DOCSLIB.ORG

Nevada Department of Wildlife Wildlife Heritage Program Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Nevada Department of Wildlife Wildlife Heritage Program Project Summaries and State Fiscal Year 2022 Proposals Table of Contents Page Section 1: Summaries of Recently Completed 1-1 and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects Summary Table: Recently Completed and Active 1-2 Wildlife Heritage Projects Project Summaries 1-5 to 1-22 2-1 Section 2: Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for State Fiscal Year 2022 Funding 2-2 Summary Table: Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for FY22 Funding FY22 Proposals (proposal numbers from the 2-5 to 2-193 summary table are found on the upper right corner of each proposal page) Section 1: Summaries of Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects This section provides brief summaries of Wildlife Heritage projects that were recently completed during State Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and 2021. It also includes brief status reports for projects that were still active as of April 10, 2021. The table on the following pages summarizes key characteristics about each of the projects that are addressed in this section. The financial status of these projects will be updated in early June and in time to be included in the support material for the June Wildlife Heritage Committee Meeting and the Board of Commissioners meeting. 1-1 Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects (active projects and those completed during FY20 and 21; expenditure data is according to DAWN as of April 10, 2021) Heritage Project Heritage Award Dollars Spent as Number Name of Heritage Project Project Manager Amount of April 10 Status of Project 18-05 Overland Pass Pinyon and Juniper Thinning Caleb McAdoo, NDOW $150,000 $75,000 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 18-06 Goshute Mountains Springs Protection Matt Glenn, NDOW $45,000 $19,606.78 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 18-11 Cheatgrass Research Using Herbicides and a Biological Moira Kolada, NDOW $22,900 $0 Close, BLM unable to move forward Control Agent with clearances 19-07 Kern Mountain Habitat Improvement Project Moira Kolada, NDOW $30,000 $0 Completed with other funds 19-09 Bighorn Sheep Gene Transcription Analysis Nate LaHue, NDOW $84,500 $87,500 Completed 19-10 Comins Lake Boat Ramp Shane Boren, White Pine $55,000 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in CAB FY22 19-14 Cave Valley Ranch PJ Removal Project Lauren Williams, DCNR $59,674.01 $30.31 Completed 20-03 South Mountains Habitat Restoration Moira Kolada, NDOW $75,000 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-05 Egan Johnson Basin Restoration Moira Kolada, NDOW $70,000 52,190 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-06 North Cave Valley Habitat Restoration Moira Kolada, NDOW $60,157.65 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-07 Prioritizing and Protecting Natural Water Resources Cody Schroeder, NDOW $50,000 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-09 Big Game Survey Tool Cody McKee, NDOW $70,000 $41,415 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-10 Maximizing the Effectiveness of Common Raven Pat Jackson, NDOW $70,000 $68,194 Ongoing, completion expected in Removal FY22 20-12 Staheli Chaining Maintenance Project Cory Lytle, Lincoln County $75,000 $51,603 Ongoing, completion expected in CAB FY22 1-2 Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects (active projects and those completed during FY20 and 21; expenditure data is according to DAWN as of April 10, 2021) Heritage Project Project Manager Heritage Dollars Spent Number Name of Heritage Project Award Amount as of April 10 Status of Project 20-13 Blacktop Apron Guzzler Upgrade Clint Bentley, $21,400 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Fraternity of the FY22 Desert Bighorn 20-14 Mormon #3 “Prospect” Guzzler Upgrade Clint Bentley, $21,615 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Fraternity of the FY22 Desert Bighorn 20-16 Bighorn Disease Susceptibility Analysis Matthew Blackburn, $59,530 $59,530 Completed Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn 21-01 2020-2021 Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Mike Cox, NDOW $68,900 $49,619 Completed, remaining funds Capture, Transplant and Monitoring invoiced 21-02 Rocky Mountain Elk Population Monitoring and Cody McKee, NDOW $61,000.00 $61,000 Completed Harvest Validation 21-03 Marlette Lake Broodstock Facilities/Passage Travis Hawks, NDOW $100,000.00 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Improvement Project Phase 2 FY22 21-04 Wildfire-Related Restoration and Seed Purchase Lee Davis, NDOW $146,000.00 $146,000 Completed 21-05 Desert Creek Conservation Easement Shawn Espinosa, $100,000.00 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in NDOW FY22 21-06 Middle Rock Creek Habitat Improvement Matt Glenn, NDOW $125,000.00 $29,495.15 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 21-07 Continued Monitoring of Moose Expansion in Nevada Cody McKee (Kari $20,000.00 $18,323 Completed Huebner), NDOW 21-08 Snake Range Aspen Habitat Restoration Project Moira Kolada, NDOW $30,000.00 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 21-09 Toano Mountain Restoration Project Lindsey Lesmeister $66,000.00 $40,000 Completed 21-10 Egan Johnson Basin Restoration Moira Kolada $75,000.00 $0 Completed 21-11 Area 10 Mule Deer Migration Corridor Habitat $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Caleb McAdoo $50,000.00 Enhancement FY22 21-12 Toiyabe PMU (Bates, Hickison and Wolf Ranches) $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Jeremy Lutz $75,000.00 Pinyon-Juniper Thinning FY22 21-13 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in SE Schell Habitat Restoration Project Moira Kolada $75,000.00 FY22 Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects (active projects and those completed during FY20 and 21; expenditure data is according to DAWN as of April 10, 2021) 1-3 Heritage Project Project Manager Heritage Dollars Spent Number Name of Heritage Project Award Amount as of April 10 Status of Project 21-14 Cody Schroeder (Mark $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Enhancement of Crucial Habitat for Antelope and Freese, Chris $100,000.00 FY22 Mule Deer in Washoe County, Nevada Hampson) 21-15 A New Population Model for Antelope to Improve $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Accuracy, Identify Limiting Factors, and Improve Cody Schroeder $37,500.00 FY22 Management Decisions 21-16 Investigating Potential Limiting Factors Impacting $50,788 Ongoing, completion expected in Pat Jackson $65,000.00 Mule Deer in Northwest Nevada FY22 21-17 Sam Sedillo, Truckee $0 Ongoing, completion expected in East Walker River Fish Habitat Enhancement Project $11,191.00 TU (Kris Urquhart) FY22 21-18 Dr. Gail Patricelli, UC $0 Ongoing, completion expected in The Interaction Between Restoration, Foraging Davis (Shawn $65,855.00 FY22 Ecology, and Mating Behavior in Greater Sage-Grouse Espinosa) 21-19 Clint Bentley, $0 Completed, billing submitted Survey and Maintenance of Existing Big Game Water Fraternity of the $36,000.00 Developments Desert Bighorn (Sam Hughes) 21-20 Diet Quality and Composition of Mule Deer in the $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Dr. Kelly Stewart, UNR Toiyabe Mountains Following Removal of Pinyon- $32,000.00 FY22 (Cody Schroeder) Juniper 21-21 Lauren Williams, $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Cave Valley Collaboration $50,000.00 DCNR (Moira Kolada) FY22 Totals $2,409,223 $850,294 1-4 Heritage Project 18-05: Overland Pass Pinyon and Juniper Thinning The objective of this project is to thin or completely remove Pinyon-Juniper trees from identified polygons in order to promote a more healthy and biodiverse habitat for wildlife. The entire project area is 3,500 acres, where an estimated 7,000 mule deer transition through the project area twice a year. An extension is requested as additional spring fencing projects are being planned based on reallocated funding from the FY21 cycle. 1-5 Heritage Project 18-06: Goshute Mountains Springs Protection The project included the construction of a single 325-foot pipe rail fence to preclude access of wild horses to Rock Springs located in the northern portion of the Goshute Mountains. This fence was constructed as a part of a larger effort in this mountain range and the surrounding area to protect important natural water features from the negative impacts of wild horse over utilization. As natural water sources are limited in the cold desert, projects like this stand to benefit a myriad of wildlife species including but not limited to mule deer, elk, and upland bird species. An extension is requested to utilized on an additional spring protection project in the Goshute Mountains during the 2021 field season. 1-6 Heritage Project 18-11: Cheatgrass Research Using Herbicides and a Biological Control Agent This ongoing project in southern Newark Valley along the White Pine Mountain Range and in south Steptoe Valley along the Egan Mountain Range will treat eight test plots of 5 acres each to gauge the efficacy of Imazapic and Rimsulfuron in suppressing cheatgrass within post-wildfire plots. BLM has been unable to complete NEPA for this project at this time and closure of the project is requested. Heritage Project 19-07: Kern Mountain Habitat Improvement Project The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ely District, in coordination with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) identified approximately 1,100 acres of being affected by Pinyon and Juniper encroachment and eligible for treatment under the Kern Mountain Landscape Restoration Project EA. Treatment consisted of complete removal of Pinyon and Juniper within the treatment area. Islands and stringers were designed to benefit big game, upland game, and nongame species. Tree removal was completed by hand crews with the use of chainsaws. Trees were cut as close as possible to ground level with a maximum stump height of 12 inches. Cut trees were be lopped and scattered/leave. BLM received SNMPLA dollars and was able to contract out additional acres to complete this project without the use of Heritage Funds. Closure of the project is requested. Heritage Project 19-09: Bighorn Sheep Gene Transcription Analysis This project conducted immunological assays on 277 bighorn sheep within the state to assess herd susceptibility to pathogens by examining immunological response.
Recommended publications
  • Description and Correlation of Geologic Units, Cross

    Description and Correlation of Geologic Units, Cross

    Plate 2 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 135 a division of Hydrogeologic Studies and Groundwater Monitoring in Snake Valley and Utah Department of Natural Resources Adjacent Hydrographic Areas, West-Central Utah and East-Central Nevada DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS SOURCES USED FOR MAP COMPILATION UNIT CORRELATION AND UNIT CORRELATION HYDROGEOLOGIC Alluvial deposits – Sand, silt, clay and gravel; variable thickness; Holocene. Qal MDs Lower Mississippian and Upper Devonian sedimentary rocks, undivided – Best, M.G., Toth, M.I., Kowallis, B.J., Willis, J.B., and Best, V.C., 1989, GEOLOGIC UNITS UNITS Shale; consists primarily of the Pilot Shale; thickness about 850 feet in Geologic map of the Northern White Rock Mountains-Hamlin Valley area, Confining Playa deposits – Silt, clay, and evaporites; deposited along the floor of active Utah, 300–400 feet in Nevada. Aquifers Qp Beaver County, Utah, and Lincoln County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Units playa systems; variable thickness; Pleistocene through Holocene. Map I-1881, 1 pl., scale 1:50,000. D Devonian sedimentary rocks, undivided – Limestone, dolomite, shale, and Holocene Qal Qsm Qp Qea Qafy Spring and wetland related deposits – Clay, silt, and sand; variable thickness; sandstone; includes the Guilmette Formation, Simonson and Sevy Fritz, W.H., 1968, Geologic map and sections of the southern Cherry Creek and Qsm Quaternary Holocene. Dolomite, and portions of the Pilot Shale in Utah; thickness about 4400– northern Egan Ranges, White Pine County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of QTcs 4700 feet in Utah, 2100–4350 feet in Nevada. Mines Map 35, scale 1:62,500. Pleistocene Qls Qlm Qlg Qgt Qafo QTs QTfs Qea Eolian deposits – Sand and silt; deposited along valley floor margins, includes Hintze, L.H., 1963, Geologic map of Utah southwest quarter, Utah Sate Land active and vegetated dunes; variable thickness; Pleistocene through S Silurian sedimentary rocks, undivided – Dolomite; consists primarily of the Board, scale 1:250,000.
  • 51 Investigation of Nevada's 2009-2010 East Humboldt Range

    51 Investigation of Nevada's 2009-2010 East Humboldt Range

    17th Biennial Symposium Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council Investigation of Nevada’s 2009-2010 East Humboldt Range and Ruby Mountain Bighorn Dieoff CALEB MCADOO, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 60 Youth Center Road, Elko, NV 89801 PEREGRINE WOLFF, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 405 South 21st Street, Sparks, NV 89431 MIKE COX, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 1100 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512 Abstract: Coughing Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were first reported by sportsmen the second week in December 2009 in the Ruby Mountains. In late December sportsmen again reported coughing and ill bighorn sheep but this time in the adjacent East Humboldt Range approximately 30 miles from the Ruby Mountains core bighorn area. Rut-related ram movement between these 2 ranges mostly likely occurs. Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) quickly confirmed that bacterial pneumonia was present in the bighorn herds in both mountain ranges. The NDOW veterinarian and biologists developed an investigative and surveillance plan to learn the extent of the disease event, and administer an antibiotic treatment to a subgroup of animals. Objectives of the plan were to 1) compare and contrast bighorn sub-herds at different sites within the 2 mountain ranges with animals evaluated for respiratory pathogens and nutritional status (forage quality and trace mineral levels); 2) measure the benefit and effectiveness of the antibiotic Draxxin administered to bighorn sheep as measured by survival, lamb recruitment, body condition, residual lung pathology, and detected pathogens in collared and treated animals vs collared and untreated animals.; and 3) compare and contrast forage, soil, and blood and/or liver selenium levels; pathogen profiles; spring/early summer 2009 precipitation amounts; and forage quality measures among the East Humboldt Range and Ruby Mountain bighorn herds and other bighorn herds in Nevada that were captured in January 2010.
  • High-Mtn-Lakes.Pdf

    High-Mtn-Lakes.Pdf

    NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE STATEWIDE SPORT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FEDERAL AID JOB PROGRESS REPORT F-20-50 2014 RUBY MOUNTAIN & EAST HUMBOLDT HIGH MOUNTAIN LAKES NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES DIVISION ANNUAL JOB PROGRESS REPORT Table of Contents Contents Page SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 OBJECTIVES and APPROACHES ................................................................................. 2 PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................... 3 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 3 MANAGEMENT REVIEW ............................................................................................... 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 7 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES DIVISION ANNUAL JOB PROGRESS REPORT State: Nevada Project Title: Statewide Fisheries Program Job Title: Ruby Mountain and East Humboldt High Mountain Lakes Period Covered: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 SUMMARY During 2014, none of the high mountain lakes in the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range was aerially stocked with Lahontan cutthroat trout fry due to the unavailability of
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Land-Use Plan

    Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Land-Use Plan

    B2H Final EIS and Proposed LUP Amendments Appendix D—Supporting Data for Vegetation Resources Appendix D SUPPORTING DATA FOR VEGETATION RESOURCES D . 1 N O X I O U S W EEDS Noxious weeds are a subset of aggressive, non-native invasive plants that have been officially designated as detrimental to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property. Noxious weeds include all species listed on state and county noxious weed lists. Table D-1 identifies the noxious weeds potentially occurring in the vegetation resources study corridor (0.5 mile on either side of the centerline for all alternative routes). Table D-1. State- and County-Designated Noxious Weeds with Potential to Occur Oregon Scientific Name Common Name Idaho State List State List County List Peganum harmala African rue N/A A, T N/A Armenian Rubus armeniacus N/A B N/A blackberry Hedera hibernica Atlantic Ivy N/A B N/A Austrian peaweed Sphaerophysa salsula N/A B A (Malheur), B (Umatilla) or swainsonpea Acaena novae-zelandiae Biddy-biddy N/A B N/A Big-headed Centaurea macrocephala N/A N/A A (Malheur) knapweed Control (confirmed in Hyoscyamus niger Black henbane N/A A (Baker) Owyhee County) Bohemian Control (not known in Polygonum x bohemicum N/A A (Union) knotweed Owyhee County) EDRR (not known in Egeria densa Brazilian Elodea B, T N/A Owyhee County) Brownray Centaurea jacea N/A N/A A (Umatilla) knapweed Control (confirmed in A (Baker, Malheur, Solanum rostratum Buffalobur B Owyhee County) Union) Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle N/A B B (Baker), C (Malheur) Ceratocephala testiculata Bur buttercup N/A N/A C (Baker) (Ranunculus testiculatus) Buddleja davidii Butterfly bush N/A B N/A Alhagi maurorum (A.
  • Too Wild to Drill A

    Too Wild to Drill A

    TOO WILD TO DRILL A The connection between people and nature runs deep, and the sights, sounds and smells of the great outdoors instantly remind us of how strong that connection is. Whether we’re laughing with our kids at the local fishing hole, hiking or hunting in the backcountry, or taking in the view at a scenic overlook, we all share a sense of wonder about what the natural world has to offer us. Americans around the nation are blessed with incredible wildlands out our back doors. The health of our public lands and wild places is directly tied to the health of our families, communities and economy. Unfortunately, our public lands and clean air and water are under attack. The Trump administration and some in Congress harbor deep ties to fossil fuel and mining interests, and today, resource extraction lobbyists see an unprecedented opportunity to open vast swaths of our public lands. Recent proposals to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and shrink or eliminate protected lands around the country underscore how serious this threat is. Though some places are appropriate for responsible energy development, the current agenda in Washington, D.C. to aggressively prioritize oil, gas and coal production at the expense of all else threatens to push drilling and mining deeper into our wildest forests, deserts and grasslands. Places where families camp and hike today could soon be covered with mazes of pipelines, drill rigs and heavy machinery, or contaminated with leaks and spills. This report highlights 15 American places that are simply too important, too special, too valuable to be destroyed for short-lived commercial gains.
  • Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin

    Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin

    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN Prepared by John Elliott SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2004 LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN SUBMITTED BY: _______________________________________ __________ John Elliott, Supervising Fisheries Biologist Date Nevada Department of Wildlife, Eastern Region APPROVED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Richard L. Haskins II, Fisheries Bureau Chief Date Nevada Department of Wildlife _______________________________________ __________ Kenneth E. Mayer, Director Date Nevada Department of Wildlife REVIEWED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Robert Williams, Field Supervisor Date Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service _______________________________________ __________ Ron Wenker, State Director Date U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management _______________________________________ __________ Edward C. Monnig, Forest Supervisor Date Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest U.S.D.A. Forest Service TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………..1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….…2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES……………………………………………………………….…4 CURRENT STATUS……………………………………………………………………………..6 RECOVERY OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………………………19 RECOVERY ACTIONS…………………………………………………………………………21 RECOVERY ACTION PRIORITIES BY SUBBASIN………………………………………….33 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE……………………………………………………………..47
  • Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks

    Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks

    B L M U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Decision Record - Memorandum Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 3900 E. Idaho St. Elko, NV 89801 Decision Record - Memorandum Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Elko, NV This page intentionally left blank Decision Record - Memorandum iii Table of Contents _1. Owyhee Desert Sagebrush Focal Area Fuel Breaks Decision Record Memorandum ....... 1 _1.1. Proposed Decision .......................................................................................................... 1 _1.2. Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 6 _1.3. Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 7 _1.4. Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 7 _1.5. Authority ......................................................................................................................... 8 _1.6. Provisions for Protest, Appeal, and Petition for Stay ..................................................... 9 _1.7. Authorized Officer .......................................................................................................... 9 _1.8. Contact Person ...............................................................................................................
  • Growth Curve of White-Tailed Antelope Squirrels from Idaho

    Growth Curve of White-Tailed Antelope Squirrels from Idaho

    Western Wildlife 6:18–20 • 2019 Submitted: 24 February 2019; Accepted: 3 May 2019. GROWTH CURVE OF WHITE-TAILED ANTELOPE SQUIRRELS FROM IDAHO ROBERTO REFINETTI Department of Psychological Science, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho 83725, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Daytime rodent trapping in the Owyhee Desert of Idaho produced a single diurnal species: the White-tailed Antelope Squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus). I found four females that were pregnant and took them back to my laboratory to give birth and I raised their litters in captivity. Litter size ranged from 10 to 12 pups. The pups were born weighing 3–4 g, with purple skin color and with the eyes closed. Pups were successfully weaned at 60 d of age and approached the adult body mass of 124 g at 4 mo of age. Key Words.—Ammospermophilus leucurus; Great Basin Desert; growth; Idaho; Owyhee County The White-tailed Antelope Squirrel (Ammo- not differ significantly (t = 0.715, df = 10, P = 0.503). spermophilus leucurus; Fig. 1) is indigenous to a large After four months in the laboratory (after parturition and segment of western North America, from as far north lactation for the four pregnant females), average body as southern Idaho and Oregon (43° N) to as far south mass stabilized at 124 g (106–145 g). as the tip of the Baja California peninsula (23° N; Belk The four pregnant females were left undisturbed and Smith 1991; Koprowski et al. 2016). I surveyed a in individual polypropylene cages with wire tops (36 small part of the northernmost extension of the range cm length, 24 cm width, 19 cm height).
  • Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013

    Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013

    Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013 Prepared by the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership Baker, Nevada i ii Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan September 23, 2011 Plans prepared previously by several National Heritage Areas provided inspiration for the framework and format for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan. National Park Service staff and documents provided guidance. We gratefully acknowledge these contributions. This Management Plan was made possible through funding provided by the National Park Service, the State of Nevada, the State of Utah and the generosity of local citizens. 2011 Great Basin National Heritage Area Disclaimer Restriction of Liability The Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership (GBHAP) and the authors of this document have made every reasonable effort to insur e accuracy and objectivity in preparing this plan. However, based on limitations of time, funding and references available, the parties involved make no claims, promises or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this document and expressly disclaim liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this plan. No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed or statutory, including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third party rights, title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, is given with respect to the contents of this document or its references. Reference in this document to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm or corporation name is for the inf ormation and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GBHAP or the authors.
  • Cretaceous and Eocene U-Pb Zircon Migmatite Ages from the East Humboldt Range Metamorphic Core Complex, Nevada

    Cretaceous and Eocene U-Pb Zircon Migmatite Ages from the East Humboldt Range Metamorphic Core Complex, Nevada

    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 5-1-2013 Cretaceous and Eocene U-Pb Zircon Migmatite Ages from the East Humboldt Range Metamorphic Core Complex, Nevada Jordan Drew University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Geology Commons, and the Volcanology Commons Repository Citation Drew, Jordan, "Cretaceous and Eocene U-Pb Zircon Migmatite Ages from the East Humboldt Range Metamorphic Core Complex, Nevada" (2013). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1820. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/4478229 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRETACEOUS AND EOCENE U-PB ZIRCON MIGMATITE AGES FROM THE EAST HUMBOLDT RANGE METAMORPHIC CORE COMPLEX, NEVADA By Jordan Drew Bachelor of Arts University of Kentucky 2009 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
  • STATE of NEVADA Brian Sandoval, Governor

    STATE of NEVADA Brian Sandoval, Governor

    STATE OF NEVADA Brian Sandoval, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director GAME DIVISION Brian F. Wakeling, Chief Mike Cox, Big Game Staff Biologist Pat Jackson, Carnivore Staff Biologist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer Staff Biologist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region Regional Supervisors Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Travis Allen Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Clint Garrett Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Matt Jeffress Ed Partee Kari Huebner Jason Salisbury Jeremy Lutz Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Scott Roberts Cover photo credit: Mike Cox This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following: Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500 via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 2017-2018 BIG GAME STATUS This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S.
  • Kane County, Utah Resource Management Plan

    Kane County, Utah Resource Management Plan

    Kane County Resource Management Plan Adopted 28 November 2011 KANE COUNTY, UTAH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN For the Physical Development of the Unincorporated Area Pursuant to Section 17-27-301 of the Utah Code ADOPTED 28 NOVEMBER 2011 Should any part of the Kane County Resource Management Plan be determined invalid, no longer applicable or need modification, those changes shall affect only those parts of the Plan that are deleted, invalidated or modified and shall have no effect on the remainder of the Resource Management Plan. This document was prepared by the Division of Community and Economic Development of the Five County Association of Governments under the guidance and direction of the Kane County Resource Development Committee, Kane County Land Use Authority and the Board of County Commissioners. Funding used to prepare this document came from Kane County contributions, a Regional Planning grant from the Utah Permanent Community Impact Board and a Planning and Technical Assistance Grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. - 1 - Kane County Resource Management Plan Adopted 28 November 2011 Acknowledgments Every effective planning process includes a multitude of individuals if it is to be successful. This effort is no different. Many individuals have had an impact upon the preparation and adoption of this Plan. However, most important are the residents of Kane County, who have responded to surveys, interviews, and attended public meetings and hearings. All who did so should be commended for their desire to be a participant in determining the future of Kane County. Some specific individuals and groups have had intensive involvement in the Kane County planning process, and are acknowledged below: Kane County Commission Kane County Land Use Authority Doug Heaton, Chairman Shannon McBride, Land Use Administrator Dirk Clayson Tony Chelewski, Chairman Jim Matson Roger Chamberlain Wade Heaton Kane County Staff Robert Houston Verjean Caruso, Co.