DOCSLIB.ORG

Castle Mountain Project San Bernardino County, California, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Castle Mountain Project San Bernardino County, California, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report Report Effective Date: Report Authors 23 August 2017 Todd Wakefield SME-RM Don Tschabrun SME-RM Report Filing Date: 25 October 2017 MTS Project Number: 16106 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Todd Wakefield, SME-RM, am employed as a Principal Geologist with Mine Technical Services Ltd. in Reno, Nevada. This certificate applies to the technical report titled “Castle Mountain Project, San Bernardino County, California, USA, NI 43-101 Technical Report” dated 25 October 2017 (the “technical report”). I am a Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), 4028798RM. I graduated from the University of Redlands with a Bachelors of Science degree in Geology in 1986 and the Colorado School of Mines with a Master of Science degree in Geology in 1989. I have practiced my profession for continuously since 1987. I have been directly involved in gold exploration and mining projects in the United States, and I have been involved in evaluating data quality for scoping, pre-feasibility, and feasibility level studies for properties in the United States. As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43–101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43–101). I visited the Castle Mountain Project on 13 to 16 December 2016. I am responsible for Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the technical report. I am independent of NewCastle Gold Ltd. as independence is described by Section 1.5 of NI 43–101. I have been involved with the Castle Mountain Project since 2016 performing database validation, data quality evaluation, and geological review. I have read NI 43–101 and the sections of the technical report for which I am responsible have been prepared in compliance with that Instrument. As of the effective date of the technical report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the technical report for which I am responsible contain all Mine Technical Services Ltd 4110 Twin Falls Drive, Reno, NV, 89511 www.minetechnicalservices.com scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make those sections of the technical report not misleading. Dated: 25 October 2017 “Signed and sealed” Todd Wakefield, SME-RM Mine Technical Services Ltd 4110 Twin Falls Drive, Reno, NV, 89511 www.minetechnicalservices.com CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Don Tschabrun, SME Registered Member, am employed as an Associate Principal Mining Engineer with Mine Technical Services Ltd of Reno Nevada. This certificate applies to the technical report titled “Mineral Resource for the Castle Mountain Project, San Bernardino County, California, USA, NI 43-101 Technical Report” with an Effective Date of August 23, 2017 (the “Technical Report”). I am a Registered Member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME). I graduated from the Colorado School of Mines with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geological Engineering (1976). I also hold a Master of Science degree in Mineral Economics (1981) from the Colorado School of Mines. I have practiced my profession continuously for 40+ years since 1976. I have been directly involved in the evaluation and operation of precious metal, base metal and industrial mineral mining projects in North and South America, Australia, Asia Pacific and Russia. As a result of my experience and qualifications, I am a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). I visited the Castle Mountain Project on December 13 to 16, 2016. I am responsible for the preparation of Section 14 of this Technical Report and corresponding sections of the Summary, Interpretation and Conclusions, and Recommendations that are related to the mineral resource estimate. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in section 1.5 of NI 43-101. I have not had prior involvement with the Castle Mountain Project that is the subject of the Technical Report. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and the sections of the Technical Report I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form. As of the aforementioned Effective Date, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading. Dated: 25 October 2017 Signed and sealed Don Tschabrun, SME RM (#04029733) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Mine Technical Services Ltd 4110 Twin Falls Drive, Reno, NV 89511 www.minetechnicalservices.com IMPORTANT NOTICE This report was prepared as a National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report for NewCastle Gold Ltd. (NewCastle) by Mine Technical Services Ltd. (MTS). The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in MTS’ services, based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended for use by NewCastle subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with MTS. This contract permits NewCastle to file this report as a Technical Report with Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities pursuant to National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities laws, any other use of this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk. The responsibility for this disclosure remains with NewCastle. The user of this document should ensure that this is the most recent Technical Report for the property as it is not valid if a new Technical Report has been issued. NewCastle Gold Ltd. Castle Mountain Project, San Bernardino County, California, USA NI 43-101 Technical Report C ONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Property Description and Location .................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Ownership........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.4 Climate and Physiography............................................................................................... 1-1 1.5 Project History ................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.6 Geological Setting and Mineralization ............................................................................. 1-2 1.7 Exploration and Drilling .................................................................................................... 1-3 1.8 Sampling and Verification ................................................................................................ 1-3 1.9 Mineral Resource Estimate ............................................................................................. 1-4 1.10 Environmental Studies and Permitting ............................................................................ 1-4 1.11 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 1-6 1.12 Recommended Work Program ........................................................................................ 1-6 2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Source of Information ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Qualified Persons ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.4 Field Involvement of Qualified Persons ........................................................................... 2-1 2.5 Previous Technical Reports............................................................................................. 2-2 2.6 Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.7 Units of Measure ............................................................................................................. 2-3 2.7.1 Common Units .................................................................................................... 2-3 2.7.2 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 2-4 3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .............................................................................................. 3-1 4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Location ..........................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • RIT Projects in Need of Funding (491KB PDF)

    RIT Projects in Need of Funding (491KB PDF)

    3 October 2019 DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group Recovery Priorities 1 RIT Projects in Need of Funding 1 RIT Project Summaries 7 Top 10 Fencing Recommendations 134 Funded RIT Projects 16 DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT GROUP RECOVERY PRIORITIES ● Restore habitat (incl. route restoration) ● Reduce predator subsidies ● Targeted predator control ● Install and maintain tortoise barrier fencing ● Fire management planning and implementation ● Education (lower priority than on-the-ground actions) RIT PROJECTS IN NEED OF FUNDING Project Priority Title Budget # Rangewide RW02 Seed Increases for Desert Tortoise Habitat Restoration in Southern Nevada $140,000 California RIT - Rangewide Mojave Raven Watch - a desert tortoise rangewide human education CA09 $126,500 program Removal of free-roaming burros on BLM managed land in excess of CA41 $2,465,000 authorized population level. California RIT - Northeast Mojave Workgroup Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA41) -7.4%/year Increase law enforcement patrols for desert tortoise protection in Mojave CA19 $259,000 National Preserve. CA26 Evaluation of raven food subsidy sites near the Mojave National Preserve $82,133 Fenner Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA19, CA26, and CA41) -7.3%/year CA25. Piosphere Restoration on the Fenner/Piute Valley Critical Habitat Unit in $209,250 v2 Mojave National Preserve CA30 Desert Tortoise Barrier Fencing: Interstate 40 near Kelbaker Road $543,500 Rd 5 Rd7 Fence US 95 Nevada border
  • 28 September 2020 Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group

    28 September 2020 Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group

    28 September 2020 DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group Recovery Priorities 1 RIT Projects in Need of Funding 1 RIT Project Summaries 6 Top Fencing Recommendations 14 Funded RIT Projects 16 DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT GROUP RECOVERY PRIORITIES ● Restore habitat (incl. route restoration) ● Reduce predator subsidies ● Targeted predator control ● Install and maintain tortoise barrier fencing ● Fire management planning and implementation ● Education (lower priority than on-the-ground actions) RIT PROJECTS IN NEED OF FUNDING Desert tortoise population trends through 2014 are indicated for geographic areas covered by the range-wide monitoring program Project Priority Title Budget # Rangewide RW02 Seed Increases for Desert Tortoise Habitat Restoration in Southern Nevada $140,000 California RIT - Rangewide Mojave Raven Watch - a desert tortoise rangewide human education CA09 $126,500 program Removal of free-roaming burros on BLM managed land in excess of CA41 $2,465,000 authorized population level. Identification of existing culverts and underpasses needing maintenance or CA42 modification to facilitate desert tortoise movement under highways and $48,000 roads. Rd8 Fence I-40 north of Black Ridge, CA, both sides, 5.0 miles TBD Rd11 Fence I-40 near Old Dad Mountains, both sides, 9.4 miles TBD Rd13 Fence I-40 near Kalbaker Rd, 8.1 miles TBD California RIT - Northeast Mojave Workgroup Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA41) -7.4%/year Increase law enforcement patrols for desert tortoise protection in Mojave CA19 $259,000 National Preserve. CA26 Evaluation of raven food subsidy sites near the Mojave National Preserve $82,133 Fenner Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA19, CA26, and CA41) -7.3%/year CA25.
  • San Bernardino & Inyo Counties, California

    San Bernardino & Inyo Counties, California

    BLM-California Old Spanish National Historic Trail Recreation & Development Strategy San Bernardino & Inyo Counties, California—September, 2015 14 Old Spanish National Historic Trail Recreation & Development Strategy Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office Prepared For: The Bureau of Land Management, Barstow Field Office The Old Spanish Trail Association Prepared By: Michael Knight, BLM, ACE Landscape Architect Intern Graydon Bascom, BLM, ACE Historic Trails Intern September, 2015 Contents Note to the Reader 1 Participants 2 Explanation of Document Sections 3 Project Overview Old Spanish Trail Map 7 Recreation Route Map 9 Typical Trail Elements 11 Trail Zone Details Cajon Junction to Barstow (Zone 1) 15 Barstow to Harvard Rd (Zone 2) 19 Harvard Rd to Salt Creek (Zone 3) 27 Zzyzx to Piute Gorge (Zone 4) 31 Salt Creek to California State Line (Zone 5) 37 Summary 41 Above: Old Spanish Trail Marker at Emigrant Pass Cover Page: Top photo: Salt Creek ACEC, Bottom Photo: Mouth of Spanish Canyon looking southwest Note To The Reader National Historic Trails are trails that have a historical significance to the nation, and can only be designated by an act of Congress. There are currently 19 National Historic Trails in the United States. In 1968, the National Trails System Act, which is intended to provide for the outdoor recreation needs of the public, opened the door to federal involvement in all types of trails. Today, the Bureau of Land Management, along with the National Park Service and National Forest Service, are responsible for the administration and management of National Historic Trails.
  • Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118

    Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118

    Hydrologic Region Colorado River California’s Groundwater Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-1 • County: San Bernardino • Surface Area: 157,000 acres (245 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This basin underlies Lanfair Valley in eastern San Bernardino County. The valley slopes southeasterly with valley floor elevations ranging from 3,500 to 5,000 feet above sea level. The basin is bounded by impermeable rocks of the New York and Castle Mountains on the north, of the Piute Range on the east, of the Hackberry Mountain on the south, and of the Providence Mountains and Mid Hills on the west. Caruthers Creek flows intermittently southeastward during periods of heavy precipitation. Piute Spring discharges groundwater from Lanfair Valley to an adjacent valley and other smaller springs are found throughout the valley. Average annual precipitation ranges from 7 to 10 inches. Hydrogeologic Description Water Bearing Formations The primary water-bearing formations are Quaternary and Tertiary age unconsolidated deposits that include highly indurated sand, silt, clay and gravel. The maximum thickness of these deposits is not known; however, a boring log indicates a thickness of at least 550 feet locally. Wells in these deposits yield about 3 to 70 gpm (Friewald 1984). Restrictive Structures The Cedar Canyon fault crosses the northwest portion of the basin; however, it is unknown whether or not this fault is a barrier to groundwater. Recharge Areas The principal sources of recharge are likely percolation of runoff from surrounding mountains, percolation of precipitation to the valley floor, and subsurface inflow from adjacent basins.
  • Breeding Avifaunas of the New York Mountains and Kingston Range: Islands of Conifers in the Mojave Desert of California

    Breeding Avifaunas of the New York Mountains and Kingston Range: Islands of Conifers in the Mojave Desert of California

    BREEDING AVIFAUNAS OF THE NEW YORK MOUNTAINS AND KINGSTON RANGE: ISLANDS OF CONIFERS IN THE MOJAVE DESERT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN W. CARDIFF and J.V. REMSEN, Jr., Museum of Zoologyand Depart- ment of Zoology,Louisiana State University,Baton Rouge, Louisiana70893-3216 Quantificationof speciesturnover rates on islandsin the context of the equilibriumtheory of island biogeography(MacArthur and Wilson 1967) dependson accurateinventories of the biotataken at appropriateintervals in time. Inaccuratehistorical data concerningspecies composition is a sourceof error that must be avoided when calculatingturnover rates (Lynch and Johnson1974). Johnson's(1974) analysisof historicalchanges in species compositionand abundanceexemplifies the importanceof sound avifaunal inventoriesfor later comparison. In this paper, we present data to provide future researchers with a baseline from which to calculate turnover rates for the breeding avifaunas of two conifer "islands" in the Mojave Desert in California. Islandbiogeography of isolatedmountain ranges forming conifer "islands" in the Great Basin has been studiedby Brown (1971, 1978) for mammals and Johnson(1975) for birds.An analysisof breedingbird turnoverrates for a coniferisland in the Mojave Desert(Clark Mountain, California)is in prog- ress (N.K. Johnson pers. comm.). Detailed and accurate surveysof the breedingavifaunas of the Sheep and Springranges of southwesternNevada (Johnson 1965) and the Providence Mountains, San Bernardino Co., California (Johnson et al. 1948) provide data from other Mojave Desert rangesfor comparisonwith data we presentbelow. STUDY AREAS New York Mountains. The New York Mountains extend from about 14 km west of Cima east to the Nevada border in extreme eastern San Bernardino Co., California. The highestpoint, New York Peak (7532 ft--2296 m), is 39.5 km southeastof Clark Mountain (7929 ft = 2417 m) and 118 km south of CharlestonPeak (11,919 ft=3633 m) in the Spring Mountainsof Nevada.
  • Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed

    Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed

    Mojave National Preserve—Management Plan for Developed Water Resources CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction This chapter describes the unique factors that influence water resource management in the Preserve and the resources that could be affected by the implementation of any of the alternatives described in Chapter 2: Alternatives. The resource descriptions provided in this chapter serve as a baseline to compare the potential effects of the management actions proposed in the alternatives. The following resource topics are described in this chapter: • Environmental Setting • Cultural Resources • Water Resources • Wilderness Character • Wildlife Environmental setting and water resources are important for context and are foundational for water resource management, but are not resources that are analyzed for effects. Resource issues that were considered and dismissed from further analysis are listed in Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action and are not discussed further in this EA. A description of the effects of the proposed alternatives on wildlife, cultural resources, and wilderness character is presented in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. Environmental Setting The Preserve includes an ecologically diverse yet fragile desert ecosystem consisting of vegetative attributes that are unique to the Mojave Desert, as well as components of the Great Basin and Sonoran Deserts. Topography The topography of the Preserve is characteristic of the mountain and basin physiographic pattern, with tall mountain ranges separated by corresponding valleys filled with alluvial sediments. Primary mountain ranges in the Preserve, from west to east, include the Granite, Kelso, Providence, Clark, New York, and Piute Mountains. Major alluvial valleys include Soda Lake (dry lake bed), Shadow Valley, Ivanpah Valley, Lanfair Valley, and Fenner Valley.
  • Preliminary Geologic Map of the Little Piute Mountains, San Bernardino County, California

    Preliminary Geologic Map of the Little Piute Mountains, San Bernardino County, California

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Preliminary Geologic Map of the Little Piute Mountains, San Bernardino County, California by Keith A. Howard1, Michael L. Dennis2, Karl E. Karlstrom3, and Geoffrey A. Phelps1 Open-File Report 95-598 1995 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American stratigraphic code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purpose only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1 Menlo Park, California 94025 2 Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002 3 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 Mapped 1978-1993 by K. Howard, P. Stone, K. Karlstrom, G. Phelps, M. Dennis, and students from Northern Arizona University. GEOLOGIC SUMMARY Introduction The Little Piute Mountains in the eastern Mojave Desert expose a series of folds and thrust faults involving metamorphosed Paleozoic strata (Miller and others, 1982; Stone and others, 1983). Detailed mapping of these structures was undertaken to help elucidate regional Mesozoic structural evolution. Earlier geologic maps were prepared by Cooksley (1960a,b,c,d, generalized by Bishop, 1964) and Stone and others (1983). Deformed and metamorphosed Paleozoic and Triassic rocks form a stratal succession that was originally deposited in shallow seas on the North American craton. Based on lithologic sequence the units are correlated with unmetamorphosed equivalents 200 km to the northeast in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, and 35-50 km to the west in the Marble, Ship, and Providence Mountains, California (Stone and others, 1983).
  • 2021 D17 Zone Hunt Info

    2021 D17 Zone Hunt Info

    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Wildlife Branch 1010 Riverside Parkway, West Sacramento, CA 95605 ZONE D17 2021 General Deer Hunting Information (No Additional Hunts Scheduled) GENERAL INFORMATION This information sheet has been prepared to assist deer hunters applying for, or planning to hunt in, Zone D-17 located in portions of Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. The following information should be useful to hunters for archery and general seasons as well as any “additional hunts” within this geographic area. For more specific information or additional questions regarding this area, contact the following Department office(s): • Inland Deserts Region Office (Region 6), 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220, Ontario, CA 91764 (909-484-0167) encompassing Imperial, Inyo, Mono, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. REGULATIONS Laws and regulations are designed to conserve wildlife and to provide for an equitable distribution of game mammals. All hunters should read and be familiar with the Current Hunting Regulations. Remember, if you are hunting on private property you must obtain, and have in your possession written permission to hunt on private property. Hunter trespass laws are strictly enforced. NON-LEAD RESTRICTIONS As of July 1, 2019, all hunters must use nonlead ammunition when taking any wildlife in California, except when hunting with a pellet rifle for approved species. • CCR T14 250.1(d)(3) Effective July 1, 2019, it shall be unlawful to use, or possess with any firearm capable of firing, any projectile(s) not certified as nonlead when taking any wildlife for any purpose in this state.
  • Distribution and Seasonal Movements of Bendire's Thrasher in California

    Distribution and Seasonal Movements of Bendire's Thrasher in California

    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 20, Number 3, 1989 DISTRIBUTION AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF BENDIRE'S THRASHER IN CALIFORNIA A. SIDNEY ENGLAND, Departmentof Wildlifeand FisheriesBiology, University of California, Davis. California 95616 WILLIAM E LAUDENSLAYER,JR., U.S. D. A. ForestService, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,2081 E. SierraAvenue, Fresno, California 93710 The ecology and distribution of Bendire's Thrasher (Toxostorna bendirei)have been little studiedand are poorlyunderstood. Garrett and Dunn (1981:280) classifiedthe speciesas a "fairlycommon but very local summer resident on the Mojave Desert" in southern California. Californiabreeding populations are known primarily from the eastern Mojave Desert and scattered locations in and around Joshua Tree NationalMonument in the southernMojave Desert (Johnson et al. 1948, Miller and Stebbins1964, Garrett and Dunn 1981), areas frequently visitedby bird watchersand naturalists. However, recordsfrom other parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts suggest that breeding populationsof Bendire'sThrasher may be more widely distributedthan currentlyrecognized. Also, the preferredbreeding habitat in Californiais relativelywidespread. This habitatis typicallydescribed as Mojavedesert scrubwith either JoshuaTrees (Yucca brevifolia), SpanishBayonet (Y. baccata), Mojave Yucca (Y. schidigera), cholla cactus (Opuntia acanthocarpa,O. echinocarpa,or O. rarnosissirna),or other succulents (Grinnelland Miller 1944, Bent 1948, Garrett and Dunn 1981). Remsen(1978) consideredthe total Californiabreeding population of Bendire'sThrasher to be under 200 pairs, and the specieshas been placedon the list of Bird Speciesof SpecialConcern by the California Departmentof Fishand Game (Remsen1978). It was placedon this list becausepopulations are smalland locallydistributed and believedto be threatenedby off-roadvehicle use, overgrazing,and harvestingof Joshua Treesand other speciesof yucca. In this paper, we report the resultsof a 2-year studyof the breeding- season distributionand movement patterns of Bendire's Thrasher in California.
  • Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed Water Sources

    Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed Water Sources

    to Las Vegas to Las Vegas Kin Primm gsto E n S W E H G T G a I sh N G N A M Wilderness H R A L Y N R A I (! (!A A N Clark Mountain )" H #T R D N (! (! G # G (! U (! N R U U IO ") N A 95 O (! Y E Yates Well P O S (! A x N C C I L c M (! F IC G e U H IVANPAH R L l K A E Mojave National Preserve s IL L i R R U o # 15 O A (! LAKE (! C A r A Water Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment D M L (dry) c D C i n ash M 164 O e LL W HI n Searchlight R WK o MOHA at o Nipton W he a Mojave National Preserve boundary W d )" P # Nipton Road I Salton # ### 164 U M ## # National Park Service wilderness E I T Sea G N h E s N E R Y a A A W # R L (! E s L S Spring ng A H V ri C IL ES L L p M N A S 127 ll L L )" CIMA ROAD # Ivanpah Road I u L Small game guzzler B A )" (! A E V # )" V Y S T " Big game guzzler T # ## A N (! S # M (! L )" # (!(! # Halloran Springs #Morning U N # L (! I # ## (! # Well H E # Star Mine # O h ##(!# A ## s ## W (! )" A Y (! # T a H i # M (! CASTLE ## P l sh (!# Paved road lo a N W # A w W MOUNTAINS N Willow e U )" # P NATIONAL t SILVER A u Spring O i 15 N MONUMENT LAKE # V (! P Unpaved 2-wheel drive road I A (!# # # M (dry) (! # )" Morning Star Mine Road V (! I (! E Cal Nev Ari # L Kessler Unpaved 4-wheel drive road #(!# T # #### Spring K (!## S CIMA R (! (!# Mine Ro (! (! # rt a # A (! ! O # a d Mojave Road 4-wheel drive road #(!#(! ( Y C h DOME (! !( H # s Deer ( (! W (! a E (!(! Spring #(! N (! )" )" P W# (! Keystone Desert wash (! I NEVADA Baker Kelbaker Rd nk (! (! CALIFORNIA a (! (! U T (!(! # (! (! Spring ck
  • Piute Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118

    Piute Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118

    Hydrologic Region Colorado River California’s Groundwater Piute Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Piute Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-45 • County: San Bernardino • Surface Area: 176,000 acres (275 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This basin underlies a portion of Piute Valley in eastern San Bernardino County. The Piute Valley, and its underlying groundwater basin, extends into southern Nevada (Jennings 1961; Bishop 1963), but this report considers only the portion that lies within California. The basin is bounded by the nonwater-bearing rocks of the Dead Mountains on the east, of the Piute Range and Homer Mountain on the northwest, of the Piute Mountains on the southwest, and of the Sacramento Mountains on the southeast (Bishop 1963). The valley is drained by Piute Wash to the southeastern part of the valley, where the drainage enters the Needles Valley and flows eastward to the Colorado River. Annual average precipitation ranges from about 4 to 8 inches. Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Groundwater in the basin is found in younger and older alluvium. Older alluvium of Pleistocene age consists of fine to coarse sand interbedded with gravel, silt, and clay. Younger alluvium of Holocene age consists of poorly sorted gravel, sand, silt, and clay (DWR 1954). Valley fill extends to at least 1,044 feet in the central part of the basin and 920 feet in the southeastern part of the basin. Wells in the basin yield a maximum of 1,500 gpm. Restrictive Structures A fault in this basin may be a barrier to groundwater flow (DWR 1954).
  • Biological Goals and Objectives

    Biological Goals and Objectives

    Appendix C Biological Goals and Objectives Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C.1 Process for Developing the Biological Goals and Objectives This section outlines the process for drafting the Biological Goals and Objectives (BGOs) and describes how they inform the conservation strategy for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP or Plan). The conceptual model shown in Exhibit C-1 illustrates the structure of the BGOs used during the planning process. This conceptual model articulates how Plan-wide BGOs and other information (e.g., stressors) contribute to the development of Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) associated with Covered Activities, which are monitored for effectiveness and adapted as necessary to meet the DRECP Step-Down Biological Objectives. Terms used in Exhibit C-1 are defined in Section C.1.1. Exhibit C-1 Conceptual Model for BGOs Development Appendix C C-1 August 2014 Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The BGOs follow the three-tiered approach based on the concepts of scale: landscape, natural community, and species. The following broad biological goals established in the DRECP Planning Agreement guided the development of the BGOs: Provide for the long-term conservation and management of Covered Species within the Plan Area. Preserve, restore, and enhance natural communities and ecosystems that support Covered Species within the Plan Area. The following provides the approach to developing the BGOs. Section C.2 provides the landscape, natural community, and Covered Species BGOs. Specific mapping information used to develop the BGOs is provided in Section C.3.