Mineralization Halos and 

Diagenesis in Water-Laid Tuff 

of the Thomas Range, Utah 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 818-B 

Mineralization Halos and 

Diagenesis in Water-Laid Tuff 

of the Thomas Range, Utah 

By DAVID A. LINDSEY 

BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 818-B 

A statistical study of the petrogenesis 

of water-laid tuff adjacent to the 

Spar Mountain beryllium and 

fluorspar district 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1975 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

V. E. McKelvey, Director 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Lindsey, David A. 

Mineralization halos and diagenesis in water-laid tuff of the Thomas Range, Utah. 

(Beryllium-bearing tuffs in western Utah) 

(Geological Survey Professional Paper 818-B) 

Bibliography: p. 

Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.16:818-B 

1. Volcanic ash, tuff, etc.-Utah-Thomas Range. 2. Ore-deposits-Utah-Thomas Range. 3. Diagenesis-Utah-Thomas Range. 

I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 818-B. 

QE46l.L624 552'.2 75-619026 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Stock Number 024-001-02706-2 
CONTENTS 

Page Page 

Abstract ______________________________ _ B1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

5 

5 

7 

9 

Petrogenesis ____ ------------------------ B12 

Introduction ___________________________ _ Problems in petrogenetic interpretation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12 

Geographic and geologic setting ________________ _ A petrogenetic model -------------------- 12 

Methods of study _____ -------------------- R-mode factor analysis ____ _ _ ____ ___ _ _ __ _ _ 13 

Sampling plan ____ ----------- ________ _ Factor analysis of water-laid tuff data _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13 

Laboratory procedure ----------- ________ _ Interpretation of stratigraphic and geographic anomalies 16 

Composition of the water-laid tuff ______________ _ Conclusions _____ ------------------------ 17 Lithology and petrography ----------------- Mineralization halos _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 Abundance of mineral and chemical components ___ _ Sources Diagenesis ___ ------------------------ 17 of variation ____________________ _ 

Geographic variation ________ -~-- ________ _ 11 References cited ________________ ---------- 18 

FIGURE 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

1. Map showing location of the Thomas Range study area and mineral occurrences in the western Utah beryllium 

~h----------------------------------------------------------B2 2. Map showing geographic features, distribution of beryllium, fluorspar, and uranium deposits, and distribution of 

water-laid tuff in the southern part of the Thomas Range -------------------------- 4 

3. Photographs of water-laid tuff of the younger volcanic rocks _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 

4. Map and sections showing classification of water-laid tuff into vitric, zeolitic, and feldspathic facies _ _ _ _ _ 9 

5-12. Histograms showing frequency distribution and maps showing mean values at each collection station in waterlaid tuff in the Thomas Range for the following: 5. Bulk density ____________________________________ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 23 

6. Powder density _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24 

7. Porosity __ --------------------------------------- _________ 25 

8. Clinoptilolite content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 26 

9. Quartz content ------------------------------------- _________ 27 

10. a-cristobalite content___________________________________________ 28 

11. Potassium feldspar content ---------- ____ ------------- ____________ 29 

12. Glass content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 30 

13. Map showing occurrence of calcite in water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 31 

14. Map showing occurrence of fluorite and halite in water-laid tuff of the Thomas Range _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 32 

15-40. Histograms showing frequency distribution and maps showing mean values at each collection station in waterlaid tuff in the Thomas Range for the following: 15. Silica content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 33 

16. Alumina content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 34 

17. Total iron content (as Fe20a) -------------------------------------- 35 

18. Magnesium oxide content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 36 

19. Calcium oxide content------------------------------------------ 37 

20. Sodium oxide content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 38 

21. Potassium oxide content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 39 

22. Carbon dioxide content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40 

23. Water-soluble chlorine content ------------------------------------- 41 

24. Fluorine content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 42 

25. Cesium content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 43 

26. Lithium content __ ------------------------------------------- 44 

27. Rubidium content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 45 

28. Equivalent uranium content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 46 

29. Barium content --------------------------- ________ ----------- 47 

30. Beryllium content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 48 

31. Chromium content --------------------- ________ ____ _______ ____ 49 

III 
IV 

FIGURE 15-40. Histograms and maps - Continued. 

Page 

TABLE 

32. Gallium content ___________________________________________ --- B50 

33. Lanthanum content ------------------------------- ________ ---- 51 

34. Manganese content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52 

35. Niobium content ----------------------------------------- ____ 53 

36. Strontium content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 54 

37. Titanium content _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 55 

38. Vanadium C·)ntent _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 56 

39. Yttrium content ___________ --------------_____________________ 57 

40. Zirconium content ____ __________ _____ ______ ___ __________ __ _ ___ 58 

41. Graph showing eigenvalues and cumulative proportion of total variance explained by the first 10 principal com1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

pon~~ ------------------------------------------------------- ~ 

TABLES 

Page 

Stratigraphic section in the southern part of the Thomas Range and Spor Mountain _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B3 

Summary statistics for physical properties, mineral composition, and chemical composition of 160 samples of 

water-laid tuff from the Thomas Range------------------------------------- 7 

Estimates of total variance, variance components in a four-level nested sampling design, and variance ratios for 

physical properties, mineral composition, and chemical composition of water-laid tuff _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 

Sum of squares of the deviations from the mean and percent reduction of the sum of squares by polynomial surfaces of degree 1 through 5 fitted to data on physical properties, mineral composition, and chemical composition of 160 samples of water-laid tuff ________________________ --- ___ ------ 11 

Table of correlation coefficients based on analyses of 160 samples of water-laid tuff _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14 

Communalities (in percent) for four-, five-, six-, and seven-factor Varimax solutions compared to the percent of 

nonerror variance _____________________ ---------- _______ ----------- 15 

A six-factor petrogenetic model for the water-laid tuff as defined by the Varimax loadings _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16 
BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

MINERALIZATION HALOS AND DIAGENESIS IN 

WATER-LAID TUFF OF THE THOMAS RANGE, UTAH 

By DAVID A. llNDSEY 

ABSTRACT 

Pliocene water-laid tuffs are widespread in western Utah and 

provide the host rock for beryllium-fluorite mineralization at Spor 

Mountain. Systematic study of the mineral and chemical composition 

of the tuff in the southern part of the Thomas Range was undertaken to 

examine regional effects of mineralization at Spor Mountain and to 

differentiate these from the effects of other petrologic processes. 

The water-laid tuff is zoned inward from the periphery of the 

Thomas Range; successive mineral zones are outlined by the vitric, 

zeolitic, and feldspathic facies. Study of thin sections indicates that 

the inward succession of facies reflects the alteration of glass to clinoptilolite and finally to potassium feldspar. The zonation of mineral 

facies and paragenesis is similar to that in other zeolitized tuffs where 

alkaline waters derived from leaching of glass are believed to have 

altered vitric tuff to zeolites and potassium feldspar. 

R-mode factor analysis was used to test and further develop a 

petrogenetic model for the water-laid tuff. Important factors in tuff 

petrogenesis are beryllium-fluorite mineralization, three stages of 

diagenetic alteration of glass, concentration of calcite versus silica, and 

concentration of detrital heavy minerals. Mineralization effects occur 

mainly as a halo around the Spor Mountain beryllium-fluorspar district. Diagenetic effects are most intense in the tuff of the interior of the 

Thomas Range. The highest concentration of calcite occurs mainly in 

tuff beneath Topaz Mountain; heavy mineral elements are concentrated locally. The concentration of some elements, notably 

chlorine, is affected by additional factors. 

Although the tuff in the southern part of the Thomas Range is 

mineralized only weakly or not at all, the beryllium-fluorite 

mineralization at Spor Mountain has left a strong imprint on the trace 

element content of the tuff. The elements F, Cs, Li, Be, Ga, Nb, Y, and 

to a lesser extent MgO and Rb were concentrated by mineralization 

and constitute a distinct geochemical signature which should be useful 

in searching for other beryllium-fluorspar mineral districts. Most of the 

mineralization-related elements form primary dispersion halos extending 1- 2 miles (1.6- 3.2 km) outward from Spor Mountain into unaltered tuff. Such large halos nearly triple the exploration target 

presented by a mineralized district like Spor Mountain. 

Diagenesis has been of major importance in changing the chemical 

composition of tuff. Soda, K,O, F, Rb, U, Mn, and Ph are depleted 

during zeolitization and MgO, Ba, Cr, and Sr are concentrated. Potassium feldspar diagenesis did not affect the chemical composition of the 

tuff. Possible release ofF, U, and Mn during zeolitization suggests a 

potential diagenetic contribution of these elements to ore deposits, 

notably the sedimentary uranium deposits found nearby. 

INTRODUCTION 

Water-laid tuffs of Pliocene age are widespread in the 

western Utah beryllium belt which extends west from 

the Sheeprock Mountains into Nevada (Cohenour, 1963; 

Erickson, 1963) (fig. 1). The tuffs occur locally in the 

Honeycomb Hills (McAnulty and Levinson, 1964), 

throughout the Thomas Range and the southern part of 

the Dugway Range (Staatz and Carr, 1964, p. 86- 102), in 

the northern part ofthe Drum Mountains (Shawe, 1964), 

and throughout the Keg Mountain area (Shawe, 1972). 

The tuffs provide the host rock for beryllium-fluorite 

mineralization at Spor Mountain (Staatz and Griffitts, 

1961) and at the Honeycomb Hills (McAnulty and 

Levinson, 1964). They offer an opportunity to study the 

regional effects of beryllium-fluorite mineralization in 

the western Utah beryllium belt. 

This is the second in a series of reports on berylliumbearing tuffs in western Utah. In the first report, the 

hydrothermally altered host tuff at Spor Mountain was 

reexamined and compared with unmineralized tuff in 

the southern part of the Thomas Range (Lindsey and 

others, 1973). From that study it was concluded that 

hydrothermal alteration of the tuff was accomplished 

mainly by argillization (formation of montmorillonoid 

clay) and feldspathization of the volcanic constituents 

and by dedolomitization, silicification, and fluorite 

replacement of dolomite clasts in the tuff. Alteration was 

accompanied by introduction and concentration of 

beryllium in bertrandite, lithium in trioctahedral montmorillonoid clay, manganese oxides, and uranium. It 

was concluded that the alteration at Spor Mountain was 

produced by fluorine-rich hydrothermal solutions which 

derived metals at depth and transported them to the tuff 

as stable metal fluoride complex ions. (See also Staatz 

and Griffitts, 1961.) Declining temperature was probably 

responsible for fluorite and silica precipitation, and 

Bl 
B2 BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

hydrolysis of large amounts of carbonate ions released 

during alteration of the dolomite clasts probably caused 

potassium fixation and widespread feldspathization of 

the tuff. These conditions, together with declining 

fluorine concentration, were variously responsible for the 

breakdown of stable metal-fluoride complex ions and the 

precipitation of beryllium, uranium, and other minerals. 

The present report examines in detail the more distant 

effects of the mineralization at Spor Mountain, as suggested by geochemical halos in the weakly mineralized 

and unmineralized water-laid tuff east of Spor Mountain 

in the southern part of the Thomas Range. The tuff here 

is well exposed and forms nearly continuous outcrops. It 

was sampled to study the regional distribution of 

physical properties, mineral components, and chemical 

components, including trace elements. From these data, 

effects of various petrologic processes, including those 

related to mineralization at Spor Mountain, were identified and mapped. This study is aimed at identifying 

true mineralization halos, and distinguishing them from 

other regional petrologic effects, thus establishing a 

basis for geochemical exploration for beryllium, fluorspar, and perhaps other ore deposits in tuffaceous rocks 

of the intermontane basins of the Western United 

States. A secondary objective is the clarification of some 

of the petrologic processes responsible for the diagenesis 

of tuff, with emphasis on assessing the role which these 

processes may play in migration and concentration of 

trace elements. Data used in preparing this report are 

available from the U.S. Dept. Commerce National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22161 

(Lindsey and others, 1974). 

I thank the employees of Brush Wellman Inc. for their 

hospitality during fieldwork. J. J. Connor, George Van 

Trump, Jr., and Josephine Boerngen, all employees of 

the U.S. Geological Survey, gave advice and assistance 

concerning statistical analysis and computer programming. Stati,tical analysis was performed on the Survey's 

IBM 360/65 computer in Washington, D.C. Many other 

employees of the U.S. Geological Survey assisted in the 

laboratory and made chemical analyses; they are 

acknowledged in table 2. 

I 

I 

GRA ITE Be'\{ PEAK 

EXPLANATION 

e 

Mineral occurrence 

40 ~ I 

I 

~-1 

I 

0 10 MILES 

0 10 K ILOMETRES 

GREAT SALT LAKE 

DESERT 

WHITE 

VALLEY 

SEVIER DESERT 

Hinckley 

FIGURE 1. - Location of the Thomas Range study area and mineral occurrences in the western Utah beryllium belt. 

I 

.J 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH B3 

GEOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC SETTING 

The study area covers the entire southern two-thirds of 

the '!'hom~s Range (fig. 2) in the Basin and Range 

provmce m Juab County, Utah. The principal 

geographic features in the study area are Spor Mountain, an uplifted block of Paleozoic rocks just west of the 

southern part of the Thomas Range; The Dell, a narrow 

valley between_ Spor Mountain and the Thomas Range; 

Topaz Mountam, the highest point in the southern part 

of the Thomas Range; and Antelope Ridge, the 

southeasternmost promontory of the Thomas Range. 

The stratigraphic section (table 1) in the study area 

consists of four main sequences: Upper Cambrian to Upper Devonian sedimentary rocks, an older volcanic group 

(Eocene), a middle volcanic group (Oligocene), and a 

younger volcanic group (Pliocene) (Staatz and Carr, 

1964; Shawe, 1972). A 3,950-foot (1,200-m) section of 

Low~r ?rdovician to Upper Devonian sedimentary rocks 

co?ststmg of mostly dolomite crops out on Spor Mountam; smaller exposures of Upper Cambrian dolomite and 

L~wer Ordovician limestone occur south of Topaz Mountam. Rocks of the older and middle volcanic groups crop 

out mainly around the southern and eastern edges of the 

Thomas Range and in The Dell. The younger volcanic 

rocks make up most of the Thomas Range and also crop 

ou_t in parts of The Dell and southwest of Spor Mountam. They overlie an erosion surface of considerable extent, resting on Paleozoic rocks south of Topaz Mountain 

and southwest of Spor Mountain and upon volcanic 

rocks of Eocene age along the east side of the Thomas 

Range and of Oligocene age in The Dell. 

The distribution of water-laid tuff, termed vitric tuff 

by Staatz and Carr ( 1964, p. 86-102), is shown in figure 

~- The tuff forms the basal unit in each of five overlappmg sequences of tuff and topaz rhyolite which comprise 

most of the younger volcanic group. It approaches 300 

f~et (92 m) in thickness in a few places but is missing entirely_ elsewhere. The tuff is everywhere overlain by topaz 

rhyohte; at many localities the basal rhyolite consists of 

~olcanic breccia and vitrophyre. The tuff is cut by faults 

m a few places, notably southwest of Spor Mountain and 

along the east side of The Dell. 

Most of the beryllium deposits occur in water-laid tuff 

on the southwest side of Spor Mountain and numerous 

pipelike deposits of fluorspar occur in the, Paleozoic rocks 

on Spor Mountain (fig. 2) (Griffitts, 1964, p. 73-74; 

Thurston and others, 1954, p. 24-45). The water-laid tuff 

is mineralized only weakly or not at all in the Thomas 

Range, north and east of the Spor Mountain beryllium 

and fluorspar deposits. The present study deals with the 

water-laid tuff outside the area of intense berylliumfluorite mineralization. 

METHODS OF STUDY 

SAMPLING PLAN 

The physical properties, mineral composition, and 

TABLE 1. - Stratigraphic section in the southern part of th f 

Thomas Range and Spar Mountain 

[Adapted from Shawe (1972) and Staatz and Carr (1964); ages are from author's unpublished data; query (?) md1cates th1ckness unknown] 

Age 

Late Devonian to Late Cambrian 

Rock Unit Thickness (ft) (m) 

chemical composition of the water-laid tuff in the 

southern part of the Thomas Range were studied 

systematically. All the tuff east of the limit of fluorspar 

and beryllium deposits was sampled at regular intervals 

(fig. 2). Tuff from four of the five sequences in the 

younger volcanic group is present here, and figure 2 

shows the classification of sampling stations into tuff 

units 2, 3, 4, and 5 (ranging from oldest to youngest) 

which belong to the youngest four sequences of Staatz 

and Carr ( 1964, p. 86- 102). Tuff unit 1, from the oldest 

sequence, is present north of the study area and was not 

sampled. 

A stratified random sampling plan (Krumbein and 

Graybill, 1965, p. 156- 157) was used as a basis to select 

samples from all available tuff outcrops in the southern 

part of the Thomas Range. Each sampling station was 

chosen randomly from 100 possible locations within each 

linear mile (1.6 km) of tuff outcrop. In practice, stations 

were moved laterally to the nearest good exposure of tuff 

so that samples could be obtained at every sampling station. Stations were located for each of the four tuff units 

in this manner. Some of the sam piing stations are necessarily close to each other because they represent two different tuff units, as along the northeastern side of The 

Dell. Seven stations were added arbitrarily to fill gaps 

left by the random sampling plan. The stratigraphic 

thickness of the tuff at each station was then estimated 

from the geologic map (Staatz and Carr, 1964, pl. 1) and 

in the field. Random number tables were used to select 

four 1-foot (0.3 m) intervals for sampling from the entire 

thickness of tuff exposed at each station. The sampling 

program resulted in 160 samples being collected from 40 

stations. The samples consisted of fresh chips and 

averaged about 2 lbs (0.9 kg) in weight. 

LABORATORY PROCEDURE 

Twenty samples were selected at random for splitting 

before any other laboratory procedures began. These 
i 

39:1 

45 

39 

40' 

r 

i 

r:,<:S 

}>'ij 

>· 

! 

11 3 10 ·r·--

--- C> 

-.!'."·-,~ , ~ 

·-- , ," ~ 

·· < ' 

} 

~ C? 

.. , / l -

;0 

! ') ) • ·""', ~ '~ :i 

'-.... ) UJ _. ,_, ~ ·, a 7 

'-·-" '-~ .,_ rv 

-~~ 1 

• 

/\ 

< -..__, '" ') 

-~ 

-:.-;: ; '-:. ... 9-_ .. _,, \ Q.o 

'\ ,_, . /") 

UNIT 4 '· 

--v' () v (~?·- 0 '•1-/, ° '.' 

::'117 -- ~ <::>\\ ) 9 0 " ' -:.:."/· ~<:> . 11\tC -- _., pi>' 

00 

"'-·-~ ., ""- ~!;! fl' 

\ )u_;, '·\ ' • '· " -- '' i= NiT4 "· 4 , 'X u ,_ 

~ 0'5l 4 (.4 " '', ' ~\ELLOW CHIEF~ J ' , , --~ ---~ \ _'; , URANIUM 15 • _,. ,( • M INE Iff_ 

r-' t '1 ,' 

17 

t-

\,) 

--~~/ 

/• 2l)'-

~---~----

If '\·-~ 

ji \_ 

Y;l/ ,,~sll \ ~~~"~~,"""~"-' ,~ (i 2\ 

(\,"" -~,.;="=-';"/>< (}, '\_k' Q ,,, 

\b o\ 

•' \\ 

~~ 

0 1 M I LE 

0 1 KILOMETR E 

CONTO UR INTER VA L 

•l - • Ji. I ~ ~ ·;-- •' [' /\ • lr .' ~~ ooOi s. ) 1: . ·;;;, ~ ,- 6 ~-0; \ 'j _. / 8 -:... 

'5 , sGD ~ ~ __ )\_, <\ fiJ , L ..... /1~; ':.. ~ i Jz; / \,,,y /i" '--- \ I \ :~..'\-;; 

() 

~ :0 /-( ~ 

~-<-' 

24 

·-, 

,'1 400 FEET ,, 

• 

• 

~ 

L/ :6'1 ~ 

" , ;·. or;".r '-'/) o .. ~,_/ :j rr o )'. u 

.-" J& ;o n. o/' 

~ \_ 

~ 

00 o ____ _ 

./~ 

f 

~ 

. ' , :' 

~,, -

2 ,; 12 MOUNTA IN, ,.1 . }f 'u ,..., ····-'---'' :l; <::V ' t', ~--.-c' . -Jfl~ ·, ' •.. '· ., 

~ ., "

( ' '. -,o "' ~ ·-'>- 4 ' 

Y ~ e P • ' ~~ • ' ·''' E - u 1 

\_\:~ . 

'~~­'·\. )I 

il 

~~! 

II 

''--- ;s6'oo 

~7 

~ --4 

'"' -(' 

-\0 ., 

~ 

"·; 

··-s<oo 

,, 

\ \_ _, 

"-., >:P ' . ', --'/ . ' 'w " " - . · ·. ~ o ' 0 ' , • ·- J -~~ , 55oo ~--·i·\ ~ ",e ,:,~ . '• ' 

, ····;>- • '7 •, '· • ·• . " '":: ·• e: ·;c._. • •. J , "'- oAE,-. E-'"' ' . • ~ .-· '" • " '.,. · ,. 

0 

' '- .. "' ·' . . ' . ' ' ~ ., . ' 

"'-'J;;~;;;,;~;; d d '--<," . ~ ,,/ .. ' ' "' ·:. '"l \ ·::~ •'\:; 

EXPLANA T>ON 'o " "' """"" ""m"" · l -~ _. , 

'"m"''"' '"""" m '" \"""""' '"'"m<>o« u •;, M" . '/ " " " ' """ '"'" • '""""' -. / '" 0 t. ~~- . ';' ... 

~0 \_ 

2) ~' '-·,'· 

UN T :~~ 

' \ 

Fluo rspar prospect in dolomite 

·-....-.......... 1 

'.} 

= o ... :; "' "~'" '"rr "'-"'- "'-~ ,::~-.. ··=•·~- ~<· ·-~!;<~;~~-:'~·=')_- __ L -.. - ... 

Fluorspar mine in dolomite 

Area o f beryllium deposit in tuff 

FIGURE 2, - Geographic features, distribution of beryllium, fluorspar, and uranium deposits, and distribution of water-laid tuff in 

the southern part of the Thomas Range . Base map from Staatz and Carr ( 1964, pL 1) -

t:C 

~ 

g] 

:::0 

><: 

~ 

2 

is: 

~ > 

:::0 

z 

Q 

>--,3 

c: 

'Tl 

'Tl 

r:n 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > 

:I: 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH B5 

splits and the original 160 samples were placed in random order prior to sample preparation. The purpose of 

these precautions is twofold. (1) Splitting of some samples allows independent estimation of various mineral 

and chemical components on the same sample, thus 

making possible calculation of laboratory errors. (2) 

Randomization of the sample population ensures that 

analytical drift and other laboratory effects did not 

produce undesirable manmade trends in the data; this is 

particularly important because I have plotted the data 

on maps. A specimen for thin sectioning was removed 

from each sample before splitting and randomization. 

All 160 samples plus the 20 additional splits were 

ground to finer than 60 mesh; approximately 120 g was 

split from each sample and ground to finer than 100 

mesh. Splits of approximately 3 g and 2 g each were then 

removed for X-ray diffraction and spectrographic determinations, respectively; the remaining 100-mesh split 

was reserved for other chemical determinations. Density 

was determined on surplus 60-mesh powder by air pycnometer (Mcintyre and others, 1965). Bulk density was 

determined on specimens reserved for thin sectioning by 

coating them with beeswax and weighing the specimens 

in water. 

Estimation of mineral quantities by X-ray diffraction 

was necessary owing to the fine-grained nature of the 

tuff. The method involves no new technique, but is an 

application of principles established by others (Klug and 

Alexander, 1954; Schultz, 1964; Tatlock, 1966). 

Two to 3 g of each sample was ground 15 minutes in a 

shatterbox and mounted by the backpack mounting 

technique of McCreery (Klug and Alexander, 1954, p. 

300-302). Standards were prepared and X-rayed in the 

same manner, so that the diffraction intensity of each 

mineral could be converted into percent. Amorphous 

glass and poorly crystallized minerals detected by X-ray 

diffraction were estimated by difference, that is, by adding all other components and subtracting them from 

100. 

All chemical analyses were performed in the 

laboratories of the U.S. Geological Survey at Denver. 

Major components were determined by a variety of 

methods, most of them modifications of published work. 

X-ray fluorescence analysis for SiOz, Alz03, FeT03(total 

Fe as Fez0 3), and CaO was done according to a modification of the borate fusion method of Claisse (1956); 

atomic absorption analysis for MgO, Na 20, K20, Li, and 

Rb using the operating parameters published by PerkinElmer (1964); atomic absorption analysis for Cs according to Mountjoy and Wahlberg (1968); and gasometric analysis for COz according to Rader and 

Grimaldi (1961, p. A33-A37). Fluorine was determined 

by a newly developed electrode method (D. R. Norton, 

Johnnie Gardner, and Claude Huffman, Jr., unpub. 

data, 1973). Water-soluble chlorine was determined by 

colorimetric reference method C (Am. Soc. for Testing 

and Materials, 1966, p. D512). Equivalent uranium (eU) 

was determined by a radiometric counting method based 

on the assumption that all beta and gamma radiation 

comes from decay of uranium. Although eU includes effects from such isotopes as 232Th and 4

°K, previous comparison of eU and chemical uranium in the tuff indicates 

that much of the measured eU is due to uranium decay 

(Staatz and Carr, 1964, p. 115). Numerous other trace 

elements were determined by direct-reader 

spectrometric analysis (Havens and Myers, 1973). 

COMPOSITION OF THE WATER-LAID TUFF 

LITHOLOGY AND PETROGRAPHY 

The tuff of the younger volcanic group was termed 

"vitric tuff'' by Staatz and Carr (1964) because of its 

glassy character and was termed "water-laid tuff'' by 

Shawe ( 1968) because of its characteristic stratified 

aspect (fig. 3A). Much of the tuff is probably water laid, 

inasmuch as it is well stratified and contains abundant 

clasts derived from older volcanic rocks. The clasts 

locally compose as much as one-half the tuff and reach 4 

feet (1.2m) in maximum dimensions (figs. 3B, C). 

Limestone pebbles are present in the tuff along the 

margins of Topaz Mountain (fig. 3C) and dolomite pebbles and cobbles are abundant in the tuff southwest of 

Spor Mountain, where they are altered to calcite, silica 

minerals, fluorite, and clay minerals (Lindsey and 

others, 1973). The carbonate clasts were derived from 

Paleozoic rocks nearby, such as those south of Topaz 

Mountain and on Spor Mountain. Air-fall tuffs, which 

are massive and consist mainly of featherweight pumice 

lapilli, are well exposed at the south end of The Dell (fig. 

3D). 

The tuff typically contains pumice, volcanic rock fragments, obsidian, a few sedimentary rock fragments, and 

pyroclastic and detrital crystals in a matrix of glass 

shards, fine-grained clinoptilolite, or fine-grained potassium feldspar accompanied by quartz and cristobalite. 

The pyroclastic crystals - euhedral quartz, sanidine, 

and biotite - commonly do not constitute more than 20 

percent of the tuff. Many of the euhedral grains have 

been broken during transport. Small quantities of 

detrital minerals are also present in the tuff; listed in approximate order of decreasing abundance, they are 

plagioclase, magnetite, hematite, hornblende, sphene, 

topaz, augite, allanite, and zircon. Other minerals, 

formed after deposition of tuff, are present locally; they 

are montmorillonoid clay, fine-grained fluorite, halite, 

and locally abundant sparry calcite. 

Gross mineralogy, determined by X-ray diffraction, 

was used to differentiate the tuff into three facies: vitric, 

zeolitic, and feldspathic (fig. 4). The vitric facies retains 

a large proportion of unaltered glass pumice and shards 
B6 BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

and represents the original mineralogy of the water-laid 

tuff. The zeolitic facies contains clinoptilolite, which is 

widely distributed in the tuff and constitutes as much as 

90 percent of some samples. The feldspathic facies contains abundant potassium feldspar, quartz, and acristobalite of diagenetic origin. It differs from the 

hydrothermally altered feldspathic tuff at Spor Mountain (Lindsey and others, 1973) in that it is not associated with beryllium mineralization. Generally, the 

vitric facies occurs around the margins of the Thomas 

Range, whereas the zeolitic and feldspathic facies are 

present in the central part of the range. The zonal arrangement of facies is toward the center of the Thomas 

Range and toward the bottom of tuff unit 4 (sections 

A-A' and B-B', fig. 4) but it is very irregular in tuff unit 

5 (section C-C'). The facies boundaries clearly transect 

stratigraphic boundaries and indicate a regional zonation. 

Microscopic examination of the tuff reveals that the 

zeolitic and feldspathic facies have probably formed by 

diagenetic alteration of vitric tuff. Pumice fragments are 

commonly etched and obsidian fragments have bleached 

rinds, both features suggesting extensive leaching of 

glass. Microflakes of birefringent montmorillonoid clay 

outline glass fragments and pumice vesicles and are present in the matrix of vitric tuff. Tabular and prismatic 

crystals of clinoptilolite, as much as 0.03 mm long, line 

cavities and replace glass fragments. Zeolitic tuff has a 

very fine grained matrix of clinoptilolite, commonly accompanied by small quantities of montmorillonoid clay. 

Potassium feldspar of diagenetic origin forms fibrous 

mosaics which commonly replace volcanic rock fragments and obsidian in preference to matrix. No feldspar 

overgrowths were observed on pyroclastic phenocrysts, 

in contrast to those associated with the hydrothermal 

potassium feldspar at Spor Mountain. Equidimensional 

masses of anhedral quartz are common in some samples 

and appear to be cavity fillings. 

FIGURE 3. -Water-laid tuff of the younger volcanic rocks. A, Stratified tuff with steep initial dips in paleovalley on the east side of 

Topaz Mountain; dark rock to right is exhumed hill in older volcanic rocks. B, Large boulder of older volcanic rock in tuff at 

Antelope Ridge. C, Pebbles of older volcanic rock and limestone (at pencil point) in tuff at Topaz Valley. D, Pumice lapilli in 

air-fall tuff at the south end of The Dell; camera lens cap shows scale. 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH B7 

Very weak fluorite and beryllium mineralization of 

tuff is evident at a number of sampling stations around 

the edges of The Dell and along the south side of Topaz 

Mountain (fig. 4) . Montmorillonoid clays and small 

fluorite nodules are only sparsely present at these stations; clay is present at stations 4, 5, and 37, and one 

fluorite nodule each was recovered from the base of the 

tuff at stations 11 and 37. Most of the tuff section at each 

of these stations did not show field or thin section 

evidence of mineralization. Clay alteration is more conspicuous, however, at station 41. The mineralization at 

station 14 was not recognized until laboratory analysis 

showed 2-3 percent fluorite and 160- 300 ppm beryllium 

in tuff consisting mainly of quartz, clinoptilolite, and 

potassium feldspar. 

ABUNDANCE OF MINERAL AND CHEMICAL COMPONENTS 

Data on physical properties, mineral composition, and 

chemical composition of the tuff are summarized in 

table 2. Average silica content (68 percent), Al203 (11 

percent), and alkalis (6 percent, with K20 dominant) 

suggest a rhyolite composition for the tuff; although, as 

discussed later, the composition of the tuff has been 

changed considerably by diagenesis. Chemical analyses 

of vitric samples indicate a total alkali content of as 

much as 8- 9 percent; the original tuff was therefore an 

alkali rhyolite similar in composition to the associated 

topaz rhyolite of Staatz and Carr (1964, table 15). The 

tuff also contains unusually large amounts of Cl (0.15 

percent), F (0.16 percent), Li (56 ppm), U (38 ppm eU), 

Be (10 ppm), Ga (31 ppm), Nb (29 ppm), and Y (38 

ppm). 

The frequency distributions of each physical property, 

mineral component, and chemical component (hereafter 

referred to collectively as variables) are summarized by 

moment estimates and histograms (Freund, 1960, p. 

3-105). Central tendency was estimated by the 

arithmetic and geometric means and by the median 

(50th percentile); variation was estimated by the standard deviation, geometric deviation, and the range 

between the lOth and 90th percentiles (table 2). Means 

and variation for censored frequency distributions, that 

is, where the concentration of a particular mineral or element is below the limit of detection for some samples, 

were estimated by the method of Cohen (Miesch, 1967a, 

p. B5-B8). Statistical parameters were not computed•for 

variables for which more than 30 percent of the samples 

are below the limit of detection, although data for some 

are summarized later in histograms and maps. 

Study of the skewness revealed that the frequency distributions for many variables depart significantly from 

the normal model. Normal distributions are symmetrical 

with a skewness near 0 and if the frequency distribution 

deviates significantly from the normal, various transformations of the data (Miesch, 1967a, p. B5)are necessary 

before further statistical analysis is done. Logarithmic 

transformations were helpful in normalizing the data for 

many variables; however, distributions which are nearly 

normal or are negatively skewed were not transformed. 

Thus distributions of density and porosity, some major 

TABLE 2. - Summary stat1stws for physical properties, mineral 

composition, and chemical composition of 160 samples of water-laid 

tuff from the Thomas Range 

[Bulk density determined by weighing wax-coated samples . in water and_ powder de~sity 

determined by air pycnometer; both by K. A. Buzard. Mmeral compositiOn determmed by X-ray diffraction by W. R. Marsh. Silica, Al,03 , total Fe as Fe,O, (designated as Fe 0 3), and CaO determined by X-ray fluorescence using borate fusion by M. W. Solt and J. S. Wahlberg; MgO, Na,O, K,O, Li, and Rb determined by atomic absorption by V. M. Merritt; CO, determined gasometrically by I. C. Frost; water-soluble Cl determmed by colorimetric ASTM Reference Method C by V. E. Shaw; F determined by electrode method by D. R. Norton and Johnnie Gardner; Cs determined by atomic absorption by Wayne Mountjoy; eU determined by beta-gamma scaler by E. J. Fennelly; all elements from B through Zr determined by direct reading spectrograph by R. G. Havens, N. M. Conklin, and L. M . . Lee. Elements looked for but not found, with their detection limits in parts per million, are Ag(4), Au(20), Bi(20). Cd(IOO), Co(8), Ge(lOO), 

ln(20), Pd(lO), Re(70), Sb(300), Sc(JO), Tl(50), W(500), and Zn(300)] 

Number of samples Variable below Lower Percentiles 

limit of limit of Standard' detection detection Mean1 deviation lOth 50th 90th 

Density (grams per cubic centimetre) and porosity (percent) 

Bulk density 1 1.65 .24 1.34 1.65 Powder density ____ .01 2.38 .08 2.26 2.38 Porosity ________ I 30.6 9.9 17.0 31.1 

Mineral composition (weight percent) 

Montmorillonoid clay2 150 10 Mica:

1 108 I Clinoptilolite _ ____ 46 5 18.3 3.89 35.8 Quartz __ . _____ 1 1 7.8 2.27 3.7 8.2 

a -cristohalite 4 

-- -- 1 1 5.0 2.28 1.7 5.2 

Potassium-feldspar' - 4 1 14.2 1.95 6.9 13.4 

Calcite --- ---- - 117 1 Fluorite ________ 65 .5 Halite _ ________ 154 .5 Glass6 _________ 106 30 

Chemical composition (weight percent) 

Si02 ________ _ _ 0 1 67.9 4.9 62.8 66.1 AI,O, 0 1 11.4 1.1 10.2 11.4 

~iJ~= == = = === = 0 .1 1.13 .19 .95 1.15 

0 .01 .62 1.69 .33 .62 CaO __________ 0 .1 2.08 1.67 1.24 1.97 

Na,O --------- 0 .01 2.11 .77 1.14 2.01 

K,O ---------- 0 .01 3.84 1.02 2.38 4.03 

co, ---------- 51 .05 .11 5.61 .10 Cl 0 .01 .15 2.54 .05 .14 

F - =========== 0 .02 .16 2.42 .05 .16 

Chemical composition (parts per million) 

Cs ----------- 0 .5 14.6 1.87 8.2 13.4 Li 0 3 56.5 1.81 25.1 48.4 

Rb = = == = = = = == = 0 5 320 109 182 318 

eU -------- --- 0 10 38. 1 11.0 20.8 39.6 

B ------------ 136 30 

Ba ------ ----- 0 10 117 1.92 48 118 

Be ----------- 2 4 9.9 1.96 5.5 9.5 

Cr 35 5 6.2 1.52 5.6 

Cu = = == = = == == = 0 1 4.2 1.34 2.8 4.4 

Ga ----------- 0 10 30.8 1.13 25.9 30.8 

La ------ - - - -- 109 50 Mn 0 7 434 1.81 174 494 

Mo _========== 158 20 Nb _______ __ _ _ 21 20 28.6 1.47 26.8 

Ni ----------- 156 7 

Pb - - - -------- 19 20 26.6 1.32 26.4 

Sn ----------- 152 20 

Sr ----------- 0 10 234 2.06 103 209 

Ti ----------- 0 20 557 1.45 308 570 

v ------------ 88 10 y ____________ 1 20 37.8 1.29 27.3 36.6 

Zr - ---------- 0 20 96 1.10 84 98 

1

ltalic indicates geometric mean and deviation. lDioctahedral montmorillonoid clay. :

1

Mainly pyroclastic biotite. 

1.98 

2.50 

44.2 

1.6 

66.0 

18.1 

13.2 

37.1 

2.7 

1.3 

80.9 

73.9 

12.8 

1.39 

1.13 

4.14 

3.24 

5.04 

1.00 

.45 

.40 

39.8 

131.8 

456 

53.8 

30.0 

235 

16.6 

11.0 

5.1 

35.3 

61.6 

780 

53.8 

36.6 

696 

866 

16.3 

55.7 110 

4 lncludes some opal. ·~ Py oclast c sanidine plus secondary potassium feldspar. Plagioclase ( <5 percent) was 

not detected by X-ray. 6Quantity determined by difference. 
!~ : r···-

, 

39 " 40' ' ..... 

GLASS 

CLINOPTILOLITE · POT ASSIUM 

FELDSPAR 

EXPLANATION . 12 

Sampli ng station in tuff 

and station number 

M 

Weakly mineralized tuff 

with montmorillonoid clay 

X 

Sample locality shown in section 

*' 

• _J 

'~) uj 

'" Q 

· -i 

~,_S w 

""..-- -~) ;:: 

' 

\ELL OW 

L 

.g f ol .gj 

,,,-vy -o~Y: 

"0 .~ 

f6 ti 

to Jil "-

& 

~ 

0 1 MILE 

0 1 KI LOMETRE 

CONTOUR I NTERVAL 

400 FEET 

1' 

~ 

"' 

., 

·\0 , -<;) 

"' 

'~\ 

'.._s<oo~.......---~-

ttl 

00 

~ ::0 

><: 

r 

r 

2 

::::: 

~ > 

::0 

z 

0 

>-3 

c:::: 

"!j 

"!j 

r:J) 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > 

::r: 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH B9 

LU LU 

...J a: 

~ fLU 

~ ~ ~ 

0 0 

(/) 

LU 

a: 

fLUO 0 ~ (") 

:2: 

t;;o 

LU 

0 0 

"' ;:: l.L 

G "' (") 

~ c..:> -s ~ ----'-'-><'><"-"'<'>< ~ 

0 

(/) 

ui 

Q) 

·c 

<!9 

u 

:E .., 

ol 

0. 

<fJ 

'"0 

] 

'"0 

1'1 

ol 

~ 

~ 0 

Q) 

" ..; 

·;::: 

.., 

·:;: 

0 

.., 

.5 

::::: 

::l 

.., 

-.-c 

~ .... 

Q) 

.., 

ol 

i3: 

..... 

0 

1'1 

.9 

.., 

ol 

u 

~ <fJ 

ol 

c:; 

bl) 

1'1 

-~ 

0 

..<:: 

<fJ 

<fJ 

1'1 

.9 

.., 

u 

Q) 

00 

'"0 

1'1 

ol 

0. 

ol 

::E 

I 

~ 

(.') 

~ 

~ 

oxides (SiOz, Alz03, FeT03, NazO, and KzO), and the 

trace elements Rb and U (as eU) tend to be normally distributed or negatively skewed and were preserved in 

arithmetic form. Distributions of other variables, including minerals and most trace elements, were transformed to logarithms before further statistical analysis; 

such transformations are noted in the tables following 

table 2 by reference to the variable as "log clinoptilolite," etc. The geometric mean and deviations are 

given in table 2 as estimates of central tendency and 

variation for those variables which tend to exhibit lognormal frequency distributions. They are the antilogarithms of the arithmetic mean and standard deviations of the log concentrations. 

Histograms, or bar diagrams, were constructed for 

most variables (figs. 5- 40). The data were divided into 

classes of equal width for normally distributed data and 

into geometric classes for log normal data. The geometric 

class interval was usually selected so that six classes per 

order of magnitude were plotted, with the series 1, 1.5, 2, 

3, 5, 7, 10, etc., serving as class midpoints. In a few cases 

( Ga and Zr) as many as 20 classes per order of magnitude 

were necessary to display the data adequately (figs. 32 

and 40). Sturges' rule (Waugh, 1943, p. 45-46) was used 

as a guideline for the optimum number of classes in each 

histogram, but usually the optimum number of classes 

(for 160 samples the optimum number is eight classes) 

was exceeded in order to preserve information in the 

histogram . 

SOURCES OF VARIATION 

The total variance of each physical property, mineral, 

oxide, and trace element can be understood as the sum of 

numerous sources of natural and manmade variation. 

The observed value of each measurement is influenced 

by each of these sources of variation. The magnitude of 

these sources of variation can be determined by analysis 

of variance. In this study, the sampling design outlined 

earlier provides the basis for a four-level nested analysis 

of variance (Krumbein and Graybill, 1965, p. 215). 

The statistical model of variation is: 

where xijkm=the mth measurement on the kth sample 

from the jth station of the ith tuff unit where 1~m~2, 

1~k~4, 1~j~22, and 1~i~4 . Thus each measurement 

may be viewed as the sum of a grand mean (J.t) added to 

deviations introduced by a particular tuff unit (ai ), station (/3i), sample ('yijk), and laboratory measurement 

(oijkm>· The latter term is identified with laboratory error, the preceding term ( 'Yijk) may be called sampling 

error, and so on. A more extensive discussion of sampling 

models in geochemistry is given by Miesch (1967b). 

Analysis of variance was used to partition the total 

variance of each variable into four components; these 
B10 BERYLLIUM-BEARING T UFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

components are assigned to variance among tuff units 

(s 0?} , among stations within tuff units (stl), among 

samples within stations (s 1

?), and among splits within 

samples (sl) (table 3). The analysis is based on the 

assumptions that a ;, (3;j, 'Yij k• and oijkm are random 

variables with means of zero and variances of sa2, stl, s./, 

and si and that the variance components are additive: 

sr 2=sa2+sr/ +s-y2 +sr/ 

where Sr 2 is the total variance. Tuff unit variance (sa2

) is 

a measure of large-scale stratigraphic variation; station 

variance (sr/) is a measure of geographic variation; 

sample variance (s-y2) is a measure of sampling errors; split variance (si ) is a measure of laboratory error and includes effects due to grinding, splitting, and 

analytical error. 

The calculations used in analysis of variance are discussed, with examples, by Krumbein and Graybill (1965, 

p. 191- 221). Calculations for the model described 

previously are complicated by an unbalanced design 

(Anderson and Bancroft, 1952, p. 327- 330); that is, there 

are different numbers of stations per tuff unit (ranging 

from 3 to 22) and only 20 samples were split to determine 

laboratory variance. The seriousness of this problem was 

checked by repeated runs on variations of the model. In 

one run three levels comprising all tuff units, all stations, 

and all samples were used in the calculation of variance 

components; in a second run seven stations were randomly selected from each tuff unit, so that the number of 

stations per unit was nearly equal. In each of these two 

runs sample and laboratory variance were combined. A 

third run consisted of only two levels, those of stations 

and samples, so that tuff unit and station variance were 

combined at the upper level and sample and laboratory 

variance were combined at the lower level; a fourth run 

also used a two-level model, with tuff unit, station, and 

sample variance combined at the upper level and 

laboratory variance isolated at the lower level. The 

variance components in table 3 were derived from the 

first and fourth runs; the second and third runs produced 

estimates of variance components which were in substantial agreement with those listed in table 3, indicating that the unbalanced design did not seriously affect the variance component estimates. Data on total 

crystalline material were used to determine the variance 

components of glass in the analysis; glass has a highly 

censored frequency distribution and was computed as 

100 minus total crystalline material when a glass hump 

was noted in the X-ray pattern. 

The estimates of variance components in table 3 show 

that very little variation exists among tuff units. This 

conclusion is not surprising inasmuch as all the tuffs are 

part of the younger volcanic group and are related to the 

phase of topaz rhyolite volcanism in the Thomas Range 

(Staatz and Carr, 1964, p. 87-90). This means that the 

data for most variables may be analyzed for geographic 

trends without the complicating influence of 

stratigraphic position and, in fact, where station 

variance is much larger than tuff unit variance, even 

those variables with a sizable component among tuff 

units may be used in detecting geographic variation. 

Only CaO, C02, Nb, Ph, and Ti show a significant 

tendency toward concentration in individual tuff units; 

the maps showing regional abundance of these variables 

(figs. 19, 22, 35, and 37) confirm that CaO, Nb, Ti, and 

perhaps C02 may show high or low concentrations in 

unit 5 on Topaz Mountain. Unit 5 is known to contain 

limestone clasts, accounting for high CaO and C02. Low 

. Nb and Ti in unit 5 may be due to a paucity of some 

heavy minerals. 

Any search for regional trends in these data must be 

based on consideration of sampling and laboratory errors, as estimated by the s-.,2 and s/ components (table 

3). If the sum of these components becomes too large, 

geographic variation may be obscured by unwanted 

"noise" arising from laboratory and sampling errors. An 

example in table 3 is Si02, whose total variance is 24.1, 

T ABLE 3. - Estimates of total variance, variance components in a 

four-level nested sampling design, and variance ratios for physical 

properties, mineral composition, and chemical composition of 

water-laid tuff 

[Asterisk (•) indicates significant differences (0.05 level) among tuff units and among stations. 

v - ·~' is the ralio of among-stations variance to t he variance of the station meansl m (s -y '+s o' )/4 

Components of variance 

as percent of total variance 

Total Among Among Among Among Variance 

variance tuff units stations samples splits ratios 

(s a'> (sll' ) (-•/ ) <•o ' > vm 

(g/em')' 

Bulk density ------- 0.057 0 '55 - - - -- '45 4.89 Powder density _ _____ .007 0 ' 27 56 17 1.48 

(percent)' Porosity _ _ ____ _ ___ 97.9 0 '51 ----- '49 ---- 4.16 

Leg clinoptilolite _ _ _ __ .348 11 '60 29 < I 8.28 Leg quartz __ _ __ --- .126 0 ' 79 18 3 15.05 Log a -cristobalite __ __ .128 0 '65 21 14 7.43 

Log potassium feldspar _ .084 0 '59 25 16 5.76 Leg glass __ _____ _ _ .096 1 '73 22 4 11.23 

SiO, __ _ _ ___ _ _ --- 24.1 3 '25 19 53 1.39 

A!,O, 1.113 I ' 30 42 27 1.74 

Fe o , = == == == = === .038 0 '54 39 7 4.70 

Lcg MgO --------- .051 5 ' 50 42 3 4.44 

LcgCaO --- - ----- .050 '17 ' 17 66 < 1 1.03 

Na,o ----------- .569 0 '63 32 5 6.81 

K,O 1.045 0 ' 43 56 I 3.02 

~~gp == ==== ==== .561 '10 '31 53 6 2.10 

.164 0 '33 52 15 1.97 

Lcg F ----------- .147 I '61 30 8 6.42 

(ppm)' Leges__ _ ___ __ ___ ~u 0 ' 71 26 3 9.79 

kbg = = = = = = = = = == 11,920

066 0 '55 43 2 4.89 

0 ' 52 0 48 4.33 

eU - ------------ 121 0 '29 28 43 1.63 

LcgBa ---------- .060 3 ' 66 30 I 8.52 

LcgBe __ _ ______ __ .065 0 '87 9 4 26.77 LcgCr ____ _____ _ _ .033 0 '38 49 13 2.45 

LcgCu ---------- .016 4 '10 0 66 .47 

LcgGa - - -------- .003 10 '50 23 17 5.00 

Lcg Mn - ----- ---- .066 0 '43 53 4 3.02 

LcgNb --- ------- .028 '27 '54 7 12 11.37 

LcgPb - --------- .015 '7 '12 29 52 .59 Leg Sr _ _ __ ______ _ .099 I '56 35 8 5.21 

LcgTi ------- ---- .026 ' 16 '61 20 3 10.61 

LcgY - --- - ------ .013 7 '66 19 8 9.78 

LcgZr --- - ------ - .002 0 '24 60 16 1.26 

1Variance component among samples plus component among splits. 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, ur AH B11 

of which 19 percent is due to differences among samples 

(sampling error) and 53 percent is due to laboratory error. Only 25 percent of the variance in the data is left to 

geographic effects (s/), and the question arises as to 

whether this 25 percent can be used to define a trend in 

the presence of so much noise. In the case of Cu and Ph, 

the among-stations component accounts for only 10 and 

12 percent of the variance, respectively. All the useful information regarding abundance of Cu and Ph is in table 

2. 

GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION 

Regional patterns, or trends, are of special interest in 

the present study because they may represent the effects 

of important petrologic processes, such as the berylliumfluorite mineralization at Spor Mountain, and 

diagenetic alteration. The geographic distribution of 

each variable is summarized on maps in figures 5-40. 

Only presence or absence is noted for the minerals 

calcite, fluorite, and halite (figs. 13 and 14). Distribution 

of all other variables is summarized by symbols for the 

arithmetic or geometric mean at each sampling station. 

The potential for definition of geographic variation 

was estimated by computing Vm, the ratio of the amongstations variance to the variance of the station mean 

(table 3), as described by Connor, Feder, Erdman, and 

Tidball (1972). In general, Vm values below about 1.00 indicate that the error in any station mean based on four 

samples is so high that comparisons among stations may 

be unreliable, and further sampling at each station is 

necessary if stable maps are to be constructed. Values of 

Vm above 1.00 indicate greater potential for constructing 

stable maps. It is evident that maps of Cu and Ph and 

perhaps powder density, Si02, Al203, CaO, and Zr 

would not be expected to reliably show geographic variation because the error of the station mean is relatively 

high. Bulk density, porosity, clinoptilolite, quartz, acristobalite, potassium feldspar, glass, FeT03, MgO, 

Na20, F, Cs, Li, Rb, Ba, Be, Ga, Nb, Sr, Ti, andY all 

show reasonably high ratios (4.0 or higher), suggesting a 

high potential for defining geographic variation. 

The relative strength of the trends fitted to the data is 

presented in table 4. Random effects can also give rise to 

weak trends, and Howarth (1967) considered that reductions in the percent sum of squares smaller than 6.0, 

12.0, and 16.2 for linear, quadratic, and cubic surfaces 

respectively can be taken as an upper limit for trends 

that may arise by accident. In the present study, data for 

powder density, a-cristobalite, Si02, Al203, FerQ3, K20, 

Cl, Cr, Cu, and Zr showed weak trends which could be 

due to noise of various kinds. Either linear, quadratic, or 

cubic trends for the remaining variables account for sufficiently large percentage reductions of the sum of 

squares to suggest that the trends are real. 

Another method of evaluating trend surfaces is by 

analysis of variance of the sums of squares (Krumbein 

and Graybill, 1965, p. 333-337). This method was apTABLE 4. - Sum of squares of the deviations from the mean and 

percent reduction of sum of squares by polynomial surfaces of degree 

1 through 5 fitted to data on physical properties, mineral 

composition, and chemical composition of 160 samples of 

water-laid tuff 

[Italic indicates percent reduction of sum of squares above Howarth's (1967) limits for random data (linear, quadratic, and cubic surfaces only). Asterisk (*) indicates signi- ficant reduction of the sum of squares (0.05 level). Leaders ( __ ) indicate no surface fitted to data because of significant among-tuff units variance component] 

Bulk density __ ----- Powder density _____ _ 

Porosity ___ -------

Log clinoptilolite ____ _ Logquartz -------- Log a-cristobalite ___ _ Log potassium feldspar _ Logglass ---------

Si02 ------------ Ab03 ----------- F~O., ----------- LogMgO --------- LogCaO ---------

Na20 ----------- K20 ------------ LogC02 LogCI __________ ----------_ LogF -----------

LogCs ----------- LogLi ----------- Rb -------------

eU LogBa ------------- _________ _ 

LogBe __________ _ LogCr __________ _ LogCu ---------- Log Ga ---------- Log Mn ----------

Log Nb ---------- Log Pb _________ _ LogSr LogTi -----------

__________ _ LogY ----------- Log Zr __________ _ 

Cumulative percent reduction of sum of squares Sum of 

squares Linear Quadratic Cubic Quartic Quintic 

(g/cm')' 

8.920 1.140 (percent)' 15,380 

55.34 20.11 20.37 13.32 15.26 

3,834 177. 5.999 8.182 7.967 

93.69 

166.1 59.33 26.02 23.40 (ppm)' 11.81 10.51 1.895 X1()6 19,300 12.71 

13.46 6.463 2.517 .425 10.48 

4.914 2.931 15.69 4.123 2.077 

.285 

1 *5 

*5 

0 

0 

1 

3 

*5 

1 

*6 

*12 

*8 

0 

1 

*13 

*14 

*18 

*8 *4 

*19 

*20 

0 *4 

*19 *5 

*6 

0 

*17 

7 

*19 

*18 

*16 

3 

4 

*17 

8 *11 8 

16 

*17 

2 

3 

15 

*24 

20 

12 *9 

22 

*25 *8 7 

*30 *10 

3 

*22 

1 • 

*23 *15 

*24 

*27 

*47 *11 

*17 

*23 

12 15 12 

20 

*25 *10 

*13 

*32 

*40 

*35 

*22 

*20 

*31 

*39 11 

9 

*37 

*17 

*18 

*32 

5 

26 

20 

25 

31 *54 13 *27 28 

14 21 13 22 

*39 14 

16 *37 

*47 *40 23 21 32 

40 12 

10 *45 *23 

23 

35 

10 

29 20 

28 

32 57 17 30 32 

18 22 14 *29 

41 16 

18 39 

47 

40 28 

22 *38 

*46 

*20 16 49 23 

26 

*42 15 

plied and the percent reduction values marked by 

asterisks (*) in table 4 indicate those surfaces which 

result in a significant (0.05level) reduction of the sum of 

squares. Both Howarth's (1967) limits and analysis of 

variance were used to select trend surfaces for mapping 

in figures 5-40. Only variables having surfaces which exceed Howarth's limits were considered for mapping; the 

highest degree surface which shows a significant reduction in the sum of squares was chosen as the best 

representation of the regional trend. 

Polynomial trend surfaces provide an objective 

method for studying the nature of geographic variation. 

Methods of least-squares surface fitting are discribed by 

Krumbein and Graybill (1965, p. 319-340). Trend surfaces of degrees 1 through 5 were fitted to data for all 

variables except those which show significant differences 

among tuff units. The model for the 5th degree 

polynomial is: 

Xij={joo+{jiOUi+{joi Vj+{j2oU,2 

+{juUiYj+{jo2 V/+ ... +{jo5 V/, 

where Xij is the predicted value of some variable observ~d 

in the sample collected at map coordinates (Ui, Yj). Xij 

has the structure Xij=Xij+eij, where Xij is the observed 
B12 BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

value and eii is the residual. {joo, {j10, ..• , {j05 are the 

numerical coefficients chosen to minimize the variance 

of eii· For polynomials of lesser degree, the number of coefficients and terms is accordingly fewer. Thus it is 

possible to partition the variance into two parts: (1) that 

due to a regional trend as expressed by a polynomial 

equation and (2) that due to local variation (the 

residual). The proportion of variance explained by the 

trend should not exceed that due to the among-stations 

variance component listed in table 3. 

PETROGENESIS 

PROBLEMS IN PETROGENETIC INTERPRETATION 

Assessment of mineral and chemical changes in terms 

of gains and losses is complicated by the expression of 

petrologic data in terms of percent or parts per million. 

One aspect of this problem is the interpretation of a 

proportionate increase in one or more constituents. For 

example, fluorine is thought to be introduced into the 

tuff by mineralization at Spor Mountain. Fluorine in the 

tuff ranges from 0.02 to more than 2 percent, a hundredfold increase. The concentration of fluorine is always expressed as a complex ratio, 

Weight F x 100 

Weight all constituents ' 

and an increase in weight percent fluorine can be interpreted only as an increase in the ratio of that constituent to the sum of all other constituents. Either 

fluorine was actually added to the rock (as seems 

probable) or the other constituents were removed from 

the rock to leave a residue enriched in fluorine. In some 

cases it may be difficult to choose between addition or 

residual enrichment. 

Another aspect of the gain-loss problem is the potential effect of bulk density and volume changes (Hemley 

and Jones, 1964). For example, the alteration of porous 

tuff may result in an equal volume of less porous rock 

with chemical gains required to account for filling of the 

pore spaces. Chemical gains or exchanges of a light element by a heavy element are also required if the powder 

density of a rock is increased by alteration. In both cases 

the volume has remained the same but the mass (bulk 

density) has increased. If compaction has accompanied 

alteration, however, the resulting volume decrease also 

must be taken into account (Cooper, 1957). Changes in 

bulk density and porosity have been mapped in the tuff 

of the Thomas Range (figs. 5 and 7), but it is not clear 

whether the changes are due to addition of mass by filling pore spaces or to decrease in pore space by compaction. The latter possibility is difficult to quantify from 

thin-section observation because of partial destruction of 

the original pyroclastic texture. No alternative exists except to interpret mineralogical and chemical changes as 

changes in ratio. 

The effect of percentage and parts per million data 

also complicates the interpretation of correlation 

between minerals or elements. It is common to assume 

that two elements that are strongly correlated have the 

same origin and that two elements that are uncorrelated 

have independent origins. An important constraint on 

such interpretation arises from the effect of closure 

(Chayes, 1960). Data on mineral and chemical constituents form two groups of variables, each of which 

sum to 100 percent under ideal conditions. Laboratory 

error and omission of H20 are responsible in the present case for deviations from a constant sum; 

nevertheless, each mineral and element is part of a 

closed array that should sum to 100 percent. For example, when one major constituent increases in a twocomponent closed array, the other must decrease, and a 

perfect negative correlation results. Effects of closure are 

more complex and difficult to predict as the number of 

constituents increases. At present there appears to be no 

solution to the problem of closure in percentage data 

(Miesch, 1969), although the problem has been sidestepped by examining correlations between simple 

ratios, such as element/oxygen or element/silicon 

(Miesch and others, 1966). In the present study an attempt has been made to recognize the obvious effects of 

closure in the covariation among major constituents 

(such as glass versus zeolite and Si02 versus CaO). 

A PETROGENETIC MODEL 

The petrogenesis of the water-laid tuff may be understood in terms of a model. The model must contain those 

processes, or factors, believed to be important in creating 

the observed variation in the mineral and chemical composition of the tuff. A general model may be stated as follows: 

where Xji is the value of the ith sample for thejth variable 

and is a linear function of p common factors (F). Each 

factor (F) operates with an intensity of the coefficients 

CXjh a12, ••• , CXjp, and Uji is a unique factor accounting for 

the remaining variation in the data (Cooley and Lohnes, 

1962, p. 160). 

The identity of some of the factors can be easily anticipated from prior knowledge about the nature and 

proximity of processes known to have acted upon the 

tuff. The factors of mineralization, zeolitization, potassium feldspar diagenesis, and perhaps concentration of 

detrital components should be among the most intense. 

Variables that show geographic trends in the water-laid 

tuff reveal the obvious effects of these factors: large halos 

of F, Cs, Li, Be, Ga, and Nb (figs. 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, and 

35) surround the Spor Mountain beryllium-fluorspar district and indicate the influence of mineralization; the 

distribution of glass, clinoptilolite, and potassium feldspar (figs. 4, 8, 11, and 12) indicates the influence of 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH B13 

zeolitization and feldspathization; and the concentration of calcite in tuff unit 5 suggests the influence of additional detrital and diagenetic factors. 

R-MODE FACTOR ANALYSIS 

Petrogenetic parameters (a's, Fs) in the model may 

be defined by various methods. A common method and 

the one employed in this study is known as R-mode factor analysis; detailed discussions were presented by 

Harman (1960), Cooley and Lohnes (1962, p. 151-172), 

and Miesch, Chao, and Cuttitta (1966). The method involves four major steps: 

1. An mxm correlation matrix (R-matrix) is computed, where m is the number of measured variables. 

2. The characteristic equation associated with the Rmatrix is solved for m roots (eigenvalues) and the 

number of large roots (p) is selected as the minimum 

number necessary to account for a major part of the total 

variance in the system. 

3. A provisional coefficient matrix (the factor 

loadings) used to define the principal components is 

computed. 

4. A final coefficient matrix defined by the Varimax 

criterion (Harman, 1960, p. 301) is derived from the 

factor-loadings matrix. The Varimax loadings are arbitrarily used as the a-coefficients in the model. 

The data matrix, Xij, is N by m in size where N is the 

number of samples and m is the number of variables. 

The degree of linear association between two variables j 

and k is measured by the correlation coefficient: 

Sjk rjk= ___ , 

~sfsk2 

where Bjk' the convariance, is computed by 

N 

.'"}; XijXik 

l=l - - Sjk=-----XjXk, 

N 

and sj 2

, the variance, is computed by 

N 

.'"};X 2ij 

S·2= l=l -i/. 

' N 

Linear covariation between the variables is expressed by 

the mxm matrix of correlation coefficients, or R-matrix. 

A correlation coefficient of r= 1.0 indicates perfect linear 

interdependence, r=O indicates no linear dependence, 

and r= -1.0 indicates perfect inverse linear dependence. 

Because the genetic significance of the correlation coefficients is subject to the restrictions of closure, the correlation coefficients between the petrologic variables in 

this study must be viewed as descriptive measures of 

covariation. 

Factor analysis commonly begins with principal components extraction. Such analysis may be understood in 

terms of m-dimensional space, where m is the number of 

original variables. Each variable defines a dimension in 

the m-space and the position of each of N samples can be 

plotted in terms of the m coordinates. Presumably the N 

samples will tend to cluster as an elongate swarm of 

points in them-space. The object of the principal component analysis is to find new uncorrelated variables 

which measure what the original variables have in common and which produce a maximum variance among 

samples. The first principal component is located along 

the major axis of the sample cluster so that the sample 

projections onto it are maximized. This axis is a new 

variable which describes the largest possible proportion 

of the variance. A second axis is located at right angles to 

the first so that the next largest proportion of variance is 

explained, and so on. As many as m axes are possible, 

but some number p<m will commonly account for most 

of the variance. The variances of the principal components are equal to their eigenvalues. The principal components, following standardization to unit variance, are 

related to original variables by a new set of coefficients, 

the factor loadings. 

If some number p<m axes accounts for most of the 

variance (that is, theN points occur largely in p-dimensional space), it is often desirable to rotate the p axes so 

that they may be more readily interpreted. Rotation may 

be done in any manner that facilitates interpretation, but 

the most commonly used objective method of rotation 

utilizes the Varimax criterion (Harman, 1960, p. 301). 

The Varimax criterion requires that the variance of the 

squared factor loadings be maximized and this tends to 

simplify the resulting factors by yielding large positive or 

negative loadings for only a few variables on each factor. 

The rest of the loadings in each factor tend to be near 

zero. The resulting close association of a few variables 

with the Varimax factors will allow the factors to be 

more readily interpreted. The V arimax loadings specify 

the relationship of the original variables to the Varimax 

axes (factors); the axes may be used as a reference 

system to plot the original variables as vectors. If the 

sum of the first p eigenvalues of the R-matrix approaches 

m, the cosines of the angles between vectors in the pspace will approximate the original correlation coefficients. 

Because only p<m axes are retained in the model, less 

than 100 percent of the total variance will be explained. 

The proportion of variance explained for each variable in 

the factor solution is termed its "communality" (h2). 

Geometrically, the square of the vector length of the 

original variable plotted in the p-space of the factor solution will be equal to h2 • The remaining, unexplained 

variance (1-h2) is termed the unique component; it consists of unrecognized factors and laboratory error. 

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF WATER-LAID TUFF DATA 

Correlation coefficients were calculated between all 

variables for which more than 30 percent of the data 
B14 BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WES'IERN UTAH 

TABLE 5.- Correlation coefficients based on analyses of 160 samples of water-laid tuff 

Powder Log Log Log potassium Log Variable density clinoptilolite Log 

quartz a-cristobalite feldspar glass Ab03 Log LogMgO CaO Log C02 Log Cl 

Bulk density _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.14 0.37 0.25 0.38 0.47 -0.62 0.24 

.00 

.00 .13 .23 

-0.30 -0.07 .13 -.01 .06 .04 -0.04 -0.09 -0.23 .12 -.53 

0.01 

.38 -.22 

.11 -.05 

-0.32 -0.01 Powder density ______ ------ -.20 .25 .06 .42 -.01 .11 -.31 -.09 .12 .12 .00 Log clinoptilolite _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .29 .05 .16 -.78 .13 -.08 -.39 -.01 Log quartz _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.10 .44 -.33 -.17 -.05 -.09 -.25 -.20 .08 Log a-cristobalite _________________________________ _ .45 -.32 -.08 .01 -.12 .14 -.15 .01 

Logpotassiumfeldspar --------------------------------------- -.47 .21 .04 .16 -.18 -.28 .04 .49 -.29 

~Bzgl~~-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __ -...:~ __ :~ ::::g~ ::::!g -:~ :&i J~ -:~ Alz03 ------------------------------------------------------------------ .20 .04 -.18 .35 .22 -.03 FeTO' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ .50 .09 .11 .12 .01 

Log MgO __ ---------------------------------------------·---------------------------- .26 -.20 -.32 .06 Log CaO -----------------------------------------------·---------------------------------- -.10 -.28 .71 

E;~~o~==========================================================================================;;==-=~-

.16 -.03 .04 

.11 .07 

.11 

-.11 .22 .07 -.16 

Variable Log F Log Cs Log Li Rb eU Log Ba Log Be Log Cr Log Cu Log Ga Log Mn Log Nb Log Pb Log Sr Log Ti LogY Log Zr 

Bulk density _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.02 Powder density _ _ _ _ _ .15 Log clinoptilolite ____ -.24 Log quartz ------- -.03 Log a-cristobalite _ _ _ .02 Log potassium feldspar .00 Log glass ______ _ _ .13 

ffi02----------- .00 Alz03 ---------- .12 FeT03 -----------.07 Log MgO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .03 LogCaO ________ .17 

-0.03 -.06 .03 -.02 .06 -.06 .03 

-.15 .10 .19 .33 .10 

-0.06 .03 -.05 .08 -.10 

-.04 

.00 

-.26 .06 .28 .49 .16 

0.01 .16 -.18 

-.06 -.13 .20 .12 

-.02 .21 -.08 

-.11 -.16 

Na20 ---------- .25 .19 .06 .36 

KzO ----------- .05 -.21 -.01 .55 LogCOz _________ -.01 -.10 .03 -.07 LogCl ---------- .21 .28 .21 .14 Log F _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .45 .49 .40 

-0.09 .17 -.46 -.02 -.10 .17 .40 

.16 .25 -.11 -.39 -.20 

-0.03 .12 .07 .25 -.04 .16 -.08 

-.01 -.03 .19 

.00 .18 

.42 -.24 .63 .09 .06 .10 .01 -.08 .27 -.23 

0.24 -0.09 .04 .07 .06 .12 .07 .26 .15 -.14 .15 -.06 -.13 -.10 

.05 -.29 .08 -.10 .11 .33 .21 .36 -.07 .47 

.19 -.33 -.02 -.22 -.25 .23 .10 -.03 .51 .01 

0.03 

.11 -.12 -.07 .05 -.08 .07 

-.03 

.00 .10 

.00 .29 

-.07 

-.11 .26 -.07 

.00 

-0.16 -.06 -.18 -.10 -.01 

-.08 .24 

.06 .37 .13 .17 -.19 

.27 

.00 -.15 .20 .40 

-0.18 

.11 -.26 -.13 -.06 .03 .26 

-.21 .32 .28 -.01 .11 

.60 .28 .19 .12 .18 

0.15 -.15 .00 -.13 .20 -.01 -.05 

.14 .12 .01 .29 -.20 

.03 -.19 -.20 .18 .33 

-0.20 -.13 -.18 -.28 .01 -.19 .20 

.10 .23 -.08 -.01 -.18 

.18 

-.10 

.00 .01 .14 

0.12 

-.08 .47 .12 .12 -.02 -.31 

-.03 -.13 .17 .15 .06 

-.19 -.34 -.15 -.08 -.35 

-0.26 .21 -.21 .07 -.21 .04 .16 

-.22 .19 .32 -.01 .23 

.10 .25 .26 -.12 -.21 

0.18 

-.04 

.08 

.00 .26 -.03 -.12 

-.05 

-.11 .14 

.20 

.08 

.07 -.25 .00 .03 .19 

-0.03 -.04 -.14 -.15 .01 -.04 

.00 

-.15 .22 .34 .22 .12 

.00 

.00 .18 .07 -.06 

LogCs -------------------- .42 .25 -.09 -.30 .61 .00 -.13 .58 .19 .46 .14 .18 -.42 .42 -.18 LogLi -------------------------- .28 .06 -.08 .56 .22 -.10 .44 .19 .41 .12 -.13 .33 .25 .26 .11 -.40 -.17 .34 -.20 .09 .01 Rb ------------------------------- __ _ .49 -.34 .43 -.29 -.21 -.18 

eU ------------------------------------- ___ -.07 .04 -.28 -.14 .11 .26 -.04 .08 -.45 .13 -.14 -.04 

LogBa ------------------------------------------- -.41 .50 .28 -.42 -.03 -.58 -.27 .09 .63 -.38 .10 

Log Be---------- __________ ----------------------------- -.11 -.18 .67 .11 .66 LogCr ------------------------------------------------------ .25 -.12 -.08 -.23 

.17 .10 -.55 -.27 .06 .43 .54 -.18 -.06 .11 Log Cu _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.09 -.02 -.11 -.07 .06 .21 .44 .05 -.45 -.04 .20 .40 -.06 LogGa ----------------------------------------------------------------- .18 -~ Log Mn ___________ ------------------------------------------------------------- -.01 .24 -.08 .16 .12 .12 

Log Nb _________ ------------------- __ ------------------ _________________ ----------- .32 .05 -.71 .51 .06 Log Pb _________ ------------------------------------------ ___ -------------------- _ ------- -.07 -.20 .10 -.07 Log Sr __________ -------------------- _ ------------------ ________________ ------------------------ -.14 .12 -.03 Log Ti _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ -.53 .32 

LogY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .02 

were above the detection limit (table 5). In addition, the 

variable "glass" was also included because it proved 

helpful in interpreting relationships. Thus clay, mica, 

calcite, halite, fluorite, B, La, Mo, Ni, Sn, and V were 

not included in the analysis because more than 30 percent of the samples fell below the detection limit for 

those variables. Porosity was also dropped because it is 

derived directly from other variables. As before, a log 

transformation was made on those variables that tend to 

be log normally distributed prior to calculation of the Rmatrix. 

A principal-components analysis of the water-laid tuff 

data was carried out on the 33X33 R-matrix with unities in the diagonals. Selection of the p largest principal 

components to be preserved for rotation and interpretation proved to be somewhat subjective. The eigenvalues 

of the 10 largest principal components were plotted on a 

curve and examined for significant changes in 

magnitude, as indicated by breaks in the slope of the 

curve (fig. 41). Visible declines occur after the fourth and 

sixth eigenvalues, suggesting that either four or six principal components might be considered for rotation. 

Various experiments were then conducted by Varimax 

rotation of four, five, six, and seven axes; the communalities of the variables for each solution were compared with the percentage of nonerror variance 

calculated from table 3 (table 6). Study of the eigenvalues and the communalities for four through sevenfactor solutions suggests that the six-factor solution is 

the most suitable choice. The four-factor solution explains only 52 percent of the total variance in the normalized data, whereas the six-factor solution explains 63 

percent. Additionally, the communalities of some 

variables, notably bulk density, powder density, quartz, 

a-cristobalite, Al20a, FeTOa, CaO, C02, F, Mn, Sr, and 

Zr, are considerably increased in the six-factor solution. 

The communalities of powder density, quartz, Cl, F, Ba, 

Mn, Sr, Y, and Zr are still low, however, and this is due 

mainly to the tendency of these variables to load heavily 

on unique components. As can be seen by comparison of 

the communalities with the proportion of nonerror 

variance, the six-factor solution explains the maximum 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH B15 

amount of meaningful variance in the case of many 

variables. Copper, for example, has a communality of 32 

percent and a nonerror variance component of only 14 

percent; this fact indicates that the six-factor solution is 

"explaining" some error variance in copper. 

Six principal components were rotated by the 

Varimax method and the loadings of each variable on 

the six Varimax factors were recorded (table 7); the 

Varimax loadings may be accepted as the a-coefficients 

of the petrogenetic model. Each factor (F1, F2, ... , Fp) 

can be interpreted from the association of variables 

which load most heavily on it. The factor interpretations 

are as follows: 

Factor I (F1): Mineralization. Fluorine, Y, Li, Ga, Cs, 

Nb, Be, and to a lesser extent MgO and Rb have high 

positive loadings. Titanium and Ba have high negative 

loadings. 

Factor II (F2): Initial diagenesis (zeolitization). Strontium, clinoptilolite, and to a lesser extent MgO have 

high positive loadings. Sodium oxide, Rb, K20, eU, and 

to a lesser extent F, powder density, glass, and Mn have 

high negative loadings. 

Factor III (F3): Concentration of calcite versus silica 

(both detrital and diagenetic). Calcium oxide, C02, Cr, 

and Cu have high positive loadings. Silica has a high 

negative loading. 

Factor IV (F4): Intermediate diagenesis (zeolitization 

and feldspathization). Clinoptilolite, potassium feldspar, quartz, and to a lesser extent Ba, Cr, and bulk density have high positive loadings. Glass, Pb, and to alesser extent Na20 have high negative loadings. 

Factor V (F5): Concentration of detrital heavy 

minerals. Zirconium, Al203, FeT03, and to a lesser extent Ti, MgO and Mn have high positive loadings. 

Factor VI (F6): advanced diagenesis (feldspathization). Potassium feldspar, a-cristobalite, and bulk density have high positive loadings. 

It can thus be concluded that the petrogenetic model 

for the water-laid tuff is substantially as proposed 

earlier. Mineralization augments the concentration ofF, 

Cs, Li, Be, Ga, Nb, Y, and to a lesser extent MgO and Rb 

relative to the concentration of Ba and Ti. The increase 

of some mineralization-related elements is orders of 

magnitude above background, indicating that these elements were actually added to the tuff rather than 

enriched by subtraction of other constituents. This is in 

agreement with the observed enrichment of the same elements in hydrothermally altered tuff associated with the 

beryllium ore at Spor Mountain (Lindsey and others, 

1973). 

Diagenetic effects appear as three distinct factors: (1) 

initial diagenesis (zeolitization) is represented by factor 

II, (2) intermediate diagenesis (zeolitization and feldspathization) is represented by factor IV, and (3) advanced diagenesis (feldspathization) is represented by 

factor VI. Factors II and IV mainly reflect the effects of 

closure induced by variations in the relative proportions 

of glass versus clinoptilolite and potassium feldspar. 

Nevertheless, they do describe the process whereby glass 

is altered first to clinoptilolite and finally to potassium 

feldspar; this diagenetic sequence has been observed in 

other tuffs and ascribed to ground water leaching of glass 

(Hay, 1963). The three-part division of diagenesis also 

suggests a sequence of chemical changes as the tuff undergoes diagenetic alteration. During the initial stage of 

diagenesis (factor II) the concentrations of Na20, K20, 

Rb, eU, and to a lesser extent F and Mn decline while Sr 

and to a lesser extent MgO increase. The concentration 

of Na20 declines further and is accompanied by a 

decline in Pb during the intermediate stage of 

diagenesis. Barium and Cr show some increase. Advanced diagenesis is not accompanied by any substantial 

chemical change. It must be remembered that the 

changes in chemical concentrations are only relative to 

the sum of all constituents and do not necessarily indicate true addition or subtraction of elements to the 

tuff. 

Factor III represents the concentration of calcite 

relative to that of silica and as such reflects closure 

almost entirely. The complementary concentrations of 

calcite and silica can be related to the presence of 

limestone clasts and calcite cement in some of the tuff. 

Thus factor III reflects both detrital and diagenetic 

processes. 

TABLE 6. - Communalities (in percent) for four-, five-, six-, and 

seven-factor Varimax solutions compared to the percent of nonerror 

variance 

Bulkdensity _______ 52 Powder density _ _ _ _ _ _ 38 

Log clinoptilolite _ _ _ _ _ 65 

Logquartz -------- 42 

Log a-cristobalite _ _ _ _ 19 

Log potassium feldspar _ 80 Log glass _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 77 

Si02 ------------ 51 

AlzO, ----------- 30 FeT03 ----------- 50 LogMgO --------- 60 Log CaO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 58 

N~O ----------- ~ KzO ------------ 76 LogCOz ---------- 50 

Log Cl _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14 

Log F _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 42 

LogCs ----------- 61 

LogLi ----------- 60 

Rb ------------- 56 eU ____ --------- 65 

LogBa ---------- 58 

Log Be----------- 79 LogCr___________ 00 LogCu __________ 16 

LogGa __________ 69 LogMn __________ 40 

LogNb __________ U 

LogPb __________ 33 Log Sr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 34 

LogTi _______ ____ 81 

LogY ----------- 47 Log Zr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15 

Number of rotated factors 

55 42 

65 45 

24 

81 

77 

53 55 

73 

63 

78 

00 

76 62 

16 

58 61 63 

64 

68 

59 

80 62 16 

72 45 

75 

39 45 

85 

48 34 

70 

47 

71 55 

67 

84 

78 

53 

~ 

73 65 

85 

66 

76 

75 

19 

58 62 

69 

66 

68 

61 

80 

66 32 

74 

47 

76 

39 46 

86 

59 41 

70 

48 

78 56 

68 

84 

80 

76 

58 

75 65 

86 

71 

79 

76 

20 

69 62 

71 

70 

68 

67 

80 

74 53 

78 61 

80 

39 52 

86 

00 43 

Nonerror 

variance 

? 

83 

>99 

97 

86 

84 

96 

47 

73 

93 

97 

>99 

95 

99 

94 

85 

92 

97 

98 52 

57 

99 

96 

87 14 

83 

96 

88 

48 

92 

97 

92 

84 
B16 BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

Factor V is interpreted as concentration of detrital 

heavy minerals. Examination of the heavy mineral suite 

in the water-laid tuff indicates that magnetite, 

hematite, sphene, topaz, and zircon are among those 

minerals present. Concentrations of some of these 

minerals would account for high loadings of FeT03, 

Al203, Mn, Ti, and Zr on factor V. 

The six-factor model does not account for a large component of variance for a few variables. Chlorine is very 

poorly explained by the model; powder density, quartz, 

F, Ba, Mn, Sr, Y, and Zr also contain large unique components. Further explanation of each of these variables 

would require addition of unique factors to the model. 

The identity of the factor for concentration of Cl can be 

inferred from the following evidence. The chlorine is 

water-soluble, inasmuch as it was extracted for analysis 

by adding pure water to the sample; X-ray diffraction 

confirms the presence of halite in samples with large 

concentrations of Cl. Another point which may be pertinent is that all of the samples were collected from surface exposures. It seems likely that the distribution of Cl 

is determined by winds that bring salt off playas to the 

west and deposit it on outcrops of tuff in the Thomas 

Range. Rainwater dissolves the salt and percolates 

down into the porous tuff, precipitating Cl as halite 

within pore spaces. Identification of the unique factors 

that control concentration of other variables probably requires additional information and therefore will not be 

pursued. 

INTERPRETATION OF STRATIGRAPHIC 

AND GEOGRAPHIC ANOMALIES 

The factors that outline a petrogenetic model for formation of the water-laid tuff can be related back to the 

stratigraphic and geographic concentrations seen in 

figures 5-40. Each factor, if it is the equivalent to one or 

only a few processes, should have a characteristic pattern of concentration. Variables that tend to split their 

loadings on several factors should exhibit more complex 

patterns resulting from superposition of factor effects. 

Variables that are related to unique factors will have 

patterns determined by the regional effects of the unique 

factor. In practice, of course, the three categories will 

form a continuum, with some variables tending to load 

on a single factor, others on several, and still others on a 

unique factor. 

The mineralization factor would be expected to 

produce a halo around ore deposits; halos of varying intensity for F, Cs, Li, Be, Ga, Nb, and Y are seen in 

figures 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 35, and 39, respectively. 

Fluorine and yttrium (figs. 24 and 39), however, vary 

from the mineralization halo, and this fact can be 

related to their tendency load on factors II and VI, 

respectively (table 7). Barium (fig. 29), whose distribution is negatively affected by mineralization, shows a 

reverse halo. Titanium (fig. 37) does not show a 

TABLE 7. - A six-factor petrogenetic model for the water-laid tuff 

as defined by the Varimax loadings 

[Coefficients less than -0.50 or greater then 0.50 are shown in italic] 

Variable IT 

Log Ti _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -0.65 -0.21 

LogBa ---------- -.54 .05 LogCl ----------- .27 -.10 LogF ----------- .59 -.41 LogY ----------- .63 .17 LogLi ----------- .69 -.09 

Log Ga ---------- LogCs __________ _ 

Log Nb _________ _ Log Be __________ _ 

Log Sr __________ _ 

Log clinoptilolite ____ _ 

LogMgO ________ _ 

Powder density _____ _ 

NazO ----------- Rb -------------

KzO ------------ eU -------------

Log CaO ________ _ 

Log COz ___ ------- LogCr __________ _ 

~~ c~-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

.74 

.77 

.77 

.86 

.02 

.04 

.40 

-.04 

.14 

.43 

-.15 

-.02 

.02 

-.14 

-.07 

-.21 

-.11 

Log glass _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.07 Log Pb _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .25 

Log potassium feldspar _ -.02 Log quartz _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .00 LogMn __________ .15 

LogZr __________ _ 

AlzQ, ----------- Fe.rO, ______ ----- Log a-cristobalite ___ _ Bulk density ______ _ 

-.15 

.07 

.13 

.07 

.10 

-.09 

.06 

.13 

-.08 

.61 

.59 

.43 

-.47 

-.59 

-.65 

-.76 

-.80 

.07 

-.17 

.24 

.07 

-.08 

-.44 

-.02 

-.31 

-.01 

-.40 

.09 

-.29 

.09 

.08 

.09 

Ill 

0.26 

.17 

-.19 

.19 

.14 

.20 

-.22 .03 

-.20 

-.10 

-.08 

-.24 

.27 

.18 

-.04 

-.15 

-.25 

-.15 

.91 

.79 

.49 

. .42 

-.61 

.15 

-.20 

-.31 

-.14 

.12 

.18 -.23 .14 

-.07 

-.08 

Factor 

IV 

0.18 

.42 

.09 

.03 

-.10 

.21 

-.28 

-.02 

-.24 

.09 

.07 

.50 

.13 

.35 

-.41 

.05 .23 -.09 

.06 -.23 .44 

-.08 

-.05 

-.62 

-.51 

.57 

.72 

-.20 

-.15 

-.28 

.20 

-.03 

.43 

V VI 

0.47 -0.23 .29 -.12 .22 -.07 -.10 -.04 -.02 .34 .20 -.25 

.19 

.11 

-.01 

.00 

.16 

-.15 

.42 

.13 

.30 

-.10 

.18 

-.03 

-.01 

.00 

.26 

.15 

-.24 

.06 

.05 

.18 

-.03 

.46 

.54 

.56 

.80 

.08 -.23 

-.11 

-.07 

.18 

.15 

.18 

.07 

-.16 

.26 

.13 

-.08 

.04 

-.06 

-.06 

-.05 

-.28 .23 

.26 

-.39 

-.07 

.52 

-.04 

.01 

.14 

-.14 

.01 

.80 

.65 

pronounced geographic trend, presumably because it 

reflects the concentration of detrital heavy minerals 

(factor V). 

The geographic effects of the factors for diagenesis (II, 

IV, and VI) are best represented by the geographic distribution of clinoptilolite (fig. 8) and potassium feldspar 

(fig. 11), which together display a pattern of concentration very nearly complementary to that of glass (fig. 12). 

Glass shows a northwest-trending low across the study 

area. Elements that tend to associate most with glass on 

factors II and IV are the alkalis (N a20, K20, and Rb), 

eU, and Ph (figs. 20, 21, 27, and 28). Sodium oxide, Rb, 

and eU trends best follow that of glass; K20 and Ph have 

no strong regional trend. Strontium does not show a 

trend similar to that of clinoptilolite because it is also 

related to a unique factor. The end product of diagenesis, 

indicated by factors IV and VI, is a dense tuff composed 

of potassium feldspar, quartz, and a-cristobalite. The 

high bulk density (fig. 5) and abundant potassium feldspar (fig. 11) and quartz (fig. 9) in the region northeast of 

The Dell indicate that this is the locus of most intense 

diagenesis. 

The distribution of calcite versus silica (factor III) is 

affected mainly by the presence of abundant limestone 

clasts in tuff unit 5 on Topaz Mountain (figs. 13, 19, 22). 

Alumina, FeT03, and Zr (figs. 16, 17, 40), which group 

together on the factor for concentration of detrital heavy 

minerals (factor V), tend not to form strong geographic 

trends but rather to be sporadically dispersed in local 

(1-2 miles or 1.6-3.2 km) concentrations. 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS INWATER-LAIDTUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH B17 

CONCLUSIONS 

MINERALIZATION HALOS 

Study of the mineral and chemical components of the 

water-laid tuff has shown that the beryllium-fluorite 

mineralization at Spor Mountain has left a distinct 

geochemical signature in the tuff. This is identified by 

the association of F, Cs, Li, Be, Ga, Nb, and Y. Most of 

these elements tend to form primary dispersion halos 

around the Spor Mountain district. 

The association of elements appears to be a sensitive 

indicator of the elements concentrated in hydrothermally altered tuff near the beryllium deposits. Comparison of mineralized versus unmineralized tuff showed 

that Cs, Li, Rb, Tl, eU, B, Be, Ga, La, Mn, Nb, Sc, Sn, 

Y, and Zn are at least twice as abundant in mineralized 

tuff (Lindsey and others, 1973, p. A9). All of the elements concentrated by the mineralization factor were 

also concentrated in hydrothermally altered tuff associated with deposits at Spor Mountain. Identification 

of this mineralization factor in other tuffaceous rocks 

should indicate the proximity of beryllium and fluorspar 

deposits. This approach could have considerable application in the Basin and Range province, where basin 

fillings of tuffaceous sediments are widespread. 

The mineralization-related halos increase the target 

size which might be contemplated in searching for 

another Spor Mountain district. The Spor Mountain district presents a target of approximately 20 square miles 

(52 km2); if the halos for beryllium and cesium were extended completely around the district, they would triple 

the original target to about 60 square miles (156 km2). 

The use of this method as a guide to mineralization may 

be illustrated in the case of the small halo in the northeastern edge of the study area; that halo may indicate 

another mineralized area located to the northeast 

beneath the alluvium of Dugway Valley. ' 

Study of the petrogenetic model outlined by factor 

analysis (table 7) indicates that individual pathfinder 

elements for beryllium-fluorite mineralization must be 

selected with caution. It is tempting, for example, to use 

fluorine in tuff as a pathfinder for beryllium deposits 

because of the supposed mode of transport of beryllium 

as a fluoride complex ion. The model derived by factor 

analysis shows, however, that fluorine concentration was 

enhanced not only by mineralization but also by retention in glass which has survived zeolitization and 

perhaps by other, unidentified factors. This overprinting 

of fluorine concentration patterns by various processes 

has produced a complex regional picture of the distribution of fluorine in the water-laid tuff. Although the effect 

of mineralization is clearly discernible in the regional 

variation of fluorine (fig. 24), failure to consider the effect of other factors would lead to an erroneous prediction of the location of the Spor Mountain district. A 

more empirical choice for a pathfinder element is 

lithium, which exhibits a wider halo than beryllium or 

cesium but is closely associated with the mineralization 

factor. The distribution of lithium, however, is also affected by other factors (table 7). In addition, lithium occurs without beryllium in altered tuffaceous sediments 

at other localities in the Basin and Range province 

(Ames and others, 1958; Norton, 1965). Therefore it 

seems unwise to extend the application of lithium as a 

pathfinder beyond the Spor Mountain area. On the other 

hand, Be, Li, and F halos in schist have been found to be 

useful as indicators of molybdenum-beryllium 

mineralization in other geologic environments (Vlasov, 

1966, p. 133-136). 

The mechanisms responsible for the dispersion halos 

in tuff around Spor Mountain remain speculative, but 

some insight may be gained from the following observations. The trend surfaces of the halos demonstrate an approximate logarithmic decline in concentration of Cs, Li, 

and Be away from Spor Mountain, as seen by the even 

spacing of the logarithmic contour intervals (figs. 25, 26, 

and 30). The dispersion of mineralization elements was 

independent of host rock mineralogy and porosity, as 

shown by the petrogenetic model (table 7). This in-

. dependence is also illustrated by comparison of the halos 

for Cs, Li, and Be (figs. 25, 26, and 30) with the distribution of mineral facies (fig. 4) and porosity (fig. 7) in the 

tuff. It is also pertinent that formation of zeolite and 

potassium feldspar, particularly the latter, are partially 

associated with increasing bulk density, and therefore 

decreasing porosity (table 7). If dispersion of mineralization elements occurred by fluid movement, their distribution should be associated with maximum porosity 

(the vitric facies). Because this is not the case, dispersion 

by static diffusion seems more likely. Diffusion of elements along a concentration gradient in interconnected 

water-filled pores in the tuff is envisioned. The 

logarithmic decline of the halos away from Spor Mountain is also in harmony with the static diffusion 

hypothesis. Although the scale of diffusion is much 

larger, the process is quite similar to that proposed for 

the Ph, Zn, and Cu dispersion halos noted in the wallrocks of veins in the Tin tic district (Morris and Lovering, 

1952, Pt. 2). Alternatively, it is possible that dispersion 

occurred prior to zeolitization and potassium feldspar 

diagenesis by fluid movement through vitric tuff having 

a uniform porosity. 

DIAGENESIS 

Three stages of diagenesis have been identified by factor analysis: zeolitization, both zeolitization and feldspathization, and feldspathization. Progressive alteration of vitric pumice-rich tuff to clinoptilolite and potassium feldspar is also suggested by the successive occurrence of these facies inward toward the center of the 

Thomas Range (fig. 4) and by thin-section study of 

mineral paragenesis. The mineral facies boundaries cut 
B18 BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

across tuff units, as shown in the sections in figure 4, and 

by the low among-tuff-units variance components for 

various minerals (table 3). These relationships are 

similar to some of those observed in the Oligocene and 

Miocene John Day Formation (Hay, 1963), the Miocene 

and Pliocene Esmeralda Formation (Moiola, 1970), and 

the Pliocene Ricardo Formation (Sheppard and Gude, 

1965), except that the distribution of the Thomas Range 

facies is inward instead of downward from the outcrop. 

In the examples cited it was concluded that groundwater leaching of vitric tuff yielded solutions having 

progressively greater alkali/hydrogen ion ratios which 

altered glass to clinoptilolite first and finally to potassium feldspar. A similar origin for the Thomas Range 

clinoptilolite and potassium feldspar facies is likely and 

accounts for the decline in concentration of alkalis noted 

during diagenesis of vitric tuff. 

The petrogenetic model outlined by factor analysis 

reveals that diagenesis has played an important role in 

changing the chemical composition of the vitric tuff. 

Alteration of vitric to zeolitic tuff was accompanied by 

weight percent loss of Na20, K20, Rb, eU, Mn, and Ph, 

and by gain of MgO, Ba, Cr, and Sr. Fluorine concentration also declined during zeolitization, but this process 

was somewhat overshadowed by addition of fluorine during mineralization. The proportion of Si02 apparently 

was not affected by diagenesis. Although data are not 

available on water content of the samples used in this 

study, earlier work showed that the vitric tuff is 

hydrated ( 4-5 percent water) and that the zeolitic tuff 

may contain as much as 7-8 percent water (Lindsey and 

others, 1973, table 2). These conclusions are in general 

agreement with work on paired samples of glass and 

devitrified tuff, which showed that F, Cl, and U are lost 

during devitrification (Noble and others, 1967; Rosholt 

and others, 1971). Loss of Na20 and K20 has been noted 

in previous studies of the alteration of vitric tuff to 

clinoptilolite-rich tuff (Hay, 1963; Shepard and Gude, 

1965; Hoover, 1968). Some of these studies reported that 

H20, CaO, and MgO are gained during zeolitization. I 

have found no evidence of any major oxide gains except 

perhaps MgO and H20. The observed increase in the 

trace elements Ba and Sr is probably due to the concentration of these elements in clinoptilolite (Hawkins, 

1967a; 1967b). Further alteration to potassium feldspar 

was apparently isochemical. All of the chemical changes 

noted during diagenesis refer to relative changes in 

weight percent and do not necessarily indicate true addition or subtraction of constituents. In view of the 

proposed mechanism of alkali leaching, it seems 

probable that the alkalis actually were removed from the 

tuff. 

The possibility of removal of U, Mn, and F from glass 

during zeolitization provides a nonhydrothermal source 

for these elements and raises the possibility of a 

diagenetic origin for nearby ore depostis that contain 

these constituents. The Spor Mountain beryllium 

deposits are of hydrothermal origin (Lindsey and others, 

1973) and clear separation of mineralization and 

diagenetic factors in the petrogenetic model for waterlaid tuff probably rules out a diagenetic source for 

uranium and fluorine in the beryllium deposits. 

Uranium leached from the vitric tuff may have been concentrated in sedimentary deposits, however, such as the 

nearby Yellow Chief uranium deposit described by 

Bowyer (1963). Evidence for large-scale leaching of 

uranium from tuff also supports the more general 

hypothesis of a volcanic origin for uranium in sedimentary deposits as proposed by Waters and Granger (1953). 

REFERENCES CITED 

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1966, Industrial water; atmospheric analysis, pt. 23 of 1966 book of ASTM standards: 

Philadelphia, 882 p. 

Ames, L. L., Jr., Sand, L. B., and Goldich, S. S., 1958, A contribution 

on the Hector, California, bentonite deposits: Econ. Geology, v. 

53, no. 1, p. 22-37. 

Anderson, R. L., and Bancroft, T. A., 1952, Statistical theory in 

research: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 399 p. 

Bowyer, Ben, 1963, Yellow Chief uranium mine, Juab County, Utah in 

Beryllium and uranium mineralization in western Juab County, 

Utah: Utah Geol. Soc. Guidebook to the Geology of Utah, no. 17, 

p. 15-22. 

Chayes, Felix, 1960, On correlation between variables of a constant 

sum: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 65, no. 12, p. 4185-4193. 

Claisse, Fernand, 1956, Accurate X-ray fluorescence analysis without 

internal standard: Quebec Dept. Mines, Lab. Br. Prelim. Rept. 

327, 16 p. 

Cohenour, R. E., 1963, The beryllium belt of western Utah, in Beryllium and uranium mineralization in western Juab county, Utah: 

Utah Geol. Soc. Guidebook to the Geology of Utah, no. 17, p. 4-7. 

Cooley, W. W., and Lohnes, P. R., 1962, Multivariate procedures for 

the behavioral sciences: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 211 p. 

Cooper, J. R., 1957, Metamorphism and volume losses in carbonate 

rocks near Johnson Camp, Cochise County, Arizona: Geol. Soc. 

America Bull., v. 68, no. 5, p. 577-610. 

Connor, J. J., Feder, G. L., Erdman, J. A., and Tidball, R. R., 1972, 

Environmental geochemistry in Missouri - a multidisciplinary 

study: lnternat. Geol. Cong., 24th, Symposium, no. 1, Montreal, 

Canada, p. 7-14. 

Erickson, M.P., 1963, Volcanic geology of western Juab County, Utah, 

in Beryllium and uranium mineralization in western Juab County, 

Utah: Utah Geol. Soc. Guidebook to the Geology of Utah, no. 17, 

p. 23-35. 

Freund, J. E., 1960, Modern elementary statistics [2d ed.]: Englewood 

Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, 413 p. 

Griffitts, W. R., 1964, Beryllium, in Mineral and water resources of 

Utah: Utah Geol. and Mineralog. Survey Bull. 73, p. 71-75. 

Harman, H. H., 1960, Modern factor analysis [2d ed., revised]: 

Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press, 471 p. 

Havens, R. G., and Myers, A. T., 1973, Direct-reader spectrometric 

analyses, in Vine, J. D., and Tourtelot, E. B., Geochemistry of 

lower Eocene sandstones in the Rocky Mountain Region: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 789, p. 13. 

Hawkins, D. B., 1967a, Zeolite studies- [Pt.] 1, Synthesis of some 

alkaline earth zeolites: Materials Research Bull., v. 2, no. 10, p. 

951-958. 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH B19 

__ 1967b, Zeolite studies - [Pt.] 2, Ion-exchange properties of 

some synthetic zeolites: Materials Research Bull., v. 2, no. 11, p. 

1021-1028. 

Hay, R. L., 1963, Stratigraphy and zeolitic diagenesis of the John Day 

Formation of Oregon: California Univ. Pubs. Geol. Sci., v. 42, no. 

5, p. 199-262. 

Remley, J. J., and Jones, W. R., 1964, Chemical aspects of hydrothermal alteration with emphasis on hydrogen metasomatism: Econ. 

Geology, v. 59, no. 4, p. 538-569. 

Hoover, D. L., 1968, Genesis of zeolites, Nevada Test Site, in Eckel, E. 

B., ed., Nevada Test Site: Geol. Soc. America Mem. 110, p. 

275-284. 

Howarth, R. J., 1967, Trend-surface fitting to random data- An experimental test: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 265, no. 7, p. 619-625. 

Klug, H. P ., and Alexander, L. E., 1954, X-ray diffraction procedures 

-for polycrystalline and amorphous materials: New York, John 

Wiley and Sons, 716 p. 

Krumbein, W. C., and Graybill, F. A., 1965, An introduction to 

statistical models in geology: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co. 

475 p. 

Lindsey, D. A., Ganow, Harold, and Mountjoy, Wayne, 1973, 

Hydrothermal alteration associated with beryllium deposits at 

Spor Mountain, Utah: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 818-A, 20 p. 

Lindsey, D. A., Wahlberg, J. S., Merritt, V. M., and Lee, L. M., 1974, 

Mineralogical and chemical data for water-laid tuff in the Thomas 

Range, Juab County, Utah: U.S. Geol. Survey Rept. U.S.G.S.-

GD-74-013; available only from U.S. Dept. Commerce Natl. Tech. 

Inf. Service, Springfield, Va., 22161, as Rept. PB-231 921, 35 p. 

McAnulty, W. N., and Levinson, A. A., 1964, Rare alkali and beryllium 

mineralization in volcanic tuffs, Honey Comb Hills, Juab County, 

Utah: Econ. Geology, v. 59, no. 5, p. 768-774. 

Mcintyre, D. B., Welday, E. E., and Baird, A. K., 1965, Geologic application of the air pycnometer - A study of the precision of 

measurement: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 76, no. 9, p. 1055-1060. 

Miesch, A. T., 1967a, Methods of computation for estimating 

geochemical abundance: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 574-B, 15 

p. 

__ 1967b, Theory of error in geochemical data: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 574-A, 17 p. 

__ 1969, The constant sum problem in geochemistry, in Merriam, 

D. F., ed., Computer applications in the earth sciences- Conf., 

Kansas Univ., 1969, Proc: New York, Plenum Press, p. 161-176. 

Miesch, A. T., Chao, E. C. T., and Cuttitta, Frank, 1966, Multivariate 

analysis of geochemical data on tektites: Jour. Geology, v. 74, no. 

5, pt. 2, p. 673-691. 

Moiola, R. J., 1970, Authigenic zeolites and K-feldspar in the 

Esmeralda Formation, Nevada: Am. Mineralogist, v. 55, no. 9/10, 

p. 1681-1691. 

Morris, H. T., and Lovering, T. S., 1952, Supergene and hydrothermal 

dispersion of heavy metals in wall rocks near ore bodies, Tin tic district, Utah: Econ. Geology, v. 47, no. 7, p. 685-716. 

Mountjoy, Wayne, and Wahlberg, J. S., 1968, Determination of micro 

amounts of cesium in geologic materials, in Geological Survey 

research 1968: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 600-B, p. B119-B122. 

Noble, D. C., Smith, V. C., and Peck, L. C., 1967, Loss of halogens 

from crystallized and glassy silicic volcanic rocks: Geochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, v. 31, no. 2, p. 215-223. 

Norton, J. J., 1965, Lithium-bearing bentonite deposit, Yavapai 

County, Arizona, in Geological Survey research 1965: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 525-D, p. D163-D166. 

Perkin-Elmer, 1964, Analytical methods for atomic absorption 

spectrophotometry: Norwalk, Conn. [loose-leaf]. 

Rader, L. F., and Grimaldi, F. S., 1961, Chemical analyses for selected 

minor elements in Pierre shale: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 391-

A, 45 p. 

Rosholt, J. N., Prijana, and Noble, D. C., 1971, Mobility of uranium 

and thorium in glassy and crystallized silicic volcanic rocks: Econ. 

Geology, v. 66, no. 7, p. 1061-1069. 

Schultz, L. G., 1964, Quantitative interpretation of mineralogical composition from X-ray and chemical data for the Pierre Shale: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 391-C, 31 p. 

Shawe, D. R., 1964, A late Tertiary low-angle fault in western Juab 

County, Utah, in Geological Survey research 1964: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 501-B, p. B13-B15. 

__ 1968, Geology of the Spor Mountain beryllium district, Utah, in 

Ridge, J. D., ed., Ore deposits of the United States, 1933-1967 

(Graton-Sales Volume): Am. Inst. Mining, Metall. and Petroleum 

Engineers, v. 2, pt. 8, chap. 55, p. 1148-1161. 

__ 1972, Reconnaissance geology and mineral potential of Thomas, 

Keg, and Desert calderas, central Juab county, Utah, in 

Geological Survey research 1972: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

800-B, p. B67-B77. 

Sheppard, R. A., and Gude, A. J ., 3d, 1965, Zeoli tic authigenesis of 

tuffs in the Ricardo Formation, Kern county, southern California, 

in Geological Survey research 1965: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

525-D, p. D44-D47. 

Staatz, M. H., and Carr, W. J., 1964, Geology and mineral deposits of 

the Thomas and Dugway Ranges, Juab and Tooele Counties, 

Utah: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 415, 188 p. 

Staatz, M. H., and Griffitts, W. R., 1961, Beryllium-bearing tuff in the 

Thomas Range, Juab County, Utah: Econ. Geology, v. 56, no. 5, p. 

941-950. 

Tatlock, D. B., 1966, Rapid modal analysis of some felsic rocks from 

calibrated X-ray diffraction patterns: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 

1209, 41 p. 

Thurston, W. R., Staatz, M. H., Cox, D. C., and others, 1954, Fluorspar deposits of Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1005, 53 p. 

Vlasov, K. A., ed., 1966, Geochemistry and mineralogy of rare elements 

and genetic types of their deposits, v. 3, Genetic types of rareearth deposits [Translation from Russian by Z. Lerman, edited by 

R. Amoils, of Geokhimiya, mineralogiya i geneticheskie tipy 

mestorozhdenii redkikh elementov. Tom ill. Geneticheskie tipy 

mestorozhdenii redkikh elementov - Izdatel'stvo "Nauka", 

Moskow]: Israel Prog. for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1968, 

916 p. 

Waters, A. C., and Granger, H. C., 1953, Volcanic debris in uraniferous 

sandstones, and its possible bearing on the origin and precipitation of uranium [Colorado Plateau]: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 224, 

26 p. 

Waugh, A. E., 1952, Elements of statistical methods [3d ed.]: New 

York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 532 p. 

FIGURES 5-41 

39 

45 ' I 

39 ' 1 

40' 

40 

(/) 

w 

a:' 30 :;; 

<t: 

(/) 

0 20 

a: 

w 

"' 3 10 

z 

0 

0 

113 1 0 ' -- r·-- -----------------7 ---- --~ 

r{ ' ~ 

~------------·-··----~ 1-~~)_Q~ _· ·-··- ·-·-·---,···· /; 

If 

.:.... .::/ 

:. ... 

/) 

~f 

~~ 

II 

/! \ 

, -· _---:: \_' ;_, >' ) . .., Q) ·- ~ "- -s. / j 

c '(;. -, . c-o -.-......\; """ ~~ '6_ \ / !' .. i ~ ""' " . -@-. ' -· ' \ ' _ '', ( --'·•/_' I '_- '?u> " ' <# · '~ ''< ~ "'G(l9_. \ 

sN? 

\ '( plS~\\ltf 

,,/ 

/ 

t/ 

' '\,!7~""""..,"'-=- -- ·""'""'~' ·~~~ 

'" I Jf' \ I 

"''~:~:7'"'l o• /./'o' •<, 

",,,stl 

Arithmetic 

mean 

t 

BULK DENSITY, IN GRAMS 

PER CUBIC CENTIMETRE 

EXPLANATION 

Station arithmetic mean of 

grams per cubic centi metre 

1.2-1.3 0 1.8 -1.9 

1.3-1 A 

""'""' '\_? ''\ \' t> """'-. ~ ) ,., . ~- ' .. ~ ~ LOWCHIEFr ! "-- ' · __ ,_..';P YEL " (. : , 

'{' URAN1Uf..1 ) _ -- ' \ )7-z_ \ MINt - '. 

1

- , _____ ., ' Q 

_., ~ s ,_ '' (<' ,- ; 0 / !:\ ·'=' ' iS 0 -) / foco 

•J ' • 

~' ' Cq, 

___ )

_\\ ,: · -

e:/ 

"' 0 ~-

( 

~r 

\ 

0 :P c;;.,_/'/-

( !,.·. \ , ·' 

'V 

-~}' 

/ 

.\~ ·-- \ 

.;.'::::.} ____ ,/ 

0 1 M I LE 

0 1 K I LOMET RE 

CONTOUR I NTERVAL 

400 FEET 

'J;> 

'0/ . 0 ~ ,-:_,u::;/ '\ . ·\~'. ~ - ~-- - ,·· ,,.. ' ' '· -of:/ -~ -- 64 oo ~·-· -- _ : --> - p i " ' '.!.A ' (;.;) 

. 

:w "· ~. . . ".'·. '-· ,, .,. "" (\ ' . \ ' ~I " ,, .-! >If' MOONOA,_, . " " 

~ 

_(<' , 

~ 

"" ··---s<oo ______ __ :~ .. i 

I 

I 

( ..__ __ _ 

___ J. 

0 1 _4-1.5 0 1.9-2.0 

2 'i 0 ' 's ' , 6 ~ , ~ • ' 1

1 

-, ~! ~ -, '--. 

• 0 • .... "· -~! \ --' 

.--. 

• ____ \ • 

d 

• ,• .._ 0 

,,, •~ " " ' 0 ' . ' 

1 

~ 1 h • ~ -- 1 

' ' ~··· ' . ,___ ' , ., ·o ' ' o v " ' •. .:: !! ,_ ? ~ fJ •.\, ' A i < • ' \ •, ...._,_,,., "I "' " . ·.. . • @ " -----_! ',}_ 

0 

0 1.5-1

1.6-1.7 

.6 0 2.0-2. 1 /·{'c. -""' .:_~: 0 :, cS~q" ~ -~ 0 1. 7-1.8 0 2.1-2.2 

---7.3 ---

lso pl c th for bulk den sity , in grmns per cubic centimetre 

(Cub ic surface, 23 percent red uction o f sum o f squares) 

i /i '•·, , ••· CJ ~ , o/:"'< \_ ., , s<S) >'>; ~ '···<·· ; / ~\ \ ~~:~:"""'"' " 

"• •' ,, ""' ~· , , '''"_~ ~~'~ L' - ·~~~:: ~~!!.- ·:' ... . - ...... 

FIGURE 5.-Bulk density of water-laid tuff in the Th0mas Range. 

~ 

~ ::<l 

>- r 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

;I! 

>- r 

0 

.w 

tj 

;; 

~ 

~ w 

U3 

z 

~ 

~ ::<l 

t-< 

>-

6 

>-3 

c 

>rj 

.>rl 

>-3 

;I! 

0 

~ 

>- w 

::<l 

>- z 

-~ 

~ >- ;I! 

l::d 

~ 

Ci:l 
113:)o:) r----··--·- ·-··-·· ---- -·-- --- -·------------ ·-·-- -c~-- ··-·-··-··--·-··---··-;;··-:.\-~_,-: .. 1 ..9 

? I~' \ ---·---- ·c:',\____ --- --- - ·-····· --- ---·- ·--------·-··-···-~:~,-------- ·-·· 

39.· 

45 

39" i 40' 

(f) 

w 

60 l 

50 -

_j 40 "-

::;: 

<( 

(f) 

0 30 

cr: 

w 

en 

::;: 20 ::J 

z 

. . 

-:- ... _.,_. 

.. \,'. 

"· \ 

--~ ' 

'l' 

?-;-· _// 

--- ~ . . . . - _;'_ i /" ··, ~L-~_ 

o ;_ ~-0 ' ,>.i-r / J 

"' 0) ~ r' o ~ ® -

" ...... " \. ,' --· ' <fJ · ,_ '-....._ . a ._' v~·, l ' ' '. • " "- ., I ., 

Arithmetic 

I! '--

f/ _.::/ ,,,, s~l '\ .. \ l ./ /'~' "'"' "'"' =~' '""' "-''~· ,,_~, / .:"\ 

'-' 

® .. ) / 

. ( 

POWDER DENSITY IN GRAMS 

PER CUB IC CENTIMETRE 

EXPLANATION 

" " '-ffi" ............ !!:: ~d •./ 

·o pl S~\\1'-' :( / )----

-:- ~--...... ''\.,,.""'""/.-

"-.. ............ ' . ~ \ '• ' ·'· ' . 0 

"-.. ,. ) ' ' ••• ' 0 ' 

' YELLOW CHIEF/ ., --~ _ 

\,J 

;\. Ji 

0 .$,., .. -

\ 

~> 0 

\ 

" \\ 

l\ 

II 

""'--, '15 c-> ,, ~--~- ;p '{' URANIUM ) 9 -z_ • 

\ MINE ) ·. · .. r. '\::-......_ _ I ) ' ' f U ' 7 /;/ 

, X ! --· • 'l'-'f I J

. ~ -"' - ' . L (. _o !/ .!;? 0 c: cs ) /' f' 

§ -~ J -~ ' ' ··' lj :, ' . '>, ' / 

., ·.0 ' ' •" ' 

If 

II 

;J 

u 

-> 

-- \, 

"''/ ' ' ,, . c: ' ._, \ ,. 

-:'"' \ 

' 

-~y 

0 1 M IL E 

0 1 K I L OME T RE 

CONTOUR I NTE RVA L 

400 FEET 

$6'00 

'• ~ 

"' -r 

·--1 

.,,y 'o ·J \ o_-__ • ~~o 6'oo .- '···,'i, . -...._ .o ,· \ -' ---. 4oo-~ .. ; '·v ,\\.\, ... 

-o/J ~--,., · ~-6 "'{o ·!I ,, I .- ·' ' . ' ... /\J \U. 0;;- • \_ -.-, '-,v :··-'~ \ o .. ,,, .. ''"-··, \, :1 

' ' ' ' ' c, ' 

• ' • ' ' ' ,, 1/ (\ & l __ ii ·.. I r_ . 60°

0 

~~ ~~ Q ~) ~J( M/'-..·~-... c· /~ A_oo' 1.-

·-_.-.--

_.-·'·.,__f·'····./·-' 

MOUNT A;":\- !"I --~ j! II 

'•\

_j ')l-~ ' 

Station arithmetic mean of powder -\Q, 

density in grams per cubic centi meter ·.,__s<oo ... / ----~~~ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2.30-2.35 

2.35-2.40 

2A0-2.45 

2.45-2.50 

2.50-2.55 

---·---

0 "' 

' ,,, ·.~.-- \ • ,.J ''·<o" '~ r ' ' '"' 

i/.] ·---- ·-,_ ~ .· ,_s ' "' '/, u ~ 8 ""~- :_]1 \\·o -- ~- '-, -·' < Q !\ , ' ·· i ,,, ' ' '', . -;, " ® 

,J.\ \ "' J" 0 ' O •c ,_ i 

J l ~~: ' .,. ' ----v-,•'< "': 't;';, ~---- ,\ , \ j' 

" . ' ' '' ' ' ,"';' +-. 

'•:;;;~ ' ' '·· - ' ' ' '~ ' " 

'"'- ' 

"'\,, ' i . . / ,_ '\ \ ''=:.:>'<"· \ 

"· •, ,, 1· ""'""". 

"'':,'_~~' -~,~=~ .e:~'~"f"!S~~~~-};:-_L- ... .. - - - ---------- -- ---

' \ 

................... ~) 

FIGURE 6.- Powder density of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

t:ti 

1:..:1 

.... 

co 

trl 

::0 

><.: 

r-' 

t: 

c 

~ 

gs 

> 

::0 

z 

0 

..., 

c 

'rj 

'rj 

(f) 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > 

::c: 
39 l. 45 ' i 

39" 

40' 

Ul 

w 

40 

~ 30 

2 

<( 

Ul 

a: 

w 

"C:,--- ... ··--- !-- -----· 

L··'O'> I 

"" ~ 

;~ ,-( ~r' '' ', .. ~ , r- '- .r~ ~0 C. ,,·, •'' fP 

'-(' <s '>' ·' ' •. ··.· 8 B ~ • . "' . ( i-J' 

Arithmetic 

mean 

~ 

" \ i 0 .J . """ ~ \ ...J \ '• ', . / 

,.\ ,, ~ ., ~ . 

' _J I._ -,.; ,_.<_.\)) -· 

-...... .-~- w ~ ; , , I 

158 samples 

-...... .. o '·I ~t~ 

""" ~ '\ .. ?, \\ u tu .®' ,._ 15 ~-. i 

,\(ELl. OW CHIEF;; 

\ URANIUM I 

-· 

...,., 

L M/~ ·- ~ 

-~,/ 

,'--

"'-._,; 

., 

'2-

C> "• (<\ 

' ' 

' ' ,, 

(!J.,, 

'"() 

.:<:-----1 

~. 

113':o5' ·::<_<;··-:··-···-· 

' \ 

"'\ 

·, ')./~--~-""' .. ~.o'' """"''~·="' 

"' ~ ~ ~~ ~-.: \ , 

~- / --

. ( 

p\S~Hl'f '\;;..:;:-.:-I-::=--~-. //"' " ...._ 

.. ~ / - \ 

-~ iC;-, ! \ 11 (7\ 1t 

0 ("\\ .. "?-~' ~ i\:..Y-' / r·'\ 

'\ <:.~ .• 

/ 

0 1 M l LE 

\,: 

0 1 K I LOMETRE 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

400 FEET 

~10 l 

~ o l I I I t I I I I I I l{)QlDOLOOl!lOLOO ~.-NNMMo:;t"¢l!l 

:::1/ J; \::30 c- //§' I . ,. "'q; 

//y \0 ·, ;g/: ~~~ ? ·· ~ 3o 

.. ()_ 0 

- 6-: $.\· ,, ,;,' 

POROS ITY. IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION 

Station arithmet ic mean 

of porosity, in percent 

0 10-15 

0 15-20 

0 20-25 

0 25-30 

----30 

0 

0 

30-35 

35-40 

0 40-45 

045- 50 

Isopleth for porosity , in perce nt 

(Cubic su rface, 24 percent red uction of sum of squ ares) 

-

~/ fi ;: ;]S. ' I '/ ···-:: '.;·-· . ._ J 'I \ 

-~': .... "" 0 ~ · "'s. ( ooO~ -~ ·"' L~ , ·_.-::~ - ' ( ,,_.,_ -'/ ~~ "'o ·-,\ . .. " " 

/

·.' .'··, "'s"" . -_:=::j ';:.-

~ -~=-· 5600 

/ -...., ... ....._.,.. 

-·-..../ \~~:--;, ~ ....._ __ /i "''·< \,_ ~}-; '"'·\.,., '', '·\· 

"'" .. , ~,.,~,,,,_ 

......_/ 

····

,....--

\ 

.·.·:~~~ ~~-.\ ___ . 

6Q \\ 6'oo «.., ·, '.'. -\ '-'.., ~ . ~ '·· !I 

il 

il 

: 

\ 

', 

·,..,_S..?oo_...,..... --· --\.~') 

~ \\'' -~- ':,'' . ~ . '\~ 

"' .. (J tf/-c ' ' --\ 

c$ Aoo' 1\11·-· 0UNTA ~ (j)" ~.-.. , .-'.· ; .. \ 

--~\ 

'I ! 

, ' ~ ., . ·~ ~ ~- ' , ' . ' ,,' K.. ' , C-·; "' : ~----v-'\ } !: .- ' . \ 

• ' ! I i: \ \i;. ' ·~. i 

-"U o - ., \ ·- .. _ 1 

3o .. ·-, '-., / ; ® ~~ ' '--~; ' 

J)v.,~ ::::~f\. :,. \, ~ .,, C' '~" \ , .• 

1 

Gl,;;; "'\. 

-~·'?"''~ _g~·-~- ""'"~~"'!~ ~'!-r:~:>;?, ,, 

/1 

II 

! 

FIGURE 7. - Porosity of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

3:: 

;:o 

~ 

> 

t: 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

:r:: 

> 

r-< 

0 

r..n 

t::' 

> 

§;3 

~ UJ 

Ul 

z 

::e 

;:o 

~ 

t-< 

> 

i3 

"'3 

c 

"'1j 

.""l 

~ 0 

3:: 

> UJ 

;:o 

> z 

_§;3 

~ > 

:r:: 

tJj 

tv 

CJl 
39' 

45' 

50 

40 Ul 

w 

_j 

"-

::;; 

<i 30 Ul 

1.1. 

0 

ffi 20 CD 

::;; 

::::l 

z 10 

""-. ~ //--~~· 

~- 4i1 

""'~ 

~~~ ~ """""""" 

160 samples 

Q 00l!'l00000 

..-~.-NM lDr--.Q 

v - CLINOPT ILOLITE, IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION 

Station geome tri c mean of 

cl inoptilol ite, in percent 

0 < 10 0 30 

0 10 0 50 

0 15 070 

0 20 

---7----

Isopleth fo r clinoptilolite, in percent 

(Cubic surface, 27 percent redu ction o f sum of squares) 

, 5600 -

39 ·: ~------·- · ···--- ·- ·-·--· . ·------·-·- ... ---- .... ------ ·-· -· ---------·-···-·-·-··--·-· ·-··-·-·· -·· ·-··-· ·-·-····- ······-· -· ·····--'----------·-·· 40 

FIGURE 8. - Clinoptilolite content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

0 1 M I LE 

0 1 KI LOMETRE 

CO NTOUR I NTERVA L 

400 FEET 

~ -\ 

"' -r 

'\~ 

"' 

t:::C 

!:>? 

O'l 

&3 

:<l 

>< t'" 

t: 

c::: 

~ 

~ > 

:<l 

z 

0 

>-:3 

c::: 

>1j 

>1j 

IJ) 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > 

::r: 
r-··----·-----·------- ------- ---- --- - ------ ----------.;;----- - ------- __ __!_1 ~-!_ o _______ _________ ? __________ _ 

39 ~-- 45' l 

39" 

40' 

~ ~ 40 

::;; 

;:;; 30 -

u. 

0 

~ 20 ro 

::;; 

~ 

z 10 

0 0 

v 

\ ·~ 

"'-. ""' .· Geometric ""' f.--@ mean ~ 

QUARTZ, IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION Sta tion geometric mean of 

quartz, in per cent 

Q S 3 

05 

07 

010 

015 

020 

----?----

Iso pleth for q ua r\ z, in percen t 

""' ""'""' 

160 sampl es 

0 0 

0 ci M l!l 

(Quartic su rfa ce , 54 percent reductio n o f sum of squ ares) 

__, 

__, 

w 

0 

v' 

' "-, --....... '•UJ 

y -,>[E · .. ·::" -~ T ·"--' - - ' ..... , 0 '{ELl. OW CHIEF CDr/ ..-........ ______ ../ \ :--\ ! J \ URANIUM ) ··,.: ,J'" "):l 7 Al 

I MINE ~ ~ \ ; :-p 

) {-. '' ' 10.;;-- '2-

-~ ~ • ' ' -~, - Gl tr o c:? ·/~ · · ~, (\\ 

"!- j '. -~ / ~<:J ff; l r' ' <o" 

"',,,-v';J '<,0 . ~''"' ' .0 ~. 

tl ~ '' 

-~ti ' ;; ~ li 

2 II ~-

a/_~ ·

E '=' /'ff .,;: 

:::;/~ \,N!J . ~\ v: l"t'::i 

"' I-' v-r:----~ ~~, -·- t "ooo 

> 6 .''-.. ''"•·' 

\ __ /·:-,~(~' 

'--, 

5600 -

\~ \, ' 

-~:-~---r /) 

~"·~.- i\'-........._...,r'~ ~ ~ i 

' ! ""' ' ~ 

, .......... . ~~ 

~-,_ '-, 

:-:~, '-·. 

... -~-1~~ -2~-~~--- --- ------------ --------- '·t-· 'i .. 

.. , 

. \ 

if ·,__ ' 

!I \ ' .y ---.... ! 

I ;' ,,,, ,1\ \ ' I "'--~ -~ __ ,.,~ ~"'·"·=~! 

l )'( 

"'"y~~~'"}i=''~'J/_j' -:~/ '\~- Jl I 

~\ )' 

\ -c:, 

" 0 1 MILE 

0 1 KILOMETRE 

(~=--- $& ( Oo 

_ .. ., '-----, \, 

' ---, 'L., ;' 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

.; 

400 FEET 

~ -\ 

"' ,,-

...__\ 

'-. '\~ -, '~s<oo------\. .. , 

(\ 

\\ ~-

( 

\ 

( 

I 

__ j 

FIGURE 9. -Quartz content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

~ 

~ :::0 

;l> 

l' 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

::r: 

;l> 

l' 

0 

JFl 

0 

;; 

~ 

~ rFJ 

Ci3 

z 

~ 

~ :;o 

l' 

;l> 

s 

>-3 

c::: 

'Tj 

~'Tj 

>-3 

::r: 

0 

~ 

;l> 

rFJ 

:::0 

;l> 

z 

~~ 

~ ;l> 

::r: 

tJ:j 

tv 

-l 
39 

45' 

39" 

40' 

40 l 

r.rJ 

UJ 

o:' 30 :;;; 

<l: 

r.rJ 

:5 20 

a: 

UJ 

co 

0 z 

~;~· --·-· -· ---~-···--·--· ~:--!._~-~~~- --~: -· -- -- 113" 05 -----· ----·--··\"';::__\"---:--··-· ·-·· --

" I ', ' " . ~ . ;• 

"" .:...~---· ·_.' \ ,:\ - - c 

""" _-'"- ,. __ --· q) ' --' '' ' )' :~_. ___ ·_.·. ,--"' 

" 

' 

"" '!; e ( --. } 0 ". . ~-' . . "-., \ '., C ' 'l- 'I) o c"- @ ' 

\ ---~,- ---------·-···-···-···-· --·------ --·-·-·--·--·---·--· 

f/ 

-- / , .... :// ":,(1-; ... 

<)J, ___ _ 

Jf '\_" 

,,/ \..., ' 

-..:::0 0 " i-' 

~ ' _, ' ,. , " tJ bv -? , -) u:f '---1·.,: _'v;-·<f' F . r J :, 

~ - Cl .. ·•. \ L( _ __.-~ l 0 

/// ,;_..,sll -~)(r"~"""'-=•"''~"··"'"'~l 

Geometric 

mean 

a-CRISTOBAL ITE, IN PERCEN T 

EXPLANATION Station geometric mean of 

a- cristobalite, in percent 

0 1.5 07 

02 010 

03 015 

05 0 2 20 

100 

""' 

<, )·I V ' ' < . . . " . '\, --· . -- "'-c· ,~ ,-:) & -- ', i= \ (\ -._/ 

""' ,J --- ; 

plSl-\11'-b ~ .... ; ...... _,...-

~ '•' .... 

\~,-..:~ -- 7 -- :!:.~::;:,: // .......... \ 

'"' '\,/i t/ I 

\:;' 

\ 

'\ ' ... -:--~.-

·.::::;·· 

.OW CHIEF "-- .~ , , 

\

ELL r· -., _,. ' URANIU"'' '' 0 '• ' '" ' '!!, . ,_ 0 -'0 

I 

MINE ~ )' .· . , , .. ~ _, \ ... · 0 - . •. -Q J . ':ll •,, --..r'\. '· _\.Q 0 1 MILE 

.· I :, .. _'-- )7 AJ 

8 

€) - 0 ~"-"t c:.:-' ' -z_ 

_C> ~ ~ "! \ ) ~ II' ( 

~I ,v _,_,,,vv .·· ~; . /I vt.St / I 

uj 0 / \ iii ,; t \ .. - -') . I· , ,- - _/ ' 

._ } I 

0 

.. , 

~ 

oo _ 

/ \, 

:, ... - . ··- -·, ,.J '/' ; ~ - .. _.,.oo -· \0 

:11 o \f '· ,FV( -,~« - 'J 

1 ' :c.y;-0'''_' - 0! " " ::.-. ''- _,/ 'c\0 --- • - -. ~ ,,cP · '-, ' ' ,-, · . 

I 

\' . ,y . .- · MOUM \ 

--~! C ) ' <o''' ''<'·.;_A;~-, 

\~ __ , .. ' . 5600 ~ •' '1:': -~ . . \ r---. .s-~ A ~ } - 0 ,. 0() 

:! 

,, 

II 

il 

1/ 

/! 

!/ 

.;/ 

.. ;· 

;;/ 

,, 

\\ 

'\\ ' 

'\1 ·-. • h ' 

~~_'­

'\. II 

. II 

/ 

.... 

·-· (.;--- J o· ,.,.., 0 \,_ \\ -- .-,- - ·~ 'i -, - .-. \ '•. ~...·· •. ·,_ ..-- \i 

\> ~(':~ "" """ "'"" ~\. 

6'6' oo 

0 

0 1 KILOMETRE 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

400 FEET 

y 

'2-

...\ 

{<\ 

,,..-

~~ ·.._s<oo _, {<\ 

•, 

') '1) 

~: l 

\ ~\ r:i'\ 

~ '-. '· \·-... \ " 

'(0 

\ 

·, 

; 

• ...... 

~ .. .,._... __ _ 

,. 

' ,, 

,: ' \\ 

\\ 

~~ 

'""""~'~'~1 ~'!l~l~~-:.;.::,9)-\:: FIGURE 10. - a-cristobalite content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

t:d 

t-V 

00 

co 

(Ij 

::0 

...,-,: 

r 

t: 

c: 

2::: 

~ > 

::0 

z 

0 

-l 

c:: 

'TI 

'TI 

[/) 

z 

~ 

~ ::0 

z 

~ > ::I:: 
~d39" 

40' 

(/) 

u.J 

40 

..J 30 0.. 

::;;: 

<( 

(/) 

0 20 

Geometric 

mean 

----- ·~-· ·· - ··;r-·-··--·--·--······ 113'"' 05' r-::::\ -·-·--···· ______ 1_F_,o ~ --~-, 

' ! . L·..-m ' '·, · z 

I' \ ~ '""' ;-·· 

·------~-~~\- ~~y·- ·- ··-·- ····-···--·· ·-····-····-······-·- ·····-··-···---···-] 

·. j 

.. ~ . .-- . ~' '-;' \ .--'i. ' 

\_,...· 

, _____--y---::--~ \ . _ -::~ ,·. 1s.;.., , ) TN • 

~/' _.-- <>'%. .) : ~ r~) (o" 7 ·~ 1 n1'0' D '•, ' , . ' 

'].0 ' ·,/~· '{' ' • / ...! '--· "" I ., 

\' uj -,,<!~ .... ,· 

~-- Q ·: i\ ,:-.> : ~ ·w \_ :'! ' ' , ~ ~- l >;: ! -~ ~' :, ,. . \ ~ 

URAN/UloA " "? \. 

\:(-:/;· 

Sl~ , l' \ 

,// ,,,,,, ',.\ /'''~'·'' ,.,.,,- ~i fl .'--\ 

• J 

;~ y/"__. 

'\. /;: l.'"-...,., ~-~ ... ~ ::::;~=~;,;:,;;::;; \ 

'~ H 

?IS}\ II'!> 

~\ " G II 

\\ 

-~. ;r Q ,)~'/··· 

. .. \ .. ...:_·~ -; 

'!,, 

:Q 0 1 MILE 

0 1 KILOMETRE 

____ J 

! 

a: 

u.J 

ID 

160 samples 

"'\ELLOWCHIEF ,, '-'-~.£ %' .' ~~ . 

I. Ml; I ._ ~ ~ 

i!, 0 ~ ·/~~ / '. vw/ ~~ ,r. 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

::;;: 10 :;) 

z 

Q t.nLn,...._Ol!100000 

V .-.-NC"?Ln r--- ~ 

POTASSIUM - FELDSPAR , IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION 

Stat ion geometric mean of 

potassium-feldspar, in percent 

0 5 0 20 

0 7 0 30 

Q10 

050 Q15 

10 

Isopleth fo r potassium-feldspar, in percent 

(Quartic surface, 27 percent reduction of sum of squares) 

lj \ / "'q; ,':! <. ( ( .. 0 

,,,..,<"'! .,, ·. /- ~ ;.'/ -\'/ .. 

..Qq_,/ " ....... \....~ \ 

"0 t .... .--"' \ . . ,-

~ ,' -.. ' ·-- 6400 ·- ,J) 0\~ 

, ~ I ~ ~ Q .. ~ 

d~ \ \i ~ -/ ' ---J"~/J) '0 I f?'. \;:.J\ --"-. " " /'\\ \ . g ;; 0oo r v -·.,- _ 

"" '' 0 ) 6 

~ J 0 '-· \ 0 /..:i . , ' , _r;.., - w ( <::' . 6t.O • .• - ..... 

~ - - ···- ' " -<;- r--S--- -'1 iiQ - ... ---~·" \ \ '!.,: J .. , ,) ( ?$ '. i ----~' -:'. 5600 ' '... ':: 0 " . ~ i~ .--' c···---- ,.J O '-' Q~ i 

\ \';. 

1\ 

il 

400 FEET 

'c .·.s6'o0 

·, !' ~ .-\ 

,. ~ 

' 0 

~- -'t) 

0 "' 

r 

., 

·---,<oo 

i\ 

\\ ,:' \.. 

\1) ', .. , 

·o> ' G'l 

@\ "'' ' \ ', ':. \.. ., 

', 

<~ . . . / . .. " .. <\~~.:::_,.}~ . " ' ' 

"'-·'(._ -., ,, '! <"'.L. '\ o\,· \ ·' 

""" ' " rT\ . _,..,.,... ' . ,. ~ . .., ,_-.. -?~'\ 

'•< . ( ·- '""~~ .z~' ~~~::~"':~~:=:t·~:/:-... :\ 

~ 

~­

·~-~~--- ' -~~~~\. \ 

FIGURE 11. -Potassium feldspar content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range . 

~ 

~ ::0 

>--

" t::3 

2:3 

0 

z 

::r: 

>--

" 0 

.w 

t::1 

;; 

~ 

[fJ 

~ 

ff.i 

z 

~ 

~ ::0 

t-< 

>--

8 

--3 

e 

"J 

_"J 

--3 

::r: 

0 

~ 

;J> 

[fl 

::0 

;J> 

z 

-~ 

~ ;J> 

::r: 

ttl 

I'V 

(.0 
39 i- 45' I 

39" 

40' 

110 h 

------- ------ -·cc5 ~".9~- ------::;-/ 

"-' ; ~~ :-~--~/~ •,H 

~~------ {t ' I! \__ 

V·!qs,. 

\ 

113 10 -- -·r:··------ -----------------

'-.L...-

"'iJ VJ 

w 

_j -{"'-" 

;; -\ 

//!/=:"' ,,,,sll -\, ,/"'"~""·-~"' -~~,-""' --~- ="' 

" :;'\ 

"' f ,---

"'""''':;:·;?~'''~~- j'-

~ 

___ ,, '6 

. " . --_ ~ ._, ') ~ \ -· I 

·~_, - , •, \ ;XI ' . ('),_ 

OJ ;_ ~- ('/) "7 > 

"-.. ""-. ---------~ ~ 0, '----. \ "' _ ,- - --·. . 0 ~ .. J ) ( _;: J --------u - ~ ; Q ' \ - . - j ?If' ? 0 - ) 

"'- J '------ ' •.!> ---· v ~ \, ::J \"" ••. ( ., _rJ \ c.. 

~ 40 VJ 

i"] z 20 ~ 160 samples 

f- 10 -

I0 0 0 0 0 Ln 1.[) I"'- 0 v ~ 

GLASS, IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION 

Stat ion geome tric me an 

of glass, in percent 

0 < 50 

0 50 

0 70 

0100 

---20 

Isopleth for glass, in percent 

--... - ,; 25" '---\o_ ·\ ) (G' ---... . '-;· 0 -../ 

---... ................... -. '·7 \ : ~ 'r ·-- ' 

'-....._ ;·~ J ., -- ' "6 -....;;·· \ I- ) •,, ---._; ' '6, r\ 

~\ELWWCHICFf -~ ,- -'il- \, ~ URANIUM ) 0_' r. ' }' ':\ I ··;; , -, : ~ <:;: -" ~,--,_/( -- i I" \ §j 0 c::'_ /"' ( 0 - • } - .§5 

il-j \ ,) /"' 

"I '- ---.\... --.><:"/ -0'/ 

~q}Y 

0 , 

"' 0 

" 

Q 

•,) 

' '·· 

'-

'8 A --G4oo ---- r1 ~" :: - --. - --.. ,--J ) 0 _ ' 

co/::_ ,, . ·. ~ 1 - .'-. .u0 ~, 'j ' ( . 0 /\ \ , \ __ ' \ ' 

'5 11 • 60° c.?o r ~ 0 - ,_ ' \ 

0 J \'::--',-: ---~~ ' d ~ '(f>--z_ --·- __ ., ______ / 1 

·-;s, 

6'0~ 

'6 

~\ 

·:\ 

i i 

" \\ 

Sooo ,_ ,_' 

0 

--~ -~~ 0~ rbu~ /'--''" ' "c< 5aO MOUNTAIII!-.)-' 

"'I E --• !! '\ , "0 I ' -<;0- ~ --0---..__-.,_/") _:j l Q '. --: ', ,A i 

. ' ·- 0 1 1---. __ '. (., --560 o " ' ; c - "' 71" o . ' - ·. •I "'o 

" v ' ' 

\, :· ,, - C! ,-- -~ ?_ ~;_,___ -- ~- _;_, ' .. ·. -· ~·"'··, •. "< £: 

\ 

! 

0 1 M l LE 

0 1 KI LOMETRE 

CONTO U R IN TE RVAL 

400 FEE T 

~ 

"' -.(' 

:Q, 

"' s<oo -/ 

', 

\..__ 

' 

·~;; 

·~ ....... -....; .. , 

(Cubi c su rface, 23 percent reduction of sum of sq uares) 

~"-(~-1 j '\ "'" \ o, ~.::1 .;"'\~ ----·"-~"--~<=:~ ~ =: ~- _ .2>:~~- ~-~~ ~t~~S~5~~0=:-~\~:;;~~~-·:_,_:,_- -- --- ·- ------

·~~--~~.... \,. 

~-. \ 

~~:--. '·· "~-. \ 

----- -- ~~~~--~~- \ 

FIGURE 12. - Glass content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

ttl 

w 

0 

ttl 

trl 

:::0 

>-<: 

t'"' 

t'"' 

c 

a;: 

~ ;J> 

:::0 

z 

0 

~ 

c: 

..., 

..., 

rn 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ ;J> 

::I:: 
39. 

45 

39 .. 

40' 

"'""' . / .-/: 

""' : ·~

EXPLANATION 

0 Calcite not detec ted 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Calcite detected 

One sampl e 

Two samples 

Three samples 

Four samples 

"" ~ 

""' 

113 10' 

~ ·, 

\'. 

~~·: \_,_ -~ . ·. 

0 '\ \~; ~ ; ,_ 

~ ' '- '-, ......... , UJ 

--, ;;:: 

. _J 

'~- -.1 ) w ~ 0 

\ ')' 

' .'\(ELL OW CHIEF{( . \ URANIUM ) <l) ,\1/NE ) / I ~ ) _, .. ,'--, / ) \ 

~1 \~/[ 

~ 0 c;:_~ / 0 - ' J §> lj \ < '>~ 

df;/ ·--. 0 •( ,~~ : ~ ?,./ -o., Y .Jv J'..J : 

"[! fl -'; . \ 

"' ti " ·~ \ "' 

to fi! J , .. '--~ \~ f I!) ,f i (_j --/ " o~ 

"'1 rf o \ I G0° " ( I ( 

; d(' '\{~;:~~: ; _, I '\l? /

. !\ / 

\~. --5600

-

? 7 .............. . -------- \''-"' 

~ 

> \ 

_) 

~7 0 

e-J vl 

'\ 

;c ~ 

\ "" ' 

7 

1-

Q 

' (I\ 

' 0 0 -· 

<=<v4 

~) 

' ./\r 

\~ ? 

''D 

~--

!@,_ 

\, .. : 

0 ,.~l:/ ... 

\ 

,·\.. .>i 

11"-s:? ( 

· ..... \_, c/. \ 

'® 

~ 

OC(-\ \-'C_ q 

~ 

FIGURE 13.- Occurrence of calcite in water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

-.i: 

.·)) 

\\ 

(}) 

. .P 

0 1 MI LE 

0 1 KI LOMETRE 

CON TOUR INTERVA L 

400 FEET 

" '2-

-i 

'" 

· \ 

\\0 

.·-a 

"' 

(] 

···-s.?oo.-"·· l., 

; \ 

\\ 

~ 

~ ;l:l 

>- L' 

t::5 

~ 

0 

z 

:r: 

>-

L' 

0 

SfJ 

t:l 

:; 

~ 

~ ifl 

Cii 

z 

:E 

~ ;l:l 

t-< 

>-

6 

>-3 

~ .":l 

>-3 

:r: 

0 

~ 

>- ifl 

;l:l 

>- z 

fri 

~ >-

:r: 

tJ:i 

u:> 

...... 
39. 

45' 

39" 

4 0' 

113'10' 113:") 05' --·-----····-···---·-·- ·-·--- -- -- - ··- -------------,- - -c~ --- ! . \ * >·"' -----·- ---·----------··--c --- , '\· '; K:_"\- ··-·---- ---- ·-· - ··--- --·-

~ v ~ ' '-1_, · 

-, 

0 ' ', \' -~\' ·, ,- t \ ,·, 0 \ • r' ) ..• 

.. l .>. r 0 ,._ ~ '"' ').. ; j . 

""" 

~ ----~ 0 ( 0 '._, "',.Jl) .:. ' c ., * ' '1;, • 7 "a* 

' ' 1?1 \ ' , · 1-'0 { ~ '\)tf '-. \.::) ' , , , <!' ' - S'' 

EXPLANATION 

0 Fluorite not detected 

Fl uorite detected 

0 

0 

0 

0 

One sample 

Two samples 

Three samples 

Four samples 

* H alite detected in one sample 

~ -! (_ "'' •f'· v . :.'-- pi 

~ '--, uf '-;s·\. \. :v 5 ....._ ·,c a . 0* '\ .............. .j 

............. ·-..._ !'; ·,,_ {'0 ......_ 5w \ -·-' d, 

---"' ~ ) ,_ -., ', '6 

~\(£LIOWCI11EF( .,_ '· ~ UNANIUM (. 0' , }7 J'.) MINE J •/ ... \ -z_ .. /\/ 

I., ~ (~--, (~ ~ .:zj . 0 C:./ ' D )/'-( i;· \. ) /"'""~ ' 

._,<"I b ':.._ 0 , . "·.. ' ~ ~ ·y~'Y ; . / ,. , \ '( -0 * Q) \. -- \ -~ ' j 0 "&, 'f! t.' ...... \ - oo-· J) ~ oo. . _ 

~ "'k ~ ·c :J _ 

r r-. (.'\ I.V -- . - a '\ '.I , .. 'e ( • ·, ''-. ',0 -..,_ ~· I • 0 /\j '·. ', \._-. o , 0o , •. \ -" ;; 0 ' G \ 0 ' \· :Iii

o ,, -

- '· ___r;~ J I •,"•~". 9 ( ! _6aO 

_.. p.'l- /'>,.. 

M9,UNTAI~ '• •J 0 

~/: o - .. '\; ') c_O~.: ' . ~) I 1

.''·: "• " < .. ' -" U 

f =1'' / 5600 1 ' ' . ·>- ~ 0 

' 

,, : 0 8 , S).,.,,/_-

0 

,0 

., 

FIGURE 14.- Occurrence of fluorite and halite in water-laid tuff of the Thomas Range. 

'-- ., 

'---;· .$'6'00 

\......... ', 

. '· '· ., 

"' 

0 

\ 

'\ __ ,,. \. •/;;;::::. .;.:·.~-....... ~~~ :o:::-:.:C ::---.. : •• 

.;.· //\ y:·_."'· ........ \ 

·':".~ 

0 1 M I LE 

0 1 KILOME TRE 

CONTOUR I NTERVAL 

400 FEET 

~ 

?a .'- --o 

1'(\ ··-s<oo .. - ---,-.--

\ \ 

-\')) .......... 

0 

0 . \ ~', 

\,J 0 

\ 

' '· 

··- ---

t::J:j 

CJ.j 

t-:l 

g5 

::<:l 

...:: 

t:"" 

t:"" 

c 

~ 

~ > 

::<:l 

z 

0 

>-:3 

c: 

>zj 

>zj 

(f) 

z 

~ 

~ 

2 

~ > :r: 
39. i 45 

39' 

40' 

LL 

0 

cr: 

UJ 20 CD 

2 

::::J 

z 10 

113 10' - r:·-= ----·------- ---------------~---·-· 

:..- 0'1 

"' 0 

0 )e) 

~ ·-·--v "\ · '"\) \ .. \:. )'' 

,:~- '! 

l.\ 

·\...-· 

113:: 05' 

~-~' ' -~~// - - - -- --- ----------- -

)')\' 

'(_.. 

!i 

'I 

/;; 

([) ' \ ~ \ , . ''1<:'\ . '&. "-W co _

10 fijv ~ \JJ """...... --/ . ~ " -, ' \\. ; > '-." " ·• -.,. '. ~--~ -· " '-.. :G -.. ' I '-• '-, ''./•.:-'[' l IV ' 5 

""' " ' - ' 0 A"'"~'" . ,, . -- '. ' . ,_, '-, O r-f ; " @• ,~ C 

,;/ c\-\ 

.. ·/ \\ IV jtf {' /;;~"''"'-·~ -----'"'" ,, .. -~; 

piS~\\ \, < •. :'/\ .... -

'""·;•,--;:·;/ ' ""'" > f ·<, 

. ( 

'· • -1 -, ® c -. • ..~ . 

"" ""--..... .". 5:r: · t \ . --,' - -,, 'l, 0--.r\ ' ·,_..; ' ''""" '-:JU '< '' ' Al '' "-' 

-' YELLOWCfOEF . r ' ., 

• ' • ~ 

\(\ ' URANIUM MINE qv'' _ -'__ '··. .· ( 71- ~ ~.•. ) 

160 samples ~;.. ;::> 0 - .,__ 9 

"·'/ ~' 

··\ 

\\ 

j\ 

l

:i 

i 

I! 

H 

il ,;I 

\ 

·::::::--· 

___ , 

·-~ ·- ·-~ 

0 1 MiLE 

f--.----' 0 1 K i LOMETRE 

CO NTOUR I NTE R VA L I ,. -- ·. - o~ (:c: , ,_ 400 FEET 

- 0 ~ cSS - \3) _ II \ .• -. ., 

.~ . - -- ' ' · 1 I ·= ,,,.;;;; 'j ~ ~ '0 ' / -- ', ' ~ -- --··-;s, ' ,, ""'-'o, ' ' ' I " '" ' ' \ , \ ' Q ""oo , =' ' ' ' ' " "' ' _, ' 0 • ' ,, -·v ' ' _..., -

, ; ~~o •. '" ""''"' E "_· . C·. -. / f" ~ )@_. ~-- ~:_ ·-- . :(~ Q ~ /ii , , - '-Y (' \ I· · ··, \._ 

~ ' ,, . - 0 u '' . _\- '' /!i 0-G : oOO .-' ,,o MOUNOA"\ .,, )_ ~ 

~ 

"' , (' EXPLANATION 

Station arithmetic mean 

of Si0 2 , in perce n t 

0 58-60 0 68-70 

•, 

~ 1! ,. .~ J '; -6 1.- --·-.... _r·· ..... ~ ·u ·-\)l ·. 

/

" . ~ - O' '- '' ' ' o }< · '-- ' !., . ' ( -,o , , , \ \'.', 1

.,, \_' ' '\ ( \ "' -------- e ,, , . _) '" "" '-' <• 

.l '\£> " \ 0 ' '· l -'-"' \> j 

\'>~ 

"' ''-s<oo __ ,.--·1----

I

' ' '" . . , ~ ' ;;>., 5600' (~ . 0 ! - ;, '\.31 ') 

--·~·~ ( ' ·"\ ·~ ) 0 ., ' ~ '- ---~ ~ ' 

I - '- · -. · ' ' ---- . ~ , 

\~;,:( - ~'":C ,,, ' C• ,,')_- '\ -,./:~_:: '),-1~\J '• ·, 1 """L -r 

., <, '""· - ---=~-~-1,_,------i~~~~,c~~'c :L -

0 60-62 

0 62-64 0 70- 77 

Q64-66 

072- 74 066-68 

·, 

·, 

' '· 

FIGURE 15. - Silica content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range . 

s::: 

~ ::0 

> 

t: 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

:r: 

> t"' 

0 

sn 

0 

> @ 

~ en 

w 

z 

~ 

~ ::0 

t"' 

> 

i3 

>-3 

c 

-.; 

_-.; 

>-3 

:r: 

0 

s::: 

> en 

::0 

> z 

_@ 

~ > :r: 

tJ:j 

w 

w 
39" 

40' 

(/) 

w 

--' !l. 

70 -

60 -

50 -

~ 40 - CI) 

lL 

0 

a: 30 w 

2 "' 

:::> 

z 20 

10 -

Arith met1 

mean 

t 

rf--

r--" 

f--

0 "' "' r--

~ 

co m o - N M q 

A l1 0 3 , In percent 

EXPLANATION Stati on arit hmetic mean 

of Al 1 0 3 , in percent 

0 

0 

0 

9-10 

10-11 

11 - 12 

012- 13 

113 10 

,._., _ _...... 

160 samples 

FIGURE 16.-Alumina content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

-s6'oo 

\... .. ,., 

·-\....,· 

Q 

~:-..:! 

~ 

~ 

\~ 

"' · ...... s.?oo __ ........ ---

.. ,.,'5J'-. 

\o 

G'.\: ? \Y '~ \0 

\ 

\ 

..., .............. ..__.... 

tt:l 

00 

..,.. 

t:ll 

ti:l 

;:o 

....:: 

r" 

r" 

2 

~ 

~ > 

;:o 

z 

0 

--3 

c::: 

>zj 

>zj 

w 

z 

~ 

;:o 

~ 

z 

~ > :I: 
39 

45 

60 l 

50 -

H 

Vl 

lL 30 0 

a:: 

w 

:;; "' 20 :::> 

z 

10 

! ' . \ 

' en 

"" 0 

"' '1\ ! '• .. ~~ ''-- ·0 ' 

.. ([) ·\. '-\_ ,: "}. :·~ ~ Ji ('-~ "' ~ ··o '.f> c .J v ; ' ~ '/ )-I 

A

rithrr.etl c --~ o .. _ ( . ~ " • Q) 1.-. 

' - , ' ' . ' ' 5 mea n '--.. .'_.· ·.· ·. , \ ·, • , • / ,\Jl , _.. . . 

, ,,., . ' ·. '{. 

"""·. "" ~ ~ , _,( ,• ~ 

) 

r' 

\i '"• 

\ ._) ) . ' \ '• •' 

) w <...., .. 1\ i / . ... ,' "- . .• o Cilt~> ··- . r. ~ 

..'· 

,...., 

/:f 

\,,,511 

pJS~Ill'f 

0 " ·. <" • "' "- '<w \ •, 'b • ~'--.. ·_.,i:r: j ! ., -... ; o •. '\ti "'('''; ;... J .. '·· ·, ..-f'--...} 

"' mww """) ::., .. 

"""""~ \ "z AF '• \ """ \ ""- . I . ~ ) . 0 ~? 'l' ' r r • ·· 1'1' \ r\.{( 

~1·' ~ / t!( · Q c:::"" ' >:> e) 

160 samp les 

\,-' 

?.-.:~~~">-; __ ., \ \ ; 

\i 

·: (!;) 

.!;: ) ~ .' '' IS ·. ) ro • \ 

\ ... 

0 1 Ml L E 

0 1 K I LOMETRE 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

400 FEE T 

0 u: ~ ci " 

el ' ~ . ~ "I ·. 1 > ] .«'I :,, 0 .S / - <;"' 

'''"/ : '_ I r ""' i 

~'Y ·;c· :..1'-' . < \,_Q. 'vc_ .. ., oocno..--NM..:;;tl.Oc.o o"a..--· ...... .....:~~ . . 0 0 

Fe,01 , IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION 

Station arithmetic mean 

of Fe2 0 3 , in percent 

0 < 0.9 

0 0.9- 1.0 

0 1.0-1.1 

0 1.1 -1.2 

0 1.2- 1.3 

01.3-1.4 

01.4-1.5 

:s60o 

\ 

y 

~ 

'" ' · .. 

-o / . ;.• ,._.. . ''-6400 .• /l . . ~ C\ " '. ··-.. • ; ·. '1Y 

"!"li · . ,o ~ ~. ,~- ' .• ---· . . l ' . _..) -c·. / /'J . \ • o. ,, .. / "' ' ' ~ g i_; ", (. \ ~. 60 J .,oO WOO N;A 'N•, •- ._, _,_ , 

::::• / !; • r-, If!!.:) " r I -----.., ' ' @ ' ' ' . ,~ ••,_ . • "' - ' • :, •. ; _ . :;·. · •. U)'-, v · ,; - o" C'---/J I· ·.' o l o i' • , <. ("v , , o, 

~~. t-\\· r-_.. ·, ) ·-c. . . J . \ 0 . , ·-~ , _:-. ~ 'S, -,.' . ED \.2, •

~\ V ' , • • ~ T '<' ,c. .. ' - w / · , ~ \ e ., 

•\0 ,'<} 

"' "--s<oo 

.. - _,., "' ·Y a 

;-\ ':- - .C:~--, -·-- ~ -·- -~"'-'- - . ./ '•<:..~ 

'"'· ..• '"'-~ 

"-· 

., ""' '"~ '-·· 

FIGURE 17.-Total iron content (as Fe203) of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range . 

3:: 

~ ;:o 

~ 

s:5 

~ 

0 

z 

::r: 

;;. 

l' 

0 

Sf' 

tl 

:; 

~ 

~ [Jj 

Ul 

z 

:E 

;:o 

~ 

t-< 

;;. 

s 

>-3 

e 

"":I 

_"":! 

~ 0 

3:: 

;;. 

[Jj 

;:o 

;;. 

z 

0 

_trl 

S1 

;;. 

::r: 

to 

w 

01 
~~. ~ 

39"! 

40'-

--------------- ---------------- -- ----,----------T- _~~-~ <( __________ --- --

N

o ll!l 

113"05' -· ·· ·-··-· -·-· ·· ··-·-·--··-T-:::~·-

<., 

60 

50 

<fJ 

UJ ---' 40 tL 

:;;: 

<( 

<fJ 

u. 30 0 

0: 

w 

CD 

:;;: 20 ::> 

z 

10 

0 0 

0 

Geometric 

mean 

-1-

i• 

~ " 

0 

J

' ~-- ~ _/' . ~. · \ ~ , ,, / - - nJ-"" - ""' ~--- ' '"@,___ -- ,, - \ {10 c'-r-1 

""' f., ~ ~ .,. . -- _; , y -~w-. 1 o , , - , (j) ~ ~---. _, ~ ' I -· · ' ., 

• ----! b,, r H ·c.) 

_:] 

'··-' 

c --, '0.7- v\s~11" ""' ~ ~ ' 

'

--; 0 u} 

-, -- / '-. 

--!··,. 

~ -, 1\- u '- '-,, --- '<' ' I® '- ~ \ --- " 'o, fJ ---";: 1- j . . ', 0 ,, •• w -; .. 

,,,,s\' 

,, 

V· 

160 samp les ' ~~ # \.. "-..,_.· \ <6 i .:• .· 

-,, ,'{ELIOWCI1/EFr (E"\. ' ' \. :-,--- :,~ i~ !'-' 0 1 M ILE 

"' 

0 

ooooooooo 

NMLnr---OLDOOO 

OOc:ici.....:....:NMui 

MgO, IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION Station geometric mean 

of MgO, in percent 

0 0.30 0 1.00 

0 0.50 0 1.50 

\ URANIUM ~ Jv y ~'\ M1e1E 1 ,- '2 _/\ }'--J 0 1 KILOMETRE I ~ / --:;;·,- - \ ' ; ,~ \.J 

-:: ~ ~·- (\'> / __{/ ' - " ~_______, \ CONTOUR INTERVAL 

il(. 0 -1 i c§'rc, ---- 1./f - "! ' ; , (ci 0 \ ~ 1:: \ 0 ._, -~ '----- . - _,(\'>/ : __ , ·l ) :\\v/ ' i 

~7 ;; . (' 5' J -e !I . . - - -- !r 1:: 1 " "' ,--/ ... - , '' _ ·-;s, \1, "/: .... :,.;; '-"' -, --·---400 -~... 11 G) \~,-,, "'o \1 

"' h' - 7 " r 1 ,, -· · '<------ .... !~ ·0 '"'- _/ \ .d.- .. - i 

~ ;, , 5 f' ~ ( -'~ " 0'--0 /o.h, _-

g / ,i •'., \ 0oo/ V r":\J !\, --- -=t; \._)' \, 

;;::/ !! Q ! rG i -· . i 

.

o .lid" . u-_.--:.~) 6;\ . -, M9.~--~\JTA/~ >. {.' ------- ,ft 

~/ i[ ' "-- '-,\ ----~o'<p-.1- :/ ~~~~ ~ ~· fi o 

.:;/ ~ \ \ /I '-~ ji 'rn 

,,. ,__ -- J\.__ -b&UU '- ;, f--·; / -5600 ' ~ <) ·----- \ '-\ 

$6'00 

~ 

400 FEET 

y 

'2 

--\ 

(\'> 

, ("' 

·\0 ,_., 

(\'> 

'\ t \ 

0 \\ 

-~ -.::.~· (, 

' '))' 

~~ .. Q o.7o ()2.00 

----0.5---

lsopleth for MgO, in percent 

\j ·"c,, ' '\ ~ . //'. --------./ >:~t<1 -~------ .. .. : ., ;~"< -·-~~ --.--~J\ '\\ _)'f' 

(Quinti c surface, 29 percent r eduction of sum of squares) 

. ' · •...... , . . . ' ." \ ., \ ~/ 

"""'· ',\ " -.:''- Qt·~ ·"''\\ i 

. ''=,>~'· .. -~·~,···~ J~p·~~~~~~~~=~~~-·~i FIGURE 18. -Magnesium oxide content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

tJ:j 

w 

C) 

&l 

:::0 

>-< " c: "

~ 

~ > 

:::0 

z 

0 

~ 

c 

'Tj 

'Tj 

00 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > ::r: 
39 ' 45 r··· 

39" 

40' 

(/) 

w 

_J 

fl. 

70 

60 

50 

~ 40 ~ 

~ 3j w 

"' :;:;: 

:::> 

z 20 

10 

113 10' 113"05 

C•:::•• ', • > -- -:::~ ----- --- -- - :"- ' T 

" ,/ ![)\ \ " - ~ ~ ;-- ·"' -/ 

" i @!9 \ \ fi' ;- ? ) -''" >:(' "'" . " \ . '-' ' ,' ·0 ' ) .r " ® " " _,___ ·. ""' \ '. .,.) ~ [""'~ 0 ~- ,,_ .. ,:· ,_ 

'- ," ,.i. v, r-c·v ,' ·• ./ '-

'-

"~ :~; ; .,; ~ -··· ,.; w ~~ ' ~ 1 '() ' •'" .. /1 -~ .. -··"· c_" /~ ?·--------· "-.. .. ' / ' ' / ' : \ ,_ .... , ''"''_ .. / ,_ ' • , , , . r ' '• !! - ' 

'{Eu ow cwEF( : .--.. . (Y> . I ·_ ,r 0 - "·v~~ . \ URANIU<1 , ® -,, ~ '' '6 '• .· . ®(.j' g;': /_ '<' ~\ 

I 

M INE I l . .. / 0 -f'"'\,. !,l ' ""-· ""\ . . ., '.!l / ~ 

• " I • • v -Al· . , ,, ::?) ' I . ' Z 0 , ' \'', ' 

8 ' 0 ';5 · -

0 .,('-• - \5:) "I ', ;·. D ('\ 7 

160 samples 

6)' 

0 1 M I LE 

0 1 K l LOMETRE 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

400 FEET 

OL!li"OL.Ooooooo 

oo......: _; NMu->r--:o~ 

. ,f' ~ < .. ·0 ( .. /,$ \u/LS.s{ 

.,_,y ~'/ '·_i· \ L\ . . 

.() (...(/ ' ~ "~ ' ,,.,r-..· ~ ~l ''\ ,· - ,,_ / '--, 

\., 

CaO, IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION Station geometric mean 

of CaO, in pe rcen t 

Ql 0 

Qu Qs 

02 07 

c: /.! 1' 

'/" ( ' 5 ._,_,.; ;.., Jl !/ 0 i ( - ;"'.r;c/i '-9 ' o ,,_,v 1) ,.,,... '-J ~~ "'Y ·"'11. \c.fn\ f (:' ' .£ -r · -·-· : _; "'<" ·~ . , . 1l ..J I "" 

~ . -. . - . ~ _,., '\ 6 

-~t"- -- , 5600 ' 

-

FIGURE 19.-Calcium oxide content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

<~ 

<~ 

~ -\ 

(1'\ 

-. r 

'>~ (1'\ 

',, 

'-s<oo __ ........ ..-- "'~ 

/\ 

\\ 

\ )) \..~ 

<(J i ! C' ' 

«'· 

'----, 

\ .. , ' 

~ 

~ 

~ :::0 

> t"' 

N 

~ 

5 

z 

:::r: 

> t"' 

0 

sn 

t) 

;:; 

~ 

~ lfl 

Ul 

z 

~ 

~ ~ t"' 

> 

6 

>-3 

e 

>rj 

_>rj 

:i 

0 

~ 

> lfl 

:::0 

> z 

~ 

~ > 

:::r: 

tJj 

w 

-.j 
39 

4 5' 

39" 

40' 

113 ' 10' ------ - --- -- -·-r··---------------------- -- .. , ---- ---

\ - ~ ,' 

--- ---- -::~~1~-- ~: __ ... --~=\~,-- --------·- < 

,-,~-.. 

.-"-, ; .-> 

l \ ·:. ... 

I.. .._.::-? -..,u 

""' 

;-~ J'-_, --------o f" \ <=' '%, ~ '0 ' $ ,, ~ '" ..... , ) ' 

' - ' -o \ -- ' -

"-... ~ ;-, --: '' < ) ' "- { 7 Q) ' -. 

"- "-: ""-@. • ' $ 0 o _' - - I )-, "$- r-o ,''-• .-__ ; 

~ · ..... \ , c;-' 

·,_,. ... 

()) 

,?V---~\ 

ii '•""' 

/ _.:-'! '"'~ sll \_\ I f~-~""'-··-·"'""'~ - "'"~"0'1 

(f) 

UJ 

_j 

0.. 

50 -

40 -

~ 30 - (f) 

lL 

0 

Arith met• c 

mean 

t 

n I 

"'- -.i :; 

~ '~ :: ) - .~__ v :(f> ....... _) UJ f' '-- ,_' a - ! 

""- \__ 1' ® '-- --- ~ -, '-- ' f.-

~ '{ELLOWCHIEF ,; :.'\_ '- \ 

\ URANIUIA ( ®, "'\... ,_ ~ .--~ ' 

1 '- -- ,: "''\ 

r/ /> \ _.:';:- .::.., \~·\<, =.::;.;: ]T,:;;:;;.;. :::::::::~ 

'\, !/ 

'\;l 

\ 

\\ 

';I 

ll 

H 

li 

u 

0 1 MI LE 

__ _! 

0: 20 - UJ 

"' n lfL 160 samples 

~ ) ,- ' c ? '<' 

I 

MINE ( I'' ' c!'' ·-' ' --

~ -- --- '--·-, ; "-z- 0 1 KI LOMET RE 

2 

:J 

z 10 -

o_k n_~ 2 3 4 

Na, O, IN PERC ENT 

EXPLANATION Station ari thmeti c m ean 

of N a2 0 in perce nt 

0 0.5-1.0 0 2.5-3.0 

0 1.0- 1.5 

0 1 .5-2.0 

0 20-2.5 

0 3.0-3.5 

03.5--4.0 

---2.5---

lso ple th for Na , 0, in percent 

5 

(Quartic surfa ce, 39 percent redu cti o n o f sum of squares) 

CON TO UR INTERVA L 

; \;)( ' (;) 400 FEET 

" g_~ -~' ~ _- ~---' '" ~ ~ 1:l • '\ -

' (o'l! ~ ' --~ 

~,v<_;} ·- - <!;--\/ . -, ~- ~/ <=' ' 

0 

E~_~ \ o 

-t 

ii _- 0 L " ,1 " " - <i) 

~ 'u-- '-, 

'- ., "' 

- ~~~ . @)' --11~'' (£): ' \_'\...-~ ~ "-.., ~ '\ ~ 0"?. ,_. 

6:: Coo ~ ---\ 

Ill 

.. (" '-· 

il 

~~ oo-i I · - " \ 0 JJ~ !) /, _,, ,Rf :_, __ __ ,c:; . E ~•· :]I ':,;; I 

r--\l '( __ \• ~--

i: 

\~_ .... ~l _......., 

'''<:<~ \_ 

""'" ~-

~:-:.:· 

",,_ 

"'~ "": .. ,,'"\.~ 

60 ,. \'·' \ --.,. -~ 

,·,o 

' -o 

"' 

.'-- -~ s<oo .. -' ·---

(,-,/', 

---<'-'~~- ~oo ,__ .. '\._ / _ MOUNT 

·;:-<.o"r-1- ('--~ .. /'-----._,._,---- Kll -~- ~- h "' ":J : {';- "!!' - ,r - ~ ( ___ -- :- ii ·o < ... , \ ~ A ; !! '·-.. ·.--- -s_o . !' ' 'Jl , '-<> t4;\. \ ;~ ; 0 I 

'17 ~ ' \\ l o \ \ ""- . \ :: r:;----,\ rn'., \ o--- " 11 ~/ , • 

'"~x::~::~-'\ . ·~~ -~ <\ ~ I,-' ' 

~, I' ! \ i \ ~ ., . ;....,:i \\ \' ,.----' ''-- -~q.·--, \\ ~""'- -~ 

\\ .- ~/v· '\J 

--·-"'""=:c=~;~'"- .£~-~~' ~:-~~~~~~~~~~:;=· ':(=~~?~-=~ --------------- -----' 

-. ', 

5600 ' 

__ :......,_, 

..-,_, 

'':·,,._,_ \ 

'~~~t-.. .\ ___ _ 

FIGURE 20. -Sodium oxide content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range . 

t::t:l 

w 

00 

&5 

::<:! 

--< r-' 

r-' 

2 

~ 

~ >--

::<:! 

z 

0 

>-3 

c 

"rj 

"rj 

en 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ >-- ::r: 
39·. ' 

45' : 

39" 

40' 

50 

40 (/) 

LU 

..J 

a.. 

~ 30 (/) 

"-

0 

ffi 20 (l) 

:;; 

:J 

z 10 

0 0 

·····-· -.----- --------~F--1_():___ -- " :? . -{s -r-= : -~·; :"''~ ='-:,T· - . . . ... 

" ,-- }( \_ ,-:' c' .... ·/ " ' "' '' '· ,_,/' 

A"' "~"' ' " Q %. ' : ' ,: "' jl.. '-; • • (6 / ·• . d ~ -,, ""- ·'· ' ,) ~ '"~ @3)., 1 /' ~\ ' ' " ) :" . v \ <' ' ' f ' ' , ~"-.... '\~ > " "-·., v A c@) ' '>:> Y •-''' ' i!5 I T ' ·. ... y ,,, { l,;r""""=· -~-~ ~j '--<-· ~ " "' '. . -·' ,,.. ' '\ ,/) c ·'(. -• > "'•\J"'''f "'-

'(\ ELLowcHJEfr Uf!ANIUM (fi)\ ., '" -._.,.. \ ' 0">6 0_ Q- . . '5C;, ~ ';' -\ '"'· 

I 

"'"' W • "V\ . • v .J> ) .-' 

.• 0 .; ' <"' '' ' \' \i ' 

g _I!Jl ., L • , . , L Af" ·!\:' 1> o 

0 

-:..::::-> ,) . : __ o ~ -· '~ 11 r---

1 

M I LE 

" '· . , J - ,. , ••• •: 

70

. ..,(<'/ / \ 0 ! ,. ~ 'bt:! ,. ,, '-- 1: _.,, .. -~~ I· CONTOUR I N 1 KILOMETRE 

•'"/ ., . . " ''""" ,j;y . • .. .' '" "" 0 • / • 0 \, 

?~ ' ' ' '~ •. - j . " f. : ' ',. '· ' d(\ .. , .·' II 

160 samples 

K2 0, IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION 

§- {" ' ··.,,oo·•' \ ' ' / l !! n ! -,,.-- · · _ n - ~ :r'. \.._, .s-"' , 

I

. \U ' ,/ l?h "< b . ' "' 

:.;

: 

/ 

tl: r~_,r: : .. 

' 

J"" . r--"() • 

-- '--'--·' d 6r.oo 

'\r

--..___ 

<::/ 

·; 

~ -:~ "' 'k '\ .. : -->"' Q '· ,' ~ ~ .. s ., 

Station arith metic mean 

of K1 0, in percent 

0 1.0-1 .5 0 3.5-4.0 

0 1.5-2.0 0 4.0-4.5 

0 2.0-2.5 0 4.5-5.0 

0 2.5-3.0 

0 3.0-3.5 Q5.0-5.5 

.. ,. ' -' . ' C.· ' . . MO"' ' ' ' '' .. !' '• ' S.> 

I

_;,.·. .,; c_ ,- ;o•'~ ''· " "'N' I' .,./ '· 

\ ( ,. ''"'':· )~- '· 'Z !\ . ~~--· •... l (\ i 

\/• . ,c --~ "' (.'-\ v q, ' :: .' :.. ' /'1 ---./ _. / . J 0 ,, 0 \ " ))) ·, ,-;;: "- "'"\ ··.. \V '- \\ .. -! 

.. _., ., --... -, I c./ ---.....,../ ... -.--.,. c-"·• --o· -' . .. .. \\ c--. I~·, , · ~... . . ' ' ,, ~;;:_~ ... ~j\ ~ ',''; 

"-, .. 'cL .. .. \ (3) 

"',,, ( ' \ · .. ., \ " " />;'\ \ 

''--......,~ 

',} 

-- -----·· ··-··- ··-·-· ----···----·-····--··- ... -------------------·-··---------

... . ., ' \ \' . · .. ,, '-Y ."/ 

..... -" . "~OO.~j!'::'''''~'~"'~~=~k~"-"~~: _ . ..-"" ~ "", ------- --------

FIGURE 21.- Potassium oxide content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

s:;: 

~ ::<:! 

> r 

t::5 

~ 

0 

z 

::r: 

> r 

0 

_CJ) 

0 

> 

~ 

C/) 

~ 

00 

z 

~ 

~ ~ r 

> 

s 

>-3 

c::: 

>rj 

.>rl 

:i 

0 

s:;: 

> C/) 

::<:! 

> z 

~ 

~ > 

::r: 

t::d 

u.:> 

co 
39 '' 

45 ' 

39" 

4 0' 

-·---· 

----~-~~-- -t- -, ------ --;· \ --- -- ~ T: ~!"--- -f\'"" P~~ r~. -----

. 

-·-·----- •. ~, ~- ~ . • ~' \ ·. -- ' \. 

··,., -

_., J . /' / ,,. tl \ ( / _. '""~= ' '' . -- • ~ . ? A 

ff\ , . - -- • ) / # r 'U - ~ . ' .,_ .- • ~ c " ? -

_.. . "!; ';'- 1>(1 "'~ "!' c-- (\) .,,. \ _____ / 'i "- /' o ' I • ,. ' v ~ -{37 --./- . , rl>· '"'"-':'::'=l _ .r_ 

'- \ ·. , , · .o ~ ..J o • •. ·• , . '•. I ', ' =· " '· --- "· ' - ' ·- •, " J!I@J '~~·- ', fP• " I) ''-- I ( . 0, '\f. \ 

60 

. " "' ' . ' ' . . ·, "' , ~ - ,' •>;> , _;__., I' _\ #'_, \_,_. 1M I LE "-- ~ ' "" -- •· r @2 ---- i'Q1 ,;____ :': o ' ' - / ,.J _, ....... '·i :.-/ . ,: , 'i -..., Si ' ' ' ' ~- ' ' . '"' "--._ ''-, j' _. _. 1 

\ '& • .,_ - "- i \ ·. ', ,,-.(ii;) ._ ii 1 Kl LOME ' , . - ' • 0 , , ' ·- ' • " 

'-, ,• I ' """'· • • ' ' I ' !! IN TE RVAL ----. 

.......__, - ~ 11_.-' ' "'-. fJ .J'-.) . ,- - :_.---,._ {,. __ !! " C 0"'""" 

400 

"""~" ( tCI ' ' -- '· FEET \ 

"''"'"" ' ..,.,. J'c :< " E ) $ , ~ 1! MIN , (•' '> " I J I'·-. ' \\ A>. ,_ 1 . \\ 

A 0 ' \ ' /o ., .___, " D. . 

50 

(f) 

w 

__J 40 c.. 

::> 

<! 

(f) 

lL 30 

Geomet ric i 20 l I mean 

t ::> 

z 

10 

160 sampl es 

0 __l____l__j 

0 0 0 

·=-1 - . 0 c<__> ;r '__._ i ;,P -'"4' . . '• i ' .... -,, '· / .. , . - . ·. ( ' ' ·. 

I ' 0 . , ' ' ""' •"":;; '\. (/ -·- ;.,;: ! - '-., 

' 

--.} l!)L{)f"'-.0Ln000000 

coo..- .- NMLn,.....o tn 

OOOOOc:ic:iOO.....:. 

V C0 2 , IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION 

Station geometric mean 

of C0 2 , in percent 

0 < 0.10 

0 0.10-1.00 

0 > 1.00 

~ ~ ~ N M l!1 

'"_"' -% .J"" .! \ . 6'0 ;\ ___ 1;, ::·~-- -'--- '· b~ •• f • _¥ . ' -- '"' -·- 1 <c-.• - '-i\ '·-- J ljl ·-e:::., ' 6yl \' Q 

-· di f · ,- '· } '-\ -- )' • I 

- · i ' it> . ., 

: : \.: 

'y 

~ 

"' , (' 

'\\~ 

"' 

\ 

~ \\ '' '1 \ __ S.?oo __ ..... /·l~ 

1 

: ( 'j / . ~ ,\-' t\ 

• " " , oo . ... -· \' 0 ·~ ,.,. I 6° MO""""' ' u •' \ ~ 0 " " " I I . 0, . / - u •, ' / 1/.,,'<V ( {_r::-:;--0 "_ ,<-" _ _...__,__ (.___~ o«p..'l- ('',._) ~~/ Jl ~- 11 o; , _,. ' ~ · . , _ r-~ 1 " · ' o' 

/

,_,_ \I ·"' '---) '·-----J , ~ - \ _<" ' e I • - • c , ·, " ,, '"' , ' 'b I '. ' 0 li •W '\ --., 

f·, ' ":" ~ c:::,, : . ~ .. ~J\ - . '«2 , /' ' ' . -~., v..c " " \ . lb \ 4 

~"''•..;<~· _.~,/ . , / ' _/ ~ .. ;: ~ ... ; .. ·~";: \) \ \\ :::::::~/\~ '-.. ." I """ '.#" ' 

/ 

\ 

_____ ; 

., 

\ 

"'--..................... 1 

------··------------·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ·---~--- ' ---------·-· -· 

''-., ',, -- - "" J.·-·~ ~ i - - -

' ,'-~- ' - -~~~~-"=··~~-- '"'""' ~·----' I -- _. --

FIGURE 22. -Carbon dioxide content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range . 

t::C 

..,._ 

0 

&5 

::0 

><: 

t'" 

t'" 

a 

2!::: 

~ > 

::0 

z 

0 

>-:3 

c 

"'%j 

"'%j 

r:n 

z 

~ 

~ 

S1 

~ > 

:r:: 
40 

39 1 CJ) 

, r···- w 45'! o:' 30 :;;; 

<t 

CJ) 

~ 20 

a: 

w 

3 "' 10 

z 

0 

39" l .. 40' 

0 

0 0 "' d 0 

- ___ __ _ y ~- ~ ·:;JL, _ ~ ~ -·r-T; , --F' ):<~,: -: ::~-i '-~-·- ----~ -"~-,..._ \. ( ~ .· // S1~ \ . ~r----'""·"~ ----~~~~- . ' -- : ' -- . "" '· . / ,,,. l / - () \ ~ ' -- ' .< ,, / ' _)' ..,. . "' ·· ' ., .: ? 7 _. \ ' --· ~ .•• \. c:o. "· '! cV"' ""' • ,, -7 c o , · • J • ·, , 0 C I / • 

"""'' " ' . ,.".J

"'~> ""' .' · I 0.-;, \ \ . " .. ' ' 7_ • .. . ) .. ."y ~ jim '1!" . . · ..7.. . •. ,5-:: . ' ' o\9\\\tl• \ ·-.•.... =~•= ,, •"~""'""/ '\ . 0 • ,. "'"" ' . j ! ''--~ 0 \ i "'' ' / .J "--~ · "'~ ' .. . ,~: .~ ' ,. • "• """' \ ·: _, '• ''· : ., : .. -'':,• \ ' 0 'II ·•\ 

• w . . " ' " l' ~ " ' .• 0 . -- ' ' -7 ' ' • ,, ' · " ' ' • C · I .. , ,.._ .V 

" • ("' • ' ' - ., @> .• bAA---;., Geometroc '- \ w \ ·:1 - , ·' \ <g, ''•· liT~ ' " ~.c, < 

mean '~ ·• ,,... (:r 1- I ' I ": :..-.... ·'' ' 0 e<_J'".'\l·~ l.f ,; I ' ..! . , •• " i<f.', W......... \ ' \.. ,/ ', •f ) \, '' , •• 

"-i\ELWW URANIUM CHIEF/ ) '1j' rt\. "·· (Ir' 'J) )' \ .. : J\ t..J <" . ,._. -:./ a~~"' II\ I ;• ~ MINE ) ~ 't. ~ ~)I .. N I IV. / ; '·--- .. () ' h 

/) A I ~ "'\ l' . ' ) ~- ' I" \ f ,,)..

•'·_ , \ \\ fl. 0 c/-;_. . @ •. • • tf ·-eJ J Q/ 0 ' . / <o'lJ .. , j \ ':. ;I 

-Iii ' "l . . . · .. , ·) ,f 

0 0 0 0 \ 0 .. · ..... ·. ,, N (") "' r- 0 0 0 0 

0 o a 0 

160 samples 

a 1 M ILE 

a 1 KILOME T RE 

CONTOUR INTER VAL 

40a FEET 

i ____ j 

·v<"' ~'' ' ) ~ i ~o;, •" C/ ,' . ( ~· _ , _ . . . ~ II e. 0 0 0 g •'' "" ' \ . c ,. ~ ! 

0 0 

o o g g o e g o" I "f , ,, CH! • <> . \ c .. o 

~ ~ o o ~ g o , 0 · · ,; I , ! c' , oo -~.. A - '"-'® O, • 'I ! '• o o o - ~ " l'l '•. ""'\ '-, • ' M .r 1 ~ ' ,':"- • · -\:• 

'""'"·" ''""' '!i ' . .- • ' ". f'-..~ ( -W\'" ( . . • , ,_ .J;l 

C<(WAO>R '0 • " ' • • : ~ ,_- '/ "" ' , ., I .... '! • • • . \ _:: ' 

~ /" I . " o 0\i,, · '· .... ' o :: '-' ' oo<J < l. \.. .• , . .. ' ! 1 

2/ Ji {\· ) ) J ~ 6r:.o

0 

.·· MOUNTAiN\ ,•p ~---· // \\ 

~ " :: V ~ ....... _, \ ' ' r-~~-- • ' •I ' ( ii.. -~ ~"' \ , C\ ',~ \!,..-z.. rd·. ,_ ~ , ,, -,_ '· o ~ ~- •-, W / ,o i > • II ~ ( 

·" / •. !\ '.· ' ·r L) '····;:; \.· ·~ • '!! •. )_ o. o ~,_ 0 0.03 

EXPLANATION ~ I" 

~·~ ."t) 

(<\ 

., 

.,'--.S<oo-~_....~~- ( ..... 

\ Station geometric mean 

of Cl, in percent 

0 

0 

0.20 

' ,,., .. ' " . . . \ _., -'/ ~ -, ~- ~--.. , ' 0 .. -· \ ''\ ~ \ . l.. I\ '•. -

1 

,, • c--- ., (!l '• \< cy \. ' /

--·il' C. . ' "

00 

1 C.~cl ~ "... i ) I, '<I 

t! - ·· I~: Q'::. .. o, .._,. ... ..:: , '-"' \ , .. ~2/";?; _ 1 ,· /v-c"c-v::. 'i->= ~J''\ , If i, j ,_ _.-; ' ' .... .. c. ' "' \ ... .. , ' . ·, ~/ .. '· .... ,._....v..., "-< .... ,, I I ' . ··- •, : 

"-'· ' ! I .. -F ?"" ~ '-' I "''"!.""'< .. 

0 0.05 

0 0.07 

0 0.10 

0 0.15 

0.30 

0 0.50 

01.50 

··· · ····-·-···-·- .. ,"'··-~ ... -~------·· ... _·~- ..L~~-~~~·~"'!'l-:-""t:::•:;__ -- - --- -

FIGURE 23. - Water-soluble chlorine content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

s:: 

~ ::0 

;.. 

t'" 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

::r: 

;.. 

t'" 

0 

r;n 

t:J 

> 

~ 

~ lfJ 

-lfJ 

z 

~ 

~ :;>:' 

t'" 

;.. 

s 

.-] 

c 

"'1 

_"'1 

~ 0 

s:: 

;.. 

lfJ 

::0 

;.. 

z 

~ 

~ ;.. 

::r: 

to 

~ 

...... 
------~- ------ --- ------~ 

... --- - - ~ -,; ']' ·~ --7\- - -- ~j~~;t''"'- f:-~" -~ ---~ '. . . ' . . ' / '! .. , /' s i ' -- ' "' - . . .. c ' J "' ' / 

' ·. ;-. ? @., -. j' _,\ o . . . ~ ... J .,- , r .-· , . ~ co \J"i', 0_10 · 'o /:- '--., '-- _/--

0

-. • t ' "r. ':. ---::· "'-~·r·f ' . ""', '-.~·G ~ '-, . ~. .. '"K . ..., . .. . ~ ,· --· '\.J! -~, .. '\ / 40 

39:' -·-· ~ 45 ..J 30 

I ~ i ~ ' <f) 

0 20 

a: 

w 

=>"' 10 :J 

z 

Geometric 

mean 

. . ' . . - -----0 -'V '> ~ 1\• \ .. < MO CO ""- a o<"o '' , •;,, " .. / ~} \\ o '--, ' ' ' 0 ~ ,, 

"'-, ' ' -;• • UJ •'' ' \ • ~ 0 • ' -. · ,r• . " !i ' K I LOMETRE 

'-.. , ... ,() ~ )' " -~ Jf II 0 R INTERVAL 

'< '\' ELL '{VC';IEF~ fil\... . . .. 0 II ! CO'OOC 400 FEET 

"""''~ "' ' o, "' 0 l I "" I ... ,, 

A c., ' ' ' ' . . . ' ' M"}E :'~-..'--, .s-~ · \ "6 ,:/ 

160 samp les "'1·: 0 ~ ··-; r 0 . j -~· 

. 

g ~ . ' 1 / .§' ~ -- 3 \:::! . -~ I ' 

', . ' ., ' 

~-.~ -o/ <, 

• 

o

' 

·-

' ' 

::/' ' 

.7 

/ \.. 

( 

"oo 

0, ~ " ' ">' ) . ' ' ' c: '· •-, ' ~ : '"/ · ' ~ -, ! ' • C , 

0 oL.Ooaooooaoooooo 

0 0 

d ci 

NMLOI""-OLOOOOOOOO 

OOOO..- .-N MLOr--OLOO 

dOddciOddOO . .. N 

F, IN PERCENT 

EXPLANATION 

Station geometric mean 

of F, in percent 

0 0.03 

0 0.05 

0 0.07 

0 0.10 

0 0.50 

0 

0 

0 

0.20 

0 .30 

0. 15 

Qo.o7 

0 1.00 

---0.20---

.,. ,, ' -- ., (: ,\Q \..__5: /-1 

·, " .. • ,, '· .. ""'-" '·; .

,,0"

, , 

,. '; "" 

,-

'• ./ ~ ·. \.·-\. 

" 

0 0 ~ 

2i \\ I ( f ._..o i\ 

i '.!.i n 

1

, . ~--- tr 0 ·· ~ 0.>:j.:::.' ') li -·· - ,, .,. • : • '' <0 , ·, ' -, ' ,, ' 0 . 

c/ ·

"-

=/ u \k) • o -._, ·-

•I '' 

· ~-' . \\ '',' 

tt-:o 

' '-:.:: - "' 

•/\..._- , __ / ---.' , . • 

>;'--~- '! ~ " ~!~ \ \ l', • --;;y..v ,',\ 

{9, ...., 

j~ \,, ' ., ' . 

' ' " . _.., - -.,~<~:L ... -~~~'""-L~=~.:=:\:'-=~~r ____ ----- Isopletercen h fo r t F,din re u ~~~~ ~~sum of squa res) - ·--- -------- ----------· --- --·-- Q rtic surface , 37 p ______ .. _____ _ 

39" l ........ ··------ ( ua ...... _ .. __________ ---- ----- --------- __ --·-------- 40' 

FIGURE 24.- Fluorine content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

t:P 

.,. 

t..:> 

Ei3 

::0 

-< l' 

l' 

2 

~ 

~ > 

::0 

z 

Q 

>-3 

c 

>rj 

>rj 

UJ 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > 

::r: 
39 

45 

39" 

4 0 ' 

50 

40 (f) 

w 

_j 

"-

~ 30 (f) 

lL 

0 

ffi 20 

2 "' 

::> 

z 10 

0 C) "' 

11 3 10 --------r:·----· 

I= 

( 

------------·--····;r-·------ 11 3: 0 5 

~>-=-\· · 

"'"') 

r· 

"'-.. "' ~ ""' ( . . ~ metr i~(_~ 

mean ""' 

t ~ 

~"'-- \ w 

""-::.._/ iE \ / 

_j 

_j 

w 

0 

160 samples 

0 0 0 0 0 

OciOOc:i 

\'J M IJ") r--. 0 

Cs , IN PARTS PER MIL LI ON 

EXPLANATION Station geo metric mean of 

Cs, in parts per mil lion 

0 0 30 

0 10 0 50 

0 15 

Q2o 0 2: 70 

---10----

Isopleth for Cs, in parts per million 

~ YELl.OW S,HJE / 

\{' URANIUM ) . 

\ ii.11NE ) 

I ~ / \' / ":::> I; 

il-) 0 <2~'S 

Y ~,u;? '., ;0 ~ /' \ ·\.. ~~~ · __ <~ ' 0 \ '"i '\ ··I; 

0 1 Ml LE 

0 1 KILOMETRE 

CONTOUR I N T ERVAL 

400 FEET 

\~? $6'00 

: \ ' ~ % ·fl1;· < I '"'l '0 n ,·; !"' \_ . ~ -~ 64oo -- , r'~ --.:~-- !' :·<-- . 10 

. '' ,,, i ' ' ' . ., J . . ..J ~' ( ,, ; ' ( \. '·· '" '· ---..:.., >C.. j!._, . --

0 , '( • <.f , , , . ', ~ . ;j 0, 

~ I,, ' ' " ,,,9 ' ' "' •· ·' "'"'N{ " '' " \\ , ,, ,., ,. , , ,, ' "'"' "9, ' \j " ,., < /" '"' ' ' •••. , d ' ' ~, ' --· I' ' \ > 

~-~ '' \ )·::~~;" ~~~~(;\ · .. ;: .. \. _,/ 

"·r !:0 _____.:.-..--... . ~ .• , < ,. .' q, , @ (,. " , .., , ""··,'· >< 

\.. ~., ~ 

.," .,, ) 

--\ 

"' ~" 

\\0 

. •"'1J 

"' 

/

"' , . " e , , ' ~ ··f';., , '" V:; . o ".· : "_;),, v :. ~~\ , ' ~ 1 , ',, 

,, / '· ' !../" '.••'\ ' ' "'·--· \, ·l \ • 

(Quartic surface , 4 7 percent red uction of sum of squares) 

FIGURE 25 . - Cesium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

3::: 

~ ::0 

:> 

r-' 

i;:l 

~ 

0 

z 

::I: 

:> 

r-' 

0 

SF' 

t:l 

:; 

s:3 

~ ifJ 

w 

z 

:a 

~ ::0 

t-< 

:> 

6 

>-cl 

c 

'7j 

_:rl 

>-cl 

::I: 

0 

3::: 

:> 

ifJ 

::0 

:> 

z 

.s:3 

q 

:> 

::I: 

t:J::j 

""" UJ 
113-· 10' os' ~--~--------------------------------- ----------------------------------i·---------------- ---3- --- -l::~:----- -----------c~~ --------------- ------- --

! \ :: .. ~ 

-- ----~~~.:~7;---·------------------- -------------, 

i 

··I 39 f--· 45 ' l 

Geometric 

mean 

t 

60 "-. 

50 

"'-._ _...,/""'-: 

""" , "'(= 

& 

(J) 

0 o _, 

0 \.,. -:.::-:"/ --. (~ 

?,....~-----, I; \_, ' \ 1 ./ "\ 

_J:-f' l -;1 "~~:::: ~:-;;-~;.-

(( J'\ (/) 

w 

0: 40 

l -' ' _./· \, ,\s\l _' -r~ ---~ ~·=' lll'\' '\._ :Y ;-· p\S} \'- 4y '-.... 

~ ~~-:~11='~~ ) ~ ~ '~ j ~ -~w' !5! :2: 

<( 

(/) 

~ 30 

a: 

w 

"' 3 20 

z 160 samples 

10 

0 

Li, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

EXPLANATION 

Station geometric mean of 

Li. in parts per mi llio n 

0 20 0 70 

0 30 0100 

0 50 0150 

---50---

Iso pleth fo r Li , in parts per million 

(Quartic su_rface, 40 percent reduction of sum of sq uares) 

""' .,_ "-. <w d-U '-<.---,/r -~ -'_ "-..' I- l [\ ' ./ - / 

'{ELLOW CHIE) \ URANIUM ,fi 

I MINE ' ~ -~ / j ~-~-=----'"-, 

~1 · ~ '}, r -,_ ~.) lj ; \ . / # . . <"I '· , 50 

~'\)/ 

'Y _J' ' 

-o!J • ~ :t ~~J 

~ k 

0 il ~ / 

_<? ' \_/ '- ')? 

..... 

0 

-z. 

0 

"i ll' 

----_; 

-.......... _ 

~\ -~ 

\\ 

n 

'I 

il 

II 

f/ 

I! 

.;·{· II 

" ,, 0 

~::., 

1\ 

":...-· 

,,, / 

J-'f 

I( \, 

It 

-~ II ~ 1\ 

0"<-- . ·, \\ '" · .... - \\\ \ 

\~; 66c,o 

'------~-'--' 

·~~--' 

/ 

0 1 MILE 

0 1 K l LOMETRE 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

400 FEET 

~ 

"' , ,-

\\0 

\ 

., 

·---~ 

\i .-/· -----) . 

~I f/ o"'· I - i; • \ 

0 _j,I.J' ' ~ ~ !i /---... § /. ,, \: __ , ' -' / '0 10

0 ~-

1 (\... . .-.............._ .. 

" 

_'·\>--

' '>.-"\. 

li 

# 

ff 

(! 

_ . ., 

"' oc ·--s<'oo ... /"l..__, 

I 

' \ 

l=f>.-. . -, 

1

l! )" - 5600 ' J ·- ,,\ ., •• , ~ ' ·--,: '-- > ''['- '"-~c.· ,, J ' ' \ 

'"- n iJ" , ----~ CJ ·:: - 0 '' 

",, " - '- ~ v /' ''''2~~- :: ::.:.-Ji ·-. " " 'lc \ 

\\ 

\\ ' \ 

'; 

~ .................... 1 

'-"'o \ 

) 

39 . --- - - -- - --- - - -- - - --- - --- - - -- -------

·------ - " --·- - - - ·,,~\ 'Co \ ' ---- . "'-' I ,,_ , , "' ... ·----~·c~~ __e_"".:':'~~~~...:::'J'"~~!. _______ _...:._ /~.?/- ______ - --- ---- ---- ___ J 

40' 

FIGURE 26.- Lithium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

b:::1 

,j:.. 

,j:.. 

~ ::0 

>< 

r-< 

r-< 

2 

s: 

~ > 

::0 

z 

0 

>-3 

e 

>-rj 

>-rj 

en 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > 

::r: 
.i 39 ~}- 45 l 

---- ----- ------------------------"";------------::·-1-\:J"_,_q_: _______ T::----- ---------- ------------------------:.;~ ]_~ ~-- --~~:\:~--------- -----------------------~ 

70 1 Arithmetic 

mean 

t 60- .-

50 -

"' UJ 

-' 

0.. 

:;;; 

<l: 40 -1 r-

"' lL 

0 

ffi 30 -1 I I 1-- ID 

:;;; 

-~~ 

\ .. -. 

C, 

'~ 

.,'.:<r> 

----"'6 ~ ' ) _ .-, <so ',, \:: \ . .fi ) 

-· .... . • "-' vc-,..--.:.._ f ""- -. .:;, --..... , -s-r-->--- - ~ /-/ -----% .. , ~ /. . \,· o~ '~ ~ • -- ·., \ 3-"n. '- .' ,· 

'-. I 0 ,' ~-'l "7 ........_ i-111' . \ ..?.so ' Y' 

~ ' 

i , ,·. 1 ,\-,/r,) <f> 

""- :: '---~ ~ ;·,• f 

""' !!5 } ' ""-. '- '-? . ,:. '- • UJ 1. <:r ,-', -- ':- ~-- 1 "c. 

·') ,--' '. \~ ..... 

""' \•t.-/ ( I 

'(_----.. . If ,, __ , 

. // \ •, ... -'l \ __ , 

; i ,I' sl1 \ r-~ ~-~"'"-~' '· ,. ,,- ,,, l ./ ~="''~-- i . 1/ ,A'~ :' ..{// __ , \l ~ \ y j 

p\S}\l I '\\ _ - - __ , ''' "~.,~:· '-...., -----~ -,1;- ) \. ! 

.. ~\ ' :__ ' ' < j' '" \\ 

~--

~~: ·--~ 

0 1 MILE '\ELLOW CHI E) I' "\. 

URANIUM ~ ' 

MINE ~~ I ~ . j ~·- ..... , 

·1 ~ 

~; ......-> -

fj~ \ _ 0 ) ~~ 

~ 20 ~ rl 160 samp les 

>-./' ® ,Q.,_~~ ···---··_ ( r·J ~.-- -,~~<I '·' '';(S) ---~.! \ •'"',[' ., ~ '~· II 

ii !: '• . 

. .// 

'-8-, 'jl 

o1' 

v 

'2-

G\ 

'' (\'\ u 0 1 KILOMETRE 

CONTOU R INTERVAL 

400 FEET 

10 -

OJ:::= 

0 

I n r--1 

500 

Rb, IN PARTS PER M I LLION 

EXPLANATION Stati on arithmetic mean of 

Rb, in parts per million 

0 100-200 

0 200-300 

0 300-400 

0 400-500 

0 500-600 

-------250-------

1000 

() 

----.. __ : I 

'''/ 

v<"/ ~-rl, Q 

"' 'Y . r .c; 

-ofi 

..... ~"ii 

i tt:\ ~ il (\ - , il '<U - il 

0 ;14' 

~rtD ~\~~(., 

\\ " .. ) 

\\ < \\, \.~~'! 

'(1.-"-

:.-/, - .· ··-;::._6400--< / 

'<>o ~oo~/ 

..-·" -~-"'-.!'" .__i 

--··\. : 

\._; 

...::.:: ---·· 

·-~ 

--5600 . 

.-;::-..: .......... --............ -::: 

/ 

' 

} 

If 

t 

l! - u 

\\ 

II 

\\ 

. 

~ 

t\-; 6'a v ', 

( 

(i> 

"b 

~ ,II' ,. 

'~'?e 

"' 

'"\ _ 0 

'-, 

\'-- ...... s.:?oo_;/.. t..___.l 

( 

\ 

) 

\ 

( 

i 

....... -.................. 

"<-. . /, ~ "~--=·-- \'. 

"' -~~ ! .....___ v !\ "'..<. \ '• \ _j 

..:: ........... ) 

f',) 

,i 

39" 

40' 

.... -~ ,, " / '--./ "" " (' --- ~ r -· . 

' ',· 1\ '\. . ~-...-' G{:·.~~'i- ! "" ., '--'- ... -- i' '\ ,.• , , \ '. • ' --- ,p"""' . -·~ " ""! ! 

'··' l.~ ~ I ~./' ~ 

--------- ---- . . ---- -~~~;~'--~=~~__/~::jCC'~ ~,0:t_-_:__ ---- lsopleth fo r Rb, in parts per million 

(Cubic surface, 22 pe rcent reduction of sum of surface) 

FIGURE 27.- Rubidium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range . 

~ 

~ ::0 

> t"" 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

::r: 

> 

t"" 

0 

sn 

t:l 

> 

~ 

iJ) 

~ 

U) 

z 

:E 

~ :;<i 

t"" 

> 

s 

>-3 

e 

>%j 

_>%J 

>-3 

::r: 

0 

~ 

> iJ) 

::0 

> z 

-~ 

~ > 

::r: 

to 

oj:Jo. 

Ci1 
45 

39" [ 

40', 

·,~_ 

60 - Arithmet ic 

mean 

j. 

"---- /---~· ""' _,.-

(f) 

UJ 

50 -

a:' 40 - :;; 

<( 

(f) 

F"'"""" 

,--- " I ·• '-. ;.g;G 

""""' :\ 

"'----"'----

""---

,, 

r-- u. 

0 30 

cr: 

UJ 

CD 3 20 

z 160 samp les 

,-

10 

0 0 

__C _l 

0 0 0 ~ N M 

D 0 0 0 0 v!!) <.0 r--... 

eU, IN PARTS PER M ILLI ON 

EXPLANATION Station arit hmetic mean of 

eU, in parts per mi llion 

0 20-30 

0 30-40 

0 40-50 

0 50-60 

---40- - -

lsopleth for eU, in parts per million 

(Cubic su rface , 20 percent reduction o f sum of squares) 

" 

\ \, 

'\. 

.J 

--J 

w 

Q 

·-·. ·- ·-·--·-···- .\,,\~t.Q~·-- ... :;: . ~,r -·-· .. --- ------T ----· --- ,, . _fl 

rL - ~~-/- , '•\\ 

<-l-------

ii \_\__ i 

.>: ').-6v - / 

_; ,;r--:;s •IfF ~(\ r / -/ j/ ' ,,sti - / .\ /,\ \/ ;"''~''"'-"""-~-"'Y''_.,,.,·-~"1 . ,_, v0,· cv -v _ L ?, 

r. ' "' y ~ ,. , (, J ,@ \Sl-\ tf.'· '\, \ ...... , .,,,,// 

. ~-\ ' , __.; 1", c'·" ... ,- f "''~·"''--!(-- · 

\.- ........___, 

"--

'\ i 

\.-~ 

' ! 

{j 

,.,_ , j-; ;::, -, :·-' ' ,-,f.' \ 

'1' . . ' ~ t ~\ -_/ ~ .. v. ' ~ \'. (r€). I ·;, . _.; . ..- -~ ,(3 f>, -~ .... \. ~ ll ... r ~~·~ -.... 0-.~~\ 

r~) 

0 1 MILE 

() 

(1\ 

I~ 

~~sf .>: 

--~ \. 

,_ 

C) ~--, 

-c:::-- _ 

·:;..- -"s-

'l -~ )~-- ,. %0 . 111 - co -- r VI:r--- • x - 1(\<::-/ --\(-1-----) 

0 1 K I L OMETRE 

!! CONTOUR INTERVAL 

11 

ii s;> \\ 

. 

_.;// 

\< 

-/ (i ·; 

.! -

~-'; ,-----., '---... , --~- ' ~ .... ' 

< "'--... (/ 

''\ 

!i 

Q 

400 FEET 

·· -·~ 

·~- \ .. 

. ""-< .,, /)\., 

'"''- ,, , 

~~-\--::;..... ~~ -~ '~, I ' -, . "-. X \. ,' f' \ ' 

.. ... . .. . '~, . . . . -~-~ •c ~ [~~- ~~c;:~\t~~~~)=;>~-'\~ FIGURE 28.- Equivalent uranium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

tJj 

..,._ 

O'l 

to 

ttl 

::l:l 

><:: 

r 

t: 

c::: 

s: 

to 

ttl 

> 

::l:l 

z 

0 

..j 

c: 

'Tj 

'Tj 

ifJ 

z 

~ ifJ 

@ 

::l:l 

z 

~ > 

::r: 
" --------------------- --------------------------'-;----------- --~--,_\F_1_Q ___ o/ ---·--·7;-----·-----------·;-o----------- --- -

!' ·v" '-'-' 

113 0~~-- --- ------.;,--------- ---------------- --,"',--- \ I; 

"' ,/ 

39 i 45' r·-· 

50 

<f) 40 w 

_J 

0.. 

::;; 

<( 30 <f) 

lL 

0 

~ 20 

::;; "' 

:J 

z 10 

-, / \ ~ q 

> .. \.....,) 

"'~ r"~~' Geometric 

meant ~.- 0. 

""-

""' -(, j ""--. .....,' :!:: ""--. '-, 

"'--- · 

160 samp les 

~-,/ ;: 

~ . . \{ELLOW CHI.EF. 

\ URANIUM I, Ml~ 

ffl-. ~; \ 

\ _ .. ] 

<,/ 

i 

,, ... .--.::1' 

2)\ ,:t-----.... ,, \~ 

.·"' ;} ·1 \ \ "'~~- --·~---~"='j ; ;;J' '".>\s\ ' / .... ,~="":c.- ·,;- _>;· 

( /:~' '\ ./ '---.., '1(~-=F"'·':::::. 1 

-~~-} 

~\ 

~ ,, 

ll 

II 

jj _, :r-....._ II 

,,_ .. _) 

0 1 MILE 

0 1 KILOMETRE .~ ' / IJ'Il•~ !i 'I ' --?so'-,J ~~ 

CON TO UR I NTERVAL 

400 FEET 

,, 

\~l 

200----r---

0 oLOoooaooooooo NMLOr--.QlOOOOQO .-..--NMLO r-.. 0 

:-..'-'\}v ~~.<' .o I : 

1; 

i/ 

-9 .-7 

....:) 

Ba, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

EXPLANATION Station geometric mean of 

Ba, in parts per million 

0 30 

0 50 

0 70 

0 100 

0150 

0 

0 

0 

200 

300 

500 

0 700 

01000 

-a L c:l! 

k 

g ~, :_\ 11 

:E I !I 

~, it'. .E " ,, 

:J( ~ 

\"'';o __ _ ~\ ,--' 

~-S·"i ""'-~ ./1 

'--... 

.--5600 -

c:-· 

·~~~"_/· .. :::::7 

rf I \, 

\• -, - --~ \ ' ~ ;"'-..... .......,• oQ,..,..\ \II'. ' ·: . .. ,_ 

'~ .. ~ ··;i 

~ --1 

·"' \ 

·~~ "' 

~ .. ..., 

..... .._ --~ 

;/ '~-~ ;s~oo , 

1\ • ' 

•, '-"'oo (\ ·:"' 

I J • ' II • ', \ 

\':ll \ 

i -o~. \ I Q~ ~ 

S'.?oo _ _....... .... 

7 

\ "' ~ -~ '-"-, 0 \"' /-

""'·~ '---...... ,.· ' -1 v ·:. _J ,., ; "<.-,_ ·, ~ i!': " 

~ !,) c~_/......---------.__ __ ..J/ 

"'·<,"' "·- - '\\ ~ \ J 

----1oo---- ""·""" -- (' \ \\ .. -------- ~;) ~\I Isopleth for Ba, in parts per million "'-~- '· .... \ ; ,,~Y'"'po \.] 

(Quintic surface, 38 percent reduction of sum of squares) .,, \ LAO~ ROAD.~.~,?''""'~/ i 

39·· ·----···---·----·--------- ···---------------------·----------------------·---- --L-----·----·--------·--------~~~~·\__ _______ ~_oe_=:=,~-~~~~"::':~:t;~s~~':~~~~=-l_-=:~~~~Z ................ ________________ 1 

40' 

FIGURE 29.- Barium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

3:: 

;:o 

~ 

> 

r 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

::t 

> r 

0 

Sf' 

tl 

> @ 

CJ) 

~ 

en 

z 

::E 

;:o 

~ 

t-< 

> 

6 

>-3 

c:: 

"%) 

_"i 

>-3 

::t 

0 

3:: 

> CJ) 

;:o 

> z 

0 

_t:rl 

~ > 

::t 

to 

,j:>. 

-.:] 
39 '~ l __ 45' i 

39" 

40' 

70 

60 

(f) 50 w 

....J 

0.. 

:;;; 

<{ 40 (f) 

lL 

0 

ffi 30 CXl 

:;;; 

:::J 

z 20 

10 

0 

Geometnc 

mean '. .. ~i:. 

~20 

"' """ , f ' .. ./~~· I. f' "

, · 

~~ 

"" '......_ 

i .... ~~=~;;:::0~:.::~~:: :=1 

'......_ -

J 160 samples 

Be, IN PARTS PER M I LLION 

EXPLANATION Station geometric mean of 

Be, in parts per mil lion 

0 3 

0 5 

07 

Q10 

Q15 

0 20 

0 30 

0 50 

070 

0100-300 

----10---

0 

0 

N 

'- ,..., ......... ) lU ""' ___ \_) ~ 

~ --..... '{ELLOW CHIEF. 

\ URANJU, 

I 

MINE 

~ 

~1 7 

§/- -~ b "' ' , 

\ 

':\,,'0-v .o(b~y 

b ~ ,. c: I! -~o 

'"fr' ~.... ri 

U '" " II -

0 g I !l 2 

-" ,, " 0 ~, !i -- 0 J,l l 

·'" /'rt _5/ ··.\\ 

\f ... "' 

0 1 MILE 

0 1 KI L OMETRE 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

400 FEET 

S{ .. ,, 

\_ 

(( \~ ~~ 6' I' t ....:=:eo 6:! ,, -L., "\' ~ --\ 

(<\ 

'--. 0~ j'·, \~ \'-.k0 '-,,' " .'\~\,\ ) ' 

1 ~,"" o, ', I) . -3 

r\'; ':.-:-o 

(<\ '-s<oo__..---·1~., 

L-, 1? ' t 

ff 

I• ' 

.. ~~ \, 

{\ 

\\ 

I 

I 

! 

~ !i ' 

\\ . .- 5600' lf ~7 \ \\ -::~.-~ __ ~-- 'o 0 , \\ '"'· /' 

'..;~{~~;~:~/ -~ -'/V"c'<' ~~ '>;~:::__: .. \ ? i 

""-~ ' i!, ,·, <", - "

'-:\ . t . , ~ ..... ... ..,, ·:~ '· \ ' ' "'·'>.. -) ( ~ ' \ \ \\ '- .,,, \ ;"...!c""' ' '\\ ~ I 

~ z. l

7 ~ \~ -....- 2~r ~ 1 

Isopleth for Be, in parts per million ' '--.,~ v· \ J -7"~,_.... -~ 

(Quintic surface, 46 percent reductiOn of sum of squares) """ \ Ao\\ R0A 02,.,~' '"""'. 

' · •• __ IJEAICHO·C~i;;;=,~\p = " ( 

-----·-----· .. ···--·-···--·---·-······-·-·····------·--- -- ------ ·--------- -- ---------- --- -- ---- ~ -------- ---- ---- --- -- ------ -~-'--- ------ _... =.,.;:;; _~;;;--:::;-_;_~-- ~L.:~- --_-:_~-==-~-~_:--~~~~-- ---- _\\ _____ ---~- ------------------------ ---

FIGURE 30. - Beryllium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

co 

.... 

00 

::0 

::'1 

;:o 

-< 

r 

t: 

c: 

::::: 

~ >-

;:o 

z 

0 

-,3 

c: 

-.:l 

-.:l 

C/l 

z 

~ 

;:o 

~ 

z 

~ >-

::c 
45' 

39" 

4 0 ' 

70 • 

-~ ~~ ~~ ------- ~ "'\' { ,, -~ ,~/5l~~ 

60 

en 50 LU _j 

Q._ 

:;;; 

~ 40 

'W '' ~---z ~: - ( : . t {--,'--- --~ ~f-- , - • ' ( ' / ,, I f "--~ _ ': '-:. ;_;:; j r • ®.." ) / ' '' /~( ~ ~ '-~ ('0 '1~ /f<'. . ~ V'? '\) 1'\' "'\ .;: \ 

" -- '6 ' ,- ~ --, ~ , --' . ,,. " '---~-~---- , ""-, { / 'i;Th., , -' , \ !'-·--, ' !ti ')Vf'•-.> , -;:, , ~ '' -. ' . ··,·.; -; }3 -~·-,' ~ ' 0 . '• ~--,_ -, !I ' "'"" ' '-- ..., ' , •t ' , '<!); "J ..;\ 

""' "- - \ 

, ~ j '\~ .• , . 

i'l<· >"' 

-

. : .

', . - , 

~ l 

, - ·r ' ' -~ "' _, 

i .;,.._. ~ ' ·~ ,, " - , .- " - fiR· ···~. lJ._ 

0 

ffi 30 co 

:;;; 

:J 

z 20 

10 

0 IJ) lO r-- 0 I!) 0 V ~ ~ M 

Cr, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

EXPLANATION Station geometric mean of 

Cr, in parts per mi llion 

0 3 

0 5 

Q7 

010 

' , , ,, ~ . ·- , '• ..... ' "" \ .,_., ., .., .. r . -- ""' " II J ' \. Ov..... ,_ , ~ 0 1 M I LE "-<"-. ·•; .. \ e ' C/1/EF) J ®·.• 1.• ~ .-"0 ' ''!"&•-.,, ') , '' '\(ELcOW .. \. «. \ '. 0! \ """"'"M \ ,C ~ , , •I I M INE ) ·. (;) s . /? . 

1

, \ 

" - ' , , • /W( ,, , 

0 1 KILOMETRE 

1, ' ' \ ' II .' ~ l_/. .. . _. ·' ( 0 !! 

.., 0 c ' , " ' 'V ,' g_., ('' J,<! '- -----~ !' 

e, '; r . . . •·· ... .. ,) " ·~- I -"'! \ ~ "; _ .. / , ... i jl 

~·"V .,. , , ' -- ,, > ... / ' --· 'cij - I ~ .. ~ .._ \~ '1 \. >a -- •' , \ ' <>v •'\ 

CONTOUR INTERV AL 

400 FEET 

,, 

~ (1'1 

I• (" 

\ 

·-. 

<Y.' Iii\ ,1· i \ '" '~i 6Q •,' 

. . -- , ""' ~ : " ' '• ,,, "'' c:l! : t• ,; ....... ~., , \~ " ' - 6~ r;, w --: ' " ' .' ·> . ·;~ , ""'·,~. " "' hi ' ' , ... ) \' / -~ )' ....... ... 1:,:/' \ \, ' \ -~- \ :: 

~I ii ,,/ , 'bJ '• ,. •" ~ '-.. :· !.' r !! i\ ( : " 0' - ' • , "~ - ~ . ·' i\ "0 I'l:: .· r'l',, ' ' J '"" ' -~J , ·"" , MOO ~~ NOA ,_, " " '"' ; ' ~. -~ ' 

-, ' '-U ' "~~ ' " ~ , , ~ ' ' 

\\~ 

(1'1 ''-s<oo./__.'· ... , 

.' 

( 

\' 

' ·-·l 

: ii -' '- ·c -~- -- "" '::o'' ' '·-~ J , l io! _a ,.. 11' '----· , -''-._, . . K,O) ~ · -<; ~ , ', ~~ · \ • n\' ... \ <=' ., 

~· .! t ' ' . ! ' -o., ' \, -<! \\, '-, 

_jl :' .P ~ \' ,_.. y ~ 1\. ·-,,! .· ·' k w - ' : •' '' ·<j, --' 

j \\• '·' . 56 ~J . , 0 "' ,, ' 

---;\; c f - 0 ' ::.::: ,, ~ '""'''-~. '< 

I · , -- - , " >:- ·~--- I " 1 4 

-, ( / " " . "' " \ ' " ; • .----- i 1 

'~,(,,,,, · '• ·-c_, " •L \ _ _ "" 1 -•~ "\ , ,_/ \ ''·~.::,/,?< ' ' " ' \, " 

- ''-,<~~,~- --- ------- -~~· ·--~ L"""'.":'~~~"'!"'~ "~:C -------· - -~ FIGURE 31. -Chromium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

3:::: 

~ ::0 

)> 

r 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

::t 

> r 

0 

Sf' 

0 

-

> 

~ 

if] 

~ 

2ii 

z 

~ 

~ ::0 

t-< 

)> 

6 

--3 

c:: 

"'l 

_"'l 

--3 

::t 

0 

3:::: 

)> 

if] 

::0 

)> 

z 

0 

_trl 

~ )> 

::t 

IJ:j 

..,. 

(.0 
39' 

45 ' 

39" 

40' 

113:

1

05' r-· ·-··· --- -- -----·-·-· --- ----- ~::- ---------··r·1H 1()' --

~ 0 • ~';c~ r •.. ·-r· ---- -- ----- --- ········ ..... ,,,,, --------

' Y~ \; , . _·· 

I[) \, ::, ? ' . ,, : ;;, ,;"l 

"' • ~ " .. !i '· 

' J , ,, ''-'' ' 

(f) 

w 

50 

~ 40 :;;: 

<1: 

(f) 

LL 

0 30 

a: 

w 

:;;: "':;) 20 

z 

10 

0 .--v,......oo:::tooN 

NNNMMMo:;t " "" 

160 samples 

Ga. IN PARTS PER MILLION 

EXPLANATION Sta-tion geometric mean of 

Ga, in parts per mill ion 

0 27 (25.2-28.21 

30 (28.2-31 .7) 

34 (31 .7-35.51 

' '-. •• '· ) lJJ J ' ~,,_,- . 'S> ' ,/, ' ' " V' ) . ,.-.Jtfl\ ' > < 6 c' ' 

'\)• '- :'-' '-' ' ' 1 ' ,,, U '· a ~, r ~ ~ v~ 1.". , "' '· ,,,. . J c " ·' . ,, ' '-

~-)UJ " . . ·· ~ 'v !"- '\ -..,.·_. .. , o]S \1 ' "' \ (' ''"" . . / ...;. J ) " · ! .~ i jl'\, \ ''c''• , ... / ,: ,- ( ' / YT-il 'i::c, I " \ 

\

"'""' c' o,- < .. \I URANIUM ""'I ) tli'\ .·' '' • 0 'I· . IJ,0 '•! " ;,t ' 

I 

"'"' "' ' "' 7' 4"/ . . " / • ·.r'<). • .... ,. ' 0 

• , c.<, ·"" ~ ' J 

1) 

' .. . " ··- " ' ' ~ . Al'' ., " '" 

§ , 0 c:') _,) ~ .-; ~ ;; " "'J ' 

',. .'" , ,' • ..,. ' . ' ' _,,,_,v:;J \ '·,Q''

i j ·,> 

',' .. . c \ tf'Lf _> " 'I ii I CONTO U 1 KILOMETRE 

..,<J;_Y "'":!"> > -jJ , . €>:•J /f 40~ ~~;ERVAL I~ / ' \ · ""' \\ T 

"' ,. •'' • ' ·• < ' ' . ~ . . . " ' t ,. & ,., 0 ! 

~ \\ ,,/ ~· ~~ ·~~ -~\:- -: \ / :, 

0 ' ·" .(. ~ /-/ 400 \ - /7 ··J 

" " . 1 ' )l ,.· ·i 0 " " ! • ' . ' ' ' • -c • ".'. " < " (, ' "· -·. " ,, ' 

'0 / ik# Q ,

1 

~ ooO~ ~( )P'~·-;; , ". "'o . \\ ( coc;---- -/'i ' . • ~r .. rn·· . . 

0

'v ,' ·- ·. ' ·E· '" • •• ' i , v ' ' , , • • • ,i , ,• Z ·- -.z,· _. - -·' I ,I ·'~~ ; ' ~ • . ··j •II ';! -;:, \ _jl \,, l;J .. ri) \/ ~if' '"' .~ : .. , 'i .· ' ., 0 . I • '~ '--s<oo./ · \..,/ 

'\ : 

f" ~"1il_, ,(_, "' ' .,.j 'L) ·:~:~.. '_'' '~~ ~9~~~~~( ·;> J . ; ' ~ \• • "" • • C• ' I 'V""'\ ' ,I ·' <._. ·c· • . ~ !' • . ·c· . ~ "" 1 I ' · ,, ir (\ 

'C "'-' ,/\ •• · ·-.. •• ~<• · ( ' v'•' '' 0 I '• · 'O .. u 'il"· •'.._ '. " 

,,~ , ' ' I ' · .. , \__ ~-.. r ~ ,C' • o· ' """' 0 \1' ', " ·-·;-; ' /""-· '-/ ~· .~ , ... ' 0 ' ·; Ci i " . ~/ '· ' . ....... . ,., , o ' 

~·· ",, •• ~~-J \ -3o .® \~~ •• " •• , . j, - - -- "' ., . ' -- .... .. . ·,, \ ;) \ " . . \ \, .. , ... ~>.\ . .. - "~ \ ' , .• ·~ .\.);;;/'"~ .... •·'• 

, ___ Lr••· -- --- __ -:-:~· '""""""'""i -: ~~~=~--::~=--l''~"/ """' ~-· \ ' '\i 

Isopleth for Ga, in parts per million 

(Quartic surface, 45 percent reduction of sum of squares) 

0 

0 

0 38 (35.5-39.81 

0 42 (39.8-44.71 

-------30·-------

--------· -------

FIGURE 32. - Gallium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

ttl 

01 

0 

gj 

::0 

><: 

t"' 

t"' 

a 

~ 

~ > 

::0 

z 

Q 

>-3 

c::: 

"%j 

"%j 

00 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > :I: 
39'' 

45' 

110 

100 

(f) 

w 

0: 40 :;;; 

<t 

(f) 

u.. 

0 30 

cr: 

w 

Geometric 

mean 

-

\~ • ~-e ---p ·. ' '· ·::: (, .' } ' ' - (~'' ( . r-."" ~~ ~-~j '""\ _ 2 \ ··~'- ---~ \ \. /; """' ~- ·- i l / .,,s\ \ .... · ,,,, ~,, ,- 1 

''". I ,. - \ A h • .,, '·. / \\· ' I , ·- , ' J, ·~ " , ~ -5- rv . .J ~ ' .., / 1/ ., '·. \ ""' / . ...-"' ~ . jl /' ' \-o_, \j}' l ~ ''""" !( / < 

'., , ' o .) ' ' '· _, ' I '\-' ' ' ' / C 

"'-.. ''"' ·"'Cl, ,1 ," , t.," . . , Y ,• <1> •. , --~- r._. . f\ ' '" '""'"=•• " _,-·-' 

1

- - ) " ' • ~. v' ' " '·""- --, " . ' ' ' ', - ~· \, 

~ -1 / ''-.. ,.,

". , "' L ' ,. •' ~ ,.-,, if " ~~ -..... '· " I )t! ~ ....... ....... '-\~ " I ,, 6 t ' ? I • II. ' / v ~ ' " " 

) LU '!r-) \ <:r> ~ ;Q, !"'• '! 

' 1- ' · \ '~ ,, . ) 0.., ' . ' '' ' ~ '• 0 1 M I LE 

:;;; "' 

::J 20 z 160 samples 

' YELLOW CHIEF , , ' -__ ,___..; ''-..i' ·. \,. ~ ) /:.._ t · "''"'"M ' •, y , ' .. ..._ ·I ' MINE ;l ( ( -z_ C/ -'\ ' I ...., ( u.~---. ·_· '- ( . " . -~ J! 

0 1 K I LOM ETRE 

10 

0 0 0 0 0 LDLDr--..0 

v ~ 

La, IN PARTS PER MI LL ION 

39.) i 40' -- - - ---

EXPLANATION Station geometric mean of 

L a, in parts per mil lio n 

0 <30 

0 _2 30 

A ) • \ ·, u• ( 1/ ' ' \ __ , (1\ '· '\ tv; "::3 // u ., _ r ___ 

L \, IE 0 c::: ·I' • ~ ·--- '._,-; ,e., ! u 

o i q; r ,.-"'<.+ 11 

2-J \ ( "' '- .• _ r:., -- \ / 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

400 FEE T 

\ .,.· "I '· ' . ... , 

,_ ,.., .. 1/ ~1/ ,. ... :)' L / , .2> f C "" " --1,< , . , . . , , ,, , o~ , <r: c • .o > ' v• "" > • "' - 0 • ' Z , 

<

1 

; ,;I' ,) , _ 'v, V . , ,.·< ·• ' "<» , ~ ~,<o,· ;:, \ ?! li .1,1 ··b~ ., '-6400 ---'\_/ ·, ,. ·. ' . '<-\/ \. !\ u' <'\'Q '\ 

~ "'fr" 'i r, < ... --· ::: /-; /0 ) . : ~ f/,.\ ---} ' . / r·< , v \ .. YL "-'· Q -~ ~ "--s<oo./--'l. .. I , 2. :; " ,, ; l, ,-------' ' , ~;" / \ '\ / \ '"' :··· ' i 

" ' ' " ' • ., .... ·-.' i , - ' g I.: ..., I '"" ,- X' , '- ' \ '-; ! i 

G 

~I I! Q ( / '"" J "?"NO.·;),·. '!I' ~· '-I( \\ ( ,, 

~J0 'c jl ' \, · ' ·~ , 

/ IV c( L.-. r ,o' '" 

: 

, •• _, ~-J '

l · ,. 1 :, ,. \ ~ , \ 

§ ( ' V " ' ',7 \ ' j ('!; I ( -J I \p ' " , ' "\ G> \ ., "' ~ . , .. .. . j "'

" '· 00 '-' 9oy ·-v. \ .... . " ,'• • ' ... . ., ~ ' ''"' , . "'' " . ' I' • • ' , . 1\ -·~ --' ...... ~. Ji ,; ' ?! ,; ' ,, "' 0 - o :.,,,,,' . ". ', (\, ' ~ -- ,~--..--...-vFv<;~'"t;:,~ .. ~·~'\ • . of \"' i 

~"' ( \ , C/ ~- '' ~L \ '\, \ ·•-' 

•:,; '•.r, ., , ,, .... '"'"' ' ''. ., ., ....... ,, " · '; ', ,, . ,.?-· "' ,, "· . ., I ,.. ' 

", , '' ""'"~?- I '' \ ""'"·~ '' ' 

___ ~"'~~~:~---- _ -----· '"~c:o=o.':~---L~:":~:~}~~~-~-~~:': :_::_t ______ '_ --------------------·---·----

FIGURE 33,- Lanthanum content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

s::: 

~ ::tl 

> t"' 

t::l 

~ 

-0 

z 

::I! 

~ 0 

SfJ 

t:l 

> 

~ 

~ r:n 

00 

z 

:E 

~ ::tl 

t-< 

> 

6 

t-3 

e 

'-rj 

."'i 

t-3 

::I! 

0 

s::: 

~ 

::tl 

> z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

ttl 

Ol 

,_. 
45' 

39" 

40' 

50 

U) 40 UJ 

-' 

0.. 

:;; 

<( 30 U) 

LL 

0 

ffi 20 

:;; "' 

:J 

z 10 

0 

-~-- -11 3 ·1a· 

"' ~ · ·. -.' :.:;, ~~, ', --:~ ' --~~ ;_ -:. , --- -· . ---··- ......... :;~\'o'"'~ --,T-- ---

Geomet 

~,,"' . '- .· • (f\ \ ' ."· ·, . jl" 1 .· .. ··••.··. ,-- . J '" ~ (~ • ' ' 'U ~ " ' \.' ---- •~ . ~. ' \\'1 

~ ;.)~' ~/ . :. ) , . ;·!,~";-' -~"~j ?,!. ... l/ "'\:: ' / l~> ·-o )'. ;1' (' ~. ' " 

' " 

"2 ' -

... ' 

r' '· 

' 

~ v u .., ~ .-. 

. 0 (' 

, / /J " \ ~\ - "- l" A>''v';•• · " . f ,; ' 

....,....._ C

0 

i!5 -· ·· .. ,•. tl~~-.. • ,_,. Y ''' ' -· '" ._ .· ' " '·- ' - (( ' ........ ) l!J • . 

"'"' ··v)' f-:!: ,,, " ' ~ ' , __ .J•·~ II ' .. 

·~-~--

~~~~ 

'\(ELL OW CHIEF II . \./ \ a 1 MILE 

Mn, 

160 samples 

0 0 0 0 

"' 0 - N 

MILL ION 

EXPLANATION 

Station geometric mean of 

Mn, in parts per million 

0 100 0 300 

0150 0 500 

0200 0700 ---500---

lsopl eth for Mn, in parts per million 

\ URANIUM 

I 

MlfiE . , X' \ 

l

Y) ~;;;"'_·· ! § . ' •j' l .. , 

~ / -~, 0 c

5

. Jl'~,~~ ,,J 

. "" I \ . .. i ;o .s' 

<).;.y-></ )Q'·.l. . ~ ': ' . ~ 

n 

"" ' '?/ ~ n ' ' . '"" - . / ( oo c AI ' . 

"'ni r· 

!'?I B. J!! '! ..• ~- .. ( .. -

-

""/

"

0 

::.

!!

"!I G)' '.!if; 

·X J bi 

. 

I ' ,;_/ ' ',;·--··-' 

,_ / ·s "-..... ~ . a :~ :· " • 60oo . -~ !:! ~ \ ,-. ( • ./.\..) ·· 

-'/§I ~-- 1'"· 

~~ . ---•. ·.-·.· . ..,r:::,<::J 

,,~_j ; ---··· .,/ :"' · ...... c:·-~-·--. s. / ' Q)· ,) ' :l6~;,00 ~'i] , ·. oo ' / r , --- 1-

/

"'·.,,· \' ':- ~ ' ,-- '· :-.;o'<'~" 

~ 

'--,":\~ ~C:/":_?~ - -.':: -~'M' ·-· 't;:.:::':c--::=-i\ '\,, <".L ~ -~ ~ 

.- 5600 -

'..::::--··--

a 1 KILOM ETRE 

CONTOUR I NTERVAL 

\' 

400 FEET 

~ 

"' ,(' 

' ., __ 1 

,_\ 

·\~ 

"' <oo .. / <. 

(\ 

\\ 

-:~~/ ( 

( 

r::i (, Q)'~--- ( - \ ~-.. , 

·, ·@ 

(,....._, "····----' 

(Quartic surface, 23 percent reduction of sum of squares) ~~ ~ ~- ~ .> \\ \\ -, __ ,.... ___ ·'""-"'- ' ~' ' •'.._ I' ''<· o'~ flOAD 1 _j,"'"" ''<, \ . !JERICHO CA':L~ de = ~""f 

-~~~'\.'> \_ ---- ---- _,. ~-~--: =--=-~-- _.z::.:.~~ ---=~-~-~~-::-__ -~~~-- ~-- _l ) 

FIGURE 34, - Manganese content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

·--~ 

t:d 

01 

t.:l 

eg 

::0 

>-<: 

t'" 

t'" 

c 

~ 

~ > 

::0 

z 

Q 

>-:3 

c:::: 

>rj 

>rj 

w 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > :r: 
39_,. 

45' 

39" 

40' 

~-- --- " " ~ -c '\P':~ ~~ - ,~~ I•· -~ _ _!6)_ , _ c>~ -- ---;?.- ·---·------ _ 

0 . "'("'' ' "' " ,. ., . ' . . ' 

60 

113~ 05' 

.., , n (r '· ll ~· ,·' • 

"'- , -~· ."-' •~. c~ . c 5 ""' II i .,. ! ' 't " .~ / l .. ~.' t ) _., .. ;>_). ~ , .. <-';j;• . ?J~_'_ " " ' ,' 

. ) ' ' , {I c~·<> ~ j "'1'' '• , c' {! ~ ----'\ 

""-~ • \ '', ·' -t,. \j;'l')l cf! ,~ ,&, ~ j ' _J ,• ( ' y . -!® v ) / \ _ _J '-- i'l•· / v' ,<J> . ' ,__ _.{' c\1 \ ' w ,~ '' ' ' • ·. ' ., ,,. \ 

" o , ~K~~~ ·- ~ _f··_·-l \) . if . \ . r·-~., __ " ~ .... • " ~· . \ .. \ ! - -~-~ ' 5• "" ;• 'a. -~ ~ '""" ' / ••• -

~~,!c r: · •· .. . ~ . r ,.,, I" • / ' •• '\ ~···. ·-- ""' / .• ·' ·, ,, i' ··· ' • "'- \ 

LLOWCHIEF\ •~ \ 0 r •. ' ,•o'i > 

\ ""''"" . ' ·~ ~ ' 0 • J .., • 'I 

I 

.,,, <!' ' ' ' , \ " 0~~ ,.--Gil. .Q ~ Jr/ • 

Cfl 50 w 

_J 

"-

:;; 

;;\ 40 

lL 

0 

a: 

w 30 C!J 

:;; 

:J 

z 20 

10 

0 oooooo 

N N M lf) I"-- 0 

v - Nb, IN PARTS PER MILLION 

EXPLANATION 

S tation geometric mean of 

Nb, in parts per mill ion 

0 < 20 

0 20 

0 30 

0 50 

~ _j ·, 0 ·"1' ., .· -~ . ' 

~ "' {~ I ,. , . ,;0~ ( .~ ~' (,'.. I ~J: .' , ... ,~- -;_ "-

,_. '(l•fW _n ·'=' ~ JV0 -, it>\ 11 o 

o ., Q c--" t .:.- i. Q 1 ·-'\~ ii 

., ' ,,, ' , ,,··· ! ~ ,, ,-:_,v;;/ •; '. ~ · ; .~ .• _,·_: 1 ,<, S' "'f,'l ri CONTOU , KILOMETRE ··Y \ . '· j '.. II '"~ '"""'" 

", r,;: . / '•, ·-0 ' "" 

i? II •

1

! t,.v::;, ~ i '· -, ~ -'-· ): 

.,·r ~ \ ' ·~· .. ~. • ~ 1~ 1 :1 l' · ... t· , :_, 

, '-, s . . i .. ·--64oo--~ v ,~ · ·• ,__ .::-; • ' J ·- ' ' • ~. • • .:! ii - _ b \ r· 11 , _ _,. ~ ___ !; 

- " " ' .. .-~· rl ' "·" " O> fl " 

0 li\T 

0 

r . I J ,.,, @-' . ' .. ~ ~""" " .. 'I . .. Cq, . 

~s) u, "-;-,"~~'! ; ;~~j ' .. · .. ~.. ..1' .. 

" > 56oo -' ~ 

~ (.'\ 

~~\~ 

-"' (.'\ 

.-.J 

'~'~(·-.;~~/~/ l 

' ' ' '.: ~ '·' -."~-'; ' / . - - --- ' ·,,' ., \' ~;~\~ -' -~-~ -~~· ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~. ' 

-'"~'- \ -~=coc ~ .e:':"::':'f'."'~'?~'=~\~ ' ·~~~;,;1-·e': ::\' "j -------

0 70 

FIGURE 35.- Niobium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

~ 

~ ::0 

> l' 

t;J 

~ 

0 

z 

::r: 

~ 0 

.w 

tj 

> 

~ 

~ w 

U3 

z 

~ 

~ ~ l' 

> 8 

>-3 

c 

'Tj 

."rl 

~ 0 

~ 

~ 

::0 

> z 

-~ 

~ > 

::r: 

to 

01 

UJ 
- -------- --, ------···············-~::\'' "' -- -~~7---········· .... I 

)')\ 

·>t----~., {f \ ·-·-·---· ' / ' '' '\_\ r'"<"<-·~···-~ I. .... ' • f '' 

I ·, '' 

' I 

i ' ·~, . 

' 

' ,,( . : 

--' cOj ~-' 

39 , ___ 

45' 1 

i 

(f) 

w 

40 

~ 30 ::;; 

Geometric 

mean 

".: ' "'" 

' ·' 

\ 

<! '- rJl 

~ 20 

a: 

w 

::;; "' 10 :::J 

z 

160 samples 

Oooooaoooao lO~"'"-OLOoooo o 

..- ..- N M 1.{) r-- ~ ~ 

Sr, IN PARTS PER M ILLION 

EXPLANATION 

Station geometric mean of 

Sr, in parts per million 

0 100 

0150 

Q 200 

0300 

0 

0 

500 

700 

01000 

----150---

Isopleth for Sr, in parts per million 

(Cubic surface, 18 percent reduction of sum of squares) 

L ~ \ ~ ·.,, 

./-. . ,, 

. -'· c-;s. ~., , z / ,, .. ,_\, c;;, -• ' ~ ., ... 

"'-v '~<;;, '-S<oo./ '--, r<' I 

, .. , I ) ~-~~;· u __ )\( 

\ ).) \ ,, <oi . 300 \ " ~ '-\~\ ,-- \\ @, ' ~.::'~-->; . . ' -~-c -- \ ' . ' 41 "-' '"'· , -- ·- \>, '<1 'I ''\; I 

~ ' I· '' ' -- '=· " • "' '' \1 ,, ~ " 

•;, 'I I jp ' 

\ '--......... ~, 

\\ 

:"\\ 

39" -- ---- ----- ------ ·······-··· ----------- ------ ' -- ~.\ ... -~~~~,c~·~~~t~"~:L~-- ---·- ·- ! ---~·-· -·-·-· -- ·--- - 40' 

FIGURE 36. - Strontium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range . 

a:; 

01 

>~>-

gJ 

~ 

><: 

t"' 

t"' 

2 

:::::: 

~ > 

~ 

z 

C') 

>-3 

c::: 

..., 

..., 

lfJ 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > :X:: 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH 

Ci "' 

E 

:li 

0 

U) z DOS~ Q r-~----~~ ~ 

000~:::! 

-±cs--'=,-,rl 00 L :;; 

oc 009 ~ 

00£ ~ 

DOl ~ 

c.. 09~ z 

r--r--,--.--,--.--.-~--,--.--,--.--,--.---,--.-~ 00~ ~ 0 

"' 0 

r-- 0 

U) 0 

"' 0 

<t 

S3ldiNVS ~0 <J381NnN 

0 

N 0 0 

0 

0 

M 

0 

8 

"' 

0 

0 

0 

r--

0 

0 

0 

oo 

l i t '---·-·-------·-------------·--···-·---·-·-----L·-·---·-·--·--·-----·----·------·-----·-·----------·-------·---·-·--·------·--------------·--·-·--·-·--·-·---·-·--·-·-·------·· 

B55 
39 

40' 

_________________ T_1_w·_19: _______ _ -(_-a>____ -- --- ---------c-- -- ---- -- ----- --- --- ' __:-- ' :\_' l?-'6 ' ~ P' 

Geometric fJ. -, ' ' . ~ 

::. ----o -,_ ~, ( -; i \ 

- .. \ ' \- / ) '-- ·. ~-- \ " ----· -~ 

-.,_ . ...__ 

1\1\ I 

5,' ~ \ ., -

113"05' -- --- -----,:~~- ·---,---

..-.) 

---" \ 

'-L ... 

:...1(--:.::f'' 

;;/...--------...... \_...· 

b :_ · --- :.· \ rj Jr _.- (> o. '-- ~ ~ o . z-o ~_,""' ,:"' '-.. /~ o l , . -t (r "'o '-- _. o __ ' ' ' '? L 

' ' v ' .. , ) 

""-O ~ ~,'_ ',\~i·\ '!' ", 'v 1 c: 

ii \~ 

// \~ 

'-~~'-7 ,, ,s~' \ /-=-~~,=~'""''~'"'"'=-~ l/ \/ 

(t' ,_7' \ 

( .. i 

(1 

160 samples 

O -----'------'----'------'__JC= 0 0 l{) 0 0 ..- ..- ..- N ("') 

v V, IN PARTS PER M ILLION 

EXPLANATION 

Station geometric mean of 

V, in pa rts per mi llion 

0 < 10 

Q 2 10 

'-- \, _J c._- ,\ \ 

'---"--- --~ !!5 <55@ -- / A:'\ 

"--- , ,.., 0 -~-. c,V 

'---....._ ~ \, f·': \ 'b 

\, ,_.? !__ \~'-~-=:=7t= -'-'=:.:. // ') 

'\ h 

~~,~~~\tf 

.... ~.\ 

Q ,, "' i= ( :. -,, \ -~ ' ' ~ ~! 

'\ELLOWCHIEF : ~ , \_, ----j)- -----~-, "' --, \ 0 1 MILE 

URANIUM ~ \ 17 ,V 

MINE , ' "?- J\J 0 

/ I ~ I -.. - , ! Q '------

:' ~/:~-(1\ (t \ IJ ____, / r:; _, u _. 11 &1 -, 0 ~ / c§l ' Q _ !,i Q I ' ,. co ,. • ,- " :I \. 0 . ' . ', "'}' - ·-, /;-$ ,- :s. 

.,_ 

) 

:! 

-~i \, 

,<' . ' ' ' - '-· - " . 0 

• y ,o ' '' ' • ., "· ... , ·' "'_

1

_- p".-. ,~- . ----- oo ,-, 11 ,_ 0 \.,__'-Q %<:?. _:- -, \, c,) 

0 1 KILOMETRE 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 

400 FEET 

~ 

~ ---1 

"' 

~-"':;/ ~-/ • -, !! '--::· 6'a 

P • · ~, • · '-'' r 1 .. ~ • ' ·- 'h. 

"'!• '• __J( ~ ' -.,_ 0 , ''' ' ,- '< . Col .• ') '- . ',o ', 

ll _; r \~~ -~ -- ,, ___ ·- "----{ -.. ~~ . J I ~ ' i r

6 

•"' · • • oom., ~, , • [\ I ;; 1;:,1 ' Lr::-:;---v "· ~ ., 6 M -- -- - ~- I! ) ) ' ' .. '' ' ' . ' 

- I 

<\0 

.:--o 

"' ··--s<oo_ .....- ··· i,_ 

,.. .. ,..,........__ o k ', n · Q c.. ,,, , ., , 

Jl ~ '' '"" ' ' ) c ~ ' '6 ' ( ~: I , , 2 , , -, . . • @ ., ,, o \.., .. , 

'\1;,~~~· ~;00 / ~~-;' .;,.,:, :(~: .. ~·J\ ._,,.:~i0-'(~ .,.. , I. """-~ ",,~~'--- -'~ -~~-..£-"'~"':~ 'C":'!\-t~'i:::.:_- - --- - . 

'·, \ 

\_ .... _____ .:::-1 

---· ·-·- ---~----- -- - - -- - ----- --~ ----

FIGURE 38. -Vanadium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

ttl 

01 

O'l 

~ :::0 

ts 

I:"" 

2 

a;: 

~ > 

:::0 

z 

0 

>-3 

c 

"%j 

"%j 

r:n 

z 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ > 

:r:: 
39:'f 45 I 

39° 

40' 

I 

J• 

( /(J -~'\ (' ,_ 30 

;_,\' "-. 

t:~< ·,_, 

~ 

\7 '-; 

1 13 " 05 ~-;;;< -------------·--

<, 

..... -::.. 

·l 

\.:._..-

/:/ 

":..,il-c;.-

7/ 1/ 

/ 

<)) 

,',0 ---- ... 

!! '---.. "' Geometric 

100] mean 

t 

// \_ 

_;j'.t'" ,,,,s~l \ /?''~,"--",, , .. , "'"" '='4 

1 .J\ 

··~ )_ 10 /{,'\ ..u \_ 

':.._~ -- --------- 8<· i ~ )-.l' / 

~ <J) ® r '").. : _ _,• j 

' "- r -~ 0 o __ . 0 :,z,~ ,~ 

""' ; 0 \ ' ' - l >' "' - l ; / , <,fl 

<, 

0 90 

'\\ ,:"' f" 

",\ _/;/' ...._"' 

"'~'~:=?r =, - : """' \j ~ ('\,.: -.,v ( ' "' .:u Q S G 1'\\ 

r,s \ll<c 

Ul 50 LU 

-' "-

:;;; 

~ 40 

u. 

0 

a: 

LU 30 co 

:;;; 

:::l 

z 20 

10 

0 000000 

C"\1 N M l!) ,..... 0 

v - Y, IN PARTS PER M IL LI ON 

EXPLANATION 

Station geometric mean of 

Y, in parts per mi llion 

0 20 

0 30 

0 50 

0 70 

-------30-------

Isopleth for Y, in_ parts per million 

(Quintic surface , 42 percent reduction of sum of squares) 

"' i "> · Q-1 

:>,.,· (__; 

\ ""' ~,"?, w . /''.l "- -,-,- , fJ_, 

"'<;'"•' ;::: ( '' '- \ 

/ l' ', II 0 ~\. 

'\-. \ '--· "'-.....- \ \\ ~ ' ~ ' 

~'\Et ~~~~::EFS .. ---__ "_ I ,' <_---£' \..:~-- \1 ~ ."?~- : \ ; )?-z_ 

~- . ', --. ~--~ I)-( o -;:/(o# ·~ 

-;;/ ':, 0 '1_ ·. __ ' --,_ 

,f;-y'''" ) ' --1 ;/ - n .o . - ,:/· ·;(· , .... .-c ' 'L- \ ... 

"A_._: •" ~~ ·- - - ao -~ , co '-

"'/'I \ -;Y; 6 /j ~L '" n 1 _,~(-5' ,_, 0 J ~ , I b ' ' ---- ) I " \ '-- 0 H ., ! t~ 0

./ (\l rr \ '., ,:, !' ! oo -c;• -...... ~ 

_ 

"' f _!l 0 ) I 6 'L ', ,, ! ; _ r o ~jt \ Lf_7:.. .... \ \.J 

.·~ -.~ ,_ '--,\__) _,J'-.,,·o 

{?.. __ _....., 

'\!A t !·Q , .L:-,0 . .;; •. ..--

. '\ ~ 

\)"" \? 0 

'. 

0 1 M I LE 

0 1 KILOME T RE 

CONTOUR I NTERVA L 

400 FEET 

_ __ tF / ,~-~~ . s-& rc \_: 

:,j ,_,... 

'-, 

\, 

66-• II ," Oo y 

00 ' \\ -~ '--, \' "? 

~-.~- >\. <~~> '·': \ ~0 '--. ~ 0 '\ ' ~-. ,_.'"'t) '"-

'.'\. a ~ s<o.v .----1 II '•· __ _,.,.. 

J ~ 11 I I ' 

, ..... _,_ 

!I \\. . ..... . ______ ) 

..?o~ '\':ll") .,) ' \ 

---~ 

~ '"'" I ~ \\ ( ~ ~ 

'\,~·-~_ /) c·~--, /---~ .- " 

\ 

0 \ --\-:__•, "'Z ~~-, 

- ·el ~ ! \ ' / , __ _. ,. ,, ----.:Jo 

'<::~~ . : "\ \, .. · :/·"'""~ '''- •\ ROAOI _,__,, -~ 

--- :~~~~~'- ------ ·"=~=c="=:c~--..£~~~= "~~?~~~'~:~:-~ :~}_:~ ""?~-- --- ----- ---

FIGURE 39. - Yttrium content of water-laid tuff in the Thomas Range. 

~ 

~ ::>::1 

~ 

N 

~ 

0 

z 

:r: 

;J> 

t:"' 

0 

r;n 

t:J 

> 

~ 

~ en 

[;) 

z 

~ 

~ ~ t:"' 

;J> 

s 

>-3 

c 

>rj 

.'rl 

~ 0 

~ 

;J> 

en 

::>::1 

;J> 

z 

~ 

~ ;J> 

:r: 

td 

01 

-J 
B58 

r1 

i 

i 

I 

i 

I 

0 

" 

I 

g 

BERYLLIUM-BEARING TUFFS IN WESTERN UTAH 

I 

0 

L!1 

I 

0 

.,. I 

0 

C") 

S3ldii'JVS ~0 l:l3811'JnN 

I 

0 

N 

I 

0 

~ 9L 

L9 

0 

I 

"' 00 

.,. 

"' 

I 

0 

0 

<D 

0 

oO 

i L _______________________________ j_ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ _j 

~~ ~~ M ~ (") -.:t 
MINERALIZATION HALOS, DIAGENESIS IN WATER-LAID TUFF, THOMAS RANGE, UTAH 

6 

fz 

w ,---------------------------------------, 80 u 

Total variance/ 

principal component 

Eigenvalue/ principal 

component 

a: 

w 

c.. 

z 

L1. 

0 

z 

0 

f= 

a: 

0 

20 ~ 

a: 

c.. 

w 

> 

f-

<{ 

_J 

~ 0 :::> 

:;;; 

:::> 

u 

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT 

FIGURE 41. - Eigenvalues and cumulative proportion of 

total variance explained by the first 10 principal components. Note break in slope of eigenvalue curves between 

principal components IV and V and VI and VII. 

B59 

Beryllium-Bearing 

Tuffs in 

Western Utah 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 818 

This volume was published as 

separate chapters A-C 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

V. E. McKelvey, Director 
CONTENTS 

[Letters designate the separately published chapters] 

(A) Hydrothermal alteration associated with beryllium deposits at Spor Mountain, Utah, by David 

A. Lindsey, Harold Ganow, and Wayne Mountjoy. 

(B) Mineralization halos and diagenesis in water-laid tuff of the Thomas Range, Utah, by David A. 

Lindsey. 

(C) The effect of sedimentation and diagenesis on trace element composition of water-laid tuff in the 

Keg Mountain area, Utah, by David A. Lindsey. 

i? U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-677·340/ 4