DOCSLIB.ORG

Great Basin Water Resource Region 16 HUC6 Level Watersheds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Great Basin Water Resource Region 16 HUC6 Level Watersheds 160402 160102 160401 160101 160501 160201 160203 160502 160202 160503 160600 160300 Great Basin Water Resource Region 16 HUC6 Level Watersheds Source: U.S. Geological Survey 140 Watersheds 2017 Census of Agriculture USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service Great Basin Water Resource Region 16 Hydrologic Watershed Name Unit Code Upper Bear 160101 Lower Bear 160102 Weber 160201 Jordan 160202 Great Salt Lake 160203 Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake 160300 Humboldt 160401 Black Rock Desert 160402 Truckee 160501 Carson 160502 Walker 160503 Central Nevada Desert Basins 160600 2017 Census of Agriculture Watersheds 141 USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service Table 1. Summary by Hydrologic Unit Code: 2017 and 2012 (continued) [For meaning of abbreviations and symbols, see introductory text.] H16 United States Great Basin H160101 Item 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 FARMS AND LAND IN FARMS Farms ................................................................................... number 2,042,220 2,109,303 18,048 18,249 429 402 Land in farms ........................................................................... acres 900,217,576 914,527,657 11,750,631 11,834,824 696,693 586,852 LAND USE AND PRACTICES Total cropland .......................................................................... farms 1,475,627 1,551,654 12,596 12,332 275 271 acres 396,433,817 389,690,414 2,404,975 2,446,884 101,473 107,992 Harvested cropland .............................................................. farms 1,245,548 1,288,875 11,035 10,851 254 238 acres 320,041,858 314,964,600 1,642,658 1,667,541 73,010 83,118 Other pasture and grazing land that could have been used for crops without additional improvement ........................... farms 137,707 141,537 1,372 1,203 23 39 acres 13,825,975 12,802,847 201,411 191,252 10,966 8,220 Cropland idle or used for cover crops or soil-improvement but not harvested and not pastured or grazed .................... farms 374,252 381,453 1,959 1,880 35 44 acres 36,003,378 36,382,032 325,548 392,421 10,551 11,727 Cropland on which all crops failed or were abandoned ............................................................ farms 79,334 97,248 940 1,082 18 36 acres 9,542,580 11,395,368 77,565 95,729 5,347 4,790 Cropland in summer fallow (see text) ................................... farms 94,106 61,442 1,321 725 13 6 acres 17,020,026 14,145,567 157,793 99,941 1,599 137 Total woodland ......................................................................... farms 794,789 840,399 913 1,099 38 31 acres 73,092,054 77,012,907 288,699 331,745 15,800 (D) Woodland pastured .............................................................. farms 326,279 350,761 506 628 23 18 acres 26,009,273 27,999,006 194,165 (D) 7,675 (D) Woodland not pastured ........................................................ farms 575,911 606,279 473 547 18 13 acres 47,082,781 49,013,901 94,534 (D) 8,125 2,735 Permanent pasture and rangeland, other than cropland and woodland pastured .......................................................... farms 1,130,063 1,176,156 10,013 10,430 321 304 acres 400,771,178 415,309,280 8,444,540 8,428,065 569,791 466,801 Land in farmsteads, homes, buildings, livestock facilities, ponds, roads, wasteland, etc. ................................................. farms 1,183,307 1,338,485 9,092 10,394 191 211 acres 29,920,527 32,515,057 612,417 628,130 9,629 (D) Irrigated land ............................................................................ farms 294,235 296,303 12,679 11,996 274 257 acres 58,013,907 55,822,231 1,711,389 1,627,264 74,732 89,548 Harvested cropland .............................................................. farms 255,348 261,281 10,163 9,619 226 205 acres 53,959,077 52,092,384 1,348,138 1,363,255 61,596 70,614 Pastureland and other land .................................................. farms 64,450 60,330 5,228 4,853 108 129 acres 4,054,830 3,729,847 363,251 264,009 13,136 18,934 Cropland on which no-till practices were used ......................... farms 279,370 278,290 945 667 6 4 acres 104,452,339 96,476,496 96,653 73,215 201 294 Cropland on which reduced tillage, excluding no till, practices were used (see text) ..................................... farms 217,069 195,738 870 506 14 6 acres 97,753,854 76,639,804 194,088 128,607 805 629 FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS Commercial fertilizer, lime, and soil conditioners used ....................................................................................... farms 881,431 877,907 6,244 5,999 102 99 acres treated 253,766,165 247,802,465 930,500 961,247 17,709 16,831 Manure used ............................................................................ farms 297,297 275,420 3,115 2,679 62 44 acres treated 23,888,525 22,072,968 193,078 135,205 4,982 3,282 Organic fertilizer used (see text) .............................................. farms 50,105 (NA) 547 (NA) 5 (NA) acres 3,454,441 (NA) 32,355 (NA) 103 (NA) Acres treated to control - Insects .................................................................................. farms 306,214 361,286 2,440 2,798 10 13 acres 112,440,971 100,719,008 426,439 445,577 1,253 879 Weeds, grass, or brush ........................................................ farms 702,075 794,320 5,205 5,797 52 84 acres 292,998,284 285,510,954 930,743 1,012,103 8,320 6,547 Nematodes ........................................................................... farms 46,714 58,865 106 182 - 2 acres 14,672,861 14,454,000 9,428 24,092 - (D) Diseases in crops and orchards ........................................... farms 121,023 121,682 290 421 2 2 acres 44,296,251 35,006,868 43,349 26,481 (D) (D) Chemicals used to control growth, thin fruit, ripen, or defoliate ......................................................................... farms 38,207 53,200 145 222 - 2 acres on which used 14,743,773 13,136,568 13,492 22,485 - (D) SELECTED CROPS Corn, all .................................................................................... farms 328,101 376,179 826 862 - - acres 90,847,976 94,609,673 105,016 91,115 - - Soybeans, for beans ................................................................ farms 303,191 302,963 1 - - - acres 90,149,480 76,104,780 (D) - - - Small grains (wheat, oats, barley, rye) ..................................... farms 127,484 184,481 1,221 1,569 4 19 acres 42,159,714 53,668,136 245,434 266,204 591 848 Cotton, all ................................................................................. farms 16,149 18,155 - - - - acres 11,401,965 9,384,080 - - - - Rice .......................................................................................... farms 4,637 5,591 - 1 - - acres 2,395,054 2,693,759 - (D) - - Land in vegetables (see text) ................................................... farms 74,276 72,045 590 722 5 - acres 3,965,622 4,180,891 13,630 21,524 5 - Land in orchards (see text) ...................................................... farms 111,955 106,488 582 650 2 - acres 5,665,600 5,199,729 8,468 8,144 (D) - Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod (see text) ............... farms 48,643 54,557 305 330 - - acres 859,246 892,089 5,725 7,527 - - All other crops (other than those listed above) ......................... farms 908,673 931,925 10,381 10,064 252 238 acres 75,154,871 72,024,554 1,264,833 1,273,304 72,414 82,270 LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY Cattle and calves inventory ...................................................... farms 882,692 913,246 7,591 8,199 226 231 number 93,648,041 89,994,614 1,085,556 1,045,858 52,951 55,967 Hogs and pigs inventory ........................................................... farms 66,439 63,246 478 588 14 9 number 72,381,007 66,026,785 548,383 731,023 32 60 Sheep and lambs inventory (see text) ...................................... farms 101,387 88,338 1,509 1,577 46 30 number 5,391,252 5,364,844 351,678 318,581 23,755 9,926 Total horses and ponies inventory ........................................... farms 459,526 504,795 8,218 7,872 220 181 number 2,847,289 3,621,348 55,385 66,356 1,935 1,752 Goats, all inventory .................................................................. farms 136,442 128,456 1,181 1,252 23 24 number 2,698,636 2,621,514 24,277 29,561 526 (D) Chickens, all inventory (see text) ............................................. farms 256,036 221,779 2,461 2,580 35 24 number 2,127,170,289 1,974,854,740 6,036,901 5,455,739 690 317 --continued 142 Watersheds 2017 Census of Agriculture USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service Table 1. Summary by Hydrologic Unit Code: 2017 and 2012 (continued) [For meaning of abbreviations and symbols, see introductory text.] H160102 H160201 H160202 Item 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 FARMS AND LAND IN FARMS Farms ................................................................................... number 3,641 3,487 2,577 2,189 3,866 3,635 Land in farms ........................................................................... acres 1,679,430 1,552,913 620,956 646,090 618,652 556,650 LAND USE AND PRACTICES Total cropland .......................................................................... farms 2,880 2,785 1,781 1,431 2,643 2,307 acres 681,535 671,801 78,938 81,443 164,340 146,709 Harvested cropland .............................................................. farms 2,477 2,307 1,597 1,352 2,369 2,116 acres 435,213 423,696 55,281 60,707 97,944 95,635 Other pasture and grazing land that could have been used for crops without additional improvement .......................... farms
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North American Deserts Chihuahuan - Great Basin Desert - Sonoran – Mojave
    North American Deserts Chihuahuan - Great Basin Desert - Sonoran – Mojave http://www.desertusa.com/desert.html In most modern classifications, the deserts of the United States and northern Mexico are grouped into four distinct categories. These distinctions are made on the basis of floristic composition and distribution -- the species of plants growing in a particular desert region. Plant communities, in turn, are determined by the geologic history of a region, the soil and mineral conditions, the elevation and the patterns of precipitation. Three of these deserts -- the Chihuahuan, the Sonoran and the Mojave -- are called "hot deserts," because of their high temperatures during the long summer and because the evolutionary affinities of their plant life are largely with the subtropical plant communities to the south. The Great Basin Desert is called a "cold desert" because it is generally cooler and its dominant plant life is not subtropical in origin. Chihuahuan Desert: A small area of southeastern New Mexico and extreme western Texas, extending south into a vast area of Mexico. Great Basin Desert: The northern three-quarters of Nevada, western and southern Utah, to the southern third of Idaho and the southeastern corner of Oregon. According to some, it also includes small portions of western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming. Bordered on the south by the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts. Mojave Desert: A portion of southern Nevada, extreme southwestern Utah and of eastern California, north of the Sonoran Desert. Sonoran Desert: A relatively small region of extreme south-central California and most of the southern half of Arizona, east to almost the New Mexico line.
    [Show full text]
  • Episodic Dust Events of Utah's Wasatch
    1654 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY VOLUME 51 Episodic Dust Events of Utah’s Wasatch Front and Adjoining Region W. JAMES STEENBURGH AND JEFFREY D. MASSEY Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah THOMAS H. PAINTER Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California (Manuscript received 4 January 2012, in final form 4 April 2012) ABSTRACT Episodic dust events cause hazardous air quality along Utah’s Wasatch Front and dust loading of the snowpack in the adjacent Wasatch Mountains. This paper presents a climatology of episodic dust events of the Wasatch Front and adjoining region that is based on surface weather observations from the Salt Lake City International Airport (KSLC), Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) imag- ery, and additional meteorological datasets. Dust events at KSLC—defined as any day [mountain standard time (MST)] with at least one report of a dust storm, blowing dust, and/or dust in suspension with a visi- bility of 10 km or less—average 4.3 per water year (WY: October–September), with considerable in- terannual variability and a general decline in frequency during the 1930–2010 observational record. The distributions of monthly dust-event frequency and total dust flux are bimodal, with primary and secondary maxima in April and September, respectively. Dust reports are most common in the late afternoon and evening. An analysis of the 33 most recent (2001–10 WY) events at KSLC indicates that 11 were associated with airmass convection, 16 were associated with a cold front or baroclinic trough entering Utah from the west or northwest, 4 were associated with a stationaryorslowlymovingfrontorbaroclinictroughwestof Utah, and 2 were associated with other synoptic patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • See for Details and How to Win a Limited Edition Full Curl Rifle
    200 Trophy Permits • $5 per Permit Application FEBRUARY 9–12, 2012 Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake City 200 Trophy Permits • $5 per Permit Application J AďLY NOW FOR $5 DRAWINGFEBRUARY FOR 200 BIG GAME 9–12, PERMITS 2012 K SpecialSpecial Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake City ThanksThanks J AďLY NOW FOR $5 DRAWING FOR 200 BIG GAME PERMITS K toto ourour TitleTitle 2017 AUCTION SponsorsSponsors 5 CATALOG www.AMMOANDMORESTORE.com THOSE WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN Welcome Sportsmen and Sportswomen! Welcome to the 11th Annual Western Hunting & Conservation Expo. Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife and the Emmett Burroughs – Mule Deer Foundation Founder Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife Board of Directors Don Peay – Founder Mule Deer Foundation are excited to bring you this very special hunting and conservation show. Your attendance Mule Deer Foundation Board of Directors Dave Woodhouse – Chairman and purchases help ensure the conservation of our wildlife and wild lands and the future of our hunting and sporting Brian Fienhold – Chairman of the Board Kevin Pritchett – Vice Chairman heritage. Thank you for joining us. Bethany Erb – Vice-Chair of the Board Rusty Aiken Ryan Bronson Brayden Richmond We are proud of how far the Expo has grown the past 11 years and this year promises to be spectacular. Our four- CJ Buck Kurt Wood Aaron Oelger day event features over 375 exhibits offering the finest guides, outfitters, professional hunters, artists, taxidermists, Erik Craythorne Jim Steadman jewelers, furriers and purveyors of fine guns, knives, optics, clothing and sporting equipment for the discerning Bob Jacobs sportsman and sportswoman. Kirstie Pike SFW Mission Fulfillment Board Art Reese Troy Justensen – Mission Fulfillment Board Chairman Daniel Harrison Dave Woodhouse – Vice Chairman/Utah Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project
    Ranch Creek Watershed United States Department of and Riparian Improvement Agriculture Forest Service Project Intermountain Region Environmental Assessment Dixie National Forest Escalante Ranger District January 2017 Environmental Assessment Title Page Photo Description: For More Information Contact: Terry DeLay Escalante Ranger District P.O. Box 246 Escalante, UT 84726 Phone: (435) 826-5401 Email: [email protected] Fax: (435) 826-5491 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribally Approved American Indian Ethnographic Analysis of the Proposed Escalante Valley Solar Energy Zone
    Tribally Approved American Indian Ethnographic Analysis of the Proposed Escalante Valley Solar Energy Zone Participating Tribes Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Ibapah, Utah Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Cedar City, Utah Ethnography and Ethnographic Synthesis For Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Solar Energy Study Areas in Portions of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah By Richard W. Stoffle Kathleen A. Van Vlack Hannah Z. Johnson Phillip T. Dukes Stephanie C. De Sola Kristen L. Simmons Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology School of Anthropology University of Arizona October 2011 Solar PEIS Ethnographic Assessment Page 1 ESCALANTE VALLEY The proposed Escalante Valley solar energy zone (SEZ) is located in Iron County, Utah (Figure 1). It is approximately four miles south of Lund, Utah and ten miles east of Beryl, Utah. The SEZ is situated in the Escalante Valley, which is a large, southwest-northeast trending valley in the south-central portion of the Escalante Desert. Figure 1 Google Earth Image of the Escalante Valley SEZ Outlined in Red and SEZ American Indian Study Area The Escalante Valley SEZ American Indian study area extends beyond the boundaries of the SEZ because of the existence of cultural resources in the surrounding landscape. The Escalante Valley SEZ American Indian study area includes plant and animal communities, geological features, water sources, historic events and the trails that would have connected these features. Southern Paiute and Goshute representatives maintain that, in order to understand Numic connections to the SEZ, it must be placed in context with neighboring connected places including the Milford Flats South and Wah Wah Valley SEZs and their associated cultural resources found in the larger study areas.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Kane County, Utah Centennial County History Series
    A HISTORY OF <Kam County Martha Sonntag Bradley UTAH CENTENNIAL COUNTY HISTORY SERIES A HISTORY OF County Martha Sonntag Bradley Kane County is noted for some of the most beautiful—though often inhospitable—land in Utah and has been home to resourceful humans for thousands of years. It was outside the area of first Mormon settlement and was actually created in the early 1860s before many had moved to the area. After the Black Hawk War, settlers soon moved to favorable locations such as Kanab and Long Valley, establishing towns in the isolated region north of the Arizona Strip with economies based on ranching and timber harvesting. With the improvement of area roads and communications in the twentieth century, more people became aware of the scenic splen­ dor of the county, and tourism and movie making began to increase, Kanab even be­ coming known as Utah's Little Hollywood during the heyday of filmmaking. Traditional extractive uses of the land's resources have declined in recent years, but the recent cre­ ation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Na­ tional Monument has brought the promise of increased tourism to the area. It also has sparked opposition from many who had hoped for coal mining development in the region. Issues of control and uses of public lands promise to be debated vigorously as the county enters the new millenium. ISBN: 0-913738-40-9 A HISTORY OF cKgne County A HISTORY OF JOme County Martha Sonntag Bradley 1999 Utah State Historical Society Kane County Commission Copyright © 1999 by Kane County Commission All rights
    [Show full text]
  • Plants As Indicators of Ground Water
    Please do not destroy or throv away this publication. JTyou have no further use for it write to the Geological Survey at Washington andiaskf^r a frank to return it DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Hubert Work, Secretary U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY George Otis Smith, Director WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 577 PLANTS AS INDICATORS OF GROUND WATEB BY OSCAR EDWARD MEINZER UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1927 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Hubert Work, Secretary U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Georgte Otis Smith, Director Water-Supply Paper 577 PLANTS AS INDICATORS OF GROUND WATER BY OSCAR E}DWARD MEINZER UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1927 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCUBEDTFEOM THE SUPEEINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S.GOVEENMENT PEINTING\>FFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AX 25 CENTS PER COPY CONTENTS Introduction ______________________ - 1 Plants that habitually feed on ground water 1 Evidences of the ground-water habit 2 History of the subject 8 Questions that deserve further study 14 Acknowledgments __ _ IS Principal species of plants that habitually feed on ground water 15 Arrangement of species _ _ 15 Bushes; sedges, and cat-tails. _______ 16 Reeds and cane__ _ _ _ _____ _ ___ 17 Wild rye ______________ _ ___ _ _ ____________ 17 Salt grass _______________ _ ________ _______ 19 Sacaton ________________ ___ ___ 23 Pickleweed, samphire, seepweed, and other succulent salt-resistant plants ________ ________ _ _ __ _ _ 25 Yerba mansa __ _ _____ ___ __ ____ _ _ __ _ 29 Rabbit brush and related species __________ _ _ 29 Arrow weed,
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Magazine 1955 December
    Luminarios outline the O. E. Hopler, Jr., residence at Albuquerque. Land of the Luminarios... A supply of sand, a paper sack and a lighted candle—that is all it Most New Mexicans today, however, takes to make a luminario. In New Mexico and elsewhere in the do not make a distinction, and simply Southwest this custom of ancient origin is finding ever increasing popu- call their unusual decorating idea "lu- larity. More and more candles are glowing at night—to celebrate minario lighting." weddings, religious festivals, homecomings and, of course, Christmas Nor is there any certainty as to the time. exact history of the luminario. Some By LAVON TEETER out the light when the candle burns claim that the luminario lights were Photograph by C. E. Redman down. The bags are placed two feet first set out symbolically to guide the apart all around flat pueblo roofs, or shepherds to the manger; others say E LUMINARIOS!" on top of sloping walls, or along the that the lights represent the star of You hear this only in the footpaths of homes, churches, parks Bethlehem; still others suggest that Southwest and especially in or public buildings. When lighted — they had a historical significance at New Mexico, where natives and tour- hundreds, thousands, millions of them the time of the American Occupation. ists alike exclaim at the far reaching —they create a fairyland of magic in Some, who follow the old tradition, modern adaptation of an old custom. the desert. use only 12 luminarios, one for each Luminario lighting, because of its Whether you travel on the main high- of the apostles.
    [Show full text]
  • SVP Comments on 21 U.S. National
    Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 9650 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814- 3998 Phone: (301) 634-7814 Fax: (301) 634-7455 Email: [email protected] Web: www.vertpaleo.org FEIN: 06-0906643 July 9, 2017 Subject: Comments from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology about the scientific importance of paleontological resources at the 21 U.S. National Monuments established since 1996 (Docket ID: DOI-2017-0002). Executive Summary In this document, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology reviews the paleontological resources currently known from the U.S. National Monuments established since 1996 and explains why altering or revoking their boundaries would be disastrous for the science of paleontology. In these comments, we present: i. our views on the role of public lands in the science of paleontology (p. 2); ii. information on the benefit of paleontological science and education at these monuments to the general public (p. 4); iii. comments on why mining operations are incompatible with discovery and scientific study of paleontological resources (p. 4); iv. specific details about the paleontological resources at each of the continental monuments under review (p 6); v. a copy of the comments we submitted on May 25, 2017, about Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments (tracking number 1k1-8wld-cxoj) (Appendix 1, p. 17); vi. representative scientific publications on paleontological resources at each of the moments (Appendix 2, p. 25) We find that all 21 non-marine monuments protect scientifically important vertebrate fossils or rocks with a high potential for yielding them, and are therefore are appropriately designated under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (note: ‘fossils’ must not to be confused with ‘fossil fuels’).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation of Sensitive Species for the East Fork Boulder Creek Native Trout Restoration Project
    Biological Evaluation of Sensitive Species for the East Fork Boulder Creek Native Trout Restoration Project Escalante Ranger District Dixie National Forest Date: '1/1~ /2¢11 ' ' Fisheries Biologist, Dixie National Forest Date: 7/l?j2dt / Ronald L. Rodriguez I Wildlife and Fisheries Program nager, Dixie and Fishlake National Forests I. Introduction This Biological Evaluation (BE) analyzes the potential effects of the proposed East Fork Boulder Creek Native Trout Restoration Project on species listed as Sensitive on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Intermountain Region (Region 4), and to determine whether the likely effects on these species would result in a trend toward becoming Federally listed. There are no known locations of sensitive plant species in or around the project area, nor does suitable habitat occur in the area. The sensitive species that may occur or have suitable habitat in and/or around the project area are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Regional sensitive animal species that occur or have suitable habitat in or around the East Fork Boulder Creek Native Trout Restoration Project, Escalante Ranger District, Dixie National Forest. Habitat suitability or known occurrences Species to be Species of sensitive species in or near the project analyzed further? area (Yes or No)* Bald Eagle Area may be used incidentally for scavenging. Yes Haliaeetus leucocephalus Desert Bighorn Sheep Suitable rugged terrain does not exist within the No Ovis canadensis nelsoni project area. Flammulated Owl Known occurrences within the project area. Yes Otus flammeolus Greater Sage-Grouse Suitable sagebrush habitat does not exist within No Centrocercus urophasianus the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Ground up : the History of Mining in Utah / Edited by Colleen Whitley
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All USU Press Publications USU Press 2006 From the Ground Up Colleen K. Whitley Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/usupress_pubs Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Whitley, C. (2006). From the ground up: The history of mining in Utah. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the USU Press at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All USU Press Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From the Ground Up The History of Mining in Utah Edited by Colleen Whitley From the Ground Up From the Ground Up The History of Mining in Utah Edited by Colleen Whitley Foreword by Philip F. Notarianni Utah State University Press Logan, UT Copyright © 2006 Utah State University Press All rights reserved Utah State University Press Logan, Utah 84322–7800 www.usu.edu/usupress/ Maps of Utah counties printed herein are reproduced from the Utah Centennial County History Series, courtesy of the series editor, Allan Kent Powell, and copublisher, the Utah State Historical Society. All illustrations unless otherwise credited were provided by the author of the chapter they illustrate. Publication of this book was supported by subventions from the following organizations: The Charles Redd Center for Western Studies Utah Mining Association Andalex Resources, Inc. Brush Resources, Inc. Weyher Construction Company Wheeler Machinery Company Manufactured in the United States of America Printed on acid-free paper Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data From the ground up : the history of mining in Utah / edited by Colleen Whitley.
    [Show full text]
  • Topography of the Southwestern US
    Chapter 4: Topography of the topography • the landscape Southwestern US of an area, including the presence or absence of hills and the slopes between high and low areas. Does your region have rolling hills? Mountainous areas? Flat land where you never have to bike up a hill? The answers to these questions can help others understand the basic topography of your region. The term topography is used to describe the shape of the land surface as measured by how elevation— geologic time scale • a height above sea level—varies over large and small areas. Over geologic standard timeline used to time, topography changes as a result of weathering and erosion, as well as describe the age of rocks and fossils, and the events that the type and structure of the underlying bedrock. It is also a story of plate formed them. tectonics, volcanoes, folding, faulting, uplift, and mountain building. The Southwest’s topographic zones are under the influence of the destructive surface processes of weathering and erosion. Weathering includes both the plate tectonics • the process mechanical and chemical processes that break down a rock. There are two by which the plates of the types of weathering: physical and chemical. Physical weathering describes the Earth’s crust move and physical or mechanical breakdown of a rock, during which the rock is broken interact with one another at their boundaries. into smaller pieces but no chemical changes take place. Water, ice, and wind all contribute to physical weathering, sculpting the landscape into characteristic forms determined by the climate. In most areas, water is the primary agent of erosion.
    [Show full text]