Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr20091268

Temporal chemical data for sediment, water, and biological samples from the Lava Cap Mine Superfund site, Nevada County, California— 2006–2008

Abstract

The Lava Cap Mine is located about 6 km east of the city of Grass Valley, Nevada County, California, at an elevation of about 900 m. Gold was hosted in quartz-carbonate veins typical of the Sierran Gold Belt, but the gold grain size was smaller and the abundance of sulfide minerals higher than in typical deposits. The vein system was discovered in 1860, but production was sporadic until the 1930s when two smaller operations on the site were consolidated, a flotation mill was built, and a 100-foot deep adit was driven to facilitate drainage and removal of water from the mine workings, which extended to 366 m. Peak production at the Lava Cap occurred between 1934 and 1943, when about 90,000 tons of ore per year were processed. To facilitate removal of the gold and accessory sulfide minerals, the ore was crushed to a very fine sand or silt grain size for processing. Mining operations at Lava Cap ceased in June 1943 due to War Production Board Order L-208 and did not resume after the end of World War II. Two tailings retention structures were built at the Lava Cap Mine. The first was a log dam located about 0.4 km below the flotation mill on Little Clipper Creek, and the second, built in 1938, was a larger earth fill and rip-rap structure constructed about 2 km downstream, which formed the water body now called Lost Lake. The log dam failed during a storm that began on December 31, 1996, and continued into January 1997; an estimated 8,000-10,000 m 3 of tailings were released into Little Clipper Creek during this event. Most of the fine tailings were deposited in Lost Lake, dramatically increasing its turbidity and resulting in a temporary 1-1.5 m rise in lake level due to debris blocking the dam spillway. When the blockage was cleared, the lake level quickly lowered, leaving a "bathtub ring" of very fine tailings deposited substantially above the water line. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated emergency action in late 1997 at the mine site to reduce the possibility of future movement of tailings, and began an assessment of the risks posed by physical and chemical hazards at the site. The EPA's assessment identified arsenic (As) as the primary hazard of concern. Three main exposure routes were identified: inhalation/ingestion of mine tailings, dermal absorption/ingestion of As in lake water from swimming, and ingestion of As-contaminated ground water or surface water. Lost Lake is a private lake which is completely surrounded by low-density residential development. Prior to the dam failure, the lake was used by the local residents for swimming and boating. An estimated 1,776 people reside within one mile of the lake, and almost all residents of the area use potable groundwater for domestic use. Risk factors for human exposure to As derived from mine wastes were high enough to merit placement of the mine site and surrounding area on the National Priority List (commonly called "Superfund"). The Lava Cap Mine Superfund site (LCMS) encompasses approximately 33 acres that include the mine site, the stretch of Little Clipper Creek between the mine and Lost Lake, the lake itself, and the area between the lake and the confluence of Little Clipper Creek with its parent stream, Clipper Creek. The area between the two creeks is named the "deposition area" due to the estimated 24 m thick layer of tailings that were laid down there during and after active mining. The lobate structure of Lost Lake is also due to deposition in this area. The deposition area and Lost Lake are together estimated to contain 382,277 m 3 of tailings. The primary goals of the EPA have been to minimize tailings movement downstream of Lost Lake and to ensure that residents in the area have drinking water that meets national water quality standards. EPA has officially decided to construct a public water supply line to deliver safe water to affected residences, since some residential wells in the area have As concentrations above the current drinking water standard (10 ppb). However, some deeper monitoring wells in the deposition area have As concentrations that are as much as 100 times the As drinking water standard (EPA, 2001). Fracture-dominated groundwater flowpaths complicate measurement of the rate and direction of groundwater flow in the area. Investigations of groundwater movement at the LCMS are planned by the EPA, but have not been undertaken at the time of this writing.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 39.1933° to 39.25° latitude; -121° to -120.9422° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Andrea L. Foster, Georges Ona-Nguema, Kate Tufano, Richard III White. 2010. Temporal chemical data for sediment, water, and biological samples from the Lava Cap Mine Superfund site, Nevada County, California— 2006–2008. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20091268

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona