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)