Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr20161191

GIS-based identification of areas that have resource potential for critical minerals in six selected groups of deposit types in Alaska

Abstract

Alaska has considerable potential for undiscovered mineral resources. This report evaluates potential for undiscovered critical minerals in Alaska. Critical minerals are those for which the United States imports more than half of its total supply and which are largely derived from nations that cannot be considered reliable trading partners. In this report, estimated resource potential and certainty for the state of Alaska are analyzed and mapped for the following six selected mineral deposit groups that may contain one or more critical minerals: (1) rare earth elements-thorium-yttrium-niobium(-uranium-zirconium) [REE-Th-Y-Nb(-U-Zr)] deposits associated with peralkaline to carbonatitic igneous intrusive rocks; (2) placer and paleoplacer gold (Au) deposits that in some places might also produce platinum group elements (PGE), chromium (Cr), tin (Sn), tungsten (W), silver (Ag), or titanium (Ti); (3) platinum group elements(-cobalt-chromium-nickel-titanium-vanadium) [PGE(-Co-Cr-Ni-Ti-V)] deposits associated with mafic to ultramafic intrusive rocks; (4) carbonate-hosted copper(-cobalt-silver-germanium-gallium) [Cu(-Co-Ag-Ge-Ga)] deposits; (5) sandstone-hosted uranium(-vanadium-copper) [U(-V-Cu)] deposits; and (6) tin-tungsten-molybdenum(-tantalum-indium-fluorspar) [Sn-W-Mo(-Ta-In-fluorspar)] deposits associated with specialized granites. This study used a data-driven, geographic information system (GIS)-implemented method to identify areas that have mineral resource potential in Alaska. This method systematically and simultaneously analyzes geoscience data from multiple geospatially referenced datasets and uses individual subwatersheds (12-digit hydrologic units) as the spatial unit of classification. The final map output uses a red, yellow, green, and gray color scheme to portray estimated relative potential (High, Medium, Low, Unknown) for each of the six groups of mineral deposit types, and it indicates the relative certainty (High, Medium, Low) of that estimate for each 12-digit hydrologic unit through color shading. Accompanying tables describe the data layers employed to score favorability for the presence of each mineral deposit group, the values assigned for specific analysis parameters, and the relative weighting of each data layer that contributes to estimated measures of potential and certainty . Core datasets used include the Alaska Geochemical Database, Version 2.0 (AGDB2); the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS) web-based geochemical database; the digital “Geologic Map of Alaska;” the Alaska Resource Data File (ARDF); and aerial gamma-ray surveys flown as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Program by the U.S. Department of Energy. Maps accompanying this report illustrate the scores for estimated mineral resource potential for the six deposit groups for the state of Alaska. Areas that have known potential, as well as new areas that were not previously known to have potential, for the targeted minerals and deposit groups are identified and described. Numerous areas in Alaska, some of them large, have high potential for one or more of the selected groups of deposit types within Alaska. Contributors Matthew Granitto, Timothy S. Hayes, James V. Jones, III, Susan M. Karl, Keith A. Labay, Jeffrey L. Mauk, Jeanine M. Schmidt, Nora B. Shew, Erin Todd, Bronwen Wang, Melanie B. Werdon, and Douglas B. Yager

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 51.376176° to 71.352561° latitude; -179.758993° to -129.982348° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

2016-11-16. GIS-based identification of areas that have resource potential for critical minerals in six selected groups of deposit types in Alaska. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161191

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona