DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Owens Valley Pumped Storage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Owens Valley Pumped Storage Project #1 Preliminary Permit Application (FERC Project No. P-14996) Fact Sheet & Key Issues – June 21, 2019 On May 27, 2019, Premium Energy Holdings LLC of Walnut, CA applied for a 24-month preliminary permit for the Owens Valley Pumped Storage Project #1 to “secure and maintain priority of application for a license for the project under Part I of the Federal Power Act while obtaining data and performing the acts required to determine the feasibility of the project and to support an application for a license.”1 The preliminary permit application proposes a project with a lower dam/reservoir in the Owens River Gorge upstream of the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (LADWP) Pleasant Valley Reservoir. Three different alternatives consider two upper dams/reservoirs in the White Mountains or an upper dam/reservoir upstream in the Owens River Gorge. Depending on the alternative chosen, dams, reservoirs, powerlines, powerhouses, tunnels, surge tanks, and access roads would be constructed on public lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and lands owned by LADWP. The upper dam/reservoir sites in the White Mountains are located in Inyo County. The Owens River Gorge dam/reservoir common to all alternatives straddles the Inyo/Mono County boundary. The upper Owens River Gorge dam/reservoir site considered in one of the alternatives is in Mono County.2 Premium Energy claims that the project’s main features and facilities will be located underground, will not alter the existing landscape or cause environmental disturbances, and will be out of public sight except for the proposed dams/reservoirs and transmission lines. According to Premium Energy, the project will be operated as a “closed loop” – once enough water is stored for project operation, additional water will not be diverted from the Owens River and operation will “not alter the existing streams flows.”3 However, no estimate is provided concerning how much additional water would have to be diverted from the Owens River Gorge and Wyman Creek to replace water lost through evaporation and seepage. The OVPS Project #1 would generate 1,200-2,000 MW of power. Project transmission lines would connect with LADWP’s existing transmission system. An additional connection with Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Windhub Substation near Mojave would facilitate the exchange of renewable energy with SCE. Upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations may be necessary.4 The project would have a combined total annual energy 1 Premium Energy (PE) Preliminary Permit Application for the Owens Valley Pumped Storage Project (OVPS) #1, pg. 1, May 27, 2019. 2 PE OVPS Application Exhibit 3, Project Map, pg. 24. 3 PE OVPS Application Exhibit 1, pgs. 7-8. 4 Ibid pg. 8. 1 production of 6,900 GWh.5 However, it’s important to keep in mind that the project overall would use more electricity than it produces. Neither the U.S. Forest Service, Inyo National Forest or the BLM’s Bishop Field Office were originally notified or received a copy of the original application, despite the fact that these agencies manage public lands on which much of the project is located. It is unknown whether the applicant has shared its application or otherwise communicated with LADWP. Dams/Reservoirs Details:6 RESERVOIR DAM RESERVOIR RESERVOIR TUNNEL LAND HEIGHT/ CAPACITY SURFACE DIAMETER/ MANAGER LENGTH (acre-ft) AREA (acres) LENGTH Wyman Reservoir Height: 12,730 115 Diameter: 21 ft. Inyo National 375 feet Length 19.5 miles Forest, BLM Length: Bishop Field 1,000 feet Office White Mountains Height: 12,057 175 Diameter: 21 feet Inyo National Reservoir 215 feet Length: 20.2 miles Forest, BLM Length: Bishop Field 650 feet Office Upper Owens Gorge Height: 23,419 175 Diameter: 29 ft. LADWP Reservoir 400 feet Length: 6.9 miles Length: 1,365 feet Lower Owens Gorge Height: 23,500 190 Diameter: 21 ft. LADWP Reservoir 375 feet Length 19.5 miles Length: 1,000 feet If granted, the preliminary permit will allow Premium Energy to conduct project site land surveys; geological and seismic investigations; soil surveys, test pits, core holes, and topographical surveying; hydrological studies including runoff, rain, evaporation, and groundwater flow; evaluation of reservoirs configuration alternative; project water supply plan, including legal matters and water rights; environmental and cultural impact study comprising environmental surveys, impact identification, evaluation, and mitigation measures; engineering studies to optimize the project’s configuration; energy market studies; evaluation of transmission interconnection alternatives; size and specifications of required equipment; cost estimates, economic feasibility, and financing options; development of a preliminary licensing proposal, consultation, and documentation; and preparation, review and filing of the FERC license application.7 Temporary access roads are allowed to fulfill the purposes of the preliminary study permit, although Premium Energy would have to secure special use permits from the Forest Service and 5 Ibid pg. 11. 6 PE Preliminary Permit Application Exhibit 1, Tables 1, 2, & 3, pgs. 7-9 7 PE Preliminary Permit Application Exhibit 2, pgs. 21-22. 2 the BLM to construct temporary roads on public land, and presumably permission from LADWP to do so in the Owens River Gorge. The application confirms that temporary access roads will be needed to conduct studies. These temporary roads will access the Owens River Gorge dam/reservoir sites, subject to approval by the landowner (LADWP). The Wyman Canyon and White Mountains reservoir sites are accessible by the existing White Mountains and Wyman Canyon Roads. Construction of the White Mountains Reservoir would require relocation of at least one mile of the White Mountains Road. Additionally, access roads leading to existing substations or proposed converter stations will be also be required.8 The proposed new dams will also require subsurface investigations in the White Mountains and Owens River Gorge. This includes soil and rock borings and seismic surveys. Remedial actions in response to surface disturbance caused by the studies include an erosion and materials disposal plan, backfilling of core borings and test pits, and replanting any disturbed vegetation.9 The total estimated cost of carrying out and preparing the studies is $5 million. Funding for preliminary permit activities comes from Premium Energy and unspecified investors.10 Key Issues Identified by the California Wilderness Coalition (CalWild) & Others: Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest – Both of the potential dams/reservoirs proposed in the White Mountains are located in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest. The Forest was established as a special management area by the Forest Service in 1959 to protect the ancient bristlecone pines and the outstanding visual experience provided by the surrounding landscape.11 The area was expanded and provided legislative protection by Congress in 2009. The legislation directs the Forest Service to protect bristlecone pines for public enjoyment and scientific study; recognize the botanical, scenic, and historical values of the area; and maintain near-natural conditions by ensuring that all activities are subordinate to the needs of protecting and preserving bristlecone pines. All forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws are prohibited.12 Management direction in the Inyo National Forest plan for the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest states that soil or watercourses should not be modified except to restore damaged areas to near natural condition or to control or prevent erosion. New above ground utility rights of way and major utility corridors are not suitable in the Forest.13 Recommended Wilderness Addition – The proposed Wyman Canyon dam/reservoir encroaches on the White Mountain West Wilderness addition in sections 6 and 7, T6S, R35E. This addition to the existing White Mountains Wilderness was recommended by the Forest Service because of its ecological integrity, good opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined 8 Ibid pg. 21. 9 Ibid pg. 22. 10 Ibid pg. 23. 11 Ancient Bristlecone Pine Botanical Area Management Plan, Inyo National Forest, 1974. 12 Public Law 111-11, 123 STAT. 1061, March 30, 2009. 13 Inyo National Forest Plan, pg. 105-106, August 2018. 3 recreation, and the ecological and scientific research features of the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest.14 Protected Inventoried Roadless Areas – The alternative White Mountain Reservoir is located on an unnamed southern tributary of Wyman Creek in the Birch Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA 5060). The Birch Creek IRA is protected under the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule.15 The Wyman Canyon dam/reservoir is located in the White Mountains Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA 5058), which is also protected under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Tunnels leading from both reservoirs in the White Mountains run beneath the protected White Mountains IRA as well. The Inyo Forest Plan affirms protection of IRAs under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.16 Bi-State Greater Sage-Grouse – The Bi-State Greater Sage-Grouse is eligible for protection as a threatened species. Both of the upper reservoirs considered in the project are located in Greater Sage-Grouse critical habitat designated in the White Mountains.17 Renewable energy development and the roads, powerlines and other infrastructure necessary to construct and operate renewable energy facilities have been cited as
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).
  • Santa Ana Sucker Habitat, Santa Ana River

    Santa Ana Sucker Habitat, Santa Ana River

    Santa Ana succker (Catostomus santaanae) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Santa Ana sucker habitat, Santa Ana River. Photo credit Christine Medak (USFWS). U.S. Fish and Wildliffee Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, CA March 10, 2011 2011 5-Year Review for Santa Ana sucker 5-YEAR REVIEW Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed. Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
  • 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.
  • Target Species Mapping for the Green Visions Plan

    Target Species Mapping for the Green Visions Plan

    Target Species Habitat Mapping California Quail and Mountain Quail (Callipepla californica and Oreortyx pictus) Family: Phasianidae Order: Galliformes Class: Aves WHR #: B140 and B141 Distribution: California quail are found in southern Oregon, northern Nevada, California, and Baja California, and have been introduced in other states such as Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, and Utah (Peterson 1961). In California, they are widespread but absent from the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades, the White Mountains, and the Warner Mountains, and are replaced by the related Gambel’s quail (C. gambelii) in some desert regions (Peterson 1961, Small 1994). In southern California, they are found from the Coast Range south to the Mexican border, and occur as far east as the western fringes of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, such as in the Antelope Valley (Garrett and Dunn 1981, Small 1994). California quail range from sea level to about 5000 ft (1524 meters; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) Mountain quail are resident from northern Washington and northern Idaho, south through parts of Oregon, northwestern Nevada, California, and northern Baja California (Peterson 1961). In southern California, mountain quail are found in nearly all of the mountain ranges west of the deserts, including the southern Coast Ranges, from the Santa Lucia Mountains south through Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, and the Peninsular Ranges south to the Mexican border (Garrot and Dunn 1981, Small 1994). In the Transverse Ranges, a small population occurs in the western Santa Monica Mountains, and larger populations occur in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains (Small 1994). Mountain quail are found at elevations from below 2000 ft (610 meters) to over 9000 ft (2743 meters; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).
  • Doing Zooarchaeology As If It Mattered: Use of Faunal Data To

    Doing Zooarchaeology As If It Mattered: Use of Faunal Data To

    In, Zooarchaeoloqy and Conseryation Biology 2004, R. Lee Lyman and Kenneth P. Cannon,-eds. pp. 25-44, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2 Doing Zooarchaeologyas if It Mattered: Use of Faunal Data to AddressCurrent Issuesin Fish ConservationBiology in OwensValley, California VIRGINIA L. BUTLERAND MICHAEL G. DELACORTE "V cologists are increasingly incorporating conceptssuch as "legacy" into l::Jtheir explanations of current ecosystems(Harding et al. 1:998). This approach acknowledges that understanding the structure and function of extant ecosystems(or predicting future responsesto climate change)re- quires knowledge of historical forces that have beenoperating for decades, centuries, or longer (Foster 2.000;Moorhead et al. 1:999).Indeed, recog- nition of the needfor such long-term historical records is demonstratedby the level of National ScienceFoundation funding for the Long-Term Eco- logical Research(LTER) network (Kaiser 2.oo1:b;LTER Network 2.001:). Over 1:,1:00researcqers funded by the LTER carry out researchon 2..4des- ignated sites that have been studied;from a few years to several decades (Kaiser 2.O01:b).These studies cover a range of topics with the overall goal of "investigating ecological processesover long temporal and broad spa- tial scales" (LTER Network 2.001:).This goal is precisely that of zoo- archaeology.Yet, to our knowledge, zooarchaeologicalexpertise and data have not been incorporated into the LTER network. Our point is simply I that ecological sciencesseeking to understand the long-term properties of ecosystemshave direct accessto such information through zooarchaeology. Zooarchaeology needsto tollaborate with wildlife sciencesbecause of the increasing speedwith which habitats and biotas are being lost in the face of human population growth and habitat destruction (Minckley and Deacon 1:991:;Vitousek et al.
  • Chapter 06 Fisheries & Aquatic Resources.Pdf

    Chapter 06 Fisheries & Aquatic Resources.Pdf

    CHAPTER 6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources CHAPTER 6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES This chapter describes the existing fisheries and aquatic resources conditions, the applicable regulations, and potential impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project Alternative and other alternatives on the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Project Area. 6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section describes the environmental setting related to fisheries and aquatic resources that may be influenced by implementation of the Proposed Project Alternative or other alternatives in the Project Area including Lake Mary, Mammoth Creek extending from Lake Mary to its confluence with Hot Creek, and Hot Creek from its confluence with Mammoth Creek downstream to the USGS Hot Creek Flume Gage. 6.1.1 LAKE MARY Lake Mary is a cirque lake (a deep, steep-walled basin on a mountain) formed by the filling of remnant moraine depressions left by receding glaciers (USGS 1999). Lake Mary contains prominent granite features, and cold, clear water, making it a popular angling destination. A "fishing enhancement" program is implemented by both the Town of Mammoth Lakes and CDFG to maintain the lake’s appeal as a “trophy” trout destination. The recreational fishery in Lake Mary is maintained by both the Town of Mammoth Lakes and CDFG because of its economic importance to the Mammoth Lakes Basin (Mammoth City Concierge 2010). Lake Mary has been, and continues to be managed as a put-and-take recreational fishery. Hatchery rainbow trout have been regularly planted by CDFG beginning in the late spring and extending through the summer. The lake also is often planted with “Alpers trout.” The Alpers trout is a genetic hybrid of rainbow trout, Kamloops trout and steelhead, raised in the streams and ponds of Alpers Owens River Ranch.
  • 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
  • Microsoft Outlook

    Microsoft Outlook

    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
  • Owens Basin Wetland and Aquatic Species Recovery Plan Lnyo and Mono Counties,California OWENS BASIN WETLAND and AQUATIC SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN

    Owens Basin Wetland and Aquatic Species Recovery Plan Lnyo and Mono Counties,California OWENS BASIN WETLAND and AQUATIC SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN

    Owens Basin Wetland and Aquatic Species Recovery Plan lnyo and Mono Counties,California OWENS BASIN WETLAND AND AQUATIC SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN INYG AND MONO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Owens pupfish, Owens tui chub, and Fish Slough milk-vetch and Selected Species of Concern Region I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: U.S. ish and Wildlife Service Date: Cooperators r Concurred ~ .L~ ~zz:~~;WN ~ Director, California Department of Fish and Game Concurred K2) ~ C)\\Q~~~ \ CN ~N State Director, U.S. Bureau of Lana Management Concurred Regional ii DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and sometimes prepared with the assistance ofrecovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval ofany individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. LITERATURE CITATIONS The literature citation for this recovery plan should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  • 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.
  • A List of Freshwater, Anadromous, and Euryhaline Fishes of California

    A List of Freshwater, Anadromous, and Euryhaline Fishes of California

    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 86(4):244-258 2000 A LIST OF FRESHWATER, ANADROMOUS, AND EURYHALINE FISHES OF CALIFORNIA PETER B. MOYLE Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, California 95616 e-mail: pbmoyle @ ucdavis.edu LIAM H. DAVIS California Department of Fish and Game 7329 Silverado Trail Yountville, California 94558 The freshwater fishes of California include 67 native resident or anadromous species, 53 non-native species, and 5 marine species that occur in fresh water, for a total of 125 species. Within these species, 100 taxa at lower levels (subspecies, Evolutionary Significant Units, runs of anadromous fish) are recognized. The number of freshwater fish species in California is increasing due to invasions of non-native fishes, which are becoming established at a rate of about 1 species every 3 years. Of the native fishes, 5 full species are extinct in California. Thus, the actual number of species maintaining populations in the state is 120. Of extant native species, 15 (22%) are threatened with extinction in the near future. Only 27 native species (40%) can be regarded as having secure populations. INTRODUCTION The fishes of California’s inland waters are a mixture of resident, anadromous, and euryhaline species, both native and non-native. The first attempt to compile a comprehensive list of these species was Evermann and Clark (1931), who listed 78 native species and 32 introduced species. Native species included an anomalous Pacific hagfish, Epatretus stouti, from the Eel River, 14 forms all now considered to be rainbow trout, and 18 other forms that are either no longer recognized as species or were mistakenly considered to be part of the California fish fauna.
  • 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.