DOCSLIB.ORG

CEQA Document Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CEQA Document Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact Donner Summit Public Utilities District Wastewater Treatment Plant and Irrigation Disposal Upgrade and Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) CEQA Document Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact PUBLIC DRAFT A p r i l 2 011 Prepared for: Donner Summit Public Utilities District Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 3875 Atherton Road Rocklin, California 95765 One Team. Infinite Solutions. Donner Summit Public Utility District Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Project Public Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) CEQA Document April 2011 Prepared for Donner Summit Utility District 53823 Sherritt Lane Soda Springs, CA 95728 Tel: (530) 426-3456 Fax: (530) 426-3460 http://www.dspud.com Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. in association with Dr. Susan Lindstrom, Cultural Resources & Karen Callahan, Botanical Services Donner Summit Public Utility District - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Distribution List Three (3) Copies to: One (1) copy to: Donner Summit Public Utility District Gregory J. Diaz, Nevada County Clerk 53823 Sherritt Lane Nevada County Recorder Office Soda Springs, CA 95728 950 Maidu Avenue, Suite 210 Tel: (530) 426-3456 Nevada City, CA 95959 Fax: (530) 426-3460 Tel: (530) 265-1221 http://www.dspud.com Fax: (530) 265-9842 Three (3) Copies to: Sierra Lakes County Water District One (1) copy to: P.O. Box 1039 Placer County Community Development Soda Springs, CA 95728 Agency 3091 County Center Drive One (1) copy to: Auburn CA 95603 Nevada County Tel: (530) 745-3197 Nevada County Community Development Agency One (1) copy to: Nevada County Government Center Placer County Government Center 950 Maidu Ave. DeWitt Center Nevada City, CA 95959 2970 Richardson Drive Tel: (530) 265-1222 Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 889-4160 One (1) copy to: Jim McCauley, County Clerk-Recorder- Registrar of Voters 2954 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Tel: (530) 886-5610 Copies of this document are available for public review on the project website (www.dspud.com), at the Donner Summit Public Utility District’s Administrative Offices, the Serene Lakes County Water District Administrative Offices and the Nevada and Placer County Clerk’s office. April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 WWTP Upgrade Project Donner Summit Public Utility District - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Team Donner Summit Public Utility District Representatives Tom Skjelstad - District Manager Stantec Representatives Project Engineers Robert Emerick, Ph.D. - Principal-in-Charge Jeff Houser - Project Engineer Dave Price - Project Manager List of Authors Greg Matuzak - CEQA Project Manager/Sr. Wildlife Biologist Bernadette Bezy - CEQA Assistant PM/Sr. Aquatic Biologist Meagan O’Deegan - Environmental Specialist/Anthropologist James Witty, - Soil Scientist, CPSS Rich Stowell, PhD. - Water Quality Scientist, P.E. Mariska Chuse - Environmental Engineer/Planner Amy Croft - Junior Biologist Mike Maddox - Graphics Lori Baccus - Editing and Formatting Jon Walker - GIS Specialist Davina Gonzalez - GIS Specialist With Support from: Karen Callahan, Project Botanist Dr. Susan Lindstrom, Project Archeologist April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 WWTP Upgrade Project Donner Summit Public Utility District - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION .................................................................................................... A-1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Purpose and NEED ............................................................................. 1-1 1.2 CEQA Process ................................................................................................ 1-6 1.3 Agency Coordination ...................................................................................... 1-7 1.4 Scope of this Study ......................................................................................... 1-7 SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Location and Background ................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Project Location .................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Existing Facilities ........................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Proposed Upgrades (The Project) ................................................................... 2-9 2.5 Proposed Construction Activities and schedule ............................................ 2-21 2.6 Operation ...................................................................................................... 2-25 2.7 Environmental Commitments/Best Standard Practices ................................ 2-25 2.8 Potential Agency Approvals ......................................................................... 2-26 SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Setting ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................... 3-5 3.1.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................... 3-7 3.1.4 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 3-10 3.2 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................. 3-11 3.2.1 Setting ............................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................. 3-11 3.2.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 3-15 3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 3-19 3.3.1 Setting ............................................................................................... 3-19 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................. 3-19 3.3.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 3-25 3.3.4 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 3-30 3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................... 3-32 3.4.1 Setting & Impact Analysis Scope ...................................................... 3-32 3.4.2 Methodology ..................................................................................... 3-32 3.4.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................. 3-33 3.4.4 Study Area Definitions ...................................................................... 3-40 3.4.5 Regional Setting ................................................................................ 3-42 3.4.6 Project –Specific Biological Communities (Vegetative Communities and Wildlife Habitats) ................................................. 3-46 3.4.7 Special-Status Species ....................................................................... 3-49 3.4.8 Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 3-63 3.4.9 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 3-73 April 2011 PUBLIC DRAFT Donner Summit Public Utility District 184030047 Task 200.005 i WWTP Upgrades Contents 3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 3-77 3.5.1 Methodology ..................................................................................... 3-77 3.5.2 Setting ............................................................................................... 3-80 3.5.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 3-84 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 3-85 3.6 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................... 3-87 3.6.1 Setting ............................................................................................... 3-87 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................. 3-92 3.6.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................... 3-95 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 3-98 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................... 3-100 3.7.1 Setting ............................................................................................. 3-100 3.7.2
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan
    Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan THE VILLAGE AT SQUAW VALLEY 6/28/2016 This Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan (EPEP) has been prepared for The Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan (VSVSP) project under the supervision of Placer County and in coordination with Pete Hnat, Chief Executive Officer, Emergency Management Consultants. The focus of the EPEP is primarily on emergency preparedness and evacuation protocols as related to emergency events, such as fire. However, other hazards are addressed as well, including avalanche, seismic and flood protection measures. Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Project Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 Location .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Docent Program Hike Information
    2019 Docent Program Hike Information The primary focus of the hiking program this year is for hikers to acquire some information about the particular property and the checkerboard in general, identify some trees, and experience the beauty of nature. Besides the information we have provided below, the Land Trust website has additional information under “Plan Your Visit” and “2018 Hiking Series” about each hike. Please feel free to use it to supplement the information that we have provided. In the Appendix, we have included the information that we prepared for last year’s docent program in case you would like to use it. During the hike, you can cover some of the following information. Please DO NOT use all of it—that will be too much talking. You can do it at rest stops, at the turn around point (if applicable) and while walking. Use your judgement as to the interest of the group— and select the information that you think fits best. You may find that some people just want to hike and experience the area in their own way. You may choose to gauge people’s interest and preferred timing at the beginning of the hike and divide into groups. The source material is from Land Trust and Northern Sierra Partnership websites and additional specific sources identified below. Checkerboard The “Sierra Nevada Checkerboard” is a mosaic spanning several thousand acres of land in public and private ownership, which resembles a checkerboard. This ownership pattern dates to the construction of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860s. As an incentive to build this dangerous and expensive railroad, the federal government offered railroad companies every other square mile of land along the route, reserving the rest to become National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Squaw Valley |Alpine Meadows Base-To-Base Gondola Project Draft EIS/EIR 4.3-1 Wilderness SE Group & Ascent Environmental
    SE Group & Ascent Environmental Wilderness 4.3 WILDERNESS This section includes discussion of potential impacts of the proposed Base-to-Base Gondola project on the National Forest System-Granite Chief Wilderness (GCW), which is adjacent to the project area (i.e., the area generally encompassed by all three action alternatives). No construction, and therefore no direct effects, would occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the GCW. However, indirect impacts on its wilderness character and wilderness users could occur, as described below. This section additionally assesses impacts associated with a portion of privately owned land that was included within the area mapped by Congress as part of the GCW within the 1984 California Wilderness Act. For clarity, this section references the NFS lands within the GCW as “National Forest System-GCW” and refers to the privately owned land included within the congressionally mapped wilderness boundary as “private lands within the congressionally mapped GCW.” In accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, federally-managed Wilderness areas, like the National Forest System-GCW, are defined as follows: (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
    [Show full text]
  • The Transcontinental Railroad an Extraordinary 19Thtunnel Century Engineering Feat Built with Tenacity, 6 Fortitude and Courage If Only the Sierra Might Be Pierced
    June, 2012 issue #46 The Transcontinental Railroad an Extraordinary 19thTunnel Century engineering feat built with tenacity, 6 fortitude and courage If only the Sierra might be pierced. Atlantic magazine December, 1867 The “undertaking was preposterous” but they did it. Von Nostrand’s Engineering Magazine, January 5, 1870 1866 – Bam, bam, quarter turn; Bam, bam, quarter turn; bam, bam, quarter turn. All day long, three shifts a day, day after day, week after week for two years, Chinese workers pounded away at the solid granite. One worker held a drill bit, turning it a quarter turn as two other workers pounded the bit with 8 lb. sledges. At four separate faces teams worked making progress that was measured only in inches a day as they cut through 1659 feet of solid granite. Once a hole was drilled, it was packed with black powder, the fuse was set, and the workers ran. When the smoke cleared, other workers hauled out the rubble - all by hand; they had no machines. Imagine the courage holding a drill bit. Imagine the confidence in your friends. Imagine the accuracy of the sledge handlers; imagine their concentration, hour after hour in the candle or lantern light breathing air filled with stone dust and black powder. Imagine the courage of and the trust in workers who set the explosives. They had to do it just right - every time. Working the solid granite from opposite ends went too slowly so they blasted a shaft straight down the middle to open two more faces. Hauling the rubble by hand: too slow.
    [Show full text]
  • Bear Creek Watershed Assessment Report
    BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96162 February 16, 2018 And Dr. Susan Lindstrom, PhD BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA February 16, 2018 A REPORT PREPARED FOR: Truckee River Watershed Council PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96161 (530) 550-8760 www.truckeeriverwc.org by Brian Hastings Balance Hydrologics Geomorphologist Matt Wacker HT Harvey and Associates Restoration Ecologist Reviewed by: David Shaw Balance Hydrologics Principal Hydrologist © 2018 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Project Assignment: 217121 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 ~ Berkeley, California 94710-2251 ~ (510) 704-1000 ~ [email protected] Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA < This page intentionally left blank > ii Balance Hydrologics, Inc. BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1 1.2 Structure of This Report 4 1.3 Acknowledgments 4 1.4 Work Conducted 5 2 BACKGROUND 6 2.1 Truckee River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 6 2.2 Water Resource Regulations Specific to Bear Creek 7 3 WATERSHED SETTING 9 3.1 Watershed Geology 13 3.1.1 Bedrock Geology and Structure 17 3.1.2 Glaciation 18 3.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups 19 3.3 Hydrology and Climate 24 3.3.1 Hydrology 24 3.3.2 Climate 24 3.3.3 Climate Variability: Wet and Dry Periods 24 3.3.4 Climate Change 33 3.4 Bear Creek Water Quality 33 3.4.1 Review of Available Water Quality Data 33 3.5 Sediment Transport 39 3.6 Biological Resources 40 3.6.1 Land Cover and Vegetation Communities 40 3.6.2 Invasive Species 53 3.6.3 Wildfire 53 3.6.4 General Wildlife 57 3.6.5 Special-Status Species 59 3.7 Disturbance History 74 3.7.1 Livestock Grazing 74 3.7.2 Logging 74 3.7.3 Roads and Ski Area Development 76 4 WATERSHED CONDITION 81 4.1 Stream, Riparian, and Meadow Corridor Assessment 81 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019
    French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019 The 28,000-acre French Meadows Forest Restoration Project is using a collaborative, all-lands approach to restore forest health and resilience and reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire in the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the American River, a critical municipal watershed located on the Tahoe National Forest in California’s Sierra Nevada. The Project was developed by a diverse partnership, including the U.S. Forest Service, which manages most of the land within the project area; Placer County Water Agency, which manages two reservoirs downstream of the project for municipal water and hydropower; The Nature Conservancy, one of the world’s largest conservation organizations; the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state agency and funder; Placer County, a business partner in the hydropower project; the American River Conservancy, an adjacent private landowner; and the Sierra Nevada Research Institute at UC Merced. The French Meadows Project aims to accelerate ecologically-based forest and watershed restoration on the Tahoe National Forest through a shared stewardship approach involving: • Collaborative Management. The partners co-led development of the project and hired consultants to undertake planning and environmental analysis, substantially reducing the planning time for similar Forest Service projects. • Diverse Fundraising. The partners raised funds from a wide variety of federal, state, local, and private sources, including significant investment from downstream water beneficiaries like the water utility and private beverage companies. • Innovative Project Implementation. Placer County will hire contractors to implement thinning and other mechanical treatments, under a Master Stewardship Agreement with the Forest Service. The Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service will work together to develop and implement a prescribed burn plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Donner Summit Heirloom November, 2018 Issue
    November, 2018 issue #123 The Search For Soda Springs Station Another Mission into Donner Summit History by the MHRT Downtown Soda Springs today is at the blinking light and from there towards the freeway. The DSHS is at the blinking light attached to the Soda Springs Hotel building which is now condominiums, the new glass studio is next door. The store and post office are a few hundred yards west and the Donner Summit Lodge building is at the freeway exit next to the gas station.There’s not much in downtown Soda Springs. In the old days, when Highway 40 was the trans-Sierra route, there was lots of business. In 1949 there were 10 lodges, five gas stations, eight taverns and restaurants, four grocery stores, four post offices, and twelve sports shops.There was a lot more to Donner Summit and Soda Springs. That’s a different story though. Before that, before Highway 40, in the days of the Lincoln Highway and before, downtown Soda Springs was across the railroad tracks and was called Soda Springs Station. There people disembarked from the train and hopped on the stage to go down to the Cedars where there was a hotel called Summit Soda Springs. That’s where the original Soda Springs was and is located, with its horribly tasting water. Nineteenth Century visitors, at least some of them, swore by the water, though, and drank it to improve health and vigor (see the April, '17 Heirloom). For a couple of years Summit Mineral Water was bottled there too, so the benefits of the water could be shared with those not able to travel to the source.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel
    Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel. 2019. Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project. Unpublished report of The Nature Conservancy, Placer County Water Agency, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Placer County, American River Conservancy, and Sierra Nevada Research Institute at the University of California, Merced. San Francisco, California. 16 pp. May 2019 Contributors: This paper benefitted from thorough review, edits and contributions from Ed Smith, Andy Fecko, Marie Davis, Brett Storey, Andy Fristensky, Chris Dallas, Roger Bales, Elena DeLacy, Eli Ilano, Michael Woodbridge, Victor Lyon, Karen Walden, Laurie Perrot, Robert Galiano, Pat Farrell, Karen Quidichay, Susan Dewar, Sara Reese and Janelle Nolan. David Edelson, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Angel Hertslet, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Andy Fecko, Placer County Water Agency, [email protected] Andy Fristensky, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, [email protected] Brett Storey, Placer County, [email protected] Elena DeLacy, American River Conservancy, [email protected] Roger Bales, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, [email protected] Acknowledgments: The Nature Conservancy appreciates the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Northern Sierra Partnership, and contributors to TNC’s Sierra Forest and Water Challenge, which helped make this report possible. COVER: The French Meadows Project area, including the French Meadows Reservoir. © David Edelson/TNC Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project ealthy forests provide important benefits to people California’s northern Sierra Nevada (see map). The Project and nature, including clean water, clean air, carbon area includes 27,623 acres, of which 22,152 acres are national Hstorage, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness
    Appendices for the FEIS Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness Introduction This document describes the process used to evaluate the wilderness potential of areas on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). The March 2009 inventory conducted according to Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007 is the basis for this evaluation. The LTBMU was evaluated to determine landscape areas that exhibited inherent basic wilderness qualities such the degree of naturalness and undeveloped character. In addition to the wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must also provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment and area boundaries that could be managed as wilderness. It was determined that areas adjacent to existing wilderness and existing Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were areas were most likely to have the characteristics described above. Other areas around the basin exhibited some of the required characteristics but not enough to be qualified for a congressional wilderness designation. Six areas were identified and evaluated. The analysis is based on GIS mapping of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless area polygon data, adjusted based on local knowledge. Three tests were used—capability, availability, and need—to determine suitability as described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007. In addition to the inherent wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment. The area and boundaries must allow the area to be managed as wilderness. Capability is defined as the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 11 Sierra Lakes County Water District
    North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR CHAPTER 11 Sierra Lakes County Water District Photo Courtesy of Placer County E-newsletter, October 2015. This Municipal Service Review (MSR) chapter describes the Sierra Lakes County Water District. This District was formed in 1961 and currently provides water treatment and distribution, and sewage collection services within its service area. Table of Contents 11.1: Agency Profile ................................................................................................. 11-2 11.2: Overview of District .......................................................................................... 11-3 11.3: Formation and Boundary .................................................................................... 11-5 11.4: Accountability and Governance ............................................................................ 11-7 11.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing .................................................................... 11-8 11.6: Population and Growth ...................................................................................... 11-8 11.7: District Services .............................................................................................. 11-12 11.8: Financing ...................................................................................................... 11-18 11.9: Opportunities to Share Facilities ......................................................................... 11-22 11.10: Challenges ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Existing Resources
    M I dd L E F O R K 80 A M E R I C A N FRENCH MEADOWS RESER VOIR HELL HOLE R LAKE RESER IVERTAHOE PROJECT VOIR MIDDLE FORK INTERBAY RALSTON AFTERBAY FORESTHILL RUBICON 49 MIDDLE FORK RIVER AMERICAN RIVER 80 AUBURN 50 The Middle Fork 49 River watershed rests in the heartAmerican of the Sierra Nevada, between the Sacramento V Lake alley to the west and Tahoe to the east. S FOLSOM u p p RESER o r t VOIR i n g D SD E o Existing c u Relevant S m u p e p n Comprehensive o t r E Plans & t i n g Resource D SD F o Resources Mgmt. Plans HE MFP IS SITUATED IN THE FOOTHILLS AND c u Existing m e n Resource mountainous uplands of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada t S F u p Information p WatershedT (totaling 616 square miles) is characterized by hot, dry range, northeast of Auburn, California. The surrounding o r Report t i n g summers and mild, wet winters, with most of the precipitation falling D SD G o c S u 00/00 between October and March. Precipitation primarily falls as rain in the u m p p e n Technical o t r lower elevations and snow at elevations greater than 5,000 feet above t G i Study Plans n g D SD J mean sea level (msl). Elevations higher than about 6,000 feet msl are & Reports o c u Confi dential m e typically covered by snow until May.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacob Hoehn and California's Summit Mineral Water
    54 September - October, 2009 Bottles and Extras Jacob Hoehn and California’s Summit Mineral Water By Eric McGuire Just as the bottled spring water business has boomed in business community. Operating a popular saloon and active the last 30 years, during the 19th Century most of the western in the Sacramento Masonic Hall Association, he could feel world, including California, witnessed a proliferation of the economic pulse of the community, and in the mid 1860s bottled natural and flavored waters from springs that were it was no secret that the western end of the transcontinental also exploited in the form of sanitariums, hotels and resorts. railway was well under construction and opening up a Perhaps no other state in the union provided so many bottled number of opportunities for shrewd business men. Lumber spring waters during the last half of the 19th century except was already a booming business and the new railroad would for New York. Hot spots along the contact zone of the earth’s vastly increase the market area of this commodity. North American and Pacific tectonic plates have created Beginning in the 1850s the Sitka Ice Company held a a myriad variety of mineral laden waters that were once virtual monopoly on the ice trade in California. Its primary thought to cure nearly all of mankind’s ailments. Whenever a source was the North Pacific Coast and the only mode of new spring was discovered a sample of the water was quickly transportation was by ship to various port cities. Inland whisked away to a prominent chemist who would perform a deliveries were more problematic and the cost per pound rose mineral analysis which was proudly advertised along with its considerably based on transportation issues.
    [Show full text]