nwf 3/1/03, blgs facts about cbm and water extraction of cbm requires withdrawal of water from coal...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Facts about CBM and water Extraction of CBM requires
withdrawal of water from coal seams containing methane.
Projections call for disposal or management of one quarter million acre-feet of product water annually in the Powder River Basin.
Common signature of CBM product water is salinity, sodicity, ammonia, bicarb, minor other constituents.
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Montana
Wyoming
NorthDakota
South Dakota
Towns
Powder River Basin
Coal strip mines
Areas prospective forCBM exploitation
Areas of current CBM development
Axis of Powder RiverBasin
Powder
Casper
Gillette
Sheridan
BroadusAshland
Colstrip
Miles CityForsyth
Belle Fourche
River
North Platte
River
Decker
TongueYello
wstone
River
EPA Region 8
Courtesy of John Wheaton, MBMG
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
How much water? Average annual flow of Tongue
River is ~ 320,000 acre feet
Projected CBM product water volume is ~ 250,000 acre feet/year
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Water Quantity and Quality Will Dictate Water Management
Options
Discharge to surface streams Ephemeral v. perennial Loosing v. gaining
Surface discharge, spreading, irrigation
Discharge to impoundments Evaporation v. infiltration Long term recharge v. abandonment
Re-Injection – shallow v. deep
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Options for Beneficial Use Livestock – watering, dispersals,
enhancement of forage utilization Fish and wildlife –flow augmentation and
salinity modification-quality dependent Industrial – dust, fire, extraction, new uses Irrigation and added rainfall effects-??? Aquifer recharge, water storage Recreation Augmentation of domestic supplies – wells
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Generalizations about CBM Product Water Quality
Range in TDS of PRB CBM product water is 270-2,730 ppm, average is 740 ppm; median is 838 ppm
Drinking water standard is 500 ppm
Livestock water standard is 5,000-10,000 ppm
SAR range of 5-68.7, median 8.8; threshold = 12
EC (SP) ranges from < 0.5 to > 10 dS/m across basin; threshold = 3.0 dS/m
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
The most looked-at water quality parameters
Parameter
Units Typical PRB CBM
Water
Livestock Irrigation Criteria
Primary Drinking
Secondary Drinking
TDS mg/L,ppm
270-2,730
5,000-10,000
1,240-1,920
500
EC, SC
mmhos/cm, dS/m
0.6-3.8
7.8-15.6
2.0-3.0, 8.0+
0.8
SAR ~Na/Ca+Mg
5-3540-50+
7-12varies
Chloride
mg/L, ppm
5-40 250
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
The most looked-at water quality parameters
Parameter
Units Typical PRB CBM
Water
Livestock Irrigation Criteria
Primary Drinking
Secondary Drinking
Barium ug/L 100-2,000
2,000
Boron ug/L 70-150 5,000 750-6,000
Fluoride
ug/L 200-2,000
2,000-3,000
4,000
Fe (diss)
ug/L <30-1,400
5,000 300
Selenium
ug/L < 5 50-100 20 50
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
What is saline water and what are the common problems or difficulties
with the use of saline water for irrigation?
Saline water has a relatively high concentration of dissolved salts (sodium, calcium, magnesium, sulfates, chlorides, bicarbonates).
Plant growth becomes a problem as salts accumulate in the root zone high enough to negatively affect plant growth.
Excess soluble salts in the root zone restrict plant roots from withdrawing water from the surrounding soil.
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Tolerant EC > 10
Semi-Tolerant EC = 4-10
Sensitive EC < 4
Crops BarleySugarbeetSunflower
WheatOatsCornSafflower
PotatoField BeanPeasLentils
Forages Tall wheatgrassBeardless wildryeAltai wildryeSlender wheatgrassWestern WheatgrassRussian wildryeBarley
SweetcloverAlfalfaTall FescueWheat (hay)OrchardgrassCicer milkvetch
White cloverRed cloverLadino cloverAlsike cloverMeadow foxtail
Crop Tolerance to Saline Water
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
What is sodic water and what are the common difficulties with the use of
sodic water for irrigation? The sodicity of water is expressed as the Sodium
Adsorption Ratio (SAR) which is: The relative amount of sodium compared to
calcium and magnesium; SAR greater than 12. Sodic water is not necessarily saline.
leads to poor drainage and crusting, which can affect establishment, growth and yield.
irrigation with sodic water on sandy soils does not cause crusting and poor drainage. However, if the water is saline-sodic, it may affect crop growth and yield.
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
CBM product water in the Powder River Basin -
knowns
Trend of increasing sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solids (TDS) progressing north and west through the basin (Rice et al., 2000).
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Additional knowns Most wells in southern portion are
within the irrigation standards; Most wells in the northern section
are above the limits for salinity and sodicity (Rice et al., 2002).
Soils are generally high in clays and can be saline-sodic.
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Montana
Wyoming
South Dakota
North Dakota
Casper
Miles CityForsyth
North Platte
River
677
11
8
29
2418
32
53
1
24
45
3
32Circle size isProportional to TDS
Number is SAR
Courtesy of John Wheaton, MBMG
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Saline and sodic conditions promote new plant communities
Typically, encroachment by saline and sodic water promotes development of salt-tolerant, halophytic communities
Commonly occurring species include: Prairie cordgrass Cattail Baltic rushes American bullrush Salt cedar Alkali grass
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Tolerance and/or sensitivity of culturally significant plant species on the Northern
Cheyenne Reservation to salinity, sodicity, and flooding -
Sensitive (EC < 2 dS/m, SAR 1.6 - 8
June/Service Berry Red Osier Dogwood Red Shoot Goose
Berry Chokecherry Wild Plum Quaking Aspen Leafy Aster Red Raspberry
Moderately Sensitive (EC 2-4 dS/m, SAR <8)
Common Spikerush Field Horsetail Horsemint Sweet Medicine Sandbar Willow Snowberry Cattail Sweet Grass Saw Beak Sedge Stinging Nettle Western Yarrow
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Change in CBM water chemistry over a 9 day time period following
dischargesubject to evapoconcentration.
Initial
pHFinal pH
Initial EC
Final EC
Initial SAR
Final SAR
% Change
EC
% Change
SAR
WQ6 7.4 8.1 3.07 3.75 3.7 4.4 22.15 18.92
WQ7 7.7 8.4 3.36 4.01 12.5 18 19.35 44.00
WQ8 7.5 9.1 5.42 6.71 20.7 33.8 23.80 63.29
Average %
Change
21.77 42.07
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Change from outfall to irrigation
Aaron DeJoia Cascade
Earth Sciences
Source pH SAR ECmmhos/cm
Outfall 7.5 20-26 3.8-4.2
Pump 8.2 27-30 2.6
Irrigation Nozzle
8.7 32 2.9
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
4 6 7 8 9 15 17 18 19 21 21 22 23 26 28 29 30 33 33 34 37 44 45 52 56
Ranked Clay %
EC
(d
S/m
) (S
atu
rate
d P
aste
Ext
ract
)
Baseline
1X Wet/Dry-P.R.
1X Wet/Dry-CBM
5X Wet/Dry-P.R.
5X Wet/Dry-P.R.+distilled
5X Wet/Dry-CBM
5X Wet/Dry-CBM + distilled
Copyright: K. M. Robinson, MSU-BozemanLand Resources Environmental Science-2002
Textural Class 1 Textural Class 2 Textural Class 3 Textural Class 4
P.R. Treatment EC
CBM Treatment EC
Soil solution saturated paste extract (ECsat) versus percent clay of soil material prior to
treatment (baseline) and following treatment with various water quality x wetting regimes
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
EC of shallow groundwater over a 20 week period of irrigation of Wytana saltbush( no drainage, average of all water table positions)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Weeks
PR-Wytana saltbush
CBM-Wytana saltbush
copyr ight 2001 -S.D. P helps
MSU-LRE S Dept
Bozeman, MT .
CBM EC
PR EC
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
Summary
Sustainable CBM product water management requires rigorous monitoring and coordinated management Essential requirements – Soil, water, and plant baseline information Amount and quality of CBM product water Rigorous monitoring at all points Coordinated water management with
multiple strategies
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
A Strategy for CBM product water management Key elements to CBM product
water management Watershed based water management Surface and ground water in concert Maximize beneficial uses – infrequent
water spreading Maximize plant consumptive use –
reducing water volumes with wetlands Minimize deep drainage
NWF 3/1/03, Blgs
MSU Water Quality Web Site
http://waterquality.montana.edu/