DOCSLIB.ORG

Dixie Meadows Geothermal Exploration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dixie Meadows Geothermal Exploration Project Stillwater Field Office, Nevada FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Ormat Technologies, Inc. Dixie Meadows Geothermal Exploration Project DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2011-0516-EA U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City District Stillwater Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701 775-885-6000 December 2011 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2011-0516-EA DIXIE MEADOWS GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION PROJECT – ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DECEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................3 1.2 LAND USE PLAN CONFORMANCE STATEMENT ..........................................................4 1.3 PLANS, STATUTES, AND OTHER REGULATIONS .........................................................4 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.............................................................5 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................................5 2.1.1 Project Access ..............................................................................................6 2.1.2 Operations Plan ............................................................................................8 2.1.2.1 Well Pad Design and Construction ................................................... 9 2.1.2.2 Geothermal Well Drilling Plan ....................................................... 12 2.1.2.3 Ancillary Facilities and Equipment ................................................. 17 2.1.3 Actions Proposed on Private Lands ...........................................................20 2.1.4 Road Construction Activities .....................................................................20 2.1.5 Water Required ..........................................................................................21 2.1.6 Aggregate Material Required .....................................................................22 2.1.7 Workforce and Schedule ............................................................................24 2.1.8 Project Reclamation ...................................................................................25 2.1.8.1 Interim Reclamation ........................................................................ 25 2.1.8.2 Final Reclamation ........................................................................... 26 2.1.9 Environmental Protection Measures ..........................................................27 2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................34 2.2.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................34 2.2.2 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis .............35 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .....36 3.1 SCOPING AND ISSUES ..............................................................................................36 3.2 PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................39 3.2.1 Land Use Authorizations ............................................................................39 3.2.2 Visual Resources ........................................................................................41 3.2.3 Soils ............................................................................................................42 3.2.4 Vegetation ..................................................................................................46 3.2.5 Water Quality (Surface and Ground) .........................................................49 3.2.6 Wetlands and Riparian Areas .....................................................................57 3.2.7 Floodplains .................................................................................................61 3.2.8 Migratory Birds ..........................................................................................62 3.2.9 Wildlife and Key Habitat ...........................................................................66 3.2.10 Special Status Species ................................................................................69 3.2.11 Cultural Resources .....................................................................................78 3.2.12 Native American Religious Concerns ........................................................81 3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................85 DIXIE MEADOWS GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION PROJECT – ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DECEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ii 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................86 4.1 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ....................86 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO AFFECTED RESOURCES .................................................88 4.2.1 Visual Resources ........................................................................................88 4.2.2 Soils ............................................................................................................89 4.2.3 Vegetation ..................................................................................................90 4.2.4 Migratory Birds ..........................................................................................91 4.2.5 Special Status Species and Wildlife and Key Habitat ................................92 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................95 5.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................95 5.2 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................95 5.3 TRIBES, INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ...................96 6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................97 DIXIE MEADOWS GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION PROJECT – ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DECEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Dixie Meadows Federal Geothermal Leases ...........................................................1 Table 2 Proposed Drill Pad and Geothermal Well Sites .......................................................2 Table 3 Potential Regulatory Responsibilities ......................................................................4 Table 4 Maximum Potential Surface Disturbance Attributed to Proposed Action ...............9 Table 5 Well Pad and Reserve Pit Size per Exploratory Well Type ...................................10 Table 6 Common Materials and Additives Used During Drilling ......................................14 Table 7 Project Aggregate Requirements ...........................................................................23 Table 8 Reclamation Seed Mix ...........................................................................................27 Table 9 Supplemental Authorities .......................................................................................37 Table 10 Resources or Uses other than Supplemental Authorities .......................................39 Table 11 Land Use Authorizations .......................................................................................40 Table 12 Land Cover Types Within the Project Area and Lease Area .................................46 Table 13 Migratory Bird Species ..........................................................................................63 Table 14 Nevada BLM Sensitive Species .............................................................................69 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location Figure 2 Proposed Action Figure 3 Proposed Action and Land Administration Figure 4 Typical Temperature Gradient Well Pad Layout Figure 5 Typical Observation Well Pad Layout Figure 6 Typical Production Well Pad Layout Figure 7 Typical Temperature Gradient Well Cross-Section Figure 8 Typical Observation Well Cross-Section Figure 9 Typical Production Well Cross-Section Figure 10 Soils Map Figure 11 Vegetation Land Cover Types Figure 12 Dixie Hot Springs and Nearby Seeps Figure 13 100-Year Floodplain Map Figure 14 CIAA Map LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Geothermal Leases and Stipulations Appendix B Noxious Weed Management Plan DIXIE MEADOWS GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION PROJECT – ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DECEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT iv LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act BLM Bureau of Land Management BMPs best management practices BOPE blowout prevention equipment CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIAA cumulative impact assessment area COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DoN Department of the Navy EA Environmental Assessment FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act H2S hydrogen sulfide MDBM Mount Diablo Base and Meridian NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service PVC polyvinyl chloride USGS U.S. Geological Society DIXIE MEADOWS GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION PROJECT – ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DECEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT v ENVIRONMENTAL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts
    water Article Springs and Springs-Dependent Taxa of the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern North America: Geography, Ecology and Human Impacts Lawrence E. Stevens * , Jeffrey Jenness and Jeri D. Ledbetter Springs Stewardship Institute, Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA; Jeff@SpringStewardship.org (J.J.); [email protected] (J.D.L.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 April 2020; Accepted: 12 May 2020; Published: 24 May 2020 Abstract: The Colorado River basin (CRB), the primary water source for southwestern North America, is divided into the 283,384 km2, water-exporting Upper CRB (UCRB) in the Colorado Plateau geologic province, and the 344,440 km2, water-receiving Lower CRB (LCRB) in the Basin and Range geologic province. Long-regarded as a snowmelt-fed river system, approximately half of the river’s baseflow is derived from groundwater, much of it through springs. CRB springs are important for biota, culture, and the economy, but are highly threatened by a wide array of anthropogenic factors. We used existing literature, available databases, and field data to synthesize information on the distribution, ecohydrology, biodiversity, status, and potential socio-economic impacts of 20,872 reported CRB springs in relation to permanent stream distribution, human population growth, and climate change. CRB springs are patchily distributed, with highest density in montane and cliff-dominated landscapes. Mapping data quality is highly variable and many springs remain undocumented. Most CRB springs-influenced habitats are small, with a highly variable mean area of 2200 m2, generating an estimated total springs habitat area of 45.4 km2 (0.007% of the total CRB land area).
    [Show full text]
  • Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project Environmental Assessment I Table of Contents
    Stillwater Field Office, Nevada ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORNI 32, LLC Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2016-0014-EA US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City District Stillwater Field Office 5665 Morgan Mill Road Carson City, NV 89701 775-885-6000 Cooperating Agencies: Nevada Department of Wildlife US Fish and Wildlife Service US Navy, Naval Air Station Fallon May 2017 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2016-0014-EA TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1-8 1.4 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement ................................................................................. 1-8 1.5 Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Policies, Plans, and Other Environmental Analyses .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2020 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) Traditional Conservation Grants Program Notice of Funding Opportunity
    FY 2020 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) Traditional Conservation Grants Program Notice of Funding Opportunity Notice of Funding Opportunity Number: F20AS00070 Federal Program: Department of the Interior, United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services & Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 15.615 Authorizing Legislation Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1535, as amended Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: We are collecting this information in accordance with the authorizing legislation identified above. Your response is required to obtain or retain a benefit. We will use the information you provide to conduct a competitive review and select projects for funding and, if awarded, to evaluate performance. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. We estimate that it will take you on average about 40 hours to complete an initial application, about 3 hours to revise the terms of an award, and about 8 hours per report to prepare and submit financial and performance reports, including time to maintain records and gather information. Actual time for these activities will vary depending on program-specific requirements. You may send comments on the burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. OMB Control Number: 1018-0100 (Expiration Date: 7/31/2021) I. Program Description More than half of all species listed as endangered or threatened spend at least part of their life cycle on non-federal lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Empsi Document Template
    US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Carson City District, Nevada March 2013 Carson City District Resource Management Plan Revision Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 II. REQUIREMENTS FOR ACEC DESIGNATION ...................................................................... 4 III. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ATTENTION ............................................................................... 8 IV. EVALUATION PROCESS ..................................................................................................... 8 V. LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................... 36 APPENDICES A Maps of ACECs Recommended for Further Analysis in the Draft RMP TABLES Page 1 Proposed ACECs Found to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria ...................................... 6 2 Summary of the Existing and Proposed ACECs in the Planning Area Determined to Meet the Relevance and Importance Criteria ......................................................................................................... 10 3 Summary of the Proposed ACECs in the Planning Area Determined Not to Meet the
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 1 0.-The Great Basin
    Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 1 0.-The Great Basin Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 1 0.-The Great Basin GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 660 Wa1hington J9 77 United States Department of the Interior ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary Geological Survey W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 10.-The Great Basin INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in The Great Basin for which records have been or arn to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods through September 30, 1970. It supersedes Geologf.cal Survey Circular 580, It was updated by personnel of the Data Reports Unit, Water Resources Division, Geologf.cal Survey. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 Stnes were published inl4volumes,oneforeachof the parts. From 1951 to 1960, the records for the 48 States were publis"ed annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. Beginning in 1961, theannualseriesofwater-supplypapers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year sel'1'es, and records for the period 1961-65 were published in 37 volumes, there being 2 or more volumes for each of 11 prrts and one each for parts 10, 13, 14, 15 (Alaska) and 16 (Hawaii and other Pacific areas).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Genetics of a Desert Fish Species: the Lahontan Tui Chub
    Conserv Genet (2015) 16:743–758 DOI 10.1007/s10592-015-0697-1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Conservation genetics of a desert fish species: the Lahontan tui chub (Siphateles bicolor ssp.) Amanda J. Finger • Bernie May Received: 7 August 2014 / Accepted: 20 January 2015 / Published online: 1 February 2015 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 Abstract Analysis of the genetic diversity and structure continuing to maximize habitat size and quality to preserve of declining populations is critical as species and popula- overall genetic diversity, evolutionary potential, and eco- tions are increasingly fragmented globally. In the Great logical processes. Basin Desert in particular, climate change, habitat alter- ation, and fragmentation threaten aquatic habitats and their Keywords Microsatellite Á Desert fishes Á Tui chub Á endemic species. Tui chubs, including the Lahontan tui Great Basin Á Walker Lake Á Dixie Valley chub and Dixie Valley tui chub, (Siphateles bicolor ssp.) are native to the Walker, Carson, Truckee and Humboldt River drainages in the Great Basin Desert. Two popula- Introduction tions, Walker Lake and Dixie Valley, are under threat from habitat alteration, increased salinity, small population The field of conservation genetics operates on the premise sizes, and nonnative species. We used nine microsatellite that the genetic diversity of a population has consequences markers to investigate the population genetic structure and for its health and viability (Frankham 2002). Small popu- diversity of these and nine other tui chub populations to lations in particular are at greater risk of extinction due to provide information to managers for the conservation of demographic (e.g. stochastic or catastrophic events Lande both Walker Lake and Dixie Valley tui chubs.
    [Show full text]
  • Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project Environmental Assessment
    Appendix D Biological Survey Reports EMPSi 2016; WRC 2013; ESRS 2013 This page intentionally left blank. Biological Survey Report ORNI 32, LLC DIXIE MEADOWS GEOTHERMAL UTILIZATION PROJECT PERSHING AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA July 2016 Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. 4741 Caughlin Parkway, Suite 4 Reno, Nevada 89519 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Regional and Geographic Overview ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3.1 Ground Survey ............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3.2 Golden Eagle Aerial Survey ......................................................................................... 1-5 2. VEGETATION ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Vegetation Types within the Project Area ............................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inferring Presence of the Western Toad (Anaxyrus Boreas) Species Complex Using Environmental DNA
    Global Ecology and Conservation 15 (2018) e00438 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Ecology and Conservation journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco Short Communication Inferring presence of the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) species complex using environmental DNA * Thomas W. Franklin a, , Joseph C. Dysthe a, Michael Golden b, Kevin S. McKelvey a, Blake R. Hossack c, Kellie J. Carim a, Cynthia Tait d, Michael K. Young a, Michael K. Schwartz a a U.S. Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 E. Beckwith Ave., Missoula, MT, 59801, USA b U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Ln., Cedar City, UT, 84721, USA c U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, 800 E. Beckwith Ave., Missoula, MT, 59801, USA d U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, 324 25th St., Ogden, UT, 84401, USA article info abstract Article history: Western toads (species complex comprised of Anaxyrus boreas, A. canorus, A. exsul, and A. Received 2 May 2018 nelsoni) are widely distributed in the western United States but are declining, particularly Received in revised form 6 September 2018 in the southeastern extent of their range. The subspecies A. b. boreas is listed as a Species of Accepted 6 September 2018 Greatest Conservation Need in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Reliable and sensitive methods for delineating distributions of western toads are critical for monitoring Keywords: the status of the species and prioritizing conservation efforts. We developed two qPCR eDNA assays for detecting western toad DNA in environmental DNA samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Hydrographic Areas and Sub-Areas/Listed Alphabetically by Area Name Basin Area Area Area Num
    Appendix A-3--Nevada Hydrographic Areas and Sub-Areas/Listed Alphabetically by Area Name Basin Area Area Area Num. Num. (sq.mi.) (acres) Desig Hydrograph Area/Sub-Area Counties [1] [2] [3] [4] Nearest Cities [6] Name Included [5] Benton Station, 10 115 15 9,600 Adobe Valley Mineral No Mina 10 142 313 200,320 Alkali Spring Valley Esmeralda, Nye Goldfield, Tonopah No 10 111A 18 11,520 Alkali Valley/Northern Part Mineral Hawthorne No 10 111B 65 41,600 Alkali Valley/Southern Part Mineral Hawthorne No Beatty, Lathrop 14 230 896 573,440 Amargosa Desert Nye Yes Wells 10 151 444 284,160 Antelope Valley Eureka, Nye Eureka No 9 106 115 73,600 Antelope Valley Douglas Topaz, Wellington Yes Lemmon Valley, 7 93 18 11,520 Antelope Valley Washoe Yes Sparks 4 57 452 289,280 Antelope Valley Lander Austin Yes 10 186B 270 172,800 Antelope Valley/Northern Part Elko, White Pine Wendover, Ely No 10 186A 125 80,000 Antelope Valley/Southern Part Elko, White Pine Wendover, Ely No 7 94 53 33,920 Bedell Flat Washoe Lemmon Valley Yes Big Smoky Valley/Northern Round Mountain, 10 137B 1,323 846,720 Nye, Lander Yes Part Austin Big Smoky Valley/Tonopah Nye, Esmeralda, Tonopah, 10 137A 1,603 1,025,920 Yes Flat Mineral Manhattan Boulder City, 13 215 630 403,200 Black Mountains Area Clark Yes Overton Humboldt, Sulfur, Jungo, 2 28 2,179 1,394,560 Black Rock Desert No Pershing, Washoe Summit Lake Eureka, Lander, Beowawe, Battle 4 61 544 348,160 Boulder Flat Yes Elko Mountain 1 15 88 56,320 Boulder Valley Washoe Vya, Cedarville No Bradys Hot Springs, 5 75 178 113,920 Brady
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada and Utah Springsnail Species Descriptions Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..2 1] Amnicola Limosa
    Appendix A: Nevada and Utah Springsnail Species Descriptions Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..2 1] Amnicola limosa ...................................................... Mud Amnicola ............................................................................... 4 2] Assiminea infima ..................................................... Badwater Snail .............................................................................. 6 3] Colligyrus greggi ..................................................... Rocky Mountain Duskysnail ........................................................... 8 4] Eremopyrgus eganensis........................................... Steptoe Hydrobe ......................................................................... 10 5] Fluminicola coloradoensis ....................................... Green River Pebblesnail ............................................................... 12 6] Fluminicola dalli ...................................................... Pyramid Lake Pebblesnail ............................................................ 14 7] Fluminicola turbiniformis ........................................ Turban Pebblesnail ...................................................................... 16 8] Fluminicola virginius ............................................... Virginia Mountains Pebblesnail .................................................... 18 9] Juga acutifilosa ....................................................... Topaz Juga .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GEOLOGY STUDIES Volume 42, Part I, 1997
    BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA FIELD TRIP GUIDE BOOK 1997 ANNUAL MEETING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH PAR' EDITED BY PAUL KARL LINK AND BART J. KOWALLIS VOIUME 42 I997 PROTEROZOIC TO RECENT STRATIGRAPHY, TECTONICS, AND VOLCANOLOGY, UTAH, NEVADA, SOUTHERN IDAHO AND CENTRAL MEXICO Edited by Paul Karl Link and Bart J. Kowallis BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GEOLOGY STUDIES Volume 42, Part I, 1997 CONTENTS Neoproterozoic Sedimentation and Tectonics in West-Central Utah ..................Nicholas Christie-Blick 1 Proterozoic Tidal, Glacial, and Fluvial Sedimentation in Big Cottonwood Canyon, Utah ........Todd A. Ehlers, Marjorie A. Chan, and Paul Karl Link 31 Sequence Stratigraphy and Paleoecology of the Middle Cambrian Spence Shale in Northern Utah and Southern Idaho ............... W. David Liddell, Scott H. Wright, and Carlton E. Brett 59 Late Ordovician Mass Extinction: Sedimentologic, Cyclostratigraphic, and Biostratigraphic Records from Platform and Basin Successions, Central Nevada ............Stan C. Finney, John D. Cooper, and William B. N. Beny 79 Carbonate Sequences and Fossil Communities from the Upper Ordovician-Lower Silurian of the Eastern Great Basin .............................. Mark T. Harris and Peter M. Sheehan 105 Late Devonian Alamo Impact Event, Global Kellwasser Events, and Major Eustatic Events, Eastern Great Basin, Nevada and Utah .......................... Charles A. Sandberg, Jared R. Morrow and John E. Warme 129 Overview of Mississippian Depositional and Paleotectonic History of the Antler Foreland, Eastern Nevada and Western Utah ......................................... N. J. Silberling, K. M. Nichols, J. H. Trexler, Jr., E W. Jewel1 and R. A. Crosbie 161 Triassic-Jurassic Tectonism and Magmatism in the Mesozoic Continental Arc of Nevada: Classic Relations and New Developments ..........................S. J.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Basin Restoration Initiative Area: Geographic Area Determination Methodology
    Great Basin Restoration Initiative Area: Geographic Area Determination Methodology Mike “Sherm” Karl Rangeland Management Specialist Rangeland, Soil, Water & Air Group Washington, DC Bruce M. Durtsche Wildlife Biologist National Science and Technology Center Denver, CO Karen Morgan GIS Specialist Orkand Corporation National Science and Technology Center Denver, CO June 21, 2001 INTRODUCTION The Great Basin Restoration Initiative (GBRI) originated in the wake of the disastrous fire season of 1999, in which 1.7 million acres of public land burned, mostly in Nevada. Today, more than 25 million acres of the Great Basin are dominated by exotic annual grasses and noxious weeds, with additional acres dominated by pinyon pine/juniper. The health of these lands is in jeopardy, attributable to (1) exotic annual grasses such as cheatgrass, which are flammable and have increased the incidence and spread of wildland fires, resulting in even more loss of native vegetation and habitat, and further increases of cheatgrass as time goes by, and (2) woodlands dominated by pinyon pine and/or juniper species, which have invaded what once was sagebrush- steppe and sagebrush, attributable to fire suppression, excessive livestock grazing pressure, and climate change, individually or in combination. A restoration effort, on a large geographic scale, needs to be undertaken to stop the downward ecological trends in the Great Basin. The restoration effort needs to be focused on the geographic area where Great Basin vegetation is present and where fuel loads of the native plant communities has been altered by cheatgrass, other flammable annual plants, and woody vegetation such as pinyon pine and juniper species.
    [Show full text]