Estimating metal concentrations with regression analysis and water-quality surrogates at nine sites on the Animas and San Juan Rivers, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the use of site-specific regression models to estimate metal concentrations at nine U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations on the Animas and San Juan Rivers in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Downstream users could use these regression models to determine if metal concentrations are elevated and pose a risk to water supplies, agriculture, and recreation. Multiple linear-regression models were developed by relating metal concentrations in discrete water-quality samples to continuously monitored streamflow and surrogate parameters (specific conductance, pH, turbidity, and water temperature) collected at the U.S. Geological Survey stations. Models were developed for dissolved and total concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, and zinc using water-quality samples collected from 2005 to 2017 by several Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies using different collection methods and analytical laboratories. Model performance varied but, in general, models for dissolved metals did not perform as well as those for total metals. Dissolved metals generally were correlated to specific conductance or streamflow and total metals generally were better correlated with turbidity.

Explanatory variables in the models reflected hydrologic and geochemical processes within the basin. A larger number of regression models were statistically significant for the most upstream sites, where metal concentrations were elevated by drainage from abandoned mines and mineralized bedrock. Models generally did not perform as well at downstream sites, especially for dissolved metals, which occurred at lower concentrations than at the upstream sites. In the lower reaches of the rivers, the input of more alkaline water from tributaries and groundwater reduced metal solubility and diluted metal concentrations. The number and distribution of samples in the calibration datasets also may have been a factor in model development. At some sites on the San Juan River, calibration datasets were more limited and did not represent the full range of observed hydrologic and water-quality conditions, especially during storm events in summer and fall. Recommendations for model use are given based on estimates of model precision, biases, and adequacy of the calibration datasets in terms of the number of samples and representativeness of the observed range of streamflow and water-quality conditions.