Questa Baseline and Pre-Mining Ground-Water 

Quality Investigation. 14. Interpretation of groundwater geochemistry in catchments other than the 

Straight Creek catchment, Red River Valley, Taos 

County, New Mexico, 2002-2003 

 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5050 

 

Prepared in cooperation with the New Mexico Environment Department

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey
Front cover: Photograph of the town of Questa from near Capulin Canyon. 

 
Questa Baseline and Pre-Mining GroundWater Quality Investigation. 14. Interpretation 

of ground-water geochemistry in catchments 

other than the Straight Creek catchment, Red 

River Valley, Taos County, New Mexico, 2002-

2003 

By D. Kirk Nordstrom, R. Blaine McCleskey, Andrew G. Hunt, and Cheryl A. Naus 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5050

U.S. Department of the Interior 

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

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Boulder, Colorado 2004 

Revised and reprinted: 2005 

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, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government 

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

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 
Contents 

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................................1 

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................2 

Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................................3 

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

Climate and Vegetation..........................................................................................................................................5 

Hydrogeology.........................................................................................................................................................5 

Surface Water.........................................................................................................................................................7 

Mining History .......................................................................................................................................................7 

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................................7 

METHODS....................................................................................................................................................................8 

Sampling Sites........................................................................................................................................................8 

 Well Locations................................................................................................................................................8 

 Surface Water..................................................................................................................................................8 

Water Sample Collection......................................................................................................................................13 

 Ground Water Collection ..............................................................................................................................14 

 Surface Water Collection ..............................................................................................................................16 

Laboratory Methods.............................................................................................................................................16 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control................................................................................................................17 

GROUND-WATER GEOCHEMISTRY ....................................................................................................................22 

Redox Potentials and Iron Chemistry ..................................................................................................................40 

Manganese Chemistry ..........................................................................................................................................46 

Aluminum Chemistry ..........................................................................................................................................47 

Calcium Chemistry and Solubilities of Gypsum, Calcite, and Fluorite................................................................50 

Gypsum and Calcite Solubilities...................................................................................................................50 

Fluoride Chemistry and Fluorite Solubility...................................................................................................53 

Magnesium Chemistry .........................................................................................................................................54 

Strontium Chemistry ............................................................................................................................................57 

Silica Chemistry ...................................................................................................................................................57 

Alkali Metal Chemistry........................................................................................................................................59 

Trace Element Chemistry.....................................................................................................................................63 

Rare-Earth Elements ............................................................................................................................................69 

Dissolved Organic Carbon and Hydrogen Sulfide ...............................................................................................70 

Stable Isotopes......................................................................................................................................................71 

Chlorofluorocarbons, Dissolved Gases, and Tritium ..........................................................................................72 

Background ...................................................................................................................................................72 

Chlorofluorocarbons .............................................................................................................................73 

Helium-3 / Tritium Dating .....................................................................................................................73 

Analysis.........................................................................................................................................................74 

Chlorofluorocarbons ..............................................................................................................................74 

Helium-3 / Tritium Dating .....................................................................................................................75 

Results...........................................................................................................................................................75 

Helium-3 / Tritium Dating .....................................................................................................................75 

Chlorofluorocarbon Data .......................................................................................................................77 

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................78 

REFERENCES CITED ..............................................................................................................................................81 

FIGURES 

Maps showing: 

1. Map showing the location of the mine site, wells sampled, and Hottentot surface water samples 

and the study area within the Red River Valley ..................................................................................4

iii
2. Map showing locations of observation wells in the Straight Creek drainage .....................................9 

3. Map showing location of Hottentot Creek well................................................................................10 

4. Map showing locations of the Hansen Creek, La Bobita, and Phase III wells .................................11 

5. Map showing locations of wells in Capulin Canyon ........................................................................12 

6-32. Graphs showing: 

6. A. Frequency distribution of charge imbalance in percent using equation 1. B. Effective 

molal ionic strength in relation to total molal ionic strength. C. pH in relation to sulfate 

concentration. D. Specific conductance in relation to sulfate concentration with linear fit 

for Straight Creek debris-fan ground water data..............................................................................23

7. A. Measured Eh in relation to calculated Eh for all samples. Solid line indicates the 1:1 

correspondence; the dotted lines show ±35 mV error range. B. The difference between 

measured and calculated Eh in relation to Fe(II)/Fe(T) ratio for samples with Fe(T) and Fe(II) 

above method detection limits. C. The difference between measured and calculated Eh in 

relation to Fe(III) concentration. The vertical dotted lines show the lower limit range over 

which Fe(III) concentration is expected to be electroactive. D. Revised plot of figure 7A 

excluding data points containing non-detectable and non-electroactive Fe(III) concentrations......41 

8. Saturation index for hydrous ferric oxides (ferrihydrite and goethite) as a function of pH.............42 

9. A. Total dissolved iron concentration plotted in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Total 

dissolved iron concentration plotted in relation to sulfate concentration for the low 

concentration range (0 – 10 mg/L iron). ..........................................................................................43 

10. Dissolved iron concentration in relation to total recoverable iron concentration. ..........................44 

11. A. Ferrous iron concentration in relation to total dissolved iron concentration. B. Ferrous 

iron concentration plotted in relation to sulfate concentration. C. Ferric iron concentration 

in relation to sulfate concentration...................................................................................................45 

12. A. Saturation indices for crystalline and disordered siderite as a function of pH for wells 

of circumneutral pH. B. Siderite saturation indices as a function of calcium concentration 

for wells of circumneutral pH. .........................................................................................................46 

13. Manganese concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Dashed line is the best fit of 

Straight Creek debris-fan well waters (except SC4A). ....................................................................47 

14. A. Saturation indices for rhodochrosite in relation to dissolved inorganic carbon. B.

Saturation indices for rhodochrosite in relation to pH. Solid horizontal line represents the 

solubility-product constant for poorly crystalline, disordered rhodochrosite and the dashed 

line represents the solubility-product constant for well-crystallized rhodochrosite.........................48 

15. A. Dissolved aluminum concentration plotted in relation to total recoverable aluminum 

concentrations along with linear fit. B. Dissolved aluminum concentration in relation to 

dissolved sulfate concentration showing linear fit for selected Straight Creek debris-fan 

ground water. C. The logarithm of the free aluminum ion activity in relation to the pH 

with the degree of fit for low pH waters (pH < 5) and the range of solubility limits for 

gibbsite to amorphous Al(OH)3

 for the temperature of the ground-water samples. D.

Amorphous aluminum hydroxide and gibbsite saturation indices in relation to pH........................49 

16. A. Calcium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Solid line shows 

stoichiometric gypsum dissolution ending at solubility equilibrium for gypsum in pure 

water. B. Plot of calcium: sulfate molar ratio in relation to pH. Solid line reflects 1:1 ratio 

of Ca:SO4

 and the dashed lines represents the region where gypsum dissolution is 

predominant. ....................................................................................................................................51 

17. A. Saturation indices for gypsum in relation to calcium concentration. B. Saturation 

indices for gypsum in relation to sulfate concentration. ..................................................................52 

18. Calcite saturation indices in relation to pH.....................................................................................53 

iv
19. A. Fluoride concentration in relation to calcium concentration. Dashed line represents a 

linear fit of Straight Creek debris-fan wells. B. Fluoride concentration in relation to sulfate 

concentration. Dashed line represents a linear fit of Straight Creek debris-fan wells. C.

Fluorite saturation indices in relation to calcium concentration. D. Fluorite saturation 

indices in relation to pH...................................................................................................................55 

20. A. Magnesium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Dashed line represents a 

linear fit of Straight Creek debris-fan wells. Dotted line represents a linear fit of Straight 

Creek surface water. B. Magnesium concentration in relation to calcium concentrations. 

Dashed line represents a linear fit of Straight Creek debris-fan wells. C. Dolomite 

saturation indices in relation to pH. D. Dolomite saturation indices in relation to calcium 

concentration....................................................................................................................................56 

21. A. Strontium concentration in relation to calcium concentration. B. Strontium 

concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. C. Celestite saturation indices in relation 

to calcium concentration. D. Strontianite saturation indices in relation to calcium 

concentration....................................................................................................................................58 

22. Silica concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Linear fit lines are shown for the 

dilution of the Straight Creek debris-fan ground waters and the dilution of the Straight 

Creek surface waters. .......................................................................................................................59 

23. Lithium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration with the dashed line displaying 

the best fit for Straight Creek debris-fan wells. ...............................................................................60 

24. A. Plot of sodium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Sodium

concentration plotted in relation to chloride concentration. C. Lithium concentration 

plotted in relation to sodium concentration......................................................................................61 

25. A. Potassium concentration in relation to sodium concentration. B. Potassium 

concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. ...........................................................................62 

26. A. Zinc concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Zinc concentration in 

relation to manganese concentration. C. Cadmium concentration in relation to zinc 

concentration. D. Copper concentration in relation to zinc concentration. Dashed line 

represents correlation of Straight Creek debris-fan ground waters..................................................64 

27. Copper concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Dotted line shows correlation 

for Straight Creek debris-fan waters. ...............................................................................................65 

28. A. Nickel concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Cobalt concentration in 

relation to nickel concentration. Dashed line shows correlation for Straight Creek debrisfan waters. ........................................................................................................................................66 

29. A. Barium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Barite saturation indices 

in relation to pH. C. Barite saturation indices in relation to barium concentration. D.

Dissolved barium concentration in relation to total recoverable barium concentration...................67 

30. A. Beryllium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Beryllium 

concentration in relation to aluminum concentration. Dashed lines show correlation for 

Straight Creek debris-fan ground waters..........................................................................................68 

31. A. Beryllium concentration plotted in relation to lithium concentration with solid line 

showing correlation for debris-fan ground waters and the dotted line showing correlation 

for Straight Creek surface waters. B. Beryllium concentration plotted in relation to 

fluoride concentration. .....................................................................................................................69 

32. Rare-earth elements normalized against chondrite for phase II wells. ...........................................70 

33. Dissolved organic carbon concentration in relation to pH..............................................................70 

34. Hydrogen isotopic composition in relation to oxygen isotopic composition with a snow - 

rain line from Straight Creek, the Rocky Mountain meteoric water line, and the global 

 meteoric water line...........................................................................................................................71 

v
35. Sulfur isotopic composition of sulfate in relation to oxygen isotopic composition of 

sulfate with the region between the dashed lines showing sulfur composition related to 

 ore FeS2

 and MoS2............................................................................................................................72 

TABLES 

1. Sample types, container preparation and stabilization methods for filtered samples.........................................13 

2. Water-quality parameters, measuring equipment, stabilization criteria, and calibration 

guidelines .......................................................................................................................................15 

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

method references ...............................................................................................................................18 

4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters ...............25 

5. ICP-MS analyses for selected sampling events for Phase II wells.....................................................38 

6. The equations of best fit from the Straight Creek data.......................................................................39 

7. Dissolved gas concentrations, helium isotopic composition, and calculated recharge 

temperature and altitude ......................................................................................................................75 

8. Helium-3 (3He) concentrations associated with different sources, tritiogenic 3He 

concentrations, tritium (3H) concentrations, and ground-water ages..................................................76 

9. Chlorofluorocarbon data.....................................................................................................................78 

vi
Explanation of Abbreviations 

--- not analyzed, measured, or calculated 

< less than

°C degrees Celsius 

cc cubic centimeter 

cc/kg cubic centimeters per kilogram 

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

C.I. charge imbalance 

CVAFS cold-vapor atomic fluorescence 

spectrometry 

DDW double-distilled water 

DIW deionized water 

DOC dissolved organic carbon 

FA filtered-acidified

FU filtered-unacidified

FIAS flow injection analysis system

GC gas chromatography

GFAAS graphite furnace atomic absorption 

spectrometry 

GMWL global meteoric water line 

GW ground water

HDPE high-density polyethylene

HGAAS hydride generation atomic absorption 

spectrometry 

IC ion chromatography

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry 

ICP-OES inductively coupled plasma-optical 

emission spectrometry 

ID identification

ISE ion-selective electrode 

km kilometers 

m meters 

mm millimeter 

meq/L milliequivalents per liter 

mM millimoles per liter 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MS mass spectrometry 

μg/L micrograms per liter 

μm micrometer 

μS/cm microsiemens per centimeter 

μcc/kg micro cubic centimeters per kilogram

N normal

ng/L nanograms per liter 

nm nanometer 

NMED New Mexico Environment

 Department

n number of analyses 

pg/kg picograms per kilogram 

PE polyethylene 

QSP quartz-sericite-pyrite 

RA raw-acidified

REE rare-earth element 

RU raw-unacidified 

RMMWL Rocky Mountain meteoric water line

 standard deviation 

SC specific conductance 

SRWS standard reference water sample 

SW surface water 

THGA transversely heated graphite atomizer 

TOC total organic carbon

TU tritium units 

UV ultra-violet

v/v volume per volume 

vii
viii

CONVERSION FACTORS, WATER-QUALITY ABBREVIATIONS, AND 

DATUMS 

SI to Inch/Pound 

Multiply By To obtain 

 Length 

micrometer (μm) 0.00003937 inch (in.) 

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.) 

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) 

 Area 

square meter (m2

) 0.0002471 acre 

 Volume 

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

liter (L) 2.113 pint (pt) 

cubic meter (m3

) 264.2 gallon (gal) 

liter (L) 61.02 cubic inch (in3

) 

 Mass 

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 

Kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound avoirdupois (lb) 

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32 

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

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

(μg/L), nanograms per liter (ng/L), or mM (millimoles per liter). 

Coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum 27 – Continental United States (NAD27-CONUS) 
1

QUESTA BASELINE AND PRE-MINING GROUND-WATER QUALITY 

INVESTIGATION. 14. INTERPRETATION OF GROUND-WATER 

GEOCHEMISTRY IN CATCHMENTS OTHER THAN THE STRAIGHT CREEK 

CATCHMENT, RED RIVER VALLEY, TAOS COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, 2002-

2003 

By D. Kirk Nordstrom, R. Blaine McCleskey, Andrew G. Hunt, and Cheryl A. Naus 

ABSTRACT 

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the New Mexico Environment Department, is 

investigating the pre-mining ground-water chemistry at the Molycorp molybdenum mine in the Red River 

Valley, New Mexico. The primary approach is to determine the processes controlling ground-water 

chemistry at an unmined, off-site but proximal analog. The Straight Creek catchment, chosen for this 

purpose, consists of the same Tertiary-age quartz-sericite-pyrite altered andesite and rhyolitic volcanics as 

the mine site. Straight Creek is about 5 kilometers east of the eastern boundary of the mine site. Both 

Straight Creek and the mine site are at approximately the same altitude, face south, and have the same 

climatic conditions. 

Thirteen wells in the proximal analog drainage catchment were sampled for ground-water 

chemistry. Eleven wells were installed for this study and two existing wells at the Advanced Waste-Water 

Treatment (AWWT) facility were included in this study. Eight wells were sampled outside the Straight 

Creek catchment: one each in the Hansen, Hottentot, and La Bobita debris fans, four in a well cluster in 

upper Capulin Canyon (three in alluvial deposits and one in bedrock), and an existing well at the U.S. 

Forest Service Questa Ranger Station in Red River alluvial deposits. Two surface waters from the Hansen 

Creek catchment and two from the Hottentot drainage catchment also were sampled for comparison to 

ground-water compositions. In this report, these samples are evaluated to determine if the geochemical 

interpretations from the Straight Creek ground-water geochemistry could be extended to other ground 

waters in the Red River Valley, including the mine site. 

Total-recoverable major cations and trace metals and dissolved major cations, selected trace 

metals, anions, alkalinity; and iron-redox species were determined for all surface- and ground-water 

samples. Rare-earth elements and low-level As, Bi, Mo, Rb, Re, Sb, Se, Te, Th, U, Tl, V, W, Y, and Zr 

were determined on selected samples. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC), mercury, sulfate stable isotope 

composition (δ

34S and δ18O of sulfate), stable isotope composition of water (δ2

H and δ

18O of water) were 

measured for selected samples. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and 3

He and 3H were measured for age dating 

on selected samples. 

Linear regressions from the Straight Creek ground-water data were used to compare ground-water 

chemistry trends in non-Straight Creek ground waters with Straight Creek alluvial ground-water 

chemistry dilution trends. Most of the solute trends for the ground waters are similar to those for Straight 

Creek but there are some notable exceptions. In lithologies that contain substantial pyrite mineralization, 

acid waters form with similar chemistries to those in Straight Creek and all the waters tend to be calciumsulfate type. Hottentot ground waters contain substantially lower calcium concentrations relative to those 

in Straight Creek. This anomaly results from the exposure of rhyolite porphyry in the Hottentot scar and 

weathering zone. The rhyolite contains less calcium than the altered andesites and tuffs in the Straight 

Creek catchment and probably does not have the abundant gypsum and calcite. The Hansen ground 

waters have reached gypsum saturation and have similar calcium, magnesium, and beryllium 

concentrations as Straight Creek ground waters but have lower concentrations of fluoride, manganese, 

zinc, cobalt, nickel, copper, and lithium. Lower concentrations of elements related to mineralization at 
2

Hansen likely reflect the more distal location of Hansen with respect to intrusive centers that provided the 

heat source for hydrothermal alteration. 

The other ground water with water chemistry trends that are outside the Straight Creek trends was 

from an alluvial well from Capulin Canyon (CC2A). Although it had pH values near 6.0 and most major 

ions similar to the other Capulin Canyon ground waters, it contained high concentrations of fluoride, 

manganese, aluminum, iron, beryllium, and zinc similar to a mineralized zone and had low alkalinity. 

Saturation indices indicate that solubility constraints continue to provide upper limits on some 

solute concentrations. Siderite, ferrihydrite, calcite, gypsum, rhodochrosite, and barite provide limits for 

concentrations of Fe(II), Fe(III), Ca, Mn, and Ba, respectively. Beryllium concentrations may be subject 

to an upper concentration limit by the solubility of Be(OH)2

 but these concentrations probably are not 

reached in the ground waters. 

Ground-water isotopic data were consistent with the meteoric water line estimated for 

precipitation in the Red River Valley, indicating that all the ground waters examined in this study were 

meteoric, recent in origin, and showed no substantial indication of evaporation. Tritium-helium-3 and 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) age dating were partially successful. Generally, dates were consistent with 

location and depth of wells. Two samples had good agreement between CFC dates and tritium-helium 

dates, whereas a third reflected either substantial mixing with younger or older waters or complications 

arising from excess helium-4. The well at La Bobita appeared to contain a large component of modern 

water, most likely as a result of mixing with water from Red River alluvial deposits. 

INTRODUCTION 

In April 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the New Mexico Environment 

Department began a cooperative study to infer the pre-mining ground-water chemistry at the Molycorp 

molybdenum mine site in the Red River Valley (fig. 1). This study was prompted by the Water Quality 

Act, under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, which requires a mine 

operator to develop and complete an approved closure plan. The plan must prevent the exceedence of (1) 

ground-water quality standards set forth in New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission Regulations 

(§20.6.2.3103 NMAC) or (2) natural background concentrations. 

The Molycorp molybdenum mine has been in operation since the 1920s, and no ground-water 

measurements or chemical analyses were obtained prior to mining. To infer the pre-mining ground-water 

chemistry, analogous off-site areas were studied. These analog sites are often disturbed by other nonmining, anthropogenic activities including exploration drilling, road construction, power and telephone 

line construction, construction and maintenance by the forest service, and residential, commercial, and 

municipal development. The existing conditions of these analog sites are referred to as “baseline 

conditions” which, when combined with relevant data and interpretation for mined areas, pre-mining 

conditions of the mine site can be inferred. 

The Straight Creek catchment (fig. 1) was selected as the primary analog site for this study 

because of its similar terrain and geology to the mine site, accessibility, permission for well construction, 

and minimal anthropogenic activity. Other sites are Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek catchments, an 

un-named catchment east of the mine property (La Bobita), and Capulin Canyon (fig. 1). These four 

catchments were chosen to represent the range of natural conditions applicable to the mine site. Like 

Straight Creek, the other catchments are analogous to parts of the mine site but have had little or no 

impact from mining activities. 

As part of this study, 29 observation wells and piezometers were installed in the Red River 

Valley. The wells and piezometers were drilled, constructed, and developed in three phases. Eight 

observation wells were installed in the Straight Creek catchment during Phase I of the drilling program 

(November 2001 through February 2002). Eleven wells were installed in analog areas during Phase II 

(October 2002 to January 2003). Observation well installation and development, lithologic and 

geophysical logging, and water-level data collection were described by Naus and others (2005) and P.J. 

Blanchard and others (USGS, written commun., 2004). 
3

This interpretation of major- and trace-element concentrations for ground waters outside the 

Straight Creek catchment has helped to determine to what extent the Straight Creek results serve as a 

useful analog for estimating the pre-mining ground-water quality at the Questa molybdenum mine site. 

Purpose and Scope 

The purpose of this report is to provide water-quality data for samples from the phase II wells and 

to interpret the ground-water geochemistry in sites other than Straight Creek. Methods and results of 

ground- and surface-water sample collection conducted from February 2002 to October 2003 and 

interpretation of Straight Creek water chemistry were discussed by Naus and others (2005). This report 

utilizes the same approach as that by Naus and others (2005) for the interpretations of the Straight Creek 

data, and trends from Straight Creek are used as a framework for interpreting ground-water geochemistry 

in other catchments. 

Physical Description of Study Area 

The Red River, a tributary to the Rio Grande within the Carson National Forest, is located in Taos 

County in north-central New Mexico (fig. 1). The terrain is rugged with steep slopes and V-shaped 

valleys. The main area of study within the Red River Valley extends from the town of Red River to the 

USGS streamflow-gaging station near Questa (08265000, Red River near Questa) and includes 

approximately 101 square kilometers of the drainage basin and approximately 19 kilometers of river 

reach. The Molycorp, Inc. Questa molybdenum mine, referred to as the mine site, is located east of the 

Ranger Station on the north side of State Highway No. 38 and the Red River. The mine site is 

approximately 10 square kilometers in area (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2001) and it 

encompasses three tributary valleys to the Red River: Capulin Canyon, Goat Hill Gulch, and Sulphur 

Gulch, from west to east respectively (fig. 1). 

Mining activities produced extensive underground workings and an open pit approximately 900 

meters in diameter (covering approximately 0.7 square kilometers) near or in Sulphur Gulch (URS, 2001). 

Waste-rock piles cover steep slopes on the north side of the Red River between Capulin Canyon and 

Spring Gulch (a tributary valley of Sulphur Gulch). Hydrothermally altered bedrock (alteration scars) is 

found in Capulin, Goat Hill, Sulphur, Hansen, Straight, and Hottentot drainages (fig. 1). Weathering of 

extensively altered rock has resulted in steep, highly erosive, sparsely vegetated “scars” that are clearly 

visible from the ground and in aerial photographs. 
Figure 1. Map showing the location of the mine site, wells sampled, and Hottentot surface water samples and the study area within the Red River valley. 
Climate and Vegetation 

The Red River Valley is located within a semi-arid desert that receives precipitation throughout 

the year and sustains moderate biodiversity. Between 1915 and 2002, the annual average temperature was 

4 °C and the annual average precipitation and snowfall were approximately 50 and 371 centimeters, 

respectively. Daily temperatures generally fluctuated by 18 °C throughout the year (Western Regional 

Climate Center, 2003). 

Climate and vegetation vary greatly within short distances, primarily because of differences in 

topography. Topography in the study area is steep, rising rapidly from the basin floor altitude of 

approximately 2,270 meters at the streamflow-gaging station near Questa to ridge crests at altitudes 

exceeding 3,200 meters. Orographic effects of mountainous topography lead to precipitation on the 

windward slopes and localized storms within tributary valleys. Runoff from thunderstorms is responsible 

for mass wasting in hydrothermally altered areas, producing debris flows that form debris fans at the 

mouths of most tributaries to the Red River (K. Vincent, USGS, written commun., 2003). Winter 

snowpack contributes to ground-water recharge through snowmelt infiltration. 

Prevalent vegetation in the Red River Valley is representative of the following altitude zones: 

piñon-juniper woodland (1,800-2,300 meters in altitude), mixed conifer woodland (2,300-2,700 meters in 

altitude), and spruce-fir woodland (2,700-3,700 meters in altitude) (Knight, 1990). Willows, cottonwoods, 

shrubs, perennial grasses, and flowering vegetation are common near the banks of the Red River. Widely 

spaced piñon pines and junipers extend from the river. Gains in altitude give rise to an abundance of 

ponderosa and limber pines, while Douglas- and white-fir are found at higher altitudes. This typical 

mountain community, while diverse, is dominated by ponderosa pines (L. Gough, USGS, oral commun., 

2003). 

Hydrogeology 

Ground water passes through, and geochemically interacts with, various earth materials in the 

Red River Valley. Major rock types, minerals, water-bearing units, and generalized aquifer and groundwater-chemistry information are described in this section. The geology and mineralogy of the Red River 

Valley have been described by Schilling (1956), Rehrig (1969), Lipman (1981), and Meyer and 

Leonardson (1990, 1997). Information in this section draws largely upon these sources, with additional 

information from Ludington and others (2004) and other USGS scientists participating in this study. 

The Red River Valley is located along the southern edge of the Questa caldera and contains 

complex structural features (Caine, 2003) and extensive hydrothermal alteration. Volcanic and intrusive 

rocks of Tertiary age are underlain by metamorphic rocks of Precambrian age that were intruded by 

granitic stocks. The volcanic rocks are primarily intermediate to felsic composition (andesite to rhyolite); 

granites and porphyries have intruded the volcanics and are the apparent source of hydrothermal fluids 

and molybdenite mineralization. 

The mineral deposits in the Red River Valley are considered Climax-type deposits that are 

associated with silica- and fluorine-rich rhyolite porphyry and granitic intrusives. Climax-type 

hydrothermal alteration produces zones of alteration assemblages with a central zone of fluorine-rich 

potassic alteration, a quartz-sericite-pyrite (QSP) zone (often with a carbonate-fluorite veinlet overprint), 

and a propylitic zone. In the potassic zone, rocks are altered to a mixture of biotite, potassium feldspar, 

quartz, fluorite, and molybdenite; these rocks usually contain less than 3 percent sulfide (including 

molybdenite). Quartz-sericite-pyrite (QSP) alteration, as the name implies, produces a mixture of quartz, 

pyrite (as much as 10 percent), and fine-grained mica (sericite) or illite. Chlorite, epidote, albite, and 

calcite typically are found in the propylitic zones. 

Ore deposits in the Red River Valley contain quartz, molybdenite, pyrite, fluorite, calcite, 

manganiferous calcite, dolomite, ankerite, and rhodochrosite. Lesser amounts of galena, sphalerite, 

chalcopyrite, magnetite, and hematite also are present. The hydrothermal alteration related to 

mineralization overprints an older, regional propylitic alteration. In these areas, rocks can contain a 
6

mixture of quartz, pyrite, and illite clays replacing feldspars, chlorite, carbonates, and epidote. Abundant 

minerals in waste rock produced by mining activities include chlorite, gypsum, illite, illite-smectite, 

jarosite, kaolinite, and muscovite (Gale and Thompson, 2001). 

Andesite volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks are present in most scar-area bedrock outcrops and are 

the dominant bedrock units in the Straight Creek, South and Southeast Straight Creek, South Goat Hill, 

Sulphur Gulch, and Southwest Hansen scars. Amalia Tuff, a mildly alkaline, rhyolitic tuff, is the 

dominant rock type in the Goat Hill and Hansen scars, and quartz latite porphyry is the main rock type in 

the June Bug and Southeast Hottentot scars. Rhyolite porphyry is the main rock type in the Hottentot scar, 

and quartz latite and rhyolite porphyries form the hill slopes of many scars. Advanced argillic alteration 

was identified in the Hansen and Hottentot scars and in areas southwest of the Molycorp open pit. 

Propylitized andesite bedrock is present in the La Bobita drainage, an area that does not contain alteration 

scars. 

Samples collected from a weathering profile in the Straight Creek scar were studied in detail to 

characterize the mineralogic variations in a weathered profile. Unweathered bedrock exposed in the creek 

bottom is propylitized andesite with a QSP overprint. Depending on location within the weathering 

profile, altered rocks contain variable amounts of quartz, illite, chlorite, and plagioclase feldspar, with 

smaller amounts of pyrite, gypsum, rutile, jarosite, and goethite (Livo and Clark, 2002; Ludington and 

others, 2004). 

Scar-area bedrock outcrops are composed of andesite volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks, rhyolitic 

tuff, quartz latite, and rhyolite porphyry. The dominant alteration type in all scars is QSP; carbonates also 

are found in all scar areas. Most of the andesite and quartz latite has been propylitically altered and 

contains plagioclase feldspar and chlorite, with fewer QSP alteration minerals. Rhyolite porphyry and tuff 

do not seem to have been substantially affected by propylitization. In Straight Creek, unweathered 

bedrock exposed in the creek bottom is propylitized andesite with a QSP overprint. Other dominant rock 

types include rhyolite porphyry and rhyolitic tuff. Depending on location within the weathering profile, 

altered rocks contain variable amounts of quartz, illite, chlorite, and plagioclase feldspar, with smaller 

amounts of pyrite, gypsum, rutile, jarosite, and goethite (Livo and Clark, 2002; Ludington and others, 

2004). 

The three major water-bearing units in the Red River Valley are fractured and weathered bedrock, 

debris fan deposits, and Red River alluvial deposits. Bedrock constitutes the largest aquifer in the study 

area in terms of rock mass, but probably contains only small amounts of ground water because of low 

porosity and hydraulic conductivity that are controlled by fractures. Although debris fan deposits and Red 

River alluvial deposits are restricted in areal extent and thickness compared to bedrock aquifers, they 

contain most of the ground water in the valley. Debris fans and the Red River alluvial deposits are less 

than 300 meters wide and less than 60 meters thick (K. Vincent, USGS, written commun., 2003). 

Debris fans are composed of sediments transported from their watersheds, which are tributary to 

the Red River. Where the tributary watersheds contain scars, the debris fans are large and active and 

contain both coarse- and fine-grained debris fan sediments. The chemistry of these sediments reflects the 

chemistry of their rapidly eroding and altered erosion scars. In contrast, Red River alluvial deposits often 

consist of well-washed sandy gravel and are composed of several lithologies found in the entire Red 

River basin. The Red River aggraded behind the largest debris fans during the Quaternary Period. Thus 

water flowing in the shallow aquifers likely passes alternately through Red River alluvial deposits and 

debris fan deposits (K. Vincent, USGS, written commun., 2003). 

Although chemical analyses of ground water were not obtained prior to mining in the Red River 

Valley, a substantial amount of post-mining ground-water data are available (LoVetere and others, 2004). 

Most wells in the Red River Valley were installed to monitor water quality downgradient from mining 

operations (waste rock and tailings piles) and (or) scar areas. Bedrock, debris fan, and alluvial ground 

water are dominantly of the calcium-sulfate type. 
7

Surface Water 

The Red River originates at an altitude of approximately 3,700 meters near Wheeler Peak and 

flows roughly 56 kilometers to its confluence with the Rio Grande River at an altitude of 2,000 meters. 

Total basin drainage area is 300 square kilometers; the drainage area upstream from the Questa Ranger 

Station gaging station is 180 square kilometers. Peak streamflow usually occurs from late May to midJune, with snowmelt-related flows beginning in late March and increasing through mid-April. Summer 

thunderstorms are prevalent in July and August. Between 1930 and 2001, the mean annual discharge of 

the Red River at the Questa Ranger Station gage ranged from 0.4 to 3.0 cubic meters per second (m3

/s), 

while the average daily discharge ranged from 0.1 to 21 m3

/s with an average of 1.3 m3/s (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2004a). 

Springs and shallow alluvial ground water discharge to the Red River, rendering it a gaining 

stream over much of its length (Smolka and Tague, 1989). Between the town of Red River and the gaging 

station near Questa, there are roughly 25 ephemeral seeps and springs along the banks of the Red River 

and approximately 20 intermittent seeps and springs in tributary drainages on the north side of the river 

(South Pass Resources, Inc., 1995; Steffen Robertson & Kirsten, 1995; Robertson GeoConsultants, Inc., 

2001). Most seeps and springs along the north side of the Red River are acidic (pH 2-4) with high specific 

conductance, dissolved solids, and metal concentrations. Aluminum hydroxide often precipitates from 

springs downgradient from scar and mined areas on the north side of the Red River, affecting the color 

and turbidity of the river (Vail Engineering, Inc. 1989). 

Mining History 

A pair of prospectors first discovered molybdenite in Sulphur Gulch in 1914 although it was not 

identified as such until 1916. Underground mining operations occurred between 1919 and 1958; by 1954, 

there were over 56 kilometers of underground mine workings (Robertson Geoconsultants, 2000; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). Molycorp began removing the rock overburden at Sulphur 

Gulch in 1964, and the first molybdenite ore was extracted from the open pit in 1965. Overburden and 

waste rock from open-pit mining was deposited at several locations on the south-facing slopes north of 

the Red River between Capulin Canyon and Spring Gulch (Robertson Geoconsultants, 2000; URS, 2001). 

Tailings were transported by pipeline from the mine to the tailings facility in the Rio Grande Valley near 

Questa. Water used in the mill operation was produced from the Red River, the Red River alluvial 

aquifer, and water collected from dewatering the mine (URS, 2002). 

In 1983, Molycorp ceased open-pit mining and initiated a new phase of underground mining in 

Goat Hill Gulch. Roughly 3 x 1011 kilograms of waste rock were deposited between 1964 and 1983 

(Steffen Robertson & Kirsten, 1995; Slifer, 1996; Robertson GeoConsultants, Inc., 2000). Low market 

values for molybdenum caused the mine to shut down between 1986 and 1989 and again in 1992. From 

1992 to 1995, while the underground mine was shut down, pumping of ground water from the 

underground mine stopped and the workings were allowed to flood. After mine dewatering and repair, 

production resumed in late 1996 and development of a new ore body began in 1998 (Molycorp, Inc., 

n.d.). 

Acknowledgments 

The authors are grateful to the project advisory committee (New Mexico Environment 

Department, Molycorp, Inc., and Amigos Bravos) for their contributions to the design and 

implementation of the study. Advice and cooperation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6 and the U.S. Forest Service are gratefully acknowledged. The authors also acknowledge Jim 

Ball and Ann Maest (USGS) for providing extensive technical assistance in development of the groundwater sampling plan. 
8

METHODS 

Water-chemistry data were collected to determine geochemical signatures of solute sources in the 

aquifer materials and identify processes contributing to the chemistry of ground water. Surface- and 

ground-water samples were collected for determination of concentrations of total recoverable major 

cations and selected trace metals; dissolved major cations, selected trace metals, and rare-earth elements; 

anions and alkalinity; dissolved-iron and arsenic redox species; dissolved organic carbon; dissolved 

mercury; dissolved sulfide, water and sulfur isotopes, and dissolved helium, tritium, and 

chlorofluorocarbons. This section describes sampling locations and methods used to collect and analyze 

samples. 

Sampling Sites 

Well Locations 

The locations of wells installed for this study (figs. 1-5) were chosen to provide information about 

ground-water geochemistry in settings that are analogous to the mined area. Observation wells in the 

Straight Creek catchment (fig. 2) were located along the hypothesized path of ground-water flow in debris 

fan from the upper part of the catchment to near its mouth where it flows into the Red River. Wells SC2B, 

SC3A, SC3B, SC4A and SC6A were grouped to facilitate conducting an aquifer test in the Straight Creek 

catchment. Six of the observation wells (SC1A / SC1B, SC3A / SC3B, and SC5A / SC5B) are debris 

fan/bedrock well pairs. Well SC2B was intended to be completed within debris fan deposits, but this well 

was screened within bedrock because the debris fan material was not saturated. Wells SC4A, SC6A, 

SC7A, and SC8A were completed within debris fan deposits. Red River alluvial deposits probably mix 

with debris fan deposits in the vicinity of wells SC5A and SC5B, SC7A and SC8A. 

The relatively higher rate of ground-water flow within the Red River alluvial deposits compared 

with the rate of flow within the Straight Creek debris fan was expected to cause acidic water to flow 

southwestward as it merged with near-neutral pH water in the Red River alluvial deposits. Wells SC7A 

and SC8A were installed in the Red River alluvial deposits during Phase II to intercept this ground-water 

mixing zone, and well SC7A was screened across an interval of approximately 27 meters to facilitate 

water-sample collection at selected depths within the mixing zone. 

Wells in the Hottentot Creek (fig. 3) and Hansen Creek (fig. 4) catchments were screened in the 

debris fan from scar-affected drainages. Water-chemistry data from these wells, combined with data from 

Straight Creek, permitted monitoring and evaluation of a range of conditions in debris fans associated 

with scars. The observation well in the La Bobita campground area (fig. 4) was screened in 

unconsolidated deposits not associated with a scar. 

To evaluate the comparability of analog sites upstream from the mine to conditions on the mine 

site, additional data from an onsite analog area were required. Capulin Canyon is located on Molycorp 

property but appears to be the least perturbed by mining-related activities. Paired wells 

(bedrock/unconsolidated deposits) in Capulin Canyon (fig. 5) provided information about ground-water 

chemistry in areas outside the influence of mining in close proximity to the mine site. 

Surface Water 

Surface-water samples were collected from the Hansen Creek (fig. 4) and Hottentot Creek (fig. 

1). The surface-water data are reported here so that their influence on the ground-water chemistry can be 

demonstrated. Flow of surface water in Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek is intermittent and generally 

disappears underground before it reaches the Red River. In each of the catchments, surface samples were 

collected as low in altitude in the catchment as possible, or just before the water disappears underground, 

and fairly high in altitude in the drainages. 
Figure 2. Map showing locations of monitoring wells in the Straight Creek catchment. 

9
Figure 3. Map showing location of Hottentot Creek well. Surface water samples collected upstream of map area. 

10
Figure 4. Map showing locations of the Hansen Creek, La Bobita, and Phase III wells and surface water sampling sites. 

11
Figure 5. Map showing locations of wells in Capulin Canyon. 

12
13

Water Sample Collection 

Ground- and surface-water samples were routinely collected for determination of concentrations 

of total recoverable major cations and selected trace metals and dissolved major cations, selected trace 

metals, anions, alkalinity, and iron-redox species. A total recoverable sample is unfiltered and acidified 

(RA) with nitric acid and is comprised of dissolved constituents and suspended material. Dissolved 

concentrations are operationally defined as the concentration of constituents that pass through a filter 

(either 0.45, 0.2, or 0.1 μm in this study). Concentrations of rare-earth elements were determined on 

selected filtered samples only. Samples were collected for determination of dissolved organic carbon 

(DOC), sulfide (H2S), and mercury concentrations and sulfur isotopic (δ

34S and δ18O of sulfate) and stable 

water isotopic (δ

2

H and δ

18O) compositions during selected samplings. The types and sizes of bottles used 

and cleaning, filtration, and preservation methods for each sample type are presented in table 1. One set of 

ground-water samples was collected for helium-3/tritium and chlorofluorocarbon age dating. 

Procedures for collecting samples from observation wells and surface water were modified 

slightly from the USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 1997-99). Sampling procedures are described in detail in the project field sampling plans (C.A. 

Naus, written commun., 2001). This section summarizes procedures used to collect water samples and 

describes on-site measurements for monitoring water-quality. 

Table 1. Sample types, container preparation and stabilization methods for filtered samples 

[HCl, hydrochloric acid; HDPE, high-density polyethylene HNO3, nitric acid; H2SO4, sulfuric acid; K2Cr2O7, potassium dichromate; mL, 

milliliters; N, normal; v/v, volume per volume; %, percent] 

Sample type(s) Storage container and preparation 

Stabilization treatment in addition to 

refrigeration 

Cations and trace metals 

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

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

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

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

, Sm, 

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

Yb, Zn, and Zr) 

Polyethylene bottles, soaked in 5% HCl 

and rinsed 3 times with distilled water 

1% (v/v) concentrated HNO3

 added 

(redistilled or trace metal grade) 

Mercury (Hg) Borosilicate glass bottles, soaked with 

5% HNO3 and rinsed 3 times with 

deionized water 

5 mL of concentrated redistilled HNO3

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

K2

Cr2O7 per 125 mL of sample (added 

in the laboratory) 

Iron and arsenic redox species 

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

Opaque polyethylene bottles, soaked in 

5% HCl and rinsed 3 times with 

distilled water 

1% (v/v) HCl added (redistilled or trace 

metal grade) 

Major anions, alkalinity, and density 

(Br, Cl, F, HCO3

, NO3, and SO4) 

Polyethylene bottles filled with 

distilled water and allowed to stand for 

24 hours, then rinsed 3 times with 

distilled water 

None 

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) Baked glass bottle None 
14

Ground Water Collection 

For ground waters, both unfiltered (RA) and filtered samples were routinely collected. Disposable 

capsule filters with a nominal pore size of 0.45 micrometer (μm) were used for routine ground-water 

filtration. Because fine colloidal material may pass through a 0.45-μm filter membrane (Kennedy and 

others, 1974; 1976; Laxen and Chandler, 1982), duplicate samples were collected from selected Phase I 

wells (Naus and others, 2005) and filtered through a plate filter with a 0.1-μm membrane. Filters were 

connected inline with the sample tubing to collect samples directly from the well. 

Dedicated bladder pumps designed specifically for purging and sampling at low flow rates were 

installed in observation wells located in the Straight Creek, Capulin Canyon, and Hottentot Creek 

drainages. The pumps were constructed of PVC with Teflon®

 bladders and equipped with dedicated 

discharge tubing for collection of samples. Because observation wells in Hansen and La Bobita drainages 

did not have a large enough saturated screened interval to accommodate dedicated pumps, a portable, 

low-flow bladder pump was used to collect samples from these wells. For Hansen and La Bobita wells, 

tubing was dedicated sample collection, and samples were collected approximately 24 hours after pump 

and tubing installation. Both dedicated and portable pumps were operated using compressed gas and an 

electronic bladder-pump control unit. 

The USGS standard procedure for purging (Gibs and Wilde, 1999) requires monitoring waterquality parameters to determine when water withdrawn from the well is representative of water flowing 

through the aquifer and thus when sampling should begin. A sufficient volume has been purged from the 

well when the variability in sequential field measurements is stable within prescribed criteria. Waterquality parameters measured for this study were pH, specific conductance, redox potential (Eh), dissolved 

oxygen, temperature, and turbidity. Sensors for all measurements except turbidity were housed in a 250-

mL in-line flow-through cell. Water-quality-parameter measurement equipment (Naus and others, 2005), 

stabilization criteria, and guidelines for instrument calibration are listed in table 2. In general, 

manufacturers’ recommendations and USGS guidelines (Wilde and Radtke, 1998) for testing, calibration, 

and calibration stability checks were followed. 

Using a target rate of less than 0.5 liter per minute, pump flow rates were optimized during the 

first several months of sampling and were kept as constant as possible thereafter. The water level 

(drawdown) was continuously monitored (using and water-level tape) during purging to avoid dewatering 

the well screen, if applicable. The following information was recorded to document well purging 

activities: pumping rate, drawdown, and volume purged; water-quality parameter values (table 2); visual 

evaluation of purge-water turbidity, particulates, and floc; any deviations from standard well-purging 

procedures and anomalies; and difficulties and adjustments. 

Dissolved-oxygen and temperature measurements made in the flow-through cell may not be 

representative of in situ ground-water properties. The sensitivity of these water-quality parameters to the 

measurement methods used and a technique used to test the degree of this sensitivity are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. 

During each cycle of the bladder pump, water pumped through the well discharge tubing enters 

the base of the flow-through cell, flows past the sensors, and exits from the top of the flow-through cell. 

Each pump cycle consists of refill and discharge periods during which water enters and is expelled from 

the pump bladder. The lengths of refill and discharge time periods were specified for each well on the 

basis of pump flow-rate optimization (Naus and others, 2005). For all wells, there is a time lag between 

discharge cycles, and although the flow-through cell is always full, water does not continuously flow past 

the sensors. Therefore, measured dissolved-oxygen concentrations fluctuate with the pump cycles, and the 

recorded value depends on when the value was recorded during the cycle. Therefore, each time waterquality parameters were recorded, the dissolved-oxygen concentrations were observed for a complete 

pump cycle, and the highest and lowest concentrations were recorded. The lowest concentrations 

correspond to the flow of water past the dissolved-oxygen sensor and are most representative of actual 

dissolved-oxygen concentrations. 
Table 2. Water-quality parameters, measuring equipment, stabilization criteria, and calibration guidelines 

[±, plus or minus; >, greater than; <, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; Eh, redox 

potential; emf, electromotive force, mV, millivolts; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit] 

Parameter Equipment used1

Stabilization criteria 

(variability should be within 

the value shown) 

Calibration guidelines 

pH Beckman 265 pH meter or 

Orion model 1230 multiparameter meter with 

Orion Ross 815600, Orion 

9107 Triode, or WTW SenTix 

41-3 electrode 

±0.1 pH unit1 Calibrate each morning. Check 

calibration at each sample site; 

recalibrate if not within 0.05 

standard pH unit. 

Specific 

conductance 

Orion model 1230 multiparameter meter with 

Orion 013010 DuraProbe or 

WTW TetraCon 325 

conductivity cell 

≤ 100 μS/cm: ±5 percent1

> 100 μS/cm: ±3 percent1

Calibrate each morning. 

Eh2Orion model 1230 multiparameter meter with 

Orion 96-78-00 or WTW 

SenTix ORP electrode 

±10 mv or <10 mV drift in 10 

minutes 

Check using ZoBell’s solution at the 

start and end of each trip (more 

often if necessary). (ZoBell, 1946; 

Nordstrom, 1977). 

Dissolved 

oxygen 

Orion model 1230 multiparameter meter with 

Orion 083010 or WTW CellOx 

325 galvanic dissolved-oxygen 

probe 

±0.3 milligram per liter1

Calibrate each morning. Inspect 

electrode for bubbles under 

membrane at each sample site; 

replace if necessary. 

Temperature Thermistors included in pH 

electrodes or dissolved-oxygen 

probes 

±0.2 degrees Celsius1Calibrate annually; check calibration 

quarterly. 

Turbidity3

Hach 2100P turbidimeter ±10 percent1 if turbidity is 

below 10 NTU; cease 

monitoring turbidity when 

turbidity is below 10 NTU 

Calibrate with a primary standard on 

a quarterly basis. 

Check calibration against secondary 

standards at the beginning of each 

trip. 1

 U. S. Geological Survey (Wilde and Radtke, 1998). 

2

 Electromotive force (emf) was measure and Eh was then calculated. Eh should not be a limiting factor in determining stability prior to 

monitoring. 

3

 Turbidity criteria should not be too stringent to avoid excessive purge times and should not be a limiting factor in determining stability prior 

to monitoring. 
16

The dissolved-oxygen sensor is placed immediately adjacent to the well discharge tubing inlet at 

the base of the cell, which minimizes the possibility of measuring dissolved-oxygen concentration in 

water that has contacted air. However, head space can exist at the top of the flow-through cell and could 

affect these dissolved-oxygen concentrations. To test the effect of head space, dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations were remeasured after sample collection by placing the sensor and well discharge tubing in 

a graduated cylinder and allowing the cylinder to overflow, thereby eliminating headspace. The lowest 

recorded flow-through cell dissolved-oxygen concentrations were compared with the dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations measured in the graduated cylinder. 

The temperature of water in the flow-through cell could be affected by air temperature, especially 

during summer and winter months. Water temperature also was measured in the flow-through cell during 

purging and in the graduated cylinder during dissolved-oxygen tests (or in a beaker when no dissolvedoxygen tests were conducted), and the temperatures were compared. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

and temperatures measured in the graduated cylinder are considered more accurate because the graduated 

cylinder method eliminates the possibility of ground water contacting oxygen in the head space in the 

flow-through cell and of air temperature warming or cooling water in the flow-through cell. 

Equipment in contact with water from more than one well during a sampling trip (non-dedicated 

equipment) was decontaminated in the laboratory prior to each sampling trip and in the field between well 

visits. The portable bladder pump was decontaminated using one of two methods. Prior to May 2003, the 

pump was cleaned by disassembling the pump, soaking the pump housing and fittings in (and scrubbing 

with, if necessary) non-phosphate laboratory detergent, and rinsing with deionized water (DIW). 

Beginning in May 2003, the portable pump was decontaminated by disassembling the pump and rinsing 

with sulfuric acid and DIW. Bladders were dedicated to each well and did not require decontamination. 

The electric water-level tape was decontaminated in the field by spraying it with DIW and in the 

laboratory by soaking it in (and scrubbing with, if necessary) non-phosphate laboratory detergent and 

rinsing with DIW. Equipment that did not contact sample water did not require decontamination between 

well visits unless its exterior became visibly dirty. Dedicated pumps and tubing required no 

decontamination. 

Surface Water Collection 

Surface waters were collected by pumping water from as close to the center of flow as possible 

using a peristaltic pump. Dissolved sample splits were filtered through either a 142-mm diameter plastic 

filter holder (Kennedy and others, 1976) containing a 0.1-μm pore size mixed cellulose-ester filter 

membrane or a disposable capsule filters having a nominal pore size of 0.45 μm. A few samples were 

collected by filtering samples through syringe filters having a pore size of either 0.2 or 0.45 μm. For those 

samples that were syringed filtered, a 4-L grab sample was collected from the source from which the 

syringe was filled. Total recoverable samples were unfiltered and the bottles were filled using a peristaltic 

pump or from the 4-L grab sample. 

Laboratory Methods 

For routine sampling, stable water isotope samples were analyzed by the USGS Stable Isotope 

Laboratory in Reston, Virginia. Sulfur isotope samples were analyzed by the USGS Crustal Imaging and 

Characterization Team Laboratory in Denver, Colorado. Analyses of all other samples were performed by 

the USGS Branch of Regional Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. Dissolved inorganic carbon 

concentrations were calculated using the program WATEQ4F (Ball and Nordstrom, 1991). For samples 

collected for age dating of water, the USGS Noble Gas Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, analyzed 

dissolved-gas (CFC) and tritium samples. Chlorofluorocarbon determinations were performed by the 

USGS Chlorofluorocarbon Laboratory in Reston, Virginia. 

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

references are summarized in table 3. Estimates of detection limits are assumed equal to 3 times the 

standard deviation of several dozen measurements of the constituent in a blank solution treated as a 
17

sample. The accuracy and precision typically result in a maximum of 2 significant figures; however, 3 

significant figures are reported for concentrations of constituents greater than 100 times the detection 

limit to avoid the loss of information used for calculations and plots (Silva and other, 1995). 

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

Chemical Society. Double-distilled or de-ionized water and re-distilled or trace-metal-grade acids were 

used in all preparations. Samples were diluted as necessary to bring the analyte concentration within the 

optimal range of the method. Each sample was analyzed in at least duplicate for each dilution for all 

constituents. Reagent blanks were analyzed as a means to detect contamination from reagents used to 

prepare standards and dilutions. 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Several techniques were used to assure the quality of the analytical data (McCleskey and others, 

2004). These techniques include analysis of field blanks, standard reference water samples (SRWSs), 

calculation of charge imbalance (C.I.), spike recoveries, determinations using alternative methods, and 

determinations by multiple laboratories. Quality assurance and quality control checks for dissolved 

organic carbon included analyses of laboratory reagent blanks and of synthetic samples made from 

potassium biphthalate, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium benzoate. Quality assurance and quality control 

results for samples reported in this study are found in McCleskey and others (2004). 
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references 

[N, normal; ICP-OES, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry; mg/L, milligrams per liter; nm, nanometer; IC, ion chromatography; mM, millimolar; ISE, ion

chromatography; GFAAS, graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry; μg, microgram; ICP-MS, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; oC, degrees Celsius; HGA

absorption spectrometry; TOC, total organic carbon; MS, mass spectrometry; CVAFS, cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry; μg/L, micrograms per liter; cc/kg, cubic ce

microcubic centimeters per kilogram; pcc/kg, picocubic centimeters per kilogram] 

Constituent Analytical

technique Detection limit1 Equipment used Reference(s) and comments

pH Potentiometry 0.02 pH unit2 Beckman 265 pH meter with an Orion Ross

combination electrode

Two -or three-buffer calibration at sample tembuffers with pH of 10.00, 7.00, 4.01, 2.00, or 

Specific conductance Conductometry ~0.5 percent3 Orion Research model 1230 multiparameter

meter with conductivity electrode

automatic temperature correction, calibration w

Calcium (Ca) ICP-OES 0.4 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 315.887 nm, view: radiMagnesium (Mg) ICP-OES 0.04 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 280.270 nm, view: axiaSodium (Na) ICP-OES 0.05 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 589.592 nm, view: radiPotassium (K) ICP-OES 0.02 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 766.490 nm, view: axiaSulfate (SO4) IC 0.3 mg/L Dionex model 2010i ion chromatograph with

AG4A guard and AS4A separator columnsand Anion Self-Regenerating Suppressor-II 

1.8 mM NaHCO3 + 1.7 mM Na2CO3 eluent (B

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

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

Barringer and Johnsson (1989); Fishman and F

Fluoride (F) ISE 0.05 mg/L Orion Research model 96-09 combination Felectrode Sample mixed 1:1 with total ionic strength adj

Nordstrom, 1980)

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

AG4A guard and AS4A separator columns and 

1.8 mM NaHCO3 + 1.7 mM Na2CO3 eluent (B

Bromide (Br) IC 0.1 mg/L Dionex model 2010i ion chromatograph with

AG4A guard and AS4A separator columns and 

1.8 mM NaHCO3 + 1.7 mM Na2CO3 eluent (B

Silica (SiO2) ICP-OES 0.06 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle Sample diluted 1:10 in field, analytical wavele

axial

ICP-OES 0.07 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 308.215 nm, view: axia

GFAAS4 0.001 mg/L Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL analytical wavelength: 309.3 nm, modifier: 15 

temperature: 2,300°C

ICP-OES 0.07 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 238.204. nm, view: axiColorimetry 0.001 mg/L Hewlett-Packard model 8452A diode array 

spectrometer with 1- and 5- cm cells

Colorimetry: FerroZine method (Stookey, 197

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

spectrometer with 1- and 5- cm cells

FerroZine method (Stookey, 1970; To and oth

Boron (B) ICP-OES 0.010 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 249.678 nm, view: axiaLithium (Li) ICP-OES 0.001 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 670.784 nm, view: axiaAluminum (Al)Total iron (Fe(T))
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references - Continued 

[N, normal; ICP-OES, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry; mg/L, milligrams per liter; nm, nanometer; IC, ion chromatography; mM, millimolar; ISE, ion

chromatography; GFAAS, graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry; μg, microgram; ICP-MS, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; oC, degrees Celsius; HGA

absorption spectrometry; TOC, total organic carbon; MS, mass spectrometry; CVAFS, cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry; μg/L, micrograms per liter; cc/kg, cubic ce

microcubic centimeters per kilogram; pcc/kg, picocubic centimeters per kilogram] 

Constituent Analytical

technique Detection limit1 Equipment used Reference(s) and comments

Strontium (Sr) ICP-OES 0.0003 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 421.552 nm, view: axiaBarium (Ba) ICP-OES 0.0008 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 455.403 nm, view: axiaManganese (Mn) ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 257.610 nm, view: axiaZinc (Zn) ICP-OES 0.005 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 206.200 nm, view: radi

ICP-OES 0.008 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 220.353 nm, view: axiaGFAAS4 0.0003 mg/L Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL analytical wavelength: 283.3 nm, view: axial; 

Mg(NO3)2, atomization temperature: 1,600°C

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 231.604. nm, view: axiGFAAS4 0.0005 mg/L Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL analytical wavelength: 231.604 nm, view: axia

2300°C

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 324.754. nm, view: axiGFAAS4 0.0005 mg/L Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL analytical wavelength: 324.8 nm, modifier: 5 μ

atomization temperature: 2,000 °C

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 214.428. nm, view: axiGFAAS4 0.0002 mg/L Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL analytical wavelength: 228.8 nm, modifier: 50 

atomization temperature: 1,500 °C

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 206.149. nm, view: axiGFAAS4 0.0005 mg/L Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL analytical wavelength: 357.9 nm, modifier: 15 

temperature: 2,300 °C

ICP-OES 0.007 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 228.616. nm, view: axiGFAAS4 0.0008 mg/L Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL analytical wavelength: 242.5 nm, modifier: 15 

temperature: 2,400 °C

Beryllium (Be) ICP-OES 0.001 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 313.042 nm, view: axia

ICP-OES 0.007 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 277.540 nm, view: axiaICP-MS5 0.0005 mg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 95 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995)

ICP-OES 0.002 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 292.401 nm, view: axiaICP-MS5 0.0003 mg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 51 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995)ICP-OES 0.04 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle or analytical wavelength: 188.977. nm, view: axiHGAAS 0.0001 mg/L Perkin-Elmer AAnalyst 300 atomic absorption 

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

pre-reduction of As(V) using KI + ascorbic acothers, 2003)

Nickel (Ni)Copper (Cu)Cadmium (Cd)Lead (Pb)Chromium (Cr)Cobalt (Co)Molybdenum (Mo)Vanadium (V)Arsenic (As)

19
Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references - Continued 

[N, normal; ICP-OES, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry; mg/L, milligrams per liter; nm, nanometer; IC, ion chromatography; mM, millimolar; ISE, ion

chromatography; GFAAS, graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry; μg, microgram; ICP-MS, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; oC, degrees Celsius; HGA

absorption spectrometry; TOC, total organic carbon; MS, mass spectrometry; CVAFS, cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry; μg/L, micrograms per liter; cc/kg, cubic ce

microcubic centimeters per kilogram; pcc/kg, picocubic centimeters per kilogram] 

Constituent Analytical

technique Detection limit1 Equipment used Reference(s) and comments

ICP-OES 0.04 mg/L Leeman Labs Direct Reading Echelle analytical wavelength: 196.026. nm, view: axiGFAAS4 0.001 mg/L Perkin-Elmer model 4110ZL analytical wavelength: 196.0 nm, modifier: 5 μ

atomization temperature: 1,300 °C

ICP-MS5 0.0002 mg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 77 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995)

Mercury (Hg) CVAFS 0.4 mg/L PS Analytical, model Galahad, direct cold-vapor

atomic fluorescence spectrometry

Taylor and others (1997); Roth and others (20

Bismuth (Bi) ICP-MS5 0.001 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 209 

Cerium (Ce) ICP-MS5 0.0004 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 140 (Verplanck and others, 2001)

Cesium (Cs) ICP-MS5 0.002 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 133

Dysprosium (Dy) ICP-MS5 0.0004 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 163 (Verplanck and others, 2001)

Erbium (Er) ICP-MS5 0.0004 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 167 (Verplanck and others, 2001)Europium (Eu) ICP-MS5 0.001 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 151, problems with Ba interference (V

Gadolinium (Gd) ICP-MS5 0.0006 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 158 (Verplanck and others, 2001)

Holmium (Ho) ICP-MS5 0.0002 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 165 (Verplanck and others, 2001)Lanthanum (La) ICP-MS5 0.0004 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 139 (Verplanck and others, 2001)Lutetium (Lu) ICP-MS5 0.0002 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 175 (Verplanck and others, 2001)Neodymium (Nd) ICP-MS5 0.0008 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 146 (Verplanck and others, 2001)Lead (Pb) ICP-MS5 0.01 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 A weighted average of the 206, 207, and 208 i

and Taylor, 1995; Taylor and Garbarino, 1991

Praseodymium (Pr) ICP-MS5 0.0002 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 141 (Verplanck and others, 2001)

Rubidium (Rb) ICP-MS5 0.001 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 85

Rhenium (Re) ICP-MS5 0.0007 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 187

Antimony (Sb) ICP-MS5 0.004 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 121 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995; Tay

Samarium (Sm) ICP-MS5 0.0008 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 147 (Verplanck and others, 2001)

Terbium (Tb) ICP-MS5 0.0002 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 159 (Verplanck and others, 2001)Tellurium (Te) ICP-MS5 0.008 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 126

Thorium (Th) ICP-MS5 0.001 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 232Thallium (Tl) ICP-MS5 0.004 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 205 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995; TayThulium (Tm) ICP-MS5 0.0002 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 169 (Verplanck and others, 2001)

Uranium (U ) ICP-MS5 0.0005 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 238 (Garbarino and Taylor, 1995; TayTungsten (W ) ICP-MS5 0.006 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 182

Yttrium (Y ) ICP-MS5 0.0003 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 89

Ytterbium (Yb) ICP-MS5 0.0005 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 174 (Verplanck and others, 2001)Selenium (Se)

20
Constituent Analytical

technique Detection limit1 Equipment used Reference(s) and comments

Zirconium (Zr) ICP-MS5 0.001 μg/L Perkin-Elmer SCIEX ELAN 6000 Isotope: 90

Dissolved organiccarbon (DOC)

TOC 0.1 mg/L Oceanography International Model 700 TOC

Analyzer

Wet oxidation method (Aiken, 1992)

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

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

spectrometer and Hach method # 8131 reagents

Method based on APHA (1985)

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

(δ18O = 0 per mil) and Standard Light Antartic 

= ‐ 55.5 per mil) (Epstein and Mayeda, 1953)

2H/1H (δ2H) MS 0.1 per mil2 V.G. Micromass model 602 mass spectrometer Standardization against VSMOW (δ2H = 0 pe

‐ 428 per mil) (Coplen and others, 1991)

34S/32S 

(δ34S) of sulfate

MS 0.1 per mil2 Carlo Erba NC2500 elemental analyzer coupled

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

Analyses were done by combustion using contdescribed by Giesemann and others (1994). Susamples using barium sulfate precipitation me

18O/16O (δ18O)

of sulfate

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

method

CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC113 GC 0.5-1.0 picogram/ kilogram Shimadzu GC-8AIE gas chromatograph (GC) with an electron capturedetector (ECD), Agilent 

model 6890A GC with an ECD

U.S. Geological Survey (2004b)

Dissolved gases (CH4, 

N2, O2, Ar)

Quadrupole-MS 0.005 cc/kg Prisma quadrupole mass spectrometer Solomon and others (1996)

Dissolved gas isotopes(3He, 4He, Ne)

Magnetic sectorfield MS 3He: 0.07 μcc/kg Mass Analyzer Products 215-50 mass spectrometer Bayer and others (1989); Solomon and others 

Tritium (3H) 3He in-growth 

technique

0.05 tritium unit Mass Analyzer Products 215-50 mass

spectrometer

Clark and others (1976); Bayer and others (19

[N, normal; ICP-OES, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry; mg/L, milligrams per liter; nm, nanometer; IC, ion chromatography; mM, millimolar; ISE, ion

chromatography; GFAAS, graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry; μg, microgram; ICP-MS, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry; oC, degrees Celsius; HGA

absorption spectrometry; TOC, total organic carbon; MS, mass spectrometry; CVAFS, cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry; μg/L, micrograms per liter; cc/kg, cubic ce

microcubic centimeters per kilogram; pcc/kg, picocubic centimeters per kilogram] 

Table 3. Analytical techniques, detection limits, typical precision, equipment used, and analytical method references - Continued 1 Some samples were diluted for ICP-MS analysis; reported detection limits must be multiplied by the dilution factor for these samples.2 These values are expressions of precision or range, rather than relative standard deviation, for pH and isotope determinations. 4 GFAAS was used when the concentration of the constituent was below or near the ICP-OES detection limit. 

21

5 ICP-MS was used for a selected subset of samples. 3 Percent relative standard deviation 
GROUND-WATER GEOCHEMISTRY

Water analyses are reported in tables 4 and 5. Table 4 includes routine analyses performed for 

nearly every sampling event, analyses performed for only selected sampling events including mercury 

and isotope analyses, and charge imbalance (C.I.) calculations. Table 5 is composed of ICP-MS 

analyses for the February and May, 2003, samples. Sample identification numbers in tables 4 and 5 for 

ground-water samples are the well numbers (figures 1 – 5) and for surface-water samples are by 

catchment plus an ‘SW’ and ‘high’ for high altitude and ‘low’ for low altitude position in the

catchment. Samples having an ‘R’ represent duplicates. 

Charge imbalances were calculated using the program WATEQ4F (Ball and Nordstrom, 1991)

according to the following equation: 

(sum cations sum anions)/2

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

+ =

 (1)

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

the anions in milliequivalents per liter. The C.I.s are twice the value normally reported because the 

denominator contains the average of the cation plus anion sum rather than just the cation plus anion 

sum. The frequency distribution of the C.I. is shown in figure 6A along with the normal (or Gaussian) 

distribution for 32 samples. All analyses have C.I. less than ± 11 percent, averaged +0.8 percent with a 

standard deviation of ± 5.8 percent, and are considered to be of sufficiently high quality for speciation

calculations. 

Speciation, ionic strength, saturation index, and redox potential calculations based on

Fe(II)/Fe(III) determinations were obtained with the WATEQ4F code. The saturation index, SI, is 

defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the ion-activity product, IAP, to the solubility product constant, 

Ksp (Nordstrom and Munoz, 1994): 

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡ = Ksp

IAP SI log

 (2)

If the solution is in equilibrium with a mineral, the IAP=Ksp and the SI = 0. If the SI>0, the

solution is supersaturated and the mineral would tend to precipitate; if the SI<0, the solution is

undersaturated and the mineral, if present, would tend to dissolve. 

The redox potential relative to the standard hydrogen electrode, or Eh, is calculated from the 

Fe(II/III) determinations after speciation with the Nernst electrochemical equilibrium equation:

+

+

= − 3

2

log 2.303 ( ) ( )

Fe

o Fe

a

a

nF

RT Eh T E T

 (3)

where E° is the standard electrode potential of the Fe(II)- Fe(III) redox couple, in volts, at temperature,

T, in degrees Celsius; R is the ideal gas constant; n is the number of electrodes transferred in the redox 

reaction; F is the Faraday constant; and and are the activities of the free ferrous (Fe(II)) and 

ferric ions (Fe(III)) in solution, respectively (Nordstrom and Munoz, 1994). 

Fe a 2+ Fe a 3+

22
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

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

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FRE

QUENCY

CHARGE IMBALANCE, IN PERCENT

Normal Fit

n = 32

mean = 0.8, median = 1.4

standard deviation = 5.8

A.

Fit for

Straight Creek bedrock wells

Fit for

Straight Creek surface water

 and debris-fan ground water

B.

EFFECTIVE I

ONIC STRENG

T

H

TOTAL IONIC STRENGTH

1:1 line

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen, Hottentot surface water

 Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

C.

pH, I

N STANDARD U

NITS

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

+/- 10%

D.

Linear Fit for

Straight Creek debris-fan

ground water

SPECIFIC C

ONDUCT

ANCE,

IN MIC

R

OSIE

M

E

NS PE

R C

E

N

TIMETER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 6. A. Frequency distribution of charge imbalance in percent using equation 1. B. Effective molal ionic strength in relation 

to total molal ionic strength. C. pH in relation to sulfate concentration. D. Specific conductance in relation to sulfate 

concentration with linear fit for Straight Creek debris-fan ground-water data. 

23
A considerable range of dissolved solids concentrations and ionic strengths were encountered in

these ground waters. Figure 6B shows the range in both total and effective ionic strength for these 

waters. Only 29 data points are plotted because constituents were averaged for duplicate samples.

Effective ionic strength is the computed ionic strength after speciation using WATEQ4F, and total ionic 

strength is the computed ionic strength before speciation. Both are computed according to the following 

formula: 

 

= ∑

i

i i I m z

2

2

1

 (4)

where I is the ionic strength, mi

 is the molality of the i

th ion, and zi

 is the electronic charge on the ith ion. 

Figure 6B exhibits a range of total ionic strength from 0 to 0.12 molal, but the effective ionic 

strength does not increase at the same rate as the total ionic strength. The effective ionic strength ranges 

from 0.01 to 0.055 molal for these waters, about half of the total ionic strength. The decrease in the 

effective ionic strength relative to the total ionic strength is caused by complexing of sulfate with

polyvalent cations such as calcium, iron, and aluminum. These waters are much lower in total or

effective ionic strength than sea water, considered to be the upper limit for application of the ion 

association model for speciation (Nordstrom and Munoz, 1994). Hence, the ion association model 

should be applicable for these waters. 

Figure 6C plots the pH values of ground waters for phase II wells as a function of sulfate 

concentration to show the range in these parameters. The pH values (2.6 to 7.3) and sulfate 

concentrations (100 to 2,400 mg/L) cover similar ranges as those found in the Straight Creek ground 

waters (Naus and others, 2005). The lowest pH values are found in the Hottentot surface waters and the 

Hottentot ground water, whereas the highest pH values are found in the Capulin Canyon wells. The 

general trend of values in figure 6C demonstrates lower pH with increasing sulfate concentration that 

reflects increasing contribution of acid sulfate waters from pyrite oxidation. 

Figure 6D is a plot of specific conductance in relation to sulfate concentration with a dashed

line showing the linear fit from the Straight Creek alluvial ground water values. All the phase II data are 

consistent with the linear correlation from the Straight Creek data and demonstrates that not only is

there nothing unusual or anomalous about the phase II data, but a sample’s sulfate concentration could

be estimated from a measure of its specific conductance. The linear least-squares fit equation for the

Straight Creek data is: 

specific conductance ( S/cm) - 390(mg/L) S/cm

mg/L sulfate concentration (mg/L) 0.83 × μ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

μ = (5) 

When the specific conductance is above 600 μS/cm, the sulfate concentration for ground waters

in the Red River Valley can be estimated to within 10 percent of its actual value from the specific 

conductance measurement. 

The equations of best fit from the Straight Creek data (Naus and others, 2005) are reproduced

in table 6 because they are used in most of the following diagrams to compare the trends in ground- and 

surface-water chemistry data for Straight Creek with those for other Phase II observation wells and

surface water from Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek. 

24
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID CC1A CC1A CC1A CC1A CC1B

Collection Date 2/5/2003 2/5/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 2/5/2003

Treatment Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 640 / 463 640 / 463 680 / 436 680 / 436 680 / 443

pH (field / laboratory) 7.29 / 8.02 7.29 / 8.02 5.65 / 8.41 5.65 / 8.41 7.25 / 7.88

Temperature, °C --- --- 16.9 16.9 6.2

Eh, volts --- --- 0.256 0.256 0.300

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L --- --- 6.12 6.12 3.00

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 82.7 85.5 --- 59.2 96.5

Magnesium (Mg) 14.1 22.2 --- 10.3 14.2

Sodium (Na) 22.8 24.7 --- 24.1 24.9

Potassium (K) 2.81 4.11 --- 2.53 2.68

Alkalinity (as HCO3) 180 --- --- --- 244

Sulfate (SO4) 146 --- 98.5 --- 143

Chloride (Cl) 7.50 --- 6.92 --- 7.20

Fluoride (F) 0.720 --- 1.64 --- 0.770

Bromide (Br) <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

Silica (SiO2) 21.2 137 --- 38.2 13.4

Aluminum (Al) 0.009 16.6 --- 0.853 0.008

Arsenic (As) 0.0002 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.0001

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

Barium (Ba) 0.027 0.237 --- 0.034 0.036

Beryllium (Be) <0.001 0.002 --- <0.001 <0.001

Boron (B) <0.01 0.015 --- 0.020 0.013

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0010 0.0007 --- 0.0011 <0.0002

Cobalt (Co) 0.002 0.014 --- <0.0007 <0.0007

Copper (Cu) 0.0007 0.0469 --- 0.0046 0.0013

Chromium (Cr) 0.0033 0.077 --- 0.0039 <0.0005

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 0.015 23.8 0.006 1.07 <0.001

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) 0.008 --- <0.001 --- <0.001

Lead (Pb) <0.0003 0.063 --- 0.0040 <0.0003

Lithium (Li) 0.011 0.030 --- 0.010 0.022

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 0.350 0.693 --- 0.102 0.441

Molybdenum (Mo) 0.007 <0.007 --- 0.008 <0.007

Nickel (Ni) 0.0044 0.0522 --- 0.0057 0.0051

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 --- <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 0.865 0.954 --- 0.586 1.37

Vanadium (V) <0.002 0.021 --- <0.002 <0.002

Zinc (Zn) 0.009 0.136 --- 0.024 0.026

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) 3.4 --- --- --- 2.0

δ

2

H, per mil -94.57 --- --- --- -84.77

δ

18O, per mil -12.65 --- --- --- -11.74

δ

34SSO4, per mil -0.4 --- --- --- -3.4

δ

18OSO4, per mil -0.4 --- --- --- -4.2

Sum cations (meq/L) 5.91 --- --- --- 6.62

Sum anions (meq/L) 5.76 --- --- --- 6.66

C.I. (percent) 2.5 --- --- --- -0.5 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

25
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID CC1B CC1B CC1B CC1B CC1B

Collection Date 2/5/2003 6/4/2003 6/4/2003 8/19/2003 8/19/2003

Treatment RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 680 / 443 610 / 409 610 / 409 650 / 485 650 / 485

pH (field / laboratory) 7.25 / 7.88 7.20 / 8.21 7.20 / 8.21 7.29 / 8.22 7.29 / 8.22

Temperature, °C 6.2 10.4 10.4 13.4 13.4

Eh, volts 0.300 0.458 0.458 0.502 0.502

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 3.00 0.43 0.43 0.10 0.10

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 94.9 95.5 94.9 99.9 101

Magnesium (Mg) 14.1 13.2 13.6 13.7 14.2

Sodium (Na) 24.1 23.8 23.1 21.7 21.4

Potassium (K) 2.66 1.90 1.86 1.69 1.66

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- 239 --- 250 ---

Sulfate (SO4) --- 116 --- 122 ---

Chloride (Cl) --- 5.91 --- 6.57 ---

Fluoride (F) --- 1.35 --- 1.35 ---

Bromide (Br) --- 0.23 --- 0.25 ---

Silica (SiO2) 13.8 14.7 14.3 13.7 14.0

Aluminum (Al) 0.208 0.005 0.013 0.004 0.020

Arsenic (As) <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04

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

Barium (Ba) 0.040 0.027 0.027 0.023 0.024

Beryllium (Be) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Boron (B) 0.013 <0.01 <0.01 0.011 0.011

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0004 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002

Cobalt (Co) 0.002 <0.0007 <0.0007 <0.0007 0.001

Copper (Cu) 0.0026 <0.0005 0.0015 <0.0005 0.0010

Chromium (Cr) 0.0010 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0024

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 0.343 0.024 <0.007 0.039 <0.007

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) --- 0.016 0.037 ---

Lead (Pb) 0.0015 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0011 <0.0003

Lithium (Li) 0.021 0.018 0.017 0.023 0.021

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 0.393 0.221 0.224 0.183 0.241

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

Nickel (Ni) 0.0052 <0.0005 0.0012 0.0034 0.0047

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 1.33 1.28 1.28 1.15 1.24

Vanadium (V) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Zinc (Zn) 0.009 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) --- 2.2 --- 2.2 ---

δ

2

H, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 6.51 --- 6.59 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 6.09 --- 6.35 ---

C.I. (percent) --- 6.8 --- 3.7 --- 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

26
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID CC1B CC1B CC2A CC2A CC2A

Collection Date 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003 5/14/2003

Treatment Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 630 / 490 630 / 490 930 / 878 930 / 878 930 / 974

pH (field / laboratory) 7.07 / 7.9 7.07 / 7.9 6.19 / 7.7 6.19 / 7.7 6.19 / 7.63

Temperature, °C 9.1 9.1 6.9 6.9 6.9

Eh, volts 0.440 0.440 0.348 0.348 0.348

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 0.23 0.23 5.05 5.05 5.05

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 93.7 95.9 159 158 171

Magnesium (Mg) 13.1 13.7 11.3 14.6 11.6

Sodium (Na) 22.2 21.4 28.9 29.4 27.6

Potassium (K) 1.90 1.45 5.23 5.22 4.98

Alkalinity (as HCO3) 241 --- 63.6 --- 102

Sulfate (SO4) 113 --- 408 --- 446

Chloride (Cl) 5.85 --- 5.20 --- 3.61

Fluoride (F) 1.65 --- 8.63 --- 8.19

Bromide (Br) 0.17 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

Silica (SiO2) 14.6 14.4 28.6 33.0 23.9

Aluminum (Al) 0.006 0.013 2.07 3.17 1.00

Arsenic (As) <0.04 <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001

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

Barium (Ba) 0.024 0.025 0.004 0.014 0.005

Beryllium (Be) <0.001 <0.001 0.021 0.020 0.015

Boron (B) 0.016 0.014 0.018 0.018 0.014

Cadmium (Cd) <0.0002 0.0010 0.0032 0.0034 0.0018

Cobalt (Co) <0.0007 <0.0007 0.002 0.003 0.004

Copper (Cu) 0.0009 <0.0005 0.0011 0.0043 0.0008

Chromium (Cr) <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0016 0.0044 0.0010

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 0.042 0.042 5.91 7.07 1.80

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) 0.039 --- 5.91 --- 1.74

Lead (Pb) <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0037 0.0005

Lithium (Li) 0.024 0.039 0.038 0.037 0.036

Mercury (Hg), ng/L 0.7 --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 0.216 0.179 10.0 9.59 8.78

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 0.012 0.014 0.011

Nickel (Ni) <0.0005 0.0012 0.0021 0.0052 <0.0005

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 1.26 1.18 0.625 0.636 0.692

Vanadium (V) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Zinc (Zn) <0.005 <0.005 0.907 0.857 0.589

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) 2.1 --- 1.2 --- ---

δ

2

H, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- --- -3.1 --- ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- --- -4.0 --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 6.34 --- 9.21 --- 9.35

Sum anions (meq/L) 6.08 --- 8.24 --- 9.52

C.I. (percent) 4.1 --- 11.1 --- -1.8 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

27
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID CC2A CC2A CC2A_R CC2A CC2A

Collection Date 5/14/2003 8/19/2003 8/19/2003 8/19/2003 10/22/2003

Treatment RA Filtered - 0.45 μm Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 930 / 974 1530 / 1430 1530 / 1440 1530 / 1440 1520 / 1400

pH (field / laboratory) 6.19 / 7.63 6.05 / 4.94 6.05 / 4.82 6.05 / 4.82 5.96 / 4.87

Temperature, °C 6.9 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.0

Eh, volts 0.348 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.274

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 5.05 5.66 5.66 5.66 3.90

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 178 246 251 255 225

Magnesium (Mg) 12.2 15.9 14.7 19.9 13.2

Sodium (Na) 28.9 34.5 39.1 38.6 35.9

Potassium (K) 5.12 7.56 6.87 6.60 7.21

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- 66.0 57.0 --- 45.4

Sulfate (SO4) --- 844 850 --- 816

Chloride (Cl) --- 2.98 2.81 --- 2.79

Fluoride (F) --- 19.9 20.1 --- 19.1

Bromide (Br) --- 0.14 0.14 --- <0.1

Silica (SiO2) 31.3 26.8 24.1 28.8 26.7

Aluminum (Al) 3.20 5.50 5.42 6.07 5.51

Arsenic (As) <0.04 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.04 <0.04

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

Barium (Ba) 0.015 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.006

Beryllium (Be) 0.015 0.083 0.084 0.089 0.078

Boron (B) 0.014 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.018

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0020 0.0026 0.0028 0.0028 0.0025

Cobalt (Co) 0.004 0.018 0.018 0.017 0.016

Copper (Cu) 0.0042 <0.0005 0.0027 0.0013 <0.0005

Chromium (Cr) 0.0058 0.0006 0.0007 <0.0005 <0.0005

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 4.65 36.3 36.3 37.6 33.6

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) --- 36.3 36.3 --- 33.6

Lead (Pb) 0.0047 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006 0.0007

Lithium (Li) 0.038 0.094 0.088 0.093 0.039

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- --- --- 0.9

Manganese (Mn) 8.78 46.9 47.4 49.0 40.9

Molybdenum (Mo) 0.010 0.077 0.055 0.064 0.089

Nickel (Ni) 0.0035 0.0310 0.0302 0.0282 0.0277

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 0.710 0.924 0.893 0.842 0.825

Vanadium (V) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Zinc (Zn) 0.643 5.46 4.95 5.23 3.96

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) --- 1.1 2.3 --- 1.5

δ

2

H, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- -3.2 -3.2 --- ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- -4.3 -4.5 --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 14.1 14.3 --- 12.9

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 14.8 14.7 --- 14.2

C.I. (percent) --- -4.8 -2.5 --- -9.6 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

28
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID CC2A CC2B CC2B CC2B CC2B

Collection Date 10/22/2003 2/5/2003 2/5/2003 6/4/2003 6/4/2003

Treatment RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 1520 / 1400 1830 / 1530 1830 / 1530 1780 / 1480 1780 / 1480

pH (field / laboratory) 5.96 / 4.87 6.96 / 7.82 6.96 / 7.82 6.90 / 7.88 6.90 / 7.88

Temperature, °C 16.0 7.8 7.8 8.7 8.7

Eh, volts 0.274 0.360 0.360 0.297 0.297

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 3.90 1.72 1.72 1.62 1.62

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 232 388 379 391 390

Magnesium (Mg) 13.0 20.8 20.1 27.8 75.6

Sodium (Na) 37.8 45.3 46.0 43.6 43.5

Potassium (K) 7.70 4.68 4.73 4.43 4.51

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- 287 --- 305 ---

Sulfate (SO4) --- 846 --- 858 ---

Chloride (Cl) --- 2.20 --- 2.68 ---

Fluoride (F) --- 2.00 --- 1.93 ---

Bromide (Br) --- <0.1 --- 0.12 ---

Silica (SiO2) 27.7 23.2 22.8 22.9 23.1

Aluminum (Al) 6.38 0.009 0.048 0.007 0.012

Arsenic (As) <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04

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

Barium (Ba) 0.007 0.012 0.012 0.014 0.014

Beryllium (Be) 0.083 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Boron (B) 0.015 <0.01 0.021 0.013 0.013

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0025 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002

Cobalt (Co) 0.018 <0.0007 0.002 0.002 <0.0007

Copper (Cu) 0.0008 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

Chromium (Cr) <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0006 0.0013 0.0010

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 38.4 0.105 0.219 0.911 1.16

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) --- 0.102 --- 0.878 ---

Lead (Pb) 0.0007 0.0009 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003

Lithium (Li) 0.033 0.061 0.063 0.074 0.080

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 43.7 4.92 4.91 5.43 5.37

Molybdenum (Mo) 0.105 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.008

Nickel (Ni) 0.0277 0.0033 0.0035 0.0011 0.0016

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 0.837 4.79 4.95 4.71 4.95

Vanadium (V) <0.002 <0.002 0.006 <0.002 <0.002

Zinc (Zn) 4.06 0.082 0.073 0.009 0.011

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) --- 0.8 --- 2.0 ---

δ

2

H, per mil --- -94.19 --- --- ---

δ

18O, per mil --- -12.64 --- --- ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 18.4 --- 19.0 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 17.5 --- 17.8 ---

C.I. (percent) --- 5.3 --- 6.1 --- 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

29
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID CC2B CC2B CC2B CC2B Hansen

Collection Date 8/19/2003 8/19/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 2/7/2003

Treatment Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 1760 / 1530 1760 / 1530 1740 / 1520 1740 / 1520 2780 / 2730

pH (field / laboratory) 7.00 / 7.82 7.00 / 7.82 6.85 / 7.74 6.85 / 7.74 3.87 / 3.75

Temperature, °C 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 6.6

Eh, volts 0.430 0.430 0.044 0.044 0.740

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 0.12 0.12 0.44 0.44 4.99

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 355 346 365 370 499

Magnesium (Mg) 20.7 22.2 19.7 22.0 97.3

Sodium (Na) 36.2 38.5 38.0 40.0 17.9

Potassium (K) 4.32 4.29 4.93 5.16 3.79

Alkalinity (as HCO3) 301 --- 304 --- ---

Sulfate (SO4) 832 --- 863 --- 2090

Chloride (Cl) 2.70 --- 2.49 --- 2.90

Fluoride (F) 2.00 --- 2.02 --- 2.66

Bromide (Br) 0.14 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

Silica (SiO2) 23.1 24.3 23.7 25.5 53.7

Aluminum (Al) 0.018 0.014 0.013 0.011 81.3

Arsenic (As) 0.0002 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.0001

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

Barium (Ba) 0.013 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.003

Beryllium (Be) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.016

Boron (B) <0.01 <0.01 0.011 0.012 0.011

Cadmium (Cd) <0.0002 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0059

Cobalt (Co) 0.002 <0.0007 0.002 0.001 0.179

Copper (Cu) <0.0005 0.0127 0.0015 <0.0005 0.117

Chromium (Cr) 0.0008 0.0009 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0025

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 2.27 2.60 1.75 1.73 0.068

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) 2.24 --- 1.65 --- 0.009

Lead (Pb) <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003

Lithium (Li) 0.081 0.079 0.066 0.031 0.071

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- 1.0 --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 5.10 5.39 4.48 5.03 11.6

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

Nickel (Ni) 0.0025 0.0023 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.562

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 4.74 4.46 4.52 4.74 2.79

Vanadium (V) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Zinc (Zn) <0.005 0.033 <0.005 <0.005 2.59

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) 1.2 --- 1.2 --- 0.6

δ

2

H, per mil --- --- --- --- -90.96

δ

18O, per mil --- --- --- --- -12.55

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 16.6 --- 17.0 --- 27.9

Sum anions (meq/L) 17.6 --- 18.2 --- 28.0

C.I. (percent) -5.5 --- -6.7 --- -0.4 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

30
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen

Collection Date 2/7/2003 5/13/2003 5/13/2003 8/19/2003 8/19/2003

Treatment RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 2780 / 2730 2800 / 2690 2800 / 2690 2810 / 2710 2810 / 2710

pH (field / laboratory) 3.87 / 3.75 3.77 / 3.76 3.77 / 3.76 3.81 / 3.75 3.81 / 3.75

Temperature, °C 6.6 8.5 8.5 8.2 8.2

Eh, volts 0.740 0.643 0.643 0.738 0.738

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 4.99 5.38 5.38 5.65 5.65

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 493 457 469 456 446

Magnesium (Mg) 93.5 99 101 92.8 98.7

Sodium (Na) 19.0 19.5 19.7 14.3 14.6

Potassium (K) 3.74 4.42 4.61 3.35 3.28

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- --- --- --- ---

Sulfate (SO4) --- 2030 --- 2030 ---

Chloride (Cl) --- 1.40 --- 1.94 ---

Fluoride (F) --- 3.69 --- 3.55 ---

Bromide (Br) --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

Silica (SiO2) 54.4 60.4 63.1 55.4 56.7

Aluminum (Al) 80.6 76.7 77.7 79.8 80.0

Arsenic (As) <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04

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

Barium (Ba) 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.003

Beryllium (Be) 0.011 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.012

Boron (B) <0.01 <0.01 0.010 0.020 <0.01

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0056 0.0062 0.0059 0.0061 0.0058

Cobalt (Co) 0.162 0.211 0.215 0.158 0.181

Copper (Cu) 0.109 0.121 0.118 0.093 0.108

Chromium (Cr) 0.0025 0.0152 0.0154 0.0024 0.0032

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 0.042 0.098 0.362 0.053 0.171

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) --- 0.027 --- <0.001 ---

Lead (Pb) <0.0003 0.0009 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003

Lithium (Li) 0.074 0.090 0.086 0.092 0.095

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 11.4 12.2 11.9 10.8 10.4

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

Nickel (Ni) 0.564 0.613 0.613 0.587 0.605

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 2.75 2.85 2.93 2.61 2.55

Vanadium (V) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Zinc (Zn) 2.58 2.83 2.88 2.80 2.88

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) --- 0.6 --- 0.8 ---

δ

2

H, per mil --- -91.52 --- --- ---

δ

18O, per mil --- -12.63 --- --- ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- -7.0 --- --- ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- -7.5 --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 26.3 --- 25.8 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 27.5 --- 27.5 ---

C.I. (percent) --- -4.4 --- -6.4 --- 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

31
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID Hansen Hansen Hansen SW - low Hansen SW - low Hansen SW - high

Collection Date 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 9/11/2001 9/11/2001 9/11/2001

Treatment Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.1 μm RA Filtered - 0.1 μm

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 2790 / 2690 2790 / 2690 2710 2710 2140

pH (field / laboratory) 3.72 / 3.75 3.72 / 3.75 4.04 4.04 3.38

Temperature, °C 8.7 8.7 6.5 6.5 12.1

Eh, volts 0.724 0.724 0.527 0.527 0.705

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 4.96 4.96 --- --- ---

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 448 445 530 530 290

Magnesium (Mg) 113 107 72.0 72.0 50.0

Sodium (Na) 14.6 15.7 13.0 13.0 11.0

Potassium (K) 3.81 3.80 6.80 7.00 6.70

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- --- --- --- ---

Sulfate (SO4) 2040 --- 2100 --- 1600

Chloride (Cl) 1.8 --- 2.0 --- 2.0

Fluoride (F) 3.64 --- 3.00 --- 2.00

Bromide (Br) <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

Silica (SiO2) 55.3 50.0 48.0 46.0 49.0

Aluminum (Al) 87.9 78.7 76.0 81.0 100

Arsenic (As) <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001 <0.05 <0.0001

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

Barium (Ba) 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.005

Beryllium (Be) 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015

Boron (B) <0.01 0.015 0.007 0.007 0.007

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0059 0.0056 0.008 0.009 0.006

Cobalt (Co) 0.175 0.243 0.210 0.330 0.150

Copper (Cu) 0.111 0.138 0.190 0.190 0.087

Chromium (Cr) 0.0028 0.0036 0.002 0.002 0.004

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 0.059 0.120 0.279 0.280 24.3

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) 0.009 --- 0.038 --- 5.98

Lead (Pb) 0.0008 <0.0003 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008

Lithium (Li) 0.095 0.098 0.077 0.073 0.075

Mercury (Hg), ng/L 0.9 --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 13.4 12.3 14.2 14.4 7.70

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

Nickel (Ni) 0.581 0.535 0.550 0.550 0.370

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Strontium (Sr) 3.09 3.07 2.60 2.50 1.30

Vanadium (V) <0.002 <0.002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Zinc (Zn) 2.65 2.23 2.86 2.92 2.90

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) 1.1 --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H, per mil --- --- -88.74 --- -93.97

δ

18O, per mil --- --- -11.87 --- -12.70

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- --- -8.0 --- -6.5

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- --- -6.9 --- -8.6

Sum cations (meq/L) 27.4 --- 26.9 --- 19.9

Sum anions (meq/L) 26.9 --- 28.5 --- 20.8

C.I. (percent) 1.6 --- -5.5 --- -4.5 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

32
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID Hansen SW - high Hottentot Hottentot Hottentot Hottentot

Collection Date 9/11/2001 2/5/2003 2/5/2003 5/12/2003 5/12/2003

Treatment RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 2140 1670 / 1960 1670 / 1960 1680 / 2000 1680 / 2000

pH (field / laboratory) 3.38 3.06 / 2.61 3.06 / 2.61 3.06 / 2.57 3.06 / 2.57

Temperature, °C 12.1 7.3 7.3 11.0 11.0

Eh, volts 0.705 0.630 0.630 0.629 0.629

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L --- 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 290 82.6 80.9 87.2 90.3

Magnesium (Mg) 50.0 36.6 35.5 40.2 42.0

Sodium (Na) 11.0 9.02 9.13 8.14 8.29

Potassium (K) 6.70 2.06 2.13 2.16 2.25

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- --- --- --- ---

Sulfate (SO4) --- 864 --- 922 ---

Chloride (Cl) --- 3.20 --- 2.82 ---

Fluoride (F) --- 3.62 --- 4.14 ---

Bromide (Br) --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

Silica (SiO2) 48.0 92.1 87.7 95.5 96.6

Aluminum (Al) 110 60.3 64.0 70.4 69.9

Arsenic (As) <0.05 0.0001 <0.04 0.0004 <0.04

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

Barium (Ba) 0.007 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001

Beryllium (Be) 0.015 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011

Boron (B) 0.007 0.011 0.016 0.012 0.021

Cadmium (Cd) 0.006 0.0019 0.0021 0.0040 <0.0002

Cobalt (Co) 0.200 0.136 0.128 0.134 0.142

Copper (Cu) 0.087 0.118 0.119 0.118 0.118

Chromium (Cr) 0.005 0.0120 0.0116 0.0114 0.0108

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 25.0 93.4 91.0 85.1 85.2

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) --- 92.1 --- 84.0 ---

Lead (Pb) <0.008 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003

Lithium (Li) 0.073 0.074 0.069 0.063 0.063

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 7.70 8.51 7.90 7.99 8.04

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 0.010 <0.007 <0.007

Nickel (Ni) 0.380 0.352 0.344 0.345 0.354

Selenium (Se) <0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 1.40 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.015 0.037

Vanadium (V) <0.005 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010

Zinc (Zn) 2.90 3.63 3.33 3.91 3.84

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) --- 1.1 --- 1.1 ---

δ

2

H, per mil --- -97.37 --- -96.13 ---

δ

18O, per mil --- -13.35 --- -13.39 ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- --- --- -5.8 ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- --- --- -6.5 ---

Sum cations (meq/L) --- 13.3 --- 13.8 ---

Sum anions (meq/L) --- 12.3 --- 12.7 ---

C.I. (percent) --- 8.1 --- 8.6 --- 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

33
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID Hottentot Hottentot Hottentot Hottentot Hottentot_R

Collection Date 8/20/2003 8/20/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003

Treatment Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 1710 / 1930 1710 / 1930 1530 / 1900 1530 / 1900 1530 / 1920

pH (field / laboratory) 2.98 / 2.58 2.98 / 2.58 2.99 / 2.6 2.99 / 2.6 2.99 / 2.59

Temperature, °C 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

Eh, volts 0.556 0.556 0.634 0.634 0.634

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 86.9 87.5 76.8 80.5 88.4

Magnesium (Mg) 41.9 42.5 36.1 37.9 39.9

Sodium (Na) 8.42 7.66 6.90 7.46 7.76

Potassium (K) 1.74 1.65 1.94 1.91 2.36

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- --- --- --- ---

Sulfate (SO4) 918 --- 903 --- 913

Chloride (Cl) 1.81 --- 1.67 --- 1.65

Fluoride (F) 4.10 --- 4.04 --- 4.10

Bromide (Br) <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

Silica (SiO2) 91.2 95.6 86.0 85.0 92.6

Aluminum (Al) 66.2 67.5 59.1 59.7 62.3

Arsenic (As) 0.0002 <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001

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

Barium (Ba) <0.0008 <0.0008 <0.0008 0.001 0.001

Beryllium (Be) 0.007 0.007 0.010 0.009 0.011

Boron (B) <0.01 <0.01 0.018 0.016 <0.01

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0046 <0.0002 0.0047 0.0012 0.0045

Cobalt (Co) 0.107 0.108 0.122 0.141 0.123

Copper (Cu) 0.074 0.073 0.122 0.138 0.113

Chromium (Cr) 0.0120 0.0109 0.0119 0.0118 0.0129

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 89.4 88.2 87.7 86.3 87.5

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) 87.3 --- 85.6 --- 83.3

Lead (Pb) <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003

Lithium (Li) 0.091 0.086 0.062 0.068 0.080

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- 0.8 --- 0.9

Manganese (Mn) 8.19 8.20 6.61 6.86 6.81

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.008 <0.007

Nickel (Ni) 0.339 0.345 0.314 0.347 0.351

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 0.006 0.006 0.010 0.010 0.011

Vanadium (V) 0.007 0.006 0.008 0.011 0.011

Zinc (Zn) 4.15 4.23 3.41 3.60 3.70

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) 1.5 --- 1.1 --- 1.1

δ

2

H, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18O, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- --- --- --- ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 14.2 --- 12.7 --- 13.7

Sum anions (meq/L) 12.8 --- 13.1 --- 12.9

C.I. (percent) 9.9 --- -2.7 --- 5.9 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

34
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID Hottentot_R Hottentot SW -low Hottentot SW -low Hottentot SW -high Hottentot SW -high

Collection Date 10/24/2003 9/13/2001 9/13/2001 9/13/2001 9/13/2001

Treatment RA Filtered - 0.1 μm RA Filtered - 0.1 μm RA

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 1530 / 1920 2190 2190 3040 3040

pH (field / laboratory) 2.99 / 2.59 2.73 2.73 2.60 2.60

Temperature, °C 7.5 9.7 9.7 10.6 10.6

Eh, volts 0.634 0.824 0.824 0.784 0.784

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 0.21 --- --- --- ---

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 88.5 46.0 45.0 90.0 91.0

Magnesium (Mg) 34.3 41.0 41.0 68.0 67.0

Sodium (Na) 7.72 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3

Potassium (K) 2.20 0.15 0.20 0.66 0.70

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- --- --- --- ---

Sulfate (SO4) --- 1200 --- 2400 ---

Chloride (Cl) --- 2.0 --- 3.0 ---

Fluoride (F) --- 3.00 --- 3.00 ---

Bromide (Br) --- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

Silica (SiO2) 93.8 90.0 87.0 100 99.0

Aluminum (Al) 66.7 80.0 83.0 140 140

Arsenic (As) <0.04 0.0040 <0.05 0.047 0.110

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

Barium (Ba) 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.0006 0.002

Beryllium (Be) 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.023 0.023

Boron (B) <0.01 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.007

Cadmium (Cd) <0.0002 0.019 0.019 0.058 0.059

Cobalt (Co) 0.132 0.170 0.190 0.360 0.430

Copper (Cu) 0.116 0.540 0.530 2.30 2.40

Chromium (Cr) 0.0119 0.032 0.031 0.090 0.089

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 88.6 151 151 399 400

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) --- 0.251 --- 4.12 ---

Lead (Pb) <0.0003 <0.008 <0.008 0.018 0.017

Lithium (Li) 0.077 0.074 0.074 0.095 0.093

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 6.93 5.80 5.80 16.1 16.4

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.044 0.050

Nickel (Ni) 0.328 0.400 0.390 0.800 0.790

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Strontium (Sr) 0.010 0.081 0.079 0.093 0.087

Vanadium (V) 0.009 <0.005 <0.005 0.014 0.014

Zinc (Zn) 3.21 3.70 3.70 6.44 6.41

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) --- --- --- --- ---

δ

2

H, per mil --- -90.36 --- -85.14 ---

δ

18O, per mil --- -12.62 --- -12.00 ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil --- -7.6 --- -7.6 ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil --- -3.9 --- -4.6 ---

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

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

C.I. (percent) --- 3.3 --- 6.8 --- 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

35
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

Sample ID La Bobita La Bobita La Bobita La Bobita La Bobita

Collection Date 2/5/2003 2/5/2003 5/15/2003 5/15/2003 8/20/2003

Treatment Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 910 / 853 910 / 853 900 / 846 900 / 846 900 / 874

pH (field / laboratory) 4.54 / 4.24 4.54 / 4.24 3.98 / 4.24 3.98 / 4.24 4.24 / 4.26

Temperature, °C 4.7 4.7 9.1 9.1 12.2

Eh, volts 0.620 0.620 0.535 0.535 0.723

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 4.33 4.33 3.16 3.16 3.59

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 117 119 108 108 114

Magnesium (Mg) 31.2 33.6 32.5 28.9 33.2

Sodium (Na) 13.4 13.1 13.1 13.0 11.3

Potassium (K) 1.66 1.63 2.19 2.17 1.95

Alkalinity (as HCO3) <1.0 --- --- --- ---

Sulfate (SO4) 486 --- 468 --- 466

Chloride (Cl) 5.80 --- 2.40 --- 5.18

Fluoride (F) 2.45 --- 2.55 --- 2.75

Bromide (Br) <0.1 --- <0.1 --- <0.1

Silica (SiO2) 33.7 34.9 33.7 33.2 33.1

Aluminum (Al) 12.8 13.1 12.7 12.6 11.6

Arsenic (As) <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001

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

Barium (Ba) 0.023 0.023 0.021 0.021 0.020

Beryllium (Be) 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005

Boron (B) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.022

Cadmium (Cd) 0.0041 0.0041 0.0036 0.0035 0.0042

Cobalt (Co) 0.018 0.018 0.019 0.018 0.020

Copper (Cu) 0.0331 0.0269 0.0248 0.0254 0.0309

Chromium (Cr) 0.0005 0.0007 0.0101 0.0125 0.0108

Iron Total (Fe(T)) 0.037 0.050 0.072 0.147 0.037

Ferrous Iron (Fe(II)) 0.006 --- 0.039 --- 0.010

Lead (Pb) 0.0009 <0.0003 0.0009 0.0011 0.0009

Lithium (Li) 0.033 0.032 0.027 0.027 0.034

Mercury (Hg), ng/L --- --- --- --- ---

Manganese (Mn) 2.62 2.66 2.71 2.63 2.75

Molybdenum (Mo) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

Nickel (Ni) 0.143 0.142 0.131 0.130 0.134

Selenium (Se) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

Strontium (Sr) 0.806 0.793 0.821 0.798 0.888

Vanadium (V) <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Zinc (Zn) 1.00 1.07 0.929 0.919 0.925

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 (DOC) 0.9 --- 2.0 --- 1.1

δ

2

H, per mil -96.03 --- -97.88 --- ---

δ

18O, per mil -13.46 --- -13.5 --- ---

δ

34SSO4, per mil -3.6 --- --- -3.4 ---

δ

18OSO4, per mil -5.6 --- --- -6.0 ---

Sum cations (meq/L) 8.37 --- 8.13 --- 8.15

Sum anions (meq/L) 8.14 --- 7.69 --- 7.69

C.I. (percent) 2.8 --- 5.7 --- 5.9 1

Except for mercury (ng/L)

36
Table 4. Water analyses for Phase II wells and Hottentot Creek and Hansen Creek surface waters - Continued 

[DIW, deionized water; ID, identification; GW, ground water; μm, micrometer; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L, milligrams per

liter; R, replicate; RA, raw-acidified; SW, surface water; <, less than; ---, not analyzed; °C, degrees Celsius]

37

Sample ID La Bobita La Bobita La Bobita Ranger Station Ranger Station

Collection Date 8/20/2003 10/23/2003 10/23/2003 2/7/2003 2/7/2003

Treatment RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA Filtered - 0.45 μm RA

Specific conductance

 (field / laboratory), μS/cm 900 / 874 900 / 858 900 / 858 490 / --- 490 / ---

pH (field / laboratory) 4.24 / 4.26 4.45 / 4.24 4.45 / 4.24 6.5 / --- 6.5 / ---

Temperature, °C 12.2 8.1 8.1 8.8 8.8

Eh, volts 0.723 0.530 0.530 0.450 0.450

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 3.59 3.71 3.71 5.55 5.55

Constituents, mg/L1

Calcium (Ca) 117 108 109 71.8 71.9

Magnesium (Mg) 33.4 31.6 29.5 14.7 14.9

Sodium (Na) 11.2 12.8 12.8 8.45 7.99

Potassium (K) 2.01 1.37 1.62 1.32 6.89

Alkalinity (as HCO3) --- --- --- 45.8 ---

Sulfate (SO4) --- 465 --- 223 ---

Chloride (Cl)

Fluoride (F)

Bromide (Br)

Silica (SiO2)

Aluminum (Al)

Arsenic (As)

Arsenite (As(III))

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)

Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Chromium (Cr)

Iron Total (Fe(T))

Ferrous Iron (Fe(I

Lead (Pb)

Lithium (Li)

Mercury (Hg), ng/L

Manganese (Mn)

Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Strontium (Sr)

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)

Dissolved Organic 

 (DOC)

δ

2

H, per mil

δ

18O, per mil

δ

34SSO4, per mil

δ

18OSO4, per mil

Sum cations (meq/L

Sum anions (meq/L

C.I. (percent) 1

Except for mercury (

--- 4.81 --- 5.00 ---

--- 2.87 --- 0.920 ---

--- <0.1 --- <0.1 ---

32.9 32.9 32.8 17.6 20.1

11.7 11.8 12.1 0.087 1.38

<0.04 <0.0001 <0.04 <0.0001 <0.04

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

0.017 0.025 0.022 0.048 0.059

0.004 0.006 0.006 <0.001 <0.001

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

0.0040 0.0040 0.0042 0.0002 0.0003

0.019 0.016 0.016 <0.0007 <0.0007

0.0341 0.0307 0.0265 0.0010 0.0101

0.0083 0.0009 0.0009 <0.0005 0.0014

0.055 0.011 0.015 0.142 4.78

I)) --- --- --- 0.135 ---

0.0011 0.0008 0.0006 <0.0003 0.040

0.039 0.042 0.040 0.004 0.005

--- 0.8 --- --- ---

2.83 2.35 2.41 0.014 0.105

<0.007 <0.007 <0.007 0.008 0.014

0.130 0.131 0.131 0.0048 0.0083

<0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.883 0.805 0.806 0.509 0.398

<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1.04 1.03 0.962 0.035 0.046

Carbon

--- 1.4 --- 0.9 ---

--- --- --- --- -96.28

--- --- --- --- -13.25

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

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

) --- 7.89 --- 4.55 ---

) --- 7.80 --- 4.91 ---

--- 1.1 --- -7.6 ---

ng/L)
Sample ID CC2A CC1B CC2B HANSEN HANSEN HOTTENTOT HOTTENTOT LA BOBITA LA BOBITA 

Date 5/14/2003 2/5/2003 2/5/2003 2/7/2003 5/13/2003 2/5/2003 5/12/2003 2/5/2003 5/15/2003 Treatment FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA Constituent, μg/LArsenic (As) < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 2.4 2.1 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 Bismuth (Bi) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Cerium (Ce) 5.6 0.10 0.28 343 347 20 22 88 69 Cesium (Cs) < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 Dysprosium (Dy) 1.00 0.017 0.040 30 29 13 13 11 8.9 Erbium (Er) 0.55 0.019 0.029 9.5 8.9 4.3 4.5 4.1 3.3 Europium (Eu) 0.020 < 0.002 0.006 11 11 3.0 3.0 4.7 3.9 Gadolinium (Gd) 0.74 0.019 0.039 64 63 20 20 20 15 Holmium (Ho) 0.22 0.0052 0.0091 4.5 4.4 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.5 Lanthanum (La) 1.5 0.070 0.17 113 110 2.2 2.8 30 23 Lutetium (Lu) 0.046 0.002 0.004 0.82 0.81 0.39 0.39 0.35 0.28 Molybdenum (Mo) 0.9 9.9 2.6 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.6 0.6 Neodymium (Nd) 1.0 0.06 0.17 306 296 61 61 94 76 Lead (Pb) < 0.08 < 0.08 < 0.08 0.11 < 0.08 < 0.08 0.28 0.58 0.35 Praseodymium (Pr) 0.23 0.013 0.032 61 60 8.1 8.4 18 15 Rubidium (Rb) 9.8 2.0 4.8 7.8 7.6 3.5 3.9 2.9 3.1 Rhenium (Re) 0.020 0.015 0.003 0.016 0.015 0.048 0.042 0.099 0.084 Antimony (Sb) 0.30 0.08 0.10 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 0.40 0.18 0.03 Selenium (Se) < 2 < 2 < 2 7 7 4 5 < 2 < 2 Samarium (Sm) 0.28 0.010 0.029 75 73 18 18 22 18 Terbium (Tb) 0.15 0.002 0.007 7.2 7.2 2.5 2.7 2.4 1.9 Tellurium (Te) 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 0.09 0.16 < 0.07 < 0.07 Thorium (Th) 0.032 < 0.008 < 0.008 0.063 0.059 0.83 0.81 < 0.008 < 0.008 Thallium (Tl) < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.07 Thulium (Tm) 0.062 0.002 0.004 1.1 1.1 0.53 0.51 0.47 0.39 Uranium (U ) 1.3 4.2 4.5 5.0 4.8 2.3 2.4 1.4 1.2 Vanadium (V) 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 9 10 < 1 < 1 Tungsten (W ) < 0.02 0.23 0.04 < 0.02 0.04 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.02 < 0.02 Yttrium (Y ) 7.7 0.26 0.51 119 117 58 59 47 37 Ytterbium (Yb) 0.31 0.012 0.024 6.1 6.0 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.2 Zirconium (Zr) 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 < 0.01 < 0.01 

38

Table 5. ICP-MS analyses for selected sampling events for Phase II wells [ID, identification; FA, filtered-acidified; μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than] 
Table 6. The equations of best fit from the Straight Creek data 

[a, activity; dis., dissolved; SW, surface water; TR, total recoverable; R2, correlation coefficient; vs., versus; <, less than] 

plot (y vs. x) Linear equation R2 Note 

log a(Al3+) vs. pH y = -0.27x - 2.8 0.59 For pH < 5, Straight Creek SW not included 

Al vs. Al(TR) y = 0.99x + 0.25 0.99 All wells and Straight Creek SW 

Al vs. SO4 y = 0.036x + 19.0 0.97 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Be vs. Al y = 0.0004x - 0.0112 0.84 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Be vs. F y = 0.0024x + 0.0008 0.73 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Be vs. SO4 y = 0.000014x - 0.0046 0.84 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Ca vs.SO4 y = 0.19x - 10.9 0.98 Straight Creek debris-fan ground waters 

Cd vs. Zn y = 0.0056x - 0.0032 0.92 Straight Creek SW, SC1A, 3A, 6A, 5A, 7A, 8A, AWWT1 

Co vs. Ni y = 0.45x - 0.0069 0.98 Straight Creek SW, SC1A, 6A, 5A, 7A, 8A, AWWT1 

Cu vs. SO4 y = 0.0006x - 0.29 0.82 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Cu vs. SO4 y = 0.001x - 0.095 0.85 Straight Creek SW 

Cu vs. Zn y = 0.15x - 0.14 0.84 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Cu vs. Zn y = 0.21x + 0.25 0.78 Straight Creek SW 

F vs. Ca y = 0.024x - 0.26 0.87 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

F vs. SO4 y = 0.0049x - 0.97 0.85 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Fe(II) vs. Fe(T) y = 1.0x - 0.52 1.00 Straight Creek ground water 

Li vs. SO4 y = 0.0001x - 0.041 0.84 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Mg vs. Ca y = 0.27x + 14.0 0.95 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Mg vs.SO4 y = 0.056x + 4.3 0.98 Straight Creek debris- fan wells, except 4A 

Mg vs.SO4 y = 0.055x - 12.2 0.74 Straight Creek SW 

SC vs. SO4 y = 1.2x + 390 0.97 Straight Creek SW, SC1A, 3A, 6A, 5A, 7A, 8A, AWWT1 

SiO2

 vs. SO4 y = 0.042x - 17.5 0.76 Straight Creek SW 

SiO2

 vs. SO4 y = 0.016x + 63.8 0.75 SC1A, 6A, 3A, 5A only 

Zn vs. Mn y = 0.37x - 0.16 0.99 Straight Creek SW, SC1A, 3A, 6A, 5A, 7A, 8A, AWWT1 

Zn vs. SO4 y = 0.0042x - 1.3 0.96 Straight Creek SW, SC1A, 3A, 6A, 5A, 7A, 8A, AWWT1 

Mn vs. SO4 y = 0.011x - 3.3 0.97 Straight Creek SW, SC1A, 3A, 6A, 5A, 7A, 8A, AWWT1 

Ni vs. SO4 y = 0.00039x - 0.070 0.96 Straight Creek SW, SC1A, 3A, 6A, 5A, 7A, 8A, AWWT1 

Fe(dis.) vs. Fe(TR) y = 0.96x - 0.59 0.99 Straight Creek ground water 

39
Redox Potentials and Iron Chemistry 

Redox potential measurements and their relation with the Fe(II/III) determinations through the 

equilibrium Nernst equation were evaluated for the data from the Straight Creek well waters (Naus and

others, 2005). The same evaluation was performed with the current data from the phase II well-water 

samples and the results are shown in figures 7A-D. Figure 7A shows the redox potential, or Eh

measured in the field with a platinum electrode plotted in relation to the calculated Eh based on the iron 

redox determinations and speciation computed with WATEQ4F. Only those samples for which both

iron determinations and redox potential measurements were made are included, although some of the 

Fe(II/III) determinations were below detection. The solid diagonal line indicates exact correspondence 

between measured and calculated Eh. The dotted lines (±35 mV) show the range for one standard

deviation developed from the Straight Creek well data (Naus and others, 2005). Several data points fall 

within the standard deviation and several others fall outside. In figure 7B the same data are plotted as 

the difference between measured and calculated Eh values in relation to the Fe(II) to total dissolved iron 

weight ratio for samples that are above the method detection limits for Fe(II) and total dissolved iron 

(Fe(T)). The Fe(III) is below the detection limit for samples containing more than 97 percent of the total

dissolved iron as Fe(II) (Naus and others, 2005). Such samples have been excluded from figures 7C and 

7D. 

The platinum electrode that measures the redox potential also has detection limits that would 

depend on the lower limit of electroactivity of iron for these waters. In a laboratory study, Morris and

Stumm (1967) showed that the lower limit of electroactivity is about 10-5 molar for Fe(II) or Fe(III).

Our field studies (such as Naus and others, 2005) indicate that the platinum electrode can often

approximate equilibrium potentials for solutions that are as low as 10-6 molar in Fe(II) or Fe(III) 

concentration. Hence we have designated a transition zone from 0.02 to 0.2 mg/L in Fe(III) 

concentration (about 0.46 to 4.6 micromolar) where the equilibrium Nernstian response of the electrode 

ceases. This transition zone is shown in figure 7C that plots the difference in the Eh (measuredcalculated) in relation to the Fe(III) concentration. The Fe(III) concentration is used because it is more 

frequently present at the lowest concentrations. Data that fall below the concentration range of the

transition zone should be, and are, excluded from the redox potential comparison shown in figure 7D.

Our field work indicates that the field measurement of Eh is more likely to be in error than the

determination of Fe(II/III) or the speciation calculation. Precautions were taken to carefully measure Eh 

and to collect samples for redox species determinations after field parameters and iron redox chemistry

had stabilized. Nonetheless there may have been some lapse of time between the platinum electrode 

measurement and collection of the water sample; consequently, some difference in sample water 

chemistry may have occurred. 

Samples that have an acceptable comparison between measured and calculated redox potential

(within 2 standard deviations, that is ±70 mV) are considered reliable for calculations of ferrihydrite (or 

other Fe(III) mineral) saturation indices. Ferrihydrite saturation indices for phase II well water samples 

that met this criterion are plotted in relation to pH in figure 8. As shown previously by Naus and others

(2005), the phase II well water data also demonstrated that ferrihydrite solubility provides an upper 

limit to the concentration of Fe(III). 

40
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

exclude accept

Samples with Fe(T) and Fe(II) greater than 

the method detection limits, Fe(II)/Fe(T)

less than 0.97, and Fe(III) greater than

0.02 mg/L

EhMEASURED-EhCALCULATED, IN

V

OLTS

FERRIC IRON CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

transition

B.

Eh

MEASURED, I

N V

OLTS

EhCALCULATED, IN VOLTS

A.

CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen, Hottentot surface water,

Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station WellEhMEASURED-EhCALCULATED, IN VOLTS

FERROUS IRON / TOTAL DISSOLVED IRON

97% Fe

2+

C. D. EhMEASURED, I

N V

OLTS

EhCALCULATED, IN VOLTS

 

Figure 7. A. Measured Eh in relation to calculated Eh for all samples. Solid line indicates the 1:1 correspondence; the dotted 

lines show ±35 mV error range. B. The difference between measured and calculated Eh in relation to Fe(II)/Fe(T) ratio for 

samples with Fe(T) and Fe(II) above method detection limits. C. The difference between measured and calculated Eh in relation 

to Fe(III) concentration. The vertical dotted lines show the lower limit range over which Fe(III) concentration is expected to be 

electroactive. D. Revised plot of figure 7A excluding data points containing non-detectable and non-electroactive ferric iron 

concentrations. Solid line indicates the 1:1 correspondence; the dotted lines show ±70 mV error range. 

41
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

 CC2A, CC2B, Hansen, Hansen surface water,

 Hottentot surface water, La Bobita

log Ksp = 3

FERRIHYDRI

TE SATURATION INDEX

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

log Ksp = 4.9

Goethite (log Ksp = -1)

Figure 8. Saturation index for hydrous ferric oxides (ferrihydrite and goethite) as a function of pH. 

Figures 9A and 9B demonstrate the general lack of correlation of iron concentrations with 

sulfate concentrations, similar to the Straight Creek data of Naus and others (2005). This result is 

expected from the reactive nature of iron geochemistry as a function of redox chemistry and pH. As

with the Straight Creek data, the iron concentrations in Hottentot surface waters are sufficient to 

account for the iron concentrations in the Hottentot well water. No addition of iron is needed but 

attenuation or, more likely, dilution of iron sometimes occurs, as shown by the trend in figure 9A. 

42
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0

100

200

300

400

500

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen, 

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

TOTAL DISSOLVED

 IRON CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

TOTAL DISSOLVE

D

IRON CONCENTRATION,

 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

Figure 9. A. Total dissolved iron concentration plotted in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Total dissolved iron concentration 

plotted in relation to sulfate concentration for the low concentration range (0 – 10 mg/L iron). 

The close equivalency of the dissolved iron concentrations to the total recoverable iron 

concentrations (fig. 10) indicates the general lack of particulate iron in these samples except for samples 

from wells CC1A and the Ranger Station. Waters from wells CC1A and CC2A were noted to be turbid 

during sampling. The silica and aluminum concentrations for total recoverable samples were much

higher in waters from well CC2A than those for the other ground waters, consistent with high turbidity. 

43
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen,

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

DISSOLV

ED IRON CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAM

S P

ER LITER

TOTAL RECOVERABLE IRON CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

1:1 line

Figure 10. Dissolved iron concentration in relation to total recoverable iron concentration. 

Figures 11A-C demonstrate the same trends as the Straight Creek data (Naus and others, 2005) 

in that the surface waters contain nearly all oxidized iron and the well waters contain nearly all reduced

iron. The Hottentot well waters contains some Fe(III) that is probably dissolved, because figure 10 

reflects very small differences between dissolved iron and total recoverable iron for these samples, but 

is still about 97% Fe(II). Hansen well waters are unusual because the Fe concentrations are very low

and only 13 to 28% Fe(II). The high percentage of Fe(III), however, is clearly caused by particulate or 

colloidal Fe (fig. 10). 

Figure 12A depicts siderite saturation indices for the circumneutral pH well waters as a 

function of pH. The saturation indices for the acid ground-water samples are not shown because they

are substantially undersaturated for all carbonate minerals. The trend is the same as that for the Straight

Creek waters (Naus and others, 2005) in that siderite saturation is maintained and appears to control the

Fe(II) concentrations for these waters. The siderite saturation indices also are plotted in figure 12B as a 

function of the calcium concentrations to show that the trend to approach siderite saturation apparently 

is driven by the dissolution of a soluble calcium mineral, probably calcite. This calcium trend is much 

more apparent for the phase II data than for the Straight Creek phase I data. The samples with the 

highest siderite saturation indices are from well CC2B and, as will be shown in the next section for the 

manganese data, these same samples have the highest dissolved inorganic carbon concentrations. 

44
0 100 200 300 400 500

0

20

40

60

80

100

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

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

0

5

10

15

20

200

300

400

F

ERROUS I

RON CONCE

N

T

RATIO

N

IN MILLIG

R

A

MS PER LITER

TOTAL DISSOLVED IRON CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

A.

B.

F

ERROUS IRON CONCE

N

T

R

A

TION,

 IN MILLIG

R

A

MS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hottentot surface water, Hottentot ,

Hansen surface water, Hansen, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

C.

F

ERRIC IRON CONCENTRATION,

 IN MILLIGRA

MS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 

Figure 11. A. Ferrous iron concentration in relation to total dissolved iron concentration. B. Ferrous iron concentration plotted 

in relation to sulfate concentration. C. Ferric iron concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. 

45
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 100 200 300 400 500

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Ranger Station Well

crystalline

disordered

SIDERITE SATUR

ATIO

N I

N

D

E

X

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

disordered

crystalline

A.

B.

SID

E

RITE SATURATION IND

E

X

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 12. A. Saturation indices for crystalline and disordered siderite as a function of pH for wells of circumneutral pH. B.

Siderite saturation indices as a function of calcium concentration for wells of circumneutral pH. 

Manganese Chemistry 

The relation between manganese and sulfate concentrations is shown in figure 13. Up to about 

1,000 mg/L sulfate, the manganese concentrations closely follow the linear best-fit trend for the Straight 

Creek data. At higher sulfate concentrations the manganese concentrations tend to be slightly lower 

than the concentrations observed for Straight Creek data, except for samples from well CC2A, which 

increased substantially in manganese concentration for the last two samples collected. The high 

concentrations in samples from well CC2A are consistent with the trend seen for other elements with

anomalously high concentrations. These results indicate that well CC2A may have been drilled into a 

mineralized section of andesite. This well water also contains elevated sulfate concentration (850 

mg/L). 

46
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0

10

20

30

40

50

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen,

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

MANGANESE CONCE

NTRATION,

IN MILLIG

R

A

MS PER LIT

E

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 13. Manganese concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Dashed line is the best fit of Straight Creek debris-fan 

well waters (except SC4A). 

Rhodochrosite saturation indices are plotted as a function of dissolved inorganic carbon

molality and pH in figures 14A and 14B, respectively. Consistent with the results from the Straight

Creek data, the phase II data reflect an equilibrium solubility control by rhodochrosite that limits the 

maximum concentrations of manganese under circumneutral-pH conditions. Samples with lower pH 

values were not plotted because they are substantially undersaturated with respect to rhodochrosite. It is 

noteworthy that while acid ground waters have no apparent upper solubility limit to manganese 

concentrations, they have substantially lower Mn concentrations than do CC2A samples. This 

difference is likely related to the relative abundance of soluble manganese minerals. Typical QSP 

alteration zones contains little manganese compared to deeper alteration zones (Ludington and others, 

2004). 

Aluminum Chemistry 

The trends in the aluminum concentrations are comparable to the results from the Straight

Creek data. Total recoverable aluminum is comparable to dissolved aluminum for all waters except for

CC1A, which was observed to be turbid (fig. 15A). Acid ground waters have high aluminum 

concentrations, generally following a dilution trend but with greater variability than the Straight Creek

samples (fig. 15B). Neutral-pH ground waters have low aluminum concentrations (generally less than 1 

mg/L), substantially lower than concentrations for the Straight Creek dilution trend but similar to those 

found in Straight Creek neutral-pH bedrock ground waters. Aluminum concentrations are limited by 

microcrystalline gibbsite to amorphous Al(OH)3 solubility (figs. 15C and 15D). Ground waters from 

CC2A seem to be anomalous in that they are substantially undersaturated with respect to gibbsite-like 

phases for a circumneutral pH water. These samples also contain anomalously high fluoride 

concentrations. Fluoride forms strong complexes with aluminum and substantially lowers the aluminum 

free-ion activity and the gibbsite saturation indices. Thus, the elevated fluoride concentrations seem to

be the main reason for the undersaturation effect. 

47
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

.0

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

RHODOC

H

R

O

SIT

E S

A

T

U

R

A

TION I

N

D

E

X

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

disordered

crystalline

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Ranger Station Well

B.

RHODOC

H

R

O

SIT

E S

A

T

U

R

A

TION I

N

D

E

X

DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATION,

IN MOLES PER KILOGRAM OF WATER

disordered

crystalline

A.

Figure 14. A. Saturation indices for rhodochrosite in relation to dissolved inorganic carbon. B. Saturation indices for 

rhodochrosite in relation to pH. Solid horizontal line represents the solubility-product constant for poorly crystalline, disordered 

rhodochrosite and the dashed line represents the solubility-product constant for well-crystallized rhodochrosite. 

48
0 25 50 75 100 125 150

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

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

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -15

-14

-13

-12

-11

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

DISSOLVE

D ALUMINUM C

ONCENTR

ATION,

IN MILLIG

R

A

MS PER LITE

R

TOTAL RECOVERABLE ALUMINUM

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

1:1 line

B.

DISSOLVED ALU

MINUM C

O

N

CENTRATIO

N,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

C. D.

Amorphous

Al(OH)3 (5°C)

Gibbsite (12°C)

LOGARITH

M OF T

HE A

CTIVIT

Y OF Al3+

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

AMORP

H

O

US ALUMINU

M HYDRO

XIDE SATURATION INDE

X

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

Amorphous Al(OH)

3

Gibbsite, 12°C

 

Figure 15. A. Dissolved aluminum concentration plotted in relation to total recoverable aluminum concentrations along with 

linear fit. B. Dissolved aluminum concentration in relation to dissolved sulfate concentration showing linear fit for selected 

Straight Creek debris-fan ground water. C. The logarithm of the free aluminum ion activity in relation to the pH with the degree 

of fit for low pH waters (pH < 5) and the range of solubility limits for gibbsite to amorphous Al(OH)3 for the temperature of the 

ground-water samples. D. Amorphous aluminum hydroxide and gibbsite saturation indices in relation to pH. 

49
Calcium Chemistry and Solubilities of Gypsum, Calcite, and Fluorite 

Gypsum and Calcite Solubilities 

The ground waters in the Red River Valley can be categorized as calcium-sulfate type waters 

because of the preponderance of calcium as the main cation and sulfate as the main anion. Dissolved

calcium has two main sources: weathering of gypsum and weathering of calcite. Dissolved sulfate also

has two main sources: weathering of gypsum and weathering of pyrite. In previous reports (Maest and

others, 2004; Naus and others, 2005) plots of these two constituents indicated the relative (and

qualitative) proportions of pyrite and calcite weathering relative to pure gypsum weathering. Figure

16A shows a plot of calcium in relation to sulfate concentrations for the phase II ground waters with the 

gypsum congruent dissolution line, the equilibrium solubility limit of gypsum in pure water (based on 

Lilley and Briggs, 1976), and the equilibrium solubility range for these ground waters. Most of the

ground waters are enriched in sulfate relative to the gypsum dissolution line, indicating the contribution

of pyrite weathering to the ground waters. The surface and ground waters from Hottentot are 

substantially more enriched in sulfate than the waters from Straight Creek. The reason for this anomaly

is that much of the scar weathering at Hottentot is within a rhyolite porphyry that contains abundant

pyrite and low calcium. This difference is an important lithologic change that also may affect other

dissolved constituents. 

Another anomaly is the calcium and sulfate concentrations found in ground waters from wells 

CC1A and CC1B, which reflect enrichment of calcium relative to sulfate and indicate the contribution 

of calcite weathering. The preponderance of calcite over gypsum and pyrite weathering for CC1A and 

CC1B can be seen more clearly in figure 16B in which the calcium:sulfate molar ratio has been plotted 

in relation to pH. The two dashed lines that outline the area of predominance of gypsum dissolution are

based on the qualitative evaluation of pyrite-gypsum-calcite weathering reactions by Nordstrom and 

others (2005) for the Animas River watershed study. When pyrite weathering dominates the sulfate 

concentrations, the pH values should be acid and figure 16B shows that the lowest calcium:sulfate 

ratios occur at the lowest pH values (Hottentot and Hansen surface and ground waters). For the range of

pH 4 to 7 the calcium:sulfate ratios are nearly constant, in the range of 0.6 to 1.1. The higher ratios 

above pH 7 are consistent with calcite dissolution dominating the weathering reactions and providing a 

buffered pH value above neutral pH. Water from wells CC1A and CC1B is dominated by calcite and 

gypsum dissolution, whereas water from wells CC2A, CC2B, and the Questa Ranger Station is 

dominated by gypsum dissolution, and water from Hansen and Hottentot wells is dominated by pyrite

and gypsum dissolution. The La Bobita well waters are close to the gypsum dissolution line but some 

low acidity reflects the influence of some pyrite weathering. 

Saturation indices for gypsum are shown in figures 17A and 17B as a function of calcium 

concentrations and sulfate concentrations, respectively. These data reflect trends similar to those found 

in the Straight Creek data. The approach to gypsum saturation appears to be driven more consistently

by increasing calcium concentrations than by increasing sulfate concentrations. This pattern would be

expected in an environment where gypsum precipitation is governed by calcite dissolution that 

neutralizes the acidity developed by pyrite oxidation and dissolution. The isotopic and mineralogical 

data indicate that all the gypsum occurring in the weathering zone is secondary gypsum formed from 

reaction of primary calcite and pyrite found in hydrothermal veins (Ludington and others, 2004). Thus, 

conditions inferred for the weathering zone support the results of the geochemical relations. 

Calcite saturation indices as a function of pH are plotted in figure 18 and show that the 

circumneutral pH ground waters are at or close to calcite saturation. Low-pH waters are not shown 

because they are substantially undersaturated. These results are consistent with the hypothesis of calcite

dissolution as an important source of calcium and the main driver for neutralizing the acidity from 

pyrite oxidation. The waters from well CC2A are noticeably undersaturated with respect to calcite,

50
relative to the other circumneutral pH waters, and this undersaturation and pH of about 6 suggests that 

this water may be on the verge of going acidic because it is losing its neutralizing capacity from calcite.

The opposite trend — it has been acid and is now being neutralized by increased calcite dissolution — 

is unlikely because it would be the opposite of weathering trends observed by Ludington and others 

(2004). Waters from well CC2A also are anomalous with respect to several other constituents. 

23456 7 8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

M

O

L

AR RATIO OF

C

ALCIUM T

O SULFA

T

E

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

A.

B.

CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen,

Hottentot surface water, Hottentot La Bobita Ranger StationWell

gypsum solubility

range for Straight

Creek bedrock wells

gypsum solubility equilibrium

in pure water

CA

L

CIU

M CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS P

ER LIT

E

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisflow ground waters

gypsum dissolution

 

Figure 16. A. Calcium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Solid line shows stoichiometric gypsum dissolution 

ending at solubility equilibrium for gypsum in pure water. B. Plot of calcium: sulfate molar ratio in relation to pH. Solid line 

reflects 1:1 ratio of Ca:SO4

 and the dashed lines represents the region where gypsum dissolution is predominant. 

51
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

GYP

S

U

M S

A

T

URATION INDE

X

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen,

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

GYP

S

U

M S

A

T

URATION INDE

X

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

Figure 17. A. Saturation indices for gypsum in relation to calcium concentration. B. Saturation indices for gypsum in relation to 

sulfate concentration. 

52
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Ranger Station Well

CA

L

CITE SATURATIO

N INDEX

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

Figure 18. Calcite saturation indices in relation to pH. 

Fluoride Chemistry and Fluorite Solubility 

Fluoride concentrations can vary widely in ground waters of the Red River Valley depending

on the type and degree of mineralization of the aquifer material (LoVetere and others, 2004; Naus and

others, 2005). The most readily available source of fluoride from weathering processes is dissolution of

fluorite, CaF2

, a common gangue mineral. Plots of fluoride concentration in relation to calcium

concentration and sulfate concentration are shown in figures 19A and 19B, respectively, to compare to 

the same plots for the Straight Creek data (Naus and others, 2005). Fluoride does not follow the dilution

trend found in the Straight Creek catchment except at sulfate concentrations below 1,000 mg/L.

Fluoride concentrations in waters from phase II wells are nearly constant in the range of 1 to 4 mg/L

with the one exception of waters from well CC2A for which concentrations as high as 20 mg/L have 

been determined. Figure 19A indicates that increasing fluoride in CC2A is consistent with increasing 

calcium. Furthermore, the increase in fluoride for CC2A (high minus low concentration) is about 0.6 

millimole for a 1.5 millimole increase in calcium. If fluorite were the only calcium-bearing mineral

dissolving, 3 millimoles of fluoride would be produced for every 1.5 millimoles of calcium. Thus, there 

is no mass balance constraint on fluorite dissolution to account for the increased fluoride concentration. 

Equilibrium fluorite solubility would be a constraint, and figures 19C and 19D show the fluorite 

saturation indices plotted in relation to calcium concentration and pH, respectively. At low pH the

waters are substantially undersaturated, but at circumneutral pH fluorite saturation is reached for all 

waters except those from well CC2A which are about an order of magnitude supersaturated. The result 

for CC2A is similar to that for SC2B from the Straight Creek catchment. These two wells have similar 

pH values and fluoride concentrations for SC2B are similar to the lower fluoride concentration in 

53
CC2A. Fluoride speciation and fluorite saturation indices have been shown to be sensitive to aluminum 

concentrations (Naus and others, 2005). The waters from well CC2A contain aluminum concentrations 

of about 1 to 6 mg/L. These aluminum concentrations are high enough that they should have complexed

most of the fluoride and kept the saturation indices of fluorite closer to saturation. Another possible

source of apparent supersaturation would be errors in the analytical determination of fluoride. However, 

the analyses have been carefully checked by two independent techniques (ion chromatography and ionselective electrode potentiometry) with excellent agreement so that analytical error is an unlikely 

possibility. Whether this supersaturation is an artifact of speciation calculations or a real effect that may

indicate kinetic inhibition to fluorite solubility equilibrium is difficult to determine at this time. What

can be stated is that fluorite supersaturation is observed for samples that have pH values of 5 to 7,

fluoride concentrations above 5 mg/L, and low aluminum concentrations. Compositions other than 

those found in waters from well CC2A reach fluorite solubility equilibrium at neutral pH values without

achieving supersaturation. 

Magnesium Chemistry 

The three predominant mineral sources of magnesium in ground waters of the Red River Valley 

are dolomite, magnesium-rich carbonates (calcite and rhodochrosite), and chlorite (Ludington and

others, 2004). Carbonates weather faster than silicates so that dolomite and magnesium-rich carbonates 

should be more important sources of magnesium than chlorite, but chlorite is abundant in most of the 

rocks and it is fine-grained, increasing its reactivity. 

Figures 20A portray the concentrations of magnesium relative to those of sulfate. There is a 

general tendency for these constituents to follow a dilution trend but the trend does not fit the Straight 

Creek trend particularly closely. Data from the La Bobita, CC1B, and Questa Ranger Station wells 

follow the Straight Creek alluvial well trend, whereas data from the Hansen and Hottentot wells fall on 

the Straight Creek surface-water trend and CC2A and CC2B wells have Mg concentrations that are 

depleted with respect to the Straight Creek surface-water trend. The one feature comparable to Straight 

Creek is that the Hansen and Hottentot ground waters are enriched in magnesium relative to sulfate 

compared to their surface water counterparts. The relation of magnesium to calcium (fig. 20B) shows 

that only Hottentot and La Bobita data are near the Straight Creek trend and the remaining data are 

either enriched in calcium or depleted in magnesium relative to the Straight Creek trend. Wells CC1A 

and CC1B are enriched in calcium from calcite weathering (figure 16B and accompanying text), 

whereas wells CC2A, CC2B, and Hansen are more influenced by gypsum dissolution without as much

magnesium carbonates or silicates. 

Figures 20C and 20D indicate that all samples are undersaturated with respect to dolomite.

Thus, dolomite solubility does not provide a constraint on magnesium concentrations. 

54
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

2 345 6 7 8

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

5

10

15

20

25

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisflow ground waters

FLUORIDE CONCE

N

T

R

A

TION,

IN MILLIG

R

A

MS P

E

R LIT

E

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

C. D.

FLUORIT

E SA

T

URA

TIO

N INDE

X

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

FLUORIT

E SA

T

URA

TIO

N INDE

X

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

B.

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

FLUORIDE CONCE

N

T

R

A

TION,

IN MILLIG

R

A

MS P

E

R LIT

E

R

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

Figure 19. A. Fluoride concentration in relation to calcium concentration. Dashed line represents a linear fit of Straight Creek 

debris-fan wells. B. Fluoride concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Dashed line represents a linear fit of Straight 

Creek debris-fan wells. C. Fluorite saturation indices in relation to calcium concentration. D. Fluorite saturation indices in

relation to pH. 

55
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

4 5 678

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

MAG

N

ESIUM C

ONC

E

N

T

RATION,

IN MIL

LIGRAMS P

ER 

LITE

R

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen, Hottentot surface water,

 Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

B.

Straight Creek 

surface water

MAGNE

SIUM CON

C

E

N

T

RATION,

IN MILLIG

R

A

M

S PER LITE

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

A.

C.

crystalline

DO

L

O

MIT

E SAT

U

R

A

TION I

NDE

X

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

disordered

crystalline

D.

disordered

DO

L

O

MIT

E SAT

U

R

A

TION I

NDE

X

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 20. A. Magnesium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Dashed line represents a linear fit of Straight Creek 

debris-fan wells. Dotted line represents a linear fit of Straight Creek surface water. B. Magnesium concentration in relation to 

calcium concentrations. Dashed line represents a linear fit of Straight Creek debris-fan wells. C. Dolomite saturation indices in

relation to pH. D. Dolomite saturation indices in relation to calcium concentration. 

56
Strontium Chemistry 

Strontium concentrations in ground waters of the Red River Valley do not follow the simple 

dilution trends that exemplify most constituents. Instead, they show a pattern of markedly increased

concentration only at the highest calcium concentrations. The plot of strontium in relation to calcium 

concentrations for the Straight Creek data (Naus and others, 2005) showed that strontium 

concentrations did not exceed 1.5 mg/L until calcium concentrations reached about 400 mg/L, and then 

strontium increased to 12 mg/L. A similar plot for the phase II well data is shown in figure 21A.

Strontium concentrations do not exceed 1.5 mg/L until calcium concentrations reach 350 mg/L, 

indicating that dissolution of calcite is a primary source of strontium. Mineralogical data with traceelement compositions for calcites support this hypothesis. Up to 0.6 percent SrO has been found in

calcite from Straight Creek rock samples (G.S. Plumlee, oral commun., 2004). Figure 21B, a plot of 

strontium relative to sulfate concentrations, shows no dilution trend. 

Saturation indices for celestite and strontianite as a function of calcium concentration are 

shown in figures 21C and 21D, respectively. Although celestite saturation is reached at high calcium 

concentrations for the Straight Creek data, the saturation indices remain about 0.5 log units below 

saturation for the phase II well data. Strontianite saturation indices remain at least an order of

magnitude undersaturated because of the Gibbs phase rule constraint (Naus and others, 2005; Plummer

and others, 1990). 

Silica Chemistry 

The range of silica concentrations from the phase II data is in the same general range as those 

from the Straight Creek study but there are some important differences. Silica concentrations are plotted

relative to sulfate concentrations in figure 22. The silica concentrations in the Hottentot surface and 

ground waters are comparable to those from the Straight Creek alluvial ground waters; however, silica 

concentrations from Hottentot surface waters are elevated substantially above those from Straight Creek 

surface waters. Silica concentrations in the Hottentot surface waters are likely to be elevated because 

the Hottentot surface waters have longer residence times in the debris fan than the Straight Creek 

surface waters. The increased residence time of acid water with aluminosilicate minerals should result 

in dissolution of more silica. Silica concentrations higher than the trend for Straight Creek alluvial well 

waters may reflect the increased silica content of the weathered rhyolite porphyry at Hottentot. 

The silica concentrations in both surface and ground waters for Hansen are similar to those in 

the Straight Creek surface waters, because the Hansen waters have low residence times. The low silica 

concentrations in the remaining waters are typical of low-temperature circumneutral pH ground waters 

and show moderately increasing concentrations with decreasing pH (La Bobita waters have pH values 

of 4 to 4.5 and the highest silica concentrations, 33 to 35 mg/L, for this group of low silica waters). 

57
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

1

2

3

4

5

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

0

1

2

3

4

5

ST

R

ONTIANI

T

E SAT

U

R

A

TION INDE

X

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

D. C.

CELESTITE S

ATU

R

ATI

O

N IN

D

E

X

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

B.

ST

R

O

N

TIU

M

C

O

N

CENTR

A

TIO

N, I

N

MILLI

G

R

A

MS P

E

R LITER

CALCIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

ST

RONTIUM 

C

ONC

E

N

T

RATION, I

N MI

L

LIGRAMS PE

R

LIT

E

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

 

Figure 21. A. Strontium concentration in relation to calcium concentration. B. Strontium concentration in relation to sulfate 

concentration. C. Celestite saturation indices in relation to calcium concentration. D. Strontianite saturation indices in relation 

to calcium concentration. 

58
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debris-flow

ground waters

SILIC

A C

O

N

CENTRATIO

N, I

N MIL

LIG

R

AMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Linear fit for

Straight Creek 

surface water

Figure 22. Silica concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Linear fit lines are shown for the dilution of the Straight 

Creek debris-fan ground waters and the dilution of the Straight Creek surface waters. 

Alkali Metal Chemistry 

Lithium. Figure 23 depicts lithium concentrations relative to sulfate concentrations for the 

phase II data. The lithium concentrations generally follow the trend of Straight Creek alluvial well data 

except that Hottentot surface waters and all Hansen waters have lower lithium concentrations than the 

trend line. The lithium concentrations are less than 0.1 mg/L in all the phase II wells. 

Sodium. Sodium concentrations in the Straight Creek waters did not follow an obvious dilution

trend and the plot of sodium in relation to sulfate concentrations was unclear because of apparent 

contamination of wells SC1B and SC5B by additives (Naus and other, 2005). These additives resulted

in sodium concentrations substantially greater than 40 mg/L. Concentrations in water from all the other 

wells were below 40 mg/L, and these values were considered to more accurately represent the sodium

concentrations in the ground waters. The sodium concentrations for the phase II ground waters are 

plotted in relation to sulfate concentrations in figure 24A. The highest measured sodium concentration 

is 45 mg/L in well CC2B. These results support the hypothesis that concentrations greater than about 40 

to 50 mg/L are likely a result of anthropogenic contamination (for example well drilling additives, road 

salt, septic tank leakage, treated sewage effluent). The primary source for sodium from weathering 

processes would be plagioclase feldspar, primarily oligoclase and albite. 

59
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen

Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisflow ground waters

LITHIU

M CO

N

CENTR

A

TIO

N,

IN MILLIG

R

A

M

S P

E

R LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 23. Lithium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration with the dashed line displaying the best fit for Straight 

Creek debris-fan wells. 

Figure 24B shows the sodium concentrations relative to the chloride concentrations for samples 

from selected wells. The maximum chloride concentration is about 7 mg/L, whereas waters from wells 

SC1B and SC5B contained chloride concentrations in the range of 5 to 40 mg/L. These data further 

support the argument that uncontaminated ground waters in Red River aquifers are not likely to contain 

chloride concentrations greater than about 10 mg/L. 

Figure 24C is a plot of lithium concentrations relative to sodium concentrations and 

demonstrates that lithium concentrations change little over a large range of sodium concentrations. The 

relation of the Li to Na provides additional evidence that lithium has limited abundance and lower 

solubility than sodium. 

60
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

0

20

40

60

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

SO

DIUM CONCE

NTRATION, 

IN MILLIGR

A

MS PER 

LIT

E

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

B.

SO

DIUM CONCE

NTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PE

R LIT

E

R

CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen 

Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

C.

LITHI

UM CONCENT

RATION, 

IN MILLIG

R

A

MS PE

R

LIT

E

R

SODIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 24. A. Plot of sodium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Sodium concentration plotted in relation to 

chloride concentration. C. Lithium concentration plotted in relation to sodium concentration. 

61
Potassium. Potassium concentrations are plotted relative to sodium concentrations and sulfate 

concentrations in figures 25A and 25B, respectively. The trend of increasing potassium with increasing 

sodium is consistent with weathering of feldspars and some phyllosilicates. Potassium concentrations 

are always less than sodium concentrations for any given sample, reflecting the greater solubility of

sodium minerals (such as albite or paragonite) relative to their potassium-rich equivalents (such as 

microcline or muscovite, respectively). Potassium concentrations do not exceed 8 mg/L for phase II 

ground waters, and these values confirm that this range is typical for weathering processes in the Red 

River Valley. Concentrations of 8 to 15 mg/L that were measured in wells SC1B and SC5B in the 

Straight Creek catchment are likely from contamination of the wells as suggested by Naus and others

(2005). 

0 10 20 30 40 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen,

Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

P

O

T

ASSIUM CONCENT

RATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SODIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

B.

P

O

T

ASSIUM CONCE

NTR

A

TION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 25. A. Potassium concentration in relation to sodium concentration. B. Potassium concentration in relation to sulfate 

concentration. 

62
Trace Element Chemistry 

Zinc and Cadmium. The plot of zinc concentrations relative to sulfate concentrations shown in 

figure 26A has some similarity to the trend from the Straight Creek alluvial wells (Naus and others, 

2005), but some notable differences are also apparent. Two samples from CC2A are enriched in zinc, 

whereas Hansen samples and CC2B samples are depleted in zinc relative to sulfate compared to the 

Straight Creek trend line for alluvial ground waters. The Hansen samples may be low in zinc relative to

those in the Straight Creek and Hottentot areas because of their more distal location from plutonic 

intrusions and the hydrothermal centers. The enrichment of zinc for samples from CC2A is unusual but 

is consistent with the elevated concentrations of manganese, fluoride, and beryllium that are found for

these same samples. These anomalies indicate possible local hydrothermal mineralization in the vicinity 

of CC2A. The lack of elevated concentrations for these elements in nearby ground waters from wells 

CC1A, CC1B, and CC2B seems unusual unless there are substantial gradients in lithology and rock

chemistry between these wells and well CC2A. 

Figure 26B is a plot of zinc concentrations relative to manganese concentrations and reveals 

that the zinc:manganese ratios are similar to those for Straight Creek alluvial ground waters except for 

the two samples from CC2A that are substantially enriched in manganese relative to zinc. Cadmium and

zinc concentrations are plotted in figure 26C. This figure shows that cadmium:zinc ratios vary

substantially outside the Straight Creek catchment and could be a signature for individual catchments 

containing different mineral chemistry for trace elements. The source for most cadmium in waters

infiltrating sulfide-mineralized areas is sphalerite, and these data indicate that different alteration zones 

may exhibit different cadmium:zinc ratios. The two Hottentot surface water samples differ substantially 

in trace-element concentrations. The sample with higher Zn and Cd concentrations were collected

higher up in the catchment and contains substantially higher concentrations of iron and sulfate, 

indicating that oxidation of greater amounts of pyrite and other sulfide minerals could account for the 

higher trace element content. Concentrations of copper, zinc, cadmium, manganese, cobalt, chromium,

nickel, lead, molybdenum, beryllium, and arsenic are elevated in concentration in the higher altitude 

sample relative to concentrations in the lower altitude sample. Copper enrichment in the higher altitude

sample is illustrated in figure 26D that plots copper in relation to zinc concentrations. 

Copper. Copper concentrations for the phase II ground-water data do not follow the trend found 

in the Straight Creek data. The concentrations of copper are plotted relative to sulfate in figure 27 along 

with the Straight Creek trend line for debris-fan ground waters. The Hansen waters are depleted in

copper, and the upper altitude Hottentot surface water is enriched in copper relative to sulfate. The 

enrichment in several elements in the one Hottentot surface water was discussed in the zinc and

cadmium – trace metal section. The depletion of copper in the Hansen waters is consistent with their 

relatively low zinc, manganese, and fluoride concentrations. This trend provides further evidence for 

the distal location of the Hansen area relative to centers of hydrothermal activity. 

Nickel and cobalt. Concentrations of nickel and cobalt for the phase II ground waters are 

comparable to the dilution trends for the Straight Creek waters (Naus and others, 2005). Figure 28A

shows the nickel concentrations relative to sulfate concentrations and figure 28B shows cobalt relative 

to nickel concentrations. Both plots correlate well with the Straight Creek trends and strongly indicate a 

single mineral source for these elements in the weathering environment with fairly constant 

cobalt:nickel ratios independent of alteration zone and lithology. Preliminary mineralogical data 

indicates that the main source of weatherable cobalt and nickel is pyrite (Plumlee, oral commun., 2004). 

Cobalt and nickel both occur in the pyrite from the area, but the Co:Ni ratio is very different than what

is found in the water, indicating an attenuation process is taking place or another source of Ni. There is

an indication of greater removal of cobalt relative to nickel for waters containing more oxidized iron

and lower iron concentrations, such as Hansen and La Bobita well waters. 

63
0 10 20 30 40

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 50

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 345 6 7 8

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

B.

ZI

N

C C

O

N

CENTR

A

TIO

N, I

N MIL

LIG

R

A

MS P

E

R LITE

R

MANGANESE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen

 Hottentot SW, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

ZI

N

C C

O

N

CENTR

A

TIO

N, IN

MIL

LIG

R

A

MS P

E

R LI

T

E

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

C.

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

C

ADMIUM C

ONC

E

N

T

RATION, IN MIL

LIGRAMS PE

R

LIT

E

R

ZINC CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

D.

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

CO

P

P

ER CO

N

C

E

N

T

R

A

TIO

N, IN

MIL

LIGRA

MS P

E

R

LIT

E

R

ZINC CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 26. A. Zinc concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Zinc concentration in relation to manganese 

concentration. C. Cadmium concentration in relation to zinc concentration. D. Copper concentration in relation to zinc

concentration. Dashed line represents correlation of Straight Creek debris-fan ground waters. 

64
 

Figure 27. Copper concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. Dotted line shows correlation for Straight Creek debris-fan 

waters. 

Barium. As mentioned in the previous report on the phase I ground-water data (Naus and 

others, 2005), barium concentrations are severely limited to concentrations of a few micrograms per 

liter or less because of the limiting solubility of barite and the high concentrations of sulfate from 

gypsum dissolution and pyrite oxidation. Instead of a dilution trend, an opposite trend is observed in the 

Straight Creek waters, with barium concentrations decreasing with increasing sulfate concentrations

because of the common-ion effect. This same trend is seen in the phase II ground-water data shown in 

figure 29A, in which barium concentrations are plotted relative to sulfate concentrations. However, the 

anomalously high barium concentrations and supersaturated values for barite saturation indices 

observed for water from well SC5B are not seen in the phase II ground-water data. Figure 29B shows 

moderate supersaturation for samples of pH 4 or higher, and figure 29C shows little change in barite 

supersaturation as a function of barium concentration, unlike the Straight Creek data that show

substantial and continuously increasing supersaturation with increasing barium concentrations 

(especially for waters from well SC5B) (Naus and others, 2005). The phase II data set appears to have

less of a problem of fine-grained to colloidal barite getting through the filter units. The common

occurrence of microscopic barite has been observed by Ludington and others (2004) and this result is 

consistent with the results from water chemistry given here. There appears to be few particles 

containing barium in these waters, as shown by the plot of dissolved barium in relation to total 

recoverable barium in figure 29D. Ground water from well CC2B, which is known to contain high

turbidity, contains higher unfiltered barium concentrations than those that were filtered, but most of the 

other determinations were virtually equivalent within the analytical error. 

65
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

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

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen,

 Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

B.

COBALT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

NICKEL CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

NICKEL CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIG

RAMS PER LITER

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

Figure 28. A. Nickel concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Cobalt concentration in relation to nickel 

concentration. Dashed line shows correlation for Straight Creek debris-fan waters. 

66
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

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

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

DISSOL

V

E

D B

A

RIUM C

ONC

E

N

T

RATION,

IN MILLIG

R

A

MS P

E

R LI

T

E

R

TOTAL BARIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

1:1 line

D.

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen SW, Hansen, 

 Hottentot SW, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

A.

B

ARI

U

M CONCE

N

T

R

A

TION, IN MIL

LIGRA

MS PER LIT

E

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

C.

B

A

RITE S

ATURATIO

N IN

D

E

X

BARIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

B

ARITE S

ATU

R

A

TIO

N IN

D

E

X

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

Figure 29. A. Barium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Barite saturation indices in relation to pH. C. Barite

saturation indices in relation to barium concentration. D. Dissolved barium concentration in relation to total recoverable barium 

concentration. 

67
Beryllium. Beryllium concentrations generally found near or below the ICP-OES detection 

limit of 0.001 mg/L in most ground waters, are present at tens to hundreds of μg/L in ground waters of

the Red River Valley. Comparisons of the phase II samples in terms of beryllium and sulfate 

concentrations (fig. 30A) and beryllium and aluminum concentrations (fig. 30B) with the trends in the

Straight Creek data (Naus and others, 2005) reveal a close correlation suggesting a similar dilution

trend except for two anomalous samples from well CC2A. Furthermore, with the exception of well

CC2A, the close association of lithium and beryllium mineralization that was noted for the Straight

Creek ground waters in Naus and others (2005) also can be seen in the phase II ground-water data (fig. 

31A). Figure 31A portrays a close correlation of lithium and beryllium concentrations with the trend 

lines from Straight Creek except for the beryllium-enriched values from CC2A. These enriched samples 

also are anomalously enriched in fluoride (fig. 31B). Complexing between beryllium and fluoride is 

strong and could account for the high concentrations of beryllium. The highest concentrations of

beryllium in the historical ground-water quality data (LoVetere and others, 2004) also are those with the

highest fluoride concentrations. 

A potential solubility limiting phase for beryllium would be Be(OH)2

 (Langmuir and others, 

2004). The highest beryllium concentration measured in ground waters from this study is 0.08 mg/L at a 

pH of 6. The solubility of Be(OH)2

 at 25°C is 0.1 to 1 mg/L (0.02 to 0.2 mg/L Be) at a pH of 6

depending on the degree of crystallinity of the precipitate. Hence, the ground-water composition 

approaches, but does not reach Be(OH)2

 saturation. Furthermore, the speciation of dissolved beryllium 

has not been calculated, and it would only make the dissolved beryllium appear more undersaturated

with respect to Be(OH)2

. 

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

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0 25 50 75 100 125 1

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

50

CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen,

Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

A.

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

BERY

L

LIUM CO

N

C

E

N

T

R

A

TIO

N, IN MIL

LIGRAMS P

ER LIT

E

R

SULFATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

BERY

L

LIU

M CO

N

C

E

N

T

R

A

TIO

N, IN MIL

LIGRA

MS P

ER LIT

E

R

ALUMINUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B.

Figure 30. A. Beryllium concentration in relation to sulfate concentration. B. Beryllium concentration in relation to aluminum 

concentration. Dashed lines show correlation for Straight Creek debris-fan ground waters. 

68
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.08

0.10

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0 5 10 15 20 25

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.08

0.10

FLUORIDE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

B

E

R

Y

L

LIUM CONC

E

N

T

RATIO

N, I

N MI

L

LIGR

A

MS PE

R LIT

E

R

B.

Linear fit for

Straight Creek 

surface water 

CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen surface water, Hansen,

Hottentot surface water, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

Linear fit for

Straight Creek debrisfan ground waters

B

E

R

YLLIU

M CO

N

CENTR

A

TIO

N, I

N MILLIG

R

A

MS P

E

R LITER

LITHIUM CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

A.

Figure 31. A. Beryllium concentration plotted in relation to lithium concentration with solid line showing correlation for debrisfan ground waters and the dotted line showing correlation for Straight Creek surface waters. B. Beryllium concentration plotted 

in relation to fluoride concentration. 

Rare-Earth Elements 

Rare-earth element (REE) concentrations were determined by ICP-MS for 10 phase II samples 

(fig. 32). The REE are normalized to chondrite values from Anders and Ebihara (1982) because of the 

Eu variations in the samples. The REE concentrations vary by over four orders of magnitude, and with 

the exception of samples from the Hottentot and Questa Ranger Station wells, have similar patters with

a relatively flat light REE (La to Nd) portion, a negative Eu anomaly, and a slight negative slope or flat 

pattern for the heavy REE (Dy to Lu). The negative Eu anomaly is consistent with weathering of the 

Amalia Tuff (Johnson and Lipman, 1988; Lipman, 1988). The negative Ce anomaly found in the 

sample from the Questa Ranger Station well is consistent with oxidized waters. 

69
1E-5

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

RARE EARTH ELEMENT CONCENTRATION/C1 CHONDRITE

 CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen, Hottentot, La Bobita, Ranger Station

La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu

Figure 32. Rare-earth elements normalized against Chondrite for phase II wells. 

Dissolved Organic Carbon and Hydrogen Sulfide 

Dissolved organic carbon concentrations in the waters of this study are normal for ground 

waters, in the range of 0.5 to 3 mg/L (fig. 33). There is no obvious indication of well contamination by 

organic additives as was noted by Naus and others (2005) for wells SC1B and SC5B in the Straight

Creek catchment. No hydrogen sulfide was detected for any phase II ground-water samples. 

234 5 678

0

1

2

3

4

5

CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen, Hottentot

La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

DISSOL

V

E

D ORGANIC

C

ARBON

CON

CENTRA

TION, I

N

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS

A.

Figure 33. Dissolved organic carbon concentration in relation to pH. 

70
Stable Isotopes 

The oxygen and hydrogen isotopic compositions for selected sampling events, the global 

meteoric water line, the Rocky Mountain meteoric water line, and a Straight Creek rain and snow 

precipitation line are plotted in figure 34. Ground-water isotopic data are consistent with meteoric water 

as shown by local isotopic precipitation data in the Red River Valley, indicating ground are meteoric 

and show no significant indication of evaporation (fig. 34). 

-110

-105

-100

-95

-90

-85

-80

-75

-70

-65

-60

-55

-50

-45

-40

-16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, CC2B, Hansen, Hottentot

 La Bobita, Ranger Station Well

Straight Creek Precipitation: Snow, PM, Rain, AM

δ

180, IN PER MIL

δ

2H, I

N PE

R MI

L

Straight Creek Precipitation

 4/15/2003

RMMWL

GMWL

Figure 34. Hydrogen isotopic composition in relation to oxygen isotopic composition with a snow - rain line from Straight Creek, 

the Rocky Mountain meteoric water line, and the global meteoric water line. 

The oxygen (δ

18O) and sulfur (δ34S) isotopic composition of sulfate were determined for 13

phase II wells (fig. 35). With the exception of CC1A, the oxygen and sulfur isotopic composition of the 

phase II wells plot in the same region as the oxygen and sulfur isotopic composition of the phase I wells 

(except SC5B) (Naus and others, 2005). The δ

34S for well SC5B was much more positive, 4 to 5 per

mil, than the other phase I and II well waters. The sulfur isotopic composition of well CC1A is 

consistent with the sulfur derived from ore-related FeS2

 or MoS2. 

71
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10

-10

-5

0

5

 CC1A, CC1B, CC2A, Hansen, Hansen surface water,

 Hottentot, Hottentot surface water, La Bobita

δ34S, IN P

E

R MIL

δ

18O, IN PER MIL

Ore related FeS2, MoS2

Salts/Gypsum Scar

Figure 35. Sulfur isotopic composition of sulfate in relation to oxygen isotopic composition of sulfate with the region between 

the dashed lines showing sulfur composition related to ore FeS2

 and MoS2. 

Chlorofluorocarbons, Dissolved Gases, and Tritium 

Samples were collected for determination of CFC, dissolved gas, and tritium concentrations for

ground-water age-dating purposes. This section presents background information regarding groundwater age dating, analytical methods, and results. 

Background 

Ground-water age dating refers to the process of measuring the amount of time elapsed since a 

parcel of ground water became isolated from the atmosphere (residence time). The actual dating of

water in almost all cases relies on the measurement of a specific tracer that is introduced to the ground 

water at the water table by a known physiochemical or biological process. The parcel of water then

becomes isolated from the atmosphere with subsequent recharge and thus begins to “age” (Clark and

Fritz, 1999). This measured time component should be considered a mean residence time for the ground

water within an aquifer and can be used to determine recharge and discharge rates of water in the 

aquifer, horizontal and vertical flow velocities, or even the determination of kinetic reaction rates 

associated with bedrock weathering. 

A simple system for classification of ages of ground water within a given flow system is 

commonly used. “Modern” ground waters are those waters considered to have been recharged within 

the past few decades and are considered part of the active hydrological cycle. “Sub-modern” waters are 

considerably older (pre-dating 1940s) and are characterized by the lack of measurable tritium (3

H) in the 

water. 

72
Chlorofluorocarbons 

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are stable synthetic organic compounds that were first produced in

the 1930s and are purely of anthropogenic origin in the atmosphere. CFCs have accumulated in the 

atmosphere at a quantifiable rate since the 1930s, resulting in a relation between CFC concentration and 

age in modern ground water. Concentrations of CFCs in water are controlled by the partial pressure 

(altitude and mole fraction) of the constituent CFC (CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113) and recharge

temperature of the ground water. By measuring the concentration of a CFC in a sample, an atmospheric 

concentration can be computed and then compared to a known atmospheric concentration profile to 

define an age for the sample. This analysis ideally produces three complementary ages, each associated 

with a common CFC (CFC-11, CFC-12 or CFC-113). Strengths of the technique are the conservative

nature of CFCs as ground-water tracers in aerobic conditions and the relative ease of analysis (Plummer 

and Busenberg, 2000). Drawbacks of the technique are the problems of age (concentration) being

affected by mixing with other waters or the physical degradation of the CFCs in anaerobic conditions. 

Helium-3 / Tritium Dating 

Tritium, 3

H, the radioactive isotope of hydrogen, has a half-life of 12.43 years and undergoes 

beta decay to helium-3 (3

He). Tritium in the atmosphere is mainly associated with atmospheric testing

of nuclear devices that began in 1952 and reached a maximum in 1963-1964. The nature of the 3

H input

to the atmosphere produces a spike-like input associated with the nuclear testing maximum and a decay 

curve as the initial input undergoes radioactive decay. The 3

H age-dating technique is similar to CFC 

dating in that a measured concentration can be used to determine age through comparison to an historic 

input curve. The technique is improved by using a separate measurement of 3

He in the ground water to

produce an absolute age, independent of the 3

H input curve, based on radioactive decay of 3H to 3He.

This technique requires two separate samples, one for the measurement of tritiogenic 3

He (3He from 3H 

decay, denoted as 3

He*) contained as a dissolved gas in the ground water, and the other for the lowlevel measurement of 3

H by the 3He in-growth method (Clark and others, 1976; Bayer and others,

1989). 

Discrimination of 3

He* from the total amount of 3He in the dissolved gas samples requires not 

only the measurement of total amount of helium and its isotopic composition but also the measurement 

of Ne, Ar, and N2

. The data derived from these analyses facilitate the separation of the various sources 

of 3

He contained in the sample. Sources of helium within ground water include: 3He associated with

atmospheric solubility (

3

Hesolubility), He from excess air (3Heexair), excess 3He from primordial and

nucleogenic sources (3

Heterrigenic), and 3He from 3H decay. 

The solubility of 3

He is a function of the equilibrium solubility of 3He in the atmosphere

(temperature and pressure (altitude) related); however, the measured 3

He is frequently much higher than

predicted by atmospheric solubility (along with other atmospherically derived gases (Ne, Ar and N2

)).

The most common explanation for this supersaturation of gas within a sample is entrapment of air

below wetting fronts during aquifer recharge. The entrapped air is forced into solution creating a gas 

component in excess above that of atmospheric solubility (excess air). 

There is 3

Heterrigenic associated with an extrinsic source of helium that is migrating into the 

ground-water flow system; whether it comes from the rock the ground water flows through, or as a

basal flux into the system, this excess component can be viewed as being derived from two sources; 

primordial and crustal. Primordial sources of 3

He include 3He incorporated into the earth’s mantle 

during planetary accretion (Clark and Fritz, 1999), while crustal He refers to He produced in the earth’s 

crust by the decay of U-Th series elements. During U-Th series decay, 4

He is produced by alpha decay,

while 3

He is produced as a result of fission reactions with 6Li (nucleogenic production). The production 

ratio of 3

He to 4He is typically on the order of 1.0 x 10-8 or 0.02 R/RA, where R is 3He/4He ratio in the 

sample and RA is the 3

He/

4

He ratio in air (Rair = 1.384 x 10-6 (Ozima and Podosek, 1983)). For this 

investigation, the primary source of terrigenic He is assumed to be from crustal production 

(radiogenic/nucleogenic) not primordial (mantle derived). 

73
Proper use of the 3

He/3H age dating technique requires that the sources of 3He be resolved. 

Accounting for these various sources, tritiogenic 3

He is calculated by: 

3

He* = 3Hemeasured – 3Hesolubility – 3Heexair -3Heterrigenic (6)

where 3

Hemeasured is 3He measured in the sample; 3Hesolubility is 3He produced by atmospheric solubility, 

derived by using Ne, Ar, and N2

 concentrations; 3Heexair is 3He associated with excess air, calculated 

using Ne, Ar, and N2

 concentrations; and 3Heterrigenic is associated with excess He, calculated using He, 

Ne, Ar, and N2

 concentrations. 

The 3

He in-growth method of measuring 3H allows for determinations as low as 0.05 tritium 

units (TU), where one TU equals 1 3

H atom per 1018 hydrogen atoms. The method involves degassing a 

sample of water and sealing it off from the atmosphere in a measuring vessel for approximately 2

months. The sample is then analyzed for 3

He produced by 3H decay over the 2-month period (3He ingrowth) and the amount of 3

H is then calculated. 

Using the data from both the dissolved gas measurement and the tritium analysis (3

He ingrowth method) the apparent age of the sample is derived from: 

 t = T1/2/ln2 × ln(1+ (3

He*/3H)) (7) 

where t is apparent age, in years; T1/2 is the half-life of 3

H, in years; and 3He*/3H is the measured ratio of 3

He* and 3H. 

The advantage of this technique is that the age determined for the sample is a function of the 

daughter-to-parent isotope ratio. This method is insensitive to mixing with sub-modern waters, and in 

the case of mixing of modern waters it produces an average age of the two mixing systems. Another 

advantage is the determination of the recharge temperature of and excess air in the sample by measuring

the other dissolved gases; this is typically estimated using other techniques. A disadvantage of this agedating technique is that it is limited to about 60 years of measurement (4.5 half-lives). Other 

disadvantages include the need for a specialty laboratory (noble gas mass spectrometer with ultra-high 

vacuum extraction system) for measurement and the time required for the 3

He in-growth analysis. 

Analysis 

Chlorofluorocarbons 

Analyses of CFCs are performed on a gas chromatograph fitted with an electron capture 

detector (table 3), which allows for the measurement of CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-113 to 

concentrations as low as 0.5 to 1.0 picogram/kilogram. The concentrations of CFC-11, CFC-12, and

CFC-113 were calculated from the concentrations in the water sample, the water temperature, and the 

volumes of water and headspace in the ampoules. Details of the measurements, including descriptions 

of the equipment used to collect samples and measure CFC concentrations, measurement procedures, 

and detailed quality assurance and quality control methods and procedures, are provided at 

http://water.usgs.gov/lab/cfc/lab/analytical_procedures_cfc.html. The analytical procedures also are

described in detail by Bullister (1984), and Bullister and Weiss (1988). 

Ages were interpolated from the measured concentrations by curve matching to CFC 

concentration curves from Niwot Ridge, Colorado. Ages were corrected using an altitude of 2700 

meters and the recharge temperature and excess air values from the measured dissolved gas

concentrations determined using the 3

He/3H dating method (Plummer and Busenberg, 2000). 

74
Helium-3 / Tritium Dating 

For analysis, the dissolved gases were separated from the waters in an ultra-low vacuum 

extraction system (P ~ 1 x 10-9 torr). Concentrations of the major gas components (Ar, N2

, O2, CH4) 

were measured using a quadrapole mass spectrometer, and helium and neon were separated from the 

sample gas and analyzed for their isotopic composition of helium (3

He and 4He) and total concentration 

of Ne using a magnetic sector–field mass spectrometer. See table 3 for additional information regarding 

analytical techniques and equipment used. Recharge temperature and altitude values were determined

by procedures outlined by Ballentine and Hall (1999) and Aeschbach-Hertig and others (1999) using

concentrations of Ne, Ar, and N2

 from the dissolved-gas samples and an excess air model for the 

resolution of the components. 

Tritium concentrations were determined using the 3

He in-growth technique (Clark and others,

1976; Bayer and others, 1989). Each sample was transferred to an extraction vessel, completely

degassed under low vacuum for 30 minutes, and sealed in the extraction flask. The flask was stored at 

room temperature for no less than 2 months to allow for the production of 3

He from the decay of 3H 

within the sample. The evolved headspace gas was then analyzed for 3

He and the amount of 3H was

calculated based on the amount of time stored. 

Results 

Helium-3 / Tritium Dating 

Helium isotope ratios presented in this section are expressed as R/RA, 3

He components are 

expressed in tritium units (TU) for the purpose of age calculation, one TU equals one 3

He atom per 

1018 H atoms. 

The range of recharge temperatures calculated from dissolved gas data (table 7) is consistent 

with the average annual air temperature in the Red River of 4°C between 1915 and 2002 (LoVetere and

others, 2004). Calculated recharge altitudes for most of the wells appear reasonable compared to landsurface altitudes in and around the sampling points within the Red River drainage basin (fig. 1). 

Table 7. Dissolved gas concentrations, helium isotopic composition, and calculated recharge temperature and altitude 

[μcc/kg, micro cubic centimeters per kilogram; cc, cubic centimeter; C°, degrees Celsius; mcc = 10-6 cc, micro; kg, kilograms; R,

3

He/4He ratio 

in the sample; RA,

3

He/4He ratio in air TU, tritium units; <, less than] 

Well

Date

Sampled He (μcc/kg) R/RA

4

He 

terrigenic

(μcc/kg)

Ne

(μcc/kg)

Ar

(cc/kg) N2 (cc/kg)

3

He total

(measured) 

(TU)

3

He total

(modeled) 

(TU)

Recharge 

Temperature 

(°C)

Recharge

Altitude 

(meters)

CC1B 8/19/2003 50.1 1.24 5.1 191 0.336 14.9 34.5 34.5 4.0 3,048

CC2A 8/19/2003 39.3 0.97 3.8 153 0.290 11.8 21.3 21.3 8.0 3,048

CC2B 8/19/2003 89.2 0.76 32.2 234 0.370 19.6 37.5 37.5 2.5 3,048

Hottentot 8/20/2003 55.9 1.14 7.0 206 0.352 15.2 35.5 35.5 2.3 2,896

La Bobita 8/20/2003 49.2 1.11 <0.5 224 0.348 14.8 30.4 33.6 3.4 2,896

Hansen 8/20/2003 35.0 1.00 <0.5 153 0.297 11.9 19.5 19.5 7.8 2,743

75
Samples from CC1B, CC2A, SC2B, Hottentot and Hansen have gas concentrations consistent

with an excess air model for ground water/gas equilibration, while samples from SC6A, SC7A, SC8A, 

(Naus and others, 2005) and La Bobita have gas chemistries with a poor correlation to the excess air 

model used to correct for tritiogenic 3

He. This poor correlation is reflected in the difference between the 

modeled (based on modeled helium solubility) and measured total 3

He concentrations (table 8). 

Table 8. Helium-3 (3He) concentrations associated with different sources, tritiogenic 3He concentrations, tritium (3H) 

concentrations, and ground-water ages 

[σ, standard deviation; TU, tritium units; ---, not analyzed; <. less than; >, greater than; ---. no data] 

Well

3

He 

solubility

(TU)

3

He excess 

air (TU)

3

He terrigenic 

(TU)

3

He

tritiogenic 

(TU) 3

H (TU)

Age 

(years)

CC1B 18.6 6.26 0.06 9.60 3.90 22.1

CC2A 18.2 1.32 0.04 1.71 2.27 10.0

CC2B 18.7 12.8 0.36 5.62 < 0.18 > 60

Hottentot 19.1 7.90 0.08 8.43 4.17 19.7

La Bobita 19.0 11.0 --- 1.99 --- ---

Hansen 18.9 0.34 --- 0.33 8.11 0.7

One reason for the poor correlation may be that the excess air model used is not adequate to 

define the observed gas chemistry. Another model, such as a partial re-equilibration model, a multi-step

partial re-equilibration (Stute and others, 1995) or a closed-system equilibration with entrapped air 

(Aeschbach-Hertig and others, 2000) may yield a better correlation. These models each explain a 

specific behavior of gas concentrations associated with ground water isolation from the atmosphere 

after recharge to the aquifer to produce “excess air-like” concentrations by a specific mechanism of 

recharge. For these models to be used, krypton (Kr) and xenon (Xe) concentrations must be measured to

define the behavior of the heavier (more soluble) gases and the observed fractionation between the light

and heavier gases. Measurement of both these species was beyond the scope of this investigation; thus, 

such models cannot be readily applied to the data sets. 

Another explanation for the poor correlation is that these samples may represent mixed ground

waters. The sample may contain a mixture of waters from different ground-water flow systems that 

have differing amounts of excess air and a different solubility associated with recharge temperature.

Mixing of dissolved gas components causes errors in the determination of recharge temperature and 

amount of excess air from a specific sample, and thus results in a poor approximation of the various 

components of 3

He concentration in the sample. In the La Bobita sample, the modeled 3He is greater

than the measured 3

He, indicating a loss of helium from the sample. These losses could be a real effect

of mixing of helium within the system or an artifact of the model interpretation of the other gas 

components (also mixed) producing either a high or low total helium value. For interpreted results, the 

measured 3

He and modeled 3He were averaged, and the deviation between the results was added to the

error in the interpretation for tritiogenic 3

He. 

Tritium results are presented in Table 8. Almost all of the samples contained 3

H except CC2B 

and La Bobita, and thus are classified as modern ground water (< 60 years in age). The tritium analysis 

for the La Bobita sample failed during laboratory extraction (air leak into the flask). The 3

H value for

sample CC2B is very close to the 3

He detection limit for the period allowed for production of 3He. 

The ground-water 3

He/3H ages are representative of a wide variety of flow conditions associated

with the Red River drainage basin. Samples taken from the base of scar areas (Hottentot, La Bobita, and

Hansen) give a large age range for ground water flow from the scars. Hottentot water was the oldest at 

19.7 years, while Hansen had a nearly no age (0.7 yr). La Bobita appears to have a 3He* value

76
consistent with an age of about 10 to 15 years (3

He* = 1.99 TU), however since the 3H analysis failed no

value can be determined. 

Monitoring wells taken from near the base of the Red River Valley show a consistent age 

distribution with the exception of SC8A. Samples taken from Capulin Canyon (CC1B, CC2A, and 

CC2B) are from a well cluster associated with a moderate age gradient. Assuming the water table (~1.5

meters below ground surface) taken from CC1B represents a zero age boundary, the first vertical

velocity would be from the water table to CC2A (~ 34 cm/yr), the second would be from CC2A to

CC1B (~55 cm/yr), and the third from SC1B to SC2B (~ 62 cm/yr). It is difficult to determine recharge

rates using only one cluster. With no control on horizontal flow velocities, mass flux calculations

cannot be determined accurately, however it can be stated that there is a downward gradient for groundwater flow associated with the Capulin Canyon cluster. 

Notable quantities of excess 4

He (4Heterrigenic) are noted in water samples from wells CC2B and 

Hottentot, with lesser amounts in CC1B and CC2A. The amount of excess 4

He and low value for 3H 

indicate that modern ground water in well CC2B (32.2 μcc/kg excess 4

He) is mixing with a sub-modern

component associated with the deep ground-water flow system in the bedrock. The ground-water 

sample from the Hottentot well shows a similar pattern of mixing; however, a sufficient quantity of the

modern component is present within the system to allow an age to be determined (19.7 years assuming

binary mixing between modern and sub-modern components). The lesser amounts of excess 4

He in 

samples from wells CC1B and CC2A may be attributed to intrinsic sources of 4

He such as a basal He

flux or accumulation by radiogenic decay of U/Th series elements contained in the aquifer (Solomon, 

Hunt, and Poreda, 1996). 

Chlorofluorocarbon Data 

Ground-water ages from CFC analysis of samples from wells CC1B and CC2B are in 

agreement with ages determined from 3

He/3H. However, the CFC data for the remaining samples shows 

some ambiguity between ages determined from the various CFC components (table 9) and 3

He/3H ages.

The sample from La Bobita was contaminated with respect to CFCs, having CFC concentrations 2 to 10 

times the amount found in modern (present day) water. 

For ground-water samples from Hansen and Hottentot wells, all of the CFC ages are older than

the 3

He/3H age. The older calculated CFC ages likely result from degradation of the CFCs in anaerobic 

conditions (less than 1.0 mg/L dissolved O2

). In anaerobic conditions microbial degradation of CFCs 

can occur in the presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria, preferentially degrading CFC-11 relative to CFC12 (Plummer and others, 1998; Plummer and Busenberg, 2000). Depending on DOC and sulfate 

concentrations in the water under reducing conditions, the degradation sequence for CFCs is expected 

to first be CFC-11, followed by CFC-113, then CFC-12. In some cases, CFC-11 and CFC-113 may be

entirely removed from the system. 

Samples from CC1B and CC2B have a good correlation in age dates (average 26.1 and 39.7

years, respectively) based on ages determined from the three CFCs. The dates also agree well to the 3

He/3H data (22 and >60 years), with minor degradation occurring in CC1B and possible mixing of premodern water occurring in CC2B noted by the amount of excess 4

He. 

77
Table 9. Chlorofluorocarbon data 

[CFC, chlorofluorcarbon; pg, picogram; kg, kilogram; CFC ages calculated using recharge altitude, recharge temperatures and excess air 

values taken from the dissolved gas data; ---, not analyzed] 

CFC Ages

CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113

(pg/kg) (pg/kg) (pg/kg) (years) (years) (years)

CC1B 354 153 28.6 28.1 27.6 23.6

CC2A --- --- --- --- --- ---

CC2B 72.6 36.1 3.9 39.6 40.6 39.0

Hottentot 145 138 17.0 37.0 30.1 30.0

La Bobita 4,889 3,176 178 Contaminated

Hansen 509 301 80.6 18.1 Modern 11.6

Sample

CFC concentrations

SUMMARY

Seven monitoring wells were installed in small catchments in the Red River Valley outside of 

the Straight Creek catchment as part of a second phase of well development for characterizing groundwater chemistry. Eight monitoring wells were originally installed, monitored, and water chemistry

interpreted in phase I for the Straight Creek catchment as described in Naus and others (2005). Two 

additional wells in Straight Creek (SC7A and SC8A) were installed later as part of phase II but the 

chemical data were included in Naus and others (2005). Wells were completed in the debris fans of the 

Hottentot and Hansen catchments, the La Bobita sediment fan, and in bedrock and alluvial deposits 

unaffected by waste-rock drainage or other mining activities in the upper part of Capulin Canyon. Two 

surface-water samples in the Hottentot catchment and two surface-water samples in the Hansen

catchment also were collected and analyzed to compare surface-water and ground-water compositions

within these drainages. One sample from the inactive Questa U.S. Forest Service Ranger Station well

was collected and analyzed. 

Water chemistry, including major ions and trace elements, was monitored over a period of

about 1 year and 66 samples were analyzed. These analyses included several duplicates and filtered and 

unfiltered-acidified (total recoverable) sample splits. There were 32 dissolved sample analyses, of 

which 3 were duplicates. The duplicate sample concentrations were averaged, and subsequently, 29 

samples were used for plotting and calculations. The data were interpreted using geochemical

speciation calculations, especially saturation indices, and by comparison with dilution trend lines 

derived from linear regressions on paired solute constituents from the Straight Creek data. The results 

allowed an evaluation of (1) possible mineral solubility limits that might control solute concentrations, 

(2) dilution trends, similar to those found for Straight Creek, that might control solute concentrations, 

and (3) the extent to which Straight Creek data may be an analog for weathering reactions occurring 

elsewhere in similar mineralized rock along the north side of the Red River (along the Questa caldera 

boundary) between the town of Red River and the U.S. Forest Service Questa Ranger Station. 

Charge imbalances for 32 filtered samples averaged +1 percent with a standard deviation of 

±5.8 and the largest C.I. was 11 percent. These values are well within the acceptable range for

speciation computations. The range of effective ionic strength was 0.01 to 0.055 molal, well within the

acceptable range for speciation computations using the ion association method (Nordstrom and Munoz, 

1994). 

Ground-water samples collected from Hottentot, Hansen and La Bobita were acidic with a 

range in pH of 2.6 to 4.5. Samples collected from Capulin Canyon wells and the Questa Ranger Station

78
well were circumneutral with a range in pH between 6 and 7.3. Specific conductance values ranged 

from 500 (Questa Ranger Station well) to 3,000 μS/cm (upper Hottentot surface water) and correlated

linearly with sulfate concentration because of the overwhelming dominance of sulfate among the anions 

in these samples. An evaluation of redox potential measurements and their correlation with redox

potentials calculated from Fe(II) and Fe(III) concentrations and speciation calculations for activities 

was done in a manner equivalent to that done for the Straight Creek phase I data (Naus and others,

2005). The results indicate that the range of 0.02 to 0.2 mg/L of Fe(III) (0.46 to 4.6 micromolar) was 

found to be the transition concentration below which the Nernstian equilibrium potential is no longer

operative after detection limits were considered. 

Iron concentrations in the phase II data were similar to the trends found in the phase I data. 

Total dissolved iron concentrations did not correlate well with sulfate concentrations because dynamic 

oxidation-reduction reactions occur in the catchments. Surface waters contained predominantly

oxidized iron (dissolved Fe(III)) and ground waters contained predominantly reduced iron (dissolved 

Fe(II)). Saturation indices demonstrated that ferrihydrite provides a solubility limit for Fe(III) 

concentrations and siderite provides a solubility limit for Fe(II). The driving force for reaching siderite

saturation appears not to be the dissolution of siderite but rather the dissolution of calcite and possibly 

rhodochrosite and dolomite. 

Constituents that followed the trends and solubility limits established by the Naus and other

(2005) for phase I data included iron, aluminum, magnesium, strontium, silica, sodium, potassium,

cobalt, nickel, barium, and dissolved organic carbon. Sodium and potassium concentrations were less 

variable and were within a lower concentration range of values than those from wells SC1B and SC5B, 

giving further confirmation that SC1B and SC5B were contaminated from man-made sources. 

Constituents that followed the trends and solubility limits established by phase I data with one 

or two exceptions included manganese, calcium, lithium, zinc, and beryllium. The main exception was 

the data from well CC2A that contained high concentrations of manganese, zinc, lithium, beryllium, 

and fluoride. This exception suggests a local mineralized zone in the vicinity of this well. The high 

beryllium concentrations seem to be related to the high fluoride concentrations and are likely a result of

beryllium-fluoride complexing in solution. This hypothesis is consistent with similar data from other 

wells in the Red River Valley. This well may have been contaminated with waste-rock leachate but it is

difficult to determine how such contamination might have occurred because the location of the well

with respect to the drainages should have excluded such a possibility. 

The Hansen ground water contained manganese, lithium, zinc, and copper concentrations that 

were below the phase I concentration trends. This difference is likely caused by less intense 

hydrothermal alteration and reduced mineralization in the Hansen scar area compared with other areas. 

The Hansen area may be more distant from local centers of hydrothermal activity than Straight Creek or 

Hottentot, and the disparity is related to geologic control on ground-water chemistry. Calcium 

concentrations follow the phase I trends except for the Hottentot data. The Hottentot scar contains an 

exposure of rhyolite porphyry that is deficient in calcium compared with the other dominant rock types 

and appears to have less gypsum and calcite available for weathering. 

Fluoride, copper, and cadmium concentrations do not follow the phase I data trends. These 

elements are strongly affected by mineralization of alteration zones; that is, they are affected by the

spatial distribution of mineral assemblages resulting from successive hydrothermal events and from 

pressure and temperature gradients during hydrothermal alteration that control mineral formation. The 

Straight Creek data do not provide a reliable analog for these elements unless the location of the 

weathering surface, with respect to the spatial distribution of the alteration zones, is carefully taken into 

account. 

Speciation calculations with the phase II data confirmed that mineral-solubility equilibria 

provided an upper limit to the dissolved concentrations of several constituents in the Red River ground 

waters. After careful screening of the redox measurements and their correlation with redox potentials 

derived from Fe(II/III) determinations and speciation computations, ferrihydrite solubility provides a 

79
limit on Fe(III) concentrations. However, the trend can only be demonstrated up to a pH of about 4.5 

because at higher pH values the Fe(III) concentrations were too low to be reliable for redox potential 

measurements. Siderite precipitation limits Fe(II) concentrations for anoxic ground waters with pH 

values at or greater than 6.0. Siderite is not a common mineral in the Red River Valley and approach to

saturation appears to be driven by dissolution of other carbonates, primarily calcite, dolomite, and 

rhodochrosite. Manganese concentrations reflect an upper limit imposed by crystalline to disordered 

rhodochrosite at pH values at or greater than 6.0. 

Aluminum concentrations generally followed dilution trends similar to those in the phase I data

for pH values below 4. When the pH reaches 4, depletion in aluminum concentrations relative to sulfate 

concentrations occurred, consistent with decreases in silica concentrations and consistent with the phase 

I data. The low concentrations of aluminum at pH values higher than 4 are consistent with an Al(OH)3

- 

like phase that has been called microcrystalline to amorphous gibbsite. Because the silica 

concentrations also decreased and because these circumneutral pH samples also were at saturation with 

respect to kaolinite, an aluminosilicate clay such as poorly ordered kaolinite (or imogolite or allophane) 

should be forming. 

Calcium concentrations covered a large range and reached (a) gypsum solubility equilibrium

for the low-pH Hansen Creek samples and (b) calcite solubility equilibrium for the high pH samples 

from CC1B and CC2B. These two minerals are common in the Red River Valley. Fluorite solubility 

equilibrium appeared to be reached for waters from CC2B and possibly CC1B. Samples from CC2A are 

supersaturated with respect to fluorite by an order of magnitude and it is not clear whether this 

supersaturation is real or an artifact of the speciation calculations. The effect has been seen for other 

ground-water compositions with pH near 6.0, high fluoride concentrations, and low aluminum 

concentrations. All samples in this study were undersaturated with respect to dolomite, celestite, and 

strontianite. 

Barium concentrations are limited entirely by crystalline to microcrystalline barite solubility 

because of its low solubility. Other trace elements do not reach equilibrium solubility. For example, all

samples were well undersaturated with respect to smithsonite and thus smithsonite solubility is not

limiting to zinc concentrations; all samples are well undersaturated with respect to otavite and its

solubility was not limiting cadmium concentrations; and all samples are well undersaturated with

respect to bronchantite and malachite and their solubilities were not limiting to copper concentrations. 

For phase II wells, the DOC is in the range of 0.5 to 2.5 mg/L and is consistent with other noncontaminated wells in the area. The hydrogen and oxygen isotopic composition indicates that the

ground waters are meteoric, recent in origin, and have minimal evaporation. 

Based on the 3

He/3H data, ground-water ages within the Red River drainage basin range from 

present day to older pre-modern waters. The dissolved gas chemical data indicate possible mixing of 

ground water associated with the basal Red River drainage basin as it receives ground-water discharge 

emanating from the debris-fan aquifers associated with erosional scars. Chloroflourocarbon-age data 

rarely correlate well with 3

He/3H data and are influenced by microbial degradation. In some cases 3

He/3H ages are also questionable because of possible mixing. 

This interpretation of major-and trace-element concentrations for ground waters outside the 

Straight Creek catchment has helped to determine to what extent the Straight Creek results serve as a

useful analog for estimating the pre-mining ground-water quality at the Questa molybdenum mine site. 

80
REFERENCES CITED 

Anders, E., and Ebihara, M, 1982, Solar-system abundances of the elements: Geochimical et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 46, p. 2362-

2380. 

Aeschbach-Hertig, W., Peeters, F., Beyerle, U., and Kipfer, R., 1999, Interpretation of dissolved atmospheric noble gases in 

natural waters: Water-Resources Research, v. 35, p. 2779-2792. 

Aeschbach-Hertig, W., Peeters, F., Beyerle, U., and Kipfer, R., 2000, Palaeotemperature reconstruction from noble gases in 

ground taking into account equilibration with entrapped air: Nature, v. 405, p. 1040-1044 

Aiken, G.R., 1992, Chloride interference in the analysis of dissolved organic carbon by the wet oxidation method: Environmental

Science and Technology, v. 26, p. 2435-2439. 

American Public Health Association (APHA), 1985, Method 428C. Methylene blue method for sulfide, in Standard methods for 

the examination of water and wastewater (14th ed.): American Public Health Association, p. 403-405. 

Ball, J.W., and Nordstrom, D.K., 1991, User’s manual for WATEQ4F, with revised thermodynamic data base and test cases for 

calculating speciation of major, trace, and redox elements in natural waters: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

91-183, 189 p. 

Ballentine, C.J., and Hall, C.M., 1999, Determining palaeotemperature and other variables by using an error-weighted, nonlinear

inversion of noble gas concentrations in water: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, no. 63, p. 2315-2336. 

Barnard, W.R., and Nordstrom, D.K., 1980, Fluoride in precipitation – I. Methodology with the fluoride-selective electrode: 

Atmospheric Environment, v. 16, p. 99-103. 

Barringer, J.L., and Johnsson, P.A., 1989, Theoretical considerations and a simple method for measuring alkalinity and acidity in 

low pH waters by gran titration: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4029, 35 p. 

Bayer, R., Schlosser, P., Bonisch, G., Rupp, H., Zaucker, F., and Zimmek, G., 1989, Performance and blank components of a mass 

spectrometric system routine measurement of helium isotopes and tritium by 3

He ingrowth method: Sitzungsberichte 

der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse: Heidelberg, Springer 

Verlang, p. 241-279. 

Brinton, T.I., Antweiler, R.C., and Taylor, H.E., 1995, Method for the determination of dissolved chloride, nitrate, and sulfate in 

natural water using ion chromatography: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-426A, 16 p. 

Bullister, J.L., 1984, Atmospheric chlorofluoromethanes as tracers of ocean circulation and mixing–Studies in the Greenland 

and Norwegian seas: La Jolla, University of California, San Diego, Ph.D. dissertation, 172 p. 

Bullister, J.L., and Weiss, R.F., 1988, Determination of CFC3F and CCl2F2 in seawater and air: Deep Sea Research, 35, p. 839-854. 

Caine, J.S., 2003, Questa baseline and pre-mining ground-water quality investigation. 6. Preliminary brittle structural geologic 

data, Questa mining district, southern Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 03-280, 7 p. 

Clark, I., and Fritz, P., 1999, Environmental isotopes in hydrology: New York, Lewis Publishers. 

Clark, W.B., Jenkins, W.J., and Top, Z., 1976, Determination of tritium by mass spectrometric measurements: International 

Journal of Applied Radioactive Isotopes, v. 27, p. 515-522. 

Coplen, T.B., 1994, Reporting of stable hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen isotopic abundances: Pure and Applied Chemistry, v. 66, p.

273-276. 

Coplen, T.B., Wildman, J.D., and Chen, J., 1991, Improvements in the gaseous hydrogen-water equilibrium technique for 

hydrogen isotope ratio analysis: Analytical Chemistry, v. 63, p. 910-912. 

Epstein, S., and Mayeda, T., 1953, Variation of 17O content of water from natural sources: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 

4, p. 213-224. 

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S.

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p 

Gale, V.G., and Thompson, A.J.B., 2001, Reconnaissance study of waste rock mineralogy: Questa, New Mexico, Petrography, 

PIMA Spectral Analysis and Rietveld Analysis: PetraScience Consultants, Inc., January 31. 

Garbarino, J.R., and Taylor, H.E., 1995, Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometric method for the determination of 

dissolved trace elements in natural water: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-358, 88 p. 

Gibs, J., and Wilde, F.D., 1999, Ground-water sampling: Preparations and purging methods at water-supply wells and monitoring 

wells, in National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4.2., p. 61-90. 

81
Giesemann, A., Jäger, H.J., Normann, A.L., Krouse, H.R. and Brand, W.A.: 1994, On-line sulfur isotope determination using an 

elemental analyzer coupled to a mass spectrometer: Analytical Chemistry, v. 66, p. 2816–2819. 

Johnson, C.M., and Lipman, P.W., 1988, Origins of metaluminous and alkaline volcanic rocks of the Latir volcanic field, northern 

Rio Grande rift, New Mexico: Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, V. 100, p. 107-128. 

Kennedy, V.C., Jenne, E.A., and Burchard, J.M., 1976, Backflushing filters for field processing of water samples prior to traceelement analyses: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 76-126, 12 p. 

Kennedy, V.C., Jones, B.F., and Zellweger, G.W., 1974, Filter pore-size effects on the analysis of Al, Fe, Mn, and Ti in water:

Water Resources Research, v. 15, p. 687-702. 

Knight, P.J., 1990, The flora of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico, in P.W. Bauer, S.G. Lucas, C.K. Mawer, and W.C. 

McIntosh, eds., Tectonic Development of the Southern Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico: New Mexico 

Geological Society Forty-First Annual Field Conference, September 12-15, p. 94-95. 

Langmuir, D. Chrostowski, P., Vigneault, B., and Rufus, C., 2004, Issue paper on the environmental chemistry of metals: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. 

Laxen, D.P.H., and Chandler, I.M., 1982, Comparison of filtration techniques for size distribution in freshwaters: Analytical 

Chemistry, v. 54, p. 1350-1355. 

Lilley, T.H. and Briggs, C.C., 1976, Activity coefficients of calcium and sulfate in water at 25oC: Proceedings of the Royal Society 

London, Series A, v. 349, p. 355-368. 

Lipman, P.W., 1981, Volcano-tectonic setting of tertiary ore deposits, southern Rocky Mountains: Arizona Geological Society 

Digest, v. 14, p. 199-213. 

Lipman, P.W., 1988, Evolution of silicic magma in the upper crust; the mid-Tertiary Latir volcanic field and its cogenetic granitic 

batholith, northern New Mexico, U.S.A.: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, v. 79, p 265-

288. 

Livo, K.E., and Clark, R.N., 2002, Mapped minerals at Questa, New Mexico, using airbourne visible-infrared imaging

spectrometer (AVIRIS) data–preliminary report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0026, 13 p. 

LoVetere, S.H., Nordstrom, D.K., Maest, A.S., and Naus, C.A., 2004, Questa baseline and pre-mining ground-water quality 

investigation. 3. Historical ground-water quality for the Red River Valley, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 03-4186, 44 p. 

Ludington, S.D., Plumlee, G.S., Caine, J.S., Bove, D., Holloway, J.M., and Livo, D.E., 2004, Questa baseline and pre-mining 

ground-water quality investigation. 10. Geologic influences on ground and surface waters in the Red River watershed, 

New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 04-5245, 45 p. 

Maest, A.S., Nordstrom, D.K., and LoVetere, S.H., 2004, Questa baseline and pre-mining ground-water quality investigation. 4. 

Historical surface-water quality for the Red River, New Mexico, 1965-2001: Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5063, 

150 p. 

McCleskey, R.B. Nordstrom, D.K., and Naus, C.A., 2004, Questa baseline and pre-mining ground-water quality investigation. 16. 

Quality assurance and quality control of water analyses: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1341, 102 p. 

McCleskey, R.B., Nordstrom, D.K., and Ball, J.W., 2003, Metal interferences and their removal prior to the determination of As(T) 

and As(III) in acid mine waters by hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 03-4117, 166 p. 

Meyer, J.W., and Leonardson, R.W., 1990, Tectonic, hydrothermal and geomorphic controls on alteration scar formation near 

Questa, New Mexico: Guidebook - New Mexico Geological Society, v. 41, p. 417-422. 

Meyer, J.W., and R.W. Leonardson, 1997, Geology of the Questa Mining District: Volcanic, plutonic, tectonic and hydrothermal 

history: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin, Open File Report 431, 187 pp. 

Molycorp, Inc., [n.d.], Molybdenum-Questa, NM-History, accessed from the World Wide Web on July 22, 2004 at 

www.molycorp.com. 

Morris, J. C., and Stumm, W., 1967. Redox equilibria and measurements of potentials in the aquatic environment, in Stumm, W., 

ed., Equilibrium concepts in natural water systems: American 47 Chemical Society Advances in Chemistry Series 67, 

American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., p. 270-285. 

Naus, C.A., McCleskey, R.B., Nordstrom, D.K., Donohoe, L.C., Hunt, A.G., Paillet, F.L., Morin, R.H., and Verplanck, P.L., 2005,

Questa Baseline and Pre-Mining Ground-Water-Quality Investigation. 5. Well Installation, Water-Level Data, and 

Surface- and Ground-Water Geochemistry in the Straight Creek Drainage Basin, Red River Valley, New Mexico, 2001-

03: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5088, 220 p. 

Nordstrom, D. K., 1977, Thermochemical redox equilibria of ZoBell’s solution: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 41, p. 1835-

1841. 

82
Nordstrom, D.K., and Munoz, J.L., 1994, Geochemical thermodynamics (2nd ed): Boston, Mass., Blackwell Scientific 

Publications, 493 p. 

Nordstrom, D.K., Wright, W.G., Mast, M.A., Bove, D., and Rye, R.O, 2005, Aqueous-sulfate stable isotopes – A study of miningaffected and unmined acidic drainage, Chapter E8 in Church, S.E., von Guerard, Paul, and Finger, S.E., eds., Integrated 

investigations of environmental effects of historical mining in the Animas River watershed, San Juan County, 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1651 – E81. 

Ozima, M., and Podosek, F.A., 1983, Noble gas geochemistry: Cambridge University Press, 367 p. 

Plummer, L.N., and Busenberg, Eurybiades, 2000, Chlorofluorocarbons, in Cook, P.G., and Herczeg, A.L., eds., Environmental 

tracers in subsurface hydrology: Boston/Dordrecht/London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 441-478. 

Plummer, L.N., Busby, J.F., Lee, R.W., and Hanshaw, B.B., 1990, Geochemical modeling of the Madison aquifer in parts of 

Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota: Water Resources Research, v. 26, no. 9, p. 1981-2014. 

Plummer, L.N., Busenberg, Eurybiades, Drenkard, S., Schlosser, P., Ekwurzel, B., Weppernig, R., McConnell, J.B., and Michel, 

R.L., 1998, Flow of rover water into a karstic limestone aquifer - 2. Dating the young fraction in groundwater mixtures 

in the Upper Floridan aquifer near Valdosta, Georgia: Applied Geochemistry, v. 13, no. 8, p. 1017-1043. 

Rehrig, W.A., 1969, Fracturing and its effects on molybdenum mineralization at Questa, New Mexico: PhD Dissertation to the 

University of Arizona, 194 p. 

Robertson GeoConsultants, Inc. (RGC), 2000, Interim background characterization study, Questa Mine, New Mexico: Report 

number 052008/6, June, 33 p. 

Robertson GeoConsultants, Inc., 2001, Background study data report, Questa Mine, New Mexico: Report No. 052008/12, 

prepared for Molycorp Inc., 40 p. 

Roth, D.A., Taylor, H.E., Domagalski, J., Dileanis, P., Peart, D.B., Antweiler, R.C., and Alpers, C.N., 2001, Distribution of inorganic 

mercury in Sacramento River water and sediments: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 40, p. 

161-172. 

Schilling, J.H., 1956, Geology of the Questa molybdenum (moly) mine area, Taos County, New Mexico: Socorro, New Mexico 

Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 51, 87 p. 

Silva, R.I., Bidoglio, G., Rand, M.H., Robouch, P.B., Wanner, H. and Puigdomenech, I, 1995, Chemical Thermodynamics of 

Americium: Elsevier, Amsterdam, 374 pp. 

Slifer, Dennis, 1996, Red River groundwater investigation, Final report: New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water 

Quality Bureau, March, 26 p. 

Smolka, L.R., and Tague, D.F., 1989, Intensive water quality survey of the Middle Red River, Taos County, New Mexico, 

September 12–October 25, 1988: New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, Surveillance and Standards 

Section, Surface Water Quality Bureau: May 1989, 87 p. 

Solomon, D.K., Hunt, A.G., and Poreda, R.J., 1996, Source of radiogenic helium 4 in shallow aquifers-Implications for dating 

young groundwater: Water-Resources Research, v. 32, no. 6, p. 1805-1813. 

South Pass Resources, Inc., 1995, Supplemental report—Discussion of the geology, hydrology, and water quality of the mine 

area, Molycorp Facility, Taos County, New Mexico: Scottsdale, Ariz., February 15, 15 p. 

Steffen Robertson & Kirsten, 1995, Questa molybdenum mine geochemical assessment: SRK Project no. 09206, Lakewood, Colo., 

April 13, 44 p. 

Stookey, L.L., 1970, Ferrozine-A new spectrophotometric reagent for iron: Analytical Chemistry, v. 42, p. 779-781. 

Stute, M., Forster, M., Frischkorn, H., Serejo, A., Clark, J.F., Schlosser, P., Broecker, W.S., and Bonani, G., 1995, Cooling of 

tropical Brazil (5 degrees C) during the last glacial maximum: Science, v. 269, no. 5222, p. 379-383. 

Taylor, H.E., and Garbarino, J.R., 1991, The measurement of trace metals in water resources-Monitoring samples by inductively 

coupled plasma-mass spectrometry: Spectrochemica Acta Reviews, v. 14, no. 1-2, p. 33-43. 

Taylor, H.E., Berghoff, K., Andrews, E.D., Antweiler, R.C., Brinton, T.I., Miller, C., Peart, D.B., and Roth, D.A., 1997, Water quality of 

springs and seeps in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: National Park Service Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-97/128, 26 p. 

To, T.B., Nordstrom, D.K., Cunningham, K.M., Ball, J.W., and McCleskey, R.B., 1999, New method for the direct determination of 

dissolved Fe(III) concentration in acid mine waters: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 33, p. 807-813. 

URS, 2001, Final report, Molycorp Questa Mine site-wide comprehensive hydrologic characterization report: Denver, Colo., 

March, 95 p. 

URS, 2002, Molycorp Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) work plan, sections one through three, v.1 draft final: 

Denver, Colo., July. 

83
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2001, Wildland Urban Interface Areas in USDA FS Southwestern Region: 

Southwestern Region GIS Datasets, accessed July 22, 2004 from the World Wide Web at URL 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis/datasets.shtml#regional. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, NPL Site Narrative for Molycorp, Inc., accessed July 22, 2004 from the World Wide 

Web at URL http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1599.htm. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997-99, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, 2 v., variously paged. [Also available online at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A; updates and revisions are summarized at 

http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/mastererrata.html] 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004a, Daily streamflow for the Nation, USGS 08265000 Red River near Questa, NM, accessed July 22, 

2004 from the World Wide Web at URL http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/discharge/. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004b, Isotope fractionation project: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory, 

accessed March 23, 2004 from the World Wide Web at URL http://isotopes.usgs.gov/. 

Vail Engineering, Inc., 1989, A geochemical investigation of the origin of aluminum hydroxide precipitate in the Red River, Taos 

County, New Mexico: June, 43 p. 

Verplanck, P.L., Antweiler, R.C., Nordstrom, D.K., and Taylor, H.E., 2001, Standard reference water samples for rare earth 

element determination: Applied Geochemistry, v. 16, p. 231-244. 

Western Regional Climate Center, 2003, Historical climate information: New Mexico climate summaries, Red River, New 

Mexico (297323), accessed July 17, 2003, from the World Wide Web at URL http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. 

Wilde, F.D., and Radtke, D.B., 1998, Field Measurements, in National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. 

ZoBell, C.E., 1946, Studies on redox potential of marine sediments: 8. Other methods: Bulletin of the American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists, v. 30, p. 477-509. 

84