DOCSLIB.ORG

NI 43-101 Technical Report Mineral Resource Estimate Bullfrog Gold Project Nye County, Nevada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NI 43-101 Technical Report Mineral Resource Estimate Bullfrog Gold Project Nye County, Nevada BULLFROG GOLD CORP. 897 QUAIL RUN DRIVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 PHONE: 970-628-1670 NI 43-101 Technical Report Mineral Resource Estimate Bullfrog Gold Project Nye County, Nevada Document: 910557-REP-R0001-01 EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2017 ISSUE DATE: August 9, 2017 PREPARED BY: Rex Bryan, PhD – Registered SME Member 350 Indiana Street, Suite 500 | Golden, CO 80401 Phone: 303-217-5700 | Fax: 303-217-5705 NI 43-101 Technical Report Mineral Resource Estimate Bullfrog Gold Project, Nye County, Nevada TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Location, Property Description & Ownership ..................................................................... 1 1.2 Geology & Mineralization ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Exploration, Drilling, Sampling & QA/QC ............................................................................ 3 1.3.1 Exploration ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3.2 Drilling ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.3 Sampling ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.4 QA/QC ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Mineral Processing & Metallurgical Testing ....................................................................... 4 1.5 Mineral Resource Estimation .............................................................................................. 5 1.6 Interpretations & Conclusions ............................................................................................ 7 1.7 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 8 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Units of Measure ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... 10 3. RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ............................................................................................................... 11 4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ............................................................................................... 12 4.1 NPX Assignment of Lands .................................................................................................. 19 4.2 Mojave Gold Option .......................................................................................................... 20 4.3 Barrick Bullfrog Inc. Lease & Option ................................................................................. 20 4.4 Lunar Landing Lease .......................................................................................................... 20 4.5 Other Property Considerations ......................................................................................... 21 4.6 Environmental and Permitting .......................................................................................... 21 4.7 Significant Risk Factors ..................................................................................................... 22 5. ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ......................... 23 5.1 Accessibility ....................................................................................................................... 23 5.2 Physiography, Climate and Vegetation ............................................................................. 23 5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure .................................................................................. 24 6. HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................. 25 7. GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ....................................................................................... 27 7.1 Regional Geology .............................................................................................................. 27 7.2 Local and Property Geology .............................................................................................. 28 7.2.1 Cenozoic Rocks ....................................................................................................................... 31 7.2.2 Pre-14 Ma Rocks..................................................................................................................... 31 7.2.3 14 to 11 Ma Rocks .................................................................................................................. 32 7.2.4 Post 11 Ma to 7.6 Ma Rocks .................................................................................................. 34 7.2.5 10.6-10.0 Ma Rainbow Mountain Sequence (Trm; Tr11-16 and other units) ..................... 35 7.3 Deposit Geology ................................................................................................................ 37 August 2017 i NI 43-101 Technical Report Mineral Resource Estimate Bullfrog Gold Project, Nye County, Nevada 7.4 Mineralization and Veining ............................................................................................... 38 7.4.1 Bullfrog Deposit ..................................................................................................................... 38 7.4.2 Montgomery-Shoshone Deposit ............................................................................................ 39 8. DEPOSIT TYPES ....................................................................................................................................... 41 9. EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................................................ 42 9.1 M-S Area ........................................................................................................................... 42 9.1.1 North-East Extension .............................................................................................................. 42 9.1.2 Down-Dip Polaris Vein ............................................................................................................ 42 9.1.3 South Montgomery ................................................................................................................ 43 9.1.4 East ......................................................................................................................................... 44 9.1.5 Deep Potential ........................................................................................................................ 44 9.1.6 Proposed Drilling .................................................................................................................... 45 9.2 Bullfrog and Mystery Hill Areas ........................................................................................ 47 9.3 West Bonanza Mountain .................................................................................................. 48 9.4 Western Exploration Targets ............................................................................................ 48 9.4.1 Rush Fault-Box Canyon .......................................................................................................... 48 9.4.2 Ransome Fault ........................................................................................................................ 48 9.4.3 Original Bullfrog Mine ............................................................................................................ 49 10. DRILLING ................................................................................................................................................ 50 11. SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ................................................................................ 52 11.1 St. Joe Minerals ................................................................................................................. 53 11.1.1 RC Drilling ............................................................................................................................... 53 11.1.2 Core Drilling ............................................................................................................................ 53 11.1.3 Transport and Security ........................................................................................................... 54 11.1.4 Duplicates ............................................................................................................................... 54 11.1.5 Field Duplicates ...................................................................................................................... 54 11.1.6 Visible Gold Sampling Protocol .............................................................................................. 54 11.1.7 Blanks .....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Weiss Et Al, 1995) This Paper Disputes the Interpretation of Castor Et Al
    EVALUATION OF THE GEOLOGIC RELATIONS AND SEISMOTECTONIC STABILITY OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN AREA NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE SITE INVESTIGATION (NNWSI) PROGRESS REPORT 30 SEPTEMBER 1995 CENTER FOR NEOTECTONIC STUDIES MACKAY SCHOOL OF MINES UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO DISTRIBUTION OF ?H!S DOCUMENT IS UKLMTED DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document CONTENTS SECTION I. General Task Steven G. Wesnousky SECTION II. Task 1: Quaternary Tectonics John W. Bell Craig M. dePolo SECTION III. Task 3: Mineral Deposits Volcanic Geology Steven I. Weiss Donald C. Noble Lawrence T. Larson SECTION IV. Task 4: Seismology James N. Brune Abdolrasool Anooshehpoor SECTION V. Task 5: Tectonics Richard A. Schweickert Mary M. Lahren SECTION VI. Task 8: Basinal Studies Patricia H. Cashman James H. Trexler, Jr. DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Plate 1 117° 116°
    U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5175 U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of Energy Plate 1 117° 116° Monitor Range White River Valley Hot Creek Valley 5,577 (1,700) Warm Springs Railroad Valley 6 5,000 4,593 (1,400) Stone Cabin Valley Quinn Canyon Range Tonopah 5,577 (1,700) Ralston Valley NYE COUNTY 4,921 (1,500) LINCOLN COUNTY Big Smoky Valley 5,249 (1,600) 38° 38° 5,906 (1,800) 5,249 (1,600) Ralston Valley Coal Valley 5,249 (1,600) Kawich Range 4,265 (1,300) 4,921 (1,500) 5,249 (1,600) 6,234 (1,900) 5,577 (1,700) 4,921 (1,500) Railroad Valley South CACTUS FLAT 5,200 | 200 Cactus Range Penoyer Valley Goldfield 5,249 (1,600) 3,800 | 3,800 4,921 (1,500) Clayton Valley 3,609 (1,100) Rachel Sand Spring Valley 5,249 (1,600) 5,577 (1,700) Sarcobatus Flat North Kawich Valley 4,593 (1,400) 5,600 | 5,600 93 Pahranagat Valley 4,921 4,593 (1,400) 4,593 (1,400)5,249 3,937 (1,200)4,265 (1,300) Gold Flat Pahranagat Range 4,921 (1,500) Pahute Mesa–Oasis Valley 6,300 | 5,900 Belted Range Alamo 4,265 (1,300) 4,593 (1,400) 3,609 (1,100) Scottys Emigrant Valley Junction Black Pahute Mesa Nevada National Mountain Security Site 3,281 (1,000) NYE COUNTY Sarcobatus Flat ESMERALDA COUNTY ESMERALDA Rainier Mesa 3,937 (1,200) Yucca Flat Timber Death Valley North Mountain 4,000 | 4,000 Yucca Flat Sarcobatus Flat South Oasis Valley subbasin Grapevine 37° 37° Springs area 1,900 | 1,900 4,265 Grapevine Mountains Bullfrog Hills 2,297 (700) 100 | 100 3,937 (1,200) Ash Meadows 20,50020,500 |
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 3-72. Groundwater Usage in Nevada in 2000. (Source: DIRS 175964-Lopes and Evetts 2004, P
    AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – CALIENTE RAIL ALIGNMENT Figure 3-72. Groundwater usage in Nevada in 2000. (Source: DIRS 175964-Lopes and Evetts 2004, p. 7.) There are a number of published estimates of perennial yield for many of the hydrographic areas in Nevada, and those estimates often differ by large amounts. The perennial-yield values listed in Table 3-35 predominantly come from a single source, the Nevada Division of Water Planning (DIRS 103406-Nevada Division of Water Planning 1992, for Hydrographic Regions 10, 13, and 14); therefore, the table does not show a range of values for each hydrographic area. In the Yucca Mountain area, the Nevada Division of Water Planning identifies a combined perennial yield for hydrographic areas 225 through 230. DOE obtained perennial yields from Data Assessment & Water Rights/Resource Analysis of: Hydrographic Region #14 Death Valley Basin (DIRS 147766-Thiel 1999, pp. 6 to 12) to provide estimates for hydrographic areas the Caliente rail alignment would cross: 227A, 228, and 229. That 1999 document presents perennial-yield estimates from several sources. Table 3-35 lists the lowest (that is, the most conservative) values cited in that document, which is consistent with the approach DOE used in the Yucca Mountain FEIS (DIRS 155970-DOE 2002, p. 3-136). DOE/EIS-0369 3-173 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – CALIENTE RAIL ALIGNMENT Table 3-35 also summarizes existing annual committed groundwater resources for each hydrographic area along the Caliente rail alignment. However, all committed groundwater resources within a hydrographic area might not be in use at the same time. Table 3-35 also includes information on pending annual duties within each of these hydrographic areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Basin 14-230
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES JASON KING, P.E. STATE ENGINEER AMARGOSA DESERT HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN 14-230 GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE INVENTORY WATER YEAR 2015 Field Investigated by: Tracy Geter Report Prepared by: Tracy Geter TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 1 HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN SUMMARY ................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................................................................................. 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................. 3 GROUNDWATER LEVELS ....................................................................................................... 3 METHODS TO ESTIMATE PUMPAGE .................................................................................. 4 PUMPAGE BY MANNER OF USE ........................................................................................... 5 TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX A. AMARGOSA DESERT 2015 GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE BY APPLICATION NUMBER ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amargosa Toad (Bufo Nelsoni) As a Threatened Or Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE AMARGOSA TOAD (BUFO NELSONI) AS A THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY and PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY February 26, 2008 Notice of Petition Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary Steve Thompson, Regional Director Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, N.W. California and Nevada Region Washington. D.C. 20240 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 9582 PETITIONERS Lisa T. Belenky, Staff Attorney Daniel R. Patterson The Center for Biological Diversity Ecologist and Southwest Director 1095 Market Street, Suite 511 Public Employees for Environmental San Francisco, CA 94103 Responsibility (PEER) ph: (415) 436-9682 ext 307 738 N. 5th Ave, #210 fax: (415) 436-9683 Tucson, Arizona 85705 520.906.2159 Submitted this 26th day of February, 2008 Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §1533(b), Section 553(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility hereby petition the Secretary of the Interior, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), to list the Amargosa toad (Bufo nelsoni) as a threatened or endangered species and to designate critical habitat to ensure its recovery. The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 40,000 members throughout the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Geology of the Upper Plate of the Bullfrog Hills Detachment Fault System, Southern Nevada
    Structural geology of the upper plate of the Bullfrog Hills detachment fault system, southern Nevada FLORIAN MALDONADO U.S. Geological Survey, M.S. 913, Box 25046, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 ABSTRACT strata; and an upper plate composed of Miocene volcanic, volcaniclastic, and sedimentary rocks. Rocks of the upper plate are widespread, but An extremely distended terrane containing two detachment faults exposures of lower- and middle-plate rocks are limited to poor scattered and an overlying complex of normal faults is exposed in the Bullfrog outcrops. Exposures of the detachment faults are also poor; however, the Hills, southern Nevada. Shallow crustal rocks have been extended geometry of the detachment faults is inferred to be low angle from several along the detachment faults by listric and planar-rotational normal measured exposures and from fault trace patterns (Fig. 2). The depths to faults. The detachment faults define three structurally discordant the detachment faults are projected and inferred from surface exposures plates. The lower detachment fault separates a lower plate of meta- and are queried in the geologic sections (Fig. 3). Although exposures of the morphosed Late Proterozoic rocks from an overlying middle plate, upper-plate faults merging with or truncated by the detachment faults are composed of slivers of lower and middle Paleozoic clastic and carbon- poor, exposed geologic and geometric relationships strongly indicate merg- ate rocks. The middle-plate rocks are brecciated and essentially ing or truncation of upper-plate faults. unmetamorphosed, and the stratigraphic succession is incomplete and The presence of a low-angle fault in the Bullfrog Hills has been highly attenuated.
    [Show full text]
  • HYDROGEOLOGIC and HYDROCHEMICAL FRAMEWORK, SOUTH-CENTRAL GREAT BASIN, NEVADA-CALIFORNIA, with SPECIAL REFERENCE to the NEVADA TEST SITE Big Spring, Ash Meadows, Nev
    Hydrogeologic and 197S Hydrochemical Framework, South-Central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test Site GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 712-C Prepared on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission HYDROGEOLOGIC AND HYDROCHEMICAL FRAMEWORK, SOUTH-CENTRAL GREAT BASIN, NEVADA-CALIFORNIA, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE NEVADA TEST SITE Big Spring, Ash Meadows, Nev. Spring emerges from lake beds. Discharge about 1,000 gallons per minute; water temperature 82°F (28°C). Paleozoic carbonate and clastic rocks form hills east of spring. Crystal Pool, Ash Meadows, Nev. Spring emerges from lake beds. Orifice (center of photo) dips steeply northward (to left) beneath travertine(P) lip. Discharge, 2,800 gallons per minute, is largest of pool springs in the area; water temperature 88°F (31 °C). CONTENTS VII Page FIGURE 25. Semilog graphs of drawdown and residual drawdown of water level during pumping test in well 74-70b, September 9-11, 1959 __ _________________ ______ __ _________ __ ________ ________ ____ C38 26. Semilog graph of recovery of water level during 133-day shutdown in well 74-7()b, December 23, 1960, to May 4, 1961 39 27. Semilog graphs of drawdown and residual drawdown of water level during pumping test in well 74-70a, August 27-29, 1959 40 28. Semilog graphs of drawdown and residual drawdown of water level during pumping test in well 83-68, September 20-21, 1960 ________________________________________________________________ 41 29. Semilog graph of residual drawdown of water level during pumping test in well 91-74, November 23-25, 1959 _____ 42 30.
    [Show full text]
  • Townn of F Bea Atty Y Are Ea P Plan
    Town of Beatty Area Plan Gateway to Death Valley May 12, 2014 Page Town of Beatty Area Plan – 5/12/2014 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Cover photo “Beatty from Beatty Mountain courtesy of Richard Stephens. Page | i Town of Beatty Area Plan — 5/12/2014 /// Town of Beatty Area Plan — 5/12/2014 Town of Beatty Area Plan – 5/12/2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS NYE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Lorinda Wichman, Vice-Chairman District 1 Frank Carbone District 2 Donna Cox District 3 Andrew “Butch” Borasky District 4 Dan Schinhofen, Chairman District 5 BEATTY AREA PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Dick Gardner Shirley Harlan Ann Marchand Randy Reed Gary Reid Teresa Sullivan Ryan Tweney La Rene Younghans BEATTY TOWN ADVISORY BOARD Dick Gardner, Chair Kelly Carroll, Vice Chair Erika Gerling, Treasurer Crystal Taylor – Member Randy Reed – Member Carrie Radomski - Secretary THE FOLLOWING ARE GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS PLAN: Cheryl Beeman, Nye County Planning TerraSpectra Geomatics, mapping and report compilation Joni Eastley, Assistant Nye County Manager Brent Farr, Farr West Engineering Joanie Jarvis – Past Beatty Town Advisory Board member Justin LaPorte, Past Vice Chair Beatty Town Advisory Board Suzy McCoy, Beatty History and Preservation Information Ingrid McKagan, Farr West Engineering Kitty Shubert – Past Beatty Town Advisory Board member Richard Stephens, Photography Lamar Walters – Past Beatty Town Advisory Board member Beatty Water & Sanitation District Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office The steering committee would like to give special recognition to the late Bert Bertram for his invaluable contributions to this plan and to the Beatty community. Page | iv Town of Beatty Area Plan – 5/12/2014 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page | v Town of Beatty Area Plan – 5/12/2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Beatty is an unincorporated town located in the southern portion of Nye County, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarcobatus Flat (Updated 2014)
    Site Description Sarcobatus Flat (updated 2014) Geologic setting: Sarcobatus Flat is located near the Nevada- California border between the Grapevine Mountains and Bullfrog Hills towards the south, and the Slate Range towards the north. The general area of the Grapevine Mountains is underlain with Tertiary volcanic rocks. Within the southern part of the mountain range, small granite outcrops exists with several other granitic out crops found throughout the area. Other exposed rocks in the area have been identified as dacite, basalt flows, and rhyolitic ash flow tuffs. Several faults exist and are east-west, northeast, and north-south trending (Quade and Tingley, 1984). Geothermal features: Warm-water wells are found in Sarcobatus Flat as far north as Scotty's Junction. The groundwater in Sarcobatus Flat has a relatively uniform temperature of 22°C, which is 9°C higher than the average annual air temperature (Malmberg and Eakin, 1962). This anomalous temperature may be due to the deep circulation that most of the groundwater in this area has undergone. Leasing information: N/A Bibliography: Malmberg, G.T., and Eakin, T.E., 1962, Ground-Water Appraisal of Sarcobatus Flat and Oasis Valley, Nye and Esmeralda Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department Conservation and National Resources, Ground-Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series Report 10, 39 p. Quade, J., Tingley, J., 1984, Reconnaissance Geochemical Assesment of Mineral Resource in the Grapevine Canyon G-E-M Resource Area (WSA’s NV-050-0354 and NV-050-0355) West-Central Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report 85-2. Sarcobatus Flat 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • A Three-Dimensional Numerical Model of Predevelopment Conditions in the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California
    Prepared in cooperation with the OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, NEVADA OPERATIONS OFFICE, under Interagency Agreement DE-AI08-96NV11967 A Three-Dimensional Numerical Model of Predevelopment Conditions in the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4102 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A Three-Dimensional Numerical Model of Predevelopment Conditions in the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California By Frank A. D'Agnese, Grady M. O’Brien, Claudia C. Faunt, Wayne R. Belcher, and Carma San Juan U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4102 Prepared in cooperation with the OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, NEVADA OPERATIONS OFFICE, under Interagency Agreement DE–AI08–96NV11967 Denver, Colorado 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: Chief, Yucca Mountain Project Branch U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25046, Mail Stop 421 Box 25286 Denver Federal Center Denver Federal Center
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada
    Summary of Hydrogeologic Controls on Ground-Water Flow at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada By Randell J. Laczniak, James C. Cole, David A. Sawyer, and Douglas A. Trudeau US. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4109 Prepared in cooperation with the OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Operations Off ice, under Interagency Agreement DE-A108-91NV11040 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Carson City, Nevada 1996 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S.. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY -GORDON P. EATON, Director Any use of trade names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSERVATION AGREEMENT for the AMARGOSA TOAD (Bufo Nelsonl) and Co-Occurring Sensitive Species in Oasis Valley, Nye County, Nevada
    CONSERVATION AGREEMENT for the AMARGOSA TOAD (Bufo nelsonl) and co-occurring sensitive species in Oasis Valley, Nye County, Nevada Developed cooperatively by: Nevada Division of Wildlife Southern Region - Las Vegas Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities Tonopah US Fish and Wildlife Service Southern Nevada Field Office US Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office, Reno Tonopah Field Station, Tonopah The Nature Conservancy Southern Nevada Field Office Las Vegas Nevada Natural Heritage Program Carson City University of Nevada, Reno Biological Resources Research Center Nevada Division of Wildlife 1100 Valley Road Reno NV 89512 September 2000 INTRODUCTION This conservation agreement (Agreement) and attached conservation strategy (Strategy) for the Amargosa toad, Bufo nelsoni, have been developed to expedite conservation measures needed for the continued existence of the species for the identified 10·year implementation period. The Agreement will provide guidance and a framework for implementation of cooperative long-term conservation actions to benefit the included species. The Strategy is intended to provide conservation measures during an interim 2·year period, during which time a long·term management plan will be developed. Cooperators signatory to this Agreement have committed to specific conservation actions which will identify and reduce or eliminate threats to the species, and maintain and enhance a properly functioning ecosystem for the Amargosa toad and other indigenous species of Oasis Valley. Although many threats identified in this Agreement are largely speculative. substantial ecological changes associated with the introduction and spread of invasive nonnative species are eliminating native fauna in the western United States. Adverse effects associated with nonnative species is a major concern of Cooperators and will be addressed through various investigations proposed under this Agreement.
    [Show full text]