DOCSLIB.ORG

Santa Rosa Ranger District United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Santa Rosa Ranger District United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2011 Travel Analysis Report For Santa Rosa Ranger District United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2011 Santa Rosa Ranger District Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Humboldt County, NV Santa Rosa Ranger District Travel Analysis 2007 Location: Humboldt County, Nevada Lead agency: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region (R4) Humboldt -Toiyabe National Forest Responsible official: Jose Noriega, District Ranger Santa Rosa Ranger District 1200 Winnemucca Boulevard East Winnemucca, NV 89445 775-623-5025 ex 115 For further information: Kevin Wilmot, RELM Staff Officer, Forest Engineer Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor’s Office 1200 Franklin Way Sparks, NV 89431 775-352-1272 Notice: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 7 Background and Purpose ......................................................................................................... 7 Process ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Products .................................................................................................................................... 8 This Report ...................................................... …………………………………………………………7 Project Scope and Objective…………………………………………………………………………8 Management Area Direction ..................................................................................................... 9 Road Maintenance Level Descriptions ..................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 2: DESCRIBING THE SITUATION ........................................................................... 10 Existing Road and Trail System and Historic Use .................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFYING ISSUES ......................................................................................... 12 Key Issues .............................................................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS, AND RISKS ........................................... 13 Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF): ............................................................................ 13 Aquatic, Riparian Zone and Water Quality (AQ): .................................................................... 18 Terrestrial Wildlife and Plants (TW): ....................................................................................... 25 Economics (EC): ..................................................................................................................... 28 Range Management (RM): ..................................................................................................... 28 Special-use Permits (SU): ...................................................................................................... 29 General Public Transportation (GT): ....................................................................................... 29 Administrative Uses (AU): ....................................................................................................... 31 Protection (PT): ....................................................................................................................... 31 Unroaded Recreation (UR) ..................................................................................................... 34 Road-related Recreation (RR): ............................................................................................... 35 Passive-Use Value (PV): ........................................................................................................ 36 Social Issues (SI): ................................................................................................................... 38 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR): ......................................................................... 40 CHAPTER 5:AND CHAPTER 6 DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING………………. PRIORITIES/RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 41 Ecosystem Functions and Terrestrial Wildlife ......................................................................... 47 Economics .............................................................................................................................. 47 General Public Transportation ................................................................................................ 48 Protection ................................................................................................................................ 48 Road-related Recreation ......................................................................................................... 48 Unroaded Recreation .............................................................................................................. 49 Passive-Use Value ................................................................................................................. 49 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX B: REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 51 5 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1 – National Forest System Authorized Santa Rosa District Roads ................................................. 11 Table 2 –National Forest System Authorized Santa Rosa District Trails .................................................... 10 Table 3 Unauthorized Non-system Routes within the Santa Rosa Analysis Area ...................................... 10 Table 4. Generic effects (modified from Spellerberg 1998). ..................... ……….…………………………..12 Table 5 Annual Rate of Spread for Selected Noxious Weeds…………………………………………………14 Table 6. Noxious and Invasive Weed Species on the Santa Rosa Ranger District…………………………14 Table 7 Proposed Routes and Water Crossings………………………………………………………………..19 Table 8 Route Information for Existing System and Undesignated Routes…………………………………21 Table 9. Wildlife habitats of the analysis area and proportion (%) within Effect Zones ……………………24 Table 10: Proposed Additions to the Forest Transportation System on the Santa Rosa Ranger………… 41 Table 11: Proposed Removals from the Forest Transportation System…………………………………….. 42 Table12: Proposed Restrictions on Motor Vehicle Use on NFS Routes…………………………………….. 43 6 CHAPTER 1: SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS Background and Purpose On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service published its final administrative transportation system policy in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No.9). Decisions to decommission, reconstruct, construct, and maintain roads are to be informed by a science-based roads analysis. On November 2, 2005, the Forest Service released their final travel management rule (36 CFR parts 212, 251, 262, and 295). This regulation governs the use of motor vehicles, including off-highway vehicles, on National Forest System lands. One of the purposes of these policies and rules is to ensure travel analysis is carried out for Forest roads and trails. Travel analysis provides the information needed to ensure the forest transportation system will: provide safe access and meets the needs of communities and forest users; facilitate the implementation of the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan); allow for economical and efficient management within likely budget levels; meeting current and future resource management objectives; begin to reverse adverse ecological impacts, to the extent practicable. Travel management in the Forest Service was traditionally split between Engineering, for road management and Recreation for trails management. The recently revised regulation now combines the analysis of trails and roads under the travel analysis process (TAP). The new travel management rule requires each administrative unit (national forest, national grassland, etc.) or ranger district to designate those National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year (36 CFR 212.51). The key concept underlying the TAP approach is to focus on changes to: The forest transportation system; or Restrictions and prohibitions on motor vehicle use. The Travel Analysis requirements, will be, or are, described in FSM 7700 Travel Management; FSM 7710 (Travel
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana
    Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana Joseph E. Worthington Idaho Geological Survey University of Idaho Technical Report 07-3 Moscow, Idaho ISBN 1-55765-515-4 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Molybdenum Vein Deposits ...................................................................... 2 Tertiary Molybdenum Deposits ................................................................. 2 Little Falls—1 ............................................................................. 3 CUMO—2 .................................................................................. 3 Red Mountain Prospect—45 ...................................................... 3 Rocky Bar District—43 .............................................................. 3 West Eight Mile—37 .................................................................. 3 Devil’s Creek Prospect—46 ....................................................... 3 Walton—8 .................................................................................. 4 Ima—3 ........................................................................................ 4 Liver Peak (a.k.a. Goat Creek)—4 ............................................. 4 Bald Butte—5 ............................................................................. 5 Big Ben—6 ................................................................................. 6 Emigrant Gulch—7 ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist
    STATE OF NEVADA Steve Sisolak, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director GAME DIVISION Brian F. Wakeling, Chief Mike Cox, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Staff Specialist Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region Regional Supervisors Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Travis Allen Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Clint Garrett Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Sarah Hale Ed Partee Kari Huebner Jason Salisbury Matt Jeffress Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Scott Roberts This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following: Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500 via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 2018-2019 BIG GAME STATUS This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN Prepared by John Elliott SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2004 LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN SUBMITTED BY: _______________________________________ __________ John Elliott, Supervising Fisheries Biologist Date Nevada Department of Wildlife, Eastern Region APPROVED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Richard L. Haskins II, Fisheries Bureau Chief Date Nevada Department of Wildlife _______________________________________ __________ Kenneth E. Mayer, Director Date Nevada Department of Wildlife REVIEWED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Robert Williams, Field Supervisor Date Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service _______________________________________ __________ Ron Wenker, State Director Date U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management _______________________________________ __________ Edward C. Monnig, Forest Supervisor Date Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest U.S.D.A. Forest Service TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………..1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….…2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES……………………………………………………………….…4 CURRENT STATUS……………………………………………………………………………..6 RECOVERY OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………………………19 RECOVERY ACTIONS…………………………………………………………………………21 RECOVERY ACTION PRIORITIES BY SUBBASIN………………………………………….33 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE……………………………………………………………..47
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Granite Peak Stock Area, Whetstone Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona
    Geology of the Granite Peak stock area, Whetstone Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); maps Authors DeRuyter, Vernon Donald Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 07/10/2021 05:09:43 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555132 GEOLOGY OF THE GRANITE PEAK STOCK AREA, WHETSTONE MOUNTAINS, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA by Vernon Donald DeRuyter A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of require­ ments for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Re­ quests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major de­ partment or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the pro­ posed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • National Mining District, Nevada
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR BULLETIN 601 OF THE NATIONAL MINING DISTRICT, NEVADA BY WALDEMAR LINDGREN WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Preface, by F. L. Eansome................................................. 5 Location and field work..................................................... 7 Santa Rosa Range......................................................... 7 « Topography........................................................... 7 Climate and vegetation................................................ 10 Geology............................................. i ................ 10 Mineral deposits........................................................ 12 Principal divisions................................................. 12 Older mineral deposits............................................. 12 Tertiary mineral deposits........................................... 14 Metal production of Santa Rosa Range.................................. 16 Literature of Santa Rosa Range......................................... 17 National mining district.................................................... 18 Situation.............................................................. 18 History................................................................ 19 Prospecting and mining............................................. 19 Leasing........................................................... 20 General geology.............:.......................................... 21 The rocks............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Historic Winnemucca to the Sea Highway “Gateway to the Pacific Northwest”
    Feb 2004 WINNEMUCCA to the SEA Highway The Historic Winnemucca to the Sea Highway “Gateway to the Pacific Northwest” John Ryczkowski The Winnemucca to the Sea highway was developed to establish a continu- ous, improved all-weather highway from US-40 (I-80) at Winnemucca, Nevada through Medford, Oregon and on to the Pacific coast at Crescent City, California. In the mid 1950’s there was no direct route west from Northern Nevada across South- ern Oregon and into California’s Redwood Empire. Community leaders from points along this proposed link formed the Winnemucca to the Sea Highway Association. The association worked with state and local governments to fund the design, con- struction and upgrade of the paved roadway for this east to west link across three states. The association had envisioned one highway number 140 applied to the complete route, as the parent major US highway was coast-to-coast US-40, the Victory Highway. Nevada and Oregon used state route 140 for their respective sections of the Winnemucca to the Sea Highway. But the renumbering or cosigning of federal highways was an obstacle that the Winnemucca to the Sea Association never did overcome, thus the hope of a continuous 140 designation for this link was never realized. Currently the traveler will follow seven different highway numbers from Winnemucca to Crescent City, they are US-95, state route-140, US-395, state Association brochure circa 1960’s route-62, Interstate-5, US-199 and US-101. Winnemucca, named after a local Paiute chief, has always been a crossroads town.
    [Show full text]
  • Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan Environmental Assessment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Yosemite National Park Yosemite, California Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan Environmental Assessment January 2012 Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan Environmental Assessment Yosemite National Park Lead Agency: National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior ABSTRACT In 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act, creating the National Wilderness Preservation System, “to secure for the American people an enduring resource of Wilderness.”1 In 1984, Congress designated 95% of Yosemite National Park, including Half Dome and the Half Dome Trail, as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Many Yosemite visitors travel into the wilderness to seek the beauty, solitude, and challenge that Congress sought to protect with wilderness designation. The California Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law [PL] 98–425) directs the National Park Service (NPS) to manage areas designated as wilderness according to provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Half Dome is an iconic, granite peak visible from many spots in Yosemite National Park, and rising 5,000 feet above the Yosemite Valley floor in one dramatic sweep of sheer rock. Its summit is a goal for a broad cross section of the public; beginning and experienced hikers, first-time and lifelong park visitors, an array of ethnicities and cultures, children to grandparents, and people from all around the world. For many, this may be their first hike in designated wilderness. The combination of the long hike, an exhilarating, exposed ascent of the cables, and a spectacular view from the summit can combine to be a highlight of a person’s summer or even a life-changing event.
    [Show full text]
  • Brueseke, M.E., W.K. Hart & M.T. Heizler, Diverse Mid-Miocene Silicic
    Bull Volcanol DOI 10.1007/s00445-007-0142-5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Diverse mid-Miocene silicic volcanism associated with the Yellowstone–Newberry thermal anomaly Matthew E. Brueseke & William K. Hart & Matthew T. Heizler Received: 1 February 2005 /Accepted: 8 March 2007 # Springer-Verlag 2007 Abstract The Santa Rosa–Calico volcanic field (SC) of primarily focused along its eastern and western margins. At northern Nevada is a complex, multi-vent mid-Miocene least five texturally distinct silicic units are found in the eruptive complex that formed in response to regional western Santa Rosa–Calico volcanic field, including abun- lithospheric extension and flood basalt volcanism. Santa dant lava flows, near vent deposits, and shallow intrusive Rosa–Calico volcanism initiated at ∼16.7 Ma, concurrent bodies. Similar physical features are found in the eastern with regional Steens–Columbia River flood basalt activity portion of the volcanic field where four physically distinct and is characterized by a complete compositional spectrum units are present. The western and eastern Santa Rosa– of basalt through high-silica rhyolite. To better understand Calico units are characterized by abundant macro- and the relationships between upwelling mafic magmatism, microscopic disequilibrium textures, reflecting a complex coeval extension, and magmatic system development on petrogenetic history. Additionally, unlike other mid-Mio- the Oregon Plateau we have conducted the first compre- cene Oregon Plateau volcanic fields (e.g. McDermitt), the hensive study of Santa Rosa–Calico silicic volcanism. Santa Rosa–Calico volcanic field is characterized by a Detailed stratigraphic-based field sampling and mapping paucity of caldera-forming volcanism. Only the Cold illustrate that silicic activity in this volcanic field was Springs tuff, which crops out across the central portion of the volcanic field, was caldera-derived.
    [Show full text]
  • Winnemucca District Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement DOI-BLM-NV-W000-2010-0001-EIS
    BLM Winnemucca District Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement DOI-BLM-NV-W000-2010-0001-EIS Volume 2: Chapters 3, 4 Winnemucca District, Nevada District, Winnemucca August 2013 Winnemucca MISSION STATEMENT To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM/NV/WN/ES/13-11+1793 Volume 2 of 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Geology ............................................................................................. 3-14 3.2.3 Soil Resources .................................................................................. 3-18 3.2.4 Water Resources ............................................................................... 3-22 3.2.5 Vegetation – General ......................................................................... 3-36 3.2.6 Vegetation – Forest/Woodland Products ........................................... 3-41 3.2.7 Vegetation – Invasive and Noxious Species ...................................... 3-42 3.2.8 Vegetation
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Notes
    UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SURVEY NOTES Volume 38, Number 3 September 2006 Granite Peak Mountain, A Geologic Mystery Revealed CONTENTS THE DIRECTOR’S PERSPECTIVE Granite Peak Mountain .................................... 1 St. George 30’x60’ Quadrangle ..................... 3 This issue of Survey Notes marks one of on our Web site has not diminished the New Age for the Santa Clara Basalt Flow 4 the first publications to use our new logo e-mail and telephone inquiries. We now GeoSights ............................................................. 6 (see insert). The Department of Natural get many inquiries from people wanting Teacher’s Corner ................................................. 8 Resources wants a more unifying theme to clarify or expand what they read on Energy News ........................................................ 9 and image for its seven divisions while still our Web site. Survey News ...................................................... 10 Glad You Asked ................................................ 12 allowing for the unique identity of each division. To recognize the Department Our bookstore sales grew by 3 percent theme of “where life and landscapes con- this year ($293,000), with hard copy map Design: Liz Paton nect,” all division logos include sales continuing to be strong Cover: UGS geologist Bob Biek examines numerous white the same elements of the styl- (22,000 maps per year) and pegmatite dikes and dark-gray granodiorite on the east side of ized outline of the state, the not showing an obvious Granite
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Structural Model for the Blue Mountain Geothermal Field, Humboldt County, Nevada
    GRC Transactions, Vol. 32, 2008 A Preliminary Structural Model for the Blue Mountain Geothermal Field, Humboldt County, Nevada James E. Faulds1 and Glenn Melosh2 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 2Nevada Geothermal Power, Vancouver, BC Keywords with subsurface temperatures approaching or exceeding 200°C. Blue Mountain, Nevada, structural control, normal fault, The fields are particularly abundant in northern Nevada and oblique slip, dilatant zone, Great Basin neighboring parts of northeast California and southern Oregon (Coolbaugh et al., 2002; Coolbaugh and Shevenell, 2004; Faulds et al., 2004). The lack of recent volcanism suggests that upper ABSTRACT crustal magmatism is not a source for most of the geothermal ac- The Blue Mountain geothermal field is a blind geothermal tivity in this region. Regional assessments of structural controls prospect (i.e., no surface hot springs) along the west flank of Blue show that N- to NE-striking faults (N0oE-N60oE) are the primary Mountain in southern Humboldt County, Nevada. Development controlling structure for ~75% of geothermal fields in Nevada, and wells in the system have high flow rates and temperatures above this control is strongest for higher temperature systems (Coolbaugh 190ºC at depths of ~600 to 1,070 m. Blue Mountain is a small et al., 2002; Faulds et al., 2004). In the northwestern Great Basin, ~8-km-long east-tilted fault block situated between the Eugene where the extension direction trends WNW, controlling faults Mountains and Slumbering Hills. The geothermal field occu- generally strike NNE, approximately orthogonal to the extension pies the intersection between a regional NNE- to ENE-striking, direction (e.g., Faulds et al., 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Department of Wildlife Statewide Fisheries Management
    NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE STATEWIDE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FEDERAL AID JOB PROGRESS REPORTS F-20-50 2014 CHIMNEY RESERVOIR WESTERN REGION NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES DIVISION JOB PROGRESS REPORT Table of Contents Contents Page SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................. 1 PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................... 2 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 3 GENERAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW ............................................................................. 9 STUDY REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 10 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 10 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES DIVISION JOB PROGRESS REPORT List of Tables Number Title Page 1 Chimney Reservoir Oppurtunistic Angler Survey 2014……………………..3 2 Chimney Reservoir Angler Questionnaire Results 2009-2013 ................... 4 3 Chimney Reservoir Stocking History 2010-2014 ...........................................
    [Show full text]