


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)
|
|
|
|