U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

I | Orange County, VT 50 50 Kilometers

Characterization of Mine Waste at the 

Elizabeth Copper Mine, Orange County, Vermont

by

Jane M. Hammarstrom1 , Alien L. Meier2 , John C. Jackson1 , Ryan Barden1 , Peggie J. 

Wormington1 , John D. Wormington1 , and Robert R. Seal, II 1

Open-File Report 99-564

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial 

standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade product or firm names is for descriptive 

purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

1 U.S. Geological Survey, 954 National Center, Reston, VA 20192

2 U.S. Geological Survey, 973 Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNATURES OF MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS ........................ 2

THE ELIZABETH MINE ............................................................... 3

Location and geologic setting .................................................... 3

Mine history and previous studies ................................................ 5

METHODS ......................................................................... 7

OVERVIEW OF SAMPLE SITES ...................................................... 10

South pit area ............................................................... 10

North pit area (Tailings pile 3) .................................................. 12

Tailings pile 2 ............................................................... 15

Tailings pile 1 ............................................................... 15

Seeps at the base of tailings pile 1 ............................................... 17

Copperas Brook ............................................................. 17

Air shaft along the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River ........................ 17

RESULTS ......................................................................... 20

Ore ....................................................................... 20

Host rock ................................................................... 20

Slag ....................................................................... 20

Tailings .................................................................... 28

Composite surface samples ............................................. 28

Profiles through upper tailings surfaces .................................... 28

Stream sediments ............................................................ 39

Sulfide minerals in ore and tailings ............................................... 51

Efflorescent salts ............................................................. 55

Ochre deposits .............................................................. 59

IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION ................................................... 70

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................. 71

REFERENCES ..................................................................... 72

APPENDIX A: Sample descriptions and locations for rocks, slag, soils, salts, and ochre deposits. 

APPENDIX B: Methods
FIGURES

Figure 1. Copperas Brook confluence with the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River, about 0.5 

km downstream from the base of the tailings at the Elizabeth mine site. The distinctive orangered color of iron-rich coatings on the streambed and river rock is a hallmark of acid mine 

drainage. .................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Elizabeth mine area as shown on part of the South Strafford 7.5' quadrangle. Labeled

subareas sampled for this study are described in the text. The tic mark shown south of Copper 

Flat is at latitude 43°-50' north, longitude 72° 20' west. ................................ 4

Figure 3. Detailed sketch map of the Elizabeth mine site (based on Young, 1991). ................ 6

Figure 4. Photos of the south pit area. A, Flooded north end of the south pit and haulageway, looking

north. B, Gypsum encrustation on sheltered parts of pit walls ......................... 11

Figure 5. Photos of the north pit area (Tailings pile 3). A,. Center of subarea TP3-A. The yellow color is 

due to jarosite. B. Center of subarea TP3-B. Red color due to hematite; red and black slag 

occur in this pile. C, "Snowballs" of weathered sulfide ore coated with white efflorescent salt 

minerals littering the surface of subarea TP3-F on a dry day. D , Close-up view of blue 

efflorescent salt crust on TP3 mine dump soil ...................................... 13

Figure 6. Photos of tailings pile 2. A, Bare eroded north slope of TP2. Surface runoff from TP3 forms the 

headwaters of Copperas Brook that bisect TP2 and flow out onto the flat top of TP1 and into the 

pond. B, Layering in tailings at base of TP2 exposed by scraping off surface material ...... 16

Figure 7. TP1. A,. Deeply eroded, bare north slope of TP1. Surface runoff from this slope contributes to 

degradation of water quality of Copperas Brook. B, Soil auger profile of tailings from the top of 

TP1 adjacent to piezometer site MP3; auger is 91 cm (36") long. C, Close-up of bluish-white 

salts that form on damp tailings adjacent to the pond ................................ 18

Figure 8. Photos of actively precipitating secondary minerals. A^ Iron-rich ochre protohardpan forming at 

near-neutral seeps. B± Close-up of "fossilized" leaves incorporated in hardpan. C, White, 

amorphous aluminum precipitates at the air vent. ................................... 19

Figure 9. Bar graphs showing the variation in selected metal concentrations in wallrock, ore, and mine

waste at the Elizabeth mine. .................................................... 26

Figure 10. Geochemical profiles of upper surfaces of tailings. A, TP1 profile. B, TP2 profile ....... 37

Figure 11. Stream sediment samples. A, Localities plotted on the South Strafford quadrangle. Note that 

the actual map is at a scale of 1:24,000 (as on fig. 2), but is plotted here at 1:48,000 to show the 

entire sample suite on a single page. See table 10 for key to stream sediment samples . B, Total 

base metal concentrations as a function of distance from the Elizabeth mine ............. 40

Figure 12. Pyrrhotite alteration in oxidized ore on TP3. A^ Backscatter electron SEM image showing

pyrrhotite altering to marcasite. B, EMP map of pyrrhotite alteration showing the distribution of 

oxygen, sulfur, iron, and aluminum. .............................................. 54
Figure 13. Secondary electron SEM images. A, "Organpipe" gypsum crystals that coarsen outwards. B, 

Hairlike needles of pickeringite. ................................................. 56

Figure 14. Blue efflorescent salts growing on the surface of TP3. XRD pattern is consistent with a

siderotil group mineral; however SEM study shows that there are two different crystal forms that 

have different compositions. A, Curved, sheaf-like crystals (secondary electron image, 1000x), 

B, Energy dispersive x-ray spectrum collected for the crystal at the center of image A.. 

C, Hexagonal crystals (secondary electron image, 1000x), D, Energy dispersive x-ray spectrum 

collected for the crystal at the center of image C .................................... 57

Figure 15. X-ray powder diffraction patterns. A, "Snowballs" of white efflorescent salts coating

weathered ore on TP3-F. Comparison with standard reference patterns (stick diagrams) shows 

that the snowballs are a mixture of rozenite and melanterite. SEM data confirms that Fe and S 

are the major components of the minerals. B, Iron minerals in ochre deposits along Copperas 

Brook below TP1 ............................................................. 61

Figure 16. Bar graphs showing the variation in base metals, iron, and aluminum in ochre deposits

associated with tailings, seeps, surface waters, and ground water discharge at the air vent.. 69

TABLES

Table 1. Mineralogy of the Elizabeth mine ................................................ 8

Table 2. Tailings characteristics ....................................................... 14.

Table 3. Ore samples ............................................................... 21.

Table 4. Geochemical data for host rocks exposed in the south pit ............................ 24

Table 5. Geochemical data for slag in tailings pile 3 (north pit area)........................... 25.

Table 6. Geochemical data for composite waste dump and tailings soils ....................... 29

Table 7. Geochemical data for tailings profiles. ........................................... 33

Table 8. Stream sediments ........................................................... 42

Table 9. Compositions of minerals in ore and tailings determined by electron microprobe .......... 53

Table 10. Ochres. .................................................................. 62
Figure 1. Copperas Brook confluence with the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River, about 0.5 

km downstream from the base of the tailings at the Elizabeth mine site. The distinctive orangered color of iron-rich coatings on the streambed and river rock is a hallmark of acid mine 

drainage.

INTRODUCTION

The Elizabeth mineral deposit, in the southern part of Orange County in east-central Vermont, 

was discovered in 1793. The deposit was developed in the early 1800s for copperas (iron sulfate) 

production from the iron-sulfide mineral pyrrhotite. Elizabeth is one of the oldest mines in the United 

States. From the 1830s to 1958, the deposit was mined for copper from chalcopyrite. Before the 

development of large copper deposits in Michigan, the Elizabeth mine was one of the largest domestic 

producers of copper. In the 1950s, it was the only operating metal mine in the northeastern United 

States. Sulfide ores of the Elizabeth mine constitute an excellent example of a Besshi-type massive 

sulfide deposit. These types of mineral deposits have the potential to generate considerable acid and 

contribute metals to the surrounding environment for two main reasons: (1) the ores are very rich in ironsulfide minerals which are likely to produce acid and release metals upon weathering, and (2) the host 

rocks are carbonate-poor and have little or no capacity to neutralize any acid generated from 

weathering of sulfide minerals. Drainage from extensive mine waste piles and tailings (>30 acres) at 

Elizabeth enters Copperas Brook, which empties into the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River 

(figs. 1, 2). The West Branch joins the main Ompompanoosuc River about 5 kilometers east of the 

Elizabeth mine. In the 1980s, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) conducted limited site screening studies in response to concerns about the abandoned 

mine site as a source of heavy metals and silt affecting Copperas Brook and the Ompompanoosuc 

River; they concluded that the mine has had an adverse effect on local water quality.
The U.S. Geological Survey is currently (1999) cooperating with the Elizabeth Mine Study Group 

to characterize acid mine drainage from the site (Seal and others, 1999) as part of a broader study of the 

environmental behavior of massive sulfide deposits. Preliminary USGS water quality data are included 

in a report on hydrologic characterization and reclamation options prepared for the Elizabeth Mine Study 

Group (Barg and others, 1999). The water data show elevated concentrations of dissolved iron, 

aluminum, and acidity downstream from the tailings. Preliminary evaluation suggests that the heavy 

metals copper, zinc, and cadmium exceed U.S. EPA guidelines for acute toxicity for aquatic ecosystems 

(Seal and others, 1999). Increased metal loads from dissolution of sulfate salts during storm events 

degrade the water quality and aquatic biology of Copperas Brook. In conjunction with the USGS water 

quality study, the site was visited in August, 1998, and different geologic materials were sampled to 

characterize the mineralogy and chemistry of solid phases.

Mineralogy is an important control on water chemistry because the primary minerals in ore and 

host rock, and the secondary minerals that form during weathering of ore and tailings, provide the 

source for metals and acidity in associated waters. Soluble efflorescent sulfate salts forming on mine 

dump soils and tailings piles at Elizabeth are an important source of metals that affect surface runoff 

from the extensive mine waste on short time scales. Host rocks and mine waste composed mainly of 

common rock-forming minerals such as mica and feldspar release aluminum upon weathering and some 

of the minerals, although less effective than carbonate minerals, can consume some acidity.

Results of field observations and measurements, mineralogic data, and geochemical analyses 

for samples collected at Elizabeth in 1998 are summarized in this report, preceded by a general 

overview of environmental signatures associated with massive sulfide deposits elsewhere. X-ray 

powder diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and electron microprobe analysis 

(EMPA) were used to identify the minerals; mineralogic and geochemical data are used to track the 

distribution of metals during weathering. These data provide preliminary information about the 

mineralogic residence, concentrations, and spatial distributions of metals and other elements in the 

solid materials on the site after 50 years (or more) of weathering and oxidation. Together with water 

analyses, these data can be used to help focus plans for site reclamation by providing information on the 

character of materials impacting Copperas Brook from the Elizabeth mine site.

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNATURES OF MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS

Besshi-type massive sulfide deposits (named after a mine in Besshi, Japan) are a class of 

strata-bound mineral deposits that form in thick sequences of clastic sedimentary rocks interlayered with 

minor basalt (Slack, 1993). Besshi-type deposits range in size from less than one to over 180 million 

tonnes of ore. At a size of 2.9 million tonnes, the Elizabeth deposit is one of the smaller examples of 

this type. The deposits are typically copper-rich, but some also produce zinc, silver, and gold. The 

deposits are enriched in iron and sulfur, and many are initially mined for their near-surface iron sulfide 

minerals and subsequently exploited at deeper levels for copper and base metals. Other metals such as 

cobalt, molybdenum, tin, and lead may be present in minor amounts. The ore is concentrated in pods or 

lenses, and the deposits probably formed in ancient seafloor geothermal settings analogous to the 

modern black smoker deposits forming in deep ocean-floor settings in the Guaymas Basin of the Gulf of 

California (Slack, 1993).

Besshi-type mineral deposits tend to develop acid mine drainage and other environmental 

problems ( Taylor and others, 1995) because (1) they contain massive concentrations of sulfide 

minerals that include abundant iron as well as base metals, (2) the iron sulfide minerals react with air 

and water during weathering to produce acid and release metals, and (3) host rocks typically lack 

effective acid-neutralizing minerals such as calcite. Some of the most acidic waters ever recorded are 

associated with drainage from massive sulfide deposits such as at the Iron Mountain Superfund site in 

California (Nordstrom and Alpers, 1999). Most metals are more mobile under acidic conditions and, 

therefore, waters associated with massive sulfide deposits tend to have low pH values and high 

dissolved metal concentrations (Plumlee, 1999). Water chemistry from these mine sites is a function of 

the geochemical and biogeochemical processes that operated at the site, the geology of the mineral
the geochemical and biogeochemical processes that operated at the site, the geology of the mineral 

deposit, climate, and mining and mineral processing methods used. Geologic controls on water quality 

and other environmental signatures of mineral deposits include ore and waste rock mineralogy and 

chemistry, mineral resistance to oxidation and weathering, mineral textures, and precipitation and 

dissolution of secondary minerals. In general, the pH of mine drainage varies depending on the 

balance between acid-producing and acid-consuming reactions that occur during weathering, the 

relative rates of these reactions, and the accessibility of minerals that contribute to these reactions 

(Smith and others, 1994). Reactions that produce acid include oxidation of iron sulfide minerals, 

hydrolysis of metal cations, and precipitation of hydrous metal-oxide minerals. Thus, mineralogy is 

important because (1) the primary ore and gangue minerals (the no n metal I if era us minerals associated 

with ore) provide a source of metals and other elements that can be released into solution upon 

weathering and produce or consume acid, and (2) any secondary minerals that form during the 

weathering process can temporarily sequester metals, recycling them and generating acidity in the 

environment as conditions, such as rainstorms or temperature, change.

The major ore minerals in Besshi-type deposits are pyrrhotite (Fe^S), pyrite (FeS2), and 

chalcopyrite (CuFeS2). Minor ore minerals include magnetite and a number of other sulfides such as 

sphalerite ((Zn,Fe)S), arsenopyrite (FeAsS), galena (PbS), cobaltite (CoAsS), tetrahedrite 

((Cu,Fe,Ag,Zn) 12Sb4S13 ), cubanite (CuFe2S3), and molybdenite (MoS2). A number of potentially toxic 

metals such as cadmium, antimony, arsenic, and selenium may be present as major components or as 

trace elements that substitute for major components (e.g., Cd for the Zn in sphalerite) in these minerals. 

These elements can be released during mining, processing, natural weathering of the deposit, and 

weathering of the mine waste and tailings. Massive sulfide ores are typically finely ground during 

processing to reduce particle size for separating the different minerals and recovery of metals by a 

process known as flotation. In general, finer grained minerals weather faster than coarser grained 

minerals because of their greater surface area. Similarly, minerals that deviate from ideal composition 

weather faster than pure phases (Kwong, 1993; Kwong and Lawrence, 1994) and some sulfide minerals 

tend to decompose faster than others (Jambor, 1994). Weathering and oxidation of sulfide minerals in 

ore, waste rock, or tailings can release acid and metals directly to surface runoff or ground waters. More 

importantly, these processes recycle metals and acid. Secondary minerals form by evaporation of 

metal-rich solutions during dry periods and redissolve with rain or snow melt that releases pulses of acid 

and metals to aquatic systems. Secondary minerals can accumulate as efflorescent salt crusts and as 

cemented layers in tailings. Many of these secondary minerals are hydrates that are stable under very 

narrow ranges of temperature and relative humidity, and can appear and disappear within hours 

depending on weather conditions. Dissolved iron (from weathering and oxidation of the iron sulfide 

minerals) and aluminum (from weathering of the silicate minerals in the host rocks) precipitate as poorly 

crystalline oxyhydroxide mineral slimes under certain conditions of pH, and can affect aquatic habitats 

by increasing turbidity or interfering with gill function; these same minerals can remove metals from 

waters by adsorption.

THE ELIZABETH MINE 

Location and geologic setting

The Elizabeth mine is located about 3 kilometers southeast of the village of South Strafford, on 

the east flank of Copperas Hill. The large open pits and tailings are shown on the USGS South Strafford 

1:24,000-scale quadrangle map (fig. 2). Underground workings were accessed from the large open cuts 

(south pit and north pit) as well as from adits and vertical shafts. The mine area is within the headwaters 

for Copperas Brook, which flows northward through a wooded area for about a kilometer before it flows 

into the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River.
Figure 2. Elizabeth mine area as shown on part of the South Stratford 1:24,000-scale quadrangle.

Labeled subareas sampled for this study are described in the text. The tic mark shown south of 

Copper Flat is at latitude 43° 50' north, longitude 72° 20' west.

Elizabeth was the southernmost and largest of the developed massive sulfide deposits of the 

Vermont Copper Belt. The Belt includes a number of mines and prospects that crop out west of the 

Connecticut Valley. The deposits are hosted by metamorphosed sedimentary rocks of Early Devonian 

age. The Gile Mountain Formation, the host rock for the Elizabeth and Ely deposits, is a sequence of 

silica-rich clastic rocks including pelite, quartzite, and metagraywacke, with minor amounts of mafic 

metaigneous rocks, such as hornblende schist and amphibolite. Deposits at Pike Hill occur in 

carbonate-rich rocks of the Waits River Formation. Both of these rock units were originally deposited by 

turbidity currents on an ancient ocean floor, covered with basaltic tuff (Standing Pond Volcanics), and 

following subsequent deposition of sediments and volcanics, were metamorphosed and deformed. 

Several smaller deposits (e.g., Cookville, Orange, Gove) are associated with the volcanic rocks. From
an environmental standpoint, one would predict that tailings and mine waste from any of these deposits 

likely impact the surrounding watershed because the deposits all share the characteristics of Besshi-type 

massive sulfide deposits.

A number of unusual rock types such as albite-, garnet-, and tourmaline-rich rocks are present 

in the local Elizabeth mine area. Ore bodies are sheetlike, but complexly folded. The nature of the 

original rock types and geometry of the mineral deposit have been obscured by the complicated 

geologic history of the area. For details of the stratigraphy, structure, and origins of the mineral deposits 

of the copper district, the interested reader is referred to Slack and others (1993) and references therein.

Mine history and previous studies

The Elizabeth mine was discovered in 1793 but at that time was unsuccessfully exploited for 

iron. In the 1800s, the iron sulfide mineral pyrrhotite was mined and processed on site to produce 

copperas at the Strafford Copperas Works, which is believed to have occupied the area adjacent to the 

north pit (fig. 2). Copperas, also known as green vitriol, is an informal name for the hydrated ferrous iron 

sulfate mineral melanterite (FeSO4» 7H2O). Melanterite was produced from pyrrhotite by igniting and 

then leaching the ore to decompose the sulfides, collecting the leachate liquor in evaporators, boiling the 

concentrate to an appropriate strength, and then evaporating the solution to form large green crystals of 

copperas in vats (Hitchcock and others, 1861). Sticks, branches, and timbers were used as substrates 

to seed crystallization. Copperas was marketed as a mordant in dyes and inks, and was also used as a 

disinfectant for purifying sewers. Ironically, the mineral melanterite, which was once the product of 

mining at Elizabeth, is now forming by the natural weathering of exposed sulfide-rich ore and mine 

waste rather than by a human-engineered process. Melanterite, and other efflorescent salts identified in 

this study, are readily soluble sources of metals and acidity that contribute to the degradation of water 

quality in Copperas Brook.

Open-pit copper mining at Elizabeth started in 1830 and underground mining began in 1886. 

The deposit was worked for copper until 1930, and was reopened by the Vermont Copper Company 

from 1943 until 1958 (Annis and others, 1983). The mine produced approximately 2.9 million tonnes 

(3.2 million short tons) of ore averaging 1.8 percent copper and 0.5 percent zinc, as well as minor silver 

and gold (Gair and Slack, 1980). The geology and history of the Elizabeth mine and the genesis of the 

mineral deposits of the Vermont copper belt have been addressed in many previous studies (Hitchcock 

and others, 1861; Wheeler, 1883; Howe, 1886; Smyth and Smith, 1904; Judson, 1909; Fay, 1909; 

Anderson, 1931; White, 1943; White and Eric, 1944; Benson and others, 1950; Lutjen and Kearney, 

1953; Howard, 1959a, 1969; McKinstry and Mikkola, 1954; Jenks, 1968; Gair and Slack, 1980; Annis 

and others, 1983; Slack and others, 1993).

The Elizabeth mine was developed in open pits and in extensive underground workings. Water 

was a problem in the open pits, but relatively little water entered the underground workings during 

mining (125 gallons per minute reported in the 1950s; Lutjen and Kearney, 1953). Ore was processed 

on-site over a period of more than 100 years by a variety of methods. Copper smelters operated at the 

mine from 1830 to 1839, from 1861 to 1872, and from 1880 to 1888 (Benson and others, 1950). A 

flotation mill was erected during World War I and a second flotation plant operated from about 1927 to 

1930. The mine was reorganized under the Vermont Copper Company in 1942 and reopened with a 

modern flotation mill.

Preexisting mine dumps were reprocessed in the modern mill and flotation plant during 1949 

and 1950. These older dumps were reportedly acidic from ferrous sulfate formation generated by 

burning; oxidation of unstable pyrrhotite in the tailings apparently was susceptible to spontaneous 

combustion. Buildings constructed during this last phase of the mine operation remain on the site (fig. 

3). In the 1940s, 180 to 680 tonnes (200 to 750 short tons) of ore were milled daily (Benson and 

others, 1950). The ore was reduced to a particle size of 2 cm (3/4 in) or less before entering the copper 

concentration circuit where a Marcy mill was used to grind 60 percent of the ore to -200 mesh for 

flotation. In order to float pyrrhotite from the rest of the ore, copper sulfate or sulphuric acid (or both) 

were added to the pulp, and a pH of 9.0 to 9.3 was maintained in the copper recovery circuit by adding 

lime to truckloads of ore as they were dumped into the coarse ore bin (Lutjen and Kearney, 1953;
South Stratford Ompompanoosuc River |SJ

decant 

discharge

ctecant 

tower

Figure 3. Detailed sketch map of the Elizabeth mine site (based on Young, 1991).

Benson and others, 1950). Other reagents used in the flotation circuit included cyanide, pentasol amyl 

xanthate, and a frother of pine oil and pentasol 124 alcohol. Sandy tailings were dammed to form an 

impoundment near the concentrator that was designed to hold several million tons of tailings (Benson 

and others, 1950). These fine-grained tailings are present in the 30 acres designated as tailings pile 1 

(TP1 on figs. 2 and 3). Copper and pyrrhotite tails from the flotation circuit were separated because the 

pyrrhotite tailings contained fine mica and talc slimes that tended to slide when the tailings got wet. 

Concrete pipes were installed to dewater the tailings to address this problem. Decant towers (fig. 3) that 

drained the tailings pile surface are still present on the site although the underground pipes have 

collapsed.

In the early years of operation at Elizabeth, copper was smelted on-site. Copper concentrates 

produced in the modern flotation plant were shipped to a smelter in New York; about a third of the 

pyrrhotite produced (70 short tons per day) was shipped to a paper company for manufacture of sulfur. 

Some magnetic pyrrhotite was sold in a pilot project for manufacturing electrolytic iron. The mine 

operated under government subsidy for many years. At times, the mine employed as many as 200 

people and played an important role in the local economy for over 150 years.
Mine dumps and tailings from the Elizabeth mine have been exposed to weathering processes 

since at least 1958. The south pit and north pit areas (figs. 3) represent the oldest workings. Most of 

the ore was produced from underground workings accessed through the adits in the walls of the north 

pit. Underground workings extend to the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River; where the 

underground air ventilation system now discharges ground water to the river about one kilometer 

upstream from the confluence of Copperas Brook (fig. 2). In a 1991 ERA study (Young, 1991), the mine 

site was surveyed and tailings piles were designated as tailings piles 1, 2, and 3 (fig. 3). We have 

retained those designations throughout this report. Tailings piles 1 (TP1, 30 acres) and 2 (TP2, 5 acres) 

comprise fine-grained tailings from the on-site flotation mill that operated during the most recent period 

of mining (1943 to 1958). The piles have steeply dipping, bare, eroded north slopes and partially 

vegetated flat tops. Tailings pile 3 (TP3) consists of a 6-acre mine waste pile adjacent to the open cut of 

the north pit; TP3 represents waste from mining operations in the 1800s. Copperas Brook flows from 

the base of TP3, through a divide in TP2 onto the top surface of TP1, where it enters a small pond. 

Decant towers divert water from the surface of TP1 through concrete pipes to a discharge point at the 

northeast corner of the pile (fig. 3). Waters from the discharge and from seeps along the base of tailings 

pile 1 coalesce to form Copperas Brook in the wooded areas and wetlands below the tailings.

In addition to the EPA study, Barg and others (1999) characterized hydrology and remediation 

options for the Elizabeth mine. Other studies on environmental aspects of Elizabeth include a study of 

water quality implications associated with the Union Village dam project downstream from the mine 

(Barth, 1984) and a hydraulic evaluation and revegetation study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers ( Department of the Army, 1989). Geobotanical studies of tree species showed that birch at 

the Elizabeth mine site accumulate copper, zinc, and cobalt and show effects of stunted growth (Power 

and Milton,1990). Slack and others (1990) documented geochemical dispersion of copper, zinc, 

cadmium, cobalt, silver, boron, and manganese downstream from mine dumps at Elizabeth, Ely, and 

Pike Hill in their study of the geochemistry of stream sediments and heavy mineral concentrates from the 

Orange County copper district. Some of these previous studies include chemical data on tailings and 

stream sediments, but no mineralogic data.

METHODS

A variety of solid geologic materials occurring at the Elizabeth mine can interact with surface and 

ground waters to contribute, or remove, metals and other elements to and from the aquatic habitat. 

These materials include bedrock outcrop exposed in pit walls, weathered chunks of ore sitting out on 

bare waste piles, slag, soils that develop on mine waste piles, tailings from on-site ore processing, 

stream sediments, efflorescent salt minerals, and ochre deposits. By compiling mineralogic and 

geochemical data on these different sample types, the fate of different elements in the environment can 

be tracked and contributions of different materials to the waters associated with the mine can be 

evaluated. During August, 1998, detailed surface sampling of solid materials was conducted in the 

mine area. Stream sediments were collected at water sampling sites (Seal and others, 1999) upstream 

and downstream from the confluence of Copperas Brook, and from the main Ompompanoosuc River 

above and below its junction with the West Branch. Sample localities discussed in the text are shown on 

part of the South Strafford 1: 24, 000 quadrangle map (fig. 2) and on a sketch map of the site (fig. 3). 

Representative samples of different types of materials were collected and several techniques were used 

to determine mineralogy and chemistry. Primary and secondary minerals identified at the Elizabeth 

mine are listed in table 1 together with their ideal chemical formulas and, for secondary minerals, a 

ranking of weathering behavior. Iron, for example, is present in several different primary sulfide ore 

minerals as well as in relatively fast-weathering common minerals that comprise the wallrock around the 

ore. The fact that a number of different secondary minerals contain iron (both oxides and efflorescent 

sulfate salts) indicates that iron is mobile in the environment at the Elizabeth mine. Additional 

secondary minerals probably occur at Elizabeth, but have not yet been identified because they are, by 

nature, ephemeral and may form and dissolve in periods as short as a few hours.
Table 1. Mineralogy of the Elizabeth mine.

[Chemical formulas from Mandarine, 1999; relative weathering rates from Kwong, 1993]

____________ Ore minerals

Mineral name Chemical formula

chalcopyrite CuFeS2

cubanite CuFe2S3

galena PbS

marcasite FeS2

molybdenite MoS2

pyrite FeS2

pyrrhotite Fe^S (x = 0 to 0.17)

sphalerite ZnS

tetrahedrite-tennantite (Cu,Fe,Ag,Zn)12Sb4S13

valleriite 4(Fe,Cu)S«3 Mg,AI)(OH)2

_________Gangue and wallrock minerals

Mineral name Chemical formula

Dissolving 

calcite CaCO3

Fast to intermediate weathering

amphibole (tremolite variety) Ca2Mg5Si8O22 (OH)2 

biotite mica K(Fe,Mg)2AI3Si2O10 (OH)2 

chlorite (Mg,Fe)5AI(Si3AI)O10 (OH)8 

epidote Ca2 (Fe3+,AI)3 (SiO4)3 (OH) 

garnet (spessartine variety) Mn3AI2 (SiO4) 3 

talc Mg3Si4010 (OH)2

Slow weathering to inert

apatite Cas (PO4) 3 F 

graphite C 

muscovite mica/sericite KAI3Si3O10 (OH)2 

plagioclase feldpsar NaAISi3O8 

phlogopite mica KMg3AISi3O10 (OH)2 

quartz SiO2

rutile TiO2

tourmaline Na(Fe,Mg)3AI6(BO3) 3Si6O18 (OH)4

vesuvianite(idocrase) Ca10Mg2AI4 (SiO4) 5 (Si2O7)2(OH)

wollastonite CaSiO,
Table 1. Continued

Secondary minerals

Mineral name

aluminite(?) 

alunogen 

melanterite 

rozenite

halothrichite-pickeringite 

siderotil

gypsum

ferrihydrite

goethite

hematite

jarosite

schwertmannite

Chemical formula

very soluble 

AI2 (SO4) (OH)4» 7H2O 

AI2 (S04)3 »17H20 

FeSO4» 7H2O 

FeSO4 *4H2O

soluble

(Fe,Mg)AI2(S04)4 »22H20 

Fe2+SO4 » 5H2O

slightly soluble 

CaSO4 » 2H2O

relatively insoluble 

5Fe3+ 2 O3 » 9H2O 

Fe3+O(OH) 

a - Fe2O3

K2Fe%(S04)4(OH) 12 

Fe3+16016 (OH)12(S04)2

Color

white 

white 

green 

white

white, fibrous 

light blue to white

white

reddish brown

yellowish brown

black, brown, blood red

straw yellow

yellow

Descriptions and locations of rock, slag, mineral, mine dump soils, tailings soils, and ochre 

samples are tabulated by subarea in Appendix A . Locations were determined in the field by global 

positioning system (GPS) or were taken from the topographic map if no GPS satellite readings could be 

obtained. Details of analytical methods used for determinative mineralogy and chemistry are given in 

Appendix B.

Rock and slag samples were collected from surface outcrops and mine dumps. In the 

laboratory, samples were reduced with a jaw crusher and ground to <100 mesh in a ceramic-lined 

percussion mill to obtain a minimum of 70 g of powder for chemical analysis. For some samples, 

polished thin sections were prepared for quantitative electron microprobe analysis of minerals. Mineral 

grains and fragments of rocks also were hand-picked under a binocular microscope and mounted on 

carbon planchets for scanning electron microscope studies.

Soil fractions (<2 mm) of mine dumps and tailings surfaces were sampled with a stainless steel 

trowel, sieved into a plastic pan using a solder-free 8-mesh screen, and stored in plastic bags. A 

minimum of 1 kg of sample was composited from 30 increments collected on a random grid over defined 

sampling areas. Composite sample areas were chosen on the basis of distinctive features such as 

natural physical breaks and age of waste piles, surface color or texture, and tops of piles versus steep 

eroded slopes. Shovel- and core-type soil augers up to 150 cm long were used to sample the 

stratigraphy of the waste piles. In the laboratory, samples were mixed, split, and ground to <100 mesh 

in a ceramic-lined percussion mill to obtain a minimum of 70 g for chemical analysis. Paste pH was 

measured in the field (Appendix B). Paste pH is a static technique used in soil science. By exposing 

soil-sized material to near-neutral to slightly acidic deionized water and measuring the pH of the resulting 

paste, one can get a quick measure of the relative acid-generating (pH<4) or acid-neutralizing (pH>7) 

potential of the material. The paste pH technique does not replace acid-base accounting procedures 

used to classify acid-generating material and prescribe remediation treatments such as addition of lime;
however, it does provide an indication of what will happen when the material is exposed to surface 

runoff from rain or snowmelt.

Rocks, slag, tailings, and ochre deposits were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass 

spectrometry (ICP-MS) in USGS laboratories in Denver, CO and by inductively coupled plasma-atomic 

emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) by XRAL Laboratories of Don Mills, Ontario using USGS analysis 

protocols (Arbogast, 1996). Some samples were analyzed for major rock-forming elements (reported as 

oxide weight per cent) by wavelength dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (WD-XRF) in USGS 

laboratories in Denver, CO. Splits of the samples were sent to XRAL Laboratories for analysis of total 

carbon, carbonate carbon, and total sulfur by LECO methods; mercury by cold vapor aromic absorption 

spectrometry (CVAC); gold by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry (GFAA); and 

selected trace metals (As,Se, and Sb) by a hydride generation technique (HYD). Total sulfur contents 

provide a measure of the maximum potential acidity that a material may produce. Unpublished 

geochemical data for ore samples (Harvard University collection) from the historic underground workings 

provided by John Slack (USGS) are included in this report (table 3). Tailings soil color was determined 

by comparison of dry, <2 mm material, in sunlight with Munsell soil color charts. Soil mineralogy was 

determined by x-ray diffraction on powder mounts.

Stream sediments were collected at water sampling sites in and adjacent to the mine area. 

Samples of one kilogram or more were collected with a stainless steel scoop, washed through an 8-' 

mesh solder-free screen into a plastic pan, and stored in plastic bags. Each sample represents a 30- 

increment composite across the stream. Where streams are narrow (<3 m wide), the increments 

represent 10 traverses of three samples across the stream. For wider streams, the sampling interval 

was adjusted. In the laboratory, the sediments were air dried in plastic pans, weighed, sieved to remove 

material coarser than 80 mesh, reweighed, and ground in a ceramic-lined percussion mill to obtain a 

minimum of 70 g of powder for chemical analysis. The <80 mesh fraction of the stream sediment 

represents the finer-grained portion of the sediment that is most likely to be transported downstream, to 

contribute to stream turbidity, and to affect aquatic and benthic species. Stream sediments were 

analyzed for 40 elements by ICP-AES by XRAL Laboratories using USGS protocols for analysis. 

(Arbogast, 1996).

Mineral samples of efflorescent salts were collected using tweezers or a knife blade and stored 

in plastic vials or in mineral oil to preserve hydration state. Samples were examined under a binocular 

microscope and hand-picked for mineral identification by x-ray diffraction and scanning electron 

microscopy. Heavy liquids were used on tailings and ochre deposits to separate minerals with high 

specific gravity for identification by SEM or EMPA.

OVERVIEW OF SAMPLE SITES

Field observations and localities sampled are discussed in terms of discrete subareas (figs. 2 

and 3), starting with the southernmost areas that are proximal to the underground workings and ending 

with the northernmost samples collected along Copperas Brook and the West Branch of the 

Ompompanoosuc River. Aspects of mineralogy relevant to each site are noted (see table 1 for key to 

minerals) in the overview discussion. Tailings characteristics are summarized in table 2. Mineralogic 

and geochemical data are discussed by sample type (ore, tailings, salts, etc.) in the Results section of 

this report below. Data are given in tables 3-10; within each table, data are organized by subarea.

South pit area

The south (No. 2 ) pit area represents some of the oldest workings at the Elizabeth mine. The 

pit is flooded at its north end (fig. 4A). The south end is a deep trench that exposes bedrock along the 

pit walls. Slack and others (1993) provided a detailed description of the lithologies and structures 

exposed in the pit walls. The pit exposes bedrock composed of quartzite, biotite schist, coarse garnetmica schist, amphibolite, and massive sulfide ore (Slack and others, 1993, fig. 13). Under protected 

overhangs, some of the exposed pit walls are covered with thin (<1 mm thick) coatings of white, orange,

10
B

Figure 4. Photos of the South Pit area. A, Flooded north end of the south pit and haulageway, looking 

north. B, Gypsum encrustation on sheltered parts of pit walls. Note pen for scale.

11
blue, and green minerals that form vertical color bands. X-ray powder diffraction identified these color 

bands as mixtures of jarosite, feldspar, chlorite, mica, and quartz. Locally, thick (up to 1 cm) 

encrustations of coarse, yellowish crystals of gypsum coat pit walls over vertical distances of 1 to 2 m 

(fig. 4B). Occurrence of the sulfate minerals jarosite and gypsum indicates that sulfide minerals in the 

bedrock are actively oxidizing on pit wall surfaces. Loose pieces of weathered ore on the pit floor are 

coated with rusty- colored iron oxyhydroxide minerals on exposed surfaces ; "bathtub rings" of white 

salts form a border on the rocks at the soil/rock interface, marking the area where sulfate salts 

precipitate during wet/dry cycles. A paste pH value of 2.9 obtained on a composite soil sample from the 

dry floor of the south end of the pit indicates that the soils contain readily available acidity from prior acid 

generation. A composite wall rock sample of relatively fresh garnet amphibolite schist (98JH-SP-R1) 

from the north side of the haulageway and weathered mica schist (98JH-SP-R4) were collected to 

determine the trace metal, sulfur, and carbonate content of pit bedrock (table 4). No extensive piles of 

mine waste are associated with this pit. Intermittent drainage flows along the old haulageway. Twenty 

two percent of the sediment that collects in the intermittent stream channels in the ore haulageway is 

fine-grained (<80 mesh). A drainage divide separates the south and north pit areas; therefore, surface 

flow from the south pit area does not enter Copperas Brook.

North pit area (Tailings pile 3)

Tailings pile 3 (TP3) is a 6-acre pile of mine waste from the pre-1942 phase of mining operations 

(fig. 3). The pile extends from the open cut of the north pit, across a dirt road, to an area just above the 

top of tailings pile 2. Although we use the term "tailings pile", the nature of the surface material in this 

area is quite different from the fine-grained processed tailings of piles 1 and 2. The term "mine dump" or 

mine spoil is more appropriate than "tailings" because we are unsure of the degree to which metals were 

removed from the waste material during processing. This pile is composed of waste from the earliest 

mining, when ore recovery was not as refined. Thus, one would expect more metals to be present in the 

soil cover here than in the tailings from the 1950s-era flotation plant (TP1, TP2). TP3 is essentially 

devoid of vegetation and the north-facing slopes of the waste piles have deep erosion gullies (fig. 5). 

The pile is extremely heterogeneous in color and texture, and surface runoff from this pile contributes to 

the headwaters of Copperas Brook that emanate from the base of the pile. We arbitrarily divided tailings 

pile 3 into 6 subareas (A-F) on the basis of surface color and collected composite samples of each 

subarea for mineralogy, paste pH measurements (table 2), and chemistry (table 6). Slag and timber are 

present in the central part of the area (piles B and E). Color variations from pile to pile reflect the 

dominant soil minerals. Hematite is especially abundant in the central part of TP3 (subarea TP3-B and 

TP3-D) on both sides of the road, where slag is noted and pieces of lumber are strewn about. This 

pattern suggests that the central part of TP3 was the site of historic ore processing, possibly one of the 

early smelter operations. Hematite most likely formed from oxidation and burning, rather than through 

any natural weathering process that affected the mine waste. Paste pH values for the surface 

composites over each subarea are all extremely acidic (2.1 to 3.2). Piles that are yellowish in color are 

jarosite-rich and tend to have slightly lower paste pH values than the redder, hematite-rich piles (table 2). 

Jarosite is an iron hydroxy sulfate mineral that is typically straw yellow, forming from oxidized acid mine 

waters that contain dissolved ferrous iron, sulfate, and potassium. A shovel auger was used to examine 

the upper 150 cm of material at the center of each pile (GPS locations noted in Appendix A). Changes 

in color or texture were logged and selected intervals were sampled for paste pH measurement and 

mineralogy (table 4). The only hole that penetrated unoxidized black tailings was TP3-F, where tailings 

composed of chalcopyrite, sphalerite, covellite, quartz, mica, and siderotil (but no pyrrhotite) were 

encountered at a depth of 105 cm below the surface. In general, the paste pH values for the composite 

surface soils are lower than, or the same as, the material encountered at depth. None of the material in 

the top 150 cm of any part of TP3 approached a near-neutral pH. Quartz (inert) and white mica (very 

slow weathering) are ubiquitous and provide no practical neutralization potential.

The most striking feature of the pile is the presence of thick coatings of white efflorescent salts 

on loose pieces of oxidized ore on dry days that give pile surface the appearance of being covered with 

"snowballs" (fig. 5C); these salts essentially disappear during storm events. XRD data show that these

12
A

Figure 5. Photos o( the north pit area (tailings pile 3). A. Center of subarea TP3-A. The yellow color is due to jarosite. B. Center of subarea TP3-B. Red color 

due to hematite; red and black slag occur in this pile. C, "Snowballs" of weathered sulfide ore coated with white efflorescent salt minerals littering the 

surface of subarea TP3-F on a dry day. D , Close-up view of blue efflorescent salt crust on TP3 mine dump soil.

13
Table 2. Tailings characteristics.

[Measurements are for 30-increment surface soil samples (<2 mm fraction) composited over the pile described;

see fig. 3 for locations of piles]

Sample

TP3-A

TP3-B

TP3-C

TP3-D

TP3-E

TP3-F

TP2-1

TP2-2

TP1-1

TP1-2

TP1-3

Description Munsell color

North oit area (tai linos oile 3)

Northernmost pile east of the road yellow 

characterized by a yellow-brown soil 2.5Y 7/6 

color.

Central pile east of road; appears to be dark reddish 

site of historic processing. Surface soil brown 

is very heterogeneous, local blue-green 5 YR 3/2 

iridescent copper coatings on slag. Red 

to black soil on pile surface.

Southernmost pile east of the road. reddish brown 

Surface runoff from this pile directly 2.5Y 4/4 

affects water sample site LIZM13. Red 

to orange soil with white salts.

Southernmost pile west of the road. brownish 

Yellow-brown soil similar to TP3-A. yellow 

10YR6/8

Central pile west of road. Red soil with red 

some black material, but lacks the slag 2.5YR 4/6 

noted on TP3-B.

Northernmost pile west of the road and yellowish 

adjacent to the north end of the north pit. brown 

Orange soil littered with salt-coated 1 0YR 5/6 

("snowballs") loose pieces of weathered

ore.

Tailings pile 2

Partially vegetated, flat top of tailings strong brown 

pile 2. 7.5YR 5/8

Bare, eroded north slope of tailings pile strong brown 

2. 7.5YR 5/8

Tailings pile 1

Bare area of flat top of tailings pile 1 strong brown 

adjacent to the pond. 7.5YR 5/8

Vegetated area on flat top of tailings pile strong brown 

1 . 7.5YR 5/8

Steep, bare eroded north slope of strong brown 

tailings pile 1 with seeps along the base. 7.5YR 5/8

Mineralogy

jarosite + quartz

hematite + quartz

hematite + quartz + 

mica + feldspar

jarosite + quartz

hematite + quartz + 

mica

mica + quartz + 

jarosite + goethite

jarosite + quartz + 

mica + plagioclase 

feldspar

jarosite + goethite + 

quartz + plagioclase 

feldspar + mica

quartz + mica + 

goethite + jarosite

quartz + mica + 

goethite + jarosite

quartz + mica + 

goethite + jarosite

Paste pH

2.4

2.6

2.0.

2.1

3.2

2.2

5.5

3.2

3

5.9

2.8

14
very soluble salts are a mixture of melanterite and rozenite (table 1). SEM studies confirm that these 

salts contain iron and sulfur. Melanterite is typically blue-green and rozenite is white. Melanterite 

dehydrates to rozenite and fine-grained melanterite can appear white. No blue-green salts were noted in 

these snowball coatings. Locally, blue copper bearing efflorescent salts (fig. 5D) of the siderotil group 

coat surface soils. The relatively insoluble mineral gypsum is ubiquitous on surface soils as thin crusts 

and clusters of crystals that protrude from the soil surface like small organ pipes. Unlike melanterite and 

rozenite, the sulfate minerals gypsum and jarosite persist in wet weather.

Tailings pile 2

Tailings pile 2 (TP2) is a relatively small pile (5 acres) of waste from the 20th century mine 

operations. TP2 rises above the flat top of tailings pile 1 (TP1) and is bisected on its east side by the 

headwaters of Copperas Brook (fig. 3). The steep north face of the pile is bare and deeply eroded (fig. 

6A). Soils developed on the tailings are oxidized; none of the weathered ores described above for TP3 

are noted on TP2. Some vegetation is present on the flat top of the pile. Holes were dug with a shovel 

at two locations on top of the pile where black, unoxidized sulfide mineral tailings were encountered at 

depths of 15 to 60 cm below the surface. Tailings are overlain by yellow-green, clayey layers and local 

2.5 cm thick hardpan layers. The surface layer (upper 13 to 30 cm) of the pile is reddish-brown topsoil 

with abundant plant roots. Near the base of the pile (fig. 6B), black tailings are overlain by nearly 

monomineralic layers of gray to white mica, yellow jarosite, and hardpan crusts that range from 0.5 cm to 

several cm thick. The hardpans may have formed in situ within the pile, or they may represent 

paleosurfaces that formed as surface layers exposed to oxidation and weathering as tailings were 

deposited over time. Hardpan ledges and crusts are actively forming on the present tailings surfaces 

wherever water is flowing. White crystals of gypsum coat the surface of TP2. White slime precipitates 

very locally along the Copperas Brook headwaters (fig. 6A) that bisect TP2, where ground water seeps 

in from the undisturbed area to the east of the pile. In acid mine drainage settings, white precipitates of 

amorphous or very poorly crystalline aluminum minerals commonly form where near-neutral waters mix 

with acidic waters (Alpers and others, 1994). White slime precipitates collected at the topographic break 

in TP2 is amorphous; SEM spectra show that it contains aluminum>sulfur>minor silicon. Some lime (or 

limestone) and topsoil were apparently added to the top of the pile after the mine closed. The effect of 

the treatment and(or) vegetation is apparent from the higher paste pH values obtained for the vegetated 

top of the pile (5.5), compared to the bare eroded slope (3.1).

Tailings pile 1

Tailings pile 1 (TP1) is a 30-acre accumulation of very fine-grained tailings (various amounts of 

pyrrhotite, jarosite, melanterite, goethite, gypsum, mica, feldspar, quartz, hornblende, talc, chlorite) 

from the most recent (1958) phase of the mining operations. The pile rises 30 m above the natural 

streambed of Copperas Brook (fig. 7A). The top of the pile is relatively flat and partly vegetated. A 

decant tower at the edge of a tailings pond on the eastern side of the pile diverts some water to a 

discharge point at the northeast corner of the pile (fig. 3). The top and north slope surfaces are oxidized. 

Adjacent to the south end of the pond, water-saturated, unoxidized black tailings are present about 25 

cm below the surface and unoxidized tailings are exposed, or under a shallow cover, along the sides of 

the pile. Adjacent to piezometer MP3 at the north edge of the pond, an auger sample (fig. 7B) to a depth 

of 91 cm (36") shows relatively dry oxidized tailings (orange) overlying 2.5 cm (1") thick layers of black 

tailings, green clays, wet fine-grained black tailings, and drier coarse black tailings. Vertical variations in 

texture and wetness indicate that different layers within the tailings have different porosities. The entire 

tailings pile behaves as an artificial aquifer with a complex internal hydrology and chemistry. Hardpans 

are actively forming along the stream across the tailings surface that drains into the pond. Blue salt 

crusts were observed in a small area near the pond (fig. 7A). Sediment at the bottom of the pond is a 

very fine-grained orange ooze that contains pyrrhotite, gypsum, and jarosite. Unoxidized tailings were 

encountered at about 15 cm (6") below the top of the sediment column at the southern end of the pond 

in August, 1998. The level of the pond varies seasonally. Repeated cycles of evaporation, salt

15
B

Figure 6. Photos of tailings pile 2. A, Bare, eroded north slope of TP2. Surface runoff from TP3 forms 

the headwaters of Copperas Brook that bisect TP2 and flow out onto the flat top of TP1 and into 

the pond. B, Layering in tailings at base of TP2 exposed by scraping off surface material.

16
formation, and subsequent salt dissolution on the tailings surface, near the margins of the pond, 

contribute to the acidity of the pond water (pH 2.6).

Seeps at the base of tailings pile 1

Near-neutral (pH 6.1 to 6.9) ground-water seeps occur along the base of the northern slope of 

TP1 (Seal and others, 1999). Waters from these seeps and water from the decant discharge pipe at the 

northeastern corner of the pile coalesce to form Copperas Brook (fig. 2). Bright red and orange mucks 

mark the seeps (fig. 8A). Dissolved iron in the seep waters oxidizes from ferrous iron (Fe2+) to ferric iron 

(Fe3"1") as it contacts air, precipitating out of solution and forming ochre deposits of iron hydroxysulfate 

and iron oxyhydroxide minerals. Abundant organic material (leaves, small twigs) is incorporated in these 

mucks and becomes preserved in hardpan crusts as they build up (fig. 8B). Other studies (Fern's and 

others, 1989; Yapp and Poths, 1986) have noted that it is common to find concentrations of organic 

matter in natural goethite and ferrihydrite precipitates suggesting that bacterial cells may serve as 

nucleation sites for mineral growth. XRD and SEM confirm that the clayey yellow mud found near the 

seeps is essentially pure jarosite (sample LIZM6). In the wettest parts of the seeps, a yellow slime of 

poorly crystalline schwertmannite (table 1) is associated with goethite. A small area of wetlands with 

cattails and phragmites occurs at the lower end of the seeps.

Copperas Brook

A number of stream branches coalesce at water sample site LIZM18, below TP1 and the seeps, 

to form the main channel of Copperas Brook that flows into the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc 

River (fig. 3). Ochre hardpans are associated with all of these side streams as well as with the main 

stream at its confluence with the river. As ochre minerals precipitate, acidity is produced and the 

associated surface waters become acidic as a result of oxidation and hydrolysis of dissolved iron. Just 

above the confluence with the river, the surface waters of Copperas Brook have a pH of about 2.7 (Seal 

and others, 1999). Rocks along the river are coated with red to orange precipitates for over a kilometer 

downstream.

Air shaft along the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River

About 1 kilometer upstream from Copperas Brook, an air shaft that provided ventilation for the 

underground workings of the mine discharges ground water onto the south bank of the West Branch of 

the Ompompanoosuc River and into a side stream. The discharge pipe is covered with an iron grate 

that is coated with white aluminum minerals (fig. 8C) that have precipitated out of the water. These 

white minerals coat the bottom of the stream and rocks that form a small waterfall. The whole area for 

about 7 meters around the pipe is an ochre muck that incorporates a lot of organic material. The pH of 

the water coming out of the pipe is 5.0. Aluminous precipitates ("white slimes") are typically found where 

acidic (pH<5) waters mix with near-neutral waters that elevate the pH values to around 5, the pH value 

where aqueous aluminum hydrolyzes to form AI(OH)2"1". The white material coating the rocks below the 

grate was scraped off with a knife, dried in air in the lab, and examined by XRD and SEM. Due to its 

amorphous nature, the material gave a very poor XRD pattern with broad, indistinct peaks. The peaks 

are consistent with, but are not unique to, any of a number of aluminum hydroxide and aluminum 

hydroxysulfate minerals. SEM spectra show that aluminum is the dominant component, with minor, 

subequal amounts of sulfur, iron, and silicon.

17
A

range oxidized soil w YeDpw-^reen

TP1

Figure 7. TP1. /^ Deeply eroded, bare north slope of TP1. Surface runoff from this slope contributes to 

degradation of water quality of Copperas Brook. B, Soil auger profile of tailings from the top of 

TP1 adjacent to piezometer site MP3; auger is 91 cm (36") long. C, Close-up of bluish-white 

salts that form on damp tailings adjacent to the pond.

18
B

Figure 8. Photos of actively precipitating secondary minerals. A^ Iron-rich ochre protohardpan forming at 

near-neutral seeps. B, Close-up of "fossilized" leaves incorporated in hardpan. Cj White, 

amorphous aluminum precipitates at the air vent.

19
RESULTS

Geochemical data are presented in a series of tables, grouped by sample type (tables 3-8,10). 

Major rock-forming elements or oxides are reported in weight percent (%) at the beginning of each table, 

followed by (1) minor and trace element data reported in parts per million (ppm); (2) water, carbon 

species, and total sulfur; and (3) selected metal ratios. A number of elements were determined by more 

than one method, such as iron which is reported by both ICP-MS and by ICP-AES. See Appendix B for 

detection limits and references for each method. Some concentrations are reported as qualified values, 

indicating that the concentration measured was greater than (>) or less than (<) the detection limit of the 

analytical technique. Within tables, samples are arranged from south (proximal to the mine workings) to 

north (distal to the mine workings). Concentrations of total base metals (Cu+Co+Cd+Ni+Pb+Zn) are 

computed as well as selected metal ratios for comparison of variations among sample types. The 

variation of metal abundances within sample types and among different sample media is illustrated in a 

series of bar graphs (figs. 9 and 10). Note that most metal concentrations are plotted on a logarthimic 

scale.

Minerals identified at the Elizabeth mine are listed, together with their ideal chemical formulas, 

by subgroup (ore, gangue, secondary minerals) in table 1. Minerals are listed in alphabetical order 

within each subgroup. Gangue minerals are listed in terms of their ease of weathering; for secondary 

minerals, typical color and relative solubility are noted. Examples of XRD and SEM data are included 

below. EMPA data for sulfide minerals in ore and tailings are given in table 9.

Ore

Geochemical data for representative massive sulfide ore samples from the historic underground 

workings were provided by J. F. Slack (table 3). Ore samples are highly variable in their sulfide mineral 

content (table 3A); however, pyrrhotite is the dominant ore mineral. Unpublished quantitative 

geochemical data are listed for three samples (table 3B). Semiquantitative (SQS) and atomic 

absorption data presented by Slack and others (1986) for selected elements for six samples (table 3C) 

are less precise, but are still useful for demonstrating the chemical signature of the material that was 

mined at Elizabeth. These data show that (1) the ores were variable in composition but extremely 

enriched in base metals (4 to 25 wt. %); (2) copper is the dominant base metal followed by zinc; lead 

comprises less than 1 % of total base metals; (3) the ores are uniformly iron-rich; (4) the ore itself 

contains very little aluminum, so any aluminum that enters the aquatic ecosystem results from 

weathering of gangue and host rock minerals; (5) contents of copper and zinc, and to a lesser extent 

arsenic and cadmium, are one to two orders of magnitude higher in ore than in any of the other types of 

samples collected on the site (fig. 9); (6) mercury concentrations are about 2 ppm or less in all solid 

sample media; and (7) selenium is present in concentrations of up to 100 ppm in pyrrhotite-rich ore.

Host rock

Silicate-rich rock exposed in the walls of the south pit (table 4) contains >0.7 wt. % base metals, 

significant concentrations of sulfur (>0.5 wt. %), and in places, a minor amount of carbonate carbon (<2 

wt. %). Sulfide minerals in the wallrock weather to produce the sulfate that forms gypsum crusts and 

other salt coatings on pit walls. Wallrock is a major source of aluminum (-15 weight per cent AI2O3) and 

manganese. Most metal concentrations in wallrock are one or two orders of magnitude less than in ore 

(fig. 9). Relative to ore, cobalt is depleted and nickel and chromium are enriched in wallrock.

Slag

Slag (table 5) is a product of on-site smelting during the early years of the mine operation. Both 

red and black slag are locally abundant in tailings pile 3B. Some slag surfaces are iridescent due to the 

oxidation of copper to produce "peacock ore". Although slag is not volumetrically significant at the mine, 

it does represent a significant source of copper and zinc. The slag contains about 1 wt.% sulfur.

20
Table 3. Ore samples.

A. Sample descriptions.

[Data from Slack and others, 1986; Unpublished data, 1999, provided by J.F. Slack, USGS]

Sample Number Sample Description

EZ-39 Harvard University collection sample from underground. Massive, coarse

grained pyrrhotite (50%) and chalcopyrite (40%) plus minor quartz inclusions 

and sphalerite (5%).

EZ-45 Very fine-grained massive pyrrhotite ore with chalcopyrite.

EZ-56 Harvard University collection sample from underground consisting of massive 

coarse, granular pyrite (60%), quartz (30%), and chalcopyrite (10%).

EZ-102 Harvard University collection sample from underground consisting of massive 

pyrrhotite and chalcopyrite with quartz inclusions.

EZ-1023 Harvard University collection sample of sphalerite-rich calcite marble with very 

minor pyrite.

EZ-42A Harvard University collection sample of pyrrhotite and chalcopyrite ore with minor 

sphalerite and quartz.

EZ-1031 Harvard University collection sample of massive chalcopyrite ore with very minor 

pyrrhotite and sphalerite.

21
B. Major and minor element data.

[See Appendix B for explanation of methods; n.r., not reported]

Sample number 

Element Method Units

EZ-39 EZ-45 EZ-56

Major elements

At

Ca

Fe

K

Mg

Na

P

Ti

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

0.03

0.719

30.6

<0.01

0.01

<0.005

0.12

<0.005

0.31

1.271

28.2

0.06

0.05

0.014

0.165

0.018

0.225

0.725

30.3

0.07

0.06

<0.005

0.04

0.006

Minor elements

Ag

As

As

Au

Au

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cu

Eu

Ga

Ho

Hg

La

Li

Mn

Mo

Nb

Nd

Ni

Pb

Sb

Sc

Se

Sn

Sr

Ta

Te

Th

TI

U

V

Y

Yb

Zn

Total base

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

Cu/Zn

ICP-AES

HYD

ICP-AES

GFAA

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

CVAC

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

HYD

ICP-AES

HYD

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

GFAA

ICP-AES

GFAA

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

metals (BM)

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

Selected

ppm

63

53.1

19

0.292

<8

<1

<1

84

122

<5

403

40

136,840

<2

<4

<4

2.29

<2

<2

804

41

25

<9

43

205

1.1

3

30.5

<50

7

<40

0.8

<6

<0.1

<100

10

<2

<1

11,170

metal ratios

148,783

0.92

0.08

0.001

12.25

78

81.1

62

ins

<8

8

<1

<50

98

<5

376

30

168,790

<2

<4

<4

0.77

<2

3

390

32

23

<9

30

232

1

4

31.2

<50

7

<40

0.7

<6

0.3

<100

19

<2

<1

9,720

179,246

0.94

0.05

0.001

17.37

14

106

89

0.76

<8

6

<1

51

100

<5

770

44

29,880

<2

<4

<4

1.44

<2

<2

357

52

25

<9

<3

201

<0.6

<2

52.3

<50

6

<40

0.1

<6

0.4

<100

19

<2

<1

1 1 ,350

42,301

0.71

0.27

0.005

2.63

22
C. Minor element data.

[AA, atomic absorption spectrophotometry; SQS, semi-quantitative spectroscopy]

Sample Number 

Element Method Units

Ag

As

Au

B

Ba

Bi

Cd

Co

Cu

Hg

Mn

Mo

Ni

Pb

Sb

Se

Sn

Te

Th

U

V

W

Zn

Zr

SQS

SQS

AA

SQS

SQS

SQS

SQS

SQS

SQS

AA

SQS

SQS

SQS

SQS

SQS

AA

SQS

AA

SQS

SQS

SQS

SQS

SQS

SQS

Total base metals (BM)

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

Cu/Zn

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

%

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

%

ppm

ppm

EZ-39 EZ-56

150

<150

0.24

<6.8

9.5

28

190

190

3.00

1.7

1,300

15

37

390

<2

22

n.r.

2.2

<0.8

0.47

5.7

<10

2.6

10

Selected

46

<150

0.85

<6.8

12

<10

150

550

1.3

1.4

520

71

11

290

<32

15

n.r.

1.4

<1.2

1.22

9

<10

2.6

<3.2

metal

56,807 40,001

0.53

0.46

0.01

1.15

0.33

0.65

0.01

0.50

EZ-102

150

<150

0.11

<6.8

16

24

110

180

2.5

1.4

440

45

43

240

<32

34

<1.5

0.8

<1.6

2.05

33

<10

1.1

<10

ratios

36,573

0.68

0.30

0.01

2.27

EZ-1023

0.38

<150

0.59

<6.8

15

<10

1300

120

0.09

0.36

8,600

170

4.4

67

<32

10

<1.5

0.09

<33.5

<0.46

5

<10

12

39

122,391

0.01

0.98

0.00

0.01

EZ-42A

81

200

0.25

<6.8

<1.5

<10

170

190

24

0.4

710

n.r.

58

33

<68

15

n.r.

1.2

<3.5

0.91

6.1

<15

2

<4.6

260,451

0.92

0.08

0.00

12.00

EZ-1031

64

<100

0.51

<6.8

6

33

260

150

23

0.12

770

n.r.

44

49

<68

50

n.r.

2.8

<2.0

1.13

11

<15

2

11

250,503

0.92

0.08

0.00

11.50

23
Table 4. Geochemical data for host rocks exposed in the south pit.

[See Appendix B for explanation of methods; LOI, loss on ignition; FeTO3 , total iron reported as Fe2O3;

C=CO2 , carbonate carbon; CHM, FeO determined by titration; BM, total base metal concentration in

ppm]

Element

SiO2

AI2O3

FeT03

MgO

CaO

Na2O

KgO

TiO2

P2O5

MnO

LOI

Total

Sample No. 98JH-SP- 98JH-SPR1 R4 

Major element oxides 

Method Units

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

42.9

15.6

8.01

5.54

15.8

2.23

0.18

0.81

0.09

0.15

6.77

98

48.4

15.2

8.03

10.1

2.36

4.5

2.1

0.77

0.08

0.14

4.92

97

Major elements

Element

Al

Ca

Fe

K

Mg

Na

Method

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

8.7

11

5.6

0.13

3.9

1.6

8.1

1.6

5.8

1.6

7.1

3.1

Element

Nb

Ni

Pb

Rb

Sb

Sc

Se

Sr

Te

Th

Tl

U

V

Y

Zn

98JH-SP- 98JH-SPR1 R4 

Minor elements 

Method Units

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

Water, carbon.

Total H2O

H2OH2O+

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

Ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ferrous iron,

%

%

%

2.1

120

18

5.5

0.1

26

2

220

<0.1

0.07 <

<0.1

0.1

150

21

240 1

and total sulfur

1.2

0.2

1

0.89

53

17

72

<0.1

21

2

33

cO.1

0.06

<0.1

0.08

120

4.1

,100

2.6

0.5

2.1

Minor elements

Ag

As

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cs

Cu

Ga

Ge

Hg

In

La

Li

Mn

Mo

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

CVAC

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

0.16

2

24

0.1

0.2

1.2

3.7

47

270

1.7

360

13

1.9

<0.02

<0.1

1.2

38

1,100

0.4

0.32

3

52

0.2

0.57

2.7

3

34

240

25

2,900

10

0.5

<0.02

<0.1

0.9

80

990

4.2

FeO

Total C

C = CO2

CO2

^organic

Total S

Selected

BM

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

Cu/Zn

Fe/AI

CHM

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

%

%

%

%

%

%

6

1.93

1.89

6.92

0.04

0.51

5.5

0.34

0.27

0.99

0.07

2.26

metal ratios and calculated parameters

ppm 786 4

0.46

0.30

0.02

1.5

0.64

,107

0.71

0.27

0.00

2.6

0.72

24
Table 5. Geochemical data for slag in tailings pile 3 (north pit area).

[See Appendix B for explanation of methods; BM, total base metal concentration in ppm; sample

98JHNP-slag is a black slag, sample 98JHNP-B-RS is a red slag or clinker]

Sample No. 98JHNPBslag

Major elements 

Element Method Units

Al

Al

Ca

Ca

Fe

Fe

K

K

Mg

Mg

Na

Na

P

Si

Ti

Ag

As

As

Au

Ba

Ba

Be

Cd

Co

Cr

Cu

Hg

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

HYD

ICP-MS

GFAA

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

CVAC

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Minor elements

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

2.21

2.2

0.09

0.1

>30

46

0.73

0.72

0.37

0.39

0.2

0.21

<0.01

5.32

0.13

1

4.5

5

0.01

26

26

<0.1

1.2

250

91

2,600

<0.02

98JHNP 

-B-RS

98JHNPB- 98JHNP 

slag -B-RS

Minor elements

Element Method

3.59

3.6

0.3

0.3

>30

35

0.91

0.95

0.64

0.68

0.69

0.74

<0.01

12.9

0.25

4

7

5.9

0.009

25

26

0.2

3.9

160

129

4,000

0.06

Mn

Mn

Nb

Ni

Pb

Sb

Sr

Te

TI

TI

V

Y

Zn

Zr

Total S

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

HYD

HYD

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

LEGO

Units

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

%

206

140

<10

46

13

<0.1

<10

0.7

0.2

0.3

47

<10

1,200

22

1.11

264

210

<10

22

77

<0.1

17

- 1

0.9

0.9

91

<20

1,800

47

1.15

Selected metal ratios and calculated parameters

BM

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

Cu/Zn

Fe/AI

ppm 4,110

0.63

0.29

0.00

2.17

21

6,063

0.66

0.30

0.01

2.22

10

25
1,000,000 

100,000 - 

10,000 

1,000 

100 -I 

10

1

Base metal concentrations

in wallrock, ore, and mine waste

(ppm)

, I

WR Ore Slag TP3 TP2 TP1

Trace metal concentrations (ppm)

1000

100

10

0.1 -

0.01 I I I

WR Ore Slag TP3 TP2 TP1

B

Figure 9. Bar graphs showing the variation in selected metal concentrations within, and among, different 

types of solid materials sampled at the Elizabeth mine. Note that the y-axis is a logarithmic 

scale for charts A, B, and C± and that Hg was not determined for all samples. WR, wallrock in 

the south pit; TP, composite tailings surface soils from TP1, TP2, and TP3.

26
Trace metal concentrations (ppm)

mnn

100

10-

I

-

il I

I

I

1

1 It

1

 Co 

 Cr

 Ni

1 WR Ore Slag JP3 TP2 TP1

Iron and aluminum (wt. %)

50 

45 

40

35

30

25

20 J

15 

10 

5 I. I. 1

I J

m

 Al

 Fe

0 

WR Ore Slag TP3 TP2 TP1

Figures. Continued.

27
Tailings

Composite surface samples

Multi-element geochemical data for composite surface-soil tailings (table 6) show systematic 

chemical differences between the older (TP3) and younger piles (TP1, TP2). Composite sample 

characteristics are described in table 2, and GPS locations for the approximate center of each subarea 

sampled are listed in Appendix A. All of the surface soils developed on the older tailings (TP3) are ironrich relative to TP2 and TP1, which tend to have more aluminum. Contents of total base metals are 

high (>1,000 ppm) in all parts of TP3, compared with the variable, but lower base metal concentrations 

at the surfaces of TP1 and TP2 (<1,000 ppm). Copper is the dominant base metal in TP3, but zinc 

dominates the base metal suite (on a weight basis) for most of the areas of TP1 and TP2. Within TP3, 

the subareas characterized by hematite (TP3-B, C, and E) tend to have more iron and less sulfur than 

the subareas where jarosite is more abundant. TP3-F, the area littered with salt-encrusted weathered 

ore near the north pit, has the highest concentrations of base metals in the soil fraction of surface 

material of all areas sampled (>7,000 ppm or >0.7 wt. %). Total carbon concentrations are uniformly low 

(<0.5 wt. % ) and most of the carbon is organic. The highest concentration of carbonate carbon and of 

calcium was obtained for sample TP1-2 from the vegetated, western part of the top of TP1. This may 

reflect remnants of limestone or lime added in the past to promote growth of a vegetative cover on the 

tailings.

Profiles through upper tailings surfaces

Vertical profiles through the near-surface part of the piles were obtained by digging down to 

black, unoxidized tailings. These profiles are by no means representative of the total variation within the 

piles. A detailed grid drilling program though the entire thickness of the piles would be necessary to 

determine the lateral and vertical extent of different layers. These data (table 7), along with the surface 

composite data described above, provide an indication of the geochemical signature of the materials on 

the site. One profile was collected about a third of the way (about 10 m) up from the base of TP1, 

above the seeps. The profile revealed a complex and colorful stratigraphy (fig. 10A) showing a grayishwhite gypsum layer, yellow jarosite-rich layers, and two orange hardpan layers. Iron and total sulfur 

contents vary dramatically through the profile. Copper increases downward by over two orders of 

magnitude. Zinc is greater than, or equal to, copper in the upper parts of the profile; Cr>Co also but this 

trend reverses with depth. The other profile (fig. 10B) is from a hole dug on the flat top surface of TP2. 

Black, unoxidized tailings were encountered at a depth of 60 cm, overlain by a thin layer of yellow-green 

clayey material, hardpan, and orange soil. The upper most 30 cm soil zone was full of roots and organic 

debris and was not sampled. Unlike the TP1 profile, here Cu>Zn>Pb at all levels. Maximum cobalt 

concentrations observed are about 100 ppm whereas >1,000 ppm cobalt was measured in a pyrrhotiterich layer in unoxidized from TP1 (table 7, key 6). Maximum cobalt concentrations observed in massive 

sulfide ores at the Elizabeth mine is <1,000 ppm (table 3); therefore, cobalt is enriched in the some 

waste materials relative to the ores.

28
Table 6. Geochemical data for composite waste dump and tailings soils.

[See Appendix B for explanation of methods. Each sample represents a 30-increment composite of <2 mm (soil 

fraction) surface material; n.d., not determined; LOI, loss on ignition; C=CO2 , carbonate carbon; BM, total base metal 

concentration in ppm. TP1-3R is a replicate for sample TP1-3.]

Element

Field No. 

Method Units

Tailings pile 3 

TP3-A TP3-B TP3-C TP3-D TP3-E TP3-F

Major element oxides

Si02

AI203

FeT03

MgO

CaO

Na2O

K2O

TiO2

PA

MnO

LOI

Total

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

41.6

7.28

26.3

1.23

0.73

2.66

1.72

0.58

0.05

0.03

16.9

99.1

16.5*

2.77*

72.3*

<0.40*

0.14*

<0.40*

0.70*

0.12*

<0.20*

<0.04*

7.03*

99.6

35.6*

7.70*

40.8*

0.58*

0.54*

1.77*

1.54*

0.79*

<0.14*

0.03*

10.1*

99.5

41.3

7.53

27.2

0.99

0.8

2.06

1.68

0.55

0.05

0.04

16.9

99.1

39.6*

6.72*

41.3*

.56*

.53*

1.58*

1.16*

0.52*

<0.14*

0.03*

7.84*

99.8

35.0*

6.67*

34.8*

0.56*

0.65*

1.28*

1.57*

0.46*

<0.14*

<0.03*

17.0*

98

Major elements

Al

Ca

Fe

K

Mg

Na

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

%

%

%

%

%

%

3.3

0.4

16

1.2

0.55

1.7

1.3

0.09

36

0.48

0.06

0.28

3.7

0.3

24

1

0.26

1.2

3.6

0.51

17

1.2

0.41

1.4

3

0.3

23

0.76

0.24

1

2.9

0.4

21

1

0.23

0.85

Minor elements

Ag

As

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cs

Cu

Ga

Ge

Hg

In

La

Li

Mn

Mo

Nb

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

CVAC

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

3.3

4

32

0.2

3.8

0.2

1.5

5

100

3.4

1,800

11

0.8

0.23

0.2

0.9

9.7

170

27

<0.2

8.9

10

14

0.1

3.7

2

0.4

100

41

0.7

2,100

4.4

0.4

0.08

0.3

0.3

4.9

65

34

<0.2

24.2

25

44

0.2

10

0.8

2.4

30

81

1.5

1,100

10

1.2

0.51

0.4

1.5

12

220

100

0.5

7

8

65

0.2

4.1

0.3

2.9

9.2

65

2.1

3,200

8.7

0.8

0.17

0.3

2

8.7

230

47

0.5

11.8

20

30

0.2

7.7

1.1

1.5

41

68

1.3

850

8.4

0.8

0.35

0.3

0.8

12

170

67

0.3

10.7

16

55

0.2

6.5

1.3

2.3

22

62

1.5

6,600

9.1

0.8

0.24

0.3

1.4

9.6

83

56

0.6

29
Element

Field 

Method

No. 

Units

Tailings pile 3 

TP3-A TP3-B TP3-C TP3-D TP3-E TP3-F

Minor elements

Ni

Pb

Rb

Sb

Sc

Se

Sr

Te

Th

Tl

U

V

Y

Zn

Total C

CO2

C=CO2

pw organic

Total H2O

H2O+

H2O'

Total S

BM

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

Cu/Zn

Fe/AI

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Selected

ppm

<2

87

55

<0.1

7.8

39

29

0.3

<0.06

<0.1

0.2

90

1.8

170

Carbon.

0.06

0.01

<0.003

0.06

7.4

6.5

0.9

4.02

26

51

17

0.1

2

45

7.7

<0.1

<0.06

<0.1

0.3

32

0.7

1,200

8

120

36

0.2

10

170

26

1.2

0.1

<0.1

0.4

84

1.5

350

<2

61

56

<0.1

6.9

55

28

0.3

0.38

<0.1

0.2

78

2.3

200

9.2

84

27

0.1

7.3

100

18

0.6

0.09

<0.1

0.4

70

1.3

440

3

76

40

0.2

6.5

75

24

0.3

0.23

<0.1

0.4

83

1.9

420

water, and sulfur

0.04

<0.01

<0.003

0.04

2.8

2.5

0.3

1.69

0.12

<0.01

<0.003

0.12

4.6

4.1

0.5

1.8

0.1

<0.01

<0.003

0.1

7.4

6.3

1.1

3.77

0.19

<0.01

<0.003

0.19

3.8

3.4

0.4

1.2

0.26

<0.01

<0.003

0.26

8.1

6.6

1.5

4.96

metal ratios and calculated parameters

2,062

0.87

0.08

0.04

10.6

5

3,479

0.60

0.34

0.01

1.8

28

1,609

0.68

0.22

0.07

3.1

6

3,471

0.92

0.06

0.02

16.0

5

1,425

0.60

0.31

0.06

1.9

8

7,122

0.93

0.06

0.01

15.7

7

* Samples with extreme iron concentrations (>30 % total iron as Fe2O3) were analyzed as partial weight 

samples and therefore have lower precision and lower detection than specified for the method in Appendix B.

30
Table 6.-Continued.

Element

Field No. 

Method Units

Tailings pile 2 Tailinqs pile 1

TP2-1 TP2-2 TP1-1 TP1-2 TP1-3 TP1-3R

Major element oxides

Si02

AI203

FeT03

MgO

CaO

Na2O

K2O

Ti02

P205

MnO

LOI

Total

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

WD-XRF

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

61.8

8.93

15.3

1.09

1.19

1.81

1.51

0.63

0.07

0.04

6.71

99.1

63.3

10.6

11.2

1.67

2.05

1.57

1.7

0.76

0.13

0.08

5.58

98.6

50

7.88

22.6

0.99

1.72

1.73

1.65

0.73

0.06

0.06

11.6

99

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

Major elements

Al

Al

Ca

Ca

Fe

Fe

K

K

Mg

Mg

Na

Na

P

Si

Ti

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

4.7

4.7

0.91

0.84

12

10.4

1.5

1.35

0.9

0.79

1.4

1.28

0.02

23.6

0.43

3.5

3.6

0.79

0.72

25

19.3

1.1

0.92

0.52

0.56

1.4

1.24

0.01

16.9

0.52

4.5

n.d.

0.78

n.d.

9.8

n.d.

1.1

n.d.

0.51

n.d.

1.2

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

5.9

n.d.

1.5

n.d.

7.9

n.d.

1.3

n.d.

1.2

n.d.

1.2

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

3.9

n.d.

1.1

n.d.

15

n.d.

1.2

n.d.

0.47

n.d.

1.2

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

3.6

3.65

1.3

1.19

15

12.5

1.3

1.18

0.43

0.45

1.3

1.12

<0.01

20.8

0.36

Minor elements

Ag

As

As

Au

Ba

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cr

Cs

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

HYD

GFAA

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

0.81

5.6

6.6

0.16

140

107

1

n.d.

0.2

n.d.

48

93

111

n.d.

0.58

14

15.9

0.029

73

51

0.5

n.d.

0.3

n.d.

68

48

106

n.d.

1.8

5.9

n.d.

n.d.

120

n.d.

0.8

1.4

0.4

7.9

26

72

n.d.

1.7

0.87

6.2

n.d.

n.d.

280

n.d.

1.7

0.75

0.2

36

38

91

n.d.

3.3

1.3

9.6

n.d.

n.d.

100

n.d.

0.6

2.2

0.2

7.4

37

63

n.d.

2.6

1.8

9.7

11.6

0.014

100

78

0.6

n.d.

0.2

n.d.

29

57

67

n.d.

31
Element Method Units

Tailings pile 2 Tailings pile 1

Minor elements

Ga

Ge

Hg

In

La

Li

Mn

Mn

Mo

Nb

Nb

Ni

Pb

Rb

Sb

Sc

Se

Sr

Sr

Te

Te

Th

Tl

Tl

U

V

Y

Y

Zn

Zr

Total C

CO2

C=CO2

^organic

Total H2O

H2O+

H2O"

Total S

BM

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

Cu/Zn

Fe/AI

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

CVAC

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

HYD

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

HYD

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

LECO

LECO

LECO

LECO

LECO

LECO

LECO

LECO

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Selected

ppm

n.d.

n.d.

0.04

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

490

435

n.d.

n.d.

<10

16

42

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

44

n.d.

0.3

n.d.

0.8

0.8

n.d.

100

n.d.

<10

370

105

Carbon.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

0.11

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

650

556

n.d.

n.d.

10

21

45

n.d.

0.1

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

31

n.d.

0.5

n.d.

0.7

0.7

n.d.

84

n.d.

13

450

87

10

0.9

0.05

0.1

4.6

14

270

n.d.

15

2

n.d.

9

49

42

<0.1

8.4

22

63

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

1.1

<0.1

n.d.

0.52

76

5.2

n.d.

300

n.d.

13

1.2

0.02

0.1

21

34

600

n.d.

6.4

6.8

n.d.

31

33

67

<0.1

11

11

140

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

4.7

<0.1

n.d.

1.2

93

14

n.d.

320

n.d.

8.3

0.9

0.05

0.1

4.8

12

410

n.d.

16

2.4

n.d.

12

50

53

0.1

7.9

31

46

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

0.72

<0.1

n.d.

0.5

83

5.9

n.d.

480

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

0.07

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

420

362

n.d.

n.d.

<10

9

46

n.d.

0.2

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

37

n.d.

0.3

n.d.

0.8

0.8

n.d.

81

n.d.

<10

380

94

water, and sulfur

0.11

0.01

<0.003

0.11

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

1.39

0.2

0.01

<0.003

0.2

3.9

3.3

0.6

1.04

0.43

0.2

0.05

0.38

3.5

2.9

0.6

0.56

0.12

<0.01

<0.003

0.12

5.8

4.8

1

2.2

0.1

0.01

<0.003

0.1

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

2.31

metal ratios and calculated parameters

706

0.33

0.52

0.06

0.62

3

680

0.14

0.66

0.07

0.21

7

1064

0.64

0.28

0.05

2.27

2

542

0.22

0.59

0.06

0.38

1

709

0.18

0.68

0.07

0.27

4

584

0.21

0.65

0.08

0.32

4

32
Table 7. Geochemical data for tailings profiles.

[See Appendix B for explanation of methods; n.d., not determined; LOI, loss on ignition; C=CO2 , carbonate carbon; 

BM, total base metal concentration in ppm. See Appendix A for sample locations.]

TP1 profile near base of north slope

Key 

Element

Al

Al

Ca

Ca

Fe

Fe

K

K

Mg

Mg

Na

Na

P

Si

Ti

Ag

As

As

Au

Ba

Ba

Be

Cd

Co

Cr

Cr

Cu

Hg

Mn

Mn

Nb

Ni

Pb

Sb

Sr

Te

TI

TI

V

Y

Zn

Zr

Method

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

HYD

GFAA

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

CVAC

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

FAA

ICP-MS

FAA

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

1

3.9

3.68

2.6

2.21

12

10.5

1.1

0.92

0.39

0.38

1.3

1.18

0.03

20.9

0.73

2.9

14

14.5

0.023

110

72

0.6

0.4

11

64

201

120

0.1

350

304

14

6.2

52

0.1

46

0.4

0.8

1

90

<10

440

128

2

4.5

4.37

4.7

4.28

0.68

0.62

0.74

0.62

0.39

0.42

1.5

1.35

0.06

26.6

0.93

4

12

12.8

0.027

110

78

0.8

1.7

4

54

79

240

0.13

320

272

18

1.7

37

0.3

44

<0.1

0.3

0.2

53

15

87

151

3 4

Major elements

2.7

2.78

1.6

1.58

20

18.2

0.76

0.74

0.37

0.38

0.72

0.68

0.03

12.9

0.35

Minor elements

1.5

33

33

4.4

4.29

1.1

1.12

15

11.5

1.1

0.83

0.65

0.6

1.3

1.19

0.04

25.5

0.35

2.7

2

1.9

0.024 0.093

52

43

0.4

18

300

80

122

970 5

0.06

150 1

142 2

15

63

32

<0.1

25

0.4

0.5

0.5

59

<10

1,400

76

210

141

1.5

1

46

69

63

,700

0.02

,900

,190

14

15

50

0.2

69

0.7

0.5

0.4

120

10

210

102

5

3.2

2.95

1.9

1.68

16

12.7

0.94

0.84

0.33

0.28

1

0.82

0.01

15.9

0.35

1.6

24

36.3

0.19

66

50

0.7

1.3

38

58

58

770

0.06

140

115

<10

8.1

38

<0.1

30

0.2

0.6

0.5

51

<10

1,100

79

6

4.1

3.75

2.1

1.84

9

7.33

1.4

1.07

1

0.82

0.95

0.81

0.09

17.4

0.46

2.3

110

125

0.021

110

79

0.6

120

2,200

100

86

29,000

0.1

220

193

<10

320

44

<0.1

28

0.3

1.3

1.2

85

<10

1,900

81

TP1 pond

7

5.3

5.65

1.8

2.66

14

16

1.4

1.51

1.3

1.12

0.9

0.74

0.05

21.3

0.33

0.42

6.2

n.d.

0.015

140

121

1

16

250

99

124

590

0.08

410

428

10

72

33

<0.1

59

n.d.

0.7

n.d.

92

19

2,600

129

area 

8

2.4

2.49

0.3

0.25

31

28.1

1.8

1.79

0.4

,0.37

0.49

0.4

0.04

9.62

0.22

2.5

7.3

n.d.

0.016

260

133

0.4

0.4

68

75

67

930

0.16

320

315

<10

22

65

0.2

40

n.d.

1

n.d.

99

<10

590

58

Carbon and sulfur

Total C

C=CO2

p^organic

C02

Total S

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

%

%

%

%

%

0.12

0.01

0.11

0.03

2.9

0.06

<0.003

0.06

<0.01

3.01

0.25

0.01

0.24

0.04

15.6

0.26

0.01

0.25

0.02

1.8

0.17

0.01

0.16

0.04

9.43

0.21

0.01

0.2

0.02

14.5

0.12

0.04

0.08

0.13

9.96

0.72

0.01

0.71

0.03

3.62

33
TP1 profile near base of north slope TP1 pond area

Key 12345678 

Element Method Units__________________________________________________

Selected metal ratios 

BM ppm 630 371 2,783 6,022 1,955 33,584 3,561 1,675

Cu/BM 0.19 0.65 0.35 0.95 0.39 0.86 0.17 0.56

Zn/BM 0.70 0.23 0.50 0.03 0.56 0.06 0.73 0.35

Pb/BM 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.04

Cu/Zn 0.27 2.76 0.69 27.14 0.70 15.26 0.23 1.58 

Fe/AI________________3.08 0.15 7.41 3.41 5.00 2.20 2.64 12.92

34
Table 7.Continued.

Key 

Element Method Units

9

Tailings pile 2 profile 

10 11 12 13

Major elements

Al

Al

Ca

Ca

Fe

Fe

K

K

Mg

Mg

Na

Na

Si

Ti

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

5.5

5.11

0.9

0.79

10

7.73

1.9

1.59

1.4

1.12

1.4

1.26

23.4

0.37

5.7

6.75

1.3

1.42

10

10.4

1.2

1.27

2.1

2.11

1.6

1.58

26.1

0.43

7.3

0.46

1.1

0.09

5.2

0.29

2.1

0.12

2.3

0.12

1.8

<0.01

1.76

0.02

5.8

6.78

1.2

1.22

9.5

9.56

1.3

1.47

1.8

1.7

1.3

1.4

23.8

0.39

6.1

5.91

1.2

1.12

10

8.62

1.3

1.27

1.8

1.62

1.5

1.31

20.9

0.32

Minor elements

Ag

As

As

Au

Ba

Ba

Be

Cd

Co

Cr

Cr

Cu

Hg

Mn

Mn

Nb

Ni

P

Pb

Sb

Sr

Te

TI

TI

V

Y

Zn

Zr

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

HYD

GFAA

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

CVAC

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

FAA

ICP-MS

FAA

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

%

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

1

5.8

5.9

0.01

150

112

0.9

<0.1

3.8

160

161

290

0.04

340

303

<10

3.4

0.04

35

<0.1

42

0.4

1.2

1.2

140

<10

96

95

0.32

2

n.d.

0.013

83

66

0.8

6.8

95

280

279

2,800

0.03

450

474

<10

33

0.04

33

<0.1

51

n.d.

0.6

n.d.

110

<10

1,100

53

0.54

2

n.d.

0.024

210

97

1.1

0.7

8.1

190

18

640

0.03

420

<100

<10

5.2

0.01

37

0.6

<10

n.d.

1.3

n.d.

150

<10

200

18

0.34

3

n.d.

0.012

90

81

0.9

16

160

170

178

3,200

0.04

400

423

<10

60

0.06

32

<0.1

49

n.d.

0.7

n.d.

100

11

1,600

70

0.55

3

4.5

0.017

97

79

0.9

22

180

160

208

2,900

0.03

410

377

<10

63

0.05

37

<0.1

38

0.3

0.8

0.8

100

<10

1,800

86

Carbon and sulfur

Total C

C=CO2

p'"'organic

CO2

Total S

BM

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

%

%

%

%

%

PP

0.11

<0.003

0.11

<0.01

1.52

>m 428

0.09

<0.003

0.09

0.01

5.54

4068

0.1

0.01

0.09

0.03

1.18

891

0.01

0.04

0.03

5.27

5068

0.05

0.01

0.04

0.02

5.85

5002

35
Key 

Element

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

Cu/Zn 

Fe/AI

Method

Tailings pile 2 profile 

9 10 11 12 13 

Units

Selected metal ratios 

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.

0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.

6

4

0.08 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01

3.0 2.6 3.2 2.0 1. 

1.8 1.8 0.7 1.6 1.

6 

6

Key

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Field no.

TP1-4F

TP1-4E

TP1-4D

TP1-4C

TP1-4B

TP1-4A

TP1-A12

TP1- 

POND

TP2-1D

TP2-1CHP

TP2-1B

TP2-1A

TP2-1A 

(R)

Sample description

Oxidized topsoil at the surface of tailings profile TP1-4 (near 

base of north slope of tailings pile 1 above seeps). Sample 

TP1-4F overlies TP1-4E; TP1-4E overlies TP1-4D, etc.

Gray layer at 25 cm depth

Hardpan layer at 46 cm depth

Yellow-orange soil layer at 50 cm depth

Orange hardpan at 61 cm depth

Pyrrhotite-rich black tailings at 64 cm depth

Pyrrhotite-rich black tailings at 30 cm depth below flat top 

surface at the south end of tailings pile 1 in the area between 

the pond and the base of tailings pile 2

Wet sediment collected from the bottom of the pond on 

tailings pile 2, about 2 meters from the shore

Yellow-orange clayey soil layer 30 to 56 cm below the top 

surface of tailings pile 2. Topsoil overlying this layer (not 

sampled) contains abundant roots.

Hardpan layer at 56 cm below top surface of tailings pile 2

Yellow-green clayey layer 2.5 cm thick overlies unoxidized 

tailings (occurs 58 cm below top surface of pile)

Black, unoxidized tailings at 61 cm depth

Replicate sample for TP2-A

36
TP1 profile

O-i

10 -

330

x:

H. 40 -

0)

Q 50-

60- 

70

10 15

Fe (wt. %)

20 25

10

-p. 20- 

ii BO- 

'S. 40- 

0) 

Q 50-

60- 

70

topsoil

gray layer 

(gypsum)

hardpan 

orange soil 

hardpan 

black tailings

2 3 

Al (wt. %)

0 

10-

Ef20- 

3- 30- 

x: 

'Q. 40 - 

0) 

Q 50

60- 

70

10

O-i 

10 

20- 

30- 

40 - 

50 

60- 

70

1

100 1000 10000

Cu (ppm)

100000

10 100 1000

Co (ppm)

10000

o -i 

10

 , 20-j 

3- 30-

Q. 40-I 

0)

0 50 

60-I 

70

10 100 1000 10000

Zn (ppm)

100000

10-

 , 20

3 30 -

x: 

'o. 40 -

0) 

° 50-

60 

yn

1

1

1

^

10 100 1000

Cr (ppm)

10000

0 -i 

10 -

 , 20 - 

3 30-I

40- 

50 - 

60 

70

10

0 -|

10-

^-, 20 -

u, 30

x:

'Q. 40 -

0)

° 50 

60 -I 

70

100 1000 

Pb (ppm)

0.1 1 10 

Cd (ppm)

Figure 10. Geochemical profiles of upper surfaces of tailings. 37
TP2 profile 

0-

20-

D 

§40- 

§30-

70- 

60-

50-

(

0-

20-

10- 

T I 30

D 

50-

 ' ' ' 70- (U

0-

rootzone 10 . 

(no sample)

20-

orange soil A B, 30

S 40 

I Q 

hardpan 1 so

yellow clay t^3"* eo 

black 

III! 

tailinas

Trt

^\^

«^^

D 5 10 15 02468 0 2 

Fe (wt. %) Al (wt. %) S (wt. %)

0-

20-

10-

JL 30-

D

g-40- 

£ 

70- 

60-

50-

1

0-

20-

10-

\

J, 30-

I 40 "

60

50-

 ' ' ' 70 ,u 

O-i

20 

ID-

-

\

! 30-

I 40 "

60

50-

i L

'"

0 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000 10 100 100

Cu (ppm) Zn (ppm) Pb (ppm)

0,

20-

10-

J, 30

& 

£ 

40

D

70-

60- 

50

O-i

20-

10-

» o 30-

\. f 40-

\. *" 

 - ^

 60- 

 ' ' ' 70- ,u

0-,

20

10

A o 30 j

\ t 40 .

\ ^

\ 50-

f 60 ^-

*-==^_

10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 1

Co (ppb) Cr (ppm) Cd (ppm)

Figure 10. Continued. 38
Stream sediments

Stream sediments represent a composite of all materials upstream from the sampling site. 

Stream sediments (table 8) were collected at 22 sites including water sampling sites near the mine, at 

the seeps, along Copperas Brook, at the air shaft, upriver and downriver from the air shaft, at Lord 

Brook and Blaisdell Brook (background samples away from mine area), and along the West Branch and 

main Ompompanoosuc River several kilometers downstream from the mine workings (fig. 11 A). The 

percentage of fine-grained (<80 mesh) material in the sediments varies from 5 % to 36 % (table 8). The 

highest percentages (>25 %) of fine-grained material are associated with the mud-rich seeps at the 

base of TP1, where flow rates are fairly low and the stream gradient is not steep. Total base metal 

concentrations of <80 mesh stream sediments in Copperas Brook decrease with increasing distance 

from the mine area (fig. 11B). The sample from the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River 

upstream from the air vent (table 8, site 14) has the lowest total base metal concentrations of all 

samples and the lowest copper concentration. Although geochemical landscapes vary as a function of 

type of bedrock, comparison of stream sediment data with crustal abundances (Cl, Clarke Index values; 

from Fortescue, 1992) gives an overall perspective on the geochemistry of an area. Crustal abundances 

are included at the end of table 10B for reference. Detection levels for many of the elements in our data 

set are too high to warrant comparison with low level crustal abundances. However, many of the values 

for environmentally sensitive elements for which we do have data, such as mercury, are below expected 

crustal abundance levels.

Contaminated stream sediments can affect aquatic ecosystems and human health because of 

their potential toxicity to benthic organisms and to humans who ingest organisms exposed to 

contaminated sediments (ERA, 1997). Sediments can serve as sources and sinks as well as reservoirs 

for heavy metals. The use of stream sediment data for aquatic life toxicity assessment is controversial 

and cannot substitute for bioassay toxicity data; different sediments can represent different degrees of 

bioavailability for the same total concentration of a trace metal (Di Toro and others, 1990). 

Nevertheless, stream sediment data provide a useful screening tool to alert investigators to areas that 

may need further detailed sampling. We have included a subset of EPA's preferred sediment chemistry 

screening data in table 8; these are reference values above which metal concentrations could pose a 

significant threat to aquatic life. The values reported in table 8 are effects range-median (ERM) values 

developed by Long and others (1997). These values were developed by comparing dry weight sediment 

metal concentrations with biological effects data. Values above the reported value are in the "probable 

effects range" and have been shown to be a useful screening tool for predicting toxicity (ERA, 1997, 

Appendix B). All 22 stream sediment samples analyzed in our study are below ERM values for silver, 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, and lead. With the exception of the muddy sediments at 

the seeps at the base of TP1, all sediments from Copperas Brook exceed ERM values for copper (table 

8, sites 1-5,11, 18). Two samples from the seeps (table 8, sites 4 and 6) exceed ERM values for zinc. 

Samples from the haulageway at the south pit (table 8, sites 1 and 2) exceed ERM values for copper. 

No water was present in the haulageway when these sites were sampled; because of a drainage divide 

between the south and north pit areas, surface flow from the south pit area does not contribute water to 

Copperas Brook. None of the river sediment samples exceeds any of the ERM values.

Slack and others (1990) described geochemical anomalies in the Elizabeth mine area in their 

regional stream sediment survey of the Orange County copper district. Their study, conducted in the 

1980s using semi-quantitative spectroscopy (SQS), sampled 37 sites that span several drainage basins 

in the mine area and showed that geochemical anomalies in stream sediments and heavy mineral 

concentrates reflected multiple sources of elements including stratabound massive sulfide deposits 

(anomalous Cu, Zn, Ag, Co, Cd, Mn, and B), metamorphic bedrock, and possibly, undiscovered mineral 

deposits related to granites in the region. Because SQS data have higher detection limits and greater 

uncertainties than the analytical techniques used in the present study, data are not directly comparable.

39
|^|4a|^^i^|

Figure 11. Stream sedimenlsamplas. A, Localities plotted on Ihe South Stratford quadrangle. Note that the actual map is at a scale of 1:24,000 (see fig. 2), but is plotted here at a scale of t :4B,OOD to show all tha sample sites on a sing la page. Sae table 8 A for s am pie key and locations of sample sites.

40
10000

1000 - 100

10

A3

Headwaters at water 

site LIZM-1 2-2

Below tailings at 

watfirsitfiLIZM-18

An

SB 9 10

Confluence with West Branch at water srteLZ-CB-1-2

A 18

O12

16

14

* South Pit

Seeps 

A Copperas Brook* Upstream* Downstream O Background

Increasing distance from Elizabeth Mine area

421

B

Figure 11. Stream sediment samples. B , Total base metals in <80 mesh stream sediments plotted as a function of increasing distance 

(approximate) from the Elizabeth mine area. See table 8A for sample key and figure 11A for location key.

41
Table 8. Stream sediments. 

A. Sample key.

[See figure 11A for plotted locations; * denotes replicate samples submitted for chemistry; n.r., not recorded]

Key Location Sample Latitude (N)

1 South pit SP-SS1 43° 48' 58.7"

2 South pit SP-SS2 43° 48' 58.7"

3* Copperas Brook headwaters 

above tailings piles 1 and 2, 

below tailings pile 3

LIZM-12-2SS 43° 49' 17"

4 Decant drainage outlet at LIZM-2-SS 

northeast corner of base of 

tailings pile 1

5 Seep along north base of tailings LIZM-3-SS 

pile 1

43° 49' 30

43° 49' 27

6 Seep along north base of tailings LIZM-4-SS 43° 49' 33" 

pile 1

Longitude (W)

72° 20' 20.2"

72° 20' 20.2"

72° 20' 8"

72° 19' 32"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 39"

Description 

Stream sediment at haulageway 

with pit.

Stream sediment at end of haul

the road.

Stream sediment from headwat

Copperas Brook at water sampl

2; sampled just above the

waterfall for a distance of 10 m 

stream (10 traverses of 3 samp

stream width).

Stream sediment at outlet of TP

into Copperas Brook at NE corn

water sample site LIZM-2-2.

Stream sediment at outlet of se

west of LIZM-2-2 at water samp

2..

Stream sediment at seep draini

birches; hardpan forming at wat

sample site LIZM-4-2.

7 Seep along north base of tailings LIZM-5-SS 

pile 1

43° 49' 36" 72° 19' 36" Stream sediment at seep draini

end of wetlands (cattails); very 

water sample site LIZM-5-2.

8 Seep along north base of tailings LIZM-6-SS 

pile 1

43° 49' 37" 72° 19' 32" Stream sediment at red area o

protohardpan area at base of TP

sample site LIZM-6-2.

42
Key Location Sample

9 Seep along north base of tailings LIZM-7-SS 

pile 1

10* Seep along north base of tailings LIZM-8-SS 

pile 1

Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Description 

43° 49' 38" 72° 19' 45" Stream sediment at red seep 

black hardpan edges forming a

near its western edge at water 

LIZM-7-2.

43° 49' 38" 72° 19' 45" Stream sediment at orange se

area immediately west of LIZM

hardpan forming, more orange 

sample site LIZM-8-2.

11 Copperas Brook (east tributary) LIZM-18-2-SS 43° 49'40" 

below tailings pile 1

72° 19'37 Stream sediment at water sam

18-2 in woods below tailings o

just above confluence with ma

Brook.

12 Lord Brook at New Boston Road; LIZR-1-2-SS 43° 48' 36" 

above culvert and bridge

72° 19' 38" Stream sediment at LIZR-1 -2 w

site.

13 Unnamed stream (Blaisdell Brook LIZR-2-2-SS 43° 50' 7" 

on old maps) on mine road 

between the mine and S. 

Strafford, above bridge.

14 West Branch of the OMPR-1-2-SS 43° 50' 7" 

Ompompanoosuc River, 18 m 

upstream from the air shaft 

discharge (location reported for 

air shaft)

15 Air shaft along river 98JHAV-SS 43° 50' 7"

72° 20' 52"

72° 20' 4"

72° 20' 4"

Stream sediment at LIZR-2-2 w

site sampled for background a

mined area.

Stream sediment at water sam

1-2.

Stream sediment along side dr

air shaft drainage just above th

sample site LZAS.

16 West Branch of the

Ompompanoosuc River, 78 

meters downstream from the air 

shaft

OMPR-2-2-SS 43° 49' 59" 72° 18' 36" Stream sediment at water sam

2-2.

43
Key Location

17 West Branch of the

Ompompanoosuc River 126.3 

meters downstream from 

confluence of Copperas Brook

18 Copperas Brook

Sample Latitude (N)

OMPR-3-2-SS 43° 50' 8"

LIZ-CB-1-2-SS 43° 49'53"

Longitude (W) , Description 

72° 19'38" Stream sediment at water samp

3-2.

72° 19' 38" Stream sediment from Copperas 

river confluence, LZCB-1-2 wate

19 West Branch of the

Ompompanoosuc River 

downstream from Copperas 

Brook and upstream from side 

drainage confluence at Miller 

Pond Road

20 Green bridge across West 

Branch of the river; south of 

Tucker Hill Road

21 USGS gauging station along the 

Ompompanoosuc River below 

Union Dam

OMPR-4-SS 43° 49' 59"

22 Ompompanoosuc River below OMPR-7-SS 

the covered bridge on Tucker Hill 

Road

43° 48' 58" OMPR-GB

OMPR-5-SS 43° 47' 20'

43° 49'51"

72° 18' 36" Stream sediment at water samp

4-2. Note that the whole width o

here has orange floe and coated 

whereas at the area upstream (j

Copperas Brook confluence), o

eastern third of the river appeare

affected. Thick (0.5 cm) orange 

river rocks.

72° 16' 31" This is not a water sample site. 

72° 15'16" Main Ompompanoosuc River do

from mine area at water sample 

2.

72° 15' 7" Stream sediment from main part 

at a covered bridge at water sam

OMPR-7-2. River is healthy her

floes or coated rocks.

44
Table 8. Stream sediments.

B. Geochemical data

[Note replicates for samples 3 and 10; Cl, Clarke Index values for crustal abundance from Fortescue, 1985; ERM, 

Effects Range median sediment quality guidelines from Long and others, 1995]

Element

Al

Ca

Fe

K

Mg

Na

P

Ti

Ag

As

As

Au

Au

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cu

Eu

Ga

Hg

Ho

La

Li

Mn

Mo

Nb

Nd

Ni

Pb

Sc

Sn

Sr

Ta

Th

U

V

Y

Yb

Zn

Key 

Method

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

HYD

GFAA

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

CVAC

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

Ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

1

5.865

2

18.1

0.77

1.325

2.295

0.025

0.24

<2

<10

0.9

0.016

<8

82

1

<50

2

<5

9

161

1870

<2

<4

<0.02

<4

3

13

295

27

11

<9

19

30

13

<50

88

<40

<6

<100

130

7

<1

190

2

6.175

1.465

11.3

1.09

1.245

1.575

0.06

0.456

<2

<10

4.4

0.14

<8

218

2

<50

2

17

11

172

925

2

5

0.02

4

10

32

423

10

9

9

35

19

11

<50

142

<40

<6

<100

89

9

<1

160

3

3.57

0.605

16.5

0.79

0.45

1.43

0.01

0.192

<2

<10

7.3

0.027

<8

66

<1

<50

2

13

20

89

3800

<2

<4

0.07

4

<2

9

453

37

13

<9

6

47

6

<50

46

<40

<6

<100

75

4

<1

322

3

3.48

0.59

16.3

0.78

0.43

1.42

0.01

0.2

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

66

<1

<50

3

<5

24

82

3930

<2

<4

0.08

<4

<2

8

440

37

18

<9

7

56

6

<50

45

<40

7

<100

71

4

<1

301

4

4.07

0.88

19.6

0.94

0.53

0.855

0.015

0.198

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

147

1

<50

3

22

31

100

1860

<2

<4

0.05

<4

7

11

403

7

15

<9

10

35

7

<50

64

<40

8

<100

66

8

<1

414

5

1.26

0.45

34.4

0.19

0.145

0.38

0.01

0.024

<2

<10

2.2

0.021

<8

25

<1

64

4

84

<2

68

377

<2

<4

<0.02

4

50

3

152

15

18

<9

<3

24

<2

<50

21

<40

<6

<100

23

22

1

177

6

3.37

1.68

21.3

1.05

0.785

0.878

0.02

0.116

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

136

<1

<50

7

39

71

95

228

<2

<4

0.06

<4

32

13

4400

11

8

<9

20

31

6

<50

72

<40

<6

<100

66

13

<1

836

7

1.805

1.065

29.8

0.49

0.31

0.605

0.02

0.06

<2

<10

3.2

0.02

<8

76

<1

55

3

79

7

75

91

<2

<4

0.03

<4

67

5

1330

18

13

<9

<3

28

<2

<50

65

<40

10

<100

36

15

<1

176

8

1.55

0.67

28.6

0.39

0.205

0.473

0.015

0.072

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

52

<1

<50

4

40

8

61

180

<2

<4

0.03

<4

24

4

251

8

19

<9

<3

25

<2

<50

40

<40

<6

<100

25

13

<1

136

45
Element

Total C

CO2

C=CO2

^ oraanic

Key 

Method Units

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

1

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

2

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

3

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

3

0.18

<0.01

<0.003

0.18

4

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

5

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

6

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

7

n.

n,

n.

n.

.d.

,d.

.d.

.d.

8

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

TotalS LEGO % n.d. n.d. n.d. 1.72 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 

Base metals(BM) 2,120 1,152 4,197 4,321 2,353 582 1,193 305 353

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

0.

0

0,

.88

.09

.01

0.80

0.14

0.02

0.91

0

0

.08

.01

0.91

0.07

0.01

0.79

0.18

0.01

0.65

0.31

0.04

0.19

0.70

0.03

0.30

0.58

0.09

0.52

0.39

0.07

46
Table 8.-Continued.

Element

Al

Ca

Fe

K

Mg

Na

P

Ti

Ag

As

As

Au

Au

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cu

Eu

Ga

Hg

Ho

La

Li

Mn

Mo

Nb

Nd

Ni

Pb

Sc

Sn

Sr

Ta

Th

U

V

Y

Yb

Zn

Key 

Method

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

HYD

GFAA

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

CVAC

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

9

3.305

1.02

16.8

1.04

0.3

1.03

0.005

0.108

<2

<10

7.5

0.016

<8

85

<1

<50

<2

73

13

79

94

<2

<4

0.04

<4

35

7

340

18

12

22

<3

29

6

<50

39

<40

<6

<100

58

20

1

219

10

3.85

1.075

11

0.93

0.31

1.242

0.005

0.138

<2

12

n.d.

n.d.

<8

70

<1

<50

2

24

10

65

133

<2

<4

0.03

<4

9

7

494

10

9

<9

4

35

7

<50

39

<40

<6

<100

51

9

1

183

10

3.75

1

11.5

0.93

0.3

1.29

0.01

0.138

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

76

<1

<50

<2

31

13

53

128

2

<4

0.04

4

7

6

477

10

15

<9

<3

35

6

<50

44

<40

<6

<100

52

9

<1

191

11

3.995

0.88

9.61

0.97

0.505

1.415

0.015

0.156

<2

<10

5.5

0.017

<8

94

1

<50

<2

7

11

54

520

2

<4

0.03

<4

3

9

539

15

10

<9

5

28

7

<50

60

<40

<6

<100

59

5

<1

233

12

4.2

1.06

3.38

0.69

0.885

0.785

0.04

0.408

<2

<10

0.8

0.017

<8

187

2

<50

<2

28

15

75

118

<2

<4

<0.02

<4

13

24

2050

3

5

16

28

<4

16

<50

102

<40

<6

<100

63

22

3

85

13

3.02

1.35

2.31

0.46

0.675

0.685

0.03

0.39

<2

<10

1

0.009

<8

120

2

<50

<2

28

6

89

33

<2

13

<0.02

<4

15

14

829

<2

<4

15

14

<4

9

<50

151

<40

6

<100

56

12

2

44

14

3.93

2.23

3.11

0.48

0.96

0.88

0.08

0.975

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

148

2

<50

<2

21

9

98

12

<2

9

<0.02

6

9

19

1100

3

12

13

20

4

11

<50

254

<40

<6

<100

70

16

2

52

15

4.17

1.665

5.19

0.52

0.865

0.95

0.06

0.715

<2

12

n.d.

n.d.

<8

132

2

<50

<2

36

10

84

42

<2

<4

<0.02

<4

11

19

921

<2

11

14

16

9

10

<50

168

<40

<6

<100

69

15

3

63

16

4.64

2.26

3.1

0.62

1.15

1

0.08

0.725

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

204

2

<50

<2

25

12

99

34

<2

5

0.02

<4

14

29

1070

2

11

<9

24

15

11

<50

292

<40

<6

<100

77

16

2

75

47
Element

Total C

CO2

C=CO2

oraanic

Key 

Method Units

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

9

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

10

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

10

0.14

<0.01

<0.003

0.14

11

n

n,

n

n

.d.

.d.

.d.

.d.

12

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

13

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

14

0.63

0.33

0.09

0.54

15

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

16

1.04

0.34

0.09

0.95

TotalS LEGO %

Base metals(BM)

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

n.d.

355

0.26

0.62

0.08

n.d.

367

0.36

0.50

0.10

1.08

367

0.35

0.52

0.10

n.d.

797

0.65

0.29

0.04

n.d.

246

0.48

0.35

--

n.d.

97

0.34

0.45

--

0.04

97

0.12

0.54

0.04

n.d.

140

0.30

0.45

0.06

0.03

160

0.21

0.47

0.09

48
Table 8.-Continued.

Element

Al

Ca

Fe

K

Mg

Na

P

Ti

Ag

As

As

Au

Au

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cu

Eu

Ga

Hg

Ho

La

Li

Mn

Mo

Nb

Nd

Ni

Pb

Sc

Sn

Sr

Ta

Th

U

V

Y

Yb

Zn

Key 

Method

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

HYD

GFAA

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

CVAC

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

ICP40

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

17

3.915

1.975

2.24

0.49

0.93

0.797

0.06

0.435

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

147

2

<50

<2

24

7

87

30

<2

<4

0.03

<4

10

23

738

<2

<4

<9

18

9

8

<50

219

<40

<6

<100

56

13

2

57

18

3.71

0.91

10.9

0.86

0.57

1.155

0.02

0.252

<2

<10

3.1

0.026

<8

121

1

<50

<2

13

9

76

484

2

<4

0.02

<4

4

12

737

15

12

<9

8

19

8

<50

83

<40

<6

<100

62

8

<1

152

19

4.56

2.32

3.19

0.61

1.13

1.09

0.07

0.613

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

198

2

<50

<2

20

18

66

85

<2

19

<0.02

<4

14

28

1170

2

14

10

24

23

10

<50

286

<40

<6

<100

74

16

2

111

20

4.415

2.07

3.19

0.54

1.005

0.932

0.075

0.803

<2

17

n.d.

n.d.

<8

167

2

<50

<2

38

13

66

82

<2

<4

<0.02

<4

15

24

1100

<2

12

13

21

10

11

<50

219

<40

<6

<100

72

18

3

89

21

4.26

1.85

2.33

0.57

0.83

1.058

0.06

0.545

<2

12

n.d.

n.d.

<8

151

2

<50

<2

33

9

72

56

<2

<4

<0.02

<4

11

21

883

<2

<4

<9

17

10

9

<50

203

<40

<6

<100

53

15

2

60

22

4.42

1.63

2.77

0.71

0.87

1.17

0.06

0.7

<2

<10

n.d.

n.d.

<8

190

2

<50

<2

40

13

89

104

<2

9

<0.02

<4

14

26

1100

<2

7

9

21

15

9

<50

225

<40

<6

<100

58

16

2

75

Reference

Cl

8.4

4.7

6.2

1.8

2.8

2.3

0.1

0.6

0.08

2

2

0.004

0.004

390

2

0.008

0.16

66.4

29

122

68

2

19

0.086

1.26

34.6

18

1060

1.2

20

39.6

99

13

25

2

384

2

8

2

136

31

3.1

76

Values

ERM

3.7

70

70

9.6

370

270

0.71

52

220

410

49
Element

Total C

CO2

C=CO2

'"' ornanic

Key 

Method Units

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

17

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

18

n,

n,

n

n.

.d.

.d.

.d.

.d.

19

1.09

0.47

0.13

0.96

20

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

21

n.d.

n.

n,

n.

.d.

.d.

.d.

22

0.86

<0.01

<0.003

0.86

Reference

Cl

0.02

Values 

ERM

TotalS LEGO % n.d. n.d. 0.03 n.d. n.d. 0.02 0.03

Base metals(BM) 121 672 261 215 152 228

Cu/BM 0.25 0.72 0.33 0.38 0.37 0.46

Zn/BM 0.47 0.23 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.33

Pb/BM 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.07

50
Sulfide and gangue minerals in ore and tailings

Pyrrhotite is the major component of the ores at Elizabeth (table 1) and chalcopyrite was the 

main source of the copper produced. Pyrite can be locally abundant, but tends to be rare overall relative 

to pyrrhotite. In many other types of hydrothermal ore, including other types of massive sulfide deposits 

and coal, most acid mine drainage results from the oxidation of pyrite. Pyrrhotite and pyrite are both iron 

sulfide minerals; pyrite contains more sulfur than pyrrhotite. However, pyrrhotite weathers more easily 

than pyrite and rapid oxidation of pyrrhotite forms marcasite, a mineral that has the same composition as 

pyrite. The stability of pyrrhotite is variable, depending on its composition. We used EMPA to study the 

composition of the ore minerals in one of the weathered ore "snowballs" from TP3-F and in the tailings 

(table 9). Samples of black tailings from TP3 oxidized in the plastic sample bag en route to the lab and 

grew white salts sitting at room temperature in air. Tailings were placed in the heavy liquid methylene 

iodide (specific gravity 3.3), to facilitate concentration of sulfide minerals by density contrast with 

gangue minerals such as quartz and feldspar. The material that sank in the heavy liquid was drained, 

washed with acetone, and studied by XRD, SEM, and EMPA. The heavy mineral suite is dominated by 

non-magnetic pyrrhotite with minor magnetic pyrrhotite, pyrite, sphalerite, and chalcopyrite.

Pyrrhotite oxidizes much more rapidly than pyrite. The amount of acid produced or consumed 

by pyrrhotite weathering depends on the particular oxidation path followed and the pyrrhotite 

composition. The general chemical formula for pyrrhotite is Fe ^ S, where x can vary from 0.125 to 0. 

Thus, pyrrhotite can vary from Fe7S8 to FeS. Pyrrhotite grains in the tailings are typically less than 100 

microns in diameter. The pyrrhotite in the ore and in the nonmagnetic fraction of the tailings has the 

same composition with an Fe:S ratio of 0.89. This corresponds to a pyrrhotite composition of Fe8S9 . The 

pyrrhotite contains traces of cobalt, but no other metals were detected by EMPA.

Reactions that have been proposed to describe pyrrhotite oxidation are as follows (from Jambor 

and Blowes, 1994):

(1) Complete reaction (amount of acid produced depends on pyrrhotite composition): 

Fe LX S + (2 + x/2)O2 + xH2O = (1 - x)Fe2+ + SO42' + 2xH+

(2) Partial reaction to produce native S (not observed at Elizabeth to date): 

Fe !. S + (2 - 2x)Fe3+ = (3- 3x) Fe2+ + S°

(3) Rapid oxidation to pyrite/marcasite (FeS2 ) consumes acid:

2Fe LX S + (1/2 - x)O2 + (2-4x) H+ = FeS2 + (1- 2x)Fe2+ + (1-2x) H2O

Evidence of reaction (3), which consumes rather than produces acidity, is observed on weathered 

pyrrhotite-rich ore sitting on the mine dumps (TP3) in the north pit area. Backscatter electron images and 

x-ray spectra obtained with the SEM show the development of FeS2 along cracks and grain margins of 

pyrrhotite (fig. 12A). The metastable pyrite/marcasite can react with oxygen and water through a series 

of reactions. The initial reaction (4) releases ferrous iron and acidity.

(4) Initiator reaction:

FeS2 + 3.5 O2 + H2O = Fe2+ + 2 SO42' + 2H+

Ferrous iron released from initial pyrite/marcasite oxidation is oxidized by bacteria (reaction 5). This is 

one of the most significant steps in the generation of acid drainage because the oxidation of ferrous iron 

by bacteria is orders of magnitude faster than abiotic oxidation (Singer and Stumm, 1970). Recent

51
experiments suggest that the rate of pyrite oxidation via this reaction in air at high relative humidity, such 

as the environment in many waste piles, is faster than oxidation in solution by dissolved oxygen (Jerez 

andRimstidt, 1999).

(5) Propagation reaction:

Fe2+ + 0.25 O2 + H+ = 0.5 H2O + Fe3*

Ferric iron is a powerful oxidant that can attack pyrite (equation 6) and release significant amounts of 

ferrous iron and acidity that can further propagate the cycle:

(6) Propagation reaction:

14 Fe3+ + FeS2 + 8 H2O = 15 Fe2+ + 2 SO42' + 16H+

Metastable FeS2 in exposed ore oxidizes, releases sulfur, iron, and acidity. Iron is sequestered in rusty 

iron oxyhydroxide (goethite) rinds, or in efflorescent salts that develop on exposed surfaces. The 

reaction of pyrrhotite to pyrite to goethite is illustrated by mapping the distribution of elements across an 

area of altered pyrrhotite (fig. 12B) for iron, sulfur, and oxygen. The hotter colors on fig. 12B represent 

higher concentrations of each element. For example, the oxygen concentration is nil (black or blue) 

where sulfide minerals are present, and highest (red) along the iron oxide vein near the bottom of the 

map. On the sulfur map, the red areas represent marcasite (higher S) rimming and invading pyrrhotite 

(lower S than pyrite). Areas that are enriched in aluminum represent mica grains intergrown with the 

ore.

Other sulfide minerals occurring in ore such as chalcopyrite and sphalerite are subject to similar 

oxidation reactions that involve oxygen, water, microbes, and ferric iron . Such reactions can produce 

acidity and release metal cations that remain dissolved in waters, precipitate as secondary minerals, or 

be adsorbed on hydrous metal-oxide minerals, clays, or organic matter.

Quartz and white mica are abundant as primary rock-forming minerals in wallrock and as 

gangue minerals in the ore. Therefore, it is not surprising that these minerals are ubiquitous in the 

tailings. White mica (muscovite) weathers slowly relative to other silicate minerals and quartz is 

essentially inert (table 1). However, white mica breakdown to aluminum hydroxides (equation 7) and to 

kaolinite clay (equation 8) produces a major source of aluminum and potassium in soils, and 

theoretically at least, can consume acidity.

(7) KAI3Si3O10(OH)2 + H+ + 9H2O = K+ + 3H4SiO4 + 3AI(OH)3

(8) KAI3Si3O10(OH)2 + H+ + 3/2H2O = K+ + 3/2AI2Si2O5(OH)4(S)

52
Table 9. Compositions of minerals in ore and tailings determined by electron microprobe (EMPA). 

[n, number of analyses; s.d., standard deviation]

Fe

Cu

S

Mn

Co

Pb

Ag

Sb

As

Cd

Se

Zn

Total

Fe:S

pyrrhotite 

n=49

Wt. % s.d

60.45

0.02

39.01

0.00

0.05

0.00

0.02

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

99.6

0.89

Sulfide

0.65

0.04

0.44

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

minerals in weathered ore on TP3-F 

marcasite chalcopyrite 

n=7 n=7

Wt. %

45.85

0.01

48.19

0.00

0.11

n.d.

0.02

0.01

0.00

n.d.

0.00

0.00

94.2

0.55

s.d.

1.52

0.01

5.00

-

0.16

-

0.02

0.01

0.01

-

0.01

0.00

Sulfide minerals in tailings (TP1)

Fe

Cu

S

Mn

Co

Pb

Ag

Sb

As

Cd

Se

Zn

Total

Fe:S

pyrrhotite

n=8

Wt. % s.d

59.02

0.02

37.95

0.00

0.15

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.04

97.2

0.89

0.79

0.01

0.56

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.07

pyrite

n=3

Wt. %

45.12

0.03

52.10

0.00

0.34

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.14

0.00

0.01

0.01

97.8

s.d.

0.79

0.01

0.19

0.00

0.34

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.22

0.00

0.01

0.01

Wt. %

30.39

34.74

35.25

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.03

100.5

s.d.

0.16

0.37

0.76

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.02

Silicate minerals in weathered ore

SiO2

AI203

FeO

MgO

MnO

Cr203 VA

Ti02

K2O

BaO

Na2O

CaO

Cl

F

Total

white mica

n=14

Wt. % s.

49.0

35.7

1.68

1.22

0.01

0.07

0.08

0.57

10.00

0.19

0.23

0.00

0.00

0.00

98.7

(TP3)

,d.

0.9

0.9

0.44

0.17

0.02

0.06

0.02

0.17

0.25

0.19

0.12

0.00

0.01

0.00

53
alteration to pyrite/marcasite 

O map S map

B

Femap Al map

Figure 12. Pyrrhotite alteration in oxidized ore on TP3-F. _A, Backscattered electron SEM image

showing alteration of pyrrhotite (bright areas) to marcasite. B, EMPA map of distribution of O, S, 

Fe, and Al in altering pyrrhotite (see text). Hotter colors represent higher concentrations of the

54
Efflorescent salts

Efflorescent salts are secondary metal-sulfate minerals that form from the weathering of sulfide 

minerals. Many salts are highly soluble, hydrated solid solution minerals that react in changing weather 

conditions; salts exert an important control on metal mobility from mine wastes. On dry days, salts are 

ubiquitous on the tailings at the Elizabeth mine. During rainstorms, the soluble salts dissolve and 

contribute metals and acidity to surface runoff. Efflorescent salts are observed in several settings at 

the mine: (1) as thick (up to 2 cm) crusts and coatings on bedrock on pit walls, where protective 

overhangs shelter the rock faces from continuous exposure to rain and snow; (2) as rinds on 

weathered pieces of ore exposed to precipitation; and (3) as thin, drusy coatings on tailings surfaces. 

Capillary action draws waters to tailings, soil, or rock surfaces where it evaporates to form salt crusts. 

Observations of storm runoff at the Sulfur massive sulfide mine in central Virginia (Dagenhart, 1980) 

demonstrated that dissolution of efflorescent salts from mine tailings can elevate the peak metal load in 

a nearby creek to as much as fifty times base- flow metal loads. At Elizabeth, salts were collected from 

protected overhangs on bedrock outcrops along pit walls, from weathered rinds on loose blocks of 

oxidized ore in the north pit area, and from tailings pile surfaces. Because salts store acidity that can be 

released on dissolution, minor amounts of salts within tailings and mine dump soils contribute to low 

paste pH values.

Most of the thick encrusted coating on protected parts of pit walls is gypsum. Gypsum also 

forms "organpipe" crystals on eroded tailings surfaces that are fine-grained near the tailings substrate 

and coarsen outwards (fig. 13A). Highly soluble efflorescent salts of the halotrichite-pickeringite group 

grow as felted mats of white to yellowish crystals on the surface of tailings pile 3 (fig. 13B). SEM spectra 

of different "strands" of the curved fibers show that their composition is variable; all of the fibers 

analyzed contained sulfur, aluminum, magnesium, and iron but varied in minor element content (copper, 

manganese, silicon). Blue salts contain substantial copper (fig. 14). However, XRD acquired on the 

blue salts showed no discrete copper minerals, but produced a pattern consistent with a siderotil mixed 

with minor amounts of pickeringite and melanterite. None of the end-members of these mineral groups 

contains copper (table 1); however, copper readily substitutes for divalent iron or magnesium in these 

minerals complicating unequivocal identification by XRD. At high magnification (1,000x) in the SEM, the 

blue salts include at least two different copper-bearing minerals. One forms curved fibers (fig. 14A) that 

contain sulfur>aluminum> iron>copper>magnesium (fig. 14B), consistent with a mineral of the 

halotrichite-pickeringite group that incorporated copper. Micas are typically present in the substrate on 

which the salts grow. Weathering of micas in the top soil layer of the tailings releases aluminum. The 

solubility of aluminum, an element that can be poisonous to plants (phytotoxic), increases in acid mine 

soils. Therefore, in addition to release of copper, sulfur, and iron on dissolution, these salts can recycle 

aluminum. The other mineral identified by SEM (fig. 14C) has a more equant rounded to hexagonal 

crystal form and contains significant amounts of iron and copper but lacks aluminum (fig. 14D), 

suggesting a copper-substituted siderotil group mineral.

The white salts that form "snowball" coatings on weathered ore are mixtures of the ferrous iron 

sulfate minerals melanterite (copperas) and rozenite. Melanterite is one of the most common minerals 

found in association with acid-mine drainage. Melanterite (7 waters of hydration) dehydrates to rozenite 

(4 waters of hydration). Melanterite is typically pale blue-green whereas rozenite is white (table 1). The 

salts were white rather than green when sampled, and they may have dehydrated further en route to the 

lab. Although melanterite group minerals can accommodate significant amounts of other metals 

(manganese, copper, etc.), SEM spectra confirm that the snowball salts are composed solely of iron and 

sulfur (in addition to oxygen and hydrogen).

55
100 microns

B

10 microns

Figure 13. Secondary electron SEM images. A, "Organpipe" gypsum crystals that coarsen 

outwards (200x). B, Hairlike needles of pickeringite (2,000x).

56
Figure 14. Blue efflorescent salts growing on the surface of TP3. XRD pattern is consistent with a

siderotil group mineral; however SEM shows that there are two different crystal forms that have 

different compositions. A, Curved, sheaf-like crystals (secondary electron image, 1000x). B, 

Energy dispersive x-ray spectrum collected for the crystal at the center of image A.

57
X-ray spectra 

Blue salta 2

Figure 14. Continued. C, Hexagonal crystals (secondary electron image, 1000x). _D, Energy dispersive 

x-ray spectrum collected for the crystal at the center of image C.

58
Ochre deposits

Ochre deposits are concentrations of secondary iron- and aluminum-oxides and oxyhydroxides 

that form from the weathering and oxidation of sulfide minerals (Bigham, 1994). Ochres present at the 

Elizabeth mine include hardpan layers in and along streams, layers in tailings piles, soft crusts, and wet 

(typically slimy) precipitates and floes that range from amorphous ferric hydroxide to well-crystallized 

minerals such as goethite and jarosite. Ochres were sampled by a variety of methods, depending on the 

degree of compaction of the material.

The multicolored iron ochre minerals that contribute to soil color on oxidized tailings surfaces, 

form muds at seeps, coat the Copperas Brook streambed, and form hardpans are goethite, jarosite, and 

schwertmannite (table 1). "Yellowboy" in and along streams is a hallmark of acid mine drainage. 

Yellowboy is an informal name for the mineral schwertmannite, a poorly crystalline mineral that has only 

recently been characterized. In the past, it was commonly referred to only as a "mine drainage mineral" 

(Bigham, 1994). Such minerals form by hydrolysis and precipitation (equation 9) of the iron available 

from sulfide oxidation reactions, such as the reactions described above in equations 1-6. Hydrous-oxide 

minerals form initially as amorphous solid phases (too poorly crystalline to produce an XRD pattern). 

These minerals can play a critical role in trace metal transport because they (1) produce acid on 

formation; (2) adsorb metals at the solid-water interface, effectively removing them from contaminated 

waters; and (3) consume acid and release any adsorbed metals when they dissolve. All of these 

reactions are pH dependent. For example, iron and aluminum hydrous oxides adsorb Cu, Pb, and Hg 

in the pH range 3 to 5, and adsorb Zn, Co, Ni, and Cd at higher pH values (5 to 6.5).

The particular ochre minerals that form vary as a function of pH, dissolved sulfate content, and 

availability of elements such as K, Na, or Si. Goethite is the most widespread mineral associated with 

acid drainage. Other ochre minerals are all transient relative to goethite as a stable end-product, 

following dissolution and reprecipitation of other minerals as conditions vary (Bigham, 1994). Low pH (3 

to 4) and moderately high concentrations of dissolved sulfate (1,000 to 3,000 ug/L) favor schwertmannite 

formation. Jarosite tends to form at lower pH and higher concentrations of dissolved sulfate. The 

jarosite crystal structure can incorporate K, Na, or H3O+ resulting in the end-member minerals jarosite, 

natrojarosite, and hydronium jarosite, respectively. The jarosite at Elizabeth is the potassium-hydronium 

variety, as shown by XRD and by SEM spectra. In some mine processing operations, natrojarosite is 

produced as part of a zinc refining process. We have no documentation of this occurring at Elizabeth, 

but the very jarosite-rich, straw yellow, clayey layers present near the base of TP1 (most recent mine 

operation) may have discharged as jarosite from a flotation circuit rather than having formed in situ in the 

tailings. A sample of this material was analyzed (table 10C). Although sodium is present, K>Na. The 

relatively high silica content (11 wt. %) reflects a minor amount of quartz detected in the XRD pattern. 

Base metal content of this material is low (129 ppm), but it has elevated Sr (290 ppm) which may reflect 

its source. Jarosite is also present in hardpans along Copperas Brook (fig. 14B), proximal to tailings 

(sample CBW-HP). Goethite and schwertmannite occur in all hardpans sampled along Copperas Brook 

(fig. 14B). Sample 98JH-CB2-HP is just downstream from water sample site LIZM-18-2, and 

98JHCB2-R-HP was collected just above water sample site LIZ-CB near the river. The occurrence of 

jarosite in sample CBW-HP is consistent with the low pH (~3) and high dissolved sulfate content (3,000 

mg/L) of the water in Copperas Brook at this locality.

(9) Precipitation of hydrous-oxide minerals: acid-producing reaction: 

Fe2+ + 0.25O2 + 2.5 H2O = Fe(OH)3 (solid) + 2H+

Fe3+ + 3H20 = Fe(OH)3 (solid) + 3H+ 

AI3+ + 3H2O = AI(OH)3 (solid) + 3H+

Geochemical data for ochre deposits at Elizabeth are given in table 10 and plotted in fig. 16. 

Samples analyzed include hardpans forming along the Copperas Brook, hardpan layers in tailings, "red 

slimes" that form proto hardpans and organic-rich hardpan terraces at seeps, jarosite, and "white" slime

59
at the air vent along the river. The highest concentrations of base metals (Cu>Zn>Pb) are present in the 

hardpans in and on tailings. The protohardpan muds associated with the near-neutral seeps however, 

are more iron-rich and in most cases have Zn>Cu>Pb, reflecting the mobility of zinc relative to copper 

and most likely, sorption of zinc onto the secondary iron minerals that comprise the ochres. 

Downstream from the seeps along Copperas Brook, hardpans again have Cu>Zn>Pb. Zinc is very 

difficult to remove from acidic waters, because pH must be raised to at least 5 for effective sorption of 

dissolved zinc onto hydrous iron and aluminum oxides. Our data indicate that some zinc is being 

sequestered in solid phases at the near-neutral seeps. At the air vent, a thin layer of "white slime" 

covers red-orange hardpan. SEM confirms that the white slime is aluminum-rich. A small, impure 

sample of the white slime (18 on fig. 16) has the highest concentration of copper and zinc of any 

samples, and almost an order of magnitude more than the associated hardpan (sample 17).

60
to

I

100-

80-

60-

40-

20

"Snowball" of white efflorescent salts coating weathered ore on TP3-F

| i, I

fJLiJJx

16-0699> Rozenite - FeS 3414H20

22-0633> Melanteritt - FeS04!7H20

10 20 30 40

2-Theta(°)

so 60

500-

CBW-HP

98JH-CB2-HP

98JHCB2-R-HP

Ochre deposits along Copperas Brook below TP1

I

31-065C > Hydroniumjarosite - (H3O)Re3(SO4)2(OH)6

47-1775> Schwertmannlte - Fe16O16(SO4)3(OH)10l10H2O

B

40

2-Theta(e)

so 60

Figure 15. X-ray powder diffraction patterns. A, "Snowballs" of white efflorescent salts coating

weathered ore on TP3-F. Comparison with standard reference patterns (stick diagrams) shows 

that the snowballs are a mixture of rozenite and melanterite. SEM data confirms that Fe and S 

are the major components of the minerals. B, Iron minerals in ochre deposits along Copperas 

Brook below TP1.

61
Table 10. Ochres.

A. Sample key, descriptions, and water data.

[NA, no water flowing at the site when sampled; n.d., not determined. pH and conductivity were measured in the field; SO4=, 

dissolved sulfate in filtered water samples determined by ion chromatography in USGS (Water Resources Division) laboratories in 

Ocala, FL; EMSG, Elizabeth Mine Study Group sample sites; LIZM, USGS water sample sites; see Barg and others (1999) for 

locations and other water data for EMSG and USGS sample sites]

Key

1 

2

Sample no.

98JH-NP-HP1 

98JH-NP-HP2

Description and mineralogy

Hardpan in dry (8/20/98) gully on west side above road. 

Hardpan at headwaters of water that drains into LIZM-13

PH

NA 

2.1

Water data

conductivity 

(uS/cm)

NA 

5480

SO4= 

(mg/L)

NA 

3200

water site

98JH-NP-HP3 Hardpan above LIZM-12-2 water site; varved layers. 

XRD shows quartz, mica, feldspar, jarosite, goethite, and 

hematite.

TP-2A-HP Hardpan at base of TP2 (not part of TP2-1 profile); dug 

out section that showed cemented black tailings (A) at 

base overlain by 0.6 cm of gray mica , 2.5 cm of yellow 

clay, earthy orange soil, hardpan (E), and orange soil at 

uppermost surface). XRD shows pyrrhotite, mica, and 

chlorite.

TP2-E-HP Hardpan at base of TP2 (not part of TP2-1 profile); dug 

out section that showed cemented black tailings (A) at 

base overlain by 0.6 cm of gray mica, 2.5 cm of yellow 

clay, earthy orange soil, hardpan (E), and orange soil at 

uppermost surface. Hardpan contains the heavy minerals 

rutile, spessartine, and mica (no sulfides detected by 

XRD).

98JH-TP1 -HP Hardpan forming on surface of TP1 at stream that feeds 

the tailings pond. Heavy minerals include pyrrhotite, 

mica, chlorite.

LIZM-4A-HP

8 LIZM-4B-HP

LIZM-4-HP

10 LIZM-6-HP

11 LIZM-7-HP

Yellow-orange 1/4" thick piecrust terraced hardpan at E 

edge of cattails below LIZM-4-2 water sample site; cut 

with knife to sample

Yellowboy in stream below LIZM-4-2 water sample sitewet when sampled

Protohardpan at LIZM-4-2 water site - looks hard but you 

sink in when you step on it

Red area of big hardpan terraced seep draining north 

edge of TP1 at seep water sample site LIZM-6-2. XRD 

shows gypsum, goethite, and jarosite.

Red to black hardpan edges forming at red seep at base 

of TP1 (near western edge) at water sample site LIZM-7- 

2.

2.4

NA

3140

NA

210

NA

NA NA NA

12 98JHCBW-HP Hardpan terraces with leaves above LIZM-18-2 along 

west tributary of Copperas Brook just below wetland. 

XRD shows schwertmannite, goethite, quartz.

n.d.

6.8

6.8

6.8

6.5

6.1

n.d.

n.d.

2790

2790

2790

3460

4410 

n.d.

n.d.

600

600

600

1900

2900 

n.d.

62
Key Sample no. Description and mineralogy Water data

13 98JHCB1-HP Hardpan in eastern tributary of Copperas Brook a few m n.d. n.d. n.d. 

above confluence with drainage from LIZM-18-2. XRD 

shows goethite, schwertmannite, quartz, plagioclase, and 

minor jarosite. Schwertmannite forms a thin surface 

layer on goethite.

14 LIZM-18-2-HP Hardpan at LIZM-18-2 USGS water site. XRD shows 3.1 4410 3000 

quartz, mica, and goethite.

15 98JH-CB2-HP Hardpan in Copperas Brook at flag "8" (EMSG H2 water 3.1 4410 1380 

site) downstream from LIZM-18-2 USGS water site.

16 98JHCB2-R- Hardpan in Copperas Brook at waterfalls just above 2.7 3600 1900 

HP confluence with W. Ompompanoosuc River at water 

sample site LZCB-1-2. XRD shows goethite and 

schwertmannite.

17 AV-HP Hardpan at air shaft site along the West Branch of the 5.0 984 540 

Ompompanoosuc River (USGS water sample site LZAS).

18 AV White slime precipitate coating the grate at the air shaft 5.0 984 540 

vent at water sample site LZAS. Broad, indistinct XRD 

pattern, may be consistent with aluminite.

19 LIZM6 Yellow, clayey layer at base of TP1 above seep LIZM-6- NA NA NA 

2. Nearly pure jarosite (minor quartz).

63
Table 10. Ochres.

B. Geochemical data.

[See Appendix B for explanation of methods, n.d., not determined; LOI, loss on ignition; C=CO2, carbonate carbon; 

BM, total base metal concentration in ppm.]

Key 

Element Method

Al

Al

Ca

Ca

Fe

Fe

K

K

Mg

Mg

Na

Na

P

Si

Ti

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

North Pit Area (TP3) 

1 2 3 

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

3.29

2.6

0.46

0.5

26.2

25

1.03

0.85

0.45

0.4

0.67

0.7

0.05

16.7

0.26

3.83

3.2

0.34

0.4

21.8

22

1.4

1.2

0.67

0.65

0.46

0.55

0.04

19.3

0.38

2.93

2.6

0.35

0.4

24.4

20

0.88

0.7

0.25

0.25

0.87

1

0.03

17.6

0.2

TP2 TP1 

456 

Major elements

7.08

6.1

1.64

1.5

9.39

9.1

1.46

1.3

1.77

1.7

1.61

1.7

0.05

25.4

0.44

3.33

2.6

0.57

0.53

26

25

1.86

1.7

0.76

0.62

1.05

1.1

0.02

14.9

0.32

4.22

3.4

1.23

1.2

11.4

11

0.89

0.77

0.63

0.5

1.26

1.3

<0.01

26.1

0.49

7

1.36

1.3

0.28

0.4

>30

29

1.13

1

0.2

0.23

0.38

0.54

<0.01

6.5

0.2

Seeps 

8

1.28

0.97

0.42

0.4

>30

38

1.21

1

0.19

0.16

0.49

0.5

0.03

7.07

0.15

9

1.11

0.99

2.14

2.2

>30

40

0.3

0.28

0.4

0.4

0.19

0.24

<0.01

5.73

0.09

Minor elements

Ag

As

Au

Ba

Ba

Be

Cd

Co

Cr

Cr

Cu

Hg

Mn

Mn

Nb

Ni

Pb

Sb

Sr

TI

V

Y

Zn

Zr

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

GFAA

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

CVAC

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

0.36

4

0.01

170

190

0.8

0.3

11

60

57

930

0.05

259

220

<10

12

16

<0.1

99

0.4

73

<10

80

110

0.52

1

0.011

229

280

0.4

0.4

11

77

81

1200

0.03

458

430

<10

12

38

<0.1

63

0.4

81

<10

200

107

1.5

10

0.027

59

61

0.3

0.8

24

55

48

620

0.26

220

210

<10

6

42

<0.1

74

0.4

73

<10

300

47

0.51

3

0.014

82

100

0.9

3.3

160

173

160

4600

<0.02

458

430

<10

45

45

<0.1

48

0.7

98

11

490

91

0.58

5

0.015

38

47

0.2

<0.1

3.6

109

96

220

0.06

310

280

<10

1.2

21

<0.1

66

0.5

86

<10

86

47

0.14

3

0.009

65

74

0.6

0.5

18

64

48

220

0.03

441

380

<10

5.4

25

<0.1

50

0.3

59

10

220

71

0.22

2

0.016

29

43

0.3

<0.1

7

39

22

73

27.8

213

280

<10

2.8

13

<0.1

35

0.2

31

<10

100

42

0.37

2

0.014

32

35

0.2

<0.1

8.6

38

22

150

0.03

145

100

<10

2.3

15

<0.1

116

0.2

56

<10

98

28

0.45

2

0.017

62

76

0.2

6.2

99

27

24

190

0.03

907

460

<10

28

8.1

<0.1

99

0.2

22

20

870

37

64
North Pit Area (TP3) TP2 TP1 Seeps

Carbon, water, and total sulfur

Total C LEGO % 0.56 0.56 0.27 0.07 0.14 0.15 1.11 0.49 2.7

C=CO2 LEGO % <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.62

Corganic LEGO % 0.56 0.56 0.27 0.07 0.13 0.14 1.09 0.48 2.08

CO2 LEGO % 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.03 2.28

TotalS LEGO % 1.95 1.36 1.94 6.04 4.11 2.37 5.6 4.9 3.82

Selected metal ratios and calculated parameters

BM 1,049 1,461 993 5,343 332 489 196 274 1,201

Cu/BM 0.89 0.82 0.62 0.86 0.66 0.45 0.37 0.55 0.16

Zn/BM 0.08 0.14 0.30 0.09 0.26 0.45 0.51 0.36 0.72

Pb/BM 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.01

Cu/Zn 11.6 6.0 2.1 9.4 2.6 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.2

Fe/AI 9.6 6.9 7.7 1.5 9.6 3.2 22.3 39.2 40.4

65
Table 10B. Continued.

Key 

Element Method

Al

Al

Ca

Ca

Fe

Fe

K

K

Mg

Mg

Na

Na

P

Si

Ti

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

ICP-AES

Units

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Seeps 

10

0.35

0.3

0.69

0.63

>30

46

0.11

0.1

0.08

0.09

0.05

0.08

<0.01

4.16

0.03

Copperas Brook

11

1.56

1.5

0.71

0.7

>30

34

0.79

0.74

0.14

0.15

0.37

0.49

<0.01

9.89

0.19

12

n.d.

0.13

n.d.

0.1

n.d.

41

n.d.

0.12

n.d.

0.06

n.d.

0.03

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

13 14 15 

Major elements

n.d.

1.8

n.d.

0.54

n.d.

33

n.d.

0.4

n.d.

0.33

n.d.

0.38

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

0.2

0.4

0.07

0.2

>30

38

0.08

0.2

0.05

0.1

0.01

0.13

<0.01

0.92

0.05

0.09

0.06

0.06

0.06

>30

40

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.02

<0.01

0.01

<0.01

0.44

0.03

16

n.d.

0.04

n.d.

0.05

n.d.

41

n.d.

0.03

n.d.

0.02

n.d.

0.01

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

Air vent 

17 18

4.59

4

1.23

1.2

14

14

0.57

0.52

0.77

0.75

0.6

0.67

0.04

28.3

0.48

n.d.

2.1

n.d.

0.05

n.d.

44

n.d.

0.06

n.d.

0.04

n.d.

<0.01

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

Minor elements

Ag

As

Au

Ba

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cr

Cs

Cu

Ga

Ge

Hg

In

La

Li '

Mn

Mn

Mo

Nb

Nb

Ni

Pb

Rb

Sb

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

GFAA

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

CVAC

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

0.25

<0.5

0.008

32

30

0.1

n.d.

0.2

n.d.

4.1

<10

5

n.d.

100

n.d.

n.d.

<0.02

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

230

170

n.d.

<10

n.d.

1.6

2.6

n.d.

<0.1

1

5.7

0.027

39

53

0.2

n.d.

0.1

n.d.

12

25

24

n.d.

60

n.d.

n.d.

0.04

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

184

170

n.d.

<10

n.d.

3

20

n.d.

<0.1

0.2

3

n.d.

n.d.

7

<0.1

0.1

<0.1

0.8

0.69

n.d.

6

<0.1

23

1

0.3

<0.02

<0.1

0.5

0.6

n.d.

23

1.2

n.d.

<0.2

<2

2.3

2.5

<0.1

0.48

2

n.d.

n.d.

120

0.6

0.3

<0.1

13

4.4

n.d.

52

1.8

530

5.9

0.6

<0.02

<0.1

6.5

14

n.d.

190

1.6

n.d.

3.9

8.2

13

25

<0.1

0.2

0.5

0.033

<10

19

<0.1

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

2.4

10

18

n.d.

110

n.d.

n.d.

<0.02

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

<100

78

n.d.

<10

n.d.

4

3.6

n.d.

<0.1

0.14

<0.5

0.007

<10

4

<0.1

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

0.5

13

10

n.d.

92

n.d.

n.d.

<0.02

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

<100

34

n.d.

<10

n.d.

0.58

1

n.d.

<0.1

0.28

1

n.d.

n.d.

4

<0.1

0.05

<0.1

0.9

0.3

n.d.

10

<0.1

180

0.7

0.3

<0.02

<0.1

0.5

<0.5

n.d.

16

0.6

n.d.

0.2

<2

1.4

1.2

<0.1

0.45

2

0.065

138

150

1.6

n.d.

0.3

n.d.

86

57

48

n.d.

300

n.d.

n.d.

<0.02

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

5580

5600

n.d.

403

n.d.

19

10

n.d.

0.2

0.43

1

n.d.

n.d.

8

0.4

n.d.

4

n.d.

100

n.d.

42

n.d.

1500

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

38

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

45

8.5

n.d.

<0.1

66
Sc

Se

Sr

Sr

Te

Th

Tl

U

V

Y

Y

Zn

Zr

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-AES

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

Seeps

n.d.

n.d.

40

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

6

11

n.d.

46

22

Copperas Brook

n.d.

n.d.

26

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

0.3

n.d.

32

37

n.d.

180

48

<0.5

4

n.d.

7.4

<0.1

0.2

<0.1

<0.05

12

n.d.

0.4

20

n.d.

4

5

n.d.

71

<0.1

3

<0.1

0.4

38

n.d.

6.2

46

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

<10

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

14

<10

n.d.

31

18

n.d.

n.d.

<10

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

8

<10

n.d.

9

13

<0.5

3

n.d.

3.2

<0.1

0.29

<0.1

<0.05

7

n.d.

0.5

<8

n.d.

Air vent

n.d.

n.d.

129

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

0.2

n.d.

65

33

n.d.

180

95

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

<0.1

n.d.

5

n.d.

n.d.

1400

n.d.

Carbon, water, and total sulfur

Total C

C = CO2

pv-/ organic

CO2

H2O

H20-

H2O+

Total S

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

LEGO

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

0.93

0.21

0.72

0.78

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

0.74

0.83

0.12

0.71

0.45

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

2.5

0.61

<0.003

0.61

0.01

22.3

8.7

13.6

5.49

0.62

<0.003

0.62

0.01

14.9

5.1

9.8

2.97

0.47

0.01

0.46

0.04

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

5.31

0.29

0.01

0.28

0.03

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

5.15

0.26

<0.003

0.26

<0.01

21.3

8.2

13.1

4.93

0.72

0.06

0.66

0.22

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

0.44

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

Selected metal ratios and calculated parameters

BM

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

Cu/Zn

Fe/AI

155

0.65

0.30

0.02

2.2

153.3

275

0.22

0.65

0.07

0.3

22.7

46

0.50

0.43

0.05

1.2

315.4

602

0.88

0.08

0.02

11.5

18.3

151

0.73

0.21

0.02

3.5

95.0

103

0.89

0.09

0.01

10.2

666.7

182

0.99

«

0.01

~

1025.0

595

0.50

0.30

0.02

1.7

3.5

3058

0.49

0.46

0.00

1.1

21.0

67
Table 10. Ochres.

C. Geochemical data for yellow, jarosite-rich material at the base of TP1 (sample LIZM6) 

[See Appendix B for explanation of methods, n.d., not determined; LOI, loss on ignition; C=CO2, carbonate carbon; 

FeTO3, total iron reported as Fe2O3; BM, total base metal concentration in ppm.]

Maior elements (as oxides) 

Element Method Units

SiO2

AI203

FeTOS

MgO

CaO

Na2O

K2O

TiO2

P205

MnO

LOI

Total

Total C

C=CO2

CO2

'-' organic

Total S

Total H2O

H2CT

H2O+

Al

Ca

Fe

K

Mg

Na

Base metals

Cu/BM

Zn/BM

Pb/BM

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

WD-XRF %

Volatiles

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

LEGO %

Maior elements

ICP-MS %

ICP-MS %

ICP-MS %

ICP-MS %

ICP-MS %

ICP-MS %

Selected ratios

ppm 129

11.1

1.76

42.2

0.22

<0.03

0.33

0.92

5.26

0.31

<0.14

33.7

95.8

0.12

<0.003

<0.01

0.12

10.6

12.1

0.3

11.8

0.84

0.2

28

3.7

0.1

0.69

0.46

0.41

0.09

Metals and minor elements 

Element Method Units

Ag

As

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cs

Cu

Ga

Ge

Hg

In

La

Li

Mn

Mo

Nb

Ni

Pb

Rb

Sb

Sc

Se

Sr

Te

Th

Tl

U

V

Y

Zn

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

CVAC

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ICP-MS

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

1

2

25

0.2

0.4

<0.1

2.6

5.2

11

0.8

60

2

0.4

<0.02

<0.1

2.3

2.9

110

3.2

0.7

<2

11

57

<0.1

2

7

290

<Q.1

0.21

<0.1

0.1

18

1.9

53

68
Base metals in ochre deposits (ppm)

seep Copperas vent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

B

Iron and aluminum (wt. %)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Figure 16. Bar graphs showing chemical variations in ochre deposits associated with tailings, seeps, 

surface waters, and ground water discharge at the air shaft. See table 10A for key to sample 

numbers listed along the x-axis of the charts. A, Base metals. B, Iron and aluminum.

69
IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION

The pyrrhotite-rich nature of the ore and tailings in the mine area should be considered in any 

reclamation planning. Pyrrhotite weathers faster than pyrite, but does not generate as much acid as an 

equal volume of pyrite. However, some pyrite occurs in the ore and tailings. This study demonstrates 

that pyrrhotite at Elizabeth is actively oxidizing to marcasite, which is chemically identical to, and more 

reactive than, pyrite. Although some acidity may be consumed in this alteration process, once the pyrite 

is formed it has the potential to produce huge amounts of acidity. Complete oxidation of pyrrhotite 

having the composition observed at Elizabeth produces 0.22 moles of acidity (H+) for every mole of 

pyrrhotite oxidized. Given the very large volumes of unoxidized tailings and the fine-grained nature of 

the tailings, the potential for further acid generation is great. Any activities that would promote oxidation, 

such as moving the large volumes of fine-grained pyrrhotite-rich tailings on TP1 and TP2, could 

exacerbate the problem. Damp or wet, unoxidized, black tailings develop efflorescent salt crusts in a 

matter of hours to days when exposed to air. Tailings are chemically and texturally heterogeneous, 

both laterally across the mine area and vertically within waste piles. Concentrations of base metals and 

total sulfur in unoxidized black tailings can exceed 3 % and 10 %, respectively. Locally, zinc exceeds 

copper in tailings; lead concentrations are uniformly low, reflecting the low lead content of the ore. ,

The fact that near-neutral waters emanate from the base of TP1 suggests that flow through TP1 

is not the main cause of acid drainage in Copperas Brook downstream. Once the waters leave the pile, 

however, dissolved ferrous iron oxidizes and hydrolyzes to produce acid and form the distinctive red, 

orange, and yellow ferric iron minerals that accumulate as ochre deposits and coat the streambed all the 

way to the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River; zinc tends to accumulate in these ochre 

deposits. This "natural" process that has developed at Elizabeth is analogous to ochre precipitation and 

metal sequestration accomplished by raising the pH of acidic streams via limestone amendment or other 

remediation methods. The abundance of organic debris may be fortuitous or may facilitate ochre 

formation in seep areas and promote local reduction. Ochres occur within tailings as hardpan layers that 

may represent paleosurfaces; such layers have been shown to limit diffusion of oxygen in other tailings 

piles by Blowes and others (1994).

The base metal, iron, and total sulfur content of the surface soils on TP3 is much higher than on 

the more recent tailings (TP1 and TP2) due to efficiency of the more modern mineral processing. 

Tailings of TP1 and TP2 are finer-grained and richer in aluminum, which can be a problem in 

establishing vegetation. Jarosite and gypsum layers within TP1 probably represent chemical residues 

from the flotation process that were discharged onto the pyrrhotite-rich tailings at different times as the 

pile was built up.

Surface runoff from acidic and metal-rich soils on TP3 and dissolution of efflorescent salt 

minerals that coat all tailings surfaces are important factors to consider in developing a viable 

remediation plan. A number of different, highly soluble efflorescent salt minerals form on the site and 

recycle iron, aluminum, copper, sulfur and other elements from solid phases to the aquatic ecosystem 

depending on weather conditions. Critical considerations for development of effective strategies to 

improve water quality in Copperas Brook include (1) the role that these salts play, and (2) the potential 

for exacerbating salt development if the large volumes of fine-grained tailings buried beneath a shallow 

(less than a meter thick in most places), deeply eroded oxidized cover become exposed to wet/dry 

cycles and air.

70
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Bob Walker, coordinator of the Elizabeth Mine Study Group, and other, 

members of the group for welcoming our participation in this study and for arranging site access. We 

also thank the landowners, Leonard Cook, Richard Josler, and Ted Zagaeski for permitting us on the 

site. Johnny Johnsson, mining historian, provided historic references on the Elizabeth mine. John 

Slack, USGS, kindly allowed us to incorporate his unpublished geochemical data on Elizabeth mine ore 

samples, and supplied background information on the mine. Harvey Belkin, USGS, gave advice on 

SEM sample preparation and analysis.

Helen Folger, USGS, and John Slack, USGS, reviewed a draft of this report and provided many 

helpful suggestions. Adam Johnson assisted with final compilation.

71
REFERENCES

Adrian, B.M., Arbogast, D.F., Detra, D.E., and Mays, R.E., 1990, Direct-current arc emission

spectre-graphic method for the semiquantitative analysis of rock, stream-sediment, soil, and

heavy-mineral-concentrate samples, in Arbogast, B.F., ed., Quality assurance manual for the

Branch of Geochemistry, U.S. Geological Survey: U.S.;Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-

668, p. 100-106. 

Anderson, C.S., 1931, Mining and milling in the Vermont copper district: Engineering and Mining Journal,

v. 131, p. 208-210. 

Annis, M.P., Slack, J.F., and Rolph, A.L, 1983, Stratabound massive sulphide deposits of the Elizabeth

mine, Orange County, Vermont, in Sangster, D.F., ed., Field trip guidebook to Stratabound

sulphide deposits, Bathurst area, N.B., Canada and west-central New England, U.S.A.:

Geological Survey of Canada, Miscellaneous Report 36, p. 41-51. 

Arbogast, B.F., 1996, Analytical methods manual for the Mineral Resource Surveys Program, U.S.

Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 96-525. 

Barg, L.D., McLeary, Eric, and Kepler, Doug (Step by Step & Damariscotta), 1999, Hydrologic

characterization and remediation options for the Elizabeth mine, South Strafford, Vermont:

Unpublished Report prepared for the Elizabeth Mine Study Group, 57 p. 

Barth, R.C., 1984, Water quality implications and control techniques associated with the proposed Union

Village hydroelectric project: Unpublished report prepared by the Colorado School of Mines

Research Institute, 32 p. 

Benson, C.B., Wangaard, J.C., and Johnson, H.A., 1950, Elizabeth mine reorganized for efficient

production: Mining Congress Journal, v. 36, no. 7, p. 18-23. 

Bigham, J.M., 1994, Mineralogy of ochre deposits formed by sulfide oxidation, in Jambor, J.L, and

Blowes, D.W., eds., 1994, The environmental geochemistry of sulfide mine-wastes:

Mineralogical Association of Canada, Short Course Handbook, v. 22, p. 103-132. 

Blowes, D.W., Ptacek, C.J., and Jambor, J.L, 1994, Remediation and prevention of low-quality drainage

from tailings impoundments, in Jambor, J,L, and Blowes, D.W., eds., 1994, The environmental

geochemistry of sulfide mine-wastes: Mineralogical Association of Canada, Short Course

Handbook, v. 22, p. 365-379. 

Canney, F.C., 1965, Geochemical prospecting investigations in the copper belt of Vermont: U.S.

Geological Survey Bulletin 1198-B, 28 p. 

Crock, J.G., Lichte, F.E., and Briggs, P.H., 1983, Determination of elements in National Bureau of

Standards geological reference materials SRM 278 obsidian and SRM 688 basalt by inductively

coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy: Geostandards Newsletter, v. 7, no. 2, p. 335-

340. 

Dagenhart, T.V., Jr., 1980, The acid mine drainage of Contrary Creek, Loiuisa County, Virginia -

Factors causing variations in stream water chemistry: University of Virginia, M.S. Thesis, 215 p. 

Department of the Army, 1989, Hydraulic evaluation and revegetation study for the Elizabeth mine site,

Vermont: Report prepared for the State of Vermont by the New England Division, Corps of

Engineers, Waltham, MA, 35 p. 

Di Toro, D.M., Mahoney, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Hicks, M.B., Mays, S.M., and Redmond, M.S.,

1990, Toxicity of cadmium in sediments - The role of acid-volatile sulfide: Environmental

Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 9, p. 1487-1502. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, The incidence and severity of sediment contamination in

surface waters of the United States. Volume 1: National stream sediment survey: EPA-823-R97-006.

Fay, A.H., 1909, The Vermont Copper Co.: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 88, p. 364-365. 

Ferris, F.G., Tazaki, K., and Fyfe, W.S., 1989, Iron oxides in acid mine drainage environments and their

association with bacteria: Chemical Geology, v. 74, p. 321-330. 

Fortescue, J.A.C., 1992, Landscape geochemistry: Retrospect and prospect-1990: Applied

Geochemistry, v. 7, p. 1-53. 

Gair, J.E., and Slack, J.F., 1980, Stratabound massive sulfide deposits of the U.S. Appalachians, in

72
Yokes, P.M., and Zachrisson, Ebbe, eds., Review of Caledonian Appalachian stratabound

sulphides: Geological Survey of Ireland, Special Paper No. 5, p. 68-81. 

Hitchcock, Edward, Hitchcock, Edward, Jr., Haager, A. D., and Hitchcock, C.H., 1861, Report on the

geology of Vermont, vol. II, Claremont, N.H.. 

Howard, P.P., 1959a, Structure and rock alteration at the Elizabeth mine, Vermont. Part I. Structure at

the Elizabeth mine: Economic Geology, v. 54, p. 1214-1249. 

___ 1959b, Structure and rock alteration at the Elizabeth mine, Vermont. Part II. Rock alteration at

the Elizabeth mine: Economic Geology, v. 54, p. 1414-1443. 

___ 1969, The geology of the Elizabeth mine, Vermont: Vermont Geological Survey, Economic

Geology No. 5, 73 p.

Howe, H.M., 1886, The Elizabeth copper mine, Vermont: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 42, p. 327. 

International Centre for Diffraction Data, 1997, Powder Diffraction File Sets 1-47. 

Jacobs, E.G., 1944, The Vermont Copper Company, Inc.: Vermont Geological Survey, Report of the

State Geologist, 24th, 1943-1944, p. 1-13. 

Jambor, J.L, 1994, Mineralogy of sulfide-rich tailings and their oxidation products, in Jambor, J.L, and

Blowes, D.W., eds., 1994, The environmental geochemistry of sulfide mine-wastes:

Mineralogical Association of Canada, Short Course Handbook, v. 22, p. 103-132. 

Jambor, J.L., and Blowes, D.W., eds., 1994, The environmental geochemistry of sulfide mine-wastes:

Mineralogical Association of Canada, Short Course Handbook, v. 22, 438 p. 

Jenks, W.F., 1968, Origin of Vermont copper ores and its bearing on exploration: Society of Mining

Engineers, Preprint, 10 p. 

Jerez, J.K., and Rimstidt, J.D., 1999, Rate of pyrite oxidation in air (abs.): Geological Society of America,

Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, p. A-27.

Judson, J.N., 1909, The Vermont Copper Co.: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 88, p. 524-525. 

Kwong, Y.T.J., 1993, Prediction and prevention of acid rock drainage from a geological and

mineralogical perspective: Canadian National Hydrology Research Centre Contribution CS92054, 47 p. 

Kwong, Y.TJ. and Lawrence, J.R., 1994, Mineralogical controls of sulfide oxidation: Canadian National

Hydrology Research Centre Contribution No. 94010, 87 p. 

Lichte, F.E., Meier, A.L, and Crock, J.G., 1987, Determination of rare earth elements in geological

materials by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry: Analytical Chemistry, v. 59, no. 8,

p. 1150-1157. 

Long, E.R., MacDonald, D.D., Smith, S.L., and Calder, F.D., 1995, Incidence of adverse biological

effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments:

Environmental Management, v. 19, no. 1, p. 81-97. 

Lutjen, G.P., and Kearney, J.H., 1953, New life for Vermont's 160 year-old copper mine: Engineering

and Mining Journal, v. 154, p. 72-75. 

Mandarino, J.A., 1999, Fleischer's glossary of mineral species 1999: The Mineralogical Record, Inc.,

Tucson, 225 p. 

McKinstry, H.E., and Mikkola, A.K., 1954, The Elizabeth copper mine, Vermont: Economic Geology, v.

49, p. 1-20. 

Mee, J.S., Siems, D.F., and Taggart, J.E., Jr., 1996, Major element analysis by wavelength dispersive Xray fluorescence spectrometry, in Arbogast, B.F., ed., Analytical methods manual for the Mineral

Resource Surveys Program, U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report

96-525, p. 237-242. 

Meier, A.L., 1980, Flameless atomic absorption determination of gold in geological materials: Journal of

Geochemical Exploration, v. 13, p. 75-85. 

Nordstrom, O.K., and Alpers, C.N., 1999, Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for

environmental restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site, California: Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, v. 96, p. 3455-3462. 

Power, M.S. and Milton, N.M., 1990, Detection of geobotanical anomalies associated with mineralization

in the Glens Falls 1°x2° quadrangle, in Slack, J.F., ed., 1990, Summary results of the Glens Falls

CUSMAP project, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin

73
1887, p. 11-18. 

Plumlee, G.S., 1999, The environmental geology of mineral deposits, in Plumlee, G.S., and Logsdon,

M.J., eds., The environmental geochemistry of mineral deposits, Part A, Processes, techniques,

and health issues: Society of Economic Geologists, Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 6A, p. 71-

116. 

Price, W.A., 1997, DRAFT, Guidelines and recommended methods for the prediction of metal leaching

and acid rock drainage at minesites in British Columbia: British Columbia Ministry of

Employment and Investment, Energy and Minerals Division, Smithers, BC, 143 p. 

Seal, R.R., II, Haffner, DP., Meier, A.L, Krishnaswamy, Rama, and Hammarstrom, J.M., 1999,

Geochemistry of acid mine drainage from the abandoned Elizabeth copper mine, South

Strafford, Vermont:(abs.): Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 2,

p. A-66. 

Singer, P.C., and Stumm, W., 1970, Acidic mine drainage: The rate determining step: Science, v. 167, p.

1121-1123. 

Slack, J.F., ed., 1990, Summary results of the Glens Falls CUSMAP project, New York, Vermont, and

New Hampshire: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1887, Chapters A-R. 

Slack, J.F., 1993, Descriptive and grade-tonnage models for Besshi-type massive-sulphide deposits, in

Kirkham, R.V., Sinclair, W.D., Thorpe, R.I., and Duke, J.M., eds., Mineral deposit modeling:

Geological Association of Canada, Special paper 40, p. 343-371.

Slack, J.F., Atelsek, P.J., and Whitlow, J.W., 1990, Geochemistry of stream sediments and heavymineral concentrates from the Orange County Copper District, east-central Vermont, in Slack,

J.F., ed., 1990, Summary results of the Glens Falls CUSMAP project, New York, Vermont, and

New Hampshire: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1887, p. Q1-Q21. 

Slack, J.F., Offield, T.W., Shanks, W.C., III, and Woodruff, L.G., 1993, Besshi-type massive sulfide

deposits of the Vermont copper belt:: Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series , v. 17,

p. 32-73. 

Slack, J.F., Moore, Roosevelt, Fletcher, J.D., and Aruscavage, P.J., 1986, Trace elements in New

England massive sulfide deposits (abs.): Society of Mining Engineers, American Institute of

Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Program and Abstracts, p. 22. 

Smith, K.S., Plumlee, G.S., and Ficklin, W.H., 1994, Predicting water contamination from metal mines

and mining wastes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-264, 112 p. 

Smyth, H.L, and Smith, P.S., 1904, The copper deposits of Orange County, Vermont: Engineering and

Mining Journal, v. 77, p. 677-678. 

Taylor, C.D., Zierenberg, R.A., Goldfarb, R.J., Kilburn, J.E., Seal, R.R., II, and Kleinkopf, M.D., 1995,

Volcanic-associated massive sulfide deposits, //?du Bray, E.A., ed., 1995, Preliminary

compilation of descriptive geoenvironmental mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 95-831, p. 137-144. 

Weed, W.H., 1904, Notes on the copper mines of Vermont: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 225, p. 190-

199. 

Wheeler, H.W., 1883, Copper deposits of Vermont: Columbia University School of Mines Quarterly, v. 4,

p. 219-224. 

White, W.S., 1943, Geology of the Elizabeth copper mine, Vermont: U.S. Geological Survey Strategic

Mineral Investigations, Open-File Report, 9 p. 

White, W.S., and Eric, J.H., 1944, Preliminary report on the geology of the Orange County copper

district, Vermont: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 36 p. 

Yapp, J.J. and Poths, Harald, 1986, Carbon in natural goethites: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v.

50, p. 1213-1220. 

Young, Michael, 1991, Elizabeth Mine, Old Mine Road, Strafford, Vermont: EPA ID# VTD988366621,

Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Screening Site Inspection conducted by the Hazardous

Materials Management Division, Department of Environmental Conservation, Vermont Agency

of Natural Resources, 19 p.

74
APPENDIX A

Sample key for rock, slag, mineral, tailings, and ochre samples.

Sample Type

SP-R1 rock

SP-R4 rock 

SP-Salts1 salts

SP-Salts 2 salts 

SP-Salts 3 salts

SP-Salts 4 salts

SP-slime

NP-HP1

NP-HP2

NP-HP3

98JHNPA

ochrePPT

ochre-HP

ochre-HP

ochre-HP

soil

NP-A-18" soil

NP-A-31" soil

NP-A-36"-40" soil

NP-A-37" soil

NP-A-61" soil

98JHNPB soil

NP-B-58" soil 

98JHNP-B-RS rock

98JHNB-slag rock 

98JHNPC soil

NP-C-6" soil

NP-C-24" soil

NP-C-42" soil

Field Description Latitude (N)

South Pit Area

Garnet-amphibolite schist with 43° 48' 58"

tourmaline from outcrop at corner of

N side of haulageway and pit.

Weathered mica schist. 43° 48' 58"

Thin, white coating - most common 43° 48' 58"

salts observed at the site (sampled

dry).

Coarser white salts at protected 43° 48' 58"

overhang.

Thin coatings that cause vertical color 43° 48' 58"

band stripes locally on pit wallrock. a,

orange; b, blue-white;c, white

Coarse efflorescent salts on E wall of 43° 48' 58"

south end of pit developed over a

distance of several vertical feet.

Sampled dry (large sample of crusts)

and in oil.

Red slime from pit pond surface. 43° 48' 58"

North Pit Area (Tailings Pile 3)

Hardpan in gully on west side above 

road

Hardpan at headwaters of water that 

drains into LIZM-13 water site 

Hardpan above LIZM-12-2 water site; 

varved layers

North Pit area (tailings pile 3) Pile A . 

Pile A is the westernmost pile north of 

the road. Soil composite of yellowbrown surface soil; 30 increments, -8 

mesh

Yellow clay 

Shovel auger 

Shovel auger 

Shovel auger 

Shovel auger

North Pit area (tailings pile 3) Pile B . 

Pile B is the central area north of the 

road and appears to be the site of 

historic ore processing. Surface soil 

is very inhomogeneous, local bluegreen Cu iridescent coatings on slag. 

Soil composite of red to b 

Bottom of shovel auger sampling in 

black, sooty soil. 

Red clinker rock on soil surface.

Black slag rock on surface. 

North Pit area (tailings pile 3) Pile C . 

Pile C is the easternmost area north 

of the road. Surface runoff from this 

area directly affects surface water 

sample site LIZM13. Soil composite 

of red to black surface soil; 30 

increments, -8 mesh

Shovel auger 

Shovel auger 

Shovel auger

43° 

43° 

43°

Longitude (W) Water sample site

72° 20' 20"

72° 20' 20"

72° 20' 20"

72° 20' 20"

72° 20' 20"

72° 20' 20"

72° 20' 20" LIZM-11-1

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

21"

13"

17"

18.7"

18.7"

18.7"

18.7"

18.7"

18.7"

15.1"

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

13"

11"

8"

12.0"

12.0"

12.0"

12.0"

12.0"

12.0"

12.2"

LIZM-1 3

LIZM-1 2-2

43°

43°

43° 

43°

49'

49'

49' 

49'

15.1"

15"

15" 

12.7"

72°

72°

72° 

72°

20'

20'

20' 

20'

12.2"

12"

12" 

11"

49' 12.7"

49' 12.7"

49' 12.7"

72° 

72° 

72°

20' 11"

20' 11"

20' 11"

A-1
APPENDIX A 

Sample key for rock, slag, mineral, tailings, and ochre samples.

Sample

NP-C-48"-54"

NP-C-Salts1

NP-C-Salts2

NP-C-Salts3

98JHNPD

NP-D1

NP-D2

NP-D3

NP-D4

NP-D5

98JHNPE

NP-E1

NP-E2

NP-E3

98JHNPF

TP2-1 (TP2-

veg)

TP2-1-A

TP2-1-B

TP2-1-C

TP2-1-D

TP2-2 (TP2-

LS1)

Type

soil

salts

salts

salts

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

soil

ochre-HP

soil

soil

Field Description

Shovel auger

Pale blue-white salts on red tailings

just above water sample site LIZM13

White, powdery salts on paler part of

pileC

Salts on outcrop under protected

overhang at very south end of North

pit

Elizabeth Mine North Pit Composite

Dump "D":Soil composite, 30

increments, -8 mesh

Auger sample 0-6" interval - yellow

Auger sample 24-30" interval -

brownish

Auger sample 42-46" interval - yellow

clay

Auger sample 48-54" interval - white

Auger sample 55-61" interval -

orange

Elizabeth Mine North Pit Composite

Dump "E":Soil composite, 30

increments, -8 mesh

Auger sample 0-6" interval: red soil

Auger sample 30-36" interval: gray,

ashy zone that appears to be different

from white intervals noted in other

auger holes

Auger sample 55-61" interval: same

gray, ashy material as above

Elizabeth Mine North Pit Composite

Dump "F":Soil composite, 30

increments, -8 mesh

Tailings pile 2

Soil composite of partially vegetated,

flat top surface of tailings pile 2; 30

increments; -8 mesh

Black unoxidized tailings at 24";

tailings profile exposed by digging a

hole with a shovel.

Yellow-green clay layer 1 " thick at 23-

24" below surface; tailings profile

exposed by digging a hole with a

shovel.

Hardpan layer at 22-23" below

surface; overlain by 1 2-22" yelloworange clay with no roots and 0-11"

reddish soil with roots. Soil profile

exposed by digging a hole with a

shovel.

Yellow-orange clayey soil layer 12 to

22" below surface; below root zone;

tailings profile exposed by digging a

hole with a shovel.

Soil composite of bare, eroded north

face slope of tailings pile 2 above

tailings pile 1 ; 30 increments; -8 mesh

Latitude (N)

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

43°

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

49'

12.7"

ISIS"

13"

16.1"

16.1"

16.1"

16.1"

16.1"

16.1"

17.8"

17.8"

17.8"

17.8"

21.1"

23"

23"

23"

23"

23"

25"

Longitude (W) Water sample site

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

72°

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

20'

19'

19'

19'

19'

19'

19'

11"

11" LIZM-13

11"

11"

15.8"

15.8"

15.8"

15.8"

15.8"

15.8"

16.2"

16.2"

16.2"

16.2"

15.0"

58"

58"

58"

58"

58"

51"

A-2
APPENDIX A 

Sample key for rock, slag, mineral, tailings, and ochre samples.

Sample Type Field Description 

TP-2A-HP ochre-HP Hardpan in at base of TP2 (not part 

of TP2-1 profile); dug out section that 

showed cemented black tailings (A) 

at base overlain by 1/4" gray mica, 1" 

yellow clay, earthy orange soil, 

hardpan (E), and orange soil at 

uppermost surface)

TP2-E-HP ochre-HP Hardpan at base of TP2 (not part of 

TP2-1 profile); dug out section that 

showed cemented black tailings (A) 

at base overlain by 1/4" gray mica, 1" 

yellow clay, earthy orange soil, 

hardpan (E), and orange soil at 

uppermost surface) 

TP2-Salts salts White salts ("organpipes") on tailings

Latitude f Nl

43° 49' 23"

Longitude (W) Water sample site

72° 19' 53"

98JHTP1-1 soil

98JHTP1-2 soil

98JHTP1-3 soil

TP1-3R soil

TP1-4 A soil

TP1-4B soil

TP1-4C soil

TP1-4D soil

TP1-4E soil

TP1-4F soil

TP1 soil

TP1-pond soil

98JH-TP1-HP ochre-HP

TP1-Salts salts

Tailings pile 1

Soil composite of bare area on flat 

top of tailings pile 1 adjacent to the 

pond; 30 increments; -8 mesh 

Soil composite of vegetated area on 

flat top of tailings pile 1; 30 

increments; -8 mesh 

Soil composite of steep, eroded 

north slope face of tailings pile 1; 60 

increments; -8 mesh 

Replicate soil composite of north 

slope face of sample TP1-3; 60 

increments; -8 mesh 

Soil profile at north slope edge of TP1 

about 1/3 of the way up from the 

bottom - dug out cross-section: A, 

black tailings at bottom of profile 

Soil profile at north slope edge of TP1 

about 1/3 of the way up from the 

bottom - dug out cross-section: B, 

gray, micaceous layer overlying A

Soil profile at north slope edge of TP1

about 1/3 of the way up from the

bottom - dug out cross-section: C,

yellow clay overlying B

Soil profile at north slope edge of TP1

about 1/3 of the way up from the

bottom - dug out cross-section: D,

hardpan overlying C

Soil profile at north slope edge of TP1

about 1/3 of the way up from the

bottom - dug out cross-section: E,

gray layer overlying D

Soil profile at north slope edge of TP1

about 1/3 of the way up from the

bottom - dug out cross-section: F, top

layer overlying E

Black, unoxidized tailings from pond

area approx. 6" below surface

Bottom sediments from pond on TP1

at southwest edge of pond

Hardpan forming along edges of

stream that feeds tailings pond on

tailings pile 1

Blue salts on damp tailings surface

near pond

43° 49' 23"

43° 49' 24

43° 49' 31

43° 49' 27"

43° 49' 27"

43° 49' 27"

43° 49' 27"

43° 49' 27"

43° 49' 27"

43° 49' 27"

43° 49' 27"

43° 49' 31"

43° 49' 31"

43° 49 31

43° 49' 31"

72° 19' 53"

72° 19' 41"

72° 19' 39"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 33"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

A-3
APPENDIX A 

Sample key for rock, slag, mineral, tailings, and ochre samples.

Sample Type 

TP1-A-12" soil

TP1-MP3-A soil

TP1-MP3-B soil

TP1-MP3-C soil

TP1-MP3-D soil

TP1-MP3-E soil

TP1-MP3-F soil

TP1-MP3-G soil

LIZM-4-HP ochre-HP

LIZM-4A-HP ochre-HP

LIZM-4A-PPT ochrePPT

LIZM-4B-HP ochre-HP

LIZM6-HP ochre-HP 

LIZM-6-ciay soil

LIZM-18-2-HP ochre-HP

LIZM-18-2- ochrePPT PPT

98JHCB1-HP ochre-HP

CB2-HP ochre-HP

Field Description Latitude (Ml

Black.unoxidized tailings from 12" 43° 49' 31" 

below surface at southwest edge of 

pond

Auger profile adjacent to MP3 43° 49' 31" 

piezometer; A, 35 to 36" below 

surface, black unoxidized tailings

Auger profile adjacent to MP3 43° 49' 31" 

piezometer; B , 24 to 25" below 

surface, coarser and drier black 

tailings than underlying sample MP3- 

A

Auger profile adjacent to MP3 43° 49' 31" 

piezometer;C, 20 to 21" wetter, finegrained black tailings

Auger profile adjacent to MP3 43° 49' 31" 

piezometer; D, 17 to 18" green clay 

layer

Auger profile adjacent to MP3 43° 49' 31" 

piezometer;E, 16 to 17" black tailings 

layer above clay

Auger profile adjacent to MP3 43° 49' 31" 

piezometer; F, 15 to 16" wet orange 

clay layer

Auger profile adjacent to MP3 43° 49' 31" 

piezometer; G, 4 to 5" drier oxidized 

orange tailings

Seeps along the base of tailings pile 1 

Protohardpan at LIZM-4 water site - 43° 49 33 

looks hard but you sink in when you 

step on it

Yellow-orange 1/4" thick piecrust 43° 49' 33 

terraced hardpan at E edge of cattails 

at seep along north base of tailings 

pile 1; cut with knife to sample

Yellow slime and red ochre 43° 49' 33

precipitates (slime) at seep along

north base of tailings pile 1.

Yellowboy in stream at seep along 43° 49' 33

north base of tailings pile 1; wet when

sampled.

Red area of big hardpan draining 43° 49' 37

tailings pile 1 along north edge.

Yellow clay above water sample site 43° 49' 37

LIZM-6 along the north base of

tailings pile 1.

Copperas Brook

Hardpan at LIZM-18-2 water site; 43° 49' 40" 

east tributary of Copperas Brook 

below tailings pile 1. 

Slime at LIZM-18-2 43° 49' 40

Hardpan in eastern tributary of 43° 49' 40"

Copperas Brook, south and east of

water sample site LIZM-18-2 in

woods.

Hardpan in Copperas Brook just 43° 49' 40"

below the confluence of an eastern

and western tributary below water

sample site LIZM-18-2.

Longitude (W) Water sample site

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 39" LIZM-4

72° 19' 39" LIZM-4

72° 19' 39" LIZM-4

72° 19' 39" LIZM-4

72° 19' 43" LIZM-6

72° 19' 43" LIZM-6

72° 19' 37" LIZM-18-2

72° 19' 37" LIZM-18-2

72° 19' 37"

72° 19' 37"

A-4
APPENDIX A 

Sample key for rock, slag, mineral, tailings, and ochre samples.

Sample Type 

CB1-PPT ochrePPT

CB2-PPT ochrePPT

98JHCBW-HP ochre-HP

CB2-R-HP ochre-HP

98JHCB2R- ochreLS4-1 PPT

98JHCB2R- ochreLS4-2 PPT

AV-slime ochrePPT

OMPR-2floc ochrePPT

Field Description Latitude (N)

Precipitate in Copperas Brook just 43° 49' 40"

below the confluence of an eastern

and western tributary below water

sample site LIZM-18-2.

Precipitate in Copperas Brook just 43° 49' 40"

below the confluence of an eastern

and western tributary below water

sample site LIZM-18-2.

Hardpan terraces with leaves above 43° 49' 36"

LIZM-18-2 along west tributary of

Copperas Brook just below wetland

Hardpan on Copperas Brook stream 43° 49' 36"

bottom about 80 ft. upstream from

confluence with river; thin film of

yellowboy on red to orange hardpan

substrate.

Orange slime at limestone 43° 49' 56"

experiment site 4

Brown-orange slime (lighter color 43° 49' 56"

than 1) at limestone experiment site 4

West Branch Ompompanoosuc River

White slime precipitate coating the 43° 50' 7"

grate at the air shaft vent at water

sample site LZAS.

Brown floe in West Branch 43° 49' 59"

Ompompanoosuc River 78 meters

downstream from the air vent.

Longitude (W) Water sample site

72° 19' 37"

72° 19' 37"

72° 19' 38" LIZM-18-2

72° 19' 38"

72° 19' 42"

72° 19' 42"

72° 20' 4" LZAS

72° 18' 36" OMPR-2

A-5
APPENDIX B

METHODS 

Field measurements

Paste pH

Ten grams of sieved <2 mm surface soil material weighed into a plastic beaker using a batteryoperated balance was mixed with distilled water in a 1:1 solid: solution ratio following the 

recommendations for use in metal mine studies in British Columbia described by Price (1997). An Orion 

230A pH meter with a Sure-Flow Ag/AgCI epoxy electrode and temperature probe for automatic 

temperature compensation was calibrated with pH = 4.00 and 7.00 buffer solutions. Ten milliliters of 

distilled water (pH = 6) was measured in a plastic graduated cylinder and added to the sample. The 

paste was stirred with a wooden spatula to wet the powder, and the pH was measured and recorded.

Water measurements

Water data included in this report, and water sampling methods, are given in Barg and others, 

(1999).

Mineralogy

X-ray powder diffraction (XRD)

X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) was used extensively for mineral identification in this study. 

Samples were prepared by several different techniques, depending on the nature of the material and the 

amount available. Splits of the pulverized powders submitted for chemistry were mounted as loosely 

pressed powders in 1" round aluminum holders. Small samples and minerals (hand picked under a 

binocular microscope or concentrated with heavy liquids) were ground in an agate mortar and mounted 

on a 1" round glass or zero-background quartz slide with toluene or isopropyl alcohol as a binder. All 

samples for XRD were run on a Scintag X1 automated diffractometer equipped with a Peltier detector 

and using CuKa radiation. Step scans were run using stepping intervals of 0.01 or 0.02 degrees 2-theta, 

with counting times of 1 to 4 seconds per step. Patterns were interpreted with the aid of Scintag and 

MDI Applications JADE search/match software and compared with reference patterns in the JCPDS 

database (International Centre for Diffraction Data, 1997).

Scanning electron microscopy(SEM)

A JEOL JSM-840 SEM was used for detailed examination of minerals to determine crystal 

shape, size, and texture, and to obtain qualitative information on composition using a PGT x-ray energy 

dispersive system (EDS). The SEM used in this study is also equipped with a back-scattered electron 

(BSE) detector and a secondary electron (SEI) detector. The SEM was operated at a voltage of 15 or 20 

kV or lower, and a specimen current of about 1 to 2 nA. Samples were attached to carbon planchets 

with superglue or sticky carbon tape and graphite paint and were carbon coated. The spectra obtained 

with EDS provide qualitative and semi-quantitative information for elements heavier than carbon.

Electron microprobe (EMPA)

A JEOL JSX-8900 electron microprobe located in USGS laboratories in Reston, VA , was used 

for quantitative analysis of sulfide minerals and mica and for mapping of pyrrhotite alteration to 

marcasite. The EMPA, equipped with 5 wavelength dispersive spectrometers, was operated at 20kV 

(sulfides) or 15kV (silicates) and standardized using natural or synthetic mineral standards. Minerals 

were analysed in polished thin section or grain mount and samples were carbon coated prior to analysis.

B-1
Some samples of efflorescent salts were mounted and dry-polished and run for wavelength scans of 

the entire range of elements heavier than carbon to determine the presence or absence of minor 

components. Because the EMPA analyses a very small spot (on the order of 1 to 5 microns), one can 

obtain chemical information on individual mineral grains or parts of grains.

Mineral separation

Splits of tailings and ochre samples were placed in a heavy liquid (methylene iodide) to separate 

heavy minerals (those with specific gravity >3.3) including ore minerals and iron minerals from gangue 

minerals. Gangue minerals such as quartz, mica, and feldspar all have specific gravity <3.3 and 

therefore float in the heavy liquid whereas the heavy minerals sink and can be readily concentrated. 

This technique was used to concentrate the heavy minerals for XRD to facilitate identification of minor 

amounts of minerals and of poorly crystallized minerals.

Chemistry

Samples of materials for chemistry were prepared by the authors using standard sample 

preparation techniques for geologic materials as described in Arbogast (1996). Materials were 

pulverized to <100 mesh using an automated a ceramic puck mill. Prepared samples were sent to 

USGS sample control laboratories in Denver where they were split and grouped with standards and 

replicate samples and submitted to in-house laboratories or to the contact lab (XRAL, Don Mills, Ontario) 

depending on the analytical method. The contract lab follows USGS protocols for most methods, as 

described in Arbogast (1996). Where an element was determined by more than one method, the 

number for the more sensitive method was used in preparing plots and computing base metal totals. 

For example, many samples exceed the upper reporting limit for ICP-AES for iron and are reported in 

the tables as qualified values (> 30 wt. %) but are well within the range for reporting iron by ICP-MS. 

Two types of analyses were performed in-house (ICP-MS and WD-XRF); all other types of analyses 

were done by XRAL. Detection limits for different methods are listed in table form below. Abbreviations 

for methods cited in this report and references for complete details of the analytical techniques and 

instruments are as follows:

Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)

Multi-element technique (USGS method) used for all sample media in this study except stream 

sediment samples (Arbogast, 1996; Lichte and others, 1987). Detection limits for ICP-MS vary and are 

computed for each batch of analyses based on concentrations measured in blanks. However, detection 

limits by ICP-MS are orders of magnitude lower than detection limits for other methods, so very low 

concentrations of elements can be measured by this method.

Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES)

Multi-element (40) technique (USGS method) used for stream sediments and to obtain major 

elements for some other sample types. For samples with >25 wt. % Fe, data by this technique may be 

biased low. See ICP-MS for preferred values for iron-rich materials (Arbogast, 1996; Crock and others, 

1983).

Hydride generation (HYD)

Specialized technique(USGS method) for determination of As, Se, and Sb. Using a multi-acid 

procedure and atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Arbogast, 1996).

B-2
LECO

Technique (XRAL) used for total S, C, and water determinations. Total sulfur is measured with 

an automated sulfur analyzed by combusting the sample in oxygen in a LECO induction furnace and 

measuring SO2 by infrared detector. Total carbon and carbonate carbon are determined; organic carbon 

is computed by difference. Uses an automated carbon analyzer to determine total carbon in geologic 

materials. Samples (0.200 g are combusted added to a crucible with LECO cell and iron chips and 

combusted in an oxygen atmosphere to form carbon dioxide which is measured by infrared detector. 

Carbonate carbon is determined as carbon dioxide using perchloric acid and evolved gas is measured 

coulometrically. Essential (structural or crystalline ) water is reported as H2O+ and non-essential (or 

hydroscopic) water is reported as H2O-. Both are detected by heating and infra-red absorption.

Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry (GFAA)

Specialized technique (USGS method) for accurate analysis of low-level gold using extraction 

with methyl isobutyl ketone (Meier, 1980).

Cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry (CVAC)

Specialized technique (USGS method) or mercury analysis in geologic materials (Kennedy and 

Crock, 1987).

Wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (WD-XRF)

Used for determination of major elements (reported as oxides) in geologic materials. Used in 

this study primarily to determine silica content of rocks and soils. LOI reported represent loss on ignition 

and include water and other volatiles released on sample ignition (Mee and others, 1996).

DC-ARC emission spectrography (SQS)

Semi-quantitative method widely used in older (pre-1990s) studies in exploration geochemistry. 

Values are reported as 6 steps per order of magnitude. Detection limits reported below are from Adrian 

and others (1990).

B-3
Ranges of concentrations or lower detection limits for each method

Element Units ICP-AES ICP-MS GFAA LEGO CHM WD-XRF HYD SQS CVAC

Al

Ca

Fe

K

Mg

Na

P

Si

Ti

FeO

SiO2

AI203

Fe2O3

MgO

CaO

K2O

TiO2

P205

MnO

LOI

Ag

As

Au

B

Ba

Be

Bi

Cd

Ce

Co

Cr

Cs

Cu

Ga

Ge

Hg

In

La

Li

Mn

Mo

Nb

Ni

Pb

Rb

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

0.005 - 50

0.005 - 50

0.02 - 25

0.01 - 50

0.005 - 5

0.005 - 50

0.005 - 50 0.01

0.05 - 25

0.01

2-10,000

10-50,000 0.5

8 - 50,000 0.05 0.002

1 - 35,000

1 - 5,000 0.1

10-50,000

2-25,000 0.1

5 - 50,000 2

2 - 25,000

2 - 50,000

0.1

2-15,000

4 - 50,000

1-50,000 1

2 - 50,000 0.5

4 - 50,000

2 - 50,000

4-50,000 0.1

3 - 50,000

4 - 50,000

0.05

0.005

0.02

0.2

0.2

0.10-99

0.5

0.6 - 20 200

10

10

20

1

10

20

10

10

5

5

0.02

50

10

5

20

5

10

B-4
Element Units

Sb

Sc

Se

Sm

Sr

Ta

Te

Th

Tl

U

V

Y

Zn

Zr

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ppm

ICP-AES ICP-MS GFAA LEGO CHM WD-XRF HYD SQS CVAC

2

2

6

100-

2

2

2

- 50,000

-15,000

- 50,000

100,000

- 30,000

- 25,000

-15,000

0.1

0.5

1

0.05

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.1 0.1

0.05

0.6-20 100

5

0.2-4

100

0.1 -10

100

0.1 -10

10

10

200

C02 % 0.01 - 50 

TotalS % 0.5-35

B-5