DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment: Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment: Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project B L M U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project January 25, 2012 DRAFT PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Southern Nevada District Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Dr. Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 USA (702)515–5000 Environmental Assessment: Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project January 25, 2012 Environmental Assessment ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Brome ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3. Identifying Information: ................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1. Title, EA number, and type of project: .................................................................. 3 1.3.2. Location of Proposed Action: ................................................................................ 4 1.3.3. Name and Location of Preparing Office: ............................................................... 4 1.3.4. Identify the subject function code, lease, serial, or case file number: ................... 5 1.3.5. Applicant Name: .................................................................................................... 5 1.4. Purpose and Need for Action: .......................................................................................... 5 1.5. Scoping, Public Involvement and Issues: ......................................................................... 5 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................................................ 7 2.1. Description of Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 8 2.2. Description of Any Other Action Alternatives Analyzed in Detail: .............................. 12 2.2.1. Alternative B: (Mechanical Mowing) .................................................................. 12 2.2.2. Alternative C: (Mechanical Blading) ................................................................... 12 2.2.3. Alternative D: No Action ..................................................................................... 15 2.3. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...................................................... 15 2.3.1. Create a Green-Strip ............................................................................................ 15 2.3.2. Graze Domestic Livestock ................................................................................... 15 2.3.3. Graze Wild Horses and Burros ............................................................................ 15 2.4. Conformance ................................................................................................................... 15 3. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 17 3.1. Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 21 3.2. BLM Sensitive Plant Species .......................................................................................... 21 3.3. BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species ..................................................................................... 22 3.4. Floodplains ...................................................................................................................... 26 3.5. Fuels/Fire Management .................................................................................................. 26 3.6. Human Health and Safety ............................................................................................... 27 3.7. Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................... 27 3.8. Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds .................................................................................... 28 3.9. Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................... 29 3.10. Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 29 3.11. Soils ............................................................................................................................... 30 3.12. Socio-Economics .......................................................................................................... 30 3.13. Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Wildlife Species .............................................. 34 3.14. Vegetation Excluding Federally Listed Species ............................................................ 35 3.15. Visual Resources ........................................................................................................... 35 3.16. Wetland/Riparian .......................................................................................................... 36 3.17. Wild Horses/Burros ....................................................................................................... 36 3.18. Wilderness ..................................................................................................................... 37 January 25, 2012 Table of Contents Environmental Assessment iii 3.19. Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species ................................................................ 38 3.20. Human Community ....................................................................................................... 38 4. Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................. 40 4.1. Resource Issue Impacts ................................................................................................... 41 4.1.1. Air quality ............................................................................................................ 41 4.1.1.1. Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 41 4.1.1.2. Alternative B (Mechanical Mowing) ........................................................ 41 4.1.1.3. Alternative C (Mechanical Blading) ......................................................... 41 4.1.1.4. No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 41 4.1.2. BLM Sensitive Plant Species ............................................................................... 42 4.1.2.1. Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 42 4.1.2.2. Alternative B (Mechanical Mowing) ........................................................ 42 4.1.2.3. Alternative C (Mechanical Blading) ......................................................... 42 4.1.2.4. No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 43 4.1.3. BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species .......................................................................... 43 4.1.3.1. Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 43 4.1.3.2. Alternative B (Mechanical Mowing) ........................................................ 44 4.1.3.3. Alternative C (Mechanical Blading) ......................................................... 45 4.1.3.4. No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 45 4.1.4. Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 46 4.1.4.1. Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 46 4.1.4.2. Alternative B (Mechanical Mowing) ........................................................ 46 4.1.4.3. Alternative C (Mechanical Blading) ......................................................... 46 4.1.4.4. No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 46 4.1.5. Fuels/Fire Management ....................................................................................... 46 4.1.5.1. Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 46 4.1.5.2. Alternative B (Mechanical Mowing) ........................................................ 46 4.1.5.3. Alternative C (Mechanical Blading) ......................................................... 47 4.1.5.4. No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 47 4.1.6. Human Health and Safety .................................................................................... 47 4.1.6.1. Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 47 4.1.6.2. Alternative B (Mechanical Mowing) ........................................................ 48 4.1.6.3. Alternative C (Mechanical Blading) ......................................................... 48 4.1.6.4. No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 48
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Route 160 (Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study
    State Route 160 (Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study Final Report August 31, 2006 Booz Allen Hamilton with Civilwise Inc. Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1-1 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS OF STUDY AREA ................................................... 2-1 2.1 Description of SR-160....................................................................................2-1 2.2 Geographic Boundaries ..................................................................................2-1 2.3 Communities Served......................................................................................2-1 2.4 Current Zoning and Community Plans ..............................................................2-3 2.4.1 Clark County ......................................................................................2-3 2.4.2 2004 Land Use Plan for Enterprise.........................................................2-3 2.5 Current Land Use ..........................................................................................2-4 2.5.1 Public Facilities Needs Assessment ........................................................2-5 2.6 Future Growth ..............................................................................................2-6 2.6.1 Transit-Supportive Land-Use Actions .....................................................2-7 2.6.2 Recent Growth Management Activities .................................................2-13 2.6.3
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada
    Mineral Resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1730-A Chapter A Mineral Resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada By JAMES E. CONRAD and HARLAN N. BARTON U.S. Geological Survey DAVID A. LIPTON U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1730-A MINERAL RESOURCES OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS: SOUTHERN NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1986 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Conrad, James E. Mineral resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1730-A Bibliography: p. 9 Supt. of Docs. No.: I 19.3:1730-A 1. Mines and mineral resources Nevada La Madre Mountains Wilderness. 2. Geology Nevada La Madre Mountains Wilderness. 3. La Madre Mountains Wilderness (Nev.) I. Barton, Harlan N. II. Lipton, David A. (David Abraham), 1954- . III. Title. IV. Series. QE75.B9 No. 1730-A 557.3 s 86-600162 [TN424.N3] [553'.0979'13] STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Area The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines to conduct mineral surveys on certain areas to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Knowledge and Conservation of Cylindropuntia Multigeniculata (Cactaceae), the Blue Diamond Cholla
    Current Knowledge and Conservation of Cylindropuntia multigeniculata (Cactaceae), the Blue Diamond cholla Marc A. Baker Southwest Botanical Research 1217 Granite Lane Chino Valley, AZ 86323 (928) 636-0252 15 June 2005 Status report prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Boulevard, suite 234, Reno NV 89502. (775) 861 6300 with funds provided through Project Agreement in cooperation with Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona SUMMARY : The typical form of the Blue Diamond cholla, Cylindropuntia multigeniculata , is now known to occur from north of Las Vegas, near Gass Peak, in the Las Vegas Range, southwest into the La Madre Mountain area, south to Blue Diamond, and then southeast into the McCullough Range. The knowledge of new localities is largely owing to efforts of Gina Glenne of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Pat Putnam and Jed Botsford of the Bureau of Land Management. Prior to these discoveries, the Blue Diamond cholla was known to occur only at its type locality in the Blue Diamond Hills, just west of Las Vegas. Current surveys indicate that populations of C. multigeniculata conservatively occupy at least 25km² with densities averaging 23 individuals per hectare, thus the conservative estimate of number of individuals is 56,500. This estimate does not include at least one population in the Sheep Range that appear to be comprised of individuals morphologically intermediate between C. multigeniculata and C. whipplei var. whipplei . Populations of C. multigeniculata with consistently spiny fruits occur from Bonelli Peak, Gold Butte area of eastern Clark County, Nevada, south into the White Hills and Black Mountains of Mojave County, Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview With
    An Interview with Win BrownOral History produced by Robert D. McCracken Nye County Town History Project Nye County, Nevada Tonopah 2009 COPYRIGHT 2009 Nye County Town History Project Nye County Commissioners Tonopah, Nevada 89049 DeAnna Brown and her husband Darryll Brown 2007 Gwendolyn and Leon Hughes, 1945. From left: Georgie Ann Bell and unidentified woman picking cotton. Pahrump Ranch, Pahrump, Nevada, 1937. Red Schoolhouse, Pahrump, Nevada. From left: Norma Steve, Ben Spencer (his mother was Pahrump's postmistress), Don Ward, Marie Hughes (DeAnna's aunt), DeAnna Hughes (fifth grade), Okemah Spencer (Ben Spencer's sister), 1952. From left: Leon Hughes, DeAnna Hughes, Larry Hughes, Gwendolyn Hughes, 1945. Cabin at Lost Lobo Mine, west side of Charleston Mountains above Pahrump Valley, Nevada, 1990. Portal of Lost Lobo Mine, west side of Charleston Mountains, Nevada, 1990. Children of Gwendolyn and Leon Hughes, 1954. Back row, from left: Leonard, Pam, Oneta, Michael. Front row, from left: Sharon, DeAnna (holding Raymond), and Larry. Children of John and Beryl Hughes, 1942. Standing, from left: Maxine Hughes, Betty Hughes, Byron Hughes, Bea Hughes, Leon Hughes and wife Gwendolyn. Sitting, from left: Baby DeAnna Hughes, John Hughes (DeAnna's grandfather), Kenneth Hughes, Beryl Hughes (DeAnna's grandmother), and Marie Hughes. CONTENTS Preface xi Acknowledgments xiii Introduction xv CHAPTER ONE 1 DeAnna's parents and their life in California; her grandfather John's ranch in Pahrump in the 1930s; DeAnna's childhood, traveling between Pahrump and California; her father, Leon's, attempt to grow cotton in Pahrump early on; John Hughes's mine; living at the Blue Diamond Mine and commuting to high school in Las Vegas; schooling in California and in Pahrump; life in Pahrump before a good road connected it to other communities; working in the cotton fields as a youngster; Leon's farming at the north end of the Pahrump Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • 185 IBLA 375 Decided June 10, 2015
    GYPSUM RESOURCES, LLC 185 IBLA 375 Decided June 10, 2015 United States Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 GYPSUM RESOURCES, LLC IBLA 2012-113 Decided June 10, 2015 Appeal from a decision of the Field Manager, Red Rock/Sloan (Nevada) Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, accepting a relinquishment of an access road right-of-way, and closing the right-of-way file. NVN-065968. Affirmed. 1. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: Rights-of-Way–Rights-of-Way: Act of January 21, 1895– Rights-of-Way: Cancellation--Rights-of-Way: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 BLM properly accepts a relinquishment of a right-of-way, originally issued pursuant to section 1 of the Act of January 21, 1895, 43 U.S.C. § 956 (1970) (later conformed to a right-of-way under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1761-1771 (2006)), and closes the right-of-way file, when the current holder of the right-of-way relinquishes its rights in the right-of-way. BLM properly deems the current holder to be the party presently holding the right-of-way, as a matter of record with BLM, not the current owner of title to private lands accessed by the right-of-way, which, unbeknownst to BLM, had passed by a series of deeds that transferred the lands, together with all “appurtenances.” APPEARANCES: James H. Walton, Esq., and James A.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Affected Environment
    Las Vegas Disposal Boundary Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Final EIS December 2004 Las Vegas Disposal Boundary Chapter 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final EIS December 2004 Las Vegas Disposal Boundary Chapter 3 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment is the baseline from BLM lands within the disposal boundary area. which to identify and evaluate environmental The purpose of the surveys was to identify the changes resulting from the proposed action and presence of sensitive environmental resources and alternatives. This chapter focuses on the human to locate potential hazardous materials sites. Bio- environment that has the potential to be affected logical field surveys covered the desert tortoise by implementing the land sale and land use ac- and sensitive plant species including the Las Ve- tions. The human environment potentially af- gas bearpoppy, Las Vegas buckwheat, and pen- fected is interpreted comprehensively to include stemon. Surveys were also completed to locate the natural and physical resources and the rela- historic sites, archaeological sites, and paleon- tionship of people with those resources [40 Code tological resources, and to identify lands with po- of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1508.14]. The tential hazardous materials present. affected environment discussed in this chapter includes air quality, earth resources, water re- 3.1 AIR QUALITY sources, biological resources, cultural and histori- cal resources, Native American concerns, visual Air resources are characterized by the existing resources, land use, recreation and wilderness re- concentrations of various pollutants and the cli- sources, range resources, hazardous materials, matic and meteorological conditions that influ- social and economic conditions, and environ- ence the quality of the air.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory of Nevada Mine Operations January – December 2015
    State of Nevada Department of Business & Industry Division of Industrial Relations Directory of Nevada Mine Operations January – December 2015 Mine Safety & Training Section 400 West King Street, Suite 210 Carson City, NV 89703 Telephone: (775) 684-7085 Fax: (775) 687-8259 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: dir.nv.gov/MSATS/home/ October 11, 2016 FOREWORD It is interesting to note that the Directory of Nevada Mine Operations has been annually written or published, in one form or another, by the State of Nevada, since the year 1909. The Directory of Nevada Mine Operations is published pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes 512.151 and 512.241. Which authorizes the Administrator of the Division of Industrial Relations to collect information and statistics relative to mines, mining and the mineral industry of the state and to publish and make available the same for public inspection. The information contained in the Directory lists active mines operating for the period of January through December 2015, and is a result of the collection of information and statistics by the Mine Safety and Training Section of the Division of Industrial Relations, Nevada Department of Business & Industry. The Directory identifies: 1) each county in Nevada where mining operations are located; 2) the federal or state identification number assigned to the operation; 3) the type of mining operation; 4) the number of employees at the mining operation; 5) the operation name and location, and 6) the commodities produced from the mining operation. Nevada Gold production for 2015 is 5,339,659 million troy ounces, over 400,000 ounces higher than the 2014 production recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Flooding, Clark County, Nevada 1905-1975
    FLOOD HAZBRD ANALYSES Las Vegas Wash and Tributaries Clark County, Nevada SPECIAL REPORT History of Flooding, Clark County, .Nevada 1905-1975 Prepared By td States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service In Cooperation With Clark County Conservation District, City and County Entities of Clark County,Nevada, and Nevada Division of Water Resources August 1977 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service Reno, Nevada FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSES Las Vegas Wash and Tributaries Clark County, Nevada SPECIAL REPORT History of Flooding, Clark County, Nevada 1905-75 Prepared in Cooperation With Clark County Conservation District Clark County Public Works Department City of Las Vegas Public Works Department City of North Las Vegas Public Works Department Nevada Division of Water Resources August 197 7 - Clark Countv Conservation Di tee Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Board of Supervisors KARL F. WEIKEL, Chairman ABE TEERLINK, Vice Chairman TED GI LCREASE, Secretary-Treasurer ARNOLD COTTAM, Member KlYOSHl YAMASHITA, Member ROBERT BROADBENT, County Commission, Member Raymond Anderson, Associate Member Dear Friends, The Clark County Conservation District joins other local governmental entities in sponsoring this Special Report, History of Flooding, Clark County, Nevada. This report was prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, as a part of the Las Vegas Wash Flood Hazard Analyses. The District feels that this information should be made available to the public, so that present and future residents of Clark County may become more informed on flood hazards that exist in the County. We believe that public concern for poten- tial flood hazards will be strengthened as a result of having documented flood histories available, Sincerely, Clark County Conservation District Karl F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Occurrence of Barium and Strontium In
    The Occurrence of Barium and Strontium in Typical Nevada Gypsum A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of Nevada in partial fulfillment of the re­ quirements for the degree of Master of Science By Brent P. Fabbi Reno, Nevada June, 1965 Approved by ^ / 2 Department Head • Ha*- Approved by 11 Acknowledgments The writer is indebted to Dr. Alex Volborth for suggesting the original problem and for his guidance in the preparation of this paper. The X-ray spectrograph and associated sample preparation equip­ ment were made available through the courtesy of the Nevada Mining Analytical Laboratory. Without the recent contributions of funds by the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Science Foundation, especially NSF Grant No. GP-1987, this project could not have been undertaken. Sampling of U. S. Gypsum's pit at Gerlach, Nevada was made possible by Mr. Seeburger. Sampling of the Blue Diamond Mine was permitted by Marion Brooks. Sampling of Fibreboard's Apex deposit was through the courtesy of B. G. Long. Dr. R. Olson provided the geologic information and aided in selecting the deposits studied in Southern Nevada. C. F. Withington aided 1n describing the geology of the Gerlach area. The writer is indebted to Gail Chuba for statistical compilations, to Or. H. A. Vincent for chemical analyses, and to Hr. P. A. Weyler for valued advice and assistance. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ................................... 1 II. Selection of Deposits ......................... 4 III. Selection of Analytical Method ................. 4 IV. Sample Collection .... ..................... 6 V. Sample Preparation.................. 7 a) Method of Comminution ................ 7 IV. Geology of the Deposits ......................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter G. Mineral Resource Potential of the Virgin River Area Of
    Mineral Resource Assessment of Selected Areas in Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada, Edited by Steve Ludington U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5197 Prepared in cooperation with the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Chapter I. Mineral Resource Potential of the Rainbow Gardens Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Clark County, Nevada By Stephen B. Castor, Steve Ludington, Brett T. McLaurin, and Kathryn S. Flynn Summary and Conclusions and representatives of companies with mining operations in and near the areas were contacted. The Rainbow Gardens Area of Critical Environmen- Definitions of mineral resource potential and certainty tal Concern (ACEC) contains known deposits of gypsum, levels are given in appendix 1, and are similar to those out- as well as prospects for limestone, silica, lithium, copper, lined by Goudarzi (1984). uranium, and sand and gravel aggregate. Only gypsum has been mined in significant quantities, and the PABCO (Apex) gypsum mine, immediately adjacent to the ACEC, is a major Lands Involved gypsum source, producing more than 1,000,000 short tons of gypsum annually. The Rainbow Gardens ACEC is east of Las Vegas and The ACEC contains areas of high mineral resource southeast of Interstate 15 (fig. 1). The ACEC is bounded on potential for gypsum deposits in the Tertiary Muddy Creek the southeast and east by the Lake Mead National Recreation Formation and areas of moderate mineral resource potential Area and on the north by Nellis Air Force Base. It is accessed for gypsum in the Mesozoic Moenkopi Formation. Areas with most easily from Nevada State Highway 143 (Lake Mead high potential for limestone deposits are found in the northern Boulevard) and by several secondary and primitive roads part of the ACEC.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Blue Diamond Mine Corporate Records
    Guide to the Blue Diamond Mine Corporate Records This finding aid was created by Joyce Moore, Hana Gutierrez, and Melise Leech. This copy was published on October 08, 2020. Persistent URL for this finding aid: http://n2t.net/ark:/62930/f10338 © 2020 The Regents of the University of Nevada. All rights reserved. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Box 457010 4505 S. Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-7010 [email protected] Guide to the Blue Diamond Mine Corporate Records Table of Contents Summary Information ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Historical Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope and Contents Note ................................................................................................................................ 4 Arrangement Note ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................. 5 Related Materials ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Names and Subjects .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Minerals Yearbook NEVADA
    2006 Minerals Yearbook NEVADA U.S. Department of the Interior May 2009 U.S. Geological Survey NEVADA Opal Gem HUMBOLDT Au, Ag Au, Ag SG Au, Ag Ba ELKO SG Au, Ag Elko ! CS Au, Ag Au, Ag SG Lime WASHOE Ba SG Gyp Au, Ag Au, Ag PERSHING Au, Ag Au, Ag Dia Au, Ag Ba Per Per Au, Ag Au, Ag Bent Zeo LANDER EUREKA Au, Ag SG Reno ! Cem Dia CHURCHILL WHITE PINE STOREY Au, Ag SG W SG CS Gyp 1 2 Cu Mo LYON SG CARSON CITY ^Carson City Salt DOUGLAS Au, Ag SG SG MgCp Au, Ag MINERAL LEGEND NYE County boundary ^ Capital Dia ! City ESMERALDA Gem Crushed stone/sand and Au, Ag 1 LINCOLN gravel district boundary Bent Per MINERAL SYMBOLS Per (Major producing areas) Ag Silver Li Lithium carbonate Au Gold Lime Lime plant B Borate plant MgCp Magnesium compounds Bent Ba Barite Mn Manganese plant SG CS SG Bent Bentonite Mo Molybdenum Ful B CLARK IS Cem Cement plant Opal Precious opal Bent Zeo CS Crushed stone Per Perlite Gyp LimeCS Gyp Cu Copper Per Perlite plant SG ! Las Vegas SG SG Dia Diatomite Salt Salt Mn Ti Lime Ful Fuller's earth SG Construction sand and gravel SG Gem Gemstones Ti Titanium metal plant CS Gyp Gypsum W Tungsten metal plant Gyp Gypsum plant Zeo Zeolites 025 50 100 Kilometers IS Industrial sand Concentration of mineral Ka Kaolin operations Albers equal area projection Source: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology/ U.S. Geological Survey (2006). THE MINERAL INDUSTRY OF NEVADA This chapter has been prepared under a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S.
    [Show full text]