Historical Perspective of the

Mineral Production of Idaho, with

Comments on the Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

By Walter J. Bawiec and Lawrence L. Dee

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2064-T

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the Idaho Geological Survey,

Idaho State University, and the University of Idaho
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

This publication is only available online at:

http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/pub/bulletins/b2064-t/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication

is for descriptive purposes only and

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government

Version 1.0 2001

Published in the Central Region, Denver, Colorado

Manuscript approved for publication April 27, 2001

Graphics by Alice and Joe Springfield

Photocomposition by Gayle M. Dumonceaux
Contents

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

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Brief Mining History of Idaho ..................................................................................................... 1

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972 .................................................................................. 3

Unit Regional Value of the United States....................................................................... 3

Description of Production Data.............................................................................. 3

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972........................................................................ 3

Distribution of Mineral Production in Idaho, 1902–1951.............................................. 7

Description of Production Data.............................................................................. 7

Distribution of Idaho Production by County ......................................................... 9

Historical Development of Selected Mining Districts and Areas in the Area of the

Hailey Quadrangle........................................................................................................................ 14

Atlanta Mining Area .......................................................................................................... 14

Rocky Bar Mining Area..................................................................................................... 16

Boise Basin Mining Area.................................................................................................. 18

Quartzburg District ............................................................................................................ 19

Featherville District ........................................................................................................... 19

Neal District........................................................................................................................ 19

Little Wood River (Muldoon) District .............................................................................. 19

Little Smokey and Rosetta Districts................................................................................ 19

Willow Creek District ........................................................................................................ 19

Wood River (Mineral Hill District) Mining Area............................................................ 20

Warm Springs District....................................................................................................... 20

References .................................................................................................................................... 20

1. Map showing mining districts and areas described in report.......................... 2

2. Diagram showing unit regional value of mineral resources by State 

in the United States.................................................................................................. 5

3-7. Diagrams showing unit regional value for the States of the United States for:

3. Construction materials....................................................................................... 5

4. Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 7

5. Metals ................................................................................................................... 7

6. Nonmetals ............................................................................................................ 8

7. Precious metals................................................................................................... 8

8. Map showing value of mineral industries products in the

United States by State, 1905–1972......................................................................... 9

9. Maps showing Idaho county boundaries and mine locations having

reported production of gold, silver, cooper, lead, and zinc, 1902–1951 .......... 10

10. Graphs showing relative production by selected commodity for each 

county in Idaho with reported production, 1902–1951 ....................................... 12

III

Figures
IV

11-16. Spatial histograms, produced by county in Idaho, of:

11. Tonnage .............................................................................................................. 13

12. Lode gold............................................................................................................. 14

13. Silver.................................................................................................................... 15

14. Copper ................................................................................................................. 16

15. Lead ..................................................................................................................... 17

16. Zinc ...................................................................................................................... 18

Tables

1. Mineral resources produced in the United States, by State, 1905–1972......... 4

2. Standard commodities in each of the mineal resource sectors....................... 6

3. Relative production in Idaho, by county, of tonnage, gold, silver,

copper, lead, and zinc.............................................................................................. 11

Metric Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Feet 0.3048 Meters

Inches 2.54 Centimeters

Tons 1.016 Metric tons

Short tons 0.907 Metric tons

Troy ounces 31.103 Grams

Ounces 28.35 Grams
1

Historical Perspective of the

Mineral Production of Idaho, with

Comments on the Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

Abstract

Idaho has a long and diverse history of minerals exploration and production. A comprehensive look at this history, combined with documentation of the distribution and magnitude of 

past and present mineral production, can lead to a better understanding of the mineral endowment and potential resources.

The total mineral production of Idaho (1905–1972), when 

examined as unit regional values and compared to the rest of the 

United States, shows that Idaho has produced above the median 

value of other States for both metals and precious materials, near 

the median value for nonmetals, and below the median value for 

construction materials and fuels. An examination of selected 

commodities within Idaho, by county, for a fifty-year period 

(1902–1951) shows the dominance of Shoshone County in total 

production within the State for silver, copper, lead, and zinc.

Introduction

Idaho has a long and diverse history of minerals exploration and production that is related to westward expansion and 

development of the western United States. Exploration for metals and precious materials acted as a lure for new inhabitants. 

The mining and development of these metals and precious materials, along with nonmetals and construction materials, contributed to establishment of permanent settlements and has thus 

long been an integral part of the economy of Idaho. Continued 

development and advancement in this sector of the Idaho economy is dependent, however, on understanding the diversity, distribution, and magnitude of the State’s mineral endowment. One 

approach to understanding the mineral endowment is the development and use of mineral inventories. Mineral inventories provide baseline information from which regional metallogenic 

studies can be extrapolated. Also, they are a requirement for 

mineral commodity and related regional geologic studies, which 

are necessary in planning future mineral exploration and 

production (Gabert, 1978).

The purpose of this investigation is to examine the diversity 

and distribution of known mineral production in Idaho and to 

use this knowledge to gain insight into potential new mineral 

resources and to enhance our understanding of the remaining 

mineral resources. Although much of the information presented 

herein is generally known or intuitive to economic geologists 

familiar with Idaho, this report offers a comprehensive look at 

mineral production in the State and perhaps a new perspective 

toward utilizing this type of information.

Brief Mining History of Idaho

The first white men known to have set foot in what is now 

Idaho were members of the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1805 

(Ruppel and Lopez, 1988). They were followed by mountain 

men and fur traders, after whom came the missionaries and 

westward-bound immigrants in search of new lands. The mountain men, trappers, and immigrants can be credited with the 

opening of the West, but it was the miners and those with affiliated occupations who established the first permanent settlements. Of equal importance to establishing permanent towns 

was the impetus that development of the mineral industry provided for establishment of railroads and markets for local agricultural and forest products (Wells, 1976).

In 1848, gold was discovered in California, and prospectors and miners from around the world rushed to the Pacific 

coast. When the easily extracted gold of the California gold 

placers began to dwindle, prospectors moved into other areas of 

the West searching for new sources. Nevada, Colorado, and 

British Columbia showed promise as mining regions in 1858-

1859, and Idaho soon followed (V.O. Goodwin and J.A. Hussey, 

U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service, written commun., 1965).

It is not clear when and where metals were first discovered 

in Idaho, but the presence of placer gold in the Boise Basin (fig. 

1) was known to a Hudson Bay Company trapper as early as 

1844 (Wells, 1983). Other discoveries were reported, but Indian 

hostility delayed the investigation of the discoveries.

In 1860, the discovery of gold on the North Fork of the 

Clearwater River, now Clearwater County, Idaho, marked the 

beginning of Idaho’s mineral industry. The man credited with 

the 1860 discovery was Captain E.D. Pierce, a California prospector who also had been a trader with the Nez Perce Indians. 

Although a treaty forbade Captain Pierce from prospecting the 

Clearwater River country, he disguised a prospecting expedition 

as an Indian trading venture and went gold hunting with the 

leader of the Nez Perce band. They were successful and found 

By Walter J. Bawiec and Lawrence L. Dee
2 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

116° 114° 44°

43°

4

8

10

12

13

14

15

5

7

9

11

BOISE

HAILEY

117° 116° 115° 114° 113° 112° 111°

49°

48°

47°

46°

45°

44°

43°

42°

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Pierce City mining district

Florence mining district

Warren mining district

Boise Basin mining district

Little Wood River (Muldoon) mining district

Coeur d'Alene mining district

Atlanta mining area

Rocky Bar mining area

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Quartzburg mining district

Featherville mining district

Neal mining district

Little Smokey and Rosetta mining districts

Willow Creek mining district

Wood River (Mineral Hill district) mining area

Warm Springs mining district

gold. Within the year, the town of Pierce was established, the 

Pierce City mining district was organized, and the rush to the 

Idaho Territory was underway (Koschmann and Bergendahl, 

1968). The population of this part of the then Washington territory grew to such an extent that a new territory was carved out. 

This new territory eventually became the State of Idaho in 1890. 

By July 1861, 5,000 miners were prospecting in the new 

mining district. In spite of Indian hostility, prospecting rapidly 

spread south with the establishment of the mining camps of Florence and Warren. In the fall of 1862, placer gold was discovered in the Boise Basin, in the northwest corner of the Hailey 

1°×2° quadrangle, northeast of the present city of Boise. The 

Figure 1. Map showing mining districts and areas described in report. Boundaries of mining districts are from Ross (1936).
3

Boise Basin immediately drew a large number of miners to the 

area. Prospectors swarmed through the hills, and more discoveries soon followed. The classic situation of the placer leading to 

vein outcrops was evident in the Boise Basin, and soon a number of hard-rock mines began operation. As the miners fanned 

out from the Boise Basin, they established other lode and placer 

districts. 

Silver and base-metal mining came into greater prominence in the Idaho Territory with the development of lead mines 

in the Wood River area in about 1883 and the establishment of 

the Bunker Hill mine in the Coeur d’Alene area in 1885. Development of these areas led to the establishment of a multitude of 

mining districts in the State from which precious- and basemetal riches were extracted.

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972

The mineral production of the United States has been documented at a national scale by the U.S. Geological Survey (1880 

to 1923 and 1996 to present) and the U.S. Bureau of Mines 

(1924 to 1995) as well as at the regional level by many Federal 

and State agencies. This information has been invaluable in 

studies related to the mineral resources of the United States. 

The combination of mineral production information, inventories, and regional geologic data assists in assessment of mineral 

potential and in delineating permissible terranes for specific 

deposit types. The application of mineral resource assessment 

methodology aids in projecting the possible existence and 

amount of undiscovered resources. An example of how mineral 

production data or inventories can be used as a measure of 

mineral resource endowment for an area is demonstrated in an 

application of the unit regional value concept as developed by 

Griffiths (1978).

Unit Regional Value of the United States

Unit regional value is defined as the cumulative deflated 

value of mineral production summed over time and divided by 

the total area under consideration. If unit regional values are 

calculated for many regions, such as for States, frequency distributions can be constructed. Different regions can then be 

ranked using the mean and standard deviation intervals as calibration levels. For all fifty of the United States, the logarithm of 

the unit regional value is normally distributed (Griffiths, 1978). 

This lognormal distribution of unit regional value for the United 

States has been used by geoscientists as a reference background 

for estimating the resource potential of undeveloped areas (Griffiths and Singer, 1971). For our purposes, we use this distribution to evaluate how Idaho has performed in producing 

commodities as compared to the remaining States.

When evaluating the mineral resource potential of an area, 

it has been found that no area is completely deficient of 

resources (value) and that no area has as yet been completely 

depleted. Features pertinent to resource estimates include the 

inherent characteristics of the region and the amount produced. 

The inherent characteristics, or geologic processes, that affect a 

region determine whether any resource is present and how much 

resource is present. The amount produced from a region is 

somewhere between these upper and lower bounds and depends 

on acquired socioeconomic conditions. Reasons for which areas 

might under produce include socioeconomic factors such as 

inhospitable climate, lack of social or transportation infrastructure to facilitate the development of commodities, or lack of 

commitment by the administrators of areas to foster and encourage development. Reasons for an area to substantially overproduce include availability to consumer markets and a 

commitment to develop available resources.

Description of Production Data

The value of mineral resources is presented in this study as 

the total value of all mineral resources produced and subdivided 

by type into construction materials, fuels (energy resources), 

metals, nonmetals, and precious materials. Data used in this 

report to examine Idaho’s production history are from 1905 to 

1972 and represent aggregate figures reported in annual reports 

on the mineral resources of the United States by the U.S. Geological Survey for 1905–1923 and by the U.S. Bureau of Mines 

for 1924–1972. The reported values in current U.S. dollars were 

deflated, using the wholesale price index, to the index year 

1967=100 and then prorated against the unit area of the State as 

deflated dollars per square kilometer. In this way, the value of 

production is not linked to inflation, and the values of more 

recently produced commodities are not inflated relative to those 

on earlier produced commodities.

It has long been recognized, however, that no data set documenting mineral production for large areas can ever include all 

material that has been removed. Reasons for this include the 

lack of recorded production figures for earlier mines, nonreporting by producers during historical times, errors in recording or 

reporting, and the necessity to keep proprietary data confidential. Even so, patterns can be recognized from the production 

data and trends or relationships inferred.

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972

A comparison of the unit regional values (log 1967$ per 

square kilometer ) of total mineral production for the United 

States (1905–1972) is given in table 1 and is graphically represented in figure 2 (Griffiths, 1978). The three States having the 

highest unit regional values are Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and 

Louisiana, respectively, primarily due to the production of coal 

in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and the production of petroleum in Louisiana. Idaho, which has an area of 216,413 km2

and a U.S. 1967 dollar cumulative value of $5,043,425,237, has 

a unit regional value of 23,305 1967$/km2 or log 1967$/km2 of 

4.3674 (table 1), less than that for the entire 50 States (54,954 

1967$/km2) (fig. 2).

The total mineral production for each of the 50 States can 

be subdivided by commodity into five mineral resource sectors: 

construction materials, fuels, metals, nonmetals, and precious 

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972
4 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

Table 1. Mineral resources produced in the United States, by State, 1905-1972. 

[Dollar amounts have been deflected to the year 1967+100. See text for details. Compiled from Griffiths (1978)]

State Area (km2

) U.S. 1967 $ Unit Log unit

Cumulative value regional value regional value

($ km2

) (log $ km2)

 1. Alabama 133,667 11,364,654,696 35,022 4.9295

 2. Alaska 1,518,807 4,159,712,439 2,739 3.4376

 3. Arizona 295,024 20,226,896,247 68,560 4.8361

 4. Arkansas 137,539 6,846,569,453 49,779 4.6970

 5. California 411,015 69,588,956,609 169,310 5.2287

 6. Colorado 270,000 13,661,542,680 50,598 4.7041

 7. Connecticut 12,973 846,566,521 65,256 4.8146

 8. Delaware 5,328 78,242,951 14,685 4.1669

 9. Florida 151,670 6,041,796,133 39,835 4.6003

10. Georgia 152,489 3,856,850,945 25,293 4.4030

11. Hawaii 16,706 413,949,055 24,778 4.3941

12. Idaho 216,413 5,043,425,237 23,305 4.3674

13. Illinois 146,076 32,977,377,150 225,755 5.3536

14. Indiana 93,994 11,981,576,088 127,471 5.1054

15. Iowa 145,791 4,911,801,443 33,691 4.5275

16. Kansas 213,064 22,188,913,319 104,142 5.0176

17. Kentucky 104,623 26,656,799,509 254,789 5.4062

18. Louisiana 125,675 68,638,059,322 546,155 5.7373

19. Maine 86,027 795,879,843 9,251 3.9662

20. Maryland 27,394 2,919,086,001 106,559 5.0276

21. Massachusetts 21,386 1,682,779,875 78,686 4.8959

22. Michigan 150,779 21,162,013,569 140,351 5.1472

23. Minnesota 217,736 21,260,811,657 97,645 4.9896

24. Mississippi 123,584 5,087,395,097 41,165 4.6145

25. Missouri 180,487 10,950,507,277 60,672 4.7830

26. Montana 381,087 11,529,312,200 30,254 4.4808

27. Nebraska 200,147 2,054,957,876 10,267 4.0115

28. Nevada 286,299 5,412,366,685 18,904 4.2766

29. New Hampshire 24,097 326,037,480 13,530 4.1313

30. New Jersey 20,295 5,827,132,180 287,121 5.4581

31. New Mexico 315,155 19,525,019,399 61,962 4.7921

32. New York 128,402 13,071,024,164 101,798 5.0077

33. North Carolina 136,198 2,221,100,079 16,308 4.2124

34. North Dakota 183,022 1,840,790,854 10,058 4.0025

35. Ohio 106,765 27,559,379,943 258,131 5.4118

36. Oklahoma 181,090 43,439,516,951 239,878 5.3800

37. Oregon 251,181 1,883,975,995 7,500 3.8751

38. Pennsylvania 117,412 95,124,749,805 810,179 5.9086

39. Rhode Island 3,144 159,769,983 50,817 4.7060

40. South Carolina 80,432 1,136,734,422 14,133 4.1502

41. South Dakota 199,552 2,335,996,684 11,706 4.0684

42. Tennessee 109,412 7,185,553,577 65,674 4.8174

43. Texas 692,408 153,136,548,471 221,165 5.3447

44. Utah 219,932 16,723,514,007 76,039 4.8810

45. Vermont 24,887 1,540,295,865 61,892 4.7916

46. Virginia 105,716 9,620,203,531 91,000 4.9590

47. Washington 176,617 3,749,907,531 21,232 4.3240

48. West Virginia 62,629 49,442,930,947 789,457 5.8973

49. Wisconsin 145,439 3,330,256,338 22,898 4.3598

50. Wyoming 253,597 14,412,498,324 56,832 4.7546
5

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

628,058

185,780

54,954

16,255

4,806

1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1967 DOLLARS PER

SQUARE KILOMETER

DOLLARS LOG

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

Lousiana

New Jersey, Ohio

Kentucky, Oklahoma

Illinois, Texas

California

Michigan

Indiana

Maryland, Kansas, New York, Minnesota

Virginia, Alabama

Massachusetts, Utah, Arkansas

Connecticut, Tennessee, New Mexico, Vermont, Missouri

Wyoming, Colorado, Rhode Island

Arkansas

Mississippi, Florida

Iowa, Montana

Georgia, Hawaii

IDAHO, Wisconsin, Washington

Nevada

North Carolina

Delaware, South Carolina, New Hampshire

South Dakota

Nebraska, North Dakota

Maine

Oregon

Alaska 

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

1967 DOLLARS PER

SQUARE KILOMETER

DOLLARS LOG

h

m

3,162

1,000

10,000

100,000

31,622

316

h

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Massachusetts, Ohio

Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland

New York, Rhode Island, Michigan

Indiana, Illinois

Florida, North Carolina, Kansas, New Hampshire

California, Tennessee

Iowa, Missouri

Georgia, Alabama, Hawaii

Virginia, West Virginia

Kentucky, Wisconsin

Delaware, Colorado, South Carolina

Washington, Texas

Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota

Maine

Oregon, Oklahoma, Nebraska

Mississippi

South Dakota

Wyoming

Utah

Arizona, IDAHO

Nevada

New Mexico, Montana

North Dakota

Alaska

materials. Each of these resource sectors, in turn, consists of the 

contributing commodities as shown in table 2. For the illustrations showing unit regional values (figs. 3–7), if a State does not 

have reported production of a commodity in that resource sector, 

the State is not shown in the figure.

The States having the highest unit regional values for construction materials (fig. 3) are the same States that contain and 

(or) are proximal to the largest urban areas. It is no coincidence 

that the least populated States have the lowest unit regional values in construction materials. Although construction materials 

make some contribution to the mineral economy of Idaho, Idaho 

ranks low in unit regional values as compared to other States.

The high unit regional values for fuels in the United States 

(fig. 4) are dominated by petroleum- and coal-producing states. 

West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana are the highest 

ranked States for fuel unit regional values, and it is for this reason that they rank high in total mineral production. Idaho ranks 

only ahead of Vermont and New Hampshire for fuel production 

from producing States.

Figure 2. Diagram showing unit regional value of mineral resources 

by State in the United States (1905–1972, deflated U.S. dollar, 

1967=100). X, is mean value; values for first and second standard 

deviations are also shown.

Figure 3. Unit regional value (log 1967 dollars/ km2) for construction materials for the States of the United States (1905–

1972). m, medium; h, upper and lower quartiles. Modified from 

Walsh (1979).

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972
6 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

The unit regional values for metals in the United States are 

shown in figure 5. The top producing States of Minnesota and 

Michigan can attribute their metallic wealth to iron ore, and Arizona’s position is due to its copper production. Idaho ranks 

above the median due to its production of copper, lead, and zinc.

Nonmetal unit regional values are represented in figure 6. 

Idaho is very near the median of this lognormal distribution 

because it produced the expected value per unit area as compared to the other States. Nonmetallic commodities produced in 

Idaho include phosphate, clays, and garnet.

Unit regional values for precious materials of the United 

States are shown in figure 7. Idaho ranks very near the top of 

production of precious materials because of its production of 

large amounts of silver and gold.

In summary, a visual representation of the total unit 

regional value of mineral production by State (table 1) is shown 

as thousands of dollars per square mile in figure 8 (Griffiths, 

1978). Of interest are the three States (Pennsylvania, West 

Virginia, and Louisiana) having the highest value per unit area, 

whose positions are due primarily to their production of the 

Table 2. Standard commodities in each of the mineral resources sectors.

Construction Materials

Asbestos Mica

Cement Sand and gravel

Clays (construction) Stone

Diatomite Vermiculite

Gypsum

Fuels

Anthracite coal Natural gasoline

Asphalt Oil shale

Bituminous coal Peat

Lignite Petroleum

Liquid propane gas Uranium

Natural gas

Metals

Aluminum Manganese

Antimony Mercury

Arsenic Molybdenum

Beryllium Nickel

Bismuth Rare Earths

Cadmium Tantalum

Chrome Thorium

Cobalt Tin

Copper Titanium

Iron ore Tungsten

Lead Vanadium

Lithium Zinc

Magnetite Zirconium

Nonmetals

Aluminum silicates Magnesite

Barites Mineral paints

Borates Nitrates

Bromine Phosphates

Carbon dioxide Potassium salts

Clays (nonmetal) Pyrites

Corundum Salt

Feldspar Sand (nonmetal)

Fluorspar Soda

Garnet Sulfur

Gemstones Talc

Graphite Abrasives

Lime and limestone Calcareous marls

Precious Materials

Diamonds Platinum

Gold Silver
7

6

4

3

1967 DOLLARS PER

SQUARE KILOMETER

DOLLARS LOG

m

1,000

10 1

1 0

100 2

10,000

100,000 5

1,000,000

h

h

West Virginia

Pennsylvania

Louisiana

New Mexico, Mississippi, Missouri

Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky

Illinois

Ohio, California

Kansas, Indiana

Virginia, Wyoming, Alabama

Colorado

Tennessee, Michigan, Utah

New York

Iowa, North Dakota

Montana

Nebraska

Washington

Alaska

Florida

New Jersey

Maryland

Georgia, Arizona

South Dakota

North Carolina, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon

Nevada, Massachusetts

Minnesota

Wisconsin

IDAHO

Vermont

New Hampshire

4

3

1967 DOLLARS PER

SQUARE KILOMETER

DOLLARS LOG

m

1,000

1 0

10 1

100 2

10,000

100,000 5

h

h

Minnesota

Arizona, Michigan

New Jersey, Utah

Missouri

Arkansas

Wisconsin, Kansas

California, Virginia

Pennsylvania

Washington, Illinois

Vermont, Wyoming

Georgia

Florida, Alaska, North Carolina

Kentucky, Maine

Oregon

South Dakota

Texas, Maryland

New Hampshire

Ohio

Connecticut, Iowa

South Carolina

Montana

IDAHO, Tennessee

Alabama, Nevada, New York, New Mexico

Oklahoma, Colorado

West Virginia

Massachusetts

fossil fuels coal and petroleum. The State having the fourth 

highest unit regional value is New Jersey; its position is due in 

part to its proximity to a large metropolitan area and the production of needed construction materials. From the tables and figures presented here, it can be seen that Idaho is below the mean 

unit regional value for total State production in the United 

States; it has produced above the median unit regional values for 

metals and precious materials, close to the median unit regional 

value for nonmetals; and below the median unit regional value 

for construction materials and fuels.

Distribution of Mineral Production in Idaho,

1902–1951 

Description of Production Data

In the previous section, mineral production values for each 

State for the years 1905 to 1972 were aggregated, analyzed, and 

compared. In this section, we examine mineral production only 

in the State of Idaho, as reported to the Federal Government by 

Figure 4. Unit regional value (log 1967 dollars/ km2) for fuels 

for the States of the United States (1905–1972). m, medium; h, 

upper and lower quartiles. Modified from Walsh (1979).

Figure 5. Unit regional value (log 1967 dollars/ km2

) for 

metals for the States of the United States (1905–1972). m, 

medium; h, upper and lower quartiles. Modified from 

Walsh (1979).

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972
8 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

4

3

1967 DOLLARS PER

SQUARE KILOMETER

DOLLARS LOG

m

1,000

1 0

10 1

0.1 -1

100 2

10,000

100,000 5

h

h

Florida

Ohio, Louisiana

New York

Massachusetts, New Mexico, California

Texas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania

West Virginia, Illinois, Missouri

Virginia, Vermont, Michigan, Connecticut

Kansas, Alabama, Maryland

Arkansas, Kentucky

New Jersey, North Carolina, Wisconsin

Maine, Utah, IDAHO

Indiana, Georgia, Hawaii

South Carolina, New Hampshire

Arizona, Colorado, Rhode Island

Washington

Montana, Nebraska

Nevada, Oregon

Wyoming

Minnesota

Oklahoma

South Dakota, Iowa

Alaska, Delaware

North Dakota

-2

4

3

1967 DOLLARS PER

SQUARE KILOMETER

DOLLARS LOG

m

1,000

10 1

1 0

100 2

10,000

.01

0.1 -1

h

h

Colorado, South Dakota

California, Utah

Nevada, IDAHO

Arizona, Montana

Alaska, Oregon

Washington

New Mexico

North Carolina

Georgia

South Carolina

Michigan, Missouri

Virginia

Tennessee, Texas

Alabama

Vermont, Pennsylvania, Maryland

Wyoming

Maine

Illinois

New Hampshire

Kentucky

Massachusetts

Oklahoma

Arkansas

New York

Indiana

individual mine operators, for a 50-year period 1902–1951. This 

data set is more restricted than that used in the previous section 

because only five commodities are considered: gold and silver 

from the precious materials resource sector and copper, lead, and 

zinc from the metals resource sector. Information compiled for 

these commodities includes tonnage of ore mined, amount 

(ounces) of gold and silver produced, and amount (pounds) of 

copper, lead, and zinc produced. To minimize the confusion that 

could easily arise when attempting to document mines of small, 

questionable, and (or) undocumented production, only statistics 

from mines that reported production of 500 or more short tons 

(454,000 kg) of ore for a given year were included. Also, with 

respect to gold all reported production was from lode gold veins; 

no placer production was included.

For the 50-year production interval (1902-1951) used to 

examine the mineral production in Idaho, a file with almost 

2,600 records was constructed. Each record consists of county, 

mining district, mine name, year of production, tonnage of ore, 

gold (ounces), silver (ounces), copper (pounds), lead (pounds), 

and zinc (pounds). Those records that reflect multiple years of 

production for the same mine were aggregated into cumulative 

reported production for that mine. This aggregation resulted in 

approximately 450 mines having reported production of either 

gold, silver, copper, lead, or zinc or some combination of these 

commodities. Location data of latitude and longitude were then 

assigned to these mines using the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS), the U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Minerals Industry Location System (MILS), and the Idaho 

Figure 6. Unit regional value (log 1967 dollars/ km2) for 

nonmetals for the States of the United States (1905–

1972). m, medium; h, upper and lower quartiles. Modified 

from Walsh (1979). Figure 7. Unit regional value (log 1967 dollars/ 

km2

) for precious metals for the States of the United 

States (1905–1972). m, medium; h, upper and lower 

quartiles. Modified from Walsh (1979).
9

786

807

9

13

62 78

51

65

103

15

106 286

91

16

14

65

257

140

127

216

7 23

225

33

97

10

23 12

57

30

220

104 239 61

50

41

85

25

40

10

62

50

76 19

169

68

3

25

21

Bureau of Mines and Geology Mines and Prospects Map series. 

The number of individual mines for which production is 

reported and a location could be determined is approximately 

367, as shown in figure 9.

Distribution of Idaho Production by County

To evaluate the spatial distribution of production in the 

State of Idaho, reported production data were aggregated by 

individual county. The totals of Idaho production, by county, 

were determined by aggregating production from all mines 

within individual counties and summing reported tonnage, gold, 

silver, copper, lead, and zinc values. Plots or geographic areal 

histograms of these commodities, in which the height of each 

county reflects its relative contribution to production of the total 

State, were computed. A limitation to this data set is reflected in 

the way it was collected. Only mines that reported production of 

500 tons (545,000 kg) per year or more were considered. If production data from a mine for a given year(s) were not reported, 

no assumptions for missing data were put into the analysis. 

These total cumulative production figures of each county for 

each commodity were not divided by the size of the county (that 

is, normalized to square area), as was done in unit regional unit 

applications. It must also be noted that because of the dominance of some individual operators in a county, and the desire 

for this information to remain proprietary, amounts of county 

production remain in relative terms, and no absolute and real 

production figures are released.

Figure 8. Map showing value of mineral industries products in the United States, by State, 1905–1972 (thousands of dollars per square 

kilometer).

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972
10 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho Ada Adams Bannock Bear Lake Bingham Boise Bonner Bonneville Boundary Camas Canyon Caribou Cassia Elmore FranklinFremont Gem Gooding Jefferson Jerome Clearwater KootenaiLewis Nez Perce Shoshone Benewah Latah Lincoln Madison

Minidoka

Oneida

Owyhee

Payette

Power

Teton

Twin Falls

Idaho

Valley

Blaine

Butte

Custer Clark

Lemhi

Washington

117° 116° 115° 114° 113° 112° 111°

49°

48°

47°

46°

45°

44°

43°

42°

117° 116° 115° 114° 

49°

48°

47°

46°

45°

44°

43°

42°

Outline of Hailey1 ̊ x 2 ̊ Quadrangle

A

B

Figure 9. Maps showing 

A, Idaho county boundaries and 

B, mine locations having reported production of gold, silver, cooper, lead, and zinc, 190
11

Production from Shoshone County dwarfs production from 

other counties in all categories except lode gold (fig. 10). 

Because of this disproportionate amount of production from 

Shoshone County, contributions from other counties are muted 

and difficult to see. For this reason, county proportions of State 

production for each of the commodities in figures 11–16 are presented in two formats, the true scale, and a normalized scale. To 

observe the spatial distribution of production and possible 

patterns at a vertical scale that enhances the variation among 

these other counties, the value of the highest producing county 

(Shoshone County in every case except for lode gold) was set to 

the value of the second highest producing country for that variable (table 3). This procedure results in amplification of the 

remaining counties. 

Idaho’s cumulative ore tonnage produced by county from 

1902 to 1951 shows the dominance of Shoshone County (fig. 

Table 3. Relative production, from highest to lowest in Idaho, by county, tonnage, gold, silver, 

copper, lead, and zinc.

TONNAGE GOLD SILVER

Shoshone Valley Shoshone

Valley Elmore Blaine

Blaine Boise Owyhee

Custer Idaho Custer

Lemhi Owyhee Lemhi

Elmore Shoshone Bonner

Owyhee Lemhi Valley

Idaho Custer Boundary

Boise Blaine Elmore

Boundary Bonner Washington

Bonner Gem Boise

Butte Adams Idaho

Fremont Washington Butte

Gem Camas Fremont

Washington Ada Gem

Camas Cassia Camas

Ada Boundary Kootenai

Adams Clearwater Adams

Clearwater Butte Ada

Cassia Nez Perce Clark

Bingham Bingham Nez Perce

Nez Perce Fremont Clearwater

Kootenai Clark Cassia

Clark Kootenai Bingham

COPPER LEAD ZINC

Shoshone Shoshone Shoshone

Custer Blaine Blaine

Lemhi Lemhi Lemhi

Blaine Custer Custer

Washington Boundary Owyhee

Bonner Bonner Valley

Owyhee Fremont Butte

Valley Butte Boundary

Fremont Valley Bonner

Boundary Boise Adams

Idaho Owyhee Gem

Boise Clark Fremont

Butte Gem Bingham

Elmore Kootenai Ada

Camas Camas Nez Perce

Gem Idaho Boise

Adams Washington Clark

Clark Elmore Idaho

Ada Adams Cassia

Nez Perce Bingham Elmore

Bingham Cassia Kootenai

Clearwater Nez Perce Clearwater

Cassia Clearwater Camas

Kootenai Ada Washington

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972
12 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho PERCENT

COUNTIES COUNTIES

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

19

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A B

C D

E F

TONNAGE

SILVER

LEAD

LODE GOLD

COPPER

ZINC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Ada

Adams

Bingham

Blaine

Boise

Bonner

Boundary

Butte

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Camas

Cassia

Clark

Clearwater

Custer

Elmore

Fremont

Gem

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Idaho

Kootenai

Lemhi

Nez Perce

Owyhee

Shoshone

Valley

Washington

COUNTY

Figure 10. Graphs showing relative production by selected commodity for each county in Idaho with reported production, 1902–1951. A, 

percent of tonnage by county; B, percent of lode gold by county; C, percent of silver by county; D, percent of copper by county; E, percent of 

lead by county; and F, percent of zinc by county.
13

A

B

11), a pattern that will persists for all commodities discussed 

here except lode gold. If Shoshone County’s cumulative production is set to the value of the county having second highest 

ore tonnage, Valley County (table 3), enhanced variability in the 

counties can be observed (fig. 11). The relative order, from 

highest to lowest, of ore tonnage mined within each county 

related to amounts of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc produced is shown in table 3.

The distribution of gold production from lode deposits 

by county in Idaho from 1902 to 1951 is shown in figures 10 

and 12. In contrast to the metallic commodities mined, gold 

is more evenly distributed among counties and, the normalized county gold production does not significantly differ. 

Lode gold production is dominantly from the central part of 

the State.

Silver production in Idaho has been dominantly from Shoshone County (fig. 13). If the production from Shoshone County 

is reset to the amount of production from the much smaller second-leading silver-producing county in the state, Blaine County, 

the distribution of silver production from other counties is more 

apparent (fig. 13). Owyhee, Custer, and Lemhi Counties have 

also contributed to silver production, along with those other 

counties shown in figure10.

Copper production in Idaho has been dominated by two 

counties, Shoshone and Custer, as shown in figure 14. Even 

when normalized, other counties have contributed little to production.

Lead production has been dominated by Shoshone County 

(fig. 15). If normalized, Blaine, Lemhi, and Custer Counties 

also are contributors. 

Figure 11. Spatial histograms showing A, percent of tonnage by county in Idaho and B, normalized 

county tonnage described in text.

Mineral Production of Idaho, 1905–1972
14 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

A

B

As with most of the other commodities, zinc production has 

been mainly from Shoshone County (fig. 16). When normalized, 

Blaine and Lemhi are significant producers, along with those 

counties listed in table 3.

Historical Development of Selected

Mining Districts and Areas in the

Area of the Hailey Quadrangle

Many mining districts and areas, new and old, active and 

inactive, are in and around the Hailey 1°×2° quadrangle and the 

western part of the Idaho Falls 1°×2° quadrangle. These mining 

districts are discussed in greater detail in other chapters in this 

bulletin. In this section we introduce some of the important mining districts of the area, their locations, and a brief history indicating their significance and contribution to mining in Idaho. 

Much of the historical material in this section was extracted 

from Merle W. Wells’ (1983) “Gold camps and silver cities.” All 

districts and mining areas mentioned here are shown on figure 1.

Atlanta Mining Area

The Atlanta mining area is in rugged, mountainous country 

about 70 mi (112 km) northeast of Boise (fig. 1). It was founded 

by prospectors who discovered placer deposits on the Middle 

Fork of the Boise River. Additional placer discoveries, along 

the Yuba River south of Atlanta, drew attention to the area, and 

in 1864 two prospectors traced gold in Quartz Gulch to a goldsilver lode. The Buffalo mine was the result of this discovery.

The initial development of the Buffalo mine was made at 

about the time a mistaken report reached Idaho that Confederate 

General J.B. Hood had soundly defeated General W.T. Sherman 

during the battle of Atlanta. In a burst of patriotic enthusiasm, 

the southern sympathizers in the area named the new deposit at 

the head of Quartz Gulch the “Atlanta lode” (Wells, 1983).

The Atlanta lode, which is 40–120 ft (12–37 m) wide, can 

be traced for about 2 mi (3.2 km). As with many of the early 

lode discoveries, rich ores at the surface made the lode appear to 

be far better than it actually was. Newspapers contained exaggerated reports of the size and tenor of the lode, and prospectors 

swarmed to the discovery locality. Claims were established 

Figure 12. Spatial histograms showing A, lode gold produced by county in Idaho and B, normalized 

county tonnage described in text.
15

A

B

along the entire trace of the lode and on nearby veins, but the 

miners had to wait for capital investment to develop the mines 

and mills. 

Atlanta’s isolation proved, however, to be a barrier to 

development. High-grade ore was processed in primitive arastras constructed by the miners. An idea borrowed from the 

Mexicans via the early Spanish, arastras were circular 

rock-lined basins in which the ore was ground. Drag stones 

crushed the ore, and a horse, mule, or water power acted as the 

motive power. They were, unfortunately, painfully slow and 

inefficient, but they worked. In 1867 the first stamp mill, 

hauled in by mules over the Bald Mountain trail, started operation. Primitive and poorly equipped, it is estimated that more 

than 75 percent of the values were lost in this early milling 

operation; however, discoveries of new high-grade lodes served 

to keep excitement high. Some of the mines that opened during 

this period of exploration include the Monarch, Tahoma, 

Buffalo, and Last Chance.

In 1870, British interests wishing to recover their losses in 

the original Atlanta developments sent a mining engineer to look 

over the situation. High-grade ore samples convinced him that 

the Monarch mine looked better than anything he had seen at the 

Comstock lode in Nevada; however, in spite of the existence of 

high-grade ores, the Atlanta mines continued their up-and-down 

cycles due to the limited extent of the ore.

Expanded capital investment finally brought improved 

transportation and advanced mining and milling technology, the 

keys to profitable, large-scale production on the Atlanta lode.

For several years, mainly from 1878 to 1884, Atlanta 

showed considerable activity. Unfortunately for the operators, 

the cost of roasting and processing the Atlanta ore was so great 

that only the high-grade ores of the lode could be mined. Several noted mining engineers were called in to examine the ore, 

but, despite their efforts, a satisfactory method of milling the 

large bodies of lower grade rock could not be found.

About 1908, new amalgamation, concentration, and cyanidation plants were installed, and the mines were back in business. Again, the lower grade ores were the problem because 

they could not be processed at a profit. By 1912, the mines were 

again shut down.

Figure 13. Spatial histograms showing A, silver produced by county in Idaho, and B, county tonnage 

described in text.

Historical Development of Selected Mining Districts and Areas in the Area of the Hailey Quadrangle
16 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

A

B

In the 1900’s, the district went through a number of up-anddown cycles as deeper development encountered new orebodies. 

In 1929, the St. Joseph Lead Company acquired the Monarch 

and adjoining properties. Installing a modern amalgamation-flotation concentrator in 1931 proved that the value of the metals 

could be recovered from the refractory ore. From this point until 

1936, the Atlanta mining area was the leader in Idaho gold production. Deeper exploration of the Atlanta lode continued, but 

the results were disappointing. This exploration indicated that 

commercial ores of that time were confined to relatively shallow 

shoots extending only 400–800 ft (122–244 m) below the surface. Extensive exploration in the 1980’s revealed large reserves 

of low-grade gold ore in the Atlanta lode, and, in 1990, plans 

were being developed to mine these reserves by open-pit 

methods (Kiilsgaard, and Bacon, in press).

Rocky Bar Mining Area

Similar to most other early mining camps, the Rocky Bar 

mining area began as a placer camp. By the fall of 1863, 35 

companies, averaging one to five miners each, were making 

$12– $15 per man per day placering. At the census of 1863, the 

South Boise area (Rocky Bar and Atlanta) had a population of 

560, second only to that of the Boise Basin.

Prospecting eventually discovered lodes in the Rocky Bar 

area, including later producers such as the Elmore, the Confederate Star, the Ophir on Elk Creek, and the Boneparte on Cayuse 

Creek.

Extravagant promotion of the newly discovered gold and 

silver lodes began early. H.T.P. Comstock, of the celebrated 

Comstock Lode, came to Rocky Bar where he advertised 

Figure 14. Spatial histograms showing A, copper produced by county in Idaho and B, normalized 

county tonnage described in text.
17

A

B

another Comstock Lode. Promotion of the hard-rock mines and 

the introduction of working capital allowed the miners to 

develop underground workings and construct arastras to crush 

the ore.

The existence of similar mines in the Atlanta area and the 

difficulty in transporting equipment and supplies retarded development of the Rocky Bar mines. While an improved toll road 

was being built to alleviate this problem, arastras were used to 

process the ore; by the summer of 1864, the number of arastras 

had grown from 10 to 80 (Wells, 1983).

In 1865, milling with the more efficient stamp mills began 

on a large scale, but new stamp mills were not the complete 

answer to the production problem; high labor and transportation 

costs prevented the operators from milling other than high-grade 

ore. In addition, orebodies close to the surface were quickly 

exhausted, new orebodies were discovered but were too low in 

grade to pay expenses, and although some veins were continuous, the orebodies within them were not. 

As production from Rocky Bar mines continued to languish, the coming of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads, though distant from the Rocky Bar mines, improved 

transportation considerably. 

Beginning in 1870, production increased in the Rocky Bar 

area. The Bonaparte, Vishnu, Idaho, Eureka, and Wide West 

mines were all active. Once more, the climate in Idaho was 

favorable for extensive mining with discoveries on the upper 

Salmon and the adjacent Wood River brought new luster to the 

territory’s reputation for rich mineral production. The new 

boom in the Rocky Bar mines began around 1884 when English 

and New York investors began buying the larger properties. 

Convinced that a large-capacity mill would solve all of the problems, a group of English investors brought in a fifty-stamp mill. 

Large-scale operations brought down the costs of both extracting and milling, and, by 1887, mines were making a profit.

The bust came in March 1889, when rich ore at the Elmore 

mine was exhausted. Shafts were sunk and exploration 

Figure 15. Spatial histograms showing A, lead produced by county in Idaho and B, normalized 

county tonnage described in text.

Historical Development of Selected Mining Districts and Areas in the Area of the Hailey Quadrangle
18 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

A

B

operations continued for three years before company operators 

realized that the rich ores of the Rocky Bar area did not extend to 

depth. In 1892, fire swept through Rocky Bar destroying much 

of the town.

Boise Basin Mining Area

The Boise Basin mining area contains about 200 mi2 (518 

km2), and is located generally to the north and east of Boise 

(fig. 1). Discovery of the Boise Basin gold fields is credited to 

Moses Splawn and a friendly Indian, who told him where he 

had seen yellow metal in streams. Splawn gathered a party of 

men and in 1862 located what turned out to be one of the richest placer areas in the country. The local and regional newspapers soon spread the word , and, by 1863, an estimated 20,000 

men had arrived in the basin, and the towns of Pioneerville, 

Centerville, Placerville, and Idaho City were established. The 

major town, Idaho City, soon surpassed Portland, Ore. in population to become the largest community in the Pacific Northwest (Ballard, 1922).

The first mining was done by hand methods in the goldbearing gravels of the creek bottoms. There, most miners could 

anticipate making $8–$20 a day and a few claims returned 

$100–$200 per day. Water shortages plagued many of the 

placers, but those miners with enough energy to pack the gold to 

water could recover $50 a day using rockers during the short 

mining season (Wells, 1976). Some placers could be worked 

only during early spring months, using melt water from snow.

Placer mining was generally not a difficult operation. At 

first, it requires only relatively simple recovery devices and hard 

work. Lode mines, on the other hand, generally required a large 

Figure 16. Spatial histograms showing A, zinc produced by county in Idaho and B, normalized 

county tonnage described in text.
19

capital investment to employ miners and purchase supplies and 

equipment. In addition, large amounts of money had to be 

invested in a milling and amalgamating plant in remote, commonly almost inaccessible mountain wilderness.

Thousands of miners continued working the placers until 

the richer stream gravels were exhausted. In 1864, hydraulic 

mining, introduced from the California gold fields, started above 

the town of Placerville. The high gravels of the area were perfect for hydraulic mining because they were situated above the 

creek beds and generally on sloping hillsides so the tailings 

could be discharged into the creeks. Eighty miles (129 km) of 

ditches were dug in time for the 1863 placer season near Idaho 

City, which provided water for large production from the beginning of the operation (Metzger, 1938).

Unable to effectively mine the larger creeks in the district, 

the miners eventually turned to the bucket line dredge. The first 

dredge in the district, built near Placerville on Wolf Creek about 

1898, was a failure. Soon after, two dredges were built on 

Grimes Creek, in the vicinity of Centerville. These were 

successful and operated intermittently for about 7 years, shutting down only in the winter.

Intermittent placer production from the Boise Basin, 

mostly by dredging, continued until 1954. Production followed 

the same general pattern as that of other western placer-mining 

districts. The greatest annual output was during the years that 

followed the first discoveries of rich, virgin placers when hand 

methods were used. The total production from the Boise Basin 

has been estimated at about 2,819,000 ounces of gold (Kiilsgaard and Bacon, in press).

Quartzburg District

Early placer miners generally gave little thought to the lode 

deposits in the hills surrounding the placers. An exception was 

the development of the Quartzburg mining district, which is 

within the Boise Basin mining area. The main vein in this district, later known as the Gold Hill vein, was discovered in 1864 

by placer miners who worked their way to the rich quartz vein 

and located claims. News of the rich float and high-grade outcrops brought attention to the northwestern part of the Boise 

Basin, and additional mines were located and stamp mills built. 

With amalgamation as the principal recovery process, milling 

losses were high, but, even so, most of the mines were profitable.

Unlike the boom and bust cycles of many of the gold mines 

in the Idaho mining districts, the Gold Hill mine was worked 

almost continuously until 1938. Other important producers in 

the Quartzburg district were the Mountain Chief, Belshazzar, 

and Mayflower mines. 

Featherville District

The Featherville mining district is on the South Fork of the 

Boise River near the community of Featherville. Placer gold 

production from the district began in 1922, when a bucketline 

dredge was installed to mine gravels along the Boise River. 

Working until 1927, the dredge operations produced a total of 

32,777 ounces (929 kg) of gold.

Neal District

The Neal mining district is located along the ridge south of 

the south fork of the Boise River, about 15 mi (24 km) southeast 

of Boise. It covers an area of about 10 mi2 (26 km2), and the 

most productive veins are at the headwaters of Blacks and Wood 

Creeks. The Homestake and Hidden Treasure mines, discovered 

in 1889, have been the principal producers.

Little Wood River (Muldoon) District

The Little Wood River mining district is in Garfield Canyon 

and the canyon of Muldoon Creek in the Pioneer Mountains of 

eastern Blaine County. Little is known about the early mining 

history of the district. The Muldoon mine, discovered in 1881, 

was the only mine with any significant production, although the 

Mutual mine was actively exploited for a few years. The surface 

showings of the mineralized rocks were promising, bringing a 

large number of miners into the area to work at the Muldoon 

mine and other properties. By late 1882, there were two 40-ton 

(36,000 kg) smelters and a concentrator handling the ore.

In the early 1900’s, ambitious attempts were made to 

restart the mines but with little success. A major problem was 

the 26 mile (42 km) long wagon haul between Muldoon and the 

closest smelter. In all the mine produced ore valued at about 

$200,000, most of which came from silver in the lead ores 

(Anderson and Wagner, 1946).

Little Smokey and Rosetta Districts

Both the Little Smokey and Rosetta mining districts were 

discovered during the boom in lode mining in the early 1880’s. 

Mines in these districts flourished for awhile, but by 1900 they 

were almost entirely abandoned. Ore milling problems apparently contributed to their demise; although prior to closing, the 

mines ran up a respectable record of production for a relatively 

small district. The gross value of shipments to the Ketchum 

smelter is listed at about $1.2 million, half of which came from 

one mine, the Carrie Leonard. The ore consisted of mostly lead 

and zinc with very little gold (Ross, 1956).

Willow Creek District

The only recorded production from the Willow Creek mining district received by the Ketchum smelter is from the Gertie 

Riddle and Buttercup mines, which may have been one and the 

same mine. The Princess Blue Ribbon mine was developed during the mining boom of the 1880’s and reopened for unknown 

periods in 1915 and the 1930’s. It was reopened in 1986 as an 

open-pit mine supplying silver ore and some gold to a modern 

vat leach mill. The operator, Precious Metals Technology, 

Historical Development of Selected Mining Districts and Areas in the Area of the Hailey Quadrangle
20 Historical Perspective of the Mineral Production of Idaho, Hailey 1°×2° Quadrangle, Idaho

moved its mining operation to the old Camas mine in the Hailey 

gold belt within four years.

Wood River (Mineral Hill District) Mining Area

The Wood River mining area is in the drainage of the Big 

Wood River, extending from around Ketchum to the edge of the 

Snake River Plain south of Bellevue.

The first discovery in the region, a vein containing galena, 

was made in 1864 by W.P. Callahan while on his way from the 

Boise Basin to Montana. Problems with the Bannock Indians, as 

well as a greater interest in gold, slowed development of the area 

until 1878, but by 1880 hundreds of claims were located, and 

several towns had sprung up along the Big Wood River. 

Development of the area progressed rapidly, and by 1883 ore 

was being processed in four smelting plants where daily output 

was 50 tons (45,000 kg) of bullion. Between 20 and 30 mines 

operated successfully during this period, and prosperity reigned 

until 1887.

Around 1887, the known ore shoots began to be exhausted 

at a much more rapid rate than discoveries and silver prices 

dropped precipitously. The decline in production continued until 

the period from 1911 to 1921, when it increased as unknown or 

underdeveloped deposits were worked.

The Mineral Hill district of the Wood River mining area 

was predominantly a silver-lead district, although some gold was 

produced. In the early boom days of the Wood River region, 

most of the production was from the Mineral Hill district. Gross 

production from this district was considerably more than $16 

million. Discovery of the Minnie Moore mine in 1880 marked 

the beginning of the most prosperous period in the area.

Discovery of the Minnie Moore has been credited to a badger who brought fragments of galena ore to the surface of its diggings. The discoverer was thus able to locate an otherwise 

concealed orebody. Within three years of discovery of the ore 

fragments, the Minnie Moore shaft had been started. 

In 1884, when the Minnie Moore was sold to an English 

firm the mine had an estimated 3,700 tons (3,355,000 kg) of ore 

in sight averaging 100 ounces (2,835 g) of silver to the ton. 

After this ore was mined out, a lens of massive galena 90 ft (27 

m) long, 4 ft (4.3 m) thick, and 3 ft (0.9 m) thick at the ends was 

discovered. Net smelter returns from ore mined from this body 

were $1.4 million. Exploration and development continued, as 

the main shaft was extended to 500 ft (152 m) before the ore 

pinched out (Umpleby and others, 1930).

A “pinch and swell” situation, as described by the miners, 

was to plague the Minnie Moore and most other mines in the 

mining area. The problem was not that the orebody varied 

greatly in thickness, but that it was faulted off and the miners 

would run into a wall of barren rock. Relocating the displaced 

part of the vein was too expensive for many operators.

By 1886, all the ore in the Minnie Moore had been mined to 

a “pinch,” and operations were suspended. The property was 

later leased and the shaft was extended to the 900 ft (274 m) 

level where the orebody terminated against the Rockwell fault. 

Although, it was several years before the ore was located beyond 

the fault, but in 1902 ore was being shipped again. The 

discovery of more ore at the Minnie Moore in 1902 initiated 

another period of production that lasted for several years. I.E. 

Rockwell, the operator during this period, estimated smelter 

returns at $7,316,600. In 1905, however, a new termination, the 

Minnie fault, was encountered and from then on the story was 

one of repeated unsuccessful attempts to find more ore at the 

Minnie Moore.

Exploration of the Minnie Moore mine and the adjoining 

Queen of the Hills mine by Silver Star-Queens Mines, Inc., 

began in 1949. Although, this venture failed to find ore in the 

faulted projection of the Minnie Moore vein, significant orebodies were found in the Queen and Footwall veins of the Queen of 

the Hills mine. A new flotation mill designed to process the silver-lead-zinc ore was constructed to process the ore. About 

27,000 tons (24,489,000 kg) of ore, much of it averaging 14.6 

ounces of silver per ton (0.001 g/kg), 12.4 percent lead, and 7.95 

percent zinc was mined during the period 1952–1960. Mining 

and exploration at the property ceased during the 1960’s. The 

property continued to be idle as of 1990 (Kiilsgaard and Bacon, 

in press).

Warm Springs District

The Warm Springs mining district is located 12 mi (19 km) 

north of Hailey and contains three major mines, the Triumph, 

Independence, and North Star. The three mines are interconnected and share orebodies and history of development. 

Major operations began in the district at the Independence 

mine in 1883 and continued in until 1923, producing more than 

131,000 tons (118,817,000 kg) of ore. The mine was developed 

by extensive drifts and crosscuts on nine levels and was connected by means of raises to North Star workings above and to 

Triumph workings below. The Independence was shut down in 

1923 when the known orebodies had been practically exhausted. 

The histories of the North Star and Triumph mines are similar 

with decreased activity though the 1900s to closure by 1923.

The Triumph mine, reopened in 1927 and became the largest producer of base-metal ore in the district. A total of 

1,065,393 tons (966,311 mg) of ore was mined from the 

Triumph mine during the period 1936-1949. Production 

continued until 1957 when the orebodies were mined out, and 

the mine was idled.

References

Anderson, A.L., and Wagner, W.R., 1946, A geological reconnaissance in 

the Little Wood River (Muldoon) district, Blaine County, Idaho: 

Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology Pamphlet 75, 21 p.

Ballard, S.M., 1922, Geology and gold resources of Alturas quadrangle, 

Blaine County, Idaho: Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 

5, 35 p.

Ballard, S.M., 1924, Geology and gold resources of Boise Basin, Boise 

County, Idaho: Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 9, 103 p.

Gabert, G., 1978, The importance of mineral and energy inventories: 

Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology, 

v. 10, no. 5, p. 425–432.
21

Griffiths, J.C., 1978, Mineral resource assessment using the unit regional 

value concept: Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology, v. 10, no. 5, p. 441–472.

Griffiths, J.C., and Singer, D.A., 1971, Unit regional value of nonrenewable natural resources as a measure of potential for development of large regions: Geological Society of Australia, Special 

Publication 3, p. 227–237.

Kiilsgaard, T.H. and Bacon, L.D., in press, Geology and mineral deposits 

of the Atlanta Hill area, Idaho: U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

2064–Z.

Kiilsgaard, T.H., Fisher, F.S., and Bennett, E.H., 1987, Gold-silver deposits 

associated with the Trans-Challis fault system: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1857-B, p. B22–B44.

Koschmann, A.H., and Bergendahl, M.H., 1968, Principal gold producing 

districts of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 610, 283 p.

Metzger, O.H., 1938, Reconnaissance of placer mining in Boise County, 

Idaho: U.S. Bureau of Mines IC 7028, 34 p.

Ross, C.P., 1936, Mining districts of the State of Idaho: Idaho Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Map, scale 1:500,000.

Ross, C.P., 1956, Geology and ore deposits of the Seaform, Alder Creek, 

Little Smokey and Willow Creek Mining districts, Custer and Camas 

Counties, Idaho: Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology Pamphlet 33, 

26 p.

Ruppel, E.T., and Lopez, D.A., 1988, Regional geology and mineral deposits in and near the central part of the Lemhi range, Lemhi County, 

Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1480, 122 p.

Umpleby, J.B., Westgate, L.G., and Ross, C.P., 1930, Geology and ore 

deposits of the Wood River region, Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 814, 229 p.

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1924–33, Mineral resources of the United States: 

Washington, D.C., Department of Commerce, pagination varies.

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1933-74, Minerals yearbooks: Washington, D.C., 

Department of the Interior, pagination varies.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1880-1923, Mineral resources of the United 

States: U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C, pagination 

varies.

Walsh, D. A. 1979, An assessment of the mineral resources of the United 

Kingdom and Republic of Ireland: University Park, Pennsylvania 

State University, M.S. thesis, 134 p.

Wells, M. W., 1976, Idaho an illustrated history: Idaho State Historical 

Society, 250 p.

Wells, M. W., 1983, Gold camps & silver cities: Idaho Bureau of Mines 

and Geology Bulletin 22, 165 p.

References