Uranium Location Database (ULD)

Metadata:


Identification_Information:

Citation:

Citation_Information:

Originator: ICF Consulting, Inc. GIS Lab

Original_Publication_Date: September 2003

Title: Uranium Location Database (ULD)

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data

Online_Linkage:

Larger_Work_Citation:

Description:

Abstract: The Uranium Location Database (ULD) is an ArcView shape file of uranium activity locations primarily for the States of Arizona, California, Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. Uranium mine records from MASMILS for the rest of the United States have also been included.  The ULD is comprised of the following independent source databases: DB1-DB7, DB11-DB25. These data sources pull from local, federal, and Indian uranium location information.  An effort was made to remove likely duplicate records representing the same mine, however, due to the way in which coordinate information was collected and mine name was recorded for many of these mines, duplicates very likely remain.  Please see the source database metadata for more detailed information.

 

Note that references to the ULD and ur2002 are one and the same.  The ur2002 product is the earlier name of the ULD and often is used in reference specifically to the shape file spatial data version of the ULD database.

 

Purpose: The purpose of this data set is to develop a single spatial inventory of uranium locations in the United States that can be used for understanding health impacts to nearby populations and the environment.

 

Supplemental_Information: The original mine data were collected from a variety of sources including federal, state and tribal government agencies.

 

History

An objective of EPA’s Office of Indoor Air and Radiation (ORIA) is to identify uranium locations as an aid in identifying hazards to humans and the environment.  Work was started by EPA in 1999 to separately develop a pilot geographic information system (GIS) using ArcGIS software.  Previous work produced a “uranium activity layer” for Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico portions of the Colorado Plateau that was included in the GIS as one of approximately 60 data layers.  Subsequently, information for California, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota, and then the rest of the United States were added. 

 

Data Sources

More than 20 data sources were collected to compile the ULD.  These data sources are discussed below.  They were combined into a composite Microsoft Access 2000 database, Master03.mdb and also into shape files (e.g., ULD_albers.shp) that can be readily used by ESRI ArcGIS software.

 

The individual databases are numbered 1-25[1] and this ID is recorded in the DB_ALIAS field of the ULD.  The field ICF_ID records a unique ULD record number in addition to the data sources’ inherent unique ID that is recorded in the DBUNIQUE field.  Here are brief descriptions of the data sources:

 

DB1: BRASSCAP. This database is managed by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Minerals and Geology. This database contains 3491 uranium sites but only 420 of these sites contain geographic coordinates. Geographic coordinates are in latitude and longitude, NAD27 Datum.  This source has been eliminated from the final data set due to the uncertainty of its reliability.

 

DB2: Colorado (BLM) Abandoned Mine Land Inventory (AML). The Colorado BLM AML database is managed by the BLM Colorado State Office. The Bureau of Land Management's National Database was the source for these records.  The original projection of the data was UTM.  

 

DB3: Colorado (FS) Abandoned Mine Land Database. The Colorado-Forest Service-AML database is managed by the Forest Service, Region 2. All data were collected under contract by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Geological Survey. The contractor used Arc/Info to create a GIS layer for each Forest Service Ranger District.  Information in this database is for the Creede, Cebolla, and Norwood Ranger Districts.  Only 13 records of this database are in the composite shape file (ULD_albers.shp).

 

DB4: US Geological Survey Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) database (McFaul et al, 2000). While the original MRDS database is global in geographic extent, a United States only Access version of the database was filtered for only uranium commodity mines in the states of interest. A spatial database was created from the provided latitude/longitude information, projected to an Albers projection, and the records were tagged with ICF IDs.  Spatial correlation with USGS mines is 100-200 meters based on small comparison sample.

 

DB5: US Geological Survey Minerals Availability System/Minerals Industry Location System (MAS/MILS) database (McFaul et al, 2000). Spatial data were created from the latitude/longitude coordinates provided, projected to the Albers projection, and then tagged with ICF_IDs.  Additional information on ownership and production are available for these records and can be joined from the DBF files provided (DB5_Owners, DB5_Production)[2]. The MAS/MILS data contained in the ULD may show different numbers of locations than the BASINS repository for each state since the ULD data have been filtered in the following manner: (1) only records with Uranium in the commodity field were included, (2) only records with both required coordinates were included, and (3) some mine records from DB5 have been replaced by mines from more authoritative data sets.  Spatial correlation with USGS mines is 100-200 meters based on a small comparison sample.

 

DB6: Utah (BLM) Abandoned/inactive Mine Land (AML) Inventory. The Utah BLM AML database is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office.  Spatial correlation with USGS mines is within 150 meters based on comparison sample.

 

DB7: Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation (AMR) Database. The Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Database is managed by the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining.  Spatial correlation with USGS mines is within 50 meters or less based on comparison sample.

 

DB11: Navajo Lands Project. An ArcView shape file containing nearly one thousand mine locations, but unsupported by any metadata, was provided via the CDROM series "Abandoned Uranium Mines Project Arizona, New Mexico, Utah – Navajo Lands Project Atlas, 1994-2000 ". These records were tagged with ICF_IDs ranging from 10,413 to 11,299. Since no projection information was available, it was assumed to be geographic with North American Datum 1927, and was projected to Albers. The location shape file was culled from dozens of maps and mining claim documents, and that locations are approximate. The data are of varying accuracy and were assembled to obtain a general idea of mine concentrations to target remote sensing forays of the Navajo Study.  Updated information related to this project became available too late for inclusion into this database effort (NAMLRP, 2004).

 

DB12: State of Arizona. These data were also provided undocumented and in the form of an ESRI shape file.

 

DB13: Forest Service. These data were received in shape file format with an accompanying data dictionary and Users Guide. Records were projected to Albers. Approximately 15% of the records had latitude/longitudes that placed the locations outside of Arizona and New Mexico.  Only nine records of this database are in the composite shape file (ULD_albers.shp).

 

DB14: Bureau of Land Management. These data were received in shape file format but without accompanying projection information or other documentation. However, the data do have information for numerous fields.  The records were tagged with ICF_IDs ranging from 14,987 to 16,935, and projected to Albers, assuming they were unprojected to a datum of NAD27. Thirty-one records appeared outside of the United States.  These data were removed from the single data set as they appear to represent mines other than uranium and a commodity field is not available for filtering purposes.

 

DB15: South Dakota Abandoned Mine Lands Inventory. These data were received as part of a Microsoft Access 2.0 and Mircosoft Access 95 application that allow users to query this relational locations database. Uranium locations were not flagged such that they could be identified, however, a contributing member of the team that developed the database reported that all locations in Fall River County, South Dakota, unless otherwise identified, were uranium locations. These locations, and their associated data from the related data tables, were exported from the Access application. Some export difficulties regarding MEMO fields required that these larger fields were not brought along into this compendium.

 

A report entitled “Comprehensive Inventory of Known Abandoned Mine Lands in the Black Hills of South Dakota” from January 26, 1998, accompanied the application. This report identified three input sources, including (1) USGS database for Metallic Mineral Districts and Mines in the Black Hills, (2) USFS inventory of sites on National Forest lands, and (3) a South Dakota database compiled from literature search of known AML sites in the Black Hills. The final database had single records for locations and removed any duplication. All USFS locations were field verified. About 70 of the remaining non-USFS locations were field verified with a GPS unit. The report stated that none of the locations visited were deemed to be in need of remediation, however some seemed to pose “considerable” environmental risk. Apart from this report an install manual was made available. Latitude and longitude information were available (based on the nearest one quarter of a quarter section to the location) and were assumed to be NAD83. A GIS file and a DBF file were generated in MapInfo. ICF_Ids and the DB_ALIAS field were added in Excel.  There was no apparent match to USGS mines.

 

DB16: California (FS) Mines. These data were received partly in the body of an email and partly as an Excel spreadsheet. Spatial files were generated in MapInfo from provided coordinates; datum was assumed to be NAD83.  There were no apparent matches to USGS mines.  Only 17 records of this database are in the composite shape file (ULD_albers.shp).

 

DB17: Texas Department of Health. Twenty-seven locations with driving directions to the sites were received via fax. Delorme Streetmap Version 9 was used to locate the locations by placename and then by major route intersection. A staff member of the Texas Department of Health assisted by reviewing the mine locations for about a half dozen mines and sending in corrections. Most mines had been placed within one-tenth of a mile of the actual location. However, one was off by over a half-mile.  There was a limited match to USGS mine locations.  None of these are included in the composite shape file (ULD_albers.shp).

 

DB18: New Mexico Mines Database. EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air funded the digitization of this collection of location data that, in part, dates back to the DOE NURE Program in the 1970s. Paper files were converted to a relational Access database by staff at the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, a division of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.  Full documentation was received with this data set. The Access tables were converted to GIS format in MapInfo and then converted to DBF in Excel.  Perfect spatial alignment was observed with USGS mine locations.

 

DB19: Wyoming Abandoned Mine Land. No documentation was received with this data set.  There was no apparent match with mine names on USGS maps, or with mine names.

 

DB20: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. These locations were digitized from a book that contained a mine location map. Names were hand-entered from entries in the book.  Only those locations that did not appear in other data sources were digitized. This was determined by comparing the hardcopy map to a GIS map of Nevada locations from MAS/MILS and MRDS.  Some names and locations matched USGS mine locations.

 

DB21: Texas Mines from Adams & Smith Report. These locations were digitized from a map contained in the report. No documentation or location information was included with the map.   No apparent match was found with USGS mines for either names or locations.

 

DB22: Dakotas Mines from USAEC Map 1967. These locations were digitized from this map. No documentation was available, apart from a brief legend and symbolization that identified two types of uranium available from the mines.  There was no apparent match with USGS mine locations.

 

DB23: Montana State Library (MILS). These location data were accompanied by full metadata detailing accuracy mine location information. It appears however that these locations may have been drawn from MAS/MILS as their spatial locations are highly correlated.  Some name matches were found for USGS mines; locations were off by 0-1km.  Only eight records of this database are in the composite shape file (ULD_albers.shp).

 

DB24: Inactive Mineral Production Sites – University of Texas. These locations were hand-entered from a fax. No documentation accompanied this data source.  No USGS mine correlations were found. Only seven records of this database are in the composite shape file (ULD_albers.shp).

 

DB25: Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) Uranium Mines.  No metadata were available as it was a work in progress, however information about how the locations were verified was available.  Local area specialists combined aerial photography with some field-truthing in order to verify the mine locations.  This is the most authoritative collection of uranium mines currently available in Texas, although it appears to be incomplete from the perspective of uranium occurrences.  Sources at the USGS report NURE (National Uranium Resource Evaluation) folio evidence of uranium production from additional locations in Texas. However that data was not available at the time of this compilation.

 

Duplicate Record Identification and Reliability Value Assignment

Due to the various overlapping data sets used to compile this composite database, many duplicate records exist.  The reliability characteristics of the individual records were assessed so that, based on a single reliability value, the least reliable location records might be identified.  In addition to this process, duplicate records were identified based on proximity of coordinates and approximate match of mine name.  Since mine names may differ due to user entry differences but still represent the same mines, mine names were manually reviewed for likeness.  Additionally, since a single mine or uranium activity could have many coordinate pairs associated with it, a buffer of 2400 meters (~1.5 miles) was ultimately used to consider the nearby mines for duplication.  Additionally, when comparing mine names and assigning Dup_MatchName levels, the operators used a conservative measure in order that mine records with even the smallest chance of being unique, were left in the database.  As a result, it is likely that many duplicates remain, but none that could be removed beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

It should also be noted that in response to reviewer comments, the RCT database of Texas mines, and MASMILS mines for the rest of the US (apart from the original western study area) were belatedly added to the ULD.  As a result, the reliability and duplicate record codes are not populated for these records.

______________________

A program was written to assist an operator in tagging likely duplicate records, based on name similarity and proximity, with the following fields of information: Dup_MatchName, Dup_MatchID, and Dup_Dist.  The likelihood of being a duplicate record, combined with the reliability information, allows for the least reliable/most likely to be duplicate location records to be removed from the ULD.

 

Included in this package is a copy of the full ULD (uld_dupes_flagged in the Access database, master03.mdb) with all reliability characteristics and duplicate identification fields included.  The shape files are based on a second version of the ULD table features created as a result of removing those records deemed unreliable or duplicate by the process described here.

 

Each of the following fields of information were added based on assumptions about what constitutes a reliable record of information.  Since few fields were reliably populated other than LATITUDE, LONGITUDE, and MINE_NAME – these fields formed the basis for the decision-making regarding which records to keep.  The below reliability fields were populated in such a way that their content could be summed into a single reliability score.  Since there are 10 reliability fields, the maximum reliability score is theoretically “10”, and each field is either populated with a “1” or “0” (or blank) for each record. 

 

The basic premise in the reliability scoring is that a record is worth keeping if it is either completely unique (by way of name and location) or if it cannot reliably be equated to any other record due to subtle or great differences in the mine name.

 

Reliability Value Assignment

Below is a listing of all fields populated for each uranium location record for the purpose of establishing the relative reliability of each record.

 

BLK_UNIQLL – A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record has a non-blank mine name or that it has a non-blank mine name AND a unique coordinate pair.  (Records with blank mine names, that shared coordinate pairs with records with non-blank mine names, were considered to be marked for deletion during the duplicate identification process.)

GEN_UNIQLL – A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record has a non-generic mine name or that it has a non-generic mine name AND a unique coordinate pair.  (Records with generic mine names but that shared coordinate pairs with records with non-generic mine names, were considered to be marked for deletion during the duplicate identification process.)

IDENT_WI – A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record contains a unique coordinate pair as compared to all other records in the source database, e.g., in DB1.

IDENT_WO – A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record contains a unique coordinate pair as compared to all other records across all source databases, e.g., a coordinate pair not found elsewhere in DB1-DB24.

SPAT_ISOL – A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record is spatially isolated.  Spatial isolation is defined here as a uranium activity with no other uranium activity within 2400 meters (1.5 miles).

DOCS – A value of “1” indicates that the data source has documentation.

IDENT_NMAEC – A value of “1” indicates that the uranium activity shares the precise name of a uranium activity listed in the authoritative US Atomic Energy Commission’s Uranium Mine and Properties Database (UMPD) within the same State. [Note that the UMPD mine list only covers uranium mine activities in the 4 Colorado Plateau states.]

IDENT_IDMILS – A “1” indicates that the record is not known to have originated from MASMILS. [Note: For example, all but approximately one dozen records from DB12 (State of Arizona) were tagged with a MILS ID, rendering nearly the entire data source a duplicate of records available from DB5 (MASMILS).]

QA_FLAG – A “1” indicates that the record was not identified as a spatial outlier based on the comparing the State attribute field contents with the actual State in which a point-in-polygon procedure locates the coordinate pair.  For example, the coordinates for a few records from DB18 (New Mexico Mines Database) that are known uranium activities in New Mexico, actually appeared in neighboring States.  This field was de-populated and re-populated with “9”s where the location placed the record outside of the states.

 

IDENT_COORD – A “1” indicates that the record does not share identical coordinates with any other record in the entire database.  [Note: A non-unique coordinate pair may be an indication of either a duplicate record OR of unreliable location information in the case where a PLSS section centroid is substituted for multiple uranium activity occurrences in the absence of true coordinate information.  A repeated coordinate pair may also be a sign that an approximate central location (such as the entrance to a uranium deposit or area) was recorded for multiple physically unique mine features (such as shafts, openings, adits, etc.).  Such a location may be less reliable when trying to identify the size of nearby at-risk populations, as the coordinate pair is an approximation.]

 

Not all records were considered in the duplicate identification process.  Records that would be kept without needing to be run through the name and proximity match process, include:

·                    spatial outliers (where SPAT_ISOL = 1)

·                    the “unmatchables” (where BLK_UNIQLL = 0 or GEN_UNIQLL = 0)

·                    the “already matched” (where IDENT_IDMILS = 0)

·                    supposed mine features (all but one record from a group of records originating from a single data source with identical names and coordinates: IDENT_WI = 0) [The thought process here is that records with identical coordinate information do not contribute to a better estimate of impacted populations and environmental resources.  Furthermore, the premise is that multiple identical records that originate from the same data source are likely to represent physically distinct features of the same uranium activity.]

·                    records added after the duplicate process had already been performed.

 

Duplicate Record Identification

Below is a listing of fields that were populated in a partially automated procedure to identify those records that are likely to be duplicates or provide redundant uranium activity information.

 

Glossary

‘keeper’ – this term refers to uranium activity records that will be kept in the final ULD.

duplicate – this term refers to uranium activity records that have similar or identical names AND that are within 2400 meters (~1.5 miles) of each other.

 

Dup_MatchID – This field reports the ICF_ID of the duplicate record that will be kept in the database – the keeper ID.  If the ICF_ID and Dup_MatchID are the same it means that the record is unique, spatially isolated, does not contain a name or proximity match with any other record in the database, or, for other reasons, is considered a ‘keeper’.  A sort on this field will show which records were found to be alike and considered duplicates.

Dup_MatchName – This field records the quality of the name match with the keeper with a value of 1-4, where:

 

1 = the names are a perfect match;

2 = the names are slightly off (e.g., Mary vs. Mary Mine; Mary Prospect vs. Mary Mine; Margie 2 vs. Margie #2; Buck Shot vs. Buckshot; Tramp #2 Group vs. Tramp #2 Mine Group);

3 = the names are more than slightly off but still considered a match (e.g., Buffalo Head Mining Co. Claim # vs. Buffalo Head Mine; Mammoth-Lincoln vs. Mammoth Mine); and

4 = the name of one record, that shares identical coordinates with another record, is a generic name (e.g., Lucky Strike versus Uranium Prospect) or blank.         

 

Dup_Dist – This field records the distance (meters) between a duplicate and its keeper.  For keepers, the value of this field is zero.

 

Other criteria applied when tagging duplicate records:

·                    Records with names that include the word ‘Group’ were not considered duplicates of other records with identical names excluding the word ‘Group” in case they represent distinct mine features (e.g., Dorothy Mine vs. Dorothy Mine Group).  [This criteria was observed to leave in many probable duplicates.]

·                    Records with names that include a number were not considered duplicates of other records with identical names excluding the number in case they represent distinct mine features (e.g., Dorothy Mine vs. Dorothy Mine #4).

·                    Originating data source reliability.  For each state, all contributing data sources were ranked so that when duplicates are identified, the record from the most reliable data source might be designated the ‘keeper’ (see ranking list below).  It was furthermore decided that records with either identical or approximate mine names AND approximate (but not identical) coordinates, originating from the same data source, would be kept in the likelihood that they represented true geographically distinct mine feature locations.  In the box below, the data sources are listed for each State in order of most to least reliable, moving left to right.  The least reliable data sources are those for which documentation was poor or unavailable, attribute information was limited or mostly unpopulated, and the spatial accuracy of the locations associated with the data source, relative to the USGS mine locations, was low.

 

Data Source Ranking By State

(Numbers refer to numbers assigned to each original data source and recorded in the each uranium location record in the DB_ALIAS field.)

 

AZ 12,5,4,13,11,18

CA 16,5,4,13

CO 2,5,4,13,3 (DB1 removed entirely for spatial unreliability)

MT 23,5,4,22

ND 5,4,22

NM 18,5,4,13,11

NV 5,4,20

SD 15,5,4,22

TX 5,24,17,13,4,21

UT 2,7

WA 5,4

WY 2,19,5,4,15

 

Using the Reliability Factors and Identified Duplicates to Remove Duplicates

Once the potential duplicates, based on name match and proximity are identified, and the records are tagged with the above reliability factors.  No records were ultimately removed based on a low reliability score, however many were removed based on the findings of the duplicate removal process.

 

Distribution of Reliability Values

 

Reliability Score            Record Count

4                    54

5                    874

6                    1548

7                    5567

8                    8159

9                    6221

10                176                             

 

The first step was to separate out the keepers and remove the duplicates from the subset of records included in the duplicate identification process.  This step could theoretically have been modified by only removing those duplicates that also had low reliability scores.  Also, only those records that were within a tighter Dup_Dist could have been removed (such as closer than 1000 meters instead of 2400 meters).  However, it was decided here to remove all duplicates. 

 

Time_Period_of_Content: various

Time_Period_Information:

Single_Date/Time:

Calendar_Date: September 2003

Currentness_Reference: These data represent mine information collected over the past 2-3 decades.

Status:

Progress: Complete

Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: None planned

Spatial_Domain:

Bounding_Coordinates:

West_Bounding_Coordinate: -179.895685

East_Bounding_Coordinate: 179.878224

North_Bounding_Coordinate: 90.000000

South_Bounding_Coordinate: -30.327519

Keywords:

Theme:

Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: uranium, mines

Theme_Keyword: uranium mines

Place:

Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: Colorado Plateau

Place_Keyword: Arizona

Place_Keyword: New Mexico

Place_Keyword: Colorado

Place_Keyword: Utah

Place_Keyword: Colorado Plateau

Place_Keyword: North Dakota

Place_Keyword: South Dakota

Place_Keyword: Texas

Place_Keyword: Washington

Place_Keyword: Nevada

Place_Keyword: Wyoming

Place_Keyword: California

Place_Keyword: Alabama

Place_Keyword: Alaska

Place_Keyword: Florida

Place_Keyword: Georgia

Place_Keyword: Idaho

Place_Keyword: Kansas

Place_Keyword: Kentucky

Place_Keyword: Maine

Place_Keyword: Maryland

Place_Keyword: Michigan

Place_Keyword: Minnesota

Place_Keyword: Missouri

Place_Keyword: Montana

Place_Keyword: New Jersey

Place_Keyword: New York

Place_Keyword: North Carolina

Place_Keyword: Oklahoma

Place_Keyword: Oregon

Place_Keyword: Rhode Island

Place_Keyword: South Carolina

Place_Keyword: Tennessee

Place_Keyword: Virginia

Access_Constraints: none

Use_Constraints: None.  However, these data should be used advisedly and within the confines of the accuracy limitations.  Original input data sources should be utilized and database managers consulted for further accuracy assurance.

Point_of_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization: ICF Consulting, Inc

Contact_Person: GIS Professional

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address

Address: 9300 Lee Highway

City: Fairfax

State_or_Province: VA

Postal_Code: 22031

Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 703-934-3000

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 703-934-3974

Hours_of_Service: 9 am to 5 pm

Security_Information:

Security_Classification: Unclassified

Native_Data_Set_Environment: Microsoft Windows 2000 Version 5.0 (Build 2195) Service Pack 2; ESRI ArcCatalog 8.3

Back to Top


Data_Quality_Information:

Attribute_Accuracy:

Attribute_Accuracy_Report: The quality of this composite is affected by the lack of standardization across the different sources. No attempt has been made to quality assess the attribute data.  Please see Preliminary Accuracy Statement for more information and Quality Assurance Project Plan for stated data quality objectives associated with the ULD.

Logical_Consistency_Report: Inconsistencies between county and coordinate information exist.

Completeness_Report: The file is only complete with respect to the source files provided.

Lineage:

Source_Information:

Source_Citation:

Citation_Information:

Publication_Date: September 2003

Title: Uranium Location Database

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: document

Process_Step:

Process_Description:

 

The ArcView shapefile uld_ll.shp (or uld_albers.shp for an Albers projected version) is a compendium of uranium mine data. This database is an effort to pull together the disparate mine sources that exist for the US. The DB_Alias field indicates the source database that contains the source-specific mine data. The ICF_ID may be used to relate the ULD spatial records with the additional attribute data available in the original mine data source now stored in dBase format.

 

Source databases were collected in a variety of electronic and non-electronic formats, including hardcopy maps, Excel and Access spreadsheets. All spreadsheet data were converted to dBase format after unique Ids and the DB_Alias fields were added. These are accessible in GIS to perform relates to the spatial data set. Coordinate information available from the source materials were utilized to generate a single composite shape file. Not infrequently, the geographic information that accompanied the spatial information was in conflict, e.g., the coordinate information would place the mine in a different county than indicated in the geographic information detailing the mine county location. Since fieldwork was not performed to verify locations, not were aerial photographs consulted, the actual location could not be verified. However, an effort has been made to flag mines (QA_FLAG = "9") whose coordinates place them in a completely different state than indicated in the attribute data.

 

Metadata have been generated for every source file and all source tables have been placed in an Access database.

 

The attribute data are unchanged from the source files. The quality of the spatial location of the coordinates provided is also unchanged. Spatial locations of a sample subset from ur2002 were compared to similarly named and unnamed mines depicted on USGS 1:24,000 and 1:100,000 scale maps. This effort to quality-check the locations was only partially successful where USGS mine coverage existed. Many areas, where fewer mines exist, are often not depicted with mine symbols on USGS maps.

 

Process_Date: September 2003

Process_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization: ICF Consulting, Inc

Contact_Person: GIS Professional

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: 9300 Lee Highway

City: Fairfax

State_or_Province: VA

Postal_Code: 22031

Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 703-934-3000

Back to Top


Spatial_Data_Organization_Information:

Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Point

Point_and_Vector_Object_Information:

SDTS_Terms_Description:

SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: Entity point

Point_and_Vector_Object_Count:

Back to Top


Spatial_Reference_Information:

Map_Projection: Available in geographic and Albers projection

Map_Projection_Name: GCS North American 1983

Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983

Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80

Back to Top


Entity_and_Attribute_Information:

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: uld

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: ICF_ID

Attribute_Definition: Unique Identifier, this field is used to identify and join each record in the separate databases, ur2002, and in the Access database.

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: DB_ALIAS

Attribute_Definition: A numeric reference to identify each record with its original database.

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 2

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB2: Colorado (BLM) Abandoned Mine Land Inventory

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: URS/Techlaw

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB3: Colorado (FS) Abandoned Mine Land Database

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: URS/Techlaw

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 4

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB4: Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS)

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. and URS/Techlaw

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 5

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB5: Mines Availability System / Minerals Industry Location System (MAS/MILS)

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. and URS/Techlaw

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB6: Utah (BLM) Abandoned/inactive Mine Land Inventory

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: URS/Techlaw

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 7

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB7: Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation (AMR) Database

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: URS/Techlaw

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 11

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB11: NAVAJO LANDS PROJECT ATLAS, 1994 - 2000

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 12

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB12: State of Arizona Mine Data

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 13

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB13: US Forest Service Mine Data for Arizona

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 15

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB15: South Dakota Abandoned Mine Lands Inventory

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 16

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB16: California (FS) Mines

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 17

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB17: Texas Department of Health

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 18

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB18: New Mexico Mines Database

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 19

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB19: Wyoming Abandoned Mine Land 
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 20

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB20: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 21

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB21: Texas Mines from Adams & Smith Report 
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 22

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB22: Dakotas Mines from USAEC Map 1967 
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 23

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB23: Montana State Library (MILS) 
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 24

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB24: Inactive Mineral Production Sites U. of Texas 
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 25

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: DB25: Railroad Commission of Texas 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: DBUNIQUE

Attribute_Definition: Unique Identifier from the source database 
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Attribute: Attribute_Label: LATITUDE

Attribute_Definition: Latitude in decimal degrees 
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Attribute: Attribute_Label: LONGITUDE

Attribute_Definition: Longitude in decimal degrees 

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: DATUM

Attribute_Definition: Horizontal datum, assume NAD83

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: COUNTY_NAM

Attribute_Definition: County Name 

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: CNTY_FIPS

Attribute_Definition: Any of the standardized systems of numeric and/or alphabetic coding issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency in the U. S. Department of Commerce, for use by the Federal Government and others. County code equivalents-three digits for the Federal Information Processing Standards Code 

Attribute_Definition_Source: Census Bureau Glossary

Attribute_Label: STATE_NAME

Attribute_Definition: State Name 

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: STATE_CODE

Attribute_Definition: State Abbreviation 

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: MINENAME

Attribute_Definition: Mine Name as identified in the source database 

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: QC_FLAG

Attribute_Definition: Outlier Flag of “9” indicates coordinates place mine outside appropriate state boundary 
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Null

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Not a spatial outlier 
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc. 

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 9

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Spatial outlier (State and coordinates disagree) 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: ZIPCODE

Attribute_Definition: A five-digit code assigned by the U.S. Postal Service to a section of a street, a collection of streets, an establishment, structure, or group of post office boxes, for the delivery of mail. 
Attribute_Definition_Source: Census Bureau Glossary 

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: QAQC

Attribute_Definition: Identifies mine locations that were reviewed for quality assurance, quality control, under this work effort.  However, this field is obsolete now since some QAQC measures have been taken for the entire database.
Attribute_Definition_Source: URS Corporation 

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: MADS

Attribute_Definition: Method, accuracy and description of point location determinations. This field is obsolete since proper MAD codes have not been assigned as much of the MAD-related information is not available for the vast majority of the records.
Attribute_Definition_Source: Derived from URS/Techlaw's 7 original databases 

Attribute_Label: blk_uniqll

Attribute_Definition: This field is populated with a “1” where the mine name field was blank and the coordinates provided were unique to the rest of the coordinates in ULD.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: gen_uniqll

Attribute_Definition: A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record has a non-generic mine name or that it has a non-generic mine name AND a unique coordinate pair.  
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: ident_wi

Attribute_Definition: A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record contains a unique coordinate pair as compared to all other records in the source database.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: ident_wo

Attribute_Definition: A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record contains a unique coordinate pair as compared to all other records across all source databases.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: spat_isol

Attribute_Definition: A value of “1” in this field indicates that the record is spatially isolated.  Spatial isolation is defined here as a uranium activity with no other uranium activity within 2400 meters (1.5 miles).
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: docs

Attribute_Definition: A value of “1” indicates that the data source has documentation.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: ident_coord

Attribute_Definition: A “1” indicates that the record does not share identical coordinates with any other record in the entire database.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: ident_nmAEC

Attribute_Definition: A value of “1” indicates that the uranium activity shares the precise name of a uranium activity listed in the authoritative US Atomic Energy Commission’s Uranium Mine and Properties Database (UMPD) within the same State.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: ident_IDMILS

Attribute_Definition: A “1” indicates that the record is not known to have originated from MASMILS.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: ST_ptinpol

Attribute_Definition: This field has the name of the state in which the point is located based on a point-in-polygon analysis.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: Reliability

Attribute_Definition: This field holds the cumulative reliability value – a sum of the values from the other reliability fields.  Reliability, in this context, refers to both the location’s likely accuracy as well as the location’s singularity.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: Dup_MatchID

Attribute_Definition: This code is the ICF_ID code of the other ULD location that it was matched to in the duplicate removal process.  For the duplicates-removed version of the database, this ICF_ID should either match the one in the ICF_ID field, or should be blank.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: Dup_MatchName

Attribute_Definition: In the duplicate removal process, this field was populated with either a 1, 2, 3, or 4 indicating the level of name match with the other records that were deemed to represent the same mine location. [Where: 1 = the names are a perfect match; 2 = the names are slightly off (e.g., Mary vs. Mary Mine; Mary Prospect vs. Mary Mine; Margie 2 vs. Margie #2; Buck Shot vs. Buckshot; Tramp #2 Group vs. Tramp #2 Mine Group); 3 = the names are more than slightly off but still considered a match (e.g., Buffalo Head Mining Co. Claim # vs. Buffalo Head Mine; Mammoth-Lincoln vs. Mammoth Mine); and 4 = the name of one record, that shares identical coordinates with another record, is a generic name (e.g., Lucky Strike versus Uranium Prospect) or blank.]

Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: Dup_Dist

Attribute_Definition: This field records the distance (meters) between a duplicate and its keeper.  For keepers, the value of this field is zero.  For records not included in the duplicate identification process for various reasons, the Dup_Dist field will be blank.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Attribute_Label: Reclaimed

Attribute_Definition: Information about reclamation status and activities.  This information can be found for some sources in the original data files.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ICF Consulting, Inc.

Back to Top


Distribution_Information:

Standard_Order_Process:

Digital_Form:

Digital_Transfer_Information:

Transfer_Size:

Back to Top


Metadata_Reference_Information:

Metadata_Date: 20030930

Metadata_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization: ICF Consulting, Inc

Contact_Person: GIS Professional

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address

Address: 9300 Lee Highway 

City: Fairfax

State_or_Province: VA

Postal_Code: 22031

Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 703-934-3000

Hours_of_Service: 9 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday EST

Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata

Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998

Metadata_Time_Convention: local time

Metadata_Extensions:

Online_Linkage: http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.html

Profile_Name: ESRI Metadata Profile

Back to Top



[1] Four sources, i.e., DB1, and DB8-DB10, were eliminated from the master database due to concerns about reliability.

[2] Note that ownership and production information is only available for 11 western states included in this compilation, however, such information is available in MAS/MILS and can be extracted by linking to the original MAS/MILS data sets using the DBUNIQUE field which corresponds to the MAS/MILS.SEQ field.