Problems with specific mitigation projects

The presentation of the 1991 EIR mitigation measures is provided in two tables. The first table is a list of mitigation measures that the Water Department believes are not being properly implemented. The Water Department recommends the Technical Group address the concerns regarding each of these projects. The second table contains a description of the 2006 status of all the projects contained in the EIR mitigation measures.

Changes made to project description, project management, or both without Standing Committee approval and in compliance with CEQA.

• E/M projects that also serve as mitigation in the EIR cannot be modified or terminated without full compliance with CEQA and specified actions of the Standing Committee as provided in the Section 7.2 of the EIR.

McNally ponds and native pasture E/M

• The project description provides for an annual water supply to the ponds, 60 acres, and three pastures (300 acres).  LADWP describes that Inyo and LA agreed to reduce the water supply in 1991; however, the water reduction agreement was for the 1991 runoff year.  LADWP states in their annual report, “since that time, water has been provided to McNally Ponds only in years when water is diverted from the Owens River to the McNally Canals.” Further, the 100-acre pasture east of the ponds is poorly vegetated.  This may be a result of decreased water supply and the difficulties of spreading water over natural topography.  However, it is not clear how much water this project receives.  The pastures SE of the Laws museum, consisting of 200 acres total, are well irrigated.

300 acres at Five Bridges

• LADWP has carried out activities at Five Bridges that differ from the adopted Mitigation Plan. The Water Department has requested the Technical Group revise the mitigation plan but no progress has been made. 

140 acres near Laws

• The mitigation plan is not being implemented as required in the Mitigation Plan.  The Water Department has requested the Plan be revised because the Technical Group chose this site for implementing a 10-acre study plot in 2001 in lieu of initiating the planting of container plants.  In addition, the size and configuration of the site has changed due to the Laws reirrigation project. 

20 acres east of Big Pine E/M

• The MOU required that a plan and schedule be developed in 1998.  The 1991 EIR described the mitigation project as a cultivated crop supplied with pumped or surface water. However, LADWP’s annual report (May 2007) describes the project as allowing the site to revegetate naturally.  The CEQA and Standing Committee procedures described under McNally ponds and pasture project would also apply to this project.

Klondike Lake E/M

• Management actions to Lyman Ditch may be adversely affecting the native pastures that are protected according to the project description.

Tule Elk Field

• Water deliveries to this wildlife enhancement project were reduced beginning in 2002.  The reduction has potentially reduced vegetation cover in the field and on adjacent meadows as indicated by satellite imagery.

Independence Pasturelands E/M

• The acreage of this project has decreased from 610 acres in the project description to 470 acres.  LADWP reported in their annual report that the reduction is due to “lease boundaries, vegetation, and other surface features.”  Accordingly, the water supplies were revised by LADWP from 1,825 acre-feet/yr to 1,493 acre-feet/yr.  Procedures to make this change are described in the EIR.

Potential Expansion of Shepherd Creek Alfalfa E/M

• A mitigation or monitoring plan for this mitigation measure has not been developed by the Technical Group. LADWP conducted vegetation transects and concluded that vegetation cover has increased from baseline and thus the mitigation measure is not necessary. 

Richards Field E/M and Lone Pine Woodlot E/M

• During the non-irrigation season, water normally flows to the project after flowing through Lone Pine Riparian Park. LADWP informed the Water Dept. that water will no longer be delivered to the project during the non-irrigation season.

Calvert Slough

• This project provides water to maintain a pond and marsh area.  LADWP reported that low flows in the creek do not allow supplying the project because of high ditch losses and the “off” status of the two wells upstream of the project.  No water has been supplied to this project for seven years.

Mitigation not implemented

640 acres near Laws

• The Standing Committee has not evaluated the need for mitigating this potential site. Further, the expansion of the gravel plant to the west now includes 174 acres of this potential mitigation site.

Potential impacts to groundwater levels, flowing wells, and groundwater dependent vegetation due to increased pumping on the Bishop Cone

• The EIR anticipated increased pumping from the Bishop Cone, and recent data show pumping has increased.  The Water Department sent LADWP a proposal for evaluating the need for additional monitoring and management of wells on the Bishop Cone to LADWP in April and June 2004.  LADWP has not commented on the evaluation but recently, March 2007, requested a meeting to address Bishop Cone pumping.

Big Pine NE regreening E/M

• The MOU required that a mitigation plan and implementation schedule be developed in 1998.  LADWP’s annual report (May 2007) describes project implementation and filing of CEQA to be completed in 2007.  The Technical Group has not agreed on a plan although the Water Department sent comments on a plan in June 2005.

40 acres within Independence Springfield E/M

• The MOU required a plan and schedule to be completed in 1998.  LADWP reported implementation will begin in 2007; however, the Technical Group has not reviewed or approved a mitigation plan.

Monitoring of seeps and springs

• The Technical Group is not monitoring springs and seeps.  Ecosystem Sciences has completed a draft inventory of springs and seeps. The inventory should provide baseline data that could be used in future monitoring.

Reinhackle Spring

• The Technical Group has not developed a plan for monitoring the flows and spring dependent vegetation.

Implementation of mitigation plan behind schedule

Laws 140

• The Technical Group agreement to implement a 10-acre study in 2001 instead of planting container plants as required in the Mitigation Plan and the change of the project size and configuration require a revision of the Mitigation Plan.  The Water Department has requested plan revisions.

120 acres near Bishop

• The Technical Group has not developed and implemented test plots although the Mitigation Plan provided for test plots in 2004 if the area did not demonstrate vegetation recovery.  A comparison of cover between 2003 and 1999 baseline cover showed little to no change. 

Big Pine 160 acres

• The Technical Group did not implement test plots scheduled for 2001 in the Mitigation Plan. In addition, the Mitigation Plan required that revegetation efforts would be expanded in 2006.

Independence 123 (only a portion of the 60 acres in the SS wellfield)

• The Technical Group did not implement test plots scheduled for 2002 in the Mitigation Plan.  However, data collected by LADWP indicate vegetation cover may be reaching the plan goals.

Implementation of mitigation measure is difficult, thus, options for managing the project should be evaluated.

Van Norman Field E/M

• A portion of the project is not capable of being flood irrigated due to site topography.