Questa Baseline and Pre-Mining Ground-Water Quality 

Investigation. 20. Water Chemistry of the Red River and 

Selected Seeps, Tributaries, and Precipitation, Taos 

County, New Mexico, 2000-2004 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5028 

Prepared in cooperation with the New Mexico Environment Department 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey
Front cover: Photographs of the Red River from the USGS stream-gaging station at the Questa 

Ranger Station looking upstream in August 2002 (left side) and September 18, 2002 (right side). 
Questa Baseline and Pre-Mining Ground-Water Quality 

Investigation. 20. Water Chemistry of the Red River and 

Selected Seeps, Tributaries, and Precipitation, Taos 

County, New Mexico, 2000-2004

By Philip L. Verplanck, R. Blaine McCleskey, and D. Kirk Nordstrom 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5028 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

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

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2006 

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: 

Verplanck, P.L., McCleskey, R.B., and Nordstrom, D.K., 2006, Questa baseline and pre-mining 

ground-water quality investigation. 20. Water chemistry of the Red River and selected seeps, 

tributaries, and precipitation, Taos County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2006-5028, 139 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. 

ii
Contents 

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

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Physical Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 3 

Geology ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Climate and Vegetation......................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Hydrology................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................................. 5 

Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Sampling Sites........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 

Water-Chemistry Sampling.................................................................................................................................................. 8 

Laboratory Methods............................................................................................................................................................ 10 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................................................................................ 10 

Water Chemistry ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 

Red River Water Chemistry, 2000-2003............................................................................................................................. 19 

Red River Questa Ranger Station Gage Site Water Chemistry, 1965-2003................................................................. 62 

Red River Storm Events, 2001-2003 ................................................................................................................................... 67 

Red River Diel Variations, 2003 .......................................................................................................................................... 70 

Summary of Red River Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 107 

Straight Creek Water Chemistry, 2001-2003 .................................................................................................................. 107 

Rare Earth Elements...................................................................................................................................................... 116 

Stable Isotopes .............................................................................................................................................................. 121 

Mineralogical Controls on Water Chemistry............................................................................................................. 121 

Summary of Straight Creek Water Quality................................................................................................................. 123 

Seeps and Tributaries, 2001-2004.................................................................................................................................... 125 

Stable Isotopes .............................................................................................................................................................. 129 

Precipitation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 129 

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................. 129 

References Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 135 

FIGURES 

1. Location of the mine site, drainages sampled, and study area within the Red River basin...................................... 4 

2. Daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station for years (A) 1953 through 1979 and (B) 1979 through 2003......................................... 6 

3. Daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station from years 2000 through 2003, with hydrologic condition ........................................... 8 

4. Topographic map of Straight Creek study area showing locations of sampling sites............................................... 9 

5. pH and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at 

the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003............................................................................................. 59 

6. Specific conductance and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at the USGS streamflowgaging station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003 ............................................. 59 

7. Sulfate concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003 .......................................................... 60 

8. Zinc concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at the USGS streamflowgaging station 08265000 from 2000 through 2003 ................................................................................................. 60 

9. Aluminum concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflowgaging station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003 ............................................. 61 

iii
10. Alkalinity and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at the USGS streamflow-gaging station 

08265000 at Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003 .............................................................................. 61 

11. Specific conductance in relation to sulfate concentration in the Red River at USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station .................................................................................................... 62 

12. Calcium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration in the Red River at the USGS streamflowgaging station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station, with gypsum congruent dissolution line ............... 63 

13. Zinc concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003 .......................................................... 63 

14. Histograms of sulfate concentration of low-flow samples through time with (A) 1965-2001, (B) 1992-

2001, and (C) 2001-2003............................................................................................................................................. 65 

15. Sulfate concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflowgaging station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 1975 through 1979 ............................................. 66 

16. Sulfate concentration of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station from 1965 through 2003, with hydrologic discrimination............................................ 66 

17. Sulfate concentration in the Red River upstream and downstream from the mine site during low-flow 

conditions................................................................................................................................................................... 68 

18. Zinc concentration of the Red River measured at the USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station from 1976 through 2003, with hydrologic discrimination............................................ 68 

19. Instantaneous discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at 

the Questa Ranger Station from September 15 - 22, 2002................................................................................... 69 

20. pH and calculated pCO2

 diel trends for low-flow conditions in the Red River at upstream mill site ................. 108 

21. Diel trends in temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations for low-flow conditions in the Red 

River at upstream mill site ..................................................................................................................................... 109 

22. Diel trends in dissolved zinc and dissolved manganese concentrations for low-flow conditions in the 

Red River at upstream mill site ............................................................................................................................. 110 

23. Discharge of Straight Creek from 2001 through 2003 with (A) pH, (B) sulfate concentration, and (C) 

dissolved zinc concentration ................................................................................................................................ 111 

24. Discharge variation in (A) Straight Creek and (B) static water level for Straight Creek debris fan, 

alluvial well SC1A.................................................................................................................................................... 112 

25. Specific conductance in relation to sulfate concentration in Straight Creek....................................................... 112 

26. (A) Calcium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration in Straight Creek with gypsum congruent 

dissolution line and (B) gypsum saturation indices in relation to calcium concentration .......................... 113 

27. (A) Dissolved magnesium, (B) zinc, and (C) nickel concentration in relation to sulfate concentration in 

Straight Creek .......................................................................................................................................................... 114 

28. (A) Dissolved iron concentration in relation to sulfate concentration, (B) dissolved ferric iron 

concentration in relation to dissolved iron concentration, (C) dissolved iron concentration in 

relation to total recoverable iron concentration, and (D) ferrihydrite saturation indices in relation 

to pH. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 115 

29. Cobalt concentration in relation to nickel concentration in Straight Creek ......................................................... 117 

30. Nickel concentration in relation to magnesium concentration in Straight Creek................................................ 117 

31. Zinc concentration in relation to manganese concentration in Straight Creek ................................................... 118 

32. Copper concentration in relation to zinc concentration in Straight Creek............................................................ 118 

33. (A) Beryllium concentration in relation to lithium concentration in Straight Creek and (B) fluoride 

concentration in relation to lithium concentration in Straight Creek. ............................................................ 119 

34. Rare earth elements in selected Straight Creek waters .......................................................................................... 120 

35. (A) Hydrogen isotopic composition in relation to oxygen isotopic composition of waters with 

precipitation line from Straight Creek, the Rocky Mountain meteoric water line (RMMWL), and the 

global meteoric water line (GMWL). (B) Enlarged view of Straight Creek transect samples..................... 122 

36. Sulfur isotopic composition in relation to oxygen isotopic composition of sulfate in waters ............................ 123

37. Sulfate concentration in relation to pH for Straight Creek and low-flow tributary samples .............................. 126

iv
38. (A) Dissolved iron concentration in relation to total recoverable iron concentration and (B) ferric iron 

concentration in relation to dissolved iron concentration for Straight Creek and low-flow tributary 

samples..................................................................................................................................................................... 127 

39. (A) Calcium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration, (B) strontium concentration in relation 

to calcium concentration, and (C) fluoride concentration in relation to calcium concentration for 

Straight Creek and low-flow tributary samples.................................................................................................. 128 

40. (A) Beryllium concentration in relation to lithium concentration, and (B) fluoride concentration in 

relation to lithium concentration for Straight Creek and low-flow tributary samples.................................. 130 

41. (A) Zinc concentration in relation to sulfate concentration, (B) copper concentration in relation to zinc 

concentration, and (C) cobalt concentration in relation to nickel concentration for Straight Creek 

and low-flow tributary samples ............................................................................................................................ 131 

42. Lanthanum concentration in relation to pH for tributary samples .......................................................................... 132 

43. (A) Rare earth elements in selected waters with normalized concentrations ranging from 10-7 to 1, and 

(B) rare earth elements in selected waters with normalized concentrations ranging from 10-3 to 1......... 133 

TABLES 

1. Locations of sampling sites.................................................................................................................................................. 7 

2. Container preparation and stabilization methods for samples.................................................................................... 11 

3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method 

references.................................................................................................................................................................. 12 

4. Surface-water analyses .................................................................................................................................................... 20 

5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water.................................................................................................................................. 46 

6. High-flow diel water analyses .......................................................................................................................................... 71 

7. Low-flow diel field measurements................................................................................................................................... 80 

8. Low-flow diel water analyses........................................................................................................................................... 85 

9. Results of mass-balance modeling of Straight Creek surface water....................................................................... 124 

10. Results of mass-balance modeling of ground water in well SC1B ......................................................................... 124 

11. Analyses of snow samples............................................................................................................................................ 134 

v
Conversion Factors 

SI to Inch/Pound 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

micrometer (μm) 0.00003937 inch (in.) 

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.) 

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) 

Area 

square centimeter (cm2) 0.1550 square inch (ft2) 

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

square kilometer (km2

) 0.3861 square mile (mi2) 

square kilometer (km2

) 247.1 acre 

Volume 

cubic centimeter (cm3) 0.06102 cubic inch (in3) 

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

liter (L) 1.057 quart (qt) 

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal) 

cubic meter (m3

) 264.2 gallon (gal) 

cubic meter (m3

) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3) 

Flow rate 

liter per second (L/s) 15.85 gallon per minute (gal/min) 

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 22.83 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 

Mass 

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound, avoirdupois (lb) 

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) 

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). 

vi
Abbreviations used in this report 

--- not analyzed, measured, or calculated 

< less than 

°C degrees Celsius 

C.I. charge imbalance 

DOC dissolved organic carbon 

FA filtered-acidified 

FU filtered-unacidified 

FIAS flow injection analysis system 

ft3

/s cubic feet per second 

GFAAS graphite furnace atomic absorption 

spectrometry 

GMWL global meteoric water line 

GPS global positioning system 

HCl hydrochloric acid 

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HGAAS hydride-generation atomic-absorption 

spectrometry 

HNO3

 nitric acid 

IC ion chromatography 

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry 

ICP-OES inductively coupled plasma-optical 

emission spectrometry 

ID identification 

ISE ion-selective electrode 

km kilometers 

km2

 square kilometers 

m meters 

mm millimeter 

meq/L milliequivalents per liter 

mM millimoles per liter 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MPV most probable value 

N normality 

nm nanometer 

NTU nephelometric turbidity units 

μg/L micrograms per liter 

μm micrometer 

μS/cm microsiemens per centimeter 

UV ultraviolet 

PE polyethylene 

RA raw-acidified 

REE rare earth element 

RMMWL Rocky Mountain meteoric water line 

RSD relative standard deviation 

RU raw-unacidified 

s standard deviation 

SC specific conductance 

SI saturation index 

SRWS standard reference water sample 

St. Cr. Straight Creek 

TOC total organic carbon 

UFA ultrafiltered-acidified 

v/v volume per volume 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

viii 

Questa Baseline and Pre-Mining Ground-Water 

Quality Investigation. 20. Water Chemistry of the 

Red River and Selected Seeps, Tributaries, and 

Precipitation, Taos County, New Mexico, 2000-

2004 

By Philip L. Verplanck, R. Blaine McCleskey, and D. Kirk Nordstrom

ABSTRACT 

As part of a multi-year project to infer the 

pre-mining ground-water quality at Molycorp’s 

Questa mine site, surface-water samples of the 

Red River, some of its tributaries, seeps, and 

snow samples were collected for analysis of 

inorganic solutes and of water and sulfate stable 

isotopes in selected samples. The primary aim of 

this study was to document diel, storm event, 

and seasonal variations in water chemistry for 

the Red River and similar variations in water 

chemistry for Straight Creek, a natural analog 

site similar in topography, hydrology, and 

geology to the mine site for inferring pre-mining 

water-quality conditions. 

Red River water samples collected between 

2000 and 2004 show that the largest variations 

in water chemistry occur during late summer 

rainstorms, often monsoonal in nature. Within 

hours, discharge of the Red River increased 

from 8 to 102 cubic feet per second and pH 

decreased from 7.80 to 4.83. The highest 

concentrations of metals (iron, aluminum, zinc, 

manganese) and sulfate also occur during such 

events. Low-pH and high-solute concentrations 

during rainstorm runoff are derived primarily 

from alteration “scar” areas of naturally high 

mineralization combined with steep 

topography that exposes continually altered 

rock because erosion is too rapid for vegetative 

growth. 

The year 2002 was one of the driest on 

record, and Red River discharge reflected the 

low seasonal snow pack. No snowmelt peak 

appeared in the hydrograph record, and a late 

summer storm produced the highest flow for the 

year. Snowmelt was closer to normal during 

2003 and demonstrated the dilution effect of 

snowmelt on water chemistry. Two diel 

sampling events were conducted for the Red 

River, one during low flow and the other during 

high flow, at two locations, at the Red River 

gaging station and just upstream from 

Molycorp’s mill site. No discernible diel trends 

were observed except for dissolved zinc and 

manganese at the upstream site during low flow. 

Straight Creek drainage water was sampled 

periodically from 2001 to 2004 at the down 

stream end of surface drainage near the point at 

which it disappeared into the debris fan. This 

water has a minimal range in pH (2.7 to 3.2) but 

a substantial concentration range in many 

solutes; for example, sulfate concentrations 

varied from 525 to 2,660 mg/L. Many elements 

covary with sulfate suggesting that dilution is 

the primary control of the range in solute 

concentrations. A transect of water samples 

higher in the scar area were collected in October 

of 2003. They had a lower range in pH (2.44 to 

3.05) and higher solute concentrations than those 

collected periodically from lower in the 

catchment. Water isotopes for the upper transect 

samples indicated slight evaporation, and in part, 

may account for the higher solute 

concentrations. Drainage waters also were 

collected from Hottentot, Junebug, Hansen, 

Little Hansen, and Goat Hill Gulch drainages. 

Most constituents from other scar drainage 

waters showed ranges of concentration similar to 

those of the Straight Creek waters. An exception 

was water collected from Goat Hill Gulch, 

1
which has some of the highest concentrations of 

any surface-water sample collected but also 

contained waste-rock leachates. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Red River Valley, Taos County, New 

Mexico, is the site of a multidisciplinary U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) investigation to 

determine current and estimate pre-mining 

ground-water quality. One of the objectives was 

to characterize the chemistry of surface waters 

and identify processes that control surface-water 

chemistry. Depending on location, surface 

waters can flow to ground water or receive flow 

from ground water and, by understanding 

variations in surface-water chemistry, insight 

into ground-water chemistry and flow paths can 

be gained. 

Surface-water chemistry of mountain 

streams can vary according to seasonal and diel 

(24-hour) cycles as well as during storm events. 

In the southern Rocky Mountains, seasonal 

variations are primarily driven by snowmelt in 

the late spring and monsoonal-related 

thunderstorms in the late-summer (Ingersoll, 

2000). The late-summer flow of monsoonal 

moisture drives late-day thunderstorms and can 

lead to periods of heavy rain that last up to a few 

days. These storm events not only increase 

stream discharge, but also dissolve soluble salts, 

wash fine material from hill slopes into streams, 

and force higher concentration pore waters into 

drainages. Daily fluctuations in solar radiation 

affect not only photosynthesis and photosensitive elements such as dissolved iron, but 

also lead to temperature fluctuations which can 

affect solubility and sorption processes. Recent 

diel studies of mountain streams have shown 

that in some settings substantial variations occur 

in iron, cadmium, manganese, nickel, and zinc 

(McKnight and Bencala, 1988; Nimick and 

others, 2003, 2005). 

The USGS, in cooperation with the New 

Mexico Environment Department, studied the 

water chemistry of the Red River and selected 

seeps, tributaries, and snow to characterize and 

improve understanding of surface-water 

chemistry. 

Purpose and Scope 

The purpose of this report is to present 

water-chemistry data from surface-water 

investigations conducted between 2000 and 

2004 and to describe processes that likely 

control surface-water chemistry in the Red River 

study area. Water-chemistry data for the Red 

River Valley include analytical results for 

samples collected at the USGS streamflowgaging station near Questa (number 08265000; 

2000-2003), samples from a storm-event study, 

samples from a diel study, and snow samples. 

Other surface-water-chemistry data reported 

include analytical results for scar-tributary 

samples (September 2001 and May 2004) and 

Straight Creek samples (October 2000 to 

October 2003). Data presented in this report 

include field measurements of pH, specific 

conductance, dissolved oxygen, Eh, and 

temperature, and laboratory determinations of 

the concentrations of major inorganic and 

selected trace-element constituents. For a subset 

of these samples, a more comprehensive suite of 

trace elements (determined by inductivelycoupled plasma-mass spectrometry) and oxygen, 

hydrogen, and sulfur stable isotopic 

compositions are reported. In addition, 

determinations of trace element concentrations 

by inductively-coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry for selected Red River mainstem 

and inflow (tributaries and seeps) samples 

collected during the tracer-synoptic study in 

August 2001 and March 2002 are reported. Field 

measurements and concentrations of major 

inorganic and selected trace element constituents 

for these samples were previously published 

(McCleskey and others, 2003b). Quality 

assurance/quality control results for these 

analyses also have been published (McCleskey 

and others, 2004). Ground-water chemistry for 

well SC1B, published in Naus and others 

(2005), is used for mass-balance calculations. 

SC1B is a bedrock well located in the upper part 

of the Straight Creek debris fan. Ground-water 

levels in SC1A, an alluvial well located in the 

upper part of the Straight Creek debris fan, are 

also discussed. 

2
Physical Description of the Study Area 

The Red River drains 490 square 

kilometers of the Taos Range, southern Sangre 

de Cristo Mountains and empties into the Rio 

Grande north of Taos, New Mexico (fig. 1). This 

region is part of the Southern Rocky Mountains 

physiographic province. The main area of study 

within the Red River basin extends from the 

town of Red River to the USGS streamflowgaging station near Questa (USGS streamflowgaging station number 08265000) and 

encompasses approximately 170 square 

kilometers of the drainage basin and 

approximately 20 kilometers of river reach. The 

Molycorp, Inc., Questa Molybdenum mine site 

lies north of the Red River in the western part of 

the study area and occupies approximately 15 

square kilometers. 

Geology 

In the study area, the Red River follows the 

southern edge of the Questa caldera, and is the 

southern extent of the Oligocene Latir volcanic 

field (Lipman and Reed, 1979; Meyer and 

Leonardson, 1990). The topography is steep, 

rising rapidly from the basin floor at an altitude 

of about 2,270 meters near the Questa Ranger 

Station to ridge crests with altitudes exceeding 

3,200 meters. The geology of the basin consists 

of Proterozoic crystalline basement, primarily 

gneisses and intermediate-composition plutonic 

rocks that have been intruded by and are 

overlain by intermediate to felsic volcanic units 

associated with the Latir volcanic field. 

Subsequent to formation of the Questa caldera at 

about 25.7 million years ago within the Red 

River Valley, these units were intruded by highsilica granitic stocks at 24.1 to 24.6 million 

years ago (Czamanski and others, 1990). These 

stocks are believed to be the source of the 

hydrothermal fluids that formed the Questa 

molybdenum deposit and caused the extensive 

hydrothermal alteration observed in parts of the 

study area (Leonardson and others, 1983; 

Czamanski and others, 1990; and Meyer, 1991). 

Hydrothermal activity associated with the 

Questa caldera is believed to have caused 

regional propylitization, altering mafic mineral 

phases to chlorite, epidote, and calcite. These 

propylitized rocks and other slightly younger 

lithologies were more extensively altered during 

the hydrothermal activity associated with the 

granitic stocks. Hydrothermally altered areas are 

characterized by pyrite mineralization, and 

quartz-sericite-pyrite and pyrite-kaolinite 

assemblages (Meyer and Leonardson, 1990; 

Ludington and others, 2004). Surface weathering 

(supergene alteration) has, in part, transformed 

these mineral assemblages to iron oxides, 

gypsum, and clay minerals (Meyer and 

Leonardson, 1990; Ludington and others, 2004). 

These areas, referred to as alteration “scar 

areas,” contain incompetent bedrock and sparse 

vegetation and consequently have high erosion 

rates (fig. 1). A more detailed discussion of the 

geology, alteration, and weathering processes is 

presented in Ludington and others (2004). 

Climate and Vegetation 

In this region, surface water is fed by 

snowmelt, rainfall, and ground water. At higher 

elevations in the Southern Rocky Mountains 

most of the precipitation falls in the winter and 

spring forming the seasonal snowpack 

(Ingersoll, 2000), such that snowmelt is the 

greatest source of water to streams in the region. 

Between 1915 and 2002, the annual average 

temperature was 4o

C at the Red River climate 

station (297323), the precipitation and snowfall 

were 52 centimeters and 370 centimeters, 

respectively, and the daily temperature generally 

fluctuated by 18o

C throughout the year (Western 

Regional Climate Center, 2003). 

Vegetation type is controlled primarily by 

climate, soil composition, and topography. 

Within the study area, climate can vary over 

short distances because of differences in 

topography and distance from the Rio Grande 

Valley. The bedrock geology and intensity of 

hydrothermal alteration is a primary control of 

soil composition. Topographic controls of 

vegetation include slope, aspect, and altitude. In 

general, lower and south-facing slopes are drier 

and warmer, and upper and north-facing slopes 

are cooler and more moist. Hillslopes tend to 

support conifers, including ponderosa pine 

(Pinus ponderosa), limber pine (Pinus flexius), 

3
Figure 1. Location of the mine site, drainages sampled, and study area within the Red River basin.

Mine site

Open

pit

Town of 

Red River

Study area

Study area

Red River

drainage basin

NEW

MEXICO

EXPLANATION

Alteration scar area

USGS streamflow-gaging

station 08265000

Questa Ranger 

Station

Waldo Spring

Junebug

Mill

Upstream diel site

Taos

Sangre de Cristo

Mountains

USGS streamflow-gaging

station 08264500

Taos Range

unnamed

drainage

4
METHODS and douglas fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia). Along 

the Red River, willows (Salix spp.), 

cottonwoods (Populus spp.), grasses, and forbs 

are present. 

Sampling Sites 

Hydrology The Red River was sampled at the USGS 

streamflow-gaging station 08265000 near the 

U.S. Forest Service Questa Ranger Station (fig. 

1; table 1). Twenty-one samples were collected 

under a range of hydrologic conditions including 

low flow, rising limb, peak flow, and storm (fig. 

3). In addition, the Red River was sampled 

upstream from the mine (fig 1, table 1) during 

the high- and low-flow diel studies. Straight 

Creek surface water was collected during each 

sampling trip. The location of the sampling site 

varied because of changes in flow and access. 

The Straight Creek surface-water dataset 

includes data for nine samples collected at a site 

approximately 200 m upstream from the debris 

fan, three samples farther downstream 

(02WA102, 02WA112, and 03WA111), and two 

samples collected during the September 2002 

storm event (02WA154 and 02WA158; fig. 4; 

table 1). During the September 2001 low-flow 

tributary sampling trip, samples of the most 

upstream Straight Creek water (01WA155, 

Straight Creek-high) and the most downstream 

water (01WA154, Straight Creek-low) were 

collected. On October 23, 2003, five Straight 

Creek samples were collected to evaluate 

downstream variation in water chemistry. This 

sampling event is referred to as the Straight 

Creek transect and includes, from upstream to 

downstream, samples 03WA168, 03WA169, 

03WA170, 03WA171, and 03WA172 (fig. 4; 

table 1). During September 2001, a suite of lowflow tributary samples were collected. Sampling 

sites included Goat Hill Gulch (01WA159), 

Waldo Spring (01WA163), an unnamed 

drainage west of Little Hansen (01WA162), 

Little Hansen (01WA153), the most upstream 

water in Hansen Creek (01WA152, Hansenhigh), the most downstream stream water in 

Hansen Creek (01WA151, Hansen-low), 

Junebug-east (01WA161), Junebug-west 

(01WA162), the most upstream water in 

Hottentot Creek (01WA157, Hottentot-high), 

and the most downstream stream water in 

Hottentot Creek (01WA156, Hottentot-low). In 

May 2003 two samples of water (03WA102 and 

03WA103) draining the Capulin Canyon scar 

area were collected (fig. 1; table 1). To 

The Red River originates near Wheeler 

Peak in the Taos Range and flows north and 

west for approximately 40 km to the confluence 

with the Rio Grande. Within the watershed the 

longest record of stream flow is from USGS 

streamflow-gaging station 08265000 near 

Questa, which has a nearly continuous record 

from October 1, 1924, to the present. Above the 

town of Red River, a second USGS streamflowgaging station, USGS 08265000, recorded 

stream discharge from May 1, 1963, to 

December 31, 1973. The hydrograph for 

08265000 (figs. 2A and B) has a typical Rocky 

Mountain watershed shape with annual peaks 

resulting from snowmelt runoff, intermittent 

peaks associated with summer storm events, and 

low-flow conditions from late summer until the 

beginning of spring snowmelt. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors appreciate the input from the 

project advisory committee whose members 

represent Amigos Bravos, Molycorp, Inc. and its 

consultants, and the New Mexico Environment 

Department. Cooperation from the U.S. Forest 

Service aided the field sampling. Molycorp Inc., 

provided assistance and granted us access to 

their property. Comprehensive reviews by James

W. Ball and David A. Nimick improved this 

report. The authors acknowledge Tyler B. 

Coplen’s laboratory, Reston, Virginia, for 

providing water isotopes, and Robert O. Rye’s 

laboratory, Denver, Colorado, for providing 

sulfate stable isotopes. 

 

5
1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

TIME, IN YEARS

A.

DISCHARGE,

 IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

B.

DISCHARGE,

Figure 2. Daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station for years (A) 1953 through 1979 and (B) 1979 through 2003. 

determine the isotopic composition of the 

seasonal snowpack, five snow samples were 

collected (table 1). In addition, a rain 

(03WA113) and a snow (03WA112) sample 

were collected at Straight Creek during a 

precipitation event in April 2003 (table 1). 

6
Table 1. Locations of sampling sites

[GPS, global positioning system; N, north; W, west; S, south; St. Cr., Straight Creek]

Sample Location Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Sample code number

Red River at USGS Gage 36°42'11" 105°34'03" several

Red River below Mill 36°41'41" 105°29'38" 03WA104

Red River above Mill 36°41'50" 105°29'59" 03WA164

Red River 5847 36°42'19" 105°27'18" 03WA105

Capulin Canyon Scar 36°42'07" 105°32'29" 04WA102

Capulin Canyon Scar 36°42'19" 105°32'26" 04WA103

Goat Hill Gulch 36°41'57" 105°31'41" 01WA159

Waldo Spring 34°42'04" 105°28'03" 01WA163

Unnamed drainage west of

 Little Hansen 34°42'19" 105°28'06" 01WA162

Little Hansen 36°42'27" 105°27'53" 01WA153

Hansen (high) 36°42'58" 105°27'31" 01WA152

Hansen (low) 36°42'318" 105°27'20" 01WA151

Straight Creek 36°43'16" 105°26'51" 00WA197

Straight Creek (high) 36°43'27" 105°26'58" 01WA155

Straight Creek (low) 36°43'08" 105°26'43" 01WA154

Straight Creek 36°42'58" 105°26'40" 02WA102

Straight Creek 36°42'59" 105°26'40" 02WA112

Straight Creek 36°43'14" 105°26'48" 02WA121

Straight Creek 36°43'14" 105°26'50" 02WA124

Straight Creek 36°42'58" 105°26'40" 02WA154

Straight Creek 36°43'00" 105°26'41" 02WA158

Straight Creek "at pipe" 36°43'16" 105°26'51" see figure 4

Straight Creek No GPS; should be close to other St. Cr. Sites 03WA101

Straight Creek 36°43'11" 105°26'45" 03WA111

Straight Creek 36°43'14" 105°26'50" 03WA165

Straight Creek transect 36°43'14" 105°26'59" 03WA168

Straight Creek transect 36°43'24" 105°26'57" 03WA169

Straight Creek transect 36°43'21" 105°26'54" 03WA170

Straight Creek transect 36°43'18" 105°26'53" 03WA171

Straight Creek transect 36°43'14" 105°26'50" 03WA172

Junebug (east) 36°42'12" 105°26'26" 01WA161

Junebug (west) 36°42'11" 105°26'28" 01WA160

Hottentot (high) 36°43'33" 105°25'59" 01WA157

Hottentot (low) 36°43'13" 105°25'49" 01WA156

Bitter Creek 36°41'18" 105°24' 9" 02WA156

Straight Creek snow 36°42'47" 105°26' 38" 03WA112

Straight Creek rain 36°42'26" 105°26' 46" 03WA113

Snow - Hansen Creek basin 36°42'44" 105°27'25" 02WA111

Snow - N. side, N. facing 36°44'6" 105°27'14" 02WA107

Snow - S. side, Bretts steakhouse 36°42'25" 105°25'20" 02WA109

Snow - S. side, Elephant Rock 36°42'20" 105°26'54" 02WA108

Snow - Straight Creek basin 36°43'13" 105°26'49" 02WA110

7
2000 2001 2002 2003

50

100

150

200

250

RL

LF LF

P

LF LF LF

S

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

2004

S

EXPLANATION

0

 , Water sample collected; S, storm event;

 LF, low flow; RL, rising limb; P, peak 

Figure 3. Daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station from years 2000 through 2003, with hydrologic condition. 

Water-Chemistry Sampling 

Depending on the discharge and stream 

depth, surface-water samples were collected as 

grab samples or using equal-width and depthintegrated sampling methods using a model DH81 depth-integrating water-sampling device 

(Ward and Harr, 1990). Samples were filtered on 

site through a 142-mm diameter all-plastic filter 

holder (Kennedy and others, 1976) containing a 

0.1-μm-pore-size mixed-cellulose-ester filter 

membrane, through a disposable capsule filter 

having a nominal pore size of 0.45 μm, or 

through a syringe filter having a pore size of 

either 0.2 or 0.45 μm. In this report constituent 

concentrations measured in filtered subsamples 

are called “dissolved”, and constituent 

concentrations in unfiltered subsamples (RA) are 

called “total recoverable”. 

Snowpack sampling occurred in March 

2002 when the snow depth was at a maximum 

but prior to melting. North-facing slopes were 

sampled to avoid areas that might have been in 

direct sunlight. Snow pits were dug to the 

ground surface, and depth-integrated snow 

samples were collected from the entire face. 

Samples were stored in prerinsed, plastic bags 

and placed in a cooler. Upon returning to the 

laboratory, samples were melted and sample 

splits were taken for various chemical analyses, 

following the same procedures as surface-water 

samples. 

8
01WA155

03WA168

03WA169

03WA170

03WA171

"PIPE"

02WA121, 02WA124, 03WA165, 03WA172 

03WA111

02WA158

02WA112

02WA102, 02WA154

00WA197, 02N287, 02N288, 02N289, 03WA110, 

Straight Creek

Red River

03WA154

N

1000 0 1000 Feet

200 0 200 Meters

Sample site

Well site

Base from U.S. Geological Survey Red River Quadrangle, 1:24,000 (1995) 

Figure 4. Topographic map of Straight Creek study area showing locations of sampling sites.

e

SC1A

SC1B

9
Several sample splits were collected for 

determination of concentrations of inorganic 

constituents, redox species, and dissolved 

organic carbon (DOC). Container preparation 

and stabilization of filtered samples are 

summarized in table 2. Samples for the 

determination of concentrations of cations and 

trace metals (As, Al, B, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, 

Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Dy, Er, Eu, Fe, Gd, Hf, Ho, K, 

La, Li, Lu, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nd, Ni, Pb, Pr, Rb, 

Re, Sb, Se, SiO2

, Sm, Sr, Ta, Tb, Te, Th, Tl, Tm, 

U, V, W, Y, Yb, Zr, and Zn), major anions (Br, 

Cl, F, NO3

, and SO4), alkalinity, and DOC were 

filtered and then stabilizing reagents were added 

when necessary. Sample bottles were prerinsed 

with filtered water prior to sample collection. 

Samples for the determination of DOC 

concentrations were filtered through the same 

filter used to collect the inorganic constituents. 

At least 1 L of sample was passed through the 

filter assembly before a DOC sample was 

collected. Samples were collected for sulfur 

isotopes (δ

34S and δ18O) and water isotopes (δ2

H 

and δ

18O) during selected samplings. In this 

report delta notation (δ) is used to describe the 

isotopic concentration of water and sulfur 

isotopes. In delta notation, the ratio of the heavy 

and light isotope is compared to that of a 

reference standard (Clark and Fritz, 1999). 

Laboratory Methods 

Water-quality samples were stored on ice in 

coolers and either shipped overnight delivery or 

hand delivered to the USGS laboratories in 

Boulder, Colorado. Prior to analysis, samples 

were refrigerated. Analytical techniques, 

detection limits, equipment used, pertinent 

references, and comments are described briefly 

in table 3. Oxygen and hydrogen isotopic 

determinations of water samples were performed 

at the USGS Stable Isotope Laboratory in 

Reston, Virginia. Sulfur and oxygen isotopic 

determinations of dissolved sulfate were 

performed by the USGS Crustal Imaging Team 

Laboratory in Denver, Colorado. Analyses of all 

other samples were performed by the USGS 

Branch of Regional Research Laboratory in 

Boulder, Colorado. 

Estimates of detection limits are assumed 

equal to 3 times the standard deviation of several 

dozen measurements of the constituent in a 

blank solution treated as a sample. Typical 

analytical precision, expressed as percent 

relative standard deviation, is based on several 

analytical runs and calculated using analytical 

data for standard reference water samples. 

Precision for any single analytical run is better 

than that for multiple analytical runs, but using 

multiple analytical runs to calculate precision 

provides a more realistic estimate of error when 

comparing results for samples analyzed at 

different times. The typical relative standard 

deviations, or precision estimates, are for analyte 

concentrations greater than 10 times the 

detection limit and less than the high standard. 

When an analyte concentration was greater than 

that of the high standard, the sample was diluted, 

introducing an additional source of error. 

Techniques, general conditions, and variants of 

standard procedures are discussed in the 

following sections. 

All reagents were of purity at least equal to 

the reagent-grade standards of the American 

Chemical Society. Double-distilled or deionized 

water and re-distilled or trace-metal-grade acids 

were used in all preparations. Samples were 

diluted as necessary to bring analyte 

concentrations within the optimal range of the 

method. Each sample was analyzed in at least 

duplicate for each dilution for all constituents. 

Reagent blanks were analyzed to evaluate 

contamination from reagents used to prepare 

standards and dilutions. 

Quality Assurance and Quality 

Control 

Several techniques were used to assure the 

quality of the analytical data (McCleskey and 

others, 2004). These techniques included use of 

field blanks, standard reference water samples 

(SRWS’s), charge imbalance (C.I.), spike 

recoveries, determination by alternative 

methods, and determination by different 

laboratories. Quality assurance and quality 

control checks for DOC included analyses of 

laboratory reagent blanks and synthetic samples 

made from potassium biphthalate, sodium 

bicarbonate, and sodium benzoate. Quality 

assurance and quality control results for samples 

in this report can be found in McCleskey and 

others (2004), which presents all the analyses of 

field and trip blanks and displays plots of the 

duplicate samples. 

 

10
Table 2. Container preparation and stabilization methods for samples

[HCl, hydrochloric acid; HNO3, nitric acid; K2Cr2O7, potassium dichromate; mL, milliliters; N, normal; v/v, volume per volume; w/v, weight per 

volume; %, percent] 

Sample type(s) Storage container and preparation 

Stabilization treatment in addition to 

refrigeration 

Cations and trace metals 

(Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, 

Cr, Cs, Cu, Dy, Er, Eu, Fe, Gd, Hf, Ho, 

K, La, Li, Lu, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nd, 

Ni, Pb, Pr, Rb, Re, Sb, Se, SiO2

, Sm, 

Sr, Ta, Tb, Te, Th, Tl, Tm, U, V, W, Y, 

Yb, Zn, and Zr) 

Polyethylene bottles, soaked in 5% HCl 

and rinsed 3 times with distilled water 

1% (v/v) concentrated redistilled or 

Ultrex 7.7 N HNO3 added 

Mercury (Hg) Borosilicate glass bottles, soaked with 

5 % HNO3

 and rinsed 3 times with 

deionized water 

5 mL of concentrated redistilled HNO3

(added in the field) + 0.04 % w/v 

K2

Cr2O7 per 125 mL of sample (added 

in the laboratory) 

Iron and arsenic redox species 

(Fe(T), Fe(II), As(T), and As(III)) 

Opaque polyethylene bottles, soaked in 

5% HCl and rinsed 3 times with 

distilled water 

1% (v/v) redistilled 6 N or Omni 1:1 

trace-metal grade HCl added 

Alkalinity and major anions (Br, Cl, F, 

HCO3, NO3, and SO4) 

Polyethylene bottles filled with 

distilled water and allowed to stand for 

24 hours, then rinsed 3 times with 

distilled water 

None 

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) Baked glass bottle None 

Sulfur isotopes Polyethylene bottles filled with 

distilled water and allowed to stand for 

24 hours, then rinsed 3 times with 

distilled water 

None 

Water isotopes Glass bottle None 

11
Constituent Analytical Technique Detection limit1 / Typical precision2 Equipment Used Reference(s) and comments 

Calcium (Ca) ICP-OES 0.4 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 315.887 nm, view: radial Magnesium (Mg) ICP-OES 0.04 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 280.270 nm, view: axial Sodium (Na) ICP-OES 0.05 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 589.592 nm, view: radial Potassium (K) ICP-OES 0.02 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 766.490 nm, view: axial Sulfate (SO4) IC 0.3 mg/L / 3% Dionex model 2010i ion chromatograph 

with AG4A guard and AS4A separator columns and Anion Self-Regenerating Suppressor-II 

1.8 mM NaHCO3 + 1.7 mM Na CO 2 3 eluent (Brinton and others, 1995) 

Alkalinity (as HCO3) Titration 1.0 mg/L / 2% Orion Research model 960/940 autotitrator, 

potentiometric detection, end-point determined by the first derivative technique 

(Barringer and Johnsson, 1989) 

Fluoride (F) ISE 0.05 mg/L / 4% Orion Research model 96-09 combination 

F- electrode 

Sample mixed 1:1 with total ionic strength adjustment buffer (Barnard and Nordstrom, 1980) 

Chloride (Cl) IC 0.09 mg/L / 4% Dionex model 2010i ion chromatograph 

with AG4A guard and AS4A separator columns and an Anion Self-Regenerating Suppressor-II 

1.8 mM NaHCO3 + 1.7 mM Na CO 2 3 eluent (Brinton and others, 1995) 

Silica (SiO2) ICP-OES 0.06 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 251.611 nm, view: axial 

[CVAFS, cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry; GFAAS, graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry; HGAAS, hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry; IC, ion chromatography; ICPMS, inductively-coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; ICP-OES, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry; ISE, ion-selective electrode; mg/L, milligrams per liter; mM, millimolar; MS, mass 

spectrometry; μg/L, micrograms per liter; ng/L, nanograms per liter; nm, nanometer; oC, degrees centigrade; RSD, relative standard deviation; TOC, total organic carbon; ---, not measured or calculated; %, 

Table 3. 

percent] 

Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references 

12
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references – Continued 

Constituent Analytical Technique Detection limit1 / Typical precision 2 Equipment Used Reference(s) and comments 

ICP-OES 0.07 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 308.215 nm, view: axial Aluminum (Al) 

GFAAS3 0.001 mg/L / 7% Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL Analytical wavelength: 309.3 nm, modifier: 15 μg 

Mg(NO3)2, atomization temperature: 2300°C 

ICP-OES 0.007 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 238.204. nm, view: axial Total iron (Fe(T)) 

Colorimetry 0.001 mg/L / 3% Hewlett-Packard model 8452A diode array 

spectrometer with 1 and 5 cm cells 

FerroZine method (Stookey, 1970; To and others, 1999) 

Ferrous iron (Fe(II)) Colorimetry 0.002 mg/L / 3% Hewlett-Packard model 8452A diode array 

spectrometer with 1 and 5 cm cells 

 (Stookey, 1970; To and others, 1999) 

ICP-OES 0.010 mg/L / 7% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 249.678 nm, view: axial Boron (B) 

ICP-MS4 0.002 mg/L / 5% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 11 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995; Taylor and 

Garbarino, 1991) 

Lithium (Li) ICP-OES 0.001 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 670.784 nm, view: axial Strontium (Sr) ICP-OES 0.0003 mg/L / 4% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 421.552 nm, view: axial Barium (Ba) ICP-OES 0.0008 mg/L / 4% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 455.403 nm, view: axial Manganese (Mn) ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 257.610 nm, view: axial Zinc (Zn) ICP-OES 0.005 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 206.200 nm, view: radial 

13
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references – Continued 

Constituent Analytical Technique Detection limit1 / Typical precision 2 Equipment Used Reference(s) and comments 

ICP-OES 0.008 mg/L / 6% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 220.353 nm, view: axial 

GFAAS3 0.0003 mg/L / 7% Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL Analytical wavelength: 283.3 nm, view: axial; 

modifier: 50 μg PO4 + 3 μg Mg(NO3)2, atomization 

temperature: 1600°C 

Lead (Pb) 

ICP-MS4 0.00001 mg/L / 2% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 A weighted average of the 206, 207 and 208 isotopes 

was used (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995; Taylor and Garbarino, 1991) 

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L / 3% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 231.604. nm, view: axial Nickel (Ni) 

GFAAS3 0.0005 mg/L / 5% Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL Analytical wavelength: 231.604 nm, view: axial, 

atomization temperature: 2300°C 

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L / 7% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 324.754. nm, view: axial Copper (Cu) 

GFAAS3 0.0005 mg/L / 6% Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL Analytical wavelength: 324.8 nm, modifier: 5 μg Pd + 

3 μg Mg(NO3)2, atomization temperature: 2000°C 

Cadmium (Cd) ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 214.428. nm, view: axial 

GFAAS3 0.0002 mg/L / 7% Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL Analytical wavelength: 228.8 nm, modifier: 50 μg PO4

+ 3 μg Mg(NO3)2, atomization temperature: 1500°C 

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 206.149. nm, view: axial Chromium (Cr) 

GFAAS3 0.0005 mg/L / 6% Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL Analytical wavelength: 357.9 nm, modifier: 15 μg 

Mg(NO3)2, atomization temperature: 2300°C 

14
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references – Continued 

Constituent Analytical Technique Detection limit1 / Typical precision 2 Equipment Used Reference(s) and comments 

ICP-OES 0.007 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or Analytical wavelength: 228.616. nm, view: axial Cobalt (Co) 

GFAAS3 0.0008 mg/L / 7% Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL Analytical wavelength: 242.5 nm, modifier: 15 μg 

Mg(NO3)2, atomization temperature: 2400°C 

Beryllium (Be) ICP-OES 0.001 mg/L / 4% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 313.042 nm, view: axial 

ICP-OES 0.007 mg/L / 7% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 277.540 nm, view: axial Molybdenum (Mo) 

ICP-MS4 0.0005 mg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 95 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995) 

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L / 5% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 292.401 nm, view: axial Vanadium (V) 

ICP-MS4 0.0003 mg/L / 2% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 51 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995) 

ICP-OES 0.04 mg/L / 7% Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 188.977. nm, view: axial Arsenic (As) 

HGAAS 0.0001mg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer AAnalyst 300 atomic 

absorption spectrometer with a FIAS-100 flow injection analysis system, quartz cell, and furnace 

Pre-reduction of As(V) using KI + ascorbic acid + HCl (McCleskey and others, 2003a) 

ICP-OES 0.04 mg/L / --- Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Analytical wavelength: 196.026. nm, view: axial 

GFAAS3 0.001 mg/L / 7% Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL Analytical wavelength: 196.0 nm, modifier: 5 μg Pd + 

3 μg Mg(NO3)2, atomization temperature: 1300°C 

Selenium (Se) 

ICP-MS4 0.0002 mg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 77 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995) 

 

15
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references – Continued 

Constituent Analytical Technique Detection limit1 / Typical precision 2 Equipment Used Reference(s) and comments Mercury (Hg) CVAFS 0.4 ng/L / 4% PS Analytical, model Galahad, direct coldvapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry Taylor and others (1997), Roth and others (2001) Bismuth (Bi) ICP-MS4 0.001 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 209 

Cerium (Ce) ICP-MS4 0.0004 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 140 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Cesium (Cs) ICP-MS4 0.002 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 133 Dysprosium (Dy) ICP-MS4 0.0004 μg/L / 7% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 163 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Erbium (Er) ICP-MS4 0.0004 μg/L / 6% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 167 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Europium (Eu) ICP-MS4 0.001 μg/L / 5% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 151, problems with Ba interference 

(Verplanck and others, 2001) 

Gadolinium (Gd) ICP-MS4 0.0006 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 158 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Hafnium (Hf) ICP-MS4 0.0005 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 178 Holmium (Ho) ICP-MS4 0.0002 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 165 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Lanthanum (La) ICP-MS4 0.0004 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 139 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Lutetium (Lu) ICP-MS4 0.0002 μg/L / 5% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 175 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Neodymium (Nd) ICP-MS4 0.0008 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 146 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Praseodymium (Pr) ICP-MS4 0.0002 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 141 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Rubidium (Rb) ICP-MS4 0.001 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 85 

16
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references – Continued 

Constituent Analytical Technique Detection limit1 / Typical precision 2 Equipment Used Reference(s) and comments Rhenium (Re) ICP-MS4 0.0007 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 187 Antimony (Sb) ICP-MS4 0.004 μg/L / 2% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 121 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995; Taylor and 

Garbarino, 1991) 

Samarium (Sm) ICP-MS4 0.0008 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 147 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Tantalum (Ta) ICP-MS4 0.002 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 181 Terbium (Tb) ICP-MS4 0.0002 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 159 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Tellurium (Te) ICP-MS4 0.008 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 126 Thorium (Th) ICP-MS4 0.001 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 232 Thallium (Tl) ICP-MS4 0.004 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 205 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995; Taylor and 

Garbarino, 1991) 

Thulium (Tm) ICP-MS4 0.0002 μg/L / 4% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 169 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Uranium (U ) ICP-MS4 0.0005 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 238 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995; Taylor and 

Garbarino, 1991) 

Tungsten (W ) ICP-MS4 0.006 μg/L / 6% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 182 Yttrium (Y ) ICP-MS4 0.0003 μg/L / 3% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 89 Ytterbium (Yb) ICP-MS4 0.0005 μg/L / 4% Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 174 (Verplanck and others, 2001) Zirconium (Zr) ICP-MS4 0.001 μg/L / --- Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 90 Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 

TOC 0.1 mg/L Oceanography International Model 700 

TOC Analyzer 

Wet oxidation method (Aiken, 1992) 

17
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references – Continued 

Constituent Analytical Technique Detection limit1 / Typical precision 2 Equipment Used Reference(s) and comments Hydrogen sulfide (H S) 2

Colorimetry 0.002 mg/L Hach model DR-2000 UV-Vis absorption 

spectrometer and Hach method # 8131 reagents 

Method based on APHA (1985) 

18O/16O (δ18O) MS 0.1 per mil2 DuPont model 21-491 mass spectrometer Standardization against Vienna Standard Mean Ocean 

Water (VSMOW) (δ18O = 0 per mil) and Standard 

Light Antartic Precipitation (SLAP) (δ18O = -55.5 per 

mil) (Epstein and Mayeda, 1953) 

2H/1H (δ2H) MS 0.1 per mil2 V.G. Micromass model 602 mass 

spectrometer 

Standardization against VSMOW (δ2H = 0 per mil) and SLAP (δ2H = -428 per mil) (Coplen and others, 

1991) 

34S/32S  (δ34S) of sulfate 

MS 0.1 per mil2 Carlo Erba NC2500 elemental analyzer 

coupled to either a Micromass Optima or a Finnigan Delta Plus XL mass spectrometer 

Analyses were done by combustion using continuous flow methods described by Giesemann and others (1994). Sulfate ion removed from the samples using barium sulfate precipitation method 

18O/16O (δ18O)  of sulfate 

MS 0.1 per mil2 Micromass Optima mass spectrometer Sulfate ion removed from the samples using barium 

sulfate precipitation method 

1Some samples were diluted for ICP-MS analysis; reported detection limits must be multiplied by the dilution factor for these samples (for example, the detection limit for a sample diluted to 1:10 is ten times 

the undiluted detection limit reported in this table. 

2Percent relative standard deviations, or precision, are for analyte concentrations greater than 10 times the detection limit and less than the high standard. Percent relative standard deviations are based on several 

analytical runs. The precision likely would be better for any single analytical run. 

3GFAAS was used when the concentration of the constituent was below or near the ICP-OES detection limit 4ICP-MS was used for a selected subset of samples 

18
WATER CHEMISTRY 

Red River Water Chemistry, 2000-2003 

To evaluate seasonal fluctuations in 

chemistry, 20 water-chemistry samples were 

routinely collected from February 2002 through 

October 2003 at the USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 near the U.S. Forest Service 

Questa Ranger Station (tables 1, 4, and 5). One 

additional sample was collected in October 

2000. This dataset complements the compilation 

and interpretation of historical surface-water 

quality by Maest and others (2004). 

As described by Maest and others (2004), 

one factor controlling the chemistry of the Red 

River at the Questa Ranger Station gage is 

variation of stream discharge. The hydrograph 

for the gaging station for the period 2000 to 

2004 is shown in figure 3 with sample collection 

times shown by open circles. In 2002, conditions 

were anomalous because of extreme drought, 

highlighted by the absence of a spring snowmelt 

peak (fig. 3). Monthly mean discharges for May 

through August 2002 were the lowest on record 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2004), which started in 

October 1924. Although these were the lowest 

monthly mean flows recorded during spring 

runoff, 3 other years (1971, 1977, and 1981) had 

flows during spring runoff that were 

substantially lower than the mean recorded 

flows. The highest discharge for 2002 occurred 

during a storm event in September. The 

hydrograph for 2003 is more typical in shape 

although the monthly mean discharges for April 

to July were less than the 75-year mean for those 

months. Overall, the water quality samples cover 

the major hydrologic conditions in 2002-2003 

including low flow, a summer-storm event, and 

peak flow during spring runoff. 

As a result of the drought year of 2002, 

most of the samples (11 samples) represent lowflow conditions, based on the criteria outlined in 

Maest and others (2004). These low-flow 

samples were circumneutral with a mean pH 

value of 7.4 and ranged from 6.41 to 7.92 (fig. 

5). The overall range in pH was from 4.83, 

measured during a storm event, to 8.07, 

measured during peak flow. 

Specific conductance varied from 195 to 

607 microsiemens per centimeter (fig. 6). The 

lowest measured specific conductance occurred 

during the snowmelt peak in 2003, and the 

highest measured specific conductance occurred 

during a September storm event in 2002. 

Concentrations of many dissolved constituents 

in the low-flow samples, including aluminum, 

calcium, manganese, nickel, silica, and sulfate, 

plot between concentrations of snowmelt peak 

(lower) and storm event (higher) samples (table 

4; figs. 7-9). The monthly sampling for 2003 

overlapped with the spring snowmelt runoff 

peak, with two samples on the rising limb 

(4/16/03 and 5/11/03) and one sample near the 

peak (6/5/03). These three samples had the 

lowest concentration of many dissolved 

constituents (Ca, Mg, Mn, SO4

, and Sr) for all 

the Questa Ranger Station gage samples 

collected from 2000 to 2003, and in most cases, 

the concentrations in the peak discharge sample 

(6/5/03) were the lowest of the sample set. 

Similar results were observed in the historical 

dataset compiled by Maest and others (2004). 

The alkalinities of the rising limb and 

snowmelt peak samples were slightly greater 

(50.6 to 57.9 mg/L) than the mean low-flow 

concentration (46.6 mg/L; fig. 10). Simple 

dilution of Red River water by melting snow 

cannot account for these higher values. Water 

with some alkalinity needs to enter the Red 

River. Because the Red River above the town of 

Red River has alkalinity greater than that of the 

lower portion of the Red River, the upstream 

portion of the Red River is a likely source of the 

alkalinity. Water draining the south side of the 

Red River Valley may be another source. 

As reported by Vail Engineering Inc. 

(2000), the Red River specific conductance 

correlates with sulfate concentration. Results 

from the 2000-2004 Questa Ranger Station gage 

samples (fig. 11) are consistent with this 

observation. Sulfate and specific conductance 

are strongly correlated because sulfate is the 

dominant anion, contributing nearly half of the 

specific conductance of the water. The slope of 

the linear fit is similar to that of the historical 

dataset compiled by Maest and others (2004), 

but the correlation coefficient R2

 value (0.91) is 

substantially greater than that for the historical 

dataset (0.62). The greater correlation in this 

dataset is likely because all the samples were 

analyzed at the same laboratory with better 

quality control and quality assurance over a 

relatively short time period and the historical 

data set may include a wider range of hydrologic 

conditions. 

19
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Sample code number 00QV01 00QV01 02WA101 02WA101 02WA113

Collection Date 10/31/2000 10/31/2000 2/24/2002 2/24/2002 3/20/2002

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 --- 0.1 --- 0.1

pH 7.52 7.52 7.04 7.04 7.54

SC (μS/cm) 360 360 405 405 419

Temperature (°C) --- --- 5.3 5.3 2.5

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) --- --- --- --- 0.400

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 51.6 53.4 52.8 53.6 59.3

Mg 11.4 11.2 12.3 12.6 11.8

Na 6.22 6.31 7.09 6.96 7.17

K 0.54 1.09 1.25 1.24 1.22

SO4 130 --- 151 --- 158

Alkalinity as HCO3

- 54.2 --- 40.3 --- 41.8

F 0.837 --- 1.01 --- 0.978

Cl 3.53 --- 4.16 --- 5.28

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 10.7 12.6 12.6 13.5 14.0

Al <0.08 2.06 1.07 2.83 <0.08

Fe(T) <0.007 0.404 0.181 0.426 0.134

Fe(II) --- --- 0.079 --- 0.099

B 0.003 <0.01 0.007 0.007 0.015

Li <0.001 0.010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Sr 0.301 0.307 0.302 0.313 0.350

Ba 0.033 0.037 0.032 0.033 0.034

Mn 0.381 0.394 0.494 0.490 0.722

Zn 0.074 0.143 0.140 0.175 0.206

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.015 0.016 0.022 0.023 0.032

Cu <0.003 0.018 0.013 0.032 0.005

Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002

Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Co <0.002 <0.002 0.006 0.007 0.009

Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001

Mo --- --- <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.0001 <0.05 <0.0001 <0.05 <0.0001

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- -96.11 --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- -13.54 --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 3.51 --- 3.67 --- 3.91

Sum anions (meq/L) 3.43 --- 3.56 --- 3.77

Charge imbalance (percent) 2.3 --- 3.0 --- 3.7

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses 

20
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Sample code number 02WA113 02WA120 02WA120 02WA123 02WA123

Collection Date 3/20/2002 4/24/2002 4/24/2002 6/17/2002 6/17/2002

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.1 --- 0.1 ---

pH 7.54 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85

SC (μS/cm) 419 391 391 451 451

Temperature (°C) 2.5 6.4 6.4 18.8 18.8

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.400 0.310 0.310 --- ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 58.9 52.2 52.9 62.5 62.0

Mg 11.5 11.7 11.9 14.9 14.7

Na 7.20 5.30 5.34 7.88 7.79

K 1.25 8.52 8.45 1.35 1.39

SO4 --- 144 --- 187 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- 53.8 --- 41.3 ---

F --- 1.25 --- 1.15 ---

Cl --- 4.60 --- 4.46 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 16.4 10.1 11.2 10.3 11.9

Al 3.28 <0.08 1.93 0.193 2.15

Fe(T) 0.585 0.059 0.279 <0.001 0.294

Fe(II) --- 0.037 --- <0.001 ---

B 0.013 0.011 0.012 <0.01 <0.01

Li <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.007 0.007

Sr 0.356 0.281 0.282 0.364 0.357

Ba 0.038 0.031 0.034 0.035 0.036

Mn 0.753 0.395 0.392 0.402 0.395

Zn 0.257 0.081 0.116 0.084 0.157

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.034 0.020 0.019 0.024 0.026

Cu 0.037 <0.003 0.017 0.005 0.025

Cd 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Co 0.009 <0.002 <0.002 0.005 0.005

Be 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.0001 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- -97.21 --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- -13.45 --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 3.67 --- 4.15 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 3.71 --- 4.15 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- -0.9 --- -0.2 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

21
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Sample code number 02N075 02N075 02WA153 02WA153 02WA155

Collection Date 8/20/2002 8/20/2002 9/17/2002 9/17/2002 9/18/2002

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.45 --- 0.1 --- 0.1

pH 7.19 7.19 7.80 7.80 4.83

SC (μS/cm) 484 484 408 408 607

Temperature (°C) 17.5 17.5 12.8 12.8 8.8

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.425 0.425 --- --- ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 62.4 60.4 56.1 56.7 95.5

Mg 14.4 14.2 12.8 11.3 11.8

Na 8.95 8.25 6.12 6.16 5.04

K 1.60 1.59 1.29 1.28 2.47

SO4 193 --- 162 --- 314

Alkalinity as HCO3

- 29.9 --- 49.4 --- <1

F 0.994 --- 1.10 --- 0.371

Cl 5.48 --- 4.35 --- 4.55

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 11.5 13.1 11.0 12.7 10.5

Al 0.135 2.90 0.189 2.51 2.88

Fe(T) 0.006 1.30 0.011 0.813 0.596

Fe(II) 0.003 --- 0.004 --- 0.420

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.012

Sr 0.356 0.351 0.316 0.304 0.354

Ba 0.020 0.033 0.025 0.036 0.043

Mn 0.591 0.581 0.471 0.486 1.97

Zn 0.048 0.134 0.056 0.125 0.607

Pb <0.0003 0.009 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.017 0.023 0.015 0.018 0.072

Cu 0.006 0.044 0.006 0.026 0.037

Cd 0.0007 0.0010 <0.001 <0.001 0.003

Cr <0.0005 0.0014 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Co <0.0007 0.009 0.005 0.007 0.034

Be <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.0001 0.0004 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- -5.2 --- -4.8

δ

34S (‰) --- --- -2.5 --- -3.5

Sum cations (meq/L) 4.16 --- 3.72 --- 5.36

Sum anions (meq/L) 4.11 --- 3.90 --- 5.57

Charge imbalance (percent) 1.2 --- -4.9 --- -3.9

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

22
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Sample code number 02WA155 02WA157 02WA157 02N077 02N077

Collection Date 9/18/2002 9/19/2002 9/19/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.1 --- 0.45 ---

pH 4.83 7.21 7.21 7.12 7.12

SC (μS/cm) 607 375 375 440 440

Temperature (°C) 8.8 7.3 7.3 --- ---

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) --- --- --- --- ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 97.0 53.0 52.0 53.9 54.0

Mg 13.6 10.3 9.83 12.4 16.0

Na 5.08 5.40 5.40 6.20 7.10

K 4.30 2.47 2.01 1.18 1.20

SO4 --- 161 --- 160 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- 22.2 --- 53.2 ---

F --- 0.688 --- 0.864 ---

Cl --- 4.31 --- 1.78 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 29.4 26.2 13.5 11.4 14.0

Al 19.2 4.01 5.24 0.076 2.40

Fe(T) 61.6 3.65 8.77 0.008 0.720

Fe(II) --- 0.353 --- --- ---

B 0.014 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.020 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006

Sr 0.425 0.261 0.278 0.283 0.310

Ba 0.194 0.096 0.155 0.030 0.036

Mn 3.01 0.732 0.873 0.428 0.490

Zn 0.696 0.152 0.193 0.078 0.150

Pb 0.066 <0.008 0.014 <0.008 0.001

Ni 0.116 0.029 0.035 0.025 0.024

Cu 0.250 0.029 0.055 0.003 0.041

Cd 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.0006 0.0009

Cr 0.031 0.004 0.005 <0.0005 0.0005

Co 0.059 0.012 0.016 0.003 0.009

Be 0.004 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001

Mo 0.010 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V 0.034 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.0001 <0.0001

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- -5.4 --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- -3.0 --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 3.51 --- 3.66 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 3.45 --- 3.91 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- 1.6 --- -6.8 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

23
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage_R

Red River at

USGS Gage_R

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Sample code number 02N079 02N079 02N078 02N078 03WA102

Collection Date 10/15/2002 10/15/2002 12/14/2002 12/14/2002 2/3/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.45 --- 0.45 --- 0.1

pH 7.12 7.12 6.74 6.74 7.12

SC (μS/cm) 440 440 480 480 514

Temperature (°C) --- --- 0.0 0.0 2.4

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) --- --- --- --- 0.465

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 53.5 53.2 77.9 76.7 62.8

Mg 12.0 12.5 17.9 17.9 15.7

Na 5.95 6.26 8.35 8.21 8.25

K 1.15 1.26 1.34 1.30 1.57

SO4 200 --- 256 --- 198

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- 19.3 --- 33.4

F 0.808 --- 1.08 --- 1.13

Cl 3.91 --- 5.19 --- 5.10

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 10.9 12.0 12.4 13.8 11.5

Al 0.110 2.28 0.155 4.56 <0.08

Fe(T) 0.040 0.476 0.303 0.494 0.076

Fe(II) 0.012 --- 0.292 --- 0.072

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008

Sr 0.280 0.284 0.420 0.416 0.364

Ba 0.029 0.034 0.029 0.031 0.029

Mn 0.429 0.436 1.01 0.999 0.557

Zn 0.105 0.161 0.350 0.366 0.218

Pb 0.0003 0.001 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.023 0.020 0.042 0.043 0.036

Cu 0.005 0.041 0.010 0.044 <0.003

Cd 0.0007 0.0009 0.001 0.001 0.001

Cr <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0013 <0.002

Co 0.008 0.005 0.013 0.013 0.008

Be <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- 0.5 --- 0.9

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 3.53 --- 5.10 --- 4.34

Sum anions (meq/L) 3.87 --- 5.11 --- 4.35

Charge imbalance (percent) -9.1 --- -0.03 --- -0.2

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

24
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Sample code number 03WA102 03WA103 03WA103 03WA106 03WA106

Collection Date 2/3/2003 4/14/2003 4/14/2003 4/15/2003 4/15/2003

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.1 --- 0.1 ---

pH 7.12 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70

SC (μS/cm) 514 320 320 284 284

Temperature (°C) 2.4 10.2 10.2 9.6 9.6

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.465 0.294 0.294 0.275 0.275

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 60.8 42.6 43.3 38.6 39.1

Mg 16.9 9.47 9.54 8.68 8.90

Na 8.55 5.92 5.79 5.61 5.57

K 1.62 1.04 1.14 1.12 1.16

SO4 --- 97.1 --- 83.4 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- 47.3 --- 52.3 ---

F --- 0.821 --- 0.740 ---

Cl --- 4.70 --- 4.20 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 14.8 11.8 14.0 10.6 13.2

Al 2.99 0.207 2.05 0.127 2.06

Fe(T) 0.399 0.001 1.20 0.005 1.26

Fe(II) --- <0.001 --- <0.001 ---

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

Sr 0.391 0.252 0.262 0.230 0.228

Ba 0.031 0.028 0.049 0.026 0.050

Mn 0.549 0.226 0.317 0.203 0.283

Zn 0.257 0.044 0.140 0.048 0.117

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.036 0.014 0.019 0.013 0.016

Cu 0.026 0.005 0.027 0.005 0.026

Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Co 0.010 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.005

Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- 2.1 --- 3.5 ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- -100.68 --- -99.68 ---

δ

18O (‰) --- -13.83 --- -13.78 ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 2.97 --- 2.73 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 2.73 --- 2.56 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- 8.2 --- 6.7 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

25
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Sample code number 03WA108 03WA108 03WA114 03WA114 03N074

Collection Date 4/16/2003 4/16/2003 5/11/2003 5/11/2003 6/5/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 --- 0.1 --- 0.45

pH 7.43 7.43 7.75 7.75 8.07

SC (μS/cm) 328 328 281 281 195

Temperature (°C) 4.4 4.4 13.5 13.5 ---

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- 7.35

Eh (v) 0.292 0.292 0.366 0.366 ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 41.2 44.6 39.1 39.4 29.2

Mg 10.5 10.9 8.92 9.14 4.02

Na 6.24 6.16 6.01 6.06 2.46

K 1.07 1.11 1.07 1.46 0.68

SO4 101 --- 81.9 --- 44.8

Alkalinity as HCO3

- 50.6 --- 56.6 --- 57.9

F 0.824 --- 0.725 --- 0.591

Cl 4.60 --- 3.22 --- 1.98

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 11.5 13.5 13.0 17.5 8.61

Al 0.180 1.62 0.346 2.17 0.134

Fe(T) 0.004 0.661 0.006 2.37 0.008

Fe(II) 0.002 --- 0.002 --- 0.006

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.005 <0.001

Sr 0.266 0.273 0.227 0.233 0.156

Ba 0.030 0.042 0.033 0.091 0.028

Mn 0.249 0.300 0.185 0.240 0.096

Zn 0.087 0.138 0.060 0.118 0.013

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.0003

Ni 0.016 0.025 0.014 0.018 0.009

Cu 0.004 0.032 0.006 0.019 0.003

Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0003

Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.0005

Co 0.004 0.004 <0.002 0.003 0.001

Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.0001

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC 1.9 --- 2.1 --- 1.7

δ

2

H (‰) -100.58 --- -99.18 --- -98.93

δ

18O (‰) -13.77 --- -14.04 --- -13.89

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- -5.5

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- -1.9

Sum cations (meq/L) 3.01 --- 2.78 --- 1.85

Sum anions (meq/L) 2.87 --- 2.56 --- 1.88

Charge imbalance (percent) 4.7 --- 8.5 --- -1.7

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

26
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage_R

Red River at

USGS Gage_R

Sample code number 03N074 03N102 03N102 03N113 03N113

Collection Date 6/5/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.45 --- 0.45 ---

pH 8.07 6.41 6.41 6.41 6.41

SC (μS/cm) 195 357 357 357 357

Temperature (°C) --- 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5

D.O., mg/L 7.35 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14

Eh (v) --- 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 29.2 48.6 49.1 43.9 44.4

Mg 3.84 10.3 10.4 9.44 9.78

Na 2.46 6.80 6.66 6.03 5.93

K 0.740 1.17 1.18 1.10 1.27

SO4 --- 116 --- 116 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- 62.7 --- 63.1 ---

F --- 0.797 --- 0.876 ---

Cl --- 3.24 --- 3.28 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 9.70 11.2 12.5 10.5 11.7

Al 0.751 <0.08 1.11 <0.08 1.42

Fe(T) 0.769 0.006 0.381 0.004 0.416

Fe(II) --- <0.001 --- <0.001 ---

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li <0.001 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.006

Sr 0.158 0.289 0.292 0.257 0.258

Ba 0.055 0.029 0.037 0.032 0.038

Mn 0.143 0.134 0.174 0.139 0.246

Zn 0.052 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.094

Pb 0.0074 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0011

Ni 0.017 0.023 0.025 0.025 0.027

Cu 0.011 0.005 0.015 0.005 0.015

Cd <0.0001 0.0006 0.0007 0.0003 0.0007

Cr 0.004 <0.0005 0.0011 <0.0005 0.0012

Co 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002

Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.0001 <0.05 <0.0001 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- 1.4 --- 1.3 ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- -93.31 --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- -13.38 --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 3.30 --- 2.98 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 3.26 --- 3.30 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- 1.0 --- -10.1 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

27
Sample Location

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River

 below Mill

Sample code number 03WA163 03WA163 03WA166 03WA166 03WA104

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 4/14/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 --- 0.1 --- 0.1

pH 7.92 7.92 7.82 7.82 8.09

SC (μS/cm) 370 370 373 373 256

Temperature (°C) 9.0 9.0 8.6 8.6 9.1

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.444 0.444 0.459 0.459 0.328

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 46.6 52.0 51.2 49.9 34.9

Mg 13.5 13.3 12.1 12.4 7.60

Na 6.04 6.13 6.52 6.20 5.44

K 1.23 1.27 1.48 1.31 1.00

SO4 115 --- 130 --- 58.8

Alkalinity as HCO3

- 58.7 --- 60.8 --- 64.2

F 1.01 --- 0.523 --- 0.46

Cl 3.83 --- 3.44 --- 4.90

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 14.5 16.3 13.4 16.2 12.7

Al 0.221 1.77 0.241 1.55 0.129

Fe(T) 0.011 0.326 0.014 0.277 0.003

Fe(II) 0.007 --- 0.009 --- <0.001

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.004

Sr 0.346 0.355 0.347 0.357 0.217

Ba 0.038 0.041 0.045 0.040 0.028

Mn 0.316 0.342 0.389 0.302 0.105

Zn 0.134 0.173 0.115 0.142 0.011

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.022 0.024 0.020 0.023 0.004

Cu 0.005 0.021 0.008 0.022 0.004

Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cr 0.003 0.004 0.004 <0.002 <0.002

Co 0.003 0.006 0.006 0.004 <0.002

Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC 1.2 --- 0.8 --- 2.9

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 3.45 --- 3.55 --- 2.50

Sum anions (meq/L) 3.21 --- 3.48 --- 2.30

Charge imbalance (percent) 7.2 --- 2.1 --- 8.3

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

28
Sample Location

Red River

 below Mill

Red River

 below Mill

Red River

 below Mill

Red River above 

Mill

Red River above 

Mill

Sample code number 03WA104 03WA107 03WA107 03WA164 03WA164

Collection Date 4/14/2003 4/15/2003 4/15/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.1 --- 0.1 ---

pH 8.09 7.72 7.72 8.12 8.12

SC (μS/cm) 256 242 242 290 290

Temperature (°C) 9.1 6.8 6.8 8.9 8.9

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.328 0.251 0.251 0.442 0.442

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 34.7 32.1 31.6 37.2 41.6

Mg 7.65 7.11 7.08 10.3 10.4

Na 5.48 5.66 5.60 4.46 4.71

K 1.12 1.00 1.05 1.14 1.19

SO4 --- 55.0 --- 75.8 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- 58.3 --- 75.2 ---

F --- 0.464 --- 0.561 ---

Cl --- 4.70 --- 2.73 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 15.1 12.0 13.5 15.6 16.6

Al 1.64 0.275 1.35 0.203 0.727

Fe(T) 3.01 0.048 1.73 0.004 0.216

Fe(II) --- 0.003 --- 0.003 ---

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.005

Sr 0.227 0.204 0.194 0.278 0.279

Ba 0.127 0.027 0.062 0.038 0.036

Mn 0.275 0.100 0.200 0.158 0.193

Zn 0.082 0.010 0.058 0.017 0.049

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.013 0.004 0.009 0.008 0.010

Cu 0.027 0.004 0.025 0.004 0.010

Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cr 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 0.005

Co 0.004 <0.002 0.004 0.004 0.004

Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- 2.3 --- 1.2 ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- -101.46 --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- -13.92 --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 2.35 --- 2.75 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 2.14 --- 2.73 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- 9.4 --- 0.9 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

29
Sample Location

Red River above 

Mill

Red River above 

Mill Red River 5847 Red River 5847 Capulin Scar

Sample code number 03WA167 03WA167 03WA105 03WA105 04WA102

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 4/15/2003 4/15/2003 5/6/2004

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 --- 0.1 --- 0.22

pH 8.00 8.00 8.14 8.14 3.24

SC (μS/cm) 292 292 223 223 ---

Temperature (°C) 9.6 9.6 7.1 7.1 10.0

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.492 0.492 0.310 0.310 ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 43.2 45.0 31.4 29.6 46.2

Mg 9.22 10.8 7.16 6.78 36.2

Na 5.64 5.48 5.17 5.29 5.66

K 1.27 1.17 1.02 1.01 2.13

SO4 80.4 --- 41.6 --- 668

Alkalinity as HCO3

- 75.2 --- 66.3 --- ---

F 0.973 --- 0.410 --- 5.84

Cl 3.03 --- 4.40 --- 1.68

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 14.6 16.7 12.9 12.9 55.7

Al 0.198 0.717 0.385 0.537 56.6

Fe(T) 0.001 0.190 0.017 0.617 1.75

Fe(II) 0.001 --- <0.001 --- ---

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.006 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.087

Sr 0.272 0.282 0.200 0.193 0.045

Ba 0.044 0.042 0.040 0.043 <0.0008

Mn 0.184 0.180 0.091 0.100 6.04

Zn 0.027 0.052 0.033 0.037 1.50

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.008 0.009 0.005 0.006 0.234

Cu 0.005 0.012 0.021 0.032 1.79

Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.003

Cr 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.005

Co <0.002 0.004 <0.002 <0.002 0.138

Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.010

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC 1.0 --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- -103.88 --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- -14.22 --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 3.00 --- 2.32 --- 8.59

Sum anions (meq/L) 2.83 --- 2.00 --- 9.78

Charge imbalance (percent) 5.7 --- 14.7 --- -12.9

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

30
Sample Location Capulin Scar Goat Hill Goat Hill Waldo Spring Waldo Spring

Sample code number 04WA103 01WA159 01WA159 01WA163 01WA163

Collection Date 5/6/2004 9/14/2001 9/14/2001 9/15/2001 9/15/2001

Treatment FA/FU FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm 0.22 0.1 --- 0.1 ---

pH 2.98 2.77 2.77 5.61 5.61

SC (μS/cm) 1,409 10,480 10,480 908 908

Temperature (°C) 10.7 10.5 10.5 9.6 9.6

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) --- 0.716 0.716 --- ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 19.8 410 410 130 130

Mg 27.3 900 920 36.0 36.0

Na 2.68 20.0 20.0 15.5 15.0

K 1.03 0.92 1.00 1.70 1.70

SO4 746 13,500 --- 480 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- 7.50 ---

F 4.95 28 --- 1.0 ---

Cl 5.81 3.0 --- 8.0 ---

Br <0.1 <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 50.1 100 99.0 23.0 22.0

Al 69.1 1,300 1,300 2.90 3.60

Fe(T) 21.4 541 540 0.103 0.100

Fe(II) --- 19.0 --- 0.084 ---

B <0.01 0.016 0.017 0.005 0.006

Li 0.073 1.20 1.20 0.010 0.010

Sr 0.013 1.20 1.10 1.20 1.20

Ba <0.0008 <0.0008 0.002 0.011 0.011

Mn 3.15 503 530 0.990 0.890

Zn 0.865 110 120 0.330 0.290

Pb <0.008 0.063 0.058 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.263 8.60 8.40 0.063 0.057

Cu 2.34 10.0 9.80 0.007 0.019

Cd 0.003 0.500 0.520 0.001 0.002

Cr 0.034 0.480 0.490 <0.002 <0.002

Co 0.145 3.50 4.20 0.018 0.015

Be 0.003 0.350 0.350 0.001 0.001

Mo <0.007 0.210 0.210 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 0.010 0.010 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 0.035 0.340 <0.0001 <0.05

As(III) --- <0.001 --- <0.001 ---

Se <0.05 0.14 0.16 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- -85.98 --- -96.80 ---

δ

18O (‰) --- -11.83 --- -13.44 ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- -8.8 --- -5.8 ---

δ

34S (‰) --- -8.7 --- -4.0 ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 8.49 136 --- 8.50 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) 8.95 122 --- 8.35 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) -5.2 10.2 --- 1.9 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

31
Sample Location

Unnamed 

drainage

Unnamed 

drainage Little Hansen Little Hansen Hansen (high)

Sample code number 01WA162 01WA162 01WA153 01WA153 01WA152

Collection Date 9/15/2001 9/15/2001 9/11/2001 9/11/2001 9/11/2001

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 --- 0.1 --- 0.1

pH 7.71 7.71 2.66 2.66 3.38

SC (μS/cm) 1,080 1,080 4,630 4,630 2,140

Temperature (°C) 9.5 9.5 16.7 16.7 12.1

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) --- --- 0.766 0.766 0.705

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 176 180 470 490 290

Mg 39.1 40.0 270 290 50.0

Na 22.6 22.2 23.5 24.0 11.0

K 2.38 2.35 0.190 0.290 6.70

SO4 412 --- 3,700 --- 1,600

Alkalinity as HCO3

- 213 --- --- --- ---

F 2.0 --- 8.0 --- 2.0

Cl 4.0 --- 6.0 --- 2.0

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 19.1 18.4 81.0 79.0 49.0

Al <0.08 <0.08 170 180 100

Fe(T) 0.010 0.055 126 140 24.3

Fe(II) 0.010 --- 0.381 --- 5.98

B 0.007 0.007 0.010 0.010 0.007

Li 0.024 0.024 0.320 0.320 0.075

Sr 2.03 1.99 3.10 3.50 1.30

Ba 0.019 0.021 0.002 0.003 0.005

Mn <0.001 0.018 25.4 26.3 7.70

Zn <0.005 <0.005 4.16 4.32 2.90

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni <0.002 <0.002 1.50 1.50 0.370

Cu <0.003 <0.003 0.550 0.560 0.087

Cd <0.001 <0.001 0.021 0.022 0.006

Cr <0.002 <0.002 0.047 0.046 0.004

Co <0.002 <0.002 0.520 0.830 0.150

Be <0.001 <0.001 0.033 0.033 0.015

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) 0.0002 <0.05 0.0020 <0.05 <0.0001

As(III) --- --- <0.001 --- <0.001

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) -100.69 --- -81.32 --- -93.97

δ

18O (‰) -13.70 --- -10.69 --- -12.70

δ

18OSulfate (‰) -5.8 --- -7.4 --- -6.5

δ

34S (‰) -3.8 --- -5.1 --- -8.6

Sum cations (meq/L) 11.0 --- 43.1 --- 19.9

Sum anions (meq/L) 10.2 --- 42.7 --- 20.8

Charge imbalance (percent) 7.6 --- 0.8 --- -4.5

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

32
Sample Location Hansen (high) Hansen (low) Hansen (low) Straight Creek Straight Creek

Sample code number 01WA152 01WA151 01WA151 00WA197 00WA197

Collection Date 9/11/2001 9/11/2001 9/11/2001 10/29/2000 10/29/2000

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.1 --- 0.1 ---

pH 3.38 4.04 4.04 2.73 2.73

SC (μS/cm) 2,140 2,710 2,710 2,970 2,970

Temperature (°C) 12.1 6.5 6.5 2.6 2.6

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.705 0.527 0.527 --- ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 290 530 530 237 234

Mg 50.0 72.0 72.0 77.5 79.5

Na 11.0 13.0 13.0 1.93 2.30

K 6.70 6.80 7.00 0.655 1.05

SO4 --- 2,100 --- 2,030 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F --- 3.0 --- 8.88 ---

Cl --- 2.0 --- 4.80 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 48.0 48.0 46.0 34.0 37.0

Al 110 76.0 81.0 101 104

Fe(T) 25.0 0.279 0.280 219 220

Fe(II) --- 0.038 --- 5.92 ---

B 0.007 0.007 0.007 <0.01 0.005

Li 0.073 0.077 0.073 0.161 0.165

Sr 1.40 2.60 2.50 0.203 0.207

Ba 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.002 0.010

Mn 7.70 14.2 14.4 19.8 21.1

Zn 2.90 2.86 2.92 8.02 8.39

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 0.017 0.023

Ni 0.380 0.550 0.550 0.732 0.756

Cu 0.087 0.190 0.190 2.59 2.59

Cd 0.006 0.008 0.009 0.042 0.041

Cr 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.071 0.071

Co 0.200 0.210 0.330 0.328 0.349

Be 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.027 0.027

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 --- ---

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.009

As(T) <0.05 <0.0001 <0.05 0.016 <0.05

As(III) --- <0.001 --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- -88.74 --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- -11.87 --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- -8.0 --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- -6.9 --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 26.9 --- 26.3 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 28.5 --- 24.0 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- -5.5 --- 8.8 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

33
Sample Location

Straight Creek 

(high)

Straight Creek 

(high)

Straight Creek 

(low)

Straight Creek 

(low) Straight Creek

Sample code number 01WA155 01WA155 01WA154 01WA154 02WA102

Collection Date 9/12/2001 9/12/2001 9/12/2001 9/12/2001 2/24/2002

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 --- 0.1 --- 0.1

pH 2.66 2.66 2.82 2.82 3.17

SC (μS/cm) 3,290 3,290 3,440 3,440 1,600

Temperature (°C) 14.4 14.4 7.8 7.8 0.6

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.753 0.753 0.745 0.745 0.711

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 262 264 478 481 212

Mg 91.8 90.7 109 118 29.6

Na 4.32 4.23 9.68 9.77 2.07

K 0.572 0.632 0.449 0.457 0.715

SO4 2,630 --- 2,530 --- 825

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F 4.0 --- 8.0 --- 3.97

Cl 3.0 --- 4.0 --- <0.2

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 109 103 89.3 90.2 12.7

Al 139 145 107 110 27.7

Fe(T) 246 256 53.4 53.7 8.97

Fe(II) 8.17 --- 0.244 --- 3.53

B 0.008 0.008 0.006 0.006 <0.01

Li 0.206 0.214 0.194 0.196 0.051

Sr 0.340 0.318 0.454 0.504 0.158

Ba 0.0006 0.0009 0.002 0.002 0.0008

Mn 31.9 31.8 23.6 24.1 6.56

Zn 12.8 12.9 7.82 7.95 2.27

Pb 0.037 0.035 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.784 0.764 0.753 0.778 0.209

Cu 1.72 1.68 1.75 1.81 0.597

Cd 0.041 0.042 0.037 0.038 0.011

Cr 0.045 0.043 0.041 0.042 0.012

Co 0.329 0.435 0.283 0.450 0.100

Be 0.044 0.043 0.027 0.027 0.008

Mo 0.020 0.017 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) 0.0050 <0.05 0.0004 <0.05 <0.0001

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) -81.47 --- -86.56 --- -133.9

δ

18O (‰) -10.92 --- -11.90 --- -17.0

δ

18OSulfate (‰) -8.7 --- -7.1 --- ---

δ

34S (‰) -6.8 --- -4.2 --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 29.2 --- 31.3 --- 13.1

Sum anions (meq/L) 29.5 --- 32.6 --- 12.6

Charge imbalance (percent) -1.1 --- -4.1 --- 3.9

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

34
Sample Location Straight Creek Straight Creek Straight Creek Straight Creek Straight Creek

Sample code number 02WA102 02WA112 02WA112 02WA121 02WA121

Collection Date 2/24/2002 3/20/2002 3/20/2002 4/24/2002 4/24/2002

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.1 --- 0.1 ---

pH 3.17 3.25 3.25 2.98 2.98

SC (μS/cm) 1,600 1,200 1,200 2,920 2,920

Temperature (°C) 0.6 3.0 3.0 10.9 10.9

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.711 0.674 0.674 0.782 0.782

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 210 131 142 337 337

Mg 27.8 17.9 19.8 106 103

Na 2.22 1.25 1.44 7.93 8.25

K 0.812 0.402 0.406 2.50 2.84

SO4 --- 525 --- 1,950 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F --- 0.664 --- 1.06 ---

Cl --- 2.22 --- 7.49 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 14.3 7.92 8.98 76.2 75.5

Al 27.6 14.9 15.5 83.1 83.9

Fe(T) 9.37 6.01 9.00 44.7 42.1

Fe(II) --- 1.65 --- 0.256 ---

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.011 0.013

Li 0.055 0.028 0.032 0.145 0.157

Sr 0.170 0.107 0.134 0.612 0.611

Ba 0.003 0.003 0.0008 <0.0008 0.002

Mn 6.34 4.17 4.49 20.0 19.0

Zn 2.21 1.49 1.64 7.30 6.99

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.235 0.213 0.258 0.706 0.690

Cu 0.598 0.386 0.391 1.55 1.54

Cd 0.012 0.013 0.016 0.038 0.038

Cr 0.015 0.014 0.017 0.038 0.035

Co 0.117 0.098 0.117 0.301 0.294

Be 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.024 0.025

Mo <0.007 <0.007 0.019 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.0001 <0.05 0.0002 <0.0001

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- -97.3 ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- -13.1 ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- -6.3 --- -6.7 ---

δ

34S (‰) --- -3.3 --- -4.5 ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 8.33 --- 24.8 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 8.43 --- 25.3 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- -1.1 --- -2.1 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

35
Sample Location Straight Creek Straight Creek Straight Creek Straight Creek Straight Creek

Sample code number 02WA124 02WA124 02WA154 02WA154 02WA158

Collection Date 6/19/2002 6/19/2002 9/18/2002 9/18/2002 9/20/2002

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 --- 0.1 --- 0.1

pH 2.97 2.97 3.01 3.01 2.79

SC (μS/cm) 2,910 2,910 2,240 2,240 3,280

Temperature (°C) 11.6 11.6 6.0 6.0 10.7

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) --- --- --- --- ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 350 358 325 306 423

Mg 117 119 39.7 39.4 81.4

Na 8.99 10.0 1.62 1.90 3.74

K 0.381 0.423 1.83 3.50 1.09

SO4 2,050 --- 1,530 --- 2,480

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F 7.86 --- 0.945 --- 1.25

Cl 5.44 --- 2.06 --- 2.60

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 83.6 80.0 21.1 33.0 71.3

Al 96.0 91.8 54.4 60.9 104

Fe(T) 30.7 32.2 48.8 117 135

Fe(II) 0.487 --- 1.24 --- 0.535

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.012 0.014

Li 0.193 0.206 0.080 0.094 0.169

Sr 0.657 0.643 0.194 0.227 0.363

Ba <0.0008 0.0006 0.013 0.046 0.003

Mn 21.5 20.7 9.64 9.51 20.8

Zn 7.42 7.46 3.76 3.63 8.15

Pb <0.008 <0.008 0.010 0.051 0.012

Ni 0.798 0.796 0.396 0.398 0.771

Cu 1.67 1.66 1.44 1.42 2.72

Cd 0.039 0.037 0.020 0.021 0.038

Cr 0.041 0.039 0.039 0.070 0.064

Co 0.341 0.349 0.158 0.165 0.356

Be 0.024 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.027

Mo 0.012 <0.007 <0.007 0.019 0.026

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.035 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- -6.2 --- -7.1

δ

34S (‰) --- --- -3.2 --- -3.7

Sum cations (meq/L) 26.2 --- 19.2 --- 29.1

Sum anions (meq/L) 26.8 --- 20.9 --- 30.1

Charge imbalance (percent) -2.0 --- -8.5 --- -3.6

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

36
Sample Location Straight Creek

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Sample code number 02WA158 02N287 02N287 02N288 02N288

Collection Date 9/20/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002 12/11/2002 12/11/2002

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.45 --- 0.45 ---

pH 2.79 3.00 3.00 3.07 3.07

SC (μS/cm) 3,280 3,150 3,150 3,380 3,380

Temperature (°C) 10.7 7.5 7.5 1.0 1.0

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) --- --- --- --- ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 422 399 443 384 377

Mg 78.1 118 133 127 127

Na 4.55 9.20 9.90 9.78 9.06

K 1.50 1.19 1.14 0.661 0.685

SO4 --- 2,440 --- 2,230 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F --- 10.7 --- 9.50 ---

Cl --- 3.10 --- 2.98 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 75.6 86.0 91.6 75.7 75.7

Al 119 103 105 105 104

Fe(T) 144 64.3 73.4 65.8 76.8

Fe(II) --- 0.217 --- <0.001 ---

B 0.013 0.012 <0.01 0.012 0.012

Li 0.192 0.217 0.208 0.222 0.206

Sr 0.344 0.685 0.762 0.706 0.700

Ba 0.015 0.002 0.002 <0.0008 0.004

Mn 21.5 23.5 26.2 24.0 24.2

Zn 7.73 8.50 9.62 9.39 9.34

Pb 0.015 0.022 0.038 <0.008 0.130

Ni 0.731 0.787 0.912 0.844 0.830

Cu 2.50 1.92 1.92 1.96 1.93

Cd 0.040 0.043 0.044 0.044 0.049

Cr 0.068 0.043 0.044 0.041 0.051

Co 0.325 0.355 0.324 0.378 0.368

Be 0.029 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.030

Mo 0.027 0.020 <0.007 0.016 0.020

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 0.0015 0.0029 0.0010 0.0035

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.002 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- 1.2 ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- -95.2 ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- -13.1 ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 28.6 --- 30.1 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 32.2 --- 29.2 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- -11.7 --- 2.9 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

37
Sample Location

Straight Creek

_R "at pipe"

Straight Creek

_R "at pipe" Straight Creek Straight Creek

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Sample code number 02N289 02N289 03WA101 03WA101 03WA110

Collection Date 12/11/2002 12/11/2002 2/3/2003 2/3/2003 4/16/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.45 --- 0.1 --- 0.1

pH 3.07 3.07 3.00 3.00 2.89

SC (μS/cm) 3,170 3,170 3,090 3,090 2,220

Temperature (°C) 13.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 7.9

D.O., mg/L 4.83 4.83 --- --- ---

Eh (v) --- --- 0.780 0.780 0.771

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 376 381 372 373 244

Mg 123 127 113 106 74.5

Na 10.3 10.3 8.31 8.20 3.57

K 0.693 0.732 0.474 0.791 0.788

SO4 2,210 --- 2,020 --- 1,580

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F 9.90 --- 11.3 --- 2.60

Cl 3.05 --- 3.00 --- 1.80

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 75.5 74.7 66.1 69.1 51.6

Al 98.8 104 92.2 84.3 89.9

Fe(T) 65.5 72.0 50.0 53.1 96.2

Fe(II) <0.001 --- 0.029 --- 0.504

B 0.012 0.011 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Li 0.228 0.236 0.162 0.174 0.136

Sr 0.703 0.696 0.693 0.685 0.372

Ba <0.0008 0.002 <0.0008 0.012 0.002

Mn 23.7 24.5 22.3 23.4 17.8

Zn 9.21 9.19 8.09 8.57 6.81

Pb 0.005 0.023 <0.008 0.024 0.018

Ni 0.829 0.820 0.736 0.810 0.625

Cu 1.94 1.92 2.01 1.92 1.98

Cd 0.047 0.046 0.040 0.049 0.032

Cr 0.046 0.045 0.037 0.039 0.039

Co 0.374 0.361 0.338 0.358 0.244

Be 0.031 0.030 0.025 0.026 0.024

Mo 0.023 0.017 0.017 0.012 0.020

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) 0.0007 0.0010 0.0003 <0.05 0.0010

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC 1.4 --- 1.4 --- 1.7

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- --- -99.40

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- --- -13.59

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 28.0 --- 28.3 --- 22.6

Sum anions (meq/L) 28.1 --- 27.1 --- 19.2

Charge imbalance (percent) -0.5 --- 4.2 --- 16

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

38
Sample Location

Straight Creek

"at pipe" Straight Creek Straight Creek

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Sample code number 03WA110 03WA111 03WA111 03WA115 03WA115

Collection Date 4/16/2003 4/16/2003 4/16/2003 5/11/2003 5/11/2003

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.22 --- 0.1 ---

pH 2.89 2.88 2.88 2.86 2.86

SC (μS/cm) 2,220 2,410 2,410 3,080 3,080

Temperature (°C) 7.9 9.8 9.8 6.3 6.3

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.771 0.780 0.780 0.791 0.791

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 246 227 233 347 341

Mg 74.5 63.7 64.6 115 117

Na 3.27 4.57 4.06 8.03 9.25

K 0.970 0.318 0.315 1.05 1.09

SO4 --- 1,510 --- 1,940 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F --- 2.50 --- 10.8 ---

Cl --- 2.10 --- 11.5 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 53.8 53.0 55.2 72.6 70.3

Al 87.3 70.1 68.2 90.7 91.4

Fe(T) 112 67.9 68.2 81.1 82.1

Fe(II) --- 0.855 --- 0.204 ---

B <0.01 0.011 <0.01 0.010 0.015

Li 0.136 0.133 0.113 0.201 0.220

Sr 0.367 0.344 0.367 0.548 0.557

Ba 0.010 0.0009 0.002 0.003 0.002

Mn 18.2 15.1 15.0 18.9 19.2

Zn 6.61 5.50 5.36 7.98 8.21

Pb 0.024 <0.008 <0.008 0.017 0.011

Ni 0.611 0.529 0.551 0.718 0.711

Cu 1.84 1.40 1.60 1.69 1.69

Cd 0.032 0.027 0.027 0.039 0.042

Cr 0.040 0.032 0.030 0.036 0.043

Co 0.253 0.213 0.209 0.303 0.327

Be 0.024 0.021 0.020 0.026 0.028

Mo 0.020 0.009 0.008 0.012 0.017

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 0.0004 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- 1.4 ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 19.1 --- 28.4 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 19.7 --- 24.8 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- -3.5 --- 13.3 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

39
Sample Location

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Straight Creek

"at pipe"

Straight Creek

"at pipe" Straight Creek

Sample code number 03N072 03N072 03N122 03N122 03WA165

Collection Date 6/4/2003 6/4/2003 8/22/2003 8/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.45 --- 0.45 --- 0.1

pH 2.85 2.85 2.93 2.93 2.85

SC (μS/cm) 3,170 3,170 3,640 3,640 3,230

Temperature (°C) 13.0 13.0 11.5 11.5 10.8

D.O., mg/L 4.83 4.83 6.34 6.34 ---

Eh (v) --- --- 0.824 0.824 0.819

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 361 359 401 415 310

Mg 120 120 130 139 112

Na 8.12 8.10 8.30 8.40 8.92

K 0.961 1.04 0.718 0.819 0.587

SO4 2,040 --- 2,660 --- 2,240

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F 11.9 --- 14.0 --- 7.56

Cl 5.10 --- 1.87 --- 1.60

Br 0.13 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 83.3 80.8 88.0 90.7 91.7

Al 90.6 90.8 119 118 101

Fe(T) 69.0 68.2 88.1 89.7 77.9

Fe(II) 0.470 --- 0.480 --- 0.279

B 0.012 0.013 <0.01 <0.01 0.017

Li 0.205 0.199 0.270 0.270 0.227

Sr 0.612 0.622 0.611 0.608 0.613

Ba 0.002 0.002 <0.0008 0.003 0.002

Mn 20.7 20.9 26.3 28.1 20.9

Zn 7.84 7.75 10.5 10.4 7.04

Pb 0.0074 0.0083 0.009 0.015 <0.008

Ni 0.800 0.805 1.05 1.04 0.668

Cu 1.82 1.84 2.63 2.60 1.99

Cd 0.048 0.046 0.061 0.055 0.042

Cr 0.046 0.039 0.065 0.065 0.044

Co 0.354 0.362 0.419 0.436 0.311

Be 0.029 0.028 0.032 0.034 0.028

Mo 0.017 0.014 <0.007 <0.007 0.012

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) 0.0005 <0.05 0.0008 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC 1.8 --- 2.1 --- 1.4

δ

2

H (‰) --- --- --- --- -91.78

δ

18O (‰) --- --- --- --- -12.26

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 28.0 --- 30.3 --- 25.8

Sum anions (meq/L) 25.8 --- 33.9 --- 28.9

Charge imbalance (percent) 8.3 --- -11.3 --- -11.3

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

40
Sample Location Straight Creek

Straight Creek

Transect

Straight Creek

Transect

Straight Creek

Transect

Straight Creek

Transect

Sample code number 03WA165 03WA168 03WA168 03WA169 03WA169

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.22 --- 0.22 ---

pH 2.85 2.44 2.44 2.63 2.63

SC (μS/cm) 3,230 3,620 3,620 3,880 3,880

Temperature (°C) 10.8 13.7 13.7 10.3 10.3

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.819 0.741 0.741 0.781 0.781

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 340 306 303 343 370

Mg 126 105 116 110 122

Na 8.01 3.12 3.17 2.94 2.20

K 0.526 0.126 0.129 0.075 0.089

SO4 --- 2,860 --- 2,980 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F --- 9.61 --- 10.7 ---

Cl --- 0.759 --- 0.688 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 93.4 110 107 110 112

Al 104 96.5 179 93.7 171

Fe(T) 86.1 298 389 269 278

Fe(II) --- 6.87 --- 1.98 ---

B 0.011 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.030

Li 0.205 0.246 0.253 0.246 0.190

Sr 0.613 0.331 0.343 0.266 0.390

Ba 0.002 0.0009 0.004 0.0010 0.005

Mn 20.8 36.9 39.9 38.1 41.5

Zn 6.81 14.7 14.4 14.6 14.3

Pb 0.014 0.057 0.056 0.023 0.024

Ni 0.716 0.908 0.920 0.947 0.967

Cu 1.89 2.42 2.39 2.64 2.92

Cd 0.044 0.047 0.049 0.044 0.036

Cr 0.046 0.069 0.066 0.068 0.050

Co 0.362 0.400 0.366 0.388 0.382

Be 0.033 0.054 0.057 0.050 0.037

Mo 0.019 0.045 0.042 0.045 0.047

V <0.005 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- -83.50 --- -80.47 ---

δ

18O (‰) --- -10.94 --- -10.73 ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- -7.3 --- -7.2 ---

δ

34S (‰) --- -6.6 --- -5.8 ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 32.0 --- 30.9 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 33.0 --- 36.2 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- -2.9 --- -15.8 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

41
Sample Location

Straight Creek

Transect

Straight Creek

Transect

Straight Creek

Transect

Straight Creek

Transect

Straight Creek

Transect

Sample code number 03WA170 03WA170 03WA171 03WA171 03WA172

Collection Date 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU

Filtration pore size, μm 0.22 --- 0.22 --- 0.22

pH 2.66 2.66 3.05 3.05 2.90

SC (μS/cm) 3,860 3,860 3,810 3,810 3,220

Temperature (°C) 7.4 7.4 13.3 13.3 10.9

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.747 0.747 0.790 0.790 0.831

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 425 438 434 466 374

Mg 131 140 160 176 125

Na 4.13 4.54 7.94 6.98 8.45

K 0.076 0.096 0.037 0.041 0.027

SO4 2,950 --- 2,990 --- 2,310

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F 12.0 --- 12.8 --- 11.7

Cl 0.905 --- 1.65 --- 1.69

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

SiO2 93.4 102 82.6 98.0 78.8

Al 131 138 125 129 110

Fe(T) 192 240 130 149 76.7

Fe(II) 6.27 --- 1.13 --- 0.026

B 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.030 0.020

Li 0.229 0.254 0.269 0.242 0.209

Sr 0.569 0.590 0.684 0.729 0.580

Ba 0.0010 0.015 0.002 0.014 0.002

Mn 34.9 36.9 30.9 32.9 23.9

Zn 12.7 12.3 10.4 10.8 7.54

Pb 0.021 0.030 0.033 0.046 0.011

Ni 1.02 0.917 0.965 0.917 0.708

Cu 2.68 2.53 2.65 2.53 1.65

Cd 0.048 0.046 0.053 0.055 0.038

Cr 0.060 0.058 0.055 0.056 0.047

Co 0.419 0.437 0.420 0.419 0.322

Be 0.037 0.041 0.036 0.032 0.027

Mo 0.029 0.038 0.023 0.022 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- --- --- --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) -82.75 --- -85.84 --- -91.6

δ

18O (‰) -10.96 --- -11.61 --- -12.32

δ

18OSulfate (‰) -7.1 --- -7.2 --- -7.4

δ

34S (‰) -4.7 --- -3.9 --- -4.2

Sum cations (meq/L) 35.8 --- 33.2 --- 29.3

Sum anions (meq/L) 35.3 --- 37.0 --- 29.1

Charge imbalance (percent) 1.6 --- -11.0 --- 0.8

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

42
Sample Location

Straight Creek

Transect Junebug (east) Junebug (east) Junebug (west) Junebug (west)

Sample code number 03WA172 01WA161 01WA161 01WA160 01WA160

Collection Date 10/23/2003 9/14/2001 9/14/2001 9/14/2001 9/14/2001

Treatment RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm --- 0.1 --- 0.1 ---

pH 2.90 3.07 3.07 4.40 4.40

SC (μS/cm) 3,220 3,660 3,660 3,020 3,020

Temperature (°C) 10.9 15.2 15.2 15.6 15.6

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.831 0.743 0.743 0.647 0.647

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 416 510 520 530 540

Mg 138 210 220 200 210

Na 7.99 12.0 12.0 14.0 14.0

K 0.037 1.30 1.30 3.40 3.80

SO4 --- 2,900 --- 2,200 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- --- ---

F --- 7.0 --- 4.0 ---

Cl --- 3.0 --- 3.0 ---

Br --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 86.7 38.0 37.0 18.0 18.0

Al 116 84.0 83.0 14.0 20.0

Fe(T) 88.4 50.1 50.0 0.698 7.20

Fe(II) --- 1.96 --- 0.291 ---

B 0.010 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004

Li 0.186 0.390 0.380 0.240 0.240

Sr 0.629 5.40 5.70 8.30 8.70

Ba 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.006

Mn 26.4 20.4 20.1 6.80 6.80

Zn 8.48 6.63 6.75 2.20 2.30

Pb 0.010 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.759 1.20 1.30 0.450 0.470

Cu 1.91 3.50 3.50 2.40 2.50

Cd 0.042 0.051 0.052 0.016 0.016

Cr 0.042 0.009 0.009 0.0010 0.003

Co 0.342 0.550 0.800 0.150 0.230

Be 0.027 0.034 0.033 0.005 0.006

Mo 0.021 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.0001 <0.05 <0.0001 <0.05

As(III) --- <0.001 --- <0.001 ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- -70.51 --- -76.30 ---

δ

18O (‰) --- -9.54 --- -10.06 ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- -5.1 --- -6.1 ---

δ

34S (‰) --- -3.4 --- -4.1 ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 34.2 --- 29.7 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 37.0 --- 29.9 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) --- -7.6 --- -0.8 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

43
Sample Location Hottentot (high) Hottentot (high) Hottentot (low) Hottentot (low)

Sample code number 01WA157 01WA157 01WA156 01WA156

Collection Date 9/13/2001 9/13/2001 9/13/2001 9/13/2001

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 --- 0.1 ---

pH 2.60 2.60 2.73 2.73

SC (μS/cm) 3,040 3,040 2,190 2,190

Temperature (°C) 10.6 10.6 9.7 9.7

D.O., mg/L --- --- --- ---

Eh (v) 0.784 0.784 0.824 0.824

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 90.0 91.0 46.0 45.0

Mg 68.0 67.0 41.0 41.0

Na 3.30 3.30 3.10 3.10

K 0.660 0.700 0.150 0.200

SO4 2,400 --- 1,200 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- --- --- --- ---

F 3.0 --- 3.0 ---

Cl 3.0 --- 2.0 ---

Br <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

SiO2 100 99.0 90.0 87.0

Al 140 140 80.0 83.0

Fe(T) 399 400 151 151

Fe(II) 4.12 --- 0.251 ---

B 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.006

Li 0.095 0.093 0.074 0.074

Sr 0.093 0.087 0.081 0.079

Ba 0.0006 0.002 0.003 0.004

Mn 16.1 16.4 5.80 5.80

Zn 6.44 6.41 3.70 3.70

Pb 0.018 0.017 <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.800 0.790 0.400 0.390

Cu 2.30 2.40 0.540 0.530

Cd 0.058 0.059 0.019 0.019

Cr 0.090 0.089 0.032 0.031

Co 0.360 0.430 0.170 0.190

Be 0.023 0.023 0.011 0.011

Mo 0.044 0.050 <0.007 <0.007

V 0.014 0.014 <0.005 <0.005

As(T) 0.047 0.110 0.0040 <0.05

As(III) <0.001 --- <0.001 ---

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) -85.14 --- -90.36 ---

δ

18O (‰) -12.00 --- -12.62 ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) -7.6 --- -7.6 ---

δ

34S (‰) -4.6 --- -3.9 ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 26.0 --- 14.4 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) 24.3 --- 13.9 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) 6.8 --- 3.3 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

44
Sample Location Bitter Creek Bitter Creek

Sample code number 02WA156 02WA156

Collection Date 9/19/2002 9/19/2002

Treatment FA/FU RA

Filtration pore size, μm 0.1 ---

pH 6.59 6.59

SC (μS/cm) 343 343

Temperature (°C) 6.6 6.6

D.O., mg/L --- ---

Eh (v) --- ---

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 30.0 28.0

Mg 12.0 10.0

Na 8.50 8.70

K 9.90 8.40

SO4 150 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3

- 5.0 ---

F 0.506 ---

Cl 6.18 ---

Br <0.1 ---

SiO2 7.00 6.70

Al 0.660 1.10

Fe(T) 0.568 1.00

Fe(II) 0.134 ---

B <0.01 0.011

Li 0.009 0.010

Sr 0.160 0.150

Ba 0.025 0.026

Mn 0.310 0.320

Zn 0.130 0.130

Pb <0.008 <0.008

Ni 0.023 0.024

Cu 0.093 0.120

Cd 0.001 0.001

Cr <0.002 0.003

Co 0.011 0.012

Be <0.001 <0.001

Mo <0.007 <0.007

V <0.005 <0.005

As(T) <0.05 <0.05

As(III) --- ---

Se <0.05 <0.05

DOC --- ---

δ

2

H (‰) --- ---

δ

18O (‰) --- ---

δ

18OSulfate (‰) --- ---

δ

34S (‰) --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 2.90 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) 3.11 ---

Charge imbalance (percent) -7.1 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; R, replicate; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; o

C, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; (T), total dissolved in FA and total recoveralbe in RA; v, volts; <, less 

than; ---, not analyzed; ‰, per mil]

Table 4. Surface-water analyses -- Continued

45
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water

Sample Location Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Red River at

USGS Gage

Sample code number RRC-19780 RRL-19780 RRL-19780 RRC-19780 RRL-19780

Collection Date 3/30/2002 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 3/30/2002 8/17/2001

Treatment UFA UFA FA RA RA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 169 145 215 --- ---

As 0.08 0.39 0.21 0.17 0.68

B 7.0 8.3 8.5 6.7 8.3

Ba 35 31 30 39 74

Be 0.040 0.057 0.072 0.54 0.44

Bi < 0.005 < 0.002 < 0.005 0.011 0.078

Cd 0.61 0.72 0.66 0.69 0.79

Ce 0.25 0.28 0.36 7.1 8.9

Co 5.2 3.4 3.3 5.3 4.1

Cr 0.20 0.18 < 0.2 0.26 1.4

Cs < 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.02 < 0.01 0.20

Cu 3.4 5.2 3.9 26 19

Dy 0.012 0.018 0.026 0.98 0.81

Er 0.0060 0.0091 0.012 0.37 0.32

Eu 0.0038 0.0053 0.0073 0.27 0.27

Gd 0.021 0.030 0.041 1.5 1.3

Hf --- --- --- --- ---

Ho 0.0024 0.0036 0.0048 0.16 0.13

La 0.14 0.16 0.19 2.6 3.9

Li 7.4 9.2 9.1 6.5 5.0

Lu 0.0006 0.0009 0.0012 0.030 0.026

Mn 476 426 437 453 459

Mo 3.4 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.6

Nd 0.15 0.19 0.25 6.3 6.2

Ni 20 19 18 20 21

Pb 0.06 0.098 0.10 1.0 8.3

Pr 0.034 0.045 0.058 1.3 1.4

Rb 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.5 3.4

Re 0.76 0.66 0.63 0.72 0.67

Sb 0.067 0.11 0.043 0.030 0.079

Se < 0.4 < 0.2 < 0.4 < 0.2 < 0.2

Sm 0.025 0.030 0.041 1.5 1.4

Ta --- --- --- --- ---

Tb 0.0026 0.0040 0.0052 0.20 0.17

Te < 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.01 0.020 0.14

Th 0.0069 0.0048 0.0048 0.044 0.36

Tl 0.006 0.005 < 0.006 0.006 0.033

Tm 0.0008 0.0010 0.0015 0.043 0.037

U 0.94 0.89 0.90 1.5 1.2

V < 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.3 0.3 1.7

W < 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.012

Y 0.12 0.16 0.21 4.7 3.9

Yb 0.0038 0.0060 0.0071 0.24 0.20

Zn 60 --- 80 --- ---

Zr 0.019 0.020 0.014 0.013 0.056

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

46
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Red River below 

Bear Creek 

inflow

Red River below 

Bear Creek 

inflow

Pooled seep 

below 

engineered 

Capulin Gulch

Seep No. 13 with 

Ulothrix stringers

Discharge from 

French Drain

Sample code number RRL-18000 RRL-18000 RR-17670 RR-17595 RR-17574

Collection Date 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001

Treatment UFA RA FA FA FA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 193 --- --- --- ---

As 0.11 0.57 1.4 1.3 0.84

B 8.9 8.2 < 5 11 10

Ba 30 71 6.8 6.9 20

Be 0.048 0.38 17 15 6.7

Bi < 0.002 0.066 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.026

Cd 0.62 0.75 16 15 6.0

Ce 0.16 6.6 130 97 49

Co 3.1 3.7 200 170 87

Cr 0.15 1.2 4.4 2.6 < 2

Cs < 0.01 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.10

Cu 4.1 17 --- --- ---

Dy 0.012 0.65 28 23 10

Er 0.0062 0.25 11 9.1 4.1

Eu 0.0045 0.24 7.9 6.4 2.8

Gd 0.020 1.0 41 33 15

Hf --- --- 0.17 0.14 0.080

Ho 0.0024 0.11 4.6 3.8 1.7

La 0.075 2.9 27 17 8.4

Li 5.0 4.6 83 62 25

Lu 0.0006 0.020 0.94 0.78 0.37

Mn 394 398 --- --- ---

Mo 2.8 3.4 < 0.5 < 0.5 1.4

Nd 0.11 4.9 170 130 57

Ni 18 19 --- --- ---

Pb 0.064 6.8 0.83 1.0 0.73

Pr 0.024 1.1 31 24 10

Rb 1.0 3.0 19 15 4.0

Re 0.65 0.63 0.90 0.87 0.84

Sb 0.073 0.074 < 0.04 < 0.04 0.18

Se < 0.2 < 0.2 7.7 5.9 2.2

Sm 0.018 1.1 40 33 14

Ta --- --- < 0.006 < 0.006 < 0.006

Tb 0.0023 0.13 5.6 4.6 2.0

Te < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Th 0.0038 0.30 0.22 0.25 0.11

Tl 0.004 0.026 0.19 0.13 0.04

Tm 0.0008 0.030 1.3 1.1 0.48

U 0.88 1.1 17 14 6.3

V < 0.1 1.5 < 0.9 < 0.9 < 0.9

W 0.004 0.012 < 0.02 0.02 < 0.02

Y 0.12 3.2 130 110 45

Yb 0.0042 0.16 7.3 6.1 2.9

Zn 77 --- --- --- ---

Zr 0.016 0.039 0.11 0.17 0.16

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

47
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Red River under 

power lines 

above Bear 

Creek

Red River under 

power lines 

above Bear 

Creek

Red River at 

campground 

below Goat Hill 

Gulch

Red River below 

Goat Hill Gulch

Red River below 

Goat Hill Gulch

Sample code number RRL-17012 RRL-17012 RRL-16400 RRL-16100 RRL-16100

Collection Date 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001

Treatment UFA RA UFA UFA RA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 201 --- 194 209 ---

As 0.12 1.6 0.11 0.14 1.0

B 8.4 9.5 8.2 9.9 8.6

Ba 31 145 30 33 103

Be 0.038 0.50 0.030 0.062 0.37

Bi < 0.002 0.15 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.11

Cd 0.56 0.83 0.50 0.60 0.70

Ce 0.17 13 0.14 0.23 8.8

Co 2.2 3.7 2.0 2.1 3.1

Cr 0.20 3.1 0.13 0.20 2.1

Cs < 0.01 0.72 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.32

Cu 3.2 17 3.1 6.2 15

Dy 0.013 0.73 0.011 0.021 0.60

Er 0.0069 0.28 0.0067 0.010 0.24

Eu 0.0039 0.30 0.0035 0.0081 0.25

Gd 0.018 1.2 0.016 0.031 1.0

Hf --- --- --- --- ---

Ho 0.0028 0.12 0.0024 0.0041 0.100

La 0.087 6.4 0.076 0.14 4.1

Li 4.3 5.5 4.3 4.8 4.8

Lu 0.0006 0.024 0.0005 0.0010 0.020

Mn 335 423 316 305 352

Mo 2.6 5.0 2.4 2.4 3.6

Nd 0.12 7.3 0.10 0.19 5.3

Ni 16 22 14 16 19

Pb 0.078 18 0.056 0.23 13

Pr 0.027 1.8 0.023 0.042 1.3

Rb 1.0 7.8 0.96 1.1 4.4

Re 0.78 0.83 0.67 0.68 0.65

Sb 0.055 0.12 0.057 0.070 0.098

Se < 0.2 < 0.4 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

Sm 0.020 1.5 0.018 0.034 1.1

Ta --- --- --- --- ---

Tb 0.0023 0.15 0.0021 0.0043 0.13

Te < 0.005 0.29 < 0.005 0.006 0.21

Th 0.0035 0.82 0.0045 0.0049 0.53

Tl 0.010 0.072 0.005 0.005 0.041

Tm 0.0010 0.034 0.0007 0.0011 0.027

U 0.92 1.2 0.89 0.91 1.0

V 0.2 4.0 0.2 0.2 2.4

W 0.004 0.013 0.004 0.005 0.011

Y 0.12 3.6 0.099 0.17 3.1

Yb 0.0042 0.18 0.0038 0.0065 0.15

Zn 45 --- 37 67 ---

Zr 0.013 0.054 0.013 0.015 0.041

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

48
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Red River above 

Goat Hill Gulch

Red River above 

Goat Hill Gulch

Goat Hill Gulch Pond with old 

metal relic

Red River below 

spring no. 39

Sample code number RRL-15765 RRL-15765 01WA159 RR-15687 RRL-15600

Collection Date 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 9/14/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001

Treatment UFA RA FA FA UFA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 180 --- --- 590 154

As 0.13 1.2 110 < 0.2 0.16

B 8.7 9.0 < 20 10 9.3

Ba 31 130 4.0 23 32

Be 0.044 0.43 330 0.19 0.059

Bi < 0.002 0.13 0.15 0.018 < 0.002

Cd 0.52 0.72 --- 3.4 0.57

Ce 0.16 11 12000 0.36 0.23

Co 2.0 3.2 --- 1.8 2.1

Cr 0.11 2.8 490 < 2 0.13

Cs < 0.01 0.56 < 0.2 0.06 < 0.01

Cu 2.4 16 --- 8.5 3.7

Dy 0.013 0.65 1200 0.088 0.021

Er 0.0066 0.24 390 0.036 0.0099

Eu 0.0046 0.26 250 0.024 0.0082

Gd 0.019 1.1 1800 0.15 0.033

Hf --- --- 8.3 < 0.004 ---

Ho 0.0027 0.11 180 0.014 0.0039

La 0.095 5.4 3500 0.44 0.14

Li 4.1 5.0 1000 5.0 38

Lu 0.0006 0.022 26 < 0.002 0.0009

Mn 298 371 --- 170 301

Mo 2.3 4.7 19 2.7 2.4

Nd 0.13 6.3 8400 0.58 0.19

Ni 14 19 --- 37 15

Pb 0.036 14 2.0 0.20 0.050

Pr 0.028 1.6 1800 0.13 0.042

Rb 1.00 6.9 5.1 2.7 1.0

Re 0.66 0.68 0.59 6.7 0.66

Sb 0.046 0.11 < 0.2 < 0.04 0.070

Se < 0.2 < 0.4 240 1.6 < 0.2

Sm 0.020 1.2 1900 0.091 0.033

Ta --- --- < 0.02 < 0.006 ---

Tb 0.0024 0.13 250 0.016 0.0042

Te < 0.005 0.24 4.6 < 0.05 < 0.005

Th 0.0040 0.68 130 0.03 0.0035

Tl 0.005 0.063 < 0.1 0.04 0.004

Tm 0.0007 0.029 42 0.003 0.0011

U 0.86 1.1 210 0.87 0.88

V 0.1 3.6 22 < 0.9 0.1

W 0.005 0.012 < 0.09 < 0.02 0.005

Y 0.11 3.2 5200 0.88 0.17

Yb 0.0045 0.16 220 0.016 0.0063

Zn 39 --- --- --- 63

Zr 0.013 0.043 3.7 0.083 0.012

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

49
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Red River Red River Spring No. 39 Draining gravel 

bar and spring

Shaft Spring

Sample code number RRC-15547 RRC-15547 RR-15408 RR-14973 RR-14570

Collection Date 3/30/2002 3/30/2002 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001

Treatment UFA RA FA FA FA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 131 679 --- --- ---

As 0.09 0.12 0.42 0.17 0.16

B 7.6 6.1 15 13 11

Ba 36 38 12 34 34

Be 0.050 0.18 5.9 2.0 2.2

Bi < 0.002 0.008 0.025 0.024 0.024

Cd 0.36 0.39 7.1 3.4 9.5

Ce 0.22 1.8 20 0.30 1.6

Co 2.2 2.3 59 0.35 0.15

Cr 0.10 0.22 < 2 < 2 < 2

Cs < 0.01 < 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.12

Cu 3.0 8.2 --- 11 23

Dy 0.033 0.32 19 0.37 1.5

Er 0.015 0.13 8.4 0.15 0.62

Eu 0.0100 0.11 3.8 0.12 0.52

Gd 0.049 0.48 21 0.71 2.7

Hf --- --- 0.13 0.007 0.014

Ho 0.0060 0.055 3.4 0.067 0.27

La 0.11 0.75 7.1 2.1 6.1

Li 5.1 4.9 55 9.7 6.2

Lu 0.0013 0.011 0.54 0.013 0.043

Mn 154 160 --- 23 400

Mo 2.6 2.6 2.1 6.6 < 0.5

Nd 0.22 1.9 39 3.3 12

Ni 14 14 --- --- ---

Pb 0.12 0.70 0.64 0.17 0.74

Pr 0.045 0.38 6.2 0.68 2.6

Rb 1.0 1.2 5.6 2.2 3.5

Re 0.73 0.69 8.2 6.1 6.8

Sb 0.056 0.029 < 0.04 < 0.04 0.05

Se < 0.2 < 0.2 4.9 0.6 0.6

Sm 0.047 0.44 11 0.53 2.1

Ta --- --- < 0.006 < 0.006 < 0.006

Tb 0.0059 0.064 3.5 0.076 0.33

Te < 0.005 0.014 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Th 0.0060 0.025 0.03 0.10 0.19

Tl < 0.003 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.03

Tm 0.0019 0.015 0.82 0.016 0.061

U 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.61 0.63

V 0.1 0.2 < 0.9 < 0.9 < 0.9

W 0.003 0.003 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

Y 0.26 1.9 140 3.5 12

Yb 0.0095 0.081 4.0 0.082 0.31

Zn 55 82 --- --- ---

Zr 0.016 0.014 0.14 0.33 0.50

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

50
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Red River above 

highway bridge 

below Mn seeps

Red River above 

highway bridge 

below Mn seeps

Spring from 

manganocrete

Seep from 

manganocrete

Cabin Springs

Sample code number RRL-14142 RRL-14142 RR-13751 RR-13750 RR-13675

Collection Date 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001

Treatment UFA RA FA FA FA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 220 --- --- --- ---

As 0.13 0.49 1.6 1.4 1.6

B 9.7 9.1 8.6 12 7.5

Ba 32 64 15 14 23

Be 0.025 0.21 9.8 8.9 9.4

Bi < 0.002 0.057 0.016 0.023 0.017

Cd 0.37 0.48 31 25 29

Ce 0.17 6.1 260 200 250

Co 2.1 2.6 180 120 160

Cr 0.12 1.1 < 2 < 2 < 2

Cs < 0.01 0.06 0.20 0.13 0.13

Cu 3.8 12 --- --- ---

Dy 0.014 0.53 32 25 30

Er 0.0072 0.20 13 10.0 12

Eu 0.0058 0.20 11 9.1 11

Gd 0.021 0.83 48 38 45

Hf --- --- 0.21 0.16 0.19

Ho 0.0026 0.087 5.3 4.2 5.1

La 0.098 2.7 100 79 98

Li 4.1 4.1 32 26 31

Lu 0.0006 0.017 0.99 0.80 0.96

Mn 327 349 --- --- ---

Mo 2.0 2.4 0.5 1.0 0.6

Nd 0.13 4.1 210 170 200

Ni 7.1 9.1 --- --- ---

Pb 0.068 5.0 0.59 0.56 0.85

Pr 0.028 0.95 47 37 44

Rb 1.0 2.5 6.4 4.7 6.2

Re 0.28 0.26 16 13 15

Sb 0.057 0.063 < 0.04 0.06 < 0.04

Se < 0.2 < 0.2 8.3 6.5 8.0

Sm 0.022 0.91 45 38 44

Ta --- --- < 0.006 < 0.006 < 0.006

Tb 0.0026 0.11 6.5 5.2 6.2

Te < 0.005 0.079 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Th 0.0048 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.08

Tl 0.018 0.018 0.03 0.05 0.03

Tm 0.0008 0.024 1.4 1.1 1.3

U 0.79 0.88 15 8.1 14

V 0.1 1.2 < 0.9 < 0.9 < 0.9

W 0.006 0.008 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

Y 0.11 2.6 160 130 150

Yb 0.0041 0.14 7.7 6.2 7.4

Zn 21 79 --- --- ---

Zr 0.011 0.036 0.22 0.20 0.27

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

51
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Red River below 

Columbine Creek

Red River below 

Columbine Creek

Red River below 

Columbine Creek

Seep at bedrock 

manganocrete 

contact

Red River near 

mill water tank

Sample code number RRL-13300 RRL-13300 RRL-13300 RR-12287 RRM-10200

Collection Date 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/17/2001 8/20/2001 8/20/2001

Treatment UFA FA RA FA UFA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 195 177 --- --- 172

As 0.13 0.11 0.50 0.34 0.13

B 10 9.3 8.9 < 5 10

Ba 32 31 65 22 34

Be 0.012 0.017 0.10 0.93 0.015

Bi < 0.005 < 0.002 0.061 < 0.02 < 0.002

Cd 0.11 0.091 0.17 6.3 0.14

Ce 0.058 0.09 3.8 25 0.052

Co 0.60 0.53 1.1 16 1.4

Cr < 0.2 0.11 1.0 < 2 < 0.1

Cs < 0.02 < 0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.01

Cu 4.0 2.7 7.7 12 2.9

Dy 0.0057 0.010 0.24 2.8 0.0057

Er 0.0039 0.0050 0.092 1.2 0.0032

Eu 0.0034 0.0022 0.097 0.86 0.0025

Gd 0.0090 0.015 0.39 4.5 0.0076

Hf --- --- --- 0.019 ---

Ho 0.0012 0.0020 0.038 0.50 0.0012

La 0.031 0.048 1.8 21 0.025

Li 4.2 3.7 3.8 5.8 4.6

Lu 0.0006 0.0006 0.0091 0.076 0.0004

Mn 106 98 128 --- 135

Mo 2.1 1.9 2.5 1.9 1.3

Nd 0.050 0.081 2.2 21 0.044

Ni 3.2 2.4 4.2 --- 5.1

Pb 0.09 0.042 6.0 0.12 0.024

Pr 0.011 0.018 0.54 5.3 0.0091

Rb 1.0 1.00 2.5 3.5 0.97

Re 0.11 0.10 0.11 9.0 0.025

Sb 0.063 0.031 0.068 < 0.04 0.062

Se < 0.4 < 0.2 < 0.2 1.3 < 0.2

Sm 0.0074 0.016 0.46 3.5 0.0078

Ta --- --- --- < 0.006 ---

Tb 0.0010 0.0022 0.048 0.59 0.0011

Te < 0.01 0.005 0.090 < 0.05 < 0.005

Th 0.0038 0.0031 0.23 0.05 0.0018

Tl 0.006 0.006 0.018 < 0.03 < 0.003

Tm 0.0004 0.0007 0.012 0.12 0.0004

U 0.73 0.72 0.76 0.72 0.51

V < 0.3 < 0.1 1.2 < 0.9 < 0.1

W 0.006 0.005 0.010 < 0.02 0.005

Y 0.047 0.073 1.1 21 0.044

Yb 0.0029 0.0043 0.065 0.58 0.0026

Zn 7.0 2.6 41 --- 7.7

Zr 0.011 0.014 0.033 0.18 0.012

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

52
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Red River at 

bend near 

highway

Red River at 

bend near 

highway

Red River at 

bend near 

highway

Red River at 

bend near 

highway

Waldo Spring

Sample code number RRF-7800 RRM-7800 RRF-7800 RRM-7800 01WA163

Collection Date 3/31/2002 8/20/2001 3/31/2002 8/20/2001 9/15/2001

Treatment UFA UFA RA RA FA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 132 173 884 676 ---

As 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.33

B 27 11 19 9.3 7.4

Ba 32 35 37 47 10

Be 0.030 0.019 0.20 0.12 1.1

Bi < 0.002 < 0.002 0.008 0.025 0.027

Cd 0.31 0.18 0.36 0.23 1.2

Ce 0.18 0.081 3.1 2.3 20

Co 3.0 1.7 3.3 1.9 16

Cr 0.20 < 0.1 0.24 0.38 < 2

Cs < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.08

Cu 3.7 3.8 12 9.5 13

Dy 0.011 0.0066 0.40 0.24 2.4

Er 0.0054 0.0039 0.16 0.10 0.90

Eu 0.0040 0.0034 0.15 0.094 0.98

Gd 0.016 0.011 0.62 0.37 4.1

Hf --- --- --- --- 0.024

Ho 0.0023 0.0015 0.069 0.043 0.40

La 0.076 0.038 1.1 0.94 7.8

Li 7.3 4.8 5.6 4.4 10

Lu 0.0005 0.0005 0.015 0.0093 0.067

Mn 213 145 222 157 ---

Mo 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 < 0.5

Nd 0.12 0.063 2.7 1.7 20

Ni 11 6.1 12 7.0 66

Pb 0.028 0.036 0.68 1.9 0.19

Pr 0.026 0.014 0.57 0.37 4.1

Rb 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9

Re 0.033 0.028 0.033 0.025 0.079

Sb 0.030 0.056 0.032 0.045 < 0.04

Se < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.7

Sm 0.018 0.011 0.65 0.40 4.2

Ta --- --- --- --- < 0.006

Tb 0.0019 0.0012 0.080 0.048 0.51

Te < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.035 < 0.05

Th 0.0032 0.0028 0.021 0.050 0.02

Tl 0.005 0.008 0.004 0.006 < 0.03

Tm 0.0007 0.0005 0.020 0.013 0.10

U 0.47 0.51 0.59 0.55 0.48

V < 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 < 0.9

W 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.02

Y 0.091 0.059 2.0 1.3 12

Yb 0.0040 0.0030 0.11 0.070 0.52

Zn 40 17 76 51 ---

Zr 0.013 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.14

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

53
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Small drainage 

with iron stain

Unnamed 

drainage west of 

Little Hansen

Pool above culvert 

on Little Hansen 

debris fan

Little Hansen Hansen (high)

Sample code number RR-7352 01WA162 RR-6971 01WA153 01WA152

Collection Date 8/20/2001 9/15/2001 8/18/2001 9/11/2001 9/11/2001

Treatment FA FA FA FA FA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 510 240 --- --- ---

As 1.0 0.19 3.7 7.1 2.9

B < 5 11 < 8 < 8 5.7

Ba 22 20 7.2 2.9 6.5

Be 0.12 < 0.08 19 34 15

Bi 0.020 0.020 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.038

Cd < 0.04 < 0.04 9.2 19 4.5

Ce 5.4 0.060 370 740 340

Co 27 0.08 360 680 150

Cr < 2 < 2 60 52 4.3

Cs 0.11 0.07 0.27 0.14 0.26

Cu 6.0 5.5 --- --- ---

Dy 0.39 0.007 34 67 27

Er 0.16 < 0.009 13 25 7.5

Eu 0.17 < 0.002 18 33 7.1

Gd 0.71 < 0.006 54 100 60

Hf 0.006 < 0.004 0.28 0.53 0.20

Ho 0.073 < 0.002 5.6 11 3.6

La 2.4 0.030 130 290 97

Li 7.4 23 100 250 64

Lu 0.010 < 0.002 0.98 2.1 0.56

Mn --- 6.5 --- --- ---

Mo 1.1 1.2 < 1 3 < 0.6

Nd 3.6 0.031 270 500 310

Ni 33 1.1 --- --- ---

Pb 0.15 0.10 0.42 0.66 3.0

Pr 0.79 0.008 58 110 63

Rb 3.1 0.62 3.2 1.3 9.3

Re 0.023 0.011 0.030 0.048 0.011

Sb 0.10 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.03

Se < 0.5 < 0.5 12 19 7.8

Sm 0.67 < 0.01 61 110 78

Ta < 0.006 < 0.006 < 0.009 < 0.009 < 0.005

Tb 0.083 0.001 7.1 14 7.0

Te 0.16 < 0.05 3.4 0.70 0.16

Th 0.07 0.04 14 14 0.78

Tl 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.07

Tm 0.018 < 0.002 1.5 3.0 0.81

U 0.13 0.91 18 23 4.2

V < 0.9 < 0.9 1 1 < 0.6

W < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.02

Y 2.5 0.035 150 300 91

Yb 0.089 < 0.006 8.3 17 4.4

Zn 48 19 --- --- ---

Zr 0.088 0.099 0.59 1.1 0.27

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

54
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Hansen (low) Red River near 

Fawn Lakes 

campground

Red River near 

Fawn Lakes 

campground

Red River along 

reach of rapid 

flow

Red River below 

Straight Creek 

debris flow

Sample code number 01WA151 RRM-6000 RRM-6000 RRU-4800 RRH-4500

Collection Date 9/11/2001 8/20/2001 8/20/2001 8/24/2001 4/1/2002

Treatment FA UFA RA UFA UFA

Constituent, μg/L

Al --- 167 433 118 116

As 2.8 0.20 0.26 0.18 0.11

B 7.5 11 11 7.0 6.7

Ba 8.4 38 48 43 44

Be 16 0.017 0.054 0.010 0.009

Bi < 0.03 0.006 0.030 < 0.002 < 0.002

Cd 8.7 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.17

Ce 350 0.17 1.1 0.019 0.019

Co 210 0.71 0.92 1.00 1.0

Cr < 3 0.12 0.36 0.13 < 0.1

Cs 0.12 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Cu --- 7.9 9.7 3.3 3.7

Dy 33 0.022 0.14 0.0049 0.0048

Er 9.7 0.012 0.066 0.0034 0.0037

Eu 10 0.0063 0.040 0.0018 0.0016

Gd 72 0.026 0.16 0.0047 0.0046

Hf 0.24 --- --- --- ---

Ho 4.7 0.0046 0.024 0.0011 0.0010

La 120 0.083 0.54 0.011 0.012

Li 64 4.4 4.2 4.7 4.7

Lu 0.81 0.0014 0.0070 0.0003 0.0004

Mn --- 93 102 117 118

Mo 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3

Nd 310 0.11 0.71 0.019 0.020

Ni --- 3.4 4.1 4.3 4.5

Pb 0.94 0.46 2.1 0.037 0.037

Pr 62 0.025 0.16 0.0035 0.0042

Rb 4.6 1.2 1.5 0.93 0.94

Re 0.014 0.021 0.023 0.026 0.025

Sb 0.04 0.063 0.047 0.058 0.060

Se 8.7 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

Sm 78 0.025 0.17 0.0037 0.0041

Ta < 0.005 --- --- --- ---

Tb 8.0 0.0040 0.024 0.0007 0.0008

Te 0.22 < 0.005 0.021 < 0.005 < 0.005

Th 0.13 0.0097 0.048 0.0030 0.0028

Tl 0.07 0.004 0.007 < 0.003 < 0.003

Tm 1.1 0.0014 0.0091 0.0006 0.0004

U 5.4 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.64

V < 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2

W 0.02 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.003

Y 130 0.15 0.80 0.053 0.053

Yb 6.3 0.0099 0.049 0.0027 0.0034

Zn --- 8.4 30 7.8 11

Zr 0.42 0.018 0.027 0.011 0.0082

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

55
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Straight Creek Straight Creek Straight Creek Straight Creek 

(high)

Straight Creek 

(low)

Sample code number 00WA197 02WA112 02WA121 01WA155 01WA154

Collection Date 10/29/2000 3/20/2002 4/24/2002 9/12/2001 9/12/2001

Treatment FA FA FA FA FA

Constituent, μg/L

Al --- --- --- ---

As 15 0.51 3.9 14 5.4

B <23 < 5 4.7 < 8 < 8

Ba 9.8 0.57 1.7 1.6 2.9

Be 19 5.2 23 43 27

Bi 0.085 0.020 < 0.03 < 0.05 < 0.05

Cd 30 7.2 36 36 39

Ce 48 94 720 1400 810

Co 277 72 300 320 330

Cr 61 7.4 26 38 41

Cs --- 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.27

Cu 638 --- --- --- ---

Dy 34 6.5 44 66 49

Er 11 2.3 15 20 17

Eu 17 2.6 17 19 21

Gd 70 11 77 150 92

Hf --- 0.044 0.32 0.56 0.37

Ho 5.2 0.98 6.6 9.4 7.6

La 17 33 270 510 300

Li 101 27 150 200 170

Lu 0.90 0.18 1.1 1.6 1.3

Mn --- --- --- --- ---

Mo 13 0.6 1.5 9 6

Nd 401 64 460 850 530

Ni 612 --- --- --- ---

Pb 12 0.27 1.5 27 1.7

Pr 87 14 110 200 120

Rb 4.8 1.2 1.2 2.3 1.6

Re 1.2 0.27 1.4 1.5 1.4

Sb 0.10 0.05 < 0.03 0.12 0.09

Se 8.6 2.0 11 19 15

Sm 86 13 94 180 110

Ta --- < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.009 < 0.009

Tb 7.9 1.4 9.7 16 11

Te 6.1 0.16 0.72 1.7 0.85

Th 33 1.1 9.9 26 14

Tl 0.058 0.04 0.04 0.07 < 0.05

Tm 1.3 0.25 1.7 2.2 1.9

U 25 3.8 17 31 22

V 5.4 < 0.9 < 0.6 2 < 1

W --- < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.04 < 0.04

Y 132 26 170 250 210

Yb 7.5 1.4 9.2 12 10

Zn --- --- --- --- ---

Zr 0.24 0.11 0.38 0.50 0.44

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

56
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Junebug (east) Junebug (west) Hottentot Creek 

(high)

Hottentot Creek 

(low)

Red River above 

Hottentot Creek

Sample code number 01WA161 01WA160 01WA157 01WA156 RRU-3052

Collection Date 9/14/2002 9/14/2001 9/13/2001 9/13/2001 8/24/2001

Treatment FA FA FA FA UFA

Constituent, μg/L

Al --- --- --- --- 88

As 5.8 1.4 51 5.8 0.14

B < 8 < 8 < 8 < 5 6.5

Ba 2.4 4.7 1.6 4.3 45

Be 34 5.7 22 9.8 0.023

Bi < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.024 < 0.002

Cd 54 18 47 12 0.27

Ce 1200 310 370 150 0.18

Co 530 170 330 170 1.3

Cr 7.7 < 6 87 31 < 0.1

Cs 0.15 0.27 0.29 0.22 < 0.01

Cu --- --- --- --- 4.4

Dy 66 16 42 17 0.0099

Er 26 6.4 14 6.2 0.0071

Eu 35 8.8 12 5.1 0.0027

Gd 100 27 72 28 0.013

Hf 0.50 0.13 0.32 0.11 ---

Ho 11 2.7 6.3 2.7 0.0025

La 580 160 150 61 0.031

Li 300 190 88 71 4.6

Lu 2.2 0.56 1.1 0.52 0.0009

Mn --- --- --- --- 132

Mo < 1 < 1 28 2.2 1.2

Nd 690 170 310 120 0.048

Ni --- --- --- --- 6.8

Pb 2.5 3.7 0.69 0.80 0.10

Pr 170 43 67 27 0.011

Rb 2.5 4.7 3.0 2.2 0.88

Re 5.7 6.0 0.45 0.21 0.023

Sb < 0.06 < 0.06 0.20 0.06 0.052

Se 17 6 16 7.2 < 0.2

Sm 120 31 75 29 0.010

Ta < 0.009 < 0.009 < 0.009 < 0.006 ---

Tb 13 3.5 9.4 3.7 0.0020

Te 0.13 0.07 3.4 0.67 < 0.005

Th 10 0.43 42 12 0.0035

Tl < 0.05 < 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.005

Tm 3.2 0.75 1.6 0.69 0.0009

U 39 14 27 7.6 0.61

V < 1 < 1 11 2.5 0.2

W < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.02 0.005

Y 310 75 160 73 0.11

Yb 18 4.2 8.9 3.9 0.0061

Zn --- --- --- --- 43

Zr 1.0 0.54 0.39 0.17 0.019

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

57
Table 5. ICP-MS analyses of surface water -- Continued

Sample Location Red River above 

Hottentot Creek

Red River above 

town of Red 

River

Red River above 

town of Red 

River

Red River above 

town of Red 

River

Sample code number RRU-3052 RRU-0 RRU-0 RRU-0

Collection Date 8/24/2001 8/24/2001 8/24/2001 8/24/2001

Treatment RA UFA FA RA

Constituent, μg/L

Al 441 14 17 106

As 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14

B 5.8 5.7 6.9 5.3

Ba 48 41 41 45

Be 0.076 < 0.002 0.003 < 0.002

Bi 0.004 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

Cd 0.29 0.010 0.019 0.008

Ce 0.91 0.021 0.010 0.13

Co 1.4 0.019 0.021 0.036

Cr 0.35 0.11 < 0.1 0.15

Cs < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Cu 12 0.69 1.0 0.61

Dy 0.17 0.0027 0.0019 0.0090

Er 0.088 0.0024 0.0020 0.0043

Eu 0.048 0.0008 0.0017 0.0032

Gd 0.19 0.0035 0.0023 0.013

Hf --- --- --- ---

Ho 0.033 0.0007 0.0004 0.0017

La 0.44 0.015 0.0071 0.075

Li 4.2 1.8 2.1 1.8

Lu 0.0096 0.0003 0.0002 0.0006

Mn 137 2.0 1.9 4.5

Mo 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.95

Nd 0.73 0.017 0.0090 0.071

Ni 5.9 0.44 0.51 0.33

Pb 0.61 0.051 0.039 0.16

Pr 0.15 0.0040 0.0019 0.018

Rb 1.2 0.43 0.45 0.56

Re 0.023 0.0039 0.0049 0.0046

Sb 0.030 0.029 0.060 0.053

Se < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

Sm 0.18 0.0038 0.0019 0.015

Ta --- --- --- ---

Tb 0.029 0.0005 0.0003 0.0016

Te 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

Th 0.023 0.0009 0.0017 0.0029

Tl 0.003 0.008 0.024 < 0.003

Tm 0.012 0.0003 0.0002 0.0007

U 0.62 0.73 0.74 0.73

V 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4

W 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.006

Y 1.1 0.026 0.020 0.055

Yb 0.067 0.0020 0.0012 0.0040

Zn 48 2.1 3.1 19

Zr 0.015 0.0076 0.012 0.010

[FA, filtered acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; RA, raw acidified; UFA, ultra-filtered-acidified; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

58
2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

4

5

6

7

8

9

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

2004

Storm

pH, Maest and others (2004)

pH, this study

 discharge

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. pH and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003. 

2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

2004

Storm

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, 

IN MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER

Storm

specific conductance, Maest and others (2004)

specific conductance,this study

 discharge

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Specific conductance and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at the USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003. 

59
2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

2004

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Storm

sulfate, Maest and others (2004)

sulfate, this study

 discharge

EXPLANATION

Figure 7. Sulfate concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003. 

2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

2004

 zinc, Maest and others (2004)

 zinc, this study

 discharge

ZINC CONCENTRATION,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 8. Zinc concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at the USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 from 2000 through 2003. Concentrations determined to be less than detection limit are plotted as 

zero. 

60
2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

5

10

15

20

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

ALUMINUM CONCENTRATION,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

2004

 aluminum

 discharge

Figure 9. Aluminum concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003. 

2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ALKALINITY, AS BICARBONATE

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 alkalinity

 discharge

2004

Figure 10. Alkalinity and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at the USGS streamflow-gaging station 

08265000 at Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003. 

61
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER

 R2=0.91

sulfate = 0.64*specific conductance -103

linear fit

Figure 11. Specific conductance in relation to sulfate concentration in the Red River at USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station. 

One of the predominant cations in the Red 

River alluvial aquifer is calcium (LoVetere and 

others, 2004), and calcium concentrations tend 

to covary with sulfate concentrations (fig. 12). 

Naus and others (2005) documented that in 

Straight Creek ground waters gypsum was the 

main source of dissolved calcium. By plotting 

the molar concentrations of calcium and sulfate, 

insight into sulfate sources for surface water can 

be gained. The Ca:SO4

 1:1 line in figure 12 

represents the stoichiometric dissolution of 

gypsum. The field above the line requires 

addition of calcium from a mineral phase with 

little or no sulfate such as calcite, calcic 

plagioclase, hornblende or epidote, and the field 

below the line requires an additional sulfate 

source without calcium such as pyrite or other 

sulfide minerals. While most samples plot near 

the 1:1 line, some points plot well to the right. 

The point farthest to the right of the line was 

collected during the September 2002 storm 

event, and this sample has the lowest pH value 

(4.83). During the storm event, surface water 

was entering the Red River from upstream 

altered areas, likely supplying the additional 

source of sulfate. The point farthest to the left of 

the line was collected during the peak spring 

discharge in June 2003, and this point suggests 

that at this time of year calcium is added to the 

Red River from relatively nonmineralized parts 

of the watershed, either upstream from the study 

area or from the south side of the Red River 

Zinc is an element of interest because of its 

potential toxicity to aquatic life and has 

previously been discussed in Maest and others 

(2004). Figure 13 displays the Zn concentrations 

in both the dissolved and total recoverable 

samples. The proportion of total recoverable 

zinc that is dissolved varies from approximately 

35 to 95 percent. Two factors likely control the 

partitioning of zinc between the aqueous and 

solid phases, pH and the amount of suspended 

sediment. The pH of the Red River is in the 

range where zinc begins to sorb onto colloidal 

phases (pH of 6.5 to 7.5, Dzombak and Morel, 

1990; Ball and others, 2005). 

Red River Questa Ranger Station Gage 

Site Water Chemistry, 1965-2003 

After compiling historical surface-water 

data for 1965-2001, Maest and others (2004) 

examined seasonal and temporal variations of 

Red River water chemistry. Their study focused 

on sulfate and zinc concentrations because many

62
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Increasing pyrite dissolution

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIMOLES PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIMOLES PER LITER

Gypsum dissolution line

 Increasing dissolution of calcium

mineral with no sulfate, for example-calcite 9/18/02 

storm event

Figure 12. Calcium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration in the Red River at the USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station, with gypsum congruent dissolution line. 

2000 2001 2002 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

ZINC CONCENTRATION,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 total recoverable zinc

 dissolved zinc

 discharge

2004

Figure 13. Zinc concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 2000 through 2003. 

63
samples were analyzed for these constituents 

which tend to behave relatively conservatively. 

For samples collected at the Questa Ranger 

Station gage site, the mean sulfate concentration 

for the low-flow samples from 2000-2003 was 

152 mg/L. This value is greater than the mean 

value of 120 mg/L for all the low-flow samples 

collected during 1965-2001 (Maest and others, 

2004), but similar to the mean value of 153 

mg/L for low-flow samples collected between 

1992 and 2001 (fig. 14). Since publication of the 

historical compilation by Maest and others 

(2004), additional analyses of Red River 

samples have been located. Robertson 

GeoConsultants Inc. (2001b) include figures 

with daily sulfate concentrations at the Questa 

Ranger Station gage and at the Molycorp mill 

site for the period August 1975 through 

December 1976 and weekly sulfate 

concentrations at these sites from August 1975 

through May 1984 and from March 1985 

through December 1985. 

Comparing the hydrograph and the detailed 

sulfate determinations at the Questa Ranger 

Station provides further insight into the relation 

between flow and concentration (fig. 15). The 

period of time between August 1975 and 

January 1981 was chosen because it includes the 

daily sulfate data and the hydrograph contains a 

range in snowmelt conditions from relatively 

low flow (1977) to high flow (1979). With the 

exception of storm events, sulfate concentration 

is inversely correlated with discharge. As the 

discharge rises in the spring, the sulfate 

concentrations decrease, and as the discharge 

decreases in the summer, fall and winter, the 

sulfate concentration increases. Similar to 2002, 

1977 was a drought year with the maximum 

daily mean discharge of 49 ft3

/s, and the 

minimum sulfate concentration (30 mg/L) 

during spring snowmelt period substantially 

higher than the minimum sulfate concentrations 

during the snowmelt peaks of the preceding and 

following years (5 mg/L and 14 mg/L, 

respectively).

Figure 15 also displays another important 

aspect of Red River water quality. In simplistic 

terms, the Red River can be conceived as 

carbonate-buffered water with above-neutral pH 

as it enters the town of Red River. From that 

point downstream it receives a number of acidic 

ground-water inflows that acidify the water and 

increase the concentrations of solutes such as 

sulfate and manganese. Extended dry periods, or 

droughts, would result in decreased flows of 

carbonate-buffered water, but the acidic groundwater inflow would remain the same because it 

has a 10- to 30-year residence time (Naus and 

others, 2005). Hence, continued increases in 

sulfate concentrations would be expected during 

dry periods. This trend can be seen in figure 15, 

especially after the 1976 snowmelt period. From 

the end of snowmelt in 1976 to the end of the 

year, a continual increase in sulfate 

concentration is observed. Furthermore, it 

should be noted that the variation in sulfate 

concentration is much greater at low flow than 

during snowmelt or during the approach to low 

flow. This variability may be caused by storm 

events or upgradient surface and ground-water 

management, and it complicates the 

interpretation of water chemistry trends. 

Figure 16 displays the sulfate concentration 

in the Red River at the Questa Ranger Station 

from 1965 through 2003 with the hydrologic 

flow regime assigned for each sample. This 

figure is similar to figure 6 in Maest and others 

(2004), but includes additional historical 

samples from Robertson GeoConsultants Inc. 

(2001b) as well as data from this report. The 

mean sulfate concentration for 556 low-flow 

samples collected at the Questa Ranger Station 

from 1975 through 1985 is 77 mg/L with a 

standard deviation of 35 mg/L, and the mean 

concentration of 38 low-flow samples collected 

at the Questa Ranger Station from 1992 through 

2004 is 150 mg/L with a standard deviation of 

37 mg/L. Maest and others (2004) noted that the 

low-flow samples display a trend in sulfate 

concentration with time, an overall increase in 

concentration from 1965 through 2001, with a 

possible decrease after 1993. Vail Engineering, 

Inc. (2000) and URS (2001) suggested that the 

increase in sulfate concentrations over time 

resulted from changes in the amount of groundwater extracted for Molycorp mill operations, 

but Maest and others (2004) found no 

correspondence between the steady increase in 

sulfate and the timing of mill extractions. 

Addressing this issue is beyond the scope of this 

study. 

Data from previous drought years were 

evaluated to determine if the drought of 2002 

would explain the increase in sulfate. Three 

years in the recent past (1971, 1977, and 1981) 

had hydrographs similar to the 2002 hydrograph, 

displaying only a minimal spring runoff peak 

(figs. 2A and B). No sulfate data are available

64
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

0

5

10

15

20

FREQUENCY

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A. 1965-2001

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FREQUENCY

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B. 1992-2001

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 0

1

2

3

4

FREQUENCY

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

C. 2001-2003

Figure 14. Histograms of sulfate concentration of low-flow samples through time with (A) 1965-2001, (B) 1992-2001, 

and (C) 2001-2003. Duplicate samples are not plotted. 

65
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

50

100

150

200

250

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TIME, IN YEARS

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Sulfate Discharge

Figure 15. Sulfate concentration and daily mean discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging 

station 08265000 at the Questa Ranger Station from 1975 through 1979. Sulfate concentrations from Robertson 

GeoConsultants (2001b). 

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

100

200

300

400

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

TIME, IN YEARS

 Low flow

 Rising limb

 Peak flow

 Falling limb

 Storm

Figure 16. Sulfate concentration of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station from 1965 through 2003, with hydrologic discrimination. Historical data from Robertson 

GeoConsultants (2001b) and Maest and others (2004). 

66
for 1971, but weekly sulfate data for 1977, the 

most similar hydrograph to 2002, were reported 

by Robertson GeoConsultants Inc. (2001b). The 

54 low-flow sulfate analyses reported for 

January 1977 through March 1978 had a mean 

value of 81 mg/L and a standard deviation of 33 

mg/L, substantially less than the mean sulfate 

concentration of 179 mg/L with a 35 mg/L 

standard deviation for the nine low-flow samples 

collected from January 2002 through March 

2003. Thus, the recent increase in sulfate 

concentration is not simply due to the 2002 

drought year because the data from 1977 did not 

show a substantial increase in sulfate 

concentration. Extended drought periods may 

play a role in Red River water quality, because 

the highest low-flow sulfate concentrations 

occurred at the end of the 2002 drought period 

(fig. 3; 256 mg/L in December 2002 and 198 

mg/L in February 2003). A possible reason for 

the increase in sulfate during extended drought 

periods is that during these periods, the relative 

contribution of ground water to the flow of the 

Red River likely increases. 

Additional historical water quality from 

Robertson GeoConsultants Inc. (2001b) also 

increases the number of paired sulfate values 

collected upstream and downstream from the 

Molycorp mine site. Figure 17 displays lowflow dissolved sulfate concentrations for the Red 

River through time for paired samples collected 

at the Questa Ranger Station gage and upstream 

from the mine site. This figure includes lowflow samples from Maest and others (2004), 

who combined results from five stations 

upstream from the mine site, and samples from 

Robertson GeoConsultants Inc. (2001b) 

collected at Questa Ranger Station gage and at 

the Red River adjacent to the Molycorp mill site. 

Although the mean sulfate concentration 

increases from 66 to 80 mg/L between these 

sites, the respective standard deviations of 28 

and 39 mg/L preclude the conclusion that this 

increase is statistically significant. This data set 

can be separated into two time periods, 1975 to 

1985 and 1992 to 2001. For the earlier time 

period, the mean sulfate concentration upstream 

from the mine site is 66 mg/L with a standard 

deviation of 28 mg/L and at the Questa Ranger 

Station gage is 77 mg/L with a standard 

deviation of 37 mg/L. For the second time 

period, the mean sulfate concentration upstream 

from the mine site is 95 mg/L with a standard 

deviation of 14 mg/L and at the Questa Ranger 

Station gage is 150 mg/L with a standard 

deviation of 30 mg/L. In the recent time period, 

the increase in sulfate concentration along the 

mine reach is statistically significant. 

This conclusion is in agreement with a 

study by Allen and others (1999) who in 1997 

and 1998 collected monthly water samples from 

six sites along the Red River including upstream 

from the town of Red River, at the confluence of 

Hottentot, upstream from the mine property, and 

downstream from the Questa Ranger Station 

gage. Allen and others (1999) concluded that 

sulfate and zinc loading not only increased in the 

reach between the town of Red River and the 

mine property because of drainage from the 

alteration scars, but also increased in the reach 

downstream from the mine waste-rock piles. 

Similarly, results from the USGS August 2001 

tracer study documented a substantial increase in 

sulfate concentration and load from immediately 

upstream from the mine site to the Questa 

Ranger Station gage (McCleskey and others, 

2003b; Kimball and others, in press). 

Dissolved zinc concentrations (43 analyses) 

were not determined as frequently as sulfate 

concentrations, but the data span from 1978 to 

2001 (Maest and others, 2004; fig. 18). The 

dissolved zinc concentrations in the 11 low-flow 

samples have a mean value of 0.11 mg/L and 

range from 0.005 to 0.35 mg/L (fig. 8). These 

values are similar to the mean and range for all 

the low-flow samples (mean of 0.11 mg/L; range 

of <0.003 to 0.34 mg/L) in the historical dataset. 

Unfortunately, with this limited zinc dataset it is 

not possible to make statistically rigorous 

conclusions as to the effect of drought on the 

Red River water quality. 

The overall trends in chemistry related to 

seasonal variations observed in the limited 2000-

2003 dataset are consistent with the observations 

of Maest and others (2004; figs. 15 and 16). For 

example, the lowest sulfate concentration (44.8 

mg/L) occurred during peak flow from 

snowmelt in June 2003, and the highest sulfate 

concentration (314 mg/L) occurred during the 

September 2002 storm event. 

Red River Storm Events, 2001-2003 

Although the Red River exhibits low-flow 

conditions for much of the year, dynamic 

changes from spring runoff or summer storm 

events have a major effect on the water 

67
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

100

200

300

USGS streamflow-

 gaging station 08265000

upstream from mine site

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, 

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

TIME, IN YEARS

Figure 17. Sulfate concentration in the Red River upstream and downstream from the mine site during low-flow 

conditions. Historical data from Robertson GeoConsultants (2001b) and Maest and others (2004). 

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

ZINC CONCENTRATION, 

TIME, IN YEARS

 Low flow

 Rising limb

 Peak

 Falling limb

 Storm

Figure 18. Zinc concentration of the Red River measured at the USGS streamflow-gaging 08265000 station at the 

Questa Ranger Station from 1976 through 2003, with hydrologic discrimination. Historical data from Maest and others 

(2004). 

68
chemistry. During September 2002, a storm 

event which produced the peak discharge for the 

year (fig. 3) was sampled. Three water samples 

were collected at the Questa Ranger Station 

gage, the first sample on September 17, 6 hours 

before a rainstorm began, the second sample on 

September 18, shortly after the peak discharge 

and about 14 hours after the rainstorm began, 

and the third sample on September 19, during 

the falling limb of the hydrograph. Instantaneous 

discharge at the USGS Questa Ranger Station 

gage increased from 8 to 102 ft3

/s (fig. 19). 

During the storm, acid runoff from 

hydrothermally altered scars entered the Red 

River and caused it to become acidic and highly 

turbid (fig. 5 and cover photographs). From the 

first to the second sample, pH decreased from 

7.80 to 4.83, alkalinity decreased from 49.4 to 

<1 mg/L, SO4

 increased from 162 to 314 mg/L, 

dissolved Fe increased from to 0.011 to 0.596 

mg/L, dissolved Al increased from 0.189 to 2.88 

mg/L, and dissolved Zn increased from 0.056 to 

0.607 mg/L. The total recoverable 

concentrations of Fe and Al increased from the 

first to the second sample by nearly 2 and 1 

orders of magnitude, respectively; the second 

sample contained predominantly particulate Fe 

(99 percent) and Al (85 percent). When the third 

sample was collected, the total recoverable 

concentrations of Fe and Al had decreased by 

about 7- and 4-fold from the second sample, and 

a much higher proportion of the Fe (42 percent) 

and Al (77 percent) was dissolved. The 

proportion of total dissolved Fe that was Fe(III), 

calculated by difference, decreased from 64 

percent to 29 percent from the first to the second 

sample and increased to 90 percent when the 

third sample was collected. 

To determine the source of the turbidity, 

the material trapped on the filter membranes was 

collected, dried, and analyzed by X-ray 

diffraction. The analytical methods are similar to 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

9/16 9/17 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

DATE

9/15

sample collected

Figure 19. Instantaneous discharge of the Red River measured at USGS streamflow-gaging station 08265000 at the 

Questa Ranger Station from September 15 - 22, 2002. 

69
those described in Ludington and others (2004). 

The material trapped on the filter from the 

Questa Ranger Station gage sample collected 

prior to the storm was pale yellow, relatively 

small in volume, and consisted of amorphous 

material, quartz, kaolinite, and mica. The 

trapped material from the two Questa Ranger 

Station gage samples collected during the storm 

was pale yellow and consisted of smectite, mica, 

kaolinite, quartz, chlorite, amorphous material, 

and jarosite. A water sample was collected from 

Straight Creek, an upstream tributary to the Red 

River that drains an alteration scar, during the 

storm (sample 02WA154 on September 18), and 

the material trapped on the filter was analyzed. 

This material was pale yellow and consisted of 

smectite, mica, kaolinite, quartz, chlorite, 

amorphous material, and jarosite, similar to the 

particulate material at the Questa Ranger Station 

gage. This mineralogy suggests that much of the 

turbidity in the lower Red River during the 

storm event is derived from runoff from the scar 

areas. 

Two previous water-quality surveys of the 

Red River were performed during late summer 

thunderstorm events (Smolka and Tague, 1987, 

1989). Both storm events were localized in 

individual subbasins and did not cover the entire 

watershed. The first thunderstorm event 

occurred on August 18, 1986, and the pH of the 

Red River, sampled at the Elephant Rock 

campground located between Straight and 

Hansen Creeks, decreased from 8.1 to 3.8 

(Smolka and Tague, 1987). At this site, turbidity 

increased from 1.6 to greater than 500 NTU 

(turbidity units) resulting in large increases in 

total recoverable aluminum, arsenic barium, 

chromium, iron, lead, copper, manganese, and 

zinc concentrations. Dissolved sulfate 

concentration increased from 40 to 208 mg/L. 

The event lasted approximately one hour. No 

change in pH was observed at the USGS Questa 

Ranger Station stream gage. Furthermore, no 

change in the daily mean discharge, recorded at 

the USGS Questa Ranger Station gage, was 

observed. The second rainstorm event occurred 

on September 13, 1988, in the Bitter Creek 

basin. The pH value of Bitter Creek decreased 

from 7.6 to 5.7, and the pH of the Red River 

downstream from the confluence decreased from 

7.7 to 6.4 (Smolka and Tague, 1989). At this 

Red River site, turbidity increased from 2 to 145 

NTU. In another study, Garn (USGS, 2003) 

documented a pH drop from 7.4 to 3.8 for the 

Red River at the Questa Ranger Station gage for 

a storm event on September 7, 1986. 

Red River Diel Variations, 2003 

Diel samples were collected from the Red 

River during high-flow (May 2003) and lowflow (October 2003) conditions at two sites: the 

USGS gaging station near the Questa Ranger 

Station and another site just upstream from the 

mill at a pull-out where a dirt road crosses the 

river and above the influence of any mining 

activities at the Molycorp mine site (upsteam 

diel site on figure 1). Substantial diel cycles, 2-

fold increases, in dissolved Cd, Mn, Ni, and Zn 

concentrations have been observed for neutral 

and alkaline streams draining historical mining 

areas in Montana and Idaho (Nimick and others, 

2003). 

During the high-flow diel study, samples 

were collected about every 2 hours beginning at 

approximately 12:00 noon on May 13 and 

ending at 12:00 noon on May 14 from the Red 

River at the Questa Ranger Station gage and at 

the site just upstream from the mill. Stream 

temperature, pH, and specific conductance were 

measured at the time of sample collection. A 

500-mL grab sample was collected and 

processed within 30 minutes. The samples were 

syringe filtered through a 0.22-μm membrane. 

No anion samples were collected for this time 

period. The instantaneous streamflow, measured 

at the USGS gaging station, during the highflow diel study ranged from 49 to 55 ft3

/s and 

increased throughout the sampling period. 

Results from the high-flow diel study are 

presented in table 6. 

During the low-flow diel study, samples 

were collected every 1.5 hours beginning at 

approximately 17:30 on October 20 and ending 

at 17:30 on October 22 from the Red River at 

the Questa Ranger Station gage and at the site 

just upstream from the mill. At both sites, stream 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific 

conductance were measured every 20 minutes 

using a Hydrolab multiparameter instrument that 

was placed in the center of the river. The 

Hydrolab data are reported in table 7. Water 

samples were pumped from the stream using an 

automated sampler and stored in the dark and 

chilled until processed. Samples were filtered 

using a 0.1-μm filter membrane. During the lowflow diel study, streamflow was 15 ft3

/s and 

70
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses

Sample Location and number

Red River at 

USGS Gage 1

Red River at 

USGS Gage 2

Red River at 

USGS Gage 2

Red River at 

USGS Gage 3

Red River at 

USGS Gage 3

Red River at 

USGS Gage 4

Collection Date 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003Collection Time 12:00 14:00 14:00 16:00 16:00 18:15

Treatment FA FA RA FA RA FA

pH 7.55 7.51 7.51 7.90 7.90 7.95

SC (μS/cm) 276 275 275 275 275 273Temperature (°C) 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.5 8.4Constituent, mg/L

Ca 35.7 35.9 35.3 36.1 36.0 35.7Mg 7.69 7.65 7.79 7.78 7.95 7.65Na 4.77 4.75 4.77 4.85 4.77 4.73K 0.841 0.835 0.918 0.840 0.942 0.871SiO2 11.1 11.1 12.2 11.3 12.9 11.1

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 0.185 0.196 1.09 0.199 1.27 0.187Fe(T) 0.002 0.003 0.462 0.003 0.756 0.003Fe(II) 0.001 0.001 --- 0.001 --- 0.000B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Li 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003Sr 0.216 0.214 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.216Ba 0.031 0.031 0.039 0.031 0.047 0.032Mn 0.154 0.153 0.171 0.154 0.185 0.147Zn 0.044 0.045 0.086 0.041 0.097 0.039Ni 0.007 0.007 0.013 0.007 0.014 0.005Cu 0.004 <0.003 0.012 <0.003 0.014 <0.003Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Co <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

71
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Sample Location and number

Red River at 

USGS Gage 4

Red River at 

USGS Gage 5

Red River at 

USGS Gage 5

Red River at 

USGS Gage 6

Red River at 

USGS Gage 6

Red River at 

USGS Gage 7

Collection Date 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/14/2003Collection Time 18:15 20:00 20:00 22:00 22:00 0:00

Treatment RA FA RA FA RA FA

pH 7.95 7.82 7.82 7.96 7.96 7.92

SC (μS/cm) 273 273 273 273 273 272Temperature (°C) 8.4 8.2 8.2 7.7 7.7 7.2Constituent, mg/L

Ca 35.2 35.6 34.7 35.2 34.7 35.3Mg 7.74 7.65 7.61 7.57 7.75 7.46Na 4.76 4.80 4.66 4.79 4.74 4.79K 0.924 0.859 0.949 0.828 0.991 0.866SiO2 12.4 11.4 12.8 11.0 13.6 11.2

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 1.04 0.191 1.32 0.182 1.67 0.151Fe(T) 0.449 0.003 1.04 0.006 1.87 0.009Fe(II) --- 0.001 --- 0.002 --- 0.003B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Li 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003Sr 0.215 0.218 0.212 0.211 0.218 0.213Ba 0.038 0.031 0.048 0.031 0.085 0.031Mn 0.163 0.147 0.192 0.144 0.211 0.146Zn 0.083 0.043 0.101 0.048 0.123 0.050Ni 0.013 0.006 0.013 0.006 0.016 0.006Cu 0.012 <0.003 0.015 <0.003 0.019 <0.003Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Co <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

72
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Sample Location and number

Red River at 

USGS Gage 7

Red River at 

USGS Gage 8

Red River at 

USGS Gage 9

Red River at 

USGS Gage 9

Red River at 

USGS Gage 10

Red River at 

USGS Gage 10

Collection Date 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003Collection Time 0:00 2:00 4:00 4:00 6:05 6:05

Treatment RA FA FA RA FA RA

pH 7.92 7.9 7.87 7.87 7.99 7.99

SC (μS/cm) 272 271 270 270 270 270Temperature (°C) 7.2 6.8 6.2 6.2 5.3 5.3Constituent, mg/L

Ca 34.6 35.5 35.3 36.1 34.6 34.9Mg 7.56 7.35 7.47 8.20 7.35 7.59Na 4.72 4.84 4.67 4.94 4.69 4.69K 0.955 0.840 0.832 1.15 0.818 0.913SiO2 12.7 11.2 11.2 15.3 10.9 12.3

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 1.14 0.167 0.153 2.04 0.203 1.08Fe(T) 0.746 0.031 0.007 2.79 0.009 0.523Fe(II) --- 0.006 0.007 --- 0.009 ---B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Li 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004Sr 0.208 0.214 0.211 0.228 0.208 0.212Ba 0.042 0.031 0.031 0.125 0.031 0.040Mn 0.176 0.149 0.147 0.240 0.144 0.166Zn 0.100 0.047 0.051 0.150 0.051 0.089Ni 0.013 0.007 0.007 0.019 0.006 0.013Cu 0.013 <0.003 <0.003 0.022 <0.003 0.012Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Co <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

73
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Sample Location and number

Red River at 

USGS Gage 11

Red River at 

USGS Gage 11

Red River at 

USGS Gage 12

Red River at 

USGS Gage 12

Red River at 

USGS Gage 13

Red River at 

USGS Gage 13

Collection Date 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003Collection Time 8:15 8:15 9:55 9:55 12:00 12:00

Treatment FA RA FA RA FA RA

pH 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.88 7.94 7.94

SC (μS/cm) 270 270 268 268 266 266Temperature (°C) 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 9.4 9.4Constituent, mg/L

Ca 35.2 36.1 34.6 35.2 34.5 34.7Mg 7.54 8.54 7.43 7.94 7.24 7.60Na 4.64 4.94 4.73 4.81 4.63 4.55K 0.820 1.40 0.868 1.07 0.835 1.09SiO2 11.4 18.5 11.0 14.3 11.0 14.5

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 0.211 4.78 0.224 1.73 0.246 1.91Fe(T) 0.004 3.69 0.002 1.92 0.003 2.33Fe(II) 0.001 --- 0.000 --- 0.000 ---B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Li 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004Sr 0.213 0.221 0.210 0.215 0.207 0.216Ba 0.031 0.082 0.031 0.078 0.031 0.090Mn 0.145 0.232 0.140 0.222 0.142 0.232Zn 0.048 0.139 0.045 0.126 0.038 0.136Ni 0.006 0.022 0.006 0.016 0.006 0.017Cu <0.003 0.084 <0.003 0.019 <0.003 0.024Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Co <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Be <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

74
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Sample Location and number

Red River 

Above Mill 1

Red River 

Above Mill 2

Red River 

Above Mill 2

Red River 

Above Mill 3

Red River 

Above Mill 3

Red River 

Above Mill 4

Collection Date 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003Collection Time 12:15 14:10 14:10 16:10 16:10 18:25

Treatment FA FA RA FA RA FA

pH 7.78 7.81 7.81 7.99 7.99 8.04

SC (μS/cm) 222 224 224 225 225 223Temperature (°C) 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.3 7.7Constituent, mg/L

Ca 28.9 29.2 28.6 29.4 28.8 28.9Mg 6.00 6.14 6.21 6.23 6.17 6.17Na 4.42 4.27 4.24 4.44 4.33 4.43K 0.781 0.757 0.822 0.773 0.826 0.805SiO2 11.6 11.6 12.0 11.7 11.8 11.7

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 0.224 0.224 0.484 0.227 0.441 0.218Fe(T) 0.007 0.010 0.285 0.029 0.217 0.010Fe(II) 0.002 0.003 --- 0.008 --- 0.002B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Li 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003Sr 0.181 0.178 0.179 0.182 0.179 0.182Ba 0.033 0.032 0.036 0.032 0.034 0.032Mn 0.071 0.071 0.086 0.073 0.084 0.074Zn 0.008 0.007 0.025 0.010 0.025 0.008Ni <0.002 <0.002 0.005 <0.002 0.005 <0.002Cu <0.003 <0.003 0.008 <0.003 0.008 <0.003Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Co <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

75
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Sample Location and number

Red River 

Above Mill 4

Red River 

Above Mill 5

Red River 

Above Mill 5

Red River 

Above Mill 6

Red River 

Above Mill 6

Red River 

Above Mill 7

Collection Date 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 5/14/2003Collection Time 18:25 20:12 20:12 22:10 22:10 0:11:00

Treatment RA FA RA FA RA FA

pH 8.04 7.94 7.94 8.01 8.01 7.63

SC (μS/cm) 223 224 224 224 224 224Temperature (°C) 7.7 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.5Constituent, mg/L

Ca 28.7 28.9 28.3 29.3 28.4 29.4Mg 6.34 6.10 6.09 6.23 6.28 6.25Na 4.39 4.47 4.24 4.54 4.38 4.59K 0.898 0.783 0.837 0.813 0.872 0.803SiO2 13.1 11.5 12.0 11.6 12.9 11.5

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 0.801 0.195 0.518 0.195 0.702 0.176Fe(T) 1.08 0.029 0.386 0.013 0.795 0.022Fe(II) --- 0.009 --- 0.004 --- 0.008B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Li 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003Sr 0.177 0.179 0.176 0.183 0.181 0.183Ba 0.053 0.032 0.037 0.033 0.051 0.033Mn 0.117 0.074 0.093 0.075 0.110 0.074Zn 0.041 0.008 0.028 0.012 0.041 0.013Ni 0.006 <0.002 0.005 <0.002 0.006 <0.002Cu 0.014 <0.003 0.008 <0.003 0.011 <0.003Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Co <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

76
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Sample Location and number

Red River 

Above Mill 7

Red River 

Above Mill 8

Red River 

Above Mill 8

Red River 

Above Mill 9

Red River 

Above Mill 9

Red River 

Above Mill 10

Collection Date 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003Collection Time 0:11:00 2:10 2:10 4:15 4:15 6:20

Treatment RA FA RA FA RA FA

pH 7.63 7.93 7.93 7.96 7.96 7.93

SC (μS/cm) 224 223 223 223 223 222Temperature (°C) 6.5 5.9 5.9 5.2 5.2 4.5Constituent, mg/L

Ca 28.8 28.9 29.9 28.9 30.4 28.8Mg 6.12 6.14 6.35 6.06 6.54 6.05Na 4.36 4.22 4.55 4.22 4.60 4.14K 0.822 0.766 0.942 0.758 1.02 0.740SiO2 12.2 11.4 13.1 11.3 13.6 11.2

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 0.472 0.189 0.668 0.181 0.804 0.146Fe(T) 0.256 0.517 0.810 0.015 1.11 0.021Fe(II) --- 0.023 --- 0.005 --- 0.006B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Li 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003Sr 0.180 0.178 0.192 0.181 0.195 0.178Ba 0.036 0.032 0.052 0.033 0.052 0.032Mn 0.089 0.074 0.114 0.074 0.125 0.072Zn 0.028 0.012 0.049 0.012 0.045 0.012Ni 0.005 <0.002 0.008 <0.002 0.008 <0.002Cu 0.009 <0.003 0.013 <0.003 0.014 <0.003Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Co <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

77
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Sample Location and number

Red River 

Above Mill 10

Red River 

Above Mill 11

Red River 

Above Mill 11

Red River 

Above Mill 12

Red River 

Above Mill 12

Red River 

Above Mill 13

Collection Date 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003Collection Time 6:20 8:25 8:25 10:05 10:05 12:10

Treatment RA FA RA FA RA FA

pH 7.93 7.98 7.98 8.02 8.02 8.1

SC (μS/cm) 222 220 220 220 220 220Temperature (°C) 4.5 4.5 4.5 6.2 6.2 9.5Constituent, mg/L

Ca 29.6 28.4 29.5 28.8 29.7 29.5Mg 6.27 6.01 6.35 6.04 6.34 6.34Na 4.37 4.24 4.43 4.24 4.44 4.49K 0.894 0.758 1.59 0.821 7.26 0.945SiO2 12.8 11.6 13.5 11.3 13.3 13.8

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 0.559 0.172 0.802 0.175 0.807 0.873Fe(T) 0.435 0.009 1.04 0.041 1.14 0.006Fe(II) --- 0.002 --- 0.040 --- 0.003B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Li 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005Sr 0.189 0.174 0.185 0.178 0.189 0.184Ba 0.040 0.032 0.055 0.032 0.057 0.045Mn 0.101 0.081 0.121 0.078 0.130 0.090Zn 0.032 0.018 0.047 0.017 0.089 0.025Ni 0.008 0.005 0.021 0.005 0.011 0.008Cu 0.010 0.007 0.016 0.006 0.019 0.075Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Co <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

78
Table 6. High-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Sample Location and number

Red River 

Above Mill 13

Collection Date 5/14/2003Collection Time 12:10

Treatment RA

pH 8.1

SC (μS/cm) 220Temperature (°C) 9.5Constituent, mg/L

Ca 29.6Mg 6.35Na 4.36K 1.40SiO2 13.3

[FA, filtered acidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Al 0.836Fe(T) 1.13Fe(II) ---B <0.01Li 0.004Sr 0.187Ba 0.054Mn 0.123Zn 0.043Ni 0.007Cu 0.015Cd <0.001Co <0.007Be <0.001

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed]

79
Table 7. Low-flow diel study field measurements

Sample Site Date Time pH Temperature (°C) DO (% saturation) DO (mg/L) SC (μS/cm)

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 16:00 7.71 8.52 114 9.84 359

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 16:20 7.74 8.37 114 9.84 359

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 16:40 7.76 8.21 114 9.87 359

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 17:00 7.78 8.13 113 9.80 359

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 17:20 7.79 8.08 112 9.72 359

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 17:40 7.80 8.06 112 9.74 359

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 18:00 7.82 8.02 112 9.76 360

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 18:20 7.81 7.99 111 9.68 360

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 18:40 7.82 7.95 111 9.68 360

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 19:00 7.82 7.90 112 9.75 360

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 19:20 7.83 7.85 111 9.71 360

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 19:40 7.83 7.78 112 9.77 361

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 20:00 7.84 7.71 111 9.73 361

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 20:20 7.83 7.63 111 9.74 361

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 20:40 7.83 7.55 112 9.90 362

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 21:00 7.83 7.45 112 9.89 363

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 21:20 7.83 7.35 112 9.94 362

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 21:40 7.83 7.26 112 9.93 363

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 22:00 7.83 7.16 112 9.96 362

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 22:20 7.83 7.07 112 9.96 363

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 22:40 7.83 6.97 113 10.11 363

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 23:00 7.82 6.88 112 10.05 363

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 23:20 7.82 6.78 112 10.08 363

Red River at Gage 10/20/2003 23:40 7.82 6.68 114 10.22 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 0:00 7.82 6.57 113 10.18 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 0:20 7.82 6.48 113 10.20 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 0:40 7.82 6.37 113 10.20 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 1:00 7.82 6.26 112 10.22 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 1:20 7.82 6.16 113 10.27 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 1:40 7.82 6.06 114 10.41 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 2:00 7.82 5.97 113 10.35 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 2:20 7.82 5.88 113 10.35 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 2:40 7.82 5.80 114 10.49 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 3:00 7.82 5.71 114 10.51 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 3:20 7.82 5.63 114 10.53 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 3:40 7.82 5.55 113 10.48 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 4:00 7.82 5.46 113 10.51 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 4:20 7.81 5.37 114 10.64 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 4:40 7.81 5.27 115 10.70 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 5:00 7.84 5.19 114 10.65 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 5:20 7.87 5.11 114 10.68 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 5:40 7.78 5.02 115 10.79 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 6:00 7.88 4.94 114 10.71 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 6:20 7.71 4.86 114 10.77 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 6:40 7.88 4.78 115 10.86 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 7:00 7.74 4.72 116 10.93 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 7:20 7.86 4.64 115 10.87 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 7:40 7.82 4.56 115 10.94 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 8:00 7.79 4.50 116 10.99 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 8:20 7.81 4.46 116 11.03 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 8:40 7.78 4.46 115 10.96 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 9:00 7.87 4.52 116 11.07 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 9:20 7.80 4.64 116 10.97 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 9:40 7.84 4.78 115 10.83 362

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 10:00 7.85 4.99 115 10.82 363

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 10:20 7.81 5.31 115 10.75 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 10:40 7.81 5.69 115 10.58 364

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 11:00 7.82 6.07 113 10.35 365

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 11:20 7.82 6.48 114 10.29 365

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 11:40 7.83 6.91 112 10.01 365

[°C, degrees Celsius; DO, dissolved oxygen; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; SC, specific 

conductance; %, percent]

80
Table 7. Low-flow diel study field measurements -- Continued

Sample Site Date Time pH Temperature (°C) DO (% saturation) DO (mg/L) SC (μS/cm)

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 12:00 7.83 7.34 113 9.97 365

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 12:20 7.83 7.75 112 9.78 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 12:40 7.83 8.14 111 9.61 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 13:00 7.84 8.48 111 9.56 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 13:20 7.84 8.74 110 9.41 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 13:40 7.83 8.91 111 9.44 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 14:00 7.84 9.02 110 9.32 367

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 14:20 7.84 9.05 110 9.36 367

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 14:40 7.84 8.98 111 9.45 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 15:00 7.85 8.90 111 9.46 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 15:20 7.84 8.75 110 9.44 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 15:40 7.84 8.57 111 9.50 365

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 16:00 7.83 8.41 110 9.50 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 16:20 7.83 8.24 110 9.55 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 16:40 7.82 8.10 111 9.64 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 17:00 7.81 8.06 111 9.67 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 17:20 7.81 8.04 110 9.59 366

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 17:40 7.81 8.02 110 9.58 367

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 18:00 7.81 8.00 111 9.67 367

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 18:20 7.81 7.99 111 9.65 367

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 18:40 7.81 7.96 111 9.63 368

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 19:00 7.81 7.94 111 9.64 368

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 19:20 7.82 7.91 111 9.68 369

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 19:40 7.82 7.86 111 9.69 369

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 20:00 7.82 7.81 111 9.71 369

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 20:20 7.82 7.74 110 9.68 369

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 20:40 7.82 7.65 110 9.66 369

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 21:00 7.82 7.55 111 9.78 369

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 21:20 7.82 7.44 111 9.83 370

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 21:40 7.81 7.34 110 9.74 370

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 22:00 7.81 7.24 110 9.80 371

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 22:20 7.81 7.14 111 9.90 370

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 22:40 7.81 7.06 111 9.93 371

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 23:00 7.81 6.98 112 9.98 370

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 23:20 7.81 6.89 111 9.95 370

Red River at Gage 10/21/2003 23:40 7.81 6.79 111 9.96 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 0:00 7.81 6.69 111 9.95 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 0:20 7.81 6.60 112 10.11 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 0:40 7.81 6.51 111 10.07 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 1:00 7.80 6.43 111 10.05 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 1:20 7.81 6.35 111 10.07 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 1:40 7.81 6.26 111 10.13 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 2:00 7.80 6.19 112 10.16 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 2:20 7.81 6.12 112 10.24 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 2:40 7.80 6.06 111 10.15 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 3:00 7.80 5.98 112 10.23 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 3:20 7.80 5.93 111 10.21 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 3:40 7.80 5.86 112 10.26 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 4:00 7.80 5.79 111 10.25 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 4:20 7.80 5.72 113 10.42 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 4:40 7.80 5.66 112 10.33 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 5:00 7.80 5.58 113 10.42 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 5:20 7.79 5.51 113 10.50 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 5:40 7.81 5.45 112 10.40 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 6:00 7.83 5.37 112 10.45 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 6:20 7.86 5.30 113 10.51 372

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 6:40 7.72 5.22 114 10.61 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 7:00 7.79 5.15 113 10.60 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 7:20 7.90 5.08 114 10.72 371

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 7:40 7.80 5.02 115 10.75 371

[°C, degrees Celsius; DO, dissolved oxygen; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; SC, specific 

conductance; %, percent]

81
Table 7. Low-flow diel study field measurements -- Continued

Sample Site Date Time pH Temperature (°C) DO (% saturation) DO (mg/L) SC (μS/cm)

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 8:00 7.90 4.97 114 10.75 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 8:20 7.89 4.94 113 10.66 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 8:40 7.70 4.95 114 10.70 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 9:00 7.85 4.98 115 10.80 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 9:20 7.75 5.07 114 10.69 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 9:40 7.80 5.21 114 10.67 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 10:00 7.80 5.40 115 10.64 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 10:20 7.80 5.71 114 10.47 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 10:40 7.80 6.09 113 10.30 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 11:00 7.81 6.46 113 10.23 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 11:20 7.81 6.86 113 10.09 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 11:40 7.82 7.29 112 9.92 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 12:00 7.82 7.73 110 9.67 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 12:20 7.82 8.15 111 9.60 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 12:40 7.83 8.55 110 9.43 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 13:00 7.83 8.88 110 9.36 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 13:20 7.83 9.14 109 9.26 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 13:40 7.83 9.31 108 9.14 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 14:00 7.83 9.43 109 9.17 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 14:20 7.83 9.45 109 9.18 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 14:40 7.83 9.38 109 9.19 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 15:00 7.83 9.29 108 9.11 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 15:20 7.82 9.13 108 9.15 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 15:40 7.82 8.94 108 9.20 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 16:00 7.81 8.76 108 9.25 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 16:20 7.81 8.59 109 9.39 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 16:40 7.81 8.44 108 9.33 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 17:00 7.81 8.38 109 9.37 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 17:20 7.81 8.33 109 9.41 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 17:40 7.81 8.31 109 9.38 370

Red River at Gage 10/22/2003 18:00 7.81 8.29 108 9.36 371

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 16:40 8.25 9.16 110 9.35 239

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 17:00 8.27 9.17 110 9.30 239

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 17:20 8.25 9.14 109 9.26 239

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 17:40 8.23 9.08 109 9.26 240

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 18:00 8.21 9.00 109 9.30 240

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 18:20 8.20 8.91 108 9.23 239

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 18:40 8.18 8.80 107 9.28 240

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 19:00 8.17 8.69 109 9.32 240

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 19:20 8.16 8.58 109 9.39 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 19:40 8.16 8.44 109 9.41 240

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 20:00 8.16 8.30 110 9.49 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 20:20 8.16 8.17 110 9.55 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 20:40 8.16 8.03 110 9.62 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 21:00 8.16 7.91 108 9.65 240

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 21:20 8.16 7.79 111 9.68 240

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 21:40 8.16 7.69 111 9.70 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 22:00 8.16 7.58 111 9.73 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 22:20 8.16 7.47 111 9.80 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 22:40 8.16 7.33 111 9.87 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 23:00 8.16 7.22 112 9.91 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 23:20 8.15 7.09 112 9.96 241

Red River above Mill 10/20/2003 23:40 8.16 6.98 111 9.95 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 0:00 8.15 6.82 113 10.11 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 0:20 8.15 6.69 113 10.16 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 0:40 8.15 6.54 113 10.21 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 1:00 8.15 6.41 113 10.28 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 1:20 8.15 6.27 114 10.35 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 1:40 8.15 6.14 114 10.42 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 2:00 8.15 6.02 115 10.52 241

[°C, degrees Celsius; DO, dissolved oxygen; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; SC, specific 

conductance; %, percent]

82
Table 7. Low-flow diel study field measurements -- Continued

Sample Site Date Time pH Temperature (°C) DO (% saturation) DO (mg/L) SC (μS/cm)

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 2:20 8.15 5.89 115 10.56 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 2:40 8.15 5.78 112 10.62 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 3:00 8.15 5.67 116 10.67 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 3:20 8.14 5.54 116 10.75 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 3:40 8.15 5.43 116 10.80 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 4:00 8.15 5.32 116 10.84 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 4:20 8.15 5.20 116 10.89 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 4:40 8.15 5.09 117 10.95 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 5:00 8.15 4.97 116 10.89 238

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 5:20 8.15 4.88 117 11.07 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 5:40 8.15 4.76 118 11.15 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 6:00 8.15 4.68 118 11.19 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 6:20 8.15 4.58 118 11.25 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 6:40 8.15 4.49 116 11.32 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 7:00 8.15 4.40 119 11.37 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 7:20 8.15 4.32 119 11.42 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 7:40 8.16 4.24 120 11.50 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 8:00 8.17 4.18 121 11.58 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 8:20 8.18 4.13 121 11.65 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 8:40 8.18 4.08 121 11.69 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 9:00 8.19 4.06 122 11.72 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 9:20 8.20 4.08 122 11.73 238

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 9:40 8.21 4.19 122 11.75 238

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 10:00 8.23 4.31 123 11.72 238

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 10:20 8.23 4.45 122 11.65 238

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 10:40 8.24 4.64 122 11.56 238

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 11:00 8.25 4.91 122 11.45 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 11:20 8.25 5.20 121 11.27 238

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 11:40 8.26 5.57 120 11.11 238

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 12:00 8.27 5.94 119 10.94 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 12:20 8.28 6.35 118 10.75 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 12:40 8.28 6.76 118 10.56 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 13:00 8.29 7.14 117 10.41 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 13:20 8.30 7.51 116 10.23 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 13:40 8.30 7.86 115 10.06 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 14:00 8.31 8.23 114 9.92 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 14:20 8.31 8.56 114 9.78 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 14:40 8.32 8.83 114 9.71 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 15:00 8.32 9.04 113 9.60 239

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 15:20 8.32 9.18 112 9.52 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 15:40 8.32 9.29 112 9.46 242

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 16:00 8.31 9.34 111 9.40 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 16:20 8.30 9.32 111 9.36 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 16:40 8.28 9.30 110 9.31 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 17:00 8.26 9.29 110 9.28 240

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 17:20 8.24 9.25 109 9.24 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 17:40 8.22 9.19 109 9.22 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 18:00 8.20 9.08 109 9.26 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 18:20 8.18 8.96 107 9.27 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 18:40 8.16 8.86 109 9.27 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 19:00 8.15 8.75 109 9.32 241

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 19:20 8.15 8.65 109 9.35 242

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 19:40 8.15 8.52 109 9.37 242

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 20:00 8.15 8.40 109 9.41 242

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 20:20 8.15 8.26 109 9.47 242

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 20:40 8.15 8.14 110 9.52 243

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 21:00 8.15 8.03 110 9.56 242

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 21:20 8.15 7.93 110 9.62 243

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 21:40 8.15 7.82 110 9.65 243

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 22:00 8.15 7.72 111 9.70 243

[°C, degrees Celsius; DO, dissolved oxygen; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; SC, specific 

conductance; %, percent]

83
Table 7. Low-flow diel study field measurements -- Continued

Sample Site Date Time pH Temperature (°C) DO (% saturation) DO (mg/L) SC (μS/cm)

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 22:20 8.15 7.61 111 9.77 243

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 22:40 8.15 7.51 111 9.80 243

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 23:00 8.15 7.38 111 9.86 243

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 23:20 8.14 7.23 112 9.92 243

Red River above Mill 10/21/2003 23:40 8.14 7.09 112 10.00 243

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 0:00 8.14 6.94 112 10.04 243

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 0:20 8.14 6.81 112 10.09 243

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 0:40 8.14 6.70 112 10.10 243

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 1:00 8.14 6.57 112 10.11 242

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 1:20 8.14 6.45 113 10.20 242

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 1:40 8.14 6.34 113 10.29 242

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 2:00 8.14 6.24 114 10.33 242

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 2:20 8.14 6.14 114 10.39 242

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 2:40 8.14 6.03 114 10.45 242

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 3:00 8.14 5.94 114 10.48 242

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 3:20 8.14 5.85 114 10.49 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 3:40 8.14 5.76 115 10.57 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 4:00 8.14 5.67 115 10.63 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 4:20 8.14 5.56 115 10.69 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 4:40 8.14 5.49 115 10.69 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 5:00 8.14 5.40 117 10.83 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 5:20 8.14 5.32 117 10.87 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 5:40 8.14 5.24 117 10.91 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 6:00 8.14 5.15 117 10.96 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 6:20 8.14 5.06 117 11.01 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 6:40 8.14 4.98 117 11.04 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 7:00 8.14 4.91 118 11.11 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 7:20 8.14 4.82 118 11.15 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 7:40 8.15 4.76 119 11.20 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 8:00 8.16 4.70 119 11.27 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 8:20 8.17 4.65 119 11.32 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 8:40 8.18 4.60 120 11.38 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 9:00 8.18 4.57 120 11.40 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 9:20 8.19 4.57 121 11.46 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 9:40 8.21 4.67 121 11.47 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 10:00 8.22 4.77 121 11.42 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 10:20 8.23 4.90 121 11.37 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 10:40 8.24 5.08 121 11.31 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 11:00 8.25 5.34 120 11.19 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 11:20 8.25 5.63 119 11.03 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 11:40 8.26 6.01 119 10.87 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 12:00 8.27 6.37 118 10.71 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 12:20 8.28 6.78 117 10.49 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 12:40 8.29 7.19 116 10.31 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 13:00 8.30 7.56 116 10.18 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 13:20 8.31 7.92 115 10.02 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 13:40 8.31 8.26 114 9.86 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 14:00 8.32 8.61 113 9.71 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 14:20 8.33 8.93 113 9.59 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 14:40 8.33 9.20 112 9.48 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 15:00 8.33 9.38 111 9.38 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 15:20 8.33 9.52 111 9.31 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 15:40 8.33 9.60 110 9.25 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 16:00 8.32 9.64 110 9.19 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 16:20 8.31 9.61 109 9.15 240

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 16:40 8.28 9.57 109 9.10 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 17:00 8.26 9.56 108 9.07 241

Red River above Mill 10/22/2003 17:20 8.24 9.53 108 9.04 242

[°C, degrees Celsius; DO, dissolved oxygen; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; SC, specific 

conductance; %, percent]

84
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 1

Red River at 

USGS Gage 1

Red River at 

USGS Gage 2

Red River at 

USGS Gage 2

Red River at 

USGS Gage 3

Red River at 

USGS Gage 3

Collection Date 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003Collection Time 0:00 17:30 19:00 19:00 20:30 20:30Filtration Date 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.73 7.73 7.80 7.80 7.78 7.78SC (μS/cm) 365 365 365 365 367 367

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 52.7 --- 48.2 --- 48.1 ---Mg 11.7 --- 11.1 --- 11.2 ---Na 5.72 --- 5.25 --- 5.26 ---K 1.20 --- 0.99 --- 1.09 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.005 --- 0.005 ---SO4 125 --- 125 --- 127 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 60.1 --- 61.6 --- 62.4 ---F 0.87 --- 0.89 --- 0.86 ---Cl 4.15 --- 3.42 --- 3.22 ---NO3 0.28 --- 0.27 --- 0.27 ---Sr 0.296 0.327 0.259 0.328 0.273 0.304Ba 0.037 0.042 0.032 0.043 0.034 0.040SiO2 12.4 15.3 12.4 17.1 12.6 14.7Al 0.060 1.69 0.105 1.93 0.122 1.72Fe <0.007 0.253 <0.007 0.321 <0.007 0.284Mn 0.290 0.323 0.258 0.362 0.285 0.316Cu <0.003 0.017 <0.003 0.019 <0.003 0.018Zn 0.087 0.173 0.100 0.167 0.089 0.140Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr 0.002 0.004 <0.002 0.003 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.018 0.023 0.018 0.023 0.016 0.024Pb <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.56 --- 3.27 --- 3.27 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.41 --- 3.45 --- 3.48 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 4.3 --- -5.3 --- -6.0 ---

oC, degrees Celsius; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

85
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 4

Red River at 

USGS Gage 4

Red River at 

USGS Gage 5

Red River at 

USGS Gage 5

Red River at 

USGS Gage 6

Red River at 

USGS Gage 6

Collection Date 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 22:00 22:00 23:30 23:30 1:00 1:00Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.78 7.78 7.78 7.78 7.77 7.77SC (μS/cm) 367 367 367 367 370 370

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 55.3 --- 50.1 --- 51.3 ---Mg 12.5 --- 11.6 --- 10.1 ---Na 5.81 --- 5.38 --- 4.65 ---K 1.18 --- 1.02 --- 0.92 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.005 --- 0.004 ---SO4 127 --- 128 --- 128 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 62.6 --- 62.6 --- 62.6 ---F 0.90 --- 0.88 --- 0.98 ---Cl 3.16 --- 3.11 --- 3.13 ---NO3 0.27 --- 0.29 --- 0.33 ---Sr 0.303 0.294 0.265 0.305 0.275 0.312Ba 0.037 0.037 0.033 0.038 0.033 0.041SiO2 11.9 12.9 11.0 14.0 9.64 14.2Al 0.090 1.17 0.055 1.49 0.058 1.75Fe <0.007 0.155 <0.007 0.241 <0.007 0.293Mn 0.327 0.277 0.260 0.296 0.236 0.323Cu <0.003 0.010 <0.003 0.012 <0.003 0.014Zn 0.092 0.118 0.099 0.143 0.089 0.158Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 0.004Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.007Ni 0.018 0.020 0.016 0.021 0.017 0.022Pb <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.74 --- 3.40 --- 3.31 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.45 --- 3.49 --- 3.51 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 8.1 --- -2.7 --- -5.9 ---

μS/cm, microssiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

86
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 7

Red River at 

USGS Gage 7

Red River at 

USGS Gage 8

Red River at 

USGS Gage 8

Red River at 

USGS Gage 9

Red River at 

USGS Gage 9

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 2:30 2:30 4:00 4:00 5:30 5:30Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.74 7.74 7.76 7.76 7.80 7.80SC (μS/cm) 372 372 369 369 369 369

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 50.3 --- 51.6 --- 53.6 ---Mg 11.6 --- 13.1 --- 13.5 ---Na 5.29 --- 6.19 --- 6.27 ---K 1.17 --- 1.24 --- 1.23 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.006 --- 0.006 ---SO4 125 --- 128 --- 129 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 62.5 --- 62.6 --- 62.5 ---F 1.10 --- 1.02 --- 0.99 ---Cl 3.16 --- 3.22 --- 3.31 ---NO3 0.35 --- 0.36 --- 0.35 ---Sr 0.302 0.300 0.316 0.276 0.318 0.296Ba 0.037 0.038 0.040 0.035 0.039 0.039SiO2 10.3 14.3 13.7 12.9 13.5 14.3Al 0.072 1.69 0.096 1.25 0.078 1.63Fe <0.007 0.288 <0.007 0.183 <0.007 0.292Mn 0.248 0.327 0.328 0.296 0.345 0.319Cu <0.003 0.015 <0.003 0.011 <0.003 0.015Zn 0.089 0.151 0.110 0.164 0.117 0.156Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 0.002 <0.002 0.003 <0.002 0.003Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.017 0.023 0.022 0.020 0.020 0.021Pb <0.009 <0.009 0.010 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.41 --- 3.63 --- 3.76 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.45 --- 3.49 --- 3.49 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) -1.1 --- 3.9 --- 7.3 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

87
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 10

Red River at 

USGS Gage 10

Red River at 

USGS Gage 11

Red River at 

USGS Gage 11

Red River at 

USGS Gage 12

Red River at 

USGS Gage 12

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 7:00 7:00 8:30 8:30 10:00 10:00Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.80 7.80 7.67 7.67 7.66 7.66SC (μS/cm) 368 368 374 374 368 368

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 54.8 --- 51.2 --- 51.9 ---Mg 13.3 --- 13.8 --- 12.0 ---Na 6.29 --- 6.03 --- 5.55 ---K 1.21 --- 1.18 --- 1.20 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.006 --- 0.005 ---SO4 128 --- 131 --- 130 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 62.3 --- 62.3 --- 61.6 ---F 1.02 --- 1.02 --- 1.17 ---Cl 3.17 --- 3.17 --- 3.20 ---NO3 0.34 --- 0.34 --- 0.35 ---Sr 0.314 0.273 0.300 0.258 0.301 0.278Ba 0.038 0.035 0.038 0.033 0.037 0.035SiO2 13.9 13.0 13.6 10.9 13.2 12.6Al 0.063 1.44 0.067 1.20 0.054 1.55Fe <0.007 0.319 <0.007 0.179 <0.007 0.233Mn 0.314 0.298 0.340 0.252 0.329 0.316Cu <0.003 0.016 <0.003 0.013 <0.003 0.015Zn 0.117 0.172 0.126 0.125 0.101 0.147Cd <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002Cr <0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.023 0.022 0.023 0.020 0.019 0.022Pb <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.80 --- 3.65 --- 3.52 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.47 --- 3.53 --- 3.52 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 8.9 --- 3.3 --- 0.2 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

88
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 13

Red River at 

USGS Gage 13

Red River at 

USGS Gage 14

Red River at 

USGS Gage 14

Red River at 

USGS Gage 15

Red River at 

USGS Gage 15

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 11:30 11:30 13:00 13:00 14:30 14:30Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.66 7.66 7.73 7.73 7.85 7.85SC (μS/cm) 369 369 368 368 367 367

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 50.8 --- 53.4 --- 52.5 ---Mg 11.0 --- 12.1 --- 13.3 ---Na 5.24 --- 5.69 --- 5.87 ---K 1.09 --- 1.22 --- 1.11 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.006 --- 0.005 ---SO4 129 --- 130 --- 130 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 61.2 --- 61.1 --- 61.2 ---F 1.09 --- 1.06 --- 1.04 ---Cl 3.45 --- 3.14 --- 3.14 ---NO3 0.32 --- 0.30 --- 0.30 ---Sr 0.283 0.256 0.311 0.260 0.297 0.257Ba 0.034 0.030 0.038 0.033 0.036 0.032SiO2 11.0 11.5 13.9 11.5 13.5 11.3Al 0.052 1.38 0.117 1.41 0.093 1.41Fe <0.007 0.225 <0.007 0.217 <0.007 0.217Mn 0.286 0.271 0.352 0.276 0.340 0.262Cu <0.003 0.015 <0.003 0.017 <0.003 0.015Zn 0.090 0.139 0.085 0.125 0.104 0.123Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.017 0.022 0.023 0.022 0.023 0.020Pb <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.38 --- 3.61 --- 3.67 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.52 --- 3.49 --- 3.49 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) -3.9 --- 3.1 --- 4.8 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

89
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 16

Red River at 

USGS Gage 16

Red River at 

USGS Gage 17

Red River at 

USGS Gage 17

Red River at 

USGS Gage 18

Red River at 

USGS Gage 18

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 16:00 16:00 17:30 17:30 19:00 19:00Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.84 7.84 7.82 7.82 7.62 7.62SC (μS/cm) 368 368 368 368 370 370

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 56.6 --- 54.0 --- 55.2 ---Mg 12.7 --- 12.4 --- 12.2 ---Na 5.83 --- 5.39 --- 5.92 ---K 1.19 --- 1.05 --- 1.22 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.005 --- 0.006 ---SO4 131 --- 131 --- 131 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 61.5 --- 61.2 --- 60.8 ---F 1.03 --- 1.03 --- 1.04 ---Cl 3.13 --- 3.14 --- 3.15 ---NO3 0.28 --- 0.28 --- 0.28 ---Sr 0.311 0.261 0.272 0.244 0.315 0.261Ba 0.039 0.033 0.033 0.031 0.039 0.032SiO2 13.2 11.2 12.6 10.5 11.7 10.4Al 0.129 1.18 0.103 1.06 0.068 1.04Fe <0.007 0.167 <0.007 0.150 <0.007 0.274Mn 0.324 0.269 0.314 0.255 0.307 0.257Cu <0.003 0.012 <0.003 0.011 <0.003 0.011Zn 0.110 0.112 0.100 0.107 0.109 0.116Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005Ni 0.018 0.021 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.022Pb 0.010 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.80 --- 3.63 --- 3.71 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.52 --- 3.52 --- 3.51 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 7.9 --- 3.0 --- 5.4 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

90
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 19

Red River at 

USGS Gage 19

Red River at 

USGS Gage 20

Red River at 

USGS Gage 20

Red River at 

USGS Gage 21

Red River at 

USGS Gage 21

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 20:30 20:30 22:00 22:00 23:30 23:30Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.61 7.61 7.65 7.65 7.60 7.60SC (μS/cm) 372 372 374 374 374 374

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 58.3 --- 55.3 --- 50.1 ---Mg 13.1 --- 12.6 --- 10.7 ---Na 5.84 --- 5.53 --- 5.53 ---K 1.13 --- 1.13 --- 1.12 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.006 --- 0.005 ---SO4 132 --- 132 --- 132 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 52.7 --- 60.5 --- 61.0 ---F 1.12 --- 1.06 --- 1.04 ---Cl 9.85 --- 3.29 --- 3.19 ---NO3 0.47 --- 0.30 --- 0.30 ---Sr 0.310 0.234 0.291 0.277 0.300 0.290Ba 0.038 0.030 0.035 0.034 0.036 0.035SiO2 11.9 10.5 12.0 12.2 10.8 12.7Al 0.081 1.23 0.060 1.32 <0.05 1.33Fe <0.007 0.207 <0.007 0.193 <0.007 0.196Mn 0.311 0.254 0.334 0.298 0.256 0.310Cu <0.003 0.012 <0.003 0.016 <0.003 0.016Zn 0.107 0.128 0.114 0.116 0.086 0.141Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 0.005 <0.005Ni 0.019 0.020 0.017 0.019 0.019 0.022Pb 0.011 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.92 --- 3.72 --- 3.33 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.58 --- 3.52 --- 3.56 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 9.1 --- 5.5 --- -6.7 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

91
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 22

Red River at 

USGS Gage 22

Red River at 

USGS Gage 23

Red River at 

USGS Gage 23

Red River at 

USGS Gage 24

Red River at 

USGS Gage 24

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003Collection Time 1:00 1:00 2:30 2:30 4:00 4:00Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.61 7.61 7.63 7.63 7.58 7.58SC (μS/cm) 375 375 374 374 376 376

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 54.9 --- 56.6 --- 53.1 ---Mg 12.7 --- 13.3 --- 11.6 ---Na 5.47 --- 5.80 --- 5.84 ---K 1.14 --- 1.22 --- 1.23 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.006 --- 0.006 ---SO4 132 --- 133 --- 133 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 60.6 --- 60.7 --- 60.8 ---F 1.02 --- 1.06 --- 1.05 ---Cl 3.76 --- 3.21 --- 3.34 ---NO3 0.35 --- 0.38 --- 0.41 ---Sr 0.292 0.266 0.313 0.281 0.296 0.295Ba 0.036 0.033 0.039 0.035 0.037 0.037SiO2 12.3 11.9 12.8 12.3 11.7 14.0Al 0.057 1.36 0.071 1.43 0.109 1.55Fe <0.007 0.206 <0.007 0.213 <0.007 0.230Mn 0.319 0.305 0.333 0.316 0.320 0.346Cu <0.003 0.016 <0.003 0.015 0.005 0.017Zn 0.108 0.201 0.108 0.137 0.096 0.154Cd <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 0.004Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.020 0.023 0.024 0.023 0.023 0.025Pb <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.71 --- 3.85 --- 3.56 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.55 --- 3.53 --- 3.56 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 4.3 --- 8.7 --- 0.0 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyze; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

92
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 25

Red River at 

USGS Gage 25

Red River at 

USGS Gage 26

Red River at 

USGS Gage 26

Red River at 

USGS Gage 27

Red River at 

USGS Gage 27

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003Collection Time 5:30 5:30 7:00 7:00 8:30 8:30Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.56 7.56 7.48 7.48 7.72 7.72SC (μS/cm) 376 376 376 376 375 375

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 53.8 --- 48.2 --- 56.8 ---Mg 11.6 --- 10.8 --- 12.1 ---Na 5.66 --- 5.46 --- 6.01 ---K 1.13 --- 1.17 --- 1.24 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.006 --- 0.007 ---SO4 133 --- 133 --- 132 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 48.2 --- 60.4 --- 60.5 ---F 1.02 --- 1.05 --- 1.18 ---Cl 9.99 --- 3.28 --- 3.29 ---NO3 0.64 --- 0.41 --- 0.41 ---Sr 0.288 0.290 0.270 0.281 0.311 0.304Ba 0.034 0.036 0.033 0.035 0.037 0.038SiO2 11.7 13.5 11.1 12.3 12.9 13.5Al 0.102 1.68 0.079 1.60 0.104 1.39Fe <0.007 0.276 <0.007 0.241 <0.007 0.310Mn 0.311 0.350 0.292 0.312 0.358 0.333Cu 0.003 0.017 <0.003 0.017 0.004 0.017Zn 0.093 0.153 0.090 0.144 0.077 0.132Cd <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.022 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.026Pb <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.58 --- 3.25 --- 3.77 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.55 --- 3.58 --- 3.54 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 0.8 --- -9.6 --- 6.6 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

93
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 28

Red River at 

USGS Gage 28

Red River at 

USGS Gage 29

Red River at 

USGS Gage 29

Red River at 

USGS Gage 30

Red River at 

USGS Gage 30

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003Collection Time 10:00 10:00 11:30 11:30 13:00 13:00Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.73 7.73 7.72 7.72 7.73 7.73SC (μS/cm) 375 375 373 373 372 372

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 54.1 --- 54.5 --- 50.4 ---Mg 12.9 --- 13.1 --- 11.0 ---Na 6.29 --- 6.15 --- 5.61 ---K 1.31 --- 1.23 --- 1.16 ---Li 0.007 --- 0.006 --- 0.007 ---SO4 132 --- 132 --- 132 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 60.5 --- 60.3 --- 60.1 ---F 1.06 --- 1.07 --- 1.11 ---Cl 3.21 --- 3.20 --- 3.24 ---NO3 0.38 --- 0.36 --- 0.35 ---Sr 0.340 0.276 0.317 0.269 0.312 0.280Ba 0.040 0.034 0.037 0.034 0.036 0.035SiO2 14.3 12.5 13.6 12.5 11.1 11.9Al 0.140 1.28 0.125 1.44 0.119 1.34Fe 0.206 0.201 <0.007 0.209 <0.007 0.175Mn 0.373 0.323 0.360 0.321 0.290 0.305Cu 0.007 0.014 <0.003 0.015 <0.003 0.014Zn 0.085 0.140 0.084 0.129 0.071 0.116Cd 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001Cr 0.003 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003Co <0.005 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.021 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.025 0.022Pb <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.73 --- 3.76 --- 3.37 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.53 --- 3.52 --- 3.54 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 5.4 --- 6.4 --- -4.9 ---

μS/cm, microssiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

94
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River at 

USGS Gage 31

Red River at 

USGS Gage 31

Red River at 

USGS Gage 32

Red River at 

USGS Gage 32

Red River at 

USGS Gage 33

Red River at 

USGS Gage 33

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003Collection Time 14:30 14:30 16:00 16:00 17:30 17:30Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.78 7.78 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76SC (μS/cm) 372 372 372 372 373 373

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 57.8 --- 49.6 --- 49.1 ---Mg 12.4 --- 10.8 --- 10.7 ---Na 5.60 --- 5.36 --- 5.04 ---K 1.06 --- 1.13 --- 1.02 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.007 --- 0.006 ---SO4 132 --- 132 --- 133 ---Alkalinity as HCO3- 60.5 --- 60.5 --- 60.4 ---F 1.05 --- 1.16 --- 1.08 ---Cl 3.18 --- 3.57 --- 3.25 ---NO3 0.32 --- 0.30 --- 0.31 ---Sr 0.268 0.290 0.291 0.322 0.274 0.284Ba 0.031 0.035 0.034 0.040 0.032 0.035SiO2 11.1 13.0 11.1 15.1 11.1 13.8Al 0.134 1.32 0.121 1.83 0.107 1.43Fe <0.007 0.188 <0.007 0.284 <0.007 0.214Mn 0.290 0.318 0.286 0.360 0.291 0.308Cu <0.003 0.012 <0.003 0.021 0.003 0.015Zn 0.080 0.123 0.063 0.142 0.077 0.148Cd <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001Cr 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.018 0.020 0.019 0.025 0.021 0.024Pb <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.82 --- 3.31 --- 3.27 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 3.50 --- 3.56 --- 3.57 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 8.6 --- -7.3 --- -8.8 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific 

conductance; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

95
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 1

Red River Above 

Mill 1

Red River Above 

Mill 2

Red River Above 

Mill 2

Red River Above 

Mill 3

Red River Above 

Mill 3

Collection Date 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003Collection Time 16:45 16:45 18:15 18:15 19:45 19:45Filtration Date 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.99 7.99 7.97 7.97 7.99 7.99SC (μS/cm) 290 290 290 290 290 290

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 38.8 --- 39.8 --- 40.3 ---Mg 8.9 --- 8.9 --- 9.0 ---Na 4.55 --- 4.68 --- 4.76 ---K 1.00 --- 1.04 --- 1.03 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.005 --- 0.005 ---SO4 77.2 --- 79.1 --- 79.3 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 72.6 --- 75.9 --- 76.2 ---F 0.496 --- 0.468 --- 0.455 ---Cl 3.43 --- 2.70 --- 2.69 ---NO3 0.3 --- 1.1 --- 1.3 ---

Sr 0.226 0.246 0.231 0.254 0.231 0.248Ba 0.035 0.039 0.036 0.041 0.036 0.040SiO2 12.7 13.1 12.6 13.6 12.6 15.1

Al 0.112 0.697 0.078 0.740 0.080 0.785Fe 0.010 0.152 <0.007 0.184 0.011 0.183Mn 0.151 0.155 0.153 0.174 0.158 0.193Cu <0.003 0.009 <0.003 0.011 <0.003 0.013Zn 0.017 0.050 0.021 0.053 0.028 0.062Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.008 0.011 0.007 0.009 0.011 0.009Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.72 --- 2.77 --- 2.80 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.74 --- 2.82 --- 2.83 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) -0.6 --- -1.7 --- -0.8 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

96
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 4

Red River Above 

Mill 4

Red River Above 

Mill 5

Red River Above 

Mill 5

Red River Above 

Mill 6

Red River Above 

Mill 6

Collection Date 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 21:15 21:15 22:45 22:45 0:15 0:15Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.94 7.94 7.93 7.93 7.95 7.95SC (μS/cm) 291 291 292 292 292 292

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 40.7 --- 41.2 --- 41.9 ---Mg 9.0 --- 9.0 --- 9.0 ---Na 4.85 --- 4.81 --- 4.93 ---K 1.04 --- 1.04 --- 1.11 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.005 --- 0.005 ---SO4 78.7 --- 79.7 --- 79.0 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.6 --- 75.9 --- 76.0 ---F 0.373 --- 0.373 --- 0.507 ---Cl 2.89 --- 2.72 --- 2.83 ---NO3 1.4 --- 1.4 --- 1.3 ---

Sr 0.240 0.281 0.235 0.273 0.242 0.266Ba 0.038 0.046 0.037 0.044 0.037 0.043SiO2 12.7 15.2 12.6 15.3 13.1 13.8

Al 0.053 0.854 0.101 0.849 0.077 0.824Fe 0.007 0.221 <0.007 0.219 <0.007 0.239Mn 0.163 0.202 0.163 0.205 0.168 0.208Cu <0.003 0.013 <0.003 0.013 <0.003 0.010Zn 0.030 0.056 0.025 0.091 0.035 0.067Cd 0.002 <0.001 0.0013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.011 0.014 0.011 0.016 0.014 0.010Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.83 --- 2.85 --- 2.90 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.81 --- 2.83 --- 2.82 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 0.8 --- 0.8 --- 2.7 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

97
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 7

Red River Above 

Mill 7

Red River Above 

Mill 8

Red River Above 

Mill 8

Red River Above 

Mill 9

Red River Above 

Mill 9

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 1:45 1:45 3:15 3:15 4:45 4:45Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.92 7.92 7.93 7.93 8.00 8.00SC (μS/cm) 292 292 291 291 290 290

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 42.7 --- 43.0 --- 42.4 47.6Mg 9.3 --- 9.3 --- 9.3 10.5Na 5.14 --- 5.19 --- 5.14 5.97K 1.09 --- 1.08 --- 1.10 1.67Li 0.005 --- 0.006 --- 0.006 0.006SO4 80.1 --- 80.1 --- 79.6 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.9 --- 75.9 --- 75.6 ---F 0.455 --- 0.524 --- 0.532 ---Cl 2.74 --- 2.71 --- 3.04 ---NO3 1.3 --- 1.3 --- 1.2 ---

Sr 0.250 0.255 0.253 0.263 0.243 0.274Ba 0.039 0.042 0.038 0.043 0.037 0.045SiO2 13.4 15.6 13.2 15.9 13.3 15.3

Al 0.077 0.799 0.064 0.803 <0.05 0.889Fe <0.007 0.394 <0.007 0.240 <0.007 0.291Mn 0.175 0.200 0.177 0.211 0.174 0.216Cu <0.003 0.013 <0.003 0.013 <0.003 0.013Zn 0.031 0.085 0.035 0.085 0.037 0.133Cd 0.0015 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.0014 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.011 0.012 0.010 0.012 0.009 0.014Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.96 --- 2.97 --- 2.95 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.83 --- 2.83 --- 2.83 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 4.5 --- 4.9 --- 4.2 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

98
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 10

Red River Above 

Mill 10

Red River Above 

Mill 11

Red River Above 

Mill 11

Red River Above 

Mill 12

Red River Above 

Mill 12

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 6:15 6:15 7:45 7:45 9:15 9:15Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.96 7.96 7.90 7.90 7.91 7.91SC (μS/cm) 291 291 290 290 291 291

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 42.3 --- 42.7 --- 41.4 ---Mg 9.3 --- 9.3 --- 9.7 ---Na 5.06 --- 4.91 --- 5.04 ---K 1.12 --- 1.08 --- 1.06 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.006 --- 0.005 ---SO4 79.9 --- 79.6 --- 79.6 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.6 --- 75.8 --- 75.9 ---F 0.465 --- 0.350 --- 0.478 ---Cl 2.71 --- 2.66 --- 2.84 ---NO3 --- 1.1 --- 1.1 ---

Sr 0.243 0.285 0.248 0.242 0.250 0.243Ba 0.037 0.046 0.037 0.039 0.037 0.038SiO2 13.8 15.8 13.0 13.6 13.9 13.6

Al 0.062 0.879 <0.05 0.756 <0.05 0.761Fe 0.008 0.260 <0.007 0.276 <0.007 0.193Mn 0.181 0.217 0.182 0.189 0.183 0.184Cu <0.003 0.015 <0.003 0.010 <0.003 0.010Zn 0.038 0.082 0.037 0.061 0.035 0.052Cd 0.002 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.002 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.014 0.012 0.015 0.012 0.011 0.010Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.94 --- 2.95 --- 2.93 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.80 --- 2.81 --- 2.82 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 4.8 --- 4.7 --- 3.6 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyze

99
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 13

Red River Above 

Mill 13

Red River Above 

Mill 14

Red River Above 

Mill 14

Red River Above 

Mill 15

Red River Above 

Mill 15

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 10:55 10:55 12:25 12:25 13:55 13:55Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.94 7.94 7.98 7.98 8.03 8.03SC (μS/cm) 290 290 291 291 290 290

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 43.1 --- 43.7 --- 43.5 ---Mg 9.9 --- 9.8 --- 10.2 ---Na 5.01 --- 5.07 --- 5.04 ---K 1.13 --- 1.14 --- 1.16 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.006 --- 0.005 ---SO4 80.2 --- 77.6 --- 79.6 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.2 --- 69.4 --- 74.5 ---F 0.458 --- 0.491 --- 0.391 ---Cl 2.62 --- 2.85 --- 2.71 ---NO3 1.1 --- 1.0 --- 1.0 ---

Sr 0.269 0.241 0.245 0.256 0.255 0.256Ba 0.041 0.038 0.037 0.039 0.038 0.040SiO2 14.1 13.3 13.1 13.9 13.9 15.1

Al 0.116 0.710 0.113 0.670 0.136 0.832Fe <0.007 0.182 <0.007 0.144 <0.007 0.305Mn 0.182 0.177 0.165 0.177 0.171 0.185Cu <0.003 0.011 <0.003 0.011 <0.003 0.011Zn 0.026 0.067 0.025 0.059 0.018 0.676Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.010 0.010 0.007 0.011 0.010 0.010Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.93 --- 3.05 --- 3.06 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.82 --- 2.69 --- 2.78 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 4.0 --- 12.4 --- 9.6 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

100
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 16

Red River Above 

Mill 16

Red River Above 

Mill 17

Red River Above 

Mill 17

Red River Above 

Mill 18

Red River Above 

Mill 18

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 15:25 15:25 16:55 16:55 18:25 18:25Filtration Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 8.06 8.06 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02SC (μS/cm) 291 291 290 290 292 292

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 44.0 --- 41.1 --- 41.6 ---Mg 10.4 --- 10.1 --- 10.5 ---Na 5.51 --- 5.22 --- 5.11 ---K 1.26 --- 1.16 --- 1.14 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.006 --- 0.005 ---SO4 79.6 --- 80.2 --- 80.3 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 74.7 --- 74.7 --- 76.2 ---F 0.385 --- 0.351 --- 0.355 ---Cl 2.57 --- 2.76 --- 2.58 ---NO3 1.0 --- 0.9 --- 1.2 ---

Sr 0.275 0.249 0.258 0.242 0.256 0.247Ba 0.041 0.038 0.039 0.037 0.040 0.038SiO2 14.5 14.5 14.4 13.7 14.9 13.8

Al 0.176 0.744 0.157 0.680 0.161 0.713Fe <0.007 0.164 <0.007 0.160 <0.007 0.169Mn 0.171 0.177 0.175 0.165 0.174 0.173Cu <0.003 0.011 <0.003 0.008 <0.003 0.010Zn 0.022 0.050 0.023 0.072 0.030 0.634Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.010 0.011 0.009 0.011 0.012 0.011Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.13 --- 2.95 --- 3.00 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.78 --- 2.80 --- 2.82 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 11.8 --- 5.2 --- 6.0 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

101
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 19

Red River Above 

Mill 19

Red River Above 

Mill 20

Red River Above 

Mill 20

Red River Above 

Mill 21

Red River Above 

Mill 21

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003Collection Time 19:55 19:55 21:25 21:25 22:55 22:55Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.90 7.90 7.84 7.84 7.94 7.94SC (μS/cm) 293 293 294 294 294 294

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 42.5 --- 41.7 --- 42.2 ---Mg 10.1 --- 10.2 --- 10.5 ---Na 5.19 --- 5.33 --- 5.54 ---K 1.22 --- 1.18 --- 1.19 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.006 --- 0.006 ---SO4 80.8 --- 80.3 --- 80.8 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.9 --- 75.6 --- 75.7 ---F 0.461 --- 0.351 --- 0.471 ---Cl 2.78 --- 2.75 --- 2.79 ---NO3 1.7 --- 1.8 --- 1.9 ---

Sr 0.265 0.238 0.261 0.241 0.268 0.255Ba 0.041 0.039 0.041 0.040 0.042 0.040SiO2 14.1 13.1 14.2 13.4 15.4 13.6

Al 0.104 0.701 0.084 0.700 0.144 0.719Fe <0.007 0.187 <0.007 0.182 <0.007 0.303Mn 0.182 0.172 0.184 0.180 0.195 0.177Cu <0.003 0.010 <0.003 0.011 <0.003 0.011Zn 0.034 0.052 0.040 0.050 0.039 0.056Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0015 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.011 <0.005Ni 0.012 0.009 0.012 0.010 0.013 0.010Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.009 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 3.01 --- 2.99 --- 3.05 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.85 --- 2.83 --- 2.85 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 5.6 --- 5.5 --- 6.8 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

102
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 22

Red River Above 

Mill 22

Red River Above 

Mill 23

Red River Above 

Mill 23

Red River Above 

Mill 24

Red River Above 

Mill 24

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003Collection Time 0:25 0:25 1:55 1:55 3:25 3:25Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.86 7.86 7.86 7.86 7.86 7.86SC (μS/cm) 295 295 294 294 294 294

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 41.0 --- 43.5 --- 40.4 ---Mg 10.4 --- 10.8 --- 9.2 ---Na 5.52 --- 5.58 --- 5.01 ---K 1.21 --- 1.14 --- 1.18 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.006 --- 0.007 ---SO4 81.1 --- 81.1 --- 81.5 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.5 --- 75.4 --- 75.5 ---F 0.460 --- 0.432 --- 0.372 ---Cl 2.82 --- 2.73 --- 2.80 ---NO3 1.9 --- 1.6 --- 1.5 ---

Sr 0.271 0.245 0.265 0.227 0.248 0.245Ba 0.043 0.041 0.041 0.036 0.038 0.039SiO2 14.6 13.7 15.0 12.9 13.2 13.7

Al 0.107 0.711 0.083 0.628 0.163 0.677Fe <0.007 1.245 <0.007 0.127 0.017 0.169Mn 0.192 0.179 0.200 0.169 0.185 0.182Cu <0.003 0.009 <0.003 0.007 0.004 0.009Zn 0.040 0.059 0.038 0.060 0.036 0.056Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.010 0.010 0.011Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.98 --- 3.13 --- 2.84 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.86 --- 2.84 --- 2.86 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 4.3 --- 9.9 --- -0.8 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

103
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 25

Red River Above 

Mill 25

Red River Above 

Mill 26

Red River Above 

Mill 26

Red River Above 

Mill 27

Red River Above 

Mill 27

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003Collection Time 4:55 4:55 6:25 6:25 7:55 7:55Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.87 7.87 7.84 7.84 7.84 7.84SC (μS/cm) 293 293 293 293 293 293

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 38.8 --- 39.9 --- 40.6 ---Mg 8.8 --- 8.9 --- 8.9 ---Na 4.86 --- 4.89 --- 4.88 ---K 1.05 --- 1.11 --- 1.10 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.006 --- 0.005 ---SO4 80.3 --- 81.1 --- 80.7 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.2 --- 75.3 --- 75.8 ---F 0.411 --- 0.418 --- 0.456 ---Cl 2.84 --- 2.69 --- 2.80 ---NO3 1.2 --- 1.3 --- 1.2 ---

Sr 0.239 0.233 0.241 0.216 0.250 0.227Ba 0.037 0.039 0.037 0.034 0.037 0.035SiO2 13.1 14.1 13.1 12.8 13.3 13.2

Al 0.118 0.921 0.131 0.613 0.138 0.658Fe <0.007 2.374 <0.007 0.169 <0.007 0.167Mn 0.174 0.177 0.179 0.169 0.180 0.175Cu 0.004 0.009 0.005 0.008 0.006 0.008Zn 0.034 1.502 0.032 0.052 0.033 0.050Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.012 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.010Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.72 --- 2.78 --- 2.82 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.83 --- 2.85 --- 2.85 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) -4.0 --- -2.3 --- -1.1 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

104
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 28

Red River Above 

Mill 28

Red River Above 

Mill 29

Red River Above 

Mill 29

Red River Above 

Mill 30

Red River Above 

Mill 30

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003Collection Time 9:25 9:25 10:55 10:55 12:25 12:25Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 7.94 7.94 7.96 7.96 7.97 7.97SC (μS/cm) 292 292 292 292 291 291

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 41.0 --- 42.1 --- 40.6 ---Mg 9.0 --- 8.9 --- 8.9 ---Na 5.04 --- 4.87 --- 4.85 ---K 1.16 --- 1.01 --- 1.08 ---Li 0.006 --- 0.005 --- 0.005 ---SO4 80.6 --- 80.7 --- 81.1 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.8 --- 75.7 --- 75.1 ---F 0.431 --- 0.354 --- 0.500 ---Cl 2.68 --- 2.66 --- 2.70 ---NO3 1.2 --- 1.1 --- 1.1 ---

Sr 0.251 0.226 0.251 0.226 0.248 0.235Ba 0.038 0.083 0.037 0.034 0.037 0.036SiO2 12.9 14.9 12.3 12.1 13.1 13.1

Al 0.117 1.83 0.117 0.595 0.170 0.636Fe <0.007 0.532 <0.007 0.118 <0.007 0.120Mn 0.171 0.175 0.157 0.167 0.166 0.164Cu 0.004 0.010 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.008Zn 0.032 0.075 0.029 0.046 0.024 0.044Cd 0.0010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.012 0.011 0.013 0.009 0.010 0.007Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.85 --- 2.88 --- 2.81 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.84 --- 2.83 --- 2.84 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 0.4 --- 1.8 --- -1.0 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

105
Table 8. Low-flow diel water analyses -- Continued

Location

Red River Above 

Mill 31

Red River Above 

Mill 31

Red River Above 

Mill 32

Red River Above 

Mill 32

Red River Above 

Mill 33

Red River Above 

Mill 33

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003Collection Time 13:55 13:55 15:25 15:25 16:55 16:55Filtration Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment FA/FU RA FA/FU RA FA/FU RApH (lab) 8.00 8.00 8.02 8.02 8.03 8.03SC (μS/cm) 292 292 291 291 292 292

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 42.8 --- 43.8 --- 41.8 ---Mg 9.2 --- 9.4 --- 9.5 ---Na 5.10 --- 5.08 --- 5.02 ---K 1.16 --- 1.18 --- 1.19 ---Li 0.005 --- 0.007 --- 0.006 ---SO4 81.2 --- 81.1 --- 81.0 ---

Alkalinity as HCO3- 75.3 --- 75.0 --- 75.8 ---F 0.458 --- 0.507 --- 0.453 ---Cl 2.64 --- 2.60 --- 2.59 ---NO3 0.9 --- 0.7 --- 0.8 ---

Sr 0.258 0.210 0.257 0.212 0.253 0.212Ba 0.038 0.031 0.038 0.032 0.039 0.032SiO2 13.1 11.8 12.8 11.7 14.0 10.9

Al 0.190 0.596 0.193 0.561 0.226 0.579Fe <0.007 0.123 0.008 0.110 <0.007 0.105Mn 0.163 0.143 0.150 0.138 0.163 0.135Cu 0.008 0.008 0.005 0.006 <0.003 0.008Zn 0.021 0.048 0.023 0.031 0.022 0.036Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Co <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Ni 0.012 0.008 0.011 0.009 0.012 0.010Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008Be <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007V <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum cations (meq/L) 2.96 --- 3.01 --- 2.93 ---Sum anions (meq/L) 2.83 --- 2.82 --- 2.83 ---

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

Charge imbalance (percent) 4.2 --- 6.6 --- 3.3 ---

μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; oC, degrees Celsius; RA, raw acidified; SC, specific conductance; 

<, less than; ---, not analyzed; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

106
changed very little during the study. Results 

from the low-flow diel study are presented in 

table 8. 

At both sites during high flow and at the 

Questa Ranger Station gage during low flow, 

concentrations of chemical constituents do not 

appear to have varied on a diel cycle. Upstream 

from the Questa mine mill during low-flow 

(October 2003), the pH increased during the day 

from 8.15 to 8.34 due to photosynthetic 

consumption of CO2

 (fig. 20). Dissolved oxygen 

concentrations increased during the night as the 

temperature decreased (fig. 21), owing to oxygen 

aqueous solubility increasing as temperature 

decreases. Only dissolved zinc and manganese 

concentrations had definite diel patterns, 

decreasing to a minimum at about noon and 

increasing to a maximum before sunrise (fig. 

22). Trace metal diel cycles have been observed 

in several Rocky Mountain streams and possible 

causes are (1) upstream metal loading, (2) 

streamflow variations, (3) biological activity, (4) 

precipitation/dissolution reactions, and (5) 

adsorption/desorption reactions (Fuller and 

Davis, 1989; Brick and Moore, 1996; Nimick 

and others, 2003, 2005). Photosynthesis-induced 

pH changes were determined to be the major 

cause of the Zn diel cycle in Prickly Pear Creek, 

Mont. (pH 8.0-8.4) during low-flow conditions 

in July 2001 (Jones and others, 2004). 

Summary of Red River Water Quality 

The 21 water-chemistry samples collected 

at the USGS streamflow-gaging station near the 

Questa Ranger Station occurred during a range 

of flow conditions including a drought year and 

a major storm event. Overall, the water at this 

site is circumneutral, calcium-sulfatebicarbonate type. Hydrologic flow regime is a 

primary control of Red River water quality, with 

storm events creating the most dramatic changes 

in water quality. During the September 2002 

storm event the discharge at the USGS Questa 

Ranger Station gage increased from 8 to 102 

ft3

/s, and acid runoff from hydrothermally 

altered scars entered the Red River causing it to 

become acidic and highly turbid (figs. 5 and 

cover photograph). During the first day of the 

storm, the pH decreased from 7.80 to 4.83, 

alkalinity decreased from about 50 to <1 mg/L, 

SO4

 increased from 162 to 314 mg/L, dissolved 

Fe increased from to 0.011 to 0.596 mg/L, 

dissolved Al increased from 0.189 to 2.88 mg/L, 

and dissolved Zn increased from 0.056 to 0.607 

mg/L. Previous studies by Smolka and Tague 

(1987; 1989) during smaller, more localized 

events documented a decrease in the pH of the 

Red River near the Elephant Rock campground 

from 8.1 to 3.8 because of runoff from upstream 

scar areas, and Garn (USGS, 2003) also 

documented a pH drop from 7.4 to 3.8 for the 

Red River at the Questa Ranger Station gage for 

a storm event on September 7, 1986. 

Historical water quality of the Red River 

was assessed by Maest and others (2004) but 

was further evaluated in this report because of 

more recent measurements and the discovery of 

additional sulfate data. The overall conclusion 

by Maest and others (2004) that the sulfate 

concentration at the Questa Ranger Station gage 

has increased over time is supported by this 

study. No significant increase in dissolved 

sulfate concentration in the Red River from 

upstream from the Molycrop mill to the gage 

was observed from 1975 to 1985 but an increase 

in dissolved sulfate did occur in this reach 

between 1992 and 2004. Determining the 

driving force of these increases is beyond the 

scope of this study. Possible driving forces 

include surface-water and ground-water 

extractions for Molycorp mill use and groundwater flow from the Molycorp mine site. 

Straight Creek Water Chemistry, 2001-

2003 

The Straight Creek subbasin was chosen as 

an analog site for evaluating pre-mining baseline 

conditions because of its geologic, topographic, 

and geomorphologic characteristics (Naus and 

others, 2005). A set of eight alluvial and three 

bedrock wells was installed in the debris fan at 

the base of the subbasin and sampled monthly or 

quarterly from March 2002 to June 2004. During 

most of the year, water emerges from the 

bedrock or colluvium near the drainage divide 

and flows over bedrock or ferricrete to the debris 

fan. After entering the main channel in the upper 

portion of the debris fan, discharge decreases 

until the surface flow completely seeps into the 

bed. Infiltration of Straight Creek surface water 

appears to be the primary source of water to the 

uppermost alluvial well (SC1A; Naus and 

others, 2005). During some high-flow 

conditions, for example during the September 

2002 storm event, water continues to flow in the 

main channel of the Straight Creek debris fan to 

107
10/20/2003 12:00

10/20/2003 18:0010/21/2003 00:0010/21/2003 06:00

10/21/2003 12:00

10/21/2003 18:00

10/22/2003 00:0010/22/2003 06:0010/22/2003 12:00

10/22/2003 18:00

10/23/2003 00:00

8.10

8.15

8.20

8.25

8.30

8.35

8.40

0.00025

0.00030

0.00035

0.00040

0.00045

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

PCO2, IN ATMOSPHERE

PCO2

pH

Figure 20. pH and calculated PCO2 diel trends for low-flow conditions in the Red River at upstream mill site. 

the Red River. To determine the chemistry of 

water entering the top of the debris fan, surfacewater samples were collected during each wellsampling event. 

The range in pH for Straight Creek surfacewater samples was 2.44 to 3.25, and the range 

for just the lower Straight Creek samples was 

2.73 to 3.25 (table 4). Considering the 

differences in hydrologic conditions among the 

samples including baseflow, snowmelt, and 

storm events, this range is narrow. Robertson 

GeoConsultants Inc. (2001a) report a similar 

range in pH, 2.6-3.0 for surface waters in 

Straight Creek collected above the debris fan 

during 2000. Water from upper Straight Creek 

near the drainage divide had the lowest pH value 

(2.44) and along the downstream transect 

sampling of October 2003, the pH increased to a 

value of 2.90. This trend is similar to the upper 

and lower Straight Creek sampling in September 

2001, when the pH value increased from 2.66 to 

2.82. 

During most Straight Creek sampling trips 

discharge at the pipe was measured using a 

calibrated bucket and stop watch or using a 

portable flume. Discharge varied from 3.7 to 91 

gallons per minute (fig. 23A). Peak discharges 

occurred in September 2002 during a storm 

event and April 2003 during a rain and snow 

event. Although there was a 10-fold increase in 

discharge during the storm, little change in pH 

occurred (fig. 23A). Determining the relation 

between flow and solute concentration is 

difficult with this limited dataset and the 

uncertainty in the flow-measurement technique. 

The February and March 2002 samples had the 

lowest dissolved zinc and sulfate concentrations 

because these samples were collected during the 

middle of the day when the ice and snow that 

covered the channel were melting and diluting 

the stream water. Relatively low sulfate and zinc 

concentrations also were measured during a 

spring rain and snow event and on the first 

morning of the September 2002 storm event.

108
10/20/2003 12:00

10/20/2003 18:00

10/21/2003 00:00

10/21/2003 06:0010/21/2003 12:0010/21/2003 18:00

10/22/2003 00:00

10/22/2003 06:00

10/22/2003 12:00

10/22/2003 18:00

10/23/2003 00:00

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

Temperature

Dissolved Oxygen

 DISSOLVED OXYGEN, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 21. Diel trends in temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations for low-flow conditions in the Red River 

at upstream mill site. 

(figs. 23B and C). Robertson GeoConsultants 

Inc. (2001a) reported high-frequency sampling 

of a storm event that occurred on July 16, 2000. 

In contrast to our results, the highest sulfate 

concentration (7,100 mg/L) occurred in a sample 

collected with an estimated flow of 30 gallons 

per minute, approximately an hour and 20

minutes after the peak flow of 270 gallons per 

minute. 

Static water level in well SC1A, the 

uppermost alluvial well in the debris fan, was 

measured monthly from April 2002 to May 

2004. Peak flow of Straight Creek appears to 

produce a rise in the static water level in well 

SC1A (figs. 24A and B). 

Similar to the Red River samples, a strong 

correlation exists between specific conductance 

and sulfate concentrations (fig. 25). The two 

samples with the lowest specific conductance 

and sulfate concentrations were collected in 

February and March 2002 when the creek was 

partially covered with ice. The relatively dilute 

water likely had a substantial fraction of melted 

ice. The three samples with intermediate specific 

conductance (about 2,250 μS/cm) and sulfate 

concentrations (about 1,500 mg/L) were 

collected during precipitation events in 

September 2002 and April 2003. The highest 

sulfate concentrations (about 2,950 mg/L) were 

from samples along the October 2003 

downstream transect, and a substantial decrease 

in sulfate concentration (from 2,990 to 2,310 

mg/L) occurred between the fourth and fifth 

transect site (03WA171 and 03WA172),

suggesting that more dilute waters were entering 

Straight Creek. 

109
10/20/2003 12:00

10/20/2003 18:00

10/21/2003 00:00

10/21/2003 06:00

10/21/2003 12:00

10/21/2003 18:0010/22/2003 00:00

10/22/2003 06:00

10/22/2003 12:0010/22/2003 18:00

10/23/2003 00:00

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.22

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Manganese

Zinc

Figure 22. Diel trends in dissolved zinc and dissolved manganese concentrations for low-flow conditions in the Red 

River at upstream mill site. 

Sulfate concentration in waters draining 

mineralized areas typically is controlled by 

dissolution of sulfide and sulfate minerals. In the 

Straight Creek subbasin, pyrite is the primary 

sulfide mineral and gypsum is the primary 

sulfate mineral Plumlee and others (in press). To 

evaluate the importance of gypsum dissolution 

as a control of sulfate in the Straight Creek 

waters, the plot of molar concentrations of 

calcium and sulfate is useful (fig. 26A). All the 

samples from Straight Creek plot well to the 

right of the 1:1 Ca:SO4

 line, consistent with 

pyrite being the dominant control of sulfate in 

these waters. The two points that lie nearest to 

the line are the February and March 2003 

samples when the creek was partially covered by 

ice. All these samples are at least slightly 

undersaturated with respect to gypsum (fig. 

26B). 

Concentrations of many dissolved trace 

metals in the Straight Creek surface-water 

dataset display a positive correlation with sulfate 

concentration (figs. 27A-C). The lowerconcentration samples were collected during 

precipitation events or during periods of ice 

melting (February and March 2003) when 

Straight Creek water was diluted. 

The concentration of dissolved iron is 

poorly correlated with sulfate concentration (fig.

28A). Unlike sulfate which tends to behave 

conservatively in acidic systems, iron can 

change redox state and will precipitate in 

oxygenated waters. In contrast to the ground 

water in the Straight Creek basin (Naus and

110
1/1/2001 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1/1/2001 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1/1/2001 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

DISCHARGE,

IN GALLONS PER MINUTE

DATE

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Discharge

Sulfate

B.

 ZINC CONCENTRATION,IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISCHARGE,

IN GALLONS PER MINUTE

DATE

Zinc

Discharge

C.

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

DISCHARGE, 

IN GALLONS PER MINUTE

DATE

pH

Discharge

A.

Figure 23. Discharge of Straight Creek from 2001 through 2003 with (A) pH, (B) sulfate concentration, and (C) 

dissolved zinc concentration. 

111
5/1/2001 5/1/2002 5/1/2003 5/1/2004

1

10

100

GALLONS PER MINUTE

DISCHARGE, IN

A.

5/1/2001 5/1/2002 5/1/2003 5/1/2004

8,907

8,908

8,909

8,910

8,911

8,912

B.

IN FEET ABOVE NGVD 29STATIC WATER LEVEL,

Figure 24. (A) Discharge variation in Straight Creek and (B) static water level for Straight Creek debris fan, alluvial 

well SC1A. 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER

 Straight Creek

 Straight Creek transect

sulfate=0.84*specific conductance - 460

R2

=0.97

linear fit

Figure 25. Specific conductance in relation to sulfate concentration in Straight Creek. 

112
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

pyrite dissolution

calcite dissolution Increasing

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIMOLES PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIMOLES PER LITER

A. Gypsum dissolution line

Increasing

Straight Creek, Straight Creek transect, Hottentot,

Junebug, Hansen, Little Hansen, Unnamed drainage,

Waldo Spring, Goat Hill, Capulin

GYPSUM SATURATION INDEX

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

EXPLANTION

Figure 26. (A) Calcium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration in Straight Creek with gypsum congruent 

dissolution line and (B) gypsum saturation indices in relation to calcium concentration. 

113
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

MAGNESIUM CONCENTRATION, 

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

NICKEL CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

C.

ZINC CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

Figure 27. (A) Dissolved magnesium, (B) zinc, and (C) nickel concentration in relation to sulfate concentration in 

Straight Creek. 

114
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

23456

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

FERRIC IRON CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISSOLVED IRON CONCENTRATION,

B.

TOTAL RECOVERABLE IRON CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISSOLVED IRON CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

C.

 arrow shows 

upstream to downstream 

 direction

storm sample

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISSOLVED IRON CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, 

A.

Ferrihydrite

Ferrihydrite (log Ksp=3)

FERRIHYDRITE SATURATION INDEX

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

Straight Creek, Straight Creek transect, Hottentot, Junebug, Hansen,

 Little Hansen, West of Little Hansen, Waldo Spring, Goat Hill, Capulin

Goethite (log Ksp=-1)

D.

 (log Ksp=4.9)

EXPLANATION

Figure 28. (A) Dissolved iron concentration in relation to sulfate concentration, (B) dissolved ferric iron 

concentration in relation to dissolved iron concentration, (C) dissolved iron concentration in relation to total 

recoverable iron concentration, and (D) ferrihydrite saturation indices in relation to pH. 

115
others, 2005), almost all the dissolved iron in 

Straight Creek surface water exists as ferric iron 

(fig. 28B), indicating rapid, probably 

microbially catalyzed, oxidation of ferrous iron 

derived from ground-water discharge to the 

stream. The highest concentration of dissolved 

iron occurred in the uppermost Straight Creek 

October 2003, transect sample (03WA168), and 

the dissolved iron concentration decreased with 

distance in the downstream direction. When 

dissolved iron concentrations are compared with 

total recoverable iron concentrations, two of the 

upstream transect samples and one of the stormevent samples lie substantially below the 1:1 

correlation line (fig. 28C), consistent with a 

fraction of the iron in the water column being 

particulate. This trend suggests that the 

downstream decrease in dissolved iron 

concentration is at least in part the result of 

precipitation of iron. The total-recoverable iron 

concentration also decreased, which indicates 

possible removal of iron precipitates from the 

water column. Iron precipitation is consistent 

with the presence of ferricrete within some 

reaches of the stream channel. Dilution by water 

with less dissolved iron may account for some of 

the downstream decrease in dissolved iron. 

For the October 2003, downstream transect 

samples, the dissolved iron concentration 

decreased with increasing pH. The relation is 

consistent with the increase in iron saturation 

with increasing pH. Mineral phases that might 

control iron concentrations include siderite or 

ferrihydrite. Siderite is undersaturated in these 

acid waters because the carbonate concentrations 

are too low. Ferrihydrite saturation appears to be 

a primary control on dissolved iron 

concentration (fig. 28D). 

If oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron 

and subsequent precipitation as ferrihydrite were 

the only process affecting the chemistry of the 

Straight Creek as it flows downstream, the pH 

would not increase because the formation of iron 

oxyhydroxides produces H+ thus lowering the 

pH. The downstream increase in pH suggests 

that additional water enters Straight Creek and 

this water has slightly higher pH than the upper 

samples (pH 2.44-2.66). Because the overall 

range in pH for the Straight Creek samples 

collected under different hydrologic conditions 

was relatively narrow, the water entering 

Straight Creek below the upper section likely 

has a pH of less than 4. 

Because many of the trends in this dataset 

reflect lower concentrations caused by dilution, 

it is difficult to separate elements into suites that 

are derived from similar sources. Elements that 

behave differently under the same hydrologic 

conditions would appear to have different 

sources. Some elements that are chemically 

similar, cobalt and nickel for example, covary 

(fig. 29) and therefore likely have the same 

source. Nickel concentrations also covary with 

magnesium concentrations suggesting a similar 

source mineral (fig. 30). Zinc and manganese 

concentrations covary, again suggesting a 

similar source mineral or lithology (fig. 31). 

Copper and zinc concentrations are less wellcorrelated (fig. 32), but in aqueous solutions 

their behavior is pH dependent. Thus, it is 

difficult to determine whether they have similar 

sources. From the first to the fourth sample 

along the downstream profile, the zinc 

concentration decreases from 14.7 to 10.8 mg/L 

whereas the copper concentration remains 

relatively constant (2.42 to 2.64 mg/L), 

suggesting that zinc has a different source than 

copper. 

High-silica magmas were the parental 

material for molybdenum mineralization at 

Questa and were enriched in a suite of trace 

elements including fluorine, beryllium, and 

lithium as well as tin, tungsten, and uranium 

(Elston, 1994). Fluoride, beryllium, and lithium 

concentrations also are elevated in the acid 

waters of Straight Creek. With the exception of 

the most upstream transect samples (03WA168 

and 03WA169), beryllium and lithium 

concentrations covary (fig. 33A), but fluoride is 

less well correlated (fig. 33B).

Rare Earth Elements 

A subset of samples was analyzed by ICPMS to evaluate whether additional trace-element 

data (table 5) could help unravel the chemical 

evolution of these waters. Rare earth elements 

(REEs) are a suite of 14 metals from atomic 

number 57 (La) to 71 (Lu) that have similar 

chemical and physical properties. The REEs are 

frequently used as geochemical tracers because 

of their coherent chemical behavior. 

Concentrations of REEs usually are normalized 

to a reference standard, such as chondrite or 

North American Shale Composite. We have 

chosen to normalize these waters to chondrite 

116
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

COBALT CONCENTRATION,

 Straight Creek

 Straight Creek transect

NICKEL CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 29. Cobalt concentration in relation to nickel concentration in Straight Creek. 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

 Straight Creek

 Straight Creek transect

NICKEL CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

MAGNESIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 30. Nickel concentration in relation to magnesium concentration in Straight Creek. 

117
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Straight Creek

Straight Creek transect

MANGANESE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

ZINC CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 arrow shows upstream

to downstream direction

Figure 31. Zinc concentration in relation to manganese concentration in Straight Creek. 

0 5 10 15

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

ZINC CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 Straight Creek

 Straight Creek transect

COPPER CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 arrow shows 

upstream to downstream

 direction 

Figure 32. Copper concentration in relation to zinc concentration in Straight Creek. 

118
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

B.

 Straight Creek

 Straight Creek transect

BERYLLIUM CONCENTRATION,

LITHIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

LITHIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 33. (A) Beryllium concentration in relation to lithium concentration in Straight Creek and (B) fluoride 

concentration in relation to lithium concentration in Straight Creek. 

119
values from Anders and Ebihara (1982) because 

we are particularly interested in europium 

variations in our samples. 

Although the REE concentrations varied by 

nearly an order of magnitude, the four samples 

collected from the Straight Creek sampling site 

(00WA197, 01WA154, 02WA112, and 

02WA121) above the alluvial fan display similar 

REE patterns (fig. 34) with a relatively flat light 

REE (La to Nd) portion, a moderate negative Eu 

anomaly, and a moderate slope for the heavy 

REEs (Dy to Lu). This pattern is similar to the 

REE patterns for the sample from SC1A (fig. 

34). The Straight Creek sample with the 

substantially lower REE concentrations was 

collected in March 2002 while snow that had 

fallen the previous day was melting. The sample 

collected from the upper portion of Straight 

Creek (Straight Creek high; 01WA155) has a 

substantially larger Eu anomaly (fig. 34). This 

water drains the Amalia Tuff which also 

displays a large negative Eu anomaly (Johnson 

and Lipman, 1988; Lipman, 1988). In contrast, 

the precaldera andesites that are lithologically 

below the Amalia Tuff do not contain a Eu 

anomaly. The smaller Eu anomaly of the lower 

Straight Creek waters could originate by mixing 

of water that drains the andesite, and does not 

contain a Eu anomaly, with water from upper 

Straight Creek. 

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

 Straight Creek-low, Straight Creek-high, Straight Creek (October 2000), 

 Straight Creek (March 2002), Straight Creek (April 2002), SC1A (April 2002)

RARE EARTH ELEMENT CONCENTRATION/C1 CHONDRITE

La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu

EXPLANATION

Figure 34. Rare earth elements in selected Straight Creek waters. Concentrations normalized to C1 chondrite values 

from Anders and Ebihara (1982). 

120
Stable Isotopes 

The oxygen and hydrogen isotopic 

compositions of selected samples are plotted 

along with the global meteoric water line, the 

Rocky Mountain meteoric water line, snow 

samples from the Red River watershed, and 

snow and rain samples collected in April 2003 

(Naus and others, 2005; fig. 35A). The isotopic 

composition of most of the Straight Creek 

waters lies in the central part of the graph; one 

sample lies within the field defined by the 

composite snow samples. This sample 

(02WA102; collected February 2002) is one of 

the most dilute Straight Creek samples and 

appears to have a substantial fraction of seasonal 

snowmelt. Figure 35B is a closer look at the 

Straight Creek and transect samples. These 

samples define a slight evaporation trend. The 

slope of the best linear fit (dotted line in figure 

35B) for δD and δ

18O is 6.3 for these nine points 

so that there is about a one per mil oxygen 

isotope shift for the heaviest stable isotope 

values. The slope of the δD- δ

18O evaporative 

line is affected by humidity, temperature, and 

wind speed. This decreased slope could be 

caused by evaporation at around 90 percent 

humidity (Clark and Fritz, 1999), but the 

average annual humidity in this region is much 

lower. Most of the alteration scars occur at 

higher elevations, 3,000 to 3,500 m, and 

snowpack is a primary source of moisture. 

Along the north side of the Red River Valley 

there also is considerable exposure to solar 

radiation that should contribute to evaporative 

enrichment of the snowpack. Evaporative 

enrichment of snow with δD- δ

18O slopes close 

to 6 is entirely reasonable and has been 

measured under experimentally controlled 

conditions (Moser and Stichler, 1975). 

Furthermore, in the upper sites, 03WA168-

03WA170, flow is slow and the water depth is 

quite shallow, optimal conditions for 

evaporation. 

The oxygen and sulfur isotopic 

compositions of sulfate in selected Straight 

Creek samples collected at the site upstream of 

the debris fan display little variation (fig. 36). 

This isotopic composition is similar to that of 

well SC1A (Naus and others, 2005). The oxygen 

isotopic compositions of sulfate in the set of 

Straight Creek downstream transect samples 

displayed little variation (-7.1 to -7.4), but the 

sulfur isotopic compositions increased 

downstream from -6.6 to -4.2.

Mineralogical Controls on Water 

Chemistry 

To evaluate possible weathering reactions 

that control the solute chemistry of Straight 

Creek, inverse geochemical models based on 

measured water chemistry and mineralogical 

data were constructed. These mass-balance 

calculations were done using the geochemical 

modeling program NETPATH (Plummer and 

others, 1994). The first set of calculations were 

undertaken to constrain the weathering reactions 

needed to convert rain water to Straight Creek 

surface water. In these simulations, hypothetical 

meteoric water was reacted with known minerals 

in the catchment to determine whether the 

measured water chemistry was consistent with 

weathering of the local bedrock. The chemistry 

of meteoric water was estimated using annual, 

volume-weighted mean concentrations from the 

National Atmospheric Deposition Program’s 

monitoring station at Capulin Volcano National 

Monument, and the Straight Creek most 

probable values from D. K. Nordstrom (U.S. 

Geological Survey, written commun., October 

2005) were used as the final water. Elements 

included in this exercise were aluminum, 

calcium, copper, fluoride, iron, magnesium, 

potassium, silica, sodium, sulfur, and zinc. 

Mineralogical data were taken from Loucks and 

others (1977), Martineau and others (1977), 

Briggs and others (2003), Ludington and others 

(2004), and Plumlee and others (in press). 

The modeling results are presented in table 

9. Two models were found that satisfy the 

chemical and mineralogical data. Both models 

call for the dissolution of gypsum, pyrite, 

kaolinite, albite, fluorite, sphalerite, illite, and 

chalcopyrite and the precipitation of silica and 

goethite. One model uses chlorite for the source 

of magnesium, and the other calls for dolomite. 

Goethite was used as the iron precipitate, but 

other iron oxyhydroxide minerals, such as 

jarosite and schwertmannite, are likely to be iron 

sinks as well. 

121
-18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10

-100

-95

-90

-85

-80

-75

RMMWL

Straight Creek

Precipitation, 4/15/04

δ

2H, IN PER MIL

δ

18O, IN PER MIL

Straight Creek, Straight Creek transect, Snow, Snow (4/15/04),

Rain (4/15/04), Hottentot, Junebug, Hansen, Little Hansen,

Unnamed drainage Waldo Spring, Goat Hill

Precipitation, 4/15/04

Straight Creek

A.

GMWL

Straight Creek linear fit

03WA172

03WA171

03WA170

03WA169

δ

2H, IN PER MIL

δ

18O, IN PER MIL

03WA168

B.

EXPLANATION

Figure 35. (A) Hydrogen isotopic composition in relation to oxygen isotopic composition of waters with precipitation 

line from Straight Creek, the Rocky Mountain meteoric water line (RMMWL), and the global meteoric water line 

(GMWL). (B) Enlarged view of Straight Creek transect samples. 

122
-10

-5

0

5

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Straight Creek-low (01WA156)

Straight Creek, Straight Creek transect, Hottentot,

Junebug, Hansen, Little Hansen, Unnamed drainage

Waldo Spring, Goat Hill

δ

18O, IN PER MIL

δ34S, IN PER MIL

Straight Creek-high (01WA155)

Ore-related FeS2, MoS2

Scar-salts/gypsum

Straight Creek

transect (arrow

shows upstream

to downstream

direction)

EXPLANATION

Figure 36. Sulfur isotopic composition in relation to oxygen isotopic composition of sulfate in waters. Isotopic data 

for solid phase fields from Field (1966), Stein (1985), Tuttle and others (2003), and Naus and others (2005). 

A second set of calculations were done to 

evaluate if Straight Creek surface water is a 

likely initial water for water in the uppermost 

bedrock well (SC1B; fig. 4). Again, the most 

probable values from D. K. Nordstrom (U.S. 

Geological Survey, written commun., October 

2005) for the Straight Creek and SC1B waters 

were used. Comparing the Straight Creek 

surface water and ground water in well SC1B, 

there is an increase in pH (2.98 to 6.75), calcium 

(349 to 503 mg/L), magnesium (113 to 215 

mg/L), potassium (0.75 to 11.2 mg/L) and 

alkalinity (0-493 mg/L, as bicarbonate) and a 

decrease in sulfate (2,030 to 1,850 mg/L), silica 

(74.2 mg/L), aluminum (915 to 0.012 mg/L) and 

iron (65.0 to 1.85 mg/L). The modeling results 

are presented in table 10. Three models were 

found that satisfy chemical and mineralogical 

data. All the models call for the dissolution of 

dolomite, albite, illite, and chlorite, and the 

precipitation of kaolinite, gypsum, silica and 

goethite. The primary differences between the 

models are the sources of calcium and 

magnesium. In contrast to the surface-water 

results, these models call for the precipitation of 

gypsum to account for the decrease in sulfate 

concentration. This conclusion seems reasonable 

because supergene gypsum occurs throughout 

the watershed (Ludington and others, 2004). 

Summary of Straight Creek Water Quality 

The upper-most water sampled in Straight 

Creek, within 50 m of the drainage divide, had a 

pH of 2.66 and solute concentrations consistent 

with rain water reacting with underlying bedrock 

and colluvium. Much of the upper part of 

Straight Creek is intensely hydrothermally 

altered, and the quartz sericite-pyrite mineral 

assemblage provides minimal buffering capacity 

(Ludington and others, 2004). Stable isotopic 

123
Table 9. Results of mass-balance modeling of Straight Creek surface water 

[Positive values indicate mineral dissolution and negative values indicate mineral precipitation in units of millimoles of mineral 

per liter of water] 

MODEL 1 MODEL 2 

PHASES MASS PHASES MASS 

Gypsum +8.5 Pyrite +8.7 

Pyrite +6.3 Dolomite +4.7 

Chlorite +0.93 Gypsum +3.9 

Kaolinite +0.56 Kaolinite +1.5 

Albite +0.35 Albite +0.35 

Fluorite +0.20 Fluorite +0.20 

Sphalerite +0.12 Sphalerite +0.12 

Illite +0.03 Illite +0.03 

Chalcopyrite +0.03 Chalcopyrite +0.03 

Goethite -5.2 Goethite -7.5 

Silica -3.8 Silica -2.9 

Table 10. Results of mass-balance modeling of ground water in well SC1B 

[Positive values indicate mineral dissolution and negative values indicate mineral precipitation in units of millimoles of mineral 

per liter of water] 

MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 

PHASES MASS PHASES MASS PHASES MASS 

Dolomite +3.8 Calcite +3.8 Mg Calcite +3.8 

Epidote +0.97 Dolomite +2.0 Dolomite +1.9 

Albite +0.56 Albite +0.56 Albite +0.56 

Illite +0.45 Illite +0.45 Illite +0.45 

Chlorite +0.04 Chlorite +0.42 Chlorite +0.43 

Kaolinite -3.5 Kaolinite -2.7 Kaolinite -2.7 

Goethite -2.0 Gypsum -1.9 Gypsum -1.9 

Gypsum -1.9 Goethite -1.1 Goethite -1.1 

Silica -0.06 Gibbsite -0.51 Gibbsite -0.51 

124
results suggest that evaporation may play a 

minor role in the elevated solute concentrations. 

During this study, water sampled at lower 

elevations in the catchment had a minimal range 

in pH (2.73 to 3.25) but a substantial range in 

many solutes; for example sulfate concentrations 

varied from 525 to 2,660 mg/L. Many elements 

covary with sulfate suggesting that dilution is 

the primary control of the range in solute 

concentrations. 

Except during high-flow conditions, all of 

the Straight Creek surface water infiltrates into 

the upper part of the Straight Creek debris fan. 

This surface water appears to be the primary 

source of ground water to the uppermost alluvial 

well (SC1A). High-flow events correlate with 

increases in the static water level of SC1A (fig. 

24). Mass-balance calculations show that 

interaction of Straight Creek surface water with 

the underlying bedrock can account for the 

chemistry of water in well SC1B. 

Seeps and Tributaries, 2001-2004 

To characterize waters emanating from the 

scar areas, a set of surface-water samples was 

collected during low-flow conditions, September 

2001. Sampling occurred from September 10 to 

18, in conjunction with the solid-phase sample 

collection reported in Briggs and others (2003). 

Whenever possible, water was sampled at the 

lowest and highest points in each tributary. In 

most all tributary basins water emerged from the 

bedrock or colluvium near the drainage divide 

and flowed over bedrock or ferricrete to the 

debris fan. Upon entering the channel in the 

upper portion of the debris fan, discharge 

decreased until all the surface water completely 

entered the streambed. The lowest and highest 

points were sampled in Hansen, Straight, and 

Hottentot Creeks; only the lowest point was 

sampled in Little Hansen Creek and the 

unnamed drainage to the west of Little Hansen 

Creek (table 1; fig. 1). Waldo Spring, located 

near the base of the unnamed drainage to the 

west of Little Hansen, also was sampled. Two 

tributaries draining the east and west sides of the 

Junebug scar were sampled at the base of the 

scar. In addition, a sample from Goat Hill Gulch 

was collected approximately 250 m upstream 

from the glory hole, and this sample was a 

mixture of scar seepage and waste-rock-pile 

seepage. Water emanating from the Capulin 

Canyon waste-rock-pile flows into a collection 

pond and then is pumped to Goat Hill Gulch 

above the sampling site. The water flows down 

the gulch and into the subsidence area, where the 

water then seeps into the underground workings. 

Water in the underground workings is collected 

and pumped to the tailings facility. Two samples 

from the Capulin Canyon scar area were 

collected in May 2004. 

Figure 37 displays the variation in pH and 

sulfate for the low-flow tributary sample set. 

The pH values range from 2.60 to 7.71, and the 

sulfate concentrations range from 4,120 to 

13,500 mg/L. The sulfate concentration of the 

Goat Hill Gulch sample (13,500 mg/L) is almost 

10,000 milligrams per liter greater than the next 

most-concentrated sample (Little Hansen Creek 

with 3,700 mg/L). Water entering Goat Hill 

Gulch from the Capulin surface-water 

impoundment pipe, collected and analyzed in 

June, August, and November of 2001, had 

sulfate concentrations of 15,000, 9,300, and 

18,000 mg/L (S.H. LoVetere, U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., March 2005). Many 

constituent concentrations in the Goat Hill 

Gulch sample were substantially greater than the 

rest of the tributary data and are not plotted 

because addition of this point expands the axes 

and obscures other trends. The unnamed 

drainage without a scar, west of Little Hansen 

Creek, had the highest pH value (7.71) and 

lowest sulfate concentration (412 mg/L). Waldo 

Spring had a slightly higher sulfate 

concentration (480 mg/L) and lower pH value 

(5.61). The pH values of the two Capulin 

Canyon scar water samples were similar to those 

of the other scar tributary waters (2.98 and 3.24), 

but the sulfate concentrations were substantially 

lower (668 and 746 mg/L) 

For most tributary samples the dissolved 

iron concentration accounts for virtually all the 

iron in the unfiltered samples (fig. 38A). Two 

exceptions are samples from the unnamed 

drainage without a scar where the dissolved iron 

was low (0.01 mg/L) and accounted for 20 

percent of the total iron, and from one of the 

Junebug sites where the dissolved iron was 0.70 

mg/L and the total iron was 7.2 mg/L. Similar to 

Straight Creek surface waters and Straight Creek 

wells (Naus and others, 2005), the iron 

concentrations in the scar tributary water appear 

to be controlled by ferrihydrite saturation (fig. 

28D) and ferric iron accounts for most of the 

dissolved iron in the waters from the other scar 

tributaries (fig. 38B). The Capulin Canyon scar 

125
2345678

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

Hottentot

Junebug

Hansen

Little Hansen

Unnamed drainage

Waldo spring

Goat Hill

Capulin

Straight Creek

Field for Straight 

Creek surface waters 

Figure 37. Sulfate concentration in relation to pH for Straight Creek and low-flow tributary samples. 

samples are not included in this plot because no 

sample was collected for determination of iron 

redox species. The dissolved iron concentrations 

for the scar tributaries fall within the range of 

the Straight Creek samples with the exception of 

one Hottentot Creek sample collected in the 

upper scar area. Similar to the Straight Creek 

profile, the dissolved iron concentration in 

Hottentot Creek decreases from upstream to 

downstream.

These waters generally can be classified as 

calcium-sulfate type waters because calcium 

tends to be the dominant cation and sulfate the 

dominant anion. Figure 39A depicts calcium 

concentrations relative to sulfate concentrations, 

and many samples follow the trend of the 

Straight Creek samples. As discussed 

previously, samples which plot to the right of 

the gypsum dissolution line require an additional 

source of sulfate (pyrite) other than gypsum. The 

sample from the unnamed drainage without a 

scar, west of Little Hansen Creek, plots along 

the gypsum dissolution line. The samples from 

Capulin Canyon and Hottentot Creek plot well 

below the Straight Creek samples. Both these 

catchments contain substantial areas of rhyolite 

porphyry which tends to be pyrite-rich and 

calcium-poor. 

For a given calcium concentration, most 

tributaries have greater strontium concentrations 

than those in the Straight Creek samples (fig. 

39B). The two Junebug scar samples have the 

highest strontium concentrations (5.4 and 8.3 

mg/L). Naus and others (2005) suggest that 

dissolution of carbonate minerals is the primary 

source of the strontium because waters with high 

calcium concentrations have high strontium 

concentrations. 

Fluoride concentrations are elevated but 

variable in this dataset. Although dissolution of 

fluorite is likely the primary source of fluoride, 

calcium and fluoride concentrations are poorly 

correlated (fig. 39C). Additional sources of 

calcium, discussed above, result in this poor 

correlation. Fluoride also is associated with 

biotite and phlogopite in this mineral deposit 

type (Molling, 1989). Along with fluoride, 

beryllium and lithium are generally enriched in 

the Questa molybdenum deposit (Ludington and

126
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

FERRIC IRON CONCENTRATION,

DISSOLVED IRON CONCENTRATION,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

1:1 line

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISSOLVED IRON CONCENTRATION,

TOTAL RECOVERABLE IRON CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 Hottentot, Junebug, Hansen, Little Hansen,

 Unnamed drainage, Waldo Spring, Straight Creek

A.

1:1 line

EXPLANATION

Figure 38. (A) Dissolved iron concentration in relation to total recoverable iron concentration and (B) ferric iron 

concentration in relation to dissolved iron concentration for Straight Creek and low-flow tributary samples. 

127
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

 Increasing

pyrite dissolution

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Hottentot, Junebug, Hansen, Little Hansen,

Unnamed drainage, Waldo Spring,

Goat Hill, Capulin, Straight Creek

A. gypsum dissolution

line

 Increasing

calcite dissolution

EXPLANATION

FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

C.

STRONTIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

Figure 39. (A) Calcium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration, (B) strontium concentration in relation to 

calcium concentration, and (C) fluoride concentration in relation to calcium concentration for Straight Creek and 

low-flow tributary samples. 

128
others, 2004), and these elements tend to covary 

in the tributary samples (figs. 40A and B). 

For a given sulfate concentration, most of 

the tributary samples have lower zinc 

concentrations than those of most of the Straight 

Creek samples (fig. 41A). At this pH range both 

these constituents should be conservative, thus 

this difference is likely a source difference. A 

zinc anomaly, which tends to form a halo around 

the ore zone, has been identified at the Questa 

Molybdenum mine (Martineau and others, 

1977). The higher zinc concentrations in the 

Straight Creek drainage may reflect the presence 

of another center of mineralization. Compared 

with Straight Creek waters, Hottentot and 

Junebug scar waters tend to have greater copper 

concentrations for a given zinc concentration 

(fig. 41B). Similar to Straight Creek waters the 

nickel and cobalt concentrations covary (fig. 

41C).

Rare earth element concentrations were 

determined for all the scar tributary samples 

except the two Capulin Canyon samples. The 

REE concentrations tend to increase with 

decreasing pH (fig. 42). This has been 

documented in other studies and is believed to 

be a result of increased weathering of REEbearing mineral phases at lower pH and the 

tendency for REEs to sorb to iron and aluminum 

precipitates at pH values between 5 and 6 

(Verplanck and others, 2004). The REE patterns 

of these waters, when normalized to chondrite, 

display middle REE enrichment with either 

positive or negative Eu anomalies (figs. 43A and 

B). Samples with positive Eu anomalies include 

the two Junebug samples and the Little Hansen 

Creek sample. These two areas have a greater 

proportion of intermediate composition volcanic 

units (andesites and quartz latites) than the other 

scar tributaries. In higher-temperature 

environments Eu can have a +4 oxidation state 

during magma evolution, giving it a size and 

charge similar to those of calcium. Europium 

(IV) readily substitutes for calcium in 

plagioclase, which in turn produces an Eu 

enrichment relative to other REEs in plagioclase. 

Weathering of calcic plagioclase from the 

andesites and latites likely leads to the 

enrichment of Eu in these waters. 

Stable Isotopes 

The oxygen and hydrogen isotopic 

compositions of selected samples are plotted 

along with the global meteoric water line, the 

Rocky Mountain meteoric water line, and a 

snow and rain sample collected in April 2004 

(fig. 35). The water isotopic composition of the 

scar tributary dataset overlap values from 

Straight Creek and plot along the line defined by 

precipitation data. Although some samples plot 

below the line, the trend parallels the 

precipitation, indicating that little if any 

evaporation has taken place. 

The oxygen and sulfur isotopic 

compositions of sulfate in selected scar tributary 

samples are displayed along with the isotopic 

data for the Straight Creek samples (fig. 36). 

Most samples plot within the field defined by 

the Straight Creek dataset. The Hansen Creek 

and the Goat Hill Gulch samples have distinctly 

lower sulfur isotopic compositions. 

Interestingly, the upper Straight Creek samples 

also have distinctly lower sulfur isotopic 

compositions. The sulfur isotopic composition 

of the waste-rock-pile leachate from Capulin 

also had a sulfur isotopic composition of -8.1 

(K. S. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., January 2004). Water draining this 

waste-rock pile appears to be a large source of 

sulfate in Goat Hill Gulch. 

Precipitation 

Five samples of the seasonal snowpack 

were collected in March 2002 to determine the 

average chemistry of snowmelt (table 11). The 

pH value of these samples ranged from about 

6.08 to 6.27, and as expected these samples are 

quite dilute, with specific conductance ranging 

from 8 to 15 μS/cm. Calcium (0.7 to 1.6 mg/L) 

and sulfate (<0.8 to 3.1 mg/L) are the only two 

constituents at concentrations greater than one 

milligram per liter. The oxygen and hydrogen 

isotopic composition of these samples has been 

discussed previously (Naus and others, 2005). 

SUMMARY 

Natural variations in water chemistry of 

streams and rivers are caused primarily by 

variations in hydrologic conditions, that is, 

changing proportions of inflows with contrasting 

compositions. Varying hydrologic conditions 

include snowmelt, rainstorms, and degree and 

129
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

BERYLLIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

LITHIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

LITHIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 Hottentot, Junebug, Hansen, Little Hansen,

 Unnamed drainage, Waldo Spring, Capulin,

 Straight Creek

B.

EXPLANATION

Figure 40. (A) Beryllium concentration in relation to lithium concentration, and (B) fluoride concentration in relation 

to lithium concentration for Straight Creek and low-flow tributary samples. 

130
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0

1

2

3

4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

ZINC CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

COPPER CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

ZINC CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

COBALT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

NICKEL CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Hottentot, Junebug, Hansen, Little Hansen,

Unnamed drainage, Waldo Spring, Capulin,

Straight Creek

C.

EXPLANATION

Figure 41. (A) Zinc concentration in relation to sulfate concentration, (B) copper concentration in relation to zinc 

concentration, and (C) cobalt concentration in relation to nickel concentration for Straight Creek and low-flow 

tributary samples. 

131
2345678

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

104

IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

LANTHANUM CONCENTRATION,

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

Figure 42. Lanthanum concentration in relation to pH for low-flow tributary samples. 

length of dry periods. The Red River and the 

major scar-area tributaries in the Red River 

Valley were sampled between 2000 and 2004 to 

characterize water chemistry. Although seasonal 

variations in water quality are apparent, the most 

dramatic variation occurred during a late 

summer rainstorm event in 2002. In a matter of 

hours, the Red River discharge increased from 8 

to 102 cubic feet per second and pH decreased 

from 7.80 to 4.83. Low-pH water derived from 

scar areas appears to be the primary source of 

acidity to the Red River during such events. The 

highest concentrations of many constituents, 

including sulfate and zinc, occurred during this 

storm event. 

The year 2002 was one of the driest on 

record, and discharge in the Red River reflected 

the low seasonal snow pack. The traditional 

peak flow during late spring did not occur, and 

the highest flow of the year occurred during the 

late summer storm event described above. The 

year 2003 was more typical with low flows in 

the winter and early spring and a substantial 

snowmelt-derived peak in flow in early June. 

Snowmelt tends to dilute Red River water such 

that the lowest concentrations of many 

constituents occur during this period. The 

alkalinity values in the rising limb samples were 

slightly greater (50.6 and 56.6 mg/L as HCO3

-

) 

than the mean low-flow concentration (46.6 

mg/L), and the concentration in the peak 

discharge sample also was greater (57.9 mg/L). 

Simple dilution of Red River water by melting 

snow can not account for this increase. 

Relatively high-alkalinity water needs to enter 

the Red River. 

To evaluate the effect of solar radiation, 

two diel sampling events were undertaken 

during high-flow (May 2003) and low-flow 

(October 2003) conditions at two sites, the 

Questa Ranger Station gage and just upstream 

from the Molycorp Questa mine mill. At both 

sites during high flow and at the gage during 

low flow, concentrations of chemical 

constituents changed minimally and no diel 

cycle was observed. Upstream from the Questa 

mine mill during low-flow, a diel cycle was 

apparent, with pH increasing at night from 8.15

132
10-3

10-2

10-1

100

10-7

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Ho Er Dy Tm Yb Lu

RARE EARTH ELEMENT 

CONCENTRATION/C1 CHONDRITE

B.

RARE EARTH ELEMENT 

CONCENTRATION/C1 CHONDRITE

 Hottentot, Junebug, Hansen (high), Little Hansen, 

 Unnamed drainage, Waldo Spring, Goat Hill

La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Ho Er Dy Tm Yb Lu

A.

EXPLANATION

Figure 43. (A) Rare earth elements in selected waters with normalized concentrations ranging from 10-7 to 1, and (B) 

rare earth elements in selected waters with normalized concentrations ranging from 10-3 to 1. Concentrations 

normalized to C1 chondrite values from Anders and Ebihara (1982). 

133
Table 11. Analyses of snow samples

Sample Location

North Side, 

North Facing

South Side, 

Elephant Rock

South Side, 

Bretts 

Steakhouse Straight Creek Hansen Creek

Sample code number 02WA107 02WA108 02WA109 02WA110 02WA111

Collection Date 3/19/2002 3/19/2002 3/19/2002 3/19/2002 3/19/2002

Treatment FA/FU - 0.1 μm FA/FU - 0.1 μm FA/FU - 0.1 μm FA/FU - 0.1 μm FA/FU - 0.1 μm

pH 6.21 6.27 6.28 6.13 6.08

SC (μS/cm) 8 15 13 11 15

Constituent, mg/L

Ca 0.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.6

Mg <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Sr 0.004 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.007

Ba 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002

Na 0.10 0.34 0.22 0.12 0.13

K 0.14 0.44 0.26 0.11 0.28

Li <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

SO4 <0.8 1.2 <0.8 1.1 3.1

Alkalinity as HCO3

- <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

F <0.1 0.26 0.22 0.1 0.22

Cl 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4

Br <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

NO3 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4

SiO2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

B <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Al <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07

Fe(T) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.01

Mn 0.010 0.021 0.018 0.018 0.030

Cu <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Zn <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Cd <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cr <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Co <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Ni <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Pb <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Be <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

V <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Mo <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

As <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Se <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Sum cations (meq/L) 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.09

Sum anions (meq/L) 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.11

Charge imbalance

 (percent) 35.1 23.9 36.5 -0.6 -14.6

[FA, filtered acidified; FU, filtered unacidified; meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μm, micrometer; 

μS/cm, microSiemens per centimeter; SC, specific conductance]

134
to 8.34 due to photosynthetic consumption of 

CO2

. Only dissolved Zn and Mn concentrations 

had definite diel patterns, decreasing to a 

minimum at about noon and increasing to a 

maximum before sunrise during low-flow for the 

site upstream from the mill. 

The Straight Creek subbasin was chosen as 

an analog site for evaluating pre-mining baseline 

conditions because of its geologic, topographic, 

and geomorphologic characteristics, and 11 

alluvial and bedrock wells were installed to 

evaluate ground-water flow and chemistry. In 

this catchment, surface water appears to be the 

primary input to the debris-fan ground water 

because high-flow events correlate with 

increases in the static water level of well SC1A. 

Furthermore, mass-balance calculations show 

that interaction of Straight Creek surface water 

with the underlying bedrock can account for the 

chemistry of water in well SC1B. 

Samples from other tributaries including 

Hottentot Creek, Junebug, Hansen Creek, Lower 

Hansen Creek, a relatively unaltered tributary 

west of Little Hansen Creek, and Goat Hill 

Gulch, were collected to characterize waters 

emanating from the scar areas. Water in Goat 

Hill Gulch had concentrations of most 

constituents substantially higher than those in 

water from other tributaries because waste-rockpile seepage from upper Capulin Canyon is 

piped over to Goat Hill Gulch. Goat Hill Gulch 

water flows into the Molycorp glory hole where 

it enters the underground workings and is 

collected and piped to the tailings facility. Most 

constituents in the other scar tributary samples 

plot within the range of Straight Creek samples. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Aiken, G.R., 1992, Chloride interference in the 

analysis of dissolved organic carbon by wet 

oxidation method: Environmental Science 

and Technology, v. 26, p. 2435-2439. 

Allen, B.D., Groffman, A.R., Molles, M.C. Jr., 

Anderson, R.Y., and Crossey, L.J., 1999, 

Geochemistry of the Red River stream 

system before and after open-pit mining, 

Questa Area, Taos County, N.M.: Santa Fe, 

New Mexico Office of the Natural Resources 

Trustee, October 1999. 

American Public Health Association (APHA), 

1985, Method 428C. Methylene blue method 

for sulfide, in Standard methods for the 

examination of water and wastewater (14th 

ed.): American Public Health Association, p. 

403-405. 

Anders, Edward, and Ebihara, Mitsuru, 1982, 

Solar-system abundances of the elements: 

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 46, p. 

2362-2380. 

Ball, J.W., Runkel, R.L., and Nordstrom, D.K., 

2005, Questa baseline and pre-mining 

ground-water quality investigation. 12. 

Geochemical and reactive-transport 

modeling based on low-flow and snowmelt 

tracer studies for the Red River, New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005-5149, 68 p. 

Barnard, W.R., and Nordstrom, D.K., 1980, 

Fluoride in precipitation – I. Methodology 

with the fluoride-selective electrode: 

Atmospheric Environment, v. 16, p. 99-103. 

Barringer, J.L., and Johnsson, P.A., 1989, 

Theoretical considerations and a simple 

method for measuring alkalinity and acidity 

in low pH waters by Gran titration: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 89-4029, 35 p. 

Brick, C.M., and Moore, J.N., 1996, Diel variation 

of trace metals in the upper Clark Fork River, 

Montana: Environmental Science and 

Technology, v. 30, p. 1953-1960. 

Briggs, P.H., Sutley, S.J., and Livo, K.E., 2003, 

Questa baseline and pre-mining groundwater quality investigation. 11. Geochemistry 

of alteration scars and waste piles: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-458, 

16 p. 

Brinton, T.I., Antweiler, R.C., and Taylor, H.E., 

1995, Method for the determination of 

dissolved chloride, nitrate, and sulfate in 

natural water using ion chromatography: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-

426A, 16 p. 

Clark, I.D., and Fritz, Peter, 1999, Environmental 

Isotopes in Hydrogeology: Lewis Publishers, 

Boca Raton, 328 p. 

Coplen, T.B., Wildman, J.D., and Chen, J., 1991, 

Improvements in the gaseous hydrogenwater equilibrium technique for hydrogen 

135
isotope ratio analysis: Analytical Chemistry, 

v. 63, p. 910-912. 

Czamanski, G.K., Foland, K.A., Kubacher, F.A., 

and Allen, J.C., 1990, The 40Ar/39Ar chronology 

of caldera formation, intrusive activity, and 

Mo-ore deposition near Questa New 

Mexico; in Bauer, P.W., Lucas, S.G., Mawer, 

C.K., and McIntosh, W.C. eds., Tectonic 

development of the southern Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains, New Mexico: New Mexico 

Geological Society Guidebook, v. 41, p. 355-

358. 

Dzombak, D.A., and Morel, F.M.M., 1990, Surface 

Complexation Modelling: Hydrous Ferric 

Oxide: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 393 

p. 

Elston, W.E., 1994, Siliceous volcanic centers as 

guides to mineral exploration; review and 

summary: Economic Geology, v. 89, no. 8, 

p.1662-1686. 

Epstein, S., and Mayeda, T., 1953, Variations of 

O18 contents of waters from natural sources: 

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 4, p. 

213-224. 

Field, C.W., 1966, Sulfur isotopic method for 

discriminating between sulfates of hypogene 

and supergene origin: Economic Geology, v. 

61, p. 1478-1485. 

Fuller, C.C., and Davis, J.A., 1989, Influence of 

coupling of sorption and photosynthesis 

processes on trace elements cycles in 

natural waters: Nature, v. 340, p. 52-54. 

Garbarino, J.R., and Taylor, H.E., 1995, 

Inductively-coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometric method for the determination 

of dissolved trace elements in natural water: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-

358, 88 p. 

Giesemann, A., Jäger, H.J., Norman, A.L., 

Krouse, H.R., and Brand, W.A., 1994, On-line 

sulfur-isotope determination using an 

elemental analyzer coupled to a mass 

spectrometer: Analytical Chemistry, v. 66, p. 

2816-2819. 

Ingersoll, G.P., 2000, Snowpack Chemistry at 

selected sites in Colorado and New Mexico 

during winter 1999-2000: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 00-394, 9 p. 

Johnson, C.M., and Lipman, P.W., 1988, Origins of 

metaluminous and alkaline volcanic rocks of 

the Latir volcanic field, northern Rio Grande 

rift, New Mexico: Contributions to 

Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 100, p. 107-128. 

Jones, C.A., Nimick, D.A., and McCleskey, R.B., 

2004, Relative effect of temperature and pH 

on diel cycling of dissolved trace elements in 

Prickly Pear Creek, Montana: Water, Air, and 

Soil Pollution, v. 153, p. 95-113. 

Kennedy, V.C., Jenne, E.A., and Burchard, J.M., 

1976, Backflushing filters for field processing 

of water samples prior to trace-element 

analyses: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 76-126, 12 p. 

Kimball, B.A., Nordstrom, D.K., Runkel, R.L., and 

Verplanck, P.L. (in press) Questa baseline 

and pre-mining ground-water quality 

investigation. 23. Quantification of solute 

mass loading for Red River, New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2006-5004. 

Leonardson, R.W., Dunlop, G., Starquist, V.L., 

Bratton, G.P., Meyer, J.W., Osborne, L.W., 

Atkins, S.A., Molling, P.A., Moore, R.F., and 

Olmore, S.D., 1983, Preliminary geology and 

molybdenum deposits at Questa, New 

Mexico, in The genesis of Rocky Mountain 

ore deposits-changes in time and tectonics: 

Proceedings of the Denver Region 

Exploration Geologist Society Symposium, 

Wheatridge, Colo., p. 151-156. 

Lipman, P.W., and Reed, J.C., 1979, Geologic map 

of the Latir volcanic field and adjacent areas, 

northern New Mexico: U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I1907, scale 1:48,000. 

Lipman, P.W., 1988, Evolution of silicic magma in 

the upper crust; the mid-Tertiary Latir 

volcanic field and its cogenetic granitic 

batholith, northern New Mexico, U.S.A.: 

Transactions of the Royal Society of 

Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, v. 79, p. 265-288. 

Loucks, T.A., Phillips, J.S., and Newell, R.A., 1977, 

Exploration potential of the Questa East area: 

136
unpublished report for Kennecott Copper 

Corporation. 

LoVetere, S.H., Nordstrom, D.K., Maest, A.S., and 

Naus, C.A., 2004, Questa baseline and premining ground-water quality investigation. 3. 

Historical ground-water quality for the Red 

River Valley, New Mexico: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03-4186, 44 p. 

Ludington, S., Plumlee, G.S., Caine, J.S., Bove, 

D.J., Holloway, J.M., and Livo, K.E., 2004, 

Questa baseline and pre-mining groundwater quality investigation. 10. Geological 

influences on ground and surface waters in 

the Red River watershed, New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 04-5245, 46 p. 

Maest, A.S., Nordstrom, D.K., and LoVetere, S.H., 

2004, Questa baseline and pre-mining 

ground-water quality investigation. 4. 

Historical surface-water quality for the Red 

River Valley, New Mexico 1965-2001: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2004-5063, 150 p. 

Martineau, M.P., Heinemeyer, G.R., Craig, S.D. 

and McAndrews, K.P., 1977, Geological 

report, Questa project, 1975–1977: Questa 

Molybdenum Company, unpublished report, 

161 p. 

McCleskey, R.B., Nordstrom, D.K., and Naus, 

C.A., 2004, Questa baseline and pre-mining 

ground-water quality investigation. 16. 

Quality assurance and quality control for 

water analyses: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2004-1341, 105 p. 

McCleskey, R.B., Nordstrom, D.K., and Ball, J.W., 

2003a, Metal interferences and their removal 

prior to the determination of As(T) and As(III) 

in acid mine waters by hydride-generation 

atomic absorption spectrometry: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 03-4117, 13 p. 

McCleskey, R.B., Nordstrom, D.K., Steiger, J.I., 

Kimball, B.A., Verplanck, P.L., 2003b, Questa 

baseline and pre-mining ground-waterquality investigation. 2. Low-flow (2001) and 

snowmelt (2002) synoptic/tracer water 

chemistry for the Red River, New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-

148, 166 p. 

McKnight, D.M. and Bencala, K.E., 1988, Diel 

variations in iron chemistry in an acidic 

stream in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, 

USA: Arctic and Alpine Research, v. 20, no. 4, 

p. 492-500. 

Meyer, J.W., and Leonardson, R.W., 1990, 

Tectonic, hydrothermal, and geomorphic 

controls on alteration scar formation near 

Questa, New Mexico: Guidebook-New 

Mexico Geological Society, v. 41, p. 417-422. 

Meyer, J.W., 1991, Volcanic, plutonic, tectonic, 

and hydrothermal history of the southern 

Questa caldera, New Mexico: unpublished 

Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at 

Santa Barbara, 287 p. 

Molling, P.A., 1989, Applications of the reaction 

progress variables to the hydrothermal 

alteration associated with the deposition of 

the Questa molybdenum deposit, New 

Mexico: unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 

Johns Hopkins University, 229 p. 

Moser, H., and Stichler, W., 1975, Deuterium and 

oxygen-18 contents as index of the 

properties of snow blankets, in Snow 

Mechanics, Proceedings of the Grindelwald 

Symposium, April 1974, IAHS Publication 14, 

122-135. 

Naus, C.A., McCleskey, R.B., Nordstrom, D.K., 

Donohoe, L.C., Paillet, Fred, and Verplanck, 

P.L., 2005, Questa baseline and pre-mining 

ground-water quality investigation. 5. 

Methods and results of well installation and 

development and data collection in the 

Straight Creek drainage basin, New Mexico, 

2001-2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005-5088, 220 p. 

Nimick, D.A., Gammons, C.H., Cleasby, T.E., 

Madison, J.P., Skaar, Don, and Brick, C.M., 

2003, Diel cycles in dissolved metal 

concentrations in streams: Occurrence and 

possible causes: Water Resources 

Research, v. 39, no. 9, p. 2.1-2.17. 

Nimick, D.A., T.E. Cleasby, and McCleskey, R.B., 

2005, Seasonality of diel cycles of dissolved 

metal concentrations in a Rocky Mountain 

137
stream: Environmental Geology, v. 47, p. 603-

614. 

Plumlee, G.S., Lowers, H., Ludington, S., Koenig, 

A., and Briggs, P.H., in press, Questa 

baseline and pre-mining ground-water 

quality investigation. 13. Mineral microscopy 

and chemistry of mined and unmined 

porphyry molybdenum mineralization along 

the Red River, New Mexico: Implications for 

ground- and surface-water: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2005-1442. 

Plummer, L.N., Prestemon, E.C., and Parkhurst, 

D.L., 1994, An interactive code (NETPATH) 

for modeling net geochemical reactions 

along a flow path, version 2.0: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 94-4169, 130 p. 

Robertson GeoConsultants, Inc., 2001a, 

Integrated geochemical load balance for 

Straight Creek, Sangre de Cristo Mountains, 

New Mexico: Report number 052008/13, 

prepared for Molycorp Inc., 35 p. 

Robertson GeoConsultants, Inc., 2001b, Interim 

geochemical load balance for Red River 

basin near Questa Mine, New Mexico: 

Report number 052008/18, prepared for 

Molycorp Inc., 38 p. 

Roth, D.A., Taylor, H.E., Domagalski, J., Dileanis, 

P., Peart, D.B., Antweiler, R.C., and Alpers, 

C.N., 2001, Distribution of inorganic mercury 

in Sacramento River water and sediments: 

Archives of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology, v. 40, p. 161-172. 

Smolka, L.R., and Tague, D.F., 1987, Intensive 

survey of the Red River, Taos County, New 

Mexico, August 18-21, 1986: New Mexico 

Environmental Improvement Division, 

Surveillance and Standards Section, Surface 

Water Quality Bureau, October 1987, 55 p. 

Smolka, L.R., and Tague, D.F., 1989, Intensive 

survey of the Red River, Taos County, New 

Mexico, September 12-October 25, 1988: 

New Mexico Environmental Improvement 

Division, Surveillance and Standards 

Section, Surface Water Quality Bureau, May 

1989, 89 p. 

Stein, H.J., 1985, A lead, strontium, and sulfur 

isotope study of Laramide-Tertiary intrusions 

and mineralization in the Colorado mineral 

belt with emphasis on Climax-type porphyry 

molybdenum systems plus a summary of 

other newly acquired isotopic and rare earth 

element data: Ph.D. dissertation, University 

of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 493 p. 

Stookey, L.L., 1970, Ferrozine - a new 

spectrophotometric reagent for iron: 

Analytical Chemistry, v. 42, p. 779-781. 

Taylor, H.E., and Garbarino, J.R., 1991, The 

measurement of trace metals in water 

resources: Monitoring samples by 

inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry: Spectrochimica Acta 

Reviews, v. 14, no. 1-2, p. 33-43. 

Taylor, H.E., Berghoff, K., Andrews, E.D., 

Antweiler, R.C., Brinton, T.I., Miller, C., Peart, 

D.B., and Roth, D.A., 1997, Water quality of 

springs and seeps in Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area: National Park Service 

Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR97/128, 26 p. 

To, T.B., Nordstrom, D.K., Cunningham, K.M., 

Ball, J.W., and McCleskey, R.B., 1999, New 

method for the direct determination of 

dissolved Fe(III) concentration in acid mine 

waters: Environmental Science and 

Technology, v. 33, p. 807-813. 

Tuttle, M.L.W., Briggs, P.H., and Berry, C.J., 2003, 

A method to separate phases of sulfur in 

mine-waste and natural alteration zones, 

and to use sulfur isotopic compositions to 

investigate release of metals and acidity to 

the environment [abs]: in Proceedings of the 

6th International Conference on Acid Rock 

Drainage, Queensland, Australia, July 14-17, 

2003. 

URS, 2001, Final report, Molycorp Questa sitewide comprehensive hydrologic 

characterization report: Denver, Colo., 

March, 2001, 95 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2003, Water quality 

samples for the Nation: accessed June 2003 

at URL 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/qwdata 

for site 08265000 (Red River near Questa, 

New Mexico). 

138
U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Daily streamflow 

for the nation, USGS 08265000 Red River near 

Questa, New Mexico: accessed July 22, 2004 

at 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dischar

ge/.

Vail Engineering, Inc., 2000, Analysis of acid rock 

drainage in the middle reach of the Red 

River, Taos, County, New Mexico: Interim 

report, July 4, 2000. 

Verplanck, P.L., Antweiler, R.C., Nordstrom, D.K., 

and Taylor, H.E., 2001, Standard reference 

water samples for rare earth element 

determinations: Applied Geochemistry, v. 16, 

p. 231-244. 

Verplanck, P.L., Nordstrom, D.K., Taylor, H.E. and 

Kimball, B.A., 2004, Rare earth element 

partitioning between iron oxyhydroxides and 

acid mine waters: Applied Geochemistry, v. 

19, p. 1339-1354. 

Western Regional Climate Center, 2003, 

Historical climate information: New Mexico 

climate summaries, Red River, New Mexico 

(297323), accessed July 17, 2003, at 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. 

Ward, J.R., and Harr, C.A., eds, 1990, Methods for 

collection and processing of surface-water 

and bed-sediment material samples for 

physical and chemical analyses: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-140, 

171 p. 

139