Geochemical Results from Stream-Water and StreamSediment Samples Collected in Colorado and New Mexico

Open-File Report 2013–1064

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Geochemical Results from Stream-Water and StreamSediment Samples Collected in Colorado and New Mexico

By Philip L. Hageman, Andrew S. Todd, Kathleen S. Smith, Ed DeWitt, and Mathew P. Zeigler 

Open-File Report 2013–1064

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 

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

it’s natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation: 

Hageman, P.L., Todd, A.S., Smith, K.S., DeWitt, Ed, and Zeigler, M.P., 2013, Geochemical results from streamwater and stream-sediment samples collected in Colorado and New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2013–1064, 11 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1064/. 

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

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

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

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

Cover. View of Mount Elbert, Colorado.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Area..................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Sampling Strategy ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Sampling and Analytical Methods.................................................................................................................................. 4

Collection and Analysis of Stream-Water Samples.................................................................................................... 7

Collection and Analysis of Stream-Sediment Samples .............................................................................................. 8

Analytical Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) ........................................................................................................... 9

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

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

Appendixes.................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Figure

1. Distribution of sample sites included in this study ................................................................................................... 3

Tables

1. Details for stream-water samples and stream-sediment samples collected for this study....................................... 5

2. Details for collection of stream-water samples........................................................................................................ 7

Appendixes

1. Bulk chemistry for 42 elements (ICP-AES), forms of carbon, and total sulfur for stream-sediment samples 

collected for this study.......................................................................................................................................... link

2. Composition of filtered, acidified (FA) stream-water samples .............................................................................. link

3. Composition of unfiltered, acidified (RA) stream-water samples .......................................................................... link

4. Quality assurance/quality control results for stream-sediment samples including bulk chemistry for 

40 elements (ICP-AES), forms of carbon, and total sulfur.................................................................................... link

5. Quality assurance/quality control results for filtered-acidified (FA) stream-water samples................................... link

6. Quality assurance/quality control results for unfiltered-acidified (RA) stream-water samples............................... link
Geochemical Results from Stream-Water and StreamSediment Samples Collected in Colorado and New Mexico

By Philip L. Hageman, Andrew S. Todd, Kathleen S. Smith, Ed DeWitt, and Mathew P. Zeigler

Abstract

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey are studying the relationship between watershed 

lithology and stream-water chemistry. As part of this effort, 60 stream-water samples and 43 

corresponding stream-sediment samples were collected in 2010 and 2011 from locations in Colorado 

and New Mexico. Sample sites were selected from small to midsize watersheds composed of a high 

percentage of one rock type or geologic unit. Stream-water and stream-sediment samples were 

collected, processed, preserved, and analyzed in a consistent manner. This report releases geochemical

data for this phase of the study. 

Introduction

In a natural setting, the geochemical characteristics of stream water are determined by the terrain 

through which the water flows (Miller, 2001). Further, it is understood that the mineralogic composition 

of the rocks in a watershed is a fundamental factor in determining the chemical makeup of the water 

emanating from such a watershed (Miller, 1999). However, the specific characteristics of water

chemistry produced by interaction of stream water with particular rock types are not well defined. 

Understanding the rock/water relationship is important because water dissolves and incorporates the 

soluble components of the rocks, minerals, soil, and biota it comes into contact with both overland and 

as groundwater. Subsequent changes to stream-water or groundwater chemistry as a result of these

interactions can influence, modify, or control important stream-water characteristics such as pH, 

specific conductance, and the concentration of dissolved constituents. Fluctuation or changes in one or 

more of these key parameters may result in significant impacts to the viability or health of biota in an 

ecosystem. Because of the significance of these potential effects, it would be useful to be able to predict 

lithologically induced changes to stream-water chemistry. 

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze stream-water and stream-sediment samples 

from watersheds that are dominated by distinct or specific rock types to determine if unique 

relationships are expressed between rock type and stream-water chemistry. This publication releases 

geochemical data from this study to other project scientists and to the public. Data included in this 

report consist of sample site coordinates, geologic detail for major rock types, and analytical results for 

stream-water and stream-sediment samples. The data are released without interpretation. Please note 

that data for water temperature and baseflow discharge for many of the streams included in this study 

can be found in Zeigler and others (2013). 
2

Study Area

Samples were collected from a variety of watersheds in the central and southern Rocky 

Mountains in Colorado and New Mexico (fig. 1). The study area encompasses a large, geologically 

diverse region, and because of its large size, the climate, vegetation, and topography of the sampling 

sites vary widely. In general, the summertime climate in the study area ranges from cool and humid in 

the high mountain areas to semiarid to arid at lower elevations. The natural vegetation in the area is 

diverse and strongly zoned according to elevation. It ranges from tree-free, alpine areas above the 

timberline to spruce, fir, and pine forests with some aspen and grassy meadows at middle to high 

elevations. Ponderosa, pinyon pine, and juniper dominate sites at lower elevations, with the lowest and 

most arid sampling sites dominated by a variety of shrubs, grasses, cacti, and yucca.
3

Figure 1. Distribution of sample sites included in this study.
4

Sampling Strategy

A team of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) personnel used geologic maps and geographic 

information systems (GIS) to select sampling sites that were determined to be in watersheds dominated 

by one rock type, lithology, or geologic unit. Selected sites were plotted on hard-copy topographic maps 

(1:24,000), and the coordinates were entered into a commercial, hand-held global positioning system 

(GPS) unit. The sampling plan was to collect both a stream-water sample and corresponding streamsediment sample from each location. However, because of onsite conditions, stream-sediment samples

were not available at all sampling locations, so not all stream-water samples have corresponding streamsediment samples. In addition, two stream-sediment samples do not have corresponding stream-water 

samples because of dry conditions at those sampling sites. Most samples were collected during base 

flow in the late summer or early fall of 2010 and 2011. 

Sampling and Analytical Methods

Stream-water samples were collected from small to midsize streams at 60 sites in Colorado and 

New Mexico. Corresponding stream-sediment samples were collected from a total of 43 sites as noted in 

table 1. 
Table 1. Sample details for stream-water and stream-sediment samples collected for this study.—Continued

[pp, private property; SW, stream water collected; SS, stream sediment collected; ?, unsure or unknown; ft, feet; Ma, mega-annum; NM, New Mexico; CO, Colorado. Major rock type (fx): percentage of major rock type present mineral age will be equal to the rock age; for sedimentary rocks the mineral age will be greater than the rock age and will reflect the age of the protolith from which the grains were derived. Named unit: name of unit if a known 

Sample State Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft.) SW SS Major rock type(s) Major rock type (fx) Mineral age (Ma) Formation age 

ALA NM 36.055 -105.468 9,608 X X mixed clastic 1 1,600 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

Aud CO 40.090 -105.596 10,771 X X syenite 1 68 Cretaceous 

CAB-L NM 36.736 -105.508 8,537 X X andesite, felsic, and aphantic volcanic rocks 0.2 20 Tertiary-Proterozoic mix 

CAB-U NM 36.772 -105.386 10,129 X andesite, felsic volcanic rock 0.2 20 Tertiary 

CaC CO 37.908 -106.449 9,085 X X andesite 1 20 Tertiary 

CAN-U NM 36.087 -106.502 8,360 X X felsic volcanic rocks, rhyolite 1 20 Tertiary 

CC-A CO 39.876 -105.300 7,176 X quartzite 1 1,700 Proterozoic 

COS NM pp pp 10,250 X X basalt, clastic 0.7 20 Tertiary 

DOR CO 38.396 -106.336 9,291 X X dolomite, sandstone 1 440 Devonian-Ordovician 

ELR NM 36.481 -106.273 8,399 X X mixed clastic 0.8 1,200 Tertiary 

EMC CO 38.320 -106.276 9,957 X X andesite, ash-flow tuff 1 20 Tertiary 

ESB NM 36.030 -105.574 10,335 X X mixed clastic 1 1,600 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

Fair-A CO 38.621 -106.475 9,696 X X granodiorite 1 1,690 Proterozoic 

FRJ NM 36.271 -105.408 9,620 X clastic 1 1,600 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

HM-1 CO 38.636 -105.107 8,732 X granite 1 1,700 Proterozoic 

HM-2 CO 38.636 -105.107 9,175 X granite 1 1,700 Proterozoic 

IND NM 36.091 -105.608 8,914 X X sandstone 1 1,600 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

ITA NM 36.585 -105.497 8,723 X X plutonic rock (phaneritic) 0.2 1,500 Proterozoic-Tertiary mix 

JAC-L NM 35.828 -105.657 8,302 X X mixed clastic 1 1,600 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

JAC-U NM 35.875 -105.648 9,985 X X mixed clastic 1 1,600 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

JSA CO 40.111 -105.387 6,998 X quartz monzonite 1 74 Cretaceous 

Kno-A CO 39.144 -106.457 10,778 X granodiorite 1 1,690 Proterozoic 

LFC CO 37.318 -106.501 9,664 X X andesite 0.9 25 Tertiary 

LM-1 CO 37.804 -105.512 8,550 X gneiss 0.9 1,700 Proterozoic 

LMC CO 37.796 -105.504 8,453 X felsic gneiss, conglomerate, granite 0.5 1,600 Proterozoic mix 

LTR NM 36.044 -105.672 8,984 X X meta-sedimentary, plutonic rocks 0.8 1,690 Proterozoic 

MCCRY NM 36.778 -105.099 8,008 X sandstone, landslide deposits and colluvium, piedmont alluvial deposits 0.8 900? Tertiary? 

McI CO 38.573 -105.588 8,970 X X mix: metabasalt, metadacite, metagabbro 1 1,700 Proterozoic 

ME-1 CO 39.676 -105.609 9,585 X granodiorite-diorite 1 1,440 Proterozoic 

ML-A CO 38.740 -106.431 11,007 X metabasalt, meta-andesite, minor granodiorite 1 1,750 Proterozoic 

Mon-A CO 39.602 -105.822 10,840 X X granodiorite 1 40 Tertiary 

Mpr CO 38.629 -106.406 10,800 X X granodiorite-tonalite 1 37 Tertiary 

MRR NM pp pp 7,535 X X felsic volcanic rocks, plutonic rock (phaneritic) 0.5 40 Tertiary 

MSB NM 36.053 -105.615 9,348 X X mixed clastic 1 1,600 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

NRR NM pp pp 7,595 X X granite, andesite 0.6 40 Tertiary 

NTR CO pp pp 8,791 X X felsic gneiss 1 1,730 Proterozoic 

OC CO 38.397 -106.230 10,625 X X metabasalt, meta-andesite, metadacite 0.9 1,700 Proterozoic 

OSI CO 37.020 -106.333 9,776 X X ash-flow tuff, mixed clastic (volcanic), landslide deposits 0.6? 25 Tertiary 

PC CO 37.957 -106.500 9,857 X X andesite 1 25 Tertiary 

Pee-D CO 39.584 -106.996 7,051 X evaporite 1 300 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

Pet-B CO 40.577 -105.461 8,258 X X metagraywacke 1? 1,700 Proterozoic 

PLAC CO pp pp 8,569 X X felsic gneiss, sandstone, plutonic rock (phaneritic) 0.6 1,500? Proterozoic mix? 

Pmb-A CO 39.441 -106.672 9,816 X X black shale, sandstone 0.8 300 Pennsylvanian? 

PNL NM 33.626 -105.245 6,317 X X plutonic, sedimentary 1 40 Tertiary 

PPww CO 39.616 -106.996 7,420 X sandstone 0.9 1,500 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

Raw CO 40.701 -105.761 7,820 X X granite 1 1,720 Proterozoic 

Roos-A CO 38.584 -106.539 9,088 X granite 1 1,760 Proterozoic 

SC CO 37.851 -105.571 8,299 X granite, felsic gneiss, conglomerate 0.6 1,500 Proterozoic mix 

SC-1 CO 39.675 -105.622 9,627 X mix: granodiorite, metagraywacke 1 1,500 Proterozoic 

SF-U CO 37.551 -106.398 9,751 X X andesite, ash-flow tuff 0.8 25 Tertiary 

SPA CO 39.681 -105.477 9,749 X mix: metagraywacke, mafic metavolcanic rocks 1 1,700 Proterozoic 

SS-C CO 40.060 -105.469 8,209 X syenite 1 55 Tertiary 

TRIUP CO pp pp 10,260 X X felsic gneiss, siltstone, glacial drift 0.5 1,500 Proterozoic-Pennsylvanian m


Table 1. Sample details for stream-water and stream-sediment samples collected for this study.—Continued

[pp, private property; SW, stream water collected; SS, stream sediment collected; ?, unsure or unknown; ft, feet; Ma, mega-annum; NM, New Mexico; CO, Colorado. Major rock type (fx): percentage of major rock type present mineral age will be equal to the rock age; for sedimentary rocks the mineral age will be greater than the rock age and will reflect the age of the protolith from which the grains were derived. Named unit: name of unit if a known 

Sample State Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft.) SW SS Major rock type(s) Major rock type (fx) Mineral age (Ma) Formation age 

TWO-L NM 36.898 -105.261 9,436 X X plutonic rocks, clastic 0.4 1,700 Proterozoic-Tertiary 

TWO-U NM 36.884 -105.279 9,455 X X plutonic rocks, clastic 0.5 1,700 Proterozoic-Tertiary 

UMC CO 37.852 -105.438 9,650 X conglomerate, felsic gneiss 0.7 1,500 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

USC CO 37.889 -105.502 9,706 X X granite, conglomerate, arkose 0.7 1,400 Proterozoic 

WCR CO pp pp 8,674 X X conglomerate, sandstone 0.8 1,500 Permian-Pennsylvanian 

WCr CO 37.018 -106.461 8,650 X X andesite, unconsolidated 0.9 25 Tertiary 

WFA CO 37.723 -106.670 8,700 X volcanics 0.9 25 Tertiary 

WHA CO 37.925 -106.698 10,312 X X volcanics 1 25 Tertiary 

WIC CO pp pp 8,559 X X sandstone, felsic gneiss, conglomerate 0.4 1,500 Proterozoic-Pennsylvanian m

*Igneous rocks classified using De la Roche and others (1980), metasedimentary rocks classified by Ed DeWitt (U.S Geological Survey, unpub.data, 2012). 


7

Collection and Analysis of Stream-Water Samples

At each sampling location, coordinates and site details were logged and a stream-water sample 

was collected midstream using a pre-cleaned 500-milliliter (mL) high-density polyethylene (HDPE) 

plastic bottle that was rinsed three times with site water. Immediately following collection of the streamwater sample, pH and specific conductance (SC) were determined on unfiltered subsamples using 

calibrated, hand-held meters. Next, the stream-water samples were filtered and preserved using the 

procedures listed in table 2. 

Table 2. Details for collection of stream-water samples.

[FU, filtered, unacidified; FA, filtered, acidified; RA, unfiltered, acidified; Hg, mercury; Fe, iron; DOC, dissolved organic 

carbon; cm3

, cubic centimeter; μm, micrometer; mL, milliliter; HDPE, high-density polyethylene; °C, degree Celsius; <, less 

than] 

Sample split Analyte(s) Filtration details Bottle type Preservation

FU Chloride, 

fluoride, nitrate, 

and alkalinity

60-cm3 syringe and a 

0.45-μm nylon capsule 

filter

60-mL HDPE Refrigeration at 4°C until 

analyzed

FA Cations and 

sulfate

60-cm3 syringe and a 0.45-

μm nylon capsule filter

30-mL acidwashed HDPE Acidify to pH <1.7 with 

ultra-pure nitric acid (2 or 

3 drops/30 mL)

RA Cations and 

sulfate

60-cm3 syringe, no 

filtration

30-mL acidwashed HDPE Acidify to pH <1.7 with 

ultra-pure nitric acid (2 or 

3 drops/30 mL)

Hg Mercury 60-cm3 syringe and a 0.45-

μm nylon capsule filter 

30-mL acidwashed flint glass 

bottle with Teflonlined lid 

Acidify with ultra-pure 

hydrochloric acid (1 

mL/30 mL)

Fe2+ Ferrous iron 60-cm3 syringe and a 0.45-

μm nylon capsule filter 

60-mL amber 

HDPE 

Acidify with ultra-pure 

concentrated hydrochloric 

acid (3 drops/60mL)

DOC Dissolved organic 

carbon

60-cm3 syringe and a 0.45-

μm polyethersulfone 

(PES) capsule filter

125-mL pre-baked 

amber glass bottles

Acidify with ultra-pure 

hydrochloric acid (5 

drops/125 mL)

Upon return from the field, all water samples were submitted to the USGS Central Region 

Mineral and Environmental Science Center (CRMESC) laboratories in Lakewood, Colorado, for log-in 

and analysis. Pertinent sample information was entered into the Laboratory Information Management 

System (LIMS), and each sample was given a unique laboratory identification number. The samples 

were then distributed to the laboratories for chemical analyses using the following methods: 

• FU (filtered, unacidified) samples were analyzed for chloride (Cl-

), fluoride (F-), and nitrate 

(NO3) using ion chromatography (IC) (Theodorakos and others, 2002); a separate split of this 

sample was analyzed for alkalinity by titration (Theodorakos, 2002a).

• Both the FA (filtered, acidified) and RA (unfiltered, acidified) samples were submitted for cation 

and sulfate analysis by inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectrometry (ICP–AES) 
8

(Briggs, 2002a) and inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) (Lamothe and 

others, 2002). 

• Ferrous iron (Fe2+) was determined by spectrophotometry (Theodorakos, 2002b).

• Dissolved mercury (Hg) was determined using cold vapor–atomic fluorescence (CVAFS) 

(Hageman, 2007). 

• Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) was determined by combustion–infrared detection (Shimadzu 

Corporation, 1997). 

Collection and Analysis of Stream-Sediment Samples

For this study, stream-sediment samples were collected (when present) from active streambed 

alluvium within 10 meters (m) of the plotted sample locality. The samples were composited by taking 

increments of material from several streambed locations using a plastic scoop. If limited stream

sediment was available, a single bulk sediment sample was collected from bed-load material. Sample 

size for most sites was approximately 1 kilogram (kg). All stream-sediment samples were wet-sieved 

onsite using a 10-mesh (2-millimeter [mm]) stainless steel screen and a plastic pan. The material that 

passed the screen was taken directly from the pan and saved for processing and analysis. 

Upon return from the field, the sediment samples were logged into the Laboratory Information 

System (LIMS) at the USGS Central Region Mineral and Environmental Science Center (CRMESC), 

and each sample was given a unique laboratory identification number. The samples were then prepared 

using the following procedure. First, the sediments were air-dried at ambient temperature. Dried 

samples were then mixed and split using a Jones splitter. One split of the bulk material was returned to 

the submitter for archive, and the other split was processed for laboratory analysis by dry sieving to -80 

mesh (0.17 mm). The portion of the sediment that passed the sieve was then pulverized using a shatter 

box to approximately -150 mesh (0.1 mm). Splits of ground material were then placed into pre-labeled

cardboard containers that were sealed and sent to the USGS contract laboratories for determination of 

40 elements using a four acid digestion and analysis by ICP–AES (Briggs, 2002b). The contract 

laboratory also determined forms of carbon (C) using the following methods: 

• Total C was determined by combustion using an automated carbon analyzer (Brown and Curry, 

2002). 

• Carbonate C was determined using coulometric titration of CO2 evolved after treatment of the 

sample with hot 2N perchloric acid (Brown and others, 2002). 

• Organic C was calculated from the difference between total C and carbonate C. 

The contract laboratory also determined total sulfur using an automated sulfur analyzer.

Analytical Results

Bulk-chemistry results for the stream-sediment samples are found in appendix 1. Analytical 

results for all filtered acidified (FA) stream-water samples are provided in appendix 2. Results for 

unfiltered acidified (RA) samples are found in appendix 3. Please note that analytical data for zinc (Zn) 

for the stream-water samples were not included in the dataset because of a contamination problem. Bulk 

zinc, however, is reported for the stream-sediment samples. Samples in all the tables are organized 

alphabetically according to their sample identification for ease of cross-reference.
9

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

For stream sediments, site duplicate samples were collected at three of the sampling locations. 

These samples were collected concurrently with the primary sample using all the same equipment, 

processes, and procedures. Duplicate samples were submitted blind as part of the sample set. In 

addition, prior to submittal to the contract laboratories, blind reference samples (Standard L, Standard 

M, and Standard Ras-A) were integrated into the sample sets by the submitter. Additional reference 

standards were inserted into the sample set by USGS Sample Control. These internal reference samples 

were submitted with the sample set at a ratio of 10 percent and were run through the analytical 

procedures as blind samples. Analytical data for the internal reference samples are assessed as part of 

the USGS quality control system. Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) data for Standard L, 

Standard M, Standard Ras-A, and the duplicate samples are found in appendix 4. 

Stream-water samples for QA/QC include both field and laboratory procedure blanks, site 

duplicate samples, and a blind reference sample (T-167). These samples were submitted to the 

laboratories as part of the analytical dataset. The field blank was processed in-situ using the same 

procedures and equipment used for collection of the stream-water samples. The water used for the field 

blank sample was deionized water (NanoPure, 18MΩ) from the laboratory and was carried into the field 

in a clean 500-mL HDPE bottle. The laboratory blanks were processed and prepared with all the 

procedures and equipment used for collection of the stream-water samples with the exception that they 

were prepared in the laboratory. Water used for the laboratory blanks was deionized water (NanoPure, 

18MΩ). Stream-water duplicate samples were collected concurrently with the primary sample using the 

same equipment and procedures as those used to collect all the stream-water samples. In addition, all of 

the analytical techniques used for this study employ extensive QA/QC protocols, which are described in 

an online publication (Taggart, 2002). The quality control data for the stream-water FA and RA samples 

are provided in appendix 5 and appendix 6, respectively.

Acknowledgments 

We thank the following individuals who assisted us with GIS, sample collection, or sample 

analysis: John Horton, Rene Galindo, Cyrus Berry, Monique Adams, Mike Anthony, and David Fey.

Funding for this study was provided by the USGS Mineral Resources Program. 

References Cited

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

coupled plasma–atomic emission spectrometry, chap. F of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., Analytical methods 

for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–

223, p. F1–F11. 

Briggs, P.H., 2002b, The determination of forty elements in geological and botanical samples by

inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectrometry, chap. G of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., 

Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 02–223, p. G1–G20. 

Brown, Z.A., and Curry, K.J., 2002, Total carbon by combustion, chap. R of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., 

Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 02–223, p. R1–R4. 
10

Brown, Z.A., Papp, Clara, Brandt, Elaine, and Aruscavage, Phillip, 2002, Carbonate carbon by 

coulometric titration, chap. S of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of 

geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223, p. S1–S6. 

De la Roche, H., Leterrier, J., Grandclaude, P., and Marchal, M., 1980, A classification of volcanic and

plutonic rocks using R1,R2-diagrams and major element analysis—Its relationships with current 

nomenclature: Chemical Geology, v. 29, p. 183–210. 

Hageman, P.L., 2007, Determination of mercury in aqueous and geologic materials by continuous flow-

cold vapor-atomic fluorescence spectrometry (CVAFS): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and

Methods, book 5, chap. D2, 6 p. 

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

aqueous samples in inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry, chap. H of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., 

Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 02–223, p. H1–H11. 

Miller, W.R., 1999, Geochemical baselines and maps showing acid-neutralizing capacity and potential 

release of total dissolved solids of stream and spring waters from different rock compositional types 

from mountainous watersheds in the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and Grand Mesa National Forest, 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–580, 107 p. 

Miller, W.R., 2001, Geochemical baselines of stream and spring waters from areas underlain by

Permian and Pennsylvanian rocks, including evaporites, and potential environmental damage in the 

Eagle Valley, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01–362, 41 p. 

Shimadzu Corporation, 1997, Model TOC 5000—An instrument manual: Kyoto, Japan, Shimadzu 

Corporation, 155 p. 

Taggart, J.E., ed., 2002, Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials, U.S. 

Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223, variously paged. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-0223/.) 

Theodorakos, P.M., 2002a, Determination of total alkalinity using a preset endpoint (pH 4.5) auto 

titration system, chap. E of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of 

geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223, p. E1–E3.

Theodorakos, P.M., 2002b, Colorimetric determination of ferrous iron, Fe(II), in natural water, 

wastewater, and seawater, chap. W of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis 

of geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223, p. W1–W2. 

Theodorakos, P.M., d’Angelo, W.M., and Ficklin, W.H., 2002, Fluoride, chloride, nitrate, and sulfate in 

aqueous solution utilizing AutoSupression chemically suppressed ion chromatography, chap. V of 

Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223, p. V1–V7. 

Zeigler, M.P., Todd, A.S., and Caldwell, C.A., 2013, Water temperature and baseflow discharge of 

streams throughout the range of Rio Grande cutthroat trout in Colorado and New Mexico—2010 and 

2011: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1051, 18 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1051/. 
11

Appendixes

1. Bulk chemistry for 42 elements (ICP-AES), forms of carbon, and total sulfur for streamsediment samples collected for this study

2. Composition of filtered, acidified (FA) stream-water samples

3. Composition of unfiltered, acidified (RA) stream-water samples

4. Quality assurance/quality control results for stream-sediment samples including bulk chemistry 

for 40 elements (ICP-AES), forms of carbon, and total sulfur 

5. Quality assurance/quality control results for filtered, acidified (FA) stream-water samples

6. Quality assurance/quality control results for unfiltered, acidified (RA) stream-water samples