The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080868 Ver 2_Annual Science Meeting_20170227Part 1: Creek water quality Outline Purpose of monitoring program Creeks monitored Analysis —Temporal variability —Spatial variability — Pre- and post -mining impact Results Conclusions Purpose of monitoring • Has mining altered overall water quality within creeks? —Monitor water quality of creeks over time as well as spatially • Temporal variability shows how water quality in creeks varies through time at a particular station • Spatial variability shows how water quality at particular spatial locations varies in relation to other stations —Monitor water quality of creeks pre- and post - mining impact to determine impact of mining r,r m Duck Creek �° g DCUT19 y _ Porter Creek DCUT11 . ' Huddles Cut 14, PhOsphate ry�infkd f I ++ v 4 k Ae Toofey Deek lip Long Creek JacobsCree Drinkwater Creek J® Project Area 2 ®CISJacks Creek Fdwarc ® `® w ' v Little Creek Temporal variability • How does water quality vary within a year and over time in a creek? • Challenge Over 15 water quality parameters are measured, how to make a simplified, understandable time - series of these data? • Solution — Use multivariate, principal components analysis to simplify water quality data, use principal components as indices of water quality over time Spatial variability • Are there discernable patterns in water quality across the different stations? • Challenge —Over 15 water quality parameters are measured at each station, how to use this information to determine which stations are similar? • Solution —Use cluster analysis of a similarity matrix to determine how closely related stations are to each other Pre- and post -mining impact • How does water quality within an impacted creek change post -mining? • Challenge —Creeks have been monitored for various time - periods pre- and post -impact • Solution — Direction comparison of water quality parameters pre- and post -impact and treat each creek independently Other notes • All data presented are from 2012 -present, prior data are analyzed in the 2015 report • Pre- and post -impact analyses do include data prior to 2012 for creeks that have been monitored — However, gaps exist in the monitoring data over time Temporal variability — seasonal cycle captured 0.05 cv u 0 -0.05 Winter Spring ND NH DO TURK TDN DEP D TDP PO DKN pH SAL TEM PP GOND CHL PN Fall Summer -0.05 0 0.05 PC 1 Temporal variability — control creek 0 6 4 2 a 3 0 a 2 -4 -6 -g t PCI -Q- PC2 I Q I o bC, CP: !� 0 ¢� b qd b � � b 8 t PC1 O — PC2 6 4 2 q o C?i 66 d • 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Date Date • Upstream location shows more variability over time (due to "flashier" nature of upstream location), downstream location is less variable • Seasonal cycle apparent from oscillations in PC values • Wetter and drier periods are evident from changes in magnitude of PC values b 6 4 2 v a a 2 -4 -6 -8 Temporal variability — impacted creek T PCI —0— PC2 • Q Q i i � • I I Q� � � �� b� � o b bl�i � bb b T PCI —O— PC2 6 4 2 v 0 a 2 -4 -6 -8 pR q R F ° 4 it R !b A4 4 SIR p 1 q� °, ° II o� IIt • d I 9bi� i d b� � I ,� 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 Date Date • Upstream location shows more variability over time and in the past, variability reduces over time • Downstream station is much less variable by comparison 2016 Spatial variability — cluster analysis Cluster summaries MM,_. Salinity Nutrients A Drinkwater, Huddles Cut, Porte, L DCUT11, DCUT19, Duck B Upstream locations: Drinkwater, L L I L Tooley, Porter I L C Upstream locations: Little, Porter H L D Upstream locations in impacted L H H creeks: Jacks, Huddles Cut E Downstream locations in most H H L L creeks H = high, I = intermediate., L = Low Cluster character snapshots Depth A B C D E Cluster C tl1 15 10 W. 0 Salinity A B C D E Cluster 1.0 0.8 0.6 J m E O z 0.4 0.2 0.0 Cluster character snapshots Nitrate A B C D E Cluster 1.2 1.0 0.8 J 0.6 a O a 0.4 0.2 0.0 Phosphate 11 A B C D E Cluster Post -impact creeks DEP '. T 4' TEMP T T SAL y y y T COND y T T TURB T y y DO T T pH Arrows indicate magnitude of change post -Mod Alt -L: increase of <10% (T), increase of 10-30 % (T), increase of >30% ( ). Decrease of <10% (�), decrease of 10-30% (J�), and decrease of >30% (+). Number of years post -impact are shown in parentheses after creek name. Post -impact creeks NH4 T + NO3 JI D I<N PN JI T PO4 T + TDP T CHL Arrows indicate magnitude of change post -Mod Alt -L: increase of <10% (T), increase of 10-30 % (T), increase of >30% ( ). Decrease of <10% (�), decrease of 10-30% (J�), and decrease of >30% (+). Number of years post -impact are shown in parentheses after creek name. Big picture- control, pre -impact creeks Upstream locations differ only by depth, otherwise show similar water quality Typical seasonal pattern, minimal intra -annual variability Downstream locations are least variable, similar to open river conditions Big picture- immediately post impact High variability, nutrients and chlorophyll rise, depth and salinity changes Seasonal pattern remains, but values show higher amplitude Less intra -annual variability compared to upstream locations, but greater variability compared to control creeks. Proximity to river reduces amplitude in water quality changes Big picture- 3-5 years post -impact Intra -annual variability reduces in amplitude. Nutrient and chlorophyll levels declines, dissolved oxygen increases Seasonal pattern becomes more stable, amplitude reduces Most stable in terms of water quality fluctuations, resemble downstream locations in most creeks Conclusions • Has mining altered overall water quality within creeks? — Creeks that have been impacted most recently show changes in water quality that are related to changes in the watershed — Over time, these changes appear to ameliorate as impacted creeks appear to more closely resemble control creeks over time — Majority of water quality changes were not ecologically significant over the long-term Part 2: Salinity trends in the Tar - Pamlico River 1988-2014 Introduction • Goal: to identify trends in Tar -Pamlico River salinity over time • Approach: time -series analysis of salinity data and potential correlates: river discharge and droughtindex Data Estuarine MonitoringProgram Created by: Ludwig -Monty Duke University - NSQE Sampling Sites Washington Tar River � 1 Broad Creek Rungs River C h° "nay ay Bath Creek 1� Blounts Bay Egs 7 r 5N Biounts Creek S S �3 4S�' MIA � 2S Goose Creek N 4 1 4 m Salinity in Tar -Pamlico is consistent across stations 1 i 2771 13.42 4.24 3 3555 10.18 4.31 5 5663 9.76 4.67 7 4653 7.74 4.72 8 3992 6.36 4.68 10 3822 4.78 A 4.51 Standard deviations are consistent Ranges are similar Tar River discharge at Tarboro E 0 o. o. Greater variability, wet period, followed Period of lower variability by dry period I J.JV 1000 LVVV LVIJO LV IV LV 10 30 25 20 J Q 15 10 5 0 Salinity at two selected stations 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 30 25 Trends in discharge and salinity -VariabVA Tar River discharge Salinity 1 Salinity 3 Salinity 5 Salinity 7 Salinity 8 Salinity 10 -0.10 -0.31 0 0.04 0.04 0 0.09 0.10 0 0.07 0.07 0 0.08 0.10 0 0.05 0.06 0 0.07 0.03 0 U Tar River discharge 1988-2003 3 M 62 1 0 2003-2015 a 0 dq ZV o o fogy ,4 poo e e °Ag�{' � B$ 408 e•�� ge ° S o: ' I" 0 °4 o8 � � 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Salinity 1988-2003 + ®®JJ }m ±!|}: 198196 @4,»„929 1993 1994 1995,99e,9971998,999 2000200,202203 25 20 / 15 ,n 5 n 2003-2015 ) 4 : �` ` ` �� ■ ` , � 2003 2004 2005 306 319 308 2009 310 29 22 305 205 Model based on PHDI 1990 199b 2nnn 2nn:�, 2010 25 25 20 20 15 15 Z-1 aD m m 10 10 5 5 0 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 PHDI + s • • ' •JM'9Ir � •y •� • • . -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 PHDI Model projections 1988-2013 0.003 0.036 +3.10 1988-2013 (wet -dry 0.005 0.06 +5.16 signal removed) 2003-2013 0.07 0.84 +72.24 2003-2013(wet-dry 0.01 0.16 +13.76 signal removed) Conclusions • Overall., a positive trend for salinity was found in the Tar -Pamlico River • Trend was consistent at all stations, though magnitude differed • Projected trend is similar to that seen in Delaware River estuary (2.5-4.4) with each meter of sea level rise (5.2 units by 2100)