DOCSLIB.ORG

CAWP DEIR Application DRAFT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAWP DEIR Application DRAFT Central Amador Water Project (CAWP) Water Right Application Environmental Impact Report DRAFT SCH #2016092008 Lead Agency: Amador Water Agency 12800 Ridge Road Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Contact: Gene Mancebo 209.223.3018 Prepared By: May 2017 Amador Water Agency CAWP Water Right Application Table of Contents Environmental Impact Report DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. Amador Water Agency CAWP Water Right Application Table of Contents Environmental Impact Report DRAFT Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................ ES-1 ES-1 Introduction .............................................................................................. ES-1 ES-2 Project Location ....................................................................................... ES-2 ES-3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................... ES-2 ES-4 CEQA Objectives ..................................................................................... ES-2 ES-5 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................ ES-2 Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Compliance with CEQA ............................................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 State Requirements .................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2 CEQA EIR Process ..................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.3 Action on the Project ................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting ............................................................ 1-4 1.3 Organization of this EIR .............................................................................. 1-4 Chapter 2 Proposed Project ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Project Location .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Background ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3.1 Water Rights ............................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Project Description ...................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.1 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.2 Project Objectives ....................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.3 Project Desciption ....................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.4 Management Practices for CAWP Water Supply ........................................ 2-6 2.4.5 Existing Facilities and Operational Requirements ....................................... 2.8 2.4.6 Required Permit .......................................................................................... 2-8 2.5 References .................................................................................................. 2-8 Chapter 3 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation ........................................................... 3.0-1 3.0 Introduction to Environmental Analysis .................................................... 3.0-1 3.0.1 Organization of Chapter 3 ........................................................................ 3.0-1 3.0.2 Organization of Discussion of Environmental Issue Areas ....................... 3.0-1 3.0.3 Approach to Analysis of Cumulative Impacts ........................................... 3.0-2 3.0.4 References ............................................................................................... 3.0-4 3.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................. 3.1-1 3.1.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................. 3.1-1 3.1.2 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................. 3.1-1 3.1.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 3.1-2 3.1.4 References ............................................................................................... 3.1-7 May 2017 i Amador Water Agency CAWP Water Right Application Table of Contents Environmental Impact Report DRAFT 3.2 Biological Resources ................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.2.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................. 3.2-1 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................. 3.2-2 3.2.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 3.2-2 3.2.4 References ............................................................................................... 3.2-5 3.3 Growth Inducement .................................................................................. 3.3-1 3.3.1 Consideration of Growth Inducement under CEQA.................................. 3.3-1 3.3.2 Growth Inducement .................................................................................. 3.3-1 3.3.3 Constraints to Growth .............................................................................. 3.3-2 3.3.4 Projected Extent of Growth in CAWP Service Area ................................. 3.3-3 3.3.5 Indirect Impacts Associated with Growth ................................................. 3.3-5 3.3.4 References ............................................................................................. 3.3-10 Chapter 4 Other CEQA Considerations ................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4-1 4.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .......................................... 4-1 4.3 Effects Not Found to be Significant ............................................................. 4-1 4.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.5 Alternatives Evaluation ................................................................................ 4-1 4.5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.5.2 Reduced Growth Alternative ....................................................................... 4-2 4.5.3 No Project Alternative ................................................................................. 4-3 4.5.4 Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................... 4-3 4.5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................... 4-3 4.6 References .................................................................................................. 4-4 Chapter 5 Report Preparers ....................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Amador Water Agency ................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 RMC Water and Environment ..................................................................... 5-1 5.3 AD Consultants ........................................................................................... 5-1 5.4 Hanson Environmental, Inc. ........................................................................ 5-1 May 2017 ii Amador Water Agency CAWP Water Right Application Table of Contents Environmental Impact Report DRAFT List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Project Impacts ................................................ ES-4 Table 1-1: Parties that Submitted Comments during the Scoping Period ............... 1-2 Table 3.0-1: List of Cumulative Projects ................................................................. 3.0-4 Table 3.1-1: Diversion Scenarios ............................................................................ 3.1-3 Table 3.1-2: Average Annual Flow in cfs by Year Type for Maximum Diversion Pre-Project ......................................................................................... 3.1-4 Table 3.1-3: Change in Average Flow from Pre-Project to Post-Project by Year Type (in cfs and %) ............................................................... 3.1-6 Table 3.3-1: Estimated Population and Water Demand in CAWP Service Area – Existing and Build-out ......................................................................... 3.3-5 Table 4-1: Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................... 4-3 List of Figures Figure ES-1: Project Vicinity .................................................................................... ES-3 Figure 2-1: Vicinity Map ........................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2: AWA Current Area Served and CAWP Place of Use............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Campground (2869 Golden Torch Rd, Tel
    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide California Byway Highway # "Route 4--Ebbetts Pass Road" Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 Arnold, California Community of Arnold, California, located in Calaveras County, California. This is where Ebbetts Pass Byway starts.M eadowmont Golf Course, a 9 hole short layout Golf Course, on Ebbetts Pass Highway Route #4. Altitude: 3950 feet 0.4 Dunbar Road Dunbar Road, Blagen Road, White Pines, California, White Pines Lake, San Antonio Circle Altitude: 4029 feet 1.5 Linda Drive Linda Drive, Blue Lake Springs Drive, Sequoia Woods Country Club, in Arnold, Calaveras County, California Altitude: 4265 feet 1.7 Upper Moran Road Upper Moran Road, Oak Tree Parkway, Beaver Creek, North Fork of Stanislaus River, Huge, Bulk trees located in Calaveras Big Trees State Park, in California. Altitude: 4311 feet 3.2 North Grove North Grove, Oak Trees Parkway, Scenic Calavars Big Trees State Park, Tall, Big Trees offer a grand natural scenic area. Altitude: 4682 feet 3.4 Forest Route 7N08 Forest Route 7N08, Summit Level Road, Railroad Flat Road to Independence, California, leads through the Calavaras Big Trees State Park Altitude: 4777 feet 4.2 Dardanelle Vista Snowshoe Lake, Stanilaus River Altitude: 5033 feet 5.3 Snowshoe Springs, Community of Snowshoe Springs, California. Golden Pines RV Resort California & Campground (2869 Golden Torch Rd, Tel. 209-795-2820). Altitude: 4941 feet 5.8 Dorrington, California A resort town on State Route #4, within the Calaveras Big Trees State Park, along Ebbetts Pass Road Byway, California. Altitude: 4783 feet 6.6 Camp Connell, CA Community of Camp Connell, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California
    The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5053 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Photograph of more than a dozen salt-evaporation basins at Hams salt spring, which have been carved by Native Americans in granitic bedrock. Saline water flows in light-colored streambed on left. Photograph by J.S. Moore, 2009. The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California By James G. Moore, Michael F. Diggles, William C. Evans, and Karin Klemic Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5053 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Moore, J.G., Diggles, M.F., Evans, W.C., and Klemic, K., 2017, The saltiest springs in the Sierra Nevada, California: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Kirkwood Meadows Public Utilities District Power Line Reliability Project
    Kirkwood Meadows Public Utilities District Power Line Reliability Project Project Description: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action KMPUD Project Description page 1 of 31 Introduction ____________________________________________ This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Kirkwood Meadows Power Line Reliability Project. It describes both alternatives considered in detail and those eliminated from detailed study. The end of this chapter presents the alternatives in tabular format so that the alternatives and their environmental impacts can be readily compared. Alternatives Considered in Detail __________________________ Based on the issues identified through public comment on the proposed action, the Forest Service developed four (4) alternative proposals that achieve the purpose and need differently than the proposed action. In addition, the Forest Service is required to analyze a No Action alternative. The proposed action, alternatives, and no action alternative are described in detail below. Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No power line or supporting structures would be constructed to accomplish the purpose and need, and the Kirkwood community and ski resort would continue to be powered primarily by diesel generated electricity. Currently low sulfur dyed diesel fuel #2 is trucked into Kirkwood roughly two to three times per week during the winter months and once per week during the summer months. The number of trips depends on the consumption. Snowmaking, for instance, may consume as much as 5,000 gallons in a 24-hour period. There have been fuel spills during transport and transfer of fuel to the storage tanks.
    [Show full text]
  • 11313500 Salt Springs Reservoir Near West Point, CA San Joaquin River Basin
    Water-Data Report 2007 11313500 Salt Springs Reservoir near West Point, CA San Joaquin River Basin LOCATION.--Lat 38°29′55″, long 120°12′52″ referenced to North American Datum of 1927, in NW ¼ SE ¼ sec.33, T.8 N., R.16 E., Calaveras County, CA, Hydrologic Unit 18040012, in Eldorado National Forest, near center of Salt Springs Dam on North Fork Mokelumne River, 1.8 mi upstream from Cole Creek, and 18 mi northeast of West Point. DRAINAGE AREA.--169 mi². SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--March 1931 to current year. Prior to October 1964, records published as usable contents. REVISED RECORDS.--WSP 1930: Drainage area, WDR CA-00-3: 1999 (month-end gage heights). GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Prior to Oct. 1, 1991, nonrecording gage read once daily. Datum of gage is NGVD of 1929 (levels by Pacific Gas and Electric Company). COOPERATION.--Records were collected by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, under general supervision of the U.S. Geological Survey, in connection with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project no. 137. REMARKS.--Reservoir is formed by concrete-faced rock-fill dam, completed in 1931; storage began in March 1931. Capacity, 141,857 acre-ft, between elevations 3,667.75 ft, outlet drain, and 3,958.0 ft, top of radial gates. Storage of 1,860 acre-ft available for release to river only. Water is released through Salt Springs Powerplant (station 11313510) just downstream from dam and discharged into Tiger Creek Powerplant Conduit (station 11314000). Figures given, including extremes, represent total contents. See schematic diagram of Mokelumne River Basin available from the California Water Science Center.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
    4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the regulations pertaining to, and the existing conditions of, surface water, groundwater, water quality, and water supply existing within the planning area, and an evaluation of impacts associated with implementation of the Draft General Plan. 4.9.1 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management. By establishing water quality standards, issuing permits, monitoring discharges, and managing polluted runoff, the CWA seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of surface waters to support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” EPA is the federal agency with primary authority for implementing regulations adopted pursuant to CWA, and has delegated the state of California as the authority to implement and oversee most of the programs authorized or adopted for CWA compliance through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 described below. Water Quality Criteria and Standards EPA has published water quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of two elements: (1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and (2) criteria that protect the designated uses.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan Amador Fire Safe Council
    2016 High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan Amador Fire Safe Council High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 19, 2016 DATE: September 19, 2016 TO: Amador County Board of Supervisors FROM: Amador Fire Safe Council SUBJ: High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan It is with great pleasure that the Amador Fire Safe Council (AFSC) submits the attached High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan (HCCWPP) for approval by the Amador Board of Supervisors. We recommend your approval. This plan is the culmination of many years of work achieved through Title III funding. It incorporates all the public input received during the review process. The plan is the result of cooperation between the USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, CAL FIRE, Sierra Pacific Industries, PG&E, Amador Fire Protection District, and many volunteers, not the least of which is John Hofmann, Natural Resource Advisor to the Amador County Board of Supervisors. John Hofmann worked tirelessly to complete the HCCWPP as he understood that active forest management is the solution to virtually all forest health challenges. For this reason, the AFSC wishes to dedicate this plan to John Hofmann. We will be bringing the CWPP before the Board for final approval action on September 27, 2016. We hope the Board of Supervisors agrees with our recommendation for approval of the plan and its dedication High Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 19, 2016 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Plan Introduction – an introduction to the document and the High country Planning Unit .................... 1 Chapter 2 – High Country Planning Process – summarizes the public process used to develop this Fire Plan ...
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mokelumne River Salmonid Redd Survey Report: October 2011 Through February 2012
    Lower Mokelumne River Salmonid Redd Survey Report: October 2011 through February 2012 June 2013 Robyn Bilski and Ed Rible East Bay Municipal Utility District, 1 Winemasters Way, Lodi, CA 95240 Key words: lower Mokelumne River, salmonid, fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus mykiss, redd survey, spawning, superimposition, gravel enhancement ___________________________________________________________________________ Abstract Weekly fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and winter-run steelhead/rainbow trout (O. mykiss) spawning surveys were conducted on the lower Mokelumne River from 19 October 2011 through 28 February 2012. Estimated total escapement during the 2011/2012 season was 18,596 Chinook salmon. The estimated number of in-river spawners was 2,674 Chinook salmon. The first salmon redd was detected on 19 October 2011. During the surveys, a total of 564 salmon redds were identified. Forty-three (7.6%) Chinook salmon redds were superimposed by other Chinook salmon redds and 336 (59.6%) redds were located within gravel enhancement areas. The reach from Camanche Dam to Mackville Road (reach 6) contained 512 (90.2%) salmon redds and the reach from Mackville Road to Elliott Road (reach 5) contained 52 (9.8%) salmon redds. The highest number of Chinook salmon redd detections (161) took place on 22 November 2011. The first O. mykiss redd was found on 22 November 2011. Sixty-eight O. mykiss redds were identified. Nine O. mykiss redds were superimposed on Chinook salmon redds and one O. mykiss redd was superimposed on another O. mykiss redd. Thirty-one (45.6%) O. mykiss redds were located within gravel enhancement areas. Reach 6 contained 51 (75%) redds and reach 5 contained 17 (25%) redds.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Virtual Open House Meeting Summary Greengen Mokelumne
    Virtual Open House Meeting Summary GreenGen Mokelumne Water Battery Project July 30, 2020, 4:00 – 5:30 PM Remote Access Only: Due to ongoing coronavirus concerns and travel restrictions, GreenGen knows that stakeholder health and safety is of the utmost importance and has shifted to virtual engagement. If possible, GreenGen is also planning to hold an in-person open house in the project area during the next six months when the PAD nears completion. Webinar Video Link: https://kearnswest.adobeconnect.com/greengen Audio Conference Line: 1-866-705-2554, Participant Code: 541575 Welcome and Introductions Kelsey Rugani, Facilitator, opened the meeting and reviewed the agenda, ground rules, and ways to participate. She noted that several questions that had been submitted in advance will be answered first in the Question & Answer portion of the presentation. She invited attendees to submit additional questions by emailing [email protected] or typing questions directly into the chat box. Jennifer Rouda, GreenGen Storage Management Team, introduced herself and welcomed meeting attendees to the virtual open house. GreenGen is pursuing an opportunity with the Mokelumne Water Battery Project in California to develop a utility-scale, “green energy” project with local socioeconomic benefits. The project will provide renewable energy and energy storage to help California comply with SB 100 and become carbon-free by 2045. She stated that the project team looks forward to having in- person meetings in the future when it is safe to do so. She noted that this is a critical time as the project team prepares to submit the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and thanked all attendees for making the effort to join the virtual meeting today.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology and Water Quality
    DRAFT EIR Calaveras County Draft General Plan June 2018 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.8.1 INTRODUCTION The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter of the EIR describes existing drainage patterns and water resources for the project area and the region, and evaluates potential impacts of the project with respect to drainage and water quality concerns. The hydrology and water quality impact analysis is primarily based on information from the Calaveras County Local Agency Groundwater Protection Program, the Mokelumne/Amador/Calaveras Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update,1 and the Calaveras County Water District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update. 2 Water supply (including groundwater supply), wastewater systems, and storm drainage are addressed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR. 4.8.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following setting information provides an overview of the existing precipitation, surface water, groundwater, and flooding conditions in Calaveras County. Precipitation The topography in Calaveras County varies greatly, from near sea level in the Central Valley (western portion of the County) to elevations around 8,100 feet in the mountainous Sierra Nevada (eastern portion of the County). Due to the pronounced difference in elevation from west to east, levels of precipitation vary widely throughout the County. Average annual precipitation is 20 inches in the western region and 60 inches in the northeastern region. Precipitation increases with altitude, and includes both snow and rain. Snow accounts for much of the precipitation in the higher elevations (up to 300 inches per year), while snowfall is rare in the lower-elevation foothills.
    [Show full text]
  • Wsmp 2040 Water Supply Management Program 2040
    VOLUME II FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SCH # 2008052006 WSMP 2040 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2040 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OCTOBER 2009 Table of Contents Volume I 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the Response to Comments Document 1.2. Environmental Review Process 1.3. Report Organization 2. Comments and Responses 2.1. Master Responses 2.1.1 WSMP 2040 2.1.2 Program-level EIR Analysis 2.1.3 Demand Study 2.1.4 Enlarge Pardee Reservoir Component 2.2. Individual Comments and Responses 2.2.1 Federal Agencies 2.2.2 State Agencies 2.2.3 Local Agencies and Utilities 2.2.4 Environmental and Community Organizations 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses Form Letters Volume II 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses (continued) Individual Letters 2.3 Comments from Public Meetings and Responses 2.3.1 Lodi 2.3.2 Sutter Creek 2.3.3 Oakland 2.3.4 Walnut Creek 2.3.5 San Andreas 2.4 Late Comments Submitted After Close of Public Review Period 2.4.1 Federal Agencies 2.4.2 State Agencies 2.4.3 Local Agencies, Utilities and Elected Officials 2.4.4 Environmental and Community Organizations 2.4.5 Individuals and Small Businesses Form Letters Individual Letters EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments Volume III 2.4.5 Individuals and Small Businesses (continued) Handwritten Letters 2.4.6 Comments from EBMUD Board Workshop 12 3. Revisions to the WSMP 2040 Draft PEIR EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments 2.2.5 Individuals and Small Businesses EBMUD WSMP 2040 PEIR October 2009 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Water Management Plan
    August 21, 2007 Calaveras County Storm Water Management Plan For The Unincorporated Communities Of: Arnold Murphys San Andreas Valley Springs/Burson Rancho Calaveras Copperopolis Calaveras County Public Works 891 MOUNTAIN RANCH ROAD SAN ANDREAS, CA 95249 ROB HOUGHTON, PE, DIRECTOR 209.754.6401 Document Value Properties Title Storm Water Management Plan Author Jim Hemminger QC editor Ron Jensen Clerical Tonette White Date Created 6/24/2007 7:09 PM Date Modified 8/21/2007 9:16 AM Revisions 13 C:\Documents and Settings\RHoughton\My File Name Documents\Storm Water Management Plan_figures.doc C:\Documents and Settings\RHoughton\Application Template Data\Microsoft\Templates\PublicWorks_report.dot File Size 2535 kilobytes Pages 60 Keywords storm water TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 OVERVIEW OF CALAVERAS COUNTY............................................................7 SECTION 2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND FOR STORM WATER CONTROL............8 SECTION 3 MS4 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CALAVERAS COUNTY ......11 3.1 Storm Water Discharge Permit Areas ..........................................................................11 3.2 Special Districts ................................................................................................................20 3.3 Unincorporated Areas Outside of Discharge Permit Boundaries...........................20 3.4 City of Angels Camp .......................................................................................................20 3.5 Caltrans..............................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada’S Endless Landforms Are Playgrounds for to Admire the Clear Fragile Shards
    SIERRA BUTTES AND LOWER SARDINE LAKE RICH REID Longitude West 121° of Greenwich FREMONT-WINEMA OREGON NATIONAL FOREST S JOSH MILLER PHOTOGRAPHY E E Renner Lake 42° Hatfield 42° Kalina 139 Mt. Bidwell N K WWII VALOR Los 8290 ft IN THE PACIFIC ETulelake K t 2527 m Carr Butte 5482 ft . N.M. N. r B E E 1671 m F i Dalton C d Tuber k Goose Obsidian Mines w . w Cow Head o I CLIMBING THE NORTHEAST RIDGE OF BEAR CREEK SPIRE E Will Visit any of four obsidian mines—Pink Lady, Lassen e Tule Homestead E l Lake Stronghold l Creek Rainbow, Obsidian Needles, and Middle Fork Lake Lake TULE LAKE C ENewell Clear Lake Davis Creek—and take in the startling colors and r shapes of this dense, glass-like lava rock. With the . NATIONAL WILDLIFE ECopic Reservoir L proper permit you can even excavate some yourself. a A EM CLEAR LAKE s EFort Bidwell REFUGE E IG s Liskey R NATIONAL WILDLIFE e A n N Y T REFUGE C A E T r W MODOC R K . Y A B Kandra I Blue Mt. 5750 ft L B T Y S 1753 m Emigrant Trails Scenic Byway R NATIONAL o S T C l LAVA E Lava ows, canyons, farmland, and N E e Y Cornell U N s A vestiges of routes trod by early O FOREST BEDS I W C C C Y S B settlers and gold miners. 5582 ft r B K WILDERNESS Y . C C W 1701 m Surprise Valley Hot Springs I Double Head Mt.
    [Show full text]