U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Data Series 619

Summary of Inorganic Compositional Data for Groundwater, 

Soil-Water, and Surface-Water Samples at the Headgate 

Draw Subsurface Drip Irrigation Site, Johnson County, 

Wyoming
Front cover. Aerial photograph of the Headgate Draw site showing extent of agricultural fields, blocks of land augmented 

by subsurface drip irrigation (SDI), and locations of monitoring wells and surface-water sampling points. Photograph taken on 

July 10, 2006, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, copyrighted 2007.
Summary of Inorganic Compositional Data 

for Groundwater, Soil-Water, and SurfaceWater Samples at the Headgate Draw 

Subsurface Drip Irrigation Site, Johnson 

County, Wyoming 

By Nicholas J. Geboy, Mark A. Engle, Karl T. Schroeder, and John W. Zupancic

Data Series 619

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Geboy, N.J., Engle, M.A., Schroeder, K.T., and Zupancic, J.W., 2011, Summary of inorganic compositional data for 

groundwater, soil-water, and surface-water samples collected at the Headgate Draw subsurface drip irrigation site, 

Johnson County, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 619, 6 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

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

Site Description..............................................................................................................................................1

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................3

Field Methods........................................................................................................................................3

Laboratory Methods.............................................................................................................................3

Calculated Parameters ........................................................................................................................3

Quality Assurance and Quality Control ......................................................................................................3

Description of Results...................................................................................................................................5

References Cited............................................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................6

Figure

1. Aerial photograph of the Headgate Draw site showing extent of agricultural

fields, blocks of land augmented by subsurface drip irrigation (SDI), and

locations of monitoring wells and surface-water sampling points......................................2

Tables

1. Analyzed elements and ions with reporting units and method of analysis ........................4

2. Medians, median absolute deviations (MAD), and number of analyses (n) over

the sampling period for percent recovery of matrix spiked sample ....................................4

3. Medians, median absolute deviations (MAD), and number of analyses (n) over

the sampling period for percent recovery of commercially available reference

materials (RM) ES–H–1 and ES–L–1..........................................................................................5
iv

Database

Duplicate samples are denoted with “-dup” in the Sample ID column. Not all samples were 

analyzed for all components. If an analysis was not performed, the cell is left blank. This 

notation differs from cells denoted “NA,” in which the analysis or calculated parameters are not 

applicable to that sample. Located at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/619/DS619_Data.xls.
Summary of Inorganic Compositional Data for 

Groundwater, Soil-Water, and Surface-Water Samples 

at the Headgate Draw Subsurface Drip Irrigation Site, 

Johnson County, Wyoming

By Nicholas J. Geboy, Mark A. Engle, Karl T. Schroeder, and John W. Zupancic

Abstract

As part of a 5-year project on the impact of subsurface 

drip irrigation (SDI) application of coalbed-methane (CBM) 

produced waters, water samples were collected from the Headgate Draw SDI site in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 

USA. This research is part of a larger study to understand 

short- and long-term impacts on both soil and water quality 

from the beneficial use of CBM waters to grow forage crops 

through use of SDI. This document provides a summary of 

the context, sampling methodology, and quality assurance 

and quality control documentation of samples collected prior 

to and over the first year of SDI operation at the site (May 

2008–October 2009). This report contains an associated database containing inorganic compositional data, water-quality 

criteria parameters, and calculated geochemical parameters 

for samples of groundwater, soil water, surface water, treated 

CBM waters, and as-received CBM waters collected at the 

Headgate Draw SDI site.

Introduction

This data series report describes compositional geochemical data for samples of groundwater, soil water, and surface 

water from the Headgate Draw site in Johnson County, Wyo., 

collected over the period of May 2008 to October 2009. The 

data are included in the associated database. Groundwater and 

surface-water samples have been collected quarterly since 

May 2008, while soil-water samples were collected biannually starting in May 2009. In an attempt to beneficially utilize 

water coproduced with coalbed methane (CBM) development in the Powder River Basin (PRB), treated CBM waters 

(injectate) have been applied to the site using subsurface drip 

irrigation (SDI) technology since October 2008. SDI is a 

method of dispersing water directly into the root zone of plants 

in an agricultural field through a system of buried tubes. This 

technology has previously been applied in desert environments 

where rapid evaporation rates limit the usefulness of traditional surficial irrigation techniques (Ayars and others, 2001). 

In the Headgate Draw study area, SDI is utilized to avoid the 

damaging sodic effects associated with direct application of 

CBM-produced water to soils and native groundwater (see 

Engle and others, in press, for discussion, including installation details for the Headgate Draw SDI site). The data aspect 

of this report will be updated as new data from the site are 

released.

Site Description

The Headgate Draw site is located in Johnson County, 

Wyo., proximal to the confluence of the Powder River and 

its tributary, Crazy Woman Creek (fig. 1). This region is 

semi-arid, with a mean annual precipitation of 13.6 inches 

(34.5 centimeters) and characterized by below-freezing 

daytime temperatures in the winter and short, hot summers; 

maximum average monthly precipitation falls in May and June 

(Western Regional Climate Center, 2010). There are 14 monitoring wells (MWs) about the site: 9 situated along the edge 

of the SDI fields (01MW to 16MW) and 5 located within the 

agricultural fields (20MW to 24MW).

Surface-water samples were collected from four sites 

along the span of the study area, two located on the Powder 

River (SWPR–1 and –2) and two on Crazy Woman Creek 

(SWCR–1 and –2). In addition to the groundwater and 

surface-water sampling sites, soil water was collected from 

the five lysimeter nests installed across the Headgate Draw 

site. Three of the lysimeter nests were installed adjacent to 

monitoring wells 21MW, 23MW, and 24MW within the SDI 

field, one adjacent to well 20MW in an agricultural field 

distal to SDI activity, and one adjacent to 11MW in nonagricultural rangeland. The lysimeter nest names correspond to 

the adjacent monitoring well (for example, the lysimeter nest 

adjacent to 11MW is named L11). Within each nest, lysimeters 
2 Summary of Inorganic Compositional Data for Groundwater, Soil-Water, and Surface-Water Samples, Johnson County, Wyoming

Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the Headgate Draw site showing extent of agricultural fields, blocks of land 

augmented by subsurface drip irrigation (SDI), and locations of monitoring wells and surface-water sampling 

points. Potentiometric surface of the alluvial aquifer system based on data collected in October 2008; units 

are in meters above mean sea level. Photograph taken on July 10, 2006, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

copyrighted 2007.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control 3

were installed at three depths: 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 meters (m) 

below ground surface, denoted as shallow (S), intermediate (I), and deep (D), respectively. Individual lysimeters are 

then referred to based on their location and depth: L20S is 

the lysimeter adjacent to well 20MW, installed at a depth of 

0.5 m (shallow = S). Figure 1 shows the specific locations 

of each sampling site. Additional site detail (including a 

description of local geology) can be found in Engle and others (in press).

Methods

Field Methods

Surface and groundwater samples were collected according to protocols established by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(2006). For groundwater sampling, wells were purged until 

water-quality parameters stabilized before samples were collected; a minimum of three well volumes was purged from 

each well. Surface-water samples were collected as grab samples in laminar reaches. Both groundwater and surface-water 

samples were collected in high-density polyethylene bottles 

or, in the case of samples designated for rare earth element 

(REE) analysis, polypropylene bottles. Several water-quality 

parameters were measured in the field using a flow-through 

cell in conjunction with a YSI MPS 556 multiparameter meter. 

These measured parameters include specific conductance, pH, 

temperature, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and dissolved oxygen (DO). In addition, turbidity was qualitatively 

determined by visual estimation.

For groundwater and surface-water samples collected 

through February 2009 and all of the soil-water samples, onsite filtration to <0.45 micron (μm) was completed, and samples designated for metals analysis were immediately acidified 

to a pH <2 with double-distilled HNO3

. After February 2009, 

groundwater and surface-water samples were collected and 

immediately placed on ice, without being filtered or preserved. 

Rather, the samples were filtered and preserved upon arrival to 

the analytical laboratory (described in Laboratory Methods). 

Soil-water samples were pulled from acid-cleaned, ceramictipped IrrometerTM lysimeters using clean syringes. At least 

24 hours prior to sampling, the lysimeters were emptied using 

a syringe and put under a vacuum. Due to competition of the 

lysimeter against the intrinsic suction of the soil matrix, water 

samples were not successfully collected from each lysimeter on 

every event. The samples were filtered in the field using 0.45-μm 

polypropylene filters and collected in polypropylene vials.

Laboratory Methods

All samples were sent to the National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (NETL) analytical facility in Pittsburgh, 

Penn., for chemical analysis. Water samples were analyzed for 

major and minor elements using ion chromatography (IC), a 

Perkin-Elmer Optima 3000 inductively coupled plasma-optical 

emission spectrometer (ICP–OES) and a Perkin-Elmer Elan 

6100 inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometer (ICP–

MS). The choice of instrumentation was dependent on the 

component of interest. A detailed list of analyzed components 

and instrumentation can be found in table 1. Other analyses 

conducted include alkalinity, as determined by titration, and 

total dissolved solids (TDS), determined via mass of residue 

on evaporation at 356 °F (180 °C).

Calculated Parameters

The data collected from both the field and laboratory 

analyses outlined above were entered into AquaChemTM version 2010.1. AquaChemTM has a built-in link to PHREEQC, a 

computer modeling program which performs various lowtemperature geochemical calculations (Parkhurst and Appelo, 

1999). This application was used in this report to determine 

the saturation indices (SI) with respect to calcite and gypsum, 

the ionic strength, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and water 

type. Results from PHREEQC were also used to determine 

the charge balance (electroneutrality) of each sample. Charge 

balances (the sum of negatively and positively charged ions) 

ideally should equal zero. Samples with large imbalances 

(> ±10%) are not included in the database and have not been 

used for interpretation in any related products.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

As a means of determining quality assurance and quality 

control (QA/QC), field blanks, equipment blanks (including 

those testing filters, tubing, and pumps), duplicate samples, 

matrix spikes, and reference materials were submitted and 

(or) run with sample sets. The blank results were all sufficiently low relative to the magnitude of the samples and the 

elements of primary interest, suggesting filtering and field 

contamination have not significantly affected the results of 

the study. Median and median absolute deviation (MAD) 

results for matrix spikes and reference materials are provided in tables 2 and 3, where ES–H–1 (run on ICP–OES) 

and ES–L–1 (run on ICP–MS) are commercial groundwater 

certified reference materials. With respect to the matrix spike 

results, medians for all elements were within 90 to 110-percent recovery, save manganese (median = 89), silver (median 

= 86), antimony (median = 89), thallium (median = 85), and 

lead (median = 85). Medians for all elements were also within 

90 to 110-percent recovery for the reference materials except 

for lithium (median = 83), aluminum (median = 126), and zinc 

(median = 120). Results in tables 2 and 3 indicate that analytical accuracy and precision of the data are adequate for most 

elements and that matrix interferences appear to be relatively 

minor for these samples.
4 Summary of Inorganic Compositional Data for Groundwater, Soil-Water, and Surface-Water Samples, Johnson County, Wyoming

Table 1. Analyzed elements and ions with reporting units and 

method of analysis.

[ICP–MS, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; ICP–OES, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry; DRC, dynamic reaction 

cell; IC, ion chromatography; mg/L, milligrams per liter; and μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Analyte Reporting 

unit Analytical method

Aluminum, Al μg/L ICP–MS

Antimony, Sb μg/L ICP–MS

Arsenic, As μg/L ICP–MS, using O2

 DRC gas

Barium, Ba μg/L ICP–OES

Beryllium, Be μg/L ICP–OES

Boron, B μg/L ICP–OES

Bromide, Br− mg/L IC

Cadmium, Cd μg/L ICP–MS

Calcium, Ca mg/L ICP–OES

Chloride, Cl− mg/L IC

Chromium, Cr μg/L ICP–OES

Cobalt, Co μg/L ICP–MS

Copper, Cu μg/L ICP–MS

Fluoride, F− mg/L IC

Iron, Fe μg/L ICP–OES

Lead, Pb μg/L ICP–MS

Lithium, Li μg/L ICP–OES

Magnesium, Mg mg/L ICP–OES

Manganese, Mn μg/L ICP–OES

Mercury, Hg μg/L ICP–MS

Molybdenum, Mo μg/L ICP–MS

Nickel, Ni μg/L ICP–MS

Nitrate, NO3

2− mg/L IC

Nitrite, NO2

− mg/L IC

Phosphate, PO4

2− mg/L IC

Phosphorous, P μg/L ICP–OES

Potassium, K mg/L ICP–OES

Rare earth elements, REEs μg/L ICP–MS

Selenium, Se μg/L ICP–MS, using O2

 DRC gas

Silicon, Si μg/L ICP–OES

Silver, Ag μg/L ICP–MS

Sodium, Na mg/L ICP–OES

Strontium, Sr μg/L ICP–OES

Sulfate, SO4

2− mg/L IC

Thallium, Tl μg/L ICP–MS

Thorium, Th μg/L ICP–MS

Tin, Sn μg/L ICP–OES

Titanium, Ti μg/L ICP–OES

Uranium, U μg/L ICP–MS

Vanadium, V μg/L ICP–OES

Zinc, Zn μg/L ICP–MS

Table 2. Medians, median absolute deviations (MAD), and 

number of analyses (n) over the sampling period for percent 

recovery of matrix spiked sample.

[ICP–MS, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; ICP–OES, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry]

Element Median MAD n Instrument

Antimony 88.6 29.7 8 ICP–MS

Arsenic 99.2 3.0 11 ICP–OES

Barium 91.3 16.3 11 ICP–OES

Beryllium 94.6 10.4 11 ICP–OES

Cadmium 93.9 13.3 8 ICP–MS

Cerium 102.4 8.2 6 ICP–MS

Chromium 94.6 13.3 11 ICP–OES

Cobalt 100.8 5.9 8 ICP–MS

Copper 98.7 7.4 8 ICP–MS

Dysprosium 94.7 18.5 6 ICP–MS

Erbium 89.9 21.5 6 ICP–MS

Europium 99.3 14.1 6 ICP–MS

Gadolinium 91.8 12.6 6 ICP–MS

Holmium 92.8 23.0 6 ICP–MS

Iron 95.5 11.9 11 ICP–OES

Lanthanum 97.4 22.2 6 ICP–MS

Lead 84.8 8.2 8 ICP–MS

Lutetium 97.0 21.5 6 ICP–MS

Manganese 89.3 10.4 11 ICP–OES

Neodymium 98.0 9.6 6 ICP–MS

Nickel 99.4 5.2 8 ICP–MS

Praseodymium 102.8 10.4 6 ICP–MS

Samarium 94.1 17.8 6 ICP–MS

Scandium 97.5 18.5 6 ICP–MS

Selenium 96.8 4.4 11 ICP–OES

Silver 85.7 10.4 8 ICP–MS

Terbium 93.3 20.8 6 ICP–MS

Thallium 85.2 14.8 8 ICP–MS

Thulium 94.3 24.5 6 ICP–MS

Vanadium 96.5 10.4 11 ICP–OES

Ytterbium 91.8 17.0 6 ICP–MS

Yttrium 104.0 4.4 6 ICP–MS

Zinc 106.8 25.2 7 ICP–MS
References Cited 5

Table 3. Medians, median absolute deviations (MAD), and 

number of analyses (n) over the sampling period for percent 

recovery of commercially available reference materials (RM) 

ES–H–1 and ES–L–1.

[ICP–MS, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; ICP–OES, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry]

Element Median MAD n RM Instrument

Aluminum 125.6 11.1 4 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Antimony 92.3 11.9 6 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Arsenic 106.5 5.9 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Barium 96.6 3.0 3 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Beryllium 103.4 2.2 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Boron 98.9 3.0 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Cadmium 94.7 11.1 6 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Calcium 98.1 4.4 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Chromium 101.2 5.9 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Cobalt 97.7 7.4 6 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Copper 101.5 14.1 6 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Iron 105.4 4.4 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Lead 92.8 16.3 6 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Lithium 82.5 19.3 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Magnesium 106.8 8.9 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Manganese 100.2 4.4 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Molybdenum 105.6 19.3 5 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Nickel 101.4 13.3 6 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Phosphorous 100.2 6.7 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Potassium 98.7 3.7 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Selenium 92.5 4.4 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Silver 99.3 0.0 1 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Sodium 102.0 4.4 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Strontium 102.5 7.4 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Thallium 94.7 11.1 6 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Uranium 92.6 17.8 5 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Vanadium 104.4 6.7 6 ES–H–1 ICP–OES

Zinc 119.8 29.7 5 ES–L–1 ICP–MS

Description of Results

Results, including water-quality parameters, major elements, minor and trace metals, REEs, anions, and calculated 

parameters can be viewed in the associated database. The 

samples are arranged by water source: groundwater, surface 

water, soil water, injectate water, and raw CBM water in 

addition to the QA/QC samples. Raw CBM water samples are 

the as-received produced waters generated during coal-bed 

methane extraction, while injectate samples refer to the treated 

CBM water as injected into the SDI network (that is, injectate 

is CBM water that has been oxidized in a settling pond, acidified with sulfuric acid, filtered, and chlorinated). Each analyzed sample is named for its site and the date of collection (in 

the format: MM-YYYY). For example, 09MW-02-2009 is a 

groundwater sample collected from site 09MW in February of 

2009, and L23S-05-2009 is a soil-water sample collected from 

the shallow lysimeter at site L23 in May of 2009. Interpretations and potential implications of these data can be found in 

Engle and others (in press). Several samples were collected 

in duplicate in the field. Duplicate samples are denoted with 

“-dup” in the Sample ID column. Not all samples were analyzed for all components. If an analysis was not performed, 

the cell is left blank. This differs from cells denoted “NA,” in 

which the analysis or calculated parameters are not applicable 

to that sample.

References Cited

Ayars, J.E., Schoneman, R.A., Dale, Frank, Meso, Beta, and 

Shouse, Peter, 2001, Managing subsurface drip irrigation in 

the presence of shallow ground water: Agricultural Water 

Management, v. 47, p. 243–264.

Engle, M.A., Bern, C.R., Healy, R.W., Sams, J.I., Zupancic, 

J.W. and K.T. Schroeder, in press, Tracking solutes and 

water from subsurface drip irrigation application of coalbed 

methane produced waters, Powder River Basin, Wyoming: 

Environmental Geosciences.

Parkhurst, D.L. and Appelo, C.A.J., 1999, PHREEQC (ver. 

2)—A computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, 

one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4259, 312 p., available at http://wwwbrr.

cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_coupled/phreeqc/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples 

(ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, available at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4.
6 Summary of Inorganic Compositional Data for Groundwater, Soil-Water, and Surface-Water Samples, Johnson County, Wyoming

Western Regional Climate Center, 2010, Monthly climate 

summary for the Clearmont SW Station, Wyoming: 

accessed January 19, 2011, at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?wy1816.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Geological Survey Energy Resources 

Program. The authors would like to thank Don Fischer and 

Ursula Williams from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality for providing technical support and assistance. 

Assistance with sampling logistics and analytical results was 

provided by Carol Cardone (National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, NETL), Robert Thompson (NETL), and Kristen 

Carlisle (NETL). Adam Quist (BeneTerra) greatly assisted 

with fieldwork and sample collection. This document benefited 

from discussions with members of the USGS Energy Program 

Laboratories and thoughtful comments from Palma Botterell 

and Margo Corum. 

Geboy and others— Summary of Inorganic Compositional Data for Groundwater, Soil-Water, and Surface-Water Samples, Johnson County, Wyoming—Data Series 619