U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Mining properties in Oregon that were involved in the DMA,

DMEA, or OME Mineral Exploration Programs, 1950-1974

By

Thor H. Kiilsgaard1

Open File Report 98-464

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for

conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or

with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of

trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes

only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

1998

1Spokane, Washington, 99201-1087
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................................1

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PROGRAMS...............................................................................................................2

DEFENSE MINERALS ADMINISTRATION (DMA) PROGRAM ...............................................................................................2

DEFENSE MINERALS EXPLORATION ADMINISTRATION (DMEA) PROGRAM .....................................................................4

MINERAL EXPLORATION UNDER PUBLIC LAW 85-701 .......................................................................................5

OFFICE OF MINERALS EXPLORATION (OME) PROGRAM ...................................................................................................6

FILING PRACTICES FOR DMA, DMEA, AND OME DATA .....................................................................................6

INFORMATION COMPILED UNDER THE DMA, DMEA, OR OME PROGRAMS ..............................................7

FIELD TEAM APPLICATION REPORT ....................................................................................................................................8

EXPLORATION CONTRACT..................................................................................................................................................9

Exploration contract operator’s reports.....................................................................................................................9

Monthly progress report.............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Final report.................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Field Team reports....................................................................................................................................................10

Interim report ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Final report................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

MINERAL EXPLORATION IN OREGON...................................................................................................................11

LOCATION OF COMPILED DMA, DMEA, AND OME DATA................................................................................13

ILLUSTRATION AND TABLE

PLATE 1. MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF MINING PROPERTIES IN OREGON THAT WERE

 INVOLVED IN THE DMA, DMEA, OR OME MINERAL EXPLORATION PROGRAMS.

 (PLATE NOT AVAILABLE IN A DIGITAL FORMAT)

TABLE 1. MINING PROPERTIES IN OREGON THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE DMA, DMEA, OR OME

MINERAL EXPLORATION PROGRAMS.....................................................................14
1

Mining Properties in Oregon that were involved in DMA,

DMEA, or OME Mineral Exploration Programs, 1950-1974

By

Thor H. Kiilsgaard1

Introduction

 This report and accompanying map (Plate 1) presents information

on the Defense Minerals Administration (DMA), Defense Minerals

Exploration Administration (DMEA), and Office of Minerals

Exploration (OME) mineral exploration programs in Oregon. Under

these programs, the federal government participated in the

exploration costs for certain strategic and critical minerals.

Federal funds for mineral exploration under the programs were

available from 1950 to 1974, although limited funds for OME

administrative work were continued until 1979.

 The report reviews the three programs, associated regulations,

administrative procedures, and operational techniques. It also

describes the various types of informative reports on individual

mining properties generated by the programs, lists properties in

Oregon that were involved in the different exploration programs,

and advises on the location of compiled information that resulted

from the work.

--------------------

1U.S. Geological Survey

904 W. Riverside

Spokane, Washington
2

Defense Production Act programs

 The Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 774, 81st

Congress) provided financial assistance to private enterprise for

the production of goods and services necessary for national

security. Title III, Section 302 of the Defense Production Act,

provided for encouragement of exploration, development, and mining

of critical and strategic metals and minerals. Under provisions of

the Act, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior,

established the Defense Minerals Administration, within the

department, by a Secretarial Order dated December 4, 1950. Along

with other duties, the Defense Minerals Administration was to serve

as a direct contracting agency for minerals exploration.

Defense Minerals Administration (DMA) program

 The DMA program was administered at national headquarters,

Department of the Interior building, Washington DC, by a small

group of senior mining engineers and geologists, recruited from the

minerals industry. These administrative men were widely

experienced in mineral exploration and mine development.

 The headquarters group developed guidelines, and administrative

procedures for the government-supported DMA minerals exploration

program. They prepared pamphlets that described the DMA program,

identified minerals classified as strategic and critical, and

advised on the percentages of exploration costs the government

would pay on exploration for the minerals. They developed

application forms for use in seeking federal financial assistance,

and contract forms for those cases where an application was

approved and a mineral exploration contract was negotiated between

the applicant and the federal government.

 DMA administrative officials relied on Field Teams composed of

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geologists and U.S. Bureau of Mines

(USBM) engineers for all field work. The United States was divided

into regions, with different USGS-USBM Field Teams responsible for

field investigations in the different regions. Regional

headquarters for Field Team work in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and

Washington was the U.S. Geological Survey Field Office in Spokane,

Washington.
3

application required description of the real property to be

involved, a description of the proposed exploration work, and an

estimate of expected costs. Information on geologic features of

the property to be explored also was required, along with

identification of the strategic mineral or minerals being sought,

and reasons for expecting the proposed work to result in a

significant discovery. Also required were maps or illustrations of

the prospective property that showed location of the proposed work

with respect to property boundaries, and to existing mine workings,

if any. Many applications contained supporting, unpublished

geologic or engineering reports. These reports commonly contained

maps or illustrations that showed location of known mineralized

bodies, estimates of the metal content of the known bodies, based

on sample analysis, projected or inferred parts of the mineralized

body or bodies that warranted further exploration, and other

descriptive information.

 Upon receipt of an application, DMA officials usually requested

that a field examination of the proposed exploration site be made

by the appropriate USGS-USBM Field Team, and that a report covering

the field examination be submitted to DMA headquarters. If the

field team application examination report indicated that proposed

exploratory work might result in a significant discovery, if

ownership or title to the prospective property was clear, and if

the proposed work appeared to be a reasonable way of exploring the

deposit, DMA usually entered into an exploration contract with the

applicant, who, thereafter, was identified as the contract

operator. The exploration contract specified work to be done, set

a time frame in which the work was to be completed, estimated the

total exploration costs of the project, and established the amount

of estimated costs to be paid by the government. Other pertinent

data also were included in the contract.

 The exploration contract obligated the contract operator to

certain responsibilities. These included submittal of monthly

progress reports, which were used by DMA officials to justify

payment of the government’s share of exploration costs for work

completed during the reporting period. A final report was required

upon completion of the exploration project. This report was

supposed to cover all aspects of the exploration project, including

accomplishments, costs, and findings. In the event that ore was

mined and sold from the obligated property, during the time the

exploration contract was in force, the contract operator was
4

obligated to repay the government for its share of the exploration

costs at a fixed percentage of funds derived from ore sold during

the reporting interval. In those instances where a significant

discovery was made by the exploration work and DMA officials

decided the exploration project had been successful, a Certificate

of Possible Production was issued to the contract operator. The

certificate specified royalty that was to be paid to the government

on mineral production from the obligated property. The obligated

royalty rate varied according to terms of the Certificate of

Possible Production but commonly was 5 percent of the net smelter

returns on processed ore. The obligating certificate pertained to

mine production from the property for a specified period of time,

commonly for 10 years from the date of the contract, or until the

government’s share of exploration costs was repaid, whichever

occurred first. If no discovery was made, repayment was not

required and the contract operator was notified that the government

had no lien on the obligated property. The contract operator was

not obligated to mine ore found by contract work, nor was the

government obligated to purchase mineralized material found by the

exploration work.

 DMA was a short-lived program that was terminated on November

20, 1951.

Defense Minerals Exploration Administration (DMEA) program

 The previously described DMA program was concerned with aspects

of the minerals field other than mineral exploration. These other

aspects included, serving as a claimant agency for materials and

facilities and as an advisory agency responsible for a minerals

supply expansion program. It also was concerned with an allocation

program for ores and concentrates in short supply. The various

aspects, other than mineral exploration, were transferred to the

Defense Materials Procurement Agency (DMPA), General Services

Administration, on November 20, 1951. As a means of continuing the

mineral exploration program started under DMA, the Secretary of the

Department of the Interior established the DMEA program within the

department, effective November 20, 1951.

 The DMEA program was confined to exploration for critical and

strategic minerals and was administrated by the same personnel who

had formerly administered the DMA program. It operated from the

same national headquarters site. DMEA program officials were
5

responsible for processing all exploration applications received

under the previous DMA program and for administrative work involved

in completion of exploration contracts started under the DMA

program. Some applications for exploration assistance, submitted

under the DMA program, subsequently were executed as DMEA

contracts. DMEA officials also issued Certificates of Possible

Production to DMA contract operators, if, in the opinion of the

administrative officials, mine production was likely to result from

a successful exploration project. In rare instances DMEA officials

issued a royally obligation that was similar to a Certificate of

Possible Production but which concerned a property on which no

significant discovery had been made. A typical instance for such an

obligation was where exploration work gave good indications of a

possible mineral discovery, which would benefit the obligated

property, but where the scheduled exploration was terminated by the

contract operator short of completion of work specified in the

contract. The DMEA program utilized the same USGS-USBM Field Team

arrangement, and operated more or less under the same regulations,

practices, and procedures established by DMA. It was a much more

extensive program than DMA and continued until 1958, when it was

terminated.

Mineral Exploration under Public Law 85-701

 Government-supported mineral exploration under the Defense

Production Act of 1950 was not considered justifiable in 1958, as

defense needs of mineral supplies were considered to have been met.

It was recognized, however, that there continued to be a need for

mineral raw materials to meet the expanding national economy. To

meet this need, Congress, on August 21, 1958, enacted Public Law

85-701, under which governmental financial assistance, on a

participating basis, was available to private industry for

stimulation of exploration for such raw materials as might be

designated by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

Under this law, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior

established the Office of Minerals Exploration program on September

11, 1958.
6

Office of Minerals Exploration (OME) program

 The OME program was similar to the previous DMA and DMEA

programs but more restrictive. It was operated under the same

Department of the Interior administrative offices and utilized the

same USGS-USBM Field Team arrangement as had the previous DMA and

DMEA programs. It adhered, more or less, to practices, regulations

and procedures that had been established under the two preceding

programs. One change in the OME program was allowance of

participating funds for the exploration of certain minerals and

metals, including gold and silver, that had not been eligible under

the two previous programs. Funds for the government-supported

mineral exploration program came from annual appropriations to the

Department of the Interior.

 To economize on costs, all administrative and operating

responsibilities of the OME program were transferred to the U.S.

Geological Survey in 1965. Thereafter, all field functions

previously handled by the USGS-USBM Field Team, were performed by

USGS personnel. Funds allocated to the USGS for participation in

OME mineral exploration projects were terminated in 1974, although

limited administrative funds continued to be received by the USGS

until 1979. These administrative funds covered costs of such work

as closing out existing exploration contracts, preparation of final

reports on completed contracts, and continued review and audit of

royalty funds received from the sale of ore mined from deposits

that had been discovered by the government-supported exploration

projects, and subsequently covered by a Certificate of Possible

Production, or which, by contract amendment, were obligated to

royalty payment. A change in regulations concerning acquisition of

federal assistance in financing exploration for mineral reserves in

the United States, its territories and possessions became effective

on January 19, 1993 (Federal Register, vol. 57, no. 243, December

17, 1992). The change in regulations terminated the OME program.

Filing practices for DMA, DMEA, and OME data

 Applications for financial assistance in mineral exploration

were sent either directly to National Headquarters, Department of

the Interior, Washington DC, or else to the USGS-USBM Field Team

headquarters of the region in which the property to be explored was

located. Applications received at a Field Team headquarters were
7

forwarded to the National Headquarters in Washington DC. At

National Headquarters, applications were filed under individual

docket numbers that subsequently were used by both National

Headquarters and the Field Team as a means of cataloguing and

identifying correspondence and documents related to the particular

application or to a resulting exploration contract. The national

headquarters file, in effect, became the master file for all

compiled information resulting from the application. Copies of

compiled information on applications and on exploration contracts

that resulted from the applications also commonly were filed at the

Field Team headquarters office in the region where the concerned

properties were located. For applications that concerned

properties in Oregon, the Field Team regional headquarters was at

the USGS field office in Spokane, Washington.

 After 1965, when OME activities were consolidated under the

USGS, OME applications were sent either to the OME office of the

USGS in Washington DC, or to regional field offices of the USGS in

Knoxville, Tennessee, Denver, Colorado, Menlo Park, California, or

Spokane, Washington, depending on the location of the applicant’s

property.

Information compiled under the DMA, DMEA, or OME programs

 A variety of technical information was generated by the DMA,

DMEA, and OME programs. Property and proposed work descriptions,

together with geologic and analytical information on the target to

be explored, were submitted with the initial application. Such

information commonly was accompanied by unpublished supporting

technical reports or production records on the property. Operators

of active exploration contracts were obligated by contract terms

to submit monthly progress reports that described work that had

been completed. Exploration contracts also obligated contract

operators to submit final reports on completed projects. These

final reports described exploration work that was done, costs,

problems, and findings. The USGS-USBM Field Team wrote application

reports that covered initial field investigation of the proposed

exploration project, interim reports that covered field

investigations of active exploration contracts, and final reports

that covered accomplishments and findings of completed contracts.

After administrative responsibilities for the OME program were
8

transmitted to the USGS in 1965, all reports formerly written by

the USGS-USBM Field Team were written by the USGS personnel.

Field team application report

 Applications for mineral exploration financial assistance on

properties in Oregon, once received at National Headquarters,

Department of the Interior, Washington DC, were transmitted to the

regional USGS office in Spokane, with the request that a Field Team

examination be made of the applicant’s property and proposed

exploration project, and that an application report on the

examination be prepared and submitted to the National Headquarters

office. The Field Team application report investigated all factors

concerned with the applicant’s proposal. Principal attention was

given to the geology of the exploration target and to whether the

proposed work had a reasonable chance of resulting in a significant

discovery. The applicant’s maps, illustrative material, and

reports were examined at the proposed project site. If the maps

were found to be inadequate, new maps or other illustrative

material were prepared by the Field Team. Samples of mineralized

structures were taken and assayed to check sample values reported

by the applicant. The location of proposed work, with respect to

existing mine workings and to mining claim or property boundaries

was examined as were documents pertaining to the applicants rights

to the prospective property. The type of proposed exploration

work, estimated costs, time schedule of proposed work, equipment to

be used, and operating experience of the applicant or the

applicant’s supervisor or representative were considered. The

proposed work was carefully studied to see if it presented the most

logical way of exploring the mineralized target. Modifications to

the proposed work often were discussed with the applicant and

commonly were adopted.

 The Field Team application report, in effect, evaluated the

applicant’s proposal and the geologic probability of the proposed

work resulting in a significant discovery. It provided a basis for

the national headquarters decision on whether to approve or deny an

application. For applications that subsequently were denied, the

application report commonly represented the best-documented source

of geologic information on the concerned property.
9

Exploration contract

 An approved application usually resulted in an exploration

contract between the federal government and the applicant. The

contract was designed to do the work proposed in the application,

or that of a modified exploration plan approved jointly by the

applicant and government officials. Under the contract, the

government agreed to participate in the costs of completed work on

a prorated basis and for a fixed amount. The percentage of

exploration costs to be paid by the government depended on the

principal metal to be explored. For example, the government paid

90 percent of the exploration costs at a uranium deposit but only

50 percent of the costs at a copper deposit. The contract

obligated the contract operator to prepare and submit certain

reports. The Field Team also prepared reports that dealt with the

exploratory work done by the contract operator.

Exploration contract operator’s reports

 Monthly progress report

 An exploration contract obligated the contract operator to

submit a monthly progress report that described exploration work

accomplished and costs that had been incurred during the reporting

period. Payment to the operator, for the government’s share of

exploration costs incurred during the reporting period, was based

on the monthly progress reports, which usually were brief and

factual. Occasionally, the operator would request an amendment to

the contract and would use the monthly progress report to justify

the request. For example, the exploration work might have

uncovered evidence that indicated proposed work in the target area

should be changed, in which case the contract operator would use

the monthly progress report, along with accompanying maps or

geologic illustrations to justify a requested contract amendment.

In such instances, the monthly progress report might constitute the

only documented information used to validate an amended change in

the exploration project.

 Final report

 An exploration contract stipulated that the contract operator

submit a final report upon completion of contract work. This

report reviewed exploration accomplishments, problems encountered,
10

findings, and costs. It usually contained maps and geologic

sketches to illustrate what had been done and found. In instances

where a significant mineral discovery was made, the report commonly

presented estimates of the tonnage and grade of ore reserves found.

Final reports on unsuccessful contracts usually were brief and non

informative.

Field Team reports

 Interim report

 Interim reports by the USGS-USBM Field Team, and, after 1965,

by the USGS, were based on routine field investigations of a

property being explored under an exploration contract. The

principal purpose of these investigations was to see that

exploration work was being done in conformance to contract

specifications. Some interim reports, particularly those that

described amended changes in contract specifications, often

contained assay information and sketches of the geologic findings.

 Final report

 A final report by the USGS-USBM Field Team, and, after 1965, by

the USGS, described and summarized accomplishments of the

exploration contract. The report reviewed the geologic setting of

the deposit, geologic structures that controlled the ore body, the

mineralogy, and alteration features of the deposit or associated

wallrock. It presented information on tonnage and grade of

discovered ore reserves, using the contract operator’s data, where

acceptable, otherwise it presented Field Team calculations, based

on contract findings. A final report included maps, sample and

assay data, and other supporting information. It discussed

geologic guides to ore, where they had been determined, and

described additional targets that warranted exploration, should the

exploration work have identified such targets. Maps showing

location of the completed work with respect to property boundaries

were included. The report included a description of completed

work, a summary of costs and a technical evaluation of the project.

It recommended a Certification of Possible Production when

appropriate, or noted the existence of an already declared royalty

obligation, should one have been declared previously. Also

discussed was whether the government should participate in the
11

funding of further exploration work at the property. The Field

Team final report was comprehensive and contained most of the

available compiled information on the explored deposit.

Mineral exploration in Oregon

 The location of mineralized properties in Oregon, for which

applications for DMA, DMEA, or OME mineral exploration assistance

were received, is shown on the enclosed map (Plate 1). Property

locations are shown by county, in appropriate townships, and in

approximate sections. Property names, geographic locations, and

other identifying information are presented in Table 1, the

information based largely on material available in USGS files at

Spokane, Washington, prior to 1996. Applications that presented

property location information that was too vague to be used and

where a field examination of the applicants property was not made

are not listed in Table 1 nor are the property locations shown on

Plate l.

 Applications that did not result in exploration contracts are

shown on the map by a set of open symbols that differ slightly from

the partly filled symbols that mark the sites of properties that

were explored under exploration contracts. Exploration contracts

that resulted in significant mineral discoveries, and for which

Certificates of Possible Production were issued, or which, because

of contract amendment stipulated royalty obligations on ore mined

from property delineated in the contract, are shown by similar

shaped but solid symbols. All symbols are keyed to the exploration

program under which the application was filed. A number near the

property symbol on the map keys the property to Table 1.

 Many property locations shown on the map are only approximate

and are based on indefinite information.

 Topographic maps of usable scale, and covering areas in Oregon in

which many applicant properties were located, were not available

when much of the government-supported exploration work was done.

For properties in such areas, USGS-USBM Field Team members commonly

used the applicant’s description of the property location. Such

location descriptions may have referred to a site as a certain

distance from a town or from road or stream junctions. As these

distances commonly were measured in miles, the map locations, in
12

terms of section, range, and township were indefinite. Accurate

location descriptions in mountainous parts of the Cascade Range

were especially difficult to obtain. Topographic maps of the USGS,

and maps of the U.S. Forest Service maps, available in 1998, have

helped in identification of property locations listed in Table 1

more accurately.

 Table 1 lists the docket number under which all material

pertaining to the exploration application was filed, the name of

the applicant, the property or claim name, strategic and critical

minerals of the property, and the location of the property by

section, township and range. The map number shown on the right

side of the table corresponds to the map number near the property

location shown by symbol on the map (Plate l).

 Table 1 shows that more than one application was filed on many

properties. In such instances, the property is identified on the

map by the symbol and number applicable to the initial application,

whether it was filed under the DMA, DMEA, or OME program. This is

for map clarification, for more than one symbol or map number at

the same site would be confusing. For properties on which more

than one application was filed, Table 1 lists the docket numbers,

information applicable to the successive applications, and, in the

status column, shows the status attained by the application. For

example, at such properties an application that was denied by the

government or withdrawn by an applicant is shown in the status

column as an Application, whereas an application that was approved

and for which a contract was negotiated is shown as a Contract.

Also, contracts under which a Certificate of Possible Production

was issued, or which for other reasons obligated the property to

repay the government for its share of funds spent on the

exploration contract are shown in the status column as Certified

Contracts.

 Successive applications on a single property resulted from

different reasons. The original application may have proposed an

exploration plan that was not acceptable to the government and

consequently was denied. The original application may have

classified the property as a lead-zinc deposit, when production

statistics and geological data showed the deposit to have been

worked primarily for gold and silver, metals that did not qualify

for federal financial assistance under the DMA and DMEA programs,

but did under the OME program. An application on a property may
13

have been denied, but the property then came under control by

different management, or under another organization, which

subsequently filed a revised application on the property that may

have led to an exploration contract. In another instance,

exploration under a DMA, DMEA, or OME contract may have indicated

another target on the same property that also warranted

exploration. This determination could have resulted in a separate

application and subsequent exploration contract.

Location of compiled DMA, DMEA, and OME data

 In 1998, compiled DMA, DMEA, and OME files, covering

government-supported mineral exploration work done in the United

States, were in archive storage at the USGS Field Office, Post

Office Building, 904 W. Riverside, Spokane, Washington. Prior to

1996, the Spokane files of the USGS contained only information

generated by the exploration programs in the states of Montana,

Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. By 1996, however, the National

Headquarters master files, which previously had been stored at the

National Records Center, Suitland, Maryland, had been transferred

to the USGS field office at Spokane, Washington, as had USGS files

on DMA, DMEA, and OME business that formerly had been stored at

Denver, Colorado, or at Herndon, Virginia.

 Information at the Spokane office, on properties involved in

the DMA, DMEA, or OME programs, can be made available, upon

request, provided the requesting person presents a letter from

the former contract operator, the property owner, the legal holder

of the property, or a representative authorized to act for owners

of the property, which authorizes release of the information.

With the letter of authorization on hand, reports, maps, or other

requested information is sent to a private reproduction firm, where

the requested material is reproduced at the expense of the

requesting individual. The reproduced material is sent to the

requesting individual and the original material is returned to the

USGS storage file.
14

Table 1--Mining properties in Oregon that were involved in the DMA, DMEA,

or OME mineral exploration programs

Docket No.—Operator Property—Commodity Location Map No. or

Status 

BAKER COUNTY 

DMEA-2786

East Eagle Mining Co.

East Eagle mine

(copper)

Sec. 32, T. 6 S., R. 44 E. 1

DMEA-3243

Jones, C. A.

Red Mound claim

(copper)

Sec. 29, T. 6 S., R. 48 E.

2

DMA-1484

Arthur, John

Argonaut mine

 (lead-zinc-copper)

Sec. 19, T. 8 S., R. 37 E. 3

OME-6597

Ramsey, Ramsey, and

Ramsey

Argonaut claims

 (gold-silver)

Sec. 19, T. 8 S., R. 37 E. Cert.

Contract

OME-6702

Omega Mines Ltd.

Bourne group

 (gold-silver)

Secs. 28, 29, and 32, T. 8 S., R. 37 E. 4

DMEA-4106

American Nickel Corp.

Nickel claims

(nickel)

Secs. 22 and 23, T.9 S., R. 36 E. 5

DMA-2081

Taylor, J. T.

Cliff Gold-Tungsten

mine

 (tungsten)

Sec. 32, T. 8 S., R. 41 E. 6

DMA-322

Ingerson, G. H.

Lucky Strike

 (Antimony)

Secs. 18 and 19, T. 9 S., R. 41 E. 7

DMEA-2487

Trickel and Johnson

San Luis claims

 (antimony)

Sec. 32, T. 9 S., R. 42 E. 8

DMEA-3189

Ketell Mining Corp.

Jewell Black

Manganese claims

 (manganese)

Secs. 12 and 13, T. 10 S, R. 41 E. 9

OME-6461

Pedro Mountain

Mining Co.

Silver Queen prospect

 (Silver-gold)

Sec. 1, T. 13 S., R. 42 E. 10

DMA-2014

Thompson, Ivan

Nickel Domes 1 and 2

(nickel-asbestos)

Sec. 34, T. 13 S., R. 43 E. 11

 CLACKAMAS COUNTY

OME-6086

Bartell, A. O.

Nisbet mine

(mercury)

Sec. 5, T. 6 S., R. 7 E. 12

COOS COUNTY 

OME-6149

Hays, H. E.

Galena property

(gold-silver)

Sec. 27, T. 32 S., R. 12 W. 24
15

DMEA-3308

Royer, G. C.

North Bend-Myrtle Pt.

(chromium)

Secs. 12 and 13, T. 33 S., R. 12 W.

 

 25

CROOK COUNTY 

DMEA-2628

Page, M.L. and

Page C. J.

Strickland Butte mine

(mercury)

Sec. 14, T. 13 S., R. 17 E. 13

DMEA-3499

Page, M.L. and

Page, C. J.

Strickland Butte mine

(mercury)

Sec. 14, T. 13 S., R. 17 E. Application

DMEA-3537

Pigmon, Owen

Endicott mine

(mercury)

Sec. 16, T. 14 S., R. 20 E. 14

DMEA-3938

Orion Expl. and Devel.

Co.

Log Cabin claims

(Amity mine)

(mercury)

Secs. 16 and 21, T. 14 S., R. 20 E. 15

DMEA-4428

Bellows, C. R.

Mother Lode mine

(mercury)

Secs. 20 and 29, T. 14 S., R. 20 E. 16

OME-6141

Pacific Minerals and

Chemical Co.

Mother lode-Cobar

group

(mercury)

Secs. 19, 20, 29,and 30, T. 14 S.,

R. 20 E.

17

OME-6456

Taylor, C. F.

Maury Mountain mine

mercury)

Secs. 10 and 15, T. 17 S., R. 19 E. 18

DMEA-4434

McManmon, John

Joe Dandy- Red IdolIndependence claims

(mercury)

Sec. 31, T. 17 S., R. 17 E. 19

DMEA-3617

Farmer, K.B., and

McManmon, John

Leeta and Doris claims

(mercury)

Secs. 5 and 6, T. 18 S., R. 17 E. 20

DMEA-3382

McManmon, John, and

Bayley, B. R.

Pinckney 1 and 2

claims

(mercury)

Sec. 8, T.18 S., R. 17 E. 21

DMA-2222

Pigmon, owen

Platner mine

(mercury)

Secs. 18 and 19, T. 18 S., R. 17 E. 22

DMEA-4757

Platner Mining Corp.

Platner mine

(mercury)

Secs. 18 and 19, T. 18 S., R. 17 E. Application

DMEA-4752

Amundson, A. D.

Mother Lode group

(mercury)

Secs. 30 and 31, T. 18 S., R. 17 E. 23

CURRY COUNTY 

OME-6533

4 H Group

Canyon Consol.

claims

(gold)

Sec. 21, T. 32 S., R. 13 W. 26
16

DMEA-3080

Thompson, S.

Agnes mining district

(nickel)

Secs. 32 and 33, T. 35 S., R. 12 W.

and Secs, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, T. 36 S.,

R. 12 W.

27

DMEA-3052

Assoc, Red Flats

Mining Group

Red Flats deposit

(nickel)

Secs. 18, 19, 20, 29, 31, and 32,

T. 37 S., R. 13 W., and secs. 13 and

24, T. 37 S., R. 14 W.

28

DMEA-3773

Assoc. Red Flats

Mining Group

Red Flats deposit

(nickel)

Secs. 18, 19, 29, 29, 31, and 32,

T. 37 S., R. 13 W., and secs. 13 and

24, T. 37 S., R. 14 W.

Application

DMEA-4774

Pacific Nickel Corp.

Red Flats claims

(nickel)

Secs. 18, 19, 20, 29, 31, and 32,

T. 37 S., R. 13 W., and secs. 13 and

24, T. 37 S., R. 14 W.

Application

DMEA-2413

Mount Emily Minerals

Corp.

Horseshoe and Blue

Grouse claims

(tungsten)

Sec. 16, T. 40 S., R. 12 W. 29

DOUGLAS COUNTY

DMEA-4953

Moneta Porcupine

Mines, Ltd.

Elkhead mine

(mercury)

Sec. 21, T. 23 S., R. 4 W. 30

DMEA-4413

Bonanza Oil and Mine

Corp.

Nonpareil mine

(mercury)

Sec. 3, T. 25 S., R. 5 W. 31

DMEA-2920

Bonanza Oil and Mine

Corp.

Bonanza mine

(mercury)

Sec. 16, T. 25 S., R. 4 W. 32

OME-6443

Industrial Minerals Inc.

Bonanza mine

(mercury)

Sec. 16, T. 25 S., R. 4 W. Application

DMEA-2953

Pacific Minerals, Inc.

Silver Peak mine

(copper)

Secs. 23, 26, and 27, T. 31 S.,

R. 6 W.

33

GRANT COUNTY

OME-6311

Calhoun, R., and

Howell, M.

Star et al., placer

claims

(gold)

Sec. 10, T. 8 S., R. 34 E. 34

DMA-1355

Amidon and Company

Tillicum adit

(copper)

Sec. 14, T. 8 S., R. 35 E. 35

OME-6790

 Sayko, Charlie

Portland Cons. mine

(silver)

Secs. 33 and 34, T. 9 S., R. 34 E., and

Secs. 3 and 4, T. 10 S., R. 34 E.

36

DMEA-3017

Thornton, L. E.

Thornton mine

(tungsten)

Sec. 11, T. 10 S., R. 34 E. 37
17

DMEA-2659

Johns Mansville Corp.

Stithem prospect

(asbestos)

Secs. 17, 18, 19, and 20, T. 11 S.,

 R. 34 E.

38

DMEA-5006

Prindle Mining Co.

Dixie Butte prospect

(cobalt)

Secs. 29 and 30, T. 11 S., R. 34 E. 39

OME-6834

Anderson, E.S.

Boulder Ridge claim

(silver-gold)

Sec. 4, T. 12 S., R. 34 E. 40

DMA-206

Summers, R. E.

Standard mine

(cobalt)

Secs. 1 and 12, T. 12 S., R. 33 E., and

Secs. 6 and 7, T. 12 S., R. 34 E.

41

DMEA-2553

Summers, R. E.

Standard mine

(cobalt)

Secs. 1 and 12, T. 12 S., R. 33 E., and

Secs. 6 and 7, T. 12 S., R. 34 E.

Application

DMA-681

Cobalt Gold Mines,

Inc.

Yankee Boy et al

claims

(cobalt-copper)

Secs. 1, 2, and 11, T. 12 S., R. 33 E. 42

DMEA-4823

Lake Enterprises, Inc.

Berry prospect

(nickel)

Sec. 34, T. 13 S., R. 32 E., and

Secs. 2 and 3, T. 14 S., R. 32 E.

43

DMEA-2349

Roba, L. H., and

Westfall, D.V.

Champion mine

(mercury)

Sec. 6, T. 16 S., R. 29 E. 44

HARNEY COUNTY 

DMEA-4760

Timber Beast Mining

Co.

Timber Beast prospect

(uranium)

Secs. 5 and 8, T. 34 S., R. 34 E. 45

DMEA-2347

 Crowder, C. L., and

 Buhler, F. G.

Farnham-Cooney prop.

(copper)

Sec. 8 , T. 40 S., R. 35 E. 46

JACKSON COUNTY

DMA-319

Mills, W. E. and

Tisson, H. C.

T and M. prospect

(antimony)

Sec. 11, T. 32 S., R. 1 W. 47

DMEA-1784

Mineral Mines, Inc.

War Eagle mine

(mercury)

Secs. 8 and 17, T. 34 S., R. 2 W 48

OME-6336

Murray, J. T.

Flora Belle prospect

(mercury)

Sec. 17, T. 34 S., R. 2 W. 49

OME-6355

Pierce, C.E. and

Chisholm, J. W.

Chisholm claims

(mercurymanganese)

Secs. 17 and 20, T. 34 S., R. 2 W. 50

OME-6313

Westwood and

Winkfield

Gold Plate claims

(gold-platinum)

Sec. 17, T. 35 S., R. 3 W. 51

DMEA-4723

Shaknis, H. and

Shaknis B.

Shaknis property

(uranium)

Sec. 25, T. 35 S., R. 3 W. 52
18

DMEA-4600

Converse, F. M.

Grand Cove prospect

(Call Of The Wild)

(copper)

Sec. 29, T. 35 S., R. 2 E. 53

DMEA-4011

Northwest Mining Co.

Lucky Strike-Planet

prospect

(tungsten)

Secs. 13 and 14, T. 37 S., R. 4 W 54

OME-6438

Ashland mine, Ltd.

Ashland mine

(gold-silver)

Secs. 6, and 7, T. 39 S., R. 1 E. and

Secs. 1 and 12, T. 39 S., R. 1 W.

55

OME-6753

AVCO Mines.

Ashland mine

(gold-silver)

Secs. 6 and 7, T. 39 S., R. 1 E., and

Secs. 1 and 12, T. 39 S., R. 1 W.

Application

OME-6780

Templeman, E. J.

Iron Hat prospect

(gold and silver)

Sec. 19, T. 39 S., R. 3 W. 56

DMEA-4574

Adams, A. D.

Stibnite 1 and 2 claims

(antimony)

Sec. 25, T. 40 S., R. 4 W. 57

JEFFERSON COUNTY 

0ME-6319

Oregon King Cons.

Mines

Oregon King mine

(silver-gold)

Sec. 25, T. 9 S., R. 16 E. and

Secs. 30 and 31, T. 9 S., R. 17 E.

58

OME-6835

Hominex Silver Mines

Roy claims

(silver)

Secs 30 and 31, T. 9 S., R. 17 E. 59

DMEA-4641

International Eng. and

Mining Co.

Axehandle mine

(mercury)

Secs. 34 and 35, T. 9 S., R. 17 E. 60

OME-6027

Oregon Cinnabar

Mines, Inc.

Big Muddy Cinnabar

prospect

(mercury)

Sec. 2, T. 10 S., R. 18 E., 61

OME-6772

Horse Heaven Mine

Horse Heaven West

property

(mercury)

Sec. 12, T. 10 S., R. 18 E. 62

JOSEPHINE COUNTY

OME-6842

Brass Ledge Mines Co.

Brass Ledge mine

(copper-gold)

Sec. 28, T. 34 S., R. 8 W. 63

OME-6421

Roslef Exploration

Josephine Lode claims

(gold-silver-copper)

Secs. 4 and 9, T. 35 S., R. 5 W. 64

OME-6044

Pruess, C. P.

Ida mine

(copper-gold)

Secs. 25 and 26, T. 35 S., R. 5 W. 65

DMEA-4465

Burgess J.F. and

Houser, R.J.

Blackbird 1, 2, and 3

claims

(chromium)

Sec. 34, T. 36 S., R. 9 W.

Sec. 3, T. 37 S., R. 9 W.

66

DMA-1907 Illinois River placer Secs. 28 and 29, T. 38 S., R. 8 W. 67
19

Handslip, E.R., Jr. (platinum)

OME-6754

Polk, R. and Polk R.

Siskron mine

(gold)

Secs. 1 and 12, T. 40 S., R. 7 W. 68

DMA-1534

Waite Minerals, Inc.

Queen of Bronze mine

(copper-gold)

Sec. 36, T. 40 S., R. 8 W. 69

OME-6157

Consolidated Min. Co.

Mint and Bullion

groups of claims

(gold)

Sec. 4, T. 41 S., R. 7 W. 70

DMEA-3185

Leep, G. and Royer

G.S.

No 1 Chrome Dome

property

(chromium)

Sec. 9, T. 41 S., R. 9 W. 71

LAKE COUNTY 

DMEA-3808

Nevada Scheelite Corp.

Glass Button property

(mercury)

Sec. 34, T. 23 S., R. 23 E. 72

DMEA-4718

Cascade Mining and

Mineral Co.

S and S Cascade group

of claims

(mercury)

Sec. 3, T. 24 S., R. 23 E. 73

DMEA-3819

McMammon, John,

McMammon, James,

and Farmer, K. B.

Fremont property

(mercury)

Secs. 34 and 35, T. 37 S., R. 16 E. 74

DMEA-4725

Oregon Drilling and

Min. Corp.

Marty K claims

(uranium)

Secs. 11 and 14, T.37 S., R. 18 E. 75

DMEA-4545

Rare Metals

Development Corp.

Digmore holdings

(mercury)

Sec. 12, T. 38 S., R. 20 E. 76

LANE COUNTY

DMEA-4263

Mercury and Chemicals

Corp.

Black Butte mine

(mercury)

Sec. 16, T. 23 S., R. 3 W. 77

OME-6111

Emerald Empire

Mining Co.

Musick mine

(lead-zinc-copper)

Secs. 10, 13, and 14, T. 23 S., R. 1 E. 78

LINN COUNTY

OME-6675

Fory-four Mine, Inc.

Fory-four prospect

(silver-gold-copper)

Sec. 34, T. 11 S., R. 4 E. 79

MALHUER COUNTY 

DMA-76

 Wise, Paul

Coyote claims

(antimony)

Sec. 36, T. 14 S., R. 40 E. 80
20

DMEA-4050

Riddle, A.K.

Jordan mine

(mercury)

Sec. 21, T. 17 S., R. 43 E. 81

DMEA-4440

Horner, Jack, et al.

Ontario and Pearl

groups of claims

(mercury)

Secs. 27, 28. 33, and 34, T. 18 S.,

R. 45 E.

82

DMEA-4290

Brandon, Ivan and

Brandon, Virginia

Brandon mining

claims

(mercury)

Sec. 6, T. 25 S., R. 43 E. 83

OME-6375

Graham, Frank

Cat Track prospect

(silver-bismuth-

 antimony)

Secs. 24 and 25, T. 23 S., R. 43 E. 84

DMEA-3778

U.S. Mercury Corp.

Bretz mine

(mercury)

Sec. 3, T. 41 S., R. 41 E. 85

MARION COUNTY

DMEA-2372

Crown Mining and

Milling Co.

Crown mine

(copper)

Sec. 33, T. 8 S., R. 4 E. 86