A Comparison of Coalbed Methane Product Water Quality 

Versus Surface Water Quality in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

and 

An Assessment of the Use of Standard Aquatic Toxicity Testing Organisms 

for Evaluating the Potential Effects of Coalbed Methane Product Waters 

Susan J. Clearwater, Ph.D. 

Brady A. Morris, B.S. 

Joseph S. Meyer, Ph.D. 

Department of Zoology and Physiology 

University of Wyoming 

Laramie, WY 82071-3166 

31 May 2002 
CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

i

Executive Summary 

3⁄4 Surface water quality differs significantly across the Powder River Basin (PRB). In particular, the 

Powder River is much more turbid and saline than the Tongue River. Also, the ionic 

compositions of the saline waters of the Powder River differ significantly from those of the Belle 

Fourche River and the Little Powder River.

3⁄4 More data are required to conduct a thorough assessment of coalbed methane (CBM) product 

water quality, particularly from wells around Piney Creek and Clear Creek, the North and South 

Forks of the Powder River, Salt Creek, and the Tongue River. 

3⁄4 CBM product water conductivity, total dissolved solids, and alkalinity tend to increase from 

wells located southeast of the Belle Fourche River to wells located by the Powder River, east of 

the junction with Clear Creek. 

3⁄4 Product water quality can be highly variable among CBM wells. Therefore, the practice of using 

water samples from wells <20 miles apart to provide surrogate water quality for NPDES 

discharge permits can produce spurious results, even if the wells are located at the same depth 

and within the same geological formation. Our results indicate that well depth and geological 

formation are not strongly related to CBM product water quality. 

3⁄4 If WDEQ continues to allow CBM operators to use water samples from wells <20 miles away 

to provide surrogate water quality for NPDES discharge permits (even if the wells are drilled to 

the same depth and within the same geological formation), we recommend that follow-up 

chemical analyses of the water quality be submitted to WDEQ after the well is drilled -- to verify 

the appropriateness of that surrogate water quality data. 

3⁄4 Because surface water quality and CBM product water quality vary considerably across the PRB, 

CBM product water quality will have different impacts on each of the major waterways of the 

PRB. 

3⁄4 CBM product water from wells located east of the Powder River may tend to (1) increase 

sodium (Na+) and bicarbonate (HCO3

-

) concentrations in much of the Powder River and (2) 

decrease chloride (Cl-) and sulfate (SO4

2-) concentrations and the water hardness (an index of the 

sum of the calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+) concentrations). 

3⁄4 Limited information about CBM wells near the Tongue River suggests that product water might 

increase the salinity of the Tongue River.

3⁄4 Because the Tongue River (to at least the Montana border), Piney Creek, Clear Creek (to several 
CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

ii

km downstream from Piney Creek), Crazy Woman Creek (to approximately I-25), the North 

Fork of the Powder River, and the Middle Fork of the Powder River (to approximately I-25) 

provide relatively high-quality, low-salinity habitat for salmonid fishes, major increases in salinity 

and changes in ion ratios in those surface waters due to discharge of CBM product water might 

have significant impacts on recreational fisheries.

3⁄4 Limited data about CBM product water from wells located around the Little Powder River 

suggest that product water is more “dilute” than the surface waters, except with regard to 

alkalinity. Therefore, product waters will tend to decrease Ca2+, Mg2+ and SO4

2- concentrations 

in the Little Powder River, but increase HCO3

-

 concentrations. 

3⁄4 CBM product waters from wells located around the Belle Fourche River tend to be more 

“dilute” than surface waters, except with regard to alkalinity (mostly HCO3

-

 at those pH values), 

Na+

, Cl- and potassium (K+) concentrations. 

3⁄4 The environmental cue of seasonal cycles in water quality (especially temperature) and discharge 

of surface waters of the PRB might be dampened by constant inflows of CBM product water 

having relatively constant quality and flow rates, thus potentially affecting resident aquatic biota. 

3⁄4 Analysis of surface water and CBM product water quality relative to lethality data for three 

commonly used aquatic toxicity testing species (Daphnia magna, Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales 

promelas) indicates that at certain times, and in some locations, surface waters and undiluted CBM 

product waters might be acutely lethal to these organisms. 

3⁄4 We recommend that the tendency for CBM product waters to "dilute" some surface waters be 

considered just as potentially important to resident biota as is the tendency for CBM product 

waters to "salinate" other surface waters. 

3⁄4 We recommend that toxicity testing be conducted on receiving waters as well as whole effluents 

from CBM wells.

3⁄4 We recommend that, if feasible, toxicity testing also be conducted using species resident in the 

surface waters of the PRB.

3⁄4 Although toxicity testing will provide useful information about the impacts of CBM product 

water on aquatic communities, this information alone will not be sufficient to fully assess the 

ecological impacts. We recommend that alternatives to traditional laboratory-testing approaches, 

such as instream bioassessment, also be conducted. 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

iii

Contents 

Page

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Surface Water Quality..................................................................................................................... 1 

 Surface Water Quality Data Sources ........................................................................................ 2 

 Surface Water Quality Overview.............................................................................................. 2 

Surface Water Quality in the Four Major Drainages of the Powder River Basin..................... 3 

 Surface Waters: Specific Conductance and Salinity.......................................................... 3 

 Surface Waters: Hardness.................................................................................................. 4 

 Surface Waters: Acid Neutralizing Capacity (Alkalinity)................................................. 5 

 Surface Waters: pH (standard units).................................................................................. 5 

 Surface Waters: Temperature ............................................................................................ 5 

 Surface Waters: Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................... 6 

 Surface Waters: Turbidity.................................................................................................. 6

 Surface Water Quality Summary........................................................................................ 7 

CBM Product Water Quality in the Powder River Basin ............................................................... 8 

 Product Water Databases .......................................................................................................... 8 

 Product Water Locations........................................................................................................... 9 

 Product Water Quality in the Four Major Drainages of the Powder River Basin .................... 9 

 Product Waters: Conductivity............................................................................................ 9 

 Product Waters: Total Dissolved Solids ............................................................................ 9 

 Product Waters: pH, Alkalinity and Hardness................................................................. 10 

 Product Waters: Ammonia............................................................................................... 10 

 Product Waters: Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen..................................................... 11 

 Product Waters: Influence of Well Depth and Geological Formation............................. 11 

 Product Water Quality Summary and Recommendations ...................................................... 12 

Product Water Quality Versus Surface Water Quality ................................................................. 13 

 Product Water Versus Surface Water: Mainstem Powder River ........................................... 13 

 Product Water Versus Surface Water: North and South Forks of the Powder River, 

 and Salt Creek................................................................................................................... 14 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

iv

Contents (continued) 

Page

 Product Water Versus Surface Water: Piney Creek, Clear Creek, and Western Portion 

 of Powder River Drainage ................................................................................................ 14 

 Product Water Versus Surface Water: Tongue River and Goose Creek................................ 14 

 Product Water Versus Surface Water: Little Powder River................................................... 15 

 Product Water Versus Surface Water: Belle Fourche River.................................................. 16 

 Product Water Versus Surface Water Quality: Summary and Recommendations ................ 16 

Biological Methods to Examine the Impacts of Coalbed Methane Product Waters on 

 Aquatic Organisms of the Powder River Basin ...................................................................... 17 

 Biological Methods: Recommendations................................................................................ 19 

Ecology ......................................................................................................................................... 19 

 Ecology: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 19 

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 20 

References..................................................................................................................................... 20 

Appendix A -- Seasonal Changes in Surface Water Quality Parameters Measured at the 

 Tongue River Downstream USGS Site:1974-1983 .............................................................. 116 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

v

Tables 

 Table Page

 1 Median values of water quality parameters from surface water quality data collected 

by the U.S. Geological Survey from 1951 to 1999 in several drainages in the 

Powder River Basin of Wyoming .................................................................................................23 

 2 U.S. Geological Survey site number, decimal degree location, dates of collection, 

and number of sampling days for the USGS surface water quality dataset...........................24 

 3 Median molar concentrations of anions (HCO3

-

, CO3

2-, Cl-

, SO4

2-, OH-

) and cations 

(Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+, H+) at U.S. Geological Survey sites on surface waters of the 

Powder River Basin in Wyoming ..................................................................................................25 

 4 Percentages of anions (HCO3

-

, CO3

2-, Cl-

, SO4

2-, OH-

) and cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, 

Na+

, H+) at U.S. Geological Survey sites on surface waters of the Powder River 

Basin in Wyoming...........................................................................................................................26 

 5 Ranges of water quality in surface waters of several drainages in the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming versus quality of product waters from coalbed methane wells 

located in the same drainage .........................................................................................................27 

 6 Range of LC50s (median lethal concentrations) for fathead minnows (FHM; 

Pimephales promelas), Ceriodaphnia dubia and Daphnia magna exposed to different 

compounds or ions; and concentrations of those compounds or ions in surface 

waters and coalbed methane product waters from the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming ..........................................................................................................................................28 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

vi

Figures 

 Figure Page

 1 Location of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming .....................................................................29 

 2 Major cities in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, and boundaries of the 

sub-basin maps................................................................................................................................30 

 3 Major waterways and their tributaries in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. 

USGS gauging stations used to measure surface water quality are shown with their 

numerical identifiers .......................................................................................................................31 

 4 Median alkalinity values in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999 ......................................................32 

 5 Median calcium concentrations in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of 

Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................................33 

 6 Median chloride concentrations in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of 

Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................................34 

 7 Median conductivity values in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of 

Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................................35 

 8 Median discharge of surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999 ......................................................36 

 9 Median dissolved oxygen concentrations in surface waters of the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................37 

 10 Median hardness values in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999 ......................................................38 

 11 Median magnesium concentrations in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of 

Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................................39 

 12 Median pH values in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999 ......................................................40 

 13 Median potassium concentrations in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of 

Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................................41 

 14 Median sodium concentrations in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of 

Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................................42 

 15 Median sulfate concentrations in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of 

Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................................43 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

vii

Figures (continued) 

 Figure Page

 16 Median temperatures in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999 ......................................................44 

 17 Median turbidity values in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999 ......................................................45 

 18 Alkalinity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of 

the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks.................................46 

 19 Ammonia concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Creek and Spotted 

Horse Creeks ...................................................................................................................................47 

 20 Calcium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse 

Creeks ...............................................................................................................................................48 

 21 Chloride concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse 

Creeks ...............................................................................................................................................49 

 22 Conductivity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern 

portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks.............50 

 23 Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder River 

drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks ................................................................51 

 24 Hardness of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of 

the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks.................................52 

 25 Magnesium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse 

Creeks ...............................................................................................................................................53 

 26 pH of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the 

Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks .......................................54 

 27 Potassium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse 

Creeks ...............................................................................................................................................55 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

viii

Figures (continued) 

 Figure Page

 28 Sodium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse 

Creeks ...............................................................................................................................................56 

 29 Sulfate concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse 

Creeks ...............................................................................................................................................57 

 30 Temperatures of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern 

portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks.............58 

 31 Total dissolved solids concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells 

in the northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted 

Horse Creeks ...................................................................................................................................59 

 32 Alkalinity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of 

the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and 

Wild Horse Creeks..........................................................................................................................60 

 33 Ammonia concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy 

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks...........................................................................61 

 34 Calcium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy 

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks...........................................................................62 

 35 Chloride concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy 

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks...........................................................................63 

 36 Conductivity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern 

portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead 

Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks .....................................................................................................64 

 37 Depth of coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder River 

drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse 

Creeks ...............................................................................................................................................65 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

ix

Figures (continued) 

 Figure Page

 38 Hardness of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of 

the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and 

Wild Horse Creeks..........................................................................................................................66 

 39 Magnesium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy 

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks...........................................................................67 

 40 pH of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the 

Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and 

Wild Horse Creeks..........................................................................................................................68 

 41 Potassium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy 

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks...........................................................................69 

 42 Sodium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy 

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks...........................................................................70 

 43 Sulfate concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy 

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks...........................................................................71 

 44 Temperatures of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern 

portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead 

Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks .....................................................................................................72 

 45 Total dissolved solids concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells 

in the southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy 

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks...........................................................................73 

 46 Alkalinity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River 

drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks...................................................................74 

 47 Calcium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Tongue River drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks ..........................................75 

 48 Chloride concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Tongue River drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks ..........................................76 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

x

Figures (continued) 

 Figure Page

 49 Conductivity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River 

drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks...................................................................77 

 50 Hardness of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River 

drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks...................................................................78 

 51 Magnesium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Tongue River drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks ..........................................79 

 52 pH of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, 

including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks....................................................................................80 

 53 Sodium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Tongue River drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks ..........................................81 

 54 Sulfate concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue 

River drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks.........................................................82 

 55 Temperatures of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River 

drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks...................................................................83 

 56 Total dissolved solids concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells 

in the Tongue River drainage, including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks...............................84 

 57 Alkalinity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River 

drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks...........................................................................85 

 58 Ammonia concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks........................................86 

 59 Calcium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little 

Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks..................................................87 

 60 Chloride concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little 

Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks..................................................88 

 61 Conductivity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder 

River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks ................................................................89 

 62 Depth of coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, including 

Horse and Wildcat Creeks.............................................................................................................90 

 63 Hardness of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River 

drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks...........................................................................91 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

xi

Figures (continued) 

 Figure Page

 64 Magnesium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks........................................92 

 65 pH of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River 

drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks...........................................................................93 

 66 Potassium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks........................................94 

 67 Sodium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little 

Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks..................................................95 

 68 Sulfate concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little 

Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks..................................................96 

 69 Temperatures of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder 

River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks ................................................................97 

 70 Total dissolved solids concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells 

in the Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks ............................98 

 71 Alkalinity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River 

drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ......................................................................99 

 72 Ammonia concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle 

Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ..........................................100 

 73 Calcium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle 

Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ..........................................101 

 74 Chloride concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle 

Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ..........................................102 

 75 Conductivity of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche 

River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks..........................................................103 

 76 Depth of coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including 

Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ......................................................................................................104 

 77 Hardness of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River 

drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ....................................................................105 

 78 Magnesium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ................................106 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

xii

Figures (continued) 

 Figure Page

 79 pH of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River 

drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ....................................................................107 

 80 Potassium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the 

Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ................................108 

 81 Sodium concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle 

Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ..........................................109 

 82 Sulfate concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle 

Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ..........................................110 

 83 Temperatures of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche 

River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks..........................................................111 

 84 Total dissolved solids concentrations in product water from coalbed methane wells 

in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks .....................112 

 85 Relationship between (a) alkalinity, (b) hardness (calculated from calcium and 

magnesium concentrations), (c) calcium concentration, or (d) magnesium 

concentration and the well depth and geologic formation from which coalbed 

methane product water samples were collected .......................................................................113 

 86 Relationship between (a) conductivity, (b) sodium concentration, (c) chloride 

concentration, or (d) sulfate concentration and the well depth and geologic 

formation from which coalbed methane product water samples were collected................114 

 87 Relationship between (a) temperature, (b) total dissolved solids concentration, (c) 

ammonia concentration, or (d) potassium concentration and the well depth and 

geologic formation from which coalbed methane product water samples were 

collected..........................................................................................................................................115 

 A-1 Seasonal changes in alkalinity of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream 

site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.....................................................................117 

 A-2 Seasonal changes in calcium concentration of surface water at the Tongue River 

Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................118 

 A-3 Seasonal changes in chloride concentration of surface water at the Tongue River 

Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................119 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

xiii

Figures (continued) 

 Figure Page

A-4 Seasonal changes in conductivity of surface water at the Tongue River 

Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................120 

A-5 Seasonal changes in discharge of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream 

site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.....................................................................121 

 A-6 Seasonal changes in dissolved oxygen concentration of surface water at the Tongue 

River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983 ..................................122 

 A-7 Seasonal changes in hardness of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream 

site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.....................................................................123 

 A-8 Seasonal changes in magnesium concentration of surface water at the Tongue 

River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983 ..................................124 

 A-9 Seasonal changes in pH of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site 

(USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983............................................................................125 

A-10 Seasonal changes in potassium concentration of surface water at the Tongue River 

Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................126 

A-11 Seasonal changes in sodium concentration of surface water at the Tongue River 

Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................127 

A-12 Seasonal changes in sodium absorption ratio of surface water at the Tongue River 

Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................128 

A-13 Seasonal changes in sulfate concentration of surface water at the Tongue River 

Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................129 

A-14 Seasonal changes in temperature of surface water at the Tongue River 

Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................130 

A-15 Seasonal changes in turbidity of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream 

site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.....................................................................131 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

1

Introduction 

 The Powder River Basin (PRB; Fig. 1) is currently the site of a boom in coalbed methane 

(CBM) gas extraction in the state of Wyoming. To extract CBM gas, groundwater has to be pumped 

to the surface and either discharged or reinjected. There are concerns that discharged groundwater 

(also known as CBM product water) will negatively impact surface waters in the following ways: 

1. discharge of large volumes of CBM product water will erode permanent and ephemeral 

streambeds into which they are discharged, and 

2. the large volume and constant flow of saline CBM product water being discharged into existing 

waterways will significantly alter the hydrology, salinity and temperature of the receiving waters, 

thus altering the aquatic communities that inhabit those waters. 

 The impact of CBM product water discharges will vary depending partly on the magnitude 

of difference between product water quality and surface water quality. This report surveys historic 

and current data on surface water quality in the PRB gathered by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

and compares it to what is known about the quality of CBM product water. We also examine the 

water quality requirements of aquatic organisms, relevant to product water quality. 

 The report is organized into a comparison of surface water quality in the four major 

drainages of the PRB for several major water quality parameters. We then briefly discuss product 

water quality in the PRB according to major water quality parameters, focusing on evidence of 

regional trends. Next we compare surface water and product water quality of each major drainage. 

The report concludes with a discussion of the potential use of aquatic toxicity testing organisms 

such as Daphnia species, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and fathead minnows Pimephales promelas for evaluating 

toxicological effects of discharges of CBM product water to surface waters.

Surface Water Quality 

 The major waterways in the PRB are the Powder River (PR) and its tributaries (including the 

Little Powder River (Little PR)), Tongue R in the northwest, and the Belle Fourche River (Belle 

Fourche R) in the east (Fig. 2). 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

2

Surface Water Quality Data Sources 

 We have summarized surface water quality data from the National Water Information 

System (NWIS; http://water.usgs.gov/nwis) to characterize the typical range of water quality in 

these waterways. The data were collected from 1951 until 1999, and the main source is the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS; Tables 1-2 and Fig. 3). At selected sites the USGS has maintained 

instruments that continuously record physical and chemical characteristics of the water including 

parameters such as pH, specific conductivity, temperature and dissolved oxygen. Some of the data 

are from discrete samples collected for a variety of projects, ranging from national programs to 

studies in small watersheds. Because the data come from a variety of sources, we cannot guarantee 

the quality of the data. Also, some of the data were collected after significant development projects 

(e.g., Keyhole Reservoir), irrigation, and some CBM development had occurred and altered the 

nature of the PRB waterways. Nonetheless, the NWIS database is a useful starting point to begin to 

understand the characteristics of the major waterways of the PRB and the potential impact of CBM 

product waters. 

Surface Water Quality Overview 

 These waterways vary significantly in their typical water quality, both within a drainage, from 

the upstream headwaters to downstream, and across the various major drainages of the PRB (Table 

1 and Figs. 4-17). The water quality (including discharge volumes) of the PRB also varies 

significantly over time (e.g., discharge varies from 2 to 17,800 ft3

/s in the downstream PR), usually 

on a seasonal basis (see Appendix A). In attempting to summarize these surface water quality data 

for the purposes of discussion and relate them to product water quality, we have simplified the data 

somewhat and used median values to characterize overall water quality. We have also reported 

minimum and maximum water quality parameters to capture the range of variation possible in each 

waterway. These water quality parameters vary according to seasonal cycles (Appendix A) that are 

integral to the biotic community dependent on the waterways of the PRB (Allan 1996). One of the 

most important differences between product water quality and surface water quality is the lack of 

seasonality in product water quality. In particular, the constant flow of water from CBM wells could 

tend to stabilize surface water flow regimes, which could have a negative effect on fish species native 

to the PRB. Variability of flow is a characteristic that tends to favor the persistence of fish species 

native to the PRB over non-native fish species (Cross et al. 1985, Sanders et al. 1993, Rabeni 1996). 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

3

Surface Water Quality in the Four Major Drainages of the Powder River Basin 

 Median concentrations of anions (HCO3

-

, CO3

2-, Cl-

, SO4

2-, OH-

) and cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, 

K+, Na+, H+) are listed in the traditional concentrations of mg/L in Table 1. To allow more valid 

comparisons of the relative contributions of those ions to the total ionic strength of the waters, we 

calculated the median molar concentrations of those ions (Table 3) and their molar percentages 

(Table 4). We also converted those molar concentrations to mEq/L to calculate ion balances. For 

all of the surface waters, the percent difference between the sum of the median mEq/L for the 

anions and the sum of the median mEq/L for the cations was <7% (results not shown). This is 

excellent agreement for the median concentrations, considering that a 5% difference is considered 

good agreement for analyses within a single water sample. 

Surface Waters: Specific Conductance and Salinity 

 The downstream PR has extremely high specific conductance varying from 70 to 6500 

μS/cm at 25oC, with a median conductance of 2480 μS/cm at 25oC (Fig. 7 and Table 1). This 

indicates the presence of high concentrations of anions and cations in the water, and is commonly 

understood as high salinity water. More detailed analysis shows that this high conductance is 

probably due to high sodium (Na+

; median, 350 mg/L), chloride (Cl-; median, 210 mg/L) and sulfate 

(SO4

2-

; median, 810 mg/L) concentrations (Figs. 6, 14 and 15). Some of the high conductance is also 

due to moderate-to-high concentrations of calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+; Figs. 5 and 11). It 

is important to realize that although this water can correctly be called saline, its composition differs 

from typical seawater. In seawater, salinity is due to high concentrations of Na+ and Cl-, and 

relatively low concentrations of SO4

2-, Mg2+, Ca2+, potassium (K+

), and bicarbonate (HCO3

-

) ions 

(Sumich 1999). 

 Water quality in the upstream PR, Crazy Woman Creek, Salt Creek and the South Fork PR is 

similar to the downstream PR, with high salinity attributable mostly to Na+

, Cl- and SO4

2- ions, 

except for Crazy Woman Creek, which has relatively low concentrations of Na+

 and Cl- ions. The 

northwestern portion of the PR watershed includes the upstream and downstream Clear Creek sites 

and Piney Creek. In these tributaries of the PR, the specific conductance tends to be lower at the 

upstream sites (Piney Creek, median 640 μS/cm at 25o

C; upstream Clear Creek, median 825 μS/cm 

at 25oC). Much of the high conductance is attributable to SO4

2- ions and low-to-moderate 

concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+. In contrast to the southeastern tributaries of the PR, the median 

Cl-

 concentrations in the northwestern tributaries are relatively low (medians, 2.4-4.2 mg/L). 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

4

 The Tongue R has relatively low conductance in its upstream (median, 252 μS/cm at 25o

C) 

and downstream (median, 450 μS/cm at 25o

C) reaches before its confluence with Goose Creek. 

Median Na+

 concentrations were only 1.6 to 15 mg/L, but the maximum concentration was 240 

mg/L. Median Ca2+, Mg2+ and Cl-

 concentrations were all relatively low compared to the PR. 

Goose Creek tends to have higher conductivity (median 700 μS/cm at 25oC) than the Tongue R, 

probably due mostly to high concentrations of SO4

2- ions (median, 150 mg/L) and moderate 

concentrations of Na+

, Ca2+, and Mg2+ ions. 

 Both the Little PR (median, 2610 μS/cm at 25oC) and the Belle Fourche R (median, 3800 

μS/cm at 25oC) in the eastern portion of the PRB have consistently high conductance. Although 

over 82 measurements were taken between 1975 and 1983, the minimum recorded conductance in 

both rivers was 1100 μS/cm at 25o

C. Both rivers are characterized by relatively high concentrations 

of SO4

2- (range, 510-5400 mg/L) and K+

 (range, 3-56 mg/L) (Fig. 13) and moderately high 

concentrations of Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+. 

Surface Waters: Hardness 

 Hardness is the sum of the divalent cation concentrations (usually mostly Ca2+ and Mg2+

ions) in water (APHA et al. 1995), expressed as the concentration of CaCO3 (mg/L) that, when 

added to distilled water, would produce the same hardness as the water sample. Surface waters are 

generally considered to be “hard” if their hardness is >100 mg/L as CaCO3 (Hem 1985). Therefore, 

all the waters of the PRB have moderate to high hardness. The trends in hardness of the surface 

waters of the PRB roughly follow those of conductivity, but are less extreme. In summary, the 

waters of the mainstem PR and its southeastern tributaries, including the South Fork, Salt Creek and 

Crazy Woman Creek have high hardness (medians, >400 mg/L as CaCO3; Fig. 10 and Table 1). 

The Clear Creek/Piney Creek branch of the PR tends to have slightly lower hardness, especially in 

the two upstream locations (medians, 260-480 mg/L as CaCO3). Among the 13 sites we surveyed, 

the upstream and downstream Tongue R sites and its Goose Creek tributary had the lowest median 

hardness values (range, 130-340 mg/L as CaCO3), which is consistent with the generally lower 

salinity of these northwestern PRB waters. Both the Little PR and the Belle Fourche R have the 

highest median hardness values (1300 and 1500 mg/L as CaCO3, respectively) and highest maximum 

hardness values (3300 and 3500 mg/L as CaCO3, respectively) of all of the PRB sites. 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

5

Surface Waters: Acid Neutralizing Capacity (Alkalinity) 

 Acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) refers to the alkalinity of water, and is a sum of the 

concentrations of the HCO3

-

, CO3

2- and OH-

 ions in water, balanced against the “acidity” (or 

hydrogen ion concentration) of that water. Like hardness, alkalinity is expressed as mg/L as CaCO3.

Because median pH in the PRB waterways varied from 7.9 to 8.2 (Fig. 12) and alkalinity was ≥129 

mg/L as CaCO3 (Fig. 4), most of the alkalinity will be attributable to HCO3

-

 ions. 

 In terms of alkalinity, the most notable waterway of the PR is Salt Creek, where the median 

alkalinity was 618 mg/L as CaCO3 (range, 150-1160 mg/L as CaCO3; Fig. 4 and Table 1). In the 

remainder of the PR drainage, the Tongue R drainage, the Little PR, and the Belle Fourche R, 

median alkalinity was between 129 and 290 mg/L as CaCO3. The range of minimum and maximum 

alkalinity values is also fairly similar across the PRB, falling within 20 to 410 mg/L as CaCO3, except 

for the two PR stations that ranged up to 640 mg/L as CaCO3, probably under the influence of Salt 

Creek (Table 1). 

Surface Waters: pH (standard units) 

 Median pH, or acidity, of all PRB waterways that we surveyed was between 7.9 and 8.2 

standard pH units (Fig. 12 and Table 1). The lowest pH readings were taken in the upstream PR 

(minimum, pH 6.4), while most other waterways had a minimum pH between 6.8 and 7.4. The 

maximum pH (9.2) was recorded in Piney Creek in the western portion of the PR drainage.

Surface Waters: Temperature 

 Water temperatures vary in the PRB from minima of 0oC (32oF) to maxima of 21 to 32oC 

(70-90o

F; Table 1). Changes in water temperature are mostly due to seasonal variation in weather. 

 Overall, the Belle Fourche R (median, 13.5o

C), the PR and its southern tributaries (the South 

Fork, Salt Creek, and Crazy Woman Creek, medians 9.75-12.5oC) tended to have the highest median 

water temperatures compared to upstream and downstream Clear Creek (medians, 8.75 and 10oC) 

and Piney Creek (median, 9.75oC; Fig. 16). The Tongue R (upstream and downstream), Goose 

Creek (medians, 5.0-9.0oC) and the Little PR (median, 6oC) had the lowest median water 

temperatures. 

 Water temperatures tend to increase from upstream headwaters toward downstream reaches, 

and seasonal changes in water temperature are an important environmental cue for many aquatic 

organisms (Allan 1996). The PRB waterways support salmonid (members of the fish family that 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

6

includes trout and salmon) species and many native, non-salmonid species of Wyoming (Hubert 

1993). The major stream and river reaches containing salmonids are located on the western side of 

the PRB, including the Tongue River (to at least the Montana border), Piney Creek, Clear Creek (to 

several km downstream from Piney Creek), Crazy Woman Creek (to approximately I-25), the North 

Fork of the Powder River, and the Middle Fork of the Powder River (to approximately I-25). The 

downstream distributions of salmonids in the PRB are thought to be mostly controlled by high 

temperatures and/or high turbidity levels that exceed the fishes' tolerance levels (personal 

communication, Robert McDowell, Wyoming Department of Game and Fish). 

Surface Waters: Dissolved Oxygen 

 Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are generally high across the PRB (medians, 8.3-10.6 

mg/L), although some waters of the PR and the Little PR have minimum DO concentrations much 

less than 5 mg/L (Fig. 9 and Table 1). Dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 5 mg/L are too 

low to sustain many species of fish, especially salmonids (Piper et al. 1982). However, DO is 

influenced by physical factors such as riffles and wind disturbance that can reoxygenate the water. 

Therefore, even though low DO concentrations were recorded at some of the USGS sampling sites, 

“refuges” of higher DO concentrations might have been in close proximity to these stations. 

 Salt Creek had the lowest DO concentrations of 0.5 mg/L; and, perhaps under the influence 

of Salt Creek, both the upstream and downstream stations of the PR (both stations located 

downstream of Salt Creek) had minimum DO concentrations of 2.9 to 4.5 mg/L. The Little PR had 

a DO minimum of 3.4 mg/L. The western tributaries of the PR, Piney Creek and Clear Creek all 

had DO minima well above 5 mg/L (range, 6.6-8.0 mg/L), as did the Belle Fourche R. The Tongue 

R had high DO concentrations at all times (min.-max. range, 7.6-13.6 mg/L); but its tributary, 

Goose Creek, had a slightly lower minimum of 5.6 mg/L. 

Surface Waters: Turbidity 

 The PR and its southern tributaries (the South Fork, Salt Creek, and Crazy Woman Creek) 

are characterized by turbid waters (medians, 55-475 Jackson Candle Units (JCU); Fig. 17 and Table 

1). Except for the South Fork of the PR, the minimum turbidity in these waterways was >10 JCU, 

and the maximum turbidity was 100 to 8000 JCU. The western tributaries of the PR (Clear Creek 

and Piney Creek) generally have much lower turbidity, with medians from 2 to 9 JCU. However, the 

downstream Clear Creek station had a maximum turbidity of 500 JCU. The Tongue R, Little PR, 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

7

and Belle Fourche R all had median turbidities of <8 JCU and maxima of 20 to 100 JCU. 

Surface Water Quality Summary 

 This brief survey of the waterways of the PRB indicates that the water quality of the PR is 

not the same as the water quality of the Tongue R, the Little PR or the Belle Fourche R. For 

example, the waters of the PR close to the Wyoming-Montana border in the north-central portion of 

the PRB are relatively saline (median conductivity, 2480 μS/cm at 25o

C) and turbid (median 

turbidity, 475 JCUs), whereas the downstream Tongue R in the northwest portion of the PRB is 

much less saline (median conductivity, 450 μS/cm at 25o

C) and less turbid (median turbidity, 4 

JCUs; Table 1). Even within the PR drainage, the water quality of Clear Creek and its tributary 

Piney Creek is different in some important aspects to the mainstem PR and its southern tributaries. 

 Within the PR drainage, the southern portion (South Fork PR, Salt Creek and Crazy Woman 

Creek) can be considered turbid, saline and subject to extreme variations in water temperature and 

DO content. The high conductivity of these waters is due mostly to high concentrations of Na+, 

Ca2+, Cl-

 and SO4

2-. 

 In the western tributaries of the PR (Clear Creek and Piney Creek), DO concentrations are 

more stable and the water is less turbid. Salinity also tends to be lower in these waters, due mostly 

to considerably lower Na+

, Cl- and SO4

2- concentrations than the mainstem PR. 

 The Tongue R and its tributaries tend to have consistently high DO concentrations and 

relatively low water temperatures, low salinity and low turbidity. 

 The Little PR and Belle Fourche R in the eastern portion of the PRB have unique water 

quality characteristics compared to the western waters of the PRB. Both rivers tend to have 

relatively high salinity waters containing high concentrations of Na+

, Ca2+, Mg2+, and SO4

2-. 

Compared to the other waters of the PRB, both rivers had slightly higher concentrations of K+; and 

compared to the PR, both rivers had much lower concentrations of Cl-. Turbidity in both rivers 

tends to be low. On occasion, the Little PR had low DO concentrations, whereas DO 

concentrations of the Belle Fourche R were relatively high. 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

8

CBM Product Water Quality in the Powder River Basin 

Conventional wisdom is that product water quality differs significantly across the PRB. The 

general trend is thought to range from so-called “drinking-water quality” in the southeast portion of 

the basin to more saline, non-potable waters in the northwest portion of the basin. Below we test 

that conventional wisdom using four datasets from a variety of sources.

Product Water Databases 

 We obtained data about CBM product waters from the following four sources: 

 Dataset A: Rice et al. (2000), 

 Dataset B: Petroleum Association of Wyoming (2001), 

 Dataset C: WDEQ NPDES permits through May 2001, and 

 Dataset D: WDEQ-funded WET studies (Forbes et al. 2001).

 Dataset A (Rice et al. 2000) describes water collected directly from wellheads and not mixed 

with surface water. Datasets B and C describe water samples taken at the “designated discharge 

point” for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit granted by the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and presumably collected in accordance 

with NPDES permit guidelines. Dataset D is from water samples collected at wellheads by WDEQ 

field staff for a whole-effluent toxicity (WET) testing project conducted in collaboration with 

University of Wyoming researchers (Forbes et al. 2001). Although Rice et al. (2000) provided the 

most comprehensive summary of data from 47 wells in the eastern PRB and speculated on the 

causes of the unique chemistry of these CBM product waters, they did not interpret the water quality 

data in terms of interactions with the aquatic ecosystems of the PRB. We had three objectives for 

interpreting these data: 

1. Obtain water quality information from wells across the basin and from different geological 

formations, to characterize the range of water quality produced by CBM wells. 

2. Compare CBM product waters to surface waters in the basin, to determine if there are significant 

differences in water quality and important regional trends. 

3. Compare surface water and CBM product water quality to toxicity data for three standard test 

organisms (fathead minnows Pimephales promelas, Daphnia spp., and Ceriodaphnia dubia). 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

9

Product Water Locations 

1. Rice et al. (2000) obtained data from wells east and southeast of the PR (e.g., circles in Figs. 18, 

32, 57 and 71). Many of the wells were located around the Belle Fourche R (Fig. 71). 

2. Petroleum Association of Wyoming initial discharge permit data from 15 wells within Campbell 

county or westward were obtained from a dataset of 37 wells (e.g., crosses in Figs. 32, 46 and 

57). The remaining wells were outside our area of study. 

3. We obtained six datasets from the WDEQ NPDES permits. Although we originally collected 

22 datasets from a selection of well locations in the region, we later discovered that they referred 

back to only six water samples (e.g., Figs. 32, 46 and 57). 

4. Data from six CBM product water samples provided to the University of Wyoming by WDEQ 

were obtained from the Tongue R, PR, Little PR, and Belle Fourche R drainages (e.g., Figs. 18, 

32, 46, 57 and 71).

Product Water Quality in the Four Major Drainages of the Powder River Basin 

Product Waters: Conductivity 

 Conductivity of product waters varied from to 470-5300 μS/cm in the four datasets (Figs. 

22, 36, 49, 61 and 75). There was a regional trend of conductivity increasing from <1000 μS/cm 

southeast of the Belle Fourche R to approximately 3000 μS/cm immediately east of the confluence 

of the PR with Clear Creek. Conductivity of product water was also relatively high near the Tongue 

R (1630-2180 μS/cm), although few data were available. 

 Conductivity increases as the temperature of the water sample increases (Hem 1985). In 

dataset A, conductivity was measured at 20oC; in dataset B, it was measured at 25oC; in dataset C, 

temperature was not reported; and in dataset D, it was measured at a range of temperatures (13-

26o

C). The 5oC between datasets A and B will result in a ≥10% difference in conductivity (Hem 

1985). 

Product Waters: Total Dissolved Solids 

 TDS concentrations ranged from 270 to 2390 mg/L in datasets A and B, which were mostly 

from the region east of the PR and in the southeast around the Belle Fourche R (Figs. 31, 45, 56, 70 

and 84). There was a regional trend for low TDS in the southeast (400-500 mg/L) increasing to 

high TDS (985-2280 mg/L) east of the PR. These trends mirror those in the conductivity data. 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

10

 Rice et al. (2000) concluded that the generally high TDS and high conductivity of their CBM 

product waters was due mostly to high Na+

 and HCO3

-

 concentrations (Figs. 28, 42, 67 and 81). 

Similarly, the Petroleum Association of Wyoming samples (dataset B) were dominated by Na+ and 

HCO3

-

 (Figs. 28, 42 and 53). Maximum Na+ and HCO3

-

 concentrations in the two datasets were 905 

and 1155 mg/L, respectively. Bicarbonate concentrations were reported separately in only one of 51 

samples (data not shown), but because alkalinity ranged from 290 to 2320 mg/L as CaCO3 and pH 

was ≥6.8 and <9.0, HCO3

-

 probably was the dominant anion in those waters. Maximum Cl- was 64 

mg/L (Figs. 21, 35, 48, 60 and 74), and maximum SO4

2- was 28 mg/L (Figs. 29, 43, 54, 68 and 82). 

Insufficient data were provided in the NPDES permits (dataset C) to determine the major anions in 

these water samples; however, unlike the samples taken by Rice et al. (2000), Cl- (1260 mg/L) and 

SO4

2- (761 mg/L) concentrations were very high in some NPDES samples. Major ions were not 

analyzed in the WDEQ WET samples (dataset D). TDS was not measured for the WDEQ NPDES 

permits (dataset C), or in the WDEQ WET data (dataset D). 

Product Waters: pH, Alkalinity and Hardness 

 Product water pH varied from 6.8 to 9.0 (Figs. 26, 40, 52, 65 and 79). There were no 

obvious regional trends in pH, although all four product waters from near the Tongue R had pH 

>8.0. 

 Alkalinity and hardness were much more variable than pH, but almost all product waters 

were hard and alkaline (i.e., >100 mg/L as CaCO3, for each parameter; Figs. 18, 24, 32, 38, 46, 50, 

57, 63, 71 and 77). Rice et al. (2000) found alkalinity varied from 290 to 2320 mg/L as CaCO3, 

tending to increase from wells in the southeast by the Belle Fourche R to the northwest near the PR. 

However, one product water near Dead Horse Creek (south PR) had the highest alkalinity (2320 

mg/L as CaCO3). 

 Like alkalinity, Na+ concentrations in product waters tended to increase from the southeast 

to the northwest portions of the PRB (Figs. 28, 42, 53, 67 and 81). Hardness did not exhibit the 

same trend (Figs. 24, 38, 50, 63 and 77). 

Product Waters: Ammonia 

 Ammonia concentrations in product waters from the area around Belle Fourche R up to east 

of the PR ranged from 1.1 to 5.3 mg NH4

+

/L (Rice et al. 2000; Figs. 19, 33, 58 and 72). There were 

no obvious regional trends in these data. No ammonia data were available for wells around the 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

11

Tongue River. To interpret NH4

+

 concentrations in terms of concentrations of the more toxic 

unionized NH3 species, we used the temperature and pH of the product water to calculate 

percentages of toxic unionized NH3 (Piper et al. 1982). In 30 of 47 samples, unionized NH3

concentrations were >0.012 mg/L, which is the threshold for chronic toxicity to salmonid growth 

(Piper et al. 1982); and 13 samples exceed the threshold of 0.02 mg NH3/L NH3 recommended by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1976) for protection of salmonids in 

freshwater. To predict the increase in unionized ammonia concentrations in a receiving water due to 

the discharge of a specific CBM product water, the temperature and pH of the receiving water and 

the mixing ratio of the discharge and receiving waters would have to be known. 

 Ammonia was not measured in the WDEQ NPDES or WDEQ WET samples. Only one 

ammonia concentration was measured in the WDEQ initial discharge samples (1.1 mg/L of total 

ammonia as N, which is equivalent to 1.3 mg/L of total ammonia as NH3). 

Product Waters: Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen 

 We only have product-water temperature data from two sources: datasets A and D. Product 

water temperatures ranged from 11.7 to 28.7o

C, and there were no obvious regional trends (Figs. 30, 

44, 55, 69 and 83). No information is available to determine whether product water temperatures 

change seasonally, although groundwater usually discharges at a relatively constant temperature 

(Piper et al. 1982). Dissolved oxygen concentration was not reported for any of the product waters. 

Product Waters: Influence of Well Depth and Geological Formation 

 Although the quality of CBM product waters varies widely across the PRB, product waters in 

close proximity to each other have been assumed to have similar composition if they are pumped 

from approximately the same depth in the same geological formation. For example, in order to 

obtain a NPDES permit from WDEQ, operators may use a water sample from a well within 20 

miles of the proposed CBM well as a surrogate for the proposed well's water quality -- as long as the 

surrogate well is from the same geological formation and the same depth. 

 We tested the idea that the well depth and geological formation from which product water 

originates strongly influence water quality. When examining product waters collectively, neither 

depth nor geological formation was a good predictor of product water temperature, alkalinity, 

hardness, conductivity or concentrations of total dissolved solids, Ca2+, Mg+, SO4

2-, Cl-

, K+ or Na+
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

12

ions (Figs. 85-87). Although temperature, hardness, Ca2+ and SO4

2- concentrations tended to be 

related to depth for product waters originating from the Canyon Formation, there was insufficient 

data to fully evaluate these weak trends. Additionally, there was insufficient data to fully assess the 

relationship between depth and water quality for product water originating from the Wyodak, 

Pawnee, Fort Union, Cook and Big George Formations. 

 Even if a strong relationship existed between water quality and the depth and geological 

formation of wells, the WDEQ requirements for the use of surrogate water quality data do not 

always appear to be met in practice. For example, we found that 8 of 14 wells for which we had 

NPDES permit data and that had relied on surrogate-well data were >20 miles from their reference 

well. There was no information available to assess whether the surrogate well water had been 

collected from the same depth and geological formation as the wells to which they were applied. 

Rice et al. (2000) explained that there is a great deal of confusion about the naming of geological 

formations in the region, which further increases the difficulty of determining whether samples and 

wells are from/in the same formation. 

 Finally, reliance on the close proximity of two wells can lead to spurious conclusions about 

the water quality. For example, alkalinity was 947 and 2320 mg/L as CaCO3 in product water from 

two wells <8 miles from each other (Fig. 32); sulfate concentrations were 0.01, 40 and 761 at 3 wells 

<10 miles from one another (Fig.43); and TDS concentrations varied between 730 and 1120 mg/L 

in 5 wells located <4 miles apart (Fig. 84). Thus, the quality of CBM product water can be highly 

variable over short distances (miles). 

Product Water Quality Summary and Recommendations 

3⁄4 Our findings support the conventional wisdom that, in general, CBM product waters range from 

less saline in the southeastern portion of the PRB to more saline, non-potable waters in the 

northwestern portion of the PRB. However, we can neither support nor reject the purported 

"drinking water quality" of the less saline product waters in the southeastern portion of the 

basin. 

3⁄4 Product water quality can be highly variable among CBM wells. Therefore, the practice of using 

water samples from wells <20 miles apart, drilled to the same depth and within the same 

geological formation, to provide surrogate water quality for NPDES discharge permits does not 

always appear to provide reliable predictions of CBM product water quality. Our results indicate 

that well depth and geological formation are not strongly related to CBM product water quality. 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

13

3⁄4 If WDEQ continues to allow CBM operators to use water samples from wells <20 miles away 

to provide surrogate water quality for NPDES discharge permits (even if the wells are drilled to 

the same depth and within the same geological formation), we recommend that follow-up 

chemical analyses of the water quality be submitted to WDEQ after the well is drilled -- to verify 

the appropriateness of that surrogate water quality data. 

Product Water Quality Versus Surface Water Quality 

Product Water Versus Surface Water: Mainstem Powder River 

 Based on median values, the main difference between surface waters and CBM product 

waters in the region of the mainstem PR is that the main ions in product waters usually are Na+

(range, 409-994 mg/L) and HCO3

-

 (range of alkalinity values, 580-2440 mg/L as CaCO3), whereas 

the main ions in the surface waters are Na+ (medians, 350 mg/L), Cl- (medians, 210-220 mg/L), 

SO4

2- (medians, 650-810 mg/L) and HCO3-

 (median alkalinity values, 208-290 mg/L as CaCO3; Figs. 

18-45 and Table 5). Most product waters from east of the PR had much lower concentrations of Cl-

(range and 5-30 mg/L) and SO4

2- (range, 0.01-28 mg/L) than the surface waters of the mainstem PR 

(Table 5). However, one product water near Burger Draw had a very high SO4

2- concentration (761 

mg/L). 

 Conductivity of surface waters in the upper and lower PR (not including Clear and Piney 

Creeks) tended to be high (medians, 2400-2480 μS/cm) but with a wide seasonal range (70-7000 

μS/cm; Table 1). Conductivity of CBM product water east of the PR and west of the Little PR was 

also high, varying from 860 to 3600 μS/cm. K+ concentrations are similar between surface waters 

of the PR (medians, 7 mg/L) and nearby product waters (range, 4-18 mg/L). 

 Hardness of product water from east of the PR (range, 73-264 mg/L as CaCO3) tends to be 

lower than hardness of the mainstem PR (medians, 510-650 mg/L as CaCO3). This is reflected in 

lower Ca2+ (range, 9-44 mg/L) and Mg2+ (range, 5-28 mg/L) concentrations in the product waters 

and higher Ca2+ (medians, 120-150 mg/L) and Mg2+ (medians, 49-60 mg/L) in the surface waters. 

 The pH of local product water (range, pH 7.0-8.0) tended to be slightly lower than median 

pH values in the PR (pH 8.0-8.1).

 Median water temperatures of the upper and lower PR varied from 10 to 12o

C, whereas 

product water temperatures varied from 12 to 26oC. The most important difference in water 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

14

temperatures is the fact that product water probably will lack distinct seasonal cycles, whereas 

surface water temperatures varied from 0 to 32o

C. 

In summary, product water from east of the PR might increase Na+ and HCO3

-

 concentrations in the surface 

waters of the PR and decrease hardness, Cl-, and SO4

2- concentrations in the PR. The environmental cue of seasonal 

cycles in surface water quality (especially temperature) and discharge might be dampened by the influx of product water. 

Product Water Versus Surface Water: North and South Forks of the Powder River, 

and Salt Creek 

 We have no information about CBM product water quality from around the North and 

South Forks of the PR, and Salt Creek. 

Product Water Versus Surface Water: Piney Creek, Clear Creek, and Western 

Portion of Powder River Drainage 

 We have data from only two CBM product waters near Piney Creek. Both samples tended 

to be more saline than the surface waters (Figs. 32-45 and Table 5). The product waters had high 

conductivity (range, 996-1670 μS/cm) and Na+

 concentrations (405 mg/L, n=1), moderate Clconcentrations (range, 14-38 mg/L) and low Ca2+ (3 mg/L, n=1), Mg2+ (3 mg/L, n=1) and SO4

2-

(range, 2-8 mg/L) concentrations. The range of pH values was 8.0-9.0. No other water quality 

parameters were measured. In comparison, Piney Creek had lower median conductivity (640 

μS/cm, range 120-1160 μS/cm), Cl- (2 mg/L) and Na+ (33 mg/L) concentrations, and higher 

median Ca2+ (62 mg/L), Mg2+ (28 mg/L) and SO4

2- (165 mg/L) concentrations. The median pH in 

Piney Creek was 8.1 (range, 7.3-9.2). 

Product Water Versus Surface Water: Tongue River and Goose Creek 

 The limited information on CBM product water (five samples) near the Tongue R suggests 

that product water conductivity (range, 1630-2180 μS/cm) tends to be much higher than 

conductivity of the Tongue R (medians, 252-450 μS/cm) and higher than the conductivity (700 

μS/cm) measured in Goose Creek, a tributary of the Tongue R (Table 5 and Figs. 46-56). 

 The high conductivity of the product water near the Tongue R appears to be caused by a 

high concentration of Na+

 (533 mg/L, n=1) and HCO3

-

. Although the HCO3

-

 concentration was 

not measured directly, the one measurement of alkalinity was 1153 mg/L as CaCO3 at pH 8.6, and 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

15

would therefore have been mostly due to HCO3

-

. Also, Cl- and SO4

2- concentrations were low (<22 

mg/l, n=3-4) and would not have contributed much to conductivity. In comparison, the Tongue R 

and Goose Creek water tended to have low Na+ concentrations (medians, 1.6-29 mg/L), and Goose 

Creek had high SO4

2- concentrations (median, 150 mg/L). 

 Median alkalinity values in the Tongue R and Goose Creek (129 and 235 mg/L as CaCO3, 

respectively) were lower than in the one product water, whereas median hardness values (130 and 

340 mg/L as CaCO3, repectively) were greater than in the one product water (19 mg/L as CaCO3). 

 Five product water samples from near the Tongue R had pH 7.9-8.6, which encompasses the 

median pH of surface waters of the Tongue R (pH 8.0-8.1). The only temperature measurement of 

product water (13oC) was slightly warmer than the median temperatures 5-9oC measured at three 

USGS stations on the Tongue R and its tributaries. However, as for the PR, the most important 

difference between water temperatures of the product water and the surface waters is that the 

product waters will probably lack distinct seasonal cycles, whereas surface waters cycle between 

temperatures of 0 and 29o

C. 

In summary, the limited information about product water around the Tongue R suggests that product water 

might increase the salinity and change the major ion ratios of the Tongue R. This might be especially important in the 

upper reaches of the Tongue R because such changes in water quality might decrease the habitat quality of these surface 

waters for salmonid fishes. This is in direct contrast to the potential impact of product water on the PR, in which an 

influx of CBM product water might decrease the salinity of the surface water. 

Product Water Versus Surface Water: Little Powder River 

 We examined data from seven CBM wells in the region of the Little PR (Figs. 57-70 and 

Table 5). In general, the CBM product water tends to be more “dilute” than the surface waters of 

the Little PR, except with regard to Na+

 (range, 240-360 mg/L) and alkalinity (range, 810-1520 

mg/L as CaCO3). These data suggest that product waters have lower Mg2+ (14-46 mg/L, n=5), Ca2+

(30-69 mg/L, n=5), K+ (8.1-15.0 mg/L, n=5) and SO4

2- (0.08-3.00 mg/L, n=5; one outlier of 706 

mg/L) concentrations than the surface waters, but have higher HCO3

-

 concentrations than the 

surface waters. Surface water alkalinity was 290 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 190-400 mg/L as CaCO3, 

n=6). Median ion concentrations in the surface waters were 170 mg Na+/L, 150 mg Mg2+/L, 280 

mg Ca2+/L, 33 mg K+

/L and 1300 mg SO4

2-/L. 

 Median water temperature in the Little PR was 6.0o

C and ranged from 0 to 26oC, whereas 

the water temperature of six product waters in the region ranged from 13.9 to 26.5o

C. 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

16

Product Water Versus Surface Water: Belle Fourche River 

 The pH of 26 CBM product waters from around the Belle Fourche R ranged from 6.9 to 

7.4, which is lower than the median pH 7.9 measured in the Belle Fourche R (Fig. 79 and Table 5). 

Alkalinity in the product waters varied from 290 to 1100 mg/L as CaCO3, and tended to be higher 

than median alkalinity in the Belle Fourche R (242 mg/L as CaCO3; Fig. 71). Although hardness of 

the product waters was not measured directly, we calculated from the Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentrations 

that hardness ranged from approximately 21 to 225 mg/L as CaCO3 (Fig. 77). Because the median 

hardness of the Belle Fourche R was 1500 mg/L as CaCO3, product waters appear to have lower 

hardness than surface waters in the area.

 Belle Fourche R waters have high median conductivity (3800 μS/cm); and even minimum 

conductivity measured in the river is high (minimum, 1100 μS/cm; maximum 8000 μS/cm; Table 

1). High Na+

 (median, 385 mg/L), SO4

2- (median, 2000 mg/L), Ca2+ (median, 290 mg/L), and Mg2+

(median, 160 mg/L) concentrations all contribute to the high conductivity. In the product water, 

Na+ (range, 110-390 mg/L) and Cl- (range, 5-64 mg/L) concentrations were higher, but SO4

2- (range, 

0.01-12 mg/L), Ca2+ (range, 6-56 mg/L) and Mg2+ (range, 2-25 mg/L) concentrations were much 

lower than the Belle Fourche R (Table 5 and Figs. 73, 74, 78, 81 and 82). Consequently, the 

conductivity of product waters (range, 470-1640 μS/cm) was lower than in the Belle Fourche R. 

Median water temperature of the Belle Fourche R was 13.5o

C (range, 0-29oC), whereas product 

waters tended to be warmer (range, 14-29o

C; Fig. 83). 

In summary, the CBM product waters from around the Belle Fourche R tend to be more “dilute” than 

surface waters of the Belle Fourche R, except with regard to alkalinity (and, consequently HCO3

-

), Na+ and Clconcentrations. 

Product Water Versus Surface Water Quality: Summary and 

Recommendations 

3⁄4 More data from CBM product water sampling is needed to adequately assess product water 

quality, especially from around Clear Creek, Piney Creek (western portion of the PR drainage), 

the southern portion of the PR drainage (North and South Forks of the PR , and Salt Creek), 

and the Tongue R. 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

17

3⁄4 Surface water quality and CBM product water quality vary considerably across the PRB. 

Therefore, CBM product water quality will have different impacts on the different surface waters 

of the PRB. For example, product waters will tend to “dilute” the waters of the Belle Fourche 

R, whereas product waters will tend to “salinate” the waters of the Tongue R. We recommend 

that the tendency for CBM product waters to "dilute" some surface waters be considered just as 

potentially important to resident biota as is the tendency for CBM product waters to "salinate" 

other surface waters.

3⁄4 Because the Tongue River (to at least the Montana border), Piney Creek, Clear Creek (to several 

km downstream from Piney Creek), Crazy Woman Creek (to approximately I-25), the North 

Fork of the Powder River, and the Middle Fork of the Powder River (to approximately I-25) 

provide relatively high-quality, low-salinity habitat for salmonid fishes (see Surface Waters: 

Temperature section), major increases in salinity and changes in ion ratios in those surface 

waters due to discharge of CBM product water might have significant impacts on recreational 

fisheries.

Biological Methods to Examine the Impacts of Coalbed Methane 

Product Waters on Aquatic Organisms of the Powder River Basin 

 Standard testing organisms used to monitor freshwater quality in the USA include the 

invertebrates Daphnia magna, D. pulex and Ceriodaphnia dubia, and the fish species fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis; USEPA 

1993). These species were chosen by the USEPA because they “are easily cultured in the laboratory, 

are sensitive to a variety of pollutants, and are generally available throughout the year from 

commercial sources.” D. magna and C. dubia are widely distributed invertebrates (USEPA 1993) and 

are probably resident in some surface waters of the PRB; and fathead minnows are resident in some 

tributaries of the PR (Hubert 1993). Because toxicity testing protocols have already been developed 

for these three species and they are either definitely or probably resident in some surface waters of 

the PRB, they are appropriate species for conducting initial toxicity testing. However, there are two 

important factors that should guide future toxicity testing. 

 First, the waters of the PR, the Little PR and Belle Fourche R tend to be saline; and at times, 

and in some locations, either median alkalinity, hardness, Na+

, SO4

2-, or Cl-

 concentrations exceed 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

18

toxic concentrations (24-h, 48-h, 96-h or chronic LC50s) for one or all of the test organisms (Table 

6). Therefore, other species might be more appropriate for toxicity testing in some surface waters of 

the PRB. In addition, receiving waters should be tested for their influence on toxicity, separate from 

the effects of product water. 

 Secondly, because 32 species of fish (Hubert 1993) and at least 19 species of aquatic 

invertebrates (Elser et al. 1977) are present in the PRB, it might be appropriate to either test a wider 

range of species or use in situ toxicity testing methods (discussed below). However, the difficulties 

involved in maintaining and rearing non-standard species in the laboratory might preclude such 

testing with some species. We have not found any data about the toxicity of major ions to fish 

species that are native to the PRB. 

 Even with the limited data we have surveyed, alkalinity and Na+

, SO4

2-, and Clconcentrations in some CBM product waters exceed the acutely toxic concentrations (24-h, 48-h or 

96-h LC50s) for C. dubia, D. magna, and fathead minnows, indicating that toxicity to aquatic biota 

could occur if relatively large volumes of CBM product water are released to some surface waters of 

the PRB (Table 6). 

 Due to the complex and widely varying composition of product waters, a simple comparison 

of concentrations of single components of the product waters to LC50s could either overestimate or 

underestimate toxicity to the test species. Therefore, whole-effluent toxicity testing is essential to 

understand the potential impacts of CBM product waters on aquatic organisms. 

 Another possibility for assessing the effect of CBM product waters on aquatic communities 

in the surface waters of the PRB is the in situ bioassessment method proposed by O’Neil and Harris 

(1992). They used instream monitoring to assess the effect of product water effluent on the 

structure of benthic macroinvertebrate communities downstream of permitted discharge points. 

The technique was developed to be practical but statistically rigorous. Multi-plate samplers were 

placed in reference waterways (usually above the discharge point) and left for 6 weeks in order to 

allow colonization of the plates by benthic invertebrate communities. Next, half the plates were 

moved to the testing site below the discharge point and exposed to the receiving waters for 14 d. 

After 14 d, the species compositions of the invertebrate communities on the two sets of plates were 

statistically compared. In concept, this technique could be used in the PRB. 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

19

Biological Methods: Recommendations 

3⁄4 We recommend that toxicity testing be conducted on receiving waters as well as whole effluents 

from CBM wells.

3⁄4 In addition to standard laboratory testing species, we recommend that toxicity testing be 

conducted using species resident in the surface waters of the PRB, if possible.

3⁄4 We recommend that instream bioassessment be conducted to directly assess the potential 

impacts of CBM product water on local aquatic communities.

Ecology 

 Some important effects of CBM product water on the surface waters of the PRB can not be 

analyzed by traditional toxicity testing approaches. The composition of aquatic communities is 

determined by many factors, including flow regime and temporal variability of the water quality. For 

example, the PR is characterized by its variable nature. “The Powder River is a turbid, saline, 

meandering stream with a highly braided, unstable sand bottom. Discharge is highly erratic, and the 

river is intermittent during dry years upstream from the mouth of Clear Creek, 16 km upstream 

from the Montana-Wyoming state line” (Hubert 1993). In other words, the PR is not a “blue ribbon 

trout fishery”; instead it is an unique remnant of the type of waterways that were once common in 

the Great Plains region of North America. The PR is now ecologically valuable because it supports 

a relatively intact assemblage of native species and “has been relatively unaffected by water 

development, channelization, introduction of exotic species, [and] exploitation of fish stocks” 

(Hubert 1993). Ironically, addition of constant flows of relatively low-salinity CBM product waters 

could alter the nature of the PR in a manner that will favor the introduction of exotic species at the 

expense of native species (Cross et al. 1985, Sanders et al. 1993, Rabeni 1996). 

Ecology: Recommendations 

3⁄4 We recommend that the potential impacts of CBM product water on the aquatic communities 

inhabiting the surface waters of the PRB be assessed with respect to how much they will change 

local water quality characteristics from current conditions and, thus, potentially alter the 

composition of the local aquatic communities. 

3⁄4 We recommend that management goals for the future of the surface waterways of the PRB be 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

20

established and/or refined to guide decisions about how much change in current conditions is 

acceptable. For example, if the native fish communities of the PR are to be maintained, their 

habitat requirements will have to be considered relative to the potential impacts of CBM product 

waters that might tend to favor exotic species. 

Acknowledgements 

 This research was financially supported by Beatrice Gallatin Beuf and The Tucker 

Foundation. Some maps and datasets were modified from those supplied by the Wyoming 

Geographic Information Science Center, University of Wyoming. 

References 

Allan, J.D. 1996. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman and Hall, 

London, U.K. 388 pp. 

APHA et al. (American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water 

Environment Federation). 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater (19th Edition). A.D. Eaton, L.S. Clesceri and A.E. Greenberg (Eds.). American 

Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. 1108 pp. 

 Cowgill, U.M. and Milazzo, D.P. 1990. The sensitivity of two cladocerans to water quality 

variables: salinity and hardness. Archive für Hydrobiologia 120:185-196. 

Cowgill, U.M. and Milazzo, D.P. 1991a. The sensitivity of two cladocerans to water quality 

variables: alkalinity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 21:224-232. 

Cowgill, U.M. and Milazzo, D.P. 1991b. The sensitivity of two cladocerans to water quality 

variables: salinity <467 mg NaCl/L and hardness <200 mg CaCO3/L. Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 21:218-223. 

Cross, F.B., Moss, R.E., and Collins, J.T. 1985. Assessment of dewatering impacts on stream 

fisheries in the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers. Museum of Natural History; University of 

Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 

Elser, A.A., McFarland, R.C., and Schwehr, D. 1977. The effect of altered streamflow on fish of 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

21

the Yellowstone and Tongue River, Montana. Water Resources Division, Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Yellowstone Impact Study, Technical 

Report No. 8: 180pp. 

Forbes, M.B., Clearwater, S.J., Meyer, J.S. 2001. Acute toxicity of coalbed methane product water 

and receiving waters to fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and Daphnia magna. 

Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Hem, J.D. 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. Third 

Edition. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 pp. 

Hubert, W.A. 1993. The Powder River: a relatively pristine stream on the Great Plains. In: L.W. 

Hesse, C.B. Stalnaker, N.G. Benson, J.R. Zuboy (Eds.). Proceedings of the Symposium on 

Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Biological Report 19, pp. 387-395. 

Mount, D.R., Gulley, D.D., Hockett, J.R., Garrison, T.D. and Evans, J.M. 1997. Statistical models 

to predict the toxicity of major ions to Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna and Pimephales 

promelas (fathead minnows). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16:2009-2019. 

O’Neil, P.E. and Harris, S.C. 1992. Development of an Instream Bioassessment Methodology for 

the Surface Disposal of Coalbed Methane Produced Waters. Geological Survey of Alabama, 

Tuscaloosa, Alabama. GSA Bulletin No. 149. 92 pp. 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming. .2001. CBM Discharge Quality by Township and Range. 

Unpublished spreadsheet data, presented at Wyoming/Montana Coal Bed Methane 

Technical Meeting, March 8, 2001. Sheridan, Wyoming. 

Piper, R.G., McElwain, I.B., Orme, L.E., McCraren, J.P., Fowler, L.G. and Leonard, J.R. 1982. Fish 

Hatchery Management. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 517 pp. 

Rabeni, C.F. 1996. Chapter 8. Prairie legacies –fish and aquatic resources. In: F.B. Samson and F. 

Knopf (Eds.). Prairie conservation: preserving America’s most endangered ecosystem. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C. Pp. 111-124. 

Rice, C.A., Ellis, M.S., and Bullock, J.H., Jr. 2000. Water co-produced with coalbed methane in the 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming: preliminary compositional data. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Denver, Colorado. Open-File Report 00-372, 20 pp. 

Sanders, R.M., Huggins, D.G., and Cross, F.B. 1993. The Kansas River system and its biota. In: 

L.W. Hesse, C.B. Stalnaker, N.G. Benson, J.R. Zuboy (Eds.). Proceedings of the 
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

22

Symposium on Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem. U.S. 

Department of Interior, Biological Report 19, pp. 295-326. 

Sumich, J.L. 1995. An Introduction to the Biology of Marine Life (Seventh Edition). 

WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston. 484 pp. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 256 pp. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity 

of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, 4th Edition, 

EPA/600/4-90/027F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 
23 

Table 1. Median values (minimum and maximum in parentheses) of water quality parameters from surface water q

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from 1951 to 1999 in several drainages in the Powder River Basin Locations, sampling dates, and number of days sampled are listed in Table 2. 

Parameter 

Tongue 

River 

Upstream 

Tongue 

River 

Downstream 

Goose 

Creek 

Piney 

Creek 

Clear 

Creek 

Upstream

Clear Creek 

Downstream

South Fork 

Powder 

River Salt Creek 

Crazy 

Woman 

Creek 

Powder 

River 

Upstream 

Pow

Riv

Downs

USGS site # 6298000 6299980 6305500 6323500 6320200 6324000 6313000 6313400 6316400 6313500 6317Temperature 5 8.8 9.0 9.8 8.8 10.0 10.0 9.8 12.5 10.0 11(oC) (0.0-20.6) (0.0-23.0) (0.0-29.0) (0.0-26.0) (0.0-25.0) (0.0-29.0) (0.0-32.0) (0.0-31.0) (0.0-28.0) (0.0-29.0) (0.0-3

pH 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.0 7.9 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.(standard units) (6.8-8.6) (6.9-8.9) (6.7-8.9) (7.3-9.2) (7.5-8.9) (7.2-8.8) (6.8-8.5) (7.1-8.9) (7.1-8.5) (6.4-8.5) (6.6-Conductivity 252 450 700 640 825 1145 3295 6770 1620 2400 24(μS/cm at 25oC) (50-360) (170-660) (63-1210) (120-1160) (130-1300) (230-2360) (301-6200) (1700-8870) (348-4170) (655-7000) (70-6

Dissolved 10.6 10.4 10.6 10.2 10.6 10.0 10.2 8.3 9.3 9.0 8.oxygen (mg/L) (7.6-13.2) (7.9-13.6) (5.6-15.4) (6.6-12.9) (8.0-17.5) (7.1-13.0) (6.2-12.9) (0.7-15.0) (5.6-14.0) (4.5-15.3) (2.9-1

Alkalinity 129 191 235 160 160 199 149 618 200 290 20(mg/L as CaCO3) (41-172) (70-244) (41-317) (35-280) (20-240) (50-462) (73-410) (150-1160) (61-3710) (138-640) (102-

Hardness 130 230 340 260 355 480 1100 400 700 510 65(mg/L as CaCO3) (58-180) (77-340) (60-543) (22-480) (47-590) (71-1030) (403-1800) (190-970) (180-2200) (240-1400) (270-2

Na

+ 1.6 15.0 29.0 33.0 44.0 71.0 420 1400 120 350 35

(mg/L) (0.0-240) (2.4-46) (4.2-63) (4.9-74) (5.7-80) (9.6-200) (164-970) (290-2000) (12-380) (57-1400) (66.0-

K

+ 0.7 1.8 2.9 4.4 2.8 4.4 9.3 17.0 4.2 7.0 6.

(mg/L) (0.0-6.7) (0.3-7.4) (0.0-39.0) (1.1-16.0) (0.5-12.0) (0.6-46.0) (0.8-24.0) (1.6-65.0) (2.0-16.0) (1.4-23.0) (0.6-5

Ca2+ 34 51 65 62 84 110 300 80 150 120 15

(mg/L) (12-56) (21-67) (12-150) (12-100) (12-130) (23-1470) (32-550) (22-290) (42-582) (31-290) (50-4

Mg2+ 11.0 24.0 43.0 28.0 35.5 54.0 80.0 51.0 77.5 49.0 60

(mg/L) (0.8-29.0) (6.0-48.0) (4.3-80.0) (3.9-56.0) (4.2-64.0) (7.6-118) (14.0-170) (7.8-297) (6.8-260.0) (14.0-160) (6.7-

Cl

- 1.1 2.0 5.4 2.4 4.2 4.5 110.0 1200.0 9.4 220.0 210

(mg/L) (0.0-24.0) (0.7-17.0) (0.0-23.0) (1.0-6.2) (0.1-7.6) (0.0-48.0) (16.0-643) (63.0-1980) (1.7-120) (0.7-1600) (3.7-13

SO42- 5 68 150 165 280 439 1510 1100 700 650 81

(mg/L) (0-19) (11-240) (14-394) (20-370) (31-490) (60-1130) (124-3200) (460-4349) (77-2700) (140-2300) (203-2

Turbidity 1 4 8 2 3 9 65 200 55 145 47(JCU) (0-20) (1-100) (1-90) (0-33) (1-15) (1-500) (1-550) (20-2600) (10-100) (90-200) (20-8Discharge 77 111 94 52 53 96 12 31 26 155 17(ft3/s) (34-2310) (43-2200) (6.6-5540) (10-1090) (7.6-1240) (1.9-3540) (0.0-1400) (3.6-2360) (0.03-1670) (6.3-10,680) (2.0-17
CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

24

Table 2. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) site number, decimal degree location, dates of collection, 

and number of sampling days for the USGS surface water quality dataset (Table 1). 

Site USGS site # 

Decimal degree 

location (N, W) Dates of collection 

Number of 

sampling days

Tongue River Upstream 6298000 44.83, 107.30 10/10/66-9/24/81, 

1/14/99-8/31/99 

192 

Tongue River Downstream 6299980 44.90, 107.02 4/3/74-9/20/83 79 

Goose Creek 6305500 44.83, 106.99 1/22/68-7/29/99 268 

South Fork Powder River 6313000 43.62, 106.57 4/10/51-9/10/51, 

6/12/68-10/21/92 

245 

Salt Creek 6313400 43.62, 106.37 10/9/67-7/28/99 275 

Powder River Upstream 6313500 43.68, 106.28 10/11/66-7/31/68, 

11/1/77-7/28/99 

233 

Crazy Woman Creek 6316400 44.48, 106.17 11/14/66-7/21/99 190 

Powder River Downstream 6317000 44.64, 106.12 10/2/67-7/21/99 377 

Clear Creek Upstream 6320200 44.35, 106.65 11/11/75-9/9/91 74 

Piney Creek 6323500 44.55, 106.53 7/3/75-9/14/92 75 

Clear Creek Downstream 6324000 44.87, 106.07 10/10/66-8/7/89 235 

Little Powder River 6324890 44.48, 105.47 5/5/78-8/12/83 46 

Belle Fourche River 6425720 43.98, 105.38 11/16/75-9/27/80 36 
25 

Table 3. Median molar concentrations of anions (HCO3-, CO32-, Cl-, SO42-, OH-) and cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+,  U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sites on surface waters of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The con

from which these molar concentrations were calculated are listed in Table 1. 

USGS Concentrations of cations (mM) Concentrations 

Location site # Ca2+ Mg2+ K+ Na+ H+ Sum HCO3- CO32- Cl- Tongue River Upstream 6298000 0.85 0.45 0.02 0.07 <0.01 1.39 2.55 0.02 0.03 Tongue River Downstream 6299980 1.27 0.99 0.05 0.65 <0.01 2.96 3.78 0.02 0.06 Goose Creek 6305500 1.62 1.77 0.07 1.26 <0.01 4.73 4.65 0.03 0.15 South Fork Powder River 6313000 7.49 3.29 0.24 18.29 <0.01 29.31 2.96 0.01 3.10 Salt Creek 6313400 2.00 2.10 0.43 60.90 <0.01 65.43 12.22 0.07 33.85 Powder River Upstream 6313500 2.99 2.02 0.18 15.22 <0.01 20.41 5.73 0.03 6.21 Crazy Woman Creek 6316400 3.74 3.19 0.11 5.22 <0.01 12.26 3.96 0.02 0.27 Powder River Downstream 6317000 3.74 2.47 0.17 15.22 <0.01 21.61 4.12 0.02 5.92 Clear Creek Upstream 6320200 2.10 1.46 0.07 1.91 <0.01 5.54 3.15 0.02 0.12 Piney Creek 6323500 1.55 1.15 0.11 1.44 <0.01 4.25 3.16 0.02 0.07 Clear Creek Downstream 6324000 2.74 2.22 0.11 3.09 <0.01 8.17 3.94 0.02 0.13 Little Powder River 6324890 6.99 6.17 0.84 7.39 <0.01 21.40 5.76 0.02 0.28 Belle Fourche River 6425720 7.24 6.58 0.37 16.75 <0.01 30.94 4.80 0.02 0.54 
26 

Table 4. Percentages of anions (HCO3-, CO32-, Cl-, SO42-, OH-) and cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+, H+) at U.S. Geol

sites on surface waters of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. These percentages are based on the medconcentrations listed in Table 3. 

USGS Percentages of cations Percentage

Location site # Ca2+ Mg2+ K+ Na+ H+ Sum HCO3- CO32- Cl- Tongue River Upstream 6298000 61 33 1 5 <1 100 96 1 1 Tongue River Downstream 6299980 43 33 2 22 <1 100 83 <1 1 Goose Creek 6305500 34 37 2 27 <1 100 73 <1 2 South Fork Powder River 6313000 26 11 1 62 <1 100 14 <1 14 Salt Creek 6313400 3 3 1 93 <1 100 21 <1 59 Powder River Upstream 6313500 15 10 1 75 <1 100 31 <1 33 Crazy Woman Creek 6316400 31 26 1 43 <1 100 34 <1 2 Powder River Downstream 6317000 17 11 1 70 <1 100 22 <1 32 Clear Creek Upstream 6320200 38 26 1 35 <1 100 51 <1 2 Piney Creek 6323500 36 27 3 34 <1 100 64 <1 1 Clear Creek Downstream 6324000 34 27 1 38 <1 100 46 <1 1 Little Powder River 6324890 33 29 4 35 <1 100 29 <1 1 Belle Fourche River 6425720 23 21 1 54 <1 100 18 <1 2 
27 

Table 5. Ranges of water quality in surface waters of several drainages in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming vers

waters from coalbed methane wells located in the same drainage. Surface water quality parameters are mGeological Survey data (Table 1). Product water data are the range of values from wells located in the samsizes in parentheses). --- = not analyzed. 

Eastern Portion of 

Powder River Drainage 

Western Portion of 

Powder River Drainage 

Little Powder River 

Drainage 

Belle Fourche River 

Drainage 

Parameter 

Surface 

Powder 

River 

Product 

East 

Powder 

River 

Surface 

Piney 

Creek 

Product 

West 

Powder 

River 

Surface 

Little 

Powder 

River 

Product 

Little 

Powder 

River 

Surface 

Belle 

Fourche 

River 

Product 

Belle 

Fourche 

River 

Surf

Ton

Riv

Temperature (oC) 

10-12 12-26 

(12) 

10 --- 6 14-27 

(6) 

14 14-29 

(26) 

5-

pH (standard units) 

 8.0-8.1 7.0-8.0 (26), 

9.0 (1) 

 8.1 8.0-9.0 

(2) 

 7.9 6.8-7.9 

(7) 

 7.9 6.9-7.4 

(26) 

 8.0-

Conductivity (μS/cm) 

 2400-

2480 

860-3600 

(27) 

 640 996-1670 

(2) 

 2610 1070-1660 (6), 

5300 (1) 

 3800 470-1640 

(26) 

 252-

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 

 208-290 580-2440 

(14) 

 160 --- 290 810-1520 

(6) 

 242 290-1100 

(26) 

 129-

Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 

 510-650 73-264 

(15) 

 260 --- 1300 192 

(1) 

 1500 100 

(1) 

 130-

Ca2+

(mg/L) 

 120-150 9-44 

(19) 

 62 3 

(1) 

 280 30-69 

(5) 

 290 6-56 

(25) 

 34-

K

+

(mg/L) 

 7 4-18 

(11) 

 4 --- 33 8-15 

(5) 

 15 4-14 

(25) 

 1-

Mg2+

(mg/L) 

 49-60 5-28 

(19) 

 28 3 

(1) 

 150 14-46 

(5) 

 160 2-25 

(25) 

 11-

Na

+

(mg/L) 

 350 409-994 

(24) 

 33 405 

(1) 

 170 240-360 

(5) 

 385 110-390 

(25) 

 1.6

Cl

-

(mg/L) 

 210-220 5-30 (25), 

170 (1) 

 2 14-38 

(2) 

 10 9-12 (5), 

1260 (1) 

 19 5-64 

(25) 

 1-

SO42-

(mg/L) 

 650-810 0.01-28 (24), 

761(1) 

 165 2-8 

(2) 

 1300 0.08-3.0 (5), 

706 (1) 

 2000 0.01-12.0 

(25) 

 5-6
28 

Table 6. Range of LC50s (median lethal concentrations) for Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna and fathead minnow

exposed to different compounds or ions; and concentrations of those compounds or ions in surface watemethane (CBM) product waters from the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. x = concentration of the compsurface water (S) or CBM product water (P) exceeded the LC50 of the test organism (i.e., toxicity might owater), 0 = LC50 not exceeded, --- = no data available. Data for surface water quality are the median valGeological Survey dataset (Table 1). Data for CBM product water quality are the range of values reporte

this report. See text for additional details about those datasets. 

Fathead minnow Ceriodaphnia dubia Daphnia magna 

Parameter or ion Units 

Exposure 

duration (h) 

LC50 

(mg/L) S P 

LC50 

(mg/L) S P 

LC50 

(mg/L) S P 

Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 Chronic --- --- --- 183-306 x x 592-1006 0 x 

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 Chronic --- --- --- 1031 x 0 1516 x 0 Na

+ mg/L 24 1328-3255 x 0 389-1329 x x 652-2508 x x 

 mg/L 48 685-2577 x x 279-997 x x 449-1875 x x  mg/L 96 233-2577 x x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

K

+ mg/L 24 367-498 0 0 246-345 0 0 262-388 0 0 

 mg/L 48 320-477 0 0 246-330 0 0 254-346 0 0  mg/L 96 199-461 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Ca2+ mg/L 24 580-2404 0 0 571-816 0 0 580-1173 0 0 

 mg/L 48 580-2368 0 0 562-661 0 0 580-1000 0 0  mg/L 96 580-1671 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Mg2+ mg/L 24 898-934 0 0 324-357 0 0 398-476 0 0 

 mg/L 48 708-724 0 0 224-357 0 0 339-367 0 0  mg/L 96 541-569 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Cl

- mg/L 24 452-5025 x x 300-2051 x x 352-3872 x x 

 mg/L 48 433-4192 x x 300-1189 x x 314-2895 x x  mg/L 96 419-3878 x x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

SO42- mg/L 24 546-5464 x x 425-2428 x x 469-4254 x x 

 mg/L 48 474-5383 x x 375-2082 x x 397-3097 x x  mg/L 96 375-5383 x x --- --- --- --- --- --- 

HCO3

- mg/L 24 573-3522 --- --- 384-1031 --- --- 408-1728 --- --- 

 mg/L 48 500-1815 --- --- 384-741 --- --- 396-1191 --- ---  mg/L 96 311-617 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
29

Figure 1. Location of the Powder River Basin (inside dashed boundary) in Wyoming. 
30

Figure 2. Major cities in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, and boundaries of the sub-basin maps (Powder R. - 

Powder R. - Figs. 32-45; Tongue R. - Figs. 46-56; Little Powder R. - Figs. 57-70; and Belle Fourche R. - F
31

Figure 3. Major waterways and their tributaries in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. USGS gauging stations us

water quality are shown with their numerical identifiers (see also Table 2). 
32

Figure 4. Median alkalinity values (mg/L as CaCO3) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, mea

gauging stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gaug
33

Figure 5. Median calcium concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measur

stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stati
34

Figure 6. Median chloride concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measu

stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stati
35

Figure 7. Median conductivity values (μS/cm) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured 

stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stati
36

Figure 8. Median discharge (ft3/s) of surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS ga

1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations. 
37

Figure 9. Median dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyomin

gauging stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gaug
38

Figure 10. Median hardness values (mg/L as CaCO3) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, mea

gauging stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gaug
39

Figure 11. Median magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, me

gauging stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gaug
40

Figure 12. Median pH values (standard units) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at 

stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stati
41

Figure 13. Median potassium concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, mea

gauging stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gaug
42

Figure 14. Median sodium concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measur

stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stati
43

Figure 15. Median sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measure

stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stati
44

Figure 16. Median temperatures (°C) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS g

1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations. 
45

Figure 17. Median turbidity values (Jackson Candle Units -- JCUs) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of W

USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of th
46

Figure 18. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the 

drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
47

Figure 19. Ammonia concentrations (mg NH4+/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern po

River drainage, including Creek and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
48

Figure 20. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of 

drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petrole

Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
49

Figure 21. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of 

drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
50

Figure 22. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powd

including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wcrosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et 
51

Figure 23. Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clea

Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dDEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
52

Figure 24. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3; * indicates values calculated from sum of mEq/L of Ca and Mg) of product 

methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice 

indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
53

Figure 25. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion 

drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
54

Figure 26. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder 

including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wcrosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et 
55

Figure 27. Potassium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion o

drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
56

Figure 28. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of 

drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petrole

Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
57

Figure 29. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of th

drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
58

Figure 30. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder R

including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wcrosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et 
59

Figure 31. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northe

Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PeWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate data2001). 
60

Figure 32. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the 

drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show wedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares in(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
61

Figure 33. Ammonia concentrations (mg NH4+/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern po

River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols shothe datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squar

(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
62

Figure 34. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of 

drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show wedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares in(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
63

Figure 35. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of 

drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show wedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares in(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
64

Figure 36. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powd

including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locationfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate d

Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangl(Forbes et al. 2001). 
65

Figure 37. Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clea

Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Associatio

crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et 
66

Figure 38. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3; * indicates values calculated from sum of mEq/L of Ca and Mg) of product 

methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woma

Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were tadataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses 

(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
67

Figure 39. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion 

drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show wedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares in(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
68

Figure 40. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder 

including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locationfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dAssociation of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangl(Forbes et al. 2001). 
69

Figure 41. Potassium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion o

drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show wedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares in(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
70

Figure 42. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of 

drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show wedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares in(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
71

Figure 43. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of th

drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show wedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares in(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
72

Figure 44. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder R

including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locationfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate d

Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangl(Forbes et al. 2001). 
73

Figure 45. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the so

Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creekslocations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Ricindicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming Dand triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
74
75

Figure 46. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, 

Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were tadataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses 

(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
76

Figure 47. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River draina

and Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
77

Figure 48. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drain

and Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
78

Figure 49. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, includ

Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. CA (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatDEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
79

Figure 50. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, 

Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were tadataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses 

(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
80

Figure 51. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River dr

Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremCircles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyomin

indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001)
81

Figure 52. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, includin

Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. CA (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatDEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
82

Figure 53. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drai

and Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremenindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
83
84

Figure 54. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainag

and Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
85

Figure 55. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, including 

Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. CA (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatDEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
86

Figure 56. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongu

including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the mtaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wcrosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et 
87

Figure 57. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River dra

and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were tadataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses 

(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
88

Figure 58. Ammonia concentrations (mg NH4+/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powde

including Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measCircles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyomin

indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001)
89

Figure 59. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River 

Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
90

Figure 60. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River 

Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
91

Figure 61. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, 

Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were takendataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
92

Figure 62. Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Cr

well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice 

indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
93

Figure 63. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3; * indicates values calculated from sum of mEq/L of Ca and Mg) of product 

methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show wdatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares in(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
94

Figure 64. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder Riv

Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
95

Figure 65. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, in

Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were takendataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
96

Figure 66. Potassium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder Rive

Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
97

Figure 67. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River d

Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
98

Figure 68. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River d

Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
99

Figure 69. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, inc

Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were takendataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
100

Figure 70. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little P

including Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measCircles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyomin

indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001)
101

Figure 71. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River dra

Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremenindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
102

Figure 72. Ammonia concentrations (mg NH4+/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourch

including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the mtaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wcrosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et 
103

Figure 73. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River 

Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremenindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
104

Figure 74. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River 

Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremenindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
105

Figure 75. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, 

Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were takedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
106

Figure 76. Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bone

show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate datassquares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wy

permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
107
108

Figure 77. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3; * indicates values calculated from sum of mEq/L of Ca and Mg) of product 

methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squar

(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits)

dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
109

Figure 78. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche Ri

Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremenindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
110

Figure 79. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, in

Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were takedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
111

Figure 80. Potassium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche Riv

Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremenindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
112

Figure 81. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River 

Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremenindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
113

Figure 82. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River d

Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measuremenindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001)dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
114

Figure 83. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, inc

Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were takedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses 

(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001). 
115

Figure 84. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle F

including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the mtaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wcrosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et 
116

Figure 85. Relationship between (a) alkalinity, (b) hardness (calculated from calcium and magnesium concentrations)

concentration, or (d) magnesium concentration and the well depth and geologic formation from which coproduct water samples were collected. Squares = Canyon Formation, hexagons = Wall Formation, diamFormation, crosses = Anderson Formation, upward triangles = Cook Formation, downward triangles = P= Wyodak Formation, and circles = Big George Formation. 

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO

3

)

0

500

1000150020002500

WW W

W W

WW W

W

W

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Calculated hardness (mg/L as CaCO

3

)

0

100200300400

W W

W

W W

W W

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Calcium (mg/L)

0

20406080

W

W

W

W W

W W

W

W

W

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Magnesium (mg/L)

0

1020304050

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

 a. b.

 c. d.
117

Figure 86. Relationship between (a) conductivity, (b) sodium concentration, (c) chloride concentration, or (d) sulfate 

well depth and geologic formation from which coalbed methane product water samples were collected. SFormation, hexagons = Wall Formation, diamonds = Fort Union Formation, crosses = Anderson Forma= Cook Formation, downward triangles = Pawnee Formation, W = Wyodak Formation, and circles = Bi

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Conductivity (

μS/cm)

0

1000200030004000

WW W

W W

W W

W

W

W

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Sodium (mg/L)

0

200400600800

1000

WW W

W

W

W W

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Chloride (mg/L)

0

20406080

W W

W

W

WW

W

WWW

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Sulfate (mg/L)

05

101520

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

WW

 a. b.

 c. d.
118

Figure 87. Relationship between (a) temperature, (b) total dissolved solids concentration, (c) ammonia concentration

concentration and the well depth and geologic formation from which coalbed methane product water samSquares = Canyon Formation, hexagons = Wall Formation, diamonds = Fort Union Formation, crosses Formation, upward triangles = Cook Formation, downward triangles = Pawnee Formation, W = Wyodak circles = Big George Formation.

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Temperature (

o

C)

0

102030

W

W

W

W

WW

W

WW

W

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Total dissolved solids (mg/L)

0

500

1000150020002500

W

W W

W

W

W W

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Ammonia (mg/L)

0246

W

W

W

W

W

W

W W

W

W

W

W

W

Depth (feet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Potassium (mg/L)

05

101520

W

W

W

W W

W

W

W

W

W

 a. b.

 c. d.
 CBM PRODUCT WATERS VERSUS SURFACE WATERS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

119

Appendix A 

Seasonal Changes in Surface Water Quality Parameters 

Measured at the Tongue River Downstream USGS Site: 

1974-1983 

121

Figure A-1. Seasonal changes in alkalinity of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06

1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO

3

)

0

100200300400
122

Figure A-2. Seasonal changes in calcium concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (U

from 1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NO

Calcium (mg/L)

0

20406080

100
123

Figure A-3. Seasonal changes in chloride concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (U

from 1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

Chloride (mg/L)

05

101520
124

Figure A-4. Seasonal changes in conductivity of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #

1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NO

Conductivity (

μS/cm)

0

200400600800

1000
125

Figure A-5. Seasonal changes in discharge of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06

1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

Discharge (ft

3

/sec)

0

100020003000
126

Figure A-6. Seasonal changes in dissolved oxygen concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstrea

#06299980), from 1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT N

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

05

101520
127

Figure A-7. Seasonal changes in hardness of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06

1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

Hardness (mg/L as CaCO

3

)

0

100200300400
128

Figure A-8. Seasonal changes in magnesium concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site 

#06299980), from 1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NO

Magnesium (mg/L)

0

1020304050
129

Figure A-9. Seasonal changes in pH of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #0629998

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT N

pH (standard units)

6789

10
130

Figure A-10. Seasonal changes in potassium concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site 

#06299980), from 1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

Potassium (mg/L)

02468

10
131

Figure A-11. Seasonal changes in sodium concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (US

from 1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

Sodium (mg/L)

0

1020304050
132

Figure A-12. Seasonal changes in sodium absorption ratio of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (

#06299980), from 1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 

Sodium Absorption Ratio 

0.00.51.01.52.0
133

Figure A-13. Seasonal changes in sulfate concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (US

from 1974 to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV 

Sulfate (mg/L)

0

100200300
134

Figure A-14. Seasonal changes in temperature of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #

to 1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT N

Temperature (

0

C)

0

102030
135

Figure A-15. Seasonal changes in turbidity of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #062

1983. 

Month

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT N

Turbidity (Jackson Candle Units)

0

50

100150