Land use

The proposed project would be on rural and forested land in southwestern Mono County. Most of the land belongs to the National Forest System and is undeveloped. There are also grazing allotments. The Mammoth Lakes municipal boundary, existing offices for the geothermal plant, and a park are all within the vicinity of the proposed project area.

Alternatives:

Construction of the proposed power plant east of two proposed injection wells. Still located on vacant Inyo National Forest land and including grazing allotments.
Construction of the proposed plant in the same location with a slightly different pipeline route.

All three alternatives (i.e. the proposed plan and the two alternatives) would entail that the pipeline route pass through undeveloped Inyo National Forest land.

Jurisdiction

Federal: The Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service have jurisdiction over land use.

State: there are no applicable state regulations.

Local: regulations found in the Mono County General Plan and the Town of Mammoth Lakes General Plan only apply to project components located on private land.

Environmental consequences

The project is designed to have the fewest visual intrusions possible during its construction and operation. The proponent plans to restore the site to its approximate original land use after the decommissioning of the power plant. For all stages, the project does not physically divide any established community, but it does result in the permanent closure of a portion of a road and the rerouting of other road portions. It does not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation.

Cumulative Effects

None mentioned.

Mitigation

None mentioned.

Residual Impacts

None mentioned.

Critique

The direct and indirect impacts are well described in this section. One negative element is that the measures about land use is in contradiction with the proponent’s commitment to preserve visual aesthetics. In fact, the majority of the pipeline’s length will not be buried. This concern stands for all alternatives, and should have been discussed in more detail.

Image from: express-images.franklymedia.com

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse

Land use

Alternatives:

Construction of the proposed power plant east of two proposed injection wells. Still located on vacant Inyo National Forest land and including grazing allotments.

Construction of the proposed plant in the same location with a slightly different pipeline route.

All three alternatives (i.e. the proposed plan and the two alternatives) would entail that the pipeline route pass through undeveloped Inyo National Forest land.

Jurisdiction

Environmental consequences

Critique