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