- Problem: Changes made to project description, project management, or both without Standing Committee approval.
- Problem: Mitigation not implemented
- Problem: Implementation of mitigation plan provisions behind schedule
- Problem: Effectiveness of mitigation is inadequate and thus management should be re-evaluated
Numbers in parentheses refer to project numbers in the mitigation status table.
Problem: Changes made to project description, project management, or both without Standing Committee approval. |
|
| McNally ponds and native pasture (2) | LADWP has changed this project from one in which annual water deliveries were provided to one in which water is provided intermittently. The project description provides for an annual water supply to the ponds, 60 acres, and three pastures. LADWP’s pond management description in their annual report is different from the project description. They report that water will only be supplied when water is diverted from the Owens River to the McNally canals. In addition the 100-acre pasture 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 (4) | LADWP has carried out activities at Five Bridges that differ from the agreed upon Mitigation Plan. |
| 140 acres near Laws (6) | The mitigation plan is not being implemented as required in the Mitigation Plan. 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. |
| Klondike Lake (16) | Current management of Lyman Ditch may be adversely affecting the native pastures that are protected according to the project description. |
| Tule Elk Field (24) | Water deliveries to this wildlife enhancement project were reduced beginning in 2002. As a result, vegetation cover has been decreasing. |
| Independence Pasturelands (32) | 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 to 1,493 acre-feet/yr. from 1,825 acre-feet/yr. |
| Potential Expansion of Shepherd Creek Alfalfa (40) | 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 (45) | 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. |
| Lone Pine Woodlot (44) | 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 (26) | 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. |
Problem: Mitigation not implemented |
|
| 640 acres near Laws (3) | 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. |
| Bishop Cone impacts to groundwater levels (9) | The FEIR anticipated increased pumping from the Bishop Cone, and recent data show pumping has increased. Inyo County sent a letter to LADWP in June 2004 containing a proposed outline for evaluating additional monitoring and management of wells on the Bishop Cone. LADWP has not responded to this letter. |
| Bishop Cone impacts to flowing wells (10) | Inyo County sent a letter to LADWP in June 2004 containing a proposed outline for evaluating additional monitoring and management of wells on the Bishop Cone. LADWP has not responded to this letter. |
| Bishop Cone impacts to groundwater dependent vegetation (11) | Inyo County sent a letter to LADWP in June 2004 containing a proposed outline for evaluating additional monitoring and management of wells on the Bishop Cone. LADWP has not responded to this letter. |
| Big Pine NE regreening (17) | The Technical Group has not developed a plan for this mitigation measure although the MOU required that a mitigation plan and implementation schedule be developed in 1998. |
| 20 acres east of Big Pine (19) | No plan or schedule for this project has been developed although the MOU required that a plan and schedule be developed in 1998.The 1991 FEIR stated that a cultivated crop supplied with pumped or surface water would be established. LADWP has stated that because there is an imbalance between E/M project uses and E/M pumping it is currently not feasible to implement this project. |
| 40 acres within Independence Springfield (37) | This mitigation measure does not have a mitigation plan and schedule. The MOU required a plan and schedule to be completed in 1998. |
| Monitoring of seeps and springs (55) | 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. ICWD has provided extensive comments to Ecosystem Sciences |
| 30 acres east of Independence (34) | This mitigation measure does not have a plan and schedule. A mitigation plan and schedule should have been completed in 1998. LADWP will submit a Mitigated Negative Declaration on this project to their board for approval; however the Technical Group must complete Green Book procedures for drilling a new well and for developing a mitigation plan. |
| Lower Owens River Project (50) | LADWP has approved their EIR. EPA is preparing an EIS. County approval is pending completion of the EIS |
Problem: Implementation of mitigation plan provisions behind schedule |
|
| Laws 140 (6) | In lieu of initiating the revegetation planting of container plants as required in the Mitigation Plan, the Technical Group initiated a 10-acre study in 2001. Results of the study were provided in Nov. 2003. The Mitigation Plan intent to move forward with revegetating the entire site has not occurred. The mitigation project size and configuration has changed due to the Laws reirrigation project. |
| Big Pine 160 acres (20) | The Technical Group has not implemented test plots scheduled for 2001 in the Mitigation Plan. However, LADWP contracted with MWH to implement test plots in 2001. Reports describing methods and results have not been made available. 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) (38) | Revegetation test plots were to be implemented by the Technical Group at this site in 2002, but they were not. |
| 120 acres near Bishop (14) | The Mitigation Plan provided that test plots would be implemented if the area did not demonstrate vegetation recovery. A comparison of cover between 2003 and 1999 baseline cover showed little to no change. The Technical Group has not developed and implemented test plots. |
Problem: Effectiveness of mitigation is inadequate and thus management should be re-evaluated |
|
| Laws-Poleta native pastures (1) | This project has two pastures. One, 160 acres, is effectively irrigated on half the parcel. The remainder is mainly barren. This pasture received approx. half the water supply allotted in the 2001-2002 runoff year. The second pasture is also only partially irrigated due to its topography. The water supply to this project is not reported to the Water Dept. |
| Big Pine general (22) | LADWP exceeded the groundwater mining limit in the Big Pine wellfield during the 2004-2005 runoff year. Groundwater mining protections are provided for in the water Agreement. |
| Van Norman Field E/M (45) | A portion of the project is not capable of being flood irrigated due to the site topography. |