1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Energy (DOE), Yucca Mountain Project, has proposed several rail corridors through Nevada, to facilitate the movement of high- level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from seventy-seven civilian and defense sites. As part of an impact analysis, a mineral assessment study was conducted along and adjacent to the proposed Lander County rail routes. The evaluations and research associated with this report were limited, where possible, to this area – T14N-33N and R42E-48E. This study offers some preliminary impacts – positive and adverse – that the proposed DOE rail corridors will have on mineral resource development in Lander County. Lander County has high mineral resource potential for various metals and industrial minerals, construction materials, and geothermal resources. The construction and operation of a rail line in Lander County has the potential to interfere with existing and future operations and production. The proposed Crescent Valley route passes through prolific mining areas, including those at the expanding Pipeline and Cortez mines near the west end of the valley. This report begins to assess potential impacts to mineralized areas and districts along the proposed rail corridors. Additional work is needed to better determine the potential impacts, beneficial or negative, in the Crescent Valley area, especially where exploration successes have resulted in significant new mineral resource discoveries. There are a wide range of mineral resources in Lander County, many identified from past-historic production and development. Gold and silver are the dominant metals explored for and developed today. The most notable recent gold-silver discoveries are south of the old Cortez Mine, where an additional +7 million ounces of gold mineralization has been defined in two deposits – Pediment and Cortez Hills. These two new discoveries have helped to accelerate exploration activity in the area. Renewed exploration for gold-silver mineralization is increasing significantly in the Hilltop, Bullion, Bateman Canyon, Cortez, Callaghan Ranch, Buffalo Valley, and Battle Mountain mining districts. Barite is currently the dominant industrial mineral resource developed. Renewed barite exploration is advancing in the Mountain Springs, Bateman Canyon, and Argenta mining districts. Access to a rail line would open up exploration for and ultimately development of wide array of industrial mineral and construction material resources – both of which are highly sensitive to transportation costs. There has been a significant increase in geothermal leasing activity in Lander County, especially notable in Crescent Valley. This leasing activity is a prelude to increased exploration and potential development of geothermal for various business opportunities not limited to power production. Historic mining districts are summarized, with new activity tracked and prospective mineral resources summarized. Additional mineral resource potential along the proposed routes is also illustrated. Brief summaries of activity and prospective areas are provided, including exploration for and development of metal deposits, barite and other industrial

2

minerals, geothermal resources, oil and gas resources, and dimension–decorative stone and turquoise. The geology of Lander County is very prospective for a wide range of mineral resources. The proposed DOE Yucca Mountain rail line if constructed in the county would create both positive and potentially adverse impacts to mineral development. Some of these could include: Potential Positive Impacts v Possible transportation of supplies to mines, power plants and communities v Possible transportation of gold-silver ores from existing mine sites to other

facilities for specialty processing v Possible transportation of industrial mineral resources and decorative-dimension

stone to other markets Potential Adverse Impacts v Safety concerns – new and increased traffic and cargo shipments, to name a few. v Possible interruptions to transportation of supplies to the mines and facilities v Transportation conflicts and concerns regarding ore haulage from mine areas to

facilities v Possibility of impacting/ interfering with mineral development – metals,

geothermal and oil and gas resources, industrial minerals and construction materials.

v Potential geo-technical concerns near existing mine sites – subsidence related to dewatering and transportation-related engineering considerations, to name a few.

Potential impacts to mineral development are greatest in Crescent Valley, where the rail corridor passes closest to new discoveries and expanding resource areas. Exploration and development activity is increasing in this valley and in the mountains in the surrounding mining districts – for gold, silver, barite and geothermal resources. The region is also host to a high concentration of historic quarries – areas that may prove to be prospective for decorative and dimension stone resources as better transportation options become available. Additional work is warranted to build on the preliminary work completed to date, in order to better identify concerns, conflicts and solutions relative to the proposed rail corridor in the Crescent Valley area where a number of mineral resources are being advanced. By forwarding conversations with Cortez Joint Venture (Pipeline) Mine personnel, other interested metal, barite and geothermal resource developers in Crescent Valley, and Lander County leadership, concerns will be identified and solutions offered regarding placement of the rail corridors in the valley.

3

2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Introduction – Objectives A review of the mineral resources in Lander County adjacent to the proposed Yucca Mountain-Department of Energy (DOE) rail route was initiated in the summer of 2003 and completed in October. The study area for this report is limited to T14N–33N and R42E–48E, and focuses on identifying potential positive and adverse impacts of the proposed rail corridor to mineral resource development. Historic mining districts are summarized, with new activity tracked and prospective mineral resources summarized to identify potential impacts along the proposed routes. A brief summary of activity and mineral potential are provided, including exploration for and development of metal deposits, barite and other industrial minerals, geothermal interests, oil and gas resources, and dimension–decorative stone and turquoise. Changes in metal prices, advancements in technologies and changing geologic interpretations of mineral resources lend to the dynamic and ever-changing nature of the mineral development industries. The information in this report should not be considered conclusive, but instead should be used as a guide to expanding the understanding of mineral resource occurrences in Lander County. 2.2 Location Lander County is located in central and north-central Nevada (Figure 2.1), and includes an area of 5,621 square miles. A general location of Yucca Mountain is illustrated on this map. The area is typified by basin and range topography, with north- northeast trending mountain ranges separated by alluvium-filled valleys. Approximate elevations range between approximately 11,000 feet and 4,500 feet. Vegetation is sagebrush and grasses throughout with some aspen, fir and/or pine at higher elevations near water sources. Pinion-juniper forests are also present. The proposed rail corridors are shown in Lander County in Figure 2.2, along with land status designations for the county. These routes have evolved from those originally proposed in a 1994 report (ETS Pacific, Inc., 1994). This new proposed rail route was established by the U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain Project. Figure 2.2 illustrates the study area for this report, denoted by a boundary around these townships and ranges: T33N – T14N, and R40E – R49E. 2.3 Previous Work Lander County remains a focal point of natural resource discoveries and production. In 1994, this author completed a general overview of mineral resources (metals and some industrial minerals) countywide (Carpenter, 1994). This 2003 report builds off of what was summarized in the 1994 report, and expands to include other metals and industrial minerals, geothermal, oil and gas, turquoise, and dimension–decorative stone. New reports summarizing the diverse mineral resource potential of this part of Nevada have been researched, and industry experts consulted to assist in identifying prospective areas. 2.4 Methodology Much of the information summarized in this report was a combination of research of published data (maps and reports) and personal communications with mineral industry

4

experts and government personnel responsible for mineral development activities on public lands. The publications reviewed were dominantly from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. These are listed in the Reference section of this report. Section 3.0 and its subsections summarize mineral potential along the proposed rail corridor. Claim records at the BLM, the USFS, and the county courthouse were reviewed as part of this study. This information is summarized in Section 3.3, illustrating where recent claim staking activities have been occurring. In general, the proposed rail corridor does not affect patented lands since the alignment passes through valley bottoms where patents are not typically found. For the most part, patented mining claims are concentrated in the mining districts adjacent to the proposed rail corridors. No increase in patenting activity has resulted in Lander County since the moratorium imposed in the late 1990s. Land status shown in Figures 2.2 through 3.25 illustrates patented lands, although at this scale and in this format the detail is difficult to cull out of the overall land designations. Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service personnel were contacted and files reviewed to help assess both mineral development potential and activity levels regarding metal deposits, barite and other industrial minerals, geothermal interests, oil and gas resources, and dimension–decorative stone and turquoise. A 1996 NBMG Open File Report (Singer, 1996) summarizes an analysis of Nevada’s metal-bearing mineral resources, and this is summarized for Lander County in Section 3.4 of this report. As well, mine personnel at the Cortez Joint Venture (Pipeline) Mine were consulted as part of this study, to discuss the proposed rail corridors and potential impacts (positive and adverse) to this expanding mine area. All of the insights and research are summarized throughout the report, especially in the conclusions of Section 4.0.

5

6

7

3.0 MINERAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Background Exploration for and development of minerals resources in Nevada have been on going since minerals were first discovered in the mid-1800s. Lander County has seen many surges of activity – from the 1880s to today – driven often by market conditions, technological advancements, and evolving geologic interpretations.

Lander County remains a focal point of mineral resource discoveries and production. Figure 3.1 illustrates the distribution of historic mining districts throughout the county, while Figure 3.2 illustrates those districts considered adjacent to the proposed rail corridors (T14N – 33N, R42E – 48E). Mineral resource development in Lander County continue to be advanced, from the mid-1800s to present, including metals (mainly gold and silver), some industrial minerals (dominantly barite), geothermal resources (Beowawe Power Plant, most notably), and oil and gas exploration and testing. Appendix A summarizes reserves and resources of known mineral properties in Lander County for 2001 (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication MI-2001). Section 3.0 and affiliated subsections summarize other important information relative to the proposed rail corridors, including: historic mining districts (3.2), new activity (3.3), and prospective areas (3.4). These subsequent discussions begin to outline mineral development activity levels and prospective areas relative to metal deposits, barite and other industrial minerals, geothermal interests, oil and gas resources, and decorative – dimension stone resources and turquoise. 3.2 Historic Mining Districts & the Rail Corridors This section summarizes increasing activity levels in mining districts adjacent to or near the proposed rail corridors. Of the 31 mining districts in Lander County (Carpenter, 1994 and Tingley, 1998), there are 23 districts that are summarized in this section and illustrated in Figure 3.2. Other mining districts also illustrated in the figure include: Washington, Millet, Spalding Marsh, Twin River, and Northumberland in Nye County; and Roberts, Buckhorn and Beowawe in Eureka County. These were not summarized as part of this report since they occur predominantly outside of Lander County. Table 3.1 briefly summarizes the 23 districts included in this report, listed from north to south as these are located in the county. The table summarizes general locations of the mining districts, what commodities the districts are historically known for, the year the district was discovered or organized, and what activity is generally occurring today. Currently the dominant activity is related to the development of gold/silver deposits, barite properties, and geothermal resources.

8

TABLE 3.1 – Mining Districts Adjacent to the Proposed DOE Rail Corridors

Mining District

Location

Commodity

Year Discovered

Current Activity

North Battle Mountain

North of Battle Mountain, about 6-10 miles

Barite, Silver, Lead, Copper, Gold

1906

Buffalo Valley West of Battle Mountain, about 17 miles S of Valmy

Gold, Copper, Manganese, Silver, Lead, Zinc

? Renewed interest in the Buffalo Valley. Au/Ag

Battle Mountain About 8 miles west of Battle Mountain

Copper, Gold, Silver, Antimony, Lead, Zinc, Tungsten, Molybdenum, Arsenic, Turquoise, Nickel

1866, organized 1867

Phoenix Project; renewed mineral exploration activity throughout the district. Au/Ag

Argenta 14 miles east of Battle Mountain

Silver, Barite, Gold

~ 1867 Barite production; Exploration for Au/Ag

Bateman Canyon Borders Hilltop on the northeast

Barite Prospected in 1860s; formally established 1906

Exploration for Au/Ag deposits

Hilltop ~20 miles SE of Battle Mountain

Gold, Silver, Copper, Lead, Arsenic, Barite, Antimony, Manganese

Prospected in 1860s; formally established 1906

Exploration for Au/Ag deposits

Lewis ~15 miles SE of Battle Mountain

Silver, Gold, Lead, Copper, Zinc,

~ 1867 Exploration for Au/Ag deposits

McCoy About 20 miles S-SW of Battle Mountain

Silver, Gold, Iron, Lead, Zinc

1914 On-going Reclamation activity.

Mountain Springs About 24 miles S of Battle Mountain, just east of Hwy 305

Barite ? Renewed interest in Ba mineralization and development

Warm Springs About 35 miles S of Battle Mountain, west of Hwy 305

Mercury ?

Bullion ~25 miles SE of Battle Mountain

Silver, Gold, Copper, Lead, Turquoise,

1869 Cortez Joint Venture Mine, Expansion of the known Au/Ag deposits

9

TABLE 3.1 (continued)

Mining District

Location

Commodity

Year Discovered

Current Activity

Cortez, also in Eureka County

~30 miles S of Beowawe

Silver, Gold, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Turquoise

Early 1800s Discovery of +7 Million oz Au in 2 new deposits. Very prospective, with a lot of activity

Carico Lake S of Carico Lake Turquoise, Manganese, Gold

? Turquoise mainly

Steiner Canyon Dissected by Hwy 305, about 35 miles N of Austin

Steiner Canyon placer deposits, zeolites (Papke, 1972)

Late 1800s? North of the mining district, increased gold/ silver exploration

Iowa Canyon 20 miles N of Austin

Fluorspar, Barite ? Unknown

Callaghan Ranch ~15 miles north of Austin

Silver, Tungsten, Mercury

After 1866 Unknown

Ravenswood About 25 miles NW of Austin

Silver, Copper, Lead, Gold, Tungsten

1863 Reported drilling activity. Au/Ag presumed.

Skookum About 12-15 miles N-NW

Silver, Gold, Lead, Zinc

1907 Possible renewed interest in silver deposits

Spencer Hot Springs

~20 miles E-SE of Austin

Tungsten 1941 Geothermal exploration

Reese River, the oldest mining district in Eastern Nevada

Centered right around Austin, N and S of Hwy 50

Silver, Gold, Lead, Copper, Zinc, Uranium, Molybdenum, Antimony, Arsenic

1862 Drilling is slated for silver at the Amador portion of the district

Birch Creek South of Hwy 50, about 5 miles S of Austin

Gold, Tungsten, Uranium, Silver, Lead, Copper, Molybdenum, Beryllium, Arsenic

1865 Anglo had drilled on the west side of the range; reclaimed and gone. Some renewed interest in Uranium

Big Creek Just N and W of Kingston Mining District.

Antimony, Gold, Silver, Barite

? Austin Gold Ventures mine – reclamation; some renewed interest. Au/Ag

Kingston ~ 20 miles SE of Austin

Gold, Silver Early 1860s Possible activity at the Victorine Mine. Au/Ag

10

Table 3.2 summarizes 1998-2002 production from active mines in Lander County. The main production has been in metals – primarily gold and silver – with some minor production of barite (NBMG Special Publications, P–10, 11, 12, 13, 14). The data in Table 3.2 illustrates a decrease in production at the Battle Mountain Complex, leading up to the year 2002. This area is now generally referred to as the Phoenix Project. Although limited production is currently reported for Phoenix, permitting is underway on additional reserves in this area. According to published data by Newmont, the Phoenix Project has a projected 13-year mine life, estimated to begin in 2007. The annual production is predicted to be 370,000 to 420,000 ounces of gold, and approximately 27 million pounds of copper (accounted for as a by-product credit). Additional gold and silver resources have been identified and delineated in Crescent Valley at the Pipeline Mine (South Pipeline Expansion), at the Gold Acres mine, at the old Cortez Mine, and at two new discoveries – Cortez Hills and Pediment. Permitting and feasibility studies are progressing on the new discovery areas and at the Pipeline South Expansion. The other areas are under review. Higher gold and silver prices are resulting in re-evaluations of known resource areas throughout Crescent Valley and in the mountain ranges and mining districts to the North. 3.3 Activity Levels Along the Proposed Yucca Rail Corridors Mineral production and exploration activity in Lander County have both been on the decline in recent years, from approximately 1997 through 2002. This was due in part to market conditions (low gold price), as well as to an increasingly difficult regulatory regime. There appears to be a resurgence of exploration and development activity (gold-silver mainly) across Nevada in 2003, in response to a stronger gold price (>370/ oz Au). Some regulatory changes and improvements have also occurred recently, and this is beginning to favorably influence investment in U.S. mineral properties. Elevated exploration and development activities are prominent in Lander County, highlighted by new discoveries and expansions in the area of the Cortez-Pipeline Mine complex, as well as development and related exploration activity around the Phoenix Project near Battle Mountain. Additionally, increased interest in other sectors of mineral resource development is also occurring in Lander County, where exploration for geothermal resources, turquoise, and barite and other industrial minerals have been increasing (at varying rates) since 2002. A brief summary of claim staking activity is included below, followed by discussions of activity relative to these categories: Metal Mines and Exploration Projects, Barite and Other Industrial Minerals, Geothermal, Oil and Gas, and Dimension–Decorative Stone & Turquoise. Claim-Staking – An Indicator An increase in claim staking activity is an indication of elevated mineral development activity levels. A review of claims maintained as ACTIVE was completed as part of this study. The number of claims is generally on the rise, especially since 2001-2002. The increase seen is based on general, brief reviews of records and files at the BLM and US Forest Service offices, as well as from personal communications with county recorder staff, and BLM and USFS personnel. Claim staking data summarized and presented here includes brief reviews of BLM claim data as it was obtained from this website –http://www.blm.gov/lr2000/.

11

TABLE 3.2. Active Mines 1998-2002 NP – No Production

Mine Operator Number of Employees

Production Years Operating

Argenta Mine & Mill

Baker Hughes INTEQ

19 20

Barite 47,301 tons 58,019 tons

NP NP NP

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

Battle Mountain Complex 2001 & 2002 see Phoenix

Battle Mountain Gold Co.*

21 23 21

Gold NP NP

1,509 oz 8,322 oz 36,787 oz

Silver NP NP

1,756 oz 19,526 oz 80,325 oz

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

Battle Mountain Grinding Plant

M-I LLC 68 75

Barite 204,332 tons 268,182 tons

NP NP NP

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

Cortez Gold Mine

Placer Dome US

391 394

Gold 1,081,677 oz 1,184,732 oz

NP NP NP

Silver

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

McCoy/Cove Mine

Echo Bay* 70 147

Gold 33,142 oz 94,633 oz

NP NP NP

Silver 1,987,421 oz 6,451,425 oz

NP NP NP

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

Mule Canyon Mine

Newmont Mining Corp.

Part of the Lone Tree Mine workforce, Humboldt County.

Gold 13,444 oz 33,616 oz

NP NP NP

Silver 2,708 oz 3,100 oz

NP NP NP

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

Phoenix Project

Newmont Mining Corp.

? 8

Gold 6,134 oz 5,641 oz

NP NP NP

Silver 1,236 oz 1,443 oz

NP NP NP

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

Trenton Canyon Mine

Newmont Mining Corp.

Part of the Lone Tree Mine workforce, Humboldt County.

Gold 3,685 oz 24,228 oz

NP NP NP

Silver 742 oz

2,996 oz NP NP NA

2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

* Echo Bay & Battle Mountain Gold Co. – purchased recently by Newmont.

12

The objective of this claim-related overview and summary was to present general activity levels in each Township and Range (T14N – 33N, R42E – 48E) in the vicinity of the proposed rail corridors (Figure 3.3). This data is not considered comprehensive, and is limited to the accuracy of the data accessible on the website and in the county recorder’s logbook. Because claim staking is very dynamic, this data should be considered preliminary. As illustrated in Figure 3.3, there are several areas of increased claim staking activity, with much of the increases occurring in the last few years. These include the greatest activity levels in the Battle Mountain, Bullion, and Cortez mining districts. Other notable increases in claim staking and related activity are evident in and near these mining districts: Argenta, Hilltop, Bateman Canyon, Mountain Springs, Steiner Canyon, Callaghan Ranch, Reese River, Birch Creek, Big Creek, and Kingston. This increased activity has resulted in mine reserve expansions, known resources being converted to reserves, and new mineral deposits discovered. Brief descriptions follow of activity levels adjacent to the proposed rail corridors. These are summarized relative to: Metal Mines and Exploration Projects, Barite and Other Industrial Minerals, Geothermal, Oil and Gas, and Dimension–Decorative Stone & Turquoise. Metal Mines and Exploration Projects Figure 3.4a illustrates the active metal mines (triangles), according to the publication – Major Mines of Nevada 2002, (most recent publication at the time of this report). These metal mines include the Mule Canyon Mine in the Argenta Mining district (metallic portion), the Trenton Canyon Mine straddling the Buffalo Valley-Battle Mountain districts, the Phoenix Project in the eastern Battle Mountain district, the Cortez Joint Venture (Pipeline) Mine in the Bullion district and adjacent pediment area (no mining district designation), and the McCoy Mine in the McCoy district. As well, exploration projects are illustrated in Figure 3.4a (squares). These in no way demonstrate all of the present activity, only those considered some of the most prominent. The strong gold price over the past 9-12 months has resulted in renewed interest and activity in Lander County, especially near active mines and known resource areas. Table 3.3 lists a few of the more prominent exploration projects in the county. There is also, consequently, renewed interest in grassroots exploration – considered long-shot mineral exploration – generally in areas with no known mineral resources defined and therefore very difficult to track. The most significant gold-silver development has been in the area of the Cortez Joint Venture (Pipeline) Mine (60% Placer Dome and 40% Kennecott). Figure 3.4b illustrates the prospective area between Pipeline and the new discoveries south of the old Cortez Mine area. According to published data from Placer Dome, the Cortez Joint Venture Mine in Crescent Valley as of December 31, 2002 had a projected mine life of 10 years, with contained proven and probable mineral reserves of 7.9 million ounces of gold. Included in the mineral reserves is the Pediment deposit estimated at 1.2 million ounces (0.7 million ounces proven and 0.5 million ounces probable) and Gap estimated at 0.3 million ounces (0.05 million ounces proven and 0.25 million ounces probable) of gold.

13

The Pipeline/Pediment deposits are expected to produce more than 11.7 million ounces of gold over 16 years (1997-2012). What is not included in this estimate is the newly discovered Cortez Hills deposit, which sits between Cortez-Pipeline and Pediment. Since the discovery of Cortez Hills was announced on April 29, 2003, continued exploration drilling has identified additional resources of superior quality. Measured and indicated gold mineral resources have increased from 2.1 to 4.5 million ounces, and inferred mineral resources have increased from 0.9 to 1.0 million ounces for an approximate total of 5.5 million ounces in this new discovery. Exploration and development drilling continues in the area.

Table 3.3. Exploration Projects in Lander County

Exploration Project Mining Districts Exploration Activity Battle Mountain Area Battle Mountain Exploration, new & old

Mule Canyon Argenta

(metallic) Exploration, known resource area

Fire Creek Bullion? Exploration, known resource area

Hilltop Area South of Hilltop Exploration, known resource area

Coral Gold Mine area Bullion Exploration, known resource area

Gold Acres Mine area Bullion Exploration, known resource area

Old Cortez Mine Cortez Exploration, known resource area

Cortez Hills Cortez Exploration, new discovery

Pediment Cortez Exploration, new discovery

Horse Canyon Exploration Unknown Exploration, mainly in Eureka Co.

Woods Canyon North of Steiner

Canyon Exploration Callaghan Mountain area Callaghan Ranch Exploration

Steiner Creek? Southeast of

Callaghan Ranch Exploration Amador Canyon Reese River Exploration, Ag Low Boy Birch Creek Exploration, Ur

Apex Mine West of Birch

Creek Exploration, Ur Goodyear Spring Area Birch Creek Exploration

Austin Gold Ventures area North of Big

Creek Exploration, known resource area

Victorine Mine Kingston Exploration, known resource area

Broad Canyon Kingston/ Millet

border Exploration

14

Over 7 million ounces of gold have been newly discovered in this area included in both the Pediment and the Cortez Hills deposits. These new discoveries have prompted renewed exploration and development activities in the region. Various companies are increasing their activity levels on areas with known gold/silver resources, such as at Coral Gold, old Cortez Mine, Gold Acres, Mule Canyon, and Hilltop - to name just a few. With this elevated exploration and development activity in the Crescent Valley, concerns related to the proposed DOE rail corridors are beginning to be defined by mine personnel and other mineral resource developers. Additional follow up is warranted to track new discoveries and expanded reserve areas to identify conflicts and possible solutions. Outside of Crescent Valley, other exploration and development projects are being advanced, including those in the Callaghan Ranch mining district. Placement of the proposed rail corridor may impact some mineral (gold/ silver) development in this area. Further review is warranted to help to identify concerns and possible solutions, as exploration projects in this mining district are advanced. The Battle Mountain mining district also has seen elevated exploration and development activities (gold, silver, copper), although these will not appear to be impacted by the proposed rail corridor (Figure 3.4a). As is illustrated in Figure 3.4a, other mining districts along the proposed rail corridors do not appear to be adversely impacted. Barite & Other Industrial Minerals Barite Active barite mines are illustrated in Figure 3.5 (triangles), and include the Argenta Mine & Mill in the Argenta mining district and the Battle Mountain Grinding Plant (Greystone Mine) in the Bullion mining district. Barite exploration projects are illustrated as well (squares) – an indication of renewed interest in barite development in Lander County, further supported by conversations with government agency personnel. Generally it was indicated that the renewed activity was centered on existing resource areas – exploration projects and mine areas with resources previously defined. Table 3.4 summarizes some of the barite exploration projects that appear to be advancing.

Table 3.4. Barite Exploration Projects.

Exploration Project Mining Districts Exploration Activity

Slaven Canyon Bateman Canyon Exploration Bateman Canyon Bateman Canyon Exploration Copper Canyon, Bald Mountain Southwest of Cortez Exploration Mountain Springs Mine

Mountain Springs

Exploration, old mine area

Industrial Minerals There are limited industrial minerals operations identified in Lander County. Papke and Castor (2003) summarized areas where some industrial minerals were previously identified and developed. Their publication outlines areas of barite, fluorspar, and zeolite mineralization in Lander County, and these are summarized in Table 3.5 per the area or mining district in which these are located.

15

Table 3.5. Some Industrial Mineral Areas.

Mining District Commodity Mining Districts Countywide (see Table 3.4)

Barite

Iowa Canyon Fluorspar Steiner Canyon Zeolites

There are no apparent active industrial mineral exploration or development areas in the county, other than barite and the odd sand and gravel operations. Specialty minerals such as clays, limestones, dolomites, silica, and many others are not currently identified or explored for on an active level in Lander County due to transportation challenges. Sand and gravel operations are developed on lands close to where the material is needed. Therefore there are small operations along many of the roads (paved or gravel) to help to facilitate maintenance and repair. No other deposits of construction material or industrial minerals are being noticeably explored for at this time (personal communication, industrial mineral experts). Industrial minerals and construction materials are generally highly sensitive to affordable transportation. Large areas of Lander County would be considered prospective for a wide range of deposit types if inexpensive transportation were more readily available (personal communication, industry experts and USFS staff, 2003). Therefore, the proposed rail corridor poses an interesting exploration motivator if access is permitted to the line for shipment of materials to outside markets. According to industry experts, exploration 10 miles either side of a rail line is a typical exploration tool. Figure 3.5 illustrates this ‘exploration corridor’ along the proposed Yucca Mountain rail line. Geothermal Resources Geothermal resources are illustrated in Figure 3.6a, based on previously published data (Shevenell, L. and Garside, L., 2003). This figure includes active power plants, known wells and springs, transmission lines, and other data. Recent leasing activity levels are illustrated in Figure 3.6b, based on data provided by Bureau of Land Management staff out of both the Battle Mountain Field Office and the State office in Reno (Appendix B). Conversations with Cortez Joint Venture Mine personnel indicated that drilling for gold-silver mineralization resulted in discovery of new areas of hot water, now under lease by Cortez Joint Venture and Placer Dome, Inc. As drill testing for gold/silver mineralization progressively goes deeper in the Crescent Valley area, additional geothermal areas are likely to be discovered and defined. The Crescent Valley area is prospective for geothermal resources, and the proposed rail corridors will need to coordinate alignment and other considerations so as not to interfere with development of this type of resource. Applications for geothermal leases are sharply up from the past few years (personal communications with BLM and Nevada Division of Minerals staff). This may get accelerated further, depending on national energy legislation pending before Congress. Part of the discussions surrounding energy legislation is a renewed interest nationwide in renewable energy and potential production. As well, recent Nevada state legislation (SB

16

372) has helped to provide incentives for exploration for and production of geothermal resources (Appendix C). BLM staff and other industry experts have suggested that the increased activity in geothermal exploration may be due in part to the California energy crisis. In 1999, geothermal lease applications statewide totaled around 10 per year. By 2001, applications for leases had increased over 10-fold to +120 per year. Oil and Gas Resources Although oil and gas exploration has occurred in the past in Lander County, there is no apparent renewed interest at this time. Figure 3.7 illustrates resources previously defined in Lander County (Hess, 2003). Most of the past exploration activity was focused in the Battle Mountain area east toward Beowawe, with a few wells in the southern part of the state along Highway 50. Files were reviewed at the BLM state office in Reno, and conversations with both BLM and USFS personnel confirmed that exploration for oil and gas is not on the increase in Lander County. Elevated activity is evident in other parts of the state, in areas that are perceived as being more prospective. According to current information, it does not appear that the proposed rail corridor will impact development of these resources. Dimension–Decorative Stone Resources & Turquoise Decorative and dimension stone resources are not well defined in Lander County. This material is highly sensitive to market conditions and affordable transportation, similarly to construction materials and industrial minerals. According to Tingley et al (2001), there are a few historic quarry sites in Lander County and other newer dimension stone sites. These are listed in Table 3.6 with general descriptions of their locations, rock types, whether the site is a historic quarry (denoted with question marks where site location is estimated), and the approximate year(s) the site was in production. Decorative and dimension stone resources are also highly sensitive to transportation costs. A rail line through Lander County just might provide the economic catalyst toward developing deposits of this nature. Turquoise is more market sensitive, with surges related to how appealing the stone is in the jewelry trade. Most recently, turquoise has enjoyed widespread market appeal, and the mines in Lander County have responded with increased production. It is not expected that a significant increase in production will be realized over the long-term, though (personal communications with Austin-based shop owners and miners, 2003). No currently identified decorative or dimension stone deposits appear to be impacted by the proposed rail corridor. This is also the case with turquoise. Both of these would benefit from being able to access the rail line to bring supplies to potential operations, as well as to ship product to market.