Water-Quality and Geophysical Data for Three Study Sites 

within the Williston Basin and Prairie Pothole Region

By Todd M. Preston, Bruce D. Smith, Joanna N. Thamke, and Tara Chesley-Preston

Open-File Report 2012–1149

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: 2012

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS

Suggested citation:

Preston, T.M., Smith, B.D., Thamke, J.N., and Chesley-Preston, T., 2012, Water-quality and geophysical data for 

three study sites within the Williston Basin and Prairie Pothole Region: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

2012–1149, 17 p.

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 material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

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

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

Methods of Data Collection............................................................................................................................................ 9

Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Geophysics ...............................................................................................................................................................10

Geonics EM–31 Terrain Apparent Conductivity Meter...........................................................................................10

Geonics EM–34 Terrain Apparent Conductivity Meter...........................................................................................14

Geophex GEM–2 ...................................................................................................................................................14

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................15

References ...................................................................................................................................................................15

Appendix 1. Water-Quality and Geophysical Data (digital data)....................................................................................17

Figures

1. Map showing locations of three selected study sites, the Williston Basin, and the Prairie Pothole Region............. 2

2. Map showing water-quality sample sites and surficial geology, Goose Lake study site, Montana .......................... 4

3. Map showing water-quality sample sites and surficial geology, Anderson study site, Montana .............................. 6

4. Map showing water-quality sample sites and surficial geology, Fuller study site, North Dakota ............................. 8

5. Map showing geophysical survey areas, Goose Lake study site, Montana .......................................................... 11

6. Map showing geophysical survey areas, Anderson study site, Montana .............................................................. 12

7. Map showing geophysical survey areas, Fuller study site, North Dakota.............................................................. 13

Tables

1. Effective exploration depths for the Geonics EM–34........................................................................................... 14

1-1. Water-quality data for Goose Lake study site, Montana, 1989–2009................................................................ link

1-2. Water-quality data for Anderson study site, Montana, 2004, 2005, and 2010................................................... link

1-3. Water-quality data for Fuller study site, North Dakota, 2010............................................................................. link

1-4. Geophysical survey data................................................................................................................................... link
iv

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI 

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

barrel (bbl), (petroleum, 

 1 barrel=42 gal)

0.1590 cubic meter (m3) 

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Volume

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

liter (L) 2.113 pint (pt)

liter (L) 1.057 quart (qt)

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the insert datum name (and abbreviation) here, for instance, 

“North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)”

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms 

per liter (μg/L).
1

Water-Quality and Geophysical Data for Three Study Sites 

within the Williston Basin and the Prairie Pothole Region

By Todd M. Preston, Bruce D. Smith, Joanna N. Thamke, and Tara Chesley-Preston

Abstract

This report is a data release for water geochemical sample analyses and geophysical surveys for 

three sites within the Williston Basin and Prairie Pothole Region of Montana and North Dakota. The 

data collection sites and procedures are described. 

Introduction

The Williston Basin (fig. 1) has been a leading domestic oil and natural gas producing area since 

the 1950s. To help supply current and future energy needs, recent improvements in oil and gas 

production methods has increased extraction from deeper and less-permeable units, such as the Bakken 

Formation, and has led to rapid and substantial growth in energy development throughout the Williston 

Basin. The Bakken Formation may hold 3.65 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil within the 

Williston Basin (Pollastro and others, 2008), the largest oil accumulation identified by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in the lower 48 States. Estimates suggest that older oil fields produce at least 

10 barrels of brine (greater than 35,000 milligrams per liter [mg/L] dissolved-solids concentration) per 

barrel of extracted oil (Wanty, 1997). Much of this brine, which has a dissolved-solids concentration 

that can exceed 380,000 mg/L (Iampen and Rostron, 2000), has been injected into deep geologic units 

by disposal wells. Some of the brine has been directed to storage and evaporation pits. Previous 

investigations (Murphy and Kehew, 1984; Reiten and Teschmak, 1993; Thamke and Craigg, 1997; 

Smith and others, 2006; Peterman and others, 2010) have identified brine contamination to surface 

water and shallow groundwater within the Williston Basin.
2

Figure 1. Map showing locations of three selected study sites, the Williston Basin, and the Prairie Pothole 

Region.
3

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR; fig. 1) is characterized by abundant wetlands that are critical 

habitat for North America’s migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. The PPR covers much of the 

northeastern half of the Williston Basin. Depending on specific counties, approximately 50–90 percent 

of PPR wetlands have been drained and converted to cropland or otherwise altered by human activities 

(Dahl, 1990), placing greater importance on understanding the possible effects of brine contamination 

on the remaining wetland habitat. 

In 2008, the USGS established a Science Team about Energy and Prairie Pothole Environments 

(STEPPE; http://steppe.cr.usgs.gov/) that included representatives from the USGS, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG), and Sheridan County 

Conservation District (SCCD) to identify agency needs towards understanding the environmental effects 

of energy use in the PPR. In response to discussions among the STEPPE, the USGS initiated a study of 

brine contamination to Prairie Potholes from energy development in the Williston Basin funded by the 

USGS Central Region Integrated Science Program (CRISP) and other internal USGS program funds. 

This report presents the water-quality and geophysical data collected at three selected sites near 

or within USFWS Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) in northeastern Montana and western North 

Dakota. Data were collected during 2009 and 2010 by the USGS, USFWS, MBMG, and SCCD to 

provide information in areas that represent the three primary depositional environments of the glaciated 

PPR: till, lacustrine, and outwash. Data collected during previous investigations at these sites also are 

included in this report. 

Interpretation of these data has been given in oral and poster presentations (Preston and ChelseyPreston, 2012; Gleason and others, 2011; Preston and others, 2011; Tangen and others 2011; Smith and 

others, 2009). Copies of the presentations are given at http://steppe.cr.usgs.gov/pres.html (accessed 

February 2012). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System includes several thousand WPAs that preserve wetlands 

and grasslands critical to providing breeding and nesting habitat to millions of waterfowl (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2007). WPAs consist of small depressions formed by receding glaciers. These 

depressions are bordered by wetland grasses and filled with aquatic life. Nearly 500 WPA units form a 

series of wetlands throughout traditional waterfowl ranges, 95 percent of the WPAs are located in the 

PPR (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). 

The Goose Lake study site includes the Rabenberg WPA (fig. 2) and is located in and adjacent to 

T. 36 N., R. 58 E., sec. 27 in Sheridan County, northeastern Montana. The study site is located within 

the Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Goose Lake oilfield. Data were collected in an area 

that encompassed the entire square-mile section and parts of adjacent sections. Land-surface topography 

is hummocky and generally slopes to the east. Surficial geologic deposits include glacial till and 

outwash (fig. 2). Two outwash channels transport groundwater in a south and east direction toward the 

west arm of Goose Lake. Monitoring wells were installed during 1988–89 by the MBMG. 
4

Figure 2. Map showing Rabenberg Waterfowl Production Area, water-quality sample sites and surficial geology, 

Goose Lake study site, Montana.
5

The Anderson study site includes the Anderson WPA and is located in most of T. 37 N., R. 58 

E., sec. 05 within Sheridan County, northeastern Montana (fig. 3). The study site is located in the 

Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Flat Lake oil field. Data were collected throughout the 

entire square-mile section and adjacent to the section. Land-surface topography is hummocky and 

generally slopes to the east. Surficial geologic deposits are primarily glacial till and outwash (fig. 3). 

One outwash channel bisects the area from the southwestern corner to the northeast and likely transports 

groundwater in a northeastern direction. Monitoring wells were installed during 2005 by the USFWS. 
6

Figure 3. Map showing water-quality sample sites and surficial geology, Anderson study site, Montana.
7

The Fuller study site includes part of the Fuller WPA and is located primarily in T. 159 N., R. 96 

W., sec. 36 within Williams County, northwestern North Dakota (fig. 4). The study site is located within 

the Crosby Wetland Management District and Temple oil field. Data were collected in the southwestern 

part of the section and at nearby oil-production wells to the east and northwest of the Fuller WPA. 

Land-surface topography is flat and generally slopes to the west. Surficial geologic deposits are 

primarily outwash terrace and adjacent glacial lake sediments (fig. 4). Monitoring wells were installed 

during 2010 by the USGS. 
8

Figure 4. Map showing water-quality sample sites and surficial geology, Fuller study site, North Dakota.
9

Methods of Data Collection 

Water Quality

Water samples were collected from monitoring wells, wetlands, and oil/brine separation tanks at 

the Goose Lake study site during June 2009 (table 1A), at the Anderson study site during June 2010 

(table 1B), and at the Fuller study site during June 2010 (table 1C). Historical water-quality data 

collected at the study sites prior to this investigation are included in tables 1A and 1B. Monitoring wells 

were purged until at least three well volumes of water were removed and parameters measured onsite 

(pH, water temperature, and specific conductance) had stabilized. Groundwater samples were collected 

using a 2-inch (in.) submersible pump at the Goose Lake study site and a peristaltic pump with flexible 

downhole hose at the Anderson and Fuller study sites. 

Wetlands were sampled using a discrete sampling method modified from Knapton (1985). All of 

the wetland sites were shallow (typically less than 1.5 meters [m] deep) and are presumed to be well 

mixed by wind-generated turbulence, so a single sampling location for each wetland water sample was 

assumed to be representative of the entire wetland. Prior to sample collection, specific conductance was 

measured at various locations along the perimeter of the wetland to confirm adequate mixing. Samples 

were collected by wading to as deep as possible at a location. An acid-rinsed 4-liter polyethylene bottle 

was submersed upwind from the sample-collecting person, and the lid was removed after submersion to 

fill the bottle. Brine samples were collected from a spigot located below the oil/brine separator tank. 

Each brine sample was collected in a disposable acid-rinsed 4-liter polyethylene bottle.

Quality-control data to document the reproducibility of analytical results and any sample 

contamination were provided by test samples that consisted of a replicate sample or a field-blank sample 

incorporated into the sample set. Quality-control samples comprised about 10 percent of the total 

number of samples submitted by the USGS for analysis. Replicate samples are two or more samples 

considered to be essentially identical in composition. Replicate samples were collected in the field by 

concurrently filling sample bottle sets. Field blanks are aliquots of deionized water that are processed 

through the sampling equipment used to collect the environmental samples. These blanks then are 

subjected to the same processing as the environmental samples.

Sample processing, filtration, and preservation were performed in the field using methods 

described by USGS (variously dated). Samples were submitted to the USGS National Water Quality 

Laboratory in Denver, Colo., for analysis of major ions and selected halides using methods described by 

Fishman and Friedman (1989). Samples were submitted to the USGS Strontium Isotope Laboratory in 

Denver, Colo., for analysis of strontium isotopes, major ions, and trace elements. Major dissolved ions 

were analyzed by ion chromatography (IC) following appropriate dilutions and use of standards in the 

range of the sample concentrations. Trace metals were determined by inductively coupled plasma mass 

spectrometry (ICPMS). Analytical uncertainties by IC and ICPMS are typically in the range of 5 to 10 

percent of the reported value at the 95-percent confidence level. Strontium isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr) 

were measured on a Finnigan MAT 262 thermal ionization mass spectrometer using a double filament 

mode of evaporation and ionization of the sample. Instrumental fractionation was eliminated by 

adjusting the measured 88Sr/86Sr ratio to a value of 8.3752 and correcting the 87Sr/86Sr ratio 

accordingly. A strontium standard representing the isotopic value of modern sea water (EN–1) is run 

several times with each turret of samples. Using the measured 87Sr/86Sr of this standard, the sample 

87Sr/86Sr ratios are adjusted to a scale on which seawater has a value of 0.709200. The uncertainty in 

the adjusted 87Sr/86Sr ratio is 0.00003 at the 95-percent confidence level.
10

Geophysics

Geonics EM–31 Terrain Apparent Conductivity Meter

A Geonics EM–31 terrain conductivity system was used to conduct geophysical surveys to

determine the lateral dimensions of saline contaminated groundwater plumes at all three study sites. 

Geophysical surveys were performed at the Goose Lake study site in July and August 2004 and 

September and October 2009 (fig. 5, table 1D); at the Anderson study site in July and September 2004 

(fig. 6, table 1D) and October 2010; and at the Fuller study site in October 2010 (fig. 7, table 1D). The 

EM–31 has a fixed coil array spaced 3.66 m apart, housed in a 4 m boom and operates at 9.8 kilohertz 

(KHz). Apparent conductivity measurements were obtained in the vertical dipole orientation, which 

provides an exploration depth (ED) of approximately 6 m (McNeil, 1980), with measurements recorded 

in a Trimble GeoXT Global Positioning System (GPS) using ArcPad software. This device continuously 

monitors apparent conductivity as the boom is carried overland, with readings made at user selected 

locations. Survey lines and station locations in 2004 at the Goose Lake and Anderson study sites did not 

follow any regular (grid) pattern and generally had a greater number of measurements per area than the 

2004, 2009, and 2010 surveys. Because of the confined nature of some contaminant plumes within 

coulees and draws at the Goose Lake study site, the spacing between measurements in 2009 was 

variable in these topographic features but never exceeded 30 m. Otherwise, measurements were 

collected in a grid pattern determined from pacing and the relative position to the previous survey line 

on the Trimble GPS display using 30 m spacing at the Goose Lake study site in 2009 and 15 m spacing 

at the Anderson and Fuller study sites in 2010. A total of 589 and 2,094 apparent conductivity 

measurements were obtained at the Goose Lake and Anderson study sites in 2004, respectively. 

Apparent conductivity measurements were collected from 765, 609, and 494 station locations at the 

Goose Lake, Anderson, and Fuller study sites, respectively, in 2009 and 2010. The spatially interpolated 

surfaces from the EM–31 surveys at the Goose Lake study site cover an area of 43.8 and 195.7 acres in 

2004 and 2009, respectively. Similarly, spatially interpolated surfaces from EM–31 apparent 

conductivity measurements in 2004 and 2010 at the Anderson study site cover an area of 76.6 and 52.1 

acres, respectively. The spatially interpolated surface from EM–31 measurements at the Fuller study site 

in 2010 covers an area of 38.2 acres. All spatially interpolated surfaces were limited to buffers placed 

around the measurement points in ArcGIS 9.3.1, with the buffer distance varying from 25–60 m. The 

lowest buffer distance that did not leave gaps was selected for each spatially interpolated surface.
11

Figure 5. Map showing geophysical survey areas, Goose Lake study site, Montana.
12

Figure 6. Map showing geophysical survey areas, Anderson study site, Montana.
13

Figure 7. Map showing geophysical survey areas, Fuller study site, North Dakota.
14

Geonics EM–34 Terrain Apparent Conductivity Meter

A Geonics EM–34 terrain conductivity system, owned by the USGS Montana Water Science 

Center, was used to characterize the depth profile of saline contamination groundwater plumes at the 

Goose Lake study site on September 15 and 17, 2009 (fig. 5, table 1D). The EM–34 is comprised of a 

receiver and transmitter coil connected by a 40-m reference cable and allows up to six apparent 

conductivity measurements to be taken at each station location by utilizing three different intercoil 

spacings in the horizontal and vertical dipole orientations. The transmitter and receiver intercoil 

spacings are 10, 20 and 40 m, with operating frequencies of 6.4, 1.6, and 0.4 KHz, respectively. Circular 

bubble levels were affixed to the coils to ensure proper alignment in the field during measurements. The 

ED of the EM–34 depends on the intercoil spacing and dipole orientation, providing a range of 7.5–60 

m (McNeill, 1980, table 1). EM–34 measurements were obtained at 60-m spacings, measured with a 

“wheel tape” in the field, and recorded in a Trimble GeoXT GPS using ArcPad software. Although six 

measurements were attempted at all 125 sampling sites, various factors including interference from 

pipelines, fences, data entry, and soil properties resulted in several unsuccessful readings. A total of 124 

conductivity measurements was collected in the 10- and 20-m horizontal dipole maps, and 125 

measurements in the 40-m horizontal dipole map. Vertical dipole measurements were obtained from 

119, 118, and 115 station locations for the 10-, 20-, and 40-m intercoil spacings, respectively. The 

spatially interpolated surfaces from the 2009 EM–34 surveys at the Goose Lake detailed study site were 

created from a buffer 75 m around the measurement points and cover an area of 228.7 acres. 

Table 1. Effective exploration depths for the Geonics EM–34 using different intercoil spacings and dipole 

orientations (McNeill, 1980).

Intercoil spacing 

(meters)

Exploration depth (meters)

Horizontal dipoles Vertical dipoles

10 7.5 15

20 15 30

40 30 60

Geophex GEM–2 

A Geophex GEM–2 operated in the frequency domain mode was used to characterize the depth 

profile of saline contamination groundwater plumes on October 14 and 16, 2010 at the Anderson study 

site (fig. 6, table 1D) and on October 15, 2010 at the Fuller study site (fig. 7, table 1D). The GEM–2 

consists of a 1.6-m “ski” that contains a transmitter, receiver, and bucking coil that cancels the primary 

magnetic field in the receiving coil leaving just the secondary magnetic field. The transmitter coil 

creates a user specified multifrequency waveform using the pulse-width modulation technique with the 

receiving coil measuring the in-phase and quadrature components of the primary and secondary 

magnetic field, which can be converted to apparent conductivity. All GEM–2 surveys were conducted in 

the vertical dipole orientation and used seven frequencies: 1,530, 8,250, 23,070, 33,070, 47,970, 66,030, 
15

and 93,030 hertz (Hz), providing effective exploration depths up to 30 m. Apparent conductivity 

measurements and geographical coordinates were stored continuously across survey lines using a WAS 

enabled, Garmin 1800, with approximately seven measurements collected per meter, resulting in 

368,580 and 105,932 measurements at the Anderson and Fuller study sites, respectively. The distance 

between survey lines was generally within 15 m of each other. 

Acknowledgments

The data collection for this project required the efforts of the Science Team about Energy and 

Prairie Pothole Environments (STEPPE, http://steppe.cr.usgs.gov/). In addition to the authors, the 

scientists who worked on this project included the following: 

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

Jon Reiten, assisted with water-quality data collection at all three study sites, assisted with 

geophysical data collection at Goose Lake study site, and provided historical data for Goose Lake and 

Anderson study sites. 

Sheridan County Conservation District 

Mickey McCall, assisted with water-quality data collection at the Anderson and Goose Lake 

study sites, assisted with geophysical data collection at Goose Lake study site, and obtained land-access 

permission. 

USFWS

David Rouse, Region 6, Ecological Services, assisted with geophysical data collection at Goose 

Lake study site.

Karen Nelson, Region 6, Ecological Services, assisted with geophysical data collection at Goose 

Lake study site and provided historical data for Goose Lake and Anderson study sites. 

USGS

Ron Coffee, Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science Center, assisted with geophysical

data collection for Anderson and Fuller study sites. 

Seth Haines, Central Energy Resources Science Center, assisted with geophysical data collection 

at Goose Lake study site.

Zell Peterman, Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science Center, technical assistance with 

isotopic chemistry.
16

References

Dahl, T.E., 1990, Wetland: Losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 13 p. (Also available at 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/.) 

Gleason, R.A., Thamke, J.N., Smith, B.D., Tangen, B.A., Chesley-Preston, T, and Preston, T., 2011, 

Examination of brine contamination risk to aquatic resources from petroleum development in the 

Williston Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011–3047, 4 p. 

Iampen, H.T. and Rostron, B.J., 2000, Hydrogeochemistry of pre-Mississippian brines, Williston Basin,

Canada–USA: Journal of Geochemical Exploration, v. 70, p. 29–35. 

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water 

and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, 

chap. A1, 545 p. 

Knapton, J.R., 1985, Field guidelines for collection, treatment, and analysis of water sampled, Montana 

District: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85–409, 86 p. 

McNeill, J.D., 1980, Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers: 

Geonics Technical Notes TN–6, 15 p. 

Murphy, E.C., and Kehew, A.E., 1984, The effect of oil and gas well drilling fluids on shallow 

groundwater in western North Dakota: North Dakota Geological Survey Report of Investigation No. 

82, 156 p. 

Peterman, Z.E., Thamke, J.N., Futa, Kiyoto, and Oliver, T.A., 2010, Strontium isotope detection of 

brine contamination in the East Poplar oil field, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1326, 20 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1326/.) 

Pollastro, R.M., Cook, T.A., Roberts, L.N., Schenk, C.J., Lewan, M.D., Anna, L.O., Gaswirth, S.B., 

Lillis, P.G., Klett, T.R., and Charpentier , R.R., 2008, Assessment of undiscovered oil resources in the 

Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation, Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota, 

2008: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008–3021, 2 p. 

Preston, T.M., Chesley-Preston, T.L., Thamke J.N., and Peterman, Z.E., 2012, A GIS based 

vulnerability assessment of contamination to aquatic resources from oil and gas development in 

eastern Sheridan County, MT: American Water Resources Association meeting, New Orleans, 1 p. 

Preston, T.M., Tangen, B.A., Chesley-Preston, T.L., Gleason, R.A., Haines, S.S.,Van der Burg, M.P. 

Smith, B.D. and Sodja, R.S., 2011, Risk of contamination of aquatic resources from energy 

development in the Williston Basin based on a spatial, chemical, and geophysical assessment: 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 43, no. 6, p. 343. 

Preston, T., Tangen, B., Chesley-Preston, T. Thamke, J., Gleason, R.A., and Smith, B.D., 2010, Risk 

assessment of brine contamination to aquatic resources from energy development in the Williston 

Basin: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 42, no. 5, p. 453. 

Reiten, J.C., Teschmak, T., 1993, Appraisal of oil field brine contamination in shallow ground water 

and surface water, eastern Sheridan county, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology OpenFile Report 260, 300 p., 2 sheets. 

Smith, B.D., Thamke , J.N., Cain, M.J., Tyrrell, C., and Hill, P.L., 2006, Helicopter electromagnetic and 

magnetic survey maps and data, east Poplar oil field area, August 2004, Fort Peck Indian Reservation, 

northeastern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1216. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1216/.) 

Smith, B.D., Sodja, R.S., Gleason, R.A., Thamke, J.N., Preston, T., and Reiten, J., 2009, Brine 

contamination to prairie potholes from energy development in the Williston Basin: A developing 
17

integrated science project: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 41, no. 7, 

p. 651. 

Tangen, B., Gleason, R.L., Chesley-Preston, T.L., Preston, T.M., Smith, B.D., and Thamke, J.N., 2011, 

Brine contamination to aquatic resources from energy development in the Williston Basin: North 

Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Mandan, North Dakota, 1 p. 

Thamke, J.N., and Craigg, S.D., 1997, Saline-water contamination in Quaternary deposits and the 

Poplar River, East Poplar oil field, northeastern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 97–4000, 37 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri974000.) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007, Waterfowl production areas: Prairie jewels of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fact Sheet, 2 p. (Also available at 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/pdfs/factsheets/FactSheetWPA.pdf.) 

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9. (Also 

available at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/.) 

Wanty, R.B., 1997, USGS research on saline waters co-produced with energy resources: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS–003–97. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs003-

97/FS-003-97.html.) 

Appendix 1. Water-Quality and Geophysical Data (digital data)

The following tables are given in the digital data. The tables have self-explanatory headings. 

Digital data are given in folders with table number labels.

Table 1-1. Water-quality data for Goose Lake study site, Montana, 1989–2009.

Table 1-2. Water-quality data for Anderson study site, Montana, 2004, 2005, and 2010.

Table 1-3. Water-quality data for Fuller study site, North Dakota, 2010.

Table 1-4. Geophysical survey data for the Goose Lake study site, Montana (2004. 2009), for the Anderson 

study site, (2004, 2010), and for the Fuller study site (2010).