Prevention of acid waterload in the Siikajoki Pyhäjoki area (HaKu) - PDF

Description
Prevention of acid waterload in the Siikajoki Pyhäjoki area (HaKu) Project participants: Agrifood Research Finland, MTT Finnish Game and Fisheries, RKTL Geological Survey in Finland, GTK Oulu

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 39
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Research

Publish on:

Views: 16 | Pages: 39

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
Prevention of acid waterload in the Siikajoki Pyhäjoki area (HaKu) Project participants: Agrifood Research Finland, MTT Finnish Game and Fisheries, RKTL Geological Survey in Finland, GTK Oulu University, OU Presentation 1. HaKu project in general 2. Fish stocks and water quality(in forest ditches): main results year PreliminaryresultsfromMTT Ruukki ResearchStation: Drainage systems for preventing acid load from fields to river 1. Test area, materials and methods 2. Weather results 3. Water level, quality and flow 4. Barleyyieldsfromthe testareas 4. Project future Project basics Target: Find the methods how to prevent the acid water flow damage Siikajoki- and Pyhäjoki rivers Duration: Functions in Mini Catermass 1. Mapping ASS (GTK): location and features of ASS 2. Investigating water quality in the project area (RKTL, OU) 3. Methods to prevent oxidation in ASS, including field and forest areas (MTT, OU) 4. Reporting the results of the project and recommending land use in ASS areas (all participants) HaKu project area: Siikajoki river and Pyhäjoki river and their watersheds MTT Ruukki Water quality and fish stocks: main results (year 2010) 1. Fish stocks are getting better (dramatic decrease in fish stocks in 2006, especially in Siikajoki and Luohuajoki rivers) 2. Water flowing to the rivers from fields seems to be more acid than water coming from forests Photo: Jermi Tertsunen More fish stock results: More closely: Runoff water from ditched forest areas Supplementary ditching in year 2006 Surface: 1m thick peat layer Summer 2010: water level in the ground about 1 m Photo: Tuomas Saarinen More results: ph, EC and water height in forest ditch (Site 1/3) Sulphide layer about 1 m deep Minimum ph at the end of September ( 4,5) Maximum EC in the beginning of August (~100 ms/m) Thick peat layer prevents the oxidation? Tuomas Saarinen (Oulu University) Underdrainage systems comparing 3 different kind of underdrainage systems Measuring water quality, flow and level in the ground Also soil and plant samples Yield (amount, quality) Test area: Siikajokiriver All drainage areas are 2 ha each The whole field is 6 ha 1. Irrigation and water recycling 3. Normal underdrainage Drainage areas (3) are isolated with 10 m wide area with out draining 2. Controlled underdrainage Slag was added to every half of the test areas Basics of the systems Normal underdrainage: very effective in moving water away from the field Controlled underdrainage: very effective drainage system, but water level in the field is under control Subsurface irrigation and water recycling: the maximum ground water level controlling (stable water level), no runoff to the environment in the summer 4. Pump on the shore 3. Basin Siikajoki -river Subsurface Irrigation and Water Recycling 1. Controlled well 2. Pumping well 3. Overflow well Overflow to the river Underdraining in autumn 2009 The bottom of the basin, autumn 2009 Sulphate and sulphide In the depth of about 1,3 m Weather data during the project operating period Precipitation 600,0 500,0 400,0 300,0 200,0 100,0 Year 2009 Year 2010 Precipitation , Both years 2009 and 2010 were dry. In autumn 2009 there were short but heavy rainfalls. Rain in autumn 2010 has been very slight and constant. Weather data during the project operating period Temperature sums 1400,0 1200,0 1000,0 degrees (celcius) 800,0 600,0 400,0 200,0 0,0 d.d d.d Long term d.d: , Two very warm summers Spring photos: Runoff to the river Runoff: spring Flow ph 7,0 6, ,0 Flow, liter /day ,0 3,0 ph , , ,0 Runoff period was quite short: Most of the water did runoff in one week Spring photos Middle of April Beginning of May Irrigation started in Stopped in Irrigated amount of water: litre = tons Photos: Maria Honkakoski Basin: colour of water changed during the spring Water level in underdrainage well Irrigation Control Normal Water level (cm) The level of the collector pipe -160 Water level controlled to the depth 60 cm in the summer 90 cm in the autumn minimum during the winter Underdrainage wells in the middle of summer 2010 Rust in the water in all wells ph-logger results - irrigated area 13,0 12,0 11,0 10,0 9,0 8,0 7,0 6,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0, Loggers can t stand the acid water for a long time Irrigated field Conductivity (us/cm) Sulphate concentration (mg /l) Irrigation started in and was stopped in the beginning of september ph Water quality results 2010 Conductivity Sulphate ph Water quality results 2010 Controlled underdrainage Conductivity Sulphate ph 7,0 6,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1, Conductivity (us/cm) Sulphate concentration (mg /liter) ph 0,0 Water did nt overflow at all in the controlled system in the summer. In autumn the overflow to the river was very slight Water quality results 2010 Normal underdrainage Conductivity Sulphate ph Conductivity (us/cm) Sulphate concentration (mg/l) ph 0 The flow from the normal ditch did affect the water quality of normal drainage system Picture of the flood of normal ditch Checking well on the normal underdrainage area Conductivity Sulphate ph Expected values in the middle of the normal underdrainage area Checking well = tarkastuskaivo ph results from the other fields of MTT Ruukki ph Savipelto 2008 Santapelto 2003 Huumosenpelto 2004 Piiponsuo 2005 Heikinpelto Compare eg. fields Santapelto, underdrained in year 2003 and Huumosenpelto, underdrained in year 2004. The water level in ditches affects to the flow from the underdrained area in normal underdrainage system The water quality in the irrigated area after summer was better than in other areas The overflow was highest in irrigated area in the autumn It took a long time for controlled and normal underdrainage systems before the overflow /runoff to the river started Overflow to the river, autumn Overflow, m flow control flow irrigation ph control ph irrigation ph Irrigated area: Better water quality, bigger amounts water to the river Controlled area: Terrible water quality, tiny amounts of water to the river Barley yields from the test areas Yield, kg /ha yield w ith slag yield w ithout slag irrigation control normal Underdrainage system Premilinary results, statistical significance not tested Area for yield measuring Growth without slag In future in our test area we will have Control ON over the whole year in the irrigated and controlled areas The water flow from the normal ditch to the normal underdrainage system must be prevented somehow in the spring and in the autumn Method for measuring flow in the spring (all test areas) Pipes for measuring the ground water level Interviews with land owners in the project area: Willingness /possibilities to carry out different kind of methods to prevent the acid flow Summary: underdrainage results Results from the underdrainaged area are extremely bad Two warm and dry summer Situation just after the underdrainage system was made Draining was made very deep Rainfalls in autumn and melting snow in the spring caused the acid flows There are big differences in water quality between fields even if the distances are small The effect of irrigation to the grain yield and quality should be taken to account in subcidies to the land owners Many solutions and applications, many experiences and exciting situations Project future Same functions until year 2012 Mapping Water quality: river, watersheds (forests, fields) Fish stocks survive Methods preventing the acid flow (underdrainage systems eg.) Interviews with land owners Raporting results and discussing with local decision makers Co-operation especially with Jermi Tertsunen (ELY) and the new ASS project Water neutralization in noticed ASS problem areas (separated from the HaKu -project in spring 2010) Catermass -project Kiitos! Thank You! Tack för alla! Siikajoki river in June
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks