DOCSLIB.ORG

2020-12-16 Rochester Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020-12-16 Rochester Technical Report TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE ROCHESTER MINE, LOVELOCK, NEVADA, U.S.A. Prepared for Coeur Mining, Inc. NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT Effective Date: December 16, 2020 Report Date: December 16, 2020 Prepared by: Christopher F. Pascoe, RM SME, Coeur Mining, Inc. Josef C. R. Bilant, RM SME, Coeur Rochester, Inc. Robert M. Gray, P.Eng., Moose Mountain Technical Services Matthew S. Bradford, RM SME, Coeur Mining, Inc. Richard J. Yancey, RM SME, Coeur Rochester, Inc. Thomas G. Holcomb, RM SME, Coeur Rochester, Inc. Rochester Mine Lovelock, Nevada, U.S.A. NI 43-101 Technical Report December 16, 2020 CAUTIONARY STATEMENT ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION This technical report (Report) contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of United States (U.S.) and Canadian securities laws. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding Coeur Mining, Inc.’s (Coeur’s) expectations for the Rochester Mine, including estimated capital requirements, expected production, economic analyses, cash costs and rates of return; Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource estimates; estimates of silver and gold grades; recovery rates; and other statements that are not historical facts. These statements may be identified by words such as “may,” “might”, “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements address activities, events, or developments that Coeur expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future and are based on currently available information. Although management believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that these expectations will prove correct. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements include, among others: reclamation activities; changes in parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined; variations in ore reserves, grade, or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; risks that Coeur’s exploration and property advancement efforts will not be successful; risks related to fluctuations in the price of silver and gold; the inherently hazardous nature of mining-related activities; uncertainties with reserve and resource estimates; uncertainties related to obtaining approvals and permits from governmental regulatory authorities; and, availability and timing of capital for financing exploration and development activities, including uncertainty of being able to raise capital on favorable terms, or at all; as well as those factors discussed in Coeur’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including Coeur’s latest reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q and its other SEC filings (and filed in Canada on SEDAR at www.sedar.com). Coeur does not intend to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether because of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable securities laws. 2020 Rochester Mine NI 43-101 Technical Report Page │ ii Rochester Mine Lovelock, Nevada, U.S.A. NI 43-101 Technical Report December 16, 2020 CAUTIONARY NOTE TO U.S. READERS CONCERNING ESTIMATES OF MEASURED, INDICATED, AND INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCES Information concerning the properties and operations of Coeur has been prepared in accordance with Canadian standards under applicable Canadian securities laws and may not be comparable to similar information for U.S. companies. The terms “Mineral Resource”, “Measured Mineral Resource”, “Indicated Mineral Resource” and “Inferred Mineral Resource” used in this Report are Canadian mining terms as defined in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) under definitions set out in the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves adopted by the CIM Council on May 10, 2014. While the terms “Mineral Resource”, “Measured Mineral Resource”, “Indicated Mineral Resource”, and “Inferred Mineral Resource” are recognized and required by Canadian securities regulations, they are not defined terms under standards of the SEC. Under U.S. standards, mineralization may not be classified as a “Reserve” unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally produced or extracted at the time the Reserve calculation is made. As such, certain information contained in this Report concerning descriptions of mineralization and resources under Canadian standards is not comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of the SEC. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that most of the Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration. Under Canadian rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies. Readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Resources will ever be converted into Mineral Reserves. Readers are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an “Inferred Mineral Resource” exists or is economically or legally mineable. In addition, the definitions of “Proven Mineral Reserves” and “Probable Mineral Reserves” under CIM standards differ in certain respects from the standards of the SEC. Rochester Mine NI 43-101 Technical Report Page │ iii Rochester Mine Lovelock, Nevada, U.S.A. NI 43-101 Technical Report December 16, 2020 Contents 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Technical Report ........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Property Description and Location ................................................................................ 1 1.4 History and Exploration ................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Geology ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.6 Sample Collection ......................................................................................................... 3 1.7 Data Verification ............................................................................................................ 4 1.8 Mineral Resource Estimates ......................................................................................... 4 1.9 Mineral Reserve Estimates ........................................................................................... 6 1.10 Mining Methods ............................................................................................................. 7 1.11 Recovery Method .......................................................................................................... 8 1.12 Project Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 8 1.13 Marketing ...................................................................................................................... 9 1.14 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations .................................................. 9 1.15 Capital and Operating Cost Estimates ........................................................................ 10 1.16 Economic Analysis ...................................................................................................... 10 1.17 Sensitivity Analysis...................................................................................................... 12 1.18 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 13 1.19 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 13 1.19.1 2020 Technical Report ................................................................................... 13 2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Qualified Persons ........................................................................................................ 15 2.3 Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection ............................................................. 16 2.4 Effective Dates ............................................................................................................ 16 2.5 Information Sources and References ......................................................................... 17 2.6 Previous Technical Reports ........................................................................................ 17 2.7 Units ............................................................................................................................ 18 3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Technical Report for the Rochester Mine Lovelock, Nevada, Usa
    TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE ROCHESTER MINE LOVELOCK, NEVADA, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report – Updated Project Study Effective Date: December 31, 2014 Filing Date: February 18, 2015 Prepared by: Gregory D. Robinson, P.E. Kelly Lippoth, AIME Annette McFarland, P.E. Raul Mondragon, RM SME Dana Willis, RM SME Rochester Mine Lovelock, Nevada, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report February 18, 2015 Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information This Technical Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and the equivalent under Canadian securities laws), that are intended to be covered by the safe harbor created by such sections. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding Coeur Mining, Inc.’s (Coeur’s) expectations for the Rochester Mine, including estimated capital requirements, expected production, cash costs and rates of return; mineral reserve and resource estimates; estimates of silver and gold grades, expected financial returns and costs; and other statements that are not historical facts. We have tried to identify these forward-looking statements by using words such as “may,” “might”, “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements address activities, events or developments that Coeur expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future, and are based on information currently available. Although Coeur believes that its
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River Between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99
    Prepared in cooperation with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99 Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5199 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FRONT COVER: Photographs of Humboldt River at Blossom bridge near Valmy, Nevada, upstream of the streamflow gage at Comus. Top photograph is from the bridge looking downstream on June 9, 1999 during high flow. Bottom photograph is from the bridge looking downstream on October 18, 2001 during a period of no flow. Photographs taken by D.E. Prudic. Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99 By David E. Prudic, Richard G. Niswonger, and Russell W. Plume Prepared in cooperation with the NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5199 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada: 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineralassmtrprt.Pdf
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Winnemucca Field Office (WFO) is in the process of preparing an overall Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Field Office (FO). As part of the RMP revision process, the BLM is required to prepare a Mineral Assessment Report providing information regarding mineral occurrences and potential within the WFO RMP Planning Area (Planning Area). This report provides an intermediate level of detail for mineral assessment as prescribed in BLM Manual 3060 (BLM 1994). The information presented in this report will be summarized and incorporated into an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed RMP and into the final RMP. The geologic history of northern Nevada and the Winnemucca FO Planning Area (Planning Area) is very complex, and includes two major cycles of sedimentation (western and eastern facies sources), episodic thrust faulting, mountain building and associated intrusive and igneous activity. More recent geologic history includes a period of crustal extension that was accompanied by bimodal (rhyolite-basalt) volcanism, basin and range block-faulting, resulting in high-levels of shallow crustal heat flow. The regional and local geologic setting has been instrumental in the location of and significant potential for the numerous economic metallic mineral deposits in the Planning Area, as well as the significant potential for the development of economic geothermal resources. LOCATABLE MINERALS The Planning Area has a long history of mineral development dating back to the 1860s and contains some of the most famous gold and silver metal mining districts in the US, including: Battle Mountain, Potosi, Marigold, Lone Tree, Getchell, Pinson, Seven Troughs, Awakening, and Hog Ranch (Davis and Tingley, 1999; Peters and others, 1996; and Wallace and others, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Pershing County Master Plan 2012
    Pershing County Master Plan Pershing County, Nevada Adopted by the Pershing County Commission December 15, 2012 Acknowledgments Pershing County Board of County Commissioners Patrick Irwin, Chairman Carol Shank, Vice Chairman Darin Bloyed Karen Wesner, Administrative Assistant to the County Commission Pershing County Planning Commission Galen Reese, Chairman Clarence Hultgren, Vice Chairman Alan List Lynn “Lou” Lusardi Elaine Pommerening Margie Workman Carl Clinger Project Staff Michael K. Johnson, Planning & Building Director CJ Safford, Building Inspector Consultant Much of the data included in this plan came from the 2002 Master Plan with Stantec Consulting Inc gather this information. Cynthia J. Albright, MA, AICP Stantec Consulting Inc. 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Reno, NV 89511 775-850-0777 For additional information please visit the Pershing County web-site www.pershingcounty.net or contact the Planning & Building office (775) 273-2700, Fax (775) 273-3617. Pershing County Planning & Building PO Box 1656 Lovelock, Nevada, 89419 Pershing County Master Plan December 1 5, 2012 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Page 1 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 5 Why Plan? ............................................................................................................................5 What is in the Master Plan? .................................................................................................5 How was the Master Plan
    [Show full text]
  • Pershing County, Nevada
    Landscape-Scale Wildland Fire Risk/Hazard/Value Assessment Pershing County, Nevada Prepared for: Prepared by: Nevada Fire Board c/o Bureau of Land Management Wildland Fire Associates Nevada State Office 2016 Saint Clair Avenue 1340 Financial Blvd. Brentwood, MO 63144 Reno, NV 89520 Landscape-Scale Wildland Fire Risk/Hazard/Value Assessment For Pershing County, Nevada April 27, 2009 Wildland Fire Associates Carl Douhan Esther Mandeno Dan O’Brien This project was administered by the Nevada Fire Board and funded by the Bureau of Land Management with support from other agencies. Data and recommendations developed for this project are advisory in nature and are NOT intended to replace specific site assessments. At any given time the ephemeral nature of the vegetation may affect fuel condition present within each individual county in Nevada. Wildland Fire Associates and its agents assume no liability in the event a catastrophic wildland fire damages or destroys public or private property. Cover Photo: Judy A. Mosby. All Rights Reserved. Landscape-Scale Wildland Fire Risk/Hazard/Value Assessment Page ii Pershing County, Nevada Landscape-Scale Wildland Fire Risk/Hazard/Value Assessment For Pershing County, Nevada Submitted by: ____________________________________ Date: ________ Project Leader, Wildland Fire Associates Reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: _________ Nevada Fire Safe Council Reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: ________ Bureau of Land Management Accepted by: ____________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt River Chronology Part II – Pre-Twentieth Century
    Humboldt River Chronology Part II – Pre-Twentieth Century 2,000,000 Years Ago to 10,000 Years Ago (Pleistocene Epoch) The prehistory of the Humboldt River Basin is marked by profound changes in climate and hydrology. Ancient lake shorelines have provided invaluable information into the scope of these changes. For example, shoreline altitudes of a number of pluvial lakes (e.g., ancient Lake Lahontan) in the northern and western Great Basin1 have indicated successively smaller lakes from the Early to the Late Pleistocene Epoch.2 This decrease in lake size suggests a long-term drying tend in the region’s climate over the last two million years. Calculations based on differences in lake areas suggest that the highest levels of these pluvial lakes would have required a regional effective moisture of up to three times greater than the effective moisture level estimated to have existed in the Late Pleistocene. These previously unknown peak lake elevations (highstands) reflect significant changes in climate, tectonics and/or drainage basin configurations that could have facilitated the migration of aquatic species throughout the Great Basin.3 Lake Lahontan’s Early Pleistocene surface level (4,590 feet MSL) was more recently estimated to have been over 200 feet above its Late Pleistocene shoreline (4,380 feet MSL), a surface elevation widely recognized as this lake’s highstand. At this higher elevation, the Early Pleistocene Lake Lahontan would have extended its reach further up the Humboldt River from the Late Pleistocene highstand, which had been estimated to have reached just above Red House (about five miles above Comus).
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation Into Supergene Silver Enrichment at the Rochester Mine in Pershing County, Nevada
    University of Nevada, Reno Testing Silver Mobility: An investigation into supergene silver enrichment at the Rochester Mine in Pershing County, Nevada A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Science in Geology by Tracy L. Anderson Dr. John L. Muntean/Thesis Advisor December, 2016 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by TRACY L. ANDERSON Entitled Testing Silver Mobility: An Investigation Into Supergene Silver Enrichment At The Rochester Mine In Pershing County, NV be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. John L. Muntean, Advisor Dr. Peter G. Vikre, Committee Member Dr. Mae S. Gustin, Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School December, 2016 i Abstract Supergene silver enrichment, comparable to chalcocite supergene enrichment blankets in porphyry copper deposits, has long been called upon to explain high grades in silver deposits that diminish in grade with depth. Rochester is a large-tonnage, low-grade disseminated silver-(gold) deposit hosted in Early Triassic rhyolites located in northwestern Nevada, where the role of supergene processes in controlling the distribution of ore and silver grade remained unclear prior to this study. The effect of supergene processes at Rochester was investigated by observing patterns of silver occurrences in structures, weathering zones, and ore and gangue mineral paragenesis. The overall tabular geometry of the ore body straddling the Weaver-Rochester lithologic contact is defined by high grade zones in the lower Weaver oxide and upper Rochester oxide and mixed oxide-sulfide zones. Grades drop off significantly in the underlying protore sulfide zone.
    [Show full text]
  • Majuba Hill) Mining District
    The Geology and Ore Deposits V of the Antelope (Majuba Hill) Mining District Pershing County, Nevada A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology by David Lee Stevens i • « June 1971 m in e s *-,B R A R y The thesis of David Lee Stevens is approved: a C.ZL. _______________i ry(. Thesis adviso^A University of Nevada Reno June 1971 CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................................ v INTRODUCTION ............................................ 2 Location and Access ...................... .. .... 2 Previous W o r k ....................................... 2 Purpose of Thesis .................................. 3 Acknowledgements..................................... 4 History and Production............................... 4 GEOLOGY....................................................7 General Statement .................................. 7 Regional Setting............ 8 STRATIGRAPHY........................................ 11 Triassic System(?) ............................ 11 Grass Valley (?) Formation...................... 11 Paleogeographic Implication.................... 15 IGNEOUS ROCKS .......................................19 Biotite Diorite (Kd) ................ =....19 Granodiorite (Kgm) ............................ 20 Andesite (Tha) ................................ 24 Older Rhyolite (Tr^) .......................... 25 Younger Rhyolite (Tr2) ........................ 26 Aplitic Rhyolite (Ta).......................... 29 Alkali-Olivine Basalt.........................
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada ATR Interpretive Guide
    National Trails Intermountain Region National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Historic Trails Auto Tour Route Interpretive Guide Across Nevada California National Historic Trail Pony Express National Historic Trail By the time they reached the Humboldt Sink, or Forty-mile Desert, many emigrant pioneers had little food, exhausted livestock, and broken wagons. [Cover photo] Forty-mile Desert NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS AUTO TOUR ROUTE INTERPRETIVE GUIDE Across Nevada on the Humboldt Route and The Central Route of the Pony Express Prepared by National Park Service National Trails Intermountain Region www.nps.gov/cali www.nps.gov/oreg www.nps.gov/poex www.nps.gov/mopi NATIONAL PARK SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR April 2012 Table of Contents ‘MOST CORDIALLY I HATE YOU’: THE HUMBOLDT RIVER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 THE GREAT BASIN • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 SEEKING MARY’S RIVER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 APPROACHING THE HUMBOLDT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 PRELUDE TO MURDER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15 THE HUMBOLDT EXPERIENCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 WEST TO STONY POINT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 THE POLITICS OF HUNGER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 A FLASH OF THE BLADE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 27 ‘HEARTILY TIRED OF THE JOURNEY’ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29 THE HUMBOLDT SINK • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33 THE Forty-MILE DESERT; or, HOW TO KILL AN OX • •
    [Show full text]
  • Origin of Place Names-Nevada
    Chapter X Lincoln County I SHEEP: 46shzp) 36 A range, extending north from Clark County into Lincoln County. #So named for wild sheep. vw36 40 SILVER CANYON: (sil ver) A range of mountains m Pnhranagat Valley, #So named for the prevailing ore. 28 STINE: (st&) A town, pop,, 10; alt., ii,O46,& a station on the Union Pacific Railroad, south of Caliente. dt'*- TIMPAHUTE: (tim pa ut) A range in th western part of the county, south of Worthington and Golden Gate ranges." Shoshone name meaning "rock water people ,110 d 28 27 URSINE: (&'sin) A town, pope, 63; alto,5,500; 13 mi. northeast of Pioche, in a valley of the same name. WHITE ROCK. (h&t Gk)36 A range east of Wilson Creek Range, extending into Utah,4o and a peak in the range.37 #So nvaed for the color of the rock formation in the vicinity, WILSON CREEK RANGE AND WILSON PEAK: (&'s&) 36 Wilson Creek Range is in the northeaste n part of the county and the peak is in the central part of the rangeO3? Named for Charles Wilson, one of the early county commissioners 1 WORTHIMGTON: (Ath'zng t&) 36 A range extending northwest to southeast in the northwester corner of Lincoln County; A peak in the northwest part of the range," a mining district(als0 cal d Freiberg) at the north e~clof the mountains on their east flanke" Alt,8,400 40e CHAPTER XI LYON COUNTY ANTELOPE: (G't; A y#ley extending from California into both Douglas and Lyon counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Rye Patch Reservoir (Updated 2014)
    Site Description Rye Patch Reservoir (updated 2014) Geologic setting: The Rye Patch geothermal area is located in the Humboldt River valley west of a major north- striking range-front fault, the Humboldt Range Fault. In February 2004, five well cores were studied using geochemical and petrographic techniques at the University of Nevada, Reno (Humboldt House logs, Humboldt House graph, Rye Patch graph) in a US DOE funded project of two masters students in collaboration with Presco Energy. Triassic rocks were encountered below several hundred meters of Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks (including sinter?). A sandstone and siltstone unit, at about 1,000-m depth, was intersected within the predominantly carbonate-rock section of the Triassic Natchez Pass Formation. The sandstone and siltstone unit is apparently the productive part of the stratigraphic interval; faults may control fluid migration in the reservoir (Feighner and others, 1999). Also, carbonate rocks of the Natchez Pass Formation were found to be productive in a well deepened to 643 m in 2002; reservoir temperatures were reported to be about 150°C (U.S. Department of Energy, in Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin, v. 31, no.4). Geophysical data for the area are reported by Duffrin and others (1985) and Schaefer (1986). For additional information on geology and exploration history see Mansure and others (2001), Waibel and others (2003), Johnson and others (2004), and Warpinski and others (2004). Areas of hydrothermal silica and drill-hole locations are shown on a map compiled by GeothermEx (2004, Fig. RYE00-1). Geothermal features: (Rye Patch Map; Humboldt House Map; North of Humboldt House Map) Rye Patch, Humboldt, or Humboldt House, 50 km north of Lovelock, was founded in 1868 as an eating station along the Central Pacific Railroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use and Ownership
    CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Chapter 3 2-1 Humboldt Project Conveyance DEIS . 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1. LAND RESOURCES AND USE 3.1.1. Affected Environment Land ownership within the Humboldt Sink and Rye Patch Reservoir areas is dominated by a “checkerboard pattern” of alternate privately and publicly held land. This ownership pattern is a result of land grant transfers from the federal government to the Central Pacific Railroad Company in the 1860s. Odd-numbered sections were granted to the railroad in a corridor extending 20 miles on each side. This 40-mile-wide corridor of alternating private and public lands follows the Humboldt River and affects land ownership in the project area. The discussion below describes land resources and use within each specific portion of the Humboldt Project. 3.1.1.1. Humboldt Sink Project lands within the Humboldt Sink Area include approximately 32,650 acres of withdrawn lands. These lands within the Project are operated by PCWCD. The Humboldt WMA consists of approximately 18,180 acres and is managed by NDOW through an agreement with the United States and PCWCD. The larger Humboldt Sink area is a mixture of open land that includes the Humboldt WMA, dispersed rangelands, some farm residents, and Derby Airfield. There are active and inactive mining operations to the southwest, west, and east of the Humboldt Sink area. There are no irrigated farms, residential areas, or mining operations on lands proposed to be transferred. The nearest incorporated area is the City of Lovelock, which is approximately 6 miles northeast of the Humboldt Sink.
    [Show full text]