DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix-J-WSR-Suitability-Rpt.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix-J-WSR-Suitability-Rpt.Pdf Bakersfield Field Office Draft RMP/Draft EIS APPENDIX J APPENDIX J Bakersfield Field Office Draft RMP/Draft EIS APPENDIX J – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX J – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SUITABILITY REPORT ............................................. J-1 APPENDIX J WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SUITABILITY REPORT FOR BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE, CALIFORNIA July 2010 Prepared for: US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Bakersfield Field Office 3801 Pegasus Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 555 Market Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Area ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Why Conduct a Suitability Study and Why Now? ............................................ 1-3 1.3 What Is a Wild and Scenic River? ................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Steps in the Wild and Scenic Study Process ................................................... 1-3 1.4.1 Eligibility Phase.................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.2 Suitability Phase .................................................................................. 1-5 2. METHOD ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Suitability Criteria Used to Evaluate River and Stream Segments .................. 2-1 2.2 Data Sources and Methods ............................................................................. 2-3 2.2.1 BLM Resource Interdisciplinary Team ................................................. 2-3 2.2.2 Informational Sources .......................................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 Public Input .......................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Suitability Determinations ................................................................................ 2-4 2.4 Interim Management of Suitable Segments .................................................... 2-4 3. SUITABILITY CRITERIA-BASED DATA AND DETERMINATIONS .............................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Suitability Data and Determinations ................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Chimney Creek .................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 East Fork of the Kaweah River ............................................................ 3-9 3.2.3 Middle Fork of the Kaweah River ....................................................... 3-14 3.2.4 North Fork of the Kaweah River ........................................................ 3-18 3.2.5 Lower Kern River ............................................................................... 3-24 3.2.6 South Fork of the Kern River ............................................................. 3-29 3.2.7 Salinas River...................................................................................... 3-32 3.2.8 San Joaquin River ............................................................................. 3-36 3.3 Summary of Suitability Determinations.......................................................... 3-42 4. PROTECTIVE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 4-1 5. LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................................... 5-1 6. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 APPENDIX A Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Studies July 2010 Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report i BLM Bakersfield Field Office, California Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Section Page 1-1 BLM Project Area ....................................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Bakersfield Field Office Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................... 1-6 3-1 Chimney Creek .......................................................................................................................... 3-5 3-2 East Fork of the Kaweah River ................................................................................................ 3-10 3-3 Middle Fork of the Kaweah River ............................................................................................. 3-15 3-4 North Fork of the Kaweah River ............................................................................................... 3-19 3-5 Lower Kern River ..................................................................................................................... 3-25 3-6 South Fork of the Kern River ................................................................................................... 3-30 3-7 Salinas River ............................................................................................................................ 3-33 3-8 San Joaquin River .................................................................................................................... 3-37 LIST OF TABLES Table Page ES-1 Summary of Preliminary Suitability Determinations ...................................................................... 3 1-1 BLM Eligible Segments Studied for Suitability ........................................................................... 1-8 3-1 Summary of Preliminary Suitability Determinations ................................................................. 3-42 1 4-1 Interim Protection for SuiWild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................... 4-1 5-1 Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report Preparers ................................................................... 5-1 July 2010 Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report ii BLM Bakersfield Field Office, California Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern BKFO Bakersfield Field Office BLM United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management EIS environmental impact statement NPS US Department of the Interior, National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWSRS National Wild and Scenic Rivers System ORV outstandingly remarkable value Reclamation US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation RMP resource management plan SRMA Special Recreation Management Area VRM visual resource management WSA Wilderness Study Area WSR Wild and Scenic River WSR Act Wild and Scenic Rivers Act July 2010 Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report iii BLM Bakersfield Field Office, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Field Office (BKFO) has completed the eligibility phase of a wild and scenic rivers (WSR) evaluation as part of a past resource management plan (RMP) revision process. In 1997, the BLM identified seven segments as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) as part of the Caliente RMP (BLM 1997a, 1997b). As part of this RMP revision, the BLM studied two additional rivers for eligibility, the Fresno and the San Joaquin, and found two segments along the San Joaquin River to be eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS. The cumulative result of these studies is that nine segments within the BKFO have been identified as eligible. However, Segment 2 of the San Joaquin River is withdrawn to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the Central Valley Project, in accordance with a 1969 land management contract between Reclamation and the BLM. The land management contract is supplemented by an Interagency Agreement between the two parties that gives the BLM the lead in making land management decisions pertaining to the withdrawn lands. The BLM is to coordinate with Reclamation on land allocation decisions. As such, any suitability determination for that stretch of river should be made in conjunction with Reclamation and a suitability determination is not made for Segment 2 in this report. The next step in the WSR process is evaluating eligible segments for suitability. The purpose of the suitability phase of the study process is to determine whether eligible rivers would be appropriate additions to the national system by considering tradeoffs between corridor development and river protection. This report describes the method used, data considered, and determinations made during the eligibility and suitability phases. All eligible segments were assessed for suitability, except for Segment 2 of the San Joaquin River. July 2010 Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report ES-1 BLM Bakersfield Field Office, California Executive Summary Project Area The project area for this suitability study includes all BLM-managed river segments in the BKFO that have been determined to meet the eligibility criteria for WSRs. The BKFO manages approximately 403,910 acres of public lands
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Robinson V. Salazar 3Rd Amended Complaint
    Case 1:09-cv-01977-BAM Document 211 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 125 1 Evan W. Granowitz (Cal. Bar No. 234031) WOLF GROUP L.A. 2 11400 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90064 3 Telephone: (310) 460-3528 Facsimile: (310) 457-9087 4 Email: [email protected] 5 David R. Mugridge (Cal. Bar No. 123389) 6 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. MUGRIDGE 2100 Tulare St., Suite 505 7 Fresno, California 93721-2111 Telephone: (559) 264-2688 8 Facsimile: (559) 264-2683 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon and David Laughing Horse Robinson 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON, and Case No.: 1:09-cv-01977 BAM DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON, an 14 individual and Chairman, Kawaiisu Tribe of PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED 15 Tejon, COMPLAINT FOR: 16 Plaintiffs, (1) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, etc. 17 vs. (2) EQUITABLE 18 KEN SALAZAR, in his official capacity as ENFORCEMENT OF TREATY 19 Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; TEJON RANCH CORPORATION, a (3) VIOLATION OF NAGPRA; 20 Delaware corporation; TEJON MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, LLC, a Delaware company; COUNTY (4) DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY 21 OF KERN, CALIFORNIA; TEJON IN VIOLATION OF THE 5th RANCHCORP, a California corporation, and AMENDMENT; 22 DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, (5) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY 23 Defendants. DUTY; 24 (6) NON-STATUTORY REVIEW; and 25 (7) DENIAL OF EQUAL 26 PROTECTION IN VIOLATION OF THE 5th AMENDMENT. 27 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 1:09-cv-01977-BAM Document 211 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 125 1 Plaintiffs KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON and DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON 2 allege as follows: 3 I.
    [Show full text]
  • California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita
    California Golden Trout chances for survival: poor 2 Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita alifornia golden trout, the official state fish, is one of three species disTriBuTion: California golden trout are endemic to imple mented. major efforts have been made to create refugia 1 2 3 4 5 TROUT south Fork Kern river and to Golden trout Creek. they for golden trout in the upper reaches of the south Fork Kern of brilliantly colored trout native to the upper Kern river basin; the have been introduced into many other lakes and creeks in river by constructing barriers and then applying the poison others are the little Kern golden trout and Kern river rainbow trout. and outside of California, including the Cottonwood lakes rotenone to kill all unwanted fish above barriers. Despite California Golden Trout Were not far from the headwaters of Golden trout Creek and into these and other efforts, most populations of California golden Historically Present in South Fork Kern C Basin, Part Of The Upper Kern River California golden trout evolved in streams of the southern sierra Nevada the headwaters of south Fork Kern river, such as mulkey trout are hybridized and are under continual threat from Basin Shown Here Creek. the Cottonwood lakes have been a source of golden brown trout invasions. management actions are needed to mountains, at elevations above 7,500 feet. the Kern plateau is broad and flat, trout eggs for stocking other waters and are still used for address threats to California golden trout which include with wide meadows and meandering streams. the streams are small, shallow, stocking lakes in Fresno and tulare Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Tuolumne River: Available Data Sources, Field Work Plan, and Initial Hydrology Analysis
    Upper Tuolumne River: Available Data Sources, Field Work Plan, and Initial Hydrology Analysis water hetch hetchy water & power clean water October 2006 Upper Tuolumne River: Available Data Sources, Field Work Plan, and Initial Hydrology Analysis Final Report Prepared by: RMC Water and Environment and McBain & Trush, Inc. October 2006 Upper Tuolumne River Section 1 Introduction Available Data Sources, Field Work Plan, and Initial Hydrology Analysis Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Section 2 Hetch Hetchy Facilities in the Study Area ............................................................. 4 Section 3 Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of Hetch Hetchy Project Facilities and Operations on Flow in Study Reaches ..................................................................................... 7 3.1 Analysis Approach ..................................................................................................... 7 3.2 The Natural Hydrograph........................................................................................... 10 3.3 Effects of Flow Regulation on Annual Hydrograph Components ............................. 12 3.3.1 Cherry and Eleanor Creeks.................................................................................................... 14 3.3.2 Tuolumne River...................................................................................................................... 17 3.4 Effects
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of the California Golden Trout in the South Fork Kern River, Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California, 1966-2004, with Reference to Golden Trout Creek
    State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RESTORATION OF THE CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT IN THE SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER, KERN PLATEAU, TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 1966-2004, WITH REFERENCE TO GOLDEN TROUT CREEK By E. P. (Phil) Pister, Inland Deserts Region, Retired CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT Central Region Administrative Report No. 2008-1 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 2 The Beginning..................................................................................................... 2 EARLY WARNINGS ....................................................................................................... 5 THE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 6 WATERSHED RESTORATION ...................................................................................... 8 THE FIRST FISH BARRIER AND EARLY BROWN TROUT CONTROL....................... 8 1976 – THE MAJOR PROJECT BEGINS..................................................................... 10 TEMPLETON AND SCHAEFFER BARRIERS............................................................. 12 1977 -1979 – HOLDING THE LINE .............................................................................. 16 1980 -1983 – MAJOR CHEMICAL TREATMENTS AND BEGINNING
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 78 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 45A–1 Kaweah River and The
    § 45a–1 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 78 Kaweah River and the headwaters of that branch Fork Kaweah River to its junction with Cactus of Little Kern River known as Pecks Canyon; Creek; thence easterly along the first hydro- thence southerly and easterly along the crest of graphic divide south of Cactus Creek to its the hydrographic divide between Pecks Canyon intersection with the present west boundary of and Soda Creek to its intersection with a lateral Sequoia National Park, being the west line of divide at approximately the east line of section township 16 south, range 29 east; thence south- 2, township 19 south, range 31 east; thence erly along said west boundary to the southwest northeasterly along said lateral divide to its corner of said township; thence easterly along intersection with the township line near the the present boundary of Sequoia National Park, southeast corner of township 18 south, range 31 being the north line of township 17 south, range east of the Mount Diablo base and meridian; 29 east, to the northeast corner of said township; thence north approximately thirty-five degrees thence southerly along the present boundary of west to the summit of the butte next north of Sequoia National Park, being the west lines of Soda Creek (United States Geological Survey al- townships 17 and 18 south, range 30 east, to the titude eight thousand eight hundred and eighty- place of beginning; and all of those lands lying eight feet); thence northerly and northwesterly within the boundary line above described are in- along the crest of the hydrographic divide to a cluded in and made a part of the Roosevelt-Se- junction with the crest of the main hydro- quoia National Park; and all of those lands ex- graphic divide between the headwaters of the cluded from the present Sequoia National Park South Fork of the Kaweah River and the head- are included in and made a part of the Sequoia waters of Little Kern River; thence northerly National Forest, subject to all laws and regula- along said divide now between Horse and Cow tions applicable to the national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • René Voss – Attorney at Law 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Tel: 415-446-9027 [email protected] ______
    René Voss – Attorney at Law 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Tel: 415-446-9027 [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________________ March 22, 2013 Sent to: [email protected] and [email protected] Penelope Shibley, District Planner cc: Ara Marderosian Kern River Ranger District Georgette Theotig P.O. Box 9, 105 Whitney Road Kernville, CA 93238 Subject: Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project EA Comments for Sequoia ForestKeeper & Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club Ms. Shibley, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project EA. Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) and the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club (SC) are generally supportive of efforts to close or restore areas damaged by OHVs to avert erosion, to deter illegal uses, to protect natural resources, and to reduce user conflict with non-motorized uses. Purpose and Scope of the Project The Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project would implement the closure and restoration of non-system routes within four recreation sites, relocate and restore campsites located within a recreation site (Evans Flat), and reroute portions of two OHV trails; one mile of the Woodward Peak Trail (Trail #32E53) and two miles of the Kern Canyon Trail (Trail #31E75). Three of the four recreation sites (Black Gulch North, Black Gulch South and China Garden) and one of the OHV trails (Kern Canyon Trail #31E75) are located in the Lower Kern Canyon. The fourth recreation site and the second OHV trail (Woodward Peak Trail #32E53) are located within the Greenhorn Mountains near Evans Flat Campground.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Year Evaluation of Predation in the Stanislaus River Project Information
    Three Year Evaluation of Predation in the Stanislaus River Project Information 1. Proposal Title: Three Year Evaluation of Predation in the Stanislaus River 2. Proposal applicants: Steve Felte, Tri-Dam Project 3. Corresponding Contact Person: Jason Reed Tri-Dam Project P.O. Box 1158 Pinecrest, CA 95364 209 965-3996 [email protected] 4. Project Keywords: Anadromous salmonids At-risk species, fish Fish mortality/fish predation 5. Type of project: Research 6. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? No 7. Topic Area: At-Risk Species Assessments 8. Type of applicant: Local Agency 9. Location - GIS coordinates: Latitude: 37.739 Longitude: -121.076 Datum: Describe project location using information such as water bodies, river miles, road intersections, landmarks, and size in acres. The proposed project will be conducted in the Stanislaus River between Knight’s Ferry at river mile 54.6 and the confluence with the San Joaquin River, in the mainstem San Joaquin River immediately downstream of the confluence, and in the deepwater ship channel near Stockton. 10. Location - Ecozone: 12.1 Vernalis to Merced River, 13.1 Stanislaus River, 1.2 East Delta, 11.2 Mokelumne River, 11.3 Calaveras River 11. Location - County: San Joaquin, Stanislaus 12. Location - City: Does your project fall within a city jurisdiction? No 13. Location - Tribal Lands: Does your project fall on or adjacent to tribal lands? No 14. Location - Congressional District: 18 15. Location: California State Senate District Number: 5, 12 California Assembly District Number: 25, 17 16. How many years of funding are you requesting? 3 17.
    [Show full text]
  • Fresno River Watershed Assessment Project Draft Final Report
    Fresno River Watershed Assessment Project Draft Final Report Prepared for California State Department of Water Resources County of Madera By California State University, Fresno March 2010 This project was funded in part by a grant from the California Department of Water Resources and the County of Madera, California Acknowledgements Special thanks to the Central Sierra Watershed Committee for their support and feedback, which would not be possible without the leadership of Jeannie Habben. Larry Bellew, Tom Wheeler, and Jack Fry provided valuable support and local wisdom. Project director Elissa Brown navigated a diverse interests through logistics including a project freeze. The Madera County Departments of Environmental Health provided critical information and support for GIS-based data and tools. At CSU-Fresno, we thank Dr. Alice Wright and Darrin Alexander who processed all of the bacterial samples. Student Research Assistants Brett Moore, Jorge Baca, Zili He, Steven Gong, Sarah Rutherford, Thomas Gromis, Eddie Alves made the project possible. We also thank the College of Science & Mathematics and Dean Rogerson for support. Finally, thanks to the various landowners in the watershed for your generous property access and concern about your watershed. Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION Project Objectives and Tasks 2. MONITORING PLAN Background Selection of Sample Locations and Frequency General Field Measurements and Sample Collection 3. HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY AND FIRST FLUSH STUDY 4. SEDIMENTATION STUDY TO QUANTIFY SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 5. BIOASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENTATION & WATER QUALITY 6. SEPTIC INFLUENCES ON FECAL INDICATOR BACTERIA 7. IMPLICATIONS, DATA GAPS, AND FURTHER STUDIES REFERENCES Appendicies Literature review: Septic influences 1. INTRODUCTION The Fresno River is located in Madera County, California and is the most southerly of major east-side tributaries of the San Joaquin River (Figure 1.1).
    [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]
  • River West-Madera Master Plan
    River West-Madera Master Plan APPENDICES Appendix A – River West-Madera Resource Assessment 39 | Page River West-Madera Master Plan River West- Madera Master Plan June 5, 2012 Resource Assessment The River West-Madera area consists of 795 acres of publicly owned land located in Madera County along the northern side of the San Joaquin River between Highway 41 and Scout Island. The Resource Assessment presents the area’s existing characteristics, as well as constraints and opportunities to future planning efforts. River West-Madera Master Plan River West-Madera Master Plan RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... 3 TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 4 EXISTING CHARACTERISITICS ............................................................................................. 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Land Use and History .............................................................................................................................. 7 Cultural History ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Sycamore Island ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]