X ?. ( ?. v O b j e c t _ I D S u r v e y I D S E A P S c o r e _ I D S p r i n g _ d e w a t e r e d _ Y _ N _ S p r i n g d e w a t e r e d ( Y / N ) S p r i n g _ d e w a t e r e d _ Y _ N _ R i s k S p r i n g d e w a t e r e d ( Y / N ) R i s k # A q u i f e r _ f u n c t i o n a l i t y A q u i f e r f u n c t i o n a l i t y A q u i f e r _ f u n c t i o n a l i t y _ R i s k A q u i f e r f u n c t i o n a l i t y R i s k # S p r i n g _ d i s c h a r g e S p r i n g d i s c h a r g e S p r i n g _ d i s c h a r g e _ R i s k S p r i n g d i s c h a r g e R i s k # F l o w _ n a t u r a l n e s s F l o w n a t u r a l n e s s F l o w _ n a t u r a l n e s s _ R i s k F l o w n a t u r a l n e s s R i s k # F l o w _ p e r s i s t a n c e F l o w p e r s i s t a n c e F l o w _ p e r s i s t a n c e _ R i s k F l o w p e r s i s t a n c e R i s k #
W a t e r _ q u a l i t y
W a t e r q u a l i t y W a t e r _ q u a l i t y _ R i s k W a t e r q u a l i t y R i s k # A l g a l _ a n d _ p e r i p h y t o n _ c o v e r A l g a l a n d p e r i p h y t o n c o v e r A l g a l _ a n d _ p e r i p h y t o n _ c o v e r _ R i s k A l g a l a n d p e r i p h y t o n c o v e r R i s k # O v e r a l l _ A q u i f e r _ W a t e r _ Q u a l i t y O v e r a l l A q u i f e r / W a t e r Q u a l i t y O v e r a l l A q u i f e r W a t e r Q u a l i t y R i s k "O v e r a l l A q u i f e r / W a t e r Q u a l i t y R i s k S i t e _ o b l i t e r a t e d _ Y _ N _ S i t e o b l i t e r a t e d ( Y / N ) G e o m o r p h i c _ f u n c t i o n a l i t y G e o m o r p h i c f u n c t i o n a l i t y G e o m o r p h i c _ f u n c t i o n a l i t y _ R i s k G e o m o r p h i c f u n c t i o n a l i t y R i s k # R u n o u t _ c h a n n e l _ G e o m e t r y R u n o u t c h a n n e l G e o m e t r y R u n o u t _ c h a n n e l _ G e o m e t r y _ R i s k R u n o u t c h a n n e l G e o m e t r y R i s k # S o i l _ i n t e g r i t y S o i l i n t e g r i t y S o i l _ i n t e g r i t y _ R i s k S o i l i n t e g r i t y R i s k # G e o m o r p h i c _ d i v e r s i t y G e o m o r p h i c d i v e r s i t y G e o m o r p h i c _ d i v e r s i t y _ R i s k G e o m o r p h i c d i v e r s i t y R i s k # N a t u r a l _ p h y s i c a l _ d i s t u r b a n c e N a t u r a l p h y s i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e N a t u r a l P h y s i c a l D i s t u r b a n c e R i s k !N a t u r a l p h y s i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e R i s k # O v e r a l l _ G e o m o r p h o l o g y O v e r a l l G e o m o r p h o l o g y O v e r a l l _ G e o m o r p h o l o g y _ R i s k O v e r a l l G e o m o r p h o l o g y R i s k
I s o l a t i o n _ I s o l a t i o n I s o l a t i o n _ R i s k I s o l a t i o n R i s k # H a b i t a t _ p a t c h _ s i z e H a b i t a t p a t c h s i z e H a b i t a t _ p a t c h _ s i z e _ R i s k H a b i t a t p a t c h s i z e R i s k # M i c r o h a b i t a t _ q u a l i t y M i c r o h a b i t a t q u a l i t y M i c r o h a b i t a t _ q u a l i t y _ R i s k M i c r o h a b i t a t q u a l i t y R i s k # N a t i v e _ p l a n t _ e c o l o g i c a l _ r o l e N a t i v e p l a n t e c o l o g i c a l r o l e N a t i v e P l a n t E c o l o g i c a l R o l e R i s k !N a t i v e p l a n t e c o l o g i c a l r o l e R i s k # T r o p h i c _ d y n a m i c s T r o p h i c d y n a m i c s T r o p h i c _ d y n a m i c s _ R i s k T r o p h i c d y n a m i c s R i s k # O v e r a l l _ H a b i t a t O v e r a l l H a b i t a t O v e r a l l _ H a b i t a t _ R i s k O v e r a l l H a b i t a t R i s k N a t i v e _ p l a n t _ r i c h n e s s _ d i v e r s i t y N a t i v e p l a n t r i c h n e s s / d i v e r s i t y N t v P l a n t R i c h n e s s D i v e r s i t y R i s k $N a t i v e p l a n t r i c h n e s s / d i v e r s i t y R i s k # N a t i v e _ f a u n a l _ d i v e r s i t y N a t i v e f a u n a l d i v e r s i t y N a t i v e _ f a u n a l _ d i v e r s i t y _ R i s k N a t i v e f a u n a l d i v e r s i t y R i s k # S e n s i t i v e _ p l a n t _ r i c h n e s s S e n s i t i v e p l a n t r i c h n e s s S e n s i t i v e _ p l a n t _ r i c h n e s s _ R i s k S e n s i t i v e p l a n t r i c h n e s s R i s k # S e n s i t i v e _ f a u n a l _ r i c h n e s s S e n s i t i v e f a u n a l r i c h n e s s S e n s i t i v e _ f a u n a l _ r i c h n e s s _ R i s k S e n s i t i v e f a u n a l r i c h n e s s R i s k # N o n n a t i v e _ p l a n t _ r a r i t y N o n n a t i v e p l a n t r a r i t y N o n n a t i v e _ p l a n t _ r a r i t y _ R i s k N o n n a t i v e p l a n t r a r i t y R i s k # N o n n a t i v e _ f a u n a l _ r a r i t y N o n n a t i v e f a u n a l r a r i t y N o n n a t i v e _ f a u n a l _ r a r i t y _ R i s k N o n n a t i v e f a u n a l r a r i t y R i s k # N a t i v e _ p l a n t _ d e m o g r a p h y N a t i v e p l a n t d e m o g r a p h y N a t i v e _ p l a n t _ d e m o g r a p h y _ R i s k N a t i v e p l a n t d e m o g r a p h y R i s k # N a t i v e _ f a u n a l _ d e m o g r a p h y N a t i v e f a u n a l d e m o g r a p h y N a t i v e _ f a u n a l _ d e m o g r a p h y _ R i s k N a t i v e f a u n a l d e m o g r a p h y R i s k # O v e r a l l _ B i o t i c _ I n t e g r i t y O v e r a l l B i o t i c I n t e g r i t y O v e r a l l _ B i o t i c _ I n t e g r i t y _ R i s k O v e r a l l B i o t i c I n t e g r i t y R i s k S u r f a c e _ w a t e r _ q u a l i t y S u r f a c e w a t e r q u a l i t y S u r f a c e _ w a t e r _ q u a l i t y _ R i s k S u r f a c e w a t e r q u a l i t y R i s k # F l o w _ r e g u l a t i o n F l o w r e g u l a t i o n F l o w _ r e g u l a t i o n _ R i s k F l o w r e g u l a t i o n R i s k # R o a d _ t r a i l _ R R _ e f f e c t s R o a d / t r a i l / R R e f f e c t s R o a d _ t r a i l _ R R _ e f f e c t s _ R i s k R o a d / t r a i l / R R e f f e c t s R i s k # F e n c i n g _ e f f e c t s F e n c i n g e f f e c t s F e n c i n g _ e f f e c t s _ R i s k F e n c i n g e f f e c t s R i s k # C o n s t r u c t i o n _ e f f e c t s C o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s C o n s t r u c t i o n _ e f f e c t s _ R i s k C o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s R i s k # M a m m a l i a n _ h e r b i v o r y M a m m a l i a n h e r b i v o r y M a m m a l i a n _ h e r b i v o r y _ R i s k M a m m a l i a n h e r b i v o r y R i s k # R e c r e a t i o n a l _ e f f e c t s R e c r e a t i o n a l e f f e c t s R e c r e a t i o n a l _ e f f e c t s _ R i s k R e c r e a t i o n a l e f f e c t s R i s k # A d j a c e n t _ l a n d s _ c o n d i t i o n A d j a c e n t l a n d s c o n d i t i o n A d j a c e n t _ l a n d s _ c o n d i t i o n _ R i s k A d j a c e n t l a n d s c o n d i t i o n R i s k # F i r e _ i n f l u e n c e F i r e i n f l u e n c e F i r e _ i n f l u e n c e _ R i s k F i r e i n f l u e n c e R i s k # O v e r a l l _ H u m a n _ I n f l u e n c e O v e r a l l H u m a n I n f l u e n c e O v e r a l l _ H u m a n _ I n f l u e n c e _ R i s k O v e r a l l H u m a n I n f l u e n c e R i s k I n f o r m a t i o n _ q u a l i t y _ q u a n t i t y I n f o r m a t i o n q u a l i t y / q u a n t i t y I n f o r m a t i o n Q u a l i t y Q u a n t i t y R i s k !I n f o r m a t i o n q u a l i t y / q u a n t i t y R i s k # I n f r m t n Q u a l i t y Q u a n t i t y C o m m e n t s %I n f o r m a t i o n q u a l i t y / q u a n t i t y C o m m e n t s C u l t u r a l _ s i g n i f i c a n c e C u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e C u l t u r a l _ s i g n i f i c a n c e _ R i s k C u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e R i s k # C u l t u r a l _ s i g n i f i c a n c e _ C o m m e n t s C u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e C o m m e n t s H i s t o r i c a l _ s i g n i f i c a n c e H i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e H i s t o r i c a l _ s i g n i f i c a n c e _ R i s k H i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e R i s k # H i s t o r i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e C o m m e n t s H i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e C o m m e n t s R e c r e a t i o n a l _ s i g n i f i c a n c e R e c r e a t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e R e c r e a t i o n a l _ s i g n i f i c a n c e _ R i s k R e c r e a t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e R i s k # R e c r e a t i o n a l S g n f c n c e C o m m e n t s "R e c r e a t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e C o m m e n t s E c o n o m i c _ v a l u e E c o n o m i c v a l u e E c o n o m i c _ v a l u e _ R i s k E c o n o m i c v a l u e R i s k # E c o n o m i c _ v a l u e _ C o m m e n t s E c o n o m i c v a l u e C o m m e n t s C o n f o r m a n c e _ t o _ m g m t _ p l a n C o n f o r m a n c e t o m g m t p l a n C o n f o r m a n c e _ t o _ m g m t _ p l a n _ R i s k C o n f o r m a n c e t o m g m t p l a n R i s k # C o n f o r m a n c e T o M g m t P l a n C o m m e n t s !C o n f o r m a n c e t o m g m t p l a n C o m m e n t s S c i e n t i f i c _ e d u c a t i o n a l _ v a l u e S c i e n t i f i c / e d u c a t i o n a l v a l u e S c i e n t i f i c E d u c a t i o n a l V a l u e R i s k !S c i e n t i f i c / e d u c a t i o n a l v a l u e R i s k # S c i e n t f c E d c t n l V a l u e C o m m e n t s %S c i e n t i f i c / e d u c a t i o n a l v a l u e C o m m e n t s E n v i r o n m e n t a l _ c o m p l i a n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p l i a n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l _ c o m p l i a n c e _ R i s k E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p l i a n c e R i s k # E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o m p l i a n c e C o m m e n t s !E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p l i a n c e C o m m e n t s L e g a l _ s t a t u s L e g a l s t a t u s L e g a l _ s t a t u s _ R i s k L e g a l s t a t u s R i s k # L e g a l _ s t a t u s _ C o m m e n t s L e g a l s t a t u s C o m m e n t s O v e r a l l _ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e _ C o n t e x t O v e r a l l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o n t e x t O v e r a l l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C n t x t R i s k #O v e r a l l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o n t e x t R i s k T r e n d _ A s s e s s m e n t T r e n d A s s e s s m e n t T o t a l _ S c o r e T o t a l S c o r e T o t a l _ R i s k _ S c o r e T o t a l R i s k S c o r e # N u l l _ S c o r e s N u l l S c o r e s N u l l _ R i s k _ S c o r e s N u l l R i s k S c o r e s # M a n a g e m e n t _ R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s M a n a g e m e n t R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s i n i t i a l t i m e s t a m p ȓ$IްKE [0] False&[4] Low to moderate aquifer withdrawal[3] Moderate risk to site*[5] between 100 and 1000 liters per second[3] Moderate risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[3] Moderate risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[2] Low risk to site @h˹WU@ [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[2] Low risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[3] Moderate risk to siteN[2] Soils thin or eliminated on most of site but a detectable amount remaining[4] High risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[3] Moderate risk to site-[4] Little altered natural disturbance regime[3] Moderate risk to site333333@ @/[2] 50-100 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[4] .1 - 1 hectare habitat area[3] Moderate risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[2] Low risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to siteA[3] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency moderate (50-75 %)[3] Moderate risk to siteffffff@ffffff@([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site)[4] 5-10% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @[4] Good surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site&[4] Limited flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[2] Low risk to site)[4] Limited negative herbivory influences[3] Moderate risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[3] Moderate risk to sitex=\r@ @/[2] Limited mapping or other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[4] High risk to site?[3] Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[2] Low risk to site,[4] Management plan given moderate attention[1] Negligible risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site8[5] Socioenvironmental compliance completed, not enacted[1] Negligible risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site @ @4.112502.741671[1] Negligible risk to sitejOccasional monitoring is warranted, particularly in relation to regional uranium mining and wildland fire.SAPc@
ȓ$IB_MF [0] False&[4] Low to moderate aquifer withdrawal[4] High risk to site&[3] between 1 and 10 liters per second[3] Moderate risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[3] Moderate risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[3] Moderate risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[2] Low risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[2] Low risk to siteLuTU@4F먪@ [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[2] Low risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[1] Negligible risk to site[4] Good (>0.5 And <=0.7)[2] Low risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[2] Low risk to site@?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[2] Low risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[2] Low risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[2] Low risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to site@@([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site([6] <2% of faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteD[6] Native faunal populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?#[5] Very good surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site+[5] Very limited flow regulation influences[3] Moderate risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site,[6] No undesired negative influences of fire[1] Negligible risk to site\@ @D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[2] Low risk to siteC[5] Very limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[3] Moderate risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[1] Negligible risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site8[5] Socioenvironmental compliance completed, not enacted[1] Negligible risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[3] Moderate risk to site @ @4.870832.127081[1] Negligible risk to siteThis is a nearly pristine site and may be of interest as a reference site for restoration of springs in similar geomorphic settings. Occasional monitoring is recommended.SAPc@ H$IRLd [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site&[3] between 1 and 10 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[2] Low risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to siteLuTU@іs)? [0] False0[4] 75-90 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[4] High risk to site=[3] Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality[4] High risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[3] Moderate risk to site)[3] Moderately altered disturbance regime[4] High risk to site @ffffff@.[5] 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem[4] High risk to site[4] .1 - 1 hectare habitat area[4] High risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[4] High risk to siteA[3] Native species cover and biomass 50-75 % of natural condition[4] High risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site@ @([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[5] Very high risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[2] Low risk to site'[3] Moderate flow regulation influences[5] Very high risk to site1[2] Extensive road, trail, or railroad influences[5] Very high risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site-[3] Moderate negative construction influences[5] Very high risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site([3] Moderate negative influences of fire[4] High risk to site F6@ @=[4] Credible mapping and other scientific information exists [3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[4] High risk to site-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to siteC[5] Very limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[3] Moderate risk to site[4] Considerable economic value[2] Low risk to site,[4] Management plan given moderate attention[2] Low risk to site>[5] At least 10 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed[2] Low risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[3] Moderate risk to site#G@h˹WU@4.152083.210420[0] No Risk to siteSAPc@ `hOPl [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to siteLuTU@ ? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site,[5] Channel functioning apparently naturally[2] Low risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[2] Low risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[2] Low risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[3] Moderate risk to siteffffff@ @0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[2] Low risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[5] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98 %)[2] Low risk to site@?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site)[4] 5-10% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ ?#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[2] Low risk to site @ ?=[4] Credible mapping and other scientific information exists [4] High risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures.[5] Numerous historically significant elements[4] High risk to site>[4] Limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[2] Low risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[3] Moderate risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed)$@ @4.936511.820832[4] High risk to siteSAPc@
`$IoLn [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[2] Low risk to site"[9] Unable to Assess water quality[9] Unable to answer-[4] Natural cover of algae or periphyton good[2] Low risk to siteffffff@? [0] False0[3] 50-75 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[4] High risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[2] Low risk to site[5] Very good (>0.7 And <=0.9)[4] High risk to site-[4] Little altered natural disturbance regime[2] Low risk to siteffffff@ @.[5] 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem[5] Very high risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[2] Low risk to site,[9] Unable to assess microhabitat impairment[9] Unable to answerA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site @
@([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site)[4] 5-10% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site+[3] 10-25% of faunal species are non-native[4] High risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteC[3] 50-75% of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to site @ @[4] Good surface water quality[2] Low risk to site-[1] Very extensive flow regulation influences[5] Very high risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[4] High risk to site*[4] Limited negative influences of fencing[3] Moderate risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site,[4] Limited negative recreational influences[3] Moderate risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site'[5] Very limited negative influences of[2] Low risk to sitepq@ @D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteo
Data from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Data from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous culturesPictographs nearby.
<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[1] Negligible risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site6[2] Two features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[2] Low risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to sitepq@ ?4.563231.0168788SAPc@ ``$I v [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site&[3] between 1 and 10 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site*[5] Flow continuous since late Pleistocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[0] No Risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to siteLuTU@_? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[2] Low risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site@333333?/[2] 50-100 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Native species cover and biomass virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site=[5] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98 %)[2] Low risk to site333333@333333?&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site'[6] <2% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[0] No Risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[0] No Risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site @ ?][5] A great deal of high quality mapping and other information has been gathered and compiled[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[2] Low risk to site#G @ @5.134261.309720[1] Negligible risk to siteSAPc@ ``$I w [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site*[5] Flow continuous since late Pleistocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[0] No Risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site @_? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[2] Low risk to site[0] None (0)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site333333@333333?.[1] 10-50 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < 10 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Native species cover and biomass virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site=[5] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98 %)[2] Low risk to site333333@333333?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[0] No Risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[0] No Risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site @ ?][5] A great deal of high quality mapping and other information has been gathered and compiled[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[2] Low risk to site#G @ @4.970371.309720[1] Negligible risk to siteSAPc@ `C x [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[1] Negligible risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site-[4] Natural cover of algae or periphyton good[3] Moderate risk to site @ ? [0] False0[4] 75-90 % of natural microhabitat types remain[3] Moderate risk to siteI[2] Channel strongly altered, with only scant evidence of original course[4] High risk to site=[3] Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality[3] Moderate risk to site[5] Very good (>0.7 And <=0.9)[4] High risk to site-[4] Little altered natural disturbance regime[3] Moderate risk to site@333333@.[5] 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[3] Moderate risk to site[2] Low microhabitat quality[4] High risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[5] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98 %)[4] High risk to site @333333@([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to site+[3] 10-25% of faunal species are non-native[4] High risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ @"[3] Moderate surface water quality[4] High risk to site'[3] Moderate flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site*[4] Limited negative influences of fencing[3] Moderate risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[2] Low risk to site*[3] Moderate negative herbivory influences[4] High risk to site,[4] Limited negative recreational influences[3] Moderate risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site @
@Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures3.735002.910009[9] Unable to answerSAPc@ `$IfBKy [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[3] Moderate risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[3] Moderate risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[3] Moderate risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[2] Low risk to site @h˹WU@ [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[2] Low risk to site,[5] Channel functioning apparently naturally[2] Low risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[2] Low risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[2] Low risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[2] Low risk to siteffffff@ @/[2] 50-100 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[3] Moderate risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[2] Low risk to siteA[3] Native species cover and biomass 50-75 % of natural condition[5] Very high risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site333333@ @([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[5] Very high risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @
@[4] Good surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[0] No Risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site'[5] Very limited negative influences of[2] Low risk to site#G@ @D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to sitex=\r@ @4.062502.729170[1] Negligible risk to siteThis is an interesting, very harsh, nearly pristine hanging garden that could be used as a reference site and may warrant occasional monitoring, particularly in relation to regional uranium mining.SAPc@S
`@ I| [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[2] Flow rarely ephemeral[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site @іs)? [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[2] Low risk to site,[5] Channel functioning apparently naturally[2] Low risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[3] Moderate risk to site[1] Very low (>0 And <=0.1)[1] Negligible risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[2] Low risk to site @ @0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[2] Low risk to siteA[4] Good microhabitat quality with some indication of impairment[3] Moderate risk to site7[6] Native species cover and biomass virtually pristine[2] Low risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to siteffffff@@([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site'[6] <2% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site+[5] Very limited flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site,[4] Limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[2] Low risk to site @@ȓ$?/[2] Limited mapping or other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteZData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[3] Moderate risk to site)[2] One historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to siteWater mgmt plan
9[1] One scientifically or educationally important feature[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to site{8@ F6@4.168752.129170[0] No Risk to sitewThis is a very small, ephemeral springs that requires no management actions, but likely warrants occational monitoring.SAPc@ ``$I ~ [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site @ ? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[2] Low risk to site[0] None (0)[2] Low risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[2] Low risk to siteffffff@?.[1] 10-50 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[2] Low risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[2] Low risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[2] Low risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site>[6] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency pristine (>98%)[1] Negligible risk to site@?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] <2% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site([6] <2% of faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to siteD[6] Native faunal populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site0[3] Moderate road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site,[4] Limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[2] Low risk to site @ ?][5] A great deal of high quality mapping and other information has been gathered and compiled[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[2] Low risk to site F6@ @4.907411.566670[1] Negligible risk to siteSAPc@
``$I [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site[9] Unable to Assess[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[2] Low risk to site1[3] Natural cover of algae or periphyton moderate[4] High risk to site@4F먪@ [0] False2[1] <25 % original natural microhabit types remain[5] Very high risk to siteE[1] Channel virtually obliterated, trenched, or otherwise manipulated[5] Very high risk to siteN[2] Soils thin or eliminated on most of site but a detectable amount remaining[5] Very high risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[5] Very high risk to site-[2] Highly altered natural disturbance regime[5] Very high risk to site? @.[5] 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem[5] Very high risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[5] Very high risk to site[2] Low microhabitat quality[5] Very high risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[4] High risk to site=[2] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency poor (25-50 %)[4] High risk to site @ffffff@([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[5] Very high risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[5] Very high risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[5] Very high risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to site*[4] 5-10% of faunal species are non-native[4] High risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to site
@ @"[3] Moderate surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site-[1] Very extensive flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site1[2] Extensive road, trail, or railroad influences[4] High risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site*[3] Moderate negative herbivory influences[3] Moderate risk to site-[3] Moderate negative recreational influences[3] Moderate risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site @ @D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures1[3] Two or more historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site?[3] Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed[2] Low risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to sitex=\r@ @3.043983.509721[1] Negligible risk to siteSAPc@r `H$I膜M [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site[9] Unable to Assess[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[2] Low risk to site1[3] Natural cover of algae or periphyton moderate[2] Low risk to site@ @ [0] False2[1] <25 % original natural microhabit types remain[5] Very high risk to siteE[1] Channel virtually obliterated, trenched, or otherwise manipulated[5] Very high risk to siteN[2] Soils thin or eliminated on most of site but a detectable amount remaining[5] Very high risk to site[0] None (0)[4] High risk to site-[2] Highly altered natural disturbance regime[4] High risk to siteffffff?ffffff@0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[5] Very high risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[5] Very high risk to site![1] Very low microhabitat quality[5] Very high risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[2] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency poor (25-50 %)[4] High risk to site@@([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site&[1] <25% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[2] 25-50% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteD[2] 25-50 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to site @
@"[3] Moderate surface water quality[4] High risk to site-[1] Very extensive flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[2] Low risk to site)[4] Limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site @ @/[2] Limited mapping or other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[4] High risk to site1[3] Two or more historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Modest economic value[3] Moderate risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site9[1] One scientifically or educationally important feature[1] Negligible risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed[3] Moderate risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[2] Low risk to site4F먪
@ F6@2.938893.282411[0] No Risk to siteSAPc@ `h [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[2] Low risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[2] Low risk to site1[3] Natural cover of algae or periphyton moderate[3] Moderate risk to site4F먪@h˹WU@ [0] False0[2] 25-50 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[3] Moderate risk to siteN[2] Soils thin or eliminated on most of site but a detectable amount remaining[4] High risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[4] High risk to site-[2] Highly altered natural disturbance regime[3] Moderate risk to site333333@@1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[4] High risk to site"[3] Moderate microhabitat quality[3] Moderate risk to site?[1] Native species cover and biomass <25 % of natural condition[4] High risk to site=[2] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency poor (25-50 %)[4] High risk to site @@([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site&[1] <25% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site*[2] 25-50% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[2] 25-50 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @
@"[3] Moderate surface water quality[4] High risk to site([2] Extensive flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site0[3] Moderate road, trail, or railroad influences[4] High risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[2] Low risk to site)[4] Limited negative herbivory influences[3] Moderate risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site @ @Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures2.921673.223339[9] Unable to answerSAPc@ `f [0] False[9] Unable to Assess[2] Low risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site&[4] Springs flow only slightly reduced[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[2] Low risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site-[4] Natural cover of algae or periphyton good[2] Low risk to site@/iQU? [0] False0[2] 25-50 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to siteI[2] Channel strongly altered, with only scant evidence of original course[5] Very high risk to site=[3] Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality[3] Moderate risk to site[0] None (0)[4] High risk to site-[2] Highly altered natural disturbance regime[4] High risk to site? @1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[4] High risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[4] High risk to site[2] Low microhabitat quality[4] High risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to siteffffff@@([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ @[2] Poor surface water quality[4] High risk to site([2] Extensive flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[2] Low risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site @ @3.215002.8366710[9] Unable to answerSAPc@ 0 [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site&[4] Springs flow only slightly reduced[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[2] Low risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[2] Low risk to site @ [0] False0[4] 75-90 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to site/[4] Channel slightly altered, mostly functional[3] Moderate risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[4] High risk to site[0] None (0) 1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area1.000000.000004041SAPc@F 8gfy`$I(e [0] False[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[3] Moderate risk to site @ @ [0] False0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @іs)?![6] No flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site @ ?/[2] Limited mapping or other information exists[3] Moderate risk to sitedData is from a conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on February 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures)[2] One historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site?[3] Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to site F6@ @4.298611.979173233SAPc@ y[4M [0] False[1] < .1 liters per second#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[3] Moderate risk to site @ @ [0] False1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem![6] No flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site @ ?5.375002.375003636SAPc@ 8y5M [0] False[0] No flow[1] Negligible risk to site ? [0] False)[9] Unable to assess geomorphic diversity 0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site\@іs)?1.888890.8888911[9] Unable to answerSAPc@E `f `H$Io [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[3] Moderate risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[1] Negligible risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site\@іs)? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site)[9] Unable to assess geomorphic diversity[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[6] >10 hectare habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site@ @&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] <2% of plant species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?#[5] Very good surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site @ @D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[9] Unable to answer)[2] One historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[1] Negligible risk to site0[6] Management plan fully implemented & followed[1] Negligible risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site)[6] Socioenvironmental compliance enacted[1] Negligible risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site
@ ?5.061111.548616[5] Very high risk to siteSAPc@+ `f `H$I ù [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[1] Negligible risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to siteLuTU@/iQU? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site)[9] Unable to assess geomorphic diversity[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[6] >10 hectare habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site@ @([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site)[4] 5-10% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[2] Low risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[0] No Risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site @ ?D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to site5[9] Unable to assess indigenous cultural significance[9] Unable to answer)[2] One historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[1] Negligible risk to site0[6] Management plan fully implemented & followed[1] Negligible risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site)[6] Socioenvironmental compliance enacted[1] Negligible risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site
@ ?4.901391.659726[5] Very high risk to siteSAPc@ 8y_ay [0] False&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[3] Moderate risk to site @ @ [0] False0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem![6] No flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site @ ?4.625002.125003535SAPc@ x}`IY [0] False[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[3] Moderate risk to site @ @ [0] False[0] None (0)1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] < 10 sq m habitat area @#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[2] Low risk to sitezpwn@/iQU?Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[1] Negligible risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?4.500002.500003030SAPc@G `f `H$I}<4̍ [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[1] Negligible risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to siteLuTU@/iQU? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site)[9] Unable to assess geomorphic diversity[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[6] >10 hectare habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site@ @([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site)[4] 5-10% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[2] Low risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site @ @D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[9] Unable to answer)[2] One historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[1] Negligible risk to site0[6] Management plan fully implemented & followed[1] Negligible risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site)[6] Socioenvironmental compliance enacted[1] Negligible risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site
@ ?4.922221.701396[5] Very high risk to siteSAPc@; `f `H$Ic [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[1] Negligible risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to siteLuTU@/iQU? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site)[9] Unable to assess geomorphic diversity[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[6] >10 hectare habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site@ @([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site)[4] 5-10% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[0] No Risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site @ ?X[6] The springs is used as a research site, with much high quality information available[1] Negligible risk to site5[9] Unable to assess indigenous cultural significance[9] Unable to answer1[3] Two or more historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[1] Negligible risk to site0[6] Management plan fully implemented & followed[1] Negligible risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site)[6] Socioenvironmental compliance enacted[1] Negligible risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?5.026391.576396[5] Very high risk to siteSAPc@ 8a$IcfW [0] False[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site ? ? [0] False0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem/[2] Limited mapping or other information exists[3] Moderate risk to sitedData is from a conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on February 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures)[2] One historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site?[3] Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to site F6@ @2.222221.750003132SAPc@b 0 `ff ``$IћeM [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[3] Moderate risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[3] Moderate risk to site&[4] Springs flow only slightly reduced[3] Moderate risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[3] Moderate risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[3] Moderate risk to siteffffff@ @ [0] False0[4] 75-90 % of natural microhabitat types remain[3] Moderate risk to site/[4] Channel slightly altered, mostly functional[3] Moderate risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[3] Moderate risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[3] Moderate risk to site)[3] Moderately altered disturbance regime[3] Moderate risk to site333333@ @1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[3] Moderate risk to siteA[4] Good microhabitat quality with some indication of impairment[3] Moderate risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[5] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98 %)[3] Moderate risk to site@ @([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site/[0] No sensitive or listed plant species remain[3] Moderate risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site
@ @+[5] Very limited flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site+[3] Moderate negative influences of fencing[3] Moderate risk to site-[3] Moderate negative construction influences[3] Moderate risk to site*[3] Moderate negative herbivory influences[3] Moderate risk to site,[4] Limited negative recreational influences[3] Moderate risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to siteݶ
@ݶ@/[2] Limited mapping or other information exists[4] High risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site?[3] Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site6[2] Two features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed[2] Low risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to sitex=\r@ @3.742202.8065567SAPc@ H$IA [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[2] Low risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[9] Unable to Assess[2] Low risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site @? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[3] Moderate risk to site[6] Channel pristine[3] Moderate risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[3] Moderate risk to site[4] Good (>0.5 And <=0.7)[2] Low risk to site-[4] Little altered natural disturbance regime[4] High risk to site@ @0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[2] Low risk to site[4] .1 - 1 hectare habitat area[2] Low risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[2] Low risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site @ @([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site)[9] Unable to assess native aquatic fauna[9] Unable to answer([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to siteE[9] Unable to assess native aquatic & wetland fauna sensitive species[9] Unable to answer*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to siteF[9] Unable to assess nonnative aquatic & wetland faunal species rarity[9] Unable to answerL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteJ[9] Unable to assess native aquatic & wetland faunal population demography[9] Unable to answer @ @#[6] Excellent surface water quality[2] Low risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site)[4] Limited negative herbivory influences[4] High risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[3] Moderate risk to site{8@ @=[4] Credible mapping and other scientific information exists [3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[9] Unable to answer)[2] One historically significant elements[5] Very high risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[2] Limited economic value[1] Negligible risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[1] Negligible risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed[1] Negligible risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site A@ ?4.925002.512503333SAPc@# w쵟 [0] False[0] No flow [0] False0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?3.000001.000003839SAPc@ 8}AM [0] False&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[5] Very high risk to site @ @ [0] False[5] Very good (>0.7 And <=0.9)1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area-[1] Very extensive flow regulation influences[5] Very high risk to site0[3] Moderate road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site @ @2.000004.500003838SAPc@ `w [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to siteLuTU@ ? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[2] Low risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[2] Low risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[2] Low risk to siteffffff@?.[1] 10-50 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[2] Low risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[2] Low risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[2] Low risk to site7[6] Native species cover and biomass virtually pristine[2] Low risk to site>[6] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency pristine (>98%)[1] Negligible risk to site@?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site([6] <2% of faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to siteD[6] Native faunal populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site0[3] Moderate road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site,[4] Limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[2] Low risk to site @ ?Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures5.116671.430009[9] Unable to answerSAPc@ ``$IRM [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[2] Low risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[2] Low risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[2] Low risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site-[4] Natural cover of algae or periphyton good[2] Low risk to site\@/iQU? [0] False0[3] 50-75 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to siteI[2] Channel strongly altered, with only scant evidence of original course[5] Very high risk to site=[3] Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality[4] High risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[3] Moderate risk to site)[3] Moderately altered disturbance regime[4] High risk to siteffffff@ @0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[4] High risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[4] High risk to site"[3] Moderate microhabitat quality[4] High risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site@ffffff@([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site'[6] <2% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site([6] <2% of faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[2] Low risk to site([2] Extensive flow regulation influences[5] Very high risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site @ @=[4] Credible mapping and other scientific information exists [3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site>[4] Limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[3] Moderate risk to site[4] Considerable economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site)[6] Socioenvironmental compliance enacted[2] Low risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[2] Low risk to site\@ @4.247222.834720[1] Negligible risk to siteSAPc@
`$I [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[2] Low risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[2] Low risk to site-[4] Natural cover of algae or periphyton good[2] Low risk to site\@ @ [0] False0[3] 50-75 % of natural microhabitat types remain[3] Moderate risk to site/[4] Channel slightly altered, mostly functional[3] Moderate risk to site=[3] Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality[3] Moderate risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[3] Moderate risk to site)[3] Moderately altered disturbance regime[3] Moderate risk to site @ @1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[3] Moderate risk to site[2] Low microhabitat quality[3] Moderate risk to siteA[2] Native species cover and biomass 25-50 % of natural condition[4] High risk to siteA[3] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency moderate (50-75 %)[3] Moderate risk to siteffffff@ @([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[2] 25-50% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to siteL[3] 50-75 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @[4] Good surface water quality[2] Low risk to site([2] Extensive flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[3] Moderate risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site7[2] Extensive negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[3] Moderate risk to site @ @D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures)[2] One historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to site,[4] Management plan given moderate attention[2] Low risk to site6[2] Two features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed[2] Low risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site4F먪
@ ?3.416672.831250[1] Negligible risk to siteRestoration of the hillslope seepage could enhance the native vegetation habitat. If undertaken, the spring source should be fenced, but outflow provided for wildlife water. Occasional monitoring is warranted.SAPc@ `H$I [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site([4] between 10 and 100 liters per second[2] Low risk to site&[4] Springs flow only slightly reduced[3] Moderate risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[2] Low risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[2] Low risk to site @h˹WU@ [0] False0[4] 75-90 % of natural microhabitat types remain[3] Moderate risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[4] High risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[4] High risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[3] Moderate risk to site-[4] Little altered natural disturbance regime[3] Moderate risk to site@333333@.[5] 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[5] 1 - 10 hectare habitat area[3] Moderate risk to siteA[4] Good microhabitat quality with some indication of impairment[3] Moderate risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to site@ @([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site)[4] 5-10% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site'[3] Moderate flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site0[3] Moderate road, trail, or railroad influences[4] High risk to site*[4] Limited negative influences of fencing[3] Moderate risk to site.[2] Extensive negative construction influences[5] Very high risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[3] Moderate risk to site,[4] Limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site @]`7l@=[4] Credible mapping and other scientific information exists [2] Low risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[4] High risk to site-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[5] High economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[3] Moderate risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site8[5] Socioenvironmental compliance completed, not enacted[1] Negligible risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[3] Moderate risk to site#G@ F6@4.187502.891670[0] No Risk to siteSAPc@o `f `H$IYmM [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site[9] Unable to Assess[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site9[9] Unable to assess natural cover of algae or periphyton[9] Unable to answer @? [0] False2[1] <25 % original natural microhabit types remain[5] Very high risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[5] Very high risk to site=[3] Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality[5] Very high risk to site[4] Good (>0.5 And <=0.7)[5] Very high risk to site)[3] Moderately altered disturbance regime[5] Very high risk to siteffffff@ @1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[5] Very high risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[5] Very high risk to site[2] Low microhabitat quality[5] Very high risk to siteA[2] Native species cover and biomass 25-50 % of natural condition[5] Very high risk to site=[2] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency poor (25-50 %)[5] Very high risk to site @ @([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[5] Very high risk to site([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[5] Very high risk to site*[2] 25-50% of plant species are non-native[5] Very high risk to siteL[3] 50-75 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[5] Very high risk to site @ @"[3] Moderate surface water quality[5] Very high risk to site&[4] Limited flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site0[3] Moderate road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site+[3] Moderate negative influences of fencing[3] Moderate risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site+[2] Extensive negative herbivory influences[5] Very high risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site @
@=[4] Credible mapping and other scientific information exists [3] Moderate risk to site5[9] Unable to assess indigenous cultural significance[9] Unable to answer1[3] Two or more historically significant elements[4] High risk to site>[4] Limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Modest economic value[1] Negligible risk to siteD[3] Management plan exists, but receives little management attention[4] High risk to site9[1] One scientifically or educationally important feature[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[3] Moderate risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site
@ @3.050003.716677[6] Extreme risk to siteSAPc@x `H$Ix [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[2] Low risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[2] Low risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site\@іs)? [0] False0[4] 75-90 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[4] High risk to site=[3] Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality[4] High risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[3] Moderate risk to site)[3] Moderately altered disturbance regime[4] High risk to site @ffffff@.[5] 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem[4] High risk to site[4] .1 - 1 hectare habitat area[4] High risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[4] High risk to siteA[3] Native species cover and biomass 50-75 % of natural condition[4] High risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site@ @([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[5] Very high risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[2] Low risk to site'[3] Moderate flow regulation influences[5] Very high risk to site1[2] Extensive road, trail, or railroad influences[5] Very high risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site-[3] Moderate negative construction influences[5] Very high risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site @]`7l@=[4] Credible mapping and other scientific information exists [3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[4] High risk to site-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to siteC[5] Very limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[3] Moderate risk to site[4] Considerable economic value[2] Low risk to site,[4] Management plan given moderate attention[2] Low risk to site>[5] At least 10 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed[2] Low risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[3] Moderate risk to site#G@h˹WU@4.110423.210420[0] No Risk to siteSAPc@
`$H,M [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[0] No Risk to site-[4] Natural cover of algae or periphyton good[3] Moderate risk to siteLuTU@іs)? [0] False0[3] 50-75 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to siteI[2] Channel strongly altered, with only scant evidence of original course[5] Very high risk to site*[1] Virtually all natural soils eliminated[5] Very high risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[5] Very high risk to site-[2] Highly altered natural disturbance regime[5] Very high risk to site@333333@.[5] 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem[4] High risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[5] Very high risk to site"[3] Moderate microhabitat quality[5] Very high risk to siteA[3] Native species cover and biomass 50-75 % of natural condition[4] High risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[4] High risk to site@@([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[2] 25-50% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[3] 50-75 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @[4] Good surface water quality[4] High risk to site([2] Extensive flow regulation influences[5] Very high risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[4] High risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[0] No Risk to site-[3] Moderate negative construction influences[4] High risk to site*[3] Moderate negative herbivory influences[4] High risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[2] Low risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[2] Low risk to site F6@
@D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site>[4] Limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[2] Limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[3] Moderate risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site7[3] Preliminary socioenvironmental compliance conducted[2] Low risk to sitecows
O[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site @ @3.470833.372920[1] Negligible risk to siteIf site history is not deemed important, substantial geomorphic restoration is possible at this spring; however, there will be no benefit to wildlife from doing so.SAPc@
`$IIM [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[1] Negligible risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[0] No Risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site\@_? [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[0] No Risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[2] Low risk to site[4] Good (>0.5 And <=0.7)[2] Low risk to site-[4] Little altered natural disturbance regime[2] Low risk to siteffffff@ffffff?1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[2] Low risk to site[4] .1 - 1 hectare habitat area[3] Moderate risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[2] Low risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to siteffffff@333333@([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[6] Excellent surface water quality[0] No Risk to site&[4] Limited flow regulation influences[2] Low risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site*[4] Limited negative influences of fencing[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[2] Low risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[0] No Risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[1] Negligible risk to site'[5] Very limited negative influences of[2] Low risk to siteLuTU@ ?D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site?[3] Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[2] Limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site7[3] Preliminary socioenvironmental compliance conducted[2] Low risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to sitex=\r@ @4.654171.720830[1] Negligible risk to siteIf this site were to be monitored or rehabilitated, constructing a trail would help protect it. We suggest determining if maintenance of the trough in the valley downslope is necessary.SAPc@s
`$Iމ [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site&[2] between .1 and 1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[0] No Risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site @_? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[2] Low risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[1] Negligible risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[2] Low risk to site333333@ffffff?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[2] Low risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[2] Low risk to site7[6] Native species cover and biomass virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to site@?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site*[2] 25-50% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site'[5] Very limited negative influences of[2] Low risk to site<.9@ ?D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to sitedData is from a conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on February 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures1[3] Two or more historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site?[3] Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site7[3] Preliminary socioenvironmental compliance conducted[2] Low risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to sitex=\r@ @4.593751.570830[1] Negligible risk to site8No action is needed. Occasional monitoring is warranted.SAPc@ ` I: [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site&[3] between 1 and 10 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site*[5] Flow continuous since late Pleistocene[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[0] No Risk to siteLuTU@_? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[0] No Risk to site[6] Channel pristine[0] No Risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[2] Low risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[1] Negligible risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[1] Negligible risk to siteffffff@?/[2] 50-100 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to siteA[4] Good microhabitat quality with some indication of impairment[2] Low risk to siteA[3] Native species cover and biomass 50-75 % of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site=[5] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98 %)[2] Low risk to site @?([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[2] 25-50% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[6] Excellent surface water quality[0] No Risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[0] No Risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[0] No Risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site'[5] Very limited negative influences of[3] Moderate risk to site<.9@ ?4[1] Very limited mapping or other information exists[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[1] Negligible risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site5Forest plan, allotment plan, W&S river
:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to siteh˹WU@ ?4.283331.514580[1] Negligible risk to siteThis site is in relatively natural condition; however, as a rheocrene it is subject to considerable natural flooding disturbance. While not requiring any immediate management action, it may be useful as a rheocrene reference site; occasional (3-5 yr) monitoring may be useful for tracking changes.SAPc@ h$I37 [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[0] No Risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[0] No Risk to site\@-R\U? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[0] No Risk to site[6] Channel pristine[0] No Risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[0] No Risk to site @?/[2] 50-100 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[0] No Risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[0] No Risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[0] No Risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to site @ ?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[1] Negligible risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[0] No Risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[0] No Risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[2] Low risk to site<.9@ ?/[2] Limited mapping or other information exists[4] High risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures1[3] Two or more historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Limited economic value[1] Negligible risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[1] Negligible risk to site6[2] Two features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site?[4] Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed[1] Negligible risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site4F먪
@ ?4.572921.016670[1] Negligible risk to siteKNo actions are needed at this time, but occasional monitoring is warranted.SAPc@ `$H֘q [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[4] High risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[2] Low risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site-[4] Natural cover of algae or periphyton good[3] Moderate risk to site @ @ [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[2] Low risk to site/[4] Channel slightly altered, mostly functional[3] Moderate risk to siteN[2] Soils thin or eliminated on most of site but a detectable amount remaining[4] High risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[3] Moderate risk to site)[3] Moderately altered disturbance regime[4] High risk to site @ @1[4] 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[3] Moderate risk to siteA[4] Good microhabitat quality with some indication of impairment[3] Moderate risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[4] High risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to site@ @([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to site*[4] 5-10% of faunal species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[2] Low risk to site'[3] Moderate flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site0[3] Moderate road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site*[4] Limited negative influences of fencing[3] Moderate risk to site.[2] Extensive negative construction influences[4] High risk to site*[3] Moderate negative herbivory influences[5] Very high risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site7[2] Extensive negative influences of adjacent landscape[5] Very high risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[4] High risk to site#G @ @D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site>[4] Limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[4] High risk to site[3] Modest economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[3] Moderate risk to site6[2] Two features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[3] Moderate risk to site'Risk due to trespass cattle.
O[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to sitex=\r@ @3.762502.881250[1] Negligible risk to siteRemove all piping, troughs, fencing, etc. Consider providing some open water for wildlife. Occasional monitoring is warranted, particularly if regional uranium mining or water extraction occurs. Fire danger is high due to extensive bromus cover, but resolution of this problem remains difficult. SAPc@
`$IM [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site\@іs)? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[1] Negligible risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[1] Negligible risk to site@ ?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site=[5] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98 %)[2] Low risk to site@ffffff?&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site)[4] 5-10% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site([6] <2% of faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[1] Negligible risk to siteD[6] Native faunal populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site'[5] Very limited negative influences of[2] Low risk to site£@ ?4[1] Very limited mapping or other information exists[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[1] Negligible risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to siteh˹WU@ ?4.797921.172920[1] Negligible risk to siteThis remote site is an excellent example of a pristine south-facing hanging garden. If it is monitored or used as a reference site, access should be stabilized with a stepping stone trail to prevent erosion. SAPc@
`$I$K= [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site\@ ? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site@ ?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site=[5] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98 %)[2] Low risk to site@333333?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to site([6] <2% of faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[6] Dominant native plant populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to siteD[6] Native faunal populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site @ ?#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site'[5] Very limited negative influences of[2] Low risk to site£@ ?4[1] Very limited mapping or other information exists[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[1] Negligible risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to siteh˹WU@ ?4.879171.050000[1] Negligible risk to siteThis remote site is an excellent example of a pristine south-facing hanging garden. If it is monitored or used as a reference site, access should be stabilized with a stepping stone trail to prevent erosion. SAPc@/
`$IM [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[0] No flow[1] Negligible risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[1] Negligible risk to site[0] No water[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to siteh˹WU @ ? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[3] Moderate risk to site[6] Channel pristine[3] Moderate risk to site7[4] Soils largely intact, and only slightly compromised[2] Low risk to site[0] None (0)[2] Low risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[1] Negligible risk to site@@/[2] 50-100 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[2] Low risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[2] Low risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[2] Low risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[2] Low risk to siteffffff@ @&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site&[6] >98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site*[4] 5-10% of faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ @[0] No flow[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site6[3] Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape[4] High risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[3] Moderate risk to site @ @4[1] Very limited mapping or other information exists[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[1] Negligible risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to siteh˹WU@ ?3.979171.800000[1] Negligible risk to site`This site needs no management attention, but is interesting as an example of a hypocrene spring.SAPc@
`$I% [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site&[3] between 1 and 10 liters per second[5] Very high risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[1] Negligible risk to site*[5] Flow continuous since late Pleistocene[1] Negligible risk to site0[4] Water quality 60 to 90% of natural condition[2] Low risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[1] Negligible risk to site @/iQU? [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[1] Negligible risk to site,[5] Channel functioning apparently naturally[1] Negligible risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to siteffffff@ ?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[1] Negligible risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[2] Low risk to site @333333?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[2] Low risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site'[3] Moderate flow regulation influences[5] Very high risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site+[3] Moderate negative influences of fencing[3] Moderate risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site,[4] Limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[1] Negligible risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[3] Moderate risk to site{8@ @/[2] Limited mapping or other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to site?[3] Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[2] Limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site7[3] Preliminary socioenvironmental compliance conducted[3] Moderate risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site{8@ @4.306251.539580[1] Negligible risk to siteSAPc@ `f ``$I z [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[1] Negligible risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site@ ? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site[3] Moderate (>0.3 And <=0.5)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site@ ?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[2] Low risk to site @333333?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to siteK[4] 75-90 % ofdominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[2] Low risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site:[6] No undesired negative influences of adjacent landscape[1] Negligible risk to site @]`7l?4[1] Very limited mapping or other information exists[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[1] Negligible risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to siteh˹WU@ ?4.387501.675005[6] Extreme risk to siteSAPc@
``$IZh [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[5] Very high risk to site![2] Springs flow strongly reduced[5] Very high risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[1] Negligible risk to siteffffff@@ [0] False0[4] 75-90 % of natural microhabitat types remain[2] Low risk to site,[5] Channel functioning apparently naturally[1] Negligible risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[1] Negligible risk to site[4] Good (>0.5 And <=0.7)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site333333@333333?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to siteA[4] Good microhabitat quality with some indication of impairment[3] Moderate risk to site7[6] Native species cover and biomass virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[2] Low risk to site333333@?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[1] Negligible risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ ?#[5] Very good surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site([2] Extensive flow regulation influences[4] High risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[3] Moderate risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to site @ ?D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures-[4] Several historically significant elements[3] Moderate risk to siteheritage site
>[4] Limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[4] Considerable economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[3] Moderate risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to site£@ @4.499541.837501[2] Low risk to siteSAPc@O `@$INsY [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site&[4] Springs flow only slightly reduced[3] Moderate risk to site[9] Unable to Assess[3] Moderate risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[1] Negligible risk to site @ @ [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[1] Negligible risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[3] Moderate risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[0] No Risk to site@333333?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[2] Low risk to siteA[4] Good microhabitat quality with some indication of impairment[2] Low risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[2] Low risk to site@?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[1] Negligible risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ ?#[5] Very good surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site&[4] Limited flow regulation influences[3] Moderate risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site:[5] Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[1] Negligible risk to site @>"D?4[1] Very limited mapping or other information exists[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[3] Moderate risk to site<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[1] Negligible risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to siteh˹WU@ @4.106251.543751[0] No Risk to siteThis site offers excellent potential for restoration by removing the spring box, as it is in a rarely visited area and doesn't appear to be currently used. However, it would be important to determine historical significance.
SAPc@ ` ɓ$'8 [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[3] Moderate risk to site&[3] between 1 and 10 liters per second[2] Low risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[3] Moderate risk to site![4] Flow apparent during Holocene[3] Moderate risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[2] Low risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[2] Low risk to site @ [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[2] Low risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[1] Negligible risk to site[4] Good (>0.5 And <=0.7)[2] Low risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[2] Low risk to site0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[2] Low risk to site[4] .1 - 1 hectare habitat area[2] Low risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[2] Low risk to siteA[5] Native species cover and biomass 90-98 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site([6] <2% of faunal species are non-native[2] Low risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to siteD[6] Native faunal populations self-sustaining in a natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site#[5] Very good surface water quality[3] Moderate risk to site+[5] Very limited flow regulation influences[3] Moderate risk to site/[4] Limited road, trail, or railroad influences[3] Moderate risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[2] Low risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[2] Low risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[3] Moderate risk to siteD[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[3] Moderate risk to siteY[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures[2] Low risk to siteC[5] Very limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[3] Moderate risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[1] Negligible risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site8[5] Socioenvironmental compliance completed, not enacted[1] Negligible risk to site5[5] Rights have been established; robust enforcement[3] Moderate risk to siteSAPc@
`$IH [0] False3[6] Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[1] Negligible risk to site3[6] Springs pristine; good potential reference site[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Water quality fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Natural cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural[1] Negligible risk to site @ ? [0] False'[6] Natural microhabitat types pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Channel pristine[1] Negligible risk to site[6] Soils fully natural[1] Negligible risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[1] Negligible risk to site1[6] Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine[0] No Risk to site@?0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to site"[6] Pristine microhabitat quality[1] Negligible risk to site7[6] Native species cover and biomass virtually pristine[1] Negligible risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to site@ffffff?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[1] Negligible risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([5] 2-5% of plant species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to site([6] <2% of faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[5] 90-98 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[1] Negligible risk to siteC[5] 90-98 % ofnative faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ ?#[6] Excellent surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[0] No Risk to site*[6] No road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site%[6] No negative influences of fencing[0] No Risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[0] No Risk to site$[6] No negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site:[6] No undesired negative influences of adjacent landscape[1] Negligible risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[3] Moderate risk to siteq@ ?4[1] Very limited mapping or other information exists[2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures<[1] Very litle evidence of historically significant elements[1] Negligible risk to siteE[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[1] Very limited economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[2] Low risk to site6[2] Two features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site@[2] Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered[4] High risk to siteJ[4] Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement[2] Low risk to sitepq@ ?4.850001.143751[2] Low risk to sitePThis spring is in nearly pristine condition. Occasional monitoring is warranted.SAPc@
h$I2_N [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[3] Moderate risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[3] Moderate risk to site#[5] Springs flow apparently natural[3] Moderate risk to site*[5] Flow continuous since late Pleistocene[3] Moderate risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[3] Moderate risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[3] Moderate risk to siteLuTU@ @ [0] False0[5] 90-98 % of natural microhabitat types remain[2] Low risk to site,[5] Channel functioning apparently naturally[2] Low risk to siteH[5] Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality[1] Negligible risk to site[4] Good (>0.5 And <=0.7)[1] Negligible risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[1] Negligible risk to site333333@ffffff?.[5] 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem[1] Negligible risk to site[3] 100-1000 sq m habitat area[1] Negligible risk to siteB[5] Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected[1] Negligible risk to siteA[4] Native species cover and biomass 75-90 % of natural condition[2] Low risk to site=[4] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90 %)[3] Moderate risk to site@?([5] 90-98% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site([4] 75-90% of expected species remaining[4] High risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[4] High risk to site+[3] 10-25% of faunal species are non-native[4] High risk to siteL[3] 50-75 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to siteC[3] 50-75% of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[4] High risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site![6] No flow regulation influences[1] Negligible risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[2] Low risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site'[6] No negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[2] Low risk to site'[4] Limited negative influences of fire[3] Moderate risk to site{8@ ?D[3] A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists[1] Negligible risk to site7[5] Numerous indigenous culturally significant features-[4] Several historically significant elements[4] High risk to siteC[5] Very limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use[2] Low risk to site[3] Modest economic value[2] Low risk to siteD[3] Management plan exists, but receives little management attention[1] Negligible risk to site:[3] Several features of scientific or educational interest[1] Negligible risk to site8[5] Socioenvironmental compliance completed, not enacted[1] Negligible risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to siteq@ ?4.177082.437500[1] Negligible risk to siteThis site needs no immediate attention, but occasional monitoring, particularly late in the summer during dry years, would help determine groundwater influence.SAPc@E `$Ips [0] False,[5] Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped[2] Low risk to site[1] < .1 liters per second[2] Low risk to site![2] Springs flow strongly reduced[3] Moderate risk to site[3] Flow recently persistent[2] Low risk to site0[5] Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition[1] Negligible risk to site2[5] Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good[1] Negligible risk to site @/iQU? [0] False0[3] 50-75 % of natural microhabitat types remain[4] High risk to site6[3] Channel highly altered but with some functionality[4] High risk to site=[3] Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality[3] Moderate risk to site[2] Low (>0.1 And <=0.3)[3] Moderate risk to site%[5] Nearly natural disturbance regime[1] Negligible risk to site @ @0[3] 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem[3] Moderate risk to site[2] 10 - 100 sq m habitat area[3] Moderate risk to site[2] Low microhabitat quality[5] Very high risk to siteA[2] Native species cover and biomass 25-50 % of natural condition[5] Very high risk to siteA[3] Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency moderate (50-75 %)[3] Moderate risk to site333333@ffffff@([2] 25-50% of expected species remaining[2] Low risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site&[1] <25% of expected species remaining[5] Very high risk to site([3] 50-75% of expected species remaining[3] Moderate risk to site*[3] 10-25% of plant species are non-native[3] Moderate risk to site-[5] 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native[1] Negligible risk to siteL[3] 50-75 % of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining[3] Moderate risk to siteD[4] 75-90 % of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining[2] Low risk to site @ @#[5] Very good surface water quality[1] Negligible risk to site'[3] Moderate flow regulation influences[3] Moderate risk to site4[5] Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences[1] Negligible risk to site/[5] Very limited negative influences of fencing[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative construction influences[1] Negligible risk to site.[5] Very limited negative herbivory influences[1] Negligible risk to site1[5] Very limited negative recreational influences[1] Negligible risk to site5[4] Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape[2] Low risk to site'[5] Very limited negative influences of[2] Low risk to site£@ ?=[4] Credible mapping and other scientific information exists [2] Low risk to siteoData from conversation between Larry Stevens and Dustin Burger on Feb 13, 2012.
Y[6] Cultural significance essential for the well-being of one or more indigenous cultures-[4] Several historically significant elements[2] Low risk to siteAsk Connie
E[1] Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use[1] Negligible risk to site[4] Considerable economic value[2] Low risk to siteF[5] Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration[3] Moderate risk to site6[4] 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest[2] Low risk to site8[5] Socioenvironmental compliance completed, not enacted[2] Low risk to siteO[6] Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement[1] Negligible risk to siteLuTU@ ?3.025002.845830[1] Negligible risk to siteThe site may have some historical interest, but if not, the scaffolding and other human alterations could be removed and the site restored. Occasional monitoring is warranted. Open water for wildlife may be of value.SAPc@
<