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??