EPA-600/4-81-052
                                                         June 1981
                 GEOTHERMAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Behavior of Selected Geothermal Brine Contaminants in Plants and Soils
                                  by

                             K. W. Brown        -  .—.
                Exposure Assessment Research Division
             Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
                       Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
             ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
                   OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
                 U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114

-------
                                                         EPA-600/4-81-052
                                                         June 1981
                 GEOTHERMAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Behavior of Selected Geothermal Brine Contaminants in Plants and Soils
                                  by

                             K. W. Brown
                Exposure Assessment Research Division
             Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
                       Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
             ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
                  OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
                 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER
    This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.  Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                     fi

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    The behavior of selected elements found 1n geothermal  fluids  of the
Roosevelt Hot Springs known geothermal resource area (KGRA)  was  Investigated
1n plant and soil systems.  The kinetics of these potential  environmental
contaminants were studied by using soil columns and selected cultivated and
native plant species.

    The data collected Indicate that, of the 26 elements  examined,  lithium 1s
the best Indicator of geothermal contamination.  This element, which occurs 1n
the fluids at concentrations exceeding 25.0 parts per million (ppm), was
readily detected 1n and through a variety of different test  soils.

    The plant species, which were exposed via a number of rooting media
including soils, vermicullte, and hydroponic solution, absorbed  and
translocated lithium to all aerial plant parts.  The greatest lithium
concentration occurred in hydroponically grown tomatoes where the leaves,
stems, and fruit contain 914.5 ± 35.8 ppm, 106.5 ± 3.2 ppm,  and  35.7 ± 4.8 ppm
of this element, respectively.

    Two native species —• four-winged saltbush, Atrip!ex  canescens. and
bitterbrush, Purshia tridentata -- appear to be good biological  Indicators
since they accumulated nearly twice as much lithium, 309.8 ± 29.9 ppm and
226.0 ± 5.8 ppm, respectively, as did other native species tested.

    On site vegetative assessment was made at three different study sites.
Species, their percentage composition, and ground cover were determined.
Also, biomass estimate of 4,898 kilogram per hectare was  calculated for the
Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA.

-------
                                   CONTENTS
Executive Summary	111
Tables	v1

Introduction	1

Conclusions 	  2

Methods and Materials 	  .....  2
    Soils	2
    Plants  	  3
    Geothermal fluids 	  4
    Assessment areas	5
    Sample analysis . 	  ..........  5

Results and Discussion	6
    Soils and plants	6
    Assessment areas	14

References	21

Appendices

    A.   Vegetation Map Showing Location of
         Assessment Site 1	24

    B.   Vegetation Map Showing Location of
         Assessment Site 2 and 3	 25

    C.   U.S. Bureau of Land Management
         Temporary Use Application and Permit 	 26

    D.   Percentage Composition and Ground Cover
         of Plant Species Within Each Enclosure 	 28

    E.   Percentage Composition and Ground Cover
;         of Plant Species Adjacent to the Three Enclosures	29

-------
                                    TABLES
Number                                                                   Page

   1   Elemental analysis of geothermal fluids
         from Phillips Petroleum Company's Well 54-3. .	  4
   2   Elemental analysis of nontreated rooting media
   3   The concentration of selected geothermal fluid elements in
         Calico soil following an application of brine to the top
         of a 50.0-cm soil column	  8
   4   The concentration of selected geothermal fluid elements in
         Pahrump soil following an application of brine to the top
         of a 50.0-cm soil column	  .  9
   5   The concentration of selected geothermal fluid elements in
         Nil and soil following an application of brine to the top
         of a 50.0-cm soil column	10

   6   The concentration of selected geothermal fluid elements in
         Niland soil following an application of brine to the
         bottom of  a 50.0-cm soil column	12

   7   The concentration of selected geothermal fluid elements in
         Calico soil following an application of brine to the
         bottom of  a 50.0-cm soil column	13

   8   Concentration of selected geothermal fluid elements in
         cultivated plants	15
   9   The concentration of selected geothermal fluid elements in
         hydroponically grown tomato and alfalfa plants 	 16

  10   Concentration of selected geothermal fluid elements in
         native plant species 	 17
  11   Percentage composition and frequency of occurrence of
          plant species in the three enclosures	18

  12   Percentage composition and frequency of occurrence of
         plant species outside of the three enclosures	19

  13   The regression equations, F values, and correlation coefficients
         of the three biomass sites on the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA  .  . 20

  14   Summary of the biomass estimates for 1977 and 1978
         on the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA	20

-------
                                 INTRODUCTION
    A number of western geothermal  areas are under consideration  for
industrial and commercial  development because of their energy-producing
potential.  They include the Imperial Valley, Klamath Falls,  Rio  Grande Rift
Zone, and the relatively new site located in southern Utah,  Roosevelt  Hot
Springs.  The surrounding lands, adjacent to these known  geothermal  resource
areas (KGRA), are important not only as farming and recreational  sites, but
also as valuable wildlife habitats.  In addition, they are economically
important as livestock rangeland.  Because geothermal energy  may  contribute
significantly to our country's energy needs, it is important  that methods  be
developed for assessing the impact of possible contamination  from geothermal
development.

    In December 1971, Roosevelt Hot Springs became a potential  KGRA when the
Phillips Petroleum Company filed a plan of operation for  geothermal
exploration with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).  As a result, the  USGS
prepared and distributed an environmental analysis -statement  (EA) in 1976  as
required by the U.S. Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 and by  Section  102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    Collection of environmental baseline data in and around  the established
boundary of the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA was initiated  in  1977, as required
by the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (Title 30 CFR 270.34K).   These baseline
data included existing air and water quality, noise, seismic  activities, and
the identifiction of both biological and ecological parameters.

    Some of the baseline data-collection investigations were conducted by
Phillips Petroleum Company's contractor, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) contractors, Geonomics  and
Harding-Lawson Associates.  These efforts were complemented  by  studies
conducted by EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory  in Las  Vegas
(EMSL-LV).  EMSL-LV collected and assessed biological data that included plant
and animal population identification and description, soils  identification,
and livestock grazing assessment.  In addition, EMSL-LV investigated and
identified potential biological indicators of geothermal  contamination and
established permanent ecological assessment study areas at relatively
undisturbed sites on the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA.  Complementary  laboratory
studies were also conducted to identify the movement and  behavior of selected
geothermal brine contaminants in plants and soils.

    Only baseline data concerned with the behavior of selected  brine.
contaminants in soils and plants and the establishment of the ecological
assessment areas are presented in this report.

-------
                                 CONCLUSIONS
     The results of these investigations have shown that selected chemical
contaminants associated with geothermal  fluids can be incorporated in
biological  and soil systems.  One of these, lithium, can be used as an
indicator of geothermal contamination in the Roosevelt Hot Springs area
because of its detectability; its extent of uptake, retention, and
translocation by plants; and its movement in soils.

    All of the plant species investigated took up and translocated lithium.
However, the amount incorporated varied between species.  Tomatoes
incorporated the greatest amount, followed by second-growth alfalfa.  Highest
concentrations occurred in the leaf tissues, followed by stems and fruits.

    Two of the five native plant species exposed to geothermal fluids were
identified as potential biological indicators of lithium contamination.  The
species, four-winged saltbush and bitterbrush, which are commonly found on  the
KGRA, accumulated  nearly twice the amount of lithium as did the other three
native plant species examined.
                            METHODS AND MATERIALS
    Long-term vegetative condition and trend studies can be carried out within
three permanent enclosures that were constructed to prevent disturbance and
grazing by livestock.  The vegetative composition in these enclosures consists
primarily of sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata» which makes up 68 percent of the
total.  In addition, seven species of grass contribute 24 percent, and forbs
nearly 2 percent, of the total composition.

    The above-ground vegetation biomass, expressed as kilograms per hectare
(kg/ha), was determined at each study site.  Biomass varied from 3,032 kg/ha
to 5,223 kg/ha in 1977 and from 5,224 kg/ha to 5,883 kg/ha in 1978.  These
data represent baseline values for measurements of vegetative trends that will
provide necessary data for the development of an integrated monitoring system
for the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA.


SOILS

    Chemical migration experiments using soil columns measuring 5.0
centimeters (cm) in diameter and 50.0 cm in length were conducted.  The
columns were made by rolling plastic film into a tube.  The plastic tubes were
held together by tape, providing a semirigid cylinder.  Cutting the tape
provided easy access to the soil for sectioning and sampling.  A rubber
stopper closed the bottom of each column, and excess liquid was allowed to
drain through a hole in the rubber stopper.

-------
    Three different soils were used.  The first of these,  as described by
Rogers (1976), was a fine sandy loam in the Calico series.  It is a member of
the coarse-loamy-over-clayey, mixed thermic family of aquic xerofluvents.  It
was collected from the upper 10 cm of the Ap horizon (plow depth), near
Logandale in the Moapa Valley of southern Nevada.   Its physical  and chemical
makeup consisted of 53.9 percent sand, 10.8 percent clay,  and 1.30 percent
organic carbon.  The pH was 8.6 with a cation exchange capacity of 12.7
milliequivalents (meq)/100 grams (g).

    The second soil, described by Brown and McFarlane (1977), was a silty loam
collected near Pahrump, Nevada.  It consisted of 57.6 percent sand, 36.8
percent silt, and 5.6 percent clay, with a pH of 7.9 and a cation exchange
capacity of 12.23 meq/100 g.  The third soil was obtained from the Imperial
Valley near the Niland KGRA in southern California.  This  soil, collected in
1977, had supported crops during the previous year.  It was alluvial in nature
— low in organic matter with a moderately high pH.

    All column studies were done in triplicate.  Each column was filled and
gently packed to 45 cm in depth.  The amount of soil used per column was
1,127.0 g for Calico, 1,098.0 g for Pahrump, and 959.0 g for Niland soil.

    Two different tests were conducted.  In the first, geothermal fluids were
applied to the top of each column and allowed to percolate down through the
soil.  The Calico and Pahrump soils were saturated with 290 milliliters (ml)
of geothermal fluids while 390 ml were required to saturate the Niland soils.
In the second test, using only Calico and Niland soils, the bottom soil layer
of each column was placed in a reservoir of fluid that moved up the column by
capillary action.  Identical amounts of fluids were used for the second tests.

    The soils were saturated during a 24-hour period.  The columns were then
opened by cutting the taped seams.  The soil was cut in 5.0 cm depth
increments.  The increments also measured 5.0 cm in diameter.  Elimination of
the outer 2.0 cm from each depth increment minimized the effect of the column
wall on geothermal fluid distribution in the soils.  The design and
construction of the column appeared to retard channeling and flow of fluids
between the inner column wall and the outer edge of the soil.


PLANTS  -

    Studies were conducted in which selected rooting media were spiked and
irrigated with various concentrations of geothermal fluids.  The rooting media
were a potting mixture of vermlculite (Jiffy Mix), Pahrump soil, Calico soil,
and hydroponic solution.

    Commonly cultivated crop plants — sweet corn (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris), beets (Beta vulqaris), tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), and
alfalfa (Medicago sativa) -- were selected for study.  All of the species,
except those used for the hydroponic test, were planted and allowed to grow to
maturity 1n the soil and vermlculite rooting media.  The hydroponic test
species, which included only tomato and alfalfa, were grown in vermiculite and
then transferred to the spiked hydroponic solution after a two-week

-------
gennination and growth period.  The hydroponic growth procedures and technique
used were similar to those described by McFarlane et al.  (1978).

    The aerial  vegetative tissues from each plant in the  soil  and vermiculite
tests were analyzed together — i.e., stems and leaves were not separated from
other plant organs.  Tomato plants were separated into fruit,  stems, and
leaves for analysis, while alfalfa was analyzed without organ  separation.  The
latter was allowed to regrow with a second cutting harvested.

     In addition to these cultivated plant species, five native species
commonly found on the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA were exposed  by irrigating
with geothermal fluids.  These species included big sagebrush  (Artemisia
tridentata), winter fat (Eurotia lanata). Gambell's oak (Quercus~qambe11ii),
bitterbrush (Purshia tridentataTi and four-winged saltbush (AtripTex
canescens). They were examined for use as biological indicators of geothermal
contamination.  Native species plant parts were not separated  for analysis.


GEOTHERMAL FLUIDS

    The geothermal fluids used in this study were collected from the Phillips
Petroleum Company's test well number 54-3.  The location  of this well is
described in USGS (1976).  Because of the fluids' moderately high salt content
(Table 1), they had to be diluted before they could be used in the plant
studies.  The growing period (5 to 8 weeks) also required application of plant
growth nutrients.  Therefore, the fluids were diluted with a modified
Hoaglands solution (Berry 1971).


            TABLE 1.  ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF GEOTHERMAL FLUIDS  FROM
                    PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY'S WELL 54-3
Element                  (ppm)          Element                    (ppm)
Lithium              25.30 ± 0.07       Copper                  0.05 ± 0.0

Sodium            2,110.00 ± 14.10      Magnesium               46.5 ± 10.60

Lead                  0.16 ± 0.01       Manganese               0.01 ± 0.0

Zinc                  0.05 ± 0.0        Nickel                   0.1 ± 0.0

Cadmium*              10.0 ± 0.0        Strontium               14.3 ± 0.8
Note:  Standard deviation of three analyses 1s shown for each value.

*Cadmium concentration is 1n ppb.

-------
    The concentration of geothermal  fluids to the hydroponic solution used for
hydroponic, plant-soil, and plant-vermiculite studies was 33.0 percent.
Undiluted fluids were used for all soil  column studies.

ASSESSMENT AREAS

    Three different sites were selected for long-term investigation of species
composition, ground cover, and biomass.  These sites, each 25 hectares in
area, were located in township 27-S, range 9-west, sections 3 and 16, and in
township 26-S, range 9-west, section 33, on the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA as
described in USGS (1976).  The locations are shown on vegetation maps in
Appendix A and B.  Since these areas are used for grazing by both cattle and
sheep, a five-strand barbed-wire enclosure measuring 24.4 x 24.4 meters (m)
was constructed on each of the three sites.  The enclosures protected the
vegetation from local grazing.  The location of the enclosure within each site
is described in the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's temporary use application
and permit (Appendix C).  These locations are also found on the vegetation
maps and are identified by the designations RHS-29, -60, and -34 (Appendix A
and B).

    The techniques used for vegetative description are outlined in the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management's Ocular Reconnaissance Forage Survey Handbook
(1963).  They were based on existing correlations between vegetative growth,
local soil conditions, and environmental parameters including intensity of
livestock grazing.  The percentage ground cover and percentage species
composition were measured in each enclosure.  These measurements were obtained
by using line transects in which plant species are identified and tabulated as
they occur along a line.  In addition to the vegetative assessment within the
enclosures, biomass or standing crop was determined for each 25-hectare site.
Biomass is defined as dry tissue per unit area and is expressed as kilograms
per hectare (kg/ha).  The vegetation on the three sites were sampled with a
Neal Electronics Model 18-2000 electronic capacitance metering instrument as
described  by Neal and Neal (1973) and Morris et al. (1976).

    The dimensions of each site were 1,609 m long by 407 m wide.  Each site
was divided into 400 subsampling sites.  These subsampling sites were placed
in 10 rows of 40, running east to west.  They were on 37 m centers, beginning
from the northeast corner.  Instrument readings were taken at each of the 400
subsampling sites.  For calibration purposes, however, the vegetation was
clipped at every tenth site.

    In addition to the vegetative analysis and assessment, plant community
mapping, grazing assessment, and animal population studies were conducted on
adjacent lands.  The results and description of these studies are described by
Brown and Wiersma (1979) and Nelson et al. (1978, 1979).


SAMPLE ANALYSIS                                                               ;

    All of the samples collected from these studies were analyzed for selected
trace elements.  After drying and grinding, vegetative material was analyzed—
by optical emission spectroseopy..  The relative standard, deviation of this    ;

-------
method was 3 to 15 percent with an acceptable accuracy  above  1  microgram/gram
(ug/g) (Alexander et al. 1975).  Soils  were  analyzed  using  atomic  absorption
spectrometry following nitric acid digestion.  Ten grams  of soil were  added to
25 ml concentrated nitric acid and placed  on a hot plate  at 90°C for
approximately 36 hours (Gorsuch 1970).   The  resulting tjlution  was filtered,
brought up to 100 ml with deionized distilled water,  and  then analyzed for
selected trace elements.  The limit of  detection of this  method was 100 ug/g.
                            RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SOIL AND PLANTS
    In 1978 Cosner and Apps conducted an elemental  assay of  the Roosevelt  Hot
Springs geothermal fluids.  Based on their results, the following  elements
were selected for investigation:  lithium, sodium,  lead,  zinc,  copper,
magnesium, manganese, nickel, and strontium.  The concentrations of these
elements in the geothermal fluids of Roosevelt Hot  Springs are  shown in  Table
1.  The elemental concentrations in the nontreated  rooting media are shown in
Table 2.  We observed that only the elements lithium and sodium have
sufficient concentrations in the fluids, when compared to their concentration
in the rooting media, to serve as indicators of geothermal contamination.
This investigator believes that positive identification of the  movement  of the
other elements would be masked by naturally occurring elements  in  the rooting
media.  Therefore, only sodium and lithium will be  discussed in detail.

    The results of geothermal fluid element migration through the  Calico,
Pahrump, and Niland soils are illustrated in Tables 3, 4, and 5.  Sodium,  a
major component of the soluble salts in almost all  soils, moved readily
throughout the soil columns.  It bore a definite relationship to the movement
of the wetting front in the Niland soils.  The concentration varied from a low
of 229.3 parts per million (ppm) at the top of the  column to a  concentration
exceeding 900 ppm at the bottom.  This relationship was not  observed in  the
Pahrump and Calico soils (Tables 3 and 4) since all layers had  a similar
sodium concentration.

    These investigations showed that the study soils with low sodium
concentrations retain a greater portion of sodium in the top or initially
exposed layers than in the bottom layers.  For example, the  Pahrump soil had a
relatively low sodium concentration of 25.4 ppm and retained a  much larger
concentration in the top layer (130.3 ppm) than in  the lower 40-45 cm layer
(Table 4).

    It is anticipated that the behavior of sodium in the Roosevelt Hot Springs
soils would be similar to the Pahrump soil.  Their  chemical  and physical
properties are similar as shown in Table 2 and as described  by  Stott and Olsen
(1976).

    The most significant observation concerning these studies was  the
identification of lithium as an indicator of geothermal  contamination.   This

-------
                         TABLE 2.  ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF NONTREATEO ROOTING MEDIA
Element (ppm)
Rooting Medium
Calico soil
Pahrump soil
Nil and soil
Hydro ponlc
solution
Roosevelt Hot
Springs soil
Lithium Sodium
0.9 ±
0.1
0.6 ±
0.1
0.9 ±
0.1
0.6 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.3
76.4 ±
4.8
25.4 ±
1.7
392.3 ±
17.0
104.5 ±
0.7
18.6 ±
6.6
Lead
1.0 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.1
1.3 ±
0.1
0.1 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.2
Zinc
5.5
0.9
4.1
0.2
4.9
0.3
0.2
0.0
5.3
1.0
Cadmium*
± 28.3 ±
2.1
± 21.7 ±
3.2
± 30.7 ±
1.5
± 10.0 ±
0.0
± 19.8 ±
3.9
Copper Magnesium
0.7
0.1
0.8
0.1
1.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
1.1
0.2
± 946.0 ±
55.0
± 1650.0 ±
128.0
± 1133.0 ±
15.0
± 43.5 ±
0.7
± 522.0 ±
77.5
Manganese
14.7 ±
0.6
10.0 ±
1.0
29.7 ±
2.3
0.2 ±
0.0
50.0 ±
12.3
Nickel Strontium
0.4 ±
0.1
0.8 ±
0.1
1.23 ±
0.1
0.1 ±
0.0
0.6 ±
0.1
25.3 ±
5.4
23.7 ±
1.3
25.5 ±
8.4
2.9 ±
0.0
4.7 ±
1.0
Note:  Standard deviation of three analyses is shown for each value.
*Cadmium concentration is in ppb.

-------
             TABLE 3.  THE CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED GEOTHERMAL FLUID ELEMENTS IN CALICO SOIL
                   FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION OF BRINE TO THE TOP OF A 50.0-CM SOIL COLUMN
Element (ppm)
Depth
(cm)
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
Lithium
1.6 ±
0.2
1.2 ±
0.2
1.1 ±
0.1
1.3 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.2
1.0 ±
0.1
0.9 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.2
Sodium
145.3 ±
3.2
110.3 ±
16.3
94.8 ±
5.6
93.4 ±
4.2
107.9 ±
13.1
117.7 ±
6.8
137.3 ±
9.5
141.0 ±
8.5
139.7 ±
15.8
Lead
1.0 ±
0.1
0.9 ±
0.1
0.9 ±
0.0
1.0 ±
0.1
0.9 ±
0.2
0.9 ±
0.1
0.9 ±
0.0
0.9 ±
0.0
0.9 ±
0.1
Zinc
6.1 ±
0.6
5.4 ±
1.2
5.1 ±
0.3
6.4 ±
1.2
6.3 ±
0.0
5.5 ±
0.1
8.2 ±
4.0
5.1 ±
0.0
6.4 ±
2.2
Cadmium*
24.7 ±
4.7
30.3 ±
4,7
27.7 ±
5.0
24,3 ±
7.8
30.0 ±
5.0
28.0 ±
5.3
27.0 ±
3.6
27.7 ±
6.1
31.7 ±
2.9
Copper
0.7 ±
0.1
0.6 t
0.1
0.6 ±
0.0
0.7 ±
0.1
0.7 ±
0.1
0.7 ±
0.1
0.7 ±
0.1
0.6 ±
0.1
0.7 ±
0.0
Magnesium
975.3 ±
60.9
859.3 ±
94.8
956.3 ±
17.2
1035.3 ±
59.9
1026.7 ±
182.4
1019.7 ±
69.6
1051.7 ±
111.8
998.7 ±
. 148.4
1008.0 ±
103.2
Manganese
16.7 ±
1.2
15.0 ±
1.0
15.0 ±
, i.o
17.0 ±
1.0
16.3 ±
2.5
16.3 ±
1.2
16.7 ±
1.2
15.0 ±
0.0
15.3 ±
0.6
Nickel
0.5 ±
0.1
0.4 ±
0.1
0.4 ±
0.0
0.5 ±
0.0
0.5 ±
0.1
0.4 ±
0.0
0.5 ±
0.1
0.4 ±
0.0
0.4 ±
0.0
Strontium
15.2 ±
3.1
12.3 ±
1.2
13.7 ±
1.9
15.6 ±
0.6
15.6 ±
2.5
14.7 ±
0.9
15.8 ±
0.9
15.0 ±
1.0
15.2 ±
0.9
Note:  Standard deviation of three analyses is shown for each value.
*Cadmium concentration is in ppb.

-------
           TABLE 4.  THE CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED GEOTHERMAL FLUID ELEMENTS IN PAHKUMP SOIL
                 FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION OF BRINE TO THE TOP OF A 50.0-CM SOIL COLUMN
Element (ppm)
Depth
(cm)
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
Lithium
1.4 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.2
1.0 ±
0.1
0.9 ±
0.1
1.0 ±
0.2
0.9 ±
0.1
0.8 ±
0.1
0.6 i
0.1
0.6 ±
0.1
Sodium
130.3 ±
27.8
104.7 ±
8.6
84.7 ±
15.6
68.3 ±
4.0
71.3 ±
19.9
57.2 ±
15.2
60.7 ±
5.3
47.9 ±
2.2
58.1 ±
2.7
Lead
1.1 ±
0.1
1.0 ±
0.2
1.1 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.1
1.1 ±
0.1
1.0 ±
0.1
1.0 ±
0.2
1.0 ±
0.1
1.0 ±
0.1
Zinc
3.8 ±
0.1
3.4 ±
0.5
3.7 ±
0.3
3.5 ±
0.2
3.8 ±
0.1
3.7 ±
0.5
3.9 ±
0.2
3.7 ±
0.4
3.3 ±
0.3
Cadmi urn*
20.3 ±
2.1
19.0 ±
5.2
21.3 ±
4.2
21.7 ±
4.0
19.0 ±
3.6
21.3 ±
2.9
20.3 ±
5.0
22.0 ±
1.7
20.0 ±
2.7
Copper
0.8 ±
0.0
0.6 ±
0.1
0.7 ±
0.1
0.6 ±
0.0
0.7 ±
0.1
0.7 ±
0.1
0.8 ±
0.0
0.7 ±
0.1
0.6 ±
0.0
Magnesium
1443.3 ±
191.4
1586.7 ±
122.2
1583.3 ±
15.3
1470.0 ±
26.5
1530.0 ±
169.9
1633.3 ±
41.6
1603.3 ±
102.6
1616.7 ±
213.9
1560.0 ±
255.1
Manganese
10.0 ±
0.9
9.1 ±
1.0
9.6 ±
0.6
9.1 ±
0.1
10.7 ±
2.1
9.4 ±
0.9
11.0 ±
1.8
9.0 ±
0.1
8.7 ±
0.6
Nickel
0.7 t
0.1
0.6 i
0.1
0.7 ±
0.0
0.7 ±
0.0
0.7 ±
0.0
0.7 ±
0.1
0.7 ±
0.0
0.7 ±
0.0
0.7 ±
0.1
Strontium
15.7 ±
3.7
14.6 ±
4.7
15.9 ±
6.4
17.3 ±
8.7
16.9 ±
5.9
16.5 ±
6.0
15.6 ±
5.6
13.6 ±
6.4
15.9 ±
7.8
Note:  Standard deviation of three analyses is shown for each value.
*Cadmium concentration is in ppb.

-------
            TABLE 5.  THE CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED GEOTHERMAL FLUID ELEMENTS IN NILAND SOIL
                  FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION OF BRINE TO THE TOP OF A 50.0-CM SOIL COLUMN
Element (ppm)
Depth
(cm)
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
Lithium
2.0 ±
0.1
1.7 ±
0.4
1.5 ±
0.3
1.3 ±
0.3
1.1 ±
0.2
0.1 ±
0.2
1.2 ±
0.2
1.3 ±
0.3
1.1 ±
0.3
Sodium
229.3 ±
45.0
132.0 ±
12.5
167.3 ±
22.6
228.3 ±
19.2
249.0 ±
33.2
265.7 ±
28.0
578.7 ±
137.4
983.0 ±
40.8
934.3 ±
120.2
Lead
1.7 ±
0.1
1.4 ±
0.2
1.5 ±
0.5
1.5 ±
0.1
1.4 ±
0.2
1.4 ±
0.1
1.9 ±
0.6
1.4 ±
0.2
1.4 ±
0.1
Zinc
5.6 ±
0.3
5.1 ±
0.8
5.0 ±
0.7
5.0 ±
0.8
5.3 ±
0.5
5.0 ±
0.3
5.6 ±
0.4
5.4 ±
1.0
5.4 ±
0.6
Cadmium*
27.0 ±
2.7
21.3 ±
7.1
24.3 ±
4.2
26.3 ±
1.5
28.3 ±
3.8
25.3 ±
1.2
29.0 ±
5.0
37.0 ±
7.2
34.7 ±
5.9
Copper
1.6 ±
0.1
1.5 ±
0.2
1.6 ±
0.4
1.5 ±
0.2
1.5 ±
0.1
1.6 ±
0.2
1.6 ±
0.1
1.6 ±
0.1
1.5 ±
0.1
Magnesium
1346.7 ±
56.9
1340.0 ±
91.7
1316.7 ±
120.9
1316.7 ±
49.3
1283.3 ±
205.9
1300.0 ±
147.9
1490.0 ±
190.5
1583.3 ±
109.7
1476.7 t.
40.4
Manganese
34.7 t
0.6
32.3 t
2.5
32.3 ±
2.3
32.0 ±
3.0
31.0 ±
2.0
32.0 ±
1.0
34.0 ±
3.5
31.3 ±
2.1
30.3 ±
0.6
Nickel
1.6 ±
0.1
1.4 ±
0.2
1.3 ±
0.2
1.2 ±
0.2
1.3 ±
0.2
1.3 ±
0.0
1.5 ±
0.2
1.4 ±
0.1
1.3 ±
0.1
Strontium
16.1 ±
1.5
15.1 ±
1.3
16.3 ±
2.3
17.2 ±
4.1
17.1 ±
1.6
16.4 ±
6.7
16.9 ±
1.9
15.5 ±
0.7
15.0 ±
0.2
Note:  Standard deviation of three analyses is shown for each value.
*Cadmium concentration is in ppb.

-------
element has a concentration of 25.3 ppm in  the fluids  as  shown  in  Table  1,  a
concentration that varied between 0.6 ppm and  0.9  ppm  in  the  experimental
rooting media, and a concentration of 1.1 ppm  in the on-site  Roosevelt Hot
Springs soils (Table 2).

    The behavior of lithium in soils was previously described by Bradford
(1965).  For example, he reported that the  size and charge  of the  lithium ion
as compared with other cations largely determine its concentration in most
soils.  It is often associated with the magnesium  ion  and the soil  micas.
Also, lithium may substitute for aluminum in the formation  of montmorillonite
and illite as reported by Mitchell (1955) and  Mason (1952).   This  was
substantiated by Green-Kelly (1952) when he reported that lithium  is largely
concentrated in clay minerals.

    In all soil-column investigations, the  lithium ion was  quite mobile;
nearly all of the soil increments contained elevated levels of  this element.
Tables 6 and 7 contain the results of the second test  and illustrate the
solubility of this element.  The relatively low concentration of lithium in
all soil increments, 0.6 ppm to 2.6 ppm, is believed to  result  from adsorption
to the filter membrane placed between the fluid and the  initially  exposed soil
surface (Tables 3 through 7).  However, this cannot be verified since the
membranes used to protect the soil from erosion were neither  collected nor
analyzed.

    The concentrations of selected elements in cultivated plant species
following an exposure to geothermal fluids  are shown on  Tables  8 and 9.  In
addition to lithium, sodium, lead, copper,  magnesium,  manganese, and
strontium, the phosphorus, potassium, calcium, iron, boron, aluminum, silicon,
titanium, and barium data are presented for all the vegetative  samples
collected.  Other elements including zinc,  vanadium, nickel,  molybdenum,
chromium, silver, tin, beryllium, and cadmium  were analyzed but not included
in these tables because they were below the detection  limits.

    Lithium was the most striking indicator of geothermal fluid exposure.   It
is not known to be an essential plant nutrient; however,  most plants
apparently will take up and incorporate this element in  all tissues.  Because
of this incorporation, botanical interest in lithium has  been concerned  with
its toxic effects.  For example, Bingham (1961) produced  signs  of  toxicity  in
avocado seedlings by adding 16 ppm of lithium  to their rooting  media, and
Aldrich et al. (1951) reported that citrus  trees are extremely  sensitive to
small amounts of lithium.  In contrast, Bertrard (1959a)  and  Puccini (1956,
1957) have reported that lithium is nontoxic to certain  species, such as
poppies, tobacco, carnations, and cotton, and  indeed may  even stimulate  growth
in some cases.

    The greatest concentration of lithium found in plants grown in solid
rooting media occurred in green beans and beets planted  in  greenhouse potting
vermiculite.  The contribution to these plants of  lithium from  the vermiculite
is not known since this medium was not analyzed.   Assuming  that any available
lithium was homogeneously mixed in this medium, the corn  grown  under the same
conditions did not exhibit the same affinity for lithium  as did the green
beans and beets.  Differences between the incorporation  of  lithium by

                                     11

-------
             TABLE 6.  THE CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED GEOTHERMAL FLUID ELEMENTS IN NILAND SOIL
                 FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION OF BRINE TO THE BOTTOM OF A 50.0-CM SOIL COLUMN
I
I
Depth
(cm)
p-5t
5-10
10-15
i
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
Element (ppm)
Lithium
2.60
2.00
1.80
1.80
1.50
1.10
1.40
1.20
0.75
Sodium
272.0
195.0
171.0
218.0
320.0
390.0
578.0
1280.0
1470.0
Lead
1.50
1.30
1.40
1.40
1.30
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.30
Zinc
6.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.80
5.30
5.80
5.40
4.20
Cadmi urn*
20.0
29.0
30.0
37.0
26.0
30.0
25.0
48.0
40.0
Copper
1.70
1.70
1.60
1.60
1.70
1.60
2.20
1.60
1.30
Magnesium
1420.0
1280.0
1290.0
1410.0
1410.0
1290.0
1380.0
1470.0
1570.0
Manganese
35.0
32.0
32.0
34.0
35.0
32.0
33.0
32.0
28.0
Nickel
1.50
1.30
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.30
1.50
1.30
0.92
Strontium
13.4
13.5
13.7
13.6
14.8
13.6
20.4
19.2
16.3
^Cadmium concentration (ppb)
tExposed end of column

-------
             TABLE 7.  THE CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED GEOTHERMAL FLUID ELEMENTS IN CALICO SOIL
                 FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION OF BRINE TO THE BOTTOM OF A 50.0-CM SOIL COLUMN
Element (ppm)
Depth
(cm)
:o-5t
5-10
ilO-15
115-20
20-25
.25-30
30-35
Lithium
1.70
1.80
1.90
1.30
1.50
0.90
0.91
Sodi um
164.0
181.0
169.0
111.0
121.0
159.0
190.0
Lead
0.79
0.86
0.81
0.68
0.81
0.90
0.95
Zinc
5.20
6.90
5.50
7.80
6.30
7.30
5.20
Cadmi um*
21.0
26.0
22.0
27.0
26.0
26.0
23.0
Copper
0.57
0.61
0.68
0.56
0.76
0.63
0.72
Magnesium
890.0
950.0
980.0
830.0
1070.0
980.0
1010.0
Manganese
14.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
16.0
14.0
15.0
Nickel
0.36
0.38
0.41
0.34
0.46
0.35
0.42
Strontium
12.8
12.7
19.4
14.4
16.4
15.9
12.7
*Cadm1um concentration (ppb)
tExposed end of column

-------
monocotyledons (corn) and dicotyledons (beans and beets) have been reported by
Bertrard (1959b)  who found that dicotyledons incorporate nearly twice the
amount of lithium as do monocotyledons.  The data, as shown in Table 8, agree
with these observations.  However, this relationship is not observed in corn
and green beans grown in soil (Table 8).

    The incorporation of lithium by the hydroponically grown species was of
the same general  magnitude as by those grown in the soil and vermiculite media
(Table 9).  The second cutting of alfalfa contained a higher concentration --
538.1 ± 10.6 ppm -- than did the first cutting — 355.1 ± 13.1 ppm.  This is
probably related to the increased growth rate (dry-matter synthesis) of the
alfalfa between the first and second cutting.  This increase was evidence that
the rooting systems were increasing in size and, therefore, presenting more
surface area for absorption  of lithium.  Also, the concentration of lithium in
the roots may have  increased which in turn would effect an increase in aerial
tissues.  Kent (1941) suggested that this may occur, based on his findings
that lithium accumulated first in the roots and then in the older leaves.

    The mobility of lithium  as far as  its translocation to other plant organs
is restricted to some extent (Kent 1941).  Kent's findings were supported by
the relatively small lithium concentrations found in the tomato stems —
106.5 ± 3.2 ppm —  and in the tomato fruit — 35.7 ± 4.8 ppm — when compared
to the leaf concentration of 914.5 ± 35.8 ppm (Table 9).  These differences in
plant organ concentrations are contrary to Bertrard1s (1959b) findings of
homogeneously distributed lithium throughout all plant tissues.

    All of the treated plant species contained higher levels of boron than did
their nontreated counterparts (Tables 8 and 9).  The nondetectable levels
shown on these tables cannot be explained nor can proper assessment of plant
uptake and translocation be  made because of the lack of rooting-media boron
data.

    Five plant species  native to the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA were exposed
to geothermal fluids.  The results of this investigation are shown on Table
10.  As  in the other plant studies, tissue concentrations of lithium and boron
were indicators of  geothermal fluid exposure.

    Two species, four-winged saltbush and bitterbrush, may be good biological
indicators of lithium exposure.  Even though all tested species absorbed this
element, these two  accumulated nearly twice as much lithium -- 309.8 ± 29.9
ppm 226.0 ± 5.8 ppm respectively -- as did the other three species.

    The magnitude of boron uptake was  not as great as the lithium uptake.
However, the data indicates  that all five species may be used as monitors for
boron contamination.  The highest levels occurred in bitterbrush, with 158.7 ±
14.4 ppm, followed  by Gambell's oak, with 155.7 ± 11.6 ppm.


ASSESSMENT AREAS

    Because of the  relatively short period of time between the construction of
the enclosures and  the collection of vegetative data, minimal differences were

     ;                                14

-------
                  TABLE 8.  CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED GEOTHERMAL  FLUID  ELEMENTS  IN CULTIVATED PLANTS
CJl
$**clM

Cor.
STMII
btMS
Cora
Cam
tnt»
bum
•ntt

Cor*
£r*»
BUM
Car*
Grt**
bcMI
•Mil

toot I* IMU

r«brav Mil
rtkruv tall
tallc* tall
VtmlcuilU
ViralcallU
femlCMlilf

rihru* Mil
rthrM* nil
ItralciillU
VtmlcxIU*
Viratcvllt*

MMSBhorvi Sodlu*

IMS.
152.
1271.
166.
1814.
M.
tilt.
122.
JI/4.
121.
1028.
181.

1261.
41.
t (617.8 1
62.6
t (150.1 «
917.1
t (612.6 *
186.1
t 4926.3 t
77.6
* 5556.7 t
157.4
t 6874.9 t
512.1

rotMSlw

40978.9 t
1852.5
27572.1 t
1920.0
29509.1 *
247.1
11101.8 *
2677.1
29671.5 t
4498.1
67277.9 t
2956.2

Calclua

14824.6 *
261.2
25088.6 t
1512.6
1297.4 *
702.1
1975.1 t
265.1
12221.5 t
859.6
3B04.9 t
1821.1

NignesliB

5444.6 t
160.6
5730.1 t
4021.9 t
2770.8 t
61.6
4647.7 t
71.8
7457.7 1
128.4

Capptr

4.9 t
0.7
8.4 t
2.8 t
1.4 *
0.2
8.5 t
0.1
12.4 t
0.15
El*
ienl i (DM
Ira* NmgiMM
WAIED
124.0 t
11.9
80.0 t
81.1 t
81.9 *
10. 1
127.1 *
10.1
127.8 t
20.4

12.9 t
0.9
28.1 1
22.6 t
25.2 *
0.9
22.5 i
0.4
21.8 *
1.6
i)
Boron

0.0
119.5 »
15.4
0.0
148.2 t
11.7
0.0
111.2 t
6.8

AlMllUB

219.1 t
16.7
176.1 t
10.9
204.9 t
18.9
171.7 t
20.9
201.2 t
18.1
228.9 t
21.6

Silicon

169.9 *
341.6
257.7 <
100.6
7080.4 t
1185.4
7241.1 *
474.6
1068.6 *
40.7
622.8 *
70.1

TltUlUB

14.4 *
2.6
(.6 *
1.2
9.9 <
2.6
(.1 *
1.2
II. 1 *
2.0
21.9 t
2.0

Straatlia

97.7 t
9.5
117.4 s
20.0
99.4 *
18.2
12.2 >
1.5
71.8 *
49.1 •
(.8

MrluB

9.1 t
0.7
8.2 *
1.2
8.7 i
1.0
8.6 t
I.S
12.7 <
15.5 t
2.4

Lltklw

451.9 *
11.9
128.1 *
8.4
549.1 t
11.8
191.7 t
15.7
715.1 *
792.2 t
1.6

Le*d

6.8 t
1.9
6.7 t
1.5
9.1 t
5.7
10.7 t
1.8
9.4 t
20.1 t
1.9
•WTIEATEO
t 2780.6 t
166.1
2(91.0 t S969.1 t
187.2 553.8
210? < (56.4 t
235.1 12.4
1828.4 t 3524. t t
21M 500.»
2940.1 * 19MI.8 «
878.2 961. 5
51891.2 *
2112.7
11511.7 *
4497.2
28241.4 *
854.8
15037.5 t
5857.8
56017.8 *
1641.9
8140. 7 t
2121.5
20682.6 t
2815.4
2801.1 t
275.9
10989.9 t
2460.8
5901.7 1
2472.6
4126.7 t
196.0
5185.7 »
769.6
1117.7 »
244.6
4009.9 <
497.7
10 JOS. 1 1
784.0
1.4 t
O.I
1.0 <
1.5
1.2 t
0.1
4.8 t
2.6
17.1 <
1.9
80.6 t
8.9
57.9 t
9.1
146.7 t
29.6
105.7 t
20.1
217.1 *
24.4
14.1 t
0.4
28.8 t
1.6
29.4 *
1.6
21.7 t
0.4
29.1 t
1.0
116.5 t
4.1
48.1 t
10.4
11.2 1
0.9
10.1 t
2.4
12.4 t
5.5
114.8 t
17.8
82.1 I
14.7
211.8 t
19.9
205.4 t
52.1
126.0 «
28.9
4078.1 «
417.9
257.7 *
100.6
2745.1 *
111.8
582.9 t
181. 1
885.2 t
14.4
4.7 s
0.5
(.( t
1.2
8.8 t
1.0
11.6 t
4.9
17.9 *
(.9
81.9 t
6.1
148.0 t
22.7
29.8 t
1.8
72.4 t
8.1
64.1 <
9.4
7.1 t
1.4
7.9 t
0.7
9.9 t
2.1
12.1 t
1.5
77.4 t
4.2
45.8 t
4.6
45.6 <
4.6
8.9 >
0.4
24.5 >
1.8
59.1 t
7.9
4.1 t
2.7
5.5 «
4.1
0.4 <
0.8
6.9 t
9.5
22.2 t
12.1
     Hot*:  StMdtrd •nUtloi of tkrtt MUlfits I* (torn for MCk >«lut.

-------
cO»."
                     TABLE 9.   THE CONCENTRATION  OF SELECTED GEOTHERMAL FLUID ELEMENTS
                                 HYDROPONICALLY GROWN TOMATO AND ALFALFA PLANTS
IN
ClOMtS
SfMlM
•nosnham
Ml.
Fouistwi
Calcium IkgMstuB
C«p.r
Iran
NingtMsa
8eron
Aluntnua
Silicon
IltMtUB
Strontlun
Btrtua
lltklUB
U*d
TUAHD
l«Mt« IMM*
ToMto stnvs
lan*U fruit
Alf*lf« 1st
cutting
Alf*lf* 2nd
cutting

lowu Itiras
louto stau
IOMU fruit
Alfalf* lit
cutting
Alfalf* 2nd
cutting
1812. I t
380.6
4764.5 *
556.9
6185.4 *
149.4
1211.1 *
496.6
2511.4 t
118.6

2474.2 t
105.0
2809.1 t
116.2
M06.4 *
695.1
4054.3 *
152.3
4487.4 t
316.5
6210.9 t
1428.9
1851.0 t
244.7
1068.7 t
109.0
4281.9 *
762.6
12987.6 t
4241.6

1945.9 t
112.1
1962.2 *
158.6
921.1 *
79.4
1600.6 t
102.9
1828.6 t
872.1
20642.1 t
2781.5
20122.9 *
1172.6
40231.9 t
5515.8
16491.9 *
5819.5
42854.6 t
7408.8

25101.6 *
696.2
27966.0 <
1919.4
40945.7 t
6611.9
17195.6 *
4610.5
45126.8 t
8695.2
21145.4
1017.1
8969.
1272.
1057.
112.
19619.
898.
20772.
881.

20970.
378.
1X85.
786.
1601.
111.
22687.
1178.
227M.I
1282.
! * 5825.4 *
198.2
I78.S
* 1897.0 t
* 1616.8 *
252.9
t 1480.1 *
.89.4
26.1 t
0.78
0.4
4.4 <
12.6 t
0.4
10.6 t
1.7
227.1 *
1.6
20.1
79.1 t
91.8 *
5.2
66.1 *
4.2
27.1 t
2.7
0.6
9.6 t
78.0 *
12.7
17.6 t
2.1
0.0
60.0 *
5.1
65.4 t
7.9
142.5 t
16.9
147.6 i
9.5
621.7 i
26.9
75.1 <
14.4
49.7 s
12.8
188.9 t
19.6
145.1 *
11.1
2116.8 t
112.4
209.9 t
66.6
142.2 *
28.2
465.4 1
41.7
166.0 t
9.1
12.2 t
6.1
2.8 1
0.1
17.1 *
2.1
6.5 <
0.9
4.6 *
0.6
168.0 t
11.2
114.2 t
2.0
24.7 t
4.4
201.1 t
8.0
191.1 t
6.7
20.4 t
1.2
14.8 <
0.7
1.2 t
0.6
18.9 *
0.8
12.4 *
0.9
914.5 t
15.8
106.6 *
1.2
15.7 t
4.8
115.5 t
11. 1
518.1 *
10.6 •
16.2 *
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7 *
1.4
NONIUAIED
* 4156.1 *
763.5
t 3871.5 *
199.2
* 1618.8 t
21.7
* 6141.9 *
194.5
> * 7129.1 S

9.6 *
1.6
7.2 t
0.7
4.0 1
0.6
9.2 »
1.9
17.2 1

114.9 t
5.8
57.2 t
2.1
156.6 t
49.9
102.4 *
4.4
99.2 t

15.9 t
1.4
12.6 t
0.8
8.7 *
0.5
59.1 *
4.4
46.1 t

18.9 *
11.6
18.9 t
0.4
12.4 t
0.4
47.0 t
10.4
15.9 *
1.1
111.6 t
22.8
84.7 t
24.9
176.4 *
18.1
204.1 i
18.4
166.1 1
21.9
769.8 t
41.4
244.6 t
70.8
515.6 S
108.5
176.9 t
41.1
M9.2 t
10.5
10.0 t
6.7
4.2 t
0.4
.6 t
.5
.7 t
.7
.0 t
.4
149.2 t
6.6
111.5 t
5.7
12.4 s
1.9
128.2 t
4.1
159.1 t
12.5
11.1 i
0.8
9.9 *
0.1
4.6 I
0.6
10.4 t
1.0
8.8 t
0.4
8.1 t
0.1
0.5 t
0.06
1.2 t
0.2
5.8 *
0.7
7.5 t
0.8
12.1 t
0.7
1.0 t
1.7
0.1 *
0.2
2.0 t
1.5
2.9 t
1.5
        tot*:  Stiixlinl dnlttlM of tkrM aiuljtits It show* for ticfe iili*.

-------
       TABLE 10.   CONCENTRATION OF  SELECTED GEOTHERMAL  FLUID ELEMENTS IN NATIVE PLANT SPECIES

SfttUi

funkl* trldonttt*
Qmraii |M*iUl
Art«BlsU trldnttU
Atrlclu CUMCM*
CorotU I«MU

rvnkU trMMUU
Outran (•6*111
ArtOBlili trUMUU
Atrlpl** riMtcmn
CwotU UuU

rkotphonii SodluB

1421.2 * 1448.7 t
221.2 404.7
4582.1 * 1127.9 t
IS.I 58.8
6811.4 * 1172.0 s
Ui.O 7U.»
6047.7 * 6276.6 t
278.9 3U.O
8592.8 t 9562.9 1
148.1 1795.0

4291.1 t 1260.8 t
81.7 111.2
4291.0 t* 2671.1 t
472.2 208.4
IOtlB.1 * tlS1.8 t
7518.5 * 4465.1 t
M.I 650.1
10(64.8 t 6893.1 t
762.6 110.2

PottuluB CtlcluB

11490. * 18421.1 t
182. 1162.0
11115. * 12186.1 t
1190. 108.2
10556. * 16428.1 t
4104. 627.9
40111. t 22224.1 t
4191. 1291.1
199)7. t 1X72.1 t
2678. 1SS.O

10142. * 23870.0 *
1897. 601 .(
95/9.6 t 16487.4 t
2414.8 701.2
20298.9 t 11595.1 *
19214.2 * 19164.9 t
4726.4 124.2
10404.5 t 24514.8 *
711.1 1Z60.6

Ntimitia Copptr

4407. t 1.8 *
196. 0.2
1129. * 6.0 t
28. 0.4
4171. * 21.6 *
121. 1.1
11512. t 12.* 1
617. 1.8
6481. * 9.91 *
149. 1.60

6146. S 2.0 t
285. 0.1
4646. t 1.4 t
166. 0.4
64)5. t 18.7 t
9828. t 6.5 *
8)4. 1.4
7015. t 9.7 <
254. 0.6

Iron
TREAia
99.0 s
5.6
288.4 t
11.7
698.4 * .
20.9
211.0 s
1.9
199.6 t
11.9
•ONIREAII
148.7 t
10.01
174.4 t
66.2
161.1 t
101.9 t
24.9
116.6 t
41.9
flCMHtl It
MmgMtu
1
107.7 <
7.1
816.9 t
66.6
646.2 t
24.7
221.7 t
9.6
171.4 s
4.4
ED
125.1 *
11.1
949.2 *
200.6
129.5 t
I69.C t
14.6
152.8 t
1.4
n)
loron Alumina

168.7 I 181.4 t
14.4 10.9
155.7 1 286.6 t
11.6 16.4
121.5 t 586.1 <
6.4 14.2
88.1 * 417.1 t
1.1 1.1
88.7 t 474.4 t
2.9 14.1

16.7 » 259.0 t
2.1 21.1
56.8 < 151.2 t
1.9 16.5
19.1 t 621.1 t
16.0 t 712.5 t
1.2 8.2
18.9 i 821.4 t
1.7 60.9

5IIICM IltUlMI

1716.7 t 7.9 t
157.8 1.2
5121. * 11.0 *
807. 1.1
2421. t 28.6 *
106. 1.4
1461. * 21.4 t
61. 0.67
1955. * 19.9 *
91. 1.4

1661. * 6.2 i
192. I.I
1196. * 11.6 1
284. 2.2
2210. t 22.8 t
198). t 14.6 t
111. 2.1
2151.4 * M.I «
49.6 1.9

Stronttu*

108.2 «
(.4
69.4 t
4.1
116.6 t
6.0
114.6 i
1.1
96.5 t
1.2

165.1 t
9.6
100.8 t
7.6
249.8 *
114.6 t
5.7
200.7 t
11.1

fttrtui

25.9 *
1.2
58.2 t
5.5
16.1 *
1.9
48.1 t
2.7
11.6 <
1.4

22.7 >
0.7
61.1 «
1.4
49.1 »
60.4 t
0.4
51.7 t
2.1

LUklwi

226.0 t
5.8
128.8 t
5.8
157.0 *
2.6
109.8 t
29.9
117.1 t
7.1

8.4 t
0.7
11.8 t
0.2
11.0 <
10.1 t
1.0
8.4 t
0.6

U«i

2.1 t
2.5
1.0 s
0.9
10.5 *
6.9
10.6 *
2.6
16.8 t
5.0

0.0
5.6 t
5.2
4.8
19.1 t
2.0
19.4 t
4.1
Hal*:
          4**Utton of tkr*t uuljrsis It ikota for *«ch M!M.

-------
noted between the enclosed and nonenclosed floras.   The descriptive data for
each are shown on Tables 11 and 12 and in Appendix C and D.

    The three assessment areas were located within the big sagebrush
community, as described by Brown and Wiersma (1979).  Artemisia tridentata
dominated, contributing over 68 percent of the total vegetative composition.
Another important shrub species was Chrysothamnus stenophyllus. averaging
slightly more than 4 percent.  Seven species of forbs were identified,
contributing 1.7 percent and 2.2 percent of the vegetation inside and outside
of the enclosures, respectively.  Grasses, being fairly prevalent, accounted
for more than 20 percent of the total vegetative composition.  Dominant


       TABLE 11.  PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION AND FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF
                    PLANT SPECIES IN THE THREE ENCLOSURES
Species
Percentage
Composition
Frequency
   (X)
Bromus tectorum
Sitanion hystrix
Hi 1 aria jamesii
Unidentified grass
Aristida longiseta
Stipa speciosa
Bouteloua gracilis
Oryzopsis' hymenoides

Total composition grasses

Unidentified forb
Phlox sp.
Calochortus nuttallii
Cryptantha sp.
Eriogonum sp.
Sphaeralcea grossulariaefolia
Plantago sp.

Total composition forbs

Artemisia tridentata
Chrysothamnus stenophyllus
Opuntia sp.
Gilia aqqreqata
Gutierrez!a sarothrae

Total composition shrubs
    9.7
   10.4
    2.2
    1.2
    0.5
   Trace*
    0.1
    0.3

   24.4

    1.4
    0.1
    0.1
    0.1
   Trace
   Trace
   Trace

    1.7

   68.1
    5.8
   Trace
   Trace
   Trace

   73.9
   100.0
   100.0
   100.0
    66.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
   100.0
   100.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
   100.0
   100.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
  Trace  amount  <0.1%
                                      18

-------
       TABLE 12.  PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION AND FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF
                PLANT SPECIES OUTSIDE OF THE THREE ENCLOSURES
Species
Percentage
Composition
                                                                Frequency
                                                                   (X)
Bromus tectorum
Sitanion hystrix
Hi 1 aria jamesii
Unidentified grass
Agropyron smihii  •
Bouteloua gracilii
Oryzopsis hymenoides

Total composition grasses

Unidentified forb
Phlox sp.
Calochortus nuttallii
Astragalus sp.
Sphaeralcea grossulariaefolia
Plantago sp.

Total composition forbs

Artemisia tridentata
Chrysothamnus stenophyllus
Opuntia s£.
Gilia aggregata
Gutierrezia sarothrae
Jum'perus osteosperma

Total composition shrubs
                                        9.7
                                        8.1
                                        2.7
                                        1.3
                                        0.6
                                       Trace*
                                       Trace

                                       22.4

                                        2.2
                                       Trace
                                       Trace
                                       Trace
                                       Trace
                                       Trace

                                        2.2

                                       68.6
                                        3.9
                                       Trace
                                        2.6
                                        0.3
                                       Trace

                                       75.4
                               100.0
                               100.0
                               100.0
                                66.0
                                33.0
                                33.0
                                33.0
                                66.0
                                66.0
                                33.0
                                33.0
                                33.0
                                33.0
                               100.0
                               100.0
                                66.0
                                33.0
                                33.0
                                33.0
* Trace amount <0.1%~~~~

grasses included Bromus tectorum. Sitanion hystrix. and Hi!aria jamesii.  The
percentage ground cover was 33.5 and 34.7 percent for protected and
nonprotected areas, respectively.

     It 1s anticipated that differences will occur between the protected and
nonprotected floras, primarily in the herbaceous vegetation.  The enclosures
will permit plant condition and trend measurements without livestock
influence.

    Blomass calibration curves were determined by the relationship existing
between the clipped dry-tissue weight and the herbage meter readings. The
calibration curves were derived for each of the three sites and also for each
                                     19

-------
year (1977 and 1978) of vegetative measurement.  The regression equations,
correlation coefficients, and F values for each site are presented in
Table 13.

 TABLE 13.  THE REGRESSION EQUATIONS, F VALUES, AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
         OF THE THREE BIOMASS SITES ON THE ROOSEVELT HOT SPRINGS KGRA

Site
1 Y =
2 Y =
3 Y =

1977
YEAR
Regression
-53.23 ±
-39.56 ±
-15.58 t
10.76
9.47
8.74
x
X
x
R2
0.91
0.87
0.31
F
176.6
116.3
70.4
1978
Regression
Y =
Y =
Y =
-58.92
-48.51
-65.28
± 2.41
± 3.05
± 1.68
*
X
X
R2
0.59
0.63
0.51
F
21.4
24.2
13.4
     In these regressions, Y equals the dry weight of the vegetation in grams
and  x represents the mean herbage meter readings.  Thirty-eight degrees of
freedom were associated with the correlation coefficients, and all were
significant at  the  99  percent  level or greater.  All of the F values were also
significant at  the  99  percent  level or greater.  The degrees of freedom
associated with these  F values were 1 and 39.

     Table 14 gives  the biomass estimates for living vegetative tissues on the
three study sites.  These data, presented in kilograms per hectare, reflect
only above-ground living vegetation.  Dead tissues, such as stems and trunks,
were removed prior  to  obtaining the dry weights.

     TABLE 14.  SUMMARY OF  THE BIOMASS ESTIMATES FOR 1977 AND 1978 ON THE
                       ROOSEVELT HOT SPRINGS. KGRA (kg/ha)
Month and
Year of Data
Collection
Mean

Site 1
95% CI
LOCATION
Site 2
Mean 95% CI

Site 3
Mean 95% CI
 October    5,223  4,764 to 5,681   3,032  2,655 to 3,410  4,462  4,122 to 4,803
  1977

 September   5,567  5,440 to 5,696   5,883  5,695 to 6,070  5,224  5,138 to 5,310
  1978
                                     20

-------
   The means shown in Table 14 are based on t.he  400  observations obtained from
the herbage meter readings.  These mean  values were  correlated to dry weight
values in grams using the appropriate calibration  curves.  The meter readings
were also tested for skewness and kurtosis.  In  addition, the effects of
square root and logarithmic transformations were determined.  Based upon these
analyses, it was decided to use the untransformed  meter  readings.

    In 1974, Balph et al. estimated the  total  above-ground biomass for a
rangeland area vegetatively similar to the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA.  Their
biomass estimate of 5,480 kg/ha was similar to that  determined on the three
biomass study sites as shown on Table 14.  The one anomalous estimate was the
1977 site 2 value.  This value of 3,032  kg, in relation  to the 1978 value of
5,883 kg, may reflect in part an increase in the biomass contribution of
annual grasses and forbs as a result of  an increase  in precipitation.

    Site 2 is better adapted for annual  germination  because the surface soils
were disturbed by past chaining operations.  However, the physical and
biological parameters influencing this area are  not  described or defined in
sufficient detail to permit an ecologically adequate explanation for this
large difference.

    A biomass sampling program is scheduled for  the  fall of 1979.  This
sampling will increase the accuracy of the overall biomass investigations on
the KGRA and will provide data to evaluate the site  2 variation.


    The biomass data obtained are suitable for use in models needing
vegetative mass estimates.  The average  for the  six  sets of data gives an
overall biomass estimate of 4,898 kg/ha  for the  Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA.
                                  REFERENCES

Aldrich, D. G., A. P. Vanselow, and G. R. Bradford.   1951.   Lithium Toxicity
    In Citrus.  Soil Science.  71:291-295.

Alexander, G. V., D. R. Young, D. J. McDermott,  M. J.  Sherwood, A. J. Mearns,
    and O..R.. Lunt.  1975.  Marine Organisms in  the  Southern California Blight
    as Indicators of Pollution.  In Proc. Inter. Conf.  Heavy Metals Environ.
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Vol. 2 pp. 952-972.

Balph, D. F., R. S. Shinn, R. D. Anderson, and C. Gist.  1974.  Curlew Valley
    Validation Site.  Reports of 1973 Progress,  Vol. 2:  Validation Studies.
    U.S./IBP Desert Biome Research Memorandum 74-1 p.  61.

Berry, W. L.  1971.  Evaluation of Phosphorous Nutrient Status in Seedling
    Lettuce.  J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 93(3) pp. 341-344.

Bertrard, D.  1959a.  Influence of Altitude 1n the Lithium Content of
    Phanerogam Plants, Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 249: 844-845.
                                     21

-------
Bertrard, 0.  1959b.  New Investigations on the Distribution of Lithium in the
    Phanerogams.  Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 249:   787-788.

Bingham, F. T.  1961.  Unpublished data on file at Department of Soils and
    Plant Nutrition, University of California, Riverside, California.

Bradford, G. R.  1965.  Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils, Lithium
    Chapter 17.  Edited by Homer D. Chapman.  Dept. of Soils and Plant
    Nutrition of Univ. of Calif. Citrus Research Center, Riverside,
    California.

Brown, K. W., and J. C. McFarlane.  1977.  Plutonium Uptake by Plants from
    Soil Containing Plutonium-238 Dioxide Particles.   Health Physics Vol. 35
    pp. 481-485.

Brown, K. W., and G. B. Wiersma.  1979.  Geothermal Environmental Assessment
    Baseline Study:  Vegetation and Soils of the Roosevelt Hot Springs
    Geothermal Resource Area.

Cosner,  S.  R., and J. A. Apps.  1978.  A Compilation of Data on Fluids from
    Geothermal Resources in the United States.  L.B1-5936 UC-66b TID-4500-R66
    DOE  Contract W-7405-ENG-48.  Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley
    Laboratory Univ. of Calif. Berkeley, California.

Gorsuch, T. T.  1970.  The Destruction of Organic Matter.  Pergamon Press, New
    York, New York.

Green-Kelly, R.  1952.  Irreversible Dehydration in Montmorillonite.  Clay
    Minerals Bull.   1,  pp. 221-225.

Kent,  N. L.   1941.   Absorption, Translocation, and Ultimate Fate of Lithium in
    the  Wheat Plant.  New Phytologist 40, pp.  291-298.

Mason, B.   1952.  Principles  of Geochemistry.  Univ. of  Indiana, Dept. of
    Geol. John Wiley and Sons  Inc.  New York.

McFarlane,  J. C., A. R. Batterman,  and K. W. Brown.  1978.  Plutonium Uptake
    by Plants Grown  in Solution Culture.  EPA-600/3-78-081.  U.S.
    Environmental Protection  Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Mitchell,  R. L.  1955.  Chemistry of the Soil, trace elements Chapter 9.
    Edited  by F. E.  Bear. Amer. Chem. Soc.  Monograph Series No. 126, Reinhold
    Publishing  Corporation N.Y.

Morris,  M.  J.,  K. L. Johnson,  and D. L. Neal.  1976.  Sampling Shrub Ranges
    with an Electronic  Capacitance  Instrument.  J. of Range Management, Vol.
    29 No.  1.

National Environmental  Policy Act.  1969.  United States Code 1976 Edition
    Containing the General and Permanent Laws  of the United States 1n Force on
   . January 1977, Vol.  10, Title 42, U.S. Govt. Printing Office.


                                     22

-------
Nelson, Z. C., W. W. Sutton, A. A. Mullen, W. F. Beckert and G. D. Potter.
    1978.  "Geothermal Environmental  Impact Assessment - Procedures for Using
    Fauna as Biological Monitors of Potential Geothermal Pollutants".  U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency EPA-600/7-78-233.

Nelson, Z. C., W. W. Sutton and G. D. Potter.  1979.  Geothermal Environmental
    Impact Assessment Animals of the Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA.  In progress.

Puccini, G.  1956.  Influence of Potassium Salts on the Growth of Everblooming
    Carnations of the  Italian Riviera, Ann. Sper. Agrar.  Rome 10, pp.
    2071-2080.

Puccini, G.  1957.  Stimulant Action of Lithium Salts on the Flower Production
    of the Perpetual Carnation of the Riviera.  Ann. Sper. Agrar. Rome 11,
    pp. 41-63.

Rogers, R. D.  1976.   Methylation of Mercury in Agricultural Soils.  J.
    Environ. Qual. Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 454-458.

Stott, L. H. and  M. E. Olsen.  1976.  Soil Survey of Beaver-Cove Fork Area,
    Utah.  U.S. Dept.  of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of
    the Interior.

U.S. Bureau  of Land Management.  1963.  Ocular Reconnaissance Forage Survey
    Handbook BLM  Manual 4412.11A, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
    Land Management.

U.S.G.S. Environmental Analysis (1976) U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological
    Survey Division, EA  33 U.S.G.S., Menlo Park, CA.

U.S. Geothermal  Steam  Act  1970.  United States Code 1976 Edition Containing
    the General and Permanent Laws of the United States in Force on January
    1977.  Vol.  14, Title  42, U.S. Govt. Printing Office.
                                     23

-------
APPENDIX A.  VEGETATION MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF ASSESSMENT SITE 1
                         (blomass Plot 1)
                                24
                                        I

-------
APPENDIX B.   VEGETATION MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF ASSESSMENT
           SITES 2 AND 3 (biomass Plots  2 and 3)
                           =«tJ

-------
APPENDIX  C.    U.S.  BUREAU  OF  LAND  MANAGEMENT  TEMPORARY  USE
                               APPLICATION  AND  PERMIT
        P«| JHO-1
        Viiu»« m
           UNITCD fTATU
T>    DipAirmirT or THt INTUKMI
     BUIICAU or UNO UANAG1IICIIT

 TtHPOIUHY Ull APPLICATION AND PIMUT        ___
          ml U«U* AM at HIO. JO U.I.C. IU.» «••«•.
          ».U »»-«..Omfcw II, l«7».«U.i.C. I7J2.17M.

           APPLICATION
                                    rom APPHOVIO
                                    OM8 NO. 42-ROVM
                         inilirf. «4 /aj,(
                                                  Addnu ri»r/ii^ >i> colt)
                                                  0.*.  flllun
                     KANOt
                                                            suBOivmai
           JT-«
           M-«
i*
 1
13
                               Ot*
                                                                          O.M   19,300 »q.ft.
                                         19T,
                                                            ABKtl 1MO
           Am jrov 21 jr*«n of «f* Q* ovw?
                  An 10* • citlna ai ihoUiitod Sum at h»«« yoadoclmd
                  ion iatMtloa? Q Yn f~| No
           A. opBtlcMt. «• yoi •  Q Putatnhlp  Q AuaclMia> Q Carparatlai; Q bdi'Ua.
         *• <* M UMcy of  Q F*dml Gomnant  Q SUM Gootmmt Q Political lubdiTiiio. ol My itatt?


         d. An tb* lUHanll raqaind by Intractloi NnabM 2 atUCMd?  d Y«. Q No Q Not »p»Ucibl«
        «.  AM tte ludl DOW l^rarad. occupM. of
           font, H**ill turn t*t orctfmlil
                 Y«  Q No (If •>.>. " /»cnW imfm*mt«i mi fm-
           1.
           a.
                                     (iMMd)
         k. Vmt !•!	•i«ll. laclBttMJ M«it«tta« bcUUHM. a> yai \*tmt to —krf (O.lcrt*. imfn*tmmu mi muct
         c. coil at poraM* lapran-
                                               t lemtem of wattr fo> 4oM>tiD ot olkif uo«r
        I CUTtFT TIM Ik* Urfooitlc. |i«H ky •• to i
              . •>« MM «M 1* tin* !• |oa4 fritk.
                                                       1< tiw. ca^Uat. «4 cvnct ta (to DIM ol «v
        T1U. l< VAC «~tM« 1001. «M tt < CfM.
                                                  •lijl) i«4 wUlhlty t. aM. t. «^ d^
                                                         . M M mf ••IMr wtikl. Itt
                                                                                              ..  (.continued)
                                                26

-------
                                APPENDIX   C.      (Continued)
                                                       PERMIT
P*raii*aian is h«r*by (ranted to
 lo us* tin followirtt>a •ubiect to the  prowiaiona  of Eiecutive
Order No, ll-'46  of September 24.  I4h5, a* *«ended.  which
•eta forth th* Equal  Opportunity cUuaea.   A  copy of  (hi*.
order etey  be obt*in*d Iron the atcnuif officer.

14. TTiia penail raav not be  atttcned without prior approval of
the euihorued officer of the  Bnreew ot Land Man*cee>eM.
 15.  Socct.lCoadit.ona;
       April  I.
                                                                                  /
.T.   March 31.  1979 „
     ~
                                                                          (AoiaMrUed Of fleer*


                                                                   Area  Manager
                                                    INSTRUCTIONS
 I.  iatmfci. a* •fka/ir*r».  to eay local office of the Oateae *|
 Laam  Itinrinrnl fta*ia« Jwriadictio*, of th* land*.

 2.  A» appUcatloai by a portnerahip ar aeaeclatlee,  na*t be
 •rrrmaanlad  ey • atateraent  by  eack  maaitier that  he ia a
 e It tie* of th*  United Slate* or ha* filed  a declaration t*
 bacon* a olliM*w  An apptlcattM by a corpawito*  nuat be
 e«eanta«»*d by a  atateewnl «hewta« that th* coepomtieai la
 •ata*rtx*d ta hald taad to tin State i* wfeicb the land ia
 'Crated and the* Ik*  a*M*n nakta* UM aapUcatie* 1* auth*-
    >d ta act fae tb* cormtiaUaai.

    If  aamlicaa*  la otha*  the* • Federal. Stale, ot  local fee.
 eraaMMttl a«eewy. this epntleatta* n«M
                                                                                                t payabl* t* the  Owe**,
 4. [f till*  eppllcaUaa)  la  (or permlaalo* t* erect  *•  adver-
 tliutc  diaptar  or  elta, the  appticant OMUII  
 plaw of lll«iainatte*» if aay.  aad th* *aew»er  ef aita
 to the  lend; and. (*) a phetecrapk (M lee a I J-  •  S") i
 Ik* atie o*  wklch Ik* -If* ot diaalaf  U to

-------
        APPENDIX D.
PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION AND GROUND COVER OF PLANT
   SPECIES WITHIN EACH ENCLOSURE
         Species
Total  composition grasses
 Trace amount <0.1%
                                             Percentage Composition
                 RHS-29
                  17.6
RHS-34
 24.0
RHS-60
Bromus tectorum
Sitanion hystrix
Hi 1 aria jamesii
Unidentified grass
Aristida lonqiseta
Stipa speciosa
Bouteloua gracilis
Oryzopsis hymenoides
10.9
3.8
Trace*
2.9
10.6
12.0
Trace
1.4
Trace
7.5
15.5
6.5
0.8
0.3
0.9
 31.5
Unidentified forb
Phlox sp.
Calochortus nuttallii
Cryptantha sp.
Eriogonum sp.
Sphaeralcea qrossulariaefolia
Plantago sp.
Total composition forbs
Artemisia tridentata
Chrysothamnus stenophyllus
Opuntia sp.
Gilia aggregata
Gutierrezi a sarothrae
Total composition shrubs
Ground cover
2.9
0.1
0.1
3.1
72.1
7.2
Trace
73.3
34.1
1.1
Trace
0.4
Trace
Trace
1.5
67.5
7.0
Trace
Trace
74.5
29.8
0.6
Trace
Trace
0.6
64.9
3.0
67.9
36.5
                                     28

-------
    APPENDIX E.
PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION AND GROUND COVER OF PLANT SPECIES
      ADJACENT TO THE THREE ENCLOSURES
Percentage Composition
Species
Bromus tectorum
Sitanion hystrix
Hi 1 aria jamesii
Unidentified grass
Aristida smithii
Bouteloua qracilis
Oryzopsis hymenoides
Total composition grasses
Unidentified forb
Phlox sp.
Calochortus nuttallii
Astragalus sj).
Sphaeralcea grossulariaefolia
Plantago sp.
Total composition forbs
Artemisia tridentata
Chrysothamnus stenophyllus
Ojsuntia sp.
Gilia aggregata
Gutierrezia sarothrae
Juniperus osteosperma
Total composition shrubs
Ground cover
RHS-30
10.5
4.5
Trace*
4.0



19.0
5.1
Trace
Trace



5.1
72.1
3.8




75.9
37.4
RHS-33
10.2
1.6
2.9

1.9


16.6



Trace
Trace

Trace
68.7
5.8
Trace
7.9
1.0
Trace
83.4
26.1
RHS-61
8.2
18.0
5.1
Trace

Trace
Trace
31.3
1.6
Trace



Trace
1.6
65.0
2.1




67.1
40.6
*Trace amount <0.156
                                     29

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
                             2.
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
GEOTHERMAL  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Behavior of Selected Geothermal Brine  Contaminants
in  Plants  and Soils
                                                           S. REPORT DATE

                                                              June 10-81
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AUTHOR(S)

K.  W.  Brown
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION .NAMEANO AOOR.ESS
 Environmental  Monitoring Systems  Laboratory
 Office  of Research and Development
 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Las  Vegas, NV  89114
                                                           10. P
                                                                      LEMENT NO.
                                                           11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency--Las Vegas, NV
 Office of Research and Development
 Environmental Monitoring  Systems  Laboratory
 Las Vegas, Nevada  89114                   	
                                                              Final
                                                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE


                                                              EPA/600/07
1S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 For further information, contact  K.  W. Brown (702) 798-2214
16. ABSTRACT
    The behavior of selected  elements found in the Roosevelt Hot  Springs KGRA geothermal
 fluids was investigated  in both plant and soil systems.  The kinetics  of these
 potential environmental  contaminants were studied by using soil  columns and selected
 cultivated and native  plant  species.
     The data collected indicate that of the 26 elements examined,  lithium is the best
 indicator of geothermal  contamination;  This element, which occurs in  the fluids at
 concentrations exceeding 25.0 ppm,  was readily detected in and through a variety of
 different test soils.
     The plant species  exposed, via  a number of rooting media including soils,
 vermiculite, and hydroponic  solution, absorbed and translocated  lithium to all aerial
 plant parts.  The greatest lithium  concentration occurred in hydroponically grown
 tomatoes where the leaves, stems, and fruit contained 914.5 ± 35.8 ppm, 106.5 ± 3.2
 ppm, and 35.7 ± 4.8  ppm  of this element, respectively.
     Two native species,  four-winged saltbush (Atrip!ex canescens)  and  bitterbrush
 (Purshia tridentata),  appear to be  good biological indicators since they accumulated
 nearly twice as much lithium — 309.8 ± 29.9 ppm and 226.0 ± 5.8 ppm,  respectively —
 as did other native  species  tested.
     On-site, vegetative  assessment  was accomplished at three specially selected study
 sites.  Plant species, their percentage composition, and ground  cover were determined.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                       c.  COSATI Field/Croup
 Lithium
 Leaching
 Absorption by  plants
 Translocatlon
 Monitors
 Plants
 Soils
                     Geothermal  fluids
Plant systems
Soil systems
Geothermal development
07B
06C
06F
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 RELEASE TO PUBLIC
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (Thit Report)
                                                UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                                             37
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thit page I
                                                UNCLASSIFIED
                       22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rov. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

-------