DOCSLIB.ORG

Administrative Facilities of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 1891-1950

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Administrative Facilities of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 1891-1950 United States Department of Agriculture Privies, Pastures, Forest Service Intermountain and Portables Region Humboldt- Administrative Facilities of the Toiyabe Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 1891-1950 National Forest December 2001 Volume Two: Inventory and Evaluation Forest Service Report No. TY-01-1370 Cover: Currant Creek Ranger Station, Nevada National Forest, c.1911. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720- 5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Privies, Pastures, and Portables Administrative Facilities of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 1891-1950 Volume Two: Inventory and Evaluation Forest Service Report No. TY-01-1370 By Richa Wilson Regional Architectural Historian USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region Facilities Group 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 801-625-5704 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER ONE: RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION ...........................................................................................3 THEMES AND RESOURCE TYPES......................................................................................................................3 PRIMARY THEME.................................................................................................................................................3 SUB-THEMES ........................................................................................................................................................5 NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTY DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................6 RESOURCE INVENTORY AND DISTRIBUTION..............................................................................................7 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION..........................................................................................................................7 TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION...............................................................................................................................7 SITE AND BUILDING TYPOLOGY.....................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER TWO: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY....................................................................................11 CRITERIA AND AREAS OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE...............................................................................11 CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................................................................12 CONTRIBUTING AND NONCONTRIBUTING RESOURCES.......................................................................13 INTEGRITY, RARITY AND UNIQUENESS ......................................................................................................13 FEATURES AND ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY ...................................................................................................13 INTEGRITY RANKING........................................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER THREE: EVALUATION SUMMARIES ........................................................................................17 SUPERVISOR’S OFFICE.......................................................................................................................................19 SIERRA FRONT......................................................................................................................................................22 Bridgeport Ranger District ..................................................................................................................................23 Carson Ranger District ........................................................................................................................................30 NORTHEAST NEVADA........................................................................................................................................36 Jarbidge Ranger District......................................................................................................................................38 Mountain City Ranger District.............................................................................................................................42 Ruby Mountains Ranger District .........................................................................................................................48 Santa Rosa Ranger District..................................................................................................................................54 CENTRAL NEVADA .............................................................................................................................................63 Austin Ranger District..........................................................................................................................................64 Ely Ranger District ...............................................................................................................................................73 Tonopah Ranger District......................................................................................................................................81 SPRING MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA............................................................................87 APPENDIX A: EVALUATION SUMMARY TABLE .......................................................................................93 APPENDIX B: INTEGRITY RANKING..............................................................................................................98 Preface This report, along with survey forms, has been submitted to the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office and the California Office of Historic Preservation for review. Check with these agencies for verification of their concurrence on determinations of eligibility. PRIVIES, PASTURES AND PORTABLES, VOL. 2 PREFACE - 1 RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION - 2 PRIVIES, PASTURES AND PORTABLES, VOL. 2 Chapter One: Resource Identification The historic context statement provided in Volume One of this report is the basis of evaluating the administrative sites of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. It identifies periods and places, and is tied directly to the significant themes of Conservation, Politics/Government, Military and Architecture. These themes are referred to as Areas of Significance in National Register Bulletin 16A. They also relate directly to themes in the Nevada Comprehensive Preservation Plan. The California Office of Historic Preservation does not have similar themes. Pertinent themes and the types of resources that may have significance under them are discussed below. It must be noted that the focus of the evaluation is on buildings and structures. THEMES AND RESOURCE TYPES PRIMARY THEME The primary theme, or area of significance, is Conservation, which is defined as “the preservation, maintenance, and management of natural or manmade resources” in National Register Bulletin 16A. This is supplemented by the Nevada theme of Land Usage: The Public Domain, which is discussed in Dr. William Rowley’s draft context statement titled “The Public Domain in Nevada” (transcript available at Nevada SHPO). Properties developed or used by the Forest Service for the purposes of administering and managing National Forest lands represent these themes. Often referred to generically (and sometimes formally) as “administrative sites,” these properties are the subject of this evaluation. Periods of significance for this theme typically fall into four categories: 1891-1907, Early Conservation of the West 1908-1929, The Progressive Era and the Great War 1930-1942, The Depression and New Deal Era 1943-1950, World War II and the Post-War Era A variety of potential resource types is associated with Forest Service administration and, consequently, the theme of Conservation. Those considered significant will usually be so under Criterion A. The following list clarifies and expands the resource types identified in Rowley’s draft and in the Nevada SHPO Operating Plan by Richard D. Adkins. • Administrative Pasture: A pasture used by Forest officials when traveling through the Forest on stock. They are not included in this evaluation because no buildings were constructed. • Dwelling Site: A site developed for the sole purpose of providing housing to Forest Service employees. • Experiment Station: These sites were developed for use by Forest Service research stations. There were two such sites known to exist in Nevada, each having a dwelling and garage. Buildings were removed from both sites so they are not included in this evaluation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cultural Background of the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area
    American Indian Groups Recent studies of the Great Basin region, which includes the Las Vegas and Pahrump Valleys, have begun to show that people may have lived in this area as far back as 12,000 to 13,000 years ago. When people first began to arrive here, the environment was far more wet and lush than the world we know today. Lakes, playas, and marshes all existed in the area and this abundance of water led to a much greater variety of plants and animals that the people who lived here used. As the environment of the Spring Mountains changed over time, a unique physical history developed that helped it evolve into the fascinating place it is today. As the water began to dry up around 10,000 years ago, the Spring Mountains became isolated from the Great Basin mountain ecosystems and slowly the mountains were surrounded by the drier Mojave Desert. As it became warmer and drier, the mountain range also became isolated biologically. The valley floors surrounding the range act as a barrier to most plant and animal migrations, and thus many of the plants and animals found here today are either relic species or are new or evolved species found only to exist in this area. As the physical environment changed, so did the ways that people lived and used the land. American Indian groups have had a continuous presence in Southern Nevada for thousands of years and believe that the Spring Mountains are where their people were created. Because of this, the mountains are considered to be sacred and very special to them.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-330 December 2014 Coles-Ritchie, Marc; Solem, Stephen J.; Springer, Abraham E.; Pendleton, Burton. 2014. Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and proposed action development: Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-330. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 63 p. Keywords: Spring stewardship, spring restoration, groundwater dependent ecosystems, watershed management, spring rehabilitation, spring maintenance AUTHORS Marc Coles-Ritchie, Ph.D., is a Vegetation Ecologist with Management and Engineering Technology International, Inc. (METI, Inc.), Salt Lake City, Utah. Stephen J. Solem is a senior advisor for natural resource planning and inventory with Management and Engineering Technology International, Inc. (METI, Inc.), Missoula, Montana. Abraham E. Springer, Ph.D., is a Hydrogeologist and Professor at Northern Arizona University and consultant to Management and Engineering Technology International, Inc. (METI, Inc.), Flagstaff, Arizona. Burton Pendleton, Ph.D., is a Research Ecologist Emeritus with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Albuquerque, New Mexico. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This effort was accomplished by using funding provided by the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act conservation initiative (Round 10). Work was performed using In-Service Agreements between the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Rocky Mountain Research Station and under the terms and conditions of Management and Engineering Technologies International, Inc. Contract Number: AG- 3187-C-0028, Order Number: AG-3187-D-10-0126.
    [Show full text]
  • Science to Support Land Management in Southern Nevada
    Chapter 6 Species of Conservation Concern and Environmental Stressors: Local, Regional, and Global Effects Steven M. Ostoja, Matthew L. Brooks, Jeanne C. Chambers, and Burton Pendleton Introduction Species conservation has traditionally been based on individual species within the context of their requisite habitat, which is generally defined as the communities and ecosystems deemed necessary for their persistence. Conservation decisions are ham- pered by the fact that environmental stressors that potentially threaten the persistence of species can operate at organizational levels larger than the habitat or home range of a focal species. Resource managers must therefore simultaneously consider local, regional, and/or global scale stressors for effective conservation and management of species of concern. The wide ranging effects associated with global stressors such as climate change may exceed or exacerbate the effects of local or regional stressors. Although resource managers may only be able to directly affect local and regional stressors, they still need to understand the direct and interactive effects of global stressors and ultimately how they affect the lands they manage. Conservation of species in southern Nevada is further complicated by the fact that the region includes one of the largest and fastest growing urban centers in North America. To accomplish the goal of species conserva- tion, resource managers must identify actionable management options that mitigate the effects of local and regional stressors in the context of the effects of global stressors that are beyond their control. Species conservation is typically focused on a subset of species often referred to as species of conservation concern that have either demonstrated considerable decline or are naturally rare or have limited distributions.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Cenozoic Geomorphic History of Lee Canyon, Spring Mountains, Nevada
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 6-1969 Late Cenozoic geomorphic history of Lee Canyon, Spring Mountains, Nevada John Henry Gucwa Pennsylvania State University - Main Campus Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Geology Commons, Geomorphology Commons, and the Sedimentology Commons Repository Citation Gucwa, John Henry, "Late Cenozoic geomorphic history of Lee Canyon, Spring Mountains, Nevada" (1969). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1436. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/3431545 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Pennsylvania State Universiti ( / . The Graduate School Department of Geology and Geophysics Late Cenozoic Geomorphic History of Lee Canyon, Spring Mountains, Nevada A Thesis in ., \ Geology \. \' by I John Henry Gucwa ( Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science June, 1969 · Date of Approval: • Head of the Department~ Geology and Geophysics i ii 1CKNOHLEDGMENTS ( 1be author wishes expressly to thank Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined Travel
    Mountain City, Ruby Mountains and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1. Introduction This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are affected by the alternatives and the effects on that environment that would result from implementation of any of the alternatives. This chapter also presents the scientif ic and analyt ical basis for comparison of the alternatives presented in chapter 2. 3.1.1. Analysis Process Most of the data used in the following analysis are from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest corporate GIS layers. There is a certain amount of error in the location and alignments included in this GIS data. For example, the road layer overlying the stream layer may show more stream crossings than actually exist on the ground because of the different sources from which the different layers were obtained. Some perennial streams may show up on the map as being intermittent. This may also create some inaccuracies as to the exact location and extent of riparian zones. The Forest is constantly working to improve map accuracies and the corporate GIS layers. For the purposes of this analysis, the best data that is available was used. The data in the tables below and in the project record depict with a reasonable amount of accuracy what would be occurring on the ground for each alternative, within the limitations described above. The changes between alternatives remain relative to each other. 3.1.2. Cumulative Effects According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Protection Ac t (NEPA) regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7).
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Service News
    OldSmokeys Newsletter Newsletter of the Pacific Northwest Forest Service Retirees—Summer 2017 President’s Message—Tom Mulder I appreciate the opportunity to share reflections on my first month as OldSmokeys president. It is an immense honor to connect with you and represent you as the newest president of our wonderful organization. Let’s start by thanking past presidents Jim Rice and Ron Boehm for graciously teaching me the ropes, and by celebrating Kent Connaughton’s election as the future president. What a team! Current News: Regional Forester Jim Peña and the Region 6 troops hosted a WO field review the week of June 6, and several of us proudly represented the OldSmokeys as co-hosts of a midweek evening social. You may remember field reviews from back in the day. It was a grand opportunity to see old friends from the RO and WO, meet new friends participating in the review, and talk with pride about the OldSmokeys. The evening focus was filled with conversations about strong partnerships, including OldSmokeys, as Beth Pendleton filled in for the Chief before his pending arrival. I had the privilege of talking to the entire room of reviewers and reviewees about you, about future retirees, about our partnership with the Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest, and about our wonderful OldSmokey grants and our Elmer Moyer Memorial Emergency Fund which supports Forest Service families in times of need. I took the time to conduct some OldSmokey braggin’ on your behalf. What fun! Recent Reflections: I want to relate an interesting conversation with a friend.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Visitor Guide
    SPRING MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 0 V I S I T O R G U I D E Welcome to the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area This year-round recreation area offers camping, picnicking, hiking, and other activities in the warmer months, and opportunities for snow-based activities in winter. Recreation tips and information in this visitor guide will help you enjoy your visit and protect the Spring Mountains for plants and animals who depend on this “island in the desert.” SPRING MOUNTAINS – MT. CHARLESTON AREA: Visit Kyle and Lee SPRING MOUNTAINS – WEST SIDE: The west side of the Spring Canyons where you will have access to five picnic areas, six developed Mountains, accessed by rugged dirt roads from areas around Pahrump, campgrounds, and over 50 miles of hiking trails, many entering into Cold Creek, and Mountain Springs, offers wide open spaces for off-highway wilderness areas. Paved highways and spectacular scenery create exceptional vehicle (OHV) use and dispersed camping. There are no developed opportunities for scenic driving. campgrounds or picnic areas with restrooms and picnic tables on the west side of the Spring Mountains. HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST • USDA FOREST SERVICE TIPS & MORE HANDY NUMBERS AND WEB SITES EMERGENCY: 911 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department: 702-229-3111 Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Visitor Information: 702-872-5486 or fs.fed.us/r4/htnf/districts/smnra/ Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Administrative Office: 702 -515-5400 Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Fire Information: 702-631-2350 or www.fs.fed.us./r4/htnf/fire/ Nevada Division of Wildlife (hunting and fishing): 702 -486-5127, www.ndow.org Nevada Highway Patrol: 702-486-4100 or www.nhp.nv.gov National Recreation Reservation Service (campground reservations): 877-444-6777 or www.recreation.gov Weather information: www.weather.gov SUGGESTIONS FOR AN ENJOYABLE TRIP PRIVATE PROPERTY Have a full tank of gas.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 10/01/2019 to 12/31/2019 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) Amendments to Land - Land management planning In Progress: Expected:12/2019 12/2019 John Shivik Management Plans Regarding - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants Objection Period Legal Notice 801-625-5667 Sage-grouse Conservation 08/02/2019 [email protected] EIS Description: The Forest Service is considering amending its land management plans to address new and evolving issues *UPDATED* arising since implementing sage-grouse plans in 2015. This project is in cooperation with the USDI Bureau of Land Management. Web Link: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/home/?cid=stelprd3843381 Location: UNIT - Ashley National Forest All Units, Boise National Forest All Units, Bridger-Teton National Forest All Units, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest All Units, Dixie National Forest All Units, Fishlake National Forest All Units, Salmon-Challis National Forest All Units, Sawtooth National Forest All Units, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest All Units, Manti-La Sal National Forest All Units, Caribou-Targhee National Forest All Units, Uinta-Wasatch- Cache All Units. STATE - Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming. COUNTY - Jackson, Moffat, Routt, Adams, Blaine, Bonneville, Camas, Caribou, Cassia, Elmore, Fremont, Madison, Churchill, Clark, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lincoln, Nye, Pershing, Washoe, White Pine, Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, Salt Lake, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Washington, Wayne, Weber, Platte, Sublette, Teton, Weston, Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara.
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of the Last Glaciation and Subsequent Deglaciation in the Ruby Mountains, Great Basin, USA
    Earth and Planetary Science Letters 361 (2013) 16–25 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl Timing of the last glaciation and subsequent deglaciation in the Ruby Mountains, Great Basin, USA Benjamin J.C. Laabs a,n, Jeffrey S. Munroe b, Laura C. Best a,1, Marc W. Caffee c a Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY Geneseo, USA b Department of Geology, Middlebury College, USA c Department of Physics, PRIME Lab, Purdue University, USA article info abstract Article history: The timing of the last Pleistocene glaciation in western North America is becoming increasingly well Received 13 June 2012 understood, largely due to improved methods of obtaining numerical ages of glacial deposits and Received in revised form landforms. Among these, cosmogenic radionuclide surface-exposure dating has been widely applied to 2 November 2012 moraines of mountain glaciers, providing the framework for understanding terrestrial climate change Accepted 9 November 2012 during and since the last glaciation in western North America. During the Late Pleistocene, the Great Editor: J. Lynch-Stieglitz Available online 13 December 2012 Basin of the western United States hosted numerous mountain glaciers, the deposits of which can provide valuable records of past climate changes if their ages can be precisely determined. In this study, Keywords: twenty-nine cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be surface-exposure ages from a suite of moraines in Seitz Great Basin Canyon, western Ruby Mountains, limit the timing of the last glacial episode in the interior Great Basin, mountain glaciation known as the Angel Lake Glaciation. Results indicate that deposition of a terminal moraine and two cosmogenic surface-exposure dating Ruby Mountains recessional moraines began just prior to 20.5 ka and continued until 20.0 ka.
    [Show full text]
  • Glacial Chronology of the Ruby Mountains–East Humboldt Range, Nevada William J
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Department of 1984 Glacial Chronology of the Ruby Mountains–East Humboldt Range, Nevada William J. Wayne University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub Part of the Geology Commons, Geomorphology Commons, and the Glaciology Commons Wayne, William J., "Glacial Chronology of the Ruby Mountains–East Humboldt Range, Nevada" (1984). Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. 507. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub/507 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. W. J. Wayne in Quaternary Research 21 (1984) 1 Published in Quaternary Research 21 (1984), pp. 286-303. digitalcommons.unl.edu Copyright © 1984 by the University of Washington. Published by Elsevier. Used by permission. Submitted May 17, 1982. Glacial Chronology of the Ruby Mountains–East Humboldt Range, Nevada William J. Wayne Department of Geology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588 Abstract The Ruby Mountains-East Humboldt Range, one of the interior mountain groups of the Basin and Range Province, lies about midway between the Wasatch Mountains and the Sierra Nevada. After Blackwelder’s description in his review of glaciation in the western mountains, Sharp mapped and named the deposits of the Lamoille and Angel Lake glaciations and correlated them with early and late Wisconsin deposits of the Great Lakes area.
    [Show full text]