Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
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 .......................................... -
51 Investigation of Nevada's 2009-2010 East Humboldt Range
17th Biennial Symposium Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council Investigation of Nevada’s 2009-2010 East Humboldt Range and Ruby Mountain Bighorn Dieoff CALEB MCADOO, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 60 Youth Center Road, Elko, NV 89801 PEREGRINE WOLFF, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 405 South 21st Street, Sparks, NV 89431 MIKE COX, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 1100 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512 Abstract: Coughing Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were first reported by sportsmen the second week in December 2009 in the Ruby Mountains. In late December sportsmen again reported coughing and ill bighorn sheep but this time in the adjacent East Humboldt Range approximately 30 miles from the Ruby Mountains core bighorn area. Rut-related ram movement between these 2 ranges mostly likely occurs. Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) quickly confirmed that bacterial pneumonia was present in the bighorn herds in both mountain ranges. The NDOW veterinarian and biologists developed an investigative and surveillance plan to learn the extent of the disease event, and administer an antibiotic treatment to a subgroup of animals. Objectives of the plan were to 1) compare and contrast bighorn sub-herds at different sites within the 2 mountain ranges with animals evaluated for respiratory pathogens and nutritional status (forage quality and trace mineral levels); 2) measure the benefit and effectiveness of the antibiotic Draxxin administered to bighorn sheep as measured by survival, lamb recruitment, body condition, residual lung pathology, and detected pathogens in collared and treated animals vs collared and untreated animals.; and 3) compare and contrast forage, soil, and blood and/or liver selenium levels; pathogen profiles; spring/early summer 2009 precipitation amounts; and forage quality measures among the East Humboldt Range and Ruby Mountain bighorn herds and other bighorn herds in Nevada that were captured in January 2010. -
High-Mtn-Lakes.Pdf
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE STATEWIDE SPORT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FEDERAL AID JOB PROGRESS REPORT F-20-50 2014 RUBY MOUNTAIN & EAST HUMBOLDT HIGH MOUNTAIN LAKES NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES DIVISION ANNUAL JOB PROGRESS REPORT Table of Contents Contents Page SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 OBJECTIVES and APPROACHES ................................................................................. 2 PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................... 3 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 3 MANAGEMENT REVIEW ............................................................................................... 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 7 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES DIVISION ANNUAL JOB PROGRESS REPORT State: Nevada Project Title: Statewide Fisheries Program Job Title: Ruby Mountain and East Humboldt High Mountain Lakes Period Covered: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 SUMMARY During 2014, none of the high mountain lakes in the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range was aerially stocked with Lahontan cutthroat trout fry due to the unavailability of -
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 -
LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Travel Analysis Process
LAKE TAHOE BASIN United States MANAGEMENT UNIT Department of Agriculture Forest Service Travel Analysis Process January 2012 Kjar, J. Craig. 2011. Travel Analysis Process. Boise, Idaho. Prepared for U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, California. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – Setting Up the Analysis ....................................... 1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1 Scale ............................................................................................................................................ 1 How the Report Will be Used ..................................................................................................... 2 Roles of Specialists ..................................................................................................................... 2 Identification of Information Sources ......................................................................................... 2 Analysis Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2 - Describing the Situation ....................................... 4 Existing Road System and Direction .......................................................................................... 4 Forest Highways and Scenic Byways ......................................................................................... 6 Forest Highways -
5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction with the Watershed
Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment 5. Human Interaction With the Watershed 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction With the Watershed The purpose of this section is to summarize human activities that have had some effect on the Carson River watershed in Alpine County, California. Regional prehistory and ethnography are summarized by Nevers (1976), Elston (1982), d’Azevedo (1986), and Lindstrom et al. (2000). Details of regional history can be found in Maule (1938), Jackson (1964), Dangberg (1972), Clark (1977), Murphy (1982), Marvin (1997), and other sources. A book published by the Centennial Book Committee (1987) contains an excellent selection of historic photographs. Particularly useful is a study on the historical geography of Alpine County by Howatt (1968). 5.1.1 Prehistoric Land Use Human habitation of the Upper Carson River Watershed extends thousands of years back into antiquity. Archaeological evidence suggests use of the area over at least the last 8,000 to 9,000 years. For most of that time, the land was home to small bands of Native Americans. Their number varied over time, depending on regional environmental conditions. For at least the last 2,000 years, the Washoe occupied the Upper Carson River Watershed. Ethnographic data provides clues as to past land use and land management practices (see extended discussions in Downs 1966; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Lindstrom et al. 2000; Rucks 2002). A broad range of aboriginal harvesting and hunting practices, fishing, and camp tending would have affected the landscape and ecology of the study area. Shrubs such as service berry and willow were pruned to enhance growth. -
Cretaceous and Eocene U-Pb Zircon Migmatite Ages from the East Humboldt Range Metamorphic Core Complex, Nevada
UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 5-1-2013 Cretaceous and Eocene U-Pb Zircon Migmatite Ages from the East Humboldt Range Metamorphic Core Complex, Nevada Jordan Drew University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Geology Commons, and the Volcanology Commons Repository Citation Drew, Jordan, "Cretaceous and Eocene U-Pb Zircon Migmatite Ages from the East Humboldt Range Metamorphic Core Complex, Nevada" (2013). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1820. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/4478229 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRETACEOUS AND EOCENE U-PB ZIRCON MIGMATITE AGES FROM THE EAST HUMBOLDT RANGE METAMORPHIC CORE COMPLEX, NEVADA By Jordan Drew Bachelor of Arts University of Kentucky 2009 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment -
Regional Transportation Plan
MONO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Mono County Local Transportation Commission Mono County Community Development Department Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Development Department MONO COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS Fred Stump, Chair (Mono County) Shields Richardson, Vice-Chair (Mammoth Lakes) Jo Bacon (Mammoth Lakes) Tim Fesko (Mono County) Larry Johnston (Mono County) Sandy Hogan (Mammoth Lakes) STAFF Mono County Scott Burns, LTC Director Gerry Le Francois, Principal Planner Wendy Sugimura, Associate Analyst Jeff Walters, Public Works Director Garrett Higerd, Associate Engineer Courtney Weiche, Associate Planner C.D. Ritter, LTC Secretary Megan Mahaffey, Fiscal Analyst Town of Mammoth Lakes Haislip Hayes, Associate Civil Engineer Jamie Robertson, Assistant Engineer Caltrans District 9 Brent Green, District 9 Director Ryan Dermody, Deputy District 9 Director Planning, Modal Programs, and Local Assistance Denee Alcala, Transportation Planning Branch Supervisor Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) John Helm, Executive Director Jill Batchelder, Program Coordinator TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 Transportation Directives .......................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Needs and Issues .................................................................................................................. -
Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan
SIERRA NEVADA ECOREGIONAL PLAN December 1999 Photo Courtesy Charles Webber Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 2 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan: Craig Mayer Pam Weiant Larry Serpa Christine Tam Robin Cox Jim Gaither 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777-0487 3 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 4 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Ecoregional Plan A. Executive Summary ……………………………………………….. 7 B. Purpose ……………………………………………………… 9 C. Description of Ecoregion ……………………………………… 9 D. Conservation Issues ……………………………………………… 11 E. Data Sources and Management ……………………………… 11 F. Conservation Targets ……………………………………… 12 G. Conservation Goals ……………………………………………… 12 H. Portfolio Assembly ……………………………………………… 14 I. Portfolio Results ……………………………………………… 15 J. Evaluation of Conservation Lands ………………………………… 25 K. Functional Aggregations …………….……………………………… 25 L. Selecting Action Areas ……………………………………………… 26 2. Analysis and Results by Ecological Group A. Aquatic Systems ……………………………………………… 35 B. Riparian ……………………………………………………… 49 C. Foothill Woodlands ……………………………………………… 61 D. Chaparral ……………………………………………………… 67 E. Montane and Subalpine Coniferous Forests ……………………… 75 F. Interior Wetlands Meadow, and Aspen ……………………… 81 G. Alpine ……………………………………………………… 95 H. Desert Scrub and Woodland ……………………………………… 101 I. Isolated Rare Plants ……………………………………………… 107 J. Common and Widespread Communities ……………………… 111 3. References and Contacts ……………………………………………. 115 4. Appendices ……………………………………………………… 127 Appendix I. Conservation -
NEVADA CALIF Ecogroup.Indd
Eastern Sierra Eastern Sierra Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Scattered pieces of a national treasure where adventures come together H U M B O L D T - T O I Y A B E N A T I O N A L F O R E S T USDA Department of Agriculture • Forest Service Intermountain Region • Ogden, Utah Bridgeport Ranger District’s Hoover Wilderness in eastern California 23.260.419.01/01 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest WHERE ADVENTURES COME TOGETHER Santa Rosa Ranger District’s Santa Rosa Peak Spring Mountains National Recreation Area’s Mummy Mountain Hoover Wilderness he Humboldt-Toiyabe’s spectacular 6.3 million acres make up the largest national forest in the lower 48 states. TTen distinctive ranger districts are scat- tered like an intriguing puzzle across Nevada and a small portion of eastern California. Each piece contains its own unusual features, which offer unlimited rec- reation. The ranger districts vary from hardy “desert scapes” to snow-capped mountains with lush alpine meadows and timbered canyons. A world of discovery Indian Paintbrush awaits those who explore the Forest’s rich historic past. The following page displays the districts and lists numbers and web- sites. Bristlecone pine: one of the oldest known living tree species. Ruby Mountains Ranger District’s Echo Canyon Bridgeport Ranger District’s East Lake in the Hoover Wilderness Contacts . Scattered pieces of a national treasure: Humboldt Toiyabe Headquarters (Sparks) ................................ 775-355-5301 www.fs.fed.us/r4/htnf/ Carson Ranger District (Carson City) .................................. 775-882-2766 bringing it all together . Bridgeport Ranger District (Bridgeport, CA) ..................... -
Glacial Chronology of the Ruby Mountains–East Humboldt Range, Nevada William J
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Department of 1984 Glacial Chronology of the Ruby Mountains–East Humboldt Range, Nevada William J. Wayne University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub Part of the Geology Commons, Geomorphology Commons, and the Glaciology Commons Wayne, William J., "Glacial Chronology of the Ruby Mountains–East Humboldt Range, Nevada" (1984). Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. 507. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/geosciencefacpub/507 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. W. J. Wayne in Quaternary Research 21 (1984) 1 Published in Quaternary Research 21 (1984), pp. 286-303. digitalcommons.unl.edu Copyright © 1984 by the University of Washington. Published by Elsevier. Used by permission. Submitted May 17, 1982. Glacial Chronology of the Ruby Mountains–East Humboldt Range, Nevada William J. Wayne Department of Geology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588 Abstract The Ruby Mountains-East Humboldt Range, one of the interior mountain groups of the Basin and Range Province, lies about midway between the Wasatch Mountains and the Sierra Nevada. After Blackwelder’s description in his review of glaciation in the western mountains, Sharp mapped and named the deposits of the Lamoille and Angel Lake glaciations and correlated them with early and late Wisconsin deposits of the Great Lakes area. -
Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States
Jump to Navigation Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States As of January 12, 2017, the USGS maintains a limited number of metadata fields that characterize the Quaternary faults and folds of the United States. For the most up-to-date information, please refer to the interactive fault map. Ruby Mountains fault zone (Class A) No. 1573 Last Review Date: 1998-10-07 citation for this record: Sawyer, T.L., Oswald, J.A., Rowley, P.C., and Anderson, R.E., compilers, 1998, Fault number 1573, Ruby Mountains fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 12/14/2020 02:36 PM. Synopsis The Ruby Mountains fault zone consists of three, generally northeast-striking, left-stepping faults, each of which are 25–35 km long that bound the northwest side of the northern Ruby Mountains and the East Humboldt Range. The faults generally follow the range-front however, locally they extend onto the piedmont. Within this zone, faults juxtapose Quaternary alluvium against bedrock and form scarps and lineaments on Quaternary alluvium adjacent to the range front and on piedmont slopes. The East Humboldt Range and Ruby Mountains form a prominent west-tilted horst block and is the highest range between the Sierra Nevada and the Wasatch Mountains. In general, reconnaissance and detailed geologic study and photogeologic mapping of fault related features are the main sources of data. A brief descriptions of one trench site is currently available. Late and latest Pleistocene deposits are offset suggesting strong evidence for Pleistocene deposits are offset suggesting strong evidence for young movement as well as recurrent movement in the past 200 k.y.