Ground- and Surface-Water Chemistry of 

Handcart Gulch, Park County, Colorado, 

2003–2006 

Open-File Report 2007–1020 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

Front cover: Photograph of Handcart Gulch showing the Continental Divide in the upper 

portion of the image, the rock glacier in the middle of the image, and the trunk stream in 

the lower right. 
Ground- and Surface-Water Chemistry of 

Handcart Gulch, Park County, Colorado, 

2003–2006 

By Philip L. Verplanck, Andrew H. Manning, Briant A. Kimball, R. Blaine McCleskey, 

Robert L. Runkel, Jonathan Saul Caine, Monique Adams, Pamela A. Gemery-Hill, and 

David L. Fey 

Open-File Report 2007–1020 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2008

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., Manning, A.H., Kimball, B.A., McCleskey, R.B., Runkel, R.L., Caine, 

J.S., Adams, Monique, Gemery-Hill, P.A., and Fey, D.L., 2008, Ground- and surfacewater chemistry of Handcart Gulch, Park County, Colorado, 2003–2006: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1020, 31 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. 

iv
Contents 

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

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

Purpose and Scope................................................................................................................7 

Physical Description of the Study Area ..............................................................................7 

Geology ....................................................................................................................................8 

Climate and Vegetation .........................................................................................................8 

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................9 

Methods .......................................................................................................................................9 

Sampling Sites ........................................................................................................................9 

Water-Chemistry Sampling.................................................................................................10 

Laboratory Methods.............................................................................................................12 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control .............................................................................15 

Water Chemistry.......................................................................................................................17 

References Cited ......................................................................................................................29 

Figures 

1. Map of central and western Colorado showing location of Colorado 

 mineral belt and study area .......................................................................................2 

2. Map of Handcart Gulch showing well locations ...............................................................3 

3. Map of Handcart Gulch showing tracer synoptic sampling locations...........................5 

4. Comparison of analytical results by ICP-AES and ICP-MS............................................16 

5. pH in relation to dissolved sulfate concentration for ground- and 

 surface-water samples in Handcart Gulch............................................................21 

6. pH as a function of downstream distance for Handcart Gulch.....................................22 

7. Dissolved sulfate concentration as a function of downstream distance 

 for Handcart Gulch ....................................................................................................23 

8. Dissolved and total-recoverable iron concentration as a function of 

 downstream distance for Handcart Gulch.............................................................24 

9. Dissolved and total-recoverable copper concentration as a function of 

 downstream distance for Handcart Gulch.............................................................25 

10. Dissolved and total-recoverable zinc concentration as a function of 

 downstream distance for Handcart Gulch.............................................................26 

11. Discharge as a function of downstream distance for Handcart Gulch .....................27 

12. Constituent loads as a function of downstream distance for Handcart 

 Gulch............................................................................................................................28 

Tables 

1. Locations of well- and surface-water sampling sites ......................................................4 

2. Locations of tracer synoptic sampling sites ......................................................................6 

3. Sample container preparation and stabilization methods for samples ......................11 

4. Method of analyses and detection limits..........................................................................13 

5. Dissolved organic carbon analyses ..................................................................................14 

6. Water analyses of ground-water study samples ........................................... link to table

7. ICP-MS analyses of ground-water study samples......................................... link to table

v
vi

8. Water analyses of synoptic tracer study samples......................................... link to table

9. ICP-MS analyses of synoptic tracer study samples ...................................... link to table

10. Tracer synoptic discharge results...................................................................................18 

11. Water isotopic analyses....................................................................................................19 

12. Dissolved sulfate isotopic analyses ................................................................................20 
Ground- and Surface-Water Chemistry of 

Handcart Gulch, Park County, Colorado, 

2003–2006 

Abstract 

As part of a multidisciplinary project to determine the processes that control 

ground-water chemistry and flow in mineralized alpine environments, ground- and 

surface-water samples from Handcart Gulch, Colorado were collected for analysis of 

inorganic solutes and water and dissolved sulfate stable isotopes in selected samples. The 

primary aim of this study was to document variations in ground-water chemistry in 

Handcart Gulch and to identify changes in water chemistry along the receiving stream of 

Handcart Gulch. 

 Water analyses are reported for ground-water samples collected from 12 wells in 

Handcart Gulch, Colorado. Samples were collected between August 2003 and October 

2005. Water analyses for surface-water samples are reported for 50 samples collected 

from Handcart Gulch and its inflows during a low-flow tracer injection on August 6, 

2003. In addition, water analyses are reported for three other Handcart Gulch stream 

samples collected in September 2005 and March 2006. Reported analyses include field 

parameters (pH, specific conductance, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and Eh), major and 

trace constituents, oxygen and hydrogen isotopic composition of water and oxygen and 

sulfur isotopic composition of dissolved sulfate. 

 Ground-water samples from this study are Ca-SO4 type and range in pH from 2.5 

to 6.8. Most of the samples (75 percent) have pH values between 3.3 and 4.3. Surface 

water samples are also Ca-SO4 type and have a narrower range in pH (2.7–4.0). Groundand surface-water samples vary from relatively dilute (specific conductance of 68 μS/cm) 

to concentrated (specific conductance of 2,000 μS/cm). 

1
Introduction 

Handcart Gulch, an alpine watershed located along the Continental Divide in the 

southeastern portion of the Montezuma Mining District of the central Colorado Rocky 

Mountain Front Range, contains an unmined, porphyry-related molybdenite exploration 

target (fig. 1). Process-related studies by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and 

collaborators were undertaken to determine the controls of ground-water chemistry and 

flow in this mineralized alpine environment (Caine and others, 2004; Manning and 

others, 2004; Verplanck and others, 2004; Kahn and others, 2005; Kahn, 2005; Caine and 

others, 2006). Understanding the natural variation of water chemistry in ground and 

surface water in mineralized alpine watersheds is important because it provides estimates 

of premining water quality in historically mined areas with similar geology and climate, 

as well as providing insight into the fundamental processes that liberate, transport, and 

deposit constituents that may degrade water quality. Also, chemical data can provide 

additional constraints when creating ground-water flow models. 

 

Figure 1. Map of central and western Colorado showing 

location of Colorado mineral belt and study area. 

2
In the summers of 2001 and 2002, four wells in Handcart Gulch were drilled as 

mineral exploration boreholes by Mineral Systems, Inc. They were drilled in the upper 

portions of the watershed; one at Webster Pass on the Continental Divide at 3,688 m and 

range in depth from 365 to 1,065 m (fig. 2). In 2003 and 2004 Mineral Systems Inc. 

donated the boreholes to the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Geological Survey 

reconditioned three of the boreholes for use as scientific research monitoring wells. In 

the fall of 2003 the deep wells were supplemented by the drilling of nine new shallow 

wells (3–52 m deep) in the vicinity of the trunk stream of Handcart Gulch (fig. 2, table 1). 

Detailed descriptions of well construction, lithology, and water-level data and an 

overview of other research investigations were reported in Caine and others (2006). 

Water from three of the exploration boreholes and the nine shallower wells was sampled 

periodically between August 2003 and October 2005. 

 

Figure 2. Map of Handcart Gulch showing well locations. 

3
Table 1. Locations of well- and surface-water sampling sites. 

[m, meters; HCG, Handcart Gulch; SW, southwest] 

SAMPLE NUMBER LATITUDE LONGITUDE LOCATION ELEVATION1 (m) 

Wells 

WP1 39o 31' 51” 105o 49' 57'' Webster Pass 3687 

WP2 39o

 31' 34” 105o 49' 53'' Sub-basin SW of rock glacier 3507 

WP4 39o

 31' 40” 105o 49' 43'' On rock glacier 3570 

HCBW1 39o

 31' 18.3” 105o 49' 52.6'' See figure 2 3415 

HCSW1 39o

 31' 18.4” 105o 49' 52.8'' See figure 2 3415 

HCBW2 39o

 31' 11.2” 105o 49' 42.7'' See figure 2 3393 

HCSW2 39o

 31' 11.2” 105o 49' 42.7'' See figure 2 3393 

HCBW3 39o

 31' 08.4” 105o 49' 37.7'' See figure 2 3377 

HCFW3 39o

 31' 08.4” 105o 49' 37.7'' See figure 2 3377 

HCCW3 39o

 31' 08.4” 105o 49' 37.7'' See figure 2 3377 

HCBW4 39o

 31' 02.5” 105o 49' 27.6'' See figure 2 3360 

HCFW5 39o

 30' 45.7” 105o 49' 19.9'' See figure 2 3302 

Surface Water 

HCG1 39o

 31' 18.3'' 105o 49' 52.6'' HCG adjacent to HCBW1 3415 

HCG5 39o

 30' 45.7'' 105o 49' 19.9'' HCG adjacent to HCBW5 3302 

1 Land surface altitude 

To evaluate the variation in flow and chemistry of the receiving stream of 

Handcart Gulch, a tracer injection and synoptic sampling study was undertaken in August 

2003. Along the upper two kilometers of Handcart Gulch, 27 stream samples and 23 

inflow samples were collected (fig. 3, table 2). Water chemistry and stream-flow data 

were used to calculate chemical loads from surface and subsurface flow (Kimball and 

others, 1999). In mountain streams a substantial amount of water can flow through the 

streambed or hyporheic zone, making it difficult to accurately measure streamflow with 

traditional velocity measurements within the stream channel. Tracer-injection methods 

are a reliable way to quantify total streamflow by using changes in concentration of a 

tracer (LiBr) injected at a constant rate and assuming conservation of mass (Kimball and 

others, 2002). 

4
Figure 3. Map of Handcart Gulch showing tracer synoptic sampling locations. 

5
Table 2. Locations of tracer synoptic sampling sites. 

[ID, identification; HCG, Handcart Gulch; LBI, left bank inflow; RBI, right bank inflow; m, meters; T, transport] 

Sample ID 

Distance 

(m) Site description Latitude Longitude 

HC-0 0 T0 site - HCG upstream from injection, end of rock 

glacier 

39o 31' 34.896'' 105o 49' 51.132'' 

HC-35 35 HCG below injection 39o

 31' 33.924'' 105o 49' 51.672'' 

HC-65 65 HCG at top of cliff with waterfall 39o

 31' 33.06'' 105o 49' 52.248'' 

HC-144 114 HCG downstream from waterfall 39o

 31' 31.692'' 105o 49' 53.004'' 

HC-160 160 HCG upstream from LBI at toe of rock glacier 39o

 31' 30.216'' 105o 49' 52.824'' 

HC-163 163 LBI - toe of upper rock glacier 39 o 31' 30.144'' 105o

 49' 52.752'' 

HC-209 209 HCG downstsream from rock glacier inflows 39o

 31' 28.812'' 105o 49' 53.4'' 

HC-226 226 RBI - pond on right bank 39o

 31' 28.416'' 105o 49' 53.724'' 

HC-294 294 HCG below inflows 39o

 31' 26.436'' 105o 49' 54.804'' 

HC-395 395 HCG stream site 39o

 31' 23.628'' 105o 49' 54.012'' 

HC-453 453 LBI - pond has stream water 39o

 31' 21.756'' 105o 49' 53.832'' 

HC-511 511 HCG upstream from iron bog area and inflows 39o

 31' 20.064'' 105o 49' 53.796'' 

HC-544 544 RBI - small inflow 39o

 31' 19.2'' 105o 49' 53.688'' 

HC-550 550 LBI - draining from bushes 39o

 31' 20.064'' 105o 49' 52.932'' 

HC-556 556 HCG downstream from iron-free inflows 39o

 31' 19.056'' 105o 49' 53.4'' 

HC-564 564 LBI - drains iron bog 39o

 31' 18.84'' 105o 49' 53.22'' 

HC-574 574 HCG pool on ferricrete at bottom of chute 39o

 31' 18.552'' 105o 49' 53.148'' 

HC-575 575 RBI - draining iron bog 39o

 31' 18.516'' 105o 49' 53.184'' 

HC-596 596 T1 site - HCG upstream from small inflow on right 

bank 

39o

 31' 18.12'' 105o 49' 52.464'' 

HC-602 602 RBI - main tributary from Handcart Peak subbasin 39o

 31' 17.904'' 105o 49' 52.392'' 

HC-635 635 HCG downstream from RBI 39o

 31' 17.22'' 105o 49' 51.456'' 

HC-695 695 RBI - drains from rock face 39o

 31' 16.104'' 105o 49' 49.656'' 

HC-754 754 HCG downstream from chutes in ferricrete 39o

 31' 14.844'' 105o 49' 47.784'' 

HC-873 873 HCG upstream from LBI from ferricrete 39o

 31' 12.252'' 105o 49' 44.544'' 

HC-874 874 LBI - drains left bank rock glacier 39o

 31' 12.288'' 105o 49' 44.616'' 

HC-903 903 RBI - small hole in ferricrete 39o

 31' 11.748'' 105o 49' 43.68'' 

HC-959 959 HCG upstream from RBI 39o

 31' 10.596'' 105o 49' 42.204'' 

HC-966 966 RBI - drains bog across road 39o

 31' 10.38'' 105o 49' 42.168'' 

HC-972 972 LBI - drains toe of rock glacier, sample pit 39o

 31' 10.38'' 105o 49' 41.7'' 

HC-999 999 HCG along the rock glacier 39o

 31' 9.516'' 105o 49' 41.484'' 

HC-1041 1041 HCG upstream from LBI 39o

 31' 8.58'' 105o 49' 40.224'' 

HC-1046 1046 LBI - small inflow from rock glacier 39o

 31' 8.508'' 105o 49' 40.368'' 

HC-1103 1103 LBI - Pool near end of glacier that drains to stream 39 o 31' 8.148'' 105o

 49' 38.136'' 

HC-1143 1143 HCG downstream from lower rock glacier inflows 39o

 31' 6.348'' 105o 49' 37.704'' 

HC-1168 1168 LBI - small inflow at base of boulder 39o

 31' 5.7'' 105o 49' 37.38'' 

HC-1251 1251 HCG at end of reach with little visible inflow 39o

 31' 3.828'' 105o 49' 35.256'' 

HC-1349 1349 RBI - draining along cascading reach 39o

 31' 2.172'' 105o 49' 32.124'' 

HC-1366 1366 HCG on ferricrete bed with chutes and cascades 39o

 31' 1.74'' 105o 49' 31.656'' 

HC-1496 1496 HCG downstream from small seeps 39o

 30' 58.32'' 105o 49' 29.316'' 

HC-1573 1573 RBI - from avalanche fan 39o

 30' 56.34'' 105o 49' 27.948'' 

HC-1586 1586 LBI - draining from bushes 39o

 30' 56.052'' 105o 49' 27.624'' 

 

 

6
Table 2. Locations of tracer synoptic sampling sites—Continued.

[ID, identification; HCG, Handcart Gulch; LBI, left bank inflow; RBI, right bank inflow; m, meters; T, transport] 

Sample ID 

Distance 

(m) Site description Latitude Longitude 

HC-1630 1630 HCG at narrow spot in ferricrete 39o 30' 54.9'' 105o 49' 26.688'' 

HC-1639 1639 LBI - small stream inflow 39o 30' 54.684'' 105o 49' 26.508'' 

HC-1773 1773 HCG downstream from bog area on right bank 39o

 30' 51.48'' 105o 49' 23.916'' 

HC-1834 1834 RBI - small inflow 39o

 30' 49.824'' 105o 49' 22.8'' 

HC-1863 1863 RBI - pond on right bank near iron bog 39o

 30' 49.104'' 105o 49' 22.404'' 

HC-1871 1871 T2 site - HCG at "log jam" on road 39o

 30' 48.888'' 105o 49' 22.224'' 

HC-1990 1990 HCG downstream of possible inflows 39o

 30' 45.864'' 105o 49' 20.028'' 

HC-2015 2015 RBI - drains ferricrete 39o

 30' 45.108'' 105o 49' 19.884'' 

HC-2119 2119 HCG end of study reach 39o

 30' 42.264'' 105o 49' 18.732'' 

 

Purpose and Scope 

The purpose of this report is to present water-chemistry data from surface- and 

ground-water investigations conducted between 2003 and 2006 in Handcart Gulch, 

Colorado. Use of these data will aid in quantification and characterization of the 

processes that contribute to the natural conditions of low pH waters found in this and 

other unmined alpine watersheds. 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. In addition, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur stable isotopic 

compositions of surface- and ground-water are reported. 

Physical Description of the Study Area 

Handcart Gulch drains approximately 7.9 km2 of the Colorado Front Range, 

southeast of Montezuma, Colorado (fig. 1). This region is part of the Southern Rocky 

Mountain physiographic province. The study area within Handcart Gulch is located in the 

upper 2–3 km of the watershed, encompassing approximately 4.7 km 2

 and ranging in 

elevation from 3,815 m at Handcart Peak to 3,300 m at the downstream end. 

7
Geology 

Handcart Gulch lies in the southeastern portion of the Montezuma Mining District 

(fig. 1). The bedrock geology consists of Precambrian gneisses, schists, amphibolites, and 

granites that have been intruded by a series of Tertiary-age stocks and veins. The largest 

and most well-studied stock in the district is the Montezuma stock, which is 

predominantly porphyritic quartz monzonite in composition but ranges to granite apalite 

(Neuerburg and others, 1974). Surface geology of Handcart Gulch was mapped by 

Lovering (1935) and primarily consists of quartz-biotite-sillimanite schists and gneisses, 

as well as hornblende gneisses. Small quartz monzonite porphyries crop out near Webster 

Pass and Red Cone. Along the valley floor much of the stream bed lies in ferricrete, ironoxide cemented alluvial and colluvial deposits. Another important feature of Handcart 

Gulch is the presence of a rock glacier that lies below the Continental Divide (elevation 

3,690 m) and above the trunk stream (elevation 3,375 m) on the norteast side of the upper 

watershed. 

The Montezuma Mining District has a long mining history starting with the initial 

discovery of silver in 1864 (Lovering, 1935). Metals mined include silver, lead, zinc, and 

copper, and ore minerals include galena, sphalerite, and tennantite-tetrahedrite (Botinelly, 

1979). Molybdenite is also associated with the Tertiary porphyry stocks. Because of the 

proximity to the Climax deposit near Leadville, this district has been explored for 

molybdenum mineralization. Within the upper portion of Handcart Gulch, no mining has 

occurred with the exception of one small adit with a waste-rock pile of approximately 10 m3. 

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). Although there is no 

meteorological station in Handcart Gulch, an adjacent watershed, Jackwacker Gulch, has 

a SNOwpack TELemetry (SNOTEL) station maintained by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Jackwhacker Gulch is located 

approximately 5 km northeast of Handcart Gulch and the station elevation is below 

timberline at 3,341 m. During the SNOTEL period of record from 1998 to 2006 the 

8
maximum-recorded temperature was 26.7oC on July 2, 2002 with a minimum temperature 

of -31oC on March 3, 2002. The average high temperature was 16.2oC, and average low 

temperature was -23.4oC. Precipitation in Handcart Gulch averages 34.8 cm and 

primarily falls as snow (Kahn, 2005). Vegetation type is controlled primarily by climate, 

soil composition, and topography. The upper part of the study area lies above timberline 

within the tundra climate zones. The lower part of the study area lies within the subalpine 

climate zone. 

Acknowledgments 

We appreciate the generosity of Mineral Systems, Inc. for providing access to the 

deep boreholes within the study area and the cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and 

the Colorado Geological Survey. During the tracer injection study, we appreciate and 

recognize the assistance of Katherine Walton-Day, Rob Dixon, and Richard Wanty of the 

USGS and volunteer Margaret G. Walton. We thank Michele Tuttle and Seth Mueller of 

the USGS for their constructive comments during the preparation and review of this report. 

Methods 

Sampling Sites 

During the field seasons of 2001 and 2002 four mineral exploration boreholes 

were drilled by Mineral Systems Inc. in the upper portion of Handcart Gulch (fig. 2). 

These boreholes were drilled to at least 455 m below the surface and were offered to the 

USGS for use in long-term research. Subsequently, three of these boreholes were logged, 

cased, and made assessable for ground-water sampling (Caine and others, 2006). During 

the field season of 2003, nine additional shallow wells (3–52 m) were drilled along the 

Handcart Gulch stream by the USGS (fig. 2).

Surface water samples collected during the August 6, 2003 tracer-injection study 

were located along a 2-km reach of the Handcart Gulch trunk stream (fig. 3). Two days 

prior to sample collection, a reconnaissance of the study reach was performed. Sample 

sites were selected and marked; their distance downstream of the most upstream water in 

Handcart Gulch, the outflow from the upper lobe of the rock glacier, were determined 

using a portable global positioning system (GPS, Garmin 12C, NAD27). Latitude and 

9
longitude of the sampling sites were acquired at this time. Transport sites, labeled “T” 

(table 2), are where numerous samples are collected to determine transport characteristics 

of the stream. Sample sites were selected upstream and downstream from visible inflows 

and other features that could affect water quality. Twenty-three surface inflows 

(tributaries, springs, and seeps) were sampled. 

Water-Chemistry Sampling 

Between August 2003 and September 2005 water-chemistry samples were collected 

periodically from wells in Handcart Gulch. On August 6, 2003, 50 surface-water samples 

were collected during a stream-tracer study. In addition two surface-water samples were 

collected September 9, 2005 and one on March 17, 2006. 

Before sampling of water in shallow wells, the static water level was measured, the 

wells were pumped for approximately twenty minutes, and pH, specific conductance, and 

temperature were monitored until they were stable. Deeper wells (WP1 and WP2) were 

sampled using a tripod and teflon bailer. On-site measurements of pH, specific conductance, 

temperature, and dissolved oxygen were obtained utilizing a flow-through cell, or were 

measured from an aliquot of sample water. At each site the pH electrode was calibrated 

using two buffers that bracketed the measured pH and thermally equilibrated with the water 

sample. At selected sites Eh was measured. Samples were filtered on site through either a 

disposable capsule filter having a nominal pore size of 0.45 μm or through a syringe filter 

having a pore size of 0.45 μm. In this report, constituent concentrations measured in filtered 

subsamples (FA) are called “dissolved,” and constituent concentrations in unfiltered 

subsamples (RA) are called “total recoverable.” 

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 3. 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, Zn, and Zr), major anions (Br, Cl, 

F, NO3, and SO4), alkalinity, and DOC were filtered and stabilizing reagents were added 

when necessary. Sample bottles were pre-rinsed with filtered water prior to sample 

collection. Samples were collected for the determination of the isotopic composition of 

10
dissolved sulfate-sulfur isotopes (δ

 34S and δ 18O) and water isotopes (δ 2H and δ 18O) during 

selected samplings. Delta notation (δ) is used to describe the isotopic concentration of water 

and sulfate isotopes. In delta notation, the ratio of the heavy and light isotope is compared to 

that of a reference standard (Clark and Fritz, 1999). 

 

 

Table 3. Sample container preparation and stabilization methods for samples.

[HCl, hydrochloric acid; HNO3, nitric acid; N, normal; v/v, volume per volume; %, percent] 

Sample type(s) Storage container and preparation Stabilization treatment 

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% 

HNO3

 and rinsed 3 times with 

distilled water 

1% (v/v) concentrated redistilled or 

Ultrex 7.7 N HNO3 added 

Iron redox species 

(Fe(T), Fe(II)) 

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 

Oxygen and sulfur isotopes of 

dissolved sulfate (18O and 34S) 

Polyethylene bottles filled with 

distilled water and allowed to 

stand for 24 hours, then rinsed 3 

times with distilled water 

None 

Water isotopes (18O and 2Η) Glass bottle None 

On August 6, 2003 surface-water samples were collected during a LiBr tracerinjection study. Detailed description of tracer injection and synoptic sampling can be found 

in Kimball and others (1999). On August 5, 2003, a continuous injection of a concentrated 

LiBr solution was initiated at the upstream end of the study reach (fig. 3). The injection site 

was located in Handcart Gulch, 34 m downstream of the outflow from the southwest lobe of 

the rock glacier, the uppermost surface water in Handcart Gulch. All stream and inflow 

11
samples were collected on August 6 in 1.8-liter HPDE bottles by submersing the neck of 

each bottle into the water near the thalweg or at the greatest flow of seeps and springs; 

sample bottles were triple rinsed with sample water prior to collection. Stream- and inflowwater temperature was measured in situ using an alcohol thermometer. Samples were 

transported to a central processing area where 125-ml aliquots were prepared for cation and 

anion analyses. Onsite processing included filtration, measurement of pH and specific 

conductance, and preservation of samples for iron speciation. Filtration was completed 

using tangential-flow units equipped with 0.45μm membranes (FA/FU) and a 10,000-

Daltons filter membrane (UFA), equivalent to approximately 0.005 μm pore size (Alpers 

and others, 2000). Aliquots for iron speciation were placed in amber bottles and preserved 

with concentrated HCl to fix the ratio of ferrous to ferric iron in filtered samples (To and 

others, 1999). Aliquots for cation analysis were acidified to pH <2.0 with ultrapure nitric 

acid (HNO3). 

Laboratory Methods 

All reagents were of a purity at least equal to the reagent-grade standards of the 

American Chemical Society. Double-distilled de-ionized water and re-distilled acids 

using a sub-boiling purification technique (Kuehner and others, 1972), were used in all 

preparations. The methods and detection limit for each analysis are summarized in table 

4. USGS standard-reference water samples and blanks were included with each sample 

suite for inductively-coupled plasma atomic-emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) and 

inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Major cations (Ca, Mg, K, and 

Na), silica, and selected minor cations for total-recoverable and dissolved samples were 

determined using a Perkin Elmer Optima 3000TM ICP-AES (Briggs, 2002). 

Minor and trace elements (As, Al, B, Ba, Be, Bi, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Dy, Er, Eu, Gd, 

Hf, Ho, La, Li, Lu, Mn, Mo, Nd, Ni, Pb, Pr, Rb, Re, Sb, Se, Sm, Sr, Ta, Tb, Te, Th, Tl, 

Tm, U, V, W, Y, Yb, Zn, and Zr) for total-recoverable and dissolved samples were 

analyzed with the ICP-MS using a method developed by the USGS (Meier and others, 

1994; Lamothe and others, 2002). This method is used to directly determine the elements 

in the water samples without need for any pre-concentration or dilution. Elemental 

detection limits are in the sub-parts per billion range (table 4), and the working linear 

range is six or more orders of magnitude. 

12
Table 4. Methods of analysis and detection limits. 

[mg/L, milligram per liter; μg/L, microgram per liter; IC, ion chromatography; ICP-MS, inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry; ICP-AES, inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy] 

Element Detection limit Method Element Detection limit Method 

Ag 3 μg/L ICP-MS Mn 0.2 μg/L ICP-MS 

Al 10 μg/L ICP-AES Mo 2 μg/L ICP-MS 

Al 2 μg/L ICP-MS Na 0.1 mg/L ICP-AES 

As 1 μg/L ICP-MS Nb 0.2 μg/L ICP-MS 

Ba 1 μg/L ICP-AES Nd 0.01 μg/L ICP-MS 

Ba 0.2 μg/L ICP-MS Ni 0.4 μg/L ICP-MS 

Be 0.05 μg/L ICP-MS NO3 0.1 mg/l IC 

Bi 0.2 μg/L ICP-MS P 10 μg/L ICP-MS 

Br 0.03 IC Pb 0.05 μg/L ICP-MS 

Ca 0.1 mg/L ICP-AES Pr 0.01 μg/L ICP-MS 

Cd 0.02 μg/L ICP-MS Rb 0.01 μg/L ICP-MS 

Ce 0.01 μg/L ICP-MS Sb 0.3 μg/L ICP-MS 

Cl 0.1 mg/l IC Sc 0.6 μg/L ICP-MS 

Co 0.02 μg/L ICP-MS Se 1 μg/L ICP-MS 

Cr 1 μg/L ICP-MS SiO2 0.1 mg/L ICP-AES 

Cs 0.02 μg/L ICP-MS SO4 0.05 mg/l IC 

Cu 0.5 μg/L ICP-MS Sm 0.01 μg/L ICP-MS 

Dy 0.005 μg/L ICP-MS Sr 1 μg/L ICP-AES 

Er 0.005 μg/L ICP-MS Sr 0.5 μg/L ICP-MS 

Eu 0.005 μg/L ICP-MS Ta 0.02 μg/L ICP-MS 

F 0.1 mg/l IC Tb 0.005 μg/L ICP-MS 

Fe 20 μg/L ICP-AES Te 0.1 μg/L ICP-MS 

Fe (T) 2 μg/L FerroZine Th 0.2 μg/L ICP-MS 

Fe (II) 2 μg/L FerroZine Ti 0.5 μg/L ICP-MS 

Ga 0.05 vg/L ICP-MS Tl 0.1 μg/L ICP-MS 

Gd 0.005 μg/L ICP-MS Tm 0.005 μg/L ICP-MS 

Ge 0.02 μg/L ICP-MS U 0.1 μg/L ICP-MS 

Ho 0.005 μg/L ICP-MS V 0.5 μg/L ICP-MS 

K 30 μg/L ICP-MS W 0.5 μg/L ICP-MS 

La 0.01 μg/L ICP-MS Y 0.01 μg/L ICP-MS 

Li 0.1 μg/L ICP-MS Yb 0.005 μg/L ICP-MS 

Lu 0.1 μg/L ICP-MS Zn 0.5 μg/L ICP-MS 

Mg 0.1 mg/L ICP-AES Zr 0.2 μg/L ICP-MS 

Mn 10 μg/L ICP-AES 

13
Concentrations of major anions (Br, Cl, F, NO3, and SO4) were determined by ion 

chromatography (Brinton and others, 1995) using a Dionex 2010iTM ion chromatograph 

with 10-μL and 50-μL sample loops. Standards were prepared from compounds of the 

highest commercially-available purity. USGS standard reference water samples were 

used as independent quality control standards. Alkalinity (HCO3

-

) was determined using 

an Orion 960TM autotitrator and standardized H2

SO4 (Barringer and Johnsson, 1989). 

Samples were diluted as necessary to bring the analyte concentration within the optimal 

range of the method. DOC concentrations (table 5) were determined by the wet 

persulfate-oxidation method (Aiken, 1992). Iron (II) redox species and total iron in 

filtered, HCl-acidified samples were determined using a modification of the FerroZineTM 

colorimetric method (Stookey, 1970; To and others, 1999) with a Hewlett Packard 

8453TM diode array UV/VIS spectrophotometer. 

Table 5. Dissolved organic carbon analyses. 

[DOC, dissolved organic carbon; mg/L, milligram per liter] 

WELL DATE DOC (mg/L) 

HCBW1 9/8/2004 0.3 

HCBW3 9/8/2004 0.4 

HCFW3 9/8/2004 0.4 

WP4 9/8/2004 0.2 

Sulfur and oxygen isotopic determinations of dissolved sulfate (δ

34S, δ18O) were 

performed by the USGS Crustal Imaging and Characterization Team Laboratory in Denver, 

Colo. The sulfate ion was removed from the samples by precipitation as barium sulfate 

(BaSO4) following methods described by Carmody and others (1998). Sulfur-isotopic 

analyses were done by combustion using continuous-flow methods described by Giesemann 

and others (1994), with a Carlo Erba NC2500 elemental analyzer coupled to a Finnigan 

Delta Plus XP mass spectrometer. Values of δ

34SSO4 are relative to the standard Vienna 

Canyon Diablo Troilite (VCDT) with reproducibility of 0.2 per mil. Oxygen analyses of 

sulfate were done by pyrolysis with a Finnigan TC/EA coupled to a Finnigan Delta Plus XL 

mass spectrometer using continuous flow methods modified from Kornexl and others 

(1999). Values of δ

18O are relative to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW) with 

reproducibility of 0.4 per mil. 

14
The oxygen and hydrogen isotopic compositions of water (δ

18O, δ2

H) were also 

performed by the USGS Crustal Imaging Team Laboratory in Denver, Color. Oxygen 

isotopic compositions were determined using a Micromass Optima with an automated CO2

equilibration technique adapted from Epstein and Mayeda (1953). Water samples were 

prepared for hydrogen-isotopic analyses using the Zn-reduction technique (Kendall and 

Coplen, 1985). The hydrogen analyses were preformed on a Finnigan MAT 252 mass 

spectrometer. Values of δ

18O and δ2

H were relative to VSMOW; they have reproducibility 

of approximately 0.2 and 1.0 per mil, respectively. 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

 Quality control included replicate samples, field equipment blanks, analyses by 

alternative methods, and calculation of charge imbalance. Replicate samples were two 

samples considered to be essentially identical in composition and used to estimate 

variability in environmental data. These samples were collected immediately following 

the water-chemistry sample and were pumped from the same collection vessel. Each 

replicate sample was processed through all the steps of the routine water-chemistry 

sample using a new filter and clean equipment. Replicate samples were analyzed at the 

same time, using the same instruments as the other samples collected, during the same 

sampling trip. Analytical results of replicate samples are included in tables 6, 7, 8, and 9, 

and follow the corresponding water sample (labeled as duplicate). Most major, minor, 

and trace element replicate concentrations are within ±10 percent of the corresponding 

water-chemistry sample. 

A field equipment blank is a sample prepared using blank (deionized) water that 

has passed through all the sampling and processing equipment. This type of sample is 

used to check for the potential contamination of the water-chemistry samples during 

collection, processing, handling, and analysis. Analytical results are included in tables 6, 

7, 8, and 9. Most analytes were below analytical detection limits. 

Concentrations of cations were determined by both ICP-AES and ICP-MS, and if 

concentrations of trace elements were at least three times the detection limit, good agreement 

between ICP-AES and ICP-MS results was observed (fig. 4). Barium, manganese, and 

strontium were chosen for this comparison because the range in concentrations of these 

elements was within the working range of both analytical techniques. 

15
0 10 20 30 40 50

0

10

20

30

40

50

ICP-MS, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

ICP-AES, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

A

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

ICP-MS, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

ICP-AES, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

B

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

ICP-MS, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

ICP-AES, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

C

Figure 4. Comparison of analytical results by ICP-AES and ICP-MS with (A) barium 

concentration, (B) strontium concentration, and (C) manganese concentration. Diagonal 

line is 1:1 correspondence and dashed lines display 10 percent variation. 

16
Data for all samples with complete analyses were checked using the computer 

program WATEQ4F (Ball and Nordstrom, 1991) for charge imbalance (C.I.), using the 

following calculation: 

2 anions) sum cations (sum

anions) sum - cations (sum * 100 (percent) C.I.

+ ÷ =

where sum cations is the sum of the cations in milliequivalents per liter and sum anions is 

the sum of the anions in milliequivalents per liter. Note that the results of this calculation 

are twice the value typically reported by an analytical laboratory because the denominator 

of the equation is the average of the cations and anions rather than the sum of the ions. 

The percent C.I. reflects how well the major anions and cations balance and 

usually is an independent measure of the accuracy of the analytical techniques. The 

percent C.I. was low (<10 percent) for most samples (tables 6 and 8). Some dilute water 

samples had charge imbalances that were greater because of analytical imprecisions when 

determining concentrations at or near the detection limits. 

Water Chemistry 

The chemical data for samples collected from the shallow and deep wells are 

presented in tables 5, 6, and 7, and the chemical data for synoptic samples collected 

during tracer tests are presented in tables 8 and 9. Results of discharge calculations from 

the tracer study are presented in table 10. Water-isotopic data are presented in table 11 

and dissolved sulfate-isotopic data in table 12. 

17
Table 10. Tracer synoptic discharge results. 

[m, meters; CFS, cubic feet per second; L/S, liters per second] 

SITE DISTANCE (m) DISCHARGE, 

(CFS) 

DISCHARGE, 

(L/S) 

HC-114 114 0.016 0.44 

HC-160 160 0.016 0.44 

HC-209 209 0.072 2.05 

HC-294 294 0.078 2.20 

HC-395 395 0.089 2.53 

HC-511 511 0.117 3.30 

HC-556 556 0.139 3.93 

HC-574 574 0.151 4.27 

HC-596 596 0.176 4.98 

HC-635 635 0.587 16.6 

HC-754 754 0.626 17.7 

HC-873 873 0.668 18.9 

HC-959 959 0.737 20.9 

HC-999 999 0.794 22.5 

HC-1041 1041 0.810 22.9 

HC-1143 1143 0.946 26.8 

HC-1251 1251 0.961 27.2 

HC-1366 1366 0.982 27.8 

HC-1496 1496 0.982 27.8 

HC-1630 1630 1.06 30.0 

HC-1773 1773 1.09 30.8 

HC-1871 1871 1.15 32.6 

HC-1990 1990 1.17 33.2 

HC-2119 2119 1.27 36.1 

18
Table 11. Water isotopic analyses

[DUP, duplicate analysis; --, no data] 

Site Date collected δ

18O (per mil) δ2

H (per mil) 

HCBW1A 9/7/2004 -18.1 -133.0 

HCBW1B 9/7/2004 -18.3 -133.7 

HCBW1C 9/7/2004 -17.5 -131.1 

HCBW1 9/12/2005 -17.9 -132.3 

HCBW2 9/7/2004 -18.1 -134.0 

HCBW2 9/12/2005 -18.4 -136.0 

HCBW2B 9/12/2005 -18.1 -135.0 

HCSW2 9/12/2005 -17.6 -132.5 

HCSW2 DUP 9/12/2005 -- -130.3 

HCBW3 9/7/2004 -17.6 -133.0 

HCBW3 9/12/2005 -18.1 -132.7 

HCBW3 DUP 9/12/2005 -17.9 -- 

HCCW3 9/7/2004 -15.2 -112.4 

HCCW3 9/12/2005 -16.3 -118.5 

HCFW3 9/7/2004 -17.7 -131.8 

HCFW3 9/12/2005 -17.8 -130.5 

HCBW4 9/7/2004 -17.8 -134.7 

HCBW4 9/12/2005 -18.4 -137.3 

HCBW4 DUP 9/7/2004 -18.6 -- 

HCFW5 9/12/2005 -17.9 -136.2 

HCBW5 9/12/2005 -18.3 -134.9 

HCBW5 DUP 9/12/2005 -- -135.3 

WP1 9/10/2004 -19.3 -144.9 

WP1A 9/13/2005 -19.5 -142.9 

WP1B 9/13/2005 -19.6 -144.7 

WP1B DUP 9/13/2005 -19.6 -- 

WP2A 9/8/2004 -17.9 -136.0 

WP2C 9/8/2004 -18.8 -141.0 

WP2A 9/13/2005 -18.4 -136.8 

WP2B 9/13/2005 -19.1 -141.2 

WP4 9/8/2004 -18.5 -135.5 

WP4 9/13/2005 -18.6 -134.3 

19
Table 12. Dissolved sulfate isotopic analyses. 

[DUP, duplicate analysis; --, no data] 

Site Date Collected δ18O(per mil) δ34S(per mil) 

HCBW1A 9/7/2004 -8.1 -1.9 

HCBW1B 9/7/2004 -8.0 -2.0 

HCBW1C 9/7/2004 -7.6 -2.0 

HCBW1 9/12/2005 -7.4 -1.8 

HCBW2 9/7/2004 -7.5 -1.8 

HCBW2 9/7/2004 -7.5 -1.7 

HCBW2 DUP 9/12/2005 -7.4 -1.7 

HCBW2 B 9/12/2005 -8.1 -1.6 

HCSW2 9/12/2005 -7.2 -1.7 

HCBW3 9/7/2004 -7.3 -1.9 

HCBW3 DUP 9/7/2004 -7.3 -1.8 

HCBW3 9/12/2005 -7.5 -1.7 

HCCW3 9/7/2004 -7.1 -1.6 

HCCW3 DUP 9/7/2004 -7.0 -- 

HCCW3 9/12/2005 -7.1 -1.5 

HCCW3 DUP 9/12/2005 -- -1.5 

HCFW3 9/7/2004 -7.1 -1.8 

HCFW3 9/12/2005 -7.4 -1.6 

HCBW4 9/7/2004 -8.0 -0.7 

HCBW4 9/12/2005 -7.2 0.0 

HCBW5 DUP 9/12/2005 -8.5 -- 

HCFW5 9/7/2004 -8.2 -1.1 

HCFW5 9/12/2005 -7.9 -0.9 

WP1 9/10/2004 -9.6 0.2 

WP1A 9/13/2005 -10.1 -0.1 

WP1B 9/13/2005 -10.0 -0.1 

WP2A 9/8/2004 -11.5 -1.6 

WP2B 9/8/2004 -11.2 -1.5 

WP2B DUP 9/8/2004 -10.8 -- 

WP2C 9/8/2004 -9.6 -1.5 

WP2A 9/13/2005 -11.8 -1.9 

WP2A DUP 9/13/2005 -11.8 -- 

WP2B 9/13/2005 -11.6 -1.8 

WP4 9/8/2004 -4.8 -0.8 

WP4 9/13/2005 -5.8 -0.9 

HCG1 9/12/2005 -6.6 -1.8 

HCG5 9/12/2005 -7.6 -1.5 

20
Ground-water samples are Ca-SO4 dominated and range in pH from 2.51 to 6.77. 

Approximately, 75 percent of the samples have pH values between 3.3 and 4.3. Samples 

from well HCBW1 exclusively have pH values greater than 4.5. In general, with 

decreasing pH, dissolved sulfate concentration increases (fig. 5). Dissolved trace-metal 

concentrations are variable with dissolved copper ranging from <0.5 to 23,000 μg/L and 

dissolved zinc from 36 to 582 μg/L. A reconnaissance survey of dissolved organic carbon 

documented that it is quite low in these ground waters, 0.2–0.4 mg/L (table 5). 

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

SULFATE, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

 WP1

 WP2

 WP4

 HCBW1

 HCBW2

 HCSW2

 HCBW3

 HCCW3

 HCFW3

 HCBW4

 HCFW5

 HCG

Figure 5. pH in relation to dissolved sulfate concentration for ground- and surfacewater samples in Handcart Gulch. 

21
Along the tracer-study reach, the pH of Handcart Gulch decreased from 3.98 to 

3.24, and the pH of inflows to Handcart Gulch varied from 2.69 to 4.02 (fig. 6). The 

dissolved sulfate concentration increased by approximately a factor of 10, from 20.7 to 

276 mg/L (fig. 7). The concentration of sulfate of the inflows was quite variable, 30.0– 

1,010 mg/L. Along the tracer-study reach, dissolved iron concentrations increased from 

0.091 to 27.2 mg/L, with inflow concentrations varying from 0.110 to 124 mg/L (fig. 8). 

The total-recoverable iron concentration is greater than the dissolved-iron concentration 

for most of the stream samples in the downstream section of the study reach (fig 8), 

indicating that a fraction of the iron in the water column is colloidal. This is consistent 

with the observation of fresh-iron precipitates along the stream bed and the occurrence of 

ferricrete along much of the study reach. 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

 HCG

 INFLOWS

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

Figure 6. pH as a function of downstream distance for Handcart Gulch. 

22
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

 HCG

 INFLOWS

DISSOLVED SULFATE, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

Figure 7. Dissolved sulfate concentration as a function of downstream 

distance for Handcart Gulch. 

23
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

 HCG DISSOLVED

 HCG TOTAL RECOVERABLE

 INFLOWS DISSOLVED

IRON, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

Figure 8. Dissolved and total-recoverable iron concentration as a function 

of downstream distance for Handcart Gulch.

Dissolved copper concentration along the study reach increased from <0.010 to 

0.216 mg/L, with a relatively steady increase in the lower 1,000 m (fig. 9). Little 

difference between the total-recoverable and dissolved fractions was observed, 

suggesting that most of the copper remained in solution. Dissolved copper concentrations 

of inflows in the upper 1,000 m of the study reach are low (<0.010–0.045 mg/L) 

compared to inflows in the lower 1,000 m (0.149–0.927 mg/L). Dissolved zinc 

concentrations along the study reach increased from <0.010 to 0.173 mg/L, but in 

contrast to the dissolved copper profile, the zinc profile (fig. 10) displayed a step-like 

increase at 635 m just downstream of the confluence of a major tributary entering from 

the northwest (fig. 3). Water entering Handcart Gulch in the reach between 596 m and 

635 m tripled the discharge of the trunk stream (4.98–16.6 L/S; table 12 and fig. 11). 

24
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

 HCG DISSOLVED

 HCG TOTAL

 INFLOW DISSOLVED

COPPER, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

Figure 9. Dissolved and total-recoverable copper concentration as a function 

of downstream distance for Handcart Gulch. 

25
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

ZINC, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 HCG DISSOLVED

 HCG TOTAL

 INFLOW DISSOLVED

Figure 10. Dissolved and total-recoverable zinc concentration as a function 

of downstream distance for Handcart Gulch. 

26
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

DISCHARGE, IN LITERS PER SECOND

Figure 11. Discharge as a function of downstream distance for Handcart Gulch. 

Discharge along the study reach increased from 0.44 to 36.1 L/S (table 12, fig. 

11). Discharge data was combined with chemistry data to create loading profiles (figs. 12

A–D). Dissolved sulfate, iron, copper and zinc profiles displayed substantial downstream 

loading increases (fig. 12A–D). 

27
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

SULFATE LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

A

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

 HCG DISSOLVED

 HCG TOTAL

COPPER LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

C

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0

20

40

60

80

100

 HCG DISSOLVED

 HCG TOTAL

IRON LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

B

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

 HCG DISSOLVED

 HCG TOTAL

ZINC LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

DISTANCE ALONG THE STUDY REACH, IN METERS

D

 

Figure 12. Constituent loads as a function of downstream distance for Handcart 

Gulch for (A) sulfate, (B) iron, (C) copper, and (D) zinc. 

28
References Cited 

Aiken, G.R., 1992, Chloride interference in the analysis of dissolved organic carbon by 

the wet oxidation method: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 26, p. 

2435–2439. 

Alpers, C.N., Taylor, H.E., Roth, D.A., Cain, D.J., Ball, J.W., Unruh, D.M., and Dileanis, 

P.D., 2000, Study design: Field and laboratory methods, in Alpers, C.N., Taylor, 

H.E., and Domagalski, J.L., eds., Metals transport in the Sacramento River, 

California, 1996–1997: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99–4286, p. 19–38. 

Ball, J.W., and Nordstrom, D.K., 1991, User’s manual for WATEQ4F, with revised 

thermodynamic data base and test cases for calculating speciation of major, trace, 

and redox elements in natural waters: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

91–183, 189 p. 

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. 

Botinelly, T., 1979, Mineralogy as a guide for exploration in the Montezuma District, 

central Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79–1177, 18 p. 

Briggs, P.H., 2002, The determination of twenty-seven elements in aqueous samples by 

inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry, in Taggart, J.E., ed., 

Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials, U.S. 

Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223, ch. F, 11 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 95–426, 16 p. 

Caine, J.S., Bove, D.J., Manning, A.H., and Verplanck, P.L., 2004, Preliminary 

characterization of geological controls on groundwater flow and solute transport 

in an alpine hydrothermal metal deposit: Handcart Gulch, Montezuma Mining 

District, Colorado Rocky Mountain Front Range: Annual Meeting, Denver, 

Colorado, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, p. 539. 

Caine, J.S., Manning, A.H., Verplanck, P.L., Bove, D.J., Kahn, K.G., and Ge, Shemin, 

2006, Well construction information, lithologic logs, water level data, and 

overview of research in the Handcart Gulch, Colorado: An alpine watershed 

affected by metalliferous hydrothermal alteration: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2006–1189, 13 p. 

Carmody, R.W., Plummer, L.N., Busenberg, E., and Coplen, T.B., 1998, Methods for 

collection of dissolved sulfate and sulfide and analysis of their sulfur isotopic 

composition: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97–234. 91 p. 

29
Clark, I.D., and Fritz, Peter, 1999, Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology: Boca Raton, 

Fla.,Lewis Publishers, 328 p. 

Epstein, S., and Mayeda, T., 1953, Variations of O18 contents of waters from natural 

sources: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v 4, p. 213–224. 

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. 

Kahn, K.G., 2005, Analysis of the shallow groundwater system in an alpine basin: 

Handcart Gulch, Colorado: Master of Science Thesis, University of Colorado, 

Boulder, 150 p. 

Kahn, K.G., Caine, J.S., and Ge, Shemin, 2005, Estimating hydraulic properties of 

complexly fractured and metallically mineralized bedrock in an alpine watershed: 

Handcart Gulch, Colorado: Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 37, n. 7, p. 504. 

Kendall, Carol, and Coplen, T.B., 1985, Multisample conversion of water to hydrogen by 

 zinc for stable isotope determination: Analytical Chemistry, v.57, n.7, p. 1437–

 1440. 

Kimball, B.A., Nimick, D.A., Gerner, L.J., and Runkel, R.L., 1999, Quantification of 

metal loading in Fisher Creek by tracer injection and synoptic sampling, Park 

County, Montana, August 1997: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 99–4119, 40 p. 

Kimball, B.A., Runkel, R.L., Bencala, K.E., and Walton-Day, K., 2002, Assessment of 

metal loads in watersheds affected by acid mine drainage by using tracer injection 

and synoptic sampling, Cement Creek, Colorado, USA: Applied Geochemistry, v. 

17, p. 1183–1207. 

Kornexl, B.E., Gehre, M., Höfling, P., and Werner, R.A., 1999, On-line δ

18O 

measurements of organic and inorganic substances: Rapid Communications in 

 Mass Spectrometry, v. 13, p. 1685–1693.

Kuehner, E.C., Alvarez, R., Paulsen, P.J., and Murphy, T.J., 1972, Production and 

analysis of special high-purity acids purified by sub-boiling distillation: 

Analytical Chemistry, v. 44, p. 2050–2056. 

Lamothe, P.J., Meier, A.L., and Wilson, S.A., 2002, The determination of forty-four 

elements in aqueous samples by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, 

in Taggart, J.E., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and 

other materials, U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 02–223, ch. H, 13 p. 

30
31

Lovering, T.S., 1935, Geology and Ore Deposits of the Montezuma Quadrangle 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 178, 119 p. 

Manning, A.H., Caine, J.S., Verplanck, P.L., Bove, D.J., and Landis, G.P., 2004, Insights 

into groundwater flow in an alpine watershed provided by a coupled heat, mass, 

and fluid transport model, Handcart Gulch, Colorado: Annual Meeting, Denver, 

Colorado, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, p. 539. 

Meier, A.L., Grimes, D.J., and Ficklin, W.H., 1994, Inductively coupled plasma mass 

spectrometry—A powerful analytical tool for mineral resource and environmental 

studies [abs], in Carter, L.M.H., Toth, M.I., and Day, W.C., eds., USGS Research 

on Mineral Resources—1994, Part A—Program and Abstracts, Ninth V.E. 

McKelvey Forum on Mineral and Energy Resources: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1103-A, p. 67–68. 

Neuerburg, G.J., Botinelly, T., and Watterson, J., 1974, Molybdenite in the Montezuma 

District of central Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 0704, 21 pp. 

Stookey, L.L., 1970, FerroZine—A new spectrophotometric reagent for iron: Analytical 

Chemistry, v. 42, p. 779–781. 

To, T.B., Nordstrom, D.K., Cunningham, K.M., Ball, J.W., and McCleskey, R.B., 1999, 

New method for direct determination of dissolved Fe(III) concentrations in acid 

mine waters: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 33, p. 807–813. 

Verplanck, P.L., Nordstrom, D.K., Manning, A.H., Caine, J.S., Plumlee, G.S., Hunt, 

A.G., and Bove, D.J., 2004, Linking geochemical and hydrologic models of 

ground water in two Rocky Mountain catchments: Straight Creek, NM and 

Handcart Gulch, CO: Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, Geological Society of 

America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, p. 539.