NYE COUNTY AGENDA INFORMATION FORM X Action a Presentation 0 Presentation & Action Agenda Number Department: County Manager Agenda Date:I 21617104
II IContact : Michael Maher Phone: 482-8191 Continued from meeting of: Return to: I Location: TONOPAH Phone: Action requested: (Include what, with whom, when, where, why, how much ($) and terms)
Discussion, Possible decision and direction to staff regarding United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment for a Land withdrawal Renewal and Expansion at Base Camp, Hot Creek Valley, Nye County, withdrawing an additional -I,35 acres of public !and for a period of 2 years, beginnin 'I2 April 2085.
Complete description of requested action: (Include, if applicable, background, impact, long-term commitment, existing county policy, future goals, obtained by competitive bid, accountability measures)
' Nye County has been given an opportunity to provide the Tonopah Field Station with any information, issues or concerns that we might have regarding the proposed project. Our comments must be postmarked or otherwise delivered by 4:30 p.m., December 20,2004.
County Manager request approval to provide the following concernslcomments in addition to any that the Board or other Elected Official or department may have. Nye County has serious concerns over issues with the United States Air Force and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) regarding contractors, and payment of Possessory Use Taxes, and Sales and Use Taxes in all NTTR areas. Nye County desires access to names of all contractors and listings of all equipment used on site, with specific data to be available to our Assessor and Auditing Staff.
Any information provided after the agenda is published or during the meeting of the Commissioners will require you to provide 10 copies: one for each Commissioner, one for the Clerk, one for the District Attorney, one for the Public and two for the County Manager. Contracts or documents requiring signature must be submitted with three original copies.
Expenditure Impact by FY(s): (Provide detail on Financial Form)
0 No financial impact
1. Dept Date 6. Date
Date 7. HR / Date I I Date 1 8. Legal Date I I II Date 1 9. Budgets Date I I !! Date 1 40. County Manager Date P P ii lace on Agenda I' I1 Board of County Commissioners Act
Clerk of the Board Date AGENDA FINANCIAL FORM
Agenda Item No.: 1. Department Name: 2. Financial Contact Person: Direct Phone 3. Personnel Contact Person Direct Phone 4. Was the Budget Director consulted during the completion of this form (Y or N )? 5. Does this item require a budget adjustment to be made (Y or N)? 6. Account Number Data: (Complete for all revenue and expenditure lines and for all fiscal years that are impacted. Budqeted: Y=Yes, N=No, A=Absorbed in budget (state how under "Comments" section below.)
FY Budgeted Fund Dept # Function 0 bject $ Amount
7. Comments:
Completed by: Date: Signature United States Dqartm.mt of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Tonopah Field Station 1553 South Maim Street P.O. Box 91 1 Tonopah, Nevada 89049-091 1 In Reply Refer To: 2300 NVO65-2OQ5-007 NVN-7782 1 (W065.20) NOV 9 2004
Enclosed for your infomzation is a copy of the Enknmental Assessment for a Land
Withdrawal Renewal and -on at Base Camp, Hot Creek Valley, Nye County. You are asked to provide this oflice with any hJ?onnation, issues, or concerns you may have regmkg the pposed project. Cements must be postmariced or othawise delivered by 4:30 p.m.
December 20,2004, for mnsideration Please sad mmmRlts to Wendy Seley at the above address. If you have any questions, you may contact her at (775) 482-7806,
William S. Fisher Assistarrt Field Manager, Tonopah
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for
LAND WITHDRAWAL RENEWAL
AND
EXPANSION
at BASE CAMP HOT CRIEEK VALLEY NYE COUNTY, NEVADA Cover Sheet
Proposed Action: - The United States Air Force proposes to renew withdrawal of approximately 623 acres and withdraw an additional approximately 1,359 acres of public land in Nye County, Nevada, at a site referred to as Base Camp for a period of 20 years, beginning 12 April 2005.
Type of statement: Environmental Assessment
Lead agency: Bureau of Land Management
Cooperating agencies: United States Department of Defense
For further information: Dr. Stephen Zitzer Desert Research Institute 755 E. Flamingo Road Las Vegas, NV 89 1 19 (702) 862-5436
Abstract: The United States Air Force proposes to renew withdrawal of approximately 623 acres and withdraw an additional approximately 1,359 acres of public land in Nye County, Nevada, for a period of 20 years, beginning 12 April 2005. The purpose of the withdrawal is to ensure the continued operation of facilities that support an Air Force Communications Site located on Halligan Mesa. The proposed withdrawal area and the communications site are located near the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) and are necessary for safe and secure operation of national defense activities on the NTTR.
There are no requested changes to the current land use at the existing withdrawal and all of the lands applied for are to be withheld from public settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws and from location and entry under the United States mining laws. Existing public land livestock grazing will be permitted to continue, as will existing power line rights-of-way. No new water rights will be needed to hifill the purpose of the proposed action.
The enlarged area requested for Base Camp is necessary for an increased tempo of operations, safety issues, and support necessary for the Air Force Communications Site on Halligan Mesa. Denial of this application would entail substantial public expense and u-ouid threaten the safe and secure operation of military activities on the NTTR.
There are no suitable alternative sites. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES- 1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 .1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1. 1 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1 -I 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action ...... 1 .1 1.4 National Environmental Policy Considerations...... 1 .1 1.5 Decisions to be Made ...... 1-4 1.6 Public Involvement ...... 1-4
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Alternative A: No-Action (Non-renewal and Non-expansion) ...... 2-1 2.3 Alternative B: Renew Existing Withdrawal ...... 2-1 2.4 Alternative C: Preferred Action (Renewal and Expansion)...... 2-1
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 3-1 Introduction ...... 3-1 Physiography. Geology and Soils ...... 1 3.2.1 Physiography...... 3. 1 3.2.2 Geology ...... 3-1 3.2.3 Soils...... 3-2 Climate ...... 3-4 Hydrology and Water Resources ...... 3-5 3.4.1 Hydrology ...... 3-5 3 .4.2 Water Rights and Water Use ...... 3-8 3.4.3 Flood Potential ...... 3-9 3.4.4 Erosion and Deposition...... 3-1 3 Air Resources ...... 3- 13 3.5.1 Air Quality ...... 3-13 3.5.2 Air Emissions ...... 3-14 Vegetation and Wildlife ...... -3-1 5 3.6.1 Vegetation ...... 3- 5 3.6.2 Noxious weeds ...... 3- 18 3.6.3 Wildlife ...... 3-18 3.6.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ...... 3- 19 Visual Resources ...... 3-20 Land Use ...... 32 1 3.8.1 Livestock Grazing ...... -2 1 3.8.2 Land Uses ...... 3-2 1 3.8.3 Mineral Resources ...... 3-2 1 3.8.4 Wilderness ...... -3-22 3.8.5 Land Realty ...... 3-22 Recreation Resources ...... 3-22 Cultural and Historical Resources ...... 3-23 Hazardous MaterialiHazardous Waste ...... 3-25 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 4- 1 Introduction ...... 4-1 Physiography. Geology and Soils ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Physiography and Geology ...... 4-1 4.2.2 Geology ...... 4-1 4.2.3 Soils...... 4-1 Climate ...... -4-2 Hydrology and Water Resources ...... -4-2 4.4.1 Hydrology ...... :...... 4-2 4.4.2 Water rights and Water use ...... 4-2 4.4.3 Flood Potentiai ...... -4-2 4.4.4 Erosion and Deposition ...... 4-3 Air Resources ...... 4-3 Vegetation and Wildlife ...... 4-3 4.6.1 Vegetation ...... 4-3 4.6.2 Noxious weeds ...... 4-4 4.6.3 Wildlife ...... 4-4 4.6.4 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species ...... 4-4 Visual Resources ...... 4-5 Land Use ...... -4-5 4.8.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 4-5 4.8.2 Existing Facilities ...... 4-5 4.8.3 Mineral Resources ...... 4-5 4.8.4 Wilderness...... -4-6 4.8.5 Land Realty ...... 4-6 Recreation Resources ...... 4-6 Cultural and Historical Resources ...... 4-7 Hazardous materialmazardous waste ...... 4-7 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-7 Environmental Justice ...... 4-8
5.0 REFERENCES ...... 5-1
6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... -6-1
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWRS ...... 7-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Application for Withdrawal of Public Land referred to as Base Cam ...... A-1
APPEKDIX B Soil profile Descriptions for Base Camp Eye County. Nevada ...... B- 1
APPENDIX C Major Chemistry Data available for Hot Creek Valley Water Sources ...... C-I APPENDIX D Other General Chemistry Data Available for Hot Creek Valley Water Sources ...... D- 1
APPENDIX E Selected Springs in Hot Creek Valley ...... E-1
APPENDIX F Summary of Hot Creek Valley Water Rights. September 2003 ...... F-1
APPENDIX G Plant Species found at Base camp May-June 2003 ...... G-1
APPENDIX H Endangered. Threatened and Species of Concern (SOCs) potentially occurring at Base Camp ...... H- 1
FIGURES
Figure 1.1-1. General location of proposed land withdrawal in Nye County. Nevada ...... 1-2
Figure 1.1-2. Location of the proposed Base Camp withdrawal in Hot Creek Valley. Nevada ...... 1-2
Figure 1.1-3. The current withdrawal and the proposed expanded withdrawal at Base Camp...... 1-3
Figure 3.2-1. Unsel-Koyen soil association in the southern third of the proposed withdrawal...... 3-3
Figure 3.2-2. Cirac-Keefa-Slaw soil association on 0-2% slopes supporting extremely low shrub cover ...... 3-3
Figure 3.4- 1. 100.year. 6-hour flood zone delineation map of the Base Camp ...... 3-11
Figure 3.4-2. 100.year. 24-hour flood zone delineation map of the Base Camp...... 3-12
Figure 3.6- 1 . Biological survey locations within the proposed withdrawal...... 3-15
Figure 3.6-2 (A) Biscuitroot (Cymopterus ripleyi var . ripleyi) and (B) Sand cholla (Opuntiapulchella)...... 3-17
Figure 3.6-3. Location of rare plants within the proposed withdrawal ...... 3-17
Figure 3.9- 1 . Map of historic and modern roads crossing the proposed withdrawal ...... 3-24 TABLES
Table 3.3-1. Summary of climatic data for the Tonopah Test Range located approximately 3 1 miles (50 km) south of Base Camp, Nye County Nevada ...... 3-4
Table 3.3-2. Monthly estimated evaporation rates for Base Camp usingthe Twin Srings CEMP station recorded data (inches/month) ...... 3-5
Table 3.4- 1. Precipitation, Mountain Block Runoff and Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Hot Creek Vailey / Railroad Vailey Flow System (values in acre-feetlyear) ...... -3-6
Table 3.4-2. Water Chemistry Facies from Hot Creek Valley ...... 3-7
Table 3.4-3. Summary of Potential Salinity and Alkalinity Hazard for Hot Creek Valley Water Sources with respect to Irrigation Use ...... 3-7
Table 3.4-4. Water level information for wells in the vicinity of Base Camp ...... 3-9
Table 3.4-5. Summary of the NOAA Atlas unadjusted depths of precipitation (inches) at the centroid (elevation 7,200 ft) of the Music Canyon Watershed as a function of duration and return period used in this study...... 3-9
Table 3.4-6. Model-generated discharges (cfs) for the 6- and 24-hour storms at the Music Canyon alluvial fan apex and at Base Camp...... 3-10
Table 3.5-1. Nevada and National Ambient Air Quality Standards...... 3- 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This drafi Environmental Assessment (EA) describes the potential environmental consequences from a US. Air Force proposal to renew withdrawal of approximately 623 acres and withdraw an additional approximately 1,359 acres of public land in Hot Creek Valley Nye County, Nevada. The requested additional iand is currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This drafi EA was prepared by the Desert Research Institute in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7061 directing all Air Force NEPA efforts.
PURPOSE AND MEED FOR THE ACTION
The United States Air Force proposes to renew withdrawal of approximately 623 acres and withdraw an additional approximately 1,359 acres of public land in Nye County, Nevada, at a site referred to as Base Camp. The United States Air Force withdrew the current approximately 623 acres of this parcel by Public Land Order 6591, effective 12 April 1985 and extending to 12 April 2005. The duration of this requested withdrawal is 20 years. Before the end of that period, a re-evaluation will be made concerning the desirability of extending the withdrawal.
The purpose of the withdrawal is to ensure the continued operation of facilities that support an Air Force Communications Site located on Halligan Mesa. Base Camp and the communications site are located near the Nevada Test and Training Range O\JTTR) and are needed for safe and secure operation of national defense activities on the NTTR.
ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED ACTION
There are three alternatives including the proposed action. Alternative A is the No-Action alternative and would neither renew nor expand the existing withdrawal. Alternative B would restrict the withdrawal to the currently withdrawn acreage.
Alternative C is the preferred alternative and it would renew the current withdrawal and enlarge the withdrawal area. There are no requested changes to the current land use at the existing withdrawal and all of the lands applied for are to be withheld from public settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws and from location and entry under the United States mining laws. Livestock grazing will be permitted to continue, as will existing power line rights-of-way, No new water rights will be needed to fulfill the purpose of the proposed action.
SU Y OF AFFECTED EN'S'IRON
Depending on the extent of new construction within the requested expanded iand withdrawaI, there could be some loss of soils resources and reshaping of some of the local physiography to restrict flooding potential of the existing facilities.
ES- I There are no anticipated impacts on water quality or quantity and the land proposed for withdrawal contains no perennial stream, spring or spring-fed riparian area.
Operation of the existing communications facilities would have no impact on regional air quality.
The lands proposed for withdrawal consists of a budsageishadscalelgalleta grass community within the Great Basin ecosystem. No plant or animal species currently listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered or threatened and therefore legally protected was found during the May 2003 biological survey of the lands proposed for withdrawal. However, the USFWS has two other categories Pbr rare species, candidate species and species of concern (SOC). Despite not being legally protected, federal land managers are encouraged by USFWS to identify and protect candidate species and SOCs so that they don't become threatened or endangered. The only listed plant SOC found within the proposed withdrawal is a perennial forb, sanicule biscuitroot (Cymopterus ripleyi var. saniculoides. Sand cholla (Opuntia pzllchella) and Callaway milkvetch (Astragalus callithrix) are on the watch list in the Nevada Rare Plant Atlas (2001) and both species were found within the proposed withdrawal. Trampling by domestic, feral and native ungulates is the major threat to these three species, but they are subject to similar disturbance throughout their natural range. Consequently, the proposed action would have the same overall impact on each species as the no action alternative.
The lands proposed for withdrawal may provide foraging and resting areas for threatened peregrine falcons (filco peregrinus). Five migratory bird SOCs may also forage or rest within the proposed withdrawal and include long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). Among mammals, thirteen bat SOCs including nine resident species and four migratory species may forage over the proposed withdrawal. None of these animal SOCs were obsevered in the withdrawal during the four days in May 2003 when the biological survey was conducted. The proposed action will have no adverse impact on any species potential to access the airspace above or the lands within the proposed withdrawal for resting or foraging.
The proposed withdrawal will be located on, or immediately adjacent to, existing roads or related disturbances, therefore, any related construction would not represent a long-term degradation of the Class IV visual resources that occur within the proposed withdrawal.
Current livestock grazing will be not impacted by the proposed action. The renewed withdrawal and the proposed expanded withdrawal are encompassed by the Reveille grazing allotment which consists of 657,520 acres and 25,730 animal unit months (AUMs). The expanded withdrawal of 1,359 acres represents 0.02% of the allotment or aproximately 53 AL'Ms. The Reveille herd management area (WMA) lies in the southwest portion of the Reveillle grazing allotment and does not overlap with the proposed withdrawal, though wild horses were observed within approxiamtely 0.5 km of the proposed withdrawal. The expanded withdrawal will not be fenced, therefore, cattle, horse and native ungulate access will not be restricted relative to current access. Consequently, there will be no significant impact on the regional socioeconomic environment if the proposed action is implemented, The proposed withdrawal does not encompass any active mining claims, and would not impact any mineral resources.
The proposed withdrawal does not overlap with any existing wilderness area or wilderness study area.
Migratory dove and upland game bird hunting would be prohibited within the proposed withdrawal. Other recreational hunting in the valley will not be impacted, and will continue to be administered by the Nevada Division of wildlife.
A total of 25 cultural resources were identified within the proposed withdrawal area. None of these were recommended to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places as historic properties. Consequently, the proposed action will have no impact on historic properties.
ENMRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action would not create a significant adverse environmental impact. Impacts from any additional construction within the proposed withdrawal would occur adjacent to the existing facilities and would not reduce grazing access by cattle or native ungulates. Furthermore, any actual loss of habitat would not contain any population of endangered or threatened plant or animal species, though a few individuals of three plant species could be destroyed. 1 .O PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
I. 1 Introduction
The United States Air Force (Air Force) proposes to renew withdrawal of approximately 623 acres and withdraw an additional 1,356 acres of public land located in Nye County, Nevada (Figure 1.1-l), at a site referred to as Base Camp. Base Camp is located in Hot Creek Valley adjacent to US Highway 6 (Figure 1.1-2). The current 623 acres of Base Camp were withdrawn under Public Land Order 6591, effective 12 April 1985 and extending to 12 April 2005 (Figure 1.1-3 j. The Air Force application for renewal and expansion of the withdrawal through 2025 was submitted to the Bureau of Land Management in 8 October 2003 (Appendix A).
1.2 Need for the Proposed Action
Base Camp was initially withdrawn in 1967 for use by the Atomic Energy Commission (later the Department of Energy). For the past 20 years Base Camp, which includes several buildings and other communications related facilities, has been used by the Air Force. The proposed action withdrawing an additional 1,359 acres contiguous with the existing Base Camp withdrawal is a necessary component for increasing the operational tempo, safety issues, and support requirements of the facility. Denial of the proposed action would entail substantial public expense and would threaten the safe and secure operation of military activities on the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). More information about the subject site and its uses is not available, due to the classified nature of the Air Force activities.
1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose or objective of the proposed action is maintenance of existing facilities that are critical research tools for the Air Force military mission. The objective of the request for an additional 1,359 acres is for increased operational needs of the existing facility and to significantly upgrade overall capability to meet operational needs of the Air Force mission.
1.4 National Environmental Policy Act Considerations
This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared pursuant to Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, PL 91-190), as implemented by the regulations promulgated by the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1948) and Air Force Instruction 32-7061 (USAF, 1994). The objective of NEPA is to ensure that the federal decision-making process considers the environmental aspects of proposed actions before decisions are made and actions are taken. This EA contains a clear explanation of the proposed action and alternative actions, an evaluation of the natural resources present, and an estimate of the environmental impacts of all alternative actions. This EA also provides sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether or not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (40 CFR 1508.9). The Air Force complies with Figure 1.1-1. General location of proposed land withdrawal in Nye County, Nevada.
Figure 1.1-2.Location of the proposed Base Camp withdrawal in Hot Creek Valley, Nevada. Figure 1.1-3. The current withdrawal and the proposed expanded withdrawal at Base Camp. all of the requirements contained in the Clean Air Act (1969, PL 91-604), Clean Water Act (1977, PL 95-2171, Endangered Species Act (1973, PL 93-205), and the National Historic Preservation Act (1967, PL 89-665) as they may apply to the proposed action. This EA also describes any existing grazing, mining and water rights within the proposed withdrawal and on the lands immediately adjacent to the proposed withdrawal and potential impacts of the proposed action on these rights.
The Air Force also worked in close cooperation with the Nevada Division of Environlnental Protection (NDEP), Division of WiIdlife Resources (D&"R) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to insure compliance with all pertinent Nevada State laws and statutes. 1.5 Decisions to be Made
After considering the environmental resource information presented in this EA, as well as other factors related to national defense, a decision wiil be made to implement the proposed action based on a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or to select the No-Action alternative A or alternative B renewal without expansion. A decision to proceed with the proposed action would result in operations at Base Camp continuing to be coordinated with operations on Halligan Mesa and together they will service an essential communications role to provide the United States with the most efficient and effective defensive capability possible. Activities will include management and operational support of electronic communications facilities with a supporting infrastructure that includes paved and unpaved roads, an airstrip, operational support complexes of dormitories, dining halls, shops, garages, water supply and waste water treatment systems.
1.6 Public Involvement
The public participation process began 5 January 2004 with publication of a "Notice of Intent", to renew and expand the current withdrawal in the Federal Register (Vol. 69, page 373). All interested persons who desired a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed action needed to submit a written request to the Nevada State director of the BLM within 90 days of publication of the notice (Appendix A). There was no public request for a meeting, so one was not organized.
The proposed action includes withdrawing approximately 1,359 acres of land currently managed by the BLM as part of the Reveille Grazing Allotment. Under the proposed action the BLM would continue to monitor and manage the existing Reveille Grazing Allotment. Currently Mr. Joe Fallini has the legal right to the Reveille Grazing Allotment and he was personally notified by Air Force officials in 2003 about their intent to renew and expand the Base Camp withdrawal. 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Introdilction
This chapter describes the alternatives (potential actions) and compares them in terms of their environmental impacts and their achievement of objectives. Three potential alternatives including the preferred alternative are analyzed in this chapter. Alternative A is the No-Action alternative and would not renew the existing withdrawal. Alternative B would maintain the current size of the existing withdrawal. Alternative C would renew the existing withdrawal and ~oiildwithdraw an additional 1,359 acres for increased operational needs.
2.2 Alternative A: No-Action (Non-renewal and Non-expansion)
Under this alternative, the project would not occur and the current withdrawal would not be extended to 12 April 2025. Under this alternative the existing facilites would need to be dismantled and/or salvaged and an active or passive range restoration program would need to be designed. However, the No-Action alternative is unacceptable to the Air Force because critical objectives within the military mission could not be accomplished. Furthermore, over the past 20 years of the existing withdrawal, significant adverse environmental and economic consequences have not occurred relative to loss of natural resources or loss of economic resources due to the withdrawal of 623 acres or <0.1% of the 657,520 acre Reveille Grazing Allotment.
2.3 Alternative B: Renew Existing Withdrawal
Under alternative B, the current 623 acre withdrawal would be renewed until 12 April 2025. Within the existing withdrawal the Air Force has maintained adequate stewardship of the lands so that adverse environmental impacts have not occurred during the past 20 years. However, the project objectives of the Air Force have evolved over the course of the previous 20 years and these new objectives could not be accomplished because the size of the current withdrawal is thought by Air Force personnel to be inadequate.
2.4 Alternative C: Preferred Action (Renewal and Expansion)
As shown in Figure 1.1-3, the proposed action would create a rectangular buffer around the currently withdrawn lands and existing facilities by adding 1,359 acres to the previous withdrawal. The Air Force prefers this alternative because it is required for accomplishing their military mission. Furthermore, relocating the existing facilities to an alternative site would be cost prohibitive. 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the condition of the existing resources (geologic, climatic, hydrologic, air, biologic, recreational and cultural) and the currently permitted land uses for the 1,982 acres proposed for withdrawal. For most of the resources described there is additional more detailed information found in the appendices.
3.2 Physiography, Geology and Soils
3.2.1 Physiography
The effected land lies approximately 55 miles east of Tonopah (Figure 1 .I-]) in the south central part of the Basin and Range physiographic province. This province is characterized by a series of north-south trending mountain ranges separated by wide, alluvium-filled valleys. Base Camp is located near the middle of Hot Creek Valley (Figure 1.l-2) and is west of and adjacent to US. Highway 6. In this area, Hot Creek Valley is flanked by the Hot Creek Range to the west and the Pancake Range to the east. The Reveille and Kawich ranges fom, respectively, the southeastern and southwestern boundaries of the valley. Base Camp is in the Hot Creek Valley hydrologic basin which has received some study in the past (Eakin and others, 195 1; Rush and Everett, 1966; Dinwiddie and Schroder, 1971 ).
Hot Creek Valley is a long, relatively narrow, valley. The northwest end of the valley is defined by a shallow alluvial divide leading into Little Fish Lake Valley at approximately 38' 55.85' latitude and 116' 12.88' longitude and an elevation of 7,450 ft (2,270 m). There is a second shallow alluvial divide at the northeast end of Hot Creek Valley at 5,800 ft (1,768 m) separating it from the southern end of Little Smoky Valley. The southern end of the valley is also delimited by a shallow alluvial divide separating it from Reveille Valley. This southern divide has an elevation of 6,200 ft (1,890 m) and is located at 37' 55.71' latitude and 116' 16.39' longitude. The valley is 70.4 miles long on its north-south axis which trends a few degrees to the east of north. It is 14 miles wide along a line between the 6,000 ft (1,829 m) contours, immediately north of Warm Spring, The valley floor generally lies between 5,200 and 6,200 ft (1,585-1,890 m), Morey Peak in the central Hot Creek Range is the highest point overlooking the valley at an elevation of 10,209 ft (3,112 m). The lowest point, at 5,120 ft (1,560 m), is near Twin Springs in the southeast corner of the valley, At this low point, a narrow gap between the Pancake and Reveille Ranges links Hot Creek Valley to Railroad Valley.
3.2.2 Geology
Hot Creek Valley reflects the general character the entire Great Basin, being long, narrow, and bounded by north-south tending mountain ranges. These mountain ranges were formed by normal faulting associated with crustal extension superimposed on sedimentary rocks and overlain by volcanic rock formations. Plume (1996) generalizes the geology of the Hot Creek basin as alluvial basin fill sediments bounded by mountains dominated by a variety of continental and marine sedimentary, volcanic and igneous intrusive rocks. He also identifies an area of carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks on the east face of the Hot Creek Range in the vicinity of the mouth of Hot Creek. Tectonic deformation of these rocks has occurred over the past 65 million years and continues today. Slemmons et al. (1965) identified 42 earthquake epicenters in central Nevada since 1852 and stated that Hot Creek Valley is the most active seismic area in central Nevada.
Sediments eroded from the uplifted mountain ranges filled the valleys (Misch, 1960 in Fiero, 1969). Many of the valleys of central Nevada were also occupied by lakes during the Pleistocene (2,560,000 to 10,000 years ago). However, Hot Creek Vailey is not listed among the valleys containing a lake (Grayson, 1993). The modern drainage from Hot Creek Valley to Railroad Valley between the Pancake Range and the Reveille Range at Twin Springs probably allowed runoff from Hot Creek Valley to flow into the Pleistocene lake in Railroad Valley,
The proposed land withdrawal at Base Camp is located near the center of Hot Creek Valley and on alluvial basin fiil sediments. It is probable that the subsurface conditions consist of several thousand feet of basin fill sediments overlying several thousand feet of volcanic rock. The depth of the volcanic rocks is unknown and the rock type lying beneath the volcanic rocks is also unknown.
3.1.3 Soils
Most of the land within the proposed withdrawal has been covered by 3 to 6 ft (1- 2 m) of late Pleistocene to early Holocene windblown and fluvial deposits. Soils within the proposed withdrawal area developed in these deposits and the underlying alluvium derived from erosion of volcanic rhyolites and tufis in the Hot Creek Range. The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS, 2002) has mapped three soil associations within the proposed withdrawal. The Unsel-Koyen soil association occurs on 2-8% slopes in the southern third of the proposed withdrawal (Figure 3.2-1). The Unsel soil series comprises about 50% of the association and is classified as a fine-loamy, mixed, mesic, Duric Haplargid (Appendix B). The Koyen series comprises about 35 % of the association and is classified as a coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Camborthid. Unsel soils formed in slightly finer textured material than Koyen soils resulting in development of an argillic subsoil horizon where clay minerals have accumulated above a weak duripan. The duripan is the result of silica andlor carbonate cementation and restricts water movement and root growth. The Cirac-Keefa-Slaw association occurs in the middle third of the proposed withdrawal on 0-2% slopes with each series contributing 40, 30 and 15 % respectively to the association. Cirac and Slaw soil series are both classified as Typic Torrifluvents and both have extremely low shrub cover (Figure 3.2-2). The Cirac series is slightly coarser textured than the Slaw series (Appendix B), but both soils are young soils with thin A horizons subject to polygonal cracking that directly overlie fluvial deposits or the C horizon. Keefa soils are classified as coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic, Duric Gamborthids. The third association, Keefa- Unsel, occurs in the northern third of the proposed withdrawal and is similar to the Unsel-Koyen association except a duripan is ubiquitous in the Keefa-Unsel association and each soil series contributes 50 and 35% respectively to the association. Figure 3.2-1. Unsel-Koyen soil association in the southern third of the proposed withdrawal.
Figure 3.2-2. Cirac-Keefa-Slaw soil association on 0-2% slopes with shrub cover < 2%. 3.3 Climate
Weather data are collected at Base Camp for daily activity purposes, however, archiving the records did not begin until the spring of 2003. Therefore, the necessary meteoroiogical data to determine site-specific long-term weather information are not available. Weather data from meteorological stations located at Tonopah Test Range Airfield, approximately 30 miles (50 km) south, the Blue Jay Highway Station, approximately 10 miles (6 krn) northeast and the DOE'S Twin Springs Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) Station, approximately 20 miles (12 krn) southeast were used to characterize the climate of Hot Creek Valley.
The ciimate of Hot Creek Valley is characterized by hot summers and cold winters (Table 3.3-1). Annual rainfall at Base Camp, based on the precipitation records from the Blue Jay Highway Station, is approximately 9 inches (<225 mm), with low-intensity, long-duration regional frontal storms occurring during the winter months (October through April), and high- intensity, short-duration convective storms occurring during the summer months (May through September). Although the summer convective storms may result in localized flooding, it is the winter frontal storms that are generally responsible for producing regional floods.
To estimate the evaporation rates at Base Camp (Table 3.3-2), evaporation rate data from the Twin Springs CEMP Station were used because evaporation data were not recorded at the Blue Jay Highway Station. Consequently, evaporation rates were calculated with only 18 months of data from the Twin Springs CEMP Station. Nevertheless, the estimated rates for Base Camp are very similar to the measured rates from the Tonopah CEMP Station and the Base Camp evaporation rate curve is very similar in shape to the curve produced using the Aerodynamic Method to estimate evaporation at the Tonopah Test Range Airfield (Miller, 2004). Typical of arid regions, estimated monthly evaporation rates for Base Camp are 5 to 25 times greater than the corresponding mean monthly precipitation values recorded at the Blue Jay Highway Station.
Table 3.3-1. Summary of climatic data for the Tonopah Test Range Airfield, located approximately 30 miles (50 km) south of Base Camp, Nye County Nevada, and precipitation data from the Blue Jay Highway Station, located approximately 10 miles (6 miles) northeast of Base Camp.
Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee Aver Mean Max Tmp (OF) 41 48 56 64 73 84 89 86 76 66 51 43 64 Mean Min Tmp (OF) 20 26 32 38 46 56 61 59 50 40 28 22 39 Mean Dew Pt Tmp (T) 15 18 20 21 25 29 33 36 28 24 i4 16 23 % Re1 Hum, 0700PST 62 59 52 41 36 30 30 37 37 46 53 62 46 SS Re1 Hum, 1300PST 45 37 29 22 19 16 18 22 20 2 35 42 28 Mean Precip (in) 0.43 0.25 0.72 0.38 0.45 0.21 0.71 0.85 0.36 0.51 0.54 0.39 5.65
Blue Jay Highway Station Mean Precip iin) 0.58 0.60 0.74 0.53 0.78 0.69 0.45 1.07 0.68 0.44 0.57 0.46 9.21 Table 3.3-2. Monthly estimated evaporation rates for Base Camp using the Twin Springs CEMP Station recorded data (inchesimonth).
Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Evap Rate (in) 2.66 2.89 4.91 6.19 8.02 9.93 11.20 10.58 8.03 5.51 3.31 2.36 75.59
3.4 Hydrology and Water Resources
3.4.1 Hydrology
The modern physiography of Hot Creek Valley is the result of faulting that uplifted the mountain ranges relative to the valley. Groundwater flow may be enhanced or obstructed along these faults. Fiero, Mindling, and Illian (1969) recognized that many of the springs of Hot Creek are associated with lineations that suggest fault control.
Geologic formations in the area are grouped into five major hydrostratigraphic units that influence the movement of groundwater. These hydrostratigraphic units are: I) Lower Paleozoic Clastics, 2) Paleozoic Carbonates, 3) Upper Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Tertiary Clastics, 4) Tertiary and Quaternary Volcanics, and 5) Quaternary Alluvium (Fiero, Mindling, and Illian, 1969). Lower Paleozoic Clastics have a low effective porosity and therefore low capacity to transmit water (Stuart, 1955 in Fiero, Mindling, and Illian, 1969). Paleozoic Carbonates exhibit good effective porosity and are among the most permeable hydrostratigraphic units in the area. Springs are commonly associated with this unit as a result of faults or fault contact with lower permeability rocks. The Paleozoic Carbonate unit has been identified as the principal hydraulic connection between intermountain valleys, thus, providing opportunity for underflow between valleys (Fiero, 1968; Fiero, Mindling, and Illian, 1969). Except where fractured, the Upper Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Tertiary Clastics, composed of conglomerates, sandstones, and volcanic intrusives, is generally less transmissive than the adjacent carbonate rocks (Fiero, 1968; Fiero, Mindling, and Illian, 1969). The most widespread of the consolidated hydrostratigraphic units are the Tertiary and Quaternary Volcanics. The volcanic rocks generally have low primary pemeabi!ity. However, open fractures and fault zones may transmit water (Fiero, 1968; Fiero, Mindling, and Illian, 1969). Valley fill sediments of the Quaternary Alluvium Unit are unconsolidated deposits that grade from coarser fractions near the mountains to very fine fractions and playa deposits in the central parts of the valleys. Sand and gravel of younger fill materials commonly have the highest effective porosities (Fiero, 1968; Fiero, Mindling, and Illian, 1969).
Hot Creek Valley lies within the Hot CreebRailroad Valley regional flow system (Fiero, Mindling, and Illian, 1969). This flow system includes five vaileys: Little Fish Lake Valley. Hot Creek Valley, Southern Little Smoky Valley, Reveille Valley, and Railroad Valley. Recharge through the Hot Creek Range, under flow from Little Fish Lake Valley, and recharge through the Pancake Range at the northern end of Hot Creek Valley are the principal sources of groundwaterflow into Hot Creek Valley (Fiero, Mindling, and Man, 1969). As a result, groundwater flow is southward into the main portion of Hot Creek Valley. However, along the bulk of the Pancake Range, elevations are inadequate to produce substantial recharge: permitting groundwater to flow eastward beneath the Pancake Range into Southern Little Smoky Valley and Railroad Valley (Fiero, Mindling, and Illian,1969). Within Hot Creek Valley groundwater discharge occurs at springs that are concentrated along Hot Creek channel just above the confluence of the drainage from northern Hot Creek Vaiiey and again above Twin Springs where Hot Creek passes through the Pancake Range.
In the vicinity of the Faultless Site in northern Hot Creek Valley, Dinwiddie and Schroder (1971) describe a shallow (local) flow system and a deep (regional) flow system in the valley. The local system is defined as the upper 900 ft (300 m) below ground surface. Flow in the local system is southward following the topographic trend toward the outlet of Hot Creek at Twin Springs. This flow pattern is substantiated in a more recent interpretation by Mihevc and Lyles (1997). Dinwiddie and Schroder (1971) determined groundwater flow at depth to be toward the northeast and east into Railroad Valley. This interpretation of groundwater flow direction in the regional system confirms the conclusions reached by Fiero, Mindling, and Illian (1969).
Rush and Everett (1966) and Van Denburgh and Rush (1974) compiled a reconnaissance level water balance for the Hot CreeWRailroad Valley regional flow system. The results of their assessments are shown in Table 3.4-1. Rush and Everett (1966) estimate Hot Creek Valley receives an average annual recharge of 7,000 acre-feet (af). An additional 200 acre-feet per year (afly) is believed to enter the Hot Creek Valley groundwater system as subsurface flow from Little Fish Lake Valley. Rush and Everett (1966) estimate that Hot Creek Valley discharges about 6,300 af7y. Groundwater discharge occurs by phreatophyte transpiration, irrigation, evaporation, domestic and stock consumption. Surface runoff to Railroad Valley at Twin Springs accounts for 300 af/y. Subsurface flow from Hot Creek Valley into Southern Little Smoky and Railroad Valleys accounts for approximately 700 af7y outflow from the groundwater system.
Table 3.4-1. Precipitation, Mountain Block Runoff and Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Hot Creek Valley / Railroad Valley Flow System (thousands of acre-feetlyear).
Basin Precipitation Runoff Recharge Discharge Little Fish Lake valley1 230 18 11 10 Hot Creek valley1 390 8 7.2 6.3 Southern Little Smoky valley1 200 1.5 1.4 2.3 Reveille Valley * * * * Northern Railroad ~slley~ 80 Southern Railroad valley2 0.2
Total
Note: Groundwater recharge-discharge approximately bafanced, however, surface water system is unbalanced. Unaccounted processes: evaporation from surface runoff and impoundments, infiltration of surface runoff through valley fill. kush and Everett, 1966.~vanDenburgh and Rush, 1974.* Data combined with Hot Creek Chemical analyses of 90 water sources from wells and springs in Hot Creek Valley were reported by Rush and Everett (1966), Ertec (1 98 I), and Pohlmann et al. (1999) and are presented in Appendices C and D. Half of the water sources in Hot Creek Valley exhibit a sodium- bicarbonate facies (Table 3.4-2). ?-'he remaining sources indicate a bicarbonate facies with a mixed cation, or calcium, facies.
Table 3.4-2. Water Chemistry Facies from Hot Creek Valley
Water Chemistry Facies Samples Source sodium-bicarbonate 45 18 mixed cation-bicarbonate 20 13 calcium-bicarbonate 8 3 sodium-mixed anion 3 2 mixed cation-mixed cation 1 -- sodium-sulfate 1 --
Comparison of the analyses reported in Ertec (1981) and Pohlmann (1999) to the Drinking Water Standards contained in the NAC (445.1 17 and 445.248) reveals that of 46 water sources sampled:
3 sources exceed the pH standards (6.5 to 8.5 pH units) 5 sources exceed the primary TDS standard (500 me) 3 additional sources exceed the secondary TDS standard (1000 mgk) 2 sources exceed the primary SO4 standard (250 mgL) 10 sources exceed the primary F standard in one or more samples (4 mgL) 1 source exceeds the primary NO3 standard in one sample (1 0 meNitrogen) 1 source exceeds the recommended range for pH for livestock watering
The US Salinity Laboratory (1954) has developed guidelines for evaluating the potential salinity and alkalinity hazard of irrigation waters. Table 3.4-3 shows the number of sources from Hot Creek Valley that fall into various salinity and alkalinity hazard categories.
Table 3.4-3. Summary of potential salinity and alkalinity hazard for Hot Creek Valley water sciurces with respect to irrigation use.
low medium high very high analysis incomplete
Salinity 2 29 11 3 I Alkalinity 26 2 2 4 12 A few water sources exceed specific drinking water standards and a few have the potential to cause problems if used for irrigation. With these few exceptions, the chemistry of Hot Creek Valley waters appears to be generally acceptable for domestic and agricultural uses.
Twenty-seven springs were located in Hot Creek Valley by Rush and Everett (1966). Selected springs are described in Appendix E. Four springs, Warm Spring, Upper Warm Spring, the Dugan Place Spring, and Upper Hot Creek Ranch Spring, are identified as thermal ( Fiero, Mindling, and Illian, 1969). Thermal springs are defined as those whose average water temperature exceeds the local average annual air temperature by at least 15' F.
Numerous welis have been drilled in Hot Creek Valley. Rush and Everett (1966) and Ertec (1981) list 34 wells in the valley. This list includes 12 Air Force wells, 12 to 14 ranch wells, 1 well belonging to the State of Nevada, and 1 well owned by a mining company. Six wells are shown as belonging to NRC (DOE), but Pohlmann and others (1999) identify 20 wells in the vicinity of the Fauitiess Site.
3.4.2 Water Rights and Water Use
The Nevada State Engineer recognized approximately 80 permit, certificate, and vested water rights in Hot Creek Valley in 1988. These combined for a total appropriation of 2,890 afy of the declared 5,500 afy perennial yield (State of Nevada, 1988). From 1988 to 2003, the State Engineer recognized an additional 16 1 water rights (NDRW written communication, 2003). These additional authorizations result in a total appropriation of 7,058 afy. Thus, Hot Creek Valley groundwater resources are over appropriated by about 28 %.
An abstract of water rights in Hot Creek Valley compiled in September 2003 lists a total of 242 recognized rights Appendix F. The Air Force is owner of 3 certificated water rights: Cert #3263 on a spring source for stock watering with 0.00 annual duty; Cert #I2964 and 12965 on underground sources for industrial use with a combined annual duty of 43.46 afy (Appendix G). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is owner of 75 reserved rights on springs and other surface water for stock watering, irrigation, and mining and milling applications. The Reserved rights have a total annual duty of 396.41 afy. The BLM is also owner of one vested right on a spring source for stock watering with an annual duty of 0.00.
Five wells are located in the immediate vicinity of the Base Camp compound in Hot Creek Valley. These include the Base Camp water supply wells (Ertc, 1981) and the MX Observation (Tybo) well (Ertec, 1981; Mihevc and Lyles, 1997). The MX observations well is located approximately 1 mile northwest of Base Camp on the Tybo Road. Two irrigation wells are located approximately 1 mile south of Base Camp. No data for these irrigation wells were available. Water level elevation data reported for the other wells (Ertec, 1981; Mihvec and Lyles, 1997) are given in Table 3.4-4. The data indicate that the groundwater surface in the immediate vicinity of Base Camp occurs in the valley fill sediments. Depth to water in the vicinity of Base Camp is indicated to be between 70 and 120 ft below land surface at an elevation of approximately 5,150 ft (1,570 m) above mean sea level. Table 3.4-4. Water level information for wells in the vicinity of Base Camp
Well Depth to Water Water Level Elevation Sours.e
MX Obs (Tybo) 121 5,149 fi Mihvec and Lyles, 1997 MX Obs (Tybo) 114 5,156 ft Ertec, 1981 Base Camp 7bl 69 5,151 ft Ertec, 1981 Base Camp 7b2 76 5,144 fi Ertec, 1981
3.4.3 Flood Potential
Base Camp is located on the distal portion of an alluvial fan on the west side of Hot Creek Valley. The primary flooding and runoff issues are:
1. the delineation of the regulatory floodplain, and 2. calculation of the 100-year peak flow that may impact the withdrawal area.
Peak flows resulting from two precipitation events were addressed (Miller et al., 2004). The hydrograph, regulatory floodplain, and peak flows resulting from the 100-year precipitation events, for both 6- and 24-hours in duration, were calculated. A runoff-producing event 6-hours in duration would generally be a localized convective event occurring in the summer period (May - September), whereas a runoff-producing event 24-hours in duration would generally be a regional frontal event occurring in the winter period (October - April).
To perform this analysis, daily maximum depths of precipitation for each complete year of record for the Duckwater, Smokey Valley, Tonopah Airport, and Twin Springs precipitation gages were recovered from the database available electronically at the Western Regional Climate Center (www.wrcc.dri.edu), and were then analyzed using standard statistical methods. The analysis concluded that the NOAA Atlas could be used to estimate the precipitation depths required for the rainfall-runoff analysis at Base Camp (Miller et al., 2004. The depths of precipitation obtained from the NOAA Atlas required for the identification of regulatory flood hazard zones and the mitigation of drainage hazard to the facilities at Base Camp are summarized in Table 3.4-5.
Table 3.4-5 Summary of the NOkA Atias unadjusted depths of precipitation at the centroid of Music Canyon Watershed as a function of duration and return period. Based upon USGS top0 raphic maps and a field inspection, only the Music Canyon Watershed [approximately 25 mi5 (40 km2) in area] contributes flow to Base Camp. The Music Canyon watershed was divided into eleven subbasins. The HEC-HMS (USACE, 2001) and HEC-1 (USACE, 1987) rainfall-runoff models were used to transform depths of precipitation for various durations and return periods into hydrographs and estimated peak discharges for the Music Canyon subbasins and watershed. The model-generated discharges for the 100-year, 6- and 24-hour storms at the Music Canyon alluvial fan apex, for runoff of on-fan precipitation, and at Base Camp are shown in Table 3.4-6.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FAN computer program was used to delineate the regulatory flood hazard zones of the alluvial fan on which Base Camp is located. The 100-year, 6- and 24-hour flood hazard zones are shown on Figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, respectively. Review of these figures concludes that Base Camp is not within the regulatory 100-year floodplain from either storm. Zone A0 is the 100-year regulatory flood hazard zone that corresponds to an area of flooding, where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet and flow velocities range from 3-7 Wsec. Zone X corresponds to areas outside the regulatory flood hazard zone, but where shallow flooding can occur with average depths of less than one foot.
Table 3.4-6. Model-generated discharges (cfs) for the 6- and 24-hour storms at the Music Canyon alluvial fan apex, for runoff of on-fan precipitation, and at Base Camp. I I Discharge (cfs) for the 6-hour Storm I
Base Camp 436 675 1545 Discharge (cfs) for the 24-hour Storm Apex 355 1134 1794 3352 Alluvial Fan 9 1 697 1359 3367
Delineation of the regulatory floodplain is only one aspect of mitigating drainage hazard to infrastructure. Infrastructure located in an area designated as Zone X, but outside the regulatory floodplain (Zone AO), maj still be at risk to damage from flood waters. Therefore, the expected peak flows from the 100-year, 6- and 24-hours storms at Base Camp were estimated for future mitigation use. As previously discussed, the estirnated peak flows at Base Camp include both the apex discharge and the contribution of the on-fan subbasin. KEY
Figure 3.4- 1. 100-year, 6-hour flood zone delineation map of Base Camp.
3-1 1 Figure 3.4-2. 100-year, 24-hour flood zone delineation map of Base Camp. 3.4.4 Erosion and Deposition
Base Camp is located on an alluvial fan, where, in general geomorphic terms, degradation (erosion) on the more proximai parts of the alluvial fan (nearer the apex) is common, whereas aggradation (deposition) is common on the more distal parts of the alluvial fan. Base Camp is located on the distal part of the alluvial fan. However, from an engineering design viewpoint, localized erosion and deposition caused during a specific flood event near Base Camp facilities were not analyzed.
Delineation of the regulatory floodplain is only one aspect of mitigating drainage hazard to infrastructure. Infrastructure Iocated in an area designated as Zone X, but outside the regulatory floodplain (Zone AO), may still be at risk to damage from flood waters. Therefore, the expected peak flows from the 100-year, 6- and 24-hours storms at Base Camp were estimated for future mitigation use. As previously discussed, the estimated peak flows at Base Camp include both the apex discharge and the contribution of the on-fan subbasin.
3.5 Air Resources
3.5.1 Air Quality
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963, as amended in 1965, 1967, 1977 and 1990, is the Federal statute that establishes policy relative to ambient air quality. The fundamental goals of the CAA are to protect and enhance national air quality and to safeguard public health and welfare. The standards for assessing achievement of these goals are specified in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The four-pronged strategy designed to accomplish these goals includes; 1) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 2) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 3) stationary air pollutant emission source construction and operating permit programs, and 3) mobile source emission control program. The primary NAAQS levels were established to protect human health within an adequate margin of safety. Secondary NAAQS are defined at levels to meet social welfare and environmental concerns, such as, protection of crops and vegetation, protection of materials, effects on transportation, and effects on personal comfort and general well-being. The NESHAP program is targeted for pollutants that are considered more dangerous to public health than the criteria pollutants regulated by the NAAQS. The CAA also requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The foremost goal of the SIP is state implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP contains the state's plan for regulating new and existing sources of air pollutants such that emission levels are reduced in non-afiainment areas ctithin a specified time-frame. For areas currently in attainment, the SIP must contain procedures for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality. In Nevada, the agency responsible for enforcing air quality is the Kec-ada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Bureau of Air Quality. The Nevada SIP is found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Part 52.1470. The 'Nevada Air Pollution Control regulations are set forth in the Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 445B. 3.5.2 Air Emissions
The NAAQS and Nevada standards for criteria pollutants are shown in Table 3.5-1. Given the limited anthropogenic sources it is expected that the air quality above the proposed withdrawal meets these standards. The only readily observable degradation relates to suspended particulate matter which results from a combination of both natural processes and anthropogenic activities.
Data collected in remote Nevada locations generally show that concentrations of most constituents are much less than the legal standards; however, the ambient concentrations of ozone and PM,o may approach the standards. Causes of high ozone in remote locations in the southwest have been attributed to the transport of air from the southern California urban areas, and the intrusion of stratospheric ozone from high altitudes to ground level. Infrequent, relatively high concentrations of particulate matter in remote areas are generally due to sparse vegetation and periodic strong winds, which raise large amounts of soil particles into the air. The amount of suspended material is directly related to the type of land surface and the disturbance of that surface. In the proposed action, travel on the unpaved public road that crosses the Base Camp parcel adds additional suspended material beyond that from natural processes.
Table 3.5-1. Nevada and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
National Standards Nevada Standard Averaging Primary Secondary Pollutant Time ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Ozone 1 hour 235 same
CO -4000 ft 8 hour 10,000 10,000 same >5000 ft 11 6,700 any elevation 1 hour 40,000 40,000 same
Annual Arithmetic Mean 80 80 same 24 hour 365 365 same 3 hour 1,300 none 1,300
NO2 Annual Arithmetic Mean 100 100 same
PM!O Annual Arithmetic Mean same 24 hour same
Pb Quarterly Arithmetic Mean 1 .j I .5 same
Visibility Obserjation insuscient amount to reduce visibility to less than 30 miles when humidity is less than 70% Base Camp is located in an area that is classified as attainment for all regulated air pollutants. There are no major sources of air pollutants at or near the facility. The nearest population center is Tonopah, located approximately 50 miles west of Base Camp.
Air pollutant sources at Base Camp include fuel storage tanks, a small standby electrical generator, and a shop in which some minor vehicle maintenance is conducted occasionally. A 1995 inventory of sources and operations at Base Camp resulted in a determination that individual operations and the site as a whole generated air pollutant emissions at a level below the applicability thresholds of all existing air quality permitting regulations; this determination has been revisited for the current analysis and is still'valid.
3.6 Vegetation and Wildlife
3.6'1 Vegetation
Plant diversity, cover, density and size data were collected at 60 survey locations within the proposed withdrawal (Figure 3.6-1) on 1-2 and 28-29 May 2003 which coincided with peak seasonal plant activity. Species identification and taxonomy were based on The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California (1 996) and the Intermountain Flora (1977). At each survey point GPS coordinates were recorded and for the latter two dates digital photographs were taken. Percent cover by perennial plants was calculated at the first 4 sites surveyed each day in 5x5 m2 plots by counting all plants, calculating mean canopy area using canopy width measurements for each perennial species and summing the data for all species. Calculated cover estimates were
Figure 3.6.1. Biological survey locations within the proposed withdrawal. significantly correlated with visual estimates (Appendix G) and visual cover estimates were made for the remainder of the sites surveyed each day. The perennial plant communities within the proposed withdrawal consist of various combinations and densities of perennial shrubs, grasses, forbs and succulents. There are also an abundance of native and introduced or noxious annual plant species within the proposed withdrawal and their diversities and densities were counted in 1x 1 m2 plots at each site (Appendix G).
There are no naturally occurring trees within the proposed withdrawal, though native Fremont's cottonwood (PopulusJGemontii) and two introduced tree species Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) and Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra) were planted adjacent to several of the facility buildings.
Nine shrub species were found within the proposed withdrawal. Spiny budsage ('4rtemisia spinescens) was the most widespread, occurring in 83% of the 60 communities surveyed. Spiny budsage mean percent cover (3.7 %) was also greater than the sum of the covers of the other shrubs (Appendix G). Among the other eight shrub species identified, four species occurred in more than 10% of the communities surveyed, including, shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) (62%), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) (43%), Cooper's goldenbush (Erricameria cooperi) (15%) and green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiJEorus) (13%). The four other shrubs species, rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), seepweed (Sueda moquinii), horsebrush (Tetradymia millaris) and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), with frequencies of less than or equal to 5 % tended to occur on soils subject to flooding (Typic Torrifluvents). The greatest shrub diversities and densities occurred on the Koyen soil series (Typic Camborthid) or alluvial soils without duripans or argillic subsoil horizons.
Among the perennial grasses found in the proposed withdrawal, galleta grass (Pleuraphis jamesii) occurred in 87 % of the communities surveyed and Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) occurred in 67% of the surveys (Appendix G). Two other perennial grasses, squirreltail grass (Elymus elymoides) and fluffgrass (Erioneuron pulehellurn), occurred at frequencies of 5% or less. Percent cover (3.32 %) by galleta grass were significantly greater than the three other perennial grasses combined.
Eight perennial forb species and one cactus species were found within the proposed withdrawal (Appendix G). Cymopterus globosus was the most commoniy encountered forb, occurring in 42 % of the survey sites and its mean density of approximately 0.4 plants/m2 was comparable to the combined densities of the other seven forb species. Cyrnopterus ripleyi var. ripleyi (Figure 3.6-2) was found in 5 % or 3 of the survey sites, but none of the rarer saniculoides variety was found. Both varieties of C. ripleyi are listed in the Xevada Rare Plant Atlas (Morefield, 2001). Sand cholla (Opuntia pulchella), a cactus species, was found at six survey sites and is also listed in the i"Lrevada Rare Plants Atlas (Figure 3.6-2). Though sand cholla frequency was twice that of C. ripleyi tar. ripleyi, u-here the cactus occurred its overall (0.006 piantsim" was less than 10% of C. ripleyi var. riplqi. The distribution of C ripleyi tar. ripleyi was confined to the very southern end of the proposed *ithdrawal on the Unsel-Koyen soil association (Figure 3.6-3). Sand cholla was more widely distributed, occurring in CnseI- Koyen and Keefa-Unsel soil associations. A) (B) Figure 3.6-2. (A) Ripley's biscuitroot and (B) sand cholla (both photos are = 0.6 x life-size).
Figure 3.6-3. Location of rare plants within the proposed withdrawal. Annual plant diversities and densities varied greatly within the proposed withdrawal (Appendix G). Total annual diversity ranged from 0 to 14 species with a mean of 4.42 2 0.44 species per survey site. Total annual density ranged from 0 to 130 plants/m2 with a mean of 29.5 -+ 3.9 plants/m2. Annual densities tended to be iowest (< 25 plants/m2) on soils subject to flooding located in the central region of the proposed withdrawal, while the highest densities were in the southern portion of the proposed withdrawal. Among the 23 species of native annuals found, Cryptantha circumscissa and Mentzelia albicaulis occurred in more than 50% of the survey sites and they had the two greatest densities 10.47 and 6.01 plantsim2 respectively. Eriogonum cernuum and Gilia aliquanta had frequencies greater than 40 %, but relatively low densities 0.07 and 0.41 plants/m', respectively. Thirteen native species had frequencies of less rhan 10% and most of these had densities of less than 0.10 piantsim2. A rare annual iegume, Callaway's milkvetch (Astragalus callithrix), listed in the Threatened and Endangered Plants of Nevada (Mozingo and Williams, 1980), was also found at two locations within the proposed withdrawal (Figure 3.6-3). Most native annuals preferred growing between perennial plants rather than under them, consequently native annuai densities were not significantly correlated with percent cover by native shrubs (Appendix G).
3.6.2 Noxious Weeds
Among the noxious or introduced annual weeds, Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) had a frequency of 40 % and the fourth greatest density at 1.67 plantsim2. Two other noxious annuals, cheatgrass (Brornus tectorum) and halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), were also generally more common and had greater densities than most of the native annuals. Though total noxious annual densities were approximately an order of magnitude less than native densities, they were positively correlated with native annual densities (Appendix G). This relationship indicates that noxious annual species are competing successfUlly with native annual species for similar soil resources. However, the presence of noxious annual weeds is not a unique consequence of the past 20 years of land use within the current withdrawal. All three of the noxious species found in the proposed withdrawal area tend to be associated with anthropogenic disturbances, but they are also capable of invading communities were cattle grazing is the only disturbance.
3.6.3 Wildlife
Several mammal species are potential year-round residents within the proposed withdrawal and include insectivorous desert shrew (Notiosorex crawfordi) and Merriam shrew (Sorex merriami) and herbivorous kangaroo rats (Dbpodomys sp.), deer mice (Peromyscus sp.), pocket mice (Perognathus sp.), white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilis leucurus) and blacktail jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) (Burt and Grossenheider, 1976). Large native herbivores include pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra umericana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Antelope prefer the open habitat structure and plant communities of Base Camp and during the biological survey several antelope were observed within 100 m of the northwest comer of the proposed withdrawal area. Mule deer are much more likely to occur at higher elevations rhan Base Camp where taller and denser plant cover occurs. Carnivorous mammals potentially utilizing habitat within the proposed withdrawal include badgers (Tuxidea axu us), coyotes (Canis latrans), kit fox (Yzilpus macrotis), bobcats (Lynx rufus) and mountain lions (Felis concolor), though the latter are more likely to inhabit higher elekations uhere encounters with mule deer are possible. Common bat species potentially foraging over land within the proposed withdrawal include pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus), California myotis (Myotis californicus) and western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus). However, during three nights of observation in May 2003, no bats were seen.
Except for antelope, no other mammal species was seen during the biological survey, although significant numbers of large (>8inch diameter) and small burrows were found.
Common bird species found year-round include homed lark (Eremophila alpestris), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), raven (Coww corm), red-tail hawk (Bzrteo jamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius) (Sibley, 2000). During spring and fall 50-70 species of neotropical migrants utilize Base Camp for short-term resting and feeding areas.
Ail reptiles found wihtin the proposed withdrawal are permanent residents, but most are active between March and October (Behler and King, 1979). Common snake species include the Great Basin subspecies of the western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis spp. lutosus) and gopher snakes (Pituophis melanoleacus), though none were seen. Conversely, obseved lizard diversity included desert horned (Phtynosoma platyrhinos) at three sites, western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris) at two sites and leopard (Gambelia wislizeni~], sagebrush (Sderoporus gracilis) and zebra-tailed (Callisaurus draconoides) at one site each.
Due to the lack of permanent surface water, no amphibian or fish species occur within the proposed withdrawal.
Invertebrate or arthropod species observed during each of the four survey days were dominated by class Insecta, Several species of ants, bees and wasps (Hymenoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), grasshoppers (Orthoptera), and butterflies (Lepidoptera) were common at most survey sites (Bonor and White, 1970). Mound-building ants were especially common and greatest mound densities were negatively correlated with perennial plant cover. Other invertebrate classes represented in Base Camp habitats include millipedes (class Diplopoda), centipedes (class Chilopoda) and scorpions, spiders and ticks (class Arachnida). With no permanent water sources located at Base Camp, species from class Crustacea are unlikely to utilize any of the habitats within the proposed withdrawal.
3.6.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) defines an endangered species asj "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portions of its range'", and a threatened species as, "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeab! future throughout all or significant portions of its range'' (CSFWS, 199th). GSFWS also recognize species of concern (SOC) mhich are defined as rare or are perceived to be rare, bur whose existence is not immediately in danger. SOCs were previously classified by the USFWS as candidate species category two (G2). Based on their rarity, Air Force Instntction 32-7064, 1997 mandates that known populations of SOCs will be documented and monitored for the purpose of clarifying their actual population sizes and distributions. Sensitive Flora
A list of potential floral SOCs at Base Camp was reviewed prior to conducting the bioiogicai survey (Appendix H). Eastwood's milkweed (Asclepias eas~oodiana)and sanicie biscuitroot (Cymopterus ripleyi var, saniculoides) had the greatest probabilities of occurring in the proposed withdrawal. The milkweed grows in shallow gravelly drainages on alluvial fans. Sanicle biscuitroot prefers deep sandy soils, but both species can occur in the same community. Neither species was found. Other possible floral SOCs included Cane Spring evening primrose (Cnmissonia megalantha), Welsh cat's-eye (Cryptantha welshii), Dune beardtongue (Pensternon arenarius), Beatley scorpion weed (Phacelia beatleyae), Blaine pincushion cactus (Sclerocactus blainei) and Schiesser pincushion cactus (Sclerocacrus schlesseri), but none of these species were found.
Sensitive Fauna
The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is listed as threatened and may occasionally forage over the proposed withdrawal. Peregrine falcons can occur within the proposed withdrawal during any time of the year due to the continuous presences of potential prey such as horned larks.
Bird SOCs whose known distribution encompasses the proposed withdrawal include mountain plovers (Churadrius rnontanus), snowy plovers (Charadrinus alexandrinus) and long- billed curlew (Numenius americanus) which are seasonal migrants. Ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) are also seasonal migrants that prefer arid grasslands and are likely to utilize habitats within the proposed withdrawal during spring and fall migrations. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a potential summer resident using the burrows of other species found in open grassland habitats. None of these species were observed, but the four day observation period was very limited and was outside the peak migration intervals.
Mammalian SOCs potentially occurring within the proposed withdrawal include 13 species of bats (Appendix H) with Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) having the greatest probability of occurrence. However, no bats were seen during three nights of observation in May 2003.
Throughout Nevada there are many vertebrate and invertebrate SOC that are restricted to aquatic habitats, but no aquatic habitats occur with the proposed withdrawal. Nevada also has many terrestrial invertebrate SOCs, but these species are generaiiy restricted to specific geographic locations that are significantly distant from the lands proposed for withdrawal.
3.7 Visual Resources
The visual resource maps in the Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (1997) indicate all the visual resources in within the proposed withdrawal are Class IV. Glass IV visual resources are defined as, "Contrasts may attract attention and be a dominant feature of the landscape in terms of scale". The facilities on the current withdrawal harmonize and blend ~iththe characteristic natual landscape of lob stature ttidely scattered shrubs and grasses. They are also cornparabte in terms of height nd cl~~steringof strktctures with nearby private ranch buildings and irrigation equipment. The only degradation of the Class IV visual resources within the proposed withdrawal has occurred because of natural flooding and deposition of fine textured sediments resulting in a significant reduction in plant cover in the west centrai portion of the proposed withdrawal.
3.8 Land Use
3.8.1 Livestock Grazing
The 657,520 acre Reveille Allotment administered by the BLM, Battle Mountain District encompasses the proposed withdrawal (Tonopah RMP, 1997). The allotment has been allocated 25,730 animal unit months (AUMs) or the equivalent of one AUM per 25.5 acres. Therefore, the request to add 1,359 acres to the current withdrawal represents approximately 43 AUMs or ~0.2%or the total AUMs for the entire allotment. However, there are no plans to fence the expanded withdrawal or to limit access to the land by cattle from the surrounding Reveille allotment. Forage production estimates by the NRCS for the three soil associations occurring in the proposed withdrawal range from 150-1500 lblacre for minimum versus maximum annual rainfall amounts. However, there is some competition with wild horses for available forage even though the lands within the proposed withdrawal do not overlap with a wild hourse herd management area (HMA).
3.8.2 Land Uses
The existing facilities will continue to be the focus of the military mission and the proposed action will continue to be operated within these facilities.
3.8.3 Mineral Resources
Bureau of Land Management's mining claim records in the LR2000 database showed that there are no claims on the lands proposed for withdrawal as of April 23, 2004. The nearest recorded mining claims to the Base Camp lands are approximately 4.5 miles to the west. A search of the LR.2000 database for current authorized case records indicate that there are no mineral, oil and gas or coal leases on the subject lands. There are no established material sites, community pits, or mineral materials use areas within the proposed withdrawal.
There are two mining districts in the mountains around the subject lands (Figure 1 .l-2). The Tybo district lies to the west of Base Camp and the Morey district to the north (Schilling, 1976). The Tybo district is one of the largest in northern Nye County, having produced over $10,080,000 worth of lead, silver, zinc, gold, mercuu, copper, antimony, barite, and turquoise (Ferguson, 1933; Kral, 195 1 ; Kleinhampl and Ziony, 1985). These commodities were produced primarily from kein deposits in the Paleozoic rock with lesser occunences in the Tertiary volcanics. The Tybo district, which includes several small workings and prospects removed from the main Tybo Canyon deposits, encompasses an area extending from Warm Springs on the south to Hot Creek Canyon on the north. The Morey district, located approximately 25 miles north of Base Camp, is a relatively minor district, having produced less that a half million dollars in silver, gold, and lead (Kleinhampl and Ziony, 1985) entirely fiom deposits in Tertiary volcanics. There has been very limited recent mining activity in the Tybo district, although both districts have experienced exploration activity.
In Hot Creek Valley there has been some exploration for geothermal resources in the vicinity of Warm Springs, approximately 12 miles southwest of Base Camp. All of Hot Creek Valley has received considerable geophysical exploration, both seismic and gravity, for structures favorable for the accumulation of oil and gas resources. Three exploration wells, all dry holes, have been drilled in Hot Creek Valley in T. 8 N.,R. 50 E., Sec. 24 (Apache Corporation, Hot Creek Federal 24-1 3), and T. 4 N.,R. 50 E.,Sec. 3 (Apache Corporation, Warm Springs Federal 3- 13j and Sec. I G (Apache Corporation, Warm Springs Federal 10- 14j.
The lands at Base Camp are devoid of any surface expression of bedrock, consisting entirely of Quaternary alluvium (Quinlivan and Rogers, 1974), which in this area is 3,000 to 4,000 ft thick (Fugro National, Inc.,198I). Because of the absence of bedrock at this location there is felt to be virtually no possibility for the occurrence of lode minerals. Although there is a possibility for the presence of placer deposits, this is considered unlikely as these lands are about 4 miles fiom the mountains, a distance considerably longer than the usual transport distance for these types of deposits in an arid climate. Other previous studies (Fugro National, Inc., 1981; Qualheim, 1979; Hurley and Parker, 1982) have shown that the Base Camp area lacks favorability for the occurrence of locatable mineral deposits. In addition, a field examination of these lands showed no evidence of mineralization or mineral exploration activities.
Hot Creek Valley contains extensive deposits of sand and gravel. These deposits are present in much of the lands at Base Camp, but have not been developed. It is unlikely that any mineral materials can be extracted economically at this time, since any foreseeable mineral demand can easily be met fiom lands outside of the proposed withdrawal.
3.8.4 Wilderness
The land proposed for withdrawal does not contain any Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area (BLM, 1997).
3.8.5 Lands Realty
Currently none of the land within the proposed withdrawal area is being considered for disposal or sale by the BLM to other agencies or private parties (BLM, 1997).
3.9 Recreation Resources
Recreational hunting is administered by the Nevada Division of Wildlife. Portions of the proposed withdrawal are likely foraging areas for pronghom antelope, doves and upland gamebirds. Otherwise the land within the proposed withdrawal offers minimal opportunities for other recreational uses except in late spring when most of the native plants are flowering and the biological community is expressing its peak aesthetic value. 3.10 Cultural and Historical Resources
American Indians have lived in the vicinity of the proposed Base Camp withdrawal for at least 10,000 years (Pippin, f 997). The remains left by these peoples represents a hunting and gathering subsistence culture that gradually evolved &om foragers who relied primarily on the hunting of animals to collectors who organized their seasonal movements around the availability of plant resources. Beginning in the mid 1860s, this area also became populated by Euroamericans with Tybo, Twin Springs and Hot Creek being important population nodes.
Base Camp was originally withdrawn by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1968 tinder Public Land Srder 4338 as part of the Central Nevada Test Site (CNTS). Tine cuiturai resource studies that accompanied that withdrawal identified more than 100 cultural resources on and around the CNTS and procured a large collection of artifacts from some of those resources (Brooks, n.d). Most of those resources were located in and around the area of Project Faultless well to the north of Base Camp and no surveys were conducted in the area of Base Camp. (Brooks, n.d.).
The USAF commissioned a Class 111 cultural resource survey of all previously undisturbed lands within the proposed new land withdrawal in order for the USAF to fulfill their responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This Class 111 cultural resources reconnaissance allowed the USAF to directly assess the effects of their activities on all historic properties that may occur there and to develop plans and or procedures that will mitigate any potential adverse effects to those properties under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Class I11 cultural resources survey was conducted in the Spring 2004 and revealed 22 sites in addition to 3 cultural resources that had been previously recorded in the area.
Four prehistoric-age resources were recorded during the current survey. The earliest prehistoric-age resource found within the withdrawal was an isolated Pinto style spear point that could date as early as 9,000 B. F. Two additional prehistoric-age resources were also isolated artifacts: one was an obsidian decortication flake and the other a unifacially retouched core reduction flake. The final prehistoric-age resource was a small concentration of debitage (26Nyll876 [GRNV-6l-l14OO]) atop a major alluvial terrace that skirts the northern and northeastern portion of the proposed withdrawal. None of these prehistoric-age resources are recommended to be eligible for NRHP nomination as historic properties.
The relative dearth of prehistoric-age resources in the proposed withdrawal, in comparison with the number of historic-age remains, requires some explanation. This dearth could be due to the fact that this area was not used extensively by prehistoric-age peoples and/or to post-depositional processes that may have masked prehistoric-age resources.
Most of the cultural resources that occur on the proposed Base Camp withdrawal are historic in age. The historic-age resources recorded on the proposed land withdrawal may be grouped into four categories: historic roads and their associated artifact scatters, survey markers, trash dumps and isolated artifacts. Three historic-age roads traverse the proposed withdrawal (Figure 3.10- 1). The earliest of these roads (26NyI I864 [CRNV-6 1 - 1 128811, now barely discernable within the withdrawal, appears to have run between Tybo and Twin Springs during Figure 3.10-1 Map of historic and modem roads crossing the proposed withdrawal. the Comstock Era. The 1923-1939 re-alignment of State Highway 4 (26Ny 1 1855 [CRNV-61 - 112791) also bisects the proposed withdrawal and is coexistent with the existing Base Camp landing strip. Twentieth Century artifacts are common along both sides of this alignment north and south of the existing landing strip and are particularly common around the juncture of this road and the existing gravel road to Tybo. The present gravel road to Tybo (26Ny12150 [CRNV-61-114011)is the third historic-age road through the withdrawal.
Five prior historic-age cultural resources were recorded within the proposed Base Camp withdrawal and represent prior land surveying activities in the region. Two of these sites are located near public land survey corners: one (26Nyi P 872 [CRNV-6t -1 12961) at the corner between R. 50 E. and R. 5 1 E./ T 5s; and the other (26Ny 1 1873 [CRNV-6 1-1 12971) between sections 29 and 30 and 3 1 and 32, T. 6N., R. 5 1 E.
In addition to the two historic-age artifact scatters near the juncture of the modern Tybo road (26Nyl2 150 [CRNV-61-114011) and State Highway Route 4, two other concentrations of historic artifacts were found in the withdrawal. Neither of these two cultural resources have been recommended to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP as historic properties.
The remaining cultural resources in the area proposed for withdrawal are either isolated historic cans or bottles or small assemblages of historic-age artifacts. These artifacts, although reflecting historic activities in the proposed withdrawal, have quite limited research value that has been preserved through their recordation. Consequently, none of those cultural resources are recommended to be eligible as historic properties
3.1 1 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous waste operations are conducted under a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identification number. The volume of hazardous waste generation is less than 1,000 kg per calendar month. This site is considered a small quantity generator. Hazardous waste generation typically consists of spent aerosols, spent solvent rags, and paintipaint related material. Hazardous materials utilized are those normally found in a small vehicle maintenance facility, i.e. petroleum products, oils, and antifreeze. Used oil, antifreeze, and crushed oil filters are accumulated and recycled. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the direct and indirect impacts of Alternatives A and B, No-action and renewal of only the existing withdrawal, respectively, on the environmental resources. However, the main focus of this chapter is to describe the direct and indirect impacts of the preferred Alternative C (renewal and expansion the existing withdrawal) on the existing environmental resources.
4.2 Physiography, Geology and Soils
4.2.1 Impacts on Physiography
Proposed Action
The proposed action would not significantly alter the local topography or have any adverse direct of indirect impact on the physiographic resources.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same direct and indirect environmental consequences on physiography as the proposed action.
4.2.2 Impacts on Geology
Proposed Action
The proposed action would not significantly alter or have any adverse direct or indirect impact on the geology or geologic resources on the lands within the proposed action.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same direct and indirect environmental consequences on geology as the proposed action.
4.2.3 Impacts on Soils
Proposed Action
The proposed action would not significantly alter or have any adverse direct or indirect impact on the soil resources on the lands within the proposed action.
.Alternative '4 and B
Alternatives A and B would have no direct or indirect impact on soil resources. 4.3 Impacts on Climate
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no direct or indirect adverse affect the climate in the area.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same environmental consequences on climate as the proposed tiction.
4.4 Hydrology and Water Resources
4.4.1 Impacts on Hydrology
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on hydrology and water resources.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same environmental consequences on hydrology and water resources as the proposed action.
4.4.2 Impacts on Water Rights and Water Use
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on water resources.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same environmental consequences on hydrology and water resources as the proposed action.
4.4.3 Impacts on Flood Potential
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on flooding potential on the lands proposed for withdrawai. Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same direct and indirect environmental consequences on flooding potential as the proposed action.
4.4.4 Impacts on Erosion and Deposition
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on erosion or deposition potentials.
Alternative A and B
AIternatives A and B would have the same direct or indirect environmental consequences on erosion or deposition potentials as the preferred Alternative C.
4.5 Air Resources
Proposed Action
The potential direct impacts on air quality due to Air Force activities within the withdrawn lands would be limited to dust generated from vehicles and maintenance equipment exhaust. Under regulations of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, most new sources of air emissions require a Permit to Construct and a Permit to Operate with some exceptions. NAC 444.705 lists exceptions to the Nevada air quality permit process, among which is land disturbance of less than 2 hectares (5 acres). There would be no indirect impacts on air resources if the proposed action is implemented.
Alternative A and B
Altematives A and B would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on air resources.
4.6 Vegetation and Wildlife
4.6.1 Impacts on Vegetation
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no direct of indirect adverse impacts on vegetation
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have no direct or indirect adverse impacts on vegetation. 4.6.2 Impacts on Noxious Weeds
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have minor indirect impacts on the potential spread of noxious weeds, due to land disturbance and maintenance activities near the existing facilites. Noxious weed production in disturbed areas could provide a seed source for invasion of surrounding non-disturbed areas.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same indirect impacts on the spread of noxious weeds.
4.6.3 Impacts on Wildlife
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have only minor indirect impacts on wildlife due to domestic and feral ungulates competing with native species for forage.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same environmental consequences as the proposed action.
4.6.4 Impacts on Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no adverse direct or indirect impacts on threatened, endangered or sensitive species, since access by animals and recruitment of plants in habitats within the proposed withdrawal would not be restricted by the proposed action. Peregrine falcons are transient migrants that do not regularly use any of the habitats within the proposed withdrawal. Also, there would be no direct or indirect adverse impacts on other migratory SOC bird and bat species. Mountain plovers, snowy plovers, long-billed curlews, burrowing owls and ferruginous hawks are infrequent seasonal migrants and potential access would not be prevented by the proposed action.
The proposed action is also unlikely to have a direct or indirect adverse impact on any of the three rare plant species found during the biological sur.te1. Most of them were located sufficiently distant from the existing facilities (Figure 3.6-3) and from potential disturbance by Air Force activities.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same environmental consequences on threatened, endangered or sensitive species as the proposed action. 4.7 Impacts on Visual Resources
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on Class IV visual resources.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and E3 would have the same environmental consequences to visuai resources as the proposed action.
4.8 Land Use
4.8.1 Impacts on Livestock Grazing
Proposed Action
There would be no direct or indirect adverse impact on livestock grazing by the proposed action because no new fences are planned that would prevent access by domestic, feral or native ungulates to the enlarged withdrawal.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have same environmental consequences on grazing as the proposed action.
4-82 Land Uses
Proposed Action
There would be no direct or indirect adverse impact on the existing facilities if the proposed action is implemented.
Alternative A and B
Under alternative B there would be no direct or indirect adverse impact on the existing facilities. However, under alternative A the existing withdrawal would not be renewed and plans for dismantling the existing facilities would need to be developed.
4.8.3 Mineral Resources
Proposed Action
From the study of the available information on the area, it is concluded that the lands at Base Camp have a very low dekelopment potential for locatable and salable minerals and a moderate to high potential for the development of leasable minerals. Therefore, it is concluded that withdrawal of these lands from the operation of the various minerals laws would have negligible direct or indirect affects on the salable and locatable minerals development potential, but could have a minimal negative effects on leasable minerals development. However, because of the configuration of the subject lands, the two fluid Ieasables for which the lands have potential (geothermal resource and oil and gas) could be largely developed from adjacent lands without surface occupancy on the proposed withdrawal. Land within the proposed withdrawal which are considered prospectively valuable for sodium and potassium compounds are only a small fraction of the lands in the valley which have the same potential for these resources (Johnson, 1975), it is felt that their withdrawal would have insignificant direct or indirect mpacts on the potential development of this solid leasable minerals resource.
4.8.4 Wilderness
Proposed Action
The proposed action would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on wilderness resources because there are none within the proposed withdrawal.
Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have same environmental consequences on wilderness resources as the proposed action.
4.8.5 Land Realty
The proposed action would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on land realty because the land proposed for withdrawal is not being purchased from the BLM.
Alternative A and B
Alternative B would have same environmental consequences on land realty as the proposed action. Conversely, under Alternative A the exiting withdrawal would be terminated and the use or removal of the exiting facilities or conversion of the lands back to grazing use would require a restoration plan.
4.9 Recreation
Proposed Action
Recreational opportunities vtould not be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed action. Hunting is the only public recreational pursuit allowed on the lands proposed for withdrawal and the existing (regulated) policy for hunter access would not be changed. Second, hunting opportunities could only be adversely affected if direct or indirect changes in habitat quality occur, and if these changes adversely affect game populations. The proposed action would not directly of indirectly alter habitat within the proposed withdrawal to the extent that game species populations would be negatively impacted. Alternative A and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same environmental consequences on recreational resources as the proposed action.
4.10 Cultural Resources
Proposed Action
The cultural resources that are known to occur within the proposed Base Camp withdrawal under Alternative A have been described in Section 3.9 above and in a separate report (Pippin and Edwards, 2004). None of these cultural resources have been recommended to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP as historic properties. Since no historic properties are located within either the existing or proposed Base Camp withdrawal the proposed action will have no direct or indirect negative impact on historic properties.
~lternativeA and B
Alternatives A and B would have the same environmental consequences on cultural resources as the proposed action.
4.1 1 Hazardous material/Hazardous waste
Proposed Action
This proposed renewal and additional withdrawal would not generate hazardous waste as defined by 40 CFR 261. Hazardous materials would be limited to petroleum products for the vehicles and construction equipment. Therefore there would be no direct or indirect adverse impact due to hazardous materialhzardous waste production.
Alternative A and B
Alternative B would have the same environmental consequences on hazardous materialkazardous waste as the proposed action. Under alternative A, non-renewal of the existing withdrawal, the decision on how to dismantle the existing facilities has the potential to generate unknown amounts of hazardous materialhazardous waste.
4.12 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts on the environment result from the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the agency taking the action. Impacts of the past 20 years of withdrawal are difficult to analyze because the Environmental Assessment for the original withdrawal in 1985 did not included detailed information comparable to that included in this EA. However, based on the biological survey conducted for this EA, public access to Tybo Rd and cattle and wildlife access to the lands within the proposed expanded withdrawal have had, and will continue to have, more cumulative impacts on the renewed and expanded withdrawal than fbture Air Force operations within the existing facilitites.
4.13 Environmental Justice
Compliance with NEPA and CEO laws and reguiations was met by providing public notice of the intent to renew and expand the current withdrawal in the Federal Register and by allowing for a public hearing to be conducted in order to discuss the proposed action. No public meeting was held partly because the proposed action will not adversely impact any grazing allotment or water rights within the expanded withdrawal. Furthermore this draft Environmental Assessment will be available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days after it is recieved by the Nevada State Director of the BLM. Public comments and responses will be included in the final version of the EA submitted to the United State Department of the Interior for their approval. 5.0 REFERENCES
Behler, J. L. And F. W. King. 1979. Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of North America. Alfred A Knopf, New York.
Black and Veatch. 1985. Study of flood control facilities on Flamingo Wash. Prepared by: Black and VeatchEngineers-Architects, Las Vegas, NV. For: Clark County Department of Public Works, Las Vegas, NV.
BLM. 1997. Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM/BM/PL- 98/OO6+179 1.
Borror, D. J. And R. E. White. 1970. A jeld guide to the insects of America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Brooks, R. H. n.d. Archaeological report on the Central Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Nevada Archaeological Survey, DRIIUNLV.
Burt, W. H. And R. P. Grossenheider. 1976. Afield guide to the mammals. Houghton Mifflin Go., Boston.
CCRFCD. 1999. Hydrologic criteria and drainage design manual. Clark County Regional Flood Control District, Las Vegas, NV.
Cronquist A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal and P.A. Holmgren. 1977. Intermountain Flora Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S. A. New Y ork Botanical Garden Columbia University Press. Dinwiddie, G. A. and L. J. Schroder. 1971. Summary of hydraulic testing in and chemical analysis of water Sam les from dee exploratory holes in Little Fish Lake, Monitor, Hot Creek, and Little Smoky Val feys, Nevada: 6.s.Geolog~cal Survey, Open-file Report, 66 p. Eakin, T.E., G.B. Maxe T. W. Robinson, J. C. Fredericks and 0. J. Weltz.. 1951. Contributions to the hydro,ogyP of eastern Nevada: State of Nevada, Ofice of the State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin No. 12, 171 p. Ertec. 1981. MX Siting Investigation Water Resources Pro ram, Technical Summary Report, Voi 118. Ertec Western, Inc., Long Beach, CA, prepared 4or US Depart. of the Air Force, Ballistic Missile Office, Norton AFB, CA. Ferguson, H. G. and S. H. Cathcart. 1954. Geologic Map of the Round Mountain Quadrangle, Nevada. GQ-40, US Geological Survey. Fiero, G. W. Jr. 2968. Regional Hydrology Hot Creek - Little Smoky ValIey Flo* System Nye County, Nevada: Interpretive Report. Desert Research Institute, Unwersity of Nevada Sqstem, Reno. Fiero, G. W,, A. L. Mindling and J. R. Illian. 1969. Regional Groundwater Flow Systems of Central Nevada. Publication No. 44005, Water Resources Center, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada System, Reno. Fugro National, Inc. 1981. MX minerai resources survey, Nevadailjtah siting area: Fugro National, Inc., I1 volumes. Grayson, D. K. 1993. The Desert's Past a Natwal Prehistory of the Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. Hickman J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University California Press. Hurley, B.W. and D. P. Parker. 1982. National uranium resource evaluation, Tonopah quadrangle, Nevada: Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, RGJ/F-128(82), 36 p. Kleinhampl, F. J. and J. I. Ziony. 1985. Geology of Northern Nye County, Nevada. Bulletin 99A, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno. Kral, V. E. 195 1. Mineral resources of Nye County, Nevada. Geology and Mining Series No. 50, University of Nevada Bulletin 45(3). Mihevc, T. and B. Lyies. 1997. Regional Hydraulic Head Measurements in the Hot Creek Valley. In Pohlmann, K, J Chapman, A Hassan, and C Papelis. 1999. Evaluation of Groundwater Flow and Transport at the Faultless Underground Nuclear Test, Central Nevada Test Area. Publication No. 45165, Water Resources Center, Desert Research Institute, University and Community College System of Nevada, Las Vegas. Miller, J.F., R.H. Frederick and R.J. Tracy. 1973. NOAA Atlas precipitation-frequency atlas for the western United States, Vol. VII-Nevada. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. Miller J. and R. French. 2004. Monthly average evaporation rate estimates for Base Camp, Hot Creek Valley Nevada and several locations at the Nevada Test Site. (Unpublished report). Miller J. and R. French. 2004. Delineation of the regulatory floodplain athe Base Camp Complex. (Unpublished report). Misch, P. 1960. Regional Structural Reconnaissance in Central-Northeast Nevada and Somg Adjacent Areas. In: Obsesvations and Interpretations in Geology of East-Central Nevada. 1 I Annual Field conference Guidebook, Intermountain Association Petroleum Geologists. Pippin, L. C. 1997. Hunter - gatherer ada tations and environmental change in the southern Great Basin: The evidence from Pahute an Rainier mesas. Drafi report submitted to the US. Department of Energy under contracts DE-AC08-90NV10845‘r and DE-AC08-95NV11508. Plume, R. W. 1996. Hydro eologic Framework of the Great Basin Re ion Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States. Professionaf Paper 140943, US Geological Survey, Was71 ington. Pohlmann, K., J. Chapman, A. Hassan, and L. Papelis. 1999. Evaluation of Groundwater Fiow and Transport at the Faultless Underground Nuclear Test, Central Nevada Test Area. Publication No. 45165, Water Resources Center, Desert Research Institute, University and Community College System of Nevada, Las Vegas. Qualheim, B. 1979. Mydrogeochemicai and stream sediment reconnaissance re ort for the Tonopah N'IMLIS quadrangle, Nevada: Lawrence Livermore Laborator), ~C~~-5267&(71)p. Quinlivan, W.D. and C. L. Rogers. 1974. Geologic map of the Tybo quadrangle, Eye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey, ,\ilisceIlaneous Investigations Series Map 1-82 1, scale 1 :48,000, Rush, F. E and D. E. Everett. 1966. Water-Resources Appraisal of Little Fish Lake, Hot Creek, and Little Smoky Valleys Nevada. Report 38, Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada. Schilling, J. H. 1976. Metal minin districts of Nevada, third edition: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Map 37, scale 1 :1,000, 8 00. Sibley, D. A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Slemmons, D. B., J. I. Gimlet, A. E. Jones, R. Greensfelder and J. Koenig. 1965. Earthquake Epicenter Map of Nevada. Map 29, Nevada Bureau of Mines, Reno. State of Nevada. 1988. Hydrogra hic Basin Statistical Summary - Ground Water Basins 001- 232, Carson City, Nevada. State o ?Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources and Water Planning. Stuart, W. T. 1955. Pum ing test evaluates water problem at Eureka, Nevada. Mining Engineering, Vol7, 148- 159 USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2002. Soil Survey of Nye County, Nevada, Northeast Part. U.S. Geological Survey. 1968. Aeromagnetic map of the Hot Creek Range region, south-central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey, Geophysical Investigations Map GP-637, 1 sheet, scale 1:250,000. US Salinity Laboratory. 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. US. Department of Agriculture Handbook 60. USACE. 1987. HEC-1 flood hydrograph package. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. USACE. 2001. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS. US. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. USAF, 1997. Air Force Instruction 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resource Management. USFWS. 1996a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of lant and animal taxa that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened species. Federal Register 61 (40):7596-?613. USFWS. 1996b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: notice of final decision on identification of candidates for listing as endangered or threatened. Federal Register 6 l(23 S):6448 1-64385. Van Denbur h, A. S. and F. E. Rush. 1974. Water-Resources Appraisal of Railroad and Penoyer Val feys, East-Central Nevada. Report 60, Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada. WRC. 188 1. Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency. Bulletin- 17B. Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C. 6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
This Environmental Assessment has been coordinated with the BLM's Tonopah, Nevada Field Office. 7.0 List of Preparers and Reviewers
List of preparers
Dr. Gilbert F. Cochran: Research Professor Emeritus with the Desert Research Institute (DRI) has B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering and a Ph.D. in Hydrology. He has 35 years experience in studies and management related to environmental concerns ranging from strictly hydrological investigations to preparation of major Environmental Impact Statements. Dr. Cochran was responsible for overall.coordination of the EA effort, preparation of Chapters 1 and 2, and final editing and assembly of this EA. DRI is a Division of the University and Community College System of Nevada.
Susan Edwards: Assistant Research Archaeologist with DRI's Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences holds a B.A. in History and an M.A. in anthropology. She has over 20 years of experience in archaeology and historical research throughout the American West including investigations of mining and ranching communities, early 20th century ethnographic sites, and most recently, Cold War material culture. Ms. Edwards contributed to the cultural and historical resource sections of this EA.
Dr. Richard H. French: Research Professor with DRI has BS, MS and PhD degrees in Civil Engineering. He has 25 years experience in surface water and flood hydrology and is the author of several texts on those subjects. Dr. French contributed to the climate, flood and surface water erosion aspects of the EA.
Julianne Miller: Assistant Research Hydrologist with DRI's Division of Hydrologic Sciences, has a BS degree in Geological Sciences and a MS degree in Water Resources Management. She has 15 years of experience in surface water hydrology. Ms. Miller was responsible for the climate, flood, and surface water erosion aspects of the EA.
Tim Minor: Associate Research GIS/Remote Sensing Scientist with DRI has B.S. and M.A. degrees in Geography. He has over 21 years of experience in the application of GIs and image processing techniques to environmental concerns. Mr. Minor has applied spatial modeling and analytical methods to a wide variety of appiications, including geology, hydrology, vegetation classification, and land use mapping. Mr. Minor was responsible for mapping the existing and proposed withdrawn lands, flood zones and watershed subbasins for the EA study area.
Dr. Stephen A. Mid: Associate Research Professor with DRI has a BS degree in Geology, MS degree in Hydrology/Hydrogeology and a PhD in Geoscience-Hydrology. He has 18 years of experience which encompass a variety of groundwater investigations including: flow system delineation, recharge estimation, and groundwater and surface water chemistry!qualib assessment Dr. Mizell was responsible for the hydrologic and water resource aspects of this EA
Pat Nelson: President of Nelson Consulting Services, Inc., has a E3S degree in Physics and MS degree in Nuclear Engineering. He has 25 years experience in air pollutant emission control technology development and federalistateilocal air quality regulatory compliance, including 10 years experience with Nevada State regulations. Mr. Nelson wrote the EA's air quality section of the EA. Randy A. Nicholson: Assistant Research Hydrogeologist with DRI's Division of Hydrological Sciences, has a B.S. in Environmental Geoscience. He has over 15 years experience in exploration geology, mining operations and hydrogeology. Mr. Nicholson was responsible for the geological field survey and sediment sampling, and the geology and minerals resources materials and the document graphics and maps in this EA.
Dr. Lonnie C. Pippin: Research Professor with DRI's Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, has a Ph.D. in Anthropology and has over 24 years of archaeological and paleonological experience in Nevada-California, the American Southwest and Peru. Since 1978 Dr. Pippin has been involved with archaeology studies on the Nevada Test Site and Nellis Air Force Range. Dr. Pippin was responsible for the cultural/historical survey and cultural/historical resources materials in this EA.
Dr. Stephen F. Zitzer: Assistant Professor of Plant Ecology with DRI's Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, has a B.S. in Soil Science fiom the University of Wisconsin, an M.S. in Forestry fiom Clemson University, a Ph.D. in Plant Physiology from the University of Illinois and more than 15 years experience studying arid lands ecology. Dr. Zitzer was responsible for the sections covering biological, soils, recreational, visual and wilderness resources and coordinated drafting and editing of the EA.
List of reviewers
Nancy Army BLM Tonopah Minerals Specialist
Allen Buehler BLM Tonopah Supervisory Geologist
Amy Dumas BLM Tonopah Wild Horse and Burro Specialist
Rhen Etzelmiller BLM Tonopah Wildlife Biologist
William Fisher BLM Tonopah Field Station Manager
Everett Hoop Program Manager, USAF
Valerie Metscher BLM Tonopah Rangeland Specialist
Christine Pontarolo BLM Battle Mountain Wild Horse and Burro Specialist
Sue Rigby BLM Tonopah Archaeologist
Dustin Rooks BLM Tonopah Rangeland Specialist
Nadine Searles Environmental Plans and Programs, USAF
Wendy Seley BLM Tonopah Realty Specialist APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Application for Withdrawal of Public Land referred to as Base Cam ...... A-1
APPENDIX B Soil profile Descriptions for Base Camp Nye County. Nevada ...... B- 1
APPENDIX C Major Chemistry Data available for Hot Creek Valley Water Sources...... C-1
APPENDIX D Other General Chemistry Data Available for Hot Creek Valley Water Sources ...... D- I
APPENDIX E Selected Springs in Hot Creek Valley ...... E-1
APPENDIX F Summary of Hot Creek Valley Water Rights. September 2003 ...... F- 1
APPENDIX G Plant Species found at Base camp May-June 2003 ...... G-1
APPENDIX H Endangered. Threatened and Species of Concern (SOCs) potentially occurring at Base Camp ...... H-1 ~ppendixA
Application for Withdrawal of Pu blic Land Bureau of Land Management 8 October 2003 Nevada State Office Attn: Mr. Robert Abbey 850 Harvard Way Reno, NV. 89520
Dear Mr. Abbey:
On behalf of the United States Air Force, I request you approve the attached application for the withdrawal of approimately 1,979 acres of public land in Nye County, Nevada. Please note that a small portion of the requested withdraw! is currentiy withdrawn, as set forth in the application.
The withdrawal is necessary as a support location for an Air Force Communications Site on Halligan Mesa.
Sincerely
FREDOLIN W. KUHN, SES, DAF Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations)
Attachment: Application for Withdrawal of Public Land In accordance with 43 CFR EjEj 23 10.1-2(c) and 23 10.4, the Department of the Air Force submits the following information.
(1) Commander
Col Gerald Sawyer Commander, 99thAir Base Wing Nellis AFB, NV
(2) The Secretary of the Air Force requests the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior take appropriate action to withdraw the described parcel of land. This parcel is a combination of a currently existing withdrawal and a new withdrawal of public land as firther described in this application.
(3) Not applicable
(4) This application is for the withdrawal of public lands from settlement, sale, lease, location, or entry under the public land laws, including the mining laws. The Air Force believes all currently existing authorized rights of entry on the described parcel are compatible with the described use and will continue. This parcel is in close proximity to the Nellis Range Complex. The currently existing withdrawn parcel is the location of a support facility for an Air Force communications site located on Halligan Mesa. The communications site and its support facility are necessary for the safe and secure operation of national defense activities on the Nellis Range Complex.
(5) Description. This description completely encompasses the currently existing withdrawn parcel. The currently withdrawn parcel is described at Exhibit 2 for reference only and was described as "Parcel A" under lblic Land Order 6591 (effective 12 April 1985 and extending to 12 April 2005).
Description of Requested withdrawal: From the northwest corner of section 12, T. 5 N., R. 50 E.,
Proceed southeast 1,874.1 feet on a bearing of 155"48'00" to starting point;
Thence southeast 5351.2 feet on a bearing of 122O54'00";
Thence northeast 15,530.3 feet on a bearing of 33" 18'00';
Thence northwest 5,55 1.2 feet on a bearing of 302O54'OO";
Thence southwest 15,530.3 feet on a bearing of 213'1 8'00" to point of beginning, excepting Ty bo Road.
The above lands contain 1979 acres more or less. See Exhibit I for a map of the described parcel 6) The Bureau of Land Management withdrew a portion of this parcel by Public Land Order 6591, effective 12 April 1985. The currently withdrawn portion of this parcel was described therein as "Parcel A."
(7) The purpose of the withdrawal is to ensure the continued operation and support of the Air Force Communications Site currently located on Halligan Mesa. The requested withdrawal is the location of the support facility for this communications site. The communications site and its support facility are necessary for safe and secure operation of national defense activities on the Nellis Range Complex.
(8) All of the lands applied for are to be withieid fbrn settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws and fiom location and entry under the United States mining laws. During the segregative period, no settlement, sale, location, or entry should be permitted. The maximum segregative period of 2 years is requested.
(9) Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, or discretionary land use authorizations will not be permitted during the segregative period.
(10) The use of a right-of-way, interagency, or cooperative agreement would not adequately constrain incompatible uses of the described land. Such incompatible use would threaten the current operation and support of the Air Force Communications Site on Halligan Mesa and thereby threaten the safe and secure operation of national defense activities on the Nellis Range Complex.
(1 1) The duration of the withdrawal requested is for 20 years. Before the end of that period, a re- evaluation will be made concerning the desirability of extending the withdrawal.
(12) There are no suitable alternative sites. A portion of this parcel is currently withdrawn by Public Land Order 6591 and described therein as "Parcel A." The enlarged area is necessary for increased tempo of operations, safety issues, and support necessary for the Air Force Communications Site on Halligan Mesa. Increased facility size is a necessary component to the increased operational tempo, safety issues, and support requirements. Denial of this application would entail substantial public expense and would threaten the safe and secure operation of military activities on the Nellis Range Complex.
(1 3) No new water rights will be needed to fidfill the purpose of this withdrawal.
(14) Interested parties may examine records relating to this application at the following location:
Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office 850 Harvard Way Reno, NV. 89520 Appendix B
Soil Profile Descriptions for Base Camp Nye County, Nevada. Cirac series; Coarse-loamy, mixed (calcareous), mesic Typic Tonifluvent
The Cirac series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in mixed alluvium. Cirac soils are on alluvia! flats. Slopes are 0 to 4 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 6 inches and mean annual temperature is about 54 F O.
A4to 4 inches; pale brown (IOYR 613) sandy loam, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; moderate medium platy structure; soft, very friable, slightly sticky and nonplastic; many very fine and fine vesicular pores; slightly effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6); clear smooth boundary.
GI- 4 to 8 inches; Light yellowish brown (1OYR 6/4j Ioarn, dark yellowish brown (IOYR 44) moist; massive; soft, very friable, slightly sticky and nonplastic; common very fine and fine roots; common very fine vesicular pores; strongly effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.4); clear smooth boundary.
C2-8 to1 1 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 614) silt loam, dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) moist; massive; soft, very friable, slightly sticky and nonplastic; common very fine and fine roots; common very fine vesicular pores; strongly effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.4); clear smooth boundary.
C3-11 to 60 inches; pale brown (IOYR 6/3) stratified silt loam to sand, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; massive; soft, very tkiable, slightly sticky and nonplastic; common very fine and fine roots; common very fine tubular pores; strongly effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.4).
Keefa series; Coarse-loamy, mixed, rnesic Duric Camborthid
Keefa soils consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in mixed a!luvium. Keefa soils are on fans and fan skirts. Slopes are 0 to 8 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 6 inches and mean annual temperature is about 54 F O.
A14to 3 inches; pale brown (10YR 613) gravelly sandy loam, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; moderate mediuin platy structure; soft, very friable, slightly sticky and nonplastic; many very fine and fine vesicular pores; 15 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary.
A2-3 to 7 inches; pale brown (1OYR 613) sandy loam, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; moderate medium platy structure; soft, very friable, slightly sticky and nonplastic; few very fine roots ; many very fine and fine vesicular pores; 5 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary.
Bw-7 to 15 inches; very pale brown (1 OYR 714) sandy loam, yellott ish brown (1 OYR 5'4) moist; moderate fine subangular blocky structure; soft, slightly hard, fiiable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine and fine roots; fine tubular pores; 10 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary. Bk-15 to 26 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; massive; soft, very friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; common fine roots; few fine tubular pores very soft lime masses; 15 percent pebbles, 5 percent cobbles; violently effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 9.0); clear smooth boundary.
Bqk-26 to 60 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 614) gravelly sandy loam, dark yellowish brown (IOYR 414) moist; massive; hard, firm, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few fine roots ;few fine tubular pores; 45 percent durinodes; 25 percent pebbles, 5 percent cobbles; strongly effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6).
Koyen series; Coarse-loamy, mixed mesic Typic Camborthid
Koyen soils consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in mixed alluvium derived dominantly from volcanic rocks. Koyen soils are on fan piedmonts and fan skirts. Slopes are 0 to 8 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 6 inches and mean annual temperature is about 53 F O.
A14 to 1 inch; pale brown (10YR 613) gravelly sandy loam, brown (10YR 413) moist; weak medium platy structure; soft, very fkiable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; many very fine interstitial pores pores; 15 percent pebbles; moderately alkaline (pH 8.2); abrupt smooth boundary.
A2-1 to 4 inch; very pale brown (IOYR 613) gravelly sandy loam, brown (10YR 4/3) moist; weak medium platy structure; soft, very fkiable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; many very fine interstitial pores pores; 15 percent pebbles; moderately alkaline (pH 8.2); abrupt smooth boundary.
Bw-4 to 16 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4) gravelly sandy loam, dark yellowish brown (10YR 414) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; soft, slightly hard, very fkiable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; common fine tubular pores; 20 percent pebbles; moderately alkaline (pH 8.4); clear smooth boundary.
Bk-16 to 35 inches; pale brown (IOYR 613) gravelly sandy loam, brown (IOYR 413) moist; massive; slightly hard, very fiiable, nonsticky and nonplastic; common very fine and fine roots; few fine tubuiar pores; soft lime masses; 25 percent pebbles, 5 percent cobbles; strongly effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6); clear smooth boundary.
2C-35 to 60 inches; very pale brown (10YR 713) very gravelly sandy loam, brown (IOYR 413) moist; massive; soft, very friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; common fine roots; 40 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6). Slaw series; Fine-silty, mixed (calcareous), mesic Typic Torrifluvent
The Slaw soil series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium from mixed sources. Slaw soils are on alluvial flats, lake plains, and stream terraces. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 5 inches and mean annual temperature is about 54 F O.
A4to 3 inches; pale brown (IOYR 6/3) silty clay loam, brown (10YR 413) moist; strong very fine granular structure; soft, very friable, sticky and plastic; few very fine roots; many very fine and fine interstitial and common very fine vesicular pores; 1 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6); clear smooth boundary.
A2-3 to 9 inches; pale brown (1OYEP 613) silty clay loam, brown (1OYR 4/3) moist; strong coarse subangular blocky structure; hard, friable, sticky and plastic; common very fine, fine and medium roots; many very fine and few fine tubular and few very fine interstitial pores; 1 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 9.0); clear smooth boundary.
GI- 9 to 14 inches; pale brown (IOYR 613) silty clay loam, brown (10YR 4/3) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; hard, fkiable, sticky and plastic; common very fine, fine and medium roots; many very fine tabular and few very fine interstitial pores; 1 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.2); clear smooth boundary.
C2- 14 to 24 inches; pale brown (10YR 613) silty clay loam, brown (10YR 4/3) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; hard, fkiable, sticky and plastic; few very fine and fine roots; many very fine and few fine tubular pores; 1 percent pebbles; violently effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.2); clear smooth boundary.
C3- 24 to 33 inches; pale brown (IOYR 613) silty clay loam, brown (10YR 4/3) moist; strong medium subangular blocky structure; hard, fkiable, sticky and plastic; few very fine and fine roots; common very fine tubular and interstitial pores; I percent pebbles; violently effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.0); clear smooth boundary.
C4- 33 to 44 inches; pale brown (10YR 613) silty clay loam, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; hard, fiiable, sticky and plastic; few very fine and fme roots; common very fine tubular and interstitial pores; 1 percent pebbles; violently effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.2); gradual smooth boundary.
2C5- 44 to 54 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 614) silty clay to very fine sandy ioam; dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) moist; 10 percent pockets of dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/6) moist; fine sandy loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; hard, friable, very sticky and very plastic; few very fine roots; many very fine interstitial pores; 1 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.2); clear smooth boundary.
33-44 to 60 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 614) silty clay to very fine sandy loam; dark yellowish brown (10YR 414) moist; massive; hard, friable, sticky and plastic; many very fine interstitial pores; 1 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.2). Unsel Series; Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Duric Haplargid
Unsel soils consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in mixed alluvium. Unsel soils are on fan remnants. Slopes are O to 8 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 6 inches and mean annual temperature is about 53 F O.
A14 to 2 inches; pale brown (IOYR 6/3) gravelly sandy loam, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; weak thin platy structure; soft, very friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few fine roots; many fine and medium vesicular pores; 30 percent pebbles; slightly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.2); abrupt smooth boundary.
A2-2 to 4 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3) gravelly loam, brown (IOYR 413) moist; moderate medium platy structure; slightly hard, very friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; common fine very fine roots; common fine and medium vesicular pores; 30 percent pebbles; slightly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.2); abrupt smooth boundary.
Bt-4 to 11 inches; yellowish brown (IOYR 514) gravelly clay loam, dark grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; slightly haid, fiiable, sticky and plastic; many very fine, common fine and medium roots; common fine and medium tubular pores; common thin and moderately thick clay films on facesof peds and lining pores; 25 percent pebbles; strongly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.2); abrupt wavy boundary.
Bqkl-1 1 to 16 inches; light brownish gray (IOYR 61'2) gravelly sandy loam, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; massive; hard, firm, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; common fine roots; few fine and medium tubular pores; 30 percent discontinuous strong silica cemented strata with discontinuous laminae; iime and silica coatings on undersides of pebbles; 30 percent pebbles, violently effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6); clear wavy boundary.
Bqk2-16 to 34 inches; light gray (IOYR 712) gravelly sandy loam, grayish brown (lOYR 5/2) moist; massive; hard, firm, nonsticky and nonplastic; common fine, few medium roots; 30 percent discontinuous stronp silica cementedstrata withdiscontinuous laminae; lime and silica coatings on undersides of pebbles; 30 percent pebbles; violently effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6) clear wavy boundary.
2C-34 to 60 inches; pale brown (IOYR 6/31 extremely gravelly sand, brown (IOYR 4/3) moist; massive; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; few medium roots; 60 percent pebbles; slightly effervescent; strongly alkaline (pH 8.6). Appendix @
Major Chemistry Data available for Hot Creek Valley Water Sources - Name location Date TempC pH EC TDS Ca Mg Na K COt CI SO, Reference - -- - I ONiS I E-34dcc. Eltee I98 1 I ON/S I E- Wcc Ertec 1981 I ON15 1 634dcc Ertec I98 1 I ON/5 1634dcc Ertec 1981 I ONf5 1634dcc Ertec I98 1 1 0N/S 1 E36bab Em1981 9Ni5 1 E.-8bn Ertec 1981 9Ni5 I E-22aab Ertec 1981 9Nl5 1 E-22aab Ertec 1981 9N/5 1 E22aab Ertec 1981 9N/S 1 E3Jdcb Edec 1981 8N/4YE-2 1 cclc Eaec 1981 8N/49G24d Enec I98 1 8N/49E-25k Em1981 8N/SOLi,.12cdd Ertec 1981 8NiiOE-29d Ertec 1981 8NiSOE-29dda Ertec 1981 SN/50&29d& Ertec 1981 8N/50E-33ba Ertec 1981 8NLSOE-33ba Ertec 1981 8NlSOE-33bab Erttx 1981 8N/50B33bk Erttx 1981 8Nf51Glhc Em1981 8NiS 1 E- l bcb Erttx 1981 INIS 1 E- 1 bcb I Ertec 198 1 8N6I E-lhcbl Ertec 1981 8NiS1 E-l bchl Ertec 1981 - Name location Depth Date TempC pH EC TDS Ca Mg Na K CO, HCOl CI SO4 Reference
8Ni5 1 E- l bcbl Ertec I98 1 IN15 t E-l bcbl Ertec 1981 8N/51blkbl Ertw: 1981 8N15 I E- 1 kbl Ertec 1981 8N/S IElbcbl Em1981 8Nl51 E-l bcbl EFtec 1981 8N/SIF-lbec Ertee I98 1 8N1S I E-Sbab Ertec 1981 8N/5 I E-34c Ertec 1981 8N15 1 t-34cac Ertee 1981 8N/5 1 E,-34cac Ertec 1981 7N/50E 19dc~ Ertec 1981 7NIiOE- 19dcc Ertec 1981 7NiSOE-23d Ertec 1981 CI7 7N/5 1 E-Paa Ertec 1981 cd 7Ni5 1 E- load1 Ertec 1981 7NJ5 1 E- 10ad l Ertec 1981 7NI5 1 k-1Oad 1 Em1981 7N/5 1 E- 10ad l Ertec 1981 7N/52E-I9dad Em1981 7Nl52E-31bhd Ertec 1981 6Nl49E-1?bad Ertec 1981 6N/49E- 14ccci Ertec 1981 6N/50E-l0bh Em1981 6NROE-27acl Ertec 1981 6N150E-27x1 Ertec 1981 6Nl5 1 55Md Ertec 1981 6NJ51E-15al Ertec I98 1 6NI5 I E-22bab Ertec I98 1 -- -- Name location Depth Date TempC pH EC TDS Ca Mg Na K CO, HCOr CI SO, Reference
Ertec 1981 Ertec 1981 Ertee 1981 Ertec 1981 Ertec 1981 Ertec 1981 Ertec 1981 Rush 1966 Pohln~ann1999 Pohlnlann 1999 Pohlnlann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlnlann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohhnann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlrnann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmam 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Pohlmann 1999 Name location Depth Date TernpC pH 1-iC TDS Ca Mg Na K CO, HCQ Cl SO, Reference ------tic-l -P-ZSK 2% 05/24/93 -- 986 277 -- 14 022 599 132 389 58 7 6 16 6 Pohlmann 1999 485 05/24/93 -- 9 86 282 - 18 022 616 115 411 536 5 21 1 Pohlmann I999 485 10/23/97 192 972 281 - 169
Other General Chemistry Data Available for Hot Creek Valley Water Sources -
Narnehocation Depth Date F NO3 B Fe Mn SAR Reference
1ON15 1E-34dcc Ertec 1981 1ON15 1E-34dcc Ertec 1981 1ON15 1E-34dcc Ertec 198 1 1ON15 1E-34dcc Ertec 1981 1ON/5 1E-34dcc Ertec 198 1 10N/5I E-36bab Ertec 1981 9Nl5 1E-8ba Ertec 198 1 9Nl5 1E-22mb Ertec 1981 9Nl5 1E-22mb Ertec 1981 9Nl5 1E-22aab Ertec 1981 9Nl5 1E-34dcb Ertec 198 1 8Nl49E-21 cdc Ertec 1981 8N/49E-24d Ertec 1981 8Nl49E-25ba Ertec 1981 8Nl50E- 12cdd Ertec 198 1 8Nl50E-29d Ertec 1981 8Nl50E-29dda Ertec 1981 8Nl50E-29dda Ertec 1981 8Nl50E-33ba Ertec 1981 8Nl50E-33ba Ertec 1981 8N/50E-33bab Ertec 1981 8Nl50E-33bba Ertec 1981 8Nl51E-lbc Ertec 1981 8N/5 I E- 1bcb Ertec 1981 8N15 1E- 1bcb 1 Ertec 1981 8Nl5lE-lbcbl Ertec 1981 8N15lE-lbcbl Ertec 1981 8Nl5 1E- 1bcb 1 Ertec 1981 8N15 1E- 1 bcb 1 Ertec 198 1 8Nl5 1E-lbcbl Ertec 1981 8N15 1E- I bcb 1 Ertec 1981 8Nl51E-lbcbl Ertec 1981 8Nl5 1E- 1bcb 1 Ertec 1981 8N15 1E- 1bcc Ertec 1981 8N/5 1E-5bab Ertec 1981 8N/5 1E-34~ Ertec 1 98 1 8N15 1 E-34cac Ertec 1981 8N)5 1E-34cac Ertec 1981 7NJ50E-19dcc Ertec 1 98 1 Namekocation Depth Date F NO3 B Fe A/fn SAR Reference
-
7N/5OE-l9dcc Ertec 198 1 7N150E-23d Ertec 1981 7N/5 1E-9aa Ertec 1981 7N/5 1E-10adl Ertec 1981 7N/5 1E- 1Oad 1 Ertec 198 1 7N/51E-l0adl Ertec 1981 7N151E-IOadI Ertec 1981 7N/52E- 19dad Ertec 1981 7N152E-3 1bbd Ertec 1981 6NI49E- 13bad Ertec 198 1 6N/49E- 14ccd Ertec 1981 6NI50E-lObb Ertec I98 1 6N/50E-27ac 1 Ertec 1981 6N150E-27ac 1 Ertec 1981 6N/5 1E-5 bdd Ertec 1981 6N15 1E-15al Ertec 198 1 6N/5 1E-22bab Ertec 198 1 5Nl5 1E-7bdb Ertec 1981 5N/5 1E- 11 C~C Ertec 1981 5N/5 1E- 19bcd Ertec 1981 4N150E-20~1 Ertec 1981 4Nl50E-20ccb Ertec 1981 4Nl5 1E-13bbd Ertec 1981 4N/5 1E-13dl Ertec 198 1 4N/5 1E-2% 1 Rush 1966 HTH- 1 Pohlmann* Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann HTW-2 Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann Pohlmann NameLocation Depth Date F NO3 B Fe SAR Reference
UC- 1-P- 1S 91 05/23/93 -- 1.33 ------1.24 Pohlmann 150 10/27/97 -- 1.33 ------1.22 Pohlmann 229 05/23/93 -- 1.37 ------1.24 Pohimann 229 10/27/97 -- 1.02 ------1.16 Pohlrnann UC-1-P-2SR 238 05/24/93 -- c.04 ------12.42 Pohlmann 485 05/24/93 -- <.04 ------11.54 PohImmn 485 10/23/97 -- 0.09 ------12.67 Pohlmann 575 10123197 -- 0.04 ------13.34 Pohlmann 668 05/24/93 -- <.04 ------13.1 1 Pohlmann *Pohlmann, 1999. Units for all chemical data are presented as parts per million (ppm). Appendix E
Selected Springs in Hot Creek Valley, Nye County, Nevada Spring Name ~ocation' use2 ~em~erature~ is charge^ Occurrence
Warm alluvium, fault Twin alluvium, bedrock constriction Keystone limestone (?), fault Blue Jay alluvium, fault Lower Rattlesnake volcanic, stratigraphic contact
volcanic, stratigraphy, fault Upper Warm volcanic, fault (?) Dugan Place limestone, fault Upper Hot Creek shale, fault Morey Mine not indicated
South Canyon alluvium, fault Hobble Canyon alluvium, bedrock constriction Moores Station water table interception Moores Station #2 water table interception Pritchards Station volcanic, bedrock constriction
Hicks volcanic, bedrock constriction
Public land survey locations from Rush and Everette (1966) and Fiero, Mindling, and Illian (1969). Uses: S = stock; I = irrigation; D = domestic; na = information not available 'Temperature reported in degrees F; discharge reported in gpm. Appendix F
Summary of Hot Creek Valley Nevada Water Rights, September 2003 Permit Certificate Reserved Vested Total
Total Source SP~ Str Ug Lak Osw Use 0th MM Stk Irr Ind Dom QM Duty (afa) afa = acre-feeffannum MM = milling and mining Spr = spring Dom = domestic Osw = other surface water Stk = stock Irr = imgation 0th = other Str = stream Ind = industrial Qm - quasi-municipal Ug = underground Lak = lake Appendix G
Plant Survey Methods and Species Lists Visual estin r2 = 0.754,
Density-Based Cover Estimate (%) Correlation of measured total perennial plant percent cover versus visual estimates.
Perennial shrub diversity, frequency, percent mortality, percent total cover and mean canopy area within the proposed Base Camp withdrawal.
Canopy area Shrub Species Frequency (%) Mortality (%) Cover (%) / (m2/plant) Artemisia spinescens spiny budsage
Atriplex confertifolia shadscale
Krascheninnikovia lanata winter fat Ericameria cooperi Cooper's goldenbush
I green rabbitbrush I Chrysothmnus nauseosus Rubber rabbitbrush Sueda moquinii Seepweed
Tetradymia millis Long spine horsebrush Sarcobatus ~~emziculatw greasewood
Nr = not recorded Perennial grass, forb and succulent diversity, frequency, percent mortality, percent total cover and
Species Frequency Mortality Cover Density 1 (O/O) (%I (plan ts/mz) GRASSES
Pfeuraphisjamesii galleta grass
Achnatherum hymnoides Indian ricegrass
E(ymus elymoides squirreltail grass
Erioneuron pulchellum fluff grass 3 nr 0.02 2 0.02 nr
FORBS Cymopterus globosus biscuitroot 42 nr
Sphaeralcea ambigua glode mallow 17 nr
Mirabilis multijlora h-dock
Androstephium breviflorum Bluedicks
Cymopterus ripleyi var. ripleyi* biscuitroot
Desert marigold
Srephanomeriapauc~pora 2 wirelettuce nr
Argemone corymbosa prickly POPPY SUCCULENTS
Opuntia pulche flu sand cholla* i I i I nr = not recorded, * Listed in the Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Native and exotic annual plant species diversity, frequency and density within the proposed Base Camp withdrawal. Species Frequency (%) Density ~~lantslm? NATIVE Crv~tanthacircun~scissa 56 10.470 + 2.428 I Mentzelia albicaulis I 54 I 6.014+ 1.524 I I Erioaonzrm cernuum I 46 I 0.070 + 0.049 I 1 Cillia inconspicua I 44 1 0.41 1 t 0.201 I Chaenactisfiemontii 37 1.532 5 0.525 Eriogonum nidularum 30 2.235 2 0.565 Gilia ali~uanta 30 1.493 + 0.457 Camissonia boothii 26 0.591 + 0.186 Eriogonum dejlexum 16 1.035 2 0.500 Glv~tos~.ermamaraipata 14 0.188 + 0.098 1 Descurainia pinnata I 9 I 0.210 2 0.103 I Langlosis setosissima 9 0.256 5 0.133 Eriononum maculatum 7 0.157 + 0.086 Eriastrum sprarsijlorum 7 0.079 5 0.046 I Cryptantha nevadensis 7 0.189 cO.107 Ipomopsis demissa 7 0.132 20.071
Malacrothrin glabrata 2 0.015 0.016 All native annuals 89 25.45 5 3.58
Halogeton glomeratus 2 1 0.865 2 0.451 I All exotic annuals 63 4.07 2 0.74 nr = not recorded, * Listed in Threatened and Endangered Plants of Nevada (ivlozingo and Williams, 1980) *.. 4244000 Current withdrawal boundary / \ t -- - Proposed enlargement , .\
EAST (meters) €AST (meters)
ant Species / survey site) DENSITY (Plants1 m2) dY
0 a,...- l.. 90 100 110 ive Annual Plant Density (plantslm2)
Native Annual plant Density (plants1
Relationships between native winter annual plant densities and (A) exotic annual plant densities and (B) perennial cover. Appendix H
Endangered, Threatened and Species of Concern potentially at Base Camp Current Former Status Scientific Name Common Name status' r rend^
FLORA-VASCULAR PLANTS SOC Asclepias eastwoodiana Eastwood's milkweed SOC Cymopterus ripleyi Sanicle bisquitroot var. saniculoides SOC Camissonia megalantha Cane Spring eveningprimrose SOC Cvptantha welshi Welsh cat's-eye SOC Penstemon arenarius Dune beardtongue SOC Phacelia beateyae Beatley's scorpion weed SOC Sclerocactus blainei Blaine pincushion cactus SOC Sclerocactus schlesseri Schlesser pincushion cactus
VERTEBRATES-MMMLS SOC Corynorhinnus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat SOC Choeronycteris rnexicana Mexican long-tongue bat SOC Macrotus califonicus California leaf-nose bat soc Myotis velifer ssp brevis Southwest cave myotis SOC Euderma rnaculaturn Spotted bat SOC Eumops perotis spp californicus Greater western mastiff SOC Myotis ciliolabrum Western small footed myotis soc Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis SOC Myotis volans Long-legged myotis SOC Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis SOC Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis SOC Nyctinomops macrotis Big free-tailed bat soc Zndionycteris phyllotis Allen's brown bat
VERTEBRATES-BIRDS SOC Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl SOC Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk SOC Charadrius montanaus Mountain plover SOC Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy plover T Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon SOC Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew
INVERTEBRATES - INSECTS SOC Cercyonis pegala ssp. White River wood nymph (butterfly) 2 SOC Hesperia comma uncas ssp Railroad Valley skipper 2 SOC Limenrtus weldemeyerti nevadae Nevada admiral (butterfly) 2 SOC Pseitdocopueoces eunza emus Alkali skipper 2
I Former status refers to classification categories used by USFWS prior to 1996. ' Population trend listed in 2003 Federal Register Notice: I = improving; D = declining; S = stable; and U = Unknown