APPENDIX I 

REASONABLE FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT 

SCENARIOS 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1 

Appendix I 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenarios (Minerals) (From the 

Winnemucca RMP Mineral Potential Report - BLM 2006a) 

As part of the Winnemucca RMP Process a Mineral Potential Report was developed to 

analyze existing and potential development of mineral resources. This appendix includes 

reasonable development scenarios from that report for oil and gas resources, geothermal 

resources and solid leasable minerals. 

I.1 OIL AND GAS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

I.1.1 Development Potential Rankings 

Development potential is not a prediction of precise future drilling locations and should not 

be used as a gauge of future interest or lack of interest in leasing. Oil and gas companies have 

numerous sources of proprietary data not available to the BLM (such as seismic data or 

internal geologic reports), which they use prior to making financial commitments to lease or 

drill. Therefore, even though an area is rated as very low development potential at this time 

with a low probability for any wells being drilled, a company may still be interested in leasing 

that area, should it be made available. 

The analysis of potential for development of oil and gas resources within the Planning Area is 

based on bedrock geologic mapping, geophysical data and 47 oil and gas tests drilled in the 

Planning Area (Table I-1). The areas with potential for the occurrence of oil and gas resources 

within the Planning Area are shown on Figure I-1. 

Figure I-1 is a map depicting development potential for oil and gas resources within the 

Planning Area. On this map development potential ranges from moderate to very low. As 

with the occurrence potential, there are no areas of “high” development potential within the 

Planning Area. High development potential areas occur only within proven producing 

petroleum provinces or in areas with a significant number of hydrocarbon “shows”. Areas of 

moderate development potential have a significant thickness of sedimentary section present 

that includes possible source and reservoir rocks. These areas correspond to the USGS (1995) 

play areas. 

Within the Planning Area, areas having a low potential for development typically have a thin 

sedimentary section present. They may also have limited source rock potential because of 

shallow burial and/or limited reservoir potential. Areas of low potential are also used to 

designate areas where there is insufficient data available to analyze the potential. Areas of low 

potential occur adjacent to areas of moderate potential in the Tertiary basin of the Western 

Great Basin Province.

An area of very low development potential lacks source or reservoir rocks or is an area 

predominantly underlain by metamorphosed or intrusive terrane. Areas of very low potential 

have no sedimentary source rock section thought to be capable of generating oil or gas and/or 

very limited reservoir potential. 
TABLE I-1 

SUMMARY OF OIL AND GAS DRILLING ACTIVITY TO 2004 

WINNEMUCCA FIELD AREA, NEVADA 

Operator Current Name Lease Name Name Field Name County Name Permit # Permit Date Total Drilled Dated Spud Date 

BLACK ROCK O&G CO GOVT 1 WILDCAT HUMBOLDT 11/23/1921 800 12/3/1921 EARTH POWER PROD N17278 45‐14 WILDCAT HUMBOLDT 9/20/1982 3703 9/30/1982 HUMBOLT ASSOC ELLISON 2 WILDCAT HUMBOLDT 383 6/16/1984 1020 6/26/1984 HUMBOLT ASSOC ELLISON 1 WILDCAT HUMBOLDT 268 11/4/1979 986 11/14/1979 SUN EXPL & PROD CO KING LEAR‐FEDERAL 1‐17 WILDCAT HUMBOLDT 347 4/7/1983 7931 4/17/1983 W PACIFIC RR CO SULPHUR MP 474.67 HUMBOLDT 1909 970ARCO OIL & GAS CORP ARCO TOBIN UNIT 1 WILDCAT PERSHING 408 10/28/1984 2065 11/7/1984 CHEVRON U S A INC KYLE‐FEDERAL 84‐2 WILDCAT PERSHING 9/7/1980 2104 9/17/1980 EVANS BARTON LTD KYLE SPRING 11‐42A WILDCAT PERSHING 838 7/10/2001 607 7/24/2001 EVANS BARTON LTD KYLE SPRING 12‐13D WILDCAT PERSHING 759 9/21/1995 1000 10/1/1995 EVANS BARTON LTD KYLE SPRING 12‐13 WILDCAT PERSHING 730 8/2/1994 1162 8/12/1994 EVANS BARTON LTD KYLE SPRING FED 11‐14 WILDCAT PERSHING 791 10/27/1996 2633 11/6/1996 EVANS DAVID M KYLE SPRING 12‐13 UNNAMED PERSHING 10/27/1996 230 11/6/1996 EVANS DAVID M KYLE SPRING FED 11‐43 WILDCAT PERSHING 821 7/13/1998 868 9/23/1998 EVANS DAVID M KYLE SPRING FED 11‐23 WILDCAT PERSHING 5/12/1998 2020 8/1/2000 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEDERAL 44‐10 WILDCAT PERSHING 3/3/1981 7964 3/13/1981 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 14‐22 PERSHING 3/3/1979 500 3/13/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 18‐24 PERSHING 3/1/1979 500 3/10/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 17‐24 PERSHING 2/28/1979 500 3/9/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 13‐26 PERSHING 2/14/1979 500 2/24/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 6‐6 WILDCAT PERSHING 3/5/1979 500 3/15/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 15‐21 WILDCAT PERSHING 3/4/1979 500 3/14/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 16‐22 WILDCAT PERSHING 3/2/1979 500 3/12/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 10‐34 WILDCAT PERSHING 2/16/1979 500 2/26/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 11‐23 WILDCAT PERSHING 2/4/1979 500 2/14/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 5‐8 WILDCAT PERSHING 2/3/1979 500 2/13/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 4‐16 WILDCAT PERSHING 2/2/1979 500 2/12/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 7‐4 WILDCAT PERSHING 2/2/1979 500 2/12/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 3‐10 WILDCAT PERSHING 2/1/1979 500 2/11/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 1‐12 WILDCAT PERSHING 1/28/1979 500 2/7/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 2‐2 WILDCAT PERSHING 1/18/1979 500 1/28/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 8‐34 WILDCAT PERSHING 1/16/1979 500 1/26/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 9‐34 WILDCAT PERSHING 1/15/1979 500 1/25/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY FEE 12‐26 WILDCAT PERSHING 1/6/1979 400 1/16/1979 GETTY OIL COMPANY IGH 2 COLADO PERSHING 10/20/1979 1165 10/30/1979 OESI POWER 46‐28M HUMBOLDT PERSHING 284 9/23/1991 260 10/3/1991 OUIDA OIL CO DIXIE 1 WILDCAT PERSHING 743 2/17/1995 4536 2/27/1995 PHILLIPS PETRLM CO CAMPBELL E‐2 HUMBOLDT PERSHING 12/27/1978 8061 1/6/1979 PHILLIPS PETRLM CO CAMPBELL E‐1 WILDCAT PERSHING 10/23/1977 1848 11/2/1977 TREGO WELL BLACK R DES TREGO WELL PERSHING 1500AMOR IV CORPORATION 32A‐21 SAN EMIDIO DESERT WASHOE 10/9/1988 1000 10/19/1988 CAITHNESS POWER 32‐5 STEAMBOAT SPR WASHOE 79 10/8/1987 3000 10/18/1987 CHEVRON GEOTHERMAL 28‐32 WASHOE 67 3/11/1986 3031 3/21/1986 PHILLIPS PET‐GULF STEAMBOAT 1 WILDCAT WASHOE 5/26/1979 3075 6/5/1979 PHILLIPS PETRLM CO COX I‐1 WILDCAT WASHOE 3/22/1981 3471 4/1/1981 SUNOCO ENRGY DEV CO HOLLAND LIVESTOCK 1‐2‐FR WASHOE 2/6/1979 5210 2/16/1979 SUNOCO ENRGY DEV CO HOLLAND LIVESTOCK 1‐15G WILDCAT WASHOE 12/7/1978 5871 12/17/1978 Notes:Well Data compiled from: P I Dwights Winn FO RMP Washoe, Humboldt, Pershing 2/2005

NBMG, 2001, Oil and Gas Wells Drilled in Nevada (website: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/lists/oil/oil.htm)

Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4 

I.1.2 Drilling Activity Forecast 

In order for the BLM to be able to analyze the effects of oil and gas leasing, and possible 

impacts related to exploration, development, and cumulative effects, it is necessary to estimate 

how many wells industry might drill in the next 15 to 20 years within the WDO Planning 

Area. The following RFD scenario has been developed using historical oil and gas 

development, and oil “play” information from the US Geological Survey, potential 

development map (Figure 4.6) and other data from BLM files, and a number of other technical 

sources. 

The Neogene Source Rock Play areas (Figure I-1, green outlined areas) have a moderate to 

high resource potential; that is, they have a high probability (0.8 to 1.0) of a suitable oil and 

gas charge occurring in the source rock (USGS, 1995). Even though the probability of 

occurrence of suitable reservoir rock and traps in the Neogene Basins Play areas (yellow 

outlined areas) is relatively low (0.2-0.5) (USGS 1995), it is estimated that as many as twelve 

wildcat wells (wells drilled in areas with no previous production) may be drilled in these 

Neogene Basins in the next 15 to 20 years. Many of the initial twelve wells would likely be 

located in the Buena Vista Valley and Kyle Springs areas (Figure I-1). Of these twelve wells it 

is estimated that 10 will be dry holes (no economically producible oil or gas is discovered). 

Dry holes would be plugged and abandoned with surface reclamation occurring shortly 

afterward. 

It is further estimated that two of the wells drilled in the southeast portion of the Planning 

Area, probably in the vicinity of the relatively recent leasing activity and within the area 

nominated for Oil and Gas Competitive Leasing, will produce a discovery (Figure I-1). Each 

of the discovery wells would probably prompt additional step-out wells. A "step-out well" is a 

well drilled adjacent to or near a proven well to establish the limits and continuity of the oil 

or gas reservoir and/or to assist with production. It was estimated that a total of four (4) stepout wells would be drilled, two for each discovery. Finally, it is estimated one of the 

discoveries (including the two step-out wells) would have limited oil production and occur on 

BLM administered lands. 

The general geographic areas within the Planning Area, where oil and gas exploration is 

predicted to occur are on Figure I-1. Each of the areas is associated with an area identified as a 

Neogene Basin or Neogene Source Rock Play area described above in the section entitled 

USGS Hydrocarbon Provinces and Plays. It is anticipated that the 12 projected wildcat wells 

would be drilled somewhere within the basin boundaries of these four play areas with 

discoveries likely in the Buena Vista Valley area (in the area currently nominated for Oil and 

Gas Completive Leasing (Figure I-1, Table I-2). 
Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5 

Table I-2 

Drilling Activity Forecast (RFD) 

Mineral Assessment Report Winnemucca District Office – EIS / RMP 

RMP Planning Area 

Area Wildcat Wells Discoveries Step-out Wells Commodity

Neogene Basins 12

Buena Vista 

Valley Area 2 4 oil or gas

TOTAL 12 2 4 oil or gas

I.1.3 Surface Disturbance Impacts 

Construction of temporary road access and a drilling location for each wildcat well may 

disturb about 6 acres for each wildcat well, or 72 acres for all the wildcat wells. No discoveries 

of commercial quantities of oil or gas are anticipated during the next 10 to 15 years. 

This section of the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario describes the anticipated 

disturbances associated with the Drilling Activity Forecast (Table I-2) predicted in the 

preceding section. Table I-3 describes the tasks involved and the surface disturbances that are 

likely to result from the successful and unsuccessful drilling of wildcat wells, development or 

step-out drilling, and field production activities of the Winnemucca RFD drilling forecast. 

The number of acres of disturbance estimated relies on data derived from wildcat well drilling 

elsewhere within the Planning Area and on existing small scale production from fields 

developed elsewhere in Nevada. Reclaimed acres (regraded and seeded) are assumed to be 

stabilized after 2 years. 
Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6 

Table I-3 

Estimated Cumulative Impacts of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (RFD) 

Mineral Assessment Report Winnemucca District Office – EIS / RMP 

RMP Planning Area

Type of 

Disturbance Required Tasks

Acres Disturbed

Pre-Site 

Reclamation

Acres Disturbed

Post-Site 

Reclamation

Ten (10) 

Unsuccessful 

Wildcat Wells

Well Site - Maximum area of 3.6 acres (about 380 ft. x 400 ft.) cleared per well pad.

35 0 (2 years)

Access Roads – 40 ft. width x lineal footage (3.6 miles or 18,480 lineal feet) or about 17 

acres per well site. 170 0 (2 years)

One (1) Well 

Drilled with a Gas 

Field Discovery 

Two (2) Step-out 

Wells Drilled with 

No Production

because of 

distance to Gas 

Transmission 

Lines

- Gas field would be discovered in the Buena Vista Valley west of the East 

Range (Field would be approximately 3 square miles in surface area).

- Compressor stations would normally be necessary along the feeder pipeline 

route but the distance to the main transmission line is too long, and the field is 

shut in. 

- Condensate, gas, and water separation would occur at the well sites, during 

production testing. Water disposal would be into a lined pit at the surface or 

water would be injected into the subsurface through a dry hole converted into 

a water disposal well. Gas would be flared. Condensate would be shipped by 

truck (1 truck every 4 days).

Not Applicable Not Applicable

1 discovery well 

- 2 additional step 

out wells per 

discovery well 

Well Site - Maximum area of 3.6 acres (about 380 

ft. x 400 ft.) cleared per well pad.(3 wells total) 10.5 3.6 (2 years)

Access Roads – 40 ft. width x lineal footage.

1 at 17 acres (3.6 miles long)

2at 7.3 acres (1.5 miles long)

31.6 16 7 (2 years)

Pipelines – no production, none required

- Trunk lines to existing transmission lines – 25 ft. 

width x lineal footage (35 miles long).

- Field gathering pipelines will follow access roads and 

no additional disturbance will result.

0

0 (2years)
Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7 

Table I-3 (continued)

Estimated Cumulative Impacts of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (RFD)

Type of 

Disturbance Required Tasks Acres DisturbedPre-Site 

Reclamation

Acres Disturbed

Post-Site 

Reclamation

One (1) Oil Field 

Discovered and 

Brought into 

Small Scale 

Production

- An oil field is possible in the Kyle Springs area 

- Field would be approximately 1 1⁄2 square miles in surface area.

- Oil would be transported by truck to refining facility.

- Oil, gas, and water separation would occur at the well sites. Water disposal 

would be into a lined pit at the surface or water would be injected into the 

subsurface through a dry hole converted into a water disposal well. Gas would 

be used on lease to separate oil and water and to heat oil. Gas not used on 

lease would be reinjected into the formation for pressure maintenance or 

would be vented / flared to the atmosphere. If sufficient gas quantities are 

produced this gas may also be captured and sold. For this analysis all unused 

gas is assumed to be reinjected for pressure maintenance.

Not Applicable Not Applicable

- 3 commercially 

productive wells 

(one discovery and 

two step-out wells)

Well Site - Maximum area of 3.6 acres (about 380 ft. x 

400 ft.) cleared per well pad. 10.5 3.6 (2 years)

Access Roads – 40 ft. width x lineal footage.

1 at 17 acres (3.6 miles long)

2 at 7.3 acres (1.5 miles long)

31.6 16 7 (2 years)

Pipelines

- Field gathering pipelines will follow access roads 

and no additional disturbance will result. 0 0
Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 8 

I.2 GEOTHERMAL REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

I.2.1 Introduction 

In 2000, the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) initiated its 

GeoPowering the West program in an effort to dramatically increase the use of geothermal 

energy in the western United States (Geothermal-biz.com 2005 and U.S.DOE 2005). The 

goals of GeoPowering the West include doubling the number of states producing geothermal 

electricity to 8 by 2006, reducing the cost of geothermal power to 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt 

hour by 2007, and ultimately providing seven million homes with geothermal energy by 2010. 

In addition, in 1997, the Nevada legislature established a renewable energy portfolio standard. 

This standard requires that up to 15% of the total electricity sold would be derived form 

renewable energy resources. Considering the high potential for further geothermal 

development in Nevada, it seems quite likely that the state will experience substantial growth 

in the geothermal energy production industry. BLM Management action and scrutiny will be 

necessary to provide for future renewable energy growth while protecting sensitive resource 

values. Development of geothermal resources on federal lands, as described in Section 2.0, is 

subject to review under NEPA. 

The following Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) for geothermal 

resources was developed in the Geothermal Resources Leasing Programmatic EA (BLM, 2005) in 

order to provide a reasonable estimate of anticipated exploration, development and 

production activity that might be expected over the next 20 years of developing geothermal 

resources of the Planning Area. Once the anticipated level of activity is determined the RFDS 

estimates the potential cumulative impacts of surface disturbance and other environmental 

impacts associated with geothermal development. 

Initially the RFDS looks at the location of KGRAs, historical leasing patterns and geologic 

models to identify favorable and prospective areas for developing geothermal energy within 

the planning area. The Geothermal Resources Leasing Programmatic EA (BLM, 2005) identified 

at least three areas of varying potential within the Planning Area. These include (Figure I-2):

1) the six Known Geothermal Resource Areas (KGRAs); 2) areas with pending lease 

applications (typically in the vicinity of the KGRAs); and 3) areas identified by the geologic 

models as being Prospectively Valuable Areas (PVAs) with respect to geothermal 

development. In all, the largest area of potential within the Planning Area is included within 

the 13 PVAs that encompass approximately 1.9 million acres and include the six KGRAs 

(Figure I-2).

The Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario presented here envisions that over the 

next 20 years, exploration drilling would occur on all geothermal leases, some of which lead 

to more detailed exploration drilling, and a few of which lead to the discovery of geothermal 

resources capable of developing five 15 Megawatt Geothermal Power Plants. The 15-megawatt 

power plant is used as a typical size to estimate the amount of disturbance that could be 

involved for the RFD scenario. These calculations are meant to be used as an indicator of the 

impacts involved, not as a cap or bound on the size of any geothermal power plant 

development. The discussion below looks at the potential surface disturbances from this 

scenario, and then the other potential environmental impacts from development of the 

resources. 

Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 10

I.2.2 Surface Disturbance 

Exploration: During the exploration stage, surface disturbance is minimal with few adverse 

impacts until the decision is made to drill one or more exploration wells. An explorationdrilling impact evaluation is shown below (Table I-4) which lists the maximum degree of 

anticipated surface disturbance expected during this phase. . 

Table I-4 

Geothermal Exploration Drilling Disturbance 

Mineral Assessment Report Winnemucca District Office – EIS / RMP 

RMP Planning Area 

Activity

Acres of

Disturbance

(Acres)

Units per 

Lease

Total Acres 

Disturbed Per 

Lease

Total Acres 

Disturbed 

with Two 

Leases 

Explored Per 

Year

Exploration Roads 1 acre/mile 3, 1⁄2 mile 

roads 1.5 3

Shallow Temperature 

Gradient or Exploration 

Flow Test Well (several 

100 to several 1000 feet 

deep)

1 acre/drill site 3 drill sites 3.0 6

TOTAL 4.5 9

If we assume that as many as three temperature gradient and/or exploration flow test wells 

would be drilled on each lease. This would disturb as much as three acres (one acre per drill 

site). Three new access roads, each a half-mile in length would disturb an additional 1.5 acres. 

Therefore, the total disturbance per lease is approximately 4.5 acres (Table I-4). Exploration 

drilling surface impacts are transitory in that unsuccessful exploration programs are 

abandoned and the surface impacts are reclaimed usually within a two year period. Successful 

exploration programs lead on through the development process frequently using the surface 

disturbances created during exploration for some of the development activities. To spite the 

fact that there may be numerous leases on which exploration drilling takes place, they would 

not all be drilled at the same time. If we assume that over the next 20 years 40 geothermal 

leases are drilled, a total of 120 exploration holes would be drilled. If we assume that these 

holes would be drilled evenly over the entire 20 year period, six holes would be drilled per 

year. If we further assume that unsuccessful exploration holes are reclaimed within a two year 

period, then there would never be more than 12 drill pads disturbed at any one time. Table I4 summarizes anticipated individual and cumulative impacts for the exploration drilling. 

Development: The following describes the construction activities required to develop five, 15-

megawatt electrical power generating plants, associated wells, pipelines, roads, and electrical 

transmission lines. The number of wells includes those used for production, standby, and reinjection. Since development is likely to occur in about 5-megawatt increments over a period 
Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 11

of several years, the degree of surface disturbance at any given time is less than that presented 

in 

Table I-5. Mitigation and enhancement would have occurred in some portions of the lease 

before additional portions of the lease are developed. 

Table I-5 

Surface Disturbance From Construction of a Geothermal Power Facility 

Mineral Assessment Report Winnemucca District Office – EIS / RMP 

RMP Planning Area 

Facility or Feature Facility or 

Features/Plant 

Disturbed 

Acres Per 

Feature or 

Facility

Disturbed Acres 

for Overall 

Power Plant 

Infrastructure 

Total 

Disturbed 

Acres for 5 

Power Plant 

Facilities 

Power Plant 1 30 30 150

Wells 6 5 30 150

Cooling Pond 1 5 5 25

Pipelines 3 5 15 75

Access Road (spurs) 3 7 21 105

Mainline Road 1 10 10 50

Transmission Line 1 10 10 50

TOTAL 121 605

Schedule: The various time frames for a typical geothermal project are estimated as follows: 

Exploration: 1 to 5 years 

Development: 2 to 10 years 

Production: 10 to 30 years (depending on construction time) 

Up to six production or injection wells could be drilled on each lease. Each well pad would 

disturb approximately 5 acres, and a mainline road would disturb approximately 10 acres. 

Each of three pipelines would disturb approximately 5 acres and each of three access roads 

would disturb approximately 7 acres. A power plant would occupy approximately 30 acres, a 

disposal pond would disturb approximately 5 acres, and a 25-mile transmission line would 

disturb approximately 10 acres. Total surface disturbance for each plant for this phase of 

operation would total approximately 121 acres (Table I-5). Again, not all power plants would 

be constructed at the same time, and construction would likely be staged in 5-megawatt 

increments. 

Until actual geothermal exploration and development begin, it is difficult to quantify the 

resource potential and possible future intensified production measures necessary to develop 

the resources. In order to assess environmental impacts resulting from an action as general as 

geothermal exploration, development, and production, it is necessary to assume given levels of 

intensities of such development. 
Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 12

I.3 SOLID LEASABLE MINERAL POTENTIAL

The potential for development of leasable industrial rocks and mineral resources of the WDO 

Planning Area are summarized below. These include the following: sodium minerals 

(including salt), and sulfur. 

I.3.1 Sodium Minerals (salt) 

There is good potential for the development of salt deposits in the Planning Area. The salt 

deposits occur in the playas of which the Planning Area has several. Although there is no 

current production of salt in the Planning Area, former salt mines include White Plains, 

Carson Sink, and Eagle Marsh in Churchill County and Buffalo Springs in Washoe County 

(Nash, 1996) (Figure I-3, Table I-6). 

There are several mines that produced sulfur as a by product of gold and/or silver ores in the 

Planning Area. These include Sulfur in Humboldt County, Humboldt House (also known as 

Imlay) in Pershing County, and San Emidio in Washoe County (Papke and Castor, 2003; 

Tingley, 1998). Due to the high operating cost necessary for their development, and a 

technology generally incompatible with heap leach gold recovery operations at large gold 

mining operations, it is not likely that further large scale development of secondary sulfur 

mineral deposits will occur in Planning Area. 

I.3.2 Sulfur 

There is low potential for the development of fumarole-related, sulfur deposits in the WDO 

Planning Area. This is because fumarole environments have been thoroughly prospected for 

gold-silver-mercury deposits. Undiscovered deposits within 200 meters of the surface are 

predicted to either be small or buried by younger alluvium. Fumarole sulfur deposits tend to 

be small in size and can be rich in metals that are costly to remove. An economic deposit must 

be near an efficient transportation route (Nash, 1996). 

Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 14

Table I-6 

Industrial Mineral Deposits of the Winnemucca FO Planning Area 

Mineral Assessment Report Winnemucca District Office – EIS / RMP 

RMP Planning Area 

Commodity

Deposit #

This 

Report

County Mine Name Deposit #

Map #142*

Stone, Building 1 Humboldt Virgin Valley (Wegman Quarry) 9

Clay 2 Humboldt Bull Basin (Montana Mountains) 8

Clay 3 Humboldt Disaster Peak 9

Fluorspar 4 Humboldt Sunset 7

Zeolite 5 Humboldt Spring Creek 11

Zeolite 6 Humboldt Chimney Reservoir 12

Barite 7 Humboldt Anderson 37

Wollastonite 8 Humboldt Getchell 3

Clay 9 Humboldt Barret Springs 10

Silica 10 Humboldt Stone Corral 13

Barite 11 Humboldt Redhouse 38

Barite 12 Humboldt Horton – Little Britches 39

Sulfur 13 Humboldt Sulphur 3

Carbonate 14 Pershing W. Glen Sexton Mine 13

Silica 14a Humboldt Kramer Hill Mine none

Clay 15 Pershing Rosebud Canyon 27

Carbonate 16 Pershing Min-Ad Mine East Range 14

Fluorspar 17 Pershing Mammoth 34

Sodium Minerals 18 Washoe Buffalo Springs 19

Gypsum 19 Pershing Empire 20

Perlite 20 Pershing North Trinity Range 16

Sulfur 21 Pershing Humboldt House 4

Fluorspar 22 Pershing Piedmont 35

Fluorspar 23 Pershing Valery 36

Clay 24 Washoe San Emidio 31

Diatomite 25 Pershing Rye Patch 20

Limestone 25a Pershing Echo Canyon In Permitting

Carbonate 26 Pershing Humboldt Range 15

Sulfur 27 Washoe San Emidio 5

Diatomite 28 Pershing Colado (Velvet District) 21

Perlite 29 Pershing Trinity Range 17

Aluminum Minerals 30 Pershing Champion 3

Fluorspar 31 Pershing Needle Peak 37

Zeolite 32 Pershing Lovelock 24

Perlite 33 Pershing Pearl Hill (Velvet District) 18

Aluminum Minerals 34 Pershing Lincoln Hill 4

Talc Minerals 35 Pershing Humboldt Range Pinite 13

Pumice 36 Pershing Lovelock 13

Clay 37 Pershing Coal Canyon Deposits 28
Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 15

Fluorspar 38 Pershing Emerald Spar 38

Carbonate 39 Pershing Buffalo Mountain 16

Zeolite 40 Pershing Jersey Valley 25

Gypsum 41 Pershing Lovelock area 21

Table I-6 (continued) 

Industrial Mineral Deposits of the Winnemucca FO Planning Area 

Commodity

Deposit #

This 

Report

County Mine Name Deposit #

Map #142*

Fluorspar 42 Pershing Susie 39

Fluorspar 43 Pershing Nevada Fluorspar 40

Clay 44 Pershing New York Canyon (Stoker) 29

Gypsum 45 Pershing Corn Beef 22

Silica 46 Washoe Winnemucca Lake 18

Diatomite 47 Churchill Nightingale (Truckee Range) 1

Zeolite 48 Churchill Trinity Range 1

Carbonate 49 Churchill Ocala 1

Stone, Building 50 Churchill Trinity Range 1

Diatomite 51 Washoe Nixon 26

Diatomite 52 Churchill Trinity 2

Sodium Minerals 53 Churchill White Plains 1

Diatomite 54 Churchill Moltan Mine Desert Peak (Hot 

Spring Mountain area) 3

Stone, Building 55 Churchill Black Mountain 2

Sodium Minerals 56 Churchill Eagle Marsh 4

Sodium Minerals 57 Churchill Carson Sink 3

Pumice 58 Churchill Posalite 2

Diatomite 59 Churchill Black Butte 4

* Deposit number from Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Map 142 Industrial Minerals of Nevada. 
Appendix I 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 16

This page intentionally left blank.