DOCSLIB.ORG

State of Nevada Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group Quality-Of-Life

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of Nevada Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group Quality-Of-Life State of Nevada Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group Quality-of-Life Indicators, Group 2 January 2010 Prepared for: State of Nevada Carson City, NV 121 N. Walnut Street – Suite 500 – West Chester PA 19380 Child Welfare January 22, 2010 Moody's Analytics 1 Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect, 2006 Source: National Data Analysis System Referred for Reported/ Child Investigation Referred per Child Victims Population or 1,000 per 1,000 (Under 18) Assessment Children Child Victims Children Alabama 1,114,301 27,340 24.5 9,378 8.4 Alaska * 181,434 9,500 52.4 3,481 19.2 Arizona 1,628,198 76,455 47.0 4,469 2.7 Arkansas * 691,186 52,206 75.5 9,180 13.3 California 9,532,614 427,122 44.8 89,500 9.4 Colorado * 1,169,301 48,610 41.6 10,862 9.3 Connecticut 818,286 42,286 51.7 10,174 12.4 Delaware 203,366 13,864 68.2 1,933 9.5 District of Columbia 114,881 12,315 107.2 2,759 24.0 Florida 4,021,555 340,672 84.7 134,567 33.5 Georgia 2,455,020 142,268 57.9 39,802 16.2 Hawaii * 298,081 4,261 14.3 2,045 6.9 Idaho 394,280 9,924 25.2 1,651 4.2 Illinois 3,215,244 145,633 45.3 27,756 8.6 Indiana 1,577,629 67,511 42.8 20,925 13.3 Iowa 710,194 38,767 54.6 14,589 20.5 Kansas 695,837 22,688 32.6 2,630 3.8 Kentucky 999,531 77,035 77.1 19,833 19.8 Louisiana * 1,090,001 41,795 38.3 12,472 11.4 Maine 280,994 9,788 34.8 3,548 12.6 Maryland 1,360,531N/A N/A N/A N/A Massachusetts 1,448,884 79,855 55.1 36,151 25.0 Michigan 2,478,356 186,754 75.4 27,148 11.0 Minnesota 1,257,264 29,521 23.5 7,623 6.1 Mississippi 759,405 26,306 34.6 6,272 8.3 Missouri 1,416,592 70,270 49.6 7,108 5.0 Montana 217,848 14,171 65.0 1,775 8.1 Nebraska 445,033 30,500 68.5 6,160 13.8 Nevada 634,520 30,475 48.0 5,345 8.4 New Hampshire 297,625 9,399 31.6 822 2.8 New Jersey * 2,089,338 47,172 22.6 11,680 5.6 New Mexico * 508,930 26,471 52.0 5,926 11.6 New York 4,514,342 253,436 56.1 80,077 17.7 North Carolina 2,155,387 130,966 60.8 28,422 13.2 North Dakota * 144,934 6,722 46.4 1,438 9.9 Ohio 2,770,035 116,129 41.9 41,449 15.0 Oklahoma * 894,034 64,962 72.7 13,414 15.0 Oregon 856,259 41,245 48.2 12,927 15.1 Pennsylvania 2,804,873 23,071 8.2 4,177 1.5 Rhode Island * 237,451 12,996 54.7 4,400 18.5 South Carolina 1,039,653 37,922 36.5 10,795 10.4 South Dakota * 194,681 7,135 36.6 1,529 7.9 Tennessee 1,442,593 98,163 68.0 19,182 13.3 Texas 6,493,965 280,913 43.3 69,065 10.6 Utah 791,198 32,181 40.7 13,043 16.5 Vermont 133,389 2,841 21.3 861 6.5 Virginia 1,806,847 58,826 32.6 6,828 3.8 Washington * 1,526,267 53,576 35.1 7,294 4.8 West Virginia 389,071 51,674 132.8 8,345 21.4 Wisconsin * 1,312,530 41,230 31.4 4,583 3.5 Wyoming 121,794 4,819 39.6 786 6.5 National Total 73,735,562 3,479,741 47.2 866,179 11.7 January 22, 2010 Moody's Analytics 2 Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect, 2006 Source: National Data Analysis System 1996 2006 Percent Change in Referred for Reported/ Referred for Reported/ Number Child Investigation Referred per Child Investigation Referred per Reported/Ref Population or 1,000 Population or 1,000 erred, 1996- (Under 18) Assessment Children (Under 18) Assessment Children 2006 Alabama * 1,079,316 39,364 36.5 1,114,301 27,340 24.5 -30.5% Alaska 186,641 10,100 54.1 181,434 9,500 52.4 -5.9% Arizona 1,220,841 46,716 38.3 1,628,198 76,455 47.0 63.7% Arkansas 660,835 38,211 57.8 691,186 52,206 75.5 36.6% California * 8,896,999 463,072 52.0 9,532,614 427,122 44.8 -7.8% Colorado * 996,054 49,867 50.1 1,169,301 48,610 41.6 -2.5% Connecticut 790,205 49,344 62.4 818,286 42,286 51.7 -14.3% Delaware 177,124 9,751 55.1 203,366 13,864 68.2 42.2% District of Columbia 109,505 12,018 109.7 114,881 12,315 107.2 2.5% Florida 3,412,523 184,442 54.0 4,021,555 340,672 84.7 84.7% Georgia * 1,956,000 87,006 44.5 2,455,020 142,268 57.9 63.5% Hawaii 304,388 5,384 17.7 298,081 4,261 14.3 -20.9% Idaho * 348,070 32,496 93.4 394,280 9,924 25.2 -69.5% Illinois * 3,159,624 124,129 39.3 3,215,244 145,633 45.3 17.3% Indiana 1,494,616 66,097 44.2 1,577,629 67,511 42.8 2.1% Iowa 724,084 32,801 45.3 710,194 38,767 54.6 18.2% Kansas 687,138 30,552 44.5 695,837 22,688 32.6 -25.7% Kentucky 970,587 60,896 62.7 999,531 77,035 77.1 26.5% Louisiana * 1,218,423 45,981 37.7 1,090,001 41,795 38.3 -9.1% Maine 299,344 9,616 32.1 280,994 9,788 34.8 1.8% Maryland * 1,267,524 48,160 38.0 1,360,531 N/A N/A N/A Massachusetts * 1,440,216 60,199 41.8 1,448,884 79,855 55.1 32.7% Michigan 2,541,067 142,700 56.2 2,478,356 186,754 75.4 30.9% Minnesota 1,243,962 25,435 20.4 1,257,264 29,521 23.5 16.1% Mississippi * 756,445 29,179 38.6 759,405 26,306 34.6 -9.8% Missouri * 1,395,796 83,875 60.1 1,416,592 70,270 49.6 -16.2% Montana 231,138 17,732 76.7 217,848 14,171 65.0 -20.1% Nebraska * 442,196 16,749 37.9 445,033 30,500 68.5 82.1% Nevada * 419,630 21,838 52.0 634,520 30,475 48.0 39.6% New Hampshire * 294,115 8,337 28.3 297,625 9,399 31.6 12.7% New Jersey * 1,982,516 67,817 34.2 2,089,338 47,172 22.6 -30.4% New Mexico 497,980 28,661 57.6 508,930 26,471 52.0 -7.6% New York 4,528,569 236,241 52.2 4,514,342 253,436 56.1 7.3% North Carolina 1,834,883 102,168 55.7 2,155,387 130,966 60.8 28.2% North Dakota 167,091 7,292 43.6 144,934 6,722 46.4 -7.8% Ohio 2,844,939 154,202 54.2 2,770,035 116,129 41.9 -24.7% Oklahoma 876,074 40,916 46.7 894,034 64,962 72.7 58.8% Oregon * 804,470 39,486 49.1 856,259 41,245 48.2 4.5% Pennsylvania * 2,876,402 23,666 8.2 2,804,873 23,071 8.2 -2.5% Rhode Island 236,404 14,160 59.9 237,451 12,996 54.7 -8.2% South Carolina * 949,632 39,063 41.1 1,039,653 37,922 36.5 -2.9% South Dakota 202,455 9,051 44.7 194,681 7,135 36.6 -21.2% Tennessee 1,319,216 34,293 26.0 1,442,593 98,163 68.0 186.2% Texas 5,478,703 151,261 27.6 6,493,965 280,913 43.3 85.7% Utah 683,422 24,857 36.4 791,198 32,181 40.7 29.5% Vermont 145,695 2,561 17.6 133,389 2,841 21.3 10.9% Virginia 1,621,475 53,271 32.9 1,806,847 58,826 32.6 10.4% Washington 1,434,867 47,631 33.2 1,526,267 53,576 35.1 12.5% West Virginia * 420,842 26,478 62.9 389,071 51,674 132.8 95.2% Wisconsin * 1,344,388 46,302 34.4 1,312,530 41,230 31.4 -11.0% Wyoming * 133,386 6,154 46.1 121,794 4,819 39.6 -21.7% National Total 69,107,815 3,007,578 73,735,562 3,479,741 January 22, 2010 Moody's Analytics 3 State variations in juvenile arrest rates may reflect differences in juvenile law-violating behavior, police behavior, and/or community standards; therefore, comparisons should be made with caution 2008 Juvenile Arrest Rate* 2008 Juvenile Arrest Rate* Violent Property Violent Property Reporting Crime Crime Drug Reporting Crime Crime Drug State Coverage Index Index Abuse Weapons State Coverage Index Index Abuse Weapons United States 82%† 306 1,398 560 121 Missouri 94% 274 1,928 566 121 Alabama 81 176 924 242 47 Montana 96 112 1,831 305 21 Alaska 97 272 1,655 340 42 Nebraska 92 139 2,013 657 112 Arizona 99 228 1,558 762 76 Nevada 98 337 1,724 618 159 Arkansas 84 180 1,460 365 62 New Hampshire 78 84 771 580 12 California 99 414 1,153 523 196 New Jersey 96 332 925 642 158 Colorado 88 199 1,853 763 123 New Mexico 73 278 1,537 580 133 Connecticut 92 337 1,163 456 90 New York 47 260 1,141 536 60 Delaware 100 630 1,778 774 169 North Carolina 72 305 1,615 458 197 Dist.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HISTORY of the TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST a Compilation
    HISTORY OF THE TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST A Compilation Posting the Toiyabe National Forest Boundary, 1924 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Chronology ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Bridgeport and Carson Ranger District Centennial .................................................................... 126 Forest Histories ........................................................................................................................... 127 Toiyabe National Reserve: March 1, 1907 to Present ............................................................ 127 Toquima National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ....................................................... 128 Monitor National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ........................................................ 128 Vegas National Forest: December 12, 1907 – July 2, 1908 .................................................... 128 Mount Charleston Forest Reserve: November 5, 1906 – July 2, 1908 ................................... 128 Moapa National Forest: July 2, 1908 – 1915 .......................................................................... 128 Nevada National Forest: February 10, 1909 – August 9, 1957 .............................................. 128 Ruby Mountain Forest Reserve: March 3, 1908 – June 19, 1916 ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeographical Profiles of Shorebird Migration in Midcontinental North America
    U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Technical Report Series Information and Biological Science Reports ISSN 1081-292X Technology Reports ISSN 1081-2911 Papers published in this series record the significant find­ These reports are intended for the publication of book­ ings resulting from USGS/BRD-sponsored and cospon­ length-monographs; synthesis documents; compilations sored research programs. They may include extensive data of conference and workshop papers; important planning or theoretical analyses. These papers are the in-house coun­ and reference materials such as strategic plans, standard terpart to peer-reviewed journal articles, but with less strin­ operating procedures, protocols, handbooks, and manu­ gent restrictions on length, tables, or raw data, for example. als; and data compilations such as tables and bibliogra­ We encourage authors to publish their fmdings in the most phies. Papers in this series are held to the same peer-review appropriate journal possible. However, the Biological Sci­ and high quality standards as their journal counterparts. ence Reports represent an outlet in which BRD authors may publish papers that are difficult to publish elsewhere due to the formatting and length restrictions of journals. At the same time, papers in this series are held to the same peer-review and high quality standards as their journal counterparts. To purchase this report, contact the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (call toll free 1-800-553-684 7), or the Defense Technical Infonnation Center, 8725 Kingman Rd., Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218. Biogeographical files o Shorebird Migration · Midcontinental Biological Science USGS/BRD/BSR--2000-0003 December 1 By Susan K.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbonate Deposition, Pyramid Lake Subbasin, Nevada: 2
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- ubP lished Research US Geological Survey 1995 Carbonate deposition, Pyramid Lake subbasin, Nevada: 2. Lake levels and polar jet stream positions reconstructed from radiocarbon ages and elevations of carbonates (tufas) deposited in the Lahontan basin Larry Benson U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Michaele Kashgarian Lawrence Livemore National Laboratory Meyer Rubin U.S. Geological Survey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Geology Commons, Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons Benson, Larry; Kashgarian, Michaele; and Rubin, Meyer, "Carbonate deposition, Pyramid Lake subbasin, Nevada: 2. Lake levels and polar jet stream positions reconstructed from radiocarbon ages and elevations of carbonates (tufas) deposited in the Lahontan basin" (1995). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1014. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1014 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- ubP lished Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. PhJ.d @ ELSEVIER Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology 117 (1995) 1-30 Carbonate deposition, Pyramid Lake subbasin, Nevada: 2. Lake levels and polar jet stream positions reconstructed from radiocarbon ages and elevations of carbonates (tufas) deposited in the Lahontan basin Larry Benson a, Michaele Kashgarian b, Meyer Rubin c a U.S. Geological Survey, 3215 Marine St., Boulder, CO 80303, USA b Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Watershed Discovery Report 2018
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 2 General Information .................................................................................................... 1 3 Watershed Stakeholder Coordination ......................................................................... 5 4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Data that can be used for Flood Risk Products ....................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Topographic Data ..................................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.2 USGS Gages .............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Other Data and Information ................................................................................................ 10 4.2.1 Mitigation Plans/Status, Mitigation Projects ......................................................................................... 10 4.2.2 Coordinated Needs Mapping Study (CNMS) and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Mapping Study Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 4.2.3 Socio‐Economic Analysis .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Truckee-Carson River Basin Study
    Truckee-Carson RiverBasinStudy FinalReport JeremyPratt ClearwaterConsulting Corporation Seattle,Washington ReporttotheWesternWater PolicyReviewAdvisoryCommission Truckee-Carson River Basin Study Final Report Jeremy Pratt Clearwater Consulting Corporation Seattle, Washington Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission September 1997 The Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission Under the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575, Title XXX), Congress directed the President to undertake a comprehensive review of Federal activities in the 19 Western States that directly or indirectly affect the allocation and use of water resources, whether surface or subsurface, and to submit a report of findings to the congressional committees having jurisdiction over Federal Water Programs. As directed by the statute, the President appointed the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. The Commission was composed of 22 members, 10 appointed by the President, including the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army, and 12 members of Congress serving ex-officio by virtue of being the chair or ranking minority member of the 6 congressional committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over the appropriations and programs of water resources agencies. A complete roster is provided below. Commission Membership Denise Fort, Chair Albuquerque, New Mexico Appointed Members: Huali Chai Patrick O'Toole Secretary of the Interior San Jose, California Savery, Wyoming Washington, D.C. Represented by: John H. Davidson Jack Robertson Joe Sax, September 1995 - December 1996 Vermillion, South Dakota Portland, Oregon Patricia J. Beneke, December 1996 - John Echohawk Kenneth L. Salazar Secretary of the Army Boulder, Colorado Denver, Colorado Washington, DC Represented by: Janet Neuman Dr. John H.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Holocene Paleohydrology of Walker Lake and the Carson Sink in the Western Great Basin, Nevada, USA
    Quaternary Research Copyright © University of Washington. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2019. doi:10.1017/qua.2018.151 Late Holocene paleohydrology of Walker Lake and the Carson Sink in the western Great Basin, Nevada, USA Kenneth D. Adamsa*, Edward J. Rhodesb aDivision of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA bDepartment of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, United Kingdom *Corresponding author e-mail address: [email protected] (RECEIVED June 8, 2018; ACCEPTED December 6, 2018) Abstract The late Holocene histories of Walker Lake and the Carson Sink were reconstructed by synthesizing existing data in both basins along with new age constraints from key sites, supplemented with paleohydrologic modeling. The repeated diversions of the Walker River to the Carson Sink and then back to Walker Lake caused Walker Lake–level fluctuations spanning ± 50 m. Low lake levels at about 1000, 750, and 300 cal yr BP are time correlative to the ages of fluvial deposits along the Walker River paleochannel, when flow was directed toward the Carson Sink. The timing and duration of large lakes in the Carson Sink were further refined using moisture-sensitive tree-ring chronologies. The largest lakes required a fourfold to fivefold increase in discharge spanning decades. Addition of Walker River flow to the Carson Sink by itself is inadequate to account for the required discharge. Instead, increases in the runoff coefficient and larger areas of the drainage basin contributing surface runoff may explain the enhanced discharge required to create these large lakes. Keywords: Carson Sink; Holocene; Lake Lahontan; Paleohydrologic modeling; Walker Lake INTRODUCTION of the Walker River, which periodically switched course from one terminal basin to the other (Russell, 1885; Benson and Paleohydrologic records from Great Basin pluvial lakes pro- Thompson, 1987a, 1987b; Benson et al., 1991; King, 1993, vide a rich source of information enhancing understanding of 1996; Adams, 2003, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Mcquivey, Retired, Nevada Department of Wildlife May 3, 2005
    SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS CARSON RIVER DRAINAGE From Bob McQuivey, Retired, Nevada Department of Wildlife May 3, 2005 INTRODUCTION - The following list of references represents all available environmental records for the Carson River drainage extracted from the following sources and submitted to Randy Pahl of the Division of Environmental Protection on May 3, 2005: 1. Extracts from the Carson River fisheries files as updated through 04/25/05. 2. Extracts from the Journals and diaries file as updated through 10/26/04. 3. Extracts from the file on dams, fish ladders and screens as updated through 04/25/05. 4. Extracts from the file on pollution as updated through 4/26/05. 5. Extracts from the file on wetlands as updated through 11/20/02. 6. Extracts from the file on rangelands as updated through 11/06/01. 7. Extracts from the file on fires as updated through 4/15/03. See Attachment A for Mr. McQuivey’s letter accompanying this information. 1844 Smith, James U. John C. Fremont's Expedition in Nevada, 1843-1844. Nevada Historical Society Papers, 1909- 1910; pages 106-152. January 18, 1844 - [Carson River] There were Indian lodges and fish-dams on the stream. There were no beaver cuttings on the river... 1848 Ricketts, Norma Baldwin – The Mormon Battalion U.S. Army of the West 1846-1848; Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah 1996. July 29, 1848 – Summit Camp, 2 miles. …They camped at the head of a level valley filled with thick brush and tree close together, with plenty of grass for the animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Carson Lake Geothermal Exploration Project Environmental Assessment
    Carson Lake Geothermal Exploration Project Environmental Assessment March 2008 LEAD AGENCIES U.S. Navy Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City Field Office COOPERATING AGENCY U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Lahontan Basin Area Office Carson Lake Geothermal Exploration Project Environmental Assessment March 2008 LEAD AGENCIES U.S. Navy Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City Field Office COOPERATING AGENCY U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Lahontan Basin Area Office TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need...................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement...................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Location and Overview ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • Explanation of Significant Differences Carson River
    SDMS DOCID# 1140552 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES CARSON RIVER MERCURY SITE Washoe, Carson City, Storey, Lyon, and Churchill Counties, Nevada NVD980813646 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 September 2013 (This page intentionally left blank) Carson River Mercury Site Explanation of Significant Differences Introduction and Statement of Purpose The purpose of this Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for the March 30, 1995 Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 1 (OU1) of the Carson River Mercury Site (CRMS) is to address issues that have arisen as a result of the continuing implementation and management of the remedy selected in the ROD. The issues addressed by this ESD are: • The CRMS boundaries need to be better defined to assure that the remedy protects public health by focusing on areas of concern. • Cleanup levels for two of the three contaminants of concern, lead and arsenic, have changed since the ROD was signed. EPA uses an ESD to document a significant change to the ROD for a Superfund site. A significant change is defined as “a change to a component of a remedy that does not fun- damentally alter the overall cleanup approach.”1 In the case of the CRMS ROD for OU1, the overall cleanup and the goal of the remediation -- to protect public health, specifically children, from exposure to the contaminants of concern in residential settings -- is not being altered. The manner in which the remedy is implemented is being refined and improved. The site definition is being revised to be contamination-based, rather than geographic, and the cleanup levels for two of the contaminants of concern, arsenic and lead, are being updated to better protect public health.
    [Show full text]
  • ORMAT Technologies Inc. Tungsten Mountain Solar Project Churchill
    ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2018 WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION SUPPLEMENTAL TUNGSTEN MOUNTAIN SOLAR PROJECT BASELINE SURVEY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT ORMAT Technologies Inc. Tungsten Mountain Solar Project Churchill County, Nevada 2018 Supplemental Baseline Wildlife and Vegetation Survey and Habitat Assessment June 28, 2018 1 2018 Tungten Solar Baseline Wildlife and Vegetation Survey and Habitat Assessment_Clean ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2018 WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION SUPPLEMENTAL TUNGSTEN MOUNTAIN SOLAR PROJECT BASELINE SURVEY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT ORMAT Technologies Inc. Tungsten Mountain Solar Project Churchill County, Nevada 2018 Supplemental Baseline Wildlife and Vegetation Survey and Habitat Assessment June 28, 2018 Prepared for ORMAT Technologies, Inc. 6225 Neil Rd, Reno, NV 89511 Submitted to Bureau of Land Management Stillwater Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701 Fax: 775-885-6147 Phone: 775-885-6000 Prepared by Robison Wildlife Consulting, LLC 5890 Mitra Way Reno, Nevada 89523 Phone: (775) 225-5548 2 2018 Tungten Solar Baseline Wildlife and Vegetation Survey and Habitat Assessment_Clean ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2018 WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION SUPPLEMENTAL TUNGSTEN MOUNTAIN SOLAR PROJECT BASELINE SURVEY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT 2018 Supplemental Baseline Wildlife and Vegetation Survey and Habitat Assessment June 28, 2018 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Purpose of the Desktop Habitat Assessment
    [Show full text]
  • Truckee-Carson River Basin Study: Final Report
    Western Water Policy Review Advisory River Basin Studies Commission (1997) 9-1-1997 Truckee-Carson River Basin Study: Final Report Jeremy Pratt Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_service_westernwater_rbs University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Recommended Citation Pratt, Jeremy. "Truckee-Carson River Basin Study: Final Report." (1997). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ law_service_westernwater_rbs/26 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission (1997) at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in River Basin Studies by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Truckee-Carson RiverBasinStudy FinalReport JeremyPratt ClearwaterConsulting Corporation Seattle,Washington ReporttotheWesternWater PolicyReviewAdvisoryCommission Truckee-Carson River Basin Study Final Report Jeremy Pratt Clearwater Consulting Corporation Seattle, Washington Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission September 1997 The Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission Under the Western Water Policy Review Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575, Title XXX), Congress directed the President to undertake a comprehensive review of Federal activities in the 19 Western States that directly or indirectly affect the allocation and use of water resources, whether surface or subsurface, and to submit a report of findings to the congressional
    [Show full text]
  • Anglin, Ronald M. ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW
    ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW Ronald M. Anglin U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 14, 1994 Fallon, Nevada Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Interview Conducted by: Donald B. Seney Historian Bureau of Reclamation Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Oral History Program Bureau of Reclamation Anglin, Ronald M. ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW. Transcript of tape-recorded Bureau of Reclamation Oral History Interview conducted by Donald B. Seney, Historian, Bureau of Reclamation, October 14, 1994, in the narrator's office in Fallon, Nevada. Transcription by Barbara Heginbottom Jardee. Edited by Donald B. Seney. Repository for the record copy of the interview transcript is the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland. Interview formatted, printed, and bound 2003. i TABLE OF CONTENTS FAMILY AND EARLY LIFE ......................1 SEEKING A HIGHER EDUCATION ...............5 GOING TO WORK FOR THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE................................7 GOING INTO WILDLIFE REFUGE WORK.........15 GETTING MARRIED ...........................16 WORKING AS THE SAN LUIS REFUGE IN CALIFORNIA...........................18 DEFINING A REFUGE .........................21 THE IMPORTANCE OF HUNTERS TO THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.....................25 WORKING IN THE SAN LUIS REFUGE...........27 GOING TO WORK IN WASHINGTON STATE......29 COMING TO THE STILLWATER REFUGE IN 1986 .......................................35 DEFINING THE GREAT BASIN..................36 Ronald M. Anglin ii LEARNING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS IN THE NEWLANDS PROJECT AREA .............38 THE SETTLEMENT II NEGOTIATIONS
    [Show full text]