monitoring surface-water-quality in the tongue river watershed of montana and wyoming
DESCRIPTION
Monitoring Surface-Water-Quality in the Tongue River Watershed of Montana and Wyoming. Stacy Kinsey Peter Wright, David Nimick, Thomas Chapin U.S. Geological Survey Billings, Montana. Talk Outline. What is the network? Need for network Objectives & methods Hydrology Some results - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey
Monitoring Surface-Water-Quality in the Tongue River Watershed of
Montana and Wyoming
Stacy Kinsey
Peter Wright, David Nimick, Thomas ChapinU.S. Geological Survey
Billings, Montana
Talk Outline
What is the network? Need for network Objectives & methods Hydrology Some results Concluding thoughts Cooperators
Tongue River above State Line
Where is the study?
Network
Started inJanuary 2004
7 mainstem sites 5 tributary sites Streamflow and
water quality
Need for MonitoringNetwork
Well completed before 1997
Well completed after 1997
(BLM 2003 EIS)
Coal Bed Methane (CBM)• What is it?• How is it extracted?• Why is this a concern?
Need for Monitoring Network
Discharge of CBM production water has potential to affect surface water quality
Increased sodium in irrigation water could affect soils
Tongue RiverCBM wells
Irrigated hay
Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)
SAR is the proportion of sodium ions relative to magnesium and calcium
When SAR gets above a certain level, the soils permeability is reduced, thus the water less available for plants.
Monitoring Objectives
Document water quality in Tongue River and major tributaries and detect changes, if any, over time
Provide real-time water-quality information for parameters of greatest concern (i.e., SC and SAR)
CBM discharge in Montananear State Line
Monitoring Approach
Collect periodic water-quality samples
Frequency Non-irrigation season
Monthly
Irrigation season –
Twice monthly
Parameters collected Major ions
Trace elements
Sediment
Water temp., D.O., pH, SC
Water-quality sampling at Tongue R. at State Line
Monitoring Approach
Collect continuous SC data in real-time
Provide estimates of SAR (from SC data) in real-time
Develop techniques to measure SAR in real-time
Provide information to the public
CBM Discharge to the Tongue River
Methods – Water Quality
Methods in USGS National Field Manual
“Clean hands/dirty hands” sampling at
Tongue R. at State Line
Methods – Continuous SC
Methods in USGS WRIR 00-4252
SC probe installation, Tongue R. at Monarch
Methods – Streamflow
Measure stage & flow periodically to develop a rating
Record stage continuously and convert to flow
Cableway at Tongue R. at Tongue R. Dam
Methods
DataManagement and Reporting
http://tonguerivermonitoring.cr.usgs.gov/
Hydrologic Conditions
Tongue River at State Line
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Oct-03 Jan-04 Jun-04 Oct-04 Jan-05 Jun-05 Oct-05
STR
EA
MFL
OW
(cfs
)
Long-term average flow
Hydrologic Conditions during 2004-05
Tongue River at State Line
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Oct-03 Jan-04 Jun-04 Oct-04 Jan-05 Jun-05 Oct-05
STR
EA
MFL
OW
(cfs
)
Long-term average flow
Actual flow
Hydrologic Conditions during 2004-05
Tongue River at State Line
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Oct-03 Jan-04 Jun-04 Oct-04 Jan-05 Jun-05 Oct-05
STR
EA
MFL
OW
(cfs
)
Long-term average flow
Actual flow
Sampling dates
SC
2004 irrigation season
Monthly means from continuous SC data
SAR
2004 irrigation season
SAR data from periodic water samples
SAR estimation
SC-SAR relation based on water-sample data
SAR estimationPrairie Dog Creek near Acme
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
10/03 12/03 3/04 7/04 9/04 12/04 4/05 7/05 10/05
SA
RSAR estimated from SC
SAR of samples
SAR estimationPumpkin Creek (1975-85)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 3,000 6,000 9,000
Specific Conductance (uS/cm)
SA
RQ < 1 cfsQ > 1 cfs (Feb-Mar)Q > 1 cfs (Apr-July)
Real-timeSAR
Tongue River at State Line
SAR Trends
SAR Trends
Synoptic – Fall 2005/Spring 2006
• Canoed a 30 mile stretch of Tongue River
• Took SC measurements periodically on the mainstem and before/after any inputs
• Measured SC and discharge from all CBM outfalls, along with samples from 5 of the 15 outfalls
Synoptic Study Area
Synoptic Findings
DISTANCE, IN RIVER MILES
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
SP
EC
IFIC
CO
ND
UC
TA
NC
E, IN
MIC
RO
SIE
ME
NS
PE
R C
EN
TIM
ET
ER
AT
25 D
EG
RE
ES
CE
LS
IUS
400
700
1000
1300
1600
1900
2200
2500
Young'sCreek
Tongue Riverat Monarch
Tongue Riverat State Line
PrairieDog
Creek
AshCreek
GooseCreek
Tongue River 9/27/2005
Permitted CBM dischargeTributaryIrrigation return flow
Tongue River 9/28/2005
Specific conductance measurements along the Tongue River, September 2005
Synoptic Findings
Potential effects of CBM on SARat Tongue River
at State Line
Discharge at Tongue River @ State Line (ft3/s)
50 100 200 400 600 8001000 1500 3000
SA
R
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
SAR at pre CBM levelsSAR at current CBM dischargesSAR with max permitted discharge - Nov.1-Feb.28SAR with max permitted discharge- Mar.1-Jun.30SAR with max permitted discharge - Jul.1-Oct.31
Concluding Thoughts
SAR values during 2000-05 appear slightly elevated, perhaps because of drought or CBM
Agencies, industry, irrigators, and stakeholders have been supportive
Long term monitoring is essential for objective
analysis Hopefully needs to continue to monitor changes
Tongue River below Tongue River Reservoir
Funding Sources
USGS (including Congressional earmark) Bureau of Land Management (Miles City office) T & Y Irrigation District / Fidelity Exploration Montana DNRC Northern Cheyenne Tribe Wyoming State Engineer Montana DEQ Wyoming DEQ
Tongue River Dam
Questions??