DOCSLIB.ORG

California's Groundwater Update 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California's Groundwater Update 2013 California’s Groundwater Update 2013 A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 April 2015 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION Table of Contents Contents Chapter 12. Colorado River Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update ................................................. i Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions ........................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ...................................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management ............................................................... 4 Data Gaps .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................................ 5 Basin Assessments ............................................................................................................................ 5 Sustainable Management .................................................................................................................. 6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 6 Groundwater Supply and Development .................................................................................................... 7 Alluvial Aquifers .................................................................................................................................. 7 Borrego Valley Groundwater Basin ................................................................................................ 10 Warren Valley Groundwater Basin ................................................................................................. 10 Lucerne Valley Groundwater Basin ................................................................................................ 10 Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin ............................................................................................. 11 Fractured-Rock Aquifers .................................................................................................................... 11 Well Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 11 CASGEM Basin Prioritization ............................................................................................................ 16 Groundwater Use .................................................................................................................................... 19 2005-2010 Average Annual Groundwater Supply .............................................................................. 19 Groundwater Use by Planning Area Boundaries ............................................................................ 20 Groundwater Use by County Boundaries ....................................................................................... 20 Change in Annual Groundwater Use .............................................................................................. 23 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ............................................................................................................ 24 Groundwater-Level Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 25 Groundwater-Quality Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 27 Land Subsidence Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 29 Aquifer Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 29 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement ........................................................................................... 32 Depth to Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 32 Groundwater Elevations .................................................................................................................. 33 Groundwater-Level Trends ............................................................................................................. 33 Hydrograph 02S01E33J004S ...................................................................................................... 36 Hydrograph 07S08E34G001S..................................................................................................... 36 Hydrograph 16S20E27B001S ..................................................................................................... 37 Change in Groundwater in Storage ..................................................................................................... 37 Groundwater Quality .......................................................................................................................... 38 Groundwater Quality at Community Drinking Water Wells .......................................................... 39 Groundwater Quality at Domestic Wells ........................................................................................ 41 Groundwater Quality — GAMA Priority Basin Project ................................................................. 42 Groundwater Quality Protection ..................................................................................................... 43 Land Subsidence ................................................................................................................................. 45 i California’s Groundwater Update 2013: A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 Groundwater Management ...................................................................................................................... 46 Groundwater Management Plan Inventory ......................................................................................... 46 Groundwater Management Plan Assessment ...................................................................................... 50 Required GWMP Components ....................................................................................................... 51 Basin Management Objectives .................................................................................................... 52 Mapping ...................................................................................................................................... 53 Monitoring Protocols .................................................................................................................. 53 Voluntary GWMP Components ...................................................................................................... 53 Bulletin 118-2003–Recommended GWMP Components ............................................................... 55 DWR/ACWA Survey — Key Factors for Successful GWMP Implementation ............................. 55 DWR/ACWA Survey — Key Factors Limiting GWMP Success .................................................. 57 DWR/ACWA Survey — Opinions of Groundwater Sustainability ................................................ 57 Groundwater Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 57 Special Act Districts ........................................................................................................................... 58 Court Adjudication of Groundwater Rights ........................................................................................ 59 Other Groundwater Management Planning Efforts ............................................................................ 61 Integrated Regional Water Management Plans ............................................................................... 61 Urban Water Management Plans .................................................................................................... 62 Agricultural Water Management Plans ........................................................................................... 63 Conjunctive Management Inventory ....................................................................................................... 64 Conjunctive Management Inventory Results .................................................................................. 66 References ............................................................................................................................................... 67 Tables Table 12-1 Alluvial Groundwater Basins
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RIT Projects in Need of Funding (491KB PDF)
    3 October 2019 DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group Recovery Priorities 1 RIT Projects in Need of Funding 1 RIT Project Summaries 7 Top 10 Fencing Recommendations 134 Funded RIT Projects 16 DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT GROUP RECOVERY PRIORITIES ● Restore habitat (incl. route restoration) ● Reduce predator subsidies ● Targeted predator control ● Install and maintain tortoise barrier fencing ● Fire management planning and implementation ● Education (lower priority than on-the-ground actions) RIT PROJECTS IN NEED OF FUNDING Project Priority Title Budget # Rangewide RW02 Seed Increases for Desert Tortoise Habitat Restoration in Southern Nevada $140,000 California RIT - Rangewide Mojave Raven Watch - a desert tortoise rangewide human education CA09 $126,500 program Removal of free-roaming burros on BLM managed land in excess of CA41 $2,465,000 authorized population level. California RIT - Northeast Mojave Workgroup Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA41) -7.4%/year Increase law enforcement patrols for desert tortoise protection in Mojave CA19 $259,000 National Preserve. CA26 Evaluation of raven food subsidy sites near the Mojave National Preserve $82,133 Fenner Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA19, CA26, and CA41) -7.3%/year CA25. Piosphere Restoration on the Fenner/Piute Valley Critical Habitat Unit in $209,250 v2 Mojave National Preserve CA30 Desert Tortoise Barrier Fencing: Interstate 40 near Kelbaker Road $543,500 Rd 5 Rd7 Fence US 95 Nevada border
    [Show full text]
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP
    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L, Bureau of Land Management Worksheets
    Palen‐Ford Playa Dunes Description/Location: The proposed Palen‐Ford Playa Dunes NLCS/ ACEC would encompass the entire playa and dune system in the Chuckwalla Valley of eastern Riverside County. The area is bordered on the east by the Palen‐McCoy Wilderness and on the west by Joshua Tree National Park. Included within its boundaries are the existing Desert Lily Preserve ACEC, the Palen Dry Lake ACEC, and the Palen‐Ford Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA). Nationally Significant Values: Ecological Values: The proposed unit would protect one of the major playa/dune systems of the California Desert. The area contains extensive and pristine habitat for the Mojave fringe‐toed lizard, a BLM Sensitive Species and a California State Species of Special Concern. Because the Chuckwalla Valley population occurs at the southern distributional limit for the species, protection of this population is important for the conservation of the species. The proposed unit would protect an entire dune ecosystem for this and other dune‐dwelling species, including essential habitat and ecological processes (i.e., sand source and sand transport systems). The proposed unit would also contribute to the overall linking of five currently isolated Wilderness Areas of northeastern Riverside County (i.e., Palen‐McCoy, Big Maria Mountains, Little Maria Mountains, Riverside Mountains, and Rice Valley) with each other and Joshua Tree National Park, and would protect a large, intact representation of the lower Colorado Desert. Along with the proposed Chuckwalla Chemehuevi Tortoise Linkage NLCS/ ACEC and Upper McCoy NLCS/ ACEC, this unit would provide crucial habitat connectivity for key wildlife species including the federally threatened Agassizi’s desert tortoise and the desert bighorn sheep.
    [Show full text]
  • Recruitment of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus Agassizii and G
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10(2):583–591. Submitted: 29 September 2014; Accepted: 7 April 2015; Published: 31 August 2015. RECRUITMENT OF DESERT TORTOISES (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII AND G. MORAFKAI): A SYNTHESIS OF REPRODUCTION AND FIRST-YEAR SURVIVAL STEVEN P. CAMPBELL1,2,3, ROBERT J. STEIDL1, AND ERIN R. ZYLSTRA1 1School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA 2Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, Albany, New York 12205, USA 3Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Recruitment is integral to population persistence, therefore characterizing this process is essential for evaluating recovery actions for species in decline. We gathered all data available and used Bayesian analyses to quantify annual recruitment of Mojave Desert (Gopherus agassizii) and Sonoran Desert (G. morafkai) tortoises as the product of four components: proportion of females that reproduced, number of eggs produced per reproducing female, hatching success, and hatchling survival. For Mojave Desert Tortoises, the estimated proportion of females that reproduced (0.81 [95% Credible Interval: 0.52–0.99]) and number of eggs produced per year (6.90 [5.51–8.16]) were higher than for Sonoran Desert Tortoises (0.52 [0.07–0.94] and 5.17 [3.05–7.60], respectively). For Mojave Desert Tortoises, hatching success averaged 0.61 (0.25–0.90). Data on hatching success for Sonoran Desert Tortoises and hatchling survival for both species were sparse, therefore we represented these components with a range of plausible values. When we combined components, average recruitment for Mojave Desert Tortoises ranged from 0.51 females/female/y assuming that hatchling survival was 0.30 to 1.18 females/female/y with hatchling survival assumed to be 0.70.
    [Show full text]
  • 28 September 2020 Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group
    28 September 2020 DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group Recovery Priorities 1 RIT Projects in Need of Funding 1 RIT Project Summaries 6 Top Fencing Recommendations 14 Funded RIT Projects 16 DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT GROUP RECOVERY PRIORITIES ● Restore habitat (incl. route restoration) ● Reduce predator subsidies ● Targeted predator control ● Install and maintain tortoise barrier fencing ● Fire management planning and implementation ● Education (lower priority than on-the-ground actions) RIT PROJECTS IN NEED OF FUNDING Desert tortoise population trends through 2014 are indicated for geographic areas covered by the range-wide monitoring program Project Priority Title Budget # Rangewide RW02 Seed Increases for Desert Tortoise Habitat Restoration in Southern Nevada $140,000 California RIT - Rangewide Mojave Raven Watch - a desert tortoise rangewide human education CA09 $126,500 program Removal of free-roaming burros on BLM managed land in excess of CA41 $2,465,000 authorized population level. Identification of existing culverts and underpasses needing maintenance or CA42 modification to facilitate desert tortoise movement under highways and $48,000 roads. Rd8 Fence I-40 north of Black Ridge, CA, both sides, 5.0 miles TBD Rd11 Fence I-40 near Old Dad Mountains, both sides, 9.4 miles TBD Rd13 Fence I-40 near Kalbaker Rd, 8.1 miles TBD California RIT - Northeast Mojave Workgroup Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA41) -7.4%/year Increase law enforcement patrols for desert tortoise protection in Mojave CA19 $259,000 National Preserve. CA26 Evaluation of raven food subsidy sites near the Mojave National Preserve $82,133 Fenner Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA19, CA26, and CA41) -7.3%/year CA25.
    [Show full text]
  • Forwards DOI Request for LLNL Tritium Tests at Ward Valley
    - _ . - . - - . .. -_. - .. - - - * . March 19, 1996 NOTE T0: X. Stablein J. Austin ; C. Paperiello M. Bell ' J. Greeves J. Holonich M. Federline B. Reamer M. Weber C. Cameron P. Lohaus J. Kennedy P. Sobel FROM: Nelson,[[[ SUBJECT: DOE STAFF POSITION ON DOI REQUEST FOR LLNL TRITIUM TESTS AT WARD ! VALLEY ! The attached staff position paper was provided to us by Terry Plummer, ! DOE, last week and is forwarded FYI. ; Attachment: As stated | | l, i l ! ! 1 ! t l' 970 g;g,60pe, - 1 - , - - . - - - - - - 4 , ' . I 1 * , . i. > !. 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REQUEST FOR LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORA'IORY i 70 i PERFORM TRTITUM TF.STS AT WARD VALLEY, CALIFORNIA | f FACTS / BACKGROUND , i - On February 23,1996, John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary of the Depiu unent of the Interior, requested the participation of the De,partment of Energy in contracting with the Lawrence i Livermore National Laboratory to perform tntium tests at the State licensed low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility in Ward Valley, Califomia. * On Demhn 15,1995, Secretary O' leary denied a similar request dated June 8,1995, : from Senator Boxer, (D-CA). 'Ihe Secretary stated that,"We believe the State of California, in its ! licensing role as authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should determine how to implement the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations. If the State Mermines that further testing is needed based on analytical services unique to the Departmw of Energy, we will consider such a request." l ! + In response to an earlier request of Senator Boxer, Secretary Babbitt asked the National ! Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine several key safety related issues of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Colorado River Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Rice Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-4 • County: Riverside, San Bernardino • Surface Area: 189,000 acres (295 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This groundwater basin underlies Rice Valley in northeast Riverside and southeast San Bernardino Counties. Elevation of the valley floor ranges from about 675 feet above sea level near the center of the valley to about 1,000 feet along the outer margins. The basin is bounded by nonwater- bearing rocks of the Turtle Mountains on the north, the Little Maria and Big Maria Mountains on the south, the Arica Mountains on the west, and by the West Riverside and Riverside Mountains on the east. Low-lying alluvial drainage divides form a portion of the basin boundaries on the northwest and northeast, and the Colorado River bounds a portion of the basin on the east. Maximum elevations of the surrounding mountains range to about 2,000 feet in the Arica Mountains, about 3,000 feet in the Big Maria Mountains, and 5,866 feet at Horn Peak in the Turtle Mountains (Bishop 1963; Jennings 1967; USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Annual average precipitation ranges from about 3 to 5 inches. Surface runoff from the mountains drains towards the center of the valley, except in the eastern part of the valley, where Big Wash drains to the Colorado River (USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Alluvium is the water-bearing material that forms the basin and includes unconsolidated Holocene age deposits and underlying unconsolidated to semi-consolidated Pleistocene deposits (DWR 1954, 1963).
    [Show full text]
  • San Bernardino & Inyo Counties, California
    BLM-California Old Spanish National Historic Trail Recreation & Development Strategy San Bernardino & Inyo Counties, California—September, 2015 14 Old Spanish National Historic Trail Recreation & Development Strategy Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office Prepared For: The Bureau of Land Management, Barstow Field Office The Old Spanish Trail Association Prepared By: Michael Knight, BLM, ACE Landscape Architect Intern Graydon Bascom, BLM, ACE Historic Trails Intern September, 2015 Contents Note to the Reader 1 Participants 2 Explanation of Document Sections 3 Project Overview Old Spanish Trail Map 7 Recreation Route Map 9 Typical Trail Elements 11 Trail Zone Details Cajon Junction to Barstow (Zone 1) 15 Barstow to Harvard Rd (Zone 2) 19 Harvard Rd to Salt Creek (Zone 3) 27 Zzyzx to Piute Gorge (Zone 4) 31 Salt Creek to California State Line (Zone 5) 37 Summary 41 Above: Old Spanish Trail Marker at Emigrant Pass Cover Page: Top photo: Salt Creek ACEC, Bottom Photo: Mouth of Spanish Canyon looking southwest Note To The Reader National Historic Trails are trails that have a historical significance to the nation, and can only be designated by an act of Congress. There are currently 19 National Historic Trails in the United States. In 1968, the National Trails System Act, which is intended to provide for the outdoor recreation needs of the public, opened the door to federal involvement in all types of trails. Today, the Bureau of Land Management, along with the National Park Service and National Forest Service, are responsible for the administration and management of National Historic Trails.
    [Show full text]
  • Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Hydrologic Region Colorado River California’s Groundwater Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-1 • County: San Bernardino • Surface Area: 157,000 acres (245 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This basin underlies Lanfair Valley in eastern San Bernardino County. The valley slopes southeasterly with valley floor elevations ranging from 3,500 to 5,000 feet above sea level. The basin is bounded by impermeable rocks of the New York and Castle Mountains on the north, of the Piute Range on the east, of the Hackberry Mountain on the south, and of the Providence Mountains and Mid Hills on the west. Caruthers Creek flows intermittently southeastward during periods of heavy precipitation. Piute Spring discharges groundwater from Lanfair Valley to an adjacent valley and other smaller springs are found throughout the valley. Average annual precipitation ranges from 7 to 10 inches. Hydrogeologic Description Water Bearing Formations The primary water-bearing formations are Quaternary and Tertiary age unconsolidated deposits that include highly indurated sand, silt, clay and gravel. The maximum thickness of these deposits is not known; however, a boring log indicates a thickness of at least 550 feet locally. Wells in these deposits yield about 3 to 70 gpm (Friewald 1984). Restrictive Structures The Cedar Canyon fault crosses the northwest portion of the basin; however, it is unknown whether or not this fault is a barrier to groundwater. Recharge Areas The principal sources of recharge are likely percolation of runoff from surrounding mountains, percolation of precipitation to the valley floor, and subsurface inflow from adjacent basins.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Assessment for Desert Stateline
    REGIONAL ASSESSMENT STATELINE SOLAR FARM PROJECT BLM CASE FILE NUMBER CACA-48669 Prepared for: Prepared by: Desert Stateline, LLC NatureServe 525 Market Street 4600 North Fairfax Drive 15th Floor 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Arlington, Virginia 22203 Date: 27 July 2012 Cover photo credit: Geoffrey Hammerson NatureServe Project Team Mary Harkness Patrick Crist Conservation Planner/Project Manager Director, Conservation Planning and Ecosystem Management Ian Varley Jacquie Bow Conservation Planner GIS Analyst Jon Hak Geoffrey Hammerson Ecologist/Senior GIS Analyst Research Zoologist Suzanne Young Conservation Biologist and Data Analyst Suggested citation: NatureServe. 2012. Regional assessment: Stateline solar farm project. Technical report prepared for Desert Stateline, LLC. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Regional Assessment: Stateline Solar Farm Project Page 2 of 94 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose and overview of assessment ........................................................................................... 8 1.2 Assessment approach ................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Assessment areas and context ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Ivanpah Valley Watershed ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed
    Mojave National Preserve—Management Plan for Developed Water Resources CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction This chapter describes the unique factors that influence water resource management in the Preserve and the resources that could be affected by the implementation of any of the alternatives described in Chapter 2: Alternatives. The resource descriptions provided in this chapter serve as a baseline to compare the potential effects of the management actions proposed in the alternatives. The following resource topics are described in this chapter: • Environmental Setting • Cultural Resources • Water Resources • Wilderness Character • Wildlife Environmental setting and water resources are important for context and are foundational for water resource management, but are not resources that are analyzed for effects. Resource issues that were considered and dismissed from further analysis are listed in Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action and are not discussed further in this EA. A description of the effects of the proposed alternatives on wildlife, cultural resources, and wilderness character is presented in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. Environmental Setting The Preserve includes an ecologically diverse yet fragile desert ecosystem consisting of vegetative attributes that are unique to the Mojave Desert, as well as components of the Great Basin and Sonoran Deserts. Topography The topography of the Preserve is characteristic of the mountain and basin physiographic pattern, with tall mountain ranges separated by corresponding valleys filled with alluvial sediments. Primary mountain ranges in the Preserve, from west to east, include the Granite, Kelso, Providence, Clark, New York, and Piute Mountains. Major alluvial valleys include Soda Lake (dry lake bed), Shadow Valley, Ivanpah Valley, Lanfair Valley, and Fenner Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed Water Sources
    to Las Vegas to Las Vegas Kin Primm gsto E n S W E H G T G a I sh N G N A M Wilderness H R A L Y N R A I (! (!A A N Clark Mountain )" H #T R D N (! (! G # G (! U (! N R U U IO ") N A 95 O (! Y E Yates Well P O S (! A x N C C I L c M (! F IC G e U H IVANPAH R L l K A E Mojave National Preserve s IL L i R R U o # 15 O A (! LAKE (! C A r A Water Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment D M L (dry) c D C i n ash M 164 O e LL W HI n Searchlight R WK o MOHA at o Nipton W he a Mojave National Preserve boundary W d )" P # Nipton Road I Salton # ### 164 U M ## # National Park Service wilderness E I T Sea G N h E s N E R Y a A A W # R L (! E s L S Spring ng A H V ri C IL ES L L p M N A S 127 ll L L )" CIMA ROAD # Ivanpah Road I u L Small game guzzler B A )" (! A E V # )" V Y S T " Big game guzzler T # ## A N (! S # M (! L )" # (!(! # Halloran Springs #Morning U N # L (! I # ## (! # Well H E # Star Mine # O h ##(!# A ## s ## W (! )" A Y (! # T a H i # M (! CASTLE ## P l sh (!# Paved road lo a N W # A w W MOUNTAINS N Willow e U )" # P NATIONAL t SILVER A u Spring O i 15 N MONUMENT LAKE # V (! P Unpaved 2-wheel drive road I A (!# # # M (dry) (! # )" Morning Star Mine Road V (! I (! E Cal Nev Ari # L Kessler Unpaved 4-wheel drive road #(!# T # #### Spring K (!## S CIMA R (! (!# Mine Ro (! (! # rt a # A (! ! O # a d Mojave Road 4-wheel drive road #(!#(! ( Y C h DOME (! !( H # s Deer ( (! W (! a E (!(! Spring #(! N (! )" )" P W# (! Keystone Desert wash (! I NEVADA Baker Kelbaker Rd nk (! (! CALIFORNIA a (! (! U T (!(! # (! (! Spring ck
    [Show full text]