Tailwater Recovery Systems for Irrigation: Benefit/ Cost Analysis and Water Resource Conservation Technique in Northeast Arkansas Jennifer L

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Tailwater Recovery Systems for Irrigation: Benefit/ Cost Analysis and Water Resource Conservation Technique in Northeast Arkansas Jennifer L Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 58 Article 6 2004 Tailwater Recovery Systems for Irrigation: Benefit/ Cost Analysis and Water Resource Conservation Technique in Northeast Arkansas Jennifer L. Bouldin Arkansas State University Nate A. Bickford Arkansas State University H. B. Stroud Arkansas State University G. S. Guha Arkansas State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Bouldin, Jennifer L.; Bickford, Nate A.; Stroud, H. B.; and Guha, G. S. (2004) "Tailwater Recovery Systems for Irrigation: Benefit/ Cost Analysis and Water Resource Conservation Technique in Northeast Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 58 , Article 6. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol58/iss1/6 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. * Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 58 [2004], Art. 6 Tailwater Recovery Systems for Irrigation: Benefit/Cost Analysis and Water Resource Conservation Technique inNortheast Arkansas J.L. Bouldin*,N.A.Bickford, H.B. Stroud and G.S. Guha Arkansas State University Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program P.O. Box 847 State University, AR 72467 *Corresponding author Abstract Water, one ofthe earth's most vital resources, is particularly significant in the Arkansas Delta agricultural landscape. While both surface and groundwater are extremely important, 94% of the 26.9 billionL (7.1 billiongal) of water pumped daily from the AlluvialAquifer is used for agricultural purposes. This common property is subsequently being depleted and sustainable conservation methods are being pursued. State and federal incentive programs encourage the use of a tailwater recovery system inagricultural irrigation. With the use of a complete recovery system, benefits include not only government incentives for wetland habitat, but reduced groundwater use and decreased agricultural runoff entering receiving streams. Costs incurred to the farm manager include crop loss due to reservoir storage, additional ditch construction, and the cost of a liftpump. Use of these systems offers not only economic benefits associated with aquifer preservation but also ecological benefits including reduced nutrient and sediment loading to receiving streams concurrent with ecosystem services. The overall benefit/cost analysis ofthese systems shows that the economic benefits of using a tailwater recovery system exceed the cost. Other positive features include the ecological benefits of surface water protection and ecosystem services. Introduction water for each kg (228 gal/lb) produced and soybeans requiring 2,000 L of water for each kg produced (238 Surface water uses in Arkansas include navigation for gal/lb). shipment of goods on the Arkansas and White rivers, The National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS, withdrawal for public water supply, and discharge for 2003) states that Arkansas was the largest producer ofrice in municipality, industry and agricultural waste, and limited the United States, producing 4.35 billionkg (9.6 billion lb) rrigation for agriculture (Arkansas Environmental in 2002. In this year, the state supported 5.91 million ha federation (AEF), 2003). Although there are a variety of (14.6 million acres) of crop production with 1.50 million of uses for surface water, 73% of the total water used in the those ha (3.7 million acres) under irrigation. Total irrigated tate is groundwater, making Arkansas the fourth largest acres in northeast Arkansas included 89,702 ha (221,658 user of groundwater in the nation (ASWCC, 2004). It acres) in Craighead County with 31,970 and 29.495 ha hould also be noted that two areas of the state have been (79,000 and 63,000 acres) respectively inrice and irrigated declared critical with regard to groundwater, including a soybean production. NASS reported a total of 47,100 egion of south-central Arkansas and an area in east-central irrigated ha (116,388 acres) for Greene County, with24,848 Arkansas that are experiencing depletion of the Sparta and 20,235 ha (61,400 and 50,000 acres) inrice and irrigated Aquifer and the Sparta and Alluvial aquifers, respectively. soybean production. For the same year, Poinsett County Groundwater is also used by municipalities, as a drinking supported 110,895 irrigated ha (274,028 acres) with 54,673 water source, as well as fire protection. Inaddition, industry and 46,944 ha (135,100 and 116,000 acres) in rice and s attracted to water rich areas and often uses large quantities irrigated soybean production. This extensive production of water in on-line processing and cooling. acreage in northeast Arkansas illustrates how water As the largest user of water in the state, agriculture is availability and fertile soils combine to make Arkansas the dependent upon this resource for the application of fourth largest user of groundwater in the nation (AEF, ertilizers and pesticides and the irrigation ofstanding crops. 2003). Water is also utilized as a physical herbicide in rice The Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer is the )roduction, minimizing chemical application. Pimentel et surficial aquifer system located beneath the eastern one- al. (2000) reported that rice and soybeans are among the third of Arkansas (Fig. 1). Large groundwater withdrawals most water demanding crops, with rice requiring 1,910 Lof from this aquifer have resulted in a long-term decline of Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 58, 2004 Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 2004 23 23 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 58 [2004], Art. 6 Tailwater Recovery Systems for Irrigation:Benefit/Cost Analysis and Water Resource Conservation Technique inNortheast Arkansas EXPLANATION Thickness ofaqwfer, in feet 23 to 50 50 to 75 75 to 100 100 «0 150 QtMttrthan 150 BA* Uimi offcydrojcotojic A Base modified from U.S. Geologic*!Survey digital data, 1 2,000,000, 1972 Modifiedfrom Ackerman, DJ ,1996, HydrologyOfthe Mississippi River Valtey alluvial aquifer, south- centra! United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1416-0, 56 p Fig. 1. Location and thickness of the Mississippi River Valley AlluvialAquifer as reported byUSGS. water levels in some areas and also have reduced the groundwater per day were extracted in 2001 from the state's amount of water discharged into rivers. By the early 1980s, aquifers. Currently, the same volume of water is extracted withdrawal for irrigation and aquaculture had dropped daily from the Alluvial Aquifer for use in Arkansas, with water levels in the AlluvialAquifer below the stream bed of 94% used by agriculture (Fig. 2) (ASWCC, 2004). Since several rivers that have acted as long term drains from the 1996, the aquifer has fallen an average of 0.30 m(one ft) per aquifer (Renken, 1998). The configuration of the water table year with Craighead County's five-year (1996-2001) decline near rivers that incise the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial equivalent to 1.12 m (3.69 ft). This county is flanked with a Aquifer is influenced by seasonal changes in river stage 1.84 and 1.23-m (6.03 and 4.05-ft) decline, respectively, in (USGS, 2002). During the winter and spring, greater stream Poinsett and Greene counties for the same five-year period flow characterizes the rivers as influent, recharging the (ASWCC, 2004). In 2002 the Arkansas Water Resources aquifer and raising the water table. However, during the Center reported that over the next 30-year period the dryer seasons of summer and fall, stream flow is low, and Alluvial Aquifer would fall to critical levels, leaving most groundwater from the aquifer is discharged into the river. irrigated farms without operational wells. Groundwater use These seasonal changes in water levels in the Alluvial and uncertain aquifer levels in Arkansas have raised Aquifer may be quite large. According toRenken (1998) the concern by state officials and policy makers, calling for decline in water levels in the Mississippi River Valley conservation methods by the agricultural community and AlluvialAquifer from spring to fall, 1965, was greater than legislation encouraging alternate plans for water utilization. 3.05 meters (10 feet) in some areas. The seasonal influx Government incentives and payback enticements are now makes the alluvial aquifer a renewable resource, albeit at a available to encourage these management practices. very sluggish rate. However, the natural recharge of this The reuse of irrigation water from agricultural fields resource cannot compensate for the constant demands of targeted for discharge into receiving streams is defined as groundwater withdrawals. tailwater recovery. Capture techniques vary according to Approximately 26.9 billion L (7.1 billion gal) of source waters used; these include groundwater, surface Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 58, 2004 http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol58/iss1/6 24 24 1 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 58 [2004], Art. 6 J.L. Bouldin, N.A. Bickford, H.B. Stroud and G.S. Guha Commercial Aquaculture ° Public supply J 6% Irrigation 84% Fig 2. Groundwater use from the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer during 1995 as reported by USGS water from rivers, streams, and runoff. Storage reservoirs of gills, and transport of sediment-bound contaminants (US hold water that is then utilized for irrigation. Irrigation EPA, 2002). Turbidity caused by erosion is often associated water is then recaptured following release from flooded with additional contaminants, such as nutrients, pathogens, fields and redirected to the reservoir for future reuse.
Recommended publications
  • Structures Assisting the Migrations of Non-Salmonid Fish: USSR
    FAO Structures assisting FISHERIES TECHNICAL the migrations of PAPER non-salmonid fish: USSR 308 D.S. Pavlov Severtsov's Institute of the Evolutionary Morphology and Ecology of Animals Leninskii Prospekt 33 117071 Moscow B-71, USSR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 1989 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. M-42 ISBN 92-5-102857-5 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechani- cal, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. 0 FAO 1989 PREPARATION OF THIS DOC UMENT The Working Party of Experts on Inland Fisheries of the Indo-Pacific Commission, at a meeting in New Delhi, India, in January 1984, recommended that information be collected on the use of fish-passes. s a result of this recommenda- tion, FAO commissioned a consultant to review stn ctures assisting migration of non-salmonid stocks in the USSR. The original manuscript has been subject to substantial editing by Drs R.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the AFS Southern Division Trout Committee Meeting May 23-24, 2006 Gaston’S Resort, Arkansas
    Minutes of the AFS Southern Division Trout Committee Meeting May 23-24, 2006 Gaston’s Resort, Arkansas The 2006 meeting of the American Fisheries Society – Southern Division Trout Committee was called to order at 8:30 AM by Matt Kulp, Chair. A quorum of 10 members was present. Old Business Matt Kulp distributed the 2005 meeting minutes. Jim Habera made a motion for approval which was seconded by Doug Besler, and the minutes were approved by the membership. Frank Fiss gave a report on the SDAFS meeting held in San Antonio, Texas. A discussion about a proposed symposium on 2-story lake fisheries followed. There is not much information available yet, but the symposium will have invited papers on various issued concerning 2-story fisheries. Darrell Bowman gave the Treasurer’s report. A new account with Bank of America has been opened. Since the last Treasurer’s report, a check to AFS for the publication of the Southern Appalachian Brook Trout paper was written. Also, Jack van Deventer was reimbursed for attending the recent SDAFS meeting to discuss Microfish 3.0. Current balance is $4663 and about $1100 will be needed for the 2006 committee meetng. Mike Kruse made a motion to accept the Treasurer’s report and was seconded by Frank Fiss. The motion passed unanimously. Jim Habera discussed the electrofishing gear study to be conducted August 8-10, 2006. Anyone who would like to participate is welcome and should contact Jim. University of Tennessee researchers have reviewed other studies concerning comparisons of various types of electrofishing gear. Matt Kulp gave an update on Microfish 3.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015
    AnnualAnnual ReportReport 20152015 MassachusettsMassachusetts DivisionDivision ofof FisheriesFisheries && WildlifeWildlife 109 Annual Report 2015 Massachusetts Division of fisheries & WilDlife Wayne MacCallum (partial year) Jack Buckley (partial year) Director Susan Sacco Assistant to the Director Jack Buckley (partial year) Rob Deblinger, Ph.D. (partial year) Deputy Director Deputy Director Administration Field Operations Jim Burnham Debbie McGrath Administrative Assistant to the Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Director, Administration Deputy Director, Field Operations Blank Page Inside Title Page>>> 4 Table of Contents The Board Reports .............................................................................................6 Fisheries ...........................................................................................................16 Wildlife .............................................................................................................30 Private Lands Habitat Management ................................................................47 Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program .........................................50 Information & Education ................................................................................61 Hunter Education ............................................................................................71 District Reports ................................................................................................73 Wildlife Lands ..................................................................................................88
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects
    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-209 Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office Gloucester, Massachusetts February 2008 Recent Issues in This Series: 191. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Lisa C. Hendrickson and Elizabeth M. Holmes. November 2004. v + 36 p., 13 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005- 101437. [Online publication only.] 192. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By David K. Stevenson and Marcy L. Scott. July 2005. vi + 84 p., 40 figs., 7 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-107567. [Online publication only.] 193. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Larry D. Jacobson. August 2005. v + 42 p., 20 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-110684. [Online publication only.] 194. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2005. By Gordon T. Waring, Elizabeth Josephson, Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds. Dana Belden, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Keith D. Mullin, Christopher Orphanides, Richard M. Pace III, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, and Fredrick W. Wenzel, contribs. March 2006. v + 392 p., 45 figs, 79 tables, 5 app., index. NTIS Access No. PB 2007-104395. 195. A Large Marine Ecosystem Voluntary Environmental Management System Approach to Fisheries Practices. By Frank J. Gable. December 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilization of Unique Tailwater Habitats Below High-Head Dams Has Become
    Brown Trout Population Response to Trophy Regulations and Reservoir Discharge in a Large, Southeastern U.S. Tailwater by: David P. Dreves, Jeff R. Ross, and Jarrad T. Kosa Bulletin No. 111 March 2014 BROWN TROUT POPULATION RESPONSE TO TROPHY REGULATIONS AND RESERVOIR DISCHARGE IN A LARGE, SOUTHEASTERN U.S. TAILWATER By David P. Dreves, Jeff R. Ross, Jarrad T. Kosa Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources March 2014 Partially funded by Sport Fish Restoration Funds Sport Fish Restoration Project F-40 “Statewide Fisheries Research” ABSTRACT Reservoir tailwaters can be an important resource for developing quality trout fisheries, especially when managed with special regulations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a 508 mm minimum length limit and a one-fish-per-day creel limit on improving the size structure of the brown trout Salmo trutta population in the Cumberland River below Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. The purpose of the new regulations, which did not include gear or bait restrictions, was to increase the numbers of quality (381-507 mm total length) and trophy-size (≥ 508 mm total length) brown trout in the 121 km tailwater. A significant increase in brown trout electrofishing catch per unit effort was observed across years for small (< 381 mm), quality, trophy-size trout, and all sizes combined. As brown trout electrofishing and angler catch rates increased over time, no corresponding decrease in growth or condition was observed. Reservoir discharge was positively correlated with warmer water temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen in the tailwater. Growth and condition of brown trout in the tailwater were inversely correlated with an index of discharge from the reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Maritime Markets for Marine and Hydrokinetic Technologies: Draft Report
    Potential Maritime Markets for Marine and Hydrokinetic Technologies: Draft Report April 2018 This information is predecisional and is for informational purposes only. No funding is being offered and no proposals are being solicited. (This page intentionally left blank) ii This information is predecisional and is for informational purposes only. No funding is being offered and no proposals are being solicited. 1 Acknowledgements 2 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office would like to express our 3 appreciation to everyone who has contributed to the general fact-finding of this task, including DOE 4 leadership, other DOE offices, the national labs, our friends in the U.S. Department of Defense and Navy, our 5 friends at other federal agencies, our affiliated universities, representatives from companies in the marine 6 energy community, and our new friends representing new industries and opportunities for marine energy. iii This information is predecisional and is for informational purposes only. No funding is being offered and no proposals are being solicited. 7 Table of Contents 8 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... iii 9 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... iv 10 List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Salinas Valley Irrigation and Nutrient Management Program (Inmp)
    SALINAS VALLEY IRRIGATION AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (INMP) 12-414-553 FINAL PROJECT REPORT Final Report California’s Proposition 84 Agricultural Water Quality Grant Program Agreement No. 12-414-553 Total Grant Funds: $1,250,000 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was made possible and the outcome successful by the combined effort and contributions of many individuals and organizations. Successful implementation was achieved through the coordinated dedicated work of project partners (CCR, CCWG, RCDMC, MBNMS, UCCE), the project manager & administrators from CCRWQCB, land owners where assessment were conducted and projects implemented (Ag Land Trust, DOLE, P,G&E, Oceanmist Farm, and USDA Research Station), permitting agencies (Monterey County and SWRCB) and the engineers and contractors who made it happen on the ground. The following individuals played important roles in the inspiration, planning, management and implementation Salinas Valley Irrigation and Nutrient Management Program Project Partners: Coastal Conservation and Research, Inc.: Jim Oakden Central Coast Wetlands Group: Ross Clark, Sierra Ryan, Jason Adelaars, Kevin O’Connor UC Cooperative Extension: Michael Cahn, Laura Murphy, Tom Lockhart MBNMS: Bridget Hoover, Pam Krone RCDMC: Paul Robins, Ben Burgoa Grant Management CCRWQCB: Katie McNeill, Stacy Denney, Karen Worcester Ocean Mist Bioreactor: Sea Mist Farms: Dale Huss Pajaro Valley Laser Leveling: Bob and Chris Peixoto CC&R Restoration Crew:Jane Echenique, Sarah Jeffries, Dorota Szuta, Niko Oliver MLML Volunteers:
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic Fish Growth Modeling for Tailwater Fishery Management
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Department of Energy Publications U.S. Department of Energy 1992 Dynamic Fish Growth Modeling for Tailwater Fishery Management Ming Shiao Tennessee Valley Authority Gary Hauser Tennessee Valley Authority Gary Chapman EPA Envir. Research Laboratory Bruce Yeager Tennessee Valley Authority Tom McDonough Tennessee Valley Authority See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub Part of the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons Shiao, Ming; Hauser, Gary; Chapman, Gary; Yeager, Bruce; McDonough, Tom; and Ruane, Jim, "Dynamic Fish Growth Modeling for Tailwater Fishery Management" (1992). US Department of Energy Publications. 53. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub/53 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Energy at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Department of Energy Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Ming Shiao, Gary Hauser, Gary Chapman, Bruce Yeager, Tom McDonough, and Jim Ruane This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ usdoepub/53 Published in Hydraulic Engineering: Saving a Threatened Resource—In Search of Solutions: Proceedings of the Hydraulic Engineering sessions at Water Forum ’92. Baltimore, Maryland, August 2–6, 1992. Published by American Society of Civil Engineers. Dynamic Fish Growth Modeling for Tailwater Fishery Management Ming Shiao·, Gary Hauser2, Gary Chapman3, Bruce Yeager4, Tom MCDonough5, and Jim Ruane6 Abstract Tailwater fisheries below hydroprojects are affected by variable flows and water quality in dam releases.
    [Show full text]
  • Positive Interactions in Freshwater Systems
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 12-2018 Positive Interactions in Freshwater Systems Samuel Clarence Silknetter Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Recommended Citation Silknetter, Samuel Clarence, "Positive Interactions in Freshwater Systems" (2018). All Theses. 3257. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/3257 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POSITIVE INTERACTIONS IN FRESHWATER SYSTEMS A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Wildlife and Fisheries Biology by Samuel Clarence Silknetter December 2018 Accepted by: Dr. Brandon Peoples, Committee Chair Dr. Kyle Barrett Dr. Troy Farmer ABSTRACT The goals of this thesis are twofold, 1) to review the existing literature on positive interactions, and 2) to experimentally test the role of biotic context in a freshwater reproductive interaction. First, my co-authors and I have conducted a review of positive interactions in freshwaters to establish a direction for future research. By outlining case studies and causal mechanisms, we illustrate the diversity of positive interactions, and set the stage for a comprehensive look at the role of context in shaping interaction outcomes. Our research directive focuses on the value of both basic life history and experimental research, then using those findings to investigate these interactions under different contexts, in different levels of ecosystem structure, and at multiple geographic scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Tailwater Recovery and On-Farm Storage Reservoir: System Overview
    Tailwater Recovery and On-Farm Storage Reservoir: System Overview Tailwater recovery (TWR) systems are a combination of financially assisted (by Natural Resources Conservation Service) conservation practices aimed at collecting runoff and storing that water for irrigation. As freshwater resources for irrigation decline, this surface water storage structure is a viable option for capturing and recycling precipitation and irrigation runoff. Figure 1. Top: Section view diagram of a TWR system installed in Mississippi’s Delta region. Middle: Plan view diagram of the same TWR system. Bottom: The TWR system shown in diagrams. Potential practices in TWR systems • Critical area stabilization (342) • Pumping plant water control (533) (NRCS practice codes): • Irrigation water conveyance (430) • Access road (560) • Irrigation reservoir (436) • Irrigation water management (449) • Water control structures (587) • Tailwater recovery (437) • Precision land forming (462) • Dikes (356) In-Field TWR System Practices Precision land form- ing (land leveling, land grading) is used to direct water to one end of the field by grading the field with a slope of 0–0.1 inch per 100 feet run for rice and 0.1–0.2 inch per 100 feet run for cotton, corn, and soybeans. Figure 2. Depiction of precision land forming impact on landscape grade. Top: Diagram of unleveled corn field. Middle: Tractors and scrapers for precision land forming. Bottom: Diagram of precision graded field. Edge-of-Field TWR System Practices Water control structures (riser or slotted board pipes) are used to convey water from the field through the dikes (pads) on the perimeter of the field and into the TWR ditch.
    [Show full text]
  • (PASS) Winthrop National Fish Hatchery Steelhead Management
    Project Alternatives Solution Study (PASS) Winthrop National Fish Hatchery Steelhead Management – RPA Action 40 Implementation Proposals Conducted by and for the Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bonneville Power Administration, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS, Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Regional Office Boise, Idaho September 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior The Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. Mission of the Bureau of Reclamation The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover Photograph: View of the Winthrop National Fish Hatchery, Winthrop, Washington. Table of Contents Page 1. Summary of PASS Process ............................................................................................... 1 2. Project Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1 3. Summary of Background Information............................................................................ 2 4.
    [Show full text]