![9
OUTPUT REPORT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
N
O. with T
otal Collector CON
DITION OF MA
NH
OLES CON
DITIONOU
TFA
LL
TOTA
L Problems Com
plaints Lateral B
lock
ed T
ot
al High B
lock
ed B
lock
ed
( no. ) ( no. ) (no. ) B
lock
ed or Num
be
r W
ate
r or or Subm
erged
B
rok
en Problems Le
vel B
rok
en B
rok
en
1 DD
AAA 54 10 40 8 5 4 0
2 DD
AAB 62 7 9 3 1 0 8
3 DD
AAC 48 6 6 2 0 0 4
4 DD
AAD 56 4 6 1 0 0 0
5 DD
BBB 42 12 14 7 2 6 0
6 DD
BBC 64 3 6 2 0 0 0
7 D
D
DC
C 45 4 5 3 1 0 0
9
TO
TALS 371 46 86 26 9 10 12
TYPE OF PROBLEM
COLLECT
ORS
H
igh
Ground
Wa
ter
Le
vel
High Soil
Salinity
DESIGN
AREA
FORM: PER-COM-04 [DC]
D
RA
INA
GEC
EN
TRE 6-MONT
HLY REPORT : SU
MMAR
Y OF SU
B-SURFACE D
RAINAGE SYSTEMPER
FORMANC
E
Subsurface Drainage](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/monitringeveluation111-241205180837-c580e262/85/monitoring-and-evaluation-of-water-quality-ppt-32-320.jpg)
monitoring and evaluation of water quality.ppt
- 1. Monitoring and Evaluation In EPADP
- 2. Monitoring & Evaluation Monitoring is not new
- 3. Drainage is essential for Egypt To: - • Control the water table for optimum crops growth • Prevents water logging and salinization of agricultural land • Improves soil structure • Improves & increase the crops production. • Increase the annual farmer income
- 4. MONITORING ACTIVITIES • Effects on salinity and groundwater • Impacts on crop production • Performance of the system • Farmers Complaints • Maintenance of open/subsurface drains • Data storage & retrieval
- 5. Data Collection physical parameters: Regional M&E unit + field staff DC/DDG Data Collection crops: CAAES Soil & Water analysis: 5 Regional Laboratories EPADP supported by DRI Evaluation/Reporting: Central M&E unit ORGANISATION
- 6. MONITORING PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE (EFFECTS on) Ground Water Tables (GWT) Water salinity ( W.S) Soil Salinity (S.S) MONITORING CROP PRODUCTION (IMPACTS on) Yields (kg/feddan) Annual Farm Income
- 7. Select sample area: (approx 10 - 15 % total area) Select Graid point Measuerments water tabel depth Water salinity Soil salinity Crop yield Analysis of Data Methedolegy
- 8. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 1B2 10" 6" 6" 16" 8 " 8 " ± 0 500 1,000 250 Meters Legend ( Manhole Collect Lateral Road Canal Drain Building Collectors, Laterals, Manholes and Diameters of Pipes Sub_Surface Drainage Networks Map Scale 1: 25.000
- 9. SELECTION OF SAMPLE AREAS WITHIN A DESIGN AREA SA-1 SA-2 OPEN CANAL OPEN Drain ROAD FIGURE 3-2. SAMPLE AREA OPEN canal OPEN Drain OPEN DRAIN
- 10. Criteria for selecting the grid point • Locates about 100 m away from the canal or drain . •Locates about 40-50 m away from the meska . •A grid point has been selected in the 13 between laterls •· The distance between the two points is from 300 to 500 m. 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 10 9 8 13 12 11 16 15 14 19 18 17 Open Drain Observation well Collector Collector Collector Collector Collector Collector Manhole
- 11. PVC-DRAIN PIPE COMPACTED SOIL COMPACTED SOIL LAND SURFACE AUGERHOLE FIGURE 1 INSTALLATION OF OBSERVATION WELL 1 – Ground Water Tabel Depth
- 12. 2 – Water Salinity EC-Meter Groundlevel Water table Observation Well Probe FIGURE 3 SALINITY MEASUREMENT OF GROUNDWATER
- 14. Water Tabel Dpth after irrigation -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 0 5 10 15 cm below surface
- 15. -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 CM Area1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 1- GROUND WATER DEPTH AFTER 5 DAYES Before Exe After Exe
- 16. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % Area > 4 mmohse cm Area 1 Area 2 Area3 Area 4 Area5 2 - SOIL SALINITY mmohse cm Before Exe After Exe
- 17. Impact of drainage on • Crop Yields
- 18. 4 Obs. Well 2 R=50m COTTON RICE MAIZE COLLECTOR OPEN DRAIN SELECTION OF YIELD MONITORING PLOTS FIGURE 3-8. SELECTION OF CROP MONITORING PLOTS
- 19. Average yield of Wheat in T. Mazied 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Ton / ha Before After Average yield of Maize in Ebshan 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Ton / ha Before After Average yield of Cotton in Trouga 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Ton / ha Before After Average yield of Rice in Ebshan 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Ton / ha Before After
- 20. Impact on Wheat production
- 21. WHEAT: Average yield before and after drainage 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 New Non-Saline New Saline Rehabilitated Kg/feddan Before After
- 22. Impact on Maize production
- 23. MAIZE: Average yield before and after drainage 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 New Non-Saline New Saline Rehabilitated kg/feddan Before After
- 24. Impact on Cotton production
- 25. COTTON: Average yield before and after drainage 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 New Non-Saline New Saline Rehabilitated kg/feddan Before After
- 26. Impact on Rice production
- 27. RICE: Average yield before and after drainage 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 New Non-Saline New Saline Rehabilitated EGP / feddan Before After
- 28. Annual Farm income 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 New Non-Saline New Saline Rehabilitated EGP / feddan Before After
- 30. Maintenance of drainage networks • Maintenance of Surface Drainage ( Weed Control - Desilting ). • Maintenance of water structures on open drains • Maintenance of Subsurface Drainage system ( Flushing - Manhole cleaning )
- 31. OUTPUT REPORT DRAINAGE CENTRAL DEPT. REPORTING PERIOD : DIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESPONSIBLE ENGINEER : TOTAL AVERAGE < 3 M 3 - 6 M 6 - 10 M 10 - 15 M > 15 M Total Cost Total Cost EGP RATE (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) KM EGP KM EGP EGP/KM TOTALS COSTS WEED CONTROL OPEN DRAIN BED WIDTH CONTRACTOR WORK DONE BY : EPADP EPADP, NATIONAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM DIRECTORATE-GENERAL PROGRESS REPORT : PART 2. Weed Control ANNUAL REPORT OPEN DRAIN SYSTEM FORM : OM- DRAINAGE CENTRE 2 3 1 Surface Drainge
- 32. 9 OUTPUT REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 N O. with T otal Collector CON DITION OF MA NH OLES CON DITIONOU TFA LL TOTA L Problems Com plaints Lateral B lock ed T ot al High B lock ed B lock ed ( no. ) ( no. ) (no. ) B lock ed or Num be r W ate r or or Subm erged B rok en Problems Le vel B rok en B rok en 1 DD AAA 54 10 40 8 5 4 0 2 DD AAB 62 7 9 3 1 0 8 3 DD AAC 48 6 6 2 0 0 4 4 DD AAD 56 4 6 1 0 0 0 5 DD BBB 42 12 14 7 2 6 0 6 DD BBC 64 3 6 2 0 0 0 7 D D DC C 45 4 5 3 1 0 0 9 TO TALS 371 46 86 26 9 10 12 TYPE OF PROBLEM COLLECT ORS H igh Ground Wa ter Le vel High Soil Salinity DESIGN AREA FORM: PER-COM-04 [DC] D RA INA GEC EN TRE 6-MONT HLY REPORT : SU MMAR Y OF SU B-SURFACE D RAINAGE SYSTEMPER FORMANC E Subsurface Drainage
- 33. OUTPUT REPORT DRAINAGE CENTRAL DEPT. REPORTING PERIOD : DIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESPONSIBLE ENGINEER : OUTFALLS COLLECTORS MANHOLES LATERALS TOTAL Average EGP RATE (KM ) (M 3) No. No. (KM ) No. (KM ) EGP/KM OPEN DRAINS 1 WEED CLEANING O.D 2 DESILTING O.D 3 RESHAPING O.D. 4 STRUCTURE CLEANING 5 STRUCTURE REPAIR 6 STRUCTURE RENEWAL SUBSURFACE DRAINS 7 CLEANING OUTFALLS 8 CLEANING MANHOLES 9 CLEANING COLLECTORS 10 CLEANING LATERALS 11 REPAIR OUTFALLS 12 REPAIR MANHOLES 13 REPAIR COLLECTORS 14 REPAIR LATERALS 15 RENEW OUTFALLS 16 RENEW MANHOLES 17 RENEW COLLECTORS 18 RENEW LATERALS EPADP, NATIONAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ANNUAL REPORT : PART 5. SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE COSTS FORM : OM-COST-05 ACTIVITY COSTS SUBSURFACE DRAINS OPEN DRAINS WEED CLEANING DESILTING STRUCTURES Cost Summary of Maintenance
- 34. Complaint Monitoring Identify & Solving the problems includes -: • Record of Complaints. • Investigation & Reason of problems • Solving of problems
- 35. 6 EPADP, NATIONAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM DRAINAGE CENTRE REPORT No : DATE RECEIVED : Responsible Supervisor : 1 NAME OF COLLECTOR USERS GROUP NAME OF FARMER 2 LOCATION OF FARM PLOT OR PROBLEM Collector no: 12 Between Manholes no: 5 and no: 6 What side of the Collector ? Left Right 3 COMPLAINT OF ONE FARMER OR GROUP OF FARMERS My self 15 4 REPORTED COMPLAINT Group of farmers HIGH GROUNDWATER AND HIGH WATER LEVEL IN MANHOLE SUB-CENTRE DESIGN AREA AHMED FARAG FORM : PER-COM-01 COLLECTOR USER's COMPLAINT REPORT Number of Farmers : FIELD FORM Part (1)
- 36. Rehabilitation -: 1 - Age of the network is not the only criteria for rehabilitation 2 - Physical Measurements are the important indicators to identify Drainage conditions. 3 - Complaint frequency & high maintenance cost
- 37. Rehabilitation is done when -: 1- Groundwater is rising to unacceptable levels. 2 - Soil Salinity is increasing. 3 - Cost to maintain the system performance becomes unacceptably high. 4- Willingness to pay for costs of rehabilitation. 5- Willingness to participate in the O&M of Drainage system
- 38. HYPOTHETICAL SCORING TABLE FOR PRIORITY RANKING. Signal or Indicator Score: 0 Score : 1 Score : 2 Score : 3 Status Relative area with problems No Problems < 10 % Few , minor Problems 10 % - 30 % Many, minor Problems >30 % Many, severe Problems > 30% 1. Hydraulic performance 1.1 Open drains 1.2 Manholes 1.3 Laterals/Collectors WL >2.5 m - GL WL > 1.8 m - GL Flowing WL 2.5 - 1.8 m WL 1.4 -1.8 m Flowing WL 1.8 - 1.4 m WL 1.4 - 1.0 m poor/no flow WL < 1.4 m -GL WL <1.0 m -GL No flow 2. Complaints 2.1 Intensity 2.2 Problem solving None Not Significant Low Done by farmers Medium Done by Drainage Centres High Problems persist 3. Physical Performance 3.1 WTD 3.2 Soil ECe in 90 % of area > - 80 cm < 4 dS/m in < 30 % of area >-60 to <-80 cm > 4 to < 6 dS/m in > 30 % of area >-60 to <-80 cm > 4 to < 6 dS/m in > 30 % of area < - 60 cm > 6 dS/m 4. Maintenance & Repair 4.1 Intensity 4.2 Costs in LE/fed/yr < 1 x year < LE 10 1 - 2 x year LE 10. - LE 20 3 - 4 x year LE 20 - LE 40 > 4 x year > LE 40
- 39. Monitoring & Evaluation in EPADP • Thank you for your attention