STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS 

Mineral Resources of the 

Big Frog Wilderness Study Area 

and Additions, Polk County, Tennessee, 

and Fannin County, Georgia 

By John F. Slack, U.S. Geological Survey, 

and by Gertrude C. Gazdik and Maynard L. Dunn, Jr., U.S. Bureau of Mines 

STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1531 

An evaluation of the mineral potential 

of the area 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1982 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

JAMES G. WATT, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Slack, John F. 

Mineral resources of the Big Frog wilderness study area and additions, Polk County, Tennessee 

and Fannin County, Georgia. 

(Studies related to wilderness-study areas) (Geological Survey bulletin ; 1531) 

Bibliography: p. 

Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.3:1531 

1. Mines and mineral resources-Tennessee-Polk County. 2. Mines and mineral resources-Georgia-Fannin County. I. Gazdik, Gertrude C. II. Dunn, Maynard L. III. 

Title. IV. Series. V. Series: Geological Survey bulletin ; 1531. 

QE75.B9 no. 1531 [TN24.T] 557.3s 81-607907 [557.68'875] AACR2 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govemment Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 
STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS 

STUDY AREAS 

In accordance with tlw }Jruvisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577. 

September 3, 1964) and the Joint Conference Report on Senate Bill.!, 88th Congress, and 

as specifically designated by Public Law ~l3-!:i22, January 3, Hl75, the U.S. Geological 

Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wildernt'SS 

and primitiw areas. Studies and reports of all primitive areas have been completed. 

Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," ur "canoe'' wlwn the Ad was passed 

were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System. and some of them 

are presently being studied. The Act provided that areas under consideration for 

Wilderness designation should be studit'd for suitability for incorporation into the 

Wildenwss System. The mineral surveys constitute one aS}Ject of the suitability studies. 

This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of National Forest lands in the Big 

Frog Wilderness Study Area and Furtlwr Planning Additions, Tennessee-Georgia, in tlw 

Ch~._·rokee and Chattahoochee National Forests in Pulk County, Tennessee, and Fannin 

County, Georgia. Big Frog was established as a WildL'rness Study Area by Public Law 

~1:3-622, January 3, 1975. The Big Frog Additiuns were desi~c,rnated for further planning 

during the second Roadless An'a Review and Evaluation (RARE Il) by tht' U.S. Forest 

Service, .January Hl79. 

CONTENTS 

1-'ag·,, 

Summary ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 

Intro<luction --------------------------------------------------------- 1 

Location and descri}Jtiun ------------------------------------------- 1 

Previous work ---------------------------------------------------- 3 

Present investigations --------------------------------------------- 4 

Aekn<lwledgments ---------------------------------------------------- 4 

Ge<ll<lgy ------------------------------------------------------------ 4 

Stratip·aphy and lithology------------------------------------------ 4 

Structure________________________________________________________ 5 

F~ds -------------------------------------------------------- 5 

Faults ------------------------------------------------------- 8 

Cleavage and jointing------------------------------------------- 8 

Metam<,rphism --------------------------------------------------- 9 

Geuchen1ical survey--------------------------------------------------- 9 

Sampling and analytical tt·chniqut>s ----------------------------------- 9 

Stream-sediment samples ------------------------------------------ 12 

Soil~unpl~s______________________________________________________ 13 

Panned concentrates ---------------------------------------------- 14 

Rock samples ---------------------------------------------------- 16 

Quartz vt>ins ----------------------------------------------------- 17 

Mineralappra~~----------------------------------------------------- 18 

Metallic resourees ------------------------------------------------- 18 

Gold ---------------------------------------------------------- 18 

Base-metal sulfi< les -------------------------------------------- 19 

Iron and mangam·se ------------------------------ ______________ 19 

N< mmetallie n·sources --------------------------------------------- 21 

Slate and phyllite ---------------------------------------------- 21 

Stone __________________________________ ~--------------------- 21 

Sand and gravel------------------------------------------------ 21 

Oil and gas --------------------------------------------------- 21 

Ref en,• nees ei tel! _________________________ ____________________________ 23 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

FiLl 1-:E 1. Imlex map shmving location of Big Frog Wildl·rness Study An·a and 

A< lditi< ll1S --------------------------------------------- 2 

~. View of Big Frog Wildenwss Study An·a from Low Gap, looking 

S< IUth ------------------------------------------------- 3 

:3. Geologic map and cross st·ction of tlw Big Frog Wildenwss Study 

Area and Additiuns ------------------------------------- 6 

v 
4-G. Maps of the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area and Additions showing 

localities of4. Rock-chip and quartz-vein samples_________________________ 10 

5. Soil samples ------------------------------------------- 11 

G. Stream-sediment samples and panned concentrates___________ 12 

7. Histograms showing ranges of concentration of copper and zinc in soil 

and stream-sediment samples----------------------------- 14 

8. Maps showing the distribution of anomalous values of copper and zinc 

in soil and stream-sediment samples ________________________ 15 

TABLES 

TABLE 1. Range and median values (in ppm) for selected elemt:'nts in soil, 

stream-sediment, and panned-concentrate samples collected in 

1977 from the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area_______________ 13 

2. Rangl' and median values (in ppm) for selected elements in 73 rockchip samples collel'ted in 1977 from tht:' Big Frog Wilderness Study 

Art:'a -------------------------------------------------- 16 

3. Partial analyst's of selt:'cted vt:'in quartz collectt'd in 1977 from the Big 

Frog Wilderness Study Area ------------------------------ 17 

4. Distribution of gold in quartz veins, quartz float, and pamwd concentrate in the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area_________________ 18 
STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

Mineral Resources of the Big Frog Wilderness 

Study Area and Additions, Polk County, 

Tennessee, and Fannin County, Georgia 

By John F. Slack, U.S. Geological Survey, 

and 

Gertrude C. Gazdik and Maynard L. Dunn, Jr., U.S. Bureau of Mines 

SUMMARY 

The proposed Big Frog Wilderness and Additions comprise approximately 2,041 hectares (20.4 square kilometers) of mountainous terrane in the Cherokee and Chattahoochee National Forests south of the Ocoee River in Polk County, Tennessee, and 

Fannin County, Georgia. Rocks of the study area are greenschist-facies metasandstone, 

metaarkose, metagraywacke, and dark slate of the Ocoee Supergroup of Proterozoic Y(?) 

and Z age. A major thrust fault, correlated with the Greenbrier fault, separates finegrained slaty rocks probably of the Snowbird Group on the northwest side, from coarse 

clastic sediments and interbedded slates of the Great Smoky Group on the southeast. 

North- and northeast-trending folds are common in the map area. Minor deposits of 

Quaternary sand and gravel occur locally in the lower parts of large streams. 

Semiquantitative spectrographic, atomic absorption, and selected fire assay analyses 

were done on more than 200 samples of rock, soil, and stream sediment. No significant 

metal anomalies were found for 31 major, minor, and trace elements. In many places, 

metasiltstone and metasandstone contain trace amounts of chalcopyrite and sphalerite as 

microscopic intergrowths with the chief sulfide minerals, pyrite and pyrrhotite. Sulfides 

make up as much as 5 to 10 percent of some rocks and provide concentrations of copper, 

zinc, and arsenic that are slightly higher than background in samples of rock, soil, and 

stream sediment. Rocks containing these disseminated base-metal sulfides are of insufficient grade to have current economic potential, however. 

No metallic mineral resources are known within the proposed Big Frog Wilderness. 

Nonmetallic resources, including slate and phyllite, stone, and sand and gravel are present locally but are not currently of value because similar resources exist closer to markets 

outside the study area; these deposits, therefore, would have only marginal use in the 

region. A possibility also exists for the presence of natural gas at great depths. 

INTRODUCTION 

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 

The proposed Big Frog Wilderness and Further Planning Additions 

comprise about 2,041 ha (9,047 acres or 20.4 km2 ) in parts of the 

Cherokee and Chattahoochee National Forests in southeastern Tennessee and northernmost Georgia (fig. 1). The study area lies within the 

1 
2 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

I - - ~-'- 221 

35°00' "o"'~v:_o1 _!?~- ~ G0 Doogan ~~~~~ Mou~tain:-..'<>~ ·-, 

Cisco 'i'~ -- -' j0--·'-\_ 

41~ 1

.:- -· 

FANNIN COUNTY 

!

<;:randall / '' ' - , _ / 

' - 630 ' 1_ I I 

MURRAY EXPLANATION 

__ Paved road 34o

50

' -~ COUNTY ___ ,_.,_ \ ? 

/ _f,, fi ~. --~ --All-weather road 

( _) ; ( g 1 ~- U.S. highway 

i

Ch go'" ~ G) State highway 

~tsworth ~~ ~ ~: _ , 1 - uc~ 2 3 MILES 221 U.S. Forest Service ohuttaJ-ilountain , GILMER 1 1 route 

~ _I I COUNTY ~ i ~ I c______,__ ____ _ _ 4 KrrOM_E_TE_Rs ________ _j 

FIGURE. 1.-Index map showing the location of thP Big Frog Wilderness Study Area and 

Additions (shaded), Tennessee and Georgia. 

western part of the Blue Ridge physiographic province, just south of 

the Ocoee River gorge. The Cohutta Wilderness borders the Big Frog 

area on the south and southwest. The nearest town is Ducktown, 

Tenn., 10 km to the east. Topographic features of the proposed 

Wilderness consist of a series of long ridges which converge at the 

1,282-m summit of Big Frog Mountain (fig. 2); maximum relief is 830 

m. Drainage has developed in a radial pattern around Big Frog summit. The streams have short steep courses and within 10 km discl:arge 

into the westward-flowing Ocoee River. 

Access to the study area is by secondary Forest Service roads from 

the north, east, or west (fig. 1). Routes 62 and 221 encircle the area at a 

distance of 2 to 5 km on all but the southern part which adjoins the 

Cohutta Wilderness. The Forest Service roads are reached from the 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 3 

Ucklog Ridgol 

FIGURE 2.- View of Big Frog Wilderness Study Area from Low Gap, looking south. 

east by crossing the Ocoee River at Rogers Bridge off State Route 68 

near Copperhill, Tenn., and from the north by crossing the Ocoee No. 3 

Powerhouse bridge from U.S. Highway No. 64. On the northeast, two 

jeep roads penetrate further into the high mountains and terminate at 

the study area boundary; one parallels the East Fork of Rough Creek, 

and the other, the West Fork. These are the only roads that provide 

direct entry into the study area; all other access is by Forest Service 

foot trails. 

The 2,041 ha included in the proposed wilderness are owned in their 

entirety by the U.S. Government and are under Forest Service administration. There are no outstanding mineral rights. 

PREVIOUS WORK 

Geologic sturlies in the southern Great Smoky Mountains were 

pioneered by Safford (1856; 1869) in his early reconnaissance of the 

State of Tennessee. More recently, Hurst (1973) has provided an overview of the geology of the southern Blue Ridge province. Merschat and 

Wiener (1973) compiled a geologic map of the southern Great Smoky 

Mountains from the National Park southwestward to just south of the 

Big Frog area. Excellent exposures along the Ocoee River gorge, 4 km 

to the north, fostered guidebook chapters for field trips in 1962 (Hurst 
4 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

and Schlee, 1962) and in 1978 (Wiener and Merschat, 1978b). More 

detailed studies near the proposed Big Frog Wilderness include the 

work of Salisbury (1961) on the Cohutta Mountain quadrangle to the 

southwest, and geologic mapping by Hernon (1968) of the nearby 

Ducktown, Isabella, and Persimmon Creek quadrangles east of the 

study area. 

PRESENT INVESTIGATIONS 

Field investigations were begun in the spring of 1977 by G. C. Gazdik 

and M. L. Dunn, Jr., of the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Geologic mapping 

and sample collection were done by J. F. Slack and other personnel of 

the U.S. Geological Survey in October 1977. Samples of rock, soil, and 

stream sediment were collected and submitted for geochemical 

analysis. Petrographic and X-ray studies and writing of the report 

were carried out in the spring and early summer of 1978. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Assistance in geologic mapping was given by E. R. Force, R. H. 

Ketelle, and A. E. Grosz. Grosz also collected panned stream-sediment 

concentrates, made heavy-liquid separations, and identified minerals. 

C. E. Merschat and L. S. Wiener of the North Carolina Division of 

Mineral Resources discussed with us the structure and stratigraphy of 

the study area. Appreciation is also extended to C. G. Hagegorge, 

former Chief Geologist of the Copperhill Operation of Cities Service 

Company; to Helmuth Wedow, Jr., of the U.S. Geological Survey; to 

geologists of the Tennessee Division of Geology; and to personnel of 

the U.S. Forest Service. 

GEOLOGY 

STRATIGRAPHY AND LITHOLOGY 

The Big Frog Wilderness Study Area is underlain by greenschistfacies metasedimentary rocks of the Ocoee Supergroup of Proterozoic 

Y(?) and Z age. Minor deposits of Quaternary sand and gravel occur 

locally in some stream drainages. The bedrock is composed of massive 

quartzite, metagraywacke, and arkosic metasandstone interbedded 

with thick sequences of slate and phyllite. Regional correlations by 

Merschat and Wiener (1973) 1 show the Big Frog area to contain two of 

the major units of the Ocoee, the Great Smoky Group and the Snowbird 

Group. Within the Great Smoky Group, a generally eastward-facing sequence of metasedimentary strata, composed of varying proportions of 

fine and coarse clastic rocks, has been designated the Buck Bald, Boyd 

1 Rl'vised and updated in I ~7S. 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 5 

Gap, Farner, and Copperhill Formations by Wiener and Merschat 

(1978b). Detailed mapping during the present study has also subdivided 

the Ocoee, as shown on the geologic map (fig. 3); the accompanying 

legend describes more fully specific lithologies of individual map units. 

East and southeast of the Greenbrier fault, a rock sequence 

dominated by metasiltstone and metasandstone is similar to lithologies 

within parts of the adjacent Cohutta Wilderness (fig. 1) newly 

designated as the Panther Bluff Formation (Gair and Slack, in press). 

The crests of Big Frog Mountain and Pea vine Ridge, and the drainage 

basins of Rough Creek, Silvermine Creek, and Indian Creek to the east 

contain interbedded sulfidic metasandstone, metagraywacke, and dark 

(locally graphitic) slate. These rocks are assigned to the Boyd Gap Formation of Wiener and Merschat (1978b), based on similarities to roadcut exposures in the type area along U.S. Highway 64 to the north. In 

the Big Frog area, graded beds and cleavage-bedding relations consistently indicate an upright geometry for the Panther Bluff Formation 

and a stratigraphic position beneath the Boyd Gap Formation. These 

relationships thus preclude any correlation between the Panther Bluff 

and Buck Bald Formations because the latter is interpreted to be 

stratigraphically above the Boyd Gap Formation (Wiener and 

Merschat, 1978b). 

STRUCTURE 

Structural elements in the Big Frog region include open and closed 

folds, faults, and a prominent axial planar slaty cleavage. In a central 

area, the metasedimentary rocks commonly have gentle dips, including 

strata on and near Big Frog Mountain. The western and eastern parts 

of the proposed Wilderness are more structurally complex, having 

numerous tight folds and at least one major fault, the Greenbrier. 

FOLDS 

Open and closed folds are common within the study area. The most 

prominent fold, which can be seen along the west side of the map, is a 

broad, open northeast-trending anticline that appears to be nearly symmetric. Its location is accurately fixed by excellent exposures in several 

streams; one unnamed stream allows a complete traverse from one 

limb, across the crest, and down the other limb. To · the west, finer 

grained slaty rocks of the Snowbird Group show three minor folds 

whose axes trend nearly north. These anticlines are well exposed in 

small drainages on the west side of the Greenbrier fault and contrast in 

orientation with the northeast-trending anticline on the east side. 

East and northeast of Big Frog Mountain, the nearly flat strata of 

the central part of the map area change to a terrane of more complex 
6 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

Base from Tennessee Valley Authority and U.S. 

Geological Survey Caney 

Creek, 1967, Hemp Top, 

1959, Epworth,1941, U.S. 

Geological Survey 

Ducktown, 1957 

FEET 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

A 

1 MILE 

1 KILOMETER 

A' 

METERS 

3000 

2000 

1000 

SEA ~---L~---- ----------~~--~~~~~------~----~~ SEA 

LEVEL LEVEL 

Fict:lu: 3. -Geologic map and cross section of the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area 

and Additions. 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 7 

EXPLANATION 

_____ Contact 

• 

... 

• 

----<l5 

;<'so 

-+-

EB 

J;._ Thrust fault-Dashed where approximately located; sawteeth on upper 

plate 

Anticline-Showing axial trace and direction of plunge; dashed where 

approximately located 

Syncline-Showing axial trace; dashed where approximately located 

Strike and dip of beds 

Inclined 

Overturned 

Vertical 

Horizontal 

~o Strike and dip of slaty cleavage 

___£:.b.!S>ritL Metamorphic isograd-Metamorphic zones indicated by mineral names Biotite 

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS 

UNIT NORTHWEST OF GREENBRIER FAULT 

~ Snowbird Group, undivided-Laminated gray, blue-gray, or gray-black 

pyritic slate and slaty metasiltstone. Pyrite cubes (or molds) 1-2 em common in silty beds. 

UNITS SOUTHEAST OF GREENBRIER FAULT 

Great Smoky Group 

Boyd Gap Formation!, upper part-Fine to coarse metasandstone, 

metagraywacke, and quartz pebble metaconglomerate (base) 

overlain by dark slate. 

Boyd Gap Formation!, lower part-Interbedded gray to black fissile 

sulfidic slate (locally graphitic) and buff sulfidic metasiltstone and 

metasandstone. Sands partly arkosic; sulfides mainly 

pyrrhotite. 

~ ~ Panther Bluff Formation -Fine to coarse arkosic metasiltstone 

and metasandstone and minor interbedded gray slate. 

1 Name designated by Wiener and Merschat (1978b) 
8 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

stru~tur~. Here, moderate to steep opposing dips are common, suggestmg tight closed folds similar to those described in correlative rocks 

at Boyd Gap, about 5 km along strike to the northeast (Wiener and 

Merschat, 1978a). 

FAULTS 

One major fault passes through the northwest part of the study area. 

It separates fine-grained slaty rocks probably of the Snowbird Group 

on the west and northwest from coarser metasandstone and minor interbedded slate of the younger Great Smoky Group on the southeast. 

This is interpreted to be the Greenbrier fault described by King (1964) 

and Hadley and Goldsmith (1963) farther to the northeast in the central 

and eastern parts of the Great Smoky Mountains, and extended 

southwestward through the Ocoee River Gorge area by Wiener and 

Merschat (1978b). Evidence for the presence of the Greenbrier fault, in 

addition to the regional lithologic considerations, includes sharp 

changes in bedding attitudes, topography, and fold orientations. The 

broad northeast-trending anticline on the southeast side of the fault 

(fig. 3) may have developed by drag during thrusting; drag on the hanging wall is suggested by overturned bedding along Low Gap Branch. 

The more northerly strike of minor folds on the northwest side of the 

thrust suggests deformation prior to movement along the Greenbrier 

fault. 

CLEAVAGE AND JOINTING 

Cleavage and jointing are both well developed throughout the study 

area. Jointing is especially prominent in coarser clastic rocks, particularly in outcrops of massive metasandstone and metagraywacke. 

Cleavage is common in fine-grained siltstone and slate. Two types of 

cleavage have been recognized; one, a major penetrative slaty 

cleavage, and the other, a local fracture cleavage that deforms the 

older slaty cleavage. The younger fracture cleavage, visible as a herringbonelike parting in slates and phyllites, is defined in thin section by 

linear concentrations of clark, possibly organic, material. 

The slaty cleavage generally strikes north, although a few readings 

range from northwest to northeast. The cleavage orientations generally are not parallel to the axial planes of folds, and their pattern is 

not consistent with models of simple strain from one period of folding. 

The orientations probably reflect polyphase deformation like that 

recognized in the Ducktown basin 10 km to the east (Holcomb, 1973; 

Addy and Ypma, 1977). 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 9 

METAMORPHISM 

Rocks of the proposed Big Frog Wilderness are assigned to the 

greenschist facies of regional metamorphism (Swingle and others, 

1966; Carpenter, 1970). Rocks within the almandine garnet metamorphic zone and higher grade (staurolite, kyanite) rocks of the Ducktown 

basin are exposed several kilometers east of the eastern boundary of 

the study area. Petrographic examination of clastic rocks from the 

study area shows abundant sericite and local chlorite and biotite as a 

matrix surrounding detrital grains of quartz and feldspar. The distribution of biotite-bearing rocks suggests that the chlorite-biotite isograd 

trends northeastward on the northwest side of Big Frog Mountain (fig. 

3). 

Garnet was identified in two samples of panned stream sedim~nt but 

was not found in thin section. A similar situation occurs 65 km northeast of Big Frog in greenschist-facies metasedimentary rocks of the 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness (Lesure and others, 1977) and in 

the adjoining Citico Creek Wilderness Study Area (Slack and others, 

1979). Nearly colorless spessartine (manganese-rich garnet) is present 

in all of these areas .and apparently is a common product of the lowgrade Ocoee metamorphism. However, pink detrital garnets, including 

one found at Big Frog, are pyrope (magnesium)-rich almandines probably derived from higher metamorphic-grade pre-Ocoee basement 

rocks (Slack and others, 1980). 

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES 

More than 200 samples of rock, soil, stream sediment, and vein 

quartz were collected from throughout the Big Frog Study Area; 

several samples were also collected frorn the two Further Planning Additions. For each type of material, an attempt was made to provide a 

uniform sample coverage. Rock samples (fig. 4) were collected by a 

composite chip method from different parts of each outcrop. Fresh 

unweathered samples were taken wherever possible. The rock-chip 

samples are representative of all major rock types in the study area, as 

well as all major map units shown on the geologic map; chip samples of 

quartz veins also were collected. Soil samples (fig. 5) were taken below 

surficial organic material from the lower to middle parts of the A 

horizon but locally from the upper part of the B horizon. Soil samples 

were routinely sieved to -80 rnesh prior to analysis. Stream sediments 
10 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

S-085• 

F-05,_ 

S-098 

G;030. 8-31~ • • 

F-042 S-111 eG_031 S-10~ •8-314 

F-039 F-o47 S-114 .G-001 

F-058 • e • ~-032 • 8-309 G-004 

• 8-307 • • K-050 eJ-001 S-104•G .S-002 

•K-046 •F-075 -005• .G-006 

•

8

-

306 e F-073 •G-007 

F-065 e F-071 

.F-069 eS-011 

•s-013 

• 8_313 ~-o2o .s-135 

1 KI~OMETER 

K-019 I ·S-078 S-123. I 

~'--319 

FI<;llRE 4.- Map of the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area and Additions showing localities 

of rock-chip and quartz-vein samples. 

(fig. 6) were collected from active and large intermittent drainages. 

Organic-rich samples were ashed prior to analysis to avoid spectral interference. Stream-sediment samples were sieved to - 80 mesh. 

Heavy-mineral concentrates, collected by standard panning techniques, were taken from major streams draining radially away from 

the summit of Big Frog Mountain. Minerals in the panned concentrates 

were separated by bromoform and methylene iodide, and the heavy 

(nonmagnetic) fraction submitted for analysis. 

All samples were analyzed by semiquantitative spectrographic 

methods for 31 major, minor, and trace elements. Concentrations of 

gold, silver, and zinc were determined more accurately by atomic absorption and fire assay methods. Analyses were made in the 

laboratories of the U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colo., and the U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Metallurgy Research Center, Reno, Nev. The semiquantitative spectrographic values are reported as six steps per order 

of magnitude (1, 0. 7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.2, 0.15, or multiples of 10 of these 

numbers) and are approximate geometric midpoints of the concentra-
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 11 

.K-004 K-010 

• 

S-096• 

• S-105• 

l-048 G-035 

•K-008 

.s-086 

S-043• 

S-091• • 

•s-o99 G-o1 o 

G-033• 

K-047 

S-1 02• •G-009 

•s-115 

• F-074• S-003 

•G-008 • F-072 S 019 F-066 • • - • 5- 009 

.F-070 

•s-o15 

1 MILE 

1 KILOMETER 

S-130• 

,"'study a rea 

boundary 

Frt;t IRE 5.- Map of the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area and Additions showing 

localities of soil samples. 

tion ranges. The precision is within one adjoining interval on each side 

of the reported value 83 percent of the time and within two adjoining 

intervals 96 percent of the time (Motooka and Grimes, 1976). 

Geochemical data from the Big Frog area are evaluated by comparison with other Wilderness studies to the northeast and southwest 

in lithologically similar rocks of the Great Smoky Group (Lesure and 

others, 1977; Slack and others, 1979; Gair, in press) and with samples 

collected from areas of known mineralization at the nearby Hazel 

Creek and Fontana copper mines, western North Carolina. In their 

study of these mines, Lesure and others (1977) used a cumulative frequency plot for copper in stream sediment and determined a threshold 

for anomalous values of about 100 ppm copper, with higher values 

restricted to the immediate mine areas. More recently, J. E. Gair has 

evaluated geochemical data for the adjoining Cohutta Wilderness (fig. 

1) and determined threshold values for copper and zinc of 70 and 190 

ppm, respectively, based on values two standard deviations above the 

mean; for soil samples, thresholds of 100 ppm copper and 165 ppm zinc 
12 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

.............. 

' ' ' \ 

\ 

_}S-050 

,..... ...... -.::. ___ ,.. /rS-049 

..... _________ ..,.,, ..,/"/ 

1 ~ILOMETER 

FrGt:RE 6.- Map of the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area and Additions showing localities 

of stream-sediment samples (single dots) and panned concentrates (circled dots). 

Dashed lines outline drainage basins for each sample site. 

were found for that area (Gair, in press). In the present study area, 

anomalous samples are similarly identified as those having metal concentrations at or higher than two standard deviations above the 

arithmetic mean. 

In the tabulation and discussion of the geochemical data, selected 

elements of particular economic interest (for example, Au, Ag, Pb, Cu, 

and Zn) are emphasized. Concentrations of other major, minor, and 

trace elements (Fe, Mg, Ca, Ti, Mn, B, Ba, Be, Cr, La, Nb, Sc, Sr, V, Y, 

and Zr) are within expected background ranges and are not discussed. 

Complete analyses for rock, soil, and stream sediment are available in 

Hopkins and others (1979). 

STREAM-SEDIMENT SAMPLES 

Analyses of 43 stream-sediment samples showed no significant metal 

anomalies (table 1). Concentrations of most metals were within expected background ranges; no gold or silver was detected. Slightly high 

amounts of zinc and copper were found locally in some streams, as 

determined by comparison with threshold values of 243 ppm zinc and 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 13 

TABLE 1.-Range and median values (in ppm) for selected elements in soil, stream-sed?:-

ment, and panned-cmu:entrate sa.mples collected ·in 1977 from the Big Frog Wilderness 

Study Area, Polk County, Tennessee, and Fctnnin County, Georgia 

[All analyses are by semiquantitave spectrographic methods except gold and zinc which are by atomic absorption. Spectrographic analyses are reported to the nearest number in the series 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and so forth, which represent approximate midpoints of group data on a geometric scale (see text). Analyses by R. T. Hopkins and A. L. 

Meier, U.S. Geolog~cal Survey, Denver, Colo. Letter symbols: L, detected but below limit of determination (value in 

parentheses); N, not detected. Elements looked for but not found and their lower limits of detection, in ppm: As 

(200), Bt (10), Cd (20), Sb (100), W (50), Sn (10). Th (100). Au found only in two soil samples at limit of detection (0.05 

ppm); Ag (0.5 ppm) in one soil sample (see text!.] 

Soil Stream sediment Panned concentrate (65 samples) (43 samples) (5 samples) 

Elements Low High Median Luw High Median Low High Median 

Co (5) 5 70 10 7 70 15 7 15 7 

Cu (5) 10 70 20 10 70 30 5 30 15 

Mo (5) N 5 N N 10 N N N N 

Ni (5) 7 70 30 10 70 30 10 20 15 

Pb (10) 20 70 30 20 70 30 20 30 20 

Zn (5) 35 300 150 75 290 150 80 140 130 

57 ppm copper (fig~ 7). Anomalous values for copper and zinc are 

distributed in three drainage basins, including the coincidence of 70 

ppm copper and 290 ppm zinc in one small drainage area near the headwaters of the East Fork of Rough Creek (fig. 8). The highest copper 

value (70 ppm) is clearly anomalous (fig. 7) but is too far below the 

threshold of 100 ppm found by Lesure and others (1977) to be 

characteristic ofareas surrounding known mineral deposits at the Fontana and Hazel Creek mines. Lithologically similar rocks constituting 

part of the Great Smoky Group also have high background concentrations of base and precious metals in stream-sediment samples from 

areas to the northeast of the Big Frog area (Lesure and others, 1977; 

Slack and others, 1979). 

SOIL SAMPLES 

Emission spectrographic and atomic absorption analyses of 65 soil 

samples showed few anomalously high metal values (table 1). Gold and 

silver were found at the limit of detection (0.5 ppm) in two samples, one 

from the ridge north of Penitentiary Branch, and the other, from the 

drainage of Silvermine Creek (fig. 4). Anomalous zinc values ( ~ 200 

ppm) were found for 11 samples collected from widely scattered sites 

throughout the study area. Concentrations of zinc above threshold (277 

ppm, fig. 7) are from three different areas (fig. 8) where the bedrock 

(generally metasiltstone) contains as much as 5 to 7 percent 

disseminated sulfides, including trace amounts of sphalerite and 

chalcopyrite; high copper values, above a threshold of 58 ppm, are coincident with two of these areas. These concentrations, although much 

higher than background or median values, are still within the upper 

part of the range of abundances common to soils that are not known to 

be associated with ore deposits (Mitchell, 1964, fig. 8.1). 
14 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

25 Copper in soils 

20 

15 

10 

5 

en 

-E. 15 

E 

~ 10 

0 '- 5 Q) 

.D 

E 

::::! 

c 

G 2o 

z 

w 

::::> 15 

0 

~ 10 u... 

5 

15 

10 

5 

40 80 

80 120 

y 

I 

I 

I 

threshold value=58 

Zinc in soils 

threshold value=277 V 

120 160 200 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Copper in stream sediments 

V threshold value=57 

I 

I 

I 

Zinc in stream sediments 

threshold value=243 

y 

I 

I 

I 

I 

160 200 240 280 

CONCENTRATION (ppm) 

FIGURE 7.-Ranges of concentration of copper and zine in soil and stream-sediment 

samples from the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area and Additions. 

PANNED CONCENTRATES 

Heavy minerals panned from stream sediments were concentrated 

by heavy-liquid methods in the laboratory, and splits of five samples 

were analyzed by spectrographic and atomic-absorption techniques 

(table 1). No elements were present in anomalously high concentrations. Microscopic study of heavy minerals showed major amounts of 

hematite, limonite, magnetite, tourmaline, epidote, ilmentite, and zircon. Gold was found only in one sample (B-321: 0.31 ppm) collected 

from Tumbling Creek (fig. 6), which also drains areas outside of the 

proposed Wilderness. 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 15. 

35°00' 

Values above threshold 

x Cu::o-58 ppm 

0 zn;::_277 ppm 

S-009 ~ 

Soil Samples 

Values above threshold 

X Cu257 ppm 

• Zn2243 ppm 

Stream-Sediment Samples 

1 MILE 

1 kiLOMETER 

FIGURE 8.- Maps of the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area and Additions showing the 

distribution of anomalous values of copper and zinc in soil and stream-sediment 

samples. 
16 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

ROCK SAMPLES 

Composite rock chips of metasandstone, metagraywacke, and 

metaconglomerate (40 samples) and slate and phyllite (33 samples) 

were submitted for 31-element spectrographic analysis. Selected 

ranges and median values, as determinated from these analyses, are 

reported in table 2. No significant concentration of metals was found. 

Samples of sulfidic siltstone and slate locally contain as much as 70 ppm 

copper; one sample from the headwaters of the East Fork of Rough 

Creek has 500 ppm arsenic (table 2). 

TABLE 2.-Range and median nalues (in ppm) jl~r selected elernents in 78 rock-chip 

samples collected in 1977Jhim the Big Frog WUdeniess Study Area, Polk County, Tennessee, and Fannin County, Georgia 

[All. analyse's by Sl'miquantitJtive srwl'trographic lllethods l'XCl']>l gold and zim· whit'h an• hy atomic absorption. 

~pl•drograplm· data are repurt:d to tlw nearl'st number in thl' series 1, 1.5, 2, :3, 5. 7, 10, and so forth, whid1 rq1n·-

st·nt approximate nndpomts ot group data on a gl'<•nwtrie scale- (Sl'l' tl'xt). Analvsl's hy R. T. Hopkins and A. L. 

:Vh•it·r. ll.S. GL•ological SurVQ', Lknver, Colo. Lt·tll'r symbols: L, dl'kl'tl'd hut lkio\v limit uf ddt·rnlination (valut• in 

pan•ntlwst•s); ;\/, not tktL•cted. Eiellll'nts lookl'd for hut nttt found and tlwir I< >Wl'r limits of ddel'tion, in pf>lll; Au 

(0.05), Ag (0.51, Hi (HI), Cd (20). Sit (100), Sni!O), W ifi\1), Tit i!IIO)j. 

Ml'tasan< 1st• >lll', nwtagraywackt·, nil'lacungl< 'llll' ra tl' 

(40 sampl,•s) 

Elt'llll'llts Lo\\ High 

Avt·ragt• 

l\h·dian .sandstntH· 1 ·~ 

As (2110) N ~ N Co (5) N 15 o.:l Cu (51 N 00 1G IU-211 Mo (5) l\ 15 l\ 11.:.0 

~i lf>l L 70 1[> 

Ph (1111 \i ;,o :.011 \J 

Zn (fi) 15 :.::.:u 75 !f:j 

I Pl'ttijollll (l~H1:3) 

' Turl'kian and W l'depohl 11 ~Hi 11. 

'Krauskopf (l~ll:i7. Apj>l'IHiix Ill). 

Slat<' 

1:3:3 sanlplt•s) 

Avt·rag•· 

Low High l\h•dian shalt•: 

N 5UO :\ li.li 

l\ 211 10 211 

l\ 70 20 :)7 

~ 7 l\ 

L 50 15 ~+[) 

!\ [>0 211 20 

Ill 150 ]110 .'ill 

The slightly high concentrations of copper, zinc, and arsenic apparently are caused by trace amounts of base-metal sulfides intergrown with the principal sulfide minerals, pyrite and pyrrhotite. The 

iron sulfides may constitute as much as 10 volume percent of some 

rocks. East of the Greenbrier fault, pyrrhotite and locally pyrite form 

streaked aggregates as much as 1 em long oriented parallel to the major slaty cleavage of fine-grained rocks and contain accessory 

chalcopyrite and sphalerite. West of the fault, porphyroblastic cubes of 

pyrite (as large as 2 em) occur in slates (fig. 3). Similar occurrences of 

disseminated base-metal sulfides in rock of the Ocoee Supergroup have 

been described by Merschat and Larson (1972) and by Slack and others 

(1979) for strata of the Great Smoky Group northeast of the Big Frog 

area. Despite the widespread distribution of these sulfides, they have 

not been found in enough quantity to be of current commercial interest. 

Concentrations of zinc, for example, are at least two orders of 

magnitude lower than present economic grades; copper values are even 

lower. It seems apparent from this and other recent studies that 

geochemical surveys of terranes underlain by rocks of the Ocoee 

Supergroup commonly yield characteristic high background values for 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 17 

base metals such as copper and zinc, as well as arsenic and locally 

cobalt (Slack and others, 1979). 

QUARTZ VEINS 

Numerous massive quartz veins throughout the area of the proposed 

Wilderness are generally 1m or less thick in slate or, less commonly, in 

metasandstone or metagraywacke. Veins are localized along the principal cleavage of fine-grained slate and metasiltstone; most are milky 

white to grayish white and barren except for trace amounts of pyrite in 

a few places. The largest vein discovered during geologic mapping 

crops out along the lower part of Big Creek, where it forms a 

northeast-trending body nearly 5 m wide containing abundant inclusions of dark-gray slate. Boulders of quartz 4 to 5 m wide in Silvermine 

Creek (fig. 3) suggest the presence of very large veins upstream there, 

on the southeast side of Big Frog Mountain. 

Six quartz veins were sampled by a composite-chip method and 

analyzed for 31 major, minor, and trace elements (table 3). Trace 

amounts of gold (0.3-0.4 ppm) were detected by fire assay methods in 

seven U.S. Bureau of Mines' samples of outcrops and float of vein 

quartz (table 4). No economically important metal concentrations, including gold, are associated with any of the samples. 

TABLE 3. -Pctrtia.l awtlyses t~( selected uein qu.ar·tz collected in 1977 from the Big Prug 

Wilderness Study Area, Polk County, Tem1.essee, and Fannin County, Georgia 

[All analysc•s are by semiquantitativl' l'lltmissi"n spL•l'lropgraphic· nwtii<,.Js L'Xt:l'(lt g~tld and zittl" whit:h art• by al<>tnie 

absorption. Spedrographie analysL'S are n•porled tn tfw m·an·sl numhc·r in the• series 1, 1.5, ~. :), !i, 7, liJ. and '" 

forth, whidt represent approximatl' midpuints ,f grolljJ data on a geontl'lrie seall' (sc•c· text). Ana.Jysl's hy R. T. 

Hopkins and A. L. Mc·iL·r. U.S. (~eulogieal Survt•y, lknvc•r, Colo. Ldtc·r :symbols: L, ddt·ell'd hut IIL·Iu\\' limit of dl'll'l'-

mination ( valul' in parenthl'Sc·s): !':, not dl'leell'd. Elt•Jllt'tils luokL•d for hut not fowul and thL·ir lo\\'c•r limits of ddl'L'-

tion, in ppm: Au (0.05), Ag (0.5), As (~001, Hi I 1<1), Cd (~lll, M" (51. Nll(~ll), Sh (100), Sn (1 Ill, Sr (I !10), W (:)Ill. Tit I IOU !I 

SamplL• munhc·r:; -~---

Elenwnb [>-II\!~ .-,-m15 G-1:)5 ~'-0~7 K-oo:l K-1111 

Percent: 

Ca (0.05) N L L L L N 

Fe (0.05) 0.7 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.7 0.3 

Mg (0.02) .02 .02 .02 ()') .02 .05 

Ti (0.002) .03 .03 .02 .005 .en .05 

Parts per million: 

B (10) N N 20 N L 10 

Ba (20) 100 100 70 50 50 100 

Be (1) N N N N 1 1 

Co (5) N N 5 N 5 N 

Cr (10) 10 L N N L 10 

Cu (5) 5 L 7 L L L 

La (20) N N N L 20 20 

Mn (10) 20 30 700 20 150 50 

Ni (5) L L 5 5 5 5 

Pb (10) L N L N N L 

Sc (5) N N N N L L 

v (10) 10 10 L L L 10 

y (10) N N 20 N N N 

Zn (5) 20 40 25 10 15 10 

Zr (10) 15 50 100 N L 20 
18 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

TABLE 4.-Disfrl~bution (lyold in quartz ueins, quartzj7oat, and panned concentrate in 

the B1:g Frog Wilderness Study A tea 

[Analy~es l>y fire assay. U.S. Bur,·au of Mirws, Rt·nn Ml'tallurgy R\'searl'h Cl•ntt•r, Rl'IHI, Nev., Conn·rsion i'al'tors: I 

P~illl=O.OOIII f'l't'l'l'llt=O.II~~ll;ti7<~UIH'l'S tr•IY pt·r short toll= I grallllll'l' nrl'lric tonJ 

Sanrpl•· 

IIUillhl•r 

B-306 

B-307 

B-308 

B-313* 

B-316 

B-318 

B-319 

B-321 

(;old 

(ppm) 

0.34 

.41 

.27 

.31 

.34 

.45 

.31 

.31 

Sample· dl'Sl'ription 

Random chip sample, 1-m-long quartz vein exposure. 

Composite of chips from quartz float. 

Random chip sample, 6 m-long quartz vein exposure. 

Composite of chips from quartz float. 

Do. 

Random chip sample, 7.6 m-long quartz vein exposure. 

Random chip sample, 2-m-long quartz vt>in t>xposure. 

Panned concentrate. 

• Sami,J,. l'ontaining tratl' 'tl' siln•r. 

MINERAL APPRAISAL 

No economic concentration of minerals was found within the boundaries of the study area. Evaluation of possible resources is focussed on 

gold, base-metal sulfides, and iron and manganese and on several 

nonmetallic commodities including slate and phyllite, stone, sand and 

gravel, and oil and gas. Persistent local rumor insists on the occurrence 

of a silver deposit, but only one sample tested by fire assay (B-313) had 

detectable silver. Legend also reports a tin deposit on Silvermine Creek 

(Furcron, 1960), but panned samples from this stream show no 

measurable (10 ppm) tin. 

METALLIC RESOURCES 

Gold 

A small gold-mining district which centered around Coker Creek and 

several of its tributaries is about 24 km northeast of the study area in 

Monroe County, Tenn. Gold, in amounts generally less than 0.5 ppm, 

occurs near Coker Creek (Hale, 197 4) disseminated in rocks that have 

been mapped locally as units of the Ocoee Supergroup (Merschat and 

Wiener, 1973). Mining there has been restricted to gold concentrations 

in saprolitic and alluvial materials derived from the gold-bearing units 

and from a few quartz veins (Ashley, 1911; Rove, 1926; Hale, 1974). 

These deposits were most actively worked from their discovery in 1827 

to the Civil War. Sporadic mining has taken place since then with the 

Annette Mining Company's mid-1920 placer operation being the most 

recent serious attempt. Hale (197 4, p. 3) reports "the total production 

from the Coker Creek district from 1831 to 1972 was about 9,000 

ounces" (280,000 grams of gold). Gold deposits of the Coker Creek 

district seem to be restricted to southern Monroe County. Although 

gold-bearing quartz veins on Johnson's Creek and Little Frog Mountain 

are reported by Ashley (1911) and Rove (1926), these occurrences have 

not been substantiated. 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 19 

Gold was detected by atomic-absorption analysis in only two soil 

samples at the limit of detection (0.05 ppm). Low concentrations were 

found by fire assay in all U.S. Bureau of Mines quartz samples and in 

one sample of panned stream sediment (table 4). The highest concentration, 0.4 ppm (samples B-318 and B-307), is well below the lower 

limit for economic recovery. 

Base-Metal Sulfides 

Massive sulfide deposits in the Ducktown mining district, 11 km east 

of the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area, are among the largest in the 

United States. The Ducktown district has produced almost continuously since 1850, yielding copper, zinc, iron, sulfuric acid, gold, and 

silver (Kinkel and others, 1968; Magee, 1968). Mineralized rock occurs 

both as massive and disseminated sulfides that conform to the general 

structure of the enclosing host rocks. Such stratabound deposits, 

previously interpreted as epigenetic, that is, younger than the surrounding rocks, are now considered by many workers (Addy and Ypma, 

1977; Gair and Slack, 1980) to have formed by syngenetic processes 

contemporaneously with the deposition of the enclosing sediments. The 

Ducktown deposits comprise approximately 80 million tons of ore (Gair 

and Slack, 1979) and are confined to the Copperhill Formation as used 

by Hernon (1968) and Magee (1968) of the Great Smoky Group. 

Merschat and Wiener (1973) show the Copperhill trending, at its 

elosest point, about 3.4 km east of the eastern boundary of the Big 

Frog area. The absence of this formation within the proposed 

Wilderness suggests a low potential for massive sulfides of the 

Ducktown type in the Big Frog area. Nevertheless, the possibility does 

exist for additional hidden stratabound deposits within other 

stratigraphic units of the Ocoee Supergroup, but the present study cannot adequately evaluate this possibility. Known occurrences of basemetal sulfide minerals that are disseminated in trace amounts in many 

rocks of the Ocoee Supergroup (Merschat and Larson, 1972; Slack and 

others, 1979), including those of the Big Frog area, are too sparse and 

low grade to be of current economic interest. 

Iron and Manganese 

Iron concentrations, associated with rocks of the Ocoee Supergroup 

(Salisbury, 1961), occur as iron oxides (primarily limonite) in veins and 

pockets southwest of the study area. Manganese, when present, is 

associated with the limonite either as nodules in the iron ore or as 

manganiferous iron; locally it is found as the cementing material for 

quartzite breccia (Watson, 1908, p. 17 4-179; Hull and others, 1919, p. 

197-201; Haseltine, 1924, p. 74-83). These deposits probably result 
20 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

from the weathering and subsequent concentration of the minor 

amounts of iron and manganese found disseminated throughout rocks 

of the Ocoee Supergroup. 

In the early 1900's, deposits of iron with associated manganese were 

prospected extensively near Doogan Mountain in northern Murray 

County, Ga., approximately 15 km southwest of the study area. 

Records of the U.S. Bureau of Mines show that 216 metric tons of ore 

were shipped from two Doogan Mountain properties during 1917 and 

1918. In 1917, 26 metric tons containing 43.61 percent manganese, 

8.52 percent iron, and 2.49 percent Si02 were shipped from the Powell 

property. The following year, the Southern Manganese Corporation 

shipped 190 metric tons from the Green property. Shipments from the 

Green property had a composition of 18.85 percent manganese, 26.00 

percent iron, 4.8 percent Si02 , and 1.12 percent phosphorous; no further production or shipments are recorded. However, numerous workings are found over these properties, and probably small quantities of 

ore were shipped sporadically over several years. Analyses of samples 

from the Powell and Green properties published by Hull and others 

(1919) and by Haseltine (1924) vary widely and differ from analyses 

recorded by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. However, the analyses consistently indicate the deposits to be too high in silica and (or) in 

phosphorous to compete with other available ores. 

Reconnaissance geologic mapping by Merschat and Wiener (1973) 

show the Doogan Mountain area to be underlain by rocks of the Proterozoic Z Walden Creek Group and partly by the Chilhowee Group and 

Sandsuck Formation of Proterozoic Z and Cambrian age. Neither of 

these stratigraphic units are known within the proposed Big Frog 

Wilderness. No limonite deposits like those of Doogan Mountain were 

seen in the study area, and no anomalous amounts of iron or 

manganese were reported from any of the samples analyzed. Manganese contents are uniformly low for samples of rock, soil, and stream 

sediment (Hopkins and others, 1979). The highest value, 0.3 percent 

manganese, was found in several soils and stream sediments; rock 

samples contain much less manganese. Of bedrock samples collected 

during the field examination, B-311, a highly pyritic phyllite from 

Peter Camp Branch, 0.2 km west of the study area boundary, had the 

highest iron content, 8. 7 percent. Sample B-305, whieh has an iron 

eontent of only 5.6 pereent, is from the sole ferruginous quartzite outcrop found during the field examination. 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 21 

NONMETALLIC RESOURCES 

Slate and Phyllite 

Slate and phyllite are major rock types of the study area. Various 

physical properties, including sulfide and carbonate contents, color irregularities, and rod-shaped fracturing, make these rocks generally 

useless as dimension slate, roofing granules, or mineral filler. One bulk 

sample of phyllite (B-322) was submitted for ceramic testing, but, 

because of its short-firing characteristics, it was found to be only 

marginally acceptable in the manufacture of structural clay products 

such as building brick or tile. Several phyllite outcrops appeared to be 

graphitic, but testing revealed less than 1 percent graphite. Phyllites 

and slates in the study area thus have low resource potential because of 

the abundance of higher quality rock nearer markets. 

Stone 

Coarse clastic rocks in the study area such as metasandstone and 

metagraywacke could be used as riprap, railroad ballast, or as road 

material. Requirements for stone or stone aggregate commonly are 

local, however, so that it is unlikely that distant markets would obtain 

stone from within the proposed Wilderness. 

Sand and Gravel 

Sand and gravel form minor deposits in the lower drainages of a few 

major streams around the periphery of Big Frog Mountain. These 

deposits are thin and not easily accessible. The presence of more easily 

recovered larger deposits outside the study area indicates that the 

economic potential of this sand and gravel is low. 

Oil and Gas 

Recent seismic and aeromagnetic studies (Cook and others, 1979; 

Hatcher and Zeitz, 1979) indicate that the Blue Ridge in northern 

Georgia and southeastern Tennessee contains a thick sequence (1-5 km 

thick) of sedimentary rocks below an overlying layer of metamorphic 

rocks (6-15 km thick). These metamorphic rocks, of which those of the 

proposed Big Frog Wilderness are a part, have apparently been moved 

northwestward 100 km or more up and over the younger sedimentary 
22 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

rocks. These sedimentary rocks have an unknown potential for hydrocarbons, but the depths at which they occur and the implied degree of 

metamorphism suggest that any hydrocarbons present would be in the 

form of natural gas and not oil (Cook and others, 1979). The chances of 

finding concentrations of such gas are problematical; until some deep 

drilling is done to test the results of the seismic studies, no reasonable 

estimate of the gas potential can be made, but the presence of gas cannot be totally discounted. 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 23 

REFERENCES CITED 

Addy, S. K., and Ypma, P. J. M., 1977, Origin of massive sulfide deposits at Ducktown, 

Tennessee: an oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen isotope study: Economic Geology, v. 72, 

no. 7, p. 1245-1268. 

Ashley, G. H., 1911, The gold fields of Coker Creek, Monroe County, Tennessee: 

Geological Survey of Tennessee, The Resources of Tennessee, p. 79-107. 

Carpenter, R. H., 1970, Metamorphic history of the Blue Ridge province of Tennessee 

and North Carolina: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, no. 3, p. 749-761. 

Cook, F. A., Albaugh, D. S., Brown, L. D., Kaufman, S., Oliver, J. E., and Hatcher, R. D., 

.Jr., 1979, Thin-skinned tectonics in the crystalline southern Appalachians; COCORP 

seismic-reflection profiling of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont: Geology, v. 7, no. 12, p. 

563-567. 

Furcron, A. S., 1960, Some lost mineral localities in Georgia: Georgia Mineral Newsletter, v. 13, no. 3, p. 124-129. 

Gair, J. E., in press, Geochemical survey uf the Cohutta Wilderness and the Hemp Top 

Roadless Area, Georgia and Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field 

Studies Map. 

Gair, J. E., and Slack, J. F., 1979, Map showing lithostratigraphic and structural setting 

of stratabound (massive) sulfide deposits in U.S. Appalachians: U.S. Geolo_s>ical 

Survey Open-File Report 7~l-1517, scale 1:1,000,000 (4 sheets). 

---1980, Stratabound massive sulfide deposits of the U.S. Appalachians, in Vokes, F. 

M., and Zachrisson, Ebbe, eels., Review of Caledonian-Appalachian stratabound 

sulphides: Geological Survey of Ireland, Special Paper No. 5, p. 67-81. 

---in press, Geologic map of the Cohutta Wilderness and the Hemp Top Roadless 

Area, Georgia and Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellenaous Field Studies 

Map. 

Hadley, <T. B.. and Goldsmith, Richard, 1963. Geology of the eastern Great Smoky Mountains. North Carolina and Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Prufessional Paper 

349-B, 118 p. 

Hale, R. C., 197 4, Gold deposits of the Coker Creek District, Monroe County, Tennessee: 

Tennessee Division of Geology Bulletin 72, !:!3 p. 

Haseltine, R. H., 1924, Iron ore deposits of Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 

41, 222 p. 

Hatcher, R. D., .Jr., and Zeitz, Isidore. Hl7!:!, Thin crystalline thrust sheets in the 

southern Appalachian Inner Piedmunt and Blue Ridge: Interpretation based upon 

regional aeromagnetic data [abs.]: Geolo_s>ical Society uf America Ahstraets with Programs. v. 10, no. 7, p. 417. 

Hernon, R. M., 1968, Geology of the Ducktown. Isabella, and Persimmon Creek 

quadrangles, Tennessee and North Carolina: U.S. Geolo_s>ieal Survey Open-File 

Report, 74 p. 

Holcomb, R. V., 1973, Mesuscopic and microscopic analysis of deformation and metamorphism near Ducktown. Tennessee: Stanford. California, Stanford University, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, 225 p. 

Hopkins, R. T., Meier, A. L., and Slack, .J. F., Hl7H, Geochemical analyses uf rock, soil, 

and stream sediment samples from the Big Frog Wilderness Study Area, Polk 

County, Tennessee, and Fannin County, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 79-543, 17 p. 

Hull, J. P. D., LaForge, Laurence, and Crane, W. R., 1!:!1!:!, Report on the manganese 

deposits of Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 35, 2~l5 p. 

Hurst, V. J .. 1!:!73, Geology of the southern Blue Ridge Belt: American Journal of Seience v. 273, no. 8, p. 643-670. 
24 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS-WILDERNESS AREA 

Hurst, V. J., and Schlee, J. S., 1\:J62, Field excursion, Ocoee metasediments, northcentral Georgia-southeast Tennessee, Geological Society of America, Southeastern 

Section, Annual Meeting, 1962, Guidebook No. 3: Atlanta, Georgia, Dept. Mines, 

Mining and Geology, 28 p. 

King, P. B., 1964, Geology uf the central Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 349-C, 148 p. 

Kinkel, A. R., Jr., Feitler, S. A., and Hobbs, R. G .. 1\:J68, Copper and sulfur, i11 U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral resources of the Appalachian 

resrion: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 580, p. 377-385. 

Krauskopf, K. B., 1967, Introduction tu geochemistry: New York, McGraw-Hill, 721 p. 

Lesure, F. G., Force, E. R., Windolph, J. F., and Hill, J. J., 1977, Mineral resources of 

the Joyce Kilmer-Slickroek Wilderness, North Carolina-Tennessee: U.S. Geolo!:,rical 

Survey Bulletin 1416, 8\:1 p. 

Magee, Maurice, 1968, Geolo!:,ry and ore deposits of the Ducktown district, Tennessee, 

in Ore deposits of the United States, Hl33-1967 (Graton-Sales Volume), v. 1: New 

York, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, p. 

207-241. 

Merschat, C. E., and Larson, L. T., 1~172, Disseminated sultides in late Precambrian 

Ocoee rocks labs.]: Geolosrical Society of America Abstracts with ProgTams, v . ..t, no. 

2, p. 92-\:J3. 

Merschat, C. E .. and Wiener, L. S., 1973. Provisional geologic map of the Ocoee Supl'rgroup, southwt>stern North Carolina and southeastt>rn Tennesst•e labs.]: Gt>tdogical 

Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 5, no. 5, p. 420. 

Mitchell, R. L., Hl64, Trace elements in soils, in Bear, F. E., ed .. Chemistry of the 

soil, 2d edition: New York, Rt>inhold Publishing Corporation, p. 320-368. 

Motuoka, J. M., and G1·imes, D. J .. 1~176, Analytical prt>cisiun of one-sixth order semiquantitative spectrographic analyses: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 7:38, 25 p. 

Pettijohn, F. J., 1~163, Cht>mical composition uf sandstones, L'xcluding carbonate and 

volcanic sands, i11 Fk·isdwr, Michael, ed., Data of geochemistry, t::ith edition: C.S. 

Gl'ological Survey Professional Papt·r 440-S, p. S1-S21. 

Rove, 0. N., 1\:J26, Reconnaissance of gold deposits of eastern Tennessee: Madison, 

Wisconsin, University of Wiseunsin, un1mb. M.S. thesis, ~12 p. 

Satford, ,J. M., 1856, A geological reconnaissance of the State of Temwssee; being the 

author'~ first biennial report: Nashville, Tennessee, 164 p. 

---1869, Gt>ology of Tennesset•: Nashville, Tennesset'. 550 p. 

Salisbury, J. W., HH::il, GL·oluE,ry and mineral resources of the northwest quartL·r of the 

Cohutta Mountain quadrangle: Georgia Geological SurvL·y Bulletin 71, 61 p. 

Slack, J. F., Foret•, E. R., Bdmm, P. T., and Williams, B. B., 1!17~l. Mineral rL·soun·es 

uf tht• Citico Creek WihiL·nwss study an·a. Monrot> County, Tennesst•e: U.S. GL·ological Surwy Open-File Report 7~1-231, :37 p. 

Slack, J. F .. Wiggins, L. B., and Grosz, A. E., 1H80, Diverse types of ganwts in metasedimentary rocks of the Great Smoky Group, Tennessee-North Carolina, in GL·cilogical Survey Research fur 1980: U.S. c;eulugieal Survey Professional Papl'r 1175. p. 

66-67. 

Swingle, G. D., and others, emnpik·rs, 1966, GeuloE,rie map of Tl'nnessel'-East sheL·t: 

Nashville, Tennessee Division of Gl'tilogy, scale 1:250,000. 

Turekian, K. K., and Wedepuhl, K. H., 1961, Distribution uf tlw ell'ments in some major 

units of tlw Earth's crust: Gt·ological SoeiL·ty of America Bulletin, v. 72, no. 2, p. 

175-191. 

Watson, T. L., 1!108, A preliminary report on tht· manganese dq1usits of Georgia: 

Georgia GeuloE,rieal Survey Bullt•tin 14, 195 p. 
BIG FROG WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA 25 

Wiener, L. S., and Merschat, C. E., 1978a, Structure of Boyd Gap, i11 Milici, R. C., ed., 

Field trips in the southern Appalachians, April, 1978: Tennesst>e Division of Gt•ology, 

Rt>port of Investigations no. 37, p. 39-40. 

---l!:J78b, Summary of geology bl'twet>n tlw Grmt Smoky Fault at ParksvillL·, 

Tennt>ssee and bast>ment rocks of tht> Blut> Ridgt> at Gladt• Gap, North Carolina, in 

Milici, R. C., t>tl., Fit>ld trips in thl' southern Appalachians, April, Hl78: Tennl'SSl'l' 

Division of Geology, Report of Invl·stigations no. 37, p. 23-2~1. 

t.- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982- 361-594/115