DOCSLIB.ORG

Decision Memo North Fork Humboldt River Fish Barrier Project U.S. Forest Service Mountain City Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Elko County, Nevada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decision Memo North Fork Humboldt River Fish Barrier Project U.S. Forest Service Mountain City Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Elko County, Nevada Decision Memo North Fork Humboldt River Fish Barrier Project U.S. Forest Service Mountain City Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Elko County, Nevada Proposed Action Anova Metals Limited (Anova, as successor to Victoria Gold Corp.in the Big Springs Project) proposes to construct a permanent fish passage barrier/gauging station on the North Fork Humboldt River, Elko County, Nevada. Once constructed the barrier would promote Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) recovery by isolating Lahontan cutthroat trout in upstream portions of the North Fork Humboldt River watershed from brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) a non-native trout species that is present in the lower portion of the river. The proposed barrier site is located near the National Forest boundary approximately 150 feet to the north of Forest Service Road 732 (FSR 732, also known as North Fork Road) near a non- functional USGS gauging station. There is currently an old road spur (off of Forest Service Road 732) that leads to this non-functional gauging station. Vehicle access to the barrier site would be needed and would require the reopening of this road spur. The re-opened road spur would be approximately 15-20 ft. in width, and approximately 100 feet in length. Reopening the road spur would require clearing large vegetation. This road spur would be left in place for long-term maintenance access. Following project activities the road spur would be closed to public traffic, and classified as a maintenance level 2 road. The barrier/gauge would be constructed of rebar reinforced concrete and would be anchored into already existing rocky banks on both sides the creek. The structure would be cast in-place. Implementation is planned to take place in the fall of 2013 (when flows are low) and would take approximately 2-4 weeks to complete. Heavy equipment would be necessary to construct the fish passage barrier/gauge. Heavy equipment (excavator) would be used to level the stream bottom, and stream banks prior to barrier/gauge construction. Heavy equipment would also be used to place large rock to secure/embed the ends of the structure into the adjacent stream banks. Water would be diverted using pipes or hoses around the areas actively under construction. The barrier structure would include a stream discharge gauge and a closable fish ladder to allow future fish passage if desired. The passive gauge would likely be a notch in the barrier which would allow for easy visual observations of the discharge level. The fish passage feature (fish ladder) would remain closed until brook trout are removed from the North Fork Humboldt River below the barrier and as deemed prudent by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). All equipment used would be cleaned prior to arriving at the construction site to reduce the spread of noxious weeds and to remove any residual petroleum products. Spill pads would be used under all equipment to prevent introducing hazardous material to the stream. All equipment would be inspected daily to assure no leakage is occurring. Areas for fuel storage, refueling, and 1 servicing of construction equipment, vehicles, and pumps would be at least 150 feet from the stream channel and all machinery fueling and maintenance would occur within a contained area. During the Project, Anova Gold Corp. would cooperate with the Forest Service to monitor all project activities. Monitoring would include but not be limited to: Sediment control Road maintenance Reclamation Noxious weed control At the conclusion of the Project, reclaimed areas would be monitored for at least three years to ensure successful establishment of vegetation, per the revegetation standards established in the Nevada Guidelines for Successful Revegetation for the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, are attained. Monitoring for the control of erosion and control of noxious weeds would be carried out in conjunction with reclamation monitoring. Following construction, Anova Gold Corp. would perform periodic maintenance of the installed structures to ensure proper functioning by removing debris, branches and other material from the barrier, and to ensure that the fish barrier is not used by beavers for dam sites ("periodic routine maintenance"). Anova is not responsible for structural maintenance of the facilities (stream channeling impacts, structural failure, or additional armoring). Upon completion of construction, the fish barrier and associated built-in gauge will be donated by Anova Gold Corp. to the Forest Service. Upon Forest Service acceptance of the structures, any remaining construction warranties will be transferred to the Forest Service. The Supplement to the Big Springs Exploration Plan of Operations 2006-06-004 for the installation of the fish barrier components would expire upon completion of donation and the periodic routine maintenance and stream gauge monitoring and reporting would expire ten years from the date of completion of construction, unless monitoring data demonstrates that conditions have improved and stabilized to a degree that it is no longer of value to continue as determined by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and the Forest Service. Long-term maintenance and cleaning of the structure is expected to occur as needed. Woody debris removed during maintenance or cleaning would be placed along the adjacent stream bank. Sediment removed during cleaning would be removed from the site and placed in a suitable disposal area. Decision I have decided to approve the Fish Barrier project as described above. My decision will include, but not be limited to, the following mitigation measures: Water Quality: Reclamation would be completed after cessation of activities to reduce the erosional potential for these areas. Spill kits would be on-site if needed for oil and fuel spills. The access road spur would be constructed using water bars and other best management practices (i.e., certified weed-free straw bales, silt fences, or other measures as appropriate) to minimize runoff and control erosion. 2 Solid Wastes: All non-hazardous trash would be taken to the county landfill (or other approved disposal facility). If generated, hazardous wastes created during the project would be properly disposed of offsite in approved hazardous waste facilities according to local, state, and federal regulations. Scenic Values: Reclamation of disturbances associated with the construction of the barrier would be completed after cessation of activities to minimize potential visual impacts and reduce water quality impacts. The road spur would be closed to public travel, drainage structures installed, where needed, and revegetated. Wildlife: The construction schedule would avoid potential conflicts with nesting migratory birds by avoiding the breeding and nesting period. Fisheries: The project will be implemented in the late summer/early fall which is outside the spawning period for Lahontan cutthroat trout. The proposed action would not likely impact Lahontan cutthroat trout as a viable population no longer exists in the project area. In addition Lahontan cutthroat trout are a spring spawning fish. Vegetation: Anova Gold Corp. would implement controls to prevent the spread of noxious weeds including the identification of noxious weed stands in the vicinity and washing vehicles moving in and out of the Project area as required. Cultural Resources: No cultural resources have been identified within the project area. If previously undiscovered archaeological or cultural sites or resources are encountered during project work, activity in that area would cease immediately, the Forest Service would be notified, and the resource would be evaluated. The results of the evaluation would determine subsequent action. It is also my decision that this project is categorically excluded from documentation in an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment for the following reasons: This project falls within the category of actions described at 36 CFR 220.6 (e)(6) – Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than one mile of low standard road. Pursuant to 36 CFR 220.6[b], no extraordinary circumstances exist based upon a review of the following resource conditions: a. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species - The project is not likely to adversely affect listed and proposed species and it will have no impact on Forest Service Sensitive Species. The Biological Assessment was completed on November 29, 2012 and FWS concurrence received on January 29, 2013. b. Floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds: The ground disturbing activities proposed in flood plains or wetlands will be minimal and have no long term adverse impacts on these resources. No municipal watersheds lie within or adjacent to the project. c. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas: The project area is not located in, nor will the project have any negative direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on any congressionally designated areas. 3 d. Inventoried roadless areas: The activity will have no impact on this resource. e. Research natural areas: There are no research natural areas within the project area. The activity will have no impact
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elko County Nevada Water Resource Management Plan 2017
    Elko County Nevada Water Resource Management Plan 2017 Echo Lake - Ruby Mountains Elko County Board of Commissioners Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission December 6, 2017 Executive Summary The Elko County Water Resource Management Plan has been prepared to guide the development, management and use of water resources in conjunction with land use management over the next twenty-five (25) years. Use by decision makers of information contained within this plan will help to ensure that the environment of the County is sustained while at the same time enabling the expansion and diversification of the local economy. Implementation of the Elko County Water Resource Management Plan will assist in maintaining the quality of life enjoyed by residents and visitors of Elko County now and in the future. Achievement of goals outlined in the plan will result in water resources found within Elko County being utilized in a manner beneficial to the residents of Elko County and the State of Nevada. The State of Nevada Water Plan represents that Elko County will endure a loss of population and agricultural lands over the next twenty-five years. Land use and development patterns prepared by Elko County do not agree with this estimated substantial loss of population and agricultural lands. The trends show that agricultural uses in Elko County are stable with minimal notable losses each year. Development patterns represent that private lands that are not currently utilized for agricultural are being developed in cooperation and conjunction with agricultural uses. In 2007, Elko County was the largest water user in the State of Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrographic Basins Information
    A p p e n d i x A - B a s i n 54 Crescent Valley Page 1 of 6 Basin 54 - Crescent Valley Crescent Valley is a semi-closed basin that is bounded on the west by the Shoshone Range, on the east by the Cortez Mountains, on the south by the Toiyabe Range, and on the north by the Dry Hills. The drainage basin is about 45 miles long, 20 miles wide, and includes an area of approximately 750 square miles. Water enters the basin primarily as precipitation and is discharged primarily through evaporation and transpiration. Relatively small quantities of water enter the basin as surface flow and ground water underflow from the adjacent Carico Lake Valley at Rocky Pass, where Cooks Creek enters the southwestern end of Crescent Valley. Ground water generally flows northeasterly along the axis of the basin. The natural flow of ground water from Crescent Valley discharges into the Humboldt River between Rose Ranch and Beowawe. It is estimated that the average annual net discharge rate is approximately 700 to 750 acre-feet annually. Many of the streams which drain snowmelt of rainfall from the mountains surrounding Crescent Valley do not reach the dry lake beds on the Valley floor: instead, they branch into smaller channels that eventually run dry. Runoff from Crescent Valley does not reach Humboldt River with the exception of Coyote Creek, an intermittent stream that flows north from the Malpais to the Humboldt River and several small ephemeral streams that flow north from the Dry Hills. Surface flow in the Carico Lake Valley coalesces into Cooks Creek, which enters Crescent Valley through Rocky Pass.
    [Show full text]
  • Burning Man Geology Black Rock Desert.Pdf
    GEOLOGY OF THE BLACK ROCK DESERT By Cathy Busby Professor of Geology University of California Santa Barbara http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/busby BURNING MAN EARTH GUARDIANS PAVILION 2012 LEAVE NO TRACE Please come find me and Iʼll give you a personal tour of the posters! You are here! In one of the most amazing geologic wonderlands in the world! Fantastic rock exposure, spectacular geomorphic features, and a long history, including: 1. PreCambrian loss of our Australian neighbors by continental rifting, * 2. Paleozoic accretion of island volcanic chains like Japan (twice!), 3. Mesozoic compression and emplacement of a batholith, 4. Cenozoic stretching and volcanism, plus a mantle plume torching the base of the continent! Let’s start with what you can see on the playa and from the playa: the Neogene to Recent geology, which is the past ~23 million years (= Ma). Note: Recent = past 15,000 years http://www.terragalleria.com Then we’ll “build” the terrane you are standing on, beginning with a BILLION years ago, moving through the Paleozoic (old life, ~540-253 Ma), Mesozoic (age of dinosaurs, ~253-65 Ma)) and Cenozoic (age of mammals, ~65 -0 Ma). Neogene to Recent geology Black Rock Playa extends 100 miles, from Gerlach to the Jackson Mountains. The Black Rock Desert is divided into two arms by the Black Rock Range, and covers 1,000 square miles. Empire (south of Gerlach)has the U.S. Gypsum mine and drywall factory (brand name “Sheetrock”), and thereʼs an opal mine at base of Calico Mtns. Neogene to Recent geology BRP = The largest playa in North America “Playa” = a flat-bottomed depression, usually a dry lake bed 3,500ʼ asl in SW, 4,000ʼ asl in N Land speed record: 1997 - supersonic car, 766 MPH Runoff mainly from the Quinn River, which heads in Oregon ~150 miles north.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground-Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series Report 20
    - STATE OF NEVADA ~~~..._.....,.,.~.:RVA=rl~ AND NA.I...U~ a:~~::~...... _ __,_ Carson City_ GROUND-WATER RESOURCES-RECONNAISSANCE SERIES REPORT 20 GROUND- WATER APPRAISAL OF THE BLACK ROCK DESERT AREA NORTHWESTERN NEVADA By WILLIAM C. SINCLAIR Geologist Price $1.00 PLEASE DO NOT REMO V~ f ROM T. ':'I S OFFICE ;:: '· '. ~- GROUND-WATER RESOURCES--RECONNAISSANCE SERIES .... Report 20 =· ... GROUND-WATER APPRAISAL OF THE BLACK ROCK OESER T AREA NORTHWESTERN NEVADA by William C. Sinclair Geologist ~··· ··. Prepared cooperatively by the Geological SUrvey, U. S. Department of Interior October, 1963 FOREWORD This reconnaissance apprais;;l of the ground~water resources of the Black Rock Desert area in northwestern Nevada is the ZOth in this series of reports. Under this program, which was initiated following legislative action • in 1960, reports on the ground-water resources of some 23 Nevada valleys have been made. The present report, entitled, "Ground-Water Appraisal of the Black Rock Desert Area, Northwe$tern Nevada", was prepared by William C. Sinclair, Geologist, U. s. Geological Survey. The Black Rock Desert area, as defined in this report, differs some~ what from the valleys discussed in previous reports. The area is very large with some 9 tributary basins adjoining the extensive playa of Black Rock Desert. The estimated combined annual recharge of all the tributary basins amounts to nearly 44,000 acre-feet, but recovery of much of this total may be difficult. Water which enters into the ground water under the central playa probably will be of poor quality for irrigation. The development of good produci1>g wells in the old lake sediments underlying the central playa appears doubtful.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Water Law in Nevada Is
    Richard W. Harris, Esq. – Harris & Thompson he history of water law in Nevada is certificated water right can be lost through enough for mining activities. A dewatering closely tied to the state’s mining five years of non-use, but the Nevada operation of this magnitude poses several Thistory. Nevada’s first water law, in Supreme Court has held that there can be technical problems, including conflicts the form of custom and practice, arose in no forfeiture without a showing of intent with existing surface and groundwater conjunction with mining activities on the to abandon. rights, disposal of mine waters, and long- Comstock Lode and other gold and silver term environmental impacts. Curiously, although surface and camps. The doctrine of prior underground waters are both administered Mine dewatering and consumptive uses appropriation, or “first in time, first in by the same agency, there is a regulatory (such as dust control, evaporation from right,” became the guiding principle for disconnection between the two regimes. ponds, and loss of process fluids) can both surface water and groundwater. The Most of Nevada is divided into distinct have a substantial impact on existing customs of the miners, as well as hydrographic basins by its unique Basin users within the same hydrologic basin. ranchers, were formalized in the General and Range geology. There are few rivers The cone of depression can reach two Water Law Act of 1913 with the creation that flow continuously during the year, miles in diameter. The OSE is required of a permit system supervised by the and the water resources of most basins are by law to evaluate the impacts of these Office of the State Engineer (OSE).
    [Show full text]
  • AIR POLLUTION PROTECTION of LAKE TAHOE Construction
    CHAPTER 445 WATER CONTROLS; AIR POLLUTION PROTECTION OF LAKE TAHOE Construction Generally 445.010 Definitions. 445.011 "Breakwater" defined. __ 445.012 "Commercial construction" defined. 445.013 "Division" defined. 445.01-4 "Fills" defined. 445.015 "Lake Tahoe Watershed" defined. 445.016 "Pier" defined. 445.017 "Shoreline protection" defined. 445.018 "Single-family residence" defined. 445.019 Construction permit required. 4 45.020 Permits for construction of residences. 445.021 Permits for commercial or public construction. 445.022 Request for permit: information required. 445.023 Objections to permit. 445.024- Expiration, renewal of permit. 445.025 Inspection of the site* 445.026' Subdivision plans. 445.027 Land subdivided prior to 1949. 445.028 Shoreline and alteration appurtenances. 445.029 Minor repairs, alterations and protection of property, 445.030 Reference guides for construction. 445.031 Community water supply and sewage disposal. 445.032 Approval of installation of water supply and sewage disposal, systemsi. 445. 033", 3'P^c^b-jtteC'^^selUiil^i'i'.' 445.034 . Marineioilets. • 445.035;. Var^iaiiGes;.: ' Permits to Construct Piers, Breakwaters or Mooring: Buoys 44 5.040 . Definitions. 445.041 . "Breakwater" defined. 445.042 "Commercial use" defined. 445.043 \"Department" defined. 445.044 "Director" defined. 445.045 "Dredging" defined. 445.046 "Fill" defined. 445-i 445.047 "Floating dock or platform" defined. 445.048 "Industrial use" defined. " 445.049 "Littoral parcel" defined. 445.050 "Multiple use" defined. 445.051 "Navigational structure" defined. 445.052 "Permit" defined. 445.053 "Person" defined. 445.054 "Pier" defined. 445.055 "Salvage" defined. 445.056 Application for permit; duration of permit. 445.057 Purposes for which permits may be issued; types of permits.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle Mountain!
    Western hospitality at it s finest! Welcome to Battle Mountain, Nevada! Battle Mountain sits near the geographic center of the state, which also lies in Lander County. With access from the north, south, east and west, Battle Mountain provides a halfway point to just about everywhere you need to be in the state. Battle Mountain is in the heart of one of the world's richest gold-producing areas, and is home to several active gold mines. While the modern mining industry is important, holding equal prominence in the hearts and minds of residents is the history that made us great - the Western Shoshone Native Americans, Basque sheepherders and cattle ranchers have made their home in our area. Once famous for its quality turquoise mines, the battle Mountain areas still offers plenty of opportuni- ties for aspiring miners to discover a treasure trove of surprises. towards the small community of Austin. In late sum- Battle Mountain is the perfect access point to liter- mer, the town shifts gears with old time country flair, ally hundreds of miles of back-country roads and as the the Mountain Music Festival fills the air with trails. The area offers unlimited outdoor recreation bluegrass musicians from around the west, and the with year-round access to public lands. Visitors and town holds a country fair and harvest festival. residents alike enjoy fishing, hunting and 4-wheeling. Visitors to Battle Mountain will enjoy an area One of the highlights of the hunting season is the filled with Old West stories, wildlife, mountains, annual Chukar Tournament and feed.
    [Show full text]
  • NEVADA CALIF Ecogroup.Indd
    Eastern Sierra Eastern Sierra Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Scattered pieces of a national treasure where adventures come together H U M B O L D T - T O I Y A B E N A T I O N A L F O R E S T USDA Department of Agriculture • Forest Service Intermountain Region • Ogden, Utah Bridgeport Ranger District’s Hoover Wilderness in eastern California 23.260.419.01/01 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest WHERE ADVENTURES COME TOGETHER Santa Rosa Ranger District’s Santa Rosa Peak Spring Mountains National Recreation Area’s Mummy Mountain Hoover Wilderness he Humboldt-Toiyabe’s spectacular 6.3 million acres make up the largest national forest in the lower 48 states. TTen distinctive ranger districts are scat- tered like an intriguing puzzle across Nevada and a small portion of eastern California. Each piece contains its own unusual features, which offer unlimited rec- reation. The ranger districts vary from hardy “desert scapes” to snow-capped mountains with lush alpine meadows and timbered canyons. A world of discovery Indian Paintbrush awaits those who explore the Forest’s rich historic past. The following page displays the districts and lists numbers and web- sites. Bristlecone pine: one of the oldest known living tree species. Ruby Mountains Ranger District’s Echo Canyon Bridgeport Ranger District’s East Lake in the Hoover Wilderness Contacts . Scattered pieces of a national treasure: Humboldt Toiyabe Headquarters (Sparks) ................................ 775-355-5301 www.fs.fed.us/r4/htnf/ Carson Ranger District (Carson City) .................................. 775-882-2766 bringing it all together . Bridgeport Ranger District (Bridgeport, CA) .....................
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River Between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99
    Prepared in cooperation with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99 Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5199 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FRONT COVER: Photographs of Humboldt River at Blossom bridge near Valmy, Nevada, upstream of the streamflow gage at Comus. Top photograph is from the bridge looking downstream on June 9, 1999 during high flow. Bottom photograph is from the bridge looking downstream on October 18, 2001 during a period of no flow. Photographs taken by D.E. Prudic. Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99 By David E. Prudic, Richard G. Niswonger, and Russell W. Plume Prepared in cooperation with the NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5199 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada: 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Forward in the Humboldt River Basin
    UPDATE ON PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN WATER AUTHORITY Nevada Legislature’s Interim Committee on Public Lands July 26, 2018 Jeff Fontaine Executive Director Humboldt River Basin Water Authority AGENDA ITEM XIII - LANDS Meeting Date: 07-26-18 Overview of Humboldt River Basin Water Authority Established in 1995 by Elko, Eureka, Lander, Humboldt and Pershing Counties Organized to Oppose Proposal to Export in Excess of 300,000 acre feet of Groundwater from the Upper Humboldt River Basin to the Lower Carson River Basin (EcoVision Project) EcoVision Water Right Applications Denied By Nevada State Engineer As Speculative In Nature Fifteen-member Board of Directors; 3 appointed by each member county commission; includes at least one county commissioner from each member county; NMA representative appointed as non-voting member For Past 22 Years 15-Member HRBWA Board of Directors Have Continued to Meet Quarterly to Address Water Resource Issues of Concern 2 Major Roles and Responsibilities Recognize and protect all existing decreed and certificated water rights Identify and seek to resolve inter-county water allocation and management issues Formulate positions for presentation to relevant local, state, and federal agencies Monitor water supply and demand within the Basin Monitor the extent to which proposals to develop and export Humboldt River Basin water may adversely affect the water balance for member counties within the Authority Recommend appropriate federal and state legislation for the management of surface
    [Show full text]
  • 1969 Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities
    DEs -Nor CnUAJI N~eF ~)1A 1969 Annual Report of The Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities Department of the Army '.Corps of Engineers Volume H forL4 INDEX FISCAL YEAR 1969 PROPERTY o U. s. Agg I[RT4 INDEX The following abbreviations are used in the index: BERH Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors NPP Portland, Oreg., District CDC California Debris Commission NPS Seattle, Wash., District CERC Coastal Engineering Research Center NPW Walla Walla, Wash., District LMK Vicksburg, Miss., District ORD Ohio River Division LMM Memphis, Tenn., District ORH Huntington, W. Va., District LMN New Orleans, La., District ORL Louisville, Ky., District LMS St. Louis, Mo., District ORN Nashville, Tenn., District MR&T Mississippi River and Tributaries Project ORP Pittsburgh, Pa., District MRK Kansas City, Mo., District POD Pacific Ocean Division MRO Omaha, Nebr., District SAJ Jacksonville, Fla., District NAB Baltimore, Md., District SAM Mobile, Ala., District NAN New York, N.Y., District SAN Charleston, S.C., District NAO Norfolk, Va., District SAS Savannah, Ga., District NAP Philadelphia, Pa., District SAW Wilmington, N.C., District NCB Buffalo, N.Y., District SPK Sacramento, Calif., District NCC Chicago, Ill., District SPL Los Angeles, Calif., District NCE Detroit, Mich., District SPN San Francisco, Calif., District NCL U.S. Lake Survey SWA Albuquerque, N. Mex., District NCR Rock Island, Ill., District SWG Galveston, Tex., District NCS St. Paul, Minn., District SWL Little Rock, Ark., District NED New England Division SWT Tulsa, Okla., District NPA Alaska District A Algoma Harbor, Wis. (NCC) 908 Alhambra Creek, Calif. (SPN) 1057 Abbapoola Creek, S.C. (SAN) 287 Alhambra Wash, Calif.
    [Show full text]