DOCSLIB.ORG

Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist STATE OF NEVADA Steve Sisolak, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director GAME DIVISION Brian F. Wakeling, Chief Mike Cox, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Staff Specialist Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region Regional Supervisors Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Travis Allen Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Clint Garrett Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Sarah Hale Ed Partee Kari Huebner Jason Salisbury Matt Jeffress Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Scott Roberts This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following: Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500 via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 2018-2019 BIG GAME STATUS This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)’s CFDA Program 15.611 and is made under the authority of: Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, 16 U.S.C. 669-669k. Compiled and Edited by: Mike Cox, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Staff Specialist Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Brian Wakeling, Game Division Chief Mike Scott, Regional Supervising Biologist Tom Donham, Regional Supervising Biologist Steve Kimble, Regional Supervising Biologist TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR STATUS REPORTS BIG GAME STATUS STATEWIDE SUMMARY ................................................... SS-1 MULE DEER ............................................................................................ 1 UNITS 011 – 013; NORTHERN WASHOE AND WESTERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES .................................................. 1 UNIT 014: GRANITE RANGE, WASHOE COUNTY ................................................................................ 2 UNIT 015: INTERSTATE DEER HERD; DRY VALLEY RIM, BUFFALO HILLS, COPPERSMITH HILLS, WASHOE COUNTY .............. 3 UNIT 021: INTERSTATE DEER HERD; PETERSEN MOUNTAINS, DOGSKIN MOUNTAINS, FORT SAGE MOUNTAINS .................. 4 UNIT 022: VIRGINIA MOUNTAINS, PAH RAH MOUNTAINS, FOX RANGE .......................................................... 5 UNITS 031, 032, 034, 035: WESTERN HUMBOLDT COUNTY................................................................... 6 UNIT 033: SHELDON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; WASHOE AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES ....................................... 7 UNITS 041, 042: WESTERN PERSHING AND SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES .................................................. 8 UNITS 043 – 046: EASTERN PERSHING AND SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES .................................................. 8 UNIT 051: SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS; EASTERN HUMBOLDT COUNTY ........................................................... 9 UNITS 061 – 062, 064, 066 – 068: INDEPENDENCE AND TUSCARORA RANGES; ELKO COUNTY ................................ 9 UNIT 065: PIÑON RANGE; SOUTHWESTERN ELKO COUNTY ................................................................... 10 UNITS 071 – 079, 091: NORTHEASTERN ELKO COUNTY ...................................................................... 11 UNIT 081: GOOSE CREEK AREA; NORTHEASTERN ELKO COUNTY ............................................................. 12 UNITS 101 – 109: SOUTHERN ELKO AND NORTHWESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ............................................ 13 UNITS 111 – 113: EASTERN WHITE PINE COUNTY ............................................................................ 14 UNITS 114 – 115: SNAKE RANGE; SOUTHEASTERN WHITE PINE COUNTY ..................................................... 15 UNIT 121: NORTH EGAN, CHERRY CREEK RANGES; WHITE PINE AND ELKO COUNTIES ........................................ 15 UNITS 131 – 134: SOUTHERN WHITE PINE, EASTERN NYE AND WESTERN LINCOLN COUNTIES ................................ 16 UNITS 141 – 145: EUREKA AND WESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ............................................................ 17 UNITS 151, 152, 154, 155: LANDER AND WESTERN EUREKA COUNTIES ..................................................... 18 UNITS 161 – 164: NORTH-CENTRAL NYE AND SOUTHERN LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES ................................... 19 UNITS 171 – 173: NORTHWESTERN NYE AND SOUTHERN LANDER COUNTIES .................................................. 20 UNITS 181 – 184: CHURCHILL, SOUTHERN PERSHING, AND WESTERN LANDER COUNTIES .................................... 20 UNIT 192: CARSON RIVER INTERSTATE HERD; DOUGLAS COUNTY ............................................................ 21 UNIT 194, 196: CARSON RANGE AND PEAVINE MOUNTAIN INTERSTATE HERD; WASHOE AND CARSON CITY COUNTIES ....... 22 UNIT 195: VIRGINIA RANGE; STOREY, WASHOE, AND LYON COUNTIES ....................................................... 22 UNITS 201, 202, 204 – 208: WALKER / MONO INTERSTATE DEER HERD; DOUGLAS, LYON, AND MINERAL COUNTIES ....... 23 UNIT 203: MASON AND SMITH VALLEY RESIDENT HERDS; LYON COUNTY ..................................................... 23 UNITS 211, 212: ESMERALDA COUNTY ....................................................................................... 24 UNITS 221 – 223: NORTHERN LINCOLN AND SOUTHERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES .............................................. 24 UNIT 231: WILSON CREEK RANGE; NORTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY ....................................................... 25 UNITS 241 – 245: CLOVER, DELAMAR, AND MEADOW VALLEY MOUNTAIN RANGES; LINCOLN COUNTY ........................ 26 UNITS 251-253: SOUTH CENTRAL NYE COUNTY ............................................................................. 26 UNITS 261 – 268: CLARK AND SOUTHERN NYE COUNTIES .................................................................... 27 UNITS 271, 272: SOUTHERN LINCOLN AND NORTHEASTERN CLARK COUNTIES ................................................ 27 UNIT 291: PINE NUT MOUNTAIN HERD; DOUGLAS COUNTY .................................................................. 28 ANTELOPE ............................................................................................ 29 UNIT 011: VYA AND MASSACRE RIMS, COLEMAN CANYON, BITNER TABLE .................................................... 29 UNIT 012 – 014: HIGH ROCK, LITTLE HIGH ROCK, HAYS CANYON, BOULDER MOUNTAIN, GRANITE RANGE, CALICO RANGE . 30 UNIT 015: BUFFALO HILLS, DRY VALLEY RIM, COPPERSMITH HILLS .......................................................... 31 UNITS 021, 022: VIRGINIA MOUNTAINS, DOGSKIN MOUNTAINS, PETERSEN MOUNTAINS, SEVEN LAKES MOUNTAINS, FORT SAGE MOUNTAINS, LAKE RANGE, FOX RANGE ...................................................................... 32 UNITS 031, 032, 034, 035, 051: HUMBOLDT COUNTY ..................................................................... 33 UNIT 033: SHELDON ......................................................................................................... 34 UNITS 041, 042: WESTERN PERSHING AND SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES ................................................ 35 UNITS 043 – 046: EASTERN PERSHING AND SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES ................................................ 36 UNITS 061, 062, 064, 071, 073: NORTH CENTRAL ELKO COUNTY ......................................................... 36 UNITS 065, 142, AND A PORTION OF 144: SOUTHERN ELKO COUNTY, NORTHERN EUREKA COUNTY ......................... 37 UNIT 066: OWYHEE DESERT; NORTHWESTERN ELKO COUNTY ................................................................ 38 UNITS 067, 068: WESTERN ELKO AND NORTHERN LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES .......................................... 38 UNITS 072, 074, 075: NORTHEASTERN ELKO COUNTY ...................................................................... 39 UNITS 076, 077, 079, 081, 091: NORTHEASTERN ELKO COUNTY .......................................................... 40 UNITS 078, 105 – 107, 121: SOUTHEASTERN ELKO AND CENTRAL WHITE PINE COUNTIES .................................. 41 UNITS 101 – 104, 108, 109 AND A PORTION OF 144: SOUTH CENTRAL ELKO AND WESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ........ 41 UNITS 111 – 114: EASTERN WHITE PINE COUNTY ............................................................................ 42 UNITS 115, 231, 242: EASTERN LINCOLN AND SOUTHERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ........................................... 43 UNITS 131, 145, 163, 164: SOUTHERN EUREKA, NORTHEASTERN NYE, AND SOUTHWESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ....... 44 UNITS 132-134, 245: EASTERN NYE AND WESTERN LINCOLN COUNTIES ..................................................... 45 UNITS 141, 143, 151 – 156: EASTERN LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES ..................................................... 46 UNITS 161 – 162: NORTHERN NYE, SOUTHEASTERN LANDER, AND SOUTHWESTERN
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions
    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
    [Show full text]
  • Moüjmtaiim Operations
    L f\f¿ áfó b^i,. ‘<& t¿ ytn) ¿L0d àw 1 /1 ^ / / /This publication contains copyright material. *FM 90-6 FieW Manual HEADQUARTERS No We DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 30 June 1980 MOÜJMTAIIM OPERATIONS PREFACE he purpose of this rUanual is to describe how US Army forces fight in mountain regions. Conditions will be encountered in mountains that have a significant effect on. military operations. Mountain operations require, among other things^ special equipment, special training and acclimatization, and a high decree of self-discipline if operations are to succeed. Mountains of military significance are generally characterized by rugged compartmented terrain witn\steep slopes and few natural or manmade lines of communication. Weather in these mountains is seasonal and reaches across the entireSspectrum from extreme cold, with ice and snow in most regions during me winter, to extreme heat in some regions during the summer. AlthoughNthese extremes of weather are important planning considerations, the variability of weather over a short period of time—and from locality to locahty within the confines of a small area—also significantly influences tactical operations. Historically, the focal point of mountain operations has been the battle to control the heights. Changes in weaponry and equipment have not altered this fact. In all but the most extreme conditions of terrain and weather, infantry, with its light equipment and mobility, remains the basic maneuver force in the mountains. With proper equipment and training, it is ideally suited for fighting the close-in battfe commonly associated with mountain warfare. Mechanized infantry can\also enter the mountain battle, but it must be prepared to dismount and conduct operations on foot.
    [Show full text]
  • Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana
    Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana Joseph E. Worthington Idaho Geological Survey University of Idaho Technical Report 07-3 Moscow, Idaho ISBN 1-55765-515-4 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Molybdenum Vein Deposits ...................................................................... 2 Tertiary Molybdenum Deposits ................................................................. 2 Little Falls—1 ............................................................................. 3 CUMO—2 .................................................................................. 3 Red Mountain Prospect—45 ...................................................... 3 Rocky Bar District—43 .............................................................. 3 West Eight Mile—37 .................................................................. 3 Devil’s Creek Prospect—46 ....................................................... 3 Walton—8 .................................................................................. 4 Ima—3 ........................................................................................ 4 Liver Peak (a.k.a. Goat Creek)—4 ............................................. 4 Bald Butte—5 ............................................................................. 5 Big Ben—6 ................................................................................. 6 Emigrant Gulch—7 ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Management Plan
    Chapter 2 Management Plan Mahogany Canyon in the High Rock Canyon Wilderness 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter contains objectives and decisions for managing the natural, physical and cultural resources described in the Act and those located in parts of the planning area not included in the National Conservation Area or designated Wilderness Areas. Background information is provided for each of these resources to establish points of reference for the decisions that follow. 2.2 PROGRAM-SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES AND DECISIONS 2.2.1 LAND HEALTH STANDARDS Land Health Standards are expressions of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for sustainable environmental health. These standards engender measurements that describe on- the-ground conditions in relation to the four fundamentals of healthy, properly functioning ecosystems that are identified at 43 CFR § 4180. These fundamentals are: • Watersheds in properly functioning physical condition; soil and plant conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that is in balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, and timing and duration of flow. Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are maintained in order to support healthy biotic populations and communities. • Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves BLM management objectives. • Habitats are restored or maintained for listed, proposed, candidate and other special status species. BLACK ROCK-HIGH ROCK RMP 2-1 JULY 2004 Chapter 2 –Management Plan Standards are achieved through the use of guidelines developed for specific programs and uses. Because the Standards were originally applied to livestock grazing, guidelines for livestock grazing (Appendix B) will continue to apply to that use.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Newsletter
    Mojave National Preserve National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Sweeney Granite Mountains Desert Research Center Science Newsletter Updates on respiratory disease affecting desert bighorn sheep in and near Mojave National Preserve 1 1 Clinton W. Epps , Daniella Dekelaita , and Brian Dugovich2 Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) are an iconic mammal of the desert southwest and are found in small mountain ranges scattered across Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) and nearby desert habitats in southeastern California. In many areas, they are the only large native herbivore that can persist, inhabiting places that are too hot, dry, and sparsely vegetated for deer. California is thought to be home to ~3000-5000 desert bighorn in total (1); desert bighorn sheep are uniquely adapted for the harsh environment of the southwest deserts and populations appear to be resilient in spite of threats from poaching, climate change, drought, and habitat fragmentation (2, 3). In the Mojave Desert, bighorn sheep populations are strongly fragmented by expanses of flat desert between Figure 1. Map of Mojave National Preserve and nearby areas in southeastern California, mountain ranges, and in some cases, by showing mountain ranges (white polygons) where respiratory disease of bighorn sheep is being studied using GPS collars, remote cameras, disease screening of captured animals, behavioral and physical barriers such as fecal DNA, immunological and genetic measures, and other methods. The respiratory interstate highways (4). Yet, southeastern pathogen Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae was first reported at Old Dad Peak in spring of 2013 (large red star); current infection or past exposure has been confirmed at other red-starred California, including the Preserve, represents the ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • Antelope, Deer, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats: a Guide to the Carpals
    J. Ethnobiol. 10(2):169-181 Winter 1990 ANTELOPE, DEER, BIGHORN SHEEP AND MOUNTAIN GOATS: A GUIDE TO THE CARPALS PAMELA J. FORD Mount San Antonio College 1100 North Grand Avenue Walnut, CA 91739 ABSTRACT.-Remains of antelope, deer, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep appear in archaeological sites in the North American west. Carpal bones of these animals are generally recovered in excellent condition but are rarely identified beyond the classification 1/small-sized artiodactyl." This guide, based on the analysis of over thirty modem specimens, is intended as an aid in the identifi­ cation of these remains for archaeological and biogeographical studies. RESUMEN.-Se han encontrado restos de antilopes, ciervos, cabras de las montanas rocosas, y de carneros cimarrones en sitios arqueol6gicos del oeste de Norte America. Huesos carpianos de estos animales se recuperan, por 10 general, en excelentes condiciones pero raramente son identificados mas alIa de la clasifi­ cacion "artiodactilos pequeno." Esta glia, basada en un anaIisis de mas de treinta especlmenes modemos, tiene el proposito de servir como ayuda en la identifica­ cion de estos restos para estudios arqueologicos y biogeogrMicos. RESUME.-On peut trouver des ossements d'antilopes, de cerfs, de chevres de montagne et de mouflons des Rocheuses, dans des sites archeologiques de la . region ouest de I'Amerique du Nord. Les os carpeins de ces animaux, generale­ ment en excellente condition, sont rarement identifies au dela du classement d' ,I artiodactyles de petite taille." Le but de ce guide base sur 30 specimens recents est d'aider aidentifier ces ossements pour des etudes archeologiques et biogeo­ graphiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of Contagious Ecthyma Infection
    FI.NAL REP.ORT (R.ESEARCH) State: Alaska Cooperators: Randall L. Zarnke and Kenneth A. Neiland Project No.: W-21-1 Project Title: Big Game Investigations Job No.: l8.1R Job Title: Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of contag1ous Ecthyma Infection Period Covered: July 1, 1979 to J~~? ~0, 1~80 SUMMARY Contagious ecthyma (C. E. ) antibody prevalence in domestic sheep and goats in Interior Alaska du~ing 1978 was quite low (7-10%). This suggested a low level of transmission of the virus among these species during this time period. C. E. antibody prevalence in Dall sheep increased .from 30 percent in 1971 to 100 percent in 1978. This suggested an increased level of transmission to, and/or among, these animals during this period. Following a C.E. epizootic in a band of captive Dall sheep in 1977, antibody prevalence was 80 percent in this group of sheep. Less than l year later, prevalence had dropped to 10 percent in the ·same band. Thus it appeared that antibody produced in response to this . strain of C.E. is short-lived. Antibody was also detected in 10 of 22 free­ ranging muskoxen taken by sport hunters on Nunivak Island in 1978. Detectable antibody levels were not found in any of 19 muskoxen captured on the island in 1979. No antibody was found in a small number of captive muskoxen from Unalakleet. Several of the captive muskoxen were ·known to have been infected with C.E. within 1 to 2 years prior to the time of sampling. This further substantiates the belief that anti­ body produced in response to infection by the Alaskan strain of C.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats
    Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats Brock Hoenes Ungulate Section Manager, Wildlife Program WACs: 220-412-070 Big game and wild turkey auction, raffle, and special incentive permits. 220-412-080 Special hunting season permits. 220-415-070 Moose seasons, permit quotas, and areas. 220-415-120 2021 Bighorn sheep seasons and permit quotas. 220-415-130 2021 Mountain goat seasons and permit quotas. 1. Special Hunting Season Permits 2. Moose – Status, recommendations, public comment 3. Mountain Goat – Status, recommendations, public comment 4. Bighorn Sheep – Status, recommendations, public comment 5. Questions Content Department of Fish and Wildlife SPECIAL HUNTING SEASON PERMITS White‐Tailed DeerWAC 220-412-080 • Allow successful applicants for all big game special permits to return their permit to the Department for any Agree 77% reason two weeks prior to the Neutral 9% opening day of the season and to have their points restored Disagree 14% 1,553 Respondents • Remove the “once‐in‐a‐lifetime” Public Comment restriction for Mountain Goat Conflict • 223 comments, 1 email/letter Reduction special permit category • General (90 agree, 26 disagree) • Reissue permit (67) • >2 weeks (21) • No change (12) Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE • Primarily occur in White‐Tailed DeerNE and north-central Washington • Most recent estimate in 2016 indicated ~5,000 moose in NE • Annual surveys to estimate age and sex ratios (snow dependent) • Recent studies (2014-2018) in GMUs 117 and 124 indicated populations were declining • Poor body condition (adult female) • Poor calf survival • Wolf predation • Tick infestations • Substantial reduction in antlerless permits in 2018 Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009Nature Notes Vol. 9, No. 3 RH Final.Pub
    Zion National Park News National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Nature Notes The Lush Desert High noon. A blazing sun burns rippling waves of heat across the sandy earth making the distance appear almost fluid. Tumble- weeds bounce over the land past bare bones, bleached white, crisp, and brittle in the scorching sun. Flies buzz past. A small group of turkey vultures peck at coyote carrion. A dry wind blows any sense of well-being away, and even the air smells empty. This is the desert. What Mary Austin called “a land of little rain” is an environment that often seems forbidding. We perceive these lands with words in mind such as harsh, barren, unin- viting, and scarce. Yet in the desert that is Zion National Park, people have been living for thousands of years. The plant life in Zion, at first glance, may also seem harsh and mini- The abundant medicinal and edible uses of the prickly pear cactus and datil yucca hide behind the malistic—certainly anything but lush. In dig- plants' defensive spines and sharp tips. Photo by Sally Wier ging deeper, however, we see that these plants, so symbolic of the desert, are a key encounter with a skunk. The strongly candies, and syrups. Supporting pads of the part of what has made this place a home to scented smoke not only cleansed humans of cacti, though intimidating to the touch, are humans for so long. surface odors, it had the ability to cleanse the a rich resource as well. Once rid of their soul as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Burning Man Geology Black Rock Desert.Pdf
    GEOLOGY OF THE BLACK ROCK DESERT By Cathy Busby Professor of Geology University of California Santa Barbara http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/busby BURNING MAN EARTH GUARDIANS PAVILION 2012 LEAVE NO TRACE Please come find me and Iʼll give you a personal tour of the posters! You are here! In one of the most amazing geologic wonderlands in the world! Fantastic rock exposure, spectacular geomorphic features, and a long history, including: 1. PreCambrian loss of our Australian neighbors by continental rifting, * 2. Paleozoic accretion of island volcanic chains like Japan (twice!), 3. Mesozoic compression and emplacement of a batholith, 4. Cenozoic stretching and volcanism, plus a mantle plume torching the base of the continent! Let’s start with what you can see on the playa and from the playa: the Neogene to Recent geology, which is the past ~23 million years (= Ma). Note: Recent = past 15,000 years http://www.terragalleria.com Then we’ll “build” the terrane you are standing on, beginning with a BILLION years ago, moving through the Paleozoic (old life, ~540-253 Ma), Mesozoic (age of dinosaurs, ~253-65 Ma)) and Cenozoic (age of mammals, ~65 -0 Ma). Neogene to Recent geology Black Rock Playa extends 100 miles, from Gerlach to the Jackson Mountains. The Black Rock Desert is divided into two arms by the Black Rock Range, and covers 1,000 square miles. Empire (south of Gerlach)has the U.S. Gypsum mine and drywall factory (brand name “Sheetrock”), and thereʼs an opal mine at base of Calico Mtns. Neogene to Recent geology BRP = The largest playa in North America “Playa” = a flat-bottomed depression, usually a dry lake bed 3,500ʼ asl in SW, 4,000ʼ asl in N Land speed record: 1997 - supersonic car, 766 MPH Runoff mainly from the Quinn River, which heads in Oregon ~150 miles north.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Granite Peak Stock Area, Whetstone Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona
    Geology of the Granite Peak stock area, Whetstone Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); maps Authors DeRuyter, Vernon Donald Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 07/10/2021 05:09:43 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555132 GEOLOGY OF THE GRANITE PEAK STOCK AREA, WHETSTONE MOUNTAINS, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA by Vernon Donald DeRuyter A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of require­ ments for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Re­ quests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major de­ partment or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the pro­ posed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    I ___- .-ll..l .“..l..““l.--..- I. _.^.___” _^.__.._._ - ._____.-.-.. ------ FEDERAL LAND M.ANAGEMENT Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas I 150156 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Wice unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. ssBO4’8 RELEASED ---- ---. - (;Ao/li:( ‘I:I)-!L~-l~~lL - United States General Accounting OfTice GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-262989 September 23,1993 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Concerned about alleged degradation of areas being considered for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (wilderness study areas), you requested that we provide you with information on the types and effects of activities in these study areas. As agreed with your office, we gathered information on areas managed by two agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLN) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) legislative guidance and the agency policies governing wilderness study area management, (2) the various activities and uses occurring in the agencies’ study areas, (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas, and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and to repair damage resulting from them. Appendixes I and II provide data on the number, acreage, and locations of wilderness study areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service, as well as data on the types of uses occurring in the areas.
    [Show full text]