DOCSLIB.ORG

Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California MAMMALIAN SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Prepared by: Daniel F. Williams February 1986 Department of Biological Sciences California State University, Stanislaus 801 W. Monte Vista Ave. Turlock, CA 95382 (209) 667-3446 Originally published in 1986 Re-formatted October 4, 2007 from online version at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/mammal_ssc.shtml ABSTRACT The native species of land mammals of California which currently do not have state or federal Threatened or Endangered Species status were investigated in order to identify those potentially threatened with extinction Investigations concentrated on determining historic and current distributions, habitat associations, population status, and the nature and proximity of threats of extinction. Information was developed primarily from the literature, museum records, and field notes, and from contacts with biologists with knowledge of current developments in the field. Detailed studies were conducted in some areas, but only cursory field work was undertaken in other areas of concern. Populations of 36 species and subspecies were considered to be potentially jeopardized. These are placed in three priority categories. The 13 taxa in the Highest Priority face a high probability of extinction if current trends continue; the 1.1 taxa in the Second Priority are definitely declining in population size and appear jeopardized, but the threats are less immediate; the 12 taxa in the Third Priority appear not to face extinction soon, but their populations are declining seriously or they are otherwise highly vulnerable to human developments. Information on distribution, population status, habitat, and taxonomy, and recommendations for management actions are presented for each species on the List of Concern. Brief remarks are included for 56 other taxa considered in developing the final List of Concern. Species limited to or primarily dependent upon riparian and wetland communities have been affected most severely by human developments. Five geographic areas of critical concern are: the Colorado River riparian corridor; the San Joaquin Valley lowlands, including grassland, riparian and wetland communities; the tidal marshes of the Los Angeles Basin; the tidal marshes of San Francisco and San Pablo bays; and the grasslands of the southern California coastal basins. Loss and fragmentation of mature and old- growth forests, lack of data on population structure of some game and fur-bearing species, and human disturbances of sensitive species are other important factors generating concerns for several species. 1/ Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86- l (June 1986). Supported by federal Endangered Species Act grant-in-aid funds for Nongame Bird and Mammal Section project E-W-4, IV-14.1; and by internal Nongame Bird and Mammal Section research funds. i MAMMALIAN SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA Daniel F. Williams Department of Biological Sciences California State University, Stanislaus Turlock, CA 95382 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................... ii Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ v Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ v Preface.......................................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................ vi Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Methods......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Highest Priority List ............................................................................................................... 11 Buena Vista Lake Shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus).............................................................................. 11 Suisun Shrew (Sorex ornatus sinuosus).............................................................................................. 11 Santa Catalina Shrew (Sorex ornatus willetti) .................................................................................... 13 Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes).................................................................. 15 Arizona Myotis (Myotis lucifugus occultus) ....................................................................................... 17 Arizona Cave Myotis (Myotis velifer velifer) ..................................................................................... 18 Riparian Brush Rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius) ...................................................................... 20 Point Arena Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa nigra) ...................................................................... 21 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus)................................................ 22 Pacific Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus)............................................................ 24 Tipton Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) ................................................................ 25 Colorado River Cotton Rat (Sigmodon arizonae plenus).................................................................... 27 Yuma Mountain Lion (Felis concolor browni)................................................................................... 28 Second Priority List ................................................................................................................ 30 Southern California Salt Marsh Shrew (Sorex ornatus salicornicus) ................................................. 30 California Leaf-nosed Bat (Macrotus californicus) ............................................................................ 31 Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii)............................................................................... 33 Pocketed Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida femorosacca) ............................................................................. 34 California Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis californicus)......................................................................... 35 Salinas Pocket Mouse (Perognathus inornatus psammophilus) ......................................................... 37 White-eared Pocket Mouse (Perognathus alticola alticola)............................................................... 39 Southern Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis limicola)............................................. 40 Riparian Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes riparia).................................................................................... 41 White-footed Vole (Arborimus albipes) ............................................................................................. 42 Point Reyes Jumping Mouse (Zapus trinotatus orarius) .................................................................... 43 Third Priority List .................................................................................................................. 44 Big Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida macrotis)............................................................................................. 44 Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)............................................................................................ 45 ii Oregon Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus klamathensis)................................................................ 47 Sierra Nevada Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus tahoensis) ........................................................... 48 Western White-tailed Hare (Lepus townsendii townsendii)................................................................ 49 Point Reyes Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa phaea)..................................................................... 51 Tehachapi Pocket Mouse (Perognathus alticola inexpectatus) .......................................................... 52 Short-nosed Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus)........................................................ 53 Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus)............................................................................................ 55 Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)........................................................................................... 57 American Badger (Taxidea taxus) ...................................................................................................... 59 Channel Islands Spotted Skunk (Spilogale gracilis amphiala)........................................................... 63 Other Candidates...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mammalian Chromosomes Volume8
    AN ATLAS OF MAMMALIAN CHROMOSOMES VOLUME8 T.C.HSU KURT BENIRSCHKE Section of Cytology, Department Department of Obstetries of Biology, The University of & Gynecology, School of Medicine, Texas M. D. Anderson Hospital and University of California, San Diego, Tumor Institute, Houston, Texas La Jolla, California SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC 1974 ~ All rights reserved, especially that of translation into foreign languages. It is also forbidden to reproduce this book, either whole or in part, by photomechanical means (photostat, microfilm, and/or microcard) or by other procedure without written permission from Springer Science+Business Media, LLC Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 67-19307 © 1974 by Springer Science+Business Media New York Originally published by Springer-Verlag New York Heidelberg Berlin in 1974 ISBN 978-1-4684-7995-9 ISBN 978-1-4615-6432-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-6432-4 Introduction to Volume 8 This series of Mammalian Chromosomes started before the advent of many revolutionary procedures for chromosome characterization. During the last few years, conventional karyotyping was found to be inadequate because the various ban ding techniques ofIer much more precise information. Unfortu­ nately, it is not feasible to induce banding from old slides, so that wh at was reported with conventional straining methods must remain until new material can be obtained. We present, in this volume, a few of these. We consider presenting the ban ding patterns of a few more important species such as man, mouse, rat, etc., in our future volumes. As complete sets (male and female ) of karyotypes are more and more diffi­ cult to come by, we begin to place two species in the same genus on one plate.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.3 Water Resources 4.3 Water Resources
    4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4.3 WATER RESOURCES This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the County, including a discussion of water quality, based on published and unpublished reports and data compiled by regional agencies. Agencies contacted include the United States Geological Survey, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section also identifies impacts that may result from the project. SETTING CLIMATE The local climate is considered warm desert receiving approximately six to eight inches of rainfall per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). Rainfall occurs primarily in the winter months, with lesser amounts falling in late summer and fall. Kings County would also be considered a dry climate since evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation.1 A common characteristic of dry climates, other than relatively small amounts of precipitation, is that the amount of precipitation received each year is highly variable. Generally, the lower the mean annual rainfall, the greater the year-to-year variability (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 1979). SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY The County is part of a hydrologic system referred to as the Tulare Lake Basin (Figure 4.3- 1). The management of water resources within the Tulare Lake Basin is a complex activity and is critical to the region’s agricultural operations. The County can be divided into three main hydrologic subareas: the northern alluvial fan and basin area (in the vicinity of the Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their distributaries), the Tulare Lake Zone, and the southwestern uplands (including the areas west of the California Aqueduct and Highway 5) (Figure 4.3-2).
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Wildlife Service Re-Thinks Protection for Buena Vista Lake Shrew
    u)pr hyhyyrivrvrpryhr vps4D92 ""&$ Fish and Wildlife Service re-thinks protection for Buena Vista Lake Shrew WASHINGTON, D.C. October 20, 2009 9:27am • Re-proposes 4,649 acres of critical habitat in Kern County • Would reverse earlier decision In another reversal of decisions made during the administration of former President George W. Bush, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing new protections for the Buena Lake shrew, a tiny mammal that lives in a small area of Kern County in the Central Valley. The FWS says it wants 4,649 acres in Kern County declared as critical habitat for the endangered animal, exactly the same acreage that it had first proposed in 2004. The announcement opens a 60-day public comment period. Earlier this month the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed itself on the economic impact of protecting the California habitat of the red-legged frog. It now says it is less than had been calculated. The new report on the frog strips out what some saw as political bias in the earlier estimates prepared for the George W. Bush administration. The new shrew proposal conforms to terms of a legal settlement resolving a challenge to the FWS’s final action on the earlier proposal, when it designated only 84 acres as critical habitat. In its settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, announced last July, the FWS agreed to re-propose the same areas it had proposed in 2004. In its 2005 final critical habitat rule the FWS excluded four areas it had initially proposed, determining at the time that commitments by landowners would provide significantly better protection for the shrew.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Freshwater Fishes: Status and Management
    California’s freshwater fishes: status and management Rebecca M. Quiñones* and Peter B. Moyle Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California at Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, 95616, USA * correspondence to [email protected] SUMMARY Fishes in Mediterranean climates are adapted to thrive in streams with dy- namic environmental conditions such as strong seasonality in flows. Howev- er, anthropogenic threats to species viability, in combination with climate change, can alter habitats beyond native species’ environmental tolerances and may result in extirpation. Although the effects of a Mediterranean cli- mate on aquatic habitats in California have resulted in a diverse fish fauna, freshwater fishes are significantly threatened by alien species invasions, the presence of dams, and water withdrawals associated with agricultural and urban use. A long history of habitat degradation and dependence of salmonid taxa on hatchery supplementation are also contributing to the decline of fish- es in the state. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which is also reducing suitable habitats through increases in temperatures and chang- es to flow regimes. Approximately 80% of freshwater fishes are now facing extinction in the next 100 years, unless current trends are reversed by active conservation. Here, we review threats to California freshwater fishes and update a five-tiered approach to preserve aquatic biodiversity in California, with emphasis on fish species diversity. Central to the approach are man- agement actions that address conservation at different scales, from single taxon and species assemblages to Aquatic Diversity Management Areas, wa- tersheds, and bioregions. Keywords: alien fishes, climate change, conservation strategy, dams Citation: Quiñones RM, Moyle PB (2015) California’s freshwater fishes: status and man- agement.
    [Show full text]
  • CATALINA CALIFORNIA QUAIL (Callipepla Californica Catalinensis) Paul W
    II SPECIES ACCOUNTS Andy Birch PDF of Catalina California Quail account from: Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. California Bird Species of Special Concern CATALINA CALIFORNIA QUAIL (Callipepla californica catalinensis) Paul W. Collins Criteria Scores Population Trend 0 Santa Range Trend 0 Barbara County Population Size 7.5 Range Size 10 Ventura Endemism 10 County Population Concentration 10 Threats 0 Los San Miguel Is. Santa Cruz Is. Angeles County Anacapa Is. Santa Rosa Is. Santa Barbara Is. Santa Catalina Is. San Nicolas Is. San Clemente Is. Current Year-round Range Historic Year-round Range County Boundaries Kilometers 20 10 0 20 Current and historic (ca. 1944) year-round range of the Catalina California Quail. Birds from Santa Catalina Island (perhaps brought by Native Americans) later introduced successfully to Santa Rosa (1935–1940) and Santa Cruz (late 1940s) islands, but unsuccessfully to San Nicolas Island (1962); quail from mainland populations of C. c. californica introduced unsuccessfully to Santa Cruz (prior to 1875) and San Clemente (late 19th century, 1913) islands. Catalina California Quail Studies of Western Birds 1:107–111, 2008 107 Studies of Western Birds No. 1 SPECIAL CONCERN PRIORITY HISTORIC RANGE AND ABUNDANCE Currently considered a Bird Species of Special IN CALIFORNIA Concern (year round), priority 3. This subspecies Grinnell and Miller (1944) described the Catalina was not included on prior special concern lists California Quail as a “common to abundant” (Remsen 1978, CDFG 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals of the California Desert
    MAMMALS OF THE CALIFORNIA DESERT William F. Laudenslayer, Jr. Karen Boyer Buckingham Theodore A. Rado INTRODUCTION I ,+! The desert lands of southern California (Figure 1) support a rich variety of wildlife, of which mammals comprise an important element. Of the 19 living orders of mammals known in the world i- *- loday, nine are represented in the California desert15. Ninety-seven mammal species are known to t ':i he in this area. The southwestern United States has a larger number of mammal subspecies than my other continental area of comparable size (Hall 1981). This high degree of subspeciation, which f I;, ; leads to the development of new species, seems to be due to the great variation in topography, , , elevation, temperature, soils, and isolation caused by natural barriers. The order Rodentia may be k., 2:' , considered the most successful of the mammalian taxa in the desert; it is represented by 48 species Lc - occupying a wide variety of habitats. Bats comprise the second largest contingent of species. Of the 97 mammal species, 48 are found throughout the desert; the remaining 49 occur peripherally, with many restricted to the bordering mountain ranges or the Colorado River Valley. Four of the 97 I ?$ are non-native, having been introduced into the California desert. These are the Virginia opossum, ' >% Rocky Mountain mule deer, horse, and burro. Table 1 lists the desert mammals and their range 1 ;>?-axurrence as well as their current status of endangerment as determined by the U.S. fish and $' Wildlife Service (USWS 1989, 1990) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Calif.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract: DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
    CALIFORNIA HISTORIC MILITARY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY VOLUME II: THE HISTORY AND HISTORIC RESOURCES OF THE MILITARY IN CALIFORNIA, 1769-1989 by Stephen D. Mikesell Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract: DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Prepared by: JRP JRP HISTORICAL CONSULTING SERVICES Davis, California 95616 March 2000 California llistoric Military Buildings and Stnictures Inventory, Volume II CONTENTS CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... i FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iv PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 COLONIAL ERA (1769-1846) .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Spanish-Mexican Era Buildings Owned by the Military ............................................... 2-8 2.2 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Version 2020-04-20 Dark Kangaroo Mouse (Microdipodops
    Version 2020-04-20 Dark Kangaroo Mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus) Species Status Statement. Distribution Dark kangaroo mouse is an inhabitant of the Great Basin Desert. Most of its distribution lies in Nevada and Utah, but it also occurs in small areas of California, Idaho, and Oregon (Auger and Black 2006, Hafner and Upham 2011). Within Utah, individual specimens of this species have been classified in two ways. They have either been attributed to one of two state-endemic subspecies (Microdipodops megacephalus leucotis and M. megacacephalus paululus) (Oliver 2018), or they have been attributed to one of three or four genetically distinct units (Hafner and Upham 2011, Light 2013, Andersen et al. 2013). Table 1. Utah counties currently occupied by this species. Dark Kangaroo Mouse BEAVER IRON JUAB MILLARD TOOELE Abundance and Trends When first described in the 1800’s, dark kangaroo mouse was considered locally common. Research in Utah over the last two decades failed to locate any individuals at most historically documented locations (Auger and Black 2006, Haug 2010, Phillips 2018). The Utah findings mirror rangewide concern of small, fragmented, and declining populations (Hafner and Upham 2011, Andersen et al. 2013). Statement of Habitat Needs and Threats to the Species. Habitat Needs Dark kangaroo mouse habitat generally consists of sandy shrubland with sparse vegetative cover. In Utah, most localities are in stabilized dunes along the margins of historical Lake Bonneville. Appropriate habitat is naturally fragmented and isolated. Threats to the Species Version 2020-04-20 Invasive plants, specifically cheatgrass, and the resulting changes in vegetative cover and fire cycle are the greatest threat to dark kangaroo mouse.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021
    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has an image (296) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (38) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 7. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Bos bison - American Bison 2. Oreamnos americanus - Mountain Goat 3. Ovibos moschatus - Muskox 4. Ovis canadensis - Bighorn Sheep 5. Ovis dalli - Thinhorn Sheep CERVIDAE - deer 1. Alces alces - Moose 2. Cervus canadensis - Wapiti (Elk) 3. Odocoileus hemionus - Mule Deer 4. Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed Deer 5. Rangifer tarandus -Caribou DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Delphinus delphis - Common Dolphin 2. Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned Pilot Whale 3. Grampus griseus - Risso's Dolphin 4. Lagenorhynchus albirostris - White-beaked Dolphin 5. Lissodelphis borealis - Northern Right-whale Dolphin 6. Orcinus orca - Killer Whale 7. Peponocephala electra - Melon-headed Whale 8. Pseudorca crassidens - False Killer Whale 9. Sagmatias obliquidens - Pacific White-sided Dolphin 10. Stenella coeruleoalba - Striped Dolphin 11. Stenella frontalis – Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 12. Steno bredanensis - Rough-toothed Dolphin 13. Tursiops truncatus - Common Bottlenose Dolphin MONODONTIDAE - narwhals, belugas 1. Delphinapterus leucas - Beluga 2. Monodon monoceros - Narwhal PHOCOENIDAE - porpoises 1. Phocoena phocoena - Harbor Porpoise 2. Phocoenoides dalli - Dall’s Porpoise PHYSETERIDAE - sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus – Sperm Whale TAYASSUIDAE - peccaries Dicotyles tajacu - Collared Peccary CARNIVORA (48) CANIDAE - dogs 1. Canis latrans - Coyote 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Interest and the Panamint Shoshone (E.G., Voegelin 1938; Zigmond 1938; and Kelly 1934)
    109 VyI. NOTES ON BOUNDARIES AND CULTURE OF THE PANAMINT SHOSHONE AND OWENS VALLEY PAIUTE * Gordon L. Grosscup Boundary of the Panamint The Panamint Shoshone, also referred to as the Panamint, Koso (Coso) and Shoshone of eastern California, lived in that portion of the Basin and Range Province which extends from the Sierra Nevadas on the west to the Amargosa Desert of eastern Nevada on the east, and from Owens Valley and Fish Lake Valley in the north to an ill- defined boundary in the south shared with Southern Paiute groups. These boundaries will be discussed below. Previous attempts to define the Panamint Shoshone boundary have been made by Kroeber (1925), Steward (1933, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1941) and Driver (1937). Others, who have worked with some of the groups which border the Panamint Shoshone, have something to say about the common boundary between the group of their special interest and the Panamint Shoshone (e.g., Voegelin 1938; Zigmond 1938; and Kelly 1934). Kroeber (1925: 589-560) wrote: "The territory of the westernmost member of this group [the Shoshone], our Koso, who form as it were the head of a serpent that curves across the map for 1, 500 miles, is one of the largest of any Californian people. It was also perhaps the most thinly populated, and one of the least defined. If there were boundaries, they are not known. To the west the crest of the Sierra has been assumed as the limit of the Koso toward the Tubatulabal. On the north were the eastern Mono of Owens River.
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTHEASTERN INYO Tt;OUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE SUPERPOSED MESOZOIC DEFOR~~TIONS~ }) SOUTHEASTERN INYO tt;OUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of 14aster of Science in Geology by Michael Robert Werner Janu(l.ry 3 i 979 The Thesis of Michael Robert Werner is approved: Or. L. Ehltg}rCSULA) Ca 1i forn i a State Un i vers ·j ty, Northridge ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ~1y respectful thanks to George Dunn£ for suggesting this study and for his helpful comments throughoutthe investigation. I am grateful also to Rick Miller and Perry Eh1ig VJho reviewed the manuscript in various stages of preparation. !'r1y special thanks to my parents for theit~ emotiona1 and 1ogistica·i support, and to Diane Evans who typed the first draft. Calvin Stevens and Duane Cavit, California State University~ San Jose, provided valuable information on stratigraphy; and Jean Ju11iand, geologist of the Desert Plan Staff, BLM, Riverside, made available aerial photographs of the study area.· The Department of Geosciences, California State University. Northridge pi·ovided computer time and financial support. Terry Dunn, CSUN, typed the fina1 manuscript. iii TAaLE OF CONTENTS p~~ ACKNOl~LEDGEHENTS. .. 111 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . vi ABSTRACT ... vii. INTRODUCTION 1 METHOD • 3 ROCK UNITS •. 5 PALEOZOIC STRATIGRAPHY . 5 Perdido Formation 7 Rest Spring Shale . .. 3 Keeler Canyon Formation 10 Owens Vulley Formation 14 MESOZOIC INTRUSIVE ROCKS . 16 • Hunter Mountain batholith 16 Andes 'ite porphyry di kas 17 CENOZOIC UNITS . 18 STRUCTURJl.L GEOLOGY 19 FOLDS • ~ . 19 Introduction 19 Folds in the Nelson Range . 21 F., - The San Lucas Canyon syncline 2"1 j r2 - Northwest-trending folds 31 Folds aajacent to the Hunter Mountain batholith 37 Folds in the Southeastern Inyo r'Jounta·ins 43 Southwest-trending folds 43 Northwest-trending folds .
    [Show full text]