
36.43
36.10
28.31
40.16
43.49
35.43
27.64
33.17
35.15
37.57
39.15
37.12
25.16
31.24
39.73
33.12
44.64
31.58
34.22
32.25
39.09
25.73
25.79
32.39
31.50
26.85

SDR_100
21.71
11.27
7.36
28.29
14.63
20.58
12.16
42.64
34.14
20.46
7.78
10.38
11.33
26.77
22.14
19.71
15.09
34.34
20.01
21.75
28.05
9.68
15.77
1.52
29.11
9.43
15.80
2.53
13.16
20.22
18.69
7.79
4.55

D2S_50
27.76
41.96
42.10
46.54
39.04
31.99
47.23
11.00
19.45
40.80
41.38
34.92
41.96
34.17
32.81
32.60
34.36
13.39
29.12
38.97
26.25
36.12
36.38
37.63
23.09
39.67
35.03
41.27
43.34
32.64
25.67
37.37
43.64

IXP
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

PWI30
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

SedDam
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES

X_UTM
595262.000569
594634.397454
596141.259834
594883.993340
598514.985295
594151.678232
594489.102545
595323.080848
595792.090397
594928.278275
596090.354038
597925.114399
594984.842735
597484.889162
596798.199436
594678.676128
597418.922784
594054.540200
594082.337648
595927.057815
597839.013346
594341.580859
593756.484502
595576.918139
596474.734015
596059.942501
594872.208619
596107.380271
597877.562393
593674.430210
595047.954966
595433.555644
595615.947687

Y_UTM
4874030.71639
4872250.38265
4875056.16557
4871970.83604
4874680.45469
4870721.11585
4873079.31066
4877334.76027
4877137.36322
4870476.51693
4873174.51103
4874307.40392
4872220.22307
4873235.17897
4876381.40701
4869995.25350
4874248.74806
4874309.30989
4871714.63671
4874805.47356
4873748.60106
4872116.29301
4873184.38719
4872403.90965
4872138.26070
4874896.75045
4870201.20172
4875965.51969
4874736.24652
4873540.97705
4876291.50080
4875182.80672
4872647.36580

OBJID
150
92
149
123
107
95
120
155
93
101
133
140
159
6
10
106
87
156
143
134
154
34
122
109
96
41
27
110
30
29
119
139

Gridcode
2756
2514
2740
2636
2617
2545
2633
2854
2527
2607
2648
2655
2913
111
220
2615
2312
2866
2659
2649
2814
877
2635
2619
2549
1125
715
2620
823
795
2632
2654

Rating
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW

TotalRank
74.5
74.3
74.2
74.0
73.9
71.9
71.5
71.0
70.9
70.4
70.4
69.7
69.4
69.3
68.7
68.2
67.6
67.5
67.1
66.9
66.7
66.3
66.2
65.7
65.5
65.4
65.4
64.7
64.5
64.1
63.6
63.3

SPI_50
24.94
30.54
26.43
23.33
28.56
28.33
39.03
24.86
27.64
29.53
31.97
29.49
33.66
31.24
30.39
25.08
31.98
32.20
19.00
25.16
33.05
25.69
35.76
33.16
28.49
14.76
21.36
28.46
26.25
37.81
37.64
21.59

SDR_100
19.30
5.79
7.71
9.13
9.35
4.21
14.42
18.54
23.34
31.80
1.03
1.70
24.10
30.30
8.32
17.57
10.86
16.05
8.55
1.81
20.16
9.79
10.97
0.00
6.64
19.61
14.85
5.48
9.75
10.99
3.90
3.62

D2S_50
30.30
37.95
40.02
41.56
35.94
39.39
18.06
27.63
19.88
9.10
37.36
38.50
11.67
7.79
29.95
25.53
24.72
19.26
39.59
39.94
13.45
30.79
19.43
32.52
30.39
31.08
29.19
30.75
28.49
15.34
22.09
38.04

IXP
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

PWI30
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

SedDam
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES

X_UTM
594906.041204
597844.092001
595906.855480
594604.315729
595603.947341
594498.969123
595382.699358
594928.299415
594552.558832
593780.175584
595766.743908
596747.419108
596020.507340
594826.961870
597909.501006
594767.625160
594924.157968
596484.829341
597411.875182
596472.860099
596345.165778
595214.030418
595405.944242
595175.141902
595361.536868
592251.933992
595049.023478
595424.776635
595311.958655
595573.906888
595685.267555
596746.435398

Y_UTM
4869952.21610
4874519.56200
4872841.88015
4871638.43863
4875988.51372
4872231.03510
4876624.03518
4875320.33329
4874883.89801
4874408.99559
4873136.78115
4876121.34265
4877701.58784
4876997.07655
4874104.32567
4874892.58166
4876312.22334
4877411.94325
4874512.15801
4874544.46978
4877590.52392
4875267.54621
4876442.55294
4875637.52030
4873877.28836
4872739.39143
4875302.55495
4875987.92325
4876094.12925
4877172.42917
4876319.77184
4876206.86826

OBJID
64
147
128
138
67
69
14
3
65
117
68
81
137
121
33
12
17
80
50
118
51
94
18
125
136
105
11
45
39
35
19

Gridcode
1833
2671
2643
2653
1893
1938
280
79
1857
2629
1906
2261
2652
2634
874
247
328
2210
1360
2631
1381
2540
344
2639
2651
2614
224
1194
1038
880
369

Rating
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
MOD LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW

TotalRank
62.6
62.4
61.8
61.6
61.4
59.8
57.7
57.5
56.5
56.1
55.4
54.3
54.0
53.5
52.6
52.3
52.2
51.5
51.2
49.5
48.8
48.7
47.9
45.8
43.6
43.3
40.7
32.2
26.6
18.0
7.8

SPI_50
21.56
22.20
0.00
21.79
1.61
36.42
28.95
28.22
29.73
22.46
5.86
31.18
22.38
27.43
5.48
25.48
15.97
7.35
25.33
24.45
0.91
24.03
8.56
21.24
20.18
23.02
6.22
8.43
1.46
10.41
2.50

SDR_100
17.87
11.81
32.82
0.37
13.08
10.42
3.98
23.94
15.26
28.18
13.22
8.61
3.30
6.17
22.47
3.67
11.03
28.63
16.38
10.05
9.79
14.22
3.62
13.23
1.72
19.17
8.93
6.92
3.16
3.95
5.32

D2S_50
23.11
28.38
28.93
39.42
46.75
12.94
24.75
5.32
11.54
5.43
36.32
14.54
28.29
19.90
24.60
23.15
25.18
15.51
9.52
14.98
38.09
10.40
35.73
11.27
21.73
1.14
25.58
16.82
21.99
3.68
0.00

IXP
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

PWI30
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

SedDam
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO

X_UTM
596622.639086
596263.568965
595874.557584
595597.447077
594965.370750
594023.368267
595722.830117
594621.247873
594016.566437
594522.185623
597910.326154
596129.508133
594973.175820
595517.403757
593630.169444
594720.116510
593819.440222
594311.726593
595056.404204
595353.587505
594444.987807
593823.961271
595517.593074
593108.781025
594659.649178
593352.732240
594837.473380
593173.990430
593430.184559
593531.274544
593385.563196

Y_UTM
4872303.25486
4872819.21755
4869918.96981
4875422.92600
4870852.93105
4874838.06089
4876378.39673
4877130.22576
4875034.95313
4877472.77620
4874414.44584
4877523.86700
4874934.95081
4876367.19492
4870721.85179
4876079.54940
4870342.46688
4875070.82592
4877311.44574
4876905.57698
4870688.48999
4874635.54440
4870059.22326
4870156.74010
4874438.32500
4873903.23584
4873896.92604
4870963.48811
4870559.73177
4874609.66777
4874852.22740

Results
159 scored basins of potential risk
Useful to Inventory existing ponds and unmitigated risk
45 of 159 or 28% of siting locations received Very High or High Risk
ratings
23 documented sediment basin locations exist with the
subwatershed.
13 of 23 or 57% existing sediment basins intersected siting priority
zone polygons
18 of 23 or 78% existing sediment basins were within 30 meters of
priority zone polygons

Results / Possible unmitagated risk

Possible Unmitigated Risk
37 of 45 or 82% of High or Very High priority zones do
not intersect with sediment basin structures
35 of 45 or 78% of High or Very High priority zones
were not within 30 meters of priority zone polygons

Potential for Sediment Basin Damming

Mitigation
38 of 45 High or Very High priority zones attribute
characteristics compatible with proposed sediment

Project Limitations
Choice of alternative models and available data (RUSLE vs
RUSLE2 other physical models PTMapp & GeoWEPP).
Quality of results are dependent on quality inputs. A number of
existing sediment basin sites in this study were missed in part
due to inaccurate field boundaries.
Limitation of Sediment Basins as stand alone practice. Typically a
suite of conservation practice options working together to reduce
erosion and transported pollution.
LiDAR derived DEMs drawback of lack of data on subterranean
influence(s):
Unknown influence of subsurface drainage/drain tiling.
Karst geology creates unique and sometimes counterintuitive

For Further Consideration

Improvement of Agricultural Field Boundary Layers.
Consideration of the suite of conservation options (further
micro/fieldscale level study of locations to determine alternative
option effects and benefits).
Continued siting constraints could include buffering existing
roadways to ensure sediment ponding basins are not an
encroachment to existing transportation.
Enhancement of Soil Delivery Ratio and other physical soil loss
modeling to account for variation in soil profile.
Discover methodology for embedded RUSLE2 and/or daily/seasonal
updated factor data.

Conclusions
SPI signature strength can be used to produce pointsheds to further
identify and prioritize potential sediment basin locations.
Pointsheds of highest erosive risk had characteristics of large
drainage basins and most variability in slope.
Technological study can inventory existing sediment basin practices
within a prioritized hierarchy and propose targeted locations for
future siting.
Desktop and Office review cannot completely replace field visits but
significant financial and time/staff resources can be reduced by use
of advanced LiDAR and GIS analytical study.
Conservation Managers and Agricultural Producers can both benefit
by directing cost sharing and other resources at prioritized locations

References
Houston Engineering. 2016. Prioritize, Target, Measure Application (PTMapp) Desktop Toolbar Users Guide. Retrieved March 28,
2016 from http://ptmapp .rrbdin.org/files/PTMApp_User_Guide.pdf.
Lim, K. J., Sagong, M., Engel, B. A., Tang, Z., Choi, J., and Kim, K. S. 2005. GIS-Based Sediment Assessment Tool. Catena,
64(1), 61-80. Retrieved June 10, 2015 from ScienceDirect.
Maathuis, B. H. P., and Wang, L. 2006. Digital Elevation Model Based Hydro-Processing. Geocarto International, 21(1), 21- 26.
Retrieved February 13, 2016 from http://www.geocarto.com.hk/cgi-bin/pages1/mar06/3_Maathuis.pdf.
Moore, I. D., Grayson, R. B., and Ladson, A. R. 1991. Digital Terrain Modeling: A Review of Hydrological, Geomorphological,
and Biological Applications. Hydrological Processes 5, 3-30.
Renard, K. G., Weesies, G. A., McCool, D. K., and Yoder, D. C. 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation
Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). USDA Agriculture Handbook, 703. Retrieved June 16,
2015 from United States Department of Agriculture.
Yitayew, M., Pokrzywka, S. J., and Renard, K. G. 1999. Using GIS for Facilitating Erosion Estimation. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture, 15, 295-302. Retrieved June 13, 2015 from Agricultural Research Service, USDA.