USGS Home
Contact USGS
Search USGS

Additional USGS Geoscience data can be found by geographic location or by publication series.

Chemical Composition of Samples Collected from Waste Rock Dumps and Other Mining-Related Features at Selected Phosphate Mines in Southeastern Idaho, Western Wyoming, and Northern Utah

Frequently-anticipated questions:

• What does this data set describe?
  1. How should this data set be cited?
  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?
  3. What does it look like?
  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?
  5. What is the general form of this data set?
  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?
• Who produced the data set?
  1. Who are the originators of the data set?
  2. Who also contributed to the data set?
  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
• Why was the data set created?
• How was the data set created?
  1. From what previous works were the data drawn?
  2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?
  3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?
• How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?
  1. How well have the observations been checked?
  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?
  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?
  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?
  5. How consistent are the relationships among the data, including topology?
• How can someone get a copy of the data set?
  1. Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?
  2. Who distributes the data?
  3. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?
  4. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?
  5. How can I download or order the data?
• Who wrote the metadata?

What does this data set describe?

1. How should this data set be cited?

   Moyle, Phillip R. , and Causey, J. Douglas , 2001, Chemical Composition of Samples Collected from Waste Rock Dumps and Other Mining-Related Features at Selected Phosphate Mines in Southeastern Idaho, Western Wyoming, and Northern Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 01-411, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.

   Online Links:

   • <http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of01-411/>

2. What geographic area does the data set cover?

   West_Bounding_Coordinate: -112.1294

   East_Bounding_Coordinate: -110.5823

   North_Bounding_Coordinate: 43.0326

   South_Bounding_Coordinate: 40.1008

3. What does it look like?

4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?

   Beginning_Date: 19-Jun-1999

   Ending_Date: 12-Sep-2000

   Currentness_Reference: Samples were collected during this interval

5. What is the general form of this data set?

   Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map

6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
   1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?

      This is a Point data set. It contains the following vector data types (SDTS terminology):

      • Entity point (31)

   2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?

      Horizontal positions are specified in geographic coordinates, that is, latitude and longitude. Latitudes are given to the nearest 0.0001. Longitudes are given to the nearest 0.0001. Latitude and longitude values are specified in decimal degrees.

      The horizontal datum used is North American Datum of 1927.
      The ellipsoid used is Clarke 1866.
      The semi-major axis of the ellipsoid used is 6378206.4.
      The flattening of the ellipsoid used is 1/294.98.
      

7. How does the data set describe geographic features?

   Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:

   The columns and their definitions are listed below. All values that were less than (<) were converted to minus (-). Samples were processed by several methods. As a result, there was duplication of analyses for some elements.
   Rock samples were air dried followed by disaggregation in a mechanical jaw crusher. A split was ground to <100 mesh (0.15 mm) in a ceramic plate grinder. A riffle splitter was used to obtain splits to ensure similarity with the whole sample. One set of splits for all samples was archived, and approximately 50-g splits of ground material was shipped to the contract laboratory for analysis.
   Forty major, minor, and trace elements were determined for all 31 samples by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES), also referred to as the ICP-40 package, after low-temperature (<150oC) digestion using concentrated hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, nitric, and perchloric acids (Crock and others, 1983).
   Splits of all samples were also submitted to a contract laboratory for analysis of 16 major, minor, and trace elements (Al, Ba, Ca, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Nb, P, K, Si, Na, Sr, Ti, Y, Zr) by ICP-AES using a lithium metaborate fusion. This technique, also referred to as the ICP-16 package, was used especially to provide analysis of silicon (Si) for these siliceous, phosphatic shale samples. The samples were fused with lithium metaborate in a graphite crucible. In-house standards, and synthetic standards were used to calibrate the instrument. Sample solutions were aspirated into the ICP through a high-solids nebulizer, and metal concentrations were measured simultaneously. Selenium, arsenic, and antimony analyses were accomplished using hydride generation followed by atomic absorption (AA) spectroscopy. Tellurium and thallium were determined using AA graphite furnace spectroscopy. Total sulfur and the various forms of carbon were determined using a LECO furnace followed by gas chromatographic measurement.
   Eight samples were also submitted for a 10- element ICP-AES technique, also referred to as ICP-10, for determination of Ag, As, Au, Bi, Cd, Cu, Mo, Pb, Sb, and Zn. Hydrochloric acidhydrogen peroxide were used to solubilize metals not tightly bound in the silicate lattice of rocks, and metals are extracted as organic halides. Concentrations of the extracted metals were determined simultaneously after aspiration into a multichannel ICP instrument. This procedure is a partial digestion and results may be biased low when compared to procedures involving complete dissolution of the sample.
   

   SEQ_NO     Unique sequence number
   LAB_NO     Laboratory number
   SAMPLE_NO  Field sample number
   DATE_COLL  Date sample collected
   SAMP_TYPE  Type of sample taken
   FEAT_SAMP  Mine feature sampled
   LITHOLOGY  Rock type sampled
   SITE_NAME  Name of mine or property where sample collected
   QUAD_MAP   U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' Topographic map upon which site is located
   COUNTY     County
   STATE      State
   LONGITUDE  Longitude of sample taken with GPS
   LATITUDE   Latitude of sample taken with GPS
   MERIDIAN   Meridian
   TWSP       Township
   RANGE      Range
   SECTION    Section
   PARCEL     Fractional part of section
   As_Hyd_ppm Arsenic in parts per million analyzed by hydride generation-atomic absorption spectrometry
   Hg_CVA_ppm Mercury in parts per million analyzed by cold vapor atomic absorption
   Se_Hyd_ppm Selenium in parts per million analyzed by hydride generation-atomic absorption spectrometry
   Sb_Hyd_ppm Antimony in parts per million analyzed by hydride generation-atomic absorption spectrometry
   Te_Hyd_ppm Tellurium in parts per million analyzed by hydride generation-atomic absorption spectrometry
   Tl_Hyd_ppm Thallium in parts per million analyzed by hydride generation-atomic absorption spectrometry
   C_Tot_pct  Carbon in percent analyzed by combustion in an oxygen atmosphere followed by infrared measurement of evolved CO2
   CO2_Ac_pct Carbon dioxide in percent evolved after acidification
   C_Crbt_pct Carbonate (inorganic) carbon in percent analyzed by coulometric titration after acidification
   S_Tot_pct  Sulfur in percent analyzed by combustion in an oxygen atmosphere followed by infrared measurement of evolved SO2
   Ag_10_ppm  Silver in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   As_10_ppm  Arsenic in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Au_10_ppm  Gold in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Bi_10_ppm  Bismuth in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Cd_10_ppm  Cadmium in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Cu_10_ppm  Copper in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Mo_10_ppm  Molybdenum in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Pb_10_ppm  Lead in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Sb_10_ppm  Antimony in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Zn_10_ppm  Zinc in parts per million analyzed by 10 element method
   Al_16_pct  Aluminum in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   Ca_16_pct  Calcium in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   Fe_16_pct  Iron in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   K_16_pct   Potassium in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   Mg_16_pct  Magnesium in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   Na_16_pct  Sodium in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   P_16_pct   Phosphorous in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   Si_16_pct  Silicon in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   Ti_16_pct  Titanium in percent analyzed by 16 element method
   Ba_16_ppm  Barium in parts per million analyzed by 16 element method
   Cr_16_ppm  Chromium in parts per million analyzed by 16 element method
   Mn_16_ppm  Manganese in parts per million analyzed by 16 element method
   Nb_16_ppm  Niobium in parts per million analyzed by 16 element method
   Sr_16_ppm  Strontium in parts per million analyzed by 16 element method
   Y_16_ppm   Yittrium in parts per million analyzed by 16 element method
   Zr_16_ppm  Zirconium in parts per million analyzed by 16 element method
   Al_40_pct  Aluminum in percent analyzed by 40 element method
   Ca_40_PCT  Calcium in percent analyzed by 40 element method
   Fe_40_pct  Iron in percent analyzed by 40 element method
   K_40_pct   Potassium in percent analyzed by 40 element method
   Mg_40_pct  Magnesium in percent analyzed by 40 element method
   Na_40_pct  Sodium in percent analyzed by 40 element method
   P_40_pct   Phosphorous in percent analyzed by 40 element method
   Ti_40_pct  Titanium in percent analyzed by 40 element method
   Ag_40_ppm  Silver in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   As_40_ppm  Arsenic in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Au_40_ppm  Gold in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Ba_40_ppm  Barium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Be_40_ppm  Beryllium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Bi_40_ppm  Bismuth in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Cd_40_ppm  Cadmium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Ce_40_ppm  Cerium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Co_40_ppm  Cobalt in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Cr_40_ppm  Chromium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Cu_40_ppm  Copper in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Eu_40_ppm  Europium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Ga_40_ppm  Gallium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Ho_40_ppm  Holmium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   La_40_ppm  Lanthanium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Li_40_ppm  Lithium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Mn_40_ppm  Manganese in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Mo_40_ppm  Molybdenum in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Nb_40_ppm  Niobium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Nd_40_ppm  Neodymium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Ni_40_ppm  Nickel in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Pb_40_ppm  Lead in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Sc_40_ppm  Scandium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Sn_40_ppm  Tin in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Sr_40_ppm  Strontium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Ta_40_ppm  Tantalum in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Th_40_ppm  Thorium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   U_40_ppm   Uranium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   V_40_ppm   Vanadium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Y_40_ppm   Yittrium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Yb_40_ppm  Ytterbium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   Zn_40_ppm  Zirconium in parts per million analyzed by 40 element method
   

   Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation: <http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of01-411/OF01-411.pdf>

Who produced the data set?

1. Who are the originators of the data set? (may include formal authors, digital compilers, and editors)
   • Phillip R. Moyle
   • J. Douglas Causey

2. Who also contributed to the data set?

   The authors appreciate the help and participation of a number of individuals and companies. Staff from several phosphate mining companies - in particular, Rob Squires, Monty Johnson, and Alan Haslam, Agrium U.S. Inc., Larry Raymond, J.R. Simplot Company, Dan Bersanti, Rhodia, and David Farnsworth and Mike Vice, Monsanto - were very helpful, providing access, maps and historical information for several sites. Land management agency staff also provided logistical support for and input into this research effort. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Land Use Council granted permission for field reconnaissance and sampling at the Gay mine, and Sam Hernandez, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Hall, ID, provided historical information, maps, and a tour.

3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
   Phil Moyle
   U. S. Geological Survey
   Geologist
   904 W. Riverside Ave., Rm 202
   Spokane, WA 99201-1087
   USA
   

   509.368.3109 (voice)
   509.368.3199 (FAX)
   pmoyle@usgs.gov
   

Why was the data set created?

The sampling effort was undertaken as a reconnaissance and does not constitute a characterization of mine wastes. Twenty-five samples were collected from waste rock dumps, 2 from stockpiles, and 1 each from slag, tailings, mill shale, and an outcrop. All samples were analyzed for a suite of major, minor, and trace elements.

How was the data set created?

1. From what previous works were the data drawn?

2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?

   Date: 1999 (process 1 of 2)

   Thirty-one samples collected for geochemical analysis were obtained from waste rock dumps (25), stockpiles or mill shale piles (3), tailings (1), slag (1), and outcrop (1) from 20 mines and prospects. Waste rock dump, stockpiles or mill shales, and tailings samples were collected as composite grab samples. Composite grab samples consist of rock material collected from two or more 0.3- to 0.6 m-deep holes excavated into the waste rock dump, stockpile, or tailings impoundment and combined into a single composite sample. A sample of slag was selected from a heterogeneous mix of mine wastes, processing byproducts and alluvium at a mine-plant complex, and a continuous chip channel sample was obtained from an outcrop of Meade Peak member at one inactive mine site. Approximately 2.5 to 5 kg of rock was collected at each sample locality. Samples were shipped to the laboratory of the USGS in Denver, Colorado for sample preparation.
   Rock samples were air-dried followed by disaggregation in a mechanical jaw crusher. A split was ground to <100 mesh (0.15 mm) in a ceramic plate grinder. A riffle splitter was used to obtain splits to ensure similarity with the whole sample. One set of splits for all samples was archived, and approximately 50-g splits of ground material was shipped to the contract laboratory for analysis. Forty major, minor, and trace elements were determined for all 31 samples by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES), also referred to as the ICP-40 package, after low-temperature (<150 o C) digestion using concentrated hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, nitric, and perchloric acids (Crock and others, 1983). Splits of all samples were also submitted to the contract laboratory for analysis of 16 major, minor, and trace elements (Al, Ba, Ca, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mn, Nb, P, K, Si, Na, Sr, Ti, Y, Zr) by ICP-AES using a lithium metaborate fusion. This technique is also referred to as the ICP-16 package. The samples were fused with lithium metaborate in a graphite crucible. In-house standards were run to monitor the proper digestion procedure, and synthetic standards were used to calibrate the instrument. Sample solutions were aspirated into the ICP through a high-solids nebulizer, and metal concentrations were measured simultaneously. Eight samples were also submitted for a 10-element ICP-AES technique, also referred to as ICP-10, for determination of Ag, As, Au, Bi, Cd, Cu, Mo, Pb, Sb, and Zn. Hydrochloric acid and hydrogen peroxide were used to solubilize metals not tightly bound in the silicate lattice of rocks. Metals are extracted as organic halides. Concentrations of the extracted metals were determined simultaneously after aspiration into a multichannel ICP instrument. This procedure is a partial digestion and results may be biased low when compared to procedures involving complete dissolution of the sample. Sample splits were also submitted for individual analysis of ten elements or compounds by specific methods. Arsenic, Sb, Se, Tl and Te analyses were performed by hydride generation-atomic absorption spectrometry. Hg was analyzed by cold vapor-atomic absorption spectrometry. Total S and total C were analyzed by combustion in an oxygen atmosphere followed by infrared measurement of evolved CO2 and SO2. Carbonate (inorganic) C was determined by coulometric titration after acidification. An interim value for CO2 is also reported. Organic C may be calculated as the difference between total and carbonate carbon.

   Date: 2001 (process 2 of 2)

   Data reported on spreadsheet was copied and pasted to text file.

   Person who carried out this activity:
   

   J. Douglas Causey
   U.S. Geological Survey
   Geologist
   904 W. Riverside Ave., Rm 202
   Spokane, WA 99201-1087
   USA
   

   509.368.3116 (voice)
   509.368.3199 (FAX)
   dcausey@usgs.gov
   

   Hours_of_Service: 8-4 PST

3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?

How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?

1. How well have the observations been checked?

   The accuracy was verified by manual comparison of the source with topographic maps

2. How accurate are the geographic locations?

   +- 10 meters

3. How accurate are the heights or depths?

4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?

   Several elements occur in concentrations at or below the detection limit of the analytical method. In all samples analyzed, Au, Sn, and Ta are below detection, Bi and U were detected only in one sample each, and Be is at or near detection limit (2 ppm) in all but two samples. "NA" is given as the data value where no analytic result is available.

5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?

   Longitude and latitude information is unique location for each point

How can someone get a copy of the data set?

Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?

Access_Constraints: None

Use_Constraints:

Any hardcopies utilizing these data sets shall clearly indicate their source. If the user has modified the data in any way, they are obligated to describe the types of modifications they have performed. User specifically agrees not to misrepresent these data sets, nor to imply that changes they made were approved by the U.S. Geological Survey.

1. Who distributes the data set? (Distributor 1 of 1)
   USGS Information Services
   Box 25286 Denver Federal Center
   Denver, CO 80225
   USA
   

   1-888-ASK-USGS (voice)
   303-202-4693 (FAX)
   ask@usgs.gov
   

2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?

   USGS Open-File Report 01-411

3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?

   The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides these geographic data "as is". The USGS makes no guarantee or warranty concerning the accuracy of information contained in the geographic data. The USGS further make no warranties, either expressed or implied as to any other matter whatsoever, including, without limitation, the condition of the product, or its fitness for any particular purpose. The burden for determined fitness for use lies lies entirely with the user. Although these data have been processed successfully on computers at the USGS, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS regarding the use of these data on any other system, nor does the fact of distribution constite or imply any such warranty.
   In no event shall the USGS have any liability whatsoever for payment of any consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, any loss of profits arising out of the delivery, installation, operation, or support by the USGS.

4. How can I download or order the data?
   • Availability in digital form:

     Data format:	Geochemical data for samples in format Tab-delimited text Tab characters delimit fields within a row, rows delimit records (one record per line). Top line contains field labels. The data are also available in Microsoft Excel format. Size: 16 kilobytes
     Network links:	<http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of01-411/OF01-411.txt> <http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of01-411/OF01-411.xls>

   • Cost to order the data: None

Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:

Last modified: 03-Jan-2002
Last Reviewed: 13-Feb-2002

Metadata author:

U.S. Geological Survey
c/o J. Douglas Causey
Geologist
904 W. Riverside Ave., Rm 202
Spokane, WA 99208-1087
USA

509.368.3116 (voice)
509.368.3199 (FAX)
dcausey@usgs.gov

Hours_of_Service: 8-4 PST

Metadata standard:

Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998)