USGS-Central Region

US Map

National Overview of Abandoned Mine Land Sites
Utilizing the Minerals Availability System (MAS)
and Geographic Information System (GIS) Technology

By

David A. Ferderer
U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 96-549

1996

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.


CONTENTS
 INTRODUCTION
 STUDY APPROACH
 Overview
 Geographic Information System Technology
 Data Layers
 Data Formatting and Preprocessing
 Data Processing and Analysis
 Screening Methodology and Tabular Results
 Graphic Results and Map Descriptions
 Watershed Priority Assessment
 Population Priority Assessment
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 APPENDIX

 

TABLES

Table 1--Projection parameters for data layer registration and georeferencing.

Table 2--General description of the distribution of sites in the Minerals Availability System (MAS) database, April 1995.

Table 3--Summary of energy and industrial commodity sites in the Minerals Availability System (MAS) database, April 1995.

Table 4--Summary of hardrock commodity Minerals Availability System (MAS) sites, April 1995.

Table 5--Summary of past-producer hardrock commodity Minerals Availability System (MAS) sites, April 1995.

Table 6--Past-producer hardrock commodity sites by state. Compiled at 1:2,000,000 scale resolution.

Table 7a--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Federal and Non-federal lands. Watersheds containing greater than 300 past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites.

Table 7b--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Federal and Non-federal lands. Watersheds containing between 200 and 300 past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites.

Table 8a--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Federal lands. Watersheds containing greater than 300 past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites.

Table 8b--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Federal lands. Watersheds containing between 200 and 300 past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites.

Table 9a--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Department of the Interior lands. Watersheds containing greater than 300 past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites.

Table 9b--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Department of the Interior lands. Watersheds containing between 200 and 300 past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites.

Table 9c--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Department of the Interior lands. Watersheds containing between 100 and 200 past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites.

Table 10a--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites and population. HUC with past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites greater than 100 and population greater than 250,000 people.

Table 10b--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites and population. HUC with past-producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites greater than 100 and population greater than 100,000 and less than 250,000 people.

 

FIGURES

Figures show the distribution and analysis of abandoned mines (MAS/MILS), Federal surface ownership, watersheds, and population for the contiguous United States.

Figure 1--MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 2--Hardrock commodity MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 3--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 4--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Federal lands in the contiguous United States

Figure 5--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Department of the Interior lands

Figure 6--Federal surface ownership and MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 7--Federal surface ownership and hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 8--Federal surface ownership and past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 9--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Federal lands in the contiguous United States

Figure 10--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Department of the Interior lands in the contiguous United States

Figure 11--Watershed priority assessment based on past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 12--Watershed priority assessment based on past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Federal lands in the contiguous United States

Figure 13--Watershed priority assessment based on past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Department of the Interior lands in the contiguous United States

Figure 14--Population per watershed compared to past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 15--Population density per watershed compared to past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 16--Watershed priority assessment based on population and past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

APPENDIX

Metadata documentation for digital GIS coverages.


INTRODUCTION

 There is a growing concern and increasing consensus that abandoned mine lands (AML) pose a potential threat to the public health and environmental quality of the Nation. This concern is further complicated by a lack of agreement by land managers and public policy-makers on the dimension and scale of the abandoned mine land problem. Historically, most responses and efforts addressing abandoned mines have involved very site specific or localized studies requiring investment of large financial and human resources to complete. While locally valuable and essential in AML remediation and cleanup, these studies are expensive and give little indication of the dimension, scale, and priority at the National level. Additionally, as resources and budgets become more constrained, a new approach will be required to help planners and land managers allocate limited resources to the most serious environmental and public health priority areas.

As the steward for a large portion of the Federal land estate, the Department of the Interior (DOI), through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and former U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM), have expended considerable effort to compile comprehensive national-scale mineral and natural resource databases. These databases, combined with scientific expertise and recent advances in spatial analysis technology, empower the USGS to address the abandoned mine land issue, facilitate information flow to land use and environmental decision-makers, and provide analysis and support in the remediation of AML sites.

This paper presents an alternative methodology to the costly site-specific inventorying of abandoned mines lands. It will demonstrate the capability of geographic information systems (GIS) technology to locate, identify, and screen mineral sites for abandoned mine land and other environmental issues; illustrate a cost-effective use of existing USGS databases to assist land managers and policy-makers; provide national-scale watershed and population comparisons allowing prioritization of AML areas; and create an overview and framework for more specific statewide and localized watershed AML initiatives. (Return to Contents)

STUDY APPROACH

Overview

 The approach utilized in this study combines the power of Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) GIS software, existing minerals databases, and an intuitive method of screening minerals data to locate areas or regions where significant mineral-related and mining activities have occurred. The technology combines this information with other digital layers to help prioritize sites on a National basis. Significant is a relative term, and is defined here as mines or sites that contain hardrock commodities as the primary commodity, and sites with evidence of past production. Intuitively, these locations, because of human activity and workings, are more likely to contain exposed physical and chemical hazards. Ultimately, they have elevated potential to affect the public health and environment. Special emphasis will be placed on these sites as they relate to Department of the Interior lands, watersheds, and populated regions.

The U.S. Geological Survey possesses numerous tabular and digital databases. With GIS technology, and through spatial processing, the information can be queried and results graphically displayed. This capability allows for rapid comparison and analysis of the spatial relationships between disparate datasets and provides a means for land managers to locate, identify, and prioritize abandoned mine land areas.

Some of the mineral databases existing within the USGS include: the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS), Rock Analysis Storage System (RASS), National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program, and the recently acquired Minerals Availability System (MAS). The focus of this report will be limited to the Minerals Availability System database.

The national-scale overview takes a practical approach to scoping the abandoned mine land issue. Analysis and statistics will be presented in both tabular and graphic formats which provide an effective way to characterize the AML issue. The analysis is dynamic and ongoing and is not intended to be comprehensive at this time. The results provide a "first look" at AML sites and are heavily dependent upon spatial resolution of the digital inputs and the accuracy and timeliness of the data. Refinement of the analysis will be accomplished by the inclusion of finer resolution datasets, other minerals and environmental databases, and incorporation of ongoing statewide and watershed-level inventories and expertise. (Return to Contents)

Geographic Information System Technology

 A major tool utilized to evaluate abandoned mine lands is geographic information systems (GIS). GIS is an integrated system of data, computer hardware, and software capable of storing, organizing, and integrating spatial information. GIS is ideal for processing, manipulating, and analyzing large, often cumbersome, tabular databases and relating this information to the surface of the earth. Its strength lies in the capability to quickly, easily, and accurately describe, characterize, and display spatial relationships to facilitate informed decision-making.

The GIS hardware and software used in this study included a UNIX-based Sun Sparcstation 2 workstation and peripherals and ESRI's Arc/Info version 6.1.1 software. The map products were created in ARC/INFO and plotted on a Hewlett Packard HP650C inkjet plotting system.

A critical component of GIS analysis is data. Efforts should focus on identifying and collecting existing digital data where ever possible. This step is essential as the time, effort, and cost of data generation can be prohibitive. With data clearinghouses and wide use of the internet, the need to generate new data can be minimized. Data availability combined with data resolution often dictate the application and type of analysis attempted. This analysis was completed at 1:2,000,000 scale resolution and fortunately, the majority of datasets needed existed previously. (Return to Contents)

Data Layers

 A basic and essential input into a GIS is the coverage. Coverages represent themes or layers of information which form automated maps of points, lines, or polygons. Themes are mathematically linked into real-world coordinates systems and usually contain similar or related descriptive attributes. Typical examples include vegetation, hydrology, topography, and ownership.

The major coverages used for this AML characterization include: mineral and mine site locations, Federal surface ownership, watershed or hydrologic unit code (HUC) boundaries, population (census) information, and national, state, and county boundaries. Each of the layers is described below. For additional information regarding the metadata (data about data) please see Appendix.

Mineral Locations

The mineral layer used in the analysis is the former U.S. Bureau of Mines' Mineral Availability System (MAS) database. MAS was created in the mid 1970's and is an automated tabular database for storage and retrieval of worldwide site-specific minerals information. It contains both proprietary and nonproprietary information and over 35 tables of attributes relating to location, extraction technology, economics, and availability. It is one of the most comprehensive national-scale minerals databases available and contains location data on over 220,000 (April 1995) sites worldwide of which 209,000 are domestic sites.

Of particular interest is the Minerals Industry Locations System (MILS) table. MILS is a non-proprietary subset of the MAS database and contains data on location, type of operation, and status on all 220,000 locations. When combined with primary commodity information from the MAS COMMODITY table, it forms the foundation for the AML screening methodology. Each MILS site has a unique sequence number which corresponds to Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) codes and is used to relate to other MAS tables. This relationship is essential for GIS integration and relational database structure. Locational reference is provided in degrees, minutes, and seconds (DMS) which are converted to decimal degrees for point generation. Since MILS is a subset of MAS, the term MAS/MILS frequently seen in graphics and tables, is understood to represent the MILS table.

Federal Ownership

A surface ownership layer called FEDLANDS was used to analyze the distribution on mine sites on Federal acreage. The layer consists of boundary information for the lower 48 states and has Federal agency designations. The major ownership categories include: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Department of Defense (DOD). The surface ownership layer originated in the USGS National Mapping Division and has an effective resolution of 1:2,000,000 scale (1000 meters). The layer is vital for determination of Federal management responsibility and useful for Department of the Interior AML scoping and planning exercises.

Watershed Boundaries

A watershed layer called HUC2M was utilized to view the location of mineral sites in a watershed. HUC stands for hydrologic unit code and represents individual watershed boundaries across the country. HUC codes are assigned to watersheds and respective subunits as part of a hierarchical naming convention described in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 878-A (USGS, 1982). The watershed layer encompasses the lower 48 states and was compiled in 1991 by the USGS Water Resources Division. It has an effective resolution of 1:2,000,000 (1000 meters).

Watersheds are common management and analysis units prevalent in many AML studies. This analysis incorporates and displays some results at the watershed level to provide consistency and utility to other watershed-based studies. At the time of this report, a finer resolution watershed coverage at 1:250,000 resolution has been completed for the Nation and will be incorporated in future statistical analysis and report updates.

Population Information

A critical layer for AML prioritization is the population layer. Studies of environmental and land use issues increase in value and become more effective when directly related to people and population centers. The population layer used was POP_100K. It was created by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Census and reflects 1990 census data. It contains over 523,000 point locations representing the centroids of census tracts. Original scale of compilation was 1:100,000 and the data was obtained and formatted by the USGS Branch of Resource Analysis.

National, State, and County Boundaries

Basic cartographic boundary information is necessary for locational reference and effective display of a distribution or an analysis. The USGS Branch of Resource Analysis provided the COUNTY2M coverage from which boundary layers were derived. The national, state, and county layers were created in 1991 by the USGS Water Resources Division and have an effective resolution 1:2,000,000 (1000 meters). (Return to Contents)

Data Formatting and Preprocessing

 After the data is obtained, preprocessing and formatting are required to complete GIS overlay and analysis. Such was the case for the Minerals Availability System.

Generic Structured Query Language (SQL) statements were designed to extract MILS and COMMODITY table information from the MAS database. The resulting comma delimited ASCII files and associated attributes were transferred to ARC/INFO for additional editing and processing. UNIX system editors were employed to manipulate the unique-id (sequence number), longitude, and latitude fields into a generate format. The ARC/INFO GENERATE command with POINT option was used to create a digital layer of mineral sites with the sequence number of each MILS point becoming a "relate item" for attribute link-up. The point attributes were merged to the mineral locations using the ARC/INFO JOINITEM command. Topology (spatial connectivity) between the points was established using the BUILD command with POINT option, resulting in a useable coverage for analysis.

Another preprocessing step involved CLIPPING the MAS/MILS mineral layer with the national boundary of the United States. This cookie-cutter procedure ensured the removal of extraneous points, including some questionable locations, and created a linkage of mineral sites to the land mass. In other words, clipping confirmed that mineral locations would be within the boundary of the United States rather than offshore or in Canada or Mexico.

The other layers, HUC2M, FEDLANDS, POP_100K, and COUNTY2M, while existing, had to be procured and evaluated for consistency and compatibility with the minerals layer. Processing of these layers required coordinate transformation or projection to the same geographic reference system as the MAS/MILS data layer. The resulting coverages were put into an Albers Equal Area Projection (Table 1).

Table 1--Projection parameters for data layer registration and georeferencing. (Return to Contents)

 Parameters

 Values

 Projection Name  Albers Equal Area
 Units  Meter
 Datum  NAD27
 1st Standard Parallel  29 30 00
 2nd Standard Parallel  45 30 00
 Central Meridian  -96 00 00
 Latitude of Origin  23 00 00
 False Easting  0.0
 False Northing  0.0

Data Processing and Analysis

 After georeferencing, the coverages are ready for overlay and analysis. Overlay and analysis is accomplished through a series of digital unions, intersects, and statistical summaries. ARC/INFO mathematically overlays the layers and transfers attributes of one data layer to the attribute table of another. The unions create additional query capability and are fundamental in the prioritization scenarios shown in the watershed and population analysis. Typical commands for these processes include UNION, MAPJOIN, INTERSECT, and IDENTITY. UNIONS are more appropriate for polygon coverages while IDENTITY is used for point coverages such as the MAS/MILS and population layers

A number of analytical layers were created. First, an IDENTITY was performed intersecting the MAS/MILS point location file with the FEDLANDS polygon file. This resulted in a MAS/MILS point coverage with Federal surface ownership information. The minerals layer was subsequently joined to the watershed coverage, resulting in MAS/MILS point locations containing HUC codes. The STATISTICS command was run to compile the number of mineral sites per watershed and mineral locations per Federal ownership category.

A similar process was done for the population and watershed layers. An IDENTITY was performed linking population information to the watershed layer creating population attributes with HUC codes. Again the STATISTICS command was initiated to summarize population per watershed. Both minerals and population statistics values were RELATED by the HUC code and joined to the watershed coverage. These steps resulted in a watershed-based coverage with attributes about minerals, Federal ownership, and population. The watershed coverage was, quickly and easily, converted to a format capable of identifying mineral, population, ownership, and HUC relationships. A similar sequence will be repeated for additional layers as they become available, resulting in an immense capability to explore other prioritization scenarios and abandoned mine land relationships. (Return to Contents)

Screening Methodology and Tabular Results

 The next major step involved screening the digital minerals layer to identify a subset of priority or significant mineral sites for further detailed analysis. Intuitive criteria were selected to define potentially hazardous sites which are summarized in subsequent tables and maps. The intuitive criteria include:

1) Analyze Federal ownership in the lower 48 states with an emphasis on Department of the Interior agencies and lands.

2) Evaluate hardrock commodities sites which may have higher potential for negative chemical impact on the environment.

3) Focus on sites with evidence of past production, assuming these areas have larger dimensions, more unreclaimed features, and a likelihood of more physical and chemical hazards.

Federal Ownership

At the time of this analysis, surface ownership information was located and obtained for all of the states except Alaska and Hawaii. This prevented a detailed AML analysis for these two states. Unless otherwise stated, the statistics and graphical displays presented, will not reflect their contribution. This exclusion reduced the number of MAS/MILS sites investigated from 209,000 to approximately 202,000 (Table 2). Moreover, the surface ownership layers for Alaska and Hawaii, are probably now available and will be included in future analysis.

Table 2 shows a general breakout and description of the MAS/MILS database. Although, resolution dependent, roughly half (49%) of the total sites in MAS/MILS represent nonfederal ownership categories. Federal ownership is present in 46% of the sites in the lower 48 states. Additional Federal ownership statistics and summaries will be displayed in ensuing graphics and tables. (Return to Contents)

Table 2--General description of the Minerals Availability System (MAS) database, April 1995. Numbers are rounded to nearest thousand. (Return to Contents)

 General MAS/MILS Description

 MAS/MILS Sites (000's)

 Worldwide Properties

 220

 Domestic Properties (50 States)

 209

 Domestic Properties (Lower 48 States)

 202

 Nonfederal Properties (Lower 48 States)

 109

 Federal Properties (Lower 48 States)

  93

Hardrock Commodities

 Although there can be chemical and physical hazards associated with industrial (sand and gravel) and energy-related (petroleum) deposits, the strength of the MAS/MILS database continues to be base and precious, metallic hardrock mineral information. Hardrock commodities such as gold, lead, zinc, copper, and chromium and others have always been emphasized in MAS/MILS. These commodities, combined with their associated rock types and deposit characteristics, may have more potential to generate environmental hazards.

Another group of hardrock mineral commodities included in the analysis are uranium and phosphate. These commodities are included, because in the case of uranium, there is potential to generate radionuclide hazards, and phosphate is considered a bedded hardrock deposit.

As mentioned previously, the industrial and energy-related MAS/MILS locations were subtracted from the hardrock analysis pool. The excluded commodities are: coal, oil and gas, geothermal sites, sand, gravel, stone, clay, abrasives, silicon, perlite, and pumice (Table 3). Exclusion of these commodities reduced the analysis from 202,000 sites in the lower 48 states to approximately 116,000 sites. Sand, gravel, stone and coal account for the approximately 86% of the exclusions.

Another feature of note occurred while processing the MAS/MILS database for hardrock commodities. The database had nearly 10,000 sites with a null, void, or unpopulated primary commodity field. Because no determination on hardrock commodity status could be made, these sites were removed from the analysis further reducing the pool of known hardrock sites to 106,000 (Table 4).

Table 3--GIS screen for energy and industrial commodity (excluded) sites in the Minerals Availability System (MAS) database, April 1995. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. (Return to Contents)

 Commodity Exclusion Screen

 MAS/MILS Sites (000's)

 Sand & Gravel

 37

 Stone

 20

 Coal

 18

 Clay

  8

 Geothermal

  2

 Pumice

  1

 Silicon

1

 Perlite

 <1

 Oil & Gas

 <1

 Abrasives

 <1

 Unknown, Null Commodity

 10

Table 4--GIS screen for hardrock Minerals Availability System (MAS) sites, April 1995. Numbers rounded to nearest thousand. (Return to Contents)

 Hardrock Screen (Lower 48 States)

 MAS/MILS Sites (000's)

 Domestic Properties

 202

 Hardrock Properties

 106

 Federal Hardrock Properties

 69

 Nonfederal Hardrock Properties

 37

 DOI Hardrock Properties

 36

 Non-DOI Federal Hardrock
Properties

 33

MAS/MILS contains information on 202,000 locations in the lower 48 states. Hardrock commodities account for 106,000 or 52% of these locations. Of the 106,000 hardrock properties, approximately 65% occur on Federal lands, and 36,000 or 52% of these are managed by Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies. The Departments of Agriculture and Defense account for the majority of the non-DOI Federal sites.

By linking the MILS and COMMODITY tables from the MAS database it becomes possible for land managers interested in the specific impacts of selected mineral commodities such as lead, arsenic, or radionuclide contamination to pinpoint specific sites for further research and prioritization. Additionally, future analysis utilizing energy related databases and commodity screens can and should be implemented to define their contribution to the hazardous impacts related to minerals and natural resources.

Evidence of Production

The last basic criterion involves production. The MILS table contains an item called CUR which represents current status of a property or site. It has up to 10 status descriptions which were screened for evidence of production. The producer sites include: producers, past producers, temporarily shutdown operations, and intermittent producer status. Implementing this screen reduced the total number of hardrock sites for further analysis from 106,000 to approximately 48,000 sites.

Table 5 shows the past production screen. Production is associated with 45% or 48,000 of all hardrock properties. Of this amount, 28,000 qualify as past producer hardrock sites on Federal lands, and 15,000 are Department of the Interior agency sites. Most of the non-Interior sites are located on Forest Service lands.

Table 5--GIS screen for past producer Minerals Availability System (MAS) sites, April 1995. Numbers are rounded to nearest thousand. (Return to Contents)

 Past Production Screen (Lower 48 States)

 MAS/MILS Sites (000's)

 Domestic Properties

 202

 Hardrock Properties

 106

 Hardrock Producing Properties

 48

 Federal Hardrock Producing
Properties

 28

 Nonfederal Hardrock Producing
Properties

 20

 DOI Hardrock Producing
Properties

 15

 Non-DOI Federal Hardrock
Producing Properties

 13

The screening methodology has identified subsets of mineral information and abandoned mine lands. These subsets are valuable for additional AML studies and further analysis in this report. Which subset is most critical to land managers and policy-makers depends on their constituency's needs or the specific criteria they need investigated. The Department of the Interior may be interested in the 15,000 sites on DOI lands, Congress may be interested in all 28,000 Federal sites, and the Environmental Protection Agency may be interested in the 48,000 past producers. The power of GIS combined with an intuitive methodology creates opportunities to quickly and easily query for specific criteria and generate altogether new subsets of information.

One example of this flexibility resulted in analysis of the AML issue by producing state-by-state statistics. The process of intersecting point location information with Federal land ownership also created attributes showing past producer hardrock mineral sites per state. Statistical queries were implemented, and Federal and nonfederal categories were generated (Table 6). The results of the AML screen at the state-by-state level verifies, that the abandoned mine land issue, although present in the eastern United States, is mainly a western issue. This does not diminish the need to focus on eastern states, it only shows there may be more areas to focus on in the west, especially if one considers Federal land issues and responsibility.

Table 6--Past producer hardrock commodity sites by state. Compiled at 1:2,000,000 scale resolution. (Return to Contents)

 State

 Federal

 Nonfederal

 Total

 Alabama

 51

 780

 831

 Arizona

 2941

 562

 3503

 Arkansas

 65

 498

 563

 California

 4657

 1167

 5824

 Colorado

 6310

 992

 7302

 Connecticut

 0

 137

 137

 Delaware

 0

 9

 9

 Florida

 1

 122

 123

 Georgia

 76

 532

 608

 Idaho

 1519

 119

 1638

 Illinois

 92

 182

 274

 Indiana

 12

 27

 39

 Iowa

 5

 55

 60

 Kansas

 0

 56

 56

 Kentucky

 1

 100

 101

 Louisiana

 3

 55

 58

 Maine

 1

 198

 199

 Maryland

 0

 426

 426

 Massachusetts

 0

 88

 88

 Michigan

 16

 474

 490

 Minnesota

 21

 566

 587

 Mississippi

 0

 21

 21

 Missouri

 408

 5240

 5648

 Montana

1644

336

1980

 Nebraska

 0

 4

 4

 Nevada

 3644

 74

 3718

 New Hampshire

 5

 115

 120

 New Jersey

 0

 226

 226

 New Mexico

 817

 467

 1284

 New York

 2

 499

 501

 North Carolina

 612

 865

 1477

 North Dakota

 2

 15

 17

 Ohio

 0

 61

 61

 Oklahoma

 2

 271

 273

 Oregon

 1257

 107

 1364

 Pennsylvania

 1

 789

 790

 Rhode Island

 0

 5

 5

 South Carolina

 18

 143

 161

 South Dakota

 476

 172

 648

 Tennessee

 218

 540

 758

 Texas

 5

 371

 376

 Utah

 1939

 205

 2144

 Vermont

 4

 39

 43

 Virginia

 213

 700

 913

 Washington

 476

 234

 710

 West Virginia

 11

 22

 33

 Wisconsin

 2

 667

 669

 Wyoming

 632

 287

 919

 Unknown

 0

 0

 97

 Totals

 28,159

 19,620

  47,876

 More importantly, this particular analysis provides a foundation for local input into the AML issue. State and local politicians and administrators can easily gauge the scope of the AML issue in their respective states. Although only one mineral database was used, the results can be useful in identifying the next area of Federally-sponsored statewide AML initiatives and it should be augmented by input of detailed state AML inventory data and watershed information.

The results of the formatting, processing, and analysis with an intuitive screening methodology clearly point to the value of GIS in manipulating large databases. The MAS/MILS database with over 220,000 locations has new been quickly and easily characterized to identify and locate important past producing hardrock mineral sites across the United States. GIS is not only effective in saving time and money in AML inventories, it has given a new appreciation for an under-utilized minerals database by devising a new application. The results help define the AML issue, identify its scale and potential extent, and give the AML problem a new perspective for land managers and policy-makers, both at a National and state level.

The national overview, while informational, can be used as an AML planning tool. It also creates the foundation for focusing the AML issue at the state and local level. It may explain the significance of existing AML watershed studies, and perhaps identify areas where increased focus, effort, and analysis is required. Additional prioritization layers must be incorporated in the analysis.

The next section of the paper focuses on the graphical results of the GIS analysis and will show how watersheds and population provide additional information for prioritizing the past producer hardrock abandoned mine land sites across the Nation. (Return to Contents)

Graphic Results and Map Descriptions

 Another enlightening tool of GIS is its graphic output capability. Colorful and informative map products provide a mechanism to display complex results in a straight-forward manner, and to visually reference locations and areas of interest. The old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" certainly applies.

The following discussion focuses on the map descriptions and graphic output generated in the AML overview. The figures, shown in Appendix B, step through a mineral site reduction process similar to that described in the screening methodology. Additional emphasis will be placed on the location of mineral sites on Federal lands and the priorities established by watershed and population layers.

Hardrock, Production, and Federal Ownership Reduction

Figures 1­5 display the reduction from all MAS/MILS sites in the contiguous United States to sites on Department of the Interior lands. Figures 1 through 5 contain 202,000; 106,000; 48,000; 28,000, and 15,300 mineral sites; respectively. The county boundaries provide a locational reference. Figures 6­10 show the same reduction with the Federal surface ownership as a locational reference, also culminating in the display of mine sites on Interior agency lands.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of all MAS/MILS sites in the contiguous United States. As tabular databases are displayed some previously hidden patterns and trends become evident. Observation of the dataset indicates previously unseen data anomalies or gaps which show up "stateline faults." This is the case in Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Research to explain the paucity of data indicates Kansas and Nebraska were never under contract with the U.S. Bureau of Mines to collect mineral information data in their respective states. Texas did collect mineral information under a contract, but resolved sand and gravel were ubiquitous, therefore, never inventoried or entered the data into MAS/MILS (Michael Sawyer, personal communication). It points out a caveat about all databases, they all contain some type of errors, both of commission and omission.

 F1-MAS/MILS locations in the Contiguous US
(192K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 1--MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 2 shows the distribution of 106,000 hardrock commodities after industrial and energy-related sites were screened out. This resulted in a 48% reduction from the total number of sites in the contiguous United States. Reduction shows a pattern that will continue throughout the analysis; the majority of significant AML sites are in the Appalachian region in the eastern U.S., Missouri and Arkansas, and the 11 western states.

 
(192K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 2--Hardrock commodity MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 3 shows the 48,000 past producer hardrock locations resulting in a 76% reduction from the total database and a 55% reduction from the hardrock commodities screen. The Appalachians and Missouri again dominate the eastern U.S., while the Black Hills of South Dakota, Colorado Mineral Belt, Montana Belt Supergroup, and Sierra Foothill regions are prominent in the west.

 
(176K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 3--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 4 shows 28,000 past producer hardrock sites on Federal lands. Reduction was 86% from the original contiguous United States total and 42% of the hardrock producer total. The most dramatic change in this screen is the disappearance of concentrations in the eastern United States obviously due to a lack of large Federal ownership tracts.

 
(160K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 4--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Federal lands in the contiguous United States

Figure 5 displays past producer hardrock sites on Department of the Interior lands, resulting in a 93% reduction from the original 202,000 sites. The sites are strictly located in the western U.S.

 
(160K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 5--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Department of the Interior lands

Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the Federal surface ownership in relation to the entire MAS/MILS database, hardrock commodities, and hardrock producers; respectively. BLM and Forest Service dominate the surface ownership patterns in the United States. Other agencies shown, but not previously discussed include: BOR - Bureau of Reclamation, AEC - Atomic Energy Commission, ARS - Agricultural Research Service, and DOS - Department of State.

 
(176K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 6--Federal surface ownership and MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

 
(160K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 7--Federal surface ownership and hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

 
(160K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 8--Federal surface ownership and past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figures 9 and 10 characterize the hardrock producers on Federal lands. They also contain statistics showing the major Departmental and agency responsibility. The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture dominate with 55% (15,300) and 44% (12,400) of the sites; respectively. Within the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management overshadows all other agencies with nearly 94% of the sites. Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service are 3%, 2%, and less than 1%; respectively. Again the AML issue, in the case of Federal management and responsibility is principally a western problem.

 
(160K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 9--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Federal lands in the contiguous United States

 
(128K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 10--Past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Department of the Interior Lands in the contiguous United States

Federal ownership statistics, particularly in the case of the Bureau of Land Management, are certainly in need of detailed analysis. Many are aware the BLM has alternating section land ownership in a few of the western states due to railroad land grants. The continuous ownership pattern shown in the Federal ownership layer may lead to an erroneous conclusion about the ownership and responsibility of a number of suspected BLM sites. Detailed ownership information could significantly reduce the number of sites on BLM lands.

Watershed Priority Assessment
 Figures 11­13 and Tables 7a­11b display an additional method to help planners prioritize AML sites across the Nation. They examine the 48,000 past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites in watersheds by classifying the amount of AML sites or AML "density" per watershed. The figures have a classification scheme ranging from zero sites per watershed to areas showing greater than 300 AML sites per watershed. Querying the formatted watershed attributes leads to a number of potential AML priority areas or "bulls-eyes" in the eastern and western United States (Tables 7a, 7b).

 
(176K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 11--Watershed priority assessment based on past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

 
(176K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 12--Watershed priority assessment based on past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Federal lands in the contiguous United States

 
(176K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 13--Watershed priority assessment based on past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations on Department of the Interior lands in the contiguous United States

Table 7a--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Federal and nonfederal lands. Watersheds containing greater than 300 past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites. (Figure 11) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 10030101

 Upper Missouri; MT

 329

 4010201

 St. Louis; MN, WI

 308

 18010211

 Trinity; CA

 311

 7090003

 Pecatonica; IL, WI

 367

 18020125

 Upper Yuba; CA

 424

 10190005

 St. Vrain; CO

 676

 10190004

 Clear Creek; CO

 1343

 11020001

 Arkansas Headwaters; CO

 724

 14030004

 Lower Dolores; CO, UT

 350

 11020002

 Upper Arkansas; CO

 578

 14030002

 Upper Dolores; CO, UT

 875

 14030003

 San Miguel; CO

 519

 7140102

 Meramec; MO

 393

 7140104

 Big; MO

 380

 14080104

 Animas; CO, NM

 327

 11070207

 Spring; KS, MO, OK

 2996

 6010108

 Nolichucky; NC, TN

 686

 15050301

 Upper Santa Cruz; AZ

 370

Table 7b--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Federal and nonfederal lands. Watersheds containing between 200 and 300 past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites. (Figure 11) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 17010201

 Upper Clark Fork; MT

 232

 10120109

 Middle Cheyenne Spr.; SD

 279

 16040105

 Middle Humboldt; NV

 214

 16040108

 Lower Humboldt; NV

 212

 2040106

 Lehigh; PA

 285

 7060005

 Apple-Plum; IL, IA

 257

 16060001

 Dixie Valley; NV

 206

 16040107

 Reese; NV

 223

 18020128

 North Fork American R.; CA

 258

 2060003

 Gunpowder-Patapsco; MD, PA

 245

 16060010

 Fish Lake; NV, CA

 225

 10190001

 South Platte Headwaters; CO

 215

 14030005

 Upper Colorado-Kane Spr.; CO

 250

 14020006

 Uncompahgre; CO

 290

 10290109

 Lake of the Ozarks; MO

 230

 8020202

 Upper St. Francis; MO

 257

 18100100

 Southern Mojave; CA

 239

 15070102

 Agua Fria; AZ

 238

 15030105

 Bouse Wash; AZ

 205

 3150104

 Etowah; GA

 222

Figure 11 and Tables 7a and 7b describe the watersheds and their relative AML concentrations by listing the watersheds affected, HUC codes, name and location of the watershed basins or sub-basins, and the number of MAS/MILS AML sites per watershed. Figure 11 includes all public and private ownership status and is important because it provides a comprehensive look at the AML issue from public and private perspectives. Pollution is more than just a Federal problem. Areas to focus additional effort and resources include: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, California, and Nevada.

Figure 12 describes the relationship of AML sites and watersheds to Federal ownership status only. A familiar pattern emerges as the majority of high AML "density" watersheds shift to the western United States, particularly in Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Montana. Other target areas occur in South Dakota, Missouri and Tennessee and North Carolina (Tables 8a, 8b).

Table 8a--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Federal lands. Watersheds containing greater than 300 past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites. (Figure 12) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 18010211

 Trinity; CA

 306

 18020125

 Upper Yuba; CA

 409

 10190005

 St. Vrain; CO

 415

 10190004

 Clear Creek; CO

 955

 11020001

 Arkansas Headwaters; CO

 680

 14030004

 Lower Dolores; CO, UT

 346

 11020002

 Upper Arkansas; CO

 537

 14030002

 Upper Dolores; CO, UT

 873

 14030003

 San Miguel; CO

 512

Table 8b--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Federal lands. Watersheds containing between 200 and 300 past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites. (Figure 12) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 10030101

 Upper Missouri; MT

 241

 10120109

 Middle Cheyenne Spr.; SD

 242

 16040105

 Middle Humboldt; NV

 210

 16040108

 Lower Humboldt; NV

 212

 16060001

 Dixie Valley; NV

 206

 16040107

 Reese; NV

 223

 18020128

 North Fork American R.; CA

 257

 16060010

 Fish Lake; NV, CA

 225

 14030005

 Upper Colorado-Kane Spr.; CO

 245

 14020006

 Uncompahgre; CO

 284

 14080104

 Animas; CO, NM

 297

 6010108

 Nolichucky; NC, TN

 228

 18100100

 Southern Mojave; CA

 233

 6010202

 Little Tennessee; GA, NC

 202

 15070102

 Agua Fria; AZ

 215

 15030105

 Bouse Wash; AZ

 205

 15050301

 Upper Santa Cruz; AZ

 272

Figure 13 and Tables 9a, 9b, and 9c display watersheds of importance when Department of the Interior land management status is considered. This fine-tunes the analysis to a point where Colorado becomes the focal point of prioritization. Some of the identified priority areas such as the Arkansas and Animas watersheds in Colorado have already begun detailed AML investigations and remediation programs. With this type of information, other watersheds and states can easily be pinpointed for additional work.

Table 9a--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Department of the Interior lands. Watersheds containing greater than 300 past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites. (Figure 13) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 10190004

 Clear Creek; CO

 648

 11020001

 Arkansas Headwaters; CO

 444

 14030004

 Lower Dolores; CO, UT

 322

 11020002

 Upper Arkansas; CO

 506

 14030002

 Upper Dolores; CO, UT

 745

 14030003

 San Miguel; CO

 364

Table 9b--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Department of the Interior lands. Watersheds containing between 200 and 300 past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites. (Figure 13) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 16040105

 Middle Humboldt; NV

 210

 16040108

 Lower Humboldt; NV

 212

 16060001

 Dixie Valley; NV

 206

 16060010

 Fish Lake; NV, CA

 214

 15030105

 Bouse Wash; AZ

 205

Table 9c--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites on Department of the Interior lands. Watersheds containing between 100 and 200 past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites. (Figure 13) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 10030101

 Upper Missouri; MT

 122

 17100310

 Lower Rogue; OR

 126

 17100308

 Middle Rogue; OR

 125

 10080004

 Muskrat; WY

 163

 16060008

 Spring-Steptoe Valleys; NV

 145

 16040107

 Reese; NV

 178

 16020306

 Great Salt Lake Desert; UT

 146

 18020128

 North Fork American R.; CA

 117

 16050202

 Middle Carson; NV

 120

 16030005

 Lower Sevier; UT

 119

 16060011

 Ralston-Stone Cabin Valleys; NV

 139

 16030007

 Upper Beaver; UT

 130

 14030005

 Upper Colorado-Kane Spr.; CO, UT

 194

 18090203

 Death Valley; CA, NV

 115

 14070001

 Upper Lake Powell; UT

 154

 14080104

 Animas; CO, NM

 164

 16060015

 Ivanpah-Pahrump; CA, NV

 143

 18090206

 Antelope-Fremont Valleys; CA

 144

 18090208

  Mojave; CA

 130

 18100100

 Southern Mojave; CA

 177

 15030104

 Imperial Reservoir; AZ, CA

 136

 15050304

 Brawley Wash; AZ

 109

 15050202

 Upper San Pedro; AZ

 106

Population Priority Assessment

 An alternative method of prioritizing watersheds involves comparing abandoned mine lands to population. Figures 14­16 provide three different ways of comparison; first, by showing the general population distribution, secondly, by comparing mineral sites to population density, and lastly, by using GIS to query the watershed coverage for specific mineral and population parameters.

Figure 14 shows the 48,000 past producer hardrock sites in the United States and the population distribution layer. The population was queried and lumped into four major categorizes ranging from one person per watershed to over 250,000 people per watershed.

 
(176K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 14--Population per watershed compared to past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Outside of a few populated watersheds in and around Denver, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Phoenix, and Tucson the majority of population exists, as expected, on the east coast, industrial midwest, and west coast. Surprisingly, there appear to be a few watersheds with no population in them. This may be fact, however, it may be a result of some watershed boundaries coinciding with lake boundaries with no resident population, or the fact that population values were centered on centroids of census tracts and may have been aggregated outside of the watershed areas.

Figure 15 displays population density per watershed. Now instead of a broad spectrum of population spread out across the country, this method effectively isolates and makes more visible the urban areas and major cities in the country. The 48,000 AML sites also were categorized and overlaid with a hatch-pattern to identify and compare basic AML relationships to cities.

 
(192K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 15--Population density per watershed compared to past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Figure 16 and Tables 10a and 10b show another example of the analysis and query capability of GIS. Watersheds were selected and displayed based upon two input criteria; basins containing greater than 100 past producer hardrock AML sites, and specific population concentrations. The population was divided into four arbitrary categories: 1­50,000 people, 50,001 to 100,000 people, 100,001 to 250,000 people, and greater than 250,000 people. The results are displayed and summarized in the tables. Tremendous flexibility exists in choosing the criteria and effectively gives politicians, planners, land managers, and others power to generate their own scenarios.

 
(160K) (Return to Contents)
Figure 16--Watershed priority assessment based on population and past producer hardrock MAS/MILS locations in the contiguous United States

Table 10a--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites and population. HUC with past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites greater than 100 and population greater than 250,000 people. (Figure 16) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 2040106

 Upper Delaware; Lehigh, PA

 285

 2040203

 Lower Delaware; Schuylkill, PA

 138

 2050306

 Lower Susquehanna; MD, PA

 106

 2060003

 Gunpowder-Patapsco; MD, PA

 245

 10190004

 South Platte; Clear Creek, CO

 1343

 10190002

 Upper South Platte; CO

 128

 7140102

 Meramec; MO

 393

 3010101

 Upper Roanoke, VA

 138

 18090206

 Antelope-Fremont Valleys; CA

 188

 18090208

 Mojave; CA

 140

 3050105

 Upper Broad; NC, SC

 171

 15070102

 Agua Fria; AZ

 238

 3150104

 Etowah; GA

 222

 15050100

 Middle Gila; AZ

 180

 15050301

 Upper Santa Cruz; AZ

 370

 15050302

 Rillito; AZ

 110

Table 10b--Watershed priority assessment based on MAS/MILS sites and population. HUC with past producer hardrock MAS/MILS sites greater than 100 and population greater than 100,000 and less than 250,000 people. (Figure 16) | (Return to Contents)

 HUC Codes

 Watershed Names and Location

 MAS/MILS Sites

 4010201

 St. Louis; MN, WI

 308

 1040002

 Lower Androscoggin; ME, NH

 105

 17100308

 Middle Rogue; OR

 127

 7090003

 Pecatonica; IL, WI

 367

 7060005

 Apple-Plum; IL, WI, IA

 257

 10190005

 St. Vrain; CO

 676

 10300102

 Lower Missouri-Moreau; MO

 140

 11020002

 Upper Arkansas; CO

 578

 5050001

 Upper New; NC, VA

 106

 11070207

 Spring; KS, MO, OK

 2996

 6010108

 Nolichucky; NC, TN

 686

 3150105

 Upper Coosa; AL, GA

 101

CONCLUSIONS

 The GIS processing and analysis used to study the abandoned mine land issue is powerful and dynamic. The work accomplished to date has characterized the significant mineral properties of a national-scale minerals database and identified and located 48,000 past producer hardrock locations for additional study. The analysis, tables and graphics present a snapshot of the AML issue and allows land managers and policy-makers at the state and Federal level to quickly assess the AML issue and focus energies and resources on these sites. Population and watershed information was incorporated to assist in establishing additional priorities.

Statistics generated to quantify the potential AML hazard at the state and watershed-level help establish a framework to incorporate additional detailed studies and may explain current watershed studies.

The advantage of this methodology is that it can assimilate information from an unlimited number of tabular and digital natural resource databases. Much work remains to be done to prioritize sites even further and provide a comprehensive look at the abandoned mine land problem. Future tasks include:

1) Incorporate additional minerals databases such as MRDS, RASS, NURE, and other geochemical data. Add rock type and depositional model information.

2) Increase the resolution (preferably 1:100,000) of the digital data inputs, specifically surface ownership, state and county boundaries, and watersheds.

3) Summarize Alaska and Hawaii abandoned mine land information.

4) Include statewide and watershed-level AML inventories currently in progress, present additional statistics at these scales for local input, interaction, and partnershipping.

5) Identify additional prioritization layers including mineral production data, precipitation, hydrology buffers, vegetation, slope and aspect, topography, biodiversity, water quality, ecosystem, and demographic information.

6) Determine energy and industrial inputs into AML and perform specific commodity analysis; integrate with the Environmental Protection Agency "superfund," CERCLA, and NPDES datasets.

7) Add 3-Dimensional visualization and remote sensing capability and analysis to investigate AML priorities.

8) Investigate physical hazards associated with past mining activities.

(Return to Contents)

REFERENCES

 Babitzke, H.R, Barsotti, A.F, Coffman, J.S., Thompson, J.G., and Bennett, H.J., 1982, The Bureau of Mines Mineral Availability System: An Update of Information Circular 8654: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8887, 54 p.

Berg, A. W., Carrillo, F.V., 1980, MILS: The Mineral Industry Location System of the Federal Bureau of Mines: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8815, 24 p.

Coppa, L.V., Ferderer, D.A., Goklany, I.M., and Kaas, L.M., 1995, Developing Priorities for Verifying and Inventorying Suspected Abandoned Mine Land Sites on Public lands: Paper in Proceedings of the Department of the Interior Conference on the Environment and Safety, Colorado Springs, Co, April 25­28, 195, 26 p.

Goklany, I.M., Coppa, L.V., Kaas, L.M., and Ferderer, D.A., 1996, Watersheds Most-at-Risk Due to Abandoned Mines on Federal Lands, Paper in Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association Annual Summer Symposium, Syracuse, NY, July 14­17, 1996, 12 p.

"Introduction to GIS and ARC/INFO" in Understanding GIS: The ARC/INFO Method: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA, 1991, 411 p.

Ryder, J.L., 1994, Active-, Inactive-, and Abandoned Mine Information and Selected Geochemical Data for the state of Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94­579 Diskette Version, 6 p.

Sawyer, M., 1995, Personal communication, Former U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Availability System (MAS) Database Analyst.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, A U.S. Geological Data Standard: Codes for the Identification of Hydrologic Units in the United states and Caribbean Outlying Areas: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 878­A, 115 p.

(Return to Contents)



APPENDIX

Metadata Documentation for Digital GIS Coverages

State and County Boundaries

 Doc-Rev  0.9.6
 Create-Date  910319.131547
 Update-Person  Mark Negri
 Update-Date  920214.083409
 Cover  COUNTY2M
 Workspace  /dsdl/datalib/cusa/tiles/cusa
 Extent  -2369407, 250819, 2264015, 3176391
 Precision  Single
 Tolerances  30,20
 Number-Arcs  12365
 Number-Segs  272116
 Number-Polys  5062
 Number-Points  5061
 Number-Tics  197
 Number-Annos  0
 Theme  1:2,000,000 Base Maps
 Description  Counties in Conterminous United States
 Contact Person  Doug Nebert
 Contact-Inst.  Doug @FTS959-5691, M. Negri @FTS959-5613
 Organization  USGS-Water Resources Division
 Cover-Rev  unknown
 Location  Conterminous United States
 Resolution  approximately 1 km
 Scale  1:2,000,000
 Archive  Maintained on line on DIS2QVARSA, library CUSA
 Pub-Status  For USGS and Cooperator use only
 Citation1  USGS Files: 1:2,000,000 scale digital map of
counties and county equivalents in the conterminous
U.S.

HUC - Watershed Boundaries

 Doc-Rev 0.9.8
 Create-Date  910429.145710
 Update-Person  K. Lanfear
 Update-Date  930406.142001
 Cover  HUC2M
 Workspace  /srv1/nws/cusa
 Extent  -2362603, 269207, 2264015, 3175350
 Precision  Single
 Tolerances  2,20
 Number-Arcs  9547
 Number-Segs  476096
 Number-Polys  4093
 Number-Points  4092
 Number-Tics  197
 Number-Annos  0
 Theme  Hydrologic Units
 Description  1:2,000,000 Hydrologic Units map of the U.S
 Contact Person  Kenneth J. Lanfear
 Contact-Inst.  lanfear@qvarsa.er.usgs.gov, 703-648-6852
 Organization  USGS
 Cover-Rev  1.1.1
 Location  Conterminous United States
 Resolution  approximately 1 km
 Scale  1:2,000,000
 Archive  National Water Summary DSDL
 Pub-Status  Internal
 Citation1  USGS Files: 1,200,000 scale map of hydrologic units in
the conterminous U.S.

Population Layer

 Doc-Rev  0.9.6
 Create-Date  910926.11104
 Update-Person  Mark Negri
 Update-Date  920214.082246
 Cover  Pop_100K
 Workspace  /dsdl/datalib/cusa/tiles/cusa
 Extent  -2346972, 269422, 2255024, 3173078
 Precision  Single
 Tolerances  460,0
 Number-Arcs  0
 Number-Segs  0
 Number-Polys  0
 Number-Points  523,205
 Number-Tics  4
 Number-Annos  0
 Theme  1990 U.S. Census Population
 Description  Point coverage containing 1990 Census data
 Contact Person  Doug Nebert
 Contact-Inst  Doug @FTS959-5691, M. Negri @FTS959-5613
 Organization  USGS-Water Resources Division
 Cover-Rev  unknown
 Location  Conterminous United States
 Resolution  variable
 Scale  1:100,000
 Archive  Maintained on line on DIS2QVARSA, library CUSA
 Pub-Status  Not reviewed
 Citation1  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census: 1990
Census of Population and Housing Public Law 94-171.

Federal Land Ownership Boundaries

Information regarding the Federal land boundaries is incomplete at this time. Data originated in the USGS National Mapping Division and provided by the USGS Branch of Resource Analysis, Reston, Virginia.

Minerals Availability System

 Doc-Rev  6.694
 Create-Date  941201
 Update-Person  D. Ferderer
 Update-Date  941201
 Cover  US_MILS
 Workspace  /dk3/data/us/general
 Extent  -3244262, -1997932, 3533413, 5963403
 Precision  Single
 Tolerances  5,0
 Number-Arcs  0
 Number-Segs  0
 Number-Polys  0
 Number-Points  205,096
 Number-Tics  4
 Number-Annos  0
 Theme  Various mineral base maps
 Description  Mineral locations and properties in the U.S.
 Contact Person  Bill Ferguson, Don Bleiwas
 Contact-Inst.  (303) 236-8747 or (303) 236-5200
 Organization  USGS-Mineral Information Team (MIT)
 Cover-Rev  unknown
 Location  Conterminous United States
 Resolution  variable
 Scale  variable
 Archive  Maintained on MAS2 server, MIT, Denver CO
 Pub-Status  Portions are Public Domain
 Citation1  Former U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Availability
System Database. Numerous inputs and table criteria.
For
additional information see: Deposit Information
Manual
and Data Dictionary, Version 6.694.
(Top of Page)


For more information about this report contact: David A. Ferderer

Page maintainer: bramsey@usgs.gov

USA.gov logo