surface coal mining impacts on concentration-discharge relationships: identifying spatial and...

18
Surface coal mining impacts on concentration-discharge relationships: Identifying spatial and temporal changes in the New River, TN Jenny Murphy Vanderbilt University USGS TN Water Science Center George Hornberger Vanderbilt University SA Annual Meeting, October 12, 2011

Upload: emil-king

Post on 29-Dec-2015

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Surface coal mining impacts on concentration-discharge relationships: Identifying spatial and temporal changes in the New River, TN

Jenny MurphyVanderbilt University

USGS TN Water Science Center

George HornbergerVanderbilt University

GSA Annual Meeting, October 12, 2011

MemphisNashville

Tennessee

Knoxville

Oak Ridge

New River

Indian Fork

Watershed boundaryStreamGauging Station / sample siteCoal mining disturbance

New River

Coal Mining in TennesseeLand use cover change

from 1973 to 20001977: SMCRA enacted1980: State program begins1983: “Massive failures”1984: TN federal program begins

(Loveland et al., 2003)

Data Sets

New River Indian Fork2007 2009

1977—1980 1975—1981

Parameters(1) Streamflow (2) Specific conductance (3) Sulfate

(USGS) (This study)

(USGS) (USGS)

Recent

Historic

Methods: Data Analysis

Intra-annual relationships(1) Linear regression on Log(C)-Log(Q) data

Episodic relationships (2) C-Q hysteresis plots

0.1 1 10 100 100010

100

1000

10000

f(x) = 283.1 x^-0.1777R² = 1

f(x) = 378.471696180653 x^-0.245450350207965R² = 0.804782802953823

Log(SpC)-Log(Q)

2007

Power (2007)

Flow (m3/s)

SpC

(uS/

cm)

Results: Linear regression

1976-1982

y = axb

n=68

n= 15-min

New River

Results: Linear regression

Indian Fork

0.01 0.1 1 1010

100

1000

10000

f(x) = 26.2879580409369 x^-1.14619456960979R² = 0.709399510950909

f(x) = 206.001213598993 x^-0.234178001632422R² = 0.271011020736519

Log(SO4)-Log(Q)HistoricPower (Historic)

Flow (m3/s)

Sulfa

te (m

g/L)

n=115

n=120Recent

y = axb

“Background” sulfate

Dickens et al 1989

Methods: C-Q plots

After Evans & Davies 1998

Discharge

Conc

entr

ation

0 10 20 30 40 50

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Total discharge

Non-impacted water

Impacted water

Event water

Methods: C-Q plots

Evans & Davies 1998

0 20 40 60 80

100

90

80

70

60

50

Discharge

Conc

entr

ation

0 20 40 60 80

100

90

80

70

60

50

DischargeCo

ncen

trati

on0 20 40 60 80

100

90

80

70

60

50

Discharge

Conc

entr

ation

0 20 40 60 80

100

90

80

70

60

50

Discharge

Conc

entr

ation

0 20 40 60 80

100

90

80

70

60

50

Discharge

Conc

entr

ation

0 20 40 60 80

100

90

80

70

60

50

DischargeCo

ncen

trati

on

(a) CE > CNI > CI (b) CE > CI > CNI (c) CNI > CE > CI

(d) CI > CNI > CE (e) CI > CE > CNI (f) CI > CE > CNI

C1 C2 C3

A1 A2 A3

Results: C-Q plots

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160100

150

200

250

300

350

Jan 5-7

Mar 15-20

Apr 4-7

Aug 4-5

Oct 24-28

Nov 15-16

Nov 26-Dec 2

Flow (Q)

SpC

(uS/

cm)

New River 2007

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160100

150

200

250

300

350

Jan 5-7

Mar 15-20

Apr 4-7

Aug 4-5

Oct 24-28

Nov 15-16

Nov 26-Dec 2

Flow (Q)

SpC

(uS/

cm)

Results: C-Q plots

~25 m3/s

New River 2007

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160100

150

200

250

300

350

Jan 5-7

Mar 15-20

Apr 4-7

Aug 4-5

Oct 24-28

Nov 15-16

Nov 26-Dec 2

Flow (Q)

SpC

(uS/

cm)

Results: C-Q plots

~25 m3/s

New River 2007

Results: C-Q plots

0.1 1 10 1000

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Sept 18-19

Sept 26-27

'Oct 9

Oct 31-Nov 1

Oct 15-16

Flow (Q)

SpC

(uS/

cm)

Indian Fork 2009

Results: C-Q plots

0.1 1 10 1000

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Sept 18-19

Sept 26-27

'Oct 9

Oct 31-Nov 1

Oct 15-16

Flow (Q)

SpC

(uS/

cm)

Indian Fork 2009

Results: C-Q plots

0.1 1 10 1000

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Sept 18-19

Sept 26-27

'Oct 9

Oct 31-Nov 1

Oct 15-16

Flow (Q)

SpC

(uS/

cm)

Indian Fork 2009

Conclusions1) Temporal: Linear regression• Minimal change in New River• Significant change in Indian Fork

2) Spatial: C-Q plots• Threshold (25m3/s) for C-Q

response in New River• No threshold in Indian Fork• Mixing modelsNew River (7% disturbed)

3 component mixingIndian Fork (23% disturbed)

2 component mixing

New River

Clea

r For

k

Big South Fork of the Cumberland River

Conclusions1) Temporal: Linear regression• Minimal change in New River• Significant change in Indian Fork

2) Spatial: C-Q plots• Threshold (25m3/s) for C-Q

response in New River• No threshold in Indian Fork• Mixing modelsNew River (7% disturbed)

3 component mixingIndian Fork (23% disturbed)

2 component mixing

New River

Clea

r For

k

Big South Fork of the Cumberland River

Questions?

AcknowledgementsVanderbilt University Environmental and Civil Engineering Lab

Vanderbilt University Earth and Environmental Science departmentBig South Fork National Recreation Area

Tennessee Water Science CenterGSA student research grant