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.
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
Metadata documentation for digital GIS coverages.
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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
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 |
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) |
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) |
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 |
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). |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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) |
 (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.
 (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 |
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 |
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).
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 |
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.
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 |
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 |
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 |
 (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 |
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 |
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 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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) |
