The National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program was initiated by the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Department of Energy; DOE) in 1973 with a primary goal of identifying uranium resources in the United States. The Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program was one of nine components of NURE. Planned systematic sampling of stream sediments, soils, groundwater, and surface water over the entire United States began in 1975 under the responsibility of four DOE national laboratories: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL), Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL), Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP), and Savannah River Laboratory (SRL). Each DOE laboratory developed its own sample collection, analytical, and data management methodologies and hired contractors to collect the samples. The NURE HSSR sampling program ended prematurely in 1980. The samples were analyzed and the resultant geochemical data were released on 9-track tapes and in a series of publications. By 1984, the NURE program was finished as Congressional funding disappeared. Out of a total of 625 2-degree quadrangles that cover the entire lower 48 States and Alaska, only 307 quadrangles were completely sampled and another 86 quadrangles were partially sampled. The HSSR data consisted of 894 separate data files stored on magnetic tape in 47 different file formats. The University of Oklahoma's Information Systems Programs of the Energy Resources Institute (ISP) was contracted by the Department of Energy to enhance the accessibility and usefulness of the NURE HSSR data. ISP created a single standard-format master file to replace 894 original files. ISP converted only 817 of the 894 original files before their funding ended. Unfortunately, this conversion process was never completed and introduced several systematic errors into the database. In 1985, the NURE HSSR sample archive, original field maps, field notes, and data tapes became the responsibility of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). A copy of the ISP-formatted NURE HSSR database was released as two CD-ROM publications (Hoffman and Buttleman, 1994; 1996). A new effort to recompile the NURE HSSR was begun by the USGS in 1995. All of the original 894 files have been examined, reformatted, and added to this USGS enhanced version of the NURE HSSR data. The data are contained in 2 major database files: one for water samples and one for sediment samples (which also includes soil and some rock samples.) An earlier version of this USGS enhanced version of the NURE HSSR data was released as an online Open-File Report at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/ References Cited Hoffman, J.D., and Buttleman, Kim, 1994, National Geochemical Data Base: National Uranium Resource Evaluation data for the conterminous United States, with MAPPER display software by R.A. Ambroziak and MAPPER documentation by C.A. Cook: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-0018-A, CD-ROM. Hoffman, J.D., and Buttleman, Kim, 1996, National Geochemical Data Base: 1. National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) data for Alaska, formatted for GSSEARCH data base search software, 2. NURE HSSR data formatted as dBASE files for Alaska and the conterminous United States, 3. NURE HSSR data as originally compiled by the Department of Energy for Alaska and the conterminous United States, with MAPPER display software by R.A. Ambroziak and MAPPER documentation by C.A. Cook: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-0018-B, CD-ROM. Supplemental_Information: More information about the NURE HSSR program, the sampling protocols and manuals, analytical methods, individual studies, data, reformatting procedures, and interpretive reports can be found in Smith (1997) at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/ and in individual NURE GJBX, GJQ, and PGJ/F series publications from the Department of Energy. (See http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/faq_nure.htm#q13 for information on how to obtain NURE publications.) Smith, S.M., 2001, National Geochemical Database: Reformatted data from the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) Program, Version 1.30: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-492, WWW release only, URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/index.html

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 3.0 (AGDB3) contains new geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one best value determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving speed and efficiency of use. Like the Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 before it, the AGDB3 was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, element concentrations and associations, environmental impact assessments, and studies in public health associated with geology. This relational database, created from databases and published datasets of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Atomic Energy Commission National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE), Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), U.S. Bureau of Mines, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management serves as a data archive in support of Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects and contains data tables in several different formats describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 112 laboratory and field analytical methods on 396,343 rock, sediment, soil, mineral, heavy-mineral concentrate, and oxalic acid leachate samples. Most samples were collected by personnel of these agencies and analyzed in agency laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various agency programs and projects from 1938 through 2017. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy-mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB3 includes historical geochemical data archived in the USGS National Geochemical Database (NGDB) and NURE National Uranium Resource Evaluation-Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance databases, and in the DGGS Geochemistry database. Retrievals from these databases were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample _location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. In other words, the data of the AGDB3 supersedes data in the AGDB and the AGDB2, but the background about the data in these two earlier versions are needed by users of the current AGDB3 to understand what has been done to amend, clean up, correct and format this data. Corrections were entered, resulting in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset, the AGDB3. Data that were not previously in these databases because the data predate the earliest agency geochemical databases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB3 and will be added to the NGDB and Alaska Geochemistry. The AGDB3 data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB3 data provided in the online version of the database may be updated or changed periodically.

The National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program began in 1973 with a primary goal of identifying uranium resources in the United States. As one of nine components of the NURE program, the Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) project systematically sampled the United States between 1976 and 1980 under the direction of four U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories. Although there was some collaboration, each DOE laboratory developed its own sample collection, analytical, and data management methodologies, and hired contractors to do much of the actual work. Initially, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL) was responsible for the western states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) was responsible for the Rocky Mountain States (Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming) as well as Alaska; the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP) was responsible for 12 central Plains and upper Great Lakes States; and Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) was responsible for the remaining 23 states along the Eastern Seaboard, lower Great Lakes, Appalachians, and Gulf Coast. However, by 1979 the areas of responsibility had changed from state lines to 2-degree quadrangle boundaries and SRL had taken over the responsibility for completing the seven western states formerly assigned to LLL. Thus quadrangles in the western third of the U.S. were variously sampled and analyzed by LLL, LASL, and SRL. Due to the enormous number of samples collected by these laboratories, some were also sent to ORGDP for additional chemical analyses (Information Systems Programs, 1985; Smith, 1997). Geochemical samples were collected from multiple sources (78 percent stream-, 8 percent lake-, and 2 percent spring-sediments, and 12 percent soils). Analytical methods differed between laboratories and evolved over time so that 29 single- and multi-element analytical procedures, or variations thereof, were used during the project. The NURE-HSSR sediment and soil database compiled by Smith (1997) provides analytical results for 54 different elements (Ag, Al, As, Au, B, Ba, Be, Bi, Br, Ca, Cd, Ce, Cl, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Dy, Eu, F, Fe, Hf, Hg, K, La, Li, Lu, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, Pt, Rb, Sb, Sc, Se, Sm, Sn, Sr, Ta, Tb, Th, Ti, U, V, W. Y, Yb, Zn, and Zr). Although no sample was analyzed for greater than 46 elements, some were analyzed uranium only, and a few samples were never analyzed at all. Funding cuts after 1980 curtailed the NURE-HSSR sampling efforts and left the project incomplete with only 65% coverage of the United States. The NURE program effectively ended about 1983-84. Out of a total of 625 quadrangles that cover the entire lower 48 States and Alaska, only 307 quadrangles were completely sampled and another 86 quadrangles were partially sampled. In 1984, all of the NURE-HSSR data, maps, field notes, and archived samples splits were transferred (Grimes, 1984) to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Despite inconsistencies in sample media, elements analyzed, and analytical methods used, the original data and, particularly data from reanalysis of archived NURE-HSSR samples have been very useful for a variety of USGS studies ranging from regional-scale mineral resource assessments to environmental investigations (Smith and others, 2013). Due to the number of different DOE laboratories, analytical methods, and sample media used, the NURE-HSSR data from the western third of the United States have the largest number of inconsistencies and is the most difficult to use on a regional basis. This area contains several large mining districts and continues to be an area of exploration interest for undiscovered mineral resources. Beginning in November of 2015, a project was undertaken to reanalyze approximately 60,000 archived NURE-HSSR sample splits from selected areas in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. A small amount (approximately 0.25 g) of sieved -75 micron sample material was retrieved from the USGS National Geochemical Sample Archive for geochemical analysis. These samples were analyzed for 51 elements under a Technical Assistance Agreement with a third party by ALS Global laboratories using their ultra-trace four-acid-digestion dual-mode ICPMS (ALS ME-MS61L) method (Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, In, K, La, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, Rb, Re, S, Sb, Sc, Se, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Ti, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Zn, Hf_p, Zr_p, Au_sq, Pt_sq, Pd_sq). Blind standard reference materials (SRM), blanks, and sample duplicates were inserted by the USGS into every job of 36 samples to ensure the quality of the data. The results from these quality control (QC) samples, along with QC samples inserted by the laboratory, were evaluated for every job by a QC Manager. Only data that passed these checks were approved for release. Samples with analytical results that failed to pass the QC checks were reanalyzed and re-evaluated before the data were approved for release.

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 4.0 (AGDB4) contains geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one best value determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving efficiency of use. The relational database includes historical geochemical data archived in the USGS National Geochemical Database (NGDB), the Atomic Energy Commission National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance databases, and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) Geochemistry database. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management are included as well. The data tables describe historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 120 laboratory and field analytical methods performed on 416,333 rock, sediment, soil, mineral, heavy-mineral concentrate, and oxalic acid leachate samples. The samples were collected as ...

LandingPage. Link Function: 375-- download.

A mineral resource assessment for tungsten, a critical mineral commodity (see the critical mineral list published by Fortier and others, 2018) for the United States, was carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for a portion of the Great Basin region, in western Nevada and eastern California, between latitudes 36N and 42N and longitudes 116W and 120W. This study (Lederer and others, in review) integrates data from several sources, including geologic, geochemical, geophysical, remote sensing, watershed analysis, and mining with recently developed grade and tonnage models, expert estimates, and software tools and analyses to generate probabilistic estimates of undiscovered tungsten skarn resources. The assessment was conducted following the 3-part assessment methodology developed by Singer and Menzie (2010), which involved the delineation of permissive tracts, as well as the evaluation of interdisciplinary data that were then presented to a panel of experts, who made estimations that were then analyzed using economic filters. These data are presented in several formats: a GIS geodatabase, shapefiles, and tabular (csv) data. Several layers or individual files are derived or contain data from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other existing, published sources, mainly the USGS National Geochemical Database (NGDB), USGS Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS), and the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) databases.

No Description Was Provided. Link Function: 375-- download.

A mineral resource assessment was performed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to assess the potential of undiscovered skarn-hosted tungsten resources in the Northern Rocky Mountain region of eastern Idaho and western Montana. This region has seen moderate tungsten trioxide (WO3) production in the past from a variety of mineralization styles including skarn, vein and replacement, and wolframite-quartz veins. The geology of the area is dominated by large plutons of Cretaceous to Tertiary age, emplaced into a belt of sedimentary rock ranging from Mesoproterozoic to Permian age, and affected by tectonism related to the Sevier and later Laramide orogenies. Known tungsten (W) skarn mineral sites are associated with contacts between Cretaceous plutons and calcareous and argillaceous (meta)sedimentary rocks. Two permissive tracts were delineated: the Great Falls Tectonic Zone (GFTZ)-Cretaceous tract and the Bitterroot tract. For the GFTZ-Cretaceous tract, a quantitative assessment was performed in August 2019 using a three-part form of mineral resource assessment following the methods of Singer (1993) and Singer and Menzie (2010). The results of the quantitative assessment indicated that undiscovered W resources might exist in skarn-type deposits within the study area. The Bitterroot tract was assessed qualitatively. The geographic information systems (GIS) data presented here were assembled as part of the W resource assessment. They are divided into assessment data and supporting data. The assessment data include the permissive tracts (W_Tracts) and mineral sites (MineralSites) in the study area compiled from seven different data sources: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) (McFaul and others, 2000), Tungsten Deposits of the United States (USMIN) (Carroll and others, 2018), Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Abandoned and Inactive Mines Database (MBMG) (Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2006), Idaho Geological Survey Database of the Mines and Prospects of Idaho (IGS) (Tate and others, 2018), Inventory of significant mineral deposit occurrences in the Headwaters Project Area in Idaho, Western Montana, and extreme Eastern Oregon and Washington (SPANSKI) (Spanski, 2004), Mineral deposit data for epigenetic base- and precious-metal and uranium-thorium deposits in south-central and southwestern Montana and southern and central Idaho (KLEIN) (Klein, 2004), and Exploration for critical and strategic minerals in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, conducted under the DMA, DMEA, and OME programs, 1950-1974 (DMEA) (Kiilsgaard, 1996; Kiilsgaard, 1997). The supporting data include: Geologic units selected from Spatial Databases for the Geology of the Northern Rocky Mountains - Idaho, Montana, and Washington (Zientek and others, 2005) and State Geologic Map Compilation (SGMC) (ver. 1.1, Horton, 2017) geologic maps; stream sediment geochemistry selected from the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) project (Smith, 1997; ver. 5.0, Smith and others, 2018); whole rock chemistry selected from EarthChem PetDB (Lehnert and others, 2000), du Bray and others (2012), and the National Geochemical Database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008); airborne radiometric data from the North American compilation of airborne radiometric data (Duval and others, 2005); and airborne magnetic data from the Magnetic Map of North America (U.S. Geological Survey and National Geophysical Data Center, 2002) and the lower frequency content EMAG2 data (Maus and others, 2009). Assessment and supporting data are included in a file geodatabase and are also made available in shapefile and CSV format.