U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025

Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site

Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium

Deposits in Northern Arizona
Hydrological, Geological, and Biological 

Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe 

Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

By Andrea E. Alpine, editor

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Alpine, Andrea E., ed., 2010, Hydrological, geological, and biological site characterization of breccia pipe uranium 

deposits in northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025, 354 p., 1 pl., 

scale 1:375,000.

Plate and maps:

Private inholdings may exist in National or State reservations. Not all boundaries have been placed on the maps due 

to limitations of scale and complexity of land ownership and status. Segregation area boundaries are current as of 

October 2009. Segregation area boundaries are approximate.
iii

Contents

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

By Andrea E. Alpine and Kristin M. Brown

A. Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona ....................................19

 By James K. Otton and Bradley S. Van Gosen

B. Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona .................... 43

 By James K. Otton, Tanya J. Gallegos, Bradley S. Van Gosen, 

Robert A. Zielinski, Ray H. Johnson, Susan M. Hall, L. Rick Arnold, 

and Douglas B. Yager

C. Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Perennial and Intermittent

Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona...........................................................................135

 By Donald J. Bills, Fred D Tillman, David W. Anning, 

Ronald C. Antweiler, and Thomas F. Kraemer

D. Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium 

and Associated Radionuclides...............................................................................................283

 By Jo Ellen Hinck, Greg Linder, Susan Finger, Edward Little, 

Donald Tillitt, and Wendy Kuhne

Plate

[In pocket]

1. Map Showing Geologic Structure, Cultural and Geographic Features, 

and Geologic Cross Sections of Northwestern Arizona

 By Kristin M. Brown and George H. Billingsley

Introduction

By Andrea E. Alpine and Kristin M. Brown

Introduction to

Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization 

of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Edited by Andrea E. Alpine

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Contents

Background.....................................................................................................................................................5

Description of the Study Area .....................................................................................................................5

Climate....................................................................................................................................................5

Geologic and Hydrologic Setting .......................................................................................................8

Recharge Estimates..............................................................................................................................9

Biologic Setting.....................................................................................................................................9

Breccia Pipes and Uranium .......................................................................................................................10

Breccia Pipes ......................................................................................................................................10

Orebodies.............................................................................................................................................13

Uranium Mining...................................................................................................................................13

Overview of This Report..............................................................................................................................13

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................14

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................14

Appendix 1. Scientific Names of Plant and Animal Species Included in the Text.........................17

Plate

[In pocket]

1. Map Showing Geologic Structure, Cultural and Geographic Features, 

and Geologic Cross Sections of Northwestern Arizona

Figures

1. Map showing study area, segregation areas, and land ownership.....................................6

2. Map showing mean annual average precipitation and evaporation for 

northern Arizona ...........................................................................................................................7

3. Stratigraphic column of a breccia pipe ..................................................................................11

4. Photo showing an exposed breccia pipe column in the Grand Canyon area ..................12

5. Photo showing the surface expression of a collapse structure.........................................12
Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

Flow rate

mile per hour (mi/h) 1.609 kilometer per hour (km/h) 

Mass

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) 

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg) 

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Introduction

By Andrea E. Alpine and Kristin M. Brown

to develop additional information about the possible effects of 

uranium mining on the natural resources of the region. These 

studies include:

1. Estimation of the amount of uranium resources within the 

proposed withdrawal areas and previously withdrawn areas, 

2. Investigation of the effects of the 1980s uranium mine 

development and extraction operations to determine if 

mining operations affected local environments,

3. Examination of whether these previous operations were 

detrimental to the water quality of surface water and 

groundwater and estimation of the potential effect of 

future mining operations,

4. Compilation of the available toxicological information on 

exposure pathways and biological effects of uranium and 

associated decay products relevant to species occurring in 

the region, and

5. Completion of a geologic map of the House Rock Valley 

area (East Segregation Area), Coconino County, Ariz., providing detailed strata and structural information (published 

separately as SIM 3108 [Billingsley and Priest, 2010]).

Description of the Study Area

The study area is larger than the proposed withdrawal 

areas and is bounded on the north by the Arizona-Utah border, 

on the south by Valle, Ariz., on the east by Lees Ferry, and 

on the west by Iceberg Canyon at Lake Mead (fig. 1). The 

Secretary of Interior’s proposed withdrawal area includes three 

segregation areas north, east, and south of the Colorado River 

and encompasses about 1 million acres of BLM, National 

Forest, State, and private lands; all are contained within the 

study area (fig. 1).

Climate

The climate of northern Arizona is semiarid to arid with 

spatial and temporal extremes of temperature and precipitation. The broad range of climate is strongly correlated with 

altitude resulting in moderate summers and severe winters at 

higher altitudes and intense summer heat and mild winters at 

lower altitudes (fig. 2). Microclimates are common to northern Arizona, especially along the Colorado River and at high 

elevation uplands, as the slope and exposure of mountains and 

Background

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, uranium was discovered 

in association with many of the old copper mines in the Grand 

Canyon region, hosted by geologic features called breccia pipes. 

Discovery of high-grade uranium ore in the Orphan Lode (breccia 

pipe) deposit led to uranium mining on patented claims within the 

Grand Canyon National Park from 1956 to 1969 (plate 1). In the 

1970s, breccia pipes became the subject of intense exploration in 

the Grand Canyon region, sought for their uranium ore potential; 

several were found exposed in the plateaus and the walls of the 

Grand Canyon and its tributaries. In the 1980s and early 1990s, 

uranium was mined from seven breccia pipes in the northern 

Grand Canyon region. Today, some of the highest grade uranium 

ore in this country is believed to be located in the many mineralized breccia pipes scattered across the Grand Canyon region.

On July 21, 2009, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar 

proposed a two-year withdrawal of about 1 million acres of 

Federal land near the Grand Canyon from future mineral entry. 

These lands are contained in three parcels: two parcels on 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to the north of the 

Grand Canyon (North and East Segregation Areas) and one on 

the Kaibab National Forest south of the Grand Canyon (South 

Segregation Area) (fig. 1). The purpose of the two-year withdrawal is to examine the potential effects of restricting these areas 

from new mine development for the next 20 years, “to protect the 

Grand Canyon watershed from adverse effects of locatable mineral exploration and mining, except for those effects stemming 

from valid existing rights” (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

2009, p. 43152). Dissolved uranium and other major, minor, and 

trace elements occur naturally in groundwater as the result of precipitation infiltrating from the surface to water-bearing zones and, 

presumably, to underlying regional aquifers. Discharges from 

these aquifers occur as seeps and springs throughout the region 

and provide valuable habitat and water sources for plants and 

animals. Uranium mining within the watershed may increase the 

amount of radioactive materials and heavy metals in the surface 

water and groundwater flowing into Grand Canyon National Park 

and the Colorado River, and deep mining activities may increase 

mobilization of uranium through the rock strata into the aquifers. 

In addition, waste rock and ore from mined areas may be transported away from the mines by wind and runoff.

This proposed withdrawal initiated a period of study 

during which the effects of the withdrawal must be evaluated. At the direction of the Secretary, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) began a series of short-term studies designed 
6 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Bright Angel

Creek

Cataract Creek

Havasu Creek

Little Color a do River

Kanab Creek

Virgin River

Col o rado River

Colorado River

EXPLANATION

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Forest Service

Tribal land

National Park Service

State land

Private land

Segregation area—Boundary

National Monument—Boundary

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Washington

St. George

Littlefield

Peach Springs

Valle

Tusayan

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry VERMILLION CLIFFS

NATIONAL

MONUMENT

Jacob

Lake

Kanab

Fredonia KAIBAB -

PAIUTE

RESERVATION

Colorado City

Big Water

Supai Village North Rim

HAVASUPAI

RESERVATION

NORTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION

AREA

HUALAPAI

RESERVATION

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

GRAND CANYON - PARASHANT

NATIONAL MONUMENT

KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST

NAVAJO

RESERVATION

LAKE

MEAD

NRA

LAKE

MEAD

NRA

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

UTAH

ARIZONA

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

SEGREGATION AREAS

(Proposed mineral withdrawal areas)

Data provided by U.S. Geological Survey and 

Bureau of Land Management.

Map created on 11/10/09 by K.M. Brown

Map revised on 5/24/10 by T. Arundel

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

PIPE SPRING

NATIONAL

MONUMENT

Figure 1. Map showing study area, segregation areas, and land ownership. NRA, National Recreation Area.
Introduction 7

Evaporation:

 Farnsworth and others, 1982

Precipitation:

PRISM Climate Group, 2006 

65

Segregated area—Boundary

Line of equal average annual evaporation, in inches per

 year—Contour interval 5 inches

Mean annual precipitation

1971–2000, in inches per year

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Tuweep

Fredonia

Jacob Lake

Valle Airport

Phantom Ranch

Colorado City

Mount

Trumbull

Grand

Canyon NP2

Pipe Spring National Monument

Bright Angel Ranger STN

Supai

50

45

55

55

60

65

70

65

75

70

65

60

75

60

55

55

60

65

70

55

Weather station and station name

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

Colorado River

Virgin River

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Peach

Springs

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry

Figure 2. Map showing mean annual average precipitation and evaporation for northern Arizona.
8 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

deep canyons control circulating air masses and the amount of 

solar radiation that reaches land surface. Average annual evaporation rates are large, more than 20 times the average annual 

precipitation for much of the area (fig. 2), creating a net annual 

water deficit for most of northern Arizona. However, water is 

available on the landscape because most of the precipitation 

falls in the winter months when evaporation processes are at 

their lowest.

Winter storms (those occurring from October through 

April) provide about 60 percent of precipitation to the study 

area, with summer storms providing about 40 percent (Western 

Regional Climate Center, 2004). This bimodal precipitation 

pattern is characteristic of Arizona. The winter and summer 

wet periods have different effects on the occurrence and availability of water in northern Arizona. In winter, large storm 

systems that originate in the Pacific Ocean pass over the state 

bringing rain and heavy snows to higher altitudes and less 

frequent rain and snow to lower altitudes. Deep snow accumulations in the mountains and on the Kaibab anticline can 

result in significant spring runoff to lower elevations. Because 

of low evapotranspiration in winter, a greater portion of winter 

precipitation is available for runoff and infiltration than summer precipitation. Summer rainfall is controlled by moistureladen air masses that move into Arizona from the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Gulf of California. In middle to late summer, 

regionally called the monsoon season, the orographic effect of 

the high altitude areas of northern Arizona results in frequent, 

intense, short-duration thunderstorms. The amount of precipitation derived from these thunderstorms is sporadic both 

spatially and temporally, but intense downpours can produce 

flash flooding and debris flows. The high summer temperatures also result in evaporation far in excess of precipitation. 

The ratio of annual evaporation to precipitation is about 2:1 at 

higher altitudes on the Kaibab anticline and mountains to the 

south. It ranges from about 6:1 at lower altitudes in western 

and northwestern parts of northern Arizona to more than 8:1 in 

eastern and northeastern parts of northern Arizona.

The average annual temperature ranges from about 60oF 

on the rim of the Grand Canyon to about 80oF at the canyon’s 

bottom (Western Regional Climate Center, 2004), with average annual temperatures about 5oF lower on the higher North 

Rim. Winter extremes of subzero temperatures can occur in 

deep canyons and the plateaus to the east and west but are 

more common at higher altitude areas of the Kaibab anticline. 

Summer temperatures commonly exceed 100oF on the east and 

west plateau north of the Colorado River and reach 110–120oF 

in the inner canyons.

Average annual precipitation ranges from 6 in along the 

river in the eastern edge of the area to 21 in at Jacob Lake on 

the Kaibab anticline and 16 in at the South Rim of the Grand 

Canyon. Some of the largest precipitation events north of the 

Colorado River have occurred as local summer thunderstorms 

(Webb, 2002). Extreme runoff events are most often driven by 

rain-on-snow during the early and late winter. The maximum 

annual precipitation was recorded at the Bright Angel Ranger 

Station at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon at 45 in (fig. 2). 

Over 60 percent of that total fell as snow in the winter months. 

As with areas to the north of the Colorado River, precipitation south of the Colorado River is strongly correlated with 

altitude. Generally less than 15 in/yr fall on higher altitude 

areas and 10 in/yr or less fall on the lower elevation plateaus 

and inner canyon areas; more than 25 in/yr fall on elevations 

above 7,000 ft (fig. 2) (Bills and others, 2007). In general, 

climate south of the Colorado River is more arid owing to the 

generally lower elevations.

Data from the National Weather Station (NWS) at Flagstaff, 

Ariz., show that the prevailing wind direction is bimodal from 

the south-southwest for February to September and from the 

north-northwest for October to January (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/

summary/lcd.html, accessed December 2009). The average 

annual wind speed is 6.4 mph and varies little from month to 

month. The Grand Canyon National Park Airport reports similar 

trends (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwind.final.html, 

accessed December 2009). None of the NWS sites north of the 

Colorado River consistently reports wind speed and direction, 

but extreme weather data reported by the U.S. Forest Service and 

NWS in support of fire condition reports suggest that wind patterns are similar in this area (http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/

fire_wx/, accessed December 2009).

Geologic and Hydrologic Setting

The study area is located within the southwest portion 

of the Colorado Plateau, a unique physiographic province 

roughly centered on the Four Corners region of the southwestern United States (plate 1). This portion of the Colorado 

Plateau is characterized by nearly flat lying sedimentary rock 

layers that are exposed in canyons and by a series of high 

plateaus (Bues and Morales, 2003); the highest plateau in the 

study area is the Kaibab Plateau north of the Colorado River 

between the North and East Segregation Areas. The study 

area has seven major structural trends that significantly affect 

the regional geology and hydrology. The western part of the 

study area has several north-south trending major faults: 

the Grandwash fault on the west, the Dellenbaugh fault, the 

Hurricane fault, and the Toroweap fault with offsets down 

to the west (plate 1). The structural features dominating the 

eastern portion of the study area are the Kaibab anticline (bordered on the east by the East Kaibab monocline, distinguished 

by east-dipping sedimentary rocks responding to movement 

of reactivated basement faults), the Mesa Butte fault, and the 

Havasu-Cataract Basin south of the Colorado River, northeast 

and northwest trending with westerly dips. Tectonic features 

such as faults, folds, fractures, and dip angles of sedimentary 

layers affect the subsurface groundwater flow.

The primary hydrologic feature found in the study area 

is the Colorado River that flows from the northeast end of the 

study area winding westward into Lake Mead (plate 1). The 

flow of the Colorado River today is primarily controlled by 

the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and is supplemented with 

unregulated surface flows from tributaries draining higher 
Introduction 9

elevations of the Grand Canyon region. Elevations north of 

the Colorado River reach over 9,200 ft on the Kaibab Plateau; 

the high elevations and steep gradient of streams facilitate 

rapid surface runoff with high sediment loads toward the 

Colorado River. Elevations south of the Colorado River reach 

over 7,000 ft along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. The 

south-sloping topography of this area causes surface water to 

flow away from the South Rim; it is eventually captured by 

the larger north-flowing drainages of the Little Colorado River 

and Cataract Canyon and returned to the Colorado River. The 

Little Colorado River also drains the surface flows southeast 

of the Grand Canyon into the Colorado River in the eastern 

Grand Canyon (plate 1).

Springs located throughout the study area support some 

of the most diverse habitat on this part of the Colorado Plateau 

and are a critical source of water for humans, fish, and wildlife. Geologic structures such as joints, fractures, faults, folds, 

and bedding planes control and direct groundwater movement toward spring discharge areas. Fine-grained sedimentary 

rocks, such as the Hermit Formation and the lower part of 

the Supai Group, can prevent the downward movement of 

groundwater, resulting in locally perched water-bearing zones. 

Perched water-bearing zones can occur from several hundred 

to more than 2,000 feet above the underlying regional aquifers. Fractures and faults in the fine-grained rock units provide 

pathways for vertical movement of groundwater from the 

perched water-bearing zones deeper into the subsurface. Dissolution of the Redwall and Muav Limestones from groundwater flow through joints and fractures causes caves, caverns, 

and solution channels to form within these rock layers. The 

collapse of some of these caves and caverns over time has led 

to the formation of breccia pipes, some of which host uranium 

ore deposits. Many of the seeps and springs in the Grand 

Canyon region emerge from the base of these rock layers. 

Joints and fractures associated with the caves and solution 

channels in these rock layers provide pathways that preferentially direct groundwater flow to these discharge areas.

Recharge Estimates

Water migrating from the surface to the subsurface is 

an important transport mechanism for the remobilization of 

trace and radiochemical elements. Since most of the orebodies 

associated with breccia pipes are located several hundred 

to more than 1,000 ft above the regional groundwater flow 

systems of northern Arizona, natural recharge of water from 

the surface through these orebodies is one of the few ways 

of naturally adding to the radiochemistry of the regional 

groundwater flow systems. Estimated recharge potential for 

the Desert Southwest has been determined based on temporal 

and spatial variations in precipitation, air temperature, root 

zone and soil properties and thickness, faults and fractures, 

and hydrologic properties of geologic strata in the unsaturated 

zone (Flint and others, 2004; Flint and Flint, 2007). The most 

significant recharge potential occurs on the Kaibab anticline 

with significant secondary areas of recharge occurring along 

the South Rim and at areas of structural weakness through 

the northern Arizona area. Breccia pipes in these areas would 

have the greatest potential for remobilization of radiochemical 

elements found in the subsurface.

Biologic Setting

Habitats in the Grand Canyon and its environs support 

a diverse flora and fauna including culturally significant, 

threatened, and endangered species. Three main ecosystems 

occur in the study area: Great Basin grassland, Great Basin 

woodland, and Great Basin desert scrubland (Brown and 

Lowe, 1982; Olson and others, 2001). High elevation areas of 

the Kaibab anticline are a mix of Rocky Mountain subalpine 

conifer forest, montane conifer forest, and subalpine grassland. The canyon lands in the region consist almost entirely 

of Mohave desert scrub with isolated areas of riparian habitat 

that support most of the species diversity in the region (Brown 

and Lowe, 1982; Olson and others, 2001; Grand Canyon 

Wildlands Council, 2004). Vegetation has a significant effect 

on the occurrence and flow of water both on the surface and 

in the subsurface. Plants can intercept and store precipitation 

and thus delay and (or) prevent overland flow that would lead 

to runoff. They also transpire moisture that has seeped into the 

soil and deeper root zones as it becomes available and before 

it has an opportunity to seep deeper into the subsurface to 

become part of a groundwater flow system.

In general, the ecosystems and habitats of this area are 

primarily influenced by precipitation, slope, and elevation. 

Elevations below about 4,900 ft generally support sparse sagebrush and other desert bushes, grasses, and cactus. Elevations 

between 4,900 and 6,900 ft support thicker brush and grasslands transitioning into pinyon pine,1

 juniper, and Gambel oak 

stands on hills and higher elevation areas. While most of these 

vegetation types require little water, they exist primarily in 

fracture zones and depressions where water accumulates. Elevations above 6,900 ft are dominated by dense ponderosa pine 

forest and smaller stands of aspen, firs, spruce, and juniper. 

Native hardwoods can be found in riparian areas of drainages 

and include cottonwood, oak, willow, and ash. These species have always been excellent markers on the landscape for 

locations of water sources. Invasive species such as tamarisk, 

Russian olive, and Siberian elm have come to dominate and 

crowd out native species in some drainages and riparian areas 

where water is available. Land management practices have 

affected both the vegetation coverage diversity and geomorphic characteristics of drainages north of the Grand Canyon 

since the early 20th century, changing runoff and recharge 

patterns (Webb and others, 1991).

In the study area, desert grassland is found on northfacing slopes within the Grand Canyon but is rare, whereas 

intermediate grassland found at a higher elevation is more 1

See appendix 1 of the Introduction for a list of scientific names.
10 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

common in the study area, specifically in the western Grand 

Canyon, as well as on the North Rim in the Arizona Strip area. 

Typical animal species in these grasslands include herbivorous 

rodents, insects, elk, mule deer, and antelope and predatory 

golden eagles, red-tail hawks, and coyotes.

Shrubland is characterized by open areas where shrubs 

are dominant or co-dominant with grasses (Brown and Lowe, 

1982). Unique steppe habitat on the Colorado Plateau includes 

low desert bajadas, slope failure fans, bedrock canyons and 

fans on the Arizona Strip, inner canyon terraces, Marble 

and Coconino Plateau steppe habitats, riparian terraces, and 

chaparral vegetation on steep slopes (Nabhan, 2002). Common 

plant species in shrubland include banana yucca and snakeweed at high elevations, blackbush and mormon tea at middle 

elevations, creosotebush and white bursage at low elevations, 

and snakeweed, rabbitbrush, and big sagebrush in the plateau. 

Ants, prairie dogs, gophers, raptors, and coyotes are common 

fauna in the shrublands.

Desert woodland is distinct depending on elevation, with 

mesquite, catclaw, and netleaf hackberry along stream channels at low elevations. Intermediate woodland is dominated by 

the pinyon pine, juniper, rabbitbrush, and sagebrush throughout the study area at middle elevations.

Predominant species in the ponderosa pine forest include 

squirrels, mule deer, and elk. Goshawk and Mexican spotted 

owls can be found nesting in the ponderosa pine and higher 

elevation forest. Other common vertebrates found in desert 

woodland include raccoon, skunk, long-tailed weasel, raven, 

and several species of owls and other birds (jays, nuthatches, 

chickadees, warblers, woodpeckers, etc.) Old growth ponderosa pine forest is found in the North Kaibab National Forest 

and can be identified by yellowed bark and large red-yellow 

bark plates.

The barrenland ecosystem has been identified as a unique 

habitat characterized by bare bedrock or soil common of the 

badlands, canyon country, and alpine habitats (Grand Canyon 

Wildlands Council, 2004). Barrenland ecosystems are abundant within the segregation areas and are typified by cactus 

and sparse desert bushes or grasses. Common cliff dwelling 

vertebrates of the barrenlands include chuckwallas, a variety 

of other lizards, canyon wrens, raptors, ravens, and swallows.

Areas of riparian habitat occur within each of the above 

areas around lakes, ponds, springs, seeps, streams, and rivers. 

These riparian habitats have exceptional biodiversity and are 

critical for the plants and animals that live in the area. Several 

springs have National significance and are linked to important components of Native American culture. Many of the 

springs originate in water-bearing zones in the Redwall and 

Muav Limestones and flow into canyons of the greater Grand 

Canyon area. These spring habitats support a species diversity 

that is 100 to 500 times greater than that of the surrounding 

landscape (Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2004). Common vegetation includes monkey flower, redbud, willow, 

cottonwood, and maidenhair fern. Spring habitats can also 

host frogs and invertebrates, such as the endangered Kanab 

ambersnail. Many bird species, both native and migratory, nest 

and feed along riparian areas of the Colorado River. Common birds found in the Colorado River riparian zone include 

finches, hummingbird, swifts, swallows, warblers, phoebe, 

flycatchers, and wrens. Predatory birds include the great 

blue heron, red-tail hawk, osprey, kestrel, Peregrine falcon, 

raven, golden eagle, and bald eagle. Other common vertebrate 

fauna found along the Colorado River include snakes, lizards, 

frogs, salamanders, rodents, ringtail cat, skunk, coyote, and 

fox. Raccoons, bobcat, mountain lion, bats, mule deer, and 

bighorn sheep occur but are rarer in the riparian corridor of 

the Colorado River. Multiple species of fish utilize the flowing water of the Colorado River. Current fish populations 

are dominated by introduced species including carp, rainbow trout, brown trout, and catfish. Native species including 

bluehead suckers and flannelmouth suckers, speckled dace, 

and the endangered humpback chub are still present, but 

many are listed as Federal or State species of concern (Grand 

Canyon Wildlands Council, 2004). Invertebrates are important 

components to the aquatic food chain of the Colorado River. 

Descriptions of important species in the mainstem have been 

documented (for example, Blinn and Cole, 1991; Stevens and 

others, 1997, 1998). However, aquatic invertebrates in the 

tributary streams of the Grand Canyon region have not been 

studied to the same extent (Oberlin and others, 1999).

Mining activity can result in changes to these habitats 

that may increase exposure of the biological resources to chemical elements including uranium, radium, and other radioactive 

decay products. Uranium and other radionuclides can affect 

the survival, growth, and reproduction of plants and animals. 

The identification of biological pathways of exposure and the 

compilation of the chemical and radiological hazards for these 

radionuclides are important for understanding potential effects 

of uranium mining on the northern Arizona ecosystem.

Breccia Pipes and Uranium

Breccia Pipes

The uranium deposits of northwestern Arizona are hosted 

by geologic features described as “solution-collapse breccia 

pipes,” or simply “breccia pipes.” The features, formed by 

solution and collapse, are named for their vertical, pipe-like 

shape and the broken rock, or breccia, that fills them (fig. 3). 

Breccia pipes generally form through a sequence of steps: 

(1) dissolution and karst (cave) development in the Redwall 

Limestone rock unit; (2) collapse of the cavern ceiling (which 

forms the broken rock rubble); and (3) progressive collapse 

moving upward into overlying formations through time, 

forming a broken rock or rubble-filled column. The region 

surrounding the Grand Canyon hosts hundreds, possibly thousands, of breccia pipes, some of which contain concentrated 

deposits of uranium, copper, silver, lead, zinc, cobalt, and 

nickel minerals (Wenrich, 1985; Wenrich and others, 1989; 

Finch and others, 1992). Exploration in the region has shown 
Introduction 11

Perched waterbearing zone

or C aquifer

Perched waterbearing zone

Redwall-Muav

aquifer

(This aquifer 

extends below the

stratigraphic column

into the Cambrian

Muav Formation.)

Chinle

Formation

Moenkopi

Formation

Kaibab

Formation

Toroweap

Formation

TRIASSIC

251–200 Ma

PERMIAN

299–251 Ma

PENNSYLVANIAN

318–299 Ma

MISSISSIPPIAN

359–318 Ma

DEVONIAN

416–359 Ma

Petrified Forest

 Member

Shinarump Member

upper red member

middle red member

lower red member

Timpoweap Member

Shnabkaib Member

Harrisburg Member

Fossil Mountain Member

Woods Ranch Member

Brady Canyon Member

Seligman Member

Coconino Sandstone

Hermit Formation

Esplanade Sandstone

Wescogame Formation

Manakacha Formation

Watahomigi Formation

Surprise Canyon

 Formation

 (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone

Temple Butte Formation Supai Group

uranium ore

uranium ore

unconformity

Diameter of surface depression

Holocene alluvium

 Average thickness

or range in thickness

 (in feet)

300–350

0–200

400–1200

Coconino

 Plateau

0–300

200–250

100–200

30–400

30–90

0–600

50–1200

Esplanade

 surface

300–400

150–200

180–230

130–150

0–400

450–700

0–400

Owl Rock Member

100–200

Fig. 3 Intro Figure 3. Stratigraphic column of a breccia pipe showing relation of breccia pipe to surrounding rock, orebodies, and perched waterbearing zones and aquifers.
12 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

that a small percentage of the identified breccia pipes do 

contain an economic uranium deposit. The USGS has mapped 

more than 1,200 possible solution-collapse breccia pipes in the 

northern Arizona region.

Breccia pipes have not been observed in rock units younger 

than about 200 million years old (Triassic age). The breccia fragments that form the pipes are consistently blocks and pieces of 

rock units found below their normal position in the wall rock; that 

is, all rocks within the breccia column (pipe) have fallen downward and are never found above their original level. In contrast to 

many other types of breccia pipes, no igneous rocks are associated with the northern Arizona breccia pipes and no igneous 

processes have contributed to their formation.

The pipe-shaped structures average about 300 feet 

in diameter and can vertically extend from the Redwall 

Limestone to the Chinle Formation. Because the thickness 

of the host sedimentary strata varies across the Grand Canyon 

region, the depth to an orebody within a breccia pipe varies 

from area to area. The upper part of the uranium orebody in 

breccia pipes often occurs within the horizon of the Coconino 

Sandstone or the Hermit Formation, with the ore often extending down into the Esplanade Sandstone (fig. 3). The three segregated areas are located in the central and eastern areas of the 

Grand Canyon region, which are mostly capped by the Kaibab 

Formation. Thus, the uranium orebody in a breccia pipe within 

the three areas is typically 900–1,000 ft (or more) below the 

plateau surface (capped by the Kaibab Formation).

Some breccia pipes are exposed in the canyon walls within 

the Grand Canyon and its tributaries (fig. 4), but because they 

are exposed to erosion and weathering processes, much of the 

uranium ore material has dissipated. Although no single exposure in the Grand Canyon region exposes an entire breccia pipe 

from bottom to top, exposures of many hundreds of feet appear 

at several locations and encompass various stratigraphic formations. These exposures illustrate that an individual breccia pipe 

can cover a vertical range of at least 3,000 ft, from the Redwall 

Limestone through the Chinle Formation.

The breccia pipe column abuts against sedimentary 

rocks. The plane of contact between the breccia column and 

the surrounding flat-lying rock is formed by a zone of concentric, circular, near vertical fractures (“ring fractures”) 

and inward-dipping strata. The mineral deposits, including 

uranium, occur in the fracture zone and in the brecciated 

column; the mineral deposits do not generally extend into the 

surrounding sedimentary wall rocks. An orebody, if present, 

is typically located several hundred to more than a thousand 

feet (150–350 m) above the regional water table in brecciated 

sandstones and siltstones in the pipes. It is possible, however, 

that a number of orebodies may be in contact with perched 

groundwater above the Redwall-Muav aquifer.

While the breccia pipe column is typically only a few 

hundred feet in diameter, its expression on the plateau surface 

is often a shallow structural basin (fig. 5) that can be as much as 

a half mile in diameter. Some pipes form a prominent circular 

depression with inward-dipping strata (Wenrich and Sutphin, 

1988), but others are difficult to decipher and show little surface 

expression on the plateau surface. Buried, “blind” breccia pipes 

also exist; these pipes have their roots in the Redwall Limestone 

and do not extend to the plateau surface. Some geophysical 

techniques, such as airborne vertical time-domain electromagnetic surveys (Spiering, 2009), have shown promise in locating 

buried breccia pipes, which have then become potential drilling 

targets. Once geologic, geochemical, and (or) geophysical 

indicators suggest that a breccia pipe structure exists at a site, 

exploratory drilling is conducted to test for uranium deposits 

at depth. At this time, because the uranium deposits occur deep 

inside the pipe, usually several hundred feet below the plateau 

surface, only drilling and sampling of the drilled material can 

determine if a collapse feature is mineralized at depth.

g. 4

Figure 5. Photo showing the surface expression of a collapse 

structure, specifically the Grand Pipe in the western Grand 

Canyon near the Colorado River and Grand Wash Cliffs. The 

structure measures approximately 2,500 feet in diameter. Note 

circular inward dipping strata with no breccia exposed at the 

center. (Photo by George Billingsley, U.S. Geological Survey.)

Figure 4. Photo showing an exposed breccia pipe column 

(indicated by arrow) in the Grand Canyon area. Note the bending 

of strata toward the breccia pipe. (Photo by George Billingsley, 

U.S. Geological Survey.)
Introduction 13

Orebodies

Most of the uranium deposits in the northern Arizona 

breccia pipes are high grade by U.S. standards. Breccia pipe 

deposits in this region that were mined or thoroughly drilled 

during the 1980s revealed average grades of 0.42 to 1.08 percent uranium oxide (U3

O8) (Pool and Ross, 2007; Moreton and 

Ross, 2009) in ore bodies containing about 430,000 pounds 

to 7 million pounds U3O8. From breccia pipes of this region, 

combined uranium production has totaled 23.3 million pounds 

of ore (to November 2009); this includes past production from 

the Orphan Mine and the Hack 1, Hack 2, Hack 3, Pigeon, 

Hermit, Kanab North, and Pinenut pipes/mines in the North 

Segregation Area.

The primary uranium ore mineral in the breccia pipe 

deposits is uraninite (UO2). It is complexly intergrown with 

numerous sulfide and oxide minerals (Wenrich, 1985; Wenrich 

and others, 1989). The ore minerals are confined to the breccia 

pipe column (fig. 3) and the enclosing fracture zone (ring fractures). The principal form of alteration in the rocks surrounding the deposits is nearby bleaching of iron-oxide minerals, 

thereby turning red sandstones and siltstone to a bleached 

white color. The uraninite and associated ore minerals are 

generally fine grained in size, less than 1/32 of an inch across.

Uranium Mining

Mining in breccia pipes of the Grand Canyon region 

began in the 1860s. Prior to 1940, all of the mineral production was for copper, lead, zinc, and silver. The discovery of 

high-grade uranium deposits in the Orphan Lode (breccia) 

pipe led to uranium production at this site in 1956, about 

two miles west of Grand Canyon Village on the South Rim 

of Grand Canyon National Park. Though the Orphan Lode 

deposit seemed to be unique (an “orphan”), discovery of 

uranium there led to the discovery of uranium in breccia pipes 

in the region. The Orphan Mine produced 4.3 million pounds 

of U3O8 from 1956 to 1969 (Chenoweth, 1986) and was by far 

the largest uranium producer in this region during the early 

era of uranium production of the 1950s and 1960s. Modest 

uranium production came from a few other breccia pipe mines 

during this period, including the Hacks (or Hack Canyon), 

Ridenour, and Chapel Mines (Chenoweth, 1988). The Hack 

Canyon Mine produced only about 5,000 pounds of U3O8

from 1951 to 1954 and in 1961. Mining is no longer permitted within the national park, nearby national monuments, or 

protected areas of Kaibab National Forest on the North Rim.

Exploration for these kinds of deposits occurred throughout the 1970s, and uranium mining resumed in 1980. During 

the 1980s and early 1990s, nine pipes were mined or developed, including eight in the North Segregation Area (Kanab 

Creek area)—the Hack 1, Hack 2, Hack 3, Pigeon, Hermit, 

Kanab North, Arizona 1, and Pinenut pipes—and one in 

the South Segregation Area (Kaibab National Forest)—the 

Canyon pipe. Mining at the Hack 1, Hack 2, Hack 3, Pigeon, 

and Hermit pipes was completed by 1989 and the sites were 

then reclaimed. All of the modern breccia pipe mines (1980s 

forward) in northern Arizona have been underground operations. Auxiliary surface operations at these kinds of sites typically occupy about 15–20 acres. The uranium ore is not milled 

on site; since 1980, uranium ore from these mines has been 

shipped to a mill near Blanding, Utah, for processing.

Sulfide minerals associated with orebodies have the 

potential to produce acidic waters. However, the rock 

fragments (breccias) that host the orebodies, as well as the 

sedimentary rock units that surround the breccia pipes, include 

limestone and calcareous sandstone that have a high capacity 

to buffer acid waters (Wenrich and others, 1995). The breccia 

pipe mineral deposits are porous and weather rapidly. Based 

on experiences with newly mined deposits in the region, the 

uranium ores can oxidize within six months when exposed 

to surface conditions (Wenrich and others, 1995), indicating 

rapid leaching and chemical reaction of these materials, even 

in the arid environment of northern Arizona.

Overview of This Report

Chapters in this report provide an overview of geological, geochemical, hydrological, and biological issues related 

to uranium mining and natural resources of the designated 

segregation areas in the Grand Canyon region. Each chapter 

provides a detailed discussion of the focus area and, where 

relevant, identifies additional scientific research that would 

increase understanding and reduce uncertainty for the issues. 

The summaries that follow provide a general description of the 

contents of each chapter.

Chapter A, “Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia 

Pipes in Northern Arizona,” estimates the amount of available uranium resources in the segregation areas. The authors 

compare uranium endowments from these segregation areas 

with endowments from other favorable uranium mining areas 

in northern Arizona.

Chapter B, “Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the 

Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona,” provides a summary of the geochemistry of surface soils and sediments from 

a 2009 field assessment of several reclaimed and inactive 

breccia pipe uranium mines on the plateau north of the Grand 

Canyon. Stream sediments were also evaluated at a site with 

no mining history and no known uranium deposits. Chemical 

analysis for uranium and co-occurring trace metals and measurements of gamma radiation were completed at each site. 

Samples from breccia pipe sites were analyzed to determine 

historic wind and water dispersion, and some mine waste 

samples were evaluated for effects of weathering.

Chapter C, “Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of 

Wells, Perennial and Intermittent Streams, and Springs in 

Northern Arizona,” provides an evaluation of available historic 

water-chemistry data and water-chemistry data collected in 

2009 for wells, springs, and streams in the Grand Canyon 
14 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

region. Historical data were used to evaluate effects of legacy 

mining and provide a baseline concentration for dissolved uranium in water in northern Arizona. New data were collected in 

the three segregation areas. 

Chapter D, “Biological Pathways of Exposure 

and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated 

Radionuclides,” compiles available chemical and radiation 

toxicity information for plants and animals from the scientific 

literature on naturally occurring uranium and associated radionuclides. Exposure pathways are described and a food web 

specific to the segregation areas is developed. This chapter 

summarizes pertinent information that will aid in the development of an ecological risk assessment, but it does not estimate 

or derive guidance thresholds for uranium or radionuclides 

associated with uranium.

Acknowledgments

The tireless efforts of the chapter authors are commendable for completing their research and chapter in the extremely 

short timeframe given. The assistance of support staff was 

integral in the production of this document, from overseeing 

administrative tasks to creating figures. The staff of the 

U.S. Geological Survey Enterprise Publishing Network was 

instrumental in finalizing the text, graphics, and layout. And 

finally, the Bureau Approving Official was remarkable for his 

swift reviews and approval.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without 

the funding support provided by the leaders of U.S. Geological 

Survey and the Bureau of Land Management. Special thanks 

go to Suzette Kimball and Anne Kinsinger who provided the 

executive guidance and leadership for the project.

USGS Flagstaff Science Campus

Serena Mankiller, Biology, administrative and publication support

Kristin Brown, Biology, GIS and editing support

Marilyn Flynn, Hydrology, GIS and illustration support

George Billingsley, Geology, geologic mapping support

USGS Enterprise Publishing Network

Ed Swibas, Publishing Science Center Chief

Melanie Parker, Editor

Mary Margaret Coates, Editor

Loretta Ulibarri, Visual Information Specialist

Joy Monson, Visual Information Specialist

Mari Kauffman, Visual Information Specialist

Lisa Binder, Map Editor

USGS Bureau Approving Official

Ron Kirby, Biology Discipline–Western Region

References Cited

Beus, S.S., and Morales, M., 2003, Grand Canyon geology 

(2d ed.): New York, Oxford University Press, 432 p.

Billingsley, G.H., 2000, Geologic map of the Grand Canyon 

30' × 60' quadrangle, Coconino and Mohave Counties, 

northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series I–2688, version 1.0, 15 p., 

scale 1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., Block, D.L., Dyer, H.C., 2006, Geologic 

map of the Peach Springs 30' × 60' quadrangle, Mohave 

and Coconino Counties, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map 2900, 17 p., 

scale 1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., Felger, T.L., and Priest, S.S., 2006, Geologic 

map of the Valle 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, Coconino County, 

northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Scientific Investigations Map 2895, 27 p., scale 1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., and Priest, S.S., 2010, Geologic map of the 

House Rock Valley area, Coconino County, northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 

3108, 26 p., scale 1:50,000.

Billingsley, G.H., Priest, S.S., and Felger, T.H., 2007, Geologic map of the Cameron 30' × 60' quadrangle, Coconino 

County, northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map 2977, 33 p., scale 1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., Priest, S.S., and Felger, T.H., 2008, Geologic map of the Fredonia 30' × 60' quadrangle, Mohave 

and Coconino Counties, northern Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Scientific Investigations Map 3035, 25 p., 

scale 1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., Spamer, E.E., and Menkes, Dove, 1997, 

Quest for the pillar of gold—The mines and miners of the 

Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon, Ariz., Grand Canyon Association Monograph 10, 112 p.

Billingsley, G.H., and Wellmeyer, J.L., 2006, Geologic map 

of the Mount Trumbull 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, Mohave 

and Coconino Counties, northwestern Arizona, version 1.1: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series I–2766, 36 p., scale 1:100,000. [Version 1.0 

published 2003.]

Billingsley, G.H., and Workman, J.B., 2000, Geologic map 

of the Littlefield 30' × 60' quadrangle, Mohave County, 

northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic 

Investigations Series I–2628, 25 p., scale 1:100,000.
Introduction 15

Bills, D.J., Flynn, M.E., and Monroe, S.A., 2007, Hydrogeology of the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino 

and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5222, 101 p., 4 plates.

Blinn, D.W., and Cole, G.A., 1991, Algal and invertebrate 

biota in the Colorado River—Comparison of pre- and postdam conditions, in Colorado River ecology and dam management, Santa Fe, N. Mex., 24–25 May 1990, Proceedings: 

Washington, DC, National Academy Press, p. 102–123.

Brown, D., and Lowe, C., 1982, Biotic communities of the 

southwest United States and Mexico: Desert Plants [University of Arizona], v. 4, no. 1–4, special issue.

Chenoweth, W.L., 1986, The Orphan Lode Mine, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona—A case history of a mineralized, 

collapse-breccia pipe: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 86–510, 91 p., 35 p. appendix.

Chenoweth, W.L., 1988, The production history and geology 

of the Hacks, Ridenour, Riverview, and Chapel breccia 

pipes, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 88–648, 60 p.

Farnsworth, R.K., Thompson, E.S., and Peck, E.L., 1982, 

Evaporation atlas for the contiguous 48 United States: 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

Technical Report NWS 33, 26 p.

Finch, W.I., Pierson, C.T., and Sutphin, H.B., 1992, Grade and 

tonnage model of solution collapse breccia pipe uranium 

deposits, in Bliss, J.D., ed., Developments in mineral 

deposit modeling: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2004, 

p. 36–38.

Flint, A.L., and Flint, L.E., 2007, Application of the basin 

characterization model to estimate in-place recharge and 

runoff potential in the Basin and Range carbonate-rock 

aquifer system, White Pine County, Nevada, and adjacent 

areas in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5099, 20 p.

Flint, A.L., Flint, L.E., Hevesi, J.A., and Blainey, J.B., 2004, 

Fundamental concepts of recharge in the desert southwest—

A regional modeling perspective, in Hogan, J.F., Phillips, 

F.M., and Scanlon, B.R., eds., Groundwater recharge in 

a desert environment—The southwestern United States: 

American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Applications Series, v. 9, p. 159–184.

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 2004, Biological inventory 

and assessment of ten South Rim springs in Grand Canyon 

National Park—Revised final report, 21 July 2004: Flagstaff, Ariz., Grand Canyon Wildlands Council Inc., National 

Park Service Contract WPF–230, 62 p.

Ludington, S. Moring, B.C., Miller, R.J., Stone, P.A., 

Bookstrom, A.A., Bedford, D.R., Evans, J.G., Haxel, G.A., 

Nutt, C.J., Flyn, K.S., and Hopkins, M.J., 2007, Preliminary 

integrated geologic map databases for the United States. 

Western states—California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, and Utah (ver. 1.3): U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2005–1305, variously paged.

Moreton, Christopher, and Ross, David, 2009, Technical report on 

the EZ1 and EZ2 breccia pipes, Arizona Strip District, U.S.A.: 

Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc., prepared for 

Denison Mines Corp. [variously paged], accessed November 3, 

2009, at http://sec.edgar-online.com/denison-mines-corp/

6-k-report-of-foreign-issuer/2009/08/18/section24.aspx.

Nabhan, G.P., ed., 2002, Safeguarding the uniqueness of the 

Colorado Plateau—An ecoregional assessment of biocultural diversity: Flagstaff, Ariz., Center for Sustainable 

Environments, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, 97 p.

Oberlin, G.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1999, Watershed influences on the macroinvertebrate fauna of ten major 

tributaries of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, 

Arizona: Southwestern Naturalist, v. 22, p. 17–30.

Olson, D.M, Dinerstiene, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgress, 

N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., D’Amico, J.A., 

Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, 

T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, 

W.W., Hedeo, P., and Kassem, K.R., 2001, Terrestrial 

ecoregions of the world—A new map of life on Earth: 

Bio Science, v. 51, p. 933–938.

Pool, T.C., and Ross, D.A., 2007, Technical report on the 

Arizona strip uranium project, U.S.A.: Scott Wilson Roscoe 

Postle Associates Inc., prepared for Denison Mines Corp., 

116 p.

PRISM Climate Group, 2006, United States monthly or 

annual precipitation, 1971–2000: Oregon State University, PRISM Climate Group, accessed May 29, 2008, at 

http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu.

Spiering, E.D., 2009, Exploration and discovery of blind 

breccia pipess—The potential significance to the uranium 

endowment of the Arizona Strip District, northern Arizona 

[presentation]: U2009 Globel Uranium Symposium, Keystone, Colo., May 9–13, 2009, accessed November 2, 2009, 

at http://www.quaterraresources.com/uploads/projects/

presentation_global_uranium_symposium_09_05.pdf.

Stevens, L.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W., 1997, Colorado River benthic ecology in Grand Canyon, Arizona, 

USA—Dam, tributary, and geomorphological influences: 

Regulated Rivers—Research and Management, v. 13, no. 2, 

p. 129–149.
16 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Stevens, L.E., Sublette, J.E., and Shannon, J.P., 1998, Chironomidae (Diptera) of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, 

Arizona, USA—II. Factors influencing distribution: Great 

Basin Naturalist, v. 58, no. 2, p. 147–155.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2009, Notice of intent 

to prepare an environmental impact statement for a 

proposed withdrawal in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon, 

Arizona: Federal Register, v. 74, no. 164, August 26, 2009, 

p. 43152–43153.

Webb, Bob, 2002, 2002 debris flows and floods in Grand 

Canyon: Grand Canyon River Guides—Boatmans Quarterly 

Review, v. 15, no. 4, accessed October 22, 2009, at 

http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/15-4/debris.html.

Webb, R.H., Smith, S.S., and McCord, V.A.S., 1991, Historic 

channel change of Kanab Creek, southern Utah and northern Arizona: Grand Canyon Natural History Association 

monograph no. 9, 91 p.

Wenrich, K.J., 1985, Mineralization of breccia pipes in northern Arizona: Economic Geology, v. 80, p. 1722–1735.

Wenrich, K.J., Chenoweth, W.L., Finch, W.I., and Scarborough, 

R.B., 1989, Uranium in Arizona, in Jenney, J.P., and 

Reynolds, S.J., eds., Geologic evolution of Arizona: Arizona 

Geological Society Digest 17, p. 759–794.

Wenrich, K.J., and Sutphin, H.B., 1988, Recognition of 

breccia pipes in northern Arizona: Fieldnotes [Arizona 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology], v. 18, no. 1, 

p. 1–5, 11.

Wenrich, K.J., Van Gosen, B.S., and Finch, W.I., 1995, Solutioncollapse breccia pipe U deposits (Model 32e; Finch, 1992), 

in du Bray, E.A., ed., Preliminary compilation of descriptive 

geoenvironmental mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 95–831, p. 244–251.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2004, SOD USA climate 

archive—Arizona: Western Regional Climate Center, 

accessed November 2, 2009, at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/

summary/Climsmaz.html.
Introduction 17

Appendix 1. Scientific Names of Plant and Animal Species Included in the Text

Within major groups, species are listed alphabetically by common name. Scientific names are accurate according to the 

Integrated Taxonomic Information System, http://www.itis.gov/, last updated December 24, 2009.

Vascular plants

Ash Fraxinus spp.

Aspen Populus tremuloides

Banana yucca Yucca baccata

Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata

Blackbrush Coleogyne ramosissima

Catclaw Acacia greggii

Cottonwood Populus fremontii

Creosotebush Larrea tridentata

Fir Abies spp.

Gambel oak Quercus gambelii

Juniper Juniperus spp.

Maidenhair fern Adiantum capillus-veneris

Mesquite Prosopis spp.

Monkey flower Mimulus spp.

Mormon tea Ephedra spp.

Netleaf hackberry Celtis laevigata

Oak Quercus spp.

Pinyon pine Pinus edulis

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus spp.

Redbud Cercis canadensis

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila

Snakeweed Gutierrezia spp.

Spruce Picea spp.

Tamarisk Tamarix spp.

White bursage Ambrosia dumosa

Willow Salix spp.

Invertebrates

Kanab ambersnail Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis

Fish

Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus

Brown trout Salmo trutta

Carp Cyprinus carpio

Fish—Continued

Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis

Humpback chub Gila cypha

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus

Reptiles

Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater

Birds

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Canyon wren Catherpes mexicanus

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Great blue heron Ardea herodias

Kestrel Falco sparverius

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida

Nuthatch Sitta spp.

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

Phoebe Sayornis spp.

Raven Corvus corax

Red-tail hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Mammals

Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Coyote Canis latrans

Deer Odocoileus spp.

Elk Cervus elaphus

Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

Mountain lion Puma concolor

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Ringtail cat Bassariscus astutus

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Uranium Resource Availability in 

Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona

By James K. Otton and Bradley S. Van Gosen

Chapter A of

Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization 

of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Edited by Andrea E. Alpine

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Contents

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................23

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................23

Previous Mineral Appraisals in the Grand Canyon Area ......................................................................26

Uranium Production and Inferred Resources from Pipes in and near the 

Three Segregation Areas..............................................................................................................28

Characteristics of Breccia Pipes, Related Circular Features, and Resultant 

Uncertainties in Resource Estimation ........................................................................................29

The 1990 Finch and Others Estimate.........................................................................................................31

Differences in the Surface Area Calculation between the 1990 Finch and 

Others Report and the Present Study .........................................................................................34

Estimated Resources Associated with Pre-2009 Mineral Withdrawal Lands 

in Northern Arizona........................................................................................................................34

Estimates of the Uranium Resources in the Three Segregation Areas..............................................35

Pre-Existing Mining Claims and Estimated Undiscovered Uranium Endowment .............................36

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................36

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................37

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................37

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................41

Figures

1. Map showing northern Arizona and the three segregation areas.....................................24

2. Map showing mining claims in and near the North, East, and South 

Segregation Areas......................................................................................................................25

3. Favorable (A–D) and unfavorable (E) areas for breccia pipe uranium 

deposits in northern Arizona.....................................................................................................27

4. Simplified geologic cross section of a typical breccia pipe showing 

maximum known vertical stratigraphic extension and location of ore .............................30

5. Map of the Hack-Pinenut control area for uranium-bearing solutioncollapse breccia pipes...............................................................................................................33
Tables

1. Production and inferred reserve amounts of U3O8 reported for nine mines 

in the North and South Segregation Areas ............................................................................28

2. Surface areas reported for favorable area A by Finch and others ....................................34

3. Comparison of surface areas calculated during this study compared to 

other sources ..............................................................................................................................34

4. Calculated surface areas of previously withdrawn lands that lie within 

favorable area A .........................................................................................................................35

5. Estimated undiscovered uranium endowment for previously withdrawn 

lands within favorable area A...................................................................................................35

6. Surface area of the July 2009 segregation areas .................................................................35

7. Estimated undiscovered uranium endowment in the July 2009 

segregation areas.......................................................................................................................35

8. Estimated undiscovered uranium endowment in the July 2009 segregation 

areas under pre-existing mining claim and not under pre-existing mining claim...............36

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Mass

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg)

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg)

Abstract

In 1990, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that a 

mean undiscovered uranium endowment of 1.3 million tons 

(2.6 billion pounds) U3O8 is present in breccia pipe deposits 

in northern Arizona. This estimate exceeds the December 31, 

2003, U.S. uranium reserves estimate of 445 thousand tons 

(890 million pounds) U3O8 for developed deposits elsewhere 

in the United States. This chapter examines what part of that 

undiscovered uranium endowment in northern Arizona is not 

available for exploration, development, or mining because of 

previous withdrawals of Federally owned land from mineral entry and the newly proposed withdrawals in the Grand 

Canyon area, announced July 21, 2009.

The estimated mean undiscovered uranium endowment 

for the areas in northern Arizona withdrawn from mineral entry 

prior to July 21, 2009—which include the national park, two 

national monuments, the game preserve on forest lands, and 

tribal lands—is 466,384 tons (about 933.6 million pounds) 

U3O8, or 35 percent of the 1990 estimate of 1,315,383 total 

estimated tons (about 2.63 billion pounds) U3O8 in all favorable areas in northern Arizona. The estimated mean undiscovered uranium endowment for the three segregation areas 

proposed for withdrawal in the July 21, 2009, announcement is 

162,964 tons (about 326 million pounds) U3O8, or 12 percent of 

the total. Combined, the three segregation areas and previously 

withdrawn areas would contain about 48 percent of the total 

estimated undiscovered uranium endowment in all favorable 

areas for northern Arizona. However, these segregation areas 

and previously withdrawn areas are all within favorable area A, 

the most prospective area according to the 1990 estimate. The 

combined existing and proposed withdrawal lands would represent 69 percent of the 910,350 tons (1.82 billion pounds) U3

O8 

previously estimated to occur in favorable area A.

Introduction

On July 21, 2009, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Secretary Ken Salazar proposed the withdrawal of two parcels 

of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land north of Grand 

Canyon National Park from further mineral entry for a period 

of two years. A few days later, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 

Thomas Vilsack proposed the withdrawal of the Tusayan 

Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest south of Grand 

Canyon National Park. Existing mining claims in the three 

areas with valid existing rights are not affected.

These three parcels of land (fig. 1) total 1,075,384 acres 

(R. Cox, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, oral commun., 

2010). Underlying these parcels of land are numerous breccia 

pipes, a few of which contain uranium mineralization. Some 

of these breccias pipes contain sufficient uranium mineralization to have been mined from the early 1950s to about 1992. 

These uranium resources are the focus of this chapter.

Following BLM terminology, these parcels of land that 

have been proposed for withdrawal are referred to as the 

North, East, and South Segregation Areas (fig. 1). The North 

Segregation Area is mostly BLM land in the Kanab Creek 

drainage north of Grand Canyon National Park and west of 

North Kaibab National Forest. The East Segregation Area is 

also mostly BLM land in the House Rock Valley area east of 

North Kaibab National Forest, south of the Vermilion Cliffs 

National Monument, and northwest of the Colorado River. 

The South Segregation Area is U.S. Forest Service land, the 

Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest.

The Grand Canyon area has been the location of modest 

mining activity since the late 1800s. During the 1950s, five 

breccia pipe deposits were mined for uranium. From 1952 

until 1969, the Orphan Mine produced a significant quantity of uranium, about 2,150 tons (4.3 million pounds) U3

O8

(Chenoweth, 1986). In the 1970s, exploration for uranium in 

the Grand Canyon area became very active and thousands of 

mining claims were filed on Federal and other lands across the 

region. Much of this activity was focused on the Kanab Creek 

drainage area (North Segregation Area) because of the excellent exposures of several breccia pipes along canyon walls and 

other surface indications in aerial photos away from canyons. 

Figure 2 shows the distribution of mining claims in and 

near the three segregated areas; note the dense mining claim 

coverage in the North Segregation Area, the lesser amount of 

mining claims in the South Segregation Area, and the very 

few mining claims in the East Segregation Area. The mine 

claim coverage reflects the varied intensity of past exploration 

among these three land parcels.

Chapter A

Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes 

in Northern Arizona

By James K. Otton and Bradley S. Van Gosen
24 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Bright Angel

Creek

Cataract Creek

Havasu Creek

Little Color a do River

Kanab Creek

Virgin River

Col o rado River

Colorado River

EXPLANATION

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Forest Service

Tribal land

National Park Service

State land

Private land

Segregation area—Boundary

National Monument—Boundary

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Washington

St. George

Littlefield

Peach Springs

Valle

Tusayan

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry VERMILLION CLIFFS

NATIONAL

MONUMENT

Jacob

Lake

Kanab

Fredonia KAIBAB -

PAIUTE

RESERVATION

Colorado City

Big Water

Supai Village North Rim

HAVASUPAI

RESERVATION

NORTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION

AREA

HUALAPAI

RESERVATION

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

GRAND CANYON - PARASHANT

NATIONAL MONUMENT

KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST

NAVAJO

RESERVATION

LAKE

MEAD

NRA

LAKE

MEAD

NRA

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

UTAH

ARIZONA

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

SEGREGATION AREAS

(Proposed mineral withdrawal areas)

Data provided by U.S. Geological Survey and 

Bureau of Land Management.

Map created on 11/10/09 by K.M. Brown

Map revised on 5/24/10 by T. Arundel

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

PIPE SPRING

NATIONAL

MONUMENT

Figure 1. Map showing northern Arizona and the three segregation areas, parcels of Federal land removed from further mineral 

entry for a two-year period beginning July 21, 2009, pending a longer withdrawal. Boundaries for other major land holdings are 

shown. From U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2009. NRA, National Recreation Area.
Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 25

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Forest Service

Tribal land

Grand Canyon National Park

National Monuments

State land

Private land

Mining claims

Segregation area—Boundary

National Monument—Boundary

 

EXPLANATION

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

KAIBAB-PAIUTE 

RESERVATION

KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST

NAVAJO 

RESERVATION

Fredonia Page

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

HAVASUPAI 

RESERVATION

Supai

Village

HUALAPAI

RESERVATION

Frazier Wells

Grand Canyon

Village

VERMILION

CLIFFS

MONUMENT

Colorado City

113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

Marble

Canyon

GRAND CANYON–PARASHANT

 NATIONAL

MONUMENT

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

Base from Microsoft Virtual Earth, 2009: Microsoft 

Corporation, ArcGIS Online Premium Map Service, 

Bing Maps Roads. Copyrights: (c)2009 ESRI, (c)2009 

Microsoft Corporation, (c)2008 NAVTEQ, (c) AND, (c) 

MapData Sciences Pty Ltd., (c)2007 Zenrin, (c)2007 

Intermap. See http://maps.live.com for a complete list 

of data suppliers. 

0

0

20 40 MILES

20 40 KILOMETERS

Col o rado River

Colorado River

Figure 2. Map showing mining claims in and near the North, East, and South Segregation Areas. Leases on State lands (blue 

areas) are not shown. Digital files for mining claims provided by Rody Cox, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, September 2009, 

and plotted by Laura Biewick, U.S. Geological Survey.
26 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

During the 1970s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

assessed the uranium resources of the United States, including the area of breccia pipes in northern Arizona, and published the assessments in 1980 (Baillieul and Zollinger, 1980; 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1980). Subsequently, during the 

1980s, Karen Wenrich and colleagues of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) conducted several studies of breccia pipes 

across northern Arizona. Information from mining companies 

in the area, notably Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (EFN), was 

made available for Wenrich’s studies. The USGS used this 

new information to re-evaluate the uranium resource potential, 

completing their study in 1987 (Finch and others, 1990). This 

resource assessment work was part of an agreement with DOE 

to update undiscovered uranium resources in specific areas of 

the United States where new information became available 

(Finch and McCammon, 1987).

The area of northern Arizona considered favorable for 

the occurrence of breccia pipe uranium deposits (fig. 3) was 

defined by Finch and others (1990). They estimated that 

a mean undiscovered uranium endowment of 1.3 million 

tons (2.6 billion pounds) U3O8 is present in breccia pipes in 

northern Arizona. (“Uranium endowment” is the uranium 

that is estimated to occur in rock with a grade of at least 

0.01 percent U3O8.) This mean undiscovered uranium endowment is the average of a range of estimates from 338,948 tons 

(about 678 million pounds) U3O8 with a high probability 

of occurrence to 2,757,230 tons (about 5.5 billion pounds) 

U3O8 with a low probability of occurrence. The estimated 

mean undiscovered uranium endowment in northern Arizona 

exceeds the December 31, 2003, uranium reserves estimate 

of 445,000 tons (890 million pounds) U3O8 for the entire 

United States by the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(2004). For comparison, the 104 U.S. nuclear reactors consume about 27,500 tons (55 million pounds) U3

O8/yr. About 

1,750–2,250 tons (3.5–4.5 million pounds) U3O8 are produced 

from U.S. uranium mines each year, and the remainder of 

the U.S. uranium needs is supplied from foreign sources and 

U.S. utility inventory.

This chapter addresses four primary topics:

1. Review of previous mineral resource studies in the 

Grand Canyon area and deposit-specific breccia pipe 

uranium production and resource estimates developed 

from company data;

2. Discussion of uncertainties in uranium resource estimates 

for breccia pipes;

3. Evaluation of the Finch and others (1990) undiscovered 

uranium resource estimate of 1987; and

4. Evaluation of the availability of uranium resources 

defined by Finch and others (1990) through an estimate 

of the resource in lands withdrawn from mineral entry 

prior to July 21, 2009, and an estimate of the undiscovered uranium resource that may be present in the three 

segregation areas (currently proposed for withdrawal).

Previous Mineral Appraisals 

in the Grand Canyon Area

During the 1980s, prior to the Finch and others (1990) 

study, several areas of northern Arizona had mineral resource 

appraisals completed that included areas with potential for 

breccia pipe deposits. None of these studies provided quantitative resource estimates. Areas covered in these studies include: 

• Kanab Creek Roadless Area (Billingsley and Ellis, 1983; 

Billingsley and others, 1983; Hopkins and others, 1984). 

This roadless area is a narrow, 14-mi2 tract that follows 

Snake Gulch, a major eastern tributary to Kanab Creek. 

It lies along the boundary between the section of the 

Kaibab National Forest north of the Grand Canyon and 

the North Segregation Area (fig. 1).

• Pigeon Canyon, Nevershine Mesa, and Snap Point 

Wilderness Study Areas in the western part of what is 

now the Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument 

(Lane, 1984; Billingsley and others, 1986). These three 

contiguous study areas are in the Grand Wash Cliffs 

area along the western edge of the favorable area A 

(fig. 3) outlined by Finch and others (1990).

• Vermilion Cliffs–Paria Canyon area, now the Vermilion 

Cliffs National Monument (Bush and Lane 1982 a, b; 

Bush 1983). This area lies immediately north of the East 

Segregation Area (fig. 1).

• Mt. Trumbull Wilderness Study Area (McDonnell, 

1984), now part of the Grand Canyon–Parashant 

National Monument (fig. 3).

The USGS conducted extensive geologic studies of breccia pipes on the Hualapai Reservation (Wenrich and others, 

1986; Verbeek and others, 1988; Wenrich and Sutphin, 1988; 

Van Gosen and Wenrich, 1989; Wenrich and others, 1990; 

Wenrich and others, 1996; Wenrich and others, 1997; Wenrich 

and Huntoon, 2000). Sutphin and Wenrich (1989) also mapped 

1,296 breccia pipes for the entire Grand Canyon area.

Wenrich (1992) studied breccia pipe deposits in an area 

of four 7.5’ quadrangles near Red Butte in the Tusayan Ranger 

District. The intent was to establish a control area for evaluating the uranium mineral potential of the remainder of Kaibab 

National Forest. During a joint USGS and U.S. Bureau of 

Mines study, Bliss and Pierson (1993) and Scott (1992) evaluated the mineral resources of the Kaibab National Forest. Bliss 

and Pierson (1993) provided quantitative resource estimates 

for uranium resources using the Finch and others (1990) 

methodology. The Kaibab National Forest districts evaluated 

include the North Kaibab Ranger District, a large, previously withdrawn forested area between the North and East 

Segregation Areas, and the Tusayan Ranger District (South 

Segregation Area).
Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 27

NR—Navajo Reservation 

NK—North Kaibab National Forest 

GC—Grand Canyon National Park 

HaR—Havasupai Reservation 

HuR—Hualapai Reservation 

GCP—Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument 

PR—Kaibab Paiute Reservation 

Segregation area—Boundary

EXPLANATION

Favorable area A

Favorable area A

Favorable area B

Areas D

 and E

D & E

D & E

NR

PR

NK

HuR

HaR

GCP GC

GC

GC

114°00' 112°00' 110°00'

37°00'

36°00'

35°00'

Favorable area C

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Figure 3. Favorable (A–D) and unfavorable (E) areas for breccia pipe uranium deposits in northern Arizona. Boundaries 

for favorable areas digitized from Finch and others (1990, fig. 2). Previously withdrawn areas are shown where they occur 

within favorable area A only. The North, East, and South Segregation Areas are also shown.
28 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Uranium Production and Inferred 

Resources from Pipes in and near 

the Three Segregation Areas

From 1951 to1969, uranium production in the Grand 

Canyon region occurred at five breccia pipes: the Hacks 

(or Hack Canyon), Ridenour, Orphan Lode (or Orphan), 

Riverview, and Chapel Mines (Chenoweth, 1986, 1988). 

Except for the Orphan Mine, all production was modest. 

Only the Hack Canyon Mine lies within an area proposed 

for withdrawal, the North Segregation Area. The Hack 

Canyon Mine produced about 2.5 tons (5,000 pounds) U3O8

from 1951 to 1954 and in 1961. The Orphan Mine produced 

about 2,150 tons (4.3 million pounds) U3O8 from 1956 to 

1969 from a breccia pipe located about 1 mi northwest of 

Grand Canyon Village (Chenoweth, 1986). The average 

grade was 0.43 percent U3O8. The Orphan Mine is within 

the Grand Canyon National Park, about 3.5 mi north of the 

South Segregation Area northern boundary. The Ridenour, 

Riverview, and Chapel Mines are within other lands previously withdrawn from mineral entry.

Exploration for breccia pipe uranium deposits occurred 

in the Grand Canyon region through much of the 1970s, 

but mining did not resume until 1980. Although the price of 

uranium dropped dramatically in the early 1980s, existing 

purchase contracts and the high grade of the breccia pipe ores 

allowed for profitable mining. During the 1980s and early 

1990s, nine breccia pipe deposits were mined or developed: 

eight breccia pipes were in the North Segregation Area—

Hack 1, Hack 2, Hack 3, Pigeon, Hermit, Kanab-North, 

Arizona 1, and Pinenut—and one breccia pipe was in the 

South Segregation Area—the Canyon Mine. Mining at the 

first five of these pipes has been completed and the sites have 

been reclaimed. Reclamation at the Hack 1, 2, and 3 Mines 

included the older Hack Canyon operations. The Kanab-North 

breccia pipe has been mined, but minor amounts of uranium 

ore remain in the workings and the mine has been on standby 

status since 1992. The Pinenut breccia pipe was also mined 

with an estimated 15 percent of the uranium ore removed; it 

has been on standby status since 1989. The Arizona 1 breccia 

pipe was developed by a shaft and nearly completed by 1992, 

but operations ceased without any uranium ore having been 

produced. Surface operations at the Canyon Mine breccia pipe 

were developed and a shaft collared to a depth of 50 ft (Pool 

and Ross, 2007). The Arizona 1 Mine and the Canyon Mine 

are also on standby status.

Production and inferred reserves reported for these 

nine mines are given in table 1. All data are from NI 43-101 

independent technical reports for Denison Mines by Pool and 

Ross (2007) and Moreton and Ross (2009) and are herein considered the best information available. Energy Fuels Nuclear 

(EFN) developed and mined these nine breccia pipes in the 

North Segregation Area from 1980 through 1994, producing 

9,550 tons (19.1 million pounds) U3O8.

Combined uranium production from the mines in the 

North Segregation Area plus production from the Orphan 

Mine near the South Segregation Area total 11,650 tons 

(23.3 million pounds). No production or reserves have been 

reported for the East Segregation Area.

McMurray Geological Consulting (2003) has independently evaluated the uranium reserve potential of the Grand 

Canyon area by studying exploration and development drilling 

information from several companies for the pipes discussed 

here as well as for other breccia pipe deposits drilled but not 

developed. The report concludes that “proven, probable, and 

potential reserves” of 24 million pounds U3O8 are present 

in 11 breccia pipes in the area north and south of the Grand 

Canyon (in the North and South Segregation Areas) and in 

State and private lands west of the South Segregation Area, 

which includes the 6 pipes listed above (McMurray Geological 

Consulting, 2003, table 3, p. 13). The report further states 

that, in the breccia pipes mined in the North Segregation Area, 

inferred reserves based on surface drilling can be expanded 

Table 1. Production and inferred reserve amounts of U3O8 reported 

for nine mines in the North and South Segregation Areas.

North Segregation Area—production

Mine Production amounts Average grade

(% U3O8)

Hack 1 1.42 million pounds 0.53

Hack 2 7.00 million pounds 0.70

Hack 3 1.12 million pounds 0.50

Pigeon 5.7 million pounds 0.65

Hermit 550,000 pounds 0.76

Kanab-North 2.77 million pounds 0.53

Pinenut 526,000 pounds 1.02

North and South Segregation Areas—inferred reserves1

Mine Production amounts Average grade

(% eU3O8)

2

Arizona 1 956,000 pounds 0.68

Canyon 1.5 million pounds 1.08

Pinenut 873,000 pounds 0.44

Kanab-North minor reserves remain

EZ1 436,404 pounds 0.543

EZ2 428,252 pounds 0.424

1

Six properties only; Pool and Ross, 2007; Moreton and Ross, 2009.

2

“e” refers to reliance on gamma logging of deep drill holes for the 

reserve measurement.

3

Reported as proven, probable, and potential mineral reserves by EFN, 

February 1988. Pathfinder Mines Corp. reported indicated mineral reserves 

at 1.4 million pounds U at 0.66% eU3O8 in 2004.

4

Reported as proven, probable, and potential mineral reserves by EFN, 

February 1988. Pathfinder Mines Corp. reported indicated mineral reserves 

at 1.9 million pounds U at 0.44% eU3O8 in 2004.
Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 29

significantly when the company in question completes a shaft 

and drifts and conducts more detailed development drilling 

underground. The individual orebodies in these pipes are typically very narrow, vertically oriented, and difficult to intercept 

during surface drilling. Using data reported for the 6 mined 

pipes (McMurray Geological Consulting, 2003, table 4), 

the report concludes that the ratio of actual measured reserves 

to surface-indicated reserves is 3.65:1. Based on his analysis, 

which found increases in uranium reserves based on the past 

underground development of pipes, McMurray (2003, table 5, 

p. 17) concluded that, in his terms, “adjusted reserves” of 

87.5 million pounds U3O8 exist in breccia pipes drilled at the 

time of the analysis. This value, combined with known production cited above, exceeds 100 million pounds U3

O8.

Companies known to have recently conducted exploration in and near the three segregation areas include Denison 

Mines, Quaterra Resources Inc., VANE Minerals Group, 

Tournigan Energy Ltd. (Tournigan USA Inc.), Liberty Star 

Uranium & Metals Corp., Energy Fuels Resources Corp., 

DIR Exploration, Inc., and Uranium One Exploration, 

U.S.A. (R. Cox, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, written 

commun., 2009).

Characteristics of Breccia 

Pipes, Related Circular Features, 

and Resultant Uncertainties in 

Resource Estimation

The principal question in resource estimation is how 

many deposits of what size are present in a particular area. For 

the Grand Canyon region, the question is not only how many 

breccia pipes are present, but also how many of them are mineralized with uranium. A description of the breccia pipes and 

their geologic setting helps geologists understand the difficulties in exploring for them.

Breccia pipes in the Grand Canyon region typically 

extend vertically from the Mississippian Redwall Limestone 

as much as a few thousand feet, locally reaching the Petrified 

Forest Member of the Triassic Chinle Formation (fig. 4). The 

breccia pipes are roughly circular in shape, about 200–400 ft 

in diameter, and have a solution-collapse origin. The breccia 

pipes are often characterized by inward-dipping beds along the 

margins and internal ring-shaped fracture zones. The width of 

the collapsed zone in the overlying beds can be many times 

larger than the largest diameter of the pipe itself. The solution 

collapse has generated abundant breccia derived from overlying strata. The breccias may have abundant voids or openings or may be tightly cemented by a variety of minerals, 

including uranium minerals.

Where it occurs, uranium mineralization is usually located in 

the pipe adjacent to the upper part of the Supai Group, the Hermit 

Formation, or the Coconino Sandstone, but can also extend much 

higher or lower stratigraphically. Weak uranium mineralization 

may extend several hundred feet to over 1,000 feet within a pipe. 

A sulfide cap may be present in the upper part of the mineralized 

portion of a pipe. A wide variety of other trace elements accompany the uranium; copper and silver are present in many breccia 

pipes in sufficient quantities to have been mined in years past. 

Bleaching of nearby wallrock, weakly uraniferous iron-cemented 

zones in permeable wallrock, and a weak geochemical signature in soils, springs, and stream sediments may be present. The 

breccia pipe deposits formed 200–260 million years ago (Wenrich 

and Sutphin, 1989). 

Several plateaus formed in the areas north and south of 

the Grand Canyon, mostly during erosion that predates the 

canyon. Each of the plateaus is capped by resistant rocks, from 

varying formations in the stratigraphic section. Examples of 

plateau-capping units include the Redwall Limestone in the 

western part of the Grand Canyon area and the lower Permian 

Kaibab Formation in the east. The level of erosion controls 

the degree of preservation of uranium deposits in the Grand 

Canyon area. Where the Redwall Limestone caps a plateau, 

many breccia pipes are exposed, but there is little remnant 

oxidized mineralization preserved in the pipes because the 

mineralization primarily occurs adjacent to formations well 

above the Redwall Limestone. Where the Kaibab Formation 

forms the plateau surface, the pipes are only occasionally 

exposed in deeper canyons. In the Vermilion Cliffs area, 

formations that postdate the Chinle Formation cap the plateau 

and there is no known exposure of breccia pipes, although 

they may be present beneath the plateau.

The ease of investigating breccia pipes exposed on canyon walls throughout the region led to the mining of copper 

and silver in the late 1800s and more recently for the mining 

of uranium. However, detection of the presence of unexposed 

breccia pipes on plateaus is more difficult. On plateau surface 

areas, features that suggest a breccia pipe may be present 

include roughly circular grassy outlines in vegetation, inward 

dipping beds, zones of alteration in the center, oval to circular 

depressions with radial drainage, and depressions with surrounding raised ridges (Wenrich and Sutphin, 1988; Wenrich 

and others, 1990). However, many of these features can have 

other origins, including:

• sinkholes derived from the dissolution of limestone in 

the Kaibab Formation;

• collapse features caused by dissolution of gypsum beds 

in the Harrisburg Gypsiferous Member of the Kaibab 

Formation and Woods Ranch Member of the Toroweap 

Formation; and

• zones of stratabound, oxidized copper-mineralized 

breccias in the Kaibab Formation.
30 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Chinle

Formation

Moenkopi

Formation

Kaibab

Formation

Toroweap

Formation

TRIASSIC

251–200 Ma

PERMIAN

299–251 Ma

PENNSYLVANIAN

318–299 Ma

MISSISSIPPIAN

359–318 Ma

DEVONIAN

416–359 Ma

Petrified Forest

 Member

Shinarump Member

upper red member

middle red member

lower red member

Timpoweap Member

Shnabkaib Member

Harrisburg Member

Fossil Mountain Member

Woods Ranch Member

Brady Canyon Member

Seligman Member

Coconino Sandstone

Hermit Formation

Esplanade Sandstone

Wescogame Formation

Manakacha Formation

Watahomigi Formation

Surprise Canyon

 Formation

 (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone

Temple Butte Formation Supai Group

uranium ore

uranium ore

unconformity

Diameter of surface depression

Holocene alluvium

 Average thickness

or range in thickness

 (in feet)

300–350

0–200

400–1200

Coconino

 Plateau

0–300

200–250

100–200

30–400

30–90

0–600

50–1200

Esplanade

 surface

300–400

150–200

180–230

130–150

0–400

450–700

0–400

Owl Rock Member

100–200

Figure 4. Simplified geologic cross section of a typical breccia pipe showing maximum known vertical stratigraphic extension 

(about 3,000 feet) and location of ore. Internal structure of the pipe is not shown. The width across a pipe is typically 200–400 feet 

and is often narrowest in the “throat” where it passes through the Hermit Formation..
Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 31

Once a feature is evaluated for geologic, geochemical, 

and geophysical characteristics, further exploration would 

involve drilling. Pool and Ross (2007, p. 11-1) report:

Shallow drilling was often conducted to locate the 

centre of the collapse feature as a guide to the throat 

of the underlying breccia pipe. The basic tool for 

exploring breccia pipes in northern Arizona is deep 

rotary drilling supplemented by core drilling, to a 

depth of 2,000 ft. or more from surface. Prospective 

pipes were usually first tested with three drill holes. 

If no showing of mineralization was present, the 

effort was abandoned.

Drilling of breccia pipes is a difficult process. 

Substantial depths, approximately 2,000 ft., small 

targets, approximately 200 ft. in diameter, and nonhomogeneous rock formations combine to limit the 

accuracy of the drilling process. The presence of 

cavernous and brecciated sediments near the present land surface can result in loss of circulation of 

drilling fluid; as a result, much drilling is conducted 

“blind”. Periodic “spot cores” are taken to determine 

whether or not holes are within the target structure 

or have drifted away from the pipe. Indeed, most 

pipes cannot be completely drilled out from the surface due to deviation from desired targets. All drill 

holes are surveyed for deviation and logged with 

gamma logging equipment.

If surface drilling provides sufficient encouragement 

that a mine can be developed on that basis, a vertical 

shaft is sunk or drilled to its ultimate depth and 

underground drill stations are established at various 

levels to provide platforms for further exploration 

and delineation drilling. Drilling from underground 

stations typically utilized large-bore percussion 

drills. The resulting drill holes, out to as much as 

approximately 200 ft., were then gamma logged and 

surveyed as a supplement to surface drilling.

As previously discussed, many breccia pipes may have 

little or no surface expression and are thus hidden. The 

Hack 2 pipe was recognized only by some surface bleaching in an outcrop of Hermit Shale along a canyon wall. The 

presence of the breccia pipe was confirmed by subsequent 

drilling (G. Billingsley, oral commun., 2009). Without the 

canyon incision, the breccia pipe would not have had any 

surface expression. Quaterra Resources Inc. has used airborne 

variable time-domain electromagnetic (VTEM) geophysical 

surveys to identify possible hidden breccia pipes (Spiering, 

2009). The company announced a significant drilling intercept of 57 ft averaging 0.33 percent U on their A-1 VTEM 

anomaly. Upward stoping by solution collapse at the A-1 

pipe had stopped about 400 ft below the present land surface. 

The company reports that another hidden pipe, A-20, has 

been confirmed as having significant uranium intercepts. In 

their surface holdings of 85 mi2 within and near the North 

Segregation Area, Quaterra reports over 200 geophysical 

anomalies, only a few of which have been drilled.

These factors make it difficult to use estimates of numbers of pipes or density of pipes per square mile, percentage 

of mineralized pipes, and the average size of orebodies to 

estimate undiscovered uranium resources. This is especially 

true for gently rolling plateau surfaces with very limited 

dissection, which do not provide three-dimensional exposure necessary to recognize breccia pipes. The East and 

South Segregation Areas occupy such topography, whereas 

the North Segregation Area has substantial dissection along 

Kanab Creek and its tributaries. Work by Scott (1992) on 

the South Segregation Area illustrates the difficulty. Using 

simple drainage, topography, color, and vegetation criteria 

developed by Wenrich and Sutphin (1988) and from analyses 

of aerial photos, Scott lists 495 “circular features” (Scott, 

1992, table 4, p. 121–126). Of these, 104 circular features 

were field checked for evidence of concentric, inward-dipping 

beds and visible alteration. Only 9 of the 104 features had both 

of these criteria (Scott, 1992, table 5) and are thus more likely 

to be breccia pipes. Even with these two criteria at a site, only 

drilling can determine with certainty whether a breccia pipe 

is present and if it contains uranium mineralization. Wenrich 

(1992) reports nine documented mineralized breccia pipes in 

the Tusayan Ranger District.

The 1990 Finch and Others Estimate 

In 1987, Finch and others (1990) prepared a quantitative estimate of the undiscovered uranium “endowment” 

in breccia pipes in the Grand Canyon region of northern 

Arizona. This estimate did not consider whether the deposits 

are economically recoverable. The estimate was based on 

studies that established the criteria that appear to control the 

presence of breccia pipes, regional geologic mapping, detailed 

investigation of a well-characterized area, and the depositsize-frequency (DSF) method (Finch and McCammon, 1987). 

The DSF method is a modified version of the DOE’s National 

Uranium Resource Evaluation method used to assess undiscovered uranium resources for the entire United States. Based 

on geologic criteria related to formation and preservation of 

the deposits, the northern Arizona region was divided into four 

favorable areas (A–D) and one unfavorable area (E) (fig. 3). 

Unfavorable area E is underlain by the Redwall Limestone, 

but none of the pipes in the Redwall Limestone contain 

significant uranium mineralization in that area. The method 

evaluates the undiscovered uranium endowment of the various 

favorable areas by comparing the favorable areas to a reasonably well-exposed and explored “control area.”
32 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

The formula used to assess undiscovered uranium endowment (Finch and McCammon, 1987; Finch and others, 1990, 

p. 5) is as follows:

U A n

A

T G L ic

i c

k

= i

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟ × =

∑1

(1)

where

U is the unconditional uranium endowment in tons 

of U3O8 above a cutoff of 0.01 percent U3O8,

A is the favorable area in square miles,

k is the number of deposit-size classes (four for the 

Grand Canyon area),

nic/Ac is the spatial density (number of deposits/unit area) 

of deposits of size Ti within a control area Ac,

Ti is the tons of endowed rock in the i

th depositsize class,

Ac is the control area from which estimates of nic/Ac

are taken,

G is the grade distribution of endowment, in decimal 

fraction form,

and

L is the optional scaling factor that expresses 

the relation between the endowment in the 

favorable area to either the control area or some 

designated subarea for which estimates of the 

number of deposits in different size classes have 

been made.

Note that the factor within the parentheses when multiplied by 

G has the unit of tons U3O8 per square mile and therefore can 

be considered as an endowment density.

Grade distributions, size-frequency distributions, 

L-factors, and associated probabilities of occurrence were 

established by elicitation from the principal scientist, 

H.B. Sutphin, on April 19 and 20, 1987. The surface areas 

of all favorable area subdivisions were calculated. The Finch 

and others (1990) study also subdivided favorable areas by 

the presence of volcanic rocks or younger age sedimentary 

formations. The eight National Topographic Mapping System 

(NTMS) 1°×2° quadrangles that cover the region were also 

used to subdivide the region. The TENDOWG software 

developed by DOE and modified by the USGS (McCammon 

and others, 1988) was used to calculate the undiscovered 

uranium endowment in 17 favorable subareas. The calculated 

undiscovered uranium endowments for each subarea were 

ranked according to probability of occurrence from 0.05 to 

0.95 and a mean probability value was calculated. The sum 

of the mean probabilities for the entire Grand Canyon region 

is the most likely endowment value for undiscovered uranium 

according to the method.

The North Segregation Area includes the Hack-Pinenut 

control area used in the Finch and others (1990) resource 

estimate, a 141-mi2 area within favorable area A covering 

almost all of four townships centered on the Hack and Pinenut 

Mines (fig. 5). Characterization of the Hack-Pinenut control 

area by Finch and others (1990) was based on a USGS review 

of exploration and development drillhole logs and calculations 

of U3O8 reserves provided by EFN for its entire drilling program. EFN was the primary mining claim owner and the only 

producer of uranium in the area during the 1980s.

Finch and others (1990) show that most of the undiscovered uranium endowment (910,350 tons [1.82 billion 

pounds] of U3O8 out of a total 1.315 million tons [2.6 billion 

pounds] U3O8) lies within the highest ranked favorable area 

A. As mentioned earlier, all three segregation areas fall within 

favorable area A (fig. 3). Favorable area A is limited on the 

west by outcrops of the base of the Hermit Formation where it 

is exposed in cliffs along the western margin of the Colorado 

Plateau and in the canyon of the Colorado River. On the north 

and east, it is bounded by outcrops of the top of the Petrified 

Forest Member of the Chinle Formation. Breccia pipes have 

not been observed in rocks younger than this member. The 

southernmost limit is a line drawn arbitrarily about 10 mi 

south of the southernmost known breccia pipes. Favorable 

area A includes many areas underlain by volcanic and young 

sedimentary rocks of varying thickness that would make it 

very difficult to explore for and develop deposits. The endowment of those areas was calculated but considered separately 

as a secondary group in Finch and others (1990). Volcanic 

and young sedimentary rocks do not occur in any of the three 

segregation areas.

The calculated results for the mean endowment of the 

Hack-Pinenut control area is 16,429 tons U3O8 (Finch and 

others, 1990) or 32.8 million pounds U3O8 in the 141-mi2 area. 

The range of values (probability 0.05–0.95) was from 4,337 

to 34,063 tons (8.7 to 68 million pounds) U3O8. The mean 

endowment figure yields an average density of 116.5 tons 

(233,000 pounds) U3O8/mi2. To date, known production 

(Hack 1, 2, 3, Pinenut) and inferred reserves (Pinenut, 

Arizona 1) in the Hack-Pinenut control area total 5,950 tons 

U3O8 (11.9 million pounds U3O8) . Several additional mineralized breccia pipes (10), known breccia pipes (12), and possible 

breccia pipes (9) (fig. 5) are in the Hack-Pinenut control area 

and hidden pipes may be present (Finch and others, 1990, map 

on p. 9; McMurray Geological Consulting, 2003; Spiering, 

2009). These pipes would contain the balance of the uranium 

resource estimate.
Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 33

112° 39’ 25” 112° 52’ 35”

36° 28’ 05”

36° 38’ 31”

R.5W. R.4W.

T.37N.

T.36N.

Wildband

Rock Sw

OJ Tank

Wizard

SIN 686

Sunshine

Yucca

AINO State 37-4-16

SIN 20 SIN 22

SIN 506 Hack 1

Top 3

2

Ida

Ida 2 5

Hack

Copper Lady

Andy

State 35-5-32

Nate

SIN 208

Timpo

Little Rob

Lostcalf

Wildcat

JHA

Arizona 1 3

2

Pinenut

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Breccia pipe 

Possible breccia pipe 

Mineralized breccia pipe

ARIZONA

Index map

Control area

Figure 5. Map of the Hack-Pinenut control area for uranium-bearing solution-collapse breccia pipes. From Finch and 

others (1990). East side shows boundary between favorable area A and favorable area D.
34 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Differences in the Surface Area 

Calculation between the 1990 Finch 

and Others Report and the Present Study

During GIS analysis of surface areas for the areas withdrawn 

before July 21, 2009, the authors noted that calculated surface 

areas for the present report were higher than those cited by Finch 

and others (1990). The surface area for favorable area A derived 

from Finch and others (1990) is shown in table 2. Note that not 

all of the surface area of certain Federal units (Grand Canyon 

National Park, Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument), 

tribal land (the Hualapai and Havasupai Reservations), and other 

entities are in favorable area A. The surface areas of those land 

units are split between favorable area A away from the Colorado 

River and favorable area D and unfavorable area E along the river 

where erosion has removed the most favorable rock units. The 

surface of the Hack-Pinenut control area is included in the total 

because Finch and others (1990) excluded it from their resource 

appraisal and the endowment was calculated separately.

The surface area calculated by the present study for favorable area A, 10,750 mi2

, is 16.3 percent larger than that calculated 

by Finch and others (1990). The Finch and others map (1990, 

fig. 2) included longitude and latitude lines that permitted georeferencing and facilitated a recalculation of the area for this study. 

As the exact surface area affects the endowment density calculation, the surface areas calculated for this study for two Forest 

Service units of land and two reservations were also compared 

to those reported from official sources (table 3). The comparisons show that the surface areas determined in the present study 

for tribal, park, monument, and forest entities are reasonably 

accurate representations. Differences may reflect differences in 

delineation of boundaries, exclusion or inclusion of inholdings 

and water bodies, and the type of projection used to calculate 

surface areas. If the higher values for surface areas are accepted, 

then the endowment densities determined during the Finch 

and others (1990) study need to be adjusted downward from 

112.4 tons U3O8/mi2 to 96.6 tons U3O8/mi2 (from 224,800 pounds 

to 193,200 pounds). Note that the lower, corrected undiscovered 

uranium endowment density (96.6 tons U3O8/mi2) is compensated 

for by the increased surface area for all favorable areas; therefore, 

the Finch and others (1990) endowment numbers are the same.

Estimated Resources Associated with 

Pre-2009 Mineral Withdrawal Lands 

in Northern Arizona

Prior to July 2009, several tracts of land in favorable area 

A were withdrawn from mineral entry in the Grand Canyon 

area. An estimate of the surface areas of these withdrawn lands 

within favorable area A was made using a digitized version of 

the Finch and others map (1990, fig. 2), boundary files for the 

withdrawn lands, and GIS techniques for calculating surface areas 

of intersecting polygons using the Albers equal area projection. 

The calculated surface areas of specific lands is given in table 4.

Using the corrected average of the endowment density for 

favorable area A of 96.6 tons (193,200 pounds) U3O8/mi2, the 

endowment for the areas withdrawn before July 2009 can be 

calculated as in table 5.

Bliss and Pierson (1993, p. 33) also evaluated the undiscovered uranium endowment of the Kaibab National Forest (KNF), 

based on the Finch and others (1990) assessment:

The total mean unconditional endowment of 

233,000 short tons (st) (211,000 metric tons (mt)) U3O8

for the KNF is 18 percent of the total mean endowment 

of 1,320,000 st (1,200,000 mt) estimated for solutioncollapse breccia pipes in the Grand Canyon Region of 

Northern Arizona and adjacent Utah (Finch and others, 

1990). Most of the undiscovered U3O8 endowment in 

this region for this deposit type is expected to be found 

Table 2. Surface areas reported for favorable area A by Finch 

and others (1990, table 2). 

[Ab, areas with basalt cover; As, areas with young sediment cover; NTMS, 

National Topographic Mapping System]

NTMS 1° × 2°

quadrangle name Subarea Surface area(mi2)

Grand Canyon A 4,290

Ab 399

Cedar City A 207

Williams A 1,665

As 201

Ab 232

Marble Canyon A 1,095

Ab 1

Flagstaff A 843

Ab 173

Subtotal 9,106

Hack-Pinenut

control area

Partly in area A 141

Total 9,247

Table 3. Comparison of surface areas calculated during this 

study compared to other sources.

Name of

withdrawn area

Surface area of

unit calculated

during this study

(mi2)

Published

surface area from 

official sources

(mi2)

Tusayan Ranger District 520 5181

Havasupai Reservation 269 2942

Hualapai Reservation

(main section)

1,590 1,5513

North Kaibab Ranger District 1,022 1,0104

1

U.S. Forest Service, 2009a; M. Porter, Kaibab National Forest, written 

commun., October 2009.

2

Center for American Indian Economic Development, 2009a.

3

Center for American Indian Economic Development, 2009b.

4

U.S. Forest Service, 2009b.
Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 35

in areas outside of the KNF. Of the three units evaluated (North Kaibab District, Tusayan District, and the 

combined Chalendar-Williams districts), the North 

Kaibab district is expected to contain approximately 

half of the undiscovered uranium endowment (mean 

of 112,000 st (102,000 mt) U3O8) predicted in the 

KNF. The remaining undiscovered uranium endowment is almost equally divided between the other two 

units—57,800 st (52,400 mt) in the Tusayan District 

and 63,400 st (57,500 mt) in the combined ChalendarWilliams districts. [A short ton, “st” in Bliss and 

Pierson (1993), is equivalent to a ton.]

Pierson was one of the authors of the Finch and others 

(1990) report; in their report, Bliss and Pierson (1993) appear to 

have used the 112.4 tons (224,800 pounds) U3O8/mi2 endowment 

density and a surface area very similar to that determined here 

for the North Kaibab Ranger District to calculate the reported 

112,000 tons (224 million pounds) U3O8, as that number is 

identical to the number calculated here using the uncorrected 

endowment density.

Estimates of the Uranium Resources 

in the Three Segregation Areas

The three proposed withdrawal areas are the North 

Segregation Area (BLM lands mostly in the Kanab Creek watershed), the East Segregation Area (BLM lands in the House Rock 

Valley area), and the South Segregation Area (Forest Service 

lands in the Tusayan Ranger District). Table 6 gives the surface 

area of these lands based on digital boundary files provided by 

Rody Cox (BLM, written commun., 2009).

Again using the corrected endowment density for favorable area A of 96.6 tons (193,200 pounds) U3

O8/mi2, the endowment for the three proposed withdrawal areas can be calculated 

as in table 7.

The undiscovered uranium endowment estimate calculated 

for the South Segregation Area is less than the estimate calculated 

by Bliss and Pierson (1993), apparently because they used the 

higher, uncorrected endowment density and an accurate surface 

area. If the original endowment density is used, then the calculated values would be about 1 percent greater than Bliss and 

Pierson’s calculation.

In testimony to The Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests, and Public Lands of the Committee on Natural Resources 

on July 21, 2009, Madan Singh of the Arizona Department of 

Mines and Mineral Resources stated that 375 million pounds 

(187,500 tons) U3O8 occur within the three segregation areas 

(Singh, 2009). This estimate is also based on the Finch and others 

(1990) resource analysis and used the surface areas of the three 

proposed withdrawal areas as originally found in the bill by 

Representative Grijalva and the uncorrected endowment density 

at 112.4 tons (224,800 pounds) U3O8/mi2 (M. Singh, written 

commun., 2009).

Table 4. Calculated surface areas of previously withdrawn lands 

that lie within favorable area A (see fig. 3).

[Note that differences may exist between the surface areas shown here and 

other sources. For Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon–Parashant 

National Monument, the Hualapai and Havasupai Reservations, and other 

entities, the surface areas are split between favorable area A and favorable 

area D and unfavorable area E along the canyon of the Colorado River and 

its tributaries]

Withdrawn

land designation

Surface area

(mi2)

Grand Canyon National Park 762

Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument 976

Havasupai Reservation 234

Hualapai Reservation 557

North Kaibab National Forest 997

Navajo Reservation 1,194

Kaibab Paiute Reservation 90

Vermilion Cliffs National Monument 18

Total for withdrawn areas 4,828

Table 5. Estimated undiscovered uranium endowment for 

previously withdrawn lands within favorable area A.

Withdrawn

land designation

Endowment

in tons U3O8

Grand Canyon National Park 73,609

Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument 94,282

Havasupai Reservation 22,604

Hualapai Reservation 53,806

North Kaibab National Forest 96,310

Navajo Reservation 115,340

Kaibab Paiute Reservation 8,694

Vermilion Cliffs National Monument 1,739

Total for withdrawn areas 466,384

Table 6. Surface area of the July 2009 segregation areas.

Segregation

area

Surface area

(mi2)

North 952

East 226

South 509

Total 1,687

Table 7. Estimated undiscovered uranium endowment in the 

July 2009 segregation areas.

Segregation

area

Endowment

in tons U3O8

North 91,963

East 21,832

South 49,169

Total 162,964
36 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Pre-Existing Mining Claims 

and Estimated Undiscovered 

Uranium Endowment

Under the withdrawal proposal, mining claims filed 

before the proposal date will not be withdrawn from further 

development, but the validity of existing rights will need to be 

established during the segregation period. These pre-existing 

mining claims occupy varying percentages of each of the 

proposed withdrawal areas (fig. 2): for the North Segregation 

Area, 474 mi2, or 49.8 percent of the area; for the East 

Segregation Area, 4.4 mi2, or 1.9 percent of the area; and for 

the South Segregation Area, 149 mi2, or 29 percent of the area.

Although it seems probable that pre-existing mining 

claims were filed in areas with a higher potential for finding 

breccia pipes with significant uranium resources, an analysis 

of this effect on resource availability was not possible for this 

study. Table 8, based on the corrected endowment density and 

the surface area of pre-existing mining claims and areas outside of pre-existing mining claims, gives the uranium endowment within each segregation area that underlies existing 

mining claims and the endowment that does not.

pipes and mineralized breccia pipes represented by those 

circular features, or the tons of uranium in an average uranium 

mineralized breccia pipe. The key uncertainty is how well the 

Hack-Pinenut control area represents the remainder of favorable area A where most of the endowment occurs. This cannot 

be known with a greater degree of certainty without further 

exploration and development drilling in other areas, including 

further exploration for hidden breccia pipes suggested by geophysical techniques. The possibility of hidden breccia pipes 

was not considered explicitly in the Finch and others (1990) 

assessment. Further development of genetic models for the 

formation of the breccia pipe uranium ore deposits could aid a 

new assessment by allowing additional favorable and unfavorable factors to be developed and applied.

The estimated mean undiscovered uranium endowment 

for the areas withdrawn from mineral entry prior to July 21, 

2009, is 466,384 tons (about 933.6 million pounds) U3O8 

or 35 percent of the 1,315,383 total estimated tons (about 

2.6 billion pounds) U3O8 in all favorable areas in northern 

Arizona (Finch and others, 1990, tables 3 and 4). The estimated mean undiscovered uranium endowment for the three 

segregation areas proposed in the July 21, 2009, announcement is 162,964 tons (326 million pounds) U3

O8 or 12 percent. 

Combined, the three segregation areas and previously withdrawn areas would contain about 48 percent of the total estimated undiscovered uranium endowment in all favorable areas 

for northern Arizona (Finch and others, 1990, fig. 2). However, all three areas under consideration are within favorable 

area A, the most prospective area. The combined withdrawal 

would represent 69 percent of the 910,350 tons (1.82 billion 

pounds) U3O8 estimated to occur in favorable area A.

If the endowment under pre-existing mining claims is 

excluded from withdrawal in each of the three segregation 

areas, the estimated mean uranium endowment for the three 

segregation areas proposed in the July 21, 2009, announcement is 102,744 tons (205 million pounds) U3

O8 or 7.8 percent 

of the endowment in all favorable areas. Combined, the three 

segregation areas and previously withdrawn areas would contain about 43 percent of the total estimated uranium endowment in all favorable areas for northern Arizona. As noted 

above, all three segregation areas are within favorable area 

A, the most prospective area. Thus the combined withdrawal 

would represent 62.5 percent of the 910,350 tons (1.82 billion 

pounds) U3O8 estimated to occur in favorable area A.

Because of the difficulties in exploring for breccia pipes, 

assessing them, and proving that a breccia pipe uranium 

ore deposit can be mined economically, it seems likely that 

development of the resource would occur slowly. Nine breccia 

pipes were mined (Pigeon, Hermit, Hack 1, 2, 3), partly mined 

(Kanab North, Pinenut), or partially developed without mining (Arizona 1, Canyon) over a period of 12 to 14 years. The 

rate of development is sensitive to the price received for the 

produced uranium, a factor that has varied substantially in the 

past ten years; higher prices would encourage development.

Table 8. Estimated undiscovered uranium endowment in the 

July 2009 segregation areas under pre-existing mining claim and not 

under pre-existing mining claim (in tons U3O8). Differences between 

the total endowment in this table (163,380 tons U3O8) and that in 

table 7 (162,964 tons U3O8) are due to rounding errors.

Segregation

area

Endowment—

existing claims

Endowment—

not in

existing claims

North 45,808 46,136

East 425 21,832 

South 14,403 34,776 

Total 60,636 102,744

Conclusions

The Finch and others (1990) uranium resource estimate 

compares the well-exposed, reasonably well-explored and 

developed Hack-Pinenut control area to other areas where 

there is much less exposure and much less exploratory and 

development drilling. For favorable area A, the assumption 

was that the endowment in all of favorable area A closely 

resembles that of the Hack-Pinenut control area. The L-factors 

(see equation 1) used for all the favorable area A sectors 

throughout northern Arizona were 0.90 (lower), 0.99 (most 

likely), and 1.00 (upper), suggesting close resemblance to the 

Hack-Pinenut control area (Finch and others, 1990, table 2). 

L-factors for the other favorable areas are lower. Most likely 

L-factors for favorable areas B, C, and D were 0.55, 0.10, 

and 0.13, respectively. The estimate does not rely on counts 

of circular features, assumptions about the number of breccia 
Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 37

Acknowledgments

We thank Laura Biewick (USGS) for creating maps from 

GIS databases to display location information and for extracting surface area data from GIS files provided by Rody Cox 

(BLM) for the various features described in this report. 

Rody Cox, Madan Singh (Arizona Department of Mines and 

Mineral Resources), Cindy Woodward (Denison Mines), and 

David Scott (USGS) provided useful discussion and copies 

of documents related to uranium resources in breccia pipes 

in northern Arizona. Thomas M. Roesch (Newmont Mining 

Corporation) granted permission to use the McMurray 

Geological Consulting, Inc. report. We thank Warren Finch 

(USGS, emeritus) and David Scott (USGS) for reviewing an 

early version of this paper.

References Cited

Baillieul, T.A., and Zollinger, R.C., 1980, National uranium 

resource evaluation, Grand Canyon Quadrangle, Arizona: 

Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, U.S. Department of 

Energy Contract no. DE–ACI3–76GJOI664, 43 p.

Billingsley, G.H., Antweiler, J.C., Beard, L.S., and Lucchitta, 

Ivo, 1986, Mineral resource potential map of the Pigeon 

Canyon, Nevershine Mesa, and Snap Point Wilderness 

Study Areas, Mohave County, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 1860–A, 

scale 1:50,000, 10 p. text.

Billingsley, G.H., Antweiler, J.C., and Ellis, C.E., 1983, 

Mineral resource potential map of the Kanab Creek 

Roadless Area, Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies 

Map 1627–A, scale 1:48,000, 10 p. text.

Billingsley, G.H., and Ellis, C.E., 1983, Kanab Creek 

Roadless Area, Arizona, in Marsh, S.P., Kropschot, S.J., and 

Dickinson, R.G., eds., Wilderness mineral potential, assessment of mineral-resource potential in U.S. Forest Service 

lands studied 1964–1984: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1300, p. 76–78.

Bliss, J.D., and Pierson, C.T., 1993, Mineral resource assessment of solution-collapse breccia pipe uranium deposits, 

in Bliss, J.D., ed., Mineral resource assessment of undiscovered mineral deposits for selected mineral deposit types 

in the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 93–329, p. 30–33.

Bush, A.L., 1983, Geologic map of the Vermilion Cliffs–

Paria Canyon instant study area and adjacent wilderness 

study areas, Coconino County, Arizona, and Kane County, 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies 

Map MF–1475–A, scale 1:62,500, 1 plate.

Bush, A.L., and Lane, M.E., 1982a, Mineral resource potential map of the Vermilion Cliffs–Paria Canyon instant 

study area, Coconino County, Arizona, and Kane County, 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies 

Map 1475–D, scale 1:62,500, 11 p. text.

Bush, A.L., and Lane, M.E., 1982b, Geochemical data and 

sample locality map of the Vermilion Cliffs–Paria Canyon 

instant study areas and adjacent wilderness study areas, 

Coconino County, Arizona, and Kane County, Utah: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies 

Map 1475–B, scale 1:62,500, 1 plate.

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) 

Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions, 2005, CIM definition standards for mineral resources and mineral reserves: 

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 

accessed January 14, 2010, at http://www.cim.org/committees/

CIMDefStds_Dec11_05.pdf.

Center for American Indian Economic Development, 

[2009]a, Havasupai Reservation, Havasupai Tribe: 

Northern Arizona University, Center for American Indian 

Economic Development, accessed October 2009 at 

http://www.cba.nau.edu/caied/tribepages/Havasupai.asp.

Center for American Indian Economic Development, [2009]

b, Hualapai Reservation, Hualapai Tribe: Northern 

Arizona University, Center for American Indian 

Economic Development, accessed October 2009 at 

http://www.cba.nau.edu/caied/tribepages/Hualapai.asp.

Chenoweth, W.L., 1986, The Orphan Lode Mine, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona—A case history of a mineralized, 

collapse-breccia pipe: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 86–510, 91 p. [With a 35-page appendix.]

Chenoweth, W.L., 1988, The production history and geology 

of the Hacks, Ridenour, Riverview and Chapel breccia 

pipes, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 88–648, 60 p.

Finch, W.I., and McCammon, R.B., 1987, Uranium resource 

assessment by the Geological Survey—Methodology and 

plan to update the national resource base: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 994, 31 p.

Finch, W.I., Sutphin, H.B., Pierson, C.T., McCammon, R.B., 

and Wenrich, K.J., 1990, The 1987 estimate of undiscovered 

uranium endowment in solution-collapse breccia pipes in 

the Grand Canyon region of northern Arizona and adjacent 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1051, 19 p.

Hopkins, R.T., Fox, J.P., Campbell, W.L., and Antweiler, J.C., 

1984, Analytical results and sample locality map of streamsediment, panned concentrate, soil, and rock samples from 

the Kanab Creek (B3060) Roadless Area, Coconino and 

Mohave Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 84–291, 18 p., 1 map.
38 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Lane, M.E., 1984, Mineral investigation of the Pigeon Canyon, 

Nevershine Mesa, Snap Point, and Last Chance Wilderness 

Study Areas (BLM), Mohave County, Arizona: U.S. Bureau 

of Mines Mineral Land Assessment MLA 84–8, 61 pages, 

accessed October 2009, at http://www.admmr.state.az.us/

DigitalLibrary/USBM_MLA/USBM_MLA_008-84.pdf.

McCammon, R.B., Finch, W.I., Pierson, C.T., and Birdges, 

M.W., 1988, The micro-computer program TENDOWG for 

estimating undiscovered uranium endowment: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-653, 11 p., 1 diskette.

McDonnell, J.R., Jr., 1984, Mineral investigation of the Mount 

Trumbull Wilderness Study Area, Mohave County, Arizona: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Land Assessment MLA 

31-84, 11 p.

McMurray Geological Consulting, Inc., 2003, Analysis of 

breccia pipe-related uranium potential on the Arizona Strip: 

Englewood, Colo., McMurray Geological Consulting, Inc., 

22 p. [Prepared for Newmont Mining Corporation, used 

with permission.]

Moreton, Christopher, and Ross, David, 2009, Technical 

report on the EZ1 and EZ2 breccia pipes, Arizona Strip 

District, U.S.A.: Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates 

Inc., [variously paged], accessed October 2009, at 

http://sec.edgar-online.com/denison-mines-corp/

6-k-report-of-foreign-issuer/2009/08/18/section24.aspx. 

[Prepared for Denison Mines Corporation.]

Pool, T.C., and Ross, D.A., 2007, Technical report on the 

Arizona strip uranium project, U.S.A.: Scott Wilson 

Roscoe Postle Associates Inc., 116 p., accessed October 

2009, at http://www.denisonmines.com/SiteResources/data/

MediaArchive/pdfs/reserves/43-101%20arizona%20strip.

pdf. [Prepared for Denison Mines Corporation.]

Scott, D.C., 1992, Mineral appraisal of the Kaibab National 

Forest, Arizona: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Land 

Assessment Report MLA 6–92, 128 p., accessed October 

2009, at http://www.admmr.state.az.us/DigitalLibrary/

USBM_MLA/USBM_MLA_006-92.pdf.

Singh, M.M., 2009, Testimony for the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the Committee 

on Natural Resources, July 21, 2009: State of Arizona, 

Department of Mines and Mineral Resources, 8 p., accessed 

October 2009, at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/

images/Documents/20090721/parks/testimony_singh.pdf.

Spiering, E.D., 2009, Exploration and discovery of blind 

breccia pipes—The potential significance to the uranium 

endowment of the Arizona Strip District, northern Arizona, 

in U2009 International Uranium Conference, Keystone, 

Colo., May 9–13, 2009, Proceedings: Keystone, Colo., 

Quaterra Resources, Inc., 33 p., accessed October 2009, 

at http://www.quaterraresources.com/uploads/projects/

presentation_global_uranium_symposium_09_05.pdf.

Sutphin, H.B., and Wenrich, K.J., 1989, Map locations of 

collapse-breccia pipes in the Grand Canyon of Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89–550, 1 plate.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2009, Proposed mineral 

withdrawal environmental impact statement: Bureau of 

Land Management fact sheet, 6 p. (also available online 

at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs.

Par.53235.File.dat/Mining-Withdrawal-EIS-Fact-Sheet.pdf).

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996, Dictionary of mining, mineral, and 

related terms CD-ROM: U.S. Bureau of Mines, accessed January 14, 2010, at http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1980, An assessment report on 

uranium in the United States of America: U.S. Department 

of Energy GJO–111(80), 150 p., 6 microfiche.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2004, U.S. 

uranium reserves estimates by state: U.S. Energy 

Information Administration, accessed October 2009, 

at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/

uresst.html.

U.S. Forest Service, 2009a, Final environmental assessment—

Tusayan Ranger District travel management project: 

U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 169 p., accessed 

October 2009 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/travelmanagement/

documents/tus-tmr-ea-final-0416-2009.pdf.

U.S. Forest Service, 2009b, Kaibab National Forest—About 

us: U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, accessed 

December 2009 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/about/.

Van Gosen, B.S., and Wenrich, K.J., 1989, Ground magnetometer surveys over known and suspected breccia pipes on the 

Coconino Plateau, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1683–C, 31 p.

Verbeek, E.R., Grout, M.A., and Van Gosen, B.S., 1988, 

Structural evolution of a Grand Canyon breccia pipe—The 

Ridenour copper-vanadium-uranium mine, Hualapai Indian 

Reservation, Coconino County, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 88–006, 75 p.
Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 39

Wenrich, K.J., 1992, Breccia pipes in the Red Butte area of 

Kaibab National Forest: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 92–219, 13 p.

Wenrich, K.J., Billingsley, G.H., and Huntoon, P.W., 1996, 

Breccia-pipe and geologic map of the northwest part of 

the Hualapai Indian Reservation and vicinity, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Map I–2522, scale 1:48,000, 1 plate.

Wenrich, K.J., Billingsley, G.H., and Huntoon, P.W., 1997, 

Breccia-pipe and geologic map of the northeastern part 

of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and vicinity, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Map I–2440, scale 1:48,000, 2 plates, 19 p. text.

Wenrich, K.J., Billingsley, G.H., and Van Gosen, B.S., 1986, 

The potential for breccia pipes in the National Tank Area, 

Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 86–592–A, 45 p.

Wenrich, K.J., and Huntoon, P.W., 2000, Breccia-pipe and 

geologic map of the southeastern part of the Hualapai Indian 

Reservation and vicinity, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Map I–2643, scale 1:48,000, 

2 plates, 18 p. text.

Wenrich, K.J., and Sutphin, H.B., 1988, Recognition of 

breccia pipes in northern Arizona: Field Notes, v. 18, 

no. 1, p. 1–5.

Wenrich, K.J., and Sutphin, H.B., 1989, Lithotectonic setting 

necessary for formation of a uranium-rich, solution-collapse 

breccia-pipe province, Grand Canyon Region, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89–173, 33 p.

Wenrich, K.J., Verbeek, E.R., Sutphin, H.B., Modreski, 

P.J., Van Gosen, B.S., and Detra, D.E., 1990, Geology, 

geochemistry, and mineralogy of the Ridenour Mine 

breccia pipe, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 90–0504, 66 p.

Uranium Resource Availability in Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona 41

E

Endowment The physical aggregate of 

mineral occurrences in a region above some 

lower cutoff (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996). 

As used in this report, “uranium endowment” 

is the uranium that is estimated to occur in 

rock with a grade of at least 0.01 percent 

U3O8 (Finch and others, 1990).

M

Mineral entry The filing of a claim for public land to obtain the right to any minerals it 

may contain (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996).

Mineralization The process or processes by 

which a mineral or minerals are introduced into 

a rock, resulting in a valuable or potentially 

valuable deposit (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996).

O

Ore The naturally occurring material from 

which a mineral or minerals of economic 

value can be extracted profitably (U.S. Bureau 

of Mines, 1996).

Orebody A continuous, well-defined mass 

of material of sufficient ore content to make 

extraction economically feasible (U.S. Bureau 

of Mines, 1996).

Ore deposit A mineral deposit that has been 

tested and is known to be of sufficient 

size, grade, and accessibility to be producible 

to yield a profit (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996).

R

Reserves “Reserves” as used by U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (2004, p. 1) refers 

to “the sums of quantities estimated to occur 

Glossary

in known deposits on properties where data 

about the ore grade, configuration, and depth 

indicate that the quantities estimated could 

be recovered at or less than the stated costs 

given current mining and milling technology and regulations.” The “stated costs” are 

forward cost estimates at $30 per pound and 

$50 per pound. The term “reserves” is qualified 

by various authors cited in this report by words 

such as proven, indicated, probable, potential, 

and adjusted. The reader is referred to these 

cited reports for further information.

Resource “Resource” or “uranium resource” 

as used in this report closely follows the 

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy 

and Petroleum (CIM) definition:

A Mineral Resource is a concentration 

or occurrence of...natural solid inorganic 

material...in or on the Earth’s crust in such 

form and quantity and of such a grade or 

quality that it has reasonable prospects 

for economic extraction. The location, 

quantity, grade, geological characteristics 

and continuity of a Mineral Resource are 

known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge 

(CIM Standing Committee on Reserve 

Definitions, 2005).

U

Undiscovered uranium resource As used 

in this report refers to a uranium resource not 

presently known to exist but which can be 

inferred to exist by using geologic information and resource estimation methods.

Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the 

Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona

By James K. Otton, Tanya J. Gallegos, Bradley S. Van Gosen, Raymond H. Johnson, 

Robert A. Zielinski, Susan M. Hall, L. Rick Arnold, and Douglas B. Yager

Chapter B of

Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization 

of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Edited by Andrea E. Alpine

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Contents

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................49

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................50

Previous Investigations...............................................................................................................................52

Premining Geochemistry Studies.....................................................................................................52

National Uranium Resource Evaluation Soil Sampling .......................................................52

Snake Gulch Area......................................................................................................................52

Soils over Grand Canyon Breccia Pipes................................................................................54

SBF Pipe ......................................................................................................................................54

Canyon Pipe................................................................................................................................54

Soil Survey Results....................................................................................................................56

Postmining Geochemistry Study ......................................................................................................56

Hack Canyon and Kanab Creek...............................................................................................56

Kanab Creek Water Samples...................................................................................................60

Sampling, Sample Processing, and Analytical Methods ......................................................................60

Soil, Stream Sediment, and Mine Waste Sampling ......................................................................60

Sample Processing.............................................................................................................................61

Bulk Chemical Analysis......................................................................................................................61

Chain of Custody .................................................................................................................................61

Radioactivity Surveys.........................................................................................................................61

Batch Leaching ...................................................................................................................................62

Site Investigations .......................................................................................................................................62

Jumpup Canyon...................................................................................................................................63

Pigeon Mine.........................................................................................................................................63

Kanab North Mine.............................................................................................................................101

Kanab South Pipe .............................................................................................................................110

Hermit Mine .......................................................................................................................................112

Hack Mines........................................................................................................................................116

Leaching of Waste Samples ....................................................................................................................119

Pigeon Mine Samples ......................................................................................................................121

Kanab North Mine Samples............................................................................................................122

Hack Canyon Mines Samples.........................................................................................................122

Mobility of Contaminants.................................................................................................................124

Summary......................................................................................................................................................129

Future Studies.............................................................................................................................................130

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................................130

References Cited........................................................................................................................................131

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................133

Figures

1–2. Index maps showing location of sites studied in the:

 1. Kanab Creek area for this report ......................................................................................51

 2. Kanab Creek area studied during previous investigations...........................................53
3–4. Maps showing location of:

 3. Stream-sediment sample sites in Snake Gulch and adjacent 

Kanab Creek area................................................................................................................55

 4. SBF breccia pipe and Canyon breccia pipe....................................................................57

5–6. Photographs of:

 5. Pigeon Mine .........................................................................................................................64

 6. Pigeon Mine during operation...........................................................................................64

7. Map of site of Pigeon pipe ........................................................................................................65

8–10. Aerial photographs showing:

 8. Reclaimed Pigeon Mine site..............................................................................................65

 9. Concentration of selected elements at sample sites on Pigeon Mine site ...............66

 10. Radioactivity measurements at sample sites on Pigeon Mine site ..........................100

11. Photographs of Kanab North Mine........................................................................................101

12. Diagram of Kanab North Mine site, and aerial image used as base for the map..........102

13. Photograph of wastewater pond at the Kanab North Mine..............................................103

14–18. Aerial photographs showing:

 14. Concentration of selected elements at sample sites on the Kanab North 

Mine site and vicinity........................................................................................................104

 15. Radioactivity measurements at sample sites on the Kanab North Mine site .............110

 16. Kanab South breccia pipe................................................................................................111

 17. Uranium concentration at sample sites on the Kanab South breccia pipe site............. 111

 18. Reclaimed Hermit Mine....................................................................................................112

19. Map of mine-plan for Hermit Mine ........................................................................................113

20–23. Aerial photographs showing:

 20. Concentrations of selected elements at sample sites at Hermit Mine ....................114

 21. Radioactivity measurements at sample sites on the Hermit Mine site ....................116

 22. Hack Canyon, Robinson Canyon, and unnamed tributary canyon; Hack 

Canyon Mines approximately located ...........................................................................117

 23. Uranium concentration in stream sediment and in ore and waste-rock 

samples at sample sites in Hack Canyon Wash area..................................................118

24. Diagram showing concentration of 12 elements in stream sediments 

downstream from the Hack 1 Mine as a ratio of concentration in background 

stream sediments .....................................................................................................................119

25–28. Photographs showing:

 25. Ore and waste rock in the wash bottom of Hack Canyon ..........................................120

 26. Bottom of tributary canyon and Hack Canyon showing waste-rock terrace 

and mining operations ......................................................................................................122

 27. Eroded terrace downstream of former Hack 1 Mine at confluence of tributary

canyon and Hack Canyon .................................................................................................123

 28. Large waste-rock boulder in streambed approximately 10 ft west of low 

terrace shown in figure 27 ...............................................................................................124

29. Schematic diagram of processes expected to disperse trace elements in 

stored ore and mined waste rock at a mine site..........................................................125

30–31. Diagrams showing:

 30. Concentration of seven elements in ore from Hack Mine leached into 

simulated rainwater and following equilibration .........................................................128

 31. Percentage of uranium leached from five types of material during 

three experiments .............................................................................................................129
Tables

1. Summary of geochemical analyses of 31 stream sediment samples collected 

in the northern Kanab Creek and Snake Gulch area............................................................56

2. Summary of analyses of three soil samples collected from the Pigeon breccia 

pipe prior to mining.....................................................................................................................56

3. Average trace element concentrations in soil samples collected in the 

surface expression of two uranium-ore-bearing breccia pipes exposed on 

the Coconino Plateau.................................................................................................................58

4. Summary of elemental concentrations determined by premining and other 

previous studies..........................................................................................................................58

5. Summary of trace element content of bulk stream sediment samples from 

10 sites in Hack Canyon.............................................................................................................59

6. Summary of trace metal content in samples of stream sediment and waters 

from Kanab Creek .......................................................................................................................60

7. Trace element concentrations in stream sediment samples from Jumpup Canyon..............63

8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected 

by this study.................................................................................................................................78

9. Trace element concentrations of soil samples inside and outside the 

reclaimed area ..........................................................................................................................116

10. Whole-rock trace-element composition of samples selected for leaching 

compared with crustal abundance and average trace-element composition 

of the crust and of western soils............................................................................................125

11. Concentrations of uranium and other trace elements in 1- and 24-hour 

leachates of Pigeon samples..................................................................................................126

12. Concentrations of uranium and other trace elements in 1- and 24-hour 

leachates of Kanab North samples .......................................................................................126

13. Whole-rock composition of ore and rock from Hack Canyon and concentrations 

of uranium and trace elements in 1- and 24-hour leachates of ore collected in 

Hack Canyon..............................................................................................................................127
Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m)

Area

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Mass

ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 28.35 gram (g) 

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) 

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg) 

Concentration

Part per billion (ppb) 1.0 microgram per liter (μg/L)

part per million (ppm) 1.0 milligram per liter (mg/L)

ton per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 metric ton per year

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS 84).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
Abbreviations Used in This Report

< less than

> greater than

°C degree Celsius

μR/h microrad per hour (a rad is a unit of absorbed radiation dose causing 0.01 joule

 of energy to be absorbed per kilogram of matter) 

μg/L microgram per liter

μm micrometer

cfs cubic foot per second

cm centimeter

ft foot

g gram

h hour

in. inch

kg kilogram

lb pound

m/s meter per second

mg/L milligram per liter

mi mile

mm millimeter

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

DI deionized water

GFAA graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry 

GPS global positioning system

HSSR Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance

ICP–AES inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry

ICP–MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry

INAA instrumental neutron activation analysis

N north

NURE National Uranium Resource Evaluation

USBM U.S. Bureau of Mines

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

W west
Abstract

In August and October of 2009, the U.S. Geological 

Survey conducted a field assessment of the geochemistry of 

surface soils, waste rock, and sediments in and around several 

reclaimed or inactive breccia-pipe uranium mines; these mines 

are located on Bureau of Land Management lands in the Kanab 

Creek area north of Grand Canyon National Park. Surface soil, 

stream sediment, and mined waste-rock samples were collected at six sites that represent various stages of mining: mined 

and reclaimed (Hermit, Pigeon, and the Hack mine complex); 

partially mined and on hold (Kanab North); and mineralized 

and explored by drilling, but not mined (Kanab South). Previous studies on undisturbed sites in the study area suggest that 

soil and sediment can naturally contain as much as 5.6 parts per 

million uranium and 39 parts per million arsenic. The average 

soil uranium concentration in a region bounded by the surrounding twelve 7.5 minute quadrangles is 2.4 parts per million. 

Stream sediments were also collected in a canyon with no mining history or known uranium deposits—Jumpup Canyon—to 

provide geochemical data for comparison with data in the mined 

areas. Samples at breccia-pipe mine sites were analyzed to 

determine historic dispersion (by wind and water) of uranium 

and trace elements. Some samples were leached to simulate the 

potential mobility of uranium and other trace elements during 

weathering. Radioactivity was measured with a microR meter 

to determine the degree of exposure to radioactivity at each site. 

Findings show the following:

• Uranium and arsenic: These two elements were consistently the most abundant trace elements of concern at 

mined sites.

• Jumpup Canyon: Concentrations of uranium and other 

trace elements in stream sediments in this background 

area were lower than in regional soil levels. The 

Jumpup Canyon sediment samples (n=9) had average 

concentrations of 1.7 parts per million uranium and 

4.6 parts per million arsenic.

• Pigeon Mine: Fewer than 10 weathered uranium 

ore and waste-rock fragments were found at Pigeon 

reclaimed sites. Wind dispersed some wastes offsite. 

Soils collected inside the disturbed and reclaimed mine 

area (n=26) had median concentrations of 4.4 parts 

per million uranium and 41 parts per million arsenic, 

reflecting the geochemistry of the cover materials 

used to reclaim the site. Soils collected outside of the 

disturbed area (n=16) had median concentrations of 

6.3 parts per million uranium and 25 parts per million 

arsenic. Stream sediments below the mine contained 

elevated uranium and arsenic concentrations, but 

dispersion from the mine site and weakly mineralized 

rock outside the mine site may both be responsible.

• Kanab North Mine: Mined waste rock, uranium ore, 

pond sludge, and local wind- and water-dispersed 

fine particles on the unreclaimed mine site (all of 

which contained high concentrations of uranium and 

other trace element constituents such as arsenic) were 

exposed to the ambient environment for about 20 years 

at the Kanab North partially mined site. Offsite, only 

one soil sample approximated background uranium 

concentrations, suggesting that dispersion extends 

beyond the limit of sampling, about 420 feet. Soil 

samples (n=20) collected within about 420 feet outside 

of the fenced mine site had an average uranium concentration of 27.8 parts per million (more than 10 times 

background concentration) and arsenic concentration 

of 12 parts per million. Wind appears to be the dominant process dispersing material offsite.

• Kanab South drill site: Although uranium has not 

been mined at this breccia pipe site (only exploratory 

drilling has taken place), elevated concentrations of 

uranium and other trace elements are found at this site 

and in its vicinity as compared with concentrations in 

Jumpup Canyon and with regional concentrations in 

soils of the western United States. In six soils sampled 

around the drilled area, uranium concentrations ranged 

from 1.3 to 2.7 parts per million and arsenic concentrations ranged from 5 to 23 parts per million. In six 

stream sediments from the Kanab South area, uranium 

concentrations ranged from 1.5 to 3.6 parts per million 

and arsenic concentrations ranged from 4 to 20 parts 

per million. Several trace elements in stream sediment 

samples collected downstream from the pipe location 

were anomalously high by a small amount.

Chapter B

Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area 

of Northern Arizona

By James K. Otton, Tanya J. Gallegos, Bradley S. Van Gosen, Raymond H. Johnson, Robert A. Zielinski, 

Susan M. Hall, L. Rick Arnold, Douglas B. Yager
50 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

• Hermit Mine: The reclaimed Hermit Mine site, active 

for less than one year, contains very little evidence of 

elevated concentrations of uranium either onsite or 

offsite. The 22 soils sampled inside of the disturbed 

area averaged 4.6 parts per million uranium (median, 

3.1 parts per million) and 7.5 parts per million arsenic 

(median 6.0 parts per million); 35 soils and stream 

sediments collected outside of the disturbed area 

averaged 1.9 parts per million uranium (less than the 

regional background average of 2.4 ppm) (median 

1.6 parts per million), and 4.6 parts per million arsenic 

(median 4.0 parts per million).

• Hack 1 Mine: During mining, ore and waste-rock 

piles were eroded by a flash flood. Since the cessation 

of mining and completion of reclamation, reclaimed 

mined waste rock were eroded by floods that exposed 

covered uranium-enriched mined waste-rock and ore 

fragments in a terrace adjacent to the stream channel 

that runs through Hack Canyon. Fragments of material 

from these floods were found in the channel and on the 

floodplain for as much as a half mile downstream from 

the reclaimed site. Downstream from Hack 1, concentrations of uranium and arsenic in stream sediments 

ranged from 2.4 to 10.2 parts per million for uranium 

and from 9 to 17 parts per million for arsenic. The 

highest concentrations were found about a half mile 

downstream near the low end of the eroded terrace. 

Most trace elements in stream sediments were at background concentrations at a sample site about 1.7 mi 

east of the Hack 1 reclaimed mine site.

• Hack 2 and 3 Mines: In a reconnaissance radiometric 

survey, two anomalously radioactive areas (of less than 

1 square foot) and one uranium waste-rock or ore fragment were found downstream of the reclaimed Hack 2 

and 3 Mine area but above the location of the Hack 1 

Mine. A single stream-sediment sample downstream from 

the Hack 2 and 3 Mine area had concentrations of 5 parts 

per million uranium and 10 parts per million arsenic. 

However, the waste-rock fragment along the channel 

contained 7,760 parts per million uranium.

• Elevated radioactivity is evident at all sites (except the 

Jumpup Canyon background area). The highest microR 

measurements were found at the Kanab North Mine (a 

partially mined site with abundant mined waste rock at 

the surface inside a fenced site perimeter), followed by 

the Pigeon site and then the Hack Mine complex (within 

a half mile downstream of Hack 1 Mine). Much lower 

microR measurements were recorded at the Hermit site. 

Very little radiation above background concentrations 

was found at the unmined Kanab South site, except at 

a weakly uraniferous limonite-stained outcrop. Radioactivity rapidly decreases within 400 feet outside of the 

fenced area of the Kanab North site. Similarly, radioactivity notably decreased within a few feet of anomalous point sources (ore and waste-rock fragments) at 

reclaimed Pigeon, and Hack 1, 2, and 3 sites.

• Uranium in mine wastes that were leached with synthetic 

rainwater and simulated river water increased in solubility 

with increased weathering. This increased solubility was 

reflected in the percentages of uranium leached from solids during 24-hour contact with the synthetic rainwater: 

unweathered ore (0.2–0.33 percent), wind-transported 

fines (0.5–1.66 percent), weathered ore and waste rock 

(0.89–2.76 percent), and chemically redistributed uranium 

redeposited on waste (0.57–17.06 percent); backgroundarea samples leached 0.16–0.19 percent.

• Although experimental data indicate that concentrations of leached trace-elements derived from waste 

rock or ore under experimental conditions can be 

very high, the dilution factors during floods are also 

very high. The resultant contribution to trace element concentrations in the passing water is less than 

one part per billion. Projection of site-specific future 

mobilization of uranium and trace elements contained 

in contaminated soils and mined waste rock and the 

efficiency of natural attenuation processes cannot be 

determined from these results and should be considered for future study.

Introduction

Lands containing substantial uranium resources in northern 

Arizona region (Finch and others, 1990; Otton and Van Gosen, 

this report) have been proposed for withdrawal from mineral 

entry. Previous uranium mining in northern Arizona began in the 

early 1950s, although most uranium mining occurred in the 1980s 

in the Kanab Creek drainage on Bureau of Land Management 

lands north of Grand Canyon National Park. The effect of past 

mining is here evaluated to provide a factual basis for understanding possible future effects and for suggesting new remedial 

approaches. This report reviews existing information and presents 

new data that examines the remnant effects of uranium mining and reclamation on soils and stream sediments in and near 

selected mine sites, and it evaluates the effects of long-term exposure of materials exposed at a standby mine site to environmental 

conditions. Companion reports in this volume discuss potential 

effects on water and ecosystems.

Sites of this investigation represent the variety of geologic and topographic settings of uranium mines in the Kanab 

Creek area (North Segregation Area). The sites selected are the 

reclaimed Pigeon, Hermit, and Hack (1, 2, and 3) Mines and 

the Kanab North Mine, currently on standby status (fig. 1). The 

Kanab South pipe, drilled but not developed, and Jumpup Creek, 

a drainage in the North Kaibab National Forest that is remote 

from mining, were also studied.

This report summarizes previous investigations whose 

results can be compared with geochemical data gathered during 

this study and provides background information for the sites, 

and it describes the site geochemical and radiometric investigations conducted during this study, leaching experiments 

conducted on ore and waste-rock samples, and the results of 

these investigations.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 51

Hack 2 and 3 Mines

Hack 1 Mine

Hermit Mine

Pigeon Mine

Jumpup Spring

UTAH

ARIZONA

Kaibab

Fredonia

Colorado City

112°30'

37°00'

36°30'

113°00'

Kanab South Pipe

Kanab North Mine

Hack Canyon Jumpup Canyon

Snake Gulch

Kanab Creek

0

0

10 20 MILES

10 20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Forest Service

Tribal land

National Park Service

State land

Private land

Segregation area—Boundary

Sample site

Base from Microsoft Virtual Earth, 2009: 

Microsoft Corporation, ArcGIS Online

Premium Map Service, Bing Maps Roads.

Copyrights: (c)2009 ESRI, (c)2009 Microsoft

Corporation, (c)2008 NAVTEQ, (c) AND, (c)

MapData Sciences Pty Ltd., (c)2007 Zenrin,

(c)2007 Intermap.See http://maps.live.com

for a complete list of data suppliers.

NORTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Figure 1. Location of sites (mines and stream segments) studied for this report in North Segregation Area (Kanab Creek 

area), northern Arizona.
52 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Previous Investigations

Premining Geochemistry Studies

Geochemical results of analyses of soil and stream 

sediment samples collected as part of this study are compared 

with the results of previous studies. Defining premining traceelement geochemistry is important for distinguishing concentrations that are due to natural processes from those related to 

uranium mining. This section summarizes previous studies that 

will be used in later sections to aid in establishing natural background concentrations in the study area. Previous investigations 

of the geochemistry of soils, stream sediments, and rocks of the 

Kanab Creek and the South Rim areas (fig. 2) include (1) soil 

samples collected during the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program of the 

1970s (Smith, 1997), (2) stream sediments and soils collected 

during study of the geochemistry of the Snake Gulch area near 

the Pigeon Mine (Hopkins and others, 1984), and (3) geochemistry of soils formed on two solution-collapse features (breccia 

pipes) in the South Rim of the Grand Canyon area (Van Gosen 

and Wenrich, 1991). These three studies are discussed below.

National Uranium Resource Evaluation 

Soil Sampling

The NURE Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment 

Reconnaissance (HSSR) program sampled and chemically 

analyzed surface waters and groundwaters from streams, springs, 

wells and ponds, and stream sediments, soils, and rocks across the 

United States. Resulting data were released in a series of reports. 

In 1984, under an agreement with the Department of Energy, the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) took over management of the 

HSSR dataset and prepared the data for release online (Smith, 

1997). In the NURE regional geochemical survey of the western 

United States (conducted by Savannah River Laboratory), samples were taken as close to random grid points as possible (Price 

and Jones, 1981). The sample medium depended on regional conditions that would allow uniform collection throughout a broad 

area. In the northern Grand Canyon area, soil was the primary 

medium sampled, and soil sample sites were located on plateau 

surfaces probably because of ease of access. Samples were taken 

without regard to the location of the many solution-collapse 

features in the area. No waters, stream sediments, or rocks were 

sampled in the northern Grand Canyon area. Delayed neutron 

activation and instrumental neutron activation analysis were 

used to analyze the soil samples for uranium and for other trace 

elements commonly associated with uranium-bearing minerals 

in some geologic settings. The fraction passing a 100-mesh sieve 

(0.149 millimeter (mm) opening) was analyzed. At each site, 10 

or more samples collected within a 25-yard radius were composited. Plastic scoops or stainless steel “bag” samplers were used 

and samples were collected in either cloth or paper bags. Detailed 

location and data sheets were filled out for each site (appendix C 

of Price and Jones, 1981).

An area in northern Arizona extending through twelve 

7.5 minute quadrangles was selected for soil geochemistry 

characterization from the larger HSSR dataset (fig. 2). This 

area contains the southern Kanab Creek drainage basin from 

just north of the Kanab North Mine to its confluence with the 

Colorado River. Of the 120 HSSR samples in this area, all 

but 17 were collected in mid-May 1979 and those 17 were 

collected in late October 1979. This sampling thus predated 

uranium mining in the area, with the exception of minor 

production (about 5,000 pounds (lb) U3O8) at the Hack Canyon 

Mine (adjacent to Hack 1 Mine). Concentrations of uranium, 

aluminum, cerium, dysprosium, europium, iron, hafnium, lanthanum, lutetium, manganese, samarium, scandium, sodium, 

thorium, titanium, vanadium, and ytterbium were reported. 

In this analytical suite, only uranium and vanadium are noted 

as markedly anomalous in the breccia-pipe ores of the Grand 

Canyon region (Wenrich and others, 1995). Therefore, comparisons of our current data with HSSR data are limited to 

these two elements.

Most of the 120 samples were taken from soils on upland 

surfaces formed on sandstone or carbonate rocks or alluvium 

derived from them. However, 14 soil sample sites were located 

on mafic volcanic rocks (basalt). Because basalt does not 

host breccia-pipe uranium deposits nor does it occur in mined 

areas, these samples would not provide background soil geochemical data suitable for this study; thus they were excluded. 

Uranium concentrations in the remaining 106 soil samples 

ranged from 1.4 to 3.4 parts per million (ppm). The average 

and median of the 106 samples is 2.4 ppm uranium and the 

mode is 2.3 ppm uranium. The value of 2.4 ppm uranium 

is considered the background concentration for soils on the 

upland surfaces in the Kanab Creek area. Vanadium concentrations ranged from 9 to 75 ppm with 6 nondetect concentrations 

(the lower reporting limit for these samples ranged from 7 to 

13 ppm). The average of the reported and censored concentrations (using one half of the lower reporting limit for the censored data) is 37 ppm vanadium. The median was 35.5 ppm 

vanadium and the mode 35 ppm vanadium. The background 

for vanadium in soils in the study area is defined as 37 ppm.

Snake Gulch Area

In the early 1980s, the USGS and the U.S. Bureau of 

Mines assessed the mineral resource potential of the northern 

Kanab Creek and Snake Gulch area (Billingsley and others, 

1983). This work was performed as part of the evaluation 

and planning process for the Kanab Creek Roadless Area. 

A reconnaissance geochemical survey collected and analyzed 

bulk stream sediment; panned concentrate of stream sediment; 

and rock, soil, and clay samples. Samples were collected 

in March 1982 (Billingsley and others, 1983; Hopkins and 

others, 1984). The stream sediment and soil sample data are 

relevant to this study. In addition to providing stream sediment geochemical data, the March 1982 date of sampling 

provides premining soil-sample data for the Pigeon Mine site. 

Billingsley and others (1983) note that in March 1982 the 
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 53

Colorado City

Kaibab

Fredonia

37°00'

36°30'

113°00' 112°30'

S

HC

ARIZONA

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

EXPLANATION

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Forest Service

Tribal land

National Park Service

State land

Private land

Segregation area—Boundary

NURE study area—Boundary overall

Quadrangle—Boundary

Stream segments sampled

Sample site—NURE study

Base from Microsoft Virtual Earth, 2009: 

Microsoft Corporation, ArcGIS Online

Premium Map Service, Bing Maps Roads.

Copyrights: (c)2009 ESRI, (c)2009 Microsoft

Corporation, (c)2008 NAVTEQ, (c) AND, (c)

MapData Sciences Pty Ltd., (c)2007 Zenrin,

(c)2007 Intermap.See http://maps.live.com

for a complete list of data suppliers.

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Figure 2. Location of sites in the North Segregation Area (Kanab Creek area) studied during previous investigations. 

NURE, National Uranium Resource Evaluation, Hydrogeochemical Stream-Sediment Reconnaissance soil sample locations 

(Smith, 1997); S, Snake Gulch–Kanab Creek area; red line, stream segments sampled (Hopkins and others, 1984); HC, Hack 

Canyon–Kanab Creek area, red line, stream segments studied (Carver, 1999).
54 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Pigeon Mine site was being cleared by Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., but mining did not begin until 1984. Eighteen miles to 

the southwest, mines in Hack Canyon were actively producing 

uranium ore during the early 1980s.

Features that could influence the stream-sediment geochemistry in the Snake Gulch–Kanab Creek drainage basins 

include 19 mapped solution-collapse features (fig. 3) and 

stratabound copper deposits of the historic Jacob Lake–Warm 

Springs mining district, which lies east of a roadless area 

near Jacob Lake. This district contains thinly layered coppergold-silver-lead deposits, which were mined on a small scale 

between the early 1900s and about 1942 (Tainter, 1947). The 

copper deposit closest to the roadless area lies 4 miles (mi) to 

the east of the head of Snake Gulch. Mills that processed the 

ores were built in 1901 and 1928 at Ryan, about 2.5 mi southeast of the head of Snake Gulch (Tainter, 1947).

Analytical results from the March 1982 geochemical 

survey are tabulated in Hopkins and others (1984). This 

tabulation contains analyses of 31 composite stream sediment 

samples, 2 of which were collected at sites near the confluence 

of Kanab Creek and Snake Gulch and 29 of which were from 

sites within Snake Gulch and canyons tributary to Snake Gulch 

(fig. 3). These samples provide a snapshot of the composition of 

sediments carried by Snake Gulch and northern Kanab Creek. 

Uranium-mineralized breccia pipes of northern Arizona (Wenrich, 

1985, 1986) typically are enriched in certain metals; analysis of 

these stream sediments focused on those metals (table 1).

The highest base metal concentrations in stream sediment from Snake Gulch were measured in samples located 

downstream of the Pigeon pipe. Specifically, sample site 10S 

(fig. 3) had the highest concentration of nickel (30 ppm), lead 

(44 ppm), and vanadium (100 ppm); sample site 11S had the 

highest concentration of barium (700 ppm) and chromium 

(100 ppm) and high concentrations of nickel (30 ppm) and 

vanadium (100 ppm).

All 31 stream sediment samples contain less than 2 ppm 

uranium. The low uranium and generally low base metal concentrations may indicate that the dispersed metals are diluted by 

much larger volumes of sediment derived from the unmineralized rock that also is carried downstream by the braided stream 

systems of Snake Gulch and northern Kanab Creek.

Billingsley and others (1983) note slight enrichments in 

arsenic, barium, copper, and molybdenum in stream sediments 

in the eastern reaches of Snake Gulch. They attribute these 

geochemical anomalies to the mining of the Jacob Lake–Warm 

Springs copper deposits and to ore processing in the mills 

at Ryan.

Through the courtesy of Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., the 

USGS was able to collect three samples of fresh-cut soil from 

the surface of the Pigeon pipe during the mining company’s 

surface excavation in March 1982. Analytical results of these 

soils are summarized in table 2. The three soils have uranium 

concentrations of 2.2, 2.2, and 5.6 ppm and modest enrichments in base metals (Hopkins and others, 1984, their fig. 3).

Soils over Grand Canyon Breccia Pipes

Van Gosen and Wenrich (1991) sampled the soils on 

50 solution-collapse features exposed on the Coconino 

Plateau, which is the extensive plateau surface south of the 

central Grand Canyon (fig. 4). The subsurface character 

of the majority of these 50 collapse features is unknown, 

because most have not been drilled. Two of the sampled 

solution-collapse features are breccia pipes that host uranium 

orebodies—the SBF pipe and the Canyon pipe. The soil 

composition overlying these breccia pipes is thus useful in 

evaluating the results of the current study.

The soil samples of Van Gosen and Wenrich (1991) were 

collected from 3 to 4 inches (in.) depth. A pilot sampling study 

during 1984 compared the analyses of soils collected at 3–4 in. 

depth with those of soils collected at 7–8 in. depth. No difference in metal concentrations was found at the two depths. 

Thus, the 3–4 in. depth was used in the subsequent larger soil 

sampling program. A shallower 0–2 in. (0–5 centimeter (cm)) 

depth was used in the current study. The soil samples in the 

study of Van Gosen and Wenrich (1991) were sieved through 

an 80 mesh screen opening (0.0067 in. or 177 micrometers 

(μm)). The <80 mesh material was then pulverized to 

<100 mesh, and this <100 mesh material was submitted 

for geochemical analysis. The same sieving and processing 

method was used in the current study.

SBF Pipe

The SBF breccia pipe is located just southeast of the 

Hualapai Indian Reservation (fig. 4). It is exposed on the 

surface of the Coconino Plateau (fig. 4) as a 7-foot (ft)-

high raised rim composed of Harrisburg Member of the 

Kaibab Formation (Wenrich and Aumente-Modreski, 1994). 

This rim encloses a soil-covered, circular basin filled with 

Moenkopi Formation sandstone and siltstone. Intermittent 

drilling by Union Pacific Resources from 1984 to 1987 

confirmed a breccia pipe structure at depth that contains a 

uranium deposit. The soil survey of Van Gosen and Wenrich 

(1991, their fig. 32) collected 20 soil samples within the 

structural basin and 16 background soil samples outside 

of the basin.

Canyon Pipe

The surface expression of the Canyon breccia pipe is 

a sage-covered, elliptical clearing in a ponderosa pine forest, located about 6.5 mi southeast of Tusayan (fig. 4). The 

bounds of the clearing define a shallow basin that overlies the 

collapse structure; the clearing is about 2,000 ft long (northsouth) by 1,600 ft wide (east-west) (Wenrich, 1992, her fig. 2; 

Wenrich and Aumente-Modreski, 1994, their fig. 3). The 

underlying breccia pipe averages less than 200 ft in diameter 
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 55

36°37'30"

36°45'

112°37'30" 112°30' 112°22'30"

Pigeon

Pipe

Kanab

North

 Pipe

Kanab

South

 Pipe

NORTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

0 1 KILOMETER

0 1 MILE

EXPLANATION

Segregation area—Boundary

Collapse feature or breccia pipe—Billingsley and others (1983)

Sample site, stream sediment—Hopkins and others (1984)

North 

Segregation

Area

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Fredonia, 1984, 1:100,000

31S

30S

29S

28S

27S

26S

25S 24S

23S 21S

20S 19S

18S

17S 16S

15S

12S 13S 14S

11S

10S

9S

8S

7S

6S

5S

4S 3S

2S 1S

22S

Kanab

Creek

Snake

Gulch

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Figure 3. Snake Gulch–Kanab Creek area, showing locations of 31 sites where composite stream sediment samples were 

collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in March 1982 (Hopkins and others, 1984) and of 19 solution-collapse features and 

breccia pipes (Billinglsey and others, 1983, sheet 1).
56 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

0.74 percent U3O8 and occurs mainly in the Coconino, Hermit, 

and Esplanade horizons of the pipe (Casadevall, 1989). The 

soil survey of Van Gosen and Wenrich (1991, their fig. 58) 

collected 18 soil samples inside the structural basin and 

14 background soil samples outside of the basin. After the 

1986 soil sampling survey, a head frame was built on the site 

in preparation for underground mining (Wenrich, 1992, her 

fig. 2). However, owing to a subsequent steep drop in uranium 

prices, the mine was never developed.

Soil Survey Results

Wenrich (1985) indicated that breccia pipe orebodies 

typically are enriched in silver (Ag), arsenic (As), barium 

(Ba), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper 

(Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), strontium 

(Sr), uranium (U), vanadium (V), and zinc (Zn). See table 3 

for average concentrations of these elements in soils collected over the SBF and Canyon breccia pipes (Van Gosen 

and Wenrich, 1991). These data are considered representative (average) concentrations in soils that formed above 

undisturbed breccia pipes that contain uranium deposits at 

depth. Soil samples that were collected outside of the collapse 

features provide additional information about metal concentrations typical of soils of the Kaibab Limestone (“background 

concentrations”). The concentrations over and outside of the 

breccia pipes are similar, which suggests that uranium deposits 

at depth has only limited effects on the surface soil geochemistry. In soils inside the projected boundary of the SBF pipe, 

only arsenic concentrations appear to be elevated with respect 

to soils outside the projected boundary of the pipe (average 

33 ppm as compared with <10 ppm).

The results of these three studies and additional crustal 

abundance data and composition of average western U.S. soils 

are summarized in table 4.

Postmining Geochemistry Study

Hack Canyon and Kanab Creek

Carver (1999) examined the concentration of trace 

elements in stream sediments in Hack Canyon. Carver collected 

stream sediments at 10 locations on the floor of Hack Canyon 

Wash—at 5 sites each upstream and downstream of the Hack 

Mine complex (Hack Mine 1, 2, and 3) (fig. 1). Water and 

stream-sediment samples were also collected at 3 sites in Kanab 

Creek: 1 site above, 1 site below, and 1 site at the confluence of 

Hack Canyon and Kanab Creek. The intent of Carver’s study 

was to evaluate whether trace elements had migrated within 

Hack Canyon Wash downstream from the former Hack Mine 

complex toward Kanab Creek. In addition to the bulk sediment sampling, Carver (1999) sieved the sediment samples into 

gravel (>2 mm), sand (2 mm to 63 μm), silt (63 μm to 53 μm), 

Table 1. Summary of geochemical analyses of 31 stream 

sediment samples collected in March 1982, northern Kanab Creek 

and Snake Gulch area, northern Arizona.

[Data from Hopkins and others (1984); sample site locations shown in figure 3; 

ppm, parts per million; <, less than; --, not available]

Element

Range

in values

(ppm)

Sample site

with highest

concentration

Silver <0.5 --

Arsenic <200 --

Barium 300–700 2, 11, 15, 18

Cadmium <20 --

Cobalt 5–7 numerous sites

Chromium 20–100 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16

Copper 3–11 31

Molybdenum <5 --

Nickel 10–30 10, 11

Lead 5–44 10

Antimony <100 --

Strontium <100–1,500 9

Uranium 0.2–2.0 9

Vanadium 30–100 4, 10, 11, 15

Zinc 11–29 24

Table 2. Summary of analyses of three soil samples collected 

in March 1982 (prior to mining) from the surface of the Pigeon 

breccia pipe.

[Data from Hopkins and others, 1984; <, less than; ppm, parts per million]

Element

Range in

concentration,

(ppm)

Silver <0.5

Arsenic <200

Barium 1,000–3,000

Cadmium <20

Cobalt 7–20

Chromium 100–100

Copper 11–29

Molybdenum <5–7

Nickel 30–50

Lead 13–20

Antimony <100

Strontium 19–300

Uranium 2.2–5.6

Vanadium 100–150

Zinc 17–85

and it narrows within Coconino Sandstone and Hermit 

Formation horizons (Casadevall, 1989). Drilling by Energy 

Fuels Nuclear, Inc., passed through a zone of abundant sulfide 

minerals near the contact of the Coconino Sandstone and 

Toroweap Formation (Casadevall, 1989). The drilling showed 

that uranium minerals extend for more than 1,600 ft vertically 

through the breccia pipe, from the lower Toroweap Formation 

to the upper Redwall Limestone. Uranium ore averages 
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 57

NORTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION

AREA

HUALAPAI 

RESERVATION Coconino

Plateau

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

Tusayan

64

180

0

0 20 MILES

20 KILOMETERS

Canyon Pipe

SBF Pipe

Colorado River

Colorado Riv er

36°00'

113°00' 112°00'

Base from Microsoft Virtual Earth, 2009: 

Microsoft Corporation, ArcGIS Online

Premium Map Service, Bing Maps Roads.

Copyrights: (c)2009 ESRI, (c)2009 Microsoft

Corporation, (c)2008 NAVTEQ, (c) AND, (c)

MapData Sciences Pty Ltd., (c)2007 Zenrin,

(c)2007 Intermap.See http://maps.live.com

for a complete list of data suppliers.

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

EXPLANATION

National Park Service

Segregation area—Boundary

Sample site

HAVASUPAI

RESERVATION

Figure 4. Location of SBF (breccia) pipe and Canyon (breccia) pipe, solution-collapse features whose soil geochemistry 

is discussed in this report.
58 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 3. Average trace-element concentrations in soil samples collected in and near the surface expression of two uranium-ore-bearing breccia pipes exposed on the surface of the Coconino Plateau, northern Arizona. [Sample site locations shown in figure 4; values shown here averaged from data reported by Van Gosen and Wenrich (1991); inside soil, near-surface soil samples collected inside the surface expression that overlies the collapse feature; outside soils, near-surface background soil samples collected outside the surface expression; <, less than; ppm, parts per million] Soil sample site relative to collapse feature Concentration (ppm) Silver Arsenic Barium Cadmium Cobalt Chromium Copper Molybdenum Nickel Lead Strontium Uranium Vanadium Zinc Unmined breccia pipes with known uranium ore bodies at depth SBF breccia pipe Inside soil (n=20) <2 33 470 <2 8 49 24 <2 21 17 150 3 50 63 Outside soil (n=16) <2 <10 410 <2 8 48 22 <2 20 15 210 3 44 53 Canyon breccia pipe Inside soil (n=18) <2 <10 540 <2 10 52 20 <2 24 17 130 3 54 57 Outside soil (n=14) <2 11 480 <2 10 60 19 <2 23 16 110 3 54 54 Table 4. Summary of element concentrations reported in premining and other previous studies. [<, less than; na, not analyzed; ppm, parts per million; NURE HSSR, National Uranium Resource Evaluation, Hydrochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance] Study Concentration (ppm) Arsenic Cadmium Cobalt Copper Molybdenum Nickel Lead Antimony Thallium Uranium Vanadium Zinc Premining studies NURE HSSR soils (average of 106 samples)1 na na na na na na na na na 2.4 37 na

Pigeon pipe soils (range of 3 samples)2 <200 <20 5–7 3–11 <5 10–30 5–44 <100 na 0.2–2 30–100 11–29Snake Gulch stream sediments (range of 31 samples)3 <200 <20 7–20 11–29 <5–7 30–50 13–20 <100 na 2.2–5.6 100–150 17–85Premining mineralized breccia pipe (range of averages)4 <10–33 <2 8–10 19–24 <2 20–24 15–17 na na 3 44–54 53–63

Other studies

Crustal abundance (average)5 2 0.18 25 60 2 80 16 0.2 1 3 150 70Average soil concentrations in western United States6 5.5 0.06 7.1 21 0.85 15 17 0.47 1 2.5 150 55 1NURE HSSR: Smith (1997).

2Pigeon pipe (Snake Gulch study) soils: Hopkins and others, 1984.3Snake Gulch stream sediments: Hopkins and others, 1984.4Breccia pipe soils range reported for uranium mineralized features: Van Gosen and Wenrich, 1991.5Crustal abundance: summarized in Smith and Logsdon (1999).6Average soil concentrations: summarized in Smith and Logsdon (1999).
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 59

and clay (<53 μm) size particles and then separately analyzed 

each fraction. Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 

cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, lead, nickel, 

silver, thorium, tungsten, uranium, vanadium, and zinc were 

measured in sediment and water samples by using graphite 

furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry (GFAA), flame 

atomic absorption spectrophotometry, and inductively coupled 

plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP–MS). Carver (1999) then 

applied statistical tests to the geochemical results in order to 

test the normality of the data distribution and to compare the 

element concentrations in stream sediments above and below 

the Hack Canyon Mine. Carver concluded (1999, p. 51) that 

“mean concentrations above the mine are equal to the mean 

concentrations below the mine” in the elements in which the 

mineralized breccia pipes of this region are typically enriched 

(table 5).

Some stream sediments collected upstream of the Hack 

Canyon Mine have copper, nickel, and zinc concentrations that 

exceed those in sediments sampled below the mine (table 5) 

and in sediments from Snake Gulch. In particular, high copper 

concentrations were found in some stream sediments several 

miles upstream of the mine. These anomalies may indicate that 

undiscovered, mineralized breccia pipes or stratabound copper 

deposits lie in the western, upper reaches of Hack Canyon. 

The lack of corresponding high uranium values may indicate 

a source other than a breccia pipe.

Two sediment samples collected at one site in the wash just 

below the Hack 1 Mine contained consistently elevated amounts 

of the elements in which the ore-bearing Grand Canyon breccia 

pipes are typically enriched (table 5). For example, these 

sediments contain as much as 2,000 ppm arsenic, 5,300 ppm 

copper, 276 ppm molybdenum, 1,200 ppm lead, 154 ppm 

uranium, and 89 ppm zinc. These high element concentrations 

are consistent with the geochemistry of ore and waste rock from 

Hack Mine operations. In contrast, stream sediments collected 

less than a quarter of a mile downstream from the mine contain 

much lower concentrations: 20.8 ppm arsenic, 43 ppm copper, 

<1 ppm molybdenum, 10.1 ppm lead, 3.6 ppm uranium, and 

66.5 ppm zinc. The lower concentrations are interpreted to be 

due to dilution by detritus derived from unmineralized rock 

within the drainage.

Carver (1999, p. iv) noted that “trace metal concentrations were found to increase with decreasing particle size for 

chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, thorium, 

vanadium, and zinc.” She noted that a large fraction of the 

clay particles are likely to remain suspended in water during 

floods. Carver (1999, p. 54) further concluded that: “Clays and 

sediments, as opposed to dissolved species, are therefore the 

primary carriers for moving trace metals downstream to the 

Colorado River.” Carver (1999, p. 49) also tested the ability 

of microbial organisms to capture trace elements and concluded that “the results of this experiment suggest a physicalchemical transport of trace metals rather than a biological 

mechanism.”

The precise location of sediment samples collected from 

Kanab Creek does not appear to be provided in Carver (1999). 

A summary of Carver’s results is presented in table 6. The 

trace element concentrations in these sediments are similar to 

the concentrations found both in the upper reaches of Hack 

Canyon and at sites several miles downstream of the Hack 

Mines, except for the highest concentrations of copper, nickel, 

and zinc above the mines.

Table 5. Summary of trace element concentrations in bulk stream sediment samples from 10 sites in Hack Canyon.

[Samples collected and analyzed by Carver (1999); sediments collected at 5 sites upstream of Hack Canyon mine complex, 4 sites downstream of the mine, 

and 1 site in the wash just below the mine; <, less than; ppm, parts per million; GFAA, graphite furnace atomic absorption; ICP–MS, inductively coupled plasma 

mass spectrometry]

Element Analytical

method

 Upstream1

(ppm)

Downstream2

(ppm)

Wash just below

Hack 1 Mine3

(ppm)

Arsenic GFAA 0.8–19.5 2.1–20.8 1,400 and 1,780

Arsenic ICP–MS 1.2–11.5 0.97–8.9 1,460 and 2,000

Cobalt ICP–MS 1.7–8.9 2.0–7.7 5.7 and 4.4

Copper GFAA 3.8–534 0.85–97.6 162 and 24.6

Copper ICP–MS 4.5–234 <19.5–87.9 166 and 5,320

Molybdenum ICP–MS <1–1.1 all <1 276 and 22.8

Nickel ICP–MS 23.1–79.5 19.6–38.7 17.0 and 20.9

Lead GFAA <6.7–9.9 1.3–10.1 1,200 and 670 

Uranium ICP–MS 0.6–1.5 0.6–3.6 11.3 and 154

Vanadium ICP–MS 3.8–35.1 6.1–24.9 10.6 and 6.8

Zinc ICP–MS 0.5–86.8 13.7–82.8 64.6 and 89

1

Five sites, many samples.

2

Four sites, many samples.

3

One site, two samples.
60 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Kanab Creek Water Samples

Three samples of Kanab Creek water showed low traceelement concentrations, and concentrations of most elements 

were below the detection limits of the analytical methods used 

(table 6). The waters had measurable concentrations of cobalt, 

nickel, and uranium. Uranium concentrations of the Kanab 

Creek water samples ranged narrowly from 6.25 to 7.2 ppm. 

Concentration of these elements differed little among the 

sampled sites (table 6).

Sampling, Sample Processing, 

and Analytical Methods

Soil, Stream Sediment, and Mine Waste Sampling

Between August 24 and October 7, 2009, soil, stream 

sediment, mined-rock waste, and rock samples were collected 

at six sites within the North Segregation Area, an area proposed for withdrawal in the Kanab Creek area north of Grand 

Canyon National Park (fig. 1). Stream sediment samples were 

also collected along Jumpup Canyon near Jumpup Spring 

(fig. 1). Procedures for collecting each of these media are 

described below.

Sample locations were selected before we arrived at each 

site on the basis of topographic maps and aerial images. The 

sampling plan was designed to characterize (1) compositions 

of material unaffected by mining (background); (2) mined rock 

presently on the ground surface that contains concentrations of 

trace elements substantially above background concentrations; 

(3) trace-element-enriched materials derived from mined rock 

that were transported by wind or water subsequent to the onset of 

uranium mining or reclamation. Soil samples were collected from 

0–2 in. (0–5 cm) depth along traverses that crossed each site and 

continued beyond the extent of mining disturbance into areas that 

are presumed to contain materials that show background traceelement concentrations. At the time of sampling, all stream drainages crossing the mine sites were dry. Alluvial sediments from 

channels in these dry streams constituted the stream-sediment 

samples. The Pigeon Mine, Hack Mine complex, and Kanab 

North Mine sites contained additional surface features such as 

waste-rock piles, former waste-rock-pile sites identified by scattered waste rock at the surface, and current or former wastewaterpond sites. These features required additional description, mapping, and sampling beyond that employed for the background and 

undeveloped-mine sites.

At each soil and stream sediment sampling location, any 

surface litter of structured organic matter (such as leaves, 

needles, or twigs) or of pebbles or cobbles larger than about 

1 in. (2.5 cm) in diameter were carefully removed so that the 

uppermost surface contained only mineral matter and sparse 

organic matter. Stainless steel sampling tools and sieve were 

“conditioned” by digging and sieving adjacent soil before 

collecting the samples of interest. A stainless steel trowel was 

used to carefully excavate the 0–5 cm depth interval and collect a composite sample of 1–2 kg in a plastic 1-gallon bucket. 

Stream sediments were sampled from a locality that generally 

included a stream reach of 50–100 ft, depending on an onsite 

evaluation of the availability of about 5–10 sites of sediment 

accumulation suitable for sampling. As we moved from site 

to site, subequal amounts of sediment from each site were 

passed through the 2 mm stainless steel sieve (after conditioning the sieve) until a sample containing at least 1 kg of <2 mm 

material was obtained. A second pass through each sample 

site was necessary at some localities to accumulate sufficient 

material. At mine sites, composite samples (consisting of no 

less than five subsamples) of near-surface (0–5 cm depth) 

materials from some mined waste-rock piles and from pond 

sediments were also collected; these composite samples were 

not sieved.

Table 6. Summary of Carver (1999) concentration ranges in trace elements in stream-sediment and water samples, collected at three 

sites near the confluence of Hack Canyon and Kanab Creek.

[ppm, parts per million; μg/L, micrograms per liter; GFAA, graphite furnace atomic absorption; ICP–MS, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; 

n.d., element not detected (below detection limit)]

Element Analytical

method

Stream sediment

concentrations1

(ppm)

Kanab Creek water

concentrations2

(μg/L)

Arsenic GFAA 7.2–20.8 n.d.

Arsenic ICP–MS 4.3–7.1 n.d.–1.0

Cobalt ICP–MS 4.8–8.9 1.65–1.8

Copper GFAA 7.9–22.6 n.d.

Copper ICP–MS 8.6–19.6 n.d.

Molybdenum ICP–MS 0.3–0.4 n.d.

Nickel ICP–MS 30.2–37.5 32.5–37.5

Lead GFAA 7.0–16.9 n.d.

Uranium ICP–MS 1.1–1.8 6.25–7.2

Vanadium ICP–MS 13.2–30.2 n.d.

Zinc ICP–MS 38.3–81.3 n.d. 1

Six samples.

2

Three samples.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 61

Each soil and stream sediment sample was placed into a 

clean plastic sample bag, labeled with a permanent marker, and 

sealed with duct tape. Dry rags and a plastic brush were used to 

clean sampling tools. At each sampling location, all required site 

and material characterization data were recorded on a sampling 

sheet. Careful notes, such as sketches of the sampled areas and 

photographs, were made to thoroughly document the area around 

each sample collected. An entire duplicate sample at about 1 sampling location in 10 was collected to check the reproducibility of 

the sampling procedure. At soil sampling sites, duplicate samples 

were collected from contiguous 2-in. (5-cm) -deep excavations. 

Duplicates at stream sediment sampling localities were collected 

by revisiting each of the 5–10 sampling sites and collecting 

materials adjacent to previous sampling points. Because mine-site 

material was expected to contain, relative to background materials, high concentrations of uranium and other ore-signature trace 

elements, mine site materials were collected separately from other 

less-contaminated samples. When we sampled along traverses, 

less-contaminated outlying areas were sampled first. All equipment was cleaned between sites that were likely to have very 

different concentrations of trace elements.

Sample Processing

Soil, stream sediment, and rock samples were prepared for analysis according to procedures outlined in 

chapter A3 (Peacock, 2002), chapter A2 (Peacock, Taylor, and 

Theodorakos, 2002), and chapter A1 (Taylor and Theodorakos, 

2002) in “Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic 

and other materials, U.S. Geological Survey” (Taggert, 2002). 

Upon reaching the laboratory, the samples (as received) were 

air dried at 40°C, as needed. Subsequent preparation procedures 

took place inside a dust hood to minimize dispersion of dusts. 

Stream sediment samples were sieved through an 80-mesh sieve 

(opening equal to 177 μm). The fraction that passed through the 

80-mesh sieve was split into two parts. One part was preserved 

for archiving and the other was pulverized to <100-mesh 

(<150 μm) and mixed to insure homogeneity for subsequent 

analysis. Soil samples, as received, were immediately split and 

pulverized to <100-mesh. The mine wastes and rock samples 

were crushed to reduce the particle size and split into two parts; 

one part was preserved for reference or future use, and the other 

was pulverized to <100-mesh. The <100-mesh fractions of soils, 

stream sediments, mined-rock waste, and rock were further split 

into two parts, one of which was archived. The other split was 

sent to a contract laboratory for whole-rock analysis to determine total elemental composition. 

Bulk Chemical Analysis

All solid samples were analyzed by inductively 

coupled plasma–atomic emission spectrometry (ICP–AES) 

and inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry 

(ICP–MS) after acid digestion. This method is described 

at http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/projects/analytical_chem/

references.html#M19 and is summarized here. Forty-two 

major, minor, and trace elements (reporting limits listed on the 

website shown above) are determined in geological materials. Each sample is digested using a mixture of hydrochloric, 

nitric, perchloric, and hydrofluoric acids, heated to 110°C to 

dryness and redissolved in nitric acid. Aliquots of the resulting 

solution were aspirated into the ICP–AES and the ICP–MS 

spectrometers. The ICP–AES is calibrated by standardizing 

with digested rock reference materials and a series of multielement solution standards. The ICP–MS was calibrated with 

aqueous standards, and internal standards were used to compensate for matrix affects and internal drift. Data are deemed 

acceptable if measured concentrations of all 42 elements are 

within ±15 percent at five times the lower limits of determination (LOD), and the calculated relative standard deviation of 

duplicate samples is no greater than 15 percent.

Chain of Custody

Chain-of-custody procedures were followed for sample 

collection, transport, processing, and analysis. After collection, individual plastic bags containing each sample, previously 

sealed with duct tape, were placed into shipping containers. 

Shipping containers were locked and placed inside a secured 

vehicle or locked room that could be accessed only by USGS 

field personnel. Once shipping containers were filled to capacity, they were locked and prepared for transport, either by a 

vehicle driven by USGS field personnel or by commercial overnight delivery service. For each shipment, a chain-of-custody 

form was filled out that summarized the total number of samples 

collected of each sample medium (such as soil, surface sediment, or rock) in each shipment. Accompanying this form was 

a sample inventory. The individuals who shipped and received 

the samples signed the form as a designation of responsibility 

for the samples. Before shipment by the commercial overnight 

delivery service, boxes containing the samples were sealed with 

evidence tape to assure that the containers remained secure during shipment. Samples transported by the commercial overnight 

delivery service were hand-delivered directly to project personnel at USGS offices on the Denver Federal Center, who then 

verified that they received all samples listed on the inventory 

and then signed for the receipt of those samples. Subsequently, 

of all samples were processed in a secure area. Each sample was 

photographed as received. Processed samples were shipped to 

various analytical laboratories using a similar chain-of-custody 

shipping procedure for transport and receipt by the laboratory.

Radioactivity Surveys

Virtually all sample sites were measured with one of 

two Ludlum Model 19 MicroR exposure meters. Additional 

parts of some mine sites were surveyed without sampling. 

These extremely sensitive NaI scintilometers are used by 

health physicists to assess radiation exposure and absorbed 

dose (in rads) from gamma-ray and x-ray emissions. Reported 

gamma-ray activities in microrads (μR)/hour (h) can be 
62 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

compared with the average gamma-ray dose from terrestrial 

sources of radioactivity (rocks or soil) of approximately 

3.2 μR/h, or 28,000 μR/year (National Council on Radiation 

Protection Measurements, 1987). These instruments were 

calibrated at the U.S. Geological Survey reactor facility at the 

Denver Federal Center approximately one week prior to the 

start of field studies on August 24, 2009.

In the natural environment, these instruments measure total 

gamma-ray activities derived from radioactive decay products 

of the uranium and thorium series and of potassium-40 (40K). In 

most natural environments, variations in the total activity can be 

attributed, for the most part, to variations in the uranium, thorium, and potassium content of soils and rocks. In the vicinity of 

uranium ore deposits, total gamma-ray activity is predominantly 

attributed to emissions from uranium and its decay products.

The radioactivity of the immediate vicinity (within a 

1–3 m radius) was measured around each soil, stream sediment, 

and rock sampling site by using a microR meter placed on the 

ground surface at the sampled point. Additional walking surveys 

with continuous scans measured radioactivity along stream 

beds between the sampled stream reaches. Measurements were 

observed at waist height or, in a few instances, by placing the 

instrument on the ground. Similar walking radioactivity surveys 

along linear soil sample traverses radiating outward from sampled 

mine site perimeters were also performed. These walking surveys 

provided some estimates of the expected microR readings at measured and recorded sites and aided in the search for ore or waste 

rock exposed at the surface. Detailed microR surveys (without 

collection of soil samples) were conducted at the Pigeon and 

Kanab North sites. For each measurement site with or without 

media sampling, global positioning system (GPS) latitude, longitude, and elevation readings were recorded along with the microR 

measurements. Traverse lines and specific sites for soil sampling 

were selected using aerial photographs to avoid being influenced 

by soil features or changes in microR readings.

Batch Leaching

A few samples were selected for batch leaching experiments. 

Samples selected for leaching included unprocessed uranium ore, 

mined waste-rock, surface sediments thought to contain fines or 

salts transported by runoff from a waste pile, and background 

samples. The purpose of the leaching experiments was to 

evaluate the solubility of trace elements in these sources. In 

this method, two leaching solutions were used: deionized (DI) 

water equilibrated with the atmosphere to produce a simulatedrainwater solution (pH = 5.6, –log pCO3

2– = 3.5), and water 

containing 300 milligrams per liter (mg/L) [HCO3

–

], which is 

consistent with the bicarbonate concentration of the Colorado 

River and other surface waters and groundwaters. Two time 

periods (1 h and 24 h) were used in the rainwater experiments 

to determine the differences in trace element solubility during a 

short and a long rain event and to determine the soluble components of weathered mine waste.

Samples were processed by grinding and crushing, as 

necessary, to a size less than 2 mm; they then were mixed 

and split using a stainless-steel splitter to obtain a homogenous 50 g sample. Samples were then processed according to the Hageman and Briggs Field Leach Test (Hageman 

and Briggs, 2000), which is a modification of Environmental 

Protection Agency Method 1312 (Synthetic Precipitation 

Leaching Procedure). In summary, 50 g of a solid sample were 

extracted in 1,000 milliliters (mL) of deionized (18 MWcm) 

water (20:1 liquid/solid ratio). New extraction vessels (Nalgene high density polyethylene 1 L bottles) were rinsed with 

DI water. Fifty grams of each sample was weighed and placed 

into the extraction vessel. One liter of DI water was slowly 

added to the vessel, and each vessel was capped. The extractor 

vessels were secured in an Analytical Testing Rotary Agitator 

(Model DC-20B) and rotated end-over-end at 28 revolutions 

per minute (rpm) for 1 h and 24 h. One replicate sample and 

a blank sample containing only DI water were processed with 

every 10 samples. At the end of the initial 24-h agitation period, 

a 250 mL aliquot of the mixture was poured into a centrifuge 

bottle and centrifuged at 5,000 rpm for 30 minutes (min) to 

remove mineral particles larger than approximately 0.4 micrometers (μm) from suspension. This mixture was then processed as 

described for the 24-h extraction with DI water.

After centrifugation, an aliquot of the supernatant liquid 

was taken for measurement of pH, alkalinity, and specific 

conductivity. The remainder of the 250-mL aliquot of sample 

was filtered through a 0.7-μm glass-fiber syringe filter (Nalgene 

PN 189-2000) in series with a 0.45-μm surfactant-free cellulose 

acetate syringe filter (Cameo DDE04025S0) pressurized through 

a 60-mL plastic sterile Luer-Lok syringe (BD P/N 309653). 

Filtrates were split into four 50-mL samples for chemical analysis. The 50-mL aliquot was acidified to pH 1.5 with Ultrex II 

Ultrapure nitric acid. One of the samples was submitted for trace 

element analysis using ICP–MS (Lamothe and others, 2002).

Site Investigations

Five sites were selected for study (fig. 1): Pigeon Mine, 

Kanab North Mine, Kanab South drill site, Hermit Mine, and 

Hack Mine complex (Hack Canyon and Hack 1, 2, 3 Mines). 

A stream-sediment survey was conducted along Jumpup 

Canyon near Jumpup Spring in an unmined area of the North 

Kaibab Ranger District to estimate background concentrations 

of trace elements in stream sediments. The Pigeon Mine is a 

fully reclaimed site in a small unnamed canyon that is a tributary of Snake Gulch. The Kanab North Mine is a mine site on 

standby with substantial quantities of mined waste rock stored 

on the ground surface. The site lies on a plateau within a few 

hundred feet of the cliff on the west side of Kanab Creek. 

The Kanab South pipe is located along a drainage tributary to 

Kanab Creek and is a few hundred yards from the cliff on the 

west side of Kanab Creek. The amount of ore identified by 

drilling the deposit was insufficient to support mine development. The drilling roads and pads were reclaimed. The Hermit 
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 63

Mine is a completely reclaimed site on a gently rolling plateau 

surface. The Hack Mine complex is in the upper part of Hack 

Canyon 8 to 9 mi west of Kanab Creek. Each of these sites is 

distinct and has different exposure to wind and floods, volume 

and grade of mined ore, and length of time that ore and waste 

materials have been exposed at the surface.

The trace elements considered during this study are arsenic 

(As), cadmium (Ca), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), molybdenum 

(Mo), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), thallium (Tl), 

uranium (U), vanadium (V), and zinc (Zn). These elements 

include those of significant environmental concern and elements 

known to be present in breccia-pipe uranium ores at concentrations substantially greater than in the surrounding rock.

Jumpup Canyon

Jumpup Canyon is a major eastern tributary to Kanab 

Creek (fig. 1). It drains much of the west-central part of the Forest 

Service land in which it is located. This area was withdrawn as a 

wildlife refuge in the early 1900s and, although early prospectors 

likely investigated the area, there has been no reported exploration and mineral development for 100 years. Billingsley and 

others (2008) mapped a few collapse structures and one breccia 

pipe in areas around the lower part of Jumpup Canyon.

The geology along the sampled part of the canyon 

consists of a flat-lying Permian section with the plateau capped 

by the Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab Formation. Exposed 

in the canyon wall below the Harrisburg Member are, in order, 

the Fossil Mountain Member of the Kaibab Formation; the 

Woods Ranch, Brady Canyon, and Seligman Members of the 

Toroweap Formation; and the Hermit Formation. Above the 

Hermit Formation, the Coconino Sandstone is mostly absent, 

but it is found as a thin unit in a few locations along the canyon 

wall. The Hermit Formation is mostly covered by talus and 

colluvium on the canyon slopes. The Coconino Sandstone and 

Hermit Formation are common hosts for uranium in breccia pipes 

(Billingsley and others, 2008). Above and near Jumpup Spring, 

terrace gravels are deposited along the east canyon wall.

Nine stream sediments were sampled along Jumpup Canyon 

from a point about 5,800 ft upstream from Jumpup Spring to 

a point about 6,300 ft downstream (fig. 1). A tenth sample was 

taken in the lower part of Pine Hollow, which joins Jumpup 

Canyon at the spring. Water from Jumpup Spring was sampled 

during the companion study led by Don Bills and others (this 

volume). One sediment sample, taken just downstream from 

Jumpup Spring, consists of black, organic muck from the downstream end of a small pool of water fed by Jumpup Spring. The 

uranium concentration in stream sediment samples along Jumpup 

Canyon and its tributary ranged from 1.6 to 1.9 ppm, and the 

uranium concentration in the black organic-muck sample was 

2.9 ppm.

The average, median, and range for trace element concentrations in 9 of the 10 Jumpup Canyon stream sediment samples 

(excluding the muck sample) are given in table 7. The median 

concentrations are considered background concentrations for 

stream sediments in this study. The tenth sample, the organic 

muck below Jumpup Spring, was slightly enriched in uranium 

(2.9 ppm) and contained anomalously high concentrations 

of copper (66.6 ppm), nickel (23 ppm), and zinc (362 ppm). 

MicroR measurements for all sample sites along Jumpup 

Canyon ranged narrowly from 4 to 5 μR/h.

Pigeon Mine

Pigeon Mine lies in a small wash north of Snake Gulch, 

an eastern tributary to Kanab Creek (figs. 1, 5). The center 

of the mine site is located at 36°43'27.35" N. latitude and 

112°31'40.80" W. longitude at an altitude of 5,210 ft above sea 

level (asl). The center is about 165–200 ft below the adjacent 

plateau surface to the west, north, and south. Gullies feed 

radially towards the center of the collapse feature from three 

sides, and a narrow ridge to the southeast separates the pipe 

from an adjacent wash. A wash exits the pipe area to the south 

then turns sharply east to join the adjacent wash (fig. 5). The 

geologic unit at the surface is the Harrisburg Member of the 

Kaibab Formation (Billingsley and others, 2008).

The pipe was discovered in 1980. The site was prepared and developed from 1982 to 1984, and mining began 

in December 1984. The pipe was mined out in late 1989 and 

reclamation begun. Production totaled 5.7 million pounds 

U3O8 at an average grade of 0.65 percent from 439,400 tons of 

ore (Pool and Ross, 2007). During mining operations a shaft 

was dug into the pipe (fig. 6) on the slopes of the small wash, 

and a mine-site pad was established adjacent to the shaft. Two 

areas were cleared for site operations on the plateau to the 

north (fig. 6). One, centered at 36°43'43.82" N. latitude and 

112°31'47.90" W. longitude, was the location of mine operation buildings and ore and mined waste-rock piles. This area, 

here referred to as the operations site, is about 480 × 340 ft; 

the long dimension is oriented northeast. Waste-rock and ore 

piles were at the surface of the operations site for a maximum 

of 5 years. The second area, centered at 36°43'52.21" N. latitude and 112°31'45.07" W. longitude, is a 400 × 400 ft square 

that contained wastewater ponds.

Table 7. Range, average, and median concentrations of trace 

elements in stream sediment from Jumpup Canyon.

[ppm, parts per million]

Element Range

(ppm)

Average

(ppm)

Median

(ppm)

Arsenic 4–5 4.6 5

Cadmium 0.2–0.4 0.3 0.3

Cobalt 3.3–5.0 4.2 4.4

Copper 9.3–18.7 12.9 12.5

Molybdenum 0.61–1.0 0.78 0.74

Nickel 7.9–12.5 10.3 10.9

Lead 10.1–14.6 12.4 12.5

Antimony 0.38–0.56 0.47 0.47

Thallium 0.3–0.4 0.31 0.3

Uranium 1.6–1.9 1.7 1.7

Vanadium 23–32 29 29

Zinc 32–53 42 41
64 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Figure 5. Pigeon Mine site (in small wash); view to northeast. 

Surface of Pigeon breccia pipe is pale reddish-brown, a 

color derived from material used to cover mined waste rock 

throughout the site. Boulders mantle reconstructed drainages 

in the pipe. (Photograph courtesy of Don Bills, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona. Taken August 25, 2009.)

Reclamation has been completed. Within the wash, land 

surface that was altered during mining was recontoured and is 

covered with a mix of local soil and rock and gravel from the 

local county gravel pit (fig. 7). The surface was revegetated, 

but a few areas support little new growth. Breccia crops out in 

the covered area. A small gully has eroded the surface of the 

covered area, but it does not appear to have penetrated buried 

waste rock (if any is present). The principal gullies draining 

the site were reconstructed, and large boulders were placed 

along the channels to control erosion. The haul road was 

regraded within the wash; it is covered with boulders, here and 

on the adjacent plateau, to discourage travel. The operations 

and wastewater pond sites on the nearby plateau were cleared, 

regraded, and revegetated (fig. 8).

Pigeon Mine was the site of the following USGS studies:

• Soil and mined waste-rock sampling of the cover area 

within the mine site;

• Soil sampling on the adjacent plateau and hillslope areas;

• Stream sediment sampling within the pipe area and 

along the wash immediately to the east;

• Soil and waste-rock sampling along two traverses 

across the former mine operations and mined wasterock storage pile site;

• MicroR readings at each of the soil and stream 

sediment sites listed above;

• MicroR readings across the site of the former wastewater ponds; and

• Detailed microR readings and sampling on the east slope 

of the narrow ridge separating the mine site from the 

adjacent wash. This area contains exposed, mined waste 

rock that has been transported downslope (fig. 7).

Geochemical data for soil, stream sediment, rock, and 

mined waste-rock samples are shown on separate map series 

for the mine site and for the operations site; data for uranium, 

arsenic, cadmium, antimony, cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, zinc, and thallium is presented 

(figs. 9A–X). No samples were collected across the waste 

pond site, but radioactivity was measured in that area.

Soil samples collected across the surface of the reclaimed 

area of the pipe have uranium concentrations that range from 

2.2 to 8.1 ppm, except for two samples that contain 68 and 

79.1 ppm uranium (fig. 9A, n=26; samples GC09PS50–75a). 

The average and median concentrations of 9.6 and 4.4 ppm 

uranium, respectively, show the effect of two high-concentration 

samples. These latter samples likely represent soil contaminated by partly exposed waste material. The uranium content of 

the cover material is thus about 4.4 ppm. Along the reclaimed 

area's southeast margin, the edge of the gravel cover allows 

underlying mined waste rock to be exposed along a short section of the crest of the ridge (fig. 7). Owing to distinctive reddish to yellowish colors of slope wash derived from the mined 

waste rock, which are distinct from the pale reddish-brown 

Wastewater pits

Mine site

Waste rock

Figure 6. Pigeon Mine during operation; waste-rock piles and 

wastewater ponds placed on plateau surface. Operations offices 

were to the left of waste-rock pile. (Photograph courtesy of 

Denison Mines, Fredonia, Arizona.)
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 65

N Qal

Qal c

r

c

c

c

b

b

a

a

a

d

c

p d

n

tr

Qal

Check dam

Exposed

waste

Outline of

reclaimed pipe

Exposed bedrock

dipslope

Breccia

outcrop

Gully

l l l l l l l

0 50 100 METERS

0 250 500 FEET

Wash

Dip on beds

Contaminated slopewash

Revegated cover, waste rock

 below in places

Cover, poorly revegetated

Boulder train along drainage

Recontoured access road

Bulldozer cut

Road trace

Pile of boulders

Salt cedar

Modern alluvium

c

n

b

a

d

r

p

tr

EXPLANATION

Wastewater

pond site

Operations

site

Mine site

N

0 100 200 METERS

0 500 1,000 FEET

Figure 7. Pigeon pipe showing reclaimed pipe area and related features.

Figure 8. Former Pigeon Mine site, showing reclaimed 

operations area, waste-water ponds, and mine area.

color of the natural soils, this material can be traced downslope 

from the ridge crest to the edge of the stream channel. One 

sample of the slope wash contained 20.4 ppm uranium, and a 

sample of the exposed waste rock contained 171 ppm uranium 

(fig. 9A, table 8).

Concentrations of uranium in soil samples on adjacent 

hilltops and slopes outside of the reclaimed pipe area range from 

3.2 to 36.6 ppm and average 9.5 ppm (median, 6.3 ppm) (fig. 9A, 

n=16; table 8, samples GC09PS01–16). All soil samples that contained uranium concentrations exceeding 7 ppm were collected on 

the east side of the pipe. The two highest uranium concentrations 

(26.5 and 36.6 ppm) (fig. 9A; table 8, samples GC09PS06–7) 

were found on the hillslope close to the eastern edge of the pipe. 

These two sites are downslope from the ridge crest where it 

is several tens of feet to the east of the bedrock contact with 

the pipe and the reclaimed area. Slope wash derived from mined 

waste rock could not have contributed to the uranium content 

of these soils because of their physical location relative to mine 

operations. These concentrations are clearly anomalous when 

compared with regional soil samples from the 12-quadrangle 

part of the NURE HSSR study (mean 2.4 ppm uranium) and the 

median concentration of the present-day soil cover (4.4 ppm). 

These data suggest that windblown dusts from the site may have 

contributed uranium to soils during mine operations. The ratio 

of arsenic to uranium in these two soil samples is about 2:1, 

similar to the average ratio of arsenic to uranium in mine waste 

samples collected from the site (table 8, samples GC09PW01, 

-W02, -W03, -W101, -R75 and -R76). A single soil sample taken 

from a hillslope across the stream to the east contained 11.1 ppm 

uranium (fig. 9A; table 8, sample GC09PS08,). This sample 

may also be contaminated by windblown dust, but other highly 

anomalous trace elements are present in this sample—arsenic 

(393 ppm), silver (2 ppm), molybdenum (96.7 ppm), and zinc 

(254 ppm). The arsenic/uranium ratio is much higher in this soil 

sample (35:1) than in the two samples discussed previously. 

This soil sample also contained 3.62 percent iron, three times the 

average of the other 15 soil samples (1.21 percent). Examination 

of bedrock exposed in the small drainage revealed several irregularly shaped, crosscutting zones of resistant, limonite-cemented 

sandstone, some of which have radioactivity levels above 

background. Similar limonite-cemented sandstone occurs near the 

Kanab South pipe. These zones may have been formed by fluids 

circulating near the pipe during ore formation; they occur along 

the ridge where this soil sample was collected and are the most 

likely source of iron.
66 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Figure 9. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and rock 

samples at Pigeon Mine site. Uranium concentration at mine site (A) and operations site (B).

"

"

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Uranium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

N

A

3.7

5.4

7.2 10.6

3.7

4.3

2.4 4.4

2.8

2.2

2.5

8.1 2.6

4.6

2.6 12.9

6.2

8.5

3.2

3.2

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.4

2.8

3.5

7.4

7.2

4.2

4.2

3.9

7.5

4.8

6

4

5

2.7

5

5

9.8

8.3

16.7

11.1

26.5

171

36.6

4.9

6.3

6.3

68

5.2

45

20.4

79.1

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Uranium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

2.8

3.1

1.8

4.2

2.8

1870

9.6

206

502

13.3

147 32.2

1230

19.3

4.7

616

33

31.5

5.3

2.6

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

B
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 67

"

#

!

G

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Arsenic

(parts per million)

Sample Type

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

N

31

7 12 32

37

393

23

9

8

8

25

10

24

46

23

31

17 21

16

407 22

52

27

30

41 31

28

17

19

24 26

62

66

66

58

48

7

32

93

90

30

41

6 44

15

34 50

39

79

52

39

63 158 377

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ Ë

C

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Arsenic

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

5060

35

23

17

21

15

455

24

1620

39

74

1980

32

258

243

16

12

32

43

22

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

D

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Arsenic concentration at mine site (C) and operations site (D).
68 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Cadmium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N 0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.05

0.2

0.2 1.6

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1

0.2

0.8

1.2

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.2

0.1 0.2

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.2

1

0.4

0.3

0.4 0.2

0.2

0.3 0.3

0.1

0.05

0.05

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

0.5

0.05

0.5

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

E

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Cadmium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

17.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3 0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

17.2

0.6

2.9

0.2

1

6.6

F

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Cadmium concentration at mine site (E) and operations site (F ).
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 69

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Antimony

(parts per million)

Sample Type

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

N

0.96

0.86

0.86

0.92

2.19

0.69

0.56

0.58

0.72

0.45

1.21

1.02

0.55

0.5

0.5

0.59

0.55 0.98

0.37

0.5 0.81

0.73

0.61

0.31

0.49

0.42

0.46

0.5

0.51

0.51

0.12 0.47

0.56 0.79 0.73

0.3

0.48

0.5

1.46

0.84

0.69

0.69

0.65

2.87 0.61 1.91

0.74

0.66

0.64 0.59

0.66

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

G

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Antimony

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

12.1

0.71

0.71

0.63

0.86

0.76

12.1

0.64

14.8

0.95

1.16

124

1.08

50

14.6

0.8

0.68

1.39

1.38

0.78

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

H

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Antimony concentration at mine site (G) and operations site (H).
70 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Cobalt

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

11.9

6 6

5.8

9.2

9.4

29

8.9

6.7

7.3

6.1 7.2

8.2

6

6

5.4

11.4 9.9

9.8

5.2

55.6

11.9

22.5

24.7

21.2

8.4

3.8

8.2

8.2 7.6

11.3

11.5

7.7

7.7

7.8

7.1

7.3

6.5

7.6

6.3

5.7

5.4

7.9

2.1

6.6

5.5

5.4

7 7

7

5.1 9

4.7

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

I

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Cobalt

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

9.5

6

8.7

10.1

7.3

8.9

8

232

112

14

32.2

17.7

22.8

9.3

8.8

7.8

17.9

232 55

50.1

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

J

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Cobalt concentration at mine site (I) and operations site (J).
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 71

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Copper

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

36.9

23 10

12.1 13.1

24.3 14.5

135

18.5

78.7

21.8

183

59.6

25.8 28.8

19.3

15.9

27.4

19.4

26.4

28.7 14.2

21.7

15.6 25.3

13

26.3

23.3 20.1

26.7 11.2

14.5

22

21.6 50.6

5

51.5

18.2

14.4

11.5

13

17.2

15.1

6.434.3 75.1 27

16.7

22.8

13.7

24.2

18.1

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

K

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Copper

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

22.5

9030

22.9

22.8

18.3

19.5 136

18.9

212

22.6

123 26

57.2

27.2

130

23.2

19.3

39.2

45.9

24.9

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

L

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Copper concentration at mine site (K) and operations site (L).
72 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Lead

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

17.3

8.2

8.3 10.4 14.7

13.1

17.3

16

7.6 14.4

15.4 14.3

25.2

20.1

15.7

49.6

59.4

28.8

5.5 9.8

8.8 9.2

7.9

7

8

9.5

7

6.5

7.1

11.39.4

8.1

6.8

8.4

4.4 6.9

9.1

10

11.3

8.6

10.4

2.2

11.2 7.4

13.2

11.9

10.5

11.9

9.5

10.1

11.6 17

19.2

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

M

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

14

18

837

137 935

251

277

101

14.4

20.4

17.2

15.1

13.7

19.8

12.8

18.6

18.7

23.8

25.5

14.4

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Lead

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

14.4

837

14

18

13.7

19.8 101

12.8

251

18.6

18.7

277

137

20.4

935

17.2

15.1

23.8

25.5

14.4

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

N

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Lead concentration at mine site (M) and operations site (N).
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 73

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Molybdenum

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

3.07

2.81

2.8

96.7

0.89

1.41 0.82

0.74 4.29

3.97

4.66

10.7

1.9

0.8

0.76 2.82

7.96

2.87

0.82

3.64

1.9

0.89

1.72

49.4

7.21 21

5.5

1.29

92.2

3.3

0.43

1.1

4.3

5.04 0.77

1.08

3.1

0.68

1.14

1.15

2.31

5.73

0.88

2.36

1.48 1.75

0.75

0.8

0.69

2.89

1.16

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

3.02

O

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Molybdenum

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

1.51

77.1

20.9

0.81

0.97

0.73

1.66

0.96

393

5.56

33.9

8.41

2.49

2.7

1.18

0.78

0.95

4.69

86.4 693

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

P

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Molybdenum concentration at mine site (O) and operations site (P).
74 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Nickel

(parts per million)

Sample Type

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

N

24.8

14.5

12.5 15.9

11.9

16.1

17.9

10 13.4

14.1

44

24.3

93.2

46.9

25

16

17.4

17.2

21.3 25.2

12.3

3.7

18

13915.9

21

21.7

130

25.4

13.2

13

13.9

20.6 15.4

10.1

8.9

12.8

9.5

10.2

11.3

20.4

14

17

8.9 20.5

15.5

15.1 18.9

43.8

40.1

15.2

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

Q

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Nickel

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

16.1

54.8

13.7

18.7

14.6

16.8 285

15.4

570

27.7

75.7

35.6

41.8

18.4

15.3

17.3

397

33.4

93.8

354

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

R

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Nickel concentration at mine site (Q) and operations site (R).
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 75

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Vanadium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

39

44

56

31

36

31

31 25

38

37

27

56

34

31

27

28 35

34

33

29

29

33

25

30

60

55

49

61

55

55

57

52

30 9

36 62

35

11

51

35

54

37

81 52

57

48

44

54

48

49

51

49

28

43 31

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

S

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Vanadium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

37

21

47

55

44

48

42

51

50

42

64

47

43

49

40

47

50

50 43

22

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

T

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Vanadium concentration at mine site (S) and operations site (T ).
76 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Zinc

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

64

53

56

254

66

42

39

43

56

34

28

36

30

39

34

30

8

296

29

39 42

43

35

139

70

224

76

93

46

29

30

29

39 40

40

47

33

32 167

36 44

27

60

45

66

42

97

47

4482 70

72

21

40

46

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

U

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Zinc

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

46

3400

44

62

45

61

51

624

1460

65

215 141

48

55

76

2810

16

90

87

53

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

V

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Zinc concentration at mine site (U) and operations site (V).
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 77

"

#

!

G

Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Thallium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

0.9

1.2

3.9

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.5 0.3

0.4

0.5

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.4 0.3 0.3

1

1.1

0.9

1.8

1.8

0.9

1

1

0.4

0.5 0.6

0.9

0.5

1.1 0.4

0.5

2.6

0.3

1.5

0.2

1 0.9

0.6

1.1

1.2 1.2

1.7 0.8

0.9

0

0

100 METERS

500 FEET

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

!

!

$ G

W

"

!

G

Rock

Soil

Mine Waste

Thallium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

0.3

0.5

0.4

0.4

6.3

0.5

0.4 21.9

0.4

71.3

1.4

2.6

1

1

0.5

0.5

4.3

1.2

33.7

139

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

!

!

G G

G

X

Figure 9—Continued. Concentration of selected elements in soils, stream sediments, waste rock, and 

rock samples at Pigeon Mine site. Thallium concentration at mine site (W) and operations site (X).
78 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study. Description of major, minor, 

and trace element data from samples collected at Jumpup Canyon, Pigeon, Kanab North, Kanab South, Hermit, and Hack Canyon 

sample sites.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Sample

medium Latitude Longitude Description of sample site Samplesite

GC09JSS50 Sediment 36.59117 –112.53754 Stream sediment upgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS51 Sediment 36.58704 –112.54138 Stream sediment upgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS52 Sediment 36.58256 –112.54688 Stream sediment upgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS53 Sediment 36.58005 –112.54400 Stream sediment upgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS54 Sediment 36.58102 –112.54704 Stream sediment upgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS05 Sediment 36.58089 –112.54758 Organic muck in pond just downgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS01 Sediment 36.56663 –112.56202 Stream sediment downgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS02 Sediment 36.56976 –112.55717 Stream sediment downgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS03 Sediment 36.57292 –112.55304 Stream sediment downgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09JSS04 Sediment 36.57605 –112.55054 Stream sediment downgradient from Jumpup Spring Jumpup Canyon

GC09PS50 Soil 36.72530 –112.52762 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS51 Soil 36.72491 –112.52775 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS52 Soil 36.72467 –112.52784 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS53 Soil 36.72434 –112.52765 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS54 Soil 36.72406 –112.52783 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS55 Soil 36.72423 –112.52716 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS56 Soil 36.72320 –112.52780 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS57 Soil 36.72344 –112.52752 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS58 Soil 36.72362 –112.52792 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS59 Soil 36.72376 –112.52762 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS60 Soil 36.72471 –112.52745 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS61 Soil 36.72391 –112.52854 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS62 Soil 36.72391 –112.52854 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS63 Soil 36.72379 –112.52873 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS64 Soil 36.72386 –112.52886 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS65 Soil 36.72400 –112.52903 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS66 Soil 36.72397 –112.52954 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS67 Soil 36.72425 –112.52928 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS68 Soil 36.72474 –112.52918 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS69 Soil 36.72491 –112.52889 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS70 Soil 36.72456 –112.52876 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS71 Soil 36.72424 –112.52850 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS72 Soil 36.72424 –112.52850 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS73 Soil 36.72467 –112.52828 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS74 Soil 36.72519 –112.52838 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS75a Soil 36.72531 –112.52803 Surface soil in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS01 Soil 36.72599 –112.52627 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS02 Soil 36.72723 –112.52797 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS03 Soil 36.72590 –112.52762 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS04 Soil 36.72650 –112.53068 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS05 Soil 36.72483 –112.52605 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS06 Soil 36.72449 –112.52655 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS07 Soil 36.72400 –112.52673 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS08 Soil 36.72306 –112.52582 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS09 Soil 36.72219 –112.52714 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS10 Soil 36.72218 –112.52715 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS11 Soil 36.72546 –112.53035 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS12 Soil 36.72482 –112.53121 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS13 Soil 36.72393 –112.53022 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS14 Soil 36.72356 –112.53101 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PS15 Soil 36.72319 –112.52896 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 79

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study. Description of major, minor, 

and trace element data from samples collected at Jumpup Canyon, Pigeon, Kanab North, Kanab South, Hermit, and Hack Canyon 

sample sites.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Sample

medium Latitude Longitude Description of sample site Samplesite

GC09PS16 Soil 36.72227 –112.52886 Surface soil on hillslopes outside of Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PSS03 Sediment 36.72351 –112.52820 Stream sediment below boulder train in Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PSS04 Sediment 36.72292 –112.52741 Stream sediment just downgradient from Pigeon Mine reclaimed area Pigeon

GC09PSS01 Sediment 36.72580 –112.52359 Stream sediment from wash to east-upgradient from Pigeon Mine Pigeon

GC09PSS02 Sediment 36.72490 –112.52452 Stream sediment from wash to east-upgradient from Pigeon Mine Pigeon

GC09PSS10 Sediment 36.72416 –112.52565 Stream sediment from wash to east-upgradient from Pigeon Mine Pigeon

GC09PSS09 Sediment 36.72370 –112.52551 Stream sediment from wash to east-upgradient from Pigeon Mine Pigeon

GC09PSS08 Sediment 36.72336 –112.52698 Stream sediment from wash to east-downgradient from Pigeon Mine Pigeon

GC09PSS05 Sediment 36.72271 –112.52596 Stream sediment from wash to east-downgradient from Pigeon Mine Pigeon

GC09PSS06 Sediment 36.72224 –112.52611 Stream sediment from wash to east-downgradient from Pigeon Mine Pigeon

GC09PSS07 Sediment 36.72168 –112.52629 Stream sediment from wash to east-downgradient from Pigeon Mine Pigeon

GC09PR01 Rock outcrop 36.72309 –112.52789 Cherty limestone at south edge of Pigeon Mine reclaimed site Pigeon

GC09PR02 Rock outcrop 36.72388 –112.52944 Surface rock at border of Pigeon Mine reclaimed iste Pigeon

GC09PW101 Mine waste 36.72353 –112.52724 Exposed waste rock layer at east edge of Pigeon mine reclaimed site Pigeon

GC09PR101 Slope wash 36.72342 –112.52690 Slope wash- on hillslope below east edge of Pigeon mine reclaimed site Pigeon

GC09PS75 Soil 36.72974 –112.52896 E-W soil transect across mine operations area (east of reclaimed area) Pigeon

GC09PS76 Soil 36.72951 –112.52937 E-W soil transect across mine operations area (east of reclaimed area) Pigeon

GC09PS77 Soil 36.72930 –112.52963 E-W soil transect across mine operations area (east of reclaimed area) Pigeon

GC09PS78 Soil 36.72909 –112.53001 E-W soil transect across mine operations area (former waste rock pile) Pigeon

GC09PS79 Soil 36.72895 –112.53020 E-W soil transect across mine operations area (former waste rock pile) Pigeon

GC09PS80 Soil 36.72874 –112.53051 E-W soil transect across mine operations area (reclaimed building site) Pigeon

GC09PS81 Soil 36.72864 –112.53071 E-W soil transect across mine operations area (reclaimed building site) Pigeon

GC09PS82 Soil 36.72848 –112.53097 E-W soil transect across mine operations area (reclaimed building site) Pigeon

GC09PS83 Soil 36.72831 –112.53127 E-W soil transect across mine operations area, west of reclaimed site Pigeon

GC09PS84 Soil 36.72815 –112.53150 E-W soil transect across mine operations area, west of reclaimed site Pigeon

GC09PS85 Soil 36.73025 –112.53094 N-S soil transect across mine operations area, north of reclaimed site Pigeon

GC09PS86 Soil 36.72959 –112.53057 N-S soil transect across mine operations area, north of reclaimed site Pigeon

GC09PS87 Soil 36.72922 –112.53032 N-S soil transect across mine operations area (former waste rock pile) Pigeon

GC09PS88 Soil 36.72862 –112.53005 N-S soil transect across mine operations area (former waste rock pile) Pigeon

GC09PS89 Soil 36.72836 –112.52987 N-S soil transect across mine operations area, south of reclaimed site Pigeon

GC09PW01 Mine waste 36.72913 –112.53025 Waste rock, reclaimed mine operations area, former mine waste pile Pigeon

GC09PW02 Mine waste 36.72911 –112.53059 Grey mud on soil, mine operations area, former waste rock pile Pigeon

GC09PW03 Mine waste 36.72821 –112.53032 Waste rock at south edge of reclaimed mine operations area Pigeon

GC09PR75 Rock 36.72905 –112.53016 Waste rock, reclaimed mine operations area, former mine waste pile Pigeon

GC09PR76 Rock 36.72885 –112.53033 Waste rock, reclaimed mine operations area, former mine waste pile Pigeon

GC09KNW01 Mine waste 36.68622 –112.64315 Composite sample of east face of waste rock pile at Kanab North Mine Kanab North

GC09KNW12 Mine waste 36.68674 –112.64366 Runoff from waste rock pile at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW08 Mine waste 36.68831 –112.64373 Sludge at bottom of waste-water pond at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW03 Mine waste 36.68581 –112.64344 Disturbed soil at south end of Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW04 Mine waste 36.68664 –112.64319 Surface material on waste rock pile at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW05 Mine waste 36.68660 –112.64439 Surface material at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW06 Mine waste 36.68692 –112.64452 Surface material at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW07 Mine waste 36.68809 –112.64428 Surface material at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW09 Mine waste 36.68805 –112.64347 Surface material at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW10 Mine waste 36.68756 –112.64317 Surface material at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW11 Mine waste 36.68729 –112.64261 Surface material at Kanab North Mine site Kanab North

GC09KNW13 Mine waste 36.68632 –112.64364 Waste rock at Kanab North Mine area Kanab North

GS09KNS50 Soil 36.68755 –112.64484 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GS09KNS51 Soil 36.68823 –112.64449 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GS09KNS52 Soil 36.68865 –112.64371 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GS09KNS53 Soil 36.68872 –112.64309 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North
80 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study. Description of major, minor, 

and trace element data from samples collected at Jumpup Canyon, Pigeon, Kanab North, Kanab South, Hermit, and Hack Canyon 

sample sites.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Sample

medium Latitude Longitude Description of sample site Samplesite

GS09KNS54 Soil 36.68796 –112.64242 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GS09KNS55 Soil 36.68719 –112.64238 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GS09KNS56 Soil 36.68647 –112.64278 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GS09KNS57 Soil 36.68592 –112.64325 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GS09KNS58 Soil 36.68602 –112.64407 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GS09KNS59 Soil 36.68658 –112.64479 Surface soil-near perimeter fence outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS01 Soil 36.68772 –112.64607 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS02 Soil 36.68819 –112.64552 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS03 Soil 36.68895 –112.64468 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS04 Soil 36.68905 –112.64390 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS05 Soil 36.68898 –112.64291 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS06 Soil 36.68819 –112.64228 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS07 Soil 36.68799 –112.64211 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS08 Soil 36.68701 –112.64207 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS09 Soil 36.68603 –112.64221 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS10 Soil 36.68525 –112.64280 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS11 Soil 36.68524 –112.64388 Surface soil-distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KNS12 Soil 36.68614 –112.64505 Surface soil- distant from fence, outside of Kanab North mine site Kanab North

GC09KSSS03 Sediment 36.67739 –112.64738 Stream sediment just west of breccia pipe at Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSSS02 Sediment 36.67771 –112.64669 Stream sediment at lower edge of breccia pipe at Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSSS01 Sediment 36.67805 –112.64619 Stream sediment east downstream of Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSSS04 Sediment 36.67733 –112.64715 Stream sediment south of Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSSS05 Sediment 36.67639 –112.64700 Stream sediment south of Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSSS06 Sediment 36.67528 –112.64737 Stream sediment south of Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSS01 Soil 36.67906 –112.64777 Surface soil on hills- Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSS02 Soil 36.67906 –112.64777 Surface soil on hills- Kanab South Pipe- duplicate Kanab South

GC09KSS03 Soil 36.67809 –112.64903 Surface soil on hills- Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSS04 Soil 36.67732 –112.64964 Surface soil on hills- Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSS05 Soil 36.67632 –112.64773 Surface soil on hills- Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSS06 Soil 36.67698 –112.64570 Surface soil on hills- Kanab South Pipe Kanab South

GC09KSR01 Rock outcrop 36.67733 –112.64715 Surface outcrop of limonite-cemented sandstone at Kanab South Pipe Kanab South 

GC09HS01 Soil 36.69138 –112.75299 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS02 Soil 36.68967 –112.75378 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS03 Soil 36.68936 –112.75317 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS04 Soil 36.68915 –112.75256 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS05 Soil 36.68892 –112.75142 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS06 Soil 36.68939 –112.75056 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS07 Soil 36.69014 –112.75071 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS08 Soil 36.69022 –112.75162 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS09 Soil 36.69097 –112.75259 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS10 Soil 36.69051 –112.75274 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS11 Soil 36.69038 –112.75361 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS12 Soil 36.69001 –112.75300 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS13 Soil 36.68962 –112.75208 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS14 Soil 36.68966 –112.75131 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS15 Soil 36.68965 –112.75135 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS16 Soil 36.69003 –112.75020 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS17 Soil 36.69095 –112.75097 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS18 Soil 36.69077 –112.75179 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS19 Soil 36.69142 –112.75178 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS20 Soil 36.69187 –112.75231 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS21 Soil 36.69139 –112.75072 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS22 Soil 36.69078 –112.75022 Samples of surface soil inside of Hermit Mine disturbed area Hermit

GC09HS58 Soil 36.69044 –112.74982 Surface soil along E-W transect east of Hermit Mine Hermit
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 81

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study. Description of major, minor, 

and trace element data from samples collected at Jumpup Canyon, Pigeon, Kanab North, Kanab South, Hermit, and Hack Canyon 

sample sites.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Sample

medium Latitude Longitude Description of sample site Samplesite

GC09HS59 Soil 36.69032 –112.74866 Surface soil along E-W transect east of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS60 Soil 36.69000 –112.74759 Surface soil along E-W transect east of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS61 Soil 36.69002 –112.74649 Surface soil along E-W transect east of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS62 Soil 36.68988 –112.74539 Surface soil along E-W transect east of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS63 Soil 36.68977 –112.74416 Surface soil along E-W transect east of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS64 Soil 36.68973 –112.74311 Surface soil along E-W transect east of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS65 Soil 36.68827 –112.75201 Surface soil along N-S transect south of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS66 Soil 36.68747 –112.75234 Surface soil along N-S transect south of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS67 Soil 36.68747 –112.75234 Surface soil along N-S transect south of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS68 Soil 36.68665 –112.75265 Surface soil along N-S transect south of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS69 Soil 36.68578 –112.75303 Surface soil along N-S transect south of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS70 Soil 36.68492 –112.75335 Surface soil along N-S transect south of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS71 Soil 36.68405 –112.75365 Surface soil along N-S transect south of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS50 Soil 36.69033 –112.76189 Surface soil along E-W transect west of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS51 Soil 36.69012 –112.76081 Surface soil along E-W transect west of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS52 Soil 36.69000 –112.75966 Surface soil along E-W transect west of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS53 Soil 36.68967 –112.75837 Surface soil along E-W transect west of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS54 Soil 36.68954 –112.75744 Surface soil along E-W transect west of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS55 Soil 36.68940 –112.75633 Surface soil along E-W transect west of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS56 Soil 36.68923 –112.75514 Surface soil along E-W transect west of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS57 Soil 36.68915 –112.75404 Surface soil along E-W transect west of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS76 Soil 36.69260 –112.75355 Surface soil along road transect NW of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS77 Soil 36.69260 –112.75355 Surface soil along road transect NW of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS78 Soil 36.69332 –112.75419 Surface soil along road transect NW of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS79 Soil 36.69407 –112.75485 Surface soil along road transect NW of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS80 Soil 36.69480 –112.75551 Surface soil along road transect NW of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS81 Soil 36.69560 –112.75618 Surface soil along road transect NW of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS75 Soil 36.69182 –112.75292 Surface soil along road transect NW of Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS105 Soil 36.70274 –112.74909 Surface soil in drainage downgradient north from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS106 Soil 36.70029 –112.75101 Surface soil in drainage downgradient north from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS107 Soil 36.69944 –112.75209 Surface soil in drainage downgradient north from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS108 Soil 36.69677 –112.75177 Surface soil in drainage downgradient north from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS109 Soil 36.69428 –112.75152 Surface soil in drainage downgradient north from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HS110 Soil 36.69316 –112.75106 Surface soil in drainage downgradient north from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HSS100 Sediment 36.70485 –112.74705 Sediment @ 0–2" depth in stock tank downgradient from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HSS101 Sediment 36.70485 –112.74705 Sediment @ 6–9" depth in stock tank downgradient from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HSS102 Sediment 36.70485 –112.74705 Sediment @ 9–12" depth in stock tank downgradient from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HSS103 Sediment 36.70485 –112.74705 Sediment @ 16–19" depth in stock tank downgradient from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HSS104 Sediment 36.70450 –112.74723 Stream sediment at mouth of stock tank downgradient from Hermit Mine Hermit

GC09HKSS01 Sediment 36.58881 –112.81559 Hack Canyon upstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS02 Sediment 36.57991 –112.81502 Robinson Canyon upstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS04 Sediment 36.58588 –112.79572 Tributary canyon upstream from Hack 1 mine Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS05 Sediment 36.58615 –112.79644 Tributary canyon upstream from Hack 1 mine Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS03 Sediment 36.58423 –112.80953 Hack Canyon downstream from Hack 2&3 mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS06 Sediment 36.58224 –112.79949 Hack Canyon downstream from Hack 1 mine Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS07 Sediment 36.57947 –112.79886 Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS08 Sediment 36.57842 –112.79243 Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS09 Sediment 36.57306 –112.78210 Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKSS10 Sediment 36.56619 –112.74516 Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKRK01 Mine waste 36.58534 –112.80902 Waste on alluvial surface—Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKRK02 Mine waste 36.58297 –112.79952 Waste on alluvial surface—Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKRK03 Mine waste 36.58120 –112.79947 Waste on alluvial surface—Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKRK04 Mine waste 36.58120 –112.79947 Waste on alluvial surface—Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon

GC09HKRK05 Mine waste 36.57924 –112.79874 Waste on alluvial surface—Hack Canyon downstream from mines Hack Canyon
82 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Aluminun

wt. %

Calcium

wt. %

Iron

wt. %

Potassium

wt. %

Magnesium

wt. %

Sodium

wt. %

Sulfur

wt. %

Titanium

wt. %

Silver

ppm

GC09JSS50 2.82 4.22 1.26 1.29 1.19 0.25 0.03 0.16 <1

GC09JSS51 2.77 4.73 1.22 1.08 1.26 0.26 0.03 0.15 <1

GC09JSS52 2.81 4.38 1.19 1.18 1.19 0.27 0.03 0.16 <1

GC09JSS53 2.72 6.67 1.09 1.17 1.24 0.28 0.23 0.15 <1

GC09JSS54 2.92 5.73 1.21 1.1 1.35 0.26 0.08 0.15 <1

GC09JSS05 1.29 6.63 0.87 0.59 0.99 0.13 0.27 0.07 <1

GC09JSS01 2.45 5.57 1.02 1.24 1.32 0.25 0.02 0.14 <1

GC09JSS02 2.55 5.4 1.13 1.12 1.35 0.25 0.03 0.14 <1

GC09JSS03 2.1 5.58 0.9 1.15 1.27 0.18 0.02 0.12 <1

GC09JSS04 2.24 5.02 0.94 1.29 1.2 0.2 0.02 0.12 <1

GC09PS50 4.53 8.04 1.79 2.19 4.9 0.06 0.04 0.23 <1

GC09PS51 4.29 8.05 1.74 1.9 4.86 0.06 0.04 0.22 <1

GC09PS52 4.79 7.51 2.02 2.56 4.57 0.06 0.04 0.23 <1

GC09PS53 4.07 6.98 1.8 2 4.1 0.06 0.17 0.21 <1

GC09PS54 4.22 7.08 1.79 2.26 4.26 0.06 0.07 0.21 <1

GC09PS55 6.32 6.61 2.9 3.24 4.4 0.08 0.03 0.3 <1

GC09PS56 4.08 7.58 1.77 1.95 4.11 0.07 0.19 0.21 <1

GC09PS57 4.29 7.01 1.85 2.27 4.13 0.06 0.28 0.22 <1

GC09PS58 4.13 8.1 1.7 1.89 4.94 0.06 0.07 0.21 <1

GC09PS59 2.8 4.91 2.88 1.58 2.79 0.04 1.43 0.14 <1

GC09PS60 3.73 7.8 1.68 1.74 4.5 0.06 0.09 0.2 <1

GC09PS61 3.85 7.49 1.69 2.09 4.05 0.07 0.15 0.2 <1

GC09PS62 3.56 7.26 1.58 1.97 3.96 0.06 0.15 0.18 <1

GC09PS63 2.71 8.79 1.46 1.44 3.61 0.08 0.15 0.14 <1

GC09PS64 3.71 3.71 2.43 1.86 1.92 0.05 1.38 0.2 <1

GC09PS65 3.43 8.36 1.59 1.84 4.56 0.09 0.15 0.18 <1

GC09PS66 4.01 8.84 1.6 2.28 4.45 0.07 0.05 0.19 <1

GC09PS67 4.1 8.7 1.83 2.3 5.29 0.06 0.15 0.2 <1

GC09PS68 4.3 8.56 1.72 2.39 5.16 0.06 0.04 0.22 <1

GC09PS69 4.28 8.84 1.77 2.35 5.09 0.06 0.07 0.22 <1

GC09PS70 3.87 8.9 1.73 2.04 5.03 0.06 0.19 0.2 <1

GC09PS71 3.77 8.61 1.62 2.03 4.58 0.07 0.14 0.2 <1

GC09PS72 3.67 8.94 1.54 1.96 4.55 0.07 0.12 0.19 <1

GC09PS73 4.4 8.92 1.79 2.28 5.3 0.06 0.05 0.21 <1

GC09PS74 1.89 6.56 0.92 0.91 3.43 0.03 0.03 0.1 <1

GC09PS75a 3.77 9.15 1.57 1.97 5.49 0.05 0.04 0.19 <1

GC09PS01 3.61 7.4 1.8 1.48 1.27 0.32 0.04 0.2 <1

GC09PS02 1.97 4.73 0.93 0.64 1.76 0.16 0.04 0.12 <1

GC09PS03 2.27 9.15 1.02 1.04 2.54 0.07 0.04 0.12 <1

GC09PS04 2.37 4.85 1.16 0.88 2.05 0.14 0.03 0.16 <1

GC09PS05 1.97 4.86 0.95 0.88 2.17 0.14 0.04 0.1 <1

GC09PS06 3.08 7.87 1.8 1.3 2.02 0.23 0.08 0.16 <1

GC09PS07 3.19 6.88 1.16 1.64 3.86 0.08 0.07 0.17 <1

GC09PS08 1.94 11.1 3.62 0.87 3.78 0.19 0.11 0.11 2

GC09PS09 1.78 14.9 0.91 0.82 7.31 0.19 0.05 0.1 <1

GC09PS10 1.68 >15 0.89 0.8 7.51 0.17 0.04 0.1 <1

GC09PS11 1.82 4.14 1.28 0.73 1.71 0.13 0.03 0.11 <1

GC09PS12 2.2 3.7 1.27 0.92 1.49 0.17 0.03 0.13 <1

GC09PS13 2.67 7.69 1.13 1.39 1.76 0.17 0.03 0.14 <1

GC09PS14 2.9 5.18 1.22 1.72 2.36 0.15 0.02 0.14 <1

GC09PS15 2.72 12 1.31 1.52 4.53 0.15 0.03 0.15 <1

GC09PS16 3.24 5.99 1.32 1.4 2.4 0.23 0.03 0.18 <1

GC09PSS03 2.64 6.79 1.26 1.23 3.86 0.05 0.19 0.16 <1
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 83

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Aluminun

wt. %

Calcium

wt. %

Iron

wt. %

Potassium

wt. %

Magnesium

wt. %

Sodium

wt. %

Sulfur

wt. %

Titanium

wt. %

Silver

ppm

GC09PSS04 2.64 6.76 1.2 1.46 3.72 0.07 0.17 0.17 <1

GC09PSS01 2.73 4.92 1.19 1.27 1.81 0.2 0.04 0.15 <1

GC09PSS02 2.8 4.82 1.22 1.32 1.7 0.21 0.04 0.15 <1

GC09PSS10 3.01 5.17 1.3 1.55 1.83 0.24 0.03 0.17 <1

GC09PSS09 3.16 6.13 1.39 1.53 2.45 0.24 0.05 0.17 <1

GC09PSS08 2.91 6.51 1.26 1.55 3.33 0.12 0.14 0.17 <1

GC09PSS05 4.72 6.62 1.82 2.18 3.62 0.13 0.1 0.25 <1

GC09PSS06 3.91 6.61 1.57 1.86 3.28 0.17 0.09 0.21 <1

GC09PSS07 3.31 6.05 1.4 1.64 2.83 0.18 0.12 0.18 <1

GC09PR01 0.47 13 0.43 0.2 7.82 0.02 0.07 0.03 <1

GC09PR02 0.57 2.56 0.23 0.27 0.89 0.01 0.06 0.03 <1

GC09PW101 2.87 6.29 1.14 1.23 3.66 0.04 0.19 0.15 <1

GC09PR101 0.97 13.9 0.82 0.52 7.32 0.03 0.09 0.05 <1

GC09PS75 3.88 4.31 2 2.04 1.4 0.34 0.03 0.21 <1

GC09PS76 3.56 5.45 1.88 2 1.28 0.3 0.1 0.19 <1

GC09PS77 4.5 3.29 2.13 2.42 1.12 0.44 0.1 0.26 <1

GC09PS78 3.85 6.91 2.12 2.01 1.77 0.34 0.18 0.22 <1

GC09PS79 3.67 8.15 1.84 1.98 2 0.32 0.11 0.2 <1

GC09PS80 3.89 8.09 1.88 2.14 1.86 0.32 0.03 0.21 <1

GC09PS81 4.16 8.7 2 2.12 1.75 0.32 0.04 0.21 <1

GC09PS82 4.03 8.22 1.93 2.21 1.56 0.36 0.03 0.21 <1

GC09PS83 4.9 3.76 2.45 2.47 2.16 0.5 0.03 0.28 <1

GC09PS84 3.46 10 2.01 1.68 5.01 0.3 0.03 0.19 <1

GC09PS85 3.97 7.79 1.79 2.21 1.58 0.39 0.03 0.23 <1

GC09PS86 4.35 3.67 2.09 2.33 0.9 0.41 0.03 0.25 <1

GC09PS87 4.28 5.45 2.1 2.19 1.52 0.39 0.09 0.23 <1

GC09PS88 3.53 5.28 3.09 1.78 1.89 0.29 1.63 0.19 <1

GC09PS89 2.89 10.8 1.52 1.5 4.58 0.25 0.05 0.17 <1

GC09PW01 1.52 1.57 3.29 0.68 0.41 0.07 3 0.1 4

GC09PW02 4.05 8.45 1.94 1.54 2.07 0.29 0.29 0.21 1

GC09PW03 0.85 1.98 2.19 0.49 0.1 0.01 3.98 0.05 >10

GC09PR75 0.59 0.26 >15 0.3 0.03 <0.01 >5 0.07 7

GC09PR76 1.91 6.87 5.95 0.87 2.72 0.07 >5 0.1 2

GC09KNW01 3.65 3.92 2.41 2 2.27 0.06 1.94 0.22 3

GC09KNW12 1.94 5.29 3.92 1.11 2.99 0.07 4.12 0.11 5

GC09KNW08 2.43 3.83 0.75 1.87 1.7 0.39 1.98 0.12 <1

GC09KNW03 2.2 >15 1.08 1.08 0.82 0.18 0.04 0.12 <1

GC09KNW04 2.15 3.51 2.47 1.24 1.93 0.04 2.8 0.11 3

GC09KNW05 3.65 4.34 1.56 2.03 2.14 0.06 0.91 0.2 2

GC09KNW06 3.44 4.17 1.56 1.91 2.41 0.06 1.33 0.2 3

GC09KNW07 1.96 >15 0.69 0.92 2.01 0.07 0.15 0.1 <1

GC09KNW09 2.85 6.42 1.53 1.48 3.39 0.16 1.04 0.15 1

GC09KNW10 2.75 5 2.36 1.59 2.41 0.06 2.08 0.15 2

GC09KNW11 3.3 4.33 1.43 1.94 2.41 0.05 0.65 0.18 2

GC09KNW13 1.45 6.33 12 0.86 2.84 0.09 >5 0.06 >10

GS09KNS50 2.18 15 1.04 0.81 3.16 0.1 0.08 0.13 <1

GS09KNS51 3.08 11.5 1.25 1.29 2.06 0.2 0.07 0.16 <1

GS09KNS52 2.99 6.94 1.3 1.55 1.17 0.17 0.06 0.15 <1

GS09KNS53 1.93 9.67 0.86 0.97 1.25 0.07 0.05 0.09 <1

GS09KNS54 2.45 5.68 1.23 1.3 1.05 0.15 0.1 0.13 <1

GS09KNS55 3 5.64 1.41 1.66 1.04 0.22 0.09 0.16 <1

GS09KNS56 2.97 4.77 1.42 1.75 0.77 0.25 0.07 0.17 <1

GS09KNS57 3.03 8.1 1.36 1.71 0.77 0.25 0.03 0.17 <1
84 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Aluminun

wt. %

Calcium

wt. %

Iron

wt. %

Potassium

wt. %

Magnesium

wt. %

Sodium

wt. %

Sulfur

wt. %

Titanium

wt. %

Silver

ppm

GS09KNS58 3.17 3.63 1.48 1.77 0.72 0.27 0.04 0.18 <1

GS09KNS59 3.22 6.44 1.61 1.7 1.13 0.3 0.07 0.18 <1

GC09KNS01 3.96 4.49 1.78 1.9 1.03 0.34 0.03 0.21 <1

GC09KNS02 3.07 3.24 1.58 1.68 1.31 0.3 0.03 0.19 <1

GC09KNS03 2.82 10.1 1.2 1.34 1.31 0.13 0.03 0.14 <1

GC09KNS04 3.42 5.08 1.51 1.82 0.92 0.25 0.03 0.18 <1

GC09KNS05 3.2 9.32 1.69 1.33 3.73 0.09 0.04 0.18 <1

GC09KNS06 2.87 3.88 1.39 1.49 1.14 0.2 0.08 0.15 <1

GC09KNS07 2.74 6.42 1.33 1.18 2.2 0.14 0.11 0.15 <1

GC09KNS08 2.6 8.55 1.4 1.42 2.22 0.18 0.06 0.16 <1

GC09KNS09 2.98 8.4 1.53 1.64 2.08 0.26 0.03 0.19 <1

GC09KNS10 3.07 7.87 1.72 1.41 2.76 0.14 0.03 0.18 <1

GC09KNS11 3.71 7.93 1.78 1.92 1.81 0.35 0.03 0.21 <1

GC09KNS12 3.2 7.15 1.64 1.76 1.53 0.31 0.04 0.19 <1

GC09KSSS03 3.26 5.13 1.76 1.45 1.85 0.25 0.03 0.18 <1

GC09KSSS02 4.1 5.03 1.74 1.64 2.22 0.18 0.03 0.2 <1

GC09KSSS01 3.42 5.16 1.63 1.53 2.24 0.17 0.09 0.17 <1

GC09KSSS04 3.13 2.86 1.68 1.4 1.3 0.28 0.03 0.18 <1

GC09KSSS05 3.52 3 1.85 1.41 1.35 0.34 0.03 0.2 <1

GC09KSSS06 3.21 2.67 1.7 1.39 1.28 0.31 0.03 0.19 <1

GC09KSS01 3.38 3.89 1.85 1.49 1.08 0.34 0.03 0.22 <1

GC09KSS02 3.24 2.88 1.75 1.52 1 0.32 0.02 0.2 <1

GC09KSS03 2.85 3.18 2.05 1.19 1.61 0.24 0.02 0.18 <1

GC09KSS04 1.89 7.82 1.43 0.85 2.92 0.15 0.03 0.12 <1

GC09KSS05 2.79 0.75 1.92 1.28 0.64 0.27 0.03 0.18 <1

GC09KSS06 3.01 1.88 2.4 1.21 1.14 0.27 0.02 0.19 <1

GC09KSR01 1.81 0.99 >15 0.39 0.23 0.05 0.77 0.02 1

GC09HS01 4.87 6.3 2.06 2.9 1.43 0.2 0.02 0.19 <1

GC09HS02 5.31 7.24 2.2 3.05 2.17 0.18 0.58 0.2 <1

GC09HS03 5.29 7.03 2.14 2.85 2.02 0.17 0.49 0.2 <1

GC09HS04 4.28 4.79 1.8 2.55 0.86 0.2 0.02 0.17 <1

GC09HS05 5.48 7.87 2.29 3.23 3.01 0.11 0.96 0.21 <1

GC09HS06 5.52 7.03 2.19 2.84 2.93 0.07 1.67 0.22 <1

GC09HS07 4.87 8.28 1.98 2.83 2.25 0.14 1.75 0.18 <1

GC09HS08 5.62 8.84 2.5 3.35 3 0.09 1.48 0.22 <1

GC09HS09 5.25 5.66 2.19 2.93 1.8 0.17 0.04 0.21 <1

GC09HS10 5.34 6.44 2.25 3.15 2.18 0.17 0.31 0.21 <1

GC09HS11 4.98 6.25 2.06 2.97 1.13 0.23 0.03 0.19 <1

GC09HS12 6.25 2.64 2.6 2.77 1.23 0.28 0.03 0.28 <1

GC09HS13 5.56 7.61 2.46 2.74 3.11 0.09 0.97 0.22 <1

GC09HS14 5.68 8.06 2.59 2.9 3.14 0.09 0.97 0.24 <1

GC09HS15 5.71 8.29 2.62 2.92 3.09 0.09 1.12 0.24 <1

GC09HS16 6.09 7.35 2.67 3.04 3.47 0.09 0.11 0.26 <1

GC09HS17 5.11 8.4 2.21 2.6 2.7 0.1 1.46 0.19 <1

GC09HS18 5.38 8.07 2.4 2.64 2.93 0.11 1.24 0.21 <1

GC09HS19 5.28 7.1 2.29 2.64 2.28 0.15 0.7 0.21 <1

GC09HS20 6.04 7.25 2.77 3 3.35 0.08 0.45 0.26 <1

GC09HS21 5.31 8.36 2.44 2.73 2.8 0.09 1.33 0.21 <1

GC09HS22 5.17 8.4 2.29 2.29 3.2 0.09 1.38 0.2 <1

GC09HS58 5.47 2.78 2.33 2.49 1.04 0.28 0.03 0.25 <1

GC09HS59 4.75 2.01 1.85 2.47 0.79 0.2 0.02 0.19 <1

GC09HS60 5.35 2.88 2.17 2.71 1.13 0.25 0.02 0.24 <1
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 85

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Aluminun

wt. %

Calcium

wt. %

Iron

wt. %

Potassium

wt. %

Magnesium

wt. %

Sodium

wt. %

Sulfur

wt. %

Titanium

wt. %

Silver

ppm

GC09HS61 4.84 3.39 1.65 2.62 1.05 0.17 0.02 0.18 <1

GC09HS62 5.71 4.36 2.21 2.54 1.42 0.12 0.03 0.16 <1

GC09HS63 4.8 3.37 1.95 2.45 1.14 0.2 0.02 0.19 <1

GC09HS64 4.16 4.33 1.78 2.16 1.25 0.17 0.02 0.17 <1

GC09HS65 5.97 4.33 2.3 2.85 1.51 0.2 0.02 0.23 <1

GC09HS66 5.3 4.53 1.84 2.84 1.36 0.18 0.02 0.19 <1

GC09HS67 5.24 4.49 1.79 2.83 1.33 0.16 0.02 0.18 <1

GC09HS68 6.11 5.07 2.33 2.47 1.09 0.13 0.02 0.19 <1

GC09HS69 6.27 5.96 2.62 2.26 1.98 0.08 0.02 0.21 <1

GC09HS70 5.02 4.88 2.11 2.33 1.48 0.16 0.02 0.2 <1

GC09HS71 4.79 5.06 1.99 2.11 1.25 0.19 0.02 0.19 <1

GC09HS50 4.12 7.72 1.35 1.8 2.14 0.16 0.03 0.13 <1

GC09HS51 4.18 7.99 1.77 2.14 0.91 0.27 0.02 0.18 <1

GC09HS52 4.73 4.38 1.71 2.56 0.95 0.25 0.02 0.2 <1

GC09HS53 4.6 5.91 1.64 2.52 1.4 0.18 0.02 0.16 <1

GC09HS54 4.67 4.05 1.74 2.7 1.02 0.18 0.02 0.16 1

GC09HS55 4.44 5.54 1.82 1.74 0.98 0.18 0.02 0.17 <1

GC09HS56 5.47 2.96 2.27 2.65 1.1 0.26 0.02 0.25 <1

GC09HS57 4.74 7.04 1.97 1.96 1.45 0.22 0.02 0.19 <1

GC09HS76 5.56 3.99 2.29 2.38 1.54 0.28 0.04 0.26 <1

GC09HS77 5.46 3.65 2.23 1.4 1.4 0.27 0.03 0.25 <1

GC09HS78 5.12 4.09 1.98 2.38 1.07 0.24 0.02 0.21 <1

GC09HS79 4.34 6.19 1.88 2.05 1.68 0.15 0.02 0.16 <1

GC09HS80 4.24 7.86 1.85 2.32 1.47 0.18 0.02 0.16 <1

GC09HS81 4.41 5.6 1.95 1.93 1.45 0.3 0.03 0.21 <1

GC09HS75 4.29 7.14 1.82 1.94 1.42 0.18 0.02 0.17 <1

GC09HS105 5 5.08 1.97 2.3 1.87 0.23 0.02 0.21 <1

GC09HS106 5.84 4.67 2.43 2.43 1.62 0.26 0.02 0.25 <1

GC09HS107 5.47 8.11 2.22 1.74 2.12 0.16 0.03 0.21 <1

GC09HS108 5.78 7.16 2.29 2.03 2.1 0.22 0.03 0.24 <1

GC09HS109 6.2 2.77 2.62 2.54 1.24 0.31 0.02 0.27 <1

GC09HS110 5.75 3.06 2.36 2.25 1.09 0.24 0.02 0.24 <1

GC09HSS100 7.24 4.1 3.09 2.48 1.66 0.26 0.05 0.31 <1

GC09HSS101 8.07 4.29 3.39 2.7 1.76 0.24 0.04 0.33 <1

GC09HSS102 7.91 4.35 3.33 2.41 1.74 0.23 0.04 0.33 <1

GC09HSS103 7.14 4.43 2.97 2.64 1.75 0.28 0.03 0.3 <1

GC09HSS104 5.56 4.48 2.26 1.83 1.88 0.24 0.03 0.23 <1

GC09HKSS01 2.22 9.24 1.1 1.12 2.95 0.14 0.05 0.12 <1

GC09HKSS02 2.92 8.57 1.37 1.31 2.91 0.2 0.07 0.15 <1

GC09HKSS04 2.06 10.3 0.89 1.08 3.36 0.13 1.25 0.11 <1

GC09HKSS05 2.18 7.91 1.07 1.17 2.93 0.12 0.05 0.12 <1

GC09HKSS03 3.04 8.15 1.36 1.44 2.77 0.23 0.06 0.16 <1

GC09HKSS06 2.55 8.87 1.18 1.23 2.85 0.17 0.07 0.14 <1

GC09HKSS07 3.31 8.07 1.46 1.51 2.7 0.23 0.07 0.17 <1

GC09HKSS08 2.52 8.39 1.13 1.25 2.81 0.17 0.06 0.13 <1

GC09HKSS09 2.4 7.56 1.04 1.33 2.56 0.14 0.06 0.12 <1

GC09HKSS10 1.75 7 0.85 1.08 2.26 0.09 0.13 0.09 <1

GC09HKRK01 2.84 0.34 1.03 1.25 0.16 0.03 1.18 0.16 >10

GC09HKRK02 0.32 0.3 >15 0.09 0.07 <0.01 >5 0.01 >10

GC09HKRK03 2.54 1.14 2.71 1 0.28 0.02 1.58 0.13 3

GC09HKRK04 0.36 0.17 1.04 0.08 0.03 <0.01 0.82 <0.01 2

GC09HKRK05 0.38 2.49 >15 0.22 0.36 <0.01 >5 0.04 >10
86 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Arsenic

ppm

Barium

ppm

Beryllium

ppm

Bismuth

ppm

Cadmium

ppm

Cerium

ppm

Cobalt

ppm

Chromium

ppm

Cesium

ppm

Copper

ppm

GC09JSS50 5 333 0.8 0.12 0.3 30.5 4.7 35 <5 12.5

GC09JSS51 5 325 0.7 0.12 0.3 31.2 4.6 37 <5 18.7

GC09JSS52 4 338 0.7 0.12 0.2 31 4.6 33 <5 15

GC09JSS53 4 309 0.7 0.11 0.4 25.2 4.4 36 <5 16.4

GC09JSS54 5 310 0.8 0.12 0.4 28.3 5 38 <5 13.4

GC09JSS05 3 112 1 0.09 0.6 13.4 3.2 58 <5 66.6

GC09JSS01 4 308 0.6 0.1 0.3 25.2 3.7 28 <5 10.2

GC09JSS02 5 308 0.7 0.12 0.3 27.7 4.2 33 <5 11.4

GC09JSS03 5 266 0.5 0.09 0.3 24.6 3.3 29 <5 9.3

GC09JSS04 4 288 0.6 0.1 0.2 23.5 3.5 28 <5 9.4

GC09PS50 17 406 1.4 0.15 <0.1 41.9 7 36 9 15.5

GC09PS51 19 391 1.6 0.13 <0.1 39.3 6.5 34 9 14.5

GC09PS52 15 389 1.5 0.15 <0.1 43.3 7.3 37 10 21.2

GC09PS53 44 404 1.3 0.13 0.1 37.7 7.8 36 7 21.6

GC09PS54 30 444 1.4 0.14 0.2 39.3 7.7 42 8 25.8

GC09PS55 6 343 2.1 0.19 <0.1 52.5 5.2 51 14 5

GC09PS56 93 371 1.2 0.13 0.2 36.3 7.2 47 7 14.5

GC09PS57 90 398 1.3 0.13 0.2 37.6 8.2 44 7 13.8

GC09PS58 79 473 1.4 0.14 0.1 40.1 7 32 8 27

GC09PS59 377 440 0.8 0.09 0.8 29.8 20.8 31 <5 59.6

GC09PS60 24 385 1.2 0.15 0.1 35.4 7.1 30 7 22

GC09PS61 44 430 1.2 0.11 0.4 35.2 11.6 38 7 30.3

GC09PS62 39 428 1.1 0.11 0.3 33.2 11.3 26 6 28.8

GC09PS63 63 342 0.8 0.1 0.2 28.6 7.6 23 <5 34.3

GC09PS64 407 131 1 0.11 1.6 33.9 37.7 40 <5 75.1

GC09PS65 52 427 1.1 0.11 0.3 32.3 8.2 28 7 26.4

GC09PS66 21 395 1.3 0.14 0.2 37.6 5.4 27 8 15.1

GC09PS67 52 511 1.4 0.13 0.2 36.9 7.9 31 9 15.9

GC09PS68 27 458 1.5 0.14 0.1 39.9 6.3 30 10 14.2

GC09PS69 30 443 1.4 0.14 0.1 39.7 7.6 31 9 21.7

GC09PS70 50 428 1.2 0.12 0.2 35.5 11.5 41 8 27.4

GC09PS71 45 443 1.2 0.12 0.2 34.5 8.2 27 8 19.4

GC09PS72 41 442 1.2 0.12 0.2 33.9 7.7 30 7 19.3

GC09PS73 34 406 1.3 0.13 0.1 38.8 9 45 8 28.7

GC09PS74 41 377 0.7 0.06 0.1 21.5 3.8 16 <5 11.2

GC09PS75a 31 402 1.2 0.11 0.1 33.8 8.4 38 7 26.7

GC09PS01 25 461 0.9 0.18 0.3 42 11.4 34 <5 25.3

GC09PS02 10 320 0.5 0.12 0.2 28.4 5.4 18 <5 13

GC09PS03 28 261 0.6 0.1 0.3 25.2 9.9 24 <5 15.6

GC09PS04 24 350 0.5 0.11 0.2 33.4 5.5 18 <5 14.4

GC09PS05 26 231 0.5 0.1 0.4 21.6 9.8 31 <5 23.3

GC09PS06 62 343 0.8 0.14 0.5 34.3 24.7 45 <5 50.6

GC09PS07 66 302 0.9 0.11 0.5 35.6 21.2 37 <5 51.5

GC09PS08 393 217 0.7 0.09 1 21.7 29 49 <5 13.7

GC09PS09 7 170 0.5 0.08 0.4 18.4 6 53 <5 12.1

GC09PS10 7 163 0.4 0.08 0.4 17.1 6 53 <5 10

GC09PS11 46 275 0.5 0.11 0.2 24.1 7 17 <5 18.2

GC09PS12 23 314 0.6 0.13 0.2 27.5 5.1 17 <5 13

GC09PS13 17 301 0.7 0.12 0.4 30.1 5.7 25 <5 17.2

GC09PS14 31 318 0.8 0.14 0.6 29.7 4.7 26 <5 11.5

GC09PS15 16 264 0.8 0.12 0.2 30.5 6.6 32 <5 24.3

GC09PS16 12 320 0.9 0.12 0.4 34.5 5.8 38 <5 13.1

GC09PSS03 39 356 0.8 0.09 0.2 27.8 6.1 32 <5 16.7
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 87

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Arsenic

ppm

Barium

ppm

Beryllium

ppm

Bismuth

ppm

Cadmium

ppm

Cerium

ppm

Cobalt

ppm

Chromium

ppm

Cesium

ppm

Copper

ppm

GC09PSS04 48 368 0.8 0.1 0.2 27.6 6.7 28 <5 18.5

GC09PSS01 8 320 0.7 0.16 0.2 29.8 5.4 33 <5 26.3

GC09PSS02 8 326 0.7 0.14 0.2 30.7 6 28 <5 20.1

GC09PSS10 9 342 0.8 0.15 0.3 33.1 6 26 <5 18.1

GC09PSS09 23 313 1 0.16 0.4 30.5 8.9 40 <5 24.2

GC09PSS08 58 461 0.8 0.12 0.7 29 22.5 31 <5 78.7

GC09PSS05 37 380 1.4 0.15 0.2 40.7 9.4 47 9 22.8

GC09PSS06 32 388 1.1 0.15 0.2 34.9 9.2 39 7 23

GC09PSS07 31 389 0.9 0.13 0.3 33.7 11.9 37 <5 36.9

GC09PR01 32 370 <0.1 <0.04 0.1 5.61 7.3 9 <5 135

GC09PR02 22 270 0.2 <0.04 <0.1 11.8 2.1 9 <5 6.4

GC09PW101 158 509 0.8 0.08 1.2 29.8 55.6 34 <5 183

GC09PR101 66 125 0.4 <0.04 0.4 12.3 11.9 93 <5 21.8

GC09PS75 22 444 1.1 0.17 0.2 45.3 9.3 34 <5 24.9

GC09PS76 43 494 1 0.17 0.4 41.2 22.8 24 <5 45.9

GC09PS77 32 563 1.3 0.22 0.4 48.7 17.7 32 <5 39.2

GC09PS78 74 498 1.1 0.16 0.6 45.5 32.3 31 <5 26

GC09PS79 39 448 1 0.16 0.3 42.2 14 29 <5 22.6

GC09PS80 15 405 1.1 0.15 0.3 43.1 8 28 <5 18.9

GC09PS81 21 425 1.1 0.15 0.3 45.1 8.9 33 <5 19.5

GC09PS82 17 423 1.1 0.16 0.3 46.8 7.3 28 <5 18.3

GC09PS83 23 491 1.5 0.21 0.3 56.6 10.1 35 5 22.8

GC09PS84 35 340 1.2 0.17 0.3 46 8.7 28 <5 22.9

GC09PS85 12 447 1.1 0.18 0.3 44.7 7.8 29 <5 19.3

GC09PS86 16 471 1.2 0.2 0.3 49.4 8.8 32 <5 23.2

GC09PS87 32 538 1.2 0.17 0.3 45.4 17.9 34 <5 27.2

GC09PS88 455 125 1 0.14 2.9 37.2 112 38 <5 136

GC09PS89 24 307 0.9 0.14 0.2 35.7 9.5 22 <5 22.5

GC09PW01 1,980 59 0.5 0.05 17.2 13.6 55 38 <5 57.2

GC09PW02 258 909 1.3 0.14 1 48.8 232 41 <5 130

GC09PW03 5,060 36 <0.1 <0.04 17.4 12.5 6 8 <5 9,030

GC09PR75 243 71 0.3 <0.04 0.2 16.4 50.1 18 <5 123

GC09PR76 1,620 34 0.6 0.06 6.6 18.3 232 38 <5 212

GC09KNW01 280 458 1.3 0.1 2.5 32.7 96.3 38 <5 173

GC09KNW12 803 484 0.6 0.04 8.4 22 175 20 <5 516

GC09KNW08 44 330 0.4 0.06 0.7 22.4 48.5 13 <5 41.3

GC09KNW03 4 416 0.6 0.11 0.4 29.1 5.3 20 <5 12.2

GC09KNW04 283 605 0.7 0.05 3.8 19.1 59.5 29 <5 113

GC09KNW05 169 533 1.2 0.1 2.3 34.9 67.8 21 <5 216

GC09KNW06 210 341 1.3 0.08 3 30.6 87.7 21 <5 243

GC09KNW07 24 1150 0.6 0.07 0.3 21.2 9.3 16 <5 23.9

GC09KNW09 128 504 0.7 0.07 1.6 31.9 59.3 27 <5 129

GC09KNW10 388 516 0.7 0.06 6.2 28.4 111 28 <5 172

GC09KNW11 145 417 1 0.07 2.4 32 59.8 20 <5 178

GC09KNW13 1,980 111 1.2 <0.04 10.4 25.4 57.3 14 <5 107

GS09KNS50 25 634 0.6 0.08 0.3 26 8.6 19 <5 17.6

GS09KNS51 14 703 0.8 0.11 0.2 32 8.6 21 <5 17.1

GS09KNS52 14 482 0.8 0.11 0.3 32.8 8.5 19 <5 18.2

GS09KNS53 11 400 0.5 0.08 0.3 28.9 6.6 16 <5 10.7

GS09KNS54 27 455 0.7 0.11 0.4 31.7 14.4 17 <5 29.4

GS09KNS55 18 469 0.8 0.14 0.4 37.4 15.3 21 <5 24.2

GS09KNS56 14 436 0.8 0.14 0.3 35.6 12.6 23 <5 23.3

GS09KNS57 6 441 0.8 0.12 0.2 33.8 6.6 20 <5 13.7
88 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Arsenic

ppm

Barium

ppm

Beryllium

ppm

Bismuth

ppm

Cadmium

ppm

Cerium

ppm

Cobalt

ppm

Chromium

ppm

Cesium

ppm

Copper

ppm

GS09KNS58 8 440 0.9 0.15 0.2 35.3 8.2 22 <5 17.5

GS09KNS59 18 485 0.8 0.14 0.3 38.3 10 21 <5 21

GC09KNS01 8 482 1 0.16 0.2 41.2 6.6 28 <5 16.3

GC09KNS02 9 440 0.8 0.17 0.2 39.8 6.4 22 <5 15.2

GC09KNS03 6 510 0.8 0.11 0.2 32.9 5.1 20 <5 15

GC09KNS04 7 517 0.9 0.14 0.2 37.3 6.7 19 <5 15.4

GC09KNS05 8 466 0.8 0.12 0.2 40.7 6.8 24 <5 11.4

GC09KNS06 25 489 0.8 0.13 0.3 36 14.8 22 <5 30.6

GC09KNS07 20 429 0.7 0.12 0.4 32.9 19.3 22 <5 30.2

GC09KNS08 9 419 0.7 0.12 0.3 32.6 9.3 22 <5 16.8

GC09KNS09 6 463 0.8 0.14 0.2 38.5 6.4 25 <5 12.5

GC09KNS10 3 399 0.8 0.13 0.2 35.2 4.9 22 <5 8.9

GC09KNS11 5 487 0.9 0.16 0.2 41.7 6.5 26 <5 13.5

GC09KNS12 7 477 1 0.15 0.2 40.4 7.6 26 <5 15

GC09KSSS03 4 437 0.8 0.14 0.1 34.3 5.6 26 <5 15.7

GC09KSSS02 13 464 1.1 0.2 0.1 36.5 8.8 31 6 18.6

GC09KSSS01 20 421 0.9 0.16 0.6 34 8.7 28 <5 23

GC09KSSS04 10 412 0.8 0.16 0.2 36.7 6.2 26 <5 16.7

GC09KSSS05 9 439 1 0.17 0.2 39.6 6.7 30 <5 17.5

GC09KSSS06 8 407 0.9 0.16 0.2 38.3 5.8 26 <5 16.1

GC09KSS01 5 439 0.9 0.17 0.2 44.5 6.5 33 <5 14.5

GC09KSS02 5 409 0.9 0.17 0.2 42.8 5.8 28 <5 13.9

GC09KSS03 5 335 0.9 0.15 0.2 42.7 6 28 <5 11.6

GC09KSS04 3 315 0.5 0.11 0.2 32.9 4.9 20 <5 8.8

GC09KSS05 23 357 0.8 0.19 0.2 41.5 6.8 26 <5 17.8

GC09KSS06 16 373 0.9 0.17 0.2 44 6.6 26 <5 16.7

GC09KSR01 896 978 0.4 <0.04 0.9 12 140 20 <5 1,010

GC09HS01 5 531 1.4 0.15 0.1 39.7 7.6 22 <5 18.2

GC09HS02 13 603 1.3 0.15 0.2 38.5 9.6 25 6 25.9

GC09HS03 7 568 1.3 0.15 0.1 38.5 8.7 24 6 19.4

GC09HS04 4 539 1 0.14 0.1 34.5 6.9 19 <5 15.6

GC09HS05 5 531 1.4 0.17 <0.1 39.1 9 27 8 16.3

GC09HS06 27 369 1.3 0.18 0.3 39.8 10.9 30 7 31

GC09HS07 4 367 1.1 0.14 <0.1 34.5 7.4 24 6 17.9

GC09HS08 6 445 1.6 0.18 <0.1 41.1 9.8 28 8 16.5

GC09HS09 18 571 1.3 0.16 0.2 39.7 12.9 25 6 30.1

GC09HS10 7 560 1.4 0.17 <0.1 39.4 8.2 18 6 18.4

GC09HS11 7 561 1.1 0.14 0.1 37.2 7.4 23 <5 21.6

GC09HS12 6 590 1.6 0.23 0.2 57 10 22 7 31.1

GC09HS13 6 477 1.5 0.19 <0.1 43.6 9.8 20 8 17

GC09HS14 5 456 1.6 0.2 <0.1 44.1 9.9 20 8 17.6

GC09HS15 5 462 1.6 0.2 <0.1 43.7 10.2 20 9 17.8

GC09HS16 6 530 1.7 0.2 <0.1 46.4 10.1 32 9 17.9

GC09HS17 6 454 1.3 0.16 <0.1 38.3 8.7 20 6 17.7

GC09HS18 5 498 1.4 0.18 <0.1 43.2 9.5 22 7 17.9

GC09HS19 6 512 1.3 0.17 <0.1 43.3 9.3 22 7 19.4

GC09HS20 5 493 1.8 0.21 <0.1 47.7 10.7 23 9 16.7

GC09HS21 6 467 1.5 0.19 <0.1 42.3 10.2 19 8 16.8

GC09HS22 5 490 1.4 0.18 <0.1 40.7 9.3 19 8 15.8

GC09HS58 8 559 1.4 0.2 0.2 39.8 10.9 24 5 29

GC09HS59 4 578 1.1 0.18 0.2 39.9 8.3 19 <5 19.6

GC09HS60 4 573 1.3 0.18 0.2 44.4 9.5 27 5 26

GC09HS61 4 583 0.9 0.14 0.2 40.6 10.1 18 <5 61
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 89

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Arsenic

ppm

Barium

ppm

Beryllium

ppm

Bismuth

ppm

Cadmium

ppm

Cerium

ppm

Cobalt

ppm

Chromium

ppm

Cesium

ppm

Copper

ppm

GC09HS62 3 848 0.8 0.13 0.1 35.5 6.7 16 <5 11.7

GC09HS63 3 532 0.9 0.16 0.2 40.9 7 21 <5 13.7

GC09HS64 3 502 0.9 0.14 0.1 39.3 6.5 17 <5 11.3

GC09HS65 5 595 1.4 0.18 0.2 48.5 13.1 25 6 54.2

GC09HS66 4 552 1.1 0.15 0.1 37.6 13.3 21 <5 84

GC09HS67 4 546 1.1 0.14 0.1 35.7 13.6 19 <5 82.3

GC09HS68 5 590 1.1 0.14 0.1 33.8 8.1 21 <5 19.6

GC09HS69 5 719 1.6 0.16 0.1 48.3 9.3 23 6 17.3

GC09HS70 4 533 1.1 0.14 0.1 46.9 7.3 18 <5 12.3

GC09HS71 4 528 1 0.14 0.1 39.9 6.9 19 <5 11.8

GC09HS50 4 582 0.7 0.1 0.1 30.2 6 16 <5 23.8

GC09HS51 4 535 0.9 0.14 0.2 39.6 6.6 21 <5 26.2

GC09HS52 4 612 0.9 0.14 0.2 32.7 7.5 18 <5 32.4

GC09HS53 3 603 1 0.13 0.2 36.8 7.7 15 <5 26.2

GC09HS54 3 600 0.8 0.14 0.1 36.3 6.5 11 <5 19.9

GC09HS55 3 565 0.8 0.14 0.1 37.7 6.6 15 <5 14.4

GC09HS56 4 595 1.3 0.2 0.2 48.3 9 21 5 24.2

GC09HS57 4 594 1.1 0.16 0.2 43 8.5 22 <5 28.2

GC09HS76 10 603 1.4 0.21 0.2 41.8 10.3 28 6 44

GC09HS77 9 594 1.3 0.21 0.2 39.8 10.5 28 5 44.1

GC09HS78 5 568 1.1 0.17 0.2 41.1 8.3 20 <5 34.2

GC09HS79 4 538 0.8 0.13 0.2 37.4 7.5 15 <5 12.6

GC09HS80 4 552 0.8 0.13 0.2 33.5 6.5 17 <5 13.6

GC09HS81 5 617 0.9 0.16 0.2 38.2 7.2 23 <5 23.3

GC09HS75 5 524 0.9 0.14 0.1 36.7 7.4 19 <5 16.2

GC09HS105 4 602 1.2 0.16 0.1 41.3 7.3 23 <5 20.6

GC09HS106 5 584 1.5 0.19 0.2 39.7 9.6 30 6 31.6

GC09HS107 5 592 1.3 0.16 0.2 44.3 9.6 26 6 27.9

GC09HS108 5 597 1.4 0.16 0.2 45.6 9.3 29 6 30

GC09HS109 5 629 1.6 0.21 0.2 55.9 10.5 32 7 35.6

GC09HS110 5 593 1.4 0.17 0.2 45 10.1 27 6 35.1

GC09HSS100 6 567 2 0.25 0.3 36.1 10.5 44 6 32.9

GC09HSS101 7 579 2.2 0.26 0.3 38.7 11 45 7 33

GC09HSS102 7 582 2.2 0.25 0.3 38.9 11.3 48 7 32.1

GC09HSS103 6 583 1.9 0.23 0.3 42.4 9.8 38 8 28.8

GC09HSS104 4 585 1.3 0.16 0.2 40.8 7.4 27 6 18.9

GC09HKSS01 12 273 0.6 0.16 0.3 26.2 4.3 16 <5 12.2

GC09HKSS02 12 314 0.8 0.19 0.3 33.9 5.2 24 <5 16

GC09HKSS04 14 264 0.5 0.17 0.4 25.3 3.7 20 <5 9.9

GC09HKSS05 10 345 0.6 0.17 0.3 31.5 3.8 14 <5 11.8

GC09HKSS03 10 349 1.1 0.18 0.3 35.5 6.2 24 <5 17.8

GC09HKSS06 14 288 0.6 0.17 0.4 30.3 5.5 17 <5 22.9

GC09HKSS07 17 355 0.8 0.18 0.4 37.8 6.7 20 <5 37.5

GC09HKSS08 11 300 0.7 0.17 0.5 28.5 4.8 19 <5 22.4

GC09HKSS09 11 272 0.7 0.19 0.3 26.1 3.9 16 <5 17.9

GC09HKSS10 9 223 0.6 0.15 0.3 19.6 3.2 11 <5 9.5

GC09HKRK01 547 406 1.8 0.23 5.6 37.6 3.8 11 <5 928

GC09HKRK02 >10,000 184 0.2 0.13 53.5 7.77 581 8 <5 1,670

GC09HKRK03 2,040 947 0.5 0.11 0.6 18.6 4 11 <5 1,740

GC09HKRK04 1,690 3150 <0.1 0.2 21.6 2.37 12.2 5 <5 306

GC09HKRK05 >10,000 67 0.5 0.21 1 18 908 12 <5 7,480
90 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Gallium

ppm

In

ppm

Lanthanum

ppm

Lithium

ppm

Manganese

ppm

Molybdenum

ppm

Niobium

ppm

Nickel

ppm

Phosphorus

ppm

Lead

ppm

Rubidium

ppm

GC09JSS50 6.57 0.02 18.1 17 290 0.74 5.5 10.9 1,630 12.5 51.1

GC09JSS51 6.46 0.02 18.2 17 275 0.72 5.2 12.4 1,560 14.6 42.2

GC09JSS52 6.4 0.02 18 17 280 0.76 5.7 11 1,530 13.9 47.5

GC09JSS53 6.22 0.02 14.3 21 230 0.89 5.2 12.5 970 13.9 44.4

GC09JSS54 6.81 0.02 16.7 22 273 1 5.6 12.1 1,240 13 45.2

GC09JSS05 3.11 <0.02 7.4 9 150 1.14 2.4 23 1,670 9.7 24.9

GC09JSS01 5.57 <0.02 15 14 231 0.69 4.9 8.6 1,380 11 47.4

GC09JSS02 5.87 0.02 16.4 16 254 0.87 5.1 9.7 1,410 11.9 44

GC09JSS03 4.82 <0.02 14.6 14 205 0.72 4.1 7.9 1,430 10.3 45

GC09JSS04 5.12 <0.02 14.2 15 216 0.61 4.3 8 1,380 10.1 48.8

GC09PS50 10.9 0.04 22.7 24 342 0.88 7.2 15.8 840 6.9 65.1

GC09PS51 10.4 0.04 20.8 23 337 0.89 6.8 15.5 820 6.5 59.9

GC09PS52 11.6 0.04 23 25 351 0.95 7 16.4 870 7.1 67.8

GC09PS53 9.71 0.03 19.9 22 314 3.64 6.1 17.2 810 9.5 59.9

GC09PS54 10.3 0.03 21.1 22 333 1.72 6.4 17.4 850 8 71.4

GC09PS55 15.4 0.05 27.3 29 327 0.82 10 15.2 870 7.6 109

GC09PS56 9.72 0.03 20 21 298 4.29 6.2 17.9 1,200 8.8 62.2

GC09PS57 10.1 0.03 19.8 23 307 7.21 6.6 18.8 890 14.7 66

GC09PS58 9.99 0.03 21.4 22 346 1.29 6.4 15.9 930 7 61.5

GC09PS59 6.46 0.02 16.5 17 219 49.4 4.3 46.9 990 59.4 54.3

GC09PS60 8.7 0.03 19 21 340 1.9 5.9 15.1 880 7 60.5

GC09PS61 8.56 0.03 19.7 21 331 4.28 5.6 25.7 980 21.4 55.8

GC09PS62 7.88 0.03 18.5 20 325 3.3 5.3 25 930 11.3 50.7

GC09PS63 5.89 0.02 16.5 17 306 2.58 4 16.1 1,160 8.6 48.9

GC09PS64 8.21 0.03 19.2 19 185 92.2 5.6 139 1,030 68.6 60.7

GC09PS65 7.63 0.03 18 20 375 5.04 5.1 18 910 10 58.6

GC09PS66 8.91 0.03 20.4 22 276 1.1 5.6 12.3 820 7.4 52

GC09PS67 9.3 0.03 20.7 23 355 4.3 5.9 20.4 1,000 13.2 50.6

GC09PS68 9.89 0.04 21.9 23 350 1.15 6.2 14 960 6.8 56.3

GC09PS69 9.52 0.03 21.3 23 359 2.31 6.2 17 960 8.1 66.9

GC09PS70 8.62 0.03 20 22 383 5.73 5.8 25.2 950 11.3 50.1

GC09PS71 8.43 0.03 19.4 21 317 3.1 5.7 17.2 970 10 55.8

GC09PS72 8.28 0.03 19 21 314 2.89 5.5 16 1,010 8.4 59

GC09PS73 9.86 0.03 21.1 23 407 3.02 6.3 21.3 850 9.4 60

GC09PS74 4.35 <0.02 13.4 16 204 0.88 2.8 8.9 930 4.4 31

GC09PS75a 8.13 0.03 18.9 21 416 2.36 5.6 20.5 830 9.1 49.9

GC09PS01 8.82 0.03 22.5 22 496 1.75 6.9 20.6 1,170 17 60.9

GC09PS02 5.04 <0.02 17.2 15 251 0.8 3.5 10.1 1,400 10.1 27.4

GC09PS03 5.27 <0.02 14.9 16 283 1.48 3.7 15.4 870 11.6 35

GC09PS04 5.76 0.02 18.2 19 234 0.69 3 8.9 1,000 9.5 36.5

GC09PS05 4.64 <0.02 14.9 14 216 2.82 2.8 18.9 2,360 14.3 33.9

GC09PS06 7.17 0.02 21.4 21 331 7.96 5.2 43.8 2,370 25.2 51.8

GC09PS07 7.31 0.03 19.7 20 250 2.87 4.9 40.1 1,310 20.1 51

GC09PS08 4.79 <0.02 18.9 17 226 96.7 3.6 130 2,720 17.3 34.1

GC09PS09 4.35 <0.02 12.4 13 224 1.41 3.5 15.9 3,360 8.3 33.4

GC09PS10 4.07 <0.02 11.7 14 217 0.89 3.2 14.5 3,280 8.2 32.8

GC09PS11 4.57 <0.02 13.6 15 289 1.14 3.2 12.8 830 11.9 30

GC09PS12 5.69 0.02 16.3 17 297 0.68 3.9 9.5 880 10.5 38.9

GC09PS13 6.36 0.02 17.1 17 270 0.77 4.4 11.3 800 11.2 49.4

GC09PS14 6.87 0.02 16.7 17 227 1.08 4.2 10.2 680 11.9 58.1

GC09PS15 6.64 0.02 16.9 15 417 0.74 4.9 11.9 760 7.9 55.3

GC09PS16 7.64 0.02 19.2 20 331 0.82 5.6 12.5 870 10.4 52

GC09PSS03 6.15 0.03 14.4 14 293 5.5 5 13.4 880 9.2 46
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 91

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Gallium

ppm

In

ppm

Lanthanum

ppm

Lithium

ppm

Manganese

ppm

Molybdenum

ppm

Niobium

ppm

Nickel

ppm

Phosphorus

ppm

Lead

ppm

Rubidium

ppm

GC09PSS04 5.94 0.03 14.9 15 278 3.97 5.1 14.1 1,060 9.8 53.3

GC09PSS01 6.35 0.03 16.5 16 269 0.75 5.4 13.9 1,140 19.2 50.7

GC09PSS02 6.43 0.02 16.5 16 270 0.76 5.2 13 1,100 15.4 50.2

GC09PSS10 6.68 0.03 17.7 17 270 0.8 5.4 13.2 1,140 14.4 59.3

GC09PSS09 7.23 0.03 17.5 18 282 1.9 5.8 25.4 1,650 16 60.3

GC09PSS08 6.5 0.03 16 16 282 4.66 5.2 44 1,290 28.8 56.9

GC09PSS05 10.8 0.04 21.8 24 304 2.8 8.3 21.7 1,210 13.1 84.5

GC09PSS06 8.81 0.03 19.1 21 303 2.81 6.9 21 1,170 14.7 72.9

GC09PSS07 7.49 0.03 18.2 18 292 3.07 6.1 24.8 1300 17.3 62.3

GC09PR01 1.31 <0.02 5.1 5 478 1.16 0.9 10 570 5.5 6.7

GC09PR02 1.71 <0.02 7 10 74 0.43 0.7 3.7 950 2.2 8.8

GC09PW101 6.56 0.02 15.3 14 185 21 4.5 93.2 860 49.6 40.5

GC09PR101 2.51 <0.02 11.6 9 235 10.7 1.2 24.3 7540 15.7 16.7

GC09PS75 9.2 0.03 23.9 22 642 1.18 6.7 18.4 820 14.4 77.7

GC09PS76 8.12 0.03 21.7 22 575 2.7 6 41.8 800 25.5 51.1

GC09PS77 10.2 0.04 25.4 26 601 2.49 7.9 35.6 880 23.8 84.5

GC09PS78 8.78 0.03 23.4 22 597 8.41 6.8 75.7 790 18.7 72.9

GC09PS79 8.13 0.03 21.7 21 552 5.56 6.2 27.7 690 18.6 70.5

GC09PS80 8.74 0.03 22.2 22 553 0.96 6.4 15.4 750 12.8 64.4

GC09PS81 9.29 0.03 22.9 24 542 1.66 6.7 16.8 660 19.8 54.1

GC09PS82 8.95 0.03 24.6 23 567 0.73 6.6 14.6 760 13.7 53.9

GC09PS83 11.1 0.04 27.1 28 976 0.97 8.7 18.7 750 18 69.7

GC09PS84 7.8 0.03 22.3 20 991 0.81 5.9 13.7 710 14 61.2

GC09PS85 8.64 0.03 24 22 515 0.78 7.2 15.3 770 15.1 64.7

GC09PS86 9.73 0.04 25.9 25 464 0.95 7.7 17.3 720 17.2 84.7

GC09PS87 9.48 0.03 23.1 25 600 4.69 7.3 33.4 710 20.4 78

GC09PS88 7.9 0.03 19.9 20 501 77.1 6 285 1040 101 63.4

GC09PS89 6.39 0.02 18.7 17 712 1.51 5.2 16.1 560 14.4 51

GC09PW01 4.72 <0.02 9.1 11 86 693 3.2 93.8 1380 935 25.5

GC09PW02 10.1 0.03 27.4 23 520 86.4 7.2 397 1470 137 67

GC09PW03 2.42 <0.02 2.7 6 18 20.9 1.5 54.8 230 837 13.6

GC09PR75 1.57 <0.02 12.8 4 11 33.9 1.8 354 960 277 11

GC09PR76 5.04 <0.02 10.5 11 271 393 3.1 570 1470 251 31.1

GC09KNW01 8.2 0.03 19 21 187 173 6.1 115 1060 154 61.2

GC09KNW12 4.48 <0.02 12.8 13 182 328 3.1 180 1460 220 30.4

GC09KNW08 5.12 <0.02 11.6 16 162 230 3.3 48.1 380 32.2 53.8

GC09KNW03 4.98 <0.02 16.3 14 329 1.63 4.5 9 770 11.2 41.5

GC09KNW04 4.79 <0.02 13 14 123 401 2.9 68.5 1610 64.3 34.8

GC09KNW05 8.12 0.03 17.5 22 199 44.8 5.1 105 530 146 64.7

GC09KNW06 7.24 0.02 15.4 23 188 75 5.5 95 600 196 55

GC09KNW07 5.25 <0.02 11.4 14 103 11.4 3.2 12.8 490 17.1 31.4

GC09KNW09 6.41 <0.02 16.6 19 303 118 4 64 840 79.6 43.9

GC09KNW10 6.31 <0.02 14.9 18 209 164 4.3 129 830 215 44.6

GC09KNW11 7.42 0.02 16.1 19 213 37 4.7 78.5 510 152 58.9

GC09KNW13 3.22 <0.02 10.5 9 218 102 2.2 123 970 1790 24.7

GS09KNS50 5.27 <0.02 14.8 18 251 2.82 4 12.5 590 9.8 29.1

GS09KNS51 7.15 0.02 18.1 20 283 2 5 13.4 600 10.8 46.8

GS09KNS52 7.03 0.02 18.5 21 346 2.62 4.6 13.3 560 12.2 57

GS09KNS53 4.67 <0.02 17.4 17 343 2.22 2.9 9.3 650 9.4 35.7

GS09KNS54 5.85 <0.02 17.3 19 338 4.01 3.9 21.1 530 25.4 48.3

GS09KNS55 7.05 0.02 19.8 19 363 3.86 5 20.6 580 19.1 56.9

GS09KNS56 6.96 0.02 19.7 19 311 4.1 5.2 18.9 530 18.5 58.6

GS09KNS57 7.06 0.02 19.1 20 310 1.13 5.3 11.6 520 11.1 60.7
92 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Gallium

ppm

In

ppm

Lanthanum

ppm

Lithium

ppm

Manganese

ppm

Molybdenum

ppm

Niobium

ppm

Nickel

ppm

Phosphorus

ppm

Lead

ppm

Rubidium

ppm

GS09KNS58 7.48 0.02 19.4 20 339 1.56 5.5 14.2 520 14.6 65.2

GS09KNS59 7.44 0.03 20.8 20 370 1.89 5.8 16.3 610 15.9 60.9

GC09KNS01 9.27 0.03 22 24 404 0.97 6.9 12.3 660 13.6 71.4

GC09KNS02 7.2 0.02 20.7 20 484 1.16 5.7 11.7 600 14.8 61.4

GC09KNS03 6.97 <0.02 18.9 20 257 0.73 4.4 8.5 500 9.3 49.5

GC09KNS04 8.12 0.02 20.7 22 356 1.08 5.5 12.1 590 12.7 65.5

GC09KNS05 7.7 0.03 21.8 22 469 1.07 5 10.2 860 9.1 45.8

GC09KNS06 6.88 0.02 19.1 21 388 3.31 4.5 23.6 590 24.2 54.5

GC09KNS07 6.5 0.02 18.6 18 363 5.09 4.7 25 640 23.2 42.9

GC09KNS08 6.24 0.02 18 18 424 1.87 4.8 13.2 630 15.3 51.7

GC09KNS09 6.81 0.02 20.2 19 464 0.91 5.6 10.5 680 12.7 56.1

GC09KNS10 7.02 0.02 18.8 21 416 0.61 5 7.1 900 9.3 48.3

GC09KNS11 8.62 0.03 21.7 21 433 0.87 6.5 11.9 750 13.4 69

GC09KNS12 7.32 0.02 21.4 20 472 1.19 5.8 12.5 670 14.2 61.5

GC09KSSS03 7.81 0.03 17.6 19 430 0.63 6.1 10.9 720 12.7 59.2

GC09KSSS02 9.73 0.04 18.6 22 510 1.22 6.8 15.6 670 16.5 67.6

GC09KSSS01 8.09 0.03 17.6 18 423 0.63 6 15.4 870 20.7 60

GC09KSSS04 7.47 0.03 18.7 19 427 0.9 6.3 12.1 710 15 58.1

GC09KSSS05 8.34 0.03 19.9 20 472 0.75 7.3 13.1 770 14.8 59.5

GC09KSSS06 7.66 0.03 19.1 18 430 0.74 6.6 11.4 660 13.8 55.7

GC09KSS01 8.35 0.03 22.8 19 477 0.67 7.8 11.9 670 14.2 62.7

GC09KSS02 7.83 0.03 21.4 19 466 0.69 6.8 11.2 650 15 61.8

GC09KSS03 7.29 0.03 21.7 18 544 0.72 6.4 11.2 790 12 54.2

GC09KSS04 4.87 0.02 16.7 13 503 0.45 4 7.6 790 9.4 36.8

GC09KSS05 6.77 0.03 19.2 17 538 0.95 5.7 11.4 610 17.7 55.7

GC09KSS06 7.56 0.03 22.2 20 495 0.97 6.4 12 650 16 55.6

GC09KSR01 3.38 0.02 7.4 7 195 32.3 0.6 365 850 415 4.3

GC09HS01 10.2 0.03 21.2 29 504 0.72 5.9 12.4 610 12.2 70.5

GC09HS02 11.2 0.04 20.2 31 540 11 6.4 15.9 700 14.1 74.4

GC09HS03 11.3 0.04 20.6 31 531 7.45 6.4 13.8 640 11.5 64.5

GC09HS04 8.62 0.03 18.4 26 514 0.63 5.1 10.3 520 12.3 58.9

GC09HS05 12.1 0.04 20.6 31 578 1.02 6.7 14 670 10.8 75.6

GC09HS06 12.5 0.04 21.6 28 502 3.82 6.5 18.4 880 14.7 94.3

GC09HS07 10.1 0.03 18.1 29 493 3.04 5.5 10.7 570 9.4 88.8

GC09HS08 12.5 0.05 20.8 32 576 1.36 6.8 15.7 680 10.7 88.5

GC09HS09 11.1 0.04 20.6 31 511 2.17 6.3 20.2 690 15.2 68

GC09HS10 11.4 0.04 21.4 32 548 0.88 6.4 12.7 600 11.2 97.9

GC09HS11 10.2 0.04 20.4 29 457 0.85 6.1 12.4 530 11.2 85.2

GC09HS12 15.9 0.05 29.7 32 819 1.62 10.1 15.6 1,010 17 109

GC09HS13 14.1 0.05 22.2 30 557 1.29 8 15 680 11.6 96.2

GC09HS14 14.2 0.05 22.6 31 580 1.14 8.1 15.8 670 11.9 106

GC09HS15 14.5 0.05 22.1 30 584 1.25 8.4 15.8 690 11.5 107

GC09HS16 15.5 0.05 24.1 32 607 1.26 9.1 15.5 750 12.6 106

GC09HS17 12.5 0.04 19.8 28 502 1.84 6.6 12.7 640 10.6 92.3

GC09HS18 13.6 0.04 22.3 30 545 1.53 7.6 14.6 660 11.5 96.2

GC09HS19 13.5 0.04 22.6 30 529 1.67 7.4 14.2 670 11.9 95

GC09HS20 15.7 0.05 24 32 606 1.42 8.9 16.8 750 12.6 99.7

GC09HS21 14 0.05 21.3 29 546 1.16 7.4 15.3 680 11.6 101

GC09HS22 13.2 0.04 21 28 514 0.96 7.1 13.6 630 10.8 82.3

GC09HS58 14.2 0.04 18.7 30 829 1.38 9.4 16.4 860 18.3 68.4

GC09HS59 10.8 0.03 19.1 28 843 0.71 7 10.8 760 14.9 89

GC09HS60 13.4 0.04 21.2 30 842 0.79 8.4 12.8 940 16 94.8
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 93

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Gallium

ppm

In

ppm

Lanthanum

ppm

Lithium

ppm

Manganese

ppm

Molybdenum

ppm

Niobium

ppm

Nickel

ppm

Phosphorus

ppm

Lead

ppm

Rubidium

ppm

GC09HS61 10.9 0.03 20.7 26 752 0.63 6.4 9.5 790 14.9 88.3

GC09HS62 12.2 0.03 19.2 27 599 0.58 5.6 9.5 680 12.3 88.7

GC09HS63 11.3 0.03 21.6 26 620 0.62 6.9 9.8 740 14.1 87.1

GC09HS64 9.69 0.03 19.9 25 603 0.53 6 9 670 12.4 79

GC09HS65 14.6 0.04 24 31 825 0.92 8.2 14.8 890 15.7 100

GC09HS66 12.1 0.03 18.4 29 628 0.79 6.8 10.8 790 15 98.4

GC09HS67 11.9 0.03 17.4 28 630 0.76 6.6 10.6 770 14.6 81.6

GC09HS68 14.7 0.04 16.9 30 584 0.68 6.7 11.8 530 11.6 68.2

GC09HS69 16.3 0.05 24 32 696 0.63 7.6 13.7 920 13.4 74.3

GC09HS70 12.2 0.03 24.3 26 648 0.57 7.2 10.2 790 12.6 85

GC09HS71 11 0.03 21.1 25 534 0.57 6.9 9.6 700 13.1 75.8

GC09HS50 8.79 0.03 16.4 24 434 0.44 4.7 7 580 9.1 60.6

GC09HS51 9.73 0.03 21.2 23 428 0.66 6.6 10.6 530 12.8 79.4

GC09HS52 11.1 0.03 16.1 26 546 0.59 7.1 9.8 650 12.1 74.8

GC09HS53 10 0.03 19.6 26 560 0.62 5.7 8.5 660 12.3 84.7

GC09HS54 10 0.03 19.5 25 524 0.58 5.5 7.5 540 12.7 93.1

GC09HS55 10.1 0.03 20 24 534 0.61 6.2 8.2 610 12.6 64.2

GC09HS56 13.9 0.04 25.4 30 807 0.87 9.1 13.2 980 17.1 95.6

GC09HS57 11.2 0.03 22.3 26 562 0.76 6.7 11.1 780 13.5 73.2

GC09HS76 14 0.05 20.3 30 767 1.13 9.3 16.2 1,060 17.5 65.8

GC09HS77 13.8 0.04 19.3 31 800 1.19 8.9 15.6 1,010 16.9 39

GC09HS78 11.8 0.03 20.6 29 613 0.66 7.4 11.6 760 15.2 77.1

GC09HS79 9.58 0.03 20 23 640 0.61 5.5 8.2 730 12.7 73.2

GC09HS80 9.29 0.03 17.9 22 488 0.64 5.2 8.1 610 12.3 80.3

GC09HS81 10 0.03 19.7 26 515 0.84 7.2 11.3 670 12.4 69.9

GC09HS75 9.73 0.03 19.2 25 484 0.75 6 10.1 570 11.9 69.9

GC09HS105 11.7 0.04 21.6 29 504 0.63 7.6 11.4 620 12.3 82.3

GC09HS106 14.9 0.05 19.7 32 767 0.74 9.2 15.5 760 15 67.3

GC09HS107 12.8 0.04 23.3 30 691 0.72 7.5 13.9 790 12.5 69.5

GC09HS108 13.4 0.04 23.3 32 662 0.74 8.6 13.8 780 13.1 81.6

GC09HS109 14.6 0.05 28 32 954 0.96 9.6 16.7 950 17.2 100

GC09HS110 14 0.04 22.2 31 897 0.81 8.7 15 740 15.2 82.5

GC09HSS100 18.6 0.06 16.7 40 676 1.05 11.4 21.5 1,120 18.4 40.3

GC09HSS101 20.5 0.07 17.4 43 685 0.98 12 21.1 1,180 19 42.2

GC09HSS102 20.4 0.07 17.9 42 665 1.07 12 22.7 1,160 18.2 42.2

GC09HSS103 18 0.06 20.8 38 607 1.01 11.1 18.1 1,060 19.7 68.9

GC09HSS104 12.7 0.04 21.3 30 590 9.71 8.1 11.9 830 13.5 66.5

GC09HKSS01 5.38 0.02 16.3 14 339 1.16 3.3 13 1,260 8.9 41.7

GC09HKSS02 7.57 0.03 19.5 16 381 1.14 5.3 11 1,430 11.6 51.6

GC09HKSS04 5.15 0.02 15.9 14 251 1.1 3.9 8.5 2,220 11 38.5

GC09HKSS05 5.31 0.02 18 12 305 1.03 3.4 7.9 1,220 11.6 41.9

GC09HKSS03 7.91 0.03 20.9 17 366 2.02 6.1 14.2 1,490 12.7 58.5

GC09HKSS06 6.4 0.03 17.8 15 336 1.94 4.5 13.6 1,360 12.5 46.1

GC09HKSS07 8.49 0.04 20.8 18 376 2.91 5.5 15.9 1,390 22.9 57.9

GC09HKSS08 6.45 0.03 17.6 15 324 1.7 4.4 12.1 1,300 12.2 48.5

GC09HKSS09 5.78 0.03 15.2 13 283 1.26 3.8 10.7 1,160 9.7 45.7

GC09HKSS10 4.34 0.02 11.9 11 204 1.19 2.6 8.8 900 9.2 36.7

GC09HKRK01 7.36 0.04 13 29 14 476 5 67.1 280 290 38.1

GC09HKRK02 2.99 0.03 1.4 2 11 104 0.5 1,260 280 324 3.5

GC09HKRK03 5.52 0.03 9.9 13 21 14.3 4.4 12.2 310 212 32.7

GC09HKRK04 2.51 <0.02 1.9 3 13 78.1 0.3 22.9 960 127 2.6

GC09HKRK05 1.91 0.05 5.8 5 41 4,450 1.7 622 760 939 7.5
94 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Antimony

ppm

Scandium

ppm

Tin

ppm

Strontium

ppm

Tellurium

ppm

Thorium

ppm

Thallium

ppm

Uranium

ppm

Vanadium

ppm

Tungsten

ppm

Yttrium

ppm

Zinc

ppm

GC09JSS50 0.47 4.8 1 101 <0.1 5.1 0.3 1.7 31 0.7 15.7 41

GC09JSS51 0.56 4.8 1.1 98.8 <0.1 5.7 0.3 1.7 31 0.6 15.3 46

GC09JSS52 0.55 4.8 1.1 94.8 <0.1 5.3 0.3 1.6 31 0.7 15.5 41

GC09JSS53 0.56 4.6 1 174 <0.1 4.6 0.3 1.6 29 0.6 12.1 50

GC09JSS54 0.5 5.2 1 133 <0.1 4.9 0.4 1.9 32 0.7 15.2 53

GC09JSS05 0.25 2.4 3.2 221 <0.1 2.3 0.5 2.9 13 0.3 6.5 362

GC09JSS01 0.4 4 0.8 94.3 <0.1 5.1 0.3 1.7 26 0.5 14.4 36

GC09JSS02 0.44 4.4 0.8 94.9 <0.1 5.6 0.3 1.8 29 0.6 14.3 42

GC09JSS03 0.38 3.5 0.8 80.8 <0.1 4.1 0.3 1.6 23 0.5 13.5 32

GC09JSS04 0.38 3.8 0.8 86.2 <0.1 4.4 0.3 1.6 25 0.5 13.5 35

GC09PS50 0.5 7 1.5 174 <0.1 7.4 0.4 2.5 60 1.1 15.5 30

GC09PS51 0.5 7 1.4 162 <0.1 6.9 0.4 2.2 55 1 15 29

GC09PS52 0.54 7.6 1.6 167 <0.1 7.5 0.4 2.6 61 1.1 15.3 40

GC09PS53 0.69 6.3 1.3 140 <0.1 6.7 1 4.4 52 1.6 14.7 40

GC09PS54 0.59 6.9 1.4 152 <0.1 7.3 0.6 3.5 57 1.2 15.4 47

GC09PS55 0.69 10.1 2.2 234 <0.1 8.8 0.5 2.4 81 1.3 17 33

GC09PS56 0.79 6.2 1.4 141 <0.1 6.3 1.5 3.9 51 2.6 15.5 60

GC09PS57 0.89 6.4 1.4 147 <0.1 6.4 1.8 4.2 54 2.4 14.5 44

GC09PS58 0.61 6.7 1.4 167 <0.1 6.8 0.9 2.8 56 2.1 15.2 32

GC09PS59 1.91 4.3 0.9 94.3 <0.1 5.4 2.6 79.1 37 4.3 13.2 167

GC09PS60 0.55 6.2 1.2 139 <0.1 6.5 0.6 2.8 49 1.1 14.7 39

GC09PS61 0.96 5.9 1.2 143 <0.1 6.1 1.2 6.3 50 1.4 14.2 86

GC09PS62 0.83 5.5 1.2 133 <0.1 5.7 1.2 6 44 1.2 13.8 66

GC09PS63 0.74 4 0.9 128 <0.1 4.7 1.1 4.8 36 1.4 13.3 45

GC09PS64 6.4 4.5 1.1 119 <0.1 5.6 11.5 68 62 3.1 14.6 296

GC09PS65 0.75 5.3 1.1 150 <0.1 5.5 1.2 6 48 1.2 12.8 97

GC09PS66 0.5 6.3 1.3 215 <0.1 6.3 0.5 5.2 52 1 13.6 30

GC09PS67 0.66 6.5 1.3 171 <0.1 6.2 1.7 6.3 54 1.1 14.2 47

GC09PS68 0.5 6.8 1.4 177 <0.1 6.8 0.5 2.6 57 1.1 14.8 46

GC09PS69 0.61 6.7 1.4 167 <0.1 6.5 0.6 4 55 1.1 14.8 40

GC09PS70 0.81 5.8 1.2 153 <0.1 6 1.1 8.1 51 1.1 13.6 82

GC09PS71 0.73 5.8 1.2 164 <0.1 5.9 0.9 4.6 49 1.1 13.8 44

GC09PS72 0.66 5.7 1.2 168 <0.1 5.8 0.8 4.3 48 1.2 13.6 42

GC09PS73 0.65 6.5 1.4 160 <0.1 6.5 0.5 5 55 1.1 14.2 70

GC09PS74 0.31 2.8 0.6 99.6 <0.1 3.5 0.3 2.7 28 0.6 10.6 21

GC09PS75a 0.59 5.6 1.2 136 <0.1 5.8 0.5 5 49 0.9 13.1 72

GC09PS01 0.98 5 1.4 149 <0.1 7.3 0.5 10.6 43 1 19.4 56

GC09PS02 0.37 2.8 0.8 79.5 <0.1 4.5 0.2 5 25 0.7 14.4 34

GC09PS03 0.55 3.2 0.9 170 <0.1 4.2 0.3 7.2 30 0.8 13.9 29

GC09PS04 0.42 3.4 0.9 107 <0.1 6.7 0.2 3.7 33 0.8 15.6 28

GC09PS05 0.45 2.7 0.7 81.5 <0.1 3.8 0.4 12.9 25 0.6 14.5 46

GC09PS06 1.21 4.6 1 102 <0.1 7.3 1 36.6 38 1 21 93

GC09PS07 1.02 4.5 1 144 <0.1 5.9 0.9 26.5 37 1.3 15.5 76

GC09PS08 2.19 2.9 0.7 113 <0.1 3.6 3.9 11.1 31 0.6 19.6 254

GC09PS09 0.51 2.6 0.8 93.8 <0.1 3.1 0.3 7.4 28 0.5 13.4 43

GC09PS10 0.48 2.5 0.6 87.7 <0.1 2.9 0.3 7.2 27 0.5 13.1 42

GC09PS11 0.49 2.6 0.7 69.6 <0.1 4.3 0.2 5.4 29 0.8 12.1 36

GC09PS12 0.46 3.3 1 76.1 <0.1 4.7 0.2 3.2 29 0.7 13.6 30

GC09PS13 0.5 3.7 0.9 121 <0.1 5.1 0.3 4.1 30 0.6 13.8 34

GC09PS14 0.47 4 1 128 <0.1 5.6 0.3 3.2 33 0.7 12.6 39

GC09PS15 0.56 4.2 1.1 122 <0.1 5.1 0.3 4.1 34 1 13.2 29

GC09PS16 0.51 4.4 1.3 116 <0.1 6.2 0.4 4.1 35 0.8 14.9 39
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 95

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Antimony

ppm

Scandium

ppm

Tin

ppm

Strontium

ppm

Tellurium

ppm

Thorium

ppm

Thallium

ppm

Uranium

ppm

Vanadium

ppm

Tungsten

ppm

Yttrium

ppm

Zinc

ppm

GC09PSS03 0.86 5.7 1.8 102 <0.1 5.2 1 4.4 35 1.8 13.2 36

GC09PSS04 0.73 5.9 1 103 <0.1 5.3 1 4.2 31 1.7 14.2 35

GC09PSS01 0.72 4.7 1.1 113 <0.1 5.3 0.3 3.7 31 0.8 13.2 43

GC09PSS02 0.58 4.8 1.1 111 <0.1 5.5 0.3 4.3 31 0.8 12.6 39

GC09PSS10 0.56 5.1 1.2 117 <0.1 5.6 0.4 6.2 31 0.8 13.5 42

GC09PSS09 0.69 5.8 1.3 129 <0.1 5.2 0.6 8.5 36 0.8 14.8 66

GC09PSS08 1.46 5.8 1 126 <0.1 5.4 1.1 45 34 1.4 14.9 139

GC09PSS05 0.92 8.7 2.1 173 <0.1 6.7 1.2 8.3 56 2.3 15.8 56

GC09PSS06 0.86 7.4 1.5 148 <0.1 5.9 0.9 9.8 44 1.8 14.8 53

GC09PSS07 0.96 6.1 1.2 131 <0.1 5.7 0.9 16.7 39 1.4 14.7 64

GC09PR01 0.3 0.9 0.2 58.3 <0.1 1 0.2 7.5 11 <0.1 5.7 27

GC09PR02 0.12 0.7 0.1 53.7 <0.1 1.6 0.2 4.9 9 <0.1 8.6 8

GC09PW101 2.87 4.2 1 122 <0.1 5 1.8 171 35 1.7 12.1 224

GC09PR101 0.84 2.2 0.6 77.6 <0.1 1.7 0.9 20.4 27 0.2 19 70

GC09PS75 0.78 5.4 1.4 96.3 <0.1 7.9 0.5 5.3 49 1 16.3 53

GC09PS76 1.38 4.8 1.2 113 <0.1 6.9 1 31.5 40 1.2 15.8 87

GC09PS77 1.39 6.1 1.5 120 <0.1 8.2 1 33 47 1.3 16.6 90

GC09PS78 1.16 5.3 1.2 134 <0.1 7.8 2.6 32.2 43 1.1 17.2 141

GC09PS79 0.95 5 1.1 145 <0.1 7.4 1.4 13.3 42 1 15.2 65

GC09PS80 0.64 5.3 1.1 139 <0.1 7.3 0.4 2.8 42 1 16.4 51

GC09PS81 0.86 5.7 1.3 165 <0.1 7.8 0.4 4.2 48 1.1 16 61

GC09PS82 0.63 5.5 1.2 155 <0.1 8.1 0.4 1.8 44 1 16 45

GC09PS83 0.84 6.9 1.4 126 <0.1 9.3 0.5 3.1 55 1.2 17.5 62

GC09PS84 0.71 5 1.2 136 <0.1 7.3 0.3 2.8 47 1.1 15 44

GC09PS85 0.68 5.4 1.3 148 <0.1 7.7 0.4 2.6 43 0.9 18.3 48

GC09PS86 0.8 5.9 1.4 107 <0.1 8.7 0.5 4.7 47 1 16.7 55

GC09PS87 1.08 5.9 1.3 131 <0.1 8 1.2 19.3 50 1.2 16.1 76

GC09PS88 6.2 4.8 1.1 152 <0.1 6 21.9 206 51 2.2 16.9 624

GC09PS89 0.76 4.1 1 113 <0.1 6 0.5 9.6 37 1.2 13.6 46

GC09PW01 124 3.7 0.6 155 <0.1 2.2 33.7 1,230 50 19.4 6.2 2,810

GC09PW02 14.6 5.8 1.2 210 <0.1 7.6 4.3 616 64 4.6 23 215

GC09PW03 12.1 0.8 0.3 436 <0.1 0.3 6.3 1,870 21 9.9 3.3 3,400

GC09PR75 50 0.9 0.2 109 <0.1 2.5 139 147 22 1.3 9.1 16

GC09PR76 14.8 2.3 0.6 148 <0.1 2.3 71.3 502 50 2.9 14.5 1,460

GC09KNW01 1.31 5.9 1.2 107 <0.1 5.7 12.4 679 66 0.8 16.9 458

GC09KNW12 2.3 2.4 0.5 115 <0.1 3.1 20.4 1,720 66 0.4 16.1 1,590

GC09KNW08 0.66 2.7 2.5 250 <0.1 3.4 1.8 1,800 24 0.3 7.8 165

GC09KNW03 0.45 3.7 0.7 210 <0.1 4.6 0.3 6.4 24 0.6 14.8 33

GC09KNW04 0.97 3.3 0.6 99.5 <0.1 2.9 9.5 295 50 0.5 14.8 528

GC09KNW05 1.28 5.8 1.1 101 <0.1 5.7 3.2 1,350 50 0.9 16.7 503

GC09KNW06 1.59 5.3 1.1 96.9 <0.1 5.2 4 2,190 49 0.9 17.5 621

GC09KNW07 0.45 3.1 0.8 626 <0.1 3.3 0.7 50.2 30 0.9 6.8 51

GC09KNW09 1.16 3.6 0.9 149 <0.1 5 2.7 700 49 0.7 13.9 429

GC09KNW10 1.62 3.5 0.8 112 <0.1 4.1 10.7 2,840 47 0.8 16 1,350

GC09KNW11 1.12 4.2 0.9 87.6 <0.1 4.9 2.8 1,050 44 0.5 13.6 600

GC09KNW13 3.07 1 0.4 64.7 <0.1 1.7 30.2 488 51 1.4 28.4 1,400

GS09KNS50 0.45 3 0.7 379 <0.1 4.1 0.4 27 36 1 10 54

GS09KNS51 0.52 4 1 284 <0.1 5.2 0.4 23.5 39 0.9 11.9 53

GS09KNS52 0.5 3.9 1.8 160 <0.1 5.1 0.5 29.1 35 0.8 13.8 54

GS09KNS53 0.36 2.5 0.6 161 <0.1 3.8 0.3 22.6 24 0.6 15.7 36

GS09KNS54 0.63 3.1 0.8 115 <0.1 4.8 0.6 69.5 33 0.7 13.3 86

GS09KNS55 0.58 3.9 1 121 <0.1 6.3 0.7 69.5 36 0.7 14.9 89
96 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Antimony

ppm

Scandium

ppm

Tin

ppm

Strontium

ppm

Tellurium

ppm

Thorium

ppm

Thallium

ppm

Uranium

ppm

Vanadium

ppm

Tungsten

ppm

Yttrium

ppm

Zinc

ppm

GS09KNS56 0.55 3.9 0.9 106 <0.1 6.3 0.7 47 35 0.7 14 75

GS09KNS57 0.49 4 0.9 131 <0.1 5.8 0.3 7.4 34 0.7 13.7 41

GS09KNS58 0.57 4.2 0.9 95.9 <0.1 5.9 0.5 20.4 35 0.7 13.8 52

GS09KNS59 0.61 4.3 1 133 <0.1 6.3 0.5 30.7 39 0.9 14.7 62

GC09KNS01 0.64 5.1 1.1 127 <0.1 7 0.4 6.9 41 0.9 15.3 46

GC09KNS02 0.55 4 0.9 97.3 <0.1 6.9 0.4 10.3 37 0.9 14 42

GC09KNS03 0.46 3.6 1.2 211 <0.1 5.3 0.3 9 33 0.9 12.4 28

GC09KNS04 0.54 4.3 1.1 124 <0.1 6.3 0.4 14.9 36 0.8 14.6 45

GC09KNS05 0.49 4.5 1 199 <0.1 7.4 0.3 14.2 44 0.8 15.5 38

GC09KNS06 0.68 3.8 0.9 98.8 <0.1 5.6 0.6 64.5 36 0.7 13.9 82

GC09KNS07 0.56 3.7 0.8 126 <0.1 5.6 0.8 80.2 38 0.7 14 109

GC09KNS08 0.52 3.5 0.8 161 <0.1 5.6 0.4 33 34 0.7 14.8 52

GC09KNS09 0.52 4.2 0.9 172 <0.1 6.8 0.3 9.8 37 0.8 15.9 38

GC09KNS10 0.48 4.2 1 190 <0.1 6.7 0.2 2.9 42 0.8 15 30

GC09KNS11 0.61 5 1.1 173 <0.1 7.8 0.3 6.2 41 0.9 15 46

GC09KNS12 0.53 4.5 1 127 <0.1 7.1 0.4 13.9 38 0.8 15.5 47

GC09KSSS03 0.58 5.5 1.5 122 <0.1 6 0.3 1.5 41 0.9 12.7 38

GC09KSSS02 0.63 7.7 1.5 136 <0.1 6.7 0.4 2 55 1.2 13.3 40

GC09KSSS01 0.65 6.2 1.5 121 <0.1 5.7 0.6 3.6 46 2.1 13 67

GC09KSSS04 0.63 5.3 1.2 94.1 <0.1 6.2 0.4 1.8 39 0.9 12.7 41

GC09KSSS05 0.67 6 1.3 103 <0.1 6.9 0.4 1.9 43 1.1 14.2 46

GC09KSSS06 0.63 5.5 1.2 94.2 <0.1 7 0.4 2 40 0.9 13.6 41

GC09KSS01 0.68 5.9 1.2 114 <0.1 8.1 0.4 2 44 1.1 16.4 44

GC09KSS02 0.61 5.5 1.2 98.9 <0.1 7.7 0.3 1.9 41 1.3 14.6 42

GC09KSS03 0.63 5.4 1.1 89.9 <0.1 6.8 0.3 1.6 44 1 15.6 44

GC09KSS04 0.47 3.7 0.7 114 <0.1 5.4 0.2 1.3 30 0.7 13.5 29

GC09KSS05 0.76 5 1.2 71.1 <0.1 7.4 0.3 2.7 42 1 12.9 42

GC09KSS06 0.84 5.4 1.1 80.9 <0.1 7.6 0.3 2.5 48 1.2 14.9 45

GC09KSR01 3.48 1.8 <0.1 365 <0.1 1.6 0.8 54.9 69 0.3 8.8 1,720

GC09HS01 0.74 5.9 1.2 181 <0.1 6.5 0.4 3.1 50 1 13.1 46

GC09HS02 0.84 6.4 1.2 248 <0.1 6.6 0.5 5.6 59 1.2 13.8 57

GC09HS03 0.83 6.5 1.3 221 <0.1 6.7 0.4 3 56 1.2 13.8 51

GC09HS04 0.63 4.5 1 136 <0.1 5.7 0.4 2.6 42 0.8 11.7 36

GC09HS05 0.86 7.4 1.4 337 <0.1 6.5 0.4 2.9 60 1.3 14.1 43

GC09HS06 0.79 7.8 1.5 240 <0.1 6.8 0.6 11.3 65 1.8 14.8 94

GC09HS07 0.64 5.8 1.1 323 <0.1 6 0.4 7.2 50 1 12.8 38

GC09HS08 0.9 7.9 1.5 371 <0.1 7 0.4 3.3 58 1.4 14.1 46

GC09HS09 0.92 6.2 1.3 192 <0.1 6.8 0.5 19.9 58 1.2 14.1 56

GC09HS10 0.76 6.6 1.3 234 <0.1 6.7 0.4 2.3 56 1.2 13.9 42

GC09HS11 0.65 5.6 1.2 173 <0.1 6.4 0.4 1.6 51 0.9 12.9 41

GC09HS12 0.88 9.1 1.7 140 <0.1 9.6 0.5 3.7 61 1.4 19.3 65

GC09HS13 0.9 9.1 1.5 387 <0.1 7.3 0.4 3.1 64 1.5 15.3 48

GC09HS14 0.92 9.6 1.6 322 <0.1 7.4 0.4 3.1 63 1.5 15.7 48

GC09HS15 0.93 9.8 1.6 364 <0.1 7.4 0.4 3.1 62 1.5 15.9 49

GC09HS16 0.94 9.8 1.7 268 <0.1 7.8 0.5 2.8 76 1.7 16.7 50

GC09HS17 0.76 7.8 1.3 306 <0.1 6.4 0.4 4.3 58 1.2 14.5 42

GC09HS18 0.87 8.6 1.5 358 <0.1 7.2 0.4 3.6 59 1.3 15.4 46

GC09HS19 0.81 8.1 1.3 283 <0.1 7 0.4 4.7 61 1.3 15.6 45

GC09HS20 0.97 10 1.7 273 <0.1 7.6 0.5 2.8 72 1.8 16.3 52

GC09HS21 0.91 9.3 1.5 390 <0.1 7 0.4 3.7 60 1.6 14.9 52

GC09HS22 0.86 8.6 1.4 351 <0.1 6.8 0.4 2.7 60 1.3 14.3 43

GC09HS58 0.84 7.7 1.4 138 <0.1 6.6 0.5 5.9 58 1.3 14.7 63

GC09HS59 0.69 6.2 1.2 117 0.1 6.7 0.4 2.1 43 1.1 13.9 41
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 97

Table 8. Chemical analyses of soil, sediment, rock, and mine waste samples collected by this study.—Continued

[Datum for all latitude and longitude values is WGS 1984; ppm, parts per million; wt. %, weight percent; see text for description of sample processing and 

analytical procedures; no., number]

Field no. Antimony

ppm

Scandium

ppm

Tin

ppm

Strontium

ppm

Tellurium

ppm

Thorium

ppm

Thallium

ppm

Uranium

ppm

Vanadium

ppm

Tungsten

ppm

Yttrium

ppm

Zinc

ppm

GC09HS60 0.75 7.2 1.4 122 <0.1 7.6 0.5 2.2 52 1.2 16.3 51

GC09HS61 0.59 5.5 1 130 <0.1 6.2 0.4 1.8 43 0.9 14.8 39

GC09HS62 0.59 5.7 1 121 <0.1 6.4 0.4 1.7 48 0.8 13.6 47

GC09HS63 0.63 5.9 1.2 125 <0.1 6.7 0.4 1.5 47 0.9 14.9 42

GC09HS64 0.56 5.3 1 126 <0.1 5.9 0.4 1.4 42 0.8 14.1 38

GC09HS65 0.8 8 1.4 156 <0.1 7.8 0.5 1.9 57 1.3 17.1 53

GC09HS66 0.66 6.1 1.1 144 <0.1 6 0.4 1.4 49 1 13.7 41

GC09HS67 0.65 5.8 1.1 142 <0.1 5.7 0.4 1.4 47 1 13.4 39

GC09HS68 0.63 6.9 1.2 125 <0.1 6.3 0.4 1.2 58 0.9 13.1 50

GC09HS69 0.68 8.3 1.5 133 <0.1 8 0.4 1.5 62 1.1 17.2 61

GC09HS70 0.64 6.5 1.2 133 <0.1 7.2 0.4 1.6 50 1 16.3 42

GC09HS71 0.62 6.2 1.2 131 <0.1 6.6 0.4 1.4 48 0.9 15 41

GC09HS50 0.47 5 1.3 297 <0.1 4.9 0.3 1.2 38 0.7 12.1 30

GC09HS51 0.6 5.5 1.2 193 <0.1 6.9 0.4 1.5 41 0.9 15.5 38

GC09HS52 0.61 5.3 1.1 156 <0.1 5.6 0.4 1.1 44 0.9 13 40

GC09HS53 0.52 5.2 0.9 171 <0.1 6.3 0.4 1.4 42 0.8 13.9 37

GC09HS54 0.58 4.5 0.9 146 <0.1 5.8 0.4 1.3 42 0.8 12.5 34

GC09HS55 0.63 5.3 1 157 <0.1 6.2 0.4 1.3 43 0.9 14 36

GC09HS56 0.77 7.1 1.4 133 <0.1 7.2 0.5 1.5 55 1.2 14.8 55

GC09HS57 0.68 6.4 1.3 191 <0.1 7 0.4 2 47 1.1 15.2 42

GC09HS76 0.8 8.2 1.6 156 <0.1 7.3 0.5 3.8 61 1.5 16.2 61

GC09HS77 0.79 7.9 1.6 154 <0.1 7 0.5 3.1 58 1.4 15.4 60

GC09HS78 0.72 6.7 1.2 151 <0.1 7.2 0.4 1.6 48 1.1 14.9 44

GC09HS79 0.61 5.9 1.1 162 <0.1 6.2 0.4 1.5 43 0.8 15.1 37

GC09HS80 0.6 5.3 1.1 217 <0.1 5.8 0.4 1.6 44 0.8 13.8 34

GC09HS81 0.66 6.3 1.2 220 <0.1 6.6 0.4 1.9 51 1 14.7 42

GC09HS75 0.69 6.1 1.1 193 <0.1 6.5 0.4 3.1 45 1 13.3 36

GC09HS105 0.66 7.1 1.3 199 <0.1 7.4 0.4 1.7 50 1.1 15.1 45

GC09HS106 0.8 8.6 1.7 177 <0.1 6.8 0.5 1.4 57 1.3 16.2 60

GC09HS107 0.69 8 1.4 258 <0.1 7.6 0.4 2 55 1.1 17.1 51

GC09HS108 0.74 8.8 1.5 256 <0.1 7.9 0.4 2 57 1.3 17.8 53

GC09HS109 0.88 9.2 1.8 149 <0.1 9.4 0.5 2.9 63 1.5 18.7 65

GC09HS110 0.83 8.5 1.6 140 <0.1 7.5 0.5 2.2 55 1.3 16.8 57

GC09HSS100 0.98 9.2 6.6 167 <0.1 6 0.6 1.7 78 1.7 15.2 82

GC09HSS101 1.06 10.6 2.8 177 <0.1 6.7 0.6 1.9 82 1.8 16.5 88

GC09HSS102 1.06 10.7 2.9 174 <0.1 6.6 0.6 1.9 81 1.8 16.7 87

GC09HSS103 0.95 10.6 2.6 176 <0.1 7.5 0.5 1.9 71 1.6 18.1 73

GC09HSS104 0.69 7.7 1.5 176 <0.1 6.9 0.5 1.6 53 1.1 15.6 50

GC09HKSS01 0.34 3.2 1.2 110 <0.1 4.3 0.3 3.9 26 0.5 12.5 34

GC09HKSS02 0.46 4.4 1.9 129 <0.1 5.8 0.4 2.1 33 0.8 14.7 39

GC09HKSS04 0.36 3.2 0.8 194 <0.1 4.2 0.3 2.9 25 0.7 14.5 42

GC09HKSS05 0.33 3.2 0.9 101 <0.1 5.7 0.3 2.8 26 1 12.8 32

GC09HKSS03 0.5 4.8 1.2 126 <0.1 6.4 0.4 5 34 0.9 16.3 46

GC09HKSS06 0.39 3.8 0.9 114 <0.1 5.4 0.4 6.5 29 0.7 13.2 43

GC09HKSS07 0.5 4.8 1.3 134 <0.1 6 0.4 10.2 37 0.8 14.8 52

GC09HKSS08 0.41 4.1 1 111 <0.1 4.9 0.3 4.8 28 0.6 13.7 53

GC09HKSS09 0.34 3.3 0.8 102 <0.1 4.4 0.3 3.2 26 0.5 11.3 37

GC09HKSS10 0.29 2.6 0.9 88.5 <0.1 3.2 0.3 2.4 19 0.4 9 28

GC09HKRK01 8.7 3.8 0.8 101 0.3 6.1 4.8 7,760 29 20.4 25.7 797

GC09HKRK02 8.55 0.9 0.3 400 0.1 <0.2 349 3,630 8 12.4 4 >10,000

GC09HKRK03 12.4 2.2 0.6 81.5 <0.1 3.7 1.7 825 32 3.5 8.1 92

GC09HKRK04 1.99 0.3 0.3 143 <0.1 0.6 3.2 122 7 0.4 0.9 5,270

GC09HKRK05 12.9 2.9 0.5 128 0.4 1.4 129 >10,000 273 22.3 17.9 111
98 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Soil samples and a few rock samples were collected 

along and near two traverses across the reclaimed operations 

area that was the site of mine buildings and a waste-rock pile 

(fig. 9B). One soil traverse started east of the reclaimed zone 

and went southwest across the trace of the waste pile and 

the building location to undisturbed soils on the west side 

(table 8, samples GC09PS75–84). The second traverse started 

north-northwest of the site and went south-southeast across 

it (table 8, samples GC09PS85–89). Along the east-to-west 

traverse, the first five soil samples contained 5.3–33 ppm 

uranium whereas the next five samples contained 1.8–4.2 ppm 

uranium. The second group of samples averaged 2.7 ppm, 

slightly above the regional soil concentration. The break in 

concentrations between the two sample sets corresponds with 

the west edge of the before-restoration location of the mined 

waste-rock pile. Dispersion of material from the waste-rock 

pile to the east is indicated by concentrations above background in the two easternmost samples on this traverse. The 

proximity of these two samples to traces of roads indicates 

that dust from trucks may contribute to these elevated uranium concentrations. The north-to-south traverse crossed two 

sites that yielded modest uranium concentrations (2.6 and 

4.7 ppm) north of the disturbed zone, substantially elevated 

uranium concentrations (19.3 and 206 ppm) in disturbed 

soils of the former mined waste-rock pile, and an elevated 

uranium concentration (9.6 ppm) south and down slope of 

the disturbed zone. Five mined waste-rock samples collected from the surface of this area contained from 147 ppm 

to 1,870 ppm uranium (table 8, samples GC09PR75–76 and 

GC09PW01–03). Four of these samples were in the area of the 

mined waste-rock pile, and one (1,870 ppm uranium) was at 

the southwest edge of the site.

Stream sediments were collected from two segments of 

the stream drainage at the reclaimed mine site (fig. 9A). Two 

samples were taken along the wash that directly drains the 

site, but below the zone where boulders were placed along the 

drainage. These samples contain 4.4 and 4.2 ppm uranium, very 

similar to the median value of soil samples from the reclaimed 

site, indicating that this sediment is composed of eroded cover 

and is little affected by local waste (enriched in uranium) that 

underlies cover within the reclaimed area. The remainder of the 

samples was collected from the stream drainage east of the site. 

Samples upstream of the mine site range from 3.7 to 8.5 ppm 

uranium; highest concentrations are found closest to the site. 

Sediment sample GC09SS08 was collected where the western 

side of the stream channel is contaminated with uranium in 

slope wash derived from exposed waste rock near the top of the 

slope. It is a composite of sediment from three locations across 

the wash bottom. This composite contained 45 ppm uranium. 

The western location measured 54 μR/h whereas the other 

two locations measured 13 and 14 μR/h. Three samples taken 

downstream from GC09SS08 contain 8.3, 9.8, and 16.7 ppm 

uranium; concentrations increased downstream. These data 

indicate that uranium concentrations in stream sediments in this 

small wash proximal to and below mine operations are greater 

than background values at Jumpup Canyon (1.9 ppm) and the 

stream sediments draining the reclaimed site (4.4 and 4.2 ppm). 

Stream sediment samples below the mine site contain higher 

uranium concentrations than the three upstream. The distribution of these increased concentrations is consistent with dispersion by wind and water from materials redistributed by mining 

operations and restoration activities. However, uranium derived 

from the abundant limonite-cemented sandstone outcrops in this 

part of the wash cannot be eliminated as a possible source of 

elevated uranium.

Arsenic concentration patterns are similar to those of 

uranium, but concentrations are generally higher (fig. 9C). 

Soils within the interior of the pipe contain 6–407 ppm arsenic and have average and median concentrations of 68 ppm 

and 41 ppm, respectively. Two samples that contain 68 and 

79.1 ppm uranium also have high arsenic concentrations (407 

and 377 ppm). As noted in the uranium discussion, these 

samples are soils probably contaminated by mined waste rock. 

Outside of the pipe, arsenic concentrations for the 16 samples 

range from 7 to 393 ppm and average 50 ppm (median, 

25 ppm). Without the single high value from the anomalous 

iron-rich soil sample (table 8, GC09PS08), the average and 

median are essentially identical. Other samples from the east 

slope that contain high arsenic concentrations (62 and 66 ppm 

arsenic) are the same as samples with high uranium concentrations (26.5 and 36.6 ppm). Stream sediments above the site 

contain modest arsenic concentrations (8–23 ppm), whereas 

stream sediment from site SS08 contained 58 ppm arsenic, 

and samples downstream range decrease in concentration 

from 37 to 31 ppm. All arsenic concentrations in stream sediments exceed that of the Jumpup Canyon (median, 5 ppm). 

Arsenic in the exposed waste rock and the slope wash at the 

east edge of the reclaimed mine site is elevated similar to 

uranium concentrations.

In the operations area (fig. 9D), soil arsenic concentrations range from 12 to 455 ppm, whereas rock and mine waste 

samples range from 243 to 5,060 ppm. Highest concentrations 

for soil, rock, and mine waste are within the area once occupied by the mine-waste pile, except for the anomalous rock 

sample along the southwest edge of the reclaimed area.

The concentration of cadmium in soil within the 

reclaimed mine site has a narrow range of 0.05–1.6 ppm and 

has identical average and median concentrations (0.4 ppm). 

Highest concentrations occur in samples that are enriched in 

uranium and arsenic, such as the two samples from within 

the site, the sample of exposed mined waste rock (1.2 ppm), 

and the sample on the ridge east of the stream (1 ppm, 

fig. 9E). Stream sediments above (0.2–0.4 ppm) and below 

(0.2–0.3 ppm) the site do not differ in cadmium concentrations. In the operations area (fig. 9F), most soils fall in the 

narrow range of 0.2–0.4 ppm, but one soil sample (2.9 ppm) 

and the rock and mined waste-rock samples just described 

remain the highest for the site (1–17.4 ppm).
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 99

Antimony concentration follows a pattern similar to that 

of cadmium at the mine site (fig. 9G), but it has a slightly 

broader range of concentrations (0.37–2.87 ppm). Stream sediments below the site contain greater amounts of antimony than 

do samples from above the mine. Concentrations of antimony 

in soil, rock, and mine waste at the operations site also follow 

a pattern similar to that of cadmium, except for one remarkably high antimony concentration (124 ppm) in a mined 

waste-rock sample (fig. 9H).

Cobalt concentrations in soils sampled from the 

reclaimed mine area averaged 9.4 ppm (median, 7.7 ppm), 

whereas soils outside of the reclaimed area averaged 10.2 ppm 

(median, 6.3 ppm) (fig. 9I, table 8). Soils along the traverses 

across the operations site contained 7.3–112 ppm cobalt 

(fig. 9J). Rock and mine waste samples from the same site 

contained 6–232 ppm cobalt. All samples greater than 25 ppm 

cobalt were found where the waste-rock pile had been located. 

Copper concentrations in soils sampled from the 

reclaimed mine area ranged from 5.0 to 75.1 ppm, averaged 

24.4 ppm, and had a median value of 21.7 ppm. Soils adjacent to the reclaimed area contained 10.0–51.5 ppm copper 

and averaged 20.4 ppm (fig. 9K). The median concentration 

was lower, 15.0 ppm. Soils along the traverses across the 

operations site contained 19.3–136 ppm copper (fig. 9L). 

Rock and mine waste samples from the same site contained 

57–9,030 ppm copper. The very high copper concentration 

was measured in the same isolated waste-rock sample that 

also contained 1,870 ppm uranium and 5,060 ppm arsenic.

Lead concentrations in soils sampled from the mine 

reclaimed area averaged 13.5 ppm (median, 8.7 ppm), whereas 

soils adjacent to the reclaimed area averaged 12.8 ppm (median, 

11.4 ppm) (fig. 9M, table 8). Lead concentrations in stream sediments above and below the mine site had a narrow range of 13.1 

to 19.2 ppm. Narrow concentration ranges were also measured 

for molybdenum (average 8.0 ppm, reclaimed; 7.7 ppm, adjacent) (fig. 9O, table 8); nickel (average 23.4 ppm, reclaimed; 

24.2 ppm, adjacent) (fig. 9Q, table 8); zinc (average 63 ppm, 

reclaimed; 57 ppm, adjacent) (fig. 9U, table 8); and thallium 

(average 1.3 ppm, reclaimed; 0.6 ppm, adjacent) (fig. 9W, 

table 8). In the case of molybdenum, the average value exceeds 

the median value because of two anomalous soil samples within 

the reclaimed mine site (median, 2.74 ppm).

Lead concentrations in soils in the operations area range 

from 14 to 101 ppm (fig. 9N, table 8). Rocks and mine waste 

range from 137 to 935 ppm; most high concentrations were 

found in the mine waste-pile area. Molybdenum concentrations in most soils in the operations area are low to moderate 

(0.81–5.56 ppm) (fig. 9P, table 8), and they strongly contrast 

with a contaminated soil (table 8, 77.1 ppm molybdenum, and 

elevated concentrations of uranium and arsenic) and with rock 

and mine-waste samples (20.9–693 ppm molybdenum). Zinc 

concentrations have a similar contrast (fig. 9V, table 8), as do 

nickel (fig. 9R, table 8) and thallium (fig. 9X, table 8), but in a 

less pronounced manner.

Vanadium concentrations in soils sampled from the mine 

reclaimed area averaged 52 ppm (median, 52 ppm), whereas 

soils adjacent to the reclaimed area averaged 32 ppm (median, 

31 ppm) (fig. 9S, table 8). Vanadium concentrations are somewhat higher in stream sediments below the mine. Concentrations decrease with increasing distance downstream. Mined 

waste rock and soils at the operations site do not contain high 

vanadium concentrations; vanadium in all soils and rock 

ranged from 21 to 64 ppm.

MicroR measurements were made at the mine site (fig. 10A) 

and the operations area, including the former position of the 

mined waste-rock pile (fig. 10B). In addition, measurements were 

taken across the former site of the wastewater ponds (fig. 10B, 

top). MicroR readings across the surface of the reclaimed pipe 

range from 5 to 20 μR/h, except for one location which measured 

55 μR/h (fig. 10A). Outside of the pipe on undisturbed soils, readings ranged from 5 to 15 μR/h, except at the exposed waste-rock 

and slope-wash sites where measurements were 65 μR/h and 

19 μR/h (fig. 10A). Stream sediment sites measured 5–7 μR/h 

above the mine site, 13 μR/h at site SS08, and 6.5–8.5 μR/h 

below the site; this trend is consistent with an increase in uranium 

concentration downstream from the site. A detailed microradper-hour survey on the hillslope along a traverse line between 

the stream at the check dam and the crest of the ridge to the 

north (see unlabeled line of locations, fig. 10A) measured 10 to 

85 μR/h. Bedrock outcrops produced the lowest part of the range 

(10–13 μR/h), and local accumulations of fine-grained sediment 

produced the highest part of the range.

Within the reclaimed operations site, 5–7 μR/h was 

measured in the southwestern third of the area, where buildings were located, except for a single locality where the 

uranium-rich waste-rock was found (fig. 10B, 600 μR/h; 

fig. 9B, 1,870 ppm uranium). Throughout the rest of the 

reclaimed area, radioactivity measurements were highly 

variable and ranged from 7 to 400 μR/h. Measurements 

greater than 50 μR/h are highlighted in fig. 10B. These areas 

of increased radioactivity occupy the position of the former 

mined waste-rock pile. Around the perimeter of the operations 

area, concentrations range from 4.5–6 μR/h on the southwest 

side to 6–17 μR/h on the northeast side. These data support the 

eastward dispersion of radioactive materials that is indicated 

by the soil samples enriched in uranium east of the former 

mined waste-rock pile. Most readings were taken near the 

trace of roads, and thus both windblown dust from the pile 

and dust from trucks transporting ore may have contributed. 

The area formerly occupied by the wastewater ponds registered 4.5–6 μR/h, whereas the surrounding area registered 

5–7.5 μR/h. The lower radioactivity measurements in the 

reclaimed area may reflect permanent removal of a slightly 

more radioactive surface layer during pond construction, or 

it may represent differences between native soils and nonnative cover materials. Both sets of measurements are within the 

range of background.
100 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

65

MicroR/hr

N

4.5

5.5

5

5

6

5

8

8

5

9

9

7

7

7

7

4

14.5

6

7

7

5 55

10

19

15

5.5

12.5

13

11

9

9 9

9

9

8

8

8

6.5

8.5

6.5

7

7

7

5

5

9

9

20

10

11 15

500 FEET

0 100 METERS

0

A

MicroR/hr

500 FEET

0 100 METERS

0

N

B

6

5

5

6

6.5

6

6

6

6

6

7

6

6

8

6

9

7

7 7

6 6

6.5 5

6

18

14

11

7

7

6.5

6.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

4.5

4.5

7

6

6

6

6 6 6

5

6 5

6

9

6

6

6

6

6.5

6.5

7

109

17

16 16 7.5

9 16

7 9

7

9

9

17

14

12

10

5

6 600

6 6

6.5

8

6 6

5

5 18

6

32 12

7

5

7 7

6

18

9 8.5

9

11

15

7.5

8.5

12 11

6

9.5

10

12

30

9

9 9 17 10

33 12.5

12 11 14

9 6 6

8 8.5

17

40

12

14

9

7.5

7.5 7 7.5

6

5

6

6

6 7

5

5

6

6

52 65

54

52

100

150 400

9

7 7

100

4.5

5

6

Figure 10. Radioactivity measurements (in μR/h) at Pigeon Mine. A, mine area; B, operations and 

wastewater-pond site. See also figure 6; circled readings, greater than 50 μR/h.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 101

Kanab North Mine

The Kanab North Mine site lies on the plateau surface on 

the western side of Kanab Creek at 36°41'14.42" N. latitude and 

112°38'36.98" W. longitude (fig. 1). The altitude of the mine 

site is about 5,020 ft asl, whereas the adjacent section of Kanab 

Creek is at an altitude of about 3,850 ft asl. The surface lithologic 

unit at the mine site is the Timpoweap Member of the Triassic 

Moenkopi Formation (Billingsley and others, 2008). A cliff edge 

lies about 150 ft east of the east fence at its closest point (fig. 11). 

The breccia pipe is located on the steep west wall of Kanab Creek 

just northwest of the mine site, where it is exposed in the Woods 

Ranch Member of the Toroweap Formation (arrow, fig. 11B). 

The pipe is accessed by a shaft and drifts from the mine site. A 

small drainage passes through the mine site from the southwest; 

it leaves the site as a low swale just north of the fence that turns 

sharply eastward towards the cliffs just to the east (figs. 11B, 12).

The pipe was discovered in 1981. Development was delayed 

until 1984 because of the uncertain wilderness land status of the 

area. It was mined from 1988 to December 1990 and went on 

standby and maintenance in 1992. Production was 2.77 million 

pounds U3O8 at an average grade of 0.53 percent from 260,800 

tons of ore (Pool and Ross, 2007). No reclamation work has taken 

place as of December 2009.

A fenced and bermed perimeter surrounds the site (fig. 12). 

Within the site, water drains towards a lined wastewater pond 

(location lp, fig. 12A) located along the trace of the small drainage 

noted previously. A mined waste-rock pile about 340 ft (100 m) 

long occupies the southern part of the site (location wr, fig. 12A).

Kanab North Mine was the site of the following 

USGS studies:

• Mapping of site features;

• Composite sampling of the east face of the waste-rock 

pile at the site;

• Sampling of soils within a few feet of fenced perimeter;

• Sampling of soils more distant from the fence line;

• MicroR measurements at each of the sites noted above;

• MicroR measurements of the mine site within the berm;

• MicroR surveys of the perimeter of the site; and

• Sampling of rock at selected microR measurement 

locations within the fenced perimeter.

Erosion within the site has moved sediment into the lined 

pond (fig. 13). In a few low spots on the site adjacent to berms, 

water ponds and allows very fine-grained silt and clay to accumulate. The largest two of these features are indicated on the 

map (location ps, fig. 12A).

A berm completely surrounds the Kanab North Mine site 

except at the entry gate on the west side. This berm was examined for evidence of damage and repair. The berm appears intact 

around the entire perimeter with no evidence of repair. However, 

at one location along the east side it appears that wet, fine-grained 

material, possibly water and fine-grained sediment that had 

accumulated in a low spot or other waste of unknown origin, was 

pushed over the top of the berm. At this location, the crest of the 

berm is slightly lower and discolored with fine-grained, mediumgray to very light reddish-gray sediment in contrast to the moderately red-brown rocky material along the berm crest to the south 

and the mostly off-white rocky material along the berm crest to 

the north. This location is further marked by brush piled on the 

berm slope (arrow, fig. 11A). At the outside toe of the berm below 

the brush cover, mud-cracked, fine-grained sediment of similar 

medium-gray to very light reddish-gray has accumulated. It does 

not appear that this material has moved outside of the fence or 

into the adjacent low wash, because the adjacent pale-reddishbrown soil is not discolored. A flat bedrock outcrop occurs along 

the fence at this location.

A

B

Figure 11. Kanab North Mine site. A, View to northwest showing 

berms (northern and eastern part of site) and trench (south side 

of site; to the left). Arrow points to brush piled on the berm slope 

where fine-grained sediment was pushed over the berm. B, View 

to south showing berms (northern and eastern parts of site), 

trench (west side of site to the right), and sediment in lined pond. 

Arrow points to approximate location of exposed breccia pipe in a 

deep gully that drains the site. (Photographs courtesy of Don Bills, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona. Taken August 25, 2009.)
102 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Within the interior of the fenced and bermed mine 

site, uranium concentrations in samples of surface material 

(disturbed soils, graded mine operation surfaces, sediment in 

the pit bottom; n=13) range from 6.4 to 2,840 ppm and average 1,135 ppm (median, 1,050 ppm) (fig. 14A; table 8, samples GC09KNW02–13,). A composite of 10 samples collected 

on the east face of the waste-rock pile contained 679 ppm 

uranium (sample GC09KNW01, excluded from the reported 

average; approximate location of midpoint for this composite 

is shown in fig. 14A). A disturbed soil near the south end of 

the mined waste-rock pile contained 6.4 ppm uranium. Sludge 

from the bottom of the pond contained 1,800 ppm uranium. 

Fine-grained sediment that had washed off the waste pile and 

accumulated in a low point contained 1,720 ppm uranium. 

Other samples from the mine operations surface contained 

50.2–2,840 ppm uranium.

Soil samples beyond the fenced perimeter contained 

2.9–80.2 ppm uranium and averaged 27.8 ppm (median, 

21.5 ppm) (fig. 14A; table 8, samples GC09KNS01–12 and 

50–59). No concentrations in the sampled soils were as low as the 

average uranium concentrations in area soils, 2.4 ppm. All uranium concentrations above 31 ppm (33–80.2 ppm) are in samples 

collected on the east side of the site between the perimeter fence 

and the edge of the cliff overlooking Kanab Creek. On the west 

side of the mine site, concentrations ranged from 6 to 31 ppm. No 

evidence suggests that water moved material offsite. During our 

mine site visits on two hot days in August, the authors observed 

wind gusts pick up fine sediment from the surface of the mine 

site and carry it eastward offsite. Therefore, one explanation 

of the elevated soil uranium concentrations is windblown dust 

from the site. An alternative suggested by radioactive limonitecemented sandstone in exposures east of the Pigeon Mine site 

is that site-wide, anomalously high uranium concentrations are 

derived from such cemented sandstone present at the Kanab 

North site. However, such limonite-cemented sandstones were 

not observed in the sandstone bedrock along the rim of the cliff 

or in other low outcrops at the site, as would be expected because 

they are typically more resistant to weathering. In addition, iron 

concentration in soils beyond the fenced perimeter ranges from 

0.86 to 1.78 percent and average 1.43 percent iron (median, 

1.42 percent), well below that of iron in the soil formed on 

iron-cemented sandstone at the Pigeon Mine site. Long-term 

wind data do not exist for the Kanab North Mine site. However, 

from March 1983 to March 1984, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 

gathered data from a meteorological station on the plateau about 

10 mi to the southwest (EnecoTech, Inc., 1987) Although local 

conditions adjacent to Kanab Creek Canyon likely differ from 

e

b

bg

tr

t

lp

ps

r

h

g

wr

o

N

e

e

e

e

e

b b

b

bg

bg

tr

t

t

lp

ps

ps

r

h

g

wr

o

EXPLANATION

Perimeter fence

Roadway (flat to gently sloped)

Sloped roadway (arrow points down)

Berm with slope

Natural rock ledge

Natural drainage

soil pile

berm

building

trench

tank

lined pond

ponded sediment

road

headframe

gate

waste rock pile

ore pile

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

r

0 100 METERS

0 400 FEET

Figure 12. Two views of Kanab North Mine site. A, Diagrammatic 

map. B, Photograph from which map 12A was drawn.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 103

conditions at this station, a wind rose (fig. 1 of EnecoTech, Inc., 

1987) shows variable winds dominated by the south-southeast to 

southwest and west to northwest directions. Highest mean speeds 

of winds at the station (table 2 of EnecoTech, Inc., 1987) during 

the reporting period were 4.0 meters per second (m/s) from the 

southwest), 4.0 m/s from the east-northeast, and 3.7 m/s from 

the west-southwest, but mean wind speeds varied over a narrow 

range of 3.0 to 4.0 m/s for 13 of the 16 directions. Winds from the 

east, east-southeast, and southeast were the least frequent and had 

lowest mean speeds (2.2–2.7 m/s).

Wind erosion of mill tailings and mine waste has been 

studied for the past 40 years. A reported threshold speed for 

dust to move from mine tailings in the southwestern United 

States is 5.1 m/s (table 2.1 of Goudie and Middleton, 2006, 

citing other sources). Till and Grogan (2008) in summarizing 

modeling studies of wind suspension from dry, bare surfaces 

noted that the MILDOS model of Strenge and Bander (1981) 

yielded fugitive dust emissions (suspension fluxes) at wind 

speeds of 4.5 m/s and greater. The nearby meteorological 

station showed that wind speeds exceeded 5 m/s 19.2 percent of the time from all directions, and winds from southsouthwest to north-northwest exceeded 5 m/s 12.6 percent of 

the time. The soil geochemical data, wind speed data, our own 

observations, and the reported wind speed thresholds for dust 

emissions all indicate that wind is likely to disperse dust from 

the site frequently, and wind dispersion to the east is favored. 

Mine-site-specific data, especially chemical analysis of dust 

collected in traps, could provide additional evidence.

Other trace elements are present in high concentrations 

that are similar in the degree of soil enrichment and range of 

variation shown by uranium (n=11). Within the fenced perimeter, arsenic ranges from 4 to 1,980 ppm and averages 380 ppm 

(median, 169 ppm) (fig. 14B, table 8); lead ranges from 11 to 

1,790 ppm and averages 266 ppm (median, 146 ppm) (fig. 14G, 

table 8); and zinc ranges from 33 to 1,590 ppm and averages 

661 ppm (median, 528 ppm) (fig. 14K, table 8). Some trace 

elements have lower to much lower maximum concentrations and more limited ranges: cadmium ranges from 0.3 to 

10.4 ppm and averages 3.6 ppm (median, 2.4 ppm) (fig. 14C, 

table 8); cobalt ranges from 5.3 to 175 ppm and averages 67 ppm 

(median, 59.5 ppm) (fig. 14E, table 8); copper ranges from 12.2 

to 516 ppm and averages 159 ppm (median, 129 ppm) (fig. 14F, 

table 8); molybdenum ranges from 1.63 to 401 ppm and averages 

138 ppm (median, 102 ppm) (fig. 14H, table 8); nickel ranges 

from 9 to 180 ppm and averages 83 ppm (median, 78.5 ppm) 

(fig. 14I, table 8); thallium ranges from 0.3 to 30.2 ppm and averages 7.8 ppm (median, 3.2 ppm) (fig. 14L, table 8); and antimony 

ranges from 0.45 to 3.07 ppm and averages 1.3 ppm (median, 

1.16 ppm) (fig. 14D, table 8). Vanadium has a very narrow range 

(24–66 ppm, average 44, median 49 ppm; fig. 14J, table 8). 

Soils samples from outside the fenced perimeter (n=22) show 

lower averages and medians for the other trace elements (arsenic, 

12 ppm and 9 ppm; cadmium, 0.26 ppm and 0.2 ppm; cobalt, 

9.1 ppm and 7.9 ppm; copper, 17.9 ppm and 16.6 ppm; molybdenum, 2.05 ppm and 1.72 ppm; nickel, 14.5 ppm and 12.5 ppm; 

lead, 14.5 ppm and 13.5 ppm; antimony, 0.54 ppm and 0.54 ppm; 

thallium, 0.44 ppm and 0.4 ppm; vanadium, 37 ppm and 36 ppm; 

and zinc, 55 ppm and 50 ppm, respectively).

MicroR data for the Kanab North Mine site show that 

radioactivity within the fenced perimeter ranges from 40 to 

1,000 μR/h; only three measurements were less than 50 μR/h and 

the average was 361 μR/h (fig. 15). Outside the fence, measurements range from 5 μR/h in the western edge of the study area 

to 75 μR/h near the fence along the eastern side of the site. The 

overall average is 19 μR/h. Data are insufficient to establish the 

local background, because the measurements apparently did not 

extend westward beyond the local effects of mine operations. 

Although the east side of the site has the highest individual readings, the east-side average of 20.6 μR/h is only slightly higher 

than the west-side average of 17.7 μR/h.

Figure 13. Wastewater pond at Kanab North Mine site showing sediment 

accumulated in bottom.
104 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Uranium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

33

9.8

6.2 2.9

6.4

7.4

679

47

295 1720

488

20.4

13.9

30.7

1350

2190

27

6.9

10.3 23.5

50.2

1800

700

2840

1050

69.5

69.5

80.2

64.5

14.2 14.9 9

29.1 22.6

500 FEET

0

0

A 100 METERS

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

N

5 3

7 8

4

6 6

14

283

210 803

18 169

1980

280

18

145

388

27

20

25

25

8

9

14

24

6 7 8

11 14

44

128

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Arsenic

(parts per million)

Sample Type

B

Figures 14. Concentrations of 12 elements at Kanab North Mine site and vicinity. A, Uranium; B, Arsenic.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 105

N

0.2 0.2

0.2

0.4

0.2

2.5

0.3

3.8

10.4

8.4

0.2

0.2

2.3

3

0.3

0.3

0.3 0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.7

1.6

0.3

0.4

0.4

6.2

2.4

0.4

0.3

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Cadmium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

C

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

N

0.61 0.48

0.45

0.49

0.52

1.31

0.57

0.53

0.61 1.28

3.07

0.55

0.97 2.3

1.59

0.45

0.64

0.55 0.52

0.45

1.62

1.12

0.58

0.52

0.63

0.56

0.68

1.16

0.66

0.5

0.54 0.46 0.49

0.36

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Antimony

(parts per million)

Sample Type

D

Figures 14—Continued. Concentrations of 12 elements at Kanab North Mine site and vicinity. 

C, Cadmium ; D, Antimony.
106 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

N

4.9

6.5

8.2

5.3

6.6 6.4

96.3

12.6

59.5 175

57.3

87.7

67.8

10

7.6

6.6

6.4

8.6

8.6

5.1

6.7 6.8

6.6 8.5

48.5

59.3

14.8

19.3

14.4

111 59.8

15.3

9.3

9.3

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Cobalt

(parts per million)

Sample Type

E

Figures 14—Continued. Concentrations of 12 elements at Kanab North Mine site and vicinity. E, Cobalt; 

F, Copper.

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

N

8.9

13.5

12.2

17.5

15

21

216

243

516 113

107

23.3

12.5

173

13.7

16.8

24.2

178

172

129 29.4

30.2

30.6

10.7

15.4 11.4 15

15.2

16.3

17.1

23.9

41.3

18.2

17.6

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Copper

(parts per million)

Sample Type

F
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 107

N

9.3

13.4

14.2

14.6

11.2

11.1 12.7

154

1790 18.5

64.3

196 220

15.9

146

9.8

13.6

14.8

15.3

19.1

152

215

25.4

23.2

24.2

9.1

9.4

12.7 9.3

10.8

17.1

32.2

12.2

79.6

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Lead

(parts per million)

Sample Type

G

N

0.61

0.87

1.63

1.13 0.91

173

4.1

401

102

328

1.56 1.19

1.89

44.8

75

0.97 2.82

1.16 2

11.4

0.73 1.08

2.62 2.22

1.07

3.31

5.09

4.01 118

230

164

37

6.86

1.87

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Molybdenum

(parts per million)

Sample Type

H

Figures 14—Continued. Concentrations of 12 elements at Kanab North Mine site and vicinity. G, Lead; 

H, Molybdenum.
108 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Figures 14—Continued. Concentrations of 12 elements at Kanab North Mine site and vicinity. I, Nickel; 

J, Vanadium.

N

7.1

11.9

12.5

14.2 9 11.6

10.5

115

18.9

123

180 68.5

13.2

20.6

129 78.5

21.1

25

23.6

10.2

9.3 13.3

12.1 8.5

11.7

12.3

12.5

13.4

12.8

48.1

64

95

16.3

105

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Nickel

(parts per million)

Sample Type

I

N

41 42

35 38

39

24

34

37

66

35

51

50

49

66 50

34

36

47 44 36

41

37

33

36 44

24 35

42 39

30 49

36

33

38

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Vanadium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

J
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 109

Figures 14—Continued. Concentrations of 12 elements at Kanab North Mine site and vicinity. K, Zinc; 

L, Thallium.

N

0.3 0.2

0.3

0.5

0.4

0.5

3.2

4 20.4

9.5

0.7

0.4

0.7

2.8

10.7 0.6

0.8

0.6

2.7

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.7

1.8

0.3 0.4 0.3

0.3 0.5

12.4

30.2

0.3

0.3

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Thallium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

L

N

46 30

52 47

33

41

38

458

75

1400

503

62

621 1590

528

52

89

600

1350

109

82

86 429

36

38 45 28

54

53

42

46 54

51

165

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

500 FEET

0

0

100 METERS

"

G

Soil

Mine Waste

Zinc

(parts per million)

Sample Type

K
110 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Kanab South Pipe

The approximate center of the Kanab South pipe is at 

36°4'39.81" N. latitude and 112°38'48.47" W. longitude (fig. 1). 

The altitude of the center is about 5,035 ft asl. Similar to the 

Kanab North Mine site, which is located about 3,700 ft to 

the north, the surface lithologic unit at the pipe is the Timpoweap 

Member of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation (Billingsley and 

others, 2008). Erosion of the pipe created an opening in the small 

wash that passes through it (fig. 16). About 500 ft northeast of the 

center of the pipe, the wash drops steeply into the valley of Kanab 

Creek. Variably dipping beds exposed in the low cliffs along the 

small wash indicate the presence of a collapse feature, as do the 

reddish sandstone beds in the center of the pipe that appear to be 

stratigraphically lower than expected for the surrounding units. 

Several roads were built to facilitate drilling at the site (fig. 16). 

The road traces have been recontoured to reestablish the original slopes. Disturbed ground marked by large boulders shows 

where the roads were located.

The USGS conducted the following studies at this site:

• Stream sediment sampling along the small drainage 

that passes through the site;

• Soil sampling on the adjacent low hills next to the 

wash; and

• MicroR measurements at each of the sample sites.

A few irregular, crosscutting masses and layers of 

limonite-cemented sandstone were observed in the low cliffs 

along the wash south of the pipe. These features showed 

variable degrees of anomalous radioactivity that ranged from 

background to several times background and suggested a 

relation between these features and the mineralization deeper 

in the adjacent pipe. One of these layers was sampled and 

analyzed. It (fig. 17; table 8, sample GC09KSR01) contains 

54.9 ppm uranium, 896 ppm arsenic, 0.9 ppm cadmium, 

3.48 ppm antimony, 140 ppm molybdenum, 140 ppm cobalt, 

1,010 ppm copper, 365 ppm nickel, 69 ppm vanadium, 

1,720 ppm zinc, and 0.8 ppm thallium. The high concentrations of several elements support a relation with the nearby 

uranium mineralization.

Concentrations of uranium in stream sediments in 

the wash as it crosses the pipe range from 1.5 to 3.6 ppm 

uranium and average 2.1 ppm (fig. 17; table 8, sample 

GC09KSSS01–06), slightly greater than the Jumpup Creek 

average of 1.9 ppm. The highest concentration was in a sample 

below the pipe in the area of the drill sites. However, information is insufficient to determine whether the pipe mineralization or drilling disturbances contributed to the higher uranium. 

Uranium concentration in soils on the adjacent low hills 

ranged from 1.3 to 2.7 ppm and averaged 2.0 ppm uranium 

(fig. 17; table 8, sample GC09KSS01–06), a little lower than 

the regional average of 2.4 ppm.

MicroR/hr

N

8.1

11

11

17

30 44 30

80

42

30

45

38 19 15

12

30

31

41

22

40 290

210

290

900

900

900

380 380

480

440 420 500

490

400

700 140

340 340

290

240

55

365

365

365

365

36575

350

390

200

900

120

450 800

650

360

170

500

180

1000

110

230

80

60

60 60

80

120 110

140

440

400

420

600

180 800 800

100 100

650420

440

240650

170

310

360 290

150

280

800

130

450

200

500 360

600

440

220

340 450

310 310

100

80 320 190

650

800

440 700

90

90

80

44

20

28

20

6 13

11 7

7

5

7

15

8.5

8.5

18

11.5

6.5

9

32 32 22

16

26

1336

44 30

28

20

15

15

11

9

24

60 60

310 350 340

30

35

40

22 33

16

16

12

12.5

15.5

8.5

13

15

27 36

38

11 11

11 12

8.5

12.5

13.5 12.5

10

10

6.5

7.5

8

8

7

8.5

8.5

7.5

500 FEET

0 100 METERS

0

Figure 15. Radioactivity measurements at the Kanab North Mine site. Measurements exceeding 50 μR/h 

are circled.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 111

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

# #

#

#

!

"

#

! Rock

Soil

Stream Sediment

Uranium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

2

2.7 1.9

2.5

3.6

2

1.8

54.9

1.5

1.6

1.3

2

1.9

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

Figure 17. Uranium concentrations at Kanab South pipe site. Duplicate analytical concentrations 

shown for northernmost sample. A rock sample and a stream-sediment sample were collected at one 

site (stream sediment, 1.8 ppm uranium; rock, 54.9 ppm uranium).

Figure 16. Kanab South pipe (inside white circle) showing drilling roads, small wash 

that passes through the site, and edge of cliffs on west side of Kanab Creek.

1,041 FEET

0 260 METERS

0
112 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Arsenic concentrations in soil samples differed with 

location. Two samples collected west of the pipe contained 

3 and 5 ppm arsenic, whereas samples to the south and east 

contained 23 and 16 ppm, respectively. Stream sediments contained 4–20 ppm arsenic; the lowest concentration was in the 

stream draining the area that had low soil concentrations, and 

the highest concentration was just downstream from the pipe.

Other trace elements in soils and stream sediments 

showed limited variability, although the pipe may have 

influenced some stream sediment analyses. Cadmium in both 

soils and stream sediments was low, 0.1 or 0.2 ppm, except for 

the sample downstream from the position of the pipe, which 

contained 0.6 ppm. Antimony was also low in soils and stream 

sediments (0.47–0.84 ppm) but with no apparent downstream 

anomaly. Cobalt concentrations in soils and stream sediments 

ranged narrowly from 4.9 to 8.8 ppm; the two highest concentrations were in stream sediment samples at and below the 

position of the pipe. Copper concentrations in soils and stream 

sediments ranged narrowly from 8.8 to 23 ppm; the two highest concentrations were at and below the position of the pipe. 

Lead concentrations in soils and stream sediments ranged 

narrowly from 9.4 to 20.7 ppm; the highest concentration 

was below the position of the pipe. Molybdenum in soils and 

stream sediments had a narrow range of 4.9 to 8.8 ppm; the 

two highest concentrations were at or below the position of the 

pipe. Nickel concentrations also had a narrow range of 7.6 to 

15.6 ppm, highest at or below the pipe. Vanadium concentration in soils and stream sediments ranged from 30 to 55 ppm; 

the highest concentration was over the pipe. Soil samples averaged 41 ppm vanadium, a little greater than the regional soil 

average in the NURE geochemical data (37 ppm). Zinc in soils 

and stream sediments ranged from 29 to 67 ppm; the highest 

concentration was at the downstream site. Thallium concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 ppm, and again the highest concentration was downstream. These data consistently suggest 

that modest geochemical anomalies are measured in the immediate vicinity of the pipe. MicroR measurements show modest 

levels of radioactivity (3–7 μR/h) associated with the stream 

sediment and soils at the site. Highest values occur near the 

pipe and downstream (5–7 μR/h). Because the geologic and 

physiographic setting of the Kanab South drill site is very 

similar to that of the Kanab North Mine site, soil and stream 

sediment geochemical data and the microR measurements 

for the Kanab South site may approximate local background 

levels for the Kanab North site.

Hermit Mine

The Hermit Mine is a reclaimed site centered at 

36°41'24.81" N. latitude and 112°45'06.57" W. longitude 

(fig. 1). The surface at the site is part of a gently rolling 

plateau (fig. 18). It drains towards a stock tank that is located 

about 5,500 ft to the north-northeast. Aerial photographs show 

concentric inward-dipping beds that aided discovery of the 

deposit. The surface lithologic unit at the mine site is the lower 

red member of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation (Billingsley 

and others, 2008). The reclaimed area is an irregular shape 

that extends about 1,300 ft north to south and 1,300 ft east to 

west. The pipe was drilled in October 1982 and the uranium 

discovery was announced in August 1986. Production began 

in January 1989 and the pipe was mined out at the end of 1989 

and reclamation begun. Production was 550 thousand pounds 

U3O8 at average grade of 0.76 percent from 36,339 tons of 

ore (Pool and Ross, 2007). No historic photos are available to 

define where mine operation features were located on the site; 

however, a mine plan map shows the proposed site operations 

(fig. 19). A concrete pad remains on the south edge of the site, 

and a power line leading to the Kanab North Mine site crosses 

the south part of the site (power poles visible in fig. 18).

The USGS conducted the following studies at this site:

• Soil sampling within the disturbed area of the site;

• Soil sampling along four transects away from the 

disturbed area;

• Soil and stream sediment sampling along the small 

drainage that leads to the stock tank north of the site 

plus three vertical auger samples of the stock tank 

sediment; and

• MicroR measurements at each of the sample sites.

Soil and stream sediment samples are difficult to distinguish from one another at the Hermit Mine, because the drainage that extends from north of the site to the stock tank has a 

very poorly developed channel. Soil samples (n=22) within the 

reclaimed area contained 1.6–19.9 ppm uranium and averaged 

4.6 ppm (median, 3.1 ppm) (table 8, samples GC09HS01–22; 

fig. 20A). Four samples contained 5 ppm uranium or greater. 

The four samples are highlighted in figure 20A (inset). Soil 

samples (n=25) along four transects that extend radially from 

the site contained 1–5.9 ppm uranium; only two concentrations 

exceeded 3 ppm uranium (table 8, samples GC09HS50–71, 

01–22). The soil sample containing 5.9 ppm uranium was 

Figure 18. Reclaimed Hermit Mine site; view to northeast. Entry 

road to north-northwest (left). (Photograph courtesy of Don Bills, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona. Taken August 25, 2009.)
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 113

Figure 19. Hermit Mine plan map (EnecoTech Inc., 1987). 

collected about 70 ft east of the disturbed area. Along the access 

road to the northwest of the reclaimed site, samples nearest to 

the site contained 3.1 and 3.8 ppm uranium. To the west and the 

south, soil uranium concentrations drop to concentrations below 

the regional average of 2.4 ppm uranium about 40 ft from the 

site margin. Samples collected near the ends of the three transects distant from the roads contain 1.1–1.6 ppm uranium. Soils 

along the drainageway to the north of the site (n=6) contained 

1.4–2.9 ppm uranium; higher concentrations came from samples 

closer to the former mine site. Five samples were collected at 

the stock tank, two from the surface and three from a vertical 

profile hand augered to 19 in. depth in sediment accumulated in 

the stock tank sample (GC09HSS100–104, fig. 20A). The five 

samples contained 1.6–1.9 ppm uranium, a little less than in 

samples along the drainage closer to the site.

Other trace elements show similar modest variations. 

Arsenic in all soil and stream sediment samples ranged from 3 

to 27 ppm; concentrations greater than 6 ppm are restricted to 

the reclaimed area (maximum 27 ppm, fig. 20B), at sites along 

the access road closest to the reclaimed area (9 and 10 ppm, 

fig. 20B) and at the stock tank (7 ppm, fig. 20B). Copper in 

soils and stream sediment samples ranged from 11.8 to 84 ppm; 

highest concentrations are at two sites along the south transect 

immediately adjacent to the site (fig. 20C). Neither uranium 

nor arsenic is anomalously high at these two sites (fig. 20A,B). 

Thus, these elevated levels may be related not to mine waste but 

to a natural feature or perhaps some other site disturbance such 

as power-line installation. Cobalt was also highest at these two 

sites (table 8, 13–14 ppm). Molybdenum was consistently highest in the reclaimed part of the site, ranging there from 0.75 to 

11 ppm, and all external sites contained less than 1 ppm except 

for two sites along the road (fig. 20D). A surface sample at the 

stock tank contained 9.71 ppm molybdenum.

All soil and stream sediment concentrations ranged narrowly for other elements: antimony, 0.47–1.06 ppm; cadmium, 

0.05–0.3 ppm; cobalt, 6.0–13.6 ppm; lead, 9.1–19.7 ppm; 

nickel, 7–22.7 ppm; thallium, 0.3–0.6 ppm; vanadium, 

38–81 ppm; and zinc, 30–87 ppm. Except for cobalt, highest concentrations were either in the reclaimed area or in the 

stock tank. The stock tank seemed to accumulate most of these 

elements, possibly because its fine-grained sediment tends 

to accumulate many trace elements (Carver, 1999). Table 9 

compares trace element concentrations inside and outside of 

the reclaimed area.

 MicroR measurements at soil-sample sites within the 

reclaimed area ranged from 4 to 44 μR/h (fig. 21). On the four 

soil traverses beyond the perimeter of the disturbed zone most 

readings were in the 6–7 μR/h range. Some measurements for 

closer sites ranged from 8 to 10 μR/h. Slightly elevated results 

were obtained for sediments along the wash to the stock tank 

(7–9.5 μR/h); highest values are closer to the site. At the stock 

tank, measurements of 7.5 and 10 μR/h were recorded. On the 

basis of these readings, background for the Hermit Mine site 

is 6–7 μR/h, higher than the background measurements in the 

Jumpup Canyon stream sediment sites (4–5 μR/h).
114 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Figure 20. Concentrations of four elements at Hermit Mine. A, Uranium; concentrations exceeding 

5 mg/L circled; B, Arsenic.

"

" " " "

"

" "

"

" "

"

" " "

"

" " " " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " " " " " "

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

#

N

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.7

1.8

2.2

2.1

2.2

2.9

1.9

1.6

1.6

3.1 3.8

1.5

2

2

1.4

1.7

1.7

1.9

1.9 1.9

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.2

1.4 1.4

2 3 1.9

1.4

1.3

1.3 1.5

1.1

1.5

1.2

0

0 500 FEET

100 METERS

" Soil

Stream Sediment

Uranium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

A

# "

" " " "

"

" "

"

" "

"

" ""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " " " " "

"

"

1.4

2.6

3.7

4.7

3.3

3.1 2.8

2.3

3.1

3.7

1.6

1.5

1.2

1.4

3 3.13.1

3.1

2.9

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.1

1.5

1.2 3.64.3

3.7

2.7

5.6 11.3

19.9

2.8

7.2 5.9

Reclaimed area enlarged

"

" " " "

"

" "

"

" "

"

" " "

"

" " " " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " " " " " "

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

# N

4

4

5

5

4

5 4

4 4 4

3 3 3 7

4 4 4

5 27

8

5

6

6

6 6 6

5

5

5

5

4

4

5

5

5 5

5

9

5

6 10

5

13 7 7

5

5

4

7 4

7 6

4 4

4 4 3 3 3

0

0 500 FEET

B 100 METERS

" Soil

Stream Sediment

Arsenic

(parts per million)

Sample Type

#
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 115

Figure 20—Continued. Concentrations of four elements at Hermit Mine. C, Copper; D, Molybdenum.

"

" " " "

"

" "

"

" "

"

" " "

"

" " " " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " " " " " "

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

# N

11.8

23.8 32.4

26.2

19.9

26.2

24.2

14.4 28.2

19.4

31.1

18.2

44.1

23.3

28.8 33

32.1 18.9

20.6

31.6

27.9

30

35.6

35.1

16.2 16.8

18.419.4

17.9 21.617 3129

15.819.6 13.7

11.7

26 61 11.3

13.6

12.6

34.2

44

82.3

12.3

17.3

19.6

84

54.2

0

0 500 FEET

C 100 METERS

" Soil

Stream Sediment

Copper

(parts per million)

Sample Type

#

"

" " " "

"

" "

"

" "

"

" " "

"

" " " " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " " " " " "

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

#

# N

0.57

0.57

0.63

0.68

0.76

0.92

0.79

0.76

0.87

1.62

2.17

1.13

1.67

1.14 1.26

1.38 0.96

0.751.16

0.81

1.19

0.66

0.61

0.64

0.84

0.96

0.74

0.74

0.72

0.63

9.71

1.01

0.98

1.07

0.79 0.630.58

0.53

0.71 0.62

11

0.61

0.58

0.59

0.62

0.44

0.66

1.25

0

0 500 FEET

D 100 METERS

" Soil

Stream Sediment

Molybdenum

(parts per million)

Sample Type

#
116 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

A comparison of the uranium and arsenic data and the 

microR measurements with the mine plan map (fig. 19) shows 

a few elevated concentrations of uranium in soils and some 

higher microrad-per-hour measurements at the planned locations of ore and waste-rock piles. However, higher values 

for both (including the highest radioactivity measurement, 

44 μR/h) also were found on the east side. It cannot be determined if some ore or mine waste piles were located on the east 

side or if some radioactive material was redistributed to that 

side during mine operations or reclamation.

Hack Mines

Four breccia pipes were mined along Hack Canyon near the 

intersections of Robinson Canyon and Hack Canyon (Hack 2 and 

3, fig. 22), and a small unnamed tributary canyon and Hack 

Canyon (Hack Canyon and Hack 1, fig. 22). The Hack Canyon 

Mine was discovered in the early 1900s and mined intermittently 

for copper and silver until about 1945. From 1950 to 1954 and in 

1964 about 5,000 pounds of U3O8 were produced (Chenoweth, 

1988). In the middle 1970s, the Hack 1 pipe was found near the 

Table 9. Trace element concentrations in soil samples inside and outside the Hermit Mine reclaimed area.

[Samples inside reclaimed area, n=22; samples outside reclaimed area, n=35; ppm, parts per million]

Trace element Concentration inside (ppm) Concentration outside (ppm)

Range Average Median Range Average Median

Arsenic 4–27 7.5 6.0 3–10 4.6 4.0

Cadmium 0.05–0.3 0.09 0.05 0.1–0.2 0.2 0.2

Cobalt 6.9–12.9 9.4 9.6 6.0–13.6 8.7 8.3

Copper 15.6–31.1 19.8 17.9 11.3–84 29.1 26.0

Molybdenum 0.63–11.0 2.19 1.33 0.44–1.38 0.73 0.68

Nickel 10.3–20.2 14.6 14.8 7.0–16.7 11.5 10.8

Lead 9.4–17.0 12.1 11.6 9.1–18.3 13.9 13.1

Antimony 0.63–0.97 0.83 0.86 0.47–0.88 0.68 0.66

Thallium 0.4–0.6 0.43 0.4 0.3–0.5 0.42 0.40

Uranium 1.6–19.9 4.6 3.1 1.1–5.9 1.9 1.6

Vanadium 42–76 59 60 38–63 50 48

Zinc 36–94 50 47 30–65 46 42

MicroR/hr

N

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

7

7

6

7

7

7

7

7 9

9

9

9

9

10

11

7

7

8.5

9.5

9.5

7.5

6.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7

7.5

10

9

8

7 7

7 7

8 6

6

4 9

10 15 10 10 11 10

12

24

44 10 10 9 8 7 7 7 6

500 FEET

0 100 METERS

0

Figure 21. Radioactivity measurements at Hermit Mine site.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 117

original mine; mining began in 1981 and ceased in 1987. In the 

late 1970s the Hack 2 was opened on the opposite side of and 

farther upstream in Hack Canyon. Mining started in 1981 and 

ceased in May 1987. Hack 3 was discovered adjacent to Hack 2; 

development started about 1982 and mining ceased in June 1987. 

Reclamation of all three Hack Mines plus the older Hack Canyon 

Mine site was planned and completed from March 1987 to 

April 1988. On August 19, 1984, a flash flood in the tributary 

drainage where the Hack 1 Mine was operating (location T, 

fig. 22) eroded ore and mined waste-rock piles and washed these 

materials downstream. Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., recovered 

radioactive rock from the stream bed as far downstream as the 

wilderness boundary fence, which was then about 1 mi down the 

wash (Roger Smith, formerly with Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 

oral commun., 2009).

During mining of the three pipes, 9.5 million pounds of 

U3O8 were produced from 742,200 tons of ore (fig. 4) (Pool 

and Ross, 2007). The average grade ranged from 0.50 to 

0.70 percent U3O8. The period of time during which uranium 

ore and waste-rock piles were at the surface can be estimated 

at about 6 or 7 years (about 1981 to about December 1987, 

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., undated). For the Hack Mines 

reclamation, alluvium from a gravel pit adjacent to the Hack 2 

and 3 Mines was used to cover the recontoured ore and wasterock pile areas (Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., undated).

The USGS conducted the following studies at Hack 

Mine sites:

• Stream sediment sampling at 10 sites along Hack Canyon, 

Robinson Canyon, and unnamed Hack 1 tributary canyon 

down to the current wilderness boundary fence;

• Rock sampling and photodocumentation of selected 

ore or waste-rock fragments in the channel and on the 

flood plain; and

• MicroR measurements at each of the sample sites listed 

above and other sites.

Stream sediment samples were taken from four sites 

above the mining operations: one upstream from the Hack 2 and 

3 Mines along Hack Canyon (table 8, sample GC09HKSS01); 

one upstream from the same mines along Robinson Canyon 

(table 8, sample GC09HKSS02); and two samples upstream 

from the Hack 1 and old Hack Canyon Mines on an unnamed 

tributary canyon to Hack Canyon (table 8, sample GC09HKSS04 

and SS05). Six stream sediment samples were taken along 

Hack Canyon: one between the Hack 2 and 3 Mines and the 

tributary canyon where Hack 1 Mine was located (table 8, 

sample GC09HKSS03), and five downstream from all mining 

operations (table 8, sample GC09HKSS06–SS10).

R

H

H

T

1

2

3

HC

Figure 22. Features near Hack Canyon. H, Hack Canyon; R, Robinson Canyon; T, unnamed 

tributary canyon. Hack 1 (arrow 1), Hack Canyon (HC), Hack 2 (arrow 2), and Hack 3 (arrow 3) 

Mines; location of mines approximate.
118 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

During sampling in Hack Canyon, the field party 

noticed mineralized rock along the wash bottom. Two locations were documented below the Hack 2 and 3 Mines, and 

multiple sites extended below the Hack 1 Mine tributary 

canyon for a few hundred feet down valley from the SS07 

stream-sediment sample location. Five mineralized rock 

samples were collected and submitted for analysis (table 8, 

samples GC09HKRK01–05). The radioactivity of some 

additional mineralized rock was measured with the microR 

meter and their locations were determined using a GPS unit.

All stream sediment samples, including those collected 

upstream of Hack 2 and 3 (samples GC09HKSS01–02) 

and upstream of Hack 1 (samples GC09HKSS04–05) 

have high concentrations of trace elements relative to the 

average Jumpup Canyon concentrations. The relatively high 

concentrations are apparent for uranium (2.1–10.2 ppm, 

Jumpup average 1.7 ppm); arsenic (9–17 ppm; Jumpup average 4.6 ppm), and molybdenum (1.1–1.9 ppm, Jumpup average 

0.78 ppm). However, other elements are present in concentrations that are at or only slightly above background values: 

cadmium (0.3–0.5 ppm; Jumpup average 0.3 ppm); cobalt 

(3.2–6.7 ppm, Jumpup average 4.2 ppm); copper (9.5–37.5 ppm; 

Jumpup average 12.9 ppm); antimony (0.29–0.5 ppm; Jumpup 

average 0.47 ppm); lead (8.9–22.9 ppm; Jumpup average 

12.4 ppm); nickel (7.9–15.9 ppm, Jumpup average 10.3 ppm); 

thallium (0.3–0.4 ppm; Jumpup average 0.31 ppm); vanadium 

(19–37 ppm; Jumpup average 29 ppm); and zinc (32–53 ppm; 

Jumpup average 42 ppm).

Uranium concentrations in stream sediments and mineralized rock are summarized in an aerial image of the Hack 

Canyon site (fig. 23). The four background stream sediment 

samples range in uranium concentration from 2.1 to 3.9 ppm. 

Concentrations in two samples below the confluence of the 

tributary canyon with Hack Canyon, which contain 6.5 ppm 

and 10.2 ppm, are higher than these background concentrations. However, these concentrations drop to 4.8 and 3.2 ppm 

farther downstream (fig. 23) and to 2.4 ppm farther yet 

downstream near Willow Spring (east of the area of fig. 23). 

A similar pattern in all trace element concentrations in stream 

sediment samples is apparent. Figure 24 shows the ratio of 

stream sediment trace element concentrations to background 

concentrations as compared with stream channel distance 

below the Hack 1 Mine location. Sample site SS07, at the 

lower end of an eroded waste-rock terrace (see following 

discussion), consistently contained concentrations of trace 

elements that are higher than concentrations at upstream 

site SS06. At sample site SS09, most trace elements have 

dropped to background concentrations or below (a ratio of 1 

or less). At sample site SS10, only molybdenum is slightly 

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

G

G

G

G

#

G

Stream Sediment

Mine Waste

Uranium

(parts per million)

Sample Type

N

15000

3630

825

4.8

3.2

10.2

122

6.5

2.9

2.8

7760

5

2.1

3.9

2,000 FEET

0

0

500 METERS

Figure 23. Uranium concentrations in stream sediment and in ore and waste-rock samples. One 

mine-waste sample (825 ppm uranium) and one stream-sediment sample (6.5 ppm uranium) are 

from same site. Site for sample GC09HKSS10 (2.4 ppm uranium) lies east of photograph boundary. 

One mine-waste sample exceeded the 10,000 ppm upper detection limit for the analytical method, 

and the concentration given here (15,000 ppm uranium) is an estimate.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 119

Figure 24. Ratio of concentrations of Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), 

Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Molybdenum (Mo), Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb), 

Antimony (Sb), Thallium (Tl), Uranium (U), Vanadium (V), and Zinc 

(Zn) in stream sediments to their concentrations in background 

stream sediments as a function of distance downstream from the 

Hack 1 Mine. Background data are the average of the trace element 

concentrations in four samples upstream from mining operations. 

SS06 to SS10, samples GC09HKSS06–10 (see table 8). 

DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM OF HACK 1, IN MILES

FRACTION OF BACKGROUND 

CONCENTRATION

1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

SS06

SS07

SS08

SS09

SS10

As

Cd

Co

Cu

Mo

Ni

Pb

Sb

Tl

U

V

Zn

above background concentration. The results of the stream 

sediment geochemistry in this study are consistent with those 

of Carver (1999).

Scattered fragments of ore or waste rock, generally 2 to 

18 in. in diameter, are found on the wash bottom. MicroR measurements for these samples were quite variable and ranged 

from 18 to 900 μR/h. The mineralized rock samples collected 

from the wash contained 122 ppm to >10,000 ppm uranium 

(the upper detection limit for the analytical method, shown as 

15,000 ppm in fig. 23) and are similarly high in several associated trace elements (table 8, samples GC09HKRK01–05). 

The appearance of these fragments is varied, but commonly 

they are yellowish orange, dark gray, greenish gray, or reddish 

brown (fig. 25A–H). The uranium-mineralized rock fragments 

along the floor of Hack Canyon may be derived from the flood 

of August 19, 1984, from undocumented floods before or after 

1984 during the period of mining, or from one or more postreclamation floods that eroded the edge of the terrace adjacent 

to the channel.

Adjacent to the stream channel just downstream 

of the reclaimed Hack 1 Mine and upstream of sample GC09HKSS08 is a terrace which has been eroded by 

floods, revealing a cross section of uranium-mine waste rock 

covered by gravel. Figure 26A shows the location of this 

terrace. Figure 26B shows mining operations on this terrace 

in June 1985. During reclamation, waste rock from mine 

operations was spread on the terrace surface, contoured, 

and then covered with gravel. Four to 10 ft of buried uranium 

mineralized waste rock and 2 to 3 ft of cover material are now 

exposed where the edge of the terrace has been eroded by flow 

down the channel. The microR measurements for the lower, 

northern length of this terrace range from 200 to 1,900 μR/h; 

radioactivity decreases along the higher, southern length 

(20–100 μR/h). Images of this eroded terrace edge are shown 

in figure 27. Waste-rock sample GC09HKRK02 (table 8) was 

collected from the terrace wall. A few large rocks from this 

terrace edge have been eroded into the channel (fig. 28). In 

the stream reach from downstream of the reclaimed Hack 1 

Mine to just downstream of the old wilderness boundary 

fence at sample site GC09HKSS07, microR measurements 

at stream sediment sites ranged from 7 to 9 μR/h. At sample 

location GC09HKSS08, microR readings were at background 

(4–5 μR/h), which correlates well with background uranium 

concentrations measured in the stream sediments. MicroR 

measurements at sites along Jumpup Canyon are in the 

same range, although the average uranium concentrations in 

the Jumpup Canyon stream sediments are smaller (average 

1.9 ppm).

Leaching of Waste Samples

During and after mining operations, ore and uraniferous waste rock are exposed to surface conditions that include 

episodic wetting events. Wetting is of concern because of 

the potential dissolution and transport of environmentally 

sensitive trace elements. Ore and waste rock can be wetted 

(1) while exposed on the ground surface at mine sites during 

active operations and standby conditions, (2) while buried in 

alluvial soils along a drainage where they were covered by 

clean fill during reclamation, (3) while buried in alluvium after 

floods have washed them downstream, and (4) in underground 

mine openings when used as backfill. As part of the USGS 

investigation of possible effects of mining , samples of ore 

and waste rock were leached by simulated rainfall for materials left at the surface and by more carbonate-rich solutions that 

might form as water percolates downward through unsaturated 

zones towards the saturated zone in stream beds or in backfilled underground mine workings.

Waste materials found at active or standby mine sites 

differ from site to site but can include (fig. 29) lower grade 

uranium ore or mineralized waste rock stored in piles or left 

on the surface of the mine site during storage, transport, site 

grading, or similar processes (location O, fig. 29); particles 

displaced from ore or waste rock that were physically transported by gravity, wind or water (location P); particles that 

were formed by mechanical weathering of rock fragments on 

surfaces and enriched in trace elements (location M); surface sediments ponded in low places and enriched by trace 

elements in salts derived from dissolution of nearby ore or 

waste (location C); and leached trace elements sequestered in 

the unsaturated zone (location V). In this area, groundwater is 

not generally a receptor for dispersed trace elements, except 

where shallow, perched water may be present. Wind disperses 

dust offsite. The origin and character of these waste sources 

is important for understanding the potential for future dispersion, bioavailability, and mobility of uranium and other trace 

element contaminants of concern.
120 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

A B

C D

Figure 25. Ore and waste rock on the wash bottom of Hack Canyon. A, Sample GC09HKRK03 (weathered, 18 in. 

across); radioactivity measurement, 900 μR/h. B, Sample GC09HKRK04 (weathered, 5 in. diameter); radioactivity 

measurement, 125 μR/h. Sites of samples GC09HKRK03 and GC09HKRK04 are within 5 ft of each other. C, D, Waste 

rock and ore between GC09HKSS06 and GC09HKSS07 (microR meter for scale; radioactivity measurement on less 

weathered rock, 60 μR/h).

Because these sites are located in an arid region, the 

mobilization of contaminants from sources at the mine sites 

is largely limited to (1) physical dispersion of fines by wind, 

(2) low-intensity rainfall that locally could mobilize dissolved 

species by dissolution or desorption processes, and (3) highintensity rainfall that could promote infiltration of dissolved 

species into the unsaturated zone or cause physical and 

chemical transport through sheet flow and channel erosion during flooding. In the event of physical dispersion or 

transport of solids (dust, waste rock, or uranium ore) to a 

surface water body such as a stream channel with perennial 

flow (for example, the lower part of Kanab Creek), dissolution of uranium is expected to increase through interaction 

with bicarbonate dissolved in water (Langmuir, 1978). The 

study reported here study investigated the potential for lowand high-intensity rainfall to mobilize uranium and other 

trace element contaminants by leaching representative waste 

sources present at the Hack, Pigeon, and Kanab North Mines. 

Background samples from Kanab South and Jumpup Canyon 

were also leached for comparison. Table 10 describes the 

whole-rock composition of these samples with respect to the 

crustal abundance of trace elements of concern that are typically associated with uranium breccia pipes in Arizona.

The whole-rock composition of the samples selected 

for leaching (n=11; table 10) are generally above crustal 

abundances for uranium and a number of other elements of 

environmental concern such as arsenic, barium, cadmium, 

cobalt, copper, molybdenum, nickel, lead, antimony, thallium, 

uranium, and zinc (table 10, highlighted in red). However, during leaching with simulated rainwater and groundwater or surface water, not all of these elements are leached into solution. 

Generally, in these samples synthetic rainwater extracted substantial amounts of uranium, arsenic, and molybdenum, and 
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 121

Center of

GC09HKSS07

E F

G H

Figure 25—Continued. Ore and waste rock on the wash bottom of Hack Canyon. E, F, Weathered waste rock 

and ore between GC09HKSS06 and GC09HKSS07 (microR meter for scale; radioactivity measurement, 25 μR/h). 

G, Waste rock and ore in overbank area (to lower right) adjacent to locality of GC09HKSS07 stream-sediment 

sample. H, Closeup of waste rock and ore (microR meter for scale; radioactivity measurement, 400 μR/h).

concentrations increased as the duration of leaching increased 

(see following sections). Likewise, the addition of bicarbonate to the leaching solution also increased the concentrations 

of uranium in solution owing to the formation of uranylcarbonate aqueous complexes, which promote the dissolution 

of uranium minerals (Langmuir, 1978). As extracted uranium 

concentrations increase, more arsenic and molybdenum are 

also released. These relationships, as well as site-specific elements, are briefly discussed below.

Pigeon Mine Samples

At the Pigeon reclaimed mine site and mine operations 

area, several samples enriched in uranium were identified 

(n<10) by anomalously high microR measurements. The 

representative samples collected and selected for leaching (table 10) included weathered uranium ore from the 

operations area (600 μR/h, sample GC09PW–03), and soil 

samples enriched in uranium possibly by the addition of 

salts derived from waste (150 μR/h, sample GC09PW–02) 

or from fine-grained sediments derived from waste 

(sample GC09PS–88) at the reclaimed mine site. These samples 

were leached for 1 h and for 24 h with synthetic rainwater. 

Leaching results for the Pigeon Mine samples are summarized 

in table 11.

During the first hour of leaching with the synthetic rainwater, solutions contained 18.2–489 ppb arsenic, 60–401 ppb 

uranium, and 2.5–106 ppb molybdenum. Leachate from sample 

GC09PW–02 (which contains readily leachable salts) contained 

the highest concentrations of all three elements. The weathered 

ore sample (GC09PW–03) leached higher concentrations of 

copper (3,870 ppb), manganese (108 ppb), nickel (96 ppb), 

and zinc (1,220 ppb). After a 24-h leaching period in simulated 

rainwater, concentrations in solution were higher: 29.7–799 ppb 
122 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

A

B

Figure 26. A, Tributary canyon and Hack Canyon bottom 

showing location of waste-rock terrace (upper and lower extent 

of terrace marked by arrows). Upstream part of terrace is 

substantially lower than downstream part. (Photograph courtesy 

of Don Bills, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona. Taken 

August 25, 2009.) B, Tributary canyon and Hack Canyon during 

mining operations (upper and lower extent of terrace marked 

by arrows). (Photograph courtesy of Pam Hill, American Clean 

Energy Resources Trust. Taken June 1985.) 

arsenic, 171–1,270 ppb uranium, and 9.3 to 503 ppb molybdenum. Once again, leachate from sample GC09PW–02 contained 

the highest concentrations of uranium, arsenic, and molybdenum. This result suggests that sample GC09PW–02 is a contaminated soil that contains redistributed secondary salt or a sorbed 

phase and thus has the most readily leachable uranium, arsenic, 

and molybdenum. Uranium leached from the weathered ore 

sample (GC09PW–03) increased substantially to 1,020 ppb, and 

the sample yielded additional trace-element constituents such as 

16.3 ppb cadmium, 3,270 ppb copper, and 186 ppb manganese, 

182 ppb nickel, in addition to 1,600 ppm sulfate.

Kanab North Mine Samples

Because the Kanab North site is partially mined and 

not yet reclaimed, the mine site contained the most obvious sources of uranium waste material, weathered ore fragments, and ponded sediment. Sample leach data reported 

here include samples from a low-grade ore stock pile 

(sample GC09KNW–13), surface ponded sediment enriched 

in uranium (sample GC09KNW–12), weathered ore and waste 

rock from a large waste-rock pile (sample GC09KNW–01), 

sludge from the wastewater pond (sample GC09KNW–08), 

and physically transported waste (sample GC09KNW–10). 

These samples were leached for 1 h and for 24 h with simulated rainwater. Leaching results for Kanab North samples are 

summarized in table 12.

During the 1-h leaching with simulated rainwater, 

more uranium was released from the pond sludge 

(sample GC09KNW–08) than from the weathered uranium 

ore (sample GC09KNW–13)—19,600 ppb as compared with 

924 ppb uranium in solution. The pond sludge also yielded 

8,820 ppb molybdenum, 4,930 ppb strontium and 2,720 ppm 

sulfate. These concentrations suggest that the pond sludge 

contains readily leachable phases that may be mobilized during 

short rain events. Because the pond is lined, infiltration of dissolved uranium into the unsaturated zone is limited; however, 

rainwater in the pond may contain very high trace-element 

concentrations until evaporation to dryness causes them to 

precipitate into the sludge again. After a 24-h leaching period, 

uranium in the leachate increased substantially in the remainder of the samples: GC09KNW–13 (21,200 ppb uranium and 

347 ppb molybdenum), GC09KNW–12 (487 ppb uranium and 

998 ppb molybdenum), GC09KNW–01 (301 ppb uranium and 

695 ppb molybdenum), GC09KNW–08 (27,600 ppb uranium 

and 10,900 ppb molybdenum), and GC09KNW–10 (708 ppb 

uranium and 592 ppb molybdenum). Unlike leaching of Pigeon 

Mine samples, leaching of Kanab North Mine waste samples 

produced very little arsenic (3.8–114 ppb) in solution.

Hack Canyon Mines Samples

Although a number of uranium-mineralized rock samples 

were found along Hack Canyon downstream from the Hack 1, 

2, and 3 reclaimed mine sites and from the buried waste rock 

exposed in the terrace just downstream from Hack 1, these 

specimens were collected after the leaching experiments so 

they were not included. A sample of Hack Ore (01-Hack Ore) 

previously collected and archived by the USGS was used in 

the leaching study as a representative analog to determine 

leachability of uranium and other trace elements from ore at 

this site. Whole-rock compositions of the archived analog 

sample (01-Hack Ore, analyzed by instrumental neutron activation analysis [INAA]) are compared with the fragments of 

waste rock and weathered ore collected from the Hack Canyon 
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 123

A B

C D

Figure 27. Terrace downstream of the former Hack 1 Mine (see also fig. 26) at confluence of tributary canyon 

and Hack Canyon. A, View upstream (north) along eroded low terrace edge. Person provides scale. B, View 

downstream (south) along low, eroded terrace edge toward higher terrace. C, Low part of terrace; view east toward 

reclaimed Hack 1 Mine at wall of terrace. Radioactivity measurements here, 200–1,900 μR/h. D, High downstream 

end of terrace. Radioactivity measurements here, 100–250 μR/h. 

Mine (sample GC09HKR01–05, not used in this leaching 

study, analyzed by ICP–MS and ICP–AES); results are shown 

in table 13a. Concentration of trace elements commonly associated with breccia pipe ores differ widely (table 13a).

Hack ore and waste rock could migrate in a flash flood to 

a saturated perennial stream environment. This scenario would 

involve high-intensity rain followed by burial in the stream 

bed below the water table. In order to simulate this situation, the Hack Ore sample was leached in synthetic rainwater 

for a 1-h period and a 24-h period followed by leaching in a 

solution containing 300 mg/L bicarbonate. Concentrations 

of bicarbonate in Colorado River water averaged 162 ppm 

during the interval 1980 to 2009; its maximum concentration 

was 186 ppm. Data are available through the USGS National 

Water Information System at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

qw. A factor of approximately two times this average value 

was used to account for any higher values that may be present 

in stream flow at various times and to estimate effects of shallow alluvial groundwater (which can have higher bicarbonate 

concentrations—at times greater than 300 mg/L). Leaching 

results for the Hack waste-ore analog sample are summarized 

in table 13b–d.

Figure 30 shows the concentration of trace elements as 

a function of leaching solution for the Hack Ore sample, first 

with simulated rainwater at various time intervals for the first 

24 h, then after 24 h equilibration with simulated river water. 

After the first hour (table 13b), trace element concentrations increase in solution for arsenic (2,020 ppb), cadmium 

(6.9 ppb), cobalt (334 ppb), molybdenum (4,960 ppb), nickel 

(782 ppb), antimony (12.1 ppb) and uranium (590 ppb). After 

a 24-h equilibration period, the same elements substantially 

increased and appeared to be approaching a steady-state 
124 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Terrace

Waste

Rock/ Ore

Waste

Rock/ Ore

A B

Figure 28. Large waste-rock boulder in streambed approximately 10 ft west of low terrace. A, View upstream of 

terrace and waste-rock boulder. B, View east toward eroded terrace wall from waste-rock boulder in streambed 

(Hack 1 Mine site is beyond terrace). Terrace gravel cover is pale reddish-brown. Radioactivity measurement on 

waste-rock boulder, 300 μR/h.

concentration in solution at 13,800 ppb arsenic, 26.8 ppb cadmium, 1,190 ppb cobalt, 17,400 ppb molybdenum, 3,480 ppb 

nickel, 75.7 ppb antimony and 4,410 ppb uranium. A major 

rain event at Hack Canyon that leaches 1 metric ton (1,000 kg) 

of ore and waste rock at a liquid/solid weight ratio of 20:1 will 

produce 20,000 liters of metal-rich leachate solution. In the 

worst case, all this solution would enter the stream channel as 

runoff and seepage during the event. Compare this 20,000 liter 

volume with the 10,477 liters per second (L/s) average flow 

past the mine site during the 1984 flood in Hack Canyon 

(370 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 

undated) × 28.316 liters per cubic foot (L/ft3). Clearly, the 

total volume of floodwater available during the entire duration 

(9.05 × 108 liters in 24 h) of a flood event allows for extreme 

dilution of mine-derived leachates of ore and waste rock to 

concentrations below 1 ppb for all constituents.

After 24-h contact between the Hack Ore and the 300 mg/L 

bicarbonate solution (table 13d), dissolved concentrations 

increased further to 36,400 ppb arsenic, 63,000 ppb uranium, 

34.7 ppb cadmium, 1,890 ppb cobalt, 6,380 ppb nickel, 

23,800 ppb molybdenum, and 114 ppb antimony. Even if such 

a solution generated by an assumed 1 metric ton of uranium ore 

and waste material buried in the stream bed did reach a surface 

water, such as the Colorado River with a flow rate of 10,780 cfs, 

then trace element concentrations in the flow would be below 

1 ppb. (See summary data for USGS streamgage 09402500 on 

the Colorado River just northeast of Grand Canyon Village at 

http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/?m=mv01d&r=az&w=map.)

Mobility of Contaminants

The leaching experiments demonstrate that all samples 

appear to have a small component of uranium in readily 

water-soluble form. Percentages of uranium leached during 24-h contact with synthetic rainwater were as follows: 

unweathered ore (0.2–0.33 percent), wind transported 

fines (0.5–1.66 percent), weathered ore and waste rock 

(0.89–2.76 percent), chemically redistributed uranium waste 

in some soils and pond sediments (0.57–17.06 percent), and 

background samples (0.16–0.19 percent). Readily soluble 

uranium is probably desorbed or derived from surface coatings 

of sparingly soluble secondary minerals (in weathered waste 

rocks and ore specimens). The liquid/solid weight ratio of 20:1 

used in the batch-leaching experiments simulated water saturation within intergranular pore spaces and excess pore water 

draining from a saturated ore or waste-rock pile. A liquid/solid 

weight ratio of 20:1 does not simulate the additional dilution 
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 125

WOreaste

Rock (WR)

Physically

dispersed

particles (P)

Settling pond

sludge (C)

Sorbates and

salts formed by

chemical

alteration (C)

Dispersion

following

mechanical

weathering (M)

Leached uranium from

waste sequestered in

the unsaturated zone (V)

Evaporation

Precipitation

Ore (O)

fragment Ore (O)

Wind

Figure 29. Processes expected to disperse trace elements contained 

in stored ore and mined waste rock at mine sites within study area. 

In this area, groundwater is generally not a receptor for dispersed 

trace elements from mine sites, except where shallow perched water 

is present.

Table 10. Elements in whole rock composition of samples selected for leaching compared with crustal abundance of those elements.

[Crustal abundance data from Smith and Logsdon (1999); red, concentration exceeds crustal abundance of element; ppm, parts per million; na, not analyzed]

Sample Concentration (ppm)

Arsenic Barium Cadmium Cobalt Chromium Copper Manganese Molybdenum Nickel

Hack

01-Hack Ore 3,210 6,320 205 33 na na na 1,600

Pigeon

GC09PW03 5,060 36 17.40 6 8 9,030 18 20.9 55

GC09PS88 455 125 2.90 112 38 136 501 77.1 285

GC09PW02 258 909 1.00 232 41 130 520 86.4 397

GC09PS08 393 217 1.00 29 49 14 226 96.7 130

Kanab North

GC09KNW01 280 458 2.50 96 38 173 187 173.0 115

GC09KNW08 44 330 0.70 49 13 41 162 230.0 48

GC09KNW10 388 516 6.20 111 28 172 209 164.0 129

GC09KNW13 1,980 111 10.40 57 14 107 218 102.0 123

GC09KNW12 803 484 8.40 175 20 516 182 328.0 180

GC09KNS12 7 477 0.20 8 26 15 472 1.2 13

Crustal abundance 2 430 0.18 25 200 60 900 2 80

Sample Concentration (ppm)

Lead Antimony Strontium Thorium Thallium Uranium Vanadium Zinc

Hack

01-Hack Ore na 9.2 713 2.5 na 26,800 na 4,100

Pigeon

GC09PW03 837 12.1 436 0.3 6.30 1,870 21 3,400

GC09PS88 101 6.2 152 6.0 21.90 206 51 624

GC09PW02 137 14.6 210 7.6 4.30 616 64 215

GC09PS08 17 2.2 113 3.6 3.90 11 31 254

Kanab North

GC09KNW01 154 1.3 107 5.7 12.40 679 66 458

GC09KNW08 32 0.7 250 3.4 1.80 3,236 24 165

GC09KNW10 215 1.6 112 4.1 10.70 2,840 47 1,350

GC09KNW13 1,790 3.1 65 1.7 30.20 15,380 51 1,400

GC09KNW12 220 2.3 115 3.1 20.40 1,720 66 1,590

GC09KNS12 14 0.5 127 7.1 0.40 13.9 38 47

Crustal abundance 16 0.2 350 10 1 3 150 70
126 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 11. Concentrations of uranium and other trace elements in 1- and 24-hour leachates of Pigeon Mine samples.

[μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter]

Sample Final

pH

Trace element concentrations (μg/L)

Arsenic Barium Cadmium Cobalt Chromium Copper Manganese Molybdenum Nickel Lead

1-hour simulated rainwater leachates1

PW-03 6.1 18.2 25.9 14.6 7.72 <1 3,870 108 2.5 96 13

PS-88 8.06 50.5 140 0.09 0.74 <1 9.6 1.2 28.5 7 0.4

PW-02 9.15 489 166 0.19 4.71 1 16.8 2.8 106 19 3.8

24-hour simulated rainwater leachates2

PW-03 6.85 29.7 61.5 16.3 13.6 <1 3,270 186 9.3 182 2.1

PS-88 8.75 88.6 165 0.21 3.26 <1 11.8 4.7 122 18 2.1

PW-02 9.3 799 133 0.74 12 1.4 19.6 7.6 503 40.1 4.5

Sample Trace element concentrations (μg/L) Major ions (mg/L)

Antimony Selenium Strontium Thorium Thallium Uranium Vanadium Zinc Sulfate Pottasium Calcium Phosphorus

1-hour simulated rainwater leachates1

PW-03 1.08 8.6 567 <0.2 <0.1 167 <0.5 1,220 1,050 0.2 409 <0.01

PS-88 1.96 1 20.1 <0.2 <0.1 60 1 6.7 30 0.91 13.9 0.1

PW-02 7.25 2.5 20.3 <0.2 0.1 401 7.2 8.5 10 1.17 7.96 0.3

24-hour simulated rainwater leachates2

PW-03 1.92 16.7 850 <0.2 <0.1 1,020 <0.5 1,520 1,600 0.2 599 0.02

PS-88 3.35 1.2 30 <0.2 0.2 171 1.4 17 38 1.55 19.9 0.1

PW-02 13.3 2.9 30.7 <0.2 0.2 1,270 9.8 18.3 6 3.03 14 0.2 1

Initial pH of two blank samples, 5.52 and 5.65.

2

Initial pH of two blank samples, 5.7 and 5.6.

Table 12. Concentrations of uranium and other trace elements in 1- and 24-hour simulated-rainwater leachates of Kanab North 

samples (see also table 8). 

Sample Final

pH

Trace metal concentrations (μg/L)

Arsenic Barium Cadmium Cobalt Chromium Copper Manganese Molybdenum Nickel Lead

1-hour simulated rainwater leachates1

KNW-13 7.38 3.8 21 0.58 14 <1 <0.5 47.7 47.4 26.4 0.1

KNW-12 8.1 6.9 19.4 1.06 32.4 <1 2.7 36.4 340 21.1 0.07

KNW-01 8.2 15.1 45.4 0.49 5.08 1.2 1.2 5.9 264 4.4 0.07

KNW-08 9.05 30.9 27.2 11.9 2.14 <1 20 25 8,820 4.8 <0.05

KNW-10 7.56 51.5 40.5 0.29 0.62 <1 1.7 0.5 135 0.9 0.2

24-hour simulated rainwater leachates2

KNW-13 7.82 14.7 122 0.86 5.71 <1 0.83 27.6 347 23 <0.05

KNW-12 8.1 24.4 97.6 1.9 27 <1 3 4.4 998 19.7 <0.05

KNW-01 8.44 35.3 82.9 1.13 3.31 <1 1.2 3.2 695 3.5 <0.05

KNW-08 9.12 39.4 42.2 16 2.92 <1 55 33.3 10,900 6.2 <0.05

KNW-10 9.00 114 49.3 0.91 0.95 <1 1.5 0.4 592 1.3 <0.05

Sample Trace metal concentrations (μg/L) Major ions (mg/L)

Antimony Selenium Strontium Thorium Thallium Uranium Vanadium Zinc Sulfate Potassium Calcium Phosphorus

1-hour simulated rainwater leachates1

KNW-13 0.68 1.8 49.6 <0.2 <0.1 924 <0.5 48.4 155 0.51 60.2 <0.01

KNW-12 0.59 66.4 165 <0.2 0.63 10.4 <0.5 39.1 770 1.82 127 0.01

KNW-01 0.89 9.8 34.4 <0.2 <0.1 13.9 <0.5 12.5 168 1.29 38.3 0.02

KNW-08 1.16 17.8 4,930 <0.2 13 19,600 <0.5 6.1 2,720 51.9 364 0.05

KNW-10 1.08 5.3 300 <0.2 0.1 354 0.6 5.4 305 2.27 108 0.07

24-hour simulated rainwater leachates2

KNW-13 2.68 4.2 126 <0.2 <0.1 21,200 <0.5 72 425 0.9 158 0.01

KNW-12 1.04 71.2 192 <0.2 0.4 487 <0.5 52.7 890 2.16 152 0.03

KNW-01 0.88 11 44 <0.2 <0.1 301 0.5 17.4 196 1.27 46.2 0.04

KNW-08 1.72 24.3 6,340 <0.2 23.4 27,600 <0.5 9 3,520 59.8 488 0.06

KNW-10 1.43 6.6 370 <0.2 0.68 708 1.1 5.2 386 3.32 124 0.02 1

Intial pH values for two blanks, 5.52 and 5.65.

2

Initial pH values for two blanks, 5.7 and 5.6.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 127

Table 13. Whole-rock composition of ore and rock from Hack Canyon and concentrations of uranium and trace elements in 1- and 24-hour leachates of ore collected in Hack Canyon.Table 13a. Whole-rock composition of the Hack Ore archived sample (01-Hack Ore) with data from table 8 for other uranium-bearing rock samples from the Hack Canyon wash for comparison. Crustal abundance data are shown for comparison (Smith and Logsdon, 1999). Analyses exceeding crustal abundance are highlighted in red. N/A, not analyzed. The 01-Hack Ore was an archived sample analyzed by INAA. The other samples were analyzed by ICP–MS and ICP–AES.

Sample

Concentration

(ppm)

As Ba Cd Co Cr Cu Mn Mo Ni Pb Sb Sr Th Tl U V Zn

01-Hack Ore 3,210 6,320 N/A 205 33 N/A N/A N/A 1,600 N/A 9.2 713 2.5 N/A 26,800 N/A 4,100GC09HKRK01 547 406 5.6 3.8 11 928 14 476 67.1 290 8.7 101 6.1 4.8 7,760 29 797GC09HKRK02 >10,000 184 53.5 581 8 1,670 11 104 1,260 324 8.55 400 <0.2 349 3,630 8 >10,000GC09HKRK03 2,040 947 0.6 4 11 1,740 21 14.3 12.2 212 12.4 81.5 3.7 1.7 825 32 92GC09HKRK04 1,690 3,150 21.6 12.2 5 306 13 78.1 22.9 127 1.99 143 0.6 3.2 122 7 5,270GC09HKRK05 >10,000 67 1 908 12 7,480 41 4,450 622 939 12.9 128 1.4 129 >10,000 273 111Crustal abundance 2 390 0.16 29 122 68 1060 1.2 99 13 0.2 384 10 1 3 136 76

Table 13b. Concentrations of uranium and other trace metals in 1-hour simulated rainwater leachate of the 01-Hack Ore analog. Initial pH values for two blanks were 5.52 and 5.65.

Sample Final pH Trace metal concentrations (μg/L) Major ions (mg/L) As Ba Cd Co Cr Cu Mn Mo Ni Pb Sb Se Sr Th Tl U V Zn SO4 K Ca P

Hack Ore 8.01 2,020 75.5 6.9 334 <1 1.3 17.7 4,960 782 1.1 12.1 2.9 112 <0.2 <0.1 590 10.8 15.4 85 0.76 39.5 0.03

Table 13c. Concentrations of uranium and other trace metals in 24-hour simulated rainwater leachate of the 01-Hack Ore analog. Initial pH values for two blanks were 5.7 and 5.6. 

Sample Final pH Trace metal concentrations (μg/L) Major ions (mg/L) As Ba Cd Co Cr Cu Mn Mo Ni Pb Sb Se Sr Th Tl U V Zn SO4 K Ca P

Hack Ore 7.78 13,800 171 26.8 1,190 <1 1.6 30.2 17,400 3,480 0.1 75.7 6.9 324 <0.2 <0.1 4,410 30.4 82.4 222 0.92 105 0.08

Table 13d. Concentrations of uranium and other trace metals in 24-hour simulated river water leachates from the 01-Hack Ore analog. Initial pH values for two blanks were 8.80 and 8.87.

Sample Final pH Trace metal concentrations (μg/L) Major ions (mg/L) As Ba Cd Co Cr Cu Mn Mo Ni Pb Sb Se Sr Th Tl U V Zn SO4 K Ca P

Hack Ore 7.7 36,400 248 34.7 1,890 13.9 3.8 32 23,800 6,380 0.73 114 17.3 463 <0.2 2.1 63,000 165 110 251 3.2 123 0.5
128 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

G.

REACTION TIME (h)

Cobalt

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

0

1,500

1,000

500

2,000 After 24 additional

hours of reaction with

300 mg/L bicarbonate

REACTION TIME (h)

Vanadium

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180 After 24 additional

hours of reaction with

300 mg/L bicarbonate

Uranium

REACTION TIME (h)

REACTION TIME (h) REACTION TIME (h)

REACTION TIME (h)

Nickel Molybdenum

Arsenic

70,000

60,000

50,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

0

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

PARTS PER BILLION PARTS PER BILLION PARTS PER BILLION

PARTS PER BILLION PARTS PER BILLION PARTS PER BILLION

After 24 additional

hours of reaction with

300 mg/L bicarbonate

After 24 additional

hours of reaction with

300 mg/L bicarbonate

After 24 additional

hours of reaction with

300 mg/L bicarbonate

After 24 additional

hours of reaction with

300 mg/L bicarbonate

A B

C D

E F

Figure 30. Concentration of seven elements in ore from Hack Mine leached into simulated rainwater during 

a 24-hour period (blue diamond) followed by equilibration in a 300 mg/L bicarbonate solution for 24 hours (large 

red dot). A, Uranium; B, Arsenic; C, Nickel; D, Molybdenum; E, Vanadium; F, Cobalt; G, Antimony. Leaching 

solutions were simulated rainwater (deionized water equilibrated with air, pH=5.6) and simulated carbonateenriched river water (deionized water containing 300 mg/L dissolved sodium bicarbonate, pH=8.3).
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 129

Figure 31. Percentage of uranium leached from five types of 

material during three experiments.

Antimony

REACTION TIME (h)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

After 24 additional

hours of reaction with

300 mg/L bicarbonate

PARTS PER BILLION

G

Ore

Weathered Ore or Waste Rock

Chemically Altered

1-hour rainwater

24-hour rainwater

24-hour riverwater

Physically Dispersed

Background

0 20

01-Hack

01-Pigeon

KNW-13

PW-03

KNW-01

KNW-12

KNW-08

PW-02

KNW-10

PS-88

KNS-12

PS-08

KSS-01

JSS-02

40 60 80 100

PERCENT URANIUM LEACHED

SOLID SAMPLE NAME

EXPLANATION

that such waters experience when entering the larger surrounding environment. Projected dilution factors should be defined 

for specific environments and depend on duration and intensity of rainfall and the extent of mixing of mine-derived runoff 

with water from other sources.

Carbonate-based leaching, designed to simulate prolonged interaction of rock with surface water or groundwater 

in an area where carbonate rocks are common, mobilized 

greater amounts of uranium in unweathered ore (3–5 percent), wind-transported fines (7–13 percent), weathered ore 

and waste rock (14–20 percent), chemically redistributed 

uranium on waste (18–91 percent), and background soils 

(1–2 percent). The most leachable materials were again soil 

samples and pond sludges previously enriched in uranium 

and other trace elements through evaporative concentration 

or sorption. Interestingly, a greater percentage of uranium 

is leached from weathered waste-rock samples compared 

with the unweathered high-grade ore specimens (01-Pigeon 

Ore and 01-Hack Ore). These results are summarized in 

figure 31. Although measured concentrations are high at the 

20:1 liquid/solid ratio used in the experiments, the extreme 

dilution in flood waters or after transport into large flowing 

water bodies will produce much lower concentrations in those 

waters. (The specific dilution will depend on water volume 

and flow rate.)

Figure 30—Continued. Concentration of seven 

elements in ore from Hack Mine leached into simulated 

rainwater during a 24-hour period (blue diamond) 

followed by equilibration in a 300 mg/L bicarbonate 

solution for 24 hours (large red dot). A, Uranium; 

B, Arsenic; C, Nickel; D, Molybdenum; E, Vanadium; 

F, Cobalt; G, Antimony. Leaching solutions were 

simulated rainwater (deionized water equilibrated with 

air, pH=5.6) and simulated carbonate-enriched river 

water (deionized water containing 300 mg/L dissolved 

sodium bicarbonate, pH=8.3).

Summary

Uranium mining in the Kanab Creek area produced a varied 

legacy of contamination depending on the physiographic setting 

of the mining operations, the length of time that mined rock was 

exposed at the surface, and the effectiveness of reclamation at 

the site. Our study was designed to examine these effects through 

collection and geochemical analyses of a limited number of soils, 

stream sediments, and mine wastes located inside and outside 

of reclaimed and unreclaimed breccia pipe uranium mine sites. 

These mine sites were the Pigeon Mine, the Kanab North Mine, 

the Hermit Mine and the Hack Mine complex (Hack 1, 2, 3).

At the Pigeon Mine site, scattered fragments of uraniferous waste rock remain at the surface after reclamation in the 

small drainage where the mine was located and in the operations 
130 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

area in and near the former waste-rock pile site. Some waste 

rock remained uncovered after reclamation in the mine area, 

and slope wash has dispersed uranium and trace elements to the 

stream channel edge downslope. Dust dispersed contaminants 

downwind to soils adjacent to the mine and operations sites. In 

some cases, anomalous soils offsite may be due to soils formed 

over limonite-cemented sandstone that had been altered by oreforming solutions related to nearby mineralization. In the bed of a 

small intermittent stream, concentrations of uranium and several 

trace elements increased down valley towards Snake Gulch, but 

it is unclear how much of this increase is related to mine operations and how much is derived from the weakly mineralized rock 

outside of the pipe.

At the Kanab North Mine site, where ore and waste rock 

have been present at the surface for more than 20 years, wind 

dispersion of dust has carried contaminants to nearby soils and 

especially to soils downslope and downwind to the east. Soils 

outside of the fenced perimeter average 28 ppm uranium compared with the average of 2.4 ppm uranium estimated from 

NURE data. Although uraniferous sediment has moved within 

the site during rain events, no waterborne sediment has moved 

offsite, because a berm surrounding the site has remained intact 

during the standby period. Ponding of fine-grained sediment 

within and adjacent to onsite berms may contribute to offsite 

dispersion by wind.

The Hermit Mine was operational for less than 1 year. The 

relatively flat reclaimed mine site shows little radioactivity in 

excess of background levels and minor waste-rock debris. Very 

limited dispersion of trace elements was found offsite. Uranium 

and trace element concentrations in soils drop to background concentrations within a few hundred feet outside the reclaimed edge. 

No stream channel crosses the site, thus limiting the likelihood of 

flood-related effects. 

The Hack Mine complex, operational for about 7 years, 

has been flooded owing to its deep canyon setting (about 230 m 

of local relief). Two or more floods carried ore and waste 

rock offsite during mining operations and during erosion of a 

reclaimed terrace area underlain by waste rock adjacent to the 

main channel of Hack Canyon. Ore and waste-rock fragments 

are found in the active channel and scattered on the floodplain 

of the wash for about a half mile downstream from the Hack 1 

Mine. Associated finer grained stream sediments show limited 

dispersion of contaminants downstream. Mine-derived particulates in stream sediments are diluted by the vast quantities of 

native fine-grained sediment that are incorporated into a flow 

during a flood, likely limiting the effects of such contaminants.

Ore and waste-rock samples from a variety of mine site 

settings were leached using simulated rainwater and a simulated 

surface or shallow ground water rich in dissolved bicarbonate. 

Results of both studies show varied leaching of uranium and 

other trace elements. In some instances, uranium concentrations 

in the experimental leachates were very high—several hundred 

to several thousand parts per billion—but in natural settings such 

element-rich waters leached from mine sites are subject to very 

large dilutions as they mix with runoff. Mine wastes that are 

covered by fill such as at the Pigeon and Hack Mine sites may 

have relatively high concentrations of uranium and related trace 

elements in pore waters during rainfall events.

Future Studies

Listed below are studies that would improve our understanding of mine-related effects.

1. Studies of the dispersion of mercury, selenium, and 

radium at the mine sites;

2. Studies of the vertical distribution of trace elements in 

wind-contaminated soils and biogeochemical uptake by 

plants;

3. Documentation of the local background geochemistry of 

soils and stream sediments due to differences in geology 

and weak mineralization in outcrops outside of pipes;

4. New sampling of stream sediments in Snake Gulch to 

document changes that may exist owing to the mining of 

the Pigeon pipe;

5. Detailed mapping of dispersed fragments of ore and waste 

rock along Hack Canyon and the relation to the braided, 

aggrading stream; 

6. Evaluation of radon emissions in the natural background 

and at reclaimed mine sites;

7. Evaluation, in greater detail, of the mobilization of dissolved trace elements from ore or waste rock during flood 

events; and

8. Development of geochemical and aqueous transport models for transport to deep groundwater of any contaminants 

mobilized from mined waste rock located in back-filled 

mine openings.

Acknowledgments

We thank Laura Biewick (USGS) for creating maps from 

GIS databases to display location information and geochemical data. Rody Cox (USBLM), Roger Smith (formerly with 

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.), and Cindy Woodward (Denison 

Mines) provided useful discussion and copies of documents 

related to mine reclamation. Denison Mines (Fredonia, Arizona) 

provided access to the Kanab North Mine site. Papillon Grand 

Canyon Helicopters provided access to reclaimed mine sites in 

Hack Canyon. We thank George Breit (USGS) and Jon Spencer 

(Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology) for 

reviewing early versions of this paper.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 131

References Cited

Billingsley, G.H., Antweiler, J.C., and Ellis, C.E., 1983, Mineral resource potential of the Kanab Creek Roadless Area, 

Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF–1627–A, 1 

sheet, scale 1:48,000, plus 10 p. pamphlet.

Billingsley, G.H., Priest, S.S., and Felger, T.J., 2008, Geologic 

map of the Fredonia 30' x 60' quadrangle, Mohave and 

Coconino Counties, northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3035, 1 plate with text, 

accessed October 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3035/.

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) 

Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions, 2005, CIM definition standards for mineral resources and mineral reserves: 

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 

accessed January 14, 2010, at http://www.cim.org/committees/

CIMDefStds_Dec11_05.pdf.

Carver, N.R., 1999, Trace metal concentrations of Hack 

Canyon Wash and Kanab Creek, Arizona: Flagstaff, Ariz., 

Northern Arizona University, M.S. thesis, 190 p.

Casadevall, W.P., 1989, Exploration geology of Canyon breccia pipe south of Grand Canyon, Arizona [abs.]: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 73, no. 9, 

p. 1150.

Chenoweth, W.L., 1988, The production history and geology of the Hacks, Ridenour, Riverview and Chapel breccia 

pipes, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 88–648, 60 p.

EnecoTech Inc., 1987, Air quality impact analysis of the 

Hermit Project, in The Hermit Project, appendix document: 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management EA AZ–010–87–013, 

unpaginated.

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., undated, Hack Canyon Mine reclamation summary: Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., unpublished 

company report, 48 p., provided by Denison Mines, 2009.

Finch, W.I., Sutphin, H.B., Pierson, C.T., McCammon, R.B., 

and Wenrich, K.J., 1990, The 1987 estimate of undiscovered 

uranium endowment in solution-collapse breccia pipes in 

the Grand Canyon region of northern Arizona and adjacent 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1051, 19 p.

Goudie, A.S., and Middleton, N.J., 2006, Desert dust in the 

global system: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 287 p.

Hageman, P.L., and Briggs, P.H., 2000, A simple field leach 

for rapid screening and qualitative characterization of mine 

waste material on abandoned mine lands, in ICARD 2000, 

Proceedings from the International Conference on Acid 

Rock Drainage, 5th, Denver, Colo., May 21–24, 2000: 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc., 

p. 1463–1475.

Hopkins, R.T., Fox, J.P., Campbell, W.L., and Antweiler, J.C., 

1984, Analytical results and sample locality map of stream 

sediment, panned-concentrate, soil, and rock samples from 

the Kanab Creek (B3060) Roadless Area, Coconino and 

Mohave Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 84–291, 16 p., 1 plate, scale 1:48,000.

Langmuir, Donald, 1978, Uranium solution-mineral equilibrium at low temperatures with applications to sedimentary 

ore deposits: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, no. 42, 

p. 547–569.

Lamothe, P.J., Meier, A.L., and Wilson, S.A., 2002, The 

determination of forty-four elements in aqueous samples by 

inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry, Chapter H, 

in Taggart, J.E., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials, U.S. Geological Survey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002–223–H, 

11 p., accessed November 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/ofr-02-0223/.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 

1987, Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the 

United States: National Council on Radiation Protection and 

Measurements, Bethesda Maryland, Report 93, 87 p.

Peacock, T.R., 2002, Soil sample preparation, Chapter A3, in

Taggart, J.E., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis 

of geologic and other materials, U.S. Geological Survey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002–223–A3, 

6 p., accessed November 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/ofr-02-0223/.

Peacock, T.R., Taylor, C.D., and Theodorakos, P.M., 2002, 

Stream-sediment sample preparation, Chapter A2, in

Taggart, J.E., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis 

of geologic and other materials, U.S. Geological Survey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002–223–A2, 

6 p., accessed November 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/ofr-02-0223/.

Pool, T.C., and Ross, D.A., 2007, Technical report on the Arizona 

strip uranium project, U.S.A., prepared for Denison Mines 

Corp: Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc, 116 p.

Price, V., and Jones, P.L., 1981, Training manual for water 

and sediment geochemical reconnaissance: Department 

of Energy Report GJBX-420 (81), 104 p., accessed 

November 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/

ofr-97-0492/pubs/gjbx_420(81).pdf.

Smith, S.M., 1997, National Geochemical Database―

Reformatted data from the National Uranium Resource 

Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment 

Reconnaissance (HSSR) Program, Version 1.40 (2006): 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97–492, accessed 

September 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/

index.html.
132 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Smith, S.M., and Logsdon, M.J., 1999, An overview of the 

abundance, relative mobility, bioavailability, and human 

toxicity of metals, in The environmental geochemistry of 

mineral deposits, Part A―Processes, techniques and health 

issues (Plumlee, G.S., and Logsdon, M.J., eds.): Reviews in 

Economic Geology, v. 6A, p. 29–70.

Strenge, D.L., and Bander, T.J., 1981, MILDOS―A computer 

program for calculating environmental radiation doses from 

uranium recovery operations: Richland, Washington, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratories, NUREG/CR–2011, PNL–3767.

Taggart, J.E., ed., 2002, Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials, U.S. Geological Survey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002–223, version 5.0, accessed November 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/ofr-02-0223/.

Tainter, S.L., 1947, Apex Copper property, Coconino County, 

Arizona: U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 

RI 4013, 23 p.

Taylor, C.D., and Theodorakos, P.M., 2002, Rock sample preparation, in Taggart, J.E., ed., Analytical methods for chemical 

analysis of geologic and other materials, U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002–223–A1, 

5 p., accessed November 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/

ofr-02-0223/A1RxSampPrep_M.pdf.

Till, J.E., and Grogan, H.A., 2008, Radiological risk assessment and environmental analysis: Oxford University Press, 

702 p.

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996, Dictionary of mining, mineral, and 

related terms: U.S. Bureau of Mines, CD-ROM and accessed 

January 14, 2010, at http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/

dmmrt/.

Van Gosen, B.S., and Wenrich, K.J., 1991, Geochemistry 

of soil samples from 50 solution-collapse features on the 

Coconino Plateau, northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91–0594, 281 p. and 3 diskettes.

Wenrich, K.J., 1985, Mineralization of breccia pipes in northern Arizona: Economic Geology, v. 80, p. 1722–1735.

Wenrich, K.J., 1986, Geochemical exploration for mineralized 

breccia pipes in northern Arizona, U.S.A.: Applied Geochemistry, v. 1, p. 469–485.

Wenrich, K.J., 1992, Breccia pipes in the Red Butte area of 

Kaibab National Forest, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 92–219, 13 p.

Wenrich, K.J., and Aumente-Modreski, R.M., 1994, 

Geochemical soil sampling for deeply buried mineralized 

breccia pipes, northwestern Arizona: Applied Geochemistry, 

v. 9, p. 431–454.

Wenrich, K.J., Van Gosen, B.S., and Finch, W.I., 1995, 

Solution-collapse breccia pipe U deposits (Model 32e; 

Finch, 1992), in du Bray, E.A., ed., Preliminary compilation 

of descriptive geoenvironmental mineral deposit models: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–831, 

p. 244–251.
Effects of 1980s Uranium Mining in the Kanab Creek Area of Northern Arizona 133

M

Mineral entry The filing of a claim for public land to obtain the right to any minerals it 

may contain (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996).

Mineralization The process or processes 

by which a mineral or minerals are introduced 

into a rock, resulting in a valuable or potentially valuable deposit (U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, 1996).

O

Ore The naturally occurring material from 

which a mineral or minerals of economic 

value can be extracted profitably (U.S. Bureau 

of Mines, 1996).

Orebody A continuous, well-defined mass 

of material of sufficient ore content to make 

extraction economically feasible (U.S. Bureau 

of Mines, 1996).

Ore deposit A mineral deposit that has been 

tested and is known to be of sufficient 

size, grade, and accessibility to be producible 

to yield a profit (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996).

Glossary

R

Resource “Resource” or “uranium resource” 

as used in this report closely follows the 

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and 

Petroleum (CIM) definition:

A Mineral Resource is a concentration 

or occurrence of...natural solid inorganic 

material...in or on the Earth’s crust in such 

form and quantity and of such a grade or 

quality that it has reasonable prospects for 

economic extraction. The location, quantity, 

grade, geological characteristics and continuity 

of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or 

interpreted from specific geological evidence 

and knowledge (CIM Standing Committee on 

Reserve Definitions, 2005).

W

Waste rock Barren or submarginal rock or 

ore that has been mined, but is not of sufficient value to warrant treatment and is therefore removed ahead of the milling processes 

(U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996).

Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of 

Wells, Perennial and Intermittent Streams, 

and Springs in Northern Arizona

By Donald J. Bills, Fred D Tillman, David W. Anning, Ronald C. Antweiler,

and Thomas F. Kraemer

Chapter C of

Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization 

of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Edited by Andrea E. Alpine

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................141

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................141

Hydrogeologic Setting...............................................................................................................................143

Surface Water...................................................................................................................................143

South of the Colorado River...................................................................................................143

North of the Colorado River ...................................................................................................143

Groundwater......................................................................................................................................144

Relation of Hydrologic Flow Components to Breccia Pipes......................................................146

Methods.......................................................................................................................................................148

Field Methods....................................................................................................................................148

Laboratory Methods.........................................................................................................................150

Determining Most Probable Value.................................................................................................153

Water Chemistry ........................................................................................................................................153

Historical Uranium Water-Chemistry Data...................................................................................179

Dissolved Uranium............................................................................................................................179

Selected Dissolved Metals .............................................................................................................185

2009 Groundwater Samples .....................................................................................................................188

Major Ions and Trace Elements......................................................................................................188

Major Ions.................................................................................................................................188

Trace Elements.........................................................................................................................191

Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Samples Collected in 2009 .......................................192

Future Water-Quality Investigations.......................................................................................................193

Summary and Conclusions.......................................................................................................................193

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................................194

References Cited........................................................................................................................................194

Appendix 1. Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory 

Methods for Dissolved Uranium and Uranium Isotope Analysis of SpringWater and Well-Water Samples Collected from Sites in Northern Arizona ......................201

Appendix 2. Water Chemistry Data from Water Samples Collected from Springs 

and Wells Sampled in Northern Arizona in 2009.....................................................................203

Appendix 3. Selected Dissolved Arsenic Samples at or above USEPA Maximum 

Contaminant Level of 10 μg/L from All Sample Types for Historical Dataset 

Compiled for Northern Arizona ..................................................................................................243

Appendix 4. Compilation of Dissolved Uranium Data from Springs, Wells, Surface 

Water, and Mine Sumps and Shafts in Northern Arizona .....................................................249

Plate

[In pocket]

1. Map Showing Geologic Structure, Cultural and Geographic Features, 

and Geologic Cross Sections of Northwestern Arizona
Figures

1. Map showing study area, segregation areas, and land ownership in 

northern Arizona .......................................................................................................................142

2. Map showing perennial and ephemeral drainages and selected springs 

in northern Arizona...................................................................................................................144

3. Stratigraphic column showing relation of water-bearing zones and aquifers 

to mineralized breccia deposits in northern Arizona..........................................................145

4−9: Maps showing:

 4. Hydrogeologic framework of northern Arizona............................................................147

 5. Average annual precipitation and average annual evaporation 

in northern Arizona............................................................................................................149

 6. Water chemistry data for selected wells and streams in northern Arizona...............155

 7. Water chemistry data for selected springs in northern Arizona...............................156

 8. Sites in northern Arizona at which lead, mercury, and molybdenum 

exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant 

or health advisory concentrations, and concentrations of each ..............................162

 9. Average uranium concentration in spring, stream, well, mine shaft, and 

mine sump water samples in the historical dataset for northern Arizona...............180

10. Histogram showing number of samples in northern Arizona analyzed 

for dissolved uranium that were collected during 5-year intervals in 

northern Arizona .......................................................................................................................183

11. Histogram showing frequency and cumulative distribution of all uranium 

concentrations in historical dataset for northern Arizona ................................................184

12−14. Boxplots showing range in concentration of dissolved uranium in:

 12. Water samples in historical dataset from spring, stream, and well 

locations in northern Arizona ..........................................................................................184

 13. Water samples from mine shafts and sumps in northern Arizona............................185

 14. Spring and well samples from north and south of the Colorado River 

in northern Arizona............................................................................................................185

15. Line graphs showing variation in uranium concentration with time 

for selected wells, streams, and springs in historical dataset for 

northern Arizona .......................................................................................................................186

16. Map showing arsenic concentrations in northern Arizona above 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level..............................187

17. Map showing well and spring sites in northern Arizona at which water 

samples were collected in 2009 .............................................................................................189

18. Piper diagram showing major ions in groundwater samples collected 

in 2009 from sites in northern Arizona...................................................................................191

Tables

1. Field protocol used to process spring-water and well-water samples 

collected in 2009 in northern Arizona....................................................................................150

2. Laboratories used and analyte and quality-control sample types for springwater and well-water samples collected in 2009 in northern Arizona............................151

3. Chemical and isotopic analytes and corresponding median detection limits 

for spring-water and well-water samples collected in 2009 in northern Arizona .........152
4. Concentrations of elements from the historical dataset and from spring-water 

and well-water samples collected in 2009 in northern Arizona that exceed 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency primary maximum contaminant levels 

and secondary maximum contaminant levels for selected constituents........................157

5. Water samples from springs, streams, wells, and mine sumps in the historical 

dataset of sites in northern Arizona containing mercury, molybdenum, or lead 

with at least one measurement above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

maximum contaminant level or health advisory level ........................................................159

6−10. Summary information about:

 6. Stream-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the 

historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona ........................................................163

 7. Spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the 

historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona ........................................................166

 8. Well-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the 

historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona ........................................................176

 9. Water samples from mine shafts and sumps analyzed for dissolved 

uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona ........................178

10. Sources of data and types of samples used to compile historical dissolved 

uranium data for northern Arizona used in this study ........................................................182

11. Relative rank of concentrations of selected trace elements from springwater and well-water samples collected in 2009 in northern Arizona............................190

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3)

Fluid ounces (oz) 0.03 milliliters (mL)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Concentration

part per billion (ppb) 1.0 microgram per liter (μg/L)

part per million (ppm) 1.0 milligram per liter (mg/L)

Radioactivity

becquerel per liter (Bq/L) 27.027 picocurie per liter (pCi/L)

tritium unit (TU) 1 3H per 1,018 hydrogen atoms --

picocurie per liter (pCi/L) 4 (x/y); where x is photon activity 

and y is conversion rate

millirems per year (mrem/y)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8
Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm 

at 25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Abbreviations Used in This Report

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources

ICP−AES inductively coupled plasma−atomic emission spectroscopy

ICP−MS inductively coupled plasma−mass spectrometry

INAA instrumental neutron-activation analysis

GRCA Grand Canyon National Park

MCL maximum contaminant level

MPV most-probable value 

NURE National Uranium Resource Evaluation Program

NWQL U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory

PMCL primary maximum contaminant level

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

Chapter C

Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Perennial 

and Intermittent Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona

By Donald J. Bills, Fred D Tillman, David W. Anning, Ronald C. Antweiler, and Thomas F. Kraemer

Abstract

This chapter provides an evaluation of selected historical 

water-chemistry data and recently collected water-chemistry 

data for wells, springs, and streams in the Grand Canyon 

region of northern Arizona. Historical data were used to evaluate the effects of legacy mining and recent uranium mining 

and to provide an historical context for the concentration of 

dissolved uranium in water in northern Arizona. New data 

were collected in the three segregation areas, East, North, 

and South, where recent uranium mining is on standby or is 

planned. A few springs were sampled along the corridor of 

the Colorado River in the Marble Canyon reach, which is 

downgradient from the House Rock area (the East Segregation 

Area) where mining claims have been filed and very little 

water-chemistry data exist.

Historical water-quality and water-chemistry data evaluated for 1,014 water samples from 428 sites indicate that about 

70 sites exceeded either the primary or secondary maximum 

contaminant levels (or both) for a few major ions and trace 

elements such as arsenic, iron, lead, manganese, sulfate, 

radium, and uranium. These data suggest that water recharged 

from the surface or from perched water-bearing zones contains 

dissolved gypsum from overlying rock units or may have been 

in contact with sulfide-rich ore.

Samples from about 120 springs and 32 streams in the 

region contained dissolved uranium concentrations greater 

than 5 μg/L but less than 30 μg/L; those concentrations are 

probably the result of natural dissolution and erosion of mineralized ore deposits. Samples from 15 springs and 5 wells in 

the region contained dissolved uranium concentrations greater 

than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum 

contaminant level for drinking water. These springs and wells 

are close by or in direct contact with mineralized orebodies, 

and those concentrations are related to natural processes, mining, or to both. In 66 percent of natural water samples in the 

dataset, uranium concentrations were 5 μg/L or less and may 

be subjectively classified as low concentrations for this study 

area on the basis of the subjective evaluation of historical 

data. Samples of surface water from the Colorado River in the 

Grand Canyon region typically contained less than 5 μg/L dissolved uranium. However, in the northwest corner of the area 

a sample of Virgin River water contained a dissolved uranium 

concentration greater than 80 μg/L.

Groundwater samples were collected from 24 sites in 

August and September 2009 in the study area; they augment 

the historical dataset and allowed variations in groundwater 

chemistry to be evaluated by geographic region and groundwater source. Major-ion composition, specific conductance, 

and concentrations of uranium, barium, strontium, and 

molybdenum appear correlated with geographic region and 

groundwater source. In addition, arsenic concentrations appear 

correlated with groundwater source, and zinc concentrations appear correlated with geographic region. Relations of 

uranium and 13 other trace elements to mining activity were 

few and inconclusive.

Introduction

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) evaluated historical and recently collected water-chemistry data in northern 

Arizona in order to understand better the source and distribution of dissolved uranium in the Grand Canyon region. This 

chapter describes the region’s general hydrogeologic setting, 

investigative methods, and the resultant chemical analyses of 

historical and recently collected data. The evaluation describes 

the presence of natural dissolved uranium and other elements 

in groundwater and the potential for and extent of any release 

of postmining waste into the region’s groundwater. Data on 

historical and 2009 concentrations of dissolved uranium provide a context that could then be used to evaluate past and current mining activity. Surface water samples were not collected 

owing to a lack of precipitation and runoff. The evaluation 

focuses on the East, North, and South Segregation Areas in the 

Grand Canyon region that are being considered for withdrawal 

from future mining (fig. 1).
142 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Bright Angel

Creek

Cataract Creek

Havasu Creek

Little Color a do River

Kanab Creek

Virgin River

Col o rado River

Colorado River

EXPLANATION

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Forest Service

Tribal land

National Park Service

State land

Private land

Segregation area—Boundary

National Monument—Boundary

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Washington

St. George

Littlefield

Peach Springs

Valle

Tusayan

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry VERMILLION CLIFFS

NATIONAL

MONUMENT

Jacob

Lake

Kanab

Fredonia KAIBAB -

PAIUTE

RESERVATION

Colorado City

Big Water

Supai Village North Rim

HAVASUPAI

RESERVATION

NORTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION

AREA

HUALAPAI

RESERVATION

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

GRAND CANYON - PARASHANT

NATIONAL MONUMENT

KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST

NAVAJO

RESERVATION

LAKE

MEAD

NRA

LAKE

MEAD

NRA

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

UTAH

ARIZONA

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

SEGREGATION AREAS

(Proposed mineral withdrawal areas)

Data provided by U.S. Geological Survey and 

Bureau of Land Management.

Map created on 11/10/09 by K.M. Brown

Map revised on 5/24/10 by T. Arundel

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

PIPE SPRING

NATIONAL

MONUMENT

Figure 1. Study area, segregation areas, and land ownership in northern Arizona. NRA, National Recreation Area.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 143

Hydrogeologic Setting

The study area is in the Colorado River Basin in northern 

Arizona on the southern edge of the Colorado Plateau (fig. 1). 

The Colorado River and its many tributaries have exposed 

Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks containing mineralized breccia pipes that are enriched in uranium (Finch and 

others, 1987; Finch, 2003). Past mine development has, in 

some cases, accelerated the erosion of these mineral deposits 

(Billingsley, 1997). Regional groundwater flow systems in 

this part of the Colorado Plateau are largely contained within 

Paleozoic rocks. Erosion of the Grand Canyon has produced 

large regional discharge zones (springs) that drain these aquifers to the Colorado River and its tributaries. Surface water 

and groundwater are natural pathways for migration of trace 

elements and radionuclides in the environment. Therefore, 

the water chemistry of streams and springs can provide insight 

into the sources and directions of groundwater flow as well as 

the effects of anthropogenic activities, such as mining within 

the region.

Surface Water

South of the Colorado River

South of the Colorado River, all tributaries on the 

Coconino Plateau are ephemeral except for short perennial 

reaches supported by groundwater discharge (fig. 2). On the 

south, the largest tributaries that drain to the Colorado River 

are the Little Colorado River and Havasu Creek. The Little 

Colorado River basin drains about 27,000 square miles (mi2) 

of northeastern Arizona and central New Mexico. Headwater 

reaches of the Little Colorado River are perennial, supported by 

groundwater discharge from local and regional aquifers (Hart 

and others, 2002). The middle reaches of the Little Colorado 

River are ephemeral and flow only in response to winter and 

spring runoff and summer thunderstorms. The lower 13 miles 

(mi) of the Little Colorado River are also perennial and are 

supported by groundwater discharge from a series of large 

springs in the Blue Spring area (fig. 2). The Blue Spring area, 

in the lower Little Colorado River, is the largest single source 

of spring discharge (220 cubic feet per second [ft3/s]) in the 

entire Grand Canyon region and is a primary discharge area for 

the regional aquifer (Cooley and others, 1969; Hart and others, 

2002; and Bills and others, 2007).

Havasu Creek is the second largest tributary south of 

the Colorado River, draining 3,020 mi2. Havasu Creek is 

perennial from Havasu Spring, about 2 mi upstream of Supai, 

to the mouth of its canyon (fig. 2). The base flow of Havasu 

Creek, about 70 ft3/s (Bills and others, 2007), comes entirely 

from the Redwall-Muav aquifer (Bills and Flynn, 2002; Bills 

and others, 2007). Upstream from Havasu Spring, Havasu 

Creek is called Cataract Creek; it is ephemeral for its entire 

length and flows only in response to substantial winter precipitation and summer thunderstorms. The Havasu and Cataract 

Creek drainage is subject to periodic, catastrophic floods that 

transport large sediment loads (Melis and others, 1996). In this 

drainage, several breccia pipes have been exposed largely by 

normal erosional processes.

Other tributaries south of the Colorado River are relatively 

small and mostly ephemeral (fig. 2). The few tributaries that do 

have perennial flow to their mouths have base flows between 

about 10 ft3/s and less than 0.1 ft3/s (Hualapai Water Resources 

Department, 1995; Monroe and others, 2005; Bills and others, 

2007). The base flow in these drainages is supported by groundwater discharge from the Redwall-Muav aquifer and from waterbearing zones in underlying units. All of the drainages south 

of the Colorado River are capable of high-volume flash floods 

and debris flows that can mobilize large amounts of rock and 

sediment (Melis and others, 1994). These floods can effectively 

transport trace elements and radionuclides.

North of the Colorado River

Most of the tributaries that drain the north of the Colorado 

River are ephemeral except for short perennial reaches supported by groundwater discharge (fig. 2). Paria River and Kanab 

Creek are the only perennial streams that drain large areas. The 

Paria River, northeast of the study area, has a drainage area of 

1,410 mi2 (fig. 2). Most of the lands drained by the Paria River 

contain rock units that in turn contain uranium and associated 

trace elements; these elements augment the trace element or 

radionuclide content of the both the Paria and Colorado Rivers 

(Foust and Hope, 1985).

 Kanab Creek, the largest tributary north of the Colorado 

River, drains 2,360 mi2. The Kanab Creek Basin contains 

many breccia pipes, many mines and prospects for copper 

and other ore, and six uranium mines. In addition, it drains 

all of the North Segregation Area (see plate 1). Kanab Creek 

is perennial at Fredonia, Ariz. (fig. 2), because of spring flow 

from the Navajo Sandstone in Utah and from irrigation return 

flows (Levings and Farrar, 1979a; Cordova, 1981). A few 

miles south of Fredonia the creek is dry, because flow has been 

lost by evapotranspiration or infiltration into the streambed. 

The lower 10 mi of Kanab Creek is perennial (fig. 2); a base 

flow of about 4.0 ft3/s discharges from the Redwall-Muav 

aquifer (Rote and others, 1997). Winter storms and intense 

summer thunderstorms within in the drainage can produce 

floods, flash floods, and debris flows that could transport 

substantial volumes of trace elements and radionuclides in dissolved, suspended, and bed loads. Fine-grained particles that 

have a high cation-exchange capacity are nearly ideal sites for 

the mobilization of radionuclides (Ames and Dhanpat, 1978). 

In 1984, a flash flood in Hack Canyon, a tributary of Kanab 

Creek, washed away parts of waste rock and ore piles of the 

Hack Canyon mines (J.K. Otton, U.S. Geological Survey, 

written commun., 2009). Foust and Hoppe (1985) reported 

that Kanab Creek contained numerous dissolved trace metals 

in excess of established standards for both domestic supplies 

and the support of freshwater aquatic and terrestrial wildlife 

use that warrant further investigation.
144 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Other tributaries north of the Colorado River have 

relatively small drainage areas but some of the largest baseflow discharge issuing from the Redwall-Muav aquifer, 

ranging from 75 ft3/s at Tapeats Creek to less that 1.0 ft3/s 

at Fern Glen (fig. 2) (Johnson and Sanderson, 1968; S.E. 

Rice, Grand Canyon National Park, written commun., 2007; 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/az/nwis/sw/, accessed September 

2009). All drainages north of the Colorado River are capable 

of substantial flash floods and debris flows that can mobilize 

large volumes of rock and sediment (Melis and others, 1994) 

and represent significant transport mechanism for trace elements and radionuclides.

Groundwater

The groundwater flow systems in the study area are divided 

into smaller perched water-bearing zones and larger regional 

aquifer systems (fig. 3). The perched water-bearing zones are contained in unconsolidated alluvium, volcanic rocks, and consolidated sedimentary rocks located a thousand feet or more above 

the main regional aquifer systems. These perched zones generally 

are small and discontinuous in the subsurface. Groundwater flows 

downgradient and discharges at springs or migrates deeper into 

the subsurface (Farrar 1979, 1980; Levings and Farrar, 1979a,b; 

McGavock and others, 1986; Bills and others, 2007; Arizona 

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00

36°30'

36°00’

35°30'

Supai

Village

Littlefield

Fredonia

Little Colorado Rive r

Paria River

Havasu Creek

Kanab Creek

Colorado River

Lake Powell

Lake Mead

Cataract C reek

Fern Glen

Vasey’s

Paradise

Blue

Spring

Roaring

Spring

Shinumo

Spring

Deer

Creek

Thunder Spring

Havasu

Spring

Tapeats Spring

Tapeats Creek

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

The

Narrows

EXPLANATION

Perennial stream

Ephemeral stream

Segregation area—Boundary

UTAH

ARIZONA Virgin River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital data, 100m, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, zone 12

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Mohawk

Canyon

Spring

National 

Canyon

Spring

Bar

Four

Well

Springs

Wells

Figure 2. Perennial and ephemeral streams and selected springs in northern Arizona.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 145

Figure 3. Stratigraphic column showing relation of perched water-bearing zones and aquifers to mineralized breccia deposits 

in northern Arizona. Modified from Van Gosen and Wenrich, 1989. Ma, million years ago.

Department of Water Resources, 2009). The depth to water ranges 

from a few feet to more than 300 ft below land surface (Levings 

and Farrar, 1979; Bills and others, 2007; Arizona Department 

of Water Resources, 2009). Perched water-bearing zones can 

be in direct contact with mineralized orebodies in the Chinle 

Formation, the Coconino Sandstone, or the Supai Group (fig. 3).

The C aquifer and the Redwall-Muav aquifer (fig. 3) are 

the two primary regional aquifer systems in the study area 

(Hart and others, 2002; Bills and others, 2007). These aquifer 

systems are contained in hydraulically connected Paleozoic 

sedimentary rocks, typically sandstone and limestone. The relatively simple layered nature of the Paleozoic strata throughout the study area obscures the more complex character of the 

regional aquifers they contain (plate 1, fig. 3). The complexity 

is due to variations in stratigraphy, lithology and, most important, geologic structure throughout the southern Colorado 

Plateau (plate 1). The C aquifer is present at the southern edge 

of the study area and in the Little Colorado River Valley east 

of the Mesa Butte fault (plate 1) where fractures and faults in 

the rock provide pathways for migration of groundwater from 

Perched waterbearing zone

or C aquifer

Perched waterbearing zone

Redwall-Muav

aquifer

(This aquifer 

extends below the

stratigraphic column

into the Cambrian

Muav Formation.)

Chinle

Formation

Moenkopi

Formation

Kaibab

Formation

Toroweap

Formation

TRIASSIC

251–200 Ma

PERMIAN

299–251 Ma

PENNSYLVANIAN

318–299 Ma

MISSISSIPPIAN

359–318 Ma

DEVONIAN

416–359 Ma

Petrified Forest

 Member

Shinarump Member

upper red member

middle red member

lower red member

Timpoweap Member

Shnabkaib Member

Harrisburg Member

Fossil Mountain Member

Woods Ranch Member

Brady Canyon Member

Seligman Member

Coconino Sandstone

Hermit Formation

Esplanade Sandstone

Wescogame Formation

Manakacha Formation

Watahomigi Formation

Surprise Canyon

 Formation

 (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone

Temple Butte Formation Supai Group

uranium ore

uranium ore

unconformity

Diameter of surface depression

Holocene alluvium

 Average thickness

or range in thickness

 (in feet)

300–350

0–200

400–1200

Coconino

 Plateau

0–300

200–250

100–200

30–400

30–90

0–600

50–1200

Esplanade

 surface

300–400

150–200

180–230

130–150

0–400

450–700

0–400

Owl Rock Member

100–200

Fig. 3 Intro
146 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

this aquifer deeper into the subsurface (Bills and others, 2007). 

The saturated thickness of the C aquifer is about 600 ft along 

the Little Colorado River valley before it drains completely 

to underlying rock units just east of the study area (Bills and 

others, 2007). Groundwater in the C aquifer could be in direct 

contact with mineralized ore where breccia pipes are present 

east of the Mesa Butte fault (plate 1, fig. 3). In addition, fractures associated with these collapse features could be pathways that allow dissolved constituents to move deeper into the 

subsurface. The hydrogeology of the C aquifer is described 

in detail by McGavock and others (1986), Bills and others 

(2000), and Bills and others (2007). The C aquifer is not 

present west of the Mesa Butte fault or north of the Colorado 

River (Bills and others, 2007; Arizona Department of Water 

Resources, 2009). In these areas, perched water-bearing zones 

in the Kaibab Formation, Coconino Sandstone, or sandstones 

in the Supai Group are underlain by finer grained sediments 

(fig. 3).

The Devonian Temple Butte Formation, Mississippian 

Redwall Limestone, and Cambrian Muav Limestone compose 

the Redwall-Muav aquifer and are the principal water-bearing 

rock units underlying the entire study area (fig 4). The RedwallMuav aquifer also underlies the C aquifer south of the Colorado 

River; there, 1,500 to 2,500 feet of unsaturated rock separate the 

two (McGavock and others, 1986; Bills and others, 2000; Bills 

and others, 2007). The Redwall-Muav aquifer is the ultimate 

drain for groundwater and for dissolved trace elements and 

radionuclides migrating downward from overlying ore deposits. 

The aquifer is confined throughout much of its extent (fig. 4) 

by very fine grained sediments in the overlying Supai Group 

(fig. 3) and by underlying Proterozoic granites and schists. It is 

fully to partly saturated south of the Colorado River. In a few 

places along the South Rim of Grand Canyon, these limestones 

may be partly saturated to unsaturated where groundwater 

migrates into lower units of the aquifer (Bills and others, 2007). 

The Redwall-Muav aquifer extends north of the Colorado River 

into Utah and Nevada but is poorly defined there because it is 

deeply buried and subsurface borehole data is lacking (fig. 4). 

It is a major aquifer system in central and northern Utah also, 

where it has been better defined (Taylor and others, 1986). Most 

information about the extent and flow of groundwater in the 

Redwall-Muav aquifer north of the Colorado River is derived 

from studies by Cooley (1976) and Huntoon (1977, 2000a,b), 

from observation of springs in Marble Canyon and the Grand 

Canyon, and from a few wells drilled to support mining activity in the Kanab Creek drainage. North of the Colorado River, 

the Redwall-Muav aquifer can be described as an unconfined 

to confined, karstified carbonate aquifer. Groundwater flow in 

the aquifer is controlled by five main features: cave systems 

developed on joint fractures and faults, large regional faults, 

lithology and regional dip of the rock matrix, incision of the 

Colorado River and its tributaries through rock units of the 

aquifer, and the Bright Angel Shale (plate 1, fig. 4) (Cooley, 

1976; Goings, 1985; Zukosky, 1995; Huntoon, 1996, 2000a,b; 

Ross, 2005; Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2009). In 

Marble Canyon, the Colorado River has not fully penetrated the 

Redwall or Muav Limestones. As result, there is underflow in 

the Redwall-Muav aquifer in this area (fig. 4) (Huntoon, 1996). 

The water-level elevation on the Kaibab Plateau, where limited 

well data exist, is 2,800 to 3,700 ft above sea level (fig. 4).

Groundwater discharges from the Redwall-Muav aquifer 

as springs supplying water to the Colorado River and its many 

tributaries, as downward leakage into the Bright Angel Shale 

and Tapeats Sandstone, as supply to wells, and as evapotranspiration where the water table in the aquifer is at or near 

land surface (Johnson and Sanderson, 1968; Cooley, 1976; 

Levings and Farrar, 1978, 1979a,b; Farrar, 1979; Monroe and 

others 2005; and Bills and others, 2007). Water in the Early to 

Middle Cambrian Bright Angel Shale and Tapeats Sandstone 

is believed to be hydraulically connected with the overlying Redwall-Muav aquifer through faults and fractures in the 

Bright Angel confining unit or where, in the central part of the 

study area, the Bright Angel Shale is thin or absent (plate 1) 

(Bills and others, 2007).

Relation of Hydrologic Flow Components 

to Breccia Pipes

Fractures, faults, sinkholes, and breccia pipes occur 

throughout the study area and are pathways for downward 

migration of surface water and groundwater. Collapse features and breccia pipes in particular can intercept precipitation, runoff, and groundwater in perched water-bearing 

zones and can direct that water deeper into the subsurface. 

In areas containing mineralized pipes, this process can dissolve trace elements and radionuclides in the deposits and 

transport them to groundwater deeper in the subsurface. 

This process has been occurring naturally for millions of 

years (Sanford, 1982; Wenrich and Stuphin, 1989; Young, 

2008). Uranium mineralization is concentrated in or near 

the Esplanade Sandstone, Hermit Formation, and Coconino 

Sandstone (fig. 3) (Van Gosen and Wenrich, 1989). These 

stratigraphic units typically lie several hundred feet below 

the plateau surface north and south of the Colorado River. 

Orebodies range in thickness from a few hundred to more than 

a thousand feet. Uranium minerals in the Canyon breccia pipe 

south of the Colorado River extend from the contact between 

the Coconino Sandstone and Toroweap Formation for more 

than 1,600 ft vertically down through the breccia pipe to the 

upper Redwall Limestone (plate 1) (Casadevall, 1989). The 

depth to perched water in these rock units generally is greater 

than 1,000 ft below land surface south of the Colorado River 

and a few hundred to more than 1,000 ft below the surface 

north of the river (Levings and Farrar, 1979a,b; Farrar, 

1980; Bills and others, 2007; Arizona Department of Water 

Resources, 2009). These water-bearing zones generally are 

separated by more than 2,000 ft of unsaturated rock above the 
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 147

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00’

36°30'

36°00’

35°30'

Segregation area—Boundary

Colo rad o River

Colorado River

Virgin River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital data, 100m, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, zone 12

Hack Well

(2,800)

Hermit Well

(3,357)

Pigeon Well

(3,530)

Pinenut Well

(3,000)

Bar Four Well

(3,250)

Kanab North Well

(3,550)

(3,000)

3,400

3,800

3,600

3,200 3,000

3,500

3,300

4,000

2,800

4,100

3,100

4,200

3,200

?

3,400

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? ? ? ?

?

?

?

?

? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

EXPLANATION

Potentiometric contour of the Redwall-Muav aquifer—Shows altitude 

at which water would have stood in a tightly cased well penetrating the

Redwall-Muav aquifer prior to about 1990, in feet above sea level.

Contour interval 100 feet and 200 feet. Dashed where approximately

located, queried where uncertain. (Bills and others, 2007).

Approximate boundary between confined and unconfined conditions

in the Redwall-Muav aquifer—Queried where uncertain

Redwall-Muav aquifer groundwater divide—Queried where uncertain

Direction of groundwater movement

Well—Text is well name; number is static water level in feet above sea level

? ?

4,000 ?

? Confined

Unconfined

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Marble

Platform

Coconino

Plateau

Hualapai

Plateau

Shivwits Plateau

Uinkaret Plateau

Kaibab Plateau

Kanab

Plateau

Washington

St. George

Peach Springs

Valle

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry

Jacob

Lake

Kanab

Fredonia

Big Water

North Rim

UTAH

ARIZONA

Littlefield

Colorado City

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

Figure 4. Hydrologic framework of northern Arizona.
148 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

regional aquifer in the Redwall and Muav Limestones (fig. 3) 

(Bills and others, 2007). The Redwall-Muav aquifer is confined throughout much of its extent by very fine grained sediments at the base of the overlying Supai Group, except where 

it is faulted or fractured or where breccia pipes have developed (plate 1, fig. 3). The depth to water in the Redwall-Muav 

aquifer both south and north of the Colorado River is 2,500 ft 

or more below the surface (fig. 4) (Bills and others, 2007) 

and typically 1,000 ft or more below the bottom of most ore 

deposits in breccia pipes (fig. 3). The stratigraphically confined nature of the Redwall-Muav aquifer and other features—

faults, fractures, and breccia pipes—provide pathways 

by which dissolved minerals may reach this flow system. 

Groundwater flow systems south and north of the Colorado 

River are connected hydraulically with some stream reaches 

of the many tributaries of the Grand Canyon and possibly to 

the Virgin River (figs. 2, 4). The interaction of groundwater, 

surface water, and dissolved minerals in these stream reaches 

is controlled by the physical properties of the rock units and 

sediments that make up the stream channels and geologic 

structure near the spring and base-flow areas.

Short reaches of several streams north of the Colorado 

River have perennial flow because groundwater discharges 

where stream channels intersect rock units of the RedwallMuav aquifer (plate 1, fig. 2). Large regional springs—Vasey’s 

Paradise, Roaring Spring, Shinumo Spring, Tapeats Spring, 

Thunder Spring, and Deer Creek—are the main regional 

discharge areas for the Redwall-Muav aquifer north of the 

Colorado River (fig. 2). The lower 10 mi of Kanab Creek 

are perennial owing to spring flow from the Redwall-Muav 

aquifer. Spring flow in the creek is controlled by the channel’s 

deep incision that intersects deep-seated fractures and normal 

faults in the area (plate 1, fig. 2). The spring-fed base flow of 

Kanab Creek is small because most of the flow to the east has 

been intercepted by larger springs, the remaining area of the 

Kanab Creek Basin receives much less annual recharge, and 

the springs are close to a potential groundwater divide that 

may further limit recharge to this area (figs. 2, 4). Potential 

groundwater divides in the central parts of the Uinkaret and 

Shivwits Plateaus divert groundwater flow north to the Virgin 

River and south to the Colorado River (fig. 4). Even though 

these plateaus are large, the low annual precipitation limits 

recharge potential in these areas (Flint and others, 2004; Flint 

and Flint, 2007) (fig. 5). Only a few small seeps and springs 

discharge to tributaries of the Colorado River at the southern 

ends of these plateaus because of the proximity of groundwater divides to potential recharge areas and regional dip 

of rock units to the north (plate 1, fig. 4). Several springs 

discharge large volumes to the Virgin River to the north; this 

groundwater flows from limestones exposed from the Narrows 

to Littlefield that may originate on the Uinkaret and Shivwits 

Plateaus (fig. 4) (Levings and Farrar, 1979a,b; Billingsley 

and Workman, 2000).

Methods

Water-chemistry data have been collected by many 

agencies and by academia for selected springs, streams, wells, 

and mine sumps that discharge water from the perched waterbearing zones, the C aquifer, and Redwall-Muav aquifer in 

northern Arizona; these data were evaluated for this study. 

New water data were collected by the USGS in August 

and September 2009 and were primarily used to fill gaps in 

the limited information. The historical and new data were 

used in three ways: to conceptualize a hydrogeologic framework for the north side of the Colorado River, to evaluate 

water chemistry in relation to natural uranium concentrations 

and concentrations that may be influenced by mining, and 

to determine the distribution of concentrations of dissolved 

uranium in the study area.

Field Methods

New water samples were collected from 20 springs and 

3 wells north of the Colorado River in and adjacent to the 

North and East Segregation Areas, and from one well south 

of the Colorado River in the South Segregation Area. Most 

of the springs are 2,000 ft or more below the canyon rim and 

required access by foot along several miles of unimproved 

trails or in stream channels. These remote sites and excessive 

heat necessitated modification of standard water-sampling 

protocols described in the USGS National Field Manual for 

the Collection of Water-Quality Data (Wilde and Radtke, 

1998). These protocols ensure the quality of the water samples 

and limit exposure of field personnel to potentially hazardous 

conditions. In some cases, the modification required completion of sample processing after returning to base camp or to a 

motel room rather than processing the sample onsite (table 1). 

Helicopter access was used at seven of the remote spring 

sites to limit time between collection and processing of the 

water sample.

At all spring sites, field personnel completed field notes 

that provided a complete description of the sample site, 

sample conditions, sample location (including global positioning system coordinates), and any site conditions that might affect 

the water sample. Field parameters such as spring discharge, air 

and water temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolvedoxygen concentration were measured onsite by using calibrated 

instruments and USGS protocols (Wilde and others, 1998). 

Alkalinity was determined at the processing area by incremental 

titration (Wilde and Radtke, 1998). Spring discharge was measured by using a pygmy meter and Aquacalc, or a Parshall flume, 

or it was measured volumetrically as physical conditions required 

(Rantz and others, 1982). Springs were sampled as close as 

possible to the point of discharge. At sites where discharge locations were inaccessible, water samples were collected from the 

flowing channel as close as possible to the discharge point. Water 
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 149

Evaporation:

 Farnsworth and others, 1982

Precipitation:

PRISM Climate Group, 2006 

65

Segregated area—Boundary

Line of equal average annual evaporation, in inches per

 year—Contour interval 5 inches

Mean annual precipitation

1971–2000, in inches per year

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Tuweep

Fredonia

Jacob Lake

Valle Airport

Phantom Ranch

Colorado City

Mount

Trumbull

Grand

Canyon NP2

Pipe Spring National Monument

Bright Angel Ranger STN

Supai

50

45

55

55

60

65

70

65

75

70

65

60

75

60

55

55

60

65

70

55

Weather station and station name

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

Colorado River

Virgin River

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Peach

Springs

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry

Figure 5. Annual average precipitation and average annual evaporation in northern Arizona.

samples were collected in three cleaned 4 L Nalgene bottles and 

then transported to the processing area using a sampling protocol 

modified for backcountry use as described by Monroe and others 

(2004) and Bills and others (2007).

At the base camp, field processing was completed 

in a partially enclosed, tent-like structure constructed of 

tarps that protected the processing area from precipitation, 

sun, wind, and dust. Samples were processed immediately 

after they arrived at the processing site. At all times during 

processing, polypropylene gloves were worn to ensure that 

samples were not contaminated. New cleaned, Tygon silicon 

tubing connected to a peristaltic pump was inserted into each 

of the 4-L bottles in turn; spring water was sucked through 

the tubing into a glove-box-like chamber where subsamples 

were collected according to a set protocol (table 1) (Koterba 

and others, 1995). All sample bottles for individual subsets were precleaned and individually bagged in zip-lock 

plastic bags.
150 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

An additional 100 gallons of water was processed 

through manganese-impregnated acrylic-fiber cartridges at 

3 springs and 2 wells in order to produce a quantitative extract 

of radium that was used for radium isotope analysis (Kramer, 

2005). Once the sample was collected, the filters were again 

sealed in clean zip-lock bags for shipping to a laboratory for 

analysis; accompanying field notes described the sample site, 

sample conditions, flow rate, volume of water pumped, and 

any site conditions that might affect the water sample. Oneliter water samples also were collected at these same sites in 

order to determine total dissolved radium concentrations.

Groundwater samples from wells were collected as 

close to the well head as possible and after purging a minimum of three casing volumes of water from each well while 

temperature, pH, and specific conductance were monitored. 

Alkalinity was determined at the site by incremental titration (Wilde and Radtke, 1998). All samples were collected 

according to protocols described in the USGS National Field 

Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (Wilde and 

Radtke, 1998) and USGS protocols in effect at the time of 

sample collection. Well discharge was measured volumetrically using methods described by Rantz and others (1982). 

Field processing was done onsite directly from the stream 

discharging from the well. At all times during processing, 

polypropylene gloves were worn to ensure that samples were 

not contaminated. New pre-cleaned, Tygon silicon tubing was 

inserted into a glove-box-like chamber where subsamples 

were collected according to a set protocol (table 1; Koterba 

and others, 1995). All sample bottles for individual subsets were pre-cleaned and individually bagged in zip-lock 

plastic bags.

Duplicates were collected for all subsamples except the 

stable isotopes. Two field blank samples were collected to ensure 

that equipment did not become contaminated between samples. 

These blanks consisted of ultrapure deionized water and were 

treated in all regards as if they were spring samples; they were 

processed according to protocol (table 1). After processing and 

preservation, all subsamples from each spring and well were 

double-sealed in zip-lock plastic bags and placed into a dedicated 

cooler already chilled with ice until they could be express mailed 

to the individual laboratories responsible for analysis.

At all steps in the collection, processing, and transportation of the spring and well samples, chain-of-custody procedures were followed (Driscoll, 2007). A chain-of-custody form 

accompanied each water sample from collection to the processing laboratory. Once the water samples arrived at individual laboratories and were signed for, chain-of-custody became 

the responsibility of each laboratory and it followed the laboratory’s protocol. Chain-of-custody forms were returned to 

the Flagstaff Water Science Center office, where they are filed 

with other forms and information for each sample site.

Laboratory Methods

Samples were analyzed for selected constituents at 

several laboratories to compare results of analytical methods 

from different laboratories and to reduce analysis error 

(table 2).

Major ions, nutrients, trace elements, dissolved uranium, 

and stable isotopes were determined by the USGS National 

Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver, Colo. Details 

of analytical procedures are described by Fishman and others, 

Table 1. Field protocol used to process spring-water and well-water samples collected in 2009 in northern Arizona.

[μm, micrometer; mL, milliliter; DIC, dissolved inorganic carbon; FA, filtered acidified acid-rinsed polyethylene bottle; FAR, filtered acidified with Ultrex 

(ultrapure distilled water) nitric-acid-rinsed polyethylene bottle; FCC, filtered chilled brown polyethylene bottle; FU, filtered unacidified plain polyethylene 

bottle; FUS, filtered plastic-coated glass bottle with polyseal cap; L, liter; N, normal; RU, raw unacidified plain polyethylene bottle; RUR, raw unacidified in 

an acid-rinsed polyethylene bottle; RUS, raw clear glass with baked polyseal cap; WCA, filtered chilled plain polyethylene bottle acidified with sulfuric acid]

Fill

order

Bottle

type Filter Preservation Analysistype # bottles

1 250 mL RU, clear plastic No None Major anions and selected trace 

elements

2

2 125-mL WCA, clear plastic No 4.5 N sulfuric acid, chill Nutrients 2

3 500-mL, RUR, clear plastic No None Tritium 1

4 60-mL RUS, clear glass No None 18O and deuterium 1

5 500-mL RU, clear plastic No None 87Sr 1

6 250-mL FU, clear plastic 0.45 μm Gelman filter Chill Major anions 4

7 250-mL FU, clear plastic 0.45 μm Gelman filter None Alkalinity 1

8 125-mL FCC, brown plastic 0.45 μm Gelman filter Chill Nutrients 2

9 250-mL FA, clear plastic 0.45 μm Gelman filter 2-mL Ultrex nitric acid Major ions and trace metals 4

10 45-mL FA plastic vial 0.45 μm Gelman filter 2-mL Ultrex nitric acid Uranium replicates 1

11 125-mL clear glass 0.45 μm Gelman filter 2-mL Ultrex nitric acid Mercury 2

12 60-mL FU brown glass with 

septum cap

0.45 μm Gelman filter Chill DIC/13C 1

13 1-L FAR, clear plastic 0.45 μm Gelman filter 4-mL Ultrex nitric acid Gross alpha and beta radioactivity 1

14 1-L FAR, clear plastic 0.45 μm Gelman filter 4-mL Ultrex nitric acid Radium 224 isotopes 1

15 1-L FAR, clear plastic 0.45 μm Gelman filter 4-mL Ultrex nitric acid Uranium and other isotopes 1

16 1-L FUS plastic-coated glass 0.45 μm Gelman filter Chill 14C and 13C 1
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 151

1994; Hoffman and others, 1996; and Garbarino and others, 

2006. Chloride and sulfate were determined by ion chromatography by using a modified ion chromatograph (Brinton and 

others, 1996). Nutrients were determined by using methods 

described by Wershaw and others (1987). Gross-alpha and 

gross-beta particle counting, used to provide semiquantitative information on the overall degree of radioactivity in 

water samples without quantifying individual radionuclides, 

was completed by use of decay-counting that in turn used 

a gas-proportional detector (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1976). This method is most often applied for screening purposes. The method has the advantage of being sensitive 

to activity from a wide range of radionuclides, but it does not 

inherently provide information about the identity of the radioactive isotopes present. Count rates from the detector are converted to and reported as activities. More details of the methodology can be found in American Public Health Association 

(1985). Tritium was determined using a liquid-scintillation 

counting technique (Kendall and Caldwell, 1998) after preconcentration by an electrolytic-enrichment procedure. Results are 

reported in picocuries per liter (pCi/L) and tritium units (TU) 

(Fritz and Fontes, 1980; Clark and Fritz, 1997).

A duplicate set of water samples was sent to USGS 

National Research Program research analytical laboratory in 

Boulder, Colo. (Taylor Laboratory) and analyzed for concentrations of major ions, trace elements, and mercury (table 3). 

All analyses of dissolved metals were run in triplicate by two 

different instruments—inductively coupled plasma−atomic 

emission spectroscopy (ICP−AES) and inductively coupled 

plasma−mass spectrometer (ICP−MS). A selected suite of 

elements (boron, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, potassium, phosphorus, silica, strontium, 

sulfur, titanium, and zinc) were analyzed by ICP−AES). Trace 

elements (table 3) were analyzed with a Perkin Elmer Elan 

Model 6000 ICP−MS using indium, iridium, and rhodium as 

internal standards to normalize for instrument drift. A general description of the analysis conditions and procedures are 

reported by Garbarino and Taylor (1979), details of operational conditions are reported in Mitko and Bebek (1999, 

2000), and details of specific analytical techniques, procedures, and instrumental settings are described in Garbarino 

and Taylor (1996) and Taylor (2000). At least 30 percent of 

the samples analyzed in all batches (by both ICP−AES and 

ICP−MS) used standard reference waters or other qualitycontrol samples in order to assess accuracy. Samples designated for mercury analyses were further preserved by addition 

of potassium dichromate in the laboratory (3 to 4 days after 

collection). Total dissolved mercury concentrations were 

measured in triplicate using an automated cold-vapor atomic 

fluorescence spectrometric method using a PS Analytical 

Millennium System mercury analyzer (Roth, 1994; Roth 

and others, 2001). All analytical batches included at least 

20 percent quality-control and standard-reference samples 

to assess accuracy.

Water samples were analyzed for carbon-13 at USGS 

Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory in Reston, Va. An 

isotope ratio−mass spectrometric technique was used to analyze δ13C in water (Clark and Fritz, 1997). Measured 13C/12C 

ratios are reported as δ13C relative to per mil deviation from 

values obtained from the Vienna Peedee belemnite standard 

(Coplen, 1994). The activity of 14C was measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (Beukens, 1992); results are reported 

as percent modern carbon normalized to the 1950 National 

Bureau of Standards (National Bureau of Standards, 1984) 

oxalic acid standard (Stuiver and Polach, 1977; Wigley and 

Muller, 1981), along with 1-sigma analytical uncertainties.

Isotope compositions of radium and uranium as well 

as concentrations of radium, uranium, major ions, and trace 

elements were determined at USGS National Research 

Program Laboratories in Reston, Va., and Menlo Park, Calif. 

Uranium concentrations were determined by ICP−MS on a 

small aliquot (10 mL) in order to determine amounts of sample 

required for isotope analysis of 234U/238U (Kraemer and others, 

2002). Uranium was concentrated and purified by using standard ion-chromatographic methods, and the final uranium fraction was eluted into a 30 mL bottle for liquid aspiration into 

the ICP−MS. This method measures the 234U and 235U peaks 

and calculates a 234U/238U uranium activity ratio on the basis of 

Table 2. Laboratories used and analyte and quality-control sample types for spring-water and well-water samples collected in 2009 

in northern Arizona.

Laboratory Analyte Quality

control

USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL), 

Denver, Colorado

Major ions, nutrients, trace elements, alpha and beta, 

dissolved uranium, carbon-13 (13C), carbon-14 (14C), 

and tritium

Field blanks

USGS National Research Program Laboratory (Taylor 

Laboratory), Boulder, Colorado

Major ions, trace elements, mercury, rare earth elements, 

dissolved uranium

Duplicates

USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, 

Reston, Virginia (RSIL or Coplen Laboratory)

Oxygen-18 and deuterium, dissolved inorganic carbon, 

and carbon-13

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, 

California (Bullen Laboratory)

Strontium-87 (87Sr/86Sr)

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, 

Virginia (Doughten Laboratory and Kraemer Laboratory)

Dissolved uranium, uranium isotopes, dissolved radium, 

radium isotopes, and major ions and trace elements 

Duplicates

Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry 

Laboratory (NAU Laboratory), Flagstaff, Arizona

Dissolved uranium and uranium isotopes Duplicates
152 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

the assumption that the natural 235U/238U ratio is constant. The 

error associated with each uranium activity ratio is estimated 

from complete duplicate or triplicate analyses of the same 

sample. Acceptable instrument operation was verified by running standards of known uranium activity ratio value before, 

between, and after sample sets.

Radium isotope compositions were determined by gammaray spectroscopy on radium extracted from large-volume water 

samples preconcentrated in the field on manganese-impregnated 

acrylic-fiber cartridges (Kraemer, 2005). Manganese dioxide, 

along with adsorbed cations, is removed by circulating a solution 

of hydroxylamine hydrochloride through the cartridge. Chemical processing includes dissolution and reprecipitation of Ba(Ra)

SO4, which is collected and placed in a high-purity germanium 

detector for quantitative analysis of 228Ra and 226Ra by gamma-ray 

spectrometry. Samples are counted for a sufficient length of time 

to achieve a 1-sigma counting error of 5 percent or less. Analytical error was estimated from counting statistics only.

Table 3. Chemical and isotopic analytes and corresponding median detection limits for spring-water and well-water samples 

collected in 2009 in northern Arizona.

[Elements not footnoted were analyzed by more than one laboratory; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per 

liter; mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; ng/L, nanogram per liter; pCi/L, picocurie per liter; pmc, percent modern carbon; TU, tritium unit; δ, delta 

notation; ‰, per mil; na, not applicable]

Chemical

constituent Symbol

Median

detection

limit

Unit Chemical

constituent Symbol

Median

detection

limit

Unit

Bicarbonate1 HCO3 0.5 mg/L Lead Pb 0.008 μg/L

Carbonate1 CO3 0.05 mg/L Lithium Li 0.07 μg/L

Calcium Ca 0.001 mg/L Lutetium2 Lu 0.0002 μg/L

Chloride1 Cl 0.02 mg/L Manganese Mn 0.06 μg/L

Potassium K 0.005 mg/L Mercury Hg 0.4 ng/L

Magnesium Mg 0.0005 mg/L Molybdenum2 Mo 0.03 μg/L

Sodium Na 0.01 mg/L Neodymium2 Nd 0.001 μg/L

Sulfate1 SO4 0.04 mg/L Nickel Ni 0.03 μg/L

Silica SiO3 0.01 mg/L Praseodymium2 Pr 0.0004 μg/L

Nitrate1 NO3 0.01 mg N/L Radium3,4 Ra 0.003 pCi/L

Nitrite1 NO2 0.001 mg N/L Rhenium2 Re 0.001 μg/L

Ammonium1 NH4 0.03 mg N/L Rubidium Rb 0.003 μg/L

Phosphorus P 8 μg/L Samarium2 Sm 0.002 μg/L

Phosphate2 PO4 0.02 mg P/L Selenium Se 0.4 μg/L

Aluminum Al 0.2 μg/L Strontium Sr 0.1 μg/L

Antimony Sb 0.004 μg/L Tellurium Te 0.02 μg/L

Arsenic As 0.05 μg/L Terbium2 Tb 0.0003 μg/L

Barium Ba 0.02 μg/L Thallium Tl 0.005 μg/L

Beryllium Be 0.03 μg/L Thorium Th 0.0006 μg/L

Bismuth Bi 0.003 μg/L Thulium2 Tm 0.0003 μg/L

Boron B 11 μg/L Tungsten W 0.001 μg/L

Bromine3 Br 0.5 mg/L Uranium1–4 and 6 U 0.001 μg/L

Cadmium Cd 0.009 μg/L Vanadium V 0.1 μg/L

Cerium2 Ce 0.0005 μg/L Ytterbium2 Yb 0.0007 μg/L

Cesium Cs 0.01 μg/L Yttrium2 Y 0.0008 μg/L

Chromium Cr 0.3 μg/L Zinc Zn 0.2 μg/L

Cobalt Co 0.007 μg/L Zirconium Zr 0.003 μg/L

Copper Cu 0.03 μg/L Gross beta1 na 4 pCi/L

Dysprosium2 Dy 0.001 μg/L Gross alpha1 na 3 pCi/L

Erbium2 Er 0.0009 μg/L Oxygen-181 δ18O na ‰

Europium2 Eu 0.0005 μg/L Deuterium1 δ2H na ‰

Gadolinium2 Gd 0.001 μg/L Strontium-874 87Sr/86Sr na None

Holmium2 Ho 0.0002 μg/L Carbon-145 14C na pmc

Iron Fe 0.5 μg/L Carbon-135 δ13C na ‰

Lanthanum2 La 0.0007 μg/L Tritium1 3H 1 TU 1

USGS National Water Quality Laboratory.

2

USGS National Research Program Taylor Laboratory.

3

USGS National Research Program Kraemer Laboratory.

4

USGS National Research Program Bullen Laboratory.

5

USGS Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory.

6

Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory reported precision.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 153

 Total radium concentrations were determined by adding 

Ba(NO3)2 to a known amount of water until BaSO4 precipitated. Usually, dissolved sulfate in the samples was sufficient 

such that addition of H2SO4 was not necessary. The barite 

precipitate was filtered, dried, and counted in the same manner 

as in large-volume samples.

A duplicate set of water samples was sent to the Northern 

Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., for analysis of dissolved uranium and uranium 

isotopes (see appendix 1 for methods). These analyses provide 

an independent check on USGS analyses of dissolved uranium 

and uranium isotopes.

Water samples were analyzed for strontium-87 (87Sr/86Sr) 

at USGS National Research Program Laboratory in Menlo 

Park, California by using thermal ionization mass spectrometry 

(Bullen and others, 1996; Taylor, 2000). Resulting measurements of 87Sr/86Sr were normalized for mass-dependent fractionation to a value of 8.37521 for measured 88Sr/86Sr ratios.

Determining Most Probable Value

Appendix 2 contains data reported from each laboratory 

used in this study. Because multiple values were available for 

many analytes, it was necessary to establish a final (or mostprobable) value (MPV) for each analyte. Calculation of MPVs 

depended on how many laboratories reported results. If only 

one laboratory reported an analyte, then that value was used as 

the MPV. If two laboratories reported results, then the average 

value was usually taken, although laboratory detection limits 

were considered. If one laboratory had a much higher detection 

limit than the other and reported a concentration, whereas the 

other laboratory reported a “less than detection,” then the value 

was listed rather than the detection limit. If both laboratories 

reported values less than the detection limit, then the value from 

the laboratory with the smaller detection limit was reported. If 

the two laboratories had similar detection limits and reported 

values greater than and less than this limit, then the MPV was 

calculated as the average of the greater value and a value of 

half the detection limit; if this average was greater than the 

detection limit, then the average value was used; otherwise the 

parameter was listed as less than detection. Finally, in the rare 

cases in which values reported by two laboratories were widely 

discrepant, neither value was accepted and an “na” was reported 

as the MPV.

For analytes reported from three or four laboratories—

especially for uranium—a more elaborate method was used 

to determine an MPV. First, one of the laboratories (typically 

NWQL) was selected as a temporary control, and results of 

other laboratories were ratioed to its values. These ratios were 

then plotted against the control concentrations to verify that no 

concentration dependencies were present. The median value of 

the sample and control ratios for a given analyte reported by 

each laboratory is a measure of interlaboratory bias. Median 

values were compared, and results from the laboratory having 

the central-most ratio were selected to represent the MPV 

for a given analyte. Results were screened to remove spurious or systematically biased results. In these cases, the values 

reported by the remaining laboratories were averaged. When 

two or more laboratories had equivalent ratios (typically 

within 2 percent), the values from those laboratories were 

averaged and reported as the MPV.

Because uranium is the most important element for this 

report, it is instructive to outline how the MPV was selected 

for it. Four laboratories reported uranium data: NWQL, USGS 

National Research Program Laboratory (Doughten Laboratory), 

Reston Va., the Taylor Laboratory, and the Northern Arizona 

University Laboratory (appendix 2). NWQL data were selected 

as a temporary control and all values were ratioed to them. After 

first determining that ratios of none of the laboratories were concentration dependent, the median ratio for each lab was determined. NWQL had a ratio of 1.000 (by construction); Doughten 

Laboratory had a median ratio of 1.052; Taylor Laboratory had 

a median ratio of 1.042; and Northern Arizona University had 

a median ratio of 1.238. These results clearly demonstrate that 

Northern Arizona University data are strongly biased relative to 

the other three laboratories, and its data are therefore rejected. 

Of the remaining three laboratories, the middle ratio, 1.042, corresponds with the ratio of Taylor Laboratory. Thus, the Taylor 

average value is used as the MPV for uranium except for cases 

in which the Taylor Laboratory reported a value more than 

10 percent different from values reported by the other two laboratories. This event occurred only once, for the Tom Land Well, 

in which the average Taylor Laboratory value is 17.6 μg/L, 

the (bias-adjusted) NWQL value is 20.8 μg/L, and the (biasadjusted) Doughten Laboratory value is 20.4 μg/L. In this case, 

the average value of the NWQL and Doughten Laboratory 

values is used (20.6 μg/L).

Water Chemistry

It is not uncommon to find streams and springs in the 

region that contain high concentrations of dissolved trace 

elements and radionuclides owing to natural processes of evaporation, weathering, and erosion. In addition, human activities 

such as mining may further contribute to the dissolved chemical load. Historical mining activity in northern Arizona has 

left a legacy of abandoned mines, mine waste, and waste rock. 

Uranium mining of breccia pipes in northern Arizona through 

1969 left waste rock and low-grade ore exposed at the surface, 

allowing subsequent remobilization of minerals and radionuclides and contamination of both surface water and groundwater systems in the region. Beginning in the mid-1970s, the 

advent of stricter environmental regulations and improvements 

in mining practices reduced the potential for environmental contamination. However, secondary permeability in fractured rocks 

provides pathways for dispersing remobilized radionuclides.
154 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Waters from wells and springs have water chemistries that 

depend on the chemistry of rock units that contact the water. 

Therefore, water-chemistry data provide important clues about 

the origins and flow paths of water in groundwater systems. 

Major-ion and trace-element data can be used to distinguish 

groundwater from different sources. Nutrient and selected traceelement data can be used to indicate sources of contamination 

and secondary groundwater recharge (for example, wastewater). 

Trace element, isotope, and radiochemistry data can be used 

to evaluate the presence of and contributions from mineralized 

orebodies in surface-water drainages. In particular, historical 

dissolved-uranium data can be used to determine a baseline 

value for the Grand Canyon region. Dissolved uranium, radium, 

gross alpha and gross beta particles, and other radionuclides can 

be used to compare mined and unmined drainages.

Wells and springs that discharge from perched waterbearing zones and aquifers south of the Colorado River contain mostly calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate water (figs. 6, 7). 

This composition is consistent with groundwater that has spent 

substantial time in contact with rock units of these groundwater flow systems (Bills and others, 2007). Groundwater 

discharging from perched water-bearing zones north of the 

Colorado River is a calcium-magnesium-sulfate water. These 

springs discharge from either the Coconino Sandstone or 

sandstones in the Supai Group; these formations are overlain by silty sandstones containing gypsum (CaSO4

•2H2O), 

which dissolves readily in water. Besides creating shallow 

collapse features that are easily confused with breccia pipes 

(Billingsley and others, 2006), the dissolved gypsum creates a 

water type that is easy to recognize.

Groundwater discharging from the Redwall-Muav aquifer 

south of the Colorado River typically has calcium-magnesiumbicarbonate compositions (Monroe and others, 2004; Bills and 

others, 2007). Groundwater from the same aquifer has calciummagnesium-sulfate compositions in the western part of Grand 

Canyon and sodium-chloride compositions to the southeast in 

the Little Colorado River Canyon (figs. 6, 7) (Cooley, 1976; 

Hualapai Water Resources Department, 1995; Hart and others, 

2004; Bills and others, 2007). North of the Colorado River, 

groundwater that discharges from the Redwall-Muav aquifer 

has different chemical compositions in different areas. Groundwater has a calcium-bicarbonate composition with low total 

dissolved solids in the Marble Canyon reach and to the west of 

the Kaibab Plateau, but a calcium-magnesium-sulfate composition with high total dissolved solids on the Kanab Plateau 

and lower Kanab Creek north of the estimated groundwater 

divide (figs. 4, 6, 7). Groundwater in the Redwall-Muav aquifer 

south of the groundwater divide still has a calcium-bicarbonate 

composition. Higher concentrations of magnesium and sulfate 

in the Redwall-Muav aquifer on the Kanab Plateau could be 

evidence of recharge through rocks that contain gypsum or 

sulfide. The increased sulfate concentrations of springs in the 

Kanab Creek area in proximity to mined sites and unmined ore 

deposits could also be evidence (subject to further analysis) 

of this relation (plate 1, fig. 7). Groundwater discharging from 

the Redwall-Muav aquifer in the central part of Grand Canyon 

has low major-ion concentrations that suggest greater contributions from local recharge and shorter contact time with the 

aquifer rock (Monroe and others, 2004). Similar increases in the 

proportions of calcium and magnesium also are found among 

sites near the South Rim of Grand Canyon, suggesting recharge 

from more distant sources and longer contact time with the rock 

(Monroe and others, 2004; Bills and others, 2007). The low 

total-dissolved-solid calcium-bicarbonate water of the RedwallMuav aquifer north of the Colorado River is typical of groundwater that has had little contact time with the rock as it flowed 

through large fracture and solution-channel systems that probably originate on the Kaibab Plateau (Huntoon, 2000a,b; Ross, 

2005). The higher total-dissolved-solid content of groundwater 

from the Redwall-Muav aquifer on the Kanab Plateau indicates 

that groundwater likely has a much longer residence time in this 

area (figs. 4, 6, 7). The larger concentrations of dissolved magnesium and sulfate in groundwater in this area are consistent 

with the accumulation of salts derived from water that contains 

dissolved sulfate from gypsum or sulfide-rich orebodies, that 

percolated downward from the perched water-bearing zones in 

sandstones in the Supai Group, the Coconino Sandstone, or the 

Chinle Formation.

Water discharging from the perched water-bearing 

zones and the Redwall-Muav aquifer in northern Arizona are 

generally of good quality for most intended uses. However, a 

number of sites were found to have constituent concentrations 

in excess of selected criteria for drinking water, fish, wildlife, and irrigation uses (table 4). In many cases, the elevated 

concentrations of these elements are from natural sources 

(Hualapai Water Resources Department, 1995; Monroe and 

others, 2005; Bills and others, 2007).

At some sites, high trace-element concentrations and 

radionuclide activity are known to be associated with legacy 

mines or uranium-ore deposits in breccia pipes that are near 

the sample site (Wenrich and others, 1994; Hualapai Water 

Resources Department, 1995; Billingsley, 1997; Monroe and 

others, 2005; Bills and others, 2007). High concentrations of 

trace elements at other locations result from dissolution of 

certain minerals in secondary ore deposits (table 4; arsenic, 

iron, lead, uranium, zinc). Some high concentrations of other 

elements probably are related to other recent human-caused and 

land-management practices (Hualapai Tribe, 1995; Monroe and 

others, 2005; Bills and others, 2007). Boron concentrations are 

high in several areas, and although those concentrations may 

have natural origins, they could also be related to wildfire suppression, mining, or detergents. Water from the springs on the 

lower Little Colorado River (for example, Blue Spring, fig. 2) 

generally had higher concentrations of most trace elements than 

did other springs and streams south of the Colorado River. The 

differences in water chemistry of these springs and the geologic 

setting of their points of discharge suggests that either the water 

that discharges from these systems has resided longer in the 

flow system, resulting in greater dissolution of minerals, or that 

the water has traveled along flow paths originating in different 

source areas (Hart and others, 2002; Bills and others, 2007). 

Mohawk Canyon Spring, National Canyon Spring, and Bar Four 

Well also had higher concentrations of many trace elements 
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 155

compared with other wells on the Coconino Plateau or springs in 

Havasu Canyon (figs. 2, 4, 6, 7) (Monroe and others, 2004; Bills 

and others, 2007). This difference implies that groundwater at 

Mohawk Canyon Spring, National Canyon Spring, and Bar Four 

Well have recharge areas and flow paths that differ from those of 

other groundwater that discharges in areas along the western part 

of Grand Canyon (fig. 4).

Arsenic and lead are common accessory metals in uranium 

ore deposits. At 70 sites the average concentrations of arsenic 

exceeded the primary maximum contaminant level (PMCL) of 

10 μg/L, and at 40 sites arsenic concentrations exceeded 100 μg/L 

(appendix 3; tables 4, 5). Lead concentrations exceeded the 

PMCL of 15 μg/L at three sites, Havasu Spring, Fern Spring, and 

Canyon Mine Well (fig. 8) (tables 4, 5) (Bills and others, 2007). 

High lead concentrations in Kanab Creek and Virgin River water 

samples that were collected before 1990—under a less-strict 

sampling protocol—may reflect contamination (tables 4, 5). 

Recent samples collected from sites on Kanab Creek and from the 

Canyon Mine Well all have lead concentrations less than 0.3 μg/L 

(appendix 2). 

Water-chemistry diagram—Shows major chemical 

constituents in milliequivalents per liter for select streams

and wells. The diagrams can be used to compare and

characterize types of water. Each diagram is proportional

for milliequivalents per liter of constituents. Red diagrams

represent wells; blue diagrams represent streams.

CATIONS ANIONS

Magnesium

Calcium

Sodium Choloride

Bicarbonate

Sulfate

20 10 0 10 20

MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER

EXPLANATION

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00’

36°30'

36°00’

35°30'

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

UTAH

ARIZONA

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Colorado River

48A-W82 (P)

Diamond Creek near Peach

Springs

Colorado River above Diamond

Creek

National Canyon Creek

Colorado River at National

Canyon

Hermit Mine

Monitoring Well (R-M)

Paria River at Lees Ferry

Colorado River at Lees Ferry

Little Colorado

River near

Cameron

Canyon

Mine Well (R-M)

Colorado River

near Grand Canyon

Pipe CC

HEA

Horn Down

Indian Garden Up

M.C. Havasupai well 1 (P)

Pinenut Mine

Monitor Well (R-M)

Segregation area—Boundary

 Wells sampled—P, perched water-bearing

 zone and R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer

 Streams sampled

g.6_Hydrology

Kaibab Plateau

Kanab

Plateau

Virgin River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital data, 100m, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, zone 12

Figure 6. Water chemistry data for selected wells and streams in northern Arizona.
156 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Radioactive constituents were near or above PMCL at a 

few sites (appendixes 2, 4; tables 4, 6–9). Uranium concentrations in samples from Salt Creek Spring (average, 30.6 μg/L) 

exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

PMCL of 30 μg/L (fig. 9). One sample from Horn Creek had a 

concentration only slightly lower than the PMCL (29.2 μg/L). 

Previous studies have found high gross-alpha-particle activity in 

samples from Salt Creek Spring and Horn Creek (Monroe and 

others, 2005; Bills and others, 2007). Salt Creek and Horn Creek 

are downgradient from the abandoned Orphan Lode Mine site, a 

breccia pipe that has been mined for copper and uranium (plate 1). 

The high gross-alpha-particle activity and uranium concentrations 

at these sites are likely related to the pipe or to mining activity 

(Fitzgerald, 1996; Monroe and others, 2005; Bills and others, 

2007). Samples from Turquoise Creek, Forster Canyon Spring 

No. 2, Mohawk Canyon Spring, and the Bar Four Well near the 

village of Supai all had unadjusted gross-alpha-particle activities 

greater than 14 pCi/L (Monroe and others, 2005; Bills and others, 

2007). The unadjusted gross-alpha-particle data from a water sample recently collected from Willow Spring in Hack Canyon is also 

high (appendix 2). These sites are near or downstream from breccia pipes that are known to concentrate uranium ores on this part 

of the Coconino and Kanab Plateaus (Wenrich and others 1994; 

Billingsley and others, 1997; Wenrich and others, 1997).

Figure 7. Water chemistry data for selected springs in northern Arizona.

Water-chemistry diagram—Shows major chemical

constituents in milliequivalents per liter for select springs.

The diagrams can be used to compare and characterize types

of water. Each diagram is proportional for milliequivalents

per liter of constituents.

CATIONS ANIONS

Magnesium

Calcium

Sodium Choloride

Bicarbonate

Sulfate

20 10 0 10 20

MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00’

36°30'

36°00’

35°30'

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

UTAH

ARIZONA

Hermit Spring (R-M)

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Kanab

Plateau

Colorado River

Horn Up (R-M)

Peach Springs (P)

Milkweed

Spring (P)

Lower Milkweed

Canyon spring (R-M)

Bridge Canyon Spring (R-M)

Meriwhitica

spring (R-M)

Quartermaster (R-M)

Big Spring (P)

Ridenour Mine Spring (P)

Havasu Spring (R-M)

Hotel Spring (P)

Buckhorn

Spring (P)

Showerbath Spring (R-M) Hole-in-the-Wall

Spring (R-M)

Fence Spring

(R-M) Lower Jumpup Spring (P)

Willow Spring (P)

Upper Jumpup

Spring (P)

Rider Spring (P)

Blue

Spring

(R-M)

Burro Up (R-M)

Indian Gardens (R-M)

EXPLANATION

Segregation area—Boundary

Sample site—P, perched water-bearing

 zone and R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer

g.7_Hydrology

Kaibab Plateau

Virgin River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital data, 100m, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, zone 12
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 157

Table 4. Concentrations of elements from the historical dataset and from spring-water and well-water samples collected in 2009 in northern Arizona that exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency primary maximum contaminant levels and secondary maximum contaminant levels for selected constituents.—Continued[See appendixes 1–4 for measured concentration data; PMCL, primary maximum contaminant level (enforceable); SMCL, secondary maximum contaminant level (not enforceable); μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter; mrem/yr, millirem per year; pCi/L, picocurie per liter; source of PMCL and SMCL data: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html, accessed October 2009]

Trace

element

Drinking water

standard

(PMCL unless

otherwise stated)

Potential health effect

from ingestion of water

Sites that exceed 75 percent

of the PMCL or SMCL

Arsenic 10 μg/L Skin damage; problems with circulatory systems; 

increased risk of cancer

70 sites greater than 10 μg/L.40 sites greater than 100 μg/L.

Copper 1,300 μg/L

(1,000 μg/L, SMCL)

Short term exposure: gastrointestinal distressLong term exposure: liver or kidney damage

Adjusted gross alpha radioactivity 

(72-hour gross alpha radioactivity minus uranium activity)

15 pCi/L Increased risk of cancer 2 sites with high gross alpha unadjusted.

Gross beta radioactivity 4 mrem/yr (screening level is 50 pCi/L 

gross beta radioactivity minus potassium-40)

Increased risk of cancer

Iron 300 μg/L, SMCL Conjunctivitis, choroiditis, and retinitis if it contacts 

and remains in the tissues

Pinenut Well (4,650 μg/L).Burnt Canyon Well (680 μg/L).

Lead 15 μg/L Infants and children: delays in physical and mental 

development; children could show learning disabilities and slight deficits in attention span

Virgin River (350 to 550 μg/L).Havasu Spring (29 μg/L).Fern Spring (20 μg/L).Canyon Mine Well (20 μg/L).Kanab Creek (15 to 20 μg/L).Havasupai Well 1(12 μg/L).

Manganese 50 μg/L Hallucinations, forgetfulness, impotence, and 

nerve damage

Clear Water Spring (980 μg/L).Pinenut Well (334 μg/L).Canyon Mine Well (66 μg/L).

Nitrate (measured

as nitrogen)

10 mg/L Infants below the age of six months who drink 

water in excess of MCL could become seriously ill and if untreated may die; symptoms include shortness of breath and blue-baby syndrome

Monument Spring (6.8 mg/L).Tom Land Well (6.86 mg/L).Monument Creek No. 1 (4.5 mg/L).Willow Spring (4.36 mg/L).
158 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 4. Concentrations of elements from the historical dataset and from spring-water and well-water samples collected in 2009 in northern Arizona that exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency primary maximum contaminant levels and secondary maximum contaminant levels for selected constituents.—Continued [See appendixes 1–4 for measured concentration data; PMCL, primary maximum contaminant level (enforceable); SMCL, secondary maximum contaminant level (not enforceable); μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter; mrem/yr, millirem per year; pCi/L, picocurie per liter; source of PMCL and SMCL data: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html, accessed October 2009] Trace element Drinking water standard (PMCL unless otherwise stated) Potential health effect from ingestion of water Sites that exceed 75 percent of the PMCL or SMCL Radium 5 pCi/L Increased risk of cancer Pinenut Well, 17.5 pCi/L. Selenium 50 μg/L Hair or fingernail loss; numbness in fingers or toes; circulatory problems Willow Spring (52 μg/L). Schmutz Spring (44 μg/L). Tom Land Well (45 μg/L). Sulfate 250 mg/L Diarrhea 15 sites greater than 250 μg/L. 6 sites greater than 500 μg/L. Total dissolved solids 500 mg/L (SMCL) Hardness, salty taste 70 sites greater than SMCL . Uranium 30 μg/L Increased risk of cancer; kidney toxicity 14 sites greater than 15 μg/L. The following sites greater than 30 μg/L: Canyon Mine Well (309 μg/L). GCAE517R (250 μg/L). well 23032 (110 μg/L). 15140 (90 μg/L). well GCBD501R (86 μg/L). GCAA503R (72 μg/L). 23168 (57 μg/L). 23169 (51 μg/L).

GCAG510R (47 μg/L).15139 (46 μg/L).GCAA503R (32 μg/L).Rays Place, left fork (32 μg/L).well GCAD511R (32 μg/L).well GCAD505R (31 μg/L).Salt Creek Spring (31 μg/L).Cedar Spring (31 μg/L).Horn Creek (30 μg/L).GCBB006R (87 μg/L).GCBB004R (89 μg/L).
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 159

Table 5. Water samples from springs, streams, wells, and mine sumps in the historical dataset of sites in northern Arizona containing mercury, molybdenum, or lead with at least one measurement above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maxiumum contaminant level or health advisory level.—Continued[--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer. Maximum contaminant level for mercury = 2 μg/L; maximum contaminant level for lead = 15 μg/L; health advisory level for molybdenum = 40 μg/L]

Sample or

site identifier

Site

description

Source of

groundwater

Longitude

(NAD 83)

Latitude

(NAD 83)

Reported

sample

date

Reported 

uranium

concentration

(μg/L)

Sample

type

Source

of data

Mercury

9380000 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry, Ariz.

-- –111.588 36.865 5/5/1981 3.8 Stream USGS, 2009b

353713113421800 Milkweed Spring; 

B–26–13 20CCB

P; volcanic rocks –113.706 35.620 5/27/1993 3.8 Spring USGS, 2009b

360455112111002 Monument Spring R-M –112.176 36.064 12/5/2000 2.1 Spring Monroe and others, 200575A–W82 Warm Springs R-M –113.082 36.197 1982 2.4 Spring Wenrich and others, 199476A–W82 Lava Falls (by cliff) R-M –113.081 36.196 1982 2.4 Spring Wenrich and others, 1994

Molybdenum

15139a -- –114.049 36.584 9/23/1977 48.8 Spring USGS, 2009a15140a -- –114.058 36.581 9/23/1977 55.0 Spring USGS, 2009a15141a -- –114.051 36.525 9/23/1977 45.7 Spring USGS, 2009a23004 -- –113.994 35.879 8/24/1977 40.5 Spring USGS, 2009a23010 P, gravels –113.706 35.618 8/30/1977 40.1 Spring USGS, 2009a23012 -- –113.801 35.624 8/31/1977 45.3 Spring USGS, 2009a23013 -- –113.791 35.645 8/31/1977 43.2 Well USGS, 2009a23014 -- –113.767 35.608 9/1/1977 75.0 Well USGS, 2009a23016 -- –113.629 35.507 9/1/1977 79.0 Well USGS, 2009a23024

P –113.114 35.783 9/4/1977 61.0 Well USGS, 2009a

23026 -- –113.900 35.821 9/13/1977 44.0 Well USGS, 2009a23032 -- –113.985 35.774 9/15/1977 75.3 Well USGS, 2009a23077 P; Coconino

Sandstone

–112.524 35.950 10/17/1977 100.6 Spring USGS, 2009a

23080 P; volcanic rocks –112.875 35.742 10/19/1977 129.4 Well USGS, 2009a23081 P; volcanic rocks –112.687 35.641 10/19/1977 43.8 Spring USGS, 2009a23088 P; Coconino

Sandstone

–112.396 35.958 10/27/1977 79.9 Well USGS, 2009a

23090 P; volcanic rocks –112.597 35.557 10/28/1977 47.0 Well USGS, 2009a23169a -- –113.702 35.492 1/8/1978 46.4 Spring USGS, 2009a43536 -- –113.309 35.885 7/18/1978 50.4 Stream USGS, 2009aCanyon Mine Well R-M –112.095 35.886 12/1/1987 60.0 Well Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

GCAD505R TRSS Carbonate P; Chinle Formation –113.177 36.865 5/8/1979 97.0 Well USGS, 2009aGCAD509R TRSS Carbonate P; Chinle Formation –113.225 36.866 5/8/1979 54.0 Well USGS, 2009aGCAE501R TRSS Volcanic P; volcanic rocks –112.958 36.845 5/12/1979 49.0 Well USGS, 2009aGCAE517R TRSS P; Chinle Formation –112.781 36.881 5/17/1979 191.0 Spring USGS, 2009a
160 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 5. Water samples from springs, streams, wells, and mine sumps in the historical dataset of sites in northern Arizona containing mercury, molybdenum, or lead with at least one measurement above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maxiumum contaminant level or health advisory level.—Continued[--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer. Maximum contaminant level for mercury = 2 μg/L; maximum contaminant level for lead = 15 μg/L; health advisory level for molybdenum = 40 μg/L]

Sample or

site identifier

Site

description

Source of

groundwater

Longitude

(NAD 83)

Latitude

(NAD 83)

Reported

sample

date

Reported 

uranium

concentration

(μg/L)

Sample

type

Source

of data

Lead

9413600 Virgin River above Hwy. I15 

Rest area near Littlefield, Ariz.

-- –113.780 36.954 5/21/1979 400.0 Stream USGS, 2009b

9413600 Virgin River above Hwy. I15 

Rest area near Littlefield, Ariz.

-- –113.780 36.954 6/25/1979 500.0 Stream USGS, 2009b

9413650 Virgin River below Hwy. I15 

Rest area near Littlefield, Ariz.

-- –113.797 36.949 5/22/1979 200.0 Stream USGS, 2009b

9413650 Virgin River below Hwy. I15 

Rest area near Littlefield, Ariz.

-- –113.797 36.949 6/26/1979 500.0 Stream USGS, 2009b

9413800 Virgin River at mouth of 

Narrows near Littlefield, Ariz.

-- –113.861 36.921 5/23/1979 500.0 Stream USGS, 2009b

9413800 Virgin River at mouth of 

Narrows near Littlefield, Ariz.

-- –113.861 36.921 6/27/1979 600.0 Stream USGS, 2009b

361303112411200 Havasu Spring; B-33-04 26 

unsurveyed

R-M –112.687 36.217 Aug 23, 1994 20.0 Spring USGS, 2009b

361524112420400 Fern Spring; B-33-04 11 

unsurveyed

R-M –112.702 36.257 Aug 24, 1994 20.0 Spring USGS, 2009b

365149112442201 Pipe Spring; B-40-04 17DDB -- –112.740 36.864 Dec 10, 1996 20.0 Spring USGS, 2009b365435112455501 B-41-04 31DBB -- –112.766 36.910 Mar 20, 1997 20.0 Well USGS, 2009b16A–W82 Unnamed well; Tertiary Frazier 

Well gravels

P; gravels –113.050 35.810 1982 17.0 Well Wenrich and others, 1994

37A–W82 Big Spring P; Coconino 

Sandstone

–113.207 36.000 1982 32.0 Spring Wenrich and others, 1994

Canyon Mine Well Local ID (A–29–03) 202BCD R-M –112.095 35.886 5/1/1992 20.0 Well Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Canyon Mine Well Local ID (A–29–03) 202BCD R-M –112.095 35.886 9/10/1987 20.0 Well Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Canyon Mine Well Local ID (A–29–03) 202BCD R-M –112.095 35.886 1/15/1992 30.0 Well Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Canyon Mine Well Local ID (A–29–03) 202BCD R-M –112.095 35.886 5/14/1993 40.0 Well Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 5/29/1990 29.0 Spring Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

R-M –112.751 36.689 6/29/1988 150.0 Well Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990b

Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

R-M –112.751 36.689 12/10/1992 30.0 Well Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990b

Hermit Mine Sumpb Breccia –112.751 36.689 9/21/1989 30.0 Sump Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 161

Table 5. Water samples from springs, streams, wells, and mine sumps in the historical dataset of sites in northern Arizona containing mercury, molybdenum, or lead with at least one measurement above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maxiumum contaminant level or health advisory level.—Continued[--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer. Maximum contaminant level for mercury = 2 μg/L; maximum contaminant level for lead = 15 μg/L; health advisory level for molybdenum = 40 μg/L]

Sample or

site identifier

Site

description

Source of

groundwater

Longitude

(NAD 83)

Latitude

(NAD 83)

Reported

sample

date

Reported 

uranium

concentration

(μg/L)

Sample

type

Source

of data

Lead—Continued

Hermit Mine Sumpb Breccia –112.751 36.689 12/8/1989 30.0 Sump Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

Hermit Mine Sumpb Breccia –112.751 36.689 2/6/1990 40.0 Sump Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

KAN002W -- –112.510 36.717 March 1982 20.0 Stream Hopkins and others, 1984bKAN005W -- –112.572 36.684 March 1982 15.0 Stream Hopkins and others, 1984bKAN006W -- –112.529 36.709 March 1982 15.0 Stream Hopkins and others, 1984bPinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

(B-36-04) 21CB; 55-513394 R-M –112.735 36.504 12/21/1989 20.0 Well Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a

Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

(B-36-04) 21CB; 55-513394 R-M –112.735 36.504 6/30/1993 20.0 Well Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a

Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

(B-36-04) 21CB; 55-513394 R-M –112.735 36.504 6/29/1988 30.0 Well Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a

Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

(B-36-04) 21CB; 55-513394 R-M –112.735 36.504 9/26/1991 80.0 Well Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a

Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

(B-36-04) 21CB; 55-513394 R-M –112.735 36.504 6/29/1988 110.0 Well Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a

Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

(B-36-04) 21CB; 55-513394 R-M –112.735 36.504 March 1986 25.0 Well Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a

aSite not plotted on figure 8.bLatitude and longitude not reported, given location of Hermit Mine Monitoring Well.
162 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Segregation area—Boundary

KaibabPaiute 

Reservation

Colorado

Riv e r

Spring

Well

Stream

Sump

Observed concentrations of lead, mercury and molybdenum, in μg/L—Symbol color 

indicates constituent; symbol shape is type of site; number is concentration, in μg/L.

Lead

Mercury

Molybdenum

EXPLANATION

g.8_Hydrology

Kaibab Plateau

Kanab Plateau

Hermit

Mine

Pinenut

Mine

Milkweed Spring

Pigeon

Mine

Cataract

Canyon

Lees

Ferry

Havasu

Spring

HUALAPAI

RESERVATION

HAVASUPAI

RESERVATION

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Fern Spring

15

20

40

29

40

32

17

20

20

20

20

15

110

150

600

500 500

2.4

2.4

2.1

3.8

3.8 49

54 97

60

47

44

61

79

75

191

43.8

40.1

50.37 79.93

129.4

100.6

75.31

43.19

45.25

40.49

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00’

36°30'

36°00’

35°30'

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

UTAH

ARIZONA Virgin River

Base from U.S. Geological

Survey digital data, 100m, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, zone 12

Figure 8. Selected spring, stream, well, and sump sites from the historical dataset for northern Arizona, table 5, at 

which concentrations of lead and mercury exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level 

of 15 and 2 micrograms per liter, respectively, and molybdenum exceeds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health 

advisory level of 40 micrograms per liter.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 163

Table 6. Summary information about stream-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

site identifier

Site 

description

Longitude 

(NAD 83)

Latitude 

(NAD 83)

Number of 

samples

First

sample

date

Last

sample

date

Dissolved

uranium

average

concentration

(μg/L)

Standard

deviation 

of average

concentration

(μg/L)

Minimum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

minimum

concentration

sample

Maximum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

maximum

concentration

sample

Source

of data

43536 –113.309 35.885 1 7/18/1978 7/18/1978 2.1 na 2.1 7/18/1978 2.1 7/18/1978 USGS, 2009a

43538 –113.426 35.746 1 7/18/1978 7/18/1978 2.2 na 2.2 7/18/1978 2.2 7/18/1978 USGS, 2009a43540 –113.524 35.772 1 7/18/1978 7/18/1978 5.4 na 5.4 7/18/1978 5.4 7/18/1978 USGS, 2009a9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry –111.588 36.865 19 1/30/1996 8/11/1998 3.2 0.4 2.9 6/30/1998 4.0 4/1/1996 USGS, 2009b9382000 Paria River at Lees Ferry –111.595 36.872 3 6/27/2005 11/29/2005 3.7 0.5 3.3 8/24/2005 4.2 11/29/2005 USGS, 2009b9403000 Bright Angel Creek near 

Grand Canyon

–112.096 36.103 1 9/2/1981 9/2/1981 1.0 na 1.0 9/2/1981 1.0 9/2/1981 USGS, 2009b

9404200 Colorado River above Diamond 

Creek near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 78 11/21/1996 8/15/2007 3.6 0.5 2.7 10/31/2002 4.9 3/25/2004 USGS, 2009b

9404208 Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.368 35.765 1 5/26/1993 5/26/1993 10.0 na 10.0 5/26/1993 10.0 5/26/1993 USGS, 2009b

354555113222100 Diamond Creek above mouth 

at rm 225.7

–113.373 35.765 4 11/5/1990 11/6/1990 7.6 0.6 7.0 11/6/1990 8.3 11/6/1990 USGS, 2009b

360128111591501 Cottonwood Creek No. 1; lower 

Bright Angel (alluvium)

–111.987 36.023 2 5/25/2000 4/9/2001 1.5 0.1 1.5 5/25/2000 1.6 4/9/2001 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360415112060601 Pipe Creek; lower Bright 

Angel (alluvium)

–112.099 36.068 3 5/22/2000 4/8/2001 2.5 0.2 2.3 4/8/2001 2.7 5/22/2000 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360441112073202 Pumphouse Wash gage; 

middle Bright Angel (alluvium)

–112.126 36.076 1 12/7/2000 12/7/2000 1.8 na 1.8 12/7/2000 1.8 12/7/2000 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360450112083601 Horn Creek; middle Bright 

Angel (alluvium)

–112.143 36.079 3 5/22/2000 4/7/2001 15.7 11.7 8.6 5/22/2000 29.2 4/7/2001 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360455112111001 Monument Creek No. 1; 

Tapeats (alluvium)

–112.185 36.080 1 5/24/2000 5/24/2000 7.1 na 7.1 5/24/2000 7.1 5/24/2000 Monroe and 

others, 2005

361518112523900 National Canyon above mouth 

at rm 166.5 in Hualapai

–112.878 36.255 1 10/8/1993 10/8/1993 4.0 na 4.0 10/8/1993 4.0 10/8/1993 USGS, 2009b

361947112550200 Cottonwood Creek, north rim 

Grand Canyon

–112.917 36.330 2 5/26/2005 11/30/2005 4.9 0.1 4.8 5/26/2005 5.0 11/30/2005 USGS, 2009b

4A-W82 Diamond Creek (at mouth); 

Diamond Creek gravels

–113.371 35.766 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 6.9 na 6.9 6/1/1982 6.9 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

17A-W82 Travertine Falls; Vishnu Schist –113.426 35.751 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.9 na 2.9 6/1/1982 2.9 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

19A-W82 Lost Travertine Falls Spring; 

Tapeats Sandstone

–113.498 35.756 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 6.3 na 6.3 6/1/1982 6.3 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

20A-W82 1⁄4 mile below Bridge Canyon 

Spring; Vishnu Schist

–113.527 35.769 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 4.6 na 4.6 6/1/1982 4.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

23A-W82 Mouth of Spencer Canyon; 

Spencer Canyon gravels

–113.568 35.823 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.0 na 2.0 6/1/1982 2.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

27A-W82 Base of Columbine Falls—

1⁄2 mi from spring; Muav Limestone

–113.921 36.092 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.5 na 1.5 6/1/1982 1.5 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994
164 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 6. Summary information about stream-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date Dissolved uranium average concen- tration (μg/L) Standard deviation of average concen- tration (μg/L) Minimum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of minimum concen- tration sample Maximum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of maximum concen- tration sample Source of data 79A-W82 Hindu Canyon; Muav Limestone –113.580 35.703 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.8 na 1.8 6/1/1982 1.8 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Boulder Creek Tapeats Sandstone –112.010 36.027 1 6/3/1995 6/3/1995 8.1 na 8.1 6/3/1995 8.1 6/3/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Bright Angel Creek near mouth –112.087 36.101 8 6/18/1991 6/20/1991 0.5 0.0 0.5 6/18/1991 0.6 6/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Burro Down –112.100 36.077 3 6/4/2002 7/15/2002 4.2 0.3 3.8 7/15/2002 4.4 6/4/2002 Liebe, 2003 Colorado River above Diamond Creek –113.370 35.770 16 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 5.0 0.5 4.3 11/5/1990 5.8 6/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Colorado River above Havasu Creek –112.760 36.317 7 11/5/1990 11/6/1990 4.5 0.1 4.4 11/6/1990 4.6 11/6/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Colorado River above Kanab Creek –112.615 36.392 16 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 5.0 0.5 4.4 11/6/1990 5.6 6/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Colorado River above Little Colorado River –111.800 36.202 16 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 4.8 0.5 4.2 11/5/1990 5.5 6/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Colorado River at Grand Canyon –112.082 36.101 14 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 5.1 0.5 4.3 11/6/1990 5.8 11/6/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Colorado River at Lees Ferry –111.588 36.865 16 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 4.9 0.4 4.3 11/5/1990 5.5 6/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Colorado River at National Canyon –112.888 36.261 14 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 5.0 0.5 4.3 11/6/1990 5.8 6/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 100 5/6/1963 5/12/1972 6.5 2.2 2.6 12/27/1971 16.0 5/12/1972 USEPA, 1973 Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam –111.506 36.902 16 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 4.9 0.4 4.2 11/5/1990 5.4 6/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996

Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 8 11/5/1990 11/6/1990 4.6 0.1 4.4 11/6/1990 4.7 11/6/1990 Taylor and 

others, 1996

Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 8 6/18/1991 6/20/1991 5.4 0.3 4.8 6/19/1991 5.6 6/19/1991 Taylor and 

others, 1996

Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 12 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 7.1 0.8 5.9 11/5/1990 7.8 6/19/1991 Taylor and 

others, 1996

GCAA006R Metamorphic –113.901 36.765 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 87.0 na 87.0 5/6/1979 87.0 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAA026R Unconsolidated –113.909 36.815 1 5/9/1979 5/9/1979 26.2 na 26.2 5/9/1979 26.2 5/9/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBA014R Sandstone –113.767 36.735 1 5/7/1979 5/7/1979 11.3 na 11.3 5/7/1979 11.3 5/7/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBB004R Carbonate –113.738 36.729 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 89.0 na 89.0 5/12/1979 89.0 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBB014R Carbonate –113.664 36.511 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 44.2 na 44.2 5/12/1979 44.2 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBH032R Carbonate –112.136 36.510 1 5/19/1979 5/19/1979 0.1 na 0.1 5/19/1979 0.1 5/19/1979 USGS, 2009aHavasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 16 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 3.8 0.1 3.6 11/6/1990 4.0 11/5/1990 Taylor and 

others, 1996

Horn Down Contact, Redwall and 

Muav Limestones

–112.145 36.078 4 6/4/2002 7/29/2002 320.5 29.9 295.0 6/4/2002 362.0 7/29/2002 Liebe, 2003

Indian Garden CC –112.111 36.093 2 7/15/2002 7/29/2002 1.5 0.1 1.4 7/29/2002 1.6 7/15/2002 Liebe, 2003
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 165

Table 6. Summary information about stream-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

site identifier

Site 

description

Longitude 

(NAD 83)

Latitude 

(NAD 83)

Number of 

samples

First

sample

date

Last

sample

date

Dissolved

uranium

average

concentration

(μg/L)

Standard

deviation 

of average

concentration

(μg/L)

Minimum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

minimum

concentration

sample

Maximum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

maximum

concentration

sample

Source

of data

Indian Garden Down Contact, Redwall and 

Muav Limestones

–112.126 36.078 4 6/4/2002 7/29/2002 3.1 1.1 2.4 7/15/2002 4.7 7/29/2002 Liebe, 2003

Indian Garden 

Pump Station

–112.126 36.078 1 4/30/1994 4/30/1994 0.5 na 0.5 4/30/1994 0.5 4/30/1994 Fitzgerald, 1996

Indian Garden Up Contact, Redwall and 

Muav Limestones

–112.126 36.078 3 6/4/2002 7/15/2002 2.8 0.4 2.3 7/15/2002 3.1 6/4/2002 Liebe, 2003

KAN001W –112.563 36.658 1 3/15/1982 3/15/1982 1.5 na 1.5 3/15/1982 1.5 3/15/1982 Hopkins and 

others, 1984b

KAN002W –112.510 36.717 1 3/15/1982 3/15/1982 14.0 na 14.0 3/15/1982 14.0 3/15/1982 Hopkins and 

others, 1984b

KAN003W –112.509 36.724 1 3/15/1982 3/15/1982 44.0 na 44.0 3/15/1982 44.0 3/15/1982 Hopkins and 

others, 1984b

KAN004W –112.464 36.711 1 3/15/1982 3/15/1982 5.2 na 5.2 3/15/1982 5.2 3/15/1982 Hopkins and 

others, 1984b

KAN005W –112.572 36.684 1 3/15/1982 3/15/1982 15.0 na 15.0 3/15/1982 15.0 3/15/1982 Hopkins and 

others, 1984b

KAN006W –112.529 36.709 1 3/15/1982 3/15/1982 10.0 na 10.0 3/15/1982 10.0 3/15/1982 Hopkins and 

others, 1984b

Kanab Creek 

near mouth

–112.618 36.392 16 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 5.2 0.2 4.9 6/18/1991 5.5 11/6/1990 Taylor and 

others, 1996

Little Colorado 

River near mouth

–111.800 36.201 15 11/5/1990 6/19/1991 9.2 8.3 4.2 11/5/1990 25.6 11/6/1990 Taylor and 

others, 1996

Mixing confluence 

of Garden Creek & unnamed Tonto platform

–112.111 36.094 2 7/15/2002 7/29/2002 2.2 0.4 1.9 7/15/2002 2.4 7/29/2002 Liebe, 2003

Paria River 

near mouth

–111.593 36.861 15 11/5/1990 6/20/1991 3.5 1.1 2.3 6/18/1991 4.7 11/5/1990 Taylor and 

others, 1996

Pipe CC –112.102 36.085 2 7/15/2002 7/29/2002 21.0 2.8 19.0 7/15/2002 23.0 7/29/2002 Liebe, 2003Pipe Down Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 4 6/4/2002 7/29/2002 3.2 0.4 2.7 7/15/2002 3.6 6/4/2002 Liebe, 2003Salt Creek Tapeats Sandstone–Bright 

Angel Shale

–112.170 36.087 1 3/19/1995 3/19/1995 14.7 na 14.7 3/19/1995 14.7 3/19/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996
166 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date Dissolved uranium average concen- tration (μg/L) Standard deviation of average concen- tration (μg/L) Minimum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of minimum concen- tration sample Maximum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of maximum concen- tration sample Source of data 15139 –114.049 36.584 1 9/23/1977 9/23/1977 45.8 na 45.8 9/23/1977 45.8 9/23/1977 USGS, 2009a 15140 –114.058 36.581 1 9/23/1977 9/23/1977 89.7 na 89.7 9/23/1977 89.7 9/23/1977 USGS, 2009a 15141 –114.051 36.525 1 9/23/1977 9/23/1977 0.4 na 0.4 9/23/1977 0.4 9/23/1977 USGS, 2009a 15145 –114.025 36.551 1 9/23/1977 9/23/1977 0.4 na 0.4 9/23/1977 0.4 9/23/1977 USGS, 2009a 15204 –114.052 35.854 1 11/9/1977 11/9/1977 22.7 na 22.7 11/9/1977 22.7 11/9/1977 USGS, 2009a 15210 –114.009 35.822 1 11/16/1977 11/16/1977 36.9 na 36.9 11/16/1977 36.9 11/16/1977 USGS, 2009a 23002 –113.527 35.941 1 8/16/1977 8/16/1977 0.7 na 0.7 8/16/1977 0.7 8/16/1977 USGS, 2009a 23004 –113.994 35.879 1 8/24/1977 8/24/1977 30.8 na 30.8 8/24/1977 30.8 8/24/1977 USGS, 2009a 23005 –113.971 35.828 1 8/24/1977 8/24/1977 0.9 na 0.9 8/24/1977 0.9 8/24/1977 USGS, 2009a 23010 –113.706 35.618 1 8/30/1977 8/30/1977 1.3 na 1.3 8/30/1977 1.3 8/30/1977 USGS, 2009a 23012 –113.801 35.624 1 8/31/1977 8/31/1977 1.9 na 1.9 8/31/1977 1.9 8/31/1977 USGS, 2009a 23017 –113.403 35.518 1 9/1/1977 9/1/1977 0.9 na 0.9 9/1/1977 0.9 9/1/1977 USGS, 2009a 23019 –113.422 35.559 1 9/2/1977 9/2/1977 3.3 na 3.3 9/2/1977 3.3 9/2/1977 USGS, 2009a 23021 –113.177 35.934 1 9/3/1977 9/3/1977 2.0 na 2.0 9/3/1977 2.0 9/3/1977 USGS, 2009a 23025 –113.676 35.787 1 9/13/1977 9/13/1977 1.0 na 1.0 9/13/1977 1.0 9/13/1977 USGS, 2009a 23027 –113.579 35.714 1 9/14/1977 9/14/1977 0.4 na 0.4 9/14/1977 0.4 9/14/1977 USGS, 2009a 23028 –113.362 35.762 1 9/14/1977 9/14/1977 7.2 na 7.2 9/14/1977 7.2 9/14/1977 USGS, 2009a 23029 –113.440 35.593 1 9/14/1977 9/14/1977 1.1 na 1.1 9/14/1977 1.1 9/14/1977 USGS, 2009a 23030 –113.939 35.969 1 9/15/1977 9/15/1977 1.3 na 1.3 9/15/1977 1.3 9/15/1977 USGS, 2009a 23077 –112.524 35.950 1 10/17/1977 10/17/1977 3.1 na 3.1 10/17/1977 3.1 10/17/1977 USGS, 2009a 23078 –112.585 35.564 1 10/18/1977 10/18/1977 1.5 na 1.5 10/18/1977 1.5 10/18/1977 USGS, 2009a 23081 –112.687 35.641 1 10/19/1977 10/19/1977 1.8 na 1.8 10/19/1977 1.8 10/19/1977 USGS, 2009a 23168 –113.691 35.501 1 1/8/1978 1/8/1978 56.8 na 56.8 1/8/1978 56.8 1/8/1978 USGS, 2009a 23169 –113.702 35.492 1 1/8/1978 1/8/1978 51.0 na 51.0 1/8/1978 51.0 1/8/1978 USGS, 2009a 23172 –113.162 35.822 1 1/8/1978 1/8/1978 1.9 na 1.9 1/8/1978 1.9 1/8/1978 USGS, 2009a 353445113255000 Peach Springs –113.431 35.579 2 5/27/1993 11/19/1993 2.0 0 2.0 11/19/1993 2.0 11/19/1993 USGS, 2009b 353713113421800 Milkweed Spring –113.706 35.620 2 5/27/1993 12/10/1993 2.0 0 2.0 12/10/1993 2.0 12/10/1993 USGS, 2009b

354228113374300 Lower Milkweed Canyon –113.629 35.708 1 5/16/1993 5/16/1993 4.0 na 4.0 5/16/1993 4.0 5/16/1993 USGS, 2009b354248113153800 Diamond Spring –113.261 35.713 1 5/19/1993 5/19/1993 1.0 na 1.0 5/19/1993 1.0 5/19/1993 USGS, 2009b354250113343800 Hindu Spring –113.578 35.714 1 5/16/1993 5/16/1993 1.0 na 1.0 5/16/1993 1.0 5/16/1993 USGS, 2009b354311113135200 Diamond Creek –113.232 35.720 1 5/19/1993 5/19/1993 4.0 na 4.0 5/19/1993 4.0 5/19/1993 USGS, 2009b354346113520200 Clay (Middle) Spring –113.868 35.729 2 6/10/1993 11/18/1993 2.0 0 2.0 11/18/1993 2.0 11/18/1993 USGS, 2009b354406113263400 Travertine Canyon –113.444 35.735 1 5/15/1993 5/15/1993 2.0 na 2.0 5/15/1993 2.0 5/15/1993 USGS, 2009b354503113252600 Travertine Canyon above 

mouth at rm 229

–113.425 35.751 1 5/15/1993 5/15/1993 4.0 na 4.0 5/15/1993 4.0 5/15/1993 USGS, 2009b

354522113264800 Travertine Falls –113.447 35.756 1 5/15/1993 5/15/1993 11.0 na 11.0 5/15/1993 11.0 5/15/1993 USGS, 2009b354550113313400 Bridge Canyon –113.527 35.764 1 5/15/1993 5/15/1993 6.0 na 6.0 5/15/1993 6.0 5/15/1993 USGS, 2009b354711113403200 Meriwhitica Spring –113.676 35.786 1 5/16/1993 5/16/1993 2.0 na 2.0 5/16/1993 2.0 5/16/1993 USGS, 2009b354800113390800 –113.653 35.800 1 5/16/1993 5/16/1993 2.0 na 2.0 5/16/1993 2.0 5/16/1993 USGS, 2009b354815113192000 222 Mile Canyon –113.323 35.804 1 10/15/1993 10/15/1993 29.0 na 29.0 10/15/1993 29.0 10/15/1993 USGS, 2009b354855113183300 Granite Spring Canyon –113.310 35.815 1 5/19/1993 5/19/1993 1.0 na 1.0 5/19/1993 1.0 5/19/1993 USGS, 2009b354923114001000 Ray Place Right Fork –114.004 35.823 2 6/9/1993 12/9/1993 19.5 0.7 19.0 6/9/1993 20.0 12/9/1993 USGS, 2009b354924114001200 Ray Place Left Fork –114.004 35.823 1 6/9/1993 6/9/1993 32.0 na 32.0 6/9/1993 32.0 6/9/1993 USGS, 2009b354942113581500 Hillside Spring –113.972 35.828 1 6/9/1993 6/9/1993 0.5 na 0.5 6/9/1993 0.5 6/9/1993 USGS, 2009b354944113592300 Iron Spring –113.991 35.829 1 6/10/1993 6/10/1993 25.0 na 25.0 6/10/1993 25.0 6/10/1993 USGS, 2009b355052113591900 Mud Spring –113.989 35.848 1 6/11/1993 6/11/1993 15.0 na 15.0 6/11/1993 15.0 6/11/1993 USGS, 2009b
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 167

Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date

Dissolved 

uranium

average

concentration

(μg/L)

Standard

deviation

of average

concentration

(μg/L)

Minimum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

minimum

concentration

sample

Maximum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

maximum

concentration

sample

Source

of data

355111113462300 Horse Flat Canyon –113.774 35.853 1 5/17/1993 5/17/1993 1.0 na 1.0 5/17/1993 1.0 5/17/1993 USGS, 2009b355124113404000 Clay Tank Canyon –113.679 35.857 1 5/17/1993 5/17/1993 3.0 na 3.0 5/17/1993 3.0 5/17/1993 USGS, 2009b355308113182600 Three Springs Canyon above 

the mouth

–113.308 35.886 1 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 2.0 na 2.0 10/14/1993 2.0 10/14/1993 USGS, 2009b

355502113195900 Pumpkin Spring at rm 213 –113.334 35.917 1 10/13/1993 10/13/1993 17.0 na 17.0 10/13/1993 17.0 10/13/1993 USGS, 2009b355748113454500 Quartermaster Canyon above 

the mouth

–113.763 35.963 1 5/17/1993 5/17/1993 2.0 na 2.0 5/17/1993 2.0 5/17/1993 USGS, 2009b

355750113183600 Granite Park Spring –113.311 35.964 1 10/13/1993 10/13/1993 4.0 na 4.0 10/13/1993 4.0 10/13/1993 USGS, 2009b355807113561800 New Water Spring –113.939 35.969 2 6/11/1993 11/17/1993 2.0 0 2.0 11/17/1993 2.0 11/17/1993 USGS, 2009b355959113122700 Big Spring –113.208 36.000 1 5/20/1993 5/20/1993 4.0 na 4.0 5/20/1993 4.0 5/20/1993 USGS, 2009b360020111560401 Red Canyon Spring; upper 

Bright Angel near Muav contact (bedrock)

–111.934 36.004 1 9/26/2001 9/26/2001 1.7 na 1.7 9/26/2001 1.7 9/26/2001 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360025111571501 JT Spring (Hance Spring; upper 

Bright Angel near Muav contact (bedrock)

–111.951 36.002 2 4/8/2001 5/11/2001 3.8 0.4 3.5 4/8/2001 4.1 5/11/2001 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360059111581700 Miners Spring at train in 

Hance Canyon

–111.972 36.016 1 11/20/1981 11/20/1981 3.9 na 3.9 11/20/1981 3.9 11/20/1981 USGS, 2009b

360100111582001 Miners Spring; upper 

Bright Angel near Muav contact (bedrock)

–111.971 36.015 3 5/24/2000 4/7/2001 3.3 0.2 3.1 5/24/2000 3.5 11/28/2000 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360128111591502 Cottonwood Creek No. 2 

(Cottonwood Spring); middle Bright Angel (alluvium)

–111.990 36.017 1 11/29/2000 11/29/2000 1.6 na 1.6 11/29/2000 1.6 11/29/2000 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360232112004801 Grapevine East Spring; lower 

Bright Angel (bedrock)

–112.012 36.040 3 5/25/2000 4/9/2001 5.8 3.3 2.1 5/25/2000 8.3 11/29/2000 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360232112004802 Grapevine Main Spring; 

upper Bright Angel near Muav contact (bedrock)

–112.003 36.009 2 4/10/2001 4/30/2001 1.1 0.0 1.1 4/10/2001 1.1 4/30/2001 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360336112131801 Hermit Spring –112.222 36.060 4 6/20/2005 12/30/2005 4.7 0.4 4.4 12/30/2005 5.3 6/20/2005 USGS, 2009b360400112025001 Lonetree Spring; upper 

Bright Angel near Muav contact (bedrock)

–112.047 36.065 2 4/11/2001 5/1/2001 6.0 0.0 6.0 4/11/2001 6.0 5/1/2001 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360411112141701 Boucher East Spring; upper 

Tapeats (travertine dome)

–112.237 36.101 3 5/26/2000 4/12/2001 1.9 0.1 1.8 12/4/2000 1.9 5/26/2000 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360417112130701 Hawaii Spring; middle Bright 

Angel (bedrock)

–112.218 36.069 3 5/25/2000 4/11/2001 1.9 0.0 1.9 12/4/2000 2.0 4/11/2001 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360417112130702 Hermit Spring; lower 

Muav near Bright Angel contact (bedrock)

–112.225 36.061 2 12/4/2000 4/11/2001 2.0 0.1 2.0 12/4/2000 2.1 4/11/2001 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360435113104700 Ridenour Mine –113.180 36.076 1 5/20/1993 5/20/1993 8.0 na 8.0 5/20/1993 8.0 5/20/1993 USGS, 2009b360436112060401 Burro Spring; lower Bright 

Angel (alluvium)

–112.100 36.075 3 5/22/2000 4/8/2001 2.5 0.1 2.4 4/8/2001 2.7 12/7/2000 Monroe and 

others, 2005

360437112060210 Burro Spring at Tonto Trail –112.101 36.077 1 9/1/1981 9/1/1981 2.6 na 2.6 9/1/1981 2.6 9/1/1981 USGS, 2009b
168 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date Dissolved uranium average concen- tration (μg/L) Standard deviation of average concen- tration (μg/L) Minimum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of minimum concen- tration sample Maximum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of maximum concen- tration sample Source of data 360439112094101 Salt Creek Spring; upper Bright Angel (bedrock) –112.161 36.075 3 5/23/2000 4/10/2001 30.2 1.0 29.3 4/10/2001 31.2 12/6/2000 Monroe and others, 2005 360441112073201 Pumphouse Spring; middle Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.125 36.076 3 5/22/2000 4/7/2001 1.8 0.1 1.7 5/22/2000 1.9 12/7/2000 Monroe and others, 2005 360455112111002 Monument Spring; lower Muav near Bright Angel contact (bedrock) –112.176 36.064 2 12/5/2000 4/9/2001 7.2 0.1 7.1 12/5/2000 7.3 4/9/2001 Monroe and others, 2005 360957113080200 Beecher Spring –113.135 36.166 1 10/11/1993 10/11/1993 2.0 na 2.0 10/11/1993 2.0 10/11/1993 USGS, 2009b 361025113071100 Artesian Spring at rm 182 –113.120 36.174 1 10/11/1993 10/11/1993 5.0 na 5.0 10/11/1993 5.0 10/11/1993 USGS, 2009b 361143112270500 Royal Arch Creek at mouth at Elves Chasm –112.452 36.195 1 11/19/1981 11/19/1981 3.5 na 3.5 11/19/1981 3.5 11/19/1981 USGS, 2009b 361148113045900 Warm Spring –113.084 36.197 1 10/10/1993 10/10/1993 5.0 na 5.0 10/10/1993 5.0 10/10/1993 USGS, 2009b 361237113025700 Honga above the mouth –113.050 36.210 1 10/10/1993 10/10/1993 13.0 na 13.0 10/10/1993 13.0 10/10/1993 USGS, 2009b 361303112411200 Havasu Spring –112.687 36.217 1 8/23/1994 8/23/1994 4.0 na 4.0 8/23/1994 4.0 8/23/1994 USGS, 2009b 361310112580400 Mohawk Canyon –112.969 36.219 1 10/9/1993 10/9/1993 12.0 na 12.0 10/9/1993 12.0 10/9/1993 USGS, 2009b 361344113032001 Saddle Horse Spring –113.056 36.229 3 5/24/2005 12/1/2005 0.5 0.0 0.5 9/8/2005 0.6 12/1/2005 USGS, 2009b 361524112420400 Fern Spring –112.702 36.257 1 8/24/1994 8/24/1994 4.0 na 4.0 8/24/1994 4.0 8/24/1994 USGS, 2009b 361650112052001 Robbers Roost Spring –112.089 36.281 3 5/27/2005 10/25/2005 0.3 0.2 0.1 5/27/2005 0.5 10/25/2005 USGS, 2009b 362143112551201 Schmutz Spring –112.920 36.362 5 5/26/2005 8/25/2009 4.7 0.8 4.1 8/25/2009 6.0 5/26/2005 USGS, 2009b 362157112451601 Hotel Spring –112.754 36.366 3 5/23/2005 8/25/2009 3.2 0.8 2.6 8/25/2009 4.2 11/29/2005 USGS, 2009b 362258112464701 Buckhorn Spring –112.780 36.383 2 5/23/2005 11/29/2005 10.5 0.2 10.3 5/23/2005 10.6 11/29/2005 USGS, 2009b 362434111533601 –111.893 36.409 1 8/23/2009 8/23/2009 2.8 na 2.8 8/23/2009 2.8 8/23/2009 USGS, 2009b 362702112394701 –112.663 36.451 1 8/26/2009 8/26/2009 7.2 na 7.2 8/26/2009 7.2 8/26/2009 USGS, 2009b 362723112382801 Showerbath Spring –112.641 36.456 1 8/26/2009 8/26/2009 4.2 na 4.2 8/26/2009 4.2 8/26/2009 USGS, 2009b 362802112374601 –112.629 36.467 2 8/26/2009 8/26/2009 4.9 0.4 4.6 8/26/2009 5.2 8/26/2009 USGS, 2009b 362827111504101 –111.845 36.474 1 8/21/2009 8/21/2009 0.6 na 0.6 8/21/2009 0.6 8/21/2009 USGS, 2009b 362831111504401 Hole-in-the-Wall Spring –111.846 36.475 1 8/22/2009 8/22/2009 0.6 na 0.6 8/22/2009 0.6 8/22/2009 USGS, 2009b

363115112342601 –112.574 36.521 1 9/1/2009 9/1/2009 7.8 na 7.8 9/1/2009 7.8 9/1/2009 USGS, 2009b363123111503101 Fence Spring –111.842 36.523 1 8/20/2009 8/20/2009 1.4 na 1.4 8/20/2009 1.4 8/20/2009 USGS, 2009b363209112350801 Lower Jumpup Spring –112.586 36.536 1 8/28/2009 8/28/2009 7.2 na 7.2 8/28/2009 7.2 8/28/2009 USGS, 2009b363357112440801 Willow –112.736 36.566 1 8/26/2009 8/26/2009 19.6 na 19.6 8/26/2009 19.6 8/26/2009 USGS, 2009b363450112325001 Upper Jumpup Spring –112.547 36.581 1 8/27/2009 8/27/2009 3.7 na 3.7 8/27/2009 3.7 8/27/2009 USGS, 2009b363907111471701 Rider Spring –111.788 36.652 1 8/25/2009 8/25/2009 4.5 na 4.5 8/25/2009 4.5 8/25/2009 USGS, 2009b363922112334501 –112.563 36.656 1 8/27/2009 8/27/2009 2.3 na 2.3 8/27/2009 2.3 8/27/2009 USGS, 2009b10A–W82 Upper Pine Spring; 

Kaibab Limestone

–113.114 35.842 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.6 na 1.6 6/1/1982 1.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

11A–W82 Unnamed spring 1⁄3 mi from 

Pine Tank; Kaibab Limestone

–113.104 35.840 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.4 na 1.4 6/1/1982 1.4 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

12A–W82 Pine Spring; Tertiary Frazier 

Well (gravels)

–113.099 35.837 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.8 na 1.8 6/1/1982 1.8 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

15A–W82 Pocomate Springs; 

Coconino Sandstone

–113.162 35.822 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.0 na 2.0 6/1/1982 2.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

18A–W82 Travertine Falls Spring; 

Precambrian granite

–113.448 35.756 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 9.5 na 9.5 6/1/1982 9.5 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

1A–W82 Red Spring; Muav Limestone –113.423 35.559 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 3.6 na 3.6 6/1/1982 3.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 169

Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date

Dissolved 

uranium

average

concentration

(μg/L)

Standard

deviation

of average

concentration

(μg/L)

Minimum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

minimum

concentration

sample

Maximum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

maximum

concentration

sample

Source

of data

21A–W82 Seep south of Separation 

Canyon; Precambrian granite

–113.567 35.808 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 18.0 na 18.0 6/1/1982 18.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

22A–W82 Seep south of Separation 

Canyon; Precambrian granite

–113.568 35.808 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 28.0 na 28.0 6/1/1982 28.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

24A–W82 Quartermaster Springs NE; 

Travertine

–113.766 35.959 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.3 na 1.3 6/1/1982 1.3 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

25A–W82 Quartermaster Springs SW; 

Travertine

–113.767 35.956 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.4 na 1.4 6/1/1982 1.4 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

26A–W82 Rampart Springs; 

Muav Limestone

–113.110 36.145 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.6 na 1.6 6/1/1982 1.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

28A–W82 Diamond Creek Spring 

(Upper Diamond Spring); Redwall Limestone

–113.232 35.720 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 0.2 na 0.2 6/1/1982 0.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

29A–W82 Hells Hollow Spring; 

Esplanade Sandstone

–113.110 36.145 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 0.9 na 0.9 6/1/1982 0.9 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

2A–W82 Peach Springs; 

Muav Limestone

–113.431 35.578 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.6 na 1.6 6/1/1982 1.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

30A&B–W82 Beecher Spring; HermitEsplanade contact –113.179 36.076 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 9.0 0.8 8.4 6/1/1982 9.5 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 199431A&B–W82 Surprise Springs; 

Redwall Limestone

–113.402 35.519 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.1 0.1 1.0 6/1/1982 1.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

32A–W82 Spencer Springs; Muav 

Limestone & Spencer Canyon (gravels)

–113.651 35.783 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.8 na 2.8 6/1/1982 2.8 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

33A&B–W82 Meriwhitica Springs; 

Muav Limestone

–113.676 35.786 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.2 0.0 1.2 6/1/1982 1.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

34A&B–W82 Hockey Puck Spring; contact 

of Hermit Shale and Coconino Sandstone

–113.176 35.934 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.2 0.1 2.1 6/1/1982 2.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

35A–W82 Red Spring; 

Coconino Sandstone

–113.024 36.071 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.7 na 1.7 6/1/1982 1.7 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

362837111504201

& CF-3

Redwall Limestone; rm 34.2 –111.846 36.477 2 4/29/1976 8/22/2009 0.6 0.1 0.5 4/29/1976 0.6 8/22/2009 USGS, 2009b and 

Peterson and others, 1977

362957111512600

& CF1

Vasey’s Paradise, rm 31.9; 

Redwall Limestone

–111.858 36.499 2 4/29/1976 11/20/1981 1.2 0.9 0.5 4/29/1976 1.8 11/20/1981 USGS, 2009b and 

Peterson and others, 1977

36A–W82 Moss Spring; 

Coconino Sandstone

–113.028 36.062 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.1 na 1.1 6/1/1982 1.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

37A–W82 Big Spring; 

Coconino Sandstone

–113.207 36.000 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.6 na 2.6 6/1/1982 2.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

38A–W82 Unnamed Spring; Music 

Mountain Formation(conglomerate)

–113.678 35.670 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.6 na 1.6 6/1/1982 1.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994
170 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date Dissolved uranium average concen- tration (μg/L) Standard deviation of average concen- tration (μg/L) Minimum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of minimum concen- tration sample Maximum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of maximum concen- tration sample Source of data 39A&B–W82 Willow Spring; Hualapai volcanic rocks –113.699 35.651 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.4 0.1 1.3 6/1/1982 1.5 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 3A–W82 Lower Peach Springs; Muav Limestone –113.440 35.592 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.6 na 2.6 6/1/1982 2.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 41A&B–W82 West Water Spring (upper); Hualapai volcanic rocks –113.727 35.618 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.0 0.1 0.9 6/1/1982 1.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 42A–W82 Unnamed spring; Music Mountain (conglomerate) –113.690 35.637 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.2 na 1.2 6/1/1982 1.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 43A–W82 Lower Milkweed Spring; Bright Angel Shale –113.673 35.653 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.1 na 2.1 6/1/1982 2.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 44A–W82 Lower West Water Spring; Music Mountain (conglomerate) –113.695 35.645 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.0 na 1.0 6/1/1982 1.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 47A&B–W82 Horse Trough Spring; Muav Limestone –113.619 35.550 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.5 0.1 1.4 6/1/1982 1.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 49A–W82 Horsehair Spring; Wescogame Formation –112.916 36.157 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 13.0 na 13.0 6/1/1982 13.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 50A–W82 Mohawk Spring; Muav Limestone –112.971 36.213 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 12.0 na 12.0 6/1/1982 12.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 51A–W82 National Canyon Spring; Redwall Limestone –112.879 36.213 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 8.0 na 8.0 6/1/1982 8.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 53A–W82 East Diamond Spring; Muav Limestone –113.255 35.719 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.1 na 1.1 6/1/1982 1.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 54A–W82 Milkweed Spring; Hualapai volcanic rocks –113.706 35.618 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.3 na 2.3 6/1/1982 2.3 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 55A–W82 Clay Springs; Muav Limestone –113.868 35.731 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.7 na 1.7 6/1/1982 1.7 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994

58A–W82 Diamond Spring; 

Muav Limestone

–113.261 35.713 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.2 na 1.2 6/1/1982 1.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

59A–W82 Reference Point Spring; 

Precambrian granite

–113.732 35.882 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.8 na 2.8 6/1/1982 2.8 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

5A–W82 Rocky Spring; Bright 

Angel Shale

–113.364 35.749 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 28.0 na 28.0 6/1/1982 28.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

60A–W82 Wild Horse Spring; Bright 

Angel Shale

–113.645 35.711 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.1 na 1.1 6/1/1982 1.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

61A–W82 Hindu Spring; 

Muav Limestone

–113.585 35.697 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.4 na 1.4 6/1/1982 1.4 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

62A–W82 Blue Mtn Seep; Bright 

Angel Shale

–113.293 35.697 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.1 na 2.1 6/1/1982 2.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

63A–W82 Lost Creek Spring; contact 

between Precambrian granite and Tapeats Sandstone

–113.677 35.857 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.1 na 2.1 6/1/1982 2.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

64A–W82 Unnamed spring in Milkweed 

Canyon; Precambrian granite

–113.657 35.681 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 3.0 na 3.0 6/1/1982 3.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

65A–W82 Sheep Spring; Temple 

Butte Formation

–113.826 35.848 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.6 na 2.6 6/1/1982 2.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 171

Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date

Dissolved 

uranium

average

concentration

(μg/L)

Standard

deviation

of average

concentration

(μg/L)

Minimum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

minimum

concentration

sample

Maximum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

maximum

concentration

sample

Source

of data

66A–W82 Unnamed spring in Milkweed 

Canyon; Bright Angel Shale

–113.640 35.984 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.0 na 2.0 6/1/1982 2.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

67A–W82 Robbers Roost Spring; 

Vishnu Schist

–113.296 35.718 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 21.0 na 21.0 6/1/1982 21.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

68A–W82 Unnamed spring in Milkweed 

Canyon; Precambrian granite

–113.655 35.680 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 3.2 na 3.2 6/1/1982 3.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

69A–W82 Hindu Seep; Muav Limestone –113.603 35.704 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.3 na 1.3 6/1/1982 1.3 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

6A–W82 Mesquite Spring; Bright Angel 

Shale in landslide block adjacent to Hurricane fault

–113.422 35.670 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 21.0 na 21.0 6/1/1982 21.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

70A–W82 Buck and Doe Spring; Bright 

Angel Shale

–113.647 35.676 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.0 na 1.0 6/1/1982 1.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

71A–W82 Tilted Spring; 

Tapeats Sandstone

–113.628 35.706 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.8 na 2.8 6/1/1982 2.8 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

72A–W82 Metuck Springs; 

Muav Limestone

–113.383 35.647 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 0.8 na 0.8 6/1/1982 0.8 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

74A&B–W82 Dewey Mahone Spring; 

Vishnu Schist

–113.629 35.506 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 12.0 0.0 12.0 6/1/1982 12.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

75A–W82 Warm Springs; 

Muav Limestone

–113.082 36.197 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 5.4 na 5.4 6/1/1982 5.4 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

76A–W82 Lava Falls (by cliff); 

Muav Limestone

–113.081 36.196 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 5.2 na 5.2 6/1/1982 5.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

77A–W82 Pumpkin Spring; 

Tapeats Sandstone

–113.333 35.917 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 12.0 na 12.0 6/1/1982 12.0 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

78A&B–W82 Three Springs; 

Muav Limestone

–113.294 35.886 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.7 0.1 1.6 6/1/1982 1.8 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

7A–W82 Mulberry Spring; 

Muav Limestone

–113.403 35.612 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 3.1 na 3.1 6/1/1982 3.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

8A–W82 Pocomate Springs; 

Coconino Sandstone

–113.160 35.824 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.5 na 1.5 6/1/1982 1.5 6/1/1982 Wenrich and 

others, 1994

Berts Canyon Muav Limestone –111.886 36.398 1 5/11/1998 5/11/1998 1.4 na 1.4 5/11/1998 1.4 5/11/1998 Taylor and others, 2004Blue Spring –111.693 36.117 5 5/16/1985 5/28/1987 5.4 1.3 4.0 5/28/1987 7.0 5/16/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Burro Spring Bright Angel ShaleMuav Limestone –112.102 36.084 1 4/29/1994 4/29/1994 3.4 na 3.4 4/29/1994 3.4 4/29/1994 Fitzgerald, 1996Burro Up –112.100 36.077 4 6/4/2002 7/29/2002 3.5 0.6 2.7 7/15/2002 4.1 6/4/2002 Liebe, 2003CDDC503R Shale –113.413 37.008 1 6/19/1980 6/19/1980 0.0 na 0.0 6/19/1980 0.0 6/19/1980 USGS, 2009aCedar Spring Tapeats Sandstone–Bright 

Angel Shale

–112.152 36.088 1 3/18/1995 3/18/1995 18.0 na 18.0 3/18/1995 18.0 3/18/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996

CF–10 Muav Limestone; rm 147.9 –112.672 36.346 1 5/7/1976 5/7/1976 6.4 na 6.4 5/7/1976 6.4 5/7/1976 Peterson and 

others, 1977

CF–11 Muav Limestone; rm 151.5 –112.725 36.346 1 5/7/1976 5/7/1976 8.5 na 8.5 5/7/1976 8.5 5/7/1976 Peterson and 

others, 1977
172 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date Dissolved uranium average concen- tration (μg/L) Standard deviation of average concen- tration (μg/L) Minimum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of minimum concen- tration sample Maximum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of maximum concen- tration sample Source of data CF–14 Fern Glen Canyon; Muav Limestone; rm 168 –112.918 36.262 1 5/8/1976 5/8/1976 3.6 na 3.6 5/8/1976 3.6 5/8/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 CF–15 Lava Falls; Muav Limestone; rm 179.3 –113.084 36.194 1 5/9/1976 5/9/1976 3.5 na 3.5 5/9/1976 3.5 5/9/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 CF–16 Pumpkin Spring; Tapeats Sandstone; rm 212.9 –113.334 35.916 1 5/11/1976 5/11/1976 7.1 na 7.1 5/11/1976 7.1 5/11/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 Cottonwood Spring Bright Angel Shale– Muav Limestone –111.992 36.025 1 5/12/1995 5/12/1995 2.1 na 2.1 5/12/1995 2.1 5/12/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Cottonwood West Spring Tapeats Sandstone–Bright Angel Shale –111.992 36.025 1 5/13/1995 5/13/1995 5.7 na 5.7 5/13/1995 5.7 5/13/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Cove Canyon Muav Limestone –113.015 36.246 1 5/19/1998 5/19/1998 11.0 na 11.0 5/19/1998 11.0 5/19/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Dripping Spring Hermit Shale–Coconino Sandstone contact –112.255 36.077 1 3/17/1995 3/17/1995 2.4 na 2.4 3/17/1995 2.4 3/17/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Elves Chasm Muav Limestone –112.454 36.189 1 5/15/1998 5/15/1998 3.1 na 3.1 5/15/1998 3.1 5/15/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Fern Glen Muav Limestone –112.918 36.262 1 5/19/1998 5/19/1998 18.0 na 18.0 5/19/1998 18.0 5/19/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Four Mile Spring (Below Dam) –111.507 36.875 2 3/2/1995 5/1/1995 1.0 0.1 0.9 5/1/1995 1.0 3/2/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Frog Marsh Spring (Below Dam) –111.557 36.846 2 3/2/1995 5/1/1995 0.6 0.0 0.6 5/1/1995 0.6 3/2/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 GCAA501R Carbonate –113.891 36.763 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 17.7 na 17.7 5/6/1979 17.7 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009a GCAA502R Metamorphic –113.852 36.772 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 3.9 na 3.9 5/6/1979 3.9 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009a GCAA503R Carbonate –113.916 36.896 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 32.0 na 32.0 5/10/1979 32.0 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009a GCAA504R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.798 36.770 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 0.0 na 0.0 5/6/1979 0.0 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009a GCAA505R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.790 36.804 1 5/11/1979 5/11/1979 0.2 na 0.2 5/11/1979 0.2 5/11/1979 USGS, 2009a GCAB501R Carbonate –113.670 36.835 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 0.1 na 0.1 5/8/1979 0.1 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009a GCAB502R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.741 36.810 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 0.5 na 0.5 5/8/1979 0.5 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009a

GCAB503R Sandstone –113.589 36.767 1 5/9/1979 5/9/1979 0.9 na 0.9 5/9/1979 0.9 5/9/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAB504R Other –113.628 36.757 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 5.5 na 5.5 5/10/1979 5.5 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAB505R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.724 36.776 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 1.6 na 1.6 5/10/1979 1.6 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAB506R Sandstone –113.706 36.763 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 6.6 na 6.6 5/10/1979 6.6 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAC501R Sandstone –113.356 36.946 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 22.2 na 22.2 5/6/1979 22.2 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAC503R Other –113.313 36.895 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 7.0 na 7.0 5/10/1979 7.0 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD503R Sandstone –113.056 36.948 1 5/7/1979 5/7/1979 1.2 na 1.2 5/7/1979 1.2 5/7/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD513R –113.124 36.931 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 16.7 na 16.7 5/10/1979 16.7 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE503R –112.828 36.933 1 5/13/1979 5/13/1979 0.1 na 0.1 5/13/1979 0.1 5/13/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE508R Sandstone –112.762 36.909 1 5/14/1979 5/14/1979 0.4 na 0.4 5/14/1979 0.4 5/14/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE509R Sandstone –112.921 36.990 1 5/14/1979 5/14/1979 0.4 na 0.4 5/14/1979 0.4 5/14/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE511R Carbonate –112.847 36.782 1 5/15/1979 5/15/1979 1.6 na 1.6 5/15/1979 1.6 5/15/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE515R Sandstone –112.777 36.956 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 0.0 na 0.0 5/16/1979 0.0 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE516R Sandstone –112.783 36.995 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 0.0 na 0.0 5/16/1979 0.0 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE517R –112.781 36.881 1 5/17/1979 5/17/1979 249.6 na 249.6 5/17/1979 249.6 5/17/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAF502R Clastics—coarse –112.576 36.962 1 5/14/1979 5/14/1979 8.9 na 8.9 5/14/1979 8.9 5/14/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAF503R Sandstone –112.689 36.984 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 1.3 na 1.3 5/16/1979 1.3 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAF504R Sandstone –112.723 36.921 1 5/17/1979 5/17/1979 25.1 na 25.1 5/17/1979 25.1 5/17/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAG501R Shale –112.324 36.990 1 5/14/1979 5/14/1979 47.3 na 47.3 5/14/1979 47.3 5/14/1979 USGS, 2009a
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 173

Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date

Dissolved 

uranium

average

concentration

(μg/L)

Standard

deviation

of average

concentration

(μg/L)

Minimum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

minimum

concentration

sample

Maximum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

maximum

concentration

sample

Source

of data

GCAH501R Carbonate –112.034 36.952 1 5/19/1979 5/19/1979 0.8 na 0.8 5/19/1979 0.8 5/19/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAH502R Sandstone –112.055 36.823 1 5/18/1979 5/18/1979 5.1 na 5.1 5/18/1979 5.1 5/18/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBA503R Sandstone –113.783 36.653 1 5/9/1979 5/9/1979 0.2 na 0.2 5/9/1979 0.2 5/9/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBA504R –113.997 36.551 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 17.6 na 17.6 5/10/1979 17.6 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBB501R Sandstone –113.736 36.669 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 1.4 na 1.4 5/12/1979 1.4 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBB502R Sandstone –113.742 36.597 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 1.0 na 1.0 5/12/1979 1.0 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBB503R Sandstone –113.715 36.524 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 0.9 na 0.9 5/12/1979 0.9 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBE501R Sandstone –112.943 36.728 1 5/13/1979 5/13/1979 31.4 na 31.4 5/13/1979 31.4 5/13/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBG501R Sandstone –112.348 36.602 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 0.4 na 0.4 5/12/1979 0.4 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBG502R Sandstone –112.346 36.625 1 5/14/1979 5/14/1979 1.0 na 1.0 5/14/1979 1.0 5/14/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBG503R Sandstone –112.312 36.695 1 5/15/1979 5/15/1979 0.7 na 0.7 5/15/1979 0.7 5/15/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBG504R Sandstone –112.342 36.586 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 0.6 na 0.6 5/16/1979 0.6 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBH501R Sandstone –112.045 36.586 1 5/19/1979 5/19/1979 0.8 na 0.8 5/19/1979 0.8 5/19/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCA501R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.973 36.325 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 2.9 na 2.9 5/16/1979 2.9 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCA504R Clastic rocks—coarse –113.973 36.378 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 13.0 na 13.0 5/16/1979 13.0 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCA506R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.957 36.416 1 5/15/1979 5/15/1979 1.7 na 1.7 5/15/1979 1.7 5/15/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCB501R Carbonate –113.664 36.294 1 5/17/1979 5/17/1979 1.8 na 1.8 5/17/1979 1.8 5/17/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCB502R Sandstone –113.687 36.300 1 5/17/1979 5/17/1979 1.9 na 1.9 5/17/1979 1.9 5/17/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCC501R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.463 36.383 1 5/14/1979 5/14/1979 4.2 na 4.2 5/14/1979 4.2 5/14/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCC502R Carbonate –113.479 36.267 1 5/17/1979 5/17/1979 13.6 na 13.6 5/17/1979 13.6 5/17/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCC503R Carbonate –113.262 36.374 1 5/18/1979 5/18/1979 1.5 na 1.5 5/18/1979 1.5 5/18/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCD501R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.152 36.392 1 5/15/1979 5/15/1979 0.1 na 0.1 5/15/1979 0.1 5/15/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCD502R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.191 36.336 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 1.1 na 1.1 5/16/1979 1.1 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCDD501R Coconino Sandstone –113.067 36.126 1 5/27/1979 5/27/1979 1.0 na 1.0 5/27/1979 1.0 5/27/1979 USGS, 2009aGrapevine East Spring Bright Angel Shale –112.023 36.049 1 5/13/1995 5/13/1995 3.0 na 3.0 5/13/1995 3.0 5/13/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996Grapevine Spring Bright Angel ShaleMuav Limestone –112.022 36.028 1 5/13/1995 5/13/1995 2.2 na 2.2 5/13/1995 2.2 5/13/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996Grapevine Hell Spring Bright Angel Shale –112.022 36.028 1 5/13/1995 5/13/1995 8.3 na 8.3 5/13/1995 8.3 5/13/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996GW021W –113.692 36.465 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 1.2 na 1.2 3/15/1981 1.2 3/15/1981 Hopkins and 

others, 1984a

GW022W –113.691 36.479 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 1.1 na 1.1 3/15/1981 1.1 3/15/1981 Hopkins and 

others, 1984a

GW023W –113.754 36.504 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 0.2 na 0.2 3/15/1981 0.2 3/15/1981 Hopkins and 

others, 1984a

GW024W –113.710 36.499 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 1.2 na 1.2 3/15/1981 1.2 3/15/1981 Hopkins and 

others, 1984a

GW025W –113.554 36.225 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 2.8 na 2.8 3/15/1981 2.8 3/15/1981 Hopkins and 

others, 1984a

GW026W –113.559 36.231 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 4.8 na 4.8 3/15/1981 4.8 3/15/1981 Hopkins and 

others, 1984a

GW027W –113.744 36.178 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 2.2 na 2.2 3/15/1981 2.2 3/15/1981 Hopkins and 

others, 1984a

GW028W –113.688 36.300 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 2.4 na 2.4 3/15/1981 2.4 3/15/1981 Hopkins and 

others, 1984a
174 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date Dissolved uranium average concen- tration (μg/L) Standard deviation of average concen- tration (μg/L) Minimum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of minimum concen- tration sample Maximum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of maximum concen- tration sample Source of data GW028WA –113.488 36.145 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 0.2 na 0.2 3/15/1981 0.2 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW029W –113.456 36.193 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 2.8 na 2.8 3/15/1981 2.8 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW030W –113.441 36.201 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 1.9 na 1.9 3/15/1981 1.9 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW031W –113.536 36.224 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 0.2 na 0.2 3/15/1981 0.2 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW032W –113.501 36.247 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 2.6 na 2.6 3/15/1981 2.6 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW033W –113.701 36.219 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 0.2 na 0.2 3/15/1981 0.2 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW034W –113.480 36.267 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 5.8 na 5.8 3/15/1981 5.8 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW035W –113.664 36.292 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 2.2 na 2.2 3/15/1981 2.2 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW036W –113.739 36.191 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 0.4 na 0.4 3/15/1981 0.4 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW037W –113.694 36.311 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 2.4 na 2.4 3/15/1981 2.4 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a GW038W –113.701 36.502 1 3/15/1981 3/15/1981 0.5 na 0.5 3/15/1981 0.5 3/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Hance Rapid Spring Precambrian quartzite/schist –111.923 36.054 1 5/13/1998 5/13/1998 4.8 na 4.8 5/13/1998 4.8 5/13/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Havasu Spring –112.686 36.217 18 5/16/1985 5/29/1990 5.0 2.9 0.5 12/8/1986 12.0 5/30/1989 Errol Montgomery and Assoc., 1993b

Hawaii Spring Muav Limestone –112.218 36.075 1 3/18/1995 3/18/1995 4.0 na 4.0 3/18/1995 4.0 3/18/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996Horn Creek/Spring Bright Angel Shale–

Muav Limestone

–112.152 36.088 3 4/30/1994 6/5/1995 36.1 27.5 18.9 4/30/1994 67.8 3/19/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996

Horn Up Redwall-Muav 

Limestones contact

–112.145 36.078 4 6/4/2002 7/29/2002 344.8 38.2 312.0 7/29/2002 400.0 7/15/2002 Liebe, 2003

Horn West Redwall-Muav 

Limestones contact

–112.149 36.079 2 7/15/2002 7/29/2002 168.5 47.4 135.0 7/29/2002 202.0 7/15/2002 Liebe, 2003

Indian Gardens –112.127 36.079 4 5/17/1985 12/18/1985 4.3 1.3 3.0 12/8/1986 6.0 12/18/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Keyhole Spring Muav Limestone –112.582 36.380 1 5/11/1998 5/11/1998 1.7 na 1.7 5/11/1998 1.7 5/11/1998 Taylor and 

others, 2004

Lonetree Spring Tapeats Sandstone–Bright 

Angel Shale

–112.054 36.074 1 6/3/1995 6/3/1995 4.9 na 4.9 6/3/1995 4.9 6/3/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996

Marble Canyon 

Spring 1

Mississippian Leadville 

Limestone; rm 25.3

–111.794 36.576 1 9/19/1982 9/19/1982 2.2 na 2.2 9/19/1982 2.2 9/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Marble Canyon 

Spring 2

Mississippian Leadville 

Limestone; rm 30.5

–111.846 36.519 1 9/19/1982 9/19/1982 2.4 na 2.4 9/19/1982 2.4 9/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 175

Table 7. Summary information about spring-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; rm, river mile; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

Site Identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date

Dissolved 

uranium

average

concentration

(μg/L)

Standard

deviation

of average

concentration

(μg/L)

Minimum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

minimum

concentration

sample

Maximum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

maximum

concentration

sample

Source

of data

Marble Canyon 

Spring 3

Mississippian Leadville 

Limestone; rm 30.6

–111.846 36.518 1 9/19/1982 9/19/1982 2.3 na 2.3 9/19/1982 2.3 9/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Marble Canyon 

Spring 4

Mississippian Leadville 

Limestone; rm 30.8

–111.848 36.515 1 9/19/1982 9/19/1982 2.0 na 2.0 9/19/1982 2.0 9/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Marble Canyon 

Spring 5

Mississippian Leadville 

Limestone; rm 30.7

–111.847 36.517 1 9/19/1982 9/19/1982 2.3 na 2.3 9/19/1982 2.3 9/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Marble Canyon 

Spring 6

Mississippian Leadville 

Limestone; rm 30.7

–111.846 36.516 1 9/19/1982 9/19/1982 2.5 na 2.5 9/19/1982 2.5 9/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Marble Canyon 

Spring 7

Mississippian Leadville 

Limestone; rm 35

–111.841 36.470 1 9/19/1982 9/19/1982 1.4 na 1.4 9/19/1982 1.4 9/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Marble Canyon 

Spring 9

Mississippian Leadville 

Limestone; rm 31.2

–111.851 36.510 1 9/19/1982 9/19/1982 1.4 na 1.4 9/19/1982 1.4 9/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

MCBA501R Sandstone –111.898 36.727 1 5/19/1979 5/19/1979 2.4 na 2.4 5/19/1979 2.4 5/19/1979 USGS, 2009aMohawk Canyon Muav Limestone –112.967 36.225 1 5/19/1998 5/19/1998 18.0 na 18.0 5/19/1998 18.0 5/19/1998 Taylor and others, 2004Monument Creek/

Spring

Tapeats Sandstone–Bright 

Angel Shale

–112.187 36.093 1 3/18/1995 3/18/1995 11.1 na 11.1 3/18/1995 11.1 3/18/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996

Nankoweap Twin 

Spring 

Precambrian quartzite/schist –111.889 36.282 1 5/12/1998 5/12/1998 1.5 na 1.5 5/12/1998 1.5 5/12/1998 Taylor and others, 2004

Page Spring Muav Limestone–Bright 

Angel Shale

–111.977 36.027 2 5/12/1995 9/9/1995 4.0 0.2 3.8 9/9/1995 4.1 5/12/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996

Pinenut Mine 

Willow Springs

–112.735 36.504 2 12/21/1988 12/28/1989 18.8 0.4 18.5 12/21/1988 19.0 12/28/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990a

Pipe Creek/Spring Bright Angel Shale–

Muav Limestone

–112.108 36.073 2 4/29/1994 6/4/1995 3.3 0.3 3.1 4/29/1994 3.5 6/4/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996

Pipe Up Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 4 6/4/2002 7/29/2002 3.1 0.2 2.8 7/29/2002 3.3 6/4/2002 Liebe, 2003Power Lines Spring 

(below dam)

–111.492 36.927 3 10/20/1994 5/1/1995 1.1 0.0 1.1 5/1/1995 1.1 5/1/1995 Taylor and others, 1997

Pumpkin Spring Tapeats Sandstone –113.307 35.885 1 5/21/1998 5/21/1998 13.0 na 13.0 5/21/1998 13.0 5/21/1998 Taylor and others, 2004River Mile 125 

Spring 

Muav Limestone –112.523 36.264 1 5/15/1998 5/15/1998 6.3 na 6.3 5/15/1998 6.3 5/15/1998 Taylor and others, 2004

River Mile 147 Seep Muav Limestone –112.676 36.343 1 5/17/1998 5/17/1998 9.0 na 9.0 5/17/1998 9.0 5/17/1998 Taylor and others, 2004River Mile 213 Spring Bright Angel Shale –113.336 35.919 1 5/21/1998 5/21/1998 3.4 na 3.4 5/21/1998 3.4 5/21/1998 Taylor and others, 2004Saddle Canyon Muav Limestone –111.904 36.360 1 5/11/1998 5/11/1998 2.6 na 2.6 5/11/1998 2.6 5/11/1998 Taylor and others, 2004Sam Magee Spring Bright Angel Shale–

Muav Limestone

–112.075 36.087 1 6/3/1995 6/3/1995 3.9 na 3.9 6/3/1995 3.9 6/3/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996

Santa Maria Spring Esplanade Sandstone –112.222 36.066 1 3/17/1995 3/17/1995 7.2 na 7.2 3/17/1995 7.2 3/17/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996Sewage Ponds Spring 

(below dam)

–111.478 36.912 3 10/20/1994 5/1/1995 2.7 0.1 2.6 10/20/1994 2.8 5/1/1995 Taylor and others, 1997

Slimy Tick Spring Muav Limestone –112.754 36.326 1 5/18/1998 5/18/1998 18.0 na 18.0 5/18/1998 18.0 5/18/1998 Taylor and others, 2004Three Springs Muav Limestone –113.308 35.888 1 5/21/1998 5/21/1998 2.2 na 2.2 5/21/1998 2.2 5/21/1998 Taylor and others, 2004Two Trees Spring Bright Angel Shale–

Muav Limestone

–112.086 36.086 2 4/30/1994 6/5/1995 3.2 0.1 3.1 6/5/1995 3.2 4/30/1994 Fitzgerald, 1996

UCC Tapeats Sandstone –112.126 36.088 1 7/29/2002 7/29/2002 1.8 na 1.8 7/29/2002 1.8 7/29/2002 Liebe, 2003
176 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 8. Summary information about well-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or site identifier Site description Longi- tude (NAD 83) Lati- tude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date Dissolved uranium average concen- tration (μg/L) Standard deviation of average concen- tration (μg/L) Mini- mum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of minimum concen- tration sample Maxi- mum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of maximum concen- tration sample Source of data 23003 –113.851 35.625 1 8/23/1977 8/23/1977 0.8 na 0.8 8/23/1977 0.8 8/23/1977 USGS, 2009a 23007 –113.557 35.496 1 8/25/1977 8/25/1977 1.5 na 1.5 8/25/1977 1.5 8/25/1977 USGS, 2009a 23013 –113.791 35.645 1 8/31/1977 8/31/1977 1.7 na 1.7 8/31/1977 1.7 8/31/1977 USGS, 2009a 23014 –113.767 35.608 1 9/1/1977 9/1/1977 6.5 na 6.5 9/1/1977 6.5 9/1/1977 USGS, 2009a 23016 –113.629 35.507 1 9/1/1977 9/1/1977 10.5 na 10.5 9/1/1977 10.5 9/1/1977 USGS, 2009a 23022 –113.075 35.768 1 9/4/1977 9/4/1977 1.4 na 1.4 9/4/1977 1.4 9/4/1977 USGS, 2009a 23023 –113.037 35.705 1 9/4/1977 9/4/1977 1.5 na 1.5 9/4/1977 1.5 9/4/1977 USGS, 2009a 23024 –113.114 35.783 1 9/4/1977 9/4/1977 2.6 na 2.6 9/4/1977 2.6 9/4/1977 USGS, 2009a 23026 –113.900 35.821 1 9/13/1977 9/13/1977 2.3 na 2.3 9/13/1977 2.3 9/13/1977 USGS, 2009a 23032 –113.985 35.774 1 9/15/1977 9/15/1977 110.4 na 110.4 9/15/1977 110.4 9/15/1977 USGS, 2009a 23079 –112.622 35.624 1 10/18/1977 10/18/1977 1.2 na 1.2 10/18/1977 1.2 10/18/1977 USGS, 2009a 23080 –112.875 35.742 1 10/19/1977 10/19/1977 13.5 na 13.5 10/19/1977 13.5 10/19/1977 USGS, 2009a 23088 –112.396 35.958 1 10/27/1977 10/27/1977 3.1 na 3.1 10/27/1977 3.1 10/27/1977 USGS, 2009a 23089 –112.436 35.806 1 10/28/1977 10/28/1977 1.9 na 1.9 10/28/1977 1.9 10/28/1977 USGS, 2009a 23090 –112.597 35.557 1 10/28/1977 10/28/1977 1.6 na 1.6 10/28/1977 1.6 10/28/1977 USGS, 2009a 23091 –112.621 35.624 1 10/28/1977 10/28/1977 1.4 na 1.4 10/28/1977 1.4 10/28/1977 USGS, 2009a 23173 –113.320 35.515 1 1/8/1978 1/8/1978 7.4 na 7.4 1/8/1978 7.4 1/8/1978 USGS, 2009a 361352112413201 –112.693 36.231 1 8/23/1994 8/23/1994 3.0 na 3.0 8/23/1994 3.0 8/23/1994 USGS, 2009b 13A-W82 Unnamed well; Tertiary Frazier Well gravels –113.093 35.836 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.6 na 1.6 6/1/1982 1.6 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 14A-W82 Fed by Frazier well; Tertiary Frazier Well gravels –113.078 35.797 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.4 na 1.4 6/1/1982 1.4 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 16A-W82 Unnamed well; Tertiary Frazier Well gravels –113.051 35.810 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.3 na 1.3 6/1/1982 1.3 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 45A+B-W82 PMG Well (Truxton); Quaternary & Tertiary gravels –113.557 35.496 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.0 0.1 1.9 6/1/1982 2.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994

48A-W82 Shipley Well; Muav Limestone –113.375 35.526 1 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.1 na 1.1 6/1/1982 1.1 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 199456A+B-W82 Santa Fe No. 5 Well; 

Muav Limestone

–113.678 35.527 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.2 0 1.2 6/1/1982 1.2 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994

57A+B-W82 XI Well; Tertiary Frazier 

Well gravel

–113.114 35.784 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 2.1 0.6 1.7 6/1/1982 2.5 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994

73A+B-W82 Truxton Well; Quaternary & 

Tertiary gravels

–113.536 35.496 2 6/1/1982 6/1/1982 1.3 0.1 1.2 6/1/1982 1.3 6/1/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994

Canyon Mine Well –112.095 35.886 11 12/18/1986 9/19/1990 42.6 89.9 4.1 4/30/1987 309.0 5/30/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

CDDD502R –113.180 37.001 1 6/26/1980 6/26/1980 4.0 na 4.0 6/26/1980 4.0 6/26/1980 USGS, 2009aCDDE502R Sandstone –112.967 37.017 1 7/7/1980 7/7/1980 0.3 na 0.3 7/7/1980 0.3 7/7/1980 USGS, 2009aCDDF503R –112.527 37.006 1 7/10/1980 7/10/1980 0.3 na 0.3 7/10/1980 0.3 7/10/1980 USGS, 2009aCDDG501R –112.465 37.014 1 6/29/1980 6/29/1980 1.3 na 1.3 6/29/1980 1.3 6/29/1980 USGS, 2009aGCAA506R Carbonate –113.931 36.907 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 2.5 na 2.5 5/8/1979 2.5 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAA507R Other –113.988 36.777 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 4.0 na 4.0 5/8/1979 4.0 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAA508R Carbonate –113.983 36.973 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 1.1 na 1.1 5/10/1979 1.1 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAC502R Other –113.353 36.908 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 15.6 na 15.6 5/6/1979 15.6 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009a
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 177

Table 8. Summary information about well-water samples analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

site identifier

Site

description

Longitude

(NAD 83)

Latitude

(NAD 

83)

Number of

samples

First

sample

date

Last

sample

date

Dissolved

uranium

average

concentration

(μg/L)

Standard

deviation

of average

concentration

(μg/L)

Minimum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

minimum

concentration

sample

Maximum

reported

concentration

(μg/L)

Date of

maximum

concentration

sample

Source

of data

GCAD501R Sandstone –113.012 36.946 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 14.9 na 14.9 5/6/1979 14.9 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD502R Sandstone –113.150 36.960 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 0.2 na 0.2 5/6/1979 0.2 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD504R Sandstone –113.117 36.876 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 3.6 na 3.6 5/8/1979 3.6 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD505R Carbonate –113.177 36.865 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 31.7 na 31.7 5/8/1979 31.7 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD506R Sandstone –113.145 36.890 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 6.5 na 6.5 5/8/1979 6.5 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD507R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.184 36.919 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 25.7 na 25.7 5/8/1979 25.7 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD508R Carbonate –113.249 36.940 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 4.6 na 4.6 5/8/1979 4.6 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD509R Carbonate –113.225 36.866 1 5/8/1979 5/8/1979 11.9 na 11.9 5/8/1979 11.9 5/8/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD510R Carbonate –113.173 36.810 1 5/9/1979 5/9/1979 13.2 na 13.2 5/9/1979 13.2 5/9/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD511R Sandstone –113.125 36.797 1 5/9/1979 5/9/1979 33.2 na 33.2 5/9/1979 33.2 5/9/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD512R Sandstone –113.136 36.756 1 5/10/1979 5/10/1979 25.7 na 25.7 5/10/1979 25.7 5/10/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAD514R –113.195 36.997 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 1.0 na 1.0 5/12/1979 1.0 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE501R Volcanic rocks—mafic –112.958 36.845 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 0.1 na 0.1 5/12/1979 0.1 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE502R –112.862 36.847 1 5/12/1979 5/12/1979 0.3 na 0.3 5/12/1979 0.3 5/12/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE504R –112.864 36.998 1 5/13/1979 5/13/1979 0.0 na 0.0 5/13/1979 0.0 5/13/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE505R Sandstone –112.864 36.949 1 5/13/1979 5/13/1979 0.0 na 0.0 5/13/1979 0.0 5/13/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE506R –112.893 36.949 1 5/13/1979 5/13/1979 7.3 na 7.3 5/13/1979 7.3 5/13/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE507R Carbonate –112.963 36.938 1 5/13/1979 5/13/1979 12.9 na 12.9 5/13/1979 12.9 5/13/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE510R –112.978 36.872 1 5/14/1979 5/14/1979 3.6 na 3.6 5/14/1979 3.6 5/14/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE512R Clastics—coarse –112.829 36.817 1 5/15/1979 5/15/1979 9.0 na 9.0 5/15/1979 9.0 5/15/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE513R Clastics—coarse –112.809 36.803 1 5/15/1979 5/15/1979 1.9 na 1.9 5/15/1979 1.9 5/15/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAE514R –112.889 36.803 1 5/15/1979 5/15/1979 2.4 na 2.4 5/15/1979 2.4 5/15/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAF501R Sandstone –112.535 36.998 1 5/14/1979 5/14/1979 3.3 na 3.3 5/14/1979 3.3 5/14/1979 USGS, 2009aGCAF505R Sandstone –112.625 36.948 1 5/17/1979 5/17/1979 1.1 na 1.1 5/17/1979 1.1 5/17/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBA501R Sandstone –113.902 36.663 1 5/5/1979 5/5/1979 0.4 na 0.4 5/5/1979 0.4 5/5/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBA502R Sandstone –113.949 36.608 1 5/6/1979 5/6/1979 4.3 na 4.3 5/6/1979 4.3 5/6/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBD501R –113.045 36.690 1 5/19/1979 5/19/1979 86.0 na 86.0 5/19/1979 86.0 5/19/1979 USGS, 2009aGCBD502R –113.069 36.724 1 5/19/1979 5/19/1979 15.3 na 15.3 5/19/1979 15.3 5/19/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCA502R Carbonate –113.850 36.485 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 0.6 na 0.6 5/16/1979 0.6 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCA503R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.889 36.423 1 5/16/1979 5/16/1979 2.1 na 2.1 5/16/1979 2.1 5/16/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCA505R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.953 36.388 1 5/15/1979 5/15/1979 3.9 na 3.9 5/15/1979 3.9 5/15/1979 USGS, 2009aGCCH501R Carbonate –112.247 36.463 1 10/24/1979 10/24/1979 0.0 na 0.0 10/24/1979 0.0 10/24/1979 USGS, 2009aGCDB501R Volcanic rocks—mafic –113.536 36.151 1 5/18/1979 5/18/1979 2.4 na 2.4 5/18/1979 2.4 5/18/1979 USGS, 2009aGCDB502R Carbonate –113.512 36.190 1 5/20/1979 5/20/1979 20.8 na 20.8 5/20/1979 20.8 5/20/1979 USGS, 2009aGCDE501R –112.827 36.018 1 5/28/1979 5/28/1979 7.1 na 7.1 5/28/1979 7.1 5/28/1979 USGS, 2009aGCDG501R –112.299 36.013 1 5/31/1979 5/31/1979 0.6 na 0.6 5/31/1979 0.6 5/31/1979 USGS, 2009aHermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

–112.751 36.689 26 4/28/1988 11/23/1998 2.6 4.6 0.2 3/3/1994 24.0 12/7/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 

1990b; International Uranium Corp., 1999

MCAA501R Sandstone –111.971 36.926 1 5/20/1979 5/20/1979 0.6 na 0.6 5/20/1979 0.6 5/20/1979 USGS, 2009aPinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 26 4/28/1988 10/26/1994 3.8 3.6 0.3 3/11/1994 12.2 9/26/1990 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a
178 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 9. Summary information about water samples from mine shafts and sumps analyzed for dissolved uranium from the historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona. [μg/L, microgram per liter; na, not available; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983] Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Number of samples First sample date Last sample date Dissolved uranium average concen- tration (μg/L) Standard deviation of average concen- tration (μg/L) Minimum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of minimum concen- tration sample Maximum reported concen- tration (μg/L) Date of maximum concen- tration sample Source of data Pigeon Mine main sump –112.531 36.730 1 8/22/1986 8/22/1986 170.0 na 170.0 8/22/1986 170.0 8/22/1986 Dames & Moore, 1987 Hermit Mine shaft –112.751 36.689 6 8/23/1988 12/8/1989 28.2 7.7 20.7 12/23/1988 42.0 8/23/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1995b Hermit Mine sump –112.751 36.689 4 6/27/1989 2/6/1990 15,650.0 15575.5 3310.0 6/27/1989 36,600.0 12/8/1989 Canonie Environmental Services Corp., 1991
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 179

Historical Uranium Water-Chemistry Data

A dataset of historical water information for the study 

area was compiled and evaluated with a particular focus on 

gathering observations of dissolved uranium in water samples. 

Additional sampling along the Colorado River corridor and 

in the Kanab Creek drainage was conducted in August and 

September 2009 to fill in known gaps in data. Information 

from this combined dataset was evaluated to determine if there 

are indications that mining affected waters in the study area. 

The dataset also provides baseline values for comparison during future monitoring activities so that any changes to water 

quality in the area can be evaluated. Relevant data for locations in and near the study area were compiled from databases, 

government reports, published scientific literature, graduate 

theses, and reports and laboratory analyses from environmental consulting firms. Information on a limited number of dissolved metals was included, because they are associated with 

mineralized breccia pipes in the area. While this dataset is not 

a verifiably complete set of all data from the study area, it does 

present a good first-level compilation and evaluation of existing water-quality information for the area and will be amended 

as new sources of data are located and new samples collected.

Documentation of these data differed in completeness 

and required some assumptions during compilation and analysis. Differing laboratory methods with differing detection and 

reporting limits were used for various data sources, making 

the comparison of data between sources problematic. The 

limited scope of this study precluded investigation of the quality assurance and quality control methods used either by those 

collecting and handling the water-quality samples or by the 

laboratories analyzing the samples, and all data were treated 

as of equal quality. No statement can be made about the 

uncertainty associated with the reported data. Field procedures 

were not documented in some historical studies; therefore, 

the data compilation used for analyses in this report may 

combine analytical results from both filtered and unfiltered 

samples. Additionally, uranium isotope data in two reports 

(Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 1985; Fitzgerald, 1996) 

were not reported as mass of total uranium but rather in units 

of activity (pCi). In order to facilitate comparisons with other 

studies, activities were converted to masses of total uranium 

by using an activity-to-mass ratio of 0.90 (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000b). The reader is encouraged to investigate the primary sources of the data used in this report for 

more information on sample handling, analysis, and reporting (table 10). Uncertainties in sampling locations provided 

by previous reports may have resulted in this study listing 

a single site as separate locations. The horizontal datum for 

sample locations was not always provided. For these cases, 

the datum was assumed to be NAD27 for all samples collected before 1983 and NAD83 for samples collected in 1983 

and afterwards.

Water-quality data were compiled from several sources 

(table 10) that include dissolved uranium, major ions, 

and selected metals. Data retrieved from sources listed in 

table 10 were combined into a single dataset for analyses and 

presentation. Samples in these datasets were collected from 

springs, streams, wells, mine shafts, and mine sumps in the 

area for a variety of purposes, such as water-quality research 

projects, uranium reconnaissance investigations, surveys for 

mineralized breccia pipes, and mine permitting documentation. Data from samples collected in the study area were 

sparse, both spatially and temporally, and time-series data 

from any site is very limited. The timing and location of water 

quality information in the area is important, because the potential effects of breccia-pipe uranium mining and other activities may be localized and appear rapidly (for example, a flash 

flood), or they may be more spatially dispersed during longer 

timescales (for example, groundwater discharging as springs 

some distance from mining sites).

Dissolved Uranium

The aqueous geochemistry of uranium is complicated 

because of the many forms it can assume depending on factors such as pH, redox conditions, and concentrations of other 

complexing species (Langmuir, 1978). Hexavalent uranium is 

soluble under oxidizing conditions, forming the highly stable 

divalent uranyl ion ([UO2]

2+) which readily complexes with 

other anions in solution (particularly carbonate, hydroxyl, and 

sulfate). Uranium concentrations in oxidized groundwaters 

commonly range from 0.1 to 10 μg/L (Osmond and Cowart, 

1992; Paces and others, 2002). Under reducing conditions, 

tetravalent uranium remains highly insoluble and concentrations 

in groundwater are typically much less than 0.1 μg/L. Information on dissolved uranium species is typically unreported in 

the data sources used in this report. However, the vast majority 

of uranium concentrations compiled for this study (1,005 of 

1,014 analyses; appendix 4) are greater than 0.1 μg/L. Therefore, it is highly likely that groundwater throughout the study 

area is oxidized and can readily transport uranium in solution.

Dissolved uranium may be transported away from mining 

locations or ore deposits by water. The investigation of available dissolved uranium analyses produced 1,014 documented 

water samples with uranium analyses from 428 sites in and 

near the study area (appendix 4). Of these 1,014 samples, 480 

were from 63 stream locations, 385 were from 288 spring 

locations, 138 were from 74 wells, 6 were from a single mine 

shaft, and 5 were from 2 mine sumps (the lowest point in a 

mine shaft into which water drains). Sampling dates ranged 

from 1963 (stream samples by the USEPA from the Colorado 

River at Page, Ariz.) to August and September 2009 (spring 

samples collected by USGS) (fig. 10). Most uranium samples 

located were collected during the 1990−95 time period, many 

as part of USGS studies in the area—such as a synoptic waterquality study on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon in 

1990−91 (Taylor and others, 1996). Two USGS studies during 

the 1975−85 time period also produced a number of documented uranium samples: the National Uranium Resource 

Evaluation (NURE) Program (Smith, 2006) and a hydrogeochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes on the 

Hualapai Reservation (Wenrich and others, 1994).
180 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

In this chapter, if uranium concentrations at a site were 

reported as less than a reporting limit, then they were assigned 

a value of one-half the reporting limit for calculation of summary information. This assumption affects observations from 

9 wells with reporting limits of 0.002−0.5 μg/L and 3 springs 

with reporting limits of 0.002−1 μg/L. All uranium observations 

are listed in appendix 4. Concentrations of dissolved uranium in 

all water samples in the dataset ranged from less than reporting 

limits in 12 samples to a high of 36,600 μg/L in the Hermit Mine 

sump. Figure 11 shows the distribution of uranium concentrations 

in available natural water samples in the Grand Canyon region 

of Arizona.

The compilation of uranium data in natural waters 

(tables 6–8) permits two important observations for the study 

area. First, it compiles sampling sites whose data may be used to 

try to determine baseline values. As used in this chapter, baseline 

refers to a set of observations with which future observations 

may be compared. Because mining and mineral exploration has 

occurred in the area for many decades, it is probable that some 

observations in this dataset are already the result of mining activities and therefore should not be considered background values 

(that is, natural concentrations in local waters, unaffected by 

human activities). To determine truly background water values 

for uranium in the study area, all documented and undocumented 

mining and exploration activities would need to be fully investigated and then water samples in the dataset classified as likely 

affected or likely unaffected by these activities. This classification 

of water samples would require a more-complete understanding 

of the direction and timing of groundwater flow in the area, particularly north of the Colorado River. Two hypothetical examples 

may serve to illustrate this point. First, depending on groundwater flow paths, springs emanating at great distances from a 

mine may have water chemistries that were affected by the mine, 

whereas springs located near mines may have groundwater that 

is unaffected by those mines. Second, even if a spring is along 

the downgradient groundwater flow path of a mine, it may take 

decades for the water chemistry of a spring to show the effects 

of mining activities, depending on the rate of groundwater flow. 

Better information on the complex flow system in the area and 

geochemical investigations of groundwater may provide insight 

into the connection between source and observation necessary for 

determining true background values.

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00’

36°30'

36°00’

A

Colorado River

373

7

110

114

116 117

118

119

120 121

122 123 124 125

127

129

130

131

132 133

192

209

217

225 224

226

229

243 247

249

252

253

254

255

256 260

261

262

263

264

265

266

268

271

281 285 290

291

293

297

298

299

301

302

303

305

306

307

311

312

315

316

317

320

321

322

323

324 326

327

330

332

333 334

335

336

337 338

339

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

364 363

365

366

367

368

401

404

407

412

419

420

421

422 427

47

48

49

112

115

148

212

230

231

232

234

238

239

244

250

251

308 313

314 325

369

384

385

386

388 389 387

390

409

374

410

218 219 220 221

257

258

259

267

270 269

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

282

283 284

286

287

288 289

292

294

296 295

300

304

309

310

318

319

328

329

331

340

341

342

372

403

411

126

128

223

396 397

398

399 400

402

EXPLANATION

Average dissolved uranium concentration—Symbol shape

indicates site type; symbol color indicates concentration level; 

number is MapID in appendix 4.

Segregation area—Boundary

Springs

Wells

Streams

Shafts and sumps

0 5 15 30 100

MCL

Dissolved uranium

concentration, μg/L

0 25 MILES

0 25 KILOMETERS

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

g.9a_Hydrology

Virgin and

Black Rock

Mountains Virgin River

Kaibab Plateau

Kanab

Plateau

Kanab

Plateau

Hack

Canyon

Mines

Hermit Mine

Pigeon

Mine

Lees Ferry Pipe

Spring

National

Monument

Bright

Angel

Canyon

Pinenut

Mine

Base from U.S. Geological

Survey digital data, 100m,

2003 Universal Transverse

Mercator projection, zone 12

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Figure 9. Average uranium concentration in selected spring, stream, well, mine shaft, and mine sump water samples in the historical 

dataset for northern Arizona. A, Sites located north of the Colorado River. See tables 6–9 and appendix 4 for complete dataset.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 181

The second important utility of the compilation of available uranium observations is that it provides subjective definitions of high, medium, and low uranium concentrations in the 

study area. Future studies on the effect of uranium mining in 

the area may have as one hypothesis that uranium concentrations in waters affected by mining will have high values and 

concentrations in unmined areas will have low values. The 

majority (66 percent) of natural water sample concentrations in 

the dataset was 5 μg/L or less (fig. 11), and may be subjectively 

classified as low concentrations in the study area (although 

quite high for other aquifers in other parts of the country). 

Nearly 95 percent of the concentrations in the dataset were 

20 μg/L or less (fig. 11), allowing a subjective definition of 

medium concentration values as 5−20 μg/L. High concentrations may be defined as greater than 20 μg/L; they compose 

about 5 percent of the observations in the dataset. Some 

samples with concentrations above this high threshold may 

be unaffected by anthropogenic activities and, in fact, reflect 

natural geochemical conditions favorable to elevated dissolveduranium concentrations.

Quartiles (75th and 25th percentiles) and median uranium 

concentrations were similar for spring, stream, and well samples 

in the study area (fig. 12); they have median values of 2.8, 4.6, 

and 2.4 μg/L, respectively. Maximum uranium observations 

ranged from 309 to 400 μg/L for these sample types. Shaft and 

sump water, although based on many fewer observations, produced higher ranges of uranium concentrations; medians were 

25 and 4,290 μg/L, respectively (fig. 13).

Nearly 95 percent of all spring samples have uranium 

concentrations less than the USEPA maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) of 30 μg/L; most (72 percent) are less than 5 μg/L (figs. 9, 

12, table 7). Notable exceptions include the Horn Creek and 

Horn Spring samples collected in 1994−95 by Fitzgerald (1996) 

and the Horn Up and Horn West sites sampled by in 2002 Liebe 

(2003), all within Grand Canyon National Park. Horn Creek and 

Horn Spring were sampled three times in 1994−95; concentrations ranged from 18.9 to 67.8 μg/L (appendix 4). The Horn Up 

site was sampled four times in June and July 2002; concentrations 

ranged from 312 to 400 μg/L (appendix 4). Two samples from 

the Horn West site, both collected in July 2002, had uranium 

36°30'

9

10

12 13

17 18

19

23

25

26

27

28

30

31

34

41

51

52

53

54

55 56 57 58

60 59

61

63

64 65

66 69 70

71 72

73

74

75

77 78

79 80

81

82

83

85

86

87

88

89

90

92

93

94

95

96

98

103

104 105 106

107 109 108

113

128

134 135

136

139

142

144

146 147

149 150

151

153

154

155

156

157

158 159

160

161

162

163

164 165

166 167

168

169 170

172

174

176 177

178

179

180

183

184

185 186

187 188

189

190

191

193

194 195

197 196

198

199

201

202 203

204

205

207

208

210

214

222 215

227

228

241 242 245

246

248

343

348

346

370

371

375

377

378

383

391

393

395

396 397 400

405

408

414

416

418

425

428

429

430

43

44

45

46

50 62

76

84

91

99 100

102

406

101

112

143 141

145

152

175

206

211

213

233

424

235

237

240

376 379

380

381 382

392

394

413

415

97

423

8

14

15

16

20

21

22

24

29

32

33

35

36

37

38

42

111

137

138

140

173 181

182

216

344 345

347

EXPLANATION

Average dissolved uranium concentration—Symbol shape

indicates site type; symbol color indicates concentration level; 

number is MapID in appendix 4.

Segregation area—Boundary

Springs

Wells

Streams

Shafts and sumps

0 5 15 30 100

MCL

Dissolved uranium

concentration, μg/L

0 25 MILES

0 25 KILOMETERS

SOUTH

SEGREGATION 

AREA

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

35°30'

36°00’

B

Canyon

Mine

Kaibab Plateau

Orphan

 Mine

Salt

Creek

Spring

Havasu

Spring

Lees Ferry

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

HAVASUPAI

RESERVATION

HUALAPAI

RESERVATION

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

100m, 2003 Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, zone 12

Figure 9—Continued. Average uranium concentration in selected spring, stream, well, mine shaft, and mine sump water samples in the 

historical dataset for northern Arizona. B, Sites located south of the Colorado River. See tables 6–9 and appendix 4 for complete dataset.
182 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 10. Sources of data and types of samples used to compile historical dissolved uranium data for northern Arizona used 

in this study.—Continued

Data source Type of

sample

Canonie Environmental Services Corp., 1991, Water Quality Data Evaluation Report, 33 p. Mine sump

Dames & Moore, 1987, Hermit Mine ground-water conditions Mohave County, Arizona: submitted to Energy Fuels 

Nuclear, Inc., Denver, Colorado, March 20, 1987.

Mine sump

Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc., 1990a, Hermit Mine groundwater monitoring report mining and post mining phase: 

Denver, Colorado.

Spring

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1990b, Hermit Mine groundwater monitoring report mining phase: submitted to Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality, Denver, Colorado, February 12, 1990.

Well

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1990c, Letter report to Abigail A. Myers, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

from William J. Almas re: Hermit Mine Groundwater Protection Permit No. G–0035–08: Denver, Colorado, 

March 7, 1990.

Well

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1995a, Arizona aquifer protection permit application Pinenut Mine: Denver, Colorado. Well

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1995b, Arizona aquifer protection permit closure plan Hack Canyon Mine: 

Denver, Colorado.

Mine shaft

Errol L. Montgomery and Assoc., 1993a, Aquifer protection permit application Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., Canyon 

Mine, Coconino County, Arizona: December 1993 Final Report.

Well

Errol L. Montgomery and Assoc., 1993b, Data for Canyon Mine Groundwater Monitoring Program Reference N2219 

(GRCA–8213): Annual Letter Report to Grand Canyon National Park, 16 tables.

Spring

Fitzgerald, Jim, 1996, Residence time of groundwater issuing from the South Rim Aquifer in the eastern Grand 

Canyon: Las Vegas, University of Nevada, M.S. thesis, 103 p.

Spring, stream

Hopkins, R.T., Fox, J.P., Campbell, W.L., Antweiler, J.C., 1984a, Analytical results and sample locality map of 

stream-sediment, panned-concentrate, rock, and water samples from the Andrus Canyon, Grassy Mountain, Last 

Chance Canyon, Mustang Point, Nevershine Mesa, Pigeon Canyon, and Snap Point Wilderness Study Areas, 

Mohave County, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84–288, 34 p. 

Spring

Hopkins, R.T., Fox, J.P., Campbell, W.L., Antweiler, J.C., 1984b, Analytical results and sample locality map of stream 

sediment, panned-concentrate, soil, and rock samples from the Kanab Creek (B3060) Roadless Area, Coconino and 

Mohave counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84–291, 18 p. 

Stream

International Uranium Corp., 1999, Letter report to Craig Dewalt, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

from Donn M. Pillmore, January 29, 1999.

Well

Liebe, Dirk, 2003, The use of the 234U/238U activity ratio at the characterization of springs and surface streams in 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Dresden, Saxony, Germany, Hochschule fur Technik und Wirtschaft 

Dresden, M.S. thesis, 105 p.

Spring, stream

Monroe, S.A., Antweiler, R.C., Hart, R.J., Taylor, H.E., Truini, Margot, Rihs, J.R., and Felger, T.J., 2005, Chemical 

characteristics of ground-water discharge along the south rim of Grand Canyon in Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona, 2000–2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5146, 59 p.

Spring, stream

Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 1985, Marble Canyon Spring sampling investigation: Technical 

Report BMI/ONWI–514, 62 p.

Spring

Peterson, J.E., Buell, S.E., Cadigan, R.A., Felmlee, J.K., and Sprakis, C.S., 1977, Uranium, radium and selected 

metallic-element analyses of spring water and travertine samples from the Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 77–36, 7 p.

Spring

Taylor, H.E., Peart, D.B., Antweiler, R.C., Brinton, T.I., Campbell, W.L., Garbarino, J.R., Roth, D.A., Hart, R.J., and 

Averett, R.C., 1996, Data from synoptic water-quality studies on the Colorado River in the Grand canyon, Arizona, 

November 1990 and June 1991: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96–614, 175 p.

Stream

Taylor, H.E., Berghoff, K., Andrews, E.D., Antweiler, R.C., Brinton, T.I., Miller, C., Peart, D.B., and Roth, D.A., 

1997, Water quality of springs and seeps in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: National Park Service 

Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR–97/128, 26 p.

Springs
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 183

Table 10. Sources of data and types of samples used to compile historical dissolved uranium data for northern Arizona used 

in this study.—Continued

Data source Type of

sample

Taylor, H.E., Spence, J.R., Antweiler, R.C., Berghoff, K., Plowman, T.I., Peart, D.B., and Roth, D.A., 2004, Water 

quality and quantity of selected springs and seeps along the Colorado River Corridor, Utah and Arizona: Arches 

National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and Grand Canyon National 

Park, 1997–98: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2003–496, 33 p.

Spring

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII, 1973, Radium-226, uranium and other radiological data from 

water quality surveillance stations located in the Colorado River Basin of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and 

Arizona—January 1961 through June 1972, 155 p.

Stream

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009a, Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data: Geochemistry of water samples in the 

U.S. from the NURE–HSSR database, accessed November 4, 2009, at http://tin.er.usgs.gov/nure/water/.

Spring, stream, well

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009b, National Water Information System (NWISWeb): U.S. Geological Survey database, 

accessed October 16, 2009 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/.

Spring, stream, well

Wenrich, K.J.; Boundy, S.Q.; Aumente-Modreski, R.M.; Schwarz, S.P.; Sutphin, H.B.; Been, J.M., 1994, A 

hydrogeochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes—Data from springs, wells, and streams on the Hualapai 

Indian Reservation, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93–619, 66 p.

Spring, stream, well

concentrations of 135 and 202 μg/L (appendix 4). Other spring 

samples reported by USGS with elevated uranium concentrations include sample GCAE517R collected by the NURE project 

in 1979 near Pipe Spring National Monument (250 μg/L), and 

samples 23168 and 23169 collected by the NURE project in 

1978 just south of the Hualapai Reservation (57 and 51 μg/L, 

respectively; appendix 4, table 7). In all, water collected from 15 

of the 288 spring sites had uranium concentrations greater than or 

equal to 30 μg/L, and nearly all observations were in the NURE 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2009a), Fitzgerald (1996), and Liebe 

(2003) studies.

Uranium concentrations were reported for several stream 

samples from the Colorado River, mostly from locations near 

Lees Ferry, Grand Canyon National Park near Bright Angel 

Canyon, and on the Hualapai Reservation (fig. 9; table 6). A few 

other samples were located on tributaries to Kanab Creek and 

near the Virgin River in the northwest portion of the study. The 

Horn Down site (Liebe, 2003) had the highest stream concentration in the dataset at 362 μg/L. Presumably, this stream is fed 

by groundwater discharge from the high-concentration Horn 

Creek Spring and Horn Up and Horn West springs noted earlier. 

Most other stream samples near the Colorado River near Bright 

Angel Canyon in the national park were 5 μg/L or less. All 

stream samples reported for locations on or near the Hualapai 

Reservation were 10 μg/L or less. Two other stream samples of 

note are in the northwest portion of the study area near the Virgin 

and Black Rock Mountains (plate 1; fig. 9A). These two samples, 

GCAA006R and GCBB004R, both collected by NURE in 1979, 

had uranium concentrations of 87 and 88 μg/L, respectively 

(fig. 9A) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009a).

A small number of water samples from wells also 

had elevated uranium concentrations. The highest is from 

the Canyon Mine Well on the Kaibab Plateau (appendix 4, 

figs. 9B, 12, 14, table 8). Eleven samples reported from this 

well had concentrations ranging from 4.1 μg/L in 1987 to 

50

0

100

150

200

250

300

350

1960–64

1965–69

1970–74

1975–79

1980–84

1985–89

1990–94

1995–99

2000–04

2005–09

Number of samples

Sampling date

Figure 10. Number of dissolved uranium samples collected 

during 5-year intervals from 1960 to 2009 in northern Arizona.

309 μg/L in 1989. Concentrations in 9 of the 11 Canyon Mine 

Well samples were less than 20 μg/L. Hermit Mine Monitoring 

Well produced 26 reported observations, all but one less than 

7 μg/L; the exception was 24.0 μg/L in December, 1989. 

Twenty-six reported observations from the Pinenut Mine 

Monitoring Well were all less than 13 μg/L (appendix 4). 

Four other wells that were sampled between 1977 and 1979 

for the NURE investigation had values above 30 μg/L: 

samples GCAD505R (32 μg/L), GCAD511R (33 μg/L), 

and GCBD501R (86 μg/L), all from the Kanab Plateau; and 

sample 23032 (110 μg/L) from the southwest part of the study 

area (fig. 9B) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009a).

Mine shaft and sump samples were located on mining property on the Kanab Plateau and, unsurprisingly, have 

elevated dissolved-uranium concentrations (appendix 4, 

table 9). Water samples collected in the Hermit Mine shaft for 
184 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 to 5

>5 to 10

>10 to 15>15 to 20

>20 to 25>25 to 30>30 to 35>35 to 40>40 to 45>45 to 50>50 to 55>55 to 60>60 to 65>65 to 70

>70

Cumulative percentage

Frequency of observation

Uranium concentration, in μg/L

Frequency

Cumulative %

g.11_Hydrology

Figure 11. Frequency and cumulative distribution of uranium 

concentrations in all spring, stream, and well-water analyses from 

historical dataset for northern Arizona, appendix 4.

300

320

340

360

380

400

Minimum Observation

Maximum Observation

0

5

10

15

20

25

Springs Streams Wells

Uranium concentration, in μg/L

Sample location

g.12_Hydrology

Figure 12. Dissolved uranium concentrations in water 

samples from springs, streams, wells, and mine shafts from 

historical dataset for northern Arizona, appendix 4. Upper 

and lower whiskers represent 90th and 10th percentiles, 

respectively. Upper, middle, and lower lines on box represent 

the 75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile, respectively. 

Note broken concentration axis.

the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality in 1988 

and 1989 range from 20 to 42 μg/L (Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

1995b). Higher uranium concentrations were reported for 

similar samples from the Hermit and Pigeon Mine sumps. The 

Pigeon Mine sump had a single reported value of 170 μg/L in 

1986, and the Hermit Mine sump concentrations ranged from 

3,310 to 36,600 μg/L (the highest reported value of any sample 

type in this study) in 1989−90 (figs. 9A, 13). These highconcentration mine shaft and sump waters may be sources of 

dissolved uranium for nearby sites if mine water is capable of 

entering the regional groundwater flow system.

The large number of historical analyses of both spring and 

well samples allows for comparison of uranium concentrations 

from areas north and south of the Colorado River (figs. 9, 14). 

Maximum observations were greater for springs and wells south 

of the river compared with observations from north of the river. 

The 90th and 75th percentiles and median observations for 

spring data were similar for samples from north (17.7, 5.4, and 

2.1 μg/L, respectively) and south (18.5, 6.1, and 3 μg/L, respectively) of the river. Well observations had similar 90th percentiles and means for north (14.2 and 2.4 μg/L, respectively) and 

south (15.5 and 2.3 μg/L, respectively) locations, but south 

wells had a higher 75th percentile observation at 8.7 μg/L compared with 6.1 μg/L for north wells.

Consistent temporal water sampling is essential for determining trends and observing potential effects on water quality 

of mining and other activities; however, only very limited temporal data were available for this study. Three wells at Canyon, 

Hermit, and Pinenut Mines, 6 spring sites, and 3 stream locations had more than two observations that spanned at least one 

year (fig. 15). Dissolved uranium concentrations in the wells are 

mostly less than 20 μg/L. Three exceptions are a single observation of 24 μg/L from the Hermit Mine Well in December 1989 

and observations of 65 μg/L in December 1987 and 309 μg/L in 

May 1989 at the Canyon Mine Well (fig. 15). Dissolved uranium 

concentrations at both the Hermit Mine and Canyon Mine Wells 

returned to less than 20 μg/L after these peak observations. Two 

stream sampling sites on the Colorado River near Lees Ferry, 

Ariz., present dissolved uranium data for different time periods. 

The “Colorado River at Page” line graph (fig. 15) contains observations from May 1963 through May 1972; early observations 

(through June 1965) were around 9−10 μg/L and later observations were around 5−6 μg/L, except for a spike of 16 μg/L in 

May 1972, the last observation in the record (fig. 15). The record 

for nearby site 09380000 (Colorado River at Lees Ferry; fig. 15) 

extends from January 1996 through June 1998 and consistently 

records observations of 3−4 μg/L. The temporal dissolved 

uranium data from springs are consistently less than 10 μg/L with 

two exceptions, Horn Creek Spring and Havasu Spring. Horn 

Creek Spring has values that range from 19 to 67 μg/L (fig. 15). 

Horn Creek Spring is located in the same drainage and downgradient from the Orphan Mine. Several investigators have linked 

the elevated dissolved uranium in Horn Creek and Salt Creek 

with the Orphan breccia pipe or with mining activity in the area 

(Fitzgerald, 1996; Monroe and others, 2004; Grand Canyon 

National Park, 2006; Bills and others, 2007). Havasu Spring has 

dissolved uranium concentrations that are typically 5 μg/L or less; 

however several samples measured in 1985 and again in 1989−90 

may have had values between 7 and 12 μg/L (duplicate data from 

same-day samples were less than 5 μg/L).
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 185

Selected Dissolved Metals

Other metals are associated with uranium in mineralized breccia pipes including silver, arsenic, barium, cadmium, 

cobalt, copper, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, lead, antimony, 

strontium, vanadium, and zinc. However, these metals do not 

necessarily correlate with dissolved uranium in groundwater, 

owing to differences in aqueous solubilities and the possible 

presence of complexing anions (Wenrich and others, 1994). The 

historical dataset was evaluated for arsenic, molybdenum, mercury, and silver at concentrations exceeding USEPA maximum 

contaminant levels or lifetime health advisory level in the case 

of molybdenum (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). 

Available data for silver ≥100 μg/L, mercury ≥2.0 μg/L, molybdenum ≥40 μg/L, and lead ≥15 μg/L indicate that few samples 

in the study area exceed these concentrations (fig. 8, table 5). 

Elevated lead concentrations were reported at the Hermit Mine 

sump and monitoring well (40 and 150 μg/L in 1990 and 1988, 

respectively) and at the Pinenut Mine monitoring well (110 μg/L 

in 1988), all on the Kanab Plateau. The highest lead concentrations were reported in Virgin River samples in the northwestern 

portion of the study area (fig. 8). Two observations of 500 μg/L 

and a single observation of 600 μg/L were reported from this 

area in June 1979. Although these water samples were collected using a pre-1990 USGS sampling protocol that may have 

resulted in contamination of the water sample, similar results are 

reported for samples collected days later. Five mercury exceedances were found in the dataset; the reported high is 3.8 μg/L 

in both a stream sample from site 09380000 (Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry) and a spring sample from site 353713113421800 

(Milkweed Spring) (fig. 8, table 5). Water samples with 

elevated molybdenum concentrations are more widely distributed in the study area. Higher concentrations were reported in 

spring sample GCAE517R (191 μg/L) on the Kaibab-Paiute 

Reservation, in well sample 23080 (129.4 μg/L) just southeast 

of the Hualapai Reservation, in spring sample 23077 (100 μg/L) 

in Cataract Canyon at the southern end of the Havasupai 

Reservation, and in well sample GCAD505R (97 μg/L) near 

the northwest corner of the North Segregation Area (fig. 8, 

table 5). Although no silver samples were reported above 

the MCL, a value of 80 μg/L was reported in Havasu Spring 

(Errol Montgomery and Associates, 1993b).

 A number of water samples within the study area contained 

arsenic concentrations exceeding the EPA MCL of 10 μg/L (fig. 16, 

appendix 3). Twelve well samples had concentrations above 

100 μg/L, all along the south rim of the Grand Canyon. The highest 

was reported from sample 23014 (301 μg/L); the sample locality 

is just southwest of the Hualapai Reservation. Twenty-two spring 

samples had concentrations above 100 μg/L: 16 on the south rim 

of the Grand Canyon and 6 near the Virgin Mountains north of 

Lake Mead. Spring sample 77A−W82 (Pumpkin Spring) on the 

Hualapai Reservation had the highest arsenic concentration of 

350 μg/L (fig. 16, appendix 3). Elevated arsenic concentrations 

were also noted in stream samples from the Hualapai Reservation; 

the three highest concentrations were in samples 43536 (175 μg/L), 

43540 (178 μg/L) and 43538 (310 μg/L) (fig. 16, appendix 3).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Median Median

100,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

1

Uranium concentration, in μg/L

Uranium

Concentration, in μg/L

Sample type

Shaft Sump

g.13_Hydrology

Figure 13. Dissolved uranium concentrations in water 

samples from mine shafts (left panel) and mine sumps (right 

panel) in historical dataset for northern Arizona, appendix 4. 

Note logarithmic scale for concentration axis on mine 

sump plot.

Minimum observation

Maximum observation

North springsSouth springsNorth wellsSouth wells

n = 130 n = 255 n = 95 n = 43

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

5

10

15

20

25

Uranium concentration, in μg/L

Sample location

g.14_Hydrology

Figure 14. Range of dissolved uranium concentrations in 

water samples from springs and wells in historical dataset 

for northern Arizona, appendix 4, in relation to location 

north and south of Colorado River. Upper and lower 

whiskers represent 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively. 

Upper, middle, and lower lines on box represent the 

75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile, respectively. 

Note broken concentration axis.
186 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Horn Creek Spring

Hotel Spring (362157112451601)

Schmutz Spring (362143112551201)

Blue Spring

Havasu Spring

Sample date

Indian Gardens

30

20

10

25

15

10

5

0

300

200

100

0

0

15

20

10

5

0

Jan

88

Jan

63

10

6

4

8

2

0

10

6

4

8

2

0

Jan

96

May

97

Sep

98

Feb

00

June

01

Nov

02

Mar

04

Aug

05

Dec

06

July

96

Feb

97

Aug

97

Mar

98

Sep

98

May

64

Sep

65

Feb

67

June

68

Nov

69

Mar

71

Aug

72

May

89

Sep

90

Feb

92

June

93

Nov

94

Jan

88

May

89

Sep

90

Feb

92

June

93

Nov

94

Mar

96

Aug

97

Dec

98

10

8

6

4

2

0

Jan

05

100

50

0

Jan

94

Apr

94

July

94

Oct

94

Feb

95

May

95

Aug

95

Dec

95

20

15

10

5

0

Jan

85

May

86

Sep

87

Feb

89

June

90

10

8

4

2

6

0

Jan

85

Apr

85

July

85

Oct

85

Feb

86

May

86

Aug

86

Dec

86

July

05

Feb

06

Aug

06

Mar

07

Sep

07

Apr

08

Nov

08

May

09

Dec

09

10

8

6

4

2

0

Jan

05

10

8

6

4

2

0

Jan

85

July

85 Feb

86

Aug

86

Mar

87

Sep

87

July

05

Feb

06

Aug

06

Mar

07

Sep

07

Apr

08

Nov

08

May

09

Dec

09

Jan

86

July

86

Feb

87

Aug

86

Mar

88

Sep

88

Apr

89

Nov

89

May

90

Dec

90

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Uranium concentration,

in μg/L

Sample date

Hermit Mine Monitoring Well

Pinenut Mine Monitor Well

Canyon Mine Well

Colorado River abv Diamond Creek nr Peach Spring (09404200)

Colorado River at Page

Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Az (09380000)

EXPLANATION

Segregation area—Boundary

Spring—P, perched water-bearing

 zone and R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer

Well—P, perched water-bearing

 zone and R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer 

Surface water

Colorado Ri v e r

09404200

09380000

Blue Havasu Spring (R-M) Spring

Indian Gardens (R-M)

Hotel Spring (P)

Schmutz Spring (P)

Canyon

Mine Well (R-M)

Horn Creek

Spring (R-M)

Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well (R-M)

Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well (R-M)

Colorado River

at Page

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00’

36°30'

36°00’

35°30'

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

UTAH

ARIZONA

Flagstaff

Phoenix

ARIZONA

Index map

g.15_Hydrology

Orphan

Mine

Figure 15. Variation in uranium concentration with time for selected springs, streams, and wells in the historical dataset for northern 

Arizona, appendix 4.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 187

Arsenic concentration, in μg/L—Symbol shape is site type.

Symbol color indicates concentration level.

10 – 45

45 – 107

107 – 200

200 – 350

350 – 1,090

Spring

Well

Stream

Sump and shaft

43536

43540

Lake

Mead Colorado Ri ver

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00’

36°30'

36°00’

35°30'

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

UTAH

ARIZONA

EXPLANATION

Segregation area—Boundary

g.16_Hydrology

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital data, 100m, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, zone 12

Kaibab Plateau

Kanab

Plateau

Lees

Ferry

Pumpkin Spring

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

HAVASUPAI

RESERVATION

Virgin River

Virgin

Mountains

HUALAPAI

RESERVATION

Figure 16. Selected spring, stream, well, and sump sites from the historical dataset, appendix 3, at which 

concentrations of arsenic exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level of 10 μg/L. 

For sites at which more than one sample exceeded 10 μg/L, the maximum value is plotted.
188 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

2009 Groundwater Samples

Groundwater samples were collected at 24 sites in the 

study area during August–September 2009 (fig. 17) to augment the historical dataset and to provide additional information for evaluation of variations in groundwater chemistry by 

geographic region, groundwater source, and mining condition 

(fig. 7, appendix 2). Sample collection sites were geographically 

located in the northern part of the Marble platform, the lower 

Kanab Creek drainage, and the Havasu drainage (figs. 4, 17). 

The samples represent groundwater from either the RedwallMuav aquifer or perched water-bearing zones in the Coconino 

Sandstone and sandstones of the Supai Group (appendix 2). 

Sites were also categorized on the basis of mining conditions of 

the surface drainage basin in which the site is located; the three 

mining categories were no mines, reclaimed mines, or active 

mines that are on standby (appendix 2). All sites sampled were 

in areas that contain uranium orebodies associated with breccia 

pipes, and for the latter two classes the mines are associated 

with extracting uranium ore from breccia pipes.

For comparison of groundwater-chemistry data by 

geographic region and groundwater source, it is necessary 

to be certain that each site was classified correctly. For sites 

associated with active or reclaimed mines, however, it not 

known with certainty that the groundwater sampled at each site 

actually flowed past and had opportunity to be affected by the 

mining activity. For this reason it is vital that comparison of 

groundwater-chemistry data by mining condition be considered 

strictly an exploratory assessment that needs further sampling 

and evaluation to determine if there is a relationship.

Table 11 lists the 24 groundwater sites sampled in 2009 

and their geographic region, groundwater source, and mining 

condition (see also fig. 17). To facilitate comparison of the waterchemistry data, the ranks for selected trace-element concentrations reported in appendix 2 are also presented in this table. Only 

one site was available in the Havasu Creek drainage, the Canyon 

Mine Well; consequently, comparison of geographic regions is 

limited to the Marble platform and the Kanab Creek drainage. 

The three sites in areas with reclaimed mines—Slide, Rock, and 

Willow Springs (fig. 17)—are potentially downgradient and 

affected by the reclaimed Pigeon and Hack Mines. Five sites in 

areas with active mines in the Kanab Creek drainage—Pinenut 

Well and Hotel, Kanab, Showerbath, and Side Canyon Springs 

(figs. 9A, 17)—are potentially downgradient and affected by the 

Kanab North Mine, Arizona 1 Mine, and Pinenut Mine.

In addition to major ion and trace elements, the 2009 

samples were analyzed for strontium, uranium, radium, carbon, 

tritium, and oxygen-deuterium isotopes (appendix 2). These 

isotopic data provide information on groundwater-recharge 

sources, rock-water interactions affecting groundwater along 

the flow path, and the length of time during which groundwater 

flowed from recharge areas to the point of discharge. The workscope and tight schedule for this report, however, precluded a 

detailed analysis of and integration of information learned from 

the isotopes into the analysis of variations in major ions and trace 

elements. The work-scope and tight schedule also precluded an 

advanced statistical or geochemical evaluation of the major ion 

and trace element data.

Major Ions and Trace Elements

Major ions and trace elements dissolved in water are 

derived from water-rock interactions during recharge and from 

flow within the aquifer. Aquifer-rock composition differs on 

local and regional scales and, therefore, water composition also 

differs spatially. This section presents major ion and trace metal 

concentration variations by geographic region, groundwater 

source, and mining condition.

Major Ions

The composition of major ions and their total concentration, as measured by specific conductance, differs by geographic 

region and by groundwater source. Overall, the major ions composing groundwater at the 24 sites sampled in 2009 (fig. 18) had 

varying proportions of calcium, magnesium, bicarbonate, and 

sulfate (fig. 18). High concentrations of sulfate were common; 

the USEPA secondary maximum contaminant level for sulfate 

in drinking water (250 mg/L) was exceeded in samples from 

15 sites (appendix 2). Specific conductance values ranged from 

303 to 3,570 μS/cm (appendix 2).

Groundwater from the Marble platform (fig. 18), which 

is typically of calcium-magnesium-sulfate composition, tended 

to have the lowest specific conductance (appendix 2; fig. 18; 

table 11). Fence Spring and Rider Spring (fig. 17), however, 

have higher specific conductance and larger contributions to 

the water composition from sodium and chloride than other 

sites in the Marble platform. Groundwater from the Kanab 

Creek drainage tends to have a higher specific conductance 

than groundwater from the Marble platform, and it is enriched 

in sulfate (appendix 2, fig. 18, table 11).

The specific conductance and contributions of sulfate to 

water composition are typically greater in perched water-bearing 

zones than in the Redwall-Muav aquifer (appendix 2; fig. 18). 

Groundwater with relatively high amounts of sulfate may result 

from the dissolution of gypsum from the overlying Moenkopi 

Formation or from dissolution of sulfides in ore deposits (Wenrich 

and others, 1994; Billingsley and others, 2006).

Characteristics of major ions differ widely in groundwater samples from sites without mining activities, which 

indicates that this variation is natural. The highest (Burnt 

Canyon Well, fig. 17) and lowest (Hole in the Wall Spring) 

specific conductance values (appendix 2) observed in the 2009 

samples were from sites without mining activities. Consequently, specific conductance values for sites in basins with 

active mines or reclaimed mines fall within the range of values 

observed for sites in basins without mines. For sites within 

the Kanab Creek drainage, no systematic change in major 

ion characteristics was noted for different mining conditions 

(appendix 2, fig. 18, table 11).
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 189

22

23

24

9 8

14

15 16

20 21

EXPLANANTION

Spring sampled

Well sampled

1 2

3 4

5

 1 Schmutz Spring

 2 Hotel Spring

 3 Side Canyon Spring

 4 Showerbath Spring

 5 Kanab Spring

 6 Pinenut Well

 7 27 Mule Spring

 8 Mountain Sheep Spring

 9 Below Lower Jumpup Spring

10 Willow Spring

11 Upper Jumpup Spring

12 Tom Land Well

6 7

10 11

12 13 17

18

19

13 Slide Spring

14 Rock Spring

15 Burnt Canyon Well

16 Clearwater Spring

17 Rider Spring

18 Fence Spring

19 Vasey’s Paradise

20 South Canyon Spring

21 Hanging Spring

22 No Name Spring

23 Buck Farm Spring

24 Canyon Mine Well

Segregation area—Boundary

Kaibab Plateau

Kanab

Plateau

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

Marble

Platform

Pigeon

Mine

Canyon Mine

Pinenut

Mine

Arizona 1

Mine

Kanab

North

Mine

Hack

Canyon

Mines

Coconino

Plateau

Hualapai

Plateau

Shiviwits Plateau

Uinkaret Plateau

Colorado River

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

114°00’ 113°30' 113°00’ 112°30' 112°00’ 111°30'

37°00’

36°30'

36°00’

35°30'

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION 

AREA

UTAH

ARIZONA

g.17_Hydrology

Virgin River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital data, 100m, 2003

Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, zone 12

Figure 17. Well and spring sites in or near segregation areas of northern Arizona where water samples were 

collected in 2009.
190 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 11. Relative rank of concentrations of selected trace elements from spring-water and well-water samples collected in 2009 in northern Arizona. [Samples collected in August and September 2009; number indicates rank of data; a rank of 1 indicates highest concentrations; larger values indicate smaller concentrations. --, sample not analyzed for that constituent; H, Havasu Creek drainage; K, Kanab Creek; M, Marble Platform; AM, active mine; NM, not mined; RM, reclaimed mine; DO, dissolved oxygen; P, perched water-bearing zones in Coconino Sandstone and sandstones in the Supai Formation; R, Redwall-Muav aquifer; SC, specific conductance] Spring or well Geo- graphic region Ground- water source Mining condi- tion Uranium Silver Arsenic Barium Cadmium Cobalt Copper Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Lead Antimony Strontium Vanadium Zinc DO pH SC Buck Farm Spring

M

R NM 15 1 19 8 16 -- 8 -- 16 -- -- 2 18 2 19 11 8 17

Fence Spring

M

R NM 18 1 1 7 5 -- 8 -- 18 -- -- 5 14 6 10 15 22 8

Hanging Spring

M

R NM 21 1 6 -- 16 -- 8 -- 21 -- -- -- 22 8 19 8 4 20

Hole in the Wall Spring

M

R NM 22 1 7 2 16 -- 8 -- 21 -- -- -- 21 8 19 3 8 22

No Name Spring

M

R NM 23 1 7 1 16 -- 8 -- 21 -- -- -- 22 8 19 7 7 21

Vasey’s Paradise

M

R NM 24 -- 17 3 24 -- 8 -- 24 -- -- -- 24 -- -- 1 1 --

South Canyon Spring

M P NM 20 -- 12 5 8 2 5 -- 18 7 3 12 20 7 17 2 3 --

Rider Spring

M P NM 10 1 5 20 3 8 -- 2 -- -- -- 12 15 19 5 2 11

Clearwater Spring

K P NM 19 -- 15 12 8 2 6 12 14 7 13 19 4 21 12 24 8 5

Upper Jumpup Spring

K P NM 12 1 20 15 8 2 8 7 9 7 10 14 13 13 6 15 11 16

Lower Jumpup Spring

K P NM 6 14 14 9 8 2 24 10 8 7 9 7 7 4 14 18 21 7

Mountain Sheep Spring

K P NM 5 -- 16 13 7 2 4 14 17 7 8 11 10 5 13 8 19 9

Schmutz Spring

K P NM 11 1 9 18 16 2 8 9 6 7 14 18 8 17 11 12 11 10

Burnt Canyon Well

K P NM 13 -- 2 22 1 14 3 1 13 4 -- 6 2 23 2 22 24 1

Tom Land Well

K P NM 1 -- 23 23 2 14 2 5 12 1 2 13 5 19 1 20 22 2

Hotel Spring

K P AM 16 1 3 6 16 1 7 2 7 5 6 1 17 1 18 3 4 14

Kanab Spring

K

R AM 8 1 10 10 8 2 8 13 10 7 4 3 16 14 4 8 17 15

Showerbath Spring

K

R AM 9 1 13 11 8 2 8 11 10 7 11 4 15 12 7 14 19 18

Side Canyon Spring

K

R AM 7 1 11 14 16 2 8 14 4 7 12 10 9 16 9 17 11 12

Pinenut Well

K

R AM 17 -- 4 15 4 14 8 3 1 2 5 8 6 20 15 22 16 6

Slide Spring 

K P RM 14 -- 21 17 8 2 8 6 15 7 16 16 11 11 5 21 14 13

Rock Spring

K P RM 4 -- 22 19 8 2 8 14 5 7 15 9 3 18 16 5 -- --

Willow Spring

K P RM 2 -- 18 20 16 2 23 8 3 6 7 17 1 3 8 13 -- --

Canyon Mine Well

H

R AM 3 1 24 4 6 14 1 4 20 3 1 15 19 22 3 19 -- --
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 191

Groundwater source

 Perched water-bearing zones in the Coconino Sandstone 

 and sandstones in the Supai Formation

 Redwall-Muav Aquifer

Geographic region and mining condition

 Marble Platform, no mining

 Kanab Creek drainage, no mining

 Kanab Creek drainage, reclaimed mines

 Kanab Creek drainage, active mines 

 Havasu Creek drainage, active mines 

Percent

Calcium

 100 

 80 

 60 

 40 

 20 

 0 

 0 

 20 

 40 

 60 

 80 

 100 

Magnesium

 0 

 20 

 40 

 60 

 80 

 100 

Sodium plus Potassium

Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrite plus Nitrate

 0 

 20 

 40 

 60 

 80 

 100 

 100 

 80 

 60 

 40 

 20 

 0 

Carbonate plus Bicarbonate

 100 

 80 

 60 

 40 

 20 

 0 

Sulfate

 0 

 20 

 40 

 60 

 80 

 100 

Sulfate plus Chloride

 0 

 20 

 40 

 60 

 80 

 100 

Calcium plus Magnesium

 100 

 80 

 60 

 40 

 20 

 0 

 100 

 80 

 60 

 40 

 20 

 0 

Percent

Percent

EXPLANATION

Figure 18. Major ion composition in groundwater samples collected in 2009 from 

sites in northern Arizona. Vasey’s Paradise and South Canyon Springs samples 

excluded owing to insufficient data.

Trace Elements

Several trace elements differ by geographic region and by 

groundwater source. Although the 2009 groundwater samples 

were analyzed for many trace elements, this evaluation focuses 

on those determined by a previous study (Wenrich and others, 

1994) to occur with uranium in mineralized breccia-pipe orebodies: antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, mercury, 

molybdenum, lead, nickel, silver, strontium, vanadium, and 

zinc. Some of these elements may not appear in groundwater 

as a result of differing solubilities and complexing anions. 

Relations between some trace elements and geographic region 

were not examined owing to the elements’ low concentrations. 

Concentrations of cobalt, copper, and silver were less than the 

minimum reporting limit in nearly all of the wells and springs 

sampled (appendix 2). Neither nickel nor cadmium was commonly detected, although they were detected at low concentrations in all four wells; however, cadmium was detected at only 

3 springs and nickel at only 2 springs (appendix 2, table 11).

Overall concentrations of the examined trace elements 

were low compared with drinking water standards. Arsenic 

concentrations at two sites, Fence Spring and Burnt Canyon 

Well (fig. 17) exceeded the drinking water standard of 10 μg/L 

(appendix 2). No other trace-element concentrations exceeded 

primary drinking water standards, including the drinking 

water standard for uranium of 30 μg/L.
192 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Patterns of trace-element concentrations in groundwater by geographic region were found for uranium, barium, 

molybdenum, strontium, and zinc. Uranium, molybdenum, 

strontium, and zinc concentrations were generally higher in 

groundwater from the Kanab Creek drainage than in groundwater from the Marble platform (appendix 2; table 11). 

Conversely, barium concentrations were generally higher in 

groundwater from the Marble platform than in groundwater from the Kanab Creek drainage (appendix 2; table 11). 

Concentrations of vanadium were not clearly higher or lower 

in groundwater from either of the two geographic regions. A 

high minimum reporting limit for lead and tin concentrations 

at several sites in the Marble platform precluded comparison 

of those elements in groundwater from the two geographic 

regions (appendix 2).

Patterns of trace-element concentrations in samples 

from the two groundwater sources were found for uranium, 

arsenic, barium, molybdenum, and strontium. Concentrations of uranium, molybdenum, and strontium were generally higher in groundwater from perched water-bearing 

zones than in groundwater from the Redwall-Muav aquifer 

(appendix 2; table 11). Conversely, arsenic and barium 

concentrations are generally higher in the Redwall-Muav 

aquifer than in the perched water-bearing zones (appendix 2; 

table 11). No pattern with respect to groundwater source was 

found for concentrations of lead, mercury, tin, vanadium 

and zinc.

Only a few patterns were found between of traceelement concentrations in groundwater and the three types of 

mining activity associated with the sites. Arsenic and barium 

concentrations appear to be lowest in groundwater associated with reclaimed mines, and molybdenum concentrations 

appear to be lowest in groundwater from unmined areas 

(appendix 2; table 11). None of the sites of the three types of 

mining activity were clearly enriched in dissolved uranium—

sites of each type of mining activity produced 2 of the 7 sites 

with the highest uranium concentrations (table 11). Also, 

the range in uranium concentrations at sites in areas without 

mining activities (0.57–20.6 μg/L) was similar to that for sites 

associated with active or reclaimed mines (2.14–19.5 μg/L; 

appendix 2). Additionally, neither lead, mercury, strontium, 

tin, vanadium, nor zinc concentrations appear related to mining conditions. As stated previously for sites associated with 

active or reclaimed mines, it is assumed but not known with 

certainty that the groundwater sampled at each site actually 

flowed past and had opportunity to be affected by the mining activity. The lack of patterns in trace elements observed 

in this study could have resulted if the groundwater sampled 

did not flow past the mined areas. Consequently, patterns or 

lack of patterns in trace-element chemistry with respected to 

mining conditions noted here must be considered exploratory 

and inconclusive.

Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater 

Samples Collected in 2009

Groundwater samples collected in 2009 augmented the 

historical dataset compiled in this study and provided additional 

spatial resolution for the geographic distribution of uranium 

and trace metals in the Grand Canyon area of northern Arizona. 

Through evaluation of these water-quality data, the following 

was learned about the effects of geographic locations, groundwater source, and mining activities on major ion and trace 

metal concentrations:

• Major ion composition, specific conductance, and 

concentrations of uranium, barium, strontium, and 

molybdenum appear correlated with geographic region 

and groundwater source.

• Arsenic concentrations appear correlated with groundwater source, and zinc concentrations appear correlated 

with geographic region.

• Relations of uranium and 13 other trace elements with 

mining activity were few and inconclusive.

Certain limitations of this analysis of major ion and 

trace element data, many of which were due to programmatic 

resource and timing constraints, should be recognized. These 

limitations include the following:

• Information contained in the isotopic data was not 

incorporated into this analysis, and consideration of 

these data could affect our conclusions.

• Geochemical factors, such as pH, temperature, and 

redox state, which are known to affect the fate and 

transport of trace elements, were not accounted for in 

this analysis.

• Compositional differences in the breccia pipes throughout the study area were not considered in the analysis, 

nor were the distances between the pipes and the 

sampling locations.

• The trace constituents examined in this analysis were 

limited to those determined by previous studies to be 

relevant to breccia pipe deposits; other elements not 

considered could be affected by mining activities.

• Most of the groundwater samples represent conditions 

at the end of a groundwater flow path from areas of 

recharge to location of discharge (springs). Affected 

groundwater, if any, may not have flowed yet to the 

points sampled in this study.

• This study was based on observational data without 

benefit of an optimal sampling design. Examination of 

the groundwater-chemistry data showed that groundwater chemistry appears correlated with groundwater source and location. To fully assess the relation 
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 193

between trace-element concentrations and mining 

conditions, the study needs to fully control for confounding effects of groundwater source and location 

on water chemistry. An ideal sampling design would 

have equal numbers of sites in each of the different permutations of the 3 types of mining conditions, the 2 groundwater sources, and the 3 different 

geographic regions.

• Groundwater samples were used to assess the relation 

between water chemistry and mining. The relation 

between surface-water chemistry and mining was 

not assessed.

Future Water-Quality Investigations

A more thorough investigation of water chemistry in the 

Grand Canyon region is required to better understand groundwater flow paths, travel times, and contributions from mining 

activities, particularly on the north side of the Colorado River. 

The hydrologic processes that control the distribution and 

mobilization of natural uranium in this hydrogeologic setting 

are poorly understood. New investigations of water chemistry 

can help to provide critical information that will refine our 

current understanding of the area. Suggested investigations 

include the following:

1. Collect and analyze additional water-chemistry data 

from springs and wells in the Redwall-Muav aquifer to 

determine groundwater flow characteristic north of the 

Colorado River that affect mobility of radionuclides near 

ore deposits and mined areas. Such an investigation would 

require the drilling of new observation wells in this area.

2. Monitoring of water levels in wells developed in the 

Redwall-Muav aquifer could provide information about 

the hydraulic connections between mined areas, springs, 

and seasonal precipitation in the area.

3. Establish a network of surface-water and water-qualitymonitoring sites in Kanab Creek Basin (the North 

Segregation Area). These sites would allow sampling of 

runoff that can then be analyzed for total radionuclide 

flux in this area.

4. Collect water and sediment samples from existing USGS 

streamflow gages tributary to the Colorado River in the 

Grand Canyon region (Paria River and the Little Colorado 

River) and from proposed new or reactivated gage sites on 

Kanab Creek and Havasu Creek. These data could be used 

to calculate maximum daily loads of uranium and radium. 

Such samples would provide net flux of radionuclides 

from the study area and provide an estimate of the storage 

of this material in Lake Mead.

5. Evaluate 2009 groundwater samples for isotopic composition, and then use those results to evaluate the recharge 

source area and water-rock interactions along flow paths 

that may or may not encounter orebodies.

6. Evaluate sediment samples archived by other USGS programs that were collected from tributaries to the Colorado 

River for their potential to be analyzed for total uranium 

and radium. Such analyses of archived samples would 

provide additional insight into historical radionuclide flux 

in the Grand Canyon region.

Summary and Conclusions

During 2009, the U.S. Geological Survey compiled 

available historical water-chemistry data for wells, springs, 

and streams in the Grand Canyon region and collected new 

samples at 24 sample sites for water-chemistry analysis. These 

data have three uses: evaluating the effects of legacy mining 

in the region, providing baseline information for dissolved 

uranium in groundwater, and comparing subbasin mining 

activities in the Kanab Creek Basin in northern Arizona. 

The occurrence and movement of groundwater north of the 

Colorado River has never been fully described owing to the 

limited population in this part of northern Arizona and to a 

lack of data needed to complete an analysis. Geologic and 

available hydrologic data from wells and springs were used 

to conceptualize the movement of groundwater in this part of 

northern Arizona.

Historical water-quality and water-chemistry data evaluated for 1,014 water samples from 428 sites indicate that about 

70 sites have exceeded either the primary or secondary maximum contaminant levels for certain major ions and trace elements, such as arsenic, iron, lead, manganese, radium, sulfate, 

and uranium. These data suggest that water recharged from 

the surface or from perched water-bearing zones may contain 

dissolved gypsum from overlying rock units or may have been 

in contact with sulfide-rich ore. A few springs and wells in the 

region contain concentrations of dissolved uranium greater 

than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum 

contaminant level of 30 μg/L. These springs and wells are 

close by or in direct contact with orebodies. Water samples 

from a few springs produce gross alpha and gross beta particle 

values greater than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

recommended maximum contaminant level of 15 pCi/L and 

4 mrem/y respectively.

Sixty-six percent of natural water sample concentrations of dissolved uranium in the dataset were 5 μg/L or less, 

and they may be subjectively be classified as low concentrations for the study area. Dissolved uranium concentrations 

in about 120 springs and 32 streams in the region in the 

range 5–30 μg/L result from natural dissolution and erosion 
194 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

of ore deposits. Fifteen springs and 5 wells in the region 

contain concentrations of dissolved uranium that exceed the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant 

level for drinking water and are related to mining processes. 

Surface water in the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon 

region contains dissolved uranium concentrations typically 

less than 5 μg/L. The Virgin River in the northwest corner 

of the study area, in contrast, contains dissolved-uranium 

concentrations greater than 80 μg/L from 1979. There is no 

information since then to determine whether the concentrations persist or not.

Observation of groundwater-chemistry relations between 

concentration and geographic region (Marble platform, Kanab 

Creek drainage, and Havasu Creek drainage) and groundwater 

source (Redwall-Muav aquifer or perched water-bearing zone 

in the Coconino Sandstone and sandstones of the Supai Group) 

were made for major-ion composition, specific conductance, 

and concentrations of uranium, arsenic, barium, molybdenum, 

strontium, and zinc. Observation of groundwater-chemistry 

relations between concentration and mining condition (no 

mining activity, active mines on standby, or reclaimed mine 

areas) were limited and inconclusive. Surface water was not 

evaluated in this study.

Acknowledgments

Many agencies and individuals helped to collect and 

compile data for this study. The Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), U.S. Forest Service, Grand Canyon National Park 

(GRCA), and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) provided access to water-chemistry data for wells and 

springs in their databases. The BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and 

GRCA also expedited sample collection permits, and permits 

and waivers for access to springs in areas that are not normally 

visited. Leslie Grazer, Arizona Department of Water Resources 

(ADWR), compiled well data in the ADWR database for the 

region. John Stubblefield, Denison Mines, facilitated access 

to and assistance with the operation of mine wells to collect 

water samples. Several private owners also provided access 

to their wells for sampling. Steve Rice, hydrologist, and Brian 

Healy, biologist, GRCA, provided area knowledge and assistance that was invaluable in the collection of water samples 

from springs.

Many USGS personnel contributed to the collection, 

compilation, analysis, and presentation of data used in this 

report. The professional attitude of hydrologic technicians and 

hydrologists (Bob Hart, Greg Fisk, Dave Anning, Jamie Macy, 

Frank Schaffner, Geoff Debenedetto, Kurt Schonauer, 

Nancy Hornewer, Margot Truini, Cory Sannes, Nick Paretti, 

and Kim Beisner) who, in the harsh summer environment of 

the Grand Canyon (105°C-plus temperatures, wind storms, 

and long, dry, and hazardous hikes), contributed to the safety 

of all and the successful collection of most of the planned well 

and spring samples. The services of camp cook Sarah Clinger 

were invaluable for keeping us comfortable, fed, and hydrated 

in primitive conditions. Jessica (and Ada) Gardner, precleaned 

and organized hundreds of sample bottles, collected sample 

bottles from the South Rim Heliport every evening for shipping 

to the laboratories, and maintained tracking sheets and chain-ofcustody for samples transported from the field to the laboratories, 

organizing the resultant data. Marilyn Flynn produced many of 

the figures and investigated creative methods of presenting data. 

Cheryl Partin, Henry Sanger, Claire Bunch, and Naomi Castillo 

researched numerous reports and databases for water-quality data, 

verified these data, and compiled them into spreadsheets for the 

authors’ evaluation. George Billingsley, geologist, USGS, with 

his intimate knowledge of the geology and geologic structure 

of northern Arizona, provided a much-needed sounding board 

for discussions and conversation on possible groundwater flow 

scenarios in northern Arizona.

References Cited

American Public Health Association, 1985, Standard methods 

for the examination of water and wastewater (16th ed.): 

Washington, D.C., American Public Health Association.

Ames, L.L., and Dhanpat, Rai, 1978, Radionuclide interaction with soil and rock, v. 1, Processes influencing 

radionuclide mobility and retention, element chemistry and geochemistry, and conclusions and evaluation: 

Las Vegas Nev., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Report EPA 520/6-78-007-A, 330 p.

Appel, C.L., and Bills, D.J., 1980, Map showing ground-water 

conditions in the Canyon Diablo area, Coconino and Navajo 

Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 80–747.

Appel, C.L., and Bills, D.J., 1981, Map showing groundwater conditions in the San Francisco Peaks area, Coconino 

County, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 81–914, 2 sheets.

Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2009, Arizona water 

atlas, v. 6, Western Plateau Planning Region: Phoenix, Ariz., 

Arizona Department of Water Resources, 308 p.

Beukens, R.P., 1992, Radiocarbon accelerator mass spectrometry—Background, precision and accuracy, in Taylor, 

R.E., Long, A., and Kra, R.S., eds., Radiocarbon after 

four decades: New York, Springer-Verlag Publishing, 

p. 230–239.

Beus, S.S., and Morales, M., 2003, Grand Canyon geology 

(2d ed.): New York, Oxford University Press, 432 p.

Billingsley, G.H., 2000, Geologic map of the Grand Canyon 

30' × 60' quadrangle, Coconino and Mohave Counties, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series I–2688, version 1.0, 15 p., scale 1:100,000.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 195

Billingsley, G.H., Block, D.L., and Dyer, H.C., 2006, Geologic 

map of the Peach Springs 30' × 60' quadrangle, Mohave and 

Coconino Counties, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map SIM–2900, 17 p., 

1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., Felger, T.H., and Priest, S.S., 2006, Geologic map of the Valle 30' × 60' quadrangle, Coconino 

County, northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map SIM–2895, 23 p., 1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., and Hendricks, J.D., 1989, Physiographic 

features of northwestern Arizona, in Elston, D.P., Billingsley, 

G.H., and Young, R.A., eds., Geology of Grand Canyon, 

northern Arizona (with a Colorado River guide): Washington, 

D.C., American Geophysical Union, chap. 4, p. 67–71.

Billingsley, G.H., Priest, S.S., and Felger, T.H., 2006, Geologic map of the Fredonia 30' × 60' quadrangle, Mohave 

and Coconino Counties, northern Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Scientific Investigations Map SIM–3035, 25 p., 

1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., Priest, S.S., and Felger, T.H., 2007, Geologic map of the Cameron 30' × 60' quadrangle, Coconino 

County, northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map SIM–2977, 33 p., 1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., Spamer, E.E., and Menkes, Dove, 1997, 

Quest for the pillar of gold, the mines and miners of the 

Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon, Ariz., Grand Canyon Association Monograph 10, 112 p.

Billingsley, G.H., and Wellmeyer, J.L., 2006, Geologic Map 

of the Mount Trumbull 30' × 60' quadrangle, Mohave and 

Coconino Counties, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series I–2766, 2003, 

revised 2006, 36 p., 1:100,000.

Billingsley, G.H., and Workman, J.B., 2000, Geologic map 

of the Littlefield 30' × 60' quadrangle, Mohave County, 

northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic 

Investigations Series I–2628, 25 p., 1:100,000.

Bills, D.J., and Flynn M.E., 2002, Hydrogeologic data for the 

Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino and Yavapai 

Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 02–265, 29 p.

Bills, D.J., Flynn, M.E., and Monroe, S.A., 2007, Hydrogeology of the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, 

Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5222, 101 p., 

4 plates.

Bills, D.J., Truini, Margot, Flynn, M.E., Pierce, H.E., Catchings, 

R.D., and Rymer, M.J., 2000, Hydrogeology of the regional 

aquifer near Flagstaff, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4122, 143 p., 

4 plates.

Brinton, T.I., Antweiler, R.C., and Taylor, H.E., 1996, 

Method for the determination of dissolved chloride, nitrate 

and sulfate in natural water using ion chromatography: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–426A, 16 p.

Brown, D., and Lowe, C., 1982, Biotic communities of the 

southwest United States and Mexico: Special issue of 

Desert Plants, v. 4, nos. 104, University of Arizona Boyce 

Tompson Southwest Arboretum.

Buekins, R.P., 1992, Radiocarbon accelerator mass spectrometry: Background, precision and accuracy, in Taylor, 

R.E., Long, A., and Kra, R.S., eds., Radiocarbon after four 

decades: New York, Springer-Verlag Publishing, p 230–239

Bullen, T.D., Krabbenhoft, D.P., and Kendall, C., 1996, 

Kinetic and mineralogic controls on the evolution 

of groundwater chemistry and 87Sr/86Sr in a sandy 

silicate aquifer, northern Wisconsin, USA: Geochimica 

et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 60, no. 10, p. 1807–1821.

Canonie Environmental Services Corp., 1991, Water quality 

data evaluation report, 33 p.

Casadevall, W.P., 1989, Exploration geology of Canyon breccia pipe south of Grand Canyon, Arizona [abs.]: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 73, no. 9, 

p. 1150.

Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Hoff, J., Gallup, C.D., Richards, 

D.A., and Asmerom Y., 2000, The half-lives of uranium-234 

and thorium-230. Chem. Geol. 169, 17–33.

Clark, I.D., and Fritz, P., 1997, Environmental isotopes in 

hydrogeology: Boca Raton, Fla., Lewis Publishers, 328 p.

Cooley, M.E., 1976, Spring flow from pre-Pennsylvanian rocks 

in the southwestern part of the Navajo Indian Reservation, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 521–F, 

15 p.

Cooley, M.E., Harshbarger, J.W., Akers, J.P., and Hardt, W.F., 

1969, Regional hydrogeology of the Navajo and Hopi 

Indian Reservations, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, with 

a section on Vegetation by Hicks, O.N.: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 521–A, 61 p., 9 plates.

Coplen, T.B., 1994, Reporting of stable hydrogen, carbon, and 

oxygen isotopic abundances: Pure and Applied Chemistry, 

v. 66, p. 273–276.

Cordova, R.M., 1981, Ground-water conditions in the upper 

Virgin River and Kanab Creek basins area, Utah, with 

emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone: Utah Department of 

Natural Reosurces Technical Publication 70, 87 p., 3 plates.

Crossey, L.J., Fischer, T.B., Patchett, P.J., Karlstrom, K.E., 

Hilton, D.R., *Newell, D.L., Huntoon, P., and Reynolds, 

A.C., 2006, Dissected hydrologic system at the Grand Canyon: Interaction between deeply derived fluids and plateau 

aquifer waters in modern springs and travertine: Geology, 

v. 34, p. 25–28.
196 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Dames & Moore, 1987, Hermit Mine ground-water conditions Mohave County, Arizona: submitted to Energy Fuels 

Nuclear, Inc., Denver, Colo., March 20, 1987.

Darton, N.H., 1910, A reconnaissance of parts of northwestern 

New Mexico and northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 435, 88 p.

Driscoll, A., 2007, National Water Quality Laboratory chain 

of custody: U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report, 

17 p., 4 attachments.

Dutton, C.E., 1882, The Tertiary history of the Grand Canyon 

district with atlas: U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 2, 

264 p., atlas, 23 sheets.

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1990a, Hermit Mine groundwater monitoring report mining and post mining phase: 

Denver, Colo.

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1990b, Hermit Mine groundwater monitoring report mining phase, Submitted to Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality: Denver, Colo., February 12, 1990.

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1990c, Letter report to Abigail 

A. Myers, ADEQ from William J. Almas re: Hermit Mine 

Groundwater Protection Permit G-0035-08: Denver, Colo., 

March 7, 1990.

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1995a, Arizona aquifer protection 

permit application Pinenut Mine: Denver, Colo.

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 1995b, Arizona aquifer protection 

permit closure plan Hack Canyon Mine: Denver, Colo.

Errol L. Montgomery and Assoc., 1993a, Aquifer protection 

permit application Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., Canyon Mine, 

Coconino County, Arizona: December 1993 Final Report.

Errol L. Montgomery and Assoc., 1993b, Data for Canyon 

Mine Groundwater Monitoring Program Reference N2219 

(GRCA–8213): Annual Letter Report to Grand Canyon 

National Park, 16 tables.

Errol L. Montgomery and Associates, 1999, Supplemental 

assessment of hydrogeologic conditions and potential 

effects of proposed groundwater withdrawal Coconino 

Plateau Groundwater Subbasin, Coconino County, Arizona, 

June 1999: Williams, Ariz., Appendix of Final Environmental Impact Statement for Tusayan Growth, Kaibab National 

Forest, July 1999, 256 p.

Finch, W.I., 2003, Uranium—Fuel for nuclear energy 2002: 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2179–A, 18 p. Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2179-a/.

Finch, W.I., Sutphin, H.B., Pierson, C.T., McCammon, R.B., 

and Wenrich, K.J., 1990, The 1987 estimate of undiscovered 

uranium endowment in solution-collapse breccia pipes in 

the Grand Canyon region of northern Arizona and adjacent 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1051, 19 p.

Farrar, C.D., 1979, Map showing ground-water conditions 

in the Bodaway Mesa area, Coconino County, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79–1488, 

scale 1:250,000.

Farrar, C.D., 1980, Map showing ground-water conditions in 

the Hopi area, Coconino and Navajo Counties, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80–3, 4 sheets, 

scale 1:250,000.

Farnsworth, R.K., Thompson, E.S., and Peck, E.L., 1982, 

Evaporation atlas for the contiguous 48 United States: 

Washington D.C., National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration Technical Report NWS 33, 26 p.

Fishman, M.J., Pritt, J.W., and Raese, J.W., 1994, Guideline 

for method validation and publication: National Water Quality Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure MX0015.0., 

11 p.

Fitzgerald, J., 1996, Residence time of ground water issuing from 

the south rim aquifer in the eastern Grand Canyon: Las Vegas, 

University of Nevada, master’s thesis, May 1996, 103 p.

Flint, A.L., Flint, L.E., Hevesi, J.A., and Blainey, J.B., 2004, 

Fundamental concepts of recharge in the desert southwest—

A regional modeling perspective, in Hogan, J.F., Phillips, 

F.M., and Scanlon, B.R., eds., Groundwater recharge in 

a desert environment—The southwestern United States: 

American Geophysical Union Water Science and Applications Series, v. 9, p. 159–184, doi:10.1029/0009WSA10.

Flint, A.L., and Flint, L.E., 2007, Application of the basin 

characterization model to estimate in-place recharge and 

runoff potential in the Basin and Range carbonate-rock 

aquifer system, White Pine County, Nevada, and adjacent 

areas in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5099, 20 p.

Foust, Jr., R.D., and Hope, Steve, 1985, Seasonal trends in the 

chemical composition of Grand Canyon waters: Flagstaff, 

Ariz., Ralph M. Bilby Research Center, Northern Arizona 

University, March 1985, 39 p., one appendix.

Fritz, P., and Fontes, Jean-Charles, 1980, Handbook of 

environmental isotope geochemistry, v. 1−2: Amsterdam, 

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 557 p.

Garbarino, J.R., Kanagy, L.K., and Cree, M.E., 2006, Determination of elements in natural-water, biota, sediment, and soil 

samples using collision/reaction cell inductively coupled 

plasma–mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, sec. B, chap. 1, 88 p.

Garbarino, J.R., and Taylor, H.E., 1979, An inductively 

coupled plasma atomic–emission spectrometric method for 

routine water quality testing: Applied Spectroscopy, v. 33, 

p. 220–225.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 197

Garbarino, J.R., and Taylor, H.E., 1996, Inductively coupled 

plasma−mass spectrometric method for the determination of 

dissolved trace elements in natural water: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 94–358, 88 p.

Goings, D.B., 1985, Spring flow in a portion of Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona: Las Vegas University of Nevada, 

master’s thesis, CPSU/UNLV 033/01, June 1985, 60 p.

Grand Canyon National Park, 2006, Community fact sheet—

Orphan Mine site: National Park Service, Grand Canyon 

National Park Fact Sheet, revision2, February 2006. 1 p. 

http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/orphan1.pdf. 

Accessed Jan. 15, 2010.

Gregory, H.E., 1916, The Navajo country—A geographic 

and hydrographic reconnaissance of parts of Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 380, 219 p.

Hart, R.J., Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J., and Flynn, M.E., 2002, 

Generalized hydrogeology and ground-water budget for 

the C aquifer, Little Colorado River Basin and parts of the 

Verde and Salt River Basins, Arizona and New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 02–4026, 47 p., 1 plate.

Hoffman, G.L., Fishman, M.J., and Garbarino, J.R., 1996, 

Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water Quality Laboratory―In-bottle acid digestion of 

whole-water samples: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 96–225, 28 p.

Hopkins, R.T., Fox, J.P., Campbell, W.L., and Antweiler, J.C., 

1984a, Analytical results and sample locality map of streamsediment, panned-concentrate, rock, and water samples from 

the Andrus Canyon, Grassy Mountain, Last Chance Canyon, 

Mustang Point, Nevershine Mesa, Pigeon Canyon, and Snap 

Point Wilderness Study Areas, Mohave County, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84–288, 34 p.

Hopkins, R.T., Fox, J.P., Campbell, W.L., and Antweiler, J.C., 

1984b, Analytical results and sample locality map of stream 

sediment, panned-concentrates, soil, and rock samples from 

the Kanab Creek (B3060) Roadless Area, Coconino and 

Mohave counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 84–291, 18 p.

Hualapai Water Resources Department, 1995, Hualapai 

Reservation water-quality assessment report 305(b), 1995: 

Hualapai Water Resources Department, Peach Springs, 

Arizona, with assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey, 

June 1995, 101 p.

Huntoon, P.W., 1974, Synopsis of Laramide and postLaramide structural geology of the eastern Grand Canyon, 

Arizona, in Karlstrom, T.N.V., Swann, G.A., and Eastwood, 

R.L., eds., Geology of northern Arizona with notes on 

archaeology and paleoclimate—Regional studies: Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section Meeting, 

Flagstaff, Arizona, part 1, p. 317–335.

Huntoon, P.W., 1977, Holocene faulting in the western 

Grand Canyon, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 

November 1977, v. 88, p. 1619–1622.

Huntoon, P.W., 2000a, Variability of karstic permeability 

between unconfined and confined aquifers, Grand Canyon 

region, Arizona: Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, May 2000, v. VI, no. 2, p. 155–170.

Huntoon, P.W., 2000b, Karstification associated with groundwater circulation through the Redwall artesian aquifer, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona, U.S.A., in Klimchouk, AB., Ford, D, C., 

Palmer, A.N., and Dreybrodt, W., eds., Speleogenesis—

Evolution of karst aquifers: Huntsville, National Speleological Society, Inc., p. 287–291. 

International Uranium Corp., 1999, Letter report to Craig 

Dewalt, ADEQ from Donn M. Pillmore, January 29, 1999.

Johnson, P.W., and Sanderson, R.B., 1968, Spring flow into 

the Colorado River—Lees Ferry to Lake Mead, Arizona: 

Arizona State Land Department Water-Resources Report 34, 

26 p.

Kendall, C., and Caldwell, E.A., 1998, Fundamentals of 

isotope geochemistry, in Kendall, C. and McDonnell, J.J., 

eds., Isotope tracers in catchment hydrology: Amsterdam, 

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, p. 51–86.

Kessler, J.A., 2002, Grand Canyon springs and the RedwallMuav aquifer—Comparison of geologic framework and 

groundwater flow models: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona 

University, unpublished master’s thesis, 122 p.

Koterba, M.T., Wilde, F.D., and Lapham, W.W., 1995, 

Ground-water data-collection protocols and procedures 

for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program—

Collection and documentation of water-quality samples 

and related data: U.S. geological Survey Open-File 

Report 95–399, 113 p.

Kraemer, T.F., 2005, Radium isotopes in Cayuga Lake, 

New York—Indicators of inflow and mixing processes: 

Limnology and Oceanography, v. 50, no. 1, p. 158–168.

Kraemer, T.F., Doughten, M.W., and Bullen, T.D., 2002, Use 

of ICP/MS with ultrasonic nebulizer for routine determination of uranium activity ratios in natural water: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 36, p. 4899–4904.

LaRue, E.C., 1925, Water power and flood control of Colorado 

River below Green River, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 556, 176 p.
198 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Langmuir, D., 1978, Uranium solution-mineral equilibria at low 

temperatures with applications to sedimentary ore deposits: 

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 42, pp. 547–569.

Levings, G.W., and Farrar, C.D., 1978, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the House Rock area, Coconino County, 

Arizona―1976: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 78–15, 17 p., 1 sheet.

Levings, G.W., and Farrar, C.D., 1979a, Map showing groundwater conditions in the Kanab Area, Coconino and Mohave 

Counties, Arizona―1976: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Open-File Report 79–1070, 32 p., 

2 sheets.

Levings, G.W., and Farrar, C.D., 1979b, Map showing groundwater conditions in the Virgin River, Grand Wash, and 

Shiviwits areas, Mohave County, Arizona―1976: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open-File 

Report 79–57, 24 p., 1 sheet.

Liebe, Dirk, 2003, The use of the 234U/238U activity ratio 

at the characterization of springs and surface streams in 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Dresden, Saxony, 

Germany, Hochschule fur Technik und Wirtschaft Dresden, 

M.S. thesis, 105 p.

Longsworth, S.A., 1994, Hydrogeology and water chemistry 

of abandoned uranium mines and radiochemistry of soil 

leachate, Monument Valley and Cameron areas, Arizona and 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 93–4226, 43 p.

McGavock, E.H., 1968, Basic ground-water data for southern 

Coconino County, Arizona: Phoenix, Arizona State Land 

Department Water-Resources Report 33, 48 p.

McGavock, E.H., Anderson, T.W., Moosburner, Otto, and 

Mann, L.J., 1986, Water resources of southern Coconino 

County, Arizona: Phoenix, Arizona Department of Water 

Resources Bulletin 4, 53 p.

Melis, T.S., Phillips, W.M., Webb, R.H., and Bills, D.J., 1996, 

When the blue-green waters turn red―Historical flooding 

in Havasu Creek, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96–4059, 136 p.

Melis, T.S., Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., and Wise, T.J., 1994, 

Magnitude and frequency data for historic debris flows in 

the Grand Canyon National Park and vicinity, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Reosurces Investigations 

Report 94–4214, 285 p.

Metzger, D.G., 1961, Geology in relation to availability 

of water along the south rim, Grand Canyon National 

Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 1475–C, 138 p.

Mitko, K., and Bebek, M., 1999, ICP−OES determination 

of trace elements in salinated water: Atomic Spectroscopy, 

v. 20, p. 217–223.

Mitko, K., and Bebek, M., 2000, Determination of major 

elements in saline water samples using a dual-view 

ICP−OES: Atomic Spectroscopy, v. 21, p. 77–85.

Monroe, S.A., Antweiler, R.C., Hart, R.J., Taylor, H.E., Truini, 

M., Rihs, J.R., and Felger, T.J., 2005, Chemical characteristics of ground-water discharge at selected springs, south rim 

Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 04–5146, 59 p., 1 plate.

National Bureau of Standards (National Institute of Standards 

and Technology), 1984, Certificate for standard reference 

material 1643b, trace elements in water: Washington, D.C.

National Water Quality Laboratory, 1998, Determination of 

elements in whole-water digests using inductively coupled 

plasma−optical emission spectrometry and inductively 

coupled plasma−mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98–165, 101 p.

Natural Resources Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1999, Field 

study of springs and other hydrologic features on the 

Havasupai Reservation, Arizona: Fort Collins, Colo., Natural Resources Consulting Engineers, Inc., 28 p.

Natural Resources Consulting Engineers, Inc., 2000, Field 

study of springs and Bar Four Well on the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona: Fort Collins, Colo., Natural Resources 

Consulting Engineers, Inc., Fort Collins, 26 p.

Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 1985, Marble canyon spring 

sampling investigation: Technical Report BMI/ONWI–514, 

62 p.

Olson, D.M., Dinerstien, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgress, 

N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., D’Amico, J.A., 

Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, 

T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, 

W.W., Hedeo, P., and Kassem, K.R., 2001, Terrestrial 

ecoregions of the world―A new map of life on Earth: 

Bio Science, v. 51, p. 933−938. 

Osmond, J.K., and Cowart, J.B., 1992, Groundwater, in Uraniumseries disequilibrium―Applications to earth, marine, and 

environmental sciences, Ivanovich, M., and Harmon, R.S., 

eds.: Oxford, U.K., Clarendon Press, p. 259−289.

Paces, J.B., Ludwig, K.R., Peterman, Z.E., and Neymark, L.A., 

2002, 234U/238U evidence for local recharge and patterns of 

ground-water flow in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 

USA: Applied Geochemistry, v. 17, p. 751–779

Peterson, J.E., Buell, S.E., Cadigan, R.A., Felmlee, J.K., and 

Sprakis, C.S., 1977, Uranium, radium and selected metallicelement analyses of spring water and travertine samples 

from the Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 77–36, 7 p.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow, v. 1, Measurement of stage and discharge: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 284 p.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 199

Ross, L.E.V., 2005, Interpretive three-dimensional numerical groundwater flow modeling, Roaring Springs, Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: Flagstaff, Master’s Thesis, Department 

of Geology, Northern Arizona University, December 2005, 

120 p.

Rote, J.J., Flynn, M.E., and Bills, D.J., 1997, Hydrologic data, 

Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to 

Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990–95: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 97–250, 474 p.

Roth, D.A., 1994, Ultratrace analysis of mercury and its 

distribution in some natural waters in the United States: Fort 

Collins, Colorado State University, Department of Chemistry Ph.D. dissertation, 309 p.

Roth, D.A., Taylor, H.E., Domagalski, J., Dileanis, P., Peart, 

D.B., Antweiler, R.C., and Alpers, C.N., 2001, Distribution of inorganic mercury in Sacramento River water and 

sediments: Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, v. 40, p. 161–172.

Sanford, R.F., 1982, Preliminary model of regional Mesozoic 

groundwater flow and uranium deposition in the Colorado 

Plateau: Geology, July 1982, v. 10, p., 248−352. 

Smith, S.M., 2006, National Geochemical Database reformatted data from the National Uranium Resource Evaluation 

(NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 97–0492, version 1.40, http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/1997/ofr-97-0492/, accessed January 13, 2010.

Spamer, E.E., compiler, with G.H. Billingsley, W.J. Breed, 

R.C. Euler, D.A. House, Grace Keroher, Valerie Meyer, 

Richard Quartaroli, L.E. Stevens, and L.M. Hinchliffe)1990, 

Bibliography of the Grand Canyon and the lower Colorado 

River from 1540: Grand Canyon Natural History Association Monograph 8, 370 p.

Steiger, R.H., and Jäger, E., 1977, Subcommission on 

geochronology—Convention on the use of decay constants 

in geo- and cosmochronology: Earth and Planetary Science 

Letters, v. 36, p. 359–362.

Stuiver, Minze, and Polach, H.A., 1977, Discussion of reporting 14C data: Radiocarbon, v. 19, no. 3, p. 355–363.

Szabo, B.J., Kolesar, P.T., Riggs, A.C., Winograd, I.J., 

and Ludwig, K.R., 1994. Paleoclimatic inferences from 

a 120,000-yr calcite record of water-table fluctuation 

in Browns Room of Devils Hole, Nevada: Quaternary 

Research v. 41, no. 1, p. 59–69.

Taylor, H.E., 2000, Inorganic substances, mass spectrometric 

in the analysis of, in Meyers, R.A., ed., Encyclopedia of 

analytical chemistry: Chichester, England, John Wiley and 

Sons, Ltd., p. 11761–11773.

Taylor, H.E., Berghoff, K., Andrews, E.D., Antweiler, R.C., 

Brinton, T.I., Miller, C., Peart, D.B., and Roth, D.A., 1997, 

Water quality of springs and seeps in Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area: National Park Service Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-97/128, 19 p.

Taylor, H.E., Peart, D.B., Antweiler, R.C., Brinton, T.I., 

Campbell, W.L., Garbarino, J.R., Roth, D.A., Hart, R.J., and 

Averett, R.C., 1996, Data from synoptic water quality studies on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, 

November 1990 and June 1991: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 96–614, 176 p.

Taylor, H.E., Spence, J.R., Antweiler, R.C., Berghoff, K., 

Plowman, T.I., Peart, D.B., and Roth, D.A., 2004, Water 

quality and quantity of selected springs and seeps along 

the Colorado River corridor, Utah and Arizona—Arches 

National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area, and Grand Canyon National 

Park, 1997–98: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2003–496, 33 p.

Taylor, O.J., Hood, J.W., and Zimmerman, E.A., 1986, Hydrogeologic framework of the upper Colorado River basin—

excluding the San Juan Basin—Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, 

and Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–687, scale 1:3,000,000, 2 sheets.

The PRISM Group at Oregon State University, 2006, United 

States monthly or annual precipitation, 1971–2000: PRISM 

Climate Group, Oregon State University, accessed May 29, 

2008, at http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu.

Thomas, B.E., 2003, Water-quality data for Walnut Canyon 

and Wupatki National Monuments, Arizona, 2001–02: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03–286, 13 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII, 1973, 

Radium-226, uranium and other radiological data from 

water quality surveillance stations located in the Colorado 

River Basin of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona―

January 1961 through June 1972: 155 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976, Quality criteria for water 1976 [The Red Book]: U.S. Environmental 

Agency number 440976023, July 1976, 534 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. National 

primary drinking water regulations―Radionuclides, Final 

Rule: Federal Register, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 

December 7, 2000, v. 65, no. 236, p. 76708−76753.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, Drinking water 

standards and health advisories: Washington, D.C., EPA 

822–R–04–005, 12 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, Drinking water 

contaminants: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/

index.html, accessed October 2009 [from table 5].
200 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009a, Mineral resources on-line 

spatial data―Geochemistry of water samples in the US 

from the NURE-HSSR database: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/nure/

water/, accessed November 4, 2009.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009b, National Water Information 

System (NWISWeb): U.S. Geological Survey database, 

accessed October 16, 2009 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/

nwis/.

Van Gosen, B.S., and Wenrich, K.J., 1989, Ground magnetometer surveys over known and suspected breccia pipes on the 

Coconino Plateau, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1683–C, 31 p.

Webb, R.H., Smith, S.S., and McCord, V.A.S., 1991, Historic 

channel change of Kanab Creek, southern Utah and northern Arizona: Grand Canyon Natural History Association 

monograph 9, 91 p.

Wenrich, K.J., Billingsley, G.H., and Huntoon, P.W., 1997; 

Breccia-pipe and geologic map of the northeastern part 

of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and vicinity, Arizona: 

U.S. Geological Survey I–Map 2440.

Wenrich, K.J., Boundy, S.Q., Aumente-Modreski, R., Schwarz, 

S.P., Sutphin, H.B., and Been, J.M., 1994, A hydrogeochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes—Data from 

springs, wells, and streams on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 93–619, 66 p.

Wenrich, K.J., and Sutphin, H.B., 1989, Lithotectonic setting 

necessary for formation of a uranium-rich, solution-collapse 

breccia-pipe province, Grand Canyon region, Arizona, 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89–173, 33 p.

Wershaw, R.L., Fishman, M.J., Grabbe, R.R., and Lowe, 

L.E., eds., 1987, Methods for the determination of organic 

substances in water and fluvial sediments: U. S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 5, chap. A3, p. 6–7. 

Wigley, T.M.L., and Muller, A.B., 1981, Fractionation corrections in radiocarbon dating: Radiocarbon, v. 23, no. 2, 

p. 173–190.

Wilde, F.D., and Radtke, D.B., eds., 1998, National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data—Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6.

Young, R.A., 2008, Pre-Colorado River drainage in the 

western Grand Canyon—Potential influence on Miocene 

stratigraphy in Grand Wash trough: Geological Society of 

America Special Papers 2008, v. 439, p. 319–333

Zukosky, K.A., 1995, An assessment of the potential to 

use water chemistry parameters to define ground water 

flow pathways at Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: 

Las Vegas, Department of Geoscience, University of 

Nevada, master’s thesis, 105 p.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 201

A duplicate set of water samples were sent to 

the Northern Arizona University (NAU) Isotope and 

Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, Ariz., for dissolved 

uranium and uranium isotopes analysis. The NAU Laboratory 

used a 20 mL aliquot for analysis pipetted volumetrically into 

a precleaned 50 mL polypropylene test tube along with tracemetal grade nitric acid (16 M, 2 mL) and a known amount of 

purified 233U tracer solution. After sample-spike equilibration, 

uranium was purified using 50 mg of UTEVA resin beads 

(50–100 μm) added to each sample, agitated for 30 minutes, 

and retained on an ion-exchange column. Columns were rinsed 

three times with 1 mL of 2 M HNO3, followed by elution 

of uranium using 1.0 mL water, 1.0 mL 0.05 M ammonium 

oxalate, and 1.0 mL water. Chemical process blanks (n=3) 

were run through the entire sample preparation process along 

with duplicates of two samples. Inductively coupled plasma–

mass spectrometer (ICP–MS) analyses were conducted using 

a Thermo X Series II quadrupole ICP–MS equipped with 

an APEX HF sample introduction system (ESI Scientific, 

Omaha, Nebr.) operating in peak-jumping mode (10 millisecond dwell at each of 232Th, 233U, 234U, and 235U peaks with 

1,500 sweeps per integration). An analysis consisted of three 

sequential integrations, each requiring 70 seconds. Resulting data represent the average and standard deviations for 

these three integrations. The sample introduction system was 

rinsed between samples with an aqueous solution containing 

0.005 M ammonium oxalate and 0.1 M HNO3 while monitoring the 235U+

 ion beam was monitored until the signal reached 

levels typical of the blanks. Average blank results were used to 

correct 234U+ and 235U+ signals. Corrections to the 233U+ signal 

for contributions of ThH+ were not necessary because Th is 

virtually absent in all samples. Mass bias corrections were 

applied based on external measurements of 238U/235U in natural 

U solutions. Corrected 234U/235U atom ratios were converted to 234U/238U activity ratios as follows:

AR 234/238 = (234U/235U) × (1/137.88) / 0.00005472 (1)

Appendix 1. Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry 

Laboratory Methods for Dissolved Uranium and Uranium Isotope Analysis of 

Spring-Water and Well-Water Samples Collected from Sites in Northern Arizona

where

(1/137.88) is the 235U/238U atom ratio in nature (constant 

within 0.1 percent)

and

0.00005472 is the 234U/238U atom ratio at secular equilibrium. 

(Steiger and Jäger, 1977; Cheng and others, 

2000). Eight blocks of 234U/235U atom ratios were 

collected at different times during the analysis of 

a uranium solution prepared from “modern coral.” 

This material has the activity ratio characteristic of 

modern seawater (see following table).

Uranium Atomic Ratios in Modern Corals

[The expected atomic ratio in modern seawater is 1.148±0.002. AR 234/238, 

atomic ratio of uranium-234 to uranium-238; SD, standard deviation

Block AR 234/238 SD

1 1.158 0.001

2 1.154 0.004

3 1.153 0.001

4 1.154 0.003

5 1.150 0.002

6 1.158 0.006

7 1.156 0.009

8 1.155 0.006

Average 1.155 0.003

The expected AR in modern seawater is 1.148±0.002 (Szabo and others, 1994).

The average NAU value of 1.155 for the atomic ratio 

of uranium-234 to uranium-238 (AR 234/238) is in close 

agreement with the expected value for modern seawater 

(1.148±0.002). Given the large differences among AR 234/238 

values observed for unknown samples, the slight bias between 

measured and expected seawater AR 234/238 values is 

insignificant. Uranium concentrations in the water samples 

were obtained from the correct 233U/235U and standard isotope 

dilution calculations. Duplicate analyses of two water samples 

(Showerbath Spring and Rider Spring) are in excellent agreement for both activity ratios and uranium concentrations.

Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 203

Appendix 2. Water Chemistry Data from Water Samples Collected from Springs 

and Wells Sampled in Northern Arizona in 2009

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.

These terms are used on the following pages in table A:

[H, Havasu Creek drainage;

K, Kanab Creek;

M, Marble Platform;

P, perched water-bearing zones in the Coconino Sandstone and sandstones in the Supai Formation;

R, Redwall-Muav aquifer;

AM, active mines;

NM, not mined;

RM, reclaimed mines;

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California;

Coplen, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia;

Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia;

Kraemer, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia;

Michel, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California;

NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, Arizona;

NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado;

RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia;

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado;

AASCE, atomic absorption spectrometry–chelation extraction;

AASD, atomic absorption spectrometry direct;

AAS–GF, atomic absorption spectrophotometry–graphite furnace;

AASH, atomic absorption spectrometry hydride;

AES, atomic emission spectroscopy;

AES–DCP, atomic emission spectrometry–direct current plasma;

CCRDSF, colorimetry hydrazine reduction–diazotization segmented flow;

CPBDSF, colorimetry phosphormolydate block digester segmented flow;

CS, colorimetry salicylate-hypochlorite;

CV–AFS, cold vapor–atomic fluorescence spectroscopy;

EISE, electrometry ion-selective electrode;

IC, ion chromatography;

ICP–OES, inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectroscopy;

ICP–AES, inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectroscopy;

ICP–MS, inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry;

KDM, Kjeldahl digestion method;

--, not available;

<, less than;

°C, degree Celsius;

‰, per mil;

e, estimated;

field, value determined at the site;

gal/min, gallon per minute;

μg/L, microgram per liter;

μS/cm, microsiemen per centimeter at 25°C;

mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter;

mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter;

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter;

mg/L, milligram per liter;

mm Hg, millimeter of mercury;

nm, not measured;

ns, no sample;

pC/L, picocurie per liter;

R, results less than sample-specific reporting limit;

SD, standard deviation;

TU, tritium unit;

unf, unfiltered]
204 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.

Spring or well Geographic

region

Groundwater

source

Mining

condition

Element

Lab

Method

Units

Silver

NWQL

AASGF

μg/L

Aluminum

NWQL

AES–DCP

μg/L

Aluminum

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Aluminum

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

AluminumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring M R NM -- <4 <1 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring M R NM <0.008 <4 ns ns ns

Fence Spring M R NM <0.008 <4 2 ns ns

Hanging Spring M R NM <0.008 <4 2 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring M R NM <0.008 <4 1 ns ns

South Canyon Spring M P NM -- ns 1 0.62 0.04

South Canyon Spring M P NM -- ns ns 0.56 0.03

Unknown Spring M R NM <0.008 <4 2 ns ns

Unknown Spring M R NM <0.008 3.8e 2 ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise M R NM -- ns 2 ns ns

Clearwater Spring K P NM -- <8 <5 0.32 0.02

Clearwater Spring K P NM -- ns ns 0.35 0.02

Hotel Spring K P AM <0.008 3.1e 4 3.2 0.1

Hotel Spring K P AM -- ns ns 3.2 0.1

Kanab Spring K R AM <0.008 <4 <1 0.48 0.02

Kanab Spring K R AM <0.008 <4 ns 0.45 0.04

Lower Jumpup Spring K P NM <0.024 <12 1 0.69 0.06

Lower Jumpup Spring K P NM -- ns ns 0.65 0.04

Mountain Sheep Spring K P NM -- <4 1 0.44 0.01

Mountain Sheep Spring K P NM -- <4 ns 0.41 0.01

Rider Spring M P NM <0.008 <4 1 ns ns

Rider Spring M P NM -- ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring K P RM -- <8 <5 0.66 0.05

Rock Spring K P RM -- ns ns 0.87 0.04

Schmutz Spring K P NM <0.008 <4 <1 0.50 0.03

Schmutz Spring K P NM -- <4 ns 0.43 0.00

Showerbath Spring K R AM <0.008 <4 <1 0.25 0.02

Showerbath Spring K R AM -- ns ns 0.31 0.04

Side Canyon Spring K R AM <0.008 <4 1 0.28 0.02

Side Canyon Spring K R AM -- ns ns 0.25 0.01

Slide Spring K P RM -- <4 <1 0.23 0.02

Slide Spring K P RM -- ns ns 0.22 0.04

Upper Jumpup Spring K P NM <0.008 <4 1 0.21 0.01

Upper Jumpup Spring K P NM -- ns ns 0.25 0.01

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

K P RM -- <8 <5 0.96 0.09

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

K P RM -- ns ns 0.60 0.01

Burnt Canyon Well K P NM -- <8 <3 0.2 0.1

Burnt Canyon Well K P NM -- ns ns 0.2 0.1

Canyon Mine Well H R AM <0.008 2.4e <1 0.2 0.1

Canyon Mine Well H R AM -- ns ns 0.3 0.1

Pinenut Well K R AM -- <4 <3 0.3 0.1

Pinenut Well K R AM -- ns ns 0.1 0.0

Tom Land Well K P NM -- 10.8 <3 0.1 0.1

Tom Land Well K P NM -- ns ns 0.2 0.0
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 205

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Arsenic

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Arsenic

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Arsenic

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

ArsenicSD

Taylor

ICP – MS

μg/L

Boron

NWQL

AES–DCP

μg/L

Boron

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Boron

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

BoronSD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring 0.95 1.2 ns ns 59 60 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring 0.99 ns ns ns 58 ns ns ns

Fence Spring 16.4 16.0 ns ns 483 380 ns ns

Hanging Spring 2.3 2.3 ns ns 11 <20 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring 2.2 2.3 ns ns 11 <20 ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns 1.5 1.4 0.1 ns 30 26 2

South Canyon Spring ns ns 1.4 0.0 ns ns 24 2

Unknown Spring 2.2 2.3 ns ns 12 <20 ns ns

Unknown Spring 2.2 2.3 ns ns 12 <20 ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns 1.9 ns ns ns <20 ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.93 2.0 1.3 0.0 365 360 350 7

Clearwater Spring ns ns 1.4 0.2 ns ns 353 11

Hotel Spring 6.2 6.9 6.4 0.0 171 190 176 7

Hotel Spring ns ns 6.5 0.1 ns ns 175 3

Kanab Spring 1.8 2.0 1.8 0.0 57 60 58 3

Kanab Spring 1.8 ns 1.8 0.1 59 ns 56 2

Lower Jumpup Spring 1.2 2.1 1.4 0.1 100 130 128 5

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 1.4 0.1 ns ns 131 7

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.9 1.9 1.3 0.1 89 120 113 5

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.89 ns 1.3 0.0 72 ns 111 4

Rider Spring 4.8 5.7 ns ns 559 580 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.3 2.0 0.41 0.04 174 260 230 1

Rock Spring ns ns 0.40 0.09 ns ns 240 26

Schmutz Spring 1.9 2.8 1.8 0.1 102 100 102 3

Schmutz Spring 1.8 ns 1.9 0.0 89 ns 104 11

Showerbath Spring 1.2 1.7 1.4 0.0 62 70 65 3

Showerbath Spring ns ns 1.4 0.1 ns ns 63 3

Side Canyon Spring 1.7 2.3 1.7 0.1 105 100 100 5

Side Canyon Spring ns ns 1.7 0.1 ns ns 98 7

Slide Spring 0.5 1.6 0.77 0.02 61 70 63 5

Slide Spring ns ns 0.77 0.03 ns ns 59 4

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.92 1.9 1.0 0.1 43 50 40 3

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns 1.1 0.1 ns ns 41 4

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.79 3.0 1.2 0.0 345 330 325 7

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 1.2 0.1 ns ns 325 12

Burnt Canyon Well 13.00 12.1 13 0 324 460 481 13

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 13 0 ns ns 469 15

Canyon Mine Well 0.16 0.4 0.26 0.04 36 40 37 1

Canyon Mine Well ns ns 0.26 0.02 ns ns 34 1

Pinenut Well 5.8 5.5 6.2 0.4 242 320 311 8

Pinenut Well ns ns 6.3 0.2 ns ns 323 4

Tom Land Well 0.21 1.6 0.41 0.03 244 330 310 7

Tom Land Well ns ns 0.39 0.06 ns ns 311 7
206 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Barium

NWQL

AASD

μg/L

Barium

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Barium

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Barium-SD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Beryllium

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Beryllium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

BerylliumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Bismuth

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

BismuthSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring 31 30 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Buck Farm Spring 31 ns ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring 52 54 ns ns 0.04 ns ns ns ns

Hanging Spring 181 65 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring 178 162 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns 72 74 2 ns <0.02 0.02 <0.006 0.001

South Canyon Spring ns ns 73 2 ns <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.000

Unknown Spring 180 166 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring 178 165 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns 134 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 22 22 21 1 <0.04 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.000

Clearwater Spring ns ns 21 0 ns <0.02 0.00 <0.006 0.000

Hotel Spring 57 54 56 2 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.003

Hotel Spring ns ns 57 1 ns <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Kanab Spring 25 24 25 0 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Kanab Spring 26 ns 25 0 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.006 0.002

Lower Jumpup Spring 29 29 28 0 <0.06 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 28 1 ns <0.02 0.02 <0.006 0.000

Mountain Sheep Spring 18 19 18 0 <0.02 0.009 0.005 <0.006 0.001

Mountain Sheep Spring 18 ns 18 0 <0.02 0.010 0.006 <0.006 0.002

Rider Spring 8 8 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 9 9 8.6 0.2 <0.04 0.007 0.002 <0.006 0.001

Rock Spring ns ns 6.5 0.4 ns <0.006 0.008 <0.006 0.001

Schmutz Spring 7 9 8.5 0.5 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.006 0.001

Schmutz Spring 9 ns 8.4 0.8 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Showerbath Spring 23 22 23 0 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.002

Showerbath Spring ns ns 22 1 ns <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Side Canyon Spring 12 12 12 0 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Side Canyon Spring ns ns 12 0 ns <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Slide Spring 10 10 10 0 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Slide Spring ns ns 10 0 ns 0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Upper Jumpup Spring 11 11 11 0 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.001

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns 11 0 ns <0.02 0.00 <0.006 0.001

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

8 8 7.7 0.2 <0.04 <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.000

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 8.3 0.5 ns <0.02 0.01 <0.006 0.002

Burnt Canyon Well 7 8 7.7 0.5 0.06 0.04 0.01 <0.007 0.001

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 7.6 0.9 ns 0.04 0.01 <0.007 0.001

Canyon Mine Well 78 89 96 1 <0.02 <0.02 0.00 <0.007 0.001

Canyon Mine Well ns ns 93 5 ns <0.02 0.01 <0.007 0.000

Pinenut Well 11 10 11 1 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.007 0.001

Pinenut Well ns ns 11 0 ns <0.02 0.00 <0.007 0.001

Tom Land Well 7 7 6.6 0.6 0.02e <0.02 0.01 <0.007 0.001

Tom Land Well ns ns 6.8 0.8 ns <0.02 0.00 <0.007 0.001
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 207

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Bromine

Doughten

IC

mg/L

Calcium

NWQL

ICP–MS

mg/L

Calcium

Doughten

ICP–OES

mg/L

Calcium

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

CalciumSD

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

Cadmium

NWQL

AASGF

μg/L

Cadmium

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Cadmium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

CadmiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring 0.07 95.1 94.4 ns ns 0.01e <0.05 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns

Fence Spring 0.50 147 145 ns ns 0.03 <0.05 ns ns

Hanging Spring 0.03 44.9 43.5 ns ns 0.01e <0.05 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring 0.03 45.5 45.2 ns ns <0.02 <0.05 ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns ns 55.7 55 1 ns <0.05 <0.002 0.002

South Canyon Spring ns ns ns 56 2 ns ns <0.002 0.000

Unknown Spring 0.02 44.2 44.3 ns ns <0.02 <0.05 ns ns

Unknown Spring 0.02 44.1 ns ns <0.02 <0.05 ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns 43.7 ns ns ns <0.05 ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.52 492 472 464 1 0.04 <0.25 <0.002 0.000

Clearwater Spring ns ns ns 469 6 ns ns <0.002 0.000

Hotel Spring 0.53 72.6 72.8 72 2 0.02 <0.05 <0.002 0.002

Hotel Spring ns ns ns 72 1 ns ns <0.002 0.003

Kanab Spring 0.12 97.6 99.3 102 2 0.01e <0.05 <0.002 0.000

Kanab Spring ns ns ns 97 3 0.02e ns <0.002 0.002

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.46 238 251 254 0 0.04e <0.05 <0.002 0.003

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns ns 245 2 ns ns <0.002 0.001

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.13 188 189 184 13 0.02e <0.05 0.004 0.001

Mountain Sheep Spring ns ns ns 184 12 0.02e ns 0.004 0.000

Rider Spring 0.57 63.9 63.0 ns ns 0.04 <0.05 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.34 447.0 437 404 3 0.06 <0.25 <0.001 0.001

Rock Spring ns ns ns 433 15 ns ns <0.001 0.001

Schmutz Spring 0.18 239 241 241 8 0.01e <0.05 <0.002 0.002

Schmutz Spring ns ns ns 230 10 0.02 ns <0.002 0.001

Showerbath Spring 0.11 113 115 111 2 0.01e <0.05 <0.002 0.002

Showerbath Spring ns ns ns 114 3 ns ns <0.002 0.000

Side Canyon Spring 0.08 176 181 181 2 0.03 <0.05 <0.002 0.003

Side Canyon Spring ns ns ns 177 8 ns ns <0.002 0.000

Slide Spring 0.21 142 149 147 6 <0.02 <0.05 <0.002 0.000

Slide Spring ns ns ns 144 2 ns ns 0.003 0.004

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.20 132 136 137 2 0.01e <0.05 <0.002 0.002

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns ns 138 2 ns ns <0.002 0.002

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.31 498 488 483 32 0.04e <0.25 <0.002 0.002

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns ns 493 6 ns ns <0.002 0.001

Burnt Canyon Well 0.41 548 525 568 27 0.16 <0.15 0.11 0.01

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns ns 565 11 ns ns 0.11 0.00

Canyon Mine Well 0.07 32.9 42.6 43 1 <0.02 <0.05 0.009 0.002

Canyon Mine Well ns ns ns 41 1 ns ns 0.011 0.001

Pinenut Well 0.10 238 264 245 9 0.05 <0.15 0.011 0.002

Pinenut Well ns ns ns 253 10 ns ns 0.013 0.005

Tom Land Well 0.38 470 466 454 23 0.10 <0.15 0.047 0.001

Tom Land Well ns ns ns 464 21 ns ns 0.047 0.001
208 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Cerium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Cerium-SD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Chlorine

NWQL

IC

mg/L

Chlorine

Doughten

IC

mg/L

Cobalt

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Cobalt

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Cobalt

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Cobalt-SD

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns 12.7 12.9 0.09 0.10 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns 0.1 ns ns ns

Fence Spring ns ns 239 243 0.12 0.21 ns ns

Hanging Spring ns ns 2.0 2.03 0.07 0.08 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns 2.0 2.02 0.04 0.05 ns ns

South Canyon Spring 0.0021 0.0009 ns ns ns 0.07 <0.2 0.2

South Canyon Spring 0.0015 0.0005 ns ns ns ns <0.2 0.2

Unknown Spring ns ns 2.0 2.03 0.05 0.05 ns ns

Unknown Spring ns ns 2.06 0.05 <0.05 ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns ns ns 0.41 ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.0009 0.0005 69.8 70.9 0.6 0.42 <0.2 0.0

Clearwater Spring 0.0008 0.0003 ns ns ns ns <0.2 0.0

Hotel Spring 0.0079 0.0000 48.9 52.3 0.95 1.46 1.1 0.2

Hotel Spring 0.0081 0.0009 ns ns ns ns 0.9 0.2

Kanab Spring 0.0025 0.0018 16.0 16.2 0.09 0.09 <0.2 0.2

Kanab Spring 0.0020 0.0007 ns ns 0.16 ns <0.2 0.2

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0072 0.0009 41.7 42.4 0.48 0.35 <0.2 0.1

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0072 0.0012 ns ns ns ns <0.2 0.2

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0010 0.0002 41.2 41.1 0.42 0.19 <0.2 0.0

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0008 0.0001 ns ns 0.29 ns <0.2 0.1

Rider Spring ns ns 57.4 60.5 0.09 0.15 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.0012 0.0000 15.2 15.4 0.58 0.43 <0.2 0.3

Rock Spring 0.0010 0.0002 ns ns ns ns 0.2 0.2

Schmutz Spring 0.0009 0.0001 18.4 18.2 0.18 0.24 <0.2 0.1

Schmutz Spring 0.0010 0.0006 ns ns 0.25 ns <0.2 0.1

Showerbath Spring <0.0006 0.0005 16.1 16.3 0.11 0.10 <0.2 0.1

Showerbath Spring <0.0006 0.0003 ns ns ns ns <0.2 0.1

Side Canyon Spring <0.0006 0.0009 10.7 11.3 0.19 0.16 <0.2 0.1

Side Canyon Spring <0.0006 0.0005 ns ns ns ns <0.2 0.3

Slide Spring <0.0006 0.0004 15.3 15.4 0.12 0.14 <0.2 0.1

Slide Spring <0.0006 0.0003 ns ns ns ns <0.2 0.2

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.0023 0.0004 16.2 16.4 0.12 0.12 <0.2 0.1

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.0006 0.0003 ns ns ns ns <0.2 0.1

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.0088 0.0004 48.5 47.3 0.57 0.48 <0.2 0.1

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.0076 0.0003 ns ns ns ns <0.2 0.1

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0035 0.0013 55.7 53.8 0.86 0.72 <0.3 0.3

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0031 0.0007 ns ns ns ns <0.3 0.1

Canyon Mine Well 0.0004 0.0002 6.45 6.51 1.7 0.16 0.3 0.0

Canyon Mine Well 0.0008 0.0003 ns ns ns ns <0.3 0.3

Pinenut Well 0.0019 0.0001 18.9 18.8 0.60 0.52 <0.3 0.1

Pinenut Well 0.0017 0.0004 ns ns ns ns <0.3 0.1

Tom Land Well 0.0024 0.0004 28.5 28.0 0.73 0.51 <0.3 0.1

Tom Land Well 0.0027 0.0008 ns ns ns ns <0.3 0.3
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 209

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Chromium

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Chromium

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Chromium

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Chromium-SD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Cesium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

CesiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Copper

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Copper

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Copper

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

CopperSD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring 0.24 4 ns ns ns ns <1 0.4 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring 0.25 ns ns ns ns ns <1 ns ns ns

Fence Spring 0.97 2 ns ns ns ns <1 0.6 ns ns

Hanging Spring 0.97 1 ns ns ns ns <1 0.2 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring 0.95 2 ns ns ns ns <1 0.2 ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns 1 0.7 0.2 0.14 0.00 ns 0.7 2.0 0.1

South Canyon Spring ns ns 0.7 0.2 0.14 0.00 ns ns 2.0 0.2

Unknown Spring 0.96 1 ns ns ns ns <1 0.2 ns ns

Unknown Spring 0.99 1 ns ns ns ns <1 0.3 ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns 1 ns ns ns ns ns <0.1 ns ns

Clearwater Spring <0.24 <5 <0.2 0.1 0.012 0.020 <2.0 1.9 <0.04 0.08

Clearwater Spring ns ns <0.2 0.0 <0.006 0.003 ns <0.04 0.04

Hotel Spring 0.29 3 0.3 0.2 0.054 0.003 0.72e 1.0 0.76 0.03

Hotel Spring ns ns 0.3 0.2 0.056 0.002 ns ns 0.74 0.01

Kanab Spring 0.35 3 0.3 0.0 0.29 0.01 <1 0.4 0.08 0.02

Kanab Spring 0.49 ns 0.3 0.1 0.28 0.01 <1 ns 0.09 0.02

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.29e 4 <0.2 0.1 0.006 0.002 <3 1.1 0.11 0.04

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns <0.2 0.1 0.007 0.000 ns ns 0.11 0.03

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.30 4 1.3 0.2 0.071 0.003 0.64e 1.4 4.0 0.1

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.26 ns 1.0 0.1 0.069 0.001 0.96e ns 3.3 0.0

Rider Spring 3.0 4 ns ns ns ns <1 0.7 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ms ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.82 <5 0.7 0.1 0.017 0.003 <2.0 1.8 <0.007 0.010

Rock Spring ns ns 0.6 0.2 0.014 0.001 ns ns <0.007 0.033

Schmutz Spring 0.45 2 0.3 0.0 0.083 0.004 <1 0.9 0.05 0.03

Schmutz Spring 0.42 ns <0.2 0.5 0.079 0.008 <1 ns <0.04 0.04

Showerbath Spring 0.30 3 0.4 0.2 0.23 0.00 <1 0.5 0.07 0.03

Showerbath Spring ns ns 0.3 0.0 0.22 0.00 ns ns 0.05 0.03

Side Canyon Spring 0.25 3 0.3 0.1 0.36 0.01 <1 0.8 0.06 0.02

Side Canyon Spring ns ns 0.2 0.2 0.36 0.00 ns ns <0.04 0.02

Slide Spring 2.3 5 2.9 0.1 0.091 0.007 <1 0.8 0.22 0.02

Slide Spring ns ns 3.0 0.1 0.091 0.006 ns ns 0.26 0.03

Upper Jumpup Spring 3.0 5 3.1 0.0 0.17 0.00 <1 0.7 0.13 0.00

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns 3.2 0.1 0.17 0.01 ns ns 0.11 0.01

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

1.3 <5 1.1 0.2 0.10 0.01 <2 2.2 0.18 0.04

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 1.1 0.2 0.11 0.01 ns ns 0.18 0.09

Burnt Canyon Well 0.36 4 1.9 0.1 1.0 0.0 <2.0 2.9 <0.6 1.2

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 1.9 0.2 1.0 0.0 ns ns <0.6 0.3

Canyon Mine Well 0.23 5 <0.2 0.1 1.4 0.0 2.5 2.8 2.6 0.0

Canyon Mine Well ns ns <0.2 0.1 1.4 0.0 ns ns 2.7 0.0

Pinenut Well 0.11e 3 1.2 0.0 0.85 0.02 <1 1.5 <0.6 0.1

Pinenut Well ns ns 1.2 0.1 0.84 0.00 ns ns <0.6 0.4

Tom Land Well 0.66 4 1.4 0.0 0.13 0.00 2.1 3.5 1.3 0.0

Tom Land Well ns ns 1.3 0.2 0.14 0.02 ns ns 1.2 0.0
210 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Dysprosium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

DysprosiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Erbium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Erbium-SD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Europium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

EuropiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Fluorine

NWQL

EISE

mg/L

Fluorine

Doughten

IC

mg/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.18 0.16

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.31 0.33

Hanging Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.07e 0.07

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.08e 0.07

South Canyon Spring 0.0008 0.0004 <0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 ns ns

South Canyon Spring 0.0004 0.0004 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.08e 0.07

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.07

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.0005 0.0004 <0.001 0.000 <0.001 0.000 0.71 0.70

Clearwater Spring 0.0006 0.0002 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Hotel Spring 0.0028 0.0001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.38 0.36

Hotel Spring 0.0032 0.0002 0.001 0.003 <0.001 0.004 ns ns

Kanab Spring <0.0004 0.0005 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.000 0.28 0.28

Kanab Spring <0.0004 0.0008 <0.001 0.001 0.002 0.000 ns ns

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0011 0.0005 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.001 0.56 0.52

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0014 0.0002 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0006 0.0005 0.0011 0.0004 <0.001 0.001 0.38 0.78

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0003 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns 1.59 1.56

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.0007 0.0000 0.0006 0.0002 <0.001 0.000 0.84 0.34

Rock Spring <0.0004 0.0002 <0.0004 0.0003 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Schmutz Spring <0.0004 0.0001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.000 0.47 0.51

Schmutz Spring <0.0004 0.0003 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Showerbath Spring <0.0004 0.0003 <0.001 0.000 <0.001 0.001 0.30 0.29

Showerbath Spring <0.0004 0.0002 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Side Canyon Spring <0.0004 0.0005 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.55 0.46

Side Canyon Spring <0.0004 0.0003 <0.001 0.000 <0.001 0.000 ns ns

Slide Spring <0.0004 0.0002 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.38 0.34

Slide Spring <0.0004 0.0001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.0004 0.0001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.001 0.27 0.25

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.0004 0.0004 <0.001 0.000 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.0004 0.0007 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.94 1.04

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.0007 0.0004 <0.001 0.000 <0.001 0.001 ns ns

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0007 0.0000 0.0014 0.0009 <0.0003 0.0006 1.46 1.38

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0012 0.0004 0.0017 0.0008 <0.0003 0.0009 ns ns

Canyon Mine Well <0.0007 0.0004 <0.0005 0.0003 <0.0003 0.0013 0.33 0.29

Canyon Mine Well <0.0007 0.0003 <0.0005 0.0002 <0.0003 0.0003 ns ns

Pinenut Well <0.0007 0.0005 <0.0005 0.0003 <0.0003 0.0006 0.85 0.75

Pinenut Well <0.0007 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 <0.0003 0.0002 ns ns

Tom Land Well 0.0012 0.0009 <0.0005 0.0002 <0.0003 0.0007 1.0 0.90

Tom Land Well <0.0007 0.0003 0.0006 0.0005 <0.0003 0.0005 ns ns
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 211

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Iron

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Iron

Doughten

ICP–OES

μg/L

Iron

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Iron-SD

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Gallium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

GalliumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Gadolinium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

GadoliniumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Mercury

Taylor

CV–AFS

ng/L

MercurySD

Taylor

CV–AFS

ng/L

Buck Farm Spring <4 <20 ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Buck Farm Spring -- ns ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Fence Spring <4 <20 ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Hanging Spring <4 <20 ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Hole in the Wall Spring <4 <20 ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

South Canyon Spring ns <20 4 2 0.0032 0.0001 0.0009 0.0003 na na

South Canyon Spring ns ms 3 1 0.0033 0.0012 0.0010 0.0005 na na

Unknown Spring <4 <20 ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Unknown Spring -- <20 ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Vasey’s Paradise ns <20 ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Clearwater Spring 28 <100 31 0 0.020 0.002 <0.0004 0.0003 0.2 0.1

Clearwater Spring ns ns 35 2 0.022 0.001 <0.0004 0.0002 na na

Hotel Spring 5 <20 7 3 0.0044 0.0010 0.0044 0.0001 2.0 0.1

Hotel Spring ns ns 4 1 0.0046 0.0009 0.0040 0.0000 na na

Kanab Spring <4 <20 <2 1 0.0019 0.0003 0.0007 0.0002 0.2 0.1

Kanab Spring -- ns <2 1 0.0017 0.0009 <0.0004 0.0005 na na

Lower Jumpup Spring 5 <20 4 1 0.0042 0.0021 0.0013 0.0005 0.3 0.1

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 4 0 0.0036 0.0012 0.0016 0.0006 na na

Mountain Sheep Spring 4e <20 3 4 0.0028 0.0010 0.0005 0.0001 <0.2 0.0

Mountain Sheep Spring -- ns <3 2 0.0032 0.0006 0.0008 0.0004 na na

Rider Spring 12 <20 ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns na na

Rock Spring <8 <100 4 3 0.0023 0.0012 <0.0004 0.0002 <0.2 0.1

Rock Spring ns ns 20 4 0.0013 0.0007 <0.0004 0.0003 na na

Schmutz Spring <4 <20 <2 0 0.0016 0.0002 <0.0004 0.0005 0.3 0.1

Schmutz Spring -- ns <2 1 0.0025 0.0007 <0.0004 0.0005 na na

Showerbath Spring 2e <20 <2 1 0.0019 0.0006 <0.0004 0.0001 0.2 0.0

Showerbath Spring ns ns <2 2 0.0035 0.0008 <0.0004 0.0005 na na

Side Canyon Spring <4 70 <2 3 0.0012 0.0004 <0.0004 0.0004 <0.2 0.1

Side Canyon Spring ns ns <2 1 0.0014 0.0007 <0.0004 0.0003 na na

Slide Spring <4 <20 <2 0 0.0020 0.0007 <0.0004 0.0001 0.4 0.1

Slide Spring ns ns <2 1 0.0013 0.0010 0.0005 0.0005 na na

Upper Jumpup Spring <4 <20 <2 1 0.0017 0.0003 <0.0004 0.0002 0.4 0.2

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns <2 1 0.0021 0.0009 <0.0004 0.0003 na na

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

<12 <100 27 4 0.0029 0.0003 0.0012 0.0004 0.3 0.1

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 7 1 0.0036 0.0006 0.0010 0.0007 na na

Burnt Canyon Well 761 680 790 129 0.003 0.001 0.0011 0.0001 2.3 0.2

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 590 16 0.003 0.003 0.0020 0.0005 na na

Canyon Mine Well 2e <20 <10 6 0.006 0.001 0.0007 0.0005 1.6 0.4

Canyon Mine Well ns ns <10 4 0.005 0.001 0.0006 0.0000 na na

Pinenut Well 4,170 4,650 4,860 209 0.019 0.000 0.0004 0.0000 1.7 0.2

Pinenut Well ns ns 4,830 76 0.015 0.001 0.0004 0.0001 na na

Tom Land Well 779 776 721 19 0.003 0.002 0.0008 0.0000 1.4 0.2

Tom Land Well ns ns 703 27 0.005 0.000 0.0010 0.0001 na na
212 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Holmium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

HolmiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Potassium

NWQL

ICP–MS

mg/L

Potassium

Doughten

ICP–OES

mg/L

Potassium

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

mg/L

PotassiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

mg/L

Kjeldahlnitrogen, unf

NWQL

KDM

mg N/L

Lanthanum

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

LanthanumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns 7.32 7.0 ns ns <0.1 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns -- ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring ns ns 15.9 15.3 ns ns <0.1 ns ns

Hanging Spring ns ns 0.82 0.8 ns ns <0.1 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns 0.86 0.8 ns ns <0.1 ns ns

South Canyon Spring 0.0003 0.0002 ns 1.5 1.6 0.1 ns 0.0027 0.0002

South Canyon Spring <0.0003 0.0001 ns ns 1.6 0.1 ns 0.0027 0.0004

Unknown Spring ns ns 0.75 0.8 ns ns <0.1 ns ns

Unknown Spring ns ns -- 0.8 ns ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns 0.7 ns ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.0008 0.0002 12.8 11.4 11 1 0.5 0.0007 0.0000

Clearwater Spring 0.0015 0.0001 ns ns 11 0 ns 0.0007 0.0005

Hotel Spring 0.0008 0.0004 7.26 7.1 7.0 0.2 0.5 0.0085 0.0012

Hotel Spring 0.0008 0.0003 ns ns 7.0 0.0 ns 0.0088 0.0016

Kanab Spring <0.0003 0.0002 4.03 3.8 3.9 0.1 <0.1 0.0017 0.0007

Kanab Spring <0.0003 0.0003 -- ns 3.8 0.1 ns 0.0015 0.0002

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0005 0.0003 8.32 8.1 8.1 0.0 0.09e 0.0052 0.0002

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0005 0.0002 ns ns 7.8 0.3 ns 0.0051 0.0004

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0002 0.0000 8.09 7.6 7.7 0.1 <0.1 0.0021 0.0001

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0002 0.0001 -- ns 7.6 0.1 ns 0.0017 0.0004

Rider Spring ns ns 5.79 5.4 ns ns <0.1 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.0001 0.0000 5.64 5.4 4.8 0.2 <0.1 0.0008 0.0001

Rock Spring <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 5.0 0.0 ns 0.0005 0.0002

Schmutz Spring <0.0003 0.0003 3.05 2.9 2.7 0.0 <0.1 0.0006 0.0003

Schmutz Spring <0.0003 0.0002 -- ns 2.6 0.1 ns 0.0005 0.0005

Showerbath Spring <0.0003 0.0002 4.58 4.2 4.1 0.2 0.05e 0.0008 0.0002

Showerbath Spring <0.0003 0.0002 ns ns 4.0 0.4 ns 0.0006 0.0001

Side Canyon Spring <0.0003 0.0001 5.41 5.2 4.8 0.2 <0.1 0.0008 0.0001

Side Canyon Spring <0.0003 0.0003 ns ns 5.1 0.2 ns 0.0004 0.0001

Slide Spring <0.0003 0.0002 2.06 2.1 1.9 0.1 <0.1 0.0002 0.0002

Slide Spring <0.0003 0.0002 ns ns 2.0 0.0 ns 0.0006 0.0004

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.0003 0.0002 1.78 1.8 1.6 0.2 <0.1 0.0008 0.0003

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.0003 0.0003 ns ns 1.6 0.1 ns 0.0004 0.0001

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

<0.0003 0.0001 12.7 12.0 11 1 0.2 0.0060 0.0001

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.0004 0.0002 ns ns 12 1 ns 0.0053 0.0009

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0006 0.0004 15.5 14.8 15 0 0.08e 0.0025 0.0002

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0009 0.0001 ns ns 16 1 ns 0.0032 0.0006

Canyon Mine Well <0.0003 0.0001 1.74 2.2 2.3 0.1 <0.1 0.0012 0.0004

Canyon Mine Well <0.0003 0.0001 ns ns 2.3 0.1 ns 0.0012 0.0002

Pinenut Well <0.0003 0.0002 24.70 23.4 25 1 0.06e 0.0013 0.0003

Pinenut Well <0.0003 0.0003 ns ns 26 2 ns 0.0013 0.0005

Tom Land Well <0.0003 0.0003 7.16 6.7 7.1 0.1 0.1 0.0023 0.0001

Tom Land Well <0.0003 0.0002 ns ns 7.3 0.2 ns 0.0018 0.0002
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 213

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Lithium

NWQL

AASD

μg/L

Lithium

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Lithium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

LithiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Lutetium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

LutetiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Magnesium

NWQL

ICP–MS

mg/L

Magnesium

Doughten

ICP–OES

mg/L

Magnesium

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

MagnesiumSD

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

Buck Farm Spring 24.4 24 ns ns ns ns 33.9 33.3 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring 22.7 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring 355 378 ns ns ns ns 39.4 38.6 ns ns

Hanging Spring 1.7 2 ns ns ns ns 21.0 19.8 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring 1.6 2 ns ns ns ns 21.2 20.0 ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns 3 4.0 0.1 0.0001 0.0001 ns 18.6 17 1

South Canyon Spring ns ns 4.0 0.2 0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 18 1

Unknown Spring 1.7 2 ns ns ns ns 20.7 20.1 ns ns

Unknown Spring 1.7 2 ns ns ns ns ns 20.3 ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns 1 ns ns ns ns ns 20.8 ns ns

Clearwater Spring 92.1 100 82 1 0.0001 0.0001 182.0 177 170 3

Clearwater Spring ns ns 84 4 <0.0001 0.0000 ns ns 172 0

Hotel Spring 18.9 18 18 0 0.0003 0.0001 49.7 47.4 49 1

Hotel Spring ns ns 19 1 0.0004 0.0001 ns ns 47 2

Kanab Spring 18.4 18 20 1 <0.0001 0.0001 48.8 48.4 51 1

Kanab Spring 19.4 ns 20 1 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 48 3

Lower Jumpup Spring 45.3 54 53 2 0.0002 0.0001 121 124 117 3

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 51 0 0.0002 0.0000 ns ns 120 2

Mountain Sheep Spring 33.9 40 39 1 0.0003 0.0002 98.2 97.2 98 6

Mountain Sheep Spring 32.1 ns 39 2 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 95 3

Rider Spring 70.5 70 ns ns ns ns 65.6 62.5 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 59.3 74 63 0 <0.0001 0.0001 158.0 153 150 5

Rock Spring ns ns 66 2 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 150 2

Schmutz Spring 21.9 24 23 1 0.0002 0.0002 77.4 83.3 78 0

Schmutz Spring 21.6 ns 26 4 <0.0001 0.0000 ns ns 76 1

Showerbath Spring 17.8 20 21 0 <0.0001 0.0001 53.0 49.8 49 3

Showerbath Spring ns ns 21 0 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 48 3

Side Canyon Spring 29.5 31 31 0 <0.0001 0.0001 78.7 76.8 75 2

Side Canyon Spring ns ns 31 1 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 79 2

Slide Spring 9.7 13 13 0 <0.0001 0.0000 68.8 65.9 65 2

Slide Spring ns ns 13 0 <0.0001 0.0000 ns ns 65 1

Upper Jumpup Spring 7.5 8 8.7 0.3 <0.0001 0.0001 63.3 61.6 59 2

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns 8.8 0.1 0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 59 2

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

87.9 89 75 0 0.0002 0.0001 227 234 222 1

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 75 1 0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 225 10

Burnt Canyon Well 348.0 344 342 3 0.0002 0.0001 269.0 263 273 21

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 368 45 0.0002 0.0000 ns ns 279 5

Canyon Mine Well 6.1 6 8.0 0.2 <0.0002 0.0001 22.9 30.2 30 0

Canyon Mine Well ns ns 7.8 0.3 <0.0002 0.0000 ns ns 30 1

Pinenut Well 196 154 166 2 <0.0002 0.0000 135 143 138 9

Pinenut Well ns ns 168 5 <0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 143 7

Tom Land Well 51.7 54 58 1 <0.0002 0.0001 149 150 155 3

Tom Land Well ns ns 58 0 0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 159 1
214 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring/well

Manganese

NWQL

AASGF

μg/L

Manganese

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Manganese

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

ManganeseSD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Molybdenum

NWQL

AASCE

μg/L

Molybdenum

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Molybdenum

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

MolybdenumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring <0.2 <1 ns ns 2.7 2.6 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring 0.1e ns ns ns 2.7 ns ns ns

Fence Spring <0.2 <1 ns ns 1.1 1.1 ns ns

Hanging Spring 0.1e <1 ns ns 0.2 0.3 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring ns <1 ns ns 0.2 0.3 ns ns

South Canyon Spring -- <1 0.26 0.01 ns 1.1 1.0 0.0

South Canyon Spring ns ns 0.08 0.01 ns ns 1.1 0.0

Unknown Spring 0.1e <1 ns ns 0.2 0.3 ns ns

Unknown Spring <0.2 <1 ns ns 0.2 0.3 ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns <1 ns ns ns 0.2 ns ns

Clearwater Spring 1,060 980 1,040 50 3.6 4.0 2.6 0.0

Clearwater Spring ns ns 1,050 50 ns ns 2.7 0.1

Hotel Spring 1.6 3 1.8 0.1 8.1 8.1 7.8 0.2

Hotel Spring ns ns 1.8 0.1 ns ns 7.7 0.0

Kanab Spring 0.3 <1 0.29 0.02 4.5 4.5 4.3 0.0

Kanab Spring 0.3 ns 0.28 0.02 4.8 ns 4.3 0.0

Lower Jumpup Spring 7.1 8 7.5 0.4 6.1 6.9 6.5 0.0

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 7.5 0.4 ns ns 6.3 0.2

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.2 <1 0.019 0.001 2.4 2.4 2.1 0.1

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.2 ns <0.009 0.008 2.1 ns 2.1 0.0

Rider Spring 0.1e <1 ns ns 17.1 17.3 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.2e <5 0.038 0.005 9.0 10.0 8.7 0.3

Rock Spring ns ns 0.036 0.003 ns ns 8.7 0.0

Schmutz Spring 0.6 <1 0.64 0.06 8.5 8.6 7.8 0.0

Schmutz Spring 0.8 ns 0.64 0.03 8.4 ns 7.8 0.0

Showerbath Spring <0.2 <1 <0.02 0.01 4.1 4.5 4.2 0.0

Showerbath Spring ns ns <0.02 0.00 ns ns 4.2 0.0

Side Canyon Spring <0.2 <1 <0.02 0.00 11.2 11.5 11 0

Side Canyon Spring ns ns <0.02 0.00 ns ns 10 0

Slide Spring <0.2 <1 <0.02 0.01 2.2 2.8 2.4 0.0

Slide Spring ns ns <0.02 0.01 ns ns 2.5 0.0

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.2 <1 <0.02 0.00 4.2 4.7 4.3 0.0

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns <0.02 0.01 ns ns 4.3 0.1

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.6 <5 0.26 0.03 13.9 14.0 12 0

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 0.25 0.01 ns ns 13 0

Burnt Canyon Well 4 5 4.4 0.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 0.1

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 4.6 0.3 ns ns 3.0 0.0

Canyon Mine Well 58.4 66 71 1 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.0

Canyon Mine Well sn ns 71 1 ns ms 1.1 0.0

Pinenut Well 317 334 364 2 24.6 21.2 22 0

Pinenut Well ns ns 371 2 ns ms 22 0

Tom Land Well 11.4 11 12 0 5.1 4.4 4.4 0.0

Tom Land Well ns ns 12 0 ns ns 4.4 0.0
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 215

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Sodium

NWQL

ICP–MS

mg/L

Sodium

Doughten

ICP–OES

mg/L

Sodium

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

SodiumSD

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

Neodymium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

NeodymiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Ammonium

(NH4)

NWQL

CS

mg N/L

Buck Farm Spring 19.1 19.0 ns ns ns ns <0.02

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring 156 161 ns ns ns ns <0.02

Hanging Spring 1.74 1.65 ns ns ns ns <0.02

Hole in the Wall Spring 1.80 1.66 ns ns ns ns <0.02

South Canyon Spring ns 4.35 3.7 0.5 0.0050 0.0004 ns

South Canyon Spring ns ns 3.7 0.4 0.0035 0.0000 ns

Unknown Spring 1.75 1.69 ns ns ns ns <0.02

Unknown Spring ns 1.70 ns ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns 1.81 ns ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 153.0 142 148 1 0.0018 0.0005 0.42

Clearwater Spring ns ns 157 5 0.0011 0.0003 ns

Hotel Spring 25.7 26.6 27 1 0.014 0.000 0.017e

Hotel Spring ns ns 27 1 0.015 0.000 ns

Kanab Spring 15.7 15.7 16 0 0.0015 0.0008 <0.02

Kanab Spring ns ns 16 0 0.0010 0.0007 ns

Lower Jumpup Spring 37.0 38.6 38 0 0.0043 0.0007 <0.02

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 38 1 0.0041 0.0008 ns

Mountain Sheep Spring 31.4 32.0 32 2 0.0026 0.0008 <0.02

Mountain Sheep Spring ns ns 34 0 0.0021 0.0003 ns

Rider Spring 91.7 88.8 ns ns ns ns <0.02

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 33.9 32.7 35 1 0.0007 0.0005 <0.02

Rock Spring ns ns 35 1 <0.0005 0.0006 ns

Schmutz Spring 13.0 12.7 12 1 0.0006 0.0004 <0.02

Schmutz Spring ns ns 12 0 0.0013 0.0005 ns

Showerbath Spring 18.8 18.6 18 1 0.0009 0.0003 <0.02

Showerbath Spring ns ns 18 0 <0.0005 0.0008 ns

Side Canyon Spring 17.1 17.6 17 1 <0.0005 0.0007 <0.02

Side Canyon Spring ns ns 18 1 0.0006 0.0004 ns

Slide Spring 10.1 10.7 9.3 0.8 <0.0005 0.0001 <0.02

Slide Spring ns ns 9.0 1.0 <0.0005 0.0001 ns

Upper Jumpup Spring 10.6 10.9 9.6 0.6 0.0006 0.0005 <0.02

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns 9.9 1.1 0.0012 0.0006 ns

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

64.2 62.5 65 3 0.0049 0.0021 0.05

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 68 3 0.0035 0.0005 ns

Burnt Canyon Well 79.8 79.0 83 5 0.0036 0.0005 0.053e

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 85 0 0.0018 0.0004 ns

Canyon Mine Well 4.23 5.7 6.2 0.0 <0.0009 0.0002 <0.02

Canyon Mine Well ns ns 6.1 0.2 0.0029 0.0004 ns

Pinenut Well 67.7 70.1 73 0 <0.0009 0.0005 0.05

Pinenut Well ns ns 77 4 <0.0009 0.0005 ns

Tom Land Well 26.9 26.8 27 1 0.0029 0.0013 0.02

Tom Land Well ns ns 28 1 0.0016 0.0003 ns
216 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Nickel

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Nickel

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Nickel

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

NickelSD

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Nitrate

NWQL

CCRDSF

mg N/L

Nitrate

Doughten

IC

mg N/L

Nitrate +

nitrite

NWQL

CCRDSF

mg N/L

Phosphorus

NWQL

CPBDSF

mg P/L

Phosphorus

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

mg P/L

PhosphorusSD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

mg P/L

Phosphorus,

unf

NWQL

CPBDSF

mg P/L

Buck Farm Spring 0.42 0.2 ns ns <0.002 0.20 0.17 <0.04 ns ns <0.04

Buck Farm Spring 0.45 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring 1.1 1.1 ns ns <0.002 0.19 0.17 <0.04 ns ns 0.02e

Hanging Spring 0.20 <0.1 ns ns <0.002 0.20 0.19 <0.04 ns ns 0.03e

Hole in the Wall Spring 0.19 <0.1 ns ns <0.002 0.20 0.19 <0.04 ns ns <0.04

South Canyon Spring ns 0.1 <0.3 0.1 ns <0.05 ns ns <0.005 0.003 ns

South Canyon Spring ns ns <0.3 0.3 ns ns ns ns 0.010 0.008 ns

Unknown Spring 0.19 <0.1 ns ns <0.002 0.20 0.18 <0.04 ns ns 0.02e

Unknown Spring 0.20 <0.1 ns ns ns 0.21 ns ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns <0.1 ns ns ns 0.00 ns ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 2.9 7.1 <0.3 0.2 <0.002 <0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005 0.005 0.09

Clearwater Spring ns ns <0.3 0.0 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.007 ns

Hotel Spring 0.88 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.018 0.75 0.74 <0.04 <0.005 0.009 <0.04

Hotel Spring ns ns 0.3 0.1 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.001 ns

Kanab Spring 0.68 0.5 <0.3 0.3 <0.002 0.30 0.28 <0.04 <0.005 0.008 <0.04

Kanab Spring 1.2 ns <0.3 0.2 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.011 ns

Lower Jumpup Spring 2.7 1.6 <0.3 0.3 <0.002 <0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.005 0.010 <0.04

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns <0.3 0.2 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.006 ns

Mountain Sheep Spring 2.5 1.2 <0.3 0.6 <0.002 0.49 0.48 <0.04 <0.008 0.008 0.03e

Mountain Sheep Spring 2.0 ns <0.3 0.2 ns ns ns ns <0.008 0.008 ns

Rider Spring 0.40 8.2 ns ns <0.002 2.16 2.12 <0.04 ns ns <0.04

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 3.3 1.8 <0.3 0.7 <0.002 <0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.008 0.002 <0.04

Rock Spring ns ns <0.3 0.4 ns ns ns ns <0.008 0.011 ns

Schmutz Spring 0.98 0.6 <0.3 0.3 <0.002 0.78 0.75 <0.04 <0.005 0.006 <0.04

Schmutz Spring 1.4 ns <0.3 0.3 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.001 ns

Showerbath Spring 0.70 0.4 <0.3 0.1 <0.002 0.25 0.23 <0.04 <0.005 0.006 <0.04

Showerbath Spring ns ns <0.3 0.1 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.008 ns

Side Canyon Spring 1.4 0.7 <0.3 0.4 <0.002 1.85 1.78 <0.04 <0.005 0.008 <0.04

Side Canyon Spring ns ns <0.3 0.2 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.005 ns

Slide Spring 1.1 0.8 <0.3 0.3 <0.002 1.31 1.29 <0.04 <0.005 0.001 <0.04

Slide Spring ns ns <0.3 0.0 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.004 ns

Upper Jumpup Spring 1.1 0.7 <0.3 0.2 <0.002 1.43 1.43 <0.04 <0.005 0.005 <0.04

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns <0.3 0.3 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.004 ns

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

2.7 3.7 <0.3 0.2 <0.002 4.38 4.36 <0.04 <0.005 0.005 <0.04

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 0.5 0.2 ns ns ns ns <0.005 0.006 ns

Burnt Canyon Well 7.6 9.6 5.2 0.4 <0.002 <0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.007 0.001 <0.04

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 5.5 0.1 ns ns ns ns <0.007 0.001 ns

Canyon Mine Well 7.8 8.6 8.3 0.1 <0.002 0.15 0.12 <0.04 <0.007 0.003 <0.04

Canyon Mine Well sn ns 8.1 0.4 ns ns ns ns <0.007 0.002 ns

Pinenut Well 10.7 14.3 8.8 0.0 <0.002 0.00 <0.04 <0.04 <0.007 0.000 <0.04

Pinenut Well ns ns 9.6 0.2 ns ns ns ns <0.007 0.004 ns

Tom Land Well 30.7 29.3 29 0 <0.006 6.80 6.96 <0.04 <0.007 0.001 <0.04

Tom Land Well ns ns 29 0 ns ns ns ns <0.007 0.001 ns
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 217

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Lead

NWQL

AASGF

μg/L

Lead

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Lead

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Lead-SD

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Phosphate

PO4

NWQL

not provided

mg P/L

Praseodymium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

PraseodymiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Rubidium

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Rubidium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

RubidiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring <0.06 <0.05 ns ns 0.005e ns ns 4.2 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring <0.06 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring <0.06 <0.05 ns ns 0.017 ns ns 44.4 ns ns

Hanging Spring <0.06 <0.05 ns ns 0.018 ns ns 1.3 ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring <0.06 <0.05 ns ns 0.018 ns ns 1.3 ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns 0.34 0.068 0.004 ns 0.0009 0.0001 1.5 1.6 0.0

South Canyon Spring ns ns 0.064 0.003 ns 0.0004 0.0000 ns 1.6 0.0

Unknown Spring <0.06 <0.05 ns ns 0.018 ns ns 1.3 ns ns

Unknown Spring <0.06 <0.05 ns ns ns ns ns 1.3 ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns <0.05 ns ns ns ns ns 1.2 ns ns

Clearwater Spring <0.12 <0.25 0.007 0.001 0.006e <0.0002 0.0002 1.4 1.4 0.1

Clearwater Spring ns ns 0.007 0.001 ns <0.0002 0.0002 ns 1.4 0.0

Hotel Spring <0.06 <0.05 0.033 0.009 0.005e 0.0029 0.0001 3.9 4.1 0.1

Hotel Spring ns ns 0.025 0.003 ns 0.0027 0.0003 ns 4.1 0.1

Kanab Spring 0.04e <0.05 0.043 0.003 0.007e <0.0002 0.0001 3.4 3.6 0.0

Kanab Spring 0.04e ns 0.042 0.004 ns 0.0002 0.0002 ns 3.4 0.0

Lower Jumpup Spring <0.18 <0.05 0.008 0.001 0.012 0.0007 0.0003 2.1 2.2 0.1

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 0.012 0.003 ns 0.0008 0.0003 ns 2.2 0.0

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.06 <0.05 0.012 0.002 0.011 0.0005 0.0001 4.3 4.4 0.0

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.06 ns 0.010 0.000 ns 0.0005 0.0001 ns 4.3 0.0

Rider Spring <0.06 <0.05 ns ns <0.008 ns ns 8.0 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring <0.12 <0.25 0.006 0.000 0.006e <0.0002 0.0002 4.3 4.0 0.0

Rock Spring ns ns 0.004 0.002 ns <0.0002 0.0001 ns 3.9 0.0

Schmutz Spring <0.06 <0.05 0.007 0.005 0.005e <0.0002 0.0001 3.1 3.1 0.1

Schmutz Spring <0.06 ns 0.007 0.005 ns 0.0002 0.0002 ns 3.1 0.1

Showerbath Spring <0.06 <0.05 0.007 0.002 0.005e <0.0002 0.0001 3.1 3.2 0.1

Showerbath Spring ns ns 0.008 0.005 ns <0.0002 0.0001 ns 3.2 0.0

Side Canyon Spring <0.06 <0.05 0.009 0.006 0.005e <0.0002 0.0003 6.1 6.1 0.0

Side Canyon Spring ns ns 0.006 0.001 ns <0.0002 0.0001 ns 6.1 0.0

Slide Spring <0.06 <0.05 0.004 0.003 0.005e <0.0002 0.0000 2.0 2.0 0.0

Slide Spring ns ns 0.005 0.001 ns <0.0002 0.0000 ns 2.0 0.0

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.06 <0.05 0.010 0.005 0.006e 0.0005 0.0001 1.9 2.0 0.0

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns 0.009 0.002 ns <0.0002 0.0001 ns 2.0 0.0

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

<0.12 <0.25 0.021 0.011 0.007e 0.0010 0.0001 8.3 8.0 0.3

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 0.020 0.005 ns 0.0008 0.0002 ns 8.0 0.4

Burnt Canyon Well 0.76 <0.15 0.75 0.01 0.008e 0.0004 0.0001 21.9 23 0

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 0.75 0.00 ns 0.0003 0.0000 ns 23 0

Canyon Mine Well 0.24 0.29 0.26 0.01 0.006e <0.0001 0.0001 7.9 8.4 0.0

Canyon Mine Well ns ns 0.28 0.01 ns <0.0001 0.0001 ns 8.4 0.1

Pinenut Well <0.06 <0.15 0.050 0.003 <0.024 <0.0001 0.0001 20.7 22 0

Pinenut Well ns ns 0.013 0.003 ns 0.0002 0.0001 ns 22 0

Tom Land Well 0.13 <0.15 0.094 0.008 0.006e 0.0004 0.0000 7.9 8.2 0.2

Tom Land Well ns ns 0.094 0.001 ns 0.0003 0.0001 ns 8.4 0.1
218 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Rhenium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

RheniumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Sulfur

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

Sulfur-SD

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

Antimony

NWQL

AASH

μg/L

Antimony

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Antimony

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

AntimonySD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Scandium

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

ScandiumSD

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns 0.12 <0.1 ns ns ns ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns 0.12 ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring ns ns ns ns 0.06 <0.1 ns ns ns ns

Hanging Spring ns ns ns ns 0.03e <0.1 ns ns ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns ns ns 0.03e <0.1 ns ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring 0.045 0.005 18 0 ns <0.1 0.030 0.002 <0.4 0.0

South Canyon Spring 0.039 0.005 18 0 ns ns 0.020 0.003 <0.4 0.1

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns 0.03e <0.1 ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns 0.03e <0.1 ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns ns ns <0.1 ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.34 0.00 690 5 0.93 <0.5 0.008 0.002 <0.4 0.2

Clearwater Spring 0.33 0.00 689 41 ns ns 0.006 0.001 <0.4 0.1

Hotel Spring 0.048 0.002 73 4 0.12 <0.1 0.13 0.01 <0.4 0.6

Hotel Spring 0.048 0.005 72 4 ns ns 0.13 0.00 <0.4 0.6

Kanab Spring 0.12 0.00 100 7 0.07 <0.1 0.072 0.000 <0.4 0.1

Kanab Spring 0.12 0.01 96 6 0.09 ns 0.073 0.003 <0.4 0.1

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.31 0.00 313 7 <0.12 <0.1 0.043 0.006 <0.4 0.5

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.31 0.01 310 5 ns ns 0.045 0.004 <0.4 0.3

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.20 0.00 220 25 0.04 <0.1 0.026 0.003 <0.4 0.1

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.20 0.00 216 16 0.03e ns 0.024 0.002 <0.4 0.1

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns 0.04e <0.1 ns ns ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.47 0.00 534 14 0.06e <0.5 0.030 0.003 <0.4 0.1

Rock Spring 0.32 0.03 557 7 ns ns 0.029 0.001 <0.4 0.1

Schmutz Spring 0.82 0.03 302 21 0.04e <0.1 0.013 0.003 <0.4 0.5

Schmutz Spring 0.80 0.02 293 3 0.04e ns 0.007 0.008 <0.4 0.6

Showerbath Spring 0.12 0.00 113 6 0.06 <0.1 0.066 0.004 <0.4 0.2

Showerbath Spring 0.11 0.00 117 5 ns ns 0.069 0.004 <0.4 0.5

Side Canyon Spring 0.18 0.00 229 3 0.03e <0.1 0.028 0.001 <0.4 0.5

Side Canyon Spring 0.18 0.00 222 14 ns ns 0.031 0.003 <0.4 0.4

Slide Spring 0.24 0.00 165 6 0.04e <0.1 0.015 0.002 <0.4 0.4

Slide Spring 0.25 0.00 162 3 ns ns 0.015 0.002 <0.4 0.4

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.22 0.00 159 3 0.04e <0.1 0.016 0.004 <0.4 0.3

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.22 0.01 162 4 ns ns 0.019 0.004 <0.4 0.4

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

1.3 0.0 768 75 <0.08 <0.5 0.015 0.003 <0.4 0.3

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

1.3 0.0 761 63 ns ns 0.014 0.002 <0.4 0.9

Burnt Canyon Well 0.21 0.00 867 67 0.09 <0.3 0.062 0.002 <0.5 0.5

Burnt Canyon Well 0.21 0.00 874 29 ns ns 0.056 0.000 <0.5 1.7

Canyon Mine Well 0.015 0.000 7.6 0.5 0.05 <0.1 0.013 0.002 <0.5 2.0

Canyon Mine Well 0.016 0.000 7.6 0.6 ns ns 0.019 0.002 <0.5 2.0

Pinenut Well 0.096 0.001 424 29 0.05 <0.3 0.034 0.001 <0.5 0.8

Pinenut Well 0.10 0.00 442 25 ns ns 0.034 0.001 <0.5 0.6

Tom Land Well 0.62 0.00 543 31 0.05e <0.3 0.024 0.004 <0.5 0.1

Tom Land Well 0.60 0.00 548 28 ns ns 0.026 0.002 <0.5 0.0
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 219

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Selenium

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Selenium

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Selenium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

SeleniumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Silica

NWQL

ICP–MS

mg/L

Silica

Doughten

ICP–OES

mg/L

Silica

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

SilicaSD

Taylor

ICP–AES

mg/L

Samarium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

SamariumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring 3.5 4 ns ns -- 11.8 ns ns ns ns

Buck Farm Spring 3.7 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring 1.2 3 ns ns 9.8 9.93 ns ns ns ns

Hanging Spring 0.78 <1 ns ns 8.0 7.98 ns ns ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring 0.73 <1 ns ns 8.0 8.17 ns ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns 3 3.3 0.1 ns 7.81 6.9 0.1 0.0011 0.0002

South Canyon Spring ns ns 3.3 0.2 ns ns 7.0 0.2 0.0012 0.0005

Unknown Spring 0.72 <1 ns ns 8.0 8.02 ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring 0.75 <1 ns ns ns 7.94 ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns <1 ns ns ns 7.5 ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.13 <5 2.6 0.8 -- 14.5 14 0 <0.0009 0.0007

Clearwater Spring ns ns 3.1 0.2 ns ms 14 0 <0.0009 0.0010

Hotel Spring 6.8 8 8.9 1.6 10.6 10.5 11 0 0.0034 0.0004

Hotel Spring ns ns 9.5 1.6 ns ms 11 0 0.0037 0.0004

Kanab Spring 5.1 5 5.1 0.3 10.6 10.3 11 0 <0.0009 0.0003

Kanab Spring 5.7 ns 5.0 0.2 ns ms 10 0 <0.0009 0.0007

Lower Jumpup Spring 1.1 3 3.6 1.0 18.9 19.6 18 0 0.0010 0.0011

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 3.2 0.8 ns ms 18 0 0.0015 0.0002

Mountain Sheep Spring 19.1 16 16 1 12.0 12.4 12 1 0.0014 0.0003

Mountain Sheep Spring 15.8 ns 16 0 ns ms 13 0 <0.0009 0.0014

Rider Spring 20.0 18 ns ns 8.2 8.00 ns ns ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ms ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 11.2 13 12 0 -- 12.2 13 0 <0.0009 0.0002

Rock Spring ns ns 12 0 ns ns 13 0 <0.0009 0.0005

Schmutz Spring 43.7 33 31 1 11.8 11.9 12 0 <0.0009 0.0002

Schmutz Spring 41.6 ns 32 1 ns ns 11 0 <0.0009 0.0002

Showerbath Spring 4.2 4 4.6 0.1 10.5 10.7 9.8 0.5 <0.0009 0.0004

Showerbath Spring ns ns 4.7 0.1 ns ns 9.9 0.0 <0.0009 0.0006

Side Canyon Spring 16.9 13 13 0 11.3 11.1 10 1 <0.0009 0.0005

Side Canyon Spring ns ns 13 1 ns ns 11 1 <0.0009 0.0009

Slide Spring 19.5 21 21 1 10.7 10.5 9.8 0.6 <0.0009 0.0004

Slide Spring ns ns 21 0 ns ns 10.0 0.1 <0.0009 0.0002

Upper Jumpup Spring 18.9 18 19 0 10.7 10.7 9.8 0.5 <0.0009 0.0000

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns 19 1 ns ns 9.6 0.2 <0.0009 0.0001

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

52.2 50 51 4 12.4 11.9 11 0 0.0010 0.0006

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns sn 51 3 ns ns 12 0 <0.0009 0.0006

Burnt Canyon Well 0.62 <3 2.8 0.7 -- 8.2 9.2 0.3 0.0020 0.0007

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns 2.7 0.5 ns ns 9.2 0.3 0.0028 0.0004

Canyon Mine Well 4.2 5 4.8 0.3 -- 9.6 9.4 0.1 0.0018 0.0007

Canyon Mine Well ns ns 4.7 0.4 ns ns 9.4 0.2 0.0021 0.0006

Pinenut Well 0.15 <3 0.8 0.3 9.4 9.2 9.9 0.8 0.0009 0.0004

Pinenut Well ns ns 1.0 0.6 ns ns 10.6 0.2 <0.0008 0.0004

Tom Land Well 44.7 47 50 5 9.2 8.8 9.3 0.3 0.0011 0.0003

Tom Land Well ns ns 50 5 ns ns 9.6 0.3 0.0016 0.0014
220 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Tin

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Tin-SD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Sulfate

SO4

NWQL

IC

mg/L

Sulfate

SO4

Doughten

IC

mg/L

Strontium

NWQL

AASD

μg/L

Strontium

Doughten

ICP–OES

mg/L

Strontium

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Strontium

Bullen

ICP–MS

μg/L

87Sr/86Sr

Bullen

StrontiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns 194 189 590 609 ns 1,150 0.70946 ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns 591 ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring ns ns 170 169 1,060 1,090 ns 1,545 0.71417 ns

Hanging Spring ns ns 8.21 8.39 75 74 ns 103 0.71071 ns

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns 8.27 8.37 71 76 ns 122 0.71053 ns

South Canyon Spring <0.008 0.005 ns ns -- 248 245 -- -- 12

South Canyon Spring <0.008 0.002 ns ns -- 247 -- -- 15

Unknown Spring ns ns 8.25 8.35 73 74 ns 140 0.71043 ns

Unknown Spring ns ns ns 8.34 72 74 ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns ns -- 68 ns 118 0.71077 ns

Clearwater Spring <0.008 0.002 1,870 1,810 5,750 5,830 10,650 0.70821 40

Clearwater Spring <0.008 0.002 ns ns 5,830 ns ns 210

Hotel Spring <0.008 0.002 194 186 624 692 681 1,360 0.70828 14

Hotel Spring <0.008 0.009 ns ns 681 ns ns 10

Kanab Spring <0.008 0.008 261 252 802 857 870 1,475 0.70849 11

Kanab Spring <0.008 0.004 ns ns 850 855 ns ns 4

Lower Jumpup Spring <0.008 0.003 834 816 2,680 2,660 2,650 4,375 0.70817 50

Lower Jumpup Spring <0.008 0.003 ns ns 2,670 ns ns 100

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.008 0.001 662 623 1,970 1,840 1,830 3,075 0.7083 0

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.008 0.002 ns ns 1,720 1,770 ns ns 80

Rider Spring ns ns 449 451 1,280 1,300 ns 2,140 0.70943 ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring <0.008 0.002 1,660.0 1,580 6,060 6,130 11,360 0.70785 40

Rock Spring <0.008 0.006 ns ns 5,880 ns ns 40

Schmutz Spring <0.008 0.007 826 782 1,850 2,290 2,340 4,490 0.70762 60

Schmutz Spring <0.008 0.002 ns ns 2,030 2,200 ns ns 80

Showerbath Spring <0.008 0.005 292 298 941 987 997 1,630 0.70846 4

Showerbath Spring <0.008 0.000 ns ns 1,010 ns ns 30

Side Canyon Spring <0.008 0.002 596 594 2,030 2,000 2,020 3,660 0.70868 50

Side Canyon Spring <0.008 0.007 ns ns 2,050 ns ns 20

Slide Spring <0.008 0.004 428 430 1,570 1,770 1,640 3,875 0.70778 50

Slide Spring <0.008 0.007 ns ns 1,610 ns ns 50

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.011 0.002 401 403 1,140 1,180 1,160 1,940 0.7079 70

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.008 0.002 ns ns 1,160 ns ns 50

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.011 0.000 2,100 2,050 6,500 7,720 7,360 13,160 0.70789 170

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

<0.008 0.005 ns ns 7,270 ns ns 130

Burnt Canyon Well <0.01 0.01 2,150 2,040 6,330 6,300 11,800 0.70947 261

Burnt Canyon Well <0.01 0.00 ns ns 6,420 ns ns 140

Canyon Mine Well <0.01 0.00 19.6 18.6 214 275 272 480 0.70971 7

Canyon Mine Well <0.01 0.00 ns ns 262 ns ns 24

Pinenut Well <0.01 0.00 1,150 1,100 3,520 3,170 3,210 5,780 0.70972 77

Pinenut Well <0.01 0.00 ns ns 3,230 ns ns 185

Tom Land Well <0.01 0.01 1,440 1,380 4,490 4,540 4,460 7,175 0.70856 37

Tom Land Well <0.01 0.00 ns ns 4,530 ns ns 165
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 221

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Terbium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

TerbiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Tellurium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

TelluriumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Thorium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

ThoriumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Titanium

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

TitaniumSD

Taylor

ICP–AES

μg/L

Thallium

NWQL

AASGF

μg/L

Thallium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.02e ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns <0.04 ns

Fence Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.05 ns

Hanging Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns <0.04 ns

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns <0.04 ns

South Canyon Spring 0.0002 0.0001 <0.008 0.003 <0.001 0.000 <0.2 0.1 ns 0.006

South Canyon Spring 0.0003 0.0001 <0.008 0.005 <0.001 0.001 <0.2 0.1 ns 0.006

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns <0.04 ns

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns <0.04 ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.0010 0.0001 0.022 0.001 0.006 0.004 <0.2 0.1 <0.08 <0.005

Clearwater Spring 0.0008 0.0001 0.014 0.000 0.009 0.004 <0.2 0.2 ns <0.005

Hotel Spring 0.0006 0.0002 <0.008 0.004 0.006 0.003 <0.2 0.1 0.03e 0.027

Hotel Spring 0.0003 0.0000 <0.008 0.009 0.005 0.001 <0.2 0.1 ns 0.022

Kanab Spring <0.0002 0.0002 <0.008 0.003 0.002 0.002 <0.2 0.1 0.12 0.12

Kanab Spring <0.0002 0.0002 <0.008 0.006 0.002 0.002 <0.2 0.1 0.14 0.12

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0003 0.0001 <0.008 0.002 0.008 0.003 <0.2 0.0 <0.12 0.012

Lower Jumpup Spring <0.0002 0.0001 0.022 0.006 0.005 0.000 <0.2 0.1 ns 0.012

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.0002 0.0001 0.008 0.005 0.002 0.001 <0.2 0.2 <0.04 0.012

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.0002 0.0000 0.011 0.003 0.003 0.001 <0.2 0.0 <0.04 0.013

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns <0.04 ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.0004 0.0002 0.009 0.005 0.007 0.003 <0.2 0.2 0.04e 0.020

Rock Spring <0.0002 0.0001 0.016 0.003 0.005 0.003 <0.2 0.3 ns 0.014

Schmutz Spring <0.0002 0.0001 <0.008 0.008 0.008 0.000 <0.2 0.2 0.07 0.079

Schmutz Spring <0.0002 0.0001 <0.008 0.004 0.007 0.003 <0.2 0.2 0.09 0.082

Showerbath Spring 0.0003 0.0001 0.009 0.008 0.005 0.005 <0.2 0.2 0.07 0.064

Showerbath Spring <0.0002 0.0002 <0.008 0.003 0.006 0.006 <0.2 0.1 ns 0.065

Side Canyon Spring <0.0002 0.0003 <0.008 0.005 0.005 0.004 <0.2 0.1 0.17 0.16

Side Canyon Spring <0.0002 0.0000 <0.008 0.003 0.005 0.002 <0.2 0.1 ns 0.17

Slide Spring <0.0002 0.0002 0.011 0.007 0.004 0.002 <0.2 0.2 0.07 0.081

Slide Spring <0.0002 0.0001 <0.008 0.004 0.001 0.000 <0.2 0.1 ns 0.079

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.0002 0.0002 <0.008 0.006 0.002 0.001 <0.2 0.1 0.10 0.095

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.0002 0.0001 <0.008 0.004 0.004 0.003 <0.2 0.0 ns 0.092

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.0006 0.0003 0.013 0.010 0.023 0.018 <0.2 0.1 0.06e 0.059

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.0006 0.0003 0.021 0.003 0.011 0.003 <0.2 0.1 ns 0.058

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0014 0.0001 0.059 0.013 0.016 0.006 <0.1 0.2 0.13 0.12

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0013 0.0001 0.052 0.018 0.014 0.005 <0.1 0.2 ns 0.12

Canyon Mine Well <0.0002 0.0001 0.010 0.006 <0.003 0.001 <0.1 0.1 0.02e 0.025

Canyon Mine Well <0.0002 0.0000 <0.008 0.001 <0.003 0.002 <0.1 0.0 ns 0.024

Pinenut Well 0.0008 0.0001 0.030 0.006 0.036 0.001 <0.1 0.2 <0.04 0.015

Pinenut Well 0.0009 0.0001 0.029 0.005 0.031 0.003 <0.1 0.2 ns 0.016

Tom Land Well 0.0004 0.0001 0.036 0.009 0.012 0.001 <0.1 0.1 0.35 0.30

Tom Land Well 0.0003 0.0002 0.040 0.008 0.013 0.010 <0.1 0.2 ns 0.31
222 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

ThalliumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Thulium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

ThuliumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Uranium

NWQL

IC–MS

μg/L

Uranium

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Uranium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

UraniumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

UraniumNAU

Appendix 1

μg/L

UraniumSD

Appendix 1

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns 2.77 2.80 ns ns 3.25 0.01

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns 2.81 ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring ns ns ns 1.44 1.50 ns ns 1.70 0.01

Hanging Spring ns ns ns 0.61 0.61 ns ns 0.70 0.01

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns ns 0.58 0.62 ns ns 0.68 0.01

South Canyon Spring 0.002 0.0001 0.0001 ns 0.90 0.83 0.02 0.93 0.01

South Canyon Spring 0.001 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 0.82 0.02 ns ns

Unknown Spring ns ns ns 0.58 0.61 ns ns 0.68 0.01

Unknown Spring ns ns ns 0.57 0.61 ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns ns 0.59 ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.007 0.0001 0.0000 1.28 1.20 1.12 0.05 1.35 0.01

Clearwater Spring 0.003 0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 1.11 0.04 ns ns

Hotel Spring 0.001 0.0004 0.0001 2.60 2.69 2.7 0.1 3.18 0.02

Hotel Spring 0.001 0.0004 0.0001 ns ns 2.7 0.0 ns ns

Kanab Spring 0.00 <0.0001 0.0000 4.62 4.96 4.9 0.1 5.71 0.01

Kanab Spring 0.00 <0.0001 0.0001 5.17 ns 4.8 0.0 ns ns

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.002 0.0002 0.0001 7.16 7.87 7.7 0.0 8.98 0.02

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.001 0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 7.5 0.0 ns ns

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.001 0.0001 0.0000 8.83 8.76 8.4 0.1 10.2 0.0

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.001 0.0001 0.0000 7.76 ns 8.3 0.1 ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns 4.50 4.70 ns ns 5.56 0.01

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns 5.66 0.01

Rock Spring 0.001 <0.0001 0.0001 14.30 16.0 14.1 1.2 19.5 0.0

Rock Spring 0.002 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 11.3 0.4 ns ns

Schmutz Spring 0.002 <0.0001 0.0001 4.25 4.41 4.4 0.0 5.42 0.01

Schmutz Spring 0.002 <0.0001 0.0001 4.06 ns 4.8 0.4 ns ns

Showerbath Spring 0.000 0.0001 0.0001 4.19 4.91 4.8 0.1 5.71 0.01

Showerbath Spring 0.001 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 4.7 0.2 5.76 0.01

Side Canyon Spring 0.00 <0.0001 0.0001 7.24 7.43 7.5 0.1 9.03 0.01

Side Canyon Spring 0.00 0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 7.4 0.1 ns ns

Slide Spring 0.001 <0.0001 0.0001 2.28 2.90 2.8 0.0 3.34 0.01

Slide Spring 0.004 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 2.9 0.1 ns ns

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.002 <0.0001 0.0001 3.72 4.02 3.9 0.0 4.70 0.01

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.002 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 4.0 0.1 ns ns

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.000 <0.0001 0.0000 19.6 20.0 19.3 0.6 23.9 0.0

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.003 0.0003 0.0002 ns ns 19.6 0.8 ns ns

Burnt Canyon Well 0.00 0.0003 0.0001 2.77 3.20 3.0 0.1 3.70 0.01

Burnt Canyon Well 0.01 0.0002 0.0001 ns ns 3.0 0.1 ns ns

Canyon Mine Well 0.001 <0.0001 0.0000 12.1 15.3 14.6 0.0 16.9 0.0

Canyon Mine Well 0.000 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 14.2 0.7 ns ns

Pinenut Well 0.001 <0.0001 0.0000 2.28 2.40 2.1 0.0 2.71 0.01

Pinenut Well 0.001 <0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 2.1 0.1 ns ns

Tom Land Well 0.01 <0.0001 0.0000 19.8 21.1 17.4 1.2 23.9 0.1

Tom Land Well 0.00 0.0001 0.0001 ns ns 17.8 0.6 ns ns
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 223

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Vanadium

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Vanadium

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Vanadium

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

VanadiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Tungsten

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Tungsten

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

TungstenSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Yttrium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

YttriumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring 2.6 3.9 ns ns 0.01e ns ns ns ns

Buck Farm Spring 2.6 ns ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring 1.6 1.5 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Hanging Spring 1.1 1.2 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring 1.1 1.6 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns 1.5 1.3 0.0 ns 0.004 0.001 0.0090 0.0012

South Canyon Spring ns ns 1.4 0.1 ns 0.005 0.001 0.0086 0.0004

Unknown Spring 1.1 1.2 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring 1.1 1.3 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns 1.2 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.32e 0.8 <0.09 0.11 0.09 0.048 0.000 0.039 0.001

Clearwater Spring ns ns <0.09 0.06 ns 0.051 0.000 0.035 0.003

Hotel Spring 9.6 11.7 11 0 0.02 0.014 0.001 0.035 0.002

Hotel Spring ns ns 10 0 ns 0.014 0.000 0.033 0.000

Kanab Spring 0.68 1.6 0.54 0.04 0.03 0.018 0.001 0.0099 0.0014

Kanab Spring 0.78 ns 0.70 0.06 0.03 0.021 0.001 0.0099 0.0012

Lower Jumpup Spring 1.8 2.8 1.6 0.0 <0.06 0.005 0.002 0.031 0.003

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns 1.6 0.1 ns 0.007 0.001 0.029 0.001

Mountain Sheep Spring 1.7 2.9 1.4 0.0 <0.02 0.002 0.000 0.021 0.003

Mountain Sheep Spring 1.6 ns 1.7 0.2 <0.02 0.002 0.001 0.022 0.002

Rider Spring 0.65 0.9 ns ns <0.02 ns ns ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 0.76 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.02e <0.001 0.001 0.037 0.004

Rock Spring ns ns 0.5 0.3 ns 0.004 0.002 0.037 0.003

Schmutz Spring 0.46 0.9 0.48 0.07 <0.02 <0.002 0.002 0.016 0.005

Schmutz Spring 0.50 sn 0.53 0.12 <0.02 <0.002 0.002 0.018 0.001

Showerbath Spring 0.95 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.01e 0.014 0.004 0.010 0.002

Showerbath Spring ns ns 0.91 0.14 ns 0.012 0.001 0.010 0.001

Side Canyon Spring 0.61 1.2 0.55 0.16 0.02e 0.012 0.001 0.015 0.002

Side Canyon Spring ns ns 0.55 0.07 ns 0.014 0.002 0.014 0.003

Slide Spring 0.90 1.9 1.2 0.0 <0.02 <0.002 0.001 0.012 0.003

Slide Spring ns ns 1.0 0.0 ns <0.002 0.001 0.012 0.003

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.83 1.4 0.86 0.13 <0.02 <0.002 0.002 0.0100 0.0007

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns 0.83 0.00 ns <0.002 0.000 0.010 0.002

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

2.1 2.3 1.8 0.1 <0.04 0.002 0.001 0.052 0.004

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns 1.8 0.0 ns 0.002 0.001 0.046 0.010

Burnt Canyon Well 0.30e 1.3 0.4 0.1 <0.04 <0.001 0.001 0.035 0.001

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns <0.3 0.2 ns <0.001 0.001 0.035 0.004

Canyon Mine Well <0.16 1.4 <0.3 0.3 0.02 0.018 0.002 0.0034 0.0001

Canyon Mine Well ns ns <0.3 0.1 ns 0.018 0.001 0.0028 0.0003

Pinenut Well 0.18 0.9 <0.3 0.3 0.06 0.037 0.002 0.016 0.003

Pinenut Well ns ns <0.3 0.1 ns 0.038 0.000 0.016 0.003

Tom Land Well 0.37 1.4 0.5 0.1 <0.04 0.002 0.001 0.026 0.005

Tom Land Well ns ns 0.4 0.1 ns 0.002 0.000 0.025 0.005
224 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Ytterbium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

YtterbiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Zinc

NWQL

ICP–MS

μg/L

Zinc

Doughten

ICP–MS

μg/L

Zinc

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Zinc-SD

Taylor

ICP–MS/AES

μg/L

Zirconium

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

ZirconiumSD

Taylor

ICP–MS

μg/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns <2 1 ns ns ns ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns <2 ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring ns ns 5.7 7 ns ns ns ns

Hanging Spring ns ns <2 4 ns ns ns ns

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns <2 4 ns ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring <0.0007 0.0004 ns 3 1 0 0.014 0.013

South Canyon Spring <0.0007 0.0000 ns ns 1 0 0.008 0.009

Unknown Spring ns ns <2 4 ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring ns ns 1.1e 4 ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns 4 ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring <0.0007 0.0002 3.9e <5 3 0 0.22 0.13

Clearwater Spring <0.0007 0.0006 ns ns 3 1 0.22 0.01

Hotel Spring 0.0019 0.0011 1.1e 2 <1 1 0.16 0.12

Hotel Spring 0.0023 0.0003 ns ns <1 1 0.32 0.27

Kanab Spring <0.0007 0.0002 20.5 17 17 1 0.031 0.011

Kanab Spring <0.0007 0.0005 19.1 ns 17 0 0.037 0.017

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0008 0.0003 <6 4 3 1 0.088 0.022

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0009 0.0000 ns ns 3 0 0.082 0.013

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0006 0.0003 14.8 6 4 0 0.051 0.002

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0006 0.0000 2.7 ns 3 0 0.049 0.009

Rider Spring ns ns 1.5e 2 ns ns ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring <0.0005 0.0003 <4.0 <5 1 0 0.10 0.00

Rock Spring <0.0005 0.0003 ns ns 1 1 0.084 0.005

Schmutz Spring <0.0007 0.0000 3.7 5 4 1 0.22 0.20

Schmutz Spring <0.0007 0.0004 4.1 ns 4 1 0.16 0.09

Showerbath Spring <0.0007 0.0003 12.3 8 9 0 0.12 0.12

Showerbath Spring <0.0007 0.0004 ns ns 9 0 0.031 0.034

Side Canyon Spring <0.0007 0.0009 6.6 8 7 0 0.038 0.002

Side Canyon Spring <0.0007 0.0003 ns ns 7 1 0.054 0.026

Slide Spring <0.0007 0.0006 13.6 16 15 1 0.041 0.012

Slide Spring <0.0007 0.0001 ns ns 15 0 0.049 0.017

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.0009 0.0005 14.2 14 13 2 0.026 0.019

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.0007 0.0003 ns ns 13 2 0.020 0.010

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

0.0010 0.0005 9.2 9 11 0 0.33 0.24

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

<0.0007 0.0004 ns ns 11 0 0.23 0.04

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0008 0.0003 82 68 95 4 0.38 0.12

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0009 0.0002 ns ns 92 4 0.51 0.02

Canyon Mine Well <0.0004 0.0003 24.4 24 25 3 0.04 0.03

Canyon Mine Well <0.0004 0.0000 ns ns 25 1 0.04 0.06

Pinenut Well 0.0005 0.0003 2.1 4 3 2 0.16 0.05

Pinenut Well <0.0004 0.0001 ns ns 2 2 0.25 0.15

Tom Land Well <0.0004 0.0002 245 208 264 16 0.96 1.03

Tom Land Well <0.0004 0.0001 ns ns 265 18 0.22 0.13
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 225

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Alkalinity

NWQL

titration

mg CaCO3/L

Acid

neutralizing

capacity

NWQL

mg CaCO3/L

Specific

conductance

field

meter

μS/cm

Specific

conductance

NWQL

meter

μS/cm

HCO3

NWQL

titration

mg/L

HCO3

Doughten

titration

mg/L

HCO3

field

titration

mg/L

Discharge

field

meter or

volumetric

gal/min

Barometric

presssure

field

meter

mm Hg

Buck Farm Spring 198 206 708 784 239 265 239 0.59 690

Buck Farm Spring ns -- ns ns ns ns ns nm ns

Fence Spring 360 342 1,000 1,740 439 470 439 732 686

Hanging Spring 177 186 348 362 214 229 214 nm 690

Hole in the Wall Spring 173 186 303 364 210 230 210 8.8 686

South Canyon Spring 130 -- 438 ns 156 ns 156 nm 652

South Canyon Spring ns -- ns ns ns ns ns nm ns

Unknown Spring 173 186 330 362 210 228 210 0.68 689

Unknown Spring ns 330 ns ns 228 ns nm ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns -- 300 ns ns ns ns 260 nm

Clearwater Spring 224 222 2,250 3,230 273 274 273 1.4 nm

Clearwater Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Hotel Spring 169 173 915 852 204 212 204 <0.001e 754

Hotel Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Kanab Spring 199 200 864 869 241 244 241 274 nm

Kanab Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Lower Jumpup Spring 294 290 1,960 1,930 357 371 357 57.6 nm

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Mountain Sheep Spring 245 256 1,643 1,600 298 311 298 41 673

Mountain Sheep Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm ns

Rider Spring 59 57 1,380 1,200 71 69 71 0.02 665

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns nm ns

Rock Spring 128 129 2,460 2,620 154 159 154 0.11 674

Rock Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm ns

Schmutz Spring 100 102 1,602 1,530 121 126 121 0 nm

Schmutz Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Showerbath Spring 198 187 700 962 241 246 241 202 nm

Showerbath Spring ns ns ns ns ms ns ns nm nm

Side Canyon Spring 164 170 1,316 1,370 200 208 200 1 nm

Side Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Slide Spring 190 187 1,199 1,150 232 230 232 89.8 nm

Slide Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Upper Jumpup Spring 160 153 709 1,060 195 192 195 1.3 nm

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

85 89 2,460 3,220 102 108 102 nm nm

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm nm

Burnt Canyon Well 292 307 3,570 3,520 355 370 355 50 765

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm ns

Canyon Mine Well 214 218 437 451 260 265 260 70 770

Canyon Mine Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm ns

Pinenut Well 171 184 2,170 2,160 208 225 208 13.6 767

Pinenut Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm ns

Tom Land Well 284 293 2,666 2,670 346 354 346 8.2 761

Tom Land Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns nm ns
226 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Dissolved 

oxygen, unf

field

meter

mg/L

pH

field meter

standard units

pH

NWQL

meter

standard units

Air

temperature

field

manual

°C

Water

temperature

field

manual

°C

Gross alpha

radioactivity,

30-day

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross alpha

radioactivity,

30-daySD

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross alpha

radioactivity,

30-daysample specific

reporting limit

NWQL

pCi/L

Buck Farm Spring 6.8 7.5 7.8 34.7 27.3 3.9 1.1 1.2

Buck Farm Spring nm nm -- nm nm ns ns ns

Fence Spring 5.0 6.8 7.3 31.0 21.5 0.1R 1.5 2.3

Hanging Spring 7.3 7.9 7.9 34.0 20.9 0.1R 0.55 0.81

Hole in the Wall Spring 7.8 7.5 7.8 nm 22.4 2.2 0.64 0.63

South Canyon Spring 8.0 8.0 -- nm 15.5 ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring nm nm -- nm nm ns ns ns

Unknown Spring 7.6 7.6 7.7 30.0 18.8 3.5 1.1 1.3

Unknown Spring nm nm -- nm nm ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise 9.1 8.6 -- 25.9 18.6 2.1 0.59 0.53

Clearwater Spring 0.2 7.5 7.5 28.2 17.1 –1.0R 4.7 7.5

Clearwater Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Hotel Spring 7.8e 7.9 8.1 33.0 27.8 4.4 0.96 0.76

Hotel Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Kanab Spring 7.3 7.1 7.6 24.5 21.8 6.7 1.6 1.5

Kanab Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Lower Jumpup Spring 4.1 6.9 7.4 30.3 21.1 16.0 4.0 2.9

Lower Jumpup Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Mountain Sheep Spring 7.3 7.0 7.2 25.8 18.3 14.5 2.6 1.6

Mountain Sheep Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Rider Spring 7.7 8.3 8.0 25.5 18.9 5.0 1.5 1.7

Rider Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Rock Spring 7.7 7.9 8.1 22.3 18.2 24.5 5.0 3.8

Rock Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Schmutz Spring 6.7 7.4 7.8 23.5 19.8 5.0 1.6 1.5

Schmutz Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Showerbath Spring 6.3 7.0 7.5 35.5 21.1 6.4 1.5 1.3

Showerbath Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Side Canyon Spring 4.2 7.4 7.4 28.7 23.3 9.0 3.0 3.9

Side Canyon Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Slide Spring 2.6 7.3 7.6 20.9 15.6 8.0 2.0 2.0

Slide Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Upper Jumpup Spring 5.0 7.4 7.8 29.3 13.4 11.2 1.9 1.1

Upper Jumpup Spring nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

6.4 7.3 7.8 31.0 18.6 12.0 5.0 6.0

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Burnt Canyon Well 0.6 6.6 6.9 nm 16.3 48 8.2 4.7

Burnt Canyon Well nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Canyon Mine Well 3.9 7.1 7.4 nm 26.7 12.4 1.6 0.43

Canyon Mine Well nm nm sn nm nm ns ns ns

Pinenut Well 0.6 7.2 7.2 nm 26.6 142 16 3.2

Pinenut Well nm nm ns nm nm ns ns ns

Tom Land Well 3.8 6.8 6.9 23.0 17.9 52.0 9.2 8.5

Tom Land Well nm -- ns nm nm ns ns ns
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 227

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Gross alpha

radioactivity,

72-hour

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross alpha

radioactivity,

72-hourSD

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross alpha

radioactivity,

72-hoursample specific

reporting limit

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross beta

radioactivity,

30-day

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross beta

radioactivity,

 30-daySD

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross beta

radioactivity, 

30-day,

sample specific

reporting limit

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross beta

radioactivity, 

72-hour

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross beta

radioactivity, 

72-hourSD

NWQL

pCi/L

Gross beta

radioactivity,

72-hour,

sample specific

reporting limit

NWQL

pCi/L

Buck Farm Spring 4.3 1.7 2.3 3.9 0.92 1.2 8.1 0.87 1.0

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring 0.6R 1.6 2.4 15.4 1.3 1.2 16.7 1.4 1.2

Hanging Spring 1.8 0.53 0.57 1.1 0.44 0.68 0.4R 0.38 0.61

Hole in the Wall Spring 2.4 0.60 0.53 0.3R 0.60 0.98 0.3R 0.45 0.71

South Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring 1.9 0.54 0.52 2.3 0.48 0.68 0.50R 0.40 0.63

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise 1.2 0.51 0.60 1.2 0.49 0.76 0.80R 0.60 0.96

Clearwater Spring –3.0R 3.0 5.2 12.0 2.2 3.1 12.2 1.6 2.1

Clearwater Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Hotel Spring 3.3 0.92 0.89 7.9 0.82 0.95 6.0 0.77 0.94

Hotel Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Kanab Spring 4.1 1.2 1.2 6.1 0.51 0.48 6.1 0.52 0.50

Kanab Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Lower Jumpup Spring 7.0 4.2 6.0 9.9 0.97 1.00 10.2 0.94 0.96

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Mountain Sheep Spring 10.6 2.3 2.0 11.4 0.90 0.75 8.8 0.77 0.79

Mountain Sheep Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rider Spring 4.7 1.4 1.4 6.3 0.53 0.49 6.6 0.66 0.80

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring 16.6 4.6 4.9 11.7 1.2 1.4 7.8 1.1 1.5

Rock Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Schmutz Spring 4.3 1.6 1.6 3.8 0.53 0.68 4.6 0.61 0.80

Schmutz Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Showerbath Spring 5.4 1.4 1.3 5.6 0.53 0.55 4.8 0.48 0.53

Showerbath Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Side Canyon Spring 7.5 1.9 1.7 6.8 0.71 0.87 6.6 0.62 0.67

Side Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Slide Spring 8.5 1.8 1.3 3.4 0.47 0.60 2.0 0.56 0.73

Slide Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Upper Jumpup Spring 10.3 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.45 0.62 2.1 0.46 0.66

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

18 5 5 15.5 1.7 1.9 15.8 1.6 1.8

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Burnt Canyon Well 22.0 5.4 4.8 31.0 2.5 2.2 18.0 2.1 2.7

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Canyon Mine Well 13.0 2.0 1.0 6.3 0.52 0.48 3.0 0.50 0.62

Canyon Mine Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Pinenut Well 39.0 7.2 7.2 55.0 3.3 1.0 31.0 2.0 1.0

Pinenut Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Tom Land Well 28.0 5.1 3.4 19.4 1.7 1.7 9.7 1.5 2.2

Tom Land Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
228 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

δ13C

RSIL

‰

δ18O

Coplen

‰

δ2H 

Coplen

‰

Tritium

Michel

TU

Trit-SD

Michel

TU

234U/238U 

activity ratio

NAU

234U/238U

activity

ratio-SD

NAU

234U/238U

activity ratio

Kraemer/Bullen

234U/238U

error, 1 sigma

Kraemer/Bullen

Buck Farm Spring –11.20 –12.22 –91.38 1.33 0.18 1.837 0.009 ns ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring –4.74 –13.83 –101.27 0.80 0.50 2.623 0.021 ns ns

Hanging Spring –11.40 –13.78 –98.52 1.76 0.19 4.054 0.018 3.924 0.014

Hole in the Wall Spring –10.85 –13.74 –99.07 1.61 0.20 4.124 0.094 3.911 0.006

South Canyon Spring ns –11.57 –83.06 ns ns 3.365 0.016 3.272 0.017

South Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring –10.97 –13.78 –99.48 1.93 0.20 4.071 0.020 3.936 0.022

Unknown Spring ns sn ns ns ns ns ns 3.921 0.013

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns ns ns ns ns 4.339 0.005

Clearwater Spring –7.91 –11.35 –86.10 2.03 0.28 1.523 0.048 1.505 0.008

Clearwater Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Hotel Spring –9.35 –7.71 –65.45 2.30 0.30 1.935 0.022 1.951 0.021

Hotel Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Kanab Spring –8.89 –12.40 –91.56 0.69 0.29 1.966 0.007 1.980 0.018

Kanab Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Lower Jumpup Spring –12.44 –11.93 –89.77 0.13 0.28 2.634 0.024 2.594 0.010

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Mountain Sheep Spring –11.79 –12.08 –90.64 0.91 0.27 2.851 0.009 2.816 0.011

Mountain Sheep Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rider Spring –0.60 –15.61 –124.55 0.20 0.30 2.632 0.018 2.627 0.010

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns 2.618 0.008 ns ns

Rock Spring –5.02 –11.87 –90.91 0.42 0.29 2.459 0.007 2.434 0.007

Rock Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Schmutz Spring –6.02 –11.17 –81.20 0.50 0.30 1.883 0.005 1.858 0.008

Schmutz Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Showerbath Spring –10.21 –12.20 –90.41 1.60 0.30 1.881 0.003 1.890 0.002

Showerbath Spring ns ns ns ns ns 1.906 0.005 ns ns

Side Canyon Spring –7.15 –12.50 –91.41 0.43 0.28 1.856 0.010 1.857 0.014

Side Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Slide Spring –7.22 –11.67 –88.69 0.00 0.28 5.626 0.023 5.590 0.005

Slide Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Upper Jumpup Spring –6.18 –12.23 –90.34 –0.29 0.28 4.671 0.019 4.584 0.010

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

–5.18 –10.58 –76.11 2.00 0.30 1.658 0.005 1.646 0.005

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Burnt Canyon Well –4.04 –13.48 –105.09 5.20 0.3 2.674 0.021 2.657 0.013

Burnt Canyon Well sn ns ns ns ns ns ns 2.666 0.011

Canyon Mine Well –8.69 –12.08 –89.16 7.20 0.4 2.017 0.008 2.026 0.013

Canyon Mine Well sn ns ns ns ns ns ns 2.024 0.004

Pinenut Well –4.63 –14.38 –110.70 -- -- 2.285 0.014 2.260 0.008

Pinenut Well ns ns ms ns ns ns ns 2.264 0.012

Tom Land Well –4.42 –7.22 –55.85 0.17 0.25 1.749 0.010 1.777 0.001

Tom Land Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns 1.763 0.013
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 229

Table A. Analysis results from all laboratories.—Continued

Spring or well

Large volume 226Ra

Doughten

pCi/L

Large volume

error, 1 sigma

Doughten

pCi/L

Large volume 228Ra

Doughten

pCi/L

Large volume

error, 1 sigma

Doughten

pCi/L

Large volume

228Ra/226Ra

activity ratio

Doughten

Large volume

error, 1 sigma

Doughten

Small volume 226Ra

Doughten

pCi/L

Small volume 228Ra

Doughten

pCi/L

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Buck Farm Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Fence Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Hanging Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Hole in the Wall Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

South Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Unknown Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Vasey’s Paradise ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Clearwater Spring 0.730 0.007 0.239 0.010 0.327 0.010 <4 <4

Clearwater Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Hotel Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Hotel Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Kanab Spring 0.245 0.003 0.016 0.002 0.071 0.009 -- --

Kanab Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Lower Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Mountain Sheep Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Mountain Sheep Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Rider Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Rock Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Rock Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Schmutz Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Schmutz Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Showerbath Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Showerbath Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Side Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Side Canyon Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Slide Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Slide Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.230 0.003 0.122 0.002 0.545 0.012 <4 <4

Upper Jumpup Spring ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns ns ns ns ns <4 <4

Willow Spring 

(Hack Canyon)

ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Burnt Canyon Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Canyon Mine Well 1.30 0.01 0.081 0.002 0.065 0.003 -- --

Canyon Mine Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Pinenut Well 17.51 0.08 0.716 0.045 0.041 0.002 -- --

Pinenut Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Tom Land Well 3.01 0.02 0.266 0.009 0.089 0.003 -- --

Tom Land Well ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
230 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or 

well data 

source units

Site ID on 

figure 17*

Sample

date

Discharge

field

gal/min

Dissolved

oxygen

field

mg/L

pH

field

standard

units

Specific

conductance

field

μS/cm

Water

temperature

field

°C

Calcium

MPV*

mg/L

Magnesium

MPV*

mg/L

Sodium

MPV*

mg/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring 23 8/23/2009 0.59 6.8 7.5 708 27.3 95 34 19

Fence Spring 18 8/20/2009 732 5 6.8 1,740 21.5 146 39 159

Hanging Spring 21 8/22/2009 na 7.3 7.9 348 20.9 44 20 1.7

Hole in the Wall Spring 7 8/22/2009 8.8 7.8 7.5 303 na 45 21 1.7

Unknown Spring 22 8/21/2009 0.68 7.6 7.6 330 18.8 44 20 1.7

Vasey’s Paradise 19 8/21/2009 260 9.1 8.6 na 18.6 44 21 1.8

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 20 8/26/2009 na 8 8 na 15.5 56 18 4.0

Rider Spring 17 8/25/2009 0.02 7.7 8.3 1,380 18.9 63 64 90

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 16 8/28/2009 1.4 0.2 7.5 2,250 17.1 472 174 147

Upper Jumpup Spring 11 8/27/2009 1.3 5 7.4 709 13.4 136 62 11

Lower Jumpup Spring 9 8/28/2009 57.6 4.1 6.9 1,930 21.1 247 121 38

Mountain Sheep Spring 8 9/1/2009 na 7.3 7 1,643 18.3 188 97 32

Schmutz Spring 1 8/25/2009 na 6.7 7.4 1,602 19.8 239 77 13

Burnt Canyon Well 15 9/16/2009 50 0.6 6.6 3,570 16.3 549 270 81

Tom Land Well 12 9/14/2009 8.2 3.8 6.8 2,666 17.9 467 150 27

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 2 8/25/2009 na 7.8 7.9 915 27.8 73 48 27

Kanab Spring 5 8/26/2009 274 7.3 7.1 864 21.8 99 49 16

Shower Bath Spring 4 8/26/2009 202 6.3 7 700 21.1 114 50 19

Side Canyon Spring 3 8/26/2009 1 4.2 7.4 1,316 23.3 179 77 17

Pinenut Well 6 9/15/2009 13.6 0.6 7.2 2,170 26.6 251 141 70

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring 13 8/27/2009 89.8 2.6 7.3 1,199 15.6 146 66 10

Rock Spring 14 9/2/2009 0.11 7.7 7.9 2,460 18.2 438 151 34

Willow Spring 10 8/26/2009 na 6.4 7.3 2,460 18.6 493 227 64

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 24 9/18/2009 70 3.9 7.1 437 26.7 43 30 5.7
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 231

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or 

well data 

source units

Potassium

MPV*

mg/L

Acid

neutralizing 

capacity

NWQL

mg CaCO3/L

Bicarbonate

field

mg/L

Sulfate

MPV*

mg/L

Chlorine

MPV*

mg/L

Fluorine

MPV*

mg/L

Silica

MPV*

mg/L

Uranium

MPV*

μg/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring 7.0 206 239 192 12.8 0.17 11.9 2.82

Fence Spring 15.3 342 439 170 241 0.32 9.9 1.48

Hanging Spring 0.8 186 214 8.3 2.0 0.07 8.0 0.62

Hole in the Wall Spring 0.8 186 210 8.3 2.0 0.08 8.1 0.60

Unknown Spring 0.8 186 210 8.3 2.0 0.08 8.0 0.60

Vasey’s Paradise 0.7 na na na na na 7.5 0.57

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 1.5 na 156 na na na 7.8 0.82

Rider Spring 5.4 57 71 450 59.0 1.58 8.1 4.64

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 11.4 na 273 1,810 70.9 0.70 14.5 1.11

Upper Jumpup Spring 1.8 153 195 402 16.3 0.26 10.7 3.94

Lower Jumpup Spring 8.1 290 357 825 42.1 0.54 19.2 7.60

Mountain Sheep Spring 7.6 256 298 643 41.2 0.58 12.2 8.37

Schmutz Spring 2.9 102 121 804 18.3 0.49 11.8 4.59

Burnt Canyon Well 14.8 na <0.02 2,040 53.8 1.38 8.2 3.02

Tom Land Well 6.7 293 346 1,410 28.3 0.95 9.0 20.6

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 7.1 173 204 190 50.6 0.37 10.6 2.70

Kanab Spring 3.8 200 241 257 16.1 0.28 10.5 4.83

Shower Bath Spring 4.2 187 241 295 16.2 0.30 10.6 4.74

Side Canyon Spring 5.2 170 200 595 11.0 0.51 11.2 7.44

Pinenut Well 23.4 184 208 1,125 18.9 0.80 9.3 2.14

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring 2.1 187 232 429 15.4 0.36 10.6 2.83

Rock Spring 5.4 na 154 1,580 15.4 0.34 12.2 12.7

Willow Spring 12.0 89 102 2,075 47.9 0.99 12.2 19.5

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 2.2 218 260 19.1 6.5 0.31 9.5 14.4
232 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

Site ID on 

figure 17*

Silver

NWQL

μg/L

Aluminum

MPV*

μg/L

Arsenic

MPV*

μg/L

Boron

MPV*

μg/L

Barium

MPV*

μg/L

Beryllium

MPV*

μg/L

Bromine

Doughten

mg/L

Cadmium

MPV*

μg/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring 23 <0.008 <1 1.2 59 31 <0.02 0.07 <0.02

Fence Spring 18 <0.008 2 16.6 372 52 0.04 0.50 0.03

Hanging Spring 21 <0.008 2 2.5 11 na <0.02 0.03 <0.02

Hole in the Wall Spring 7 <0.008 1 2.4 11 172 <0.02 0.03 <0.02

Unknown Spring 22 <0.008 2 2.4 12 175 <0.02 0.02 <0.02

Vasey’s Paradise 19 na 2 1.3 <20 138 na na <0.05

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 20 na 0.6 1.44 25 73 <0.02 na <0.01

Rider Spring 17 <0.008 1 5.0 568 8 <0.02 0.57 0.04

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 16 na 0.3 1.35 352 22 <0.02 0.52 <0.01

Upper Jumpup Spring 11 <0.008 0.2 1.06 42 11 <0.02 0.20 <0.01

Lower Jumpup Spring 9 <0.024 0.7 1.42 128 29 <0.02 0.46 <0.01

Mountain Sheep Spring 8 na 0.4 1.30 115 18 0.009 0.13 0.01

Schmutz Spring 1 <0.008 0.5 1.82 100 9 <0.02 0.18 <0.02

Burnt Canyon Well 15 na 0.2 12.8 463 7.9 0.04 0.41 0.11

Tom Land Well 12 na 0.1 0.40 317 7 <0.02 0.38 0.07

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 2 <0.008 3.2 6.46 181 57 <0.02 0.53 <0.02

Kanab Spring 5 <0.008 0.5 1.77 58 26 <0.02 0.12 <0.01

Shower Bath Spring 4 <0.008 0.3 1.42 63 23 <0.02 0.11 <0.01

Side Canyon Spring 3 <0.008 0.3 1.69 98 12 <0.02 0.08 <0.02

Pinenut Well 6 na 0.2 6.22 315 11 <0.02 0.10 0.03

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring 13 na 0.2 0.77 61 10 <0.02 0.21 <0.01

Rock Spring 14 na 0.8 0.40 245 9 <0.008 0.34 <0.01

Willow Spring 10 na 0.8 1.19 324 8 <0.02 0.31 <0.02

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 24 <0.008 0.2 0.26 36 92 <0.02 0.07 0.01
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 233

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well 

data source

Cerium

Taylor

μg/L

Cobalt

MPV*

μg/L

Chromium

MPV*

μg/L

Cesium

Taylor

μg/L

Copper

MPV*

μg/L

Dysprosium

Taylor

μg/L

Erbium

Taylor

μg/L

Europium

Taylor

μg/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring na na 0.2 na <1 na na na

Fence Spring na na 1.0 na <1 na na na

Hanging Spring na na 1.0 na <1 na na na

Hole in the Wall Spring na na 1.0 na <1 na na na

Unknown Spring na na 1.0 na <1 na na na

Vasey’s Paradise na na na na <1 na na na

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 0.0018 <0.2 0.7 0.14 1.4 0.0006 <0.001 0.001

Rider Spring na na 3 na <1 na na na

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 0.0009 <0.2 <0.2 0.008 1 0.0005 <0.001 <0.001

Upper Jumpup Spring 0.0014 <0.2 3.1 0.17 <1 <0.0004 <0.001 <0.001

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0072 <0.2 <0.2 0.007 <3 0.0012 <0.001 <0.001

Mountain Sheep Spring 0.0009 <0.2 0.7 0.070 1.4 0.0006 0.0009 <0.001

Schmutz Spring 0.0009 <0.2 0.3 0.081 <1 <0.0004 <0.001 <0.001

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0033 <0.3 1.9 1.0 2 0.0009 0.0016 <0.0003

Tom Land Well 0.0026 <0.3 1.0 0.14 2.1 0.0008 <0.0005 <0.0003

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 0.0080 1.0 0.3 0.055 0.8 0.0030 <0.001 <0.001

Kanab Spring 0.0023 <0.2 0.4 0.28 <1 <0.0004 <0.001 0.001

Shower Bath Spring <0.0006 <0.2 0.3 0.23 <1 <0.0004 <0.001 <0.001

Side Canyon Spring <0.0006 <0.2 0.2 0.36 <1 <0.0004 <0.001 <0.001

Pinenut Well 0.0018 <0.3 0.7 0.84 <1 <0.0007 <0.0005 <0.0003

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring <0.0006 <0.2 2.6 0.091 <1 <0.0004 <0.001 <0.001

Rock Spring 0.0011 <0.2 0.7 0.015 <1 0.0004 <0.0004 <0.001

Willow Spring 0.0082 <0.2 1.2 0.11 <2 0.0006 <0.001 <0.001

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 0.0006 <0.3 <0.2 1.4 2.6 <0.0007 <0.0005 <0.0003
234 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

Site ID on 

figure 17*

Iron

MPV*

μg/L

Gallium

Taylor

μg/L

Gadolinium

Taylor

μg/L

Mercury

Taylor

ng/L

Holmium

Taylor

μg/L

Lanthanum

Taylor

μg/L

Lithium

MPV*

μg/L

Lutetium

Taylor

μg/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring 23 <4 na na na na na 24 na

Fence Spring 18 <4 na na na na na 378 na

Hanging Spring 21 <4 na na na na na 2 na

Hole in the Wall Spring 7 <4 na na na na na 2 na

Unknown Spring 22 <4 na na na na na 2 na

Vasey’s Paradise 19 <20 na na na na na 1 na

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 20 3 0.0032 0.0009 na <0.0003 0.0027 3 0.0002

Rider Spring 17 12 na na na na na 70 na

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 16 33 0.021 <0.0004 0.2 0.0011 0.0007 100 <0.0001

Upper Jumpup Spring 11 <2 0.0019 <0.0004 0.4 <0.0003 0.0006 8 0.0001

Lower Jumpup Spring 9 5 0.0039 0.0014 0.3 0.0005 0.0051 54 0.0002

Mountain Sheep Spring 8 3 0.0030 0.0007 <0.2 0.0002 0.0019 40 0.0002

Schmutz Spring 1 <2 0.0020 <0.0004 0.3 <0.0003 0.0006 24 0.0001

Burnt Canyon Well 15 680 0.003 0.0016 2.3 0.0008 0.0029 344 0.0002

Tom Land Well 12 776 0.004 0.0009 1.4 <0.0003 0.0021 54 <0.0002

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 2 5 0.0045 0.0042 2.0 0.0008 0.0087 18 0.0003

Kanab Spring 5 <2 0.0018 0.0004 0.2 <0.0003 0.0016 18 <0.0001

Shower Bath Spring 4 <2 0.0027 <0.0004 0.2 <0.0003 0.0007 20 <0.0001

Side Canyon Spring 3 <2 0.0013 <0.0004 <0.2 <0.0003 0.0006 31 <0.0001

Pinenut Well 6 4,650 0.017 0.0004 1.7 <0.0003 0.0013 163 <0.0002

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring 13 <2 0.0016 <0.0004 0.4 <0.0003 0.0004 13 <0.0001

Rock Spring 14 12 0.0018 <0.0004 <0.2 <0.0001 0.0006 74 <0.0001

Willow Spring 10 12 0.0032 0.0011 0.3 <0.0003 0.0057 89 0.0002

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 24 2 0.006 0.0007 1.6 <0.0003 0.0012 6 <0.0002
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 235

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

Manganese

MPV*

μg/L

Molybdenum

MPV*

μg/L

Neodymium

Taylor

μg/L

Nickel

MPV*

μg/L

Lead

MPV*

μg/L

Praseodymium

Taylor

μg/L

Rubidium

MPV*

μg/L

Rhenium

Taylor

μg/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring <0.2 2.6 na na <0.05 na 4.2 na

Fence Spring <0.2 1.1 na na <0.05 na 44.4 na

Hanging Spring <0.2 0.3 na na <0.05 na 1.3 na

Hole in the Wall Spring <0.2 0.3 na na <0.05 na 1.3 na

Unknown Spring <0.2 0.3 na na <0.05 na 1.3 na

Vasey’s Paradise <1 0.2 na na <0.05 na 1.2 na

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 0.17 1.1 0.0042 <0.3 0.066 0.0006 1.5 0.042

Rider Spring <0.2 17 na na <0.05 na 8.0 na

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 980 2.8 0.0015 <0.3 0.007 <0.0002 1.4 0.33

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.02 4.7 0.0009 <0.3 0.009 0.0003 1.9 0.22

Lower Jumpup Spring 7.5 6.9 0.0042 <0.3 0.010 0.0007 2.1 0.31

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.02 2.4 0.0023 <0.3 0.011 0.0005 4.3 0.20

Schmutz Spring 0.67 8.6 0.0009 <0.3 0.007 <0.0002 3.1 0.81

Burnt Canyon Well 4.7 3.0 0.0027 5.3 na 0.0003 22.3 0.21

Tom Land Well 11.4 4.4 0.0023 29 0.094 0.0004 8.1 0.61

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 1.8 8.1 0.015 0.5 0.029 0.0028 4.0 0.048

Kanab Spring 0.29 4.5 0.0013 <0.3 0.043 <0.0002 3.4 0.12

Shower Bath Spring <0.02 4.5 0.0006 <0.3 0.008 <0.0002 3.1 0.11

Side Canyon Spring <0.02 12 <0.0005 <0.3 0.008 <0.0002 6.1 0.18

Pinenut Well 334 24 <0.0009 9.2 0.031 0.0001 21.3 0.098

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring <0.02 2.8 <0.0005 <0.3 0.004 <0.0002 2.0 0.25

Rock Spring 0.04 10 <0.0005 <0.3 0.005 <0.0002 4.1 0.39

Willow Spring 0.43 14 0.0042 0.1 0.020 0.0009 8.1 1.3

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 66 1.0 0.0017 8.2 0.27 <0.0001 8.2 0.015
236 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

Site ID on 

figure 17*

Sulfur

Taylor

mg/L

Antimony

MPV*

μg/L

Scandium

Taylor

μg/L

Selenium

MPV*

μg/L

Samarium

Taylor

μg/L

Tin

Taylor

μg/L

Strontium

MPV*

μg/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring 23 na 0.12 na 3.3 na na 609

Fence Spring 18 na 0.06 na 1.3 na na 1,090

Hanging Spring 21 na <0.04 na 0.9 na na 74

Hole in the Wall Spring 7 na <0.04 na 0.8 na na 76

Unknown Spring 22 na <0.04 na 0.8 na na 74

Vasey’s Paradise 19 na <0.1 na <1 na na 68

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 20 18 0.025 <0.4 3.3 0.0011 <0.008 247

Rider Spring 17 na <0.04 na 18 na na 1,300

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 16 689 0.007 <0.4 2.8 <0.0009 <0.008 5,790

Upper Jumpup Spring 11 160 0.017 <0.4 19 <0.0009 <0.008 1,170

Lower Jumpup Spring 9 312 0.044 <0.4 3.4 0.0012 <0.008 2,660

Mountain Sheep Spring 8 218 0.025 <0.4 16 0.0009 <0.008 1,830

Schmutz Spring 1 297 0.010 <0.4 32 <0.0009 <0.008 2,290

Burnt Canyon Well 15 871 0.059 <0.5 2.8 0.0024 <0.01 6,330

Tom Land Well 12 545 0.025 <0.5 49 0.0014 <0.01 4,530

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 2 72 0.13 <0.4 9.2 0.0035 <0.008 686

Kanab Spring 5 98 0.073 <0.4 5.0 <0.0009 <0.008 857

Shower Bath Spring 4 115 0.068 <0.4 4.7 <0.0009 <0.008 997

Side Canyon Spring 3 226 0.029 <0.4 13 <0.0009 <0.008 2,020

Pinenut Well 6 433 0.034 <0.5 0.9 <0.0008 <0.01 3,210

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring 13 163 0.015 <0.4 21 <0.0009 <0.008 1,640

Rock Spring 14 545 0.030 <0.4 13 <0.0009 <0.008 6,060

Willow Spring 10 765 0.014 <0.4 50 <0.0009 <0.008 7,518

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 24 7.6 0.016 <0.5 4.7 0.0019 <0.01 272
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 237

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

Terbium

Taylor

μg/L

Tellurium

Taylor

μg/L

Thorium

Taylor

μg/L

Titanium

Taylor

μg/L

Thallium

MPV*

μg/L

Thulium

Taylor

μg/L

Vanadium

MPV*

μg/L

Tungsten

MPV*

μg/L

Ytterbium

Taylor

μg/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring na na na na <0.04 na 2.6 <0.01 na

Fence Spring na na na na 0.05 na 1.6 <0.01 na

Hanging Spring na na na na <0.04 na 1.1 <0.01 na

Hole in the Wall Spring na na na na <0.04 na 1.1 <0.01 na

Unknown Spring na na na na <0.04 na 1.1 <0.01 na

Vasey’s Paradise na na na na na na na na na

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 0.0003 <0.008 <0.001 <0.2 0.006 <0.0001 1.4 0.004 0.0088

Rider Spring na na na na <0.04 na 0.7 <0.01 na

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 0.0009 0.018 0.008 <0.2 <0.005 0.0001 <0.1 0.050 0.037

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.0002 <0.008 0.003 <0.2 0.097 <0.0001 0.8 <0.002 0.0101

Lower Jumpup Spring 0.0002 0.013 0.006 <0.2 0.012 0.0002 1.7 0.006 0.030

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.0002 0.009 0.002 <0.2 0.012 0.0001 1.6 0.002 0.022

Schmutz Spring <0.0002 <0.008 0.007 <0.2 0.080 <0.0001 0.5 <0.002 0.017

Burnt Canyon Well 0.0013 0.055 0.015 <0.1 0.12 0.0003 <0.3 <0.001 0.035

Tom Land Well 0.0004 0.038 0.012 <0.1 0.33 <0.0001 0.4 0.002 0.025

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 0.0004 <0.008 0.006 <0.2 0.025 0.0004 9.9 0.014 0.034

Kanab Spring <0.0002 <0.008 0.002 <0.2 0.12 <0.0001 0.7 0.020 0.0099

Shower Bath Spring <0.0002 –0.008 0.005 <0.2 0.066 <0.0001 1.0 0.013 0.010

Side Canyon Spring <0.0002 <0.008 0.005 <0.2 0.17 0.0001 0.6 0.013 0.015

Pinenut Well 0.0008 0.029 0.033 <0.1 0.016 <0.0001 0.2 0.037 0.016

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring <0.0002 <0.008 0.003 <0.2 0.075 <0.0001 1.0 <0.002 0.012

Rock Spring 0.0002 0.012 0.006 <0.2 0.017 <0.0001 0.5 0.002 0.037

Willow Spring 0.0006 0.017 0.017 <0.2 0.059 0.0002 2.0 0.002 0.049

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well <0.0002 <0.008 <0.003 <0.1 0.025 <0.0001 <0.2 0.018 0.0031
238 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

Site ID on 

figure 17*

Ytterbium

Taylor

μg/L

Zinc

MPV*

μg/L

Zirconium

Taylor

μg/L

Phosphorus,

unf

NWQL

mg P/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring 23 na <2 na <0.04

Fence Spring 18 na 6 na <0.04

Hanging Spring 21 na <2 na <0.04

Hole in the Wall Spring 7 na <2 na <0.04

Unknown Spring 22 na <2 na <0.04

Vasey’s Paradise 19 na na na na

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 20 <0.0007 1 0.011 na

Rider Spring 17 na <2 na <0.04

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 16 <0.0007 3 0.22 0.09

Upper Jumpup Spring 11 <0.0007 14 0.023 <0.04

Lower Jumpup Spring 9 0.0008 3 0.085 <0.04

Mountain Sheep Spring 8 0.0006 3 0.050 <0.04

Schmutz Spring 1 <0.0007 4 0.19 <0.04

Burnt Canyon Well 15 0.0009 93 0.45 <0.04

Tom Land Well 12 <0.0004 255 0.59 <0.04

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 2 0.0021 <1 0.24 <0.04

Kanab Spring 5 <0.0007 19 0.034 <0.04

Shower Bath Spring 4 <0.0007 10 0.08 <0.04

Side Canyon Spring 3 <0.0007 7 0.046 <0.04

Pinenut Well 6 <0.0004 2 0.21 <0.04

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring 13 <0.0007 15 0.045 <0.04

Rock Spring 14 <0.0005 1 0.09 <0.04

Willow Spring 10 <0.0007 10 0.28 <0.04

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 24 <0.0004 25 0.04 <0.04
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 239

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

Phosphorus,

fil

MPV*

mg/L

Phosphate

NWQL

mg P/L

Nitrate

Doughten

mg N/L

Nitrite

NWQL

mg N/L

Kjeldahlnitrogen,

unf

NWQL

mg N/L

Ammonium

NWQL

mg N/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring <0.04 <0.02 0.20 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Fence Spring <0.04 <0.02 0.19 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Hanging Spring <0.04 <0.02 0.20 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Hole in the Wall Spring <0.04 <0.02 0.20 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Unknown Spring <0.04 <0.02 0.20 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Vasey’s Paradise na na 0.00 na na na

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 0.006 na 0.00 na na na

Rider Spring <0.04 <0.01 2.16 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring <0.005 <0.02 <0.05 <0.002 0.5 0.42

Upper Jumpup Spring <0.005 <0.02 1.43 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Lower Jumpup Spring <0.005 0.01 <0.05 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Mountain Sheep Spring <0.008 0.01 0.49 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Schmutz Spring <0.005 <0.02 0.78 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Burnt Canyon Well <0.007 <0.04 <0.04 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Tom Land Well <0.007 <0.02 6.80 <0.006 0.1 0.02

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring <0.005 <0.02 0.75 0.018 0.5 <0.02

Kanab Spring <0.005 <0.02 0.30 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Shower Bath Spring <0.005 <0.02 0.25 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Side Canyon Spring <0.005 <0.02 1.85 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Pinenut Well <0.007 <0.02 <0.04 <0.002 <0.1 0.05

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring <0.005 <0.02 1.31 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Rock Spring <0.008 <0.02 <0.05 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02

Willow Spring <0.005 <0.02 4.38 <0.002 0.2 0.05

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well <0.007 <0.02 0.15 <0.002 <0.1 <0.02
240 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

Site ID on 

figure 17*

Gross alpha

radioactivity,

72-hour

NWQL

pC/L

Gross alpha

radioactivity, 

30-day

NWQL

pC/L

Gross beta

radioactivity,

72-hour

NWQL

pC/L

Gross beta

radioactivity,

30-day

NWQL

pC/L

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring 23 4.3 3.9 8.1 3.9

Fence Spring 18 R.6 R.1 16.7 15.4

Hanging Spring 21 1.8 R.1 0.4R 1.1

Hole in the Wall Spring 7 2.4 2.2 0.3R 0.3R

Unknown Spring 22 1.9 3.5 0.5R 2.3

Vasey’s Paradise 19 1.2 2.1 0.8R 1.2

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 20 na na na na

Rider Spring 17 4.7 5 6.6 6.3

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 16 –3.0R –1.0R 12.2 12

Upper Jumpup Spring 11 10.3 11.2 2.1 0.7

Lower Jumpup Spring 9 7 16 10.2 9.9

Mountain Sheep Spring 8 na na na na

Schmutz Spring 1 4.3 5 4.6 3.8

Burnt Canyon Well 15 na na na na

Tom Land Well 12 na na na na

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 2 3.3 4.4 6 7.9

Kanab Spring 5 4.1 6.7 6.1 6.1

Shower Bath Spring 4 5.4 6.4 4.8 5.6

Side Canyon Spring 3 7.5 9 6.6 6.8

Pinenut Well 6 na na na na

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring 13 8.5 8 2 3.4

Rock Spring 14 na na na na

Willow Spring 10 18 12 15.8 15.5

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 24 na na na na
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 241

Table B. Most Probable Value for all elements analyzed.—Continued

[*Column heads containing an asterisk present results of analyses by the laboratory noted; values in all other columns derived by comparing results of analyses 

by many laboratories.

Bullen, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; Doughten, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; Michel, 

USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Menlo Park, California; NAU, Northern Arizona University Isotope and Radiochemistry Laboratory, Flagstaff, 

Arizona; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado; RSIL, USGS National Isotope Fractionation Project Laboratory, Reston, Virginia; 

Taylor, USGS National Research Program Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado; MPV, most probable value for all elements analyzed; Site ID, site identification;

δ, delta notation; <, less than; °C, degrees Celsius; ‰, per mil; fil, filtered; unf, unfiltered; gal/min, gallon per minute; μg/L, microgram per liter; μS/cm, microseimen 

per centimeter at 25°C; mg/L, milligram per liter; milligram per liter; mg CaCO3/L, milligram calcium carbonate per liter; mg N/L, milligram nitrogen per liter; 

mg P/L, milligram phosphorus per liter; pC/L, picocurie per liter; TU, tritium unit; pmc, percent modern carbon; na, not available; R, results less than sample specific 

reporting limit; --, not available]

Spring or well

data source

234U/238U

activity ratio

NAU

234U/238U

activity ratio

Kraemer/Bullen

Strontium

Bullen

μg/L

87Sr/86Sr

Bullen

Tritium

Michel

TU

14C

NWQL

pmc

δ13C

RSIL

‰

δ18O

RSIL

‰

δ2H

RSIL

‰

East Segregation/House Rock Springs

Marble Canyon reach of the Colorado River corridor, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

Buck Farm Spring 1.837 ns 1,150 0.70946 1.33 -- –11.2 –12.22 –91.38

Fence Spring 2.623 ns 1,545 0.71417 0.8 -- –4.74 –13.83 –101.27

Hanging Spring 4.054 3.924 103 0.71071 1.76 -- –11.4 –13.78 –98.52

Hole in the Wall Spring 4.124 3.911 122 0.71053 1.61 -- –10.85 –13.74 –99.07

Unknown Spring 4.071 3.936 140 0.71043 1.93 -- –10.97 –13.78 –99.48

Vasey’s Paradise na 4.339 118 0.71077 na -- na na na

House Rock area, no uranium mines, breccia pipes present

South Canyon Spring 3.365 3.272 -- -- na -- na –11.57 –83.06

Rider Spring 2.625 2.627 2,140 0.7943 0.2 -- –0.6 –15.61 –124.55

North Segregation/East Kanab Basin Springs

East Kanab, unmined area, breccia pipes present

Clearwater Spring 1.523 1.505 10,650 0.70821 2.03 -- –7.91 –11.35 –86.1

Upper Jumpup Spring 4.671 4.584 1,940 0.7079 <0.29 -- –6.18 –12.23 –90.34

Lower Jumpup Spring 2.634 2.594 4,375 0.70817 0.13 -- –12.44 –11.93 –89.77

Mountain Sheep Spring 2.851 2.816 3,075 0.7083 0.91 -- –11.79 –12.08 –90.64

Schmutz Spring 1.883 1.858 4,490 0.70762 0.5 -- –6.02 –11.17 –81.2

Burnt Canyon Well 2.674 2.657 11,800 0.70947 na -- –4.04 –13.48 –105.09

Tom Land Well 1.749 1.777 7,175 0.70856 na -- –4.42 –7.22 –55.85

West Kanab, active mine area, on standby (Kanab North, Arizona One , and Pinenut Mines)

and reclaimed (Hermit, Hack Canyon Mines)

Hotel Spring 1.935 1.951 1,360 0.70828 2.3 -- –9.35 –7.71 –65.45

Kanab Spring 1.966 1.98 1,475 0.70849 0.69 -- –8.89 –12.4 –91.56

Shower Bath Spring 1.893 1.89 1,630 0.70846 1.6 -- –10.21 –12.2 –90.41

Side Canyon Spring 1.856 1.857 3,660 0.70868 0.43 -- –7.15 –12.5 –91.41

Pinenut Well 2.285 2.26 5,780 0.70972 na -- –4.63 –14.38 –110.7

Reclaimed mine area

(Pigeon Mine on east and Hack and Hermit Mines on west)

Slide Spring 5.626 5.59 3,875 0.70778 0.00 -- –7.22 –11.67 –88.69

Rock Spring 2.459 2.434 11,360 0.70785 0.42 -- –5.02 –11.87 –90.91

Willow Spring 1.658 1.646 13,160 0.70789 2.0 -- –5.18 –10.58 –76.11

South Segregation Groundwater Well

Active mine, on standby

Canyon Mine Well 2.017 2.026 480 0.70971 na -- –8.69 –12.08 –89.16

Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 243

Appendix 3. Selected dissolved arsenic samples at or above USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L from all sample types for historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer; rm, river mile; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

site identifier

Site

description

Source of

groundwater

Longitude 

(NAD 83)

Latitude 

(NAD 83)

Sample

date

Data

source

Sample

source

Arsenic

concentration

(μg/L)

Comments

15139a -- –114.049 36.584 09/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 119.815140a -- –114.058 36.581 09/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 12815141a -- –114.051 36.525 09/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 123.515204a -- –114.052 35.854 11/09/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 78.4415210a -- –114.009 35.822 11/16/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 115.723003 -- –113.851 35.625 08/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 116.523004 -- –113.994 35.879 08/24/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 92.7823005 -- –113.971 35.828 08/24/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 119.423007a -- –113.557 35.496 08/25/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 119.323010 -- –113.706 35.618 08/30/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 113.823012 -- –113.801 35.624 08/31/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 190.523013 -- –113.791 35.645 08/31/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 178.423014 Granite –113.767 35.608 09/01/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 301.523016 -- –113.629 35.507 09/01/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 189.9 No date reported, assigned date of 

nearby well sampled on 9/1/77.

23017 -- –113.403 35.518 09/01/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 168.723019 -- –113.422 35.559 09/02/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 142.923021 -- –113.177 35.934 09/03/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 90.3623024 -- –113.114 35.783 09/04/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 100.523025 -- –113.676 35.787 09/13/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 144.123026 -- –113.900 35.821 09/13/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 133.723028 -- –113.362 35.762 09/14/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 11123029 -- –113.440 35.593 09/14/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 14523030 -- –113.939 35.969 09/15/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 159.923032 -- –113.985 35.774 09/15/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 207.923077 -- –112.524 35.950 10/17/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 241.623079 -- –112.622 35.624 10/18/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 95.9323080 -- –112.875 35.742 10/19/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 248.123081 -- –112.687 35.641 10/19/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 105.623088 -- –112.396 35.958 10/27/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 237.323089 -- –112.436 35.806 10/28/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 125.223169a -- –113.702 35.492 01/08/1978 USGS, 2009a Spring 113.423173 -- –113.320 35.515 01/08/1978 USGS, 2009a Well 107 No date reported, assigned date of 

nearby well sampled on 1/8/78.

43536 Granite –113.309 35.885 07/18/1978 USGS, 2009a Stream 175.243538 Granite –113.426 35.746 07/18/1978 USGS, 2009a Stream 31043540 R-M –113.524 35.772 07/18/1978 USGS, 2009a Stream 178.49380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. -- –111.588 36.865 05/28/1974 USGS, 2009b Stream 199404208 Diamond Creek near Peach Springs, Ariz. -- –113.368 35.765 05/26/1993 USGS, 2009b Stream 159413600 Virgin River. above Hwy. I15 rest area near 

Littlefield, Ariz.

-- –113.780 36.954 12/14/1977 USGS, 2009b Stream 11

9413600 Virgin River. above Hwy. I15 rest area near 

Littlefield, Ariz.

-- –113.780 36.954 01/23/1979 USGS, 2009b Stream 10
244 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 3. Selected dissolved arsenic samples at or above USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L from all sample types for historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer; rm, river mile; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or site identifier Site description Source of ground- water Longi- tude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Arsenic concen- tration (μg/L) Comments 9413600 Virgin River above Hwy. I15 rest area near Littlefield, Ariz. -- –113.780 36.954 10/29/1979 USGS, 2009b Stream 12 9413650 Virgin River below Hwy. I15 rest area near Littlefield, Ariz. -- –113.797 36.949 12/13/1977 USGS, 2009b Stream 11 9413650 Virgin River below Hwy. I15 rest area near Littlefield, Ariz. -- –113.797 36.949 01/25/1978 USGS, 2009b Stream 10 9413650 Virgin River below Hwy. I15 rest area near Littlefield, Ariz. -- –113.797 36.949 10/30/1979 USGS, 2009b Stream 12 9413800 Virgin River at mouth of Narrows near Littlefield, Ariz. -- –113.861 36.921 10/31/1979 USGS, 2009b Stream 10 354228113374300 Lower Milkweed Canyon Spring; B-27-13 24cdb Granite –113.629 35.708 05/16/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 20 354406113263400 Travertine Canyon Spring; B-27-11 10 unsurveyed R-M –113.444 35.735 05/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 38 354503113252600 Travertine Canyon above mouth at rm 229 R-M –113.425 35.751 05/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 100 354522113264800 Travertine Falls Spring; B-27-11 03 unsurveyed R-M –113.447 35.756 05/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 200 354550113313400 Bridge Canyon Spring; B-28-12 35 unsurveyed R-M –113.527 35.764 05/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 35 355308113182600 Three Springs Canyon above Mouth Spring; B-29-10 25 unsurveyed R-M –113.308 35.886 10/14/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 10 355502113195900 Pumpkin at rm 213 Spring; B-29-10 14 unsurveyed Granite –113.334 35.917 10/13/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 15 355750113183600 Granite Park Spring; B-30-10 25 unsurveyed Granite –113.311 35.964 10/13/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 16 360020111560401 Red Canyon Spring R-M –111.934 36.004 09/26/2001 Monroe and others, 2005 Spring 17 360025111571501 Hance Spring R-M –111.951 36.002 05/11/2001 Monroe and others, 2005 Spring 14 360059111581700 Vt9 Miners Spring at trail in Hance Canyon R-M –111.972 36.016 11/20/1981 USGS, 2009b Spring 20 360100111582001 Miners Spring R-M –111.971 36.015 05/24/2000 Monroe and others, 2005 Spring 17 360100111582001 Miners Spring R-M –111.971 36.015 11/28/2000 Monroe and others, 2005 Spring 19 360100111582001 Miners Spring R-M –111.971 36.015 04/07/2001 Monroe and others, 2005 Spring 19 360336112131801 A-31-02 19 unsurveyed R-M –112.222 36.060 06/20/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 13.7

360336112131801 A-31-02 19 unsurveyed R-M –112.222 36.060 09/29/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 12.6360336112131801 A-31-02 19 unsurveyed R-M –112.222 36.060 12/30/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 12.1360336112131801 A-31-02 19 unsurveyed R-M –112.222 36.060 12/30/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 12.1360957113080200 Beecher Spring; B-32-08 22 unsurveyed R-M –113.135 36.166 10/11/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 10361148113045900 Warm Spring; B-33-08 31 unsurveyed R-M –113.084 36.197 10/10/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 14361303112411200 Havasu Spring; B-33-04 26 unsurveyed R-M –112.687 36.217 08/23/1994 USGS, 2009b Spring 17361308112413001 Sample Point #25 Havasu Creek near Supai, Ariz. -- –112.692 36.219 03/28/1982 USGS, 2009b Stream 19361352112413201 B-33-04 22 unsurveyed P –112.693 36.231 08/23/1994 USGS, 2009b Well 12363123111503101 A-36-05 14 -- –111.842 36.523 08/20/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 16.4364610114043501a 222 S13 E71 28Ccc 1 R-M –114.074 36.767 02/07/1991 USGS, 2009b Well 18364830114041901a 222 S13 E71 16Bbc 1 R-M –114.073 36.808 07/21/1994 USGS, 2009b Well 211A-W82 Red Spring; Muav Limestone R-M –113.423 35.559 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 24 Date reported as 1982.4A-W82 Diamond Creek (at mouth); Diamond Creek Gravels -- –113.371 35.766 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 17 Date reported as 1982.5A-W82 Rocky Spring; Bright Angel Shale R-M –113.364 35.749 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 62 Date reported as 1982.6A-W82 Mesquite Spring; Bright Angel Shale in landslide 

block adjacent to Hurricane fault

P –113.422 35.670 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 73 Date reported as 1982.

7A-W82 Mulberry Spring; Muav Limestone R-M –113.403 35.612 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 11 Date reported as 1982.10A-W82 Upper Pine Spring; Kaibab Limestone R-M –113.114 35.842 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 20 Date reported as 1982.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 245

Appendix 3. Selected dissolved arsenic samples at or above USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L from all sample types for historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer; rm, river mile; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

site identifier

Site

description

Source of

groundwater

Longitude 

(NAD 83)

Latitude 

(NAD 83)

Sample

date

Data

source

Sample

source

Arsenic

concentration

(μg/L)

Comments

12A-W82 Pine Spring; Tertiary Frazier Well gravels P –113.099 35.837 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 10 Date reported as 1982.13A-W82 Unnamed well; Tertiary Frazier Well gravels P –113.093 35.836 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 10 Date reported as 1982.17A-W82 Travertine Falls; Vishnu Schist Shist –113.426 35.751 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 59 Date reported as 1982.18A-W82 Travertine Falls Spring; Precambrian granite Granite –113.448 35.756 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 120 Date reported as 1982.19A-W82 Lost Travertine Falls Spring; Tapeats Sandstone R-M –113.498 35.756 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 48 Date reported as 1982.20A-W82 1⁄4 mile below Brldge Canyon Spring; Vishnu Schist Granite –113.527 35.769 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 32 Date reported as 1982.21A-W82 Seep south of Separation Canyon; 

Precambrian granite

Granite –113.567 35.808 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 60 Date reported as 1982.

22A-W82 Seep south of Separation Canyon; 

Precambrian granite

Granite –113.568 35.808 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 61 Date reported as 1982.

28A-W82 Diamond Creek Spring (Upper Diamond Spring); 

Redwall Limestone

R-M –113.232 35.720 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 10 Date reported as 1982.

38A-W82 Unnamed Spring; Music Mountain conglomerate P –113.678 35.670 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 11 Date reported as 1982.42A-W82 Unnamed Spring; Music Mountain conglomerate P –113.690 35.637 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 20 Date reported as 1982.43A-W82 Lower Milkweed Spring; Bright Angel Shale R-M –113.673 35.653 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 11 Date reported as 1982.64A-W82 Unnamed Spring in Milkweed Canyon; 

Precambrian granite 

Granite –113.657 35.681 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 14 Date reported as 1982.

66A-W82 Unnamed Spring in Milkweed Canyon; 

Bright Angel Shale

R-M –113.640 35.984 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 55 Date reported as 1982.

67A-W82 Robbers Roost Spring; Vishnu Schist Shist –113.296 35.718 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 58 Date reported as 1982.68A-W82 Unnamed Spring in Milkweed Canyon; 

Precambrian granite

Granite –113.655 35.680 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 13 Date reported as 1982.

71A-W82 Tilted Spring; Tapeats Sandstone R-M –113.628 35.706 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 24 Date reported as 1982.72A-W82 Metuck Springs; Muav Limestone R-M –113.383 35.647 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 16 Date reported as 1982.75A-W82 Warm Springs; Muav Limestone R-M –113.082 36.197 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 14 Date reported as 1982.76A-W82 Lava Falls (by cliff); Muav Limestone R-M –113.081 36.196 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 14 Date reported as 1982.77A-W82 Pumpkin Spring; Tapeats Sandstone R-M –113.333 35.917 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 350 Date reported as 1982.78A+B-W82 Three Springs; Muav Limestone R-M –113.294 35.886 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 16 Date reported as 1982.78A+B-W82 –113.294 35.886 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 15 Date reported as 1982.Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 13.9Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 14.7Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 14.3Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 13.8Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 14.7Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 14.3Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 14.2Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 15.1Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 14.8Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 14.3Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 14.1Diamond Creek near mouth -- –113.371 35.769 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 13.6GCBA502R Unknown sandstone P –113.949 36.608 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 11GCCA504R Quaternary clastic rocks—Coarse P –113.973 36.378 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 156GCCA505R Quaternary volcanic rocks—Mafic P –113.953 36.388 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 29
246 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 3. Selected dissolved arsenic samples at or above USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L from all sample types for historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer; rm, river mile; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or site identifier Site description Source of ground- water Longi- tude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Arsenic concen- tration (μg/L) Comments GCCA506R Quaternary volcanic rocks—Mafic P –113.957 36.416 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 20 GCDE501R Quaternary P –112.827 36.018 05/28/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 15 Hance Rapid Spring R-M –111.923 36.054 05/13/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 54 Reported location UTM (416872,3990117). Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 12 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.9 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.8 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.8 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 12 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.6 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.4 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.2 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.3 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 10.9 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 10.8 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.4 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.3 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.2 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 10.9 Havasu Creek near mouth -- –112.760 36.314 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 11.2 Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 05/16/1985 Errol Montgomery and Assoc., 1993b Spring 10 Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 12/18/1985 Errol Montgomery and Assoc., 1993b Spring 10 Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 06/03/1986 Errol Montgomery and Assoc., 1993b Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 06/03/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 12/08/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 20

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 12/08/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 12/08/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 05/28/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 20

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 05/28/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 05/28/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 12/01/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 01/18/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 247

Appendix 3. Selected dissolved arsenic samples at or above USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L from all sample types for historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued[--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer; rm, river mile; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Sample or

site identifier

Site

description

Source of

groundwater

Longitude 

(NAD 83)

Latitude 

(NAD 83)

Sample

date

Data

source

Sample

source

Arsenic

concentration

(μg/L)

Comments

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 01/18/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 05/30/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 15

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 05/29/1990 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 14

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 05/29/1990 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 13

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 05/29/1990 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 11/16/1992 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 14.6

Havasu Spring R-M –112.686 36.217 11/16/1992 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10

Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

R-M –112.751 36.689 04/28/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990b

Well 13

Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

R-M –112.751 36.689 06/29/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990b

Well 15

Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

R-M –112.751 36.689 09/29/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990b

Well 20

Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

R-M –112.751 36.689 10/19/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990c

Well 22

Hermit Mine Shaft Breccia –112.751 36.689 08/23/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995b

Shaft 45 No location reported, given lat/

long of well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

Hermit Mine Shaft Breccia –112.751 36.689 12/23/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1995b

Shaft 45 No location reported, given lat/

long of well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

Hermit Mine Sump Breccia –112.751 36.689 12/08/1989 Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

Sump 205 No location reported, given lat/

long of well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

Hermit Mine Sump Breccia –112.751 36.689 06/27/1989 Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

Sump 1,090 No location reported, given lat/

long of well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

Hermit Mine Sump Breccia –112.751 36.689 09/21/1989 Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

Sump 530 No location reported, given lat/

long of well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

Hermit Mine Sump Breccia –112.751 36.689 02/06/1990 Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

SUMP 266 No location reported, given lat/

long of well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

Marble Canyon Spring 2 R-M –111.846 36.519 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

SPRING 18 Location reported as “river 

mile 30.5”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.
248 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 3. Selected dissolved arsenic samples at or above USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 μg/L from all sample types for historical dataset compiled for northern Arizona.—Continued [--, data not available; μg/L, microgram per liter; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; P, perched water-bearing zone; R-M, Redwall-Muav aquifer; rm, river mile; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] Sample or site identifier Site description Source of ground- water Longi- tude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Arsenic concen- tration (μg/L) Comments Marble Canyon Spring 3 R-M –111.846 36.518 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 1985 SPRING 21 Location reported as “river mile 30.6”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982. Marble Canyon Spring 4 R-M –111.848 36.515 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 1985 SPRING 15 Location reported as “river mile 30.8”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982. Marble Canyon Spring 5 R-M –111.847 36.517 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 1985 SPRING 13 Location reported as “river mile 30.7”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982. Marble Canyon Spring 6 R-M –111.846 36.516 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 1985 SPRING 20 Location reported as “river mile 30.7”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982. Marble Canyon Spring 8 R-M –111.739 36.193 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, 1985 SPRING 220 Location reported as “river mile 4.5”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982. Pinenut Mine Monitor Well R-M –112.735 36.504 06/29/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a WELL 15 No location reported, used location for well 55-513394. Pinenut Mine Monitor Well R-M –112.735 36.504 09/27/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a WELL 34 No location reported, used location for well 55-513394. Pinenut Mine Monitor Well R-M –112.735 36.504 12/20/1990 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 1995a WELL 11 No location reported, used location for well 55-513394.

Pinenut Mine Monitor Well R-M –112.735 36.504 10/26/1994 Energy Fuels 

Nuclear, 1995a

WELL 11 No location reported, used 

location for well 55-513394.

Pinenut Mine Monitor Well R-M –112.735 36.504 03/25/1992 Energy Fuels 

Nuclear, 1995a

WELL 15 No location reported, used 

location for well 55-513394.

Power Lines Spring 

(below dam)a

Navajo

Sandstone

–111.492 36.927 10/20/1994 Taylor and others, 1997 SPRING 12

Power Lines Spring 

(below dam)a

Navajo

Sandstone

–111.492 36.927 03/02/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 SPRING 12

Power Lines Spring 

(below dam)a

Navajo

Sandstone

–111.492 36.927 05/01/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 SPRING 13

River Mile 213 Spring R-M –113.336 35.919 05/21/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 SPRING 24 Reported location UTM 

(289236,3977233).

aSite not plotted on figure 16.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 249

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

1 15139a –114.049 36.584 09/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 45.8

2 15140a –114.058 36.581 09/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 89.73 15141a –114.051 36.525 09/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.44 15145a –114.025 36.551 09/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.45 15204a –114.052 35.854 11/09/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 22.76 15210a –114.009 35.822 11/16/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 36.97 23002 –113.527 35.941 08/16/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.78 23003 –113.851 35.625 08/23/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 0.89 23004 –113.994 35.879 08/24/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 30.8

10 23005 –113.971 35.828 08/24/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.9

11 23007a –113.557 35.496 08/25/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 1.5

12 23010 –113.706 35.618 08/30/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.313 23012 –113.801 35.624 08/31/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.914 23013 –113.791 35.645 08/31/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 1.715 23014 –113.767 35.608 09/01/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 6.516 23016 –113.629 35.507 09/01/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 10.5 No date reported, assigned date of nearby 

well sampled on 9/1/77.

17 23017 –113.403 35.518 09/01/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.918 23019 –113.422 35.559 09/02/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 3.319 23021 –113.177 35.934 09/03/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 2.020 23022 –113.075 35.768 09/04/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 1.421 23023 –113.037 35.705 09/04/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 1.522 23024 –113.114 35.783 09/04/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 2.623 23025 –113.676 35.787 09/13/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.024 23026 –113.900 35.821 09/13/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 2.325 23027 –113.579 35.714 09/14/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.426 23028 –113.362 35.762 09/14/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 7.227 23029 –113.440 35.593 09/14/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.128 23030 –113.939 35.969 09/15/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.329 23032 –113.985 35.774 09/15/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 110.430 23077 –112.524 35.950 10/17/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 3.131 23078 –112.585 35.564 10/18/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.532 23079 –112.622 35.624 10/18/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 1.233 23080 –112.875 35.742 10/19/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 13.534 23081 –112.687 35.641 10/19/1977 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.835 23088 –112.396 35.958 10/27/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 3.136 23089 –112.436 35.806 10/28/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 1.937 23090 –112.597 35.557 10/28/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 1.638 23091 –112.621 35.624 10/28/1977 USGS, 2009a Well 1.439 23168a –113.691 35.501 01/08/1978 USGS, 2009a Spring 56.840 23169a –113.702 35.492 01/08/1978 USGS, 2009a Spring 51.041 23172 –113.162 35.822 01/08/1978 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.9 No date reported, assigned date of nearby 

well sampled on 1/8/78.

42 23173 –113.320 35.515 01/08/1978 USGS, 2009a Well 7.4 No date reported, assigned date of nearby 

well sampled on 1/8/78.

43 43536 –113.309 35.885 07/18/1978 USGS, 2009a Stream 2.1
250 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

44 43538 –113.426 35.746 07/18/1978 USGS, 2009a Stream 2.2

45 43540 –113.524 35.772 07/18/1978 USGS, 2009a Stream 5.446 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 01/30/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 03/25/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 03/27/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 04/01/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 04/06/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 05/08/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 07/02/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 08/20/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 09/10/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 01/08/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 03/05/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.046 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 05/07/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.746 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 07/22/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.246 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 11/04/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.146 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 03/02/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.246 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 04/06/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.246 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 04/28/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.346 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 06/30/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 2.946 9380000 Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.588 36.865 08/11/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.047 9382000 Paria River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.595 36.872 06/27/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.647 9382000 Paria River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.595 36.872 08/24/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.347 9382000 Paria River at Lees Ferry, Ariz. –111.595 36.872 11/29/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.248 9403000 Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon, Ariz. –112.096 36.103 09/02/1981 USGS, 2009b Stream 1.049 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/21/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.0

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 12/11/1996 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.0

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 01/22/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.0

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 02/05/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.0

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 02/26/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.4

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 03/12/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.0

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/08/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/29/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.4

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/17/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.2

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/04/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.2

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek near 

Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/05/1997 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.1
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 251

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 03/17/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.1

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/19/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.4

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 05/07/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.1

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 06/03/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.0

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/18/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 2.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 09/01/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 2.9

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 09/23/1998 USGS, 2009b Stream 2.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 02/09/1999 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.1

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 05/13/1999 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.3

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 06/08/1999 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.5

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 07/08/1999 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.4

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/05/1999 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/24/1999 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.3

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 10/26/1999 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.1

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 02/23/2000 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.9

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 05/03/2000 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/16/2000 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.3

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/14/2000 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.6

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 03/13/2001 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.5

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/25/2001 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 07/10/2001 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.5

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/28/2001 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/15/2001 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.1
252 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 12/13/2001 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.3

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 01/15/2002 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.2

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 03/14/2002 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.0

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/17/2002 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 06/04/2002 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.6

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 06/26/2002 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/14/2002 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 10/31/2002 USGS, 2009b Stream 2.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 12/05/2002 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.4

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 01/23/2003 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.6

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 03/06/2003 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.2

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/23/2003 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.5

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 05/28/2003 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 07/16/2003 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.9

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/28/2003 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.3

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 10/22/2003 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 12/02/2003 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.0

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 01/22/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 02/25/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.4

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 03/25/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.9

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 05/25/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.2

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 06/29/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.3

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/10/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 253

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/03/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.1

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/22/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.2

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/23/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 12/01/2004 USGS, 2009b Stream 2.9

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 01/26/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.1

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/21/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.9

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 09/07/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.3

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 10/25/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 01/19/2006 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.6

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 03/02/2006 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/05/2006 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.2

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 05/25/2006 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 07/13/2006 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/31/2006 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.4

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 11/07/2006 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.5

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 02/01/2007 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.6

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 03/15/2007 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.8

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 04/26/2007 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.7

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 06/06/2007 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.5

49 9404200 Colorado River Above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 07/18/2007 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.5

49 9404200 Colorado River above Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs

–113.364 35.774 08/15/2007 USGS, 2009b Stream 3.8

50 9404208 Diamond Creek near Peach Springs, Ariz. –113.368 35.765 05/26/1993 USGS, 2009b Stream 10.051 353445113255000 Peach Springs –113.431 35.579 05/27/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.051 353445113255000 Peach Springs –113.431 35.579 11/19/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.052 353713113421800 Milkweed Spring –113.706 35.620 05/27/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.0
254 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

52 353713113421800 Milkweed Spring –113.706 35.620 12/10/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.0

53 354228113374300 Lower Milkweed Canyon –113.629 35.708 05/16/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.054 354248113153800 Diamond Spring –113.261 35.713 05/19/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 1.055 354250113343800 Hindu Spring –113.578 35.714 05/16/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 1.056 354311113135200 Diamond Creek –113.232 35.720 05/19/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.057 354346113520200 Clay (Middle) Spring –113.868 35.729 06/10/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.057 354346113520200 Clay (Middle) Spring –113.868 35.729 11/18/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.058 354406113263400 Travertine Canyon –113.444 35.735 05/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.059 354503113252600 Travertine Canyon above mouth at rm 229 –113.425 35.751 05/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.060 354522113264800 Travertine Falls –113.447 35.756 05/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 11.061 354550113313400 Bridge Canyon –113.527 35.764 05/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 6.062 354555113222100 Diamond Creek above mouth at rm 225.7 –113.373 35.765 11/05/1990 USGS, 2009b Stream 7.262 354555113222100 Diamond Creek above mouth at rm 225.7 –113.373 35.765 11/06/1990 USGS, 2009b Stream 8.362 354555113222100 Diamond Creek above mouth at rm 225.7 –113.373 35.765 11/06/1990 USGS, 2009b Stream 8.062 354555113222100 Diamond Creek above mouth at rm 225.7 –113.373 35.765 11/06/1990 USGS, 2009b Stream 7.063 354711113403200 Meriwhitica Spring –113.676 35.786 05/16/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.064 354800113390800 –113.653 35.800 05/16/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.065 354815113192000 222 Mile Canyon –113.323 35.804 10/15/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 29.066 354855113183300 Granite Spring Canyon –113.310 35.815 05/19/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 1.067 354923114001000a Ray Place Right Fork –114.004 35.823 06/09/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 19.067 354923114001000a Ray Place Right Fork –114.004 35.823 12/09/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 20.068 354924114001200a Ray Place Left Fork –114.004 35.823 06/09/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 32.069 354942113581500 Hillside Spring –113.972 35.828 06/09/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring <1 Uranium value of 0.5 used for summary 

table statistics.

70 354944113592300 Iron Spring –113.991 35.829 06/10/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 25.071 355052113591900 Mud Spring –113.989 35.848 06/11/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 15.072 355111113462300 Horse Flat Canyon –113.774 35.853 05/17/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 1.073 355124113404000 Clay Tank Canyon –113.679 35.857 05/17/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 3.074 355308113182600 Three Springs Canyon above the mouth –113.308 35.886 10/14/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.075 355502113195900 Pumpkin Spring at rm 213 –113.334 35.917 10/13/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 17.076 355748113454500 Quartermaster Canyon above the mouth –113.763 35.963 05/17/1993 USGS, 2009b Stream 2.077 355750113183600 Granite Park Spring –113.311 35.964 10/13/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.078 355807113561800 New Water Spring –113.939 35.969 06/11/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.078 355807113561800 New Water Spring –113.939 35.969 11/17/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.079 355959113122700 Big Spring –113.208 36.000 05/20/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.080 360020111560401 Red Canyon Spring; upper Bright Angel 

near Muav contact (bedrock)

–111.934 36.004 09/26/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.7

81 360025111571501 JT Spring (Hance Spring; upper Bright 

Angel near Muav contact (bedrock))

–111.951 36.002 04/08/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 3.5

81 360025111571501 JT Spring (Hance Spring; upper Bright 

Angel near Muav contact (bedrock))

–111.951 36.002 05/11/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 4.1

82 360059111581700 Miners Spring at train in Hance Canyon –111.972 36.016 11/20/1981 USGS, 2009b Spring 3.983 360100111582001 Miners Spring; upper Bright Angel near 

Muav contact (bedrock)

–111.971 36.015 05/24/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 3.1

83 360100111582001 Miners Spring; upper Bright Angel near 

Muav contact (bedrock)

–111.971 36.015 11/28/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 3.5
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 255

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

83 360100111582001 Miners Spring; upper Bright Angel near 

Muav contact (bedrock)

–111.971 36.015 04/07/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 3.3

84 360128111591501 Cottonwood Creek No. 1; lower Bright 

Angel alluvium

–111.987 36.023 05/25/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 1.5

84 360128111591501 Cottonwood Creek No. 1; lower Bright 

Angel alluvium

–111.987 36.023 04/09/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 1.6

85 360128111591502 Cottonwood Creek No. 2 (Cottonwood 

Spring); mid Bright Angel (alluvium)

–111.990 36.017 11/29/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.6

86 360232112004801 Grapevine East Spring; lower Bright 

Angel (bedrock)

–112.012 36.040 05/25/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 2.1

86 360232112004801 Grapevine East Spring; lower Bright 

Angel (bedrock)

–112.012 36.040 11/29/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 8.3

86 360232112004801 Grapevine East Spring; lower Bright 

Angel (bedrock)

–112.012 36.040 04/09/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 7.1

87 360232112004802 Grapevine Main Spring; upper Bright 

Angel near Muav contact (bedrock)

–112.003 36.009 04/10/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.1

87 360232112004802 Grapevine Main Spring; upper Bright 

Angel near Muav contact (bedrock)

–112.003 36.009 04/30/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.1

88 360336112131801 Hermit Spring –112.222 36.060 06/20/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 5.388 360336112131801 Hermit Spring –112.222 36.060 09/29/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.788 360336112131801 Hermit Spring –112.222 36.060 12/30/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.488 360336112131801 Hermit Spring –112.222 36.060 12/30/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.489 360400112025001 Lonetree Spring; upper Bright Angel 

near Muav contact (bedrock)

–112.047 36.065 04/11/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 6.0

89 360400112025001 Lonetree Spring; upper Bright Angel 

near Muav contact (bedrock)

–112.047 36.065 05/01/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 6.0

90 360411112141701 Boucher East Spring; upper Tapeats 

(travertine dome)

–112.237 36.101 05/26/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.9

90 360411112141701 Boucher East Spring; upper Tapeats 

(travertine dome)

–112.237 36.101 12/04/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.8

90 360411112141701 Boucher East Spring; upper Tapeats 

(travertine dome)

–112.237 36.101 04/12/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.9

91 360415112060601 Pipe Creek; lower Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.099 36.068 05/22/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 2.791 360415112060601 Pipe Creek; lower Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.099 36.068 12/07/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 2.491 360415112060601 Pipe Creek; lower Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.099 36.068 04/08/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 2.392 360417112130701 Hawaii Spring; mid Bright Angel (bedrock) –112.218 36.069 05/25/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.992 360417112130701 Hawaii Spring; mid Bright Angel (bedrock) –112.218 36.069 12/04/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.992 360417112130701 Hawaii Spring; mid Bright Angel (bedrock) –112.218 36.069 04/11/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 2.093 360417112130702 Hermit Spring; lower Muav near Bright 

Angel contact (bedrock)

–112.225 36.061 12/04/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 2.0

93 360417112130702 Hermit Spring; lower Muav near Bright 

Angel contact (bedrock)

–112.225 36.061 04/11/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 2.1

94 360435113104700 Ridenour Mine –113.180 36.076 05/20/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 8.095 360436112060401 Burro Spring; lower Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.100 36.075 05/22/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 2.595 360436112060401 Burro Spring; lower Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.100 36.075 12/07/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 2.795 360436112060401 Burro Spring; lower Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.100 36.075 04/08/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 2.4
256 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

96 360437112060210 Burro Spring at Tonto Trail –112.101 36.077 09/01/1981 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.6

97 360439112094101 Salt Creek Spring; upper Bright 

Angel (bedrock)

–112.161 36.075 05/23/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 30.1

97 360439112094101 Salt Creek Spring; upper Bright 

Angel (bedrock)

–112.161 36.075 12/06/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 31.2

97 360439112094101 Salt Creek Spring; upper Bright 

Angel (bedrock)

–112.161 36.075 04/10/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 29.3

98 360441112073201 Pumphouse Spring; mid Bright 

Angel (alluvium)

–112.125 36.076 05/22/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.7

98 360441112073201 Pumphouse Spring; mid Bright 

Angel (alluvium)

–112.125 36.076 12/07/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.9

98 360441112073201 Pumphouse Spring; mid Bright 

Angel (alluvium)

–112.125 36.076 04/07/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 1.8

99 360441112073202 Pumphouse Wash gage; mid Bright 

Angel (alluvium)

–112.126 36.076 12/07/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 1.8

100 360450112083601 Horn Creek; mid Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.143 36.079 05/22/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 8.6100 360450112083601 Horn Creek; mid Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.143 36.079 12/06/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 9.3100 360450112083601 Horn Creek; mid Bright Angel (alluvium) –112.143 36.079 04/07/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 29.2101 360455112111001 Monument Creek No. 1; Tapeats (alluvium) –112.185 36.080 05/24/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Stream 7.1102 360455112111002 Monument Spring; lower Muav near Bright 

Angel contact (bedrock)

–112.176 36.064 12/05/2000 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 7.1

102 360455112111002 Monument Spring; lower Muav near Bright 

Angel contact (bedrock)

–112.176 36.064 04/09/2001 Moore and others, 2005 Spring 7.3

103 360957113080200 Beecher Spring –113.135 36.166 10/11/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.0104 361025113071100 Artesian Spring at rm 182 –113.120 36.174 10/11/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 5.0105 361143112270500 Royal Arch Creek at mouth of Elves Chasm –112.452 36.195 11/19/1981 USGS, 2009b Spring 3.5106 361148113045900 Warm Spring –113.084 36.197 10/10/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 5.0107 361237113025700 Honga above the Mouth –113.050 36.210 10/10/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 13.0108 361303112411200 Havasu Spring –112.687 36.217 08/23/1994 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.0109 361310112580400 Mohawk Canyon –112.969 36.219 10/09/1993 USGS, 2009b Spring 12.0

110 361344113032001 Saddle Horse Spring –113.056 36.229 05/24/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.6110 361344113032001 Saddle Horse Spring –113.056 36.229 09/08/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.5110 361344113032001 Saddle Horse Spring –113.056 36.229 12/01/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.6

111 361352112413201 B-33-04 22 unsurveyed –112.693 36.231 08/23/1994 USGS, 2009b Well 3.0

112 361518112523900 National Canyon above mouth at rm 166.5 

in Hualapai

–112.878 36.255 10/08/1993 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.0

113 361524112420400 Fern Spring –112.702 36.257 08/24/1994 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.0114 361650112052001 Robbers Roost Spring –112.089 36.281 05/27/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.1114 361650112052001 Robbers Roost Spring –112.089 36.281 09/07/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.4114 361650112052001 Robbers Roost Spring –112.089 36.281 10/25/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.5115 361947112550200 Cottonwood Creek North Rim Grand Canyon –112.917 36.330 05/26/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 4.8115 361947112550200 Cottonwood Creek North Rim Grand Canyon –112.917 36.330 11/30/2005 USGS, 2009b Stream 5.0116 362143112551201 Schmutz Spring –112.920 36.362 05/26/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 6.0116 362143112551201 Schmutz Spring –112.920 36.362 09/09/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.5116 362143112551201 Schmutz Spring –112.920 36.362 11/30/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.6116 362143112551201 Schmutz Spring –112.920 36.362 08/25/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.3
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 257

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

116 362143112551201 Schmutz Spring –112.920 36.362 08/25/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.1117 362157112451601 Hotel Spring –112.754 36.366 05/23/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.9117 362157112451601 Hotel Spring –112.754 36.366 11/29/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.2117 362157112451601 Hotel Spring –112.754 36.366 08/25/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.6118 362258112464701 Buckhorn Spring –112.780 36.383 05/23/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 10.3118 362258112464701 Buckhorn Spring –112.780 36.383 11/29/2005 USGS, 2009b Spring 10.6119 362434111533601 –111.893 36.409 08/23/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.8

120 362702112394701 –112.663 36.451 08/26/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 7.2121 362723112382801 Showerbath Spring –112.641 36.456 08/26/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.2122 362802112374601 –112.629 36.467 08/26/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.6122 362802112374601 –112.629 36.467 08/26/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 5.2123 362827111504101 –111.845 36.474 08/21/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.6124 362831111504401 Hole-in-the-Wall Spring –111.846 36.475 08/22/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.6125 362837111504201 Redwall Limestone; rm 34.2 –111.846 36.477 08/22/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 0.6126 362957111512600 Vasey’s Paradise, rm 31.9; 

Redwall Limestone

–111.858 36.499 11/20/1981 USGS, 2009b Spring 1.8

127 363115112342601 –112.574 36.521 09/01/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 7.8128 363123111503101 Fence Spring –111.842 36.523 08/20/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 1.4129 363209112350801 Lower Jumpup Spring –112.586 36.536 08/28/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 7.2130 363357112440801 Willow Spring –112.736 36.566 08/26/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 19.6131 363450112325001 Upper Jumpup Spring –112.547 36.581 08/27/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 3.7132 363907111471701 Rider Spring –111.788 36.652 08/25/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 4.5133 363922112334501 –112.563 36.656 08/27/2009 USGS, 2009b Spring 2.3134 10A-W82 Upper Pine Spring; Kaibab Limestone –113.114 35.842 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.6 Date reported as 1982.135 11A-W82 Unnamed spring 1⁄3 mi from Pine Tank; 

Kaibab Limestone

–113.104 35.840 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.4 Date reported as 1982.

136 12A-W82 Pine Spring; Tertiary Frazier Well gravels –113.099 35.837 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.8 Date reported as 1982.137 13A-W82 Unnamed well; Tertiary Frazier Well gravels –113.093 35.836 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.6 Date reported as 1982.138 14A-W82 Fed by Frazier well; Tertiary Frazier 

Well gravels

–113.078 35.797 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.4 Date reported as 1982.

139 15A-W82 Pocomate Springs; Coconino Sandstone –113.162 35.822 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.0 Date reported as 1982.140 16A-W82 Unnamed well; Tertiary Frazier Well gravels –113.051 35.810 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.3 Date reported as 1982.141 17A-W82 Travertine Falls; Vishnu Schist –113.426 35.751 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 2.9 Date reported as 1982.142 18A-W82 Travertine Falls Spring; Precambrian granite –113.448 35.756 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 9.5 Date reported as 1982.143 19A-W82 Lost Travertine Falls Spring; 

Tapeats Sandstone

–113.498 35.756 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 6.3 Date reported as 1982.

144 1A-W82 Red Spring; Muav Limestone –113.423 35.559 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 3.6 Date reported as 1982.145 20A-W82 1⁄4 mile below Bridge Canyon Spring; 

Vishnu Schist

–113.527 35.769 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 4.6 Date reported as 1982.

146 21A-W82 Seep south of Separation Canyon; 

Precambrian granite

–113.567 35.808 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 18.0 Date reported as 1982.

147 22A-W82 Seep south of Separation Canyon; 

Precambrian granite

–113.568 35.808 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 28.0 Date reported as 1982.

148 23A-W82 Mouth of Spencer Canyon; Spencer 

Canyon gravels

–113.568 35.823 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 2.0 Date reported as 1982.

149 24A-W82 Quartermaster Springs-NE; Travertine –113.766 35.959 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.3 Date reported as 1982.
258 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

150 25A-W82 Quartermaster Springs-SW; Travertine –113.767 35.956 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.4 Date reported as 1982.

151 26A-W82 Rampart Springs; Muav Limestone –113.110 36.145 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.6 Date reported as 1982.152 27A-W82 Base of Columbine Falls—1⁄2 mi from spring; 

Muav Limestone

–113.921 36.092 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 1.5 Date reported as 1982.

153 28A-W82 Diamond Creek Spring (Upper Diamond 

Spring); Redwall Limestone

–113.232 35.720 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 0.2 Date reported as 1982.

154 29A-W82 Hells Hollow Spring; Esplanade Sandstone –113.110 36.145 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 0.9 Date reported as 1982.155 2A-W82 Peach Springs; Muav Limestone –113.431 35.578 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.6 Date reported as 1982.156 30A+B-W82 Beecher Spring; Hermit/Esplanade contact –113.179 36.076 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 9.5 Date reported as 1982.156 30A+B-W82 Beecher Spring; Hermit/Esplanade contact –113.179 36.076 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 8.4 Date reported as 1982.157 31A+B-W82 Surprise Springs; Redwall Limestone –113.402 35.519 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.0 Date reported as 1982.157 31A+B-W82 Surprise Springs; Redwall Limestone –113.402 35.519 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.2 Date reported as 1982.158 32A-W82 Spencer Springs; Muav Limestone and 

Spencer Canyon gravels

–113.651 35.783 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.8 Date reported as 1982.

159 33A+B-W82 Meriwhitica Springs; Muav Limestone –113.676 35.786 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.2 Date reported as 1982.159 33A+B-W82 Meriwhitica Springs; Muav Limestone –113.676 35.786 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.2 Date reported as 1982.160 34A+B-W82 Hockey Puck Spring; contact of Hermit 

Shale and Coconino Sandstone

–113.176 35.934 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.2 Date reported as 1982.

160 34A+B-W82 Hockey Puck Spring; contact of Hermit 

Shale and Coconino Sandstone

–113.176 35.934 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.1 Date reported as 1982.

161 35A-W82 Red Spring; Coconino Sandstone –113.024 36.071 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.7 Date reported as 1982.162 36A-W82 Moss Spring; Coconino Sandstone –113.028 36.062 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.1 Date reported as 1982.163 37A-W82 Big Spring; Coconino Sandstone –113.207 36.000 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.6 Date reported as 1982.164 38A-W82 Unnamed Spring; Music 

Mountain conglomerate

–113.678 35.670 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.6 Date reported as 1982.

165 39A+B-W82 Willow Spring; Hualapai volcanic rocks –113.699 35.651 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.5 Date reported as 1982.165 39A+B-W82 Willow Spring; Hualapai volcanic rocks –113.699 35.651 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.3 Date reported as 1982.166 3A-W82 Lower Peach Springs; Muav Limestone –113.440 35.592 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.6 Date reported as 1982.167 41A+B-W82 West Water Spring (upper); 

Hualapai volcanic rocks

–113.727 35.618 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.0 Date reported as 1982.

167 41A+B-W82 West Water Spring (upper); 

Hualapai volcanic rocks

–113.727 35.618 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 0.9 Date reported as 1982.

168 42A-W82 Unnamed spring; Music 

Mountain conglomerate

–113.690 35.637 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.2 Date reported as 1982.

169 43A-W82 Lower Milkweed Spring; Bright Angel Shale –113.673 35.653 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.1 Date reported as 1982.170 44A-W82 Lower West Water Spring; Music 

Mountain conglomerate

–113.695 35.645 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.0 Date reported as 1982.

171 45A+B-W82a PMG Well (Truxton); Quaternary and 

Tertiary gravels

–113.557 35.496 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.9 Date reported as 1982.

171 45A+B-W82a PMG Well (Truxton); Quaternary and 

Tertiary gravels

–113.557 35.496 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 2.1 Date reported as 1982.

172 47A+B-W82 Horse Trough Spring; Muav Limestone –113.619 35.550 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.6 Date reported as 1982.172 47A+B-W82 Horse Trough Spring; Muav Limestone –113.619 35.550 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.4 Date reported as 1982.173 48A-W82 Shipley Well; Muav Limestone –113.375 35.526 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.1 Date reported as 1982.174 49A-W82 Horsehair Spring; Wescogame Formation –112.916 36.157 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 13.0 Date reported as 1982.175 4A-W82 Diamond Creek (at mouth); Diamond 

Creek gravels

–113.371 35.766 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 6.9 Date reported as 1982.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 259

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

176 50A-W82 Mohawk Spring; Muav Limestone –112.971 36.213 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 12.0 Date reported as 1982.

177 51A-W82 National Canyon Spring; Redwall Limestone –112.879 36.213 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 8.0 Date reported as 1982.178 53A-W82 East Diamond Spring; Muav Limestone –113.255 35.719 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.1 Date reported as 1982.179 54A-W82 Milkweed Spring; Hualapai volcanic rocks –113.706 35.618 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.3 Date reported as 1982.180 55A-W82 Clay Springs; Muav Limestone –113.868 35.731 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.7 Date reported as 1982.181 56A+B-W82 Santa Fe #5 Well; Muav Limestone –113.678 35.527 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.2 Date reported as 1982.181 56A+B-W82 Santa Fe #5 Well; Muav Limestone –113.678 35.527 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.2 Date reported as 1982.182 57A+B-W82 XI Well; Tertiary Frazier Well gravel –113.114 35.784 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 2.5 Date reported as 1982.182 57A+B-W82 XI Well; Tertiary Frazier Well gravel –113.114 35.784 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.7 Date reported as 1982.

183 58A-W82 Diamond Spring; Muav Limestone –113.261 35.713 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.2 Date reported as 1982.184 59A-W82 Reference Point Spring; Precambrian granite –113.732 35.882 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.8 Date reported as 1982.185 5A-W82 Rocky Spring; Bright Angel Shale –113.364 35.749 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 28.0 Date reported as 1982.186 60A-W82 Wild Horse Spring; Bright Angel Shale –113.645 35.711 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.1 Date reported as 1982.187 61A-W82 Hindu Spring; Muav Limestone –113.585 35.697 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.4 Date reported as 1982.188 62A-W82 Blue Mtn Seep; Bright Angel Shale –113.293 35.697 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.1 Date reported as 1982.189 63A-W82 Lost Creek Spring; Contact between 

Precambrian granite and Tapeats Sandstone

–113.677 35.857 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.1 Date reported as 1982.

190 64A-W82 Unnamed spring in Milkweed Canyon; 

Precambrian granite

–113.657 35.681 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 3.0 Date reported as 1982.

191 65A-W82 Sheep Spring; Temple Butte Formation –113.826 35.848 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.6 Date reported as 1982.192 66A-W82 Unnamed spring in Milkweed Canyon; 

Bright Angel Shale

–113.640 35.984 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.0 Date reported as 1982.

193 67A-W82 Robbers Roost Spring; Vishnu Schist –113.296 35.718 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 21.0 Date reported as 1982.194 68A-W82 Unnamed spring in Milkweed Canyon; 

Precambrian granite

–113.655 35.680 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 3.2 Date reported as 1982.

195 69A-W82 Hindu Seep; Muav Limestone –113.603 35.704 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.3 Date reported as 1982.196 6A-W82 Mesquite Spring; Bright Angel Shale in 

landslide block adjacent to Hurricane fault

–113.422 35.670 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 21.0 Date reported as 1982.

197 70A-W82 Buck and Doe Spring; Bright Angel Shale –113.647 35.676 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.0 Date reported as 1982.198 71A-W82 Tilted Spring; Tapeats Sandstone –113.628 35.706 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 2.8 Date reported as 1982.199 72A-W82 Metuck Springs; Muav Limestone –113.383 35.647 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 0.8 Date reported as 1982.200 73A+B-W82a Truxton Well; Quaternary & Tertiary gravels –113.536 35.496 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.3 Date reported as 1982.200 73A+B-W82a Truxton Well; Quaternary & Tertiary gravels –113.536 35.496 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Well 1.2 Date reported as 1982.201 74A+B-W82 Dewey Mahone Spring; Vishnu Schist –113.629 35.506 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 12.0 Date reported as 1982.201 74A+B-W82 Dewey Mahone Spring; Vishnu Schist –113.629 35.506 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 12.0 Date reported as 1982.202 75A-W82 Warm Springs; Muav Limestone –113.082 36.197 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 5.4 Date reported as 1982.203 76A-W82 Lava Falls (by cliff); Muav Limestone –113.081 36.196 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 5.2 Date reported as 1982.204 77A-W82 Pumpkin Spring; Tapeats Sandstone –113.333 35.917 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 12.0 Date reported as 1982.205 78A+B-W82 Three Springs; Muav Limestone –113.294 35.886 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.8 Date reported as 1982.205 78A+B-W82 Three Springs; Muav Limestone –113.294 35.886 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.6 Date reported as 1982.206 79A-W82 Hindu Canyon; Muav Limestone –113.580 35.703 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Stream 1.8 Date reported as 1982.207 7A-W82 Mulberry Spring; Muav Limestone –113.403 35.612 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 3.1 Date reported as 1982.208 8A-W82 Pocomate Springs; Coconino Sandstone –113.160 35.824 06/01/1982 Wenrich and others, 1994 Spring 1.5 Date reported as 1982.209 Berts Canyon Muav Limestone –111.886 36.398 05/11/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 1.4 Reported location UTM 

(420561,4028259).

210 Blue Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –111.693 36.117 05/16/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 7.0
260 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

210 Blue Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –111.693 36.117 12/18/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

210 Blue Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –111.693 36.117 06/03/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 6.0

210 Blue Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –111.693 36.117 12/08/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 6.0

210 Blue Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –111.693 36.117 05/28/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

211 Boulder Creek Tapeats Sandstone –112.010 36.027 06/03/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Stream 8.1 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

212 Bright Angel Creek 

near mouth

–112.087 36.101 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 0.6 Reported location river kilometer 141.5.

212 Bright Angel Creek 

near mouth

–112.087 36.101 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 0.6 Reported location river kilometer 141.5.

212 Bright Angel Creek 

near mouth

–112.087 36.101 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 0.5 Reported location river kilometer 141.5.

212 Bright Angel Creek 

near mouth

–112.087 36.101 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 0.6 Reported location river kilometer 141.5.

212 Bright Angel Creek 

near mouth

–112.087 36.101 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 0.6 Reported location river kilometer 141.5.

212 Bright Angel Creek 

near mouth

–112.087 36.101 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 0.6 Reported location river kilometer 141.5.

212 Bright Angel Creek 

near mouth

–112.087 36.101 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 0.5 Reported location river kilometer 141.5.

212 Bright Angel Creek 

near mouth

–112.087 36.101 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 0.5 Reported location river kilometer 141.5.

213 Burro Down –112.100 36.077 06/04/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 4.4 Reported sample date June 4–6, 2002.213 Burro Down –112.100 36.077 06/24/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 4.3 Reported sample date June 24–26, 2002.213 Burro Down –112.100 36.077 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 3.8 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.214 Burro Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –112.102 36.084 04/29/1994 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 3.4 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

215 Burro Up –112.100 36.077 06/04/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 4.1 Reported sample date June 4–6, 2002.215 Burro Up –112.100 36.077 06/24/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 3.5 Reported sample date June 24–26, 2002.215 Burro Up –112.100 36.077 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 2.7 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.215 Burro Up –112.100 36.077 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 3.6 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 12/18/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 6.0

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 04/30/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 4.1

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 09/10/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 5.0

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 12/01/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 65.0

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 12/01/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 16.0
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 261

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 06/28/1988 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 10.0

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 05/30/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 309.0

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 12/30/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 16.0

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 03/30/1990 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 13.0

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 06/29/1990 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 13.0

216 Canyon Mine Well Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.095 35.886 09/19/1990 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993a

Well 11.5

217 CDDC503R Shale –113.413 37.008 06/19/1980 USGS, 2009a Spring <0.002 Uranium value of 0.001 used for 

summary table statistics.

218 CDDD502R -- –113.180 37.001 06/26/1980 USGS, 2009a Well 4.0219 CDDE502R Sandstone –112.967 37.017 07/07/1980 USGS, 2009a Well 0.3220 CDDF503R -- –112.527 37.006 07/10/1980 USGS, 2009a Well 0.3221 CDDG501R -- –112.465 37.014 06/29/1980 USGS, 2009a Well 1.3222 Cedar Spring Tapeats Sandstone–Bright Angel Shale –112.152 36.088 03/18/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 18.0 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

223 CF-1 Vasey’s Paradise, rm 31.9; 

Redwall Limestone

–111.858 36.499 04/29/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 Spring 0.5

224 CF-10 Muav Limestone; rm 147.9 –112.672 36.346 05/07/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 Spring 6.4225 CF-11 Muav Limestone; rm 151.5 –112.725 36.346 05/07/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 Spring 8.5226 CF-14 Fern Glen Canyon; Muav Limestone; rm 168 –112.918 36.262 05/08/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 Spring 3.6227 CF-15 Lava Falls; Muav Limestone; rm 179.3 –113.084 36.194 05/09/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 Spring 3.5228 CF-16 Pumpkin Spring; Tapeats Sandstone; 

rm 212.9

–113.334 35.916 05/11/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 Spring 7.1

229 CF-3 Redwall Limestone; rm 34.2 –111.846 36.477 04/29/1976 Peterson and others, 1977 Spring 0.5230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.
262 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

230 Colorado River above 

Diamond Creek

–113.370 35.770 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.8 Reported location river kilometer 363.1.

231 Colorado River above 

Havasu Creek

–112.760 36.317 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 252.1.

231 Colorado River above 

Havasu Creek

–112.760 36.317 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 252.1.

231 Colorado River above 

Havasu Creek

–112.760 36.317 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 252.1.

231 Colorado River above 

Havasu Creek

–112.760 36.317 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 252.1.

231 Colorado River above 

Havasu Creek

–112.760 36.317 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 252.1.

231 Colorado River above 

Havasu Creek

–112.760 36.317 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 252.1.

231 Colorado River above 

Havasu Creek

–112.760 36.317 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 252.1.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 263

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.6 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

232 Colorado River above 

Kanab Creek

–112.615 36.392 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 230.5.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.

233 Colorado River above 

Little Colorado River

–111.800 36.202 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 98.3.
264 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.8 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.2 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 141.

234 Colorado River at 

Grand Canyon

–112.082 36.101 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 141.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.2 Reported location river kilometer 0.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 265

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.2 Reported location river kilometer 0.

235 Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry

–111.588 36.865 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.2 Reported location river kilometer 0.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

236 Colorado River at 

National Canyon

–112.888 36.261 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.8 Reported location river kilometer 268.1.

237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 05/06/1963 USEPA, 1973 Stream 13.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/01/1963 USEPA, 1973 Stream 11.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/01/1963 USEPA, 1973 Stream 9.2237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 08/01/1963 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.4
266 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/01/1963 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 10/07/1963 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 11/04/1963 USEPA, 1973 Stream 8.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/02/1963 USEPA, 1973 Stream 8.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/01/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 8.4237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 02/03/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 10.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/02/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/01/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 11.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 05/04/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 9.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/01/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 9.2237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/06/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 11.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 08/03/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 10.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/14/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 10/05/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 11/02/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/07/1964 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/04/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 9.4237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 02/01/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.2237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/08/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/05/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 05/03/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/01/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/05/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 08/02/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/20/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 2.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 10/04/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 11/01/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.2237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/06/1965 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/03/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 02/07/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/07/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.2237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/04/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 05/02/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.7237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/01/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/01/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/26/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 10/06/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.7237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/02/1966 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/13/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.2237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/01/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.4237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/01/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/01/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 08/01/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/01/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.4237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 10/01/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 11/01/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/01/1967 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.6
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 267

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/01/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 02/01/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.4237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/01/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.4237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/01/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/29/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/03/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 8.3237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/01/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 08/05/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.7237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/03/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/30/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.2237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 11/04/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/03/1968 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/06/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 02/03/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/03/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 8.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/01/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 8.3237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 05/05/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.7237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/02/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/07/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.7237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 08/04/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.3237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/01/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 10/21/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 11/20/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/15/1969 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/20/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 02/15/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/18/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.8237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/20/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 05/19/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/16/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/17/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 08/18/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/29/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 8.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 10/19/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.4237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 11/16/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.4237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/29/1970 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/11/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 02/22/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.0237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/15/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.1237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/28/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 7.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 05/21/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.2237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 06/25/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.5237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 07/30/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 3.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 09/30/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 2.9237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 12/27/1971 USEPA, 1973 Stream 2.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 01/04/1972 USEPA, 1973 Stream 4.6237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 03/20/1972 USEPA, 1973 Stream 6.4
268 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 04/20/1972 USEPA, 1973 Stream 5.9

237 Colorado River at Page –111.588 36.865 05/12/1972 USEPA, 1973 Stream 16.0238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.2 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.0 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer –20.

238 Colorado River below 

Glen Canyon Dam

–111.506 36.902 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer –20.

239 Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 439.2.

239 Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 439.2.

239 Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 439.2.

239 Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 439.2.

239 Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 439.2.

239 Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 439.2.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 269

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

239 Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 439.2.

239 Colorado River near 

Columbine Falls

–113.894 36.082 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 439.2.

240 Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 428.8.

240 Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.6 Reported location river kilometer 428.8.

240 Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 428.8.

240 Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.6 Reported location river kilometer 428.8.

240 Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.8 Reported location river kilometer 428.8.

240 Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.6 Reported location river kilometer 428.8.

240 Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 428.8.

240 Colorado River near 

Travertine Cleft

–113.804 36.040 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 428.8.

241 Cottonwood Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –111.992 36.025 05/12/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 2.1 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

242 Cottonwood West Spring Tapeats Sandstone–Bright Angel Shale –111.992 36.025 05/13/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 5.7 No location reported, assigned location 

of Cottonwood Spring; uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

243 Cove Canyon Muav Limestone –113.015 36.246 05/19/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 11.0 Reported location UTM 

(318924,4012881).

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.9 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 6.0 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 6.3 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 6.2 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 7.5 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 7.7 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 7.4 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 7.5 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 7.6 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.
270 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 7.8 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 7.7 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

244 Diamond Creek 

near mouth

–113.371 35.769 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 7.5 Reported location river kilometer 363.3.

245 Dripping Spring Hermit Shale–Coconino 

Sandstone contact

–112.255 36.077 03/17/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 2.4 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

246 Elves Chasm Muav Limestone –112.454 36.189 05/15/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 3.1 Reported location UTM 

(369234,4005685).

247 Fern Glen Muav Limestone –112.918 36.262 05/19/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 18.0 Reported location UTM 

(327710,4014470).

248 Four Mile Spring 

(Below Dam)

–111.507 36.875 03/02/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 1.0

248 Four Mile Spring 

(Below Dam)

–111.507 36.875 05/01/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 0.9

249 Frog Marsh Spring

(Below Dam)

–111.557 36.846 03/02/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 0.6

249 Frog Marsh Spring

(Below Dam)

–111.557 36.846 05/01/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 0.6

250 GCAA006R Metamorphic –113.901 36.765 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Stream 87.0251 GCAA026R -- –113.909 36.815 05/09/1979 USGS, 2009a Stream 26.2252 GCAA501R Carbonate –113.891 36.763 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 17.7253 GCAA502R Metamorphic –113.852 36.772 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 3.9254 GCAA503R Carbonate –113.916 36.896 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 32.0255 GCAA504R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.798 36.770 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.0256 GCAA505R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.790 36.804 05/11/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.2257 GCAA506R Carbonate –113.931 36.907 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 2.5258 GCAA507R -- –113.988 36.777 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 4.0259 GCAA508R Carbonate –113.983 36.973 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 1.1260 GCAB501R Carbonate –113.670 36.835 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.1261 GCAB502R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.741 36.810 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.5262 GCAB503R Sandstone –113.589 36.767 05/09/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.9263 GCAB504R -- –113.628 36.757 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 5.5264 GCAB505R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.724 36.776 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.6265 GCAB506R Sandstone –113.706 36.763 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 6.6266 GCAC501R Sandstone –113.356 36.946 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 22.2267 GCAC502R -- –113.353 36.908 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 15.6268 GCAC503R -- –113.313 36.895 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 7.0269 GCAD501R Sandstone –113.012 36.946 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 14.9270 GCAD502R Sandstone –113.150 36.960 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 0.2271 GCAD503R Sandstone –113.056 36.948 05/07/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.2272 GCAD504R Sandstone –113.117 36.876 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 3.6273 GCAD505R Carbonate –113.177 36.865 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 31.7274 GCAD506R Sandstone –113.145 36.890 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 6.5275 GCAD507R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.184 36.919 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 25.7
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 271

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

276 GCAD508R Carbonate –113.249 36.940 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 4.6277 GCAD509R Carbonate –113.225 36.866 05/08/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 11.9278 GCAD510R Carbonate –113.173 36.810 05/09/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 13.2279 GCAD511R Sandstone –113.125 36.797 05/09/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 33.2280 GCAD512R Sandstone –113.136 36.756 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 25.7281 GCAD513R –113.124 36.931 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 16.7

282 GCAD514R -- –113.195 36.997 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 1.0283 GCAE501R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –112.958 36.845 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 0.1284 GCAE502R -- –112.862 36.847 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 0.3285 GCAE503R –112.828 36.933 05/13/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.1286 GCAE504R -- –112.864 36.998 05/13/1979 USGS, 2009a Well <0.002 Uranium value of 0.001 used for 

summary table statistics.

287 GCAE505R Sandstone –112.864 36.949 05/13/1979 USGS, 2009a Well <0.002 Uranium value of 0.001 used for 

summary table statistics.

288 GCAE506R -- –112.893 36.949 05/13/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 7.3289 GCAE507R Carbonate –112.963 36.938 05/13/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 12.9290 GCAE508R Sandstone –112.762 36.909 05/14/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.4291 GCAE509R Sandstone –112.921 36.990 05/14/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.4292 GCAE510R -- –112.978 36.872 05/14/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 3.6293 GCAE511R Carbonate –112.847 36.782 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.6294 GCAE512R Clastic rocks—Coarse –112.829 36.817 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 9.0295 GCAE513R Clastic rocks—Coarse –112.809 36.803 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 1.9296 GCAE514R -- –112.889 36.803 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 2.4297 GCAE515R Sandstone –112.777 36.956 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.0298 GCAE516R Sandstone –112.783 36.995 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.0299 GCAE517R –112.781 36.881 05/17/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 249.6300 GCAF501R Sandstone –112.535 36.998 05/14/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 3.3301 GCAF502R Clastic rocks—Coarse –112.576 36.962 05/14/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 8.9302 GCAF503R Sandstone –112.689 36.984 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.3303 GCAF504R Sandstone –112.723 36.921 05/17/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 25.1304 GCAF505R Sandstone –112.625 36.948 05/17/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 1.1305 GCAG501R Shale –112.324 36.990 05/14/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 47.3306 GCAH501R Carbonate –112.034 36.952 05/19/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.8307 GCAH502R Sandstone –112.055 36.823 05/18/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 5.1308 GCBA014R Sandstone –113.767 36.735 05/07/1979 USGS, 2009a Stream 11.3309 GCBA501R Sandstone –113.902 36.663 05/05/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 0.4310 GCBA502R Sandstone –113.949 36.608 05/06/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 4.3

311 GCBA503R Sandstone –113.783 36.653 05/09/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.2

312 GCBA504R -- –113.997 36.551 05/10/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 17.6313 GCBB004R Carbonate –113.738 36.729 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Stream 89.0314 GCBB014R Carbonate –113.664 36.511 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Stream 44.2315 GCBB501R Sandstone –113.736 36.669 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.4316 GCBB502R Sandstone –113.742 36.597 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.0317 GCBB503R Sandstone –113.715 36.524 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.9318 GCBD501R -- –113.045 36.690 05/19/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 86.0
272 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

319 GCBD502R -- –113.069 36.724 05/19/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 15.3320 GCBE501R Sandstone –112.943 36.728 05/13/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 31.4

321 GCBG501R Sandstone –112.348 36.602 05/12/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.4322 GCBG502R Sandstone –112.346 36.625 05/14/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.0323 GCBG503R Sandstone –112.312 36.695 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.7324 GCBG504R Sandstone –112.342 36.586 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.6325 GCBH032R Carbonate –112.136 36.510 05/19/1979 USGS, 2009a Stream 0.1326 GCBH501R Sandstone –112.045 36.586 05/19/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.8327 GCCA501R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.973 36.325 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 2.9328 GCCA502R Carbonate –113.850 36.485 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 0.6329 GCCA503R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.889 36.423 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 2.1330 GCCA504R Clastic rocks—Coarse –113.973 36.378 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 13.0331 GCCA505R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.953 36.388 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 3.9332 GCCA506R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.957 36.416 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.7333 GCCB501R Carbonate –113.664 36.294 05/17/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.8334 GCCB502R Sandstone –113.687 36.300 05/17/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.9335 GCCC501R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.463 36.383 05/14/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 4.2336 GCCC502R Carbonate –113.479 36.267 05/17/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 13.6337 GCCC503R Carbonate –113.262 36.374 05/18/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.5338 GCCD501R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.152 36.392 05/15/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 0.1339 GCCD502R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.191 36.336 05/16/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.1340 GCCH501R Carbonate –112.247 36.463 10/24/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 0.0341 GCDB501R Volcanic rocks—Mafic –113.536 36.151 05/18/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 2.4342 GCDB502R Carbonate –113.512 36.190 05/20/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 20.8343 GCDD501R Sandstone –113.067 36.126 05/27/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 1.0344 GCDE501R -- –112.827 36.018 05/28/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 7.1345 GCDG501R -- –112.299 36.013 05/31/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 0.6346 Grapevine East Spring Bright Angel Shale –112.023 36.049 05/13/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 3.0 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

347 Grapevine Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –112.022 36.028 05/13/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 2.2 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

348 Grapevine–Hell Spring Bright Angel Shale –112.022 36.028 05/13/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 8.3 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

349 GW021W –113.692 36.465 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 1.2 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

350 GW022W –113.691 36.479 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 1.1 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

351 GW023W –113.754 36.504 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 0.2 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

352 GW024W –113.710 36.499 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 1.2 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

353 GW025W –113.554 36.225 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 2.8 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

354 GW026W –113.559 36.231 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 4.8 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 273

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

355 GW027W –113.744 36.178 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 2.2 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

356 GW028W –113.688 36.300 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 2.4 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

357 GW028WA –113.488 36.145 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 0.2 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

358 GW029W –113.456 36.193 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 2.8 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

359 GW030W –113.441 36.201 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 1.9 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

360 GW031W –113.536 36.224 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 0.2 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

361 GW032W –113.501 36.247 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 2.6 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

362 GW033W –113.701 36.219 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 0.2 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

363 GW034W –113.480 36.267 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 5.8 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

364 GW035W –113.664 36.292 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 2.2 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

365 GW036W –113.739 36.191 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 0.4 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

366 GW037W –113.694 36.311 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 2.4 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

367 GW038W –113.701 36.502 03/15/1981 Hopkins and others, 1984a Spring 0.5 Date reported as March 1981 and 

March 1982.

368 Hance Rapid Spring Precambrian quartzite/schist –111.923 36.054 05/13/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 4.8 Reported location UTM 

(416872,3990117).

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.0 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.8 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.6 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.8 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.6 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.7 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.6 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.8 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.
274 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.9 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.7 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.7 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.8 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.8 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.8 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.7 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

369 Havasu Creek 

near mouth

–112.760 36.314 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 3.8 Reported location river kilometer 252.3.

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 05/16/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 05/16/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 12/18/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 10.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 12/18/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 06/03/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 5.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 06/03/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 12/08/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 12/08/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring <1 Uranium value of 0.5 used for summary 

table statistics.

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 05/28/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 2.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 05/28/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 12/01/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 5.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 12/01/1987 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 01/18/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 01/18/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 05/30/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 3.0
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 275

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 05/30/1989 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 12.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 05/29/1990 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 7.0

370 Havasu Spring Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.686 36.217 05/29/1990 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

371 Hawaii Spring Muav Limestone –112.218 36.075 03/18/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 4.0 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 04/28/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1990b

Well 2.5

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 06/29/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1990b

Well 2.6

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 09/29/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1990b

Well 2.2

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 12/23/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1990b

Well 2.4

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 05/31/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1990b

Well 2.9

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 06/29/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990c

Well 3.5

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 09/21/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990c

Well 4.3

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 10/19/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990c

Well 6.4

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 12/07/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

Inc., 1990c

Well 24.0

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 04/24/1990 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 1.6

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 10/24/1990 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 0.9

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 03/28/1991 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 2.7

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 09/20/1991 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well <0.3 Uranium value of 0.15 used for summary 

table statistics.

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 12/19/1991 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 1.9

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 03/26/1992 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 0.8

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 06/26/1992 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 0.4

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 09/22/1992 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 0.5

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 12/10/1992 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 0.5

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 03/03/1993 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 0.6
276 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 06/16/1993 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 2.2

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 03/03/1994 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well <0.3 Uranium value of 0.15 used for summary 

table statistics.

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 12/09/1994 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 1.9

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 06/21/1995 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 0.7

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 07/31/1996 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 1.1

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 06/25/1998 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well <0.5 Uranium value of 0.25 used for summary 

table statistics.

372 Hermit Mine 

Monitoring Well

Redwall Limestone aquifer –112.751 36.689 11/23/1998 International Uranium 

Corp., 1999

Well 1.0

373 Hermit Mine Shaft –112.751 36.689 08/23/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

1995b

Shaft 42.0 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

373 Hermit Mine Shaft –112.751 36.689 12/23/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

1995b

Shaft 20.7 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

373 Hermit Mine Shaft –112.751 36.689 05/31/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

1995b

Shaft 24.5 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

373 Hermit Mine Shaft –112.751 36.689 06/27/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

1995b

Shaft 25.0 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

373 Hermit Mine Shaft –112.751 36.689 09/21/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

1995b

Shaft 25.0 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

373 Hermit Mine Shaft –112.751 36.689 12/08/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear, 

1995b

Shaft 32.0 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

374 Hermit Mine Sump –112.751 36.689 06/27/1989 Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

Sump 3,310.0 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

374 Hermit Mine Sump –112.751 36.689 09/21/1989 Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

Sump 18,400.0 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

374 Hermit Mine Sump –112.751 36.689 12/08/1989 Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

Sump 36,600.0 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

374 Hermit Mine Sump –112.751 36.689 02/06/1990 Canonie Environmental 

Services Corp., 1991

Sump 4,290.0 No location reported, given lat/long of 

well Hermit Mine Monitor Well.

375 Horn Creek/Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –112.152 36.088 04/30/1994 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 18.9 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

375 Horn Creek/Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –112.152 36.088 03/19/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 67.8 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

375 Horn Creek/Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –112.152 36.088 06/05/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 21.5 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

376 Horn Down Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.145 36.078 06/04/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 295.0 Reported sample date June 4–6, 2002.376 Horn Down Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.145 36.078 06/24/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 303.0 Reported sample date June 24–26, 2002.376 Horn Down Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.145 36.078 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 322.0 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.376 Horn Down Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.145 36.078 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 362.0 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 277

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

377 Horn Up Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.145 36.078 06/04/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 333.0 Reported sample date June 4–6, 2002.

377 Horn Up Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.145 36.078 06/24/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 334.0 Reported sample date June 24–26, 2002.377 Horn Up Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.145 36.078 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 400.0 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.377 Horn Up Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.145 36.078 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 312.0 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

378 Horn West Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.149 36.079 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 202.0 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.378 Horn West Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.149 36.079 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 135.0 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

379 Indian Garden CC –112.111 36.093 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 1.6 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.379 Indian Garden CC –112.111 36.093 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 1.4 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

380 Indian Garden Down Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.126 36.078 06/04/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 2.6 Reported sample date June 4–6, 2002.380 Indian Garden Down Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.126 36.078 06/24/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 2.6 Reported sample date June 24–26, 2002.380 Indian Garden Down Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.126 36.078 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 2.4 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.380 Indian Garden Down Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.126 36.078 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 4.7 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

381 Indian Garden 

Pump Station

–112.126 36.078 04/30/1994 Fitzgerald, 1996 Stream 0.5 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

382 Indian Garden Up Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.126 36.078 06/04/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 3.1 Reported sample date June 4–6, 2002.382 Indian Garden Up Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.126 36.078 06/24/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 2.9 Reported sample date June 24–26, 2002.382 Indian Garden Up Contact, Redwall-Muav Limestones –112.126 36.078 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 2.3 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.383 Indian Gardens Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.127 36.079 05/17/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

383 Indian Gardens Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.127 36.079 12/18/1985 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 6.0

383 Indian Gardens Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.127 36.079 06/03/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 4.0

383 Indian Gardens Redwall-Muav aquifer –112.127 36.079 12/08/1986 Errol Montgomery 

and Assoc., 1993b

Spring 3.0

384 KAN001W –112.563 36.658 03/15/1982 Hopkins and others, 1984b Stream 1.5 Date reported as March 1982.385 KAN002W –112.510 36.717 03/15/1982 Hopkins and others, 1984b Stream 14.0 Date reported as March 1982.386 KAN003W –112.509 36.724 03/15/1982 Hopkins and others, 1984b Stream 44.0 Date reported as March 1982.387 KAN004W –112.464 36.711 03/15/1982 Hopkins and others, 1984b Stream 5.2 Date reported as March 1982.388 KAN005W –112.572 36.684 03/15/1982 Hopkins and others, 1984b Stream 15.0 Date reported as March 1982.389 KAN006W –112.529 36.709 03/15/1982 Hopkins and others, 1984b Stream 10.0 Date reported as March 1982.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.4 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.5 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.0 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.1 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.9 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.0 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.
278 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.3 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.

390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.1 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.0 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.390 Kanab Creek near mouth –112.618 36.392 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.0 Reported location river kilometer 230.7.391 Keyhole Spring Muav Limestone –112.582 36.380 05/11/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 1.7 Reported location utm (358063,4027010).392 Little Colorado River

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 5.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 25.6 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 24.3 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 20.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 18.7 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.4 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.2 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

392 Little Colorado River 

near mouth

–111.800 36.201 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 98.5.

393 Lonetree Spring Tapeats Sandstone–Bright Angel Shale –112.054 36.074 06/03/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 4.9 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

394 M.C. –112.111 36.094 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 1.9 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.394 M.C. –112.111 36.094 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 2.4 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

395 Marble Canyon Spring 1 Mississippian Leadville Limestone; 

rm 25.3

–111.794 36.576 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Spring 2.2 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) 

+ U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90); location reported as “river mile 25.3”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.

396 Marble Canyon Spring 2 Mississippian Leadville Limestone; 

rm 30.5

–111.846 36.519 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Spring 2.4 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) 

+ U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90); location reported as “river mile 30.5”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 279

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

397 Marble Canyon Spring 3 Mississippian Leadville Limestone; rm 30.6 –111.846 36.518 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Spring 2.3 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) 

+ U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90); location reported as “river mile 30.6”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.

398 Marble Canyon Spring 4 Mississippian Leadville Limestone; rm 30.8 –111.848 36.515 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Spring 2.0 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) 

+ U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90); location reported as “river mile 30.8”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.

399 Marble Canyon Spring 5 Mississippian Leadville Limestone; rm 30.7 –111.847 36.517 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Spring 2.3 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) 

+ U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90); location reported as “river mile 30.7”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.

400 Marble Canyon Spring 6 Mississippian Leadville Limestone; rm 30.7 –111.846 36.516 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Spring 2.5 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) 

+ U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90); location reported as “river mile30.7”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.

401 Marble Canyon Spring 7 Mississippian Leadville Limestone; rm 35 –111.841 36.470 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Spring 1.4 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) 

+ U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90); location reported as “river mile 35”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.

402 Marble Canyon Spring 9 Mississippian Leadville Limestone; rm 31.2 –111.851 36.510 09/19/1982 Office of Nuclear Waste 

Isolation, 1985

Spring 1.4 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) 

+ U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90); location reported as “river mile 31.2”; date reported as Sept 19 to Oct 3, 1982.

403 MCAA501R Sandstone –111.971 36.926 05/20/1979 USGS, 2009a Well 0.6404 MCBA501R Sandstone –111.898 36.727 05/19/1979 USGS, 2009a Spring 2.4405 Mohawk Canyon Muav Limestone –112.967 36.225 05/19/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 18.0 Reported location UTM 

(323183,4010459).

406 Monument Creek/Spring Tapeats Sandstone–Bright Angel Shale –112.187 36.093 03/18/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 11.1 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

407 Nankoweap Twin Spring Precambrian quartzite/schist –111.889 36.282 05/12/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 1.5 Reported location UTM 

(420166,4015360)

408 Page Spring Muav Limestone–Bright Angel Shale –111.977 36.027 05/12/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 4.1 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

408 Page Spring Muav Limestone–Bright Angel Shale –111.977 36.027 09/09/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 3.8 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.2 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.1 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.5 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 11/05/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.7 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.3 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 11/06/1990 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 4.6 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.
280 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 2.4 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.

409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 2.3 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 06/18/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 2.4 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 2.4 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 2.4 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 06/19/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 2.5 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.409 Paria River near mouth –111.593 36.861 06/20/1991 Taylor and others, 1996 Stream 2.4 Reported location river kilometer 0.7.410 Pigeon Mine 

Main Sump

–112.531 36.730 8/22/1986 Dames & Moore, 1987 Sump 170.0 No location reported, assigned location 

of Pigeon #4 well.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 04/28/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 9.6 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 06/29/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 10.1 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 09/27/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 7.3 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 12/22/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 2.4 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 05/31/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 6.7 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 06/29/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 9.7 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 12/21/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 5.9 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 03/28/1990 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 3.6 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 06/27/1990 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 2.4 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 09/26/1990 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 12.2 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 12/20/1990 Energy Fuels 

Nuclear, 1995a

Well 2.8 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 03/28/1991 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 3.4 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 06/24/1991 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 2.1 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 09/26/1991 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 6.2 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 12/19/1991 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 1.9 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 03/25/1992 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 5.6 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 06/28/1992 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well <0.5 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394; uranium value of 0.25 used for summary table statistics.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 09/21/1992 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 2.1 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.
Historical and 2009 Water Chemistry of Wells, Streams, and Springs in Northern Arizona 281

Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued[μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available]

Map 

ID

Sample or

site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 12/10/1992 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well <0.5 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394; uranium value of 0.25 used for summary table statistics.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 03/03/1993 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well <0.5 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394; uranium value of 0.25 used for summary table statistics.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 06/30/1993 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 0.7 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 12/16/1993 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well <0.5 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394; uranium value of 0.25 used for summary table statistics.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 03/11/1994 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 0.3 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 06/19/1994 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 0.7 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 08/26/1994 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 0.5 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

411 Pinenut Mine 

Monitor Well

–112.735 36.504 10/26/1994 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1995a

Well 1.3 No location reported, used location for 

well 55-513394.

412 Pinenut Mine 

Willow Springs

–112.735 36.504 12/21/1988 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1990a

Spring 18.5 No location reported, given location of 

Pinenut Mine Well.

412 Pinenut Mine 

Willow Springs

–112.735 36.504 12/28/1989 Energy Fuels Nuclear,

Inc., 1990a

Spring 19.0 No location reported, given location of 

Pinenut Mine Well.

413 Pipe CC –112.102 36.085 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 19.0 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.413 Pipe CC –112.102 36.085 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 23.0 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

414 Pipe Creek/Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –112.108 36.073 04/29/1994 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 3.1 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

414 Pipe Creek/Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –112.108 36.073 06/04/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 3.5 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

415 Pipe Down Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 06/04/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 3.6 Reported sample date June 4–6, 2002.415 Pipe Down Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 06/24/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 3.0 Reported sample date June 24–26, 2002.415 Pipe Down Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 2.7 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.415 Pipe Down Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Stream 3.4 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

416 Pipe Up Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 06/04/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 3.3 Reported sample date June 4–6, 2002.416 Pipe Up Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 06/24/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 3.1 Reported sample date June 24–26, 2002.416 Pipe Up Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 07/15/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 3.2 Reported sample date July 15–18, 2002.416 Pipe Up Muav Limestone –112.102 36.072 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 2.8 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

417 Power Lines Spring

(Below Dam)a

–111.492 36.927 10/20/1994 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 1.1

417 Power Lines Spring

(Below Dam)a

–111.492 36.927 03/02/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 1.1

417 Power Lines Spring

(Below Dam)a

–111.492 36.927 05/01/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 1.1
282 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Appendix 4. Compilation of dissolved uranium data from springs, wells, surface water, and mine sumps and shafts in northern Arizona.—Continued [μg/L, microgram per liter; rm, river mile; CC, crystalline core below Tonto platform; Map ID, Map ID used on figure 9; M.C., mixing at confluence of Garden Creek and unnamed spring; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; --, not available] Map ID Sample or site identifier Site description Longitude (NAD 83) Latitude (NAD 83) Sample date Data source Sample source Uranium

(μg/L) Comments

418 Pumpkin Spring Tapeats Sandstone –113.307 35.885 05/21/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 13.0 Reported location UTM 

(291744,3973467).

419 River Mile 125 Spring Muav Limestone –112.523 36.264 05/15/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 6.3 Reported location UTM 

(363175,4014068).

420 River Mile 147 Seep Muav Limestone –112.676 36.343 05/17/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 9.0 Reported location UTM 

(349600,4023102).

421 River Mile 213 Spring Bright Angel Shale –113.336 35.919 05/21/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 3.4 Reported location UTM 

(289236,3977233).

422 Saddle Canyon Muav Limestone –111.904 36.360 05/11/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 2.6 Reported location UTM 

(418855,4024029).

423 Salt Creek Tapeats Sandstone–Bright Angel Shale –112.170 36.087 03/19/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Stream 14.7 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

424 Sam Magee Spring Bright Angel Shale–Muav Limestone –112.075 36.087 06/03/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 3.9 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

425 Santa Maria Spring Esplanade Sandstone –112.222 36.066 03/17/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 7.2 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

426 Sewage Ponds Spring 

(Below Dam)a

–111.478 36.912 10/20/1994 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 2.6

426 Sewage Ponds Spring 

(Below Dam)a

–111.478 36.912 03/02/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 2.8

426 Sewage Ponds Spring 

(Below Dam)a

–111.478 36.912 05/01/1995 Taylor and others, 1997 Spring 2.8

427 Slimy Tick Spring Muav Limestone –112.754 36.326 05/18/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 18.0 Reported location UTM 

(342552,4021289).

428 Three Springs Muav Limestone –113.308 35.888 05/21/1998 Taylor and others, 2004 Spring 2.2 Reported location UTM 

(291641,3973840).

429 Two Trees Spring Bright Angel Shale-Muav Limestone –112.086 36.086 04/30/1994 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 3.2 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

429 Two Trees Spring Bright Angel Shale-Muav Limestone –112.086 36.086 06/05/1995 Fitzgerald, 1996 Spring 3.1 Uranium calculated as ((U-238 (pCi/L) + 

U-234 (pCi/L)) /0.90).

430 UCC Tapeats Sandstone –112.126 36.088 07/29/2002 Liebe, 2003 Spring 1.8 Reported sample date July 29–

August 1, 2002.

aSite not plotted on figure 9.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and 

Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and 

Associated Radionuclides

By Jo Ellen Hinck, Greg Linder, Susan Finger, Edward Little, Donald Tillitt,

and Wendy Kuhne

Chapter D of

Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization 

of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Edited by Andrea E. Alpine

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................287

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................287

Literature Compilation...............................................................................................................................288

Sources of Uranium in Northern Arizona ..............................................................................................288

Chemical Speciation of Uranium as It Relates to Biota ......................................................................289

Biological Receptors for Exposure Effects Associated with Uranium Mining................................294

Ecotoxicity Values......................................................................................................................................305

Chemical Hazards of Uranium ........................................................................................................306

Biological Receptors in the Aquatic Food Chain................................................................306

Algae, Cyanobacteria, and Aquatic Microorganisms ..............................................306

Aquatic Vascular Plants ................................................................................................318

Aquatic Invertebrates ....................................................................................................318

Fish ....................................................................................................................................318

Biological Receptors in the Terrestrial Food Chain............................................................318

Soil Microorganisms ......................................................................................................318

Terrestrial Nonvascular and Vascular Plants ............................................................318

Terrestrial Invertebrates................................................................................................319

Amphibians and Reptiles...............................................................................................319

Birds..................................................................................................................................319

Mammals..........................................................................................................................319

Bioconcentration Factors and Trophic Transfers...............................................................320

Aquatic Ecosystem Exposure .......................................................................................320

Terrestrial Ecosystem Exposure...................................................................................321

Chemical Hazards of Radionuclides..............................................................................................322

Thallium .....................................................................................................................................322

Algae, Cyanobacteria, and Aquatic Microorganisms ..............................................323

Aquatic Vascular Plants ................................................................................................323

Aquatic Invertebrates ....................................................................................................323

Fish ....................................................................................................................................323

Terrestrial Vascular Plants............................................................................................323

Amphibians and Reptiles...............................................................................................323

Mammals..........................................................................................................................323

Thorium......................................................................................................................................324

Algae, Cyanobacteria, and Aquatic Microorganisms ..............................................325

Aquatic Invertebrates and Fish ....................................................................................325

Mammals..........................................................................................................................325

Bismuth......................................................................................................................................325

Radium.......................................................................................................................................326

Radon.........................................................................................................................................326

Polonium....................................................................................................................................327

Protactinium..............................................................................................................................327

Radiation Hazards of Radionuclides..............................................................................................327

Biological Receptors in the Aquatic Food Chain................................................................330

Algae, Cyanobacteria, and Aquatic Vascular Plants................................................330

Aquatic Invertebrates ....................................................................................................330

Fish ....................................................................................................................................330
Biological Receptors in the Terrestrial Food Chain............................................................333

Terrestrial Nonvascular and Vascular Plants ............................................................333

Terrestrial Invertebrates................................................................................................333

Amphibians and Reptiles...............................................................................................334

Birds..................................................................................................................................334

Mammals..........................................................................................................................334

Radionuclide and Radiation Transfers in Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems ............335

Data Gaps, Uncertainties, and Summary...............................................................................................335

Data Gaps and Uncertainties..........................................................................................................336

Summary.............................................................................................................................................338

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................................338

References Cited........................................................................................................................................339

Appendix 1. 235Uranium and 232Thorium Decay Series ......................................................................351

Appendix 2. Radiation Measurement..................................................................................................353

Figures

1. Uranium provinces in the western United States ...............................................................290

2. Segregation areas, mine sites, and sample collection locations.....................................291

3. Schematic cross section of a solution-collapse breccia pipe in northern Arizona.............292

4. Diagrammatic representation of generalized food web for the segregation areas.............295

5. Range distributions of threatened and endangered fish, amphibians, and reptiles

in relation to the segregation areas..........................................................................................297

6. Range distributions of threatened and endangered birds in relation to the 

segregation areas.....................................................................................................................298

7. Range distributions of threatened and endangered plants in relation to the 

segregation areas.....................................................................................................................299

8. Exposure pathways among generalized terrestrial and aquatic habitats ......................304

9. Comparative radiosensitivity of different organisms..........................................................329

Tables

1. Radiation and half-life for constituent elements of 238U decay series .............................293

2. Threatened and endangered species occurring within the segregation areas ............296

3. Examples of species of concern documented within the segregation areas ................300

4. Exposure pathway matrix for aquatic and terrestrial biological receptors....................303

5. Amount of chemical toxicity data available for biological receptors ..............................306

6. Guidance values for chemical and radiation toxicity .........................................................307

7. Biological effects thresholds related to uranium chemical toxicity ................................310

8. Biological effects thresholds related to thallium chemical toxicity.................................316

9. Biological effects thresholds related to radiation toxicity.................................................331
Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Mass

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg) 

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

Specific volume

liter per kilogram (L/kg) 27.68 cubic inch per pound (in3/lb)

Density

milligram per cubic meter (mg/m3) 0.00000006242 pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3)

microgram per cubic centimeter (μg/cm3) 0.0000624220 pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3)

Surface density

microgram per square centimeter (μg/cm2) 0.0000002276 ounce per square inch (oz/in2)

Concentration

milligram per liter (mg/L) 1.0 parts per million (ppm)

microgram per liter (μg/L) 1.0 parts per billion (ppb)

milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) 0.000016 ounce per pound (oz/lb)

nanomole per cubic centimeter (nmol/cm3) 1,000 nanomole per liter (nmol/L)

Radioactivity

becquerel (Bq) 3.7×1010 curie (Ci)

becquerel per kilogram (Bq/kg) 37 picocurie per gram (pCi/g)

gray (Gy) 0.01 rad (rad)

sievert (Si) 0.01 rem (rem)

coulomb/kg in air 2.58×10–4 roentgen (R)
Abstract

This chapter compiles available chemical and radiation 

toxicity information for plants and animals from the scientific 

literature on naturally occurring uranium and associated radionuclides. Specifically, chemical and radiation hazards associated 

with radionuclides in the uranium decay series including uranium, 

thallium, thorium, bismuth, radium, radon, protactinium, polonium, actinium, and francium were the focus of the literature 

compilation. In addition, exposure pathways and a food web 

specific to the segregation areas were developed. Major biological exposure pathways considered were ingestion, inhalation, 

absorption, and bioaccumulation, and biota categories included 

microbes, invertebrates, plants, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, 

and mammals. These data were developed for incorporation into 

a risk assessment to be conducted as part of an environmental 

impact statement for the Bureau of Land Management, which 

would identify representative plants and animals and their relative 

sensitivities to exposure of uranium and associated radionuclides. 

This chapter provides pertinent information to aid in the development of such an ecological risk assessment but does not estimate 

or derive guidance thresholds for radionuclides associated 

with uranium.

Previous studies have not attempted to quantify the risks 

to biota caused directly by the chemical or radiation releases 

at uranium mining sites, although some information is available 

for uranium mill tailings and uranium mine closure activities. 

Research into the biological impacts of uranium exposure is 

strongly biased towards human health and exposure related to 

enriched or depleted uranium associated with the nuclear energy 

industry rather than naturally occurring uranium associated with 

uranium mining. Nevertheless, studies have reported that uranium 

and other radionuclides can affect the survival, growth, and reproduction of plants and animals.

Exposure to chemical and radiation hazards is influenced 

by a plant’s or an animal’s life history and surrounding environment. Various species of plants, invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, and mammals found in the segregation areas that 

are considered species of concern by State and Federal agencies 

were included in the development of the site-specific food web. 

The utilization of subterranean habitats (burrows in uranium-rich 

areas, burrows in waste rock piles or reclaimed mining areas, 

mine tunnels) in the seasonally variable but consistently hot, 

arid environment is of particular concern in the segregation areas. 

Certain species of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals in 

the segregation areas spend significant amounts of time in burrows where they can inhale or ingest uranium and other radionuclides through digging, eating, preening, and hibernating. Herbivores may also be exposed though the ingestion of radionuclides 

that have been aerially deposited on vegetation. Measured tissues 

concentrations of uranium and other radionuclides are not available for any species of concern in the segregation areas. The sensitivity of these animals to uranium exposure is unknown based 

on the existing scientific literature, and species-specific uranium 

presumptive effects levels were only available for two endangered fish species known to inhabit the segregation areas.

Overall, the chemical toxicity data available for biological 

receptors of concern were limited, although chemical and radiation toxicity guidance values are available from several sources. 

However, caution should be used when directly applying these 

values to northern Arizona given the unique habitat and life 

history strategies of biological receptors in the segregation areas 

and the fact that some guidance values are based on models rather 

than empirical (laboratory or field) data. No chemical toxicity 

information based on empirical data is available for reptiles, birds, 

or wild mammals; therefore, the risks associated with uranium 

and other radionuclides are unknown for these biota.

Introduction

Proposed uranium mining in areas adjacent to the Grand 

Canyon National Park, Ariz., has prompted the U.S. Department 

of the Interior (DOI) to investigate physical, chemical, and 

biological issues potentially affected by mining. On July 21, 

2009, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar proposed that 

about 1 million acres of Federal lands near the Grand Canyon 

be withdrawn from consideration for future mining activity. The 

land under consideration is contained in three parcels: two Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) parcels on the North Rim of the 

Grand Canyon and one U.S. Forest Service (USFS) parcel on the 

South Rim. The Secretary’s action prompted the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) to design a series of studies to evaluate the 

Chapter D

Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values 

for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides

By Jo Ellen Hinck, Greg Linder, Susan Finger, Edward Little, Donald Tillitt, and Wendy Kuhne
288 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

environmental impacts of uranium mining in this area. This 

investigation is in response to that action. Habitats in the Grand 

Canyon and its environs support diverse flora and fauna that 

include culturally significant, threatened, and endangered species. 

Mining activity can result in changes to this habitat that may 

increase exposure of the biological resources to chemical elements including uranium, thallium, radium, and other radioactive 

decay products. This chapter will identify biological pathways 

of exposure for these radionuclides and consolidate information 

from the scientific literature on concentrations of these chemical 

elements known to adversely affect biological resources.

The goal of this chapter is to compile available toxicological and radiological information necessary to evaluate 

the potential effects of uranium and associated compounds on 

biological resources and affected habitat in the three segregation areas in northern Arizona. This chapter addresses chemical and radiation effects associated with radionuclides in the 

uranium-238 (238U) decay series including uranium, thallium, 

thorium, bismuth, radium, radon, protactinium, polonium, 

actinium, and francium. Specific objectives are:

• to identify possible routes of exposure linked to atmospheric dispersion (including wind-borne dusts) and 

aqueous (surface water and groundwater), soil, sediment, and food-chain pathways;

• to identify species and habitats vulnerable to chemical 

and radiation effects potentially associated with uranium decay series products that are linked to exposures 

that result from uranium mining activities; and

• to compile relevant scientific information on toxicity 

threshold effects levels for uranium and associated 

radionuclides for aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna.

Our approach included three interrelated steps. First, a 

literature search and compilation was conducted to provide 

a foundation for identifying the underlying biological and 

ecological issues that should be considered related to mining 

activities near the segregation areas. The second step was to 

characterize natural sources of uranium, other elements in the 

uranium decay series, and radiation (alpha, beta, or gamma) 

released during the uranium decay process. Because biological 

resources may be exposed to chemical and physical hazards 

associated with mining activities, the third step was the identification of ecological receptors in the area and the associated 

pathways of chemical and radiation exposure. Available data 

on culturally significant, threatened, and endangered species 

and associated habitats were compiled. These data were then 

used to develop a preliminary conceptual model.

Literature Compilation

The literature compilation was directed to collect existing 

chemical toxicity and radiation effects data associated with 

chemicals of potential concern, primarily uranium, thallium, 

radium, and other elements in the uranium decay series, 

commonly characterized in uranium ores of breccia pipe 

formations typical of the segregation areas. Nested literature 

searches and acquisitions of existing peer-reviewed data and 

literature were completed through:

• Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (Aquatic Sciences and 

Fisheries Abstracts, Biological Sciences, Environmental 

Sciences and Pollution Management databases; to a 

lesser extent, Aqualine, Water Resources Abstracts, 

GeoRef, Biology Digest, Conference Papers Index, 

Medline, and Toxline databases);

• OCLC FirstSearch (Agricola, ArticleFirst, 

BasicBiosis, Dissertations, GeoBase, WorldCat, 

BioAgIndex, Electronic Collections Online, PapersFirst, and Proceedings databases);

• ECOTOX database (in particular, combined AQUIRE 

and TERRATOX databases), for chemical toxicity values to characterize acute and chronic threshold effects;

• Frederica Radiation Effects Database (FREDERICA, 

previously known as FRED; http://87.84.223.229/fred/

mainpage.asp, accessed October 30, 2009) to confirm 

published effects-based radiation exposure values;

• PubMed-NLM (U.S. National Library of Medicine), 

Synergy, and ScienceDirect databases; and

• Focused manual searches reliant on networked citations 

derived from data and literature sources encountered in 

directed computer-aided data mining searches.

Searches were primarily conducted for chemical name, 

but additional searches for species of concern used scientific 

name (at genus or species level) and common names. Additional search terms were added depending on the number of 

citations found. Terms also included keywords related to the 

distribution of the species, its life history and habitat, and its 

interaction with other species.

Sources of Uranium 

in Northern Arizona

The uranium province situated in the Colorado Plateau is 

typically characterized as being semiarid and sparsely vegetated and having a terrain of broad plateaus, ancient volcanic 

mountains, and deeply dissected canyons. The region contains 

substantial amounts of oil, gas, coal, oil shale, and uranium 

resources. In general, the uranium provinces throughout the 

western United States occur across a wide range of physiographic and ecological regions (fig. 1). Within these provinces, uranium ores occur in various geologic deposits. The 

spatial distribution of uranium reserves serves as a frame of 

reference for identifying sources of chemical and radiation 

hazards potentially released to the environment as a result of 

mining activities. Uranium in the segregation areas (fig. 2) 

occurs in collapse-breccia pipe deposits as an Orphan Lode–

type deposit, with clusters of pipes found in proximity to one 

another (Weinrich, 1985; Finch, 1992). The deposits occur 
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 289

as uraninite (uranium oxide) and associated sulfide, arsenide, 

sulfate, and arsenic-sulfosalt minerals as disseminated replacements and minor fracture fillings in near-vertical cylindrical 

solution-collapse breccia pipes (fig. 3). Economically recoverable quantities of copper, gold, molybdenum, nickel, silver, 

thorium, and vanadium can also occur with the uranium 

deposits. As a naturally occurring source of uranium, the pipe 

materials leach uranium with subsequent enrichment of copper and vanadium, among other metals, particularly in those 

pipes that have been deeply weathered. A massive sulfide cap 

prevents oxidation if there is no erosion or mining; therefore, 

deposits of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, cesium, copper, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, lead, 

selenium, silver, strontium, uranium, vanadium, yttrium, zinc, 

zirconium, and rare earth elements are present in the pipes 

(Weinrich, 1985).

Uranium can be mined by open pit, underground tunnels, 

and solution. Methods used depend on the type of deposit 

being mined, environmental conditions associated with the 

mining site (for example, depth to groundwater), and the economics of the mining operations (Hartman and Mutmansky, 

2002; Moon and others, 2006). Heap leach mining has been 

phased out in the United States in favor of alternatives that 

reduce environmental impacts (http://www.epa.gov/radtown/

uranium-mines.html, accessed October, 30 2009), such as in 

situ leaching (ISL) and in situ recovery (ISR), which have 

been used increasingly in mining operations throughout the 

world (Bartlett, 1998). However, ISL is not used for mining operations associated with breccia pipes because of their 

porous nature; fluids from this method have the potential to 

leak out of the pipe and contaminate nearby water sources (for 

example, aquifers and springs). Accordingly, current proposals 

do not include ISL or ISR in the segregation areas in northern 

Arizona. In addition, onsite milling of the uranium in the segregation areas is not anticipated as established uranium mills 

located nearby in Utah have historically been used. Nevertheless, technical literature focused on geological and mining 

engineering should be reviewed for a detailed analysis of 

extraction and recovery of uranium ores from the segregation 

areas. The chemicals released to the surrounding environment 

during uranium mining operations can only be evaluated based 

on an understanding of which of the mining techniques are to 

be used.

Conventional mining methods employed in the uranium 

industry and used previously in the segregation areas are 

associated with hazardous chemical and physical effects on the 

surrounding ecosystem. Deposits occurring at greater depths 

require underground extraction—rock is crushed to fist-sized 

pieces underground, which creates substantial amounts of particulates (friable sand and silt sized materials), and is brought 

to the surface by vertical shaft mines. Mined materials are then 

transported to milling operations for extraction and recovery. 

Uranium ore grades range from tenths of a percent to singledigit percentages, indicating that the ratio of usable uranium 

to mined rock is low. Therefore, conventional mining creates 

relatively large quantities of waste materials characterized by 

low-level radiation, heavy metals, and other inorganic and 

organic materials, which are potential sources of chemical and 

radiation exposure to biota. 

Chemical and radiation hazards caused by source 

materials and waste products of uranium mining must be considered when conducting biological assessments. The number 

of chemical and radiation hazards potentially released to the 

environment can be identified and characterized with respect 

to their potential links to adverse effects to biota. For example, 

deposition of particulates above ground on soils, plants, and 

surface water, as well as runoff or erosion to surface water, 

create pathways to expose a variety of biota to uranium and its 

decay products. In addition, the physical habitat of biological 

receptors may be affected by mining activities—for example, 

mine shafts can become habitats for bats and birds, plant communities can be destroyed by road and building construction, 

and water sources for amphibians, birds, and mammals can 

be contaminated.

Chemical Speciation of Uranium 

as It Relates to Biota

Uranium naturally occurs as a major constituent in more 

than 150 different minerals and is a minor constituent in at 

least 50 other minerals (Burns and Finch, 1999). Naturally 

occurring uranium consists of three isotopes—238U, 235U, and 234U—with each isotope characteristically contributing to total 

uranium within an isotope-specific range: 238U dominates naturally occurring sources of uranium (99.28 percent expressed 

with regard to the mass versus 49 percent by radioactivity 

for natural uranium), followed by 235U (0.72 percent by mass 

versus 2 percent by radioactivity for natural uranium) and 234U 

(0.0050 percent by mass versus 49 percent by radioactivity 

for natural uranium). All three uranium isotopes yield decay 

products that, along with parent uranium and radiation releases 

typical of the decay series, present chemical hazards, radioactive hazards, or both to biological receptors. Geochemical 

properties of these isotopes vary among source materials. 

The 238U decay series will be considered the primary source 

of chemical and radiological hazards, considering the isotope 

composition of naturally occurring uranium (>99 percent by 

mass). Constituents in the 238U decay series include very shortlived elements, with half-lives on the order of minutes to days, 

and long-lived elements, with half-lives up to 4×109 years. 

The short-lived radionuclides are considered to have a limited 

potential for mediating adverse biological effects linked to 

chemical exposure because of reduced duration of exposure 

(table 1, appendix 1). Literature evaluating the chemical toxicity of these elements is limited but does indicate that exposure 

to these radionuclides can affect the survival, growth, reproduction, and renal function of biota. Radiation emitted during 

uranium decay contributes to radioactivity encountered in 

the environment. Therefore, radiation hazards of all daughter 

products are considered in evaluating radiation exposure.
290 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

20°

30°

40°

130° 120° 110° 100°

GULF

COAST

URANIUM

PROVINCE

BASIN AND RANGE

URANIUM PROVINCE

ROCKY MOUNTAIN AND

INTERMONTANA BASINS

URANIUM PROVINCE

COLORADO

PLATEAU

URANIUM

PROVINCE

0 250 500 MILES

0 250 500 KILOMETERS

Roll-front sandstone

Tabular sandstone

Vein

Collapse-breccia pipe

Volcanic

Limestone

Figure 1. Uranium provinces in the western United States (Finch, 1996).
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 291

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

Supai

Village Bright Angel

Creek

Little Color a do River

Col o rado River

Colorado River Havasu Creek

Cataract Creek

Virgin River

Kanab Creek

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Data provided by U.S. Geological Survey and 

Bureau of Land Management.

Map created on 11/10/09 by K.M. Brown

Segregation area—Boundary

Historical water quality data

Recent water quality sample site

Soil sample site

Known uranium orebody—Mined or unmined

NORTHERN ARIZONA LOCATIONS OF SOIL

SAMPLES, WATER QUALITY DATA, AND

BRECCIA PIPES 

EXPLANATION

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

!

EZ-2

EZ-1

Canyon

Chapel

Pigeon

Hermit

Orphan

Hack 3

Hack 2

Hack 1

Pinenut

Ridenour

Arizona 1

Kanab

North

Hack Canyon

Washington

St. George

Peach Springs

Valle

Tusayan

Jacob

Lake

Kanab

Fredonia

Big Water

North Rim

UTAH

ARIZONA

Littlefield

Colorado City

Lees Ferry

Marble Canyon

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION

AREA

Pipe

Spring 

Figure 2. Segregation areas, mine sites, and sample collection locations.
292 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Chinle

Formation

Moenkopi

Formation

Kaibab

Formation

Toroweap

Formation

TRIASSIC

251–200 Ma

PERMIAN

299–251 Ma

PENNSYLVANIAN

318–299 Ma

MISSISSIPPIAN

359–318 Ma

DEVONIAN

416–359 Ma

Petrified Forest

 Member

Shinarump Member

upper red member

middle red member

lower red member

Timpoweap Member

Shnabkaib Member

Harrisburg Member

Fossil Mountain Member

Woods Ranch Member

Brady Canyon Member

Seligman Member

Coconino Sandstone

Hermit Formation

Esplanade Sandstone

Wescogame Formation

Manakacha Formation

Watahomigi Formation

Surprise Canyon

 Formation

 (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone

Temple Butte Formation Supai Group

uranium ore

uranium ore

unconformity

Diameter of surface depression

Holocene alluvium

 Average thickness

or range in thickness

 (in feet)

300–350

0–200

400–1200

Coconino

 Plateau

0–300

200–250

100–200

30–400

30–90

0–600

50–1200

Esplanade

 surface

300–400

150–200

180–230

130–150

0–400

450–700

0–400

Owl Rock Member

100–200

Figure 3. Schematic cross section of a solution-collapse breccia pipe in northern Arizona showing the general distribution of 

uranium ore within the pipe.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 293

Within the context of radiation exposures to 238U decay 

products (including 234U) in the field, an initial data filter was 

applied to distinguish between constituents that present significant chemical hazards relative to radiation hazards and those 

that do not. Radionuclides with half-lives of less than one 

day were removed from consideration as a chemical hazard; 

their short lives prevent them from participating in pathways 

or in reaching significant concentrations to pose a chemical 

risk. However, they can significantly contribute to radiological doses and are considered from that perspective. These 

radionuclides, or chemicals of potential ecological concern 

(COPECs), were sorted to expedite compilation of ecotoxicity 

data for uranium exposures in the field. Those radionuclides 

with a half-life of less than one day include 214Bi(bismuth), 214Pb (lead), 214Po (polonium), 218Po, and 234Pa (protactinium). 

Their radiation hazard is largely a function of their alpha 

particle or beta particle emissions in the 238U decay series. In 

contrast, those longer-lived radionuclides (half-life greater 

than or equal to one day) were considered for both radiation 

and chemical hazards. These COPECs include 230Th (thorium), 234Th, 226Ra (radium),222Rn (radon), 210Bi, 210Po, 210Pb, 234U, and 238U. A stable isotope of lead (206Pb) is the end-state of the 238U 

decay series.

The bioavailability of metals (radionuclides) in water, 

sediment, and soil must be characterized to estimate effects 

on biota associated with exposure to uranium concentrations 

that result from natural weathering of mineral deposits or from 

mining activities. Bioavailability is the fractional uptake of 

metals (radionuclides) within the tissues of biota and is considered when examining the incorporation of metals (radionuclides) into biotic tissues. It is very context-specific to the 

metal (radionuclide), environmental conditions, and the biota 

of interest. Bioavailability alters the assimilation efficiencies 

of metals (radionuclides) by biota and therefore can reduce the 

effective exposure and resultant dose. Uptake of metals (radionuclides) may occur directly through water exposure (aquatic 

organisms), soil solution exposure (terrestrial plants or soil 

fauna), dermal or foliar contamination, inhalation (terrestrial 

biota), or through intentional or coincidental dietary ingestion 

of water, food, soils, or sediments.

Chemical speciation of uranium has been summarized 

previously (Gunther and others, 2002; Markich, 2002; Salbu 

and Skipperud, 2009). In general, speciation of uranium influences the chemical’s transport (or mobility) within specific 

environments, as well as the bioavailability in aquatic and 

terrestrial systems. The metal’s chemical toxicity will vary 

depending on the matrix in which it occurs. The speciation of 

uranium in aquatic systems (fresh waters and sediments) can 

be characterized by potential oxidation states. Uranium(VI) 

is the major form of uranium in oxic surface waters, whereas 

U(IV) is the major form in anoxic waters. The relationship 

between uranium speciation and bioavailability is complex 

and incompletely understood (Gunther and others, 2002; 

Markich, 2002). Uranium in surface waters occurs as various 

physicochemical forms depending on the environmental conditions. Uranium complexes with organic ligands, inorganic 

complexes of U(VI) as phosphate or humic substances, or 

metal-bound particulates or colloidals yield lower bioavailability by reducing activities of UO2

(2+) and UO2

OH+. The uranyl 

ion (UO2

(2+)) and the uranyl hydroxyl complex UO2

OH+ are 

the major forms of U(VI) available to organisms. In contrast 

to other metals, characterization of uranium bioavailability is 

highly dependent on geochemical speciation models, and data 

from empirical studies using natural waters and aquatic biota 

are limited. Data are not available to characterize uranium 

speciation and its bioavailability in sediments.

Uranium in rocks and minerals generally occurs in low 

concentrations or grade in terrestrial systems, although uranium 

distribution in sedimentary rocks varies widely with high 

uranium contents in black shales, phosphate rocks, and coal. 

The natural background uranium concentration is 2.3 mg/kg for 

soils in the segregation areas (Smith, 1997). Uranium may be a 

Table 1. Radiation and half-life for constituent elements of 238U decay series.

Element Type of radiation released

in daughter formation Half-life Toxicity hazard

Uranium-238 Alpha 4.5×109 years Chemical, radiation

Thorium-234 Beta 24.5 days Chemical, radiation

Protactinium-234 Beta 1.14 minutes Radiation

Uranium-234 Alpha 2.33×105 years Chemical, radiation

Thorium-230 Alpha 8.3×104 years Chemical, radiation

Radium-226 Alpha 1,590 years Chemical, radiation

Radon-222 Alpha 3.825 days Chemical, radiation

Polonium-218 Alpha 3.05 minutes Radiation

Lead-214 Beta 26.8 minutes Radiation

Bismuth-214 Beta 19.7 minutes Radiation

Polonium-214 Alpha 1.5×10–4 seconds Radiation

Lead-210 Beta 22 years Chemical, radiation

Bismuth-210 Beta 5 days Chemical, radiation

Polonium-210 Alpha 140 days Chemical, radiation

Lead-206 Stable Stable Chemical
294 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

major element in a mineral (for example, uraninite, UO2+) or an 

accessory mineral (for example, uranothorite, (Th,U)SiO4). The 

redox state of uranium, in particular the ratio of U(VI) to U(IV), 

governs its solubility and subsequent movements in undisturbed 

materials and its release to the environment through various 

anthropogenic activities (Hem, 1992; Roh and others, 2000; 

Zhang and Brady, 2002; Stewart, 2008). The biogeochemistry 

of uranium under field conditions is incompletely characterized with respect to its physicochemical behavior in complex 

chemical mixtures with dissolved metals, organic ligands, and 

mineralogical matrices (Alloway, 1990; Hem, 1992; Zhang and 

Brady, 2002; Cooper and others, 2003; Stewart, 2008). The 

environmental fate and movement of uranium in near-surface 

and subsurface environments is strongly influenced by oxygen. 

For example, UO2 displays decreased solubility and movement 

in soil under anaerobic conditions and increased solubility and 

movement in aerobic soils. The physicochemical behavior of 

uranium affects adsorption and desorption processes that occur 

over a wide range of mineral substrates and soil types and influence concentrations in soil solution. These surface-mediated 

processes are strongly influenced by the geochemical composition of soils. For example, soil calcium promotes the formation of ternary uranyl-calcium-carbonato complexes, which 

decreases the extent and rate of U(VI) reduction and therefore 

reduces the amount of U(VI) adsorption to mineral surfaces 

(Stewart, 2008).

The bioavailability of uranium depends on its speciation in the environment. Metals including uranium partition 

between solid and liquid phases and may occur as dissolved, 

exchangeable, carbonate, iron-manganese oxide, organic, or 

crystalline species. Partitioning or speciation is influenced to 

varying degrees by pH, redox state, organic content, and other 

environmental factors such as temperature, flow rates, and 

periodic events (such as storms). Hydrogen ion activity (pH) is 

likely one of the more critical factors governing metal speciation, solubility from mineral surfaces, transport, and eventually bioavailability (Zhang and Brady, 2002). Particulate size 

and total surface area available for adsorption affect metal speciation and metal bioavailability. For example, finely milled 

ore may release smaller particles that are likely more widely 

dispersed by water and wind and enhance metal adsorption 

(Jones and others, 1990; Hem, 1992; Zhang and Brady, 2002).

Radioisotopes of interest in uranium mill tailings include 230Th, 226Ra, 222Rn, and its daughter products. With its long 

half-life, 230Th is the parent and a constant source of 226Ra 

(see Esienbud and Gesell, 1997; Burns and Finch, 1999). 

Thorium and radium migrate slowly in the soil but can move 

via groundwater into sediments and surface waters. Radium 

isotopes 226Ra (from the 238U decay chain) and 224Ra (from the 232Th decay chain) are chemically similar to calcium. Radium 

is assimilated from the soil by plants and passed up the food 

chain to terrestrial biota including humans. In vertebrates, 

radium can enter the body through ingestion or inhalation 

pathways. The radium isotopes are alpha emitters and the parents of radon gas (226Ra decays to 222Rn; 224Ra decays to 220Rn). 

All radon isotopes are noble gases and inert with relatively 

short half-lives. Radon progeny are electrically charged when 

formed and attach to naturally occurring dust particles within 

the atmosphere. The inhalation of minute dust particles laden 

with radon progeny is a major contributor to the annual dose 

of natural radioactivity received by humans (National Council 

on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1987). Radiation dose associated with inhalation of larger sized particulates carrying radon particles is less important because larger 

particulates are less likely to enter vertebrate lungs. Inhalation 

of aerosols and particulates by miners working in the confined 

spaces of the uranium mines was critical to occupational exposures; however, in natural settings the release of the radionuclides is often dispersed into the atmosphere and diluted, 

thus decreasing the radiogenic effects on surrounding biota 

(International Atomic Energy Agency, 1997).

Biological Receptors for 

Exposure Effects Associated 

with Uranium Mining

Habitats in northern Arizona support diverse flora and 

fauna that include culturally significant, threatened, and 

endangered species. The wide range of elevation and slope 

aspect creates a variety of habitats including desert scrub, 

ponderosa and pinyon pine forests (Pinus spp.), and seeps and 

springs in which species can thrive. A diagrammatic sketch of 

the system at risk was developed to identify potential linkages between chemical and radiation hazards associated with 

mining operations and biota present in the segregation areas 

(fig. 4). Biological receptors co-occur with environmental 

hazards that are associated with proposed uranium mining 

activities. Direct effects associated with radiochemicals and 

associated radiation released in the decay process are the 

primary focus of this chapter, but inorganic chemicals, physical and biological stressors, and indirect effects also warrant 

attention. These potentially confounding factors likely operate 

at landscape levels (such as ecoregion and watershed) and 

should be considered as contributing factors in an ecological 

risk assessment.

Biota of concern, based on the food web, were identified as soil microorganisms (including soil crust and microbial communities), aquatic microorganisms, terrestrial and 

aquatic vascular plants, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, 

fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Threatened and endangered species including aquatic invertebrates, 

birds, fishes, and terrestrial plants occur within or near the 

segregation areas (table 2, figs. 5–7).1 Distribution maps are 

1

The species distribution map for Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni 

kanabensia) does not include a translocated population at Elves Chasm, at 

River Mile 117 (Sorenson and Nelson, 2000).
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 295

not available for all species, but documentation from State 

and Federal agencies indicate that appropriate habitat for 

these species is available within or near the segregation 

areas (table 2). Species of concern (as identified by State 

and Federal agencies) occur in most compartments of the 

food web within the segregation areas (table 3, fig. 4).

Uranium and other radionuclides can be transported 

through the environment and contribute to exposure of 

biological receptors via atmospheric deposition, dust, runoff, 

erosion and deposition, groundwater and surface water, and 

the food chain. As a result, biological receptors can be exposed 

to radionuclides through various pathways including ingestion (soil, food, or water), inhalation, cell membrane–mediated uptake, cutaneous absorption, and biotic uptake/trophic 

transfer (table 4, fig. 8). Chemical and radiological exposure 

of burrowing or subterranean invertebrates such as tiger beetles and desert centipedes, amphibians such as the Great Basin 

spadefoot (Spea intermontana), reptiles such as the northern 

sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus graciosus) and common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), mammals such as 

House Rock Valley chisel-toothed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys 

microps leucotis), Kaibab northern pocket gopher (Thomomys 

talpoides kaibabensis), and kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), and 

birds such as the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia 

hypugea) are of particular concern. In addition, a variety of 

species of scorpions, birds, and bats use cave-like mine shafts 

for habitat. For example, several bat species listed as species 

of concern—Allen’s big-eared bat (Idionycteris phyllotis), Pale 

Townsend big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), fringed 

myotis (Myotis thysanodes), long-eared myotis (M. evotis), 

and western small-footed myotis (M. ciliolabrum)—hibernate 

in mine shafts where these animals are exposed to prolonged 

radiation and chemical hazards associated with uranium mining (table 3). Herbivores listed as species of concern, such 

as the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), common chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus), Kaibab northern pocket gopher, 

Navajo Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus navaho), elk 

(Cervus elaphus), and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), can 

be exposed to radionuclides through the aerial deposition of 

uranium or its decay products onto vegetation.

Vegetation (Browse, Grass & Forbs)

Grand Canyon rose

Marble Canyon milk vetch

Kaibab beardtongue

Above-ground soil crust community

Below-ground soil crust community

Surface- and plantdwelling insects

Birds

Mexican spotted owl

Northern goshawk

Mammals

Bobcat

Mountain lion

Mammals

Kaibab least chipmunk

Kit fox

Coyote

Birds

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Western burrowing owl

Reptiles

Kingsnake

Banded Gila monster

Invertebrates

Kanab ambersnail 

Aquatic system Terrestrial system

Sediment Soil

Microbes

 and algae 

Herbivores

Omnivores

Carnivores

Drinking water

Bathing

Numerous

terrestrial

animals 

Direct contact

Burrowing

<0.005 mg/L

<2 mg/kg 2.3 mg/kg

Vegetation

Fish

Humpback chub

Speckled dace Insectivores

Mammals

Merriam’s shrew

Allen’s big eared bat

Birds

Southwestern willow

flycatcher

Amphibians

Great Basin spadefoot

Northern leopard frog

Mammals

Long tailed vole

Bighorn sheep

Elk

Birds

Mourning dove

Reptiles

Desert tortoise

Common chuckwalla

Figure 4. Diagrammatic representation of a generalized food web for the segregation areas. Gray shading indicates 

receptor groups for which sensitive species have been identified by State and Federal agencies (see tables 2 and 3 

for species-specific information). Example species for each receptor group are provided. Black boxes are regional 

background concentrations of uranium in water, sediment, and soil.
296 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 2. Threatened and endangered species occurring within the segregation areas. Habitat data from the State of Arizona’s Natural 

Heritage Program–Heritage Data Management System (http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml , accessed Octber 2009).

[NA, not applicable]

Name Status Habitat

Amphibians

None NA NA

Aquatic vascular plants

None NA NA

Aquatic invertebrates

Kanab ambersnail

(Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis)

Endangered Marshes watered by springs and seeps at base of sandstone cliffs or 

limestone in Vaseys Paradise of the Grand Canyon.

Birds

Mexican spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis lucida)

Threatened Patchy distribution along steep canyons of Grand Canyon in Coconino 

and Mohave Counties.

Southwestern willow flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii extimus)

Endangered Riparian obligate that avoids riparian areas in steep, closed canyons. 

Breeds locally along Colorado River in Grand Canyon near mouth 

of Little Colorado River.

California condor

(Gymnogyps californianus)

Endangered Wide distribution. Reintroduced to Vermilion Cliffs and Hurricane Cliffs 

in Arizona.

Yuma clapper rail

(Rallus longirostris yumanensis)

Endangered Marsh areas along the Colorado River.

American peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus anatum)

Delisted Wide distribution in Arizona. Most of Arizona’s breeding peregrines 

are found near Mogollon Rim, Grand Canyon, and Colorado Plateau.

Bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Delisted Wintering populations found in areas of northern Arizona with open water.

Fish

Humpback chub

(Gila cypha)

Endangered Turbulent, high gradient canyon-bound reaches of Colorado and Little 

Colorado Rivers in the Grand Canyon.

Razorback sucker

(Xyrauchen texanus)

Endangered Variety of habitats in Colorado River.

Mammals

Black-footed ferret

(Mustela nigripes)

Endangered Arid prairies with prairie dogs. Reintroduced in Aubrey Valley of 

Coconino County.

Reptiles

None NA NA

Terrestrial invertebrates

None NA NA

Terrestrial plants

Sentry Canyon milk-vetch

(Astragalus cremnophlax

var. cremnophlax)

Endangered Kaibab limestone on North and South Rims of the Grand Canyon in 

Coconino County.

Gierisch globemallow

(Sphaeralcea gierischii)1

Candidate Gypsum outcrops on Kaibab limestone in Pigeon Canyon, Black Knolls, 

and Black Rock Gulch in Mohave County.

Jones cycladenia

(Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii)

Threatened Gypsum soils on clay hills that form steep side slopes and bases of canyons 

in Vermilion Cliffs and Moccasin Mountains, Arizona.

Silver pincushion cactus

(Pediocactus sileri)

Threatened Red or gray gypsum badlands from Moenkopi Formation in Mohave County 

from Hurricane Cliffs to Pipe Spring, Coconino County.

Fickeisen plains cactus

(Pediocactus peeblesianus

var. fickeiseniae)

Candidate Kaibab limestone in House Rock Valley and Gray Mountain in Coconino 

County and Hurricane and Main Street Valleys and near Clayhole and 

Sunshine Ridge in Mohave County.

Paradine (Kaibab) pincushion cactus

(Pediocactus paradinei)

1

Conservation

agreement

Level sites on alluvial fans, valley bottoms, and ridge tops on eastern slopes 

of Kaibab Plateau and west side of House Rock Valley.

Brady pincushion cactus

(Pediocactus bradyi)

Endangered Kaibab limestone alluvium on gentle slopes of Marble Canyon, 

Coconino County. 1

No distribution map available.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 297

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

Colo r ado River

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Data provided by U.S. Geological Survey and 

Bureau of Land Management.

Map created on 11/10/09 by K.M. Brown

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED

SPECIES OF NORTHERN ARIZONA—AQUATIC

SPECIES AND REPTILES

EXPLANATION

Relict leopard frog

Kanab amber snail

Desert tortoise

Humpback chub

Razorback sucker

Segregation area—Boundary

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

UTAH

ARIZONA

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION

AREA

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

Bright Angel

Creek

Little Color a do River

Col o rado River

Colorado River Havasu Creek

Cataract Creek

Virgin River

Kanab Creek

Washington

St. George

Peach Springs

Valle

Tusayan

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry

Jacob

Lake

Kanab

Fredonia Colorado City

Big Water

North Rim

UTAH

ARIZONA

Littlefield

Pipe

Spring

Figure 5. Range distributions of threatened and endangered fish, amphibians, and reptiles in relation to the segregation areas. 

The species distribution map for Kanab ambersnail does not include a translocated population at Elves Chasm, at River Mile 117 

(Sorenson and Nelson, 2000). (Geospatial data provided by Mary Richardson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Ariz.)
298 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Data provided by U.S. Geological Survey and 

Bureau of Land Management.

Map created on 11/10/09 by K.M. Brown

THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED SPECIES OF

NORTHERN ARIZONA—BIRDS 

EXPLANATION

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Yellow billed cuckoo

Yuma clapper rail

Mexican spotted owl

Falcon and California condor

Segregation area—Boundary

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

UTAH

ARIZONA

Pipe

Spring

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION

AREA

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

Virgin River

Bright Angel

Creek

Little Color a do River

Kanab Creek

Havasu Creek

Cataract Creek

Col o rado River

Colorado River

Peach Springs

Valle

Tusayan

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry

Jacob

Lake

Washington

St. George

Kanab

Fredonia Colorado City

Big Water

Littlefield

North Rim

Figure 6. Range distributions of threatened and endangered birds in relation to the segregation areas. (Geospatial data provided 

by Mary Richardson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Ariz.)
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 299

114°00' 113°30' 113°00' 112°30' 112°00' 111°30'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

35°30'

Kanab Creek

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Data provided by U.S. Geological Survey and 

Bureau of Land Management.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

OF NORTHERN ARIZONA—PLANTS

EXPLANATION

Jones cycladenia

Sentry milk vetch

Paradine plains cactus

Brady pincushion cactus

Fickeisen plain cactus

Siler pincushion cactus

Segregation area—Boundary

Flagstaff

Phoenix

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

Index map

UTAH

ARIZONA

Pipe

Spring

SOUTH

SEGREGATION

AREA

EAST

SEGREGATION

AREA

NORTH 

SEGREGATION

AREA

Bright Angel

Creek

Little Color a do River

Colorado River Havasu Creek

Cataract Creek

Virgin River

Kanab Creek

Col o rado River

Washington

St. George

Peach Springs

Valle

Tusayan

Marble

Canyon

Lees

Ferry

Jacob

Lake

Kanab

Fredonia Colorado City

Big Water

North Rim

Littlefield

Figure 7. Range distributions of threatened and endangered plants in relation to the segregation areas. (Geospatial data 

provided by Mary Richardson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Ariz.)
300 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 3. Examples of species of concern documented within the segregation areas based on data from the State of Arizona’s Natural 

Heritage Program–Heritage Data Management System (http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml, accessed October 2009), 

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service.—Continued

Name Habitat Diet

Amphibians

Great Basin spadefoot

(Spea intermontanus)

Sagebrush flats, semi-desert shrublands, and 

pinyon-juniper woodland. Burrow in loose soil 

or use those of small mammals; emergence and 

surface activity associated with rainfall.

Adults are invertivores (insects, arachnids, 

snails). Larvae eat organic debris, plant 

tissue, invertebrates, and amphibian larvae.

Relict leopard frog

(Lithobates [Rana] onca)

Springs and wetlands with open shorelines. Adults are invertivores. Larvae eat 

algae, organic debris, plant tissue, 

and microorganisms.

Northern leopard frog

(Rana pipiens)2,3

Grassland, brushland, woodland, and forest 

typically in permanent waters with rooted 

aquatic vegetation. 

Adults are insectivores. Larvae eat 

algae, organic debris, plant tissue, 

and small invertebrates.

Red spotted toad 

(Bufo punctatus)

Riparian area of rocky streams and arroyos. Insectivorous.

Plants

Roaring Springs prickly-poppy

(Argemone arizonica)3

Steep, south-facing slopes; rockslides in pinyon 

juniper/desertscrub.

Not applicable.

Welsh’s milkweed

(Asclepias welshii)

Open, sparsely vegetated semi-stabilized sand 

dunes in desert scrub.

Not applicable.

Atwood’s catseye 

(Cryptantha atwoodii)

Sandy to clayey soils with sagebrush and 

pinyon juniper. West rim of Marble Canyon 

on Kaibab limestone.

Not applicable. Note: Potentially at risk from 

grazing sheep, goats, and insects.

Bigelow onion

(Allium bigelovii)

Dry rocky soil in grassland, open chaparral, 

and desertscrub communities.

Not applicable. Note: Species considered 

edible and bulbs sought after by Native 

Americans for food and seasoning.

Ditch evening-primrose

(Camissonia ssp. abyssa)

Debris slides and crevices of broken 

Redwall Limestone.

Not applicable.

Grand Canyon rose

(Rosa stellata)1,2

Known populations are on or near canyon rims or 

cliff tops at edges of mesas or plateaus, along 

low ledges at depressions caused by breccia 

pipes. Kanab Canyon: rim on low limestone 

breaks and in small, shallow drainages. Twin 

Point: on deeper soils along west edge, Kaibab 

limestone bedrock outcropping in places.

Not applicable. Note: Wildlife may browse 

on this plant, especially rabbits; grows in 

breccia pipes where uranium prospects 

have been concentrated.

Gumbo milk-vetch

(Astragalus ampullarius 

Gumbo clay knolls. Not applicable. Note: Potentially threatened by 

mineral exploration and livestock grazing.

Cliff milk-vetch

(Astragalus cremnophlax

var. myriorrhaphis)1,2

Crevices and depressions with shallow or no soil 

on Kaibab limestone on rim-rock benches, cliff 

ledges, and pinnacles.

Not applicable.

Marble Canyon milk-vetch

(Astragalus cremnophlax

var. hevronii)1,2

Desertscrub on rim-rock benches on canyon edge 

in crevices and depressions with shallow soils 

on Kaibab limestone.

Not applicable.

North Rim vetch

(Astragalus septentriorema)3

Not well defined. Not applicable.

Sentry Canyon milk-vetch

(Astragalus cremnophylax)

Kaibab limestone with mat rockspirea (Petrophytum 

caespitosum) in pinion-juniper-cliffrose 

plant community.

Not applicable.

Kaibab beardtongue

(Penstemon pseudoputus)

Kaibab limestone and sandstone in grassland 

meadows; disturbed areas.

Not applicable. Note: Browsed upon by deer 

and rodents.

Flagstaff penstemon

(Penstemon nudiflorus)2

Dry ponderosa pine forests. Not applicable.

House Rock fishhook cactus

(Sclerocactus sileri)

1

Pinyon-juniper mesa tops in House Rock Valley 

and Paria Plateau.

Not applicable.

Kaibab bladderpod

(Lesquerella kaibabensis)

Limestone-clay knolls with exposed rock; 

meadows of Kaibab Plateau.

Not applicable.

Kaibab paintbrush

(Castilleja kaibabensis)

Fine silts and clays to rocky meadow soils from 

Kaibab limestone on low rounded ridge tops 

and small knolls.

Not applicable. Note: Grazing is the most 

significant risk.

Grand Canyon catchfly 

(Silene rectiramea)3

North-facing in gravel loam to clay soils in 

limestone and calcareous sandstone.

Not applicable.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 301

Table 3. Examples of species of concern documented within the segregation areas based on data from the State of Arizona’s Natural 

Heritage Program–Heritage Data Management System (http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml, accessed October 2009), 

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service.—Continued

Name Habitat Diet

Plants—Continued

Grand Canyon suncup 

(Camissionia confertiflora)3

Volcanic substrates, desert shrub/scrub. Not applicable.

Spiked ipomopsis 

(Ipomopsis spicata 

ssp. tridactyla)

3

Not well described. Not applicable.

Tusayan rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus molestus)

2

Pinyon-juniper grasslands on slopes and flats. Not applicable.

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort 

(Arenaria aberrans)2

Open pine and pine-pinyon woodlands. Not applicable.

Arizona leatherflower 

(Clematis hirsutissima)2

Grassland, sagebrush, ponderosa pine. Not applicable.

Tusayan fameflower 

(Phemeranthus validulus)3

Bare slopes and summits in rock soil on chert, 

basalt, and cinder.

Not applicable.

Grand Canyon flaveria 

(Flaveria mcdougallii)3

Alkaline or saline seeps along ledges. Not applicable.

Resin brittlebush 

(Encelia resinifera 

ssp. tenuifolia)3

Rocky hillsides, dry slopes, washes. Not applicable.

Grand Canyon goldenweed 

(Ericameria arizonica)

3

Rocky ledges and crack of Kaibab limestone. Not applicable.

Mollogon columbine 

(Aquilegia desertorum)

Xerophyte on rocky slopes in the transition zone. 

Enormous root and long lived.

Not applicable.

Shiny-leaved sandpaper-plant 

(Petalonyx nitidus)

Open slopes and mesas; frequently on volcanic 

substrates including breccias.

Not applicable.

Invertebrates

Niobrara ambersnail 

(Oxyloma haydeni haydeni)

Seep or spring-fed wetlands. Not defined. Note: Predators include insects, 

mammals, birds, and other snails.

Grand Canyon cave pseudoscorpion 

(Archeolarca cavicola)3

Subterranean cave habitat associated with 

bats and rodents.

Insectivorous—arthropods.

Birds

Mourning dove 

(Zenaida macroura)

Brushlands and woodlands. Herbivorous—seeds and grains.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)

3

Streamside cottonwood, willow groves, 

mesquite bosques.

Omnivorous—caterpillars, bird eggs, frogs, 

lizards, ants, beetles, berries.

Western burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia hypugaea)1,2

Open, well-drained grasslands, steppes, 

and deserts.

Omnivorous—invertebrates, small mammals, 

fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds.

Northern goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis)2,3

Nest in ponderosa pine forest on 

Kaibab Plateau.

Carnivorous—tree squirrels, rock squirrels, 

cottontail rabbits, birds.

Fish

Flannelmouth sucker 

(Catostomus latipinnis)1

Large rivers. Omnivorous—primarily invertebrates 

and microorganisms.

Apache trout

(Oncorhynchus apache)

Introduced and established population in North 

Canyon Creek in Kaibab National Forest.

Insectivorous—aquatic and terrestrial.

Speckled dace 

(Rhinichthys osculus)1

Native to Colorado River system. Omnivorous—primarily algae, crustaceans, 

insect larvae, small snails.

Mammals

Merriam’s shrew 

(Sorex merriami leucogenys)2

Sagebrush steppe, grassland, brushland, woodland. Insectivorous—beetles, spiders, caterpillars, 

crickets, wasps.

Dwarf shrew 

(Sorex nanus)2

Pinyon-juniper woodland. Omnivorous—insects, spiders, small invertebrates, plant material.

Western red bat 

(Lasiurus blossevillii)2,3

Migratory—summer roosts in tree foliage, 

occasionally in saguaro boots and cavelike structures.

Insectivorous—moths, flies, beetles, cicadas, 

ground dwelling crickets.

Allen’s big-eared bat 

(Idionycteris phyllotis)1,2,3

Taken most often in ponderosa pine, pinyonjuniper, Mexican woodland. Boulder piles, 

cliffs, rocky outcrops, or lava flows at or 

near most collection locations. Roosts in 

caves and abandoned mineshafts.

Insectivorous—soft bodied insects such as 

moths; beetles, roaches, ants.
302 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Table 3. Examples of species of concern documented within the segregation areas based on data from the State of Arizona’s Natural 

Heritage Program–Heritage Data Management System (http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml, accessed October 2009), 

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service.—Continued

Name Habitat Diet

Mammals—Continued

Big brown bat

(Eptesicus fuscus)

Taken most often in ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper. 

Roosts in a variety of sites including attics, barns, 

bridge joints, hollow trees, mines, rock crevices, 

caves, and other similar locations.

Insectivorous—Coleoptera is important.

Big free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops macrotis)1

Inhabit rugged, rocky country and riparian areas. 

Roost in caves and holes in trees.

Insectivorous—moths, crickets, grasshoppers, 

flying ants, stinkbugs, leafhoppers.

California myotis 

(Myotis californicus)

Roost in crevices and cracks in canyon walls, 

under loose bark or in old snags, sometimes 

in caves and mine shafts.

Insectivorous—moths, flues, beetles, bugs.

Fringed myotis 

(Myotis thysanodes)1

Oak-pinyon woodlands and other open, coniferous, 

middle-elevation forests. Roost sites have been 

found in caves, mine tunnels, in large snags, under 

exfoliating bark, and in buildings. May use lower 

elevation caves and mines as hibernation sites.

Insectivorous—beetles, moths.

Greater western mastiff bat 

(Eumops perotis californicus)3

Desert scrub cliffs; rugged rocky canyons with 

abundant crevices.

Insectivorous—moths, crickets, grasshoppers, 

dragonflies, beetles, bees, wasps, ants.

Hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus)

Roost in foliage of deciduous and coniferous trees. Insectivorous—moths.

Long-eared myotis 

(Myotis evotis)1

Inhabit ponderosa pine or spruce-fir forests of 

Arizona. Summer roosts in rock outcroppings, 

tree cavities, under peeling bark, in stumps, 

caves, mines, sink holes, lava tubes, or in 

abandoned buildings. Likely use caves and 

abandoned mines during hibernation.

Insectivorous—primarily Lepidopterans.

Long-legged myotis 

(Myotis volans)1,3

Primarily coniferous forest; also riparian and 

desert habitats. Roosts including cracks in 

the ground, crevices in cliff faces, and spaces 

behind exfoliating tree bark. Use caves and 

mine tunnels for hibernation.

Insectivorous—flies, termites, lacewings, 

wasps, beetles.

Mexican free-tailed bat 

(Tadarida brasiliensis)

Migratory—roost in caves, mine tunnels, 

and crevices.

Insectivorous—primarily moths.

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinsus townsendii 

pallescens)2,3

Summer roosts include caves and mines from 

desertscrub to coniferous forests. Winter 

hibernation in cold caves, lava tubes, and 

mines in vicinity of Grand Canyon.

Insectivorous—primarily moths.

Silver-haired bat 

(Lasioncteris noctivagans)

Broad-leafed riparian and coniferous woodlands 

near water.

Insectivorous—Tricoptera and Coleoptera.

Spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum)

2,3

Dry, rough desertscrub. Insectivorous—primarily moths.

Western small-footed myotis 

(Myotis ciliolabrum)1

Deserts, chaparral, riparian areas, and oak-juniper 

forests. Hibernates in caves and old mines; 

summers in crevices, cracks, holes, snags, 

hollow trees, under rocks, and in buildings. 

Insectivorous—flying insects.

Kaibab least chipmunk 

(Neotamias minimus consobrinus)2

Rock cliffs, river bluffs, and forest edges. Omnivorous—plants, fungi, invertebrates, 

small mammals and birds.

Kaibab northern pocket gopher 

(Thomomys talpoides kaibabensis)

2

Live underground (fossorial) in sagebrush steppe 

and valley grasslands.

Herbivorous—roots and stems of forbs 

and herbs.

House Rock Valley chiseltoothed kangaroo rat 

(Dipodomys microps leucotis)2

Burrow in desertscrub communities with high 

shrub cover and sparse grass cover.

Herbivorous—saltbush leaves.

Navajo Mexican vole 

(Microtus mexicanus navaho)3

Burrow in dense shrub thickets; dry grassy areas 

adjacent to ponderosa pine forests.

Herbivorous—grasses, forbs.

Navajo Mogollon vole 

(Microtus mogollonensis navaho)2

Burrow in dense shrub patches in ponderosa pine 

forests, sagebrush stands, thick grasses.

Herbivorous—grasses, forbs, other vegetation.

Long-tailed vole 

(Microtus longicaudus)2

Scrubby and grassy meadows; high elevations 

(>2,400 m).

Herbivorous—fruit, seeds, bark, leaves.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 303

Table 3. Examples of species of concern documented within the segregation areas based on data from the State of Arizona’s Natural 

Heritage Program–Heritage Data Management System (http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml, accessed October 2009), 

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service.—Continued

Name Habitat Diet

Mammals—Continued

Kit fox 

(Vulpes macrotis)

Sandy areas; spends day underground. Omnivorous—rodents, rabbits, birds, snakes, 

insects, seeds, berries.

Mule deer

(Odocoileus hemionus)

Desert shrub, grasslands, pinyon-juniper, pine, 

aspen-fir, and mountain meadows.

Herbivorous—mountain-mahogany, buckbrush, 

cliffrose, sagebrush, buckthorn, juniper, 

and oak.

Elk

(Cervus elaphus)3

Fir-aspen and pine-juniper forests. Herbivorous—weeds, grasses, sedges, shrubs, 

willows, trees.

Bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis canadensis)2,3

Mountain ledges and grassy basins. Herbivorous—grass, sage, sedges.

Bobcat

(Lynx rufus)

Ubiquitous in Arizona. Carnivorous—cottontail rabbits, jackrabbits, 

mice, rats, birds.

Coyote

(Canis latrans)

Ubiquitous in Arizona. Omnivorous—small mammals, carrion, bird 

eggs, plants (juniper and Manzanita berries).

Mountain lion

(Puma concolor)

3

Desert mountains with broken terrain and 

steep slopes.

Carnivorous—mule deer, whitetail deer, 

javelina, livestock.

Reptiles

Gopher snake 

(Pituophis melanoleucus)

Ubiquitous in Arizona. Omnivorous—small mammals, birds, 

bird eggs.

Common kingsnake 

(Lampropeltis getulus)

Ubiquitous in Arizona. Omnivorous—lizards, birds, mammals, frogs, 

bird eggs, snakes, large invertebrates.

Northern sagebrush lizard 

(Sceloporus garciosus graciosus)1

Generally ground-dweller near bushes, brush 

heaps, logs, or rocks. Sagebrush, Manzanita, 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, pine and fir 

forests of canyon bottoms.

Insectivorous—wide variety of arthropods.

Desert spiny lizard 

(Sceloporus magister)

Desertscrub and thornscrub. Insectivorous.

Desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii)

3

Rocky soils; desert scrub. Herbivorous—grasses, forbs, succulents.

Banded Gila monster 

(Heloderma suspectum cinctum)1

Undulating foothills, bajadas, and canyons. Omnivorous—small mammals, lizards, eggs of 

birds and reptiles.

Common chuckwalla 

(Sauromalus ater)1

Crevices of boulder fields, rock outcroppings, lava 

fields. Note: Eggs buried in a nest of soil.

Herbivorous—plants.

1

Included as a BLM species of concern.

2

Included as a USFS species of concern.

3

Included as a NPS species of management concern.

Table 4. Exposure pathway matrix for aquatic and terrestrial biological receptors.

Receptor Ingestion Inhalation Cell membranemediated uptake

Cutaneous

absorption

Biotic uptake or

trophic transfer

Aquatic habitats: Lentic, lotic, and wetland systems

Algae, cyanobacteria, and microorganisms • •

Aquatic vascular plants • • •

Aquatic invertebrates • • • •

Fish • • • •

Terrestrial habitats: Upland and riparian systems

Soil microorganisms • • •

Terrestrial plants • • •

Terrestrial invertebrates • • • • •

Amphibians • • • • •

Reptiles • • • • •

Birds • • • • •

Mammals • • • • •
304 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Groundwater Sediment Contaminant source Uranium mining operations Direct Indirect Primary medium Transport mechanism Secondary contaminated medium Ecological exposure pathway Ingestion Cutaneous absorption Biotic uptake and trophic transfer Cell membrane

mediated

uptake

Biological

receptor

dissolution

upwelling,

seeps, springs

biotic uptake

Pathway for terrestrial receptors only

Sediment

Inhalation

Invertebrates,

amphibians,

reptiles, birds,

mammals

Microbes, plants,

invertebrates,

fish, amphibians,

reptiles, birds,

mammals

Microbes, plants,

invertebrates,

fish, amphibians,

reptiles, birds,

mammals

Invertebrates,

plants, fish, soil

microbes, reptiles,

amphibians,

birds, mammals

Invertebrates,

fish, amphibians,

reptiles, birds,

mammals

Surface water

Sediment, soil

Animals, plants

Soil

Air

aerial deposition

erosion

wind

Figure 8. Exposure pathways among generalized terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 305

Biological data related to uranium that is specific to the 

segregation areas are limited. Concentrations of uranium in 

biota within the segregation areas have not been reported 

by USFS (Angela Gatto and Jeff Waters, personal commun., October 2009), BLM (Elroy Masters, personal commun., October 2009), Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(Sabra Schwartz, personal commun., October 2009), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS; Carrie Marr, personal commun., September 2009), or National Park Service (NPS; 

Martha Hahn, personal commun., October 2009). The only 

information identified for uranium concentrations in biota is 

from a study east of the segregation areas. Uranium concentrations were less than 0.09 mg/kg dry weight in invertebrates 

(aquatic beetles, water boatmen, and annelids), 0.27 mg/kg dry 

weight in whole-body fish (plains killifish, Fundulus zebrinus; 

Lower Colorado River sucker, Catostomus sp.; common carp, 

Cyprinus carpio; fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas; and 

green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus), and 0.02 mg/kg dry weight 

in bird carcasses (killdeer, Charadrius vociferus; least sandpiper, Calidris minutilla; semipalmated plover, Charadrius 

semipalmatus; and spotted sandpiper, Actitis macularia) in the 

Rio Puerco and Little Colorado River drainages in Arizona 

(Andrews and others, 1995).

Ecotoxicity Values

The ecotoxicity data that follow are intended to provide 

overviews of biological responses potentially associated with 

uranium exposure in the environment. This information is best 

presented in two major categories: chemical hazards and radiation hazards. Within these two categories, biological receptor groups are further subdivided into aquatic and terrestrial 

environments. This chapter will also distinguish between two 

types of effects endpoints available in the scientific literature: 

effects thresholds and guidance values. Effects thresholds are 

acute and chronic values derived from empirical data based 

on a primary study. Guidance values are consensus values 

commonly derived from effect thresholds (acute and chronic 

empirical data) from multiple sources that establish benchmark values for the protection of biota or based on expert 

judgment. These two types of data will be presented separately 

in this document. While it is important to recognize that guidance values exist, the application of such toxicity benchmarks 

to any study should not be done without understanding how 

they were derived.

Biological receptors (fish and wildlife, aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, vascular and nonvascular plants, a wide 

array of soil microorganisms) are potentially exposed to elements of the 238U decay series, particularly as those elements 

occur within minerals and ores in deposits such as breccia 

pipes. These chemicals may attain concentrations that are toxic 

to biota in the segregation areas when encountered through 

the ingestion of prey and water, incidental ingestion of soil, 

inhalation of airborne contaminants, and dermal uptake. These 

radionuclides also present radiation hazards if exposure pathways are complete and exposure is sufficient to yield adverse 

effects in receptors. Therefore, radiation hazards were summarized separately from chemical hazards for each radionuclide.

Radionuclides from the 238U decay series were the focus 

of this chapter, although toxicity data for radionuclides from 

other actinide decay series (for example, thallium) were 

included when available. Existing scientific literature provided 

the basis for the synoptic data compilation, which represents 

the status of the current literature and identifies data gaps 

in toxicity data. Available information was compiled on 

microbial, plant, and animal species and on effects linked to 

exposures to uranium and other radionuclides, including an 

overview of transfer of the contaminants from water and soil 

to biota. To help identify data gaps for receptor groups, the 

chemical toxicity data from the literature compilation were 

subjectively categorized by biological receptor as none (no 

chemical toxicity data available), minimal (chemical toxicity 

data available for <5 species and from <3 individual studies), 

low (chemical toxicity data available for 5–10 species and 

from 3–5 individual studies), or moderate (chemical toxicity 

data available for >10 species and from >5 individual studies) (table 5). Existing guidance values from the scientific 

literature were also included, although the methodologies for 

deriving these values were not critiqued. Data regarding biota 

sensitivity to radionuclides were also included when available. 

Data for special status and nonstatus species occurring within 

the segregation areas were not available except for several fish 

species. Tabulations of chemical exposure concentrations and 

radiation dose based on available guidance are also included 

as a linkage to the pathway analysis (tables 6–8). Derivation of 

radiation dose is detailed in Turner (2007) and Bréchignac and 

Desmet (2005), and exposure units used to characterize radiation toxicity are detailed in appendix 2.

Ecotoxicity data were compiled to provide relevant information on chemical hazards to aquatic and terrestrial biota of 

concern; data were limited to radionuclides of the 238U decay 

series including uranium, thallium, thorium, radium, and radon 

because they are relatively long-lived (table 7). Availability 

of ecotoxicological data varies among those radionuclides 

likely encountered in field exposures, but was most abundant 

for uranium and thallium (tables 7–8). As a radionuclide of 

234U and 235U decay series, thallium has a short half life (< 5 

minutes), but in field settings it occurs predominately in its 

stable isotopes (203Tl and 205Tl). As a result, ecotoxicological 

data for the chemical toxicity of thallium are available for 

multiple receptors (table 8). The ecotoxicological data consist 

of a compilation of existing acute and chronic guidance values 

and effects thresholds. Information—such as exposure route, 

exposure duration, exposure compound, life stage exposed, 

and endpoint evaluated—that is relevant to characterizing 

benchmarks was included in the summary (tables 6–8). There 

were no selection criteria for including or excluding any 

guidance value or effects threshold into the summary of the 
306 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

literature compilation because (1) the objective was to compile 

as much uranium toxicity literature possible, and (2) the 

toxicity data available was expected to be limited for certain 

biological receptors. Also, because available data were limited 

for some receptors, the toxicity tables include dose and dose 

rates. Guidance values from the scientific literature are presented (table 6). The derivations of these benchmark toxicity 

values need to be understood before they can be incorporated 

into risk assessments for the segregation areas, but information 

on how these benchmarks were derived is beyond the scope of 

this document. Chronic endpoints such as no observed effect 

concentrations (NOECs) and lowest observed effect concentrations (LOECs) were reported instead of acute endpoints 

such as LC50s and EC50s (lethal and effect concentrations 

for 50 percent of the organisms tested) from the same study 

in order to provide the most conservative effects data available and to minimize the length of summary tables. However, 

acute data (LC50s and EC50s) would be important to consider when deriving or estimating benchmark or guidance 

values (Crane and Newman, 2000; Scholze and others, 2001; 

European Commission, 2003; Lepper, 2005; Canadian Council 

of Ministers of the Environment, 2007). In addition, NOECs 

presented may have included bounded (both NOEC and LOEC 

determined) and unbounded (no effect at the highest exposure 

evaluated) values. Such information should be indentified 

when guidance values are being derived because unbounded 

NOECs from studies that did not evaluate very high exposures 

can imply a potential sensitivity that is unfounded. Ecotoxicity 

data was not provided for lead, the stable end-state of the uranium decay series; the chemical toxicity of lead is well characterized for aquatic and terrestrial biota (for example, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Similarly, benchmark values are available for many metals co-occurring in 

uranium deposits characteristic of field settings (for example, 

see http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/).

Chemical Hazards of Uranium

The chemical toxicity of uranium presents a variety of 

concerns for biota and ecosystem, particularly in areas where 

ore deposits are associated with mining operations. Driver 

(1994) and Eisler (1994) provided early compilations of 

chemical hazards associated with uranium. Data on the chemical toxicity, bioconcentration, and bioaccumulation of uranium 

for terrestrial systems are less developed compared to aquatic 

systems. The range of reported toxicity values for uranium 

varies widely, presumably because its toxicity is heavily 

influenced by the chemistry of the associated matrix (water, 

sediment, soil). For example, uranium tends to be more toxic 

to aquatic biota in soft water than in hard water (Paquin and 

others, 2003; Meyer and others, 2007).

Biological Receptors in the Aquatic Food Chain

Algae, Cyanobacteria, and Aquatic Microorganisms

Chemical toxicity data for algae, cyanobacteria, and 

aquatic microorganisms are limited, and responses to uranium 

exposure varies among receptors (table 7). Gus’Kova and 

others (1966, cited in Driver, 1994) reported that uranium 

(specifically the uranyl ion) inhibited the growth of aquatic 

microflora at about 1.0 mg/L in freshwater systems and was 

bactericidal at 100 mg/L. Diatom survival was reduced at an 

exposure of 1.0 mg/L (Gross and Koczy, 1946, cited in Driver, 

1994), whereas a field study (Ruggles and others, 1979, cited 

in Driver, 1994) reported abundant diatom populations in 

tailing waters with 17 mg/L of uranium. Algae (Scenedesmus) 

experienced growth inhibition at 22 mg/L, and a protozoan 

(Microregma) had reduced food intake at 28 mg/L of uranium 

(Bringman and Kuhn, 1959, cited in Driver, 1994).

Table 5. Amount of chemical toxicity data available for biological receptors exposed to radionuclides in the uranium decay series 

considered in this summary.

[None, no chemical toxicity data; Minimal, chemical toxicity data available for <5 species and <3 primary studies; Low, chemical toxicity data available for 

5–10 species and 3–5 primary studies; Moderate, chemical toxicity data available for >10 species and >5 primary studies]

Receptor Uranium Thallium Thorium Bismuth Radium Radon* Protactinium* Polonium*

Algae Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal None None None None

Cyanobacteria None None None None None None None None

Microorganisms Minimal Minimal None None None None None None

Aquatic vascular plants Minimal Minimal None None None None None None

Aquatic invertebrates Moderate Moderate Minimal Minimal None None None None

Fish Moderate Low Minimal None None None None None

Soil microorganisms Minimal None None None None None None None

Terrestrial plants Low None None None None None None None

Terrestrial invertebrates Minimal None None None None None None None

Amphibians Minimal Minimal None None None None None None

Reptiles None None None None None None None None

Birds None None None None None None None None

Mammals, wild None None None None None None None None

Mammals, standard 

laboratory species

Moderate Low Minimal None None None None None

*

Primarily a radiation hazard.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 307

Table 6. Guidance values for chemical and radiation toxicity. Guidance values for the protection of biota are consensus values based on expert judgment or derived from models using effect thresholds (acute and chronic empirical data) from multiple sources. The guidance values are not recommended for use as toxicity benchmarks in any study without understanding how they were derived. Natural background concentrations of uranium in the segregation areas are also presented.—Continued[LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; ADEQ, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; CCME, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; U.S. DOE, U.S. Department of Energy; NCRP, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency; UNSCEAR, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; ACRP, Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection; ICRP, International Commission on Radiological Protection; EC, European Commission]

Hazard

and receptor

Exposure

matrix

Concentration/

rate Comment Reference

Uranium—Chemical toxicity

Aquatic biota

Aquatic life Water 0.0026 mg/L Chronic Tier II threshold for aquatic life. Suter and Tsao, 1996Aquatic life Water 0.0035 mg/L Arizona Water Quality Criteria. ADEQ, 2003Aquatic life Water 0.011 mg/L Aquatic life threshold based on geometric mean of estimated 

no effect values with hardness <100 mg CaCO3/L.

Franklin and others, 2000

Aquatic life Water 0.046 mg/L Acute Tier II threshold for aquatic life. Suter and Tsao, 1996Aquatic life Water 0.142 mg/L Lowest chronic threshold for aquatic life. Suter and Tsao, 1996Aquatic life Water 0.92 mg/L EC25 derived from acute LC50 for aquatic life. Liber and Sobey, 1999Aquatic life Water 0.457–6.915 mg/L Range based on all aquatic life uses for Arizona, Colorado, 

New Mexico, and Utah.

Brown, 2008

Aquatic vascular plants Water 0.005 mg/L Predicted no effect concentration. Sheppard and others, 2005Aquatic invertebrates Water 0.005 mg/L Predicted no effect concentration. Sheppard and others, 2005Aquatic invertebrates Sediment 100 mg/kg dry weight Predicted no effect concentration. Sheppard and others, 2005Fish Water 0.4 mg/L Predicted no effect concentration; very soft water (<10 mg CaCO3/L). Sheppard and others, 2005Fish Water 2.8 mg/L Predicted no effect concentration; soft water (10–100 mg CaCO3/L). Sheppard and others, 2005Fish Water 23 mg/L Predicted no effect concentration; hard water (>100 mg CaCO3/L). Sheppard and others, 2005

Terrestrial biota

Soil microorganisms Soil 100 mg/kg dry soil Predicted no effect concentration. Sheppard and others, 2005Terrestrial plants Soil 5 mg/kg Based on phytotoxicity. Efroymson and others, 1997a,bTerrestrial plants Soil 5 mg/kg Based on Model Toxics Control Act on Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory plants.

U.S. DOE, 2005

Terrestrial plants Soil 250 mg/kg dry soil Predicted no effect concentration. Sheppard and others, 2005Terrestrial plants Tissue residue 270 mg/kg dry soil Toxicity threshold based on root tissue; depleted uranium. Meyer and others, 2004Birds Water 69 mg/L LOAEL benchmark based on drinking water for rough winged 

swallow; benchmark not available for piscivorous birds.

U.S. DOE, 2005

Mammals Internal dose 0.1 mg/kg/d Predicted no effect concentration. Sheppard and others, 2005Mammals Water 7 mg/L NOAEL wild mammal benchmark based on drinking water for 

white tailed deer; benchmark not available for piscivorous mammals; LOAEL is 14 mg/L.

U.S. DOE, 2005

Mammals Soil 200 mg/kg Arizona Soil Remediation Level. ADEQ, 2007

Background

Soil Soil 2.3 mg/kg dry weight Natural background in segregation area. Smith, 1997Sediment Sediment 2 mg/kg dry weight Natural background in segregation area. Hopkins and others, 1984Water Water 0.032 mg/L Natural background in segregation area. see Bills and others, this reportAquatic invertebrates Tissue residue <0.09 mg/kg Background concentration in invertebrates from Rio Puerco 

and Little Colorado River in northern Arizona.

Andrews and others, 1995

Fish Tissue residue <0.27 mg/kg Background concentration in whole-body fish from Rio Puerco 

and Little Colorado River in northern Arizona.

Andrews and others, 1995

Birds Tissue residue <0.02 mg/kg Background concentration in bird carcasses from Rio Puerco 

and Little Colorado River in northern Arizona.

Andrews and others, 1995
308 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 6. Guidance values for chemical and radiation toxicity. Guidance values for the protection of biota are consensus values based on expert judgment or derived from models using effect thresholds (acute and chronic empirical data) from multiple sources. The guidance values are not recommended for use as toxicity benchmarks in any study without understanding how they were derived. Natural background concentrations of uranium in the segregation areas are also presented.—Continued [LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; ADEQ, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; CCME, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; U.S. DOE, U.S. Department of Energy; NCRP, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency; UNSCEAR, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; ACRP, Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection; ICRP, International Commission on Radiological Protection; EC, European Commission] Hazard and receptor Exposure matrix Concentration/ rate Comment Reference Thallium—Chemical toxicity Aquatic biota Aquatic life Water 0.012 mg/L Chronic Tier II threshold for aquatic life. Suter and Tsao, 1996 Aquatic life Water 0.11 mg/L Acute Tier II threshold for aquatic life. Suter and Tsao, 1996 Aquatic plants Water 0.1 mg/L Lowest chronic threshold. Suter and Tsao, 1996 Aquatic invertebrate Water 0.13 mg/L Lowest chronic threshold for daphnids. Suter and Tsao, 1996 Fish Water 0.057 mg/L Lowest chronic threshold. Suter and Tsao, 1996 Radionuclides—Radiation toxicity Aquatic biota Freshwater biota Environmentala 0.01 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. Garnier-Laplace and others, 2006 Freshwater biota Environmentala 0.4 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. NCRP, 1991; IAEA, 1992; UNSCEAR, 1996 Algae and aquatic plants Environmentala 2.4–10 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value based on a statistical model. NCRP, 1991; UNSCEAR, 1996; Bird and others, 2003; Thompson and others, 2003 Algae Environmentala 0.1 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. CCME, 2007 Aquatic plants Environmentala 0.1 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. CCME, 2007 Benthic invertebrates Environmentala 0.2 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. CCME, 2007 Benthic invertebrates Environmentala 1.1–5.5 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value based on a statistical model. Harrison and Anderson, 1994; EC, 2001, cited in ACRP, 2002, Bird and others, 2003; Thompson and others, 2003 Frog (Reference) Environmentala 0.004–0.04 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007 Trout (Reference) Environmentala 0.040–0.4 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007 Fish Environmentala 0.02 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. CCME, 2007 Fish and aquatic biota Environmentala 0.55–10,951 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value based on a statistical model. NCRP, 1991; Marshall, 1962, 1967, and Trabalka and others, 1977, all cited in Rose, 1992; UNSCEAR, 1996; Konno, 1980, cited in Le Francois and others, 1999; Bird and others, 2003; Higley and others, 2003; Jones and others, 

2003; Knowles, 2003; Thompson and others, 2003

Terrestrial biota

Fungi Environmentala 4928 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value based on a statistical model. Rose, 1992Terrestrial plants Environmentala 0.01 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. Garnier-Laplace and others, 2006Terrestrial plants Environmentala 0.100 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. CCME, 2007Terrestrial plants Environmentala 0.4 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. IAEA, 1992; UNSCEAR, 1996Terrestrial plants Environmentala 2.7–10 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value based on a statistical model. IAEA, 1992; Rose, 1992; UNSCEAR, 1996; Bird and others, 

2003; Higley and others, 2003; Jones and others, 2003

Wild grass (Reference) Environmentala 0.040–0.4 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007Deciduous plants Environmentala 40 mGy/h Threshold for damage. Sazykina, 2005 Conifers Environmentala 0.4–4 mGy/h Threshold for damage. Sazykina, 2005 Conifers Environmentala 4–40 mGy/h Threshold for mortality. Sazykina, 2005 Pine tree (Reference) Environmentala 4–40 μGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007Terrestrial invertebrates Environmentala 1.1–5.5 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value based on a statistical model. EC, 2001, cited in ACRP, 2002; Bird and others, 2003Terrestrial invertebrates Environmentala 0.20–0.40 mGy/h Threshold for morbidity derived from vertebrate threshold. Sazykina, 2005 Terrestrial invertebrates Environmentala 4–40 mGy/h Threshold for reproduction. Sazykina, 2005 Terrestrial invertebrates Environmentala 40 mGy/h Threshold for mortality. Sazykina, 2005 Terrestrial invertebrates Environmentala 0.2 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. CCME, 2007Bee (Reference) Environmentala 0.4–4 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 309

Table 6. Guidance values for chemical and radiation toxicity. Guidance values for the protection of biota are consensus values based on expert judgment or derived from models using effect thresholds (acute and chronic empirical data) from multiple sources. The guidance values are not recommended for use as toxicity benchmarks in any study without understanding how they were derived. Natural background concentrations of uranium in the segregation areas are also presented.—Continued[LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; ADEQ, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; CCME, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; U.S. DOE, U.S. Department of Energy; NCRP, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency; UNSCEAR, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; ACRP, Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection; ICRP, International Commission on Radiological Protection; EC, European Commission]

Hazard

and receptor

Exposure

matrix

Concentration/

rate Comment Reference

Radionuclides—Radiation toxicity—Continued

Earthworm (Reference) Environmentala 0.4–4 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007Amphibians and reptiles Environmentala 2–2.7 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value based on a statistical model. Bird and others, 2003; Thompson and others, 2003Birds Environmentala 0.14–5 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value. Zach and Mayoh, 1986; Zach and others, 1993Duck (Reference) Environmentala 0.004–0.04 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007Mammals Environmentala 0.100 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. CCME, 2007Mammals (Sensitive) Environmentala 0.004–0.02 mGy/h Threshold for minor cytogenetic effects. Sazykina, 2005 Mammals (Sensitive) Environmentala 0.02–0.08 mGy/h Threshold for minor morbidity effects. Sazykina, 2005 Mammals Environmentala 0.08–0.2 mGy/h Threshold for reproduction. Sazykina, 2005 Mammals Environmentala 4–40 mGy/h Acute radiation sickness in vertebrates. Sazykina, 2005 Mammals Environmentala 40 mGy/h Lethal dose within several days for vertebrates. Sazykina, 2005 Deer (Reference) Environmentala 0.004–0.04 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007Rat (Reference) Environmentala 0.004–0.04 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. ICRP, 2007Animals Environmentala 0.04 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. IAEA, 1992 Animals Environmentala 1–44 mGy/d Estimated No Effect Value based on a statistical model. IAEA, 1992; Childs and others, 1966, and French and others, 

1966, both cited in Rose, 1992; UNSCEAR, 1996; Bird and others, 2003; Higley and others, 2003; Jones and others, 2003; Mihok, 2003

Animals Environmentala 0.040–0.1 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. UNSCEAR, 1996Animals Environmentala 0.01 mGy/h Proposed for protection of nonhuman populations. Garnier-Laplace and others, 2006

Background

Animals (Terrestrial) Environmentala 0.00001–0.00044 mGy/h Estimated background concentration but not specific to the 

segregation area.

Garnier-Laplace and others, 2006

Plants (Terrestrial) Environmentala 0.00002–0.0007 mGy/h Estimated background concentration but not specific to the 

segregation area.

Garnier-Laplace and others, 2006

Freshwater organisms Environmentala 0.000022–0.00018 mGy/h Estimated background concentration but not specific to the 

segregation area.

Garnier-Laplace and others, 2006

Natural Environmentala <0.00004 mGy/h Estimated background concentration but not specific to the 

segregation area.

Sazykina, 2005

aDose rate accounts for multiple routes of exposure for individual receptors to yield a total dose rate for ionizing radiation.
310 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 7. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to the chemical toxicity of uranium.—Continued [LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOEC, no effect concentration; LOEC, lowest effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; dw, dry weight; uranyl nitrate, depleted uranium; BLM, biotic ligand model; ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Units were changed to have consistent units within a receptor class. To simplify the table, the following measures were taken. The LC50 was not reported if a NOEC or LOEC was available from study. The lowest NOEC value was retained if multiple NOECs were available for the same spe- cies from the same study. The lowest LC50 or EC50 was reported to be conservative regardless of exposure length (for example, Khangarot, 1991). The lowest NOEC was reported on repeated toxicity tests from Pickett and others (1993). See text for further explanation] Biological receptor (species) Exposure route Concentration/ rate Effect Commenta Reference Algae, cyanobacteria, and aquatic microorganisms Green algae

(Chlorella sp.)

Water 0.0007 mg/L Growth NOEC; LOEC = 0.0016 mg/L; pH 7.0; hardness 8 mg CaCO3/L. Charles and others, 2002

Green algae

(Chlorella sp.)

Water 0.0045 mg/L Growth NOEC; LOEC = 0.012 mg/L; pH 7.0; hardness 400 mg CaCO3/L. Charles and others, 2002

Green algae

(Chlorella sp.)

Water 0.011 mg/L Growth NOEC; pH 6.5; hardness 2–4 mg CaCO3/L. Franklin and others, 2000

Green algae

(Chlorella sp.)

Water 0.072–0.157 mg/L Growth NOEC; LOEC = 0.120–0.187 mg/L; natural creek water. Hogan and others, 2005

Periphyton communities

(algae, diatoms,fungi, bacteria)

Water 0.1 mg/L Growth NOEC for biomass; pH 9.1; exposed to river water and 

uranium trioxide.

Small and others, 2008

Aquatic microflora Water 1.0 mg/L Growth Inhibit growth. Gus'Kova and others,1966, cited in Driver, 1994Green algae

(Chlorella sp.)

Water 2 mg/L Growth NOEC; LOEC = 4 mg/L; pH 2.7; uranyl nitrate. De Jong, 1965

Algae

(Scenedesmus sp.)

Water 22 mg/L Growth Inhibit cell division. Bringman and Kuhn, 1959, cited in Driver, 1994

Diatoms Water 1.0 mg/L Mortality Reduced survival. Gross and Koczy, 1946, cited in Driver, 1994Algae

(Scenedesmus subspicatus)

Water 36.3 mg/L Mortality LC50; 5 d; water from uranium processing plant. Vinot and Larpent, 1984

Aquatic microflora Water 100 mg/L Mortality Bactericidal. Gus'Kova and others,1966, cited in Driver, 1994Diatoms Water 17 mg/L None Abundant populations in waters on uranium mill tailings. Ruggles and others, 1979, cited in Driver, 1994Protozoan

(Microregma sp.)

Water 28 mg/L Systemic Inhibition of food intake; uranyl nitrate. Bringman and Kuhn, 1959, cited in Driver, 1994

Aquatic vascular plants

Duckweed

(Lemna aequinoctialis)

Water 0.112 mg/L Growth LOEC; pH 6.5; hardness 38 mg CaCO3/L; primarily uranyl 

hydroxycarbonate (76%) and uranyl carbonate (13%).

Charles and others, 2006

Aquatic invertebrates

Midge

(Chironomus riparius)

Sediment 5.3 mg/kg dw Mortality LC50; 10-d exposure; artificial sediments contaminated 

with uranyl nitrate.

Dias and others, 2008

Amphipod

(Hyalella azteca)

Sediment 57 mg/kg dw Mortality LC50 for juveniles; 14-d exposure; artificial sediments 

contaminated with uranium.

CCME, 2007

Midge

(Chironomus riparius)

Sediment 856 mg/kg dw Mortality LC50; spiked sediments with uranyl nitrate. Lagauzere and others, 2009b

Worm

(Tubifex tubifex)

Sediment 2910 mg/kg dw Mortality LC50; pH 8.2; spiked sediments with uranyl nitrate. Lagauzere and others, 2009b

Water flea

(Ceriodaphnia dubia)

Sediment 1.97 mg/L Reproduction NOEC; LOEC = 3.91 mg/L; hardness 190 mg CaCO3/L; 

pH 8.49; 7-d exposure with depleted uranium in soil.

Kuhne and others, 2002

Worm

(Tubifex tubifex)

Sediment 547 mg/kg dw Systemic EC50; spiked sediments with uranyl nitrate. Lagauzere and others, 2009a

Midge

(Chironomus riparius)

Sediment 787 mg/kg dw Systemic EC50; spiked sediments with uranyl nitrate. Lagauzere and others, 2009a

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.032 mg/L Growth LOEC for asexual reproduction in soft water (hardness, 

6.6 mg CaCO3/L); synthetic water.

Riethmuller and others, 2001
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 311

Table 7. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to the chemical toxicity of uranium.—Continued[LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOEC, no effect concentration; LOEC, lowest effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; dw, dry weight; uranyl nitrate, depleted uranium; BLM, biotic ligand model; ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Units were changed to have consistent units within a receptor class. To simplify the table, the following measures were taken. The LC50 was not reported if a NOEC or LOEC was available from study. The lowest NOEC value was retained if multiple NOECs were available for the same species from the same study. The lowest LC50 or EC50 was reported to be conservative regardless of exposure length (for example, Khangarot, 1991). The lowest NOEC was reported on repeated toxicity tests from Pickett and others (1993). See text for further explanation]

Biological receptor

(species)

Exposure

route

Concentration/

rate Effect Commenta Reference

Aquatic invertebrates—Continued

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.032 mg/L Growth LOEC for asexual reproduction; hardness 6.6 mg CaCO3/L. Riethmuller and others, 2000, cited in Charles 

and others, 2006

Midge

(Chironomus tentans)

Water 0.039 mg/L Growth NOEC for growth; LOEC = 0.157 mg/L; 10 d; larvae; 

uranyl nitrate.

Muscatello and Liber, 2009

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.042 mg/L Growth LOEC for asexual reproduction in high alkalinity hard water 

(hardness 165 mg CaCO3/L); synthetic water.

Riethmuller and others, 2001

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.061 mg/L Growth LOEC; pH 6.0; hardness 4 mg CaCO3/L. Markich and Camilleri, 1997, cited in Charles 

and others, 2006

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.062 mg/L Growth LOEC for asexual reproduction in low alkalinity hard water 

(hardness 330 mg CaCO3/L); synthetic water.

Riethmuller and others, 2001

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.09 mg/L Growth LOEC for asexual reproduction in low alkalinity moderately hard 

water (hardness 165 mg CaCO3/L); synthetic water.

Riethmuller and others, 2001

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.15 mg/L Growth LOEC for population growth in dry season, related to ability to 

capture live prey; uranyl sulfate.

Hyne and others, 1992

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.15 mg/L Growth Growth inhibition. Hyne and others, 1991, cited in Driver, 1994

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 0.2 mg/L Growth LOEC for population growth in wet season, related to ability 

to capture live prey; uranyl sulfate.

Hyne and others, 1992

Green hydra

(Hydra vulgaris)

Water 0.4 mg/L Growth LOEC for population growth in wet season; uranyl sulfate. Hyne and others, 1992

Green hydra

(Hydra vulgaris)

Water 0.55 mg/L Growth LOEC for population growth in dry season; uranyl sulfate. Hyne and others, 1992

Cladoceran

(Moindaphnia macleayi)

Water 0.01 mg/L Mortality NOEC; LOEC = 0.025 mg/L; 120 h; uranyl sulfate. Hyne and others, 1993

Water flea

(Daphnia pulex)

Water 0.220 mg/L Mortality LC50; 48 h; 3 mg CaCO3/L; uranyl nitrate. Trapp and others, 1986, cited in Pickett and 

others, 1993

Cladoceran

(various tropical species) 

Water 0.41–1.10 mg/L Mortality LC50; 24 h; uranyl sulfate; soft water. Bywater and others,1991

Amphipod

(Hyalella azteca)

Water 1.52 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; depleted uranium. Kuhne and others, 2002

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

Water 5.87 mg/L Mortality LC50; 48 h; moderate-hard water; uranyl sulfate. Barata and others, 1998

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

Water 6.4 mg/L Mortality Mean LC50; 48 h; hardness 70 mg CaCO3/L; uranyl nitrate. Poston and others, 1984

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

Water 32.7 mg/L Mortality LC50; 24 h; water from uranium processing plant. Vinot and Larpent, 1984

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

Water 37.5 mg/L Mortality Mean LC50; 48 h; hardness 133 mg CaCO3/L; uranyl nitrate. Poston and others, 1984

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

Water 52 mg/L Mortality Mean LC50; 48 h; hardness 197 mg CaCO3/L; uranyl nitrate. Poston and others, 1984

Amphipod

(Hyalella azteca)

Water 186 nmol/L Mortality LC50 for juveniles; moderately hard water with low alkalinity; 

28-d exposure to spiked sediments with uranyl nitrate trihydrate; BLM model used.

Alves and others, 2008
312 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 7. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to the chemical toxicity of uranium.—Continued [LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOEC, no effect concentration; LOEC, lowest effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; dw, dry weight; uranyl nitrate, depleted uranium; BLM, biotic ligand model; ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Units were changed to have consistent units within a receptor class. To simplify the table, the following measures were taken. The LC50 was not reported if a NOEC or LOEC was available from study. The lowest NOEC value was retained if multiple NOECs were available for the same spe- cies from the same study. The lowest LC50 or EC50 was reported to be conservative regardless of exposure length (for example, Khangarot, 1991). The lowest NOEC was reported on repeated toxicity tests from Pickett and others (1993). See text for further explanation] Biological receptor (species) Exposure route Concentration/ rate Effect Commenta Reference Aquatic invertebrates—Continued Asian clam

(Corbicula fluminea)

Water 1872 mg/L Mortality LC50; uranyl acetate. Labrot and others, 1999

Amphipod

(Hyalella azteca)

Water 0.053 mg/L Mortality LC50 for juveniles; moderately soft water with high alkalinity; 

28-d exposure to spiked sediments with uranyl nitrate trihydrate; BLM model used.

Alves and others, 2008

Water flea

(Ceriodaphnia dubia)

Water 0.0015 mg/L Reproduction NOEC; LOEC = 0.0027 mg/L; uranyl nitrate; Shealy 

Environmental data.

Pickett and others, 1993

Water flea

(Ceriodaphnia dubia)

Water <0.002 mg/L Reproduction NOEC; LOEC = <0.002 mg/L; hydrogen uranyl phosphate; 

Shealy Environmental data.

Pickett and others, 1993

Water flea

(Ceriodaphnia dubia)

Water 0.002 mg/L Reproduction NOEC; LOEC = 0.006 mg/L; hydrogen uranyl phosphate; 

Normandeau Associates data.

Pickett and others, 1993

Water flea

(Ceriodaphnia dubia)

Water <0.008 mg/L Reproduction NOEC; LOEC = 0.008 mg/L; uranyl nitrate; Normandeau 

Associates data.

Pickett and others, 1993

Cladoceran

(Moindaphnia macleayi)

Water 0.008–0.031 mg/L Reproduction NOEC for reproduction; LOEC = 0.020–0.049 mg/L; 

uranyl sulfate.

Semaan and others, 2001

Water flea

(Ceriodaphnia dubia)

Water 0.03 mg/L Reproduction NOEC; LOEC = 0.05 mg/L; uranium dioxide (IV); 

Normandeau Associates data.

Pickett and others, 1993

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

Water 30 mg/L Swimming 

performance

EC50; uranyl acetate. Knie and others, 1983

Green hydra

(Hydra viridissima)

Water 1 mg/L Systemic Lysis of hydrae; 48 h exposure. Hyne and others, 1991, cited in Driver, 1994

Worm

(Tubifex tubifex)

Water 2.05 mg/L Systemic EC50; 96 h; uranyl acetate dihydrate. Khangarot, 1991

Asian clam

(Corbicula fluminea)

Water 0.00057–0.0059 mg/L Valve closure/ 

movement

EC50 for valve closure calculated for uranyl free ion species; 

pH 5.5 to 6.5; adults.

Fournier and others, 2004

Asian clam

(Corbicula fluminea)

Water 0.014–0.07 mg/L Valve closure/ 

movement

EC50 for valve closure; integration time of response—5 h; 

pH 5.5 to 6.5; uranyl nitrate solution and adults.

Fournier and others, 2004

Asian clam

(Corbicula fluminea)

Water 0.048–0.178 mg/L Valve closure/ 

movement

EC50 for valve closure; integration time of response—10 to 

60 min; pH 5.5 to 6.5; uranyl nitrate solution and adults.

Fournier and others, 2004

Asian clam

(Corbicula fluminea)

Water 0.102 mg/L Valve closure/ 

movement

EC50 for valve closure; pH 7.0; uranyl nitrate solution and adults. Tran and others, 2008

Mussel

(Velesunio angasi)

Water 0.285 mg/L Valve closure/ 

movement

NOEC; pH 5.5; exposed to synthetic water. Markich and others, 2000 

Mussel

(Velesunio angasi)

Water 0.365 mg/L Valve closure/ 

movement

NOEC for duration of valve opening (mean for males and females);

pH 6.0; exposed to synthetic water.

Markich, 2003

Fish

Various tropical species Water 0.2 mg/L Growth Threshold effect level—growth; water exposure using 

uranium sulfate.

Holdway, 1992

Gudgeon

(Mogurnda mogurnda)

Water 0.404 mg/L Growth NOEC; 1-day-old tropical species; uranium sulfate. Holdway, 1992

Gudgeon

(Mogurnda mogurnda)

Water 1.22 mg/L Growth LOEC; pH 6.0; hardness 6.6 mg CaCO3/L. Riethmuller and others, 2000, cited in Charles 

and others, 2006

Gudgeon

(Mogurnda mogurnda)

Water 1.3 mg/L Growth LOEC; pH 6.0; hardness 4 mg CaCO3/L. Markich and Camilleri, 1997, cited in Charles 

and others, 2006
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 313

Table 7. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to the chemical toxicity of uranium.—Continued[LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOEC, no effect concentration; LOEC, lowest effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; dw, dry weight; uranyl nitrate, depleted uranium; BLM, biotic ligand model; ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Units were changed to have consistent units within a receptor class. To simplify the table, the following measures were taken. The LC50 was not reported if a NOEC or LOEC was available from study. The lowest NOEC value was retained if multiple NOECs were available for the same species from the same study. The lowest LC50 or EC50 was reported to be conservative regardless of exposure length (for example, Khangarot, 1991). The lowest NOEC was reported on repeated toxicity tests from Pickett and others (1993). See text for further explanation]

Biological receptor

(species)

Exposure

route

Concentration/

rate Effect Commenta Reference

Fish—Continued

Zebrafish

(Danio rerio)

Water 0.02 mg/L Mortality LC50; larval fish; 15-d exposure of depleted uranium. Bourrachot and others, 2008

Various tropical species Water 0.73–3.46 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; uranyl sulfate; soft water; adults. Bywater and others, 1991Rainbowfish

(Melanotaenia splendida inornata) and gudeon(Mogurnda morgurnda)

Water 0.81 mg/L Mortality NOEC; LOEC = 1560 μg/L; uranium sulfate. Holdway, 1992

Bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Water 1.67 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; uranyl nitrate; hardness 3 mg CaCO3/L. Trapp and others, 1986, cited in Pickett and 

others, 1993

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

Water 2.8 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; soft water; uranyl sulfate; hard water LC50 = 135 mg/L. Tarzwell and Henderson, 1956

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

Water 3 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; pH 7.4; hardness 210 mg CaCO3/L; as UO2+2. McKee and Wolf, 1963, cited in Driver, 1994

Zebrafish

(Danio rerio)

Water 3.1 mg/L Mortality LC50; adult fish; uranyl acetate. Labrot and others, 1999

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

Water 3.1 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; soft water; uranyl nitrate. Tarzwell and Henderson, 1956

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

Water 3.7 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; soft water; uranyl acetate. Tarzwell and Henderson, 1956

Brook trout

(Salvelinus fontinalis)

Water 3.9 mg/L Mortality NOEC; LC50 = 5.5 mg/L; soft water; embryos and larvae. Parkhurst and others, 1984

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Water 6.2 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; hardness 31 mg CaCO3/L. Davies, 1980, cited in Driver, 1994

Zebrafish

(Danio rerio)

Water 6.4 mg/L Mortality LC50; 24 h; water from uranium processing plant. Vinot and Larpent, 1984

Brook trout

(Salvelinus fontinalis)

Water 8.0 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; hardness 31 mg CaCO3/L. Davies, 1980, cited in Driver, 1994

Brook trout

(Salvelinus fontinalis)

Water 16.4 mg/L Mortality NOEC; hard water; embryos and larvae. Parkhurst and others, 1984

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

Water 16.7 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; hardness 70 mg CaCO3/L. Poston and others, 1984, cited in Driver, 1994

Flannelmouth sucker

(Catostomus latipinnis)

Water 43.5 mg/L Mortality LC50; acute; uranyl nitrate. Hamilton and Buhl, 1997

Bonytail

(Gila elegans)

Water 46 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; uranyl nitrate; hard water; fry-juvenile. Hamilton, 1995

Colorado pikeminnow

(Ptychocheilus lucius)

Water 46 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; uranyl nitrate; hard water; fry-juvenile. Hamilton, 1995

Razorback sucker

(Xyrauchen texanus)

Water 46 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; uranyl nitrate; hard water; fry-juvenile. Hamilton, 1995

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

Water 135 mg/L Mortality LC50; 96 h; pH 8.2; hardness 135 mg CaCO3/L; as UO2+2. McKee and Wolf, 1963, cited in Driver, 1994

Common carp

(Cyprinus carpio)

Water 60 mg/L None No effect on hatchability. Till and Blaylock, 1976, cited in Driver, 1994

Zebrafish

(Danio rerio)

Water 23.13 mg/L Systemic Increased bioaccumulation in liver and gills versus brain and skeletal 

muscle. Upregulated gene expression in liver for apoptosis, immune responses, and detoxification processes; depleted uranium.

Lerebours and others, 2009
314 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 7. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to the chemical toxicity of uranium.—Continued [LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOEC, no effect concentration; LOEC, lowest effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; dw, dry weight; uranyl nitrate, depleted uranium; BLM, biotic ligand model; ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Units were changed to have consistent units within a receptor class. To simplify the table, the following measures were taken. The LC50 was not reported if a NOEC or LOEC was available from study. The lowest NOEC value was retained if multiple NOECs were available for the same spe- cies from the same study. The lowest LC50 or EC50 was reported to be conservative regardless of exposure length (for example, Khangarot, 1991). The lowest NOEC was reported on repeated toxicity tests from Pickett and others (1993). See text for further explanation] Biological receptor (species) Exposure route Concentration/ rate Effect Commenta Reference Soil microorganisms and protists Soil microbes Soil 500 mg/kg dry soil Systemic LOEC for respiration; depleted uranium. Meyer and others, 1998, cited in Sheppard and others, 2005 Terrestrial plants Carrot

(Daucus carota)

Gel 9.4 mg/L Growth EC50 for root length; 34 d; uranyl nitrate; nutriant gel. Straczek and others, 2009

Scots pine

(Pinus sylvestris)

Soil >100 mg/kg dry soil Growth NOEC; uranium mill tailings waste disposal soil. Sheppard and others, 1985

Swiss chard

(Beta vulgaris)

Soil 10 mg/kg Growth Inhibited root growth in mature plants. Sheppard and others, 1983, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Purple threeawn

(Aristida purpurea);

Buffalograss

(Buchloe dactyloides);

Little bluestem

(Schizachyrium scoparium)

Soil 50 mg/kg dry soil Growth LOEC for biomass increase; depleted uranium. Meyer and others, 1998, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Soybean

(Glycine max)

Water

(hydroponic)

0.42 mg/L Mortality, 

systemic

Adverse effects—chlorosis, early leaf abscission, reduced root 

growth; root conc. = 57 μg/g dw; shoot conc. = 1.37 μg/g.

Murthy and others, 1984, cited in Driver, 1994

Soybean

(Glycine max)

Water

(hydroponic)

42 mg/L Mortality, 

systemic

Adverse effects—widespread necrosis, reduced leaf chlorophyll; 

root conc. = 938 mg/kg dw; shoot conc. = 91.5 mg/kg.

Murthy and others, 1984, cited in Driver, 1994

Terrestrial invertebrates

Earthworm

(Eisenia fetida andrei)

Media 13.5 μg/cm2 Mortality LC50; 96 h; filter paper media saturated with uranium acetate 

salt solution.

Labrot and others, 1999

Earthworm

(Eisenia fetida andrei)

Media 40 μg/cm2 Mortality LC50; 96 h; filter paper media saturated with uranium acetate 

salt solution.

Riberia and others, 1996

Earthworm

(Lumbricus sp.)

Soil 1000 mg/kg

dry soil

Mortality NOEC; LOEC = 300 mg/kg; >10% clay. Sheppard and Evenden, 1992, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Springtail

(Folsomia candida)

Soil 350–1030 mg/kg

dry soil

Mortality EC20; EC20 = 840–2200 mg/kg for reproduction; 35 d; adults; 

various soil types.

Sheppard and others, 2004, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Springtail

(Onychiurus folsomi)

Soil 92–480 mg/kg

dry soil

Mortality EC20; EC20 = 150–1030 mg/kg for reproduction; 35 d; adults; 

various soil types.

Sheppard and others, 2004, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Earthworm

(Eisenia andrei)

Soil 1000 mg/kg

dry soil

Mortality, 

reproduction

NOEC; adults; various soil types. Sheppard and others, 2004, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Amphibian and reptiles

Frog (primarily

Rana catesbeiana)

Injection 15 mg/kg Systemic Kidney lesions; uranium nitrate; lymph sac injections. Oliver and Smith, 1930

African clawed frog

(Xenopus laevis)

Water 13.1–54.3 mg/L Growth Delay in metamorphosis in 64-d tests (embryo to tadpoles). Mitchell and others, 2005

Iberian green frog

(Rana perezi)

Water 1.75 mg/L Mortality, 

growth

Reduced survival and growth; 96 h; larvae exposed to 

100% uranium mine effluent.

Marques and others, 2008

African clawed frog

(Xenopus laevis)

Water 77 mg/L None No effects in 96-h tests with depleted uranium and embryos. Mitchell and others, 2005
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 315

Table 7. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to the chemical toxicity of uranium.—Continued[LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOEC, no effect concentration; LOEC, lowest effect concentration; NOAEL, no adverse effect level; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level; dw, dry weight; uranyl nitrate, depleted uranium; BLM, biotic ligand model; ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Units were changed to have consistent units within a receptor class. To simplify the table, the following measures were taken. The LC50 was not reported if a NOEC or LOEC was available from study. The lowest NOEC value was retained if multiple NOECs were available for the same species from the same study. The lowest LC50 or EC50 was reported to be conservative regardless of exposure length (for example, Khangarot, 1991). The lowest NOEC was reported on repeated toxicity tests from Pickett and others (1993). See text for further explanation]

Biological receptor

(species)

Exposure

route

Concentration/

rate Effect Commenta Reference

Mammals

Rat Air 0.05 mg/m3 Systemic Kidney injury; 1 yr. ATSDR, 1990a, cited in Driver, 1994Guinea pig Air 0.20 mg/m3 Systemic Kidney damage; 7.5 mos. ATSDR, 1990a, cited in Driver, 1994Dog Air 0.25 mg/m3 Systemic Kidney damage; 1 yr. ATSDR, 1990a, cited in Driver, 1994Rabbit Air 0.25 mg/m3 Systemic Kidney damage; 6.5 mos. ATSDR, 1990a, cited in Driver, 1994Guinea pig Dermal 2110 mg/kg Mortality LC50; uranyl nitrate. Orcutt, 1949, cited in Driver, 1994Rat Dermal 490 mg/kg Mortality LC50; uranyl nitrate. Orcutt, 1949, cited in Driver, 1994Mice Dermal 7600 mg/kg Mortality LC50; uranyl nitrate. Orcutt, 1949, cited in Driver, 1994Rabbit Dermal 5 mg/kg/d Mortality LOAEL; uranyl nitrate hexahydrate. Orcutt, 1949, cited in Driver, 1994Dog Diet 5.7 mg/kg Mortality LC50; uranyl nitrate hexahydrate. Domingo and others, 1987, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Mice Diet 25 mg/kg Mortality NOAEL; LD50 = 136 mg/kg; uranyl acetate dihydrate. Domingo and others, 1987, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Rat Diet 1940 mg/kg Mortality Death; 2 yrs. ATSDR, 1990a, cited in Driver, 1994Mice Diet <5 mg/kg/d Reproduction NOAEL for maternal toxicity, fetotoxicity; LOEC = 2.8 mg/kg/d 

for growth of pups; uranyl acetate dihydrate.

Domingo and others, 1989a, cited in Domingo, 

2001, and Sheppard and others, 2005

Rat Diet 97 mg/kg/d Reproduction Testicular atrophy; uranyl fluoride. Maynard and Hodge, 1949, and Maynard and 

others, 1953, cited in Driver, 1994

Rat Diet 11 mg/kg Systemic NOAEL; LOAEL = 118 mg/kg for hepatic lesions, proteinuria, 

weight loss; uranyl acetate dihydrate.

Domingo and others, 1987, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Rat Diet 24 mg/kg/d Systemic NOAEL for testicular lesions; uranyl nitrate hexahydrate. Maynard and others, 1953, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Mice Diet 5 mg/kg/d Systemic NOAEL for viability and lactation indices; LOEC = 28 mg/kg/d 

for c litter size; uranyl acetate dihydrate.

Domingo and others, 1989b, cited in Domingo, 

2001, and Sheppard and others, 2005

Rabbit Diet 3 mg/kg/d Systemic LOEC for weight loss and limited renal damage. Maynard and Hodge, 1949, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Dog Diet 9 mg/kg/d Systemic LOEC for hepatic effects. Maynard and others, 1949, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Mice Drinking water 21 mg/L Mortality Maternal death. ATSDR, 1990a, cited in Driver, 1994Mice Drinking water 1.9–5.6 mg/kg/d Reproduction Threshold effects for reproduction. Llobet and others, 1991; cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005; Feugier and others, 2008; Kundt and others, 2009

Rabbit Drinking water 0.05–1.36 mg/kg/d Systemic LOEC for renal damage; uranyl nitrate. Gilman and others, 1998a,c, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Mice Drinking water 16 mg/L Systemic Decreased body weight. ATSDR, 1990a, and Domingo and others, 

1989a, cited in Driver, 1994

Rat Drinking water 0.06 mg/kg/d Systemic LOEC for renal damage; uranyl nitrate. Gilman and others, 1998b, cited in Sheppard 

and others, 2005

Rat Drinking water 40-471 mg/L Systemic Effects in nervous system and major organs. ATSDR, 1990a, cited in Driver, 1994; Houpert 

and others, 2007 aU(VI) was generally used in all toxicity tests unless otherwise noted.
316 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 8. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to the chemical toxicity of thallium.—Continued [USACHPPM, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine; IC, inhibition concentration; LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOEC, no effect concentration; LOEC, lowest effect concentration; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level. All data from water-borne exposures unless otherwise noted. Single dose exposure data from USACHPPM (2007) were excluded] Receptor category and criteria species Concentration (mg/L) Effect Comment Reference Algae, cyanobacteria, and aquatic microorganisms Green algae

(Chlorella vulgaris)

0.02 Growth NOEC; LOEC = 0.04; thallium sulfate. De Jong, 1965

Freshwater rotifer

(Brachionus calyciflorus)

0.0188 Mortality LC50; 24 h; thallium sulfate. Calleja and others, 1994

Fungus

(Geotrichum candidum)

0.00038 Systemic IC50 for glucose inhibition; 4 h; thallium sulfate. Jacobsen, 1995 

Aquatic vascular plants

Duckweed

(Lemna minor)

0.04–0.08 nmol/cm3 Growth Threshold value; EC50 = 0.16–0.23 nmol/cm3; thallous acetate. Kwan and Smith, 1988 

Duckweed

(Lemna minor)

0.00008 Growth LOEC; EC50 = 0.0002 mg/L. Smith and Kwan, 1989

Aquatic invertebrates

Amphipod

(Gammarus minus)

0.1 Mortality LC50; thallium sulfate. Horne and others, 1983

Amphipod

(Hyalella azteca)

0.190–0.310 Mortality LC50; thallous nitrate added to tap water. Borgmann and others, 1998

Amphipod

(Hyalella azteca)

0.01 Reproduction LC25 for reproduction; 10 wk; thallous nitrate. Borgmann and others, 1998

Fairy shrimp

(Streptocephalus proboscideus)

0.0008 Mortality LC50; 24 h; thallium sulfate. Calleja and others, 1994

Midge

(Chironomus riparius)

229 Mortality LC50; thallium sulfate. Horne and others, 1983 

Nematode

(Caenorhabditis elegans)

123–200 Mortality LC50; 96 h; elemental thallium. Williams and Dusenbery, 1990 

Roachfly

(Peltoperla maria)

1460 Mortality LC50; thallium sulfate. Horne and others, 1983 

Snail

(Physa heterostropha)

2.7 Mortality LC50; thallium sulfate. Horne and others,1983 

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

0.0083 Mortality LC50; 24 h; thallium sulfate. Calleja and others, 1994

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

0.1 Reproduction NOEC for reproduction in chronic test; LOEC = 0.181; 

thallium sulfate.

Kimball, 1978

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

0.024 Mortality LC50; 48 h; thallium nitrate. Lan and Lin, 2005 

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

0.061 Mortality LC50; 48 h; thallium chloride. Lan and Lin, 2005 

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

0.203 Mortality LC50; 48 h; thallium acetate. Lan and Lin, 2005 

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

0.000016 Systemic EC50 for immobilization; 24 h; thallium sulfate. Lilius and others, 1995

Water flea

(Daphnia pulex)

0.00000918 Systemic EC50 for immobilization; 24 h; thallium sulfate. Lilius and others, 1995
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 317

Table 8. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to the chemical toxicity of thallium.—Continued[USACHPPM, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine; IC, inhibition concentration; LC, lethal concentration; EC, effect concentration; NOEC, no effect concentration; LOEC, lowest effect concentration; LOAEL, lowest adverse effect level. All data from water-borne exposures unless otherwise noted. Single dose exposure data from USACHPPM (2007) were excluded]

Receptor category

and criteria species

Concentration

(mg/L) Effect Comment Reference

Fish

Goldfish

(Carassius auratus)

7 Mortality LC50; thallium chloride. Birge, 1978

Bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus)

120 Mortality LC50; 96 h; thallous sulfate; young of year. Buccafusco and others, 1981

Bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus)

170 Mortality LC50; thallium acetate. Dawson and others, 1977

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

0.17 Mortality LC50; thallium chloride. Birge, 1978

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

0.18 Mortality LC50; embryo-larval; thallium chloride. Birge and others, 1980

Goldfish

(Carassius auratus)

0.17 Mortality LC50; egg-larval exposure. Birge and others, 1977

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

1.5 Mortality LC50; 10 d; thallous sulfate; fry. Craig and Beggs, 1979

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

10–15 Mortality Lethal concentration. Nehring, 1962, cited in Craig and 

Beggs, 1979

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

0.24 Mortality LC50; 10 d. Zitko, 1975, cited in Craig and 

Beggs, 1979

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

2.3 Mortality LC50; 96 h; thallium sulfate. Horne and others, 1983

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

0.145 Mortality NOEC in chronic tests; LOEC = 0.292; thallium 

sulfate; juveniles.

Kimball, 1978

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

0.04 Mortality LOEC; thallium sulfate; embyros. LeBlanc and Dean, 1984

Amphibians

Eastern narrow-mouthed toad

(Gastrophryne carolinensis)

0.11 Mortality LC50; thallium chloride. Birge, 1978

Eastern narrow-mouthed toad

(Gastrophryne carolinensis)

0.11 Mortality LC50; egg-larval exposure. Birge and others, 1977

Mammals

Rats, mice, dogs 20–40 mg/kg Mortality LD50s for various monovalent thallium salts. USACHPPM, 2007Mice 150 mg/kg Mortality LD50 for 36 h; thallium sulfate. Achenback and others, 1980, cited 

in USACHPPM, 2007

Rats 1.51 mg/kg/d Mortality LOAEL; thallic oxide. Downs and others, 1960, cited in 

USACHPPM, 2007

Rats 0.3 mg/kg/d Reproduction LOAEL for male reproduction; thallium sulfate. USACHPPM, 2007Rats 1.4 mg/kg/d Systemic LOAEL for nerve function 36 wks; thallium sulfate. Manzo and others, 1983, cited in 

USACHPPM, 2007
318 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Few studies focused on the toxicity of uranium to aquatic 

microorganisms have been published since the review by Driver 

(1994). Studies have reported microbe activity in soils and sediments related to uranium exposures, but threshold effects levels 

for mortality, growth, and reproduction are minimally reported in 

the literature. Most research has focused on establishing benchmark concentrations for aquatic bacteria exposed to uranium, 

although studies for freshwater algae and periphyton have also 

been published. For example, Small and others (2008) observed 

no adverse effects on periphyton communities exposed to river 

water having 0.1 mg/L of uranium. Water quality conditions, particularly pH, dissolved organic carbon, and differential chemical 

speciation, affect uranium toxicity to green algae (Franklin and 

others, 2000; Charles and others, 2002; Fortin and others, 2004, 

2007; Hogan and others, 2005). The bioavailability of uranium 

to aquatic microorganisms and algae remains a critical issue for 

aquatic habitats potentially exposed to uranium releases from ore 

deposits. Guidance values to protect aquatic life (which includes 

algae and aquatic microorganisms) have been estimated by various organizations (table 6).

Aquatic Vascular Plants

Toxicity data for aquatic vascular plants are limited 

(table 7). The uptake and incorporation of uranium from water 

to plant tissues yield relatively low tissue residues (Pettersson 

and others, 1993). Translocation of uranium from root to foliage 

is low; therefore, foliage generally has lower uranium concentrations than roots (Pettersson and others, 1993). Mkandawire 

and others (2005, 2007) noted that water quality characteristics, 

such as phosphate concentration, affected the uranium toxicity to duckweed (Lemna aequinoctialis) under field conditions. 

Charles and others (2006) reported that joint exposures to copper and uranium reduced growth inhibition relative to singlecompound exposures. Charles and others (2006) also reported 

a LOEC of 0.112 mg/L for growth. Sheppard and others (2005) 

have suggested a predicted no effect concentration for uranium 

toxicity to freshwater plants (table 6).

Aquatic Invertebrates

A moderate amount of chemical toxicity data is available for aquatic invertebrates including midges, cladocerans, 

hydrae, amphipods, worms, and molluscs (table 7). Similar to 

other metals, the toxicity of uranium varied with total hardness 

and alkalinity for aquatic invertebrates. For example, Poston 

and others (1984) reported greater mean acute values (as 

LC50s) for cladocerans in hard water (37.5 mg/L) than in soft 

water (6.4 mg/L) (table 7). Chronic values (as NOECs) were 

available for the water flea Ceriodaphnia dubia (<0.002–0.03 

mg/L), the cladoceran Moindaphnia macleayi (0.008–0.031 

mg/L), the midge Chironomus tentans (0.039 mg/L), and the 

mussel Velesunio angasi (0.280–0.388 mg/L), some of which 

are lower than guidance thresholds available for aquatic invertebrates (table 6). Uranium toxicity data for freshwater green 

hydra (Hydra viridissima) was also available from multiple 

studies (table 7).

Fish

A moderate amount of chemical toxicity data is available 

for fish (table 7). Uranium toxicity varies widely in fishes and 

is dependent on water quality conditions such as total hardness and alkalinity. For example, acute values (as LC50s) for 

fathead minnow were 3 mg/L with a water hardness of 210 mg 

CaCO3/L and pH of 7.4, and 135 mg/L with a water hardness 

of 400 mg CaCO3/L and pH of 8.2 (McKee and Wolf, 1963, 

cited in Driver, 1994). Some estimated guidance values to 

protect fish have also included hardness in their recommendations (table 6).

Toxicity data for uranium were available for threatened 

and endangered species of the Colorado River system. Hamilton (1995) examined the acute toxicity of uranium on swimup fry and juvenile Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus 

lucius), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and bonytail 

(Gila elegans). Acute values for were 46 mg/L (96-hr LC50s) 

for each species, which indicated uranium sensitivity did not 

differ between species. Common carp, a nonstatus species 

in the Colorado River system, were not affected by uranium 

exposures of 60 mg/L in areas of high water hardness (Till 

and Blaylock, 1976). Chronic values (as NOECs) for uranium 

toxicity were available for the gudgeon Mogurnda mogurnda

(0.404 mg/L), the rainbowfish Melanotaenia splendida inornata (0.81 mg/L), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (3.9 

mg/L soft water and 16.4 mg/L hard water) (table 7).

Biological Receptors in 

the Terrestrial Food Chain

Soil Microorganisms

Although the soil crust community in arid ecosystems 

typical of the segregation areas are critical to the system’s 

structure and function, existing uranium toxicity data for soil 

microorganisms and other soil-dwelling biota are limited 

(table 7). Biological soil crusts are assemblages of lichens, 

fungi, cyanobacteria, and mosses that colonize soil surfaces 

and represent up to 70 percent of the living groundcover in 

arid land environments (Belnap and Lange, 2001; Belnap and 

others, 2005). Biological soil crusts are critical to the transfer 

of nutrients from seasonal surface runoff (Ludwig and others, 

1997, 2005). Empirical data related to the uranium toxicity 

for soil microbes was found in one study. Meyer and others 

(1998) indicated that an LOEC of 500 mg/kg dry soil for soil 

microbe respiration may also be applicable for some terrestrial 

systems. Characterization of effects cannot be developed for 

soil microbes in the absence of chemical toxicity data. Nevertheless, guidance values for soil microbes have been estimated 

(table 6).

Terrestrial Nonvascular and Vascular Plants

Chemical toxicity data for uranium were available for 

terrestrial plants (table 7). Uranium concentrations as low as 

0.42 mg/L reduced seedling survival based on measures of 
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 319

chlorosis, early leaf abscission, and reduction in root growth in 

hydroponically-grown soybean plants (Glycine max) (Murthy 

and others, 1984). Chronic values available for uranium concentrations in soil include a NOEC of >100 mg/kg for Scots 

pine (Pinus sylvestris) and a LOEC of 50 mg/kg dry soil for 

a variety of grasses (Sheppard and others, 1985; Meyer and 

others, 1998). Sheppard and Evenden (1992) suggested that 

sublethal effects may occur in plants grown in soils containing 

between 10 to 100 mg/kg of uranium. In this exposure range, 

reduced root growth in test plants was observed at soil concentrations of 10 mg/kg in both sand and peat soils, but aboveground growth was not affected (Sheppard and others, 1983). 

Several guidance thresholds for the protection of terrestrial 

plants have been estimated by various organizations (table 6).

Other factors should be considered when evaluating 

the toxicity of uranium to terrestrial plants. The mycorrhizae 

(fungus–plant root relationships) are critical to soil structure 

and function, and biological processes acting within the rhizosphere (the zone surrounding the roots of plants) complement 

the physicochemical factors influencing uranium solubility and 

control uranium uptake into plant tissues. Rufyikiri and others 

(2004) observed that mycorrhizal fungi may limit uranium 

accumulation by mycorrhizae-dependent plants exposed to 

high uranium concentrations in soil. Mechanisms explaining 

these observations are numerous, including the interactions of 

soil pH, calcium, and phosphorus. Such confounding factors 

encourage caution in interpretations of soil guidance values for 

metals in soils and threshold effects concentrations of uranium 

and other radionuclides.

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Chemical toxicity data for uranium were limited to earthworms and springtails for terrestrial invertebrates (table 7); 

guidance values specific to terrestrial invertebrates have 

not been estimated (table 6). Sheppard and Evenden (1992) 

observed reduced survival in earthworms (Lumbricus spp.) 

exposed to 1,000 mg/kg dry weight soil, a concentration associated with adverse effects to other organisms in different soil 

types. Following these earlier studies, Sheppard and others 

(2004, cited in Sheppard and others, 2005) evaluated the toxicity of uranium to the earthworm Eisenia andrei using three 

different soil types as exposure matrices and reported NOECs 

of 1,000 mg/kg dry weight soil for survival and reproduction 

in each soil type. Effects levels observed for two species of 

springtail (Onychiurus folsomi and Folsomia candida) were 

similar to those for earthworms following 35-day exposures (Sheppard and others, 2004). In a similar study, adult 

O. folsomi were more sensitive to uranium than F. candida as 

measured by mortality and reproduction (Sheppard and others, 

2004, cited in Sheppard and others, 2005).

Alternative test methods have also been used to evaluate 

chemical toxicity to earthworms (table 7). Ribera and others 

(1996) exposed the earthworm Eisenia fetida andrei to filter 

paper media saturated with a uranium acetate salt solution and 

reported a 96-hour LC50 of 40 μg/cm2, whereas Labrot and 

others (1999) using a similar test method reported a 96-hour 

LC50 of 13.5 μg/cm2. Labrot and others (1996) also examined 

various biomarkers in E. fetida andrei exposed to a uranyl 

acetate solution and observed decreased levels of malondialdehyde at 1.0 μg/cm2

. These studies relied on exposures of 

individuals to filter paper saturated with uranium solutions and 

should not be compared directly with exposure on bulk soils. 

Regardless of that methodological difference, the findings 

of Labrot and others (1996, 1999) indicate that toxicity and 

bioconcentration may be mediated by uranium concentrations 

occurring in soil solution.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Amphibians and reptiles are key components of the food 

web in the segregation areas; however, data for the chemical toxicity of naturally occurring uranium in amphibians 

was minimal and no data was found for reptilian species 

(table 7). Decreased survival and reduced growth in survivors 

was observed in larvae of the frog Rana perezi exposed to 

100 percent uranium mine effluent (uranium concentration, 

1.75 mg/L), although effects could not be specifically associated with uranium (Marques and others, 2008). Marques and 

others (2008) also noted that other adverse effects related to 

growth and malformations were observed at effluent exposures 

>50 percent, but mortality was not significant relative to controls. Mitchell and others (2005) observed no effects in exposures of the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) to concentrations of depleted uranium greater than 77 mg/L in 96-hour 

tests, but delayed metamorphosis was observed at concentrations greater than 13.1 mg/L in 64-day exposures. However, 

no mortality or malformations were observed in these longerterm exposures (Mitchell and others, 2005). Kidney lesions 

developed in various frog species after the lymph sacs were 

injected with 15 mg/kg of uranium nitrate (Oliver and Smith, 

1930). Guidance values for the protection of amphibians and 

reptiles have not been estimated (table 6).

Birds

Chemical toxicity data for effects of uranium in birds 

were not found, which is consistent with previous uranium 

reviews (Driver, 1994; Eisler, 1994). Despite the lack of 

empirical chemical toxicity data, a guidance value for uranium 

in drinking water has recommended for non-piscivorous birds 

in southern Utah (table 6) (U.S. Department of Energy, 2005).

Mammals

Chemical toxicity data for uranium in mammalian 

wildlife were not found; however, mammalian wildlife receptors and animal models used to evaluate human health share 

common pathways of uranium exposure. Laboratory mammals 

provide a starting point for evaluating effects levels in wild 

mammals, which undoubtedly have a range of sensitivities to 

uranium (table 7). Rabbits, dogs, and guinea pigs were more 

sensitive to uranium exposure than rats (Driver, 1994), and 
320 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

rabbits were most sensitive to uranium in laboratory tests 

(Morrow and others, 1981, 1982, and Leach and others, 1984, 

all cited in Driver, 1994). As with other biological receptors, the increased solubility of uranium in U(VI) makes the 

hexavalent form more toxic to mammals than U(IV). More 

recent studies (for example, Domingo, 2001; Sheppard and 

others, 2005) indicate that mammalian toxicity values for 

uranium remain consistent with those of previous reviews 

(Driver, 1994; Eisler, 1994). Field observations (for example, 

tissue concentrations) related to uranium mining activities 

and releases of radionuclides from energy-generating facilities dominate the recent literature for mammals, particularly 

with respect to exposures and bioaccumulation. Most effects 

data available were associated with kidney function (table 7). 

Guidance values for the protection of mammals have been 

estimated by various organizations (table 6).

Bioconcentration Factors and Trophic Transfers

The bioavailability of uranium depends on its speciation in the environment. Metals, including uranium, partition 

between solid and liquid phases and may occur as dissolved, 

exchangeable, carbonate, iron-manganese oxide, organic, 

or crystalline species. Partitioning or speciation of metals 

in the environment is influenced to varying degrees by pH, 

redox state, organic content, and other environmental factors such as temperature, precipitation, and periodic events 

(for example, storms). Hydrogen ion activity (pH) is likely 

one of the more critical factors governing metal speciation, 

solubility from mineral surfaces, transport, and eventually 

bioavailability to plants or animals. Factors such as particulate size, mineral properties, and total surface area available 

for adsorption or desorption processes affect metal speciation 

and metal bioavailability. For example, finely milled ore may 

release smaller particles that are likely more widely dispersed 

by water and wind, and thus can enhance metal transport and 

availability to biological receptors. Therefore, the form of the 

uranium and the nature of the environment can strongly influence the transport (movement) and bioavailability of uranium 

and the uranium decay series products in the segregation areas. 

In particular, interception rates are strongly influenced by 

the amount of precipitation (Pröhl, 2009). Interception is the 

fractional rate of adsorption of radionuclides from atmospheric 

sources (both dry and wet deposition). Rates of interception 

are inversely proportional to precipitation on a logarithmic 

scale (Pröhl, 2009). The greatest rates of interception (that is, 

fractional adsorption to plants) occur in arid regions like the 

segregation areas. The transport of radionuclides into a plant is 

measured by a transfer factor (TF) that is specific to the plant 

(Leclerc and others, 2009) and in general is defined by the 

amount of radionuclide taken up into the edible portions relative to the amount on the foliar areas of the plant. Therefore, 

when environmental pathways are considered for transport 

of uranium to biological receptors, such coefficients must 

be evaluated separately. Databases of plant-specific TFs for 

uranium and other radionuclides have been developed (Leclerc 

and others, 2009) and will be important for quantitative modeling of exposure pathways of species of interest within the 

segregation areas.

The uptake of uranium and uranium decay series products into animals is similar to that of other metals. The uptake 

of metals can be regulated or nonregulated, depending on the 

size (atomic radius) and valence (charge) of the metal species (Gray and others, 2006; Nordberg and others, 2007). 

Metals that have a similar size and charge to essential trace 

metal nutrients can be taken up across biological membranes 

through specific transport mechanisms (for example, sodium/

potassium exchange pumps). These same properties of atomic 

size and charge regulate binding once metals are inside an 

animal. These physical properties of the metals, along with 

the physiological characteristics of an animal, determine 

the internal dose and pharmacokinetics of metals, including 

uranium. In general, the liver and kidney are the primary sites 

of uranium accumulation, with bones, scales, gonads, gills, 

and gastrointestinal tract variously contributing to the accumulated uranium load (Colley and Thomson, 1991; Holdway, 

1992). As with other non-essential metals, semi-metals, and 

non-essential metalloids, uranium tissue residues tend to be 

inversely related to body size. For example, higher mass-specific tissue residues are observed in small-bodied organisms 

provided uptake and depuration kinetics are similar across 

species of varying masses. Thus, target organ dose metrics of 

uranium and the decay series products will be determined by 

the speciation of each radionuclide and species-specific factors 

of the animals of interest.

Aquatic Ecosystem Exposure

Metal uptake by aquatic organisms is associated with 

two major pathways: (1) ingestion of metal-enriched sediment 

or particles and metal-enriched food items, and (2) uptake 

directly from water across biological membranes (generally 

respiratory membranes). Therefore, reactions of metals in 

water and sediment influence the bioavailability of metals in 

natural waters, and biological food webs influence the ultimate 

uptake of metals in aquatic ecosystems. However, detailed 

quantitative models that incorporate both biotic and abiotic 

factors which control uranium uptake in aquatic organisms are 

incompletely characterized. Therefore, empirical values for 

bioconcentration or bioaccumulation of uranium (and decay 

products) into aquatic organisms are used to derive estimates 

of exposure (Driver, 1994).

Linkages among aquatic and terrestrial habitats assure 

transfers across environmental compartments. Uranium in ore 

deposits accumulates in soils and reaches surface waters and 

sediments through physical processes mediated by natural 

or human-aided mechanisms, or the two combined. Uranium behaves similarly to other metals upon its entry in food 
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 321

chains (Meyer and others, 2005); uranium is adsorbed onto 

the surfaces of plants and animals and can then be ingested 

by consumers and predators through their diets. Coincidental 

ingestion of suspended or bed sediments may also contribute 

significantly to uranium exposure for some species of aquatic 

vertebrates; therefore, bottom-feeding fishes tend to accumulate greater uranium concentrations than piscivorous fish (see 

Swanson, 1983, 1985, and Waite and others, 1988, all cited in 

Driver, 1994).

Uranium tends to adsorb to surfaces in sediment systems, 

and its interactions depend on the physicochemical properties 

of these solid matrices. Sediments act as a sink for uranium 

with concentrations consistently exceeding that in overlying 

water. Uptake of uranium from water to organisms occurs 

primarily through sources in sediment (Swanson, 1985, and 

Brunskill and Wilkinson, 1987, both cited in Driver, 1994) 

or through equilibriums established among sediment, water 

column, and fish. Early studies (Swanson, 1985) observed 

that organisms feeding on or near stream and lake sediments 

receiving drainage from uranium mill tailings contained higher 

concentrations of uranium than pelagic or predatory species. 

Transfer pathways and effects of uranium-series radionuclides 

in surface waters are poorly characterized quantitatively 

because there are few data available for uranium under field or 

laboratory conditions. Overall, sediment-to-fish transfer coefficients were 0.02–0.05 for sediment-to-fish and 5.7–11.0 for 

water-to-fish (Swanson, 1985). Driver (1994) postulated that 

a decline of about one order of magnitude in bioconcentration 

factors (BCFs) or bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) occurred at 

each step in an aquatic food chain and that biomagnification 

of uranium would not occur in aquatic or semi-aquatic food 

chains with species such as amphibians, fish-eating birds or 

waterfowl, and mammals such as muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) or otters (Lontra canadensis).

Bioconcentration factors for uranium vary across aquatic 

species and were available for a limited number of species. 

For aquatic microbes, BCFs for uranium ranged from 2,794 

to 354,200 (Driver, 1994). High BCFs for uranium by algae 

results from the relatively high adsorption of radionuclides 

on cell surfaces rather than actual uptake by the organisms 

(Atkins, 1977, and Horikoshi and others, 1981, both cited in 

Driver, 1994). For example, cell-bound uranium may account 

for only 10–15 percent of the total uranium on a dry weight 

basis in green algae and other aquatic microorganisms (Strandberg and others, 1981, cited in Driver, 1994). Physicochemical interactions among water quality factors and biological 

interactions can affect the binding of uranium to cell walls (for 

example, in phytoplankton) or cell membranes (for example, 

in zooplankton) and in solution.

The transfer of uranium in aquatic-sediment systems to 

rooted or floating aquatic vascular plants has been characterized in some species. A water-to-plant BCF of 0.55 was 

reported for uranium in aquatic macrophytes (Thompson and 

others, 1972, cited in Driver, 1994), which was lower than 

BCFs for the pondweed Potamogeton sp. (1.13) and the water 

milfoil Myriophyllum sp. (1.15) in a lake receiving uranium 

mine tailings (Waite and others, 1988, cited in Driver, 1994). 

Sediment-to-plant BCFs were lower for Potamogeton sp. 

(0.16) and Myriophyllum sp. (0.20) than water-to-plant BCFs 

(Waite and others, 1988). Water-to-invertebrate BCFs for uranium are highly variable, ranging from 1 to 10,000 (Thompson 

and others, 1972; Mahon, 1982; Driver, 1994), which reflects 

greater variation in trophic and spatial niches among invertebrates collected under field conditions (Swanson, 1985, cited 

in Driver, 1994).

Numerous field studies demonstrate that uranium concentrates in fish. Values derived from field-collected individuals reflect bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), which capture 

all potential routes of exposure beyond the uptake of material solely from ambient waters. Uranium BAFs in fish were 

less than 10 when exposed to contaminated surface waters 

(Thompson and others, 1972). The greatest reported BAFs for 

uranium in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), longnose 

suckers (Catostomus catostomus), and lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) were less than 38 (Mahon, 1982; Poston, 

1982; Swanson, 1985, cited in Driver, 1994). BAFs reported 

in the literature for early life stage fish are consistently less 

than 20 (Driver, 1994; Yankovich, 2009). For example, BCFs 

for uranium ranged from 1.9 to 4.3 in hard water (210 mg/L 

as CaCO3) in brook trout eggs and fry (Parkhurst and others, 

1984) and 3.3 in eyed carp eggs (Till and Blaylock, 1976). Till 

and Blaylock (1976) also noted that uranium accumulated in 

yolk material more than in developing embryo. Driver (1994) 

suggested that in lieu of species or site-specific data, default 

values for concentration factors (BCFs or BAFs) should be 

10 for the flesh of freshwater fish, 20 for whole body piscivorous or planktivorous fish, and 50 for benthic species that 

might have greater exposures through incidental ingestion of 

sediments.

Terrestrial Ecosystem Exposure

Partitioning of dissolved metals including uranium in 

soils is primarily affected by pH, and acidic soils are characterized by free metal ions in soil solution. Routine characterization of physicochemical properties of soils such as pH, 

cation exchange capacity, organic carbon, and soil texture 

(particle size distribution) are key attributes that govern 

uranium speciation. Uranium is poorly bioconcentrated in 

terrestrial plants through direct uptake because of the reduced 

bioavailability of insoluble compounds formed under naturally 

occurring conditions. 

Factors that influence bioavailability of uranium in soil 

are similar to those physicochemical properties that influence 

its bioavailability in aquatic and sediment systems (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009). For example, for 

terrestrial plants, uptake of uranium and other trace elements 

depends on (1) movement of elements from the soil to the 
322 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

plant root, (2) movement of elements across the membrane of 

epidermal cells of the root, (3) transport of elements from the 

epidermal cells to the xylem, in which a solution of elements 

is transported from roots to shoots, and (4) possible mobilization, from leaves to storage tissues used as food (seeds, tubers, 

and fruit), in the phloem transport system (Sansharova and 

others, 2009a, cited in International Atomic Energy Agency, 

2009). Metals including uranium are made available to terrestrial wildlife directly through plant uptake and the food chain, 

but the limiting step for elemental entry into the food chain is 

usually passage from the soil to the root, which depends on 

element concentrations in soil pore solutions. Climate strongly 

influences metal speciation, primarily because of climate’s 

role in developing soil types. These local- and regional-scale 

factors ultimately control elemental—metals and metalloids—

mobility and availability. For example, in the arid climates of 

the western United States, soils are commonly characterized 

by small abundances of soil organic matter and large abundances of salt and carbonate, the latter phases often containing 

metals in varying states of solution.

Uranium bioavailability in terrestrial food chains is 

strongly influenced by the nature of soils and their complex 

interactions with metals (Driver, 1994; Bohn and others, 

2001). In general, uranium enters food chains via adsorption 

on plant surfaces (known as interception) or as tissue residues 

in prey. Natural history attributes related to feeding strategy 

can influence exposure of herbivores (Meyer and others, 

2005). Coincidental ingestion of particles of sediment or soils 

also contributes to dietary exposures (Beyer and others, 1994). 

For plants, uranium exposures occur primarily in the rhizosphere where the soil directly interacts with the root (Ross, 

1994). However, uranium uptake across root membranes is 

limited and little translocation to aboveground structures has 

been observed (Sheppard and others, 1983, and Van Netten 

and Morley, 1983, both cited in Driver, 1994; Vandenhove and 

others, 2009). Plant accumulations of uranium are limited, as 

reflected in low soil-to-plant concentration factors, while the 

greatest concentration ratios are associated with dusty conditions (Garten and others, 1987, cited in Driver, 1994). Concentration ratios for a variety of plants (food crops, pasture grass, 

fruits, and vegetables) were generally reported to be below 1 

(Driver, 1994; Sansharova and others, 2009b, cited in International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009).

Bioaccumulation of uranium is also relatively low into 

herbivorous vertebrates, although multiple exposure routes 

(ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact, etc.) enhance the likelihood that uranium will be accumulated in tissues of exposed 

biota. Biomagnification of uranium does not occur through 

food-chain transfers, with transfer coefficients less than 1 from 

plants to foraging grazers in terrestrial environments (Driver, 

1994). In addition, Mahon (1982) reported that vertebrate 

(bird and mammal) tissue concentrations of uranium in terrestrial food chains decreased by an order of magnitude at 

each trophic level. More information on soil-to-biota BCFs 

for uranium is available and should be consulted for detail (for 

example, Driver, 1994; see also Calmon and Fesenko, 2009).

Chemical Hazards of Radionuclides

Data on the chemical hazards of other radionuclides in 

the 238U decay series are much more limited. Chemical toxicity 

data is available for thallium to terrestrial and aquatic receptors, but toxicity data for thorium, bismuth, radium, radon, 

polonium, and protactinium are limited. Brief characterizations of each element’s toxicity and capacity for bioconcentration or bioaccumulation under field conditions are presented.

Thallium

Thallium is highly reactive, and concentrations range from 

0.3 to 0.6 mg/kg in the environment. Elemental thallium occurs 

as relatively short-lived radionuclides, such as those encountered in the uranium decay series, and as stable isotopes, 203Tl 

and 205Tl. Stable isotopes of thallium occur as Tl(I) and Tl(III) 

in minerals (potassium and sulfur-containing ores), as thallium 

salts, and as alloys and amalgams with mercury (World Health 

Organization, 1996). Atmospheric releases of thallium from coal 

burning plants and the smelting of zinc, copper, and lead ores 

contribute to wet and (or) dry deposition from these industrial or 

mining sources. Thallium can also be released to surface waters 

through erosional processes during mining operations of other 

economically important minerals. Such releases of thallium 

through atmospheric deposition or erosional processes in undisturbed or disturbed source areas have the potential to contaminate surface waters, sediments, or soils, creating an exposure 

pathway to biological receptors (Peter and Viraraghavan, 2005).

Thallium in the aquatic environment exists in inorganic 

forms and as the stable organic dimethylthallium ((CH3)

2

Tl+). 

Dimethylthallium is produced by oxidative methylation of 

Tl(I) in anaerobic freshwater sediment, but no measurement of 

dimethylthallium in the freshwater column has yet been made 

(Huber and Kirchmann, 1978). The mobility of thallium in 

soil varies as a function of its physiochemical properties (for 

example, oxidation state) and the nature and properties of the 

soils in which it occurs. The concentration of thallium in soil 

interstitial water may enable its uptake by terrestrial plants, and 

the release to groundwater may occur as a function of soil pH 

in soils where thallium is highly mobile. Thallium adsorbs to 

clays, organic matter, and iron oxides (World Health Organization, 1996). Deposited thallium may be resuspended as dust in 

terrestrial habitats or solubilized in aquatic habitats (Peter and 

Viraraghavan, 2005). The bioavailability of Tl(III) in freshwater is less than that of Tl(I) because of the oxidation of Tl(I) 

to Tl(III) by biota, despite Tl(III) being the dominant form 

of dissolved thallium in the water column of the Great Lakes 

(Canada/United States) (Ralph and Twiss, 2002; Twining and 

others, 2003). Potassium is important in determining the aquatic 

toxicity of thallium. Thallium and potassium are interchangeable in mineral crystal lattices and membrane transport because 

of similar atomic radii and ionic mobility (Hassler and others, 

2007). Therefore, potassium has been used to help establish 

water quality guidelines and predicting the fate of thallium in 

the aquatic environment.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 323

Chemical toxicity data for thallium are available (table 8), 

although much of the literature for terrestrial and aquatic biota 

reflects an emphasis on human health implications of environmental exposures (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, 1992). Toxicity data for biota was limited to algae, 

aquatic microorganisms, aquatic vascular plants, aquatic invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and mammals; studies on the chemical toxicity of thallium were not available for cyanobacteria, 

soil microorganisms, terrestrial invertebrates, reptiles, or birds. 

The following sections briefly characterize toxicity data from 

the literature compilation. A wildlife toxicity assessment on the 

potential toxicity, bioconcentration, and bioaccumulation hazards 

associated with thallium exposure most often encountered in the 

environment is available (U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion 

and Preventive Medicine, 2007). In general, thallium bioaccumulates but does not biomagnify in terrestrial and aquatic food 

chains (Zitko and Carson, 1975, Zitko and others, 1975, Sharma 

and others, 1986, and Ewers, 1988, all cited in U.S. Army Center 

for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, 2007). Field 

experiments have measured thallium content of various food 

crops because terrestrial plants can absorb thallium from soil 

(Cataldo and Wildung, 1983, cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1992), but limited uptake data are 

available. Characterization of food-chain transfer of the metal 

is lacking, despite observations that thallium is bioconcentrated 

(Bunzl and others, 2001). Bioconcentration and bioaccumulation 

is incompletely characterized for thallium, primarily because of 

insufficient data. The bioconcentration of thallium appears to be 

greater in aquatic vascular plants and aquatic macroinvertebrates 

than in fishes. For example, BCFs were 27–1,430 for Atlantic 

salmon (Salmo salar) (Zitko and others, 1975) and 34 for bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus) (Barrows and others, 1978). BCF values 

varied widely from 6,000 to 88,000 for duckweed (Kwan and 

Smith, 1988) and 5,500 to 26,000 for the amphipod Hyalella 

azteca (Borgmann and others, 1998).

Algae, Cyanobacteria, and Aquatic Microorganisms

Chemical toxicity data for thallium are limited for algae, 

and no toxicity data were found for cyanobacteria or aquatic 

microorganisms (table 8). Acute toxicity values (as EC50s) 

for algae ranged from 0.13 to 0.43 mg/L, whereas a chronic 

NOEC of 0.02 mg/L was reported for the green alga Chlorella 

vulgaris (De Jong, 1965). Acute toxicity data were also available for the freshwater rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus (EC50 

=18.8 μg/L) and the fungus Geotrichum candidum (IC50 = 

0.38 μg/L) (table 8). Guidance values to protect aquatic life 

have been estimated for thallium (table 6). 

Aquatic Vascular Plants

Chemical toxicity data for thallium were limited to two 

studies for aquatic vascular plants (table 8). Chronic effects 

data (LOEC) were available for duckweed (Lemna minor) 

(Smith and Kwan, 1989). Despite the lack of empirical chemical toxicity data, a guidance threshold to protect aquatic plants 

has been estimated (table 6).

Aquatic Invertebrates

Chemical toxicity data for thallium were available for 

aquatic invertebrates including amphipods, shrimp, snails, 

daphnids, midges, nematodes, and roachflies (table 8). Chronic 

toxicity values (NOECs) have been reported for daphnids by 

Kimball (1978); they are lower than the guidance thresholds 

for daphnids proposed by Suter and Tsao (1996).

Fish

Chemical toxicity data for thallium were available for fish 

(table 8). Acute toxicity (as LC50s) ranged over three orders 

of magnitude for various fish species (table 8), and a chronic 

value (NOECs) has been reported for fathead minnows 

(Kimball, 1978). Guidance thresholds for chronic toxicity of 

thallium have been suggested for fish (table 6).

Terrestrial Vascular Plants

Thallium is not essential for plant growth, but terrestrial vascular plants will take up and translocate thallium to 

aboveground vegetation when soluble species are present in 

the soil. Toxic effects of thallium in terrestrial plants includes 

impaired chlorophyll synthesis, seed germination, reduced 

transpiration due to interference in stomatal processes, growth 

reduction, stunting of roots, and leaf chlorosis (Adriano, 

1986). Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1984) reported toxic 

effects on plants grown in a surface soil having 1.0 mg/kg 

thallium; this served as the basis for a guidance value developed by Efroymson and others (1997a, b) for thallium released 

to soils. Efroymson and others (1997a, b) noted that other 

studies focusing on thallium relied on hydroponic studies.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Chemical toxicity data for thallium were minimal for 

amphibians, and no toxicity data were found for reptiles 

(table 8). An acute toxicity value (as LC50) of 0.11 mg/L was 

reported for the eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne 

carolinensis) (Birge and others, 1977; Birge, 1978). Guidance 

thresholds for chronic toxicity of thallium have not been suggested for amphibians or reptiles (table 6).

Mammals

Toxicity data were available for laboratory animal 

studies related to human health but not wild mammals 

(table 8) (U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and 

Preventive Medicine, 2007). Acute toxicity data (as LD50s) 

were consistently 20–150 mg/kg for thallium in rats, mice, and 

dogs (U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive 

Medicine, 2007). Chronic dose rates (as lowest observed adverse 

effect levels (LOAELs)) for thallium in rats ranged from 0.3 

to 1.51 mg/kg/d (U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and 

Preventive Medicine, 2007). All of these data were exposures 

through drinking water; toxicity data for ingestion (soil or prey 

items) were not available. Guidance thresholds for chronic toxicity of thallium have not been estimated for mammals (table 6).
324 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Thorium

Thorium generally occurs at concentrations three times 

greater than uranium (Zhang and Brady, 2002) as a rare earth 

phosphate (monazite) that is found in igneous rocks and placer 

deposits. Thorium also occurs as a relatively common silicate 

mineral thorite (ThSiO4), which occurs in ore-grade deposits 

in North America (for example, in Idaho; see Mackin and 

Schmidt, 1957; Staatz, 1972) and as a trace constituent in 

phosphates (simple and multiple oxides; Gascoyne, 1992). The 

thorium isotope 232Th has a very long half-life compared to 

other thorium isotopes, is more likely to be a radiation hazard, 

and contributes little to thorium occurrence in the lithosphere 

(Underhill, 1996; Zhang and Brady, 2002).

Releases of thorium to the atmosphere can occur from 

natural and anthropogenic sources, but pathways linking 

sources with biological receptors are lacking. Movement and 

partitioning of thorium in the environment, particularly from 

naturally occurring sources, involve 232Th as particulates in the 

atmosphere that can subsequently reach terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats through wet and dry deposition (Jiang and Kuroda, 

1987, cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, 1990). Wet and dry deposition are the chief removal 

processes for atmospheric thorium, with deposition rates 

dependent on weather conditions and the physicochemical 

properties of particulates (for example, particle size and 

density, and chemical form; see Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry, 1990). Natural hazards such as volcanic eruptions release thorium, resulting in increased concentrations in rain water (Fruchter and others, 1980; Kuroda 

and others, 1987, cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry, 1990). Thorium concentrations in soils vary 

regionally, with windblown dusts as likely natural sources of 

thorium in the atmosphere. From an exposure perspective, 

established background concentrations (Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, 1990) are applicable to 

biological receptors whether releases of thorium are linked to 

natural or anthropogenic (for example, uranium mining and 

ore processing) sources.

Thorium enters surface waters as ThO2 in suspended 

particles or deposited into sediments because of low water 

solubility (Hem, 1992); colloids can dominate the concentrations of thorium in waters (Orlandini and others, 1990). 

Thorium concentrations in solution may be greater in waters 

with soluble complexes of carbonate, humic materials, or 

other ligands (Hem, 1992; LaFlamme and Murray, 1987). 

Dissolved thorium levels in most surface waters will be very 

low, but they will be higher in naturally occurring alkaline 

waters (Hem, 1992). In freshwater environments, thorium is 

relatively unavailable for biological uptake because it adsorbs 

strongly to inorganic sediments (Whicker and Schultz, 1982; 

Cowart and Burnett, 1994). Most environmental transport of 

thorium is through physical processes where thorium adheres 

to particulate matter; direct accumulation in aquatic plants 

is very low (approx. 1×10–3; Pettersson and others, 1993). 

However, bottom-feeding aquatic organisms ingest thorium 

through inadvertent consumption of sediments while foraging 

(Whicker and Schultz, 1982). Although most thorium passes 

through the digestive tract, some is deposited in and strongly 

bound to bone, where it is removed only very slowly. Thorium 

BCFs (57.6–465) were available for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Poston, 1982). Poston (1982) also noted that the 

majority of thorium in fish was associated with the gastrointestinal tract, which may indicate that thorium incorporation into 

biological matrices was limited or predominately an adsorption process in the absence of assimilation. Based on very 

few studies, BCFs decrease as the trophic levels of aquatic 

animals increase (Poston, 1982; Fisher and others, 1987, cited 

in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990). 

Pyle and Clulow (1998) gives a BCF of 286–1,180 on white 

sucker (Catostomus commersoni).

Altered physicochemical characteristics of soils associated with uranium mining processes may be linked to thorium 

releases to surface water and groundwater (for example, 

acid-leaching of uranium tailing piles; see Moffett and Tellier, 

1978, and Platford and Joshi, 1988, both cited in Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990). The mobility of 

thorium in soils is determined by geochemical processes, and 

thorium will generally remain strongly adsorbed onto soil and 

be relatively immobile (Torstenfelt, 1986).

Thorium binds preferentially to donor atoms of oxygen 

and strong bases. The sorption of thorium on iron oxides is 

fast at low pH, which indicates the formation of strong complexes with surface sites (Murphy and others, 1999). Thorium 

also binds with the oxy-hydroxides, like goethite. Conversely, 

the presence of sulfates decreases adsorption by the means of 

competition (Syed, 1999). Thorium(IV) forms strong complexes with humic and fulvic acids (Olofsson and Allard, 

1983). Adsorption with organic matter, clays, and oxides, 

which limits the mobility and bioavailability of thorium, 

increases with pH (Syed, 1999). The various isotopes of thorium do not have the same apparent behavior in soils because 

of their mode of genesis (primary radionuclide or daughter 

product), the differences in chemical solubility of the minerals 

which contain them, and their radioactive half-lives (Leslie 

and others, 1999). The mobility of the thorium isotopes goes 

in the direction 228Th > 230Th > 232Th.

As in aquatic systems, the presence of ions or ligands (for 

example, CO3

–2, humic matter) will increase the formation of 

soluble complexes of thorium and increase its mobility in soil. 

Leaching into groundwater may be increased in soils having 

low sorption capacity and capacity to form soluble complexes 

(for example, hydroxylated forms). Plant-to-soil transfer ratios 

for thorium are consistently less than 0.01 (Garten, 1978; Vandenhove and others, 2009), indicating poor bioconcentration 

in plants from soil. Partitioning of thorium between soil matrix 

(for example, as an adsorbed fraction) and soil interstitial 

water also indicates that thorium BCFs in plants will be very 

low (Vandenhove and others, 2009). Plants grown in highly 

disturbed soils or waste materials (for example, uranium tailings containing elevated levels of thorium) will have increased 

BCFs (Ibrahim and Whicker, 1988).
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 325

Characterization of thorium exposure is relatively 

incomplete for human populations outside of occupational and hazardous waste site settings (Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, 1990), and data for exposure 

of biological receptors are even more limited. The following 

sections summarize the existing data related to the toxicity, 

bioconcentration, and bioaccumulation of thorium. Chemical 

toxicity data for thorium were not found for aquatic vascular plants, soil microorganisms, terrestrial plants, terrestrial 

invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, or birds. However, recent 

publications indicate an increased focus on thorium’s environmental fate relative to its availability to and incorporation into 

biological receptors exposed in the field (for example, Calmon 

and others, 2009).

Algae, Cyanobacteria, and Aquatic Microorganisms

Chemical toxicity data of thorium were limited to one 

study of freshwater algae. De Jong (1965) reported that the 

alga Chlorella vulgaris presented an NOEC for growth of 

0.8 mg/L and an LOEC of 1.2 mg/L for thorium.

Aquatic Invertebrates and Fish

Thorium accumulates in the organs, skin, and gastrointestinal tract of fish, indicating that a significant portion of 

this radionuclide remains adsorbed (Poston, 1982). Chemical toxicity data of thorium in aquatic invertebrates and fish 

were limited. Acute toxicity of thorium to the amphipod 

Hyalella azteca varied as a function of water hardness in 

studies reported by Borgmann and others (2005); LC50s 

were 0.0052 mg/L in soft water (approx. 18 mg CaCO3/L) 

and 3.15 mg/L in hard water (approx. 124 mg CaCO3/L). In 

the catfish Rhamdia quelen, Borgmann and others (2005) 

reported that thorium exposure to 70–210 μg/L could stimulate enzyme activities related to oxidative stress in adults 

and was cytogenotoxic in juveniles. Data from field studies 

reported that releases of thorium from uranium mining and 

milling operations and radium and uranium recovery plants 

to surface waters have contributed to the exposure of benthic 

organisms (Hart and others, 1986, and McKee and others, 

1987, both cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, 1990).

 Mammals

Thorium toxicity data for mammals is available for 

rodents from laboratory toxicity evaluations, but data for wild 

mammals are lacking. Exposure differences among laboratory 

studies using traditional biomedical test species yield pertinent data for human health (Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry, 1990), but may be of limited use in identifying threshold effects levels for wild mammals. Nevertheless, 

these data identify pathways of concern for biota exposed in 

field settings. Thorium exposures to wild mammals may occur 

via inhalation, ingestion of food and water, and dermal/cutaneous uptake. Bone is the target organ for thorium; laboratory 

rodents deposit thorium into bone (70 percent), other organs 

and tissues (16 percent), urine (10 percent), liver (4 percent), 

and intestines (<0.05 percent) (Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry, 1990). Thorium is excreted via renal 

mechanisms in mammalian species used in biomedical testing 

(National Research Council, 1988; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990), and that method would 

presumably apply to wild mammals as well. However, the 

natural history and life history attributes of wild mammals 

exposed in the field are different from laboratory rodents, 

which may affect exposure.

Bismuth

Bismuth is rare in the Earth’s crust and is in the same 

elemental family as phosphorus, arsenic, and antimony. Bismuth is used as a cooling agent and fuel support in high-power 

nuclear plants. Bismuth is present at valences +3 and +5, 

with +3 being the most stable form. The isotopes of bismuth 

have atomic masses from 195 to 215, but only 209Bi is stable. 

In the natural state, bismuth is in the form of bismuthine 

(Bi2S3), whose principal ores are associated with lead, silver, 

and tin (Li and Thornton, 1993). Bismuth is used as indicator of volcanic activity in connection with sulfide emissions 

because the contribution of anthropogenic sources (primarily 

mining extraction) to the total distribution of bismuth remains 

very limited (Ferrari and others, 2000). The use of fungicides 

and certain natural or synthetic manures that contain bismuth 

increase the content of this element in soils; however, the 

increase is negligible compared to the geochemical background of the majority of the cultivated soils (Senesi and 

others, 1979). Data relative to the behavior of bismuth in soils 

and plant transfer are very limited. In soils, bismuth is often 

oxidized and is found in the carbonate form. The element can 

accumulate in horizons rich in organic matter or oxidized iron 

(Kabata-Pendias, 2001), and its mobility can be affected by 

the pH.

Bismuth is one of the least toxic metals and is often 

used for the treatment of stomach ulcers and intestinal affections. Bismuth(III) is particularly used with a therapeutic 

aim as an antacid, astringent, disinfectant, antiprotozoaires, 

and radiocontrastant (Bi(V) mainly). However, it presents 

relatively greater radiation hazards. Bismuth is poorly characterized with respect to its environmental fate and effects 

on aquatic and terrestrial biota, although some data is available for maximum mineral tolerance in diets of domestic 

and laboratory animals (National Research Council, 2005). 

The National Research Council (2005) recommended maximum tolerable levels for bismuth of 500 mg/kg for rodents, 

swine, and horses and 1,000 mg/kg for poultry, based on 

animal health.

Data for the chemical toxicity of bismuth to biota were 

limited. De Jong (1965) reported chronic effects endpoints 

from laboratory exposures of bismuth to alga Chlorella 

vulgaris, which included an LOEC of 7.2 mg/L and a NOEC 

of 3.6 mg/L. Two studies regarding effect levels related to the 
326 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

chemical toxicity of bismuth in aquatic invertebrates were 

identified. For the amphipod Hyalella azteca, the LC50s were 

0.025 mg/L in soft water (approx. 18 mg CaCO3/L) and 2.543 

mg/L in hard water (approx. 124 mg CaCO3/L) (Borgmann 

and others, 2005). Median effective concentrations (EC50s) 

for bismuth ranged from 0.662 to 14.79 mg/L for Tubifex 

tubifex (Khangarot, 1991). Chemical toxicity data for bismuth 

were not found for aquatic vascular plants, soil microorganisms, terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals. The effects of bismuth 

on terrestrial animals is not known, except for humans, for 

whom the toxic effects are not related to exposure time or 

dose (Martin and others, 1980, cited in Pamphlett and others, 

2000). However, the increasing use of shotgun pellets containing bismuth (91 percent) for hunting may be a hazard to biota 

that survive after being shot. Pamphlett and others (2000) 

found significant amounts of bismuth in the cytoplasm within 

nervous system cells, the tubular cells of the kidneys, the 

dendritic cells of the liver, and the macrophages of the lungs 

of exposed mice in a laboratory study. However, the consequences of such a long-term accumulation over the life of the 

animal are not known (Pamphlett and others, 2000). Studies 

reporting bioconcentration and bioaccumulation were also not 

found for aquatic or terrestrial habitats. Additional investigations are necessary to better characterize the ecotoxicity 

of bismuth.

Radium

As a decay product of uranium and thorium, radium 

commonly occurs in all rock, soil, and water at very low 

concentrations. As an alkaline earth metal, radium behaves 

environmentally and physiologically like calcium (Whicker 

and Schultz, 1982; Cowart and Burnett, 1994). Environmental 

migration of radium is facilitated by its ability to form soluble 

sulfates, carbonates, and chlorides. Radium readily deposits in 

bone tissue once taken up by aquatic organisms. Concentrations of radium in the groundwater are typically elevated when 

high concentrations occur in bedrock (Selinus and others, 

2005). All isotopes of radium (224Ra, 226Ra, 228Ra) are radioactive. The most common isotope, 226Ra, is an alpha emitter with 

accompanying gamma radiation; 228Ra is principally a beta 

emitter and 224Ra is an alpha emitter. Radium decays to form 

radioactive radon gas isotopes, which are not chemically reactive. Radiation hazards dominate exposure in field settings, 

and radon chemical hazards are limited.

The ecotoxicology of radium is incompletely characterized, particularly with respect to its chemical toxicity. Data 

are not sufficient to characterize threshold effects levels for 

the chemical toxicity of radium to biota, but radiation hazards 

likely outweigh concerns for chemical toxicity of radium. 

Routes of exposure to terrestrial vertebrates are dominated 

by inhalation, ingestion, and dermal or cutaneous exposures 

(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990). 

Radium from inhalation or ingestion is partitioned into 

fecal material (80 percent) and the gastrointestinal tract (20 

percent), where radium enters the bloodstream and preferentially accumulates in bone tissues (Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, 1990). This fraction of the 

radium dose may be excreted through the feces and urine in 

time, but a portion will remain in the bones as part of the tissue matrix (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990; Casarett and others, 2007).

Chemical toxicity data for radium were not found for 

algae, cyanobacteria, aquatic microorganisms, aquatic vascular 

plants, aquatic invertebrates, soil microorganisms, terrestrial 

plants, terrestrial invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, or mammals. As noted above, nearly all naturally occurring radium is present as 226Ra, which occurs in plants, animals, soil, rocks, surface water, and groundwater. Radium generally occurs at very low concentrations in plants and animals. 

Higher concentrations of radium in plants are associated with 

uranium ores and other geologic materials, with estimates of 

3 percent of that in soil (Rayno, 1983; Tracy and others, 1983; 

Watson and others, 1984). Plant BCFs for radium across all 

plants species and soil types have been summarized by Vandenhove and others (2009). Transfer coefficients summarized 

for feedstuff-to-domestic animals could potentially be used to 

evaluate dietary exposures in wild mammals, particularly for 

herbivores and for preliminary estimates for maternal transfer 

of nuclides based on milk consumption in offspring (Howard 

and others, 2009).

Radon

Radon is a noble gas that has limited data available 

to characterize its ecotoxicity (Cothern and Smith, 1988; 

Vincolli, 1996). Radon naturally occurs as a gas and is highly 

mobile in the earth’s crust (Corbett and others, 1997); its 

presence in the atmosphere results from the transfer of the 

gas from near-surface soils and rocks to the surface. Numerous isotopes occur, but 220Rn and 222Rn are the most common. 

The geochemistry of nuclides in the natural decay series and 

links to release of radon are complex. For example, uranium 

concentrations vary with rock type, which affects the transport and emission of the gas. Highly permeable rocks, such 

as limestone, or rocks that are fractured or faulted provide 

more spaces for radon gas to pass through the material; radon 

may be released at the surface if these rock types occur within 

breccia pipes. Furthermore, radon dissolves in water and may 

be transported through permeable and fractured rocks for 

long distances, where the gas may be released when groundwater reaches the surface. Radon readily enters the gas phase 

because of its low vapor pressure (Cothern, 1988). Therefore, 

radon does not persist in the water and has an aqueous half-life 

of 2 days (Vincolli, 1996). Given this brief summary of the 

environmental fate and transfer of radon, the primary hazards associated with exposures to ecological receptors in the 

field will be radiation toxicity, primarily via inhalation routes 

of exposure.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 327

Polonium

Polonium occurs in the earth’s crust at about one part 

in 1015. All 25 isotopes are radioactive, but only three have 

appreciable half-lives (>140 days: 208Po, 209Po, 210Po). From an 

ecological perspective, polonium occurs naturally at concentrations that preclude chemical toxicity as a primary hazard. 

The isotope 210Po is produced during the decay of 238U, is 

widely distributed in small amounts in the earth’s crust, and 

occurs in uranium ores at less than 0.1 mg 210Po per ton. Radiation hazards cannot be dismissed given the specific activities 

of the three most frequently encountered isotopes.

In terrestrial ecosystems, foliar transfer is the dominant 

pathway for contamination of vegetation by 210Po (Francis and 

others, 1968; Pietrzak-Flis and Skowronska-Smolak, 1995; 

Skwarzec and others, 2001). The relative weakness of root 

transfer of 210Po (because of its strong retention by soils), as well 

as an almost negligible translocation among plant tissues, results 

in 210Po mainly being concentrated in the leaves of plants. For 

animals, specific activities of 210Po vary by four orders of magnitude, depending on the species selected and organs examined. 

For example, 210Po concentrations range from 0.037 Bq/kg 

wet weight for ox muscle (Globel and Muth, 1980, cited in 

Beaugelin-Seiller and others, 2004) to 332 Bq/kg for caribou 

liver (Thomas and Gates, 1999). This broad interval is related to 

the quantity of 210Po ingested by the animal (including incidental 

ingestion of soil particles) and to the lifespan of the animal. In 

addition, 210Po transfer to animals is proportionally weaker at 

sites close to uranium mines than at undisturbed sites because 

the larger particle sizes associated with mining activities reduce 

the 210Po bioavailability for plants and animals (Thomas, 2000).

 In lakes, the specific activities of 210Po are much higher 

in sediments than in water (Haridasan and others, 2001). The 

specific activities measured in aquatic plants are relatively 

high, particularly in phytoplankton (approximately 20 Bq/kg 

wet weight) with concentration factors of approximately 

103 to 104 (Hameed and others, 1997; Shaheed and others, 

1997, cited in Beaugelin-Seiller and others, 2004). In aquatic 

animals, specific activity of 210Po is more important in invertebrates than fish. Polonium concentrates in the soft tissues 

of molluscs. Moreover, the carapaces (chitinous) of shellfish 

accumulate more 210Po than the shells (calcium carbonates) of 

bivalves because of a strong affinity of 210Po to organic matter 

(Cherry and Heyraud, 1981). In fish, soft tissues in contact 

with the digestive system and the gills have an activity of 210Po 

that is greater than the muscles and skin. Fish incorporate 210Po 

from ingestion of food and filtration of water by the gills. The 

concentration factors in molluscs and fish are very high, from 

1 to 1,000 L/kg wet weight.

Protactinium

Protactinium is a radioactive metal that does not readily oxidize when exposed to air. Three isotopes (231Pa, 234Pa, 234mPa) naturally occur, but 231Pa is the most abundant. As a 

decay product of 235U, protactinium is naturally present in soil, 

rocks, surface water, groundwater, plants, and animals in very 

low concentrations. Greater concentrations are present in uranium ores and other geologic materials. Protactinium occurs 

in uranium ores at a concentration of about 1 part protactinium 

to 3 million parts uranium. Protactinium preferentially adsorbs 

to soil, with concentrations in sandy soil particles 550 times 

greater than in interstitial water; concentration ratios are even 

higher (2,000 and above) for loam and clay soils. Protactinium 

is generally not a concern for groundwater. Few data specific 

to protactinium behavior in terrestrial ecosystems are available. The rare data that does exist indicate that protactinium 

has low mobility in soils and low transfers in the food chains 

of terrestrial origin (see Colle and Mourlon, 2003).

These radionuclides present little chemical hazards based 

on their short half-lives but may contribute significantly to 

radiation hazards for ecological receptors exposed in the field. 

For example, Thomas and Liber (2001) showed that external 

beta radiation from 234Pa and alpha radiation from uranium 

contributed most of the dose at the affected sites, whereas 

210Po was most important at the control site in a study on 

benthic invertebrates. Polonium (Po) and protactinium (Pa) 

present the greatest hazards when ingested or inhaled. For 

example, studies have demonstrated that 210Po is accumulated 

to exceptionally high levels in tissues of a variety of marine 

organisms, well above levels of the parent radionuclide 210Pb 

(Carvalho and Fowler, 1994; Stepnowski and Skwarzec, 

2000). The behavior of 210Po differs from that of 210Pb, especially because of the higher affinity of 210Po for organic matter. 

The hazards are mediated by adverse effects linked to internal 

dose of radiation. External radiation dose may be associated 

with gamma rays emitted by 231Po and a number of short-lived 

decay products of 227Ac (actinium).

Radiation Hazards of Radionuclides

Biological receptors may be exposed to radiation from 

undisturbed and disturbed naturally occurring radioactive 

materials. Undisturbed natural radiation sources have not been 

manipulated through human activities such as mineral extraction. Disturbed natural radiation sources have been modified 

through human interventions and include mining, collateral 

events associated with the use of fossil fuels, production and 

use of fertilizers (for example, phosphate fertilizers), and use 

of natural material for construction activities (for example, 

granite countertops). Radiation exposure can also occur 

through the release of technologically enhanced, naturally 

occurring radioactive materials or refined sources associated with nuclear fuel cycles, but natural radiation remains a 

significant contributor to radiation dose in the environment 

(United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

Radiation, 2000). A person in the United States is estimated to 

receive a natural background radiation dose of approximately 

360 mrem per year (3.6 mGy/yr) (United Nations Scientific 

Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2000). Naturally occurring radionuclides, including 238U and its daughter 
328 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

products, contribute 63 percent of the overall total dose 

received; nearly 50 percent of that dose is from inhaled radionuclides such as radon. The remaining 37 percent comes from 

exposure to cosmic radiation and radionuclides internally present within the human body (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2000). The background radiation dose for nonhuman biota will differ because 

life history and feeding strategies can influence exposure.

Ionizing radiation is produced when naturally occurring 

radioactive materials decay—the nuclei of unstable atoms or 

radionuclides release energy in the form of radioactivity to 

increase their nuclear stability. This process is characterized 

by emissions of subatomic particles and high-energy photons 

(gamma rays). Radioactive decay of uranium produces daughter products such as radium, radon, and thorium and releases 

alpha particles, beta particles, or gamma rays. All daughters 

and radiation emissions are naturally occurring in the 238U 

decay process. Emissions of the 238U decay series (alpha and 

beta particles and gamma rays) are the primary focus of this 

overview of radiation effects.

Collisions between ionizing radiation and molecules 

in cells and tissues of exposed organisms can cause adverse 

effects to biological receptors in field and laboratory settings. 

An alpha (α) particle has a relatively short range in air, generally no more than several centimeters (and approximately 

several micrometers in water), and does not penetrate deeply 

into biological structures such as the epidermis or cuticle of 

biota. Beta (β) particles can travel up to one meter in the air 

and can penetrate several centimeters into biological tissues. 

Gamma (γ) rays can travel relatively long distances through 

air, environmental materials, and biological tissues. These 

emission species are highly energetic and have the capacity 

to pass through biota; consequently, they pose a great risk 

to biota.

Gross alpha and beta radiation are measures of all alpha 

and beta activity, respectively, present in a sample regardless of the specific radionuclide source. As an assessment and 

monitoring tool, gross alpha and beta are often used to screen 

samples for relative levels of radioactivity (Underhill, 1996; 

Cooper and others, 2003). Measurements of exposures to natural radiation associated with elemental uranium, which emits 

alpha particles, is more problematic for pathways contributing to internal dose (for example, ingestion and inhalation in 

terrestrial vertebrates) than for those contributing to external 

dose. Adverse effects of internal alpha emission in biota could 

be significant (Blaylock and others, 1993; United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1996; 

Sample and others, 1997). Effects of chemical toxicity and 

radiation toxicity may be jointly expressed in field settings. 

Exposure to ionizing radiation may lead to adverse 

biological effects. Alpha particles released during radionuclide 

decay can cause adverse effects during radiation exposures 

through ingestion or inhalation in animals or uptake and translocation in plants (Sample and others, 1997). Early developmental stages or life stages with rapid growth are generally 

more sensitive to radiation exposure than older, relatively 

mature organisms of the same species. Embryos and fetuses 

are typically more sensitive to ionizing radiation because 

these early life stages are dominated by rapidly dividing cells 

(Huettermann and Koehnlein, 1978; Riley, 1994; Brenner 

and others, 2003). Cells undergoing division though mitosis 

are more susceptible than cells that are not proliferating, and 

damage to the cellular DNA often results in cell death (Wolff, 

1998; Shackelford and others, 1999; Pawlik and Keyomarsi, 

2004). The sensitivity of biota to radiation and chemical 

exposures is also influenced by body size. For example, largebodied species are typically more vulnerable to high levels of 

radiation exposure than small-bodied species because of the 

greater collision potential (for example, larger target) between 

the ionizing radiation and biota (Bytwerk, 2006; Higley and 

Bytwerk, 2007). A species life history may also affect its 

sensitivity to radiation. Alonzo and others (2008) reported that 

fast growing invertebrates were more sensitive to reproductive 

effects than slow growing invertebrates. Life history strategies may not account for all differences in species sensitivity 

to radiation exposure, but they should be considered when 

characterizing pathways that link sources to receptors. Invertebrates (for example, herbivorous insects or filter-feeding 

aquatic invertebrates), vascular plants, unicellular plants and 

animals, bacteria, and viruses are generally more resistant to 

the acute effects of radiation (Whicker and Schultz, 1982). 

However, smaller burrowing mammals will tend to receive 

larger doses through external exposures to contaminated soils 

containing radionuclides because of their close and prolonged 

contact with the soil and their occupation of confined spaces 

such as burrow habitats wherein soil gases such as radon may 

accumulate (Macdonald and Laverock, 1998). Burrowing animals have the highest potential for external exposures because 

they are exposed to a 4-pi geometry (that is, 360 degrees) 

versus a 2-pi geometry (180 degrees) for animals that only 

nest or sleep on the soil surface. Fish and other aquatic organisms are typically less sensitive to radiation exposure than 

terrestrial wildlife (vertebrates). This radioresistance could 

be due to a smaller DNA content per cell as well as to longer 

and more variable cell cycle times as compared to mammals. 

Differences in exposure matrix (atmospheric versus aquatic) 

also influence dose, given the relative differences in radiation 

penetration in these media (Martin, 2006).

Exposures to high levels of ionizing radiation produce 

adverse biological effects, such as increased cell death, 

decreased life expectancy, reduced growth, and altered 

behavior. Much of the literature focused on adverse biological effects is related to external gamma acute exposure and 

associated observed effects (see reviews by Driver, 1994; 

Eisler, 1994) rather than naturally occurring radioactive 

materials such as those of the uranium decay series. Previous studies provide information on the biological effects 

associated with uranium mining operations, altered routes of 

exposure to radiation from decay series elements, and biological effects thresholds (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2005, 2008). Species sensitivity to radiation is highly variable 

(Rose, 1992), and beneficial responses have been observed in 
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 329

biota commonly used in evaluating human health effects and 

radiation safety (for example, see Luckey, 1991, regarding 

hormesis associated with exposures to low levels of radiation). Single-celled organisms and invertebrates tend to be 

more resistant to acute radiation exposures than vertebrates 

(fig. 9) (Eisler, 1994). Extrinsic factors (type of radiation and 

its associated energy, rate and length of exposure, and dose 

rate and absorbed dose) will be influenced by environmental 

factors such as spatial characteristics of exposure, physical 

stressors (for example, temperature and season), and chemicals occurring as part of the exposure matrix (Cooper and 

others, 2003). Biological responses to radiation exposure will 

also be affected by intrinsic factors such as species, age, sex, 

nutritional status, and biological and ecological interactions 

(Alpen, 1997; Van der Stricht and Kirchmann, 2001).

Literature on the environmental effects of radiation characteristic of the uranium decay series for microbial, plant, and 

animal species were reviewed and summarized (for example, 

see International Atomic Energy Agency, 1976, 1988, 1992; 

Woodhead, 1984; National Council on Radiation Protection 

and Measurements, 1991; Driver, 1994; Eisler, 1994; United 

Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1996; Thompson and Bird, 2003; Woodhead and Zinger, 

2003; Andersson and others, 2009). Data available for the 

effects of ionizing radiation is primarily related to nuclear 

energy and weapons production rather than naturally occurring 

radionuclides and mining activities. Nevertheless, radiation 

effects associated with gross alpha, gross beta, or gamma rays 

are highly dose-dependent regardless of source. Radiation 

data, including toxicity and fate data, for species in the segregation areas were not found; therefore, data from other species 

reported in the literature are presented. Factors influencing 

uptake, loss, and toxicity of radionuclides in the uranium 

decay series are considered for aquatic and terrestrial biota. 

The biota’s potential for being an emission source through bioconcentration or bioaccumulation is also considered. Dose and 

dose rates used to characterize radiation toxicity are detailed in 

appendix 2.

A brief summary of the transfer coefficients of these 

radiohazards from water or soil to biota are also presented. 

Physicochemical characteristics of water-column or watersediment interface or sediments alone influence radionuclide 

uptake in fish, aquatic invertebrates, and sediment-dwelling 

invertebrates. For example, radiation uptake by fishes and 

aquatic invertebrates in water-column dominated exposures is 

dependent on the ionic chemical species, which interacts with 

external organs (for example, gills and skin) that provide surfaces for exposure or influences bioaccumulation via dietary 

exposures. In addition, radionuclide accumulation in biota can 

differ within organs (for example, preferential partitioning) 

and by feeding habits.

Biota are potentially exposed to external radiation 

through radionuclides in parent ore material, water, sediment, 

soil, and other biota such as vegetation. Sources of internal 

Figure 9. Comparative radiosensitivity of different organisms represented by the acute lethal dose ranges 

(Woodhead and Zinger, 2003; United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1996, after 

Whicker and Schultz, 1982).

Mammals

Birds

Higher plants

Fish

Amphibians

Reptiles

Crustaceans

Insects

Moss, lichen, and algae

Bacteria

Protozoa

Molluscs

Viruses

Log (ACUTE LETHAL DOSE, IN GRAY)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
330 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

radiation exposure from radionuclides include ingestion via 

food and water and absorption through the epithelium of the 

skin or respiratory tissues. Effects thresholds from empirical 

data and consensus-based guidance values for biota associated with radiation exposures from published literature are 

presented in the following sections by receptor category. The 

majority of the toxicity data was from reviews by Driver 

(1994), Eisler (1994), and Woodhead and Zinger (2003). In 

the most recent review, Woodhead and Zinger (2003) used 

a database (FREDERICA) to identify publications containing effects information sufficient to estimate the dose rate 

for chronic exposures; however, most of these publications 

provided data for acute rather than chronic radiation exposures. Data from Woodhead and Zinger (2003) was expansive 

and complex; therefore, data from FREDERICA are presented 

only in the text to minimize the length and complexity of 

table 9. Woodhead and Zinger (2003) was the primary reference used to draw radiation toxicity data in the following 

sections. Woodhead and Zinger (2003) should be reviewed for 

additional risk assessment for radiological effects. In addition, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects 

of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) is developing a document 

that summarizes the effects of ionizing radiation on nonhuman biota that would be useful to consult for risk assessment purposes (Tom Hinton, French Institute of Radiation 

Protection and Nuclear Safety, personal commun., 2009; see 

also www.unscear.org, accessed December 1, 2009).

Biological Receptors in the Aquatic Food Chain

Algae, Cyanobacteria, and Aquatic Vascular Plants

Empirical data for radiation toxicity to algae, cyanobacteria, 

and aquatic plants were limited (table 9) (Woodhead and Zinger, 

2003). References that describe morphological changes or 

survival of green algae indicate high acute doses ranging from 

100 to 1,000 Gy (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Data on low 

doses and chronic irradiation experiments are limited, although 

low doses (1–5 Gy) resulted in chromosome aberrations for 

green algae. Woodhead and Zinger (2003) observed that acutely 

toxic doses for cyanobacteria and green algae ranged from 1 to 

several thousand Gy, with most threshold effects occurring at 

doses greater than 5 Gy. Woodhead and Zinger (2003) reported 

that aquatic plants were less radiosensitive to radiation exposure 

than higher trophic levels, although this observation was limited 

to five references. Dose rates of 1.3–8.5 μGy/h inhibiting growth 

in a cyanobacteria (Syenechococcus lividus) have been reported 

(Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Guidance values for the protection of algae and aquatic plants have been estimated by various 

organizations (table 6).

Aquatic Invertebrates

Radionuclides accumulate in the gut of filter-feeding 

aquatic and sediment-dwelling invertebrates. Data for radiation effects in aquatic invertebrates are available (table 9) 

(Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Hormetic effects have been 

noted; ionizing radiation increased growth rates at dose 

rates of 760 mGy/d for blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), 

2,400–5,500 mGy/d for water snail (Assiminea infima), 

and 8,200–17,800 mGy/d for daphnids (table 9). Historically, 

data for ionizing radiation effects on crustaceans and molluscs 

focused on acute exposures with low linear energy transfer 

radiation (for example, x-rays and gamma rays; Woodhead 

and Zinger, 2003). Significant effects on invertebrate reproductive capacity have been observed for chronic irradiation 

at dose rates as low as 0.19 mGy/h (Woodhead and Zinger, 

2003). More recently, Alonzo and others (2008) reported that 

exposures to dose rates of 0.11 mGy/h or higher resulted in 

a significant reduction in body mass and egg and neonate 

masses. Gilbin and others (2008) reported lower fecundity 

and decreases in egg mass for cladoceran Daphnia magna at 

4.2 and 31 mGy/h, respectively. Overall, molluscs were less 

radiosensitive than crustaceans with expected chronic dose 

rates greater than 10 mGy/h (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). 

Guidance values for the protection of aquatic invertebrates 

have been estimated by various organizations (table 6).

Fish

The literature for radiation effects on fishes is relatively 

well developed (table 9) (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). More 

data are available for acute radiation exposures than for 

chronic irradiation in bony fish. For both irradiation durations, reproductive capacity was the most frequently studied 

endpoint, and eggs were identified as the most radiosensitive 

life stage, but it was noted that the most recent acute study 

was from 1999 (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). The majority of acute irradiation data are for freshwater species such 

as medaka (Oryzias latipes) and salmonids (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss, O. kisutch, and O. tshawytscsha) (Woodhead and 

Zinger, 2003). Woodhead and Zinger (2003) reported that 

acute doses less than 1 Gy are unlikely to cause morbidity in 

irradiated fish, but acute exposure can affect reproduction by 

altering spermatogenesis, oogenesis, and embryo development. Life stage considerations were also found to be important. Woodhead and Zinger (2003) noted that acute exposures 

of 0.16 Gy in the single-cell stage of development could affect 

mortality, but radiation doses less than 0.5 Gy in later life 

stages would not likely affect reproduction in adults. Chronic 

endpoints commonly included growth data as body weight 

and length and reproductive effects as fertility of the irradiated 

parents, the viability of the resulting embryos, embryo development, and the fertility of offspring irradiated as developing 

embryos (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Woodhead and Zinger 

(2003) reported that chronic dose rates less than 12 mGy/h 

during embryonic development or less than 4 mGy/h during post-hatch life were unlikely to affect survival based on 

irradiation of external sources. Protective guidance values 

derived for fish by various organizations range over several 

orders of magnitude (table 6). Literature reviews to establish 

guidance values of ionizing radiation exposure must be used 

with caution because biological effects differ from one form 

of radiation to another.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 331

Table 9. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to radiation toxicity.—Continued[LD, lethal dose]

Receptor category

and species Radiation Dose or dose/ rate Effect Comment** Reference

Aquatic invertebrates

Daphnid

(Daphnia magna)

Alpha 15 mGy/h Growth Model predicted delayed population growth Alonzo and others, 2008

Earthworm

(Eisenia fetida)

Gamma 43 mGy/h Mortality Model predicted population extinction Alonzo and others, 2008

Blue crab

(Callinectes sapidus)

Ionizing 760 mGy/d Growth Increased growth rate Eisler, 1994

Water snail

(Physa heterostropha)

Ionizing 2400–5500 mGy/d Growth Increased growth rate Eisler, 1994

Daphnid

(Daphnia pulex)

Ionizing 8200–17,800 mGy/d Growth Increased growth rate Eisler, 1994

Fish

Goldfish

(Carassius auratus)

Gamma 23,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994

Pinfish

(Lagodon rhomboides)

Ionizing 197 mGy/d Growth Increased growth rate Eisler, 1994

Soil microorganisms

Bacteria Gamma 5,000,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Virus Gamma 18,000,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994

Terrestrial nonvascular and vascular plants

Bean

(Vicia faba)

Ionizing 58,000–100,000 mGy/yr Morbidity Growth stimulation Eisler, 1994

Herbaceous rockoutcrop community Ionizing 1,000,000 mGy/yr Mortality Lethal; severe sublethal effects at 400,000 mGy/yr Eisler, 1994Crop land, abandoned Ionizing 1,500,000 mGy/yr Mortality Lethal; severe sublethal effects at 450,000 mGy/yr Eisler, 1994

Terrestrial invertebrates

Fruit fly

(Drosophilamelanogaster)

Gamma 1,000,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994

Amphibians and reptiles

Frog Gamma 7,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Leopard lizard

(Crotaphytus wislizenii)

Ionizing 40–60 mGy/d Reproduction No female reproduction in years 3 and 4. Sterility in males and regression of ovaries in females 

in year 5. Year 6, 75% of females lacked ovaries and 25% had normal ovaries with signs of egg deposition; males appeared normal.

Eisler, 1994

Birds

Linnet

(Acantis cannabina)

Ionizing 4000 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Kushniruk, 1964, cited in Driver, 1994

Green-winged teal

(Anas crecca)

Ionizing 4850 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Tester and others, 1968, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Bluebird

(Sialia sialis)

Ionizing 5000–6000 mGy Mortality LD50/30; nestling to fledgling Willard, 1963, cited in Driver, 1994
332 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona Table 9. Biological effects thresholds from empirical data related to radiation toxicity.—Continued [LD, lethal dose] Receptor category and species Radiation Dose or dose/ rate Effect Comment** Reference Birds—Continued Greenfinch

(Chloris chloris)

Ionizing 6000 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Kushniruk, 1964, cited in Driver, 1994

European Goldfinch

(Carduelis carduelis)

Ionizing 6000 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Kushniruk, 1964, cited in Driver, 1994

House sparrow

(Passer domesticus)

Ionizing 6250 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Kushniruk, 1964, cited in Driver, 1994

Mallard

(Anas platyrhynchos)

Ionizing 6300 mGy Mortality LD50/30; 12 months old Curnow and others, 1970, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Serin

(Serinus canarius)

Ionizing 5000 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Kushniruk, 1964, cited in Driver, 1994

Mallard

(Anas platyrhynchos)

Ionizing 7040 mGy Mortality LD50/30; 4 months old Abraham, 1972, cited in Driver, 1994

Blue-winged teal

(Anas discors)

Ionizing 7150 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Tester and others, 1968, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Starling

(Sturnis vulgaris)

Ionizing 8000 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Garg and others, 1964, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Song Sparrow

(Melospiza melodia)

Gamma 8000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994

Shoveler

(Anas clypeata)

Ionizing 8940 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Tester and others, 1968, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Weaver finch

(Quelea quelea)

Ionizing 10,600 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Lofts and Rotblat, 1962, cited in 

Driver, 1994

Bluebird

(Sialia sialis)

Ionizing 25,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30; adult Willard, 1963, cited in Driver, 1994

Various species Ionizing 0.001 mGy/d Morbidity Growth retardation; nestlings Eisler, 1994

Mammals

Sheep Gamma 2,000–3,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Pig Gamma 2,000–3,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Dog Gamma 3,500 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Guinea pig Gamma 4,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Mice Gamma 5,500 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Monkey Gamma 6,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Chicken Gamma 6,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Rat Gamma 7,500 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994Rabbit Gamma 8,000 mGy Mortality LD50/30 Driver, 1994

**Within each receptor category, data are sorted by dose units (mGy, mGy/h, mGy/d, etc). Notes: For some studies, units were converted from rads to mGy for comparability purposes among dose and dose 

rates. References from Eisler (1994) were limited to those data that were not represented by the European numbers. For example, pine forest values from Eisler (1994) were not used. Data on single exposures were not used from Eisler (1994). Exposure length may be useful to include in this table; however, review of original studies found reporting of exposure duration was not well described.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 333

Biological Receptors in 

the Terrestrial Food Chain

Radiation effects data for soil biota, terrestrial plants, 

and terrestrial animals include more acute studies than chronic 

studies and were generally too limited to establish presumptive no-effects levels (table 9) (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). 

Reproductive capacity was the most frequently studied effect 

of acute radiation exposure in all biota; however, data on morbidity, mortality, and mutation were also available. Morbidity, 

or the general health of biota, was the most common effect 

reported for chronic exposures, although survival and effects 

on reproduction were also found. Radiation dose rates rarely 

exceeded 10 mGy/h, and threshold effects levels were generally 0.10 mGy/h. Responses to acute irradiation, particularly 

in terms of the LD50s, differed between taxonomic groups, 

but these differences became less pronounced in studies 

focused on continuous, low-dose rate radiation exposure 

measuring non-mortality endpoints (Woodhead and Zinger, 

2003). Woodhead and Zinger (2003) also noted that increased 

responses were positively related to dose rate, which became 

unequivocal at dose rates greater than 10 mGy/h when conferred over a large fraction of the life span.

Terrestrial Nonvascular and Vascular Plants

Most studies of radiation effects on terrestrial plants were 

limited to field crops and woody species (table 9) (Woodhead 

and Zinger, 2003). Very few data were available from references derived from studies focused on mosses, lichens, and 

fungi, and there are few citations regarding radiation damage to plants resulting from the experimental incorporation 

of radioactive material into soil in field conditions. However, 

studies with enhanced natural radiation background at sites 

were available. Studies reporting the effects of high external radiation dose rate on forests in field conditions are also 

reported (for example, Sazykina, 2005).

The radiosensitivity of plants is commonly characterized by growth inhibition, reduced reproductive capacity, 

and reduced survival. The radiation exposure a plant receives 

is influenced by its morphology (for example, size, shape, 

density), age, and natural history attributes at the time of 

exposure (for example, differentiation of flowers). Seasonality 

also affects radiosensitivity, most often as a function of morphological or physiological changes (Woodhead and Zinger, 

2003). Polyploid species, in which reproduction is achieved by 

vegetative growth, are generally more radioresistant and are 

typical of extreme environments such as the desert southwest 

of the United States. Abiotic (for example, light, temperature) 

and biotic (for example, interactions with neighboring plants) 

factors influence responses to ionizing radiation exposure 

(Sazykina, 2005).

Acute radiation effects data, primarily related to reduced 

growth, morphological changes, alteration in productivity, 

and abnormal shape and appearance, were available for 

seeds, seedlings, buds, meristamic tissues, and trees (table 9) 

(Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Woodhead and Zinger (2003) 

noted that acute irradiation effects of coniferous trees in the 

spring varied (0.7–1.0 Gy), and the timing of irradiation of 

vegetative plants was critical. For example, survival endpoints 

(reported as LD50s) for pine trees ranged between 6 and 

30 Gy after 2 years of exposure. Among agricultural crops, 

cereals such as wheat, barley, and oats were radiosensitive 

(LD50s of 16–22 Gy) (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Effects 

of chronic irradiation were generally related to morbidity, 

reproductive capacity, and mutation, but few were completed 

using low LET radiation (linear energy transfer; Woodhead 

and Zinger, 2003). Woodhead and Zinger (2003) noted threshold dose rates for morbidity (>0.10 mGy/h), reproduction 

(0.05 mGy/hr), and mutation (0.04 mGy/h) in terrestrial plants 

from a radiation database (table 9). Guidance values and estimated thresholds for the protection of terrestrial plants have 

been derived by various organizations (table 6).

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Soil fauna consist of a large variety of species ranging 

from protozoa to earthworms and arthropods. Chronic and 

acute radiation effects data, primarily related to mortality, are 

available but limited for these receptors (table 9) (Woodhead 

and Zinger, 2003). For example, effects data for low acute 

doses (less than 5 Gy) were rarely reported, and chronic 

exposure data relied predominantly on survival. Similar to 

fish, the acute sensitivity of soil fauna to radiation exposure 

is dependent on the developmental stage of organism considered. Woodhead and Zinger (2003) reported that a greater dose 

caused mortality (100–1,000 Gy) compared to morbidity and 

reproduction effects (5–20 Gy). Relatively sedentary animals, 

such as earthworms, are vulnerable to internal exposure by 

alpha radiation by directly foraging in the soil and can experience decreases in population sizes after chronic exposure 

(Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Acute effects data less than 

5 Gy were not reported for soil fauna including earthworms, 

springtails, and terrestrial isopods. Susceptibility to acute 

radiation exposure varies greatly between and within soil 

invertebrate groups (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003).

Data for chronic effects or radiation on soil fauna 

was limited. Woodhead and Zinger (2003) reported that 

soils with elevated natural background levels of radiation 

(0.001–0.002 mGy/h) contained fewer earthworms (Eisenia 

nordenskioldi, Dendrobaena octaedra, and Octolasium 

lacteum) and insect larvae (Dipterea, Elateridae) compared 

with reference areas; earthworms were particularly sensitive, possibly because of their close contact with soil. In a 

more recent study, Hertel-Aas and others (2007) reported that 

chronic gamma external radiation dose rates of 11 mGy/h 

reduced cocoon hatchability of the earthworm Eisenia fetida

and concluded that dose rates of 43 mGy/h could collapse a 

population. Overall, Woodhead and Zinger (2003) observed 

there were too few data to draw conclusions on dose-effect 

relationships for terrestrial invertebrates in acute or chronic 

exposures. However, other studies have estimated a variety of 

dose rates as guidance values or thresholds for the protection 

of terrestrial invertebrates (table 6).
334 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Amphibians and Reptiles

Amphibians and reptiles represent a significant portion 

of the vertebrate species in the segregation areas that may be 

exposed to fugitive radiation, but relatively few studies exist 

on their radiosensitivity (table 9) (Woodhead and Zinger, 

2003). Amphibians are dependent on water for their reproduction and early life stages and shift from an herbivorous to 

carnivorous diet and to nocturnal activities as adults. Natural 

history is widely variable for each of the classes, and life span 

is species dependent. Too few data are available to estimate 

effects of chronic irradiation. Woodhead and Zinger (2003) 

noted that acute data are predominately focused on LD50s, 

which range between 2 and 22 Gy for a number of species 

of reptiles and amphibians, and that juvenile stages are more 

sensitive to radiation than other life stages.

The most common species with radiation data were 

the rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa), eastern newt 

(Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander 

(Desmognathus fuscus), dwarf waterdog (Necturus punctatus), 

spotted grass frog (Limnodynastes tasmaniensis), northern 

leopard frog (Rana pipiens), squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella), 

and toads (Bufo spp.). Estimated guidance values for the protection of amphibians and reptiles are also limited (table 6).

Birds

 Acute and chronic irradiation data for birds are limited 

and dated (table 9) (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Woodhead 

and Zinger (2003) observed that data were not sufficient to 

draw conclusions on dose-effects relationships. However, 

lethal doses of radiation, regardless of their form, induce a 

wide range of pathologies because of disruptions in hemostasis 

and chromosome damage or breakage. For example, LD50/30s 

(radionuclide dose required to kill 50 percent of the animals 

in 30 days) for wild bird species exposed to ionizing radiation 

range from 4,000 to 25,000 mGy (Driver, 1994). Driver (1994) 

also characterized additional observational studies focused on 

birds, most in association with nuclear fuel production facilities or waste management operations.

For internal exposures to radiation, particularly alpha particles, vertebrates typically display hemorrhage in respiratory 

and gastrointestinal tracts in response to inhalation or ingestion of radioactive source materials. Birds may be at greater 

risk to radiation exposure than other wild vertebrates because 

of their natural history related to foraging and ingestion of 

grit, which effectively increases radiation dose (Bellamy and 

others, 1949, cited in Driver, 1994). Radiation dose will vary 

depending on food source, behavior, and habitat; therefore, 

these abiotic and biotic factors influence the accumulation of 

radionuclides in tissues. Despite the lack of empirical data, 

guidance values for the protection of birds have been estimated by various organizations (table 6).

Mammals

Biological effects of ionizing radiation in mammals have 

been extensively studied (table 9) (Woodhead and Zinger, 

2003); however, nearly all the data detailing effects of acute 

or chronic irradiation in mammals are related to human 

health. These data provide a starting point for characterizing 

threshold-effects levels in wild mammals, but interspecies differences and field settings will affect radiation effects. Many 

studies focus on effects of acute exposure to high doses of low 

LET ionizing radiation administered to rodents (Woodhead 

and Zinger, 2003).

Data for acute radiation exposures typically measure 

survival, hematological measures (for example, cell counts, 

hemoglobin, piruvic acid content), and body and organ 

weights (for example, kidney, gonads, liver) in a variety of 

species and different life stages (for example, embryos, young, 

and adult) (Woodhead and Zinger, 2003). Exposure data on the 

effects of alpha emitters via inhalation or ingestion are limited 

compared to beta and gamma emitters; therefore, little data 

are available related to mortality, morbidity, or reproductive 

capacity for naturally occurring radioactive materials of the 

uranium decay series. However, the United Nations Scientific 

Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1993) provided a comprehensive review of effects of chronic exposure 

to low LET radiations on the mutation rate in the mouse. In 

addition, guidance values for the protection of mammals have 

been proposed by various organizations (table 6).

Radiation data for wildlife receptors other than mammals 

are relatively limited as suggested by the previous sections. 

The reliance on traditional laboratory animal data for extrapolation to terrestrial wildlife may encourage the continued 

comparative analysis of radiation dose for biota considered 

in ecological risk assessments. The inability to characterize 

the interspecies variability as a function of natural histories 

of wild mammals relative to laboratory mammals, principally 

rodents, is problematic. Biota concentration guides (BCGs) for 

radiation exposures to ecological receptors have been developed to help address these uncertainties (for example, Higley 

and others, 2003). Higley and others (2003) based BCGs on 

habitats rather than species, which are intended as conservative estimates of values protective of biota living in such habitats. For example, levels of radiation exposure associated with 

adverse effects to aquatic biota have been calculated as a doserate limit of 0.4 mGy/h. At a dose rate of less than 0.4 mGy/h, 

populations of the most sensitive aquatic organisms should 

be protected (National Council on Radiation Protection and 

Measurements, 1991). The National Council on Radiation 

Protection and Measurements (1991) developed their guidance 

values following a review of published literature on the effects 

of radiation on aquatic biota. Their findings indicated that the 

developing eggs and young of some fish are the most radiosensitive aquatic organisms. Similarly, the U.S. Department 

of Energy (2002) recommends that if the results of radiological models or dosimetric measurements exceed a radiation 
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 335

dose rate of 0.1 mGy/h, then a more detailed evaluation of 

the effects of radiation exposure should be conducted. More 

recent studies should also be considered in future risk evaluations. For example, data related to external gamma irradiation 

effects (chronic and acute) are available, and the knowledge of 

relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values could be used to 

weight the biological effectiveness for other types of radiation 

(Chambers and others, 2006).

Radionuclide and Radiation Transfers 

in Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems

Radionuclide trophic transfer has been discussed in 

previous sections of this document. In that section, bioconcentration and bioaccumulation processes of metals, including radionuclides, in ecotoxicological studies were evaluated. 

Bioconcentration or bioaccumulation factors and transfer 

coefficients have been characterized for a variety of environmental chemicals, yet empirical data detailing the movement 

and fate of radionuclides are relatively sparse. Driver (1994) 

had noted that there appeared to be discrimination against the 

movement of radionuclides of high atomic number from lower 

to higher trophic levels. Biotic factors influence the extent that 

a chemical is bioconcentrated. For example, aquatic invertebrates lose up to half of their body burden of adsorbed and 

absorbed radionuclides at each molt; hence, total accumulation 

over their entire life cycle is reduced (Wilhm, 1970). Additionally, life histories of animals dictate exposure pathways 

and scenarios (for example, exposures to burrow-dwelling 

vertebrates may be dominated by resuspended dusts or gases 

in their subterranean habitats). Moreover, abiotic factors, such 

as geochemical composition and specific activity, are also 

critical for anticipating which pathways may dominate exposure. For example, inhalation routes and dermal exposures will 

be increasingly critical in determining radiation dose when a 

physicochemical form suggests that atmospheric exposures 

(for example, dust) may dominate pathways linking radionuclides with biota. In addition, weathering will affect fate and 

transport of radionuclides, primarily by altering the matrix 

with respect to particle size distribution, crystallographic 

structures, porosity, and oxidation states.

These environmental factors strongly affect long-term 

processes that influence ecosystem transfers of radionuclides. 

The physicochemical form of nuclides in naturally occurring 

radioactive materials will influence biological uptake, accumulation, radiation doses, and biological effects differently 

in biota exposed to source materials. Sediments and soils 

act as sinks for radionuclides, particularly when these naturally occurring radioactive materials are present as particles 

and colloids. Radionuclide speciation is critical to biological uptake, regardless of whether that process results from a 

relatively simple pathway linking the abiotic environment to 

biota through direct uptake mediated by membranes in direct 

contact with the exposure medium (bioconcentration) or from 

a more complex pathway linking biota not only to the abiotic 

environment but also to biological sources such as dietary 

inputs that are manifested as bioaccumulation of radionuclides. As such, radionuclides may occur in various physicochemical forms, such as low molecular mass species (LMM), 

colloids, pseudocolloids, or particles (Salbu and others, 2004). 

In addition, each of these physicochemical forms will vary 

with respect to their mobility and fate in areas potentially open 

to disturbance linked to mining activities. For example, LMM 

species and colloids are relatively mobile, whereas smaller 

physicochemical species, such as particles, may be more likely 

to be entrapped in the soil or sediment matrix (Zhang and 

Brady, 2002). Within the context of physicochemical forms of 

radionuclides, LMM-species can cross biological membranes 

directly or indirectly following physicochemical interactions 

with low molecular weight ligands, whereas radionuclides 

interacting with high molecular weight ligands will display 

decreased uptake across membrane surfaces. Hence, high 

molecular weight forms are less bioavailable, and LMM species are more mobile (lower apparent dissociation constant 

[Kd]) and bioavailable (for example, higher apparent BAF) 

than colloids and particles.

Naturally occurring radioactive materials such as those 

characteristic of decay chains of 238U, 235U, and 232Th produce a 

group of radionuclides with a wide range of half-lives. Most of 

these radionuclides are predominately alpha emitters, so internal exposures contribute significantly to the radiation dose. 

However, considering that uranium and thorium are always 

present in soils, particularly in areas identified as potentially 

of interest for mining, gamma radiation may become more 

prominent when characterizing external exposures and their 

associated absorbed doses in biota occupying habitats in these 

areas. Thus, exposure to the radioactivity hazards associated 

with the radionuclides uranium and thorium will be evaluated 

differently than the chemical hazards associated with these 

same chemicals. The hazards associated with external doses of 

ionizing radiation that can affect biota without actually being 

taken up require a different exposure paradigm for these types 

of radionuclides.

Data Gaps, Uncertainties, 

and Summary

Our overview of biological pathways and ecotoxicity values for radionuclides in the uranium decay series anticipates 

future studies focused on evaluations of risk or effects potentially associated with possible mining in northern Arizona. 

Given that anticipation, we (1) briefly identify data gaps and 

uncertainties we encountered that will likely be addressed in 

those future efforts, and (2) summarize our technical findings 

focused on pathways critical to linking sources with receptors 

that co-occur in the segregation areas.
336 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Data Gaps and Uncertainties

The current distribution of uranium to the habitat surrounding segregation areas is not well defined. Other chapters 

of this assessment measured uranium in soil, sediment, and 

water, but biological samples were not collected. Therefore, 

site-specific uranium concentrations in biota inhabiting the 

segregation areas are not available, nor are they readily available from other sources. This type of information would provide baseline concentrations for various biological receptors 

that may be exposed to uranium and other inorganic chemicals 

associated with uranium mining activities. Information on 

wind dispersal (dust) of uranium also needs to be characterized for the mining areas. The use of dispersion models (for 

example, dust and particulates) would be useful to identify 

vulnerable habitats within the segregation areas. The physiochemical properties of water, soil, and sediment collected 

from the segregation areas will help to further characterize the 

potential exposure to biota. In addition, other elements present in breccia pipes, including silver, arsenic, cobalt, copper, 

molybdenum, nickel, lead, selenium, and zinc, may also pose a 

risk to biota utilizing the area (Weinrich, 1985), but they were 

not considered in this document. Selenium is of particular 

concern because elevated concentrations have been reported 

in biota in the Colorado River Basin (Radtke and others, 1988; 

Hinck and others, 2008), and adverse biological effects are 

well documented in aquatic and terrestrial organisms (see 

reviews by Jarvenin and Ankley, 1999; Ohlendorf, 2003).

Little biological information was found regarding habitat 

utilization in and near the segregation areas. Therefore, it is 

unclear where Federal and State species of concern inhabit the 

segregation areas and where habitat may be lost, degraded, or 

fragmented if mining operations are allowed. The physical habitat 

could be altered by the mine itself (for example, old, abandoned, 

and new tunnels if conventional mining is reinitiated), accessory 

buildings, waste rock disposal areas, roads, and traffic. Mining 

activities and roads may also influence infiltration rates, overland 

flow, and sediment movement important to the aquatic habitat. 

Site assessments of habitat utilization would help to better define 

exposure pathways. For example, some plant species of concern, such as the Grand Canyon rose (Rosa stellata), have been 

documented as growing in breccia pipes (Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, 2005). Such assessments would need to examine 

aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and include microbes, plants, 

and animals. Assessments would also need to address if active 

and remediated mining sites could become attractive nuisances 

to species of concern (for example, bats utilizing refilled breccia pipes, talussnail [Sonorella spp.] using waste rock). Ingestion (water, diet, and incidental), inhalation, and dermal uptake 

rates of species of concern would further add to the exposure 

characterization.

The literature compilation was comprehensive, but it is 

unlikely that every pertinent reference on uranium decay series 

toxicity was obtained. However, extensive efforts were made 

to obtain data related to uranium mining operations in the 

region; uranium data related to depleted uranium from nuclear 

energy was included because information specific to uranium 

mining operations was sparse for some biological receptors. In 

addition, although literature compiled for this report was taken 

from peer-reviewed publications and Government-reviewed 

technical reports, our intent was to simply compile and report 

data and make them available to future studies focused on 

risks and effects. In future work, data inclusion and exclusion 

criteria would have to be developed, and the studies would 

necessarily undergo rigorous data quality analysis or validation required before using these effects data to establish benchmarks or guidance values. The empirical effects data compiled 

in tables 7–9 represent NOECs, LOECs, LC50s, and EC50s 

for a variety of endpoints (for example, survival, growth, 

reproduction), and they may contribute to the development of 

benchmarks or guidance values, but they were not intended 

to be applied to that end in our evaluation. Various resources 

on deriving or estimating guidance values (see Crane and 

Newman, 2000; Scholze and others, 2001; European Commission, 2003; Lepper, 2005; Canadian Council of Ministers 

of the Environment, 2007) should be consulted if site-specific 

benchmark or guidance values are to be developed. Moreover, 

existing guidance values to protect nonhuman biota (table 6) 

should not be applied to a risk assessment in the segregation 

areas unless the bases of these benchmarks are fully understood and are found to be appropriate to the site.

Uranium likely does not biomagnify in the aquatic or 

terrestrial food chain, and the toxicity, bioconcentration, and 

bioaccumulation of uranium are better characterized in aquatic 

systems than terrestrial systems. However, the absence of data 

should not be considered an indication that uranium is not 

a concern in seasonally variable terrestrial ecosystems such 

as those of the arid southwest United States. Precipitation in 

Arizona varies spatially, which affects exposure pathways 

that link aquatic biota to source materials potentially released 

from mining. The average annual precipitation is less than 

250 mm (10 in) in much of the segregation areas, although 

wetter regions occurring at higher elevations (for example, the 

Kaibab Plateau) can have an annual precipitation of 635 mm 

(25 in) or more. Throughout the region, precipitation typically 

occurs during two rainy seasons: short, isolated, and intense 

summer rains and longer, widespread, and less intense winter 

rains (Peterson, 1994). Aquatic biota may be affected by 

releases of uranium or co-occurring constituents of mined ores 

in arid habitats like northern Arizona during rain events. However, little information is available regarding fate and environmental transport of these materials and their potential effects 

in desert flora and fauna in arid areas. Furthermore, these 

seasonal patterns in aquatic habitats (for example, ephemeral 

streams) and concern over climate change suggest that reduced 

water resources in the segregation areas are not cause to 

dismiss risk to aquatic species, as indicated by the occurrence 

of species of concern such as the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma 

haydeni kanabensia) in the area. As future risk or effect evaluations may detail, precipitation events will likely influence risk 

characterizations for aquatic species, particularly those species 

reliant on ephemeral aquatic habitats unique to arid landscapes 

such as that of the southwest United States. For example, the 

flash flooding typical to the area can cause increased runoff 
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 337

and erosion that can erode weathered soils from waste rock 

or dry gullies and expose unweathered materials. Biota drinking from seasonal streams and ponds after flood events may 

experience increased exposure to radionuclides because of 

ingestion after flood events; such water may include runoff 

from contaminated soils that are relied upon heavily by wildlife when water becomes available after precipitation events. 

Wind dispersion is also a concern and should be considered 

when evaluating risks to biota.

Chemical and radiation effects thresholds for radionuclides were consistently limited to only a few species for 

most biological receptors, and limited data were available 

for wildlife species. Those species tested were few in number, generally traditional aquatic toxicity test species, and 

relatively undeveloped with respect to developing benchmark 

toxicity values. Minimal chemical toxicity data was available 

for microbes, aquatic vascular plants, terrestrial invertebrates, 

and amphibians, and no data were found for reptiles, birds, 

or mammalian wildlife. Toxicity data was most abundant, 

but still limited, for aquatic invertebrates, fish, and laboratory test mammals. The availability of only certain kinds of 

data creates extensive gaps in data on the effects of uranium 

exposure on the food web indicative of the segregation areas. 

We relied predominately on measures that captured effects 

based on gross alpha and gross beta exposures, in part because 

biota in field settings are exposed to a mixture of radiation 

sources. Nonetheless, data gaps were evident. No chemical or 

radiation toxicity data were available for species of snakes, 

lizards, birds, or mammals that are dependent on subterranean 

habitats such as burrows or caves. Furthermore, studies that 

focus on effects related to depleted uranium exposure may 

exclude important subterranean habitats like those found in the 

segregation areas because dispersed depleted uranium remains 

near the surface of the soil (Ribera and others, 1996). It is 

also unknown if these burrow-dwelling species are subject to 

increased exposures. We can say little, if anything, regarding 

the sensitivity of wildlife receptors to chemical and radiation 

exposure encountered in the field. For example, biota in burrow habitats may approach continuous exposure, as compared 

to surface-dwelling biota whose exposure to radionuclideladen dust would vary relative to daily and seasonal patterns in wind direction and magnitude. In addition, State and 

Federal species of concern were found in most compartments 

of the generalized food web. Given the lack of toxicity data 

available for most biological receptors and the abundance of 

species of concern in the food web, the risk of uranium and its 

decay products to biological receptors using the segregation 

areas should not be underestimated. Future analysis of risks 

or effects would need to fully establish the comparative basis 

for evaluating exposure in the field. Specifically, given the 

geographic setting captured in this pathway analysis, future 

work must address the data gaps for characterizing “reference” 

versus “mined” lands in addition to ecotoxicity data; baseline 

conditions, such as uranium concentrations in materials collected from terrestrial habitats like soils and vegetation, would 

need to be determined. Similarly, a more completely characterized radiation survey would need to be completed.

Data related to the chemical toxicity of radionuclides, 

stable end-state constituents associated with uranium decay 

series, and other inorganic constituents of mined ores vary 

from absent to sufficient, but empirical data characterizing 

the radiation toxicity are consistently lacking. Radiation data 

were available for a limited number of species within each 

receptor category in our summary, and few data were found 

for desert flora and fauna. Radiation exposure is of specific 

concern for biota that spend prolonged periods of time (for 

example, hibernation, avoiding heat of the day) in the subterranean environment. Most radiation data available are for 

laboratory test species and are intended to address radiation 

safety concerns for humans; they may not include important 

exposure pathways like incidental ingestion of radionuclides 

through burrowing, preening, or caching food of wild mammals. More infrequently, wildlife have been considered in 

regulatory contexts related to nuclear energy development and 

waste management rather than uranium mining and processing. Few studies have attempted to quantify the risk to biota 

directly caused by the chemical or radiation released by means 

other than those linked to uranium mill tailings. Research into 

the biological effects is strongly biased towards human health, 

yet attention focused on the biological effects of the uranium 

production of nuclear energy development has increased. For 

example, plants and fish residing near mill tailings can take up 

radionuclides and introduce a health risks to individuals, communities, and ecosystems in the food chain, including humans 

(International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004).

A compilation of the existing literature has indicated that 

acute exposures to mill tailings often result in sublethal effects 

to the biota; however, effects resulting from chronic exposures 

are greatly unknown. The long term risks of chronic exposure 

are not understood, particularly in terms of potential genetic 

effects on species populations, density, ecosystem dynamics, 

and biodiversity. Additionally, the possible synergistic effects 

of radiation dose and chemical exposure on other metals, 

semi-metals, and other toxic compounds common at uranium 

mining and processing facilities also need to be considered.

Given the data gaps we encountered, monitoring and 

surveillance of radionuclide exposure to biological resources 

would be appropriate if the segregation areas are opened to 

mining activities. Research needs will vary among uranium 

ore deposits throughout the United States. For example, 

ecological studies or monitoring activities associated with uranium mining activities will likely identify and define stressor 

exposures to biological resources in areas of concern that are 

unlike those identified in this evaluation. As indicated by this 

report, initial evaluations of system vulnerabilities should 

focus on resources captured in the preliminary conceptual 

model. In part, the identification of activities associated with 

the development of energy resources (such as those linked to 

uranium mining—infrastructure, related surface and subsurface disturbance) would allow connections to be made that 

shape the pathways between mineral sources such as uranium 

deposits in breccia pipes and biological resources that risk 

hazardous exposure to those minerals.
338 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Summary

This chapter focused on sources of and exposure to naturally occurring uranium and other radionuclides associated 

with uranium mining in northern Arizona, particularly in those 

segregation areas adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park. 

Federal and State species of concern for the area were identified in order to develop exposure pathways between biological 

receptors and uranium mining activities. Relevant scientific 

literature on toxicity threshold effects levels for uranium and 

associated radionuclides was then compiled for aquatic and 

terrestrial biota.

Our literature compilation included various biological 

receptor categories, including microbes, plants, invertebrates, 

fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, that are 

integral parts of the food web in the segregation areas. Species of concern from all of these categories except microbes, 

identified by State and Federal agencies primarily based on 

their small home range and limited population size, inhabit the 

segregation areas. Certain biological receptors are potentially 

more susceptible to uranium exposure; herbivores, aquatic 

species, and burrowing animals are of particular concern given 

the likely exposure pathways and available toxicity data. For 

example, certain species of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and 

mammals in the segregation areas spend significant amounts 

of time in burrows or mine tunnels where they can inhale or 

ingest uranium and other radionuclides through digging, eating, preening, and hibernating. Toxicity data for the sensitivity 

of burrowing animals to radionuclides is not available in the 

existing scientific literature. Herbivores may also be exposed 

to radionuclides though the ingestion of radionuclides that 

have been aerially deposited on vegetation. Other receptors 

such as carnivorous birds and mammals that do not utilize 

subterranean habitats may be less sensitive to exposure in the 

segregation areas because uranium does not bioaccumulate or 

biomagnify in food chains. Microbes and other lower organisms may also be less sensitive to the chemical and radiation 

hazards of uranium and associated radionuclides, but certain 

invertebrates including the Kanab ambersnail need additional 

consideration given their endangered status.

Results of this literature compilation highlight that 

toxicity data for many radionuclides and biological receptors are lacking. Other authors have developed chemical and 

radiation toxicity guidance values for uranium decay products 

(for example, Suter and Tsao, 1996; Woodhead and Zinger, 

2003; Sheppard and others, 2005; U.S. Department of Energy, 

2005; United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of 

Atomic Radiation, 2008). However, directly applying these 

values to biota in the segregation areas may be inappropriate. 

The presumptive values are not limited to naturally occurring 

uranium at mining areas, which may have chronic exposures 

at low concentrations. In addition, some guidance values are 

based on little or no empirical data but rather are driven by 

mathematical models, the biological relevance of which cannot be determined. Empirical data for the toxicity of uranium 

and associated radionuclides is limited for the species of 

concern, specifically reptiles, birds, and mammalian wildlife, 

that represent essential components of the food web in the 

segregation areas and have unique habitats and life history 

strategies. Nevertheless, these existing guidance values were 

included in this chapter (tables 6–8) to highlight that guidance 

values for radionuclides have been recommended by various 

committees. Such recommendations could be useful in the 

environmental impact statement to be developed, as long as 

the derivations of the guidance values are clearly understood. 

Future evaluations of risks or effects may consider developing site-specific benchmarks related to uranium mining in the 

segregation areas.

Other inorganic constituents (for example, selenium) 

that are characteristic of uranium ores typical of breccia pipes 

were not considered in this evaluation of pathways. Whereas 

these constituents may not present radiation hazards in field 

exposures, some of these elements are potentially as toxic, if 

not more toxic, than uranium. Available toxicity data for these 

inorganic chemicals vary, but toxicity thresholds are available for some. The pathways linking sources with receptors 

are likely identical regardless of the chemical and radiation 

hazards associated with breccia pipes. Future studies focused 

on risks of uranium mining need to develop empirical data to 

characterize the ore materials included in the exposure mixtures that are potentially released consequent to mining operations. Radiation toxicity data are highly limited for biological 

receptors likely to be exposed in the field, and little empirical 

data are available to develop support needed for radiation 

measurements in biota in natural settings. In our present evaluation, effect thresholds for chemicals of concern and radiation 

hazards were not available for biological receptors essential to 

the food web in the segregation areas, including the soil crust 

community, vascular plants, terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Acknowledgments

We thank Julia Towns-Campbell (USGS) for conducting 

the literature queries and creating the bibliographic database. Kristin Brown (USGS) created the species distribution 

maps using data provided by Mary Richardson (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service). Martha Hahn and R.V. Ward (National 

Park Service), Carrie Marr (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 

Elroy Masters (BLM), Sabra Schwartz (Arizona Game and 

Fish Department), and Angela Gatto, Karlynn Huling, and 

Jeff Waters (U.S. Forest Service) provided information on 

species of concern and available radionuclide data in biota 

from their respective agencies. We would like to also thank 

Karine Beaugelin-Seiller (French Institute of Radiation 

Protection and Nuclear Safety, IRSN), Nelson Beyer (USGS), 

Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace (IRSN), Rodolphe Gilbin (IRSN), 

Tom Hinton (IRSN), and David Mount (USEPA) for reviewing early versions of this chapter.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 339

References Cited

Adriano, D.C., 1986, Trace elements in the terrestrial environment: New York, Springer-Verlag, 533 p.

Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection, 2002, 

Protection of non-human biota from ionizing radiation: 

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission INFO-7030, 77 p.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990, 

Toxicological profile for thorium: U.S. Public Health 

Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 186 p.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1992, 

Toxicological profile for thallium: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, 99 p.

Alloway, B.J, ed., 1990, Heavy metals in soil: New York, 

Blackie/John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 339 p.

Alpen, E.L., 1997, Radiation biophysics (2d ed.): New York, 

Academic Press, 484 p.

Alonzo, F., Hertel-Aas, T., Gilek, M., Gilbin, R., Oughton, 

D.H., and Garnier-Laplace, J., 2008, Modelling the propagation of effects of chronic exposure to ionising radiation 

from individuals to populations: Journal of Environmental 

Radioactivity, v. 99, no. 9, p. 1464–1473.

Alves, L.C., Borgmann, U., and Dixon, D.G., 2008, Watersediment interactions for Hyalella azteca exposed to 

uranium-spiked sediment: Aquatic Toxicology, v. 87, no. 3, 

p. 187–199.

Andersson, P., Garnier-Laplace, J., Beresford, N.A., 

Copplestone, D., Howard, B.J., Howe, P., Oughton, D., 

and Whitehouse, P., 2009, Protection of the environment 

from ionising radiation in a regulatory context (protect)—

Proposed numerical benchmark values: Journal of 

Environmental Radioactivity, v. 100, no. 12, p. 1100–1108.

Andrews, B.J., Kirke, K.A., and Baker, D.L., 1995, Radionuclides and trace elements in fish and wildlife of the Puerco 

and Little Colorado Rivers, Arizona: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 20 p.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2003, Arizona 

Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 11. Department of 

Environmental Quality—Water Quality Standards: Phoenix, 

Ariz., Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 85 p.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2007, Arizona 

Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 7. Department of 

Environmental Quality—Remedial Action: Phoenix, Ariz., 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 40 p.

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2005, Grand Canyon 

rose—Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the 

Heritage Data Management System: Phoenix, Ariz., 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5 p.

Barata, C., Baird, D.J., and Markich, S.J., 1998, Influence 

of genetic and environmental factors on the tolerance 

of Daphnia magna Straus to essential and non-essential 

metals: Aquatic Toxicology, v. 42, no. 2, p. 115–137.

Barrows, M.E., Petrocelli, S.R., Macek, K.J., and Carrol, J.J., 

1978, Bioconcentration and elimination of selected water 

pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), in

Haque, R., ed., Dynamics of exposure, hazard assessment, 

toxicity, and chemistry: Ann Arbor, Mich., Ann Arbor 

Science, p. 379–392.

Bartlett, R., 1998, Solution Mining (2d ed.): Boca Raton, Fla., 

Routledge-Taylor & Francis, 472 p.

Beaugelin-Seiller, K., Connan, O., Germain, P., and 

Roussel-Debet, S., 2004, Fiche radionucléide—Polonium 

210 et environnement: Fontenay-aux-Roses, France, Institut 

de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, 24 p.

Belnap, J., and Lange, O.L., eds., 2001, Biological soil crusts—

Structure, function, and management (1st ed.): Berlin, 

Springer-Verlag, 503 p. [Revised second printing 2003.]

Belnap, J., Welter, J.R., Grimm, N.B., Barger, N., and Ludwig, 

J.A., 2005, Linkages between microbial and hydrologic 

processes in arid and semiarid watersheds: Ecology, v. 86, 

no. 2, p. 298–307.

Beyer, W.N., Connor, E.E., and Gerould, S., 1994, Estimates 

of soil ingestion by wildlife: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 58, no. 2, p. 375–382.

Bird, G.A., Thompson, P.A., Macdonald, C.R., Sheppard, 

S.C., 2003, Assessment of the impact of radionuclide 

releases from Canadian nuclear facilities on non-human 

biota, in Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Protection of the Environment from Ionizing 

Radiation (SPEIR 3), Darwin, Australia, July 22–26, 2002, 

Proceedings: Vienna, Austria, International Atomic Energy 

Agency, p. 241–247.

Birge, W.J., 1978, Aquatic toxicology of trace elements of coal 

and fly ash, in Environmental stress in aquatic systems—

Selected papers from a symposium held at Augusta, 

Georgia, November 2–4, 1977: Augusta, Ga., U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Information Center, p. 219–240.

Birge, W.J., Black, J.A., and Westerman, A.G., 1977, Evaluation of aquatic pollutants using fish and amphibian eggs 

as bioassay organisms, in Nielsen, S.W., Migaki, G., and 

Scarpelli, D.G., eds., Animals as Monitors of Environmental Pollutants: Washington, D.C., National Academy of 

Sciences, p. 108–118.
340 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Birge, W.J., Black, J.A., Westerman, A.G., and Hudson, J.E., 

1980, Aquatic toxicity tests on inorganic elements occurring 

in oil shale, in Oil Shale Symposium—Sampling, analysis, and quality assurance, March 1979: Cincinnati, Ohio, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research 

and Development, Industrial Environmental Research 

Laboratory, p. 519–534.

Blaylock, B.G., Frank, M.L., and O`Neal, B.R., 1993, Methodology for estimating radiation dose rates to freshwater 

biota exposed to radionuclides in the environment. 

U.S. Department of Energy ES/ER/TM-78, 39 p.

Bohn, H.L., McNeal, B.L., and O’Connor, G.A., eds., 2001, 

Soil chemistry (3d ed.): New York, John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., 307 p.

Borgmann, U., Cheam, V., Norwood, W.P., and Lechner, J., 

1998, Toxicity and bioaccumulation of thallium in Hyalella 

azteca, with comparison to other metals and prediction 

of environmental impact: Environmental Pollution, v. 99, 

no. 1, p. 105–114.

Borgmann, U., Couillard, Y., Doyle, P., and Dixon, D.G., 

2005, Toxicity of sixty-three metals and metalloids to 

Hyalella azteca at two levels of water hardness: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 24, no. 3, p. 641–652.

Bourrachot, S., Simon, O., and Gilbin, R., 2008, The effects of 

waterborne uranium on the hatching success, development, 

and survival of early life stages of zebrafish (Danio rerio): 

Aquatic Toxicology, v. 90, no. 1, p. 29–36.

Bréchignac, F., and Desmet, G., eds., 2005, Equidosimetry—

Ecological standardization and equidosimetry for radioecology and environmental ecology: New York, Springer, 

436 p.

Brenner, D.J., Doll, R., Goodhead, D.T., Hall, E.J., Land, C.E., 

Little, J.B., Lubin, J.H., Preston, D.L., Preston, R.J., Puskin, 

J.S., Ron, E., Sachs, R.K., Samet, J.M., Setlow, R.B., and 

Zaider, M., 2003, Cancer risks attributable to low doses of 

ionizing radiation—Assessing what we really know: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 

States of America, v. 100, no. 24, p. 13761–13766.

Brown, J.B., 2008, Review of available water-quality data for 

the Southern Colorado Plateau Network and characterization of water quality in five selected park units in Arizona, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, 1925 to 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5130, 

118 p.

Buccafusco, R.J., Ells, S.J., and LeBlanc, G.A., 1981, 

Acute toxicity of priority pollutants to bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus): Bulletin of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology, v. 26, no. 1, p. 446–452.

Bunzl, K., Trautmannsheimer, M., Schramel, P., and 

Reifenhäuser, W., 2001, Availability of arsenic, copper, 

lead, thallium, and zinc to various vegetables grown in slagcontaminated soils: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 30, 

no. 3, p. 934–939.

Burns, P.C., and Finch, R., eds., 1999, Uranium—Mineralogy, 

geochemistry, and the environment: Washington, D.C., 

Mineralogical Society of America, 679 p.

Bytwerk, D.P., 2006, An allometric examination of the 

relationship between radiosensitivity and mass: Corvallis, 

Oreg., Oregon State University, 70 p.

Bywater, J.F., Banaczkowski, R., and Bailey, M., 1991, Sensitivity to uranium of six species of tropical freshwater fishes 

and four species of cladocerans from northern Australia: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 10, no. 11, 

p. 1449–1458.

Calleja, M.C., Persoone, G., and Geladi, P., 1994, Comparative acute toxicity of the first 50 Multicentre Evaluation of 

In Vitro Cytotoxicity chemicals to aquatic non-vertebrates: 

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 

v. 26, no. 1, p. 69–78.

Calmon, P., and Fesenko, S., eds., 2009, Quantification of 

radionuclide transfer in terrestrial and freshwater environments: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity special 

issue, v. 100, no. 9.

Calmon, P., Fesenko, S., Voigt, G., and Linsley, G., 2009, 

Quantification of radionuclide transfer in terrestrial and 

freshwater environments: Journal of Environmental 

Radioactivity, v. 100, no. 9, p. 671–674.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2007, 

Canadian soil quality guidelines for uranium—

Environmental and human health: Canadian Council of 

Ministers of the Environment, Scientific Supporting Document, accessed December 9, 2009, at http://www.ccme.ca/

assets/pdf/uranium_ssd_soil_1.2.pdf.

Carvalho, F.P., and Fowler, S.W., 1994, A double-tracer 

technique to determine the relative importance of water and 

food as sources of polonium-210 to marine prawns and fish: 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 103, no. 3, p. 251–264.

Casarett, L.J., Klaassen, C.D., and Doull, J., eds., 2007, 

Casarett and Doull’s toxicology (7th ed.): New York, 

McGraw-Hill Professional, 1280 p.

Chambers, D.B., Osborne, R.V., and Garva, A.L., 2006, 

Choosing an alpha radiation weighting factor for doses to 

non-human biota: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 

v. 87, no. 1, p. 1–14.

Charles, A.L., Markich, S.J., and Ralph, P., 2006, Toxicity of 

uranium and copper individually, and in combination, to 

a tropical freshwater macrophyte (Lemna aequinoctialis): 

Chemosphere, v. 62, no. 8, p. 1224–1233.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 341

Charles, A.L., Markich, S.J., Stauber, J.L., and De Filippis, 

L.F., 2002, The effect of water hardness on the toxicity 

of uranium to a tropical freshwater alga (Chlorella sp.): 

Aquatic Toxicology, v. 60, no. 1–2, p. 61–73.

Cherry, R.D., and Heyraud, M., 1981, Polonium-210 content 

of marine shrimp—Variation with biological and environmental factors: Marine Biology, v. 65, no. 2, p. 165–175.

Colle, C., and Mourlon, C., 2003, Fiche radionucléide—

Protactinium 231 et environnement: Fontenay-aux-Roses, 

France, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, 

9 p., accessed December 1, 2009, at http://www.irsn.fr/

FR/larecherche/Information_scientifique/Publications_

Documentation/fiches-techniques-radionucleides/

environnement/Documents/Protactinium_Pa231_v1.pdf.

Colley, S., and Thomson, J., 1991, Migration of uranium 

daughter radionuclides in natural sediments: Luxemburg, 

Centre Européen des Consommateurs [European 

Consumer Center] Nuclear Science and Technology 

Report EUR 13182, 89 p.

Cooper, J.R., Randle, K., and Sokhi, R.S., 2003, Radioactive 

releases in the environment—Impact and assessment: West 

Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 473 p.

Corbett, D.R., Burnett, W.C., Cable, P.H., and Clark, S.B., 

1997, Radon tracing of groundwater input into Par Pond, 

Savannah River Site: Journal of Hydrology, v. 203, no. 1–4, 

p. 209–227.

Cothern, C.R., 1988, Properties, in Cothern, C.R., and Smith, 

J.E., II, eds., Environmental radon: New York, Springer, 

p. 1–29.

Cothern, C.R., and Smith, J.E., II, eds., Environmental radon: 

New York, Springer.

Cowart, J.B., and Burnett, W.C., 1994, The distribution of 

uranium and thorium decay-series radionuclides in the 

environment—A review: Journal of Environmental Quality, 

v. 23, no. 4, p. 651–662.

Craig, G.R., and Beggs, G.L., 1979, Evaluation of fish loading 

rates in regulatory static bioassays, in Proceedings of the 

fifth annual Aquatic Toxicity Workshop, Hamilton, Ontario, 

November 7–9, 1978: Burlington, Ontario, Great Lakes 

Biolimnology Laboratory, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, 

p. 145–160.

Crane, M., and Newman, M.C., 2000, What level effect is a no 

observed effect?: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 19, no. 2, p. 561–519.

Dawson, G.W., Jennings, A.L., Drozdowski, D., and Rider, E., 

1977, The acute toxicity of 47 industrial chemicals to fresh 

and saltwater fishes: Journal of Hazardous Materials, v. 1, 

no. 4, p. 303–318.

De Jong, L.E.D., 1965, Tolerance of Chlorella vulgaris for 

metallic and non-metallic ions: Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 

v. 31, p. 301–313.

Dias, V., Vasseur, C., and Bonzom, J.-M., 2008, Exposure of 

Chironomus riparius larvae to uranium—Effects on survival, development time, growth, and mouthpart deformities: Chemosphere, v. 71, no. 3, p. 574–581.

Domingo, J.L., 2001, Reproductive and developmental toxicity of natural and depleted uranium—A review: Reproductive Toxicology, v. 15, no. 6, p. 603–609.

Driver, C.J., 1994, Ecotoxicity literature review of selected 

Hanford Site contaminants: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL-9394, 141p.

Efroymson, R.A., Suter, G.W., II, Sample, B.E., and Jones, 

D.S., 1997a, Preliminary remediation goals for ecological 

endpoints: U.S. Department of Energy ES/ER/TM-162/R2, 

26 p.

Efroymson, R.A., Will, M.E., Suter, G.W., II, and Wooten, 

A.C., 1997b, Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on 

terrestrial plants (1997 revision): U.S. Department of 

Energy ES/ER/TM-85/R3, 123 p.

Eisenbud, M., and Gesell, T., 1997, Environmental radioactivity from natural, industrial, and military sources: 

San Diego, Calif., Academic Press, 656 p.

Eisler, R., 1994, Radiation hazards to fish, wildlife, and 

invertebrates—A synoptic review: Patuxent Environmental 

Science Center, U.S. National Biological Service Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report 29,U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service Biological Report 26, 147p.

European Commission, 2003, Technical guidance document on risk assessment—In support of Commission 

Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified 

substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk 

assessment for existing substances, and Directive 98/8/EC of 

the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the 

placing of biocidal products on the market. Part II: European 

Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and 

Consumer Protection, European Chemicals Bureau, 328 p.

Ferrari, C.P., Hong, S., Van de Velde, K., Boutron, C.F., Rudniev, 

S.N., Bolshov, M., Chisholm, W., and Rosman, K.J.R., 2000, 

Natural and anthropogenic bismuth in Central Greenland: 

Atmospheric Environment, v. 34, no. 6, p. 941–948.

Feugier, A., Frelon, S., Gourmelon, P., and Claraz, M., 2008, 

Alteration of mouse oocyte quality after a subchronic exposure to depleted uranium: Reproductive Toxicology, v. 26, 

no. 3–4, p. 273–277.
342 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Finch, W.I., 1992, Descriptive model of solution-collapse breccia pipe uranium deposits, in Bliss, J.D., ed., Developments 

in mineral deposit modeling: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

2004, accessed October 1, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/

b2004/html/bull2004breccia_pipe_uranium_deposits.htm.

Finch, W.I., 1996, Uranium provinces of North America—

Their definition, distribution, and models: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 2141, 18 p.

Fortin, C., Denison, F.H., and Garnier-Laplace, J., 2007, 

Metal–phytoplankton interactions—Modeling the effect of 

competing ions (H+, Ca2+, and Mg2+) on uranium uptake: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 26, no. 2, 

p. 242–248.

Fortin, C., Dutel, L., and Garnier-Laplace, J., 2004, Uranium 

complexation and uptake by a green alga in relation to 

chemical speciation—The importance of the free uranyl 

ion: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 23, no. 4, 

p. 974–981.

Fournier, E., Tran, D., Denison, F., Massabuau, J.-C., and 

Garnier-Laplace, J., 2004, Valve closure response to 

uranium exposure for a freshwater bivalve (Corbicula 

fluminea)—Quantification of the influence of pH: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 23, no. 5, 

p. 1108–1114.

Francis, C.W., Chesters, G., and Erhardt, W.H., 1968, 

Polonium-210 entry into plants: Environmental Science & 

Technology, v. 2, no. 9, p. 690–695.

Franklin, N.M., Stauber, J.L., Markich, S.J., and Lim, R.P., 

2000, pH-dependent toxicity of copper and uranium to a 

tropical freshwater alga (Chlorella sp.): Aquatic Toxicology, 

v. 48, no. 2–3, p. 275–289.

Fruchter, J.S., Robertson, D.E., Evans, J.C., and others, 1980, 

Mount St. Helens ash from the 18 May 1980 eruption—

Chemical, physical, mineralogical, and biological properties: Science, v. 29, p. 1116–1125.

Garnier-Laplace, J., Della-Vedova, C., Gilbin, R., 

Copplestone, D., Hingston, J., and Ciffroy, P., 2006, First 

derivation of predicted-no-effect values for freshwater and 

terrestrial ecosystems exposed to radioactive substances: 

Environmental Science & Technology, v. 40, no. 20, 

p. 6498–6505.

Garten, C.T., 1978, A review of parameter values used to 

assess the transport of plutonium, uranium, and thorium 

in terrestrial food chains: Environmental Research, v. 17, 

no. 3, p. 437–452.

Gascoyne, M., 1992, Geochemistry of the actinides and 

their daughters, in Ivanovich, M., and Harmon, R.S., eds., 

Uranium-series disequilibrium—Applications to earth, 

marine and environmental sciences (2d ed.): Oxford, 

Clarendon Press, p. 34–61.

Gilbin, R., Alonzo, F., and Garnier-Laplace, J., 2008, Effects 

of chronic external gamma irradiation on growth and reproductive success of Daphnia magna: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 99, no. 1, p. 134–145.

Gray, H.B., Stiefel, E.I., Valentine, J.S., and Bertini, I., eds., 

2006, Biological inorganic chemistry—Structure and reactivity: Herndon, Vir., University Science Books, 739 p.

Gunther, A., Berhard, G., Geipel, G., Rossberg, A., and Reich, 

T., 2002, Uranium speciation in plants, in Merkel, B.J., 

Planer-Friedrich, B., and Wolkersdorfer, C., eds., Uranium 

in the aquatic environment—Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Uranium Mining and Hydrogeology 

and the International Mine Water Association Symposium, 

September 15–21, 2002: Freiberg, Germany, SpringerVerlag, p. 517–524.

Hameed, P.S., Shaheed, K., and Somasundaram, S.S.N., 

1997, A study on distribution of natural radionuclide 

polonium-210 in a pond ecosystem: Journal of Biosciences, 

v. 22, no. 5, p. 627–634.

Hamilton, S.J., 1995, Hazard assessment of inorganics to three 

endangered fish in the Green River, Utah: Ecotoxicology 

and Environmental Safety, v. 30, no. 2, p. 134–142.

Hamilton, S.J., and Buhl, K.J., 1997, Hazard evaluation of 

inorganics, singly and in mixtures, to flannelmouth sucker 

Catostomus latipinnisin the San Juan River, New Mexico: 

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, v. 38, no. 3, 

p. 296–308.

Haridasan, P.P., Paul, A.C., and Desai, M.V.M., 2001, Natural 

radionuclides in the aquatic environment of a phosphogypsum disposal area: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 53, no. 2, p. 155–165.

Harrison, F.L., and Anderson, S.L., 1994, Effects of acute 

irradiation on reproductive success of the polychaete worm, 

Neanthes arenaceodentata: Radiation Research, v. 137, 

no. 1, p. 59–66.

Hartman, H.L., and Mutmansky, J.M., 2002, Introductory 

Mining Engineering (2d ed.): New York, Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., 584 p.

Hassler, C.S., Chafin, R.D., Klinger, M.B., and Twiss, M.R., 

2007, Application of the Biotic Ligand Model to explain 

potassium interaction with thallium uptake and toxicity to 

plankton: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 26, 

no. 6, p. 1139–1145.

Hem, J.D., 1992, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 343

Hertel-Aas, T., Oughton, D.H., Jaworska, A., Bjerke, H., 

Salbu, B., and Brunborg, G., 2007, Effects of chronic 

gamma irradiation on reproduction in the earthworm 

Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta): Radiation Research, v. 168, 

no. 5, p. 515–526.

Higley, K.A., and Bytwerk, D.P., 2007, Generic approaches 

to transfer: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 98, 

no. 1–2, p. 4–23.

Higley, K.A., Domotor, S.L., Antonio, E.J., and Kocher, D.C., 

2003, Derivation of a screening methodology for evaluating radiation dose to aquatic and terrestrial biota: Journal of 

Environmental Radioactivity, v. 66, no. 1–2, p. 41–59.

Hinck, J.E., Blazer, V.B., Denslow, N.D., Echols, K.E., Gross, 

T.S., May, T.W., Anderson, P.J., Coyle, J.J., and Tillitt, 

D.E., 2008, Chemical contaminants, health indicators, and 

reproductive biomarker responses in fish from the Colorado 

River and its tributaries: Science of the Total Environment, 

v. 378, p. 376–402.

Hogan, A.C., van Dam, R.A., Markich, S.J., and Camilleri, 

C., 2005, Chronic toxicity of uranium to a tropical green 

alga (Chlorella sp.) in natural waters and the influence of 

dissolved organic carbon: Aquatic Toxicology, v. 75, no. 4, 

p. 343–353.

Holdway, D.A., 1992, Uranium toxicity to two species of Australian tropical fish, in Batley, G.E., ed., Trace metals in the 

aquatic environment: Shannon, Ireland, Elsevier Science, 

p. 137–158.

Hopkins, R.T., Fox, J.P., Campbell, W.L., and Antweiler, J.C., 

1984, Analytical results and sample locality map of stream 

sediment, panned-concentrate, soil, and rock samples from 

the Kanab Creek (B3060) Roadless Area, Coconino and 

Mohave Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 84–291, 16 p., 1 plate, scale 1:48,000.

Horne, J.D., Swirsky, M.A., Hollister, T.A., Oblad, B.R., and 

Kennedy, J.H., 1983, Aquatic toxicity studies of five priority 

pollutants—Final report: Nuclear Utility Services Corporation Report no. 4398, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Contract no. 68-01-6201, 196 p.

Houpert, P., Frelon, S., Monleau, M., Bussy, C., Chazel, V., 

and Paquet, F., 2007, Heterogeneous accumulation of uranium in the brain of rats: Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 

v. 27, no. 1–4, p. 86–89.

Howard, B.J., Beresford, N.A., Barnett, C.L., and Fesenko, 

S., 2009, Quantifying the transfer of radionuclides to food 

products from domestic farm animals: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 100, no. 9, p. 767–773.

Huber, F., and Kirchmann, H., 1978, Biomethylation of Tl(1) 

compounds: Inorganica Chemica Acta, v. 29, p. L249–L250.

Huettermann, J., and Koehnlein, W., 1978, Effects of ionizing 

radiation on DNA, in Hüttermann, J., Köhnlein, W., Téoule, 

R., and Bertinchamps, A.J., eds., Effects of ionizing radiation on DNA—Physical, chemical and biological aspects: 

New York, Springer, p. 261–268.

Hyne, R.V., Padovan, A., Parry, D.L., and Renaud, S.M., 

1993, Increased fecundity of the cladoceran Moinodaphnia 

macleayi on a diet supplemented with a green alga, and 

its use in uranium toxicity tests: Marine and Freshwater 

Research, v. 44, no. 3, p. 389–399.

Hyne, R.V., Rippon, G.D., and Ellender, G., 1992, pHDependent uranium toxicity to freshwater hydra: Science 

of The Total Environment, v. 125, p. 159–173.

Ibrahim, S.A., and Whicker, F.W., 1988, Comparative uptake 

of U and Th by native plants at a U production site: Health 

Physics, v. 54, no. 4, p. 413–419.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1976, Effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic organisms and ecosystems: International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Report Series 

no. 172, 131 p.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1988, Assessing the 

impact of deep sea disposal of low level radioactive waste 

on living marine resources: International Atomic Energy 

Agency Technical Reports Series no. 288, 127 p.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1992, Effects of ionizing 

radiation on plants and animals at levels implied by current 

radiation protection standards: International Atomic Energy 

Agency Technical Reports Series no. 332, 74 p.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1997, Closeout of uranium 

mines and mills—A review of current practices: International 

Atomic Energy Agency IAEA-TECDOC-939, 105 p.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004, The long term 

stabilization of uranium mill tailings—Final report of a 

coordinated research project 2000–2004: International 

Atomic Energy Agency IAEA-TECDOC-140, 311 p.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009, Quantification of 

radionuclide transfer in terrestrial and freshwater environments for radiological assessments: International Atomic 

Energy Agency IAEA-TECDOC-1616, 616 p.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 2007, 

The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: International Commission 

on Radiological Protection Publication 103, 332 p.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 2009, 

Environmental protection—The concept and use of reference animals and plants: International Commission on 

Radiological Protection Publication 108, 242 p.
344 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Jacobsen, T., 1995, Acute toxicity of 16 water-soluble 

chemicals to the fungus Geotrichum candidum measured 

by reduction in glucose uptake: Toxicology in Vitro, v. 9, 

no. 2, p. 169–173.

Jarvinen, A.W., and Ankley, G.T., 1999, Linkage of effects to 

tissue residues—Development of a comprehensive database 

for aquatic organisms exposed to inorganic and organic 

chemicals: Pensacola, Fla., Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Press, 358 p.

Jones, D., Domotor, S., Higley, K., Kocher, D., and Bilyard, 

G., 2003, Principles and issues in radiological ecological 

risk assessment: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 

v. 66, no. 1–2, p. 19–39.

Jones, K.C., Lepp, N.W., and Obbard, J.P., 1990, Other metals 

and metalloids, in Alloway, B.J., ed., Heavy metals in soils: 

New York, Blackie/John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 280–321.

Kabata-Pendias, A., 2001, Trace elements in soils and plants 

(3d ed.): Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, 432 p.

Kabata-Pendias, A., and Pendias, H., 1984, Trace elements in 

soils and plants: Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, Inc, 315 p.

Khangarot, B.S., 1991, Toxicity of metals to a freshwater 

tubificid worm, Tubifex tubifex (Muller): Bulletin of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 46, no. 6, 

p. 906–912.

Kimball, G., 1978, The effects of lesser known metals and one 

organic to fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and 

Daphnia magna: Minneapolis, Minn., University of Minnesota, Department of Entomology, Fish and Wildlife, 88 p.

Knie, J., Haelke, A., Juhnke, I., and Schiller, W., 1983, Results 

of studies on chemical substances with four biotests: 

Deutsche Gewasserkundliche Mitteilungen. Koblenz, v. 27, 

no. 3, p. 77–79.

Knowles, I.F., 2003, Experimental long-term exposures of fish 

to low dose rate gamma or alpha radiation, in Protection of 

the Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation—

Proceedings of an International Conference, Stockholm, 

6–10 October 2003, CD-ROM: International Atomic Energy 

Agency, Paper no. IAEA-CN-109/116.

Kuhne, W.W., Caldwell, C.A., Gould, W.R., Fresquez, P.R., 

and Finger, S., 2002, Effects of depleted uranium on the 

health and survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia and Hyalella 

azteca: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 21, 

no. 10, p. 2198–2203.

Kundt, M.S., Martinez-Taibo, C., Muhlmann, M.C., and 

Furnari, J.C., 2009, Uranium in drinking water—Effects 

on mouse oocyte quality: Health Physics, v. 96, no. 5, 

p. 568–574.

Kwan, K.H.M., and Smith, S., 1988, The effect of thallium on 

the growth of Lemna minor and plant tissue concentrations 

in relation to both exposure and toxicity: Environmental 

Pollution, v. 52, no. 3, p. 203–219.

Labrot, F., Narbonne, J.F., Ville, P., Saint Denis, M., and 

Ribera, D., 1999, Acute toxicity, toxicokinetics, and tissue 

target of lead and uranium in the clam Corbicula fluminea

and the worm Eisenia fetida—Comparison with the fish 

Brachydanio rerio: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 36, no. 2, p. 167–178.

Labrot, F., Ribera, D., SaintDenis, M., and Narbonne, J.F., 

1996, In vitro and in vivo studies of potential biomarkers 

of lead and uranium contamination—Lipid peroxidation, 

acetylcholinesterase, catalase and glutathione peroxidase 

activities in three non-mammalian species: Biomarkers, 

v. 1, no. 1, p. 21–28.

LaFlamme, B.D., and Murray, J.W., 1987, Solid/solution 

interaction—The effect of carbonate alkalinity on adsorbed 

thorium: Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta, v. 51, no. 2, 

p. 243–250.

Lagauzere, S., Boyer, P., Stora, G., and Bonzom, J.M., 2009a, 

Effects of uranium-contaminated sediments on the bioturbation activity of Chironomus riparius larvae (Insecta, 

Diptera) and Tubifex tubifex worms (Annelida, Tubificidae): 

Chemosphere, v. 76, no. 3, p. 324–334.

Lagauzere, S., Terrail, R., and Bonzom, J.-M., 2009b, Ecotoxicity of uranium to Tubifex tubifex worms (Annelida, 

Clitellata, Tubificidae) exposed to contaminated sediment: 

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, v. 72, no. 2, 

p. 527–537.

Lan, C.-H., and Lin, T.-S., 2005, Acute toxicity of trivalent 

thallium compounds to Daphnia magna: Ecotoxicology 

and Environmental Safety, v. 61, no. 3, p. 432–435.

LeBlanc, G.A., and Dean, J.W., 1984, Antimony and thallium toxicity to embryos and larvae of fathead minnows 

(Pimephales promelas): Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 32, no. 1, p. 565–569.

Leclerc, E., Tagami, K., Uchida, S., and Varga, B., 2009, 

Use of analogues, in Quantification of radionuclide transfer 

in terrestrial and freshwater environments for radiological assessments: International Atomic Energy Agency 

IAEA-TECDOC-1616, p. 605–614.

Le Francois, N.R., Blier, P.U., Adambounou, L.T., and 

Lacroix, M., 1999, Exposures to low-level ionizing 

radiation—Effects on biochemical and whole-body indices 

of growth in juvenile brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis): 

Journal of Experimental Zoology, v. 283, no. 3, p. 315–325.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 345

Lepper, P., 2005, Manual on the methodological framework 

to derive environmental quality standards for priority 

substances in accordance with Article 16 of the Water 

Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): Schmallenberg, Germany, Fraunhofer-Institute Molecular Biology and Applied 

Ecology, 51 p.

Lerebours, A., Gonzalez, P., Adam, C., Camilleri, V., 

Bourdineaud, J.-P., and Garnier-Laplace, J., 2009, Comparative analysis of gene expression in brain, liver, skeletal 

muscles, and gills of zebrafish (Danio rerio) exposed to 

environmentally relevant waterborne uranium concentrations: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 28, 

no. 6, p. 1271–1278.

Leslie, B.W., Pickett, D.A., and Pearcy, E.C., 1999, 

Vegetation-derived insights on the mobilization and potential transport of radionuclides from the Nopal I natural 

analog site, Mexico, in Wronkiewicz, D.J., and Lee, J.H., 

eds., Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXII. 

Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 556: 

Warrendale, Pa., Materials Research Society, p. 833–842

Li, X., and Thornton, I., 1993, Multi-element contamination of 

soils and plants in old mining areas, U.K.: Applied Geochemistry, v. 8, supplement 2, p. 51–56.

Liber, K., and Sobey, S., 1999, Toxicity of uranium, nickel, 

and arsenic to Hyalella azteca in spiked-sediment toxicity tests [abs.], in Baddaloo, E.G., Mah-Paulson, M.H., 

Verbeek, A.G., and Niimi, A.J., eds., Proceedings of the 

26th Annual Aquatic Toxicity Workshop, Edmonton, 

Alberta, Canada, October 4–6, 1999: Canadian Technical 

Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2293, p. 107.

Lilius, H., Hästbacka, T., and Isomaa, B., 1995, A comparison 

of the toxicity of 30 reference chemicals to Daphnia magna

and Daphnia pulex: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 14, no. 12, p. 2085–2088.

Luckey, T.D., 1991, Radiation hormesis: Boca Raton, Fla., 

CRC Press, 320 p.

Ludwig, J.A., Wilcox, B.P., Breshears, D.D., Tongway, D.J., 

and Imeson, A.C., 2005, Vegetation patches and runoff–

erosion as interacting ecohydrological processes in semiarid 

landscapes: Ecology, v. 86, no. 2, p. 288–297.

Ludwig, J.T., Freudenberger, D., Noble, J., and Hodgkinson, 

K., eds., 1997, Landscape ecology—Function and management. Principles from Australia’s rangelands: Collingwood, 

Australia, CSIRO, 158 p.

Macdonald, C.R., and Laverock, M.J., 1998, Radiation 

exposure and dose to small mammals in radon-rich soils: 

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 

v. 35, no. 1, p. 109–120.

Mackin, J.H., and Schmidt, D.L., 1957, Uranium and thoriumbearing minerals in placer deposits in Idaho: Idaho Bureau 

of Mines and Geology Mineral Resources Report no. 7, 9 p.

Mahon, D.C., 1982, Uptake and translocation of naturallyoccurring radionuclides of the uranium series: Bulletin of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 29, no. 6, 

p. 697–703.

Markich, S.J., 2002, Uranium speciation and bioavailability 

in aquatic systems—An overview: Scientific World Journal, 

v. 2, p. 707–729.

Markich, S.J., 2003, Influence of body size and gender on valve 

movement responses of a freshwater bivalve to uranium: 

Environmental Toxicology, v. 18, no. 2, p. 126–136.

Markich, S.J., Brown, P.L., Jeffree, R.A., and Lim, R.P., 2000, 

Valve movement responses of Velesunio angasi (Bivalvia: 

Hyriidae) to manganese and uranium—An exception to the 

free ion activity model: Aquatic Toxicology, v. 51, no. 2, 

p. 155–175.

Marques, S.M., Gonçalves, F., and Pereira, R., 2008, Effects 

of a uranium mine effluent in the early-life stages of Rana 

perezi Seoane: Science of the Total Environment, v. 402, 

no. 1, p. 29–35.

Martin, J.E., 2006, Physics for radiation protection: A handbook (2d ed.): New York, Wiley-VCH, 844 p.

Meyer, J.S., Adams, W.J., Brix, K.V., Luoma, S.N., Mount, 

D.R., Stubblefield, W.A., and Wood, C.M., eds., 2005, 

Toxicity of dietborne metals to aquatic organisms: Pensacola, Fla., Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Press, 303 p.

Meyer, J.S., Clearwater, S.J., Doser, T.A., Rogaczewski, M.J., 

and Hansen, J.A., eds., 2007, Effects of water chemistry on 

bioavailability and toxicity of waterborne cadmium, copper, 

nickel, lead, and zinc to freshwater organisms: Pensacola, 

Fla., Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

Press, 352 p.

Meyer, M., McLendon, T., Price, D., Fleckenstein, J., and 

Schnug, E., 2004, Uptake of munitions-derived depleted 

uranium by three grass species: Journal of Plant Nutrition, 

v. 27, no. 8, p. 1415–1429.

Meyer, M.C., Paschke, M.W., McLendon, T., and Price, D., 

1998, Decreases in soil microbial function and functional 

diversity in response to depleted uranium: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 27, no. 6, p. 1306–1311.

Mihok, S., 2003, Suitability of individual biological effects 

benchmarks for the protection of wild populations of mammals, in Protection of the Environment from the Effects of 

Ionizing Radiation—Proceedings of an International Conference, Stockholm, 6–10 October 2003, CD-ROM: International Atomic Energy Agency, Paper no. IAEA-CN-109/87.
346 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Mitchell, S.E., Caldwell, C.A., Gonzales, G., Gould, W.R., 

and Arimoto, R., 2005, Effects of depleted uranium on 

survival, growth, and metamorphosis in the African clawed 

frog: Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 

Part A, v. 68, no. 11–12, p. 951–965.

Mkandawire, M., Taubert, B., and Dudel, E.G., 2005, 

Resource manipulation in uranium and arsenic attenuation 

by Lemna gibba L. (duckweed) in tailing water of a former 

uranium mine: Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 166, 

no. 1–4, p. 83–101.

Mkandawire, M., Vogel, K., Taubert, B., and Dudel, E.G., 

2007, Phosphate regulates uranium (VI) toxicity to Lemna 

gibba L. G3: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 22, no. 1, p. 9–16.

Moon, C., Wateley, M., and Evans, A.M., eds., 2006, Introduction to Mineral Exploration (2d ed.): New York, WileyBlackwell, 496 p.

Murphy, R.J., Lenhart, J.J., and Honeyman, B.D., 1999, The 

sorption of thorium (IV) and uranium (VI) to hematite in 

the presence of natural organic matter: Colloids and Surfaces A—Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, v. 157, 

no. 1–3, p. 47–62.

Murthy, T.C.S., Weinberger, P., and Measures, M.P., 1984, 

Uranium effects on the growth of soybean (Glycine max

(L.) Merr.): Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, v. 32, no. 1, p. 580–586.

Muscatello, J., and Liber, K., 2009, Accumulation and chronic 

toxicity of uranium over different life stages of the aquatic 

invertebrate Chironomus tentans: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 57, no. 3, p. 531–539.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 

1987, Exposure of the population in the United States and 

Canada from natural background radiation: Betheseda, Md., 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report no. 094, 209 p.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 

1991, Effects of ionizing radiation on aquatic organisms: 

Bethesda, Md., National Council on Radiation Protection 

and Measurements report no. 109, 115 p.

National Research Council, 1988, Health risks of radon and 

other internally deposited alpha-emitters—BEIR IV: Report 

of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing 

Radiations, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 

624 p.

National Research Council , 2005, Mineral tolerances of 

animals (2d ed.): Report of the Committee on Minerals and 

Toxic Substances in Diets and Water for Animals, Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 510 p.

Nordberg, G., Fowler, B., Nordberg, M., and Friberg, L., 2007, 

Handbook on the toxicology of metals: New York, Academic 

Press, 1024 p.

Ohlendorf, H.M., 2003, Ecotoxicology of selenium, in

Hoffman, D.J., Rattner, B.A., Burton, G.A., Jr., and Cairns, 

J., Jr., eds., Handbook of ecotoxicology: Boca Raton, Fla., 

Lewis Publishers, p. 465–500.

Oliver, J., and Smith, P., 1930, Experimental nephritis in the 

frog—I. The anatomical evidence of damage: Journal of 

Experimental Medicine, v. 52, no. 2, p. 181–193.

Olofsson, U., and Allard, B., 1983, Complexes of actinides 

with naturally occuring organic substances—Literature survey: Stockholm, Svensk Kärnbränsleförsörjning, Avdeling 

KBS, SKBF/KBS Teknisk Rapport 83–09, 34 p.

Orlandini, K.A., Penrose, W.R., Harvey, B.R., Lovett, M.B., 

and Findlay, M.W., 1990, Colloidal behavior of actinides in 

an oligotrophic lake: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 24, no. 5, p. 706–712.

Pamphlett, R., Danscher, G., Rungby, J., and Stoltenbergy, 

M., 2000, Tissue uptake of bismuth from shotgun pellets: 

Environmental Research, v. 82, no. 3, p. 258–262.

Paquin, P.R., Santore, R.C., Farley, K., Di Toro, D.M., Wu, 

K.B., Mooney, K.G., and Winfield, R.P., eds., 2003, Metals 

in aquatic systems—A review of exposure, bioaccumulation, and toxicity models: Pensacola, Fla., Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Press, 160 p.

Parkhurst, B.R., Elder, R.G., Meyer, J.S., Sanchez, D.A., 

Pennak, R.W., and Waller, W.T., 1984, An environmental 

hazard evaluation of uranium in a Rocky Mountain stream: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 3, no. 1, 

p. 113–124.

Pawlik, T.M., and Keyomarsi, K., 2004, Role of cell cycle in 

mediating sensitivity to radiotherapy: International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, v. 59, no. 4, 

p. 928–942.

Peter, A.L.J., and Viraraghavan, T., 2005, Thallium—A review 

of public health and environmental concerns: Environment 

International, v. 31, no. 4, p. 493–501.

Peterson, K.L., 1994, Modern and Pleistocene climatic patterns in the west, in Harper, K., Clair, L.L.S., Thorne, K.H., 

and Hess, W.M., eds., Natural history of the Colorado 

Plateau and Great Basin: Niwot, Colo., University Press of 

Colorado, p. 27–54.

Peterson, J., MacDonell, M., Haroun, L., and Monette, F., 

2005, Radiological and chemical fact sheets to support 

health risk analyses for contaminated areas: Argonne 

National Laboratory, Environmental Science Division, 

133 p.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 347

Pettersson, H.B.L., Hancock, G., Johnston, A., and Murray, 

A.S., 1993, Uptake of uranium and thorium series radionuclides by the waterlily, Nymphaea violacea: Journal of 

Environmental Radioactivity, v. 19, no. 2, p. 85–108.

Pickett, J.B., Specht, W.L., and Keyes, J.L., 1993, Acute and 

chronic toxicity of uranium compounds to CeriodaphniaDaphnia dubia: Westinghouse Savannah River Company 

WSRC-RP-92-995, U.S. Department of Energy Contract 

no. DE-AC09-89SR18035, 403 p.

Piestrzynski, A., Pieczonka, J., Brachanski, B., Grabas, K., 

and Koszela, J., 2000, Impact of uranium mining on the 

local environment—Lower Silesia Poland, in International 

Conference on Mine Remediation, Schlema, Germany, 

July 11–14, 2000, Proceedings: Chemnitz, Germany,

Wismut, p. 1–8.

Pietrzak-Flis, Z., and Skowroska-Smolak, M., 1995, Transfer 

of 210Pb and 210Po to plants via root system and aboveground interception: Science of The Total Environment, 

v. 162, no. 2–3, p. 139–147.

Poston, T.M., 1982, Observations on the bioaccumulation 

potential of thorium and uranium in rainbow trout (Salmo 

gairdneri): Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, v. 28, no. 6, p. 682–690.

Poston, T.M., Hanf, R., and Simmons, M.A., 1984, Toxicity of 

uranium to Daphnia magna: Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 

v. 22, no. 3, p. 289–298.

Pröhl, G., 2009, Interception of dry and wet deposited radionuclides by vegetation: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 100, no. 9, p. 675–682.

Pyle, G.G., and Clulow, F.V., 1998, Radionuclide equilibria 

between the aquatic environment and fish tissues: Journal 

of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 40, no. 1, p. 59–74.

Radtke, D., Kepner, W., and Effertz, R., 1988, Reconnaissance 

investigation of water quality, bottom sediment, and biota 

associated with irrigation drainage in the lower Colorado 

River valley, Arizona, California, and Nevada, 1986–87: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation 

Report 88–4002, 77 p.

Ralph, L., and Twiss, M.R., 2002, Comparative toxicity of thallium(I), thallium(III), and cadmium(II) to the 

unicellular Alga chlorella isolated from Lake Erie: Bulletin 

of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 68, 

no. 2, p. 261–268.

Rayno, D.R., 1983, Estimated dose to man from uranium milling via the beef/milk food-chain pathway: Science of the 

Total Environment, v. 31, p. 219–241.

Ribera, D., Labrot, F., Tisnerat, G., and Narbonne, J.F., 1996, 

Uranium in the environment—Occurrence, transfer and 

biological effects, in Ware, G.W., ed., Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 146.: New York, 

Springer-Verlag, p. 53–83.

Riethmuller, N., Markich, S.J., Van dam, R.A., and Parry, 

D., 2001, Effects of water hardness and alkalinity on the 

toxicity of uranium to a tropical freshwater hydra (Hydra 

viridissima): Biomarkers, v. 6, no. 1, p. 45–51.

Riley, P.A., 1994, Free radicals in biology—Oxidative stress 

and the effects of ionizing radiation: International Journal 

of Radiation Biology, v. 65, no. 1, p. 27–33.

Roh, Y., Lee, S.R., Choi, S.K., Elless, M.P., and Lee, S.Y., 

2000, Physicochemical and mineralogical characterization 

of uranium-contaminated soils: Soil & Sediment Contamination, v. 9, no. 5, p. 463–486.

Rose, K.S.B., 1992, Lower limits of radiosensitivity in organisms, excluding man: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 15, no. 2, p. 113–133.

Ross, S.M., 1994, Toxic metals in soil-plant systems: West 

Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 469 p.

Rufyikiri, G., Huysmans, L., Wannijn, J., Van Hees, M., 

Leyval, C., and Jakobsen, I., 2004, Arbuscular mycorrhizal 

fungi can decrease the uptake of uranium by subterranean 

clover grown at high levels of uranium in soil: Environmental Pollution, v. 130, no. 3, p. 427–436.

Salbu, B., Lind, O.C., and Skipperud, L., 2004, Radionuclide 

speciation and its relevance in environmental impact 

assessments: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 74, 

no. 1–3, p. 233–242.

Salbu, B., and Skipperud, L., 2009, Speciation of radionuclides 

in the environment: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 

v. 100, no. 4, p. 281–282.

Sample, B.E., Aplin, M.S., Efroymson, R.A., Suter II, G.W., 

and Welsh, C.J.E., 1997, Methods and tools for estimation of the exposure of terrestrial wildlife to contaminants: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences 

Division Publication no. 4650, U.S. Department of Energy 

ORNL/TM-13391, [variously paged].

Sazykina, T.G., 2005, A system of dose-effects relationships 

for the northern wildlife—Radiation protection criteria: 

Radioprotection, v. 40, no. Supplement 1, p. S889–S892.

Scholze, M., Boedeker, W., Faust, M., Backhaus, T., 

Altenburger, R., and Horst Grimme, L., 2001, A general 

best-fit method for concentration-response curves and the 

estimation of low-effect concentrations: Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 20, no. 2, p. 448–457.
348 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

Selinus, O., Alloway, B.J., Centeno, J.A., Finkelman, R.B., 

Fuge, R., Lindh, U., and Smedley, P., 2005, Essentials of 

medical geology—Impacts of the natural environment on 

public health: Burlington, Mass., Elsevier Academic Press, 

812 p.

Semaan, M., Holdway, D.A., and Van Dam, R.A., 2001, Comparative sensitivity of three populations of the cladoceran 

Moinodaphnia macleayi to acute and chronic uranium exposure: Environmental Toxicology, v. 16, no. 5, p. 365–376.

Senesi, N., Polemio, M., and Lorusso, L., 1979, Content and 

distribution of As, Li, Bi and Se in mineral and synthetic 

fertilizers and their contribution to soil: Communications in 

Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v. 10, no. 8, p. 1109–1126.

Shackelford, R.E., Kaufman, W.K., and Paules, R.S., 1999, 

Cell cycle control, checkpoint mechanisms, and genotoxic 

stress: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 107, supplement 1, p. 5–24.

Sheppard, M.I., Thibault, D.H., and Sheppard, S.C., 1985, 

Concentrations and concentration ratios of U, As and Co in 

Scots Pine grown in a waste-site soil and an experimentally 

contaminated soil: Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 26, 

no. 1, p. 85–94.

Sheppard, M.I., Vandergraaf, T.T., Thibault, D.H., and Reid, 

J.A.K., 1983, Technetium and uranium—Sorption by and 

plant uptake from peat and sand: Health Physics, v. 44, 

no. 6, p. 635–643.

Sheppard, S.C., and Evenden, W.G., 1992, Bioavailability 

indexes for uranium—Effect of concentration in 11 soils: 

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 

v. 23, no. 1, p. 117–124.

Sheppard, S.C., Sheppard, M.I., Gallerand, M.-O., and Sanipelli, 

B., 2005, Derivation of ecotoxicity thresholds for uranium: 

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 79, no. 1, p. 55–83.

Sheppard, S.C., Sheppard, M.I., Sanipelli, B., Dowsley, 

B., Stephenson, G., Feisthauer, N., Rowland, R., and 

Gilbertson, M.K., 2004, Uranium concentrations in Port 

Hope soils and vegetation and toxicological effect on soil 

organisms: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Contract 

Report 87055-01-0266-R161.1.

Skwarzec, B., Strumiska, D.I., Ulatowski, J., and Golebiowski, 

M., 2001, Determination and distribution of 210Po in 

tobacco plants from Poland: Journal of Radioanalytical and 

Nuclear Chemistry, v. 250, no. 2, p. 319–322.

Small, J.A., Bunn, A., McKinstry, C., Peacock, A., and 

Miracle, A.L., 2008, Investigating freshwater periphyton 

community response to uranium with phospholipid fatty 

acid and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analyses: 

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 99, no. 4, 

p. 730–738.

Smith, S., and Kwan, M.K.H., 1989, Use of aquatic macrophytes as a bioassay method to assess relative toxicity, 

uptake kinetics and accumulated forms of trace metals: 

Hydrobiologia, v. 188–189, no. 1, p. 345–351.

Smith, S.M., 1997, National Geochemical Database—

Reformatted data from the National Uranium Resource 

Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 97–492, [variously paged].

Sorensen, J.A., and Nelson, C.B., 2000, Translocation of 

Kanab ambersnails to establish a new population in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 153.

Staatz, M.H., 1972, Thorium-rich veins of Hall Mountain 

in northernmost Idaho: Economic Geology, v. 67, no. 2, 

p. 240–248.

Stepnowski, P., and Skwarzec, B., 2000, Tissue and subcellular distributions of 210Po in the crustacean Saduria 

entomon inhabiting the southern Baltic Sea: Journal of 

Environmental Radioactivity, v. 49, no. 2, p. 195–199.

Stewart, B.D., 2008, The dominating influence of calcium on 

the biogeochemical fate of uranium: Palo Alto, Cali., Stanford University, 121 p.

Straczek, A., Wannijn, J., Van Hees, M., Thijs, H., and Thiry, 

Y., 2009, Tolerance of hairy roots of carrots to U chronic 

exposure in a standardized in vitro device: Environmental 

and Experimental Botany, v. 65, no. 1, p. 82–89.

Strandberg, G.W., Shumate, S.E., II, and Parrott, J.R., Jr., 

1981, Microbial cells as biosorbents for heavy metals—

Accumulation of uranium by Saccharomyces cerevisiae 

and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology, v. 41, no. 1, p. 237–245.

Suter, G.W., II, and Tsao, C.L., 1996, Toxicological benchmarks for screening potential contaminants of concern for 

effects on aquatic biota—1996 Revision: U.S. Department 

of Energy ES/ER/TM-96/R2, 151 p.

Swanson, S.M., 1985, Food-chain transfer of U-series radionuclides in a Northern Saskatchewan aquatic system: Health 

Physics, v. 49, no. 5, p. 747–770.

Syed, H.S., 1999, Comparison studies adsorption of thorium 

and uranium on pure clay minerals and local Malaysian soil 

sediments: Journal of Radioanalytical Nuclear Chemistry 

v. 241, no. 1, p. 11–14.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 349

Tarzwell, C.M., and Henderson, C., 1956, The toxicity of 

some of the less common metals to fish, in Sanitary engineering aspects of the atomic energy industry—A seminar 

sponsored by the AEC and the Public Health Service, held 

at the Robert A. Taft Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

December 6–9, 1955: Oak Ridge, Tenn., Technical Information Service Extension, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 

U.S. Public Health Service, p. 286–289.

Thomas, P., and Gates, T., 1999, Radionuclides in the lichencaribou-human food chain near uranium mining operations 

in northern Saskatchewan, Canada: Environmental Health 

Perspectives, v. 107, p. 527–537.

Thomas, P., and Liber, K., 2001, An estimation of radiation 

doses to benthic invertebrates from sediments collected near 

a Canadian uranium mine: Environment International, v. 27, 

no. 4, p. 341–353.

Thomas, P.A., 2000, Radionuclides in the terrestrial ecosystem 

near a Canadian uranium mill—Part II. Small mammal 

food chains and bioavailability: Health Physics, v. 78, no. 6, 

p. 625–632.

Thompson, P., and Bird, G., 2003, Biological effects benchmarks for the protection of aquatic organisms against radiation in Protection of the Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation—Proceedings of an International Conference, 

Stockholm, 6–10 October 2003, CD-ROM: International 

Atomic Energy Agency, Paper no. IAEA-CN-109/88.

Thompson, P.A., Macdonald, C.R., and Harrison, F., 2003, 

Recommended RBE weighting factor for the ecological risk 

assessment of alpha-emitting radionuclides, in Protection 

of the Environment from Ionising Radiation—The development and application of a system of radiation protection 

for the environment. Proceedings of the Third International 

Symposium, Darwin, Australia, 22–26 July 2002: International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA-CSP-17, p. 93–100.

Thompson, S.E., Burton, C.A., Quinn, D.J., and Ng, Y.C., 

1972, Concentration factors of chemical elements in edible 

aquatic organisms: California University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory UCRL--50564(Rev.1), 77 p.

Till, J.E., and Blaylock, B.G., 1976, The chemical and radiological toxicity of plutonium to developing embryos of fish: 

Radiation Research, v. 67, no. 3, p. 626–627.

Torstenfelt, B., 1986, Migration of the actinides, thorium, protactinium, uranium, neptunium, plutonium and americium in 

clay: Radiochemica Acta, v. 39, p. 105–112.

Tracy, B.L., Prantl, F.A., and Quinn, J.M., 1983, Transfer of 

226Ra, 210Pb and Uranium from soil to garden produce—

Assessment of risk: Health Physics, v. 44, no. 5, p. 469–477.

Tran, D., Massabuau, J.C., and Garnier-Laplace, J., 2008, 

Impact of hypoxia on hemolymph contamination by uranium 

in an aquatic animal, the freshwater clam Corbicula fluminea: 

Environmental Pollution, v. 156, no. 3, p. 821–826.

Turner, J.E., 2007, Atoms, radiation, and radiation protection 

(3d ed.): New York, Wiley-VCH, 606 p.

Twining, B.S., Twiss, M.R., and Fisher, N.S., 2003, Oxidation of thallium by Great Lakes plankton communities: 

Environmental Science and Technology, v. 37, no. 12, 

p. 2720–2726.

Underhill, P.T., 1996, Naturally occurring radioactive material: 

Delray Beach, Fla., St. Lucie Press, 145 p.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

Radiation, 1993, Sources and effects of ionizing radiation—

Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes: 

New York, United Nations, 922 p.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

Radiation, 1996, Scientific annex, in Sources and effects of 

ionizing radiation—Report to the General Assembly, with 

scientific annex: New York, United Nations, p. 5–86.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

Radiation, 2000, Sources and effects of ionizing radiation—

Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. 

Volume 1, Sources: New York, United Nations.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

Radiation, 2008, Effects of ionizing radiation on non-human 

biota: United Nations General Assembly A/AC.82/R.672 

Draft, 144 p.

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive 

Medicine, 2007, Wildlife toxicity assessment for thallium: 

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive 

Medicine, Health Effects Research Program, Environmental Risk Assessment Program, Project no. 39-EJ1138-01O, 

19 p.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002, A graded approach for 

evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota: 

U.S. Department of Energy DOE-STD-1153-2002, 234 p.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2005, Biological assessment/

Screening level risk assessment/Biological opinion—

Appendix A of Remediation of the Moab uranium mill 

tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah—Final environmental impact statement: U.S. Department of Energy 

DOE/EIS-0355, p. A1–103. [Three sub-appendixes each 

with individual pagination.]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Guidance for 

developing ecological soil screening levels—OSWER 

Directive 9285.7-55: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, 85 p.
350 Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials 

from uranium mining. Volume 2—Investigation of potential 

health, geographic, and environmental issues of abandoned 

uranium mines: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA 402-R-08-005.

Vandenhove, H., Gil-García, C., Rigol, A., and Vidal, M., 

2009, New best estimates for radionuclide solid–liquid 

distribution coefficients in soils. Part 2. Naturally occurring radionuclides: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 

v. 100, no. 9, p. 697–703.

Van der Stricht, E., and Kirchmann, R., eds., 2001, 

Radioecology—Radioactivity and ecosystems: Saint-Paullez-Durance, France, International Union of Radioecology, 

624 p.

Van Gosen, B.S., and Wenrich, K.J., 1989, Ground magnetometer surveys over known and suspected breccia pipes on the 

Coconino Plateau, northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1683–C, 31 p.

Vincolli, J.W., 1996, Risk management for hazardous chemicals, v. 2: Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, p, 2677–2682.

Vinot, H., and Larpent, J.P., 1984, Water pollution by uranium ore treatment works: Hydrobiologia, v. 112, no. 2, 

p. 125–129.

Waite, D.T., Joshi, S.R., and Sommerstad, H., 1988, The 

effect of uranium mine tailings on radionuclide concentrations in Langley Bay, Saskatchewan, Canada: Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 17, no. 3, 

p. 373–380.

Watson, A.P., Etnier, E.L., and McDowell-Boyer, L.M., 1984, 

Radium-226 in drinking water and terrestrial food chains: 

transfer parameters and normal exposure and dose: Nuclear 

Safety, v. 25, no. 6, p. 815–829.

Wenrich, K.J., 1985, Mineralization of breccia pipes in northern Arizona: Economic Geology, v. 80, no. 6, p. 1722–1735.

Whicker, F.W., and Schultz, V., 1982, Radioecology—Nuclear 

energy and the environment (2 v.): Boca Raton, Fla., CRC 

Press, 440 p.

Wilhm, J.L., 1970, Transfer of radioisotopes between detritus 

and benthic macroinvertebrates in laboratory microecosystems: 

Health Physics, v. 18, no. 3, p. 277–284.

Williams, P.L., and Dusenbery, D.B., 1990, Aquatic toxicity testing using the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 9, no. 10, 

p. 1285–1290.

Wolff, S., 1998, The adaptive response in radiobiology—

Evolving insights and implications: Environmental Health 

Perspectives, v. 106, supplement 1, p. 277–283.

Woodhead, D.S., 1984, Contamination due to radioactive 

materials, in Kinne, O., ed., Pollution and Protection of the 

seas—Radioactive materials, heavy metals and oil, pt. 3 of 

Marine Ecology (v. 5): New York, John Wiley and Sons, 

p. 1111–1287.

Woodhead, D., and Zinger, I., 2003, Radiation effects on 

plants and animals: Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, 

FASSET Deliverable 4, Contract no. FIGE-CT-2000-00102, 

196 p.

World Health Organization, 1996, Thallium: Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization, International Programme 

on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 182, 

116 p.

Yankovich, T.L., 2009, Mass balance approach to estimating 

radionuclide loads and concentrations in edible fish tissues 

using stable analogues: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, v. 100, p. 795–801.

Zach, R., Hawkins, J.L., and Sheppard, S.C., 1993, Effects of 

ionizing radiation on breeding swallows at current radiation 

protection standards: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 12, no. 4, p. 779–786.

Zach, R., and Mayoh, K.R., 1986, Gamma irradiation of tree 

swallow embryos and subsequent growth and survival: The 

Condor, v. 88, no. 1, p. 1–10.

Zhang, P.C., and Brady, P.V., 2002, Geochemistry of soil 

radionuclides: Madison, Wis., Soil Science Society of 

America, 252 p.

Zitko, V., Carson, W.V., and Carson, W.G., 1975, Thallium—

Occurrence in the environment and toxicity to fish: Bulletin 

of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 13, 

no. 1, p. 23–30.
Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 351

Appendix 1. 235Uranium and 232Thorium Decay Series

[Decay series information taken from Peterson and others, 2005]

Table 1.1. Half-life for constituent elements of 235U decay series.

Element Type of radiation released 

in daughter formation Half-life

Uranium-235 Alpha 7.0×109 years

Thorium-231 Beta 26 hours

Protactinium-231 Alpha 33,000 years

Actinium-227 Alpha 22 years

Thorium-227 Beta 19 years

Francium-223 Beta 22 minutes

Radon-223 Alpha 11 days

Radon-219 Alpha 4.0 seconds

Polonium-215 Beta 1.8 milliseconds

Lead-211 Beta 36 minutes

Bismuth-211 Alpha 2.1 minutes

Thallium-207 Beta 4.8 minutes

Lead-207 Stable

Table 1.2. Half-life for constituent elements of 232Th decay series.

Element Type of radiation released

in daughter formation Half-life

Thorium-232 Alpha 1.405×1010 years

Radium-228 Beta 6.7 years

Actinium-228 Beta 6.13 hours

Thorium-228 Alpha 1.91 years

Radium-224 Alpha 3.64 days

Radon-220 Alpha 55 seconds

Polonium-216 Alpha 0.15 seconds

Lead-212 Beta 10.64 hours

Bismuth-212 Alpha 60.6 minutes

Polonium-212 Beta 304 nanoseconds

Thallium-208 Alpha 3.1 minutes

Lead-208 Stable

Biological Pathways of Exposure and Ecotoxicity Values for Uranium and Associated Radionuclides 353

Appendix 2. Radiation Measurement

numerically. Regardless of the units being used to characterize 

absorbed dose, the amount of energy intercepted by the receptor 

is expressed per unit of weight.

Roentgens were initially developed to address issues related 

to human radiation safety, particularly those risks associated with 

exposure to x-rays or gamma rays, and the derivative unit for 

radiation dose in humans was the roentgen equivalent in man, or 

rem. A rem is the product of the absorbed dose in roentgens (R) 

and the biological efficiency or dose equivalent (DE) of the radiation. DE may be regarded as an expression of dose in terms of 

its biological effect, which accounts for the variation in absorbed 

dose of radiation for different forms of radiation (for example, 

alpha, beta, or gamma). More specifically, each form of radiation is characterized by different energies; hence, each form of 

radiation may give rise to a greater biological effect at the same 

absorbed dose based on the Quality Factor (Q) characteristic of 

that type of radiation:

DE = Absorbed Dose × Quality Factor (Q)

where

Q = 1 for gamma, x-ray, and beta radiation,

and

Q = 10 for alpha radiation.

Adverse effects associated with absorbed dose, then, vary as a 

function of Q, which is related to the energy loss of radiation 

per unit path length, or its linear energy transfer (LET). Generally, the greater the LET in tissue, the greater the biological 

effect (adverse). The SI equivalent of the rem is the sievert 

(Sv), where 1 Sv = 100 rem when a radiation weighting factor 

finds 1 rem = 1.07185 R. The official units for radiation measurement are the SI units: the gray (Gy) for absorbed dose and 

the sievert (Sv) for equivalent dose.

This appendix briefly describes terms related to radiation exposure and dose, as a means to provide the reader 

with a background for interpreting the numeric values used 

to characterize radiation effects discussed in this report. For 

more in depth descriptions of the concepts and terms used 

to measure radiation (especially as related to exposure) and 

the total absorbed dose received by a receptor, see Blaylock 

and others (1993), Brechignac and Desmet (2005), and 

Turner (2007).

Not unlike other units of measure, units of measurement for radiation have been standardized by the International 

System of Units (SI), which can trace its lineage to the metric 

system. A second set of units of measurements, however, are 

commonly encountered in the United States and serve as a 

“conventional system” that remains in wide use today throughout the country. 

Depending on the properties of radiation being characterized, different units of measure are applied. For characterizing 

exposure, the amount of radiation being emitted by a radioactive source is measured by the curie (Ci) in the conventional 

system or by the becquerel (Bq) in SI units. Because of an 

excess of energy and stability, energy is released from radioactive elements primarily in the form of alpha particles, beta particles, or gamma rays. The units Ci or Bq express the number 

of disintegrations of these radioactive atoms during an interval 

of time. One Ci equals 37 billion (3.7×1010) disintegrations per 

second; one Bq equals one disintegration per second; hence, 

one Ci equals 37 billion (3.7×1010) Bq. Standard prefixes common in scientific nomenclature are applied to alter the quantity 

expressed by the base units (for example, mCi = 0.001 Ci; 

kBq = 1,000 Bq).

Radiation dose refers to the energy absorbed per mass 

of biological tissues (for example, joules per kilogram, J/kg) 

from radioactive decay. Following conventional nomenclature, 

radiation dose is measured by the rad, which stands for radiation absorbed dose; the SI unit is the gray (Gy). The rad is a unit 

of absorbed dose for any ionizing radiation and equals 100 ergs 

absorbed per gram of material, or 0.01 J/kg; 1 Gy equals 100 rad, 

or 1 J/kg. In the United States, radiation exposures were historically measured in roentgens/hour (R/h); the roentgen is equivalent 

to 2.58 × 10-4 coulomb/kg (C/kg) in air in SI units. For water 

and soft tissues the absorbed dose per roentgen is between 0.93 

and 0.98 rad; hence, the roentgen and rad are nearly equivalent 

Table 2.1. Equivalent units of radiation measurement.

International

System

(SI)

Conventional

(US)

Multiply By To obtain

Exposure (activity of source) becquerel (Bq) 3.7×1010 curie (Ci)

Absorbed dose gray (Gy) 0.01 rad (rad)

Biologically effective dose sievert (Si) 0.01 rem (rem)

Intensity coulomb/kg

in air

2.58×10–4 roentgen (R)
Publishing support provided by:

Denver Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Pacific Southwest Regional Executive Office, USGS

3020 State University Drive East

Modoc Hall, Suite 3005

Sacramento, CA 95819-2632

Phone: 916-278-9551