The State of Alaska's Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska's statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. For the geochemical part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 1,682 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering Kougarok area, Bendeleben and Teller quadrangles, Seward Peninsula, Alaska. USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the Denver warehouse through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

The State of Alaska's Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska's statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. For the geochemical part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 1,682 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering northeastern Alaska Range, Healy, Mount Hayes, Nabesna, and Tanacross quadrangles, Alaska. USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the Denver warehouse through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

The State of Alaska's Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska's statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. For the geochemical part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 1,682 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering the western half of the Wrangellia Terrane in the Anchorage, Gulkana, Healy, Mt. Hayes, Nabesna, and Talkeetna Mountains quadrangles of south-central Alaska. USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the Denver warehouse through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

The State of Alaska's Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska's statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. For the geochemical part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 1,682 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering Haines area, Juneau and Skagway quadrangles, southeast Alaska. USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the Denver warehouse through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

The State of Alaska's Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska's statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. For the geochemical part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 1,682 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering Tonsina area, Valdez Quadrangle, Alaska. USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the Denver warehouse through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Selected archived sample splits collected as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program, were reanalyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of a NURE-HSSR Reanalysis project (Smith and others, 2018). A small amount (approximately 0.25 grams [g]) of sieved less than 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 inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry/mass spectrometry (ICP-OES/MS) (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 archived sample splits came from the NURE program, which 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 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). However, no sample was analyzed for more than 46 elements, some were analyzed for uranium only, and a few samples were never analyzed at all. Funding cuts after 1980 curtailed the NURE-HSSR sampling

Selected archived sample splits collected as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program, were reanalyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of a NURE-HSSR Reanalysis project (Smith and others, 2018). A small amount (approximately 0.25 grams [g]) of sieved less than 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 inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry/mass spectrometry (ICP-OES/MS) (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 archived sample splits came from the NURE program, which 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 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). However, no sample was analyzed for more than 46 elements, some were analyzed for uranium only, and a few samples were never analyzed at all. Funding cuts after 1980 curtailed the NURE-HSSR sampling

This report and digital data release presents 131 new geochemical analyses on historic U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) samples, including 86 rock and 42 heavy mineral concentrate (pan concentrate) samples, as well as 3 samples of indeterminate type. Some of these samples were originally collected by the USBM from the Ray River watershed, and the Kanuti and Hodzana Rivers uplands, central Alaska, and a portion of the samples were collected as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation. Historic USBM sample materials were retrieved by DGGS from the DGGS Geologic Materials Center (GMC), where the USBM samples were transferred as part of the federally funded Minerals Data and Information Rescue in Alaska (MDIRA) program in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The text and analytical data and tables associated with this report are being released in digital format as PDF files and .csv files. We provide analytical data, detection limits and, when available, the method documentation provided to us by the lab. We also provide the sample location in geographic coordinates, the sample material cited by the originating literature, a reference to the originating report, and the type of sample material that was obtained from the archive and sent to the lab.

This Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) Raw Data File presents U-Pb zircon geochronology results from igneous, meta-igneous, and metasedimentary rocks collected during the Tok River and Wrangellia geologic mapping projects in the eastern Alaska Range and the northwestern Talkeetna Mountains. The purpose of these analyses is to better constrain the age of select geologic units encountered during the mapping projects. The samples were submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center (GGGSC)-Plasma Lab in Denver, CO where U-Pb geochronology analyses were performed by Christopher Holm-Denoma in 2016-2017. All files are available from the DGGS website: http://doi.org/10.14509/30439.

This data release is part of a study designed to test geochemical methods that best delineate known mineral deposits in the northeast part of the Tanacross 1° x 3° quadrangle, within the Yukon-Tanana Upland region, Alaska. The total area sampled is about 3,200 km2. Extensive tundra cover and patchy spruce/alder vegetation and very limited outcrop exposure characterize the area. Soils and stream sediments contain mixtures of weathered bedrock, sand derived from dunes developed during the Pleistocene, and volcanic ash deposits from the 1.2 Ky eruption of the nearby Mount Churchill volcano. Several mineral deposits are known in the area, including the Late Cretaceous to earliest Tertiary porphyry Cu (+/-Mo-Au) deposits at Taurus, Bluff, and Oreo; and poorly understood epithermal(?) Cu-Au (+/- Pb-Zn) deposits at Pika, Fishhook, and Pushbush. Stream water and sediment samples were collected near these occurrences, as well as in surrounding areas, to determine methods that most effectively enhance geochemical signals related to mineralization. Sediment samples were collected during two sampling campaigns (2017 and 2018). Each sample was dried, homogenized, and split into multiple aliquots. One aliquot of sediment was subsequently sieved to recover the minus-80 mesh portion of the sample, whereas a second was sieved to recover the minus-230 mesh portion of the sample. Both aliquots were analyzed by three techniques, all of which included ICP-OES/ICP-MS analysis following (1) sodium peroxide fusion, 2) leaching by aqua regia; and 3) leaching by cold hydroxylamine-HCL. Stream water samples were collected from select sites in August 2018 and analyzed for cation and anion concentrations using high-resolution ICP-MS for cations and Ion Chromatography (IC) for anions.