DOCSLIB.ORG

Drainage Water Management for Midwestern Row Crop Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Drainage Water Management for Midwestern Row Crop Agriculture Drainage Water Management for Midwestern Row Crop Agriculture Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition P.O. Box 592 Owatonna, MN 55060 507.451.0073 Conservation Innovation Grant 68-3A75-6-116 Conservation Innovation Grant 68-3A75-6-116 TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Activities ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Collaborators ............................................................................................................................................... 11 CIG Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 15 Demonstration Fields Sites ......................................................................................................................... 23 Indiana Site Descriptions ....................................................................................................................... 23 Indiana Water Management Plan ........................................................................................................... 32 Indiana Cropping and Yield data............................................................................................................. 37 Iowa Site Descriptions ............................................................................................................................ 41 Iowa Water Management Plan ................................................................................................................ 50 Iowa Cropping and Yield Data ................................................................................................................ 64 Ohio Site Descriptions ............................................................................................................................ 69 Ohio Water Management Plan ................................................................................................................ 79 Ohio Cropping and yield Data ................................................................................................................ 88 Minnesota Site Descriptions .................................................................................................................... 93 Minnesota Water Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 106 Minnesota Cropping and Yield Data ..................................................................................................... 110 Illinois Site Descriptions ...................................................................................................................... 115 Illinois Water Management Plan ........................................................................................................... 124 Illinois Cropping and Yield Data .......................................................................................................... 128 CIG Results ............................................................................................................................................... 133 Indiana Precipitation ............................................................................................................................ 135 Indiana Drainage Outflow ..................................................................................................................... 135 Indiana Crop Yields ............................................................................................................................. 139 Iowa Precipitation ................................................................................................................................ 147 Iowa Drainage Outflow ........................................................................................................................ 149 Iowa Crop Yields ................................................................................................................................. 157 Ohio Precipitation ................................................................................................................................ 163 Ohio Drainage Outflow ....................................................................................................................... 163 Ohio Crop Yields ................................................................................................................................ 164 Minnesota Precipitation ...................................................................................................................... 173 Minnesota Drainage Outflow .............................................................................................................. 174 Minnesota Crop Yields ........................................................................................................................ 176 Illinois Precipitation ........................................................................................................................... 187 Illinois Drainage Outflow ..................................................................................................................... 189 Illinois Crop Yields ............................................................................................................................... 192 Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition Page 1 Conservation Innovation Grant 68-3A75-6-116 Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition Page 2 Conservation Innovation Grant 68-3A75-6-116 Costs of Installation ................................................................................................................................... 205 Outreach & Communication Network ...................................................................................................... 207 Indiana ................................................................................................................................................... 209 Iowa ....................................................................................................................................................... 211 Ohio ....................................................................................................................................................... 213 Minnesota .............................................................................................................................................. 215 Illinois ................................................................................................................................................... 219 Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition ...................................................................................... 221 Potential for Transferability of Results ..................................................................................................... 225 Indiana ................................................................................................................................................... 227 Iowa ...................................................................................................................................................... 229 Ohio ...................................................................................................................................................... 231 Minnesota .............................................................................................................................................. 233 Illinois ................................................................................................................................................... 235 Conclusions & Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 237 Indiana ................................................................................................................................................... 237 Iowa ...................................................................................................................................................... 239 Ohio ...................................................................................................................................................... 257 Minnesota .............................................................................................................................................. 259 Illinois ................................................................................................................................................... 261 Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition ...................................................................................... 263 CIG Challenges ......................................................................................................................................... 265 References ................................................................................................................................................. 267 Agricultural Drainage Management Coalition Page 3 Conservation Innovation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outlettingdrainagesystems
    MINNESOTA WETLAND RESTORATION GUIDE OUTLETTING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Document No.: WRG 4A-3 Publication Date: 10/14/2015 Table of Contents Introduction Application Design Considerations Construction Requirements Other Considerations Cost Maintenance Additional References INTRODUCTION be possible. However, strategies to address incoming drainage systems as part of restoration In Minnesota, wetlands planned for restoration are do exist and should be considered, when feasible. commonly drained by surface drainage ditches and These strategies include rerouting incoming subsurface drainage tile. These drainage systems drainage systems away from or around planned often extend upstream from planned restoration wetland restorations or when possible, outletting sites and provide drainage to neighboring lands them directly into planned wetlands or other not part of a restoration project. suitable areas within the restoration site. The restoration of wetlands in these types of APPLICATION drainage scenarios provides a number of design and construction challenges and may not always This Technical Guidance Document focuses on strategies to design effective and functional outlets within restoration sites for neighboring upstream drainage systems. The design of drainage system outlets will primarily be dependent on the type, location, elevation and grade of the drainage system as it approaches and enters the restoration site. If the approaching drainage system is steep enough in grade, then it may be possible to modify it and construct an effective and functional outlet directly onto the restoration site. The design will also be influenced by the general landscape of the planned outlet’s location and, if part of a wetland restoration, the type of wetland being restored. Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Tile Drainage and Phosphorus Losses from Agricultural Land
    TECHNICALTECHNICAL REPORTREPORT NO.NO. 8377 Literature Review: Tile Drainage and Phosphorus Losses from Agricultural Land November 2016 Final Report Prepared by: Julie Moore Stone Environmental, Inc. For: The Lake Champlain Basin Program and New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission This report was funded and prepared under the authority of the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990, P.L. 101-596 and subsequent reauthorization in 2002 as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act, H. R. 1070, through the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA grant #EPA LC- 96133701-0). Publication of this report does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of the states of New York and Vermont, the Lake Champlain Basin Program, or the US EPA. The Lake Champlain Basin Program has funded more than 80 technical reports and research studies since 1991. For complete list of LCBP Reports please visit: http://www.lcbp.org/media-center/publications-library/publication-database/ NEIWPCC Job Code: 0100-310-002 Project Code: L-2016-060 Literature Review: Tile Drainage and Phosphorus Losses from Agricultural Land PROJECT NO. PREPARED FOR: SUBMITTED BY: 15-309 Eric Howe / Basin Program Manager Julie Moore, P.E. / Senior Engineer Lake Champlain Basin Program Stone Environmental, Inc. 54 West Shore Road 535 Stone Cutters Way Grand Isle, VT 05458 Montpelier, VT 05602 [email protected] 802.229.1881 Executive Summary Tile drainage works by providing an open pathway for soil water to drain away, lowering the water table and allowing the upper soil layers to dry out. For farmers, tile drainage has multiple benefits: better growing conditions, improved soil structure, enhanced trafficability, more timely planting and harvest, and improved yields.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring and Modeling the Effect of Agricultural Drainage and Recent
    water Article Monitoring and Modeling the Effect of Agricultural Drainage and Recent Channel Incision on Adjacent Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems Philip J. Gerla Harold Hamm School of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of North Dakota, 81 Cornell Street, Stop 8358, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8358, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-701-777-3305 Received: 8 February 2019; Accepted: 20 April 2019; Published: 25 April 2019 Abstract: Channel incision isolates flood plains, disrupts sediment transport, and degrades riparian ecology. Reactivation and periodicity of incision may affect the water table and hydrological conditions far beyond the stream margin. Long-term incision and its recent acceleration along Iron Springs Creek, North Dakota, USA, has affected adjacent ecosystems. An agricultural surface drain empties directly into the original spring-fed source of the creek, which triggered channel erosion both up- and downstream. Historical maps, recent LiDAR, and field surveying were used to characterize incision since ditch excavation in 1911. Although the soils are sandy, small hydrological gradients impede natural drainage in the surrounding stabilized dunes. Incision resulting from expanded drainage and increased precipitation has been as much as 5 m. Numerical models of lateral groundwater profiles corroborated with field measurements show that the nearby water table responds quickly, becoming deeper and less variable. With 1 m of recent incision, model evapotranspiration rates are decreased 50% to 15% from the channel margin to 1 km, respectively, and the hydropattern disrupted >1 km. Species diversity is reduced and floristic quality is 25% less near the drain. A near-channel solution to erosion—fencing out cattle—failed to mitigate the problem because a broader watershed approach was necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14 Water Management (Drainage)
    Title 210 – National Engineering Handbook Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook National Engineering Handbook Chapter 14 Water Management (Drainage) (210-650-H, 2nd Ed., Feb 2021) Title 210 – National Engineering Handbook Issued February 2021 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices for Agricultural Ditch Management in the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
    CBP/TRS-326-19 Best Management Practices for Agricultural Ditch Management in the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model DRAFT for CBP partnership review and feedback: September 4, 2019 Prepared for Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 Prepared by Agricultural Ditch Management BMP Expert Panel: Ray Bryant, PhD, Panel Chair, USDA Agricultural Research Service Ann Baldwin, PE, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Brooks Cahall, PE, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Laura Christianson, PhD PE, University of Illinois Dan Jaynes, PhD, USDA Agricultural Research Service Chad Penn, PhD, USDA Agricultural Research Service Stuart Schwartz, PhD, University of Maryland Baltimore County With: Clint Gill, Delaware Department of Agriculture Jeremy Hanson, Virginia Tech Loretta Collins, University of Maryland Mark Dubin, University of Maryland Brian Benham, PhD, Virginia Tech Allie Wagner, Chesapeake Research Consortium Lindsey Gordon, Chesapeake Research Consortium Support Provided by EPA Grant No. CB96326201 Acknowledgements The panel wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Andy Ward, PhD (Ohio State University, retired). Suggested Citation Bryant, R., Baldwin, A., Cahall, B., Christianson, L., Jaynes, D., Penn, C., and S. Schwartz. (2019). Best Management Practices for Agricultural Ditch Management in the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. Collins, L., Hanson, J. and C. Gill, editors. CBP/TRS-326-19. [Approved by the CBP WQGIT Month DD, YYYY. <URL to report on CBP website>] Cover image: Sabrina Klick, Univ. of Maryland Eastern Shore. Executive Summary The Agricultural Ditch Management BMP Expert Panel convened in 2016 and deliberated to develop the recommendations described in this report in response to the Charge provided to the panel by the Agriculture Workgroup (Appendix D: Panel Charge and Scope of Work).
    [Show full text]
  • The Basics of Agricultural Tile Drainage
    The Basics of Agricultural Tile Drainage Basic Engineering Principals 2 John Panuska PhD, PE Natural Resources Extension Specialist Biological Systems Engineering Department UW Madison ASABE Tile Drain Standards Design Standard ASAE EP480 MAR1998 (R2008) Design of subsurface Drains in Humid Climates ASABE Tile Drain Standards Construction Standard ASAE EP481 FEB03 Construction of subsurface Drains in Humid Areas Drain Design Procedure I. Determine if and where an adequate outlet can be installed! II. Estimate hydraulic conductivity (K) based on soil type. III. Select drainage coefficient (Dc) based on crop and soil type. Drain Design Procedure IV. Select suitable depth for drains o Typical range 3 to 6 ft. o Cover greater than 2.5 ft o Depth / spacing balance to minimize cost V. Determine spacing o Use soil textural table guidelines o Use NRCS Web calculator. Drain Design Procedure VI. Size laterals and mains to accommodate the design flow. – Maintain minimum velocity to clean pipe. (0.5 ft / s - No silt; 1.4 ft / sec - w/silt) – Match pipe size to design flow. (telescoping the size of main) – Properly design outlet. Design Challenges The design process results in a design for a 2 to 5 year event, controlling larger events too costly. Every soil will be different and crop type matters. Costs/benefits will vary from year to year. Climate trends are unpredictable. Drain Tile Installation Equipment Tractor Backhoe Tile Plow Chain Trencher Wheel Trencher Drain Tile Materials Clay Tile (organic soils) Concrete Tile (mineral soils) Drain Pipe Materials - Polyethylene Plastic - Single wall corrugated Dual wall (smooth wall) Water enters the pipe through slots in wall I.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Papers.Pmd
    APPLICATION OF “SALTMOD” TO EVALUATE PREVENTIVE Nasir M. Khan*, MEASURES AGAINST HYDRO-SALINIZATION IN Bashir Ahmad**, M. Latif*** and Yohei Sato* AGRICULTURAL RURAL AREAS (A Case Study of Faisalabad, Pakistan) ABSTRACT the country, covering an area of 74,494 ha., to combat the twin menace (WAPDA, 1991). Monitoring and In Pakistan, the salt-affected soils are now covering evaluation of a project in different ways is a key-factor an area of 4.22 Mha, which constitutes about 26% of in its further planning and development. The irrigated rural area. About 55 Salinity Control and identification of causative factors and extent of the Reclamation Projects (SCRAP) were launched as a critical areas by salt-water balance studies help a remedial measures in the past with huge investments, great deal in the implementation of proper solutions mainly comprising vertical and surface drainage in future. system. The results were found generally far below expectations, due to many reasons/factors which were DESCRIPTION OF STUDY-AREA not taken into account before project-implementation. This model-study has been initiated, therefore, as an Large areas has been severely affected with the twin effort to test the generalized hydro-salinity model menace of waterlogging and salinization and ‘SaltMod’ for different soil and water-management thousands of hectares of land has gone out of scenaries and to evaluate the SCRAP project as production in the Fourth Drainage Project (FDP) area remedial measures in the rural areas in order to near Faisalabad. The FDP (SCARP scheme) project enhance over all agro-productivity. was initiated in 1983 and consists of many sub- drainage Sump units.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Actual Irrigation Management in the Irrigated Area Of
    AGRICULTURE AND BIOLOGY JOURNAL OF NORTH AMERICA ISSN Print: 2151-7517, ISSN Online: 2151-7525, doi:10.5251/abjna.2012.3.3.105.116 © 2012, ScienceHuβ, http://www.scihub.org/ABJNA Estimation of root-zone salinity using SaltMod in the irrigated area of Kalaât El Andalous (Tunisia) 1*Ferjani Noura, 2Dhagari Hedi and 3Morri Mabrouka 1Faculty of Sciences of Bizerte, 7021 Zarzouna Bizerte, Tunisia, University of Carthage 2Resources Management and Conservation Research Unit, National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia (INAT), 43 avenue Charles Nicolle, Cité Mahragène -Tunis 1002-Tunisia, University of Carthage 3Resources Management and Conservation Research Unit, National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia (INAT), 43 avenue Charles Nicolle, Cité Mahragène -Tunis 1002-Tunisia, University of Carthage *Corresponding author. E-mail adress: [email protected] ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to predict the root zone salinity in the irrigated area of Kalaât El Andalous using the SaltMod simulation model over 10 years. En general, the model predicts more or less similar values of electrical conductivity in the root zone. Highest electrical conductivity values equal to 7.7 dS m-1 would be reached during the irrigation season. Following the rains fall particularly during the winter season there would be a decrease of the soil salinity when the average minimum value of electrical conductivity would reach 3.1 dS m-1. This seasonal variation of root zone salinity was confirmed from the measured values. Investigations were made also to study the impact of varying drain spacing and drain depth on root zone salinity and water table depth and drain discharge. The simulation show that the decrease in the depth of the drain does not change significantly the root zone salinity which reaches 6.21 dS m-1 during the irrigation season and 3.67 dS m-1 during the non irrigated season.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Management 101 Table of Contents
    WATER MANAGEMENT 101 TABLE OF CONTENTS BETTER SUBSURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT DRIVES YIELD AND LOWERS RISK .............................................................3 WATER MANAGEMENT 101 .......................................................................................................................................................3 3 Goals of a Drainage System ...............................................................................................................................................4 Tile Spacing and Depth ..........................................................................................................................................................4 Drainage Coefficient ..............................................................................................................................................................5 THREE DRAINAGE MYTHS WE BET YOU’VE HEARD BEFORE .................................................................................................5 Tiling the wettest field = best ROI .........................................................................................................................................5 My crop will be hurt by drain tile in a dry summer. ..............................................................................................................5 Tile is really expensive. ..........................................................................................................................................................5 THE PROOF IS IN THE
    [Show full text]
  • Ndew Document Copy
    Potential Effects of Subsurface Drains on the Beneficial Use of Water in North Dakota. Addendum: Special Cases By W.M. Schuh Water Resources Investigation No. 45A North Dakota State Water Commission 2018 This report may be downloaded as a PDF file from the North Dakota State Water Commission website at: http://swc.nd.gov Click on Reports and Publications. Then, click on Water Resource Investigations, and scroll down to WRI No. 45A Potential Effects of Subsurface Drains on the Beneficial Use of Water in North Dakota. Addendum: Special Cases Prepared By W.M. Schuh North Dakota State Water Commission ND Water Resource Investigation No. 45A 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Special cases of potential tile drainage impairment of the beneficial use of groundwater are examined. 1. Perforated pipe is sometimes placed below the water table between the collector/lift station for a drainage project and the final discharge point to offset buoyancy problems during construction. When an uncontrolled perforated pipe is placed below the water table of an aquifer, it functions as a horizontal well and will drain continuously, even when the design drain field is not flowing. For a drain field overlying an aquifer discharging to a river, the perforated pipe, in penetrating the alluvium bordering the river, will create an artificial spring, constantly draining the aquifer. Losses will be proportional to the length of the pipe, and can be substantial, depending on local circumstances. Perforated pipe should not be used, or when its use is necessary a final control structure should be placed near the final discharge point to prevent non-beneficial diversion of water when tile drains are not active.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Assessment of Subsurface Drainage Systems
    Performance Assessment of Subsurface Drainage Systems Case Studies from Egypt and Pakistan Henk Ritzema Alterra-ILRI Wageningen University and Research Centre Wageningen The Netherlands March 2007 ii Alterra-ILRI – Performance Assessment of Subsurface Drainage systems Performance Assessment of Subsurface Drainage Systems Case Studies from Egypt and Pakistan Henk Ritzema Alterra-ILRI Wageningen University and Research Centre Wageningen The Netherlands Alterra, Wageningen, 2007 Alterra-ILRI – Performance Assessment of Subsurface Drainage systems iii Abstract A case study set-up for the performance assessment of subsurface drainage systems for agricultural land drainage has been developed and 76 case studies from Egypt and Pakistan have been prepared. Based on these case studies, performance indicators for subsurface drainage systems have been derived and the main lessons learned to assess the performance of these systems have been summarized. Ritzema, H.P. 2007. “ Performance Assessment of Subsurface Drainage Systems - Case Studies from Egypt and Pakistan ”. Wageningen, Alterra, The Netherlands, 137pp. Keywords : Subsurface drainage, performance assessment indicators, planning, design, installation, operation and maintenance, Egypt, Pakistan To order this report and for more information contact: Ir. H.P. Ritzema Senior Researcher Alterra-ILRI Wageningen University and Research Centre P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands Telephone: + 31 (0)317 486 607 Fax: +31 (0)317 419 000 Email: [email protected] © 2007 Alterra P.O. Box 47; 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands Phone: + 31 317 474700; fax: +31 317 419000; e-mail: [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced or published in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system without the written permission of Alterra.
    [Show full text]
  • 17.5 Examples of Agricultural Drainage Criteria
    17.5 Examples of Agricultural Drainage Criteria 17.5.1 Rain-Fed Lands in a Temperate Humid Zone How drainage criteria are used for the design of drainage systems in rain-fed lands in temperate humid zones will be exemplified with design particulars for field and collector drainage systems in The Netherlands. Example 17.1 Field Drainage Systems in The Netherlands The water balance of field drainage systems in many parts of The 'Netherlands can be written in the simple form, neglecting groundwater flow components Dr = q,At = P - E - AW (1 7.2) where Dr = drainage (mm) q, = drainage rate (mm/d) At = period (d) P = precipitation (mm) E = evapotranspiration (mm) AW = water storage (mm) Figure 17.31 presents the monthly balances of rainfall (P) and evapotranspiration (E) in The Netherlands. It shows that, in summer, the evapotranspiration exceeds rainfall and AW = P-E, so that, according to Equation 17.2, no drainage is required (qd = O), except in areas with a strong upward seepage of groundwater. In winter, the rainfall exceeds the evapotranspiration plus the storage by about 180 mm, which, for 4 months, gives an average drainage rate q, = 1.5 mm/d. Crop-response functions have indicated that, in winter, an average depth of the watertable of 0.9 m below the soil surface is amply sufficient. This represents a long-term, steady-state agricultural criterion for subsurface drainage systems. Assuming a drain depth of 1 .O m, we find the average hydraulic head to be h = 1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1 m. Defining the drainage intensity ratio as q,/h (d-I), we find qd/h = 0.001 5/0.1 = 0.015 d-l.
    [Show full text]