surface water quality of the gallinas river in and around

134
University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Water Resources Professional Project Reports Water Resources 4-10-2010 Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around Las Vegas, New Mexico Ron Amato Follow this and additional works at: hps://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp is Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Water Resources at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Resources Professional Project Reports by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Amato, Ron. "Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around Las Vegas, New Mexico." (2010). hps://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp/130

Upload: others

Post on 07-Jul-2022

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

University of New MexicoUNM Digital Repository

Water Resources Professional Project Reports Water Resources

4-10-2010

Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in andaround Las Vegas, New MexicoRon Amato

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp

This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Water Resources at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in WaterResources Professional Project Reports by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended CitationAmato, Ron. "Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around Las Vegas, New Mexico." (2010).https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp/130

Page 2: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around Las Vegas, New Mexico

By

Ron Amato

Committee

Dr. Laura Crossey, Chair Dr. Michael Campana

Dr. Cliff Dahm

A Professional Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Water Resources

Hydroscience Option Water Resources Program

The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico

August 2004

Page 3: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Committee Approval

The Master of Water Resources Professional Project Report of Ron Amato is approved the committee:

~111tf/ Date

Dr. fford N. Dahm 7ft /0'1 ~,

. Date

~c1.c0 C C~OM~-Dr. Michael E. Campana

1\ \ \ 7. D04 , bate

Page 4: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements vii

Abstract viii

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Existing Problems 3

1.2 Purpose 5

1.3 Project Scope 5

1.4 Objectives 6

1.5 Audience 7

2.0 Physical Setting 7

2.1 Location 7

2.2 Vegetation 8

2.3 Climate 8

2.4 Land Use 8

2.5 Demographics 9

3.0 Topography, Geology and Lithology 10

3.1 General 10

3.2 Rock Types and Lithology 10

3.3 Soils 13

3.4 Gallinas River Bed and Pecos Arroyo 15

4.0 Water Resources 16

4.1 Physical Description of the Gallinas River 16

4.2 Inflows to the Gallinas River 17

4.3 Diversions 19

4.4 Groundwater 20

5.0 Sampling Strategy and Design 22

6.0 Field Work 25

11

Page 5: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Table of Contents (continued)

7.0 Evaluation of Currently Listed Impairments 26

7.1 Stream Bottom Deposits 26

7.2 Total Ammonia 29

7.3 Unknown Toxicity 33

8.0 Other Contaminants 35

8.1 Inorganics, excluding metals 35

8.2 Dissolved Oxygen 37

8.3 Heavy Metals 38

8.4 Organics 38

8.5 Radionuclides 39

9.0 Contaminant Sources 39

9.1 Natural Sources 40

9.1.1 Las Vegas Syncline 40

9.1.2 Montezuma Hot Springs 41

9.1.3 Storrie Lake 42

9.1.4 Pecos Arroyo 42

9.2 Anthropogenic Sources 46

9.2.1 Non-Point Sources 46

9.2.2 Point Sources 50

9.2.3 Geochemical Speciation 53

9.3 Summary of Contaminant Sources 55

10.0 Evaluation of Existing Designated Use 56

11.0 Total Maximum Daily Loads 57

iii

Page 6: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Table of Contents (continued)

12.0 Recommendations 60

12.1 Review 60

12.2 Assumptions 61

12.3 Recommendations 62

13.0 Appendices

13.1 Analytical Methods 65

13.2 Ammonia Results 66

13.3 General Water Chemistry

(pH, EC, temperature & dissolved oxygen) 67

13.4 Sulfate Results 70

13.5 Chloride Results 70

13.6 Total Dissolved Solids 71

13.7 Heavy Metals Results 72

13.8 Nutrient (N03/N02, TKI\J, Total P) Results 73

13.9 Geochemical Speciation (PHREEQC) Results 74

14.0 References 125

iv

Page 7: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Maps

2

Figures

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Maps, Figures, and Tables

Gallinas River and Surrounding Area

Local Geology

Annual discharge of the Gallinas River at the USGS Gaging

station near Montezuma, NM

Stiff Diagram for Headwaters

Stiff Diagram for USGS Gage

Stiff Diagram for Montezuma Hot Springs

Stiff Diagram for Storrie Lake

Stiff Diagram for Pecos Arroyo

Stiff Diagram for Gallinas River above WWTP

Stiff Diagram for water 0.25 mi below WWTP

Stiff Diagram for water at San Augustin

Total dissolved solids and sulfate results by station

Chloride results by station

Piper Diagram of all stations

Automated sampler results for hardness (5 hour)

Automated sampler results for metals (5 hour)

Automated sampler results for nutrients (5 hour)

Automated sampler results for nutrients (24 hour)

Ammonia results by station

Nitrite/nitrate, TKN, P and TOC by station

2

11

18

41

41

41

42

42

42

43

43

44

44

45

48

48

49

50

51

51

v

Page 8: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Maps, Figures, and Tables (continued)

Tables

1 Temperature and Precipitation Data 9

2 Sampling Stations 24

3 Stream Bottom Deposits 29

4 Ammonia Results from Las Vegas WWTP monitoring 33

5 Ambient Water Quality Toxicity 35

vi

Page 9: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Acknowledgments

The following people were instrumental in the development of this work; they are

here recognized with sincere appreciation.

1. Dr. Laura Crossey, Dr. Cliff Dahm and Dr. Michael Campana, my project

committee, for their keen input in framing and focusing this project.

2. Dr. James Davis, former NMED-SWQB bureau chief.

3. Gary Schiffmiller, I\IMED/SWQB Fisheries Biologist, for identification of fish

species.

4. Danny Davis, SWQB Chemistry Team Leader, for information on lake dynamics

and assistance with surveys.

5. Barbara Cooney, NMED ISWQB Point Source, for her valuable insights and

access to the Las Vegas Wastewater Treatment Plant monitoring data.

6. Dr. John Meyer, SLD Chemistry Bureau Chief (retired) for allowing me time to

pursue this project.

7. Neal Schaeffer, I\IMED/SWQB for general knowledge and assistance on surveys.

8. Scott Hopkins, NMED/SWQB, who withstood incessant interrogation and still

provided in-depth knowledge of the area; his input was invaluable in this project.

vii

Page 10: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Abstract

The Gallinas River in north central New Mexico is currently listed on the State

303(d) list of impaired waters for unknown toxicity, ammonia, and stream bottom

deposits. Empirical evidence of these problems is manifested as periodic mortality of

aquatic organisms and conspicuous amounts of algae. These listings will result in

development of one or more Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) if the problems cannot

be resolved. To date, research on this river has focused on physical, chemical and

biological characterization of specific issues such as hydraulic conductivity and nutrient

flux. These dynamics are the underpinnings of a complete understanding of river

function and health.

The current regulatory climate focuses on water composition and those

components that can be identified and measured. Water quality criteria are developed

resulting in numerical standards that allow concerned parties to evaluate the water body

in unequivocal terms; either the standard was achieved or it was not. Therefore, an

investigation was undertaken to examine not only the current listings, but examine if

further listings are also necessary. Nutrient, metal, organic and radionuclide

contamination was assessed in order to elucidate water quality from a regulatory

perspective. The central theme was to identify and gauge the magnitude of contaminant

sources. Possible sources included the Las Vegas Wastewater Treatment Plant,

Montezuma Hot Springs and Pecos Arroyo. This investigation was undertaken as

assistance to and with support from the New Mexico Environment Department.

The Gallinas River has no observable impacts in the headwater reach. As the

River passes through the City of Las Vegas, urban irnpacts are more pronounced than

natural contaminants that result from local geology and thermal waters. Those

concerned should focus efforts on this source, including infrastructure improvements and

enforcement of current and anticipated regulations.

viii

Page 11: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The subject of this project is the water quality of the Gallinas River, a tributary of the

Pecos River, located in San Miguel County, New Mexico. One segment of the Gallinas is

currently listed on the State 303(d) list of impaired water bodies in New Mexico for unknown

toxicity, total ammonia, and stream bottom deposits. Under a 1997 consent decree

between the Forest Guardians and the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA), this portion of the Gallinas is scheduled for TMDL development for water quality

improvement no later than 2017 (New Mexico Environment Department 1997).

The Gallinas sub-watershed is diverse in both physical attributes of the land and

water, and the purposes for which the water is used. The Gallinas River begins as drainage

from Elk Mountain in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains northeast of Las Vegas, at

approximately 3567 meters above mean sea level (amsl). Land cover is heavily forested

mixed-conifer vegetation in the Santa Fe National Forest (map 1). The river and land

provide wildlife habitat, as human population is very sparse, while water quality is excellent.

In the middle reach, from the Las Vegas municipal reservoir diversion at Montezuma (elev.

2095 m amsl), to San Augustin (elev. 1799 m amsl), there is a much larger human

presence. Land has been developed for farming, ranching, urban and some industrial uses.

River water is used for domestic supply, as well as livestock watering, irrigation, aquatic

wildlife and recreation. In the lowest reach, from San Augustin to the confluence with the

Pecos River above Fort Sumner, the Gallinas flows intermittently, usually only in the

wettest seasons or years. The irrigation districts on the lower Pecos River (Carlsbad and

others) control most of this remaining water. Elevation becomes roughly 1067-1220 m and

the climate is semi-arid.

Page 12: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Through the city of Las Vegas, the Gallinas River often disappears in all but the

wettest years or during episodes of elevated precipitation. Between dense riparian fOliage

that follows the channel through town and a host of irrigation ditches, very little water

remains. Below Las Vegas, the Gallinas is comprised of wastewater effluent, urban runoff

from storm events (there is no stormwater sewer in Las Vegas), and seepage from Storrie

Lake via the Pecos Arroyo. Each of these components returns water to the Gallinas River

channel of a much different quality than what was diverted upstream. By the time the

Gallinas has reached San Augustin, the river has changed from a near-pristine meandering

alpine stream to an incised, low-flow system.

Because of the 303(d) listing, the New Mexico Environment Department conducted

an intensive stream survey of the upper Pecos watershed in 2001, which included the

Gallinas River from its headwaters to San Augustin. Eight monitoring stations were

selected along the Gallinas River with 5 additional stations on tributaries for the collection

of water samples for chemical analyses in the spring, summer and fall of 2001. In addition,

a fish survey was conducted in the river within the city of Las Vegas in the fall of 2001. A

benthic survey was also conducted; unfortunately, these data are still waiting evaluation by

a third party and unavailable at this time.

1.1 Existing Problems

Water bodies that do not meet the water quality objectives (standards) for their

designated uses are listed on the State's 303(d) list. This list is required of each state by

section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act for all impaired waters. The middle reach of the

Gallinas River, from the Las Vegas diversion to San Augustin, is listed on the 303(d) list for

unknown toxicity, ammonia, and stream bottom deposits. These impairments were

discovered from work done previous to the 2001 NMED survey. The unknown toxicity

listing came about from samples analyzed by the USEPA for aquatic toxicity using standard

3

Page 13: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

protocols. Several samples displayed secondary toxicity (decreased number of offspring) to

test species. Also, eyewitnesses have reported observing significant numbers of dead

crawfish at various spots above and below the wastewater treatment plant. This would be

consistent with elevated levels of ammonia, which could possibly be the causative agent in

the unknown toxicity test results.

Stream bottom deposits are fine « 2 mm) particles that usually indicate increased

sediment loads. These fines cause bank erosion, change benthic habitat, and may alter

redox chemistry, especially at the water/sediment interface.

In addition to the presumed problems of toxicity, ammonia and stream bottom

deposits, it is apparent that the Gallinas River at San Augustin presents other problems.

Dense, floating mats of filamentous algae were observed on numerous occasions in the

late spring and summer of 2001, in addition to other brown algae covering rocks and

sediments. The obvious interpretation of this observation is nutrient loading, which is highly

plausible as the surrounding land is used for livestock grazing and watering. Additionally,

the water shows large diurnal swings in dissolved oxygen content, presumably a result of

the alternating patterns of photosynthesis and respiration from the algae. The large

changes in dissolved oxygen could be anecdotal evidence supporting reported crawfish

die-offs in the area. Fish populations are low in diversity and modest in number. The only

examples observed were Rio Grande suckers and chub, suggesting highly adapted

species to a stressed environment.

The current designated uses for the Gallinas River from the Las Vegas diversion to

San Augustin are irrigation, livestock watering, wildlife habitat, marginal coldwater fishery

and secondary contact (New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission 2000). Criteria for

water quality have been developed to protect the water for such uses. Visual observation

suggests that the water near San Augustin may not be meeting all of these standards at all

4

Page 14: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

times (e.g., periodic crawfish mortality and dense algae mats). Nutrient loading may be

present only intermittently, making documentation difficult. If this proves correct, it could be

a consequence of temporally discrete events such as stormwater runoff from the city of Las

Vegas, process control errors at the municipal wastewater treatment plant, or a

combination of both. In addition, the stream at San Augustin is nearly devoid of riparian

vegetation, causing an increase in water temperature. Through the construction of irrigation

levees, the river has been channelized, causing an increase in sedimentation. The river is

wide, shallow and non-sinuous at this point.

1.2 Purpose

In my capacity with the NM Department of Health's Scientific Laboratory Division, I

became aware of this survey while providing laboratory support to NMED personnel for

their samples. I discussed the possibility of assisting NMED personnel on this survey, in the

form of sample collection, in return for permission to use the investigation as the basis for a

professional project. NMED personnel were agreeable to this.

It is the purpose of this research to review the available water quality data for the

Gallinas River. Results of samples collected in 2001 have not yet been synthesized into a

final report. I propose to evaluate water quality for the existing designated uses versus

regulatory requirements for those designated uses.

1.3 Project Scope

I have limited the scope of this project to that reach of the Gallinas from the Las

Vegas municipal reservoir diversion to San Augustin, a small farming community

approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) south of Interstate-25 from Romeroville. This

delineation is consistent with the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission's

Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Surface Waters.

5

Page 15: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Within this reach, the Gallinas River is the receiving water for geothermal waters,

urban runoff, and wastewater effluent from the Las Vegas wastewater treatment plant.

Diversions from the Gallinas include domestic supply for the city of Las Vegas and

irrigation water to Storrie Lake and others. Interestingly, water stored at Storrie Lake seeps

throUgh the earthen dam then returns to the Gallinas channel via a swale called the Pecos

Arroyo, which is composed of outcrop pings of the Graneros and/or Carlisle shales, which

contribute high dissolved solids and other contaminants to the water.

1.4 Objectives

By reviewing existing data, I seek to evaluate whether the standards for water

quality, specific to the designated uses, are being met. Specifically, the following are my

research objectives:

1. Determine if the current listings for unknown toxicity, total ammonia, and stream

bottom deposits are appropriate.

2. Determine if additional contaminants are present, and if so, quantify these to

evaluate whether they warrant inclusion on the 303(d) list. Specifically, nutrients

(nitrogen in the form of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia, and total phosphorous),

temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), total dissolved solids (TOS), organic

nitrogen (total Kjeldahl nitrogen, TKN), total organic carbon (TOC), turbidity, pH,

sulfate and metals will be investigated.

3. Identify sources of contamination, both specific (point source) and diffuse (non­

point source). Specifically, the following sources will be evaluated: Las Vegas

WWTP, Montezuma Hot Springs, Las Vegas syncline, and urban runoff from

the city of Las Vegas.

4. Pending the outcomes of objective 3, determine whether the current designated

uses seem appropriate. If they are not, a Use Attainability Analysis for re­

classifying the designated uses is indicated.

6

Page 16: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

5. Examine the current regulatory status of the TMDL and its potential applicability

for improving water quality, without specifically developing one (or more) for this

river segment.

6. Explore other remediation strategies, if available.

7. Make recommendations for improvements to water quality, which may include

changes in land use, effluent discharges, infrastructure improvements and

regulations (designated uses and standards).

1.5 Audience

It is hoped that this project will be of benefit to water managers, land use planners,

regulators and especially local citizens. Since current data either are old and limited in

scope, or new and limited in availability, a synthesis of known data may assist all interested

parties develop a more accurate understanding of water quality of the Gallinas River, as

well as develop strategies that suit users' needs while restoring and maintaining a viable

perennial river.

2.0 PHYSICAL SElTING

2.1 Location

The Gallinas River is located primarily in San Miguel County, in and around the city

of Las Vegas, in north central New Mexico. Las Vegas is approximately 198 kilometers

(km) northeast of Albuquerque, the largest city in New Mexico, and 109 km northeast of

Santa Fe, the state capitol. Near Las Vegas, the southern Rocky Mountains end in two

prong-like ridges separated by the upper Pecos Valley. The headwaters of the Gallinas

River begin at Elk Mountain, which rises to an elevation of approximately 3567 meters on

the eastern ridge, west and northwest of Las Vegas. Landform is rugged mountainous;

slopes can be up to 65 percent. Coming out of the mountains the terrain changes to high

elevation plateau in and around Las Vegas, with gentle hills (slope less than 25 percent) to

7

Page 17: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

nearly level ground. Elevation is approximately 2134 m AMSL. Below Las Vegas, the

Gallinas River cuts through steep canyon walls into Apache Canyon and past San Augustin

to the confluence with the Pecos River near Colonias, I\IM.

2.2 Vegetation

In the headwater reach, the Gallinas is montane coniferous forest, primarily spruce,

at higher elevations to Montezuma. In and around Las Vegas, vegetation is largely

grassland of blue grama and western wheat grass. Ponderosa pine grows in higher

elevations of the plateau, while pinon-juniper is scattered throughout, although more often

along dry arroyos. Some oak is present, with (usually) an understory of native grasses.

This vegetation type dominates from Las Vegas to just south of Apache Canyon. Beyond

the canyon to the south, elevation decreases into high plains where wet season grasses,

forbs, and scrub (chamisa and mesquite) dominate.

2.3 Climate

Climate is semi-arid (table 2.1). The mountains receive much more precipitation,

both in seasonal rainfall and snow. Precipitation is highly variable, both in amount and

seasonal distribution. Most rainfall occurs in the summer monsoon season, with July and

August generally receiving the highest amounts. Average annual snowfall on the Sangre de

Cristo foothills is 91 cm. Annual average relative humidity is 65% in the early morning

hours and 30% in the warmest daytime hours.

2.4 Land Use

Of the 15000 sq uare kilometers (km2) in San Miguel County, roughly 12,750 (85%)

are private ranches and small farms. Rangeland vegetation is mostly grasses, forbs, and

shrubs. The main irrigated crops are alfalfa, oats, wheat and grain sorghum. About 14%

(1376 km2) of San Miguel County is woodlands in the Santa Fe National Forest and Pecos

8

Page 18: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Wilderness. Two forest types predominate: ponderosa pine and pinon-juniper. There are a

few privately owned subsistence farms in the high-altitude valleys along the Gallinas River,

but further development is basically non-existent. Surrounding the municipality of Las

Vegas, there is some industrial development but land remains mostly rangeland. Ranching

dominates below (south of) town through Apache Canyon in and around San Augustin.

A verage Daily A verage Daily Average Maximum Minimum Precipitation (cm.)

Temperature (DC) Temperature (DC)

January 7.2 -7.8 0.76 February 8.9 -6.7 0.76 March 11.7 -4.4 1.02 April 16.7 0 1.27 May 21.7 5.0 3.56 June 26.7 10.0 4.06 July 28.3 12.2 7.87 August 27.0 11.1 9.65 September 23.9 7.8 3.30 October 19.4 2.2 2.54 November 12.8 -3.9 1.02 December 8.3 -7.2 1.02 Annual Average 17.8 5.0 36.83 (total) Table 2.1: Temperature & Precipitation Data Measured at Las Vegas Airport (elev. 2090 m) 1949-1968 (From Soil Survey of San Miguel Area, 1981).

2.5 Demographics

Las Vegas is the seat of San Miguel County. Local government is a mayor-council

format with eight councilors. The city manager is the chief administrative officer. The 1997

population of Las Vegas was approximately 16,500 people, and has experienced minimal

growth over the last few decades. Land area in the city limits is approximately 19.2 km2.

1989 per capita income was $7515 (USA Cities Online, 2004).

9

Page 19: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

3.0 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND LrrHOLOGY

3.1 General

The Gallinas River lies in the western portions of San Miguel County, from northern

to southern county lines. San Miguel County includes four physiographic provinces: the

plains, the Las Vegas Plateau, Glorieta Mesa, and the Sange de Cristo Mountains. Both

Glorieta Mesa, at the far southwest end of the county, and the plains, which encompass

most of the eastern portions of the county, are outside the study area and thus are not of

relevance to this investigation. The study area is comprised of portions of both the Sangre

de Cristo Mountains and the Las Vegas Plateau. The mountains, east of Las Vegas, run

north to south throughout the entire county; elevation above sea level ranges from 1829 to

more than 3354 meters. The mountains end in the east at the hogback ridges of upturned

strata in the foothills. The hogbacks trend north to south, from beyond the county line in the

north to where they grade into the Canadian escarpment southeast of Los Montoyas (Los

Montoyas is approximately 18 km south of Las Vegas on Highway 84). The city of Las

Vegas lies in the Las Vegas Plateau, which begins at the eastern termination of the

hogback ridges and extends east to the Canadian escarpment near the Conchas River.

Topography of the plateau is broad, gently rolling terrain; elevation above sea level ranges

from 1372 to 2073 meters.

3.2 Rock Types and Lithology

The southern Rocky Mountains end in two ridges of Pre-Cambrian rocks. The

western ridge crest lies just west of the county line, although the ridge crest extends into

San Miguel County just north of the village of Pecos. The eastern ridge trends almost due

south, entering from the north at the county line and continuing to Bernal, where it is

overlain by sediments. Rocks are gneiss, schist, quartzite, granitic rocks, and pegmatite.

The city of Las Vegas is approximately 16 km east of this eastern prong.

10

Page 20: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Rock Types IIII NER A L RE S O U RCES

EXPl.AHATION

I

I

-;- :~,: · : "Ti :·: iI' .. t: t _ IO:~ : ·-.lI

Map 2: Local Geology (from Griggs and Hendrickson, plate 1). Dashed red lines indicate approximate location of the Las Vegas Syncline; Gallinas River in blue.

These Pre-Cambrian cores are exposed in the mountains only. From the mountains

through the hogback ridges east of Las Vegas many old rocks are exposed in upturned

strata. Most are Carboniferous and Permian age dominated by limestone, but also include

some sandstone and shale. Some Triassic age rocks (predominantly Chinle Formation

and some Santa Rosa Sandstone) are also exposed in the hogback ridges. The Entrada

Sandstone (Jurassic) is conspicuously exposed in the Canadian escarpment south of

Romeroville. A detailed account of lithology in the study area and all of San Miguel County

can be found elsewhere (Griggs and Henderson 1951).

Rocks of Cretaceous age are the most relevant in the study area, as the Gallinas

River cuts across these exposed beds (section 3.4). Most of the cap rock found in the Las

Vegas Plateau is probably Dakota Sandstone, though fauna fossils have yet to be found to

11

~,~ ---

Page 21: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

confirm this. The sequence from top to bottom consists of fine-grained quartzitic

sandstone, sandstone with interbedded shale, another sandstone member, and a lower

member of sandstone interbedded with bluish-gray shale. The upper sandstone member is

identical in lithology to the Dakota found in more northern parts of New Mexico and

southeastern Colorado. Together, both members are anywhere from more than 76 m thick

to locally vanishing in areas of high erosion, but function as one hydrologic unit. At Las

Vegas, the sequence is approximately 61 m thick. This sequence forms the walls of

Apache Canyon, below Las Vegas.

Lying conformably on the Dakota Sandstone is the Graneros Shale, a

predominantly black fissile shale. There are several thin beds of bentonite (up to 30 cm

thick) on top of the Graneros. The Graneros is exposed east of Romeroville, trending

northeast approximately 4.6 meters along both the west and east sides of the Las Vegas

syncline. Approximately 0.3-1.0 m of Graneros Shale is exposed on the west side of the

syncline, while inconspicuous on the east side. The surface thickness is unknown, but a

well log from roughly 4.8-km northeast of Las Vegas indicates a thickness of 65.5 m.

On top of the Graneros is the Greenhorn Limestone, a thin bed of limestone and

interbedded shale. The limestone is fine-grained, while the shale is dark gray and

calcareous, transitioning into the Graneros. Thickness is roughly 14 m, with outcroppings in

the same general region as the Graneros. The Greenhorn is modest on the west side of

the syncline, while approximately 2.5 meters wide on the east side just north of Las Vegas.

Immediately overlying the Greenhorn Limestone is the Carlisle Shale, also a dark­

gray calcareous shale. Outcrops are from Las Vegas northward within the same area as

the Greenhorn limestone. Thickness is unknown.

12

Page 22: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Above the Carlisle is the Niobrara Formation, although no fossil evidence is known.

The Niobrara outcrops in all directions from Storrie Lake, north of Las Vegas, and beds run

along the same axes of the syncline.

Younger rocks are not conspicuous in the study area. The Ogallala Formation

(Tertiary) is nearly vanished in all areas of San Miguel County due to erosion. Quaternary

alluvium and pediment gravels exist along some stream banks and in other areas.

To the east of Las Vegas, all beds lie nearly flat with some warping and faulting.

Immediately east of Las Vegas westward to the Sangre de Cristo Mountains is the

northward-plunging Las Vegas syncline. The depression forms from the abutment of the

Greenhorn Limestone to the east and the Niobrara Formation/Carlisle Shale to the west.

Beds dip slightly westward on the east aspect of the syncline while on the west aspect the

beds dip steeply, and form the hogback ridges. The hogback ridges begin approximately

4.8 km south of Los Montoyas, where they have a gentle dip. Trending north, the dip

becomes steeper or slightly overturned, extending beyond the northern county line. Where

the Gallinas flows through canyons, the hogback ridges are terminated on the west by a

thrust fault, bringing Pre-Cambrian rocks to the surface.

3.3 Soils

In general, soils contribute little to the geochemistry of the Gallinas River, as the

river is contained in alluvium derived from parent lithology or in bedrock canyons. However,

when surface runoff flows over soils, these materials can be transported to the river. This is

especially true during seasonal monsoon rains, where water volume and velocity can be

significant.

13

Page 23: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

There is little soil development in the highest mountain elevations of the Gallinas

headwaters. Soils in the area from about 2805 m elevation to approximately Montezuma

(2195 m) are the Moreno-Brycan (MG) association along the streambeds of Gallinas and

Porvenir creeks, and Roccio-Stout series moving away from the water. The MG association

is formed in alluvium from material derived from shale and sandstone. Permeability is

moderate to low.

From Montezuma through Las Vegas to near Romeroville, soils are the Colmor­

Vermejo-Mion series. Soils in this area (uplands and valley floors, hilly to nearly level) are

shallow to deep, moderately well drained, and formed in material weathered from shale.

They are usually deep, well drained soils. The amount of fine «2-mm) clay is

approximately 20-40%. Soil pH is in the range 7.4-8.4. Of particular interest in the Vermejo

soils, which are present in Pecos Arroyo. Vermejo soils are deep (up to 24 cm) and

moderately well drained, formed in alluvium derived from weathered shale. Permeability is

very low; fine clay is 30-50% or more; pH range is 7.9-9.0. Depth to visible salt crystals in

the Vermejo series is 0-9.5 cm; salinity is > 2 Mmhos/cm. These soils likely contribute high

dissolved solids to water in Pecos Arroyo.

From just above the wastewater treatment plant, and the riverbed to Apache

Canyon just north of San Al.lgustin, the soils are dominated by the Partri-Carnero series,

which are moderately deep to deep well-drained soils formed in residuum and mixed

alluvium from sandstone and limestone.

In Apache Canyon, from above to below San Augustin (the remainder of the study

area), the Gallinas is contained in a rock outcrop area of ridges and escarpments. The soils

are very shallow to deep, very steep well-drained soils formed from weathered sandstone,

limestone and shale (Dakota and Purgatoire). Soil characteristics are variable.

14

Page 24: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Information in this section was taken from the county soil survey (Soil Survey of San

Miguel Area, 1981); more detailed information can be found there.

3.4 Gallinas River Bed and Pecos Arroyo

The Gallinas River bed is generally composed of alluvium derived from crystalline

material (granite and gneiss), especially at higher elevations. Materials are poorly sorted

and composed of boulders, cobbles, gravel and sand. Hydraulic conductivity of this

material is usually high. Another headwater stream in New Mexico, similar to the Gallinas

River, was measured at 4 x 10-3cm/s (Morrice et al. 1997). Near the city of Las Vegas,

alluvium is derived from shale. Organic matter in the headwater stream sediments is most

likely very low; Fellows et al. (2001) measured stream sediment in the Gallina Creek (no

connection to the study area) at approximately 1 % organic matter.

At the headwaters of the Gallinas River, Elk Mountain is composed of Pre­

Cambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks. Very little recharge occurs in these low

permeability rocks, and little water is contained within them. What does infiltrate moves

along fractures and is discharged through seeps. These ancient rocks form the streambed

to near EI Porvenir, approximately 21 km northeast of Las Vegas along Highway 65.

Where valleys cut into the Magdalena Group (Sandia and Madera Formations),

discharge occurs through numerous springs and seeps. Approximately 6.7 x 105 acre-feet

of precipitation fall on the exposed area of the Magdalena group in San Miguel County

(Griggs and Henderson, 1951). At EI Porvenir, the Gallinas River is exposed primarily to

the Madera Limestone. The limestone discharges water to the Gallinas, as the exposed

stratum is at lower elevation than in the recharge area. The Magdalena Group forms the

streambed until the river again flows over Pre-Cambrian rocks near Hot Springs.

15

Page 25: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

From Hot Springs to Montezuma, the Gallinas River crosses the Las Vegas

syncline, a trough-shaped feature that dips to the north and exposes the river to several

geological units. As the river flows mostly east it crosses a narrow zone of undifferentiated

Greenhorn Limestone and Graneros Shale. It is in this area that part of the river is diverted

to flow into Storrie Lake. Past this narrow band, the remaining portion of the Storrie Lake

inlet canal, Storrie Lake in its entirety and the remaining flow of the Gallinas River lie over

the Niobrara Formation and Carlisle Shale. The river now trends mostly southeasterly, and

as it nears the northwestern boundary of Las Vegas, the riverbed is mostly Greenhorn

Limestone. Just below city limits, the riverbed changes to Graneros Shale. Moving out of

the Graneros, the river tums mostly south, and the riverbed becomes Dakota and

Purgatoire. There is evidence that the Dakota and Purgatoire sequence loses water to the

Gallinas near San Augustin (Griggs and Henderson p. 52). Approximately 2.4 km

southeast of Romeroville, and throughout its course past San Augustin, the Gallinas River

bed is undifferentiated Morrison Formation and Entrada Sandstone.

Pecos Arroyo, the north-south trending depression east of Storrie Lake, also lies in

the Las Vegas syncline. Pecos Arroyo is dry above (north of) Storrie Lake, and becomes

perennial below (south of) the lake, from seepage through the earthen dam. Salt crystals

are sometimes visible in the soils, depending on amounts of recent runoff. This is

consistent with the high salinity of the Vermejo soils.

4.0 WATER RESOURCES

4.1 Physical Description of the Gallinas River

The Gallinas River and its tributaries drain approximately 1580 km2 of the Sangre

de Cristo Mountains in the Santa Fe National Forest. Rain and snowmelt contribute the

majority of water to the Gallinas River. From its headwaters to the confluence with the

Pecos River (approximately 9.7 km upstream from Colonias) the Gallinas is 137 km long.

16

Page 26: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

The Gallinas is generally a wide and shallow river. Typical dimensions in the headwater

reach is no more than a few meters wide and <10 cm deep.

Discharge has been measured on the Gallinas since 1926 (see Fig. 1), but rarely

does the river run at the historical annual flow. Most years river flow is below the long-term

average, with a few exceptionally wet years in between. There is also significant seasonal

variability in discharge, with spring snowmelt providing the highest discharge and water

velocity, followed in order of decreasing discharge and velocity by winter, summer, and fall.

The only active gaging station on the Gallinas River is located near Montezuma (USGS

Gage 08380500).

4.2 Inflows to the Gallinas River

The main tributaries to the Gallinas River, Beaver and Porvenir Creeks, join the

Gallinas approximately 18.5 and 8 km, respectively, above the town of Montezuma. These

small ephemeral creeks drain other eastern slopes of the Sangre de Cristos in the Pecos

Wilderness and/or Santa Fe National Forest. Some of the recharge to the Magdalena

Group, which is primarily exposed in Pecos Canyon, is lost as discharge to the Gallinas

where the river cuts through this formation around EI Porvenir, since it is at lower elevation

than the recharge area.

At Montezuma, the Gallinas River receives geothermal water from a natural spring

near the Armand Hammer World College. This is the Montezuma Hot Spring

(17N.15E.36.440, elev. 2063-m amsl) and is the only thermal spring in the Pecos River

Basin. Some water that is diverted to Storrie Lake (see section below) is actually returned

to the Gallinas below Las Vegas via the Pecos Arroyo.

17

Page 27: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

~---- --------- ---- -----------,

I

Discharge at USGS Gage 08380500

I g o 80

100 ,-----------------------,

I ~ 60 Q.

I ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-I I ~ 0 CD ..- CD .,..... CD ..- CD .,..... co ..- CD .,..... CD

N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co CD ~ ~ ro ro l__ ~ ~ ~ (J) ~ ~ (J) ~Ye:r ~ ~ ~ ~

Fig. 1: Annual discharge of the Gallinas River at the USGS Gaging station near Montezuma, NM. Teal line is the historical average (19.4 CFS) for the period of record. (From USGS NWIS database).

This return happens unintentionally, as the earthen impoundment that forms Storrie Lake

leaks water to Pecos Arroyo above town. Pecos Arroyo trends in a mostly southern

direction until it rejoins the Gallinas below Las Vegas but above the wastewater treatment

plant.

Below the Storrie Lake inlet canal, the remaining river flow continues to town, often

going dry (submerging as baseflow) in the city during summer irrigation and drought

periods. Contributing factors include significant riparian vegetation growing along the

stream through town and irrigation ditches (acequias). Since Las Vegas itself has no

stormwater sewer system, precipitation runs off directly to the Gallinas. While no

systematic investigation has been made to date of this non-point source runoff, it is likely to

contain grease and oil from automobiles, lawn fertilizers and pesticides. Except for

stormwater runoff, very little water, if any, remains in the Gallinas River channel until Pecos

Arroyo joins the river below town.

18

Page 28: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

A few small ephemeral creeks drain into the Gallinas River below Las Vegas (Agua

Olympia and Agua Zarca). A small data set is available for Agua Olympia, however, no

sampling has been done on Agua Zarca.

As the majority of the Gallinas is diverted into Storrie Lake and for Las Vegas

municipal supply, the river is essentially dry through town. Inflow to the municipal

wastewater treatment plant below town is almost exclusively Pecos Arroyo water. The Las

Vegas Wastewater Treatment (WWTP) plant is located approximately 1 km below the

confluence of the Gallinas River and Pecos Arroyo. Treated effluent from the municipal

sanitary sewer is returned to the river.

4.2 Diversions

The most Significant diversion of the Gallinas occurs just above the town of

Montezuma, approximately 5.6 km northwest of Las Vegas on SR 65. Here the river lies in

a steep bedrock canyon, which affords the water little shade. Approximately 3000 acre-feet

(AF) of Gallinas water is diverted for the city of Las Vegas. Most is stored in Peterson and

Bradner Reservoirs, with some storage in Storrie Lake.

Another diversion is located below Montezuma, where the Gallinas is diverted to

Storrie Lake. An open channel conveys water from the Gallinas to Storrie Lake,

approximately 3.2 km, as the crow flies, to the east. The diversion works are capable of

diverting 1052 cfs, however, the amount of the actual diversion varies (New Mexico Office

of the State Engineer, 1991). The original application to divert water to Storrie Lake was

received at the Territorial Engineer's office in 1909. The Storrie Lake Project, as it became

known, stored irrigation water for small farms growing corn and other vegetables, alfalfa,

and hay. Though little farming continues in the area today, Storrie Project water is also

19

Page 29: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

used to keep wet McAllister Lake and the Las Vegas National Wildlife Refuge via a canal

roughly 24 km long. Water at Storrie Lake is impounded via an earthen dam that abuts the

west side of Highway 65. Storrie Lake has a maximum capacity of 23,262.4 AF that

includes 371 AF of dead storage (New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 1991). Water

seeps through this earthen dam, traveling east and southeast, following local topography. It

collects in the otherwise dry Pecos Arroyo, flowing south along the eastern side of Las

Vegas. Pecos Arroyo is generally wet, marshy land, with little water flowing above ground.

Instead, it infiltrates the soil (Graneros and Carlisle Shales) but travels horizontally

following local topography rather than percolating downward. Pecos Arroyo meets the

Gallinas River above the wastewater treatment plant south of town.

There are a number of acequias in the Las Vegas area that divert Gallinas River

water (Citizens Committee 2004). The Office of the State Engineer 1991 report identified

42 ditch diversions from the Gallinas, not including the Storrie Lake diversion. The total

amount of water diverted from the Gallinas River by the acequias is unknown.

4.4 Groundwater

Due to the highly permeable alluvium, there is considerable mixing between

groundwater and surface water in the study area. Near EI Porvenir, the Magdalena Group

discharges water to the Gallinas River. At the Armand Hammer World College near

Montezuma, geothermal waters are discharged to the river. Generally, the Gallinas loses

water to the underlying soils and rocks. This is likely the result of the high hydraulic

permeability of the alluvium.

Groundwater is not plentiful in San Miguel County. In the Las Vegas Plateau, most

wells produce fewer than 20 gallons per minute. All communities except Mosquero, in the

20

Page 30: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

northeast corner of the county, use surface water for domestic supply. Small wells are used

for domestic supply and livestock watering. There is little irrigated agriculture from

groundwater. Crystalline Pre-Cambrian rocks receive little recharge due to their low

permeability, but water quality is good. Water quality from the Madera Limestone, the

majority of the Magdalena Group, is fairly good; the majority of wells have less than 500

mg/L-dissolved solids. In the deeper limestone members, water is generally calcium

bicarbonate, and the water can be moderately hard. Moving upward, the group becomes

more arkosic sandstone. Calcium bicarbonate decreases while sodium and potassium

bicarbonates increase.

Most groundwater in the Las Vegas plateau comes from the Dakota and Purgatoire

Formations. Water quality is fairly good. Depth to groundwater throughout the plateau is

generally less than 61 m. The Dakota appears to lose water to the Gallinas above San

Augustin.

Some water is obtained from the Graneros Shale and Greenhorn Limestone, but

quality is usually only good enough for livestock watering. While it does not appear that

either the Graneros or Greenhorn discharge water to the Gallinas River, the river does

cross these units north of Las Vegas. It is possible weathering - either chemical (leaching)

and/or physical (erosion) - brings contaminants from the rocks into the river. Groundwater

taken from one well in the Greenhorn, and several from the Graneros, shows poor quality.

Dissolved solids are high (>850 to> 1250 mg/L) and some water has the smell of hydrogen

sulfide (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951).

21

Page 31: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

5.0 SAMPLING STRATEGY AND DESIGN

Potential locations for sample collection must be carefully considered. A general

strategy is to locate sampling stations above and below point sources, in and around areas

of wildlife habitat and other areas of concern. For example, though not done in this study,

sampling locations could have been selected above and at the geothermal springs near

Montezuma to assess this natural source of contaminants. In addition, it is highly desirable

to have an undisturbed river segment for use as a reference point. The reference segment

should match the study area as close as possible in such characteristics as elevation,

geology, hydrology, hydraulics, watershed size, in-stream habitat, and riparian vegetation.

In this way, the area of investigation can be compared to the reference segment and

evaluated for degree of impairment. However, finding an undisturbed reference segment is

exceedingly difficult, as most rivers have some to significant human presence and

development. Because there is as yet no identified reference segment for the Gallinas

River from the Las Vegas diversion to San Augustin (the study area). the upper reach from

the headwaters on Elk Mountain to the Las Vegas diversion will be used as a reference

segment in this investigation when applicable.

By way of review, the Gallinas River begins as drainage on Elk Mountain in the

Santa Fe National Forest. Two small ephemeral creeks, Burro and Porvenir, are the main

tributaries to the Gallinas in the upper reach. Burro Creek lies wholly within the national

forest boundaries. Porvenir Creek begins in the Pecos Wilderness, passes through some

national forest land, but joins the Gallinas on private land. Within the national forest and

wilderness boundaries, the upper Gallinas is minimally disturbed; hence, sampling stations

in these areas would provide useful background levels for contaminant levels found lower

in the river. Three sampling stations were selected within the national forest lands to

provide a water quality baseline for downstream locations. The Gallinas headwaters station

22

Page 32: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

(2-01) is located at the end of forest road 263. Burro Creek above the Gallinas (station 2-

02), and the Gallinas at the Forest Boundary (station 2-05) are the other two. See table 2

for a listing of all sampling stations in this study. Two additional stations were sited on

Porvenir Creek outside the National ForestlWilderness boundaries (stations 2-03 and 2-

04). Station 2-03 is at a campground, where there are some small impacts suspected from

recreational use. Station 2-04 has suspected problems with land management (cattle

grazing impacts). Data from these last two stations will be included in this investigation, but

no evaluation of the suspected impacts (camping and cattle grazing) will be undertaken.

As the Gallinas enters the Las Vegas Plateau near Montezuma, another sampling

site was selected at the USGS gaging station (2-06). This restricted access site is

immediately above the domestic water supply diversion for Las Vegas and is obviously

important to determine if water meets standards for domestic supply. One sampling site

(2-07) was selected within Las Vegas city limits, at the intersection of County Road A-11 C

and Cinder Road. This is an attempt to isolate urban impacts from rural impacts, and is

usually the last place with access within the city where the Gallinas still has water. The next

sampling stations are below the city of Las Vegas, when there is again water in the

channel. Sampling stations were selected above the Las Vegas Wastewater Treatment

plant (2-08, which is mostly Pecos Arroyo water but will contain urban runoff following

storm events), at the outfall pipe (2-09) and below the WWTP (2-10). The last sampling

site on the Gallinas is at San Augustin (2-13).

Pecos Arroyo was sampled in two locations. The first (2-11) is at Harris Lake within

city limits. The "lake" is fed by Pecos Arroyo water and from Spring Arroyo, a very small

ephemeral spring-fed tributary to Pecos Arroyo. Harris Lake is used for recreational use.

23

Page 33: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Station Number 2-01

2-02

2-03

2-04

2-05

2-06

2-07

2-08

2-09

2-10

2-11

2-12

2-13

Agua Olympia

Description

Gallinas @ end of Forest Road 263 (Headwaters) Burro Creek above Gallinas

EI Porvenir Creek at Campground

EI Porvenir above Gallinas @ SR 65

Gallinas at Forest Boundary

Gallinas at USGS Gage 08380500 (near Montezuma) Gallinas at County Road A-11C and Cinder Road (Las Vegas) Gallinas above Las Vegas WWTP

Las Vegas WWTP Outfall Pipe

Gallinas 0.25 mile below Las Vegas WWTP

Pecos Arroyo above Harris Lake

Pecos Arroyo at County Road 23 above Gallinas Gallinas at San Augustin

Agua Olympia

Table 2: Sampling Stations.

Location

Lat: 35° 72.21 "N Long: 1 05° 49.7"W Elevation: 8435 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 72.61"N Long: 105° 49.5"W Elevation: 8504 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 71.08"N Long: 1 05° 41.6"W Elevation: 7559 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 65.00"N Long: 105° 32.0"W Elevation: 7450 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 68.97"N Long: 105° 37.6"W Elevation: 7254 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 65.19"N Long: 105° 31.8"W Elevation: 6867 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 62.16"N Long: 105° 24.6"W Elevation: 6540 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 56.66"N Long: 105° 21.1"W Elevation: 6427 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 56.64"N Long: 1 05° 21.2"W Elevation: 6382 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 56.50"N Long: 1 05° 21.2"W Elevation: 6417 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 63.00"N Long: 105° 21.0"W Elevation: 6466 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 70.75"N Long: 105° 20.6"W Elevation: 6427 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 46.47"N Long: 105° 1S.7"W Elevation: 5945 feet AMSL Lat: 35° 56.61"N Long: 105° 20.6"W Elevation: 6397 feet AMSL

Justification

Reference Point

Reference Point

Reference Point; assess recreational impacts

Reference Point; assess land management (cattle grazing)

Last point on federal land; above urbanization

Drinking Water Diversion for City of Las Vegas

Last point in urban area where river is wet

Impacts from Pecos Arroyo; reference point forWWTP

Impacts from WWTP

Impacts from WWTP

Assess Pecos Arroyo Water; above most urban impacts

Assess Pecos Arroyo Water; assess urban impacts

End of river reach; reference point for water quality evaluation

Inputs from tributary

24

Page 34: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

This site is important for monitoring water quality for secondary contact (recreational use).

The other sampling location on Pecos Arroyo (2-12) is where the arroyo crosses County

Road 23 above the confluence with the Gallinas. This station provides a baseline for what

is added by the WWTP a short distance to the south.

Unless otherwise noted, all sample analyses were performed by the Scientific

Laboratory Division (SLD) of the New Mexico Department of Health using EPA-approved

methodologies. These approved methodologies are listed in Appendix 13.1.

6.0 FIELD WORK

Much of the data presented in this investigation was determined from samples

collected by NMED personnel in 2001 and before, though I personally made several trips

with NMED personnel (May 29-31, October 16 and 18,2001; April 26 and November 14

and 17,2002; September 23,2003). Fieldwork at a minimum always involves taking

general water chemistry measurements of temperature, pH, turbidity, specific conductance,

and dissolved oxygen concentration and percent saturation. This is accomplished using a

multi-parameter probe called a "Sonde" (Yellow Springs Instruments, Yellow Springs, OH).

Often water samples are collected and sent for laboratory analysis.

On May 31,2001, using the Sonde, dissolved oxygen (DO) at San Augustin was 8.3

mglL at 9:30 am. At this hour the sun had risen above the canyon walls for a very short

time, and DO was still low for the area. Significant amounts of floating algae were present.

On October 16-18, 2001, water temperature was 14.47 DC, DO was 12.56 mg/L

(123.3% saturation), turbidity was unavailable, and pH was 8.60 (10/16/2001). No floating

algae were observed; however, it is believed that the presence of brown colored algae on

rock surfaces and perhaps phytoplankton were causing the high DO. On October 17, 2001

25

Page 35: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

the following measurements were recorded at 1 :30 pm: water temperature was 14.41 ec,

DO was 13.11 mg/L (128.4% saturation), specific conductance was 926 ).LS, turbidity was

11.4 NTU, and pH was 8.61. The next day, again using the Sonde, water temperature was

9.10 ec, DO was 9.46 mg/L (81.7% saturation), specific conductance was 986 ).LS, turbidity

was 12.6 NTU, and pH was found to be 8.42. Readings were taken at approximately 8:30

am. The lack of floating algae was presumed to be from seasonal monsoon rains that

increase water velocity and dislodge the mats. By this time of the year, the mats had grown

quite large and heavy. A few relatively large fish were observed, likely to be Rio Grande

Chub; a few suckers (species unidentified) were also seen.

7.0 EVALUATION OF CURRENTLY LISTED IMPAIRMENTS

7.1 Stream Bottom Deposits

Stream bottom deposits are fine particles, usually sand and silt, less than 2-rnm in

diameter. Fines can get into a river any number of ways: as river water physically erodes

streambed rock or soil, as chemicals in the water chemically dissolve (weather) rocks, as

the river re-suspends existing sand and silt on the bottom, as eroded topsoil is carried to

the river by runoff, or from a combination of these factors. In an undisturbed system, a river

often has a deep and meandering channel that will lose sediments in bends and oxbows. In

these turns the water is sufficiently slowed to allow the sediments to drop out. When rivers

are straight, usually because of river modification, the water moves at greater overall

velocity, and it is less likely the stream deposits sediments. Fines fill the spaces between

cobbles and gravels. This leads to a cascade of undesirable events. Physically, there is

less space for benthic organisms (macro-invertebrates) to live. There will also be less

oxygen in those spaces, which results in poorer quality habitat. These factors lead to a

decrease in benthic populations, which in turn will lead to a reduction in food sources for

fish. The overall diversity of aquatic organisms generally decreases, and only highly

26

Page 36: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

adapted (specialized) species remain. Often their numbers are low. The build up of fines in

the cobble/gravel interstices also smooth out the surface of the river bottom, which makes

the water move faster. In turn, this will lead to more erosion (scouring) of stream banks.

This destabilizes the banks, leading to a straightening of the channel and a loss of riparian

vegetation. Channel straightening will further increase water velocity, which can lead to a

higher gradient, and a wider, shallower channel. Again water velocity increases. The

shallow water and loss of riparian cover result in increased water temperature. This

cascade results in a reduction of habitat diversity (both aquatic and riparian) and increases

environmental stress.

In bedrock riverbeds, fewer fines should be present. However, some streams form

in sand beds naturally, and it would be expected the river bottom to be sand almost

exclusively. The middle Rio Grande of New Mexico is such a river. (It is believed that at its

headwaters in the San Juan valley of southwestern Colorado, the Upper Rio Grande River

looks much different. This is an important distinction; the same river can look and act much

differently in different reaches and still be healthy). In such cases, there would be little

harm from the fines. At the present time, the NMED has no protocol developed for either

detecting or evaluating fines present in a sandy-bottomed river.

The current standard for stream bottom deposits reads: "Surface waters of the

State shall be free of water contaminants from other than natural causes that will settle and

damage or impair the normal growth, function, or reproduction of aquatic life or significantly

alter the physical or chemical properties of the bottom" (New Mexico Water Quality Control

Commission, 2000).

This standard for stream bottom deposits is a descriptive (so called narrative)

standard. It must be evaluated in terms of a quantifiable physical component

(geomorphology), measured using either a pebble count or degree of cobble

27

Page 37: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

embededness, and a biological component (community structure: number of species,

distribution in life stages, and population sizes). The physical components are only

indicators, and do not determine the overall health of the system. The physical and

biological components may also yield differing results as to any impairment. For example, a

pebble count may indicate the river fully supports its designated use(s), while the bio­

assessment may show that impairment exists. Generally this will be due to the presence of

one or more chemical contaminants that are harmful to biota. While the overall evaluation

is a result of both the physical indicators and biological assessment, it is the presence of

strong and varied community structure that will provide the strongest evidence of good

health.

NMED personnel evaluated the Gallinas River for stream bottom deposits during

the period 1998-2001. Three locations were evaluated: Near the headwaters at the end of

Forest Road 263; at the USGS gage near Montezuma; and at San Augustin. Results are

presented in table 3.

While the stream bottom deposit standard cannot be evaluated only in terms of the

presence or absence of fines, greater than 30% fines is strong evidence that a river will be

listed for stream bottom deposits. All data in table 3 are evaluated to determine if a stream

bottom listing is warranted. The reader will notice that many parameters at the gaging

28

Page 38: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Embededness .

13 16 Velocity/Depth Regi~e

. 16 16

Sediment Deposition. 13 13 Channel Flow Status 19 16 Channel Alteration

. 16 20

Riffle Frequen.~y· 20 18 Bank Stability 10 10 Vegetative Protection

.. 10 10

Riparian Vegetative Zone ..

9.5 10 nlndex B4 B46

Table 3: Stream Bottom Deposits (Protocol, 2002).

* = Scored on a scale of 1-20, with 20 being ideal and 1 being worst ** = Scored on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being ideal and 1 being worst

13

8 11 16 13 5 5 5

C4

station indicate a better river substrate and flow regime than even at the headwaters. This

occurs because the river channel is formed in bedrock canyons with little unconsolidated

bank material that can erode. There is certainly a degradation of bank stability, vegetative

protection and size of riparian zone by the time the Gallinas River has reached San

Augustin.

7.2 Total Ammonia

Ammonia, NH3 , is a gas at room temperature and pressure (b.p = -33.4 °C). The

ammonia molecule has an unshared pair of electrons, creating a large dipole moment

(positive and negative ends of the molecule). Because of its large dipole moment,

ammonia is quite soluble in water (51.8 g. ammoniaf100 g. water at 20°C). The solubility of

dissolved gasses is also governed by their partial pressure in the atmosphere (Henry's

Law).

Ammonia is an irritant to humans that can be fatal at sufficiently high concentration.

It is also lethal to fish at much lower concentrations. Unionized ammonia (NH3) is more

toxic to fish than ionized (NH/) since the neutral molecule can readily cross (diffuse) the

epithelial membranes more easily than the charged ion.

29

Page 39: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Ammonia is also a waste product that fish excrete most often by passive diffusion of

unionized ammonia across their gills. Increased concentrations of unionized ammonia in

water block or reverse this mechanism. From this information, it is obvious that the form of

ammonia (unionized versus ionized) will be a major consideration in determining toxicity.

When ammonia gas is dissolved in water, it will accept a proton from water (due to

the unshared electron pair's affinity for protons) to produced ammonium ion and hydroxide

ion:

Ammonia is a weak base, meaning that only a fraction of whatever ammonia is present will

ionize. This is evidenced by its relatively small base ionization constant (Kb):

[NH4 +) [OH-) = 1.8 x 10-5 at 25°C

[NH3J

The increase in hydroxide ions accounts for the increase in pH as ammonia is added to

water.

Temperature and especially pH greatly affect the degree of ionization. At constant

pH, the higher the temperature the more unionized ammonia is present. Similarly, at

constant temperature, as pH increases so does the amount of unionized ammonia. The

partitioning of ammonia between ionized and unionized forms is largely determined by pH

and temperature, and to a lesser degree by the ionic strength of the water. Since the

effects of ionic strength are low compared to temperature and pH effects, this factor will be

ignored here. To determine the relative amounts of ionized versus unionized ammonia

present, temperature and pH must be measured first. From these values, pK (-log of the

equilibrium constant, K) must be determined:

pK = 0.09018 + 2729.92JT (OK) (USEPA 1999)

30

Page 40: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

The pK is the pH at which half the ammonia is ionized and half is unionized. Next, the

partitioning can be estimated using the following equations:

fNH3 = 1 -1-+-1':""0"""'p17""K-::rpH

fNH/ = 1 -1-+-1':""0"""'p17""K-::rpH'

It is important to note that at the circumneutral pH found in the Gallinas River, the

dominant form is ionized ammonia, NH/. This is illustrated in Appendix 13.2 as the ratio of

NH3/NH/. While on one occasion the ratio of unionized to ionized (NH3/NH/) ammonia

slightly exceeded 15%, it is largely in the single percent range. This means that of the total

ammonia present (ionized plus unionized forms), never was the unionized ammonia

present in greater amounts than ionized ammonia. Stated another way, ionized ammonia is

nearly 100 times more prevalent than unionized ammonia in the conditions found on the

Gallinas River. Most measurements of ammonia in water are really measurements of

ammonium ion, unless the pH is significantly high. At approximately pH ?:: 10, ammonia is

and remains 100% unionized (NH3)'

How does ammonia get into the water? Ammonia has many commercial and

industrial applications, including use in or making fertilizers, textiles, plastics, household

cleaning agents and refrigerants. Soil bacteria, decaying plants and animals, and animal

wastes also produce ammonia naturally. As such, it is not uncommon to find sources of

ammonia, both natural and anthropogenic, in the environment. It is thought that ammonia

enters the Gallinas River by several different mechanisms. Urban runoff contributes lawn

fertilizers (both ammonium and nitrate forms of nitrogen). Process control errors at the

WWTP introduce ammonia with effluent. The amount and condition of the receiving water,

which is almost exclusively from Pecos Arroyo, can affect the effluent even when no

discharge violation is incurred. For example, in times of unusually pronounced drought,

31

Page 41: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

lower water levels in Storrie Lake result in less seepage to Pecos Arroyo. This will leave

less receiving water available to dilute the effluent. Proteins from decaying fish and animals

can also contribute ammonia and organic forms of nitrogen. The fully oxidized form of

nitrogen, nitrate (N03·) can be reduced at the sediment water interface by bacteria, tho~gh

most often this is not the case. Hydraulic permeability of alluvium is expected to be high,

allowing surface water to readily mix ground water, and aerobic processes should

dominate. Valett et aL, 1999 found relatively large dissolved oxygen concentrations (>4

mg/L) in interstitial pore waters in a similar headwater creek. This has impacts for the

forms of available nutrients and any associated toxicity (in the case of ammonia) or

regulatory standards.

Samples were routinely collected during the 2001 intensive survey using standard

protocols: one liter of water is collected into a plastic ammonia-free container, and

immediately preserved with sulfuric acid to prevent microbial transformation. Samples were

stored at 4 DC in picnic coolers, then transported to the Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD)

of the NM Department of Health within 48 hours. Samples were analyzed using EPA

Method 350.1. Of the 72 samples collected in 2001, six samples were at or above the

chronic ammonia standard (Appendix 13.2). All six samples were collected at or

immediately below the Las Vegas WWTP. Two results were indeterminate as temperature

and pH data are not available. No results met or exceeded the acute toxicity standard for

ammonia. It is noted that the above results are from samples collected by NMED

personnel. All treatment plants are required to monitor for certain effluent parameters. At

larger plants, this monitoring is conducted in an on-site laboratory. Such is the case at the

Las Vegas WWTP. Often these are coliform bacteria, chlorine and ammonia amongst

others. Results from the Las Vegas plant from 2001-2003 show an especially large number

of elevated ammonia (ammonium) values. These results are presented in table 4.

32

Page 42: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Date Monthly average Maximum Jan 2001 18.59 19.87 Feb 2001 15.19 16.8 March 2001 14.6 15.9 AQril2001 8.77 12.3 May 2001 1.65 4.5 June 2001 9.3 13.5 July 2001 5.78 11.1 August 2001 5.84 9.23 September 2001 0.49 0.87 October 2001 2.69 9.93 November 2001 0.85 3.95 December 2001 1.67 2.57 January 2002 0.83 1.6 February 2002 3.16 4.73 March 2002 3.02 6.56 April 2002 6.23 12.17 May_2002 3.24 5.13 June 2002 3.49 6.53 July 2002 10.39 16.73 August 2002 4.8 8.13 September 2002 9.03 18.53 October 2002 19.21 21.47 November 2002 7.23 13.53 December 2002 15.45 19.07 January 2003 6.42 8.6 February 2003 16.6 19.46 March 2003 3.83 5.13

Table 4: Ammonia results from Las Vegas WWTP monitoring. From NMEO-SWQ8 Internal document, LV WWTP Reports File.

7.3 Unknown Toxicity

Waters and sediments can contain materials that are harmful to aquatic wildlife,

either to benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms or fish, or both. Contaminants in water can

harm fish and benthic organisms by direct exposure, which may result in rapid, acute

toxicity. Sediments may release their contaminants to the water slowly over time, resulting

in a slower but chronic toxicity, or if conditions (e.g. oxidation-reduction potential,

temperature, pH) change rapidly, a sudden acute toxicity. Because the effect of one

contaminant may be affected by others in the water (additive or antagonistic effects), the

33

Page 43: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) test was established to assess the overall effect of the water

and all contaminants to biota.

Both water and sediments can be assessed (using separate tests) for toxicity to

aquatic wildlife by allowing observation of toxic effects on laboratory test species selected

as surrogates for indigenous species (USEPA Region 6, 2004). In controlled environments,

test organisms (Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas [fathead minnow]) are

exposed to the sample (water or sediment), while a control group of the same organisms is

exposed to well-characterized water or sediment (proven to be non-toxic).

C. dubia is the more sensitive species to various pollutants, while P. promelas is

more sensitive to ammonia (the unionized form of arnmonia is more toxic than the ionized

form). The degree to which organisms in the test samples are affected beyond those of the

control group gives the measure of toxicity. Toxicity is measured in two ways: as primary

toxicity (mortality) and secondary toxicity (reduced number of offspring). The secondary

toxicity is an important measure for possible reproductive and/or teratogenic anomalies.

Toxicity to either species more than 10% above the control group indicates the presence of

toxicants. Water and sediment samples were collected in September 1990 and again in

November 2001 and sent to the U.S. EPA Region 6 lab in Houston, TX. Results of these

tests are summarized in table 5.

34

Page 44: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Station Sample Test Primary Percent Secondary YPF Type Species Toxicity? Affected Toxicity? (test/control)

Sept 2-10 Water C. dubia 1990 Water P. promelas Sept 2-08 Water C. dubia 1990 Water P. promelas Sept 2-12 Water C. dubia 1990 Water P. promelas Sept Spring Water C. dubia 1990 Arroyo@ Water P. promelas

Airport Rd'

Sept 2-11 Water C. dubia 1990 Water P. promelas Sept Gallinas Water C. dubia 1990 @ Water P. promelas

Grand" Nov 2001 2-07 Water C. dubia

Water P. promelas Sediment C. dubia Sediment P. promelas

Nov 2001 2-08 Water C. dubia Water P. promelas

Sediment C. dubia Sediment P. promelas

Nov 2001 2-10 Water C. dubia Water P. promelas

Sediment C. dubia Sediment P. promelas

Nov 2001 2-11 Water C. dubia Water P. promelas

Sediment C. dubia Sediment P. promelas

Nov 2001 2-12 Water C. dubia Water P. promelas

Sediment C. dubia Sediment P. promelas

Nov 2001 2-13 Water C. dubia Water P. promelas

Sediment C. dubia Sediment P. promelas

N N N N N N Y Y

N N Y N

N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N

(test/control) 0/10 7/3 0/10 10/3 0/10 0/3

100/10 3013

20/10 313

60/10 13/3

010 017 0/0 017 0/0 3/7 0/0 717 0/0 3/7 OlD

10017 010 77 0/0 3/7 010 3/7 0/0 3/7 OlD 017 010 717

N

N

N

Data not available

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Y

N

N

18.5/17.2

16.3/17.2

16.0/17.2

NA

15.4/17.2

0.0/17.2

16.0/16.7

16.4/18.5

16.6/16.7

16.2/18.5

17.9/16.7

19.6/18.5

17.9/16.7

17.2/18.5

17.2/16.7

16.4/18.5

17.6/16.7

18.5/18.5

* These two stations were not part of the 2001 intensive stream survey and do not have station numbers

Table 5: Ambient Water Quality Toxicity (USEPA Ambient Water Toxicity 1989-2003).

8.0 OTHER CONTAMINANTS

8.1 Inorganics, excluding metals

The following inorganic parameters, excluding metals, were investigated: nutrients

(nitrogen in the form of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia, and total phosphorous), temperature,

35

Page 45: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

dissolved oxygen (DO), total dissolved solids (TDS), organic nitrogen (total Kjeldahl

nitrogen, TKN), total organic carbon (TOC), turbidity, pH, and sulfate.

pH, specific conductance, temperature, dissolved oxygen and turbidity data are

presented in Appendix 13.3. All results for pH and temperature are within the standards

established for the existing designated uses. There is an overall trend of increasing

temperature from higher to lower elevations. Some increase is expected as elevation

decreases, however, the amount of water temperature increase due to hydromodification

(decreased channel depth, loss of riparian cover) is unknown. Dissolved oxygen only

dropped below the established standard of 6 mg/L (for marginal cold water fishery) on

three occasions. See section 8.2 for a more detailed discussion of dissolved oxygen.

Sulfate data are presented in Appendix 13.4. All results above the city of Las Vegas

(stations 2-01 through 2-06) are below 25 mg/L. At station 2-7 (County Road A11-C and

Cinder road in town) sulfate rises dramatically, and remains elevated throughout the rest of

the Gallinas River in the study area.

Results for chloride are presented in Appendix 13.5. As with sulfate, the results are

below the standard, 5 mg/L, when flows are at least 10 cfs from the headwaters to above

the city. At the same station in town (2-07), there is a marked increase in chloride levels

that persist above the standard for the established designated uses throughout the river

through San Augustin.

TDS results are presented in Appendix 13.6. Results are less than the 250 mg/L

standard for all samples collected above the city of Las Vegas. At station 2-07, results

mirror that of chloride and sulfate. There is a significant increase in solids that persist along

the river all the way to San Augustin.

36

Page 46: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

8.2 Dissolved Oxygen

A well-oxygenated river is generally taken to be an indicator that favorable

conditions exist for aquatic wildlife. It implies that water is well aerated, non-stagnant, and

there is a low level of dissolved organic matter. The amount of oxygen a waterbody is

capable of dissolving also depends on atmospheric pressure (altitude, an indirect measure

of the atmospheric partial pressure of O2) and temperature. All other factors being equal,

colder water at lower elevations (higher atmospheric pressure) will dissolve more oxygen

that warmer water at higher elevation. When measured dissolved oxygen is compared to

the theoretical amount the water is capable of dissolving based on altitude, a percent of

saturation can be computed. This allows for fast interpretation of dissolved oxygen content.

While dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are high (greater than 8 mg/L) in the upper

reaches of the Gallinas River, the percent saturation is around 80%. However, on many

occasions at San Al,1gustin (2-13) DO was super-saturated. Not only was DO occasionally

near 150% saturation, there are large diurnal swings in the amount of DO. Early morning

hours are generally the lowest DO concentrations, with the highest levels beginning in the

late morning and persisting throughout daylight hours. On cloudy days and on early

morning sampling, the DO levels were much lower. The presence of dense mats of

filamentous algae strongly suggests the underlying causes of the alternating cycles of

supersaturated DO and DO levels below saturation are from photosynthesis exceeding

respiration during daylight hours followed by respiration with the cessation of

photosynthesis during the dark.

There were only three occasions when dissolved oxygen fell below 6 mg/L. Low DO

concentrations in water lead to oxygen starvation in tissues (hypoxia), which can be lethal

to fish. Conversely, supersaturation can also be problematic to fish and other aquatic

organisms, leading to a rare condition known as gas bubble disease (GBD). Effects of GBD

37

Page 47: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

can be increased morbidity and mortality, emboli and scar tissue in and around the gills.

Gas supersaturation in water may interfere with proper diffusion of oxygen across gills

and/or trauma associated with gas bubbles in the vascular system. Gas solubility increases

with depth, resulting in a lower percentage of saturation, so increased depth provides

mitigation to the effects of GBD. Research in the Lower Clark Fork River has demonstrated

that supersaturation is rarely a concern in deep rivers (Weitkamp 2003). However, the

Gallinas River is shallow and wide, providing little relief via depth. Crawdad mortality and

low numbers of fish may provide circumstantial evidence of GBD as a stressor, however,

the actual presence or absence of GBD was not evaluated in this investigation.

Furthermore, while there is evidence that both continued low DO (hypoxia) and high DO

levels are harmful, the effect of large diurnal swings to aquatic wildlife is unknown, though

it is thought to be a stressor.

8.3 Heavy Metals

An extensive suite of metals has been analyzed on a large number of samples.

While standards for the designated uses are established for dissolved metals only, with the

exception of total mercury and total recoverable selenium, total metals analyses were

performed on a large number of samples. Results are presented in Appendix 13.7. Specific

information on human health effects and environmental fate of contaminants is available

elsewhere (ATSDR, 2004).

8.4 Organics

For the existing designated uses, standards are established only for total chlordane

(acute and chronic standards for fisheries), total PCBs, and total DDT and their metabolites

for wildlife habitat. To date, approximately six samples have been collected, due primarily

to the significant laboratory costs associated with analyzing organic compounds. However,

38

Page 48: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

those samples were analyzed for a large suite of compounds including organo-chlorine

pesticides, acid herbicides, glyphosate, carbamates, pharmaceutical residues, PCBs

(arachlor congeners only) and a large suite of semi-volatile compounds. All results were

less than detection limits, which are in the low to sub parts-per-billion (ppb) range. Specific

information on human health effects and environmental fate of contaminants is available

elsewhere (ATSDR, 2004).

8.5 Radionuclides

Standards for radionuclides exist only for livestock watering. As is the case with

organic compounds, very limited sampling (n =1) has been done to date. Again the reason

is the significant laboratory costs associated with radiochemical testing. Results for gross

alpha and gross beta radiation were each both less than 10 pCilL. (One pico-Curie is 10-12

Curie; 1 pCi = 0.037 nuclear disintegrations per second, an extremely small number).

Gamma radiation was not detected. Radium 226 and 228 were each less than 1 pCilL

(above detection limits, but well below standards). While no laboratory in New Mexico is

certified for the analysis of tritium, a regulated radionuclide, results show no concerns at

the present timed for radionuclide contamination. Specific information on human health

effects and environmental fate of contaminants is available elsewhere (ATSDR, 2004).

9.0 CONTAMINANT SOURCES

All water quality standards were achieved 100% of the time for all samples collected

on the Gallinas River from the headwaters to the diversion at Montezuma. Water quality is

therefore fully supporting in this reach for the list of designated uses. It can be said with a

high degree of confidence that there are no significant sources of contaminants in the

upper reach of the Gallinas (headwaters to Las Vegas diversion) that flow into the study

area (Las Vegas diversion to San Augustin).

39

Page 49: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

9.1 Natural Sources

Natural sources may include local flora and fauna, geologic mineralized areas,

volcanoes, and thermal waters. Snowmelt and precipitation can move these inputs to the

river as a result of surface runoff. These inputs come about without any influence by

humans. The river provides wildlife habitat and it is reasonable that some animal excreta

makes it into the water. Decay of plants and animals would also add nutrients (nitrogen and

phosphorous) and organic matter to the water. However, nutrients (ammonia, TKN,

nitrate/nitrite, phosphorous, TOC) are basically non-existent in the upper reach and only

increase (noticeably) at the WWTP outfall pipe (station 2-09). Therefore, biota does not

compromise water quality.

9.1.1 LAS VEGAS SYNCLINE

There are no volcanoes in the area. However, there are examples where the local

geology (rock outcroppings) contributes minerals to the water. At the headwaters, the

Gallinas River is a calcium bicarbonate water. From Montezuma to Hot Springs,

approximately 1.6 km to the west, a portion of the Greenhorn limestone is exposed in the

Las Vegas Syncline. The river crosses this natural outcropping and picks up calcium,

magnesium, and carbonate/bicarbonate. The water is still predominantly a calcium

bicarbonate type, only now there are more dissolved constituents. This is apparent by

comparing Stiff diagrams for each location (Figures 2 and 3).

As the river crosses the syncline there is a marked increase in hardness

parameters, which is evident at the next station (2-07). Hardness parameters stay elevated

until the WWTP adds non-carbonate water to the river below town. The increase in

hardness is amplified by the loss of dilution as water is diverted for domestic supply and

irrigation just above the Hot Springs.

40

Page 50: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Fig 2: Stiff diagram for Headwaters.

9.1.2 MONTEZUMA HOT SPRINGS

Fig 3: Stiff diagram for USGS Gage above Hot Springs.

The Montezuma Hot Spring is actually a collection of 20-30 seeps. Water

temperature varies among the springs, from 27-60 °C. Discharge is highly variable among

the springs as well, from less than 1 gallon per minute (GPM) to around 6. A 1966

streamflow investigation done by the USGS estimated the total discharge to the Gallinas

River from all the springs to be 325 GPM.

The source of the water discharged at the springs is from fractures in Precambrian

granite. Some fractures dip up to 80 degrees. There are also some small faults in the area.

There is granite of various compositions, from quartz-plagioclase pseudogranite to potash-

rich granite containing hornblende (uranium). Total dissolved solids average 250-500 parts

per million; water type is predominantly sodium chloride (Witcher 1995 and Figure 4).

Fig 4: Stiff diagram for Montezuma Hot Springs.

41

Page 51: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

9.1.3 STORRIE LAKE

Storrie Lake is the "source" water for water that enters Pecos Arroyo. Water

is a calcium bicarbonate type with moderate dissolved solids (212 mg/L). Water

chemistry does not vary greatly from that in the headwaters and below the

Montezuma Hot Springs (Figure 5).

Fig 5: Stiff diagram for Storrie Lake.

9.1.4 PECOS ARROYO

The soils of Pecos Arroyo are derived from shale, a rock of marine origin. It might

be reasonable to expect water in contact with such soils to pick up contaminants. This is

just the case, as stations 2-08,2-11 and 2-12 show sharp increases in chloride, dissolved

solids (TOS), suspended solids (TSS) and sulfate (Figures 6 and 7).

Fig 6: Stiff diagram for Pecos Arroyo. Fig 7: Stiff diagram for Gallinas River above WWTP.

42

Page 52: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Station 2-11 is in the Pecos Arroyo above the confluence with the Gallinas and

station 2-08 is actually further down the Gallinas River. Pecos Arroyo water (2-11) is a

calcium sulfate water, consistent with contact with shale. Recall that the Gallinas River

below Las Vegas but above the treatment plant is still predominantly Pecos Arroyo water,

as the river is largely baseflow through town. There is a modest decrease in sulfate below

town (2-08), which may simply be the result of dilution by urban runoff.

Below the WWTP, water is still dominantly calcium sulfate, but the sulfate is further

diluted by effluent. Bicarbonates have been diluted from effluent by the time the Gallinas

River reaches San Augustin, but the water is still calcium sulfate rich.

Fig 8: Stiff diagram for water 0.25 mi below WWTP.

Fig 9: Stiff diagram for water at San Augustin.

Plotting their concentration along the flow path of the Gallinas River, that is, by

sampling station, one can better see contaminants from natural sources. Figure 10 gives

results for total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfate (S04). Both parameters show a marked

increase at station 2-07, where the Gallinas River first arrives in Las Vegas. Since this

sampling did not occur during or immediately after a storm event, it is evidence that

Montezuma Hot Springs is the contributor. (Note: sulfate result for station 2-08 in figure 10

is suspect and thought to be an outlier). This is confirmed by the Stiff diagram for the hot

43

Page 53: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

springs (figure 4). Figure 11 shows results for chloride, which again show a large increase

at station 2-07. Sampling was conducted at the same location and time as TDS and

sulfate.

Sulfate & TOS

- 1200 -I -C'l 1000 -E -I: 800 0

:.;:; 600 ('IS '-- 400 I: 1-·' Q,) (.) 200 I: 0

U 0 ..- ("\J C0 0 C? 0 , I

[ S04 - TDS ~ ~ w ~ ro m 0 ..- C0

9 9 ~ 9 9 9 ~ ~ ~ ("\J ("\J ("\J N ("\J N ("\J N ("\J N ("\J ("\J

Sampling Station

Fig 10: Total dissolved solids and sulfate results by station.

Chloride

120 --I - 100 -C'l E - 80 I: 0 - 60 c Gi l ('IS '--I: 40 Q,) (,J I: 20 -0

l~ ..- N C0 ~ ~ w ~ ro m 0 C0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..- T-

N N I N I N I I I I N I ("\J ("\J ("\J ("\J ("\J ("\J ("\J

Sampling Station

Fig 11: Chloride results by station.

44

Page 54: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

A general overview of the water chemistry is given by plotting parameters in a Piper

Diagram (Figure 12); values represent one sample per station,

Legend

A 2-01

0 2-05 H Hot Springs

0 2-06

H

c\c c\c c\c c\c <f ~ ~ c§

+- Ca- -CI~

Fig 12: Piper Diagram of all stations.

M 2-07 K 2-08 C 2-10

2-11

I

L Agua, 0 2-13 J Storrie

It can be seen from figure 12 that calcium bicarbonate-type water dominates in the

upper reaches, stations 2-01,2-05 and 2-06, which are all located upstream from

Montezuma Hot Springs. Storrie Lake is also a calcium bicarbonate-type water. These

waters plot in the lower left corner in both the cation (bottom left) and anion (bottom right)

triangles. Montezuma Hot Springs is a significant excursion, being sodium chloride-type but

with sulfate present. Pecos Arroyo stations (2-10 and 2-11) are calcium sulfate-type waters.

Calcium is the dominant cation in all waters except Montezuma Hot Springs. Anion water

chemistry changes from bicarbonate to chloride, then to sulfate when following the flow

path of the Gallinas River from headwaters to San Augustin.

45

Page 55: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

9.2 Anthropogenic Sources

9.2.1 NON-POINT SOURCES

Non-point source (NPS) pollution occurs when rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation runs

over land or through the grounGl, picks up pollutants, and deposits them into rivers, lakes

and coastal waters, or introduces them into ground water. Examples of NPS include

agriculture, forestry, grazing, septic tanks, and urban runoff. Nationally, agricultural

pollution is the leading non-point source of water quality impacts (USEPA Office of Water

Fact Sheet, 1996). However, in the study area, agriculture is present but not prevalent.

Urban runoff is the most significant NPS, but with existing data, it is not possible to allocate

the relative amount of contaminants to either source.

At the first urban sampling point (station 2-07, in Las Vegas), water quality does not

support all designated uses at all times. From appendices 13.2-5, it can be seen that

sulfate, chloride, and TDS are above their respective standards, assuming that the flow is

greater than 10 cubic feet per second (cfs). This assumption would have to be tested on a

case-by-case basis. There is much deviation from the historical average flow of 19.4 cfs,

and the flow measurement is taken upstream at the USGS gage. Following the path of the \

river from headwaters to below the city, this is the first location where these standards have

been exceeded. These parameters are consistent with the water chemistry found in

Montezuma Hot Springs, a strong argument that the natural geology is the source.

However, urban sources - sulfates and dissolved solids from combustion and chloride from

road deicing - may contribute.

Manganese increases significantly in the river at Las Vegas (2-07). Though there is

no standard for the existing designated uses, there is a secondary standard for manganese

in drinking water for aesthetic quality. Reduced forms (Mn 2+) are soluble in water and can

impart black stains to laundry when present. Though manganese is widely distributed in

46

Page 56: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

many minerals as oxides, silicates or carbonates, it is thought to be another urban artifact.

Manganese is used in paints, to both add and remove color during glass manufacturing,

and in many alloys. Also appearing in trace amounts are the metals nickel and strontium,

though as is the case with manganese, there are no standards established for these

contaminants in the existing designated uses. Most primary nickel is used in alloys, the

most important of which is stainless steel. Other uses include electroplating, foundries,

catalysts, batteries, welding rods, coinage, and other miscellaneous applications. Nickel

appears in nature as oxide, silicate and/or sulfide minerals. Strontium is never found as a

pure element in nature and behaves similarly to calcium, its neighbor in group IIA of the

periodic chart. It is used for coloring glass and fireworks, zinc refining, and optical

materials. Unlike manganese and nickel, there is no known biological function of strontium

in humans.

Urban runoff from storm events was also investigated. An automated sampler

(ISCO Corporation) was deployed at San Augustin in 2001. As the water level increases in

the stream following a storm event, an internal float mechanism in the sampler rises in

response to this change, which in turn triggers the sampler to begin. The sampler was

configured to sample for a few hours following the storm.

It appears that storm water runoff actually helps dilute hardness in the stream (fig.

13). This is reasonable if hardness parameters are indeed coming predominantly from the

hot springs and syncline. Heavy metals show an increase for aluminum, iron and silicon,

both in total and dissolved forms (fig. 14). As expected, total (unfiltered) forms of all metals

measured were higher concentrations than filtered. Particulate matter and other solids are

likely swept into the river from city streets and other areas adjacent to the river. It is

interesting to note that sodium is actually diluted by increased discharge.

47

Page 57: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

r--~ver Response at San Augustin to Storm Eve-;- i

8/15/2001 Hardness Parameters

300 ~ - Alkalinity

200 J --I __ ---~ I --- = -o +-, ~~~~~~~~

- Bicarbonate I - Calcium

- Hardness

- Magnesium

....J en E 100

18:41 19:40 20:40 21:40 22:40 23:40

Time

Fig. 13: Automated sampler (ISCO) results for hardness following storm event of 8/15/2001.

,------ -----River Response at San Augustin to Storm Event

8/15/2001 Metals

I 1- AI (total)

50 - AI (diss)

I- Iron (total) II 40 ....J 30 -- - - - Iron (diss) en

, - Mn (total) II E 20 - - - ------ -10 == - Mn (diss)

0 - Si (total) 1841 1940 2040 21 :40 2240 23:40

Time - Si (diss)

I - Na ~ Fig. 14: Automated sampler (ISCO) results for metals following storm event

of 8/15/2001.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and total phosphorous concentrations increased

slightly in response to the storm, while other nutrients remained relatively unchanged (fig.

15).

48

Page 58: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

I River Response at San Augustin to Storm Event 8/15/2001

I 100

..J 10 --Cl E

1

0.1

Nutrients

-----~

18:41 19:40 20:40 21:40 22:40 23:40

I- N03IN02 I j - Phosphorous

I- TOC I

- TKN

Ammonia

I

l Time I -------------------~

Fig. 15: Automated sampler (ISCO) results for nutrients following storm event of 8/15/2001 .

A second storm event of longer duration was also captured (9/16-17, 2001). Results

for nutrients are plotted in figure 16. As the main storm pulse moved through the area

around 6 pm on September 16, most nutrient concentrations dropped, and then recovered

as the stream subsided. The exception to this is organic nitrogen (TKN). This evidence

suggests that either there is no significant amount of urban runoff (less likely) or that the

magnitude of runoff from the storm events dwarfs the amount of extra contaminants

contained in the urban runoff (more likely).

49

Page 59: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

...J -0)

E

I River Response at San Augustin to Storm Event

9/16-17, 2001 I I Nutrients

10 ,..,.---------------,

1 ---'

0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') (") (") C') C0 <:'l C') C0

t'- 0 C0 CD 6i N <i ~ ~ ~ ~ N

Time

r-1- - N-03-/N-O-2 - j 1- Phosphorous

- TOe I l - TKN

I I I

Fig 16: Automated sampler (lseQ) results for nutrients following storm event of 9/16-17, 2001

9.2.2 POINT SOURCES

There is a noticeable increase in nutrients (nitrate, ammonia, TKN and

phosphorous) at, and immediately below, the Las Vegas Wastewater Treatment Plant

(appendices 13.2 and 13.8, and figures 17 and 18). Figure 17 shows ammonia results by

sampling station along the Gallinas River. Ammonia results are below detection limit until

station 2-09, the WWTP outfall. Ammonia spikes precipitously at the treatment plant, then

returns to baseline conditions at station 2-13 (San Augustin). Dilution from water added to

the Gallinas River below the treatment plant by the ephemeral streams Agua Olympia and

Agua Zarca and uptake up by algae are likely causes of ammonia attenuation. It does not

appear that ammonia is oxidized to nitrite (N02-) and nitrate (N03·), as these species are

not elevated at San Augustin (see fig. 16).

50

Page 60: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Ammonia

:J 6 ~--------------------------. 0, 5 E -s:::: 4 o ~ 3 -~

a; 2 - -s:::: g 1 o u 0

N M ~ ~ w ~ ro mOM 0000000 0 0 ~ ~ ~

N N N N N N N N N N N N Sampling Station

Fig 17: Ammonia results by station_

I - Ammonia I

A similar pattern is demonstrated by nitrate/nitrite (N03-IN02-), organic forms of

nitrogen (TKI\l), total phosphorous (P), and total organic carbon (TOC) in figure 18. Values

are again very low at all stations before the treatment plant, and then rise dramatically at

the plant outfall. Nutrient levels subside by the time the Gallinas River reaches San

Augustin.

I I

I

15

....J 10 -0, E 5

LO o N

Nutrients

Q)

o N

Sampling Station

Fig 18: Nitrite/nitrate, TKN, P, and TOC by station.

"

- N03/N02 /'

- TKN I I- p I - TOC J

51

Page 61: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Values for all these parameters are very low or below detection from the

headwaters to above the treatment plant. Values spike precipitously at the plant (station 2-

09) and immediately below (station 2-10) and then dissipate. Results from the plant's

discharge monitoring requirements (OMR's) corroborate this effect at station 2-09 (plant

outfall). Oddly, there are no standards established for any nutrients neither in the

designated uses nor in the plant's discharge permit.

Built in the early 1980's to treat up to 2.5 million gallons per day (MGO) of effluent,

the plant is classified as a major discharger according to section 402 of the federal Clean

Water Act. The plant releases approximately 1.5-1.8 MGO of effluent, treated to secondary

standards, each day to the already impaired river. The definition of secondary treatment

standards is available elsewhere (Code of Federal Regulations, 2003). Solids are trucked

to a surface disposal site located near the Las Vegas Airport where they are buried into the

subsurface.

The Las Vegas Wastewater Treatment Plant's discharge permit (NM000287) details

the level of contaminants that can be released. The volume of receiving water already in

the channel largely governs those amounts. For the plant's permit, the volume flow rate of

water was measured once on June 13, 1980, and calculated to be 0.5 cfs. That value was

input into the USGS 4Q3 model (USGS 2004), which calculates the four lowest flows over

a three-year period. These worst-case scenarios become the concentration of pollutants

discharged to the river. While there have been occasional process upsets resulting in

higher than permitted BOD, TOS and fecal coliform bacteria released into the Gallinas,

nitrogen continues to be the most persistent offender. l\Jitrogen is measured and reported

monthly as ammonia and TKN, presumably by a private lab. There have been repeated

instances when ammonia nitrogen is greater than 10 mg/L (table 3). While there is no

maximum nitrogen value in effluent established in the plant's discharge permit, this value

52

Page 62: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

exceeds the national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) for nitrogen, and is a

significant issue for downstream eutrophication.

9.2.3 GEOCHEMICAL SPECIATION

Further analysis of the Gallinas waters is accomplished by investigating the

presence of minerals in the water, the forms in which they exist if present, and their

likeliness to either stay dissolved in solution or precipitate out. This analysis is limited to

inorganic (mineral) species in the water; this is justified as earlier analyses of organic

constituents shows no organic compounds present.

Mineral speciation is accomplished using PHREEQC geochemical speciation code

(PHREEQC Interactive v 2.8, downloadable from USGS). General water chemistry

measurements (temperature, pH, alkalinity and elements of interest) are input into the

program. The code then returns the solution composition in molarity, concentration and

distribution of mineral forms of each element, and saturation indices (SI) for each mineral

form. Saturation indices are useful to assess the relative likeliness that the mineral will

remain soluble (SI < 0, meaning the water is undersaturated for that mineral at the current

chemistry), will precipitate out of solution (SI > 0) or is in equilibrium with the water (SI = 0).

Data integrity is evaluated based on ion balance and presented in the 'description of

solution' section. All results yield reasonable ion balances «10%), indicating no major

discrepancies in laboratory results.

Water samples were collected in the spring, summer and fall of 2001 as both

dissolved metals (sample passed through a 0.45-)lm filter then acidified with nitric acid to

pH<2) and total metals (acid preservation only with no filtration). Of these, filtered samples

are appropriate for speciation analysis. Ideally, samples collected for total metals will have

no particulates or colloidal material to which elements may adsorb. In reality this is very

53

Page 63: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

difficult to accomplish, and usually there are varying amounts of solids in the samples.

These materials provide surfaces to which metals sorb. Acid in the sample will leach the

metals off their surfaces and bring them into solution. The longer the sample sits before

analysis, the more elements may be extracted. This condition does not reflect the true

dynamics of the river, and results of geochemical speciation on total metals results must be

interpreted carefully.

Samples collected in the spring may reflect chemical events associated with a large

amount of water rushing through the river system during snowmelt. This is a temporary

condition and not reflective of the conditions most of the time. Likewise, fall samples are

taken when water levels in the river are generally very low after the summer irrigation

season. This too is a transient condition. Middle summer may best approximate winter

baseflow conditions. Samples are not collected in the winter due to the difficulty of access

to the river due to snow.

Several PHREEQC iterations are presented in appendix 13.9. All output reflect

values based on dissolved metals results except one output for total metals collected at

station 2-01 (headwaters) on 5/29/2001. This iteration is included to illustrate the strong

chance that sample collection for total metals almost always includes particulate and/or

colloidal material that normally sequesters metals. Refer to pages 75-79 (dissolved) and

pp. 80-84 (total) in Appendix 13.9 for comparison. Note the large aluminum result (0.15

ppm, p. 80) that is suspicious in a headwater stream. Other iterations show the speciation

along the flow path at a given point in time (7/24/2001, pp. 85-109, Appendix 13.9), and

temporal changes at the headwaters station (changes from spring to summer to fall, pp.

110-124).

54

Page 64: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

In general, mineral forms of aluminum, iron, and manganese are the only ones of

interest; calcium and magnesium are most often dissolved in solution as 2+ ions. At the

headwaters, aluminum is present mostly as the oxyanion AI(OHk, a relatively soluble form.

Iron, sodium, potassium and chloride were all below their respective detection limits when

analyzed in the lab; the values inputs into PHREEQC (0.1, 5, 10, respectively) are the

detection limits. In general terms, the headwaters are under saturated (no minerals are

likely to precipitate) because minerals are present in sparingly small amounts. There were

no significant temporal (seasonal) changes in water chemistry at the headwaters station.

When moving along the flow path of the Gallinas, there is an increase of hardness

metals (Ca and Mg) at station 2-06. This is below Montezuma Hot Spring, and the increase

in hardness was obvious from the Stiff diagram. Calcite at 2-06 has become slightly super­

saturated. Mica minerals, though they show a saturation index> 1, will not precipitate at

ambient temperatures. The river remains under saturated with respect to its mineral

constituents. The next iteration comes from station 2-08, above the WWTP comprised

dominantly of water from Pecos Arroyo. Manganese concentration has increased

significantly, but remains divided evenly between carbonate mineral and soluble 2+ forms.

Calcite, dolomite and rhodochrosite are super-saturated. At station 2-10 (below the

WWTP), the treatment plant has provided dilution to the minerals. Calcite, dolomite and

rhodochrosite saturation indices are still positive, must attenuated significantly.

9.3 Summary of Contaminant Sources

There is a combination of both naturally occurring and man-made sources of

contamination in the Gallinas River and Pecos Arroyo. The local geology above Las Vegas

(outcrops in the syncline and hot springs) contributes minerals and hardness to the water.

Pecos Arroyo water has higher mineral concentrations than water that has been in contact

with the syncline or water from the hot springs. Whether Pecos Arroyo water contributes

55

Page 65: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

more mineral load to the water than either the syncline or hot springs could be tested using

a mixing model but was not done in this work. Additionally, the high sulfate found in Pecos

Arroyo water is undesirable. Sulfate is not tolerated well by human ingestion, which leads to

adverse health effects. Sulfate is also used by various microbes as a terminal electron

acceptor to gain energy from organic matter depending on current conditions. Microbial

transformations can alter water pH (corrosivity), solubility of minerals, and evolve toxic

hydrogen sulfide gas.

The only significant point source in the watershed is the Las Vegas Wastewater

Treatment plant. Nutrient contamination is a more significant issue than mineral

contamination. The plant has had process upsets resulting in periodic releases of fecal

coliform bacteria and ammonia. Non-point pollutant sources include urban runoff from Las

Vegas and agricultural by-products such as fertilizers. With the existing data, it is not

possible to assign the relative amounts of these pollutants to urban versus agricultural

sources.

10,0 EVALUATION OF EXISTING DESIGNATED USES

The existing designated uses, and the water quality criteria that support those uses,

are available elsewhere (I\lew Mexico Water Quality Control Commission 2000).

Assignment of specific designated uses to any waterbody is a sociopolitical decision. That

is, the assignment should not be made solely on the existing or potential water quality

alone. Rather, the deSignated uses should reflect the values of the community. From the

observed mix of both urban and rural characteristics of the area, the assigned designated

uses in this middle reach seem consistent with the lifestyles of the residents. That being

said, the assumption is hereby made that the existing deSignated uses for the middle reach

of the Gallinas River, from the Las Vegas municipal diversion to San Augustin, reflects the

values of local residents. Water quality data presented in this report can and do support

56

Page 66: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

these designated uses on most occasions. While there are specific impairments that need

addressing, it does not appear that this river segment requires re-classification.

11.0 TMDL

Under the consent order Forest Guardians v. Browner, the state of New Mexico

must have a Total Maximum Daily Load implemented by 2017 for the Gallinas River. The

TMDL is both a planning document and a source of regulations for managing the river. A

closer look at the TMDL program is in order (USEPA TMDL, 2004).

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a

pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an

allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources. Total Maximum Daily Loads are not

new. In 1972 the U.S. Congress intended to restore the nation's fishable and navigable

waters by passing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean

Water Act). Section 303d of the Act stipulated the formation of TMDLs for watersheds that

failed to meet state water quality standards. However, this obscure section of the Clean

Water Act was little known or used until several environmental groups began suing the

U.s. EPA for their failure to clean the nation's waterways or require TMDL development

(TMDL Lawsuits, 2004).

The underlying philosophy of the TMDL program is relatively straightforward; states

establish designated uses for each water body, then develop water quality criteria to

achieve that use or uses. If monitoring shows that criteria are not being met, then the state

lists the waterbody for TMDL development on a prioritized list (the 303d list); this listed

must be updated every two years. Listing must occur even if controls have been put in

place to clean up contaminants. The TMDL program represents a departure from historical

water resource management. Previous regulations focused on the amount of pollutants

57

Page 67: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

that any given point source could discharge to a waterway through the National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. Instead, the TMDL program is

a pollution budget for an entire waterbody (a watershed approach) that establishes the

maximum amount of all pollutants that can exist while still maintaining water quality

standards. This budget must account for all sources, both specific and discrete. Discrete

sources are interpreted to be both non-point sources and atmospheric deposition (Saltman

2001 ).

A TMDL is comprised of three variables: the waste load allowance (WLA), the load

allowance (LA), and a margin of safety (MOS).

WLA + LA + MOS = TMDL

The WLA is the total of all contaminants from point sources; the LA is load from all

non-point sources. The TMDL develops these allowances for a specific flow. A TMDL is

required regardless if the water quality criteria are violated for physical, chemical or

biological contaminants. In New Mexico, a conceptual framework for TMDL development

and implementation may include the following elements: public outreach and involvement,

establishing milestones, securing funding, implementation of best management measures

(BMPs), continued monitoring of BMPs and determining their effectiveness, and a re­

evaluation of milestones (NMED Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2004).

While noble in its intention, the TMDL program has several ambiguities and

shortcomings that have led to a multitude of lawsuits filed against implementation. First, the

criteria for designating the uses of a waterbody are social decisions, yet the TMDL program

has no guidance for what constitutes an acceptable analysis for setting that use. Next, the

TMDL program requires that all sources, including non-point and atmospheric sources, be

58

Page 68: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

managed in the pollution budget, but Congress gave no new authority to states to regulate

these sources (currently there are no federal regulations for managing non-point source

pollution). In New Mexico and many other states, limited grant money (federal) and

technical expertise (state) are offered to implement best management practices (BMPs) as

an incentive to voluntary compliance. These federal 319 grants (so called because of their

creation in part 319 of the Clean Water Act) attempt to achieve water quality standards

through land management practices. Third, each state has their own process for

developing a TMDL. The states, not EPA, decide how to allocate the pollution load, but

EPA retains authority for the approval of all TMDLs. EPA can also add waterbodies to the

states' lists. TMDLs are often developed from limited data and understanding of the

watershed, and computer models must include a margin of safety to account for both the

limited data/knowledge and model uncertainty. However, the margin of safety is often

arbitrarily set (Shabman, 2002). Fourth, the TMDL program makes no accounting of

stressors such as low flow (or a change in the flow regime) and temperature that have

profound impacts on water quality criteria. Finally, the TMDL program makes no exceptions

for waters that fail to meet water quality criteria due to naturally occurring pollutants,

whether from such sources as mineral weathering, volcanism, geothermal waters, low

flows, high oxygen demand (microbial activity) and habitat alteration. If the designated use

was established in spite of these factors or a lack of knowledge is irrelevant; a TMDL must

be implemented.

Whether TMDLs will work in a cost and time effective manner is the subject of much

debate. Some states have expressed concern that the rule provides no reasonable

deadlines for completion, and many states lack sufficient data or the resources to gather

additional data to formulate their TMDLs. EPA issued a new TMDL rule in 2000 to address

the concerns raised in previous lawsuits, but Congress attached a rider to the EPA's

funding that monies allocated for TMDL programs not be spent until 2001. Also, when

59

Page 69: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Congress adopted the Clean Water Act in 1972, point sources were much larger sources

of pollution than today. Most experts now recognize non-point sources as the number one

pollution source facing the country. The issue is not a trivial one. A draft EPA cost analysis

estimated the TMDL rule to run between $900 million and 4.3 billion annually. The

estimated cost of TMDL implementation in New Mexico is unknown.

12.0 RECOMENDATIONS

12.1 Review

The Gallinas sub-watershed is diverse in physical attributes and human influences.

Like most rivers in /'Jew Mexico, demand exceeds both the supply and desired dilution

effects for pollutants.

The upper reach (headwaters to diversion) of the Gallinas is healthy. Water quality

is excellent while flora and fauna are diverse and abundant. This section benefits from very

little human influences due to high elevation (unfavorable winter climate, rugged

topography) and US Forest Service stewardship. Development must continue to be limited

for the lower reaches to survive.

The middle reach from the diversion to San Augustin, the focus of this study, is

impacted but can be rehabilitated. Natural contaminant sources are the exposed

Greenhorn Limestone and Graneros Shale in the Las Vegas syncline, the Montezuma Hot

Springs, and Pecos Arroyo. All are areas where local geology exposes the Gallinas River

(or in the case of Pecos Arroyo, a tributary) to heavily mineralized rocks. Physical and

chemical weathering of the rocks results in water with high dissolved solids. Human

(anthropogenic) sources of pollution include urban runoff from Las Vegas and nutrient

loading from the wastewater treatment plant. In both situations, the byproducts of people

60

Page 70: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

engaged in everyday living are stressing the river. The lack of significant flow exacerbates

the problems.

12.2 Assumptions

While average yearly flow of the Gallinas is established from a long period of

record, the actual flow is most likely different from the average in any given year. This

makes water resource planning more challenging. That fact notwithstanding, the following

assumptions are made for future planning efforts.

1. Land management in the upper reach will continue under present circumstances.

Forest Service and wilderness boundaries will remain unchanged indefinitely. This

will help limit development and associated human influences. It can also help to

bring federal resources to bear in case of fire or other crises.

2. The city of Las Vegas will continue to experience very modest growth. An upcoming

case before the U.S. Supreme Court may limit the amount of the city's water rights

and curtail future growth. Las Vegas has held the city has a Pueblo Right, giving it

unlimited diversion of the Gallinas River water to accommodate all future growth of

the city in perpetuity.

3. The overall demographic will remain unchanged. A largely rural lifestyle will

continue for the majoritt of residents. It follows that existing deSignated uses will

remain the same, though the water quality standards may need revising.

61

Page 71: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

12.3 Recommendations

Based on these assumptions, the following recommendations are proposed, in

prioritized order.

Recommendation 1: Conduct a river nutrient study.

A nutrient study of the middle reach (diversion to San Augustin) is needed. It is

believed that urban runoff and the wastewater treatment plant allow unhealthy levels of

nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) into the river. However, little historical data are

available, and no standards exist for nutrients. Excess nutrients wi" cause excessive algal

growth (eutrophication), which in turn causes large diurnal swings in dissolved oxygen.

Ammonia can also cause morbidity to aquatic organisms. Benthic invertebrate populations

need study, along with biological (microbial) transformations in the hyporheic zone.

Nutrient concentrations are very low in the headwaters, and consistent with other

headwater streams in New Mexico (Morrice et al. 2000, Webster et a!. 2003, Earl and Blinn

2003). Advective flow, solute movement with water dispersion, and uptake govern the flux

of nutrients. However, mixing and storage in the hyporheic zone slow nutrient flux. In

autumn, a combination of factors (low discharge and velocity, long stream residence time,

short hydraulic uptake length and increased storage zone residence time) converges to

produce conditions most favorable to nutrient uptake in the streambed. Nutrient enrichment

occurs at and especially below Las Vegas, in immediate proximity of the WWTP. This

leads to increased algal biomass and productivity, most noticeably at San Augustin where

water velocity is low, no riparian cover exists, and light levels are high. Along with

measuring existing nutrient levels above, at, and below the WWTP, the flow regime needs

better measurement. The only gage on the river is near Montezuma above the city's

diversion. The flow regime is much different at and below the treatment plant.

62

Page 72: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Recommendation 2: Upgrade the Wastewater Treatment plant.

The treatment plant has an unusual amount of process upsets, possibly from the

large amount of septic wastewater brought to the plant by septage haulers. This waste is

high in grease, debris, settleable solids, organic matter and ammonia. A detailed

investigation of the plant is available from New Mexico State University (WUTAR, 2002).

The plant is old and would benefit from upgrades to the structure, equipment and increased

technical staff. The city has expressed intentions of upgrading the treatment plant, but

needs to find funding sources. Possible sources include federal 319 grant monies, capital

project monies from state funds, and increased monthly fees for residents and users.

Recommendation 3: Construct a pipeline from Storrie Lake to the Ga/linas River.

This would replace the conduit that Pecos Arroyo is now. A pipeline would

Significantly decrease the water picking up undesirable amounts of dissolved salts and

solids that now occur. Chemical analyses of Storrie Lake water show that the high

dissolved solids and sulfate comes not from Storrie Lake but from Pecos Arroyo. However,

it is not prudent to replace the earthen works of Storrie Lake with impervious materials

such as concrete. Seepage from Storrie Lake is returned to the Gallinas River channel

where it constitutes the major portion of receiving water at the treatment plant. To totally

eliminate the seepage would have dire consequences for the plant.

Recommendation 4: Address the City's stormwater runoff.

There are demonstrable impacts from urban runoff (chloride, sulfate and dissolved

solids) that exceed water quality standards. Financially, it is not feasible to retrofit the city

with a stormwater sewer system. However, the city should investigate retaining ponds and

lagoons or other engineering controls to treat stormwater runoff before it makes it to the

river. The runoff cannot be intercepted and withheld from the river, as downstream users

require this water source. Instead, the city could construct sand filters and other low cost

63

Page 73: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

treatment technologies to remove major pollutants from urban runoff before entering the

river.

Recommendation 5: Rehabilitate the riparian zone in and around San Augustin.

At San Augustin, the river has been denuded of vegetation, perhaps to reduce

evapotranspiration losses. However, this has had adverse effects on the river. Riparian

vegetation stabilizes stream banks, thus decreasing erosion. Riparian cover will also shade

the water, keeping temperatures down (a water quality criterion on its own) and perhaps

invigorate benthic habitat. Area ranchers should petition the NMED for federal 319 grant

monies to revegetate the area.

Recommendation 6: Do not expect a TMDL to be an easy fix to solve water quality

problems.

As presented earlier, the TMDL process is still contentious and expensive. Often

the courts are used to implement TMDLs. Instead, federal money is available through

section 319 of the Clean Water Act for best available technologies. Water quality should be

improved through incentives rather than by regulation. Currently NMED-SWQ8 is engaging

private landowners to apply for these monies and implement river restoration strategies.

Such strategies include streambank stabilization using riparian vegetation and limiting

livestock watering. This will in turn decrease sediments (stream bottom deposits) and

provide shade (lower water temperatures). This strategy is also engages landowners to buy

in to the process, and hopefully take some responsibility for existing problems.

64

Page 74: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Appendix 13.1

Analytical Methods

Results that appear in this report were determined by the following below; these methods are

approved at Code of Federal Regulation, Title 40, part 136.

1. Ammonia: EPA 350.1 - Determination of Ammonia Nitrogen by Semi-Automated

Colorimetry, Revision 2.0, August 1993.

2. Metals, except mercury and selenium: EPA 200.8 - Determination of Trace Elements in

Waters and Wastewaters by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry, Revision

5.4

3. Mercury: EPA 245.1 - Determination of Mercury in Water by Cold Vapor Atomic

Absorption Spectrometry, Revision 3.0.

4. Nitrate/Nitrite: EPA 353.2 - Determination of Nitrate/Nitrite by Automated Colorimetry.

5. Phosphorous (total): EPA 365.1 - Determination of Phosphorous by Automated

Colorimetry.

6. Selenium: EPA 270.2 - Atomic Absorption, Furnace Technique, Issued 1978.

7. Sulfate: EPA 300.0 - Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography,

Revision 2.1, August 1993.

8. Total Dissolved Solids: EPA 160.1 - Filterable Residue (Gravimetric)

9. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN): EPA 351.2 - Determination of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

by Semi-Automated Colorimetry, Revision 2.0, August 1993.

10. Total Suspended Solids: EPA 160.2 - Non-filterable Residue (Gravimetric)

65

Page 75: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Stati on 2-01 2-02 2-03 2-04 2-05 Date 5/29 5/29 5/29 5/29 5/29 Temp 7.32 9.38 NA 16.3 13.7

pH 7.9 7. 8 NA 8.1 7.8

NH3 NO NO NA 0.16 NO NH3/NH4 NA NA NA .038 NA

Date 5/30 5/30 5/30 5/30 5/30

Tem2. 8.22 9.93 12.3 15.3 14.1

pH 8.1 8.3 8.1 8.1 8.1

NH3 0. 12 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13

NH3/NH4 .020 .037 .028 .035 .032

Date 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31

Temp 14.0 12.9 13.6 17.1 15.0

pH 8.2 8.3 8.1 8.2 8.1

NH3 NO NA NA NA NA NH3/NH4+ NA NA NA NA NA

Date 7/24 7/24 7/24 7/24 7/24

Temp 12.2 14.2 17.3 19.4 17.3

pH 7.6 7.9 8.0 8.2 7.7

NH3 NO NO NO NO NO NH3/NH4 NA NA NA NA NA

Date 7/25 7/25 7/25 7/25 7/25

Temp 10.9 12.5 15.5 17.4 15.6

pH 8.0 7.9 8.2 8.3 7.9

NH3 NO NO NO NO NO NH3/NH4 NA NA NA NA NA

Date 101 16 10/16 10/16 10/16 10/1 6 Temp 1.97 NA 3.69 4.18 3.48

pH 7.9 NA 7.8 7.7 7.9

NH3 NO NO NO NO NO NH3/NH4 NA NA NA NA NA

Date 10/1 7 10/17 10/17 10/17 10/1 7

Temp NA 4.67 6.66 8.68 5.31

pH NA 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.4

NH3 NO NO 0.10 NO NO NH~NH4 NA NA NA NA NA

Date 10/18 10/18 10/18 10/18 10/1 8

Tem p_ 3.95 4.40 5.22 5 17 4 .90

pH 8.3 8.3 8.1 8.2 8.1

NH3 NO NO NO NO NO

NH3/NH4 NA NA NA NA NA

Appendix 13.2 Ammonia Results All values in mg/L

2-06 2-07 2-08 5/29 5/29 5/29 19.1 20.4 23 .1 8.7 8.1 8.1

0.1 1 0. 12 0.13 0.186 0.052 .063

5/30 5/30 5/30 19.5 18.0 23.1 8.7 8.2 8.1

0.13 0.1 5 NO 0.190 .055 NA

5/31 5/31 5/31 19.5 18.7 15.8 8.7 8.1 7.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA

7/24 7/24 7/24 22 .4 21.7 21.3 8.7 7.9 7.3 NO NO NO NA NA NA

7/25 7/25 7/25 20 .3 22.4 24.0 8.6 8.0 7.8 NO NO NO NA NA NA

10/16 10/16 10/16 5.81 9.43 10.1 8.2 7.8 7.6 NO NO NO NA NA NA

10/17 10/17 10/17 9.35 12.5 7.58 8.4 7.9 7.6 NO NO NO NA NA NA

10/18 10/18 10/18 7.30 10.7 10.9 8.3 7.9 7.9 NO NO NO

NA NA NA

2-09 2-10 2-11 2-12 5/29 5/29 5/29 5/29 NA 20.8 23.9 23.2 NA 7.8 8.0 7.7

3.79 2.04 0.12 0.12 NA .027 .053 .026

5/30 5/30 5/30 5/30 NA 19.8 NA 21.4 NA 7.6 NA 7.7

5.47 2.8 NO NO NA .015 NA NA

5/31 5/31 5/31 5/3 1 NA 16.8 19.6 18.5 NA 7.7 7.9 7.8 NA 1.09 NA NA NA .016 NA NA

7/24 7/24 7/24 7/24 22.1 19.0 22.4 NA 7.4 7.6 8.7 NA

5.68 3.3 0.27 NA .012 .015 .012 NA

7/25 7/25 7/25 7/25 21.3 22.5 17.6 NA 7.3 7.5 7.7 NA

5.36 2.14 NO NA .01 1 .015 NA NA

10/16 10/16 10/16 10/16 17.6 NA 6.47 NA 7.4 NA 7.8 NA

0.11 NA NO NO .008 NA NA NA

10/17 10/17 10/17 10/17 17.2 11.4 7.52 8.23 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.4 NO 0.10 NO NO NA .007 NA NA

10/18 10/18 10/18 10/18 18.0 15.7 14.2 14.1 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.5

0.11 NO NO NO

.014 NA NA NA Values highlighted In yellow exceed the ammonia standard for the given temperature and pH

ND = Not Detected (analyte < 0.10 mg/L)

66

2-13 5/29 25.5 9.0 NO NA

5/30 22.4 8.8 NO NA

5/31 16.3 8.1 NA NA

7/24 26.1 8.6 NO NA

7/25 25.4 8.4 NO NA

10/16 14.5 8.6 NO NA

10/17 14.4 8.6 NO NA

10/18 9.1 8.4 NO

NA

Page 76: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Appendix 13.3 G I W t Ch . t enera a er emlSU)

I Sample site

2-01 GALLINAS RIVER HEADWATERS

2-01 GALLINAS RIVER HEADWATERS

2-01 GALLINAS RIVER HEADWATERS

2-01 GALLINAS RIVER HEADWATERS

2-01 GALLINAS RIVER HEADWATERS

2-01 GALLINAS RIVER HEADWATERS

2-01 GALLINAS RIVER HEADWATERS

2-02 BURRO CR. ABOVE GALLINAS CR.

2-02 BURRO CR. ABOVE GALLINAS CR.

2-02 BURRO CR. ABOVE GALLINAS CR.

2-02 BURRO CR. ABOVE GALLINAS CR.

2-02 BURRO CR. ABOVE GALLINAS CR.

2-02 BURRO CR. ABOVE GALLINAS CR.

2-02 BURRO CR. ABOVE GALUNAS CR.

2-03 PORVENIR CANYON NR EL PORVEN.

2-03 PORVENIR CANYON NR EL PORVEN.

2-03 PORVENIR CANYON NR EL PORVEN.

2-03 PORVENIR CANYON NR EL PORVEN.

Collection date/time

5/29/2001 10: 1 0

5/31/2001 15:00

7/24/2001 10:00

7/25/2001 9:15

10/16/2001 8:00

10/17/2001 9:45

10/18/20018:10

5/2912001 10:55

5/30/2001 11 :10

5/31/2001 14:00

DO pH EC Temp (mg/L)

7.86 109 7.32 9.68

8.16 101 13.97 8.10

7.59 143 12.20 8.80

7.96 139 10.88 9.81

7.93 130 1.97 9.90

8.35 130

8.29 131

7.81 102

8.27 93

8.27 94

3.78 9.50

3.95 9.69

9.38 9.37

9.93 8.54

12.94 8.06

7/24/2001 10:50 7.86 146 14.16 8.29

7/25/2001 9:40 7.92 135 12.54 9.80

10/17/2001 10:30 8.34 142 4.67 9.53

10/18/2001 8:45 8.30 139 4.40 9.76

5/30/2001 12:30 8.06 98 12.33 8.21

5/31/2001 16:10

7/24/2001 12:15

7/25/2001 10:40

8.13 100 13.57 8.49

7.99 161 17.28 8.46

8.17 162 15.48 10.11

DO (% sat)

80.4

78.5

82.1

88.7

71.2

72

73.8

81.8

75.6

76.4

80.4

90.5

73.6

75.2

76.8

81.6

88.5

101.9

Turbidity

2.9

2.6

6.5

13.5

0.7

0.001

0.001

2.7

2.6

1.8

2.5

5.2

0.7

0.001

1.8

1.8

0.7

0.0001

2-03 PORVENIR CANYON NR EL PORVEN. 10/16/2001 9:15 7.83 169 3.69 9.80 74 0.001

2-03 PORVENIR CANYON NR EL PORVEN. 10/16/20019:25 7.74 189 4.18 9.50 72.6 2.1

2-03 PORVENIR CANYON NR EL PORVEN. 10/17/2001 11:40 8.29 169 6.66 9.25 75.5 0.001

2-03 PORVENIR CANYON NR EL PORVEN. 10/18/20019:40 8.08 171 5.22 9.49 74.8 0.001

2-04 PORVENIR CR. AT HWY 65 BRIDGE 5/29/2001 12:30 8.08 113 16.28 8.36 85.2 4.2

2-04 PORVENIR CR. AT HWY 65 BRIDGE

2-04 PORVENIR CR. AT HWY 65 BRIDGE

2-04 PORVENIR CR. AT HWY 65 BRIDGE

2-04 PORVENIR CR. AT HWY 65 BRIDGE

2-04 PORVENIR CR. AT HWY 65 BRIDGE

2-04 PORVENIR CR. AT HWY 65 BRIDGE

2-04 PORVENIR CR. AT HWY 65 BRIDGE

2-05 GALLINAS AT FOREST BOUNDARY

2-05 GALLINAS AT FOREST BOUNDARY

2-05 GALLINAS AT FOREST BOUNDARY

2-05 GALLINAS AT FOREST BOUNDARY

2-05 GALLINAS AT FOREST BOUNDARY

2-05 GALLINAS AT FOREST BOUNDARY

2-05 GALLINAS AT FOREST BOUNDARY

2-05 GALLINAS AT FOREST BOUNDARY

2-06 GALLINAS RIVER AT USGS GAGE

2-06 GALLINAS RIVER AT USGS GAGE

2-06 GALLINAS RIVER AT USGS GAGE

2-06 GALLINAS RIVER AT USGS GAGE

2-06 GALLINAS RIVER AT USGS GAGE

2-06 GALLINAS RIVER AT USGS GAGE

5/30/2001 13:00 8.14 104 15.27 7.78 77.7

5/31/2001 16:40 8.20 107 17.14 7.84 81.4

7/24/2001 12:30 8.18 180 19.43 8.29 89.8

7/25/200111:10 8.26 171 17.36 9.97 103.9

10/16/20019:25 7.74 189 4.18 9.50 72.6

10/17/2001 11:50 8.17 189 8.68 8.85 75.9

10/18/20019:55 8.20 193 5.17 9.35 73.7

5/2912001 11:30 7.78 121 13.66 8.85 89.4

5/30/200112:05 8.07 110 14.09 7.38 76.1

5/31/200115:40 8.12 112 15.04 8.16 81

7/24/2001 12:00 7.73 166 17.31 7.86 82.7

7125/200110:20 7.94 144 15.56 9.57 95.7

10/16/20018:45 7.90 150 3.48 9.85 74.2

10/17/200111:00 8.40 155 5.31 8.87 70.9

10/18/20019:20 8.13 153 4.90 9.43 73.6

5/2912001 13:25 8.69 179 19.05 8.14 87.8

5/30/2001 14:50 8.74 164 19.51 7.97 86.8

5/31/200117:30 8.68 176 19.48 7.67 83.6

10/16/2001 9:55 8.21 282 5.81 9.95 80 10/17/200112:15 8.44 281 9.35 9.38 81.1

10/18/2001 10:30 8.28 288 7.30 9.10 76

5.7

1.7

3.5

2.1

0.001

0.001

4.5

9.3

2.5

12.4

19

6

2.5

1

3.6

2.5

3.1

0.001 0.001

0.001 67

Page 77: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Appendix 13.3 General Water Chemistry (continued)

DO DO Sample site Collection date/time pH EC Temp (mg/L) (% sat) Turbidity

2-07GALLINASRIVER@COUNTYROADA-11C 5/29/200117:25 8.11 418 20.39 7.61 8404 1.6 2-07GALLINASRIVER@COUNTYROADA-11C 5/30/200118:30 8.15 596 18.00 7.66 80.6 0.9

2-07GALLINASRIVER@COUNTYROADA-11C 5/31/200118:10 8.10 639 18.70 7.67 82.3 0.1

2-07GALLINASRIVER@COUNTYROADA-11C 7/24/200116:25 7.90 860 21.74 8.21 9304 1

2-07GALLINASRIVER@COUNTYROADA-11C 7/25/200113:20 7.99 848 22.35 9.36 107.8 0.001

2-07GALLINASRIVER@COUNTYROADA-11C 10/16/200110:50 7.76 922 9043 8.55 75 8

2-07GALLINASRIVER@COUNTYROADA-11C 10/17/200112:45 7.93 922 12.54 8.55 80.6 0.001

2-07GALLINASRIVER@COUNTYROADA-11C 10/18/200111:15 7.89 918 10.65 8041 75.9 0.001

2-08 GALLINAS ABOVE LAS VEGAS WWTP 5/29/2001 14:45 8.09 1170 23.06 9.72 113.7 6.1

2-08 GALLINAS ABOVE LAS VEGAS WWTP 5/30/2001 16:00 8.07 1137 23.08 9.29 108.9 3.5

2-08 GALLINAS ABOVE LAS VEGAS WWTP 5/31/2001 9:35 7.92 1119 15.82 8.99 91 5.6

2-08 GALLINAS ABOVE LAS VEGAS WWTP 5/31/2001 9:50 7.70 973 16.78 7.99 82.5 3

2-08GALLINASABOVELASVEGASWWTP 7/16/200112:207.82137123.548.09 95 12.8

2-08 GALLINAS ABOVE LAS VEGAS WWTP 7/24/2001 14:20 7.75 1334 23.92 8.64 102.7 12.6

2-08 GALLINAS ABOVE LAS VEGAS WWTP 7/25/2001 14:15 7.82 1353 24.02 7.36 87.5 10.6

2-08GALLINASABOVELASVEGASWWTP 8/13/200114:45 7.71110522.90 7.72 89.5 18.1

2-08GALLINASABOVELASVEGASWWTP 10/16/200112:00 7.64 1340 10.12 9.71 86.2 4.2

2-08 GALLINAS ABOVE LAS VEGAS WWTP 10/17/2001 7:30 7.60 1368 7.58 8.90 7404 7.1 2-08GALLINASABOVELASVEGASWWTP 10/18/200112:05 7.90 1377 10.86 9040 85.1 6.2

2-09 CITY OF LAS VEGAS WWTP OUTFALL 7/1612001 12:30 7.34 722 21.21 5.83 66.8 94

2-09 CITY OF LAS VEGAS WWTP OUTFALL 7/24/2001 14:30 7.28 776 21.34 6.84 78.3

2-09 CITY OF LAS VEGAS WWTP OUTFALL 7/25/2001 15:00 7.30 781 21.31 6.35 70.7

2-09 CITY OF LAS VEGAS WWTP OUTFALL 10/16/2001 12:15 7041 640 17.63 6.29

2-09CITYOFLASVEGASWWTPOUTFALL 10/17/20017:45 7040 550 17.18 6.05

2-09 CITY OF LAS VEGAS WWTP OUTFALL 10/18/200112:15 7.58 655 17.97 6.05

2-09 CITY OF LAS VEGAS WWTP OUTFALL 5/2912001 15:25 7.80 1022 20.83 8047

2-10GALLINASR. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP 5/30/200116:40 7.62 953 19.77 7.16

6504 6204 64

94.8

7804 82.5 2-10 GALLINAS R. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP

2-10 GALLINAS R. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP

2-10 GALLINAS R. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP

2-10 GALLINAS R. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP

2-10 GALLINAS R. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP

2-10 GALLINAS R. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP

2-10 GALLINAS R. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP

2-10 GALLINAS R. 1/4 MI. BELOW LV WWTP

2-11 Pecos Arroyo @ Harris Lake

2-11 Pecos Arroyo @ Harris Lake

2-11 Pecos Arroyo @ Harris Lake

2-11 Pecos Arroyo @ Harris Lake

2-11 Pecos Arroyo @ Harris Lake

2-11 Pecos Arroyo @ Harris Lake

2-11 Pecos Arroyo @ Harris Lake

2-11 Pecos Arroyo @ Harris Lake

2-12 PECOS ARROYO ABOVE GALLINAS R.

5/31/2001 9:50 7.70 973 16.78 7.99

7/16/200112:40 7.52 919 22.19 7.35 84.5

7/24/2001 14:40 7.39 980 22.12 7.26 83.3

7/25/200115:20 7045 1053 22045 6.82 78.8

8/13/2001 15:00 7046 902 21.86 6.06

10/16/2001 12:30 7.56 959 15.29 8.08 80

10/17/2001 8:00 7049 1088 11.37 7.65 69.9

10/18/2001 12:25 7.82 958 15.66 7.97 81

5/291200116:50 7.98 1723 23.89 7041 88.1 5/30/200117:55 8.01 1567 21.19 7047 84.5 5/31/200111:30 7.94 1596 19.61 7.13 78.2

7/24/2001 9:30 7.63 1492 18.97 5.74 62

7/25/2001 8:20 7.66 1461 17.64 5.10 53.8

10/16/2001 8:40 7.78 1337 6047 9.64 78.8

10/17/2001 9:00 7.70 1332 7.52 9.00 75.6

10/18/200114:00 7.64 1360 14.18 9.21 9004 5/2912001 16:20 7.70 1285 23.21 9.03 106

68

18

22.5

16.9

9.1

1.9

3 12.8

23.6

1204 24.6

88.3

30.3

5

5504 55.7

3904

187

37.2

26.2

13.7

Page 78: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Appendix 13.3 General Water Chemistry (continued)

DO DO Sample site Collection date/time pH EC Temp (mg/L) (% sat) Turbidity

2-12 PECOS ARROYO ABOVE GALLINAS R. 5/30/2001 17:20 7.74 1140 21.42 8.73 98.6 19.9

2-12 PECOS ARROYO ABOVE GALLINAS R. 5/31/200111:05 7.75 1154 18.54 6.45 69.1 29.1

2-12 PECOS ARROYO ABOVE GALLINAS R. 8/13/2001 15:45 7.28 1194 23.25 7.43 87.6 27.7

2-12 PECOS ARROYO ABOVE GALLINAS R. 10/17/2001 8:45 7.41 1444 8.23 8.35 71 31.2

2-12 PECOS ARROYO ABOVE GALLINAS R. 10/18/2001 13:20 7.52 1428 14.13 8.99 87.7 20.6

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER @ SAN AUGUSTIN 5/29/2001 0:00 9.00 794 25.50 16.13 3.3

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER @ SAN AUGUSTIN 5/30/2001 14: 1 0 8.82 936 22.35 13.05 8.2

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER @ SAN AUGUSTIN 5/31/2001 9:30 8.10 1016 16.33 7.92 81 8.3

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER @ SAN AUGUSTIN 7/16/2001 9:50 8.16 1059 21.70 7.26 77.7

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER@ SAN AUGUSTIN 7/24/2001 15:15 8.60 504 26.08 8.51 105 66.3

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER @ SAN AUGUSTIN 7/25/2001 12:25 8.39 866 25.38 9.21 112.4 67.3

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER@ SAN AUGUSTIN 8/13/2001 13:00 7.98 1096 23.33 9.19 108 63.6

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER @ SAN AUGUSTIN 10/16/2001 14:00 8.60 1056 14.47 12.56 123.3

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER @ SAN AUGUSTIN 10/17/2001 13:30 8.61 926 14.41 13.11 128.4 11.4

2-13 GALLINAS RIVER @ SAN AUGUSTIN 10/18/2001 8:30 8.42 986 9.10 9.46 81.9 12.6

69

Page 79: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Station 5129/2001 2-01 <10 2-02 <10 2-03 NA 2-04 <10 2-05 <10 2-06 <10 2-07 116 2-08 346 2-09 120 2-10 243 2-11 623 2-12 392 2-13 297

Appendix 13.4

Sulfate Results All values in mg/L

7/24/2001 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 190 396 95

233 447 NA 191

10/16/2001 -~

<10 NA --<10 <10 <10 <10 217 441 69 .2 242 --365 NA 326

Values in red exceed the established standard of 25 mg/L when minimum flow is ~ 10 CFS

Station 5/2912001 2-01 <10 2-02 <10 2-03 NA 2-04 <10 2-05 <10 2-06 <10 2-07 13.4 2-08 51 .5 2-09 55.2 2-10 54.5 2-11 73 2-12 52 .2 2-13 54.7

Appendix 13.5

Chloride Results All values in mg/L

7/24/2001 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 16.6 41 .4 55.1 52.3 105 NA

36.8

10/16/2001 <10 --NA <10 <10 <10 <10 18.6 39 .4 53.8 50.3 83.2 NA

50 .3

Values in red exceed the established standard of 5 mg/L when minimum flow is ~ 10 CFS

70

Page 80: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Station 2-01 2-02 2-03 2-04 2-05 2-06 2-07 2-08 2-09 2-1 0 2-11 2-12 2-13

Appendix 13.6

Total Dissolved Solids All values in mg/L

5129/2001 7124/2001 132 <10* 138 144 NA 152 118 152 128 166 140 176 474 568 838 174 472 906 674 682 1260 1150 922 NA 604 510

10/16/2001 --138 NA 138 134 124 180 640 996 450 666 924

1030 748

Values in red exceed the established standard of 250 mg/L when minimum flow is 2 10 CFS)

* Result for station 2-01 on 7/24/2001 is an outlier

7l

Page 81: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Appendix 13.7

Heavy Metals All values in mg/L

I Element

I

Number of Detection Limit I Number of I No. Results;:: I Comments

results ~ Results < DL standard Aluminum 102 0.01 34 8 4 at 2-08;

1 at 2-09; 2at2-12; Max value = 0.14 mg/L

I Antimony 106 0.001 106 0 Arsenic 108 0.001 69 0 No results> DL until

I I

station 2-07; no result> 0.002 mg/L

Barium 104 0.1 104 01

Beryllium 104 0.001 104 0 Boron 105 0.1 79 0 No results> DL until

station 2-08; 20/26 positives from 2-08 and 2-09; No result> 0.2 mg/L

Cadmium 104 0.001 104 0 Chromium 104 I 0.001 83 0 No result> 0.004 mg/L Copper 104 I 0.01 104 0 Iron 105 0.1 86 NA I Max value = 1 .6 mg/L (at

station 2-07) Lead 104 0.001 91 0 No result> 0.002 Manganese 105 0.001 0 NA Max value 1 .0 mg/L;

I overall highest at 2-08 Mercul}' 80 0.0002 80 0 Molybdenum 104 0.001

I

16 0 Max value 0.005 mg/L (at 2-09)

I Nickel 104 0.01 58 0 Max value = 0.06 mg/L (at 2-08)

f Selenium 159 0.005 159 0

I Silicon 105 I

0.1 0 NA Range 1.4 - 10.0 mg/L; overall highest at 2-08

Silver 104 0.001 0 0 Strontium 107 0.1 23 NA Range 0.1 - 2.7 mg/L;

overall highest at 2-11 Thallium 104 0.001 104 01

Tin 104 0.1 104 NA Uranium" 104 0.001 34 NA No result> 0.004 Vanadium 104 0.001 73 0 Zinc 104 0.01

I 66 I 0 No result> 0.05

Results for metals reflect a nearly even distribution of samples collected for total and dissolved forms.

1. No standard for this metal except domestic supply, which is not a designated use in this area; data provided for information only.

2. Uranium measured by mass (238) only

72

I I

I

I

I j

i

I

Page 82: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

5129/2001 N031 TKN Total N02 p

2-01 0.12 <0.10 <0.03 2-02 <0.10 0.11 <0.03 2-03 NA NA NA 2-04 <0.10 0.19 <0.03 2-05 0.10 0.20 <0.03 2-06 0.10 0.18 <0.03 2-07 <0.10 0.30 <0.03 2-08 <0.10 0.39 <0.03 2-09 4.70 5.00 1.47 2-10 2.10 2.79 0.78 2-11 <0.10 0.33 <0.03 2-12 <0.10 0.29 <0.03 2-13 <0.10 0.36 0.10

Appendix 13.8

Nutrients, excluding ammonia All results in mg/L

7/24/2001 TOe N031 TKN Total TOe N031

N02 P N02 12.5 0.19 0.19 <0.03 <3.0 <0.10 8.1 <0.10 0.16 NA <3.0 NA NA <0.10 0.11 <0.03 <3.0 <0.10 3.2 <0.10 0.16 <0.03 <3.0 <0.10 3.2 <0.10 0.18 <0.03 3.4 <0.10 5.5 <0.10 0.23 <0.03 <3.0 <0.10 3.8 <0.10 .196 <0.03 <3.0 <0.10 5.9 <0.10 0.24 <0.03 4.5 <0.10 11.3 5.00 8.21 2.02 13.4 15 8.5 3.00 4.48 1.41 9.8 8.60 5.3 <0.10 0.43 0.047 4.3 <0.10 4.0 NA NA NA NA <0.10 3.0 0.52 0.59 0.23 6.6 0.99

10/16/2001 TKN Total TOe

P <0.10 0.06 <3.0

I NA NA NA <0.10 <0.03 <3.0 <0.10 0.037 <3.0 0.12 0.16 <3.0

<0.10 0.12 <3.0 0.14 0.12 <3.0 0.18 <0.03 3.3 1.52 1.99 9.6 1.05 1.07 7.3 0.34 0.069 3.6 0.22 <0.03 3.1 0.53 0.21 5.8

73

Page 83: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Appendix 13.9

PHREEQC Results

74

Page 84: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 5/29/2001 Dissolved Metals. Database file: C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreegc Interactive 2.B\phreegc.dat

Reading database.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreegc Interactive 2.B\phreegc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1 units ppm

END

temp 7.32 pH 7.9 Al 0.02 Ca 1B Mg 1 Na K Fe Mn Si CI Alkalinity S (6)

5 5

0.1 0.003 4 as Si02 10 47.2 as HC03 10

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 5/29/2001 Dissolved Metals.

-----------------------------Solution composition--------------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al 7.413e-007 7.413e-007 Alkalinity 7.736e-004 7.736e-004 Ca 4.491e-004 4.491e-004 CI 2.B21e-004 2.B21e-004 Fe 1. 791e-006 1.791e-006 K 1.27ge-004 1.27ge-004

75

Page 85: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Mg 4.114e-005 4.ll4e-005 Mn 5.461e-00S 5.461e-00S Na 2.175e-004 2.175e-004 S (6) 1.041e-004 1.041e-004 Si 6.65Se-005 6.65Se-005

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 7.900 pe 4.000

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(Cat-IAnl)/(Cat+IAnl)

Iterations Total H Total 0

1.000 1.S61e-003 1.000e+000 7.942e-004 7.942e-004

7.320 6.660e-005

2.61 9

1.110l35e+002 5.550926e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Al

C(4)

Ca

Species

OH-H+ H2O

Al(OH)4-Al (OH) 3 Al (OH) 2+ A1OH+2 Al+3 A1S04+ Al(S04)2-A1HS04+2

HC03-CO2 CaHC03+ C03-2 CaC03 MgHC03+ NaHC03 MgC03 FeHC03+ FeC03 MnC03 NaC03-MnHC03+

Ca+2 CaS04 CaHC03+

Molality

1.912e-007 1. 315e-00S 5.551e+001

7.413e-007 7.33Se-007 5.401e-009 2.105e-009 2.16ge-Oll 1.117e-0l3 1.605e-014 3.B12e-017 1.B42e-023

7.942e-004 7.601e-004 2.B2Be-005 2.394e-006 2.07ge-006 B.56ge-007 2.B70e-007 B.470e-00B 4.240e-00B 2.434e-00B 1. 32Se-00B 5.301e-009 2.716e-009 2.614e-009

4.491e-004 4.40ge-004 5.034e-006 2.394e-006

Activity

l.S25e-007 1.25ge-00S 1. OOOe+OOO

7.004e-007 5.404e-009 2.00ge-009 1. BOOe-Oll 7.53ge-014 1.532e-014 3.63Be-017 1.52ge-023

7.261e-004 2.B2ge-005 2.2B7e-006 1. 731e-006 B.573e-007 2.73ge-007 S.473e-00B 4.242e-00S 2.323e-00B 1.32ge-00B 5.303e-009 2.593e-009 2.496e-009

3.670e-004 5.036e-006 2.2S7e-006

Log Molality

-6.71S -7.BB1 1.744

-6.134 -B.26B -B.677

-10.664 -12.952 -l3.795 -16.419 -22.735

-3.119 -4.549 -5.621 -5.6B2 -6.067 -6.542 -7.072 -7.373 -7.614 -7.B77 -B.276 -B.566 -S.5B3

-3.356 -5.29S -5.621

Log Activity

-6.739 -7.900 -0.000

-6.155 -B.267 -B.697

-10.745 -13.123 -13.B15 -16.439 -22.S16

-3.l39 -4.54B -5.641 -5.762 -6.067 -6.562 -7.072 -7.372 -7.634 -7.B77 -B.275 -S.5S6 -S.603

-3.435 -5.29S -5.641

Log Gamma

-0.020 -0.019 0.000

-0.020 0.000

-0.020 -0.OB1 -0.171 -0.020 -0.020 -0.OB1

-0.020 0.000

-0.020 -0.079 0.000

-0.020 0.000 0.000

-0.020 0.000 0.000

-0.020 -0.020

-O.OSO 0.000

-0.020

76

Page 86: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

CaC03 B.56ge-007 B.573e-007 -6.067 -6.067 0.000 CaOH+ 5.06ge-009 4.B3Be-009 -B.295 -B.315 -0.020 CaHS04+ 3.250e-013 3.102e-013 -12.4BB -12.50B -0.020

Cl 2.B21e-004 Cl- 2.B21e-004 2.692e-004 -3.550 -3.570 -0.020 FeCl+ 1.245e-010 1.18ge-010 -9.905 -9.925 -0.020 MnCl+ 4.430e-Oll 4.22ge-Oll -10.354 -10.374 -0.020 MnC12 4.967e-015 4.96ge-015 -14.304 -14.304 0.000 FeCl+2 5.BBBe-019 4.BB7e-019 -lB.230 -lB.311 -0.OB1 MnC13- 3.B5ge-019 3.6B4e-019 -lB.414 -lB.434 -0.020 FeC12+ 1.117e-021 1.066e-021 -20.952 -20.972 -0.020 FeC13 2.B6ge-026 2.B70e-026 -25.542 -25.542 0.000

Fe (2) 4.26Be-007 Fe+2 3.B37e-007 3.19ge-007 -6.416 -6.495 -0.079 FeHC03+ 2.434e-00B 2.323e-00B -7.614 -7.634 -0.020 FeC03 1. 32 Be-OOB 1.32ge-00B -7.B77 -7.B77 0.000 FeS04 3.306e-009 3.307e-009 -B.4B1 -B.4B1 0.000 FeOH+ 2.067e-009 1. 973e-009 -B.6B5 -B.705 -0.020 FeCl+ 1.245e-010 1.18ge-010 -9.905 -9.925 -0.020 FeHS04+ 2.B33e-016 2.704e-016 -15.54B -15.56B -0.020

Fe (3) 1.364e-006 Fe(OH)3 1.076e-006 1. 076e-006 -5.96B -5.96B 0.000 Fe(OH)2+ 2.500e-007 2.3B6e-007 -6.602 -6.622 -0.020 Fe(OH)4- 3.B37e-00B 3.663e-00B -7.416 -7.436 -0.020 FeOH+2 2.22 ge-Oll 1.B50e-Oll -10.652 -10.733 -0.OB1 Fe+3 1.617e-016 1.091e-016 -15.791 -15.962 -0.171 FeS04+ 6.776e-017 6.46Be-017 -16.169 -16.1B9 -0.020 FeCl+2 5.BBBe-019 4.BB7e-019 -lB.230 -lB.311 -0.OB1 Fe(S04)2- 1.12ge-019 1.07Be-019 -lB.947 -lB.96B -0.020 Fe2(OH)2+4 4.220e-020 2.003e-020 -19.375 -19.69B -0.324 FeC12+ 1.117e-021 1.066e-021 -20.952 -20.972 -0.020 Fe3(OH)4+5 1.B12e-023 5.657e-024 -22.742 -23.247 -0.506 FeHS04+2 2.790e-024 2.316e-024 -23.554 -23.635 -0.OB1 FeC13 2.B6ge-026 2.B70e-026 -25.542 -25.542 0.000

H(O) 2.705e-027 H2 1.352e-027 1.353e-027 -26.B69 -26.B69 0.000

K 1.27ge-004 K+ 1.27Be-004 1.220e-004 -3.B93 -3.914 -0.020 KS04- 5.302e-00B 5.061e-00B -7.276 -7.296 -0.020 KOH 3.35Be-Oll 3.35ge-Oll -10.474 -10.474 0.000

Mg 4.114e-005 Mg+2 4.041e-005 3.36Be-005 -4.394 -4.473 -0.079 MgS04 3.9B7e-007 3.9Bge-007 -6.399 -6.399 0.000 MgHC03+ 2.B70e-007 2.73ge-007 -6.542 -6.562 -0.020 MgC03 4.240e-00B 4.242e-00B -7.373 -7.372 0.000 MgOH+ 1.B65e-009 1.7BOe-009 -B.729 -B.750 -0.020

Mn(2) 5.461e-00B Mn+2 4.624e-00B 3.B56e-00B -7.335 -7.414 -0.079 MnC03 5.301e-009 5.303e-009 -B.276 -B.275 0.000 MnHC03+ 2.614e-009 2.496e-009 -B.5B3 -B.603 -0.020 MnS04 3.925e-010 3.927e-010 -9.406 -9.406 0.000 MnCl+ 4.430e-Oll 4.22ge-011 -10.354 -10.374 -0.020 MnOH+ 1.7B2e-Oll 1.701e-Oll -10.749 -10.769 -0.020 MnC12 4.967e-015 4.96ge-015 -14.304 -14.304 0.000 MnC13 - 3.B5ge-019 3.6B4e-019 -lB.414 -lB.434 -0.020

Mn(3) 1.164e-030 Mn+3 1.164e-030 7.657e-031 -29.934 -30.116 -0.lB2

77

Page 87: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 2.175e-004 Na+ 2.173e-004 2.075e-004 -3.663 -3.683 -0.020 NaHC03 8.470e-008 8.473e-008 -7.072 -7.072 0.000 NaS04- 7.927e-008 7.567e-008 -7.101 -7.121 -0.020 NaC03- 2.716e-009 2.593e-009 -8.566 -8.586 -0.020 NaOH 1.08ge-010 1.08ge-010 -9.963 -9.963 0.000

0(0) O.OOOe+OOO 02 O.OOOe+OOO O.OOOe+OOO -44.708 -44.708 0.000

S (6) 1.041e-004 S04-2 9.854e-005 8.196e-005 -4.006 -4.086 -0.080 CaS04 5.034e-006 5.036e-006 -5.298 -5.298 0.000 MgS04 3.987e-007 3.98ge-007 -6.399 -6.399 0.000 NaS04- 7.927e-008 7.567e-008 -7.101 -7.121 -0.020 KS04- 5.302e-008 5.061e-008 -7.276 -7.296 -0.020 FeS04 3.306e-009 3.307e-009 -8.481 -8.481 0.000 MnS04 3.925e-010 3.927e-010 -9.406 -9.406 0.000 HS04- 7.365e-Oll 7.030e-Oll -10.l33 -10.153 -0.020 CaHS04+ 3.250e-0l3 3.102e-0l3 -12.488 -12.508 -0.020 A1S04+ 1.605e-014 1.532e-014 -l3.795 -l3.815 -0.020 FeHS04+ 2.833e-016 2.704e-016 -15.548 -15.568 -0.020 FeS04+ 6.776e-017 6.468e-017 -16.169 -16.189 -0.020 Al(S04)2- 3.812e-017 3.638e-017 -16.419 -16.439 -0.020 Fe(S04)2- 1.12ge-019 1.078e-019 -18.947 -18.968 -0.020 A1HS04+2 1. 842e-023 1. 52 ge-023 -22.735 -22.816 -0.081 FeHS04+2 2.790e-024 2.316e-024 -23.554 -23.635 -0.081

Si 6.658e-005 H4Si04 6.617e-005 6.620e-005 -4.179 -4.179 0.000 H3Si04- 4.064e-007 3.87ge-007 -6.391 -6.411 -0.020 H2Si04-2 7.01ge-013 5.826e-0l3 -12.154 -12.235 -0.081

------------------------------Saturation indices---------------------------

Phase SI log lAP log KT

Al(OH)3(a) -1.45 10.58 12.02 Al(OH)3 Albite -3.18 2.26 5.43 NaA1Si308 Alunite -4.98 -4.05 0.92 KA13 (S04) 2 (OH) 6 Anhydrite -3.18 -7.52 -4.34 CaS04 Anorthite -3.85 25.16 29.01 CaA12Si208 Aragonite -0.95 -9.20 -8.24 CaC03 Ca-Montmorillonite 1. 68 11. 35 9.67

CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2 Calcite -0.80 -9.20 -8.40 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.41 -4.18 -3.77 Si02 Chlori te (l4A) -10. l3 65.25 75.38 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile -8.90 25.62 34.53 Mg3Si205(OH)4 C02 (g) -3.32 -21.56 -18.24 CO2 Dolomite -2.78 -19.43 -16.65 CaMg(C03)2 Fe (OH) 3 (a) 2.85 21. 21 18.36 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite 1. 41 10.58 9.16 Al(OH)3 Goethite 8.07 21. 21 l3 .14 FeOOH Gypsum -2.93 -7.52 -4.60 CaS04:2H20 H2 (g) -23.80 -23.80 0.00 H2 H20(g) -2.00 -0.00 2.00 H2O Halite -8.79 -7.25 1. 54 NaCl Hausmannite -16.72 48.96 65.68 Mn304 Hematite 18.06 42.41 24.35 Fe203 Illite 1. 06 14.92 13.86 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -4.81 27.83 32.64 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6

78

Page 88: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar -0.61 2.03 2.63 KAlSi308 K-mica 7.73 23.18 15.45 KA13Si3010(OH)2 Kaolinite 3.73 12.80 9.07 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -5.05 20.29 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -8.l3 -10.58 -2.45 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -41.83 47.60 89.43 02 pyrochroite -6.81 8.39 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -12.20 32.19 44.39 Mn02 Quartz 0.08 -4.18 -4.26 Si02 Rhodochrosite -2.11 -l3.18 -11.06 MnC03 Sepiolite -6.14 10.12 16.25 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -8.54 10.12 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -1. 48 -12.26 -10.78 FeC03 Si02 (a) -1.31 -4.18 -2.87 Si02 Talc -6.27 17.27 23.54 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

79

Page 89: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 5/29/2001 Total Metals. Database file: C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.B\phreeqc.dat

Reading database.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.B\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1

units ppm temp 7.32 pH 7.9 Al 0.15 Ca 1B Mg 1 Na 5 K 5 Fe 0.1 Mn 0.014 Si 4.3 as Si02 Cl 10 Alkalinity 47.2 as HC03 S (6) 10

END

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1. Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 5/29/2001 Total metals.

-----------------------------Solution composition----------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al 5.560e-006 5.560e-006 Alkalinity 7.736e-004 7.736e-004 Ca 4.491e-004 4.491e-004 Cl 2.B21e-004 2.B21e-004 Fe 1. 791e-006 1.791e-006

80

Page 90: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K 1. 27ge-004 1.27ge-004 Mg 4.114e-005 4.114e-005 Mn 2.54ge-007 2.S4ge-007 Na 2.175e-004 2.175e-004 8 (6) 1.041e-004 1.041e-004 8i 7.157e-005 7.157e-005

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 7.900 pe 4.000

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(Cat-IAnl)/(Cat+IAnl)

Iterations Total H Total 0

1. 000 1.854e-003 1.000e+000 7.743e-004 7.743e-004

7.320 8.145e-005 3.20 9

1.110135e+002 5.550924e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Log Log Log Species Molality Activity Molality Activity Gamma

OH- 1.912e-007 1.825e-007 -6.718 -6.739 -0.020 H+ 1.315e-008 1. 25ge-008 -7.881 -7.900 -0.019 H2O 5.551e+001 1.000e+000 1.744 -0.000 0.000

Al 5.560e-006 Al(OH)4- 5.503e-006 5.254e-006 -5.259 -5.280 -0.020 Al(OH)3 4.051e-008 4.053e-008 -7.392 -7.392 0.000 Al(OH)2+ 1. 578e- 008 1.507e-008 -7.802 -7.822 -0.020 AIOH+2 1.626e-010 1. 350e-010 -9.789 -9.870 -0.081 Al+3 8.375e-0l3 5.655e-0l3 -12.077 -12.248 -0.171 AlS04+ 1.204e-013 1.14ge-0l3 -12.919 -12.940 -0.020 Al(S04)2- 2.860e-016 2.730e-016 -15.544 -15.564 -0.020 AIHS04+2 1.381e-022 1.147e-022 -21. 860 -21.940 -0.081

C(4) 7.743e-004 HC03- 7.410e-004 7.07ge-004 -3.l30 -3.150 -0.020 CO2 2.757e-005 2.75Se-005 -4.560 -4.559 0.000 CaHC03+ 2.335e-006 2.231e-006 -5.632 -5.651 -0.020 C03-2 2.026e-006 1.6SSe-006 -5.693 -5.773 -0.079 CaC03 S.35ge-007 S.362e-007 -6.078 -6.07S 0.000 MgHC03+ 2.79ge-007 2.672e-007 -6.553 -6.573 -0.020 NaHC03 S.25Se-00S S.262e-00S -7.0S3 -7.0S3 0.000 MgC03 4.136e-00S 4.l3Se-008 -7.383 -7.383 0.000 MnC03 2.421e-00S 2.422e-008 -7.616 -7.616 0.000 FeHC03+ 2.374e-008 2.266e-00S -7.624 -7.645 -0.020 FeC03 1.296e-008 1. 296e- 008 -7.887 -7.S87 0.000 MnHC03+ 1.194e-008 1.140e-008 -7.923 -7.943 - 0 . 020 NaC03- 2.648e-009 2.528e-009 -8.577 -S.597 -0.020

Ca 4.491e-004 Ca+2 4.40ge-004 3.672e-004 -3.356 -3.435 -0.079 CaS04 5.037e-006 5.040e-006 -5.298 -5.29S 0.000 CaHC03+ 2.335e-006 2.231e-006 -5.632 -5.651 -0.020 CaC03 8.35ge-007 8.362e-007 -6.078 -6.078 0.000

81

Page 91: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

CaOH+ 5.071e-009 4.840e-009 -8.295 -8.315 -0.020 CaHS04+ 3.252e-013 3.104e-013 -12.488 -12.508 -0.020

Cl 2.821e-004 Cl- 2.821e-004 2.692e-004 -3.550 -3.570 -0.020 MnCl+ 2.075e-010 1.981e-010 -9.683 -9.703 -0.020 FeCl+ 1.246e-010 1.190e-010 -9.904 -9.925 -0.020 MnC12 2.327e-014 2.328e-014 -13.633 -13.633 0.000 MnC13- 1.808e-018 1.726e-018 -17.743 -17.763 -0.020 FeCl+2 5.890e-019 4.891e-019 -18.230 -18.311 -0.081 FeC12+ 1.118e-021 1.067e-021 -20.952 -20.972 -0.020 FeC13 2.871e-026 2.873e-026 -25.542 -25.542 0.000

Fe(2) 4.260e-007 Fe+2 3.838e-007 3.201e-007 -6.416 -6.495 -0.079 FeHC03+ 2.374e-008 2.266e-008 -7.624 -7.645 -0.020 FeC03 1.296e-008 1.296e-008 -7.887 -7.887 0.000 FeS04 3.308e-009 3.310e-009 -8.480 -8.480 0.000 FeOH+ 2.068e-009 1.974e-009 -8.684 -8.705 -0.020 FeCl+ 1.246e-010 1.190e-010 -9.904 -9.925 -0.020 FeHS04+ 2.835e-016 2.706e-016 -15.547 -15.568 -0.020

Fe (3) 1.365e-006 Fe(OH)3 1.076e-006 1.077e-006 -5.968 -5.968 0.000 Fe(OH)2+ 2.501e-007 2.387e-007 -6.602 -6.622 -0.020 Fe(OH)4- 3.83ge-008 3.665e-008 -7.416 -7.436 -0.020 FeOH+2 2.230e-011 1.851e-011 -10.652 -10.732 -0.081 Fe+3 1. 617e-016 1.092e-016 -15.791 -15.962 -0.171 FeS04+ 6.781e-017 6.473e-017 -16.169 -16.189 -0.020 FeCl+2 5.890e-019 4.891e-019 -18.230 -18.311 -0.081 Fe(S04)2- 1.130e-019 1.07ge-019 -18.947 -18.967 -0.020 Fe2(OH)2+4 4.220e-020 2.006e-020 -19.375 -19.698 -0.323 FeC12+ 1.118e-021 1.067e-021 -20.952 -20.972 -0.020 Fe3(OH)4+5 1.811e-023 5.667e-024 -22.742 -23.247 -0.505 FeHS04+2 2.792e-024 2.318e-024 -23.554 -23.635 -0.081 FeCl3 2.871e-026 2.873e-026 -25.542 -25.542 0.000

H(O) 2.705e-027 H2 1. 3 52e- 027 1.353e-027 -26.869 -26.869 0.000

K 1.27ge-004 K+ 1.278e-004 1.220e-004 -3.893 -3.914 -0.020 KS04- 5.303e-008 5.063e-008 -7.275 -7.296 -0.020 KOH 3.358e-Oll 3.360e-011 -10.474 -10.474 0.000

Mg 4.114e-005 Mg+2 4.041e-005 3.370e-005 -4.393 -4.472 -0.079 MgS04 3.990e-007 3.992e-007 -6.399 -6.399 0.000 MgHC03+ 2.79ge-007 2.672e-007 -6.553 -6.573 -0.020 MgC03 4.136e-008 4.138e-008 -7.383 -7.383 0.000 MgOH+ 1.865e-009 1.781e-009 -8.729 -8.749 -0.020

Mn (2) 2.54ge-007 Mn+2 2.166e-007 1.807e-007 -6.664 -6.743 -0.079

MnC03 2.421e-008 2.422e-008 -7.616 -7.616 0.000 MnHC03+ 1.194e-008 1.140e-008 -7.923 -7.943 -0.020 MnS04 1.83ge-009 1.840e-009 -8.735 -8.735 0.000 MnCl+ 2.075e-010 1.981e-010 -9.683 -9.703 -0.020 MnOH+ 8.350e-011 7.971e-Ol1 -10.078 -10.099 -0.020 MnC12 2.327e-014 2.328e-014 -13.633 -13.633 0.000 MnC13- 1.808e-018 1.726e-018 -17.743 -17.763 -0.020

Mn (3) 5.451e-030 Mn+3 5.451e-030 3.587e-030 -29.264 -29.445 -0.182

82

Page 92: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 2.175e-004 Na+ 2.173e-004 2.075e-004 -3.663 -3.683 -0.020 NaHC03 8.258e-008 8.262e-008 -7.083 -7.083 0.000 Na804- 7.930e-008 7.56ge-008 -7.101 -7.121 -0.020 NaC03- 2.648e-009 2.528e-009 -8.577 -8.597 -0.020 NaOH 1.08ge-010 1.08ge-010 -9.963 -9.963 0.000

0(0) O.OOOe+OOO 02 O.OOOe+OOO O.OOOe+OOO -44.708 -44.708 0.000

8(6) 1.041e-004 804-2 9.853e-005 8.198e-005 -4.006 -4.086 -0.080 CaS04 5.037e-006 5.040e-006 -5.298 -5.298 0.000 Mg804 3.990e-007 3.992e-007 -6.399 -6.399 0.000 NaS04- 7.930e-008 7.56ge-008 -7.101 -7.121 -0.020 KS04- 5.303e-008 5.063e-008 -7.275 -7.296 -0.020 Fe804 3.308e-009 3.310e-009 -8.480 -8.480 0.000 MnS04 1.83ge-009 1.840e-009 -8.735 -8.735 0.000 HS04- 7.367e-011 7.032e-011 -10.133 -10.153 -0.020 CaHS04+ 3.252e-013 3.104e-013 -12.488 -12.508 -0.020 A1S04+ 1.204e-013 1.14ge-013 -12.919 -12.940 -0.020 Al(S04)2- 2.860e-016 2.730e-016 -15.544 -15.564 -0.020 FeHS04+ 2.835e-016 2.706e-016 -15.547 -15.568 -0.020 Fe804+ 6.781e-017 6.473e-017 -16.169 -16.189 -0.020 Fe(S04)2- 1.13 Oe-019 1.07ge-019 -18.947 -18.967 -0.020 AIH804+2 1.381e-022 1.147e-022 -21.860 -21.940 -0.081 FeHS04+2 2.792e-024 2.318e-024 -23.554 -23.635 -0.081

8i 7.157e-005 H48i04 7.114e-005 7.117e-005 -4.148 -4.148 0.000 H3Si04- 4.368e-007 4.170e-007 -6.360 -6.380 -0.020 H2Si04-2 7.543e-013 6.263e-013 -12.122 -12.203 -0.081

------------------------------Saturation indices---------------------------

Phase 81 log lAP log KT

Al (OH) 3 (a) -0.57 11.45 12.02 Al (OH) 3 Albite -2.21 3.23 5.43 NaA18i308 Alunite -2.35 -1. 43 0.92 KA13(804)2(OH)6 Anhydrite -3.18 -7.52 -4.34 Ca804 Anorthite -2.04 26.97 29.01 CaA12Si208 Aragonite -0.96 -9.21 -8.24 CaC03 Ca-Montmorillonite 3.83 13 .50 9.67

CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2 Calcite -0.81 -9.21 -8.40 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.38 -4.15 -3.77 Si02 Chlorite (14A) -8.28 67.10 75.38 Mg5A128i3010(OH)8 Chrysotile -8.84 25.69 34.53 Mg38i205(OH)4 C02 (g) -3.33 -21.57 -18.24 CO2 Dolomite -2.80 -19.45 -16.65 CaMg(C03)2 Fe (OH) 3 (a) 2.85 21.21 18.36 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite 2.29 11. 45 9.16 Al (OH) 3 Goethite 8.07 21. 21 13 .14 FeOOH Gypsum -2.92 -7.52 -4.60 Ca804:2H20 H2 (g) -23.80 -23.80 0.00 H2 H20 (g) -2.00 -0.00 2.00 H2O Halite -8.79 -7.25 1. 54 NaCl Hausmannite -14.71 50.97 65.68 Mn304 Hematite 18.06 42.41 24.35 Fe203 Illite 3.19 17.05 13.86 KO.6MgO.25A12.38i3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -4.81 27.83 32.64 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6

83

Page 93: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar 0.36 3.00 2.63 KA1Si308 K-mica 10.45 25.90 15.45 KA13Si3010 (OH) 2 Kaolinite 5.54 14.61 9.07 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -4.38 20.96 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -8.13 -10.58 -2.45 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -41.83 47.60 89.43 02 pyrochroite -6.14 9.06 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -11.53 32.86 44.39 Mn02 Quartz 0.11 -4.15 -4.26 Si02 Rhodochrosite -1. 45 -12.52 -11.06 MnC03 Sepiolite -6.04 10.21 16.25 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -8.45 10.21 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -1. 49 -12.27 -10.78 FeC03 Si02 (a) -1. 28 -4.15 -2.87 Si02 Talc -6.15 17.39 23.54 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

84

Page 94: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals. Database file: C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat

Reading database.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1

units ppm temp 12.2 pH 7.6 Al 0.16 Ca 23 Mg 2 Na 5 K 5 Fe 0.1 Mn 0.026 Si 4.9 as Si02 CI 10 Alkalinity 67.2 as HC03 S(6) 10

END

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals.

-----------------------------Solution composition--------------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al 5.931e-006 5.931e-006 Alkalinity 1.101e-003 1.101e-003 Ca 5.73ge-004 5.73ge-004 CI 2.821e-004 2.821e-004 Fe 1.791e-006 1.791e-006

85

Page 95: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K 1. 27ge-004 1. 27ge-004 Mg B.227e-005 B.227e-005 Mn 4.733e-007 4.733e-007 Na 2.175e-004 2.175e-004 S (6) 1.041e-004 1.041e-004 si B.156e-005 B.156e-005

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 7.600 pe 4.000

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(Cat-IAnl)/(Cat+IAnI)

Iterations Total H Total 0

1. 000 2.337e-003 1.000e+000 1.144e-003 1.144e-003 12.200 B.73Be-005 2.74 9

1.11013ge+002 5.551035e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Log Log Log Species Molality Activity Molality Activity Gamma

OH- 1.4Bge-007 1.413e-007 -6.B27 -6.B50 -0.023 H+ 2.637e-00B 2.512e-00B -7.579 -7.600 -0.021 H2O 5.551e+001 1.000e+000 1. 744 -0.000 0.000

Al 5.931e-006 AI(OH)4- 5.B05e-006 5.510e-006 -5.236 -5.259 -0.023 Al (OH) 3 B.316e-00B B.320e-00B -7.0BO -7.0BO 0.000 AI(OH)2+ 4.1B1e-00B 3.96Be-00B -7.379 -7.401 -0.023 AIOH+2 5.241e-010 4.254e-010 -9.2B1 -9.371 -0.091 AI+3 3.923e-012 2.532e-012 -11.406 -11.597 -0.190 AIS04+ 5.5B5e-013 5.301e-013 -12.253 -12.276 -0.023 AI(S04)2- 1.307e-015 1.240e-015 -14.BB4 -14.906 -0.023 AIHS04+2 1.32ge-021 1.07ge-021 -20.B77 -20.967 -0.091

C(4) 1.144e-003 HC03- 1.065e-003 1.012e-003 -2.972 -2.995 -0.022 CO2 7.044e-005 7.04Be-005 -4.152 -4.152 0.000 CaHC03+ 4.BOBe-006 4.56Be-006 -5.31B -5.340 -0.022 C03-2 1.711e-006 1.394e-006 -5.767 -5.B56 -0.OB9 CaC03 B.B64e-007 B.B6ge-007 -6.052 -6.052 0.000 MgHC03+ 7.BBBe-007 7.4B7e-007 -6.103 - 6.126 -0.023 NaHC03 1.174e-007 1.175e-007 -6.930 -6.930 0.000 MgC03 7.181e-008 7.185e-008 -7.144 -7.144 0.000 FeHC03+ 6.20Be-00B 5.B92e-00B -7.207 - 7.230 -0.023 MnC03 3.631e-00B 3.633e-00B -7.440 -7.440 0.000 MnHC03+ 3.117e-00B 2.95ge-00B -7.506 -7.529 -0.023 FeC03 1.946e-00B 1.947e-008 -7.711 -7.711 0.000 NaC03- 2.B75e-009 2.72ge-009 -B.541 -B.564 -0.023

Ca 5.73ge-004 Ca+2 5.61ge-004 4.577e-004 -3.250 -3.339 -0.OB9 CaS04 6.343e-006 6.346e-006 -5.19B -5.197 0.000 CaHC03+ 4.BOBe-006 4.56Be-006 -5.318 -5.340 -0.022 CaC03 B.B64e-007 B.B6ge-007 -6.052 -6.052 0.000

86

Page 96: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

CaOH+ 3.186e-009 3.024e-009 -8.497 -8.519 -0.023 CaHS04+ 8.563e-013 8.127e-013 -12.067 -12.090 -0.023

Cl 2.821e-004 Cl- 2.821e-004 2.677e-004 -3.550 -3.572 -0.023 MnCl+ 3.768e-010 3.576e-010 -9.424 -9.447 -0.023 FeCl+ 2.266e-010 2.151e-010 - 9.645 -9.667 -0.023 MnC12 4.176e-014 4.178e-014 -13.379 -13.379 0.000 MnC13- 3.245e-018 3.080e-018 -17.489 -17.511 -0.023 FeCl+2 1.741e-018 1.413e-018 -17.759 -17.850 -0.091 FeC12+ 2.720e-021 2.581e-021 -20.565 -20.588 -0.023 FeCl3 6.905e-026 6.90ge-026 -25.161 -25.161 0.000

Fe(2) 8.041e-007 Fe+2 7.131e-007 5.821e-007 -6.147 -6.235 -0.088 FeHC03+ 6.208e-008 5.892e-008 -7.207 -7.230 -0.023 FeC03 1.946e-008 1.947e-008 -7.711 -7.711 0.000 FeS04 6.37ge-009 6.382e-009 -8.195 -8.195 0.000 FeOH+ 2.842e-009 2.697e-009 -8.546 -8.569 -0.023 FeCl+ 2.266e-010 2.151e-010 -9.645 -9.667 -0.023 FeHS04+ 1.08ge-015 1. 034e-015 -14.963 -14.986 -0.023

Fe(3) 9.868e-007 Fe(OH)3 7.096e-007 7.100e-007 -6.149 -6.149 0.000 Fe(OH)2+ 2.613e-007 2.480e-007 -6.583 -6.606 -0.023 Fe(OH)4- 1.586e-008 1.506e-008 -7.800 -7.822 -0.023 FeOH+2 3.84ge-011 3 .124e-011 -10.415 -10.505 - 0.091 Fe+3 4.13ge-016 2.671e-016 -15.383 -15.573 -0.190 FeS04+ 1. 807e-016 1.715e-016 -15.743 -15.766 -0.023 FeCl+2 1.741e-018 1.413e-018 -17.759 -17.850 -0.091 Fe(S04)2- 2.954e-019 2.804e-019 -18.530 -18.552 -0.023 Fe2(OH)2+4 1.052e-019 4.566e-020 -18.978 -19.340 -0.363 FeC12+ 2.720e-021 2.581e-021 -20.565 -20.588 -0.023 Fe3(OH)4+5 2.995e-023 8.126e-024 -22.524 -23.090 -0.567 FeHS04+2 1.468e-023 1.191e-023 -22.833 -22.924 -0.091 FeCl3 6.905e-026 6.90ge-026 -25.161 -25.161 0.000

H (0) 1.020e-026 H2 5.100e-027 5.103e-027 -26.292 -26.292 0.000

K 1.27ge-004 K+ 1.278e-004 1.213e-004 -3.893 -3.916 -0.023 KS04- 5.598e-008 5.313e-008 -7.252 -7.275 -0.023 KOH 1.673e-011 1.674e-011 -10.776 -10.776 0.000

Mg 8.227e-005 Mg+2 8.055e-005 6.573e-005 -4.094 -4.182 -0.088 MgS04 8.592e-007 8.596e-007 -6.066 -6.066 0.000 MgHC03+ 7.888e-007 7.487e-007 -6.103 -6.126 -0.023 MgC03 7.181e-008 7.185e-008 -7.144 -7.144 0.000 MgOH+ 2.992e-009 2.83ge-009 -8.524 - 8 . 547 -0.023

Mn(2) 4.733e-007 Mn+2 4.018e-007 3.280e-007 -6.396 -6.484 -0.088 MnC03 3.631e-008 3.633e-008 -7.440 -7.440 0.000 MnHC03+ 3.117e-008 2.95ge-008 -7.506 -7.529 -0.023 MnS04 3.556e-009 3.558e-009 -8.449 -8.449 0.000 MnCl+ 3.768e-010 3.576e-010 -9.424 - 9.447 -0.023 MnOH+ 1.18ge-010 1.128e-010 -9.925 -9.948 -0.023 MnC12 4.176e-014 4.178e-014 -13.379 -13.379 0.000 MnC13- 3.245e-018 3.080e-018 -17.489 -17.511 -0.023

Mn(3) 2.29ge-029 Mn+3 2.29ge-029 1.437e-029 -28.638 -28.842 -0.204

87

Page 97: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 2.175e-004 Na+ 2.173e-004 2.063e-004 -3.663 -3.685 -0.023 NaHC03 1.174e-007 1.175e-007 -6.930 -6.930 0.000 NaS04- 7.881e-008 7.480e-008 -7.103 -7.126 -0.023 NaC03- 2.875e-009 2.72ge-009 -8.541 -8.564 -0.023 NaOH 5.424e-Oll 5.427e-Oll -10.266 -10.265 0.000

0(0) O.OOOe+OOO 02 O.OOOe+OOO O.OOOe+OOO -44.112 -44.112 0.000

S (6) 1.041e-004 S04-2 9.676e-005 7.874e-005 -4.014 -4.104 -0.090 CaS04 6.343e-006 6.346e-006 -5.198 -5.197 0.000 MgS04 8.592e-007 8.596e-007 -6.066 -6.066 0.000 NaS04- 7.881e-008 7.480e-008 -7.103 -7.126 -0.023 KS04- 5.598e-008 5.313e-008 -7.252 -7.275 -0.023 FeS04 6.37ge-009 6.382e-009 -8.195 -8.195 0.000 MnS04 3.556e-009 3.558e-009 -8.449 -8.449 0.000 HS04- 1.556e-Ol0 1.477e-Ol0 -9.808 -9.831 -0.023 CaHS04+ 8.563e-013 8.127e-013 -12.067 -12.090 -0.023 A1S04+ 5.585e-013 5.301e-013 -12.253 -12.276 -0.023 Al(S04)2- 1.307e-015 1.240e-015 -14.884 -14.906 -0.023 FeHS04+ 1.08ge-015 1.034e-015 -14.963 -14.986 -0.023 FeS04+ 1.807e-016 1.715e-016 -15.743 -15.766 -0.023 Fe(S04)2- 2.954e-019 2.804e-019 -18.530 -18.552 -0.023 A1HS04+2 1.32ge-021 1.07ge-021 -20.877 -20.967 -0.091 FeHS04+2 1.468e-023 1.191e-023 -22.833 -22.924 -0.091

Si 8.156e-005 H4Si04 8.125e-005 8.130e-005 -4.090 -4.090 0.000 H3Si04- 3.096e-007 2.93ge-007 -6.509 -6.532 -0.023 H2Si04-2 3.987e-013 3.236e-013 -12.399 -12.490 -0.091

------------------------------Saturation indices---------------------------

Phase SI log lAP log KT

Al(OH)3(a) -0.47 11.20 11.67 Al(OH)3 Albite -2.36 2.85 5.21 NaA1Si308 Alunite -1. 57 -1. 31 0.25 KA13(S04)2(OH)6 Anhydrite -3.11 -7.44 -4.33 CaS04 Anorthite -1. 94 26.09 28.03 CaA12Si208 Aragonite -0.93 -9.19 -8.27 CaC03 Ca-Montmorillonite 3.93 13.05 9.12

CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2 Calcite -0.78 -9.19 -8.42 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.38 -4.09 -3.71 Si02 Chlorite (14A) -8.14 65.23 73.36 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile -8.98 24.87 33.86 Mg3Si205(OH)4 C02 (g) -2.85 -21.06 -18.21 CO2 Dolomite -2.45 -19.23 -16.78 CaMg(C03)2 Fe(OH)3(a) 2.34 20.56 18.23 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite 2.34 11. 20 8.86 Al(OH)3 Goethite 7.75 20.56 12.81 FeOOH Gypsum -2.86 -7.44 -4.59 CaS04:2H20 H2 (g) -23.20 -23.20 0.00 H2 H20(g) -1. 86 -0.00 1. 86 H2O Halite -8.81 -7.26 1. 55 NaCl Hausmannite -14.99 49.35 64.34 Mn304 Hematite 17.45 41.13 23.68 Fe203 Illite 3.14 16.42 13.28 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -5.06 26.77 31. 83 KFe3(S04)2 (OH)6

88

Page 98: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar 0.14 2.62 2.48 KAlSi308 K-mica 10.37 25.02 14.66 KA13Si3010(OH)2 Kaolinite 5.63 14.23 8.60 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -5.02 20.32 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -7.96 -10.34 -2.38 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -41.21 46.40 87.61 02 pyrochroite -6.48 8.72 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -11.60 31. 92 43.52 Mn02 Quartz 0.09 -4.09 -4.1B Si02 Rhodochrosite -1. 26 -12.34 -11.0B MnC03 Sepiolite -6.35 9.77 16.11 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -8.B9 9.77 1B.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -1. 2 8 -12.09 -10.81 FeC03 Si02(a) -1. 27 -4.09 -2.82 Si02 Talc -6.23 16.69 22.92 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

89

Page 99: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas at USGS Gage (2-06) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals Database file: C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat

Reading database.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1 units ppm

temp 22.4 pH 8.7 Al 0.01 Ca 42 Mg 4 Na 5 K 5 Fe 0.1 Mn 0.006 si 4.7 as Si02 Cl 10 Alkalinity 112 as HC03 S (6) 10

END

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas at USGS Gage (2-06) 7/24/2001 Diss. Metals

-----------------------------Solution composition----------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al 3.707e-007 3.707e-007 Alkalinity 1.836e-003 1.836e-003 Ca 1.048e-003 1.048e-003 Cl 2.821e-004 2.821e-004 Fe 1.791e-006 1.791e-006 K 1.27ge-004 1.27ge-004

90

Page 100: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Mg 1.646e-004 1. 646e-004 Mn 1.092e-007 1.092e-007 Na 2.17Se-004 2.17Se-004 S (6) 1.041e-004 1.041e-004 Si 7.824e-00S 7.824e-00S

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 8.700 pe

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(Cat-IAnl)/(Cat+IAnl)

Iterations Total H Total 0

4.000 1.000

3.688e-003 1.000e+000 1.740e-003 1.740e-003 22.400 4.477e-004

9.27 7

1.110144e+002 S.SS1217e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Log Log Log Species Molality Activity Molality Activity Gamma

OH- 4.392e-006 4.110e-006 -S.3S7 -S.386 -0.029 H+ 2.11ge-009 1.99Se-009 -8.674 -8.700 -0.026 H2O 5.551e+001 9.99ge-001 1.744 -0.000 0.000

Al 3.707e-007 AI(OH)4- 3.703e-007 3.468e-007 -6.431 -6.460 -0.028 AI(OH)3 3.794e-010 3.797e-010 -9.421 -9.421 0.000 AI(OH)2+ 6.670e-012 6.246e-012 -11.176 -11.204 -0.028 AIOH+2 2.603e-01S 2.002e-01S -14.S8S -14.698 -0.114 AI+3 8.192e-019 4.768e-019 -18.087 -18.322 -0.23S AIS04+ 1.102e-019 1.032e-019 -18.9S8 -18.986 -0.028 AI(S04)2- 2.436e-022 2.281e-022 -21.613 -21.642 -0.028 AIHS04+2 2.320e-029 1.78Se-029 -28.634 -28.748 -0.114

C(4) 1. 740e-003 HC03- 1.627e-003 1.526e-003 -2.789 -2.817 -0.028 C03-2 4.388e-00S 3.397e-00S -4.3S8 -4.469 -0.111 CaC03 4.11ge-00S 4.122e-00S -4.38S -4.38S 0.000 CaHC03+ 1. Sl1e-OOS 1.417e-00S -4.821 -4.849 -0.028 CO2 7.07Se-006 7.082e-006 -S.lS0 -S.150 0.000 MgC03 3.776e-006 3.77ge-006 -S.423 -S.423 0.000 MgHC03+ 2.288e-006 2.143e-006 -S.641 -S.669 -0.028 NaHC03 1.744e-007 1.746e-007 -6.7S8 -6.7S8 0.000 NaC03- 1.204e-007 1.128e-007 -6.919 -6.948 -0.028 MnC03 7.090e-008 7.096e-008 -7.149 -7.149 0.000 MnHC03+ 3.818e-009 3.S76e-009 -8.418 -8.447 -0.028 FeC03 S.043e-011 S.048e-011 -10.297 -10.297 0.000 FeHC03+ 1.00ge-011 9.4S1e-012 -10.996 -11.02S -0.028

Ca 1. 048e-003 Ca+2 9.813e-004 7.593e-004 -3.008 -3.120 -0.111 CaC03 4.11ge-00S 4.122e-00S -4.38S -4.385 0.000 CaHC03+ 1.S11e-00S 1.417e-00S -4.821 -4.849 -0.028 CaS04 1.04Se-00S 1.046e-00S -4.981 -4.980 0.000 CaOH+ 6.743e-008 6.31Se-008 -7.171 -7.200 -0.028

91

Page 101: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

CaHS04+ 1.265e-013 1.185e-013 -12.898 -12.926 -0.028 Cl 2.821e-004

Cl- 2.821e-004 2.641e-004 -3.550 -3.578 -0.029 MnCl+ 3.021e-011 2.82ge-011 -10.520 -10.548 -0.028 FeCl+ 2.411e-014 2.258e-014 -13.618 -13.646 -0.028 MnC12 3.258e-015 3.261e-015 -14.487 -14.487 0.000 MnCl3 - 2.532e-019 2.372e-019 -18.596 -18.625 -0.028 FeCl+2 4.887e-022 3.760e-022 -21.311 -21.425 -0.114 FeC12+ 5.146e-025 4.820e-025 -24.289 -24.317 -0.028 FeCl3 1.272e-029 1.273e-029 -28.896 -28.895 0.000

Fe (2) 1.497e-010 Fe+2 7.981e-011 6.195e-011 -10.098 -10.208 -0.110 FeC03 5.043e-011 5.048e-011 -10.297 -10.297 0.000 FeHC03+ 1. 00ge-011 9.451e-012 -10.996 -11.025 -0.028 FeOH+ 8.617e-012 8.070e-012 -11.065 -11.093 -0.028 FeS04 7.426e-013 7.433e-013 -12.129 -12.129 0.000 FeCl+ 2.411e-014 2.258e-014 -13.618 -13.646 -0.028 FeHS04+ 1.032e-020 9.66ge-021 -19.986 -20.015 -0.028

Fe(3) 1.791e-006 Fe(OH)3 1. 22 8e-006 1.22ge-006 -5.911 -5.910 0.000 Fe(OH)4- 5.39ge-007 5.056e-007 -6.268 -6.296 -0.028 Fe(OH)2+ 2.27ge-008 2 .135e-008 -7.642 -7.671 -0.028 FeOH+2 1. 847e-013 1.421e-013 -12.734 -12.847 -0.114 Fe+3 8.803e-020 5.124e-020 -19.055 -19.290 -0.235 FeS04+ 4.007e-020 3.753e-020 -19.397 -19.426 -0.028 FeCl+2 4.887e-022 3.760e-022 -21.311 -21.425 -0.114 Fe(S04)2- 6.142e-023 5.752e-023 -22.212 -22.240 -0.028 Fe2(OH)2+4 1.728e-024 6.055e-025 -23.762 -24.218 -0.456 FeC12+ 5.146e-025 4.820e-025 -24.289 -24.317 -0.028 FeHS04+2 2.611e-028 2.00ge-028 -27.583 -27.697 -0.114 Fe3(OH)4+5 1. 771e-029 3.440e-030 -28.752 -29.463 -0.712 FeCl3 1.272e-029 1.273e-029 -28.896 -28.895 0.000

H (0) 5.781e-029 H2 2.891e-029 2.893e-029 -28.539 -28.539 0.000

K 1.27ge-004 K+ 1.278e-004 1.197e-004 -3.893 -3.922 -0.029 KS04- 6.070e-008 5.685e-008 -7.217 -7.245 -0.028 KOH 2.077e-010 2.07ge-010 -9.682 -9.682 0.000

Mg 1.646e-004 Mg+2 1.564e-004 1.214e-004 -3.806 -3.916 -0.110 MgC03 3.776e-006 3.77ge-006 -5.423 -5.423 0.000 MgHC03+ 2.288e-006 2.143e-006 -5.641 -5.669 -0.028 MgS04 1. 881e-006 1.882e-006 -5.726 -5.725 0.000 MgOH+ 1.860e-007 1.742e-007 -6.730 -6.759 -0.028

Mn(2) 1.092e-007 MnC03 7.090e-008 7.096e-008 -7.149 -7.149 0.000 Mn+2 3.388e-008 2.630e-008 -7.470 -7.580 -0.110 MnHC03+ 3.818e-009 3.576e-009 -8.418 -8.447 -0.028 MnS04 3.146e-010 3.14ge-010 -9.502 -9.502 0.000 MnOH+ 2.921e-010 2.736e-010 -9.534 -9.563 -0.028 MnCl+ 3.021e-011 2.82ge-011 -10.520 -10.548 -0.028 MnC12 3.258e-015 3.261e-015 -14.487 -14.487 0.000 MnC13- 2.532e-019 2.372e-019 -18.596 -18.625 -0.028

Mn(3) 9.996e-030 Mn+3 9.996e-030 5.541e-030 -29.000 -29.256 -0.256

92

Page 102: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 2.175e-004 Na+ 2.172e-004 2.035e-004 -3.663 -3.691 -0.028 NaHC03 1.744e-007 1.746e-007 -6.758 -6.758 0.000 NaC03- 1.204e-007 1.128e-007 -6.919 -6.948 -0.028 NaS04- 7.581e-008 7.100e-008 -7.120 -7.149 -0.028 NaOH 6.732e-010 6.738e-010 -9.172 -9.171 0.000

0(0) 1.417e-036 02 7.086e-037 7.092e-037 -36.150 -36.149 0.000

S (6) 1.041e-004 S04-2 9.165e-005 7.07ge-005 -4.038 -4.150 -0.112 CaS04 1.045e-005 1.046e-005 -4.981 -4.980 0.000 MgS04 1.881e-006 1.882e-006 -5.726 -5.725 0.000 NaS04 - 7.581e-008 7.100e-008 -7.120 -7.149 -0.028 KS04- 6.070e-008 5.685e-008 -7.217 -7.245 -0.028 MnS04 3.146e-010 3.14ge-010 -9.502 -9.502 0.000 HS04- l.386e-011 l.298e-011 -10.858 -10.887 -0.028 FeS04 7.426e-013 7.433e-013 -12.129 -12.129 0.000 CaHS04+ 1.265e-013 1.185e-013 -12.898 -12.926 -0.028 A1S04+ 1.102e-019 1.032e-019 -18.958 -18.986 -0.028 FeS04+ 4.007e-020 3.753e-020 -19.397 -19.426 -0.028 FeHS04+ 1.032e-020 9.66ge-021 -19.986 -20.015 -0.028 Al(S04)2- 2.436e-022 2.281e-022 -21.613 -21.642 -0.028 Fe(S04)2- 6.142e-023 5.752e-023 -22.212 -22.240 -0.028 FeHS04+2 2.611e-028 2.00ge-028 -27.583 -27.697 -0.114 AIHS04+2 2.320e-029 1.785e-029 -28.634 -28.748 -0.114

Si 7.824e-005 H4Si04 7.298e-005 7.304e-005 -4.137 -4.136 0.000 H3Si04- 5.257e-006 4.924e-006 -5.279 -5.308 -0.028 H2Si04-2 1.837e-010 l.413e-010 -9.736 -9.850 -0.114

------------------------------Saturation indices---------------------------

Phase SI log lAP log KT

Al(OH)3(a) -3.19 7.78 10.97 Al(OH)3 Albite -4.39 0.38 4.77 NaA1Si308 Alunite -13.91 -14.99 -1.08 KA13(S04)2(OH)6 Anhydrite -2.92 -7.27 -4.35 CaS04 Anorthite -4.52 21.56 26.09 CaA12Si208 Aragonite 0.73 -7.59 -8.32 CaC03 Ca-Montmorillonite -2.74 5.30 8.04

CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2 Calcite 0.88 -7.59 -8.47 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.55 -4.14 -3.58 Si02 Chlor i te (14A) l. 21 70.57 69.36 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile -0.35 32.18 32.53 Mg3Si205(OH)4 C02 (g) -3.71 -21.87 -18.16 CO2 Dolomite l. 06 -15.97 -17.03 CaMg(C03)2 Fe(OH)3(a) l. 92 19.89 17.97 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite -0.48 7.78 8.26 Al(OH)3 Goethite 7.72 19.89 12.18 FeOOH Gypsum -2.69 -7.27 -4.58 CaS04:2H20 H2 (g) -25.40 -25.40 0.00 H2 H20(g) -1.58 -0.00 l. 58 H2O Halite -8.85 -7.27 l. 58 NaCl Hausmannite -6.82 54.86 6l. 68 Mn304 Hematite 17.43 39.78 22.36 Fe203 Illite -2.49 9.65 12.14 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -8.89 2l. 35 30.24 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6

93

Page 103: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar -2.02 0.15 2.17 KAlSi308 K-mica 2.62 15.70 13.09 KA13Si3010 (OH) 2 Kaolinite -0.38 7.28 7.66 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -2.82 22.52 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -12.12 -14.36 -2.24 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -33.20 50.80 84.00 02 pyrochroite -5.38 9.82 15.20 Mn(OH)2 pyrolusite -6.58 35.22 41. 80 Mn02 Quartz -0.12 -4.14 -4.02 Si02 Rhodochrosite -0.93 -12.05 -11.12 MnC03 Sepiolite -1. 27 14.56 15.83 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -4.10 14.56 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -3.80 -14.68 -10.87 FeC03 Si02(a) -1.40 -4.14 -2.73 Si02 Talc 2.21 23.91 21.70 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

94

Page 104: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas above WWTP (2-08) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals Database file: C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.B\phreeqc.dat

Reading data base.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.B\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1

units ppm temp 22.7 pH B.7 Al 0.11 Ca 160 Mg 44 Na 71.2 K 5 Fe 0.1 Mn O.BO Si 5.B as Si02 Cl 41.4 Alkalinity 20B as HC03 S (6) 396

END

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas above WWTP (2-0B) 7/24/2001 Dissolved metals

-----------------------------Solution composition-------------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al 4.0B1e-006 4.0B1e-006 Alkalinity 3.412e-003 3.412e-003 Ca 3.996e-003 3.996e-003 Cl 1.16ge-003 1.16ge-003 Fe 1.792e-006 1.792e-006

95

Page 105: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K 1. 280e-004 1.280e-004 Mg 1.811e-003 1.811e-003 Mn 1.4S8e-00S 1.4S8e-00S Na 3.100e-003 3.100e-003 S (6) 4.126e-003 4.126e-003 Si 9.662e-00S 9.662e-00S

----------------------------Description of solution-----------------------

pH 8.700 pe

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(Cat-IAnI)/(Cat+IAnI)

Iterations Total H Total 0

4.000 1.000

1.901e-002 1.000e+000 3.091e-003 3.091e-003 22.700 2.0S3e-003

9.08 7

1.1101S6e+002 S.SS3240e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species-----------------------

Log Log Log Species Molality Activity Molality Activity Gamma

OH- 4.834e-006 4.206e-006 -S.316 -S.376 -0.060 H+ 2.237e-009 1. 99Se-009 -8.6S0 -8.700 -O.OSO H2O S.SSle+001 9.997e-001 1.744 -0.000 0.000

Al 4.081e-006 AI(OH)4- 4.077e-006 3.S62e-006 -S.390 -S.448 -0.OS9 AI(OH)3 3.86ge-009 3.886e-009 -8.412 -8.410 0.002 AI(OH)2+ 7.1S4e-011 6.2S1e-011 -10.14S -10.204 -0.OS9 AIOH+2 3.347e-014 1.9S1e-014 -l3.47S -13.710 -0.234 AIS04+ 2.92Se-017 2.SS6e-017 -16.S34 -16.S93 -0.OS9 AI+3 1.277e-017 4.SS6e-018 -16.894 -17.341 -0.447 AI(S04)2- 1.672e-018 1.461e-018 -17.777 -17.83S -0.OS9 AIHS04+2 7.604e-027 4.433e-027 -26.119 -26.3S3 -0.234

C(4) 3.091e-003 HC03- 2.68ge-003 2.363e-003 -2.S70 -2.627 -0.OS6 CaC03 1.S73e-004 1.S80e-004 -3.803 -3.801 0.002 C03-2 8.886e-00S S.294e-00S -4.0S1 -4.276 -0.22S CaHC03+ 6.l3ge-00S S.393e-00S -4.212 -4.268 -0.OS6 MgC03 4.102e-00S 4.120e-00S -4.387 -4.38S 0.002 MgHC03+ 2.647e-00S 2.313e-00S -4.S77 -4.636 -0.OS9 CO2 1.088e-00S 1.092e-00S -4.964 -4.962 0.002 MnC03 9.S14e-006 9.SSSe-006 -S.022 -S.020 0.002 NaHC03 3.SS0e-006 3.S66e-006 -S.4S0 -S.448 0.002 NaC03- 2.694e-006 2.3S4e-006 -S.S70 -S.628 -0.OS9 MnHC03+ S.476e-007 4.78Se-007 -6.262 -6.320 -0.OS9 FeC03 7.218e-011 7.24ge-011 -10.142 -10.140 0.002 FeHC03+ 1.S43e-011 1.34ge-011 -10.812 -10.870 -0.OS9

Ca 3.996e-003 Ca+2 3.117e-003 1.8S6e-003 -2.S06 -2.731 -0.22S CaS04 6.S97e-004 6.626e-004 -3.181 -3.179 0.002 CaC03 1.S73e-004 1.S80e-004 -3.803 -3.801 0.002 CaHC03+ 6.13ge-00S S.393e-00S -4.212 -4.268 -0.OS6

96

Page 106: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

CaOH+ 1.767e-007 1.544e-007 -6.753 -6.811 -0.059 CaHS04+ 8.618e-012 7.530e-012 -11.065 -11.123 -0.059

Cl 1.16ge-003 Cl- 1.16ge-003 1.018e-003 -2.932 -2.992 -0.060 MnCl+ 1. 078e-008 9.421e-009 -7.967 -8.026 -0.059 MnC12 4.167e-012 4.185e-012 -11.380 -11.378 0.002 FeCl+ 9.178e-014 8.020e-014 -13.037 -13.096 -0.059 MnCl3 - 1.343e-015 1.173e-015 -14.872 -14.931 -0.059 FeCl+2 2.352e-021 1.371e-021 -20.629 -20.863 -0.234 FeC12+ 7.677e-024 6.70ge-024 -23.115 -23.173 -0.059 FeCl3 6.798e-028 6.828e-028 -27.168 -27.166 0.002

Fe(2) 2.08ge-010 Fe+2 9.476e-011 5.708e-011 -10.023 -10.243 -0.220 FeC03 7.218e-011 7.24ge-011 -10.142 -10.140 0.002 FeS04 1.771e-011 1. 778e-011 -10.752 -10.750 0.002 FeHC03+ 1.543e-011 1.34ge-011 -10.812 -10.870 -0.059 FeOH+ 8.705e-012 7.606e-012 -11.060 -11.119 -0.059 FeCl+ 9.178e-014 8.020e-014 -13.037 -13.096 -0.059 FeHS04+ 2.650e-019 2.315e-019 -18.577 -18.635 -0.059

Fe (3) 1. 792e-006 Fe(OH)3 1.196e-006 1.201e-006 -5.922 -5.920 0.002 Fe(OH)4- 5.724e-007 5.001e-007 -6.242 -6.301 -0.059 Fe(OH)2+ 2.356e-008 2.05ge-008 -7.628 -7.686 -0.059 FeOH+2 2.324e-013 1.355e-013 -12.634 -12.868 -0.234 FeS04+ 1. 046e-018 9.141e-019 -17.980 -18.039 -0.059 Fe+3 1.345e-019 4.801e-020 -18.871 -19.319 -0.447 Fe(S04)2- 4.146e-020 3.623e-020 -19.382 -19.441 -0.059 FeCl+2 2.352e-021 1.371e-021 -20.629 -20.863 -0.234 FeC12+ 7.677e-024 6.70ge-024 -23.115 -23.173 -0.059 Fe2(OH)2+4 4.70ge-024 5.43ge-025 -23.327 -24.264 -0.937 FeHS04+2 8.391e-027 4.892e-027 -26.076 -26.311 -0.234 FeCl3 6.798e-028 6.828e-028 -27.168 -27.166 0.002 Fe3(OH)4+5 8.448e-029 2.898e-030 -28.073 -29.538 -1.465

H(O) 5.743e-029 H2 2.872e-029 2.884e-029 -28.542 -28.540 0.002

K 1.280e-004 K+ 1.264e-004 1.101e-004 -3.898 -3.958 -0.060 KS04- 1.554e-006 1.358e-006 -5.809 -5.867 -0.059 KOH 1.904e-010 1.913e-010 -9.720 -9.718 0.002

Mg 1.811e-003 Mg+2 1.403e-003 8.448e-004 -2.853 -3.073 -0.220 MgS04 3.395e-004 3.410e-004 -3.469 -3.467 0.002 MgC03 4.102e-005 4.120e-005 -4.387 -4.385 0.002 MgHC03+ 2.647e-005 2.313e-005 -4.577 -4.636 -0.059 MgOH+ 1.427e-006 1.247e-006 -5.846 -5.904 -0.059

Mn(2) 1.458e-005 MnC03 9.514e-006 9.555e-006 -5.022 -5.020 0.002 Mn+2 3.772e-006 2.272e-006 -5.423 -5.644 -0.220 MnS04 7.036e-007 7.067e-007 -6.153 -6.151 0.002 MnHC03+ 5.476e-007 4.785e-007 -6.262 -6.320 -0.059 MnOH+ 2.773e-008 2.423e-008 -7.557 -7.616 -0.059 MnCl+ 1.078e-008 9.421e-009 -7.967 -8.026 -0.059 MnC12 4.167e-012 4.185e-012 -11.380 -11.378 0.002 MnCl3- 1.343e-015 1.173e-015 -14.872 -14.931 -0.059

Mn (3) 1.685e-027 Mn+3 1.685e-027 5.006e-028 -26.773 -27.301 -0.527

97

Page 107: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 3.100e-003 Na+ 3.066e-003 2.684e-003 -2.513 -2.571 -0.058 NaS04- 2.773e-005 2.423e-005 -4.557 -4.616 -0.059 NaHC03 3.550e-006 3.566e-006 -5.450 -5.448 0.002 NaC03- 2.694e-006 2.354e-006 -5.570 -5.628 -0.059 NaOH 8.846e-009 8.884e-009 -8.053 -8.051 0.002

0(0) 1.782e-036 02 8.908e-037 8.947e-037 -36.050 -36.048 0.002

S (6) 4.126e-003 S04-2 3.097e-003 1.828e-003 -2.509 -2.738 -0.229 CaS04 6.597e-004 6.626e-004 -3.181 -3.179 0.002 MgS04 3.395e-004 3.410e-004 -3.469 -3.467 0.002 NaS04- 2.773e-005 2.423e-005 -4.557 -4.616 -0.059 KS04- 1.554e-006 1.358e-006 -5.809 -5.867 -0.059 MnS04 7.036e-007 7.067e-007 -6.153 -6.151 0.002 HS04- 3.861e-010 3.374e-010 -9.413 -9.472 -0.059 FeS04 1.771e-011 1.778e-011 -10.752 -10.750 0.002 CaHS04+ 8.618e-012 7.530e-012 -11.065 -11.123 -0.059 A1S04+ 2.925e-017 2.556e-017 -16.534 -16.593 -0.059 Al(S04)2- 1.672e-018 1.461e-018 -17.777 -17.835 -0.059 FeS04+ 1.046e-018 9.141e-019 -17.980 -18.039 -0.059 FeHS04+ 2.650e-019 2.315e-019 -18.577 -18.635 -0.059 Fe(S04)2- 4.146e-020 3.623e-020 -19.382 -19.441 -0.059 FeHS04+2 8.391e-027 4.892e-027 -26.076 -26.311 -0.234 A1HS04+2 7.604e-027 4.433e-027 -26.119 -26.353 -0.234

Si 9.662e-005 H4Si04 8.960e-005 9.000e-005 -4.048 -4.046 0.002 H3Si04- 7.018e-006 6.132e-006 -5.154 - 5.212 -0.059 H2Si04-2 3.081e-010 1.796e-010 -9.511 -9.746 -0.234

------------------------------Saturation indices---------------------------

Phase Sl log lAP log KT

Al(OH)3(a) -2.19 8.76 10.95 Al (OH) 3 Albite -2.01 2.75 4.76 NaA1Si308 Alunite -8.15 -9.26 -loll KA13(S04)2(OH)6 Anhydrite -1. 12 -5.47 -4.35 CaS04 Anorthite -1. 94 24.09 26.03 CaA12Si208 Aragonite 1. 31 -7.01 -8.32 CaC03 Ca-Montmorillonite -0.03 7.98 8.01

CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2 Calcite 1.46 -7.01 -8.47 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.47 -4.05 -3.58 Si02 Chlorite (14A) 7.77 77.01 69.24 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile 2.40 34.89 32.49 Mg3Si205(OH)4 C02 (g) -3.52 -21.68 -18.15 CO2 Dolomite 2.68 -14.36 -17.04 CaMg(C03)2 Fe(OH)3(a) 1. 89 19.86 17.97 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite 0.52 8.76 8.24 Al(OH)3 Goethite 7.70 19.86 12.16 FeOOH Gypsum -0.89 -5.47 -4.58 CaS04:2H20 H2 (g) -25.40 -25.40 0.00 H2 H20(g) -1. 57 -0.00 1. 57 H2O Halite -7.14 -5.56 1. 58 NaCl Hausmannite -0.93 60.67 61. 60 Mn304 Hematite 17.39 39.71 22.32 Fe203 Illite 0.31 12.41 12.11 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -6.16 24.03 30.19 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6

98

Page 108: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar -0.79 1. 36 2.16 KAlSi308 K-mica 5.84 18.88 13.04 KA13Si3010(OH)2 Kaolinite 1. 79 9.43 7.64 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -0.88 24.46 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -10.74 -12.98 -2.24 FeS04:7H20 02(g) -33.10 50.80 83.90 02 pyrochroite -3.44 11.76 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -4.59 37.16 41. 75 Mn02 Quartz -0.03 -4.05 -4.01 Si02 Rhodochrosite 1. 20 -9.92 -11.12 MnC03 Sepiolite 0.70 16.52 15.82 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -2.14 16.52 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -3.64 -14.52 -10.88 FeC03 Si02 (a) -1. 31 -4.05 -2.73 Si02 Talc 5.13 26.80 21. 66 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

99

Page 109: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas below WWTP (2-10) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals Database file: C:\program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat

Reading data base.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1 units ppm

temp 23.9 pH 7.8 Al 0.04 Ca 110 Mg 24 Na 66.2 K 6.8 Fe 0.1 Mn 0.36 Si 6.7 as Si02 CI 52.3 Alkalinity 161 as HC03 S (6) 233

END

TITLE

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas below WWTP (2-10) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals

-----------------------------Solution composition--------------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al 1.483e-006 1. 4 83e- 006 Alkalinity 2.640e-003 2.640e-003 Ca 2.746e-003 2.746e-003 CI 1.476e-003 1. 476e- 003 Fe 1.792e-006 1.792e-006 K 1. 740e-004 1.740e-004

100

Page 110: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Mg 9.878e-004 9.878e-004 Mn 6.557e-006 6.557e-006 Na 2.881e-003 2.881e-003 S (6) 2.427e-003 2.427e-003 Si 1.116e-004 1.116e-004

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 7.800 pe 4.000

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eg) Percent error, 100*(cat-iAni)/(Cat+iAni)

Iterations Total H Total 0

1. 000 1.372e-002 1.000e+000 2.681e-003 2.681e-003 23.900 1.573e-003

9.11 9

1.110155e+002 5.552434e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Log Log Log Species Molality Activity Molality Activity Gamma

OH- 6.554e-007 5.808e-007 -6.183 -6.236 -0.052 H+ 1.755e-008 1.585e-008 -7.756 -7.800 -0.044 H2O 5.551e+001 9.998e-001 1.744 -0.000 0.000

Al 1.483e-006 AI(OH)4- 1.471e-006 1.307e-006 -5.832 -5.884 -0.051 AI(OH)3 1.112e-008 1.116e-008 -7.954 -7.952 0.001 AI(OH)2+ 1.465e-009 1.302e-009 -8.834 -8.885 -0.051 AIOH+2 4.650e-012 2.901e-012 -11.333 -11. 537 -0.205 AIS04+ 2.103e-014 1.870e-014 -13.677 -13.728 -0.051 AI+3 1.244e-014 4.975e-015 -13.905 -14.303 -0.398 Al(S04)2- 7.978e-016 7.091e-016 -15.098 -15.149 -0.051 AIHS04+2 4.170e-023 2.602e-023 -22.380 -22.585 -0.205

C(4) 2.681e-003 HC03- 2.504e-003 2.235e-003 -2.601 -2.651 -0.049 CO2 8.052e-005 8.077e-005 -4.094 -4.093 0.001 CaHC03+ 4.648e-005 4.14ge-005 -4.333 -4.382 -0.049 CaC03 1.56ge-005 1.574e-005 -4.804 -4.803 0.001 MgHC03+ 1.545e-005 1.373e-005 -4.811 -4.862 -0.051 C03-2 1.018e-005 6.466e-006 -4.992 -5.189 -0.197 MgC03 3.191e-006 3.201e-006 -5.496 -5.495 0.001 NaHC03 3.190e-006 3.200e-006 -5.496 -5.495 0.001 MnC03 1.335e-006 1.33ge-006 -5.874 -5.873 0.001 MnHC03+ 5.844e-007 5.194e-007 -6.233 -6.284 -0.051 NaC03- 3.263e-007 2.900e-007 -6.486 -6.538 -0.051 FeHC03+ 6.797e-009 6.041e-009 -8.168 -8.219 -0.051 FeC03 4.180e-009 4.193e-009 -8.379 -8.377 0.001

Ca 2.746e-003 Ca+2 2.333e-003 1.480e-003 -2.632 -2.830 -0.198 CaS04 3.513e-004 3.524e-004 -3.454 -3.453 0.001 CaHC03+ 4.648e-005 4.14ge-005 -4.333 -4.382 -0.049 CaC03 1.56ge-005 1.574e-005 -4.804 -4.803 0.001 CaOH+ 1.744e-008 1.550e-008 -7.759 -7.810 -0.051

101

Page 111: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

CaHS04+ 3.632e-011 3.228e-011 -10.440 -10.491 -0.051 CI 1.476e-003

CI- 1.476e-003 1.30ge-003 -2.831 -2.883 -0.052 MnCI+ 1.564e-008 1.390e-008 -7.806 -7.857 -0.051 FeCI+ 5.494e-011 4.883e-011 -10.260 -10.311 -0.051 MnCl2 7.918e-012 7.943e-012 -11.101 -11.100 0.001 MnCI3- 3.221e-015 2.863e-015 -14.492 -14.543 -0.051 FeCI+2 1.486e-018 9.273e-019 -17.828 -18.033 -0.205 FeCI2+ 6.317e-021 5.614e-021 -20.199 -20.251 -0.051 FeCl3 7.325e-025 7.348e-025 -24.135 -24.134 0.001

Fe (2) 5.946e-008 Fe+2 4.221e-008 2.703e-008 -7.375 -7.568 -0.194 FeHC03+ 6.797e-009 6.041e-009 -8.168 -8.219 -0.051 FeS04 5.661e-009 5.67ge-009 -8.247 -8.246 0.001 FeC03 4.180e-009 4.193e-009 -8.379 -8.377 0.001 FeOH+ 5.586e-010 4.965e-010 -9.253 -9.304 -0.051 FeCI+ 5.494e-011 4.883e-011 -10.260 -10.311 -0.051 FeHS04+ 6.632e-016 5.895e-016 -15.178 -15.230 -0.051

Fe(3) 1.732e-006 Fe(OH)3 1.434e-006 1.43ge-006 -5.843 -5.842 0.001 Fe(OH)2+ 2.090e-007 1.858e-007 -6.680 -6.731 -0.051 Fe(OH)4- 8.90ge-008 7.918e-008 -7.050 -7.101 -0.051 FeOH+2 1.486e-011 9.274e-012 -10.828 -11.033 -0.205 FeS04+ 3.527e-016 3.134e-016 -15.453 -15.504 -0.051 Fe+3 6.077e-017 2.430e-017 -16.216 -16.614 -0.398 Fe(S04)2- 9.262e-018 8.232e-018 -17.033 -17.085 -0.051 FeCI+2 1.486e-018 9.273e-019 -17.828 -18.033 -0.205 Fe2 (OH)2+4 1.598e-020 2.423e-021 -19.796 -20.616 -0.819 FeCI2+ 6.317e-021 5.614e-021 -20.199 -20.251 -0.051 FeHS04+2 2.133e-023 1.331e-023 -22.671 -22.876 -0.205 Fe3(OH)4+5 1.985e-024 1.041e-025 -23.702 -24.982 -1.280 FeCl3 7.325e-025 7.348e-025 -24.135 -24.134 0.001

H (0) 3.585e-027 H2 1.792e-027 1.798e-027 -26.747 -26.745 0.001

K 1.740e-004 K+ 1. 726e-004 1. 530e-004 -3.763 -3.815 -0.052 KS04- 1.431e-006 1.271e-006 -5.844 -5.896 -0.051 KOH 3.336e-011 3.347e-011 -10.477 -10.475 0.001

Mg 9.878e-004 Mg+2 8.246e-004 5.277e-004 -3.084 -3.278 -0.194 MgS04 1.445e-004 1.44ge-004 -3.840 -3.839 0.001 MgHC03+ 1.545e-005 1. 373e-005 -4.811 -4.862 -0.051 MgC03 3.191e-006 3.201e-006 -5.496 -5.495 0.001 MgOH+ 1.231e-007 1.094e-007 -6.910 -6.961 -0.051

Mn(2) 6.557e-006 Mn+2 4.072e-006 2.608e-006 -5.390 -5.584 -0.194 MnC03 1.335e-006 1.33ge-006 -5.874 -5.873 0.001 MnHC03+ 5.844e-007 5.194e-007 -6.233 -6.284 -0.051 MnS04 5.457e-007 5.474e-007 -6.263 -6.262 0.001 MnCI+ 1.564e-008 1.390e-008 -7.806 -7.857 -0.051 MnOH+ 4.348e-009 3.864e-009 -8.362 -8.413 -0.051 MnCl2 7.918e-012 7.943e-012 -11. 101 -11.100 0.001 MnCI3- 3.221e-015 2.863e-015 -14.492 -14.543 -0.051

Mn(3) 1.982e-027 Mn+3 1.982e-027 6.85ge-028 -26.703 -27.164 -0.461

102

Page 112: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 2.881e-003 Na+ 2.861e-003 2.546e-003 -2.544 -2.594 -0.051 NaS04- 1.71ge-005 1.528e-005 -4.765 -4.816 -0.051 NaHC03 3.190e-006 3.200e-006 -5.496 -5.495 0.001 NaC03- 3.263e-007 2.900e-007 -6.486 -6.538 -0.051 NaOH 1.058e-009 1.061e-009 -8.976 -8.974 0.001

0(0) 1.131e-039 02 5.657e-040 5.675e-040 -39.247 -39.246 0.001

S(6) 2.427e-003 804-2 1.912e-003 1.206e-003 -2.718 -2.919 -0.200 Ca804 3.513e-004 3.524e-004 -3.454 -3.453 0.001 MgS04 1. 445e- 004 1.44ge-004 -3.840 -3.839 0.001 Na804- 1.71ge-005 1.528e-005 -4.765 -4.816 -0.051 K804- 1.431e-006 1.271e-006 -5.844 -5.896 -0.051 MnS04 5.457e-007 5.474e-007 -6.263 -6.262 0.001 FeS04 5.661e-009 5.67ge-009 -8.247 -8.246 0.001 HS04- 2.041e-009 1. 814e- 009 -8.690 -8.741 -0.051 CaH804+ 3.632e-011 3.228e-011 -10.440 -10.491 -0.051 A1S04+ 2.103e-014 1. 870e-014 -13 .677 -13.728 -0.051 Al(S04)2- 7.978e-016 7.091e-016 -15.098 -15.149 -0.051 FeH804+ 6.632e-016 5.895e-016 -15.178 -15.230 -0.051 FeS04+ 3.527e-016 3.134e-016 -15.453 -15.504 -0.051 Fe(804)2- 9.262e-018 8.232e-018 -17.033 -17.085 -0.051 AIHS04+2 4.170e-023 2.602e-023 -22.380 -22.585 -0.205 FeHS04+2 2.133e-023 1.331e-023 -22.671 -22.876 -0.205

Si 1.116e-004 H4Si04 1.105e-004 1.108e-004 -3.957 -3.955 0.001 H38i04- 1.116e-006 9.920e-007 -5.952 -6.003 -0.051 H2Si04-2 6.34ge-012 3.962e-012 -11.197 -11.402 -0.205

------------------------------8aturation indices---------------------------

Phase 81 log lAP log KT

Al(OH)3(a) Albite Alunite Anhydrite Anorthite

-1. 78 -2.27 -4.50 -1. 39 -2.76

Aragonite 0.31

9.10 10.87 2.44 4.71

-5.76 -1. 26 -5.75 -4.36 23.05 25.81 -8.02 -8.33

Al(OH)3 NaA18i308 KA13(804)2(OH)6 CaS04 CaA128i208 CaC03

Ca-Montmorillonite 0.89 CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2

8.79 7.89

Calcite 0.45 -8.02 -8.47 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.39 -3.96 -3.56 8i02 Chlorite (14A) -0.85 67.94 68.79 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile -3.28 29.06 32.34 Mg38i205(OH)4 C02 (g) -2.64 -20.79 -18.15 CO2 Dolomite 0.58 -16.49 -17.06 CaMg(C03)2 Fe(OH)3(a) 1. 89 19.83 17.94 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite 0.92 9.10 8.17 Al (OH)3 Goethite 7.75 19.83 12.09 FeOOH Gypsum -1.17 -5.75 -4.58 Ca804:2H20 H2 (g) -23.60 -23.60 0.00 H2 H20(g) -1.54 -0.00 1. 54 H2O Halite -7.06 -5.48 1. 58 NaCl Hausmannite -7.65 53.65 61. 30 Mn304 Hematite 17.50 39.66 22.17 Fe203 Illite 0.57 12.55 11.98 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -3.57 26.44 30.01 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6

103

Page 113: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar -0.91 1. 22 2.12 KAlSi308 K-mica 6.54 19.41 12.86 KA13Si3010(OH)2 Kaolinite 2.75 10.28 7.53 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -3.52 21.82 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -8.26 -10.49 -2.22 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -36.29 47.20 83.49 02 pyrochroite -5.18 10.02 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -7.94 33.62 41. 56 Mn02 Quartz 0.04 -3.96 -4.00 Si02 Rhodochrosite 0.35 -10.77 -11. 13 MnC03 Sepiolite -3.01 12.78 15.79 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -5.88 12.78 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -1.87 -12.76 -10.88 FeC03 Si02(a) -1. 23 -3.96 -2.72 Si02 Talc -0.38 21.15 21. 52 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

104

Page 114: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas @ San Augustin (2-13) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals Database file: C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat

Reading database.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1 units ppm

END

temp 26.1 pH 8.6 Al 0.01 Ca 89 Mg 18 Na K Fe Mn Si CI Alkalinity S (6)

50.4 5.1S 0.1 0.044 4.5 as Si02 36.8 141 as HC03 191

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas @ San Augustin (2-13) 7/24/2001 Diss. Metals

-----------------------------Solution composition--------------------------Elements Molality Moles

Al 3.708e-007 3.708e-007 Alkalinity 2.312e-003 2.312e-003 Ca 2.222e-003 2.222e-003 CI 1.03ge-003 1.03ge-003 Fe 1.792e-006 1.792e-006 K 1.325e-004 1.325e-004 Mg 7.40Se-004 7.408e-004

105

Page 115: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Mn Na S (6)

si

8.013e-007 8.013e-007 2.193e-003 2.193e-003 1.98ge-003 1.98ge-003 7.493e-005 7.493e-005

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 8.600 pe 4.000

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(Cat-IAnI)/(Cat+IAni)

Iterations Total H Total 0

1.000 1.097e-002 1.000e+000 2.16ge-003 2.16ge-003 26.100 9.264e-004 6.78 7

1.110148e+002 5.552098e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Log Log Log Species Molality Activity Molality Activity Gamma

OH- 4.831e-006 4.328e-006 -5.316 -5.364 -0.048 H+ 2.75ge-009 2.512e-009 -8.559 -8.600 -0.041 H2O 5.551e+001 9.998e-001 1.744 -0.000 0.000

Al 3.708e-007 Al(OH)4- 3.704e-007 3.326e-007 -6.431 -6.478 -0.047 Al(OH)3 4.355e-010 4.366e-010 -9.361 -9.360 0.001 Al(OH)2+ 7.651e-012 6.871e-012 -11.116 -11.163 -0.047 AIOH+2 3.078e-015 2.002e-015 -14.512 -14.699 -0.187 AlS04+ 1.782e-018 1.600e-018 -17.749 -17.796 -0.047 Al+3 1.098e-018 4.715e-019 -17.959 -18.327 -0.367 Al(S04)2- 5.994e-020 5.383e-020 -19.222 -19.269 -0.047 AIHS04+2 5.534e-028 3.600e-028 -27.257 -27.444 -0.187

C(4) 2.16ge-003 HC03- 1.978e-003 1.783e-003 -2.704 -2.749 -0.045 CaC03 7.14ge-00S 7.167e-00S -4.146 -4.145 0.001 C03-2 5.1S3e-00S 3.403e-005 -4.288 -4.468 -0.180 CaHC03+ 3.145e-00S 2.83Se-005 -4.S02 -4.S47 -0.04S MgC03 1.342e-00S 1.346e-00S -4.872 -4.871 0.001 CO2 9.91Se-006 9.940e-006 -S.004 -S.003 0.001 MgHC03+ 9.S16e-006 8.S46e-006 -S.022 -S.068 -0.047 NaHC03 1.9Sge-006 1.964e-006 -S.708 -S.707 0.001 NaC03- 1.460e-006 1.312e-006 -S.835 -S.882 -0.047 MnC03 4.712e-007 4.724e-007 -6.327 -6.326 0.001 MnHC03+ 3.093e-008 2.777e-008 -7.S10 -7.SS6 -0.047 FeC03 4.928e-011 4.941e-011 -10.307 -10.306 0.001 FeHC03+ 1.202e-011 1.07ge-011 -10.920 -10.967 -0.047

Ca 2.222e-003 Ca+2 1.8S8e-003 1.226e-003 -2.731 -2.912 -0.181 CaS04 2.608e-004 2.61Se-004 -3.584 -3.S83 0.001 CaC03 7.14ge-00S 7.167e-00S -4.146 -4.145 0.001 CaHC03+ 3.14Se-00S 2.83Se-005 -4.502 -4.S47 -0.04S CaOH+ 9.017e-008 8.098e-008 -7.04S -7.092 -0.047 CaHS04+ 4.34Se-012 3.902e-012 -11.362 -11.409 -0.047

106

Page 116: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Cl 1.03ge-003 Cl- 1.03ge-003 9.30ge-004 -2.984 -3.031 -0.048 MnCl+ 7.380e-010 6.628e-010 -9.132 -9.179 -0.047 MnC12 2.686e-013 2.693e-013 -12.571 -12.570 0.001 FeCl+ 8.661e-014 7.778e-014 -13.062 -13.109 -0.047 MnC13- 7.68ge-017 6.905e-017 -16.114 -16.161 -0.047 FeCl+2 2.747e-021 1.787e-021 -20.561 -20.748 -0.187 FeC12+ 7.990e-024 7.175e-024 -23.097 -23.144 -0.047 FeC13 6.663e-028 6.680e-028 -27.176 -27.175 0.001

Fe(2) 1.732e-010 Fe+2 9 .102e-0 11 6.053e-011 -10.041 -10.218 -0.177 FeC03 4.928e-011 4.941e-011 -10.307 -10.306 0.001 FeHC03+ 1.202e-011 1.07ge-011 -10.920 -10.967 -0.047 FeS04 1.15ge-011 1.162e-011 -10.936 -10.935 0.001 FeOH+ 9.208e-012 8.26ge-012 -11.036 -11.083 -0.047 FeCl+ 8.661e-014 7.778e-014 -13.062 -13.109 -0.047 FeHS04+ 2.145e-019 1. 927e-019 -18.669 -18.7l5 -0.047

Fe(3) 1.791e-006 Fe(OH)3 1.240e-006 1.244e-006 -5.906 -5.905 0.001 Fe(OH)4- 5.253e-007 4.717e-007 -6.280 -6.326 -0.047 Fe(OH)2+ 2.574e-008 2.312e-008 -7.589 -7.636 -0.047 FeOH+2 2.587e-013 1.683e-013 -12.587 -12.774 -0.187 FeS04+ 8.125e-019 7.297e-019 -18.090 -18.137 -0.047 Fe+3 1.430e-019 6.138e-020 -18.845 -19.212 -0.367 Fe(S04)2- 1.88ge-020 1. 697e-020 -19.724 -19.770 -0.047 FeCl+2 2.747e-021 1.787e-021 -20.561 -20.748 -0.187 FeC12+ 7.990e-024 7.175e-024 -23.097 -23.144 -0.047 Fe2(OH)2+4 4.068e-024 7.283e-025 -23.391 -24.138 -0.747 FeHS04+2 7.545e-027 4.908e-027 -26.122 -26.309 -0.187 FeC13 6.663e-028 6.680e-028 -27.176 -27.175 0.001 Fe3(OH)4+5 4.674e-029 3.180e-030 -28.330 -29.498 -1.167

H(O) 8.814e-029 H2 4.407e-029 4.418e-029 -28.356 -28.355 0.001

K 1.325e-004 K+ 1. 315e-004 1.17ge-004 -3.881 -3.928 -0.048 KS04- 9.951e-007 8.937e-007 -6.002 -6.049 -0.047

KOH 1.623e-010 1.627e-010 -9.790 -9.789 0.001

Mg 7.408e-004 Mg+2 6.134e-004 4.076e-004 -3.212 -3.390 -0.178

MgS04 1.037e-004 1.040e-004 -3.984 -3.983 0.001

MgC03 1.342e-005 1. 346e-005 -4.872 -4.871 0.001 MgHC03+ 9.516e-006 8.546e-006 -5.022 -5.068 -0.047

MgOH+ 7.241e-007 6.503e-007 -6.140 -6.187 -0.047 Mn(2) 8.013e-007

MnC03 4.712e-007 4.724e-007 -6.327 -6.326 0.001 Mn+2 2.628e-007 1.748e-007 -6.580 -6.758 -0.177 MnS04 3.350e-008 3.358e-008 -7.475 -7.474 0.001 MnHC03+ 3.093e-008 2.777e-008 -7.510 -7.556 -0.047 MnOH+ 2.177e-009 1.955e-009 -8.662 -8.709 -0.047

MnCl+ 7.380e-010 6.628e-010 -9.132 -9.179 -0.047 MnC12 2.686e-013 2.693e-013 -12.571 -12.570 0.001 MnC13 - 7.68ge-017 6.905e-017 -16.114 -16.161 -0.047

Mn(3) 1.668e-028 Mn+3 1.668e-028 6.338e-029 -27.778 -28.198 -0.420

107

Page 117: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 2.193e-003 Na+ 2.178e-003 1.95ge-003 -2.662 -2.708 -0.046 NaS04- 1.165e-005 1.046e-005 -4.934 -4.980 -0.047 NaHC03 1.95ge-006 1. 964e-006 -5.708 -5.707 0.001 NaC03- 1.460e-006 1. 312e-006 -5.835 -5.882 -0.047 NaOH 5.138e-009 5.151e-009 -8.289 -8.288 0.001

0(0) 9.615e-036 02 4.808e-036 4.820e-036 -35.318 -35.317 0.001

S(6) 1.98ge-003 S04-2 1. 612e-003 1. 058e-003 -2.793 -2.975 -0.183 CaS04 2.608e-004 2.615e-004 -3.584 -3.583 0.001 MgS04 1. 037e-004 1.040e-004 -3.984 -3.983 0.001 NaS04- 1.165e-005 1. 046e-005 -4.934 -4.980 -0.047 KS04- 9.951e-007 8.937e-007 -6.002 -6.049 -0.047 MnS04 3.350e-008 3.358e-008 -7.475 -7.474 0.001 HS04- 2.948e-010 2.647e-010 -9.530 -9.577 -0.047 FeS04 1.15ge-011 1. 162e-011 -10.936 -10.935 0.001 CaHS04+ 4.345e-012 3.902e-012 -11.362 -11.409 -0.047 A1S04+ 1.782e-018 1.600e-018 -17.749 -17.796 -0.047 FeS04+ 8.125e-019 7.297e-019 -18.090 -18.137 -0.047 FeHS04+ 2.145e-019 1.927e-019 -18.669 -18.715 -0.047 Al(S04)2- 5.994e-020 5.383e-020 -19.222 -19.269 -0.047 Fe(S04)2- 1.88ge-020 1.697e-020 -19.724 -19.770 -0.047 FeHS04+2 7.545e-027 4.908e-027 -26.122 -26.309 -0.187 AIHS04+2 5.534e-028 3.600e-028 -27.257 -27.444 -0.187

Si 7.493e-005 H4Si04 7.016e-005 7.034e-005 -4.154 -4.153 0.001 H3Si04- 4.775e-006 4.28ge-006 -5.321 -5.368 -0.047 H2Si04-2 1.917e-010 1.247e-010 -9.717 -9.904 -0.187

------------------------------8aturation indices---------------------------

Phase 8I log lAP log KT

Al(OH)3(a) -3.26 7.47 10.73 Al(OH)3 Albite -3.71 0.91 4.62 NaA18i308 Alunite -11.72 -13.26 -1. 54 KA13 (804) 2 (OH) 6 Anhydrite -1.52 -5.89 -4.37 Ca804 Anorthite -4.49 20.93 25.42 CaA12Si208 Aragonite 0.96 -7.38 -8.34 CaC03 Ca-Montmorillonite -3.14 4.53 7.67

CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2 Calcite 1.11 -7.38 -8.49 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.61 -4.15 -3.54 Si02 Chlori te (14A) 3.57 71. 54 67.97 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile 1. 06 33.12 32.07 Mg3Si205(OH)4 C02 (g) -3.52 -21.67 -18.15 CO2 Dolomite 1. 88 -15.24 -17.12 CaMg(C03)2 Fe(OH)3(a) 1. 70 19.58 17.88 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite -0.58 7.47 8.05 Al(OH)3 Goethite 7.63 19.58 11.95 FeOOH Gypsum -1.31 -5.89 -4.58 CaS04:2H20 H2 (g) -25.20 -25.20 0.00 H2 H20(g) -1. 48 -0.00 1. 48 H2O Halite -7.32 -5.74 1. 58 NaCl Hausmannite -4.23 56.53 60.76 Mn304 Hematite 17.27 39.16 21. 90 Fe203 Illite -2.84 8.91 11. 75 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -6.62 23.07 29.69 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6

108

Page 118: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar -2.37 -0.31 2.06 KA1Si308 K-mica 2.09 14.63 12.54 KA13Si3010(OH)2 Kaolinite -0.70 6.64 7.34 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -2.30 23.04 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -11.00 -13.19 -2.20 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -32.35 50.40 82.75 02 pyrochroite -4.76 10.44 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -5.56 35.64 41. 20 Mn02 Quartz -0.19 -4.15 -3.96 Si02 Rhodochrosite -0.09 -11.23 -11.13 MnC03 Sepiolite -0.57 15.16 15.73 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -3.50 15.16 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -3.79 -14.69 -10.90 FeC03 Si02 (a) -1.45 -4.15 -2.70 Si02 Talc 3.55 24.82 21. 27 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

109

Page 119: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Ga11inas Headwaters (2-01) 5/29/2001 Dissolved Metals. Database file: C:\program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat

Reading database.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1 units ppm

temp 7.32 pH 7.9 Al 0.02 Ca 18 Mg 1 Na 5 K 5 Fe 0.1 Mn 0.003 si 4 as Si02 Cl 10 Alkalinity 47.2 as HC03 S (6) 10

END

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 5/29/2001 Dissolved Metals.

-----------------------------Solution composition--------------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al 7.413e-007 7.413e-007 Alkalinity 7.736e-004 7.736e-004 Ca 4.491e-004 4.491e-004 Cl 2.821e-004 2.821e-004 Fe 1.791e-006 1.791e-006 K 1.27ge-004 1.27ge-004

110

Page 120: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Mg 4.114e-005 4.114e-005 Mn 5.461e-008 5.461e-008 Na 2.175e-004 2.175e-004 S (6) 1.041e-004 1.041e-004 si 6.658e-005 6.658e-005

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 7.900 pe 4.000

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(Cat-IAnl)/ (Cat+IAnI)

Iterations Total H Total 0

1.000 1.861e-003 1.000e+000 7.942e-004 7.942e-004

7.320 6.660e-005 2.61 9

1. 110l35e+002 5.550926e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Al

C (4)

Ca

Species

OH-H+ H2O

Al(OH)4-Al(OH)3 Al(OH)2+ A1OH+2 Al+3 A1S04+ Al(S04)2-A1HS04+2

HC03-CO2 CaHC03+ C03-2 CaC03 MgHC03+ NaHC03 MgC03 FeHC03+ FeC03 MnC03 NaC03-MnHC03+

Ca+2 CaS04 CaHC03+

Molality

1.912e-007 1.315e-008 5.551e+001

7.4l3e-007 7.338e-007 5.401e-009 2.105e-009 2.16ge-011 1.117e-013 1.605e-014 3.812e-017 1. 842e-023

7.942e-004 7.601e-004 2.828e-005 2.394e-006 2.07ge-006 8.56ge-007 2.870e-007 8.470e-008 4.240e-008 2.434e-008 1.328e-008 5.301e-009 2.716e-009 2.614e-009

4.491e-004 4.40ge-004 5.034e-006 2.394e-006

Activity

1.825e-007 1.25ge-008 1.000e+000

7.004e-007 5.404e-009 2.00ge-009 1.800e-011 7.53ge-014 1.532e-014 3.638e-017 1.52ge-023

7.261e-004 2.82ge-005 2.287e-006 1.731e-006 8.573e-007 2.73ge-007 8.473e-008 4.242e-008 2.323e-008 1.32ge-008 5.303e-009 2.593e-009 2.496e-009

3.670e-004 5.036e-006 2.287e-006

Log Molality

-6.718 -7.881 1.744

-6. l34 -8.268 -8.677

-10.664 -12.952 -l3.795 -16.419 -22.735

-3.119 -4.549 -5.621 -5.682 -6.067 -6.542 -7.072 -7.373 -7.614 -7.877 -8.276 -8.566 -8.583

-3.356 -5.298 -5.62;1.

Log Activity

-6.739 -7.900 -0.000

-6.155 -8.267 -8.697

-10.745 -13.123 -l3.815 -16.439 -22.816

-3.l39 -4.548 -5.641 -5.762 -6.067 -6.562 -7.072 -7.372 -7.634 -7.877 -8.275 -8.586 -8.603

-3.435 -5.298 -5.641

Log Gamma

-0.020 -0.019 0.000

-0.020 0.000

-0.020 -0.081 -0.171 -0.020 -0.020 -0.081

-0.020 0.000

-0.020 -0.079 0.000

-0.020 0.000 0.000

-0.020 0.000 0.000

-0.020 -0.020

-0.080 0.000

-0.020

111

Page 121: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

CaC03 8.56ge-007 8.573e-007 -6.067 -6.067 0.000 CaOH+ 5.06ge-009 4.838e-009 -8.295 -8.315 -0.020 CaHS04+ 3.250e-013 3.102e-013 -12.488 -12.508 -0.020

CI 2.821e-004 CI- 2.821e-004 2.692e-004 -3.550 -3.570 -0.020 FeCI+ 1.245e-010 1.18ge-010 -9.905 -9.925 -0.020 MnCI+ 4.430e-011 4.22ge-011 -10.354 -10.374 -0.020 MnCl2 4.967e-015 4.96ge-015 -14.304 -14.304 0.000 FeCI+2 5.888e-019 4.887e-019 -18.230 -18.311 -0.081 MnCI3- 3.85ge-019 3.684e-019 -18.414 -18.434 -0.020 FeCI2+ 1.117e-021 1.066e-021 -20.952 -20.972 -0.020 FeCl3 2.86ge-026 2.870e-026 -25.542 -25.542 0.000

Fe(2) 4.268e-007 Fe+2 3.837e-007 3.19ge-007 -6.416 - 6 . 4 95 -0.079 FeHC03+ 2.434e-008 2.323e-008 -7.614 -7.634 -0.020 FeC03 1.328e-008 1. 32 ge - 0 08 -7.877 -7.877 0.000 FeS04 3.306e-009 3.307e-009 -8.481 -8.481 0.000 FeOH+ 2.067e-009 1.973e-009 -8.685 -8.705 -0.020 FeCI+ 1.245e-010 1.18ge-010 -9.905 -9.925 -0.020 FeHS04+ 2.833e-016 2.704e-016 -15.548 -15.568 -0.020

Fe(3) 1. 364e-006 Fe(OH)3 1. 076e-006 1.076e-006 -5.968 -5.968 0.000 Fe(OH)2+ 2.500e-007 2.386e-007 -6.602 -6.622 -0.020 Fe (OB) 4- 3.837e-008 3.663e-008 -7.416 -7.436 -0.020 FeOH+2 2.22ge-011 1.850e-011 -10.652 -10.733 -0.081 Fe+3 1.617e-016 1.091e-016 -15.791 -15.962 -0.171 FeS04+ 6.776e-017 6.468e-017 -16.169 -16.189 -0.020 FeCI+2 5.888e-019 4.887e-019 -18.230 -18.311 -0.081 Fe(S04)2- 1.12ge-019 1.078e-019 -18.947 -18.968 -0.020 Fe2(OH)2+4 4.220e-020 2.003e-020 -19.375 -19.698 -0.324 FeCI2+ 1.117e-021 1.066e-021 -20.952 -20.972 -0.020 Fe3(OH)4+5 1.812e-023 5.657e-024 -22.742 -23.247 -0.506 FeHS04+2 2.790e-024 2.316e-024 -23.554 -23.635 -0.081 FeCl3 2.86ge-026 2.870e-026 -25.542 -25.542 0.000

H (0) 2.705e-027 H2 1.352e-027 1.353e-027 -26.869 -26.869 0.000

K 1.27ge-004 K+ 1.278e-004 1.220e-004 -3.893 - 3.914 -0.020 KS04- 5.302e-008 5.061e-008 -7.276 -7.296 -0.020 KOH 3.358e-011 3.35ge-011 -10.474 -10.474 0.000

Mg 4.114e-005 Mg+2 4.041e-005 3.368e-005 -4.394 -4.473 -0.079 MgS04 3.987e-007 3.98ge-007 -6.399 -6.399 0.000 MgHC03+ 2.870e-007 2.73ge-007 -6.542 -6.562 -0.020 MgC03 4.240e-008 4.242e-008 -7.373 -7.372 0.000 MgOH+ 1.865e-009 1.780e-009 -8.729 -8.750 -0.020

Mn(2) 5.461e-008 Mn+2 4.624e-008 3.856e-008 -7.335 -7.414 -0.079 MnC03 5.301e-009 5.303e-009 -8.276 -8.275 0.000 MnHC03+ 2.614e-009 2.496e-009 -8.583 -8.603 -0.020 MnS04 3.925e-010 3.927e-010 -9.406 -9.406 0.000 MnCI+ 4.430e-011 4.22ge-011 -10.354 -10.374 -0.020 MnOH+ 1.782e-011 1. 701e-011 -10.749 -10.769 -0.020 MnCl2 4.967e-015 4.96ge-015 -14.304 -14.304 0.000 MnCI3- 3.85ge-019 3.684e-019 -18.414 -18.434 -0.020

Mn(3) 1.164e-030 Mn+3 1.164e-030 7.657e-031 -29.934 -30.116 -0.182

112

Page 122: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 2.175e-004 Na+ 2.173e-004 2.075e-004 -3.663 -3.683 -0.020 NaHC03 8.470e-008 8.473e-008 -7.072 -7.072 0.000 NaS04- 7.927e-008 7.567e-008 -7.101 -7.121 -0.020 NaC03- 2.716e-009 2.593e-009 -8.566 -8.586 -0.020 NaOH 1.08ge-010 1.08ge-010 -9.963 -9.963 0.000

0(0) O.OOOe+OOO 02 O.OOOe+OOO O.OOOe+OOO -44.708 -44.70B 0.000

S (6) 1.041e-004 S04-2 9.B54e-005 8.196e-005 -4.006 -4.086 -0.080 CaS04 5.034e-006 5.036e-006 -5.298 -5.298 0.000 MgS04 3.987e-007 3.98ge-007 -6.399 -6.399 0.000 NaS04- 7.927e-008 7.567e-008 -7.101 -7.121 -0.020 KS04- 5.302e-008 5.061e-008 -7.276 -7.296 -0.020 FeS04 3.306e-009 3.307e-009 -8.481 -8.481 0.000 MnS04 3.925e-010 3.927e-010 -9.406 -9.406 0.000 HS04- 7.365e-011 7.030e-011 -10.133 -10.153 -0.020 CaHS04+ 3.250e-013 3.102e-013 -12.488 -12.508 -0.020 A1S04+ 1.605e-014 1.532e-014 -13.795 -13.815 -0.020 FeHS04+ 2.833e-016 2.704e-016 -15.548 -15.568 -0.020 FeS04+ 6.776e-017 6.46Be-017 -16.169 -16.1B9 -0.020 Al(S04)2- 3.812e-017 3.638e-017 -16.419 -16.439 -0.020 Fe(S04)2- 1.12ge-019 1.078e-019 -18.947 -18.968 -0.020 AIHS04+2 1.B42e-023 1.52ge-023 -22.735 -22.816 -0.081 FeHS04+2 2.790e-024 2.316e-024 -23.554 -23.635 -0.081

Si 6.658e-005 H4Si04 6.617e-005 6.620e-005 -4.179 -4.179 0.000 H3Si04- 4.064e-007 3.87ge-007 -6.391 -6.411 -0.020 H2Si04-2 7.01ge-013 5.826e-013 -12.154 -12.235 -0.081

------------------------------Saturation indices---------------------------

Phase Sl log lAP log KT

Al(OH)3(a) -1. 45 10.58 12.02 Al (OH) 3 Albite -3.18 2.26 5.43 NaA1Si30B Alunite -4.98 -4.05 0.92 KA13(S04)2(OH)6 Anhydrite -3.18 -7.52 -4.34 CaS04 Anorthite -3.B5 25.16 29.01 CaA12Si20B Aragonite -0.95 -9.20 -8.24 CaC03 Ca-Montmorillonite 1. 68 11.35 9.67

CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2 Calcite -0.80 -9.20 -B.40 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.41 -4.18 -3.77 Si02 Chlorite (14A) -10.13 65.25 75.38 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile -8.90 25.62 34.53 Mg3Si205(OH)4 C02 (g) -3.32 -21.56 -18.24 CO2 Dolomite -2.78 -19.43 -16.65 CaMg(C03)2 Fe (OH) 3 (a) 2.85 21. 21 18.36 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite 1. 41 10.5B 9.16 Al (OH)3 Goethite B.07 21. 21 13 .l4 FeOOH Gypsum -2.93 -7.52 -4.60 CaS04:2H20 H2(g) -23.BO -23.80 0.00 H2 H20(g) -2.00 -0.00 2.00 H2O Halite -8.79 -7.25 1. 54 NaCl Hausmannite -16.72 48.96 65.68 Mn304 Hematite 18.06 42.41 24.35 Fe203 Illite 1. 06 14.92 13.86 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -4.81 27.83 32.64 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6

113

Page 123: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar -0.61 2.03 2.63 KAlSi308 K-mica 7.73 23.18 15.45 KA13Si3010(OH)2 Kaolinite 3.73 12.80 9.07 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -5.05 20.29 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -8.13 -10.58 -2.45 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -41.83 47.60 89.43 02 pyrochroite -6.81 8.39 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -12.20 32.19 44.39 Mn02 Quartz 0.08 -4.18 -4.26 Si02 Rhodochrosite -2.11 -13.18 -11.06 MnC03 Sepiolite -6.14 10.12 16.25 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -8.54 10.12 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -1. 48 -12.26 -10.78 FeC03 Si02(a) -1. 31 -4.18 -2.87 Si02 Talc -6.27 17.27 23.54 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

114

Page 124: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals. Database file: C:\program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat

Reading database.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1

units ppm temp 12.2 pH 7.6 Al 0.16 Ca 23 Mg 2 Na 5 K 5 Fe 0.1 Mn 0.026 Si 4.9 as Si02 CI 10 Alkalinity 67.2 as HC03 S (6) 10

END

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 7/24/2001 Dissolved Metals.

-----------------------------Solution composition--------------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al S.931e-006 S.931e-006 Alkalinity 1.101e-003 1.10Ie-003 Ca S.73ge-004 S.73ge-004 CI 2.82Ie-004 2.B2Ie-004 Fe 1. 791e-006 1.791e-006

115

Page 125: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K 1.27ge-004 1.27ge-004 Mg B.227e-005 B.227e-005 Mn 4.733e-007 4.733e-007 Na 2.175e-004 2.175e-004 S (6) 1.041e-004 1.041e-004 Si B.156e-005 B.156e-005

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 7.600 pe

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(Cat-jAnll/(Cat+IAnI)

Iterations Total H Total 0

4.000 1.000

2.337e-003 1.000e+000 1.144e-003 1.144e-003 12.200 B.73Be-005

2.74 9

1.11013ge+002 5.551035e+00l

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Log Log Log Species Molality Activity Molality Activity Gamma

OH- 1.4Bge-007 1.413e-007 -6.B27 -6.B50 -0.023 H+ 2.637e-00B 2.512e-00B -7.579 -7.600 -0.021 H2O 5.551e+001 1.000e+000 1.744 -0.000 0.000

Al 5.931e-006 AI(OH)4- 5.B05e-006 5.510e-006 -5.236 -5.259 -0.023 Al (OH) 3 B.316e-00B B.320e-00B -7.0BO -7.0BO 0.000 AI(OH)2+ 4.1Ble-00B 3.96Be-00B -7.379 -7.401 -0.023 AlOH+2 5.241e-010 4.254e-Ol0 -9.2Bl -9.37l -0.091 AI+3 3.923e-012 2.532e-012 -11.406 -11.597 -0.190 AIS04+ 5.5B5e-013 5.301e-013 -12.253 -12.276 -0.023 AI(S04)2- 1.307e-015 1.240e-015 -14.BB4 -14.906 -0.023 AIHS04+2 1.32ge-021 1.07ge-021 -20.B77 -20.967 -0.091

C(4) 1.144e-003 HC03 - 1. 065e-003 1.012e-003 -2.972 -2.995 -0.022 CO2 7.044e-005 7.04Be-005 -4.152 -4.152 0.000 CaHC03+ 4.BOBe-006 4.56Be-006 -5.31B -5.340 -0.022 C03-2 1. 711e-006 1.394e-006 -5.767 -5.B56 -0.089 CaC03 B.B64e-007 B.B6ge-007 -6.052 -6.052 0.000 MgHC03+ 7.BBBe-007 7.4B7e-007 -6.103 -6.126 -0.023 NaHC03 1.174e-007 1.175e-007 -6.930 -6.930 0.000 MgC03 7.1B1e-00B 7.1B5e-00B -7.144 -7.144 0.000 FeHC03+ 6.208e-00B 5.B92e-00B -7.207 -7.230 -0.023 MnC03 3.631e-00B 3.633e-00B -7.440 -7.440 0.000 MnHC03+ 3.117e-00B 2.95ge-00B -7.506 -7.529 -0.023 FeC03 1.946e-00B 1.947e-00B -7.7l1 -7.711 0.000 NaC03- 2.B75e-009 2.72ge-009 -B.541 -B.564 -0.023

Ca 5.73ge-004 Ca+2 5.61ge-004 4.577e-004 -3.250 -3.339 -0.OB9 CaS04 6.343e-006 6.346e-006 -5.19B -5.197 0.000 CaHC03+ 4.BOBe-006 4.56Be-006 -5.31B -5.340 -0.022 CaC03 8.B64e-007 8.B6ge-007 -6.052 -6.052 0.000

116

Page 126: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

CaOH+ 3.186e-009 3.024e-009 -8.497 -8.519 -0.023 CaHS04+ 8.563e-013 8.127e-013 -12.067 -12.090 -0.023

CI 2.821e-004 CI- 2.821e-004 2.677e-004 -3.550 -3.572 -0.023 MnCI+ 3.768e-010 3.576e-010 -9.424 -9.447 -0.023 FeCI+ 2.266e-010 2.151e-010 -9.645 -9.667 -0.023 MnCl2 4.176e-014 4.178e-014 -13.379 -13.379 0.000 MnCI3- 3.245e-018 3.080e-018 -17.489 -17.511 -0.023 FeCI+2 1.741e-018 1.413e-018 -17.759 -17.850 -0.091 FeCI2+ 2.720e-021 2.581e-021 -20.565 -20.588 -0.023 FeCl3 6.905e-026 6.90ge-026 -25.161 -25.161 0.000

Fe(2) 8.041e-007 Fe+2 7.131e-007 5.821e-007 -6.147 -6.235 -0.088 FeHC03+ 6.208e-008 5.892e-008 -7.207 -7.230 -0.023 FeC03 1.946e-008 1.947e-008 -7.711 -7.711 0.000 FeS04 6.37ge-009 6.382e-009 -8.195 -8.195 0.000 FeOH+ 2.842e-009 2.697e-009 -8.546 -8.569 -0.023 FeCI+ 2.266e-010 2.151e-010 -9.645 -9.667 -0.023 FeHS04+ 1.08ge-015 1.034e-015 -14.963 -14.986 -0.023

Fe(3) 9.868e-007 Fe (OH) 3 7.096e-007 7.100e-007 -6.149 -6.149 0.000 Fe(OH)2+ 2.613e-007 2.480e-007 -6.583 -6.606 -0.023 Fe(OH)4- 1.586e-008 1.506e-008 -7.800 -7.822 -0.023 FeOH+2 3.84ge-011 3.124e-011 -10.415 -10.505 -0.091 Fe+3 4.13ge-016 2.671e-016 -15.383 -15.573 -0.190 FeS04+ 1.807e-016 1.715e-016 -15.743 -15.766 -0.023 FeCI+2 1. 741e-018 1.413e-018 -17.759 -17.850 -0.091 Fe(S04)2- 2.954e-019 2.804e-019 -18.530 -18.552 -0.023 Fe2(OH)2+4 1.052e-019 4.566e-020 -18.978 -19.340 -0.363 FeCI2+ 2.720e-021 2.581e-021 -20.565 -20.588 -0.023 Fe3(OH)4+5 2.995e-023 8.126e-024 -22.524 -23.090 -0.567 FeHS04+2 1.468e-023 1.191e-023 -22.833 -22.924 -0.091 FeCl3 6.905e-026 6.90ge-026 -25.161 -25.161 0.000

H (0) 1. 020e- 026 H2 5.100e-027 5.103e-027 -26.292 -26.292 0.000

K 1.27ge-004 K+ 1.278e-004 1.213e-004 -3.893 -3.916 -0.023 KS04- 5.598e-008 5.313e-008 -7.252 -7.275 -0.023 KOH 1. 673e-011 1.674e-011 -10.776 -10.776 0.000

Mg 8.227e-005 Mg+2 8.055e-005 6.573e-005 -4.094 -4.182 -0.088 MgS04 8.592e-007 8.596e-007 -6.066 -6.066 0.000 MgHC03+ 7.888e-007 7.487e-007 -6.103 -6.126 -0.023 MgC03 7.181e-008 7.185e-008 -7.144 -7.144 0.000 MgOH+ 2.992e-009 2.83ge-009 -8.524 -8.547 -0.023

Mn (2) 4.733e-007 Mn+2 4.018e-007 3.280e-007 -6.396 - 6.484 -0.088 MnC03 3.631e-008 3.633e-008 -7.440 -7.440 0.000 MnHC03+ 3.117e-008 2.95ge-008 -7.506 -7.529 -0.023 MnS04 3.556e-009 3.558e-009 -8.449 -8.449 0.000 MnCI+ 3.768e-Ol0 3.576e-Ol0 -9.424 -9.447 -0.023 MnOH+ 1.18ge-Ol0 1.128e-010 -9.925 -9.948 -0.023 MnCl2 4.176e-014 4.178e-014 -13.379 -13.379 0.000 MnCI3- 3.245e-018 3.080e-018 -17.489 -17.511 -0.023

Mn (3) 2.29ge-029 Mn+3 2.29ge-029 1.437e-029 -28.638 -28.842 -0.204

117

Page 127: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Na 2.175e-004 Na+ 2.173e-004 2.063e-004 -3.663 -3.685 -0.023 NaHC03 1. 174e- 007 1.175e-007 -6.930 -6.930 0.000 NaS04- 7.881e-008 7.480e-008 -7.103 -7.126 -0.023 NaC03- 2.875e-009 2.72ge-009 -8.541 -8.564 -0.023 NaOH 5.424e-011 5.427e-011 -10.266 -10.265 0.000

0(0) O.OOOe+OOO 02 O.OOOe+OOO O.OOOe+OOO -44.112 -44.112 0.000

S (6) 1.041e-004 S04-2 9.676e-005 7.874e-005 -4.014 -4.104 -0.090 CaS04 6.343e-006 6.346e-006 -5.198 -5.197 0.000 MgS04 8.592e-007 8. 596e- 007 -6.066 -6.066 0.000 NaS04- 7.881e-008 7.480e-008 -7.103 -7.126 -0.023 KS04- 5.598e-008 5.313e-008 -7.252 -7.275 -0.023 FeS04 6.37ge-009 6.382e-009 -8.195 -8.195 0.000 MnS04 3.556e-009 3.558e-009 -8.449 -8.449 0.000 HS04- 1. 556e-010 1.477e-010 -9.808 -9.831 -0.023 CaHS04+ 8.563e-013 8.127e-013 -12.067 -12.090 -0.023 AlS04+ 5.585e-013 5.301e-013 -12.253 -12.276 -0.023 Al(S04)2- 1.307e-015 1.240e-015 -14.884 -14.906 -0.023 FeHS04+ 1.08ge-015 1. 034e-015 -14.963 -14.986 -0.023 FeS04+ 1. 807e-016 1.715e-016 -15.743 -15.766 -0.023 Fe(S04)2- 2.954e-019 2.804e-019 -18.530 -18.552 -0.023 AlHS04+2 1.32ge-021 1.07ge-021 -20.877 -20.967 -0.091 FeHS04+2 1.468e-023 1.191e-023 -22.833 -22.924 -0.091

si 8.156e-005 H4Si04 8.125e-005 8.130e-005 -4.090 -4.090 0.000 H3Si04- 3.096e-007 2.93ge-007 -6.509 -6.532 -0.023 H2Sio4-2 3.987e-013 3. 236e- 013 -12.399 -12.490 -0.091

------------------------------Saturation indices---------------------------

Phase SI log lAP log KT

Al(OH)3(a) -0.47 11.20 11. 67 Al(OH)3 Albite -2.36 2.85 5.21 NaAlSi308 Alunite -1. 57 -1. 31 0.25 KA13(S04)2(OH)6 Anhydrite -3.11 -7.44 -4.33 CaS04 Anorthite -1. 94 26.09 28.03 CaA12Si208 Aragonite -0.93 -9.19 -8.27 CaC03 Ca-Montmorillonite 3.93 13.05 9.12

CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2 Calcite -0.78 -9.19 -8.42 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.38 -4.09 -3.71 Si02 Chlorite (14A) -8.14 65.23 73.36 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile -8.98 24.87 33.86 Mg3Si205(OH)4 C02 (g) -2.85 -21. 06 -18.21 CO2 Dolomite -2.45 -19.23 -16.78 CaMg(C03)2 Fe (OH) 3 (a) 2.34 20.56 18.23 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite 2.34 11. 20 8.86 Al(OH)3 Goethite 7.75 20.56 12.81 FeOOH Gypsum -2.86 -7.44 -4.59 CaS04:2H20 H2 (g) -23.20 -23.20 0.00 H2 H20(g) -1.86 -0.00 1. 86 H2O Halite -8.81 -7.26 1. 55 NaCl Hausmannite -14.99 49.35 64.34 Mn304 Hematite 17.45 41.13 23.68 Fe203 Illite 3.14 16.42 13.28 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -5.06 26.77 31.83 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6

118

Page 128: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

K-feldspar 0.14 2.62 2.48 KAlSi30S K-mica 10.37 25.02 14.66 KA13Si3010 (OH) 2 Kaolinite 5.63 14.23 S.60 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -5.02 20.32 25.34 MnOOH Melanterite -7.96 -10.34 -2.38 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -41.21 46.40 87.61 02 Pyrochroite -6.48 8.72 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -11.60 31.92 43.52 Mn02 Quartz 0.09 -4.09 -4.18 Si02 Rhodochrosite -1. 26 -12.34 -11.0S MnC03 Sepiolite -6.35 9.77 16.11 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -S.S9 9.77 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -1. 2S -12.09 -10.81 FeC03 Si02 (a) -1. 2 7 -4.09 -2.S2 Si02 Talc -6.23 16.69 22.92 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

119

Page 129: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 10/16/2001 Dissolved Metals. Database file: C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat

Reading database.

SOLUTION MASTER SPECIES SOLUTION SPECIES PHASES EXCHANGE MASTER SPECIES EXCHANGE SPECIES SURFACE MASTER SPECIES SURFACE SPECIES RATES END

Reading input data for simulation 1.

TITLE

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\phreeqc.dat TITLE Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis. SOLUTION 1 units ppm

temp 2.0 pH 7.9 Al 0.01 Ca 22 Mg 2 Na 5 K 5 Fe 0.1 Mn 0.008 Si 5.3 as Si02 CI 10 Alkalinity 54.0 as HC03 S (6) 10

END

Class Example: Speciate Water Analysis.

Beginning of initial solution calculations.

Initial solution 1: Gallinas Headwaters (2-01) 10/16/2001 Diss. Metals.

-----------------------------Solution composition--------------------------

Elements Molality Moles

Al 3.707e-007 3.707e-007 Alkalinity 8.851e-004 8.851e-004 Ca 5.490e-004 5.490e-004 CI 2.821e-004 2.821e-004 Fe 1.791e-006 1.791e-006 K 1.27ge-004 1.279e-004

120

Page 130: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Mg 8.227e-005 8.227e-005 Mn 1.456e-007 1.456e-007 Na 2.175e-004 2.175e-004 S (6) 1. 041e-004 1. 041e-004 si 8.822e-005 8.822e-005

----------------------------Description of solution------------------------

pH 7.900 pe 4.000

Activity of water Ionic strength

Mass of water (kg) Total carbon (mol/kg)

Total C02 (mol/kg) Temperature (deg C)

Electrical balance (eq) Percent error, 100*(cat-IAnl)/(Cat+IAnl)

Iterations Total H Total 0

1. 000 2.195e-003 1.000e+000 9.165e-004 9.165e-004 2.000

2.366e-004 8.03 9

1.110137e+002 5.550970e+001

----------------------------Distribution of species------------------------

Log Log Log Species Molality Activity Molality Activity Gamma

OH- 1.162e-007 1.105e-007 -6.935 -6.957 -0.022 H+ 1. 31ge- 008 1.25ge-008 -7.880 -7.900 -0.020 H2O 5.551e+001 1. OOOe+OOO 1.744 -0.000 0.000

Al 3.707e-007 Al(OH)4- 3.662e-007 3.483e-007 -6.436 -6.458 -0.022 Al(OH)3 2.68ge-009 2.690e-009 -8.570 -8.570 0.000 Al(OH)2+ 1.761e-009 1.675e-009 -8.754 -8.776 -0.022 AIOH+2 3.317e-Oll 2.716e-Oll -10.479 -10.566 -0.087 Al+3 2.528e-013 1.661e-013 -12.597 -12.780 -0.183 AlS04+ 3.205e-014 3.04ge-014 -13.494 -13.516 -0.022 Al(S04)2- 7.23ge-017 6.886e-017 -16.140 -16.162 -0.022 AIHS04+2 3.663e-023 2.99ge-023 -22.436 -22.523 -0.087

C (4) 9.165e-004 HC03- 8.725e-004 8.307e-004 -3.059 -3.081 -0.021 CO2 3.730e-005 3.732e-005 -4.428 -4.428 0.000 CaHC03+ 2.764e-006 2.632e-006 -5.558 -5.580 -0.021 C03-2 2.026e-006 1.665e-006 -5.693 -5.779 -0.085 CaC03 9.970e-007 9.975e-007 -6.001 -6.001 0.000 MgHC03+ 6.524e-007 6.206e-007 -6.186 -6.207 -0.022 NaHC03 9.656e-008 9.661e-008 -7.015 -7.015 0.000 MgC03 7.425e-008 7.42ge-008 -7.129 -7.129 0.000 FeHC03+ 5.770e-008 5.48ge-008 -7.239 -7.261 -0.022 FeC03 2.638e-008 2.640e-008 -7.579 -7.578 0.000 MnC03 1.342e-008 1.342e-008 -7.872 -7.872 0.000 MnHC03+ 7.898e-009 7.513e-009 -8.102 -8.124 -0.022 NaC03- 1.918e-009 1.824e-009 -8.717 -8.739 -0.022

Ca 5.490e-004 Ca+2 5.396e-004 4.433e-004 -3.268 -3.353 -0.085 CaS04 5.617e-006 5.620e-006 -5.251 -5.250 0.000 CaHC03+ 2.764e-006 2.632e-006 -5.558 -5.580 -0.021 CaC03 9.970e-007 9.975e-007 -6.001 -6.001 0.000 CaOH+ 6.143e-009 5.844e-009 -8.212 -8.233 -0.022

121

Page 131: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Cl

Fe(2)

Fe (3)

H (0)

K

Mg

Mn(2)

Mn (3)

Na

CaHS04+

Cl­FeCl+ MnCl+ MnC12 MnC13-FeCl+2 FeC12+ FeCl3

Fe+2 FeHC03+ FeC03 FeS04 FeOH+ FeCl+ FeHS04+

Fe(OH)3 Fe(OH)2+ Fe(OH)4-FeOH+2 Fe+3 FeS04+ FeCl+2 Fe(S04)2-Fe2(OH)2+4 FeC12+ Fe3(OH)4+5 FeHS04+2 FeCl3

H2

K+ KS04-KOH

Mg+2 MgS04 MgHC03+ MgC03 MgOH+

Mn+2 MnC03 MnHC03+ MnS04 MnCl+ MnOH+ MnC12 MnC13-

Mn+3

Na+ NaHC03 NaS04-

3.50ge-013 3.338e-013 2.821e-004

2.821e-004 2.682e-004 2.572e-010 2.447e-010 1.166e-010 1.10ge-010 1.298e-014 1.298e-014 1.008e-018 9.593e-019 7.231e-019 5.920e-019 1.643e-021 1.563e-021 4.191e-026 4.193e-026

8.957e-007 8.027e-007 5.770e-008 2.638e-008 5.971e-009 2.710e-009 2.572e-010 5.230e-016

8.951e-007

6.607e-007 5.48ge-008 2.640e-008 5.974e-009 2.578e-009 2.447e-010 4.975e-016

6.717e-007 6.720e-007 2.046e-007 1.946e-007 1.87ge-008 1.788e-008 2.326e-011 1.904e-011 2.452e-016 1.610e-016 8.574e-017 8.156e-017 7.231e-019 5.920e-019 1.365e-019 1.298e-019 6.081e-020 2.733e-020 1.643e-021 1.563e-021 3.866e-023 1.108e-023 3.720e-024 3.046e-024 4.191e-026 4.193e-026

2.875e-027 1.437e-027 1.438e-027

1.27ge-004 1.278e-004 1.216e-004 4.661e-008 4.434e-008 3.346e-011 3.348e-011

8.227e-005 8.08ge-005 6.656e-005 6.581e-007 6.584e-007 6.524e-007 6.206e-007 7.425e-008 7.42ge-008 2.126e-009 2.022e-009

1.456e-007 1.233e-007 1.342e-008 7.898e-009 8.990e-010 1.166e-010 2.856e-011 1.298e-014 1.008e-018

1.291e-030

1.015e-007 1.342e-008 7.513e-009 8.995e-010 1.10ge-010 2.717e-011 1.298e-014 9.593e-019

1.291e-030 8.233e-031 2.175e-004

2.173e-004 2.068e-004 9.656e-008 9.661e-008 7.460e-008 7.097e-008

-12.455 -12.477

-3.550 -3.571 -9.590 -9.611 -9.933 -9.955

-13.887 -13.887 -17.996 -18.018 -18.141 -18.228 -20.784 -20.806 -25.378 -25.377

-6.095 -6.180 -7.239 -7.261 -7.579 -7.578 -8.224 -8.224 -8.567 -8.589 -9.590 -9.611

-15.282 -15.303

-6.173 -6.173 -6.689 -6.711 -7.726 -7.748

-10.633 -10.720 -15.611 -15.793 -16.067 -16.089 -18.141 -18.228 -18.865 -18.887 -19.216 -19.563 -20.784 -20.806 -22.413 -22.955 -23.430 -23.516 -25.378 -25.377

-26.842 -26.842

-3.893 -3.915 -7.332 -7.353

-10.475 -10.475

-4.092 -4.177 -6.182 -6.181 -6.186 -6.207 -7.129 -7.129 -8.673 -8.694

-6.909 -6.994 -7.872 -7.872 -8.102 -8.124 -9.046 -9.046 -9.933 -9.955

-10.544 -10.566 -13.887 -13.887 -17.996 -18.018

-29.889 -30.084

-3.663 -3.684 -7.015 -7.015 -7.127 -7.149

-0.022

-0.022 -0.022 -0.022

0.000 -0.022 -0.087 -0.022 0.000

-0.085 -0.022 0.000 0.000

-0.022 -0.022 -0.022

0.000 -0.022 -0.022 -0.087 -0.183 -0.022 -0.087 -0.022 -0.347 -0.022 -0.543 -0.087 0.000

0.000

-0.022 -0.022 0.000

-0.085 0.000

-0.022 0.000

-0.022

-0.085 0.000

-0.022 0.000

-0.022 -0.022 0.000

-0.022

-0.195

-0.022 0.000

-0.022

122

Page 132: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

NaC03- 1. 918e-009 1.824e-009 -8.717 -8.739 -0.022 NaOH 1.085e-010 1.085e-010 -9.965 -9.964 0.000

0(0) O.OOOe+OOO 02 O.OOOe+OOO O.OOOe+OOO -46.739 -46.739 0.000

S (6) 1.041e-004 S04-2 9.771e-005 8.01ge-005 -4.010 -4.096 -0.086 CaS04 5.617e-006 5.620e-006 -5.251 -5.250 0.000 MgS04 6.581e-007 6.584e-007 -6.182 -6.181 0.000 NaS04- 7.460e-008 7.097e-008 -7.127 -7.149 -0.022 KS04- 4.661e-008 4.434e-008 -7.332 -7.353 -0.022 FeS04 5.971e-009 5.974e-009 -8.224 -8.224 0.000 MnS04 8.990e-010 8.995e-010 -9.046 -9.046 0.000 HS04- 6.583e-011 6.262e-011 -10.182 -10.203 -0.022 CaHS04+ 3.50ge-013 3.338e-013 -12.455 -12.477 -0.022 AlS04+ 3.205e-014 3.04ge-014 -13.494 -13.516 -0.022 FeHS04+ 5.230e-016 4.975e-016 -15.282 -15.303 -0.022 FeS04+ 8.574e-017 8.156e-017 -16.067 -16.089 -0.022 Al(S04)2- 7.23ge-017 6.886e-017 -16.140 -16.162 -0.022 Fe(S04)2- 1. 3 65e- 019 1.298e-019 -18.865 -18.887 -0.022 AIHS04+2 3.663e-023 2.99ge-023 -22.436 -22.523 -0.087 FeHS04+2 3.720e-024 3.046e-024 -23.430 -23.516 -0.087

Si 8.822e-005 H4Si04 8.780e-005 8.784e-005 -4.057 -4.056 0.000 H3Si04- 4.243e-007 4.036e-007 -6.372 -6.394 -0.022 H2Si04-2 4. 76ge- 013 3. 905e- 013 -12.322 -12.408 -0.087

------------------------------Saturation indices---------------------------

Phase Sl log lAP log KT

Al (OH) 3 (a) Albite Alunite Anhydrite Anorthite

-1.50 -2.72 -4.73 -3.09 -3.96

Aragonite -0.91

10.92 2.97

-3.05 -7.45 26.17 -9.13

12.42 5.69 1. 68

-4.36 30.13 -8.22

Al(OH)3 NaAlSi308 KA13 (S04) 2 (OH) 6 CaS04 CaA12Si208 CaC03

Ca-Montmorillonite 2.32 CaO.165A12.33Si3.67010(OH)2

12.61 10.29

Calcite -0.75 -9.13 -8.39 CaC03 Chalcedony -0.22 -4.06 -3.84 Si02 Chlorite (l4A) -9.87 67.79 77.66 Mg5A12Si3010(OH)8 Chrysotile -8.52 26.76 35.28 Mg3Si205(OH)4 C02 (g) -3.29 -21.58 -18.29 CO2 Dolomite -2.58 -19.09 -16.51 CaMg(C03)2 Fe(OH)3(a) 3.02 21.52 18.50 Fe(OH)3 Gibbsite 1. 41 10.92 9.51 Al(OH)3 Goethite 8.02 21.52 13.50 FeOOH Gypsum -2.84 -7.45 -4.61 CaS04:2H20 H2 (g) -23.80 -23.80 0.00 H2 H20(g) -2.15 -0.00 2.15 H2O Halite -8.78 -7.26 1. 53 NaCl Hausmannite -16.98 50.22 67.20 Mn304 Hematite 17.93 43.04 25.11 Fe203 Illite 1. 69 16.22 14.52 KO.6MgO.25A12.3Si3.5010(OH)2 Jarosite-K -4.79 28.75 33.55 KFe3(S04)2(OH)6 K-feldspar -0.08 2.74 2.82 KAlSi308 K-mica 8.24 24.58 16.34 KA13Si3010(OH)2 Kaolinite 4.13 13.73 9.60 A12Si205(OH)4 Manganite -4.63 20.71 25.34 MnOOH

123

Page 133: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

Melanterite -7.74 -10.28 -2.53 FeS04:7H20 02 (g) -43.89 47.60 91. 49 02 pyrochroite -6.39 8.81 15.20 Mn(OH)2 Pyrolusite -12.76 32.61 45.37 Mn02 Quartz 0.29 -4.06 -4.35 Si02 Rhodochrosite -1.73 -12.77 -11.04 MnC03 Sepiolite -5.34 11.08 16.42 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Sepiolite (d) -7.58 11. 08 18.66 Mg2Si307.50H:3H20 Siderite -1. 22 -11.96 -10.74 FeC03 Si02(a) -1.14 -4.06 -2.92 Si02 Talc -5.59 18.64 24.24 Mg3Si4010(OH)2

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

End of simulation. ------------------

Reading input data for simulation 2.

End of run.

124

Page 134: Surface Water Quality of the Gallinas River in and around

REFERENCES

1. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 2004. Website (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov).

2. Citizens Committee for Historical Preservation, 2004. CCHP Acequias of Las Vegas, New Mexico. Las Vegas, New Mexico, 87701 (phone 505-425-8803). http://www.nmhu.edulresearch/cchp/tours/acequias/default.htm

3. Code of Federal Regulations, 2003: 40 CFR 133.102. 4. Earl, S.R. and Blinn, D.W., 2003. Effects of Wildfire Ash on Water Chemistry and Biota in

South-Western U.S.A. Streams. Freshwater Biology 48 1015-1030. 5. Fellows, C.S., Valett, H.M., and Dahm, C.N., 2001. Whole-stream metabolism in two

montane streams: Contribution of the hyporheic zone. Limnology and Oceanography, 46(3),523-531.

6. Griggs, R.L. and Hendrickson, G.E. 1951. Geology and Groundwater Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico. NM Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Ground-Water Report 2.

7. Morrice, J.A., Valett, H.M., Dahm, C.N., and Campana, M.E., 1997. Alluvial Characteristics, Groundwater-Surface Water Exchange, and Hydrological Retention in Headwater Streams. Hydrological Processes 11,253-267.

8. Morrice, J.A., Dahm, C.N., Valett, H.M., Unnikrishna, P.v. and Campana, M.E., 2000. Terminal Electron Accepting Processes in the Alluvial Sediments of a Headwater Stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(4):593-608.

9. New Mexico Environment Department, 1997. The entire consent decree is available on line from the NMED website at: www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/CDNM.html

10. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, June 1991. Pecos River Stream System Hydrographic Survey Report. Gallinas River Section, volume 1 of 5. On May 8, 1933, the Federal District Court (Cause No. 712 Equity) ruled that those irrigators using Gallinas Water stored in Storrie Lake could irrigate up 12,000 acres. The amount of water to irrigate those acres depends on the duty of water for the given crops. In addition, the amount of irrigated land in use today is less that this due to urban growth on once irrigated lands.

11. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, February 2000. Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Surface Waters, Section 2213.

12. NMED Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2004. Total Maximum daily Load for Metals in Cieneguilla Creek.

13. Protocol for the Assessment of Stream Bottom Deposits on Wadable Streams, 2002. New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water Quality Bureau QAPP, Appendix D. Available online at: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/protocols/StreamBottomProtocol.pdf

14.Saltman, T. 2001. Making TMDL's Work. Environmental Science and Technology, June 1,2001.

15.Shabman, L. 2002. Measuring up the TMDL. Water and Wastewater Products, May-June 2002.

16.Soil Survey of San Miguel Area, New Mexico, 1981. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service.

125