## DRAFT

## 

## U.S. National Park Service

## Mojave Inventory and Monitoring Network

## Spring Survey Protocols: Level I

February 24, 2003

Prepared by:

Donald W. Sada

Karl F. Pohlmann

Desert Research Institute

### CONTENTS

######## 

######## [Introduction]{.underline} 1

Background 1

Purpose 1

######## [Spring Systems]{.underline} 2

Aquifer Sources 2

Physical Characteristics of Springs 3

Biological Characteristics of Springs 4

Rare Species 7

Anthropogenic Factors 8

Non-Native Species 9

######## 

#### [Level I Spring Survey Protocol Guidelines]{.underline} 10

#### 

**[Management and Restoration Priorities]{.underline}** 14

######## [References]{.underline} 17

######## [Appendix A. Glossary]{.underline} 25

######## [Appendix B. Field Survey Form]{.underline} 28

# **Introduction**

######## Background

Thousands of springs scatter a variety of landscapes throughout the
western U.S. They have been a focus of human activity for thousands of
years because they often provide the only reliable source of water.
Their importance as aquatic and riparian habitats has become
increasingly apparent over the past 70 years (Hubbs 1995), and they are
now known as "biodiversity hotspots" that support a large proportion of
the aquatic and riparian species in arid regions (Fisher et al. 1972,
Williams and Koenig 1980, Gubanich and Panik 1986, Myers and Resh 1999).
Several hundred species or subspecies of fishes, mollusks, crustaceans,
aquatic insects, and plant species are endemic to western U.S. springs,
which demonstrates their importance to a wide variety of plants and
animals that do not occur elsewhere (e.g., Hubbs and Miller 1948, Hubbs
et al., 1974, Williams et al. 1985, Minckley et al. 1986, Wiggins and
Erman ­­­­1987, Hershler and Sada 1987, Shepard 1990, Hershler 1998 & 1999,
Schmude 1999, Hershler and Frest 1996, Baldinger et al. 2000, Polehmus
and Polhemus 2002, Sada and Vinyard 2002, Smith et al. 2002).

Although many western U.S. springs have been surveyed to determine
discharge rates and aquifer affinities, broad-scale and biological
surveys have been uncommon, and knowledge of spring ecosystems is very
limited. Biological studies in other regions have shown, however, that a
number of anthropogenic uses and physicochemical factors influence the
biotic characteristics of springs. While many springs are comparatively
harsh environments, the adverse influences of anthropogenic uses have
caused spring biota to experience the highest rate of extinction known
in the western U.S. (Williams et al. 1985, Shepard 1993, Sada and
Vinyard 2002). Programs are needed to more thoroughly understand the
effects of disturbance on spring biota and moderate the effects of
anthropogenic uses to prevent additional resource loss and restore
spring habitat quality.

**Purpose**

Resource agencies are challenged to design, implement, and achieve
management goals. These goals are usually identified during a planning
process that requires information that is compiled at several different
levels of intensity. Planning first involves accumulating information
that identifies and characterizes resources within a defined geographic
area (e.g., within a National Park, a U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Resource Area, a National Forest, etc.). This information may include
both quantitative and qualitative data. When conducted properly, this
phase provides initial insights about resource condition, the response
of resources to current management practices, and some potential
management options. If resource conditions do not meet management goals
and guidelines, this phase should be followed by surveys that address
particular management challenges. This often involves compiling a higher
level of quantitative data that can be used to assess the affect of
management and resource use across a broad area. A third level of more
quantitative information may be needed to address individual resource
issues, which require long term monitoring, public involvement, or legal
challenges.

Since most State and Federal agencies have a weak understanding of
spring resources under their jurisdiction, surveys and survey protocols
are needed to compile appropriate information that will assist with
their management. Following requirements for planning and management
that are summarized above, three levels of surveys can be described to
assist the National Park Service with spring management challenges.
These protocols are intended to describe biotic and abiotic
characteristics of springs and accomplish the following goals:

Level I spring surveys are designed to [identify and
characterize]{.underline} spring resources, delineate the distribution
of important species and salient aspects of their habitat, and to
determine unique resource challenges. This protocol provides effective
methods to characterize spring systems across the landscape, and
information that can be used to set management and restoration
priorities (see Management and Restoration Priorities section). However,
comparison of springs and assessment of management actions should be
restricted to geographic areas where local springs are influenced by
common water sources, climates, and geologies. In this light, it is
inappropriate to compare springs in Great Basin National Park with
springs in Death Valley National Park, but comparison of springs within
each park would probably be appropriate. This protocol is based on work
conducted in southern Nevada by Sada and Nachlinger (1996, 1998) and
Bradford et al. (in press), and many additional springs throughout the
intermountain west (e.g., Meffe and Marsh 1983; Sada et al. 2000; Sada
2001a,b; Sada and Herbst 2000). Data elements recorded during these
surveys are as follows (a sample data sheet is shown in Appendix B):

> [Level I Surveys]{.underline}
>
> Locate and provide reconnaissance level characterization of biotic and
> abiotic features of spring habitats throughout a jurisdictional area,
> and determine the presence or absence of rare aquatic species.
>
> [Level II Surveys]{.underline}
>
> Qualitatively sample riparian and aquatic communities to determine
> community structure, and quantitatively sample salient physicochemical
> elements to identify aquifer affinities.
>
> [Level III Survey Protocol]{.underline}
>
> Quantitatively sample additional physicochemical elements to determine
> aquifer dynamics. Quantitatively sample riparian and aquatic
> communities and habitats to determine spatial and temporal variation
> in environmental and biotic (e.g., abundance and community structure)
> characteristics, and to quantitatively determine biotic and abiotic
> interactions.

Foundations for these protocols are provided by a number of hydrological
and biological studies of springs in the western U.S. and elsewhere
(e.g., see Ferrington 1995, Botosaneau 1998, Meffe and Marsh 1983,
Thomas et al., 1996, Sada and Nachlinger in review, and many other
references that are cited in this report) that have examined
physicochemical conditions of springs and relationships between their
abiotic and biotic characteristics. Level I protocols and methods to use
information they provide are described in this summary. Similar detail
for Level II and III protocols will be described in later summaries.

These protocols also summarize the ecology of rare aquatic species that
may occur in springs. This information should facilitate sampling and
make it easier for surveyors to determine their presence or absence.

# **Spring Systems**

**Aquifer Sources**

Springs are relatively small aquatic and riparian systems that are
maintained by groundwater flowing onto the land surface through natural
processes (Hynes 1970). They are distinctive for several reasons: their
water temperature is relatively constant (at least near their source),
they depend on subterranean flow through aquifers, they provide the only
water over vast areas and are therefore "biodiversity hotspots" (Myers
and Resch 1999), and they often support species that occur only in
springs (Hynes 1970, Erman and Erman 1995, Myers and Resch 1999).

Springs are supported by precipitation that seeps into the soil and
accumulates in aquifers where it is stored. They occur where water
reaches the earth's surface through fault zones, rock cracks, or
orifices that occur when water creates a passage by dissolving rock.
Spring hydrology is influenced by the characteristics of regional and
local geology, and how water moves through an aquifer. The size of an
aquifer depends on regional and local geology and climate. There are
three general types of aquifers that supply springs in the Mojave
Network.

[Perched Aquifers]{.underline}

In the western U.S., springs at high elevations (\> 1800 m) springs are
generally supplied by perched aquifers. These springs are cool
(\<20^o^C) and they are recharged by precipitation from an adjacent
mountain range. Perched springs are usually small and they often dry up
during the fall.

[Local Aquifers]{.underline}

Springs fed by local aquifers are also cool (\<20^o^C) and fed by
precipitation from an adjacent mountain range. Local aquifers are also
comparatively small and shallow, and the amount of water discharging
from their springs may change seasonally and annually in response to
local precipitation. They are quickly recharged, typically by annual
precipitation on individual mountain ranges or over a small area.
Highest flows occur during the spring and early summer when aquifers are
recharged by snowmelt. Springs supplied by local springs usually only
dry during extended droughts.

[Regional Aquifers]{.underline}

Springs fed by regional aquifers are warm (\>20^o^C) and generally are
supplied from several recharge sources that may extend over vast areas.
Flow through these aquifers is complex, controlled by fractures, and in
many areas the flow extends beneath several valleys and topographic
divides (Mifflin 1968, Winograd and Thordarson 1975, Thomas et al.
1996). In contrast, discharge from regional springs is constant over
long periods (often \>1,000 years, and exceeding 600,000 years; Winograd
et al. 1992).

**Physical Characteristics of Springs**

Springs and seeps occur in many sizes and shapes. Seeps are small
springs that support small amounts of riparian vegetation that is
adapted to drier conditions, and they often dry on a regular basis.
Springs may also be small but they have larger aquatic habitats, dry
less frequently, and generally support larger riparian zones with
species that rely on moist soils. Springs are frequently categorized by
the morphology of their source. *Limnocrenes* are sources where water
flows from large deep pools, *helocrenes* are marshy and bog-like, and
*rheocrenes* flow into a confined channel.

Each spring and seep is a unique combination of physical and chemical
conditions (see Hynes 1970, Garside and Schilling 1979). They can be
cold (near or below mean-annual air temperature), thermal (\>5^o^C and
\<10 ^o^C above mean-annual air temperature \[van Everdingen 1991\]), or
hot (water temperature \>10^o^C above mean-annual air temperature
\[Peterken 1957\]). Springs may also be chemically harsh. Many hot
springs are highly acidic and springs flowing through limestone and
basalt may be alkaline. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are frequently
very low (\<2 parts per million (ppm)) in hot springs, and high (\>5
ppm) in cooler springs. At spring sources, dissolved oxygen
concentrations are frequently low and increase downstream with exposure
to the atmosphere (Hynes 1970). Electrical conductance may also range
from very low (near 0 µmhos) to very high (\>10,000 µmhos) in some harsh
environments. Also, cooler and smaller springs may freeze during winter,
while larger and warmer springs do not.

Springs occur singly and in provinces that include many sizes and
morphologies. Most springs below approximately 2,100 meters (7,000 feet)
in western North America are isolated and flow a short distance before
drying (Deacon and Minckley 1974). Many arid-land springs also dry
periodically. Other springs flow into rivers, lakes, and streams, and
spring provinces may support extensive wetlands. Springs in Clark County
include all varieties of isolation and connectivity.

**Biological Characteristics of Springs**

The physical, chemical, and disturbance characteristics of a spring are
the most dominant factors influencing its riparian and aquatic plant and
animal communities (van der Kamp 1995, Sada and Nachlinger in review).
Riparian vegetation at cool water springs and springs with lower thermal
temperatures consists of species that also occur near regional streams,
lakes, and marshes (e.g., willows, mesquites, sedges, and grasses). This
vegetation may be dense at springs that have been minimally affected by
conflicting uses. Springs that have been highly modified usually have
less diverse riparian communities that may include non-native species
and species that are typically associated with upland plant communities.
Riparian vegetation along springs may be restricted to the immediate
boundaries of the aquatic habitat, or it may extend outward for
substantial distances. Narrow riparian zones are typically dominated by
sedges, grasses, and woody phreatophytes (e.g., willows, mesquite,
etc.). Wider riparian systems generally occur at spring provinces where
water seeps outward from aquatic habitats and moistens hydric soils.

The complex influences of the physical and chemical environment on plant
and animal physiology cause most springs to be biologically distinct.
Species that inhabit rheocrenes prefer flowing water and species in
limnocrenes are more similar to species that occupy lakes and ponds
(Sada et al. 2000). Aquatic communities in spring sources also differ
from communities further downstream. Many spring source species do not
occupy downstream habitats where temporal fluctuations in water
temperature and flow are greatest (Erman and Erman 1990, Erman 1992).
Communities in permanent springs generally include more species and more
individuals than communities in ephemeral springs (Erman and Erman
1995). Ephemeral springs and springs with harsh environments generally
have low species richness, and aquatic species in ephemeral habitats are
typically vagile (animals that can fly or crawl long distances) and well
adapted to inhabiting intermittent aquatic habitats. Springs occupied by
endemic aquatic species do not dry, and they have persisted for
thousands of years. These endemic species are poorly vagile and they
cannot easily move across dry land.

Smaller springs are generally autotrophic aquatic systems that depend
little on allochothonous carbon sources (Minshall 1978, Cushing and Wolf
1984). In larger springs, energy may enter the aquatic system during
periodic floods that flush carbon from the surrounding landscape. Plant
and animal assemblages in springs are also similar to aquatic and
riparian assemblages associated with streams and ponds. However, they
exhibit diverse compositional and structural characteristics that are
unique. Springs with harsh environments (e.g., high water temperatures,
high concentrations of dissolved solids, subject to scouring floods or
periodic drying, etc.) are biologically depauperate in comparison to
springs with cooler, purer water. Life within and surrounding harsh
environments is limited to animals and plants that are able to tolerate
conditions where osmoregulation and respiration are difficult (Brock
1994, Kristijansson and Hreggvidsson 1995). In montane Sierra Nevada
springs Erman and Erman (1995) found species diversity was correlated
with spring permanence, calcium concentration, specific conductance, pH,
magnesium, and alkalinity. Flies (Diptera) are the most common animals
in harsh environments and bluegreen algae (Cyanobacteria) frequently
dominate the vegetation community of hot springs. In cooler habitats
where conditions are moderate, stoneflies (Plecoptera), mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera) are common components of
the aquatic fauna. Sada and Nachlinger (1996, 1998) also found that
spring size and habitat conditions influence the biodiversity of
southern Nevada springs. Aquatic and riparian communities at larger
springs and springs that had been minimally altered had greater
biodiversity than communities at small and highly disturbed springs.

Most spring environments are less variable than other aquatic habitats
(e.g., streams, rivers, and lakes), which cause variability in
population size and assemblage structure to be comparatively low
(Minckley 1963, van der Kamp 1995). Within a spring system,
environmental variation is typically lowest near the source where
environments are comparatively stable and it is greatest downstream
where variability in temperature, discharge, dissolved oxygen
concentration, and other factors is much greater (Deacon and Minckley
1974). As a result, the composition of source and downstream communities
are usually different, and species that occupy the source usually prefer
habitats that are unique to this area and they are frequently absent
from downstream habitats (Hayford *et al.* 1995, Hershler 1998, O'Brien
and Blinn 1999). There are also seasonal differences in abundance that
are influenced by mostly by temperature and photoperiod. Resh (1983)
found more species near the source of a Mendocino County, California
spring, but higher animal density in downstream reaches. In a small New
Mexico spring, Noel (1954) found the highest density was near the source
and during the period January through September. Abundance also differs
throughout the year in response to food availability, temperature,
reproduction, and migration of species along a springbrook (Minckley
1963, Glazier and Gooch 1987, Varza and Covich 1995).

Although additional information is needed to identify habitats preferred
by endemic macroinvertebrates, it appears that these species prefer
specific habitat types. Springsnails in the genus *Pyrgulopsis*
generally prefer gravel substrate and flowing water, whereas species in
the genus *Tryonia* occur in sand substrate that is typically found
along banks in slow current (Hershler 1998, Hershler and Sada 1987, Sada
and Herbst 1999). Endemic beetles (e.g., *Stenelmis* sp. and
*Microcylleopus* sp.) and bugs (e.g., *Ambrysus* sp. and *Limnocoris*
sp.) are most common where gravel substrate occurs with high current
velocities (Sada and Herbst 1999). Populations of these endemic taxa
represent relict populations that became established during ancient
pluvial periods over the past several million years (Taylor 1985,
Hershler and Pratt 1990). These taxa occur only in springs that have
provided continuous aquatic habitat since ancestral forms first
established and that have not been severely altered. These springs are
reliable water sources that can be used for both conservation and public
use when development programs are properly designed.

Because of the relative isolation, relict nature, and water at springs,
the plant diversity and endemism are high compared to adjacent uplands.
Sada and Nachlinger (1996) documented 250 species of plants and animals
associated with springs in the Spring Mountains of southern Nevada.
Comparatively high species diversity (126-150 species) was also recorded
at springs along the southwestern edge of the Great Basin in Owens
Valley, California (DeDecker 1980, Ferren et al*.* 1991). Springs in
both of these regions also support rare plant populations (Skinner 1994,
Sada and Nachlinger 1998).

Spring systems also may exhibit unusual hydrologic and edaphic
characteristics that are associated with plant rarity. For example,
soils near many Great Basin springs are highly alkaline with high levels
of calcium, an element frequently associated with rare plants in the
genus *Astragalus* (milk vetch) (Ferren et al. 1991). In Nevada,
approximately 15 wetland plants are on Sensitive or Watch Lists (Nevada
Natural Heritage 1998), and in the Great Basin region of eastern
California (Mono and Inyo Counties) approximately 35 wetland plants are
considered rare (Skinner 1994).

Comparatively little information has been compiled to show the value of
spring-fed riparian habitats to western North American birds, reptiles,
amphibians, and mammals. However, extensive work in riparian habitats
along streams and rivers indicates their importance for roosting, food,
and shelter (e.g., Warner and Hendrix 1984, Johnson et al. 1985, Naiman
and Rogers 1997). Quality riparian habitat has high structural diversity
created by dense undergrowth of tangled vegetation and debris. In
quality habitat, vegetation at mid-level is less dense and there is a
comparatively open canopy provided by large trees. In many of western
North America's riparian zones, structure provided by a dense
undergrowth of shrub willow and debris, willows at mid-level, and a
willow and cottonwood tree canopy. Mesquite (*Prosopis* spp.) woodlands
are also common at lower elevations and latitudes in arid lands
(Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). Riparian habitat has been reduced at
many western U.S. springs by diversion, burning, vegetation control, and
excessive ungulate grazing (Shepard 1993). As a result, suitable
riparian habitat along springs has been eliminated or degraded so that
invasive species such as brown-headed cowbirds (*Molothrus ater*) can
more easily invade nesting areas (Gaines 1977).

The amount that birds depend on water for drinking appears related to
their dietary habits and behavior. Granivorous birds drink more than
carnivorous or insectivorous birds (Fisher *et al*. 1972). Williams and
Koenig (1980) suggested that western tanagers (*Piranga ludoviciana*) in
central California depend on springs during migration but Gubanich and
Panik (1986) rarely recorded this species drinking from springs in
western Nevada. Gubanich and Panik (*ibid*) did, however, observe
insectivorous species such as American robin (*Turdus migratorius*),
Townsends solitare (*Myadestes townsendi*), mountain bluebird (*Sailia
currocoides*), northern flicker (*Colaptes cafer*), and horned lark
(*Eremophila alpestris*), and five species of warbler drinking from
springs. Both of these studies suggested that the stresses of migration
may cause insectivorous and frugivorous species to be at least
seasonally dependent on spring water.

Birds are highly vulnerable to predation while drinking and traveling to
and from water (Fisher *et al*. 1972). Gubanich and Panik (1986)
compared use at two springs with different amounts of cover, and
concluded that birds more frequently used the site with greater tree and
shrub cover. Species such as rufous-sided tohee (*Pipilo
erythrophthalmus*), red-breasted nuthatch (*Sitta canadensis*), mountain
chickadee (*Parus gambeli*), shrub jay (*Aphelocoma coerulescens*), and
stellers jay (*Cyanocitta stelleri*) were never observed drinking away
from cover. They also observed many instances of birds seeking cover in
trees and shrubs near springs when avian predators appeared.

Spring-fed riparian habitats are also used by other vertebrates, some of
which are endemic to small areas. Hall (1946) and Ingles (1965)
identified voles endemic to spring-fed mesic alkali wetlands in desert
regions, and Myers (1942) and Schuierer (1963) identified endemic toad
populations in the southwestern Great Basin. Many species of bats also
use water and insects provided by springs (O'Farrell and Bradley 1970,
1977).

**[Rare Species]{.underline}**

Taxonomic studies over the past 140 years have found a large number of
endemic plants and animals in wetlands throughout the Intermountain
Region (see Miller 1958, Taylor 1985, Hershler 1998). Early studies
focused on lotic habitats and large, valley floor springs that were
inhabited by unique fishes. More recent studies have examined
macroinvertebrates in small springs. A diverse crenobiotic (obligate
spring-dwelling) fauna is now known to occupy isolated habitats
throughout much of the western U.S. These species represent relict
populations that have persisted in isolated habitats for thousands of
years. They are unable to live outside of an aquatic environment for
long periods and most of them are restricted to springs with good water
quality. They never inhabit springs that periodically dry. Therefore,
extant populations are in aquatic habitats that have persisted (possibly
in conditions similar to those we see today) for long periods of
geological time (Taylor 1985, Polhemus and Polhemus 2002). The Great
Basin supports a particularly extensive aquatic fauna that includes
approximately 125 endemic species (two amphibians, 28 fish, eight
insects, one fairy shrimp, and 85 mollusks, and two amphipods) and 45
subspecies (one aquatic insect and 44 fish) (Sada and Vinyard 2002). The
importance of springs to rare species indicates that survey protocols
should include methods to determine their presence or absence at each
spring.

While there have been few descriptions of new fish taxa in arid lands of
the western U.S. within the past 20 years, more than 100 species of
aquatic mollusks, crustaceans, and insects (e.g., Hershler and Sada
1987, Shepard 1990, Polhemus and Polhemus 1994, Hershler 1998 & 1999,
Schmude 1999, Hershler and Frest 1996, Weaver and Myers 1998, Baldinger
et al. 2000) have been described from smaller springs over the past 15
years. Most of these springs are small and not occupied by native
fishes. Finger clams (*Pisidium* spp.) and amphipods (*Hyalella* spp.
and *Gammarus* spp.) also occur in many springs. Taxonomy of these
groups is poorly understood, and future studies may result in
description of new species.

Surveys for rare fishes have been comparatively extensive. They have
included most large spring habitats and streams, and opportunities for
finding new populations are comparatively small. However, the number of
recently described aquatic macroinvertebrates from single localities and
the number of habitats that have not been surveyed both suggest that
additional new species will be discovered. Table 1 shows taxonomic
groups that are most likely to include crenobiontic macroinvertebrates
in arid lands of the western U.S. (see Myers and Resh 1999, Hershler and
Hershler 1998 & 1999, Polhemus and Polhemus 2002, Sada and Vinyard
2002).

Descriptions of new springsnail species are notable among recent
taxonomic work because their diversity is surprisingly high (e.g.,
Hershler 1998). Importance of this fauna has been formalized in a MOU
for Great Basin springsnail conservation, which was signed by The Nature
Conservancy, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Interior (FWS, BLM,
NPS, and USGS), and U.S. Forest Service during 1998.

Table 1. Taxonomic groups of crenobiontic aquatic macroinvertebrate that
most commonly occur western U.S. springs.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Aquatic Insects**                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Order Coleoptera                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Family Elmidae (riffle beetles)                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Order Hemiptera                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Family Naucoridae (naucorid bugs)                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Order Trichoptera                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Family Lepidostomatidae (caddisflies)                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mollusks**                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Family Hydrobiidae (springsnails)                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Crustaceans**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Order Amphipoda (scuds)                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

These species occupy a wide variety of habitats, and they may be very
scarce or abundant. All of these species can be easily captured using a
kitchen sieve to collect animals from aquatic vegetation, debris, or the
substrate. Each species prefers a distinctive microhabitat, and sampling
must include collection from all of the habitat types found in a spring.
They are usually most abundant within 50 m of a spring source, and
scarce or absent from the downstream-most reaches of the aquatic
habitat. To facilitate field identification, drawings and photos of
representative animals in these groups are shown in Sada et al. (2001).

##### Anthropogenic Factors

Most springs in western North America have been physically and
biologically modified from historical conditions that existed when
settlers first entered the region (Shepard 1993). Many changes occurred
when settlers developed springs as water sources for their homes and
livestock. Other changes accompanied the introduction of non-native
plants and animals. Habitats were also altered by livestock, wild horse,
and burro grazing and trampling. Influences of these impacts have been
similar to effects of excessive grazing observed in other regions
(Kauffman and Krueger 1984, Fleischner 1994) where it has often degraded
riparian vegetation, and increased water temperature and the amount of
fine substrates. Spring waters have also been piped, spring brooks
channelized, and excessive ground water withdrawal has affected spring
biota by decreasing habitat size (even drying some habitats) and
vegetative cover, and changing aquatic and riparian community
composition (see Miller 1961, Dudley and Larson 1976, Miller et al.
1989, Hershler 1998). Other changes accompanied introductions of
non-native plants and animals, which resulted in loss of native species
through competitive interactions and predation. Spring and stream
ecosystems respond to these biological and physical perturbations in
similar ways. Aquatic and riparian habitats can be degraded or
eliminated through water diversion, intense ungulate grazing, and
non-native plants. Altering riparian vegetation may alter energy budgets
(changing the aquatic system from being allochthonous to autochthonous)
and reducing larval food and reproductive habitats for terrestrial
phases of aquatic insects, which are important food for many bird
species (Erman 1984, 1987). Similar results may occur following
establishment of non-native species that are predaceous or competitively
superior.

**[Non-Native Species]{.underline}**

A number of non-native aquatic species also occur at springs. Fishes
occur mostly in larger habitats, while macroinvertebrates may occupy a
wide variety of spring sizes and types. The most common non-native
aquatic animals known from Great Basin and southern California springs
are shown in Table 2. Non-native plant species are also known from
springs. Salt cedar (*Tamarix* spp.) and arundo (*Arundo donax*) are the
most common species that may alter riparian systems. Rabbit's foot grass
(*Polypogon monspeliensis*), Russian knapweed (*Acroptilon repens*), and
white-top (*Cardaria pubescens*). Refer to Bossard et al. (2000) and
Whiston et al. (1992) for additional information and plant
identification information.

Table 2. Common non-native aquatic species known from Great Basin and
southern California springs.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fishes**                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Mosquito fish (*Gambusia affinis*)                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Goldfish (*Carassius atratulus*)                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Amphibians**                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Bullfrogs (*Rana catesbeiana*)                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mollusks**                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Red-rimmed melanoides (*Melanoides tuberbulata*)                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > New Zealand mudsnail (*Potamopyrgus antipodarum*)                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Crustaceans**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Order Decapoda (crayfish)                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Level I Spring Survey Protocol Guidelines**

Level I spring surveys are designed to [identify and provide
reconnaissance level characterization]{.underline} of spring resources,
delineate the distribution of important species and salient aspects of
their habitat, and to determine unique resource challenges. This
protocol provides effective methods to characterize spring systems
across the landscape, and information that can be used to set management
and restoration priorities (see Management and Restoration Priorities
section). However, comparison of springs and assessment of management
actions should be restricted to geographic areas where local springs are
influenced by common water sources, climates, and geologies. In this
light, it is inappropriate to compare springs in Great Basin National
Park with springs in Death Valley National Park, but comparison of
springs within each park would probably be appropriate. This protocol is
based on work conducted in southern Nevada by Sada and Nachlinger (1996,
1998) and Bradford et al. (in press b), and many additional springs
throughout the intermountain west (e.g., Meffe and Marsh 1983; Sada et
al. 2000; Sada 2000b; Sada and Herbst 2000). Data elements recorded
during these surveys are as follows (a sample data sheet is shown in
Appendix B):

Record the following information at the spring source, and include the
upper 50 m of aquatic habitat (at larger springs) in the survey. All
aquatic habitat should be include for springs with spring brooks less
than 50 m long.

-   Record the [date]{.underline} that the spring survey is conducted

-   Identify [personnel]{.underline} conducting this spring survey, and
    list a field note number.

-   Record the [State]{.underline} where the spring being surveyed is
    located.

-   Record the [County]{.underline} where the spring being surveyed is
    located.

-   Record the [drainage basin]{.underline} where the spring is located.
    In the Great Basin, this consists of identifying the valley where
    the survey is being conducted, in regions with large basins, record
    the river basin. If in doubt about the location, record names of
    both the valley and river basin.

-   Record Township, Range, and quarter-section coordinates.

-   Record the [1:100,000 scale U.S. Geological Survey map]{.underline}
    that includes the spring/seep location, the 1:24,000 topographic map
    may also be recorded.

-   Record [Global Position System location]{.underline} (NAD 27) of the
    spring/seep source. Either UTMs (to the nearest meter) or
    Latitude/Longitude (to the nearest second) may be used according to
    local convention. Computer programs are available to convert between
    these units. Also record PDOP to indicate the accuracy of these
    coordinates

-   Record whether or not the spring/seep can be [accessed by
    vehicle]{.underline}. Record 'positive' if a road leads to the
    spring so that it can be reached by passenger car or 4 X 4, or
    'negative' if no road exists. Exceptions to this are situations with
    historical road access but current access is blocked by flood,
    avalanche, etc. damage. In these situations cite that vehicle access
    is '+' and record in the notes that current access is blocked for
    the observed reason. The '+' notation is important because it is
    highly likely that the spring/seep was disturbed during historic
    vehicle access.

-   Record whether or not [photos]{.underline} are taken of the
    spring/seep. Photos should be labeled by field note number, date,
    site name and Township, Range, quarter Section location. Photos
    should be taken using a digital camera, or slides and positive
    exposures should be scanned and digitally saved.

-   Record spring [elevation]{.underline} in feet or meters (preferred).
    Measurement should be taken using GPS system (preferred). A Thomen
    altimeter (accuracy + 30 feet) may also be used but elevation should
    be calibrated from maps as frequently as possible during each day
    that fieldwork is conducted. Methods used to record elevation should
    be mentioned in comments portion of data sheet.

-   Record [land ownership]{.underline} as U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
    Bureau of Land Management, Tribal, Military, Private, or other
    (e.g., State lands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, municipality,
    etc., write out the name of the owner)

-   Record spring type as: [Rheocrene]{.underline} (a spring that
    discharges into a defined channel), [Limnocrene]{.underline} (a
    spring that discharges into a ponded or pooled habitat before
    flowing into a defined channel), or [Helocrene]{.underline} (similar
    to a Limnocrene, but marshy and comparatively shallow, not an open
    pond or pool).

-   Estimate [Spring Discharge]{.underline} in liters/minute. When
    possible, measure discharge by recording the length of time required
    to fill a container with a known volume. However, the small size of
    most arid land springs makes it difficult to accurately measure
    discharge. In most of these systems, it is not possible to capture
    all discharge or to measure current velocity using a meter or other
    methods. Also, daily and seasonal variation in discharge may be
    great, which suggests that estimates during a single survey may
    minimally describe long term discharge characteristics.

-   Estimate [Spring Brook Length]{.underline} by measuring (or pacing)
    the distance (in meters) from spring source to the downstream extent
    of surface water.

-   Estimate average [Water Depth]{.underline} (the vertical distance
    from substrate to water surface, in centimeters) that is found
    throughout the aquatic habitat.

-   Estimate the average [Wetted Perimeter Width]{.underline} (the
    length of wetted contact between flowing or standing water and the
    spring brook bottom in a vertical plane at right angles to the
    direction of flow, in centimeters).

-   Measure [Dissolved Oxygen Concentration]{.underline} (D.O., in
    mg/liter) using a field meter (e.g., YSY, Oakton, etc.). The meter
    should be kept clean, with fresh batteries, and calibrated daily
    following the manufacture's recommendation. All water chemistry
    paratmeters should be measured as close to the spring source as
    possible and in flowing water if available. The location of the
    measurements not taken at the source should be noted.

-   Measure [Water Temperature]{.underline}. This measurement is easily
    taken with a meter used to measure D.O. or conductivity.

-   Measure [Conductivity]{.underline} (electrical conductance, in µmhos
    or microsiemens) using a field meter (e.g., YSY, Oakton, etc.). The
    meter should be kept clean, with fresh batteries, and calibrated
    daily following the manufacture's recommendation.

-   Measure [pH]{.underline} using a hand-held field meter that can be
    calibrated (such as Oakton Model, pHtestr2). The meter should be
    kept clean, with fresh batteries, and calibrated daily following the
    manufacture's recommendation. These meters generally have a limited
    life, and a backup meter should always be carried.

-   Qualitatively estimate the percent of [Emergent Cover]{.underline}
    (vegetative, debris, or other material that arises within the wetted
    perimeter).

-   Qualitatively estimate the percent of [Vegetative Bank
    Cover]{.underline} (live vegetation that covers spring brook banks
    within the riparian zone).

-   Qualitatively estimate [Spring Brook Bank Incision]{.underline}.
    Rate banks as being incised when bank angle \> 60^o^ from vertical,
    and not incised when bank angles are \> 60^o^ from vertical. For
    spring brooks, bank incision is generally an indicator of stability
    and the absence of trampling activities.

-   Qualitatively estimate [Spring Brook Bank Stability]{.underline}
    (the resistance or susceptibility of the spring brook channel and
    banks to erosion) as poor, medium, or good (on a scale of 1 to 3
    with 1 being the most stable banks).

-   Qualitatively estimate the [Percent of the Wetted Perimeter Covered
    by Watercress]{.underline} (*Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum*).

-   Qualitatively estimate [Substrate Composition]{.underline} using a
    Wentworth particle scale analysis, which describes the substrate by
    the proportional composition of materials, where materials are
    classified as: Fines (\<1 mm), Sand (1 mm - 5 mm), Gravel (\>5 mm -
    80 mm­), Cobble (\>80 mm - 300 mm), Boulder (\>300 mm), or bedrock.
    Size is defined as the minimum particle size of substrate as
    measured on a two-dimensional axis, as would pass through a
    substrate sieve.

-   Note presence of the following groups of animals, and identify the
    species, if possible: springsnails, fish, amphibians, pulmonates
    (e.g., *Juga, Physa,* etc.), amphipods, clams, and other notable
    animals.

-   Estimate [Site Condition]{.underline} and identify influences
    causing disturbance. Sites should be categorized undisturbed,
    slightly disturbed, moderately disturbed, or highly disturbed by
    cultural or natural factors. These evaluations should follow these
    guidelines:

1.  Springs can be disturbed by natural and cultural factors, which
    appear to have similar effects on aquatic and riparian communities.
    Natural and slightly disturbed springs have generally higher species
    richness and fewer non-native species than moderately and highly
    disturbed springs. Most springs in southern Nevada have been
    affected by cultural factors, including trampling by non-native
    animals (mostly cattle, wild horses and burros, and elk), diversion
    (often including a spring box that is placed into spring sources to
    capture water in a pipe and divert it to an off-site location), and
    recreation (which often includes diversion, trampling, and
    off-highway vehicle travel). Natural disturbance factors include
    fire, scouring floods (particularly at springs lying in arroyos),
    avalanche (high elevation springs), and drought. Ephemeral springs
    and seeps are considered as highly disturbed by the natural event of
    drought.

2.  Site condition is assessed by categorizing the amount of disturbance
    that can be attributed to each cause of disturbance, which is scaled
    on a ranking from 1 (undisturbed) to 4 (highly disturbed) that are
    assigned according to the following criteria:

3.  [Undisturbed sites]{.underline} appear unaffected by historical or
    recent activity. Dry springs or intermittent seeps and springs are
    not classified as undisturbed because the disturbance of drought has
    an overwhelming influence on aquatic communities. These springs do
    not support non-native animal or plant taxa in riparian and aquatic
    communities, and they are 'reference conditions' that exemplify high
    quality habitat that can be compared to other, more disturbed sites.
    Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether these springs have
    ever been disturbed, or if they have naturalized from historical
    disturbance. Since most springs have been disturbed by some
    historical activity, totally undisturbed springs are believed to be
    rare. These springs are ranked disturbance category 1.

4.  [Slightly disturbed]{.underline} sites exhibit little evidence that
    vegetation or soil had been disturbed. Vegetation shows slight signs
    of browsing and foraging, and animal footprints and scat are
    prominent. These springs are ranked disturbance category 2.

5.  [Moderately disturbed]{.underline} sites exhibit evidence of recent
    disturbance. Vegetation covers \> 50% of the spring brook banks, and
    at least 50% of natural discharge remains within the natural spring
    brook. Neither the spring or spring brook has been impounded, and
    non-native species do not dominate aquatic or riparian communities.
    These springs are ranked disturbance category 3.

6.  [Highly disturbed]{.underline} springs either have \< 50% of their
    banks covered by vegetation, spring brooks containing \< 50% of
    natural discharge, or they are impounded or dredged. Ephemeral
    springs are categorized as highly disturbed because of recent flow
    reduction. These springs are ranked disturbance category 4.

7.  [Human disturbance]{.underline} \-- Qualitative estimate indicating
    the amount a spring has been disturbed by human-caused influences.
    Human-caused factors included impacts from management that include
    all factors attributed to the influence of humans. These consist of
    effects from non-native animals (e.g., cattle, wild horses, wild
    burros, and elk), diversion (municipal, domestic, and for
    livestock), and recreation. Multivariate analyses examined
    species-environmental relationships two ways, one by combining all
    human disturbances and the second by separating out each type of
    disturbance. Human Disturbance Categories were ranked as described
    above under 'Disturbance'.

[Natural disturbance]{.underline} \-- Qualitative estimate indicating
the amount a spring has been disturbed by natural events. Fire, flood,
and avalanche were the only natural disturbance factors observed in the
Spring Mountains. Multivariate analyses examined species-environmental
relationships two ways, one by combining all natural disturbances and
the second by separating out each type of disturbance. Natural
Disturbance Categories were ranked as described above under
'Disturbance'.

#### 

#### Management and Restoration Priorities

**Prioritization**

Information compiled during Level I surveys provides insight into the
biotic potential of each spring, which facilitates the identification of
management and priorities. The foundation for this assessment lies in
the most comprehensive examination of biotic and abiotic relationship in
springs across a western U.S. landscape by Sada and Nachlinger (in
review). They found that riparian and aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities in springs were most strongly influenced by elevation,
spring size (ergo discharge, spring brook length, wetted perimeter
width, etc.), water temperature, and disturbance. Larger, higher, colder
and less disturbed springs all supported greater riparian and aquatic
species richness than lower, warmer, and more disturbed springs. The
number of obligatory and facultative wetland plant taxa in the riparian
community was also lower in more disturbed sites, and the number of
exotic and upland plants was greater at moderate and highly disturbed
sites. Macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness and the abundance of
Ephemeropterans (mayflies), Plectoperans (stoneflies), and Trichopterans
(caddisflies) were correlated. These taxonomic groups were also less
abundant in small, warm, low elevation, and highly disturbed springs,
and communities in these habitats were dominated by taxa that
characterize harsh or polluted environments. Prior to this work, the
affects of anthropogenic disturbance on biotic characteristics of spring
systems were poorly realized beyond affects causing population
extirpations and extinction (see Miller 1961, Minckley and Deacon 1968,
Williams et al. 1985, Sada and Vinyard 2002).

Using this information, it is possible to prioritize springs according
to their resource values and restoration needs using matrix analyses to
rank biotic and abiotic elements of each spring within a region.
Potential analytical elements that may be used in these matrices are
shown and described in Tables 5 and 6. Resource agencies may identify
other elements that may more appropriately address their management and
restoration programs. Priority values derived from these analyses should
not be considered to be definitive guidance for management and
restoration, but they do indicate the relative importance of each spring
and how each one can be considered during management and restoration
programs.

Matrix I (Table 5) ranks elements that characterize the relative
importance of each spring's resources to resource values for other
springs in the surrounding area. These elements include rare species,
factors indicating taxonomic richness, the rarity of spring habitats
across the landscape, land ownership, and the potential of conflicting
uses that may affect biotic integrity. Higher priority springs have
higher matrix and resource values, and include larger springs (that
generally do not dry during droughts), springs supporting covered
species and high species richness, springs in public ownership where
management activities can be conducted, and springs where uses do not
affect biotic integrity. Lower priority springs have lower matrix values
and do not support covered species, have lower taxonomic richness,
periodically dry, occur in private lands, and are affected by
overwhelming uses that degrade their biotic integrity.

Matrix II (Table 6) ranks restoration priorities by considering habitat
condition in addition to the elements used in Matrix I. For this
analysis, higher restoration priority is indicated by higher matrix
values, which are given to springs with higher resource values and where
restoration programs can achieve more rapid and effective success.
Therefore, moderately disturbed springs with high resource values are
given higher restoration priority than minimally disturbed springs with
high resource values and highly degraded springs with low resource
value. Lower priority is assigned to the springs with lower resource
values and higher disturbance where restoration may have minimal
influence on riparian and aquatic communities.

> **Table 5**. Elements and ranking values for Matrix I to rank the
> relative value of resources at springs. Each spring is ranked by
> evaluating each matrix element and summing the ranking values for all
> elements. Elements are described below.

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Matrix I Criteria**        **Ranking Value**

  Presence of Rare Aquatic     Present = 10, Absent = 0
  Species ^1^                  

  Rarity Across Landscape ^2^  Rare = 10, Sparse = 5, Common = 2

  Spring Brook Length ^3^      \> 500 m = 10, [\<]{.underline} 500 \> 200
                               = 7, [\<]{.underline} 200 [\>]{.underline}
                               50 = 5, \< 50 = 2

  Scouring ^4^                 None = 10, Occasional = 5, Frequent = 2

  Aquatic Habitat Persistence  Persistent = 10, Ephemeral = 2
  ^5^                          

  Resource Threats ^6^         High = 2, Medium = 10, Low = 7

  Land Ownership ^7^           Public = 10, Private = 3

  Conflicting Uses ^8^         [\<]{.underline} 1 = 10, 2-3 = 5, \>3 = 2
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

> ^1^ Springs with rare plants or crenobiontic species are ranked 10,
> springs without rare species are ranked 0.
>
> ^2^ Spring rarity is a subjective scale of density across the
> landscape. In southern Nevada, density is comparatively high in spring
> provinces, moderate along the much of the east side of the Spring
> Mountains, and scarce in areas such as the west side of the Spring
> Mountain, in the McCullogh Range and Muddy Mountains.
>
> ^3^ Length is the distance in meters of the spring brook from the
> source to the end of contiguous flowing surface water.
>
> ^4^ Scouring is based on the potential of scouring due to flooding.
> Frequent scouring may have a lower resource value and recovery
> potential.
>
> ^5^ Persistence is the long-term presence of surface water. It is
> indicated by riparian systems with obligate wetland species and
> macroinvertebrate communities that are dominated by water boatman
> (corixids), diving beetles, and other highly vagile, invasive species.
> If spring snails are present, then there is persistence. Springs that
> dry have low recovery potential as aquatic habitats, but they may be
> important to amphibians.
>
> ^6^ Threats is a subjective evaluation of the likelihood that current
> activities will further degrade spring resource quality or keep it in
> a degraded condition. High threats usually mean a spring will be more
> difficult to restore. Low threats means land managers will likely want
> to keep the spring in its existing condition.
>
> ^7^ Ownership is either private, State, or Federal.
>
> ^8^ Conflicting Uses is a subjective ranking of how current uses
> conflict with management objectives. There can be three types of
> conflicting uses: (1) introduced grazing, (2) diversions, (3)
> recreation. If none of these are present the ranking is 0. If one of
> these conflicting uses is present the ranking is 7. If two conflicting
> uses are present the ranking is 5, and if three are present the
> ranking is 2.
>
> **Table 6**. Elements and ranking values for Matrix II to rank the
> restoration priority of springs. Each spring is ranked by evaluating
> each matrix element and summing the ranking values for all elements.
> Elements are as described for Matrix I, and below for elements used in
> only Matrix II.

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Matrix II Criteria**       **Analysis Scale**

  Presence of Rare Aquatic     Present = 10, Absent = 0
  Species ^1^                  

  Rarity Across Landscape ^2^  Rare = 10, Sparse = 5, Common = 2

  Spring Brook Length ^3^      \> 500 m = 10, [\<]{.underline} 500 \> 200
                               = 7, [\<]{.underline} 200 [\>]{.underline}
                               50 = 5, \< 50 = 2

  Scouring ^4^                 None = 10, Occasional = 5, Frequent = 2

  Aquatic Habitat Persistence  Persistent = 10, Ephemeral = 2
  ^5^                          

  Resource Threats ^6^         High = 2, Medium = 10, Low = 7

  Land Ownership ^7^           Public = 10, Private = 3

  Conflicting Uses ^8^         [\<]{.underline} 1 = 10, 2-3 = 5, \>3 = 2

  Habitat Condition ^9^        Slight/Unmodified = 5, Moderate = 10, High
                               = 2

  Recoverability ^10^          High = 10, Medium = 5, Low = 2
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

> ^9^ Habitat condition ratings are described in Level I protocol
> guidelines. Moderately disturbed springs receive higher ranking
> because restoration activities are more necessary than at slightly an
> undisturbed springs. Highly disturbed springs receive lower ranking
> because many of them are so badly disturbed that restoration is a very
> long-term process that requires substantial resources.
>
> ^10^ Recoverability includes the physical and biological aspects
> necessary to recover a spring. It does not include cost, feasibility,
> staffing needs, or political considerations.

**References**

Baldinger, A.J., W.D. Shepard, and D.L. Threloff. 2000. Two new species
of *Hyalella* (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyalellidae) from Death Valley
National Park, California, U.S.A. Proceedings of the Biological Society
of Washington 113:443-457.

Beierkuhnlein, C. and W. Gräsle. 1998. The influence of light regime and
water chemistry on the structure of a forest stream vegetation. Pages
7-22. *In* L. Botosaneau (ed.). Studies in crenobiology. The biology of
springs and springbrooks. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall and M.C. Hoshovsky (eds.). 2000. Invasive
plants of California's wildlands. University of California Press,
Berkeley.

Botosaneau, L. (ed.). 1998. Studies in crenobiology. The biology of
springs and springbrooks. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Bradford, D.F., J.R. Jaeger, and R.D. Jennings. In review. Status and
distribution of remnant populations of the relict leopard frog (*Rana
onca*).

Bradford, D.F., R.D. Jennings, and J.R. Jaeger. In press a. *Rana onca*
Cope 1875, relict leopard frog. In, M.J. Lanno (ed.), Status and
conservation of U.S. amphibians. University of California Press,
Berkeley.

Bradford, D.F., A.C. Neale, M.S. Nash, D.W. Sada, and J.R. Jaeger. In
press b. Habitat patch occupancy by the red-spotted toad (*Bufo
punctatus*) in a naturally fragment, desert landscape. Accepted by
Ecological Applications.

Brock, Thomas D. 1994. Life at high temperatures. Yellowstone
Association for Natural Science, History and Education, Inc. Yellowstone
Association: (307) 344-2293.

Cushing, C.E. and E.G. Wolf. 1984. Primary production in Rattlesnake
Springs, a cold desert spring-stream. Hydrobiologia 114:229-236.

Deacon, J.E. and W.L. Minckley. 1974. Desert fishes. Pages 385-487 *In*
Desert biology, Volume II. Academic Press, New York.

DeDecker, Mary. 1980. Plant list of Owens Valley Springs. Unpublished
report.

Dudley, W.W., Jr. and J.D. Larson. 1976. Effect of irrigation pumping on
desert pupfish habitats in Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 927:1-52.

Eakin, T.E. 1966. A regional interbasin ground-water system in the White
River area, southeastern Nevada. Water Resources Research 2:251-271.

Erman, N.A. 1992. Factors determining biodiversity in Sierra Nevada cold
springs. Pages 119-127 in, C.A. Hall, V. Doyle-Jones, and B. Widawski
(eds.), The history of water: Eastern Sierra Nevada, Owens Valley,
White-Inyo Mountains. White Mountain Research Station Symposium Volume
4.

Erman, N.A. 1987. Caddisfly adaptations to the variable habitats at the
land-water interface. Pages 275-279 *In* H. Tachet (ed.). Proceedings of
the fifth International Symposium on Trichoptera. Series Entomologica,
The Hague, Netherlands.

Erman, N.A. 1984. The use of riparian systems by aquatic insects. Pages
177-182 *In*, R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix (eds.). California riparian
systems. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Erman, N.A. and D.C. Erman. 1995. Spring permanence, Trichoptera species
richness, and the role of drought. Journal of the Kansas Entomological
Society 68:50-64.

Erman, N.A. and D.C. Erman. 1990. Biogeography of caddisfly
(Trichoptera) assemblages in cold springs of the Sierra Nevada
(California, USA). California Water Resources Center,

Ferrington, L.C. (ed.) 1995. Biodiversity of aquatic insects and other
invertebrates in springs. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 68
(2) supplement. Special Publication No. 1.

Ferren, W. R. and F.W. Davis. 1991. Biotic inventory and ecosystem
characterization for Fish Slough, Inyo and Mono counties, California.
Unpublished report to California Department of Fish and Game.

Fisher, C.D., E. Lingren, and W.R. Dawson. 1972. Drinking patterns and
behavior of Australian desert birds in relation to their ecology and
abundance. Condor 74:111-136.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western
North America. Conservation Biology 8:629-644.

Gaines, D. 1977. The valley riparian forests of California: their
importance to bird populations. Pages 57-85. *In* A. Sands (ed.).
Riparian forests in California: their ecology and conservation.
Institute of Ecology Publication No. 15, University of California,
Davis.

Garside, L.J. and J.H. Shilling. 1979. Thermal waters of Nevada. Nevada
Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 91:1-163.

Gill, W.A. and A.J. Cordone. 1997. History and status of introduced
fishes in California, 1871-1996. California Department of Fish and Game
Fish Bulletin 178.

Glazier, D.S. and J.L. Gooch. 1987. Macroinvertebrate assemblages in
Pennsylvania (U.S.A.) springs. Hydrobiologia 150:33-43.

Gubanich, A.A. and H.R. Panik. 1986. Avian use of waterholes in
pinyon-juniper. Pages 534-540. *In* R.L. Everett (compiler). Proceedings
of the Pinyon-Juniper Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General
Technical Report. INT-215.

Hall, E.R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. University of California Press,
Berkeley.

Hayford, B.L. and S.J. Herrmann. 1998. Migration patterns of four
macroinvertebrates along a rheocrene thermal spring. Pages 75-83. *In*
L. Botosaneau, (ed.). Studies in crenobiology. The biology of springs
and spring brooks. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Hayford, B.L., J.E. Sublette, and S.J. Hermann. 1995. Distribution of
Chironomids (Diptera: Chironomidae) and Ceratopogonids (Diptera:
Ceratopogonidae) along a Colorado thermal spring effluent. Pages 77-92.
*In* L.C. Ferrington (ed.). Biodiversity of aquatic insects and other
invertebrates in springs. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society,
Special Publication No. 1, Supplement toVolume 68.

Hendrickson, D.A. and W.L. Minckley. 1984. Ciénegas---vanishing climax
communities of the American southwest. Desert Plants 6:131-175.

Hershey, R.L. 1989. Hydrogeology and hydrogeochemistry of the Spring
Mountains, Clark County, Nevada. Unpublished master\'s thesis,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 237 pp.

Hershler, R. 2001. Systematics of the North and Central American aquatic
snail genus *Tryonia* (Rissooidea: Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology, Number 612.

Hershler, R. 1999. A systematic review of the hydrobiid snails
(Gastropoda: Rissooidea) of the Great Basin, western United States. Part
II. Genera *Colligyrus, Eremopygrus, Fluminicola, Prinstinicola*, and
*Tryonia*. The Veliger 42:306-337.

Hershler, R. 1998. A systematic review of the hydrobiid snails
(Gastropoda: Rissooidea) of the Great Basin, Western United States. Part
I. Genus *Pyrgulopsis*. The Veliger 41:1-132.

Hershler, R. and T.J. Frest.1996. A review of the North American
freshwater snail genus *Fluminicola* (Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology 583.

Hershler, R. and W.L. Pratt. 1990. A new *Pyrgulopsis* (Gastropoda:
Hydrobiidae) from southeastern California, with a model for historical
development of the Death Valley hydrographic system. Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington, 103:279-299.

Hershler, R. and D.W. Sada. 1987. Springsnails (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae)
of Ash Meadows, Amargosa basin, California-Nevada. Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington 100:776-843.

Hubbs, C. 1995. Springs and spring runs as unique aquatic systems.
Copeia 1995:989-991.

Hubbs, C.L. and R.R. Miller. 1948. The zoological evidence: Correlation
between fish distribution and hydrographic history in the desert basins
of the western United States. Pager 17-166. *In* The Great Basin, with
emphasis on glacial and postglacial times. University of Utah Bulletin
38, Number 20.

Hubbs, C.L., R.R. Miller, and L.C. Hubbs. 1974. Hydrographic history and
relict fishes of the north-central Great Basin*.* Memoirs of the
California Academy of Sciences, Volume VII.

Hughes, J.L. 1966. Some aspects of the hydrogeology of the Spring
Mountains and Pahrump Valley, Nevada, and environs, as determined by
spring evaluation. Unpublished master\'s thesis, Mackay School of Mines,
University of Nevada, Reno, NV. 116 pp.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto.

Ingles, L.G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific states, California, Oregon,
and Washington. Stanford University Press.

Jaeger, J.R., B.R. Riddle, R.D. Jennings, and D.F. Bradford. 2001.
Rediscovering *Rana onca*: Evidence for phylogenetically distinct
leopard frogs from the border region of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.
Copeia 2001:339-354.

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Decline of native ranid frogs in
the desert southwest. Pages 183-211. *In* P.R. Brown and J.W. Wright
(eds.), Herpetology of the North American Deserts. Southwestern
Herpetologists Society, Special Publication No 5.

Johnson, R., C.D. Zeibell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre.
1985. Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting
uses. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-120.

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian
ecosystems and streamside management implications. A review. Journal of
Range Management 37:430-437.

Kristijansson, J.K, G.O. Hreggvidsson. 1995. Ecology and habitats of
extremophiles. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. Vol. 11.

Meffe, G.K. and P.C. Marsh. 1983. Distribution of aquatic
macroinvertebrates in the Sonoran Desert springbrooks. Journal of Arid
Environments 6:363-371.

Mifflin, M.D., 1968. Delineation of ground-water flow systems in Nevada.
Desert Research Institute, Technical Report Series H-W, Publication #4:
100 p.

Miller, R.R. 1984. *Rhinichthys deaconi*, a new species of dace (Pisces:
Cyprinidae) from southern Nevada. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan 707.

Miller, R.R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American
southwest. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters
46:365-404.

Miller, R.R. 1958. Origin and affinities of the freshwater fish fauna of
western North America. Pages 187-230. *In* C.L. Hubbs (ed.).
Zoogeography. American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Publication No. 51.

Miller, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of
Northern American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:22-38

Minckley, W.L. 1963. The ecology of a spring stream, Doe Run, Meade
County, Kentucky. Wildlife Monographs11:1-124.

Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon (eds). 1996. Battle against extinction.
Native fish management in the American west. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon. 1968. Southwestern fishes and enigma of
'endangered species'. Science 159:1424-1432.

Minckley, W.L., D.A. Hendrickson, and C.E. Bond. 1986. Geography of
western North American freshwater fishes: Description and relationships
to intracontinental tectonism. Pages 519-614. *In* C.H. Hocutt and E.O.
Wiley (eds.). The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John
Wiley and Sons Publishing, New York, NY.

Minshall, G.W. 1978. Autotrophy in stream ecosystems. BioScience
28:767-771.

Mozingo, H.N. (editor). 1997. Rare plants. Their discovery, their
characteristics, and their habitats. Mentzelia 3:1-36.

Myers, G.S. 1942. The black toad of Deep Springs Valley, Inyo County,
California. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of
Michigan 460:1-13.

Myers, M.J. and V.H. Resh. 1999. Spring-formed wetlands of the arid
west. Islands of aquatic invertebrate biodiversity. Pages 811- 828. *In*
D.P. Batzer, R.B. Radar, and S.A. Wissiner (eds.). Invertebrates in
freshwater wetlands of North America: Ecology and management. John Wiley
and Sons, New York, NY, USA.

Naiman, R.H. and Rogers. 1997. Large animals and system-level
characteristics in river corridors. BioScience 47:521-529.

Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Nevada natural resources status
report.

Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Carson City, Nevada.

Noel, M.S. 1954. Animal ecology of a New Mexico springbbrook.
Hydrobiologia 6:120-135.

O'Brien, C. and D.W. Blinn. 1999. The endemic spring snail *Pyrgulopsis
montezumensis* in a high CO~2~ environment: Importance of extreme
chemical habitats as refugia. Freshwater Biology 42:225-234.

O'Farrell, M.J. and W.G. Bradley. 1977. Comparative thermal
relationships of flight for some bats in the southwestern United States.
Comparative Biochemical Physiology 58:223-223.

O'Farrell, M.J. and W.G. Bradley. 1970. Activity patterns of bats over a
desert spring. Journal of Mammology 51:18-26.

Peterken, G.F. (ed.). 1957. Guide to the check sheet of IBP areas.
International Biological Programme Handbook 4. Blackwell Press, Oxford.

Polhemus, D.A. and J.T. Polhemus. 2002. Basin and Ranges: The
biogeography of aquatic true bugs (Insecta: Hemiptera) in the Great
Basin. Pages 235-254. *In* R. Hershler, D.B. Madsen, and D. Currey
(eds.). Great Basin Aquatic Systems History. Smithsonian Contributions
to the Earth Sciences No. 33.

Polhemus, J.T. and D.A. Polhemus. 1994. A new species of *Ambrysus* Stål
from Ash Meadows, Nevada (Heteroptera: Naucoridae). Journal of the New
York Entomological Society 102:261-265.

Resh, V.G. 1983. Spatial differences in the distribution of benthic
macroinvertebrates along a spring brook. Aquatic Insects 5:193-200.

Sada, D.W. 2002. Clark County spring surveys, 1999 -- 2001. Unpublished
report to Clark County, Division of Comprehensive Planning, Las Vegas,
Nevada.

Sada, D.W. 2001. Demography and habitat use of the Badwater snail
(*Assiminea infima*), with observations on its conservation status.
Hydrobiologia 466:255-265.

Sada, D.W. 2000a. Spatial and temporal variation in aquatic mollusk
abundance and habitat as indicators of environmental change, Muddy River
Springs, Clark County, Nevada. Unpublished report to Southern Nevada
Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Sada, D.W. 2000b. Draft. Geologically persistent springs in southern
Nevada and southeastern California as indicated by aquatic assemblages.
Unpublished report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
Nevada.

Sada, D.W. and J. Nachlinger. in review. The influence of disturbance on
biotic function of arid land spring-fed riparian and aquatic communities
in the western U.S. Submitted to Wetlands.

Sada, D.W. and G.L. Vinyard. 2002. Anthropogenic changes in historical
biogeography of Great Basin aquatic biota. Smithsonian Contributions to
Earth Science 33.

Sada, D.W. and D.B. Herbst. 2000. Ecology of aquatic macroinvertebrates
in Travertine and Nevares Springs, Death Valley National Park,
California, with an examination of diversion effects on abundance and
community structure. Unpublished report to U.S. National Park Service,
Death Valley National Park.

Sada, D.W. and D.B. Herbst. 1999. Habitat use by rare aquatic
macroinvertebrates in springbrooks of the upper Muddy River, Clark
County, Nevada. Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy, Southern
Nevada Projects Office, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Sada, D.W. and J. Nachlinger. 1998. Spring Mountains ecosystem.
Vulnerability of spring-fed aquatic and riparian systems to biodiversity
loss. Part II. Springs sampled during 1997. Unpublished report to U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Sada, D.W. and J. Nachlinger. 1996. Spring Mountains ecosystem:
Vulnerability of spring-fed aquatic and riparian systems to biodiversity
loss. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas,
Nevada.

Sada, D.W., J.E. Williams, J. Silvey, A. Halford, J. Ramakka, P.
Summers, and L. Lewis. 2001. Riparian area management. A guide to
managing, restoring, and conserving springs in the western United
States. Technical Reference 1737-17. U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
Denver, Colorado. BLM/ST/ST-01/001+1737.

Sada, D.W., D.B. Herbst, and F.J. Smith. 2000. A survey of springs on
Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Elko and White Pine Counties,
Nevada) and the influence of habitat alteration on the structure of
aquatic animal communities. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Ruby Valley,
Nevada.

Schmude, K.L. 1999. Riffle beetles in the genus *Stenelmis* (Coleoptera:
Elmidae) from warm springs in southern Nevada: new species, new status,
and a key. Entomological News 110:1-12.

Schuierer, F.W. 1963. Notes on two populations of *Bufo exsul* Myers and
a commentary on speciation within the *Bufo boreas* group. Herpetologia
18:262-267.

Scoppettone, G.G. 1993. Interactions between native and nonnative fishes
of the upper Muddy River, Nevada. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 122:599-608.

Scoppettone, G.G. and H.L. Burge. 1994. Growth and survivorship of Moapa
dace (Osteichthys: Cyprinidae: *Moapa coriacea*) in an isolated stream
reach on Moapa National Wildlife Refuge. Southwestern Naturalist
39:192-195.

Scoppettone, G.G., P.H. Rissler, B. Nielsen, and J.E. Harvey. 1998.
Status of Moapa coriacea and Gila seminude and information of the status
of other fishes in the Muddy River, Clark County, Nevada. The
Southwestern Naturalist 43:115-122.

Scoppettone, G.G., H.L. Burge, and P.L. Tuttle. 1992. Life history,
abundance, and distribution of Moapa dace (*Moapa coriacea*). Great
Basin Naturalist 52:216-225.

Shepard, W.D. 1993. Desert springs---both rare and endangered. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3:351-359.

Shepard, W.D. 1990. *Microcylloepus formicoideus* (Coloeoptera:
Elmidae), a new riffle beetle from Death Valley National Monument,
California. Entomological News 101:147-153.

Skinner, M. (ed.). 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular
plants of California, Fifth Edition. California Native Plant Society.
Berkeley.

Smith, G.R., T.E. Dowling, K.W. Gobalet, T. Lugaski, D.K. Schiozawa, and
R.P. Evans. 2002. Biogeography and timing of evolutionary events among
Great Basin fishes. Pages 145 - 174. *In* R. Hershler, D.B. Madsen,and
D. Currey (eds.). Great Basin Aquatic Systems History. Smithsonian
Contributions to the Earth Sciences No. 33.

Stebbins, R. C. 1951. Amphibians of western North America. University of
California Press, Berkeley.

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians
(2^nd^ edition). Houghton Mifflin, New York.

Sullivan, B.K. 1995. Temporal stability in hybridization between *Bufo
microscaphus* and *Bufo woodhousii* (Anura: Bufonidae): behavior and
morphology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 8: 233-247.

Taylor, D.W. 1985. Evolution of freshwater drainages and molluscs in
Western North America. Pages 265-321 *In* C.J. Hocutt and A.B. Leviton
(eds.). Late Cenozoic history of the Pacific Northwest. American
Association for the Advancement of Science and California Academy of
Science, San Francisco.

Thomas, J.M., A.H. Welch, and M.D. Dettinger. 1996. Geochemistry and
isotope hydrology of representative aquifers in the Great Basin region
of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1409-C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery plan for the rare aquatic
species of the Muddy River ecosystem. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Recovery plan for the Pahrump
killifish. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

van der Kamp, G. 1995. The hydrology of springs in relation to
biodiversity of spring fauna: A review. p. 4-17. *In* L.C. Ferrington
(ed.). Biodiversity of aquatic insects and other invertebrates in
springs. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 68 (2) supplement.
Special Publication No. 1.

van Everdingen, R.O. 1991. Physical, chemical, and distributional
aspects of Canadian springs. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of
Canada 155:7-28.

Varza, D. and A.P. Covich. 1995. Population fluctuations within a spring
community. Pages 42-49 *In* L.C. Ferrington, Jr. (ed.). Biodiversity of
aquatic insects and other invertebrates in springs. Journal of the
Kansas Entomological Society 68 (2) supplement.

Warner, R.E. and K.M. Hendrix (eds.). 1984. California riparian systems.
Ecology, conservation, and productive management. University of
California Press, Berkeley.

Weaver, J.S., III and M.J. Myers. 1998. Two new species of caddisflies
of the genus *Lepidostoma* Rambur (Trichoptera: Lepidostomatidae) from
the Great Basin. Aquatic Insects 20:189-195.

Wiggins, G.B. and N.A. Erman. 1987. Additions to the systematics and
biology of the caddisfly family Uenoidae (Trichoptera). Canadian
Entomologist 119:867-872.

Williams, J.A. 2001. Community structure and habitat use by bats in the
upper Moapa Valley, Clark County, Nevada. Unpublished Master's Thesis.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Williams, J.E., D.B. Bowman, J.E. Brooks, A.A. Echelle, R.J. Edwards,
D.A. Hendrickson, and J.J. Landye. 1985. Endangered aquatic ecosystems
of North American deserts with a list of vanishing fishes of the region.
Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 20:1-62.

Williams, P.L. and W.D. Koenig. 1980. Water dependence of birds in a
temperate oak woodland. Auk 97:339-350.

Winograd, I.J. and W. Thordarson. 1975. Hydrogeologic and hydrochemical
framework, south-central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with special
reference to the Nevada Test Site. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 712-C:C1-C126.

Winograd, I.J., A.C. Riggs, and T.B. Coplen. 1998. The relative
contributions of summer and cool-season precipitation to groundwater
recharge, Spring Mountains, Nevada, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 6:77-93.

Winograd, I.J., T.B. Coplen, J.M. Landwehr, A.C. Riggs, K.R. Ludwig,
B.J. Szabo, P.T. Kolesar, and K.M. Revesz. 1992. Continuous 500,000-year
climate record from vein calcite in Devils Hole, Nevada. Science
258:255-260.

Whitson, T.D., L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey, D.W. Cudney, B.E. Nelson, R.D.
Lee, R. Parker (eds.). 1992. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed
Science, Newark, CA.

**Appendix A -- Glossary**

**Abiotic** -- non-living, factors of the environment including light,
temperature, and atmospheric gases; physical and chemical
characteristics of a site.

**Abundance** -- the number of individuals, such as 100 spring snails.

**Alkaline**--soil or water with high concentrations of mineral salts;
strongest concentrations can be caustic.

**Allochothonous** -- originating from another place, as opposed to
originating in place.

**Anthropogenic** --caused by human activities.

**Aquifer** -- an underground layer of rock, sand, etc. containing
water.

**Autochthonous** -- originating in place, as opposed to being brought
in from another place.

**Autotrophic** -- making its own food by photosynthesis (green plants)
or chemosynthesis (some bacteria).

**Bosque** -- a grove of trees; woodland.

**Cohorts** -- associated plants, animals, etc.

**Crenobiont** --species that dwell only in springs.

**Edaphic** -- pertaining to the physical and chemical characteristics
of soil.

**Endemic** -- native to a particular geographical area as a county,
state, region.

**Ephemeral** -- short-lived, transitory.

**Extant** -- still existing, not extinct.

**Extinct** -- no longer in existence; having no living descendant.

**Extirpate** -- to completely remove or destroy.

**Facultative** -- capable of living under varying conditions.

**Fault zone** -- a fracture or zone of fractures in rock strata.

**Feral** -- untamed, wild.

**Frugivorous** -- fruit-eating

**Granivorous** -- seed-eating

**Helocrene** -- a spring originating from a marsh or bog

**Indigenous** -- native to a particular geographical area

**Insectivorous** -- insect-eating

**Limnocrene** --a spring originating from a large, deep pool of water

**Lotic** --living in flowing water, as in a river or stream

**Macroinvertebrate** -- insects, snails, clams and other animals
without backbones that can be seen without magnification

**Mesic** -- moderately moist, as in between very dry (xeric) and wet
(hydric)

**Morphology** -- the form and structure of plants, animals, landforms

**Obligatory** -- limited to specific conditions of temperature,
moisture, habitats, etc.

**Orifice** --opening of a tube, cavity, etc.

**Osmoregulation** -- control of flow of fluids through a membrane

**Perturbations** -- disturbances

**pH** -- the measure of acidity/alkalinity

**Phreatophytes** -- deep-rooted plants that absorbs water from the
water table or groundwater layers, like tamarisk

**Pluvial** -- pertaining to 1) substrates, landforms, etc. formed as a
result of rain or ephemeral streams, 2) climatology: relating to former
periods of abundant rains

**ppm** -- parts per million

**Qualitative** -- identifying the different elements or components of a
mixture; such as the different kinds of species in a habitat

**Quantitative** -- finding the amounts of components; determining the
relative amounts of a mixture; such as the relative numbers of different
species in a habitat, etc.

**Relict** -- a plant, animal, or habitat surviving as a remnant and
persisting in isolation from earlier populations and time

**Rheocrene** -- a spring that flows from a defined opening into a
confined channel

**Richness** -- the number of different species of an area

**Riparian** -- associated with the edges of a spring, stream, lake, or
river, such as a riparian species, landowner, etc.

**Scouring** -- erosion by moving water; where flowing water moves
and/or removes silt, mud, gravel, stones

**Seep** -- a place where water oozes from the ground or rock through
small openings

**Spatial** -- the distribution of organisms, springs, etc. over an area

**Spring** -- a place where water naturally flows from the ground or
rock upon the land to form a stream or into a body of water

**Temporal** -- time

**Terrestrial** -- living on the land, as different from living in water

**Vagile** - animals that can disperse over long distances by flying,
walking, or swimming

**Xeric** -- dry or desert-like conditions

**Appendix B -- Field Form**

FIELD NOTE NO. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ SURVEYOR(S)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ DATE \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

STATE\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ COUNTY\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

LOCALITY\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

DRAINAGE\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ T
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ R\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ¼ SEC\_\_\_\_\_

1:100,000 USGS QUAD
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1:24,000 USGS QUAD
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

GPS ZONE: \_\_\_\_ NORTHING \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ EASTING
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

PDOP: \_\_\_\_\_\_ LATITUDE \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
LONGITUDE \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

VEHICLE ACCESS: +/- PHOTO +/- ELEVATION:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

OWNER: USFS BLM TRIBAL MILITARY PRIVATE

Other\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SPRING TYPE: HELOCRENE RHEOCRENE LIMNOCRENE DRY OTHER

DISCHARGE:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ SPRNGBROOK
LENGTH:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

WATER DEPTH:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ WATER WIDTH:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
DO:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

TEMPERATURE: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ CONDUCTIVITY: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
pH: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

VEGETATIVE COVER (%): emergent\_\_\_\_\_\_ bank\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ watercress
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SPRINGSNAIL SPECIES:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> scarce common abundant

FISH
SPECIES:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

AMPHIBIAN SPECIES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ AMPHIPODS: + / -

CLAMS: + / - NON-NATIVE SPECIES:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Other
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

BANK INCISION: + / - BANK STABILITY: poor medium good

SUBSTRATE (%): silt\_\_\_\_\_\_ sand \_\_\_\_\_\_ gravel \_\_\_\_\_\_
cobble \_\_\_\_\_\_

> boulder \_\_\_\_\_\_ bedrock \_\_\_\_\_\_

SITE CONDITION: undisturbed slight moderate high

DISTURBANCE: livestock recreation diversion residence

other
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

NOTES:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_