USGS Mineral Resources Program—

Supporting Stewardship of America’s 

Natural Resources

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1289
USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting 

Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Circular 1289

The USGS Mineral Resources Program provides the Nation with unbiased information 

about mineral potential, production, consumption, and the environmental effects of 

mineral resources.

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

By S.J. Kropschot

With a section on Evolution of Mineral Resource Assessments 

By Kathleen M. Johnson
U.S. Department of the Interior

P. Lynn Scarlett, Acting Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

Produced in the Western Region, Menlo Park, California

Manuscript approved for publication, March 28, 2006

Text edited by Peter Stauffer

Layout and design by Judy Weathers and Susan Mayfield

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

This report and any updates to it are available online at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2006/1289/

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http//www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement of the U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. 

Cataloging-in-publication data are on file with the Library of Congress (URL http://www.loc.gov/).
iii

This volume celebrates more than 125 years of leadership in the science of mineral resources. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was charged in the Organic Act of 1879 with “classification 

of the public lands, and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products 

of the national domain.” The mission of the USGS has evolved to meet the changing needs 

of society and to take advantage of advances in science and technology. The current Mineral 

Resources Program serves the Nation by supporting a wide range of mineral-resource research 

studies and information collection, analysis, and dissemination activities. The Program has built 

on the successes of the past and continues to evolve to meet the changing needs of the Nation. 

Methodologies, techniques, and information developed to conduct mineral resource assessments 

on Federal lands have made the USGS a leader in collecting and delivering information used to 

make land-use decisions, to understand issues related to public health, and to ensure a secure 

and strong economy for the Nation.

P. Patrick Leahy

Acting Director

Forward
 
Contents

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Evolution of mineral resource assessments, by Kathleen M. Johnson............................................. 1

Minerals—why do we need them? ......................................................................................................... 3

USGS Mineral Resources Program ......................................................................................................... 4

History of mineral resource studies in the USGS.................................................................................. 5

Early studies of mining districts .........................................................................................................5

Importance of mineral statistics ....................................................................................................... 6

Alaska—the last frontier.................................................................................................................... 6

Strategic mineral resources ............................................................................................................ 10

Exploration geochemistry, geophysical techniques, and remote sensing............................... 11

Assessing mineral resources on Federal lands .................................................................................... 18

Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment.......................................................................................... 18

Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment Program...................................................... 21

Environmental health and public safety.................................................................................................. 21

Digital data sets and maps for land managers ...................................................................................... 24

International studies................................................................................................................................... 28

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................... 30

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................... 31

References cited and sources of information ....................................................................................... 31

   
 
USGS Mineral Resources Program—

Supporting Stewardship of America’s 

Natural Resources

By S.J. Kropschot

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Program continues 

a tradition of Federal leadership in the science of mineral resources that extends 

back before the beginning of the bureau. The need for information on metallic 

mineral resources helped lead to the creation of the USGS in 1879. In response 

to the need to assess large areas of Federal lands in the 20th century, Program 

scientists developed, tested, and refined tools to support managers making 

land-use decisions on Federal lands. The refinement of the tools and techniques 

that have established the USGS as a leader in the world in our ability to conduct 

mineral resource assessments extends into the 21st century.

Evolution of Mineral Resource Assessments

By Kathleen M. Johnson

Nonfuel minerals are essential building blocks of society. They are the 

materials with which we build our homes and cities, fertilize the crops that 

sustain life, and provide the wealth that allows us to buy goods and services that 

we cannot provide for ourselves. However, in contrast to fuel minerals (such as 

oil, gas, and coal), nonfuel mineral resources generally are not directly used by 

individual consumers. We buy light bulbs, not the silica, soda ash, lime, coal, 

salt, tungsten, copper, nickel, molybdenum, iron, manganese, aluminum, and 

zinc that are required to convert electricity into light. And we buy toothpaste, not 

the silica, limestone, aluminum, phosphate, fluorine, tin, and titanium that are 

necessary to keep our teeth healthy.

The United States has enormous mineral wealth, and people have benefited 

from that wealth from the very earliest days. Salt recovered from sea water by coastal 

peoples was traded for animal skins hunted by inland peoples long before Europeans 

arrived in North America. Records of alum, iron, copper, and clay, needed for making 

bricks, are included in Thomas Hariot’s account of the 1585 expedition to Virginia 

with Sir Walter Raleigh. Iron that was mined from the bogs of the East Coast was used 

to make weapons in the 18th century. In the 19th century, the growing Nation relied on 

additional iron resources mined in the Midwestern States to foster industrial growth, 

such as building transcontinental railroads. The 19th and 20th centuries saw development of mines in the United States for a great many of the nonfuel mineral commodities we require to maintain our standard of living.
The fundamental information provided 

in a mineral resource assessment 

includes an estimate of the number of 

undiscovered deposits, descriptions 

of their likely grades and tonnages, 

and general information about their 

locations and characteristics. For 

many deposit types, general locations, 

grades, and tonnages of known 

deposits have been documented and 

incorporated into what are known as 

mineral deposit models. Reproducible 

methods for estimating numbers of 

undiscovered mineral deposits have 

been less completely specified, so this is 

an area of ongoing research.

—Drew,1997, p. 127

The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land—almost 30 

percent of the land area of the United States—and these lands are rich in natural 

resources, including timber, fuel, and minerals. The Federal agencies responsible for 

managing America’s natural resources must meet both the public desire to protect 

those resources and the public expectation of economic growth based on them. 

Within the Federal Government, a number of agencies contribute to the management 

of natural resources associated with public lands. Among these agencies, the Bureau 

of Land Management and the Forest Service have responsibility for managing lands 

for multiple use. The Bureau of Land Management, a bureau of the Department of 

the Interior, manages a wide variety of resources and uses, including energy and 

minerals; timber; recreation; forage; wild horse and burro populations; fish and wildlife habitat; wilderness areas; archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites; 

and other natural heritage values. The Forest Service, a bureau of the Department of 

Agriculture, manages the national forests for a number of uses, including recreation, 

timber, wilderness, mineral resources, water, grazing, fish, and wildlife. In support of these missions, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed tools to 

provide information about where undiscovered mineral resources may occur and to 

estimate the quantity and quality of those resources, in a form that is today known 

in the USGS as a three-part quantitative mineral resource assessment; the published 

products are known simply as mineral resource assessments.

The fundamental information provided in a mineral resource assessment 

includes an estimate of the number of undiscovered deposits, descriptions of their 

likely grades and tonnages, and general information about their locations and 

characteristics. For many deposit types, general locations, grades, and tonnages of 

known deposits have been documented and incorporated into what are known as 

mineral deposit models. Reproducible methods for estimating numbers of undiscovered mineral deposits have been less completely specified, so this is an area of 

ongoing research.

Quantitative mineral resource assessments are not easily understood and have 

been the source of heated discussions within the USGS, the minerals industry, and 

the mineral resource community. In 1991, a team of USGS specialists was formed 

to conduct quantitative mineral resource assessments for 13 wilderness study areas 

in the western part of the United States. “Of the 13 wilderness study areas, only the 

Redcloud Peak and the Handies Peak wilderness study areas were found to be highly 

mineralized, not an unreasonable conclusion given the number of mineral deposits 

that remained to be discovered in the American west. If as many as 13 land parcels 

are examined, then it is to be expected that one or two of them will be highly mineralized.” (Drew, 1997, p. 171). Taking into account the mineral resource assessments, 

the Secretary of the Interior decided to recommend that the U.S. Congress not include 

these two areas in the wilderness system. The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund sued 

the Secretary and questioned the scientific methodology used to evaluate the mineral 

resources of the wilderness study areas. Although the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, the methodology was thoroughly reviewed and validated. Finally, in January 

1993, both wilderness study areas were recommended as not suitable for wilderness 

(http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/wsa/WSA_Details_7-2005.pdf; accessed Nov. 3, 2005).

In 1998, the USGS released the first-ever national mineral resource assessment for undiscovered deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc. These 

mineral commodities were chosen because, after iron and aluminum, they are the 

most valuable metals in the economy. They also tend to occur together in nature, 

thereby introducing efficiencies in the enormous job of estimating undiscovered 

resources for the entire country. The National Mineral Assessment was conducted 

by 19 regional assessment teams from the Mineral Resources Program using 

quantitative assessment methods. As part of the 1998 National Mineral Resource 

Assessment, a database was compiled for the largest identified resources of gold, 

silver, copper, lead, and zinc in the United States (Long and others, 1998). The 

 USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources
data collected as part of the 1998 assessment are an invaluable tool for those 

involved in mineral exploration, land-use planning, and ecosystem management.

In 1999, Program scientists began a feasibility study to consider the possibility 

of conducting the first-ever global mineral resource assessment. The study identified 

partners, customers, and the methodology required to undertake the study. In response 

to the growing demand for information on the global mineral resource base, Program 

scientists began consistent, comprehensive collection of global mineral resource information and analysis in 2002. The focus of the first stage of the assessment is on copper, 

because of its importance in electronics and industrial applications; platinum-group 

metals, because of their critical applications as catalysts in the automobile, chemical, 

and petroleum industries; and potash, because it is an important component of many 

fertilizers required for food production. The primary objectives of the global mineral 

resource assessment are to outline the principal land areas in the world that have potential for undiscovered deposits of these essential resources and to estimate the quantities 

of those resources to a depth of one kilometer below the Earth’s surface. 

Making wise choices that lead to a secure supply of mineral commodities 

requires information regarding the location, quality, and quantity of resources. To 

this end, the Mineral Resources Program today supports earth science studies that 

contribute to unbiased quantitative mineral resource assessments. Much of the 

information gathered in preparation for an assessment, no matter what the scale, 

involves research that results in reliable basic data with which to understand the 

geologic history and characteristics of the area to be assessed. Interdisciplinary 

teams of experts then analyze all available data with a goal of identifying characteristics suggestive of undiscovered mineral deposits and offering clues to the location, 

quality, and quantity of the undiscovered deposits. These studies address challenges 

in securing mineral resource supplies for the United States and the minerals-related 

information needs of other Federal agencies.

Minerals—Why Do We Need Them?

Minerals are a fundamental support for our society. They underpin our 

economy and impact our daily lives. Since its inception, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) has played an essential role in providing basic data, research 

results, and analysis about mineral resources needed by decisionmakers at many 

levels. The following pages showcase how mineral resource studies began in the 

USGS and how these studies have evolved over the years to meet the changing 

needs of the Nation.

The United States is the world’s leading user of mineral commodities. We 

are surrounded by mineral products, some obvious, others more difficult to recognize. Minerals are a large part of the houses we live in, the cars we drive, and 

the roads we drive on. They are in the fertilizers used to produce the food we eat, 

and they are in everything from television sets to pencils to airplanes. Minerals 

are essential to the lives of all Americans and people everywhere.

Mineral commodities accounted for more than $478 billion in the U.S. 

economy in 2005. Accurate and up-to-date information about production and 

consumption of mineral commodities worldwide contributes to maintaining 

the U.S. economy and our national security. The United States must import 

100 percent of 16 important mineral commodities. One example is indium, 

which is imported primarily from China, Canada, Japan, and France and is 

used as a thin-film coating in liquid crystal display (LCD) screens. In addition, the United States imports more than 50 percent of 26 other mineral commodities that help drive the economy. Tin, for example, is used to coat other 

metals to prevent corrosion (“tin cans” are made from tin-coated steel) and 

Minerals—Why Do We Need Them? 

Patterns of consumption per capita 

of metals and minerals for developed 

economies have been stable in the 

latter part of the 20th century, and 

while there were lower rates of 

consumption in many developing 

countries, a number of developing 

countries have growing consumption 

per capita. The growth of metals and 

minerals consumption in developing 

countries could have a great impact on 

world mineral consumption.

—Morse and Glover, 2002, p. 1.4
as an alloying agent to make such alloys as soft solder, pewter, and bronze; 

it is imported primarily from Peru, China, Bolivia, and Brazil. Because our 

economy depends on mineral commodities, it is important for us to understand where mineral deposits can be found, how they are formed, and their 

effects on the environment, whether they are mined or untouched. Studies of 

the interactions of minerals with water, plants, and other organisms provide 

us with a greater understanding of the environment, which, in turn, is essential for understanding human and ecosystem health issues. 

USGS Mineral Resources Program

The USGS has provided information on mineral resources since it was first 

established in 1879. Congress, recognizing the importance of mineral resources, 

charged the USGS in its Organic Act with the “classification of the public lands 

and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of the 

national domain.” In the intervening years, our society has changed and the needs 

of the Nation have evolved, but our need for mineral resources is greater than ever.

Today, the Mineral Resources Program comprises two major functions that 

meet the needs of a diverse user community for minerals related information. 

A research and assessment function provides information for land-use planners 

and decisionmakers about where mineral commodities are known or suspected 

to occur in the Earth’s crust, about the estimated quantity and quality of those 

deposits, and about how they interact with the environment. A data collection, 

analysis, and dissemination function describes current domestic and international production and consumption of about 100 selected mineral commodities 

for approximately 180 countries. Together these activities provide information 

for decisions on issues ranging from local land-use planning to national and 

international economic policy.

 USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Minerals are vital components of many of the things we use in our everyday lives. From Weathers and others, 2000.

5 0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

US Geological Survey

1

2

3

4

12

7

5

6

8

9

10

13

11

14

1. Computer—Includes gold, silica, nickel, 

 aluminum, zinc, iron, petroleum products, 

 and about thirty other minerals.

2. Pencil—Includes graphite and clays.

3. Telephone—Includes copper, gold and 

 petroleum products.

4. Books—Includes limestone and clays.

5. Pens—Includes limestone, mica, petroleum 

 products, clays, silica and talc.

6. Film—Includes petroleum products and silver.

7. Camera—Includes silica, zinc, copper, 

 aluminum and petroleum products.

8. Chair—Includes aluminum and petroleum 

 products.

9. Television—Includes aluminum, copper, 

 iron, nickel, silica, rare earth, and strontium.

10. Stereo—Includes gold, iron, nickel, 

 beryllium and petroleum products.

11. Compact Disc—Includes aluminum and 

 petroleum products.

12. Metal Chest—includes iron and nickel. 

 The brass trim is made of copper and zinc.

13. Carpet—Includes limestone, petroleum 

 products and selenium.

14. Drywall—Includes gypsum clay, 

 vermiculite, calcium carbonate and micas.
The Mineral Resources Program has evolved over the years in response to 

changing needs and opportunities. In 1996 and 2003, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the Program and provided guidance concerning Program direction. In 2003, the Council outlined four roles for 

the Federal Government in mineral resource science and minerals information: (1) 

provide the Nation a source of unbiased national-scale science and information; 

(2) perform basic research on mineral resources; (3) function in an advisory role 

to other government agencies that require unbiased and impartial information 

to carry out their regulatory and administrative responsibilities; and (4) undertake and support international activities in the national interest. The USGS 

Mineral Resources Program is the only Federal entity that provides unbiased 

nonfuel mineral resource assessments, mineral production and consumption 

information, and research on the characteristics of mineral deposits that affect 

environmental issues.

History of Mineral Resource Studies in the USGS

The need for information on metallic mineral resources helped lead to 

the creation of the USGS in 1879. Clarence King, first Director of the USGS, 

faced an enormous challenge when he set about establishing the bureau. As 

described by USGS historian Mary Rabbitt, the “year in which the Survey 

was established...was one of great monetary uncertainty, when knowledge 

of precious-metal resources was vital, and one in which the iron and steel 

industry faced problems in obtaining suitable raw materials, while information about the Nation’s mineral wealth, mining, and metallurgical techniques, 

and production statistics was meager” (Rabbitt, 1989, p. 11). 

The desire for mineral resources had already inspired a number of prospecting frenzies in the country. There is evidence that gold was mined in the area near 

Dahlonega, Georgia in the early 1800s, and by 1829 there were numerous mining 

operations in place. So much gold was produced in the area that in 1833 a branch 

of the U.S. Mint was completed in Dahlonega to mint gold coins; however, by that 

time the production had begun to decrease and the branch only operated for 24 

years. In the mid-1800s, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan experienced a mining 

boom, when interest in native copper deposits led to the opening of the first mine 

in the Upper Peninsula in about 1845. A few years later, forty-niners rushed to 

the gold fields of California. A series of booms and busts during the remainder of 

the century marked the rise and fall of interest in various mineral commodities, 

particularly gold and silver.

Early Studies of Mining Districts

Initially, USGS work focused on the geology of mineral deposits, including comprehensive studies of three great mining districts—Leadville in Colorado 

and Comstock and Eureka in Nevada. Each of these districts faced unique mining problems, and the USGS studies helped provide solutions that were applied 

throughout the west in the late 1800s. USGS studies also provided guidance to 

prospectors about where to look for new deposits and helped investors evaluate 

properties for development.

Two years after the USGS was established, the success of reports such 

as those generated from the studies of these three mining districts prompted 

Congress to broaden the bureau’s purview beyond Federal lands to all lands 

within the United States. In the ensuing years, USGS geologists would return to 

these and other areas to gather information on how ores form, to aid in identifyHistory of Mineral Resource Studies in the USGS 

Considering the small contribution of 

direct domestic mineral production to 

the overall U.S. economy, it might not 

be apparent that there is a pressing 

need for a continued U.S. federal 

presence in mineral science and 

information. . . .Minerals science and 

information help society respond to the 

depletion of known mineral deposits 

and contribute to the substitution 

of relatively abundant minerals for 

increasingly scarce ones. Minerals 

science and information help develop 

alternative sources of supply for 

minerals subject to unexpected supply 

disruptions. The USGS has carried 

out these functions in the past and is 

respected nationally and internationally 

for the quality of its information. It has 

the expertise and experience to provide 

unbiased information on domestic and 

foreign mineral resources in the future.

—National Research Council, 2003, p. 21
 USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

ing undiscovered deposits, and to study the effects that generations of mining 

and milling have had on the environments of mineralized areas. The knowledge 

acquired from these studies has been applied in many areas across the Nation 

and around the world.

Importance of Mineral Statistics

The first USGS Director, Clarence King, recognized the importance of 

mineral statistics to the United States economy. Late in the 1870s, closure 

of California quicksilver mines, which produced mercury necessary for the 

recovery of gold, accelerated the closure of gold mines in Georgia. However, 

Director King also recognized that the USGS should not be limited to collecting 

only production data, because other information, such as sample locality, 

characteristics of the geologic setting, and the mineralogical and chemical make 

up of mineral deposits was needed to understand and support mineral resource 

related research activities. Mary Rabbitt describes how collecting mineral 

information got started:

Until Congress authorized the Survey to conduct 

investigations in the region east of the 100th meridian, 

the Survey could collect mineral statistics only in the 

Western States. King, however, was able to make the study 

of mineral statistics national through the cooperation 

of the Tenth Census, authorized on the day the Survey 

was established...Francis A. Walker was appointed 

Superintendent of the Tenth Census in April 1879...For 

the collection of mineral statistics, Walker observed, the 

creation by the act of Congress at the same session of 

the Geological Survey seemed to offer a most fortunate 

opportunity. The collection of the statistics and studies of 

the economic relations of the precious metals, iron, coal, 

petroleum, copper, lead, quicksilver, and zinc [should] be 

entrusted to Clarence King. (Rabbitt, 1980, p. 24-25.)

Early data collection activities provided information used to begin the large 

databases currently supported by the Mineral Resources Program. Although 

responsibility for collection and maintenance of minerals information has 

moved in and out of the USGS over the years and the types of statistics that are 

collected, analyzed, and disseminated have changed over time, the collection 

of accurate minerals information continues to be an essential function of the 

Program. Minerals information has proven to be especially useful to Federal, 

state, and international agencies, to private sector companies interested in minerals 

availability, defense, security, the economy, trade, environmental management, 

human health and safety, and to those charged with making sound policy in all 

sectors of society.

Alaska—The Last Frontier

In 1904, a USGS report highlighting the first 25 years of the bureau 

noted that Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867 for $7,200,000, but 

the Territory of Alaska remained practically forgotten. In 1895, Congress 

appropriated $5,000 for investigation of gold and coal deposits of Alaska, but 

interest truly blossomed in 1898 when rich gold deposits were discovered in 
History of Mineral Resource Studies in the USGS 

Quartz mill at Virginia City, Nevada, in the Comstock mining district. Photograph by T.H. O’Sullivan was taken during the U.S. Geographical Exploration 

of the Fortieth Parallel, which investigated the Virginia City area during the 

winter of 1867-68. From USGS photographic library collection.

Leadville, Eureka, and Comstock—Where it all Began

Why were the Leadville, 

Eureka, and Comstock mining 

districts chosen for study by 

the newly established U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in 

1879? The Federal government 

was required to buy silver each 

month under the Bland-Allison 

Act and was accumulating 

a gold reserve to back paper 

currency. This led to a great 

deal of interest in understanding 

the domestic sources of gold 

and silver, and three sites that 

represented a range of the 

expected life cycle of mining 

districts were selected for study.

Leadville was new: In the 

late 1800s, silver-lead deposits in the Leadville mining 

district of Colorado were just 

coming into production. The 

mining camp that grew to 

be known as Leadville was 

established after gold was 

discovered in 1860, but when 

the gold ran out it was mostly 

abandoned. What was left 

was transformed almost overnight by a silver boom in the 

1880s when A.B. Wood and 

his associates claimed expired 

gold placers and showed that 

a profit could be made in silver, in spite of the high cost 

of transporting the ore to St. 

Louis for smelting.

Eureka was in its prime: Discovered in 1864, mineral 

deposits in the Eureka mining district of central Nevada 

were considered to be more 

•

•

completely developed than any 

of the other silver-lead deposits in the country when it was 

selected for study. In addition, 

litigation under the new 1879 

mining law about what constituted a lode in the Eureka 

mining district centered on a 

particular limestone zone in 

an area of extensive faulting. 

The opportunity for a complete 

study of the district to help 

resolve this problem contributed to its selection for study 

by the newly formed USGS.

Comstock was beginning to 

decline: The Comstock mining district in Nevada was 

considered to be near the end 

•

of its production life when 

it was selected for study, 

having produced $300 million in gold and silver bullion since 1860. However, 

the origin of the Comstock 

lode was still the subject 

of great scientific debate. 

Because it had the deepest mines in North America and about 185 miles of 

workings, the Comstock 

mining district provided 

an excellent opportunity 

to investigate the geologic 

environment associated 

with the mineral deposits.
 USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Aggregates Map Helps Rescue Miners

In 2002, information from 

this publication crucially 

helped guide swift rescue 

efforts that saved the 

lives of nine trapped coal 

miners.

Minerals information collected in the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral 

Resources Program is made available in 

a variety of formats. The Aggregates 

Industry Atlas of the United States was 

produced under a cooperative research 

and development agreement between 

the USGS and the National Stone, 

Sand, and Gravel Association. 

Released for distribution in January 2002, this CD-ROM contains 

geographic information system 

software and two searchable data 

bases for crushed stone (2,695 

entries) and sand and gravel 

operations (3,485 entries). Data 

layers from the USGS and U.S. 

Census Bureau, such as roads, 

railroads, and congressional 

districts, are also included. The 

atlas was designed to be useful 

to architects and civil engineers, 

plant managers, construction 

contractors, land-use planners, 

sales and marketing professionals, Congressional offices, and 

state and county legislators. No 

one, however, expected it to be 

a key factor in a mine rescue operation.

In July 2002, disaster stranded nine miners deep 

in a flooded coal mine in Somerset, Pennsylvania. David 

Lauriski, the Assistant Secretary of the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, recalled having seen the Aggregates Industry Atlas 

at an international trade show. Using information in the atlas, officials from his agency were able to provide emergency workers at 

the site with a list of aggregate quarries in the area that had the 

equipment and personnel needed to aid in the rescue efforts. This 

information was instrumental in saving the lives of the nine miners, who had been trapped for more than three days in a partially 

flooded chamber 240 feet underground.
History of Mineral Resource Studies in the USGS 

Through partnerships with industry and government 

organizations, both domestic and international, the USGS 

Mineral Resources Program produces and publishes 

high-quality statistics on the mineral industries—a major 

national information resource. These sample publications 

were highlighted by the National Mining Association’s 

monthly publication Mining Voice in October 2001. 

USGS Minerals Information—Decades of Added Value

Before the establishment 

of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), collection of mining 

statistics was the responsibility 

of the Commissioner of Mining 

Statistics, a position created in 

1866 in the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury. When the USGS 

was formed in 1879, Congress 

authorized the new agency to 

collect mineral statistics in the 

Western States. In 1880, this 

activity was extended nationwide 

because the collection of mineral 

information was required as part 

of the 10th Census. 

When the U.S. Bureau of 

Mines was created in 1910, the 

Division of Mines and Mining moved from the USGS 

to the new organization. The 

first Bureau of Mines Director, 

Joseph A. Holmes, was successful in demonstrating the value 

of economics and statistics. In 

1913, the mission of the Bureau 

of Mines was expanded to 

include conducting “scientific 

inquiries . . . with a view to . . . 

increasing economic development . . . in the mining, quarrying, metallurgical, and other 

mineral industries.”

In 1925, the USGS Division 

of Mineral Resources, responsible for minerals information 

reporting, was moved into the 

Bureau of Mines, which was 

then transferred to the Department of Commerce under Secretary Herbert Hoover. In 1934, 

the Bureau of Mines was moved 

back to the Department of the 

Interior. The mineral industry 

data collection program was 

accelerated in the 1940s, reflecting the broadening government 

interest in activities that follow 

mineral extraction and increasing demand for minerals data 

by defense and emergency 

preparedness agencies. In the 

1970s, responsibility for energy 

mineral statistics was transferred to the U.S. Energy Information Administration in the 

Department of Energy.

The Bureau of Mines continued to collect minerals information until the agency was 

defunded by Congress in 1996. 

At that time, the collection of 

information for selected minerals was transferred to the USGS 

Mineral Resources Program. 

Today, domestic and international partnerships allow mineral 

specialists to gather information 

from domestic and international 

government, university, and 

industry representatives. Domestic mineral data are collected 

through voluntary cooperation of 

the mineral industry. This special 

partnership with mineral producers and consumers has enabled 

production of high-quality statistics and represents a substantial 

in-kind contribution to this publicly available national information resource by industry. 
the Klondike region, triggering a massive gold rush. During the next few years, 

USGS attention was focused on gold placers, the largest producers of wealth in 

the territory. However, in spite of the gold rush, general knowledge of Alaska 

was still limited (U.S. Geological Survey, 1904, p. 33).

USGS mineral resource investigations were expanded by Congress in 1904 to 

include, among other things, “a very practical investigation of the costs and methods 

of placer mining in Alaska for comparison with those in the Yukon Territory and British Columbia,” which concluded that some mining techniques used in Alaska were 

crude and inefficient, and that there was a “complete lack of adequate means of transportation in Alaska in contrast to the exceptionally good roads in Canada” (Rabbitt, 

1986, p. 24-25). During the next few years, a series of major reconnaissance surveys 

by the USGS into the frontier of Alaska expanded information about resources of 

the territory. These surveys continued through the onset of World War II and demonstrated the need to identify good routes for roads and railroads to mining districts.

Strategic Mineral Resources

Our current thinking about strategic minerals has its roots in the early 20th 

century, when the stage was being set for the First World War. In 1914, when 

war broke out in Europe, people in the United States assumed the war would be 

over quickly and thus would have limited impact on the lives of most Americans. Although the United States was not initially involved in the war, government officials called for a survey of minerals critical to the economy. The survey 

identified five mineral commodities that the U.S. did not have in adequate supply: tin, nickel, platinum, nitrates, and potash. At the time of the survey, the only 

10 USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

USGS geologist A.H. 

Brooks examining a 

section of gold-bearing 

gravels and sands along 

Sweetcake Creek, a 

tributary of Ophir Creek 

on the Seward Peninsula of Alaska in 1900. 

From USGS library collection of A.H. Brooks 

photographs.
ongoing exploration activity in the United States for these commodities was for 

potash, used in fertilizer.

As the war in Europe dragged on and normal trade was disrupted, European 

allies relied heavily on the United States for steel, copper, and explosives. Within 

2 years of the start of the war, it was clear that U.S. reserves of more than a dozen 

mineral commodities were inadequate to meet demand. By the time the United 

States entered the war in 1917, the importance of access to resources was recognized at the highest levels of government, and studies of strategic mineral sources 

became increasingly important as it became clear that domestic supplies of key 

commodities were inadequate in quantity, quality, or both. 

Toward the end of the First World War, USGS scientists studied the distribution of the world’s reserves of essential minerals in order to furnish U.S. representatives at the Peace Conference with vital economic data. “The study was intended to 

serve two general purposes: to obtain a clear understanding of the relations between 

American war needs and foreign sources of supply from which these needs must or 

could be met; and to obtain an understanding of the bearing of mineral resources 

on the origin and conduct of the war and on political and commercial readjustments 

that would follow the end of hostilities” (Rabbitt, 1986, p. 193). Mineral resource 

geologists were sent to the Caribbean, Central America, and South America to 

gather information as part of this study.

After the war ended in 1918, recognition of the importance of ensuring an adequate source for strategic minerals continued, and in 1938, strategic mineral resource 

investigations were supported by funds from the Public Works Administration. The 

Strategic Minerals Act, passed in June 1939, appropriated funds for strategic minerals studies only days before World War II began. There was concern that the United 

States might be cut off from foreign sources of key metals prior to the outbreak of 

war, and mineral resource specialists in the USGS and the U.S. Bureau of Mines 

were busy identifying possible domestic sources for strategic minerals. 

These efforts to plan for future needs, however, shifted abruptly when the 

United States went to war after Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941. The 

search for resources necessary to support the war effort expanded from the United 

States to Central America, South America, and the Caribbean, under the auspices of 

the State Department and the Board of Economic Warfare. In addition to the search 

for new resources, activities such as recycling and the development of alternatives 

to selected metallic mineral resources were undertaken during World War II.

Availability of and access to mineral resources continued to be an important 

component of U.S. policy in the period following World War II. Raw-material price 

increases and concern about dependence on developing economies for mineral 

commodities refocused attention on mineral resource exhaustion and supply disruptions as threats to the U.S. economy and national security in the Cold War era. The 

USGS Mineral Resources Program has been and continues to be a key source of 

research and information on potential for, production of, and consumption of nonfuel mineral resources.

Exploration Geochemistry, Geophysical Techniques, and 

Remote Sensing

Analytical chemistry has long been used by the USGS to help determine 

the distribution of elements and their relative abundances in the Earth. Chemistry 

proved to be useful in the early days of mineral exploration, when most deposits 

were exposed at the surface of the Earth and most exploration was done by pick, 

shovel, gold pan, and assay. The first USGS chemistry laboratory was organized in 

1880, and the use of mobile chemistry laboratories dates back to the early 1900s, 

when horse-drawn wagons carried necessary reagents, glassware, and equipment 

History of Mineral Resource Studies in the USGS 11

[On the eve of World War I,] geologists 

were aware—and others would soon 

become aware—that no nation is 

completely self sustaining in mineral 

resources. All nations depend on 

others for certain minerals or for 

markets for their excess minerals.

—Rabbitt, 1986, p. 179-180

It is startling to realize that the rise of 

the industrial age has so accelerated 

the demand for minerals that we have 

dug and consumed more mineral 

resources within the period embraced 

by the two world wars than in all 

preceding history. This insatiable 

demand for minerals to feed the hungry 

maw of industry and armament has 

made sources of supply that we used 

to think were adequate, now look 

relatively small, and sources of large 

supply are becoming fewer and fewer.

—Bateman, 1952
that could be set up and used in a tent. As time went on, new techniques and 

methodologies in analytical chemistry were developed to help locate and identify 

mineralized areas, especially those hidden beneath the surface. 

Near the end of World War II, geologists from the USGS and the Geological 

Survey of Canada collaborated on research to develop methodologies for finding 

buried or hidden mineral deposits using chemistry. It was discovered that very 

small (trace) amounts of elements in soils and stream sediments could be used as 

indicators for undiscovered mineral deposits by identifying elemental halos around 

the deposits. Chemists from both organizations developed methods of detecting 

and measuring parts-per-million amounts of many of the elements associated with 

various mineral deposits. The science of geochemistry had come to the USGS. 

Simple field tests were developed to determine trace amounts of important elements like copper and zinc in stream sediment, soil, and water. These early tests 

were crude and the amount of a specific element present in the sample was hard 

to quantify, but the tests were good enough to quickly establish the presence or 

absence of these elements.

12  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Portable analytical 

equipment was transported by wagon in 

1907 to help determine 

the distribution of 

elements while conducting field work in 

Montana. The analyst 

could perform wet 

chemical analyses in 

a tent when camp was 

established. (From 

Taggart, 1995; R.W. 

Stone, photographer.)
History of Mineral Resource Studies in the USGS 13

Early Soil Survey Study Leads to Major Metals Discovery 

In the late 1940s and early 

1950s, there was a large effort 

by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) to map and understand 

the general geology and mineral 

deposits in and around the Boulder Batholith in Jefferson and 

Lewis and Clark Counties, Montana. As part of this work, USGS 

geologist G.E. Becraft decided 

in 1956 to test a new analytical technique. This technique, 

Evidence of early prospecting was 

identified by G.E. Becraft at Montana 

Tunnels, and the area became the site 

selected for an early soil survey in 

1956. This map (Becraft and others, 

1963, pl. 5) shows the sample localities 

of the 1956 soil survey.

a small-scale soil survey, was 

designed “to determine whether 

indications of ore could be found 

by geochemical methods.” Samples collected at 200-foot intervals along north-south lines 500 

feet apart were analyzed spectrographically—some were found 

to contain anomalous amounts of 

silver, lead, copper, manganese, 

and zinc. An area that had been 

mined previously, known locally 

as the Montana Tunnels, was 

found to have high metal content 

in the soil. Becraft concluded 

that “high metal content probably indicates that a moderately 

large area is underlain by mineralized rock and could indicate 

a deposit suitable for open-pit 

mining methods” (Becraft and 

others, 1963, p. 53). More than 

20 years later, a field geologist 

working in the area used these 

The Montana Tunnels mine as seen from 

the air in June 2004. Photograph by T.J. 

Weitz, used with permission.

results to focus his 

exploration activities. 

After exploratory drilling, Centennial Mineral 

Ltd. obtained permits to 

mine in 1986; the Montana Tunnels mine was 

soon in full production 

for silver, lead and zinc 

and is projected to be 

in production through 

2011 (Levell, 2004).
The search for mineral resources needed to support the war effort was further 

aided by another new method, airborne magnetic surveying, which was developed 

by USGS scientists in cooperation with colleagues from the U.S. Navy. The first 

airborne magnetic survey was flown in 1945 to test whether magnetic anomaly 

data could provide a means of “seeing through” nonmagnetic rocks and cover, 

such as vegetation, soil, desert sands, glacial till, manmade features, and water, to 

reveal variations in magnetic rocks and structural features, such as faults, folds, 

and dikes. Results showed that magnetic anomalies reflect variations in the distribution and type of magnetic minerals—primarily magnetite—in the Earth. This 

technique allows mapping bodies of magnetic rock from the surface down to great 

depths, depending on such things as their dimensions, shape, and magnetic properties. In many cases, examining magnetic anomalies is the fastest and most costeffective way to accurately map geologic features and mineral deposits at depth.

Remote sensing, which has become a tool for the identification of mineral 

resources, evolved from photogeology, the study of geologic features by means of aerial 

photographs. With the launch of the early National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellites in the late 1970s, USGS scientists moved from visual examination of aerial photographs to analysis of digital, multispectral images aided by laboratory analysis of samples collected from the surveyed area. Over the years, increasingly 

sophisticated instruments have provided higher spatial and spectral resolution. Dramatic 

changes in the field of remote sensing have resulted from advances in laboratory and 

field instruments to better measure spectral detail and the advent of more powerful 

computers to process the data. In the past 20 years, remote sensing applications have 

expanded into infrared, near infrared, and thermal emission spectra, and global positioning system (GPS) receivers have made precise geographic location possible. Quantitative, high-resolution measurements can now be made remotely over a wide spectral 

range. Mineral and rock characteristics on Earth and on other planetary bodies can be 

identified for mineral exploration as well as in support of space science. 

14  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

The USGS pioneered the first airborne 

magnetic survey in 1945 using this 

Beechcraft Staggerwing 17 aircraft. Note 

the magnetometer “bird” suspended 

below the aircraft. From USGS 

photographic collection.
History of Mineral Resource Studies in the USGS 15

Magnetic Anomaly Map of North America

In 2002, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) released a digital magnetic anomaly database 

and map for the North American continent, a product of a 

joint effort by the Geological 

Survey of Canada, the USGS, 

and the Consejo de Recursos 

Minerales of Mexico. The map, 

derived from the digital database, provides a comprehensive 

magnetic view of the North 

American continent, facilitating 

our understanding of regional 

geology and allowing study 

of continental-scale trends. 

The information can be used 

to study mineral and energy 

resources, earthquake and landslide hazards, and hydrologic 

and environmental problems. 

The magnetic anomaly database 

and map have already enabled 

delineation of structures related 

to a mid-continental rift buried 

under younger sedimentary 

rocks in Minnesota and Wisconsin, refinement of a delineated earthquake hazard zone 

in the Pacific Northwest, and 

identification of both mineral 

and water resources in southern 

Arizona (Finn, 2002).
16  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Mapping Acid Rock Drainage Using Remote Sensing

U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) scientists first began 

studying the Leadville mining 

district, located approximately 

100 miles southwest of Denver, 

Colorado in 1879. Although silver 

mining activities in the Leadville 

area were at their peak from the 

late 1880s until the silver crash of 

1893, mining continues in the area 

to this day. In 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

listed the California Gulch site, 

which encompasses most of the 

Leadville mining district, on the 

National Priority List as part of 

the Superfund cleanup process. 

The EPA was concerned about 

the impact of mine drainage and 

heavy metals in Arkansas River 

sediments on the quality of drinking water and the health of riparian ecosystems. 

In 1995, EPA contracted with 

the USGS Mineral Resources 

Program to help identify the 

source of acid mine drainage at 

the California Gulch site. Program researchers determined 

that the site was an ideal place 

to test new techniques for rapidly screening large areas and 

identifying smaller areas for 

more detailed study. These new 

techniques rely on data collected 

by aircraft-mounted sensors 

(using an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer or 

AVIRIS) that is validated by 

samples collected on the ground 

to verify minerals and suites 

of minerals identified from the 

remotely sensed data. The test 

at California Gulch proved successful; scientists were able to 

identify signatures in the spectral 

data that identified small areas 

where specific minerals associated with acid rock drainage 

were exposed at the surface. 

Color-coded maps showing 

minerals that occur at the surface were generated from the 

AVIRIS data for the California 

Gulch site. Scientists identified 

a small area for additional study 

within the Superfund site where 

distinct concentric zones of secondary iron minerals occurred. 

These secondary iron minerals, 

when exposed at the surface, 

might result in acid drainage. 

The targeted area was sampled 

and chemical and mineralogical 

analysis confirmed interpretation 

of the AVIRIS data (Swayze and 

others, 2000).

After additional refinement, the 

method proved to be a successful 

screening tool for identification of 

acid-generating minerals exposed 

at the surface and a way of rapidly 

evaluating the potential for acid 

drainage. The EPA manager of the 

California Gulch site believes that 

using “the AVIRIS data and technology provided an estimated $2 

million saving in site investigation 

study expenditures...and resulted 

in shortening the site investigation process by an estimated 2 1⁄2 

years” (M.H. Dodson, Environmental Protection Agency, written 

commun., 1997). 

Leadville Mine, Lenado, Pitkin County, Colorado, 1908. Photograph by J.E. Spurr.
History of Mineral Resource Studies in the USGS 17

Color-coded map of surface minerals at the California Gulch site, Colorado. The airborne imaging spectrometer (AVIRIS) records images 

at many different wavelengths. Scientists are able to interpret data 

and distinguish minerals, because different wave lengths of light are 

absorbed differently by each mineral or group of minerals. Iron oxide 

minerals, such as hematite, jarosite, and goethite, were keys to identifying specific areas that had potential acid drainage and required 

additional study by the Environmental Protection Agency as part of 

the remediation work at the site. The area near the Venir mine waste 

rock pile was selected for collection of samples every 10 meters along 

a 250-meter traverse to check the accuracy of the AVIRIS data. The 

AVIRIS data proved to be accurate.

AVIRIS data and technology provided an estimated $2 million saving in 

site investigation study expenditures...and resulted in shortening the 

site investigation process by an estimated 2 1⁄2 years.

 —M.H. Dodson, Environmental Protection Agency
Assessing Mineral Resources on Federal Lands

In the decades after World War II, interest in strategic minerals remained 

high, but the focus of USGS studies shifted to assessing the potential for undiscovered mineral resources on Federal lands. Although USGS geologists had long 

worked in known mining districts and had begun assessing the potential for mineral resources in specific areas just before World War II, the challenge of conducting mineral resource assessments on a larger scale and in less well studied areas 

necessitated the development of new tools and methodologies. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 made 9.1 million acres of national forest lands 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to be managed without 

commercial use and construction of permanent roads and buildings. The enabling 

legislation required that the USGS and U.S. Bureau of Mines assess the mineral 

resources of each area proposed or established as wilderness, if no prior mineral survey had been made. Subsequent legislation included additional acreage 

managed by other Federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management 

and National Park Service. Federal agencies continue to identify acreage that 

require mineral resource assessments today. Research to support this massive 

effort intensified as techniques and methods to evaluate undiscovered resources 

were developed and refined. In order to simplify the assessment process, improve 

the reproducibility of the results, and ensure that the insights derived from years 

of basic research on mineral deposits are included in every assessment, mineral 

scientists continue to develop and refine models that are used to evaluate the quantity and quality of undiscovered resources. Ongoing research demonstrates that 

estimates can be improved by using frequencies of deposits per unit of permissive 

area (mineral deposit density models) in control areas in the same way that grade 

and tonnage frequencies of known deposits are used as models of sizes and qualities of undiscovered deposits. 

Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment

The 1960s also brought renewed interest in Alaska, which was regarded as a 

potentially great, but largely unknown, reservoir of resources. In response to a perceived impending shortage of minerals materials to supply U.S. industries, Congress 

authorized a large interdisciplinary project to conduct a rapid inventory of Alaska’s 

mineral resource endowment. The project included geologic mapping and other field 

and laboratory studies to provide information with which Federal and State agencies, 

industry, and Native corporations could make informed decisions related to land use 

and development required under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 

and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

Because mineral resource assessments of such large, remote, and littleknown regions in Alaska were largely experimental, the project was divided 

into two phases. The first phase, called the prototype Alaskan Mineral Resource 

Assessment Program, was a 2-year experimental project designed to develop 

specific guidelines, techniques, and products as a model for a State-wide mineral inventory. The second phase of the program, known as the Alaskan Mineral 

Resource Assessment Program (AMRAP), was a long-range plan to perform 

mineral resource assessments for all of Alaska. Simultaneous with this activity, 

the Program undertook a regional Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment Project to 

provide rapid regional-scale information on the potential for undiscovered metallic 

mineral deposits in support of land decisions being made by the State of Alaska in 

the 1970s as part of the ANCSA and ANILCA activities. These mineral resource 

assessments have resulted in the identification of countless areas with potential for 

undiscovered mineral resources. Discoveries of mineral deposits in some of these 

18  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources
Assessing Mineral Resources on Federal Lands 19

In the early1990s, the northern spotted owl was listed as a 

threatened species in the Pacific 

Northwest. Designation of the 

owl’s critical habitat areas for 

protection from development 

focused national attention on 

the economic tensions between 

preserving biological diversity 

and maintaining multiple uses 

of Federal lands. The northern 

spotted owl lives only in oldgrowth forests and is considered 

to be an indicator species for 

the health of old-growth forest 

ecosystems. Public attention 

was centered on the economic 

impacts caused by the restriction of timber sales and harvesting and on the potential economic impacts that would result 

from anticipated restrictions on 

mineral exploration.

In response to these issues, 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

mineral resource scientists, in 

cooperation with colleagues 

from the Bureau of Mines, conducted an assessment of undiscovered copper deposits on 

Forest Service lands that were 

part of the northern spotted 

owl habitat. The USGS compiled and analyzed geologic, 

geochemical, and geophysical 

data and delineated tracts of 

land that were permissive for 

the occurrence of undiscovered 

porphyry copper deposits and 

provided probabilistic estimates of the number of undiscovered deposits for copper, 

molybdenum, silver, and gold. 

This information was used by 

the Bureau of Mines in their 

analysis of potential economic 

impacts. The Department of 

the Interior’s Spotted Owl Economic Assessment Team also 

Managing for Multiple Use

incorporated the information in 

an economic summary designed 

to aid the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in drafting boundaries 

of northern spotted owl critical 

habitat areas.

Information from a USGS mineral 

resource assessment was used to help 

develop management strategies for 

the endangered northern spotted owl. 

Inset Photograph by John and Karen 

Hollingsworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Old-growth forest photograph 

by Nathan Poage, USGS..
20 USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

The Wilderness Act of 1964 focused mineral resource assessment 

activities on lands considered for wilderness designation. By the 

mid 1980s, emphasis had shifted to include studies of nonwilderness 

lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. These maps show the status of 

those studies in 1994, shortly before the first national assessment 

for undiscovered deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc was 

undertaken by USGS Mineral Resources Program scientists.
Environmental Health and Public Safety  21

areas have contributed to the Alaskan economy through the subsequent development of new mines. Discovery of the world-class lead-zinc mine at Red Dog Creek 

is one important outcome of USGS research and mineral resource assessment 

activities in Alaska. 

The USGS Mineral Resources Program continues to conduct research, 

collect basic data, and provide new mineral resource assessments for priority areas in Alaska. The Taylor Mountains area, in southwestern Alaska, has 

been an area of interest to users of mineral resources data in Alaska for many 

years, despite tremendous logistical difficulties. The Program has ongoing 

work there, conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management 

and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation. In recognition of the value of these 

activities, Congress in 2005 appropriated just over $1 million specifically to 

support research in Alaskan areas with high mineral resource potential. These 

funds were used to augment the Taylor Mountains study, and in that one year 

the area studied was quadrupled. New geologic mapping, geochemical data, 

and geophysical surveys were conducted and made available to users immediately. These data are being used by the State, the Native Corporation, and 

the Bureau of Land Management for land planning, and by private industry to 

explore for new mineral deposits.

Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment Program

The model for resource assessments in Alaska was extended to the lower 48 

States in 1977 when the USGS began the Conterminous United States Mineral 

Assessment Program (CUSMAP). The objective of this multiyear project was to 

gather, interpret, and disseminate information on nonfuel mineral resources in 

a systematic manner and on a regional scale that would be helpful for land-use 

planning and resource management of Federal lands. A series of 1:250,000-scale 

quadrangles were identified for study and prioritized on the basis of the probable 

importance of mineral resources in the area, the amount of Federally owned land, 

the urgency for resource information for Federal land withdrawals or urbanization, and the potential for USGS-State cooperative projects. Supplementary mapping and research continued once data on the geology, geochemistry, geophysics, 

and mineral deposits of the area were collected.

Environmental Health and Public Safety

Techniques and methods developed in the Mineral Resources Program to support 

mineral-resource assessments of large areas have also proved valuable for solving 

geoenvironmental problems. The environment in which mineral deposits occur is a 

key part of the geoenvironmental condition of an area. In particular, Program research 

addresses concerns related to thousands of abandoned mines on Federal lands. Scientists supported by the Program have been crucial contributors to interdisciplinary 

efforts to learn about environmental impacts associated with abandoned mine sites and 

the processes behind the observed effects. Results of this research, including the techniques developed to identify sources of contamination and the processes that interact 

to create biogeochemical cycles, are applicable well beyond the boundaries of Federal 

lands and are of use to land managers both in the United States and abroad.

In the mid to late 20th century, Congress enacted a number of laws that 

reflected the growing awareness of and concern about environmental contamination, 

resulting from both naturally occurring mineral deposits and inactive and abandoned 

mine sites. In the early 1990s, a study near Summitville, Colorado, demonstrated the 

power of integrating information from many scientific disciplines to help under-
22  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Discovery and Development of the Red Dog Mine, Alaska

Open-pit mining operations of 

the Main deposit (foreground) at 

the Red Dog mine, Alaska. Mill 

and accommodation complex 

are the low white buildings on 

the far left. View looking west. 

Photograph by K.D. Kelley, 1998.

In late 1990, after 10 years 

of exploration and development 

work, the Red Dog mine in 

Alaska went into production. As 

of May 2005, proven and probable reserves were estimated at 

approximately 85 million tons 

of ore containing 18.2 percent 

zinc and 4.6 percent lead. These 

reserves make Red Dog a worldclass deposit and the world’s largest producer of zinc concentrate.

As in most major mineralresource operations, successful 

development depended on a 

chain of events, and each event 

was critical to the discovery and 

development process. In the early 

stages, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) provided scientific data 

and information important for 

understanding the magnitude of the 

lead and zinc deposit. 

The orange- and red-stained 

creek bed that drains the area 

around the current Red Dog mine 

was known to generations of the 

local Inupiat of northern Alaska, 

because no fish lived in the mineral-rich waters of the creek. In the 

late 1960s, during reconnaissance 

geologic investigations, USGS 

geologists noted the presence of 

widespread iron-oxide staining in 

drainages of the western Brooks 

Range while flying with pilot and 

part-time prospector Bob Baker 

from Kotzebue, Alaska. Samples 

collected from the creek bed in 

this remote area were determined 

to have as much as 10 percent 

lead—an exceptionally high level. 

On the basis of these chemical 

analyses and other observations in 

the area, USGS geologists recommended the Red Dog Creek area 

for additional study and exploration (Tailleur, 1970). 

As a direct result of the initial 

USGS data release, both industry 

and the Bureau of Mines conducted studies that led to discovery 

of the Red Dog lead-zinc deposit, 

and the area of Red Dog Creek 

was excluded from Federal land 

withdrawals that would have 

precluded the development and 

mining of the deposit. In 1978, 

the NANA Regional Corporation, one of 13 Alaska Native 

regional corporations, selected 

the lands containing the Red Dog 

deposit for conveyance as part of 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. NANA entered a joint 

agreement with Cominco Ltd. to 

develop the property in 1982.

The USGS continues to provide information on the complex factors that controlled formation of mineral resources at 

the Red Dog mine and at similar deposits elsewhere (Kelley 

and Jennings, 2004). The 

resulting mineral deposit model has benefited 

industry in exploring for 

similar deposits in Alaska 

and other areas. The 

improved mineral deposit model is particularly 

important in conducting 

mineral-resource assessments in areas with rocks 

similar to those of the 

western Brooks Range.
Environmental Health and Public Safety  23

Pebble Copper-Gold-Molybdenum Deposit, Alaska

Although Alaska experienced a gold rush in the early 20th 

century and had been a leading 

producer of copper in the 1910s 

and 1920s, the State was not a 

major supplier of minerals in the 

1970s when Alaska public lands 

were being classified for use. 

Legislation regarding land-use 

decisions for 375 million acres 

of land was pending in the years 

1974-78, when the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) undertook an 

assessment of the undiscovered 

metallic mineral resources in 

Alaska. Comparison of Alaska 

to geologically similar regions 

of comparable size led many to 

believe that there were important 

undiscovered mineral resources. 

However, when the USGS regional mineral resource assessment 

began, large regions had not been 

geologically mapped, geochemical and geophysical surveys were 

far from complete, and nothing 

was known about the mineral 

potential in much of the State 

(Singer and Ovenshine, 1978). 

The first State-wide mineral 

resource assessment of undiscovered metallic mineral resources in Alaska was published 

by the USGS in 1978, and it 

identified numerous tracts as 

having potential for undiscovered mineral resources. 

One area of note in southwest 

Alaska was identified as having 

“a 90 percent chance of at least 

1 or more, a 50 percent chance 

of 3 or more, and a 10 percent 

chance of 8 or more undiscovered porphyry copper deposits” 

(MacKevett and others, 1978, 

table 2, tract 6). Exploration 

undertaken by Cominco in the 

1990s and subsequent work by 

Northern Dynasty Minerals, 

Inc. led to discovery of the Pebble deposit, which is said to be 

“the largest deposit of contained gold resources in North 

America..... and the second 

largest deposit of contained 

copper resources in North America” (Northern Dynasty Minerals, 2005). In addition, a number of other prospects in the 

area have been identified and 

partially explored, and there is 

every indication that there will 

be further exploration and development. The new concepts 

and methods that were first 

developed in the USGS Mineral Resources Program during 

the early 1970s, and refined 

continuously since, have proven to be applicable not only in 

Alaska but also in other areas, 

especially in the western United 

States, where mineral resource 

assessments were needed to 

help make land-use decisions.

The USGS regional Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment Project 

(RAMRAP) identified Tract 6 as an area with a 90 percent chance 

of having one or more undiscovered deposit of porphyry copper 

(Singer and Ovenshine, 1978, sheet 2). The area has since been 

identified as the largest deposit of contained gold resources and 

the second largest deposit of contained copper in North America. 

From Menzie and others, 2005.
24  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Three principal ingredients make up 

the biogeochemical cycle. (1) Source 

of chemical elements (where do they 

come from?). The source determines 

how elements are physically and 

chemically distributed and to what 

extent they are available within the 

cycle. (2) Transport mechanisms (how 

do elements move through the environment?). Commonly, these mechanisms 

include water, wind, gravity, and living 

organisms and are heavily influenced 

by climate. (3) Sites (fate) of deposition 

(where and why does transport stop?). 

For example, the elements may be 

deposited as a part of the sediment in a 

reservoir or they may be taken up by a 

plant and perhaps become part of the 

food chain. Not all deposition sites are 

permanent, and chemical elements can 

be remobilized if physical or chemical 

conditions change.

—King, 1995, p. 5

The Biogeochemical Cycle

stand a regional problem related to inactive and abandoned mines. The Alamosa 

River, which runs through the San Luis Valley in southwestern Colorado, is a 

source of water used extensively for irrigation and domestic purposes, and it is 

the water supply for the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge and nearby wetlands. 

Increased concentrations of heavy metals and acid in the river water were attributed to the Summitville mine, which had been abandoned in December 1992. The 

contamination problem, compounded by erosion of unmined but highly mineralized rocks in the San Juan Mountains, focused national attention on environmental 

effects that can result from mineral resource development. Federal, State, and local 

agencies, along with Alamosa River water users and private companies, began 

extensive studies at the mine and in surrounding areas to determine the primary 

sources of contamination and their effects downstream from the mine. 

The USGS provided geologic and hydrologic information about the Summitville mine and surrounding area and described and evaluated the environmental 

condition of the mine and its downstream effects on the San Luis Valley. Studies 

of the 1993 alfalfa and barley crops showed metal concentrations in crops irrigated 

with water affected by acid mine drainage from Summitville were far below toxic 

levels and were well within concentration ranges measured in alfalfa and barley 

crops elsewhere in the United States. In fact, local farmers believed the increased 

copper levels measured in alfalfa crops actually increased the crops’ value because 

copper is an essential nutrient for cattle and is typically added to cattle feed. USGS 

studies helped to avert a crop and food scare that could have cost farmers in the 

San Luis Valley a substantial amount of lost revenue. Learning about the geologic 

and hydrologic history of the area was a critical part of understanding the environmental effects of mining at Summitville (King, 1995).

Digital Data Sets and Maps for Land Managers

Data collection has been a critical part of every mineral resource assessment. 

The uses of these data extend beyond preparation of the assessment and beyond 

the USGS. Basic descriptive data are some of the most requested products of mineral resources research and assessments. For many years, any request for original 

data was answered with reams of paper, then in the 1970s and 1980s by data on 

magnetic tapes and floppy discs. The 1990s saw a rapid evolution of powerful 

techniques for management, visualization, and dissemination of large data sets that 

revolutionized how data are represented, and the widespread development of the 

World Wide Web has revolutionized how data are made available to others. 

Increasing reliance on descriptive and quantitative geospatial data led the 

Mineral Resources Program to invest in data conversion and standardization and 

in development of Internet-based data delivery tools. High-quality digital data and 

information can now be delivered directly to partners in land management and 

other government agencies, private industry, and academia. As these tools become 

more sophisticated, and as the Program’s partners and customers are better able 

to access information when and where they require it, USGS research results are 

increasingly useful to a widening audience. 

The Program is currently completing a long-term project to develop national 

digital data sets for geology, mineral deposits, geochemistry, and geophysics using 

data collected over many years. These data sets will continue to grow with the 

addition of information from new studies. The data sets allow users, both within 

and outside the Program, to customize information for their individual needs, 

whether those be assessments of mineral resource potential, determination of 

regional background values for chemical elements, characterization of regional 

mineral districts, or identification of relationships among potentially toxic commodities, mining practices, and human health. 
Digital Data Sets and Maps for Land Managers  25

Mineral Studies in the Chugach National Forest, Alaska

The Chugach National Forest, the second largest forest 

in the National Forest system, was created in 1892 by 

presidential proclamation as 

the Afognak Forest and Fish 

Culture Reserve. The 5.5-million-acre Forest is located in 

south-central Alaska and forms 

a great arc around Prince William Sound on the Gulf of 

Alaska. The Forest is known 

as an outstanding fish and 

wildlife habitat that provides 

world-class recreation and 

tourism opportunities. It also 

has a long history of mineral 

resource activity. Gold was 

first discovered in the area by 

a Russian surveyor in 1848, 

and copper was mined intermittently between 1897 and 

the late 1930s. The Forest has 

been the subject of numerous 

government mineral resource 

studies extending back to the 

early part of the 20th century. 

In the 1970s, the western part 

of the Forest was studied as 

part of the Alaska Mineral 

Resource Assessment Program 

(AMRAP). In the 1980s, a 

broader regional study of the 

entire Forest was conducted 

under provisions for mineral 

resource surveys as outlined in 

the 1964 Wilderness Act (Nelson and Miller, 2000). 

In 1990, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists were asked 

to conduct a mineral resource 

assessment of undiscovered 

resources as part of the Forest 

planning process of 1991-1996. 

When the Forest Plan was revised 

in the late 1990s, the Forest managers requested that the USGS 

conduct an additional assessment of mineral resource tracts 

outlined in the previous study. 

A report by Nelson and Miller 

(2000) provided mineral resource 

information to guide the forest 

managers in formulation of the 

Chugach Land Use Management 

Plan and in support of Landscape 

Analysis reports prepared for 

future site-specific analyses and 

planning. The Forest Supervisor 

reports the work by Nelson and 

Miller “was key to identifying 

areas that held a high potential 

for mineral development and 

was pivotal in the designation of 

prescriptions across the forest .... 

and supports land use decisions 

made in the Forest Plan” (J.L. 

Meade, Forest Supervisor, written 

commun., 2005).

ALASKA

Anchorage

Chugach 

 National 

 Forest

View of the Harvard Glacier in Prince William Sound. This area 

is within the Chugach National Forest, Alaska, which surrounds 

glacier-filled Prince William Sound and is close to Anchorage, 

Alaska’s largest city. Photograph by Marti Miller. 
26  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Case Study: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

In 1993, the interagency Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project was initiated 

by President Clinton. The project 

was designed to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based 

strategy for managing 64 million 

acres of land administered by the 

Forest Service and the Bureau 

of Land Management within 

the Columbia River Basin and 

portions of the Klamath River 

Basin and Great Basin in Oregon 

(Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Web 

site, www.icbemp.gov). From 

the beginning of the planning 

process, U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) scientists worked closely 

with land managers to create 

research products targeted to the 

needs of the decisionmakers. 

Project designers wanted to 

increase understanding of the 

interrelationships among the 

ecological, biophysical, social, 

and economic conditions, trends, 

risks, and opportunities within 

the planning area. Creation of 

the project was driven by a wide 

range of concerns, including forest and rangeland health, uncharacteristically intense wildfires, 

endangerment of selected fish 

and wildlife species, and concerns about social and economic 

well being of local communities.

USGS Mineral Resources 

Program scientists used the 

project to demonstrate how data 

collected as part of a mineral 

resource assessment could be 

tailored to specific needs of 

land managers using new digital mapping programs. A massive digital map compilation 

by Johnson and Raines (2001), 

showing bedrock geology of 

the Pacific Northwest, resulted 

in a map with more than 800 

geologic units. Because the 

data were digital, geologists 

were able to produce derivative 

maps that combined rock units 

by age, as traditionally shown 

on geologic maps, and also by 

rock type. The derivative maps 

have proved useful to a variety 

of land managers. For example, 

scientists studying the aquatic 

biology of the area found that 

combining the geologic map 

units according to physical or 

chemical characteristics, such as 

degree of consolidation and aluminosilicate content, facilitated 

identification of aquatic habitat 

for bull trout and cutthroat trout. 

Researchers affiliated with the 

Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Cooperative, a research 

cooperative of public and private 

forestry organizations, used 

derivative maps in which units 

were classified on the basis of 

elemental and chemical compositions of the rock units (base 

metals, iron-magnesium-aluminum, phosphate, carbonate, and 

potassium); their work shows a 

strong association between poor 

forest health and low-potassium 

bedrock, a finding that will be 

useful in planning plantings.

The Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project was one of the first studies 

to take advantage of evolving 

digital technology to manipulate 

large datasets. The ability to 

combine data of different types 

enhances understanding of both 

the geology and the ecosystem 

and supports decisions about 

threatened and endangered species, as well as future mineral 

exploration and development. 

Techniques pioneered in 

this project set a standard for 

delivering mineral resource 

information that better meets 

the needs of planners addressing 

today’s complex issues. Many 

of the techniques pioneered in 

the project were employed in 

the response to a request from 

the Forest Service in the late 

1990s for geologic information 

for the Northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, and 

Washington. When the preliminary products were reviewed, 

Forest Service Manager Jim 

Shelden summed up the benefits of being able to access 

the digital information when 

he said “problems, needs, and 

tasks can be evaluated in light 

of the data, potential courses of 

action rapidly evaluated, a plan 

formulated, and products delivered much more rapidly” (Jim 

Shelden, USDA Forest Service, 

written commun., 2005).
Digital Data Sets and Maps for Land Managers  27

The preliminary map of major bedrock types of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project area shows 38 general map units, summarized from 

a large geologic dataset of more than 800 map units (Johnson and Raines, 2001). 

On the map, major features are highlighted by color. Red identifies the giant Idaho 

Batholith and other intrusive igneous bodies; the extensive volcanic terrains appear 

in green. Carbonate rocks show as blue, clastic sedimentary rocks as brown or 

tan. Yellows indicate areas where bedrock is buried under unconsolidated surficial 

deposits. The grouping of map units according to physical or chemical characteristics proved very useful to managers charged with making land use decisions.
28  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

A new effort is underway to build on an existing data set of background concentrations of metals and other trace elements in soils of the conterminous United States. The 

limited data set of 1,323 samples, collected during the 1960s and 1970s by the USGS 

(Boerngen and Shacklette, 1981; Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984) is currently the most 

frequently requested data set managed by the Program. In cooperation with other state 

and Federal agencies and colleagues in academia, new soil samples are being collected 

that will demonstrate variations in soil geochemistry across the United States. Research 

conducted in parallel with the new sampling will contribute to an increased understanding of how organisms concentrate metals and of how the presence of specific organisms or suites of organisms can be used as indicators of processes occurring in soils. 

An understanding of the baseline of the current elemental composition of our soils is 

critical to recognizing and understanding any future changes due to natural events, such 

as volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, wildfires, or dust storms, or human activities such 

as industrialization, urbanization, waste disposal, agriculture, or mining. Geochemical 

studies of soil samples will help to address questions raised by land-management and 

regulatory agencies about what is currently in our soils and how these constituents may 

impact our lives, and they will help establish realistic expectations for remediation of 

contaminated soils.

International Studies

The distribution of mineral resources is not limited by national boundaries. 

Neither is the need for information about them. Since at least the time of World 

War II, the USGS Mineral Resources Program has responded to requests that 

support U.S. national interests by providing worldwide assistance to other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Trade and Development Program, as well 

as directly to foreign clients. Products have included training and technology 

transfer, mineral resource and geoenvironmental assessments, and basic mineral 

deposit research. The techniques of mineral resource assessment are applicable 

worldwide, and USGS scientists participating in international cooperative activities have trained local geologists in modern techniques in many parts of the 

world, particularly in Latin America and Asia. These studies have contributed 

both to economic development in those countries and to the worldwide information base that the USGS provides for our government.

In 1944, the first USGS employee arrived in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 

response to a request to President Franklin D. Roosevelt from King Abdul’aziz ibn 

Sa’ud for technical expertise to advise him on the Kingdom’s natural resources. 

The USGS maintained a presence there until 2003. Scientific studies included the 

geology, mineral resources, water resources, and seismicity of the Arabian Peninsula. Over the years, Mineral Resource Program scientists trained and mentored 

many Saudis in a wide range of jobs, contributed significantly to the geologic 

knowledge base of their country, identified numerous mineral deposits, and helped 

create the Saudi Geological Survey.

In 1985-86, a project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development 

called for a mineral resource assessment of the Republic of Costa Rica. Program 

scientists worked with colleagues in the Dirección General de Geología, Minas, e 

Hidrocarburos and the Universidad de Costa Rica to produce the assessment, which 

included the first geologic map of the entire country and a digital catalog of all 

known mineral deposits in the country. Up until that time, the international mining 

community had paid little attention to Costa Rica. The USGS study, which identified areas with potential for deposits of gold, copper, manganese, and aluminum, 

called attention to the possibilities for mineral development. Subsequent to release of 

the study, a small but energetic mining industry has evolved, and the investment of 
International Studies  29

At the request of the Republic 

of the Philippines, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists led 

an interagency team from the 

United States to assess miningrelated environmental problems, 

including potential health effects 

and mine safety issues at Marinduque Island. Over several 

decades, open-pit copper mining 

at two different sites has resulted 

in release of large volumes of 

tailings, mine wastes, and acid 

mine waters into rivers and nearshore marine environments. In 

2002, work was begun to collect new data on water quality, 

soil and tailings chemistry, and 

Photographic panorama showing erosion of mine waste dumps into the lower Makulapnit siltation impoundment 

pond on Marinduque Island, Philippines. Digital composite of three photographs by H. Miller and J. Madsen, taken 

in June 2003.

Impartial Assessment of Mining-Related Environmental Issues on 

Marinduque Island, Republic of the Philippines

aquatic ecology, that enabled 

team scientists to prioritize mining-related issues that posed the 

greatest risk to public safety, the 

environment, and human health. 

They also were able to assess 

relative strengths and weaknesses of potential options for 

remediation. 

The available data suggest 

that a variety of human health 

problems (such as elevated 

levels of lead in blood) in 

some island residents cannot 

conclusively be linked to mining activities, as previously 

believed. The team provided 

recommendations for further 

environmental monitoring 

and extensive health assessment studies needed to more 

accurately understand the 

extent and nature of miningrelated impacts on the environment and human health. The 

Philippines government has 

requested that the work begun 

on Marinduque Island continue 

and that a plan be developed 

for integrating existing geologic data and maps of the 

entire country in a digital format in preparation for a stateof-the-art mineral resource 

assessment of the Republic of 

the Philippines.
30 USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resource

outside capital has brought modern exploration and mining methods to Costa Rica. 

Officials in the Costa Rican government have also used the assessment to make land 

use decisions about which areas of the country are appropriate for environmentally 

responsible mining and which areas are better reserved from development.

The USGS already had a long history of cooperative activity in Bolivia when, 

in 1990, the U.S. Trade and Development Program requested assistance in efforts 

to promote redevelopment of the Bolivian mining industry, which had languished 

in the years since nationalization of the industry in the 1950s. Bolivia is a country with a long mining industry and was a global leader in silver production in 

the 16th and 17th centuries and in tin production in the 20th century. Working 

with the Servicio Geológico de Bolivia, USGS scientists conducted a 2-year-long 

mineral resource assessment of the western part of the country, the high altiplano 

and western cordillera. Significant contributions of this study include a comprehensive catalog of the known mineral deposits and districts of western Bolivia and 

digital geologic maps. In addition, the study identified areas with potential for new 

discoveries of precious metals and copper, providing a valuable synthesis that is 

useful for mineral exploration in this part of Bolivia. Program scientists also participated in a concurrent program funded by the InterAmerican Development Bank 

designed to illuminate the processes responsible for gold and silver deposits in the 

central Andes, and to train local mineral resource scientists in Chile, Bolivia, and 

Peru in mineral resource assessment techniques developed by the USGS.

Growing demand for information on the global mineral resource base led Program scientists to organize a cooperative international project in 2002, designed 

to assess the world’s undiscovered nonfuel mineral resources. Although global 

shortages of most nonfuel mineral resources are not expected in the near future, 

the growing demand worldwide and the amount of time required for development of mineral resources requires continued exploration for and development 

of resources. The goal of this long-term project is to provide a consistent, comprehensive level of mineral resource information and analysis at continental and 

global scales. The first three commodities to be assessed are copper, which has 

important electronic and industrial applications; platinum-group metals, which are 

critical as catalysts in the automobile, chemical, and petroleum industries; and potash, an indispensable constituent of fertilizer required for food production. Results 

of this study will be used by a wide range of users, including those involved in 

land-use management, those involved in the development of economic policy decisions, and those involved in mineral exploration. Working with geoscientists from 

more than 40 geological surveys and cooperating organizations, the project has 

strengthened cooperation and collaboration between the USGS and other geological surveys and earth science organizations around the world.

Conclusion

Nonfuel minerals are important building blocks that helped to create our Nation 

and continue to support our economy today. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

continues to provide the minerals research and information necessary for a strong 

and secure future. USGS responsibility for minerals research and information has 

continuously evolved since the USGS was established in 1879. This evolution is a 

result of continuing changes in the Nation’s political and social environment as well 

as advances in science and technology. Expertise developed in earlier eras to support 

the search for mineral resources today underpins essential studies related to public 

health by providing systematic information on composition of earth materials. The 

USGS Mineral Resources Program will continue to build on current and new minerals information and on results of new mineral resource research to respond to issues 

that will face the Nation throughout this century and beyond.
References Cited and Other Sources of Information  31

Acknowledgments

This volume would not have been possible without the support of Kathleen 

Johnson, Sharon Swanson, and Melba Berry in the Mineral Resources Program 

office. Much of the early history of the Program has been extracted from “Minerals, 

lands, and geology for the common defense and general welfare,” the three-volume 

history of the USGS by Mary Rabbitt (1979, 1980, 1986). However, information 

included here was gathered from many sources. Published sources are collected in 

the section “Sources of information.” In addition, many people generously shared 

their time and files to reconstruct past accomplishments of the USGS Mineral 

Resources Program and highlights in mineral science activities. In some cases, 

material is quoted directly from those sources. The manuscript benefited from the 

reviews of Kathleen Gohn, Bill Langer, Steve Ludington, Sherman Marsh, Marti 

Miller, Frances Pierce, and Klaus Schulz, from the technical edit by Peter Stauffer, 

and from the layout and design by Judy Weathers and Susan Mayfield.

A great deal of information was contributed by many colleagues in the preparation of this volume and I thank them all. Particular thanks go to the following for 

their help and support: Paul Barton, Dave Brew, Joe Briskey, Skip Cunningham, 

John DeYoung, Mike Diggles, Carol Edwards, Bob Eppinger, Tom Frost, Bruce 

Gamble, Marty Goldhaber, Larry Gough, Dennis Helsel, Bruce Johnson, Bob 

Kamilli, Karen Kelley, Thor Kiilsgaard, Vic Labson, Roger Loebenstein, Lucy 

McCartan, Dave Menzie, Marti Miller, Connie Nutt, Joyce Ober, Geoff Plumlee, 

Martha Power, Gloria Ruggiero, Art Schultz, Klaus Schulz, Dave Smith, Greg 

Swayze, Ken Watson, Tom Weitz, Ron Worl, Peter Vikre, and Mike Zientek.

References Cited and Other Sources of Information

Anderson, E.W., 1988, Strategic minerals—the geopolitical problems for the 

United States: New York, Praeger, 160 p.

Baedecker, P.A., ed., 1987, Methods for geochemical analysis: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1770, 132 p.

Bailey, E.A., Tripp, R.B., Lee, G.K., Sutley, S.J., Mueller, S., Wang, B., and 

Beischer, G.A., 2005, Stream-sediment and heavy-mineral concentrate geochemistry in the Taylor Mountains 1:250,000-scale quadrangle, Alaska—new 

data, new potential prospects [abs.]: Alaska Miners Association, Abstracts of 

2005 Annual Convention, Anchorage, October 31-November 5, 2005, p. 12.

Bateman, A.M., 1952, Our future dependence on foreign minerals: American 

Academy of Political and Social Science Annals, May, p. 25-32.

Becker, G.F., 1888, Geology of the quicksilver deposits of the Pacific slope: U.S. 

Geological Survey Monograph 13, 486 p., with atlas.

Becraft, G.E., Pinckney, D.M., Rosenblum, Sam, 1963, Geology and mineral 

deposits of the Jefferson City quadrangle, Jefferson and Lewis and Clark Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 428, 101 p., 18 plates.

Boerngen, J.G., and Shacklette, H.T., 1981, Chemical analysis of soils and other 

surficial materials of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 81-197, 143 p.

Bookstrom, A.A., Zientek, M.L., Box, S.E., Derkey, P.D., Elliott, J.E., Frishman, 

David, Ashley, R.P., Evarts, R.C., Stoeser, D.B., Moyer, L.A., Cox, D.P., and 

Ludington, Steve, 1996, Status and metal content of significant metallic mineral 

deposits in the Pacific Northwest—a contribution to the Interior Columbia River 
32  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 95-688, 98 p [http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/ofr/ofr95688].

Briskey, J.A., Schulz, K.J., Mosesso, J.P., Horwitz, L.R., and Cunningham, C.G., 

2001, It’s time to know the planet’s mineral resources: Geotimes, March 2001, 

p.14-19.

Brobst, D.A., and Pratt, W.P., 1973, United States mineral resources: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, 722 p.

Coope, J.A., 1991, Carlin trend exploration history—discovery of the Carlin 

deposit: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 13, 16 p.

Cox, D.P., and Singer, D.A., 1986, Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, 379 p.

Curtis, J.S., 1884, Silver-lead deposits of Eureka, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Monograph 7, 200 p.

DeYoung, J.H., Jr., 2004, Many platinum records for USGS minerals information: 

U.S. Geological Survey Web site [http://www.usgs.gov/125/articles/platinum.

html (accessed Aug. 9, 2004)]. Also available as U.S. Department of the Interior, People, Land, and Water, v. 11, no. 1, p. 33.

DeYoung, J.H., Jr., and Hammarstrom, J.M., eds., 1992, Contributions to commodity geology research: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1877, [109] p.

Diggles, M.F., ed., 1991, Assessment of undiscovered porphyry copper deposits 

within the range of the northern spotted owl, northwestern California, western 

Oregon, and western Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-

377, 58 p., 27 plates, scale 1:500,000.

Drew, L.J., 1997, Undiscovered petroleum and mineral resources—assessment and 

controversy: New York, Plenum Press, 210 p.

Eckes, A.E., Jr., 1979, The United States and the global struggle for minerals: 

Austin, University of Texas Press, 353 p.

Emmons, S.F., 1886, Geology and mining industry of Leadville, Colorado: U.S. 

Geological Survey Monograph 12, 770 p., with atlas.

Finn, C.A., 2002, Examples of the utility of magnetic anomaly data for geologic 

mapping: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-400, 16 p.

Frank, Dave, Weathers, Judy, and Galloway, John, 2001, Mineral resources—out 

of the ground...into our daily lives: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

01-360, 1 pl.

Gohn, K.K., 2004, Celebrating 125 years of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1274, 56 p.

Gough, L.P., comp., 1993, Understanding our fragile environment—lessons from 

geochemical studies: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1105, 34 p.

Harris, DeVerle, and Rieber, Michael, 1993, Evaluation of the United States Geological Survey’s three-step assessment methodology: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 93-258 A-B, paging varies, 2 discs; prepared under contract 

no. 1434-92-C-30041 with the University of Arizona, Tucson.

Hintze, L.F., 1986, CUSMAP mineral appraisal: Utah Geological and Mineral 

Survey, Survey Notes, v. 20, no. 4, p. 3-7.

Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Cooperative Web site: [http://www.cnr.uidaho.

edu/IFTNC/ (accessed October 28, 2005)].

Johnson, B.R., and Raines, G.L., 2001, Map of major lithologic units in the Pacific 

Northwest—a contribution to the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map I-2674, scale 1:500,000.
References Cited and Other Sources of Information  33

Kelley, K.D., and Hudson, Travis, 2003, The natural dispersal of metals to the 

environment in the Wulik River-Ikalukrok Creek area, western Brooks Range, 

Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 107-03, 4 p.

Kelley, K.D., and Jennings, Scott, 2004, A special issue devoted to barite and 

Zn-Pb-Ag deposits in the Red Dog district, western Brooks Range, Alaska: 

Economic Geology, v. 99, p. 1267-1280.

King, T.V.V., ed., 1995, Environmental considerations of active and abandoned 

mine lands—lessons from Summitville, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2220, 37 p.

Kirk, W.S., 1996, The history of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Bureau of Mines Yearbook 1994, v. 1, p. vii-xxxix.

Langer, W.H., 2002, Geology in early America: Aggman—Aggregates Management and Operations, v. 7, no. 6, p. 48.

Levell, Jeff, 2004, Geology of the Montana Tunnels deposit [abs.]: Northwest Mining Association, Abstract Booklet, 110th Annual meeting, Dec. 6-10, 2004, p. 5-6. 

Long, K.R., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., and Ludington, Steve, 1998, Data base of significant deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc in the United States; Part 

A—Data base description and analysis; Part B—Digital data base: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-206, 33 p., one 3.5-inch diskette.

MacKevett, E.M., Jr., Singer, D.A., and Holloway, C.D., 1978, Maps and tables 

describing metalliferous mineral resource potential of southern Alaska: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-1E, 45 p., 2 plates.

Marsh, S.P., Kropschot, S.J., and Dickinson, R.G., eds., 1984, Wilderness mineral 

potential—assessment of mineral-resource potential in U.S. Forest Service lands 

studied 1964-1984: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1300, 1183 p.

Marsh, S.P., Richter, D.H., Ludington, S.D., Soria-Escalante, Eduardo, and Escobar-Diaz, Angel, 1995, Digital geologic map of the Altiplano and Cordillera 

Occidental, Bolivia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-494, 3 p.

Marsh, S.P., Richter, D.H., Ludington, S.D., Soria-Escalante, Eduardo, and Escobar-Diaz, Angel, 1997, Fifteen 1° × 2° digital geologic maps of the Altiplano 

and Cordillera Occidental, Bolivia, in Arc/Info export format: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 97-174, 15 digital files.

McCammon, R.B., and Briskey, J.A., Jr., 1992, A proposed national mineralresource assessment—a plan to assess the nonfuel mineral resources of the United 

States and its public lands: Nonrenewable Resources, v. 1, no. 4, p. 259-266.

Menzie, David, Foose, Michael, Schultz, Klaus, and Lampietti, Francois, 2005, 

A short course on methodologies for the assessment of undiscovered mineral 

resources: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1146, 1 CR-ROM.

Miller, M.L., Bradley, D.C., Bundtzen, T.K., Goldfarb, R.J., Saltus, R.W., Mair, 

J.Y., Karl, S.M., Box, S.E., Hudson, T.L., Klimasauskas, E.P., and Beischer, 

G.A., Geologic and mineral deposit studies in the Taylor Mountains quadrangle, 

southwest Alaska [abs.]: Alaska Miners Association, Abstracts of 2005 Annual 

Convention, Anchorage, October 31-November 5, 2005, p. 9.

Morse, D.E., and Glover, A.N., 2002, Minerals and materials in the 20th century—a review, in Metals and Minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals 

Yearbook—2000, v. 1, p. 1.1-1.4 [http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/timeline/20th_century_review.pdf].

Murdoch, Angus, 1964, Boom copper—the story of the first U.S. mining boom: 

Calumet, Michigan, Roy W. Drier and Louis G. Koepel, 255 p.

National Research Council, 1996, Mineral resources and society—a review of the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan: Washington, 

D.C., National Academies Press, 87 p.
34  USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources

National Research Council, 2003, Future challenges for the U.S. Geological 

Survey’s Mineral Resources Program: Washington, D.C., National Academies 

Press, 139 p.

Nelson, S.W., and Miller, M.L., 2000, Assessment of mineral resource tracts in 

the Chugach National Forest, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

00-26, 22 p.

Nelson, S.W., Miller, M.L., Goldfarb, R.J., Snee, L.W., Sherman, G.E., Roe, C.H., 

and Balen, M.D., 1994, Mineral resource assessment of the Chugach National 

Forest Special Study Area in northern Prince William Sound, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-272, 20 p.

Nolan, T.B., 1950, The search for new mining districts: Economic Geology, v. 45, 

no. 7, p. 601-608.

North American Magnetic Anomaly Group, 2002, Magnetic anomaly map of 

North America: U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:10,000,000.

Northern Dynasty Minerals, Ltd., 2005, Pebble deposit: [http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/ndm/PebbleDeposit.asp (accessed June 30, 2005)].

Ovenshine, A.T., 1986, Why mineral deposit models came to be used in regional 

assessments, in Cargill, S.M., and Green, S.B., eds., Prospects for mineral 

resource assessments on public lands—proceedings of the Leesburg workshop: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 980, p. 283-286.

Pinsker, L.M., 2002, Aggregates map helps save Quecreek miners: Geotimes, 

October 2002 [http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/oct02/geomedia.html].

Quigley, T.M., and Arbelbide, S.J., eds., 1997, An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report PNWGTR-408, v. 3, p. 1120-1131, 1168-1180.

Ra’anan, Uri, and Perry, C.M., eds., 1985, Strategic minerals and international security: 

Washington, D.C., Pergamon Brassey’s International Defense Publishers, 90 p.

Rabbitt, M.C., 1979, Minerals, lands, and geology for the common defence and 

general welfare, Volume 1, before 1879: U.S. Geological Survey, 331 p.

Rabbitt, M.C., 1980, Minerals, lands, and geology for the common defence and 

general welfare, Volume 2, 1879-1904: U.S. Geological Survey, 407 p.

Rabbitt, M.C., 1986, Minerals, lands, and geology for the common defence and 

general welfare, Volume 3, 1904-1939: U.S. Geological Survey, 479 p.

Rabbitt, M.C., 1989, The United States Geological Survey—1879–1989: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1050, 52 p.

Raines, G.R., Johnson, B.R., Frost, T.P., and Zientek, M.L., 1996, Digital maps 

of compositionally classified lithologies derived from 1:500,000 scale geologic 

maps from the Pacific Northwest; a contribution to the Interior Columbia River 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 95-685, 29 p. [http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/ofr/ofr95685].

Richter, D.H., Albert, N.R.D., Barnes, D.F., Griscom, Andrew, Marsh, S.P., and 

Singer, D.A., 1975, The Alaskan Mineral Resource Assessment Program—

background information to accompany folio of geologic and mineral resource 

maps of the Nabesna quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

718, 11 p.

Roberts, R.J., 2002, A passion for gold—an autobiography: Reno, University of 

Nevada Press, 232 p.

Schulz, K.J., coordinator, 1995, The National Mineral Resource Surveys Program—a plan for mineral-resource and mineral environmental research for 
References Cited and Other Sources of Information  35

national land-use, environmental, and mineral-supply decision making: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-537, 45 p.

Schulz, K.J., and Briskey, J.A., 2003, The Global Mineral Resource Assessment 

Project: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 053-03, 4 p. 

Shacklette, H.T., and Boerngen, J.G., 1984, Element concentrations in soils and 

other surficial materials of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1270, 105 p. 

Singer, D.A., 1993, Basic concepts in three-part quantitative assessments of undiscovered mineral resources: Nonrenewable Resources, v. 2, no. 2, p. 69-81.

Singer, D.A., and Ovenshine, A.T., 1978, The assessment of metallic mineral 

resources in Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-1A, 40 p.

Swayze, G.A., Smith, K.S., Clark, R.N., Sutley, S.J., Pearson, R.M., Vance, J.S., 

Hageman, P.L., Briggs, P.H., Meier, A.L., Singleton, M.J., and Roth, Shelly, 

2000, Using imaging spectroscopy to map acidic mine waste: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 34, p. 47-54.

Taggart, J.E., Jr., comp., 1995, Understanding our planet through chemistry: U.S. 

Geological Survey website [http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/aii-home.htm 

(accessed July 25, 2005)].

Tailleur, I.L., 1970, Lead-, zinc-, and barite-bearing samples from the western 

Brooks Range, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 445, 16 p.

Teck Cominco, 2005, Red Dog mine, Alaska, U.S.A.: Web site [http://www.teckcominco.com/operations/reddog/index.htm (accessed May 23, 2005)].

U.S. Forest Service, 1991, Final environmental impact statement on management 

for the Northern Spotted Owl in the National Forests: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Forest Service, 395 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1904, The United States Geological Survey—Its origin, 

development, organization, and operations: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

227, 121 p.

U.S. Geological Survey National Mineral Resource Assessment Team, 2000, 1998 

assessment of undiscovered deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc in the 

United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1178, 21 p., 1 CD-ROM.

U.S. Geological Survey and Corporación Venezolana de Guayana, Técnica 

Minera, C.A., 1993, Geology and mineral resource assessment of the Venezuelan Guayana Shield: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2062, 121 p., 8 plates.

U.S. Geological Survey, Dirección General de Geología, Minas, e Hidrocarburos, 

and the Universidad de Costa Rica, 1987, Mineral resource assessment of the 

Republic of Costa Rica: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map I-1865, 75 p., scale 1:500,000.

U.S. Geological Survey and Servicio Geológico de Bolivia, 1992, Geology and 

mineral resources of the Altiplano and Cordillera Occidental, Bolivia, with a 

section on Application of economic evaluations to deposit models, by Donald I. 

Bleiwas and Robert G. Christiansen: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1975, 365 

p., 8 plates. 

U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1939, Report on certain deficient strategic minerals: U.S. Geological Survey, 40 p.

Weathers, Judy, Galloway, John, and Frank, Dave, 2000, Minerals in our environment: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-144, 1 pl.

Zientek, M.L., and Kropschot, S.J., 2005, Mineral resources research supports 

land-use planning in Northern Rocky Mountains: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 2005-3155, 2 p.
Kropschot—USGS Mineral Resources Program—Supporting Stewardship of America’s Natural Resources—U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1289

Printedonrecycledpaper