Observations on Tile Drainage in Southern Manitoba
B r u c e S h e w f e l t , M s c . , P. E n g .P B S W a t e r E n g i n e e r i n g L t d .
Outline …..
2
• Brief history of tile in Manitoba andcurrent situation
• Design principles• Value added tools for Professionals• Sustainability elements (e.g. BMPs)• Brief case histories in application of
tools
What is tile drainage?
3
• corrugated HDPE perforated pipe w/wo a filter sock (silt)• installed at 2 to 4 foot depth (typical)• lowers water table
Factors that Impact Soil Moisture, GWT and Tile FlowCourtesy of Stantec
4
Self Propelled vs. Pull Type
Situation Analysis --Southern Manitoba
• Expanding tile drainage activity in Manitoba– 6 commercial tile machines 2013 + self installation– tile plants – 4 in MB and ND– 10,000 – 15,000 + acres per year ?
• North Dakota and Minnesota activity– similar rate of growth;
• Research– Mainly BMPs oriented– NDSU, SDSU, ISU, U of Minnesota, U of Manitoba
• BMP Adoption --- Mainly USA !– NRCS – USDA funding BMPs– ADMC (Ag Drainage Management Coalition)
• Controlled Drainage and Subirrigation• Saturated Buffers• Bioreactors
Brief Retrospective
1960s ---- Morden Research Station1970’s 80’s --- Almassippi Wet Sands Studies1990’s --- Manitoba Corn Growers Association2000’s --- Research and Demonstration (BMPs)
Morden Research Station - Then and Now
1965 Detailed Soil Survey – MichalynaWater table < 4 feet in springSaline sub-soils notedClay Tile installed 1966Deep (4-5’) and Wide Space
2013 Soils Report - Stantec (1:5000)New Technology (Veris)Saline sub-soils mappedHDPE Tile installed 2013Shallow (2.5 -3’) andNarrow SpaceSalinity Reclaim Possible ?
Stantec Soil Survey 1:5000Relationship of Drainage to Soils and Deep Veris
Wet Sands Research –ID Engineering (1983) Report
• Drainage researchtargets 300,000 ha
• Landscape impacts (i.e.depth to GWT)
• Crop water use fromshallow groundwater“very important”
• Shallow tile 76 cmrecommended
Project 408: Almassippi WetSands Management Project
Impact of Drainage Depth and UpflowOn Water Table and Water Use
Evapotranspirationfrom shallow groundwater by cotton asaffected by soil andwater table depth(after Grismer andGates, 1988)
North Dakota Research on Shallow Water TableFollett et al. , 1974 – Effect Water Table Depth on Crop Yields
12
Manitoba Corn Growers AssociationPilot Project – 1994 to 1997
4 sites (clay loam to sand) evaluated• drainage effectiveness• environmental impact
Professional Inputgeologistpedologistagronomisthydrologistag engineertile company (Ontario)geotechnical engineer (filter)
SITE A – Random
27 Acres Impacted
Loamy Sand over Clay
Spacing Random
(low areas)
Spring vs. Summer ! - 1995
15
115 acre –inches¼ “ Drainage Coefficient
Producer Results 1990s – AnecdotalLargest Tiled Farm Reported Benefits
Yield gains (verbally reported):• 20% corn• 10-50% potato !• 20 % wheat
NOW growing beans/ potatoes onfields not grown before because ofrisk of drown out
• BENEFITS SEEN !– Earlier start– Reduced drown out– Access for spraying and
cultivation– Compaction reduced– HOPE for salinity reduction– PROBABLY better fertilizer
utilization and timing– Decreased surface runoff
17
EM 38 Horizontal ….16 years after tile drainage reduction salinity
2009 – 2012 Manitoba Research and Demonstration
Hespler Farms and CMCDC Winkler• Tile Drainage and Irrigation of Potatoes and Corn• Published – U of Manitoba• Water Balance, Demand and Yield Response• DRAINMOD Modelling of Fine Sandy Loam• Ongoing Work AT CMCDC (Dr. Ranjan)Kelburn Farms - Heavy Clay• Clay (40-60%) Soils• Flow/Soil Moisture• Two drain spacings• No published dataKroeker Farms – Water Footprint Monitoring• No published data
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
6-May-11 5-Jun-11 5-Jul-11 4-Aug-11 3-Sep-11 3-Oct-11 2-Nov-11
Rech
arge
(mm
)
Drai
nage
Flo
w (m
m)
Flow-FDIR-B3-2011FDIR-B3 Precipitation Irrigation
Total Precipitation = 332 mmTotal Flow = 71 mm
¼ Inch Per Day DC
Variation in ETc and Water Table – CMCDC 2012
Monitoring Tools --- Field 747 --- FarmsWater Table andSoil Moisture Monitoring
21
Water Footprint - 2012
22
Drainage (and Irrigation) BMPs – Professional Input
Water RecyclingControlled Drainage and SubirrigationNutrient ManagementCover CropsTillageVRI Irrigation
Water Recycling … 200?
25
How to Do it: Control “Zones” – Control Water Table !
Water ControlStructure
Target:20 acres/structure
Impact of BMP – Nutrient ManagementReduced GWT Nitrate = Reduced Tile Nitrate ?
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
A1-1 A1-2 A1-3 A1-4 A1-5 A1-6 West -SB
Nitr
ate
N p
pm
CMCDC GroundwaterNitrate-N (ppm)
Fall 2011Fall 2012June 2013Fall 2013
BIOREACTOR BMP – Nitrate N Reduction in Water
27
• Wood chip bioreactors• Proven Nitrate – N
reduction• Potential P reduction
being examined• None in Manitoba• Iowa and Illinois are
leaders• Concern is impact on
drinking water and Gulfof Mexico
Design PrinciplesSpacing and Depth vs. Tile Response
28
• Hooghoudt Equation - 1963 (steady state)• Kirkham Equation - 1957 (preferential flow)• Control water table depth (H)• Influenced by depth to restrictive layer (D)• Spacing of tiles is computed (S)• Drainage Coefficient (DC)
Design PrinciplesCritical Input to Equations
• Soil layers, texture andstructure
• Water retention• Hydraulic conductivity• Depth to impermeable
layer (and GWT)• Surface storage• Downslope and lateral
water movement –need additional math
Soil Texture Sat HydConductivity
(ft./day)
Sand 18.9Loamy sand 4.72Sandy loam 1.73 (52 cm)
Loam 1.02 (31 cm)Silt loam 0.54Sandy clayloam 0.24
Clay loam 0.16Silty clay loam 0.16Sandy clay 0.09 (2.7 cm)Silty clay 0.08Clay 0.05
Average Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity ValuesSource: Rawls et al. (1993)[2]
Site Variability --- Precision Drainage and IrrigationSite Variability --- Site Investigation and Modelling
30
Photo courtesyof PrecisionLand Solutions
Texture vs. Hydraulic ConductivitySoil Texture
Sand 18.9
Loamy sand 4.7
Sandy loam 1.7
Loam 1.0 (1.3 cm/hr)
Silt loam 0.54
Sandy clay loam 0.24
Clay loam 0.16 (0.2 cm/hr)
Silty clay loam 0.16
Sandy clay 0.09
Silty clay 0.08
Clay 0.05
Hydraulic ConductivityGuelph PermeameterExample - Fine sandy loam
32
7 sample sites on 100 + acresGuelph Permeameter at 30 and 75 cmVaries 2.3 cm/hour to 4.2 cm/hour at 75 cmCompaction/ infiltration issues, lowerreadings at shallower depth ?
Soil Texture and Structure vs. Tile DepthExample --- Fine Soils ---- Drainage Guide for Ontario
Preferentialflow in cracks
S-1 Fine textured surface and blocky or massive B and C.Hydraulic conductivity low. Relies on soil cracking, deeptillage, mole drainage IF tiled. Surface drainage first solution.
S-2 Somewhat coarser than S-1. Finer texture B and Chorizons. Extensively drained in Ontario. Drains should notbe deep and should be placed in B horizon for best results.
Salinity Mapping
Saline areas match to soilswell and also to yield maps forthis quarter
Question tile poorest yielding,most saline soils first ?
Question install tile shallow tolimit salt movementdownstream ?
Question any upward flow(artesian) conditions ?
Depth to Impervious Soils
• EM31 utility• deep texture
mapping• E.g. depth to
impervious clay ordepth averaged clay
• Hydrogeologicanomalies (to 12feet) (silt, sand, etc.)
• EM34 available
Landscape Affects Surface Runoff and Drainage Class andDrainage Coefficient
Increase drainage coefficient IF surfacedrainage admitted directly into the pipe drain
Critical to Understand Geology –Use Available Information(e.g. well logs, regional geology maps and studies )
Downslope water movementArtesian conditions require geology/engineeringDrainage coefficient ? – Downstream impacts ?Source of salts ?
37
WELL LOG
From To Log(ft.) (ft.)
0 6.0 BROWN TILL6.0 8.0 SAND8.0 10.0 BROWN SAND
10.0 14.0 GRAVEL14.0 22.0 BROWN TILL22.0 40.0 GREY TILL40.0 55.0 SHALE GRAVEL55.0 70.0 GREY TILL70.0 160.0 SHALE AND CLAY
No construction data for this well.
Sodic Soils Hazard AssessmentNDSU Approach is Systematic
Case Study --- Homewood
Soil surveys1:20,000 mapPME, EBG, RGB, DHO, JOD, GYV
Veriscomparison to soils surveysdepth to sand layer or no sand (auger holes)
Variable spacing30 – 60 feetlandscape (top slope vs downslope)texture/hydraulic conductivity VARIES, use 1:20,000
BMPsControlled drainage/subirrigation (BMP)
Monitoring dataAdcon (soil moisture, GWT)
Soils Investigations…
40
2011 -- Early Adopter Field Scale Controlled DrainageSeven Control Structures ---- 300 acres
Producer influenced by testplots at Hespler and CMCDC
Contractor interested in valueadded
Producer looking at “long term”
Contractor needed technicalassistance
Monitor performance critical(e.g. does it work)
Professional input provided
Yield North 150 Acres – 2013Explain Using Soils Zones and Subirrigation ?Value of models ?
Sub Irrigated Corn Manitoba – 25 acre trial 2013300 acres Controlled Drainage
43
Design Tools - InternetSouth Dakota State Universityhttp://climate.sdstate.edu/water/DrainSpacingCal.html
Computer Simulation ModelsDRAINMOD – North CarolinaState University
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/soil_water/methods_data/Sustainable_High_Yields_on_Poorly_Drained_SoilsPres_Color.pdf
Climatemin/max tempprecipitationET cropfreeze/thaw
Soilssoil water characteristicsKsatdrainage volumeinfiltrationupfluxsoil water content
SeepageDrainage System ParametersCrop Parameters
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/soil_water/documents/Drainmod.Model.Use.Calibration.And.Validation.pdf
Sands et al., 2013University of Minnesota
46
Used DRAINMODLooked at 6 soils, 3 locations100 years dataAveraged impacts and yield (relative)Very similar to MORDEN – 20 inches precipIncrease tile drainage coefficient => decrease surfacerunoffhttp://www1.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/water/reports/docs/final_report__developing_drainage_guidelines_for_rrb_sands.pdf
DRAINMOD – Non Tiled – 2010 Weather Data – Clay Loam
0
10
20
30
40
500
20406080
100120140160180200
2010-03-31 2010-05-20 2010-07-09 2010-08-28 2010-10-17
Rain
fall/
Drai
nage
/Run
off (
cm)
WT
Dept
h (c
m)
Water Table DepthRainfallDrainage (Total)Surface Runoff (Total)
DRAINMOD - Tiled – 2010 Weather Data – Clay Loam
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2010-03-31 2010-05-20 2010-07-09 2010-08-28 2010-10-17
Rain
fall/
Drai
nage
/Run
off (
cm)
WT
Dept
h (c
m)
Water Table DepthRainfallDrainage (Total)Surface Runoff (Total)
DRAINMOD Results – Red River ValleySands, 2011; Sands et al. 2013http://www.redriverbasincommission.org/Conference/Proceedings/28th_Proceedings/Sands.pdf
Increase DC = Closer Tiles
Where Can You Add Value