DOCSLIB.ORG

2014 Battle Mountain Oil & Gas Lease Sale

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2014 Battle Mountain Oil & Gas Lease Sale U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA DATE: February 2014 July 2014 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Battle Mountain District, Nevada ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Battle Mountain District Office 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, NV 89820 Phone: 775-635-4000 Fax: 775-635-4034 2 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance ................................................................................................ 6 1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Policy, Plans and Other Environmental Analysis .... 7 1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement .......................................................................................... 8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................ 9 2.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ........................................... 9 2.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario .................................................................. 9 2.4.1 Trends and Projections for Oil and Gas Exploration in the BMD ..................................................................... 9 2.4.2 Typical Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities…………………………………………………………………..…11 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES......................... 14 3.1 Supplemental Authorities to be considered ........................................................................ 14 3.2 Other Resources .................................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Environmental Impacts of No Action Alternative .............................................................. 16 3.4 Impacts Requiring Further Analysis ................................................................................... 16 3.4.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.4.2 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.4.3 Native American Religious Concerns ............................................................................................................. 18 3.4.4 Wildlife Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 19 3.4.5 Water Quality (Surface and Ground) and Quantity ....................................................................................... 23 3.4.6 Waste, Hazardous and Solid .......................................................................................................................... 26 3.4.7 Noxious Weeds and Invasive, Non-native Species ......................................................................................... 27 3.4.8 Geology and Minerals .................................................................................................................................... 28 3.4.9 Soils ................................................................................................................................................................ 31 3.4.10 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.11 Range Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 35 3.4.12 Lands and Realty .......................................................................................................................................... 38 3.4.13 Visual Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 40 3.4.14 Recreation .................................................................................................................................................... 41 3.4.15 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................................... 41 3.4.16 Wild Horse and Burro .................................................................................................................................. 42 3.4.17 Forestry and Woodland Products ................................................................................................................ 47 DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 3 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 51 4.1. Past and Present Actions .................................................................................................... 51 4.2 Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions (RFFA’s) ............................................................ 51 4.3 Cumulative Impacts from Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 52 4.3.1. Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 54 4.3.2. Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 54 4.3.3. Cumulative Impacts on Native American Religious Concerns ...................................................................... 54 4.3.4. Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife Resources ................................................................................................... 55 4.3.5. Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality (Surface and Ground) and Quantity ................................................ 55 4.3.6. Cumulative Impacts on Wastes, Hazardous and Solid .................................................................................. 55 4.3.7. Cumulative Impacts on Noxious Weeds and Invasive, Non-native Species .................................................. 55 4.3.8. Cumulative Impacts on Geology and Minerals ............................................................................................. 55 4.3.9. Cumulative Impacts on Soils ......................................................................................................................... 56 4.3.10. Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 56 4.3.11. Cumulative Impacts on Range Resources ................................................................................................... 56 4.3.12. Cumulative Impacts on Land and Realty ..................................................................................................... 56 4.3.13. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources ................................................................................................... 56 4.3.14. Cumulative Impacts on Recreation ............................................................................................................. 57 4.3.15. Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 57 4.3.16. Cumulative Impacts on Wild Horses and Burros ........................................................................................ 57 4.3.17. Cumulative Impacts on Forestry and Woodland Products ......................................................................... 58 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................. 59 5.1 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................. 59 5.2 Agencies/Tribes Contacted ................................................................................................. 59 6.0 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 60 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................... 62 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................................... 86 APPENDIX D .......................................................................................................................................... 92 DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2014-0001-EA 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background It is the policy of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as mandated by various laws, including
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Final Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV0S010-2009-1014-EA May 2016 Eastern Nevada Transmission Project APPLICANT Silver State Energy Association GENERAL LOCATION Clark County, Nevada BLM CASE FILE SERIAL NUMBER N-086357 PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 Phone: (702) 515-5172 Fax: (702) 515-5010 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .........................................................................................2 1.4 Decisions to be Made .....................................................................................................7 1.5 BLM Policies, Plans, Authorizing Actions, and Permit Requirements .........................7 Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................9 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Regulatory Framework for Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • Current Tracking List
    Nevada Division of Natural Heritage Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 5002, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5245 voice: (775) 684-2900 | fax: (775) 684-2909 | web: heritage.nv.gov At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List July 2021 The Nevada Division of Natural Heritage (NDNH) A separate list, the Plant and Animal Watch List, systematically curates information on Nevada's contains taxa that could become at-risk in the future. endangered, threatened, sensitive, rare, and at-risk plants and animals providing the most comprehensive Taxa on the At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List are source of information on Nevada’s imperiled organized by taxonomic group, and presented biodiversity. alphabetically by scientific name within each group. Currently, there are 639 Tracking List taxa: 285 plants, Nevada's health and economic well-being depend 209 invertebrates, 65 fishes, 9 amphibians, 7 reptiles, upon its biodiversity and wise land stewardship. This 27 birds, and 37 mammals. challenge increases as population and land-use pressures continue to grow. Nevada is among the top Documentation of population status, locations, or 10 states for both the diversity and the vulnerability of other updates or corrections for any of the taxa on its living heritage. With early planning and responsible this list are always welcome. Literature citations with development, economic growth and our biological taxonomic revisions and descriptions of new taxa are resources can coexist. NDNH is a central source for also appreciated. The Nevada Native Species Site information critical to achieving this balance. Survey Report form is available on our website under Management priorities for the state’s imperiled the Submit Data tab and is the preferred format for biodiversity are continually assessed, providing submitting information to NDNH.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 177 September 13, 2011 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 42 Great Basin and Mojave Desert Springsnails as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:24 Sep 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 56608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ADDRESSES: You may submit (d) Historical and current population information by one of the following levels, and current and projected trends; Fish and Wildlife Service methods: and • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// (e) Past and ongoing conservation 50 CFR Part 17 www.regulations.gov. In the box that measures for the species, their habitat, reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the or both. [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0001; 92210–0–0008–B2] Docket number for this finding, which (2) The factors that are the basis for is FWS–R8–ES–2011–0001. You should making a listing determination for a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife then see an icon that reads ‘‘Submit a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Comment.’’ Please ensure that you have U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: Petition To List 42 Great Basin and found the correct rulemaking before (a) The present or threatened Mojave Desert Springsnails as submitting your comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Aquatic Ecosystems and the Genetic and Morphological Diversity of Death Valley System Speckled Dace
    American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:350-359, 1995 © Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 1995 Desert Aquatic Ecosystems and the Genetic and Morphological Diversity of Death Valley System Speckled Dace DONALD W. SADA Environmental Studies Program, University of Nevada-Las Vegas 2689 Highland Drive, Bishop, California 93514, USA HUGH B. BRITTEN AND PETER F. BRUSSARD Biodiversity Research Center, Department of Biology, University of Nevada Reno, Nevada 89557-0015, USA Abstract.—The morphological and genetic diversities of fishes in North American deserts have been examined to estimate evolutionary rates, to create models of interbasin pluvial connectivity, and to justify protection of aquatic ecosystems throughout the region. Morphological and genetic studies comparing 13 populations of speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus from the Death Valley system, Lahontan basin, and lower Colorado River were conducted to quantify differences among populations. Differences in meristic and mensural characteristics among populations were highly significant, but differences in body shape were slight and best explained as representing two forms, one deep-bodied and short, the other elongate and slender. Starch gel electrophoretic assays of 23 loci showed isolated populations to be genetically unique. Fifty-nine taxa are identified as endemic to wetland and aquatic habitats in the Death Valley system: 16 forms of fish, 1 amphibian, 22 mollusks, 7 aquatic insects, 3 mammals, and 10 forms of flowering plants. Genetic and morphological differentiation of isolated speckled dace populations and the diversity and number of endemic forms associated with wetlands and aquatic habitats in the Death Valley system suggest that each desert wetland community functions as an evolutionarily significant unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Freshwater Gastropods of Canada and the United States Paul D
    This article was downloaded by: [69.144.7.122] On: 24 July 2013, At: 12:35 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Fisheries Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Conservation Status of Freshwater Gastropods of Canada and the United States Paul D. Johnson a , Arthur E. Bogan b , Kenneth M. Brown c , Noel M. Burkhead d , James R. Cordeiro e o , Jeffrey T. Garner f , Paul D. Hartfield g , Dwayne A. W. Lepitzki h , Gerry L. Mackie i , Eva Pip j , Thomas A. Tarpley k , Jeremy S. Tiemann l , Nathan V. Whelan m & Ellen E. Strong n a Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) , 2200 Highway 175, Marion , AL , 36756-5769 E-mail: b North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences , Raleigh , NC c Louisiana State University , Baton Rouge , LA d United States Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science Center , Gainesville , FL e University of Massachusetts at Boston , Boston , Massachusetts f Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources , Florence , AL g U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Jackson , MS h Wildlife Systems Research , Banff , Alberta , Canada i University of Guelph, Water Systems Analysts , Guelph , Ontario , Canada j University of Winnipeg , Winnipeg , Manitoba , Canada k Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources , Marion , AL l Illinois Natural History Survey , Champaign , IL m University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa , AL n Smithsonian Institution, Department of Invertebrate Zoology , Washington , DC o Nature-Serve , Boston , MA Published online: 14 Jun 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • American Fisheries Society • JUNE 2013
    VOL 38 NO 6 FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org JUNE 2013 All Things Aquaculture Habitat Connections Hobnobbing Boondoggles? Freshwater Gastropod Status Assessment Effects of Anthropogenic Chemicals 03632415(2013)38(6) Biology and Management of Inland Striped Bass and Hybrid Striped Bass James S. Bulak, Charles C. Coutant, and James A. Rice, editors The book provides a first-ever, comprehensive overview of the biology and management of striped bass and hybrid striped bass in the inland waters of the United States. The book’s 34 chapters are divided into nine major sections: History, Habitat, Growth and Condition, Population and Harvest Evaluation, Stocking Evaluations, Natural Reproduction, Harvest Regulations, Conflicts, and Economics. A concluding chapter discusses challenges and opportunities currently facing these fisheries. This compendium will serve as a single source reference for those who manage or are interested in inland striped bass or hybrid striped bass fisheries. Fishery managers and students will benefit from this up-to-date overview of priority topics and techniques. Serious anglers will benefit from the extensive information on the biology and behavior of these popular sport fishes. 588 pages, index, hardcover List price: $79.00 AFS Member price: $55.00 Item Number: 540.80C Published May 2013 TO ORDER: Online: fisheries.org/ bookstore American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010 Fisheries VOL 38 NO 6 JUNE 2013 Contents COLUMNS President’s Hook 245 Scientific Meetings are Essential If our society considers student participation in our major meetings as a high priority, why are federal and state agen- cies inhibiting attendance by their fisheries professionals at these very same meetings, deeming them non-essential? A colony of the federally threatened Tulotoma attached to the John Boreman—AFS President underside of a small boulder from lower Choccolocco Creek, 262 Talladega County, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Natural Heritage Program Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S
    Nevada Natural Heritage Program Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 5002, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5245 voice: (775) 684-2900 | fax: (775) 684-2909 | web: heritage.nv.gov At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List July 2020 The Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) Watch List, contains taxa that could become at-risk in systematically collects information on Nevada's at- the future. risk, rare, endangered, and threatened species, providing the best single source of information on Taxa on the At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List are Nevada’s imperiled biodiversity. organized by taxonomic group, and presented alphabetically by scientific name within each group. Nevada's health and economic well-being depend Currently, there are 637 Tracking List taxa: 285 plants, upon its biodiversity and wise land stewardship. This 208 invertebrates, 64 fishes, 9 amphibians, 7 reptiles, challenge increases as population and land-use 27 birds, and 37 mammals. pressures continue to grow. Nevada is among the top 10 states in the nation for both the diversity and the Documentation of population status, locations, or vulnerability of its living heritage. With early planning other updates or corrections for any of the taxa on and responsible development, economic growth and this list are always welcome. Literature citations with our biological resources can exist side by side. NNHP is taxonomic revisions and descriptions of new taxa are a central source for information critical to achieving also appreciated. The Nevada Native Species Site this balance. Management priorities for the state’s Survey Report form is available on our website under imperiled biodiversity are continually assessed, the Submit Data tab and is the preferred format for providing opportunities to prevent population losses submitting information to NNHP.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Pest Management Plan for Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
    Integrated Pest Management Plan for Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Nye County, Nevada 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service December 2006 Integrated Pest Management Plan for Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Nye County, Nevada Monoculture of Russian knapweed Tamarix spp. bordering Peterson Reservoir. near Bradford Springs. The Integrated Pest Management Plan for Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was prepared by staff of Ash Meadows National Wildllife Refuge and the Southern Nevada Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Marco Buske, Integrated Pest Management Specialist for Klamath Basin NWRC and Bob Wilson, Extension Educator, University of Nevada-Reno Cooperative Extension, reviewed this document. Brian Hobbs, Biologist for the Nevada Department of Wildlife, and Gary Scoppettone, Scientist with the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, were also consulted. 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 6 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 7 IMPACT OF INVASIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................... 8 IMPACT OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ON ASH MEADOWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ...................... 8 IMPACT OF INVASIVE ANIMAL SPECIES ON ASH MEADOWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada and Utah Springsnail Species Descriptions Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..2 1] Amnicola Limosa
    Appendix A: Nevada and Utah Springsnail Species Descriptions Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..2 1] Amnicola limosa ...................................................... Mud Amnicola ............................................................................... 4 2] Assiminea infima ..................................................... Badwater Snail .............................................................................. 6 3] Colligyrus greggi ..................................................... Rocky Mountain Duskysnail ........................................................... 8 4] Eremopyrgus eganensis........................................... Steptoe Hydrobe ......................................................................... 10 5] Fluminicola coloradoensis ....................................... Green River Pebblesnail ............................................................... 12 6] Fluminicola dalli ...................................................... Pyramid Lake Pebblesnail ............................................................ 14 7] Fluminicola turbiniformis ........................................ Turban Pebblesnail ...................................................................... 16 8] Fluminicola virginius ............................................... Virginia Mountains Pebblesnail .................................................... 18 9] Juga acutifilosa ....................................................... Topaz Juga .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae) of Ash Meadows, Amargosa Basin, California-Nevada
    31 December 1987 PROC. BIOL. SOC. WASH. 100(4), 1987, pp. 776-843 SPRINGSNAILS (GASTROPODA: HYDROBIIDAE) OF ASH MEADOWS, AMARGOSA BASIN, CALIFORNIA-NEVADA Robert Hershler and Donald W. Sada Abstract. —Aquatic snails of the family Hydrobiidae were sampled from nu- merous springs in Ash Meadows, California-Nevada, during 1985-1986. The fauna of this lush oasis is represented by at least three lineages and composed of 11 species in two genera, Pyrgulopsis Call and Pilsbry, 1886 and Tryonia Stimpson, 1865. Nine species are described herein as new. Nine species are locally endemic (three are restricted to single springs), while the remaining two are restricted to Amargosa River drainage. Pyrgulopsis species are well-differ- entiated in shell and anatomical features (mostly penial morphology), whereas Tryonia species show marked variation only in the former. Stepwise discriminant analyses were done using shell morphometric data from three separate species groups in Ash Meadows. Separate analyses were done using standard measurements and Raupian parameters as a local test of their effectiveness in discriminating between closely related forms. Classifica- tion was uniformly high (86-93%) when the former data set was used, sup- porting taxonomy presented herein. Raupian parameters produced less suc- cessful classifications (48-71%), probably due to absence of shape diversity among similar-shelled members of species groups considered. Ash Meadows springsnails parallel local fishes in having affinities with taxa from the Death Valley System and Colorado River drainages. Distributional evidence suggests that local differentiation of snails has primarily occurred within narrow ranges of altitude, in contrast to patterns documented for local fishes. Gill-breathing springsnails (Gastropoda: the region's well studied ichthyofauna (see Hydrobiidae) inhabiting the series of inter- Miller 1948, Soltz and Naiman 1978, montane valleys that constitute the Death Minckley et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021 FMCS Checklist of 729 Freshwater Gastropods from Canada and the United States
    The 2021 FMCS checklist of 729 freshwater gastropods from Canada and the United States. Column headings are taxon (binomen) and species author(s), and AFS common names (Classification Uncertain denotes uncertain taxonomic status under common names), Family names are followed by the number of genera and species (or monotypic). Species names denoted in BLUE LETTERS signify petition changes completed in 2019. Species names denoted in RED LETTERS signify petitioned changes completed in 2021. The goal of the FMCS Names Subcommittee is to improve science communication, provide up-to- date authoritative checklists and promote freshwater mollusk systematics research. Stakeholders are under no obligation to follow the taxonomic opinions expressed in this list. Species Author AFS Common Name Change Notes Family Acroloxidae 1 Genus 1 Species Acroloxus coloradensis (Henderson, 1930) Rocky Mountain Capshell Family Lymnaeidae 14 Genera 62 Species Acella haldemani (Binney, 1867) Spindle Lymnaea Bulimnaea megasoma (Say, 1824) Mammoth Lymnaea Erinna aulacospira (Ancey, 1899) Hawaiian Bugle Erinna newcombi H. Adams & A. Adams, 1855 Newcomb's Bugle Fisherola nuttalli (Haldeman, 1841) Shortface Lanx Galba alberta F.C. Baker, 1919 Alberta Fossaria Galba bulimoides (I. Lea, 1841) Prairie Fossaria Galba cockerelli (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906) Classification Uncertain Galba cubensis (L. Pfeiffer, 1839) Carib Fossaria Galba cyclostoma (Walker, 1908) Bugle Fossaria Galba dalli (F.C. Baker, 1907) Dusky Fossaria Galba exigua (I. Lea, 1841) Graceful Fossaria Galba galbana (Say, 1825) Boreal Fossaria Galba humilis (Say, 1822) Marsh Fossaria Galba modicella (Say, 1825) Rock Fossaria Galba obrussa (Say, 1825) Golden Fossaria Galba parva (I. Lea, 1841) Pygmy Fossaria Galba peninsulae (B. Walker, 1908) Classification Uncertain Galba perplexa (Baker & Henderson, 1929) Classification Uncertain Galba perpolita (Dall, 1905) Glossy Fossaria Galba rustica (I.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Springs Conservation Plan Acknowledgements
    Nevada SpriNgS Conservation Plan ackNowledgemeNtS We would like to thank the Nevada Division of State Lands Conservation and Resource Protection Grant Program, known as ‘Question 1 Program’ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for funding the development of this Springs Conservation Plan. Without the support of Nevada voters who passed Question 1 in 2002 to ‘protect, preserve, and obtain the benefits of the property and natural resources of this state’, this effort to support conservation of Nevada’s aquatic biodiversity would not have been possible. The Springs Conservation Plan working group dedicated time and travel to multiple workshops to ensure the content of this plan represented a multi-agency effort. Special thanks to Don Sada, Jennifer Newmark, Victor Cobos, and Bob Conrad for their extra time and commitment that facilitated the integration of the data collection and planning components of this project. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the individuals who reviewed this Plan and provided valuable comments. Recommended Citation: Abele, S.L. (ed.) 2011. Nevada Springs Conservation Plan. Springs Conservation Plan Working Group. The Nature Conservancy, Reno, NV. Cover photo: Charnock Ranch, Nevada. © Janel Johnson about this rePort introduction ................................3 How do we determine if a Spring is Healthy? ..................9 what are the concerns for the Future? ......................... 15 taking action to conserve Nevada’s Springs ................... 23 Significant Spring landscapes ..............................27 Next Steps for Springs conservation in Nevada.........36 references ............................... 39 appendix 1 ............................... 41 Ash Springs, Pahranagat Valley, NV. © Christiana Manville appendix 2 ................................47 he purpose of this Plan is to summarize the current condition, identify future threats, and highlight necessary actions to con- serve some of nevada’s most significant aquatic environments.
    [Show full text]