DOCSLIB.ORG

Jarbidge Wilderness Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jarbidge Wilderness Area Humboldt Qational United States Department of Agriculture Forest Land and !Resource Cnanagement Plan This Land and Resource Management Plan has been developed for the Humboldt National Forest. For information pertaining to the development of this plan, details can be provided by: Forest Supervisor Humboldt National Forest 976 Mountain City Highway Elko, NV 89801 A. Applicable Laws and Regulations The principal acts providing direction for developing this Land and Resource Management Plan are: 1. Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 3. Forest Rangeland Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 4. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 RPA requires the Forest Service to conduct an assessment or inventory of the Nation's renewable resources and develop a program for use of the resources. The assessment includes the determination of the capability of all National Forest lands to provide various goods and services. It also includes an estimation of future demands for those goods and services. B. Public Review and Appeal If any particular provision of this proposed action, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the proposed action and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The right to request an administrative appeal of the Regional Forester's decision to approve a Forest Plan is contained in 36 CFR 211.18 (d), which describes the appeal process. Intermediate decisions made during the planning process prior to the approval or disapproval decisions are not reviewable. THIS DOCUMENT PRESENTS A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE NEXT 10 TO 15 YEARS TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents 1 List of Maps, Tables, and Charts iii I. FOREST PLAN INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Forest Plan 1-1 B. Relationship of the Forest Plan 1-1 C. Plan Structure 1-2 D. Forest Description 1-3 11. ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION SUMMARY A. Introduction 11-1 B. Physical and Biological Setting 11-1 C. Economic and Social Setting 11-2 D. Resource Elements 11-3 E. Support Elements 11-24 F. Need to Establish or Change Management Direction 11-34 G. Research Needs 11-37 111. PLAN RESPONSES TO ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 111-1 IV. FOREST MANAGEMENT DIRECTION A. Introduction 1v-1 B. Forest Multiple-Use Goals and Objectives 1v-1 C. Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines 1v-17 1. Recreation 1v-18 2. Wildlife and Fish 1v-28 3. Range 1v-32 4. Timber 1v-41 5. Soil and Water 1v-46 6. Minerals 1v-50 7. Rural Community and Human Resources 1v-5a 8. Lands 5v-58 9. Facilities 1v-63 10. Protection 1v-66 11. Wilderness 1v-6 9 D. Projected Budget and Outputs 1v-78 E. Desired Future Condition of the Forest /v-82 F. Management Area Direction 1v-89 1. Mountain City 1v-91 2. Ruby Mountains IV-102 3. Ruby Mountain Recommended Wilderness IV-110 4. East Humboldts IV-113 5. East Humboldt Recommended Wilderness IV-119 6. Soldier Lakes Recommended Wilderness IV-122 i 7. Jarbidge Mountains IV-125 8. Jarbidge Existing and Recommended Wilderness IV-133 9. Mount Moriah IV-137 10. Mount Moriah Recommended Wilderness IV-I 44 11. Schell IV-148 12. Snake IV-156 13. Bristlecone Recommended Wilderness IV-165 14. Ward Mountain IV-170 15. White Pine Iv-178 16. @inn IV-185 17. Grant Recommended Wilderness IV-192 1%. Santa Rosa IV-196 G. Forest Plan Action Schedules IV-204 V. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOREST PLAN A. Implementation Direction v-I B. Monitoring and Evaluation Program v-I C. Revision and Amendment v-I 5 I ii LIST OF MAPSTTABLES, AND CHARTS I. FOREST PLAN INTRODUCTION Vicinity Map 1-4 11. ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION SUMMARY 11-1 Economic Indicators, Past Trends, and Baseline Projections for Primary Zone of Influence 11-2 11-2 Developed Recreational Facilities 11-3 11-3 Current Capacity for Dispersed Recreation 11-5 11-4 Areas Recommended for Wilderness During RARE I1 11-8 11-5 Selected Management Indicator Species 11-1 1 11-6 Various Population Levels for MIS 11-1 1 11-7 Range Condition Class 11-1 3 11-8 Status of Wild Horse Territories 11-1 4 11-9 Lands Open and Withdrawn to Mineral Activities 11-17 11-10 Active Mines 11-20 11-1 1 Mining Claims 11-21 11-12 Production Value of Locatable Minerals 11-22 11-1 3 Special Land Classifications 11-27 11-1 4 Summary of Special Land Use Permits 11-29 IV-15 Current Outputs, Projected Demand and Supply 11-30 Potential IV. FOREST MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IV-1 Projected Average Annual Outputs for the Forest Plan 1v-7 9 IV-2 Projected Average Annual Activities for the Forest Plan 1v-80 IV-3 Projected Average Annual Costs for the Forest Plan 1v-81 IV-4 Areas Proposed For Instream Flow Quantification in Priority Order 1v-86 A revised Forest Plan Map is included in this packet. iii CHAPTER I FOREST PLAN INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Forest Plan The Foresi, Flar, gujdes all natural resource management activities and estab- lishes managenbent standards and guidelines for the Humboldt National Forest,. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the avajlahiljty and suitability of lands for resource nanagenient. The Forest Plan erbodiea the provjsions of the NFMA, the regulations, and other guiding docunsents. The prescrjptjons md star~dardsand guidelines are a :.1etenent of We Flap's oanagement direction; however, the project, out- puts, servjces, and rates of implementation are dependent on the annual bud- geting process. B. Relationship of the Forest Plan to Other Documents Development of the Forest Plan takes place within the framework of Forest Servjce Regional and National planning. The relationship among different planning levels is shown as follows: Congressional Acts National level Forest Service planning through the Regional Guide for the Intermountain Region through Renewable Resource kssessment and Program (RPA) Regional planning level through the Regional Guide for the Intermountain Region Forest level planning through the Humboldt National Forest Lard & Resources Managenlent Flm The RFA Program sets the National directjnn and output levels for the National Forest system lan6s. Jt is based on sujtability and couipatability information from each Forest Service Region. Each Forest Service Region distributes its share of national production targets to each of its Forests. The share each National Forest receives is based on detailed infornlation gathered at the Forest level. The Land and Resource Management Plan validates or provides a basis for changing production levels assigned by the Region. Activities and projects are planned and implettented by the Forest to carry out the direction developed in the Forest Plan. Inforniation froa all the Wational Forests in the Region was used in developing the Intermountain Regional Guide. 1-1 Roadless areas have been reevaluated in this planning process. A recommen- dation for future management of the areas has been made. Congressional legislation will be needed to designate recommended areas as wilderness. Details concerning the roadless area analysis are in Appendix C of the Appendix document. The Forest Plan is the selected alternative of the FEIS and ds based on the various considerations which have been addressed in the FEIS. The planning process and the analysis procedure which were used in developing this Plan, as well as the other alternatives that were considered, are described or referenced in the FEIS. Activities and projects will be tied to the accompanying FEIS as provided for in 40 CFR 1502.20. The local project environmental analysis will use the data and evaluations in the Plan and FEIS as its basis. C. Plan Structure This plan provides the long term direction for managing the Humboldt National Forest. It contains the overall directions and activities which will be required to achieve the desired state of the Forest. Management area maps indicate where the activities will occur. /! The Forest Plan contains management direction for the Humboldt National Forest. The FEIS described the alternatives considered in arriving at that direction and assessed the environmental effects of implementing the Plan and other alternatives. The Forest Plan is organized into five chapters: Chapter I. Forest Plan Introduction Chapter 11. Analysis of the Management Situation Chapter 111. Plan Responses to Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities Chapter IV. Forest Management Direction Chapter V. Implementation of the Forest Plan Details concerning the various subsections and pages are found in the Table of Contents. The chapter titled "Forest Management Direction" deals with the multiple use goals and objectives. It also lists the management practices and standards and guidelines, Forest-wide and for management of specific areas. The "Implementation of the Forest Plan" chapter deals with the means to implement the plan and evaluate and monitor the effects of management practices. All glossary and Appendix references can be found in the separate Appendix document. Maps displaying various resources and associated management activities were included in a map packet enclosed with the draft Plan. A new Plan map reflecting changes made in the Preferred Alternative is enclosed. By studying the map concurrently with the Forest Plan, the reader can better understand the proposed action. 1-2 D. Forest Description The Humboldt National Forest is located in Nevada. The gross area administered by the Forest is 2,680,440 acres. The net National Forest acres within the Administrative Unit are 2,527,929. The Forest makes up 3.6 percent of the State of Nevada. The National Forest lands are located in five counties: Elko, Humboldt, Lincoln, Nye and White Pine The Forest Supervisor is headquartered in Elko, Nevada.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Nevada Areas of Heavy Use December 14, 2013 Trish Swain
    Nevada Areas of Heavy Use December 14, 2013 Trish Swain, Co-Ordinator TrailSafe Nevada 1285 Baring Blvd. Sparks, NV 89434 [email protected] Nev. Dept. of Cons. & Natural Resources | NV.gov | Governor Brian Sandoval | Nev. Maps NEVADA STATE PARKS http://parks.nv.gov/parks/parks-by-name/ Beaver Dam State Park Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park Big Bend of the Colorado State Recreation Area Cathedral Gorge State Park Cave Lake State Park Dayton State Park Echo Canyon State Park Elgin Schoolhouse State Historic Site Fort Churchill State Historic Park Kershaw-Ryan State Park Lahontan State Recreation Area Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park Sand Harbor Spooner Backcountry Cave Rock Mormon Station State Historic Park Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort State Historic Park Rye Patch State Recreation Area South Fork State Recreation Area Spring Mountain Ranch State Park Spring Valley State Park Valley of Fire State Park Ward Charcoal Ovens State Historic Park Washoe Lake State Park Wild Horse State Recreation Area A SOURCE OF INFORMATION http://www.nvtrailmaps.com/ Great Basin Institute 16750 Mt. Rose Hwy. Reno, NV 89511 Phone: 775.674.5475 Fax: 775.674.5499 NEVADA TRAILS Top Searched Trails: Jumbo Grade Logandale Trails Hunter Lake Trail Whites Canyon route Prison Hill 1 TOURISM AND TRAVEL GUIDES – ALL ONLINE http://travelnevada.com/travel-guides/ For instance: Rides, Scenic Byways, Indian Territory, skiing, museums, Highway 50, Silver Trails, Lake Tahoe, Carson Valley, Eastern Nevada, Southern Nevada, Southeast95 Adventure, I 80 and I50 NEVADA SCENIC BYWAYS Lake
    [Show full text]
  • Description and Correlation of Geologic Units, Cross
    Plate 2 UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 135 a division of Hydrogeologic Studies and Groundwater Monitoring in Snake Valley and Utah Department of Natural Resources Adjacent Hydrographic Areas, West-Central Utah and East-Central Nevada DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS SOURCES USED FOR MAP COMPILATION UNIT CORRELATION AND UNIT CORRELATION HYDROGEOLOGIC Alluvial deposits – Sand, silt, clay and gravel; variable thickness; Holocene. Qal MDs Lower Mississippian and Upper Devonian sedimentary rocks, undivided – Best, M.G., Toth, M.I., Kowallis, B.J., Willis, J.B., and Best, V.C., 1989, GEOLOGIC UNITS UNITS Shale; consists primarily of the Pilot Shale; thickness about 850 feet in Geologic map of the Northern White Rock Mountains-Hamlin Valley area, Confining Playa deposits – Silt, clay, and evaporites; deposited along the floor of active Utah, 300–400 feet in Nevada. Aquifers Qp Beaver County, Utah, and Lincoln County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Units playa systems; variable thickness; Pleistocene through Holocene. Map I-1881, 1 pl., scale 1:50,000. D Devonian sedimentary rocks, undivided – Limestone, dolomite, shale, and Holocene Qal Qsm Qp Qea Qafy Spring and wetland related deposits – Clay, silt, and sand; variable thickness; sandstone; includes the Guilmette Formation, Simonson and Sevy Fritz, W.H., 1968, Geologic map and sections of the southern Cherry Creek and Qsm Quaternary Holocene. Dolomite, and portions of the Pilot Shale in Utah; thickness about 4400– northern Egan Ranges, White Pine County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of QTcs 4700 feet in Utah, 2100–4350 feet in Nevada. Mines Map 35, scale 1:62,500. Pleistocene Qls Qlm Qlg Qgt Qafo QTs QTfs Qea Eolian deposits – Sand and silt; deposited along valley floor margins, includes Hintze, L.H., 1963, Geologic map of Utah southwest quarter, Utah Sate Land active and vegetated dunes; variable thickness; Pleistocene through S Silurian sedimentary rocks, undivided – Dolomite; consists primarily of the Board, scale 1:250,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Bristlecone Great Basin National Park Summer, 1990 Information Activities
    BRISTLECONE GREAT BASIN NATIONAL PARK SUMMER, 1990 INFORMATION ACTIVITIES Welcome to Great Basin National Park Welcome to Great Basin National Park; an area of surprising beauty and diver­ sity. As the nation's 49th national park, Great Basin enters a select corps of the finest and most valued portions of this nation's heritage which are protected as units of the National Park System. A concept which began with Yellowstone National Park in 1872 and has spread throughout the country and, indeed, around the globe, now has incorporated one of the most superlative examples of Great Basin geology, biologic diversity and scenic grandeur. As you visit Great Basin National Park this season, we hope that you take ad­ vantage of the naturalist programs and activities which will provide a greater understanding of this special place. Join a ranger on a walk to an ancient grove of bristlecone pines, or attend an evening campfire program to learn more of the history, geology or wildlife of the park. Schedules and program descriptions are to be found elsewhere in this newspaper. We sincerely believe that a more com­ plete understanding of what you see here, will help to enhance your appre­ Park Drafts Management Plan ciation of the park. While Great Basin National Park is A General Management Plan (GMP) is Local issues, such as grazing, mining, the mailing list, for their further review new, and changes in facilities and opera­ being developed at Great Basin Na­ interpretive services, fishing and wild­ and comment. Responses regarding the tions will continue for many years, there tional Park which will guide the man­ life management, cave management and recommended directions to be taken is one constant trait which is already agement direction of the park for the special uses (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Summary
    Travel Summary – All Trips and Day Trips Retirement 2016-2020 Trips (28) • Relatives 2016-A (R16A), September 30-October 20, 2016, 21 days, 441 photos • Anza-Borrego Desert 2016-A (A16A), November 13-18, 2016, 6 days, 711 photos • Arizona 2017-A (A17A), March 19-24, 2017, 6 days, 692 photos • Utah 2017-A (U17A), April 8-23, 2017, 16 days, 2214 photos • Tonopah 2017-A (T17A), May 14-19, 2017, 6 days, 820 photos • Nevada 2017-A (N17A), June 25-28, 2017, 4 days, 515 photos • New Mexico 2017-A (M17A), July 13-26, 2017, 14 days, 1834 photos • Great Basin 2017-A (B17A), August 13-21, 2017, 9 days, 974 photos • Kanab 2017-A (K17A), August 27-29, 2017, 3 days, 172 photos • Fort Worth 2017-A (F17A), September 16-29, 2017, 14 days, 977 photos • Relatives 2017-A (R17A), October 7-27, 2017, 21 days, 861 photos • Arizona 2018-A (A18A), February 12-17, 2018, 6 days, 403 photos • Mojave Desert 2018-A (M18A), March 14-19, 2018, 6 days, 682 photos • Utah 2018-A (U18A), April 11-27, 2018, 17 days, 1684 photos • Europe 2018-A (E18A), June 27-July 25, 2018, 29 days, 3800 photos • Kanab 2018-A (K18A), August 6-8, 2018, 3 days, 28 photos • California 2018-A (C18A), September 5-15, 2018, 11 days, 913 photos • Relatives 2018-A (R18A), October 1-19, 2018, 19 days, 698 photos • Arizona 2019-A (A19A), February 18-20, 2019, 3 days, 127 photos • Texas 2019-A (T19A), March 18-April 1, 2019, 15 days, 973 photos • Death Valley 2019-A (D19A), April 4-5, 2019, 2 days, 177 photos • Utah 2019-A (U19A), April 19-May 3, 2019, 15 days, 1482 photos • Europe 2019-A (E19A), July
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Nevada Ecoregion 5 Is a Mountainous, Deeply Dissected, and Westerly Tilting Fault Block
    5 . S i e r r a N e v a d a Ecoregions of Nevada Ecoregion 5 is a mountainous, deeply dissected, and westerly tilting fault block. It is largely composed of granitic rocks that are lithologically distinct from the sedimentary rocks of the Klamath Mountains (78) and the volcanic rocks of the Cascades (4). A Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, Vegas, Reno, and Carson City areas. Most of the state is internally drained and lies Literature Cited: high fault scarp divides the Sierra Nevada (5) from the Northern Basin and Range (80) and Central Basin and Range (13) to the 2 2 . A r i z o n a / N e w M e x i c o P l a t e a u east. Near this eastern fault scarp, the Sierra Nevada (5) reaches its highest elevations. Here, moraines, cirques, and small lakes and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial within the Great Basin; rivers in the southeast are part of the Colorado River system Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the Ecoregion 22 is a high dissected plateau underlain by horizontal beds of limestone, sandstone, and shale, cut by canyons, and United States (map): Washington, D.C., USFS, scale 1:7,500,000. are especially common and are products of Pleistocene alpine glaciation. Large areas are above timberline, including Mt. Whitney framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and those in the northeast drain to the Snake River.
    [Show full text]
  • Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN Prepared by John Elliott SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2004 LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN SUBMITTED BY: _______________________________________ __________ John Elliott, Supervising Fisheries Biologist Date Nevada Department of Wildlife, Eastern Region APPROVED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Richard L. Haskins II, Fisheries Bureau Chief Date Nevada Department of Wildlife _______________________________________ __________ Kenneth E. Mayer, Director Date Nevada Department of Wildlife REVIEWED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Robert Williams, Field Supervisor Date Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service _______________________________________ __________ Ron Wenker, State Director Date U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management _______________________________________ __________ Edward C. Monnig, Forest Supervisor Date Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest U.S.D.A. Forest Service TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………..1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….…2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES……………………………………………………………….…4 CURRENT STATUS……………………………………………………………………………..6 RECOVERY OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………………………19 RECOVERY ACTIONS…………………………………………………………………………21 RECOVERY ACTION PRIORITIES BY SUBBASIN………………………………………….33 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE……………………………………………………………..47
    [Show full text]
  • AND SCHELL CREEK DIVISIONS of the James O. Klemmedson
    An Inventory of Bristlecone Pine in the Snake, Mount Moriah, Ward Mountain, and Schell Creek Divisions of the Humboldt National Forest Authors Klemmedson, James O.; Beasley, R. Scott Publisher Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 02/10/2021 17:39:02 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/302516 Report AN INVENTORY OF BRISTLECONE PINE IN THE SNAKE, MOUNT MORIAH, WARD MOUNTAIN, AND SCHELL CREEK DIVISIONS OF THE HUMBOLDT NATIONAL FOREST Prepared by James O. Klemmedson and R. Scott Beasley* Submitted to REGIONAL FORESTER, U.S. FOREST SERVICE OGDEN, UTAH in accordance with a COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT between the FOREST SERVICE and LABORATORY OF TREE-RING RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA for A JOINT INVENTORY AND DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL STUDY OF BRISTLECONE PINE * Department of Watershed Management, University of Arizona INTRODUCTION Bristlecone pine, Pinus aristata Engeim., is a species which inhabits high altitudes of the mountainous southwestern United States. It occurs from the Front Range of Colorado through Utah, northern New Mexico and Arizona to the White Mountains of California along the Nevada border in the west. Bristlecone pine commonly occurs in small open groves on arid slopes, but it also grows in association with limber and ponderosa pines, white fir, Douglas - fir, and Engelmann spruce, generally above the 8000 -foot level. This tree has little economic value as a timber species, but does provide a protective and beautifying cover to the landscape. A newly -acquired interst in bristlecone pine stems from the discovery that these trees reach tremendous ages.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013-9-19 Water System Plan Figure
    DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BASINS OF NEVADA £ * # £ OREGON £ IDAHO 47N £ 11 J k Jackpot 10 a 24E e 18E 19E 25E r 20E 21E 5 e McDermitt b 22E 23E 26E 28E Denio r 47N 27E i Owyhee d C £ g 69E 70E 1 e 68E 6 55E 66E 67E 47N 62E 63E 64E 65E 46N 44E 45E 46E 47E 48E 49E 50E 51E 52E 53E 56E 57E 58E 59E 60E 61E 541/2E 231/2E 30E 31E 33E 54E 47N 13 VU140 32E 34E 35E 36E 37E 38E 39E 40E 41E 42E B 43E ru C K n a r e n 46N i Falls n a R 39 y e g u o v Mountain n s i i 41 12 v R R i e Jarbidge Peak City v r * 45N e 2 *Capitol Peak 34 46N r 46N * Matterhorn C O re ek 45N N w ort y Copper Mtn. h h n Fo e * o rk e R 33B 37 lm 44N 30A i L R 45N a 140 v it i S 4 VU e tl v r e e 7 45N H r u Su 44N m 38 n Cre n bo ek n ld 40 i 68 t u 35 Q Granite Peak Wildhorse 44N 43N 3 33A * 190 8 29 Reservoir 9 44N 43N Vya UTAH M ar 42N Orovada* 43N ys 30B 43N Santa Rosa Peak 27 42N *McAfee Peak 14 67 41N *Jacks Peak 42N S 42N o R uth N i v F o 41N o e r r r k t 189B h 189C L 189A i t t 40N l 41N 15 Chimney e 41N Reservoir H F o u 25 r r Tecoma e m k 42 40N iv 44 b R o l Humb d 36 oldt t R 40N 69 i 39N v 40N r e 93 H U M B O L D T r e ¤£ 26 v 189D i 39N R Montello t 63 ld o 39N 32 b E L K O m R 233 38N 39N u i VU v H e r 225 38N e VU n l n t i t u 95 i Q ¤£ L 31 38N 16 38N 66 Cobre 37N 37N Wells Ma 80 28 gg i ¨¦§ e 37N Pilot Peak* 37N Oasis 36N 36N C r 93 R e ¤£ o e c k Hole in the k 36N * 24 36N Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • Lunar Crater Volcanic Field (Reveille and Pancake Ranges, Basin and Range Province, Nevada, USA)
    Research Paper GEOSPHERE Lunar Crater volcanic field (Reveille and Pancake Ranges, Basin and Range Province, Nevada, USA) 1 2,3 4 5 4 5 1 GEOSPHERE; v. 13, no. 2 Greg A. Valentine , Joaquín A. Cortés , Elisabeth Widom , Eugene I. Smith , Christine Rasoazanamparany , Racheal Johnsen , Jason P. Briner , Andrew G. Harp1, and Brent Turrin6 doi:10.1130/GES01428.1 1Department of Geology, 126 Cooke Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA 2School of Geosciences, The Grant Institute, The Kings Buildings, James Hutton Road, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH 3FE, UK 3School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE1 7RU, UK 31 figures; 3 tables; 3 supplemental files 4Department of Geology and Environmental Earth Science, Shideler Hall, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056, USA 5Department of Geoscience, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154, USA CORRESPONDENCE: gav4@ buffalo .edu 6Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 610 Taylor Road, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8066, USA CITATION: Valentine, G.A., Cortés, J.A., Widom, ABSTRACT some of the erupted magmas. The LCVF exhibits clustering in the form of E., Smith, E.I., Rasoazanamparany, C., Johnsen, R., Briner, J.P., Harp, A.G., and Turrin, B., 2017, overlapping and colocated monogenetic volcanoes that were separated by Lunar Crater volcanic field (Reveille and Pancake The Lunar Crater volcanic field (LCVF) in central Nevada (USA) is domi­ variable amounts of time to as much as several hundred thousand years, but Ranges, Basin and Range Province, Nevada, USA): nated by monogenetic mafic volcanoes spanning the late Miocene to Pleisto­ without sustained crustal reservoirs between the episodes.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Potentiometric Surface of the Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, Nevada and California by Michael T
    U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5150 U.S. Geological Survey Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Sheet 1 (Interagency Agreement DE–AI52–01NV13944), and Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (Interagency Agreement DE–AI28–02RW12167), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Nye County, Nevada 650000 115° 117° 550000 116° 600000 118° 450000 500000 San Antonio Mts Monte Cristo Range Monitor Range Big Smokey Stone Valley Cabin Grant Range Valley Railroad 1600 Tonopah Valley Quinn Canyon Range Reveille Range 38° 38° Lincoln County Reveille Valley 4200000 4200000 Esmeralda County 1700 1500 1800 1500 Cactus Penoyer Valley Goldfield 00 00 16 Flat 16 (Sand Spring Worthington Range Hill Valley) Nye County 1600 Cactus Range Clayton Valley Stonewall Montezuma Range Flat Kawich Range Timpahute Range Hiko Range Kawich Fish Lake Valley 1700 1500 Gold Valley North Pahranagat Range 1600 Flat Palmetto Mts 1400 Stonewall 1400 4150000 4150000 1500 Mtn 1600 1500 East Pahranagat Range Pahranagat Range 1300 Magruder Mtn Tikaboo Valley Belted Range EmigrantValley Groom Range Last Chance Range 1500 Slate Ridge 1200 1300 Eureka Valley 1200 Pahute 1100 Black Mesa 1100 Mtn 1000 Gold Rainier Eleana 1500 Range Mtn Stonewall Mesa 1000 White Mts Pass Desert Range 900 Halfpint Range Shoshone Yucca 800 Grapevine Mts Flat 1300 Timber Mtn 1500 Sarcobatus Mtn 700 4100000 4100000 1700 Flat 37° 37° 1400 Desert 1600 Valley
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013
    Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013 Prepared by the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership Baker, Nevada i ii Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan September 23, 2011 Plans prepared previously by several National Heritage Areas provided inspiration for the framework and format for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan. National Park Service staff and documents provided guidance. We gratefully acknowledge these contributions. This Management Plan was made possible through funding provided by the National Park Service, the State of Nevada, the State of Utah and the generosity of local citizens. 2011 Great Basin National Heritage Area Disclaimer Restriction of Liability The Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership (GBHAP) and the authors of this document have made every reasonable effort to insur e accuracy and objectivity in preparing this plan. However, based on limitations of time, funding and references available, the parties involved make no claims, promises or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this document and expressly disclaim liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this plan. No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed or statutory, including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third party rights, title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, is given with respect to the contents of this document or its references. Reference in this document to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm or corporation name is for the inf ormation and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GBHAP or the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • Superposed Compressional and Extensional Strain in Lower Paleozic Rocks of the Northwestern Grant Range, Nevada
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Phyllis A. Camilleri for the degree of Master ofScience in Geology presented on December 15, 1988. Title: Superposed Compressional and Extensional Strain in Lower Paleozoic Rocks in the Northwestern Grant Range, Nevada Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: Karen Lund The Grant Range, in east-central Nevada, isa north-east trending range bounded on the west bya west-dipping normal fault system. Rocks within therange record a complex polyphase Mesozoic ductile compressional and Cenozoic brittle extensional deformational history. The northwestern Grant Range exposes deformed, regionally metamorphosed and unmetamorphosed, Cambrian to Mississippian carbonate and clastic strata, and minor Tertiary granitic and andesitic dikes. Cambrian and Ordovician rocks are ductilely strained and metamorphosed. Metamorphic grade decreases stratigraphically upwards, generally commensurate with the degree of ductile strain. Two Mesozoic compressional events are recorded in the rocks of the northwestern Grant Range. The first event produced mesoscopic, east-vergent folds with spaced axial-planar cleavage. These folds were overprinted by small-scale, west-vergent thrust faults and folds of the second event. Regional metamorphism began during the first folding event, but outlasted deformation. Static metamorphism was followed by west-vergent deformation, which marked the end of metamorphism. The compressional structures may have been part of an east-vergent anticline or the hanging wall of an east-vergent thrust fault. Ductile Mesozoic compressional structures and fabrics are cut by an arched, imbricate stack of Cenozoic low-angle normal faults of a more brittle character. The low-angle normal faults omit stratigraphic section, and each successively structurally higher fault is generally younger than the one below it.
    [Show full text]