Click here to go Home

Mono Basin Draft EIR Volume 2

Volume 2 of the Draft EIR covers the chapters from Chapter 3F through Chapter 4, except Chapter 3M.

Chapter 3F Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Wildlife (267K)
  • Introduction
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Overview of Model Predictions
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

Table 3F-1 Emergence of Negit and Paoha Islets (6K)
Table 3F-2 Prediversion and Point-of-Reference Acreages of Habitats Surrounding Mono Lake (4K)
Table 3F-3 Prediversion and Point-of-Reference Acreages for LADWP Diverted Streams (5K)
Table 3F-4 Summary Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives: Wildlife (7K)
Table 3F-5 Potential California Gull Nesting Capacity at Alternative Elevations of Mono Lake (9K)
Table 3F-6 Predicted Long-Term Acreages and Wildlife Values of Mono Basin Habitats under Point-of-Reference and Alternative Conditions (10K)

 

Figure 3F-1 Mono Lake Islands

Figure 3F-2 Negit Island

Figure 3F-3a Negit Islets (Twain, Krakatoa, Java, and Steamboat)

Figure 3F-3b Negit Islets (Little Norway and Little Tahiti)

Figure 3F-4 Pahoa Islets

 

Chapter 3G Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Land Use (104K)
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Overview of Model Predictions
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 
  • Target Lake Level Alternatives
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

Table 3G-1 Historical Characteristics of Agriculture in Mono and Inyo Counties (4K)
Table 3G-2 Agricultural Land Use and Crop Production in Mono County: 1974, 1979, 1989 (5K)
Table 3G-3 Livestock Production in Mono County: 1974, 1979, 1989 (4K)
Table 3G-4 Forage Production on Leased LADWP Lands in the Mono Basin (4K)
Table 3G-5 Forage Production on Federal Grazing Allotments in the Mono Basin (5K)
Table 3G-6 Estimated Forage Production on Private Lands along the Upper Owens River (4K)
Table 3G-7 Forage Production on Leased LADWP Lands along the Upper Owens River (4K)
Table 3G-8 Forage Production on Federal Grazing Allotments in the Upper Owens River Basin (4K)
Table 3G-9 Summary Comparison of the Effects of the Alternatives: Land Use (8K)
Table 3G-10 Estimated Average Annual Irrigated Acreage and Forage Production for Project Alternatives (4K)

 

Figure 3G-1 Prediversion Irrigated Land in the Mono Basin

Figure 3G-2 Areas in Mono Basin Proposed for Rights Acquisition by LADWP

Figure 3G-3 Prediversion Land Ownership in the Mono Basin Area of Concern

Figure 3G-4 Prediversion and Point-of-Reference Land Ownership in the Upper Owens River Basin

Figure 3G-5 Point-of-Reference Land Ownership in the Mono Basin Area of Concern

 

Chapter 3H Air Quality (112K)
  • Background Information
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Modeling Results for the Point-of-Reference Condition
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

Table 3H-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in California (5K)
Table 3H-2 Summary of Recent Particulate Matter Monitoring Data for the Mono Basin Area (9K)
Table 3H-3 Summary of PM10 Monitoring Data Collected at Warm Springs (9K)
Table 3H-4 Monthly Distribution of PM10 Exceedances (7K)
Table 3H-5 Summary of Temperature and Moisture Effects on Wind Erosion Potential of Efflorescent Salt Deposits (4K)
Table 3H-6 Summary Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives: Air Quality (10K)
Table 3H-7 Summary of FDM Modeling Results (11K)

 

Figure 3H-1 Meteorological and Air Quality Monitoring Locations

Figure 3H-2 Average Monthly Temperatures at Mono Lake, 1951-1980

Figure 3H-3 Average Monthly Precipitation at Cain Ranch, 1941-1991

Figure 3H-4 annual Precipitation at Cain Ranch, 1941-1991

Figure 3H-5 Average Time-of-Day Wind Patterns for the Lee Vining Monitoring Site, 1986-1991

Figure 3H-6 Average Time-of-Day Wind Patterns for the Simis Ranch Monitoring Site, 1986-1991

Figure 3H-7 Simis Ranch PM10/TSPRelationship, May 1990-June-1992 and Figure 3H-8 Maximum Measured PM10 by Month for Simis Ranch, October 1986-June 1992

Figure 3H-9 Monthly pattern of Measured PM10 Exceedances for Simis Ranch, October 1986-June 1992 and Figure 3H-10 Frequency of Measured PM10 Values, October 1986-June 1992

Figure 3H-11 Annual Trends of PM10 Exceedances at Simis Ranch Monitoring Site and Figure 3H-12 Estimated Pattern of PM10 Exceedances at Simis Ranch Monitoring Site

Figure 3H-13 Frequency of Low PM10 Values at Lee Vining and Simis Ranch

Figure 3H-14 Annual Frequency of Dust Events in LADWP Photographs, March 1980-December 1990 and Figure 3H-15 Monthly Frequency Of Dust Events in LADWP Photographs, March 1980-February 1991

Figure 3H-16 Seasonal Occurrence of Dust Events Recorded in LADWP Photographs, March 1980-December 1990 and Figure 3H-17 LADWP Photograph Ratings on Days When PM10 Was Measured at Simis Ranch

Figure 3H-18 Approximate Source Areas during Dust Storms Observed by GBUAPCD

Figure 3H-19 Geographic Distribution of Dust Storms Recorded by LADWP Photographs

Figure 3H-20 Distribution of Efflorescent Salt Deposits at Mono Lake

Figure 3H-21 Crusted Salt Deposits

Figure 3H-22 Powdery Salt Deposits

Figure 3H-23 Littoral Currents of Mono Lake

Figure 3H-24 Receptor Areas Reference in Summary Tables of FDM Modeling Results

Figure 3H-25 FDM Modeling Results for a Lake Elevation of 6,375.1 Feet on the Maximum Episode Day

Figure 3H-26 FDM Modeling Results for a Lake Elevation of 6,372 Feet on the Maximum Episode Day

Figure 3H-27 FDM Modeling Results for a Lake Elevation of 6,377 Feet on the Maximum Episode Day

Figure 3H-28 FDM Modeling Results for a Lake Elevation of 6,381.3 Feet on the Maximum Episode Day

Figure 3H-29 FDM Modeling Results for a Lake Elevation of 6,383.5 Feet on the Maximum Episode Day

Figure 3H-30 FDM Modeling Results for a Lake Elevation of 6,387 Feet on the Maximum Episode Day

Figure 3H-31 FDM Modeling Results for a Lake Elevation of 6,390 Feet on the Maximum Episode Day

Figure 3H-32 FDM Modeling Results for a Lake Elevation of 6,400 Feet on the Maximum Episode Day

 

Chapter 3I Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Visual Resources (148K)
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

Table 3I-1 General Visibility of Tufa Groves at Selected Lake Levels (5K)
Table 3I-2 Relative Visual Sensitivity of Viewer Groups (4K)
Table 3I-3 Visual Quality Objectives for the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area (4K)
Table 3I-4 Existing Visual Conditions of the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area(4K)
Table 3I-5 Summary Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives: Visual Resources (12K)
Table 3I-6 Effects on Tufa Towers Compared to the Point of Reference (5K)

 

Figure 3I-1 Negit and Pahoa Islands in the Prediversion Period

Figure 3I-2 North Lakeshore Vegetation in the Prediversion Period

Figure 3I-3 Inundated Shoreline Vegetation in the Prediversion Period

Figure 3I-4 Lower Rush Creek Riparian Vegetation in the Prediversion Period

Figure 3I-5 Wagon Road, West Side of Mono Lake in the Prediversion Period

Figure 3I-6 Visual Character of Mono Lake

Figure 3I-7 View of Mono Lake from Wilson Creek Tufa Grove along the Northwest Shore in 1968 and 1982

Figure 3I-8 Mono Lake Islands and Islets

Figure 3I-9 Distribution of Tufa Deposits at Mono Lake

Figure 3I-10 Tufa Towers and Pumice Blocks

Figure 3I-11 Lee Vining Tufa Groves

Figure 3I-12 South Tufa Grove

Figure 3I-13 Sand Tufa at Navy Beach

Figure 3I-14 Playa as a Visual Element

Figure 3I-15 Playa as a Source of Dust

Figure 3I-16 Pumice Blocks on Shore lands at Old Marina

Figure 3I-17 Visual Character of Development Near Mono Lake

Figure 3I-18 Utility Lines and Industrial Facilities at the Junction of U.S. Highway 395 and State Route 120 West

Figure 3I-19 Viewpoints of lake-level Simulations

Figure 3I-20 View of Mono Lake from Conway Summit

Figure 3I-21 View of Mono Lake from County Park

Figure 3I-22 View of Mono Lake from U.S. Highway 395 at Old Marina

Figure 3I-23 View of Mono Lake from Forest Service Visitor Center

Figure 3I-24 View of Mono Lake from South Tufa

Figure 3I-25 Lee Vining Creek

Figure 3I-26 Walker Creek

Figure 3I-27 Parker Creek

Figure 3I-28 Rush Creek

Figure 3I-29 View of Grant Lake Reservoir from Developed Recreation Area

Figure 3I-30 Upper Owens River Valley

Figure 3I-31 Lake Crowley Reservoir

Figure 3I-32 Photograph Simulations Of Mono Lake at U.S. 395 near Old Marina

 

Chapter 3J Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Recreation Resources (127K)
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Point of Reference Scenario
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

Table 3J-1 Annual Visitor Days at Directly Affected Recreation Areas in Mono Basin and Owens River Basin, 1985-1991 (5K)
Table 3J-2 Visitor Use and Lake Levels at Mono Lake Tufa State Reserve, 1983-1989 (4K)
Table 3J-3 Annual Visitor Days and Water Surface Elevations at Grant Lake Reservoir (4K)
Table 3J-4 Estimated Fishing Use of the Upper Owens River in 1987 (4K)
Table 3J-5 Visitor Days and Water Surface Elevation at Lake Crowley Reservoir (4K)
Table 3J-6 Threshold Elevations and Effect on Major Recreation Activities at Mono Lake (4K)
Table 3J-7 Threshold Streamflows and Effect on Recreational Fishing on Lower Rush Creek (4K)
Table 3J-8 Table 3J-8. Threshold Elevations and Effect on Major Recreation Activities at Grant Lake Reservoir (4K)
Table 3J-9 Threshold Streamflows and Effects on Recreational Fishing on the Upper Owens River (4K)
Table 3J-10 Threshold Elevations and Effect on Major Recreation Activities at Lake Crowley Reservoir (4K)
Table 3J-11 Summary Comparison of Effects: Recreation Resources (9K)
Table 3J-12 Summary Comparison of Effects: Recreation Use (5K)
Table 3J-13 Average Hydrologic Conditions at Directly Affected Recreation Areas, by Alternative (5K)

 

Figure 3J-1 Principal Recreation Areas in Mono Basin

Figure 3J-2 Principal Recreation Areas in Owens Rive Basin

 

Chapter 3K Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Cultural Resources (56K)
  • Sources of Information
  • Laws, Regulations, and Terminology
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

Table 3K-1 Summary Comparison of Effects: Cultural Resources (6K)

 

 
Chapter 3L Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Water Supply (85K)
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Characterization of Point-of-Reference Conditions
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

Table 3L-1 Comparison of Water Use among 11 Cities Nationwide (4K)
Table 3L-2 Average Historical Use of the City of Los Angeles' Water Supply Sources (4K)
Table 3L-3 Reclamation Projects Included in the Impacts Analysis (5K), Corrected table in the Final EIR (6K)
Table 3L-4 Estimates of Shortage Costs based on LADWP's Marginal Water Supply Costs (4K)
Table 3L-5 Summary Comparison of Water Supply Impacts (8K)

 

Figure 3L-1 City of Los Angeles Population, 1940-1990

Figure 3L-2 City of Los Angeles Urban and Agricultural Water Use, 1940-1990

Figure 3L-3 Relative Water Consumption by User Type, 1976-1990 Average

Figure 3L-4 City of Los Angeles Monthly Water Use, 1971-1990 Average

Figure 3L-5 City of Los Angeles Per Capita Water Use

Figure 3L-6 Los Angeles Water Supply Sources, 1941-1990

Figure 3L-7 Los Angeles Aqueduct Deliveries, 1941-1990

Figure 3L-8 Metropolitan Water District Annual Water Supply and Deliveries

Figure 3L-9 LADWP Projected 20-year Water Demand

Figure 3L-10 LADWP Projected 20-year Water Supply

Figure 3L-11 Conceptual Water Supply and Demand Relationships

Figure 3L-12 Comparison of Projections of City of Los Angeles 20-Year Water Demand

Figure 3L-13 Groundwater Available to LADWP

Figure 3L-14 LADWP Projected Demand for MWD Supplies

Figure 3L-15 Cumulative Yield of LADWP Reclamation Project

Figure 3L-16 LADWP Water Supply Model

Figure 3L-17 LA Aqueduct Water Deliveries for the Point-of-Reference Scenario

Figure 3L-18 and Fig. 18 continued Comparison of Los Angeles Aqueduct Deliveries by Comparison

 

Chapter 3M Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Power Generation Table 3M-1 City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Capacity and Energy Loads and Resources, 1986-1990 (6K)
Table 3M-2 Energy Produced at LADWP's Gas- and Oil-Fired Generating Plants in California, 1986-1990 (in GWh) (4K)
Table 3M-3 Capacity and Energy Transfers Made by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 1986-1990 (4K)
Table 3M-4 Energy from Out-of-State Resources Partially Owned by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 1986-1990 (in GWh) (4K)
Table 3M-5 Capacity and Energy Purchases Made by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 1986-1990 (4K)
Table 3M-6 Capacities and In-Service Dates of LADWP's Owens Valley Generating Units (4K)
Table 3M-7 Capacities and In-Service Dates of LADWP's Aqueduct Generating Units (4K)
Table 3M-8 Monthly Capacity, Energy Production, and Capacity Factor of Combined Aqueduct Generating Facilities, 1986-1990 (5K)
Table 3M-9 Annual Capacity, Energy Production, and Capacity Factor of Los Angeles Aqueduct Generating Facilities, by Subsystem, 1986-1990 (4K)
Table 3M-10 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Projected Capacity and Energy Requirements, 1992-2009 (4K)
Table 3M-11 Projected Capacity of LADWP Power Resources, 1992-2009 (9K)
Table 3M-12 Projected Energy Resources of LADWP, 1992-2009 (10K)
Table 3M-13 Planned Improvements to In-Basin Transmission Facilities (4K)
Table 3M-14 Summary Comparison of In-Basin Energy Generation Impacts (9K)
Table 3M-15 Summary Comparison of Out-of-Basin Energy Generation Impacts (6K)

 

Figure 3M-1 Power System Facilities Along the Los Angeles Owens River Aqueduct

Figure 3M-2 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Service Area

Figure 3M-3 LADWP Generation and Transmission System in the Los Angeles Basin

Figure 3M-4 Overview of the External Transmission System

Figure 3M-5 Annual Energy Production from the Los Angeles Owens River Aqueduct Hydroelectric System, 1986-1990

Figure 3M-6 Energy Production for the Point-of-Reference Scenario and Figure 3M-7 Energy Production by Location for the Point-of-Reference Scenario

Figure 3M-8a Energy Production for the No-Restriction, 6,372-Ft, 6,377-Ft, and 6,383.5-Ft Alternative Compared to the Point-of-Reference Scenario

Figure 3M-8b Energy Production for the 6,390-Ft, 6,410-Ft, and No-Diversion Alternative Compared to the Point-of-Reference Scenario

 

Chapter 3N Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Economics (109K)
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Costs and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Characterization of Point-of-Reference Conditions
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Citations

 

Table 3N-1 Population Trends in Mono and Inyo Counties, 1900-1989 (4K)
Table 3N-2 Employment in Mono and Inyo Counties (4K)
Table 3N-3 Income by Type and Per Capita, Mono and Inyo Counties (4K)
Table 3N-4 Earnings by Industry, Mono and Inyo Counties (4K)
Table 3N-5 Historical Characteristics of Agriculture in Mono and Inyo Counties, 1910-1987 (5K)
Table 3N-6 Value of Agricultural Production: Mono and Inyo Counties (4K)
Table 3N-7 Estimated Value of Forage Production on Leased LADWP Lands in the Mono Basin Study Area (5K)
Table 3N-8 Estimated Value of Forage Production on Private and Leased Lands along the Upper Owens River (5K)
Table 3N-9 Estimated Recreation-Related Expenditures in Mono and Inyo Counties, 1983-1989 (4K)
Table 3N-10 Estimated Employment Generated by Recreation- Related Spending within the Two- County Region (4K)
Table 3N-11 Recreation-Related Payroll in Mono and Inyo Counties, 1983-1989 (4K)
Table 3N-12 Estimated Total Costs of Meeting LADWP Demand for Water from Available Sources (4K)
Table 3N-13 LADWP Power Generation - Fixed Operation, Maintenance, and Fuel Costs, 1989 (4K)
Table 3N-14 Summary Comparison of Annualized Economic Costs and Benefits of the Project Alternatives, Relative to Point-of-Reference Conditions (7K)
Table 3N-15 Marginal Economic Costs and Benefits of the Alternatives (5K)
Table 3N-16 Average Annual Value of Agricultural Production on Lands Directly Affected by the Diversion Alternatives (5K)
Table 3N-17 Average Annual Use and Spending Associated with Recreation at Directly Affected Areas (7K)
Table 3N-18 Average Annual Economic Effects in the Mono and Inyo County Region Resulting from Changes in Agricultural Production and Recreation Activity (8K)
Table 3N-19 Change in Average Annual Water and Power Supply Costs to Meet the Demands of the City of Los Angeles (5K)
Table 3N-20 Estimated Change in Annual Recreation Benefits at Directly Affected Recreation Areas, by Alternative a (4K)

Figure 3N-1 Marginal Economic Costs and Benefits of the Alternatives

 

Chapter 4 List of Preparers (10K)

 

 

Search | Contents | Home
Copyright © 1999-2015, Mono Lake Committee.
Top of This Page