P C . -Z DAY «v.'[13 tum f‘T’ENCQ i Mercury in the ¥ ® ® ¥ Environment e G EO LOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 713 inin ming DOCHMENTS neo ASrorny s z‘ f Z TX AFR 4 i 7Q71 > »¥ERSITY OF ad gr i (rrr mannn s " o. o" PALI URNIA - - [ " | eon Mercury in the Environment GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 713 A compilation of papers on the abundance, distribution, and testing of mercury in rocks, soils, waters, plants, and the atmosphere UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 78-609261 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 70 cents (Paper cover) FOREWORD Current interest in the distribution of mercury in the natural environ- ment stems from two related concerns: 1. Mercury is an essential metal for industry, the known domestic re- sources of mercury ores are limited, and better knowledge of the geologic distribution and geochemistry of the element is needed to identify new reserves. 2. With the developing interest in environmental protection has come an increase in awareness of and concern for the actual and potential hazards of mercury wastes in the environment. Abnormal quantities of mercury in fish and other foods have recently raised many questions about its natural occurrence and behavior. Like all other elements, this unusual metal has been part of our environment for all time. The Geological Survey has devoted much effort to the study of mer- cury as part of its basic mission of determining the occurrence and dis- tribution of mineral resources. This report discusses known facts about mercury-where, and in what forms and quantities mercury is found ; how it behaves in air, water, and earth materials; the impact of man's activities on its distribution; and the effects of the element on our lives. Further- more, mercury is a strategic metal and because the United States has traditionally relied on imports for approximately half of its requirements, there is obvious need for better understanding of the occurrence and dis- tribution of mercury in this country. This report is written with the hope that the information will provide better understanding of the mercury problems which confront us. W 2 cota W. T. Pecora Director, U.S. Geological Survey 280951 CONTENTS Page Foreword - III Summary os 1 Summary of the literature on the inorganic geochemistry of mercury-by Michael Fleischer wts 6 Mercury content of rocks, soils, and stream sediments-by A. P. Pierce, J. M. Botbol, and R. E. Learned e 14 Mercury in sedimentary rocks of the Colorado Plateau region-by R. A. Cadigan 17 Chemical behavior of mercury in aqueous media-by John D. Hem ___________-- 19 Mercury contents of natural thermal and mineral fluids-by D. E. White, M. E. Hinkle, and Ivan Barnes - e uwe 25 Sources and behavior of mercury in surface waters-by R. L. Wershaw ______- 29 Biological factors in the chemistry of mercury-by Phillip E. Greeson _______- 32 Mercury content of plants-by Hansford T. Shacklette _____________________- 35 Mercury in the atmosphere-by J. H. McCarthy, Jr., J. L, Meuschke, W. H. Ficklin, and R. E. Learned ra au cal 37 Atmospheric and fluvial transport of mercury-by E. A. Jenne _____________- 40 Analytical methods for the determination of mercury in rocks and soils-by F. N. Ward .... 46 ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE Diagram showing percentile ranges of mercury distribution in rocks, soil, and sediments ______________- Map showing location of Colorado Plateau region & Frequency histogram of percent of samples plotted over mercury content Diagram showing fields of stability for solid and liquid mercury species at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pressure 1 2 3 4. 5. Diagram showing fields of stability for aqueous mercury species at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pressure ______ 6 7 8 Simplified representation of the flow of materials through an aquatic food chain _______________________ Diagram showing mercury in air as a function of altitude, Blythe, Calif Diagram showing daily variation of mercury in air at the ground surface, temperature, and barometric pressure, Silver Cloud mine near Battle Mountain, Nev ___ TABLES TABLE 1. Determinations of mercury in U.S. Geological Survey standard rocks 2. Analyses for mercury in basalts, gabbros, diabases, andesites, dacites, and liparites _________________- 3-7. Determinations of mercury in- Granitic rocks Ultramafic and deep-seated igneous rocks Alkalie rocks Igneous rocks of areas of very high content Metamorphic rocks 19 m pF Page 15 17 18 20 22 32 38 Page 53 58 54 54 55 55 55 VI CONTENTS TABLE 8-12. Analyses for mercury in- 8. Limestones 9. Sandstones 10. Shales and clays ____ 11. Miscellaneous sedimentary rocks __ 12. Oceanic and lacustrine sediments _ Analyses of soils for mercury Mercury content of natural waters Mercury in air and in volcanic emanations Mercury in coal --- ~ Statistics on the mercury content of selected rocks, soils, and stream sediments ______________________ Mercury content of some sedimentary stratigraphic units in the Colorado Plateau region of the United States Equilibrium constants and standard potentials «s Standard free energies of formation of certain mercury species 3 Mercury concentration in thermal waters, Northern California mercury district _______________________ Mercury concentration in thermal waters from Yellowstone National Park ____________________________ Mercury concentration of petroleum from the Wilbur Springs area, northern California ________________ Mercury in selected rivers of the United States, 1970 Mercury levels in natural waters outside the United States - Mercury consumption in the United States aB Lethal concentrations of mercury compounds for various aquatic organisms and man __________________ Maximum mercury concentration in air measured at scattered mineralized and nonmineralized areas of the Western United States MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT SUMMARY Mercury, commonly called quicksilver, is one of the elements that make up the planet earth. In its elemental state at the earth's surface it is a silvery liquid metal, approximately 134 times as heavy as water, and it is the only metal which occurs in liq- uid form at ordinary earth surface temperatures. Like other liquids, it vaporizes and condenses in a pattern determined by its own vapor pressure and by the temperature and barometric pressure of the environment in which it exists. It is absorbed and held tightly by a variety of materials such as plant fibers and soils. Like other metallic elements, it reacts with a great variety of inorganic and organic compounds to form simple and complex molecules ranging from cinnabar, a mercury sulfide and the most common ore mineral, to the metallo-organic complexes which have received recent world wide attention as potential water pollutants and biologic toxins. The compounds of mercury, like many other chemical compounds, are dispersed throughout rocks, soil, air, water, and living organisms by a complex system of physical, chemical, and biological controls. Particular combinations of these controls have developed interesting patterns of mercury and its compounds in the world around us. MINERALS AND ROCKS Although there are more than a dozen mercury- bearing minerals, only a few occur abundantly in nature. Cinnabar, the sulfide, is the most important and contains 86 percent mercury by weight; it is usually formed geologically at low temperatures (less than 300°C). It is generally found in mineral veins or fractures, as impregnations, or having re- placed quartz, in rocks near recent volcanic or hot- spring areas. Mercury content of broad categories of rocks in the earth's crust range from 10 to 20,000 ppb (parts per billion); 1 ppb is equivalent to 1 pound of mercury per billion pounds of rock. Less than 20 percent of recorded rock samples have more than 1,000 ppb. Igneous rocks-those formed by melting *See end of "Summary" for discussion of units used in this report. 6 and cooling-are the basic sources of mercury. These generally contain less than 200 ppb of mer- cury and average 100 ppb. The mercury content of soils averages about 100 ppb and varies within rela- tively narrow limits. Sedimentary rocks resulting from weathering and deposited by physical, chemi- cal, and biological processes also generally average less than 100 ppb of mercury and seldom exceed 200 ppb except for certain organic-rich shales which may reach concentrations of 10,000 ppb or more. In addition to organic-rich shales, other rocks with abnormally high mercury contents are known to exist. The Donets Basin, Kerch-Taman area, and the Crimea of the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics where both igneous rocks and sedimentary rocks commonly contain 100 times the normal maxi- mum (up to 20,000 ppb), probably are the best ex- amples, but similar anomalies can be found else- where. For example, Green River shale samples of the western Colorado Plateau have yielded mercury values as high as 10,000 ppb. Background concentrations of soils in California are 20 to 40 ppb. The Franciscan Formation of Cal- ifornia, in which most of the state's mercury mines are located, has background values of 100 to 200 ppb; anomalies in soils around these mercury de- posits are in the range of 10,000 to 100,000 ppb. ATMOSPHERE Because of mercury's tendency to vaporize, the atmosphere measured at ground level near mercury ore deposits may contain as much as 20,000 ng/m® (nanograms per cubic meter) of mercury in air. One nanogram is one billionth (1/1,000,000,000) of a gram, or 0.035/1,000,000,000 of an ounce, and 1 cubic meter equals about 1%4 cubic yards. Ex- pressed on a weight basis rather than on a volume basis (for comparison with contents of rocks) 20,000 ng/m* represents almost 16 pounds of mer- cury per billion pounds of air. Because of similari- ties in the mineral systems, the next highest near- ground levels of atmospheric mercury occur over precious metal ores (up to 1,500 ng/m*) and copper ores (20 ng/m*) in that order. 2 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT Whatever the source of natural atmospheric mer- cury, its pattern responds to meteorological controls and other natural laws. Thus, the maximum amount of mercury in air is found at about midday with much smaller amounts found in the morning and in the evening. In both cases, vapor density, like the density of the atmosphere, is greatest near the sur- face of the land and diminishes with altitude. For example, a concentration of 20,000 ng/m* of mer- cury at ground level near a mercury mine was ob- served to diminish to only about 100 ng/m® at 400 feet altitude, and a ground-level concentration of 600 ng/m* at noon has been observed to drop to only 20 ng/m at 2: 00 a.m. © RAIN Rain washes mercury from the atmosphere just as it does certain other atmospheric components. Even near mercury ore deposits, tests have shown the mercury content of the atmosphere to be essen- tially zero immediately after a rainstorm. Such scrubbing accounts for the fact that the mercury content of rainwater averages about 0.2 ppb. Tests in Sweden have shown that mercury carried down by rain adds to each acre of land per year about the same amount of mercury one would expect to be added by mercury-bearing seed dressing for fungal control of cereal crops. Mercury from either source is held tightly by the upper 2 inches or so of soil. SURFACE WATER, GROUND WATER, AND SEDIMENTS Contact of water with soil and rock during storm runoff, percolation into the ground, and movements under the ground where different geochemical stresses prevail, results in a natural distribution of mercury in water. The pattern of such distribution depends on the dispersion of mercury in the earth's crust and a great variety of earth processes already mentioned. Surface waters, except where they are influenced by special geologic conditions, or more recently by manmade pollution, generally con- tain less than 0.1 ppb of mercury. This reflects the relatively low concentration of mercury in rain- water and the relatively tight bonding of mercury in organic and inorganic materials over which the water passes in its travel through the environment. A recent reconnaissance of river waters in 31 states showed that (1) 65 percent of the samples tested had mercury contents below 0.1 ppb, (2) 15 percent exceeded 1.0 ppb, and (3) only 3 percent were more than 5.0 ppb--the maximum considered safe for drinking water. Higher concentrations of mercury are likely to occur in underground waters because of the longer and more intimate contact with mineral grains and other environmental factors. Limited sampling of oil-field brines in California showed them to contain from 100 to 200 ppb of mercury. Hot springs in the same state appear to range from 0.5 to 3.0 ppb, and one measurement as high as 20 ppb of mercury has been recorded for such water. Vapors issuing from fumaroles and steam condensing from hot springs also have relatively high mercury contents-as much as 6 ppb and 130 ppb, respectively. Fine- grained muds from pots and mud volcanoes in Yel- lowstone National Park yield mercury contents up to 150,000 ppb and measurements as high as 500,000 ppb have been made on enriched sédiments from springs and pools in Yellowstone. Thermal waters of this kind have probably formed mercury ore deposits in the past. Some 5,000 tons of the metal have been mined from deposits around Sul- phur Bank Spring in California. Because of mercury's tendency to sorb readily on a variety of earth materials, particulate matter sus- pended in water and bottom sediments of streams are more likely to contain high concentrations of mercury than the water itself, whatever the source may be. The best estimate is that suspended matter may contain from five to 25 times as much mercury as the water around it in areas of industrial pollu- tion. Sediments immediately downstream of mer- cury ore deposits and mercury-contaminated in- dustrial discharges may contain from a few hundred to as much as several hundred thousand parts per billion of mercury. Persistence and movement of mercury in surface streams also must be considered in evaluating envi- ronmental effects. Although a normal stream water of pH 5 to 9 saturated with mercury should contain about 25 ppb, the concentration downstream from a mercury source is likely to be much lower because of dilution, vaporization, precipitation, sorption and chemical reaction. For example, the mercury con- centration in river water near a mercury anomaly was found to decrease from 135 ppb to 0.04 ppb in 30 miles of travel, and sediment in a Wisconsin river near a source of industrial pollution had a mercury content of more than 500,000 ppb, whereas sediment 20 miles downstream from the source of pollution had a content of only 400 ppb. The tend- ency of mercury to sink rapidly and combine with sulfide in anaerobic bottom sediments to form cinna- bar, which is slightly soluble, appears to be a major scavenging mechanism. Another mechanism which keeps content of dissolved mercury low is the rela- tively high reactivity of mercury with organic sub- SUMMARY B3 stances and the resulting uptake by living and non- living organic matter. Because they serve as sediment traps and habi- tats for aquatic organisms, lakes and ponds are likely to serve as traps for mercury which enters them. The significance of such accumulations de- pends upon the solubility of the final mercury form in the particular environment. PLANTS AND ANIMALS Inorganic chemicals in soil and water are basic substances for living things. In an aquatic environ- ment, such inorganics generally are utilized by low forms of life which in turn serve as steps in the food chain for higher forms of life up the ladder to the vertebrate species, including man. Although mercury is not known to be an essential part of the food chain, it is assimilated by organisms living in environments which contain it. This process is thought to be enhanced through conversion of inor- ganic mercury by certain anerobes to methyl mer- cury, a more soluble form. However, there still is no proof that proper energy gradients exist to promote such reactions. Mercury tends to concentrate in liv- ing tissue once it has been assimilated, and there is some evidence that the extent of concentration in- creases with each step up the food chain, from plankton to fish to man. If the supply is cut off, the organism tends to purge itself of mercury, but the efficiency of recovery varies from organ to organ and organism to organism. One study of fish after 10 days of exposure to water with nonlethal concen- trations of ethyl mercury showed mercury concen- trations ranging from 4,000 ppb in muscle tissue to 22,800 ppb in the blood; almost complete elimina- tion of mercury occurred within 45 days, except for that in the liver and kidneys. Similar studies have shown concentration factors of 250 to 3,000 in algae, 1,000 to 10,000 in ocean fish, and as much as 100,000 in other forms of sea life. Birds which feed on fish combine high intake with high concentration factors to yield extreme body residues. The eagle owl is a prime example with mercury contents as high as 40,000 ppb in its feathers. There is evidence also that each step in the food chain has a certain threshold for mercury above which permanent harm to the organism may occur. In some cases, toxicity apparently is catalyzed by synergistic effects of other heavy metals, such as copper, chromium, zine and nickel. Critical levels of mercury in lower organisms, such as plankton, gen- erally are thought to be in the range of 5 to 200 ppb, although some kinds of kelp appear to have tolerance as high as 60,000 ppb. The tolerance of fish is in the range of 20 to 9,000 ppb, depending on the particular species of fish and mercury com- pound. Human tolerance has not been thoroughly in- vestigated, but is suspected to be comparatively low. Terrestrial plants, like aquatic organisms, absorb minor elements, including mercury, from the soils in which they grow at rates depending on the qual- ity of the environment and the genetic characteris- tics of the plants. Unlike aquatic organisms, there seems to be little tendency for terrestrial plants to concentrate mercury above environmental levels. Typical soils contain from 30 to 500 ppb of mercury (average about 100 ppb) and most of the plants which grow in them are likely to contain less than 500 ppb. When soil concentrations of mercury are ex- tremely high-say 40,000 ppb or more in the vicin- ity of cinnabar deposits-plants growing in them actually are likely to have mercury contents far below the level of their environment; for example 1,000 to 3,500 ppb. Even in these instances, it is primarily the plants which are rooted through the surface soil into the mercury ore which have high mercury contents; shallower rooted plants are likely to show much lower levels. A few plants apparently have unusual capacity to concentrate mercury and even to separate it in me- tallic form. Droplets of pure mercury have been found in seed capsules of members of the chickweed family and similar droplets of mercury occur under moss covers of forest floors near mercury deposits. In plants, as in animals, mercury tends to concen- trate in fatty parts so that vegetable fats are rela- tively rich in mercury whenever the metal is pres- ent in the organism. Toxicity of mereury to terrestrial plants apparently depends more on the chemical state of the element than on its concentration. Roses are so sensitive to elemental mercury that florists have learned by experience to avoid mercury thermome- ters in greenhouses for fear of breaking them and poisoning the plants. On the other hand, the same roses can be sprayed with organic mercury fungi- cide with little or no ill effects. FOSSIL FUELS Throughout eons of time, the products and resi- dues of geochemical processes and the life cycles of terrestrial and aquatic organisms have combined to yield very appreciable mercury contents and dis- tinct regional patterns in fossil fuel deposits upon which the world depends for much of its energy. Typical samples of bituminous coal from the United 4 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT States contain from 1 to 25 ppb of mercury and many anthracite coals contain from 1,200 .to 2,700 ppb. Concentrations in crude petroleum and related tarry residues are even higher. Samples from Cali- fornia crudes yield mercury values in the range of 1,900 to 21,000 ppb; related tars which have lost much of their volatile hydrocarbons are known to contain as much as 500,000 ppb. INDUSTRY The unique properties of mercury account not only for its unusual pattern and behavior in nature, but make it an attractive metal for a variety of sci- entific and industrial uses. It is estimated that the United States alone uses more than about 2,500 tons of mercury per year-about 20 percent of the world's total annual production. Current annual production in the United States is about 1,000 me/ tric tons per year primarily from mines in seven of eight western states although it occurs as a minor constitutent in other mined and processed in many states. During the past 40 years, the United States has imported more than half the mércury used. Losses to the environment of mercury and mer- cury compounds from \industrial processes in this country are estimated zit 600 tons per year and su- perimpose a significant amount of manmade pollu- tion upon the pattern established by nature. Bac- teriacides flowing down the sinks of hospitals, pesticides and fungicides leaching or eroding from agricultural land, and waste effluents from caustic- chlorine plants and other industries add waste mer- cury to the water and the air-often as point sources of pollution which are particularly trouble- some. Recent studies of an Interior Department task force revealed mercury contents of many in- dustrial outfalls and sludge banks to range from a trace to 100,000 ppb. Several spectacular instances of human poisoning 'have been reported in recent years from consumption of fish exposed to local con- centrations of mercury. The death of about 50 peo- ple from eating mercury-tainted fish from Mina- mata Bay, Japan, is the most renowned example (Minamata disease). The source of the mercury was reported to be methyl mercury in liquid outfall from a plastic manufacturing plant. Such cases of industrial contamination have led to intensified ef- fort to develop better methods of detecting mer- cury ; better systems for assessing its pattern in the environment; better understanding of its behavior, including its effects on human beings; better legisla- tion for whatever control appears to be desirable and practicable. DETECTION Although simple prospecting methods have been available for a long time, advanced analytical meth- odology and precision needed to detect the very small concentrations now thought to be significant to human health have been available for only the past few years. The Geological Survey's analytical methods have progressed from improved wet chemi- cal dithizone colorimetric method, through a series of spectrographic, atomic absorption, and activation analyses procedures, until it now is capable of measuring with confidence mercury concentrations as low as 1 part per trillion in the atmosphere and 0.1 ppb in water or earth materials. Reduced to its simplest description, the atomic absorption pro- cedure, which presently is preferred for water anal- /ysis, consists of vaporizing the mercury into the beam of an ultraviolet lamp and analyzing the light pattern which results from this spectral screening process. Activation analysis consists of bombarding the sample with neutrons in an atomic reactor to create a radioactive isotope of mercury which reads out a characteristic fingerprint of photon radiation as it undergoes decay. RECOVERY AND CLEANUP Improved analytical and surveillance techniques and intense research on behavior of mercury are making it possible for industries to recover and con- serve valuable mercury which might otherwise have escaped as waste and for environmental managers to accurately monitor that which does escape. Process improvement, waste water recycle, and a variety of byproduct recovery schemes have made it possible for many industries to trim mercury losses from hundreds of pounds per day to 1 pound per day or less. With growing awareness of the dangers of mercury pollution and increasing vigilance of our environmental monitoring, one can look to the future with considerably more optimism than was possible a year ago. UNITS AND NOTATION Throughout this publication, consistent units have been used follows : ppb (parts per billion). 1 ppb=1 pound of substance in a total of a billion pounds of material-in this case, 1 pound of mercury per billion pounds of solid or water. ppm (parts pér million). 1 ppm=1 pound of substance in a total of a million pounds of material-in this case, 1 pound of mercury per million pounds of solid or water; 1 ppm=1,000 ppb. SUMMARY 5 ug/l (micrograms per liter). Equivalent to parts per billion for concentration in the atmosphere. 1 ng/m*}~1/1,000 in dilute solution such as relatively pure water. ppb. mg/l (milligrams per liter). Equivalent to parts per million _ =>=greater than. in dilute solutions such as relatively pure water. 1 > mg/1=1,000 ug/1~1 ppm=1,000 ppb. <=less than. ng/m} (nanogram per cubic meter (of air)). Generally used - ~=approximately. SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE ON THE INORGANIC GEOCHEMISTRY OF MERCURY By MICHAEL FLEISCHER SUMMARY The mercury content of most igneous rocks is generally less than 200 ppb and probably averages less than 100 ppb, except for alkalic igneous rocks and deep-seated eclogites and kimberlites that aver- age several hundred parts per billion Hg. Rocks from a few areas in the world, notably Crimea and the Donets Basin, U.S.S.R., show extremely high contents of mercury, which makes general aver- ages of abundance of doubtful significance. Most sedimentary rocks have mercury contents less than 200 ppb Hg, except for shales, clays, and soils, for which the data show considerable varia- tion with average contents of a few hundred parts per billion Hg. Shales rich in organic matter are no- tably enriched in mercury, suggesting that some of the mercury may be present as organic complexes. The data show very high contents of mercury in a few areas of the world, including those in which the igneous rocks have high contents. Most of the analy- ses of coals are from the Donets Basin, U.S.S.R., which again have high contents of mercury; a few scattered analyses from other areas make it plausi- ble to assume the presence of low concentrations of mercury in most coals. Mercury has been reported in large amounts in petroleum from one field in Cal- ifornia. Most natural waters (ground water, river wa- ter, sea water) contain less thin 2 ppb Hg. High concentrations of mercury have been found in wa- ters from hot springs and in brines from a petro- leum field in California. Mercury is presumably dis- solved by ground waters passing over rocks and is added to waters in considerable amounts by in- dustrial wastes, notably by alkali-chlorine plants using the mercury cell method and by the paper pulp industry. The mercury is apparently removed in large part by adsorption on clays and on hydrous 6 oxides of iron and manganese, and also by algae and plankton. Mercury is present in the atmosphere, with back- ground values of less than 1 to a few nanograms (10 g) per cubic meter. Over metallic ore deposits, the content of mercury is appreciably higher. Vol- canic emanations including those of mud volcano type, have high contents of mercury, and must con- tribute a large amount of mercury to the atmos- phere. In addition to such "natural pollution," one must assume that mercury is added to the atmos- phere by the burning of coal and petroleum and very likely from stack gases of smelters treating copper, lead, and zinc ores. No data are available on the amounts added by "man-made pollution" or on the time of residence in the atmosphere of mercury from "natural" or "man-made" pollution. GENERAL GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS oF MERCURY Mercury has the atomic number 80 and atomic weight 200.59. It has seven stable isotopes with per- cent abundances 195, 0.15; 198, 10.1 ; 199, 17.0; 200, 28.8; 201, 18.2; 202, 29.6; and 204, 6.7. Mercury is generally classed as a chalcophilic element, that is, one that tends to concentrate in sulfides. There are many minerals of mercury; the commonest are the sulfides cinnabar and metacinnabar and native mer- cury. Mercury is commonly present in tetrahedrite (up to 17.6 percent in the variety schwatzite), in sphalerite (up to 1 percent), and in wurtzite (up to 0.3 percent) ; it is present in small amounts in many other sulfides and sulfosalts. The element's unu- sually high volatility accounts for its presence in the atmosphere in appreciable amounts. Its ionic radius (Hg**) is generally given as 1.06-1.12 ang- stroms, so that in the lithosphere it might be ex- pected to accompany Ba, Sr, and Ca; this probably accounts for the high amounts of mercury found in some barites, celestites, and in alkalic igneous rocks. T8 SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE T. ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MERCURY Nearly all the data available have been obtained during the past 30 years and most of it, during the past 10 years. As apparent from the summary that follows, the information available is inadequate to give a clear picture of the geochemical cycle of mer- cury or even to make accurate estimates of its abundance in common rock types. 'This is in large measure due to the difficulty of analyzing rocks, soils, waters, and air for the very small amounts of mercury present, generally in parts per billion or parts per million. Many methods have been used for the determina- tion of these small amounts of mercury. Among them are the spectrographic method (usually with a sensitivity of 100 ppb, and extended to 10 ppb in improved procedures), separation of mercury by distillation followed by determination by measure- ment of the collected mercury globule or by a colori- metric method (the latter used in most of the analy- ses in the U.S.S.R.), separation by extraction and colorimetric determination, neutron activation anal- ysis, and atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Comparative data on precision and accuracy are available only for the last two methods. (See table 1.*) Comparison of the data published by many in- vestigators indicates that the methods give results comparable to better than a factor of 5 and, hence, the averages are within an order of magnitude of the true values. An even greater difficulty is that of weighting the results available. It is now well established that ore deposits of heavy metals, such as copper, lead, and zinc, are surrounded by aureoles in which notable enrichment in mercury has occurred; this is now a recognized method of prospecting for ore deposits. (See, for example, Friedrich and Hawkes (1966), James (1962), Ozerova (1962), Saukov (1946), and Warren and others (1966).) As a result, it is necessary to discriminate between normal samples and those from mineralized areas. A further problem is that the data show very clearly that some areas in the world (notably the Donets Basin, Kerch-Taman area, and Crimea, U.S.S.R.) show extremely high mercury contents in nearly all the rocks analyzed (100 times normal contents or more). The reasons for this are not yet known and it is not known how many such areas there may be. *Tables are in the back of the report. MERCURY IN IGNEOUS ROCKS Analyses of basalts, gabbros, diabases, andesites, dacites, and rhyolitic rocks are given in table 2; analyses of granitic rocks are given in table 3. Most of these show contents of less than 200 ppb Hg and the average content is probably less than 100 ppb. The two recent analyses of ultramafic rocks in table 4 show less than 10 ppb Hg. The data show no clear-cut differences between the mafic and the si- licic igneous rocks, although there is a slight sugges- tion that the silicic rocks have somewhat higher contents. Two types of igneous rocks-deep-seated eclogites and kimberlites (table 4) and the alkalic rocks (table 5) -shows markedly higher contents of mer- cury, with averages of several hundred parts per billion~-Hg. Analyses of the individual minerals of alkalic rocks show fairly uniform distribution of mercury in the main rock-forming minerals, and high concentrations in some of the accessory miner- als of high calcium, strontium, and barium contents (sphene, aegirine, lamprophyllite). Similar studies have not been made of the individual minerals of eclogites or kimberlites. The foregoing picture is greatly complicated by the fact that analyses of all types of rocks from cer- tain areas (notably in Crimea and the Donets Basin) show extremely high contents of mercury (up to 100 times as much as those of tables 3 and 4). These analyses have therefore been separated in table 6. It is possible that these high values repre- sent analytical error, but this seems unlikely be- cause one of the laboratories reporting them has also reported low "normal" values for similar rocks from other areas (table 3). The two areas have some mercury mineralization; they also are near areas of mud volcanoes that could have been sources of considerable amounts of mercury. (See "Mercury in sedimentary rocks and soils.") It should be noted that basaltic and andesitic lavas from Kamchatka and the Kurile Islands (table 2) have somewhat higher than average contents of mercury. These are, however, far less than many of the contents re- ported in table 6, even though the volcanic activity of this area also contributes considerable amounts of mercury. MERCURY IN METAMORPHIC ROCKS The few analyses available of mercury in meta- morphic rocks (table 7) show the same wide varia- tion as the analyses of sedimentary rocks. (See "Mercury in sedimentary rocks and soils.") Two series of analyses (Ozerova and Aidin'yan, 19662, 1966b) showed little variation of mercury content 8 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT with grade of metamorphism ; this was contrary to the expectation that high-grade metamorphism would cause mercury to be driven out of the rocks. MERCURY IN SEDIMENTARY ROCKS AND SOILS Analyses are collected of limestones (table 8), sandstones (table 9), shales and clays (table 10), miscellaneous sediments (table 11), oceanic and la- custrine sediments (table 12), and soils (table 13). Except for the areas that showed high contents in igneous rocks, nearly all analyses of limestones and sandstones gave less than 200 ppb Hg, with aver- ages perhaps of 30 to 50 ppb Hg. The analyses from the Donets Basin and Crimea show much higher contents of mercury (up to 100 times). Considerable variation is shown by the analyses of shales and clays; again samples from Crimea, the Donets Basin, and the Kerch Peninsula are anoma- lously high. It has been suggested that these rocks might have been enriched in mercury by accumula- tion of the exhalations of mud volcanoes (tables 10, 11, 13, 15). The data of table 11 and table 12 sug- gest that mercury is enriched in sedimentary Fe and Mn ores, perhaps by adsorption or coprecipita- tion. Bituminous shales are notably richer in mer- cury than other shales, suggesting the possibility that mercury may be present as some form of or- ganic complex. The analyses of soils in table 13 are similar in general range to those of shales and clays. High val- ues in soils above mineralized zones have been re- ported by many investigators. It has been suggested that the widespread use of organic mercury com- pounds as seed fungicides has increased the content of mercury in cultivated soils, but no data on this have been found. MERCURY IN COAL AND PETROLEUM The data on coals (table 16) are unrepresenta- tive. Stock and Cucuel (1934a) found 1.2 to 25 ppb Hg (average, 12 ppb) in 11 coals. Brandenstein, Janda, and Schroll (1960) found 1,200 and 2,700 ppb Hg in two anthracites ; the remaining 117 sam- ples contained less than 1,000 ppb Hg. Headlee and Hunter (1953) reported <100,000 to 260,000 ppb Hg (average, 120,000 ppb) in the ashes of coals from West Virginia (ash content not given). About 1,000 samples from the Donets Basin, U.S.S.R., have been analyzed (Dvornikov, 1963, 1965, 1967a, 19676, 1968; Bol'shakov, 1964; Karasik, Vasilev'skaya, Pe- trov, and Ratekhin, 1962; Ozerova, 1962; and Tkach, 1966). This is an area with high contents of mercury in all the igneous and sedimentary rocks and in which commercial mercury ores occur closely associated with coals. Background values for coals not closely associated with mineralization are var- iously stated by these authors as 200, 400, and 700 ppb Hg, but very much higher values (up to 300,000 ppb) have been reported from coal in lenses in mercury deposits. Analyses show that the mer- cury is mostly concentrated in iron sulfides in the coal deposits; the mercury is generally considered to be epigenetic and not syngenetic in origin. However, Shcherbakov, Dvornikov, and Zakrenichnaya (1970) found that much of the mercury in these coals is present as organic compounds and suggest that the mercury is syngenetic. The only analyses of petroleum for mercury are those of Bailey, Snavely, and White (1961), who found 1,900 to 2,900 ppb Hg in petroleum from the Cymric field, California. MERCURY IN NATURAL WATERS The available data on mercury in natural waters are given in table 14. Most contain tenths of a part per billion to a few parts per billion. Insufficient data are given to permit assessment of the contribu- tion of contamination. The mercury content of At- lantic Ocean waters is stated to increase with the amount of suspended material. The suspended mat- ter of three samples of river waters contained 0.03 to 0.2 percent Hg, according to Kvashnevskaya and Shablovskaya (1963), but the proportions of mer- cury in solution and in suspension are not stated. The high contents recorded for brines associated with a petroleum field and in a geothermal well are noteworthy. Data on some hot springs associated with volcanism are discussed later. According to Aidin'yan and Belavskaya (1963), appreciable amounts of mercury can go into solu- tion when ground waters react with cinnabar or other mercury minerals, but this is removed almost completely when the solution is passed over mud- stones. This is in accord with data of Dall'Aglio (1968) and with the experiments of Krauskopf (1956), who showed that mercury is removed al- most quantitatively from sea water by adsorption on Fe(OH); or clay; the analyses of oceanic man- ganese nodules (table 12) and of Mn ores (table 11) suggest that hydrous manganese oxides also act as collectors of mercury. It has long been known that some hot springs de- posit cinnabar and metacinnabar ; the conditions of formation have been discussed by White (1955), Tunell (1964), and by Ozerova and others (1969). In addition to the data in table 15, White (1955) quotes a report of 3,200 ppb Hg in hot spring water SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE 9 from New Zealand, and White and Roberson (1962) report 20 and 200 ppb Hg in hot springs at Sulphur Bank, Calif.; but most such waters that have been analyzed did not contain detectable amounts of mer- cury. Industrial pollution, notably by alkali-chlorine plants using the mercury cell method and by the paper pulp industry, has been referred to exten- sively in recent newspaper accounts. The mercury is apparently removed in large part by adsorption on clayey sediments and on hydrous oxides of iron and manganese and also by algae and plankton. MERCURY IN THE ATMOSPHERE The available data are given in table 15. The low- est figures presumably represent unpolluted air, which apparently contains less than 1 to perhaps 10 ng/m Hg. "Natural pollution" caused by the volatil- ity of mercury from ore deposits of mercury or base metals gave values up to 62 ng/m. It is evi- dent, however, that much higher concentrations and very large amounts of mercury reach the atmos- phere from volcanic emanations, including those from mud volcanoes. The effects of industrial pollution probably ac- count for the highest figures reported in table 15 for air from California, the Chicago area, and the Moscow-Tula region. The most probable source is the burning of coal and perhaps of petroleum. An- other probable source is from metal smelters. It is well known that ores of lead, zinc, copper, and others metals are enriched in mercury and it seems likely that much of the mercury present escapes from the stacks during smelting operations. No data are available, however, either on the amounts of mer- cury discharged or on its time of residence in the atmosphere. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY [The original papers were seen except for those marked with an asterisk(*)] Abuev, D. V., Divakov, K. S., and Rad'ko, V. I., 1965, Mer- cury in some neo-intrusives of the area of Caucasus mineral springs: Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd. 7 (6), p. 101-103 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 64, p. 7884, 1966. Spectrographic analyses gave average contents of 90, 700, 4,000, and 5,000 ppb Hg in four granosyenite por- phyry intrusives. Argillaceous marls contained 10 to 8,000 ppb Hg. Afanas'ev, G. D., and Aidin'yan, N. Kh., 1961, Preliminary data on the distribution of mercury in rocks of the Northern Caucasus: Akad. Nauk SSSR Izvest., Ser. Geol. 1961 (7), p. 101-104 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 56, p. 12586, 1962. Analyses of 23 igneous rocks are given. Aidin'yan, N. Kh., 1962, Content of mercury in some natu- ral waters: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Trudy Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim. 70, p. 9-14 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 57, p. 16336, 1962. Colorimetric analyses gave 0.4 to 2.8 ug/l Hg (avg, 1.1 ug/l) in 24 rivers, European SSSR. Fourteen waters from seas and oceans gave 0.7 to 2.0 ug/l Hg (avg, 1.3 ug/1). 1963, The content of mercury in some waters of the Armenian SSR: Akad. Nauk Armyan. SSR Izv., Ser. Geol. i Geog. Nauk 16 (2), p. 73-75 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 59, p. 7237, 1963. Waters from six rivers contained 1-2 ug/l Hg; one contained 20 ug/l Hg. Aidin'yan, N. Kh., and Belavskaya, G. A., 1963, The problem of supergene migration of mercury: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Trudy Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim. 99, p. 12-15 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 59, p. 8471, 1963. Solutions passed over cinnabar dissolved appreciable amounts of Hg. This was removed almost completely by passing the solutions through mudstones. Aidin'yan, N. Kh., Mogarovskii, V. V., and Mel'nichenko, A. K., 1969, Geochemistry of mercury in the granitic rocks of the Gissar pluton, central Tadzhikistan: Geokhimiya, p. 221-224; translation in Geochemistry In- ternat. 6, p. 154-158, 1969. Analyses of 64 granites and granodiorites gave 10-75 ppb Hg (avg, 30 ppb Hg). *Aidin'yan, N. Kh., and Ozerova, N. A., 1964, Geochemistry of mercury during volcanism: Problemy Vulkanizma (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii Dal'nevost. Kn. Izd.) Sbor- nik, p. 30-32 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 63, p. 2795, 1965. / See Ozerova and Unanova (1965). 1966, Some genetic features of the formation of mer- cury-containing mineralization from the study of con- temporary volcanic activity: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim., Ocherki Geokhim. Endogenn. i Gipergenn. Protsessov 1966, p. 87-92 (in Russian). Analyses are given of many volcanic gases, hot springs, and solfataric minerals from Kamchatka and the Kurile Islands. *Aidin'yan, N. Kh., and Ozerova, N. A., 1968, Geochemis- try of mercury: Problemy Geokhim. Kosmol. 1968, p. 160-165 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 70 (7), p. 143, 1969. A review. Aidin'yan, N. Kh., Ozerova, N. A., and Gipp, S. K., 1963, The problem of the distribution of mercury in contempo- rary sediments: Akad. Nauk SSR, Trudy Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim. 99, p. 5-11 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 59, p. 7262, 1963. Analyses are given of Atlantic Ocean waters, 0.4-1.6 ug/l Hg (avg, 1.2 ug/l). The Hg content increases with increasing amount of suspended matter. Many analyses of oceanic sediments are given. 10 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT Aidin'yan, N. Kh., Shilin, L. L., and Belavskaya, G. A., 1963, The distribution of mercury in rocks and minerals of the Khibiny massif: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Trudy Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim. 99, p. 16-25 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 59, p. 7261, 1963. Analyses of 179 alkalic rocks gave 830-4,000 ppb Hg (avg, 530 ppb Hg). Analyses of many minerals are given. Aidin'yan, N. Kh., Shilin, L. L., and Unanova, O. G., 1966, Contents of mercury in rocks and minerals of the Lo- vozero massif: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim., Ocherki Geo- khim. Endogenn. i Gipergenn. Protsessov 1966, p. 14-19 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 66, p. 5475, 1967. Analyses of 640 alkalic rocks gave an average content of 278 ppb Hg. Analyses of 35 minerals are given. Aidin'yan, N. Kh., Troitskii, A. I., and Balavskaya, G. A., 1964, Distribution of mercury in various soils of the U.S.S.R. and Vietnam: Geokhimiya, p. 654-659; transla- tion in Geochemistry Internat. 4, p. 670-675, 1964. Analyses are given of 130 soils from seven profiles in European SSSR and 14 profiles of Vietnam. *Anderssen, Arne, 1967, Mercury in the soil: Grundforbat- tring, 20, p. 95-105 (in Swedish); Chem. Abs. 69, p. 4777, 1968. Analyses of 273 soils from Sweden average 60 ppb Hg and 14 soils from Africa average 23 ppb Hg. Baev, V. G., 1968, Distribution of mercury in natural waters of the southern slopes of northwestern Caucasus: Akad Nauk. SSSR Doklady 181, p. 1249-1251 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 69, p. 8395, 1968. Averages of about 7,000 waters in an area of 1,100 sq km gave for surface waters 0.27-0.68 ug/l Hg and for subsurface waters 0.25-1.25 ug/l. Bailey, E. H., Snavely, P. D., Jr., and White, D. E., 1961, Chemical analyses of brines and crude oil, Cymric field, Kern County, California: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 424-D, p. D806-D309. Six analyses of crude oil showed 1,900-2,900 ppb Hg; associated brines contained 100-400 ppb Hg. Bol'shakov, A. P., 1964, The role of coal in ore deposition at the Nikitovskoye quicksilver deposit: Geokhimiya, p. 477-480; translation in Geochemistry Internat. 3, p. 459- 462, 1964. High contents of Hg were found in coals and associ- ated shales and sandstones in a mercury ore deposit. Analyses are given. Bostrom, Kurt, and lFisher, D. E., 1969, Distribution of mer- cury in east Pacific sediments: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta 33, p. 748-745. Oceanic sediments contained 1-400 ppb Hg (carbon- ate-free basis). Brandenstein, M., Janda, I., and Schroll, E., 1960, Rare ele- ments in German coals and bituminous rocks: Tscher- maks Mineralog. u. Petrog. Mitt. 7, p. 260-285 (in German). Two of 119 samples contained more than 1,000 ppb Hg (limit of sensitivity of spectrographic method used ). Brar, S. S., Nelson, D. M., Kanabrocki, E. L., Moore, C. E., Gurnham, C. D., and Hattori, D. M., 1969, Thermal neu- tron activation analysis of airborne particulate matter in Chicago Metropolitan area: Natl. Bur. Standards Spec. Pub. 312, v. 1, p. 48-54. Analyses for Hg in air were made at 22 stations. Bulkin, G. A., 1962, The geochemistry of mercury in the Cri- mean highlands: Geokhimiya, p. 1079-1087; translation in Geochemistry, p. 1219-1230, 1962. Analyses are given of 68 igneous rocks and more than 500 sedimentary rocks; they are very high in mercury. Buturlinov, N. V., and Korchemagin, V. A., 1968, Mercury in magmatic rocks of the Donets Basin: Geokhimiya, p. 640-644 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 69, p. 1990, 1968. Analyses of 98 igneous rocks showed 60-4,700 ppb Hg (avg, 55 ppb Hg). Dall' Aglio, M., 1968, The abundance of mercury in 300 natu- ral water samples from Tuscany and Latium (central Italy), in Origin and distribution of the elements: Inter- nat. Earth Sci. Ser. Mon., v. 30, p. 1065-1081. Analyses are given of 300 samples from surface and spring waters. Most analyses are in the range 0.01-0.05 ppb Hg, but waters draining areas of mercury minerali- zation contain up to 136 ppb Hg; the mercury contents decrease rapidly downstream, indicating absorption of mercury by alluvium. Donnell, J. R., Tailleur, I. L., and Tourtelot, H. A., 1967, Alaskan oil shale: Colo. School of Mines Quart., 62 (3) p. 39-43. Two oil shales contained 630-2,800 ppb Hg. Dvornikov, A. G., 1963, Characteristics of aureole distribu- tion of mercury in soils and coals of the southeastern part of the Donets Basin: Akad. Nauk SSSR Doklady 150, p. 894-897 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 59, p. 7245, 1963. Analyses of 248 soils showed <50-10,000 ppb Hg (avg, 300 ppb Hg); 206 coals contained 50-10,000 ppb Hg (avg, 1,100 ppb Hg). Mercury deposits are known in the area. 1965, Distribution of mercury, arsenic and antimony in rocks of the Bokovo-Khrustal'sk ore (Donets Basin): Geokhimiya, p. 695-705 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 63, p. 5399, 1965. Graphs show the variation of Hg content (very high) in sediment associated with Hg ore deposits. 1967a, Some features of mercury-containing coals of the eastern Donbass (Rostov region): Akad. Nauk SSSR Doklady 172, p. 199-202 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 66, p. 5450, 1967. Analyses of 756 coals showed 20 to 20,000 ppb Hg. 1967b, The distribution of mercury in anthracites of the Bokovo-Khrustalnaya basin (Donbass) : Akad. Nauk SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE 11 RSR Dopovidi, Ser. B., 29, p. 298-298 (in Ukrainian) ; Chem. Abs. 56, p. 5298, 1967. Analyses showed 100 to 7,000 ppb Hg, which was con- centrated in the iron sulfides. 1968, Some features of geochemical anomalies in coals in the endogenic aureole of dispersion of the Nikitovy mercury deposits: Akad. Nauk Ukrayin. RSR Dopo- vidi, Ser. B., 1968 (8), p 732-735 (in Ukrainian) ; Chem. Abs. 70, p. 145, 1969. Analyses of coals associated with a mercury deposit showed 100 to 300,000 ppb Hg (avg, 46,000 ppb Hg). Dvornikov, A. G., and Klitchenko, M. A., 1964, The distribu- tion of mercury in intrusive rocks of the Nagolnyi Ridge: Akad. Nauk Ukrayin, RSR Dopovidi, p. 1354-1357 (in Ukrainian); Chem. Abs. 62, p. 3841, 1965. Camptonite and plagiogranite in an area of mercury deposits contained 3,000-7,000 ppb Hg. Shale of the area averaged 50 ppb Hg; sandstone, 800 ppb Hg. Dvornikov, A. G., and Petrov, V. Ya., 1961, Some data on the mercury content in soils of the Nagolnyi Mt. Range: Geokhimiya, p. 920-925; translation in Geochemistry p. 1021-1028, 1961. Analyses of 131 soils in five profiles over a mercury deposit (avg, 1,300 ppb Hg). Ehmann, W. D., and Lovering, J. F., 1967, The abundance of mercury in meteorites and rocks by neutron activation analysis: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta 31, p. 357-376. Many analyses are given. Noteworthy are the high contents reported for eclogites and kimberlites. Friedrich, G. H., and Hawkes, H. E., 1966, Mercury disper- sion haloes as ore guides for massive sulfide deposits, West Shasta district, California: Mineralium Deposita 1, p. 77-88. Analyses are given of traverses from nonmineralized ground across the ore body. Golovnya, S. V., and Volobuev, M. I. 1970, Distribution of mercury in granitic rocks of the Yenisei Range; Geokhi- miya, p. 256-261 (in Russian). Analyses of 70 samples gave am average of 28 ppb Hg. *Hamaguchi, Hiroshi, Kuroda, Rokuro, and Hosohara, Kyoi- chi, 1961, Photometric determination of traces of mer- cury in sea water: Nippon Kagaku Azsshi 82, p. 347-349 (in Japanese) ; Chem. Abs. 55, p. 15222, 1961. Analyses of waters from the Ramapo Deep, Pacific Ocean, gave 0.08-0.15 ug/l Hg (avg, 0.1 ug/l Hg). Harriss, R. C., 1968, Mercury content of deep-sea manganese nodules: Nature, v. 219 (5149), p. 54-55; Chem. Abs. 69, p. 4318, 1968. Analyses are given of 14 samples from the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. Headlee, A. J. W., and Hunter, R. G., 1953, Elements in coal ash and their industrial significance: Industrial Engi- neering Chemistry, v. 45, p. 548-551. Analyses of 596 samples from 16 seams, West Vir- ginia, showed <100 to 260 ppb in the coal ash (ash con- tent not given). Heide, F., and Bohm, G., 1957, The geochemistry of mercury: Chemie Erde, v. 19, p. 198-204 (in German); Chem. Abs. 52, p. 2685, 1958. Analyses are given of 14 limestones, three clays, Saale River water, Elbe River water, and sea water. Heide, F., Lerz, H., and Bohm, G., 1957, Content of lead and mercury in the Saale: Naturwissenschaften, v. 16, p. 441-442 (in German) ; Chem. Abs. 52, p. 9490, 1958. Analyses are given of eight samples of the Saale River and one sample of the Elbe River. *Hosohara, Kyoichi, 1961, Mercury content of deep-sea water: Nippon Kagaku Zasshi 82, p. 1107-1108 (in Jap- anese) ; Chem. Abs. 56, p. 4535, 1962. Analyses of four samples from the Ramapo Deep, Pa- cific Ocean gave 0.15-0.27 ug/l Hg. *Hosohara, Kyoichi, Kozuma, Hirotaka, Kawasaki, Katsu- hiko, and Tsuruta, Tokumatsu, 1961, Total mercury content in sea water: Nippon Kagaku Zasshi 82, p. 1479-1480 (in Japanese); Chem. Abs. 56, p. 5766, 1962. Waters of Minamata Bay, Kyushu, contained 1.6-3.6 ug/l Hg. Plankton contained 3,500-19,000 ppb Hg. *Ishikura, Shunji, and Shibuya, Chieko, 1968, Analysis of mercury in fish and soils from the Agano River, Japan:" Eisei Kagaku 14, p. 228-230 (in Japanese); Chem. Abs. 70, p. 234, 1969. Analyses of soil, waters of the Agano River, and of fishes are given. James, C. H., 1962, A review of the geochemistry of mercury (excluding analytical aspects) and its application to geochemical prospecting: Imperial Coll. Sci. Technol., Geochem. Prospecting Research Centre Techn. Comm., (41); p. 1-42. A review. Jovanovic, S., and Reed, G. W., 1968, Mercury in meta- morphic rocks: Geochem. et Cosmochim. Acta 32, p. 341-346. Analyses are given of 14 pelitic schists, Vermont, one gabbro, Quebec, and one amphibolite, Quebec. Karasik, M. A., and Goncharov, Yu. I., 1963, Mercury in Lower Permian sediments of the Donets Basin: Akad. Nauk SSSR Doklady 150, p. 898-901 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 59, p. 7261, 1963. Analyses are given of 77 sandstones (avg, 870 ppb Hg), 55 clays and shales (avg, 660 ppb Hg), and 71 evaporites (avg, 700 ppb Hg). Karasik, M. A., Goncharov, Yu. I., and Vasilevskaya, A. E., 1965, Mercury in mineralized waters and brines from the Permian halogen formations in the Donets Basin: Geok- himiya, p. 117-121; translation in Geochemistry Internat. 2, p. 82-86, 1965. Analyses of 26 waters from evaporite beds showed <1 to 8.5 ug/l Hg, except for one sample with 220 ug/l Hg. 12 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT Karasik, M. A., and Morozov, V. I., 1966, Distribution of mercury in the products of mud volcanism in the Kerch-Taman Province: Geokhimiya, p. 668-678; trans- lation in Geochemistry Internat. 3, p. 497-507, 1966. Analyses are given of 156 clay rocks and 223 soils from an area of mud volcanoes; the rocks are very high in Hg. Karasik, M. A., Vasilev'skaya, A. E., Petrov, V. Ya., and Ratekhin, E. A., 1962, Distribution of mercury in coals of the central and Donets-Makeevka regions of the Do- nets Basin: Akad. Nauk Ukrayin. RSR Geol, Zhurn. 22, (2), p. 53-61 (in Ukrainian); Chem. Abs. 57, p. 2513, 1962. Ranges of Hg content are given for 488 coals; about half are well above background. Krainov, S. R., Volkov, G. A., and Korol'kova, M. Kh., 1966, Distribution and mode of migration of the trace ele- ments Zn, Cu, Hg, Li, Rb, Cs, As, and Ge: Geokhimiya, p. 180-196; translation in Geochemistry Internat. 3, p. 108-123, 1966. Analyses of waters in the Elbrus volcanic region showed <0.5 to 80 ug/l Hg; most samples had 1 ug/l Hg or less. Krauskopf, K. B., 1956, Factors controlling the concentra- tions of thirteen rare metals in sea-water: Geochim. et. Cosmochim. Acta 9, p. 1-32B. Experiments show that Hg may be removed from sea water by adsorption on Fe (OH)s or clay, or by take-up by plankton. *Kurmanaliev, K. K., 1967, Presence of mercury in Cambrian formations of Madygen village, southern Feighana: Rasseyan. Elim. Osad. Form. Tyan-Shanya 1967, p. 122-124 (in Russian); Chem. Abs., v. 68, p. 502, 1968. Average Hg contents are given for sandstones and schists. Kvashnevskaya,;, N. V., and Shablovskaya, E. I., 1963, Study of the contents of ore elements in the suspended matter of river systems: Akad. Nauk SSSR Doklady 151, p. 426-429 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 59, p. 12506, 1963. Hg was detected and determined in the suspended matter of three of the 48 samples tested from Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tadzhikistan, and Uzbekistan. Landstrom, O., Samsahl, K., and Wenner, C. G., 1969, An in- vestigation of trace elements in marine and lacustrine deposits by means of a neutron activation method: Natl. Bur. Standards Spec. Pub. 312, v. 1, 853-866. Analyses are given of two lake sediments and two sea sediments. McCarthy, J. H., Jr., Vaughn, W. W., Learned, R. E., and Meuschke, J. L., 1969, Mercury in soil gas and air-a potential tool in mineral exploration: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 609, 16 p. Analyses of air showed four to six times normal back- ground content in the air over two porphyry copper de- posits; seven to 13 times normal background content in air over two mercury deposits. Morozov, V. I., 1965, Mercury in Cenozoic Deposits of the Kerch Peninsula: Akad. Nauk SSSR Doklady 163, p. 209-211 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 63, p. 11187, 1965. Analyses are given of 194 clay rocks and of 264 soils in an area of mud volcanoes. Contents of Hg are high. Nekrasov, I. Ya., and Timofeeva, M. A., 1963, Mercury in rocks and minerals of northeastern Yakutia: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Trudy Yakutsk Filial Sibirsk Otdel, Ser. Geol. 16, p. 23-38 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 59, p. 15069, 1963. Analyses are given of 41 limestones, sandstones, and shales; 21 effusive rocks, 150 intrusive rocks, and many minerals. Nikiforov, N. A., Aidin'yan, N. Kh., and Kusevich, V. I., 1966, The content of mercury in Paleozoic sedimentary rocks of southern Ferglana: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim., Ocherki Geokhim. Endogenn. i Gipergenn. Protsessov 1966, p. 294-296 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 66, p. 5475, 1967. Average contents of Hg were determined for shales, sandstones, and limestones in unaltered rocks, in rocks near large fractures, and in areas of mercury minerali- zation. &+ Ozerova, N. A. 1962, Primary aureoles of dispersion of mer- cury: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Trudy Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mes- torozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim. 72, p. 1-185 (in Russian). A review, with many new analyses of minerals, ig- neous rocks, and shales from ore-bearing areas. Ozerova, N. A., and Aidin'yan, N. Kh., 19662, Distribution of mercury in sedimentary rocks: Litol i Polezn. Iskop. 1966, (3), p. 49-57; translation in Lithology and Min- eral Resources, p. 312-318, 1966. Analyses of 500 sedimentary rocks are given. 1966b, Mercury in sedimentary processes: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineral., Geokhim., Ocherki Geokhim. Endogenn. i Gipergenn. Protsessov 1966, p. 211-237 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 66, p. 5475, 1967. A review. Ozerova, N. A., Aidin'yan, N. Kh., Dobrovol'skaya, M. G., Shpetalenko, M. A., Martynova, A. F., Zubov, V. I., and Laputina, I. P., 1969, Contemporary mercury ore forma- tion in the Mendeleey Volcano, Kurile Islands: Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd. 11 (5), p. 17-83 (in Russian). Analyses are given of lavas, opalite, and iron sulfides from cinnabar-containing altered dacites in a solfatara area. Ozerova, N. A., and Unanova, O. G., 1965, The distribution of mercury in lavas of active volcanoes in Kamchatka and the Kurile Islands: Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd. 7, (1), p. 58-74 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 62, p. 12982, 1965. SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE 13 Analyses are given of 63 basalts, 209 andesites, and two dacites. *Panov, B. S., 1959, Mercury in volcanic rocks of the south- western district of the Donets Basin: Donets Ind. Inst. Trudy 37, p. 149-152 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 55, p. 9192, 1961. Analyses of five effusive rocks show very high con- tents of Hg. Preuss, E., 1940, Spectrographic methods. II. Determination of Zn, Cd, Hg, In, Tl, Ge, Sn, Pb, Sb, and Bi by frac- tional distillation: Zeitschr. Angew. Mineralogie 8, p. 8-20 (in German). Analyses are given of composite samples of gabbros, granites, shales, and sandstones. Saukov, A. A., 1946, Geochemistry of mercury: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Trudy Inst. Geol. Nauk 78, p. 1-129 (in Rus- sian. A review. *Shabalin, V. V., and Solov'eva, V. V., 1967, Distribution of mercury in Cambrian formations of the Dzetym-Too Ridge: Rasseyan. Elem. Osad. Form. Tyan-Shanya 1967, p. 103-108 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 68, p. 502, 1968. Analyses of five series of sedimentary rocks. Shcherbakov, V. P., Dvornikov, A. G., and Zakrenichnaya, G. L., 1970, New data on the forms in which mercury oc- curs in coals of the Donets Basin: Akad. Nauk Ukrayin RSR Dopovidi, Ser. B, 82 (2), p. 126-130 (in Ukrain- ian) ; Chem. Abs. 73 (4), p. 180, 1970. A considerable part of the Hg present in these coals is present as organic compounds, in part humic acids. Skinner, B. J., White, D. E., Rose, H. J., Jr., and May, R. E., 1967, Sulfides associated with the Salton Sea geo- thermal brine: Econ. Geology, v. 62, p. 316-330. A brine contained 6 ppb Hg. Stock, Alfred, and Cucuel, Friedrich, 19342, The distribution of mercury: Naturwissenschaften, v. 22, p. 390-393 (in German) ; Chem. Abs. 28, p. 7086, 1934. Analyses are given of igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks, soils, coals, waters, and air. Stock, Alfred, and Cucuel, Friedrich, 1984b, The determina- tion of the mercury content of air: Deut. Chem. Ges., Ber., 67B, p. 122-127 (in German). Analyses showed 8 ng/m} Hg in two samples of uncon- taminated air. *Tkach, B. I., 1966, Geochemical characteristics of the distri- bution of mercury in coal beds of the Lisichansk area, Donets Basin: Geokhimiya, p. 610-616 (in Russian) ; Chem. Abs. 65, p. 5257, 1966. Analyses of coals indicate that the Hg was introduced and not syngenetic. Tunell, George, 1964, Chemical processes in the formation of mercury ores and ores of mercury and antimony: Geo- chem. et Cosmochim. Acta 28, p. 1019-1037. A discussion, including the deposition of mercury sul- fides from hot springs. 1968, The geochemistry of mercury, in Handbook eof chemistry: Berlin, Springer Verlag, 65 p. (In press). A review. Warren, H. V., Delavault, R. E., and Barakso, John, 1966, Some observations on the geochemistry of mercury as applied to prospecting: Econ. Geology, v. 61, p. 1018-1028. Analyses are given of soils and vegetation in trav- erses from unmineralized to mineralized areas. White, D. E., 1955, Thermal springs and epithermal ore de- posits: Econ. Geology, 50th anniversary volume, p. 99-154. A review. White, D. E., and Roberson, C. E., 1962, Sulphur Bank, Calif., a major hot spring quicksilver deposit: Geol. Soc. Am., Buddington volume, p. 397-428. Description, with analyses of hot springs depositing mercury sulfides. *Wikander, Lambert, 1968, Mercury in ground and river water: Grundforbaettring 21, p. 151-155 (in Swedish) ; Chem. Abs. 70, (7), p. 208, 1969. Analyses are given of 86 waters drained from culti- vated soils and of four river waters; 38 samples showed 0.02-0.07 ug/l Hg (avg, 0.05 ug/l Hg), two showed 0.2 ug/l. Williston, S. H., 1968, Mercury in the atmosphere: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 73, p. 7051-7055. Analyses of air from California. Most soils have 20-40 ppb Hg, but some have 100-200 ppb, even in ap- parently unmineralized areas. Zautashvili, B. Z., 1966, The problem of mercury hydro- geochemistry, as illustrated by the mercury deposits of Abkhazia: Geokhimiya, p. 857-362 (in Russian); Chem. Abs. 64, p. 17267, 1966. Ground waters of the region and mine waters were low in Hg (<0.5-5 ug/l). MERCURY CONTENT OF ROCKS, SOILS, AND STREAM SEDIMENTS By A. P. PIERCE, J. M. BOTBOL, and R. E. LEARNED | Mercury is routinely determined in U.S. Geologi- cal Survey laboratories with atomic absorption equipment developed by Vaughn (1967). An inde- pendent check by J. H. McCarthy, Jr., of this method against the method of neutron activation is summarized below: Determination of mercury in parts per billion in U.S. Geological Survey rock standards Standard rock No. | Investigator Method G-2 GSP-1 AGV-1 PCd—l DTS-1 - BCR-1 J. H. McCarthy (in Flanagan, 1969). Atomic absorption 50 15 15 10. 8 5 Bhmann and Lovering (1967). Neutron activation 39 21 4 4 4 7 With the possible exception of standard rock AGV-1, the analyses with two entirely independent methods compare remarkably well, especially con- sidering the rather low mercury content of the rocks. We have tabulated statistics on mercury content of rocks, soils, and sediments as determined by the atomic absorption method, from three readily avail- able sources: analytical data that are computer stored and that are immediately available for proc- essing, data that have already been published, and data that are in the process of publication and have limited computer availability. All three sources of information contributed to the compilation of table 17 (in the back of this report) in which statistics for about 25,000 samples from 32 areas are listed. Areas represented in table 17 are located in the cen- tral and western conterminous United States, in Alaska, and in Puerto Rico. The bulk of the samples were collected in order to test for the presence of anomalous concentrations of metals in surface ma- terials. A wide range from <10 to 6,000 ppb mercury, is seen in the modal mercury values listed in table 17. This variability indicates that levels of natural mer- cury concentrations, or abundance, are relatively complex functions of geologic conditions and that criteria for either mercury mineralization or abnor- mal mercury contamination should be evaluated sep- arately in any single area of interest. The modal mercury values canvassed in table 17 also indicate that mercury tends to occur most fre- 14 quently at certain concentrations. For example, modes at about 50 ppb and at about 200 ppb are es- pecially common. The tendency may be identified both with sample type and with the effects of spe- cific geologic processes, occurring at or near the surface in the area sampled. The common occur- rence of mercury ores in concentrations of about 0.1 to 0.8 percent. mercury (1,000 to 8,000 ppm) (Lover- ing, 1969, p. 115) may be another instance of this tendency, although it represents the effects of geo- logic processes operating under rare geothermal conditions. The percentile ranges of mercury distributions for the first 13 areas listed in table 17 (see also fig. 1) indicate that far less than 20 percent of the rock samples and stream-sediment samples have concen- trations greater than 1,000 ppb mercury. For rocks and stream sediments the upper limit of the ranges of 90th percentiles indicate that any mercury values greater than 1,000 ppb are considered worthy of further investigation as possible results of (1) mer- cury mineralization processes or (2) surface con- tamination by mercury-bearing wastes. Statistics for only four sets of soil samples are available, and these suggest a background value of 500 ppb mercury for soils in Western United States. These critical values are generalized estimates based on the data in table 17. As mentioned pre- viously, firm criteria for determination of anoma- lous mercury values should be evaluated individu- ally for each area of interest. ROCKS, SOILS, AND STREAM SEDIMENTS 15 108 T T T T T T T T f T T ROCK SOIL STREAM SEDIMENTS fl Ivanhoe > _,, |vanhoe u o s a a m | ® 193|- toad! -- C 1 {- a E H _,, |\vanhoe 1 # Ad 2 (a l pom E 15.3 Us . m 15 $5 | dé IvanhoeH l l r": cam i I, a = p= ARe ta 199 123 <4 f 19] 15d (5.4 1; } a. emg pom l Ivanhoe gey Ess = = 8 C Pram + || & ~ 5 g 14 hund ls} When Gulf #2 x 3 prom u pred sediments l i i I & 102} = fem -|- bnoud ske fumma (ud =- I e mal & 3 ES aX l y iI 4 [ra : hund I | 59 1.94 [ u 1.3 173 kene! Aad S fad Fea | } fod bog H juny : I F583 13 =. E 105g s liad inu e € 10 l—l | I | 1 1 I I 1 | I I Pos Pso Pr3 Pgo Pos Pso Prs Pao Pos Pso Pr35 Po PERCENTILES FIGURE 1.-Percentile ranges of mercury distribution in rock, soil, and sediments. As a frequency distribution approaches normality the arithmetic mean approaches the median. Many of the mercury distributions we have seen approach normality. Therefore, where median values were not available, arithmetic means (table 17) were used as approximations of the median. Where nei- ther arithmetic means nor medians were available, geometric means were used as measures of central tendency. These statistics are listed in the 50th per- centile column of table 17 and in the graphical summary shown in figure 1. We acknowledge the assistance of Lamont T. Wilch, Theodore M. Billings, and Raoul V. Mendes for their aid in the computer processing for this re- port. REFERENCES CITED Clark, A. L., Condon, W. H., Hoare, J. M.,. Sorg., D. H., 1970, Analyses of rock and stream-sediment samples from the Taylor Mountains C-8 quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey open-file rept., 110 p. Ehmann, W. D., and Lovering, J. F., 1967, The abundance of mercury in meteorites and rocks by neutron activation analysis: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, no 3, p. 857-376. Fischer, R. P., Luedke, R. G., Sheridan, M. J., and Raabe, R. G., 1968, Mineral resources of the Uncompahgre primi- tive area, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1261-C, 91 p. [1969]. Flanagan, F. J., 1969, U. S. Geological Survey standards; 2, First compilation of data for the new U.S.G.S. rocks: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 83, No. 1, p. 81-120. Gott, G. B., Botbol, J. M., Billings, T. M., and Pierce, A. P., 1969, Geochemical abundance and distribution of nine metals in rocks and soils of the Coeur d'Alene district, Shoshone County, Idaho; U.S. Geol. Survey open-file rept., 3 p. Gower, H. D., Vedder, J. G., Clifton, H. E., and Post, E. V., 1966, Mineral resources of the San Rafael primitive area, California: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1230-A, 28 p. Harrison, J. E., Reynolds, M. W., Kleinkopf, M. D., and Patee, E. C., 1969, Mineral resources of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Missoula and Lake Counties, Montana: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1261-D, 48 p. Lovering, T. S., 1969, Mineral resources from the land, in Resources and man: San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Co., p. 109-134. Pearson, R. C., Hayes, P. T., and Fillo, P. V., 1967, Mineral resources of the Ventana primitive area, Monterey County, California: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1261-B, 42 p. 16 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT Ratté, W. C., Landis, E. R., Gaskill, D. L., and Raabe, R. G., Mineral resources of the Gore Range-Eagle Nest Primi- 1969, Mineral resources of the Blue Range primitive tive Area and vicinity, Summit and Eagle Counties, Col- area, Greenlee County, Arizona, and Catron County, orado: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1319-C, 127 p. New Mexico, with a section on Aeromagnetic interpreta- tion, by G. P. Eaton: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1261-E, Vaughn, W. W., 1967, A simple mercury vapor detector for 91 p. geochemical prospecting: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 540, 8 Tweto, Ogden, Bryant, Bruce, and Williams, F. E., 1970, p. MERCURY IN SEDIMENTARY ROCKS OF THE COLORADO PLATEAU REGION By R. A. CADIGAN Mercury content of sedimentary rocks in the Col- orado Plateau region ranges from <10 ppb to > 10,000 ppb. Sedimentary rocks compose or imme- diately underlie more than 90 percent of the surface of the region. Samples have been collected by the author and other Geological Survey employees engaged in var- ious geologic investigations in the Colorado Plateau region over the past 20 years. The major projects involved were the stratigraphic studies program conducted on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commis- sion, 1948-56, and the Geological Survey's continu- ing Heavy Metals program which began in 1967. Samples collected for studies of mineral deposits or to confirm geochemical anomalies were omitted from this summary. The data presented here were obtained from 3,012 samples collected from surface outcrops at ap- proximately 150 localities in the Colorado Plateau region (fig. 2). The samples were analyzed in the laboratories of the U.S. Geological Survey by means of an atomic absorption technique. Data on mercury content of most of the major sedimentary stratigraphic units are summarized in UTAH CcOoLORADO ARIZONA NEW MEXICO FIGURE 2.-Location of Colorado Plateau region (stippled) table 18, in the back of this report. Statistics are listed under the following headings: "Number of samples," the number of analyses on which the com- puted statistics are based; "Median," the middle value of each distribution (half of the values are larger and half are smaller) ; "Highest," the maxi- mum value determined; "Lowest," the minimum value; and "Middle 68 percent of samples," the range of values grouped around the median, ap- proximately 34 percent (one standard deviation) on each side. "Dominant rock types" refers to the tex- tural rock type listed below in order of importance and which makes up 90 percent or more of the for- mation or the group. "Approximate average thick- ness" is given to provide an idea of the order of magnitude of the amount of rock involved. The sta- tistical distributions of mercury values are approxi- mately log normal. The stratigraphic units are listed in table 18 in order of youngest to oldest; not all units are present in all parts of the region. Their absence is due to erosion or nondeposition. The Duchesne River For- mation is present and was deposited only along the north edge of the region. The Dolores and arkosic facies of the Cutler are present and were deposited only in the eastern part of the region. As depicted in a series of outcrop maps of many formations in the Colorado Plateau region (New- man, 1962), outcrops of the Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks in the region are dis- continuous because of erosion, but they occupy ap- proximately 20 and 30 percent, respectively, of the surface area of outcropping sedimentary rocks. Ju- rassic and Triassic rocks crop out in approximately 40 percent of the sedimentary rock surface area and Paleozoic rock outcrops (Permian, Pennsylvanian, and others) occupy the remaining 10 percent. The average distribution of mercury in the sedi- mentary rocks which form the surface or which im- mediately underlie soil-covered surfaces of the Colo- rado Plateau region is shown in figure 3. The figure ¥7. 18 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT 40 r- 20 |- PERCENT OF SAMPLES 3125 C w o n 6 a w a - o 6 100 200 400 800 1600 3200 6400 MERCURY, IN PARTS PER BILLION FIGURE 3.-Frequency histogram of percent of samples plotted over mercury content-a composite of the forma- tion and the group sample data summarized in table 18, weighted for area of outcrop and unit thickness. Basal scale is logarithmic. The statistics for mercury content of Colorado Plateau sedimentary rocks are as follows: Me- dian, 160 ppb; maximum >10,000 ppb; minimum <10 ppb; range of middle 68 percent of samples, 66-370 ppb. is a composite of values of the samples used for table 18, weighted in terms of the proportions of the rocks by geologic period composing the surface outcrops and in terms of thickness of individual units. It is thus a rough generalization, but it is based on the best information available at the mo- ment. The Tertiary contribution to the average is computed using the three units listed in table 18. The Duchesne River unit is given a weight of 2 for the proportion of Tertiary rocks and a thickness weight of 0.13 (thickness of the Duchesne River di- vided by total thickness of the Tertiary units). The Tinta and Green River unit is given a weight of 2 for the Tertiary and a thickness weight of 0.7; and the Wasatch and Colton unit is given a weight of 2 and a thickness weight of 0.17. The units in the other periods are treated similarly with the Creta- ceous receiving a weight of 3, the combined Jurassic and Triassic receiving a weight of 4, and the com- bined Permian and Pennsylvanian units receiving a weight of 1. Samples containing the highest mercury content (>10,000 ppb) were collected in mineralized areas near uranium deposits in the Morrison, Entrada, Chinle, and Moenkopi Formations. The maximum mercury content has not been determined in these areas, nor has the three-dimensional pattern of oc- currence. Most of the samples from the Morrison and Chinle which contain more than 1,000 ppb mer- cury were collected from localities near known ura- nium deposits. Stream-sediment samples collected from streams adjacent to and draining the mineral- ized areas have been found to contain as much as 1,100 ppb mercury. Samples from the Green River oil shale strata also contain higher amounts of mer- cury (4,000 ppb). No significant correlation appears to exist be- tween mercury content and rock texture per se in Colorado Plateau sedimentary rocks. For example, mercury is present in the Navajo Sandstone in lower quantities than in any of the other forma- tions. Regional distribution of mercury in the Na- vajo was previously studied (Cadigan, 1969). The Wingate Sandstone, similar in structure to the Na- vajo and only slightly finer grained and slightly less well sorted, contains substantially higher amounts of mercury than the Navajo. This example suggests that factors other than texture may exert a higher level of control of the abundance of mercury in for- mations. There is certainly a strong suggestion that rocks that are predominantly composed of altered volcanic detritus, such as the mudstone strata of the Wasatch, Colton, Mancos, Morrison, and Chinle Formations, contain higher amounts of mercury than do the rocks that contain little volcanic detri- tus. ‘ Limestones in the Hermosa and Rico Formations contain more mercury than the values given in the literature (Turekian and Wedepohl1, 1961). Studies of the distribution of mercury and other metallic elements in Colorado Plateau sedimentary rocks are continuing and may yield additional infor- mation to modify or supplement data and conclu- sions presented in this report. REFERENCES CITED Cadigan, R. A., 1969, Distribution of mercury in the Navajo Sandstone, Colorado Plateau region, in Geological Survey research 1969: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 650-B, p. B94-B100. Newman, W. L., 1962, Distribution of elements in sedimen- tary rocks of the Colorado Plateau-A preliminary re- port: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1107-F, p. 337-445. Turekian, K. K., and Wedepohl, K. H., 1961, Distribution of the elements in some major units of the Earth's crust: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 72, no. 2, p. 175-191. CHEMICAL BEHAVIOR OF MERCURY IN AQUEOUS MEDIA By Jon D. HEM The chemical behavior of the element mercury in water is highly interesting, although rather compli- cated and still not entirely explainable. Its behavior is "mercurial" in more than one sense of the word. A general statement of what is known and can rea- sonably be inferred about the aqueous chemistry of mercury is given here. This review should aid in the interpretation of analyses for mercury in surface and ground water and may help predict what will happen when mercury is added to river or lake water in waste-disposal processes. OXIDATION AND REDUCTION BEHAVIOR Under the usual conditions of temperature and pressure that occur in river and lake water and wa- ter-saturated sediment, mercury can be present in one or more of three different oxidation states. The most reduced, in a chemical sense, of these forms is the metal, which is a liquid at ordinary tempera- tures and which has a distinct tendency to vaporize. The other two forms are ionic; the more reduced of the two ions is the mercurous ion Hg.*, where the average valence of mercury is +1. In oxidizing con- ditions, especially at low pH, the stable form is the mercuric ion, Hg. Although chemical oxidation does not necessarily require the presence of oxygen, this element is the most common oxidizing agent and systems in con- tact with air tend to be relatively oxidized. In the absence of oxygen relatively reducing conditions may become established, permitting the conversion of elements such as sulfur to the sulfide form. The intensity of oxidizing or reducing conditions in a chemical system is usually expressed as an electrical potential, in volts. The more intensely oxidizing sys- tems have positive potentials and reducing systems have, negative potentials. By theoretical chemical equations, applicable at equilibrium, the potentials to be expected in water solutions under various chemical conditions can be calculated. The theoreti- cal solubility and stability of many elements can be usefully calculated in a similar way, by considering the interrelationships of oxidation-reduction equi- libria and the effects of common anions in forming various compounds. CHEMICAL THERMODYNAMIC DATA Chemical research has provided basic data such as equilibrium constants, standard electrochemical potentials, and free energies of formation, for many of the most significant species of mereury that can be present in water. Table 19" is a compilation of chemical equilibrium constants and standard poten- tials that were taken from published literature. Po- tentials are given only for redox reactions. Data on additional species can be obtained from the compila- tion of Sillén and Martell (1964). These kinds of data are useful in calculating mereury behavior and solubilities. Table 20 contains standard free ener- gies of formation of the mercury species that are reported in the literature. These permit calculation of the relative stability of different forms of mer- cury in aqueous media under a wide range of condi- tions. STABILITY AND SOLUBILITY CALCULATIONS As the data in tables 19 and 20 imply, mereury forms many solute species. Some of these are com- plex ions with a high degree of stability. A calcula- tion of solubility for mercury must take into ac- count a large number of possible forms. This situation is further complicated because of the pos- sible existence of different oxidation states. Mer- cury in the form of liquid metal is somewhat vola- tile and can escape from systems open to the atmosphere, and many mercury compounds are somewhat volatile also. Mercury forms many strong organic complexes and is generally much more solu- ble in organic liquids than in water. Data from tables 19 and 20 were used to con- struct the stability-field diagram, figure 4, which shows the solid and liquid forms of mercury that will be stable in the conditions of pH and redox po- *Tables are in the back of the report. 19 20 1.20 1.00 60 40 20 Eh (volts) 00 -20 - 40 -.60 -.80 O MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT Water oxidized Water reduced pH FIGURE 4.-Fields of stability for solid (c) and liquid (1) mercury species at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pres- sure. System includes water containing 36 ppm C1-, total sulfur 96 ppm as 80,4, : CHEMICAL BEHAVIOR IN AQUEOUS MEDIA 21 tential under which water itself is chemically stable. The existence of mercuric chloride, calomel, and cin- nabar depend on the presence of chlorine and sulfur species in the system. Values arbitrarily selected are 103 moles per liter of each. This concentration is equivalent to 36 ppm Cl- and 96 ppm SO,*. No single value for mercury concentration need be specified for locating the boundaries. Calculation techniques used in preparing Eh-pH diagrams have been described extensively in the literature. Solid species are identified by the abbreviation "c", gases "g", liquids by "I", and dissolved species by super- script plus or minus signs or by the abbreviation "aq " The calculations are for the standard temper- ature of 25°C. Effects of temperatures 10 to 15 de- grees above or below this value are probably small enough to be ignored for this type of approximate treatment. Temperature effects may be important in some systems, however. At the conditions of pH and Eh likely to occur in aerated or anaerobic water (pH 5 to 9 and Eh less than 0.5 volts) the species Hg* liquid and HgS$ (cin- nabar) are the principal ones likely to enter into equilibria affecting the solubility of mercury. The organometallic compound dimethyl mereury for which a standard free energy value is given in table 20 was considered in preparing the stability field diagram. Dimethyl mercury is not thermodynami- cally stable in the system as specified. The data in tables 19 and 20 can also be used to calculate the solubility of mercury at equilibrium in _ the system of figure 4 and to identify the predomi- nant solute species at any area of interest in the diagram. Figure 5 represents the areas of domi- nance of the solute species that will be stable in the presence of the same levels of chloride and sulfur species as specified for figure 4. Calculations of solubility of the dominant species also were made in preparing figure 5, and results are given in a general way on the diagram. The main features of the aqueous inorganic chemistry of mercury under equilibrium conditions are clearly indicated by the two diagrams. Over much of the area of moderately oxidizing conditions above pH 5 the predominant mercury species in so- lution is undissociated mercury. The solubility of this material is nearly constant over the whole area where the liquid metal is stable, and is relatively low, about 25 ppb, as Hg. This represents the likely upper equilibrium limit of mercury in surface streams and lakes that are low in chloride. Studies of this form of aqueous mercury were made by Par- iaud and Archinard (1952). Mildly reducing conditions, as are likely to occur in many lake and streambed sediments, can cause the mercury to be precipitated as the sulfide, cinna- bar. This compound has an extremely low solubility. In the fields of Mg (HS) aq and HgS,~> near neutral pH, the equilibrium solubility of mercury may be lower than .002 ppb. Very strongly reducing condi- tions, however, may increase the solubility somewhat by converting the mercuric ion to free metal. In solutions that are high in chloride the solubility of mercury in oxygenated water may be greatly in- creased by the formation of the uncharged HgCl, complex, or anionic complexes such as HgCl,*. The area of dominance shown for chloride complexes would be enlarged if chloride had been increased above 10> molar. Inorganic mercury complexes in waters in Sweden were reported by Anfalt and others (1968) to include HgCl,®, HgOHCI®, and Hg(OH).,®, with predominant forms depending on chloride concentration and pH. Stability data for the HgOHCIl® species were not given by Wagman and others (1969). It would appear that mercury concentrations in stream water could be as high as 25 ppb without loss by chemical precipitation. It does not seem that such levels are likely to be common, however, for various reasons, two of which are : 1. Mercury tends to be volatile and will be lost as vapor from the water surface exposed to the air. 2. Most mercury species are much more soluble in organic solvents than in water. Moser and Voigt (1957) found, for example, that dis- solved free mercury was taken up strongly by organic solvents. When cyclohexane was added to water that contained metallic mercury, the ratio of mercury retained in the water to that in the cyclohexane was only 0.03. This implies a mechanism for removal of mercury from water by aquatic organisms and the effect of organisms is known to be very important. Mercury that enters reduced sediments can become relatively immobile, so long as a reasonable degree of reduction continues to prevail. At. high pH, if much reduced sulfur is present, however, mercuric sulfide anions can become very soluble. Complexes of mercuric ions with ammonia are de- scribed in the literature and some data on one such complex are given in table 19. This complex is not a predominant form of mercury unless the solution 22 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT 1.20 I I I I I 1.00 Water oxidized Eh (volts) FIGURE 5.-Fields of stability for aqueous mercury species at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pressure. System includes water containing 36 ppm Cl-, total sulfur 96 ppm as sulfate. Dashed line indicates approximate solubility of mercury in this system. CHEMICAL BEHAVIOR IN AQUEOUS MEDIA 28 contains more than 100 ppm of NH,*, a level sel- dom attained in natural water. ORGANIC COMPLEXING EFFECTS The relative importance of organic solute com- plexes of mercury in the aqueous chemistry of the element cannot be fully decided at present. The in- formation on such complex species is incomplete and some of it is conflicting. Mercury does form some very strong organic complexes. Some of these are relatively soluble in water. Most forms for which data are readily available, however, might be expected to be altered to other, more stable and gen- erally less soluble, forms in natural water systems. Nevertheless, the fact that a given organic complex is not thermodynamically stable should not be used as a basis for dismissing or ignoring it. Species that are not at equilibrium are commonly found in natu- ral water and can be very important factors in the composition of the solution. Nonequilibrium species are especially likely to be important in surfsce streams that are used for disposal of wastes, and organic complexes of mercury could be important in these streams. A particularly significant question arises in connection with the organic complex methyl mer- cury. The liquid dimethyl mercury is reported in table 20 to have a standard free energy formation of 38.5 keal (kilocalories) per mode. This value was used in the calculations for preparing figure 4. No region exists in the diagram where Hg (CH,). would be the most stable phase. Methyl mercuric ion, HgCH;*, is cited in publi- cations by various authors as the most important form in fish and various other food products of ani- mal origin (West66, 1967). It has been identified in cultures of methane-generating bacteria to which mercuric ions had been added (Wood and others, 1968). Although the literature has been examined carefully no free-energy value for HgCH;,* could be found, and no firm basis for calculating or esti- mating such a value seems to be available. This spe- cies could not be considered in constructing figure 5. In the absence of positive information it seems . logical to allow for the possibility of finding methyl mercury or other organic complexes in natural water, and these complexes may offer problems to the analytical chemist. LIMITATIONS OF THEORETICAL EVALUATION The summary of aqueous mercury chemistry that is obtainable from the Eh-pH diagram and related calculations seems to fit reasonably with what can be observed in the field. However, there are impor- tant areas where available information is inade- quate to permit full acceptance of the theoretical model without further testing. The frequent depar- ture of natural systems from equilibrium is well known, and must be kept in mind when using equi- librium calculations. There are two aspects of mer- cury chemistry that are particularly important sources of departure from what can be predicted theoretically. One of these, the formation of organic complexes and participation of mercury in biochem- ical processes has been mentioned already. How- ever, it has not been proved conclusively that methyl mercury is produced in abundance in sedi- ment by bacterial activity ; the energy that the orga- nisms would have to expend is large, which is con- trary to most metabolic processes. A second property of importance is the tend- ency for mercury to participate in dismutation reactions-that is, in reactions of the type Hg.+*=Hg*+Hg**. This and similar reactions are well known, and provide a means whereby mer- cury could be converted to the liquid form and es- cape as vapor. The oxidation and reduction reac- tions of mercury seem to be less inhibited by energy barriers than those for many other elements, and the course of such reactions may be difficult to pre- dict at times. The combination of oxidized mercuric ion with the reduced sulfide ligand to form cinna- bar, for example, is an unusual feature and seems to give a high degree of immobility to mercuric mercury in a reduced environment where it would not normally be expected to occur at all. Thus, although a good beginning toward under- standing of the aqueous chemistry of mereury has been made, a considerable amount of basic research is still needed, especially on rates and mechanisms of reaction and on the behavior of organic mercury complexes. REFERENCES CITED Anfalt, Torbjorn, Dyrssen, David, Ivanova, Elena, and Jag- ner, Daniel, 1968, State of divalent mercury in natural waters: Svensk Kem. Tidsskr., v. 80, no. 10, p. 340-342. Helgeson, H. C., 1969, Thermodynamics of hydrothernial sys- tems at elevated temperatures and pressure: Am. Jour. Sei., v. 267, p. 729-804. Latimer, W. M., 1952, Oxidation potentials: Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 352 p. Moser, H. C., and Voigt, A. F., 1957, Dismutation of the mercurous dimer in dilute solutions: Am. Chem. Soc. Jour., v. 79, p. 1837. Pariaud, J. C., and Archinard, p., 1952, Sur la solubilité des métaux dans l'eau: Soc. Chim. France Mem. 99, p. 454-456. Englewood 24 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT Sillén, L. G., and Martell, A. E., 1964, Stability constants of metal-ion complexes [2d ed.]: Chem. Soc. [London] Spec. Pub. 17, 754 p. Wagman, D. D., Evans, W. H., Parker, V. B., Harlow, I., Bailey, S. M., and Schumm, R. H., 1968, Selected values of chemical thermodynamic properties: Natl. Bur. Standards Tech. Note 270-3, 264 p. 1969, Selected values of chemical thermodynamic properties: Natl. Bur. Standards Tech. Note 270-4, 141 p. Waugh, T. D., Walton, H. F., and Laswick, J. A., 1955, Ioni- zation constants of some organomercuric hydroxides and halides: Jour. Phys. Chemistry, v. 59, no. 5, p. 895-899. Westod, Gunnel, 1967, Determination of methylmercury com- pounds in foodstuffs; 2, Determination of methylmer- cury in fish, egg, meat, and liver: Acta Chem. Scandinavica, v. 21, no. 7, p. 1790-1800. Wood, J. M., Kennedy, F. S., and Rosen, C. G., 1968, Syn- thesis of methylmercury compounds by extracts of a methanogenic bacterium: Nature, v. 220, no. 5163, p. 1738-174. MERCURY CONTENTS OF NATURAL THERMAL AND MINERAL FLUIDS By D. E. WHITE, M. E. HINKLE and Iv¥AN BARNES VOLCANIC FUMAROLES Data on mercury contents of fumaroles are lack- ing because of the rarity of volcanic eruptions and high-temperature fumaroles and, until recently, the lack of adequate methods of analysis. Hawaiian and Alaskan fumaroles should be studied. GASES Water condensed from volcanic fumaroles was analyzed by Aidin'yan and Ozerova (1966) and was found to contain 0.3-6 ppb mercury. Fumaroles of the lowest temperature (~100°C) contain the least mercury (>0.3 ppb) ; at 220°C, the mercury con- tent is about 1.5 ppb, and at 270°C, it is about 6 ppb. Residual gases (not condensed in water) con- tain 38x10" to 4x10° g/m (grams per cubic meter) of gas. SUBLIMATES FROM FUMEROLES Sublimates are commonly more enriched in mer- cury than is vapor; reported contents range from about 10 to >10,000 ppb (Aidin'yan and Ozerova, 1966). Native sulfur, sulfates, and ammonium chloride have the highest reported mercury con- tents. HOT SPRINGS The relationships of hot springs to mercury de- posits have been studied by Brannock (1948), White (1955, 1967), White and Roberson (1962), and Dickson and Tunell (1968). Some springs of special interest are also discussed by Barnes (1970). Efforts to determine the mercury contents of the fluids of these springs were not notably suc- cessful until 1966, when effective analytical methods were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (Vaughn, 1967; Hinkle and Learned, 1969). We have recently analyzed thermal and mineral waters by amalgamating mercury on silver in acid solution. The silver-mercury amalgam was heated in an induction furnace and the mercury vapor deter- mined in a mercury vapor detector by photo absorp- *Incorporates data from W. W. Vaughn, Howard McCarthy, F. N. Ward, and R. O. Fournier and background data from the literature, mainly Russian. tion. The detection limit is 0.01 ppb. The results are given in table 21. GASES The hot spring gases at Coso Hot Springs, Calif., have been shown to be enriched in mercury (Dupuy, 1948; White, 1955; Dickson and Tunell, 1968), but concentrations were not determined precisely. Su- perheated steam from steam wells at The Geysers, Calif., contains a measurable amount of mercury. An early analysis of condensed steam showed a con- tent of 130 ppb Hg (White, 1967, p. 590), but this value is almost certainly too high. Condensed steam from the McKinley steam field at Castle Rock Spring, Lake County, Calif., contains 1 to 3 ppb mercury (table 21). The mercury content of hot- spring gases is not adequately known and needs de- tailed study. WATERS R. L. Wershaw, in this report, summarizes data that suggest that the natural mercury content of unpolluted rivers in areas where the rocks have a normal mercury content is less than 0.1 ppb. The mercury contents of water closely associated with mercury deposits, reported prior to 1966, are sum- marized by White (1967). Although various analyti- cal procedures were used, these values are probably much too high-they range from <20 ppb (stated detection limit) to 400 ppb. In contrast, recent anal- yses of the same type of water range from <0.05 to 20 ppb mercury. Tentative generalizations on mercury contents re- ported from the thermal and mineral waters of the northern California Coast Range are: (1) Waters that are low to moderate in salinity (<5,000 ppm total solids) and in temperature (<40°C) are nearly always low in mercury (<0.05 ppb); (2) cool waters of high salinity tend to have higher mercury concentrations (table 21) such as 0.1 ppb (Salt Spring north of Wilbur Springs) and 1.5 ppb * Tables are in the back of the report. 25 26 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT (Complexion Spring) ; (3) hot, dilute waters (table 21) are low in mercury; (4) the hot, moderately sa- line waters (table 21) of Sulphur Bank and the warm saline Wilbur Springs contain about 1.5 ppb mercury; (5) the mercury content of most of these waters exceeds the contents obtained by the U.S. Geological Survey for relatively unpolluted river waters. (See R. L. Wershaw, "Sources and behavior of mercury in surface waters," this report.) Solid materials (table 21) depositing from the fluids seem to retain mercury. Aqua de Ney Spring of Siskiyou County, Calif., is remarkable for its high salinity, pH, and sulfide content (Feth and others, 1961) ; its mercury con- tent is 20 ppb (J. H. McCarthy, written comm., 1966) but no mercury minerals have been identified. The silica-magnesia gel deposited from Aqua de Ney contains 500 ppb mercury. In contrast, the cin- nibar-depositing Amedee Springs of Lassen County, Calif., contain only 2 ppb mercury (J. H. McCarthy, written comm., 1966). Mercury contents are reported in table 22 for 17 thermal waters in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., which is an area that has been affected by ex- treme volcanic activity of Pleistocene age, with present total heat flow of at least 80 times the world average. The thermal waters have relatively low disolved solids content but are high in tempera- ture. Mercury contents of water of the major gey- ser basins are all close to 0.1 ppb; Cinder Pool in Norris Basin has the highest content, 0.28 ppb. The Sylvan Springs area in Gibbon Basin, Yellowstone National Park, has higher mercury contents than most other Yellowstone National Park waters; four analyses range from 0.2 to 0.3 ppb. PRECIPITATES FROM THERMAL FLUIDS Cinnabar and metacinnabar are precipitating from the thermal waters of Sulphur Bank and Ame- dee Springs, Calif., Steamboat Springs, Nev., and Boiling Springs, Idaho (White, 1967; Dickson and Tunell, 1968). Sulphur Bank is the most remarkable of the four, having produced more than 5,000 tons of mercury before mining operations ceased, which is the highest yield in the world from a deposit clearly formed from hot springs (White and Roberson, 1962). According to White (1967) only a little cin- nabar is precipitating from vapor escaping from natural vent areas of The Geysers geothermal steam system of California. No mercury minerals have been recognized in Yellowstone National Park thermal spring precipitates. Precipitates and bottom sediments in many hot springs, even where no mercury mineral is evident, contain quantities of mercury much above the aver- age content for crustal rocks, (Michael Fleischer, this report), which provides evidence for mercury transportation and concentration from the associated fluids. Reported contents of mercury-enriched sedi- ments in addition to those in table 21 include: Steamboat Springs, 12,000, 150,000, 200,000 and 500,000 ppb; elemental sulfur "cinders" of Cinder Pool, Norris Basin, Yellowstone National Park, 50,000 ppb ; and silica from Primrose Spring of Syl- van Springs, Gibbon Basin, Yellowstone, 5,000 ppb; and elemental sulfur precipitated from condensed steam of P.G. & E. powerplant No. 2, The Geysers, California, 5,000 ppb. The fine-grained muds of the mudpots and mud volcanoes of Yellowstone National Park commonly show similar concentrations. Nine analyses show a range of 5,000 to 150,000 ppb. These muds are products of hydrothermal alteration of adjacent rocks; the only reasonable mechanism for enrich- ment in mercury is condensation from the hot vapor that streams up through these muds (White and others, 1970). Some steam and much of the mercury evidently condenses in the surface pools. Even though Yellowstone National Park fluids are low in mercury, as compared to those of other areas, they are transporting and depositing measurable quanti- ties of mercury. Large mercury anomalies have been found by Dall'Aglio and others (1966) in stream sediments around the Italian geothermal steam fields of Lar- derello and Monte Aniata; more than 50 percent of all their analyses ranged in mercury content from 200 to 50,000 ppb. Most anomalies could not be traced to mercury deposits and are interpreted as indicators of geothermal steam. Transportation by vapor appears to be the most logical explanation. PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS, AND OIL-FIELD WATERS Only a few waters associated with petroleum have been analyzed for mercury; contents reported from the Cymric oil field, Calif. (Bailey and others, 1961; White, 1967), range from 100 to more than 200 ppb, but these are probably too high and should be redetermined by current methods of analyses. Mercury analyses of Cymric crude oils range from 1,900 to 21,000 ppb, which is in the range of ele- mental mercury solubilities in hydrocarbons (Spen- cer and Voight, 1968). The natural gas of the Cym- ric field is saturated with mercury vapor, thus indicating saturation with elemental mercury. Dur- ing transport in a pipeline, mercury vapor evidently NATURAL THERMAL AND MINERAL FLUIDS 27 combines with H.S from "sour" gases of other oil fields and is precipitated in the pipelines. Native mercury separates from the crude oil at the local pumping station. Total mercury yield from all the fluids is unrecorded from the field but may be in the order of hundreds of tons. Petroleum and tarry residues containing mercury '(table 23) are associated with the mercury deposits of the Wilbur Springs district. Light petroleum of the "froth veins" of the Abbott mine (White, 1967) contained 100,000 ppb mercury. Tarry petroleum, probably residual from loss of the lighter hydrocar- bons, contained 500,000 ppb. Hydrocarbons ex- tracted from fault gouge from the Abbott mine by organic solvents contained 1,000 to 5,000 ppb, but a sample of petroleum that had flowed from a new underground working and was stored for several years prior to analysis contained only 300 ppb. Tar from the nearby Wilbur oil test well (table 23) con- tained 1,000 ppb mercury. Some additional evidence for enrichment of mer- cury in fluid hydrocarbon deposits is indicated by the mud volcanoes of the Kerch-Taman territory of the U.S.S.R. (Karasik and Morozov, 1966). Mud and other debris that were extruded with hydrocarbon gases and waters of the oil-field type are enriched in mercury by about 100 times the mercury con- tents of Tertiary argillaceous rocks. SUMMARY Dilute thermal springs contain readily detectable mercury. The springs include high-temperature wa- ters of Yellowstone National Park, which are closely associated with extensive Pleistocene volcan- ism. Some California thermal waters, and nonther- mal waters of appreciable salinity (>5,000 ppm total diselved solids) but not closely associated with volcanism, contain mercury in the range of 1 to 3 ppb, concentrations notably higher than Yellow- stone National Park waters. Sediments associated with some of these springs are rich in mercury, containing about 50 to 5,000 times the mercury con- tent of ordinary rocks (Fleischer, this report), and the mercury contained is presumed to have been transported by the spring water. Of the natural fluids examined, petroleum and es- pecially the tarry residues of petroleum contain the highest determined mercury contents; available analyses show a range from 300 to 500,000 ppb or from about four to six orders of magnitude above most thermal waters. In the formation of some mer- cury deposits, petroleum and hydrocarbon gases ap- parently played a role, but the origin and nature of the fluids that have formed most large mercury de- posits are not yet clearly understood. Our data are incomplete for hot spring and volcanic gases, espe- cially in view of anomalous contents of mercury in associated solid phases which indicates vapor trans- port. REFERENCES CITED Aidin'yan, N. Kh., and Ozerova, N. A., 1966, Behavior of mercury in recent volcanism: Sovrem. Vulkanizm, v. 1, p. 249-253. Bailey, E. H., Snavely, P. D., Jr., and White, D. E., 1961, Chemical analyses of brines and crude oil, Cymric field, Kern County, California, in Short papers in the geologic and hydrologic sciences: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 424-D, p. D306-D8309. Barnes, Ivan, 1970, Metamorphic waters from the Pacific tectonic belt of the west coast of the United States: Sci- ence, v. 168, no. 3934, p. 973-975. Brannock, W. W., 1948, Preliminary geochemical results at Steamboat Springs, Nevada: Am. Geophys. Union Trans., v. 29, no. 2, p. 211-226. Dall'Aglio, Mario, Roit, R. da, Orlandi, C., and Tonani, Franco, 1966, Prospezione geochimica del mercurio; dis- tribuzione del mercurio nelle alluvioni della Toscana: Industria Mineraria, v. 17, no. 9, p. 391-398. Dickson, F. W., and Tunell, George 1968, Mercury and anti- mony deposits associated with active hot springs in the Western United States, in Ridge, J. D., ed., Ore deposits of the United States, 1983-1967 (Graton-Sales volume), volume 2: Am. Inst. Mining, Metall., and Petroleum En- gineers, p. 1673-1701. Dupuy, L. W., 1948, Bucket-drilling the Coso mercury de- posit, Inyo County, California: U. S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 4201, 45 p. Feth, J. H., Rogers, S. M., and Roberson, C. E., 1961, Aqua de Ney, California, a spring of unique chemical charac- ter: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 22, nos. 2-4, p. 75-86. Hinkle, M. E., and Learned, R. E., 1969, Determination of mercury in natural waters by collection on silver screens, in Geological Survey research 1969: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 650-D, p. D251-D254 [1970]. Karasik, M. A., and Morozov, V. I., 1966, Distribution of mercury in the products of mud volcanoes of the Kerch-Tamin' province: Geokhimiya, no. 6, p. 668-678. Spencer, J. N., and Voight, A. F., 1968, Thermal dynamics of the solution of mercury metal, 1. Tracer determina- tions of the solubility in various liquids: Jour. Phys. Chemistry, v. 72, no. 2, p. 464-474. Vaughn, W. W., 1967, A simple mercury vapor detector for geochemical prospecting: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 540, 8 p. White, D. E., 1955, Thermal springs and epithermal ore de- 28 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT posits, in Part 1 of Bateman, A. M., ed., Economic geol- White, D. E., Muffler, L. J. P., and Truesdell, A. H., 1970, ogy, 50th anniversary volume, 1905-1955: Econ. Geology Vapor-dominated hydrothermal systems compared with Publishing Co., p. 99-154. hot-water systems: Econ. Geology (in press). 1967, Mercury and base-metal deposits with associated - White, D. E., and Roberson, C. E., 1962, Sulphur Bank, Cali- thermal and mineral waters, in Barnes, H. L., ed., Geo- fornia, a major hot-spring quicksilver deposit, in Petro- chemistry of hydrothermal ore deposits: New York, logic studies-A volume to honor A. F. Buddington: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., p. 575-631. Geol. Soc. America, p. 397-428. SOURCES AND BEHAVIOR OF MERCURY IN SURFACE WATERS By R. L. WERSHAW NATURAL LEVELS OF MERCURY IN SURFACE WATERS Before one declares a water body polluted with waste mercury from man's activities, it is necessary to know the natural background level of the metal. The data in table 24'* were obtained on water sam- ples collected for this purpose by district offices of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Federal Water Quality Administration, during May, June, and July 1970. These samples were analyzed for dissolved mercury using a silver wire atomic ab- sorption method discussed by F. N. Ward (this re- port). The 73 samples, representing surface waters in 31 states, range in concentration from less than 0.1 to 17 ppb. Of the total, 34 contained less than the detectable concentration (0.1 ppb). Of the re- mainder, 27 samples ranged from 0.1 to 1.0 ppb and 10 samples ranged from 1.0 to 5.0 ppb. Only two samples contained more than 5.0 ppb, the Public Health Service limit for potable water supplies. The fact that many of the samples were taken in areas of suspected mercury contamination would appear to indicate that mercury concentrations in surface waters generally do not exceed tolerable limits ex- cept in the immediate vicinity of waste outfalls. Table 25 shows that the mercury levels measured in surface waters in other parts of the world gener- ally fall in the same low range of values as found in the United States. For example, studies of Dall'Aglio (1968), Heide, Lere, and Bohm (1957), and of Stock and Cucuel (1934) show that natural mercury contents of unpolluted rivers in areas where mercury deposits are not known, are less than 0.1 ppb ; this is in general agreement with data presented in table 24 for U.S. rivers. Samples from rivers draining mercury deposits are known to have natural mercury contents exceed- ing 5 ppb. Kvashnevskaya and Shablovskaya (1963) found mercury minerals in the suspended particu- late matter of the Yagnob-Dar'ya River 15 to 35 "! Tables are in the back of the report. kilometers downstream from mercury ore deposits. Dall' Aglio (1968) measured mercury concentrations as high as 136 ppb in Italian rivers which drained basins having worked and unworked mercury de- posits (table 25). Mercury concentrations in these waters were found to decrease as a function of dis- tance downstream from the mercury deposit. Oil field brines as well as thermal and mineral fluids in general (D. E. White and others, this report) and Karasik, Gomcharov, and Vosilevskaya (1965) may contain high mercury concentrations which can be a source of pollution to surface and ground waters. The fact that the oceans contain an estimated 50 million metric tons of mercury suggests that small amounts of the element always have been present in surface waters. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION The potential for waste mercury contamination of surface waters can be judged in part from a study of the use pattern of mercury by industry. The world production of mercury in 1968 was 8,000 metric tons, of which the United States produced only 1,000 metric tons from mines located princi- pally in California, Nevada, Idaho, and Oregon. The United States imported 860 metric tons of mercury in 1968 so that together with imports and seven hun- dred tons of reclaimed mercury domestic use amounted to about 2,500 metric tons during that year. During the period 1930-70, the total mercury mined in the United States was 31,800 metric tons and 39,600 metric tons were imported. It is estimat- ed that as much as 25 percent of this total may have been leaked to the environment. INDUSTRIAL USES Table 26 gives data for mercury consumption by various users in the United States during the calen- dar year 1969. The largest commercial consumption occurred in the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda, a process thought to introduce appreciable amounts of waste mercury in to the environment. For example, Lofroth and Duffy (1969) estimated 29 30 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT that eight chlorine factories in Sweden lose from 25 to 35 metric tons of mercury per year. Mercury losses from such operations have been reported in the United States (Chemical and Engineering News, 19702) although considerable effort now is being made to reduce their losses of mereury (Chemical and Engineering News, 1970b) . The second largest consumptive use of mercury is in the manufacturing of electrical apparatus. Mer- cury also finds very widespread use as a fungicide, bacteriacide, and slimicide. For example, the paint industry uses phenyl mercuric compounds for mil- dew-proofing and mercury organic compounds are used as seed dressings in agriculture. Mercury com- pounds are also used in the paper industry to pre- vent fungal growth in stored pulps and to prevent the growth of slimes in machinery. Because of this, some papers are not used in food packaging (Lutz and others, 1967). Mercury compounds also are em- ployed to a limited extent as catalysts in the pro- duction of many organic materials in pharmaeuti- cal and dental preparations, and, because of its conductive properties in the liquid state, in a vari- ety of industrial control instruments. INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION The wide variety of uses of mercury by man has resulted in significant mercury pollution of natural water bodies in many parts of the world. If in- dustrial outfalls are not properly scavenged for mercury, or if mercury-bearing materials are im- properly disposed of, some of the waste inevitably finds its way into surface waters. For example, An- derssen (1967b) measured mercury concentrations of 6 to 29 ppb (dryweight) in sludge from Swedish sewage-treatment plants. Obviously, care must be exercised in the disposal of such sludge to avoid contaminating water resources. During the summer of 1970, the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed more than 500 water samples rep- resentative of industrial effluents and outfalls where mercury contamination was suspected. This work was done in cooperation with the Federal Water Quality Administration. Of the more than 500 sam- ples, 28 percent had less than detectable (0.1 ppb) mercury concentrations; an additional 55 percent contained between 0.1 and 5 ppb. In other words, 83 percent of all the samples analyzed had concentra- tions which were within the range of Public Health Service mercury content allowable for drinking water supplies despite the fact they represented in- dustrial areas. An additional 12 percent of the sam- ples had mercury contents ranging between 5 and 100 ppb. Less than 5 percent had concentrations greater than 100 ppb and only two samples of the total had concentrations greater than 10,000 ppb. Sediment samples from the Missouri River basin were also analyzed for mercury content. Of the 15 samples studied, 11 had mercury contents ranging between 40 and 170 ppb. The remaining four had concentrations of 900, 1,800, 3,000, and 32,000 ppb. CONCLUSIONS Natural surface waters contain tolerably small concentrations of mercury except in areas draining mercury deposits. Industrial, agricultural, scientific, and medical uses of mercury and mercury com- pounds introduce additional mercury into surface waters. Whatever its source, the concentration of mercury compounds, dissolved or suspended, is re- duced rapidly by sorption and by complexing reac- tions with clays, plankton, colloidal proteins, humic materials, and other organic and inorganic colloids (J. D. Hem, E. A. Jenne, this report.) These reac- tions tend to keep the concentration of dissolved mercury at levels near the normal background ex- cept at points of actual mercury discharge. SELECTED REFERENCES Aidin'yan, N. Kh., 1962, Content of mercury in some natural waters: Trudy Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhd., Petrog., Mineralog. i Geokhim., no. 70, p. 9-14; Chem. Abs., v. 57, no. 16336e. 1963, The mercury contents of some water in the Ar- menian S.S.R.: Izv. Akad. Nauk Arm. SSR, Geol. i Geogr. Nauki, v. 16, no. 2, p. 73-75; Chem. Abs., v. 59 no. 7287h. Aidin'yan, N. Kh., and Belavskaya, G. A., 1963, Supergene transfer of mercury: Trudy Inst. Geol. Rudn. Mesto- rozhd., Petrog., Mineralog. i Geokhim., no. 99, p. 12-15; Chem. Abs., v. 59, no. 8471e. Anderssen, Arne, 1967a, Mercury in the soil: Grundforbat- tring, v. 20, nos. 3-4, p. 95-105; Chem. Abs., v. 69, no. 51225j. 1967b, Mercury in decayed sludge: Grundforbattring, v. 20, nos. 3-4, p. 149-150; Chem. Abs., v. 69, no. 458674. Chemical and Engineering News, 1970a, Mercury stirs more pollution concern: v. 48, no. 26, p. 86-37. 1970b, Mercury-Widespread spillage: v. 48, no. 29, p. 15. Dall'Aglio, M., 1968, The abundance of mercury in 300 natu- ral water samples from Tuscany and Latium (central Italy), in Ahrens, L. H., ed., Origin and distribution of the elements-A symposium, Paris, 1967: New York, Pergamon Press, p. 1065-1081. Hamaguchi, Hiroshi, Kuroda, Rokuro, and Kyoichi, Hoso- hara, 1961, Photometric determination of traces of mer- cury in sea water: Nippon Kagaku Zasshi, v. 82, p. 347-349; Chem. Abs., v. 55, no. 15222. sOURCES AND BEHAVIOR IN SURFACE WATERS 31 Heide, Fritz, Lerz, H., and Bohm, G., 1957, Gehalt des Saale-wassers an Blei und Quecksilber [Lead and mer- cury content of water from the Saale River]: Naturwis- senschaften, v. 44, no. 16, p. 441-442. Hosohara, Kyoichi, 1961, Mercury content of deep-sea water: Nippon Kagaku Zasshi, v. 82, p. 1107-1108; Chem. Abs., v. 56, no. 4585d. Hosohara, Kyoichi, Kozuma, Hirotaka, Kawasaki, Katsuhiko, and Tsuruta, Tokumatsu, 1961, Total mercury content in sea water: Nippon Kagaku Zasshi, v. 82, p. 1479-1480; Chem. Abs., v. 56, no. 5766h. Jensen, S., and Jernelov, A., 1969, Biological methylation of mercury in aquatic organisms: Nature, v. 223, no. 5207, p. 758-754. Karasik, M. A., Goncharov, Yu. I., and Vasilevskaya, A. Ye., 1965, Mercury in waters and brines of the Permian salt deposits of Donbas: Geokhimiya, no. 1, p. 117-121. Kvashnevskaya, N. V., and Shablovskaya, Ye. I., 1963, An investigation of metal content in the suspended load of streams: Akad. Nauk SSSR Doklady, v. 151, no. 2, p. 426-429. Lofroth, Goran, and Duffy, M. E., 1969, Birds give warning: Environment, v. 11, p. 10-17. Lutz, G. A., Gross, S. B., Boatman, J. E., Moore, P. J., Darby, R. L., Veazie, W. H., and Butrico, F. A., 1967, Design of an overview system for evaluating the pub- lic-health hazards of chemicals in the environment: Co- lumbus, Ohio, Battelle Memoiral Inst. Test-case studies, v. 1, p. A1-A88. National Materials Advisory Board, 1969, Trends in usage of mercury-Report of the panel on mercury, Committee on technical aspects of critical and strategic materials: Washington, Natl. Research Council-Natl. Acad. Sci.- Natl. Eng. Pub. NMAB-258, 37 p. [For sale by Clear- inghouse for Federal Sci. and Tech. Inf.] Reutov, O. A., and Beletskaya, I. P., 1968, Reaction mecha- nisms of organometallic compounds: Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co., 466 p. Stock, Alfred, and Cucuel, Friedrich, 1934, Die Verbreitung des Quecksilbers [The occurrence of mercury]: Natur- wissenschaften, v. 22, no. 22/24, p. 390-393; Chem. Abs., v. 28, no. 7086. Wood, J. M., Kennedy, F. S., and Rosen, C. G., 1968, Syn- thesis of methyl-mercury compounds by extracts of a methanogenic bacterium: Nature, v. 220, no. 5163, p. 173-174. Zautashvili, B. Z., 1966, Problem of mercury hydrogeochem- istry (as illustrated by the mercury deposits of Ab- khasia) [in Russian]: Geokhimiya, no. 3, p. 357-362; Chem. Abs., v. 64, no. 17267. BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN THE CHEMISTRY OF MERCURY By PHILLIP E. GREESON FLOW OF MERCURY THROUGH AQUATIC FOOD CHAINS The living organisms in an aquatic community represent an assemblage of groups, called trophic levels, that are classified according to food utiliza- tion. The size of an aquatic community is dependent upon the availability of food materials and its transport through the various groups. The ultimate basic food substances are the inor- ganic materials dissolved in the water or the insolu- ble materials that can be readily converted to bodily needs. The chlorophyll-bearing phytoplankton and higher plants are the principal organisms for con- version of these ultimate basic materials to living matter. They, therefore, are called the primary producers of the system and all other organisms de- pend upon their existence. Those organisms that feed upon the plants, such as zooplankton, insects, snails, and small fish, are known as primary consumers. Secondary consumers feed upon the primary consumers and are repre- sented by the larger fish, such as trout, pike, bass, and salmon. Every organism in an aquatic commu- nity may, by death and decomposition, contribute di- rectly to the dissolved materials, or may be con- sumed as food by other organisms. Micro-organisms are responsible for the breakdown of organic materials and the releasing of dissolved substances for reuse. Figure 6 is a simplified representation of the flow of materials through an aquatic food chain. Although mercury is not considered to be an es- sential food material for organisms, it is incorpo- Bacteria Phytoplankton l Small fish LZooplankton/ j 2 Large fish Dissolved Insects subs?ances\ / Higher plants--»Herbivores FicurE 6.-Simplified representation of the flow of materials through an aquatic food chain. 32 rated into the body of the organism by virtue of its presence in the water. Mercury in living tissues is believed to be largely organic and primarily methyl mercury (Westoo, 1967). Jenson and Jernelov (1969) indicated that much of the inorganic and or- ganic mercurial wastes from industrial effluents are converted by anaerobes into methyl mercury, or dimethyl mercury, (CH,) .Hg. This find- ing was confirmed by Wood, Kennedy, and Rosen (1968), who stated that the methylation of mereury is due to bacterial activity. The latter authors con- cluded that dimethyl mercury is the ultimate prod- uct but that in situations where an excess of mer- curic ion Hg*) exists, methyl mereury is also produced. Dimethyl mereury, although stable in alkaline so- lutions, dissociates to ionic methyl mercury at low pH values. Such low pH conditions may sometimes exist in the anaerobic bottom muds of streams and lakes. Methyl mercury, being soluble in water, is available for incorporation into the body tissues of organisms in the aquatic environment and secondar- ily into terrestrial predators, such as man. Methyl mercury tends to concentrate in living tissue and at critical concentration can be extremely toxic. The concentration of mercury by living things may come by way of the food chain or by direct as- similation from the surrounding medium (Rucker and Amend, 1969). In either event, when mercury is introduced into a food chain, it becomes available to all organisms of the chain. TOXICITY Mercury compounds inhibit the growth of bacte- ria, thus their longstanding use as antiseptics and disinfectants. It is to be expected, therefore, that at some concentration mercury compounds added to a natural water system will have a deleterious effect on the bacteria of the system. Mercuric chloride at a concentration of 610 ppb was reported by Her- mann (1959) to cause a 50-percent decrease in the b-day utilization of oxygen by sewage. Ingols BIOLOGICAL FACTORS 33 (1954) reported that a concentration of 2,000 ppb results in complete bacteriostasis. The toxicity of mercury to various aquatic organisms is shown in table 27 (in the back of the report). Mercury in the aquatic environment also is known to have acute effects on the primary produ- cers, but there is not complete agreement on toxic levels. Studies by North and Clendenning (1958) and Clendenning and North (1960) indicated that 100 ppb of mercuric chloride caused a 50-percent inactivation of photosynthesis in the giant kelp Ma- crocystis pyrifera during a 4-day exposure. A con- centration of 500 ppb caused a 15-percent decrease in photosynthesis in 1 day and complete inactiva- tion in 4 days. Ukéles (1962) reported 0.6 ppb of ethyl mercury phosphate as the threshold concentration for inhib- iting the growth of marine phytoplankton and that 60 ppb was found to be lethal to all marine spe- cies. Burrows and Combs (1958) concluded that ethyl mercury phosphate was an effective algicide at 1,000 ppb. In contrast, Hueper (1960) reported that the threshold of lethal concentrations of mercury salts for phytoplankton ranged from 900 to 60,000 ppb. Clendenning and North (1960) reported that mercury was found to be more toxic to aquatic or- ganisms than copper, hexavalent chromium, zinc, nickel, or lead. Corner and Sparrow (1956) empha- sized that the toxic effects of mercury salts are in- creased appreciably by the presence of copper. Glooschenko (1969) showed that the accumula- tion of mercury by the marine diatom Chaetoceros costatum was largely by passive surface adsorption with limited uptake by metabolic processes. He stated that it is not important whether the primary producers concentrate mercury by active uptake or by passive surface adsorption in the transfer to higher trophic levels. ' Glooschenko's studies of mercury accumulation il- lustrate an important ecological principle. Aquatic organisms, as well as man, will concentrate mercury within their bodies when the intake rate exceeds the elimination rates. The result, under these condi- tions, is a buildup with time to the extent that the accumulated mercury can become toxic and, eventu- ally, lethal. Rucker and Amend (1969) studied the accumula- tion of mercury in fish. They exposed rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, for an hour a day to nonle- thal concentrations of ethyl mercury phosphate. After 10 days, several fish were sacrificed, and their tissues were analyzed for mercury. The results showed the following concentrations in the tissues: Tissue Mercury (ppb) Blood :;. :.: 't :a veer + sin 19 a 's 22,800 sidney ...... are bie rs a s 17,300 Liver . PF k iv sak aie ae a 16,700 Brain ...l: rare ely PT v sikis 24 » ale a nal t e Gis a 4 10,100 CGConad .~; >. .: Rati : s a b e sels ave dials a b 4,100 Muscle . .-. ;, Tie a rre n a Ragen a aes 4,000 The remaining fish were maintained in mercury- free water. The authors found that after 45 weeks, mercury had been eliminated from all tissues except the liver and kidney, where concentrations had sta- bilized at 1,800 and 12,300 ppb respectively. MERCURY POISONING IN MAN The toxic effects of waterborne mercury to man were emphasized during the early 1950's when about 50 persons out of more than 100 affected in Japan died of the strange "Minamata Disease." Ex- tensive investigations revealed that the deaths were caused by the consumption of mercury-contami- nated fish and shellfish obtained from Minamata Bay. The bay had received large amounts of methyl mercury compounds in the waste effluents from a plastics factory (Kurland and others, 1960). Simi- lar mercury contamination of fish has been reported in Sweden and recently in several places in North America, particularly Lake St. Claire. As a result of these findings a tentative upper limit of 5.0 ppb of mercury in drinking water has been proposed by the U.S. Public Health Service and the same upper limit set in the U.S.S.R. The maximum is thought to be safe for human health when the total probable mercury intake rates of physiological processes, and excretion rates are taken into account. The U.S. Food and Drug Ad- ministration has declared that fish and other foods which contain more than 500 ppb of mereury are unsafe for human consumption. REFERENCES CITED Burrows, R. E., and Combs, B. D., 1958, Lignasan as bacte- ricide and algaecide: Prog. Fish Culturist, v. 20, p. 143-145. Clendenning, K. A., and North, W. J., 1960, Effects of wastes on the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, in Pear- son, E. A., ed., International conference on waste dis- posal in the marine environment, 1st, Berkeley, Calif., 1959, Proceedings: Pergamon Press, v. 1, p. 82-91. Corner, E. D. S., and Sparrow, B. W., 1956, The modes of action of toxic agents; 1, Poisoning of certain crusta- ceans by copper and mercury: Marine Biol. Assoc. United Kingdom Jour., v. 85, p. 531-548. Glooschenko, W. A., 1969, Accumulation of mercury-203 by 34 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT the marine diatom Chaetoceros costatum: Jour. Phycol- ogy, v. 5, no. 3, p. 224-226. Hermann, E. R., 1959, A toxicity index for industrial wastes: Indus. and Eng. Chemistry, v. 51, no. 4, p. 84A-87 A. Hueper, W. C., 1960, Cancer hazards from natural and arti- ficial water pollutants, in Conference on physiological aspects of water quality, Proceedings: Washington, U.S. Public Health Service, p. 181-193. Ingols, R. S., 1654, Toxicity of mercuric chloride, chromium sulfate, and sodium chromate in the dilution B.O.D. test: Sewage and Indus. Wastes, v. 26, p. 536. Jenson, S. R., and Jernelov, A., 1669, Biological methylation of mercury in aquatic organisms: Nature, v. 223, no. 5207, p. 758-754. Kurland, L. T., Faro, S. N., and Siedler, H. S., 1960, Mina- mata disease: World Neurologist, v. 1, p. 320-325. North, W. J., and Clendenning, K. A., 1958, The effects waste discharges on kelp-Annual progress report: La Jolla, California Univ. Inst. Marine Resources, IMR Ref. 58-11. Rucker, R. R., and Amend, D. F., 1969, Absorption and re- tention of organic mercurials by rainbow trout and chi- nook and sockeye salmon: Prog. Fish Culturist, v. 31, p. 197-201. Ukeles, Ravenna, 1962, Growth of pure cultures of marine phytoplankton in the presence of toxicants: Appl. Mi- crobiology, v. 10, no. 6, p. 532-537. Westoo, Gunnel, 1967, Determination of methylmercury com- pounds in foodstuffs; 2, Determination of methylmer- cury in fish, egg, meat, and liver: Acta Chem. Scandinavica, v. 21, no. 7, p. 1790-1800. Wood, J. M., Kennedy, F. S., and Rosen, C. G., 1968, Syn- thesis of methyl-mercury compounds by extracts of a methanogenic bacterium: Nature, v. 220, no. 5163, p. 163-174. MERCURY CONTENT OF PLANTS By HANSFORD T. SHACKLETTE There are but few data available upon which to base an estimate of the amounts of mercury that are absorbed by plant roots and translocated to the upper parts of the plants. Apparently, most plants grown in soils that typically are low in amounts of this element contain very little mercury in their tis- sues. The difficulties of detecting these small amounts by chemical methods has made routine mercury analyses of plant samples impractical for most laboratories. Under certain environmental con- ditions, however, plant samples may contain larger amounts of mercury that can be readily detected by less rigorous analytical methods. The discussion that follows distinguishes typical chemical environ- ments for plants from those that, because of natu- rally occurring mercury minerals or contamination by industrial or agricultural practices, contain anomalous amounts of mercury. PLANTS GROWN IN A TYPICAL ENVIRONMENT Typical soils that support vegetation contain very small amounts of mercury; Hawkes and Webb (1962, p. 369) reported 30-300 ppb, and Warren and Delavault (1969, p. 537), 10-60 ppb. The few available reports of mercury analysis of plants sug- gest that this metal is not concentrated to a great extent, if at all, in the tissues of most plants that grow in these soils Malyuga (1964, p. 15) stated that the amount of mercury in plants is 1 ppb; this figure is presumed to be an arithmetic mean, but the data upon which this value is based were not given and no other statement was found in the lit- erature of the "average" mercury content of plants. In a recent U. S. Geological Survey biogeochemi- cal study conducted in Missouri, 196 native trees and shrubs were sampled for chemical analysis. The species studied were post oak (Quercus stellata Wang.), over-up oak (Q. lyrata Walt.), white oak (Q. alba L..), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra L.), winged sumac (R. copallina L.), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.). Terminal parts of stems (branches, without leaves) of deciduous trees and shrubs, and terminal branches including scealelike leaves of red cedar, were selected for sampling. These plants grew in an apparently "normal" mercury environ- ment. All samples were reported by T. F. Harms, analyst, to contain less than 500 ppb mercury in the dry material. In an associated study of roadside contamination of vegetation and soils in Missouri, 33 red cedar samples were found to contain less than 500 ppb mereury (T. F. Harms, analyst), whereas the mercury content of dry samples of the soils in which these trees were rooted ranged from 40 to 650 ppb (E. P. Welsch, analyst). PLANTS GROWN IN AN ENVIRONMENT CONTAINING ABNORMAL AMOUNTS OF MERCURY Soils overlying cinnabar deposits may contain as much as 40,000 ppb mercury in their A, and B hori- zons (Shacklette, 1965, p. C10). In a study of mer- cury and other elements in plants that grew over cinnabar veins at Red Devil on the Kuskokwim River, Lower Yukon River district, Alaska, mercury analyses performed by L. E. Patton yielded the fol- lowing results : Plant Number Plant species part of (Ppb of dry analyzed samples plant) Alder (Alnus crispa subsp. Hult.) ......«..;.. .a. Stems 1 1,000 Black spruce (Pisea mariana (Mill.) Britt., Sterns & Pogg.) . Stems 4 _ 1,000-1,500 an leaves Dwarf birch (Betula nana L.) .. Stems 6 500-1,000 Labrador tea (Ledum palustre subsp. decumbens (Ait.) Hult.) . Stems 7 - 1,000-3,500 Spiraea (Spiraea beauverdiana Schneid.) . @. / Stems 1 3,000 and leaves White birch (Betula papyrifera subsp. humilis (Regel) Hult.) . Stems 4 500-2,000 Mercury, if present, in other samples of these plant species collected in the same area occurred in amounts below the lower detection limit of 500 ppb 35 36 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT of the analytical method that was used. It is note- worthy that trees whose roots extended through the loess mantle and came in contact with a cinnabar vein (as observed in prospect trenches that were dug) invariably contained measurable amounts of mercury in their branches ; the branches of adjacent trees whose roots did not contact these veins con- tained no detectable amounts of mercury. Rankama and Sahama (1950, p. 334) stated, "Droplets of metallic mercury have been found in the seed capsules of Holosteum umbellatum [jagged chickweed; family Caryophyllaceae] growing on some mercury-rich soils," and further, "Marine algae may concentrate mercury, and some species are found which contain more than a hundred times as much mercury as sea water does. In exceptional cases mercury is concentrated as native mercury in some land plants. Vegetable fats are relatively rich in mercury." Goldschmidt (1954, p. 278) reported the occurence of drops of metallic mercury under the moss cover of the forest floor near hydrothermal mercury deposits in the Rhine Palatinate. A U.S. Geological Survey search for evidence of mercury contamination of plants growing adjacent to a mer- cury smelter at Red Devil, Alaska, by examination of the soil surface under moss mats and by chemical analysis of leaves from trees, revealed none. Malyuga (1964, p. 25) stated that the possibility of using the biogeochemical method of prospecting for mercury was quite realistic, but that the slow adoption of this method was due to difficulties in de- termining the presence of mercury in soils and plants. The toxicity of mercury to plants apparently de- pends on the chemical state of the element. Very small amounts of volatilized elemental mercury are believed by some floriculturists to be toxic to cer- tain crops, particularly roses, and they do not use mercury thermometers in their greenhouses because of the danger of accidental breakage. Compounds of mercury, in contrast, are widely used in crop pro- duction for the control of certain fungus diseases and, if properly used, produce no apparent toxic symptoms in the plants. Shacklette (1965, p. C9-C10) reported on examination of plants in the Red Devil area for evidence of mercury poisoning as follows: *** Presumably, the soil in the vicinity of the mine, mill, and smelter has been contaminated as a result of several years' operation of these installations; however, both bry- ophytes [mosses and liverworts] and vascular plants ap- peared to be remarkably unaffected. Mosses common to the region grow in a cinnabar mill and smelter drainage stream in which metallic mercury could be seen, and plants on a mountain tundra slope immediately adjacent to and on a level with the mercury-smelter exhaust stacks appeared un- damaged. No undisturbed outcrops of cinnabar that bry- ophytes could have colonized were found; but cinnabar was found in placer deposits and in rock used to surface a road, as well as around the mine shafts, and it did not appear to have had any effect on the mosses growing near it. We ex- posed some cinnabar outcrops by digging and found tree and shrub roots that were in contact with the mineral. Branches of the plants having root contact contained anomalous amounts of mercury *** yet the plants showed no toxicity symptoms. The amounts of mercury found in some samples of plants or plant parts that have been treated with mercury compounds may be large, but the analyses alone do not demonstrate whether the element was absorbed into and translocated throughout the plant tissues or occurred only as a surficial residue. Nov- ick (1968, p. 4) stated that mercury compounds are easily absorbed by plants and can be translocated from one part of the plant to another, that mercury fungicide applied to leaves of apple trees may be translocated to the fruits, and that mercury may be moved from potato leaves to the tubers. SUMMARY Plants growing in environments that have the normal small amounts of mercury probably seldom exceed 500 ppb mercury in their tissues. In environ- ments that have significantly larger amounts of mercury because of the natural occurrence of mer- cury-bearing deposits, the plants may contain be- tween 500 and 3,500 ppb mercury in their dried tis- sues. Much larger amounts of mercury may be found in plant samples as surficial residues or as deposits in the tissues as a result of intentional ap- plication of mercury compounds or from contamina- tion. REFERENCES CITED Goldschmidt, V. M., 1954, Geochemistry: Oxford Univ. Press, 730 p. Hawkes, H. E., and Webb, J. S., 1962, Geochemistry in min- eral exploration: New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 415 p. Malyuga, D. P., 1964, Biogeochemical methods of prospect- ing: New York, Consultants Bur., 205 p. Novick, Sheldon, 1969, A new pollution problem: Environ- ment, v. 11, no*4, p. 2-9. Rankama, Kalervo, and Sahama, T. G., 1950, Geochemistry: Chicago Univ. Press, 912 p. Shacklette, H. T., 1965, Bryophytes associated with mineral deposits and solutions in Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1198-C, 18 p. Warren, H. V., and Delavault, R. E., 1969, Mercury content of some British soils: Oikos, v. 20, no. 2, p. 537-539. MERCURY IN THE ATMOSPHERE By J. H. MCCARTHY, JR., J. L. MEUSCHKE, W. H. FICKLIN, and R. E. LEARNED INTRODUCTION Little is known about the abundance and distribu- tion of mercury in the atmosphere. The mercury content of air over scattered mineralized and non- mineralized areas of the Western United States has been measured in a study of the application of such measurements in geochemical exploration for ore deposits. Some of the data have been reported pre- viously (McCarthy and others, 1969); additional data are reported here. Several factors that influ- ence the mercury content of air are discussed. DATA _The mercury content of air over 15 ore deposits and above four nonmineralized areas is shown in table 28 (in the back of the report). For several lo- cations data are given for mercury in air at ground level and at 400 feet above the ground. In general, the maximum concentration of mercury is found in air over mercury mines, lower concentrations over base and precious metal mines, and still lower con- centrations over porphyry copper mines. The con- centration of mercury in air over nonmineralized areas ranged from 3 to 9 ng/m® in the areas investi- gated. . Neville (1967) reported that in the mercury mine at Idria, Yugoslavia, the mercury vapor concentra- tion is 1-20 X105 ng/m, and that the concentration of mercury vapor in air of the mercury processing plant is 0.6-9.7X10° ng/m. Sergeev (1961) found that mercury vapor in soil air collected from bore- holes 1-2 meters deep contained 0-100 ng/m} whereas air collected 1 meter above the surface con- tained 10-20 ng/m. | The concentration of mercury in air as a function of altitude is shown graphically in figure 7. The data were collected at Blythe, Calif. The curve for January indicates that above 300 feet the mercury concentration dropped markedly whereas data col- lected at the same site in late April show no appar-. ent trend. Figure 7 also illustrates that lower values for mercury are obtained in January than in April. Williston (1968) found similar mercury contents in air in the San Francisco Bay area. This seasonal variation in the mercury content of air is ascribed to seasonal temperature differences. In addition to seasonal variations in the mereury content of air, there are daily variations, as shown in figure 8. A record of temperature, barometric pressure, and mercury in air at ground level (dashed line) is shown for 2 days. The data were collected at the Silver Cloud mine near Battle Mountain, Nev. The maximum amount of mercury in air is found at about midday; much smaller amounts are found in the morning and in the eve- ning. The barometric pressure curve is typical and reveals a consistent diurnal variation. The pressure begins to fall at 8:00-9:00 a.m. and falls steadily until about 6:00-7:00 p.m.; then it rises steadily through the night. Thus if no atmospheric disturb- ances exist, the pressure record transcribes an ap- 1999 I I I I T T T T 1-0 900 |- 2 Jan. 1, 1968 April 27, 1968 / soo |- o ws 700 |- / x to 600 |- !\ s ALTITUDE IN FE o $ oa lel o lel 0 0 0 I I I ro o O I 100 |- 0 | | | 1 I I | I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9: 10 MERCURY IN AIR, IN NANOGRAMS PER CUBIC METER w- FIGURE 7.-Mercury in air as a function of altitude, Blythe, Calif. 87 | ~SBAROMETRIC \———5O°—PRESSUREfi §. crt I4\O°\ 1 fd o \ y u 5. _ 1 Y \ : oB wld jo 1 ~ FIGURE 8.-Daily variation of mercury in air at the ground surface, temperature, and barometric pressure, Silver Cloud mine near Battle Mountain, Nev. ro B 0 38 [ FRIDAY [ SATURDAY / i massa oe d roma a Esna -F T -T T T3 ha M 6 NOON 6 M 6 NOON 6 M 5 1g 100°F 4 L { vS TEMPERATURE l <. 24314 P&. _ |MERCURY/A L/ 7, NJ. 's 525C /|O\\ \ Nwl/ v\\ /242L6 C4 o 60#°-Smgc-e yy 5G t 00 L 0:0 O P: ug < < z = proximate sine wave with maximum rate of fall about midday. When the barometric pressure begins to fall, mercury is released to the atmosphere and reaches a maximum when the rate of fall of baro- metric pressure is greatest. The mercury content of air was measured at 2- hour intervals for a period of 36 hours at the Ord mine in Arizona. Daytime patterns similar to those at Silver Cloud were observed with a maximum of 600 ng/m of mercury found near midday and a minimum of 20 ng/m* found at 2:00 a.m. The mini- mum mercury concentration occurred during the time when the rate of increase in barometric pres- sure was greatest. Thus the daily content of mer- cury in air is a function of the diurnal change in barometric pressure resulting in the exhalation of mercury through the earth's "breathing process." The effect of temperature is less obvious; the maxi- mum daily temperature commonly occurs 2-4 hours later than the time when maximum mercury is found in air. Most of the data reported here have been col- lected on clear days with no precipitation. However, at one sample site near the Ord mine 20 ng/m® of mercury was found in the air the day before a rain- storm. On the following morning, several hours after the rain, no mercury was detected in the air. Rankama and Sahama (1950) also reported that mercury in the atmosphere is removed by precipita- tion. Stock and Cucuel (1934) reported an average content of 0.2 ppb of mercury in rain water com- pared with oceanic abundance of 0.03 ppb mercury. SUMMARY The abundance of mercury in the earth's crust is estimated to be 60 ppb (Green, 1959), and the abundance of mercury in soils is estimated to be MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT about 100 ppb (A. P. Pierce and others, this re- port). Mercury in the atmosphere is derived from surface rocks and soils and from continuing hypo- gene and supergene processes. Elemental mercury results from either process, and owing to its relatively high vapor pressure, it is released to the atmosphere. More mercury is found in air over mercury deposits than elsewhere, and the rate of release of mercury over the deposits is determined by barometric pressure and tempera- ture. The data shown in table 28 indicate that anomalous concentrations of mercury are found in air over mineral deposits but that small amounts are found in air over nonmineralized areas. The data of figure 7 indicate a seasonal variation in the mercury content of air which may be the result of seasonal temperature variation. The data shown in figure 8 indicate that daily variations result from changes in barometric pressure. Lesser concentra- tions of mercury are found in air over the ocean; Williston (1968) found 0.6 to 0.7 ng/m® of mercury - 20 miles offshore over the Pacific Ocean, suggesting that the land surface is the principal source of mer- cury in the atmosphere. CONCLUSIONS Several tentative conclusions about mercury in the atmosphere can be drawn : 1. Mercury vapor is released to the atmosphere by evaporation from and by degassing of surface material. 2. Mercury content of air is highest over areas where the rocks are richest in mereury (2,000 to 20,000 ng/m* at the surface and 24 to 108 ng/m at 400 ft). 3. The maximum content of mercury in air was found near midday ; lesser amounts were found in the morning and evening; and minimum amounts were found near midnight. 4. The mercury content of ground surface air is considerably higher than that of air above the ground (108 to 20,000 ng/m® at the Ord mine). 5. Background concentrations of mercury in air at 400 feet above ground in the Southwestern United States range from 3 to 9 ng/m. REFERENCES CITED Green, Jack, 1959, Geochemical table of the elements for 1959: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 70, no. 9, p. 1127-1183. McCarthy, J. H., Jr., Vaughn, W. W., Learned, R. E., and Meuschke, J. L., 1969, Mercury in soil gas and air-A ATMOSPHERE 39 Sergeev, Y. A., 1961, Methods of mercurometric investiga- tions: Internat. Geology Rev., v. 3, no. 2, p. 93-99. Stock, Alfred, and Cucuel, Friedrich, 1984, Die Verbreitung des Quecksilbers: Naturwissenschaften, v. 22, p. 390-393. Williston, S. H., 1968, Mercury in the atmosphere: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 73, no. 22, p. 7051-7055. + potential tool in mineral exploration: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 609, 16 p. | Neville, G. A., 1967, Toxicity of mercury vapor: Canadian Chem. Education, v. 3, no. 1, p. 4-7. | Rankama, Kalervo, and Sahama, T. G., 1950, Geochemistry: Chicago Univ. Press, 912 p. ATMOSPHERIC AND FLUVIAL TRANSPORT OF MERCURY By E. A. JENNE Mercury is supplied to the environment from many sources. Near-surface mercury-bearing mineral de- posits, industrial wastes and exhausts, and applica- tions of agricultural chemicals serve locally to in- crease the mercury level of streams, lakes, and impoundments. Natural laws govern the rate and manner of movement of mercury. ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT OF MERCURY Mercury enters the atmosphere in both gaseous and particulate forms. The mobility of mercury is greatly enhanced by a property which is unique among the metals, namely the relatively high vapor pressure of the metallic state and, to a lesser extent, certain of its compounds. The vapor pressure is suf- ficiently high that air drying at 20°C for 2 days in a sealed box through which previously dried air was passed resulted in losses of 15, 24, 42, and 42 per- cent of the mercury originally present in minus 200 mesh fractions of four soils (Koksoy and others, 1967). These authors also note "the detectable mer- cury content of a sample originally containing 220 ppb (5 determinations) was increased by 25 percent when stored for 30 days at room temperature in the same box as a sample containing 8,000 ppb mer- cury." The rate of vaporization of mercury and certain of its inorganic compounds decreases in the sequence Hg>Hg,Cl,>HgCl,>HgS>HgO according to the data of Koksoy and Bradshaw (1969). Vapor pres- sure of mercurial fungicides is much greater for the methyl and ethyl forms (0.8 to 23 times 10mm (millimeter) mercury at 35°C) than phenyl forms (0.8 to 17 times 10-®mm mercury at 35°C) (Phillips and others, 1959). Methymercury choride is the most volatile of the compounds tested: (23% 10~mm * Methylmercury chloride, mercury (gray powder with talc), ethoxyethyl mercury silicate (tech.), methoxyethyl mercury silicate (tech.), ethylmer- cury chloride, ethylmercury isothiourea hydrochloride, methoxyethyl mercury chloride (tech.), ethoxyethyl mercury chloride (tech.), mercuric chloride, ethylmercury dicyandiamide (tech.), methylmercury dicyandiamide, bis-ethylmercury phosphate, tolylmercury acetate (mixed isomers ?), phenyl- mercury acetate, phenylmercury oxinate, phenylmercury iso-urea, phenyl- mercury salicylanilide (tech.), phenylmercury fluoroacetate, phenylmercury chloride, bis-phenylmercury methanodinaphthodisulphnate (tech.), phenyl- mercury nitrate, phenylmercury salicylate, NN-dimethyldithlocarbamate. 40 mercury at 35°C). The methyl and ethyl forms tested, other than methylmercury chloride, have a volatility similar to metallic mereury (1.2 to 3.4 times 10~@mm mercury (Phillips and others, 1959). Gaseous and particulate mercury are commonly contained in the exhaust fumes from various in- dustrial and smelting processes. Dust from sulfide- bearing mineral deposits may occasionally be a sig- nificant local source of mercury, inasmuch as "dust obtained during the treatment of tin ores" has been used for the industrial recovery of mercury (V. E. Poiarkov, cited by Sergeev, 1961). Mercury may be vaporized directly from the land surface, particu- larly from mineralized areas, by radiant energy. The saturation level of mercury in air in equilib- rium with metallic mercury, increases logarithmi- cally with increasing temperature (Vaughn, 1967). Sergeev (1961) found the mercury content of soil air over a mercury ore deposit to be 100 ng/m, whereas the atmospheric air immediately over the deposit contained 10 to 20 ng/m*. By comparison of these values with the value of 10° ng/m® for air sat- urated with metallic mercury vapor at 17°C (Vaughn, 1967), the soil air sampled by Sergeev would appear to have been undersaturated by a fac- tor of about 10*. The high degree of undersatura- tion of the soil air directly over a mercury deposit probably represents the faster rate of exchange of soil air with atmospheric air as compared to the rate of evaporation of mercury and its volatile com- pounds. McCarthy and others (1969) concluded that mercury in soil air samples was unrelated to the mercury content of the soil from which it was sam- pled, hence, most of the mercury in the soil air was assumed to come from greater depth. According to Williston (1964), the presence of a water table above mercury deposits does not greatly reduce the rate of mercury loss by vaporization. Presumably, the microbial methylation of mer- cury (P. E. Greeson, this report) will increase the vapor phase loss of mercury. Although monomethyl mercury is the principal product of biological meth- ATMOSPHERIC AND FLUVIAL TRANSPORT 41 ylation (Jensen and Jernelov, 1969), to the extent that the uncharged dimethyl mercury complexion is also formed, a net increase in volatility will result. Little is known concerning the extent or nature of the reactions of gaseous mercury with earth ma- terials although gaseous mercury readily forms amalgams with the noble metals platinum, gold, and silver. Ginzburg (1960, p. 104) and Koksoy and Bradshaw (1969) assumed that gaseous mercury is sorbed by organic matter and clays. If it is, then the amount of gaseous mercury that escapes from the land surface into the atmosphere is appreciably less than it would otherwise be. To the extent that this process occurs, the amount of mercury vapor in the atmosphere is being continually decreased by re- action with air-borne particulate matter and with the land surface. Mercury that enters the atmos- phere is returned to the earth's surface. Some of the particulate atmospheric mercury returns to the earth in dry fallout, but most of the atmospheric mercury, both gaseous and particulate, returns to the earth in rainfall. Stock and Cucuel (1934) re- ported five rainwater samples whose mercury con- tents were only a few tenths of a part per billion above the background value of approximately 0.01 ppb. They also reported that the average of 12 sam- ples, whose mercury content was significantly greater than the background value, was 0.2 ppb; the maximum value found was 0.48 ppb. The atmos- pheric mercury yield by rainfall was estimated by Anderssen and Wiklander (1965), who reported 1.2 grams per hectare per year (0.48 gram per acre per year) in Sweden and noted that this amount is about the same as that used for seed dressing (fun- gicide). Near industrial areas, more mercury may possibly be deposited by dry fallout than by rainfall during dry seasons. Thus, Dams and others (1970) found 244 times as much particulate mercury in the atmosphere in an industrial area of Chicago as in a rural area ; that is, 4.8 versus 1.9 ng/m. FLUVIAL TRANSPORT OF MERCURY The oxidation of mercury-bearing sulfide ores pre- sumably results in the formation of both mercuric and mercurous ions. Mercurous chloride (Hg.Cl;) is only slightly soluble (0.002 g/l (gram per liter) or 2,000 ppb). It has a strong tendency to dismutate according to the reaction under aqueous conditions (Sidgwick, 1950, p. 294). This reaction may be promoted by ultraviolet radiation (Sidgwick, 1950, p. 295). James (1962) sug- *Incorrectly cited by Rankama and Sahama (1950, p. 718) as 2 ppb. gested that the rather insoluble basic sulfate salt Hg.,8SO, - HgO - H.0 is also likely to form as the result of oxidation of mercury-bearing sulfide ores. Mer- curic chloride, HgCl,, being highly soluble (69 g/l at 25°C), will be readily leached by rainfall and carried to streams by runoff, underflow, or ground water discharge. Rainfall-induced erosion and leaching also convey a part of the atmospheric mercury, previ- ously returned to the land surface, to streams and other waters. Of course, a part of the atmospheric mercury is returned directly to water bodies by dry fallout and rainfall. According to Warren, Delavault, and Barakso (1966) the mercury contént of soils varies appreciably in the areas studied by them. Soils completely unaffected by mineralization or local industrial contamination varied from 10 to 50 ppb of mercury. In contrast, soil within some hun- dreds of feet of mercury associated major base metal deposits ran from 250 to 2,500 ppb of mereury. In the immediate area of mercury mineralization, soils commonly contained from 10,000 to 20,000 ppb but ranged from 1,000 to 50,000 ppb of mercury. They suggest that where the soil B or C horizons contain more mercury than the A horizon, which is com- monly enriched by vegetative litter, it is probable that there is mineralization in the immediate vicinity. However, they note that anomalous clay or organic matter contents of the various horizons may alter this general rule. Where streams have incised mercury-bearing de- posits, both solute and particulate mercury are re- leased directly to the fluvial environment. In places, thermal springs, nonthermal springs, and mine drainage contribute significant amounts of mercury to streams. Quantitative data on the sorption and desorption of ionic mercury by earth materials were not found in the literature in the course of the preparation of this report. However, in common with other metals such as zinc and cadmium (Rankama and Sahama, 1950, p. 715; Goldschmidt, 1954, p. 275) or anti- mony (Koksoy and Bradshaw, 1969), mercury ap- pears to be strongly sorbed by soils and sediments. Mercury must be fixed, that is, be desorbed very slowly, by soils and fluvial sediments. Otherwise, the high vapor pressure of free mercury and certain of its compounds as well as the solubility of the chlorides of mercury would preclude the notable en- richment of some soil horizons over mercury depos- its and the very considerable increase in mercury concentration in fluvial sediments immediately below industrial outfalls that contain mercury 42 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT wastes. Likewise, the affinity of certain soils for mercury is indicated by the failure of mercury ap- plied as orchard sprays (phenyl-mercury acetate) over a period of several years to migrate below the surface 2 inches; the soil contained 500 or 1,100 ppb of mercury depending on the number of sprays ap- plied (Ross and Stewart, 1962). A further indica- tion of the tendency of mercury to be sorbed by sol- ids is the marked loss of mercury from solution when unacidified water samples are stored in either polyethylene or glass containers. From 50 percent to 175 percent of the mercury lost from solution was recovered by acid washing the glass containers in which water samples were stored for only 2 weeks (Hinkle and Learned, 1969). It has been ob- served that the amount of mercury present in the surface horizon of five Swedish soils varied directly with the organic matter content (Anderssen and Wiklander, 1965) and that both plankton and peat moss sorbed significant amounts of mercury from solution (Krauskopf, 1956). Mercury forms stable complexes with a number of different types of or- ganic compounds found in natural waters, such as sulfur-containing proteins and humic materials. Some species of marine algae concentrate mercury from sea water to more than 100 times the sea water value of 0.08 ppb (Stock and Cucuel, 1934). Mercury is also concentrated to some degree in coal (Goldschmidt, 1954; and Michael Fleischer, this re- port) and notably in petroleum fluids (D. E. White and others, this report). Inasmuch as mercury forms many stable organo-metallic compounds in- cluding sulfur-containing proteins, probably a very significant part of the cationic mercury that has re- sided in natural fresh waters for times on the order of hours to days will be in some organic form. Fur- thermore, one may in some cases find a greater amount of mercury in the particulate fraction than in the solute fraction where the amount of sus- pended solids is relatively high and especially where the relative quantity of particulate organic matter is high relative to the soluble organic matter. Hin- kle and Learned (1969) found from five to 25 times as much mercury in a 1 N hydrochloric acid extrac- tion of the suspended sediment separated from some samples as was found in the filtrate. The single analysis found of marine manganese nodules for mercury (J. P. Riley and P. Sinhasong, cited by Mero, 1965, p. 181) yielded a value of 2,000 ppb, a concentration factor of 10" over the 0.03 ppb level in sea water. Likewise, manganese ores and "brown" iron ore are reported to contain as much as 1,000 ppb (A. A. Saukov, 1946, cited by Sergeev, 1961). In support of these observations are the find- ing of Krauskopf (1956) that initially divalent mer- cury was effectively sorbed by microcrystalline iron oxides. In solutions containing 30,000 ppb of Fe,0,'-nH.0 and initial mercury concentrations of 200 ppb, 90 to greater than 95 percent of the mer- cury was sorbed by the iron oxide within a few days. Montmorillonite was less effective as a sorbent (10 times more solids required to obtain similar sorption efficiency). A number of limonite samples from chalcopyrite deposits in the Southern Ural Moun- tains had an average mercury content of 16,000 ppb (Ginzburg, 1960, p. 104). The sorption efficiency ascribed to clays (Koksoy and Bradshaw, 1969) is very likely due to the nearly ubiquitous microcrys- talline iron and, to a lesser extent, manganese oxide coatings present on the clays (Jenne, 1968; Ander- son and Jenne, 1970). James (1962) has postulated the sorption of mercuric chloride anion complexes (HgCls;, HgCl,) by clays; sorption of molecular salts (Hg.Cl,, HgCl,) is also a possibility. The hy-. drous oxides of iron and manganese provide the most likely sites for both anionic and molecular salt sorption by earth materials. Less rapid reactions that may remove mercury (Hg* radius=1.10 angstroms) from waters and soils solutions are the possible isomorphous substitu- tion for barium (Ba radius=1.34 angstroms) and, to a lesser extent, for calcium (Ca++ radius=0.99 angstrom). However, the much greater electronega- tivity of mercury (1.9) than of calcium (1.10) and the fact that the ionic radius of divalent mercury is more than 15 percent smaller than the ionic radius of barium will certainly limit its solid solution for calcium and barium (Ringwood, 1955). Nonetheless, in districts that contain metallic mercury, barium sulfate (barite) may contain from 20,000 to 190,000 ppb mercury (A. A. Saukov, 1946, cited by Sergeev, 1961). Similar results were obtained by Vershkov- skzia (1956, cited by Ginzburg, 1960, p. 19). Little information is available on the cation ex- change properties of mercury. Ginzburg (1960, p. 155) stated that "Divalent ions form the following series, in reference to their uptake by montmoril- lonite from aqueous solutions Pb>Cu>Ca>Ba> Mg>Hg, and in reference to the facility of the re- placement, Mg>Ba>Ca>Cu>Pb. The energy of ad- sorption series of heavy metals by kaolinite are as follows: Hg>Cu>Pb; the calcium replacement series Pb>Cu> Hg." Thus, it appears that the sorp- tion capacity of this kaolinite for mercury is low, but that mercury which is sorbed is held strongly. ATMOSPHERIC AND FLUVIAL TRANSPORT 43 A regular decrease in mercury down the Paglia River (Italy) below a mercury anomaly was ob- served by Dall'Aglio (1968). The mercury concen- tration in the stream water decreased from a high of 136 ppb to a low of 0.04 ppb 50 to 60 kilometers downstream. (It is not clear from the paper whether these analyses are on filtered or unfiltered samples; presumably they were filtered). Wisconsin River sediment contained 560,000 ppb at a chemical company outfall but only 50,000 ppb 4 miles down- stream (Chemical and Engineering News, 1970). The mercury concentration in the sediment had de- creased to 400 ppb 21.4 miles downstream (Francis H. Schraufnagel, oral commun., July 20, 1970). The downstream decrease in the amount of mercury in the sediment is indicative of the rapid downstream decrease in mercury concentration. Concerning pos- sible seasonal variations, Heide, Lerz, and Bohm (1957) concluded that such variations did not occur in the mercury content of the Saale River (Ger- many) although they reported a minimum value of 0.066 ppb and a maximum value of 0.141 ppb of mercury at one sampling station in the course of a year. A progressive increase in downstream mer- cury concentration in the Saale River due presuma- bly to industrial pollution is indicated by their data. EXPERIMENTAL DATA Recent experimental data indicate that the sorp- tion of mercury by membrane filters is minimal and that mercury sorption by peat moss, micro- crystalline oxides, and soils is rapid (V. C. Ken- nedy, unpub. data, 1970). Solutions containing 1 and 10 ppb of mercury (originally divalent) were made up in tap water prefiltered through a 0.1 mi- cron membrane filter. From 1 to 7 percent of the mercury in 50 ml (milliliters) of these solutions was retained by 0.45-micron 2-inch cellulose acetate membrane filters in a single pass. This was true for both pH 6 and 8 solutions. Sorption of mercury by three soils, by a microcrystalline manganese oxide, and by peat moss was rapid. From half to nearly all the mercury in 50 ml of a 10 ppb solution of pH 6 was sorbed within 1 hour by ¥4-gram samples. After 24 hours, all the samples had sorbed more than three-fourth's of the added mercury. The amount of mercury desorbed in 1 hour from the manganese oxide, from the 24-hour set of sam- ples, by filtered tap water and subsequently by one- half normal sodium chloride (to approximate es- tuary salinity) was between 10 and 20 percent and 30 to 40 percent, respectively. The remainder of the 24-hour set of samples desorbed from less than 1 to 5 percent of the mercury originally sorbed, using fil- tered tap water. Subsequent desorption in one-half normal sodium chloride in general removed slightly less mercury than was desorbed by tap water. A similar amount of mercury was desorbed from the manganese oxide from both the 1-hour and the 24- hour sorption sets. However, a slightly lesser per- centage of the mercury originally sorbed was de- sorbed from the other samples which were exposed to mercury containing solutions for 24 hours. From 2 to 7 percent was desorbed in tap water and 1 to 2 percent in one-half normal sodium chloride. Thus, mercury at trace concentrations is rapidly taken up by microcrystalline oxides, peat moss, and soils. Most of the mercury was held irreversibly against filtered tap water and one-half normal so- dium chloride. However, it is not known to what ex- tent the uptake by these earth-material samples is due to sorption of cationic mercury and to what ex- tent the uptake may be due to a reduction to metal- lic mercury. The Eh-pH diagrams of Symons (1962) and the discussion of J. D. Hem (this re- port) indicate that metallic mercury is the stable form in most natural fresh waters. In very well ox- ygenated acid to neutral waters the mercurous ion may be the stable ion whereas under alkaline condi- tions the mercuric oxide, montroydite, may be the stable phase. FATE OF MERCURY INTRODUCED INTO ENVIRONMENT Mercury is being continuously removed from the atmosphere and deposited on the earth's surface by dry fallout and by rainfall. Solute mercury intro- duced into streams is quickly transformed to the particulate form by reduction to metallic mercury, by sorption on to inorganic sorbates, by complexa- tion with nonviable particulate organics, and by sorption and ingestion by viable biota, The avail- able evidence (Heide and others, 1957; Dall' Aglio, 1968; V. C. Kennedy, unpub. data, 1970) is that stream sediments and related fine-grained materials remove a high percentage of any slugs of mercury, introduced into streams, within a distance of a few to several miles, depending on the existing redox potentials, the amount of suspended sediment, stream discharge, and the mineralogical-chemical nature of the sediment. When a mercury pollution source is eliminated, mercury will be slowly released from bed sediment to the stream water over a period of time (possibly months) until a steady state condition is reached. The complexing of mercury by soluble organics 44 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT will greatly increase its mobility as will the forma- tion of strong inorganic complex ions. Considering the known ability of natural soluble organics to ex- tract trace metals from soils and sediments, it is likely that to a first approximation the mobility of mercury in natural waters will be dependent upon the amount and chemical nature of the soluble or- ganics present. Thus, mercury may have greater mobility in waters containing large amounts of dis- solved organics. In the case of ground waters, the mercury concentration has been found to be directly related to their bicarbonate content (Karasik and others, 1965). f The quantity of sediment in transport is the sec- ond most important factor in determining the downstream movement of mercury. For example, Hinkle and Learned (1969) found from five to 25 times as much mercury in the suspended sediment as in the filtered water. Organic pollution of natural waters, whether from natural or manmade sources, frequently causes reducing conditions to develop on the streambed. The occurrence of reducing conditions will cause the partial release of sorbed mercury due to dissolution of manganese and iron oxides present in the sediment. On the one hand, this will have the effect of enhancing mercury mobility by increasing the amount of mercury available for complexing by organics at the expense of mercury sorbed by the inorganic sediments. On the other hand, it is likely that under such reducing conditions a significant part of the mercury present will be reduced to the metallic state. This will decrease its mobility to the extent that the metallic mercury amalgamates with iron oxides or falls to the bed as droplets. (How- ever, Fedorchuk (1961) notes that mercury is not concentrated in the heavy mineral fraction of shales.) The solubility of metallic mercury, in the presence of 5 to 10 ppb of chloride and under condi- tions where the mercurous ion is stable, is generally less than 2 ppb (J. D. Hem, this report). However, the total solubility of both dissociated and undisso- ciated species is from 20 to 30 ppb (Sidgwick, 1950, p. 287; Pariaud and Archinard, 1952). Thus, mer- cury can be expected to be released to the stream water rather slowly. The apparent ease of microbial transformation of inorganic mercury in bed sedi- ments to the highly soluble methylmercury form (P. E. Greeson, this report) will noticeably increase mercury mobility. This transformation can be rather rapid, near steady state conditions being reached in a few days in batch tests (Jensen and Jernelov, 1969). The release of sulfides to or production of sulfide in the stream, as a result of reducing condi- tions, may markedly affect the mobility of mercury. The precipitation of the rather insoluble mercuric sulfide, HgS (1.25 g/l, Sidgwick, 1950, p. 293), will tend to concentrate mercury in the sedi- ment. In those unusual instances wherein alkaline reducing conditions exist, and hence greater sulfide concentrations occur, the formation of the rather soluble HgS,~ ion may facilitate mercury transport. Although mercuric mercury is generally unstable with respect to metallic mercury in stream waters (Symons, 1962), mercuric sulfide is formed by the reaction Hg.S-Hg*'+HgS (Sidgwick, 1950, p. 298). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is much indebted to V. C. Kennedy for permission to use unpublished data, to both V. C. Kennedy and T. T. Chao for helpful discussions and literature references, and to R. L. Malcolm and Paul T. Voegeli for rapid but helpful technical reviews. It is indeed a pleasure to acknowledge the excellent library assistance of William Sanders and Ann H. Schwabecher. f REFERENCES CITED Anderson, B. J., and Jenne, E. A., 1970, Free-iron and -man- ganese oxide content of reference clays: Soil Sci., v. 109, no. 3, p. 163-169. Anderssen, Arne, and Wiklander, I., 1965, Something about mercury in nature: Grundforbattring, v. 18, p. 171-177. Chemical and Engineering News, 1970, Mercury stirs more pollution concern: v. 48, no. 26, p. 24. Dall'Aglio, M., 1968, The abundance of mercury in 300 natu- ral water samples from Tuscany and Latium (central Italy), in Ahrens, L. H., ed., Origin and distribution of the elements: New York, Pergamon Press, p. 1065-1081. Dams, R., Robbins, J. A., Rahn, K. A., and Winchester, J. W., 1970, Nondestructive neutron activation analysis of air pollution particulates: Anal. Chemistry, v. 42, no. 8, p. 861-867. Fedorchuk, V. P., 1961, Formation of aureoles of direct ore indicators around mercury deposits: Geochemistry, no. 10, p. 1010-1020. Ginzburg, I. I., 1960, Principles of geochemical prospecting; techniques of prospecting for non-ferrous ores and rare metals: New York Pergamon Press, $11 p. Goldschmidt, V. M., 1954, Geochemistry: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 730 p. Heide, Fritz, Lerz, H., and Bohm, G., 1957, Lead and mer- cury content of water from the Saale River: Naturwis- senshaften, v. 44, no. 16, p. 441-442. Hinkle, M. E., and Learned, R. E., 1969, Determination of mercury in natural waters by collection on silver screens: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 650-D, p. D251-254. ATMOSPHERIC AND FLUVIAL TRANSPORT 45 James, C. H., 1962, A review of the geochemistry of mercury (excluding analytical aspects) and its application to geochemical prospecting: London, Imp. Coll. Sci. and Technology, Tech. Commun. 41, 42 p. Jenne, E. A., 1968, Controls on Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn concentrations in soils and water-The significant role of hydrous Mn and Fe oxides, in Trace inorganics in water: Advances in Chemistry Ser., no. 73, p. 837-887. Jensen, S., and Jernelov, A., 1969, Biological methylation of mercury in aquatic organisms: Nature, v. 223, p. 758-754. Karasik, M. A., Goncharov, Yu. I., and Vasilevskaya, A. Ye., 1965, Mercury in waters and brines of the permian salt deposits of Donbas: Geochemistry Internat., v. 2, no. 1, p. 82-87. Koksoy, M., and Bradshaw, P. M. D., 1969, Secondary dis- persion of mercury from cinnabar and stibnite deposits, West Turkey: Colorado School Mines Quart., v. 64, no. 1. p. 8333-356. Koksoy, M., Bradshaw, P. M. D., and Tooms, J. S., 1967, Notes on the determination of mercury in geological samples: Inst. Mining Metall. Bull., v. 726, p. B121-124. Krauskopf, K. B., 1956, Factors controlling the concentra- tions of thirteen rare metals in sea-water: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 9, nos. 1-2, p. 1-32B. McCarthy, J. H., Jr., Vaughn, W. W., Learned, R. E., and Meuschke, J. L., 1969, Mercury in soil gas and air-a potential tool in mineral exploration: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 609, p. 1-16. Mero, J. L., 1965, The mineral resources of the sea: Amster- dam, Elsevier Publishing Co., $12 p. Pariaud, J. C., and Archinard, P., 1952, Sur la solubilite des metaux dans eau: Soc. Chim. France Bull., v. 1952, p 454-456. Phillips, G. P., Dixon, B. E., and Lidzey, R. G., 1959, The volatility of organo-mercury compounds: Sci. Food Ag- riculture Jour., v. 10, p. 604-610. Rankama, Kalervo, and Sahama, Th. G., 1950, Geochemistry: Chicago, Chicago Univ. Press, 912 p. Ringwood, A. E., 1955, The principles governing trace ele- ment distribution during magmatic crystallization; Part 1, The influence of electronegativity: Geochim. et Cos- mochim. Acta, v. 7, nos. 8/4, p. 189-202. Ross, R. G., and Stewart, D. K. R., 1962, Movement and accumulation of mercury in apple trees and soil: Cana- dian Jour. Plant Sci., v. 42, p. 280-285. Sergeev, E. A., 1961, Methods of mercurometric investiga- tions: Internat. Geology Rev., v. 3, no. 2, p. 93-99. Sidgwick, N. V., 1950, The chemical elements and their com- pounds: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1,700 p. Stock, Alfred, and Cucuel, Friedrich, 1934, Die Verbreitung des Quecksilbers: Naturwissenschaften, v. 22, no. 22/24, p. 390-393. Symons, D., 1962, Stability relations of mercury compounds, in Schmitt, H. H., ed., Equilibrium diagrams for miner- als at low \temperature and pressure: Cambridge, Geo- logical Club of Harvard, p. 164-175. Vaughn, W. W., 1967, A simple mercury vapor detector for geochemical prospecting: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 540, 8 p. Warren, H. V., Delavault, R. E., and Barakso, John, 1966, Some observations on the geochemistry of mercury as applied to prospecting: Econ. Geol. v. 61, p. 1010-1028. Williston, S. H., 1964, The mercury halo method of explora- tion: Eng. and Mining Jour., v. 165, no. 5, p. 98-101. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF MERCURY IN ROCKS AND SOILS By F. N. WARD The mercury content of most uncontaminated solid earth materials is between 10 ppb and 500 ppb, and for water resources, generally is less than 0.1 ppb, as is shown by data elsewhere in this re- port. Hence, to be useful, any analytical method must be at least sensitive enough to detect as little as 10 gram and in some analyses one or two or- ders of magnitude less. With the exceptions of the techniques described by Ward and Bailey (1960) and by L. L. Thatcher (written commun., 1970) , both dis- cussed below, all methods mentioned in this article measure only inorganically-bound mercury. Using the best applicable methods, analytical limitations of the methods are 10 ppb for rock and soils and 0.1 ppb for aqueous solutions if 100 ml (milliliters) of sample is used. An exception to this statement is the neutron activation method which may reach 0.05 ppb for water and sediment samples. The requirements of sensitivity limit the number of techniques that appear useful for determining trace amounts of mercury in soils and rocks. (Al- though not rigorously defined, trace amounts may be considered as those occurring at 0.01 percent (100,000 ppb) or less.) Among the applicable tech- niques, including kinds of separations as well as final measurements, are those based on molecular and atomic absorption, molecular and atomic emis- sion, catalysis, nephelometry, polarography, and ac- tivation to produce measurable decay products. Sev- eral analytical methods for determining trace amounts of mercury in geologic materials based on some of these techniques are discussed below. Gra- vimetric and volumetric methods are not generally applicable, but under certain conditions large sam- ples can be taken and the separated mercury meas- ured by weighing or titrating with thiocyanate in the presence of iron alum to a persistent pink color (Hillebrand and Lundell, 1953). An old gravimetric method (Eschka, 1872, quoted in Hillebrand and Lundell, 1953) is discussed below. The literature on analytical methods for deter- 46 mining mercury in soils and rocks is voluminous, especially when one considers that most of this lit- erature covers less than a half century. Interests of agricultural chemists in the effects of trace elements in agriculture and of a few scientists like Gold- schmidt and the Noddacks in trying out a new tech- nique-the spectrograph utilizing emission phenom- ena-account in part for the literature becoming so large in such a short time. Fischer's (1925) re- search on the newly discovered large molecular com- pounds, such as dithizone, that were capable of re- acting with 10% gram and less of certain metals (especially mercury ) to produce highly colored products triggered the development of trace analyti- cal methods. Because of the vast literature available no claim is made of complete coverage herein, and the men- tion of a particular method to the exclusion of oth- ers is only for illustration and with no intended bias. Emphasis here is on procedures used by the U.S. Geological Survey because of the author's greater experience with them. Molecular absorption-absorptiometric, spectro- photometric, colorimetric-methods depend on the reaction of mercury under special conditions such as pH, etc., with high molecular weight compounds -usually organic-to form a species that uniquely absorbs certain light frequencies in the visible or ultraviolet range. The amount of absorption can be measured instrumentally or visually and then re- lated to the initial concentration of mercury in a homogeneous, isotropic medium; most often it is an organic solvent. Immiscible organic solvents are es- pecially useful for enriching the species to a thresh- old level and for removing it from other compounds so as to inhibit or prevent interfering side reac- tions. S Dithizone is one of the most common organic reagents that forms a highly colored and extracta- ble species with Hg**. The molar absorptivity of Hg dithizonate is about 70,000; that is, as little ANALYTICAL METHODS 47 as 0.012 microgram Hg per square centimeter gives a measurable absorbance of 0.004 to 0.005 (unit dif- ference in percent transmission as usually measured instrumentally). Differences of such magnitude are easily measured, and the dithizone procedure there- fore is applicable to mercury concentrations found in soils and rocks. The dithizone reaction was the basis of the first practicable field method for de- termining traces of mercury in such materials (Ward and Bailey, 1960). Briefly, the procedure in- volved treatment of a finely powdered sample with sulfuric and hydrobromic acid and bromine in a test tube. The acidity of the sample solution was ad- justed to pH 4 and treated with dithizone in n-hex- ane. Separation of the organic from the aqueous so- lution and subsequent removal of unreacted dithizoné left an amber-colored solution of mercuric dithizonate whose intensity was measured visually against that of standard solutions. The phenomenal growth of atomic absorption methods following the classic paper by Walsh (1955) tends to hide the fact that atomic absorption determinations of mercury were made by nontechni- cally oriented prospectors in the latter part of the 19th century. Mercury is unique with respect to its high volatility and resulting large number of ground state atoms in the vapor. Such atoms absorb resonant frequencies of incident energy, and the amount of absorbed energy is proportional to the concentration of mercury. Instrumentation useful for determining many ele- ments became commercially available in the early 1960's and since then even more chemical elements can be determined by atomic absorption. Sample in- troduction is done in two different ways. In one technique the sample is prepared in a solution, which is nebulized in the acetylene-air flame that is positioned in the path of incident energy. In a sec- ond technique, which is unique to mercury, the sam- ple is volatilized from a soil or rock sample by heat or from a solution prepared from the sample, and the resulting vapor is introduced into the path of incident energy. The first technique is used by Tin- dall (1967) and variaqts of the second are used by Brandenberger and Bader (1967) and Hatch and Ott (1968). Sensitivities of the second technique are of the order of 0.1 to 0.2 nanogram of mereury; if the starting solution contains all the mercury ex- tracted from a 1-gram sample, an analyst could measure as little as 10° gram mercury in geologic materials. This is equivalent to 0.1 ppb. In the U.S. Geological Survey laboratories, mer- cury in soils and rocks is measured by an instru- mental atomic absorption method described by Vaughn and McCarthy (1964) and Vaughn (1967). The sample is heated to about 500°C in an rf (ra- dio frequency) field to drive off mercury and parti- culate and vapor oxidation products of any organic material. The mercury is trapped on gold or silver leaf, and the other evolved products are shunted through a bypass and out of the system (diagramed by Vaughn, 1967). Then the rf field is changed so as to heat the gold or silver leaf, and the two-way stopcock is rotated in order to direct the mercury into the long measuring chamber, which has an ul- traviolet lamp near one end and a photocell detector at the other. The ground state atoms in the mercury vapor attenuate the light from the ultraviolet lamp, thereby decreasing the current output of the photo- cell. The decrease is amplified in a differential am- plifier causing a meter deflection that is propor- tional to the concentration of mercury. Under routine conditions the sensitivity achieved is about 1 ppb, which is quite adequate for signaling anom- alous concentrations in soils and rocks. Mercury in aqueous solutions is determined by amalgamation on a silver screen and subsequently heating the dried sereen in a rf heating coil. The re- leased mercury vapor is measured in a mercury- vapor absorption detector. The technique is describ- ed by Hinkle and Learned (1969). A similar method for sediment free water sam- ples (Fishman, 1970) follows. The water samples are filtered through 0.45 micron membrane filters immediately after collection and acidified with 1.5 ml of concentrated nitric acid per liter of sample to stabilize the mercury and to minimize loss by sorp- tion on container walls. Mercury is collected from the acidified water sample by amalgamation on a silver wire. The silver wire is electrically heated in an absorption cell placed in the light beam of an atomic absorption spectrophotometer. The mercury vapors are drawn through the cell with a water as- pirator and the absorption is plotted on a recorder. Samples containing between 0.1 and 1.5 ppb of mer- cury can be analyzed directly; samples containing more than 1.5 ppb must first be diluted. Much of the data given in this report, and espe- cially those used to produce the statistics shown in A. P. Pierce and others (this report) were obtained on atomic absorption units similar to those just de- scribed. Analytical methods based on optical emission spectrography are seldom used in the U.S. Geologi- cal Survey when many geologic samples must be an- 48 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT alyzed and time is short. Without specialized tech- niques to enrich the mercury content of the sample or to maintain the excited mercury atoms in an arc column for several seconds, the overall sensitivity of spectrographic methods is inadequate. Several Rus- sian workers have exercised the patience and skill needed to utilize the potential of optical emission spectrography in measuring trace amounts of mer- cury in soils and rocks; hence the method should not be underestimated. For the most part, however, the availability of other procedures that achieve greater sensitivity with less effort precludes any large-scale and in-depth investigations of optical emission spec- trography to determine mercury in ordinary mate- rials such as soils, rocks, and vegetation. Analytical methods based on catalysis are poten- tially applicable to the determination of trace amounts of mercury in soils and rocks. One such method used by the Geological Survey is described by Hinkle, Leong, and Ward (1966). This procedure is based on the catalytic effect of mercury on the re- action of potassium ferrocyanide with nitrosoben- zene to give a violet-colored compound, whose inten- sity is proportional to the mercury concentration. The color can be measured instrumentally or vis- ually. As little as 3X10# gram (10° ppb) of mer- cury is readily measured, and starting with a 1- gram sample, the analyst can measure concentra- tions as little as 30 ppb. Until recently, gravimetric methods of chemical analysis have not been useful in determining con- stituents occurring in amounts of 0.01 percent (100,000 ppb) or less. Owing to recent improve- ments in the sensitivity of analytical balances and especially the improvements that permit accurate weighing to a microgram or less, gravimetric meth- ods should be evaluated, and the Eschka gravimet- ric method for assaying mercury in soils and rocks shows new promise. The Eschka method consists of heating a sample in the presence of copper (Cu+) oxide and lime in a closed system and amalgamating the- volatilized mercury onto gold foil. With the improved analyti- cal balances the amalgamated mercury can be meas- ured by weight, and the increase resulting from amalgamation is proportional to the mereury con- tent of the sample. Mass spectrometry has quite recently been used for determining trace amounts of mercury in geo- logic materials. The method is sensitive and fast, es- pecially when directly linked to computer facilities, but the large initial costs as well as the need of skilled operators limit its application. Activation methods for determining trace amounts of mercury have been described by several authors including Brune (1966) and Dams and oth- ers (1970). The sensitivities achieved by these au- 'thors range from 0.1 nanograms to 30 nanograms depending on type of sample, irradiation time, and chemical treatment. Measurement of the gamma (y) radiation of Hg*"" (65-hour half life) after irradia- tion for 70 hours with a flux of 10" nanograms per square centimeter per second yields an absolute sen- sitivity of about 5 nanograms in a nondestructive procedure devised by L,. G. Erwall and T. Wester- mark (written commun., 1965). A sensitivity one order of magnitude less was achieved by Sjostrand (1964) in a destructive technique. According to L. L. Thatcher (written commun., 1970) neutron activation analysis is now being used to determine mercury concentrations in water and sediments down to 0.05 ppb. Two methods have been developed; (1) A reference method which is very specific for mercury and is capable of extract- ing mercury from the stable complexes with which it may be associated in water, and (2) a more gen- eral method for toxic heavy metals including mer- cury. In the reference method, 20 milliliters of water sample are irradiated in a sealed quartz vial at 1 megawatt for 4 hours. The mercury isotopes Hg**""*~" (24-hour half life) and Hg" (65-hour half life) are generated. After irradiation the mercury isotopes are isolated by performing a carrier pre- cipitation with added mereury salt followed by stan- nous chloride. The latter reduces the mercury and radio-mercury compounds to the free metal includ- ing any radio-mercury that may be tied up as a sta- ble complex. The activity of Hg**" is counted in a coaxial GeLi detector at 77 kilo electron volts. The combination of chemical isolation of radio-merecury and photon spectrum characterization provides very specific identification of mercury. Sensitivity of the method may be extended down beyond 0.05 ppb by taking a larger water sample for the irradiation and (or) by increasing the irradiation time. The more general toxic heavy metal determina- tion is carried out by stripping the heavy metals from a 40 ml water sample by sulfide precipitation using lead sulfide as carrier. The mixed sulfide pre- cipitate is activated (lead does not activate) in poly- ethylene or quartz as above. The lead sulfide pro- tects the mercury from significant volitalization during irradiation and also minimizes sorption loss to the polyethylene. After irradiation, the photon spectrum of the sulfides is scanned to identify the characteristic photo peaks of mercury, copper, chro- ANALYTICAL METHODS 49 mium, cadnium, cobalt, and arsenic and to quantify these heavy metals. The success of the method de- pends on the ability to make a lead sulfide precipi- tate of sufficiently high purity. This has not proved to be a significant problem but reagent blanks are always run as a precaution. The reference method can be applied to the deter- mination of mercury in waterborne materials, such as sediment and biota, by dissolving the irradiated material in hydrofluoric or oxidizing acids and fol- lowing through with the carrier precipitation. REFERENCES CITED Brandenberger, H., and Bader, H., 1967, The determination of nanogram levels of mercury in solution by a flame- less atomic absorption technique: Atomic Absorption Newsletter, v. 6, no. 5, p. 101-103. Brune, Dag, 1966, Low temperature irradiation applied to neutron activation analysis of mercury in human whole blood: Stockholm, Aktiebolaget Atomenergi AE-213, 7 p. Dams, R., Robbins, J. A., Rahn, K. A., and Winchester, J. W., 1970, Nondestructive neutron activation analysis of air pollution particulates: Anal. Chemistry, v. 42, no. 8, p. 861-867. Fischer, H., 1925, Compounds of diphenythiocarbazone with metals and their use in analysis: Wiss. Veroeff. Sie- mens-Konzern, v. 4, p. 158-170. Fishman, M. J., 1970, Determination of mercury in water: Anal. Chemistry, v. 42, p. 1462-1463. Hatch, W. R., and Ott, W. L., 1968, Determination of sub- microgram quantities of mercury by atomic absorption spectrophotometry: Anal. Chemistry, v. 40, no. 14, p. 2085-2087. Hillebrand, W. F., and Lundell, G. E. F., 1953, Applied inor- ganic analysis, with special reference to the analysis of metals, minerals, and rocks [2d ed.]: New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1034 p. Hinkle, Margaret, Leong, K. W., and Ward, F. N., 1966, Field determination of nanogram quantities of mercury in soils and rocks, in Geological Survey research 1966: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 550-B, p. B135-B137. Hinkle, M. E., and Learned, R. E., 1969, Determination of mercury in natural waters by collection on silver screens: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 650-D, p. D251-D254. Sjostrand, Bernt, 1964, Simultaneous determination of mer- cury and arsenic in biological and organic materials by activation analysis: Anal. Chemistry, v. 36, no. 4, p. 814-819. Tindall, F. M., 1967, Mercury analysis by atomic absorption spectrophotometry: Atomic Absorption Newsletter, v. 6, no. 5, p. 104-106. Vaughn, W. W., 1967, A simple mercury vapor detector for geochemical prospecting: U.S. Geol. Survey Cire. 540, 8 p. Vaughn, W. W., and McCarthy, J. H., Jr., 1964, An instru- mental technique for the determination of submicrogram concentrations of mercury in soils, rocks, and gas, in Geological Survey research 1964: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 501-D, p. D123-D127 [1965]. Walsh, A., 1955, Application of atomic absorption spectra to chemical analysis: Spectrochim. Acta, v. 7, p. 108-117. Ward, F. N., and Bailey, E. H., 1960, Camp and sample-site __ determination of traces of mercury in soils and rocks: Am. Inst. Mining, Metall., and Petroleum Engineers Trans., v. 217, p. 343-850. TABLES 1-28 TABLES TABLE 1.-Determinations of mercury in U.S.G.S. standard rocks by different laboratories [Method: NA, neutron activation; AA, atomic absorption] Mercury Sample content Year Method (ppb) Granite G-1, Rhode Island !.__..._...___L.____l___. 340 1964 NA 130 1965 AA 245 1967 NA 120 1968 NA 70 1969 NA 97 1970 AA 80 1970 AA Diabase W-1,. Virginia 170 1964 NA 340 1965 AA 110 1967 NA 330 1968 NA 94 1969 NA 280 1970 AA 290 1970 AA Granite G-2, Rhode Island...--............-..-.«&... 39 1967 NA 29 1969 NA 50 1970 AA 50 1970 AA 40 1970 AA 120 1970 NA Granodiorite GSP-1, Colorado___.____..__._________. 21 1967 NA 41 1969 NA 15 1970 AA 17 1970 AA 15 1970 AA Andesite AGV-1, Oregon................._..-..-«.-. 4 1967 NA 16 1969 NA 25 1970 AA 26 1970 AA 15 1970 AA Basalt'BCR-1, Washington.2.....=._...........-... a 1967 NA 4 1969 NA 18 1970 AA 10 1970 AA 5 1970 AA Peridotite PCC-1, California.______._......._......... 4 1967 NA 4 1969 NA 5 1970 AA 11 1970 AA 10 1970 AA Dunite DTS-1, 4 1967 NA 6 1969 NA 12 1970 AA 10 1970 AA 8 1970 AA ! It has been suggested that some of the samples analyzed had become contaminated by mercury during long storage in the laboratory. TABLE 2.-Analyses for mercury, in parts per billion, of basalts, gabbros, diabases, andesites, dacites, and liparites [Compare with table 6] 58 Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Basalt BCR-1, Washington....___________. 1 4 18 9 - Five labs. Diabase W-1, £ 94 340 231 - Eight labs. Three basalts, two dolerites, Iceland, Hawaii, 5 5 21 13 - Ehmann and Lovering (1967). and Tasmania. Basalts, oceanic sediments near Iceland.... _. : Fane. 180 $00. »....s Aidin'yan, Ozerova, and Gipp (1963). CGabbror Quebec.. 1 =: 1 - Jovanovic and Reed (1968). Composite 11 gabbros, Germany- _____ __. 1 *: "ys a s. . a- aa es 100 - Preuss (1940). Composite 11 gabbros, Germany___________. 1." ;~ 2 P a vows s 80 - Stock and Cucuel (19342). CGabbros, 11 0 50 26 - Nekrasov and Timofeeva (1963). Gabbros, northern Caucasus. __-__________. 13 20 250 100 - Afanas'ev and Aidin'yan (1961). cecal ck a 6 - <1,100 500 240 - Ozerova (1962). 190 - Stock and Cucuel (19342). Pasalt,iGermany..........:1i..l=......_~.. e t e oes ae 54 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT TABLE 2.-Analyses for mercury, in parts per billion, of basalts, gabbros, diabases, andesites, dacites, and liparites-Continued Number of Range Sample samples --------------- Average Reference analyzed Min Max Basalt, Yakutias.. __ Rel BJ 6 40 20 - Nekrasov and Timofeeva (1963). Basalt, Kamchatka and Kuriles_____-_____._ 63 20 100 47 - Ozerova and Unanova (1965). Bafialtgi, Andesites, Mendeleev Volcano, =- a 100 120 -= . jwey.- Ozerova and others (1969). uriles. Lavas, central Kamchatka._______.________._ hese yee uu 460 _ Aidin'yan and Ozerova (1964). Lavas, eastern Kamehatka_________________ Seats l ll all. 640 Do. Granophyre, associated with dolerite, Tas- 1} } * estee .ll. 26 - Ehmann and Lovering (1967). mania. Andesite, AGV-1, Oregon 1 4 26 17 - Five labs. Andesites, Kamchatka and Kuriles__________ 209 20 400 75 - Ozerova and Unanova (1965). Trachytes, northern Caucasus_____________._ 5 60 200 130 _ Afanas'ev and Aidin'yan (1961). Trachytic tuffs, northern Caucasus__________ 19 70 500 160 Do. Eruptive breccia, northern Caucasus. _______ T 4 a 500 Do. Keratophyres, northern Caucasus. __________ T 20 300 100 Do. Dacites, 37 20 150 83 - Ozerova and Unanova (1965). Dacites, Yakutia... . _. 6 2 30 10 _ Nekrasov and Timofeeva (1963). Liparites, 4 15 200 70 Do. Liparites, northern Caucasus ______________ 3 40 80 60 _ Afanas'ev and Aidin'yan (1961). Ignimbrites, northern ___ 4 40 80 65 Do. TABLE 3.-Determinations of mercury, in parts per billion, in granitic rocks [N.f., not found. Compare with table 6] Number of Range Sample samples -------------- Average Reference analyzed Min Max Granite G-1, Rhode Island. 1 70 340 155 - Seven labs. Granite G-2, Rhode Island________________ 1 29 120 55 - Six labs. Granodiorite GSP-1, Colorado. ___________. 1 15 41 22 - Five labs. Composite 14 German granites. ____________ 1:8 sla} LLC 58 - Stock and Cucuel (19342). Composite 14 German granites. ____________ ¥ >: s... ze? Ote. 100 _ Preuss (1940). Cranite, NCQ: ( :< ss MA sc SE 160 - Aidin'yan, Troitskii, and Balavskaya (1964). Granites, diorites, granodiorites, 64 10 15 30 - Aidin'yan, Mogarovskii, and Mel'nichenko Tadzhikistan. (1969). Granitic rocks, Yenisei Range______________ 68 5 180 28 - Golovnya and Volobuevy (1970). Granites, Yakutisa.._... ...s :..... aut} ___ 45 N.. 80 20 - Nekrasov and Timofeeva (1963). Diorites, granodiorites, Yakutia____________ 26 N. 40 13 Do. Diorites porphyrites, Yakutia_____________. 8 2 20 5 Do. Granites and diprites. ..}. __.____.:: >____ 18 <100 400 190 - Ozerova (1962). Granites, northern Caucasus-______________ 2 130 200 165 - Afanas'ev and Aidin'yan (1961). Extrusive granitoids, northern Caucasus. ___. 4 100 200 150 Do. Quartz porphyry, northern Caucasus________ 4 60 50 110 Do. Porphyry, northern Caucasus. 5 60 200 130 Do. TABLE 4.-Determinations of mercury, in parts per billion, in ultramafic and deep-seated igneous rocks Number of Range Sample samples -------------- Average Reference analyzed Min Max Peridotite PCC-1, 1 4 11 7 Five labs. Dunite DTS-1, Washington________________ 1 4 12 8 Do. 4 <20 500 140 - Ozerova (1962). Kimberlite, South Africa___________________ T s alll t uel 200 _- Ehmann and Lovering (1967). Eclogite inclusion in kimberlite, South Africa. 1 :> . tags 640 Do. Garnet peridotite in kimberlite, South Africa. t. s s sas o oa 780 Do. Eclogite inclusion in pipe, Australia________. 1s n ee aoi ies 1, 480 Do. Granulite inclusion in pipe, Australia________ 1 ____________ 1,230 Do. TABLES 55 TABLE 5.-Determinations of mercury, in parts per billion, in alkalic rocks [Compare with table 6] Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Average for four granosyenite porphyries, ___ 50 80,000 90-5,000 _ Abuev, Divakov, and Rad'ko (1965). Caucasus, 90, 700, 4000, 5000. x 3% Nepheline syenites, etc., Lovozero massif, Kola - 640 140 580 273 - Aidin'yan, Shilin, and Unanova (1966). Peninsula, U.S.S.R. # Nepheline syenites, etc., Khibiny massif, Kola - 179 30 4,000 580 - Aidin'yan, Shilin, and Belavskaya (1963). Peninsula, U.S.S. R. Nepheline 12 60 200 200 - Ozerova (1962). TABLE 6.-Determinations of mercury, in parts per billion, in igneous rocks of areas of very high content, mainly from the Crimea and Donets Basin, U.S.S.R. [Tr., trace] Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Diabases, Crimea.....:........~...l....l. 33 Tr. 500,000 17,600 _ Bulkin (1962). 3 500 5,600 1,700 Do. Easalts, Donets Basin-.>......._...;..._. 8 200 1,500 625 - Buturlinov and Korchemagin (1968). Trachydolerites, Donets ___.... 4 200 540 350 Do. Andesite-basalts, Donets Basin-___________. 4 300 490 400 Do. Camptonites, Donets Basin...__...____.... 18 60 550 300 Do. 10.2 2a as 4 aes be an r ivan te o ain a ain € ne JP. 3,000 75000 ° . __.. Dvornikov and Klitchenko (1964). Basaltic andesite, Viet Nam.______________._ 1} s seit " peee 9,000 _ Aidin'yan, Troitskii, and Balavskaya (1964). Andesites, Donets Basin 5 10,200 $0,600 ' ' .c:s.. Panov (1959). 8 Tr. 24,000 8,100 _ Bulkin (1962). Keratophyres, Crimea... 4 Tr 5,000 2,100 Do. Granodiorites, Crimea____________________._ 5 Tr. 1,000 : Do. Forphyry, Crimea.... 13 Tr. 5,000 700 Do. Plagiogranite, Donets Basin.... role 3,400 73000. > icceel Dvornikov and Klitchenko (1964). Plagioporphyry, Donets Basin-__________.__ 6 200 900 350 - Buturlinov and Korchemagin (1968). Granite, Donets (sl ered. 200 Do. Monzonites, Donets 3 400 640 520 Do. Pyroxenites, Donets Basin. _______________ 4 100 300 250 Do. Shonkinites, Donets Basin-...._.._______._. 12 200 720 320 Do. Nepheline syenites, Donets Basin-_________. 11 400 2,000 1,200 Do. TABLE 7.-Determinations of mercury, in parts per billion, in metamorphic rocks Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Quartzites, Valdai Series, Russian platform.. 2 55 60 57 - Ozerova and Aidin'yan (1966a, 1966b). Paragneisses, Valdai Series, Russian platform. 5 25 100 51 Do. Granitic, Valdai Series, Russian platform ___. l 30 65 47 Do. Orthoamphibolites, Valdai Series, Russian 5 30 90 51 Do. platform. Phyllites and schists, Irtysh zone. _________. 100 T Bs.. :t IML Do. Amphibolite, ss elves seule. 18 - Jovanovic and Reed (1968). Pelitic schists, Vermont.... _. 14 2.5 2,535 360 Do. Pelitic schists, Vermont (omitting highest)... 13 2.5 942 193 Do. Schists and hornfels, Khibina massif, Kola 10 70 600 407 - Aidin'yan, Shilin, and Belavskaya (1963). Peninsula (country rocks of alkalic massif). Schist, northern Caucasus-_________________ 1: ~.. aas 60 _ Afanas'ev and Aidin'yan (1961). 56 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT TABLE 8.-Analyses for mercury, in parts per billion, in limestones Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max a a o p a aearo 33 Stock and Cucuel (19342). Germany. 322202 the 1s boon oue c ne ut. caled 2 . 14 28 220 66 - Heide and Bohm (1957). Nineteen Composites, Russian platform __ ___ 19 10 90 31 - Ozerova and Aidin'yan (19662). Argillaceous marls, Cauaseus, s. 10 £57000 °. © ;:_.252. Abuev, Divakov, and Rad'ko (1965). background = 50. Limestones, Crimean highlands________._____ 8 100 6, 400 2,300 - Bulkin (1962). Marls, Crimean highlands__________________ 5 500 5,000 1,500 Do. Donets Basin.... ... ".._. 314 <100 10,000 900 _ Karasik and Goncharov (1963). Kerch-Taman area, near mud volcanoes. ___ ee: 2,000 5,000 ~ 2... Karasik and Morozov (1966). § Limestones and dolomites, southern Ferghana. 22 20 150 75 - Nikiforov, Aidin'yan, and Kusevich (1966), Northeast 1 =_." 26 <2 7O 18 - Nekrasov and Timofeeva (1963). .% cl n00 >: ls rent. <20 Fu(rs3v, $5 quoted by Ozerova and Aidin'yan 1966b). Marble, Viet Nam: .... 1}. sy Aoi) Auge. p 500 _ Aidin'yan, Troitskii, and Balavskaya (1964). TABLE 9.-Analyses for mercury, in parts per billion, in sandstones F Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max 2 26 40 33 - Stock and Cucuel (19842). Composite of t *~ t cunt 100 _ Preuss (1940). Sandstones, mudstones, Russian platform ___ 45 0 95 39 - Ozerova and Aidin'yan (1966b). Effusive-sedimentary, Kamchatka _________ 9 . use cel ___ cf 97 Do. soi. L n00}> -_ __ {9a 96E__ CQL 20 Fursov,bquoted by Ozerova and Aidin'yan (1966b). Northeast Yakutia............_..___21l..;. 6 <2 30 12 - Nekrasov and Timofeeva (1963). Sandstones, Crimean highlands_____________ 83 100 11,000 5,700 _ Bulkin (1962). Conglomerates, Crimean highlands_______ ___ 10 100 7,000 2,300 Do. Donets .so Syl l _ ege <50 1,000 300 - Dvornikov and Klitchenko (1964). Donets 20.01 jun. pict TT <100 7,000 870 - Karasik and Goncharov (1963). Donets Basin, contact with dike.____________ 1: .. sta cca . ool 600 _ Buturlinov and Korchemagin (1968). Donets Basin, from mercury ___ cvs 3,000 10,000 6,000 _ Bol'shakov (1964). Sanfistones with limestones, southern Fer- ____ 3,000 10,000 :s:::2._. Kurmanaliev (1967). ghana. Viet e ell 4 280 1,000 620 _ Aidin'yan, Troitskii, and Balavskaya (1964). TABLE 10.-Analyses for mercury, in parts per billion, in shales and clays Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Composite 36 German shales. __ ____________ cnl cilie. 300 - Preuss (1940). Composite 26 German shales. 1%}. a..; 00; B0. 510 _ Stock and Cucuel (19342). Shales: s ror oc nee. .- - rae dee ob sae ah 4 130 250 182 Do. Marly _o Aals o . 3 100 320 188 - Heide and Bohm (1957). Clays, Russian platform......_._.._.___;.___ 58 0 130 85 - Ozerova and Aidin'yan (1966b). Shales, northeast 6 15 80 50 - Nekrasov and Timofeeva (1963). Shales, sandstones, southern Ferghana_______ 36 20 150 70 _ Nikiforov, Aidin'yan and Kusevich (1966). Shales, Komi ___ 26 42 290 - < Zav'yalov and Mal'tseva, quoted by Ozerova and Aidin'yan (1966b). Argillites, sedimentary-volcanic, Kamchatka__ t Poeun . . coas oe 85 - Nikiforov, Aidin'yan, and Kusevich (1966). Bituminous shale, Alaska 2 630 2 ;800 :::. sci Donnell, Tailleur, and Tourtelot (1967). Oil shales, Baltic region..__.._._______.____ 10 170 1,500 - sice... Ozerova and Aidin'yan (1966b). Oil shales, Povolzhe region..._.____________ 11 200 1,600 440 Do. Oil shales, Tula region-...c....--._._.._1.. 2 50 100 T5 Do. Silurian shales outside ore region____________ uss <100 200 ®: Ozerova (1962). Silurian shales within ore region. ___________ T ows no n000---:: ss 2. Do. Shales, Crimean highlands. 48 <100 19,000 2,300 _- Bulkin (1962). : Shales, Donets -._._c___._______ 0 <50 80 50 - Dvornikov and Klitchenko (1964). Shales, Donets Basin, contact with dikes____. 8 <200 500 350 - Buturlinov and Korchemagin (1968). Shales, Donets 55 <100 8,000 660 _ Karasik and Goncharov (1963). Shales, Donets Basin, from mercury deposit.. ___ 1,000 60,000}... s" Bol'shakov (1964). Clays, Kerch Peninsula.-..__.._____._:_.___ e ais <100 4,000 800 _ Morosov (1965). Clays, c 4 100 550 270 _- Aidin'yan, Troitskii, and Balavskaya (1964). TABLES 57 TABLE 11.-Analyses for mercury, in parts per billion, in miscellaneous sedimentary rocks Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Caucasus, notispecified._....:..__.._._..:._ 14.0.2 y t Alun 50 Diggggf’ quoted by Ozerova and Aidin'yan Gornyi Altai, not specified ______________-_- 9 40 100: _s... Shghgéggr quoted by Ozerova and Aidin'yan 1 R Kerch-Taman area, near mud volcanoes.... ams 500 2;800+> . Karasik and Morozov (1966). Kerch-Taman area, away from mud volcanoes. ___. 400 600 540 Do. Cambrian, Tees 70 £2,800 :.... Shabalin and Solov'eva (1967). Rock salt, anhydrite, gypsum, Donets Basin T1 <100 4,000 700 - Karasik and Goncharov (1963). Phosphorites.~'_. "__ LSX n L0 CL CC... 20 20 800 70 - Ozerova and Aidin'yan (1966a, 1966b). Iron-rich laterites, Viet kry 1,000 2;100 s=... Do. Manganese ores, Nikopol_______________._. Leis Cle «suus. ©". 2,800 Do. Manganese ores, Ro ee 360 590%: ...--. Do. Manganese ores, Mangyshlak._____________. 65 95 s d . Do. rc _ 4 120 600 460 Do. TABLE 12.-Analyses for mercury, in parts per billion, in oceanic and lacustrine sediments Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Red clay, 4 500 1,800 1,000 _ Aidin'yan, Ozerova, and Gipp (1963). Red clay, 2 100 300 200 Do. Red clay, Black 4 900 2,000 1,200 Do. Foraminiferal ooze, Atlantic. T 80 300 170 Do. Foraminiferal ooze, Pacific____________._._- x* "_. S o a. < _s 50 Do. Foraminiferal ooze, Indian_______________ _- 2 70 150 110 Do. Terrigenous ooze, Atlantic. 6 80 550 210 Do. Terrigenous ooze, 1s e il tisk e 70 Do. Diatomaceous ooze, Pacific____________-_--_- 2 60 100 80 Do. Diatomaceous ooze, __ 2 ol. M. s * Pk le- 200 Do. Past Pacific. scn .. sews 11 $400. Bostrom and Fisher (1969). Fjord sediments 2 1,400 2,000 =_... _. Landstrom, Samsahl, and Wenner (1969). Lacustrine sediments.-:.iccll.l.-l.00.c00.. 2 360 $10 :: _.... Do. Manganese nodules, 5 <1 $10; >- Harriss (1968). Manganese nodules, Pacific. __----__--_------ T <1 TTD s --... Do. Manganese nodules, 4 <1 o .s Do. Manganese nodules, Atlantic____-_____-_-_-_- Tents ." 2,000 - Ozerova and Aidin'yan (1966b). Manganese nodules, Pacific______---------. tase 100 150; .se... Do. ! On a carbonate-free basis. TABLE 13.-Analyses of soils for mercury, in parts per billion Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Most soils, California.............._l.:.c..l:. yas 20 40 = _. Williston (1968). Soils, Franciscan Formation, California_... .. 100 200: :i. ._ s+ Do. Soils, unmineralized areas, California_______. oue 40 60 : .>.....s Friedrich and Hawkes (1966). Unmineralized areas, British Columbia_____ Vahe 10 50 -::: Lcc Warren, Delavault, and Barakso (1966). Near mineralization, British Columbia_____ _- ___ 50 2,500 ~;... .._ =C Do. Very near mineralization, British Columbia. ___ 250 2,600 := ;. .< A Do. Soils, roe 30 290 .* ... -C Stock and Cucuel (19342). Topsolls, oto ". 60 _ Anderssen (1967). 14: _c ck. 23 Do. Soils, European U.8S.5.R_......_.....:..... 130 40 ©,800 .. . ...-: Aidin'yan, Troitskii, and Balavskaya (1964), Soils, Donets 248 <50 10,000 300 - Dvornikov (1963). Soils, Donets Basin...............}..._l... eve 100 2,400 1,300 - Dvornikov and Petrov (1961). Soils, Kerch 264 <100 $,000 ~.: ..: .> Morozov (1965). Soils, Kerch-Taman area_.____________-___. ars 240 1,900 ~ s _ ... dense cuca. enn lon 1 s ss Poles Aidin'yan and Balavskaya (1963). Sweden. .22..2.222.0. s. sn en. 4 .02 t carl monome Wikander (1968). European 24 4 2.8 1.1 - Aidin'yan (1962). Armenian SSR. _L. Le T 1 20 4.2 - Aidin'yan (1963). Armenian SSR.. 6 1 2.0 21.5 Do. 300 .01 $186 x. Sea water ______________________ 0.03 Stock and Cucuel (19342). ______________________ .03 Heide and Bohm (1957). Atlantic, Indian, Red Sea, Black Sea, etc.- 14 0.7 2.0 1.1 - Aidin'yan (1962). Atlantic Ocean .l... 9 .4 1.6 1.2 - Aidin'yan, Ozerova, and Gipp (1963). Pacific Ocean, Ramapo Deep......_.-______ ~____._ . 08 15 .1 - Hamaguchi and others (1961). cee se ell cee ece ca naan nn ek 4 15 27 .2 - Hosohara (1961). Minamata Bay, ctlllLsl.l} 1.6 8.6.4, Hosohara and others (1961). Ground water and miscellaneous samples Rainwater... .ll; .ll les ene B2... 0.05 Spring water, .01 Surface waters, Northwest Caucasus. _______ 7,000 BT Subsurface waters, Northwest Caucasus... _. f .25 Springs, Elbrus region:.:_.......___.L0:_._ Bi <.05 (No data in abstract on nature of water.)__ _- ______ 0 Ground water, Kerch,; ______ <1 Ground water, near mud volcanoes, Kerch___ ______ a Ground water, Abkhazia, D.... Mine waters, Abkhazia, ___.. ______ .5 Mineralized waters, Abkhazia, U.S.S.R-_____ ______ 1 Waters of Permian salt beds, Donets Basin.. 26 <1 Brines associated with petroleum, Cymric oil- ______ 100 field, California. Brine, geothermal well, Salton Sea, Calif __ __ ts <. 0.48 0.2 - Stock and Cucuel (19342). 0b Do. 108 Baev (1968). 1.25 Do. 80 =1 Krainov, Volkov, and Korol'kova (1966). 140;000 :-}... Ishikura and Shibuya (1968). ro . Morozov (1965). sD Karasik and Morozov (1966). ________ <.5 - Zautashvili (1966). 0 | o- Do. os .c eil .s Do. 18.9 ... Kigrgsgk, Goncharov, and Vasilevskaya 1965). 4001 % wok Bailey and others (1961). ________ 6 Skinner and others (1967). 11 The value 0.19 (next highest 0.08) is ascribed to waste water from an industrial plant. 2 Excluding the highest value. 3 Values above 0.1 ppb were in the drainage area of mercury deposits. 4 Another sample, a concentrated brine, contained 220 ppb Hg. TABLES 59 TABLE 15.-Mercury in air and in volcanic emanations, in nanograms per cubic meter [1 nanogram =10-* grams) Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max Air air"" ._; .5.:.:. 9 5 O: tvs . seere.us 8 Stock and Cucuel (1934b). Over Pacific Ocean, 20 miles offshore.. ______ 0.6 0.7) 'c sass. se Williston (1968). California, winter.. . ...= 1 29 hull 2s, Do. California, c..... 1.5 50° L Do. Background, Arizona and California_________ ______ 1.6 T2 4.5 McCarthy and others (1969). Chicago we 22 8 39 9.7 Brar and others (1969). : ..:. 20.0.2 eds rec ge. cakes 10 i cll 190 Aidin'yan and Ozerova (1966). Moscow and Tula regions (no ore deposits) ___ ______ 80 800} 'L....!.. Do. Over porphyry copper deposit______________ ______ 12 30 18.8 McCarthy and others (1969). {p puo | Apis athens r ale s So annie ". 18.5 58 28 Do. Over mercury 0... 000... 12 57.5 31.4 Do. Dole ll.. ALL ILE _ iene a aoa ews 58 66 62 Do. Do-: AFP.. Ll .n nies coh 200 1,200 : Karasik and Bol'shakov, quoted by ~Aidin'yan and Ozerova (1966). Volcanic Air of vent breccias of mud volcanoes. ______ 300 roo > .s IR . Karasik and Morozov (1966). Gases -of mud 100. _. 700 2,000 . >> Do. Gases, Mendeleev and Sheveluch Volcanoes. _____. 300 £4,000. :- Aidin'yan and Ozerova (1966). Gases from hot springs, Kamchatka and ______ 10,000 15,000 .: Do. Kuriles. Condensates from fumaroles and volcanic _____. *.2 Ato . - elses. Do. emanations, Kamchatka and Kuriles. Waters from hot springs, Kamchatka and _____. +0 KA. Ceclrscus Do. Kuriles. ' Parts per billion. TABLE 16. -Mercury in coal, in parts per billion Number of Range Sample samples Average Reference analyzed Min Max ell loll en n inane hie s 11 1.2 25 12 Stock and Cucuel (19342). Donets Basin, 4,500 70,000 11,100 Karasik and others (1962). Doss t ess . o. l oe naan e an ie nee one 140 300,000 46,000 Ozerova (1962). : dell euice cled eek 206 50 10,000 1,100 Dvornikov (1963). Donets Basin, U.S.S.R. (in lenses within mer- ____._ 2,500 6, 500 3,700 Bol'shakov (1964). cury ore body). Donets Basin, 75 20 20,000 ...... Dvornikov (19672). D9 l ss... uso be ous 29 too toe 100 7,000 - % Dvornikov (1965, 1967b). iss clas oll. . c aut k r aw 13 100 300,000 46,000 - Dvornikov (1968). r r - *ueawu onowyjuy : 'usout 21190038) ; sty3) us@ipep 'v 'Y sI0'g 006 " :: ~ mC} O9T ligh or OL "are o yoo1 2355 R8 II IIL ILE neared Op 81010] 'oC vg X S--" ue OOT xor 'N ®pHoLd B47 ZL 600 !t: :> tp Ic T9T : ToD emp oO" t edn pepuseupm( 'N '0110308 'qornstp zedo7 sin? *og 0s $q menores dps es 62 : Or Sis) ros nnn an" AON '1oxeq 'sore yoorq *(016t "unururo9 uag31im) seutury 'A *H pus SUE "H "M PL 8p cla Aon" sige >> 6T . OL: ..> 5 ** queturpas ofoury ~~~~~~~~~~ xeJ4 *N 'olfyon; suorg Jo puo y3.0N (0161 "unururoo uay311m) souuo; *f *f pus 40|,m0 J, *V *H 812 008 'T 0885 08 . um Sethi aan" ~ eSooummeyo stach"~ Axyonuoy 'og 0g 008 L -> San n A a n nrg AT 08 :: unr" fo esta A Neg ff { toro anl..." om 'A11p sesuey 'og 6T 600 :> ""t ftv S7 OP : aw O. : ie a ene a ou .-"" ~* oes frae a (£rewawins) tamosst { E or o c Nite a2l 03 : Op: SR rare rent to ins ~~~ unosstpy wojseq an 9 { am cos he avg o Et ts OP : 08 ; lena fant L2 yo01 apeuoqis; *(OL6T '*untruroo asuravflafimo i! 5st" fn: g O9L: :> stor. OL s 0% ~ y cest o me SIMIS A f ear 1nosstpy tjs2M "(O16 "unur -w109 uay311m) 33.54 | (ct 0082 /: ~*~ 018 : sgid 06 -. "haren" opine "A s "an ®xsELV '(opts y310u) aBdurey syooug *(OL6T ''untuurod uagq1im) qqeag top tmp = t~~~~~~ ST (8p: . c- n monn!" Fest oF: :n." ~" Preds HOH-DiUESIG - ~- 'soary uonen .. ©00!0L. zi 2 n ""so . 565 098 1 08 : i queunpas wreang fogs a Atma FAs 6T ::. te "** tas A" If f 028 1 | 1. caine nant A opis: § n 9-g pus 9-4 fogs" Aten: "saas" fad ©0016: OFZ pus dosogn( ~~~~~~=~~~=~~=~~~~===~~----~~ 9-¢ fous; : 60T ©0046 : *> an I pronto" OFG 1 fly: ok © : fortes ean La To tike 0 iff ey Onde Als (ni 4000, af8usipenb $-G loan} ~ $ fr fac an afr" " 922 0060's > 14 wenn" O61 : 00 :: ; far eta" quawtpas ursong *(OL6T) stoy;e pus © }~~~~-*~ 82 000 :§T :i 005 'P: < "77% 008 ~eausuno00 pus dorogn( g-» 'exsery 'surezunopy 40]4%,J, sty3) powrea7 'o "¥ 919 gos! : «A .o itt" Ost Of: c isso a co" ~*I fff pel "~s cory oping 'sore ofesuo; 'og 16 bobs / ano" 09 0p sss feo 230" quawtpas wreang p- "oa L 006 ML.. >: : Ses "" te «" SACOM OST e1o91q pus adno3 ing z, II 0st a: a ACPC gI 91 oP : lt nata 5 |euagew urea agsuog1s; m *(99617) s19u30 pus samo; Z6T 00g 4 : SALT Y ~*~ or Sim sa0f ..on ra tant yoo4 Aipiusthipes 'ssowopim ueg 'teuogeu aA *(OL6T) s19430 pus comp, 961 ®. F5 al' 08 OT urea pus 4901 pouoqyte jure] ~~~of0; 'sory aanttupug so|deq-o3uey Z 8r9 008 'I spp mI" $o Or c tatt quaturpas wreang [«] *oG OST 600 ci ornate a C=C 09 | | nore dut a 71+ yoo1 m *(696t) s1ou30 pus gey 86 O8 > Ape oo bf 08 OF allen f*" yoo1 poioqpeupy ~~xopy mon pus 'sore aaptuud oSuey ong W. OP s: . e aTIe 02 0% ~~yoo1 poroqre pus reuogew urea "ow Ou. i p92 E M ttr urne" * 0% mak 1a amano yoo1 Z "(696T) sz0u30 pus uosuuep | ~t~~~~* 6 00 S Aol. tht" 0% 08 .i At ASE - yoou ~~~~~~~ qu0j{ 'soary aaptuug surequnopy uorsstf [5 vas . Itr s T91 oof ~s :. Tary sts" 00T Of 44 rin Ie quewtpas ursang four.. s"*-~~~~~ 26 Ote. ls coe a 06 Of # s corta ace y201 pasegreup f] fea s'; A51 "°f veg __ . fits l O:: :" I[ TRAE yo01 H *(896t) s1oug0 pus seyospg . ~~~~~~~ Ste 6009 :06 : 1 092 Slt aos "~ -Iepojsut pazysaoumu pus uA -~~~~~~~~~ 'sare aanruud arfyedurooup E+ fea -; s* fo" P91 06e! "% .. 08 Of » oe asr quewrpas ursong fou "~: AE" "=-- al 0008 : HSE II ttt: OP OP. s f foo" y201 paary Z fou. *! a Amit - "A Arafat 92 := ® "Atif ago* 08 OL. eos el T. yoo1 Arequatutpag i- fog". REA CAC OF oes s *~* ~f re e= ~ OF chak or oo Ref rattan" yoo1 Y Ahmad s1oyj0 pus - ~~~~~~~ t~~~~~~ 98 gest 0 PRs. 92 Nas" Q1 a ~~~ omron 4001 u—SQuOESQE ||||||||||||||| 'sore 9/5285“ sueju0A m "oC og 008 IPF , 000 | ST 099 008 _ OOT 0g Ot": _ Af- Smt nn AoN "uokue; amoy 5 f 'moD GCD 0% 0% 99r'T _ 000 [fI 029 oil _ 0¢ 0% of} > r apse NAF HSR an f Aen o an Aai in AON 'AIG "p 'Auneqpown Hf 008 008 826 000 ' 86 Ogs'r 006 _ 09% 98 Ot un fenton a i e f Ate" | Cac - links 480 'surequnopy unig O 'M CQ 001 Lt oon ooh 08T,_ _ OIT 96 0% ~ porupNOsUOSUf comkapy Jo JInP) ra 008 000 'T gg o6rF'9 olIF'8 O8s'T Of OsF or o oa S cfa dung ER 10g _ *. OOT 91 006'g Org , OTG - OZI 88 0% bs O08 'W °f - 0% 00% 008 061'8 098, 08% 06 0s o Aime n c fn A°N 'oC 000 '9 008 9T 006 'St 006'6 008'F OZF 082 OF 2d... can.." 0% €0T 08g OFT O0T IL 1g OZ 'n°0 'd cD - OOT 008 IST 0o0'OI< Om0'% _ OFZ OOT 08 :::. SRE fee a t: ~" n Aon 'urequnopy a117eg y3.40N 'oC 000 's OL 189 oo0'0OI< O81 _ 00; 28 OT 'd CV - 000'T 000 's 6tg > lls) ~" oog's _ Ofg ) O ale wide 1 ie hain abate luat nin abe . 1C ; " epeAoN '(Gornstp Amoxow) soyusa; 'oC 008 09 | 789 000 _ 08% 063, OIT 19 OT 'oC 000 Z 000 'T 661 , 000 :8 006'F OOI'3 OFé ore 08 *weunreql!§ °f 'N - OOT 008 s6s't - O00'0¢T _ OOF'I O6F O8T 94 Of *La rut try 'v. mtn: '39unstp 008, __ - 0% TLT 6088: :;. III] 098, _ OST v9 OT 'od oo0's< _ 0% Ls 008%. - ~ ATL" 00F'% 082 IP OZ '°C OST OL L8 008 'Z 000 '@ - OLI Li 19 Or. s es queunpas ureang "TH - 008 0¢ r69'T 000 ' 6 009 OBs _ 94 gr Of a Aff fe bias raro" pou i "f- ran Alnor n> AN 'surequnopy euppr oBpmW HCW ""~~~~ og 608 022 99 0¢ 98 1G Of ms Rori Io" quewtpas ureang ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'ssotaopiIM qOg 08 008 SI 00g 'g 084 083 _ OF #q 4 thk - npn Lal dung '°d og 008 AT9's _ 000 'O8T 088 - OOT s Of s'. tL f ""a og *(696t) pus po) - T> 08 sIg's - 006'1¢ ost 0% 0g OT | Soe ane. Comas i: op. Sano np ff nf 'auaty,p na07 '20H M Cd OOL 09 98 008 022 001 gg 12 of: $f ren roa "Apa nan ana op~~ ~~eruiopep 'sory aanmuug sdry mex ocr og 00% T9L 000 ' £ 00F 008 _ F8 IF 0T s l X Aree rena ntr sr Neoup -* ~> "no- omen r" xoJT *N 'ssowrop[IM #ID) apout apout soidures - paroarop # #4 #g #g poroarap ¥2¥p Jo s0mog Arepuooog Arewuig 30 wnuxep; ardures yo ad4., rory soquinn [eBe103s Sana—Eco wou} ostmoy;o 10 poyst{qnd sz umoys jou saoinos : #1®p Jo 'quanbai} qsour puodas ay} st pout Arepuodss Jo 39s yoo 10} suormnqliystp Aouanbai} ut Ainouour paasasqo quanbai} 43; :opow *198 zep yoro 10; son[eA Aimo1ou yo sury3ue30 Jo uorinqlstp Aouanbay; oatye{nuund ayq Jo floss—3595 aeout ® Suren 2525.3 s10m somusosed Aimozow aasy Jo 19s ose ut sadures [2703 oy1 Jo 'AjeAnoodsou 9g ES '0g 'gg :sormusdieq "sor 60 fonjea Amozow pojst[ 043 usy3 sso 10 03 enba 3u2qu00 8e resoutu ore duinp pus outur :ardures yo ad4,1,] _ suowzpas wnaus pun 'sj108 'sya04 fo 'uor2q aad sqund ur 'jusuod I, TABLES & 61 TABLE 18.-Mercury content, in parts per billion, of some sedimentary stratigraphic units in the Colorado Plateau region of the United States [Units are arranged in order of youngest (Tertiary) to oldest (Permian and Pennsylvanian)] Number Middle Stratigraphic unit of Median Highest Lowest 68 percent samples of samples Dominant rock types Approximate average thickness (feet) Tertiary, northern Colorado Plateau region Duchesne River Formation.. 62 60 180 15 $7-100 Sandstone. 1,500 Uinta and Green River Formations. ___. 260 100 4,000 15 44-240 _ Shale, sandstone_________. 8,000 Wasatch and Colton Formations.... .._. 198 280 1,100 80 150-520 - Mudstone, sandstone____. 2,000 Cretaceous, northern Colorado Plateau region Mesaverde Group and Mancos Shale ___. _ 256 240 1, 500 30 140-400 _ Mudstone, sandstone._____. 5,000 Jurassic, Colorado Plateau region Morrison Formation. 653 190 > 6,000 10 84-420 - Sandstone, mudstone.____. 1,000 Entrada Sandstone.................... 258 170 5,000 30 80-860 - Sandstone__...._........ 500 Carmel Formation 80 100 700 10 58-170 - Sandstone, siltstone.______ 300 Navajo Sandstone::.................; 91 40 500 <10 10-150 | Sandstone.:....=_......_.. 1,000 Triassic, Colorado Plateau region Wingate 160 260 1,900 80 140-370 - Sandstone. ___ j 300 Dolores Formation......_............. 42 210 760 80 120-370 - Sandstone, siltstone______. ' 300 Chinle Formation.... ..... 588 260 > 6,000 60 140-460 _ Mudstone, sandstone. ___. 1,000 Moenkop! 323 110 _ >10,000 <10 40-320 - Siltstone, sandstone._____. 1,000 Upper Paleozoic, Colorado Plateau region Cutler Formation (Permian) .._... 30 170 1,300 50 90-300 - Sandstone, conglomerate.. _ '1,000 Rico and Hermosa Formations (Permian 61 200 2,200 20 100-370 - Limestone, siltstone______. » 2,000 and Pennsylvanian). ' Sampled only in east part of region. * Sampled only in central part of region. TABLE 19.-Equilibrium constants and standard potentials at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pressure [1= liquids, g = gases, c= solids, ag = dissolved species} Constant E° Equilibrium (K) (volts) Source of data Tip MA 1>. ...l 2.0. .. 0. e bad ine di dite ao de 0.789 _ Latimer (1952). Hp A{ Res indude sashes ns . (n als . 921 Do. HG 1 ..... -~ c -w . 855 Do. fio 1088 \ >_. a.... Do. Tis t= HG .L A.B. sano ana 1089 _._. %.... Calculated from data in Wagman and others (1969). HgO c+2H+-+2e=Hg* I+ HyO:_{__LLLLLLLLLLLLLL \ 20000. .925 - Latimer (1952). Hg; LL.. X., 10-17-98: Do. HgCl,°=H 104488; -= iit boll Helgeson (1969). HgCl; TO t$: 9} Do. MgC *A 2e~Hg " lull. .386 - Latimer (1952). isS0;,° 801...) 10-148. n= Calculated from data in Wagman and others (1969). MQ@Stc:nnabas = Hg DUO 0, 10798 ; .c a Helgeson (1969). HgSmemmmbm) —Hg+2+S A s. j0 -s :~. s. po. Do. HMS c+85 INI L.. a 4.571." ~- o" Calculated from data in Wagman and others (1969). Hg(HS):° =H. +2+2HS— _________________________ 10-431. 0 _> $9 A_ Do. Hg(NH,),!*=Hpg+*-+4NH, aq __ L.... c" o Do. Hg(CH,CO;): c+2H += Hg+2+ZCHaCOOH ad "2s _ @ AQ AL. tll; Calctclilatefii frczllrbsdsita in Latimer (1952) and Wagman and others a Hg(CH;): 1+2H*+=Hg*+*+-2CH4 L019 :s see ell Calculated from data in Wagman and others (1969). Hg(CH;) 1+ H0 =CH: aq +CHaOH aq +Hg 10191405 "=s 8 o> Calculated from data in Wagman and others (1969). CH,Hg*++OH-=CH,HgOH ag. ._...._....__.l.l 1098904 3:8. .- Waugh and others (1955). C;H;Hg++0OH-=C;H;HgOH aq-________________ 1019 =~ 0%. Do. CH,HgC!l1=CH;HgCI ag...... 10-9 s ae l {ee. Do. CH,HgCl aq 104... ss S st Do. 62 MclCinley well 1 Lakes L .us MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT TABLE 20.-Standard free energies of formation of certain mercury species, in kilocalories per mole [Leaders indicate no common names. 1= liquids, g = gases, c= solids, aq = dissolved species. Data from Latimer (1952) and Wagman and others (1969)] Free energies Formula Description (AG%,) fa. culo ccf a, Sout :C Metallic ...... 0.0 MQ g.... ne LM MPs aia inne ~s s Mercury ccc: 16.3 Hg" . Dissolved 9.4 ... Mercurous lon... 36.70 Mom:: IOL Mercuric ion-... 39.30 HgsOly c: lies. sl -50.35 ..is. covet. cus Mercuric -42.7 HgO decl Red -13.995 0... dds dd cl ie Yellow -13.964 .cc eile meses es ant aes -12.5 NsO il: cans sae, -45.5 2052.2. Ch L ~- ais a Rint mika annie cn aoe -65.70 MPS C... - mace cie -h -12.1 TGS C.. etbe - leia tess beeen race -11.4 Mo C.:: l nees Pee alli» oa unl l al hign -= arie mets -149.589 seus cll \ sens -n- bee baie ss earns clam -140.6 Hg2003 222 ona wh he neu ts ars ao | als ck cale aes ben es ane ones beb ts om -105.8 42.2... scr te... os -Al . 4 MJC Hcl .e racine. | in. ace apes ans ~ ae nass pean -107.7 1.2..:. ~- con 33.5 TABLE 21.-Mercury concentrations from results of analyses of selected thermal and mineral waters and their deposits, Northern California mercury district [Detection limit, 0.01 part per billion. N.d., not detected. Analyses by M. E. Hinkle] Mercury Sample County concentration (in ppb) Condensates, condenser coil packed in ice 8.0 McKinley well 8 :... 1.0 Waters of low to moderate salinity, T <40°C AMen Springs Lake... suc Gruul suet. N.d Bartlet s MOF. cick N.d. Spring east of Alice COolusa:...s=... c N.d Waters of high salinity, T <40°C Griazly Spring. .I Ll LLC 'll N.d Abbott Ming water.. ..2. ___ ols o edpees nee... ADSs. 1.0 Dead Shot N.d Wilbur oil test MOre ie. Rec /-- eae 0.2 Salt spring north of Wilbur Springs S gas 2 C dade Fy : _ 1.5 Salt Spring north of Stonylord......._..._..__.._.. N.d Redeye Spring (Fouts Springs)___.._._____.(__.__._.. N.d Waters of low salinity, T >40°C Castle Rock N.d. Anderson SpTIN@_MEL - 1s i nes .- N.d. Seigler BMO; 22. ille neend N.d. Waters of moderate to high salinity, T >40°C Sulphur Bank...... IL... 1.5 Wilbur Springs .s -.... cC cll sels cke. "site- 1.5 Solids Sulfur floating on Wilbur Springs.. ___________-____ Colusa -. lsc. 30,000 Magnesia-silica gel from Complexion Spring. 800 Silica-magnesia gel from Aqua de Ney___________-.- 500 TABLES TABLE 22.-Mercury concentrations in thermal waters from Yellowstone National Park [Detection limit, 0.01 part per billion. N.d., not detected. Analyses by M. E. Hinkle] Mercury Sample Location concentration (in ppb) Ojo .e aia ll cone ae aa Midway Basin-__________ 0.14 Far ce te o- ayn oll Bry Donita Spring }.. cc c s UO isl rare ive vene .07 Chinaman Spring. "SL. ._. e. Arcus. iasl aol s .10 Steady Lower Basin.: 07 SnortiSpring.............. "tren concn ll CSL colle Porcupine Hills. ___.____. .10 beryl .. 0002 Gibbon Canyon-______-__ 18 Little Whirligig Norris .07 Cinder Pool. ... cers anal ~ hee { .28 Spring, base of Porcelain Terrace_________________. - . erty. .l Hum .10 Fchinus Geyser... «e dO eli r tl 394. 11 Cistern 000}. ~ dO..l.k.s.:l... c das oue l, .08 Primrose Spring. : 0 Sylvan Spring area _______ 81 Sulfur Pools: ans 21. GreeniSpring.. ?.. _ O LC ados - ras. cet de .20 Plue:Spring .. A lial san PMO: Pou ne .20 New Highland Mammoth Spring. ___ .05 TABLE 238.-Mercury concentrations from analyses of petroleum from the Wilbur Springs area, northern California [Detection limit, 0.01 part per billion. Analyses by M. E. Hinkle] Mercury Sample County concentration (in ppb) Tarry petroleum, Abbott mine.-......-.._.__...._; __ Lake.. .L... ... ect geal 500 , 000 Petroleum, Wilbur oil test well_ _ ___ ______________ 1,000 TABLE 24.-Mercury in selected rivers of the United States, 1970 [Analyses by M. J. Fishman (U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1970)] Time sample collected Source and location ---.. | Mercury Month-day _ Hour (in ppb) Gold Creek at Juneatrt; Alaska: cl 6-10 1350 <0.1 Colorado River near Yuma, Ariz 6-18 sat «.l Welton Mohawk Drain near Yuma, Ariz _ _____________________ 6-19 <1 Quachita River downstream from Camden, Ark ________________ 6-18 0900 «A St. Francis River at Marked Tree, Ark ____..:__._____________. 6-19 1000 /L Santa Ana River below Prada Dam near Riverside, Calif ________ 6-29 Paces l South Platte River at Henderson, Colo 5-19 1410 -g Blue River upstream of Dillon Reservoir, Colo _________________ 6-22 see. «.A French Creek near Breckenridge, Colo .________________________ 6-22 . - 2. oo. . - checks a ane al ae 2,104,293 341,757 244,506 --+2,000,00008s... ...ic. |. Pi. al th serene TotabMUses Unknown. .. 0s. 4,628 3,691 30,188 38,502 448 1,587 4,520 6,555 Grand Sotfls:>. . .z el Aleutian 2,108,916 345, 448 274,723 _ 2,729,088 2 563,902 2 69 , 690 2 41,055 2 674, 647 ' Includes fungicides and bactericides for industrial purposes, * The items do not add to the total which has been increased to cover approximate total consumption. 66 MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT TABLE 27.-Lethal concentrations of mercury compounds for various aquatic organisms and man [Data summarized from numerous published reports] Lethal Organism concen ration (ppb) Mercury compound Aquatic organism Bacteria: Mecherichi@ col 2. _L bui cnl. 200 Mercuric chloride. 200 Mercuric cyanide. 300 Ethylmercuric bromide. 300 Phenylmercuric chloride. 300 Ethylmercuric oxalate. Phytoplankton: Marine 60 Ethyl mercury phosphate. 30 Mercuric chloride. 150 Mercuric cyanide. Protozoa: 150 Mercuric chloride. 160 Mercuric cyanide. Zooplankton: Daphnia 5 Phenylmercuric acetate. Daphnia magna: 20 Mercuric cyanide. 6 Mercuric chloride. Amphipod: Marinogammearus marinus_____________ 100 Mercuric chloride. Isopod: Mesospheroma oregonensis.____________ 15 Mercuric nitrate. Flatworm: Polycelis 270 Mercuric chloride. Polychaete: Mercierella enigmatica_________________ 1,000 Mercuric nitrate. Mollusca: Bivalve 27 Mercuric chloride. Australorbis ..... 1,000 Do. Fish: 20 Mercuric nitrate. 4-020 Mercuric chloride. GUpDpy.. 20 Mercuric nitrate. 20 Mercuric chloride. . 800 Ethyl mercury phosphate. els». nine oe eee Selawat e 27 Mercuric chloride. Channel 580 Phenylmercuric acetate. 1,300 Ethyl mercury phosphate. Rainbow 2,000 Pyridylmercuric acetate. 9,200 Mercuric chloride. Salmon..2-c 0920.0 20 Phenylmercuric acetate. 50 Mercuric acetate. Man Adult, 11.0 Mercuric chloride. Adult; chronic illness. t .f Do. ' Gram. TABLES 67 TABLE 28.-Maximum mercury concentration in air measured at scattered mineralized and non- mineralized areas of the Western United States [..., no data available] Maximum Hg concentration (ng/m?) * Sample location Ground 400 feet above surface the ground * Mercury mines Ord mine, Mazatzal Mtns., 20,000 (50) 108 (4) Silver Cloud mine, Battle Mtn., Nev.. 2,000 (50) 24 (8) Dome Rock Mtns.; ATriz-.->>,-,.22. 22.002 2.0000 00s 02 . aa 128 (6) 57 (20) Base and precious metal mines Cerro Colorado Mins., Ariz.. 22. 1,500 (5) 24 (2) Cortez gold mine, Crescent Valley, NevL_________________ 180 (60) 55 (4) Coeur d'Alene mining district, Wallace, Idaho. 65 (40)... San Xavier, Ariz... ll ire. co s $e un un ao nen b aah sand Pio ale aio mr 25 (8) Porphyry copper mines Silver Bell mine; c= 00. sube, 58 (3) Esperanza mine, 32 (3) (Vekol Mtns., ATiz-.. mous. nil lenient ceva lanal .o ner 32 (4) Ajo mine, nel. (onlt 30 (3) Mission mine, Arizona .. .- tees., uca ese ae ths Den reve 24 (3) Twin Buttes mine, 20 22 (8) Pima mine, © 13 (8) Safford ATI?. 1. ones tral elan inner annus =s ae cid ep te b eRe 1 (2) Unmineralized areas Blythe, Calif. - .us nr Hie eel. s ice ans ce an cil cic, se 9 (20) Cila Bend/iCalif . _ _._ 2" Co cs. 2 ocd icy daniel - rane can- bain s "| wo e allan 4 (2) Salton Sea, Calif-=s. -. ssg a .d. - na 8.5 (2) Arivact; AMI2-. c: cURL Len sk...! ag. | (lls uae s on 3 (2) ! ng/m*=nanograms (10-° grams) per cubic meter of air. 1 ng/m*=10-* ppb. * Number of measurements shown in parentheses. * Samples taken from single-engine aircraft. yr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970 O-409-902 Rp ne comm w» -~ rman Mineral Resource Evaluation of the U.S. Forest Service Sierra Demonstration Project Area, Sierra National Forest, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 714 MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA High-altitude view of the Sierra Demonstration Project area from the south. The four prominent lakes in the middleground are manmade hydroelectric reservoirs (from left to right: Mammoth Pool, Huntington Lake, Lake Thomas A. Edison, Florence Lake). Mono Lake in background. Mineral Resource Evaluation of the U.S. Forest Service Sierra Demonstration Project Area, Sierra National Forest, California By J. P. LOCKWOOD, P. C. BATEMAN, and J. S. SULLIVAN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL . PAPER 714 A geological appraisal of the mining and recreational potential of public lands in part of the San Joaguin River basin, Sterra Nevada UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress-catalog card no. 70-60090 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1 (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-2103 CONTENTS Page | Mineral resources-Continued ADELTACY-2 4. . 2222 seee gl 22 ele eid a - ule nae aan ale wie aie 1 Known mineral occurrences-Continued Page introduction.. 2 _c coe can eccen- 1 Fick:and Shovelmine:_......_ ;o l0 l. 10 Furpose of the . Placer gold deposits of Kaiser Creek. _________ 11 Location and general features 1 Placer gold deposits of Mill Creek_____________ 13 Geochemical investigation.. 3 Quartz... celle a ciales e oo 14 Sampling prostam=. .._. 3 Band and gravel .l 14 Analytical methods and procedures___________._ 4 Ormmamental 14 Previous studios 1 _ "o-! LL ___ [L.} l_ [l clo ooo. 4 Distribution of metals in the Sierra Demonstration .l 5 Project area_._.... _ {ji 14 Geologic /.. :n LY}. l_ 5 L: ill. msr __ 15 Meclamorphic rocks........_...__f .}". } 5 cer lucro 15 _L nickx Lol tc ISIC 6 Copper, ..i le en ren u aeon e ana ce aoe 15 .ll :e ccc a _C 6 Silver. . _ ._. l o ooo e en nto 15 Joints E4. cocaine cie cone rana ani nes. rent 7T Tins. yen ol e loa ece ress con r agin any 15 Unconsolidated deposits. _. 7 Molybdenum. =~ ___ 28 Cliacial tenons. 7 Other metals.. 0. cocco u {: tt Cor 28 Lake and stream deposits.....-..._........_. 7T Evaluation of mineral resource potential___________ 28 Pumice. ;... 8 | Geologic features as natural resources ________________ 29 Mineral resources.... 8 Clacial features...... Lat Mc 29 Relation of mineral deposits to geology 8 Volcanic t "__ {iud dl 29 Known mineral 8 Mineral springs. _: nL slic eny 30 Tungsten mines and prospects along Kaiser Gold deposits.: .on 00 ". Loco nolo o/ 30 Midge: sel.. ll lei ien ceca ae e ae S | o...... cli dct . lel elle" 30 ILLUSTRATIONS FrontisprEcr. High-altitude view of the Sierra Demonstration Project area. Page Frourr 1. Map showing location of the Sierra Demonstration Project area.... 2 2. Map showing general physiographic and cultural features of the Sierra Demonstration Project 2 3. Photograph showing right-lateral offset of a fine-grained dike along a joint near Bear Diversion Dam.___________ 7. 4. Photograph showing mineralized joints in Mount Givens Granodiorite 1 mile west of Mono Hot Springs._______ 7 5. Geologic map of the area surrounding the Lucky Blue lode 9 6. Diagram showing mechanism responsible for formation of quartz pods along joints in the vicinity of the Pick and Shovel mine.. . 32. 30090010 uo esl daa ao on poe l p a pee ne cre oin ane a b g ae n angola spe 12 7. Simplified topographic map of the lower Mill Creek gold mining oal. s 13 §. Photograph of mining trenches north of Mill 00 tlc to ot 13 9-14. Generalized geologic maps of the Sierra Demonstration Project area showing: 0; Locations of chemically analyzed samples:... -__-. l nlcs lomo ction O rr ice cen 16 10. - Distribution of gald. ...; 2: 932000 090 ICs raion oan a on an oe nae oan e an d eae o aio an a ual ane 18 11: Distribution of «ilver and tin. ___ __ _-_ l o os et ater coca ii 20 12; Distribution of tungsten.... Durcal t Ol P eda conn { t taa ii cic} 22 13. Distribution of ...: O: nero det ko loos eal cect tricorn ck 24 14. Mistribution of molybdenum. LL... 00. co {esc c ort lee t ued coo t Loa no ccc ducts 26 v VI CONTENTS T ABLES Page TaBur 1. Spectrographic and chemical analyses of composite samples from the Lucky Blue claims-......_._......l_...... 10 2. Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples from the Pick and Shovel: 11 3. Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples from the Sierra Demonstration Project area_________________. 32 GLOSSARY Alkali feldspar. Potassium- or sodium-rich feldspars (micro- cline, orthoclase, albite, anorthoclase, and so forth). Alluvium. Unconsolidated sediment deposited by rivers and streams. Batholith. A very large mass of granitic rocks. Most batholiths are composed of numerous plutons. Colluvium. - Slope wash, talus, and other unconsolidated debris that covers bedrock exposures. Detrital. Describes rocks or mineral grains formed by the dis- integration and erosion of older, preexisting rocks. Diorite. A granitic rock composed of sodic plagioclase and bio- tite. hornblende or pyroxene. and lacking appreciable potas- sium feldspar. Foliation. - Planar structure in any rock. Granitic. Describes medium- to coarse-grained quartz-bearing igneous rocks which have cooled slowly at depth. Granodiorite. A granitic rock composed of quartz, sodic plagio- clase. biotite, hornblende, and a little potassium feldspar. Hornfels. A very fine grained flinty metamorphic rock formed from shale or marl. Igneous. Applied to crystalline or glassy rocks which have formed by cooling of once-molten rock. Joint. A straight or slightly curved fracture or crack in solid bedrock. Usually found as parallel or subparallel sets. Lode deposit. A mineral deposit found within solid bedrock. Magma. Molten rock that generally contains suspended crystals. Marble. A dense crystalline rock formed by the metamorphism of limestone or dolomite. Mesozoic. An era of geologic time extending from about 65 to 235 million years ago. Metamorphic. Pertains to rocks that have been reerystallized as a result of heat and pressure, Metamorphism. The process of rock alteration by heat and pressure. | Quartzite. Moraine. Bouldery sediment transported and deposited by glaciers. Lateral moraines are ridges of bouldery material deposited along the sides of glaciers. Paleozoic. An early era of geologic time extending from about 235 to 570 million years ago, Pegmatite. Very coarse grained dike rocks consisting prin- cipally of quartz and feldspar. Pelitic hornfels. Dense fine-grained rock formed by the thermal metamorphism of shale. Phenocryst. A crystal in an igneous rock, which is much larger than surrounding crystals. Phenocrysts in granitic rocks are generally potassium feldspar. Placer deposit. A deposit of heavy minerals concentrated in unconsolidated sediments by water or wind. Pleistocene. An epoch of geologic time extending from about 10,000 to 2-3 million years ago and characterized by wide- spread and repeated episodes of glaciation. Pluton. An individual body of intrusive igneous rock with its own individual characteristics and history of emplacement. Pumice. A highly vesicular form of volcanic glass, so light that it will generally float on water. Quartz monzonite. A light-colored granitic rock composed of biotite, quartz, and nearly equal amounts of sodic plagioclase and potassium feldspar. A dense rock composed of quartz grains cemented by quartz. Schist. A medium- to coarse-grained metamorphic rock in which numerous parallel flakes of mica or other platy minerals cause the rock to split into slabs and plates, Tactite. A dark rock formed from limestone or other carbonate rock by reaction with fluids from an intruding igneous magma. Trachybasalt. feldspar. A dark volcanic rock that contains potassium MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA, SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA By J. P. Lockwoop, P. C. Bateman, and J. S. Surumvan ABSTRACT The known geologic history of the 240,000-acre Sierra Demon- stration Project area covers about half a billion years and re- cords a complex sequence of sedimentary deposition, volcanism, metamorphism, granitic intrusion, erosion, and glaciation. Metal deposits of the project area are of three kinds: contact meta- somatic deposits formed within the bodies of metamorphic rock by reaction with fluids associated with invading magmas, vein deposits formed along regionally widespread joints that cut the metamorphic and granitic bedrocks, and placer deposits found along streams or the courses of former streams. To evaluate the mineral potential of each of these types of deposits, we visited and sampled all known mines and prospects and conducted a detailed geochemical sampling program over the entire area to determine the distribution of metals and to locate any anom- alous metal concentrations. Samples of 599 stream sediments and of 159 bedrock and miscellaneous materials were collected and analyzed for 30 metallic elements. No large mineral deposits suitable for major commercial ex- ploitation are now known or are likely to be found in the fore- seeable future in the Sierra Demonstration Project area. Small tungsten deposits on Kaiser Ridge have been mined and are being further explored. Small low-grade deposits of placer gold along Kaiser Creek are being worked sporadically. Very small deposits containing high concentrations of copper. lead, molyb- denum, silver, and zine occur along a mineralized joint system in the northeast corner of the Sierra Demonstration Project area, but their restricted extent and difficult access make ex- ploitation economically unattractive at the present time. Non- metallic mineral resources of the project area include quartz, ornamental stone, and sand and gravel. Because similar prod- ucts are available much closer to market areas, these resources are not likely to be exploited. Several geologic features are of recreational and educational value and can be considered resources for people today and for future generations. These include volcanic flows and ash falls, hot-spring deposits, glacial moraines. and other features. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION The public lands of the United States contain the nation's principal recreational and wildlife areas and important reserves of timber, water, forage, minerals, and other natural resources. Public need for all these resources places different and frequently conflicting de- mands upon the public lands. The U.S. Forest Service is deeply concerned that the National Forests be utilized to their fullest extent under the multiple-use concept. Accordingly, it established the Sierra Demonstration Project to develop rapid and accurate means for obtaining the basic resource infor- mation required for intelligent management decisions. This project is designed to explore the feasibility of obtaining all required resource information concur- rently, using up-to-date technological methods from sev- eral engineering and scientific disciplines (Swinner- ton, 1969). To evaluate the mineral potential of the Sierra Dem- onstration Project area, the U.S. Forest Service asked the U.S. Geological Survey early in 1969 to conduct a mineral survey of the area. A cooperative program be- tween the two agencies was initiated, and a field survey was undertaken during the summer of 1969. In addition to the Sierra Demonstration Project area proper, the survey covered a wedge of land to the west between the project area and the San Joaquin River. Henceforth, this expanded area will be referred to as the project area. The results of our survey of that area are con- tained herein. LOCATION AND GENERAL FEATURES The Sierra Demonstration Project area is 60 miles northeast of Fresno, Calif., about midway between Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Parks on the gentle west slope of the central Sierra Nevada (fig. 1). It includes the Kaiser Peak 15-minute quadrangle and the west half of the Mount Abbot 15-minute quadrangle (figs. 1,2). Most of the project area is in Fresno County. but the northwest corner extends into Madera County. The area is in the north half of the Sierra National Forest, and the east one-third lies within the John Muir Wilderness. The total area, which includes the area bet ween the west side of the project area proper and the 1 2 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA 123° 121° 119° 117° z $04on SAN CX. FRANCISCO Z | a : DBishop ~ G \ f T ; J KINGS \ $ ~ CANYON wees. 37 ATIONAL & > f PARK T 5 ) ~ yg. 1 - sEqUoIA C ~ \ < j/ PARK | 77» s | o 50 100 MILES $ l (E om e c e t tri . | 36° | 7% 3 FIGURE 1.-Location of the Sierra Demonstration Project area. 119°15 119°00' 118°5230" 7 a7-|_ T o I | I 30° // 7 PICK ANZINE {0 a k / "A shHovEL x cg,*_ A quaRTz SCA E5 Dis? $ SQ FeJeE |«$ c* "CA <5N\\Pincushion DIVIDE & A USGS 15 QUADRANGLES Peak EXPLANATION (_ Sierra Demonstration Project & J A2 Additional area ssudied/ for this report / / //Kawser Diggings Guard Station -C ~ ~ x Lucky BLU \ ~ CLaims ~ * € \/ High Sierra 3 Ranger Station Kaiser Peak aA Kaiser Pass (e¥3 KAISER rP , Mount Givens a C (e 7 | W {4 (f—L_L_l_k_' | f Y FIGURE 2.-General physiographic and cultural features of the Sierra Demonstration Project area. INTRODUCTION 3 San Joaquin River, encompasses approximately 405 square miles (1,025 km). All the project area lies within the drainage basin of the San Joaquin River, the South Fork of which flows northwestward through the central part of the area. Mono Creek and Bear Creek are principal tributaries to the South Fork within the project area. Along the north edge of the area, north-flowing Silver and Fish Creeks drain basins on either side of Silver Divide. In the southwestern part of the area, Kaiser Creek drains the north flank of Kaiser Ridge, and Big Creek drains the south flank. At higher elevations many small natural lakes fill depressions created by glacial erosion during Pleisto- cene alpine glaciation, but the four largest lakes in the area (frontispiece) are manmade reservoirs for hydro- electric power projects. Most elevations within the proj- ect area are 6,500 to 9,500 feet above mean sea level. although elevations rise to 12,349 feet at Mount Hooper, 4 miles northeast of Florence Lake, and drop to 2450 feet where the San Joaquin River flows out of the area at the southwest corner. The upper part of the South Fork of the San Joaquin River flows in a broad glacially modified valley, but downstream the river is entrenched in a narrow canyon 1,600 feet deep. Precipitation ranging from 24 to 32 inches per year is primarily snow at higher elevations and rain at lower elevations (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1959). Forests of ponderosa, jeffrey, and lodgepole pine along with red and white fir cover most of the area. Logging is cur- rently being carried on in the Kaiser Creek basin. At lower elevations shrubs such as manzanita, Sierra chin- quapin, and mountain white-thorn are common. Wil- lows, quaking aspen, and alder line many streams. At highest elevations glacial erosion has exposed large areas of bedrock, and the sparse soil-covered areas sup- port only alpine vegetation. State Highway 168 from Fresno ends at Huntington Lake, near the south boundary of the project area (fig. 2). Continuing on from the northeast corner of Hunt- ington Lake into the project area is a narrower one- to two-lane blacktop road which leads over Kaiser Ridge through 9,175-foot-high Kaiser Pass into the basin of the South Fork of the San Joaquin. One branch of this road ends at Lake Edison and the other at Florence Lake. By late 1971, this road had been widened and improved nearly to Kaiser Pass. Beyond Kaiser Pass the road is narrow and steep, which tends to limit the number of people entering the area. On the other hand. it is adequate for passenger car traffic and offers a highly scenic drive into this undeveloped country in the heart of the Sierra Nevada. 459-605 O - 72 -2 The other route into the area is an unpaved, graded road that begins near the town of Big Creek southwest of Huntington Lake and extends northward along the east valley wall of the San Joaquin River into the Kaiser Creek basin. This road provides access to recrea- tional areas along the San Joaquin River and Kaiser Creek and is also used by logging trucks. Branching from these two roads are a few unimproved roads suit- able mainly for 4-wheel-drive vehicles. All roads into the area are closed by snow during the winter months. A network of trails for hikers and horseback riders crosses the area. The John Muir Trail crosses the east edge of the area close to the crest of the Sierra Nevada. GEOCHEMICAL INVESTIGATION A program of geochemical sampling was carried out to gain information that might bear on the origin of the known mineral deposits and to evaluate the poten- tial of the project area for undiscovered mineral re- sources. This program involved extensive collection of both bedrock and stream-sediment samples and labora- tory analysis to determine metal content. SAMPLING PROGRAM Before any samples were collected, a sampling pat- tern was laid out for both stream sediments and bed- rock. Initially, we planned to collect about one stream-sediment sample per square mile, and about one bedrock sample per 8-square-mile area, but early analytic results indicated the need for more samples of both kinds. We collected 599 stream-sediment samples and 108 samples of typical bedrocks, the latter includ- ing 84 granitic rocks, 14 metamorphic rocks, and 10 volcanic flows. In addition, we collected 50 other sam- ples, including nine from lode deposits that have been worked, 23 from unexplored quartz veins, six of altered bedrock, six of mineral-spring precipitates, and six of miscellaneous materials. The samples of typical bedrock were taken primarily to establish regional patterns of metal content that might affect the compositions of the stream sediments. Stream-sediment samples reflect the metal content of watershed areas rather than local rock units; so many samples were collected just above stream junctions in order to evaluate the metal content of individual drain- age basins. Early analyses indicated that stream sediment is not chemically homogeneous at any one place. Metals such as gold, tungsten, iron, chrome, and vanadium are pre- ferentially concentrated in the coarse gravel and boul- der-rich parts of the streambed, whereas copper and molybdenum are most highly concentrated in fine sand and mud. To obtain comparable samples at each locality, 4 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA approximately one-half the required amount of sieved sand ordinarily was taken from gravel near the bottoms of streams, and one-half was taken from sandbars or mud along stream margins. For large streams, however, it was not always possible to sample bottom gravels owing to high water. This was especially difficult early in the summer, when melt runoff from a record snow- pack (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1969, p. 78, 116) caused very high water levels. Most sand samples were wet sieved at the collecting site with a small set of aluminum sieves consisting of a 20-mesh sieve at the top, an 80-mesh sieve, and a collec- tion cup at the bottom. Some samples were collected in bulk, dried, and sieved several days after being collected. Samples of 10 to 30 grams each were taken from each of the two size fractions and placed in cloth sample bags. Initial chemical analyses of both size fractions indicated that the -80 mesh fraction almost invariably contained higher metal concentrations than the -20, +80 fraction and was thus more sensitive as an indicator of metal anomalies. For this reason only the -80 fraction was ordinarily submitted for analysis. Some -20, +80 frac- tions were submitted as checks for analytical error. In table 3, the size fraction analyzed is indicated by a numerical suffix. Thus, sample 005-20 is the -20, +80 fraction, and 005-80 is the - 80 fraction. ANALYTICAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES Most of the samples were analyzed chemically and spectrographically for a total of 30 different metallic elements (table 1-3), although 52 of the bedrock samples were only analyzed spectrographically. The chemical analyses, more sensitive and precise than spectrographic analyses, were made for gold, copper, tungsten, and arsenic. The first three elements were considered im- portant potential resources in the project area, and ar- senic was considered important as a possible indicator of mineralization in general. Semiquantitative spectro- graphic analyses were made for 30 elements: silver, ar- senic, gold, boron, barium, beryllium, bismuth, calcium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, lanthanum, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, niobium, nickel, lead, antimony, scandium, tin, strontium, titanium, vanadium, tungsten, yttrium, zinc, and zirconium. Spec- trographic analyses of arsenic, gold, copper, and tung- sten are omitted from table 3 because these elements were also analyzed chemically, and calcium, magnesium, and titanium are omitted because they are not significant in this study. Cadmium and antimony are omitted from table 3 because they were not found in any sample. Approximate mean metal contents were calculated for each group of principal sample types analyzed (ta- ble 3). Mean values in parentheses are considered un- reliable, generally because measureable values are too few for calculation of a representative average. All analyses were performed by Geological Survey personnel. Chemical analyses were made in Winne- mucca, Nev., Denver, Colo., and in a mobile field labora- tory based at the High Sierra Ranger Station. All spec- trographic analyses were performed in Denver, except for sample 105F and 51 other bedrock samples (with numbers beginning with "A" or "KP"), which were analyzed in Menlo Park, Calif. Samples received by the analytical laboratories were ground if necessary (for example, rock samples) and sieved to -80 mesh size. The following quantities of sample were then removed for analysis: Spectrographic An@ly8is____________--_------- 10 mg Chemical analysis : GOA c..: rere ite aaa aie B ma na 10 ¢ CODDEF con dee oreos lem c 1:~g Tungsten .o # ATSeNnIG _L (1g The aliquots for gold and copper were dissolved in acid and analyzed by standard atomic absorption tech- niques (Ward and others, 1969). Lower sensitivities of 0.02 and 10 ppm (parts per million), respectively, were obtained by this method. Tungsten and arsenic contents were determined by colorimetric analysis, as described by Ward, Lakin, Canney, and others (1963, p. 40-44 and 78-79). Minimum sensitivities of these methods are 20 and 10 ppm, respectively. The methods of spectro- graphic analysis are described by Ward, Lakin, Canney, and others (1963, p. 91-94). PREVIOUS STUDIES Geologic study of three quadrangles that cover the project area was nearly completed when this study was begun and provided a sound basis for evaluating the mineral potential of the area. Geologic maps of the Shuteye Peak quadrangle (Huber, 1968) and the Kaiser Peak quadrangle (Bateman and others, 1971) are already published, and a geologic map of the Mount Abbot quadrangle is in final stages of preparation. The first geologic observations of the area were made by members of J. D. Whitney's geological survey party. who traversed the project area in 1864 (Whitney, 1865). A reconnaissance study of the geomorphology and glacial geology of the area was made by F. E. Matthes in the 1930's and published in 1960. A more detailed study of the glacial geology along Mono Creek and the South Fork of the San Joaquin River was made by Birman (1964) at the time of construction of Vermillion Dam (below Lake Thomas A. Edison). Chesterman (1942) described a small area of metamorphic rocks north of Kaiser Peak, and Hamilton (1956) studied the geology of a part of the Demonstration Project area GEOLOGIC FEATURES 5 immediately north of Huntington Lake. The geology of the north half of the Mount Abbot quandrangle, includ- ing the northeast corner of the Demonstration Project area, has been described by Sherlock and Hamilton (1958). No comprehensive mineral resource surveys had been conducted in the area of the Sierra Demonstration Proj- ect prior to this study, although the area has been ex- tensively prospected over the past century, mainly for gold and tungsten. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The U.S. Forest Service provided excellent support during the field investigations. Leigh B. Lint of the Forest Service's Engineering Division was the principal liaison officer between the Geological Survey and the Forest Service and was responsible for coordinating helicopter support and providing aerial photographs. The Forest Service provided 48.1 hours of helicopter flight time in support of our study; the capable heli- copter pilotage of Harold Dickey contributed to our success in covering a large area in a very short period. The many courtesies extended by Mr. Lint and by Ar- nold P. Snyder and Michael P. Goggin of the High Sierra Ranger Station are greatly appreciated. Color aerial photographs of the project area at scales of 1 :48,000 and 1 :24,000 taken during the summer of 1968 for the Forest Service, greatly facilitated our field in- vestigations. They were invaluable in locating areas of mineralized or otherwise anomalous rock formations, enabled us to plan helicopter landing sites, and greatly facilitated cross-country foot traverses over difficult terrain. Frank E. Barr assisted field operations for 1 month under the sponsorship of the National Science Founda- tion Research Observer Program for secondary school instructors. Ronald J. Fitzhugh assisted in the sampling program and is largely responsible for compilation of the extensive geochemical data. Messrs. Floyd T. Wil- moth and Lawrence C. Wehmeyer kindly showed us their mining claims and allowed us to sample their workings. GEOLOGIC FEATURES The Sierra Demonstration Project area is near the center of the Sierra Nevada batholith, a large composite body of granitic rock that makes up about 80 percent of the bedrock of the Sierra Nevada. Metamorphic rocks older than the batholith underlie the remainder of the Sierra Nevada. The geology of the Sierra Nevada and the Sierra Nevada batholith was described by Bateman and Wahrhaftig (1966) and by Bateman and Eaton (1967). Readers desiring more-detailed information will find numerous references to technical studies in these publications. Rocks of the project area can be broadly divided into four principal groups: (1) old, pregranitic metamor- phic rocks, (2) granitic rocks, (3) much younger vol- canic formations, and (4) very young unconsolidated sedimentary deposits that overlie bedrock and include both stream and glacial deposits. The distribution of the major bedrock units is shown in figures 9-14. METAMORPHIC ROCKS The pregranitic rocks include all the sedimentary and volcanic rocks into which the granitic magmas were intruded. These rocks were metamorphosed by heat and pressure, which preceded and accompanied the emplace- ment of granitic magma. All these metasedimentary rocks and most of the metavoleanic rocks are conspicu- ously stratified, and although they were deposited origi- nally in horizontal or gently dipping layers, they have been strongly folded and faulted and in most exposures dip steeply or are vertical. The metamorphic rocks must have been more widespread before the extensive erosion that followed emplacement of the granitic rocks. Although not very abundant in the project area, the metamorphic rocks are favorable hosts for metallic ore deposits and are of particular importance in this investigation. The metamorphic rocks include an older group of metasedimentary rocks and a younger group of meta- volcanic rocks. The metasedimentary rocks were derived by the erosion of an ancient landmass and were de- posited in Paleozoic seas 575-235 m.y. (million years) ago, when shallow seas covered much of western North America. These strata were folded, faulted, and eroded before the overlying metavolcanic rocks were deposited. Remnants of metasedimentary rocks include numerous masses along Kaiser Ridge and the eastern part of the Mount Morrison roof pendant, which extends into the northeast corner of the project area. The principal rocks along Kaiser Ridge are quartzite, hornfels, and marble. The most common rock in the part of the Mount Mor- rison roof pendant within the project area is hornfels. The metavoleanic rocks were deposited across the metasedimentary strata after these strata had been de- formed and then truncated by erosion, during the early and middle Mesozoic, 235-135 m.y. ago. They include metamorphosed lava flows, pyroclastic deposits, asso- ciated dikes and sills, and sedimentary rocks that were derived from the volcanic rocks by rapid erosion shortly after deposition. Remnants of metavoleanic rocks occur north of Silver Divide, northeast of Lake Edison, north- east of Florence Lake, and in the western part of the Mount Morrison roof pendant. The most common meta- 6 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA volcanic rocks are light- to dark-gray mica schists, some of which stain orange on weathering. They were formed by the recrystalization of volcanic ash beds and asso- ciated lava flows. Typical metavolcanic rocks are ex- posed along the Bear Creek trail at and above Bear Diversion Dam. Dark metavolcanic schists that form the top of Red and White Mountain in the Mount Mor- rison roof pendant can be viewed from near the High Sierra Ranger Station. GRANITIC ROCKS The granitic rocks underlie about 95 percent of the project area. They intruded the older, folded and faulted sedimentary and volcanic rocks as molten or partly molten magma. The granitic rocks of the project area consist of at least 20 different plutons, most of which were intruded and solidified at different times. For this report, the plutons have been grouped into seven map units (figs. 9-14). These nlutons are divisible into two principal age groups: a younger group that was emplaced 90-79 m.y. ago and an older group that was emplaced more than 100 m.y. ago (Evernden and Kistler, 1970). The plutons of the older group includes three geo- graphically separated units: (1) the granodiorite of Dinkey Creek in the southwestern part of the project area, (2) a pluton of quartz monzonite northeast of Florence Lake, and (3) the alaskite of Graveyard Peak north of Lake Edison. The relative ages of these plutons are not known, since the plutons are nowhere in contact with one another. The largest of these older plutons is the granodiorite of Dinkey Creek. Rocks of this pluton are light to medi- um gray and nearly every where contain abundant dark inclusions of biotite and hornblende diorite. In most places the granodiorite of Dinkey Creek is separated from the Mount Given Granodiorite, which belongs to the younger group, by the metasedimentary rocks of Kaiser Ridge. Radiometric age dates from the grano- diorite of Dinkey Creek range from 115 to 104 m.y. (Evernden and Kistler, 1970). A few older, small plu- tons of granodiorite and quartz monzonite along the west margin of the project area are included with the granodiorite of Dinkey Creek in figures 9-14. The quartz monzonite of Bear Dome northeast of Florence Lake is generally fine grained and forms prom- inent topographic features such as Bear Dome, Jack- ass Dike, and The Tombstone. Much of this pluton is rimmed by the light-colored metavoleanic rocks of Bear Creek. The alaskite of Graveyard Peak is a large mass of very light colored granite along the north margin of the project area. This rock, which commonly weathers to red orange, forms the Vermillion Cliffs northeast of Lake Edison. Also included as alaskite in figures 9-14 are numerous small bodies of other old rocks that range in composition from gabbro to granodiorite. Age relations among the younger (90-79 m.y.) group are well known. The oldest pluton of this group is the Lamarck Granodiorite, a narrow body which crops out northeast of the Bear Creek metavolcanic rocks. This granodiorite, widespread south of the project area, is medium grained, contains abundant dark inclusions, and is typified by large well-formed crystals of black hornblende. In the southeast corner of figures 9-14, a body of porphyritic quartz monzonite similar to the quartz monzonite of Recess Peak has been included with the Lamarck Granodiorite. Next oldest is the Mount Givens Granodiorite, which underlies the entire basin of the San Joaquin River between Kaiser Ridge and Lake Edison. The Mount Givens Granodiorite is one of the largest single plutons in the Sierra Nevada batholith and extends several miles to the north, south, and west of the project area. This granodiorite is exposed in nearly all the roadcuts from Kaiser Pass to Florence and Edison Lakes. Texturally the Mount Givens is a variable rock, although in most places it is light gray and medium grained equigranular and contains scattered dark discoidal inclusions. Along much of the west margin of the project area, 14-1-inch- size phenocrysts of potassium feldspar are abundant, and dark inclusions are absent. Next oldest of the 90-79 m.y. group is the granodio- rite of Lake Edison. This pluton trends northwest- southeast across the northeastern part of the project area and forms the east shores of Lake Edison. It is generally fine grained and is characterized by abundant small crystals of honey-colored sphene. Along its mar- gins much of this pluton is light colored and has the composition of quartz monzonite. The youngest pluton of this group is the quartz mon- zonite of Recess Peak, in the northeast corner of the project area. This unit is the coarsest grained of all granitic rocks in the project area and typically con- tains 5-20 percent of giant phenocrysts of potassium feldspar, which are as much as 4 inches long. Although all in situ exposures of this quartz monzonite are far from roads, large boulders of this rock are common in glacial moraines near Lake Edison. VOLCANIC ROCKS After the granitic rocks cooled and solidified, the Sierra Nevada was uplifted in various episodes, and several miles of overlying rock was removed by erosion. exposing the levels of granitic rocks we see today. About 10 m.y. ago, volcanic activity resumed in the Sierra GEOLOGIC Nevada, and it has continued into historical times. In the project area, volcanoes along Silver Divide and upper Mono Creek erupted about 344 m.y. ago (Dal- rymple, 1963) and poured moderately large quantities of trachybasalt lava into low-lying areas. Feeder pipes for these volcanoes are present east of Pincushion Peak and on Volcanic Knob. Erosion has removed the super- structure of the volcanoes as well as most of the lava flows which must have once covered much of the San Joaquin River's South Fork valley. Remnants of the flows crop out along the South Fork valley, Silver Divide, and Mono Creek. JOINTS Conjugate joints are well developed in the bedrock of most parts of the project area and are among the most prominent structural features observable in aerial photographs of this region (frontispiece, especially near Florence Lake). The joints average about N. 40° E. and N. 20° W. in strike and dip steeply, but the range of attitudes is wide. They were formed several million years ago by regional stresses after consolidation of the granitic rocks; many are the loci of later small-scale strike-slip faults (fig. 3). Longer and more conspicuous joints contain crushed and altered rock that erodes to form low-lying linear trenches along which soil, brush, and timber are concentrated. Shorter and less con- spicuous joints are well exposed in nontimbered areas, and many contain narrow veinlets of quartz, epidote, and chlorite (fig. 4). These veinlets are of potential economic importance, since they commonly contain minor amounts of ore minerals. UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS GLACIAL DEPOSITS During the Pleistocene, most of the project area was repeatedly covered by thick alpine glaciers. These ice FrGurE 3.4Right-lateral offset of a fine-grained dike along a joint near Bear Diversion Dam. Note quartz vein along the joint. FEATURES v8 masses transported enormous quantities of rock down- hill and greatly modified the topography of the region. Deposits of glacially transported till, moraine, and out- wash cover approximately 15 percent of the project area, but are not shown in figures 9-14. The engineering properties of these glacial deposits are important to construction activities, and persons interested in their distribution should refer to detailed geologic maps of this area (see section on "Previous Studies") and to the report of Birman (1964). LAKE AND STREAM DEPOSITS Since the last glacial recession, lakes at higher eleva- tions have accumulated only small amounts of silt and clay. A few lakes at lower elevations have, however, been completely filled with sediment and now are beautiful FicUrE 4.-Mineralized joints in Mount Givens Granodiorite 1 mile west of Mono Hot Springs. The joints are filled with narrow (%% inch) quartz veins and are bordered by altera- tion zones %&-1%4 inches wide, which are resistant to erosion and stand out in relief. Joints strike N. 20° E. 8 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA mountain meadows such as Graveyard Meadows north of Lake Edison. Most streams have only minor accumu- lations of gravel and sand, and large alluvial deposits have developed only along the San Joaquin River. Stream sediments are of economic interest since those in the western part of the project area contain placer gold. PUMICE Violent eruptions in the Mammoth Lakes region sev- eral hundred years ago ejected tremendous volumes of white rhyolite pumice, which was carried southward by winds into the east half of the project area. In the north- eastern part of the area, waterlogged pumice makes up a large fraction of the stream sediments; however, the amount of pumice decreases southward, and at Kaiser Pass only scattered fragments are present in sheltered pockets in bedrock. MINERAL RESOURCES RELATION OF MINERAL DEPOSITS TO GEOLOGY Metalliferous deposits of the Sierra Demonstration Project area fall into two groups-lodes (formed and found within the granitic and metamorphic bedrock of the area) and placers (heavy minerals transported and concentrated by streams). The lode deposits are of two kinds: contact meta- somatic deposits found only in metamorphic rocks and vein deposits that occur in both the metamorphic and granitic rocks. The contact metasomatic deposits were mainly formed by hot, metal-bearing fluids that ema- nated from cooling granitic magma and reacted with and partly replaced metamorphic rocks along or near granitic contacts. Such processes formed the tungsten deposits of Kaiser Ridge and also may account for ano- malies of tungsten, copper, gold, tin, and zinc associated with other metamorphic rock masses (table 3). The con- centration of some metals may also have been locally enhanced by hot, circulating fluids, which redistributed metals originally present in small amounts throughout the metamorphic rocks. Sulfide-bearing quartz veins that cut metavolcanic rocks along Bear Creek may have such an origin. The vein deposits postdate the granitic rocks and were formed by metal-bearing solutions that migrated up- ward along a system of regional joints. Many of these joints are actually small faults and show small amounts of lateral offset (fig. 3). They cut metamorphic and granitic bedrock alike. The veins along these joints con- sist principally of quartz, epidote, and chlorite, and commonly contain small grains of pyrite, molybdenite, argentiferous galena, and other sulfide minerals. The veins range in width from less than one-sixteenth inch to about 6 feet; most are between one-fourth and 1 inch wide. They generally are bordered by alteration zones much wider than the veins themselves. These alteration zones, in which plagioclase is converted to epidote, al- bite, and sericite, and mafic minerals to chlorite, are more resistant to weathering than the surrounding un- altered granite and typically stand out in relief (fig. 4). These mineralized veins are most abundant in the north- east half of the project area. The placer deposits are related to bedrock geology only indirectly-they formed downstream from a bed- rock source. Local topography is more important than bedrock lithology in controlling the distribution of placer deposits. All placer deposits in the project area are along segments of stream courses or former stream courses where the gradient is low ; placer concentrations are uncommon where the gradient is steep and stream- flow rapid. KNOWN MINERAL OCCURRENCES TUNGSTEN MINES AND PROSPECTS ALONG KAISER RIDGE Like most of the tungsten deposits in the Sierra Nevada, deposits in the project area are all of contact- metasomatic origin (Bateman, 1965, p. 123-150). Such deposits form when hot aqueous solutions given off by bodies of cooling and crystallizing granitic magma re- act with marble and other calcareous country rocks. Contact metasomatism of this kind produces a dark silicate rock, tactite (or skarn), composed chiefly of pyroxene of the diopside-hedenbergite series, garnet of the grossularite-andradite series, quartz, and epidote. Some tactite contains scheelite (CaWO,), the only im- portant tungsten-bearing mineral in contact-metaso- matic deposits; tactite may also contain metallic sul- fides and oxides of potential economic importance. Many tungsten ores contain less than 1 percent WO, so the small amount of scheelite required for commercial ex- ploitation may be visible only under ultraviolet light. Within the project area scheelite-bearing tactite occurs along Kaiser Ridge, where the tactite hosts are calcareous rocks in the metamorphic septum that sepa- rates the granodiorite of Dinkey Creek on the south and west from the Mount Givens Granodiorite on the north and east. Marble and cale-silicate-hornfels are common along a 5-mile span that extends from near the center of the NE1/ see. 34, T. 7 S., R. 26 E. (about 1 mile north of the Forest Service campground of Badger Flat) northeast to near Pryor Lake (unnamed on the Kaiser Peak quadrangle topographic map) in the SW NFE1 see. 13, T. 7 S.. R. 26 E. Prospect pits are common throughout this span of the septum, especially near MINERAL Twin Lakes (Chesterman, 1942), but the only reported production has been from the unpatented Lucky Blue claims held by Mr. Floyd T. Wilmoth of Sunset- Whitney Ranch, Calif. A search of mining records at the Fresno County Recorder's Office in April, 1970, re- vealed no other tungsten claims for which current notices of annual assessment work have been filed. The Lucky Blue claims cover the northwest third of the exposures of calcareous rocks (fig. 5). Claims 4 and 5 can be reached by a private road from the Forest Service campground at Sample Meadows, and the other claims are readily accessible from this road. Mr. Wil- moth estimates that tungsten ore valued at approxi- mately $50,000 was produced from claims 4 and 5 dur- ing and following the Korean War (1951-56). Much of this production was from glacial erratics that were scattered along the ridge that extends north from the location cuts of the two claims. Most of the exposed scheelite-bearing boulders have been mined, and we saw , which appeared under ultraviolet light to con- eral percent WO. Ore was also shipped from the location cuts on these two claims, according to Mr. Wilmoth. The principal metamorphic rocks in the vicinity of these opencuts are conspicuously crossbedded white quartzite, pelitic hornfels, and cale-silicate hornfels. Tactite pods formed principally in limestone or calcare- ous interbeds within the quartzite. At each opencut the tactite is adjacent to dikes and irregular bodies of peg- matite, a relationship suggesting strongly that the tac- tite is genetically associated with the emplacement of the pegmatite magma, which probably was saturated with water. Night inspection by ultraviolet light of claims 3, 4, and 5 (which contain the highest grade ore now ex- posed, according to Mr. Wilmoth) revealed that schee- lite is limited to a few small areas several square feet in extent within and adjacent to the opencuts. Examina- tion of the metamorphic rocks between the opencuts revealed only a few small areas of tactite that contains scheelite. Within the mineralized zones scheelite is ir- regularly distributed in grains that range from pin- point size to half an inch in diameter. The coarsest scheelite is exposed on chain 3. Only pinpoint-size grains were found on claim 4, but pyrite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, galena, and magnetite were also present there in irregular streaks and masses. We obtained composite samples from each of the three opencuts by chipping across each face at differ- ent levels, being careful to obtain an even distribution of chips. We took two samples each from claims 4 and 5, and one from claim 3. One sample from claim 4 (2532A) consists mainly of sulfides, and the other (2532B) is RESOURCES R. 26°€. - i~TZ~ proms LTTA IM si xf Yeas <|/|\/—/\/’ 1:7 95. s £. 4 £, a pepoel o p p opt at -p op + £20 #19 I4 £8 % 0% €. pis 24) + 4 +l Lig v4 397% | 4 of Fit ot Aure teats tn. 4" oh od nod ;d £! R .% . £ C4 lm +l i+ "4 p a tg $8 gd 4p crp cd y op op 4 f ig rot a" 4 -+ tack c+" ++ "% e p gs 0 1 MILE (P att t n EXPLANATION NARY QUATER- Glacial moraine [ASAE s SISSY NS i 24 Mount Givens Granodiorite Sheared and lineated quartz monzonite +- + +o + + + + + CRETACEOUS Granodiorite of Dinkey Creek Quartz diorite and other mafic plutonic rocks Pelitic hornfels Quartzite s Number indicates claims PRE: CRETACEOUS Marble 5.-Area surrounding the Lucky Blue lode claims. Locations of the claims are plotted from maps supplied by F. T. Wilmoth. Location cuts are near centers of claims. Area of this figure shown in figure 9. chiefly tactite, although both sulfides and silicates are present in both samples. Our first sample from claim 5 (2533A¢A) proved to be from barren rock when the opencut was examined under ultraviolet light, so we took a second sample (2533B) of the highest grade ore ex- 10 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA posed. The samples were analyzed chemically for gold, copper, arsenic, and tungsten and spectrographically for a wide variety of elements (table 1). The analyses show that only on claim 8 is tungsten ore of commercial grade present at the surface. Claim 4 contains only trace amounts of tungsten but significant amounts of copper, lead, and zinc. Nevertheless, the sur- face extent of the mineralized areas on all three claims is too small to permit accurate estimates of inferred ore reserves. TABLE 1.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of composite samples from the Lucky Blue claims [Spectrographic anallyses by G. W. Day; chemical analyses by R. E. Culbertson, J. G. Friskeni J. R. Hassemer, R. L. Miller, and M. S. Rickard. Values reported in parts per million; these val ues can be converted to weight percent by dividing by 10,000 (for examp e, 20 ppm =0.002 percent and 600 ppm=0.06 percent) . Numbers in parentheses after each element indicate usual lower determination limit. Explanation of sym bols: N, not detected; L, present but below determination limit; G, greater than value shown] 2532A: location cut, claim 4 - 2532B: location cut, claim 4 - 2533A: location cut, claim 5 - 2533B: location cut, claim 5 2534: location cut, claim 3 Element Spectro- Chemical Spectro- Chemical Spectro- Chemical Spectro- Chemical Spectro- Chemical graphic analyses graphic analyses graphic analyses graphic analyses graphic analyses analyses analyses analyses analyses analyses Ag foo s." ap :.: N:: :> cs: ~.}: :2.:l_ ~* ¢.. a As (10).-..:._. N 10 N 10 N L N L N 10 Aut (0.02). --. N . 08 N . 02 N 0. 02 N 0. 02 N . 02 B(10) :.:: ..:. 100°: 2.2: TO Hasi uel L :E 10 sll Ba (20).;.:.1... 100: 200 1,500 700 :: : Be: see ress co. Nils Sasy n am Nous o N Bi TUs renia ise t N WN :i Rit NHE s aaa tas N atic. Cd (50):......-. Icu. 150 c cls, N.: N 2.1.2.3 WN seki. Co (b): 500+. 50 EA:: ce. B RLI DPE 10 Crib) 2.2.2"... Ds ad sci: 100. sss 100-2 0.30023; B0 s Ca-(10).;:.-:.-=.:; 2, 000 1, 700 1, 000 1, 000 l L G 50 64 Fe (500)... :. ©200,000 -_. 150,000 50,000 :. 100,000... La (20)......:.: i A an" L: 90 xes 50s s s ali i at a eo ae Mn (10):....;._ (GS 000 :. ._.. 5,000 :-:..:...-~£. (5,000 >>.. ~-. (G5:000>.......: ag Mo (5)1i-..2.:.. 10 15 oue L 100 ->; -.. slc. 200 ...u. c 10; 2s sissy 19 e ea ee 15 182 2 ne Zo aes PO Ni(5).. 9.0... 80 22: easy i agad ra ns N rect cay: N Ph (10)... 3,000 -:: 50 50 Seco re,.e. 10> 100: Se (b): 10; :. seee 10 10-:::2:.cey. 10 ;s sss eres T ees cross Sn (10)... .;... TQ: sss. co:! 50 cs 100 70 Sr (100). -__-: L 200 200 ss gief o. 150 Sze 200 :s 2 v (10)-..-.:..... 150 1002. TO O cic 100 :c w (20) >->..:.. N L N L N 20 700 600 10, 000 2, 000 ¥H(10); .. 90 :::...... BD cscs rule. | ane want 50°: coud Sf 5020 n (200) ...=... (+110;000: -. 10, 000 :. :.;..c.. N Ns N* el Zr (10) ;...... .. B0: 200 _c 700 500 : 200 . PICK AND SHOVEL MINE The Pick and Shovel mine is within the John Muir Wilderness in the northeastern part of the project area (fig. 2). The mine property consists of seven unpaterted claims east of Minnow Creek in the northwest corner of the Mount Abbot quadrangle. The claims, held by G. T. Burns, B. Baldwin and L. C. Wehmeyer of Clovis and Coalinga, Calif., were filed in 1952 on the site of earlier prospect pits. , The principal workings are on a hillside near the cen- ter of the area covered by the claims (sample loc. 105 in fig. 9) and consist of a drift approximately 125 feet long, which intersects a vertical shaft approximately 80 feet deep. These workings follow a quartz vein sys- tem that strikes N. 50° E. and dips 80°%-85° NW. Where the vein system is exposed in faces on the drift, it con- sists of several narrow 14-4-inch-wide red-stained quartz veins in highly altered granite. The width of this veined zone ranges from 3 to 4 feet in the part of the mine examined. Chemical analyses of three samples from the vein system are given in table 2. Sample 105A is composed of the typical red-stained quartz and shows low values of gold, silver, and lead. Sample 105C is com- posed of red-stained quartz containing fracture fillings of a yellow, powdery mineral tentatively identified by Mr. Wehmeyer as carnotite and shows relatively high values of lead, vanadium, and zinc. Sample 105F, al- tered quartz monzonite adjoining the quartz veins, shows almost no significant mineralization other than a small amount of lead. Several tons of ore have been mined and stockpiled near the portal. This ore consists of mineralized quartz containing relatively abundant galena, pyrite, and mala- chite and lesser amounts of sphalerite, chalcocite, born- ite, chalcopyrite, and azurite. Laumontite and stilbite are associated gangue minerals in some specimens. A grab sample composed of numerous small specimens of high-grade ore from the stockpile contains high values of copper, lead, and zinc (table 2, sample 105B). An analysis of one sample of high-grade copper ore con- taining visible chalcocite (105D) shows 3.6 percent copper, 0.02 percent silver, high content of lead and zinc, and minor amounts of cadmium and gold. MINERAL RESOURCES Ht 2.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples from the Pick and Shovel mine hi nalyses by D. F. Siems and Chris Heropoulos; chemical analyses by J. G. Viets. Values reported in parts per million. Numbers in parentheses after each [Spetétlreggglz ixfdzilcatey usualylower determination limit. Explanation of symbols: N, not detected; L, present but below determination limit; G, greater than value shown] 105A, vein quartz 105B, grab sample of high- 105C, vein quartz 105D, high-grade copper ore 105F, altered quartz grade ore monzonite | te ias Peh. ‘ Spectro- Chemical Spectro- Chemical Spectro- Chemical Spectro- Chemical Spectro- Chemical graphic analyses graphic analyses graphic analyses graphic analyses graphic analyses analyses analyses analyses analyses analyses a Heese eane 20 seers cus as 10 s 200° :en N Aare As(10) ::..)... N N N L N L N 10 N [Zee. uous Au(0.02)-_} _____ N . 04 N 6 N 0. 06 N 06 y.. 50}: B(o)}x...4..c.. 102. 10 - nen 10 ss 10 N* es o aut Pat20).. -.:}... 30 sit aun o T0 200 TO: 1,500: :s P Aiea eal 2 [ esen} o o MN a Pee geass J...:. N :::... 20 ive. N 10° tis N(: els C450) :...... : 600 .. N ...:....0. N) iSee Cos: ‘ _____ maas." jo r cs.... pan. '. ofa ie O sere oen. M eerie des Leerin sa L 1.9 Cu(to) >=: J. .._. 30 34 3, 000 3, 200 500 230 (G20, 000 36, 000 B al $0,000>-- >...: 10,000 :...... 20,000" ' : La(20)-.:.s.:..:. N N se. N N eevee asl 90 ATLL cca. .._ 50 : 2 s bask 100 z=. 0. zs 700° e cle s. 100 :L 1,000: : Mo(S):_-:..-:L- NM 2s vical. N.). ce... N: .... 10 #s L L vae / 15} :i .l C. Amris __ BHS relay. 8600: 7,000 ~:.:...-.. 10,000 _... s...}. 200 ::. s ere .~ nea a ls L* D sel eel 20 P ia ave ga(10)._.". (e__ (ee ta y N ~...... NM N- _ ::: lX. Sr(100)____‘ ..... Lor. cc.... N :- 100 N: 2. 200 ::-x=-.L- ue ¥(10)2 >...... 20 10 ccs .z 200: ars B0 aree asd w(@2Q):... .L... N L N L N L N L N) .: N reste e eel i a oN ec bn ae bee., N*..:.:0:.- N 1) po aim oe ae n - 7n(200)..._-L ...:... ~ 5,000 .. G1o.000 ~...__:.... w utc leas =...... 100; 22-4 vse f SN Pga illo 20 eens oe t i o ain oe cl ace 150. 4: iz | w According to Mr. Wehmeyer, most of the high-grade ore on the stockpile was taken from an inaccessible in- cline below the present mine level. The ore body appar- ently was pod shaped. The present mining operation, carried on sporadically during the summer, is directed toward the discovery of either an extension of this body or new boiies. The mineralizing solutions that formed the Pick and Shovel deposit and other veins nearby moved along a steeply dipping regional joint system that strikes N. 35°-55° ELin this area. In many places the quartz veins typically found along these joints widen abruptly to form small (24 in. maximum length) pockets of red- stained quartz in which sulfides, especially galena and pyrite, an“? visible. These pockets are irregularly dis- tributed along individual joints and are nowhere very abundant. Some of these mineralized pockets appear to have formed by replacement of wallrock, but most have formed through fillings of voids left by differential lat- eral movement between the rock on either side of the joint (fig. 6). The main ore body at the Pick and Shovel mine probably formed by this process, although on a larger scafle. Other ore pockets similar to the one mined probably exist along the Pick and Shovel joint system, but they are probably distributed erratically and will be expensive to find, develop, and mine. 459-605 O - 72 - 3 PLACER GOLD DEPOSITS OF KAISER CREEK Kaiser Creek, in the southwest quarter of the project area, has been the site of sporadic small-scale placer mining for about 100 years. Early records are sparse but indicate that gold was discovered along Kaiser Creek prior to 1880. The earliest published reference to these placers (Burchard, 1882, p. 33) stated, Rich gravel deposits are reported along the banks of Keyser Gulch. The bed of the creek was rich, and was mined out years ago, but the banks were never extensively prospected. The deposits now being opened are said to indicate an ancient river channel, which has not hitherto been discovered in the country. U.S. Bureau of Land Management survey plats of 1882-85 show that "old miner's cabins" and "old mining ditches" existed at that time. Today, all that remains of these old workings are a few gravel piles overgrown with yellow pine along lower Kaiser Creek in the vicinity of Kaiser Diggings Guard Station. Small placer operations were conducted along Kaiser Creek in the early part of this century (Bradley, 1915, p. 444-445), and during the Depression many people reportedly subsisted through placer mining from Sample Meadow to the San Joaquin River. Records at the Fresno County Recorder's Office indicate that the only presently active claim in the area (April, 1970) is the Rose-Kay claim on lower Kaiser Creek 1% miles 12 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA southwest of Kaiser Diggings Guard Station. John L. Dodge and Weldon Millis of Fresno hold this claim. Chemical analyses of stream-sediment samples from Kaiser Creek show anomalous concentrations of gold along a span of about 6 miles-from near Sample $090 i380 OM 3 e ty ne eon xox x x x x x x x $6000 - N B6 (N sek x , Cross-cutting : xox |x x x x x |x ® OBs fso "x) NOs S6 [x) 3% ® [xoxoxox [x ® x X x [x x x\x x| xox x0 x [xe Xx xe af xx xox x |x x x x xl xox xx [xe x x xox] x xox x x xox x xo 3C x fracture x x x x Joints y (& 8 SHE UN OR x x x xU% x k x x _% x xox x x x % xox! x s xox yl s x x x x x xox x x x x x x x ox x mixes xox x x x x x x x x x sx % A x1 8 Sad or Link l ef e (et he Tik 1 cls nute: ine Sar ste 1 n cise Sant Soot one x wos eled ial re a H lia a Dain one e t a_ sx ls dik (+ ME Se.. 00 ae nd 7xxxxxxxxfi_ xx xox x x x x x x x Misc ox i xl x SCX. % xox x x x x- <@am x eel» x x x x ox x x xx STIR N (83 SB% x\Quartz x x x x ® x x x ® ooo m % % % X NUM NN X X a x x x x stone OPTA ce c nC one ose lee a 00 s ne C 00% C90 96 M0. 00 00% 00 96 (on 8 spe SECON o 806 ot "an AON NB Tat mat OM N te sine xx B sax ta x &_ ___ Heit x Xx @x xox x 5s x ® "x xox x xox x C sp sae 30 TaC To cole dae oe ink 1 Lng 4 0 Be cng ont 1 SQ ine 90 o 00 ege a nt Tg C u sbi wo I DM UN SNDT N O Gel Ne at w Tae CR c x x xox x xo x ox /\"\lj/\\>"\£/ T<, /\/\w,§/\//‘-\ * xx x 33x kes xz 7I\\/|\/’\///l\//xxxxxxx oer aia D Ail kia ik «'s ss s «s To o iene Cen ree ng ies elma l see Soin ge Tox nie oice | oe c ne | N sc Be ne se snl Lone Sas cel a Sare 360 af Loe ane | st an Baik con 1 $e one S96 Pak L nt soo. B9 cf op ione FIGURE 6.-Mechanism responsible for formation of quartz pods along joints in the vicinity of the Pick and Shovel mine. Direction of offset along joints is shown by small arrows, relative movement between blocks by large arrows. The length of these pods varies from less than 2 inches to more than 2 feet. Although the pod is shown as though it were continuously filled with quartz, voids were no doubt intermittently present as the fracture opened. Meadows to a point about 2 miles upstream from the junction with the San Joaquin River. Sieved stream sediments from this part of Kaiser Creek contain as much as 13 ppm gold, and panned concentrates show as much as 34 ppm. Free gold was observed in about half the panned samples but was extremely fine (most grains were less than 400 microns in diameter). Panning of modern stream sediments indicates little gold is presently being moved by Kaiser Creek ; however, good colors can be panned from beneath large boulders or from bedrock crevices under roots. Good colors were also panned from colluvium several feet above the present stream level. One local resident, whom we ob- served operating a small sluice box on an unclaimed part of middle Kaiser Creek, reported recovering $3-$7 in gold per day from bedrock crevices high on the banks of the creek. The sparseness of quartz veins near Kaiser Creek and the fact that the one local vein analyzed (table 3, sample 208) contains no gold suggest distant sources for this metal. At Kaiser Diggings the creek occupies a rela- tively flat catchment basin ideally situated to entrap gold carried in from any source. Any gold reaching the basin probably remained behind and became concen- trated as less dense, more easily disintegrated detritus was washed away. The gold appears to have been trans- ported into this basin by a combination of glacial and stream transport processes. An observed association of gold and tungsten in the stream sediments along Kaiser Creek suggests that Kaiser Ridge was once source (figs. 10, 12), for the tungsten was almost certainly derived from there. Floyd T. Wilmoth states that a single narrow quartz vein on his Lucky Blue tungsten claims north of Kaiser Ridge had a high gold content. Low con- centrations of gold (0.02-0.04 ppm) in stream sedi- ments near Kaiser Ridge indicate a weak anomaly along most of the ridge but do not suggest that any major deposit is currently being eroded. If commercial lode deposits were ever present, they have been eroded away, and if the placer gold at Kaiser Diggings came from Kaiser Ridge, it was probably concentrated from small discontinuous lode deposits of no commercial impor- tance, such as may still be present. Kaiser Ridge was not the only source of placer gold, however. Sediment samples collected well north of Kaiser Creek (figs. 9, 10, samples 213, 1082, 1083) con- tain as much as 0.63 ppm gold, and this gold could not have been transported by the streams that now drain the ridge. Some of this gold could have been carried from distant eastern sources by glaciers that once flowed down the South Fork of the San Joaquin River. Bir- man (1964) mapped older glacial deposits along the north side of Kaiser Creek ; these deposits indicate that large amounts of potentially auriferous glacial material MINERAL RESOURCES 13 derived from the east once covered the Kaiser Creek drainage. Most of the Kaiser Creek gold was apparently mined prior to 1880, when records of small producers were poorly kept, and almost no production records were found for these placers. The only production figures found, for 1940, were 7 ounces of gold and 3 ounces of silver (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1933-68). A. comparison of the Kaiser Creek area with similar placer districts of the southern Sierra Nevada indicates total gold pro- duction to date from Kaiser Creek of probably 500 ounces or less, but certainly less than 1,000 ounces (M. G. Johnson, oral commun., 1970). All easily worked gold deposits of economic signifi- cance along Kaiser Creek appear to have already been evaluated and mined, and it is unlikely that any major deposits remain. Small amounts of gold are present, however, and small placer operations and recreational gold panning will probably be carried on for many years to come. PLACER GOLD DEPOSITS OF MILL CREEK Mill Creek, near the west margin of the project area northwest of Kaiser Creek, has also yielded small amounts of gold. Vestiges of a former placer operation indicate that mining was restricted to a half-mile seg- ment of the creek just above Mammoth Pool Reservoir. It is not known exactly when the area was worked, but refuse around a large cabin still standing at the site indicates activity between 1920 and 1940, probably dur- ing the Depression. The Mill Creek placer deposits are on a relatively flat bluff 500 feet above the San Joaquin River (fig. 7). The principal workings at the older placer operation are several trenches cut into thick soil cover on the ridge north of Mill Creek. These trenches (fig. 8), presently 3-8 feet deep and as much as 250 feet long, are mostly oriented in north to northwest directions, transverse to the ridge crest. Large quantities of soil were apparently moved to Mill Creek for sluicing. Gravel piles along the creek indicate that stream sediments were also placered. The only gold detected in our samples from the Mill Creek area, 1.4 ppm, was in a panned concentrate of soil (227T-P) from near the trenched area north of lower Mill Creek. Ten stream-sediment samples (three of them panned) from Mill Creek and its tributaries con- tain less than 0.02 ppm gold. Analyses of a sample of granitic bedrock and of a quartz vein upstream from the Mill Creek placers likewise show no gold. The absence of gold upstream from this deposit (fig. 10) indicates that gold in the soil cover was not derived from present-day Mill Creek headwaters. Nor is there any indication that the gold is derived from in situ FirGurE 7.-Lower Mill Creek gold mining area. Contours from the U.S. Geological Survey topographic map of the Shuteye Peak quadrangle, 1953 edition (before filling of Mammoth Pool Reservoir). Area of this figure shown in fig. 9. FiGurE 8.-Mining trenches north of Mill Creek. Yellow pine and brush in trenches indicate age of workings. weathering of a lode deposit in the granitic rocks of the ridge. Quartz veins are scarce on the ridge: an analysis of the bedrock (sample 225, table 3) shows no gold anomaly, and geologic mapping indicates no geo- logic features that would favor a lode deposit in this area (Huber, 1968). The Mill Creek deposit is probably an erosional remnant of a very old bench placer that was formed several million years ago along the ances- tral San Joaquin River. Doubtless river gravels once 14 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA were present, but they have been removed by erosion, leaving behind the gold they contained. During a long period of weathering and erosion this gold apparently mixed with upper parts of a deep soil that formed from the underlying granitic bedrock. Some of this gold may have been secondarily concentrated downslope in the gravels of Mill Creek. No production figures were found for the Mill Creek of the project area even though Minerals Yearbooks for the years 1932-35 and 1938 indicate a production from "Mill Creek" of 102.62 ounces of gold and 9 ounces of silver (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1933-68). Microfilm copies of original Bureau of Mines records indicate, however, that this "Mill Creek" is a different stream, 40 miles to the south, north of Dunlap. The gold remaining in the Mill Creek area is very sparse, and recovery of additional gold does not appear economically feasible. The Mill Creek deposit is, how- ever, geologically important as an example of a type of gold placer that may exist elsewhere along the San Joaquin River. Any flat or dissected river-cut bench along the San Joaquin River could contain placer gold deposits of the Mill Creek type. QUARTZ Quartz deposits in the project area are of two types: (1) numerous small quartz veins that cut metamorphic and granitic bedrock and (2) older quartz-pegmatite segregations related to late stages in cooling and erystallization of the granitic rocks. Only the quartz pegmatite masses are large enough and pure enough to be of potential economic value. The Medley quartz claims, near Pincushion Peak, have been explored by Mr. John Medley, who reported having sold several shipments of quartz of piezoelectric quality. The unpatented Medley quartz claims are on the west slope of Pincushion Peak at about 8,600 feet elevation. A road has been opened to the mine area, considerable overburden has been removed, and a shallow shaft sunk. The quartz is highly fractured and is embedded in a ma- trix of white clay that has resulted from weathering of originally abundant alkali feldspar. The quartz consists of both clear rock crystal and smoky quartz. A few large thin blades of a resinous mineral tentatively identified as ilmenite occur in some quartz crystals. Although the bedrock is very highly weathered and a thick soil has developed, it is still apparent that this deposit is part of a quartz-core pegmatite dike that cuts the grandodiorite of Lake Edison. The dike ranges in thickness from 3 to 4 feet, strikes about N. 60° W., and dips 5°%-25° N. Quartz appears to be concentrated near the footwall of the dike. The weathered dike is exposed over a length of about 80 feet, but its extent at depth is unknown. A comparison with other pegmatites of the project area suggests that this mass may have been lens shaped ; if so its extent at depth probably does not exceed 80 feet. The site was in- active in 1969. Other large masses of quartz are exposed 1 mile west of the Pick and Shovel mine (along the contact between the alaskite of Graveyard Peak and the quartz monzo- nite of Recess Peak) and on the east slope of the promi- nent ridge 1 mile east of Devil's Bathtub. These deposits consist predominantly of milky quartz of no economic value. SAND AND GRAVEL Small deposits of sand and gravel are found along stream bottoms and in areas of glacial outwash. Other local deposits include the tailings from construction of Ward Tunnel under Kaiser Ridge. No commercial use is made of these materials except by summer residents for concrete aggregate. ORNAMENTAL STONE The coarse- to medium-grained granitic rock found over much of the project area is a potential source of di- mension and ornamental stone but is of no commercial value owing to the remoteness of the area and to the pres- ence of similar rock at more accessible localities. Small deposits of travertine are found locally around hot mineral springs. Most of this rock is soft and punky, but at some localities, particularly along the San Joa- quin River north of Crater Lake (near sample 180, fig. 9), small amounts of dense beautifully banded yellow and orange onyx are present in the precipitates of in- active hot springs. The onyx deposits are too small and inaccessible for commercial exploitation, but could pro- vide small amounts of ornamental stone for hobbyists. DISTRIBUTION OF METALS IN THE SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA The chemical analyses of stream-sediment and bed- rock samples provide a detailed picture of the distribu- tion of metallic elements throughout the project area. In conjunction with geologic considerations, these analyses indicate that of the 30 metals for which analyses were made (see section "Analytical Methods and Proce- dures"), only gold, tungsten, copper, silver, tin, and molybdenum have possible economic importance in this area. The locations of samples and the abundance of these six elements are shown in figures 9-14. The data in figures 10-14 are taken from tables 1-3. The distribution of arsenic was also plotted because initially we thought it might serve as a tracer, but we found no correlation between its abundance and the abundance of more valuable metals. In many places ar- MINERAL RESOURCES 15 senic appears to reflect the presence of arsenic-rich min- eral springs. GOLD Analyses of metamorphic bedrock show traces (up to 0.08 ppm) of gold. The highest bedrock gold content, 0.90 ppm, is from a single sample (169) of volcanic brec- cia on Volcanic Knob. This content is unexplainably high and may be the result of sample contamination. Analyses of quartz veins in the project area showed gold content to range from less than 0.02 ppm to only 0.08 ppm. The relative abundance of gold in the stream sedi- ments does not appear to be closely dependent on bedrock lithologies but instead depends on physiography and the complex transport mechanisms of streams and glaciers. Chemical analyses of stream sediments show that small amounts of gold (0.02-0.20 ppm) are widespread throughout much of the area. Concentrations higher than these are rare; most are restricted to the Kaiser Creek basin, the bench placer north of Mill Creek, streams immediately north of Huntington Lake (sam- ples 3022, 3023), and the San Joaquin River below Mono Hot Springs (sample 004). Areas in which most stream gravels contain low amounts of gold (0.02-0.20 ppm) are 1 mile northeast of Mount Givens, a large area northwest and west of Lake Edison, the area sur- rounding Hoffman Meadow north of Kaiser Creek, and the east end and south slope of Kaiser Ridge. TUNGSTEN Among the bedrock samples, tungsten in measurable amounts is found only in samples of metamorphic rocks on the Lucky Blue claims (see section "Tungsten Mines and Prospects Along Kaiser Ridge"), in two mineral- spring precipitates (003 and 1149), in one sample of Mount Givens Granodiorite (1033), and in two sam- ples (068 and 165) of quartz veins, which contain 600 and 480 ppm, respectively. The tungsten-bearing min- eral in these veins was not identified. Most quartz veins analyzed contain little or no tungsten. The distribution of tungsten in stream sediments clearly is related to the presence of metamorphic rocks upstream. Thus, high tungsten concentrations occur downstream from all metamorphic rocks except the metavolcanic rocks at the northeastmost corner of the area. High tungsten concentrations are also found in sediments from the North Fork of the San Joaquin River and from Granite Creek (figs. 9, 12, samples 193, 195, 1150). These values probably reflect metamorphic rocks and tungsten deposits northwest of the project area. Low tungsten values at other scat- tered localities probably reflect detrital tungsten-bear- ing minerals that were carried from distant metamor- phic rock sources by glaciers. COPPER Copper contents of granitic bedrock samples range from less than 10 ppm in many granodiorites to 190 ppm in a hornblende gabbro (sample 116) ; the granitic rocks average 12 ppm. Metamorphic rocks contain up to 186 ppm copper (sample 204) and average 27 ppm. Most quartz veins analyzed contain 10-50 ppm copper and one (sample 1111) contains 2,400 ppm. Small amounts (10-20 ppm) of copper are wide- spread in stream sediments of the project area. These amounts are not anomalously high and generally can be explained by the presence of detrital concentrations of such minerals as hornblende and magnetite, which commonly contain copper in trace amounts, and by small amounts of copper adsorbed on clay minerals and organic matter (Hawkes and Webb, 1962, p. 122-125). Most stream-sediment samples from part of the area southeast of Pincushion Peak and northwest of Lake Edison, however, contain relatively high amounts of copper (to 88 ppm). Quartz veins are scarce in this area, and no sign of copper mineralization at the sur- face was noted. This area of high copper content is cen- tered on a large mass of the granodiorite of Edison Lake and surrounds a central facies of coarse-grained rock known as the quartz monzonite of Rock Creek Lake (Bateman and others, 1971). The copper anomaly here is probably explained by a slightly higher than normal copper content in these underlying granitic rocks. SILVER With the exception of a metavolcanic schist (sample 204), an anomalous diorite dike rock (sample 231), and two mineralized rocks (samples 118, 127), the country rocks in the project area contain no detectable silver, and most quartz veins contain only minor amounts (to 100 ppm), probably in argentiferous galena. Silver also is very sparse in stream sediments of the project area. It was detected in only 13 sediment samples, in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 2 ppm. Stream-sediment samples with high silver contents are from the northeast and southwest corners of the area. The silver in the south- west is probably alloyed with placer gold, whereas sil- ver in the northeast appears related to abundant small argentiferous veins developed along northeast-south- west trending joints (p. 7). TIN Tin is rare in bedrock of the area and has been iden- tified only in tactite samples from the Lucky Blue tung- sten claims (samples 2532-34), in one metavolcanic rock (sample 204), in one hot-spring tufa deposit (sam- ple 003), in one sample of vein quartz (sample 1111), 16 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA 11915" I | 1 Sas | KP anc ag: 18 3 ' o 203 EXPLANATION > ~ Ert y cS U § § [ aia My 3 §§ > LU < 0 iS $3 Trachy basalt | -- - Metavoleanic rocks vA w's Mainly flows y £- LJ 0 ye: > 7 g < P ake ¥ *=. ® Quartz monzonite of Recess _| Metasedimentary (ra Peak rocks U Highly porphyritic Granodiorite of Lake Edison ‘ g ...... mz e E Kmg LU] min in U Mount Givens Granodiorite ‘ < p G 3 LW x K1 4 t omas: | O Lamarck Granodiorite | . | Granodiorite of Dinkey | Creek | Includes other rock types west | of Kaiser Ridge 5 oats % | U g Area of 3 g +> 4 . o f 7 3 Quartz monzonite of Bear a O aire," ¢ Dome and The Tombstone n r 8 $ CO « KJg C l & D LJ Alaskite of Graveyard Peak ~- C Includes small bodies of darker U granitic rock Geologic contact Dashed where approximate or hidden 11¢ Lakes and streams f Streams dotted where ephemeral | # Sample type , 2033 Stream sediment KPa -66 a Bedrock Includes some surficial deposits 187 + Vein or mineralized rock 180 Mineral -spring deposit Numbers refer to field numbers in table 3 f--- T T T T T | T T I I I I I | I | | | 30 40 5o 60 70 so 90 100 110 120 130 14 0 150 160 170 180 190 200 9.-Locations of chemically analyzed samples in the Sierra Demonstration Project area. MINERAL RESOURCES 119°00' 17 330 ?MILES 200 210 Reference gr 1 ot, Sflfith tee 0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS 1184" ~- . L_ 1 fell ------¥X } I I I I I I T T | | [ I T | 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 1183 id numbers along figure margins included as aid to locate samples listed in table 3. 1182 I 360 155 Creek I 370 380 300 |- 2890 - 280 1-270 |- 260 |- 250 240 |- 230 |- 220 |-200 - 190 180 -170 -160 --150 -140 [-130 (120 -110 I 390 400 18 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA 119816 Upper EXPLANATION 2 + S s L8 2% is Trachy basalt & Mainly flows Krp Quartz monzonite of Recess Peak Highly porphyritic Granodiorite of Lake Edison Mount Givens Granodiorite S KD _ OEN Lamarck Granodiorite Granodiorite of Dinkey Creek Includes other rock types west of Kaiser Ridge Quartz monzonite of Bear Dome and The Tombstone Alaskite of Graveyard Peak Includes small bodies of darker granitic rock Geologic contact Dashed where approximate or hidden Lakes and streams Streams dotted where ephemeral Sample type ® Stream sediment L Bedrock Includes some surficial deposits + Vein or mineralized rock o Mineral deposit ssp 1 1 1 1 1 I | (0) 2 ya X® 0 C C My LW fE E Metavoleanic rocks 2 b— LJ s F U Metasedimentary L111 rocks C A. (é) Analytical results 8 (All values in parts per million 0 ) ff » 02 L Gold C O % Area of (_) 8 figure 7 % g LJ &C Q < $o ¢ > LJ 7 [1d U | 30 40 50 60 70 Clel 90 100 110 120 130 14 0 150 160 170 180 190 200 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 10.-Distribution of gold in the Sierra Demonstration Project area. Reference MINERAL RESOURCES 19 11900 | \ | | ows 320 - 310 300 - 290 - 280 |- £70 - 260 (- 250 |-240 |- 230 - 220 - 210 |-~200 - 190 - 180 -170 -160 -140 (-130 1-120 -110 -100 ll! ISMILES 5 KILOMETERS | T T | T | | T | T { T gsr 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 grid numbers along figure margins included as aid to locate samples listed in table 3. 459-605 O - 72 -4 20 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA 119°15" stag l | 1 1 1 I Upper EXPLANATION (4) mj Sor e O g “DA Ii Z l El E Mv LW C Trachy basalt I p- - - Metavoleanie rocks 2 g: \_ Mainly flows & F- l Krp S Quartz monzonite of Recess Metasedimentary ( Peak rocks L Highly porphyritic g Granodiorite of Lake Edison g Analytical results O (All values in parts per LL”) million) Mount Givens Granodiorite < 7 a *' LJ Silver iets C rad 1 od U o (10) Lamarck Granodiorite Tin Granodiorite of Dinkey Creek Includes other rock types west ) of Kaiser Ridge U 4% U 3 firea o; : : 1 r Quartz monzonite of Bear i O hats Dome and The Tombstone n r 8 L 0 e "& Alaskite of Graveyard Peak 3 E Includes small bodies of darker U granitic rock Geologic contact Dashed where approximate or hidden Lakes and streams Streams dotted where ephemeral Sample type +@ Stream sediment = ® Bedrock Includes some surficial deposits rv Vein or mineralized rock o Mineral-spring deposit I I I I I I I | | | T T | T T I I | | 30 40 5o 60 70 so 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 FIGURE 11.-Distribution of silver and tin in the Sierra Demonstration Project area. Reference ‘ MINERAL RESOURCES 119°00' 21 330 320 310 4 5 MILES 1 J 5 KILOMETERS X ---I ( | | | | T T T T | T | | 200 %zxo 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 grid numbers along figure margins included as aid to locate samples listed in table 8. 340 350 360 300 290 280 |- 270 260 250 240 230 220 - 210 |-200 - 190 - 180 -160 ~150 - 140 -130 110 -100 370 380 390 400 22 Upper Tertiary EXPLANATION \ L & £ A f Trachy basalt Mainly flows Quartz monzonite of Recess Peak Highly porphyritic Granodiorite of Lake Edison Mount Givens Granodiorite G i i =d A1 --- t 4 .l Lamarck Granodiorite Granodiorite of Dinkey Creek Includes other rock types west of Kaiser Ridge Quartz monzonite of Bear Dome and The Tombstone Alaskite of Graveyard Peak Includes small bodies of darker granitic rock Geologic contact Dashed where approximate or hidden Lakes and streams Streams dotted where ephemeral Sample type U Stream sediment m Bedrock Includes some surf cial deposits + Vein or- mineralized rock 0 Mineral-spring deposit 30 CRETACEOUS JURASSIC OR I 40 Analytical results (All values in parts per CRETACEOUS (=)] Metavolcanic rocks Metasedimentary PRE CRETACEOUS I 5o SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA 1198195" s I 1 1 1 1 1 rocks million) e 20 Tungsten Area of figure 7 T T T T | | T | T T T I I 77 60 70 so 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 FicurE 12.-Distribution of tungsten in the Sierra Demonstration Project area. Reference 1 MINERAL RESOURCES 119°00' | | | 23 330 |- 320 (~ 4a 1 5 KILOMETERS 5 MILES J minster ciel P Emc agin 1 T T { T I I 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 | I I I I I I 200 - 21 220 230 240 250 260 270 grid numbers along figure margins included as aid to locate samples listed in table 3. 300 |- 290 |- 280 |- 270 - 260 (~/2850 |-240 |- 230 - 220 - 210 |-200 |- 190 |- 180 -170 -160 |-150 - 140 |-130 [-~120 110 -100 370 380 390 400 24 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA Upper 119°15" 37130 EXPLANATION n a y% x> 8 L < /> 1 : & ® jf C Trachy basalt - - Metavoleanie rocks 2 g Mainly flows E E LW e. € Quartz monzonite of Recess Metasedimentary Q.) Peak rocks LU Highly porphyritic [1d o. Granodiorite 6 (g Analytical results O _ (All values in parts per L5 million) Mount Givens Granodiorite < -- »12 id U Lamarck Granodiorite Granodiorite of Dinkey Creek Includes other rock types west of Kaiser Ridge 0 g) free of i 7 Quartz monzonite of Bear in O (ce Dome and The Tombstone n r 8 < 2 Alaskite of Graveyard Peak 9, fi Includes small bodies of darker t granitic rock Geologic contact Dashed where approximate or hidden Lakes and streams Streams dotted where ephemeral Sample type U Stream sediment a Bedrock Includes some surficial deposits + Vein or mineralized rock 0 Mineral-spring deposit T T T T | I T | T T I T T I T I e 30 40 50 60 70 so 90 100 110 120 130 14 0 150 160 170 180 190. 200 FrourE 13.-Distribution of copper in the Sierra Demonstration Project area. Spectrographic data are shown for a few bedrock samples listed MINERAL RESOURCES 20 ‘ 119°00' | | 330 320 310 300 290 280 (- 270 |- 260 - 250 |- 240 - 230 - 220 - 210 |-200 - 190 - 180 --170 |-150 - 140 -130 120 5 MILES J ist ‘ o 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS f | L es Trt e__ ___] ------X --- | I T I I I I I I | I I I I I | I T 54 200 | 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280. 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 samples yr which chemical analyses are unavailable. Reference grid numbers along figure margins included as aid to locate in table 26 EXPLANATION % = < aTe 7 g" Fu Trachy basalt Q Mainly flows Krp Quartz monzonite of Recess Peak Highly porphyritic Granodiorite of Lake Edison Mount Givens Granodiorite [J AKH .. stl is Lamarck Granodiorite Granodiorite of Dinkey Creek Includes other rock types west of Kaiser Ridge Quartz monzonite of Bear Dome and The Tombstone Alaskite of Graveyard Peak Includes small bodies of darker granitic rock Geologic contact Dashed where approximate or hidden Lakes and streams Streams dotted where ephemeral Sample type ® Stream sediment u Bedrock Includes some surficial deposits + Vein or mineralized rock 0 Mineral-spring deposit SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA 11915 37°30 W y > 8 CC My t f E A Metavoleanic rocks U t- < 'm LJ C Metasedimentary Q rocks Ix] C Q. g Analytical results 8 (All values in parts per milli 0 ion) < p- .100 lag Molybdenum O R Area of 9 8 figure 7 g L t U 20 10 L. 200 50 20 L 100 006-80 _ 30 100 1,000 L. 20 5 15 20 L 200 70 30 L 300 007-20 5 L 500 L 10 10 20 5 L 150 20 10 L 50 007-80 10 50 700 L 20 5 20 15 L 200 50 20 . 70 008-20 5 L 200 L L 10 20 5 L 150 20 L t. 20 008-80 10 50 700 L 10 5 20 10 L 200 50 20 t 100 003-20 _ 30 C 500 L 20 15 10 $ L 100 _ 150 20 L 50 003-80 200 L 500 7 20 15 L 5 L 100 _ 200 20 200 150 010-20 10 50 200 L 15 15 20 5 £ 200 20 10 L L 010-80 100 100 700 L 10 10 20 10 L 200 30 20 L 200 Ol1-P 100 150 500 10 30 10 L 20 10 . 100 150 100 L 1,000 200 100 300 10 30 10 L 10 L 100 _ 200 50 200 1,000 013-20 5 Ct. 200 L 10 5 20 L A 150 20 10 C £ 013-80 _ 20 100 200 5 20 5 20 10 L 200 50 20 L 300 01 4-P 150 L 300 5 20 20 L 15 L 100 _ 300 15 L G1 ,000 016-P 150 L 500 10 50 5 L 10 t 100 _ 300 30 L 200 018-P 150 L 300 7 30 5 L 5 £ 100 _ 300 30 i. 300 919-P 100 L 200 5 20 5 L 10 L £... 200 15 8 70 020-P 100 L 300 5 20 5 L 20 £. Lo- 200 10 L 200 022-80 _ 20 L 200 L L 10 20 L L 70 20 L t. 20 023-80 _ 50 70 300 5 10 20 20 10 L. 100 20 15 L 100 024-20 70 _ 200 500 10 10 20 - 10 £ 100 150 20 L 160 026-80 _ 50 100 200 L 10 30 15 10 £ 100 50 10 L 200 027-80 _ 50 50 300 L 10 20 20 10 L 100 30 10 L 50 028-80 _ 20 L 500 L 10 10 15 10 L 200 50 10 L 30 023-80 _ 20 t. 500 L 10 10 20 15 * 150 50 10 £ 20 030-80 _ 20 L 500 L 20 10 20 10 L 200 50 10 L 50 031-80 _ 20 L 700 L 20 7 15 20 L 150 50 20 L 150 032-80 _ 30 L 500 L 20 20 20 10 L 100 50 10 L 100 035-80 100 50 1,500 L 2C 70 15 15 N 300 150 50 N 200 036-80 200 100 1,500 N 20 30 N 15 N 150 500 70 N 1,000 037-80 100 30 1,000 N 10 20 20 10 N 500 200 20 N 200 038-80 150 150 3,000 5 50 30 20 15 N 500 200 100 N 1,000 033-80 _ 70 30 2,000 £ 30 L 15 15 N 300 200 70 N 1,000 041-80 15 20 1,000 5 15 5 20 15 N 300 150 30 N 150 042-80 10 20 700 £. 10 L 30 15 N 300 100 30 N 200 043-80 100 50 1,000 L 30 5 15 15 N 200 _ 300 70 N 1,000 044-80 15 50 1,000 5 30 5 30 15 N 300 150 50 N 200 045-80 15 50 1,000 7 20 7 30 15 N 300 150 50 N 100 046-80 _ 20 70 2,000 5 30 7 20 30 N 300 _ 200 100 N 700 047-80 _ 20 30 1,000 5 15 5 20 15 N 300 _ 200 30 N 150 048-80 15 30 700 5 20 5 20 15 N 300 150 30 N 200 043-80 7 30 700 t 20 5 30 5 N 200 70 20 N 200 osu -80 10 70 1,500 7 30 L 30 7 N 200 70 50 N 200 053-Bo _ 50 50 1,000 N 30 10 20 18 N 300 200 30 N 200 054-80 _ 50 30 1,50 N 20 15 30 15 N 500 _ 200 30 N 300 053-80 7 30 700 5 20 5 30 10 N 200 70 20 N 150 056-80 _ 20 50 1,000 5 3G 7 30 15 N 300 150 30 N 300 058-80 15 50 1,000 7 30 5 20 15 N 300 100 50 N 200 Averages for each group of analyses calculated as arithmetic mean of the reported values, arbitrarily assuming N=O, L=one-half lower determination limit, and G=upper determination limit; parentheses indicate averages were derived from too few values to be reliably repre- sented. Most chemical analyses by J. G. Viets; others by R. N. Babcock, R. R. Carlson, R. E. Culbertson, J. G. Frisken, J. R. Hassemer, H. D King, R. W. Leinz, R. L. Miller, D. G. Murrey, M. S. Rickard, L. A. Vinnola, and A. W. Wells. Spectrographic analyses by E. F. Cooley, G. W. Day, J. M. Motooka, D. F. Seims, and K. C. Watts] SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TaBLE 3.--Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X ¥ Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co (.02) (10) _ (10) (20) (500) . (0.5) (10) (20) (1) (10) (5) Stream _sediments--Cont inued 053-80 155 226 L L L L 70,000 N L 700 2 N 5 060-80 136 231 L L L L 30,000 N L £00 1.5 N 5 061-80 135 - 244 . 08 C L L 30,000 N 20 700 5 N 7 063-80 137 - 220 L L L L 50,000 N i 700 2 N 7 064-80 322 173 L L L t 200 ,000 N L 700 1 N 15 065-80 349 134 L L L a 30,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 067-80 344 136 L C L 80 30,000 N 10 700 3 N 5 070-80 293 179 L 13 L 20 G200 , 000 N L 700 N N 30 071-80 295 175 L L L L 70, O0¢ N L 700 L N 15 074-80 303 184 L 23 L L 30,000 N 20 1,000 1 N 10 075-80 251 285 L L 10 & 30,000 N L 560 1.5 N 7 076-80 246 291 t. L t L. 30,000 N t. 500 2 N 5 077-80 233 295 L 11 L 4o 100,000 N L 700 1.5 N 10 078-80 245 302 6 L 10 L 50,000 N L 700 1.5 N 7 079-80 266 286 L 10 L L 50,000 20 1,500 3 N 7 080-80 256 298 A2 L L t 30,000 N 10 700 1-5 N 7 081-80 257 303 L L L L 100,000 H i 700 1 N 5 082-80 251 308 L L L L 70,000 N L 700 1.5 N 5 083-80 246 304 L L L L 50,000 N L 700 2 N 7 cBu-80 247 _ 303 L L L L 30,000 N 10 700 1 N 7 085-80 238 306 L L L t 70,000 N t 1,000 1.5 N 15 086-80 235 308 L L L 20 50,000 N 10 1,050 3 N 5 087-80 233 31! L L £ 20 70,000 N ~ ~ 1,000 L N 10 - 088-80 231 314 L 14 L 4o 6200 ,000 N 'A 1,000 L N 15 083-80 173 279 .04 L L 20 50,000 N £1,000 N N 5 os0-80 176 281 C L L 20 70,000 N U 1,000 1 N 15 031-80 213 294 L 20 10 t 70,000 N 10 300 2 N 10 033-80 219 283 £ 17 L 20 100,000 N L 200 2 N 10 og4-80 220 272 L 20 L L 100,000 N L 300 2 N 10 095-80 226 « 263 L 30 L C 100,000 N € 150 N N 10 096-80 231 264 L 10 L L 100 , 000 N 10 300 2 N 15 037-80 240 _ 261 L L 10 L 30,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 103-80 307 319 92 54 L L 30,000 I 20 200 3 N 5 104-80 306 319 L 10 t L 30,000 L 20 200 A N 5 106-80 319 326 t 32 10 L 50,000 N 15 300 3 N 5 108-80 335 326 06 _ 10 N L 20,000 __ N 10 300 2 N 5 109-80 336 325 . O4 L N t 20,000 N 19 200 3 N L 110-80 330 320 L L N t 50,000 N 15 300 3 N 5 111-80 328 (318 L L L L 50,000 2 10 300 3 N 5 112-80 327 310 .04 C L L 30,000 2 d 300 3 N 5 113-80 330 310 .06 L N L 5,000 N 10 150 2 N L 114-80 301 296 L L L L 30,000 N 10 300 1.5 N L 115-80 274 170 L L N L 6200, 000 N £ 700 1 N 20 117-80 292 262 L L L L 100,000 N L 300 1.5 N 15 121-80 367 319 L L L L 30,000 20 500 4 N 5 122-80 368 315 . 02 L L L 30,000 N 20 50 2 N 5 124-80 318 196 L L L £ 50,000 N L 500 N N £ 128-80 310 Is] £ 27 L L 50,000 N 10 _ 1,500 N N 30 129-80 310 _ 187 . 02 £ 10 t 70,000 __ N 10 700 N N 7 130-80 305 167 L 16 L L. 200 .0CO N 70 1,500 N N 7 134-80 352 318 . 02 11 t L 10,000 N 20 500 1 N L 135-80 355 - 320 . 02 L L L 10, 060 N 2C 700 1 N 5 137-80 356 - 308 . 02 12 t. L 15, 000 ’ 10 500 1.5 N 5 wio-80 361. - 291 L L N L 10, 500 N 20 300 1.5 N L 141-80 368 _ 288 L L N L 10,000 N 15 509 1 N N 142-80 36! 281 . 02 a L L 10,000 N 10 500 2 N t 144-80 346 _ 262 L L N L 50 , 060 N i 709 L N 20 145-80 344 251 L L J £ 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 10 146-80 322 249 . 0% L N L 10,0600 N 1 500 y N 10 147-80 327 - 245 C L L L 270, 000 N L od 1 N 15 SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses Cr La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn Sr V ¥ Zn Zr (5) _ (20) (10) (6) : (10) (5) - ({10) (6) ..(i6) ' t100) (id) . (10) . 1200) (10) Stream sediments~~Cont inued 0593-80 20 50 1,000 5 30 5 30 10 L 500 150 30 N 300 060-80 15 50 500 5 30 Yi 20 10 N 300 150 50 N 300 061-80 15 70 1,500 N 30 5 50 15 N 700 100 50 N 500 063-80 20 30 1,000 5 20 10 30 10 N 300 150 30 N 200 064-80 30 70 300 5 30 L N 15 N 150 300 50 N 300 065-80 10 50 1,000 5. 20 5 50 10 N 200 100 30 N 200 067-80 5 50 700 100 20 C 30 7 N 200 70 30 N 500 070-80 300 50 500 N 15 15 N 15 N 200 700 50 N 1,000 071-80 30 70 1,000 20 20 10 30 15 N 300 200 50 N 200 074-80 10 20 1,000 10 10 7 50 10 N 300 100 15 N 70 075-80 10 30 1,000 i 10 7 50 10 N 300 150 30 N 150 076-80 10 70 1,000 7 30 5 30 10 N 300 100 30 N 200 077-80 70 150 1,500 30 50 20 30 10 N 300 200 70 N 1,000 078-80 15 50 1,000 5 15 5 20 10 N 300 150 20 N 150 073-80 7 50 1,500 10 20 5 70 10 N 500 100 30 N 200 080-80 10 30 1,000 7 20 10 50 7 L 300 150 30 N 200 081-80 10 50 1,000 20 30 L 20 7 L 150 150 50 N 300 082-80 15 70 2,000 15 30 5 30 7 19 150 150 50 N 1,000 083-80 15 50 1,500 15 20 7 50 10 L 200 190 30 N 200 084-80 15 30 700 15 20 7 50 10 N 200 100 20 N 150 085-80 30 100 3,000 10 30 15 70 20 L 500 200 50 N 500 086-80 50 150 1,000 15 30 20 50 7 N 500 100 30 N 300 087-80 50 70 1,000 5 20 15 50 15 N 300 200 30 N 200 088-80 100 200 5,000 20 50 15 50 15 N 300 300 100 N 1,000 083-80 20 30 1,500 L 20 10 30 15 N 500 150 30 N 300 030-80 50 70 1,500 7 30 15 30 15 N 500 200 70 N 1,000 031-80 100 150 700 7 10 50 30 9 N 200 150 20 N 150 03 3- 80 50 70 700 10 15 10 20 7 N 200 150 20 N 500 034-80 20 70 700 N 15 7 20 7 N 300 150 20 N 500 035-80 50 30 300 N L 20 20 5 N 100 200 20 N 70 036-80 70 50 1,000 7 15 30 20> 10 N 300 150 20 N 1,000 037-80 15 30 700 L 10 5 30 10 N 300 100 20 N 100 103-80 7 30 1,000 7 10 5 100 5 N 150 70 20 500 150 104-80 7 30 1,000 5 15 5 300 5 N 200 50 20 N 200 106-80 15 100 700 L 15 5 30 10 N 200 200 20 N 200 108-80 15 70 1,000 N 15 5 50 10 N 200 70 20 A 200 103-80 10 30 700 5 10 15 50 5 N L 20 20 N 100 110-80 15 30 700 L 10 5 20 10 N 200 50 20 N 150 111-80 10 100 700 L 15 5 30 7 N 300 70 30 N 200 112-80 7 70 700 L 10 5 30 5 N 500 50 10 N 70 113-80 L 30 500 N L 5 30 L N 190 2 10 N 100 114-80 L N 1,000 N 10 5 50 L N 200 50 10 N 76 1 A5- 80 5 300 2,000 15 100 N C 30 N 300 300 300 N 1,500 117-80 70 70 2,000 N 15 20 50 20 N 200 300 50 L 150 121-80 50 50 500 7 20 30 50 10 N 100 100 30 N 150 122-80 10 50 500 7 20 70 30 7 N 100 50 30 N 150 124-80 L 50 500 t 10 N 10 5 N 200 70 15 N 200 128-80 30 100 2,000 5 15 20 70 20 N 1,000 150 70 N 300 129-80 30 50 1,000 L 30 t 20 15 N 300 200 50 N 1,000 130-80 30 50 1,500 L 30 N 20 20 N 500 300 70 N 61,000 134- 80 15 50 706 5 20 1¢ 30 L N 200 20 20 N 100 135-80 30 50 500 L 20 15 20 5 N 150 50 20 N 150 137-80 20 50 500 5 20 10 30 5 N 200 20 15 N 200 140-80 _ 20 30 500 7 20 10 70 5 N 150 20 15 N 200 141-80 15 70 500 10 20 10 30 5 N 200 15 15 N 100 142-80 18 30 1,000 15 20 10 30 5 N 200 20 15 N 100 144- 80 20 30 1,000 5 20 10 20 15 N 300 100 30 N 300 145-80 15 100 700 10 20 7. 3G 10 N 300 70 20 i 200 146-80 15 30 700 5 20 7 20 10 N 200 30 30 N 300 147-80 50 100 700 L 30 15 15 15 N 300 100 50 N 200 35 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA "TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X Y Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co {:02) (10) : {10} (20) (soo) _ (0.5) (10) (20) (1) (10) (5) Stream sediments--Cont inued 148-80 317 _ 122 0.02 L N L 150,000 N L 500 1 N 20 150-80 313 - 128 L 10 L L 50,000 N 10 500 1 N 20 155-80 370 - 255 . 02 t N L 15,000 N 15 700 1.5 N 5 156-80 _ 357 - 251 L L N L 100,000 N L 700 t N 50 157-80 _ 368 _ 258 L 19 N L 50,000 N 10 500 1 N 7 158-80 355 253 L L N L 70,000 N L 300 1 N 10 159-80 355 - 251 £ L N L 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 7 160-80 _ 362 252 L t L L 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 7 161-80 _ 348 _ 247 L 11 10 C 30,000 N 10 500 L N 20 162-80 - 337 - 246 L R 10 L 30,000 N 10 700 R N 20 163-80 _ 334 _ 246 L 11 t 10 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 15 167-80 366 _ 221 L L L L 30,000 N L 1,000 1 N 7 168-80 349 - 233 t 13 N L 100,000 N L/ 1,000 1 N 7 170-80 179 281 10 _ 12 N L 200,000 N L 700 1 N 10 171-80 _ 174 _ 275 L £. N L 50 , 000 N 10 700 1.5 N 10 174-80 _ 052 155 C N 6 70,000 N L 700 1.5 N 7 175-P O45 _ 136 L 31 10 20 G200,000 N N 20 1 N 20 176-80 - O45 _ 135 t L N L 100,000 N t: 1,000 1.5 N 7 177-80 - o42 - 126 L 12 10 20 G200,000 N L 700 1 N 10 178-80 - o43 - 123 L L L L 30,000 N t 1,000 1.5 N 5 181-80 - 179 _ 253 L L N L 50,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 7 182-80 - 169 _ 255 L L L 20 50,000 N 20 700 2 N 7 183-80 _ 168 _ 254 L L N L 50,000 N 15 700 2 N 5 184-80 _ 165 - 265 L 13 N 20 50,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 185-80 158 266 L L N L 30,000 N 10 700 2 N 5 188-80 _ 150 - 285 L 12 N L 70,000 N 10 700 2 10 189-80 _ 145 _ 288 L £. 10 20 150,000 N L 700 2 N 10 190-80 _ 142 - 287 L t N 20 70,000 N 10 700 1 N 10 191-80 _ 132 - 287 t 12 10 30 6200 ,000 N £ 700 1.5 N 15 192-80 - 130 - 282 L L L 20 50, 000 N 10 700 1 N 5 193-80 106 _ 273 € 18 20 500 6200 ,000 N L 500 2 N 15 194-80 _ 105 _ 276 £ L N L 30,000 N £ 500 2 N 5 195-80 113 _ 286 L 14 10 500 G200,000 N L 200 3 N 20 196-80 318 _ 140 t L L t 50 , 000 N t~~::1,000 2 N 7 197-80 319 137 L L N t 30,000 N L 700 1.5 N 5 199-P 268 - 218 L 24 10 L 6200 ,000 N N 70 1 N 30 201-P 269 226 t 18 L 20 200,000 N N 300 1 N 15 202-80 271 228 L L N L 50,000 N L 700 2 N 7 203-80 272 230 L 24 N L 150,000 N t 700 2 N 15 205-80 _ og4 _ 248 t L L L 30,000 N L 700 2 N 5 207-80 125 - 228 L L L 60 100,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 209-80 118 - 225 t L N L 70,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 210-P 117 - 225 t L L 40 G200,000 N N 50 L. N 20 211-80 115 226 L L 10 L 50,000 N A 700 2 N 10 212-80 118 216 L L L L 50,000 N 10 500 2 N 7 213-P 109 _ 214 63% 14 L 240 G200,000 N N 100 L N 20 214-80 108 215 L L. C: t 50,000 N 10 500 2 N 7 215-80 314 - 279 L L L L 100,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 5 218-80 322 254 L L L 1 50,000 N L 500 2 N 5 219-P 245 : 216 L L t 80 100,000 N L 300 1 [J 15 220-P 249 - 215 L 23 L 4o G200,000 N N 150 N N 30 221-80 - 295 - 284 t £ L L 50,000 N 15 300 2 N 7 222-P 106 - 222 L 18 N 4o 6200 ,000 N N 100 N N 20 223-80 - 103 - 221 L L N ® 70,000 N L 700 2 N 10 224-80 g4 _ 218 L L N L 50,000 N L 700 2 N 7 226-80 85. L £ N £. 70,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 227-P 76-210 1.40 _ 35 10 40 G200,000 N N 70 N N 20 228-P 78 208 L 53 10 60 6200 ,000 N N 20 N N 30 229-80 72 . 205 L 13 N t 150,000 N L 700 2 N 15 230-80 - 368 _ 240 L £ N € 70,000 N 10 500 2 N 10 SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) -~Cont inued Cr La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn Sr V Y Zn Zr (s) - (20) - (10) (5) ' t10)}'> (5s). (5)... (10) © (foo) -: (10) -_ (10) (200) _ (10) Stream sediments~--Continued 148-80 _ 30 100 1,000 N 30 5 20 15 N 200 _ 200 50 N 300 150-80 _ 20 30 1,000 & 10 10 20 15 N 200 100 30 N 200 155-80 _ 20 70 300 L 20 10 30 5 N 500 30 20 N 70 156-80 700 30 700 N 20 _ 100 50 20 N 300 200 30 N 100 157-80 _ 20 100 500 5 30 7 50 10 N 300 70 30 N 200 158-80 20 100 500 t 20 7 50 10 N 300 100 30 N 300 1593-80 50 100 700 5 30 15 50 10 N 300 70 50 N 150 160-80 _ 30. 100 500 L 30 10 20 10 N 300 50 30 N 150 161-80 200 50 700 N 20 70 30 15 N 300 70 30 N 100 162-80 _ 70 70 1,000 N 20 20 20 20 N 500 70 50 N 100 163-80 200 70 700 5 20 30 50 15 N 300 70 50 N 100 167-80 20 70 700 N 10 20 15 5 N 300 50 10 N 150 168-80 _ 30 50 700 N 10 50 15 10 N 300 _ 200 20 N 300 170-80 156 70 500 N 10 10 10 10 N 300 _ 500 30 N 1,000 171-80 _ 20 50 1,500 L 10 10 20 10 N 300 100 20 N 200 174-80 20 100 500 N 10 5 15 10 N 300 100 30 N 700 175-P _ 200 150 5,000 N 20 15 N 5 N N _ 700 70 N _ 61,000 176-80 _ 50 20 500 N 15 t 20 50 N 300 200 30 N 1,000 177-80 100 50 500 N 15 5 10 10 N 300 300 30 N 700 178-80 5 20 200 N 10 L 50 5 N 300 70 10 N 200 181-80 15 20 300 N 10 10 20 7 N 500 100 10 N 150 182-80 _ 20 30 500 L 10 10 30 7 N 300 100 20 N 200 183-80 15 50 500 L 10 5: 20 7 N 300 70 20 N 200 184-80 _ 70 70 500 L 10 20 30 10 N 500 _ 10¢ 15 N 150 185-80 5 30 300 5 15 5 20 5 N 300 70 20 N 300 188-80 15 50 500 N 10 5 15 10 N 500 150 20 N 300 1893-80 _ 50 100 700 5 50 15 15 15 N 300 300 50 N 200 1930-80 _ 20 50 700 5 10 7 20 15 N 500 150 20 N 200 191-80 _ 76 100 700 N 20 5 10 15 N 200 300 70 N _ 61,000 192-80 15 20 500 L 10 5 15 7 N 300 70 15 N 300 193-80 150 70 5,000 10 20 10 L 10 20 200 _ 500 70 N 1,000 194-80 15 50 700 N 15 5 20 5 N 300 70 15 N 300 195-80 150 100 65,000 50 20 50 N 15 50 200 _ 500 70 N 150 196-80 10 20 1,000 5 10 t 10 10 N 150 100 30 N 300 197-80 10 30 700 N 10 L 10 ¥ N 200 70 20 N 150 199-P 200 200 65,000 N 100 10 N 30 N N _ 700 150 N 200 201-P 150 150 2,000 N 30 30 t 20 N 200 _ 300 100 N 150 202-80 15 70 700 5 15 10 10 7 N 200 100 20 N 200 203-80 _ 70 30 1,000 10 10 20 15 20 N 300 _ 200 30 £ 200 205-80 10 70 700 N 10 5 20 £ N 200 70 20 N 300 207-80 20 30 700 5 20 5 15 7 N 300 - 150 50 N 300 209-80 15 30 500 N 15 5 15 10 N 300 100 30 N 500 210-P _ 300 70 500 N 20 10 N 5 N N _ 500 150 N 700 211-80 _ 70 30 500 N 10 10 15 10 N 300 70 20 N 200 212-80 5 50 700 ® 15 5 15 10 L 200 70 30 N 700 213-P - 200 __ 150 300 N 50 10 N 10 N t:; ->500 150 N 700 214-80 15 50 300 £. 15 5 15 10 N 300 70 30 N 150 215-80 15 300 1,000 N 50 L 15 7 N 150 100 70 N 300 218-80 20 50 700 5 15 5 10 7 N 150 70 30 N 700 219-P 30 200 5,000 15 100 7 10 70 20 200 100 200 N - 61,000 220-P 150 _ 300 1,500 N 50 15 N 7 N t: 300 200 N - G1,000 221-80 _ 70 50 700 N 15 15 15 15 N 200 70 30 N 300 222-P 150 _ 200 700 N 50 10 N 7 N t.: 300 200 N _ 61,000 223-80 200 70 700 N 10 20 15 15 N 300 100 20 N 700 224-80 _ 7C 20 300 N 10 10 15 10 N 300 100 15 N 300 226-80 15 30 500 N 10 5 15 10 N 300 _ 100 20 N 200 227-P 150 70 500 N 15 15 N 7 N £.. ©300 30 N 500 228-P 150 70 700 N 15 15 N 5 N N _ 500 30 N 700 229-80 150 20 700 N 10 15 15 15 N 300 _ 300 20 N 500 230-80 100 50 500 10 20 15 10 N 300 100 20 N 150 37 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X C Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co (.02) (10) (10) (20) (soo) _ (0.5) (10) (20) (1) (10) (5) Stream sediments--Cont inued 232-80 >335 - 265 L L N N 30,000 N 10 700 2 N 5 233-080. 116 1986 L L & N 150,000 N L 700 1.5 N 7 234-P 122 197. 33.6 12 L 160 6200 ,000 1 N 30 N N 20 235-P 241 _ 210 . 06 L L 80 150,000 N L 300 N N 15 1001-20 275 - 169 L Sr L 10 100,000 N. L 200 L N 5 1001-20 275 169 t L 10 L 70,000 N L 500 L N 5 1001-80 275 169 Lt 57 L C 150,000 N L 200 L N 10 1001-80 275 _ 169 L a 60 L 200,000 N 10 500 L N 10 1002-20 263 167 L t ho L 30,000 N t. 700 £ N 5 1002-80 263 167 L L 20 t 70, 000 N L 500 L N 5 1003-20. 259 - 171 . 02 L N L 10,000 N t 500 £. N 5 1003-80 259 171 L L N L 30,000 N L 300 L N 5 1004-20 258 - 171 L C N L 10,000 N 10 700 L N 5 1004-80 258 - 171 L =t N L 50,000 N 10 500 L N 10 1005-20 251 161 L . 10 L 20,000 N 10 500 L N 3 1005-80 251 161 L L N L 20,000 N 10 500 L N 5 1006-20 286 200 . 62 L t L 10,000 N L 500 C N L 1006-80 286 200 L € t L 30,000 N > 10 500 L N C 1007-20 286 200 t 10 N L 10,000 N L 500 L N L 1007-80 286 200 C L N L 20,000 N L 509 L N L 1008-20 286 200 L L 80 L 6200 ,000 N 50 50 C N 20 1008-86 286 200 L dl N L 6200, 000 20 50 t N 10 1003-20 2%6 206 L L N L 20,000 N C N L 1003-80 296 206 a L N L 200,000 N 10 500 £ N 10 1010-20 106 203 L * N L 20,000 N 1. 300 L N L 1010-80 106 203 L £ N L 20,000 N L 200 L N C 1011-P 105 199 L L N 10 6200 ,000 N 50 L L N 20 1012-P:. - 102 191 A5 L N 4o 200,000 N 20 & t N 20 1013-P 103 190 L L N L 200,000 N 30 50 L N 10 1014-20 110 _ 165 L 34 L i 20,000 N L 300 L N L 1014-80 110 _ 185 L L N L 20,000 N L 20 L N L 1016-80 _ 301 L L N L 70,000 N i0 200 L N 10 1017-80 180 _ 298 L 10 N L 20,000 N 10 200 £ N 5 1018-80 181 296 L L N L 30,000 N 10 300 L N 5 1013-80 170 - 297 L L 10 L 20,000 N 10 200 L N 5 1020-80 1l6y 297 L L N L 50,000 N 10 500 £ N 5 1021-80 170 _ 294 L £ N L 70,000 N 10 500 a N 5 1022-80 170 - 283 L t N L 100,000 N 10 150 C N 10 1023-80 166 _ 284 s L N L 50,000 N 10 150 L N 5 1024-80 . 280 _ 199 L L L 20 50,000 N C 1,600 1.5 N 5 1025-80 276 192 L L L 1. 50,000 N L 1,000 1 N 7 1026-80 274 193 L £ L L 100,090 N L 700 1 N 10 1027-80 260 188 L L L 20 70,000 N L 1,000 1 N 10 1028-80 259 202 «16 L £. 20 100 , C00 N 10 _ 1,000 2 N 15 1029-80 243 211 . 08 L £ 20 50,500 N L 1,000 1 N 15 1030-80 245 211 . 20 L L 20 70,000 N t. 700 I N 15 1031-80 231 205 . 06 L L L 50,000 N 10 700 2 N 10 1032-80 230 206 «10 L N L 30,000 N 10 500 2 N H 1034-80 233 195 «04 s L £ 70,000 N 10 700 1 N 5 1035-80 247 191 L L L L 3€,0060 N 10 300 I N 5 1036-80 247 i187 L L L L £0,000 N 10 500 2 N 5 1037-80 244 105 £ L L 20 100,008 N t 590 N N 30 1038-80 257 101 t t 1. 20 50,000 N 10 1,000 2 N 10 1039-80 259 101 L t L 20 6200, 000 N L 500 N H 30 1040-80 280 101 t f L 20 150,900 N 19% 1,000 2 N 20 1041-80 287 124 L L L L 70,000 N 10 _ 1,500 2 N 15 1044-806 231 241 C 17 L L 6208 ,030 N L 500 N N 30 : 231° . 241 L 29 t L 6200 , 900 N L 50 N N 50 1047-80 226 - 250 I 20 L L 200 , 063 N Lo- 1,000 [ N 20 1048-80 223 - 249 L 26 L $: 200,006 N L 700 L N 15 SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm)--Continued Cr La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb $¢ Sn Sr V ¥ Zn Zr (5): (20) ' (10) (8) (10) -(5) - {10} (6). C10) -:C100) (10) :- (10) (200) _ (10) Stream sediments=~-~Continued 232-80 5 20 700 N 10 20 15 5 N 150 50 10 N 700 233-80 - 20 N 200 N 10 7 15 vi N 150 150 10 N 700 234-P 150 70 700 N 70 10 o 5 N N 500 150 N _ 61,000 235-P 100 _ 500 3,000 20 70 10 10 20 15 150 200 _ 6200 N 700 1001-20 20 150 300 5 20 5 10 5 L 50 50 20 L 50 1001-20 10 50 300 L 20 5 10 6 L 100 50 15 £ 50 1001-80 30 L 500 10 20 7 20 10 L 100 _ 200 20 L 100 1001-80 30 100 1,000 5 20 5 20 20 L 100 _ 300 30 200 500 1002-20 _ 5 50 200 L 20 5 30 10 L 200 30 10 L 50 1002-80 10 200 500 L 20 5 30 20 L 200 50 20 t. 100 1003-20 L L 200 L 10 5 10 5 C. 150 20 10 L 20 1003-80 5 L 200 L 10 5 20 15 L 150 30 20 t 50 1004-20 L 50 300 L 10 5 30 5 L 300 20 10 L 20 1004-80 10 50 1,500 L 20 5 20 20 t 200 30 20 L. 100 1005-20 L 50 200 L 15 5 20 L L 200 20 10 L 30 1005-80 5 50 500 L 10 5 20 10 £ 200 20 15 L 50 1006-20 L 50 100 L 10 5 20 L L 150 20 L L L 1006-80 10 L 200 L 10 5 100 5 L 150 30 10 200 20 1007-20 5 £ 100 £. 10 5 20 L L 200 20 L L 20 1007-80 10 L 100 L 10 5 20 L L 150 20 10 L 50 1008-20 150 100 1,500 7 30 5 L 20 L t. 50 £ 200 1008-80 30 t 500 7 30 5 L 5 a t:>200 10 L 500 1003-20 20 50 700 R 10 10 30 5 L 300 20 10 L 50 1003-80 100 L 1,000 5 30 5 20 20 t 100 _ 200 20 L 300 1010-20 . 5 50 150 L 10 5 20 5 L 200 20 10 L 70 1010-80 10 50 200 L 10 5 15 10 L 200 20 15 L 100 1011-P 200 L 500 10 20 5 1. 10 L t>" 50 C 700 1012-P 150 € 300 7 20 10 £ 15 £. t. ~ 200 20 L 1,000 10i3-P 150 L 300 10 20 5 L 10 L 100 _ 200 50 L 500 1014-20 5 L 200 . L L i 20 5 L 100 20 C L € 1014-80 10 L 200 L 10 5 20 5 L 100 20 10 L L 1016-80 200 50 500 L 10 30 20 5 L 100 _ 100 10 £. 100 1017-80 100 L 300 L L 30 20 5 L 100 20 L L 20 1018-80 100 70 500 t 10 30 20 10 t 100 20 15 L 70 1019-80 75 50 200 L 10 30 20 5 t 100 20 10 L 30 1020-80 50 70 500 L 10 20 20 15 L 200 50 15 L 50 1021-80 100 70 500 L 10 30 20 15 L 200 50 20 L 50 1022-80 150 100 700 L 10 30 20 20 L 150 70 20 L 100 1023-80 30 50 500 t 10 20 20 7 L 150 50 10 t 50 20 100 1,000 N 20 10 20 10 N 500 100 30 N 100 1025-80 15 50 1,500 N 30 5 20 15 N 500 200 50 N 300 1026-80 50 30 700 N 20 5 15 7 N 300 _ 200 20 N 200 1027-80 50 70 500 C 30 15 10 10 N 300 _ 200 50 N 150 1028-80 70 50 1, 500 5 30 20 30 15 N 50m _ 200 50 N 500 1023-80 50 20 1,000 L 30 15 20 20 N 300 200 50 N 150 1030-80 200 100 2,000 5 50 20 20 20 L 300 200 100 N 1,000 1031-80 30 50 1,500 5 15 10 30 30 N 500 100 50 N 700 1032-80 15 20 1,000 N 10 10 30 15 N 300 _ 100 20 N 100 1034-80 20 50 700 L 15 10 30 15 N 700 _ 100 20 N 150 1035-80 10 20 700 £ 10 7 30 10 N 200 100 15 N 30 1036-80 15 70 700 N 15 5 30 10 N 300 _ 100 30 N 300 1037-80 50 50 1, 500 5 30 30 10 50 10 200 300 150 N 1,000 1038-80 15 100 1,500 L 30 L 30 20 N 500 - 200 70 N 1,000 1033-80 700 30 1,500 N 30 20 N 30 N 150 1,500 100 N _ 61,000 1040-80 100 70 5,000 20 20 10 50 30 L £00 _ 3G0 100 N _ 61,000 1041-80 20 30 1,500 N 20 7 50 30 N 700 _ 200 70 N 300 1044-80 200 30 1,000 5 20 20 N 10 N 200 _ 700 50 N _ 61,000 1045-P 500 50 1,000 N 20 30 N 7 H N 1,000 70 R 1,000 1047-80 200 150 1,500 5 30 50 20 15 N 760 500 20 N 61,000 1048-80 150 100 1,000 5 30 50 20 10 N 500 300 70 N 500 39 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample Coordinates Chemical‘analyses {ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co (.02) (0) _ (10) (20) (500) (0.5) (10) _ (20) (1) (10) (5) Stream sediments--Continued 1049-80 213 - 242 +64: 12 L £. 100,000 N L 700 1 N 15 1050-80 218 - 241 L 28 L L _ 6200,000 N t © 1,000 1 N 30 1051-80 224 - 236 £. L L L 100,000 N L 1,000 1.5 N 15 1053-80 367 148 L L £ L 20,000 N L 1,000 1.5 N 5 1054-80 374 _ 156 L L L L 50,000 N L. ©>3,000 1.5 N 10 1055-80 371 170 L L L L 50,000 N 10 1,000 2 N 10 1056-80 364 _ 179 L. L L L 70,000 N 20 1,500 3 N 10 1057-80 362 182 L L L L 50,000 N t:= 4,000 2 N 10 1058-80 351 189 . 20 L L L 70,000 N 10 1,000 2 N 10 1059-80 148 _ 225 . O4 L L L 50,000 N L 500 2 N 5 1060-80 145 _ 233 .06 t: € L 20,000 N L 500 1.5 N 5 1061-80 148 _ 246 +02 L L L 15,000 N L 500 2 N 5 1062-80 165 - 240 L L L L 30,000 N L 700 2 N 7 1063-80. 170 _ 239 L L t t. 30,000 N L 700 3 N 7 1064-80 169 _ 231 L L t L 30,000 N L 700 3 N 7 1066-80 234 _ 222 L L L L 50,000 N L 700 1.5 N 15 1067-80 206 227 L 12 L L _ 6200,000 N L 300 N N 20 1068-80 2093 228 t L L L 50,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 10 1069-80 344 160 .04 L L L 200,000 N L 700 1.5 N 7 1070-80 337 154 L A. L L 50,000 N t 2 N 5 1071-80 336 151 .04 . L L 100,000 N 10 300 2 N 5 1072-80 334 - 156 t L L 20 50,000 N £:: 1,000 2 N 5 1073-80 350 151 L L L 20 20,000 N L 700 2 N 5 1074-80 335 147 L t L L 200,000 N L 300 2 N 10 1075-80 326 151 .02 t L L 70,000 N t 700 1.5 N 7 1076-80 322 153 t L L L 70,000 N t. '"1,000 1.5 N 7 1077-80 308 162 L £ L L 100,000 N C 700 1.5 N 7 1078-80 180 161 L f L L 200,000 N L 700 1 N 10 1079-80 168 _ 167 .02 £. L L 50,000 L 700 2 N 10 1080-80 120 - 199 .04 L L L 70,000 N L 700 1.5 N 10 1080-P 120 199 19.0 12 L 300 - G200,000 1.5 N 70 N N 30 1081-80 119 _ 202 .50 L L 20 70,000 15 10 1,000 3 N 5 1081-p 119 _ 202 12 £ L 40 _ G200,000 N L 100 N N 50 1082-80 130 _ 203 .06 t L 20 200,000 N 10 700 2 N 10 1082-P _ 130 _ 203 L 20 L 300 - G200,000 N L 50 N N 30 1084-80 141 _ 194 1.3 L L 40 _ G200,000 N L 500 L N 10 1084-P 141 194 11.0 15 L 600 200,000 N L 100 N N 30 1085-80 197 - 262 .06 L L £ 50,000 N £ 700 15 N 10 1086-80 185 263 .02 L L L 150,000 N L. 1,000 1 N 20 1088-80 204 _ 232 L L L L 200,000 N L 700 1 N 20 1089-80 204 - 237 L L L L 150,000 N t 500 L N 20 1090-80 204 _ 238 L L R L 70,000 N t- 4,500 2 N 15 1091-80 203 - 264 t L L L 70,000 N t: 1,000 1 N 10 1092-80 256 237 .06 t t L 50,000 N 10 300 3 N 5 1033-80 260 239 .06 L N L 100,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 15 1094-80 257 _ 241 L 13 t 3 200,000 N 10 300 1.5 N 20 1095-80 252 250 L L t. L 150,000 N L 300 2 N 15 1096-80 260 - 257 L L L L 70,000 N 10 300 1.5 N 10 1097-80 267 - 254 £ L N L 30,000 N 10 300 2 N 5 1098-80 371 93 L 10 10 L 200,000 N 20 700 t: N 15 1099-80 382 104 .02 t L L 100,000 N 50 - 1,500 2 N 15 1101-80 3893 111 L L L L 50,000 N L 700 1 N 10 1103-80 372 123 t L L L 50,000 N t.. 1,000 1 N 7 1104-80 370 - 112 £ L L L 30,000 N 10 500 2 N 5 1105-80 212 167 . 06 t £ L 50,000 N 10 300 2 N 5 1107-80 222 180 L R L L 30,000 N 10 500 2 N 5 1108-80 287 - 292 . Oh L L L 20,000 N 15 300 1.5 N 5 1109-80 305 326 £ L L € 15,000 N 10 300 2 N 5 1110-80 306 319 L t N i 15,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 5 1112-80 282 - 309 L L L L 20,000 N 20 500 3 N £. SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm)--Cont inued ¢r La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn §$r V ¥ Zn Ir (5): (20) (10) (5) (10) (5) (10) (5) (10) (100) (10) (10) (200) (10) Stream sediments--Continued 049-80 150 70 1,000 5 30 50 20 15 N 500 300 70 N 300 1050-80 700 100 1,000 5 30 50 10 15 N 500 500 70 N 61,000 1051-80 50 1,500 5 20 20 30 15 N 500 200 50 N 300 1053-80 10 _ 30 700 5 15 5 50 7 N 150 70 30 N 200 1054-80 10 30 700 - 10 20 5 30 15 N 200 150 30 N 200 1055-80 15.30 1,500 5 30 5 30 20 N 500 150 50 N 500 1056-80 15: 50: 14,500 5 30 5 50 20 N 500 150 70 N 300 1057-80 10 . 3034500 5 20 5 50 15 N 300 150 30 N 70 1058-80 156 70. 1,500 5 30 5 30 20 N 300 200 70 N 500 1059-80 15 30 700 _ 10 20 L 20 7 t 300 150 50 N 200 1060-80 10 30 500 N 20 L 50 7 L 500 100 30 N 700 1061-80 5 20 300 N 15 5 50 5 N 500 50 15 N 70 1062-80 15 100 1,000 7 50 5 70 15 10 500 150 50 N 200 1063-80 10 50 2,000 5 70 L 50 15 10 700 100 70 N 1, 000 1064-80 15° 50 - 2,000 5 20 5 70 15 10 700 100 _ 100 N 500 1066-80 100 70 1,500 L 30 20 30 20 L 500 150 70 N 1,000 1067-80 200 50 1,500 5 30 20 10 15 N 300 700 70 N 61,000 1068-80 30 50 1,000 N 10 20 50 10 N 500 150 15 N 200 1063-80 20 150 5,000 L 50 L 20 15 N 200 200 70 N 1,000 1070-80 10 70 5,000 L 30 5 50 10 L 300 100 70 N 300 1671-80 15:70 700 N 15 5 30 10 N 100 150 30 N 300 1072-80 7 50 2,000 L 20 5 20 10 10 300 100 50 N 150 1073-80 5:>-20:: 1;000 5 20 5 30 5 N 300 50 30 N 100 1074-80 15 ; 30 -. 1,500 L 30 5 20 15 N 150 300 70 N 500 1075-80 10. © 70. - 14000 L 20 t 20 10 N 200 150 30 N 300 1076-80 10 - 20 1,000 N 20 5 20 10 N 300 150 30 N 1,000 1077-80 3,000 N 50 L 20 10 C 200 200 70 N 300 1078-80 jo 70° 1,000 .. JG 50 10 20 15 10 500 300 100 N 200 1079-80 30 £.. 1;000 N 15 10 30 20 10 300 150 30 N 300 1080-80 30 _ 50 700 N 20 5 30 10 10 300 150 30 N 300 1080-P 500 50 1,000 N 30 20 N 15 N N 500 100 N 300 1081-80 20 N 1,000 N 30 t 30 7 N 500 150 30 N 500 1081-P 1,000 N 1,000 N 20 10 N N N N 700 50 N 61,000 1082-80 100 30 1,000 N 30 L 50 10 N 700 200 70 N 500 1082-P 1,000 N - 1,000 N 15 20 N N N N 700 50 N 700 1084-80 150 20 1,009 10 30 7 20 10 N 300 300 70 N 500 1084-P 1,000 30 1,000 15 50 20 N 7 N 1,000 200 N 1,000 1085-80 50 50 1,500 C 30 15 30 20 N 500 200 70 N 300 1086-80 100 50 1,500 5 30 20 30 20 N 500 300 50 N 700 1088-80 150 100 1,500 7 30 20 20 30 N 500 300 100 N 61,000 1083-80 150 70 1,000 r 30 50 15 20 N 500 300 70 N 500 1090-80 100 _ 70 1,500 L 20 50 50 20 N 1,000 200 50 N 200 1031-80 30 30 1,000 5 20 20 30 15 N 700 200 30 N 200 1092-80 15 N 700 N 10 5 30 10 N 300 100 10 N 300 1093-80 70 50 1,000 N 10 30 50 15 N 300 150 20 N 150 1094-80 200 _ 50 700 N 10 15 20 10 N 200 300 30 N 300 1095-80 150 20 700 N 10 20 30 10 N 300 300 15 N 70 1096-80 20 50 700 N 10 10 30 10 N 300 150 15 N 150 1097-80 10 30 700 L L 7 30 10 N 300 100 10 N 50 1098-80 100 _ 70 1,500 N 30 10 20 15 N 300 500 50 N 1,000 1093-80 70 100 2,000 L 30 15 30 20 N _ 1,000 200 100 N 150 1101-80 10. - 50 . 1,000 7 30 7 30 15 N 300 150 50 N 500 1103-80 5 30 1,000 7 20 5 20 15 N 200 150 30 N 200 1104-80 10. . :3¢ 700 5 10 5 30 10 N 200 100 30 N 500 1105-80 20 20 700 N 10 5 50 10 C 300 150 20 N 200 1107-80 10 . 70 500 N 10 5 30 7 N 300 100 20 N 70 1108-80 15 20 500 5 10 15 70 5 N 100 30 20 N 70 1103-80 5 20 700 L 10 5 70 5 10 200 30 30 N 30 1110-80 5 100 700 L 10 5 30 5 N 200 30 20 N 70 1112-80 5 20 1,500 10 10 5 50 L N 150 200 10 N 70 41 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples 1 Sample Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X Y Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co 3 (10) (10) (20) (500) (c.5) (10) _ (20) (1) _ (10) (5) Stream sediments~-Cont inued » 1113-80 278 310 L L N L 50,000 N 20 700 3 N 5 1114-80 266 321 L L N Lt 70,000 N 20 700 3 N 5 1115-80 277 ~ 318 L L N L 70,000 N 20 300 3 N 5 1116-80 286 - 321 t L N L 50,000 N 10 390 3 N 7 * 1118-80 298 - 318 L 13 L L 100,000 N 10 300 3 N 5 + 1119-80 297. 325 L L N t 70,000 N 50 500 3 N | 1120-80 313 - 281 L L N t 50,000 N 20 300 3 N 5 1121-80 299 - 282 L 16 L L 50,000 N 20 300 2 N 10 3 1122-80 295 T4] L L N t 50,000 N 10 300 2 N 10 1123-80 299 151 L £ L t. 70,000 N 10 500 5 N 10 1124-80 303 150 L 10 60 L 30,000 N 10 500 2 N 7. 1125-80 291 164 L L L L 50,000 N 20 500 3 N 10 1127-80 289 166 L 11 N L 50,000 N 20 500 2 N 10 1128-80 278 - 283 L £ N L 15,000 N 20 100 2 N 7 1130-80 325 285 L 12 N N 100,060 N 10 700 2 N 7. 1131-80 325 <; 261 t L N N 50,000 N t 300 2 N 10 1133-80 323 269 C C N N 30,000 N 1; 300 2 N 7 1134-60 327 | 267 L t N N 30,000 N 20 700 2 N 7 1137-80 315 256 L ® N N 30,000 N 10 300 1.5 N 7 1138-80 283 233 L L N N 150,000 N L 300 1 N 15 1139-80 288 250 L L N N 100,000 N t: 300 1.5 N 15 1140-80 304 255 L L N N 50,000 N 10 300 1.5 N 10 1141-80 294 247 L L N N 50,000 N 10 300 2 N 10 1142-80 295 24h £ L N N 50,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 1143-80 286 243 C L N N 50,000 N L 300 2 N 7 1144-80 284 24h L L N L 70,000 N L 300 1.5 N 10 1145-80 283 250 € L N N 30,000 N 10 200 2 N 5 1146-80 255 176 L L N L 70,600 N 15 500 2 N 10 1147-80 249 176 .02 L N t 70,0600 N 15 500 2 N 10 1150-20 104 321 L L 10 L 20,000 N 10 700 5 N 7 1150-80 104 321 L L L 80 100,000 N 20 300 7 N 15 1151-80 131 323 .02 10 10 L 100,000 R N 20 500 2 N 15 1152-80 129 311 L L N £ 70,000 N 20 500 2 N 10 1153-80 229 188 .02 L L L 50,000 N L 1,000 N N 7, 1154-80 225 - 204 . 02 L 20 C 50,000 N L 1,000 N N 5 1155-80 208 207 L 10 L L 70,000 N 50 1,500 N N 10 1156-80 201 203 .02 10 100 L 70,060 N 50 1,500 N N 10 1157-80 195 214 .02 L 10 t 150,000 N 70 1,009 N N 7 1158-80 187 238 . 04 £. L L 50,000 N 10 1,000 N N 5 1159-80 190 241 L t 20 10 50,000 N 10 500 N N 5 1160-80 185 248 L C 20 L 100,000 N 10 300 N N 7 1161-80 198 13 02° L N L 150,000 N L 500 1 N 20 1162-80 191 140 . 02 L N t 15,500 N 10 500 1.5 N 10 1163-80 184 141 02 L N t '20,000 N 15 1,000 1 N 15 1164-80 183 140 L L. N 6 20,009 N 10 1,000 1 N 15 1165-80 188 137 .02 L N L 30,000 N L 1,000 1 N 15 1166-80 367. . 291 L L N L 10,090 N 10 700 2 N L 1167-80 348 282 L L N L 20,000 N t 700 1:5 N L 1168-80 337 283 . 02 L N L 100,000 N t 700 1.5 N 20 1169-80 337 «275 L L N L £0,000 N L 700 1 N 20 1170-80 348 271 L L N L 50,000 N L 700 1 N 20 1171-80 351 274 L L N L 20,000 N 16 700 1 N 5 1172-80 352 274 .02 L L L 50,000 N L 700 1 N 7 1173-80 365 282 L L N L 10,030 N 10 500 1.5 N L 1174-80 349 267 .02 L N L 15,000 N 10 500 1 N 7 1176-80 345 250 L 10 N L 100,000 N L 500 L. L 20 1177-80 335 246 .02 L N L 20,000 N L 700 1 N 15 1178-80 326 245 C2 L N t 70,000 N L 700 L N 20 1179-80 359 119 £. L N L 50,006 N L 700 i N 15 1180-80 354 113 t L N L 160,0c0 N L 500 1 N 15 SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm)--Continued Cr _ La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc $n §r V ¥ Zn Zr ts) (20) (10) - (s) : Clo). (5) _ (ip). (er. «(lo) - Geo) Clo) (200) _ (10) Stream _sediments--Continued 1113-80 7 70 1,500 ~ 10 20 5 50 15 L 200 100 50 N 500 1114-80 10> 70 .- 1,500... 10 20 7 50 10 N 200 100 30 N 300 1115-80 10 ~ 50 -: 2,009 7 20 5 50 20 L 200 100 50 N 300 1116-80 7 - 450 1,509 7 20 5 30 20 t 200 150 50 N 300 1118-80 10 200 3,000 £. 50 5 30 I 10 100 100 50 N 700 1119-80 7 % 50. 1,500 5 20 5 50 10 10 100 70 20 N 1,000 1120-80 10 200 1,500 5 20 5 30 10 10 100 100 100 N 300 1121-80 10: 20 :: 1,000 10 10 7 70 10 t 300 70 10 N 50 1122-80 20 - 20 1,500 L 10 5 30 20 L 200 150 20 N 300 1123-80 20. 20~ ; 1,509 5 15 5 30 30 L 300 150 50 N 500 1124-80 15:30 1,500 2. 15 7 30 15 L 100 100 30 N 150 1125-80 10 _ 50 1,000 7: 15 5 30 15 L 300 100 20 N 300 1127-80 20 .> 50. 1,500 7 15 10 30 15 L 500 150 20 N 200 1128-80 t:: L 10 5 50 5 L 200 30 15 N 100 1130-80 15 200 - 1,500 - 10 20 L 50 10 N 500 200 50 N 500 1131-80 5 ~30::1,500 N 16 5 30 15 N 300 100 20 N 70 1133-80 5 20 1,000 N 10 5 30 15 N 300 100 15 N 70 1134-80 5. 50% 1,500 N 15 5 50 15 N 300 70 30 N 700 1137-80 16,30. ' 1,000 5 15 5 30 15 N 300 150 30 N 300 1138-80 70 50 3,000 N 30 L 20 20 N 100 300 30 N 500 1139-80 70 2,000 N 15 15 30 20 N 500 300 38 N 300 1140-80 15 :~30 - 4,000 N 15 $ 30 15 N 300 100 20 N 300 1141-80 15 70 1,000 L 15 7 30 15 N 300 100 30 N 100 1142-80 10. :>30 -- 1,500 L 15 5 50 10 N 300 100 30 N 300 1143-80 10 " ~20 1,500 5 15 5 50 10 N 500 100 20 N 200 1144-80 70 30 1,000 5 15 7 20 15 N 100 200 30 N 300 1145-80 5:20: 1,500 5 15 L 50 7 N 100 30 20 N 100 1146- 8o 15: >30 700 5 20 5 30 20 N 200 200 30 N 200 1147-80 20 - 50 700 5 20 10 30 30 N 300 200 50 N 61,000 1150-20 20-20 2,000 20 10 20 20 10 50 300 50 15 N 30 1150-80 50. 50. 5,000 _ 50 20 20 10 15 100 500 200 30 300 200 1151-80 70. 50 700 L 15 50 20 15 N 300 200 30 N 300 1152-80 70:-. 50 700 A 15 30 20 15 N 300 150 20 N 200 1153-80 5 ._ 70 1,000 5 20 N 20 15 N 700 190 70 N 1,000 1154-80 5 5C 300 L 15 t 15 10 N 700 100 30 N 70 1155-80 50. 50 1,500 7 20 N 30 30 N 1,500 200 50 N 61,000 1156-80 20 100 2,000 7 30 N 70 20 N 1,500 200 70 N 1,000 1157-80 30 100 1,500 7 30 N 70 20 N 500 300 70 N 61,000 1158-80 5: 50 1,000 C 20 N 20 20 N 1,000 100 50 N 700 1159-80 30 _ 50 700 C 15 7 20 10 N 3G0 70 20 N 300 1160-80 30 _ 50 1,000 5 20 N 15 15 N 200 200 50 N 61,000 1161-80 50 50 700 L 20 10 20 15 N 300 200 20 N 500 1162-80 20 - 30+" 1,000 7 10 $ 20 7 N 200 50 20 N 300 1163-80 30: 30 500 5 10 20 20 10 N 360 50 20 N 100 1164-80 20:50 1,000 15 15 ‘n 20 1C N 200 70 30 N 150 1165-80 50 - 50 500 L 15 20 20 15 N 200 50 20 N 150 1166-80 15 70 700 L 20 10 30 5 N 200 15 20 N 150 1167-80 16 : 70 700 t 30 7 20 5 N 300 30 20 N 200 1168-80 15 100: ~ 1;:000 5 30 7 50 10 N 200 100 50 N 500 1169-80 10 -- 70 1,000 5 20 10 20 10 N 300 70 20 N 150 1170-80 1070 1,009 5 30 5 30 15 N 300 70 30 N 500 1171-80 N 100 700 5 20 7 20 $ N 300 20 20 N 200 1172-80 20.©.70 700 5 15 7 50 5 N 300 50 30 N 150 1173-80 10 :50 500 ® 20 5 20 5 N 200 15 20 N 100 1174-89 N _ 70 1,000 L 30 7 20 10 N 300 50 30 N 150 1176-80 100 150 1,000 N 50 20 20 15 N 300 150 50 N 500 1177-89 3G .- 50 1,000 N 15 10 15 10 N 300 30 20 N 70 1178-80 50 70 2,000 L 30 10 20 20 N 300 100 '50 N 300 1179-80 10 30 1,600 N 20 7 2 10 N 200 100 50 N 200 1180-30 20 100 1,000 It 30 7 15 10 N 200 150 59 N 200 43 44 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA WaBt® 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample _Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquant'tative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X ¥ Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co (.o2) (10) (10) (20) (500) (0.5) (10) (20). (1) (10) (5) Stream sed iments--Cont inued 1181-80 351 101 L L N L 150,000 N 10 500 | N 20 1182-80 366 88 . 02 L N L 20,000 N 20 700 1 N 15 1183-80 353 90 L L L L 70, 000 N 20 500 L N 20 1184-80 325 92 t. L. L t 20, 000 N 15 500 £ N 15 1185-80 127 147 L L L L 15,000 N 20 _ 1,000 1 N 7 1186-80 126 _ 151 L L 4o L 10,000 N 20 500 1 N 5 1187-80 129 152 L L N L 20,000 N 10 _ 1,000 1 N 5 1188-80 127 159 L L 10 L 10,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 5 1183-80 131 164 L L L L 20, 000 N 10 700 1 N 7 1190-80 124 158 L L N L 10, 000 N 20 700 1.5 N 7 1192-80 153 164 L L t R 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 20 1193-80 147 164 L L N L 15,000 N 10 _ 1,000 t N 7 1194-80 i148 _ 155 L L t L 50,000 N L 700 1 N 10 1195-80 140 152 C L L L 20,000 N 10 700 L N 5 1196-80 144 146 L £ L A 20,000 N 10 700 L N 5 1197-80 113 147 . 02 £ N L 10,000 N 10 700 L N 5 1198-80 106 141 L L N L 50,000 N 10 700 L N 5 1199-80 _ 93 151 L L N t 30,000 N L 700 1 N 10 1200-80 _ 99 162 L C L L 30,000 N 10 700 t N 5 1201-80 101 162 L L N L 70, 000 N L 500 1 N 10 1202-80 107 162 L L N L 50,000 N L 700 L N 7 1203-80 106 172 L L L L 50,000 N L 500 1 N 10 1204-80 _ 79 112 . 02 L t L 20 , 000 N 15 700 1.5 N 10 1205-80 - 86 124 t L N t 3G , 000 N 10 500 1 N 10 1207-80 - 87 124 L L L. L 15,000 N 20 500 1.5 N 7 1208-80 _ 84 134 L £ N t 10,000 N 15 500 1 N L 1203-80 _ 81 140 L L N L 50,000 N 10 500 1 N 10 1210-80 286 220 £ L N L 20, 000 N 10 500 1 N 10 1211-80 292 225 L L L 5 50,000 N L 500 1 N 10 1213-80 313 - 224 L 1 L t 30,000 N ' 10 500 1 N 15 1214-80 - 95 135 € L N L 15,000 N 15 700 L N 10 1215-80 _ 83 145 & L L L 30,000 N L 700 1 N 20 1216-80 _ 90 152 L £6 N L 50, 000 N 10 _ 1,000 1 N 20 1217-80 _ 77 151 L L L t 150,008 N 10 700 1 N 20 1218-80 _ 77 159 L L L L 50 , 000 N 10 700 1 N 20 1219-80 _ 79 - 161 L L L L 30,000 N L 706 1 N 20 1220-80 _ 91 165 L 10 N L 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 20 1221-80 114 178 t L 20 L. 20,000 N 10 500 1 N 10 1222-80 119 - 169 L L L L 15, 000 N 10 500 1.5 N 7 1223-60 126 169 C L N L 15,000 N 15 500 1.5 N 5 1224-80 177 128 L L N L 20,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 7 1225-80 120 _ 181 L t t. E 30,000 N L 500 1 N 7 1226-80 108 - 240 L 12 N L 50,000 N 10 700 1 N 30 1227-80 116 255 C L N L 10,000 N 15 500 1 N 7 1228-80 112 - 264 L L N t 20 , 000 N 10 300 1 N 10 1223-80 131 266 L L N L 10,000 N 10 500 1 N 7 1230-80 140 _ 271 L L N L 10,000 N 10 300 1.8 N 10 1231-80 150 _ 256 € L 15 L 10,000 N 15 500 1 N 7 1232-80 131 254 L L L 10 70 , 000 N N 700 5 N N 1233-80 146 197 t L L L 50, 000 N N 700 5 N N 1234-80 157 154 L L L L 70, 000 N N 700 5 N N 1235-80 167 176 L L L L 50,000 N N 700 5 N N 1236-80 177 199 L L L L 100,000 N N 700 5 N 10 1237-80 183 180 L L 30 160 15,000 N 20 500 1 N 5 1238-80 359 169 t 11 N N 50, 000 N 20 500 2 N 7 1239-80 337 174 L L N N 20,000 N L 700 2 N L 1240-80 332 181 L t N L 50,000 N 15 700 2 N 7 1241-80 335 - 194 t t. L L 50,000 N 15 300 2 N 10 1242-80 338 - 191 L L N N 30,000 N 15 700 2 N $ 1243-80 248 _ 310 L L N N 70, 000 N 10 500 2 N 10 SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm)--Continued Cr - La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn Sr V ¥ «Zn Zr (5) (20) (10) (5) (10) (5) (10) (5) (10) (100) (10) (10) _ (200) (10) Stream sediments--Cont inued 1181-80 20 70 1,000 N 30 5 15 15 N 200 200 50 N 500 1182-80 20:50 700 L 15 10 20 15 N 300 50 20 N 200 1183-80 50 100 1,000 R 50 5 20 20 N 300 150 _ 100 N 500 1184-80 15. 59 700 5 15 10 15 15 N 300 50 20 N 150 1185-80 15. ~-30 500 N 20 10 15 10 N 200 20 30 N 200 1186-80 20 : 50 500 N 15 10 15 10 N 200 30 20 N 200 1187-80 1530 500 N 20 10 15 10 N 300 30 30 N 200 1188-80 15 20 200 N t 10 15 5 N 200 15 15 N 70 1189-80 20 50 700 N 15 10 15 10 N 200 50 30 N 200 1190-80 20 20 500 N 15 10 15 10 N 200 20 20 N £00 1192-80 20 - 30 700 5 20 10 30 15 N 200 100 20 N 300 1193-80 10 150 500 5 15 10 30 7 N 300 30 30 N 150 1194-80 10 '-30 1,000 N 15 5 15 10 N 200 70 30 N 700 1195-80 20 30 700 N 10 10 20 10 N 200 20 20 N 500 1196-80 10 © 70 500 N 10 10 30 10 N 200 30 20 N 150 1197-80 10 _ 50 500 N 10 10 30 7 N 200 20 15 N 150 1198-80 10 ~>50 700 N 10 15 30 10 N 200 50 20 N 70 1199-80 15-30. N 15 15 20 15 N 200 70 30 N 150 1200-80 10 >70 ©©1,000 N 10 10 15 10 N 200 50 30 N 200 1201-80 15 N _ 1,000 N 10 5 20 15 N 200 100 30 N 700 1202-80 10 >20 - 1,500 N L 5 15 10 N 200 50 20 N 150 1203-80 20. 30 - 1,000 N 20 7 15 15 N 200 100 50 N 1,000 1204-80 20 50 1,000 N 20 15 20 15 N 300 50 50 N 300 1205-80 20 _ 30 700 N 15 10 15 15 N 150 70 30 N 700 1207-80 20 - 50 300 N 20 10 15 10 N 150 150 50 N 300 1208-80 15.20 200 N 15 5 15 10 N 200 30 20 N 500 1203-80 50 _ 30 500 N 20 10 10 20 N 150 70 50 N 1,000 1210-80 20. 701,000 L 20 10 15 15 N 300 50 20 N 150 1211-80 30 '50. 1,000 5 20 20 20 7 N 300 50 20 N 100 1213-80. - 30 500 N 20 30 20 10 N 300 50 20 N 150 1214-80 20 . 30 300 N 10 10 20 10 N 200 20 20 N 100 1215-80 15 20 _ 1,500 N 20 7 15 15 N 300 100 30 N 300 1216-80 20 ~20 _ 1,000 N 20 10 30 20 N 300 50 50 N 500 1217-80 50 30 > 1,000 N 30 7 20 20 N 300 200 70 N 61,000 1218-80 20 _ 20 700 N 15 7 15 15 N 200 70 30 N 300 1219-80 20. 50+ ~>1,000 N 20 7 20 15 N 300 70 20 N 200 1220-80 30 50 - 1,000 N 10 15 20 10 N 300 50 15 N 100 1221-80 20 30 500 N 15 10 20 10 N 200 30 20 N 150 1222-80 10 _ 30 500 N 10 10 15 10 N 200 30 20 N 200 1223-80 15: (30 700 N 20 10 15 10 N 200 30 30 N 300 1224-80 15 30 500 N 15 10 15 10 N 200 50 20 N 200 1225-80 20 30 500 N 10 10 15 10 N 200 50 20 N 150 1226-80 700 30 1,000 N 10 70 20 30 N 500 100 20 N 150 1227-80 15 . 50 300 N 10 10 15 10 N 300 30 20 N 150 1228-80 20 30 200 N 10 10 15 7 N 200 50 15 N 150 1229-80 10 20 150 N 10 10 20 10 N 300 20 20 N 200 1230-80 20 70 200 N 15 15 20 10 N 200 30 10 N 200 1231-80 20 - 30 150 N 30 10 20 10 N 300 20 30 N 150 1232-80 20 50 1,000 N 50 5 10 20 N 500 100 70 N 1,000 1233-80 15 N 500 5 30 15 10 N 500 100 50 N 500 1234-80 20 50 1,000 N 20 5 50 15 N 500 100 50 N 500 1235-80 20 (50 700 N 20 5 20 15 N 200 100 50 N 500 1236-80 30 - 50 500. _ N 30 5 20 10 N 300 200 50 N 500 1237-80 15 50 700 N 20 10 20 10 N 200 30 20 N 150 1238-80 10 50 500 N 10 5 20 10 N 200 70 15 N 150 1239-80 L 20 500 L L 5 15 5 N 150 30 15 N 100 1240-80 10 _ 70 500 L 10 5 15 10 N 200 70 30 N 100 1241-80 15 30 500 5 10 10 20 10 N 200 70 30 N 150 1242-80 5 50 300 L 10 5 20 5 N 300 50 10 N 70 1243-80 30:20 - 1,500 -15 10 15 50 15 N 200 100 30 N 150 45 46 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA [TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) _| X ¥ Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co t:02) A10): (10) (20) _ (500) (0.5) {10)<> 420) (1) (10) (5) Stream sediments--Continued 1244-80 _ 249 326 L 21 L C 100,000 N 10 300 1.5 N 20 1245-80 239 313 L L N N 50,000 N 15 500 2 N J 1246-80 236 323 L L N N 50,000 N 20 500 2 N 7 1247-80 241 326 L L N N 50,000 N 15 500 2 N 10 1248-80 _ 230 326 L L N N 70,000 N 15 500 2 N 10 1249-80 225 325 t £ 10 N 20,000 N 10 500 2 N 5 1250-80 40 151 L L 10 N 50,000 N 10 700 F5 N 7 1251-80 39 152 t 10 20 N 150,000 N 10 500 1:5 N 7 1252-80 46 140 L L 10 N 100,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 15 1253-80 45 140 L. L 10 N 70,000 N 10 500 1,5 N 7 1254-80 46 108 L L 10 N 30,000 N L 700 2 N 5 1255-80 47 4313 L L N N 50,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 1256-80 46 115 L L 10 L 100,000 N 10 700 1;5 N 7 1257-80 - 179 249 L L 10 £ 50,000 N 15 500 2 N 7 1258-80 170 - 255 L 11 10 N 100,000 N 16 700 115 N 10 1259-80 159 267 L L L N 70,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 1260-80 - 155 282 L L 10 N 100,000 N 10 500 2 N 10 1261-80 152 | 287 L L 10 N 100,000 N 10 700 1 N 15 1262-80 142 290 t L N N 50,000 N 16 700 1,5 N 10 1263-80 - 130 288 L 13 L L 150,000 N 10 700 2 N 10 1264-80 218 298 L L L N 30,000 N 15 700 1.5 N 5 1265-80 113 272 L £ N N 70,000 N 10 590 1.5 N 5 1266-80 108 270 L C L N 100,000 N 10 700 1,5 N 10 1267-80 300 126 L R 20 N 100,000 i 15 700 1.5 N 10 1268-80 91 243 L L L N 50,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 1269-80 58 145 L L 10 N 100,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 15 1271-80 177. 236 £ C L N 30,000 N 20 700 2 N 5 1272-80 184 213 t £ L N 30,000 N 10 700 115 N 5 1273-80 187 224 L L L N 20,000 N 20 500 1.5 N 5 1274-80 181 221 L L 10 N 30,000 N 20 700 2 N 7 1275-80 373 186 L L L N 30,000 N 20 700 2 N 7 1276-80 369 198 t L 10 N 30,000 N 20 500 2 N 7 1277-80 368 205 L L N N 30,000 N 15 500 3 N 5 1278-80 362 207 L L 20 N 100,000 N 10 500 1.5 N ¥ 1279-80 360 206 L L N N 30,000 N 20 500 2 N 5 1280-80 360 209 L L N N 30,000 N 20 500 2 N 5 1282-80 343 208 L L £ N 50,000 N 20 500 2 N 10 1284-80 339 204 L t L N 30,000 N 20 700 2 N 5 1285-80 327 200 L L L N 70,000 N 20 700 2 N 10 1286-80 322 194 . L L N 50,000 N 10 1,060 2 N 7 1287-80 202 297 L t. L N 100,000 N 10 700 2 N 15 1288-80 _ 196 290 C L £ N 100,000 N 10 700 1,5 N 10 1283-80 210 288 C. 17. t N 70,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 1290-80 213. 283 L L C N 20,000 N 10 700 2 N 5 1291-80 212 273 L I. L N 70,000 N 10 }00 1.5 N 7 1292-80 213 266 L L N N 100,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 10 1293-80 222 256 0.20. 15 L L 150,000 N 10 700 115 N 15 1234-80 225 256 L L L N 70,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 10 1295-80 97 188 L £ 10 N 30,000 H 10 700 1.5 N 7 1296-80 88 186 L C 10 N 50,000 N 10 700 £5 N 7 1297-80 86 185 L L N N 15,000 N L 300 2 N N 1298-80 82 189 L 11 10 N 30,000 id 10 700 15 N J 1299-80 82 190 t C t N 30,000 N 10 760 1,5 N 7 1300-80 72 194 t L £ N 70,000 N 1C 700 175 N J 1301-80 713 197 L 10 L N 150,000 N 18 7 1 N 15 2001-80 23h 148 L L L L 70,000 B 10 1,000 1 N 10 2002-80 225 151 | L L t. 50,000 H 15 700 3 N 10 2003-80 _ 230 160 L L L L 100,090 N 10 _ 1,000 1 N 15 2004-83 232 160 L C [ L 200.008 N 10 200 N N 15 2005-80 _ 344 160 Ch C N L. 100,008 N 20 700 2 N 10 iSPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses {(ppm)--Continued Cr < Ke Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn Sr V ¥ - Zn Zr (5) (20) - (10). (5) - :(10) {5) . (io) (s} - (10) « {loo}. (iG). (10) (200) (10) Stream sediments--Continued 1244-80 _ 70 20 1,000 30 10 20 £. 30 N 200 150 30 N 100 1245-80 10 30 1,000 5 10 10 20 5 N 200 70 30 N 200 1246-80 _ 10 30 700 5 10 10 20 5 N 150 70 20 N 150 1247-80 _ 10 100 700 N 10 5 20 10 N 300 100 30 N 200 1248-80 _ 15 100 700 N 15 7 15 10 N 300 100 30 N 500 1249-80 _ 10 _ 30 700 5 10 10 20 10 N 300 50 10 N 50 1250-80 - 15 26 500 N 10 7 15 7 N 300 70 10 N 100 1251-80 - 50 - 50 500 N 15 7 10 10 N 200 150 50 N 300 1252-80 | 30 30 700 N 10 7 15 30 N 300 150 50 N 200 1253-80 ° 30 ~50 500 N 10 10 15 20 N 200 100 30 N 150 1254-80 _ 10 _ 50 500 N 10 5 20 5 L 200 50 15 N 150 1255-80 10 20 500 N 10 5 20 10 L 300 50 20 N 150 1256-80 - 20 - 50 700 N 10 7 15 10 N 300 100 30 N 200 1257-80 30 - 50 700 10 10 15 20 10 N 300 70 20 N 150 1258-80 30 70 700 L 30 15 15 15 N 200 150 50 N 150 1259-80 20 100 700 L 15 10 20 10 N 300 70 30 N 100 1260-80. 30 .- 50 700 L 15 10 15 10 N 200 100 30 N 200 1261-80 _ 30 - 30 700 N 10 15 15 15 N 500 200 20 N 200 1262-80 100 - 30 700 5 10 20 15 10 N 300 100 20 N 150 1263-80 30 | 70 700 L 15 10 15 10 N 300 150 30 N 500 1264-80 _ 70 _ 70 300 5 10 15 20 5 N 200 50 15 N 100 1265-80 15 70 500 N 10 7 20 5 N 300 100 15 N 100 1266-80 _ 50 70 700 5 30 15 10 15 N 300 150 50 N 150 1267-80 _ 30 30 700 R 20 10 15 20 N 300 150 50 N 150 1268-80 _ 70 30 500 N 10 15 20 7. N 300 70 10 N 150 1269-80 - 30 30 700 N 10 7 10 20 N 300 150 30 N 150 1271-80. 10 - 56 200 7 10 5 15 5 N 300 50 20 N 150 1272-80 10 30 200 5 10 5 15 10 N 300 70 o N 300 1273-80 _ 10 30 300 5 15 5 15 10 N 300 70 30 N 700 1274-80 - 15 - 50 500 5 10 7 10 10 N 300 70 30 N 200 1275-80 _ 10 - 50 700 5 15 5 10 10 N 300 70 30 N 300 1276-80 _ 10 - 50 700 5 15 5 15 10 N 300 70 30 N 150 1277-80 10 50 500 L 10 5 30 7 N 300 50 20 N 100 1278-80 (O10 - 50 700 5 20 5 15 7 N 300 100 30 N 150 1273-80 7 A30 700 5 10 7 20 7 N 200 70 20 N 100 1280-80 7 50 300 5 10 5 15 5 N 300 70 15 N 100 1282-80 30 - 50 700 L 10 15 30 15 N 300 100 20 N 100 1284-80 5 50 700 £ 10 5 20 70 N 300 50 20 N 100 1285-80 20 70 700 5 20 10 50 10 N 300 100 70 N 200 1286-80 700 5 10 L 15 7 N 200 70 30 N 300 1287-80 150 30 700 N 10 50 20 10 N 300 150 20 N 300 1288-80 150 _ 50 700 N 10 30 15 10 N 300 150 30 N 200 1289-80 _ 70 20 700 N 50 20 20 5 N 300 100 50 N 200 1290-50 ° 15 30 300 5 10 10 20 L N 300 50 10 N 150 1291-50 15>50 500 5 10 10 20 10 N 300 100 15 N 300 1292-80 - 20 - 70 700 L 10 15 15 15 N 500 150 30 N 200 1293-80 150 70 700 N 10 50 20 10 N 300 150 30 N 100 1294-80 _ 50 _ 70 500 L 10 20 15 10 N 500 100 30 N 70 1295-B0 _ 10°. 30 500 N 10 15 15 7 N 300 70 20 N 200 1296-80 I5) (30 300 N 10 5 15 7 N 300 i100 20 N 300 1297-80 5... 20 150 N 10 L L 7 N 200 50 20 N 150 1298-80. 15. 30 300 N 10 7 15 10 N 200 70 20 N 150 1299-80 15 36 200 N 10 7 15 7 N 300 70 30 N 150 1300-80 _ 15 _ 50 300 N 10 7 20 19 N 300 70 20 N 300 1301-80 _ 50 _ 70 300 N 10 10 10 15 N 500 200 50 N 300 2001-80 30 30 1,000 10 20 7 30 15 N 300 200 70 N 200 2002-80 / 1,509 7 15 7 32 20 N 700 150 30 N 1,000 2003-80 _ 50 9 4,008 5 20 7 20 20 N 500 300 50 N 500 200h-80 | 1090 | 206. 1,080 L 20 10 15 15 N 200 300 70 N Gi,000 2006-80 20 50 (A,508 £ 15 5 50 15 L 200 150 30 N 200 47 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TaBLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample _ _Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X ¥ Au Cu As W Fe Ag B. Ba Be Bi Lo (:02) (10) (10) (20) (500) (0.5) (10) (20) (1) (10) (5) Stream sediments~-Continued 2006-80 $29. C L N L 20,000 N 20 500 2 N 7 2007-80 320 150 L £ N L 70,000 N 10 700 2 N 10 2008-80 320. 150. -C L N 4o 200,000 N 20 150 2 N 15 2003-80 206 143. A C N L 20,000 N 10 1,500 2 N 5 2011-80 200 150 L L L L 30,000 N L 700 1 N 5 2012-80 191 158 L L L L 30,000 N 10 700 1 N 7 2013-80 158 178 . '% L N L 70,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 2014-80 165 176 . L L N L 50,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 2015-80 130 200, L L N 40 200,000 N 10 300 2 N 10 2015-P 120. 200% 7.4 15 10 500 200,000 N L 70 N N 30 2016-80 140 193; L L N L 70,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 7 2016-P 140 ~1493 L 10 L 4o 200,000 N N 50 N N 30 2017-80 177 _ 283 L C N L. 70,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 15 2018-80 293 279 .02 L N L 100,000 N 10 700 2 N 15 2019-80 200 _ 263 £ L N L 109,000 N L 300 2 N 10 2020-80 197; 251 L 12 N L 70, 000 N 10 500 2 N 10 2021-80 291 295 L. L N L 30,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 2022-80 208-306 L L N L 30,000 N 15 300 3 N 5 2023-80 300 - <305 "L 10 N L 30,000 N 15 300 2 N 7 2024-80 312 -. 307- :L L N L 50,000 N 15 300 2 N 7 2025-80 317303 _L t N L 70,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 2026-80 314 _ 234 t L N Ct 20,000 N 15 300 1.5 N 5 2027-80 307 - 314 L L N L 20,000 N 10 200 2 N 5 2028-80 341 306 :A R N L 20,000 N 15 300 2 N 5 2029-80 334 /-- 302° t. L N L 30,000 N 10 300 2 N 5 2030-80 304 _ 280 .02 a N L 50,000 N 15 300 2 N 10 2034-80 274 170. -L £ L L 100,000 N 10 300 1.6 N 20 2035-80 103 _ 321 L. £ N L 100,000 N 15 500 2 N 10 2036-80 t L N L 70,000 N 15 300 2 N 7 2037-80 £15305. :L L N L 150,000 N 15 500 1 N 7 2038-80 238 182 .02 L 20 L 50,000 N L 700 N N 5 2039-80 233 188 .02 L. 10 t 50,000 N £. 700 N N L 2040-80 228 200 .02 L t L 150,000 N 30 1,000 N N 15 2041-80 222 : 201 02 L L £ 50,000 N L 1,000 N N 10 2042-80 210 _ 200 .02 L L L 30,000 N £ 1,000 N N L 2043-80 202 204 .02 L L L 100,000 N 10 1,000 N N 10 2501-80 148 194 .06 L L L 50,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 5 2501-P 148 194 20 t N 80 200,000 N 20 70 1 N 20 2502-80 145 189 L L N £. 20,000 N 10 150 2 N 5 2502-P M5 189 L 10 L 20 _ G200,000 N L 70 N N 50 2503-80 190 2886 t 27 L L. 200,000 N A 700 N N 30 2504-80 199. - 296 -t 46 10 L 200,000 N L 700 1 N 30 2505-80 210.279 . C 10 L L 100,000 N 10 1,000 2 N 10 2506-80 209 279 C 14 L C 150,000 N L 700 1.5 N 10 2507-80 208 : 272 < t 88 £ L 200,000 N L 500 N N 50 2508-80 207.273 .. .C 15 10 L 200,000 N L 700 2 N 15 2503-80 7210 196 .: C L N L 20,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 2510-80 239 - 261 A0. 17. L L 70,000 N 10 200 1.5 N 10 2511-80 244 _ 166 L L N L 20,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 2512-80 232 173 .02 L N L 70,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 2513-80 288. 300 L L N L 70,000 N 20 200 3 N L 2514-80 314 307 L L N L 50,000 N £. 200 3 N 5 2515-80 $16 - 296 __ L 10 N L _ 6200,000 N L 300 2 N 10 2516-80 309 315 L L N L 20,000 N 10 150 2 N 5 2517-80 302 180 L L N L 20,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 2519-80 203-270 -L L N L 15,000 N 10 150 2 N L 2520-80 311 275. -£ L N L 50,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 2521-80 310 ©2753 L L N [ 50,000 N 10 300 2 N 10 2522-80 300-262 \ L £. .N N 50,000 N 20 300 2 N 5 2523-80 313° 256 __t L N N 20,000 N 10 300 2 N 5 SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm)--Continued or La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn Sr: V ¥ Zn Zr (5) (20): (10) ' (s) - tio} -~(5) (10) _ (5) -- tr0)}. - (100) (10) (10) (200) (10) $tream_sediments~--Continued 2006- 8&o 5:20 700 L 10 5 30 5 L 200 50 10 N 50 2007-80 10 70 1, 500 L 20 5 20 7 N 200 150 30 N 300 2008-80 50 200 1,500 5 15 20 20 15 L 100 300 70 N 700 2003-80 15 150 1,500 5 20 5 30 10 N 300 100 5G N 300 2011-80 10 _ 20 700 L 10 7 30 7 N 500 70 20 N 200 2012-80 10 _ 20 700 L 10 7 30 10 N 500 100 20 N 100 2013-80 20. ' 20 1,000 5 15 5 50 15 N 300 150 30 N 500 2014-80 15 30 1,000 N 15 5 30 15 L. 300 100 30 N 200 2015-80 200 20 700 N 20 5 10 10 N 100 300 30 N _ 61,000 2015-P 1,000 20 1,000 5 30 15 N N N N 1,000 150 N 1,000 2016-80 30 .. 20 700 5 15 50 15 N 200 150 30 N 1,000 2016-P 1,000 N 1,000 N 30 15 N N N N 1,500 150 N 1,000 2017-80 150 - 50 700 C 15 50 20 15 N 300 150 30 N 200 2018-80 50. 50 1,000 L 20 15 30 15 N 500 150 30 N 500 2019-80 20 - 50 1,000 £ 20 15 20 10 L 300 150 30 N 300 2020-80 50 . 70 700 L 20 15 20 15 L 500 150 50 N 300 2021-80 15 20 1,000 5 15 7 50 10 N 200 70 20 N 70 2022-80 5. 30 1,000 5 20 5 50 10 N 200 70 20 N 300 2023-80 10: 20 1,000 7 15 10 100 10 N 500 70 20 N 100 2024-80 10 > 50 1,500 5 20 5 70 10 N 100 100 50 N 700 2025-80 10 50 700 7 20 5 30 7 N 500 100 50 N 200 2026-80 5 50 700 L 10 5 70 5 N 100 20 20 N 70 2027-80 5.50 700 L 15 5 20 5 N 200 30 20 N 100 2028-80 5 50 1,000 5 15 5 70 5 N 300 20 10 N 70 2029-80 5: 30 500 20 15 5 30 5 N 300 50 20 N 150 2030-80 15 30 700 L 15 7 30 15 N 200 70 30 N 150 2034-80 50 150 2,000 5 20 5 20 20 N 200 300 150 N 700 2035-80 100 .-. 30 700 t 20 50 30 15 N 500 150 30 N 300 2036-80 15. ~20 500 5 15 7 50 5 N 200 100 10 N 150 2037-80 70 - 30 700 L 15 30 20 15 N 200 150 20 N 300 2038-80 5-50 700 £ 10 N 15 15 N 500 100 50 N 700 2039-80 5 50 500 L 10 5 10 10 100 200 100 30 N 150 2040-80 70 150 1,000 10 30 N 15 30 150 700 300 70 N 61,100 2041-80 10 50 700 7 10 N 20 20 50 500 150 50 N 300 2042-80 5 L 500 L. 15 N 15 15 50 500 100 30 N 1,000 2043-80 30 50 1,000 5 20 L 10 15 50 300 300 70 N 50 2501-80 20 N 1,000 N 15 5 30 10 N 500 100 20 N 300 2501-P 200 50 700 L 20 10 N 20 N 200 300 200 N 700 2502-80 155 20 500 N 10 5 30 10 N 200 100 10 N 70 2502-P 1,000 20 1,000 N 15 20 N 7 N N 1,000 100 N 1,000 2503-80 500 50 1,000 N 15 50 N 7 N 300 500 50 N - 61,000 2504-80 300 - 30 1,500 N 15 50 N 10 N 500 500 50 N 1,000 2505-80 30..> 70 1,500 5 30 10 50 10 N 700 200 70 N 200 2506-80 70 50 1,000 5 30 20 30 y N 500 200 30 N 700 2507-80 500 50 1,500 N 20 70 N 7 N 100 700 100 N 61,000 2508-80 150 150 2,000 5 50 50 30 10 N 500 300 70 N 1,000 2509-80 10 20 500 N 10 10 30 5 N 500 150 10 N 50 2510-80 50 30 700 ( 15 5 30 15 N 200 300 30 N 500 2511-80 5 : 20 709 N 10 5 30 10 N 300 70 15 N 70 2512-80 20 30 1,000 £ 15 5 30 15 N 500 150 50 N 700 2513-80 10 -- 30 700 L 15 5 50 5 N 100 30 20 N 100 2514-80 5 50 700 L 10 5 50 5 N 300 70 15 N 100 2515-80 15 100 700 N 15 5 30 7 N 500 300 30 N 300 2516-80 5 30 700 7 15 5 50 £ N 300 50 15 N 70 2517-80 10 100 1,000 L 10 5 30 10 N 300 70 30 N 150 2513-80 5 20 700 N 10 5 50 5 N 100 20 L N 30 2520-80 5 150 1,500 7 15 5 50 10 N 300 100 30 N 150 2521-80 15 20 1,000 C 15 5 30 10 N 300 150 15 N 70 2522-80 10 50 1,500 L 15 5 30 10 N 300 100 15 N 100 2523-80 7 30 500 5 10 5 30 5 N 300 70 10 N 50 49 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TaBu® 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample - Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X ( Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co (.02) (10) (10) (20) (500) (0.5) (10) (20) (1) (10) (5) Stream sediments--Cont inued 2524-80 308 - 244 £. L N t 50,000 N 10 1,000 2 N 7. 2525-80 268 - 240 L L N N 50,000 N 10 300 2 N 10 2526-80 270 240 L L N N 20,000 N 10 700 2 N 5 2527-80 280 249 .02 L N L 15,000 N 10 300 2 N 5 2528-80 278 250 L L N N 70,000 N 10 500 2 N 10 2535-80 158 - 186 L == N t 70,000 N 10 700 2 N 10 2535-P 158 _ 186 1.6 20 L 80 _ G200,000 N 10 70 N N 30 2536-80 148 - 175 L L N L 100,000 N 10 500 2 N 15 3001-80 208 - 129 A2 L. L 30 200,000 N 30 500 N N 10 3002-80 _ 202 126 L L N L _ 6200,000 N 30 100 1 N 30 3003-80 196 - 122 . 02 L L t 100,000 N L 1,000 N N 5 3004-80 223 113 L L L L 70,000 N 10 1,000 2 N 15 3006-80 203 112 L L L. L 70,000 N L 700 L N 15 3007-80 207 114 .02 L L t 200,000 N L 700 C N 15 3008-80 183 - 105 . 04 L L L 200,000 N L 700 L N 20 3003-80 197 - 114 +02 L £. L 100,000 N 20 1,000 N N 5 3010-80 1893 117 02 L L L 100,000 N 30 1,500 N N 15 3011-80 188 126 .02 L L L 200,000 N t 1,500 U N 20 3012-80 - 186 112 L L L L 200,000 N L 1,000 L N 15 3013-80 - 180 - 106 L L 10 L 150,000 N L 500 1 20 15 3014-80 _ 166 107 L C. L L 150,000 N L 1,000 2 N 15 3015-80 171 106 . O4 L t. 20 _ 6200,000 N L 150 N N 30 3016-80 147 _ 104 t L L L 100,000 N L 1,000 2 N 7 3017-80 170 118 t L L L 100,000 N L 500 1 N 15 3018-80 172 117 L L t L _ 6200,000 N 30 500 C N 30 3019-80 178 125 .02 C L L 200,000 N 20 500 L N 15 3020-20 166 126 L L L C 700 N L 300 1 N L 3020-80 - 166 126 .10 L. t L 100,000 5 L 700 1.5 N - 5 3021-80 - 154 _ 128 L t. L L 100,000 N L 500 N N 5 3022-80 161 114 P1 L L L 100,000 N 20 700 ' N N 5 3023-80 138 - 107 3.8 L N L 30,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 3024-80 140 _ 109 L L N £ 30,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 3025-80 128 119 L 10 N R 50,000 N 10 200 2 N 7 3026-80 - 126 121 L L N L 30,000 N 10 150 2 N 7 3027-80 125 126 L 10 N L 50,000 N 10 200 2 N 7 3028-80 120 - 133 04 ~ 17 N L 20,000 N L 150 2 N 5 3029-80 95/177 L 20 N L 70,000 N L 150 2 N 7 3030-80 94 175 .02 L N L 70,000 N L 200 2 N 7 3031-80 893 178 L L N 20 100,000 N 10 97 2 N 5 3032-80 $9. 177 L 11 N L _ 6200,000 N t. 150 1 N 20 3033-80 66 _ 157 L L N L 150,000 N L 5 2 N 10 3034-80 58 _ 166 d L N L 150,000 N L 500 2 N 10 3035-80 65. 172 16 J N t 150,000 N L 200 1.5 N 7 3036-80 70 A70 L L N L _ 6200,000 N 20 100 1 N 30 3038-80 73 ~ 167 t L N L 100,000 N L 300 2 N 10 3039-80 1393 - 118 L L N 20 20,000 N 10 300 2 N 5 3040-80 _ 128 - 132 L L N L 30,000 N 30 300 2 N 7 3041-80 _ 146 - 130 L 13 N t 30,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 3042-80 101 107 L t N L 50,000 N L 300 2 N 5 3043-80 _ 109 113 L £; N L 50,000 .5 10 200 2 N 5 3044-80 _ 114 - 120 L L N L 30,000 N 20 300 2 N 5 3047-80 - 103 - 124 L L N & 70,000 N 10 200 2 N 7 3048-80 67 - 120 t L N L 100,000 N 15 200 I N 10 3043-80 70 _ 116 L L N L 30,000 N L 200 1.5 N 5 3050-80 6223436 £ L N L 50,000 N 10 300 1.5 N 10 3051-80 72. L L N L 50,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 3052-80 163 - 152 ~022 11 N L 50,000 N 30 300 2 N 10 3053-80 _ 153 156 L L N L 20,000 N 10 300 2 N 7 3054-80 _ 156 _ 106 . 04 L N C 150,000 N 10 500 2 N 10 3055-80 151 118 L L N L 70,000 N 20 700 2 N 7 ! SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) --Cont inued Cr La Hn Mo _ Nb Ni Pb Sc sn ~ Sr V ¥ Zn Zr (6) (20) (10) (5) (10) (5) (109); (5) (10) (100) (10). (10) (200) (10) Stream _sediments--Cont inued 2524-80 15 70 - 3,500 ~ L 10 5 30 15 N 500 100 30 N 300 2525-80 50 20 700 _ N 10 10 30 10 N 300 _ 100 20 N 70 2526-80 5 30 1,000 _ N 10 10 30 7 N 300 50 20 N 50 2527-80 5 ~ 150 . 1,500 N 15 5 30 7 N 100 30 50 N 150 2528-80 15 50: .:£3500 . 6 50 5 30 20 N 300 _ 150 50 N 300 2535-80 20 30 700 - L. 10 10 30 15 N 200 _ 150 50 N 300 2535-P 1,000 50 700 _ N 10 5 10 70 N N _ 300 200 N - 61,000 2536-80 50 20 700 _ N 10 10 10 20 N 300 200 50 N 300 3001-80 _ 150 50 700 10 15 N 15 20 30 300 300 70 N _ 61,000 3002-80 _ 150 N 700 _ N 10 15 20 7 N 100 _ 300 30 N 500 3003-80 30 t: 1,000 (. L. 15 N 20 30 20 300 300 70 N _ 61,000 3004-80 30 30. © 1,500: N 20 7. 70 15 t 500 200 30 N 500 3006-80 50 50 :: 1,500, 50 t 20 15 L 200 300 100 N 300 3007-80 _ 150 N 1,500 - N 15 5 20 15 N 200 700 50 N 700 3008-80 _ 200 30 :t,500! N 20 10 20 15 N 300 700 100 N _ 61,000 3003-80 50 50 1,000 10 20 N 20 30 20 700 _ 300 70 N _ 61,000 3010-80 20 t:>1,500;. 7 20 N 20 50 15 700 300 100 N 1,000 3011-80 _ 150 50 1,500 t 30 N 50 50 N 1,000 300 70 N 1,000 3012-80 _ 100 N 1,500 N 20 5 10 20 L 200 _ 500 70 N 1,000 3013-80 _ 150 50 1,000 N 30 5 20 15 N 300 _ 500 70 N 700 3014-80 100 50 :- 1,500; N 20 5 20 30 L 300 300 100 N _ 61,000 3015-80 _ 700 301,000 . N 20 N N 10 N N 1,000 70 N - 61,000 3016-80 30: 200 _ |N 20 L 10 20 L 500 _ 200 100 N _ 61,000 3017-80 30 50 1,500. : L 30 L 15 20 10 150 300 100 N - 61,000 3018-80 _ 200 1. "> 43000! L 20 N 20 30 N 200 - 500 70 N - 61,000 3019-80 70 N, 1,000 °L 15 N +5 30 N 150 300 50 N _ 61,000 3020-20 N N 100 _ N 10 10 15 N N 100 15 10 N 70 3020-80 20 30 ' 1,000}. 5 20 L 20 5 10 150 _ 200 100 N - 61,000 3021-80 L 50 500; | L 10 N 15 15 N 200 .: - 100 50 N 700 3022-80 10 501,000. :L 20 N 20 20 N 300 - 200 70 N _ 61,000 3023-80 7 50:> 1,000. -N 10 5 30 10 N 200 70 30 N 1,000 3024-80 10 _i 10 5 30 10 N 200 70 30 N 150 3025-80 15 20 :- 1,000: N 10 5 30 15 N 200 _ 100 30 N 300 3026-80 10 50 1,000; N 10 5 30 10 N 100 70 30 N 200 3027-80 15 50. 1,000 iN 10 5 30 15 N 100 100 30 N 200 3028-80 10 30 700 _ N 15 5 30 10 N 100 50 20 N 200 3029-80 20 50. {N 15 5 30 15 N 200 _ 150 30 N 500 3030-80 15 50 1,000, N 10 5 30 15 N 200 _ 150 30 N 300 3031-80 20 70: 1,500) .N 15 L 20 5 N 300 _ 150 20 N 300 3032-80 _ 150 N 700 _ N 10 10 N 5 N N _ 500 50 300 700 3033-80 50 30 1,000 _ N 15 L 20 5 N 300 200 20 N 300 3034-80 50 20 1,500: : -N 15 L 30 10 N 500 200 30 N 1,000 3035-80 50 30 700 N 10 L 30 5 N 300 _ 150 50 N 300 3036-80 _ 150 30 700 _ N 10 L 10 5 N t.>::200 30 N 700 3038-80 30 N 700 _ N 15 L 20 10 N 300 _ 150 50 N 200 3039-80 5 20 700 _ N 10 L 30 10 L 100 70 20 N 150 3040-80 5 20 700 _ N 10 7 30 10 N 100 70 20 N 300 3041-80 15 50 700 _ N 15 L 30 15 N 200 _ 100 30 N 700 3042-80 15 70> 1,500. -N 15 L 20 30 N 100 _ 100 70 N _ 61,000 3043-80 1 2 500 _ N 10 L 20 15 N 100 70 30 N 500 3644-80 10 50 700 _ N 10 5 30 15 t 200 70 50 N 200 3047-80 20 20 ; 1,000; N 10 L 10 10 N N _ 100 30 N 300 3048-80 70 20. 1,509; N 10 L 10 15 N 200 300 30 N 300 3049-80 15 20: ©1,000 N 10 L 30 15 N 200 _- 169 30 N 300 3050-80 20 20 ' 1,000. N 15 L 30 15 N 300 _ 150 30 N 300 3051-80 20 20. 3,000; JN 15 L 30 15 N 300 _ 100 20 N 500 3052-80 30 20 . 1,000;.." 5 15 10 30 7 150 £3 150 30 N 300 3053-80 5 30. ©1,000, . N 15 £ 50 5 i0 200 50 20 N 150 3054-80 50 20 . 91/500. -H 20 5 20 30 L 100 _ 300 100 N 500 3055-80. 15 30 ~>1;000; R 10 L 30 20 L 300 _ 150 70 5,000 300 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample - Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative 'spectrographic analyses (ppm) X M Au Cu As W Fe Aq B Ba Be Bi Co (.02) (10) (10) (20) (500) (0.5) (10) (20) (1) (10) (5) Stream _sediments--Cont inued 3056-80 169 144 L L N L 70,000 N L 300 1.5 N 7 3057-80 158 139 L L N L. 30,000 N 10 700 115 N 7 3058-80 166 139 L L N L 50,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 3060-80 174 146 L L N 20 ©200,000 N 10 300 155 N 20 Average metal content 0.20 1.02 4.50 16.3 75,300 (.02) 9.24 542 1.40 (.08) 10.2 of the above 599 samples (see headnote) Granitic bedrock 021 202 305 L L 10 L 20,000 N L 700 L N 5 025 195 316 L L L L. 10,000 N L 200 L N 5 O40 238 131 C L 10 L 30,000 N C 700 1 N 10 062 132 244 L L L L 30,000 N £ 2,000 3 N 5 066 351 134 -t L 10 L 20,000 N L 700 2 N 5 092 215 291 C 1 L L 15,000 N L 200 2 N L 098 239 256 L L L L 50,000 N L 1,500 L N 10 100 287 286 L L N N 10,000 N 10 150 2 N L 101 289 284 .02 C N N 10,000 N L 150 3 N L 116 298 276 .08 190 N C 100,000 N L 200 1.5 N 70 206 031 244 L L. L N 20,000 N 10 700 2 N 5 225 85 214 L L L N 50,000 N 10 700 1,5 N 10 231 336 267 L 15 L L 10,000 30 10 150 2 150 N 1033 232 196 L L L 20 50,000 N L 1,000 1 N 15 1042 289 126 L L L £ 100,000 N 10 2,000 1:5 N 20 1043 235 239 .02 L L L 70,000 N A 2,000 1.5 N 15 1046 224 247 L 14 L L 70,000 N L 2,000 1 N 10 1065 233 223 L L L L 50,000 N L 700 1 N 10 1083 131 199 L L 10 L 70,000 N L 1,000 2 N 5 1102 370 - 123 L L L L 70,000 N t= £1,500 I N 15 1106 219 173 C L L L 50,000 N ® 1,500 L N 10 1126 289 164 L 10 N L 30,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 7 1129 286 280 L L N L 50,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 1132 325 277 L C N N 10,000 N 10 200 2 N L 1135 325 263 £ 36 N N 70,000 N L 700 2 N 20 1136 329 260 L. R N N 10,000 N 10 70 1.5 N L 1148 250 178 £ L N L 70,000 N 10 500 2 N 15 1191 122 157 L 10 4o L 15,000 N L 700 1 N 2 1206 89 116 .02 t 10 L 30,000 N L 700 I N 15 1212 308 229 L 14 L L 20,000 N L 1,000 L N 20 1283 342 205 L 13 10 N 70,000 N L 700 1 N 10 2010 207 153 t £. 10 L 70,000 N £ 1,000 1 N 10 2032 301 177. L L N L 20,000 N 10 500 115 N 7 2033 296 179 £ 10 N L 30,000 N 10 300 1.5 N 15 2529 271 161 L L N L 20,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 7 2530 255 155 L L N L 30,000 N 10 300 1.5 N 10 2531 155 160 L 20 N £ 70,000 N 10 200 1 N 20 3005 204 111 £ L N £ 30,000 N 10 300 1 N 10 3037 JVC Y69. "L L N L 20,000 N £ 500 2 N 10 3045 105 132 L L N L 20,000 N 10 300 2 N L 3059 175 143 L L N L 50,000 N 10 700 1:5 N 10 A-107 20,000 N 10 500 N N 10 A- 406 3,000 N 10 200 3 N N A-454B 30,000 N N 1,500 N N 10 KPa-9 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 10 KPa-11 15,000 H N 1,500 2 N KPa-50 30,000 N 10 1,000 2 N 7 KPa-62 20,000 N 10 1,000 N N 5 KPa-66 20,000 N 10 - 1,000 N 5 KPa~67 15,000 N 15 500 2 N 2 SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued haus Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) --Cont i nued Cr La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn Sr V ¥ Zn ir (6) ._:(2o). __ (10) _ (5) (10) _: (5) (19) __ (85) (10) __ (100) _(10) (io) (200) __ (10) Stream sediments--Continued 3056-80 15 30 700 N 10 5 30 5 L N 150 15 L 300 3057-80 10 30 700 5 10 5 30 10 L 200 70 15 N 70 3058-80 10 20 700 _ 20 15 L 30 15 10 200 100 _ 50 N 300 3060-80 150 _ 300 1,000 5 15 5 10 30 N 200 300 100 700 700 s9.8. "51.9. 957 - 2.82. - 18.5 v 10.7} ~ a5.4 - 12.3 2.12 275 155. 39.7 (24.3) * 3564 Granitic bedrock 021 10 50 300 L 10 5 20 5 £ 500 20 L C 20 025 5 t 100 L L 5 20 L L 100 30 L L 20 O40 15 20 700 N 10 7 30 10 N 300 150 15 N 70 062 7 30 700 N 10 15 30 5 N 700 70 10 N 150 066 L 20 700 N 10 L 20 5 N 200 70 - 20 N 70 092 L N 300 N 10 5 50 N N N 20 N N 20 098 10 20 700 N 10 10 20 10 N 500 150 _ 10 N 70 100 5 50 500 10 10 L 30 5 N N 10 15 N 70 101 5 20 500 N 10 L 50 5 N N 10 15 N 30 116 150 N: 1;500 N N 70 30 30 N 1,000 500 10 L 30 206 5 30 150 N L 7 15 £ N 300 30 L N 150 225 15 30 300 N t. 10 15 7 N 500 70 10 N 100 231 5 N 300 L L 5 70 N N 100 20 N N 10 1033 10 N 700 N L 7 20 10 N 300 200 - 15 N 200 1042 30 20 . 1,500 N 20 10 30 20 N 700 300 . 50 N 150 1043 20 50 1,000 N 15 10 30 15 N 500 200 30 N 70 1046 20 50 700 N 10 10 20 7. N 500 200 L N 50 1065 15 L __ 1,000 N £. 5 50 10 N 700 200 10 N 20 1083 10 20 700 N 20 5 30 5 N 700 100 _ 20 N 300 1102 7 70 1,000 N 15 § 15 15 N 500 200 _ 30 N 200 1106 10 50 700 N. 10 7 30 7 N 500 150 15 N 150 1126 10 20 1,000 5 10 5 30 15 L 300 100 . 15 N 30 1129 L 30 1,000 N 10 5 20 10 £ 1,000 150 15 N 150 1132 5 20 500 N 10 5 30 5 N N 10 _ 10 N 50 1135 15 20 1,500 N 10 20 20 20 N 1,000 200 20 N 50 1136 L 30 300 N 15 5 30 L N N N 10 N 20 1148 7 20 700 _ 10 10 5 30 15 N 500 200 10 N 70 1191 10 50 700 N 10 10 10 7 N 200 30 20 N 100 1206 10 30 500 N 20 10 15 10 N 200 70 70 N 100 1212 20 - 100 700 N 10 15 20 10 N 500 70 - 20 N 100 1283 15 30 700 N L 10 15 10 N 500 150 \ "45 N 106 2010 15 - 10013000 N 20 5 50 7 N 500 150: N 200 2032 5 20 700 N 10 L 30 7 N 200 50.20 N 10¢ 2033 15 20 700 5 10 5 30 10 N 300 100 _ 20 N 70 2529 15 50 300 N 15 L 30 10 N 200 100 10 N 200 2530 10 20 500 N 10 15 30 10 N 200 100 _ 10 N 100 2531 50 50 700 N 10 10 10 15 N 200 300 10 N 20 3005 15 30 700 N 10 5 50 7 N 500 160: 15 N 100 3037 7 30 700 N 10 5 30 5 N 500 70 10 N 70 3045 L 20 300 N L t 30 5 N 100 50 t N 30 3059 30 N 700 N £. 5 30 10 N 500 100 10 N 150 A-107 10 N 500 N N 5 30 15 N 500 100 _ 20 N 50 A-406 N N 200: *15 15 N 30 N N 30 N.: 20 N 50 A-4546 10 50 700 N 10 7 10 7 N 700 100 _ 20 N 100 KPa-9 7 50 500 N 7 5 30 7 N 500 100 10 N 150 KPa-11 3 N 300 N N N 50 N N 300 20 1¢ N 100 KPa-50 5 N 500 N 10 5 30 7 N 700 70 15 N 150 KPa-62 3 N 300 N N 15 50 3 500 50 7 N 100 KPa-66 5 50 500 N 10 N 50 N N 300 30 15 N 100 KPa-67 2 30 300 N N N 30 N 300 30 - 10 N 100 54 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) X Y Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co (.02) _ (10) (10) (20) _ (500) (0.5) _ (10) (20) (1) (10) (5) Granitic bedrock--Continued KPa-74 20,000 N 15 500 2 N 5 KPa- 79 30,000 N 10 700 2 N 10 KPa-84 15,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 5 KPa-89 30,000 N N 300 N N 15 KPa-96 15,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 5 KPa-97 15,000 N 10 700 15 N 3 KPa-98 5,000 N 10 500 1.5 N N KPa-99 15,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 3 KPa-100 20,000 N 10 1,000 1.5 N 7 KPa-102 7,000 N 10 1,000 2 N N KPa-103 10,000 N 10 700 2 N 2 KPb- 10 30,000 N 10 1,000 2 N 10 KPb-26 30,000 N N 500 1 N 10 KPb~34 20,000 N N 1,500 1.5 N 7 KPb-53 3,000 N N 300 1.5 N N KPb-59 30,000 N 16 1,000 1.5 N 10 KPb-60 30,000 N 10 500 N N 10 KPb-61 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 10 KPb-64 30,000 N 10 500 1 N 7 KPb-74 30,000 N N 1,500 2 N 10 KPb-83 3,000 N N 300 3 N N KPc-1 20,000 N N 1,500 1.5 N 5 KPc-3 30,000 N N 700 1.5 N 10 KPc-26 20,000 N N 1,500 1 N 5 KPc-30 30,000 N N 700 1:5 N 10 KPc-37 15,000 N 20 700 2 N 2 KPec-42 30,000 N 1¢ 1,000 1.5 N 7 KPc-50 20,000 N N 500 2 N 3 KPc-138 30,000 N N 700 N 9 KPd-17 30,000 N 10 500 1.5 N 7 KPd4-50 30,000 N N 500 N N 10 KPd-51 30,000 N 10 700 1 N 10 KPd-52 20,000 N 10 700 3 N 9 KPd4~61 20,000 N 10 700 3 N 7 Average metal content (.012) 11.9 2.68 (8.29) 30,000 (0.36) 7.08 +751 {(1.79)- - 7.75 of the above 84 samples (see headnote) Metamorphic bedrock 051 360 155 L 12 10 £ 70,000 N L 1,000 N N 20 073 300 179 L. L 10 L 50,000 N L 5,000 L N 15 125 313 190 L L L 50,000 N L 2,000 N N L 126 312 190 L 11 20 L 20,000 N L. 1,000 N N N 133 303 162 . 02 14 N L 700 N L 1,000 L N N 136 354 320 L. 40 N L 50,000 N L 2,000 L N 20 204 273 230 .08 186 10 L 190,000 3 L 1,000 2 N 15 1052 367 149 L L L L 50,000 N L 3,000 1 N 10 1100 386 107 L 23 10 £ 70,000 N L 2,000 L. N 20 2031 302 171 L. L N L 50,000 N L 300 1.5 N 20 2518A 305 175 L 10 L L 15,000 L 15 300 2 N L 3046 103 132 . 02 L N L 7,000 N 10 300 2 N L KPb-37 6200 ,000 N N 700 N N 30 KPb-39 G200,000 N 10 150 1.5 N 10 Average metal content _ .018 26.80 6.2500 -- - 66,6000 (0.23) 6.07 1,410 9.86 - .- 12.0 of the above 14 samples (see headnote) SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm)--Continued Cr La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn Sr V ¥ Zn Zr (5) (20) (10) (5) (10) (5) (10) (5) (10) (100) (10) (10) (200) (10) Granitic bedrock--Continued KPa-74 5 N 300 N 10 15 50 5 N 500 50% 15 N 100 KPa-79 10 30 500 2 10 7 30 7 N 500 100 _ 20 N 100 KPa-84 5 N 300 N 15 3 15 5 N 300 50 20 N 100 KPa-89 10 N 700 3 7 7 15 15 N 500 15020 N 150 KPa-96 3 30 300 N 10 3 30 3 N 500 5 15 N 100 KPa-97 5 N 300 N N 1.5 30 3 N 500 50 N N 100 KPa-98 1 N 100 N N N 30 N N 300 10 N N 30 KPa-99 5 30 300 N N 1:5 30 3 N 300 50 7 N 100 KPa- 100 7 50 300 N N 2 30 5 N 500 70 - 10 N 100 KPa-102 1.5 N 200 N N N 50 2 N 200 Ti. A0 N 100 KPa-103 1.5. N 300 N 10 N 30 N N 300 19 410 N 70 KPL-10 10 N 500 N 10 10 50 7 N 300 100 20 N 100 KPb-26 10 30 700 N 10 5 20 15 N 300 100 _ 20 N 100 KPb-34 5 N 500 N 10 N 30 5 N 500 70 15 N 150 KPb-53 N 30 200 N 10 N 50 N N 20 50. 15 N 70 KPb-59 15 100 500 N 10 10 50 10 N 200 100 _ 20 N 100 KPb-60 20 N 500 N 10 5 15 15 N 500 100 _ 20 N 100 KPb-61 20 30 700 N 10 5 15 15 N 500 150 20 N 150 KPb-64 10 30 500 N 15 5 30 15 N 300 100 _ 30 N 70 KPb-74 5 N 2,000 N 10 7 20 10 N 300 100 20 N 150 KPb-83 3 30 500 N 15 N 20 N N 20 5 30 N 70 KPc-1 5 50 500 N N N 30 7 N 150 30 20 N 100 KPc-9 10 50 500 N 10 7 30 10 N 200 100 30 N 150 KPc-26 7 N 300 N N 5 50 5 N 200 50 15 N 100 KPc-30 7 50 500 N 10 7 30 10 N 200 70 30 N 150 KPc-37 1.5 N 300 N N N 50 N N 300 30 10 N 100 KPc-42 10 50 500 N 10 7 50 5 N 300 70 15 N 150 KPc-50 3 30 500 N 10 1 30 2 N 300 50 10 N 70 KPc-138 7 N 700 N 10 N 20 5 N 500 70 If N 79 KPd-17 10 N 500 N 10 3 30 10 N 300 100 20 N 150 KPd4-50 10 N 700 N 7 7 20 15 N 300 150 30 N 150 KPd-51 10 N 500 N N 5 20 10 N 500 100 20 N 150 KPd-52 5 N 500 N 10 3 15 7 N 500 70 15 N 100 KP4-61 7 N 700 N N 5 50 7 N 150 70.15 N 100 11.0 24.3: 580 - (6.77) ~B.29~ J.61 30:2 . 7.52 :-. 191 92.5 16.3 -- 98. Metamorphic bedrock 051 20 30 - 1,500 N 20 10 20 20 N 700 300 _ 30 N 150 073 150 20 2,000 N N 20 20 15 N 300 200 20 200 100 125 L 200 1,000 N 20 N 30 10 N 700 70 70 N 500 126 L _ 100 500 N 20 N 10 5 N 200 10 - N 700 133 20 50 100 L 10 10 15 N N C L 10 N 150 136 20 30 1,500 N 19 10 20 20 N 500 100 20 N 100 204 50 30 3,00 50 £ 15 15 15 30 500 200 30 L 150 1052 10 50 1,509 L 20 5 50 15 N 150 100 50 L 300 1100 150 20 - 1,500 N 10 50 20 20 500 200 30 N 150 2031 7 30 := +4500 N 10 7 50 15 N L 150. 15 500 50 2518A 5 20 300 N 10 15 30 5 N 100 30 L N 50 3046 10 20 70 N L L N L N N 20 L N 70 KPb-37 150 N 1,500 N 10 100 50 30 N 500 500 50 N 150 KPb-39 50 30 1,000 N 10 20 30 15 N 300 100 30 N 150 46.2 45.0 1,210 (3.93) 11.4 18.9 25.7 12:3 (2.14) 325 142 28.2 (64.3) 198 55 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample _ Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative Spectrographic analyses (ppm) X ¥. Au .Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Cto f:02)- wo) __(o) ___ (20) . (600) (6:5) _ (10) __ (20) (5____(Go)_- (5) fljneralized veins 002 27h 168. Lo 20 . 30,000 50 10 200 L 500 5 033 269 171 L L L t 50,000 N L 50 L N L 052 360 161 .04 L 10 20 20,000 1 L 200 N 10 £ 057 381 180 L L 20 Lo 50,000 hi L 70 1.5 N 20 068 278 181 L 78 20 600 20,000 50 L 300 3 300 t 0939 288 284 L 10 10 20 30,000 10 100 1.5 300 L 102 310 317 .08 26 10 L 30,000 100 L 300 1.5 300 L 107 328 323 L 10 L L 3,000 N 10 70 1 N L 132 308 154 . 02 13 N 10 700 1.5 C 500 L. N N 138 355 305 L 20 N H 30,000 20 10 200 115 700 N 139 356 297 t 250 N H 200,000 2 N 100 L N 20 164 354 250 L L L L 20,000 N 10 1,000 1.5 N 5 165 339 246 L L 30 480 30,000 N t 200 L N 50 179 O41 123 L 12 10 N 100,000 N 20 500 1.5 N 30 186 157 269 L 11 80 N 3,000 N 10 70 L.5 N N 208 120 226 L L 20 N 70,000 N 15 500 1.5 N 7 216 321 278 L 10 20 4o 15,000 N L 150 2 N N 1087 186 263 L 17 L L 100,000 ] 30 700 2 N 15 1111 282 304 .04 2400 10 L 20,000 7 L 150 2 30 5 1117 300 311 L 20 N L 20,000 2 10 100 1.5 N L 1175 348 262 .02 35 N L 100,000 50 L 500 L. 1,000 20 1281 359 209 L A L N 150,000 N 10 300 1 N 7 2518-8 L 15 L L 20,000 L 10 150 15 N L Average metal content _ .017 129 12.6. 62.4 48,300 12.4 8.91 279 1.8 137 8.87 of the above 23 samples (see headnote) Mineralized rocki 118 384 336 .02 15 20 L 70,000 ~5 15 200 1.5 N 7 119 391 322 L £ N L 70,000 N L 100 1.5 N 15 120 396 317 L 75 N L 100,000 N £. 300 2 N 20 127 313 191 L 150 20 t. 50,000 1 10 1,500 N N 10 149 323 130 .02 10 N L 15,000 N L 1,000 1 N N 217 330 263 L 19 N N 150,000 N 10 100 2 N N Average metal content _ .013 45.7 6.67 -- 75, 800 0.25 $.33: 533 1.33 -- 8.67 of the above 6 samples (see headnote) Mineral spring precipitates oo3 270 - 168 'of" "L= 7,800. - AO 5,000 10 L - 3,000 L N L 143 360 282 .02 4o 1,000 C 50,000 N L 10 30 N 7 166 336 247 L 4B 610,000 L 50,000 N 200 _ 150 20 N N 180 180 248 L L. 20 N 5,000 N 100 N N N N 187 152 286 L L 8,000 N 100,000 N 100 500 2 N 7 1149 250 179 L L 600 20 15,000 N 50 150 2 N 15 Average metai content _ .023 18.0 3,690 13.3 37,500 (1.67). 76.7 _ 635 9.08 =- 5.25 of the above 6 samples (see headnote) SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm)--Continued Cr La Mn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn Sr V ¥ Zn 2r (5) __ (20) ___ (198) __ (5) (10) __ (5) (10) __ (5) (10) __(100) _ (10) (10) (200) _ (10) Mineralized veins 002 L L 500 200 20 10 70 5 L. 200 30 L L L 033 & L 700 5 to 5 20 5 L 500 100 L. L L 052 5 N 200 50 C 5 30 L N L 30 L N 20 057 L N 200 _ 150 L 5 N N N 100 50 N N N 068 5 N 150 700 L. 5 50 5 N 100 70 L N 20 099 5 N 70 _ 100 10 5 20 L N N N L N 100 102 5 N 150 7 10 5 100 L N 100 10 N _ 200 5 107 C N 20 70 10 5 N L N N 10 N N N 132 10 N 100 50 L 5 10 N N 100 15 L N 20 138 15 N 1,000 500 10 5 50 N N 700 30 L N 20 139 20 N _ 1,000 200 L 5 20 L N L 300 N N 15 164 20 20 - 1,000 10 10 7 20 5 N 500 50 L N 70 165 15 N 700 5 20 5 15 15 N 300 70 10 N 15 179 10 20 2,000 7 20 10 N 15 N 300 100 15 N 20 186 5 N 100 30 C 5 L L N N 10 N N N 208 15 50 500 20 £. 7 20 5 N 300 100 10 N 150 216 5 70 100 10 10 5 N N N N 15 L N 100 1087 30 N 10 10 15 20 15 N 300 200 15 N 200 1111 L 50 300 1,500 10 5 100 5 15 N 15 10 N 50 1117 5 20 150 7 10 5 30 L N L 20 L N N 1175 10 N 500 5 10 5 200 5 N 300 100 L N 50 1281 10 20 1,000 5 L 5 70 30 N 700 300 15 N 50 2518 -B 5 20 500 N 10 5 N 5 N 100 20 L N 30 9.02 12.6 -541 158 9.56. ~6.0h 37.0 -. 5.76 ~ (1.09) 213 75.2. 5.07} | A1.3 Mineralized rocks 118 150 20 2,000 L L 50 10 7. N 500 150 50 N 300 119 150 30 - 1,500 £ 10 70 10 10 N 500 200 50 300 150 120 200 30 2,000 L 10 70 N 10 N 100 200 30 300 150 127 15 100 1,000 5 15 5 20 30 N 1,500 200 50 N 150 149 15 50 200 10 10 7. 15 5 N 150 15 15 N 100 217 5 N - G5,000 10 L L 10 N 15 N 20 30 300 150 8g.2 38.3 1,950 $.41 9.17 34.1 10.8 _ 10.3 (2.5) 458 131 37.5 150 167 Mineral spring precipitates 003 10 L 5,000 30 10 5 L C 20 1,500 10 L £ 50 143 N N 5,000 N L N 10 N N 200 10 L N 15 166 10 N 1,000 10 L L 10 5 N 1,500 L 10 N N 180 10 N _ 3,000 N N L 20 L N 1,000 20 L N 30 187 10 20 150 50 L 5 10 5 N 1,500 50 10 N 30 1149 5 20 2,000 N 10 5 10 15 N 5,000 20 L N 20 7.5 8.33 2,690 15 5.83. 3.33 10.8 5.00 (3.33)1,780 19.2 6.67 -- 24.2 57 SIERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.-Spectrographic and chemical analyses of samples Sample Coordinates Chemical analyses (ppm) Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm). X ¥ Au Cu As W Fe Ag B Ba Be Bi Co (.02) (10) - (10) (20) (500) (0.5) (10) _ (20) (1) (10) (5) Trachybasalt flows 169 363 234 0.90 35 L N 100,000 N 10 1,000 1 N 50 236 262+. 180 _L 53 L N 100,000 N L 700 1 N 30 1015 2047 302 - L L N L 50,000 N L 700 L N 20 1270 177. 239 /L 45 L N 100,000 N 10 700 1.5 N 20 A-419A 70,000 N N 1,500 N N 50 KPa-52 6200 , 000 N 10 1,500 1.5 N 30 KPa-85 6200 ,000 N N 1,500 1.5 N 50 KPb- 1 6200 ,000 N N _ 3,000 2 N 30 KPb-14 6200 ,000 N 10 2,000 1.5 N 30 KPb-18 6200 ,000 N N _ 2.000 2 N 50 Average metal content (0.22) 34.5 -- =- - (142,000) _ -- 5.0 1,460 1.25 =-- 36.0 of the above 10 samples (see headnote) Air-transported pumice bomb 198 237 '<308 't. & 4o N 30,000 N 20 700 2 N N Glacial sand and gravel 015-P 107" 200 «L = N L 200,000 N 20 70 £ N 20 017-P 104 195 0.04 11 N £ 200,000 N 20 50 L N 20 200-80 269 220 L L L L 100,000 N 10 700 2 N 7 Vein quartz pebble in glacial till 069-B 282 178 ( L L L 10,000 N L 200 N N N Soil above granitic bedrock 173-80 O54 _ 154 L 10 N 20 70,000 N 10 1,000 1.5 N 10 SPECTROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES from the Sierra Demonstration Project area-Continued Sample Semiquantitative spectrographic analyses (ppm) Cr La Hn Mo Nb Ni Pb Sc Sn $r V ¥ Zn Zr (5) (20) ' (10) _ (5) (18). :» 16) (19): : (5) (10) : (100) (10) (10) (200) (10) Trachybasalt flows 169 300 50 700 N L 300 10 15 N 700 150 20 N 150 236 300 50 700 N L 200 15 20 N 1,000 200 15 N 150 1015 300 50 1,000 L L 50 20 10 L 500 50 10 L 30 1270 200 50 700 N L 150 15 20 N 1,000 200 15 N 150 A-419A 700 50 1,000 N 7 300 7 30 N 1,500 300 20 N 150 KPa-52 500 100 1,000 N N 500 50 20 N 1,500 300 20 N 200 KPa-85 700 70 . 1,009 N 15 500 30 30 N 1,000 500 30 N 200 KPb- 1 500 100 700 N N 500 50 20 N 1,500 300 20 N 200 KPb-14 500 50 1,000 N N 200 50 20 N 1,000 300 30 N 150 KPb-18 700 100 1,000 N 15 500 20 30 N i,000 500 3C N 200 400 67.0 _ 880 s¢ 5.7 320 26.7 ; 21.5 == 1,070 280 21.0} . -- 158 Air-transported pumice bomb 198 5 70 500 19 15 L 50 L N 200 15 20 N 500 Glacial sand and gravel O1S-P 200 L 300 5 20 20 L 20 L 100 300 20 L 200 017-P 150 L 200 7 10 5 L 5 L 100 300 30 £ 300 200-80 20 50 300 N 10 10 15 5 N 300 100 20 N 300 Vein quartz pebble in glacial till 069-8 L N 500 N N L N N N N 10 N N N Soil above granitic bedrock 173-80 20 50 700 N 10 10 15 10 N 500 100 20 N 30¢ U, S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O - 459-605