DOCSLIB.ORG

Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Plan Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Plan 1694 County Rd Minden, NV 89423 2014 This page left intentionally blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES-1 Section 1 Official Record of Adoption ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 .............................................................. 1-1 1.2 Adoption by the Local Governing Body and Supporting Document ...... 1-1 Section 2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Plan Purpose and Authority ..................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Stafford Act Grant Programs ................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Plan Organization..................................................................................... 2-3 Section 3 Community Description ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 History, Location, and Geography ........................................................... 3-1 3.2 Government.............................................................................................. 3-2 3.3 Demographics .......................................................................................... 3-7 3.4 Land Use and Development Trends ....................................................... 3-11 Section 4 Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Overview of Planning Process ................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................. 4-3 4.2.1 Formation of the Planning Committee ......................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Planning Committee Meetings & Monthly Progress ................... 4-5 4.3 Public Involvement .................................................................................. 4-6 4.4 Incorporation of Existing Plans and Other Relevant Information ........... 4-7 Section 5 Hazard Analysis .............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Hazard identification and screening ......................................................... 5-1 5.2 Hazard Profile .......................................................................................... 5-4 5.2.1 Drought ........................................................................................ 5-5 5.2.2 Earthquake ................................................................................... 5-8 5.2.3 Epidemic .................................................................................... 5-22 5.2.4 Floods ......................................................................................... 5-28 5.2.5 Seiche ......................................................................................... 5-44 5.2.6 Severe Weather .......................................................................... 5-47 5.2.7 Volcanic Activity ....................................................................... 5-51 5.2.8 Wildland Fire ............................................................................. 5-55 Section 6 Vulnerability Analysis .................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Asset inventory ........................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.1 Population and Building Stock .................................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................ 6-2 6.2 Methodology ............................................................................................ 6-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.3 Data Limitations ....................................................................................... 6-4 6.4 Exposure Analysis ................................................................................... 6-5 6.4.1 Drought ........................................................................................ 6-8 6.4.2 Earthquakes .................................................................................. 6-8 6.4.3 Epidemics ..................................................................................... 6-8 6.4.4 Floods ........................................................................................... 6-9 6.4.5 Seiche ........................................................................................... 6-9 6.4.6 Severe Weather ............................................................................ 6-9 6.4.7 Volcanic Activity ....................................................................... 6-10 6.4.8 Wildland Fires ............................................................................ 6-10 6.5 Repetitive Loss Properties ...................................................................... 6-10 Section 7 Capability Assessment .................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Legal and Regulatory Capabilities ...............................................................1 7.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities ..................................................2 7.3 Financial Capabilities ...................................................................................2 7.4 Current Mitigation Capabilities & Analysis ................................................4 Section 8 Mitigation Strategy ......................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ............................................................. 8-1 8.2 Identifying Mitigation Actions ................................................................ 8-2 8.3 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance ......................... 8-8 8.4 Evaluating and Prioritizing Mitigation Action ........................................ 8-8 8.5 Implementing a Mitigation Action Plan ................................................ 8-10 Section 9 Plan Maintenance ........................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the HMP ..................................... 9-1 9.2 Implementation through Existing Planning Mechanisms ........................ 9-2 9.3 Continued Public Involvement ................................................................ 9-3 Section 10 References .................................................................................................................... 10-1 Tables and Figures Tables Table 3-1 Census Data Table 3-2 Age Data Table 3-3 Total Area in Douglas County Table 3-4 Public Land Ownership Table 3-5 Future Land Use in Douglas County Table 3-6 Land Area by Zoning District Table 3-7 Population Density Table 4-1 Plan Outline and Update Effort Table 4-2 Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee & Participating Agencies Table 5-1 Identification and Screening of Hazards Table 5-2 Vulnerability Ratings Rubric Table 5-3 Hazards Rating Table 5-4 Recent Drought Periods Table 5-5 Historic Earthquakes in Douglas County Table 5-6 Major Late Quaternary Faults in Douglas County Table 5-7 Major Late Quaternary Faults Near Douglas County Table 5-8 Probability of Modified Mercalli Intensity Levels Occurring in Douglas County Communities Table 5-9 Historical Occurrences of Epidemics Registered in Nevada Table 5-10 Historic Floods in Douglas County Table 5-11 Carson River Transport Flows Table 5-12 Summary of Reported Fire History Table 5-13 Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire in Valley Portion of Douglas County Table 5-14 Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire in Lake Portion of Douglas County Table 5-15 Floor Area at Risk Table 6-1 Estimated Population and Building Inventory Table 6-2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Table 6-3 Potential Hazard Vulnerability Assessment – Population and Buildings Table 6-4 Potential Hazard Vulnerability Assessment – Critical Facilities Table 7-1 Legal and Regulatory Resources Available for Hazard Mitigation Table 7-2 Administrative and Technical Resources for Hazard Mitigation Tables and Figures Table 7-3 Financial Resources for Hazard Mitigation Table 7-4 Douglas County Local Mitigation Capability Assessment Table 8-1 Mitigation Goals Table 8-2 Mitigation Goals and Potential Actions Table 8-3 STAPLE+E Evaluation Criteria for Mitigation Actions Table 8-4 Action Plan Matrix Figures Figure 3-1 Map of Douglas County Figure 3-2 Douglas County Population Projects Figure 3-3 Douglas County Building Permits and Values Figure 5-1 Comparison of the U.S. Drought Monitor Maps of Nevada Figure 5-2 Earthquakes Recorded in Douglas County for the 1840s to 2010 Figure 5-3 Map of 1932 Cedar Mountain Earthquake Figure 5-4 Schematic Map of the Eight Largest Faults in Douglas County Figure 5-5 Earthquake Hazard Curves for Five Douglas County Communities Figure 5-6 Earthquake Peak Ground Acceleration Map for Nevada and California Figure 5-7 Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Hazards Figure 5-8 Percentage of Visits for Influenza-like Illness Figure 5-9 Map of States Infected with the Outbreak Strain of E. coli Figure 5-10 Recent Fires in Douglas
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecoregions of Nevada Ecoregion 5 Is a Mountainous, Deeply Dissected, and Westerly Tilting Fault Block
    5 . S i e r r a N e v a d a Ecoregions of Nevada Ecoregion 5 is a mountainous, deeply dissected, and westerly tilting fault block. It is largely composed of granitic rocks that are lithologically distinct from the sedimentary rocks of the Klamath Mountains (78) and the volcanic rocks of the Cascades (4). A Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, Vegas, Reno, and Carson City areas. Most of the state is internally drained and lies Literature Cited: high fault scarp divides the Sierra Nevada (5) from the Northern Basin and Range (80) and Central Basin and Range (13) to the 2 2 . A r i z o n a / N e w M e x i c o P l a t e a u east. Near this eastern fault scarp, the Sierra Nevada (5) reaches its highest elevations. Here, moraines, cirques, and small lakes and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial within the Great Basin; rivers in the southeast are part of the Colorado River system Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the Ecoregion 22 is a high dissected plateau underlain by horizontal beds of limestone, sandstone, and shale, cut by canyons, and United States (map): Washington, D.C., USFS, scale 1:7,500,000. are especially common and are products of Pleistocene alpine glaciation. Large areas are above timberline, including Mt. Whitney framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and those in the northeast drain to the Snake River.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY of the TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST a Compilation
    HISTORY OF THE TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST A Compilation Posting the Toiyabe National Forest Boundary, 1924 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Chronology ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Bridgeport and Carson Ranger District Centennial .................................................................... 126 Forest Histories ........................................................................................................................... 127 Toiyabe National Reserve: March 1, 1907 to Present ............................................................ 127 Toquima National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ....................................................... 128 Monitor National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ........................................................ 128 Vegas National Forest: December 12, 1907 – July 2, 1908 .................................................... 128 Mount Charleston Forest Reserve: November 5, 1906 – July 2, 1908 ................................... 128 Moapa National Forest: July 2, 1908 – 1915 .......................................................................... 128 Nevada National Forest: February 10, 1909 – August 9, 1957 .............................................. 128 Ruby Mountain Forest Reserve: March 3, 1908 – June 19, 1916 ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Committee for the Review and Oversight of the TRPA and the Marlette Lake Water System
    STATE OF NEVADA Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Steve Sisolak, Governor Bradley Crowell, Director Charles Donohue, Administrator MEMORANDUM DATE: December 11, 2019 TO: Committee for the Review and Oversight of the TRPA and the Marlette Lake Water System THROUGH: Charles Donohue, Administrator FROM: Meredith Gosejohan, Tahoe Program Manger SUBJECT: California spotted owls in Nevada The following information on the California spotted owl in Nevada is in response to questions from the Committee during the meeting held on November 19, 2019. Currently, there is only one known nesting pair of spotted owls in the State of Nevada. The pair were discovered in Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park in 2015 and have occupied the same territory every year since. The territory is monitored annually by the Nevada Tahoe Resource Team’s (NTRT) biologist from the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). The pair has successfully fledged one juvenile from the nest in three different years: 2015, 2017, and 2018. There have also been five documented incidental spotted owl sightings in other parts of the Carson Range since 2015. These spotted owls are a subspecies called the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). There are two other subspecies in the western United States (Northern and Mexican), both of which are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The California spotted owl was recently petitioned for federal listing as well, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced in November 2019, that listing was not warranted at this time. (Click here to read the decisions summary) Spotted owls are native to the Tahoe Basin, though they have been relatively rare on the Nevada side and are typically observed on the California side or other parts of the Sierra Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Trip Summary Report for Sierra Nevadas, California: Chico NE, SE
    \ FIElD TRIP SUMMARY FOR SIERRA NEVADAS, CALIFORNIA CHICO NE, SE AND SACRAMENTO NE I. INTRODUCTION Field reconnaissance of the work area is an integral part for the accurate interpretation of aerial photography. Photographic signatures are compared to the actual wetland's appearance in the field by observing vegetation, soil and topo~raphy. This information is weighted with seasonality and conditIOns at both dates of photography and ground truthing. The project study area was located in northern California's Sierra Nevada Mountains. Ground truthing covered the area of each 1:100,000: Chico NE, Chico SE, and Sacramento NE. This field summary describes the data we were able to collect on the various wetland sites and the plant communities observed. II. FIELD MEMBERS Barbara Schuster Martel Laboratories, Inc. Dennis Peters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service III. FIELD DATES July 27 - August 2, 1988 IV. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY Type: Color Infrared Transparencies Scale: 1:58,000 V. COLLATERAL DATA U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangles Soil Survey of HI Dorado Area. California, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey of Nevada County Area. California, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1 Soil Survey of Sierra Valley Area. California. Parts of Sierra. Plumas. and Lassen Counties, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey - Tahoe Basin Area. California and Nevada, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey - Amador Area. California, 1965. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Rose Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan O the Sky Highway T
    Mount Rose Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan Highway to the Sky CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE & VISION PURPOSE & VISION 1 PLAN PURPOSE 2 CORRIDOR SETTING 3 VISION & GOALS 6 STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC OUTREACH 7 CHAPTER 2: MOUNT ROSE SCENIC BYWAY’S INTRINSIC VALUES INTRINSIC VALUES 19 TERRAIN 20 OWNERSHIP 22 LAND USE & COMMUNITY RESOURCES 24 VISUAL QUALITY 26 CULTURAL RESOURCES 30 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 34 HYDROLOGY 40 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES & WILDLIFE 42 FUEL MANAGEMENT & FIRES 44 CHAPTER 3: THE HIGHWAY AS A TRANSPORTATION FACILITY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 47 EXISTING ROADWAY CONFIGURATION 48 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & TRENDS 49 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES 50 EXISTING BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 50 EXISTING TRAFFIC SAFETY 50 EXISTING PARKING AREAS 55 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 55 CHAPTER 4: ENHANCING THE BYWAY FOR VISITING, LIVING & DRIVING CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES & ACTION ITEMS 57 PRESERVE THE SCENIC QUALITY & NATURAL RESOURCES 59 BALANCE RECREATION ACCESS WITH TRANSPORTATION 68 & SAFETY NEEDS CONNECT PEOPLE WITH THE CORRIDOR 86 PROMOTE TOURISM 94 CHAPTER 5: CORRIDOR STEWARDSHIP CORRIDOR STEWARDSHIP 99 MANAGING PARTNERS 100 CURRENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS 102 | i This Plan was funded by an On Our Way grant from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and a Federal Scenic Byway Grant from the Nevada Department of Transportation. ii | Mount Rose Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan CHAPTER ONE 1 PURPOSE & VISION Chapter One | 1 The Corridor PLAN PURPOSE The Mount Rose Scenic Byway is officially named the “Highway to the Management Sky” and offers travelers an exciting ascent over the Sierra Nevada from Plan identifies the sage-covered slopes of the eastern Sierra west to Lake Tahoe. Not only goals, objectives does the highway connect travelers to a variety of recreation destinations and cultural and natural resources along the Byway, it also serves as a and potential minor arterial connecting both tourists and commuters from Reno to Lake enhancements to Tahoe.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 1: Introduction
    Carson Range Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy Section 1: Introduction Purpose of this Plan This comprehensive fuels reduction and wildfire prevention plan is a unified, multi-jurisdictional strategic synopsis of the planning efforts of local, county, state, tribal, and federal entities. The proposed projects in this plan provide a 10-year strategy to reduce the risk of large and destructive wildfire in the Carson Range planning area. The plan’s outcome is to 1) propose projects that create “community defensible space”, 2) comprehensively display all proposed fuel reduction treatments, and 3) facilitate communication and cooperation among those responsible for plan implementation. If implemented, this plan will provide greater protection to the people, infrastructure, and resources in the planning area. This plan was developed to comply with the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432 [H.R.6111]), which amended the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-263) to include the following language: “development and implementation of comprehensive, cost-effective, multi- jurisdictional hazardous fuels reduction and wildfire prevention plans (including sustainable biomass and biofuels energy development and production activities) for the Lake Tahoe Basin (to be developed in conjunction with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency), the Carson Range in Douglas and Washoe Counties and Carson City in the State, and the Spring Mountains in the State, that are-- (I) subject to approval by the Secretary; and (II) not more than 10 years in duration” This comprehensive plan is supported by 15 partners who each have a role in wildland fuels or fire management in the planning area (see “Agencies Involved” below).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Environmental Resources and Conservation Page 1 of 64
    Volume II: Chapter 7 Environmental Resources and Conservation Page 1 of 64 Chapter 7 Environmental Resources and Conservation Volume II of the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element provides information on existing conditions for natural resources in Douglas County, including air quality, energy, floodplains, soils and steep slopes, and water. Air Quality Douglas County would like to ensure, as much as possible, the preservation of clean, pure air. Close monitoring of the air quality is essential to its preservation. Pollutants which are of particular concern when monitoring air quality are: Particulates (PM10), Fine Particulates (PM2.5), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Ozone (O3). Particulates are breathable particulate matter that are generated primarily from residential wood burning, industry, construction activities, motor vehicles, open burning, and windblown dust. PM10 particulates are those with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less and PM2.5 particulates are those with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an “odorless, invisible gas” which is emitted primarily from combustion sources such as motor vehicle engines, wood burning, and aircraft operations. Ozone (O3) is the result of interaction with chemical hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. The primary source of pollutants in the county are from auto emissions, dirt roads, fuel burning (including wood burning stoves), wildfires, paving materials, agricultural burning, and agricultural dust. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, Nevada Air Quality Trend Report 1998-2009 dated January 2011 provides the most recent data on air quality trends in Douglas County. Geology/Seismic The dominant topographic features of Douglas County (Lake Tahoe, Carson Range, Carson Valley, and the Pinenut Mountains) are expressions of the horst and graben structure of the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Valley Trail Committee Community Trail Inventory, Review, Evaluation and User Needs Assessment Report
    Eagle Valley Trail Committee Community Trail Inventory, Review, Evaluation and User Needs Assessment Report February 2017 rev 2017-12 Acknowledgements Eagle Valley Trail Committee gratefully thanks our sponsors and contributors. Additional details are provided in Appendix A. Friends of Silver Saddle Ranch High Desert Horsemen Muscle Powered Ascent Runs Nevada All-State Trail Riders Inc. Sierra Front Recreation Coalition Carson City Visitors Bureau Back Country Horsemen – Carson Valley Chapter WashoZephyr Consulting Resource Concepts Inc. Tangerine Design Eric Ingbar with Gnomon, Inc. Carson City Parks and Recreation and Joel Dunn Open Space Department Jeff Potter Lynn Zonge Oliver Lieder Juan Guzman Toby Welborn Mark Kimbrough Donna Inversin Michael Bish Michaele Tristam Brett Long Craig Swope Kathy Silvia Agency Partners February 2017 rev 2017-12 EAGLE VALLEY TRAIL COMMITTEE REPORT Executive Summary This document describes the existing non-motorized trails in Eagle Valley and was prepared by the Eagle Valley Trail Committee (EVTC) volunteers. The EVTC goal is to work with various land management agencies and develop a trail inventory and a comprehensive geospatial data set of non-motorized trails that can be used by the public. The EVTC trail inventory shows that many of the existing single-track trails in Eagle Valley are desirable although may have challenges as they may not be sustainable, do not meet national trail standards or are on private property. The EVTC developed an online survey and conducted three public workshops to gather input regarding the trail inventory maps. The EVTC provided workshop participants with the opportunity to note their personal requests for new trails in the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • Native and Naturalized Conifers of Nevada a Checklist and Description
    COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Bringing the University to You Special Publication 06-05 NATIVE AND NATURALIZED CONIFERS OF NEVADA A CHECKLIST AND DESCRIPTION Wayne S Johnson, Associate Professor, Department of Resource Economics, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources; Urban Forestry Specialist, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Sue Strom, Urban Forestry Program Assistant, University of Nevada, Reno Patricia Rowley, Urban Forestry Volunteer Development Coordinator, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Taylor Nelson, Research Assistant, University of Nevada, Reno This checklist is offered to increase year. With much adaptability among species, awareness of native and naturalized conifers some conifers can survive in very low present in Nevada. Native conifers are those precipitation zones. However, most plantings found growing naturally in Nevada. require supplemental irrigation during and after Naturalized conifers are those introduced into establishment for best tree performance in a Nevada that are reproducing without human landscape. assistance in natural environs. They grow Junipers and the subalpine pines tolerate a above valleys on steppe or mountain slopes, wider range of soil salts than other conifers but many of these trees can be grown in urban found in Nevada. The alpine conifers prefer and community forests throughout Nevada. acid soils, but with few exceptions will grow in This is particularly so when large parks, travel soils with a pH less than pH 8. Most of the rest and utility corridors, and other areas are being tolerate the moderate alkaline soils in Nevada. restored or left “natural.” Native and naturalized plant species, such With few exceptions, when planting native as conifers, are important to all forms of life, and naturalized conifers, the site should mimic including vertebrates (large and small the natural environment of the species as mammals, birds, and fish) and invertebrates closely as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Obsidian Studies in the Truckee Meadows, Nevada
    REPORTS 151 Obsidian Studies in the Truckee population movements. For example, in a land­ Meadows, Nevada mark study of obsidian procurement patterns in northeastern California and south-central Oregon, JAMES HUTCHEVS and DWIGHT D. Hughes (1986) established that the identified obsid­ SIMONS ian sources represented are more numerous and Kautz Environmental Consultants, Inc., 5200 Neil Rd., more distant in skes characterized by temporally Suite 200, Reno, NV 89502. diagnostic EUco series projectile points than in skes dated to earlier or later periods. The Truckee Meadows is a well-watered val­ The relative abundance of obsidian from diverse ley in western Nevada with archaeological evi­ and distant sources provided the basis for suggest­ dence of aboriginal human occupation extend­ ing that the obsidian was procured indkectly by ex­ ing fi-om 150 B.P. to about 10,000 B.P. Obsid­ change through an extensive obsidian trade net­ ian samples from 27 archaeological sites in and around the Truckee Meadows (401 individual work which flourished during Elko times, but was specimens) have been analyzed for geochemical less expansive at other times (Hughes 1986). source determination, and 183 of these obsidian Using similar data, diachronic variability in rela­ specimens have been analyzed for hydration rind thicknesses. A total of 20 different obsid­ tive abundance of obsidian from diverse and distant ian sources in seven distinct geographic locali­ sources at skes in Drews Valley in south-central ties is represented in the combined obsidian Oregon has been explained by shifting settlement samples. Despite this great diversity, 46% of patterns and population movements of people who the sample obsidian was derived from local sources, while 38% was derived from the Mono are assumed to have procured their obsidian direct­ Basin in southeast California.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plants and Establishing the GLORIA Long-Term Climate Change Monitoring Protocol in the Alpine Sweetwater
    Rare Plants and Establishing the GLORIA Long-Term Climate Change Monitoring Protocol in the Alpine Sweetwater Mountains of Mono County, California Mark Darrach1, Adelia Barber2, Elizabeth Bergstrom3, Constance Millar4 1Corydalis Consulting, Pendleton, OR, 2University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 3USDA Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe N.F., Carson City, NV, 4USDA Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Albany, CA Abstract The GLORIA alpine climate monitoring program is a worldwide effort aimed at documenting precise vegetation changes - both compositional and as a function of cover - over time in alpine settings using a set protocol with permanent monumented multi-summit plots across a low to high alpine elevational gradient below the nival zone. While the program is still in its nascent stages in North America, several permanent GLORIA stations are now established in the California Sierra Nevada target region, including the White Mountains, Mt. Dunderberg, and Freel Peak south of Lake Tahoe. The GLORIA effort now includes a newly-established station in the Sweetwater Mountains of Mono County, California as of mid-July 2012. The Sweetwater Mountains comprise a spectacular suite of summits above timberline that offer the opportunity to observe the temporal and spatial progression of climate-induced modifications to vegetation on a unique geological substrate. Above timberline the Sweetwater Mountains displays one of the most botanically diverse and significant concentrations of rare vascular plants in an alpine setting in the continental United States, if not all of North America. The novel geologic setting of highly geothermally argillized acidic volcanic rocks at high elevation has allowed for the presence of a robust clay component in soils throughout the alpine portion of the range.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space Inventory and Assessment Report
    Open Space and Natural Resource Plan Open Space Inventory and Assessment Prepared for Washoe County 2601 Plumas St Reno, NV 89509 Prepared by Parametrix Wenk Associates 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 1000 1335 Elati Street Portland, OR 97232-4110 Denver, CO 80204 503-233-2400 303-628-0003 www.parametrix.com www.wenkla.com July 2007 │ Open Space and Natural Resource Management Plan CITATION Washoe County. 2007. Open Space Inventory and Assessment. Prepared by Parametrix and Wenk Associates, Portland, Oregon. July 2007. Open Space Inventory and Assessment Washoe County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT.................................................1-1 1.2 INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND ROLE OF THE REPORT..............................1-1 2. RESOURCE SCAN............................................................................................2-3 3. INVENTORY AND MAPPING............................................................................3-5 3.1 UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURES..........................................................................3-5 3.1.1 Scenic Areas.....................................................................................................3-5 3.1.2 Areas of Steep Slopes.......................................................................................3-6 3.2 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN .....................................3-6 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCE AREAS ..........................................................................3-7
    [Show full text]