DOCSLIB.ORG

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Landscape, and Is Defined Below

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Landscape, and Is Defined Below United States Department of Agriculture Land Management Plan Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Pacific Southwest R5-MB-293a Service Region July, 2016 USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users). El USDA (Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos, por sus siglas en inglés) es un proveedor y empleador que ofrece igualdad de oportunidad. Para presentar una denuncia por discriminación, escriba a: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 o llame al (866) 632-9992 (Llamada Gratuita a Atenciٕón al Cliente), (800) 877-8339 (Retransmisión Local o Federal), (866) 377-8642 (Usuarios de Voz y Retransmisión). This document is the final revision of the Land Management Plan. It incorporates the instructions from the pre-decisional objection period. Cover photo: View over Homewood on Lake Tahoe’s west shore, looking toward South Lake Tahoe. Credit – all photos, graphs and maps: U.S. Forest Service staff, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit may be duplicated for public use (not for profit) Except Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog – Rick Kuyper, USFWS Land Management Plan Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Jeff Marsolais, Forest Supervisor Randy Moore, Regional Forester 2016 USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 35 College Drive South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management Plan Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Table of Contents Introduction to the Land Management Plan .................................................................................................. 1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) .............................................................................. 1 Planning for Sustainability ....................................................................................................................... 4 Plan Format and Content .......................................................................................................................... 4 Three-Part Format of the Forest Plan .................................................................................................... 5 Forest Plan Consistency ............................................................................................................................ 8 Relationship to Plans of Other Agencies .................................................................................................. 9 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Regional Plan ................................................................................ 9 Lahontan Water Quality Control Board, Basin Plan ........................................................................... 10 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Administrative Code ................................... 10 1 Part 1: Vision ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Ecological Sustainability............................................................................................................. 13 1.1.1 Physical Resources ................................................................................................................ 13 1.1.2 Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management ................................................................... 18 1.1.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 28 Social and Economic Sustainability ............................................................................................ 34 1.2.1 Partnerships and Volunteers .................................................................................................. 34 1.2.2 Sustainable Recreation .......................................................................................................... 35 1.2.3 Scenic Quality ....................................................................................................................... 37 1.2.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 38 1.2.5 Tribal Relations ..................................................................................................................... 39 1.2.6 Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 39 ii ▪ Index of Topics Land Management Plan – Forest Plan 1.2.7 Access and Travel Management ........................................................................................... 39 1.2.8 National Trails System .......................................................................................................... 40 1.2.9 Built Environment ................................................................................................................. 41 1.2.10 Minerals ............................................................................................................................ 41 1.2.11 Lands ................................................................................................................................. 41 1.2.12 Lands Special Uses ........................................................................................................... 41 1.2.13 Range ................................................................................................................................ 42 1.2.14 Wilderness Areas .............................................................................................................. 43 2 Part 2: Strategies ................................................................................................................................. 44 Ecological Sustainability............................................................................................................. 44 2.1.1 Physical Resources Program Strategy ................................................................................... 44 2.1.2 Physical Resources Objectives .............................................................................................. 46 2.1.3 Climate Change Strategy ....................................................................................................... 47 2.1.4 Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Program Strategy ...................................... 47 2.1.5 Forest Vegetation and Fuels Management Objectives .......................................................... 51 2.1.6 Biological Resources Program Strategy ................................................................................ 52 2.1.7 Biological Resources Objectives ........................................................................................... 58 Social and Economic Sustainability ............................................................................................ 60 2.2.1 Partnership and Volunteers Strategies ................................................................................... 60 2.2.2 Recreation Program Strategy ................................................................................................ 60 2.2.3 Recreation Program Objective .............................................................................................. 63 2.2.4 Recreation Special Uses Program Strategy ........................................................................... 63 2.2.5 Interpretation and Education Program Strategy .................................................................... 64 2.2.6 Scenic Quality Strategies ...................................................................................................... 64 2.2.7 Cultural Resources Program Strategy ................................................................................... 65 2.2.8 Cultural Resources Objectives .............................................................................................. 66 2.2.9 Tribal Relations Program Strategy ........................................................................................ 66 2.2.10 Tribal Relations Objective ................................................................................................ 66 2.2.11 Access and Travel Management Program Strategy .......................................................... 67 Table of Contents ■ iii Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 2.2.12 Access and Travel Management Program Objectives ...................................................... 68 2.2.13 National Trails System Program Strategy ......................................................................... 68 2.2.14 National Recreation Trails Strategy .................................................................................. 68 2.2.15 Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) Strategy.......................................................... 69 2.2.16 Built Environment Program Strategy ...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan
    Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan THE VILLAGE AT SQUAW VALLEY 6/28/2016 This Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan (EPEP) has been prepared for The Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan (VSVSP) project under the supervision of Placer County and in coordination with Pete Hnat, Chief Executive Officer, Emergency Management Consultants. The focus of the EPEP is primarily on emergency preparedness and evacuation protocols as related to emergency events, such as fire. However, other hazards are addressed as well, including avalanche, seismic and flood protection measures. Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Project Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 Location .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................
    [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]
  • Squaw Valley |Alpine Meadows Base-To-Base Gondola Project Draft EIS/EIR 4.3-1 Wilderness SE Group & Ascent Environmental
    SE Group & Ascent Environmental Wilderness 4.3 WILDERNESS This section includes discussion of potential impacts of the proposed Base-to-Base Gondola project on the National Forest System-Granite Chief Wilderness (GCW), which is adjacent to the project area (i.e., the area generally encompassed by all three action alternatives). No construction, and therefore no direct effects, would occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the GCW. However, indirect impacts on its wilderness character and wilderness users could occur, as described below. This section additionally assesses impacts associated with a portion of privately owned land that was included within the area mapped by Congress as part of the GCW within the 1984 California Wilderness Act. For clarity, this section references the NFS lands within the GCW as “National Forest System-GCW” and refers to the privately owned land included within the congressionally mapped wilderness boundary as “private lands within the congressionally mapped GCW.” In accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, federally-managed Wilderness areas, like the National Forest System-GCW, are defined as follows: (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
    [Show full text]
  • Bear Creek Watershed Assessment Report
    BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96162 February 16, 2018 And Dr. Susan Lindstrom, PhD BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA February 16, 2018 A REPORT PREPARED FOR: Truckee River Watershed Council PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96161 (530) 550-8760 www.truckeeriverwc.org by Brian Hastings Balance Hydrologics Geomorphologist Matt Wacker HT Harvey and Associates Restoration Ecologist Reviewed by: David Shaw Balance Hydrologics Principal Hydrologist © 2018 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Project Assignment: 217121 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 ~ Berkeley, California 94710-2251 ~ (510) 704-1000 ~ [email protected] Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA < This page intentionally left blank > ii Balance Hydrologics, Inc. BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1 1.2 Structure of This Report 4 1.3 Acknowledgments 4 1.4 Work Conducted 5 2 BACKGROUND 6 2.1 Truckee River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 6 2.2 Water Resource Regulations Specific to Bear Creek 7 3 WATERSHED SETTING 9 3.1 Watershed Geology 13 3.1.1 Bedrock Geology and Structure 17 3.1.2 Glaciation 18 3.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups 19 3.3 Hydrology and Climate 24 3.3.1 Hydrology 24 3.3.2 Climate 24 3.3.3 Climate Variability: Wet and Dry Periods 24 3.3.4 Climate Change 33 3.4 Bear Creek Water Quality 33 3.4.1 Review of Available Water Quality Data 33 3.5 Sediment Transport 39 3.6 Biological Resources 40 3.6.1 Land Cover and Vegetation Communities 40 3.6.2 Invasive Species 53 3.6.3 Wildfire 53 3.6.4 General Wildlife 57 3.6.5 Special-Status Species 59 3.7 Disturbance History 74 3.7.1 Livestock Grazing 74 3.7.2 Logging 74 3.7.3 Roads and Ski Area Development 76 4 WATERSHED CONDITION 81 4.1 Stream, Riparian, and Meadow Corridor Assessment 81 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019
    French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019 The 28,000-acre French Meadows Forest Restoration Project is using a collaborative, all-lands approach to restore forest health and resilience and reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire in the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the American River, a critical municipal watershed located on the Tahoe National Forest in California’s Sierra Nevada. The Project was developed by a diverse partnership, including the U.S. Forest Service, which manages most of the land within the project area; Placer County Water Agency, which manages two reservoirs downstream of the project for municipal water and hydropower; The Nature Conservancy, one of the world’s largest conservation organizations; the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state agency and funder; Placer County, a business partner in the hydropower project; the American River Conservancy, an adjacent private landowner; and the Sierra Nevada Research Institute at UC Merced. The French Meadows Project aims to accelerate ecologically-based forest and watershed restoration on the Tahoe National Forest through a shared stewardship approach involving: • Collaborative Management. The partners co-led development of the project and hired consultants to undertake planning and environmental analysis, substantially reducing the planning time for similar Forest Service projects. • Diverse Fundraising. The partners raised funds from a wide variety of federal, state, local, and private sources, including significant investment from downstream water beneficiaries like the water utility and private beverage companies. • Innovative Project Implementation. Placer County will hire contractors to implement thinning and other mechanical treatments, under a Master Stewardship Agreement with the Forest Service. The Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service will work together to develop and implement a prescribed burn plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Development and Documentation of Spatial Data Bases for the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada
    Development and Documentation of Spatial Data Bases for the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4182 Prepared in cooperation with the TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY U.S. GEOLCGICAL SURVEY RE:1>TON, VA. FEB 2 2 1994 sR LIBRARY - • • l'!;-•..";1":: • • - • • • • , • t • • :•• • .17 Development and Documentation of Spatial Data Bases for the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada By Kenn D. Cartier, Lorri A. Peltz, and J. LaRue Smith U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4182 Prepared in cooperation with the TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY Carson City, Nevada 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ROBERT M. HIRSCH, Acting Director Any use of trade names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Earth Science Information Center U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports Section 333 West Nye Lane, Room 203 Box 25286, MS 517 Carson City, NV 89706-0866 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0046 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Purpose and Scope 4 General Description of Lake Tahoe Basin 4 Previous Investigations 4 Description of Geographic Information Systems and Computer Equipment 4 Acknowledgments 5 Sources of Geographic Information 5 Sources of Thematic Data 5 Geologic Maps 5 Soil Maps 5 Timber-Type Maps 7
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel
    Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel. 2019. Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project. Unpublished report of The Nature Conservancy, Placer County Water Agency, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Placer County, American River Conservancy, and Sierra Nevada Research Institute at the University of California, Merced. San Francisco, California. 16 pp. May 2019 Contributors: This paper benefitted from thorough review, edits and contributions from Ed Smith, Andy Fecko, Marie Davis, Brett Storey, Andy Fristensky, Chris Dallas, Roger Bales, Elena DeLacy, Eli Ilano, Michael Woodbridge, Victor Lyon, Karen Walden, Laurie Perrot, Robert Galiano, Pat Farrell, Karen Quidichay, Susan Dewar, Sara Reese and Janelle Nolan. David Edelson, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Angel Hertslet, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Andy Fecko, Placer County Water Agency, [email protected] Andy Fristensky, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, [email protected] Brett Storey, Placer County, [email protected] Elena DeLacy, American River Conservancy, [email protected] Roger Bales, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, [email protected] Acknowledgments: The Nature Conservancy appreciates the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Northern Sierra Partnership, and contributors to TNC’s Sierra Forest and Water Challenge, which helped make this report possible. COVER: The French Meadows Project area, including the French Meadows Reservoir. © David Edelson/TNC Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project ealthy forests provide important benefits to people California’s northern Sierra Nevada (see map). The Project and nature, including clean water, clean air, carbon area includes 27,623 acres, of which 22,152 acres are national Hstorage, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Bibliography Paper 1
    The mid-Cretaceous Peninsular Ranges orogeny: a new slant on Cordilleran tectonics? I: Mexico to Nevada HILDEBRAND, Robert S.,* 1401 N. Camino de Juan, Tucson, AZ 85745 USA WHALEN, Joseph B., Geological Survey of Canada, 601 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0E8, Canada Supplemental File 1 Schmidt, K.L., and Paterson, S.R. 2002. A doubly vergent fan structure in the Peninsular Ranges batholith: Transpression or local complex flow around a continental margin buttress? Tectonics, 21: 1050, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1029/2001TC001353. Schmidt, K.L., Wetmore, P.H., Alsleben, H., and Paterson, S.R. 2014. Mesozoic tectonic evolution of the southern Peninsular Ranges batholith, Baja California, Mexico: Long-lived history of a collisional segment in the Mesozoic Cordilleran arc. In Peninsular Ranges Batholith, Baja California and Southern California. Edited by D.M. Morton, and F.K. Miller, Geological Society of America Memoir 211, 645–668, doi.org/10.1130/2014.1211. Supplemental File 2 Dickinson, W.R. 2008. Accretionary Mesozoic–Cenozoic expansion of the Cordilleran continental margin in California and Oregon. Geosphere, 4: 329–353. doi:10.1130/GES00105.1. Hildebrand, R.S. 2013. Mesozoic Assembly of the North American Cordillera: Geological Society of America Special Paper 495, 169 p.. doi:10.1130/2013.2495. Supplemental File 3 Armin, R.A., John, D.A. 1983. Geologic map of the Freel Peak 15-minute Quadrangle, California and Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1424. Armin, R.A., John, D.A., Moore, W.J. 1984. Geologic map of the Markleeville 15-minute Quadrangle, Alpine County, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Tahoe's Seven Summits
    Birds return to Lake Tahoe, page 4 Summer 2014 Drought offers TAHOE’S SEVEN SUMMITS good news, bad By Jeff Cowen news for Lake Tahoe In Depth By Jim Sloan The Lake may be this Region’s Tahoe In Depth most famous geographic feature, but it is Tahoe’s peaks that define our From the shoreline, a long-term landscapes and, at times, the course or severe drought seems to put of our lives. Daily, we glimpse them Lake Tahoe in dire straits. The water towering over our tedium, indelible recedes, streams dry up and the reminders of nature’s greatness and our shoreline beaches expand to expose own impermanence. Succumbing to a bathtub ring along the 72-mile their power, we climb them. shoreline. Some climbers are peak collectors, But from the water, things don’t “bagging” the major summits one by always look so bad. During a one. Others climb on a lark, impulsively drought, many of the pollutants joining friends and unprepared for the that affect Lake Tahoe’s clarity can’t Photo © Steve Dunleavy experience ahead. Regardless of our Pyramid Peak rises above the fog-choked Tahoe Basin. find their way to the Lake. Droughts paths, once we reach their summits, we slow down the rate of urban runoff, feel at once tiny and expansive, earth and rodents. Trees become shorter and neighborhoods. reducing erosion and the flow of fine and time stretching in all directions wider, until they disappear entirely. Our Climbers of even our most benign sediment and other water-clouding below us, the experience undeniably bodies change too.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness
    Appendices for the FEIS Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness Introduction This document describes the process used to evaluate the wilderness potential of areas on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). The March 2009 inventory conducted according to Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007 is the basis for this evaluation. The LTBMU was evaluated to determine landscape areas that exhibited inherent basic wilderness qualities such the degree of naturalness and undeveloped character. In addition to the wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must also provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment and area boundaries that could be managed as wilderness. It was determined that areas adjacent to existing wilderness and existing Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were areas were most likely to have the characteristics described above. Other areas around the basin exhibited some of the required characteristics but not enough to be qualified for a congressional wilderness designation. Six areas were identified and evaluated. The analysis is based on GIS mapping of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless area polygon data, adjusted based on local knowledge. Three tests were used—capability, availability, and need—to determine suitability as described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007. In addition to the inherent wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment. The area and boundaries must allow the area to be managed as wilderness. Capability is defined as the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • South Tahoe Area Trail Map (From Kingsbury Grade to Highway 89) VAN SICKLE C Si Kl BI-STATE PARK N E Tahoe Rim Trail a Tra V Il to Kingsbury Grade & Stagecoach Lodge
    South Tahoe Area Trail Map (From Kingsbury Grade to Highway 89) VAN SICKLE c Si kl BI-STATE PARK n e Tahoe Rim Trail a Tra V il To Kingsbury Grade & Stagecoach Lodge HGHWAY 50 5.8 L a k e T a h o e elev. 6,225’ East Peak SKI RUN BLVD 9,590’ Heavenly CA Lodge Future 6,500’ Heavenly Mountain Resort Bike 8.5 Park l i a AL TAHOE BLVD r T e * T n i a l r Monument Peak h e 10,060’ o HGHWAY 89 HGHWAY 50 w e o Monument Pass P R i m 8,900’ 3.1 T r a i l 2.5 Co il ld Tra Cr e ek o ad High Meadow R dow 7,800’ a l e i High M a r PIONEER TRAIL1.6 T d e ra G d a o S r t il a a 1.8 r 3.83 R il C La ke Tr a HGHWAY 50 e d a r 1.9 T r Star Lake a C i elev. 9,100’ or l Sidewinder ra l Trail T Trimmer Peak ail r r T a m .9 9,910’ i i l R C ONEIDAS ST o e n h o n Ta e Freel Pass MAP LEGEND: F o c 9,700’ u t n o Multi-Use Trail t r NORTH a Trai in l1.7 P l 5.1 Freel Peak ace Dirt Road Road 10,880’ Fountain Place 7,800’ Narrow Paved Road Neighborhood Street Neighborhood Trails S to Meyers a 3.8 x o Primary Street n Arm stro C n g Trai Creek r l e e k 200’ Interval Contour ( M r .
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Emplacement of Mesozoic Batholithic Complexes in California and Western Nevada by J
    Chronology of Emplacement of Mesozoic Batholithic Complexes In California and Western Nevada By J. F. EVERNDEN and R. W. KISTLER GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 623 Prepared in cooperation with the University of California (Berkeley) Department of Geological Sciences UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Con;gress CSJtalog-card No. 7s-.60.38'60 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract-------------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------- 1 Analyt:cal problems ____________________ -._______________________________________________________________________ 2 Analytical procedures______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Precision and accuracy ___________________ -.- __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 Potassium determinations_______________________________________________________________________________ · 2 Argon determinations--------~------------------~------------------------------------------------------ 5 Chemical and crystallographic effects on potassium-argon ages----------.-----------------------------------------
    [Show full text]