DOCSLIB.ORG

Travel Analysis Process for the Carson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Travel Analysis Process for the Carson Travel Analysis Process United States Department of for the Agriculture Forest Service Carson February 2011 Ranger District Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 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). 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). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Resource Report Engineering Travel Analysis Process September 2010 Location: Alpine County, California Sierra County, California Carson City County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Washoe County, Nevada Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region (R4) Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest This travel analysis process (TAP) report provides information related to travel analysis in conjunction with the identification and management of the minimum road system on the Carson Ranger District. This TAP includes recommendations that the district can use to identify where both NFS roads and unauthorized routes could be decommissioned, or added to the Forest Transportation System (FTS) to improve recreation access, administration, and protection of the National Forest System lands on the district. This TAP also includes preliminary analysis of the effects of the FTS on biophysical and human resources. Any physical closures, additions, or changes to the FTS pursued by the district based on the recommendations in this TAP would have to be analyzed with the appropriate level of NEPA. This TAP was drafted by an interdisciplinary team from the Carson Ranger District and the Forest Supervisor’s Office of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................... 1 PROCESS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 PRODUCTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 TRAVEL ANALYSIS REPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 2 PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 2 MANAGEMENT AREA DIRECTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................ 4 ROAD MAINTENANCE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2: DESCRIBING THE SITUATION ..................................................................................................... 7 EXISTING ROAD AND TRAIL SYSTEM AND HISTORIC USE .................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFYING ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 9 KEY ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS, AND RISKS .......................................................................... 11 ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS AND PROCESSES (EF) ............................................................................................................ 11 AQUATIC, RIPARIAN ZONE, AND WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................................... 13 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE .......................................................................................................................................... 21 HERITAGE RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................... 25 FOREST PRODUCTS ................................................................................................................................................ 27 SPECIAL‐USE PERMITS ........................................................................................................................................... 28 GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................... 28 ADMINISTRATIVE USES .......................................................................................................................................... 28 UNROADED RECREATION ........................................................................................................................................ 30 ROAD‐RELATED RECREATION ................................................................................................................................... 32 SOCIAL ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 ECONOMIC ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................ 34 CHAPTERS 5 /6: DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES, RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 36 THE MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................ 36 ACTIONS THAT RESPOND TO THE ISSUES .................................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX B: REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX D: FOREST PLAN DIRECTION ...................................................................................................... 83 i Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District ii Travel Analysis Report Carson Ranger District 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 (FR 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 (OHV) on National Forest System (NFS) lands. One of the purposes of these policies and rules is to ensure travel analysis is carried out for NFS roads and NFS trails. Travel analysis provides the information needed to ensure the forest transportation system (FTS) will: • Provide safe access and meet the needs of communities and forest users. • Facilitate the implementation of the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended. • 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 travel management regulation combine the analysis of trails and roads under the travel analysis process (TAP). The Travel Management Rule requires each administrative unit (national forest, national grassland, etc.) or ranger district to designate those 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 are described in FSM 7700 Travel Management; FSM 7710 (Travel Planning); FSM 7730 (Road Operations); FSM 2350 (Trails); FSH 7709.55 (Travel Analysis); FSH 7709.59 (Road Operations); FSH 2309.18 (Trail Operations). Process Travel analysis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • William J. Keith1, Maurice A. Chaffee*, Donald Plouffl, and Michael S
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-1416-B UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE CARSON-ICEBERG ROADLESS AREAS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA SUMMARY REPORT By William J. Keith1, Maurice A. Chaffee*, Donald Plouffl, and Michael S. Miller2 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and the Joint Conference Report on Senate Bill 4, 88th Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the Carson-Iceberg Roadless Areas, Stanislaus and Toiyabe National Forests, Alpine and Tuolumne Counties, California. The Carson-Iceberg was established as a wilderness study area under the Joint Conference Report on Senate Bill 4, 88th Congress. It was later classified as recommended wilderness (C4-986 and C5-986) and further planning (B5-986) during the Second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE n) by the U.S. Forest Service, January 1979.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Conditions Introduction
    Chapter 4 Highway Conditions Introduction The Ebbetts Pass National Scenic Byway (NBS) began as a trail that American Indians most likely used for trade and a hunting access route, and was later utilized by fur trappers. By the early to mid 1800’s pioneers and miners crossed over the pass. With the discovery of silver and the demand for more supplies to be delivered to the region, so came improvements to the road. Today, the highway itself is managed and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). The road twists you further into the mountains narrowing with no centerline near Lake Alpine as it separates both the Carson-Iceberg and Mokelumne Wildernesses, luring the traveler farther away from society. The journey takes one both physically and psychologically closer to wildness. Beyond the crest of Ebbetts Pass, the descent winds through a rugged volcanic landscape overlooking the canyons below. This asphalt ribbon transitions back to a distinct, 2-lane highway with a centerline when you reach the floor of Silver Creek, just east of Silver Creek Campground. This portion of the byway is steep, narrow, and windy, and is not suitable for semi trucks, buses, and most Recreational Vehicles (RV’s). It is best left for smaller vehicle travel. Average Daily Traffic CalTrans collects data annually that reflects the number of vehicles that travel along Highway 4 in a given month. This data is compiled into average annual daily traffic counts (AADT). AADT numbers are calculated using electronic highway counters, determining the yearly figure and dividing by 365 days/year.
    [Show full text]
  • Birth of a Plate Boundary at Ca. 12 Ma in the Ancestral Cascades Arc, Walker Lane Belt of California and Nevada
    Origin and Evolution of the Sierra Nevada and Walker Lane themed issue Birth of a plate boundary at ca. 12 Ma in the Ancestral Cascades arc, Walker Lane belt of California and Nevada Cathy J. Busby Department of Earth Science, University of California–Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA ABSTRACT Sierra Nevada range front (from Long Valley The Sierra Nevada frontal fault system was to the Tahoe Basin) lies squarely within the previously interpreted to accommodate Basin The Walker Lane belt of eastern Califor- Walker Lane belt, not to the west of it as pre- and Range extension (Bateman and Wahrhaftig, nia and western Nevada is the northernmost vious workers have inferred. 1966; Surpless et al., 2002), but recent GPS extension of the Gulf of California transten- The leading tip of Walker Lane transten- and earthquake focal mechanism studies have sional rift, where the process of continental sion is marked by large arc volcanic cen- shown that the faults currently accommodate rupture has not yet been completed, and rift ters sited in transtensional stepovers; these NW-SE–directed movement between the Sierra initiation can be studied on land. GPS and include the ca. 11.5–9 Ma Sierra Crest–Little Nevada microplate and the North American earthquake focal mechanism studies dem- Walker volcanic center; north of that, the ca. plate (shown on Fig. 3; Sonder and Jones, 1999; onstrate that the Walker Lane belt currently 6.3–4.8 Ma Ebbetts Pass volcanic center; and Unruh et al., 2003). The question is, when did accommodates NW-SE–directed movement north of that, the active Lassen volcanic cen- NW-SE Walker Lane transtension replace E-W between the Sierra Nevada microplate and ter.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • California Water Trust Network
    RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Geographic Response Plan
    Carson River Geographic Response Plan Final Alpine County, California and Douglas, Carson City, Lyon, Churchill Counties, Nevada April 2006 Prepared by: Carson & Walker Rivers Area Committee (CWRAC) Carson River Geographic Response Plan April 2006 Acknowledgements The Carson River Geographic Response Plan (CRGRP) was developed through a collaborative effort between the local, state, and federal government agencies listed below. Local Government • Carson City Fire • Douglas County Emergency Management • East Fork Fire and Paramedic District • Lyon County Sheriff’s Office • Mason Valley Fire • Mono County Conservation District State Government • California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response • California Office of Emergency Services • Nevada Division of Emergency Management • Nevada Division of Environmental Protection • Nevada Highway Patrol Tribal Government • Washo Tribe Federal Government • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Department of Agriculture Carson Valley Conservation District • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX o U.S. EPA Region IX Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START), Ecology & Environment, Inc. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service i Carson River Geographic Response Plan April 2006 If this is an Emergency… …Involving a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other contaminants impacting public health and/or the environment Most important – Protect yourself and others! Then: 1) Turn to the Immediate Action Guide (Yellow Tab) for initial steps taken in a hazardous material, petroleum product, or other contaminant emergency. 2) Make the initial notification to Dispatch by dialing 911. Dispatch will make the Mandatory Notifications. A list of county dispatch centers is on page R-2 of this plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006
    DRAFT Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006 DRAFT Prepared for: CARSON CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 3303 Butti Way, Building #9 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Prepared by: RESOURCE CONCEPTS, INC. 340 N. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703-4152 Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006 DRAFT Prepared for: CARSON CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 3303 Butti Way, Building #9 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Prepared by: RESOURCE CONCEPTS, INC. 340 N. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703-4152 DRAFT Table of Contents Page 10.0 CARSON RIVER AQUATIC TRAIL...........................................................................1 10.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CARSON RIVER..................................................................... 1 10.1.1 River Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 1 10.1.2 General River Terminology.............................................................................................. 3 10.1.3 River Anatomy and Common River Hazards.................................................................... 4 10.1.4 Hazardous Dams on the Carson River............................................................................. 5 10.2 JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 10.2.1 The State of Nevada.......................................................................................................... 5 10.2.2 Property
    [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]
  • Carson River Watershed Adaptive Stewardship Plan, Part 1
    CARSON RIVER WATERSHED “Our Lifeline in the Desert” Adaptive Stewardship Plan Prepared by: CarsonCarson WaterWater SSubconservancyubconservancy DDistrictistrict Alpine County, California Carson City, Nevada Churchill County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Lyon County, Nevada CarsonCarson RiverRiver CoalitionCoalition CarsonCarson ValleyValley ConservationConservation DistrictDistrict DaytonDayton ValleyValley ConservationConservation DistrictDistrict WesternWestern NevadaNevada ResourceResource ConservationConservation andand DevelopmentDevelopment NaturalNatural ResourcesResources ConservationConservation ServiceService LyonLyon CountyCounty GISGIS DepartmentDepartment C.G.C.G. CelioCelio andand SonsSons Co.Co. Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Water Quality Planning June 2006 DRAFT CARSON RIVER WATERSHED “Our Lifeline in the Desert” Adaptive Stewardship Plan Prepared by: Carson Water Subconservancy District Alpine County, California Carson City, Nevada Churchill County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Lyon County, Nevada Lyon County GIS Department Carson Valley Conservation District Dayton Valley Conservation District Western Nevada Resource Conservation and Development Natural Resource Conservation Service C.G. Celio and Sons Co. In Cooperation with: Carson River Coalition Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Water Quality Planning May 2007 Carson River Watershed Stewardship Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following were
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment
    Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment Prepared For: Alpine Watershed Group and the Sierra Nevada Alliance P. O. Box 7989 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158 Prepared By: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology 1572 East College Parkway, Suite 162 115 Limekiln Road Carson City, Nevada 89706 Santa Cruz, California 95062 River Run Consulting C. G. Celio & Sons P.O. Box 8538 P.O. Box 734 Truckee, California 96162 Minden, Nevada 89423 June, 2004 Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment Copies of this report may be requested from: SIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE P. O. BOX 7989 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 (530) 542-4546 MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING 1572 EAST COLLEGE PARKWAY, SUITE 162 CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89706 (775) 888-9992 Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through a contract with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) pursuant to the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13) and any amendments thereto for the implementation of California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the SWRCB, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment project was performed by a consulting team comprised of MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, River Run Consulting, Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology, and C.G. Celio & Sons. MACTEC acted as the prime contractor, working directly with representatives of the Alpine Watershed Group and the Sierra Nevada Alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpine Decree
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVAD A THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil No . D-183 BRT Plaintiff, vs. ALPINE LAND & RESERVOIR COMPANY, a corporation, et al . , Defendants . FINAL DECRE E FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW , TABULATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FINDINGS OF FAC T I. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to thi s proceeding . II. The Carson River and its tributaries are interstate streams and the waters of th e Carson River and its tributaries are fully appropriated . III. Under the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, the United States, acting by th e Secretary of the Interior, on July 2, 1902, withdrew from public entry, excepting under the home - stead laws in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the lands required for the government' s first reclamation project, now known as the Newlands Project . IV. The United States has diligently proceeded with the construction of the Newland s Project and has expended over Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) in that construction . The works s o constructed have been used for many years for the storage of Carson River water and the distribu- tion thereof to Project lands . The principal structure of the Project is the Lahontan Reservoi r which was completed at a cost of approximately One Million lour Hundred Thousand Dollar s ($1,400,000) . Lahontan Reservoir has a capacity of 295,149 acre-feet to the spillway crest . With 20 inch flashboards on the crest, the capacity is 317,280 acre-feet .
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Walker Lane Pull-Apart Basins in the Ancestral Cascades Arc, Central Sierra Nevada, California GEOSPHERE; V
    Research Paper THEMED ISSUE: Origin and Evolution of the Sierra Nevada and Walker Lane GEOSPHERE A tale of two Walker Lane pull-apart basins in the ancestral Cascades arc, central Sierra Nevada, California GEOSPHERE; v. 14, no. 5 Cathy J. Busby1, K. Putirka2, Benjamin Melosh3, Paul R. Renne4,5, Jeanette C. Hagan6, Megan Gambs7, and Catherine Wesoloski1 1Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01398.1 2Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, California State University, Fresno, California 93720, USA 3U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA 15 figures; 1 table; 1 set of supplemental files; 4Berkeley Geochronology Center, 2455 Ridge Road, Berkeley, California 94709, USA 2 oversized figures 5Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA 6Exxon Mobil, Houston, Texas 77389, USA 7School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105, USA CORRESPONDENCE: cjbusby@ ucdavis .edu CITATION: Busby, C.J., Putirka, K., Melosh, B., Renne, P.R., Hagan, J.C., Gambs, M., and Wesoloski, ABSTRACT ter is dominated by Stanislaus Group basalt, trachybasaltic andesite, trachy- C., 2018, A tale of two Walker Lane pull-apart basins andesite, and andesite. Climactic eruptions at its southern end produced the in the ancestral Cascades arc, central Sierra Nevada, We integrate new geochronological, petrographic, and geochemical data Little Walker caldera and its Stanislaus Group trachydacite
    [Show full text]