DOCSLIB.ORG

Project. Before the Commission Makes a Decision on the Proposal, It Will Take Into Account All Concerns Relevant to the Public Interest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Project. Before the Commission Makes a Decision on the Proposal, It Will Take Into Account All Concerns Relevant to the Public Interest Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030811-0001 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/11/2003 in Docket#: P-184-065 ~~//b~~?~/~.~~~~~'% / ProjectsEnergyOffice of August2003 ~:XfA-t ~ FERC/FEIS- 0157F Final Environmental Impact Statement El Dorado Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 184-065) California 888 First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20426 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030811-0001 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/11/2003 in Docket#: P-184-065 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE El Dorado Project No. 184-065 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Environmental and Engineering Review 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 August 2003 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030811-0001 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/11/2003 in Docket#: P-184-065 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED Attached is the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the El Dorado Project, located on the South Fork of the American River in the counties of El Dorado, Alpine, and Amador, California, and partially within the boundaries of the Eldorado National Forest. The final EIS doc4mteuts the views of the staffof the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regarding the proposed hydroelectric project. Before the Commission makes a decision on the proposal, it will take into account all concerns relevant to the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from which the Commission will make its decision. The final EIS was sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about August 6, 2003. Copies of the final EIS are available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426. The final EIS may also be viewed on the Internet at ~ under the FERRIS link. For further information, please contact Susan O'Brien at (202) 502-8449. Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Statement Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030811-0001 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/11/2003 in Docket#: P-184-065 COVER SHEET a. Title: Relicensing the E1 Dorado Project in the South Fork of the American River Basin and the Truckee River Basin, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Project No. 184.065 b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission d. Abstract: E1 Dorado Irrigation District (EID) filed an application for a new license for the existing El Dorado Project, which is located on the South Fork of the American River and its tributaries in El Dorado, Alpine, and Amador counties, California, and occupies private lands and federally owned lands administered by the Eldorado National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The final environmental impact statement (EIS) presents the staff's evaluation of the developmental and nondevelopmental consequences of EID's proposal, alternatives to the proposed action, and the no- action alternative. e. Contact: Susan O'Brien Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 (202) 502-8449 f. Transmittal: This final EIS prepared by the Commission's staff on the hydroelectric license application filed by EID for the existing El Dorado Project (FERC No. 184.065) is being made available to the public on or about August 6, 2003, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969' and the Commission's Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (18 CFR Part 380). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190.42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982). Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030811-0001 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/11/2003 in Docket#: P-184-065 FOREWORD The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA)1 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act' is authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of non- federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions: That the project adopted ...shall be such as in the judgement of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign comnterce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in Section 4(e)... s The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the project: Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee's compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis for such objection for the Commission's consideration: 16 U.S.C. §§791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (1992). 2 Public Law 95-91, 91 Star. 556 (1977). 3 16 U.S.C. §803(a). 4 16 U.S.C. §S03(g). S 18 C.F.R. §385.206 (1987). Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030811-0001 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/11/2003 in Docket#: P-184-065 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... xiii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... xv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................... xix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. xxiii 1.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ........................ 1 1.1 Application and Purpose of Action ............................... l 1.2 Need for Power .............................................. 1 1.3 Interventions ................................................ 2 1.4 Scoping .................................................... 4 1.5 Recommendations, Terms, and Conditions ......................... 5 1.6 Settlement Agreement ......................................... 6 1.7 Dratt Environmental Impact Statement ............................ 7 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ....................... .9 2.1 Applicant's Proposed Action ................................. .9 2.1.1 Project Description and Operation ........................ .9 2.1.2 Proposed Environmental Measures ....................... 14 2.2 Proposed Action with Additional Staff-Reco|mnended Measures ..... 26 2.3 Project Decommissioning ................................ .... 29 2.4 No Action ............................................ .... 30 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .... ..... 30 2.5.1 Federal Government Takeover ....................... ..... 30 2.5.2 Nonpower License ................................ ..... 30 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...,....),. o...).°............. 31 3.1 General Description of the South Fork of the American River Basin ... 31 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................... 32 3.2.1 Resources That Could Be Cumulatively Affected ............. 32 3.2.2 Geographic Scope ..................................... 32 3.2.3 Temporal Scope ....................................... 33 ix Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030811-0001 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/11/2003 in Docket#: P-184-065 3.3 Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................... 33 3.3.1 Water Resources ....................................... 33 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ............................. 33 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects and Recommendations .......... 53 3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects on Water Quality and Water Quantity .................................. 73 3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ....................... 74 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ..................................... 74 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................. 74 3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects and Recommendations .......... 94 3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects on Coldwater Fishery Resources ... 131 3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...................... 132 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources .................................. 133 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................ 133 3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects and Recommendations ......... 154 3.3.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...................... 167 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................... 167 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment ............................ 167 3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects and Recommendations ......... 168 3.3.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...................... 170 3.3.5 Reereational Resources ................................ 170 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................ 170 3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects and Recommendations ......... 191 3.3.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...................... 214 3.3.6 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources ....................... 214 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................ 215 3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects and Recommendations ......... 226 3.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...................... 236 3.3.7 Cultural Resources ...................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan
    Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan El Dorado and Placer Counties, California and Douglas and Washoe Counties, and Carson City, Nevada September 2007 Prepared by: Lake Tahoe Response Plan Area Committee (LTRPAC) Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan September 2007 If this is an Emergency… …Involving a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other contaminants impacting public health and/or the environment Most important – Protect yourself and others! Then: 1) Turn to the Immediate Action Guide (Yellow Tab) for initial steps taken in a hazardous material, petroleum product, or other contaminant emergency. First On-Scene (Fire, Law, EMS, Public, etc.) will notify local Dispatch (via 911 or radio) A complete list of Dispatch Centers can be found beginning on page R-2 of this plan Dispatch will make the following Mandatory Notifications California State Warning Center (OES) (800) 852-7550 or (916) 845-8911 Nevada Division of Emergency Management (775) 687-0300 or (775) 687-0400 National Response Center (800) 424-8802 Dispatch will also consider notifying the following Affected or Adjacent Agencies: County Environmental Health Local OES - County Emergency Management Truckee River Water Master (775) 742-9289 Local Drinking Water Agencies 2) After the Mandatory Notifications are made, use Notification (Red Tab) to implement the notification procedures described in the Immediate Action Guide. 3) Use the Lake Tahoe Basin Maps (Green Tab) to pinpoint the location and surrounding geography of the incident site. 4) Use the Lake and River Response Strategies (Blue Tab) to develop a mitigation plan. 5) Review the Supporting Documentation (White Tabs) for additional information needed during the response.
    [Show full text]
  • El Dorado County Parks and Trails Master Plan
    Draft El Dorado County Parks and Trails Master Plan December 30, 2011 DRAFT – E L D ORADO C OUNTY P ARKS AND T RAILS M ASTER P LAN Acknowledgements El Dorado County Board of Master Plan Advisory Committee Supervisors Dan Bolster, El Dorado County John Knight, District 1 Transportation Commission Ray Nutting, District 2 Michael Kenison, Trails Advisory James R. Sweeney, District 3 Committee Ron Briggs, District 4 Steve Youel, City of Placerville Norma Santiago, District 5 Cheri Jaggers, El Dorado Irrigation District Elena DeLacy, American River El Dorado County Planning Conservancy Commission Jeanne Harper, Community Economic Lou Rain, District 1 Development Association of Pollock Dave Pratt, District 2 Pines Tom Heflin, District 3 Tina Helm, Cameron Park CSD Walter Mathews, District 4 Jerry Ledbetter, Backcountry Horsemen Alan Tolhurst, District 5 Kathy Daniels, El Dorado County Office of Education El Dorado County Parks and Jeff Horn, Bureau of Land Management Recreation Commission Bob Smart, El Dorado County Parks and Guy Gertsch, District 1 Recreation Commission Charles Callahan, District 2 Noah Rucker‐Triplett, El Dorado County Bob Smart, District 3 Environmental Management Jenifer Russo, District 4 Eileen Crim, Trails Advocate Steve Yonker, District 5 Lester Lubetkin, USDA Eldorado National Forest El Dorado County Trails Advisory Carl Clark, Georgetown Divide Recreation Committee District Carolyn Gilmore Keith Berry, Railroad Museum Melba Leal Sandi Kukkola, El Dorado Hills CSD Randy Hackbarth Michael Kenison El Dorado County Staff
    [Show full text]
  • LONG-TERM MONITORING PLAN: Draba Asterophora Var. Asterophora & Draba Asterophora Var. Macrocarpa
    LONG-TERM MONITORING PLAN: Draba asterophora var. asterophora & Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa (Online Version: Sensitive plant locations omitted) USDA FOREST SERVICE ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST, HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST & LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT ©Steve Matson PREPARED BY: BLAKE ENGELHARDT, BOTANIST & SHANA GROSS, ECOLOGIST LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT September 2013 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................... 4 STUDY DESIGN .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Monitoring Questions ............................................................................................................................... 8 Monitoring Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 9 Monitoring Design & Protocol .................................................................................................................. 9 Timing of Monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 12 DATA ANALYSIS & MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................................... 12 ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • El Dorado County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
    El Dorado County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2018 Adopted by FEMA, March 2019 EDC Board Of Supervisor's Adoption, April 23, 2019 This Page Left Intentionally Blank Executive Summary The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards. El Dorado County developed this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update to make the County and its residents less vulnerable to future hazard events. This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that El Dorado County would be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs. The County followed a planning process prescribed by FEMA, which began with the formation of a hazard mitigation planning committee (HMPC) comprised of key County representatives, and other regional stakeholders. The HMPC conducted a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to the County, assessed the County’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The County is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Floods, levee failures, wildfires, and severe weather are among the hazards that can have a significant impact on the County. Based on the risk assessment, the HMPC identified goals and objectives for reducing the County’s vulnerability to hazards. The goals and objectives of this multi-hazard mitigation plan are: Goal 1: Minimize risk and vulnerability of El Dorado County to the impacts of natural hazards and protect lives and reduce damages and losses to property, economy, public health and safety, and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • LTBMU Sensitive Plant Species and Habitat - 2011 Monitoring Report
    LTBMU Sensitive Plant Species and Habitat - 2011 Monitoring Report USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Prepared by: Blake Engelhardt, Botanical technician & Shana Gross, Ecologist 9/6/2012 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2 2. SENSITIVE PLANT STATUS & TREND................................................................................. 3 3. HABITAT MODELS ................................................................................................................ 17 4. FUNGI DIVERSITY ................................................................................................................. 19 5. SENSITIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES .................................................................................... 19 a. Fens ............................................................................................................................... 19 b. TRPA Rare Plant Community Threshold Sites ............................................................ 21 c. Meadow Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 22 6. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 24 7. LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 24 8. APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Analysis
    FINAL UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER SUNSET STABLES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT SECTION 3 Environmental Analysis 3.1 INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Chapter 3 describes the affected environment and environmental consequences of the Proposed Project (Proposed Action under NEPA) and No Project (No Action under NEPA) alternative. Impacts are addressed at a level of detail that is commensurate with the magnitude of the potential impact. The evaluation criteria are provided in the CEQA Checklist (see Appendix A), and the TRPA IEC (see Appendix B) for CEQA and TRPA, respectively. 3.1.1 Resources Analyzed in Detail The resource areas listed below would potentially be affected by the Proposed Project and are discussed in detail in Sections 3.2 through 3.14. 3.2 Aesthetics 3.3 Air Quality 3.4 Biological Resources 3.5 Cultural Resources 3.6 Geology and Soils 3.7 Greenhouse Gases 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.10 Noise 3.11 Recreation 3.12 Traffic and Circulation 3.13 Utilities and Service Systems 3.14 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance Each resource section includes a description of existing conditions and a combined analysis of environmental consequences for NEPA/CEQA. Determinations for NEPA/CEQA are combined for the No Action/No Project Alternative and separated at the end of each resource section for the Proposed Project Alternative. 3.1.2 Resources Not Analyzed in Detail Based on the project description (Chapter 2) and the affected environment, the following environmental resources would not be affected by the Proposed Project and are not further analyzed in Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Echo Lake to Barker Pass Please Fill out This Form and Send It to the Address Below
    Join the TRAIL COURTESY TAHOE RIM TRAIL ASSOCIATION Echo Lake to Barker Pass Please fill out this form and send it to the address below. 32.9 Miles Membership Benefits SEGMENT HIGHLIGHTS • Newsletter Subscription • Course Discounts • Wilderness setting • Merchandise Discounts • Member-Only Outings • Abundance of lakes Echo Lake to • Picturesque contrast of granite and water Annual Membership Levels (check one) USE REGULATIONS Student/Senior: $30 Trail Partner: $100* Barker Pass TRAILHEADS Bikes are PROHIBITED on the co-located Pacific Individual: $45 Trail Caretaker: $250* ǂ Echo Lake: 1 mi. west of Echo Summit on Hwy 50, Crest Trail/Tahoe Rim Trail through this segment Family: $60 Trail Builder: $500 ǂ follow Johnson Pass Rd. for 0.6 mi. Turn north on and beyond. A USFS permit is required for all entry Trail Steward: $1,000 into Desolation Wilderness. Day use permits are 267 Echo Lake Rd., follow it 1 mi to Echo Lake. Park in * Includes short sleeve T-shirt 431 upper lot. Small seasonal resort/store. self-issued at trailheads; overnight permits require ǂ Includes fleece vest advanced reservations and/or day-of pick up at a Vest or T-shirt size (circle one) S M L XL | Gender: M / F 89 Alternate Access: Several trails, including Bayview USFS visitor center. 28 28 and Eagle Falls, climb the long steep slopes leading ______________________________________________ up to the TRT from Hwy 89. CAMPING REGULATIONS Name(s) Camp within 300' of the trail, at least 200' from ______________________________________________ 50 Barker Pass: From Hwy 89 turn onto Blackwood Mailing Address all water sources including alpine lakes, and at 89 Canyon Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Rare
    LTBMU RARE BOTANICAL SPECIES – 2015 MONITORING REPORT USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Left to right: Draba asterophora var. asterophora, Erigeron miser, Botrychium ascendens. Prepared by: Courtney Rowe, Forest Botanist & Vanessa Stevens, Biological Science Technician May 1, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENT 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 1 4 Forest Service Sensitive Status and Change.......................................................................................... 3 5 Watch List Status and Trend ............................................................................................................... 19 6 Planning for Future Rare Plant Monitoring ......................................................................................... 22 7 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 23 8 References .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix A: 2015 LTBMU Botanical Species Lists .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Vegetation Preservation References
    ake Tahoe lies within a unique geologic Region in the Sierra Nevada. Lake Tahoe’s natural rim sits at an elevation of 6,223 feet, and the surrounding mountain peaks reach heights of up to L 10,886 feet. A strong rain shadow effect causes a pattern of decreasing precipitation from west to east, and this with topographic effects produces many localized climates (Elliot-Fisk et al. 1997). Elevation gradients and local climate variability produce a diversity of vegetation types; for example, the most recent vegetation map of the Region identified over 67 discrete types (Greenberg et al. 2006). Tree dominated vegetation is most abundant, followed by shrub dominated, with a small proportion of herbaceous dominated types (Greenberg et al. 2006). A total of 1,077 vascular plant species have been confirmed in the Region with another 360 possibly occurring. In addition, the Region is home to 115 species of non-vascular plants (Murphy and Knopp 2000). There are 14 special status plant species1 documented in the Region (11 vascular and three non-vascular), and an additional 14 special status plant species may occur (either suitable habitat occurs, or plants are known only from historic records) but have not been documented (McKnight and Rowe 2015). In addition, 13 species are on a U.S. Forest Service ‘watch list,’ and one species, whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is a candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Tahoe yellow cress (TYC) is the only plant listed as endangered by California and Nevada. In 2015, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined not to list TYC based on the strength of the TYC conservation plan and the regional partners’ success in implementing the plan over the last 20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Caldor Fire Incident Update
    CALDOR FIRE INCIDENT UPDATE Date: 9/5/2021 Time: 7:00 p.m. @CALFIREAEU @CALFIRE_AEU Information Line: (530) 303-2455 @EldoradoNF Media Line: (530) 806-3212 Incident Websites: www.fire.ca.gov/current_incidents @CALFIREAEU https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/7801/ @EldoradoNF Email Updates (sign-up): https://tinyurl.com/CaldorIncident El Dorado County Evacuation Map: https://tinyurl.com/EDSOEvacMap INCIDENT FACTS Incident Start Date: August 14, 2021 Incident Start Time: 6:54 P.M. Incident Type: Wildland Fire Cause: Under Investigation Incident Location: 2 miles east of Omo Ranch, 4 miles south of the community of Grizzly Flats CAL FIRE Unit: Amador – El Dorado AEU Unified Command Agencies: CAL FIRE AEU, USDA Forest Service – Eldorado National Forest Size: 215, 400 Containment: 44% Expected Full Containment: September 27, 2021 First Responder Fatalities: 0 First Responder Injuries: 7 Civilian Fatalities: 0 Civilian Injuries: 2 Structures Threatened: 27,670 Structures Damaged: 75 Single Residences Commercial Properties Other Minor Structures 713 18 190 Destroyed: Destroyed: Destroyed: ASSIGNED RESOURCES Engines: 357 Water Tenders: 88 Helicopters: 31 Hand Crews: 78 Dozers: 79 Other: 34 Total Personnel: 5,072 Air Tankers: Numerous firefighting air tankers from throughout the State are flying fire suppression missions as conditions allow. CURRENT SITUATION WEST ZONE Today, slow wind speeds and an early morning smoke inversion decreased fire activity. Situation Summary: Crews worked in challenging terrain in remote areas along the northeast edge of the fire picking up spots and going direct when safe. Along Hwy 50, firefighters mopped up and Incident Information: cleared hazard trees to support safe repopulation in the coming days.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Gold Belt. Geographic Relations
    DESCRIPTION OF THE GOLD BELT. GEOGRAPHIC RELATIONS. shore was apparently somewhat west of the Oro and the Mariposa slates, are found only on post-Juratrias upheaval, and that their age, present crest, and the sea extending westward the western flank of the Sierra Nevada. During therefore, is early Cretaceous. The principal gold belt of California includes received Paleozoic sediments which now consti­ the earlier part of the Juratrias period portions SUPERJACENT SERIES. a portion of the Sierra Nevada lying between the tute a large part of the central portion of the of the Great Basin were under water, as is shown parallels of 37° 30' and 40° north latitude. It is range. by the fossiliferous beds of that age in Eldorado OEETACEOUS PEEIOD. bounded on the west by the Sacramento and San At the close of the Carboniferous the Paleozoic Canyon south of Virginia City and in the Hurn- Since no beds of early Cretaceous age are Joaquin valleys, and on the east by a diagonal land area of western Nevada subsided, and dur­ boldt Mountains, but nowhere from the foothills known in the Sierra Nevada, it is presumed that line extending from about longitude 120° 40' in ing the larger part of the Juratrias period it was of the Sierra Nevada to the east base of the during the early Cretaceous all of the present the neighborhood of the fortieth parallel to lon­ at least partly covered by the sea. At the close Wasatch, if we except certain beds near Genesee range was above water. gitude 119° 40' in the neighborhood of parallel of the Juratrias the Sierra Nevada was upheaved Valley, are any deposits known which are of late During the late Cretaceous the range subsided 37° 30'.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Lake Aloha, Lake of the Woods, and Ropi Lake
    42 • Sierra Nevada LAKE ALOHA, LAKE OF THE WOODS, AND ROPI LAKE 12 Length: 13.9 miles round-trip Hiking time: 2 to 3 days High point: 8,400 feet Total elevation gain: 2,800 feet Difficulty: strenuous Season: early July to late September Water: available from lakes and streams (purify first) Maps: USGS 7.5’ Echo Lake, USGS 7.5’ Pyramid Peak, USGS 7.5’ Emerald Bay, USFS Desolation Wilderness Information: Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Round-trip 8300' display of Desolation Wilderness scenery to the 8000' 7700' south and west. The next 0.4 mile reveals many 7400' odd-shaped Sierra juniper growing in exposed 7100' 6800' spots, with the steep Sierra slopes beyond. Tam- 6500' arack Lake, Ralston Lake, and Ralston Peak lie 0 mile 6.95 13.9 to the south, and the upper 500 feet of Pyramid ThisHike 12. Lakhikee Aloha, offersLake of the extensiveWoods, and Ropi Lakviewse of high Sierra Peak rises to the west. peaks as it takes you to five beautiful lakes. You Reach the Pacific Crest Trail at 3.2 miles. A must obtain a permit for this hike. Day hikers can left turn leads to Tamarack, Ralston, and Echo get a free permit at the trailhead. Overnight hikers Lakes (see Hike 6: Tamarack and Ralston Lakes need to contact the Lake Tahoe Basin Management via Echo Lakes). Go right and gently climb for Unit (530-543-2694; www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu) for 0.3 mile along a plateau sporting scattered sage, more information on overnight quotas, obtaining native fescue grasses, red fir, and tall western a permit, and paying overnight camping fees.
    [Show full text]