Groundwater budgets for the Big Lost River Basin, south-central Idaho, 2000–19

Alexis Clark

doi:10.3133/sir20215078c

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20215078C

Groundwater budgets for the Big Lost River Basin, south-central Idaho, 2000–19

Alexis Clark

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Big Lost River Basin, located in parts of Butte and Custer Counties in south-central Idaho, supports the communities surrounding the cities of Arco, Leslie, Mackay, and Moore and provides for agricultural resources that depend on a sustainable supply of surface water from the Big Lost River and its tributaries and groundwater from an unconfined aquifer. The aquifer, situated in a structurally controlled intermontane valley, is composed of unconsolidated alluvium, consolidated sedimentary and volcanic rocks, and younger interbedded volcanic rocks. This report presents two separate groundwater budgets for the aquifer, one above and one below Mackay Dam, as well as a combined groundwater budget for the aquifer within the entire Big Lost River Basin. The budgets span a 20-year period (2000–19), characterizing average conditions, a dry year (2014), and a wet year (2017). The groundwater budgets will help address questions regarding the availability of groundwater supply in the Big Lost River Basin and inform future groundwater modeling. The Idaho Geological Survey has prepared the groundwater budgets as part of a larger hydrogeologic investigation completed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Idaho Geological Survey in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources during 2018–21. Other reports describe the hydrogeologic framework and several streamflow-measurement events to evaluate gains and losses on the Big Lost River. Collectively, these reports provide an updated characterization of groundwater resources in the Big Lost River Basin which will help address water resources challenges. A groundwater budget is a conceptual and numerical accounting of inflow (recharge) to groundwater and outflow (discharge) from groundwater. The predominant sources of recharge to the aquifer include losing river reaches (33 percent), areal recharge (as precipitation less evapotranspiration and surface runoff, comprising about 23 percent of the total inflow), tributary canyon underflow from higher altitudes (20 percent), canal seepage (13 percent), recharge through applied irrigation on fields below the root zone and other minor sources (11 percent), and Mackay Reservoir seepage (less than 1 percent). The primary sources of discharge from the aquifer are groundwater pumpage to meet irrigation demand, domestic supply, and municipal supply (76 percent) and gaining river reaches (24 percent). The positive or negative difference between the sum of all inflows and outflows is regarded as the residual, representing the change in groundwater storage, groundwater outflow from the basin or subbasins, and uncertainty and errors in the budget. In the Big Lost River Basin, groundwater outflow is at the mouth of the basin below Arco into the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The total mean annual estimated recharge to the Big Lost River Basin was 439,100 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr; 607 cubic feet per second [ft 3 /s]) for 2000–19, 373,900 acre-ft/yr (516 ft 3 /s) in 2014, and 762,100 acre-ft/yr (1,053 ft 3 /s) in 2017. The mean annual estimated groundwater discharge from the aquifer was about 112,300 acre-ft/yr (155 ft 3 /s) for 2000–19, 153,500 acre-ft/yr (212 ft 3 /s) in 2014, and 53,400 acre-ft/yr (74 ft 3 /s) in 2017. The estimated mean annual groundwater residual was 326,800 acre-ft/yr (451 ft 3 /s) for 2000–19, 220,400 acre-ft/yr (304 ft 3 /s) in 2014, and 708,700 acre-ft/yr (979 ft 3 /s) in 2017. The mean annual residual above Mackay Dam was 100,400 acre-ft/yr (2000-19), 96,700 acre-ft (2014), and 248,300 acre-ft (2017). The mean annual residual contribution below Mackay Dam, minus any groundwater-flow above Mackay Dam, was 226,400 acre-ft/yr (2000-19), 123,700 acre-ft (2014), and 460,400 acre-ft (2017). These results are highly sensitive to assumptions about certain budget inflow parameters. In particular, the magnitude of the budget residuals during especially dry and wet periods is amplified by the groundwater-budget terms tributary streamflow and tributary underflow that contribute appreciable recharge but also have high uncertainty. The results of the groundwater-budget evaluation describe an interconnected and complex hydrologic response throughout the basin to various climatic and water-use trends. The part of the basin above Mackay Dam typically has a positive groundwater residual derived from snowmelt recharge to tributary canyons and areal recharge in excess of groundwater pumpage for irrigation demand. This supply is used to meet irrigation demand above Mackay Dam and to provide for water supply below Mackay Dam. On average, groundwater inflow from above Mackay Dam to below Mackay Dam, assuming negligible reservoir storage effects, accounts for about 25 percent of the total groundwater recharge below Mackay Dam. Considerable recharge to groundwater below Mackay Dam occurs through seepage from the Big Lost River and canals and ditches. Most groundwater discharge from the aquifer is through irrigation pumping. The water supply below Mackay Dam is highly dependent on available upstream surface-water flows, the magnitude of the groundwater residual from above Mackay Dam, and annual variability in local groundwater conditions.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 43.10571945845362° to 46.493497990156555° latitude; -117.884775159506° to -112.13258233834704° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Alexis Clark. 2022-11-09. Groundwater budgets for the Big Lost River Basin, south-central Idaho, 2000–19. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215078c

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↗