8

The Path Forward

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Program (MRP) has demonstrated exceptional leadership and innovation through a time of rapid budget fluctuations and renewed national attention on critical minerals. MRP has significantly enhanced its contribution to mineral deposit science, exploration, and analysis, and an urgent national need exists for these activities to continue and accelerate. To build on this success and ensure the continued primacy of the program, this chapter presents seven key recommendations that, in the view of the authoring committee, will further enhance MRP’s impact and long-term effectiveness and contribute to U.S. economic and national security. These recommendations are designed to reinforce MRP’s strengths, address emerging challenges, and position the program for sustained leadership in the years ahead. By embracing these strategic actions, MRP can continue to drive its mission, support national objectives, and remain at the forefront of innovation and discovery.

Recommendation 1: To lead the nation on minerals issues, the Mineral Resources Program should continue to be proactive and forward-looking in its program priorities, workforce hiring, and science products.

MRP’s research and priorities have reacted and must continue to react to changing funding levels and federal research priorities. For example, in the past few years, MRP has retooled and pivoted to the burgeoning issue of critical minerals. However, MRP should also work to identify future trends and position itself to be ready when new challenges emerge, in part guided by strategic priorities (see Recommendation 6). For example, MRP should do the following:

• Continue on its current trajectory of scenario-analysis and forecasting within the National Minerals Information Center (NMIC);

• Adopt a mindset that prioritizes expanded domestic mining in ways that are sustainable and responsible;
• Actively advocate for the crucial role of minerals in the context of infrastructure, national security, and energy technology;
• In collaboration with state geological surveys, seek continued funding increases for the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) program;
• Accelerate investigations of the national potential for unconventional resources such as mine waste; and
• Expand upon an already active position of leadership among federal agencies in the minerals realm.

Recommendation 2: The Mineral Resources Program should produce realistically achievable targets for future domestic production of priority critical minerals.

The USGS, through NMIC, assesses current mineral production statistics but does not estimate the amounts of mineral resources that could be produced in the future under different exploration, development, and production scenarios. The responsibility to produce these estimates lies with the federal government, and MRP is the federal agency best suited to produce them (see Chapter 4, Mineral Information and Supply Chain Analysis). The proposed effort within MRP to estimate realistic domestic production targets based on best geological, industrial, and technological information would provide not only appraisals of current availability but also future scenarios for critical mineral production capability. These efforts can be based on a mineral systems approach that considers conventional deposit types, which represent primary sources of critical minerals, and includes unconventional sources such as secondary sources, byproducts, and minerals in historical mine wastes. Achievable targets based on scientific assessment of resource potential and extractability would create clear objectives that can be modified, refined, and updated on a regular basis as new data and information becomes available. Much of the work needed for this activity is already being done within the USGS and MRP and would only need better collaboration and interaction between various groups like staff in mineral deposits research, Earth MRI, and NMIC.

Recommendation 3: The Mineral Resources Program should create a national atlas of resource potential maps to guide mineral exploration and development, assist with land management, and guide future research.

Producing a national atlas of resource potential maps should be a priority of MRP. This National Uranium Resource Evaluation–like program could begin with a prioritized list of critical minerals but over time cover all minerals and commodities. Covering the entire United States rather than areas currently deemed to be prospective for the current list of critical minerals would allow flexibility in the future when more data are collected and national needs change. Building on foundational current activities, it would expand resource assessments; complete country-wide data layers being collected

by Earth MRI; incorporate mineral systems models, metallurgy, and mineral economics; and include conventional and unconventional mineral occurrences and mine wastes. A living atlas should be updated whenever new data are available. While this would be a large, ambitious, long-term goal for MRP, it would serve as a guide for basic and applied research conducted by MRP and be invaluable to the nation.

Recommendation 4: To improve stakeholder outreach and data usage, the Mineral Resources Program should prioritize improving data delivery.

MRP produces abundant high-quality data, but these data are often difficult to locate and use, greatly undercutting their effectiveness. Additionally, increased regular outreach and education would help relevant stakeholders to utilize and understand the data outputs. In accordance with the USGS Data Strategy (Hutchison et al., 2024), streamlining the process from data acquisition to data sharing and dissemination could include the following:

• Better communicating calls for input, planned projects, and data releases;
• Publishing intermediate and preliminary datasets;
• Eliminating barriers to rapid data publication;
• Engaging professional data science and web development teams;
• Promoting data products and success stories for more public visibility and usage;
• Fostering a data-centric culture;
• Increasing outreach to inform, alert, and educate stakeholders on the data and products; and
• Establishing metrics to monitor progress on these tasks.

Recommendation 5: The Mineral Resources Program should establish an external advisory system to advise on stakeholder priorities and provide feedback on strategy and programs.

Many of the committee’s independent observations and conclusions were echoed in questionnaire responses from industry, state surveys, and USGS staff, highlighting the value of mechanisms to seek and act on advice from a broad range of sources. As an example, similar to other systems within the USGS, an advisory system could include a federal advisory committee comprising experts and stakeholders including academia, the mineral exploration and mining and beneficiation industries, state geological surveys, and tribal nations. It could help define and refine the mission and strategy, incorporate best practices from other countries, advise on priority science research and products, maintain accountability, assess the impacts of MRP work, and liaise between MRP and stakeholder groups. Advisory groups should reflect a broad and balanced range of stakeholder perspectives relevant for MRP consideration; MRP needs to guard against groups that confirm existing priorities and instead challenge MRP to evolve as short-term needs and long-term priorities change. The need for an external advisory system has been identified previously (see NRC, 1996, 2003).

Recommendation 6: The Mineral Resources Program should update and continually reexamine its strategic plan with input from a broad set of internal and external stakeholders.

While MRP’s broad mission is explicit, its strategy for implementing that mission is less clear. The USGS Energy and Mineral Resources Mission Area strategic plan dates to 2013, and as such the priority actions defined therein do not reflect current priorities. A dynamic strategic plan developed with input from external partners and stakeholders (see Recommendation 5) and USGS staff will help MRP by establishing key performance indicators and maintaining efficiency and direction, allowing it to thrive in rapidly changing times. A plan should include mechanisms to achieve and monitor outcomes and impacts that are beneficial for the economy and the wider society. Active project management, including a rigorous evaluation system, is needed to ensure activities are aligned with the mission and strategy. In the future, the strategic plan might undergo major reconsideration every 4–5 years, with possible adjustments at least every year.

Recommendation 7: To eliminate any barriers to optimal performance, delivery, and innovation, the Mineral Resources Program should promote and incentivize collaboration across all of its programs, across the U.S. Geological Survey, and with its partners.

An all-hands-on-deck approach is needed to address the challenge of meeting domestic mineral needs, and MRP will be at the center of these efforts. Collaboration on multiple levels will increase program visibility, productivity, and efficiency. The barriers and silos that exist can impede collaboration, reduce productivity, result in duplicated effort, and limit MRP’s ability to fulfill its mission. Building on successful collaborative models such as mine waste studies, MRP should seek areas where elimination of silos and barriers can increase the quality and value of its work, including the following:

• Within MRP, establish stronger connections between NMIC commodity specialists and scientists studying and assessing those commodities;
• Encourage and promote stronger interactions between MRP and the Energy Resources Program—for example in areas of overlapping interest, such as hydrogen and geothermal energy;
• Integrate efforts of mapping and mineral resource assessments or water resource considerations into minerals projects;
• Build stronger connections between the USGS and other government agencies—for example, in coordination of research efforts on mineral extraction and extractability (including the National Science and Technology Council Critical Minerals Subcommittee that the USGS co-chairs); and
• Establish stronger connections between government and other sectors, including the exploration and mining industries, academia, and others.