DOCSLIB.ORG

Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Book 1 of 2 NEVADA UTAH Tooele County Nevada State Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Book 1 of 2 NEVADA UTAH Tooele County Nevada State Office BLM Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Book 1 of 2 NEVADA UTAH Tooele County Nevada State Office State Nevada N To Las Vegas Bureau of Land Management August 2012 FES 12-33 Cooperating Agencies Army Corps of Engineers Juab County, UT Nevada Department of Wildlife Bureau of Indian Affairs Lincoln County, NV State of Utah Bureau of Reclamation Millard County, UT Tooele County, UT Central Nevada Regional National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Water Authority Nellis Air Force Base U.S. Forest Service Clark County, NV White Pine County Mission Statement The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, Nevada 89502-7147 http://www.blm.gov/nv In Reply Refer To: 2800 (NV910) N-78803 August 2012 Dear Reader: Enclosed is the Executive Summary for the Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). The full text of the Final EIS including responses to comments on the Draft EIS is contained within the disk found inside the back cover. You may also download the Final EIS from www.blm.gov/5w5c. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Final EIS in response to a right-of-way (ROW) application submitted by the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) for construction and operation of a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the proposed future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in east-central Nevada. Sixteen Cooperating Agencies have assisted the BLM in developing this Final EIS: U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Clark County, NV Nellis Air Force Base National Park Service Lincoln County, NV Army Corps of Engineers State Of Utah White Pine County, NV Bureau of Indian Affairs Nevada Department of Wildlife Juab County, UT Bureau of Reclamation Central Nevada Regional Millard County, UT Water Authority Tooele County, UT Some of the above Cooperating Agencies will be using the Final EIS in their decision-making process for other permits and licenses associated with the proposed project. The BLM completed a Draft EIS that analyzed a conceptual plan of development submitted to BLM by SNWA, which included information about the proposed project. The Draft EIS was released to the public on June 10, 2011, with publication of a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. The NOA initiated a 90-day public comment period (extended for an additional 30 days) ending on October 11, 2011. Public meetings were held August 2, 2011 through August 18, 2011. The BLM received comments on the Draft EIS through more than 460 letters and emails (plus over 20,000 email action alert submissions). The BLM reviewed the comments and provided written responses in this Final EIS (included within Appendix H). Some comments resulted in modifications to text in the EIS. The Final EIS is a “full text” document that contains the entire EIS and supersedes the Draft EIS. This Final EIS considers the expected environmental effects associated with granting the ROW across public land and subsequent construction and operation of SNWA’s proposal. In addition to SNWA’s proposal, seven alternatives including the No Action alternative also are presented and analyzed in the Final EIS. One additional alternative was prepared and analyzed specifically for this Final EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually in the EIS. As part of the EIS process for this project, a comprehensive groundwater model was prepared. The model report was updated for the additional alternative and is included on a separate disk included with the Final EIS. Although water rights, pumping rates, volume of water proposed for transport to the Las Vegas Valley, and the point of use of water proposed for transport across public land is outside the jurisdiction of the BLM, these issues have been included in the analysis in this document. Water rights and pumping rates are under the purview of the Nevada State Engineer. Water distribution and use associated with the importation of water in the Las Vegas Valley have been addressed by local and regional planning agencies in accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes. The purpose of this Final EIS is to document and disclose the expected environmental effects associated with the proposed project and seven alternatives. The BLM will use the Final EIS to render a decision on whether to grant a ROW or under what conditions the ROW should be granted. This Final EIS is not a decision document; however, BLM has selected a preferred alternative, which, at this time, would best accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed action while fulfilling BLM’s statutory mission and responsibilities. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement will be available for 30 days. A hard copy of the document will be provided on request while supplies last. A description of new or missed information within this Final EIS may be submitted within the thirty day availability period to: Penny Woods, Project Manager Bureau of Land Management Nevada Groundwater Projects Office Nevada State Office (NV-910.2) 1340 Financial Blvd Reno, NV 89502 FAX: 775.861.6689 Email: [email protected] The BLM will issue one or more records of decision (ROD) based on this Final EIS. The ROD(s) will not be issued until other agency permits and approvals have been finalized and their conditions of approval will be incorporated into the ROD(s). For more information, Please contact Penny Woods at 775.861.6466. BLM 2012 Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 1. What does the Executive Summary contain? ................................................................................................... ES-2 2. Why was this EIS prepared? .............................................................................................................................. ES-4 2.1 Why is the Southern Nevada Water Authority seeking to develop this groundwater? ............................... ES-4 2.2 Why doesn’t the SNWA withdraw more water from the Colorado River system? .................................... ES-5 2.3 Who is responsible for preparing this EIS? .................................................................................................. ES-6 2.4 Under what laws is the BLM acting? ........................................................................................................... ES-6 2.5 When was the Draft EIS available and what alternatives were considered? ............................................... ES-7 2.6 Alternative F was added for the Final EIS. Does CEQ allow the addition of an alternative at this point in the process? ..................................................................................................................................... ES-9 2.7 What comments were received on the Draft? .............................................................................................. ES-9 2.8 What other changes were made between the Draft and this Final EIS? .................................................... ES-10 2.9 What is the Agency’s Preferred Alternative? ............................................................................................ ES-11 2.10 What decisions will the BLM make based on this EIS? ............................................................................ ES-13 2.11 What mitigation and monitoring requirements would the BLM impose as conditions of any ROW grants for the GWD Project? ...................................................................................................................... ES-15 2.12 How are Native Americans engaging in the NEPA process? .................................................................... ES-15 2.13 Are other agency approvals and consultation required before the Project would move forward? ........... ES-16 2.14 What does “tiering” mean in the National Environmental Policy Act process and how does it relate to the GWD Project? ................................................................................................................................... ES-16 2.15 Who is responsible for granting water rights? ........................................................................................... ES-18 2.16 What are the Nevada State Engineer’s responsibilities? ............................................................................ ES-18 2.17 What is the Nevada water rights process? .................................................................................................. ES-18 2.18 What is the relationship between the BLM environmental process and Nevada’s water rights process? ....................................................................................................................................................... ES-19 2.19 What were the Nevada State Engineer’s rulings on the SNWA’s water rights applications in Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake, and Cave valleys? .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Photograph Taken by David A
    Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Characterization of Surface-Water Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5099 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Confluence of Lehman and Baker Creeks, looking west toward Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada. (Photograph taken by David A. Beck, U.S. Geological Survey, 2003.) Characterization of Surface-Water Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada By Peggy E. Elliott, David A. Beck, and David E. Prudic Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5099 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 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 materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Elliott, P.E., Beck, D.A., and Prudic, D.E., 2006, Characterization of surface-water resources in the Great Basin National Park area and their susceptibility to ground-water withdrawals in adjacent valleys, White Pine County, Nevada: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Historical Quarterly, Use of the Atomic Bomb
    78 102 128 NO. 2 NO. I VOL. 86 VOL. I 148 179 UHQ 75 CONTENTS Departments 78 The Crimson Cowboys: 148 Remembering Topaz and Wendover The Remarkable Odyssey of the 1931 By Christian Heimburger, Jane Beckwith, Claflin-Emerson Expedition Donald K. Tamaki, and Edwin P. Hawkins, Jr. By Jerry D. Spangler and James M. Aton 165 Voices from Drug Court By Randy Williams 102 Small but Significant: The School of Nursing at Provo 77 In This Issue General Hospital, 1904–1924 By Polly Aird 172 Book Reviews & Notices 128 The Mountain Men, the 179 In Memoriam Cartographers, and the Lakes 182 Contributors By Sheri Wysong 183 Utah In Focus Book Reviews 172 Depredation and Deceit: The Making of the Jicarilla and Ute Wars in New Mexico By Gregory F. Michno Reviewed by Jennifer Macias 173 Juan Rivera’s Colorado, 1765: The First Spaniards among the Ute and Paiute Indians on the Trail to Teguayo By Steven G. Baker, Rick Hendricks, and Gail Carroll Sargent Reviewed by Robert McPherson 175 Isabel T. Kelly’s Southern Paiute Ethnographic Field Notes, 1932–1934, Las Vegas NO. 2 NO. Edited by Catherine S. Fowler and Darla Garey-Sage I Reviewed by Heidi Roberts 176 Mountain Meadows Massacre: Collected Legal Papers Edited by Richard E. Turley, Jr., Janiece L. Johnson, VOL. 86 VOL. and LaJean Purcell Carruth I Reviewed by Gene A. Sessions. UHQ Book Notices 177 Cowboying in Canyon Country: 76 The Life and Rhymes of Fin Bayles, Cowboy Poet By Robert S. McPherson and Fin Bayles 178 Dime Novel Mormons Edited by Michael Austin and Ardis E.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of Millard County, Utah
    WATER RESOURCES OF MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH by Fitzhugh D. Davis Utah Geological Survey, retired OPEN-FILE REPORT 447 May 2005 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY a division of UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Although this product represents the work of professional scientists, the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Geological Survey, makes no warranty, stated or implied, regarding its suitability for a particular use. The Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Geological Survey, shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to claims by users of this product. This Open-File Report makes information available to the public in a timely manner. It may not conform to policy and editorial standards of the Utah Geological Survey. Thus it may be premature for an individual or group to take action based on its contents. WATER RESOURCES OF MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH by Fitzhugh D. Davis Utah Geological Survey, retired 2005 This open-file release makes information available to the public in a timely manner. It may not conform to policy and editorial standards of the Utah Geological Survey. Thus it may be premature for an individual or group to take action based on its contents. Although this product is the work of professional scientists, the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Geological Survey, makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding its suitability for a particular use. The Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Geological Survey, shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to claims by users of this product.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F3.12 Rangelands and Grazing
    Appendix F3.12 Rangelands and Grazing BLM June 2011 Appendix F3.12 Table of Contents Figure F3.12-1 Grazing Allotments Table F3.12-1 Grazing Allotments Located Within the ROWs/Groundwater Development Areas for the Proposed Action Table F3.12-2 Springs in Area of Potential Impact per Grazing Allotments by Time Period Table F3.12-3 Sum of Miles of Perennial and Ephemeral Streams within the Area of Drawdown 10-foot or Greater Table F3.12-4 Sum of Acres by Drawdown of Greater than 10-foot to Wetland/Meadow and Basin Shrubland Vegetation Table F3.12-5 Cumulative Alternatives Comparison Carlin West Wendover Battle Mountain 196 306 228 144 ALT 93 93 55 22 Elko County 218 100 White Pine County 14 87 349 36 278 311 128 173 88 Tooele County 13 2 362 34 DEEP 382 Callao Juab County 489 335 278 147 CREEK 277 207 VALLEY Lander 113 256 County 177 FISH 130 211 SPRINGS STEPTOE 208 120 FLAT VALLEY 160 380 86 893 165 291 17 132 352 205 Juab County 892 96 93 101 180 191 198 68 126 Millard County 211 136 Eureka 78 Austin 61 390 199 SPRING 67 11 382 VALLEY 289 299 McGill 284 96 85 66 122 283 381 50 486 203 332 80 TULE VALLEY 82 365 47 219 197 6 Opt. 1 364 329 Ely 143 309 258 211 38 211 Eureka SNAKE VALLEY 270 County 211 209 211 70 351 102 189 327 326 172 Eskdale 282 83 204 365 12 6 56 108 212 White Pine County 487 159 119 240 255 224 43 Baker Nye County 228 211 125 112 8 Garrison 69 46 161 175 179 280 257 168 358 231 35 Opt.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology of Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar Valleys Impacts
    HYDROGEOLOGY OF SPRING, CAVE, DRY LAKE, AND DELAMAR VALLEYS IMPACTS OF DEVELOPING SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY’S CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Presented to the Office of the Nevada State Engineer on behalf of Protestants White Pine County, Great Basin Water Network, et al. June, 2017 Prepared by: _______________________________________________________________ Thomas Myers, Ph.D. Hydrologic Consultant Reno, NV June 28, 2017 Date Table of Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Method of Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Water Rights Applications and Proposed Pumping Scenarios ............................................................... 8 Conceptual Flow Model ..................................................................................................................... 10 White River Flow System ................................................................................................................... 25 Hydrogeologic Properties of Aquifer Systems
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Monitoring Plan for the Spring Valley Stipulation
    Biological Monitoring Plan for the Spring Valley Stipulation Photo by Kelly Douglas February 2009 Biological Work Group Stipulation Parties: Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management National Park Service Southern Nevada Water Authority U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Invited Parties: Nevada Department of Wildlife Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Technical assistance in the preparation of this document was provided by: Bio-West, Inc., Logan, Utah Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, Nevada KS2 Ecological Field Services LLC, Anton, Texas The Nature Conservancy, Reno, Nevada This document may be cited as: Biological Work Group. 2009. Biological Monitoring Plan for the Spring Valley Stipulation. February 2009. LIST OF ACRONYMS ANOVA Analysis of Variance ANS Aquatic Nuisance Species BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management BWG Biological Work Group CAP Conservation Action Planning CCC Civilian Conservation Corps CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort DMP Data Management Plan DMS Document Management Software DOI Department of the Interior EC Executive Committee EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPT Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera ESA Endangered Species Act FWS Fish and Wildlife Service GBNP Great Basin National Park GPS Global Positioning System HACCP Hazardous Analysis and Critical Control Points HB Hydrographic Basin IBMA Initial Biological Monitoring Area ICH Ichthiopterius (fish bacteria) LVVWD Las Vegas Valley Water District KEA Key Ecological Attribute MODFLOW Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Groundwater
    [Show full text]
  • Ten-Year Report
    SNAKE VALLEY HYDROLOGIC MONITORING: TEN-YEAR REPORT by Peter Goodwin, Paul Inkenbrandt, Diane Menuz, Hugh Hurlow, and Drew Dittmer A contract deliverable for the Endangered Species Mitigation Fund Project ID 63, BLM UT Aquatic Special Status Species Assistant Agreement L15AC00246, and Watershed Restoration Initiative Project ID 5132 OPEN-FILE REPORT 732 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY a division of UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2021 SNAKE VALLEY HYDROLOGIC MONITORING: TEN-YEAR REPORT by Peter Goodwin1, Paul Inkenbrandt1, Diane Menuz1, Hugh Hurlow1, and Drew Dittmer2 1Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah 2Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah Cover photo: (clockwise from upper left) Juvenile Columbia Spotted Frog, emergent wetland north of Miller Spring, Darkthroat shootingstar in the Gandy Salt Marsh, and Central Spring in the Bishop Springs complex. Suggested citation: Goodwin, P., Inkenbrandt, P., Menuz, D., Hurlow, H., and Dittmer, D., 2021, Snake Valley hydrologic monitoring—ten-year report: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 732, 36 p., 2 appendices, https://doi.org/10.34191/OFR-732. OPEN-FILE REPORT 732 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY a division of UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2021 STATE OF UTAH Spencer J. Cox, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Brian Steed, Executive Director UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY R. William Keach II, Director PUBLICATIONS contact Natural Resources Map & Bookstore 1594 W. North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84116 telephone: 801-537-3320 toll-free: 1-888-UTAH MAP website: utahmapstore.com email: [email protected] UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY contact 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 telephone: 801-537-3300 website: geology.utah.gov This open-file release makes information available to the public that may not conform to UGS technical, editorial, or policy standards; this should be considered by an individual or group planning to take action based on the contents of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management ______
    United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management ________________________________________________ Environmental Assessment UT-010-2008-050 April 2009 OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE FILLMORE FIELD OFFICE Location: Fillmore Field Office Juab and Millard Counties, Utah Applicant/Address: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 ________________________________________________ Fillmore Field Office 35 East 500 North Fillmore, Utah 84631 Phone: (435) 743-3100 Fax: (435) 743-3155 Fillmore Oil and Gas Leasing EA UT-010-2008-050 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 4 1.1 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................4 1.2 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plan and Implementation EA Decisions .........6 1.3 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ......................................................6 1.4 Identification of Issues ......................................................................................................8 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Analysis ......................................9 2.2 No Action Alternative – Offer Leases Consistent
    [Show full text]
  • Utah State Water Plan - West Desert Basin
    Division of Water Resources April 2001 Utah State Water Plan - West Desert Basin Section 1 Foreword 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Demographics and Economic Future 5 Water Supply and Use 6 Management 7 Regulation/Institutional Considerations 8 Water Funding Programs 9 Water Planning and Development 10 Agricultural Water 11 Drinking Water 12 Water Quality 13 Disaster and Emergency Response 14 Fisheries and Water-Related Wildlife 15 Water-Related Recreation 16 Federal Water Planning and Development 17 Water Conservation 18 Industrial Water 19 Groundwater A Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions B Bibliography Utah State Water Plan West Desert Basin Utah Board of Water Resources 1594 West North Temple, Suite 310 PO Box 146201 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6201 May 2001 Utah Division of Water Resources Utah Department of Natural Resources Section 1 West Desert Basin Utah State Water Plan Foreword Utah's State Water Plan, prepared and 1.1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT distributed in 1990, provides the foundation and The Board of Water Resources gratefully overall direction for state water management acknowledges the dedicated efforts of the State and policies. It established policies and Water Plan Coordinating Committee and guidelines for statewide water planning, Steering Committee in preparing the West conservation and development. As a part of the Desert Basin Plan. Work was led by the state water planning process, more detailed planning staff of the Division of Water plans are prepared for each of the hydrologic Resources, with valuable assistance from basins within the state. The West Desert Basin individual coordinating committee members Plan is the eleventh and final of such reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Simple Approach on Estimates
    2730 N. Deer Run Rd. Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-887-7614 May 19, 2011 MEMORANDUM To: Devin Galloway, Ground-Water Specialist, Western Region, USGS From: Weiquan Dong, Hydrologist, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Ramon C Naranjo, Hydrologist, Nevada WSC, U.S. Geological Survey, and Keith J. Halford, Ground-Water Specialist, Nevada WSC, U.S. Geological Survey Subject: AQUIFER TEST—Analysis of water level fluctuations from pumpage for irrigation during multiple drought years in Snake Valley, HA195, near Needle Point and south of Garrison, Utah Ranges of transmissivity and specific yield of the basin fill and carbonate rock were estimated by analyzing water-level changes in multiple observation wells that were caused by irrigation of 1,800 acres in Snake Valley, HA195, south of Garrison, Utah (Figure 1). Annual effective groundwater withdrawals were estimated between 3,500 and 5,300 acre-feet (ac-ft) during the years 2001–2003. The analysis is referred to as the Needle Point aquifer test because most of the pumpage occurs just west of the carbonate outcrop Needle Point and the observation well that is completed in carbonate rocks is on the northern tip of Needle Point (Figure 1). Hydraulic property estimates from the Needle Point aquifer test will constrain calibration of regional groundwater flow models. Site and Geology The aquifer test occurred near Garrison, UT in Snake Valley where water levels in more than 100 mi² of basin fill and carbonate rock were affected by pumpage for irrigation (Figure 1). The basin fill was pumped largely between 100 and 800 ft below land surface where undifferentiated intervals of silt, sand, and gravel occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Table XX Alternatives A, C, F, G, H, I Groundwater
    Appendix F3.7 Aquatic Biological Resources BLM 2012 Table F3.7-1 Aquatic Species in the Project Study Area 3 5 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 1 2 5 5 2 2 3 5 4 2 3 5 2 3 2 3 3 3 5 5 3 Valley h Wah Valley *Garnet Valley (North) Valley *Hidden Valley *Cave Valley Moapa Lower Dry Valley Clover Valley *Delamar Valley *Delamar Pahroc Valley White River Valley Wash California Area Mountains Black Valley *Lake #201) (basin Valley Spring Valley Eagle Valley Panaca Rose Valley Valley *Snake Valley Pine Tule Valley Tule Wa *Las Vegas Valley Vegas *Las Valley Spring *Coyote Valley *Pahranagat Valley Lake *Dry Valley Springs Kane Area Springs Muddy River Patterson Wash Valley Meadow Lower *Steptoe Valley #184) (basin Valley *Spring *Hamlin Valley Flat Springs Fish Deep Creek Valley Aquatic Species Status Fish Big Spring spinedace FT, BLM, NVP S S (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis) Bluegill GF S S (Lepomis macrochirus) Bonneville cutthroat trout GF, BLM, USFS, S RS S S (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) NVP, UTSC, CA Brook trout GF S RS S ES (Salvelinus fontinalis) Brown trout GF S S S RS RES ES (Salmo trutta) Bullhead species GF S S S S (Ameiurus spp.) Channel catfish GF S S S S (Ictalurus punctatis) Green sunfish GF S S (Lepomis cyanellus) Hiko White River springfish FE, BLM, NVP S (Crenichthys baileyi grandis) Lahontan cutthroat trout GF, FT, BLM, NVP, S (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) USFS Largemouth bass GF S S S S S S S S (Micropterus salmoides) Least Chub C, BLM, UTSC, CA S S (Iotichthys phlegethontis) Meadow Valley Wash desert sucker BLM, NVP S S S S S S (Catostomus
    [Show full text]
  • FJSH SPRINGS POND Snall " " REPORT
    ·. " " " FJSH SPRINGS POND SNAlL " " REPORT .. .. " f,. ·~ (\ 0 .. 2 Statu~ Report o n Fish Spri ngs Pon d Snail Taxon name: LymnaPft <Hinkleyia) oil?bryi Hemphill, 1890 Common name: Fi~h Springs Pond Snd>l Family: Lymnae1dae StAll-'s where taxon occurs: Utah Curr ent Feder al 5talu ~ : Candi date for endang~rcd or lhrcatcn e d status RPronomended Federal !Status: No li !iting Aulhor of report: Owtght W. Taylor , Dept . of Guolog y , Oregon State UnivcrGity , Corvalll5, OR 973 3 1-5506 Or"i gi nal da t e o f r eport: No vember 2;'1, ! 986 3 Table of Contents I. Specie~ Information 4 1. Cl~,sification ~nd nomPnclaturc 2. Present legal status 6 3 . Description 6 4. G~ographical distribution 7 5. Environment and habitat 0 6. Current land ownership and management responsibility 9 7 . Management practice~ and ~xpericnce 9 JI. AssesGment and Recommendations 10 B. Status change 10 9 . Conservation recommendati ons 10 III . Information Sources 11 10. Sources o~ information 11 IV. Authorship 1·­.:> 11. Initial authorship 15 Literature Ci t£1d 16 4 I . SPECIES INFORMATION J. Cla~~~~ication and nomenclature. A. Species. 1. Scientific Name. a . Lvmna~a CHinklPyia) Pilsbryi Hemphill , 1890. b. Original description: Hemphill , H. , 1890, NPw form~ of weslarn limniade~: Tile Nautilus , vel. 4, pp. 25-27; Limnpca CLPptolimnogtd pil s bryi, p. 25. c. Type specimen: 62293, Academy of Natural Sciences, Phil adel phi.:>. Other spPci nu;ms , col 1 ect.Jd by R. H. Russell in 1970, arc mostly in the Department of Zoology, University of Arizona , Tucson .
    [Show full text]