## A Comparison of Coalbed Methane Product Water Quality Versus Surface Water Quality in the Po wder 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 Ri ver 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 amon g 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 discha rge permits (even if the wells are drilled to the same depth and within the same geologic al formation), we recommend that follow-up chemical analyses of the water quality be submitte d 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 (HCO 3 - 

## ) concentrations in much of the Powder River and (2) decrease chloride (Cl

- 

## ) and sulfate (SO 4 2- 

## ) concentrations and the water hardness (an index of the sum of the calcium (Ca 2+ 

## ) and magnesium (Mg 2+ 

## ) concentrations).

3⁄4 

## Limited information about CBM wells near the T ongue River suggests that product water might increase the salinity of the Tongue River.

3⁄4 

## Because the Tongue River (to at least the Mont ana border), Piney Creek, Clear Creek (to several

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## ii km downstream from Piney Creek), Crazy Wom an 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 we lls 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 Ca 2+ 

## , Mg 2+ 

## and SO 4 2- 

## concentrations in the Little Powder River, but increase HCO 3 - 

## 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 HCO 3 - 

## at those pH values),

Na + 

## , Cl

- 

## and potassium (K + 

## ) concentrations.

3⁄4 

## The environmental cue of seasonal cycles in wa ter 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 produ ct 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 conducte d on receiving waters as well as whole effluents

from CBM wells.

3⁄4 

## We recommend that, if feasible, toxicity testing al so be conducted using species resident in the

surface waters of the PRB.

3⁄4 

## Although toxicity testing will provide useful in formation 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 alternative s to traditional laboratory-testing approaches, such as instream bioassessment, also be conducted.

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 Dr ainages of the Powder River Basin..................... 3 Surface Waters: Specific Conductance and Salinity.......................................................... 3

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

Surface Waters: Acid Neutra lizing 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 We ll 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## iv Contents (continued) Page

Product Water Versus Surface Water: Piney Creek, Cl ear 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 Impact s 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 Wa ter Quality Parameters Measured at the Tongue River Downstream USGS Site:1974-1983 .............................................................. 116

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 .................................................................................................2 3 2 U.S. Geological Survey site number, decimal degree location, dates of collection, and number of sampling days for the USGS sur face water quality dataset...........................24 3 Median molar concentrations of anions (HCO 3 - 

## , CO 3 2- 

## , Cl

- 

## , SO 4 2- 

## , OH

- 

## ) and cations (Ca 2+ 

## , Mg 2+ 

## , K + 

## , Na + 

## , H + 

## ) at U.S. Geological Survey sites on surface waters of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming .................................................................................................. 25 4 Percentages of anions (HCO 3 - 

## , CO 3 2- 

## , Cl

- 

## , SO 4 2- 

## , OH

- 

## ) and cations (Ca 2+ 

## , Mg 2+ 

## , 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## v i 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 sur face waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999...................................43

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## v ii 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 an d 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 an d 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 m ethane 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## v iii 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 meth ane 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 meth ane 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 wate r 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 co albed 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 m ethane 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 wate r from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks..................................................95 68 Sulfate concentrations in product wate r 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, includin g 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 Cr eeks..........................................................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 coalbe d 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## xii Figures (continued) Figure Page 79 pH of product water from coalbed m ethane 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 wate r from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks ..........................................109 82 Sulfate concentrations in product wate r 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 Cr eeks..........................................................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 coalbe d 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 concentr ation of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.............................................126 A-11 Seasonal changes in sodium concentrat ion 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 1 Introduction

The Powder River Basin (PRB; Fig. 1) is cu rrently 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 negative ly impact surface waters in the following ways: 1. discharge of large volumes of CBM prod uct 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 communiti es 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 surfa ce 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 organi sms, 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 potenti al 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 ch aracterize 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, tempera ture 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 water ways of the PRB and the potential impact of CBM product waters.

Surface Water Quality Overview These waterways vary significantly in their typ ical 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., disc harge varies from 2 to 17,800 ft 3 

## /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 acco rding 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 co uld 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 3 Surface Water Quality in the Four Majo r Drainages of the Powder River Basin Median concentrations of anions (HCO 3 - 

## , CO 3 2- 

## , Cl

- 

## , SO 4 2- 

## , OH

- 

## ) and cations (Ca 2+ 

## , Mg 2+



## , 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 t hose 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 sp ecific conductance varying from 70 to 6500

μ

S/cm at 25 o 

## C, with a median conductance of 2480 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## C (Fig. 7 and Table 1). This indicates the presence of high c oncentrations 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 (SO 4 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 (Ca 2+ 

## ) and magnesium (Mg 2+ 

## ; 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, salin ity is due to high concentrations of Na + 

## and Cl

- 

## , and relatively low concentrations of SO 4 2- 

## , Mg 2+ 

## , Ca 2+ 

## , potassium (K + 

## ), and bicarbonate (HCO 3 - 

## ) 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 SO 4 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 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## C; upstream Clear Creek, median 825 μ S/cm

at 25 o 

## C). Much of the high conductance is attributable to SO 4 2- 

## ions and low-to-moderate

concentrations of Ca 2+ 

## and Mg 2+ 

## . 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 4 The Tongue R has relatively low conductance in its upstream (median, 252 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## C) and downstream (median, 450 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## 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 Ca 2+ 

## , Mg 2+ 

## and Cl

- 

## concentrations were all relatively low compared to the PR. Goose Creek tends to have higher conductivity (median 700 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## C) than the Tongue R, probably due mostly to high concentrations of SO 4 2- 

## ions (median, 150 mg/L) and moderate

concentrations of Na + 

## , Ca 2+ 

## , and Mg 2+ 

## ions. Both the Little PR (median, 2610 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## C) and the Belle Fourche R (median, 3800

μ

S/cm at 25 o 

## C) in the eastern portion of the PRB have c onsistently high conductance. Although

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

both rivers was 1100 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## C. Both rivers are characterized by relatively high concentrations

of SO 4 2- 

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

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

concentrations of Na + 

## , Ca 2+ 

## , and Mg 2+



## .

Surface Waters: Hardness Hardness is the sum of the divalent cation concentrations (usually mostly Ca 2+ 

## and Mg 2+ 

## ions) in water (APHA et al. 1995), expressed as the concentration of CaCO 3 

## (mg/L) that, when added to distilled water, would produce the same ha rdness as the water samp le. Surface waters are generally considered to be “hard” if their hardness is >100 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## (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 condu ctivity, 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 CaCO 3 

## ; 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 CaCO 3 

## ). 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 CaCO 3 

## ), 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 CaCO 3 

## , respectively) and highest maximum hardness values (3300 and 3500 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## , respectively) of all of the PRB sites.

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 HCO 3 - 

## , CO 3 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 CaCO 3 

## . Because median pH in the PRB waterways varied from 7.9 to 8.2 (Fig. 12) and alkalinity was ≥ 129 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## (Fig. 4), most of the alkalinity will be attributable to HCO 3 - 

## ions. In terms of alkalinity, the most notable water way of the PR is Salt Creek, where the median alkalinity was 618 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## (range, 150-1160 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## ; 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 CaCO 3 

## . The range of minimum and maximum alkalinity values is also fairly similar across the PRB, falling within 20 to 410 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## , except for the two PR stations that ranged up to 640 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## , probably under the influence of Salt Creek (Table 1).

Surface Waters: pH (standard units) Median pH, or acidity, of all PRB water ways that we surveyed was between 7.9 and 8.2 standard pH units (Fig. 12 and Table 1). The lo west 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 0 o 

## C (32 o 

## F) to maxima of 21 to 32 o 

## C (70-90 o 

## F; Table 1). Changes in water temperature are mostly due to seasonal variation in weather. Overall, the Belle Fourche R (median, 13.5 o 

## C), the PR and its southern tributaries (the South Fork, Salt Creek, and Crazy Woman Creek, medians 9.75-12.5 o 

## C) tended to have the highest median water temperatures compared to upstream and downstream Clear Creek (medians, 8.75 and 10 o 

## C) and Piney Creek (median, 9.75 o 

## C; Fig. 16). The Tongue R (u pstream and downstream), Goose Creek (medians, 5.0-9.0 o 

## C) and the Little PR (median, 6 o 

## C) had the lowest median water

temperatures. Water temperatures tend to increase from upst ream headwaters toward downstream reaches, and seasonal changes in water temperature are an important environmental cue for many aquatic organisms (Allan 1996). The PRB waterways suppor t salmonid (members of the fish family that

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 6 includes trout and salmon) species and many native, non-salmonid species of Wyoming (Hubert 1993). The major stream and river reaches contai ning 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 PR B 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 ge nerally high across the PRB (medians, 8.3-10.6 mg/L), although some waters of the PR and the Li ttle 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 wi nd disturbance that can reoxygenate the water. Therefore, even though low DO concentrations we re recorded at some of the USGS sampling sites, “refuges” of higher DO concentrations might ha ve 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 concentr ations of 2.9 to 4.5 mg/L. The Little PR had a DO minimum of 3.4 mg/L. The western tributar ies 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, 55-47 5 Jackson Candle Units (JCU); Fig. 17 and Table 1). Except for the South Fork of the PR, th e 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 turb idity of 500 JCU. The Tongue R, Little PR,

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 Wyom ing-Montana border in the north-central portion of the PRB are relatively saline (median conductivity, 2480 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## 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 μ S/cm at 25 o 

## 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 wate rs is due mostly to high concentrations of Na +



## , Ca 2+ 

## , Cl

- 

## and SO 4 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 SO 4 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 wa ters of the PRB. Both rivers tend to have relatively high salinity waters containing high concentrations of Na + 

## , Ca 2+ 

## , Mg 2+ 

## , and SO 4 2-



## . Compared to the other waters of the PRB, both rive rs 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 th e 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 wa ter samples taken at the “designated discharge point” for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimin ation 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. 20 01). 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 prod uct waters, they did not interpret the water quality data in terms of interactions with the aquatic eco systems 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 th e basin, to determine if there are significant differences in water quality and important regional trends.

3. Compare surface water and CBM product water quali ty to toxicity data for three standard test organisms (fathead minnows Pimephales promelas

, Daphnia spp., and Ceriodaphnia dubia ).

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 9 Product Water Locations

1. Rice et al. (2000) obtained data from wells east an d southeast of the PR (e.g., circles in Figs. 18, 32, 57 and 71). Many of the wells were loca ted around the Belle Fourche R (Fig. 71).

2. Petroleum Association of Wyoming initial discharg e permit data from 15 wells within Campbell county or westward were obtained fr om 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 prov ided 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 water s varied from to 470-5300 μ S/cm in the four datasets (Figs. 22, 36, 49, 61 and 75). There was a regional trend of conductivity increasing from <1000 μ S/cm

southeast of the Belle Fourche R to approximately 3000 μ S/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 μ S/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 20 o 

## C; in dataset B, it was measured at 25 o 

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

26 o 

## C). The 5 o 

## C 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 southeas t 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 HCO 3 - 

## concentrations (Figs. 28, 42, 67 and 81). Similarly, the Petroleum Association of Wyomin g samples (dataset B) were dominated by Na + 

## and

HCO 3 - 

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

## and HCO 3 - 

## concentrations in the two datasets were 905 and 1155 mg/L, respectively. Bicarbonate concentrat ions were reported separately in only one of 51 samples (data not shown), but because alkalin ity ranged from 290 to 2320 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## and pH

was ≥ 6.8 and < 9.0, HCO 3 - 

## probably was the dominant anion in those waters. Maximum Cl

- 

## was 64 mg/L (Figs. 21, 35, 48, 60 and 74), and maximum SO 4 2- 

## was 28 mg/L (Figs. 29, 43, 54, 68 and 82). Insufficient data were provided in the NPDES permit s (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

SO 4 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 (F igs. 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 CaCO 3 

## , for each parameter; Figs . 18, 24, 32, 38, 46, 50, 57, 63, 71 and 77). Rice et al. (2000) found al kalinity varied from 290 to 2320 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## , 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 CaCO 3 

## ). 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 NH 4 + 

## /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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 11 Tongue River. To interpret NH 4 + 

## concentrations in terms of concentrations of the more toxic

unionized NH 3 

## species, we used the temperature and pH of the product water to calculate percentages of toxic unionized NH 3 

## (Piper et al. 1982). In 30 of 47 samples, unionized NH 3 

## concentrations were >0.012 mg/L, which is the th reshold for chronic toxicity to salmonid growth (Piper et al. 1982); and 13 samples exceed the threshold of 0.02 mg NH 3 

## /L NH 3 

## recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USE PA 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, th e temperature and pH of the receiving water and the mixing ratio of the discharge and recei ving 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 NH 3 

## ).

Product Waters: Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen We only have product-water temperature data fr om two sources: datasets A and D. Product water temperatures ranged from 11.7 to 28.7 o 

## C, and there were no obvious re gional trends (Figs. 30, 44, 55, 69 and 83). No information is availabl e to determine whether product water temperatures change seasonally, although groundwater usually di scharges at a relatively constant temperature (Piper et al. 1982). Dissolved oxygen concentrati on was not reported for any of the product waters.

Product Waters: Influence of We ll 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 ge ological formation. For example, in order to obtain a NPDES permit from WDEQ, operators ma y 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 ge ological formation from which product water originates strongly influence water quality. Whe n examining product waters collectively, neither depth nor geological formation was a good pred ictor of product water temperature, alkalinity, hardness, conductivity or concentrations of total dissolved solids, Ca 2+ 

## , Mg + 

## , SO 4 2- 

## , Cl

- 

## , K + 

## or Na +

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 12 ions (Figs. 85-87). Althou gh temperature, hardness, Ca 2+ 

## and SO 4 2- 

## concentrations tended to be related to depth for product waters originating fr om the Canyon Formation, there was insufficient data to fully evaluate these weak trends. Additiona lly, 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 betwee n 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 exam ple, we found that 8 of 14 wells for which we had NPDES permit data and that had relied on surroga te-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 format ion 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 CaCO 3 

## in product water from two wells <8 miles from each other (Fig. 32); sul fate 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). Th us, 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 prod uct waters in the southeastern portion of the

basin.

3⁄4 

## Product water quality can be highly variable amon g CBM wells. Therefore, the practice of using water samples from wells <20 miles apart, dr illed to the same depth and within the same geological formation, to provide surrogate wate r 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 discha rge permits (even if the wells are drilled to the same depth and within the same geologic al formation), we recommend that follow-up chemical analyses of the water quality be submitte d 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 HCO 3 - 

## (range of alkalinity values, 580-2440 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## ), whereas

the main ions in the surface waters are Na + 

## (medians, 350 mg/L), Cl

- 

## (medians, 210-220 mg/L),

SO 4 2- 

## (medians, 650-810 mg/L) and HCO 3 - 

## (median alkalinity values, 208-290 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## ; 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 SO 4 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 SO 4 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 μ S/cm) but with a wide seasonal range (70-7000

μ

S/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 μ S/cm. K + 

## concentrations are similar between surface waters of the PR (medians, 7 mg/L) and near by product waters (range, 4-18 mg/L). Hardness of product water from east of the PR (range, 73-264 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## ) tends to be lower than hardness of the mainstem PR (medians, 510-650 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## ). This is reflected in

lower Ca 2+ 

## (range, 9-44 mg/L) and Mg 2+ 

## (range, 5-28 mg/L) concentrations in the product waters and higher Ca 2+ 

## (medians, 120-150 mg/L) and Mg 2+ 

## (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 12 o 

## C, whereas product water temperatures varied from 12 to 26 o 

## C. The most important difference in water

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 14 temperatures is the fact that product water proba bly will lack distinct seasonal cycles, whereas surface water temperatures varied from 0 to 32 o 

## C. In summary, product water from ea st of the PR might increase Na + 

## and HCO 3 - 

## concentrations in the surface waters of the PR and decrease hardness, Cl

- 

## , and SO 4 2- 

## concentrations in the PR. T he 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 Cree k, 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 μ S/cm) and Na + 

## concentrations (405 mg/L, n=1), moderate Cl



## concentrations (range, 14-38 mg/L) and low Ca 2+ 

## (3 mg/L, n=1), Mg 2+ 

## (3 mg/L, n=1) and SO 4 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, Pine y Creek had lower median conductivity (640

μ

S/cm, range 120-1160 μ S/cm), Cl

- 

## (2 mg/L) and Na + 

## (33 mg/L) concentrations, and higher

median Ca 2+ 

## (62 mg/L), Mg 2+ 

## (28 mg/L) and SO 4 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 condu ctivity (range, 1630-2180 μ S/cm) tends to be much higher than conductivity of the Tongue R (medians, 252-450 μ S/cm) and higher than the conductivity (700

μ

S/cm) measured in Goose Creek, a tributary of the Tongue R (Table 5 and Figs. 46-56). The high conductivity of the product water ne ar the Tongue R appears to be caused by a high concentration of Na + 

## (533 mg/L, n=1) and HCO 3 - 

## . Although the HCO 3 - 

## concentration was not measured directly, the one measurem ent of alkalinity was 1153 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## at pH 8.6, and

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 15 would therefore have been mostly due to HCO 3 - 

## . Also, Cl

- 

## and SO 4 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 SO 4 2- 

## concentrations (median, 150 mg/L). Median alkalinity values in the Tongue R and Goose Creek (129 and 235 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## , respectively) were lower than in the one product water, whereas median hardness values (130 and 340 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## , repectively) were greater than in th e one product water (19 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## ). 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 (13 o 

## C) was slightly warmer than the median temperatures 5-9 o 

## C 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 prod uct water and the surface waters is that the product waters will probably lack distinct se asonal cycles, whereas surface waters cycle between temperatures of 0 and 29 o 

## C. In summary, the limited information about product wate r around the Tongue R suggests that product water might increase the salinity and change th e major ion ratios of the Tongue R. Th is might be especially important in the upper reaches of the Tongue R because su ch changes in water quality might decr ease 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 decr ease 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 tend s 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 CaCO 3 

## ). These data suggest that product waters have lower Mg 2+ 

## (14-46 mg/L, n=5), Ca 2+ 

## (30-69 mg/L, n=5), K + 

## (8.1-15.0 mg/L, n=5) and SO 4 2- 

## (0.08-3.00 mg/L, n=5; one outlier of 706 mg/L) concentrations than the sur face waters, but have higher HCO 3 - 

## concentrations than the surface waters. Surface water alkalinity was 290 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## (range 190-400 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## , n=6). Median ion concentrations in the surface waters were 170 mg Na + 

## /L, 150 mg Mg 2+ 

## /L, 280 mg Ca 2+ 

## /L, 33 mg K + 

## /L and 1300 mg SO 4 2- 

## /L. Median water temperature in the Little PR was 6.0 o 

## C and ranged from 0 to 26 o 

## C, whereas the water temperature of six product waters in the region ranged from 13.9 to 26.5 o 

## C.

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 CaCO 3 

## , and tended to be higher than median alkalinity in the Belle Fourche R (242 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## ; Fig. 71). Although hardness of the product waters was not measured directly, we calculated from the Ca 2+ 

## and Mg 2+ 

## concentrations that hardness ranged from approx imately 21 to 225 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## (Fig. 77). Because the median hardness of the Belle Fourche R was 1500 mg/L as CaCO 3 

## , product waters appear to have lower

hardness than surface waters in the area. Belle Fourche R waters have high median conductivity (3800 μ S/cm); and even minimum conductivity measured in the river is high (minimum, 1100 μ S/cm; maximum 8000 μ S/cm; Table 1). High Na + 

## (median, 385 mg/L), SO 4 2- 

## (median, 2000 mg/L), Ca 2+ 

## (median, 290 mg/L), and Mg 2+ 

## (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) concen trations were higher, but SO 4 2- 

## (range, 0.01-12 mg/L), Ca 2+ 

## (range, 6-56 mg/L) and Mg 2+ 

## (range, 2-25 mg/L) c oncentrations 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 μ S/cm) was lower than in the Belle Fourche R. Median water temperature of the Belle Fourche R was 13.5 o 

## C (range, 0-29 o 

## C), whereas product waters tended to be warmer (range, 14-29 o 

## 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 HCO 3 - 

## ), Na + 

## and Cl

## concentrations.

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, Pi ney 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 17 3⁄4 

## Surface water quality and CBM product water quality vary considerably across the PRB. Therefore, CBM product water quality will have di fferent 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 Mont ana border), Piney Creek, Clear Creek (to several km downstream from Piney Creek), Crazy Wom an 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 ha bitat 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 b ecause 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 in vertebrates (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 toxi city testing protocols have already been developed for these three species and they are either definitel y 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 + 

## , SO 4 2- 

## , or Cl

- 

## concentrations exceed

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 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 appropr iate 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 (Hub ert 1993) and at least 19 species of aquatic invertebrates (Elser et al. 1977) are present in the PR B, 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 + 

## , SO 4 2- 

## , and Cl



## concentrations 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 pr oduct 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 prod uct waters to LC50s could either overestimate or underestimate toxicity to the test species. Therefor e, 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 asse ss 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 inve rtebrate communities on the two sets of plates were statistically compared. In concept, this technique could be used in the PRB.

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 19 Biological Methods: Recommendations

3⁄4 

## We recommend that toxicity testing be conducte d on receiving waters as well as whole effluents

from CBM wells.

3⁄4 

## In addition to standard laboratory testing sp ecies, 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 wate r on the surface waters of the PRB can not be analyzed by traditional toxicity testing approach es. 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 exot ic species, [and] exploitation of fish stocks” (Hubert 1993). Ironically, addition of constant flow s 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 asse ssed 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 20 established and/or refined to guide decisions about how much change in current conditions is acceptable. For example, if the native fish co mmunities of the PR are to be maintained, their habitat requirements will have to be considered re lative 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 mo dified 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 Associati on, 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. Ar chive 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 Environm ental Contamination and Toxicology 21:224-232. Cowgill, U.M. and Milazzo, D.P. 1991b. The se nsitivity of two clado cerans to water quality variables: salinity <467 mg NaCl/L and hardness <200 mg CaCO 3 

## /L. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 21:218-223. Cross, F.B., Moss, R.E., and Collins, J.T. 19 85. 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. 19 77. The effect of altered streamflow on fish of

### CBM P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 21 the Yellowstone and Tongue River, Montan a. Water Resources Division, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conserva tion. 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, Un iversity of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Hem, J.D. 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. Third Edition. U.S. Geological Surv ey 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 Mi ssissippi 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. Developm ent of an Instream Bioassessment Methodology for the Surface Disposal of Coalbed Methane Produ ced Waters. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. GSA Bulletin No. 149. 92 pp. Petroleum Association of Wyoming. .2001. CB M 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. Prairi e legacies –fish and aquatic resources. In: F.B. Samson and F. Knopf (Eds.). Prairie conservation: preservi ng 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 co mpositional data. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. Open-F ile 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 P RODUCT 

### W ATERS 

### V ERSUS 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN



## 22 Symposium on Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem. U.S. Department of Interior, Biol ogical Report 19, pp. 295-326. Sumich, J.L. 1995. An Introduction to the Bi ology 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. 19 93. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, 4 th 

## Edition, EPA/600/4-90/027F. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

## 23 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINTable 1. Median values (minimum and maximum in parentheses)of water quality parameters from surface water quality data collectedby the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from 1951 to 1999 inseveral drainages in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.Locations, sampling dates, and number of days sampled are listed in Table 2.ParameterTongueRiverUpstreamTongueRiverDownstreamGooseCreekPineyCreekClearCreekUpstreamClear CreekDownstreamSouth ForkPowderRiverSalt CreekCrazyWomanCreekPowderRiverUpstreamPowderRiverDownstreamLittle PowderRiverBelleFourcheRiverUSGS site # 6298000 6299980 6305500 6323500 6320200 6324000 6313000 6313400 6316400 6313500 6317000 6324890 6425720Temperature 5 8.8 9.0 9.8 8.8 10.0 10.0 9.8 12.5 10.0 11.5 6.0 13.5(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) (0.0-32.0) (0.0-25.5) (0.0-28.5)pH 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.0 7.9 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.9(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) (6.6-9.0)(7.4-8.5) (7.2-8.5)Conductivity 252 450 700 640 825 1145 3295 6770 1620 2400 2480 2610 3800(μS/cm at 25oC)(50-360) (170-660) (63-1210) (120-1160) (130-1300) (230-2360) (301-6200) (1700-8870) (348-4170) (655-7000) (70-6500) (1300-5920) (1100-8000)Dissolved 10.6 10.4 10.6 10.2 10.6 10.0 10.2 8.3 9.3 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.9oxygen (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) (2.9-12.8) (3.4-16.8) (6.3-13.8)Alkalinity 129 191 235 160 160 199 149 618 200 290 208 290 242(mg/L as CaCO3) (41-172) (70-244) (41-317) (35-280) (20-240) (50-462) (73-410) (150-1160) (61-3710) (138-640) (102-509) (190-400) (90-400)Hardness 130 230 340 260 355 480 1100 400 700 510 650 1300 1500(mg/L as CaCO3) (58-180) (77-340) (60-543) (22-480)(47-590) (71-1030) (403-1800)(190-970) (180-2200) (240-1400)(270-2800) (530-3300) (380-3500)Na+1.6 15.0 29.0 33.0 44.0 71.0 420 1400 120 350 350 170 385(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) (66.0-1500) (75.0-600) (100-1200)K+0.7 1.8 2.9 4.4 2.8 4.4 9.3 17.0 4.2 7.0 6.7 33.0 14.5(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) (0.6-59.0) (3.0-56.0) (6.4-45.0)Ca2+34 51 65 62 84 110 300 80 150 120 150 280 290.0(mg/L) (12-56) (21-67) (12-150) (12-100) (12-130) (23-1470) (32-550) (22-290) (42-582) (31-290) (50-408) (96-420) (95-530)Mg2+11.0 24.0 43.0 28.0 35.5 54.0 80.0 51.0 77.5 49.0 60.0 150.0 160(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) (6.7-228) (70.0-600) (35.0-530)Cl-1.1 2.0 5.4 2.4 4.2 4.5 110.0 1200.0 9.4 220.0 210.0 10.0 19.0(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) (3.7-1300.0) (5.1-26.0) (4.1-55.0)SO42-5 68 150 165 280 439 1510 1100 700 650 810 1300 2000.0(mg/L) (0-19) (11-240) (14-394) (20-370)(31-490) (60-1130) (124-3200) (460-4349) (77-2700) (140-2300) (203-2580) (560-3900) (510-5400)Turbidity 1 4 8 2 3 9 65 200 55 145 475 2 8(JCU) (0-20) (1-100) (1-90) (0-33) (1-15) (1-500) (1-550) (20-2600) (10-100) (90-200) (20-8000) (1-25) (2-25)Discharge 77 111 94 52 53 96 12 31 26 155 171 0.6 0.1(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) (2.0-17,800) (0.0-402)(0.0-1400)

## CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASIN



## 24 Table 2. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) site numb er, 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 6313 000 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 6317 000 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 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINTable 3. Median molar concentrations of anions (HCO3-, CO32-, Cl-, SO42-, OH-) and cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+, H+) atU.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sites on surface waters of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The concentrations in mg/Lfrom which these molar concentrations were calculated are listed in Table 1.USGSConcentrations of cations (mM)Concentrations of anions (mM)Location site # Ca2+Mg2+K+Na+H+Sum HCO3-CO32-Cl-SO42-OH-SumTongue River Upstream 6298000 0.85 0.45 0.02 0.07 <0.01 1.39 2.55 0.02 0.03 0.05 <0.01 2.65Tongue River Downstream 6299980 1.27 0.99 0.050.65 <0.01 2.96 3.78 0.02 0.06 0.71 <0.01 4.57Goose Creek 6305500 1.62 1.77 0.07 1.26 <0.01 4.73 4.65 0.03 0.15 1.56 <0.01 6.39South Fork Powder River 6313000 7.49 3.29 0.2418.29 <0.01 29.31 2.96 0.01 3.10 15.72 <0.01 21.79Salt Creek 6313400 2.00 2.10 0.43 60.90 <0.01 65.43 12.22 0.07 33.85 11.45 <0.01 57.59Powder River Upstream 6313500 2.99 2.02 0.1815.22 <0.01 20.41 5.73 0.03 6.21 6.77 <0.01 18.74Crazy Woman Creek 6316400 3.74 3.19 0.11 5.22<0.01 12.26 3.96 0.02 0.27 7.29 <0.01 11.53Powder River Downstream 6317000 3.74 2.47 0.1715.22 <0.01 21.61 4.12 0.02 5.92 8.43 <0.01 18.50Clear Creek Upstream 6320200 2.10 1.46 0.07 1.91 <0.01 5.54 3.15 0.02 0.12 2.91 <0.01 6.21Piney Creek 6323500 1.55 1.15 0.11 1.44 <0.01 4.25 3.16 0.02 0.07 1.72 <0.01 4.97Clear Creek Downstream 6324000 2.74 2.22 0.113.09 <0.01 8.17 3.94 0.02 0.13 4.57 <0.01 8.66Little Powder River 6324890 6.99 6.17 0.84 7.39 <0.01 21.40 5.76 0.02 0.28 13.53 <0.01 19.60Belle Fourche River 6425720 7.24 6.58 0.37 16.75 <0.01 30.94 4.80 0.02 0.54 20.82 <0.01 26.18

## 26 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINTable 4. Percentages of anions (HCO3-, CO32-, Cl-, SO42-, OH-) and cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+, H+) at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)sites on surface waters of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. These percentages are based on the median molarconcentrations listed in Table 3.USGSPercentages of cationsPercentages of anionsLocation site # Ca2+Mg2+K+Na+H+Sum HCO3-CO32-Cl-SO42-OH-SumTongue River Upstream 6298000 61 33 1 5 <1 100 96 1 1 2 <1 100Tongue River Downstream 6299980 43 33 2 22 <1 100 83 <1 1 15 <1 100Goose Creek 6305500 34 37 2 27 <1 100 73 <1 2 24 <1 100South Fork Powder River 6313000 26 11 1 62 <1 100 14 <1 14 72 <1 100Salt Creek 6313400 3 3 1 93 <1 100 21 <1 59 20 <1 100Powder River Upstream 6313500 15 10 1 75 <1 100 31 <1 33 36 <1 100Crazy Woman Creek 6316400 31 26 1 43 <1 100 34 <1 2 63 <1 100Powder River Downstream 6317000 17 11 1 70 <1 100 22 <1 32 46 <1 100Clear Creek Upstream 6320200 38 26 1 35 <1 100 51 <1 2 47 <1 100Piney Creek 6323500 36 27 3 34 <1 100 64 <1 1 35 <1 100Clear Creek Downstream 6324000 34 27 1 38 <1 100 46 <1 1 53 <1 100Little Powder River 6324890 33 29 4 35 <1 100 29 <1 1 69 <1 100Belle Fourche River 6425720 23 21 1 54 <1 100 18 <1 2 80 <1 100

## 27 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINTable 5. Ranges of water quality in surface waters of several drainages in the Powder River Basin of Wyomingversusquality of productwaters from coalbed methane wells located in the same drainage. Surface water quality parameters are medians of U.S.Geological Survey data (Table 1). Product water data are the range of values from wells located in the same drainage (samplesizes in parentheses). --- = not analyzed.Eastern Portion ofPowder River DrainageWestern Portion ofPowder River DrainageLittle Powder RiverDrainageBelle Fourche RiverDrainageTongue River DrainageParameterSurfacePowderRiverProductEastPowderRiverSurfacePineyCreekProductWestPowderRiverSurfaceLittlePowderRiverProductLittlePowderRiverSurfaceBelleFourcheRiverProductBelleFourcheRiverSurfaceTongueRiverSurfaceGooseCreekProductTongueRiverTemperature(oC)10-1212-26(12)10---614-27(6)1414-29(26)5-99.013(1)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)8.0-8.1 8.1 7.9-8.6(5)Conductivity(μS/cm)2400-2480860-3600(27)640 996-1670(2)2610 1070-1660 (6),5300 (1)3800 470-1640(26)252-450 700 1630-2180(5)Alkalinity(mg/L as CaCO3)208-290 580-2440(14)160 --- 290 810-1520(6)242 290-1100(26)129-191 235 1153(1)Hardness(mg/L as CaCO3)510-650 73-264(15)260 --- 1300 192(1)1500 100(1)130-230 340 19(1)Ca2+(mg/L)120-150 9-44(19)62 3(1)280 30-69(5)290 6-56(25)34-51 65 9(1)K+(mg/L)7 4-18(11)4 --- 33 8-15(5)15 4-14(25)1-2 3 ---Mg2+(mg/L)49-60 5-28(19)28 3(1)150 14-46(5)160 2-25(25)11-24 43 2(1)Na+(mg/L)350 409-994(24)33 405(1)170 240-360(5)385 110-390(25)1.6-15 29 533(1)Cl-(mg/L)210-220 5-30 (25),170 (1)2 14-38(2)10 9-12 (5),1260 (1)19 5-64(25)1-2 5 17-22(4)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)5-68 150 2-19(4)

## 28 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINTable 6. Range of LC50s (median lethal concentrations) forCeriodaphnia dubia,Daphnia magnaand fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas),exposed to different compounds or ions; and concentrationsof those compounds or ions in surface waters and coalbedmethane (CBM) product waters from the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.x= concentration of the compound or ion in eithersurface water (S) or CBM product water (P) exceeded the LC50 ofthe test organism (i.e., toxicity might occur in full-strengthwater), 0 = LC50 not exceeded, --- = no data available. Datafor surface water quality are the median values in the U.S.Geological Survey dataset (Table 1). Data for CBM product waterquality are the range of values reported in datasets A to D inthis report. See text for additional details about those datasets.Fathead minnowCeriodaphnia dubiaDaphnia magnaParameteror ionUnitsExposureduration (h)LC50(mg/L)SPLC50(mg/L)SPLC50(mg/L)SPSource of LC50 dataAlkalinity mg/L as CaCO3Chronic --- --- --- 183-306 x x 592-1006 0 x Cowgill and Milazzo (1991a)Hardness mg/L as CaCO3Chronic --- --- --- 1031 x 0 1516 x 0 Cowgill and Milazzo (1990)Na+mg/L 24 1328-3255 x 0 389-1329 x x 652-2508 x x Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 48 685-2577 x x 279-997 x x 449-1875 x x Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 96 233-2577 x x --- --- --- --- --- --- Mount et al. (1997)K+mg/L 24 367-498 0 0 246-345 0 0 262-388 0 0 Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 48 320-477 0 0 246-330 0 0 254-346 0 0 Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 96 199-461 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- Mount et al. (1997)Ca2+mg/L 24 580-2404 0 0 571-816 0 0 580-1173 0 0 Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 48 580-2368 0 0 562-661 0 0 580-1000 0 0 Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 96 580-1671 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- Mount et al. (1997)Mg2+mg/L 24 898-934 0 0 324-357 0 0 398-476 0 0 Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 48 708-724 0 0 224-357 0 0 339-367 0 0 Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 96 541-569 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- Mount et al. (1997)Cl-mg/L 24 452-5025 x x 300-2051 x x 352-3872 x x Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 48 433-4192 x x 300-1189 x x 314-2895 x x Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 96 419-3878 x x --- --- --- --- --- --- Mount et al. (1997)SO42-mg/L 24 546-5464 x x 425-2428 x x 469-4254 x x Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 48 474-5383 x x 375-2082 x x 397-3097 x x Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 96 375-5383 x x --- --- --- --- --- --- Mount et al. (1997)HCO3-mg/L 24 573-3522 --- --- 384-1031 --- --- 408-1728 --- --- Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 48 500-1815 --- --- 384-741 --- --- 396-1191 --- --- Mount et al. (1997)mg/L 96 311-617 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Mount et al. (1997)

## 29 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 1. Location of the Powder River Basin (inside dashed boundary) in Wyoming.

## 30 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 2. Major cities in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, and boundaries of the sub-basin maps (Powder R. - Figs. 18-31; SouthernPowder R. - Figs. 32-45; Tongue R. - Figs. 46-56; Little Powder R. - Figs. 57-70;and Belle Fourche R. - Figs. 71-84).

## 31 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 3. Major waterways and their tributaries in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. USGS gauging stations used to measure surfacewater quality are shown with their numerical identifiers (see also Table 2).

## 32 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 4. Median alkalinity values (mg/L as CaCO3) in surface waters of the Powder RiverBasin of Wyoming, measured at USGSgauging stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 33 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 5. Median calcium concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters ofthe Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gaugingstations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 34 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 6. Median chloride concentrations(mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gaugingstations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 35 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 7. Median conductivity values (μS/cm) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gaugingstations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 36 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 8. Median discharge (ft3/s) of surface waters of the PowderRiver Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 37 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 9. Median dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGSgauging stations from 1951 until 1999.Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 38 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 10. Median hardness values (mg/L as CaCO3) in surface waters of the Powder RiverBasin of Wyoming, measured at USGSgauging stations from 1951 until 1999.Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 39 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 11. Median magnesium concentrations(mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGSgauging stations from 1951 until 1999.Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 40 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 12. Median pH values (standard units) in surface waters ofthe Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gaugingstations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 41 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 13. Median potassium concentrations(mg/L) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGSgauging stations from 1951 until 1999.Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 42 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 14. Median sodium concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters ofthe Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gaugingstations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 43 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 15. Median sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in surface waters ofthe Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gaugingstations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 44 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 16. Median temperatures (°C) in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured at USGS gauging stations from1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 45 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 17. Median turbidity values (Jackson Candle Units -- JCUs)in surface waters of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, measured atUSGS gauging stations from 1951 until 1999. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for details about the locations of the gauging stations.

## 46 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 18. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wellsin the northern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which themeasurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association ofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 47 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 19. Ammonia concentrations (mg NH4+/L) in product water from coalbed methanewells in the northern portion of the PowderRiver drainage, including Creek and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which themeasurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association ofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 48 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 20. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which themeasurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association ofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 49 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 21. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which themeasurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association ofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 50 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 22. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder River drainage,including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weretaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 51 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 23. Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the northernportion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted HorseCreeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken.Circles indicate dataset A(Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate datasetB (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (WyomingDEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 52 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 24. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3; * indicates values calculated from sum of mEq/L of Ca and Mg) of product water from coalbedmethane wells in the northern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols showwell locations and the datasets from which the measurements weretaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squaresindicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits),and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 53 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 25. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which themeasurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association ofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 54 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 26. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder River drainage,including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weretaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate datasetB (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 55 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 27. Potassium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which themeasurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association ofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 56 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 28. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which themeasurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association ofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 57 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 29. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the northern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which themeasurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association ofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 58 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 30. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells inthe northern portion of the Powder River drainage,including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weretaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 59 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 31. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the northern portion ofthePowder River drainage, including Clear and Spotted Horse Creeks.Symbols show well locations and the datasets from whichthe measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum AssociationofWyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al.2001).

## 60 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 32. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wellsin the southern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 61 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 33. Ammonia concentrations (mg NH4+/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the PowderRiver drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations andthe datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al.2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 62 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 34. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 63 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 35. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 64 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 36. Conductivity (μS/cm) 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. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleumAssociation of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D(Forbes et al. 2001).

## 65 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 37. Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the southernportion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, CrazyWoman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurementswere taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 66 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 38. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3; * indicates values calculated from sum of mEq/L of Ca and Mg) of product water from coalbedmethane wells in the southern portion of the Powder River drainage, including Clear, Piney,Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, andWild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 67 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 39. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 68 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 40. pH (standard units) 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. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleumAssociation of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D(Forbes et al. 2001).

## 69 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 41. Potassium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 70 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 42. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 71 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 43. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the southern portion of the Powder Riverdrainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 72 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 44. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells inthe southern portion of the Powder River drainage,including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (PetroleumAssociation of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D(Forbes et al. 2001).

## 73 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 45. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the southern portion ofthePowder River drainage, including Clear, Piney, Crazy Woman, Dead Horse, and Wild Horse Creeks. Symbols show welllocations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squaresindicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits),and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 74 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASIN

## 75 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 46. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells inthe Tongue River drainage, including Goose andPrairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 76 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 47. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, including Gooseand Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate datasetB (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 77 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 48. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, including Gooseand Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 78 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 49. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbedmethane wells in the Tongue River drainage, including Goose and PrairieDog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets fromwhich the measurements were taken. Circles indicate datasetA (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (WyomingDEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 79 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 50. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells inthe Tongue River drainage, including Goose andPrairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 80 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 51. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, includingGoose and Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken.Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicatedataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crossesindicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 81 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 52. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, including Goose and PrairieDog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets fromwhich the measurements were taken. Circles indicate datasetA (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (WyomingDEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 82 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 53. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, including Gooseand Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 83 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASIN

## 84 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 54. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, including Gooseand Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate datasetB (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 85 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 55. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage, including Goose and PrairieDog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets fromwhich the measurements were taken. Circles indicate datasetA (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C (WyomingDEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 86 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 56. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Tongue River drainage,including Goose and Prairie Dog Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weretaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 87 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 57. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wells inthe Little Powder River drainage, including Horseand Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 88 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 58. Ammonia concentrations (mg NH4+/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage,including Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locationsand the datasets from which the measurements were taken.Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicatedataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crossesindicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 89 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 59. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, includingHorse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 90 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 60. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, includingHorse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 91 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 61. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbedmethane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, including Horse andWildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 92 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 62. Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols showwell locations and the datasets from which the measurements weretaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squaresindicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits),and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 93 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 63. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3; * indicates values calculated from sum of mEq/L of Ca and Mg) of product water from coalbedmethane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, including Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 94 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 64. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, includingHorse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 95 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 65. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, including HorseandWildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 96 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 66. Potassium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, includingHorse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 97 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 67. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, includingHorse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 98 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 68. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Little Powder River drainage, includingHorse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and thedatasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 99 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 69. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells inthe Little Powder River drainage, including Horse andWildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 100 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 70. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Little Powder Riverdrainage,including Horse and Wildcat Creeks. Symbols show well locationsand the datasets from which the measurements were taken.Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicatedataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crossesindicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 101 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 71. Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) of product water from coalbed methane wellsin the Belle Fourche River drainage, includingCaballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 102 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 72. Ammonia concentrations (mg NH4+/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage,including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weretaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 103 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 73. Calcium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, includingCaballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 104 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 74. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, includingCaballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 105 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 75. Conductivity (μS/cm) of product water from coalbedmethane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo andBonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 106 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 76. Depth (ft) of coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbolsshow well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000),squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDESpermits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 107 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASIN

## 108 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 77. Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3; * indicates values calculated from sum of mEq/L of Ca and Mg) of product water from coalbedmethane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations andthe datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al.2000), squares indicate dataset B(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicatedataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 109 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 78. Magnesium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, includingCaballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 110 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 79. pH (standard units) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo andBonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 111 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 80. Potassium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, includingCaballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D(Forbes et al. 2001).

## 112 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 81. Sodium concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, includingCaballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 113 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 82. Sulfate concentrations (mg/L) in product water fromcoalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, includingCaballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements were taken. Circlesindicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicatedataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 114 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 83. Temperatures (°C) of product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche River drainage, including Caballo andBonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasetsfrom which the measurements were taken. Circles indicatedataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001), crosses indicate dataset C(Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 115 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 84. Total dissolved solids concentrations (mg/L) in product water from coalbed methane wells in the Belle Fourche Riverdrainage,including Caballo and Bonepile Creeks. Symbols show well locations and the datasets from which the measurements weretaken. Circles indicate dataset A (Rice et al. 2000), squares indicate dataset B (Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2001),crosses indicate dataset C (Wyoming DEQ NPDES permits), and triangles indicate dataset D (Forbes et al. 2001).

## 116 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 85. Relationship between (a) alkalinity, (b) hardness (calculated from calcium and magnesium concentrations), (c) calciumconcentration, or (d) magnesium concentration and the welldepth and geologic formation from which coalbed methaneproduct water samples were collected. Squares = Canyon Formation, hexagons = Wall Formation, diamonds = Fort UnionFormation, crosses = Anderson Formation, upward triangles= Cook Formation, downward triangles = Pawnee Formation, W= Wyodak Formation, and circles = Big George Formation.Depth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO 3 )05001000150020002500WWWWWWWWWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Calculated hardness (mg/L as CaCO 3 )0100200300400WWWWWWWWWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Calcium (mg/L)020406080WWWWWWWWWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Magnesium (mg/L)01020304050WWWWWWWWWWWWWa.b.c.d.

## 117 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 86. Relationship between (a) conductivity, (b) sodium concentration, (c) chlorideconcentration, or (d) sulfate concentration and thewell depth and geologic formation from which coalbed methane product water samples were collected. Squares = CanyonFormation, hexagons = Wall Formation, diamonds = Fort UnionFormation, crosses = Anderson Formation, upward triangles= Cook Formation, downward triangles = Pawnee Formation, W= Wyodak Formation, and circles = Big George Formation.Depth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Conductivity ( μ S/cm)01000200030004000WWWWWWWWWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Sodium (mg/L)02004006008001000WWWWWWWWWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Chloride (mg/L)020406080WWWWWWWWWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Sulfate (mg/L)05101520WWWWWWWWWWWWWa.b.c. d.

## 118 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure 87. Relationship between (a) temperature, (b) total dissolved solids concentration, (c) ammonia concentration, or (d) potassiumconcentration and the well depth and geologic formation fromwhich coalbed methane productwater samples were collected.Squares = Canyon Formation, hexagons = Wall Formation,diamonds = Fort Union Formation, crosses = AndersonFormation, upward triangles = Cook Formation, downwardtriangles = Pawnee Formation, W = Wyodak Formation, andcircles = Big George Formation.Depth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Temperature (

o C)0102030WWWWWWWWWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Total dissolved solids (mg/L)05001000150020002500WWWWWWWWWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Ammonia (mg/L)0246WWWWWWW WWWWWWDepth (feet)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Potassium (mg/L)05101520WWWWWWWWWWWWWa.b.c. d.

## CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASIN



## 119 

## Appendix A

Seasonal Changes in Surface Water Quality Parameters

Measured at the Tongue Ri ver Downstream USGS Site:

1974-1983

## 121 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-1. Seasonal changes in alkalinity of surface water atthe Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO 3 )0100200300400

## 122 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-2. Seasonal changes in calcium concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980),from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Calcium (mg/L)020406080100

## 123 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-3. Seasonal changes in chloride concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980),from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Chloride (mg/L)05101520

## 124 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-4. Seasonal changes in conductivity of surface water atthe Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Conductivity ( μ S/cm)02004006008001000

## 125 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-5. Seasonal changes in discharge of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974to1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Discharge (ft 3 /sec)0100020003000

## 126 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-6. Seasonal changes in dissolved oxygen concentrationof surface water at the TongueRiver Downstream site (USGS Site#06299980), from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)05101520

## 127 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-7. Seasonal changes in hardness of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974to1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Hardness (mg/L as CaCO 3 )0100200300400

## 128 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-8. Seasonal changes in magnesium concentration of surface water at theTongue River Downstream site (USGS Site#06299980), from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Magnesium (mg/L)01020304050

## 129 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-9. Seasonal changes in pH of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGSSite #06299980), from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

pH (standard units)678910

## 130 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-10. Seasonal changes in potassium concentration ofsurface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site#06299980), from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Potassium (mg/L)0246810

## 131 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-11. Seasonal changes in sodium concentration of surfacewater at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980),from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Sodium (mg/L)01020304050

## 132 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-12. Seasonal changes in sodium absorption ratio ofsurface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site#06299980), from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Sodium Absorption Ratio0.00.51.01.52.0

## 133 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-13. Seasonal changes in sulfate concentration of surface water at the Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980),from 1974 to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Sulfate (mg/L)0100200300

## 134 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-14. Seasonal changes in temperature of surface water atthe Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974to 1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Temperature ( 0 C)0102030

## 135 CBM P RODUCT 

## W ATERS 

## V ERSUS 

## S URFACE 

## W ATERS IN THE 

## P OWDER 

## R IVER 

## B ASINFigure A-15. Seasonal changes in turbidity of surface water atthe Tongue River Downstream site (USGS Site #06299980), from 1974 to1983.MonthJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Turbidity (Jackson Candle Units)050100150