The data set contained herein were collected as part of a cooperative U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project entitled "Field Investigations to Help Support the Assessment of Background Concentrations for Uranium (U) at the Homestake Mining Company, Superfund Site near Milan, New Mexico, July 2016.” The site is underlain by alluvial and several consolidated rock units (Chinle and San Andreas aquifers) that contain in some cases elevated concentrations of U above the EPA MCL (maximum contaminant level). Borehole geophysical data were collected from six alluvial wells at the site. Borehole geophysical logs included: induction, fluid resistivity, natural gamma, spectral gamma, fluid temperature, caliper, casing collar locator, optical televiewer, and electromagnetic flow meter logging (ambient and stressed). Geophysical data collected from these wells were used to evaluate well construction, stratigraphy, distribution of potassium, uranium, and thorium, locations of passive sampler deployment and placement, and inflow and outflow intervals of a well under ambient and pumped conditions.

The datasets contained herein were collected as part of a cooperative U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project entitled "Field Investigations to Help Support the Assessment of Background Concentrations for Uranium at the Homestake Mining Company, Superfund Site near Milan, New Mexico, July 2016." Groundwater samples were collected from pre-selected wells and analyzed for metals (including uranium), alkalinity, ammonia, common ions, nitrogen, gross alpha/beta, radium isotopes, Radon-22, uranium isotopes, stable isotopes, sulfur isotopes, nitrogen isotopes, helium-4, dissolved gases, tritium/helium-3, carbon-14 and chlorofluorocarbons. Groundwater samples were collected using micropurge, volumetric, and passive samplers. Seven different laboratories analyzed the samples; separate datasets containing the results from each laboratory are provided in this data release. Microsoft excel .xlsx, xml, and tab-delimited text files are included for most dataset. A subset of the files are in .csv format.

The datasets contained herein were collected as part of a cooperative U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project entitled "Field Investigations to Help Support the Assessment of Background Concentrations for Uranium at the Homestake Mining Company, Superfund Site near Milan, New Mexico, July 2016." Groundwater samples were collected from pre-selected wells and analyzed for metals (including uranium), alkalinity, ammonia, common ions, nitrogen, gross alpha/beta, radium isotopes, Radon-22, uranium isotopes, stable isotopes, sulfur isotopes, nitrogen isotopes, helium-4, dissolved gases, tritium/helium-3, carbon-14 and chlorofluorocarbons. Groundwater samples were collected using micropurge, volumetric, and passive samplers. Seven different laboratories analyzed the samples; separate datasets containing the results from each laboratory are provided in this data release. Microsoft excel .xlsx, xml, and tab-delimited text files are included for most dataset. A subset of the files are in .csv format.

The datasets contained herein were collected as part of a cooperative U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project entitled "Field Investigations to Help Support the Assessment of Background Concentrations for Uranium at the Homestake Mining Company, Superfund Site near Milan, New Mexico, July 2016." Groundwater samples were collected from pre-selected wells and analyzed for metals (including uranium), alkalinity, ammonia, common ions, nitrogen, gross alpha/beta, radium isotopes, Radon-22, uranium isotopes, stable isotopes, sulfur isotopes, nitrogen isotopes, helium-4, dissolved gases, tritium/helium-3, carbon-14 and chlorofluorocarbons. Groundwater samples were collected using micropurge, volumetric, and passive samplers. Seven different laboratories analyzed the samples; separate datasets containing the results from each laboratory are provided in this data release. Microsoft excel .xlsx, xml, and tab-delimited text files are included for most dataset. A subset of the files are in .csv format.

A previously completed mineral resources assessment of the Texas Coastal Plain indicated the potential for future discovery of uranium resources. Composite hydrogeologic frameworks can be used in geoenvironmental assessments as a tool to understand potential effects of mining operations. Data for a composite hydrogeologic framework are documented in this data release. The hydrogeologic framework focused on the composite hydrogeologic unit consisting of the upper part of the Miocene-age Fleming Formation/Lagarto Clay, Pliocene-age Goliad and Pleistocene-age Willis Sands, Pleistocene-age Lissie and Beaumont Formations, and Holocene-age alluvial sediments (fluvial alluvium and eolian sand deposits). This composite hydrogeologic unit, which contains the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers of the Gulf Coast aquifer system, is intended for inclusion in a regional-scale geoenvironmental assessment of undiscovered uranium resources where the actual uranium resource is not yet discovered, and therefore the location unknown. The larger work citation that accompanies this data release (Teeple and others, 2022) provides (1) a brief literature review describing the geologic and hydrogeologic settings, (2) the methodology used to develop a composite hydrogeologic framework, and (3) descriptions and maps of the land-surface altitude, composite hydrogeologic unit base and midpoint altitude and depth, water-level altitude, depth of water, unsaturated and saturated zone thickness, and transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity. A composite hydrogeologic unit, created by combining geologic and hydrogeologic data and maps for individual geologic and hydrogeologic units, is intended for use as a tool in a geoenvironmental assessment to evaluate potential contaminant migration through various avenues. Potential applications of the hydrogeologic framework to a geoenvironmental assessment include estimating (1) runoff-flow paths, (2) locations of infiltration, (3) groundwater-flow paths, and (4) rate of transport. Composite hydrogeologic unit properties such as land surface altitude, water-level altitude, depth of water, saturated zone thickness, transmissivity, and hydraulic conductivity provide physical indicators of the potential for transport of contaminants. The procedures outlined in the companion larger work citation (Teeple and others, 2022) provides a method for developing hydrogeologic frameworks that can be applied in other areas where mining may occur.

This data release contains data on historical water use, spatial land disturbance, and spatial aquifer disturbances related to in situ recovery (ISR) uranium extraction per unit of uranium produced. These data were compiled from published and publicly available references including journal articles, government reports, industry reports and company reporting documents for regulatory compliance and financial reporting requirements. Six uranium ISR mines are represented: Alta Mesa, Kingsville Dome, Mt. Lucas, Palangana, Palangana Dome, and Rosita.

Apatite [Ca5(PO4)3F], titanite [CaTiSiO5], and rutile [TiO2] samples were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from the Coles Hill uranium deposit, Virginia. The samples (in the form of polished thin sections) were prepared and analyzed for direct age dating on a laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (LA–ICPMS) system at the USGS in Denver, Colorado from August 2017 to March 2019.

This data release contains digitized well logs from a historic uranium exploration program conducted by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) between 1948 and 1956. The well logs document down-hole lithologic and radiologic information from drilling activities primarily in the Colorado Plateau (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico), Wyoming, and South Dakota. These logs, originally archived in paper and Mylar formats, were digitized by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and are provided in .pdf format, and associated header information describing file is also compiled. These scans of well logs, provide a significant, though incomplete, record of the drilling activities conducted during this period. The logs were transferred through various governmental bodies before being housed at the USGS in Denver. While well headers often do not contain sufficient information for georeferencing, related AEC and USGS reports often include maps with drill hole locations. This data release offers a valuable historical resource for research and public access, with the scanned logs available for download by state.

Grade and tonnage data for calcrete-type surficial uranium deposits found in 11 different countries were compiled. Fifty-eight deposits with reported grade and tonnage, and thirty-five occurrences for which there is no reported resource are tabulated in separate Excel workbook spreadsheets.

This data release includes elemental analysis of soil samples collected at breccia-pipe uranium mines, at one undeveloped breccia-pipe uranium deposit, and at a reference site in northern Arizona. Samples were collected near the Arizona 1, Canyon, Kanab North, and Pinenut uranium mines, over the EZ2 breccia-pipe uranium deposit, and at the Little Robinson Tank reference site. Samples were collected around the Arizona 1 mine after active mining had ceased during July 2015; around and within the mine yard at the Canyon mine during mine-development activity and before active mining occurred in June 2013; around and within the mine yard at the Kanab North mine during reclamation and before reclamation was completed in June 2016; around the Pinenut mine during active mining in October 2014; directly over the EZ2 deposit before any development activity occurred during November 2015; and at the Little Robinson Tank reference site during November 2015. This data release includes data for four different types of soil samples: (type 1) incremental soil samples where more than 30 equally-spaced subsamples were collected and composited over a limited areal extent termed a decision unit and depicted generally as a trapezoidal-shaped polygon mapped within a mine yard, or surrounding a mine site; (type 2) incremental soil samples where more than 30 subsamples were collected and composited over a roughly two dimensional linear or sinuous mapped pattern following roads also termed a decision unit; (type 3) discrete integrated soil samples (Bern and others, 2019 use the term “point” for these samples) where more than 30 subsamples were collected within fenced exclosures (generally about 3 meters square) containing Big Springs Number Eight dust sampling equipment; and (type 4) integrated soil samples comprised of at least 10 subsamples collected from underneath plywood cover boards used to collect herpetofauna. Incremental samples (types 1 and 2) were collected in triplicate from the soil surface from 0-5 centimeters (cm) depth using a Multi-Incremental Sampling Tool (MIST) collecting approximately the same volume for each subsample subject to slight variation due to variable soil conditions. The volume of soil represented by each type 1 and 2 sample is termed a decision unit (DU), the areal extent of which is defined by a mapped polygonal or sinuous or linear area, and the depth of which is the 5 cm that is sampled by the MIST. Each subsample of each triplicate incremental sample was passed through a 2-millimeter sieve and composited into a clean 19-liter bucket, with each completed triplicate sample transferred to double zip-top bags for transfer to the laboratory. Integrated samples (types 3 and 4) were collected using a plastic soil scoop to collect soil from 0-5 cm depth and were composited into double zip-top plastic bags for transfer to the laboratory. Data are divided into two different data tables based upon type: types 1 and 2 are in T1_DUSamples.csv; types 3 and 4 are in T2_BSNESamples.csv. The file DataDictionary_v1.csv defines all table headings and abbreviations. Sample preparation and analytical techniques are described in the metadata file. This data release also includes location information for the approximate center points of the incremental sample polygons and linear features (decision units) and for the discrete integrated samples. Note, locations for incremental samples for decision units (sample types 1 and 2) are the approximate center of the geographical area (polygon, linear, or sinuous feature) over which the sample was collected. As such, the elemental values represent average concentrations for the sample volume collected over the entire geographic area and depth of 0-5 centimeters of each decision unit, and do not represent concentrations that would be measured in a discrete sample collected at that central location.