4.5 Article

Relationship of land use and elevated ionic strength in Appalachian watersheds

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 296-303

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2055

Keywords

Conductivity; Coal mining; Dissolved ions; Valley fill; Sulfate

Funding

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coal mining activities have been implicated as sources that increase stream specific conductance in Central Appalachia. The present study characterized potential sources of elevated ionic strength for small subwatersheds within the Coal, Upper Kanawha, Gauley, and New Rivers in West Virginia. From a large monitoring data set developed by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 162 < 20km2-watersheds were identified that had detailed land cover information in southwestern West Virginia with at least one water chemistry sample. Scatter plots of specific conductance were generated for nine land cover classifications: open water, agriculture, forest, residential, barren, total mining, valley fill, abandoned mine lands, and mining excluding valley fill and abandoned mine lands. Conductivity was negatively correlated with the percentage of forest area and positively associated with other land uses. In a multiple regression, the percentage of area in valley fill was the strongest contributor to increased ionic strength, followed by percentage of area in urban (residential/buildings) land use and other mining land use. Based on the 10th quantile regression, 300 mu S/cm was exceeded at 3.3% of area in valley fill. In most catchments, HCO?3- and SO?42- concentrations were greater than Cl- concentration. These findings confirm coal mining activities as the primary source of high conductivity waters. Such activities might be redressed with the goal of protecting sources of dilute freshwater in the region. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:296303. (C) 2012 SETAC

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available