DOCSLIB.ORG

Precipitation and Runoff Simulations of the Carson Range and Pine Nut

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Precipitation and Runoff Simulations of the Carson Range and Pine Nut Prepared in cooperation with Douglas County, Nevada Precipitation and Runoff Simulations of the Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains, and Updated Estimates of Ground-Water Inflow and the Ground-Water Budget for Basin-Fill Aquifers of Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5205 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Looking west from Ambrosetti Pond towards the Carson Range. Photograph taken by Laurie Bonner, U.S. Geological Survey, October 27, 2004. Precipitation and Runoff Simulations of the Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains, and Updated Estimates of Ground-Water Inflow and the Ground-Water Budget for Basin-Fill Aquifers of Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California By Anne E. Jeton and Douglas K. Maurer Prepared in cooperation with Douglas County, Nevada Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5205 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Jeton, A.E., and Maurer, D.K., 2007, Precipitation and runoff simulations of the Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains, and updated estimates of ground-water inflow and the ground-water budget for basin-fill aquifers of Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5205, 56 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................4 Geographic Setting ...............................................................................................................................4 Geologic Setting ....................................................................................................................................6 Hydrologic Setting ................................................................................................................................8 Components of the Ground-Water Budget for Basin-Fill Sediments of Carson Valley ....8 Description of Watershed Models ............................................................................................................11 Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System ...........................................................................................13 Model Development ...........................................................................................................................15 Basin Characterization and Delineation of Hydrologic Response Units ..........................15 Runoff and Climate Data ...........................................................................................................16 Model Sensitivity........................................................................................................................21 Model Calibration................................................................................................................................22 Error Analysis ......................................................................................................................................22 Carson Range Perennial Watersheds ....................................................................................23 Daggett Creek Watershed ...............................................................................................23 Fredericksburg Canyon Watershed ...............................................................................27 Pine Nut Mountains Perennial Watersheds ..........................................................................27 Pine Nut Creek Watershed ..............................................................................................27 Buckeye Creek Watershed .............................................................................................32 Model and Data Limitations ..............................................................................................................32 Results of Watershed Modeling and Comparison with Previous Estimates ......................................33 Perennial Watersheds .......................................................................................................................33 Ephemeral Watersheds .....................................................................................................................44 Ground-Water Inflow Simulated from Watershed Models and Variation from Dry to Wet Conditions. ..............................................................................................................................46 Uncertainty in Estimates of Simulated Ground-Water Inflow .....................................................47 Ground-Water Inflow Simulated from Watershed Models Compared with Previous Estimates ...48 Updated Ground-Water Budget for Basin-fill Aquifers of Carson Valley ...........................................50 Summary and Conclusions .........................................................................................................................51 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................53 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................53 iv Figures Figure 1. Map showing location of the Carson River Basin and the Carson Valley hydrographic areas, Nevada and California ……………………………………… 3 Figure 2. Map showing location of the Carson Valley study area and depth to water table, Nevada and California, June 2005 ………………………………………… 5 Figure 3. Map showing surficial geologic units and faults in Carson Valley, perennial and ephemeral watersheds, and the locations of precipitation and runoff gaging or measurement stations used in watershed model development, Nevada and California …………………………………………………………… 7 Figure 4. Graphs showing annual precipitation at Minden, Nevada, and Heavenly Valley, California, and Palmer Drought Severity Index for western Nevada ……… 9 Figure 5. Conceptual diagram showing components of ground-water recharge to and discharge from basin-fill aquifers of Carson Valley, Nevada and California ……… 10 Figure 6. Schematic diagram of processes simulated by the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System ………………………………………………………………… 14 Figure 7. Maps showing HRU delineation and distribution of slope, aspect, land cover, and land-surface altitude zones in the Daggett Creek watershed, Carson Valley, Nevada …………………………………………………………………… 17 Figure 8. Graphs showing simulated and measured daily mean runoff for Daggett Creek and Fredericksburg Canyon watersheds, Carson Valley, Nevada and California, water years 1990–2002 ………………………………………………… 24 Figure 9. Graph showing simulated and measured annual mean runoff and ground-water inflow for Daggett Creek, water years 1990–2002, Fredericksburg Canyon, water years 1990–2001, and Pine Nut Creek and Buckeye Creek watersheds, water years 1981–97, Carson Valley, Nevada and California ………………………………………………………………………… 25 Figure 10. Graphs showing simulated and measured daily mean runoff for Pine Nut Creek and Buckeye Creek watersheds, Carson Valley, Nevada, water years 1981–97 …………………………………………………………………………… 28 Figure 11. Graphs showing simulated and reconstructed daily mean runoff for 10 ungaged perennial watersheds in Carson Valley, Nevada and California, water years 1990–2002 …………………………………………………………… 34 Figure 12. Graphs showing simulated and reconstructed annual mean runoff and ground-water inflow for 10 ungaged perennial watersheds in Carson Valley, Nevada and California, water years 1990–2002 …………………………………… 39 v Tables Table 1. Major bedrock type, runoff as a percentage of precipitation, index model, and precipitation stations used for model development of perennial gaged and ungaged watersheds, Nevada and California …………………………………… 12 Table 2. Precipitation and streamflow-gaging stations, period of record, and altitude, Carson Valley, Nevada and California …………………………………………… 21 Table 3. Calibration statistics for PRMS watershed models of gaged watersheds of the Carson Range and Pine Nut Mountains, Carson Valley, Nevada and California ………………………………………………………………………… 23 Table 4. Summary of model results for 14 perennial watersheds in Carson Valley, water years 1990–2002, and comparison with estimates from Maurer and Berger (2007) ………………………………………………………………………
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • HISTORY of the TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST a Compilation
    HISTORY OF THE TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST A Compilation Posting the Toiyabe National Forest Boundary, 1924 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Chronology ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Bridgeport and Carson Ranger District Centennial .................................................................... 126 Forest Histories ........................................................................................................................... 127 Toiyabe National Reserve: March 1, 1907 to Present ............................................................ 127 Toquima National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ....................................................... 128 Monitor National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ........................................................ 128 Vegas National Forest: December 12, 1907 – July 2, 1908 .................................................... 128 Mount Charleston Forest Reserve: November 5, 1906 – July 2, 1908 ................................... 128 Moapa National Forest: July 2, 1908 – 1915 .......................................................................... 128 Nevada National Forest: February 10, 1909 – August 9, 1957 .............................................. 128 Ruby Mountain Forest Reserve: March 3, 1908 – June 19, 1916 ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Committee for the Review and Oversight of the TRPA and the Marlette Lake Water System
    STATE OF NEVADA Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Steve Sisolak, Governor Bradley Crowell, Director Charles Donohue, Administrator MEMORANDUM DATE: December 11, 2019 TO: Committee for the Review and Oversight of the TRPA and the Marlette Lake Water System THROUGH: Charles Donohue, Administrator FROM: Meredith Gosejohan, Tahoe Program Manger SUBJECT: California spotted owls in Nevada The following information on the California spotted owl in Nevada is in response to questions from the Committee during the meeting held on November 19, 2019. Currently, there is only one known nesting pair of spotted owls in the State of Nevada. The pair were discovered in Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park in 2015 and have occupied the same territory every year since. The territory is monitored annually by the Nevada Tahoe Resource Team’s (NTRT) biologist from the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). The pair has successfully fledged one juvenile from the nest in three different years: 2015, 2017, and 2018. There have also been five documented incidental spotted owl sightings in other parts of the Carson Range since 2015. These spotted owls are a subspecies called the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). There are two other subspecies in the western United States (Northern and Mexican), both of which are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The California spotted owl was recently petitioned for federal listing as well, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced in November 2019, that listing was not warranted at this time. (Click here to read the decisions summary) Spotted owls are native to the Tahoe Basin, though they have been relatively rare on the Nevada side and are typically observed on the California side or other parts of the Sierra Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Trip Summary Report for Sierra Nevadas, California: Chico NE, SE
    \ FIElD TRIP SUMMARY FOR SIERRA NEVADAS, CALIFORNIA CHICO NE, SE AND SACRAMENTO NE I. INTRODUCTION Field reconnaissance of the work area is an integral part for the accurate interpretation of aerial photography. Photographic signatures are compared to the actual wetland's appearance in the field by observing vegetation, soil and topo~raphy. This information is weighted with seasonality and conditIOns at both dates of photography and ground truthing. The project study area was located in northern California's Sierra Nevada Mountains. Ground truthing covered the area of each 1:100,000: Chico NE, Chico SE, and Sacramento NE. This field summary describes the data we were able to collect on the various wetland sites and the plant communities observed. II. FIELD MEMBERS Barbara Schuster Martel Laboratories, Inc. Dennis Peters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service III. FIELD DATES July 27 - August 2, 1988 IV. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY Type: Color Infrared Transparencies Scale: 1:58,000 V. COLLATERAL DATA U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangles Soil Survey of HI Dorado Area. California, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey of Nevada County Area. California, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1 Soil Survey of Sierra Valley Area. California. Parts of Sierra. Plumas. and Lassen Counties, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey - Tahoe Basin Area. California and Nevada, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey - Amador Area. California, 1965. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
    [Show full text]
  • The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology
    EXHIBIT 89 The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology Dr. Saxon E. Sharpe, Dr. Mary E. Cablk, and Dr. James M. Thomas Desert Research Institute May 2007 Revision 01 May 2008 Publication No. 41231 DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE DRI Publication Number: 41231 Initial Issue Date: May 2007 Document Title: The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology Author(s): Dr. Saxon E. Sharpe, Dr. Mary E. Cablk, and Dr. James M. Thomas Revision History Revision # Date Page, Paragraph Description of Revision 0 5/2007 N/A Initial Issue 1.1 5/2008 Title page Added revision number 1.2 “ ii Inserted Document Change Notice 1.3 “ iv Added date to cover photo caption 1.4 “ vi Clarified listed species definition 1.5 “ viii Clarified mg/L definition and added WRPT acronym Updated lake and TDS levels to Dec. 12, 2007 values here 1.6 “ 1 and throughout text 1.7 “ 1, P4 Clarified/corrected tui chub statement; references added 1.8 “ 2, P2 Edited for clarification 1.9 “ 4, P2 Updated paragraph 1.10 “ 8, Figure 2 Updated Fig. 2007; corrected tui chub spawning statement 1.11 “ 10, P3 & P6 Edited for clarification 1.12 “ 11, P1 Added Yardas (2007) reference 1.13 “ 14, P2 Updated paragraph 1.14 “ 15, Figure 3 & P3 Updated Fig. to 2007; edited for clarification 1.15 “ 19, P5 Edited for clarification 1.16 “ 21, P 1 Updated paragraph 1.17 “ 22, P 2 Deleted comma 1.18 “ 26, P1 Edited for clarification 1.19 “ 31-32 Clarified/corrected/rearranged/updated Walker Lake section 1.20
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Rose Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan O the Sky Highway T
    Mount Rose Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan Highway to the Sky CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE & VISION PURPOSE & VISION 1 PLAN PURPOSE 2 CORRIDOR SETTING 3 VISION & GOALS 6 STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC OUTREACH 7 CHAPTER 2: MOUNT ROSE SCENIC BYWAY’S INTRINSIC VALUES INTRINSIC VALUES 19 TERRAIN 20 OWNERSHIP 22 LAND USE & COMMUNITY RESOURCES 24 VISUAL QUALITY 26 CULTURAL RESOURCES 30 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 34 HYDROLOGY 40 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES & WILDLIFE 42 FUEL MANAGEMENT & FIRES 44 CHAPTER 3: THE HIGHWAY AS A TRANSPORTATION FACILITY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 47 EXISTING ROADWAY CONFIGURATION 48 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & TRENDS 49 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES 50 EXISTING BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 50 EXISTING TRAFFIC SAFETY 50 EXISTING PARKING AREAS 55 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 55 CHAPTER 4: ENHANCING THE BYWAY FOR VISITING, LIVING & DRIVING CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES & ACTION ITEMS 57 PRESERVE THE SCENIC QUALITY & NATURAL RESOURCES 59 BALANCE RECREATION ACCESS WITH TRANSPORTATION 68 & SAFETY NEEDS CONNECT PEOPLE WITH THE CORRIDOR 86 PROMOTE TOURISM 94 CHAPTER 5: CORRIDOR STEWARDSHIP CORRIDOR STEWARDSHIP 99 MANAGING PARTNERS 100 CURRENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS 102 | i This Plan was funded by an On Our Way grant from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and a Federal Scenic Byway Grant from the Nevada Department of Transportation. ii | Mount Rose Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan CHAPTER ONE 1 PURPOSE & VISION Chapter One | 1 The Corridor PLAN PURPOSE The Mount Rose Scenic Byway is officially named the “Highway to the Management Sky” and offers travelers an exciting ascent over the Sierra Nevada from Plan identifies the sage-covered slopes of the eastern Sierra west to Lake Tahoe. Not only goals, objectives does the highway connect travelers to a variety of recreation destinations and cultural and natural resources along the Byway, it also serves as a and potential minor arterial connecting both tourists and commuters from Reno to Lake enhancements to Tahoe.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 1: Introduction
    Carson Range Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy Section 1: Introduction Purpose of this Plan This comprehensive fuels reduction and wildfire prevention plan is a unified, multi-jurisdictional strategic synopsis of the planning efforts of local, county, state, tribal, and federal entities. The proposed projects in this plan provide a 10-year strategy to reduce the risk of large and destructive wildfire in the Carson Range planning area. The plan’s outcome is to 1) propose projects that create “community defensible space”, 2) comprehensively display all proposed fuel reduction treatments, and 3) facilitate communication and cooperation among those responsible for plan implementation. If implemented, this plan will provide greater protection to the people, infrastructure, and resources in the planning area. This plan was developed to comply with the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432 [H.R.6111]), which amended the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-263) to include the following language: “development and implementation of comprehensive, cost-effective, multi- jurisdictional hazardous fuels reduction and wildfire prevention plans (including sustainable biomass and biofuels energy development and production activities) for the Lake Tahoe Basin (to be developed in conjunction with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency), the Carson Range in Douglas and Washoe Counties and Carson City in the State, and the Spring Mountains in the State, that are-- (I) subject to approval by the Secretary; and (II) not more than 10 years in duration” This comprehensive plan is supported by 15 partners who each have a role in wildland fuels or fire management in the planning area (see “Agencies Involved” below).
    [Show full text]
  • Fall / Winter 2018
    Fall/Winter 2018-19 Communities connected “Nearing the bottom of the trail in winter near the end of the day.” to nature Photo: Chris McNamara through a system The Pinyon Trail of trails An East Valley destination in cool seasons When you're looking for a change in perspective and a pleasant, non-strenuous hike, mountain bike, or equestrian trail ride with beautiful views in all directions, the Pinyon Trail in the Pine Nut Mountains east of Carson Valley is your destination. Named for Nevada’s state tree, the single-leaf pinyon pine, the Pinyon Trail is open to hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and dogs. The shoulder seasons, April to June and September to December, are the best times to hike this trail, which gets too hot in mid-summer. But you may be able to hike or ride there all winter, because when our Sierra Nevada trails are covered with snow, there's a good chance that the Pinyon Trail will be snow-free, or close to it. The Pinyon trail is a non-motorized three-mile loop which crowns a large hill with continuous views of the Pine Nut and Carson Ranges. From the trailhead, a one-mile "spur" gently climbs through the pinyon forest, crossing twice with a motorized off-road track, to arrive at the trail junction where trail users can go either direction on the loop. The return trip back to the trailhead from the junction results in a round-trip trail distance of about 5.2 miles. Taking the loop twice, which mountain bikers and trail runners often do, extends the length to about 8.2 miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Budget and Salinity of Walker Lake,Western Nevada
    ENT OF T TM H R E A IN P E T E D U.S. Geological Survey Water Budget and Salinity of R I O S. Fact Sheet FS-115-95 R U. G Walker Lake,Western Nevada E Y O E L V O R GICAL SU Walker Lake (fig. 1) is one of the rare although this site does not have the In some valleys, local streams also perennial, terminal lakes in the Great longest streamflow record, no upstream contribute surface-water flow. Thus, Basin of the western United States. The reservoirs or irrigation diversions exist and estimates of surface-water consumption in lake is the terminus for all surface-water streamflow has been measured contin- table 2 are minimum values, because local and ground-water flow in the Walker uously at the site since 1939. Long-term streamflow in valleys may not have been River Basin Hydrographic Region (fig. 2) average annual flows were estimated by measured. In Smith Valley, 8,700 acre- that is not consumed by evaporation, comparing the average annual flow at a ft/yr of Desert Creek flow has been in- sublimation, or transpiration. stream-gaging station with the average cluded in the water budget. In Antelope annual flow at site 4 for years of concur- Valley, the contribution from Mill and The concentration of dissolved solids rent record. Then, this partial record was Slinkard Creeks is unknown, so the difference of 15,000 acre-ft between (salts) in the lake and the lake-surface adjusted to a long-term average using the average inflow and outflow underesti- altitude fluctuate primarily in response 55-year average at site 4.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY of WASHOE COUNTY Introduction
    HISTORY OF WASHOE COUNTY Introduction Lying in the northwest portion of the State of Nevada, named for a tribe of American Indians and containing a land area in excess of 6,000 square miles, Washoe County today consists of two of the nine original counties -- Washoe and Lake (later renamed Roop) Counties -- into which the Territory of Nevada was divided by the first territorial legislature in 1861. The country, "a land of contrasts, extremes, and apparent contradictions, of mingled barrenness and fertility, beauty and desolation, aridity and storm,"1 was claimed by the Spanish Empire until 1822 when it became a part of Mexican territory resulting from Mexico's successful war of independence from Spain. Mexico ceded the area to the United States in 1848 following the Mexican War, and the ceded lands remained part of the "unorganized territory" of the United States until 1850. Spanish and Mexican constructive possession probably had little effect on the life styles of the Northern Paiutes and the Washos -- the two American Indian tribes which inhabited the area. The Northern Paiutes ranged over most of Washoe County2 save the series of valleys lying along the eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada. These valleys were the domain of the Washos, a small, nomadic tribe whose members spoke an alien tongue and from which the name of the county is derived3. The 1840's During the 1840's Washoe County was traversed by a number of trappers and explorers, as well as several well-defined emigrant trails leading to California and Oregon. In 1843 mountain man "Old Bill" Williams4 led his trappers from the Klamath Lake region of California to Pyramid Lake and the Truckee River.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of NEVADA-RENO Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Un~Vrrsiryof Nevada-8.Eno Reno, Nevada 89557-0088 (702) 784-6691 FAX: (7G2j 784-1709
    UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA-RENO Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Un~vrrsiryof Nevada-8.eno Reno, Nevada 89557-0088 (702) 784-6691 FAX: (7G2j 784-1709 NBMG OPEN-FILE REPORT 90-1 MINERAL RESOURCE INVENTORY BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, CARSON CITY DISTRICT, NEVADA Joseph V. Tingley This information should be considered preliminary. It has not been edited or checked for completeness or accuracy. Mineral Resource Inventory Bureau of Land Management, Carson City District, Nevada Prepared by: Joseph V. Tingley Prepared for: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF E INTERIOR '\\ !\ BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Carson City Office Carson City, Nevada Under Cooperative Agreement 14-08-0001-A-0586 with the U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NEVADA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO January 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................ 3 LOCATION .......................... 4 MINERAL RESOURCES ...................... 4 MINING DISTRICTS AND AREAS .................. 6 ALLEN HOT SPRINGS AREA ................. 6 ALPINE DISTRICT .................... 7 AURORA DISTRICT .................... 10 BELL DISTRICT ..................... 13 BELLMOUNTAIN DISTRICT ................. 16 BENWAY DISTRICT .................... 19 BERNICE DISTRICT .................... 21 BOVARDDISTRICT .............23 BROKENHILLS DISTRICT ................. 27 BRUNERDISTRICT .................. 30 BUCKLEYDISTRICT ................. 32 BUCKSKINDISTRICT ............... 35 CALICO HILLS AREA ................... 39 CANDELARIA DISTRICT ................. 41 CARSON CITY DISTRICT .................. 44
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Land Use and Agriculture
    Chapter 7 Land Use and Agriculture Chapter 7 Land Use and Agriculture Introduction This chapter describes the affected environment for land use and agriculture in the study area and the potential impacts on land use and agriculture that would result from the acquisition alternatives and No Action Alternative. Sources of Information The key sources of data and information used in the preparation of this chapter are listed below. Full references can be found in Chapter 17, References. ICF Jones & Stokes interpretation of USGS land use information (ICF Jones & Stokes 2008) . Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management 2001) . Lyon County Master Plan (Lyon County 1990)1 . Mineral County Master Plan (Mineral County Regional Planning Commission 2006) . The University and DRI analysis of GIS data related to agriculture (Bonnenfant et al. 2009) The USGS land use dataset was the foundation for this section because it provides the greatest amount of information in a single dataset, and most study area acreages were calculated from this dataset. For local descriptions, such as agricultural land in Mason Valley, newer and more detailed data were used when available. As a result, total acreages are not consistent. This is particularly true in the case of irrigated land—the USGS data include more land under this category than the newer and more detailed University and DRI data. Data sources are noted throughout this report. It is important to note that land use is a dynamic resource and therefore it is not possible to present absolute current information; the best information available is presented in the Revised DEIS.
    [Show full text]