DOCSLIB.ORG

Historic Overview of the Rush Creek and Lee Vining Hydroelectric Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

.a,. ".".!!_,.~_......:_:"..,; ~ q~< (!!." '\:10'., . .f ..... .)-/t, LJ...] 0_. I ° • l.-t- ! . \" • \' '" 0 I o i tVcNoiAKE RESEARCHI.JBf?AAY o 0 P.O"BOX 29 0 • UE~.V.NING. CA 93,041 IDSTORIC OVERVIEW OF THE RUSH CREEK AND LEE VINlNG CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS Project Managers 'Dorothea 1 Theodoratus Clinton M. Blount by Valerie H. Diamond Robert A. Hicks ..\ ..;' "0t- , f v.' fJ Submitted to Southern California' Edison Company Rosemead, California Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. Fair Oaks, California August 1988 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research o~ "the Rush Creek and Lee Vining hydroelectric systems was aided by many generous people. We are i~debte.d to.Dr. David White of the Environmental Affairs Division of" Southern California Edison Company (SCE) for his guidance throughout the planning and execution of the. work. Others at SCE's R~semead headquarters who were most helpful were William Myers, Bob Brown, and Gene " Griffith. Our work in the project areas was made Possible by SCE employees Tony Capitato, Don Clarkson, Dennis Osborn, and Stan Lloyd. We are also indebted to Mrs. Jenny Edwards for her kind assistance, .nd to Melodi Anderson for her f~ci1itation of imPortant work at the California State Archives. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Chapter fa= . INTRODUCTION 1 _ Location and Geography .1 Research Goals .. ~'- 1 Personnel ·.4 1 PURPOSES AND METHODS S 2 MOTIVES, PLANS, AND DEVELOPMENT: 1890s-1917 '7 James Stuart Cain 7 Delos Allen Chappell 9 Pacific Power Company 9 ~ RUSH CREEK. DEVELOPMENT: THREE STAGES, 1915-1917 13 Stage One: Transportation and Initial Construction 13 Stage Two: Dams and Powerhouse 19 Stage Three: Second Flowline and Generating Unit 20 4 A NEW MARKET, IMPROVEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION: 1917-1924 22 Rush Creek and Nevada-California and Southern Sierras Power Companies 22 Lee Vining Creek Developments . 2S Initial Development Under Nevada-California Power Company 26 Second Phase of Development Under . Sout~ern Sierras Power Company 28 S REFINEMENTS, CONTROVERSY, AND THE LOST MARKET: 1925-1943 33 System Refinements 33 Los Angeles Controversy 34 Loss of Imperial and Coachella Valleys Markets 3S 6 CONSOLIDATION AND MERGER: 1943-PRESENT 39 Conclusion 40 REFERENCES CITED 42 MAPS 1 SCE Hydroelectric Projects . 2 2 Lee Vining Creek and Rush Creek Hydroelectric Projects 3 iii TABLES 1 California's Highest Head Hydroelectric'Plants-1919 14 2 Largest Average Horsepower for Individual Impulse Water Wheels, California Hydroelectric Plants-1919 15 3 California's Highest Head Hydroelectric Plants-1929 16 4 ,International' Commission on Large Dams Register, ," Major California Multi-Arch Dams~1909-1926 17 FIGURES 1 'The Nevada-California Electric Corporation 23 iv ·' .' INTRODUCTION The Rush Creek and Lee Vining Creek hydroelectric systems are early expressions of hydroelectric generation technology in California. Now owned and operated by Southern California Edison Company (SC~), these systems are sufficiently old. to warrant consideration. as historic properties. SCE, .as a requirement for project relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is currently evaluating' these systems to determine their historical significance ~nd potential eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The results of the evaluation process will also aidSCE and regulatory agencies in future management of the systems.">:;> Location and Geography . The Rush Creek and Lee Vining Creek hydroelectric systems, along with two other SCE systems, Bishop Creek and Lundy, are located on the steep eastern slope of the central and southern Sierra Nevada Range (Map 1). The Sierra Nevada creates a vast rain shadow, with most of the precipitation falling as rain and snow on its more gentle western slope. However, at high elevations there is sufficient snowfall on the eastern side of the crest to create permanent, easterly flowing streams. This hydrologic regime, combined with the precipitous mountain slope, provided the basis for early and successful development of hydroelectric generation. The Lundy, Rush Creek and Lee Vining Creek systems are approximately 270 air miles north of 'Los Angeles and directly east of Tioga Pass and Yosemite National Park. The Lundy Project has been previously assessed and recommended as ineligible for NRHP (National Register of Historic Places) listing by White (1985). The neighboring Bishop Creek Hydroelectric System has been recommended asa historic district, and is currently being evaluated by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for NRHP eligibility (TCR 1988). The Lee Vining Creek System consists of three reservoirs (Saddlebag, Rhinedollar [Ellery], and Tioga) and a single powerhouse (Poole) along the upper reaches of Lee Vining Creek, and a substation in the town of Lee Vining. The Rush Creek System is comprised of three reservoirs (Rush Meadows [Waugh], Gem, and. Agnew) and one powerhouse (Rush Creek) (Map 2). Research Goals The purpose of overview research on Rush Creek and Lee Vining Creek systems was' to document the development·of these systems. This historical background will be used to evaluate the architectural and other potentially historic elements of the systems and, if appropriate, the National Register eligibility of one or both of the systems. I MAP 1 Southern ca'Ifornia Edison C"mpany .... HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS- Lundy 1 -N- • Loa AnoeI- o7 TCR J9I8 2 J,' \ -,~>\~";,...: .. 1... .\ "'( .~ . ~ '., ~\:?\:'- "I.- ............... ~ - \. .... , :. ::V-' .... ; ~,,~ ... ~'\ . ~ "~::' r1 0 .... _ I POOLE POWERHOUSE LEE VINING .... --' _. SUBSTATION ~, ... ",..,..."", ~- ..... ':" \ ' ~ "L_(£''-''1' " •••. -. \._ ...... n.. ~ .. ...-taO ~\. ........ -~~ ~. , I' "r__ , Q.~:'" _.~~ t,J u.. C',.;; i ::~ .... ". "'­ .......I"'··,", .' , - I ,"" ' ~I c..~. \ . ~.,. , I' C\). 0 ..' l ,." ....... -." I''( ,. I I .-1' .. '/ '~-'~ ... ... " I' \. MAP 2 .. \ ~c:.w... , ../, .....c:....., '" /( LEE VINING CREEK \ :,,,. ... _ .._} 1 RUSH CREEK "-'"I\"'" ·HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS ,... '; ~ , , '-'.... ~ "(- ~ .~ .,.. ,J . , , I I \ ,,, l J 1 l f I!J r...... ·....~·_J I .I ....I, " , ,../ ,..,,/ , ,) I ~ , lIILI \ : !I TCIt .,. 3 Personnel - Tpis research was conducted -during the fall and winter months of 1987-1988. Researcp for the study was conducted by historian Valerie Diamond, who also -authored the report. Robert Hicks contributed to the research and produced the maps. Mildred Kolander was. in charge of ·technical editing and report production. Project managers were Dorothea J Theodoratus and Clinton Blount. 4 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSES AND METHODS This report is a historic overview of the Rush Creek' and Lee Vining Creek hydroelectric systems located in Mono County. The overview provides background information on the plants and describes their historic significance in ~hec::ontextof local and regional history.>i-;:/1i',>/%1".: .,_ . "'",""".'- 5~::-~~~:.r(':"' In September 1987, while at Bishop Creek conducting research for'an architectural evaluation of the Bishop Creek Hydroelectric System (TCR 1988), research began on the history of the power plants at Rush and Lee Vining creeks~ For this study, a broader vanety of printed and documentary resources had to be examined to provide information necessary for the historical overview.]"lle Division Office's files contain drawings, maps, plans, brief'historical summaries,'and other materials which were helpful in this phase of study. One. of the rnost"lmportant finds located in these files was the Agreement. of Sale' and Pm:'chase'~between Southern Sierras Power Company and the City of Los Angeles' Departmentaf Water and Power, which would later prove the key to understanding the controversy over w4ter rights in the Mono Basin area. ., At the Division Office, discussions were held with many Southern California Edison employees, several of whom had also worked for California Electric Power Company. Through these communications, valuable details were obtained regarding the system's' operation and repairs and changes made over the years. Additionally, the spouse of one of Southern California Edison Company's Bishop Creek employees, who is currently compiling a history of the Bishop Hydro Division, was interviewed, and a draft copy of her work was obtained for future study. Also during the September visit, local repositories in Inyo County were explored for both published and unpublished documents and records. The Inyo County Free Library in Bishop possesses numerous newspaper articles, pamphlets, and local and regional histories containing information about Inyo and Mono counties' hydroelectric power history. Of importance in this collection was W. A. Chalfant's The Story of Inyo (1933), a county history of considerable detail. Following the trip to Bishop Creek, a visit was made to the Corporate Offices of Southern California Edison Company in Rosemead. In the Hydro Generation Office, current files on the Rush and Lee Vining power plants were canvassed for possible historical details. (The office's historic files stored in a different repository were unavailable for study due to earthquake damage at the archive.) At' the Corporate Library, Nevada-California Electric. Corporation and Sierras Service bulletins were found rich in detail on both the corporate and construction history of the various plants. William Myers of Southern California Edison Company's Corporate Communications was also consulted for his insight into the printed, documentary, and photographic resources available for study. Mr. Myers .volunteered the use
Recommended publications
  • Geologic Map of the Long Valley Caldera, Mono-Inyo Craters

    Geologic Map of the Long Valley Caldera, Mono-Inyo Craters

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP 1-1933 US. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF LONG VALLEY CALDERA, MONO-INYO CRATERS VOLCANIC CHAIN, AND VICINITY, EASTERN CALIFORNIA By Roy A. Bailey GEOLOGIC SETTING VOLCANISM Long Valley caldera and the Mono-Inyo Craters Long Valley caldera volcanic chain compose a late Tertiary to Quaternary Volcanism in the Long Valley area (Bailey and others, volcanic complex on the west edge of the Basin and 1976; Bailey, 1982b) began about 3.6 Ma with Range Province at the base of the Sierra Nevada frontal widespread eruption of trachybasaltic-trachyandesitic fault escarpment. The caldera, an east-west-elongate, lavas on a moderately well dissected upland surface oval depression 17 by 32 km, is located just northwest (Huber, 1981).Erosional remnants of these mafic lavas of the northern end of the Owens Valley rift and forms are scattered over a 4,000-km2 area extending from the a reentrant or offset in the Sierran escarpment, Adobe Hills (5-10 km notheast of the map area), commonly referred to as the "Mammoth embayment.'? around the periphery of Long Valley caldera, and The Mono-Inyo Craters volcanic chain forms a north- southwestward into the High Sierra. Although these trending zone of volcanic vents extending 45 km from lavas never formed a continuous cover over this region, the west moat of the caldera to Mono Lake. The their wide distribution suggests an extensive mantle prevolcanic basement in the area is mainly Mesozoic source for these initial mafic eruptions. Between 3.0 granitic rock of the Sierra Nevada batholith and and 2.5 Ma quartz-latite domes and flows erupted near Paleozoic metasedimentary and Mesozoic metavolcanic the north and northwest rims of the present caldera, at rocks of the Mount Morrisen, Gull Lake, and Ritter and near Bald Mountain and on San Joaquin Ridge Range roof pendants (map A).
  • June 4, 2019 Regular Meeting Item # 1

    June 4, 2019 Regular Meeting Item # 1

    June 4, 2019 Regular Meeting Item # 1 Opportunity for Public to Address the Board California Water Boards State Water Resources Control Board Orders 98-05 and 98-07 . STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ORDER WR 98 - 0s In the Matter of Stream and Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plans and Grant Lake Operations and Management Plan Submitted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Pursuant to the Requirements of Water Right Decision 163 1 (Water Right Licenses 10191 and 10192, Applications 8042 and 8043) SOURCES: Lee Vining Creek, Walker Creek, Parker Creek and Rush Creek COUNTY: Mono LICENSEE: City of Los Angeles ORDER REQUIRING STREAM AND WATERFOWL HABITAT RESTORATION MEASURES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND . 1 2.0 FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS OF DECISION 1631 REGARDING RESTORATION PLANS ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Prior SWRCB Findings Regarding Stream Restoration Plans ................................ 3 2.2 Prior SWRCB Findings Regarding Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plans.. ......... .4 2.3 Prior Findings Regarding Grant Lake Operations and Management Plan ............ 5 2.4 Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Governing Restoration Plans Required by Decision 1631 ........................................................................................... 6 3.0 PREPARATION OF RESTORATION PLANS SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LOS ANGELES . 6 4.0 PARTICIPANTS IN HEARING . 9 5.0 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN AND GRANT LAKE OPERATIONS PLAN ........................................................................................................
  • Winter & Spring 2020 Mono Lake Newsletter

    Winter & Spring 2020 Mono Lake Newsletter

    MONO LAKE N E W S L E T T E R W i n t e r & S p r i n g 2 0 2 0 Prescribed Burn to Benefi t Gulls Restoration of Mill Creek Tioga Inn Decision Nears Field Seminars he Mono Basin can feel completely quiet and isolated in winter. Mountain passes close for the season and visitors dwindle to a trickle. Birds have Tfl own to warmer places and it’s as if the whole basin is far away from everything else in the world. But during the prescribed burn on Twain Islet this month I was reminded of how many people see Mono Lake, even in the depths of winter. Mono Lake Offi ce Eastern Sierra neighbors hiking north of the lake took photos of the plumes of Information Center & Bookstore smoke rising near Negit Island. Locals came into the bookstore to inquire about Highway 395 at Third Street the activity out on the lake. Someone called to ask if the volcanoes were erupting! Post Offi ce Box 29 Lee Vining, California 93541 Members keeping an eye on the Mono Lake webcams called in, curious about the (760) 647-6595 boat zipping back and forth. I talked to people watching from Big Pine, San Luis Obispo, Riverside, Reno, and the Midwest. [email protected] • monolake.org Everyone was thrilled to hear about the prescribed burn, an exciting fi rst step in Los Angeles Offi ce a long-planned and carefully coordinated eff ort with the Inyo National Forest and 1718 Wellesley Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025-3634 Point Blue Conservation Science to restore California Gull nesting habitat on the islets that has been taken over by invasive weeds.
  • T He L Ost C Reekof M

    T He L Ost C Reekof M

    T H E L O S T C R E E K O F M O N O A Homegrown Struggle for Eastern Sierra Water A S E N I O R T H E S I S B Y S A R A H C A R V I L L • T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A , S A N T A C R U Z T H E L O S T C R E E K O F M O N O A Homegrown Struggle for Eastern Sierra Water SUBMITTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE. SARAH CARVILL MARCH 16, 2007 The University of California, Santa Cruz C O N T E N T S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v REGIONAL MAP vii A FEW OF THE CHARACTERS ix PROLOGUE: JUNE AND AUGUST 1 PART I: THE WATERSCAPE 5 A Stream in Three Parts 7 Rights from Another Time 9 The Waterfowl Plan: Getting the Ducks in a Row 11 Los Angeles in Context: The Devil Makes Three 13 Two Histories, One Stream 15 PART II: THE TROUBLE 19 Fiasco on the Field Trip 21 People for Mono Basin Preservation: A Sagebrush-roots Rebellion 23 Winter 1996-1997: “Screaming Matches Over Restoration” 25 Information Problems: Believe What You Want 27 CREW: A Local Solution 29 The Board Hearings: Going to the Heart 30 The Price of Participation 33 The Restoration Orders: One Door Closes 35 PART III: THE AFTERMATH 37 Conway and DeChambeau: Tying Down the Water 39 The Lundy Project: A Last Ditch Effort 41 1999: A License Only its Mother Could Love 42 Things Fall Apart: “Spinning” and Signing on the Line 44 CONCLUSION: THE BALANCE SHEET 47 NOTES 53 APPENDIX: FIGURES & TABLE A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S From the end of May, 2006, to the middle of March, 2007, “my thesis” and “my life” were more or less interchangeable terms.
  • Bailey-1976.Pdf

    Bailey-1976.Pdf

    VOL. 81, NO. 5 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH FEBRUARY 10, 1976 Volcanism, Structure,and Geochronologyof Long Valley Caldera, Mono County, California RoY A. BAILEY U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Reston, Virginia 22092 G. BRENT DALRYMPLE AND MARVIN A. LANPHERE U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Menlo Park, California 94025 Long Valley caldera, a 17- by 32-km elliptical depressionon the east front of the Sierra Nevada, formed 0.7 m.y. ago during eruption of the Bishoptuff. Subsequentintracaldera volcanism included eruption of (1) aphyric rhyolite 0.68-0.64 m.y. ago during resurgentdoming of the caldera floor, (2) porphyritic hornblende-biotiterhyolite from centersperipheral to the resurgentdome at 0.5, 0.3, and 0.1 m.y. ago, and (3) porphyritic hornblende-biotiterhyodacite from outer ring fractures0.2 m.y. ago to 50,000 yr ago, a sequencethat apparently records progressivecrystallization of a subjacentchemically zoned magma chamber. Holocene rhyolitic and phreatic eruptions suggestthat residual magma was present in the chamber as recentlyas 450 yr ago. Intracaldera hydrothermalactivity beganat least0.3 m.y. ago and was widespreadin the caldera moat; it has sincedeclined due to self-sealingof near-surfacecaldera sediments by zeolitization, argillization, and silicificationand has becomelocalized on recentlyreactivated north- west-trendingSierra Nevada frontal faults that tap hot water at depth. INTRODUCTION concentrates were treated with a dilute HF solution to remove small bits of attached glassand fragments of other mineral In the westernUnited States,only three calderasare known grains. Obsidian used for dating was totally unhydrated and to be large enoughand young enoughto possiblystill contain not devitrified. Small blocks sawed from many of the hand residual magma in their chambers:the Vailes caldera (•1.1 specimenswere used for dating.
  • Campground in Yosemite National Park

    Campground in Yosemite National Park

    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide California Byway Highway # "Tioga Road/Big Oak Flat Road" Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 End of Tioga Pass Road on Scenic Tioga Pass Road on State Highway #120, ends at the junction of State Highway #120 Big Oak Road just outside Yosemite Valley within Yosemite National Park, California. Altitude: 6158 feet 0.6 Tuolumne Grove Trail Tuolumne Grove Trail Head, Tioga Pass Road, Tuolumne Grove, is a Head sequoia grove located near Crane Flat in Yosemite National Park, California Altitude: 6188 feet 3.7 Old Big Oak Flat Road South to Tamarack Flat Campground in Yosemite National Park. Has 52 campsites, picnic tables, food lockers, fire rings, and vault toilets. Altitude: 7018 feet 6.2 Old Tioga Road Trail To Old Tioga Road, Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, lies in Hetch Hetchy Valley, which is completely flooded by the Hetch Hetchy Dam, in Yosemite National Park, California. Wapama Falls, in Hetch Hetchy Valley, Lake Vernon, Rancheria Falls, Rancheria Creek, Camp Mather Lake. Altitude: 6772 feet 6.2 Trail to Tamarrack Flat Altitude: 6775 feet Campground 13.7 Siesta Lake Altitude: 7986 feet 14.5 White Wolf Road To White Wolf Campground, located outside of Yosemite Valley, just off Tioga Pass Road in California. Altitude: 8117 feet 16.5 Access To Luken's Lake, Yosemite Creek Trail, Altitude: 8182 feet 19.7 Access A mountainous Road/Trail, Quaking Aspen Falls, is a seasonal water fall, that stream relies on rain and snow melting, dries up in summer, located just off Tioga Pass Road, in Yosemite National Park, Altitude: 7500 feet 20.3 Quaking Aspen Falls East of highway.
  • Camping in the Mono Basin

    Camping in the Mono Basin

    Camping in the Mono Basin to Bodie, Bridgeport, Reno, Lake Tahoe to Hawthorne, NV 395 167 exposed lakebed (recessional lands) ' ' ' ' 6417 shoreline to Virginia Lakes Wilson Creek Mono Lake Overlook “Gaines Island” Lundy Lake Mill Creek 1 Negit Island County Park Paoha Mono Lake Island Saddlebag Lake Old Marina Scenic Area 11 Visitor Center Lee Vining South Tufa • Navy Beach 10 7 6 120 9 5 west 8 Ellery Lake 4 395 3 Lee Vining Creek Tioga Lake 2 Rush CreekPanum Crater 120 closed east to Tioga Pass, Walker Creek Yosemite National Park Walker Lake Jeffrey Pine Forest to Benton Parker Creek Mono Craters Parker Lake Grant Lake Reservoir N 158 12 0 1 mile 16 13 1 km 15 •June Lake to Mammoth Lakes, 14 Bishop, Los Angeles updated July 2010 CAMPGROUND CAMPING # Campground Sites Water Fee ($) Elevation 1 Lundy Canyon 60 no 8 7,600 2 Lower Lee Vining 54 no 14 7,300 3 Cattleguard closed 16 no 14 7,300 4 Moraine 27 no 14 7,350 5 Aspen 56 yes 14 7,500 6 Big Bend 17 yes 19 7,800 7 Ellery Lake 21 yes 19 9,500 8 Tioga Lake 13 yes 19 9,700 9 Junction 13 no 14 9,600 10 Sawmill Walk-In 12 no 14 9,800 11 Saddlebag Lake 20 yes 19 10,000 12 Oh Ridge 144* yes 20 7,600 13 June Lake 28* yes 20 7,600 14 Reversed Creek 17 yes 20 7,600 15 Gull Lake 11 yes 20 7,600 16 Silver Lake 63* yes 20 7,200 17 Aerie Crag 10 (RV only) no 11 7,200 * indicates campgrounds with reservable sites to make reservations, please call 1-877-444-6777 DISPERSED CAMPING AND PERMITS Dispersed camping is allowed on public land in the Mono Basin—the Jeffrey pine forest off of Highway 120 east is a recommended dispersed camping area.
  • Regional Transportation Plan

    Regional Transportation Plan

    MONO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Mono County Local Transportation Commission Mono County Community Development Department Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Development Department MONO COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS Fred Stump, Chair (Mono County) Shields Richardson, Vice-Chair (Mammoth Lakes) Jo Bacon (Mammoth Lakes) Tim Fesko (Mono County) Larry Johnston (Mono County) Sandy Hogan (Mammoth Lakes) STAFF Mono County Scott Burns, LTC Director Gerry Le Francois, Principal Planner Wendy Sugimura, Associate Analyst Jeff Walters, Public Works Director Garrett Higerd, Associate Engineer Courtney Weiche, Associate Planner C.D. Ritter, LTC Secretary Megan Mahaffey, Fiscal Analyst Town of Mammoth Lakes Haislip Hayes, Associate Civil Engineer Jamie Robertson, Assistant Engineer Caltrans District 9 Brent Green, District 9 Director Ryan Dermody, Deputy District 9 Director Planning, Modal Programs, and Local Assistance Denee Alcala, Transportation Planning Branch Supervisor Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) John Helm, Executive Director Jill Batchelder, Program Coordinator TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 Transportation Directives .......................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Needs and Issues ..................................................................................................................
  • Development of a Groundwater Flow Model for the Bishop/Laws Area

    Development of a Groundwater Flow Model for the Bishop/Laws Area

    DEVELOPMENT OF A GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL FOR THE BISHOP/LAWS AREA FINAL REPORT FOR LOCAL GROUNDWATER ASSISTANCE GRANT AGREEMENT NO. 4600004129 Robert Harrington, PhD, R.G. INYO COUNTY WATER DEPARTMENT APRIL, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………. 3 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………. 5 CONCEPTUAL MODEL ………………………………………… 8 SIMULATION MODEL …………………………………………. 5 PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS …………………………………. 23 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ……………………………. 26 REFERENCES …………………………………………………… 28 APPENDIX 1 ……………………………………………………. 51 APPENDIX 2 ……………………………………………………. 54 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study area location……………………………………………… 30 Figure 2. Geology…………………………………………………………. 31 Figure 3. Hydraulic conductivity distribution…………………………….. 32 Figure 4. Aquifer test locations…………………………………………… 33 Figure 5. Well locations…………………………………………………... 34 Figure 6. Layer 1 hydraulic conductivity zones…………………………... 35 Figure 7. Layer 2 hydraulic conductivity zones………………………….. 36 Figure 8. Layer 3 hydraulic conductivity zones…………………………. 37 Figure 9. Layer 4 hydraulic conductivity zones…………………………. 38 Figure 10. Layer 5 hydraulic conductivity zones………………………… 39 Figure 11. Quaternary faults and horizontal flow barriers………………. 40 Figure 12. Recharge zones……………………………………………….. 41 Figure 13. Evapotranspiration zones……………………………………… 42 Figure 14. Boundary conditions………………………………………….. 43 Figure 15. Observed vs. residuals………………………………………… 44 Figure 16. Distribution of residuals………………………………………. 45 Figure 17. Spatial distribution of residuals………………………………. 46 Figure 18. Drawdown
  • Chapter 3A. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Hydrology

    Chapter 3A. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Hydrology

    Chapter 3A. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Hydrology INTRODUCTION As described in Chapter 2, alternative amendments to the City of Los Angeles appropriative water rights for diversion of four tributary streams in Mono Basin will have direct hydrologic effects on the four streams downstream of the diversions, the water balance and surface elevations of Mono Lake, and the amount of water exported to the Upper Owens River. The allowable exports from Mono Basin will also have indirect effects on Owens River flows, Lake Crowley reservoir storage, and exports from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles. The relationships between these variables were used to define a set of water rights alternatives using a monthly hydrologic model described in Chapter 2. Many of the hydrologic conditions in Mono Basin and the Owens River basin will not be altered by the proposed amendments to the city's water rights. The available runoff from the four Mono Lake tributary streams that are diverted by LADWP will not change. The other sources of water flowing into Mono Lake (e.g., rainfall, most groundwater, and other surface streamflow) will not change. The runoff and spring discharges in the Owens Valley will not be affected. As described in Chapter 2, the assumption has been made for this EIR that groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley will not change with amendment of Mono Basin water rights. The hydrologic records used to analyze the alternative water rights amendments for the four diverted Mono Lake tributaries are for 1940-1989. The LADWP diversions began in 1941 and continued until 1989.
  • 2003 Summer Mono Lake Newsletter

    2003 Summer Mono Lake Newsletter

    hose of you who have diligently read each issue of the Mono Lake Newsletter this year may start to notice that there is something of a pattern forming. It’s the TMono Lake Committee’s 25th Anniversary and we thought, “What better way to celebrate with all the members and friends than through the newsletter?” The first issue highlighted the fact that while the Mono Lake story may appear to be a well-planned one, in 1979 no one ever would have guessed things would have Mono Lake Office turned out with a healthy lake in the end. Only with the amazing efforts of many Information Center and Bookstore people could this sometimes-calculated, sometimes-serendipitous story have turned Highway 395 at Third Street out so well. The second issue focused on the Committee’s long-standing connection Post Office Box 29 Lee Vining, California 93541 with science, and how scientific findings motivated a small group of dedicated (760) 647-6595 students who just couldn’t watch Mono dry up. This, the third issue, focuses on the [email protected] political history that took science-based knowledge to the public, to courtrooms, and www.monolake.org to anyone who would listen, and turned it into the protection that the lake has today. www.monobasinresearch.org The final issue for the year will focus on education, the third pillar of the Los Angeles Office Committee’s three-word mantra: Protection, Restoration, Education. With these 322 Culver Blvd. Playa Del Rey, California 90293 issues firmly under our belts we head off into the next 25 years.
  • Long Valley Caldera Lake and Reincision of Owens River Gorge

    Long Valley Caldera Lake and Reincision of Owens River Gorge

    Long Valley Caldera Lake and Reincision of Owens River Gorge Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5120 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER View southwestward across Long Valley Caldera and Sierra Nevada. Caldera depression, as wide as 30 km, formed during eruption of Bishop Tuff at 767 ka. Sierra consists of Mesozoic plutonic rocks, Mesozoic metavolcanic rocks, and Paleozoic marine metasedimentary strata. Patchy white exposures in caldera are lacustrine siltstones of middle Pleistocene age that are the top of a 700-m-thick accumulation of intracaldera lake sediment. Sedimentation in the deep closed depression took 600,000 years to raise lake level to its threshold for overflow around 150 ka. Outlet arm of Lake Crowley reservoir leads into Owens River Gorge, which extends 30 km southeast across a welded Bishop Tuff outflow sheet. Overflow and draining of the caldera lake reincised a 200-m-deep precaldera gorge (in Mesozoic granodiorite) that had been diverted by 3.3-Ma basalt and later blanketed by the Bishop Tuff. Round Valley Fault is 2-km-high east- facing scarp at left. At lower center of image, precaldera Glass Mountain rhyolite edifice was truncated by caldera collapse and draped by complexly incised apron of Bishop Tuff. Photo is a NaturalVue satellite image mosaic, which has been extracted from a global dataset of natural-color Landsat-7 multispectral images compiled by MDA Information Systems, Inc. Cover image produced and processed by Joel E. Robinson. Imagery copyright 2010, MDA Information Systems, USGS, NASA. Long Valley Caldera Lake and Reincision of Owens River Gorge By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5120 U.S.