Environmental Controls on Water Quality: 

Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, 

North-Central Nevada 

By Michele L.W. Tuttle, Richard B. Wanty, and Byron R. Berger 

Chapter A of 

Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Edited by Lisa L. Stillings 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2210-A 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

Posted online September 2003, version 1.0 

This publication is only available online at: 

http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/pub/bulletins/b2210-a/ 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication 

is for descriptive purposes only and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government 
Preface 

Northern Nevada is one of the world’s foremost regions of gold production. The 

Humboldt River Basin (HRB) covers 43,500 km2 in northern Nevada (Crompton, 1995), 

and it is home to approximately 18 active gold and silver mines (Driesner and Coyner, 

2001) among at least 55 significant metallic mineral deposits (Long and others, 1998). 

Many of the gold mines are along the Carlin trend in the east-central portion of the HRB, 

and together they have produced 50 million ounces of gold from 1962 (when the Carlin 

mine first opened) through April 2002 (Nevada Mining Association, 2002). Mining is 

not new to the region, however. Beginning in 1849, mining has taken place in numerous 

districts that cover 39 percent of the land area in the HRB (Tingley, 1998). In addition to 

gold and silver, As, Ba, Cu, Fe, Hg, Li, Mn, Mo, Pb, S, Sb, V, W, Zn, and industrial commodities such as barite, limestone, fluorite, sand and gravel, gypsum, gemstones, pumice, 

zeolites, and building stone, have been extracted from the HRB (McFaul and others, 

2000). 

Due to the large amount of historical and recent mining in the HRB, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) in Nevada asked the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral 

Resources Program to conduct a series of mineral-deposit-related environmental studies in the HRB. BLM required data and geoenvironmental interpretations regarding (1) 

the chemical composition of water, soil, sediment, and mine waste in the HRB, (2) the 

natural background chemistry of these materials, and (3) how mining activities may have 

altered their chemistry. The paper that follows describes one of the studies conducted by 

the USGS Minerals Program to answer these and similar questions. 

All papers within this series of investigations can be found as lettered chapters of 

USGS Bulletin 2210, Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, 

Northern Nevada. Each chapter is available separately online. 

References Cited 

Crompton, E.J., 1995, Potential hydrologic effects of mining in the Humboldt River Basin, northern 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4233, 2 sheets. 

Driesner, D., and Coyner, A., 2001, Major mines of Nevada 2000: Mineral industries in Nevada’s 

economy: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication P-12, 28 p. 

Long, K.R., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., and Ludington, S.D., 1998, Significant deposits of gold, silver, copper, 

lead, and zinc in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-206A, 33 p. [USGS 

Open-File Report 98-206B contains one 3.5-inch diskette]. 

McFaul, E.J., Mason G.T., Jr., Ferguson, W.B., and Lipin, B.R., 2000, U.S. Geological Survey mineral 

databases—MRDS and MAS/MILS: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-52, two CDROMs. 

Nevada Mining Association, 2002, Industry to celebrate 50 millionth ounce of gold: Nevada Mining 

Association News Release, April 11, 2002. 

Tingley, J.V., 1998, Mining districts of Nevada (2nd ed.): Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 

Report 47d, one CD-ROM. 

Contents 

Preface ..........................................................................................................................................................III 

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Background Information.............................................................................................................................. 1 

Geology.................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 3 

Field Methods .............................................................................................................................. 3 

Laboratory Methods................................................................................................................... 3 

Case Study I—Comparative Chemistry of Surface Water Among Drainages 

Variably Affected by Mineralization and Mining........................................................................ 4 

Sample Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 4 

Comparative Chemistry among “Background,” “Undisturbed,” 

and “Mined” Samples ........................................................................................................... 4 

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 5 

Case Study II—Geologic and Structural Control of Fracture-Dominated 

Ground-Water Flow at a Variety of Spatial Scales—Elder Creek........................................... 6 

Fracture Control on Water Quality .................................................................................................... 6 

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 6 

Case Study III—Environmental Behavior of a Molybdenum Porphyry System 

on Battle Mountain—Licking Creek and Long Canyon............................................................. 7 

Geology of the Buckingham Porphyry Molybdenum Deposit ...................................................... 9 

Lithology ....................................................................................................................................... 9 

Structural Geology...................................................................................................................... 9 

Mineral Deposits....................................................................................................................... 10 

Historic Mining Activity .................................................................................................................... 10 

Surface-Water/Ground-Water Interactions.................................................................................. 11 

Characteristics of Deposit Drainage .............................................................................................. 13 

Concentrations of Dissolved Metals in Stream Drainages......................................................... 14 

Trends in Sulfur Isotopic Composition of Stream Sulfate ........................................................... 14 

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 16 

Case Study IV—Metal Mobility in Galena Creek During an Unusually Wet Spring ........................ 16 

Sampling.............................................................................................................................................. 16 

Modeling Results ............................................................................................................................... 16 

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 20 

Summary of Battle Mountain Studies ..................................................................................................... 21 

References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 21 

Appendix I—Description of Sample Sites.............................................................................................. 23 

Long Canyon and Licking and Camp Creeks ................................................................................. 23 

V 
VI 

Long Canyon (Upper to Lower)............................................................................................... 23 

Licking Creek (Upper to Lower).............................................................................................. 23 

Camp Creek (Lower)................................................................................................................. 23 

Cow and Duck Creeks, and Butte, Iron, and Galena Canyons ................................................... 24 

Cow Creek (Upper to Lower)................................................................................................... 24 

Duck Creek (Upper to Lower) ................................................................................................. 24 

Butte Canyon (Lower) .............................................................................................................. 24 

Iron Canyon (Lower)................................................................................................................. 24 

Galena Canyon (Lower) ........................................................................................................... 25 

Little Cottonwood Creek—North and South Forks....................................................................... 25 

Elder Creek and Tributary ................................................................................................................. 25 

Elder Creek (Upper to Lower................................................................................................... 25 

Tributary (Upper to Lower) ...................................................................................................... 25 

Appendix II—Geochemical Data ............................................................................................................. 25 

Figures 

1. Aerial photo showing stream reaches sampled, sample locations, 

and mine disturbance upstream from Butte and Iron Canyons............................................ 2 

2. Box plots showing the range; median; 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th 

percentile, and outliers for selected chemical parameters.................................................. 5 

3. Photograph of boulder above Elder Creek demonstrating that 

not all fractures are hydraulically conductive at the sub-meter scale ............................... 6 

4. Map of Elder Creek and tributary showing water sample sites and 

conductivity, orientations of fractures, and outcrop of mineralized porphyry................... 7 

5. Photograph of species of wild rye growing in fractured rock above Elder Creek ............ 7 

6. Generalized geologic map of the Late Cretaceous Buckingham 

porphyry molybdenum deposit, Battle Mountain, Nevada.................................................... 8 

7. Map showing sample locations and mining activities in 

Long Canyon and Licking Creek ............................................................................................... 11 

8. Piper diagrams for samples collected from Long Canyon and Licking Creek.................. 12 

9. Rare-earth-element distribution in samples from Long Canyon and Licking Creek........ 13 

10. Log of ratio of variables in Long Canyon samples to those in the 

“deposit” sample plotted against the distance upstream from the 

confluence of Long Canyon and Licking Creek ..................................................................... 15 

11. Log of ratio of variables in Licking Creek samples to those in the 

“deposit” sample plotted against the distance upstream from the 

confluence of Long Canyon and Licking Creek ..................................................................... 15 

12. Distribution of δ34S values in sulfate from Licking Creek and 

Long Canyon versus distance from their confluence........................................................... 16 
VII 

13. Plots showing the percent of average total precipitation and 

snow water for November through June for the season 1997–1998 

through 2000–2001 in the upper and lower Humboldt River basins ................................... 17 

14. Map showing the location of sample sites in Galena, Iron, Butte, 

and Cow Canyons and Duck Creek ......................................................................................... 18 

15. Cross plots of pH, sum of metals, sulfate, and δ34SSO4 

versus 

distance from the end of sampled drainage .......................................................................... 19 

16. Plots showing pH and mineral precipitation and dissolution as a 

function of calcite added to the Iron Canyon–Butte Canyon mixture ............................... 20 

Tables 

1. Current drinking water standards.............................................................................................. 4 

2. Chemical parameters and concentrations for samples at points 

“a” and “b” along tributary to Elder Creek .............................................................................. 7 

3. Ranges of analytical data for the Upper Cambrian 

Harmony Formation in the Buckingham Camp region, Nevada............................................ 9 

4. Ranges of analyses for late Eocene to early Oligocene 

intrusive rocks in the Buckingham Camp region, Nevada .................................................. 10 

5. Chemical and isotopic composition of dissolved constituents 

in “deposit” drainage in Long Canyon and Licking Creek ................................................... 14 

6. Measured concentrations of major constituents in Galena Creek 

at site 25 and modeled concentrations after mixing of Cow, Duck, 

Iron, and Butte Creeks and addition of calcite ...................................................................... 19 

7. Measured concentrations of metals in Galena Creek at site 25 

after mixing and treatment of Cow, Duck, Iron, and Butte Creeks 

and calculated estimates assuming no precipitation or adsorption ................................. 19 

8. Detection limits for elements with censored values ............................................................ 26 

9. Chemical and sulfur isotopic data for all samples collected in 1998................................. 27 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: 

Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, 

North-Central Nevada 

By Michele L.W. Tuttle, Richard B. Wanty, and Byron R. Berger 

Abstract 

The environmental controls on water quality were the 

focus of our study in a portion of the Battle Mountain mining 

district, north-central Nevada. Samples representing areas 

outside known mineralized areas, in undisturbed mineralized 

areas, and in mined areas were chemically and isotopically 

analyzed. The results are related to geologic, hydrologic, and 

climatic data. 

Streams in background areas outside the mineralized 

zones reflect normal weathering of volcanically derived rocks. 

The waters are generally dilute, slightly alkaline in pH, and 

very low in metals. As these streams flow into mineralized 

zones, their character changes. In undisturbed mineralized 

areas, discharge into streams of ground water through hydrologically conductive fractures can be traced with chemistry 

and, even more effectively, with sulfur isotopic composition 

of dissolved sulfate. Generally, these tracers are much more 

subtle than in those areas where mining has produced adits and 

mine-waste piles. The influence of drainage from these mining 

relicts on water quality is often dramatic, especially in unusually wet conditions. 

In one heavily mined area, we were able to show that 

the unusually wet weather in the winter and spring greatly 

degraded water quality. Addition of calcite to the acid, metalrich mine drainage raised the stream pH and nearly quantitatively removed the metals through coprecipitation and (or) 

adsorption onto oxyhydroxides. 

This paper is divided into four case studies used to 

demonstrate our results. Each addresses the role of geology, 

hydrology, mining activity and (or) local climate on water 

quality. Collectively, they provide a comprehensive look at the 

important factors affecting water quality in this portion of the 

Battle Mountain mining district. 

Introduction 

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey initiated a study 

in the Humboldt River basin to access the effect of mineral 

deposits on surface-water quality. The drainages discussed 

in this paper are within the Battle Mountain mining district, 

specifically on the north side of Battle Mountain (Elder Creek) 

and on the east side (Long, Little Cottonwood, and Galena 

Canyons) (fig. 1). The goals of the Battle Mountain study are: 

1. Establish background concentrations of metals in 

streams flowing through undisturbed mineralized 

deposits, 

2. Describe geochemical characteristics of waters in 

undisturbed and mined drainages, 

3. Identify the important geochemical processes that 

control these characteristics (e.g., ore oxidation, metal 

adsorption, and mineral precipitation), 

4. Determine the appropriate sampling density needed 

to recognize diagnostic geochemical characteristics 

to assess water quality near to and downstream from 

deposits, 

5. Understand how local climate variability affects water 

composition, and 

6. Integrate geochemical data with geology and hydrology within the drainage basins. 

Studies in each of the drainages addressed different goals. 

Data from the entire study area were used to accomplish the 

first two goals. The Elder Creek study documented the role of 

fracture flow in the Battle Mountain drainages and the effect 

of this type of flow on water quality. The Long Canyon– 

Licking Creek study focused on the environmental behavior 

of a low-fluorine molybdenum porphyry system. The Galena 

Canyon study presented an opportunity to access water quality in a drainage with tributaries affected by different deposit 

types, various degrees of mining, and an unusually wet spring. 

Because only three samples were collected in Little Cottonwood Creek, data for the drainage are not discussed in this 

report but are included in the appendixes. 

Background Information 

Geology 

The Battle Mountain area is geologically complex and 

reflects multiple episodes of deformation. A mixture of Paleo1 
2 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Licking Creek 

Little Cottonwood Canyon 

L ong Canyon 

Iron Canyon 

Duck Creek 

Cow Canyo

n

Galena Canyon 

El de r Creek 

Outside mineralization 

Mined mineralization 

Undisturbed mineralization 

Butte Canyon 

2 km N

Figure 1. Aerial photo showing stream reaches sampled, sample locations, and mine disturbance 

upstream from Butte and Iron Canyons. Index map shows location of Battle Mountain study area. 

zoic basinal-, slope-, and shelf-sedimentary rocks were structurally juxtaposed during the compressional late Paleozoic 

Antler and late Paleozoic to early Mesozoic Sonoma orogenies 

along generally east-verging thrust-fault systems (Roberts, 

1964). Structural relations in the Buffalo Mountain range 

immediately west of the Battle Mountain range suggest that, 

at least by the Late Jurassic, transpressional tectonics probably 

dominated the regional structural geology. At this time, many 

thrust and related faults were reactivated as parts of northweststriking, right-lateral strike-slip systems. Strike-slip tectonics 

and related extension dominated in the region from the Jurassic until the late Tertiary. Basin-and-Range extensional tectonics were superimposed on the far-field compression sometime 

during the Neogene. 

Copper, molybdenum, lead, zinc, and silver mineral 

deposits in the Battle Mountain range are structurally controlled and related to emplacement of igneous intrusions. 

The oldest intrusive rocks in the Battle Mountain range are 

Late Cretaceous granodiorites and monzogranites (Theodore, 

2000), and the Buckingham porphyry molybdenum deposit 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 3 

is related to one of the Cretaceous intrusive centers. During 

the middle Tertiary, there was renewed granodioritic intrusive 

activity in the range. This period of igneous activity spawned 

copper-gold porphyry, gold-skarn, and polymetallic vein 

deposits. The Elder Creek porphyry copper deposit and related 

skarn are associated with this period of hydrothermal activity, 

as were the polymetallic vein deposits in the Galena, Butte, 

and Iron Canyon drainages. 

Hydrology 

Hydrology of the Battle Mountain area is characterized by mostly ephemeral surface runoff, superimposed on a 

fracture-controlled ground-water system (Tuttle and others, 

2000). Streams flow in the spring and early summer months 

during snowmelt and periods of thunderstorms. Low annual 

precipitation (<10 inches in low-elevation valleys and 10–15 

inches at higher elevation) (Western Regional Climate Center, 

2001) results in overall sparse vegetation, with lush growth 

only within a few meters of perennial streams or in seep 

areas. Our samples were collected in May 1998, following an 

unusually wet spring (10–20 percent above average, see case 

study IV). Sample locations are shown in figure 1. Estimated 

stream discharges ranged from 1 L/min to approximately 

2,000 L/min, based on visual estimates. Gaining and losing 

stream reaches were detected with a “sniffer.

1” Surface-water 

runoff is confined to deeply incised canyons in this high-relief 

region. Typical stream gradients are in the range of 6 percent 

to greater than 11 percent. During peak spring flows, the filled 

channels are typically less than a few meters wide and tens of 

centimeters deep. 

No completed wells were available for sampling on 

Battle Mountain at the time of our sampling. However, several 

“ground-water” samples were collected from springs distributed around Battle Mountain at a variety of elevations. A spring 

alongside Long Creek may be an uncompleted exploration well 

drilled into the outer portion of the Buckingham stock. Other 

springs sampled in the area include a seep from mineralized 

rock. Because the aquifers on Battle Mountain are characterized 

by fracture flow, it is reasonable to assume a geologic-structural 

control on the location of springs and gaining stream reaches. 

Methods 

Field Methods 

Water samples were collected in the field in May 1998. 

We attempted to collect stream samples in June of 2000, but 

most drainages were dry. Field sampling methods included 

geochemical and hydrologic techniques. At each sampling 

1

 The “sniffer” is a simple device devised to measure relative head 

differences (in inches) above or below stream level (Wanty and Winter, 2000). 

site, measurements were made for temperature, specific conductivity, and pH of the waters, using methods cited in Wood 

(1976). The pH of each sample was measured using a portable 

pH meter with automatic temperature compensation. The pH 

meter was calibrated each morning using three standard buffers with nominal pH values of 7.00, 4.01, and 10.00 at 25°C. 

Calibration slopes were always within 5 percent of ideal 

Nernstian behavior. At each subsequent stop during the day, 

the pH calibration was checked by measuring the pH of one 

of the standard buffers. Resulting values were always within 

±0.05 pH units of the accepted value. The accuracy of each 

sample pH measurement is probably also within this range. 

Temperature was measured using a NIST-traceable electronic 

thermistor, accurate to within ±0.1°C. The stainless steel housing of the temperature sensor allowed temperature measurements to be made in the stream itself, as well as in the stream 

bed by inserting the sensor into the bed. In most cases, temperature differences of several degrees Celsius were observed. 

Specific conductivity (SpC) was measured using a portable 

temperature-compensated probe, sensitive to within ±10 

microsiemens/cm (μS/cm) and accurate to within ±20 μS/cm. 

Samples were collected in the field for later laboratory 

analyses of major and trace cations, anions, alkalinity, and mercury. Anion samples were filtered through 0.45-μm-nominalpore-diameter cellulose acetate filters and refrigerated with 

no further treatment. Cation samples were filtered through the 

same 0.45-μm filter and acidified by adding 0.5 mL of concentrated ultra high purity nitric acid to each 30-mL sample. 

Samples for alkalinity analyses were collected by filling a 125-

mL bottle, without filtering or acidification—samples were 

then refrigerated. Mercury samples were filtered with the same 

0.45-μm filter into a 60-mL glass bottle. Bottles for mercury 

analyses were acid-washed prior to sampling, and mercury 

was preserved with a solution of nitric acid and sodium dichromate (O’Leary and others, 1996). For sulfur isotopes, samples 

were collected into 1-L high-density polyethylene bottles and 

refrigerated. The samples were filtered through 0.45-μm filters 

within 2 weeks of sample collection. For every sample type 

except alkalinity and sulfur isotopes, field blanks were collected using deionized water that was brought from the laboratory and treated as a sample in the field. This procedure helped 

assure the purity of reagents used for sample preservation, as 

well as assuring that the samples were not contaminated during 

collection. In every case, analyses of field blanks showed below 

detection concentrations for all constituents. 

Laboratory Methods 

Upon completion of field work, samples were transported back to the U.S. Geological Survey laboratories in 

Denver, Colo. Anion and alkalinity samples were kept cool 

during transport in insulated containers. Cation analyses were 

performed by inductively coupled plasma, atomic emission 

spectroscopy (ICP-AES; Briggs, 1996) and by ICP-mass 

spectrometry (ICP-MS; Lamothe and others, 1996). The ICP-
4 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

AES results are preferred for major cations (Mg, Ca, Na, K) 

and Fe, Al, and Si. The ICP-MS results are preferred for all 

other constituents, including first- and second-row transition 

elements, rare earths, and some actinides. 

Anion analyses were conducted on a Dionex DX-500 

ion chromatography (IC) system. The chromatography columns used were the AG-14 and AS-14 guard and separator 

columns, with a CO3/HCO3 eluent. Using this method, good 

analytical separations were made for fluoride, chloride, nitrate, 

phosphate, and sulfate. The IC was calibrated each day with a 

minimum of six standards. The accuracy and precision of the 

IC was checked by running standards as unknowns in at least 

10 percent of the IC runs and by running duplicate analyses of 

5 to 10 percent of all samples. 

Alkalinity was determined by titrating a 50-mL aliquot of 

sample with standardized sulfuric acid (Papp and others, 1996). 

An Orion model 960 automatic titrator was used for these analyses. This instrument includes a 15-sample carousel in which to 

load samples and standards. For each set of 15 analyses, at least 

two standards were run to check for accuracy and precision. 

Samples collected for mercury analyses were filtered in 

the field through 0.45-μm filters and stored in glass bottles 

that had been previously washed with nitric acid and dried. 

The samples were preserved with a mixture of nitric acid and 

sodium dichromate (O’Leary and others, 1996). Total mercury 

in these waters was determined using a cold vapor flow injection–atomic fluorescence spectrometry method modified from 

the method given in O’Leary and others (1996). 

Sulfate was precipitated as BaSO4 from 0.45-μm-filtered 

samples for isotope analysis. Approximately 0.7 mg of BaSO4 

was combusted with V2O5 in an elemental analyzer. The SO2 

gas released was analyzed by mass spectrometry with a reproducibility of ±0.2‰ (Kester and others, 2001). Isotope values 

are reported relative to the Cañon Diablo Troilite standard. 

Case Study I— 

Comparative Chemistry of 

Surface Water Among 

Drainages Variably Affected 

by Mineralization and Mining 

We established geochemical characteristics of surface 

water throughout the entire Battle Mountain study area. These 

characteristics represent baselines for the spring of 1998. 

Additional sampling was attempted in June of 2000, but all 

drainages were dry (see Galena Canyon case study). 

Sample Distribution 

Stream samples were collected to maximize our coverage and springs sampled where ever found (sample locations 

in fig 1). At many of the confluences, three samples were 

taken—one above each tributary and one downstream of the 

confluence. For a description of sample sites, see Appendix I. 

The chemical and sulfur isotopic data for all samples collected 

in 1998 are in Appendix II. The different populations being 

compared are “outside mineralization” (background samples 

collected in areas outside of and unaffected by mineralization), 

“unmined mineralization” (samples collected from drainages 

crossing unmined mineralized areas), or “mined mineralization” (samples collected from drainages affected by mining). 

Comparative Chemistry Among ”Background,” 

“Undisturbed,” and “Mined” Samples 

Box plots in figure 2 graphically show the distribution 

of chemical data for selected elements split by population 

(outside mineralization (background), undisturbed mineralization, and mined mineralization). Both stream and seep data 

are included. Current drinking water standards are shown in 

table 1 for comparison. Although the median value for some 

characteristics is not significantly different among populations, 

the range is always much larger for the “mined mineralization” population (note logarithmic scale on most plots). Many 

of the samples from the “mined mineralization” population 

have higher conductivity, lower pH and higher SO4/Cl ratios. 

“Outside mineralization” samples are at the head of the drainage; therefore, one might argue that their lower conductivities are due to less rock/water interaction than those samples 

downstream. The lower SO4

2–/Cl– ratios (and δ34S values for 

dissolved SO4 in case study III) indicate, however, that the 

lower conductivity is not due just to less rock/water interaction 

alone. 

Table 1. Current drinking water standards. 

[From EPA, 2000. MCL, maximum contaminant level that is enforceable. 

MCLG, maximum contaminate level goal that is not enforceable. SDWR, 

secondary drinking water regulation that is not enforceable] 

Chemical MCL MCLG SDWR 

pH 6.5-8.5 

As (mg/L) 0.005 

Cd (mg/L) 0.005 

Cu (mg/L) 1.3 1.0 

Fe (mg/L) 0.3 

Pb (mg/L) zero 

SO4 (mg/L) 250 

Zn (mg/L) 5 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 5 

9000 1000000 Units

100000 

10000 

900 1000 

100 

10 

90 1 

Conductivity (μS/cm) 

.1 

10 Fe (μg/L) Mn (μg/L) 

9 

1000000 8 

7 100000 

6 10000 

5 1000 

4 

100 3 

2 10 

pH 

100 1 

.1 

Cu (μg/L) Ni (μg/L) Zn (μg/L) 

10 

1000 

1 

100 

10 

.1 

SO4/Cl (M/M) 1 

Figure 2 (above and facing column). Box plots showing the range; .1 

median; 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentile, and outliers for selected 

chemical parameters. Data are separated into stream samples from .01 

areas outside mineralization, within unmined mineralized, and within As (μg/L) Mo (μg/L) Pb (μg/L) 

mined mineralization. 

The trend of larger ranges in the “mined” population is 

even more evident in the trace-metal plots and is consistent 

with ore minerals in adits and waste piles weathering and 

contributing products to the streams. The median and range of 

trace-metal values for the “unmined mineralization” population is generally intermediate between the “outside mineralization” and “mined mineralization” populations. 

Mined 

mineralization 

Unmined 

mineralization 

Background 

EXPLANATION 

median 

25th percentile 

75th percentile 

90th percentile 

10th percentile 

outliers 

outlier 

range of values 

Conclusions In many drainages, mining activities increase the magnitude 

of this degradation process by increasing the surface area 

Results from this study illustrate that the presence of of reactive minerals in contact with the water. The extent of 

mineralization, whether mined or undisturbed, affects surface- mining seems to play a role on the amount of weathering prodwater quality. As ground water in contact with mineralization ucts entering the streams, and, in unusually wet years, areas 

at depth enters the stream through fractures, water quality affected by large mining operations can have serious waterdegrades (see Elder Creek and Long Canyon case studies). quality problems (see Galena Creek case study). Units Units Units Units Units 
6 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Case Study II— 

Geological and Structural Controls 

of Fracture-Dominated Ground-Water 

Flow at a Variety of Spatial Scales— 

Elder Creek 

An understanding of geologic structures and fracture 

networks aids the understanding of fracture-controlled flow 

at a variety of spatial scales, as demonstrated by many studies 

from throughout the Western United States (Berger and others, 

2001). The Elder Creek study documents the interactions 

between ground water and surface water exhibited throughout 

the Battle Mountain area as springs, seeps, and gaining and 

losing stream reaches. Winter and others (1998) have shown 

that these connections between ground and surface water and 

their effect on water quality are too numerous to be ignored. 

Fracture Control on Water Quality 

The fracture system in Elder Creek illustrates the effect 

of fractures on water quality associated with mineralization in 

the area. Changes in surface-water flow at Battle Mountain are 

attributable to ground-water discharge and recharge that occurs 

in locations where regional-scale (tens of kilometers) throughgoing fractures cross stream drainages. Local-scale fractures 

(tens to hundreds of meters) are also important. Figure 3 

shows a boulder approximately 1 m wide. Nitrophilous lichens 

grow along those fractures that are hydraulically conductive. 

The lichens depend on the conductive fractures for a supply 

of water and nutrients. The nonconductive fractures do not 

support a lichen community, indicating that not all fractures 

in this boulder, and by extension in this drainage, are conductive. The question remains as to whether we can explain, using 

geologic models, which fracture orientations might be more 

hydraulically conductive than others. 

Elder Creek is on the north side of Battle Mountain and 

flows to the north and east (see fig. 1). In particular, we are 

interested in the unnamed tributary that flows west to east 

toward Elder Creek (fig. 4). Dashed-line sections of the stream 

in figure 4 show stream reaches over which no surface water 

was observed. At point “a,” the stream reemerged with a conductivity of 130 μS/cm. Conductivity consistently increased 

from point “a” to point “b” as did concentrations of many 

elements (table 2). A known but undeveloped Cu-porphyry 

deposit is located in this area as shown by the pink fill in 

figure 4 between points “a” and “b.” Interaction of this mineralized rock with ground water, and subsequent ground-water 

discharge into the stream, could explain observed increases in 

concentrations of individual dissolved constituents. The stream 

disappears again at point “b,” at a location that coincides with 

the projected subcrop of a swarm of fractures observed in the 

outcrop at point “c.” Vectors originating at point “c” on figure 

Figure 3. Boulder above Elder Creek demonstrates that not all fractures are hydraulically conductive at the sub-meter scale. The orange 

patches are nitrophilous lichens, which grow only along those fractures that are hydraulically conductive. 

4 show the orientations of observed fractures in outcrop. These 

fractures are likely hydraulically conductive, as suggested by 

the presence of a species of wild rye (fig. 5), which requires 

more moisture than is normally available in this arid region. 

The decrease in Elder Creek conductivity from south (310 μS/ 

cm) to north (270 μS/cm) is evidence of hydraulic conductivity 

of fractures, as more dilute water from the unnamed tributary 

probably enters Elder Creek from below and mixes with the 

more conductive waters of Elder Creek. 

Conclusions 

In Elder Creek we have shown the importance of understanding the fracture network as a means to understanding the 

hydrologic and geochemical behavior of a drainage system. In 

this case, the hydrology of the unnamed tributary is controlled 

by the presence of fractures that cross the stream bed and by 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 7 

130 

130 

200 

310 

270 6000 

5800 

5600 

5400 

5200 

1 km E l d e r Cr e e k

a

b

c

Explanation of Symbols 

Water sample site with Topographic contour 130 conductivity value (μS/cm) with elevation (feet above 

mean sea level) 

Orientation of Outcrop of mineralized 

open fractures porphyry (Theodore, 2000) 

Figure 4. Map of Elder Creek and tributary showing water sample 

sites and conductivity, orientations of fractures, and outcrop of mineralized porphyry. Dashed blue lines indicate areas along streams 

where no surface water was observed. Points “a,” “b,” and”c” are 

explained in the text. 

Table 2. Chemical parameters and concentrations for samples at 

points “a” and “b” along tributary to Elder Creek (see fig. 4). 

Element Point “a” (site 33) Point “b” (site 34) 

pH 8.14 7.85 

Conductivity (μS/cm) 130 200 

As (μg/L) 7.2 11 

Ca (mg/L) 16 20 

K (mg/L) 1.7 2.0 

Mg (mg/L) 4.3 5.2 

Mo (μg/L) 5.0 16 

Na (mg/L) 15 20 

Si (mg/L) 8.4 11 

SO4 (mg/L) 42 59 

Sr (μg/L) 100 130 

V (μg/L) 2 3 

W (μg/L) 0.10 0.26 

Zn (μg/L) 3.0 20 

SO4/Cl (molal basis) 4.2 5.4 

the fractures that connect the porphyry deposit to the surface. 

The geochemistry of the stream water is affected by mixing 

with discharging ground water as the stream crosses over the 

porphyry deposit. Similarly, the water in Elder Creek proper is 

diluted somewhat by the reemergent water from the tributary. 

6000 

Figure 5. Species of wild rye growing in fractured rock above Elder 

Creek. 

Case Study III— 

Environmental Behavior of a 

Molybdenum Porphyry System on 

Battle Mountain— 

Licking Creek and Long Canyon 

This study compiles geological, hydrological, and geochemical data required to understand the environmental behavior of metals associated with a molybdenum (Mo) porphyry 

system on Battle Mountain. The porphyry is the Buckingham 

stockwork molybdenum deposit, a low-fluorine, granodiorite molybdenum system (deposit type described in Cox and 

Singer, 1985). The water quality of streams, natural springs, 

mine discharge, and ground water from springs was assessed 

in the region of the Buckingham deposit. In addition, the geology and controls on the hydrology were used to establish a 

framework for water-quality data. 
8 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Rhyolite (Tertiary surficial) 

Superficial deposits (Quaternary) 

Granodiorite porphyry (Tertiary) 

Monzogranite (Tertiary) 

Porphyritic leucogranite (Tertiary) 

Monzogranite porphyry (Cretaceous) 

Sedimentary rocks (Paleozoic) 

Contact 

Faults—Dashed where approximate; dotted where 

concealed. Bar and ball on downdropped side. 

May show dip. 

Normal 

Low-angle gravity glide—Sawteeth on upper plate 

Thrust—Sawteeth on upper plate 

Anticline—May show direction of plunge 

Syncline 

Boundary of Buckingham quartz stockwork—Queried 

where location uncertain 

Boundary of Copper Basin open-pit mine 

Figure 6. Generalized geologic map of the Late Cretaceous Buckingham porphyry molybdenum deposit, Battle Mountain, Nevada (Theodore and others, 1992). Bold dashed line indicates projection of outer boundary of the molybdenum 

deposit. Some major Late Cretaceous and early Tertiary polymetallic vein and skarn deposits are indicated in italic. 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 9 

Geology of the Buckingham Porphyry 

Molybdenum Deposit 

The study site is the location of an unmined, largely 

buried porphyry molybdenum deposit and associated veins 

(fig. 6). The deposit is related to a ≅86-Ma composite, porphyritic intrusive into feldspathic sandstone, quartz arenite, and 

shale of the Upper Cambrian Harmony Formation (Theodore 

and others, 1992). 

Lithology 

The Paleozoic Harmony Formation in the Battle Mountain range consists of interbedded quartz arenite, subarkose, 

arkose, pebbly quartz arenite, shale, and minor limestone 

(Roberts, 1964). In the Buckingham area, the Harmony consists predominantly of graded sandstone, including quartz arenite, arkose, subarkose, and litharenite with minor amounts of 

shale, calcareous shale, and greenstone (Theodore and others, 

1992). According to Roberts (1964), the mineralogy of the 

sandstones is quite variable, but generally consists of quartz 

(60–80 percent), feldspar (≅20 percent), mica (2–5 percent), 

and matrix cement. The feldspars are a mix of orthoclase, 

microcline, and sodic plagioclase in proportions that regionally average ≅65 percent potassium feldspar and ≅35 percent 

oligoclase to sodic andesine. The matrix cements variably consist of clays, calcite, and quartz. Compaction, diagenetic clay 

growth, and hydrothermal metasomatism have reduced porosity in the Harmony Formation to less than 1 percent (Theodore 

and others, 1992). Ranges of whole-rock chemical analyses of 

the Harmony Formation from Theodore and others (1992) are 

in table 3. 

Table 3. Ranges of analytical data (in weight-percent) for the Upper 

Cambrian Harmony Formation in the Buckingham Camp region, 

Nevada. 

[From Theodore and others, 1992] 

SiO2 57.8–88.3 

Al2O3 5.48–19.6 

Fe2O3 0.76–2.55 

FeO 0.12–5.5 

MgO 0.45–3.03 

CaO 0.16–8.26 

Na2O 0.53–2.05 

K2O 1.17–5.83 

TiO2 0.38–1.03 

P2O5 <0.05–0.11 

MnO <0.02–0.08 

CO2 0.01–6.3 

F 0.02–0.05 

Intrusive igneous rocks in the Buckingham area range 

from Late Cretaceous monzogranite to Eocene monzogranite 

to early Oligocene(?) rhyolite, porphyritic leucogranite, and 

granodiorite porphyry (fig. 6). The porphyry molybdenum 

deposit is genetically related to ≅86-Ma monzogranites that 

occur in a generally east-west zone that may be divided into 

three groups—West stock, East stock, and Vail Ridge dikes 

and plugs (cf. Theodore and others, 1992). There are four main 

compositional groups of monzogranitic rocks: (1) monzogranite porphyry, (2) megacrystic monzogranite porphyry, (3) 

aplite, and (4) a late-stage breccia pipe. 

The Cretaceous intrusive phases show variable degrees 

of hydrothermal alteration. The West stock contains quartz, 

K-feldspar and clay (or white-mica-altered plagioclase) that 

is less abundant than in the East stock, and white-mica- or 

chlorite-altered biotite phenocrysts. The groundmass consists 

predominantly of fine-grained white mica and disseminated 

pyrite. Locally, the white mica is intergrown with molybdenite. Stockwork quartz or quartz-sericite veins characterize 

the West stock and can comprise as much as 40 to 50 volume 

percent of the rock locally (Theodore and others, 1992). Pyrite 

occurs in the veins as well as molybdenite. The East stock 

is similar to the West stock, but there is early-stage potassic 

alteration, and pervasive clay alteration of plagioclase is more 

common. The Vail Ridge intrusions consist of narrow dikes 

and small equant masses and are located east of the porphyry 

molybdenum deposit. Nevertheless, phyllic to argillic hydrothermal alteration is intense, and there is disseminated molybdenite. Megacrystic monzogranite is most abundant in the East 

stock, and it is inferred to intrude the porphyritic monzogranite. Aplite is a minor component of the intrusive system. The 

breccia pipe is located in the East stock and is interpreted to 

be part of the latest stage of porphyry molybdenum deposit 

formation. 

Between about 39 and 37 Ma, numerous dikes and plutons were emplaced in the Buckingham area (Theodore and 

others, 1992). The main loci are north of the Buckingham 

porphyry molybdenum deposit just north of the Copper Queen 

mine (fig. 6) and south of Buckingham in the vicinity of the 

Little Giant mine (fig. 6). These rocks include a diverse variety 

of compositions such as biotite-hornblende monzogranite, porphyritic leucogranite, rhyolite, granodiorite, and minor diorite. 

Ranges of analytical data for some of these rock types are 

given in table 4. 

Structural Geology 

The Battle Mountain range is bounded on the north and 

south by regional, northwest- southeast-striking right-lateral 

strike-slip faults (T. Hildenbrand, unpub. data, 2000). The 

faults within the range form a system of faults linking these 

two strike-slip fault zones. This duplex of faults provided the 

permeability and structural control for Cretaceous to Pliocene 

igneous intrusions and related hydrothermal activity. 

Veins within and adjacent to the Buckingham Creta-
10 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Table 4. Ranges (in weight percent) of analyses for late Eocene to early Oligocene intrusive rocks in 

the Buckingham Camp region, Nevada. 

[Column 2 shows data from biotite-hornblende monzogranite, column 3 from porphyritic leucogranite, and 

column 4 from rhyolite. From Theodore and others, 1992] 

Monzogranite Leucogranite Rhyolite 

SiO2 66.0–70.25 61.52–69.3 72.82–76.9 

Al2O3 13.46–15.73 14.1–16.48 12.7–13.27 

Fe2O3 0.62–4.29 0.05–1.83 0.03–1.48 

FeO 1.8–2.73 0.58–3.82 0.12–1.11 

MgO 1.14–2.84 1.9–2.8 <0.01–0.39 

CaO 2.32–5.38 4.41–7.64 0.55–1.14 

Na2O 2.02–3.75 2.55–3.9 2.3–3.55 

K2O 2.73–4.88 0.47–3.77 4.3–5.73 

TiO2 0.33–0.54 0.37–0.73 0.08–0.28 

P2O5 0.12–0.19 0.11–0.25 0.02–0.07 

MnO 0.02–0.08 <0.02–0.08 0.01–0.06 

CO2 0.03–0.13 0.04–0.64 0.03–0.08 

F 0.09 0.02–0.08 0.01–0.02 

Cl -- -- 0.0012–0.0055 

ceous monzogranites parallel the east-west trend of the intrusions, although the most strongly developed vein sets strike 

from east-west to N. 60° W. (Theodore and others, 1992). 

In the molybdenum orebodies in the east and west stocks, 

post-mineralization faults that strike N. 25° W. crosscut the 

orebodies and are interpreted to be normal-oblique faults by 

T. Loucks and C. Johnson (in Theodore and others, 1992). 

These faults consist of significant gouge and breccia zones, but 

the amount of rotation along these faults is unknown. One of 

them, the Buckingham fault, is estimated by Loucks and Johnson (in Theodore and others, 1992) to be 100–225 m thick and 

to have had 520 m of dip slip and 175 m of right-lateral slip. 

Mineral Deposits 

The Late Cretaceous Buckingham porphyry molybdenum deposit is a composite of seven mineralizing events 

(cf. Loucks and Johnson in Theodore and others, 1992). The 

molybdenum deposit encompasses five events related to two 

phases of intrusion in the West stock and three in the East 

stock. Some events form conical zones of veins localized at 

the apices of monzogranitic intrusions. The highest grades 

are developed where mineralization events overlap. Accompanying stockwork and disseminated pyrite-molybdenite 

mineralization are chalcopyrite, scheelite, and tetrahedrite. 

Some chalcopyrite occurs in the quartz-pyrite-molybdenite 

veinlets. However, copper concentrations tend to be highest in 

the peripheral parts of the molybdenum orebodies, occurring 

in chalcopyrite and freibergite. Low-grade, disseminated chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite, tetrahedrite, and pyrite are found in latestage dikes that crosscut the molybdenum mineralization (cf. 

Loucks and Johnson in Theodore and others, 1992). 

High-grade, late Eocene to early Oligocene polymetallic 

veins crosscut the Buckingham porphyry orebodies and also 

crosscut early Tertiary intrusive rocks (Theodore and others, 

1992). Examples include the Little Giant and Irish Rose mines 

(fig. 6). Veins in the Little Giant mine occur along faults that 

strike N. 20° W. to N. 65° W. in the Harmony Formation 

(Roberts and Arnold, 1965). Oxide ores consist of iron oxides, 

jarosite, cerussite, anglesite, and pyrargyrite with some remnant argentite and polybasite. Primary ore minerals include 

pyrite, arsenopyrite, galena, sphalerite, and minor tetrahedrite. 

The Irish Rose mine ores were mined from veins that strike N. 

20° W. to N. 10° E. in the Harmony Formation. The primary 

ores consist of arsenopyrite, pyrite, sphalerite, galena, chalcopyrite, and minor stibnite in a gangue of quartz and calcite 

(Roberts and Arnold, 1965). 

Historic Mining Activity 

Long Canyon and Licking Creek cross the Buckingham 

stockwork molybdenum deposit (fig. 6). There are very few 

mines in the Long Canyon drainage. The lower portion of the 

canyon represents an “undisturbed” mineralized area with 

its upper reaches well outside the mineralized area. Samples 

from the upper reaches of the stream provide valuable data to 

assess the water quality attributed to the unmineralized host 

rock in the area. A small spring (perhaps an uncompleted 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 11 

4 

3 Prospects 

Copper mine 

Copper King 

mine 

Mine shaft 

Mine shaft 

Moly shaft 

Mine tailings 

Mine tunnels 

11 

13 

Red Top 

mine 

Buckingham 

mine 

Little Giant 

mine 

Rose 

spring from

south 

10 

12 

9 

8 

6 

2 

1 

5 

7 

Copper basin 

40 37'30"

Licking Creek 

L ong Canyon 

118 05' 

N 

1 km 

Background 

Undisturbed mineralization 

Mined mineralization 

Possible 

drill hole 

Approximate outline of 

Buckingham stockwork 

mine 

Figure 7. Map showing sample locations and mining activities in Long Canyon 

and Licking Creek. Outline of Buckingham stockwork from Theodore and others 

(1992). 

drill hole; sample site 1) just outside the molybdenum deposit 

produces water that may be in contact with the molybdenummineralized stockwork at depth. From its chemistry, we have 

interpreted this spring water to be a natural “deposit drainage” 

into Long Canyon. 

All samples collected along Licking Creek were within 

the boundary of the Buckingham stockwork molybdenum 

deposit (fig. 7). As mines and their dumps (some described 

above) are common throughout the drainage, we have characterized Licking Creek as a “mined” mineralized area. Camp 

Creek, a tributary to Licking Creek, was a site of the Buckingham Camp where ore was processed. Water from Camp Creek, 

a small tributary into Licking Creek, represents drainage from 

mines and processing dumps. Along the Buckingham fault 

at the confluence where Camp Creek enters Licking Creek, 

a hillside spring discharges water with high trace-metal content. We interpret this spring water as “deposit drainage” and, 

although natural and above stream base, is geochemically 

similar to water in Camp Creek. 

Surface-Water/Ground-Water Interactions 

In Long and Licking Creeks, numerous gaining and 

losing stream reaches were observed. These hydraulic data are 

supported by the chemical measurements of major and trace 

elements. For example, sites 3 and 4 (sample locations shown 

in fig. 7) combine near the headwaters of Long Creek; site 2 is 

below the confluence. Based on the major-element chemistry 

of those samples, the water at site 2 must also include at least 

one other water source. The cation composition of these samples, as shown in a Piper diagram (fig. 8), shows sites 3 and 

4, with site 2 shifted slightly toward the composition of site 1. 

The rare-earth-element (REE) compositions (fig. 9) suggest 

an input of a water similar to sample 1 to the stream at site 2, 

consistent with the major cation compositions. Flow at site 2 

was greater than the sum of sites 3 and 4, and a large positive 

vertical hydraulic gradient was observed at site 1, supporting 

the possibility of ground-water discharge in the vicinity of 

site 2. Sites 1 and 2 are located along Long Canyon just below 

the intersection of north- to northwest-striking faults with the 

Long Canyon fault (Theodore and others, 1992). Site 12 is 

approximately 2 km downstream from site 2, and its major and 

REE compositions are close to those for site 2, suggesting no 

further ground-water discharge but not precluding the possibility of ground-water recharge. 

In Licking Creek drainage, the chemistry of the surface 

water also infers some areas of ground-water discharge. For 

example, sites 5, 6, and 10 occur along a continuous reach 

of stream with no other surface-water tributaries. The major 

anion and cation compositions for sites 5 and 6 are indistinguishable, but sample 10 has higher concentrations of many 

major and trace elements but lower concentrations of others. 

This observation suggests an additional input of ground-water 

discharge between sites 6 and 10 (approximately 1-km stream 

reach). Similarly, sites 7 (stream) and 8 (spring) are adjacent 

to each other and appear similar from the Piper diagram (fig. 

7). The concentrations of many trace elements and rare earth 

elements are significantly higher in sample 8 than 7, but the 

REE concentration ratios of most of those elements for the two 
12 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Long Creek 

(site 12 marked with x) 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

Mg SO 

SO 

SO 

+ Cl 

SO

+ Cl 

Ca 

Ca + Mg 

Na+K 

Na+K 

Na+K 

Total CO Cl 

Total CO 

Total CO 

Total CO 

Cl 

Licking Creek 

9,11 

5,6 

5,6 

10 

7,8 

9,11 

10 

7,8 

Mg 

Ca Na+K 

9,11 

7,8 

5, 6, 10 

A

B

Ca + Mg

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

Figure 8. Piper diagrams for samples collected from A, Long Canyon; and B, Licking Creek. 

samples lie within a very narrow range (2.5 to 3.0, fig. 9). A 

likely scenario explaining this narrow range of variation would 

be discharge of a ground water with a chemical composition 

similar to that of site 8 into a slightly more dilute, metal-poor 

stream to produce the observed chemistry at site 7. In support 

of this hypothesis, site 8 is a typical acidic, metal-rich drainage (pH 4.0; conductivity >1,100 μS/cm; SO4 >600 ppm; and 

Al, Mn, and Zn at ppm levels). The other end-member must 

have major elements similar in concentration to that at site 7 

but with low metals and REE concentrations. A ground-water 

discharge scenario also makes sense, based on the observation 

that sites 7 and 8 are within a few meters of each other and the 

fact that the hydraulic head of the ground water is sufficiently 

high to create seeps at site 8. 

Farther downstream on Licking Creek there is some evidence for ground-water discharge, but most of the changes are 

attributable to normal water-rock interactions. The primary 

change in water chemistry between sites 9 and 11 (approximately 2 km) is an increase in pH from approximately 7 to 

8. This unit increase in pH appears to drive the adsorption or 

precipitation of metals such as Zn, Cu, Mn, Ni, Co, Cd, and 

REEs, and the desorption or dissolution of oxyanion spe-
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 13 

3.5 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

98NV-3 

98NV-1 

98NV-2 

98NV-4 

98NV-12 

A

Y La Ce Pr Nd 

35.00 

30.00 

25.00 

20.00 

15.00 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Tb Gd Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu 

98NV-7 

98NV-8 

8/7 ratio 

B

Figure 9. Rare-earth-element distribution in samples from A, Long Canyon; and B, Licking Creek. PARTS PER MILLION Concentration Normalized to 98NV-11 

cies such as As, Mo, V, and Sb. Aluminum concentrations 

increased slightly, consistent with a slightly increased solubility of gibbsite from pH 7 to 8. No appreciable change was 

observed in the major cation and anion concentrations. 

Characteristics of Deposit Drainage 

Waters thought to be in contact with the Buckingham 

deposit were collected (compositions are in table 5). The 

Buckingham “deposit” sample was collected from the seep 

flowing from the Buckingham fault zone within the boundary 

of the Buckingham stockwork molybdenum deposit (site 8). 

This water has a pH of 4.0 and contains relatively little iron, 

although iron oxyhydroxides are found around the seep. Zinc 

accounts for 90 percent of the metal load. The sulfur isotopic 

composition of the sulfate (δ34SSO4

) in the water is +5.1‰; 

the value of the sulfur in molybdenite (MoS) in the deposit 

is +4.3‰ to +5.2‰ (T.G. Theodore as cited in Theodore and 

others, 1992). 
14 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Table 5. Chemical and isotopic composition of dissolved constituents 

in "deposit" drainage in Long Canyon and Licking Creek. 

[Numbers in italic are the proportion of the metal (μmoles/L) relative to the 

metal load]1 

Buckingham (site 8) Long Canyon (site 1) 

pH 4.0 7.4 

Conductivity (μmho/cm) 1,150 710 

Al (μg/L) 9,880 7.2 

As (μg/L) 4.8 5.3 

0.00042 0.41

*Cd (μg/L) 120 0.014 

0.011 0.001

*Co (μg/L) 52 0.24 

0.0050 0.018

*Cu (μg/L) 613 0.56 

0.054 0.043

Fe (μg/L) 40 1,640 

*Mo (μg/L) 0.45 2.8 

0.00004 0.22

*Ni (μg/L) 352 3.0 

0.031 0.23

*Pb (μg/L) 0.20 0.08 

0.00001 0.006

*Zn (μg/L) 10,300 1.0 

0.90 0.077

SO4 (mg/L) 628 135 

34SSO4 (‰) 5.1 5.2 

F:Cl molar ratio 0.04 0.02 

1 Metal load is defined in this paper as the sum of metals, excluding iron, 

on a molal basis. 

The Long Canyon “deposit” sample was collected from a 

seep near the deposit boundary on the inferred Long Canyon 

fault (site 1 on fig. 7). The water has a pH of 7.4 and was 

weakly effervescent (the likely gas is carbon dioxide). The 

dominant metal in this water is iron; however, arsenic (41 

percent), nickel (23 percent), and Mo (22 percent) account for 

96 percent of the metal load as defined previously. The sulfur 

isotopic composition of the sulfate (δ34SSO4) in the water is 

+5.2‰. Both the Long Canyon and Buckingham waters have 

very low fluoride to chloride molar ratios (F:Cl ratio, 0.02 and 

0.04 respectively), consistent with the Buckingham stock hosting a low-fluorine-type molybdenum deposit. 

Concentrations of Dissolved Metal 

in Stream Drainages 

Figures 10 and 11 graphically show how the log of the 

elemental concentrations in stream water spatially change 

relative to concentrations in the “deposit samples.2” In Long 

Canyon (fig. 10), the mineralized, undisturbed site, only pH 

and Mo are consistently higher than in the deposit sample. 

Stream pH values are between 7.6 and 8.4; these alkaline 

values represent weathering of the volcaniclastic country 

rocks (Tuttle and others, 2000), with possible contributions 

by removal of CO2 by algal growth. High pH enhances the 

mobility of Mo by several possible mechanisms: inhibiting 

adsorption to iron oxides, favoring desorption of Mo from 

iron oxides, or by increasing the solubility of molybdenum 

minerals. The dissolved iron (Fe) concentrations remain nearly 

constant throughout the stream and are very similar to those 

in the “deposit” sample. The relatively high pH of the stream 

and deposit drainage would favor precipitation of a mineral 

phase (goethite or amorphous Fe(OH)3), thus controlling the 

concentration of Fe. Concentrations of most other metals in 

stream water are less than 1 percent of the concentration in the 

“deposit” sample and do not significantly change concentrations until Licking Creek enters the drainage (fig. 10). 

In comparison to Long Canyon, the base-metal load in 

Licking Creek (mineralized, mined site) increases substantially after the “deposit” sample enters the stream (fig. 11), 

possibly due to contribution from weathering of mine waste in 

the near vicinity (fig. 7). Iron is similar in concentration to that 

in the deposit sample due to precipitation of oxyhydroxides. 

Molybdenum and As are higher in the stream water than in the 

deposit sample, consistent with the higher pH in the stream 

limiting adsorption onto freshly precipitated iron oxyhydroxides. Most metal concentrations decrease slightly when Licking Creek mixes with the more dilute Long Canyon; however, 

the relative metal concentrations are consistent with values 

ascribed to the “deposit” sample. 

Figures 10 and 11, show that the composition of the 

“deposit” sample is preserved downstream in Licking Creek, 

the drainage that has been mined. In contrast, the overall 

composition of stream water in Long Canyon is not significantly changed by the mineralization that occurs lower in the 

drainage. These relations suggest that Long Canyon receives 

a smaller input of deposit drainage relative to its flow when 

compared to Licking Creek. 

Trends in Sulfur Isotopic Composition 

of Stream Sulfate 

To better understand the extent to which the molybdenum porphyry affects water quality in Long Canyon, sulfur 

isotopes were investigated. Figure 12 shows the sulfur isotopic 

composition (δ34SSO4, ‰) of sulfate in the stream water and 

of molybdenum porphyry “deposit” samples for both Licking 

Creek and Long Canyon. 

2

 Log (variable in stream sample / variable in “deposit” sample). Samples 

that plot on the zero line have the same value as that of the “deposit” sample 

in the drainage. Samples with negative values have smaller values, and those 

with positive values have larger values than the “deposit” sample. 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 15 

-2.5 

-2.0 

-1.5 

-1.0 

-.5 

0 

.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

4500 3500 2500 1500 500 0 4500 3500 2500 1500 500 0

-4.0 

-3.5 

-3.0 

-2.5 

-2.0 

-1.5 

-1.0 

-.5 

0 

.5 

Distance upstream from confluence Distance upstream from confluence

Deposit drainage Licking Ck. Deposit drainage Licking Ck.

Long Canyon 

Licking Creek Sample site 

Deposit water Long Canyon 

(undisturbed mineralization) 

SO4 

Mo 

As 

Al 

pH 

Fe 

Zn 

Pb 

Ni 

Cu 

Co 

Log Variable in Sample Variable in Deposit Drainage 

Figure 10. Log of ratio of variables in Long Canyon samples to those in the “deposit” sample plotted against the distance upstream from the confluence of Long Canyon and Licking Creek. 

-3.0 

-2.5 

-2.0 

-1.5 

-1.0 

-.5 

0 

.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Distance upstream from confluence 

SO4 

Mo 

As 

Al 

pH 

-4.0 

-3.5 

-3.0 

-2.5 

-2.0 

-1.5 

-1.0 

-.5 

0 

.5 

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Distance upstream from confluence 

Fe 

Zn 

Pb 

Ni 

Cu 

Co 

Deposit drainage Long Canyon Deposit drainage Long Canyon

Long Canyon 

Licking Creek Sample site 

Mo deposit drainage 

Licking Creek 

(disturbed mineralization) Log Variable in Sample Variable in Deposit Drainage 

Figure 11. Log of ratio of variables in Licking Creek samples to those in the “deposit” sample plotted against the distance upstream from the confluence of Long Canyon and Licking Creek. 
16 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

4.8 

5.3 

5.8 

6.3 

6.8 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 

Licking Creek 

Long Canyon 

Below confluence 

Deposit drainage 

δ S 34 SO4 

Distance from confluence (m) 

Molybdenites 

+4.3 to +5.2 ‰ 

(‰)

Figure 12. Distribution of δ34S values in sulfate from Licking Creek 

and Long Canyon versus distance from their confluence. Isotopic 

values for molybdenites from Theodore and others (1992). 

The δ34SSO4 values in Long Canyon decrease from near 

6.8‰ outside the mineralized zone to 6.4‰ after mixing with 

the deposit drainage to 5.7‰ just before mixing with Licking Creek. The decrease from 6.4‰ to 5.7‰ suggests that 

some water associated with the molybdenum porphyry deposit 

besides the “deposit” seep sampled is entering Long Canyon, 

consistent with the major-element chemistry discussed above. 

Values in Licking Creek, although decreasing downstream, 

are never above 5.4‰ (just above the value for sulfur in the 

molybdenites). This general decrease likely reflects a continuous input of sulfur from mineralization to the stream as it 

flows across the molybdenum porphyry system. 

Conclusions 

Integration of chemistry, hydrology, and regional geology provides a comprehensive understanding of the environmental behavior of the Buckingham porphyry molybdenum 

deposit in areas that have been mined (Licking Creek) and 

that have not been mined (Long Canyon). In both drainages, 

fracture flow—controlled by local hydraulic head and regional 

stresses—affects the streams. As Long Canyon stream enters 

the mineralized area, the metal signature of deposit drainage 

is dampened, with the exception of Mo, which is mobile as an 

anion at higher pH. Conversely, in Licking Creek, the depositdrainage signature persists downstream even though the 

stream pH is similar to that in Long Canyon and may, in part, 

reflect the availability of materials in waste piles to surface 

weathering. In Long Canyon, the progressive input of deposit 

drainage can be monitored by sulfur-isotope data, which is 

more sensitive than chemical concentration in this drainage 

that has not been disturbed by mining. 

Case Study IV— 

Metal Mobility in Galena Creek 

During an Unusually Wet Spring 

Climate is thought to be an important control on the environmental behavior of metals. Even local climatic variability 

can affect water quality, especially in areas where mineralization has been disturbed during mining. This was particularly 

evident in Galena Canyon during the spring of 1998. 

The surface elevations of our sites in Galena Canyon are 

1,506 m (4,940 ft) to 1,926 m (6,320 ft). The town of Battle 

Mountain (elevation 1,383 m), some 10 km to the north of 

the deposit, receives 19 cm of precipitation per year and has 

a mean annual temperature of 9.5°C. Average annual evapotranspiration, as calculated by Shevenell (1996), is between 60 

and 120 cm and depends strongly on elevation. 

During the spring of 1998, precipitation in the Humboldt River basin was above average (fig. 13). In addition, 

the snowpack in May and June was more than 150 percent of 

average, indicating late runoff. Our sampling trip in mid May 

corresponded with this unusually wet period. A second sampling trip was attempted in June 2000, but Galena Creek and 

its tributaries were dry. Figure 13 shows that the precipitation 

and snowpack for that spring and the preceding winter were 

well below average, resulting in the lack of surface-water flow 

in June. 

Sampling 

Sample sites in Galena Canyon and tributaries are shown 

in figures 1 and 14. Samples below the confluence of tributaries with Galena Canyon were not obtained, but flows and 

chemistry were estimated during geochemical modeling. Solid 

material (treatment) was being added to the water below the 

sample site (24) in Iron Creek before the tributary entered 

the main stream. The suspected solid was calcite, although 

samples of the solid could not be obtained for positive identification. Upstream from both Butte and Iron Canyon sample 

sites is a large mining complex (fig. 1). Smaller historic mine 

sites are found in Cow Canyon and Duck Creek. Stream-flow 

measurements were not made in the field, although flow was 

estimated visually where possible. 

Modeling Results 

Water quality from Butte and Iron Creek, the two tributaries that have a large mining complex upstream, is substan- 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 17 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

sampling 

sampling 

attempt 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 

233% 

Winter Season 

Dark colors - upper Humboldt River basin 

Lighter colors - lower Humboldt River basin 

Figure 13. Plots showing the percent of average total precipitation and snow water for November through 

June for the season 1997–1998 through 2000–2001 in the upper and lower Humboldt River basins (data from 

Natural Resource Conservation Service; www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov). Sampling dates designated by vertical 

lines. 

tially different from that in Cow Canyon, Duck Creek, and low pH, however, have been mitigated, probably as a result of 

Galena Canyon (fig. 15). The low pH values, elevated metal the solids addition in Iron Canyon. 

and sulfate concentrations, and sulfur isotopes from Butte and A computer program (Geochemist’s Workbench, Bethke, 

Iron Creek indicate that the unusually wet period in the Hum- 1994; Berger and others, 2000) estimated mixing ratios, tested 

boldt River basin resulted in acid mine drainage (AMD) in the possible solids added to treat the stream, and assessed the 

two creeks with substantial historic mining activity upstream. change in pH and amounts of major elements during treatDrainage from Butte and Iron Canyons into Galena Canyon ment. Lack of samples at each confluence, and “treatment” of 

might be expected to radically influence the composition of water in Iron Canyon just above the confluence with Galena 

water in the main stream. However, the water composition Creek complicated calculation of mixing ratios using element 

from site 25, downstream of Butte and Iron Canyons, shows concentrations. Visual estimates of flow guided initial estionly minor elevations in concentrations of metals, and the pH mates of tributary contributions at various points in the main 

is not affected at all (fig. 15). The relatively elevated concen- stream. A 50:50 mixture of Cow Canyon and Duck Creek 

tration of sulfate and sulfur isotopes at site 25 versus values water represented the composition in the main stream prior to 

from Cow Canyon and Duck Creek (fig. 15) bear evidence that addition of water from Butte and Iron Canyons. Water from 

acid mine drainage from Butte and Iron Creek has impacted Butte Canyon was mixed with Iron Canyon water in a 2:1 

the main stream. The most severe impacts from metals and ratio to represent the input from the two tributaries producing Percent Avgerage Total Percent Average Precipitation Snow Water 
18 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Mine tunnels 

Mine tunnels 

Mine tunnels 

Mine 

Prospects Prospects 

Duck Creek 

Butte Canyon 

Iron Canyon 

Galena Canyon 

Mine tunnels 

Mine tunnels 

Mine tunnels 

Large mine 

complex 

(Copper Canyon) 

White & Shilon 

mine 

Mine tunnels 

Mine shaft 

Mine adit 

16 

14 

23 

24 

25 

15 

17 18 

21 

20 

19 

Cow Canyon 

Iron Canyon mine 

Town of Galena 

Undisturbed mineralization 

Background 

Mined mineralization 

Treatment 

Figure 14. Map showing the location of sample sites in Galena, Iron, Butte, and Cow Canyons and 

Duck Creek. 

AMD. Mineral precipitation was suppressed during mixing 

and speciation of the waters. The mixed water from Butte and 

Iron Canyons was treated with varying amounts of two solids, 

lime and calcite, to test the effects of these solids on water 

composition before entering the main stream. Precipitation 

was allowed to occur during treatment, but minerals believed 

to be inhibited from precipitating in nature (dolomite, hematite, quartz, and polymorphs) were suppressed. To achieve the 

final solution that was compared to measured values at site 

25, the mixed water from Cow Canyon and Duck Creek was 

mixed with the treated water from Iron and Butte Canyons. 

Minor adjustments to mixing ratios were made during the 

course of modeling to achieve a water close in composition to 

that measured at site 25. 

Calculations indicate that about 83 percent of the flow is 

from Cow Canyon and Duck Creek combined; 12 percent is 

from Butte Canyon; and 5 percent is from Iron Canyon. Flow 

calculations and sulfate concentrations were used to show that 

88 percent of the sulfate in Galena Creek comes from Butte 

and Iron Canyons, and 12 percent comes from Cow Canyon 

and Duck Creek. Mass-balance calculations using sulfur 

isotopes of dissolved sulfate agreed with these percentages. 

Sulfur isotopes are a good variable to use for testing calculated 

results because they are not fractionated or altered during pH 

changes or mineral precipitation/dissolution. 

Modeling results indicate that calcite was the likely solid 

being added to the stream at the mouth of Iron Canyon. About 

1.35 g calcite per kilogram of water would be sufficient to 

bring the pH to 7.6, close to the pH of 7.76 at site 25 downstream (figs. 15 and 16A). The chemistry of the stream was 

modified radically by the treatment due to processes such as 

increases in pH, mineral precipitation and (or) adsorption of 

metals. These processes continued to occur after water in Iron 

Canyon mixed with that in Galena Canyon because AMD 

input from Butte Canyon was also modified by the treatment 

to Iron Canyon. Some of the minerals predicted to precipitate 

after addition of the calcite are gypsum, gibbsite, and goethite 

(fig. 16B). Precipitation of gypsum would remove about 20 

percent of the sulfate that was added from the Butte and Iron 

Creek tributaries (fig. 15). Along with the gypsum, gibbsite 

and goethite3 would form, coprecipitating or adsorbing trace 

metals and removing them from the stream. Metal-load data 

show that essentially all the metals come from Butte and Iron 

Canyons (59 percent and 41 percent, respectively). 

Alunite is predicted to form after addition of 0.3 g of 

calcite and redissolve after addition of 1.2 g because of the 

increase in pH (fig. 16B); however, due to precipitation kinetics, it may never actually form. Calcite in excess of the amount 

needed to neutralize acidic water from Iron and Butte Canyons 

would accumulate (fig. 16B) and likely be carried downstream 

3

 Due to kinetics, iron oxyhydroxides would likely form first and then convert 

to goethite. 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 19 

along with any other minerals formed during treatment. A 

“stream” of white precipitate was observed in Galena Creek 

9 downstream of the input from Iron Canyon. The final mixture 

8 of Iron and Butte Canyon treated water with the mixture of 

7 water from Cow Canyon and Duck Creek produced a composition with concentrations of major constituents similar to that 6 sampled at site 25 (table 6). The difference between measured 

5 and calculated fluoride is likely due to the kinetics of fluoride 

4 precipitation. Fluorite and fluorapatite are oversaturated and 

3 precipitated in the modeling run but, in fact, may not have 

time to form between mixing and site 25.

2 

1000000 

Table 6. Measured concentrations of major constituents in Galena 100000 

Treatment 

Treatment removes 20% 

C

Creek at site 25 and modeled concentrations after mixing of Cow, 

10000 Duck, Iron, and Butte Creeks and addition of calcite. 

1000 

Element Measured Calculated 

100 

10 pH 7.76 7.58 

HCO3 (mg/kg) 76 72 

1 Ca (mg/kg) 180 167 

F (mg/kg) 0.87 0.21 

K (mg/kg) 4 5 

10000 Mg (mg/kg) 67 76 

Na (mg/kg) 64 49 

SO4 (mg/kg) 650 669 

1000 Sr (mg/kg) 0.69 0.48 

100 

10 

9 Although trace-metal precipitation and adsorption were 

8 not modeled, the amount of metal removed from the stream 

during treatment can be estimated as the difference between 

7 the actual measured and calculated concentrations in table 

6 7. Calculated concentrations represent those from mixing of 

5 Cow, Duck, Iron, and Butte Creeks, assuming that no precipitation or adsorption occurred. 4 

3 

2 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Distance from end of sampled drainage (km) Table 7. Measured concentrations of metals in Galena Canyon at site 

25 after mixing and treatment of Cow, Duck, Iron, and Butte Creeks 

Background (18) Butte Canyon (23) and calculated estimates assuming no precipitation or adsorption. 

Cow Canyon (14) Iron Canyon (24) 

Duck Creek (21) Galena Canyon (25) Metal Measured Calculated 

As (μg/L) 4.9 42 

Figure 15. Cross plots of A, pH; B, sum of metals (μg/L, log scale); C, Cd (μg/L) 58 370 

sulfate (mg/L, log scale); and D. δ34SSO4

 (‰) versus distance from the Co (μg/L) 69 330 

end of sampled drainage (km). Points upstream from Galena Canyon Cu (μg/L) 66 6,200 

are the most downstream sample in each tributary. Site numbers in Ni (μg/L) 130 530 

parentheses behind drainage name. Zn (μg/L) 570 8,300 

Treatment 

A

SO4 (mg/L) Sum metals (μg/L) pH 

Treatment 

B

Treatment removes >99% 

D Treatment 

34S SO4 (‰) δ 
20 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

0 .5 1 1.5 2 

0 

.1 

.2 

.3 

.4 

.5 

.6 

.7 

.8 

.9 

1 

Calcite reacted (grams) 

Minerals precipitated (grams) 

Goethite 

Alunite 

Gibbsite 

Gypsum 

Calcite 

0 .5 1 1.5 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

pH 

A

B

Figure 16. Plots showing A, pH; and B, mineral precipitation and dissolution as a function of calcite 

(in grams) added to the Iron Canyon–Butte Canyon mixture. 

Conclusions 

Geochemical processes such as metal adsorption and 

coprecipitation occur in all tributaries to Galena Creek, but, in 

heavily mined areas, these natural processes do not attenuate 

all trace metals mobilized. Exceptionally wet years in this otherwise arid region mobilized high concentrations of acid and 

metals in mined drainages and, if left untreated, would lower 

stream pH and increase metal concentrations. Addition of calcite to the acidic, metal-rich streams entering Galena Canyon 

raised the pH sufficiently to precipitate minerals and nearly 

quantitatively remove most trace metals. This process was 

successfully modeled. Modeling results help estimate mixing 

ratios and identify the geochemical processes that occurred 

when calcite was added to acidic, metal-rich streams within 

the Galena Canyon drainage. Although trace-metal precipitation and adsorption were not modeled, mass-balance calculations estimated how much metal was removed during these 

geochemical processes. 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 21 

Summary of Battle Mountain Studies 

This study investigated the environmental controls on 

water quality in a portion of the Battle Mountain mining district, north-central Nevada. With a number of case studies, we 

were able to demonstrate that the geology, hydrology, degree 

of mining, and local climate were key factors in determining 

water quality in our study area. 

Streams in background areas outside mineralized zones 

reflect normal weathering of unmineralized rocks. The waters 

are generally dilute, slightly alkaline in pH, and very low in 

metals. As these streams flow into mineralized zones, their 

character changes. In unmined areas, ground water influenced 

by mineralization discharges into streams through hydrologically conductive fractures, affecting water quality, but this 

effect is much more subtle than in areas were mining has produced adits and mine-waste piles. The influence of drainage 

from these mining relicts on water quality is often dramatic, 

especially in unusually wet conditions. The addition of calcite to the acidic, metal-rich mine drainage raises the pH and 

removes almost all of the metals through coprecipitation and 

(or) adsorption onto oxyhydroxides. 

In many cases, the chemical composition of the stream 

was useful as a tracer of ground-water discharge into, or 

mixing of, “deposit drainage” with the stream. In some cases, 

however, the isotopic composition of dissolved sulfate was 

much more sensitive for indicating input of water influenced 

by mineralization, especially in areas where the amount of 

input was small or the weathering rate of ore minerals was 

slow. 

References Cited 

Berger, A.C., Bethke, C.M., and Krumhansl, J.L., 2000, A process model 

of natural attenuation in drainage from a historic mining district: 

Applied Geochemistry, v. 15, p. 655–666. 

Berger, B.R., Wanty, R.B., and Tuttle, M.L., 2001, Scale versus detail 

in water-rock investigations 2: Field-scale models of fracture 

networks in mineral deposits, in Swets and Zeitinger, B.Y., WaterRock Interaction 2001: Lisse, p. 137–140. 

Bethke, C.M., 1994, The Geochemist’s Workbench, version 2.0, A 

user’s guide to RXN, ACT2, TACT, REACT, and GTPLOT: University of 

Illinois, Hydrogeology Program. 

Briggs, P.H., 1996, Forty elements by inductively coupled plasma– 

atomic emission spectrometry, in Arbogast, B.F., Analytical 

methods manual for the Mineral Resource Surveys Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-525, p. 45–62. 

Cox, D.P., and Singer, D.A., 1986, Mineral deposit models: U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, 379 p. 

Crompton, E.J., 1995, Potential hydrologic effects of mining in the 

Humboldt River Basin, northern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4233, 2 sheets. 

Driesner, D., and Coyner, A., 2001, Major mines of Nevada 2000: 

Mineral industries in Nevada’s economy: Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology Special Publication P-12, 28 p. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Drinking water standards and 

health advisories: Environmental Protection Agency [accessed 

7/2001 at URL <http://www.epa.gov/ost/drinking/standards/ 

dwstandards.pdf>, 18 p. 

Kester, C.L., Rye, R.O., Johnson, C.A., Schwartz, Ch., and Holmes, 

Ch., 2001, On-line sulfur isotope analysis of organic material by 

direct combustion: Preliminary results and potential applications: 

Isotopes in Environmental Health Studies, v. 37, p. 53–65. 

Lamothe, P.J., Meier, A.L., and Wilson, S., 1996, The determination of 

forty-four elements in aqueous samples by inductively coupled 

plasma–mass spectrometry, in Arbogast, B.F., Analytical methods 

manual for the Mineral Resource Surveys Program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 96-525, p. 89–98. 

Long, K.R., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., and Ludington, S.D., 1998, Significant 

deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc in the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-206A, 33 p. [Open-File 

Report 98-206B contains one 3.5-inch diskette.] 

McFaul, E.J., Mason G.T., Jr., Ferguson, W.B., and Lipin, B.R., 2000, 

U.S. Geological Survey mineral databases—MRDS and MAS/MILS: 

U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-52, two CD-ROMs. 

Miesch, A.T., 1976, Geochemical survey of Missouri—Methods of 

sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, 39 p. 

Nevada Mining Association, 2002, Industry to celebrate 50 millionth 

ounce of gold: Nevada Mining Association News Release, April 11, 

2002. 

O’Leary, R.M., Hageman, P.L., and Crock, J.G., 1996, Mercury in 

water, geologic, and plant materials by continuous flow–cold 

vapor–atomic absorption spectrometry, in Arbogast, B.F., Analytical 

methods manual for the Mineral Resource Surveys Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-525, p. 25–33. 

Papp, C., Brandt, E., and Aruscavage, P., 1996, Carbonate carbon by 

coulometric titration, in Arbogast, B.F., Analytical methods manual 

for the Mineral Resource Surveys Program: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 96-525, p. 38–44. 

Roberts, R.J., 1964, Stratigraphy and structure of the Antler Peak 

quadrangle, Humboldt and Lander Counties, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 459-A, 93 p. 

Roberts, R.J., and Arnold, D.C., 1965, Ore deposits of the Antler 

Peak quadrangle, Humboldt and Lander Counties, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 459-B, 94 p. 

Shevenell, L., 1996, Statewide potential evapotranspiration maps for 

Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Report Number 48, 

32 p. 

Theodore, T.G., Blake, D.W., Loucks, T.A., and Johnson, C.A., 1992, 

Geology of the Buckingham stockwork molybdenum deposit and 

surrounding area, Lander County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 798-D, 307 p. 
22 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

Theodore, T.G., 2000, Geology of pluton-related gold mineralization 

at Battle Mountain: The University of Arizona, Tucson, Center for 

Mineral Resources Monographs in Mineral Resource Science No. 

2, p. 3–95. 

Tingley, J.V., 1998, Mining districts of Nevada (2nd ed.): Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology Report 47d, one CD-ROM. 

Tuttle, M.L., Wanty, R.B., Berger, B.R., 2000, Environmental behavior 

of molybdenum porphyry systems, in Geoenvironmental analysis of 

ore deposits, short course notes, 5th International Conference on 

Acid Rock Drainage, Denver, Colo., May 21–24. 

Wanty, R.B., and Winter, T.C., 2000, A simple device for measuring 

differences in hydraulic head between surface water and shallow 

ground water: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-077-00, 2 p. 

Western Regional Climate Center, 2001: [accessed 7/2001 at URL 

<http: //www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpn/nv.gif>]. 

Winter, T., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 1998, Ground 

water and surface water: A single resource: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1139, 79 p. 

Wood, W.W., 1976, Guidelines for the collection and field analysis 

of ground-water samples for selected unstable constituents: 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, Book 1, chap. D2, 24 p. 

Manuscript approved for publication May 14, 2003 

Published in the Central Region, Denver, Colorado 

Editing, page layout, photocomposition—Richard W. Scott, Jr. 

Graphics by the authors 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 23 

Appendix I— 

Description of Sample Sites 

Green denotes outside deposit (background); blue, unmined 

mineralized areas (undisturbed), and red, mined areas. Sniffer 

measurements are cm of positive or negative head in the 

stream channel. Positive head indicates a gaining stream and 

negative head a losing stream. 

Long Canyon and Licking and Camp Creeks 

Long Canyon (Upper to Lower) 

Site 3 North fork of Long Canyon just above confluence 

with the South fork (site 4). Stream flow approximately 

500 to 850 L/min with sniffer showing no head difference. The site is above influence from mining and 

is outside the Buckingham stockwork molybdenum 

deposit and the quartz stockwork zone (deposit boundaries from geologic and structural map in Theodore 

and others, 1992). Site is located on Harmony Formation. There are no mines in this drainage 

Site 4 South fork of Long Canyon just above confluence 

with the north fork (site 3). Estimated flow is 180 to 

360 L/min. Geographic and geologic data same as for 

site 3. 

Site 1 Spring (possible uncompleted drill hole) in middle 

of road next to stream at site 2 in Long Canyon. Site 

sits directly on inferred Long Canyon fault. Water 

flowing “out of the road” from 20-cm-diameter hole 

with episodically spurting bubbles (CO2?). Immediately downstream is Fe-oxide staining. Sniffer shows 

25–28 cm of positive head. Site on Quaternary alluvium underlain by Cambrian Harmony Fm. and is 

about 150 m from a zone of pyritic alteration and 315 

m outside inferred boundary of Buckingham stockwork 

molybdenum deposit and the quartz stockwork zone. 

Site 2 Stream about 30 m NE. from spring at site 1. The 

flow rate is estimated 1,700 L/min. The sniffer shows 

about 2.5 to 5 cm positive head. Geology and geography are the same as at site 1. 

Site 12 Stream above confluence with Licking Creek (site 

11). The site sits on inferred Long Canyon fault. The 

site is on older Quaternary alluvium and underlain by 

either Harmony Fm., Tertiary quartz latite porphyry, or 

Cretaceous quartz monzonite porphyry. Site is within 

the quartz stockwork zone, but outside the Buckingham stockwork molybdenum deposit. Unnamed mine 

dumps are in the vicinity but do not flow into the 

stream above the site. 

Site 13 Stream 30–40 m below confluence with Licking 

Creek site along inferred Long Canyon fault. Site sits 

on younger Quaternary alluvium that is underlain by 

formations as noted in site 12 description. Site is below 

several unnamed mine dumps and is within the quartz 

stockwork zone but outside the Buckingham stockwork 

molybdenum deposit. 

Licking Creek (Upper To Lower) 

Site 5 Site sits on normal fault and on boundary of quartz 

stockwork and Buckingham stockwork molybdenum 

deposit. It is above Miss Nevada mine, on Harmony 

Fm., and near a sliver of Tertiary hornblende porphyry. 

Flow is approximately 500 to 850 L/min. 

Site 6 Site sits on same fault as site 5, with stream-flow 

rate about that of site 5. Site is within the Buckingham 

stockwork molybdenum deposit and quartz stockwork 

zone. The site is below several dogholes and is within 

100 m of several mine dumps with pyrite, calcite, 

molybdenite, and quartz. Some efflorescent salts occur 

on the dumps. The site is on the boundary between the 

older Quaternary alluvium and the Cambrian Harmony 

Fm. and is very near a zone of alteration in outcrop. 

Site 10 Stream 8 m above confluence with Camp Creek. The 

site is in the vicinity of pyrite alteration visible in outcrop (about 150 m away) and within the quartz stockwork zone and the Buckingham stockwork molybdenum deposit. The site is not directly in the vicinity of 

mine dumps (Gold Top and Red Top mines are above 

the site, but their water enters the stream just below 

site). The site is very close to inferred fault that runs up 

Licking and Camp Creeks and is located in a swarm of 

short faults. It sits on older Quaternary alluvium; Harmony Formation underlies the alluvium. 

Site 9 Stream 10 m below confluence with Camp Creek. The 

site is in the vicinity of pyrite alteration visible in outcrop (about 150 m away) and is within the Buckingham 

stockwork molybdenum deposit and quartz stockwork 

zone. There is Al2O3 on rocks in stream bed. Site sits on 

Quaternary alluvium very near boundary of Buckingham fault zone. Underlying is the Harmony Fm. 

Site 11 The site is about 30 m above the confluence of 

Licking and Long Creeks and is between the boundary of younger Quaternary alluvium and a Quaternary 

fanglomerate deposit. Either Harmony Fm., Tertiary 

quartz latite porphyry, or Cretaceous quartz monzonite 

porphyry underlies the alluvium/fanglomerate deposits. 

Site is within the quartz stockwork zone but outside the 

Buckingham stockwork molybdenum deposit. There 

are no mine dumps immediately upstream; however, 

the site is influenced by mine drainage (see site 9). 

Camp Creek (Lower) 

Site 7 Site is on Camp Creek, which drains a heavily 

mined catchment (Midland, Hardy, Northland mines 
24 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

and Buckingham Camp with ore sulfides in quartz 

veins plus oxides). Site is in vicinity of pyrite alteration 

(about 150 m away), within the Buckingham stockwork molybdenum deposit and quartz stockwork zone, 

and is on Quaternary alluvium near the contact with 

the Harmony Fm. 

Site 8 Spring entering Camp Creek below site 7. The site 

is in the Harmony Formation and on the Buckingham 

fault zone contact. It is in the vicinity of pyrite alteration (about 150 m away) and within the Buckingham 

stockwork molybdenum deposit and quartz stockwork 

zone. Al2O3 precipitates from water upon entering 

Camp Creek. 

Cow and Duck Creeks, and Butte, 

Iron, and Galena Canyons4 

Cow Creek (Upper To Lower) 

Site 18 Site is above Moonlight mine dumps on south fork 

of Cow Creek. Flow is approximately 60 L/min. The 

site sits on the Cambrian Harmony Formation just east 

of the Trinity fault. It is very near or on a short fault 

running parallel to the Trinity. 

Site 17 Moonlight mine dump (Au, Ag, Cu, Pb, Zn, plus 

minor As and Sb)—we observed pyrite, quartz, and 

minor stibnite. The site is situated in the Trinity fault 

zone, which drops the Cambrian Harmony against 

the Cambrian Scott Canyon Formation. Pyrite is the 

principal sulfide mineral in the shear zone, with minor 

galena, sphalerite, and chalcopyrite. The water flows 

from the base of the dump at <1 L/min. The stream bed 

is orange to gray below the dump. 

Site 15 South fork of Cow Creek below site 17. The site 

sits on the boundary between Cambrian Scott Canyon 

Formation and Quaternary alluvium. The rocks in the 

stream are stained red. Flow is about 60 L/min. 

Site 16 North fork of Cow Creek above confluence with the 

south fork. The site is below the Eagle mine (not visited), which is situated in Trinity fault zone. Elements 

and gangue minerals are similar to those at site 17. The 

site is located on Quaternary alluvium underlain by 

the contact between the Scott Canyon and Harmony 

Formations. The site lies on a fault that is parallel to 

the stream that then intersects the Trinity fault near the 

mine to the north. The flow is about 500–850 L/min. 

Site 14 Cow Creek below confluence of north and south 

forks. The site sits on alluvium overlying the contact 

between Scott Canyon and Harmony Formations along 

a Mississippian thrust fault. There are no mines in the 

4

 Geology and structures from Roberts and Arnold (1965) unless noted 

otherwise. 

immediate area. 

Duck Creek (Upper to Lower) 

Site 19 (Background/mineralized?) Very low flow in drainage near Blossom mine (Au, Ag, Pb with calcite/quartz 

gangue). The orebodies replace calcareous shale, limestone, and conglomerate of Permian Edna Mountain 

Formation along the Virgin fault. The site is on the 

contact between the Edna and Pumpernickel Formations. The influence of the mine on this site, if any, is 

not readily apparent. 

Site 20 Water issuing from covered adit at several L/min. 

The site is at the Trinity mine located on the intersection of the Trinity fault zone and the Plumas fault. 

The main metals mined are Au, Ag, Cu, Pb, and Zn in 

galena, sphalerite, pyrite and chalcopyrite plus minor 

stibnite—gangue minerals include calcite and quartz. 

Most of the mined rock is oxidized ore with pods of 

galena near the bottom of the oxidized zone. The site 

sits on alluvium underlain by the contact between the 

Harmony and Scott Canyon Formations. Limestone 

crops out 1.3 km to the west. 

Site 21 This site is on Duck Creek near an old homestead 50 

m south of and above site 20. The geology is the same 

as at site 20. Upstream from this site are six Pb, Zn, Ag 

mines. 

Butte Canyon (Lower) 

Site 23 Stream at mouth of Butte Canyon before entering 

Galena Canyon. The site sits on Quaternary alluvium 

underlain by Scott Canyon Formation on an inferred 

Mississippian thrust fault. Upstream are the Butte and 

Post mines along the Butte fault. Ore minerals are oxidized pyrite, cerussite, CuOx, Au, and minor arsenic 

and antimony minerals. A 15-stamp mill, started in 

1871, is at the mouth of the canyon above the site. 

Iron Canyon (Lower) 

Site 24 This site is at the mouth of Iron Canyon on alluvium 

underlain by Scott Canyon Fm. The head of the canyon 

intersects the outer area of the contact-metamorphic 

zone and is very close to the Copper Canyon works. 

There are two mines in the canyon—the Iron Canyon 

mine and the Iron Canyon placer. Iron Canyon mine 

ore includes some pyrrhotite, arsenopyrite, sphalerite, 

galena, and chalcopyrite along with pyrite. Some of 

the ore is massive sulfide, and some of the sulfides are 

intercalated with shaly/cherty layers. Limestone units 

occur in the mine. Most ore mined consists of oxides 

with sulfide ores occurring at depth. A solid substance 
Environmental Controls on Water Quality: Case Studies from Battle Mountain Mining District, North-Central Nevada 25 

(likely calcite) mixes into stream water at the confluence of Iron Canyon and Galena Creek. Galena Creek 

ran milky white for some distance through the Wilson 

Ranch. 

Galena Canyon (Lower) 

Site 25 Duck Creek where it crosses the old haulage road 

at the base of the mountain. The site is on young Quaternary alluvium past the mouth of Galena Canyon 

toward Reese Valley. 

Little Cottonwood Creek— 

North and South Forks5 

Site 26 Site on north fork of Little Cottonwood Creek. Flow 

is about 1,700 L/min. Site sits on alluvium underlain 

by Scott Canyon Formation. Farther up drainage are 

the Antimony King mine (on Scott Canyon/Harmony 

contact—stibnite is the principal ore, with minor Sboxides; quartz and pyrite are gangue minerals) and 

Fuller Group mine (on Harmony Fm. cut by quartz 

monzonite porphyry dikes, with pyrite gold ores). 

The drainage parallels a Mississippian thrust fault and 

contact-metamorphic zone. 

Site 27 South fork of Little Cottonwood Creek with flow 

about 850 L/min. The site sits on alluvium underlain 

by Scott Canyon Formation and is very near a fault 

that cuts across the drainage. There are no mines in the 

drainage. 

Site 28 The site is some 60 m below sites 26 and 27. The 

conductivity suggests that the majority of flow is more 

like that at site 27 than 26 (contrary to estimated flow 

rates). The stream may be gaining waters similar to site 

27, but we have no data to test this hypothesis. Site sits 

on alluvium above Scott Canyon Fm. No mines are in 

the vicinity of the site. 

Elder Creek and Tributary6 

Elder Creek (Upper to Lower) 

Site 32 South fork of Elder Creek above site 30. Flow is 

about 800 L/min and there is about 4 inches of negative 

head in the stream bottom. The site sits on Harmony 

5

 Geology and structures from Roberts and Arnold (1965) unless noted 

otherwise. 

6

 Geology and structures from Roberts and Arnold (1965) unless noted 

otherwise. 

Fm. near a small granodiorite intrusion. There are no 

faults or mines in the vicinity, but site is likely in an 

area of mineralization. 

Site 30 North fork of Elder Creek, upstream from a zone of 

springs along both banks. Conductance of springs is 

310–490 μS/cm. Sniffer measures ≅3 inches of negative head. Site sits on Harmony Formation. There are 

no faults or mines in vicinity. 

Site 31 North fork of Elder Creek, 200 m downstream from 

site 30. The sniffer measured ≅4 inches negative head. 

The site sits on Harmony Formation. There are no 

faults or mines in the vicinity. 

Site 29 Elder Creek below site 31. The flow is about 850 

L/min. The site sits on alluvium underlain by the Harmony Formation and may be influenced by nearby 

pyritic Cu, Au, Ag mines (Gracie, Big Pay, and (or) 

Ridge mines). Ore is mostly sulfides in veins. Several 

faults intersect just upstream from this site. 

Tributary (Upper to Lower) 

Site 33 Unnamed ephemeral tributary on the west side of 

Elder Canyon below site 29. The site sits on alluvium 

underlain by Harmony Formation or its contact with 

granodiorite. There are claim markers near the site, and 

the Dewitt thrust fault (Mississippian) is at the head of 

this drainage. There are no mines in the vicinity, but 

the site is within mineralization. 

Site 34 This site is downstream from site 33, about 100–200 

m before joining Elder Creek. The stream disappears 

as it hits a series of fractures above and just below this 

site. The site sits on the contact of alluvium and Harmony Formation. Several granodiorite intrusives are in 

the immediate vicinity. There are no mines in the vicinity or up the drainage, but the site is within mineralization. 

Appendix II— 

Geochemical Data 

The following methods were used to analyze the water 

samples (see text for details). 

• Cations: Inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission 

spectrophotometry (ICP-AES) and inductively coupled 

plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), 

• Anions: Ion chromatography, 

• Sulfur isotopes: Mass spectrometry, 

• Mercury: Mercury analyzer. 

The number of samples with concentrations below the 

limit of detection is given in table 8 (censored values). Elements with greater than 1/3 of samples censored are not 

reported. For those elements reported, censored values were 
26 Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada 

replaced with 0.7 times the limit of detection for the method of 

determination (Miesch, 1976) (table 9). 

Table 8. Detection limits for elements with censored values. 

As 3 (μg/L) 

Cd 0.02 (μg/L) 

Ce 0.01 (μg/L) 

Fe 30 (μg/L) 

La 0.01 (μg/L) 

Mo 0.20 (μg/L) 

P 0.01 (mg/L) 

Pb 0.05 (μg/L) 

Sc 10 (μg/L) 

Si 20 (mg/L) 

Th 0.005 (μg/L) 

V 0.10 (μg/L) 
Table 9. Chemical and sulfur isotopic data for all samples collected in 1998. 

[ND, not determined. Num. censored, number of censored values (replaced with 0.7 detection limit)] 

Site no. Description Drainage system Population Latitude Longitude pH Conductiv

(°N) (°W) (μS/cm) 

1 Spring at Long Canyon Long/Licking Ck. Undisturbed 40.625 117.064 7.43 710 

2 Stream at Long Canyon Long/Licking Ck. Undisturbed 40.625 117.064 8.28 220 3 N. Fork, Long Canyon Long/Licking Ck. Background 40.629 117.083 7.62 130 4 S. Fork, Long Canyon Long/Licking Ck. Background 40.629 117.083 7.86 100 5 Licking Creek Long/Licking Ck. Undisturbed 40.618 117.078 8.11 170 6 Licking Creek Long/Licking Ck. Mined 40.619 117.075 8.24 200 7 Tributary to Licking Creek Long/Licking Ck. Mined 40.613 117.067 5.14 1,100 8 Springs at site 7 Long/Licking Ck. Undisturbed 40.613 117.067 4.03 1,200 9 Licking Creek Below confluence with site 7 Long/Licking Ck. Mined 40.612 117.066 7.08 520 

10 Licking Creek above confluence with site 7 Long/Licking Ck. Undisturbed 40.612 117.066 8.03 210 11 Licking Creek above confluence w/ Long Canyon Long/Licking Ck. Mined 40.609 117.049 7.95 470 12 Long Canyon above confluence w/ Licking Creek Long/Licking Ck. Undisturbed 40.609 117.049 8.44 300 13 Confluence of sites 11 and 12 Long/Licking Ck. Mined 40.609 117.049 8.31 400 14 Cow Creek below mine effluent Galena Canyon Mined 40.575 117.112 8.24 400 15 Mine effluent before it enters Cow Creek Galena Canyon Mined 40.575 117.111 5.11 530 16 Cow Creek above confluence w/ mine effluent Galena Canyon Mined 40.575 117.111 8.40 340 17 Drainage from pyrite-rich dump Galena Canyon Mined 40.575 117.114 2.65 310 18 Natural drainage above site 17 Galena Canyon Background 40.574 117.116 8.18 300 19 Duck Creek Headwaters above Galena townsite Galena Canyon Undisturbed 40.560 117.131 8.42 180 20 Caved adit Galena Canyon Mined 40.566 117.120 6.71 1,400 21 Duck Creek Galena Canyon Mined 40.566 117.120 8.43 670 23 Butte Canyon Galena Canyon Mined 40.557 117.096 3.08 3,200 24 Iron Canyon Galena Canyon Mined 40.548 117.086 3.17 7,300 25 Galena Canyon at old haulage road Galena Canyon Mined 40.544 117.067 7.76 1,300 26 Little Cottonwood Creek Little Cottonwood Ck. Mined 40.589 117.079 8.25 220 27 Tributary to Little Cottonwood Creek Little Cottonwood Ck. Background 40.588 117.080 8.41 350 28 Confluence of sites 26 and 27 Little Cottonwood Ck. Mined 40.588 117.079 8.37 310 29 Elder Creek Elder Ck. Mined 40.670 117.083 8.02 310 30 North fork of Elder Creek Elder Ck. Background 40.653 117.089 8.16 290 31 North fork of Elder Creek Elder Ck. Background 40.653 117.088 7.80 290 32 South fork of Elder Creek Elder Ck. Undisturbed 40.654 117.087 8.00 210 33 Unnamed tributary-west side Elder Creek Elder Ck. Undisturbed 40.680 117.096 8.14 130 34 Same tributary, downstream of site 33 Elder Ck. Undisturbed 40.682 117.079 7.85 200 

Num. censored 0 0 
Table 9. Chemical and sulfur isotopic data for all samples collected in 1998—Continued. 

Site no. 34S (sulfate) SO4 F ppm Cl ppm SO4/Cl Al As Ba Ca Cd Ce 

(‰) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (M/M) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (mg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) 

1 5.2 135 0.44 46 3.2 7.2 5.3 11 72 0.014 0.04 

2 6.4 46 0.32 13 3.8 41 2.1 14 22 0.014 0.04 3 6.8 37 0.32 8.0 5.1 75 2.1 8.7 16 0.27 0.07 4 6.5 28 0.21 15 2.1 100 3.0 7.8 9.4 0.05 0.08 5 5.4 55 0.30 11 5.4 25 16 11 17 0.12 0.03 6 5.4 56 0.30 12 5.4 20 15 11 17 0.08 0.03 7 4.9 560 0.60 50 13 3,200 4.0 15 110 57 11 8 5.1 628 0.89 55 13 9,900 4.8 16 120 120 28 9 4.9 225 0.38 24 10 73 9.2 14 51 15 1.5 

10 5.2 68 0.37 12 6.2 17 25 13 20 0.13 0.02 11 5.1 218 0.40 25 9.6 109 51 15 49 11 0.23 12 5.7 67 0.38 19 3.8 48 3.6 18 31 0.06 0.04 13 5.2 125 0.35 21 6.5 63 22 17 38 3.8 0.12 14 7.0 67 0.24 14 5.3 92 2.1 46 52 0.90 0.007 15 6.6 287 0.49 17 19 3,200 2.1 42 59 37 5.5 16 7.3 50 0.20 14 4.0 15 2.1 53 52 0.48 0.01 17 6.5 606 0.81 9.4 71 38,000 6.3 16 74 93 30 18 8.4 30 0.32 16 2.1 20 2.1 80 39 0.02 0.02 19 5.6 23 0.20 5.3 4.8 56 9.6 150 24 0.06 0.06 20 1.9 581 0.34 45 14 9.9 6.5 29 180 61 0.05 21 7.5 177 0.32 45 4.3 90 48 130 78 1.6 0.08 23 3.4 2,400 ND ND 73,000 200 26 300 1,000 140 24 2.9 7,300 ND ND 360,000 290 33 550 4,900 350 25 3.4 653 0.87 40 18 76 4.9 43 180 58 0.07 26 5.3 48 0.22 11 4.9 22 3.5 23 30 0.04 0.02 27 6.5 53 0.24 16 3.8 7.5 2.1 39 46 0.06 0.02 28 5.7 50 0.21 12 4.5 20 2.1 29 35 0.07 0.02 29 6.9 47 0.24 18 2.9 4.6 5.4 23 36 0.014 0.007 30 7.5 38 0.23 14 3.0 4.9 2.1 17 35 0.014 0.007 31 7.5 39 0.23 15 2.9 7.9 2.1 18 35 0.014 0.007 32 6.8 30 0.18 14 2.3 32 2.1 21 23 0.014 0.02 33 4.5 42 0.22 11 4.4 72 3.1 47 16 0.08 0.04 34 4.3 59 0.27 12 5.6 15 7.2 50 20 0.09 0.01 

Num. censored - 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 6 4 
Table 9. Chemical and sulfur isotopic data for all samples collected in 1998—Continued. 

Site no. Fe K La Li Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P P

(μg/L) (mg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (mg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (mg/L) (μg/L) (mg/L) (μ

1 1,600 2.9 0.02 17 17 250 2.8 57 3.0 0.03 0.0

2 43 1.7 0.02 8.0 7.6 1.7 2.8 24 1.3 0.03 0.03 64 1.6 0.04 7.6 5.9 1.2 0.95 17 1.4 0.02 0.4 77 1.4 0.03 3.4 3.3 0.7 7.2 17 1.0 0.05 0.05 34 2.1 0.02 7.8 5.9 0.8 20 25 2.0 0.06 0.06 34 2.0 0.02 7.6 5.9 1.2 20 25 1.9 0.06 0.07 37 8.6 8.0 87 40 750 18 79 250 0.01 0.58 40 10 24 110 42 2,000 0.45 80 350 0.05 0.29 21 4.7 1.4 33 18 210 34 48 72 0.007 0.0

10 30 2.4 0.02 9.1 6.6 1.7 32 29 1.7 0.06 0.011 30 4.5 0.24 32 17 160 40 48 52 0.02 0.12 64 2.6 0.02 11 9.5 3.1 6.4 32 1.8 0.04 0.013 36 3.4 0.09 19 13 61 19 38 21 0.03 0.014 21 1.9 0.01 13 18 41 1.0 23 5.6 0.007 0.015 21 2.4 2.2 43 19 710 0.14 33 71 0.007 1.0 16 21 1.8 0.007 12 17 3.9 0.73 22 2.5 0.01 0.017 20,000 3.3 11 120 24 2,400 0.21 28 170 0.04 66 18 53 2.6 0.02 11 11 9.2 1.2 33 1.7 0.04 0.219 61 5.6 0.06 7.0 5.3 1.1 2.6 19 2.2 0.40 0.220 3,300 3.6 0.02 46 79 4,800 1.2 55 56 0.007 0.21 130 7.2 0.07 17 22 21 1.7 43 7.9 0.30 1.2 23 58,000 4.8 66 62 200 13,000 14 76 1,700 0.70 25 24 170,000 19 170 300 670 33,000 14 240 6,400 1.3 7.8 25 21 4.0 0.05 25 67 910 1.7 64 130 0.01 0.326 33 1.6 0.02 8.1 9.2 1.8 1.6 22 1.7 0.03 0.27 21 1.9 0.02 10 16 2.7 1.2 25 2.4 0.02 0.228 31 1.5 0.007 8.5 12 1.8 1.4 23 1.9 0.03 0.029 21 1.6 0.007 12 12 0.3 1.2 29 1.6 0.02 0.030 21 1.5 0.01 9.9 11 0.3 0.80 23 1.6 0.02 0.032 21 1.4 0.007 10 11 0.6 0.79 23 1.6 0.02 0.032 37 1.2 0.02 7.4 7.4 0.6 0.87 20 1.3 0.02 0.033 65 1.7 0.03 3.6 4.3 0.7 5.0 15 1.8 0.10 0.034 21 2.0 0.01 3.5 5.2 0.4 16 20 1.3 0.10 0.0

Num. censored 10 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 9 
Table 9. Chemical and sulfur isotopic data for all samples collected in 1998—Continued. 

Site no. Sc Si Sr Ta Th Ti U V W Y Zn 

(μg/L) (mg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) 

1 3.5 11 385 0.10 0.26 2.8 0.23 0.07 2.4 0.03 1.0 

2 3.1 11 155 0.10 0.10 1.7 0.44 0.8 0.27 0.03 2.0 3 2.8 10 115 0.10 0.06 2.2 0.10 0.7 0.20 0.04 6.7 4 3.2 11 77 0.10 0.05 2.3 0.02 0.8 0.21 0.06 19 5 3.3 11 115 0.09 0.05 1.5 0.04 1 0.21 0.04 42 6 3.1 11 115 0.09 0.04 1.5 0.03 0.8 0.20 0.03 2.4 7 6.2 21 455 0.09 0.07 11 0.73 0.4 0.21 22 6,400 8 7.6 25 465 0.09 0.06 12 1.4 0.4 0.22 66 10,300 9 4.4 14 225 0.07 0.03 4.3 0.13 0.8 0.20 2.4 1,800 

10 3.3 12 125 0.06 0.02 1.7 0.05 1 0.20 0.03 4.5 11 4.3 14 220 0.08 0.03 4.4 0.13 1 0.20 0.46 910 12 3.3 12 195 0.06 0.01 2.3 0.53 1 0.29 0.03 35 13 3.6 13 210 0.07 0.02 3.0 0.38 1 0.20 0.30 390 14 2.2 7.2 260 0.06 0.01 1.4 0.80 0.2 0.10 0.02 18 15 3.2 10 265 0.05 0.02 5.2 0.69 0.07 0.10 5.5 2,200 16 2.4 7.2 260 0.05 0.02 1.0 0.82 0.4 0.10 0.03 33 17 15 22 280 0.05 2.5 12 2.6 0.4 0.10 31 4,100 18 3.0 10 240 0.06 0.10 1.1 1.1 1 0.09 0.03 6.7 19 3.9 13 180 0.07 0.03 1.9 0.42 3 0.22 0.18 2.5 20 2.9 8.6 1,000 0.05 0.05 11 2.2 0.07 0.09 0.57 5,500 21 4.5 13 385 0.06 0.06 5.0 1.1 4 0.47 0.13 18 23 7.0 14 1,100 2.8 1.9 41 26 ND 2.6 160 28,000 24 26 31 2,400 3.7 16 110 120 40 2.6 830 98,000 25 3.1 8.8 690 0.05 0.11 13 2.6 0.5 0.10 0.29 570 26 2.6 9.1 165 0.04 0.02 1.4 0.22 0.6 0.06 0.02 2.8 27 2.4 7.8 250 0.04 0.009 1.3 0.97 0.9 0.06 0.02 3.4 28 2.4 8.6 195 0.03 0.006 1.3 0.48 0.9 0.06 0.02 21 29 2.3 8.6 255 0.04 0.007 0.90 0.95 0.8 0.08 0.01 1.0 30 2.1 7.8 260 0.03 0.004 0.80 0.52 0.5 0.05 0.01 0.931 2.1 7.8 260 0.04 0.004 0.80 0.50 0.7 0.06 0.01 14 32 2.0 7.7 150 0.04 0.004 1.4 0.33 0.8 0.06 0.02 1.0 33 2.2 8.4 100 0.03 0.005 2.2 0.02 2 0.10 0.04 3.0 34 3.0 11 130 0.03 0.006 1.2 0.03 3 0.26 0.02 20 

Num. censored 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0