Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20055008

Hydrogeologic framework and estimates of ground-water volumes in Tertiary and upper Cretaceous hydrogeologic units in the Powder River basin, Wyoming

Kurt Hinaman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana is an important source of energy resources for the United States. Coalbed methane gas is contained in Tertiary and upper Cretaceous hydrogeologic units in the Powder River Basin. This gas is released when water pressure in coalbeds is lowered, usually by pumping ground water. Issues related to disposal and uses of by-product water from coalbed methane production have developed, in part, due to uncertainties in hydrologic properties. One hydrologic property of primary interest is the amount of water contained in Tertiary and upper Cretaceous hydrogeologic units in the Powder River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, conducted a study to describe the hydrogeologic framework and to estimate ground-water volumes in different facies of Tertiary and upper Cretaceous hydrogeologic units in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. A geographic information system was used to compile and utilize hydrogeologic maps, to describe the hydrogeologic framework, and to estimate the volume of ground water in Tertiary and upper Cretaceous hydrogeologic units in the Powder River structural basin in Wyoming. Maps of the altitudes of potentiometric surfaces, altitudes of the tops and bottoms of hydrogeologic units, thicknesses of hydrogeologic units, percent sand of hydrogeologic units, and outcrop boundaries for the following hydrogeologic units were used: Tongue River-Wasatch aquifer, Lebo confining unit, Tullock aquifer, Upper Hell Creek confining unit, and the Fox Hills-Lower Hell Creek aquifer. Literature porosity values of 30 percent for sand and 35 percent for non-sand facies were used to calculate the volume of total ground water in each hydrogeologic unit. Literature specific yield values of 26 percent for sand and 10 percent for non-sand facies, and literature specific storage values of 0.0001 ft-1 (1/foot) for sand facies and 0.00001 ft-1 for non-sand facies, were used to calculate a second volume of ground water for each hydrogeologic unit. Significant figure considerations limited estimates of ground-water volumes to two significant digits. A total ground-water volume of 2.0x1014 ft3 (cubic feet) was calculated using porosity values, and a total ground-water volume of 3.6x1013 ft3 was calculated using specific yield and specific storage values. These results are consistent with retention properties, which would have some of the total water being retained in the sediments. Sensitivity analysis shows that the estimates of ground-water volume are most sensitive to porosity. The estimates also are sensitive to confined thickness and saturated thickness. Better spatial information for hydrogeologic units could help refine the ground-water volume estimates.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations ReportReport

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kurt Hinaman. 2005. Hydrogeologic framework and estimates of ground-water volumes in Tertiary and upper Cretaceous hydrogeologic units in the Powder River basin, Wyoming. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20055008

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2026

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗