DOCSLIB.ORG

Pine Nut Land Health Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pine Nut Land Health Project Sierra Front Sierra Pine Nut Field Office, Nevada Office, Field Land Health Project FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOI-BLM-NV-C020-2013-0017-EA U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City District Sierra Front Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701 775-885-6000 April 2014 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. DOI-BLM-NV-C020-2013-0017-EA ii Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Scoping and Issues Identification ..................................................................................... 3 1.4 Decision to be Made ......................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement........................................................................... 3 1.6 Relationships to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Plans .................................................. 4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 Description of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Alternative A: Proposed Action ............................................................................ 6 2.1.1.1 Implementation Prioritization ............................................................................ 6 2.1.1.2 Treatment Units ................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1.3 Treatment Methods .......................................................................................... 13 2.1.1.4 General Treatment Specifications ................................................................... 17 2.1.1.5 Resource Commitments ................................................................................... 18 2.1.1.6 Schedule........................................................................................................... 19 2.1.1.7 Adaptive Management/Monitoring ................................................................. 19 2.1.1.8 Maintenance ..................................................................................................... 19 2.1.2 Alternative B: No Action .................................................................................... 19 2.1.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis .......................... 20 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................23 3.1 Setting............................................................................................................................. 23 3.1.1 Resources Considered for Analysis..................................................................... 23 3.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 25 3.3 Native American Religious Concerns ................................................................................ 26 3.4 Wetlands/Riparian Zones ................................................................................................... 27 3.5 General Wildlife................................................................................................................. 27 3.6 BLM Sensitive Species (Animals) ..................................................................................... 28 3.7 Migratory Birds .................................................................................................................. 31 3.8 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................... 32 3.9 BLM Sensitive Species (Plants)......................................................................................... 33 3.10 Fire Management ............................................................................................................. 34 iii 3.11 Forest Resources .............................................................................................................. 37 3.12 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 37 3.13 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 38 3.14 Wild Horses and Burros ................................................................................................... 39 3.15 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................ 39 3.16 Invasive, Non-Native Plant Species and Noxious Weeds ............................................... 40 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................................42 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 42 4.1.1 Types of Effects .................................................................................................. 42 4.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 42 4.3 Native American Religious Concerns ................................................................................ 43 4.4 Wetlands/Riparian Zones ................................................................................................... 43 4.5 General Wildlife................................................................................................................. 44 4.6 BLM Sensitive Species (Animals) ..................................................................................... 45 4.7 Migratory Birds .................................................................................................................. 47 4.8 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................... 48 4.9 BLM Sensitive Species (Plants)......................................................................................... 49 4.10 Fire Management ............................................................................................................. 49 4.11 Forest Resources .............................................................................................................. 50 4.12 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 51 4.13 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 51 4.14 Wild Horses and Burros ................................................................................................... 52 4.15 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................ 52 4.16 Invasive, Non-Native Plant Species and Noxious Weeds ............................................... 53 4.2 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................. 53 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................................54 6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...........................................63 6.1 Public Review and Comment ......................................................................................... 63 6.2 Individuals, Tribes, Organizations and Agencies Consulted ......................................... 63 6.2.1 Individuals ........................................................................................................... 63 6.2.2 Tribes ................................................................................................................... 65 6.2.3 Organizations ...................................................................................................... 65 6.2.4 Agencies .............................................................................................................. 65 6.3 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................. 65 iv 7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................67 v List of Tables Table 1 Proposed Treatment Options Table 2 Summary of Acres by Treatment Method Table 3 Supplemental Authorities Table 4 Resources or Uses Other Than Supplemental Authorities Table 5 Large Game Species within the Project Area Table 6 Sensitive Plant Species That May Occur or Their Habitat May be Present in the Project Area Table 7 Forest and Woodland Types within the Planning Area Table 8 VRM Classification Table 9 Noxious Weeds that May be Present in the Project Area Table 10 Proposed Treatments by Community Type Table 11 CESA by Resource and Summary of Effects Table 12 Historic Large Fires Table 13 Past/Present Vegetation Treatments Table 14 Grazing Allotments in the CESA Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology
    EXHIBIT 89 The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology Dr. Saxon E. Sharpe, Dr. Mary E. Cablk, and Dr. James M. Thomas Desert Research Institute May 2007 Revision 01 May 2008 Publication No. 41231 DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE DRI Publication Number: 41231 Initial Issue Date: May 2007 Document Title: The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology Author(s): Dr. Saxon E. Sharpe, Dr. Mary E. Cablk, and Dr. James M. Thomas Revision History Revision # Date Page, Paragraph Description of Revision 0 5/2007 N/A Initial Issue 1.1 5/2008 Title page Added revision number 1.2 “ ii Inserted Document Change Notice 1.3 “ iv Added date to cover photo caption 1.4 “ vi Clarified listed species definition 1.5 “ viii Clarified mg/L definition and added WRPT acronym Updated lake and TDS levels to Dec. 12, 2007 values here 1.6 “ 1 and throughout text 1.7 “ 1, P4 Clarified/corrected tui chub statement; references added 1.8 “ 2, P2 Edited for clarification 1.9 “ 4, P2 Updated paragraph 1.10 “ 8, Figure 2 Updated Fig. 2007; corrected tui chub spawning statement 1.11 “ 10, P3 & P6 Edited for clarification 1.12 “ 11, P1 Added Yardas (2007) reference 1.13 “ 14, P2 Updated paragraph 1.14 “ 15, Figure 3 & P3 Updated Fig. to 2007; edited for clarification 1.15 “ 19, P5 Edited for clarification 1.16 “ 21, P 1 Updated paragraph 1.17 “ 22, P 2 Deleted comma 1.18 “ 26, P1 Edited for clarification 1.19 “ 31-32 Clarified/corrected/rearranged/updated Walker Lake section 1.20
    [Show full text]
  • Fall / Winter 2018
    Fall/Winter 2018-19 Communities connected “Nearing the bottom of the trail in winter near the end of the day.” to nature Photo: Chris McNamara through a system The Pinyon Trail of trails An East Valley destination in cool seasons When you're looking for a change in perspective and a pleasant, non-strenuous hike, mountain bike, or equestrian trail ride with beautiful views in all directions, the Pinyon Trail in the Pine Nut Mountains east of Carson Valley is your destination. Named for Nevada’s state tree, the single-leaf pinyon pine, the Pinyon Trail is open to hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and dogs. The shoulder seasons, April to June and September to December, are the best times to hike this trail, which gets too hot in mid-summer. But you may be able to hike or ride there all winter, because when our Sierra Nevada trails are covered with snow, there's a good chance that the Pinyon Trail will be snow-free, or close to it. The Pinyon trail is a non-motorized three-mile loop which crowns a large hill with continuous views of the Pine Nut and Carson Ranges. From the trailhead, a one-mile "spur" gently climbs through the pinyon forest, crossing twice with a motorized off-road track, to arrive at the trail junction where trail users can go either direction on the loop. The return trip back to the trailhead from the junction results in a round-trip trail distance of about 5.2 miles. Taking the loop twice, which mountain bikers and trail runners often do, extends the length to about 8.2 miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Budget and Salinity of Walker Lake,Western Nevada
    ENT OF T TM H R E A IN P E T E D U.S. Geological Survey Water Budget and Salinity of R I O S. Fact Sheet FS-115-95 R U. G Walker Lake,Western Nevada E Y O E L V O R GICAL SU Walker Lake (fig. 1) is one of the rare although this site does not have the In some valleys, local streams also perennial, terminal lakes in the Great longest streamflow record, no upstream contribute surface-water flow. Thus, Basin of the western United States. The reservoirs or irrigation diversions exist and estimates of surface-water consumption in lake is the terminus for all surface-water streamflow has been measured contin- table 2 are minimum values, because local and ground-water flow in the Walker uously at the site since 1939. Long-term streamflow in valleys may not have been River Basin Hydrographic Region (fig. 2) average annual flows were estimated by measured. In Smith Valley, 8,700 acre- that is not consumed by evaporation, comparing the average annual flow at a ft/yr of Desert Creek flow has been in- sublimation, or transpiration. stream-gaging station with the average cluded in the water budget. In Antelope annual flow at site 4 for years of concur- Valley, the contribution from Mill and The concentration of dissolved solids rent record. Then, this partial record was Slinkard Creeks is unknown, so the difference of 15,000 acre-ft between (salts) in the lake and the lake-surface adjusted to a long-term average using the average inflow and outflow underesti- altitude fluctuate primarily in response 55-year average at site 4.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY of WASHOE COUNTY Introduction
    HISTORY OF WASHOE COUNTY Introduction Lying in the northwest portion of the State of Nevada, named for a tribe of American Indians and containing a land area in excess of 6,000 square miles, Washoe County today consists of two of the nine original counties -- Washoe and Lake (later renamed Roop) Counties -- into which the Territory of Nevada was divided by the first territorial legislature in 1861. The country, "a land of contrasts, extremes, and apparent contradictions, of mingled barrenness and fertility, beauty and desolation, aridity and storm,"1 was claimed by the Spanish Empire until 1822 when it became a part of Mexican territory resulting from Mexico's successful war of independence from Spain. Mexico ceded the area to the United States in 1848 following the Mexican War, and the ceded lands remained part of the "unorganized territory" of the United States until 1850. Spanish and Mexican constructive possession probably had little effect on the life styles of the Northern Paiutes and the Washos -- the two American Indian tribes which inhabited the area. The Northern Paiutes ranged over most of Washoe County2 save the series of valleys lying along the eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada. These valleys were the domain of the Washos, a small, nomadic tribe whose members spoke an alien tongue and from which the name of the county is derived3. The 1840's During the 1840's Washoe County was traversed by a number of trappers and explorers, as well as several well-defined emigrant trails leading to California and Oregon. In 1843 mountain man "Old Bill" Williams4 led his trappers from the Klamath Lake region of California to Pyramid Lake and the Truckee River.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of NEVADA-RENO Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Un~Vrrsiryof Nevada-8.Eno Reno, Nevada 89557-0088 (702) 784-6691 FAX: (7G2j 784-1709
    UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA-RENO Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Un~vrrsiryof Nevada-8.eno Reno, Nevada 89557-0088 (702) 784-6691 FAX: (7G2j 784-1709 NBMG OPEN-FILE REPORT 90-1 MINERAL RESOURCE INVENTORY BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, CARSON CITY DISTRICT, NEVADA Joseph V. Tingley This information should be considered preliminary. It has not been edited or checked for completeness or accuracy. Mineral Resource Inventory Bureau of Land Management, Carson City District, Nevada Prepared by: Joseph V. Tingley Prepared for: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF E INTERIOR '\\ !\ BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Carson City Office Carson City, Nevada Under Cooperative Agreement 14-08-0001-A-0586 with the U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NEVADA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO January 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................ 3 LOCATION .......................... 4 MINERAL RESOURCES ...................... 4 MINING DISTRICTS AND AREAS .................. 6 ALLEN HOT SPRINGS AREA ................. 6 ALPINE DISTRICT .................... 7 AURORA DISTRICT .................... 10 BELL DISTRICT ..................... 13 BELLMOUNTAIN DISTRICT ................. 16 BENWAY DISTRICT .................... 19 BERNICE DISTRICT .................... 21 BOVARDDISTRICT .............23 BROKENHILLS DISTRICT ................. 27 BRUNERDISTRICT .................. 30 BUCKLEYDISTRICT ................. 32 BUCKSKINDISTRICT ............... 35 CALICO HILLS AREA ................... 39 CANDELARIA DISTRICT ................. 41 CARSON CITY DISTRICT .................. 44
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Land Use and Agriculture
    Chapter 7 Land Use and Agriculture Chapter 7 Land Use and Agriculture Introduction This chapter describes the affected environment for land use and agriculture in the study area and the potential impacts on land use and agriculture that would result from the acquisition alternatives and No Action Alternative. Sources of Information The key sources of data and information used in the preparation of this chapter are listed below. Full references can be found in Chapter 17, References. ICF Jones & Stokes interpretation of USGS land use information (ICF Jones & Stokes 2008) . Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management 2001) . Lyon County Master Plan (Lyon County 1990)1 . Mineral County Master Plan (Mineral County Regional Planning Commission 2006) . The University and DRI analysis of GIS data related to agriculture (Bonnenfant et al. 2009) The USGS land use dataset was the foundation for this section because it provides the greatest amount of information in a single dataset, and most study area acreages were calculated from this dataset. For local descriptions, such as agricultural land in Mason Valley, newer and more detailed data were used when available. As a result, total acreages are not consistent. This is particularly true in the case of irrigated land—the USGS data include more land under this category than the newer and more detailed University and DRI data. Data sources are noted throughout this report. It is important to note that land use is a dynamic resource and therefore it is not possible to present absolute current information; the best information available is presented in the Revised DEIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Resources of the Reno 1 O by 2° Quadrangle, Nevada and California
    Geology and Mineral Resources of the Reno 1 o by 2° Quadrangle, Nevada and California U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2019 Geology and Mineral Resources of the Reno 1 o by 2° Quadrangle, Nevada and California By DAVID A. JOHN, JOHN H. STEWART, JAMES E. KILBURN, NORMAN J. SILBERLING, and LARRY C. ROWAN U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2019 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director 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 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1993 For sale by Book and Open-File Report Sales U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Geology and mineral resources of the Reno 1 o by 2° quadrangle, Nevada and California I by David A. John ... [et al.]. p. cm.-(U.S. Geological Survey bulletin; 2019) Includes bibliographical references. Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.3:2019 1. Mines and mineral resources-Nevada-Reno Region. 2. Mines and mineral resources-California. 3. Geology-Nevada-Reno Region. 4. Geology-California. I. John, David A. II. Series. QE75.89 [TN24.NJ 557.3 s-dc20 [553'.09793'55] 92-32554 CIP CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Acknowledgments 2 Background studies 2 Geologic mapping 2 Gravity data 4 Aeromagnetic data 4 Isotopic-dating studies 4 Paleomagnetic data 4 Geochemical data 5 Mines and prospects data 6 Remote-sensing data 7 Area description 7 Geology 8 Pre-Tertiary
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Water Resources of Smith Valley, Lyon and Douglas Counties Nevada
    Geology and Water Resources of Smith Valley, Lyon and Douglas Counties Nevada By O. J. LOELTZ and T. E. EAKIN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1228 Prepared in cooperation with the Office of the State Engineer State of Nevada UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1953 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Douglas McKay, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract_ _ _ _____________________________________________________ 1 Introduction. ______________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of the investigation. .___-_______---__---_--___ 2 Acknowledgments. ____________________________________________ 3 Geographical sketch-__________________________________________ 3 Historical sketch-______________________________________________ 5 Climate---_----------------_---_-__---------_---_---------------_ 7 Precipitation _ _______________________________________________ 7 Temperature_ _______________________________________________ 10 Physiography and drainage_________________________________________ 11 General features-___--_-_-_--__-_________________________.._-___ 11 Mountains_ _________________________________________________ 11 Alluvial fans and valley floor-___________________________________ 13 Streams._____________________________________________________ 14 Geology._________________________________________________________ 17 General- __.-_---___-----------_-______-_____-________________
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Watershed Adaptive Stewardship Plan, Part 1
    CARSON RIVER WATERSHED “Our Lifeline in the Desert” Adaptive Stewardship Plan Prepared by: CarsonCarson WaterWater SSubconservancyubconservancy DDistrictistrict Alpine County, California Carson City, Nevada Churchill County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Lyon County, Nevada CarsonCarson RiverRiver CoalitionCoalition CarsonCarson ValleyValley ConservationConservation DistrictDistrict DaytonDayton ValleyValley ConservationConservation DistrictDistrict WesternWestern NevadaNevada ResourceResource ConservationConservation andand DevelopmentDevelopment NaturalNatural ResourcesResources ConservationConservation ServiceService LyonLyon CountyCounty GISGIS DepartmentDepartment C.G.C.G. CelioCelio andand SonsSons Co.Co. Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Water Quality Planning June 2006 DRAFT CARSON RIVER WATERSHED “Our Lifeline in the Desert” Adaptive Stewardship Plan Prepared by: Carson Water Subconservancy District Alpine County, California Carson City, Nevada Churchill County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Lyon County, Nevada Lyon County GIS Department Carson Valley Conservation District Dayton Valley Conservation District Western Nevada Resource Conservation and Development Natural Resource Conservation Service C.G. Celio and Sons Co. In Cooperation with: Carson River Coalition Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Water Quality Planning May 2007 Carson River Watershed Stewardship Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following were
    [Show full text]
  • Late Quaternary Deformation and Seismic Risk Vl in the Northern Sierra Nevada-Great Basin Boundary Zone Near the Sweetwater Mountains, California and Nevada
    University of Nevada Reno !Late Quaternary deformation and seismic risk vl in the northern Sierra Nevada-Great Basin Boundary Zone near the Sweetwater Mountains, California and Nevada A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology by Garry Fallis Hayes W\ April 1985 i MINIS 1 LIBRARY University of Nevada Reno April 1985 ii ABSTRACT Remote-sensing, seismic and field studies indi­ cate three major zones of Quaternary deformation near the Sweetwater Mountains. Holocene fault scarps are present in the Antelope, Little Ante­ lope, Smith and Bridgeport Valleys, and in the Sonora Basin. Two other vaguely defined zones, between Carson and Antelope valleys, and from the Bridgeport Valley east to Bald Mountain, may repre­ sent Mio-Pliocene zones of faulting which more recently have acted as conjugate shears releasing stress between fault basins in the Western Great Basin between the Sierra Nevada and Walker Lane shear zone. The northern portion of the Sierra Nevada-Great Basin Boundary Zone is less active than the south­ ern part in Owens Valley, as shown by lower slip rates, shorter fault lengths and lower levels of historical seismicity. Maximum Credible Earthquake magnitudes for the fault basins range from 6.3 to 7.2, with expected displacements of 3 meters or more. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Dr. D.B. Slemmons, Craig DePolo and J.O. Davis for helpful discussions during the course of this study. Special thanks to Craig DePolo, Susan Hciyss and Ron Smith, who assisted with the field studies, and to Glenn Hayes who assisted with the manuscript preparation.
    [Show full text]
  • Yerington Dist Rict, Nevada
    ,._ ·_/ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY · GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Professional Paper 114 GEOLOGY AND ORE DE_POSITS OF THE YERINGTON DIST_RICT, NEVADA BY • ADOLPH KNOPF WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1918 ._,., .. .,... ... '· _.! ~ 1 • ~ :. •• ~ .... \, :'. ·CONTENTS. Page .. Pago. Preface, by F. L. Ransome ...................... :. 5 Part I. General features-Continued. Outline of report ................................ 7 Gener;,tl geology-Continued. Pttrt I. General features .................•....•.. 9 Epitome of the. geologic history of the Geography ........................ ·......... 9 district .....•......................... 29 Field work .................................. 9 Part II. The ore bodies ......................... 31 Bibliography ............................... 9 General features ............................ 31 . History of mining .......................... 11 Minerals of the ore deposits .................. 31 Production .................................. 12 Primary ·minerals ....................... 31 General geology ............................ 12 Secon'dary minerals .......... ~ .......... 33 'l'riassic rocks . ............ : ........... 12 Contact-metamorphic ore deposits ........... 34 Character ........................... 12 Geologic environment ................... 34 Age ............................... 12 Composition of the rocks inclosing the Volcanic rocks ...................... 13 ore deposits ....................... 34 Andesites .....................
    [Show full text]
  • Reno the CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE POTENTIAL OF
    University of Nevada Reno / THE CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE POTENTIAL OF GEOLOGIC DEPOSITS STOREY COUNTY, NEVADA A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geological Engineering by Peter Robert Kraatz \W April 1989 MINE* jL li *r a r t T i i e s ( . 3 4?^ The thesis of Peter Robert Kraatz is approved: Dean Graduate School University of Nevada Reno April 1989 ii ACKNOWLE DGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of several individuals including Dennis Bryan, Jack Quade and the entire crew of Engineering Testing Associates. Dennis Bryan was helpful in conveying his extensive knowledge of construction aggregates and initially suggesting the thesis topic. Jack Quade assisted in every way possible by helping me collect important data and giving me unobstructed access to the field area. I especially thank the technicians of ETA for always keeping the laboratory available for my use to perform aggregate tests and Donna Vineis for happily committing her free time to help me type the thesis and complete other related paperwork. The author sincerely thanks the owners of Storey County Properties, especially Harold Lucey and Procter Hug who gave me the opportunity to conduct the thesis through their authorized property access and substantial financial assistance. I lastly wish to acknowledge the late Lowell D. Kraatz who gave me constant inspiration to complete this project. iii ABSTRACT The northern portion of the Virginia Range in Storey County, Nevada contains geologic deposits that exhibit various qualities of potential construction aggregate. Three major volcanic formations are classified as high potential aggregate.
    [Show full text]