U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Data Series 443

Methods and Basic Data from 

Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork, 

October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, 

September 2000

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service
Cover: Photograph of iron bog in upper American Fork Canyon, looking northeast 

toward Mineral Basin. American Fork runs to the left and receives drainage from the 

bog. Photo by Briant Kimball taken on July 26, 2005. 
Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading 

Studies in American Fork, October 1999, and 

Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000 

By Briant A. Kimball, Robert L. Runkel, and Linda J. Gerner 

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service

Data Series 443

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009

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

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

U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Kimball, B.A., Runkel, R.L., and Gerner, L.J., 2009, Methods and basic data from mass-loading studies in American 

Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 443, 33p.;

Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/443. 
iii

Contents

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

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

Methods.......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Tracer Injections and Stream Discharge......................................................................................... 2

Synoptic Sampling and Analytical Methods ................................................................................... 2

Constituent Loads ................................................................................................................................ 7

Results of Mass-Loading Studies .............................................................................................................. 9

Chemical Analysis of Synoptic Samples.......................................................................................... 9

Loading Profiles.................................................................................................................................... 9

References Cited........................................................................................................................................... 9 

Figures

1. Map showing locations of stream and inflow sampling sites and principal mines 

in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah..................................................................... 3

2. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for aluminum and (B) change in 

aluminum load for individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, 

American Fork, Utah, October 1999..................................................................................... 29

3. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for iron and (B) change in iron load for 

individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, American Fork, 

Utah, October 1999 ................................................................................................................. 29

4. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for manganese and (B) change in 

manganese load for individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow 

load, American Fork, Utah, October 1999 ........................................................................... 30

5. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for zinc and (B) change in zinc load for 

individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, American Fork, 

Utah, October 1999 ................................................................................................................. 30

6. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for aluminum and (B) change in 

aluminum load for individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, 

Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000 ........................................................................... 31

7. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for iron and (B) change in iron load for 

individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, Mary Ellen Gulch, 

Utah, September 2000............................................................................................................ 31

8. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for copper and (B) change in copper 

load for individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, Mary 

Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000...................................................................................... 32

9. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for manganese and (B) change in 

manganese load for individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow 

load, Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000 ................................................................. 32

10. Graph showing (A) mass-loading profiles for zinc and (B) change in zinc load for 

individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, Mary Ellen Gulch, 

Utah, September 2000............................................................................................................ 33 
iv

Tables

1. Source, site description, pH, calculated discharge, and tracer concentrations for 

synoptic samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, 

September 2000 ........................................................................................................................ 4

2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 

1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000 ........................................................ 11

3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, 

October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000 ......................................... 20

4. Method detection limits and relative standard deviation of quality-assurance 

samples ................................................................................................................................... 28 
v

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Abbreviated Water-Quality Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

micrometer (μm) 0.03937 inch (in.) 

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

Flow rate

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

Mass flow

kilogram per day (kg/d) 1,233 pound per day (lb/d)

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32.

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

°C=(°F-32)/1.8.

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88); horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD 83). Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

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

25°C). Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are reported either in milligrams per 

liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (μg/L). 
vi
Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in 

American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, 

September 2000

By Briant A. Kimball, Robert L. Runkel, and Linda J. Gerner

Abstract

Land-management agencies are faced with decisions 

about remediation in streams affected by mine drainage. In 

support of the U.S. Forest Service, for the Uinta National 

Forest, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted mass-loading 

studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah. 

Synoptic samples were collected along a 10,000-meter study 

reach in American Fork and 4,500-meter reach in Mary Ellen 

Gulch. Tracer-injection methods were combined with synoptic sampling methods to evaluate discharge and mass loading. This data series report presents the results of chemical 

analyses of these samples and provides the equations used to 

calculate discharge from tracer concentrations and loads from 

discharge and concentrations of the constituents. The detailed 

information from these studies will facilitate the preparation of 

interpretive reports and discussions with stakeholder groups. 

Data presented include detailed locations of the sampling 

sites, results of chemical analyses, and graphs of mass-loading 

profiles for major and trace elements in American Fork and 

Mary Ellen Gulch. Ultrafiltration was used to define filtered 

concentrations, and total-recoverable concentrations were 

measured on unfiltered samples.

Introduction

Mass-loading studies were carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey to support the U.S. Forest Service in planning 

remediation in American Fork, Utah. The mass-loading studies 

combined two well-established techniques. First, a conservative tracer was injected to estimate discharge by dilution of the 

tracer along a 10,000-m study reach in American Fork and a 

4,500-m study reach in Mary Ellen Gulch. Second, spatially 

detailed data derived from synoptic samples from the streams 

and inflows were used to complement the discharge data and 

provide the information to calculate changes in loading of 

major and trace elements in these streams. 

The purpose of this data series report is to provide 

detailed information from these studies to facilitate the preparation of interpretive reports and discussions with stakeholder 

groups. It includes detailed locations of the sampling sites, 

results of chemical analyses, and graphs of mass-loading profiles for selected metals.

Methods

Tracer-injection studies have been used to provide a 

catchment-scale context for the quantification of metal loads 

from abandoned and inactive mines. Together with geologic 

and biologic studies, tracer-injection studies provide much 

of the information needed to make science-based decisions 

for a catchment (Buxton and others, 1997). The massloading approach used in this report addresses the problem 

of solute source determination (Kimball and others, 2002). 

The approach is based on two well-established techniques: 

the tracer-dilution method (Kilpatrick and Cobb, 1985) and 

synoptic sampling (Bencala and McKnight, 1987). The 

tracer-dilution method provides estimates of stream discharge 

that are in turn, used to quantify the amount of tributary and 

groundwater inflow entering the stream in a given stream segment. Synoptic sampling provides a spatially detailed profile 

of water chemistry along the study reach. It also defines the 

range of concentrations among inflows that influence the 

stream profile. When used together, these techniques provide 

a description of a catchment that quantifies stream discharge 

and concentrations of constituents that may then be used to 

determine mass loading of chemical constituents associated 

with various sources of surface and ground water. Methods 

used to support the mass-loading approach to catchment studies are detailed in several publications. Applying tracer-dilution methods to mine drainage was developed in studies of St. 

Kevin Gulch, Colorado (Broshears and others, 1993; Kimball 

and others, 1994). The general approach is described and 

applied to a heavily mined and altered catchment in Cement 

Creek, Colorado, by Kimball and others (2002). Equations to 
2 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

evaluate loading were used to contrast mined and unmined 

areas along the Red River, New Mexico (Kimball and others, 

2006a). A much smaller-scale application identified particular 

hydrogeologic connections through fault shear zones between 

a stream and mine pit lakes near Strawberry Creek, South 

Dakota (Kimball and others, 2006b).

This study was undertaken during low-flow conditions 

in October 1999 and September 2000. Applying the tracerdilution method to low-flow conditions provides a focus on 

metal sources that enter the stream continuously, but does 

not address transient, short-term loading that can result from 

storm or snowmelt runoff. A critical step in this approach was 

to walk the entire study reach and identify visible inflows 

and areas of likely ground-water inflow. Stream sampling 

sites were located upstream and downstream of these inflows 

and in locations that appeared to bracket areas of potential 

ground-water inflow (fig. 1). These areas were identified 

during the stream reconnaissance by observing changes in 

vegetation, geomorphologic controls, and geologic structure. 

The intent of placing stream-sampling sites downstream from 

visible inflows was to capture the visible tributary inflow and 

any additional subsurface inflow with the tracer dilution. At 

this level of spatial detail in a watershed, changes in stream 

chemistry and discharge between stream sampling sites reflect 

a net metal load for specific segments, but the loads cannot 

always be attributed to specific sources. Effects of sources on 

the stream, however, may be characterized by synoptic sampling. Distance along the study reach was measured from each 

tracer-injection site; both injection sites were assigned a distance of 0 m in the individual streams, providing an ordinate 

for the study. Each stream and inflow site is referred to by the 

downstream distance from the injection site in either American 

Fork or Mary Ellen Gulch (fig. 1).

Tracer Injections and Stream Discharge

Quantifying discharge in mountain streams by the 

traditional velocity-area method (Rantz, 1982) can be compromised by the roughness of the streambed and the variability caused by pools and riffles (Jarrett, 1992). Furthermore, 

a substantial percentage of stream water may flow through 

porous areas of the streambed as hyporheic flow (Zellweger 

and others, 1989). Measuring discharge using the velocity-area 

method does not account for flow through the hyporheic zone, 

and therefore, discharge estimates based on the velocity-area 

method may result in an underestimate of metal loads (Zellweger and others, 1989). Another limitation of the velocity-area 

method for the characterization of metal loads is the time limit 

it may place on the number of sites that can be measured in 

one day. In some studies, as many as 60 in-stream samples 

have been collected during a single day to characterize stream 

and inflow chemistry. Measuring velocity-area discharge 

in conjunction with collecting samples at so many sites can 

be problematic, if not impossible. An alternative means of 

estimating discharge used in our study is the tracer-dilution 

method (Bencala and others, 1990; Kilpatrick and Cobb, 

1985). The focus of the present study was on metal loading; 

a detailed discussion of quantifying discharge, which is an 

important part of the mass-loading study, can be found in one 

of the studies cited above. 

Synoptic Sampling and Analytical Methods

Instream concentrations of metals indicate where the 

stream and the aquatic ecosystem are most affected by metal 

sources, but those concentrations result from the greatest 

inflow loads, not necessarily from the highest inflow concentrations. Synoptic sampling gives a spatially intensive “snapshot” of chemistry and discharge so that instream loads can 

be quantified. Ideally, samples at all the sampling locations 

would be collected simultaneously, providing an instantaneous, truly synoptic description of stream water quality along 

the study reach. Personnel limitations generally preclude this, 

but samples were collected over a relatively short time period 

(less than 8 hours) to minimize the effect of transient conditions, such as diurnal flow variations. 

Stream and inflow samples were collected at the predetermined locations, beginning at the downstream end of the 

study reach and ending upstream of the tracer-injection site 

(table 1). This downstream to upstream sampling order was 

followed in order to avoid disturbing the streambed before 

sampling. Inflow and stream sites that were considered well 

mixed were sampled using grab techniques. Sites that were 

not well mixed, particularly downstream from tributaries, 

were sampled by equal width integration (Ward and Harr, 

1990). Water temperature was measured on site, and water 

samples were transported to a central field location for further 

processing. Samples were transported to the central location in 

dark plastic bags to keep out the sunlight and prevent changes 

in iron speciation. Samples were divided into several 125-mL 

bottles according to different treatments given at the central 

processing location: a raw (unfiltered) unacidified sample 

(RU), a raw acidified sample (RA), a filtered unacidified 

sample (FU), a 0.45-μm filtered acidified sample (FA), and 

an ultra-filtered, acidified (UFA) sample was obtained using 

a 10,000 Dalton tangential-flow filtration device. The UFA 

sample was used to measure a more truly dissolved concentration than the FA sample. The need for ultrafiltration comes 

from the nature of Al and Fe colloids that can range in size 

from a nanometer to tenths of micrometers. These colloids, 

and metals associated with them, can pass through a 0.45-μm 

filter (Kimball and others, 1995). When these samples are 

acidified, the Al and Fe colloidal material dissolves and is 

mistakenly measured as “dissolved” Al or Fe.

Anomalously high concentrations of Zn were noted in 

a few UFA samples. The high Zn concentration likely was a 

result of contamination caused by brass fittings contacting the 

tangential-flow filtration apparatus. The high Zn concentrations in UFA samples were replaced by the corresponding Zn 

concentrations in the FA sample. 
Methods 3

Silver

Creek

Tibble Fork

Reservoir

Porcupine

Gulch

Evans

Gulch

American

Fork

Shaffer

Fork

Baker Fork

Mary

Ellen

Gulch

Fork

American

10,407 10,287

10,307

11,962

8,407 8,387

8,507

3,974 4,276

6,290/4,600

6,452/4,713

4,765

6,717/5,030 4,863

6,065

6,275 - T4/4,603

3,123

3,344

3,345 -

3,485

3,470

3,625- T1

3,775

4,035 4,200

4,255

4,385

4,435, Limestone Spring

4,515

4,965 4,665

5,065

5,138

5,370

5,140

5,715

Dutchman Mine

2,756

2,555

2,320

2,172

2,022 - T3

1,975

1,725 1,758

2,988

3,238

3,377

3,592

3,724

1,564

1,734

1,753

1,841

1,847

1,947

3,580

633

685 858

760,

763

932

1,090

1,362

370447

735

950

842

908 1,027

1,146

1,231

1,294 - T2

2,983 - Start of lower

injection

3,128 to

 3,331

Globe

Mines Earl-Eagle Mine

163

172

Iron bog 178

270

488

540

Injection

site

25

59

109

259

414

416

651

735, 736

835

1,035

Yankee

Mines Twin Peaks, 3,500 m

1,253

1,603

2,003 - End of upper

injection

0 - T0 

Injection Bog

Mine Lower Bog Mine

Mount Baldy, 3,373 m

Sugarloaf, 3,368 m

3,311 m

SALT LAKE COUNTY

UTAH COUNTY

4491000 N

4490000 N

4489000 N

4488000 N

445000 E 446000 E 447000 E 448000 E 449000 E

4487000 N

4486000 N

4485000 N

4484000 N

4483000 N

4482000 N

0 500 1,000 1,500 Meter

0 0.5 1 Mile

Salt Lake City

Great

Salt

 Lake

Study area

U T A H

U.S. Geological Survey digital data

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 12

6,065

3,592

Stream site and meters downstream 

from injection

 

Inflow site and meters downstream 

from injection

2,681 m

450000 E

Miller Hill, 3,128 m

Mineral

Basin

Pacific Mine

Figure 1. Locations of stream and inflow sampling sites and principal mines in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah.
4 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Distance

(m)

Source Site description Easting

(m)

Northing

(m)

pH Discharge

(L/s)

Tracer

(mg/L)

Cl Br

American Fork

0 S Transport site 0—Above injection site 447443 4489400 7.46 25.2 0.83 < 0.2

25 S Upstream from first beaver pond 447457 4489390 7.91 25.2 27.5 < .2

59 RBI Drains marsh with iron precipitate 447495 4489371 6.52 2.1 .91 < .2

109 S Near beginning of Bog Mine waste area 447525 4489358 7.80 27.3 25.4 < .2

259 S On bedrock downstream from Bog Mine influence 447666 4489337 8.07 29.2 23.8 < .2

414 S At base of bedrock cascades upstream from leftbank inflow 447781 4489332 8.10 29.5 23.6 < .2

416 LBI Cascades down bedrock 447839 4489345 7.09 4.1 .78 < .2

651 S Upstream from Lower Bog mine 447944 4489246 7.56 33.6 20.9 < .2

735 LBI Discharge from Lower Bog adit 448079 4489248 4.38 5.7 1.26 < .2

736 LBI Spring draining from toe of mine dump 448083 4489252 5.42 5.7 1.33 < .2

835 S Downstream from Lower Bog mine 448157 4489235 7.90 45.0 15.7 < .2

1,035 S 300 meters downstream from Lower Bog mine 448339 4489223 8.13 47.3 15.0 < .2

1,253 S Upstream from left-bank inflow 448517 4489196 8.13 50.9 14.0 < .2

1,603 S Upstream from start of rough road 448767 4489052 8.18 59.6 12.1 < .2

2,003 S Above series of beaver ponds—end of upper reach 449056 4488891 8.19 62.0 7.15 < .2

2,983 S T0 Site—Start of lower injection 449673 4488322 7.87 62.7 1.22 < .2

3,123 S Upstream from pond inflows 449719 4488220 8.31 62.7 1.24 8.92

3,128 LBI Draining left-bank ponds 449727 4488212 8.37 1.5 1.16 < .2

3,198 LBI Channel draining pond with red precipitate on bed 449708 4488191 8.27 1.5 1.20 < .2

3,303 LBI Also draining left-bank ponds 449767 4488127 8.08 1.5 1.31 < .2

3,331 LBI Draining ponds, entering just above culvert 449781 4488089 8.26 1.5 1.43 < .2

3,344 S Downstream from draining pond at end of culvert 449788 4488079 8.38 68.5 1.22 4.78

3,345 RBI Draining beaver pond that receives adit flow 449778 4488078 7.62 2.9 1.48 < .2

3,385 LBI Draining left-bank ponds—crosses road 449796 4488067 8.22 2.9 1.64 < .2

3,470 S Downstream from first Pacific inflow 449810 4487993 8.27 74.4 1.26 4.40

3,475 RBI Discharge draining Pacific tailings 449807 4487986 8.10 1.1 1.62 < .2

3,485 RBI Drains from Pacific tailings pile 449803 4487971 8.38 1.1 1.47 < .2

3,625 S Transport site 1—Downstream from Pacific tailings 449755 4487822 8.42 76.9 1.23 3.98

3,625 S Transport site 1—Replicate 449755 4487822 8.41 76.9 1.37 4.27

3,775 S Upstream from Dry Fork 449757 4487733 8.40 77.2 1.34 4.25

4,035 S Below small beaver pond 449737 4487511 8.51 78.5 1.29 4.17

4,200 RBI Flow from moss-covered rocks 449726 4487487 8.17 1.4 1.58 < .2

4,255 RBI Seepage from mine waste at beaver pond 449681 4487273 8.74 1.4 1.46 < .2

4,385 S Transport site 2—Downstream from beaver ponds 

at bedrock 449651 4487154 8.44 81.3 1.28 4.02

4,435 LBI Spring from limestone 449658 4487097 7.92 15.1 1.34 .39

Table 1. Source, site description, pH, calculated discharge, and tracer concentrations for synoptic samples from American Fork,

October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000. 

[Distance is from tracer-injection point. Source: S, stream; RBI, right-bank inflow; LBI, left-bank inflow. Easting and Northing, all points Universal Transmercator, Zone 12 north. m, meter; L/s, liters per second; mg/L, milligram per liter; Cl, chloride; Br, bromide, <, less than; NM, not measured]
Methods 5

Distance

(m)

Source Site description Easting

(m)

Northing

(m)

pH Discharge

(L/s)

Tracer

(mg/L)

Cl Br

4,515 RBI Draining from right-bank flood plain—wider 

canyon

449639 4487056 8.29 15.1 1.35 3.00

4,665 S Downstream from limestone spring 449577 4486916 8.34 112 1.31 2.80

4,965 S Upstream from Baker Fork 449493 4486837 8.32 113 1.30 2.88

5,065 RBI Discharge from base of hill 449337 4486700 7.98 0.1 1.57 < .2

5,138 S Wide part of stream below small beaver dam 449270 4486646 8.43 113 1.39 2.90

5,140 RBI Another discharge from base of hill 449263 4486645 8.17 4.1 1.57 < .2

5,370 S Transport site 3—Upstream from Dutchman Flat 

culvert 449071 4486486 8.43 117 1.29 2.80

5,715 S Downstream from larger beaver pond and culvert 448846 4486353 8.40 117 1.34 2.79

6,065 S Downstream from Dutchman Flat 448576 4486153 8.34 117 1.42 2.79

6,275 S Transport site 4—Upstream from Mary Ellen 

Gulch—Replicates 448413 4486038 8.27 120 1.31 2.63

6,275 S Transport site 4—Replicate 448413 4486038 8.63 120 1.42 2.72

6,290 RBI Mary Ellen Gulch 448398 4486047 8.33 34.3 1.05 < .2

6,452 S Downstream from Mary Ellen Gulch 448309 4485951 8.13 154 1.26 2.10

6,717 S Within canyon downstream from Mary Ellen Gulch 448038 4485801 7.97 154 1.34 2.12

8,387 S Upstream from Major Evans Gulch 446919 4484682 8.62 164 1.27 2.00

8,407 RBI Major Evans Gulch 446881 4484664 8.69 6.1 1.13 < .2

8,507 S Downstream from Major Evans Gulch 446885 4484606 8.64 170 1.31 1.93

10,287 S Upstream from Silver Creek 445986 4483075 8.47 254 1.54 1.29

10,307 RBI Silver Creek 445938 4483079 7.95 5.8 2.25 < .2

10,407 S Downstream from Silver Creek 445926 4483052 8.32 260 1.67 1.26

11,962 S Upstream from Tibble Reservoir 445837 4481725 8.29 NM 2.13 .46

Mary Ellen Gulch

163 S T0 site—Injection point 445680 4488487 3.89 1.9 .75 < .2

172 S Mixing point below injection 445699 4488473 4.04 1.9 .87 269.60

178 RBI Iron bog draining from right bank 445703 4488458 4.02 0.1 .83 < .2

270 S T1 site—Mixing site above dropoff 445737 4488418 3.96 2.0 .48 184.41

370 S Upstream from right bank tributary 445776 4488414 4.15 2.1 .76 180.55

397 RBI Draining from chute right bank 445789 4488404 8.23 0.1 .63 < .2

447 S Below chute tributary 445853 4488397 4.57 2.2 .52 179.56

488 RBI Downstream from second chute 445896 4488364 7.85 6.5 .78 4.17

540 S Downstream from chute inflows 445935 4488358 8.03 8.7 .63 69.27

633 RBI Within glacial gully cut 445977 4488324 7.93 1.1 .73 3.59

685 S Downstream from falls 446021 4488299 8.20 9.7 .70 51.22

735 S Upstream from Globe Mine 446079 4488281 8.31 9.9 .68 49.16

758 S Upstream from right bank return flow 446109 4488279 8.34 9.9 .68 48.94

760 RBI Return flow from road 446116 4488279 8.08 0.1 .71 10.97

763 RBI Second return from road 446119 4488275 8.23 0.1 .70 13.99

Table 1. Source, site description, pH, calculated discharge, and tracer concentrations for synoptic samples from American Fork,

October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000.—Continued
6 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Distance

(m)

Source Site description Easting

(m)

Northing

(m)

pH Discharge

(L/s)

Tracer

(mg/L)

Cl Br

842 S Downstream from right bank fracture seepage 446199 4488307 8.33 10.1 .70 45.23

858 RBI Small inflow over rocks 446247 4488301 8.39 0.3 .85 42.30

908 S Downstream from pyrite-rich piles 446334 4488318 8.27 10.4 .68 40.16

932 RBI Seep from mine piles on right bank 446351 4488311 5.57 0.0 .90 < 0.2

950 S Forest Service site between Globe and Yankee 

mines

446362 4488315 8.29 10.4 .68 39.89

950 S Forest Service site between Globe and Yankee 

mines

446362 4488315 8.27 10.4 .68 39.89

1,027 S Upstream from Yankee #1 inflow 446408 4488311 8.22 10.5 .68 38.59

1,090 RBI Yankee #1 inflow 446454 4488301 5.95 1.1 .70 < 0.2

1,146 S Downstream from Yankee #1 inflow 446533 4488276 7.82 11.6 .76 19.34

1,231 S Second site downstream from Yankee 446570 4488238 8.09 11.6 .76 19.20

1,294 S T2 site—Upstream from right bank marsh at foot of 

Yankee pile

446588 4488187 8.01 11.6 .75 19.06

1,312 RBI Draining grassy marsh 446590 4488168 7.69 0.8 .95 < 0.2

1,354 S Upstream from left bank inflow of Mary Ellen 

channel

446606 4488152 8.13 12.5 .83 18.20

1,362 LBI East branch of Mary Ellen 446621 4488151 8.41 6.0 .73 < 0.2

1,438 S Downstream from confluence of branches 446614 4488119 8.29 18.5 .75 12.03

1,462 RBI Draining from tailings on right bank 446608 4488089 7.86 0.0 1.07 < 0.2

1,484 S Upstream from split in channel 446615 4488064 8.36 18.5 .77 12.13

1,514 RBI Draining tailings on right bank 446612 4488038 7.91 0.4 .97 < 0.2

1,564 S Right branch downstream from right bank inflows 446629 4488007 8.31 18.9 .29 11.63

1,725 S Right branch upstream from side canyon inflow 446661 4487889 8.24 19.4 .78 11.05

1,734 RBI Drainage from side canyon right bank 446664 4487869 8.49 2.2 .74 < 0.2

1,753 S Upstream from confluence with left branch 446693 4487835 8.37 21.6 .79 8.81

1,758 LBI Return flow from left branch 446706 4487826 8.31 0.3 .78 11.19

1,841 S Downstream from braid confluence 446723 4487791 8.29 21.9 .25 8.53

1,847 RBI Right bank seep/spring for background 446730 4487768 7.76 1.0 .75 1.08

1,947 S Downstream from gaining reach 446816 4487658 8.33 22.9 .80 7.49

1,975 LBI Downstream from left bank inflows 446862 4487607 7.65 0.3 .99 7.22

2,022 S T3 site—To evaluate inflows 446977 4487422 8.41 23.2 .82 7.08

2,022 S T3 site—Replicates 446977 4487422 8.30 23.2 .80 7.19

2,172 S Downstream from large right bank alluvial fan 447043 4487305 8.33 23.6 .79 7.11

2,320 S At base of Chump slide 447126 4487160 8.42 24.5 .78 6.90

2,555 S Near road before steep gradient 447213 4487046 8.49 26.1 .80 6.56

2,756 S Stream within steep gradient—2 branches 447415 4486920 8.48 27.2 .79 6.34

2,988 S On bedrock within steep gradient 447503 4486831 8.46 28.7 .83 6.01

3,238 S Downstream from “20-foot dropoff” 447655 4486725 8.46 33.7 .84 4.93

3,377 S Forest Service site “Mary Ellen at volunteer claims” 447744 4486639 8.18 35.2 .86 4.62

3,580 S Upstream from left bank inflow 447890 4486484 8.32 37.3 .89 4.16

Table 1. Source, site description, pH, calculated discharge, and tracer concentrations for synoptic samples from American Fork,

October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000.—Continued
Methods 7

Specific conductance and pH were determined from the 

RU sample shortly after it was collected. In-line 0.45-μm capsule filters were used to obtain the FU and FA samples. Metal 

concentrations in the RA, FA, and UFA samples were determined by using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission 

spectrometry-mass spectrometry (Lichte and others, 1987). 

Anion concentrations in the FU samples were determined 

using ion chromatography (Brinton and others, 1996; Kimball 

and others, 1999). Total alkalinity in the FU sample was determined by using titration (Barringer and Johnsson, 1989).

Ultra-filtered and unfiltered treatments provided two 

operationally-defined concentrations of each metal. Metal 

concentration in the unfiltered sample (RA) was a measure of 

the total-recoverable concentration (dissolved + colloidal). In 

streams affected by mine drainage, this total-recoverable concentration accounted for Al and Fe colloids that will dissolve 

in the bottle after acidification. The ultra-filtered concentration (UFA) is an operational measure of the dissolved metal 

concentration. Colloidal metal concentrations are defined here 

as the difference between the total-recoverable (RA) and the 

ultra-filtered metal concentrations (UFA) in stream samples 

(Kimball and others, 1995). Aquatic standards for toxicity in 

Utah are based on 0.45-μm filtration.

Constituent Loads

Mass load was calculated for each stream sampling site 

along the study reach as:

 MA = CAQA (0.0864) (1)

where:

MA is the constituent load, or mass flux, at 

location A, in kg/day,

CA is the concentration of the selected constituent 

at location A, in mg/L,

QA is the discharge at location A, in L/s, and 

0.0864 is the conversion factor for changing mg/s to 

kg/day. 

The total sampled instream load was calculated from 

the total-recoverable concentration of the constituent, but the 

dissolved and the colloidal loads were calculated individually from the filtered and the total-recoverable concentrations. 

The longitudinal profiles of the sampled instream loads (total 

or dissolved plus colloidal) were derived from the basic data 

from the mass-loading study. 

For each stream segment, the change in load between a 

pair of stream sites accounts for the gain or loss of constituent load for that segment. The change in load for the segment 

starting at site A and ending at site B is:

ΔMS = (MB – MA) (2)

where: 

MS is the change in sampled in-stream load from 

site A to B, in kg/day, 

MB is the constituent load at site B, in kg/day, and

MA is defined in equation 1. 

Gains in constituent load (ΔMS is greater than zero) 

imply that a source exists and that it contributes load to the 

stream between the two stream sites. However, instream 

processes that reduce the net gain may also exist; thus, the 

measured change may not indicate the total magnitude of the 

source. Instream load also can decrease within a stream segment (ΔMS is less than zero), meaning that there is a net loss 

of the constituent as a result of physical, chemical, or biological processes. A net loss does not preclude the presence of a 

Distance

(m)

Source Site description Easting

(m)

Northing

(m)

pH Discharge

(L/s)

Tracer

(mg/L)

Cl Br

3,592 LBI Left bank inflow of clean water 447904 4486473 7.13 2.7 1.33 < 0.2

3,724 S Downstream from clean left bank inflow 447996 4486359 8.35 40.1 .89 3.58

3,974 S Within more chutes and pools 448181 4486291 8.38 42.5 .92 3.05

4,276 S Site to check ground-water inflow 448266 4486249 8.34 43.4 .88 2.86

4,600 S T4 site—Mary Ellen Gulch at mouth 448398 4486045 8.34 44.7 .95 2.59

4,603 LBI Upper American Fork 448412 4486038 8.38 104 1.04 < 0.2

4,713 S First site within narrows 448308 4485951 8.47 148 1.01 .55

4,765 S Site to check ground-water inflow 448174 4485883 8.42 151 1.04 .54

4,863 S Second site to check ground-water inflow 448038 4485800 8.50 154 1.09 .53

5,030 S Last year’s second site in canyon—End of synoptic 447922 4485707 8.47 154 .98 .54

Table 1. Source, site description, pH, calculated discharge, and tracer concentrations for synoptic samples from American Fork,

October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000.—Continued
8 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

source of loading in a particular stream segment, but it does 

preclude quantifying the magnitude of that source. Summing 

all the increases in load between sampling sites along the 

study reach (positive values of ΔMS) leads to the cumulative 

instream load. At the end of the study reach, the cumulative 

instream load is the best estimate of the total load added to the 

stream but is likely a minimum estimate because it measures 

only the net loading between sites and does not account for 

metal loads added to and then lost from the water column 

within individual stream segments. 

For those segments that include one or more sampled 

inflows, it is possible to evaluate how well the sampled inflow 

accounts for the instream changes. If stream sites A and B 

bracket one inflow sample from site I,

ΔMI = CI (QB – QA)(0.0864) (3)

where: 

MI is the sampled inflow load from site A to B, in 

kg/day,

CI is the concentration of the selected constituent 

in inflow I, in mg/L, 

QB is the discharge at site B, in L/s, and

QA and 0.0864 are defined in equation 1.

Equation 3 assumes that the entire increase in flow from 

site A to B was contributed by the sampled inflow and that 

CI represents the concentration of the solute in all the water 

entering the stream from site A to B. Summing the calculated 

inflow loads along the study reach produced a longitudinal 

profile of the cumulative inflow load that can be compared 

with the cumulative instream load. Commonly in streams 

affected by mine drainage, the cumulative instream load is 

greater than the cumulative inflow load. This result can indicate important areas where the load is not sampled (unsampled 

inflow), defined as: 

ΔMU = (MS – MI) (4)

where: 

MU is the unsampled load from site A to B, in 

kg/day, and 

MS and MI are defined in equations 2 and 3. 

If ΔMI is greater than ΔMS for a given stream segment, 

two explanations are possible, but they cannot be determined 

from the experimental data alone. First, the solute may be 

lost from the water column through chemical or biological 

processes, resulting in a smaller net value of ΔMS. Second, 

the sampled inflow concentration may not represent all the 

water entering the stream segment. Despite these limitations, 

quantifying ΔMS, ΔMI, and ΔMU provides useful information 

for understanding the dynamics of solute loading to the stream 

(Bencala and Ortiz, 1999). Unsampled inflow can be calculated for individual stream segments or for the entire study 

reach. A negative value for the entire study reach does not 

preclude positive values for some individual stream segments. 

Because measurement error is inherent in discharge estimates and chemical analysis, a load error equation was used 

to constrain the changes of sampled in-stream load. The load 

error is calculated from an equation that accounts for these 

potential sources of error (McKinnon, 2002).

(5)

where: 

ΔCA is the precision of chemical analysis, in 

percent,

ΔQA is the precision of discharge calculation, and

QA, CA, and 0.0864 are defined in equation 1.

The value of ΔCA was calculated in a manner analogous 

to that used by Friedman and Erdman (1982) for single operator precision. The coefficient of variation (CV), representing 

precision, and the mean concentration were calculated for 

repeated analyses of a constituent in a set of standard reference 

samples that span a range of concentrations. Values for the CV 

were regressed as a power function of the mean concentrations 

to obtain an equation expressing analytical precision, ΔCA, as a 

function of concentration.

ΔCA = a (CA)b (6)

where: 

ΔCA is precision for the chemical analysis at site A, 

in percent,

a is the coefficient derived from regression, 

CA is the concentration of the constituent at site 

A, and

b, is the exponent derived from regression.

The value of ΔQA is based on the CV for the plateau 

tracer concentration at the transport sites during the period 

of synoptic sampling. Similar to the procedure for analytical 

precision, the values of CV for each mean are used to develop 

a linear regression for ΔQA: 

ΔQA = mCT

A + b (7)

where: 

ΔQA is the discharge error at site A, 

m is the slope derived from the linear regression, 

CT

A is the tracer concentration at site A, and

b, is the intercept derived from the linear regression.

Both ΔCA and ΔQA give the percentage of CA and QA to 

be substituted into equation 6 to calculate load error. The load 

error was compared to the change in load to the next site, 

ΔMB - A. If the absolute value of ΔMB - A was greater than the 

load error, then a measurable and significant change in load 

occurred. This error check was applied to values of ΔMB - A that 

were used for the cumulative in-stream load only; sampled instream load is reported for all observed changes. 
References Cited 9

Results of Mass-Loading Studies

Chemical Analysis of Synoptic Samples

Results of chemical analyses of synoptic samples are 

presented in tables 2 and 3. Both stream and inflow samples 

are included and are listed in downstream order for the 

separate synoptic sampling days. These tables contain three 

rows of data for stream samples, including the analyses for the 

UFA, FA, and RA treatments. Most inflow samples have two 

rows, one to report results from the FA sample and another 

for results from the RA sample. Occasionally, concentrations 

from the UFA sample or the FA sample were greater than the 

concentrations from the RA sample for a given constituent, 

but the two concentrations usually were within analytical 

precision.

Analytical results indicate that some of the Cu and Zn 

concentrations from UFA and FA samples had been contaminated. The contamination was likely caused by the brass 

fittings contacting the tangential-filtration apparatus while the 

filters were being changed between the FA and UFA treatments. Samples considered to be contaminated are indicated 

in table 3. When the concentration from the RA sample was 

lower than the concentration from either the UFA or FA 

samples, the interpretation can become subjective. In this 

study, when this situation occurred because of contamination, 

we substituted the concentration from the RA sample for the 

filtered and the total-recoverable concentrations, and assigned 

a value to the colloidal concentration that was less than 

the detection limit. However, if upstream and downstream 

samples were not contaminated and substantial colloidal 

concentrations were present, we used the average of those 

colloidal percentages to calculate a colloidal concentration for 

the sample affected by contamination. This approach helped to 

avoid a zigzag pattern of colloidal concentrations.

Quality assurance results are given in table 4. These 

include the method detection limits (MDL) for each constituent and parameters derived from the application of equation 

7, using the value of the relative standard deviation (RSD) 

and the mean concentration for various standard reference 

samples. The RSD and mean values were obtained by running 

standard reference samples after every group of 10 samples 

were analyzed. The RSD was used as the measure of precision 

for the chemical analyses.

Loading Profiles

Using the equations described in “Constituent Loads,” 

the mass-loading profiles for Al, Fe, Mn, and Zn are illustrated for American Fork (figs. 2–5) and Mary Ellen Gulch 

(figs. 6, 7, 9, and 10). The profile for Cu is shown for Mary 

Ellen Gulch only (fig. 8). Each figure indicates the longitudinal profile of load and the change in load for individual stream 

segments. 

References Cited

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.

Bencala, K.E., and McKnight, D.M., 1987, Identifying instream variability: Sampling iron in an acidic stream, in

Averett, R.C., and McKnight, D.M., eds., Chemical quality 

of water and the hydrologic cycle, Chelsea, Michigan, Lewis 

Publishers, Inc., p. 255–269.

Bencala, K.E., McKnight, D.M., and Zellweger, G.W., 1990, 

Characterization of transport in an acidic and metal-rich 

mountain stream based on a lithium tracer injection and 

simulations of transient storage: Water Resources Research, 

v. 26, p. 989–1000.

Bencala, K.E., and Ortiz, R.F., 1999, Theory and(or) reality: 

Analysis of sulfate mass-balance at Summitville, Colorado, poses process questions about the estimation of metal 

loadings, in U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances 

Hydrology Program—Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina, March 8-12, 1999—Volume 1 of 3—Contamination from Hardrock Mining: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99-4018A, p. 119–122.

Brinton, T.I., Antweiler, R.C., and Taylor, H.E., 1996, 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.

Broshears, R.E., Bencala, K.E., Kimball, B.A., and McKnight, 

D.M., 1993, Tracer-dilution experiments and solute-transport simulations for a mountain stream, Saint Kevin Gulch, 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4081, 18 p.

Buxton, H.T., Nimick, D.A., von Guerard, P.B., Church, S.E., 

Frazier, A.G., Gray, J.R., Lipin, B.R., Marsh, S.P., Woodward, D.F., Kimball, B.A., Finger, S.E., Ischinger, L.S., 

Fordham, J.C., Power, M.S., Bunck, C.M., and Jones, J.W., 

1997, A science-based, watershed strategy to support effective remediation of abondoned mine lands, in Fourth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage: Vancouver, 

British Columbia, Canada, ICARD, p. 1869–1880.

Friedman, L.C., and Erdmann, D.E., 1982, Quality assurance 

practices for the chemical and biological analyses of water 

and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A6, 

181 p.

Jarrett, R.D., 1992, Hydraulics of mountain rivers, in Channel 

flow resistance centennial of Manning’s and Kuichling’s 

rational formula: Littleton, Colorado, Water Resources Publications, p. 287–298.
10 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Kilpatrick, F.A., and Cobb, E.D., 1985, Measurement of discharge using tracers: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations book 3, chap. A16, 27 p.

Kimball, B.A., Broshears, R.E., Bencala, K.E., and McKnight, 

D.M., 1994, Coupling of hydrologic transport and chemical 

reactions in a stream affected by acid mine drainage: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 28, p. 2065–2073.

Kimball, B.A., Callender, E., and Axtmann, E.V., 1995, 

Effects of colloids on metal transport in a river receiving 

acid mine drainage, Upper Arkansas River, Colorado, USA: 

Applied Geochemistry, v. 10, p. 285–306.

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 WaterResources Investigations Report 99-4119, 40 p.

Kimball, B.A., Nordstrom, D.K., Runkel, R.L., Vincent, K.R., 

and Verplanck, P.L., 2006a, Questa baseline and pre-mining 

ground-water quality investigation. 23. Quantification of 

mass loading from mined and unmined areas along the 

Red River, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2006-5004, 44 p.

Kimball, B.A., Runkel, R.L., Walton-Day, K., and Bencala, 

K.E., 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, no. 9, p. 1183–1207.

Kimball, B.A., Runkel, R.L., Walton-Day, K., and Williamson, 

J.E., 2006b, Quantification of mass loading to Strawberry 

Creek near the Gilt Edge mine, South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5006, 

41 p.

Lichte, F.E., Golightly, D.W., and Lamothe, P.J., 1987, Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry: U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 1770, p. B10.

McKinnon, T.E., 2002, Sources and seasonal variability of 

metal and arsenic concentrations in the surface water of the 

Clark Fork River Basin, Montana: University of Montana, 

Master of Science thesis, 115 p.

Rantz, S.E., 1982, Measurement and computation of streamflow: Volume 1. Measurement of stage and discharge: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 200 p.

Ward, J.R., and Harr, C.A., 1990, Methods for collection and 

processing of surface-water and bed-material samples for 

physical and chemical analyses: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 90-140, 71 p.

Zellweger, G.W., Avanzino, R.J., and Bencala, K.E., 1989, 

Comparison of tracer-dilution and current-meter discharge 

measurements in a small gravel-bed stream, Little Lost Man 

Creek, California: Water-Resources Investigations Report 

89-4150, 20 p.
References Cited 11

Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

American Fork, Upper injection reach

0 S 9:58 UFA 32.5 11.8 0.84 4.8

FA 32.5 11.8 .84 86.9 39 .83 4.8

RA 32.4 11.9 .83 4.7

25 S 14:00 UFA 32.2 11.7 .95 4.8

FA 32.5 11.7 .94 87.1 39 28 4.8

RA 33.0 11.9 .94 4.8

59 RBI 10:18 FA 11.6 4.49 1.0 19.0 42 .91 11

RA 11.6 4.48 .99 13

109 S 14:15 UFA 31.0 11.2 .95 5.4

FA 31.4 11.3 .96 84.3 40 25 5.5

RA 32.0 11.7 .96 5.6

259 S 14:20 UFA 31.0 11.2 .99 5.4

FA 31.2 11.3 .98 83.0 41 24 5.5

RA 31.5 11.5 .99 6.0

414 S 14:35 UFA 31.0 11.2 1.0 5.6

FA 31.3 11.3 .99 81.7 41 24 5.6

RA 31.8 11.6 1.0 5.7

416 LBI 11:15 FA 4.52 1.48 .34 24.8 4.7 .78 6.9

RA 4.64 1.55 .41 8.6

651 S 14:50 UFA 29.9 10.9 .96 5.5

FA 30.1 10.9 .96 76.6 39 21 5.7

RA 30.5 11.1 .96 5.6

735 LBI 11:35 FA 10.4 3.48 1.1 < 1 54 1.3 12

RA 10.4 3.46 1.1 12

736 LBI 11:35 FA 10.0 3.28 1.1 < 1 54 1.3 11

RA 10.3 3.34 1.2 11

835 S 15:05 UFA 25.2 9.12 1.0 7.2

FA 25.3 9.16 1.0 76.6 42 16 7.3

RA 26.1 9.44 1.0 7.3

1,035 S 13:45 UFA 25.0 9.10 .99 6.8

FA 25.0 9.05 .98 67.5 40 15 7.0

RA 25.5 9.25 .99 7.1

1,253 S 15:55 UFA 25.0 9.11 .98 6.8

FA 24.9 9.04 .98 58.5 40 14 6.9

RA 25.4 9.25 .98 7.2

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.

[Distance, from injection, in meters (m). Source: S, stream; RBI, right-bank inflow; LBI, left-bank inflow. Filter: UFA, 10,000 Dalton ultra-filter; FA, 

0.45-micrometer filter; RA, unfiltered; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, less than; NM, not measured; all concentrations in milligrams per liter]
12 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

1,603 S 16:20 UFA 24.9 9.28 .95 6.7

FA 25.2 9.33 .98 63.0 38 12 6.9

RA 25.8 9.59 .99 7.2

2,003 S 16:35 UFA 28.2 11.1 .89 6.8

FA 28.1 11.0 .88 80.2 32 7.2 6.7

RA 28.3 11.1 .87 6.6

American Fork, Lower injection reach

2,983 S 15:10 UFA 34.0 14.6 .71 5.7

FA 34.8 15.0 .70 119 23 1.2 6.6

RA 35.5 15.3 .71 6.8

3,123 S 15:05 UFA 33.8 14.6 .71 6.0

FA 34.7 15.0 .70 119 24 1.2 6.5

RA 34.8 15.0 .74 6.5

3,128 LBI 15:00 FA 29.9 15.4 .37 3.4 1.2 5.7

RA 30.4 15.7 .34 128 5.3

3,198 LBI 14:55 FA 30.0 15.5 .39 128 3.2 1.2 5.7

RA 30.2 15.6 .40 5.4

3,303 LBI 14:50 FA 30.9 15.8 .41 132 3.1 1.3 5.8

RA 31.7 16.3 .41 6.0

3,331 LBI 14:45 FA 36.1 18.2 .48 155 3.2 1.4 6.3

RA 36.2 18.2 .50 155 5.9

3,344 S 14:33 UFA 32.7 15.1 .59 119 5.6

FA 33.3 15.4 .57 119 15 1.2 6.3

RA 33.9 15.7 .56 119 6.4

3,345 RBI 14:35 FA 45.2 23.1 .72 173 25 1.5 7.6

RA 46.1 23.5 .72 173 7.5

3,385 LBI 14:30 FA 38.8 19.5 .47 165 3.7 1.6 7.6

RA 39.7 19.7 .53 165 6.6

3,470 S 14:20 UFA 33.2 15.4 .59 127 5.6

FA 33.6 15.7 .57 127 14 1.3 7.4

RA 34.0 15.9 .54 127 6.4

3,475 RBI 14:15 UFA 44.6 23.0 .84 172 6.4

FA 45.7 23.5 .81 172 36 1.6 6.8

RA 46.8 24.2 .86 172 8.1

3,485 RBI 14:10 FA 43.3 22.8 .80 158 NM NM 7.6

RA 43.9 23.2 .83 158 7.7

3,625 S 13:55 UFA 33.3 15.6 .61 128 5.8

FA 34.0 15.9 .58 128 14 1.2 6.3

RA 34.5 16.2 .56 128 6.3

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.—Continued 
References Cited 13

Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

3,625 S 14:00 UFA 33.3 15.6 .59 128 5.6

FA 34.3 16.0 .57 128 15 1.4 6.3

RA 34.6 16.3 .56 128 6.3

3,775 S 13:56 UFA 33.4 15.6 .60 128 5.5

FA 34.2 16.0 .59 128 15 1.3 7.7

RA 34.3 16.1 .61 128 6.0

4,035 S 13:40 UFA 33.3 15.6 .61 128 5.5

FA 33.9 15.9 .58 128 15 1.3 7.6

RA 34.1 16.1 .60 128 5.9

4,200 RBI 13:25 FA 45.5 23.7 .50 168 4.3 1.6 8.0

RA 45.8 23.7 .55 168 7.7

4,255 RBI 13:20 FA 29.6 18.8 1.7 139 7.7 1.5 6.3

RA 48.7 19.8 2.0 139 8.0

4,385 S 13:10 UFA 33.9 16.0 .60 128 5.9

FA 34.7 16.3 .56 128 15 1.3 6.4

RA 34.6 16.3 .60 128 5.9

4,435 LBI 13:05 FA 43.4 20.1 .61 152 12 1.3 6.8

RA 43.7 20.2 .64 152 6.3

4,515 RBI 13:00 RA 37.5 17.5 .63 145 14 1.4 6.0

4,665 S 12:50 UFA 36.3 17.0 .60 141 5.8

FA 37.0 17.5 .58 141 13 1.3 6.6

RA 37.8 17.8 .62 141 6.1

4,965 S 12:35 UFA 36.3 17.3 .60 143 5.0

FA 37.5 17.6 .58 143 14 1.3 6.4

RA 37.2 17.4 .61 143 6.1

5,065 RBI 12:10 FA 53.7 23.5 .58 153 4.9 1.6 7.8

RA 53.8 23.5 .61 153 7.5

5,138 S 12:00 UFA 36.8 17.3 .61 142 6.0

FA 37.6 17.6 .58 142 14 1.4 6.3

RA 37.7 17.6 .60 142 6.1

5,140 RBI 11:55 FA 57.2 25.0 .55 142 2.9 1.6 8.2

RA 57.4 24.9 .57 142 7.7

5,370 S 11:35 UFA 36.0 17.0 .59 144 4.9

FA 37.8 17.7 .58 144 14 1.3 6.3

RA 37.8 17.6 .60 144 5.9

5,715 S 11:25 UFA 37.4 17.4 .61 147 5.7

FA 38.1 17.8 .58 147 14 1.3 6.4

RA 37.9 17.7 .60 147 5.9

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.—Continued 
14 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

6,065 S 11:05 UFA 36.7 17.7 .60 149 5.2

FA 38.3 17.9 .59 149 14 1.4 6.3

RA 38.4 17.9 .60 149 6.1

6,275 S 10:55 UFA 37.0 17.3 .60 150 5.1

FA 37.9 17.7 .59 150 13 1.4 6.2

RA 38.2 17.8 .61 150 6.1

6,275 S 17:15 UFA 36.8 17.7 .64 150 5.2

FA 38.0 17.8 .62 150 13 1.4 6.3

RA 38.0 17.6 .65 150 6.0

6,290 RBI 10:50 FA 35.2 13.3 .55 104 30 1.0 6.4

RA 35.2 13.3 .57 104 6.0

6,452 S 10:40 UFA 37.0 16.8 .61 141 5.9

FA 37.4 17.0 .57 141 16 1.3 6.1

RA 37.8 17.1 .61 141 6.2

6,717 S 10:25 UFA 36.2 16.6 .85 141 5.1

FA 37.7 17.0 .58 141 16 1.3 6.3

RA 38.4 17.4 .65 141 6.8

8,387 S 16:25 UFA 37.3 17.1 .36 143 5.1

FA 38.5 17.2 .61 143 16 1.3 6.5

RA 38.9 17.4 .60 143 6.5

8,407 RBI 16:00 UFA 45.0 18.6 .58 137 5.5

FA 45.7 19.0 .54 137 11 1.1 6.1

RA 45.3 18.8 .57 137 5.6

8,507 S 15:45 UFA 37.9 16.8 .63 143 6.0

FA 39.0 17.4 .61 143 16 1.3 7.6

RA 38.9 17.5 .59 143 6.5

10,287 S 13:05 UFA 45.2 17.9 .61 118 6.2

FA 47.1 18.7 .59 118 23 1.5 8.6

RA 46.3 18.5 .55 118 6.6

10,307 RBI 12:45 UFA 64.1 7.59 .62 81.4 8.8

FA 65.1 7.79 .60 81.4 41 2.3 12

RA 65.4 7.83 .63 81.4 9.5

10,407 S 12:20 UFA 45.3 17.7 .60 159 6.2

FA 45.5 17.7 .56 159 23 1.7 6.9

RA 46.0 18.2 .54 159 7.0

11,962 S 11:10 UFA 83.1 26.2 .71 NM 10

FA 84.4 26.6 .67 NM 140 2.1 11

RA 84.7 26.7 .66 NM 11

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.—Continued 
References Cited 15

Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

Mary Ellen Gulch

163 S 16:12 UFA 6.40 2.00 .67 < 1 9.5

FA 6.25 1.89 .75 < 1 44 .75 9.5

RA 7.00 1.89 .63 < 1 9.9

172 S 16:10 UFA 6.40 1.82 1.5 < 1 9.1

FA 6.30 1.78 1.4 < 1 40 .87 8.8

RA 6.20 1.73 1.5 < 1 8.5

178 RBI 16:10 FA 6.50 2.35 .98 < 1 55 .83 12

RA 6.90 2.42 .77 < 1 11

270 S 16:00 UFA 6.70 1.95 .69 < 1 10

FA 6.35 1.99 1.4 < 1 44 .48 9.9

RA 6.95 2.05 1.4 < 1 8.9

370 S 15:50 UFA 7.60 1.99 1.4 < 1 11

FA 6.75 2.10 1.3 < 1 43 .76 9.7

RA 7.45 2.08 1.3 < 1 9.9

397 RBI 15:50 FA 23.0 6.15 .60 63.7 23 .63 3.8

RA 25.0 6.70 .74 63.7 4.2

447 S 15:42 UFA 7.85 2.38 1.4 < 1 10

FA 8.00 2.25 1.1 < 1 43 .52 10

RA 7.90 2.30 1.4 < 1 10

488 RBI 15:40 FA 32.0 14.2 .40 112 16 .78 3.5

RA 32.5 14.5 .40 112 3.6

540 S 15:33 UFA 20.0 5.80 .39 40.0 6.2

FA 19.0 6.00 .80 40.0 30 .63 5.9

RA 20.0 6.15 .80 40.0 6.3

633 RBI 15:30 UFA 32.0 15.0 .38 104 3.8

FA 31.0 14.7 .32 104 18 .73 3.6

633 RBI 15:30 RA 33.0 16.0 .37 104 3.6

685 S 15:23 FA 23.0 8.71 .70 60.0 27 .70 5.2

RA 24.0 8.25 .68 60.0 4.7

735 S 15:20 UFA 21.5 8.40 .62 62.7 5.1

FA 22.5 8.58 .79 62.7 27 .68 5.1

RA 22.0 8.97 .61 62.7 4.9

758 S 15:12 UFA 24.0 9.35 .45 65.1 5.1

FA 23.5 9.16 .69 65.1 27 .68 5.0

RA 22.5 9.26 .68 65.1 4.8

760 RBI 15:10 FA 34.0 14.3 .26 96.1 27 .71 4.0

RA 27.0 15.1 .18 96.1 3.6

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.—Continued 
16 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

763 RBI 15:07 FA 28.0 13.4 .28 90.5 25 .70 3.8

RA 28.0 13.0 .24 90.5 3.9

842 S 14:55 UFA 22.0 9.08 .56 65.9 5.1

FA 24.0 9.42 .67 65.9 28 .70 4.8

RA 26.0 9.15 .64 65.9 4.7

858 RBI 14:53 UFA 31.0 12.2 .50 76.0 4.4

FA 30.5 11.5 .47 76.0 28 .85 4.3

RA 27.0 12.5 .39 76.0 4.2

908 S 14:43 UFA 26.0 10.3 .67 67.3 4.8

FA 25.0 10.1 .73 67.3 33 .68 4.7

RA 25.0 10.2 .57 67.3 4.7

932 RBI 14:45 FA 78.0 39.0 .59 < 1 360 .90 10

RA 77.0 38.0 .75 < 1 12

950 S 14:34 UFA 27.0 10.7 .67 68.7 4.8

FA 25.0 9.85 .54 68.7 34 .68 4.5

RA 27.0 11.0 .65 68.7 4.6

950 S 14:35 UFA 26.0 10.5 .67 67.3 4.7

FA 26.0 10.2 .65 67.3 34 .68 4.6

RA 27.0 10.0 .62 67.3 4.9

1,027 S 14:23 UFA 29.0 10.5 .67 68.5 4.8

FA 27.0 10.4 .58 68.5 39 .68 4.5

RA 27.5 11.0 .67 68.5 4.7

1,090 RBI 14:18 FA 30.0 12.0 1.2 24.6 100 .70 8.7

RA 30.0 12.0 1.2 24.6 8.7

1,146 S 14:11 UFA 28.0 11.4 .42 64.0 6.8

FA 28.0 11.0 .81 64.0 60 .76 7.0

RA 28.0 11.5 .81 64.0 7.2

1,231 S 14:05 UFA 28.0 10.9 .73 52.3 6.7

FA 28.0 11.0 .81 52.3 60 .76 7.0

RA 28.5 11.0 .81 52.3 6.9

1,294 S 13:55 UFA 29.0 11.2 .81 54.4 6.8

FA 28.0 11.4 .89 54.4 63 .75 6.6

RA 27.0 11.5 .79 54.4 6.6

1,312 RBI 13:53 FA 45.0 23.4 .47 135 76 .95 5.2

RA 52.0 23.7 1.1 135 9.6

1,354 S 13:43 UFA 25.0 11.9 .76 58.2 6.1

FA 30.0 11.5 .74 58.2 64 .83 6.7

RA 31.0 11.6 .78 58.2 7.2

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.—Continued 
References Cited 17

Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

1,362 LBI 13:42 UFA 31.0 11.2 .39 42.3 3.6

FA 33.0 11.4 .45 42.3 18 .73 3.8

RA 36.0 10.7 .50 42.3 4.0

1,438 S 13:34 UFA 30.0 12.1 .67 72.6 5.6

FA 29.0 12.0 .66 72.6 50 .75 5.6

RA 27.0 12.5 .54 72.6 5.3

1,462 RBI 13:32 UFA 52.0 24.6 .47 154 6.1

FA 49.0 23.9 .93 154 58 1.1 6.0

RA 56.0 24.7 .87 154 6.3

1,484 S 13:15 UFA 28.0 11.4 .54 72.2 5.7

FA 27.0 11.5 .52 72.2 51 .77 5.6

RA 31.0 12.0 .59 72.2 5.7

1,514 RBI 13:08 UFA 47.0 23.9 .14 174 4.5

FA 47.0 23.9 .26 174 27 .97 4.5

RA 46.0 22.5 .21 174 4.4

1,564 S 12:56 UFA 33.0 12.1 .65 79.6 5.8

FA 32.0 12.7 .65 79.6 50 .29 5.5

RA 32.0 12.6 .67 79.6 5.3

1,725 S 12:49 UFA 29.0 12.3 .61 76.1 5.3

FA 33.0 13.0 .58 76.1 50 .78 5.4

RA 33.0 13.0 .61 76.1 5.5

1,734 RBI 12:47 FA 40.0 17.5 .33 136 12 .74 3.8

RA 42.0 19.0 .33 136 3.9

1,753 S 12:43 UFA 32.0 13.6 .44 90.1 5.0

FA 32.0 13.5 .57 90.1 43 .79 4.9

RA 33.0 13.6 .54 90.1 5.3

1,758 LBI 12:40 UFA 29.0 11.3 .29 67.5 5.4

FA 29.0 11.1 .59 67.5 46 .78 5.3

RA 32.0 10.9 .56 67.5 5.1

1,841 S 12:30 UFA 32.0 13.3 .58 90.4 5.1

FA 31.0 13.9 .52 90.4 42 .25 4.9

RA 29.0 14.0 .48 90.4 5.0

1,847 RBI 12:25 FA 38.5 15.0 .29 133 18 .75 3.8

RA 40.5 15.5 .39 133 3.9

1,947 S 12:17 UFA 34.0 14.2 .53 95.7 4.8

FA 34.0 13.0 .49 95.7 39 .80 4.8

RA 34.0 14.0 .50 95.7 4.9

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.—Continued 
18 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

1,975 LBI 12:10 UFA 41.0 13.7 .34 114 5.0

FA 38.0 14.8 .45 114 36 .99 4.6

RA 44.0 13.7 .44 114 4.4

2,022 S 12:01 UFA 35.0 13.7 .53 95.5 4.9

FA 34.0 13.3 .52 95.5 39 .80 4.8

RA 35.0 14.0 .50 95.5 4.9

2,022 S 13:39 UFA 32.0 14.0 .49 94.5 4.7

FA 32.0 14.0 .53 94.5 39 .82 4.8

RA 32.0 14.2 .54 94.5 5.2

2,172 S 11:53 UFA 36.0 14.2 .53 96.7 4.9

FA 30.0 13.1 .41 96.7 39 .79 4.8

RA 36.0 13.5 .52 96.7 5.0

2,320 S 11:42 UFA 36.0 13.4 .50 98.1 4.8

FA 33.0 13.5 .45 98.1 39 .78 4.7

RA 39.0 14.3 .49 98.1 4.7

2,555 S 11:29 UFA 33.0 13.6 .50 94.5 4.7

FA 33.0 13.9 .48 94.5 39 .80 4.7

RA 30.0 13.9 .39 94.5 4.5

2,756 S 11:09 UFA 31.0 13.8 .30 96.8 4.6

FA 32.0 14.0 .58 96.8 39 .79 4.6

RA 34.0 14.6 .51 96.8 4.9

2,988 S 11:00 UFA 36.0 14.0 .49 100 4.7

FA 35.0 13.5 .46 100 39 .83 4.7

RA 32.0 14.4 .36 100 4.3

3,238 S 10:46 UFA 35.0 13.4 .48 104 4.7

FA 34.5 13.5 .42 104 37 .84 4.6

RA 37.0 13.6 .45 104 4.6

3,377 S 10:37 UFA 33.0 13.7 .40 103 4.6

FA 34.0 13.9 .53 103 36 .86 4.6

RA 35.0 13.6 .48 103 4.8

3,580 S 10:27 UFA 34.0 13.6 .43 103 4.5

FA 35.0 13.7 .52 103 35 .89 4.5

RA 34.0 13.9 .48 103 4.9

3,592 LBI 10:25 FA 15.0 4.44 .39 49.8 6.2 1.3 5.6

RA 14.0 4.44 .32 49.8 5.6

3,724 S 10:12 UFA 35.0 13.7 .49 103 4.7

FA 36.0 13.5 .47 103 34 .89 4.7

RA 34.0 14.1 .43 103 4.3

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.—Continued 
Distance

(m) Source Sample time Filter Calcium Magnesium Potassium Alkalinity as CaCO3

Sulfate Chloride Silica

3,974 S 10:02 UFA 38.0 13.3 .52 104 4.9

FA 34.0 13.0 .39 104 34 .92 4.4

RA 31.0 13.1 .42 104 3.7

4,276 S 9:46 UFA 34.0 12.5 .38 106 4.4

FA 34.0 13.7 .49 106 34 .88 4.6

RA 37.0 13.2 .47 106 4.9

4,600 S 9:30 UFA 38.0 13.9 .48 104 34 .95 4.6

FA 34.0 14.1 .46 104 4.5

RA 37.0 13.7 .38 104 4.7

4,603 LBI 12:40 UFA 40.0 17.7 .55 147 4.5

FA 39.0 18.0 .55 147 14 1.0 4.4

RA 39.5 18.5 .53 147 4.4

4,713 S 12:55 UFA 38.5 17.0 .48 139 4.4

FA 38.0 17.4 .55 139 18 1.0 4.4

RA 38.0 17.1 .53 139 4.2

4,765 S 13:10 UFA 38.0 16.8 .55 140 4.5

FA 36.0 16.6 .44 140 18 1.0 4.4

RA 38.0 17.5 .59 140 4.2

4,863 S 13:25 UFA 36.0 16.6 .47 139 4.6

FA 37.0 17.7 .52 139 18 1.1 4.4

RA 36.0 17.8 .47 139 4.5

5,030 S 13:40 UFA 40.0 16.6 .57 140 4.6

FA 38.0 16.7 .52 140 18 .98 4.4

RA 34.0 17.0 .53 140 4.5

Table 2. Chemical analyses for major ions in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.—Continued 

References Cited 19
20 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000. 

[Distance from injection, in meters (m). Source: S, stream; RBI, right-bank inflow; LBI, left-bank inflow. Filter, UFA, 10,000 Dalton ultra-filter, FA, 

0.45-micrometer; RA, unfiltered. Al, aluminum; As, arsenic; Ba, barium; Cd, cadmium; Cu, copper; Fe, iron; Pb, lead; Li, lithium; Mn, manganese; Ni, nickel; 

Sr, strontium; Zn, zinc; <, less than; MS, missing sample; NA, not analyzed; all concentrations in milligrams per liter] 

Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

American Fork, Upper Injection Reach

0 S 9:58 UFA 0.033 <0.107 0.040 <0.002 <0.001 0.021 <0.015 <0.001 0.022 <0.004 0.064 <0.001

FA .033 <.107 .040 <.002 <.001 .11 <.015 <.001 .022 <.004 .063 <.001

RA .037 <.107 .039 <.002 <.001 .18 <.015 <.001 .024 <.004 .064 .068

25 S 14:00 UFA 2

.044 <.107 .041 <.002 1.006 .026 <.015 <.001 .024 <.004 .064 <.001

FA 2

.042 <.107 .041 <.002 <.001 .15 <.015 <.001 .024 <.004 .064 <.001

RA .038 <.107 .042 <.002 <.001 .21 <.015 .001 .026 <.004 .065 .074

59 RBI 10:18 FA .026 <.107 .041 <.002 <.001 .17 <.015 .004 .384 <.004 .034 <.001

RA .24 <.107 .046 .002 <.001 12.6 <.015 .012 .453 <.004 .034 .139

109 S 14:15 UFA 2

.042 <.107 .042 <.002 1.004 .025 <.015 <.001 .045 <.004 .062 <.001

FA .035 <.107 .042 <.002 <.001 .18 <.015 <.001 .044 <.004 .062 <.001

RA .046 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .40 <.015 .001 .050 <.004 .064 .071

259 S 14:20 UFA .070 <.107 .042 <.002 <.001 .023 <.015 <.001 .048 <.004 .062 <.001

FA .072 <.107 .043 <.002 <.001 .20 <.015 <.001 .048 <.004 .063 <.001

RA .15 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .85 <.015 .001 .056 <.004 .063 .166

414 S 14:35 UFA .080 <.107 .043 <.002 2

.032 .049 <.015 <.001 .046 <.004 .063 2.024

FA .085 <.107 .043 <.002 .002 .22 <.015 <.001 .045 <.004 .062 <.001

RA .10 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .52 <.015 .001 .048 <.004 .063 .088

416 LBI 11:15 FA .14 <.107 .074 <.002 <.001 .12 <.015 <.001 <.001 <.004 .021 <.001

RA .46 <.107 .083 <.002 <.001 .34 <.015 <.001 .007 <.004 .021 .037

651 S 14:50 UFA .056 <.107 .045 <.002 <.001 .023 <.015 <.001 .032 <.004 .060 2

.030

FA .071 <.107 .046 <.002 <.001 .19 <.015 <.001 .033 <.004 .061 <.001

RA .095 <.107 .046 <.002 <.001 .40 <.015 .001 .035 <.004 .060 .068

735 LBI 11:35 FA 1.2 <.107 .042 .013 .013 .039 <.015 <.001 .526 .011 .044 .558

RA 1.2 <.107 .041 .015 .013 .041 <.015 .002 .519 .011 .045 .632

736 LBI 11:35 FA .54 <.107 .031 .013 1

.014 4.43 <.015 <.001 .281 .011 .042 .457

RA .61 <.107 .033 .014 .011 4.84 <.015 .001 .288 .010 .043 .620

835 S 15:05 UFA .042 <.107 .044 .002 1

.005 .031 <.015 <.001 .106 <.004 .056 2.173

FA .12 <.107 .043 .003 .002 .12 <.015 <.001 .105 <.004 .056 .112

RA .21 <.107 .045 .003 .002 .97 <.015 .001 .100 <.004 .056 .193

1,035 S 13:45 UFA .077 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .023 <.015 <.001 .087 <.004 .055 .010

FA .10 <.107 .044 .002 <.001 .14 <.015 <.001 .088 <.004 .055 .073

RA .18 <.107 .046 .003 .001 .81 <.015 .001 .091 <.004 .055 .144

1,253 S 15:55 UFA .084 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .026 <.015 <.001 .072 <.004 .054 <.001

FA .099 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .14 <.015 <.001 .073 <.004 .055 <.001

RA .18 <.107 .046 .002 .001 .78 <.015 .001 .078 <.004 .055 .131
Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

1,603 S 16:20 UFA .073 <.107 .047 <.002 <.001 .023 <.015 <.001 .050 <.004 .053 <.001

FA .093 <.107 .048 <.002 <.001 .18 <.015 <.001 .051 <.004 .054 .025

RA .16 <.107 .050 .002 .001 .66 <.015 .001 .057 <.004 .055 .163

2,003 S 16:35 UFA .056 <.107 .050 <.002 1

.007 .025 <.015 <.001 .019 <.004 .054 2.053

FA .072 <.107 .050 <.002 <.001 .13 <.015 <.001 .019 <.004 .054 <.001

RA .081 <.107 .049 <.002 <.001 .26 <.015 .001 .021 <.004 .053 .075

American Fork, Lower Injection Reach

2,983 S 15:10 UFA 2.042 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .024 <.015 <.001 .010 <.004 .046 2.020

FA .031 <.107 .057 <.002 <.001 .053 <.015 .001 .011 <.004 .048 2

.034

RA .12 <.107 .060 <.002 <.001 .19 <.015 .001 .024 <.004 .048 .004

3,123 S 15:05 UFA 2

.037 <.107 .054 <.002 <.001 .025 <.015 .751 .008 <.004 .047 <.001

FA .030 <.107 .056 <.002 <.001 .052 <.015 .738 .008 <.004 .047 .035

RA .13 <.107 .057 <.002 <.001 .19 <.015 .742 .022 <.004 .048 .089

3,128 LBI 15:00 FA <.021 <.107 .025 <.002 <.001 .016 <.015 <.001 <.001 <.004 .026 2

.026

RA <.021 <.107 .027 <.002 <.001 .013 <.015 <.001 <.001 <.004 .027 <.001

3,198 LBI 14:55 FA .022 <.107 .025 <.002 <.001 .061 <.015 <.001 .005 <.004 .027 .048

RA .033 <.107 .023 <.002 <.001 .070 <.015 <.001 .005 <.004 .027 .057

3,303 LBI 14:50 FA .023 <.107 .030 <.002 <.001 .22 <.015 <.001 .075 <.004 .028 2

.038

RA .063 <.107 .034 <.002 <.001 .46 <.015 <.001 .084 <.004 .028 <.001

3,331 LBI 14:45 FA .025 <.107 .028 <.002 1

.003 .12 <.015 .001 .032 <.004 .032 2.040

RA .047 <.107 .027 <.002 <.001 .20 <.015 .001 .039 <.004 .032 .069

3,344 S 14:33 UFA 2

.043 <.107 .042 <.002 <.001 .024 <.015 .405 .007 <.004 .039 2.053

FA .022 <.107 .045 <.002 <.001 .046 <.015 .404 .008 <.004 .039 2

.040

RA .057 <.107 .048 <.002 .002 .10 <.015 .411 .009 <.004 .040 <.001

3,345 RBI 14:35 FA <.021 <.107 .110 .004 .001 .093 <.015 .001 .241 <.004 .060 .747

RA .14 <.107 .115 .008 .023 4.30 .027 .001 .363 .004 .061 1.14

3,385 LBI 14:30 FA .023 <.107 .031 <.002 <.001 .068 <.015 .001 .025 <.004 .035 .057

RA .12 <.107 .033 <.002 <.001 .23 <.015 .001 .047 <.004 .035 .076

3,470 S 14:20 UFA 2

.038 <.107 .042 <.002 <.001 .024 <.015 .365 .014 <.004 .039 <.001

FA .027 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .062 <.015 .359 .017 <.004 .039 2

.080

RA .071 <.107 .050 <.002 <.001 .14 <.015 .366 .019 <.004 .039 .003

3,475 RBI 14:15 UFA 2

.047 <.107 .126 .006 2.037 2.051 <.015 <.001 .124 <.004 .063 2.640

FA .022 <.107 .125 .006 <.001 .022 <.015 .002 .119 <.004 .063 .687

RA .28 <.107 .193 .008 .016 1.66 .738 .001 .125 <.004 .065 1.02

3,485 RBI 14:10 FA .030 <.107 .099 .006 .004 .017 <.015 .002 .008 <.004 .065 .521

RA .21 <.107 .865 .011 .041 3.01 1.88 .001 .010 <.004 .079 1.26

3,625 S 14:00 UFA 2

.036 <.107 .045 <.002 <.001 .022 <.015 .347 .014 <.004 .039 <.001

FA .024 <.107 .047 <.002 .003 .058 <.015 .349 .015 <.004 .040 2

.091

RA .056 <.107 .056 <.002 <.001 .18 .033 .351 .015 <.004 .040 .053

Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000.—Continued 

References Cited 21
22 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

3,625 S 13:55 UFA 2.046 <.107 .046 <.002 2.008 .033 <.015 .350 .016 <.004 .040 2.068

FA .025 <.107 .047 <.002 <.001 .056 <.015 .353 .015 <.004 .040 2

.061

RA .056 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .17 .028 .350 .015 <.004 .040 .051

3,775 S 13:56 UFA 2

.035 <.107 .045 <.002 <.001 .023 <.015 .347 .014 <.004 .039 2.078

FA .025 <.107 .048 <.002 .001 .058 <.015 .351 .015 <.004 .040 2

.108

RA .060 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .17 .038 .347 .017 <.004 .040 .096

4,035 S 13:40 UFA 2

.037 <.107 .046 <.002 .001 .023 <.015 .339 .014 <.004 .039 <.001

FA .024 <.107 .048 <.002 .001 .059 <.015 .343 .015 <.004 .040 2

.123

RA .057 <.107 .052 <.002 <.001 .17 .048 .341 .016 <.004 .040 .096

4,200 RBI 13:25 FA <.021 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .017 <.015 .002 <.001 <.004 .045 .028

RA .12 <.107 .045 <.002 <.001 .12 <.015 .002 .007 <.004 .045 .048

4,255 RBI 13:20 FA .022 <.107 .101 <.002 .001 .022 <.015 .005 .002 <.004 .048 .069

RA .57 <.117 .197 <.002 .005 1.47 .130 .006 .062 <.004 .058 .104

4,385 S 13:10 UFA 2

.041 <.107 .046 <.002 2.003 .026 <.015 .335 .013 <.004 .040 <.001

FA .026 <.107 .048 <.002 <.001 .051 <.015 .333 .013 <.004 .040 2

.101

RA .047 <.107 .049 <.002 <.001 .14 .023 .328 .015 <.004 .040 .098

4,435 LBI 13:05 FA <.021 <.107 .052 <.002 <.001 .015 <.015 .012 <.001 <.004 .047 .036

RA .030 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .032 <.015 .012 .001 <.004 .047 .066

4,515 RBI 13:00 RA .051 <.107 .054 <.002 <.001 .20 .022 .237 .037 <.004 .043 .076

4,665 S 12:50 UFA 2

.034 <.107 .047 <.002 <.001 .023 <.015 .243 .009 <.004 .041 <.001

FA .024 <.107 .049 <.002 <.001 .043 <.015 .246 .010 <.004 .042 2

.106

RA .046 <.107 .051 <.002 <.001 .11 .022 .245 .011 <.004 .042 .080

4,965 S 12:35 UFA <.021 <.107 .050 <.002 .001 .025 <.015 .252 .009 <.004 .043 2

.496

FA .024 <.107 .050 <.002 <.001 .041 <.015 .240 .009 <.004 .042 2

.083

RA .048 <.107 .052 <.002 <.001 .13 .028 .238 .012 <.004 .042 .079

5,065 RBI 12:10 FA <.021 <.107 .042 <.002 <.001 .015 <.015 .002 <.001 <.004 .058 2

.047

RA .022 <.107 .042 <.002 <.001 .019 <.015 .002 <.001 <.004 .059 .045

5,138 S 12:00 UFA 2

.033 <.107 .049 <.002 <.001 .033 <.015 .228 .010 <.004 .042 .023

FA .025 <.107 .050 <.002 <.001 .036 <.015 .225 .009 <.004 .042 .065

RA .051 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .12 .025 .228 .012 <.004 .043 .121

5,140 RBI 11:55 FA <.021 <.107 .046 <.002 <.001 .017 <.015 .002 <.001 <.004 .057 .033

RA .062 <.107 .046 <.002 <.001 .061 <.015 .002 .001 <.004 .058 .038

5,370 S 11:35 UFA <.021 <.107 .049 <.002 2

.006 .027 <.015 .223 .007 <.004 .042 2.599

FA .025 <.107 .050 <.002 <.001 .038 <.015 .222 .008 <.004 .043 .065

RA .052 <.107 .052 <.002 <.001 .10 .021 .220 .011 <.004 .042 .149

5,715 S 11:25 UFA 2

.038 <.107 .050 <.002 <.001 .024 <.015 .216 .009 <.004 .042 .014

FA .026 <.107 .052 <.002 <.001 .043 <.015 .212 .010 <.004 .042 .076

RA .051 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .11 .020 .212 .012 <.004 .042 .090

Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000.—Continued 
Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000.—Continued 

Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

6,065 S 11:05 UFA <.021 <.107 .053 <.002 2.007 .031 <.015 .217 .014 <.004 .043 2.733

FA .029 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .042 <.015 .208 .012 <.004 .043 .060

RA .056 <.107 .055 <.002 <.001 .12 .029 .209 .015 <.004 .043 .100

6,275 S 17:15 UFA <.021 <.107 .055 <.002 .001 .023 2

.020 .204 .008 <.004 .044 2.540

FA .024 <.107 .056 <.002 <.001 .043 <.015 .202 .009 <.004 .043 .060

RA .052 <.107 .057 <.002 <.001 .11 .023 .198 .013 <.004 .043 .065

6,275 S 10:55 UFA <.021 <.107 .052 <.002 .001 .022 <.015 .212 .010 <.004 .044 2

.464

FA .024 <.107 .052 <.002 <.001 .044 <.015 .203 .011 <.004 .043 .066

RA .059 <.107 .055 <.002 <.001 .14 .021 .204 .015 <.004 .043 .102

6,290 RBI 10:50 FA .023 <.107 .046 <.002 <.001 .020 <.015 .001 <.001 <.004 .046 .099

RA .036 <.107 .046 <.002 .001 .059 <.015 .001 .002 <.004 .046 .129

6,452 S 10:40 UFA 2

.041 <.107 .051 <.002 <.001 .026 <.015 .171 .009 <.004 .044 .036

FA .024 <.107 .051 <.002 <.001 .041 <.015 .166 .009 <.004 .043 .075

RA .072 <.107 .055 <.002 <.001 .15 .030 .168 .014 <.004 .044 .136

6,717 S 10:25 UFA <.021 <.107 .050 <.002 .001 .25 <.015 .167 .007 <.004 .044 2

.644

FA .026 <.107 .051 <.002 <.001 .035 <.015 .163 .008 <.004 .043 .073

RA .20 <.107 .064 <.002 .002 .36 .071 .165 .028 <.004 .044 .137

8,387 S 16:25 UFA <.021 <.107 .535 <.002 2

.005 .024 <.015 .151 .003 <.004 .046 2.343

FA .027 <.107 .054 <.002 2

.002 .032 <.015 .152 .004 <.004 .046 .091

RA .043 <.107 .059 <.002 <.001 .084 <.015 .156 .005 <.004 .046 .035

8,407 RBI 16:00 UFA .038 <.107 .044 <.002 <.001 .022 <.015 <.001 <.001 <.004 .064 <.001

FA .021 <.107 .047 <.002 <.001 .016 <.015 .001 <.001 <.004 .065 2

.055

RA .040 <.107 .045 <.002 <.001 .038 <.015 .001 .003 <.004 .064 .030

8,507 S 15:45 UFA .032 <.107 .052 <.002 <.001 .024 <.015 .143 .003 <.004 .045 <.001

FA .026 <.107 .055 <.002 <.001 .033 <.015 .150 .004 <.004 .047 2

.095

RA .047 <.107 .059 <.002 <.001 .092 <.015 .151 .005 <.004 .047 .036

10,287 S 13:05 UFA .035 <.107 .048 <.002 <.001 .021 <.015 .085 <.001 <.004 .102 <.001

FA .035 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .055 <.015 .094 .002 <.004 .107 2

.071

RA .036 <.107 .052 <.002 <.001 .047 <.015 .090 <.001 <.004 .104 .024

10,307 RBI 12:45 UFA .034 <.107 .044 <.002 2

.002 .024 <.015 <.001 <.001 <.004 .272 .032

FA <.021 <.107 .047 <.002 <.001 .019 <.015 .002 <.001 <.004 .279 2

.084

RA .033 <.107 .045 <.002 <.001 .053 <.015 .001 .001 <.004 .278 .040

10,407 S 12:20 UFA .035 <.107 .048 <.002 <.001 .022 <.015 .082 <.001 <.004 .104 .031

FA .021 <.107 .049 <.002 <.001 .024 <.015 .087 .001 <.004 .105 .068

RA .031 <.107 .053 <.002 <.001 .045 <.015 .089 <.001 <.004 .106 .023

11,962 S 11:10 UFA .030 <.107 .042 <.002 <.001 .027 <.015 .036 <.001 <.004 .981 <.001

FA .023 <.107 .043 <.002 <.001 .020 <.015 .037 <.001 <.004 .981 2

.059

RA .027 <.107 .045 <.002 <.001 .029 <.015 .036 <.001 <.004 .978 .008

References Cited 23
24 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

Mary Ellen Gulch

163 S 16:12 UFA 1.7 <.03 .022 .002 .300 1.05 .019 <.001 .058 .013 .021 .235

FA 1.8 <.03 .024 .003 .220 1.10 .016 <.001 .056 .015 .020 .200

RA 1.8 <.03 .024 .002 .200 1.40 .009 <.001 .058 .016 .019 .200

172 S 16:10 UFA 1.6 <.03 .020 .002 .200 .910 .015 <.001 .050 .009 .020 1

.190

FA 1.5 <.03 .018 <.001 .210 .920 <.006 <.001 .051 .010 .020 1

.180

RA 1.5 <.03 .021 .002 .180 1.20 .012 <.001 .051 .011 .021 .150

178 RBI 16:10 FA 2.9 <.03 .019 .003 .033 3.60 .018 <.001 .074 .018 .023 .230

RA 2.5 <.03 .018 .002 .029 4.15 .010 <.001 .075 .015 .023 .230

270 S 16:00 UFA 1.7 <.03 .020 .002 .180 .470 .012 <.001 .059 .011 .019 2.215

FA 1.6 <.03 .025 .002 .170 .465 .008 <.001 .056 .012 .020 2

.190

RA 1.8 <.03 .022 .003 .150 .490 <.006 <.001 .047 .014 .020 .180

370 S 15:50 UFA 1.7 <.03 .031 .002 .210 .190 .014 <.001 .068 .012 .021 2

.195

FA 1.5 <.03 .023 <.001 .200 .185 .013 <.001 .059 .014 .021 .165

RA 1.7 <.03 .033 .003 .160 .185 <.006 <.001 .056 .013 .017 .190

397 RBI 15:50 FA <.080 <.03 .026 <.001 .014 .014 <.006 <.001 .001 <.002 .044 .010

RA <.080 <.03 .032 <.001 .005 .061 <.006 <.001 .005 <.002 .046 .006

447 S 15:42 UFA 1.9 <.03 .026 .002 .200 .145 .012 <.001 .062 .012 .024 .180

FA 1.7 <.03 .027 .002 .180 .165 .015 <.001 .060 .009 .022 .190

RA 1.9 <.03 .026 .002 .190 .175 .016 <.001 .054 .011 .024 .170

488 RBI 15:40 FA <.080 <.03 .027 <.001 .003 .013 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .039 .012

RA .093 <.03 .022 <.001 .008 .083 <.006 <.001 .004 <.002 .039 .012

540 S 15:33 UFA .160 <.03 .022 <.001 .030 .010 <.006 <.001 .022 .004 .033 1

.055

FA .220 <.03 .026 <.001 .021 .009 <.006 <.001 .020 .003 .034 .039

RA .620 <.03 .026 <.001 .064 .061 <.006 <.001 .021 .004 .035 .055

633 RBI 15:30 UFA <.080 <.03 .029 <.001 .015 .008 <.006 <.001 .001 <.002 .040 2

.020

FA <.080 <.03 .030 <.001 <.001 .015 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .037 2

.019

633 RBI 15:30 RA <.080 <.03 .028 <.001 .002 <.008 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .041 .010

685 S 15:23 UFA MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

FA .240 <.03 .026 <.001 .013 <.008 <.006 <.001 .011 <.002 .036 .018

RA .350 <.03 .021 <.001 .026 .032 <.006 <.001 .010 .002 .035 .028

735 S 15:20 UFA .190 <.03 .027 <.001 <.001 .013 <.006 <.001 .010 <.002 .033 .028

FA .190 <.03 .027 <.001 .017 .010 .009 <.001 .010 .003 .035 .021

RA .320 <.03 .028 <.001 .008 .029 <.006 <.001 .009 <.002 .031 .027

758 S 15:12 UFA .160 <.03 .028 .001 .008 <.008 <.006 <.001 .008 .002 .035 .057

FA .180 <.03 .028 <.001 .010 .020 <.006 <.001 .008 <.002 .036 .048

RA .280 <.03 .028 <.001 .017 .026 <.006 <.001 .007 <.002 .034 .054

760 RBI 15:10 FA <.080 <.03 .061 <.001 .004 .010 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .035 .009

RA <.080 <.03 .050 <.001 <.001 .031 <.006 <.001 .002 <.002 .030 .006

Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000.—Continued 
Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000.—Continued 

Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

763 RBI 15:07 FA .090 <.03 .053 <.001 .010 .009 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .029 .010

RA <.080 <.03 .056 <.001 <.001 .042 <.006 <.001 .004 <.002 .030 .007

842 S 14:55 UFA .120 <.03 .029 <.001 .014 .014 .009 <.001 .006 <.002 .036 .051

FA .170 <.03 .036 .002 .012 .019 <.006 <.001 .004 <.002 .034 1

.058

RA .180 <.03 .030 <.001 .011 .025 <.006 <.001 .005 <.002 .037 .047

858 RBI 14:53 UFA <.080 <.03 .035 <.001 .010 .008 <.006 <.001 .001 <.002 .047 .019

FA <.080 <.03 .028 <.001 .010 .009 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .042 .018

RA <.080 <.03 .029 <.001 <.001 .021 <.006 <.001 .001 <.002 .040 .014

908 S 14:43 UFA .110 <.03 .029 .001 .017 <.008 <.006 <.001 .011 .003 .038 .099

FA .120 <.03 .037 .003 .015 .023 <.006 <.001 .017 <.002 .035 .125

RA .140 <.03 .034 .002 .002 .030 <.006 <.001 .010 <.002 .034 .120

932 RBI 14:45 FA .110 <.03 .021 .043 .011 9.30 .019 <.001 .250 .046 .063 7.4

RA .890 .040 .051 .046 .058 22 .960 <.001 .250 .046 .063 7.6

950 S 14:35 UFA .120 <.03 .032 .001 .008 <.008 <.006 <.001 .010 .003 .038 .105

FA .140 <.03 .033 .001 .005 .014 .006 <.001 .010 <.002 .036 .115

RA .140 <.03 .038 .002 <.001 .052 .007 <.001 .011 .002 .035 .135

950 S 14:34 UFA .110 <.03 .032 .001 .010 <.008 <.006 <.001 .010 <.002 .037 .099

FA .120 <.03 .031 <.001 .004 .015 <.006 <.001 .010 <.002 .037 .099

RA .160 <.03 .034 .001 .011 .150 .021 <.001 .011 .002 .037 .125

1,027 S 14:23 UFA .100 <.03 .035 .001 .008 <.008 <.006 <.001 .018 <.002 .037 .105

FA .100 <.03 .030 .002 .004 .047 <.006 <.001 .016 <.002 .034 .120

RA .150 <.03 .036 <.001 .010 .255 .015 <.001 .017 <.002 .037 .150

3

1,090 RBI 14:18 FA NA .070 .014 .001 .015 7.80 <.006 NA .210 NA NA .800

1,146 S 14:11 UFA <.080 <.03 .010 <.001 .002 <.008 <.006 <.001 .066 .005 .028 .110

FA .081 <.03 .025 <.001 <.001 .016 <.006 <.001 .070 .007 .053 .120

RA .130 .035 .022 .001 .013 2.05 .010 <.001 .064 .005 .051 .280

1,231 S 14:05 UFA <.080 <.03 .023 .001 .007 .008 <.006 <.001 .061 .004 .052 .062

FA <.080 <.03 .024 .001 <.001 .059 <.006 <.001 .067 .005 .054 .092

RA .100 .032 .023 <.001 .006 1.65 .012 <.001 .066 .004 .054 .260

1,294 S 13:55 UFA .088 <.03 .019 <.001 .007 <.008 <.006 <.001 .067 .004 .053 .092

FA .086 <.03 .021 <.001 .002 .027 <.006 <.001 .066 .004 .051 .115

RA .170 <.03 .022 .001 .026 1.45 .009 <.001 .065 .004 .049 .240

1,312 RBI 13:53 FA <.080 <.03 .059 .006 .052 .020 <.006 <.001 .054 .005 .039 .370

RA 3.2 .050 .180 .014 .950 9.90 .890 <.001 .065 .016 .045 1.8

1,354 S 13:43 UFA .100 <.03 .022 .001 .016 .013 <.006 <.001 .059 .003 .047 .087

FA .120 <.03 .020 <.001 .009 .049 <.006 <.001 .064 .005 .051 .120

RA .170 <.03 .028 .002 .043 1.50 .013 <.001 .073 .004 .053 .350

1,362 LBI 13:42 UFA <.080 <.03 .041 <.001 <.001 .021 <.006 <.001 .002 .002 .045 .002

FA <.080 <.03 .041 <.001 .007 <.008 <.006 <.001 .003 <.002 .046 .003

RA .150 <.03 .043 <.001 .004 .037 <.006 <.001 .005 .002 .049 .003

References Cited 25
26 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000.—Continued 

Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

1,438 S 13:34 UFA .091 <.03 .027 <.001 .009 <.008 <.006 <.001 .041 <.002 .048 .091

FA .110 <.03 .034 .001 <.001 .027 <.006 <.001 .039 <.002 .047 .097

RA .150 <.03 .029 <.001 .015 .685 <.006 <.001 .040 .003 .046 .160

1,462 RBI 13:32 UFA <.080 <.03 .130 .002 .005 .010 <.006 <.001 .180 .002 .065 .290

FA <.080 <.03 .120 .002 <.001 .019 <.006 <.001 .170 <.002 .062 .260

RA <.080 <.03 .130 .008 .022 6.80 .011 <.001 .190 <.002 .065 .820

1,484 S 13:15 UFA <.080 .032 .028 <.001 .019 .016 <.006 <.001 .042 <.002 .047 .093

FA <.080 .043 .025 <.001 .018 .035 <.006 <.001 .041 <.002 .049 .090

RA .130 <.03 .034 .002 .023 .680 .009 <.001 .042 .003 .047 .165

1,514 RBI 13:08 UFA <.080 <.03 .110 <.001 .003 <.008 <.006 <.001 .042 <.002 .057 .031

FA <.080 <.03 .120 <.001 .001 .050 <.006 <.001 .044 <.002 .059 .034

RA <.080 <.03 .130 <.001 <.001 .565 <.006 <.001 .043 <.002 .055 .041

1,564 S 12:56 UFA .086 <.03 .032 <.001 .012 <.008 <.006 <.001 .040 .002 .050 .084

FA <.080 <.03 .034 <.001 .006 .021 <.006 <.001 .040 .002 .049 .086

RA .140 <.03 .031 .001 .033 .510 <.006 <.001 .035 .006 .049 .150

1,725 S 12:49 UFA <.080 <.03 .032 .001 .012 .013 <.006 <.001 .032 <.002 .047 .070

FA .110 <.03 .031 <.001 .006 .036 <.006 <.001 .031 .003 .047 .088

RA .120 <.03 .036 <.001 .012 .430 .007 <.001 .036 .003 .051 .140

1,734 RBI 12:47 FA <.080 <.03 .053 <.001 <.001 .011 .008 <.001 <.001 <.002 .042 .009

RA <.080 <.03 .057 <.001 <.001 .010 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .043 .011

1,753 S 12:43 UFA <.080 <.03 .033 <.001 .009 <.008 <.006 <.001 .025 .003 .047 .070

FA <.080 <.03 .038 <.001 .014 .022 .010 <.001 .026 .003 .047 .079

RA <.080 <.03 .043 .002 .007 .385 .013 <.001 .030 .004 .046 .125

1,758 LBI 12:40 UFA .082 <.03 .011 <.001 .014 .012 <.006 <.001 .025 .003 .029 .052

FA .081 <.03 .028 <.001 .005 .028 <.006 <.001 .026 <.002 .045 .062

RA .120 <.03 .028 <.001 .011 .365 .010 <.001 .027 .003 .045 .097

1,841 S 12:30 UFA <.080 <.03 .041 <.001 .005 <.008 <.006 <.001 .024 <.002 .049 .079

FA .120 <.03 .037 <.001 .007 .024 <.006 <.001 .022 <.002 .047 .076

RA .093 .035 .037 <.001 .008 .255 <.006 <.001 .024 <.002 .048 .110

1,847 RBI 12:25 FA <.080 <.03 .059 <.001 .002 <.008 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .039 .052

RA <.080 <.03 .065 <.001 <.001 <.008 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .045 .050

1,947 S 12:17 UFA <.080 <.03 .039 <.001 .005 <.008 <.006 <.001 .017 <.002 .047 .079

FA <.080 <.03 .041 <.001 .004 .021 <.006 <.001 .018 <.002 .045 .087

RA <.080 <.03 .042 <.001 .007 .160 .007 <.001 .019 <.002 .047 .099

1,975 LBI 12:10 UFA <.080 <.03 .056 .002 2

.005 <.008 <.006 <.001 .002 <.002 .049 1.240

FA .085 <.03 .054 .002 2

.005 <.008 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .047 .210

RA <.080 <.03 .046 .002 .002 .070 <.006 <.001 .010 <.002 .047 .205

2,022 S 13:39 UFA <.080 <.03 .040 .001 .003 .009 <.006 <.001 .014 <.002 .048 .080

FA .091 <.03 .046 .002 <.001 .017 <.006 <.001 .012 <.002 .045 .089

RA <.080 <.03 .047 <.001 .002 .225 .007 <.001 .016 <.002 .048 .115
Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000.—Continued 

Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

2,022 S 12:01 UFA <.080 <.03 .046 <.001 .004 <.008 <.006 <.001 .017 <.002 .048 .086

FA <.080 <.03 .041 <.001 .004 .022 <.006 <.001 .016 <.002 .046 .090

RA <.080 <.03 .044 .001 .007 .180 <.006 <.001 .018 .004 .048 .105

2,172 S 11:53 UFA <.080 <.03 .042 <.001 2

.009 .013 <.006 <.001 .015 .003 .048 .081

FA <.080 .031 .038 <.001 .005 .024 <.006 <.001 .015 <.002 .046 .100

RA <.080 <.03 .043 <.001 .005 .150 <.006 <.001 .016 <.002 .050 .110

2,320 S 11:42 UFA <.080 <.03 .042 .002 2

.014 .015 <.006 <.001 .013 <.002 .045 .093

FA <.080 <.03 .041 <.001 .006 .021 <.006 <.001 .014 <.002 .043 .091

RA <.080 <.03 .036 <.001 .010 .180 .008 <.001 .014 <.002 .049 .098

2,555 S 11:29 UFA <.080 <.03 .042 .001 <.001 .014 <.006 <.001 .010 <.002 .044 .100

FA <.080 <.03 .043 <.001 <.001 .016 .007 <.001 .009 .003 .046 .090

RA .097 <.03 .040 <.001 .003 .130 <.006 <.001 .010 <.002 .044 .110

2,756 S 11:09 UFA <.080 <.03 .042 .001 <.001 .014 <.006 <.001 .007 <.002 .042 .071

FA <.080 <.03 .043 <.001 <.001 .013 .008 <.001 .007 .004 .046 .082

RA .086 <.03 .049 <.001 <.001 .245 .007 <.001 .012 <.002 .042 .125

2,988 S 11:00 UFA <.080 <.03 .043 <.001 .002 <.008 <.006 <.001 .005 <.002 .046 .076

FA <.080 <.03 .041 .001 .007 .013 <.006 <.001 .006 .002 .047 .084

RA .081 <.03 .044 <.001 <.001 .150 .012 <.001 .007 <.002 .039 .110

3,238 S 10:46 UFA <.080 <.03 .043 <.001 2

.006 <.008 <.006 <.001 .004 <.002 .047 .064

FA <.080 <.03 .037 .001 2

.008 .017 <.006 <.001 .004 <.002 .043 .079

RA .097 <.03 .043 .001 .004 .125 <.006 <.001 .005 .003 .045 .100

3,377 S 10:37 UFA <.080 <.03 .045 .001 <.001 .014 <.006 <.001 .003 <.002 .044 .125

FA <.080 <.03 .046 <.001 .001 .015 .014 <.001 .003 <.002 .047 .105

RA <.080 <.03 .051 .001 <.001 .115 <.006 <.001 .005 .002 .045 .110

3,580 S 10:27 UFA <.080 <.03 .044 <.001 <.001 .014 <.006 <.001 .002 <.002 .043 2

.160

FA <.080 <.03 .046 <.001 <.001 .010 .008 <.001 .002 <.002 .047 .135

RA <.080 <.03 .048 .001 .011 .130 .011 <.001 .005 <.002 .046 .098

3,592 LBI 10:25 FA .099 <.03 .058 <.001 .005 .039 <.006 <.001 .001 <.002 .037 2

.036

RA <.080 <.03 .059 <.001 <.001 .185 <.006 <.001 .012 <.002 .034 .013

3,724 S 10:12 UFA <.080 <.03 .047 <.001 2

.007 .009 <.006 <.001 .002 <.002 .049 .076

FA <.080 <.03 .049 <.001 .002 .010 <.006 <.001 .001 <.002 .048 .080

RA <.080 <.03 .044 .001 <.001 .063 <.006 <.001 .002 <.002 .042 .085

3,974 S 10:02 UFA <.080 <.03 .051 .001 2

.009 .011 <.006 <.001 .002 <.002 .049 2.160

FA <.080 <.03 .045 <.001 2

.004 .018 <.006 <.001 .001 <.002 .048 .096

RA <.080 <.03 .039 .001 <.001 .049 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .037 .081

4,276 S 9:46 UFA <.080 <.03 .045 <.001 <.001 .013 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .046 .067

FA <.080 <.03 .050 .001 <.001 .021 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .046 .084

RA <.080 <.03 .052 .002 <.001 .052 <.006 <.001 .002 .002 .048 .081

References Cited 27
28 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Table 3. Chemical analyses of trace elements in water samples from American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah,

September 2000.—Continued 

Distance

(m)

Source Sample

time

Filter Al As Ba Cd Cu Fe Pb Li Mn Ni Sr Zn

4,600 S 9:30 UFA <.080 <.03 .045 <.001 2.006 <.008 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .050 .090

FA .089 <.03 .046 <.001 2

.006 <.008 <.006 <.001 <.001 <.002 .048 .085

RA .088 <.03 .056 <.001 <.001 .051 <.006 <.001 <.001 .003 .045 .092

4,603 LBI 12:40 UFA <.080 <.03 .059 <.001 2

.005 .008 <.006 <.001 .017 <.002 .043 .026

FA <.080 <.03 .059 <.001 <.001 .047 <.006 <.001 .016 <.002 .045 .027

RA <.080 <.03 .066 <.001 <.001 .080 .010 <.001 .019 <.002 .046 .030

4,713 S 12:55 UFA <.080 <.03 .057 <.001 <.001 .011 <.006 <.001 .013 <.002 .046 .028

FA <.080 <.03 .064 <.001 <.001 .031 <.006 <.001 .013 <.002 .046 .028

RA <.080 <.03 .054 <.001 <.001 .080 <.006 <.001 .014 <.002 .043 .034

4,765 S 13:10 UFA <.080 <.03 .052 <.001 .004 <.008 <.006 <.001 .012 <.002 .047 .026

FA <.080 <.03 .055 <.001 .004 .042 .008 <.001 .012 <.002 .044 .037

RA .096 <.03 .055 <.001 .007 .115 .010 <.001 .015 <.002 .045 .039

4,863 S 13:25 UFA <.080 <.03 .055 <.001 2

.003 .013 <.006 <.001 .011 <.002 .047 .021

FA .084 <.03 .058 <.001 2

.004 .031 <.006 <.001 .010 <.002 .046 .027

RA <.080 <.03 .063 <.001 <.001 .145 .008 <.001 .019 <.002 .044 .033

5,030 S 13:40 UFA <.080 <.03 .059 <.001 2

.011 .008 <.006 <.001 .011 <.002 .047 .028

FA <.080 <.03 .056 <.001 <.001 .036 .007 <.001 .010 .004 .047 .026

RA <.080 <.03 .059 .002 .003 .125 .014 <.001 .015 .003 .042 .044

Table 4. Method detection limits and relative standard deviation of quality-assurance samples. 

[MDL, method detection limit, in micrograms per liter; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; NE, no equation]

Constituent MDL Relative standard

 deviation

Coefficient Exponent

Calcium 416 7.7586 -.2861

Magnesium 101 2.4179 -.3756

Sodium 302 3.7271 -.2209

Potassium 36 2.2376 .1502

Alkalinity as CaCO3 500 NE NE

Sulfate 1,760 6.6228 -.3185

Chloride 480 3.7271 -.2209

Bromide 80 5.7087 -.3406

Silica, as Si 309 3.0626 .0624

Aluminum .2 1.6461 -.4146

Arsenic .01 3.6077 -.176

Barium .1 1.2463 -.1304

Cadmium .09 .6576 -.3452

Cobalt .01 .1594 -.57

Constituent MDL Relative standard

 deviation

Coefficient Exponent

Chromium .05 .8397 -.305

Copper .04 3.7668 .0892

Iron .3 1.3058 -.2804

Lead .01 .7153 -.1152

Lithium .5 1.0295 -.3813

Manganese 5 1.249 -.0496

Molybdenum .04 .8158 -.2531

Nickel .37 1.3722 -.4094

Silver .01 3.2254 -.2851

Strontium 2 11.556 .0854

Uranium .003 1.0411 -.0962

Vanadium .01 .08742 -.2047

Zinc 22 .8362 -.7002

1

 Possible contamination 

2

 Contamination, the sample was not used 

3

 USGS sample lost in field, used results from a U.S. Forest Service sample 
References Cited 29

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

-0.5

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Start of lower injection reach

Downstream from

Mary Ellen Gulch

B

CHANGE IN TOTAL ALUMINUM LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

Bog mine

Lower Bog mine

Pacific tailings inflow

Limestone spring

Mary Ellen Gulch

Mary Ellen Gulch

Start of lower

injection reach

Lower Bog mine

Limestone spring

Pacific tailings inflow

Bog mine

End of upper

injection reach

A

ALUMINUM LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

 Dissolved in-stream load

 Colloidal in-stream load

 Cumulative in-stream load

 Cumulative inflow load

Figure 2. (A) Mass-loading profiles for aluminum and (B) change 

in aluminum load for individual stream segments, including 

unsampled inflow load, American Fork, Utah, October 1999.

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Downstream fromMary Ellen Gulch

B Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

Bog mine

Lower Bog mine

Limestone spring

Mary Ellen Gulch Mary Ellen Gulch

Start of lower

injection reach

Lower Bog mine

Limestone spring

Bog mine

End of upper

injection reach

A Dissolved in-stream load

 Colloidal in-stream load

 Cumulative in-stream load

 Cumulative inflow load

CHANGE IN TOTAL IRON LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY IRON LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS Pacific tailings inflow Pacific tailings inflow

Figure 3. (A) Mass-loading profiles for iron and (B) change in 

iron load for individual stream segments, including unsampled 

inflow load, American Fork, Utah, October 1999.
30 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Downstream from

Mary Ellen Gulch

B

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

Bog mine

Lower Bog mine

Pacific tailings inflow

Limestone spring

Mary Ellen Gulch

Mary Ellen Gulch

Start of lower

injection reach

Lower Bog mine

Limestone spring

Bog mine

End of upper

injection reach

A

MANGANESE LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

Dissolved in-stream load

Colloidal in-stream load

Cumulative in-stream load

Cumulative inflow load

CHANGE IN TOTAL MANGANESE LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

Pacific tailings inflow

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

5,138 meters

3,123 meters

B

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

Bog mine

Lower Bog mine

Pacific tailings

inflow

Limestone spring

Mary Ellen Gulch

Start of lower

injection reach

Mary Ellen Gulch

Lower Bog mine

Limestone spring

Bog mine

Pacific tailings inflow

End of upper

injection reach

A

ZINC LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

 Dissolved in-stream load

Colloidal in-stream load

Cumulative in-stream load

Cumulative inflow load

1,603 meters

CHANGE IN TOTAL ZINC LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

Figure 4. (A) Mass-loading profiles for manganese and (B) 

change in manganese load for individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, American Fork, Utah, October 1999.

Figure 5. (A) Mass-loading profiles for zinc and (B) change in 

zinc load for individual stream segments, including unsampled 

inflow load, American Fork, Utah, October 1999.
References Cited 31

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

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.8

1.0

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

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.5

2.0

540 meters

3,238 meters

Mouth of Mary Ellen Gulch

Drainage from Yankee tailings

1,847 meters

Ground water downstream

from Mary Ellen Gulch

Iron bog

B

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

Grassy marsh from

Yankee tailings

Upper

American Fork

Yankee #1 inflow

Last of high pH inflows

A

ALUMINUM LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

 Dissolved in-stream load

 Colloidal in-stream load

 Cumulative in-stream load

 Cumulative inflow load

CHANGE IN TOTAL ALUMINUM LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

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

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

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

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

5.0

2,756 meters

Upper American Fork

1,354 meters

Drainage from Yankee tailings

Ground water downstream

from Mary Ellen Gulch 

Iron bog

B

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

Grassy marsh from

Yankee tailings

Upper

American Fork

Yankee #1 inflow

Last of high pH inflows

A

IRON LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

 Dissolved in-stream load

 Colloidal in-stream load

 Cumulative in-stream load

 Cumulative inflow load

CHANGE IN TOTAL IRON LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

Figure 6. (A) Mass-loading profiles for aluminum and (B) change 

in aluminum load for individual stream segments, including 

unsampled inflow load, Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000.

Figure 7. (A) Mass-loading profiles for iron and (B) change in 

iron load for individual stream segments, including unsampled 

inflow load, Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000.
32 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

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

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

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

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Drainage from Globe wastes

Upper American Fork inflow

Drainage from

Yankee tailings

Ground water downstream

Iron bog

from Mary Ellen Gulch

B

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

Grassy marsh from

Yankee tailings

Upper American Fork

Yankee #1 inflow

Last of high pH inflows

A

COPPER LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

 Dissolved in-stream load

 Colloidal in-stream load

 Cumulative in-stream load

 Cumulative inflow load

CHANGE IN TOTAL COPPER LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

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

-0.10

-0.05

0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

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

0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.30

0.40

Upper American Fork

1,354 meters

Drainage from Yankee tailings

Ground water downstream

Iron bog

from Mary Ellen Gulch

B

CHANGE IN TOTAL MANGANESE LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

Grassy marsh from

Yankee tailings

Upper

American Fork

Yankee #1 inflow

Last of high pH inflows

A

MANGANESE LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

 Dissolved in-stream load

 Colloidal in-stream load

 Cumulative in-stream load

 Cumulative inflow load

Figure 8. (A) Mass-loading profiles for copper and (B) change in 

copper load for individual stream segments, including unsampled 

inflow load, Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000.

Figure 9. (A) Mass-loading profiles for manganese and (B) 

change in manganese load for individual stream segments, including unsampled inflow load, Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000.
References Cited 33

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

-0.15

-0.10

-0.050

0.05

0.10

0.15

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

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

908 meters

4,600 meters

2,555 meters

2,756 meters

3,377 meters

Upper American Fork

1,354 meters

Drainage fromYankee #1and Yankeetailings

Ground water downstream

from Mary Ellen Gulch

Iron bog B

CHANGE IN TOTAL ZINC LOAD,

IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

DISTANCE ALONG STUDY REACH, IN METERS

 Sampled inflow

 Unsampled inflow

 Loss

2,022 meters

Grassy marsh from

Yankee tailings

Upper

American Fork

Yankee #1 inflow

Last of high pH inflows A

ZINC LOAD, IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

 Dissolved in-stream load

 Colloidal in-stream load

 Cumulative in-stream load

 Cumulative inflow load

Figure 10. (A) Mass-loading profiles for zinc and (B) change in 

zinc load for individual stream segments, including unsampled 

inflow load, Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 2000.
34 Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah

Kimball, Runkel, and Gerner—Methods and Basic Data from Mass-Loading Studies in American Fork, October 1999, and Mary Ellen Gulch, Utah, September 

2000—Data Series 443