Click here to go Home

Mono Basin Draft EIR Volume 1

Volume 1 of the Draft EIR covers the chapters from the Summary through Chapter 3E.

Title Page (8K)

 

  
Summary (40K)
  • Proposed Project
  • Background
  • Decision Process
  • Project Alternatives
  • Evaluating Environmental Changes for the Alternatives
  • Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Mitigation Measures
  • Conclusions

 

 Table S-1 Comparison of the Alternatives(8K)
Table S-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures (10K)
Table S-3 Significant Impacts of the Alternatives (6K)
Table S-4 Significant Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives (7K)

 

 Figure S-1 Project Alternatives Showing Lake Levels over Three 50-Year Periods (44K)
Figure S-2 Comparison of Key Significant Environmental Impacts (63K)

 
Chapter 1 Introduction (27K)
  • Proposed Project and Project Objective
  • Project Location and Environmental Context
  • City of Los Angeles Water Rights
  • Effects of Past Diversions
  • Legal History of the Mono Lake Controversy
  • Scoping of Environmental Issues
  • Subsequent EIR Process
  • Intended Uses of the Document
  • Character and Organization of the EIR
  • Definition of Key Terms
  • Citations

 

 Table 1-1 Court-ordered Interim Flows for Mono Lake Tributaries (3K)

 

 Figure 1-1 Mono Basin (76K)
Figure 1-2 Mono Lake (37K)
Figure 1-3 Diverted Tributary Streams (33K)
Figure 1-4 Upper Owens River (35K)
Figure 1-5 Los Angeles Aqueduct System in Mono and Owens Basins (62K)
Figure 1-6 Historical Runoff, Exports, and Releases to Mono Lake, 1912-1991 and Figure 1-7 Historical Mono Lake Surface Elevations, 1912-1991 (59K)

 
Chapter 2 Project Alternatives and Points of Reference (75K) 
  • Process for Developing Project Alternatives
  • Project Alternatives
  • Points of Reference for Evaluating Environmental Changes
  • Citations

 

 Table 2-1 Distribution of Runoff Among the Diverted Tributary Streams (4K)
Table 2-2 Runoff Frequencies (4K)
Table 2-3 Assumed Minimum and Ecosystem Maintenance Flows for Simulating the Alternatives (4K)
Table 2-4 Assumed Lake Release as Percentage of Projected Runoff by Year Type (3K)
Table 2-5 Cumulative Lake Level Frequencies at Dynamic Equilibrium (for each alternative) (4K)
Table 2-6 Preliminary Minimum Monthly Streamflows (cfs) for Lee Vining, Walker, Parker, and Rush Creeks from DFG Stream Evaluation Reports (43K)

 

 Figure 2-1 Lake Level Ranges of the Alternatives Showing Lake Levels over Three 50-Year Periods (37K)
Figure 2-2a Streamflows for the Alternatives, Lee Vining Creek and Rush Creek (43K)
Figure 2-2b Streamflows for the Alternatives, Parker Creek and Walker Creek (41K)
Figure 2-3 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation - No-Restriction Alternative and Figure 2-4 Lake Configuration at Equilibrium Lake Level - No-Restriction Alternative (44K)
Figure 2-5 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation - 6,372-Ft Alternative and Figure 2-6 Lake Configuration at Protected Lake Level - 6,372-Ft Alternative (37K)
Figure 2-7 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation - 6,377-Ft Alternative and Figure 2-8 Lake Configuration at Protected Lake Level - 6,377-Ft Alternative (36K)
Figure 2-9 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation - 6,383.5-Ft Alternative and Figure 2-10 Lake Configuration at Protected Lake Level - 6,383.5-Ft Alternative (40K)
Figure 2-11 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation - 6,390-Ft Alternative and Figure 2-12 Lake Configuration at Protected Lake Level - 6,390-Ft Alternative (44K)
Figure 2-13 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation - 6,410-Ft Alternative and Figure 2-14 Lake Configuration at Protected Lake Level - 6,410-Ft Alternative (37K)
Figure 2-15 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation - No-Diversion Alternative and Figure 2-16 Lake Configuration at Protected Lake Level - No-Diversion Alternative (36K)
Figure 2-17 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation with Preliminary Minimum Monthly Streamflows from DFG Stream Evaluation Reports (43K)

 
Chapter 3A Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Hydrology (83K)
  • Introduction
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Hydrologic Effects of the Alternatives
  • Hydrologic Effects of the Point- of- Reference Scenario
  • Hydrologic Effects of the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Hydrologic Effects of the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Hydrologic Effects of the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Hydrologic Effects of the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Hydrologic Effects of the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Hydrologic Effects of the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Hydrologic Effects of the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Citations

 

  Table 3A-1 Mono Lake TributaryWatershed Area and Average Runoff (17K)
 Table 3A-2 Average Snowpack and Rainfall Records (34K)
 Table 3A-3 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams (50K)
 Table 3A-4 Monthly Evaporation Records for Mono Lake and Owens River Basins (22K)
 Table 3A-5 Simulated Annual Mono Lake Natural Water Budget Terms (73K)
 Table 3A-6 Annual Owens Valley Runoff, Groundwater Pumping, and Los Angeles Exports (46K)
 Table 3A-7 Summary Comparison of Hydrologic Effects of the Alternatives (42K)
 Table 3A-8 Simulated Median Monthly Flows in Owens River Basin for Each Alternative (46K)
Table 3A-9 Summary Comparison of Simulated Flows and Estimated Irrigation Diversions in the Upper Owens River (8K)
 Table 3A-10 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams for the Point-of-Reference Scenario (49K)
 Table 3A-11 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams for the No-Restriction Alternative (48K)
 Table 3A-12 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams for the 6,372-Ft Alternative (49K)
 Table 3A-13 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams for the 6,377-Ft Alternative (49K)
 Table 3A-14 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams for the 6,383.5-Ft Alternative (50K)
 Table 3A-15 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams for the 6,390-Ft Alternative (50K)
 Table 3A-16 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams for the 6,410-Ft Alternative (51K)
 Table 3A-17 Monthly Cumulative Flow Distribution of Diverted Streams for the No-Diversion Alternative (52K)

 

 Figure 3A-1 Annual Runoff of Diverted Streams (51K)
Figure 3A-2 Monthly Lee Vining Streamflow Distribution (102K)
Figure 3A-3 Monthly Walker Creek Streamflow Distribution (103K)
Figure 3A-4 Monthly Parker Creek Streamflow Distribution (91K)
Figure 3A-5 Monthly Rush Creek Streamflow Distribution (91K)
Figure 3A-6 Historical Mono Lake Surface Area, 1912-1991 and Figure 3A-7 Historical Mono Lake Volume, 1912-1991 (58K)
Figure 3A-8 Mono Lake Surface Elevation in the Absence of LADWP Diversions, 1940-1989 (57K)
Figure 3A-9 Total Historic Annual Runoff - Mono Lake, Owens River, Long Valley, and Round Valley Basins (117K)
Figure 3A-10 Simulated Mono Lake Surface Elevation, Point-of-Reference Scenario and Figure 3A-11 Frequency Distribution of Runoff and Simulated Mono Basin Exports, Point-of-Reference Scenario (95K)
Figure 3A-12 Simulated Mono Lake Surface Elevation, No-Restriction Alternative and Figure 3A-13 Frequency Distribution of Runoff and Simulated Mono Basin Exports, No-Restriction Alternative (99K)
Figure 3A-14 Simulated Mono Lake Surface Elevation, 6,372-Ft Alternative and Figure 3A-15 Frequency Distribution of Runoff and Simulated Mono Basin Exports, 6,372-Ft Alternative (93K)
Figure 3A-16 Simulated Mono Lake Surface Elevation, 6,377-Ft Alternative and Figure 3A-17 Frequency Distribution of Runoff and Simulated Mono Basin Exports, 6,377-Ft Alternative (93K)
Figure 3A-18 Simulated Mono Lake Surface Elevation, 6,383.5-Ft Alternative and Figure 3A-19 Frequency Distribution of Runoff and Simulated Mono Basin Exports, 6,383.5-Ft Alternative (91K)
Figure 3A-20 Simulated Mono Lake Surface Elevation, 6,390-Ft Alternative and Figure 3A-21 Frequency Distribution of Runoff and Simulated Mono Basin Exports, 6,390-Ft Alternative (92K)
Figure 3A-22 Simulated Mono Lake Surface Elevation, 6,410-Ft Alternative and Figure 3A-23 Frequency Distribution of Runoff and Simulated Mono Basin Exports, 6,410-Ft Alternative (92K)
Figure 3A-24 Simulated Mono Lake Surface Elevation, No-Diversion Alternative and Figure 3A-25 Frequency Distribution of Runoff and Simulated Mono Basin Exports, No-Diversion Alternative (89K)

 
Chapter 3B Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Water Quality (91K)
  • Introduction
  • Applicable Water Quality Standards and Criteria
  • Water Quality Parameters of Concern and Locations of Interest
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Characterization of Point-of-Reference Conditions
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Target-Lake-Level Alternatives
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

 Table 3B-1 Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters in the Mono Basin (6K)
Table 3B-2 Mono Lake Mineral WaterQuality (5K)
Table 3B-3 Average Temperatures of Mono Lake Tributaries (6K)
Table 3B-4 Water Quality Summary of Grant Lake Reservoir Outlet (1940-1991) (8K)
Table 3B-5 Comparison of Average Water Quality for Major Sources of Los Angeles Aqueduct and Los Angeles Water Supply (10K)
Table 3B-6 Water Quality Impact Significance Criteria (6K)
Table 3B-7 Summary Comparison of Water Quality Effects of the Alternatives (10K)
Table 3B-8 Model Data for Point-of-Reference Condition and No-Restriction and No-Diversion Alternatives (10K)
Table 3B-9 Summary of High Arsenic Values under the No-Diversion Alternative Compared with Values under Point-of-Reference Conditions (6K)

 

 Figure 3B-1 Historical Mono Lake Salinity, 1912-1991 (34K)
Figure 3B-2 East Portal Conductivity in Relation to Flow, 1940-1991 and Figure 3B-3 Hot Creek Conductivity in Relation to Flow, 1965-1991 (32K)
Figure 3B-4 Crowley Lake Temperature Profiles, 1991 (31K)
Figure 3B-5 Crowley Lake Oxygen Profiles, 1991 (29K)
Figure 3B-6 Crowley Lake Outlet Conductivity, 1940-1991 and Figure 3B-7 Conductivity of LADWP Well Water in the Owens River Basin (32K)
Figure 3B-8 Predicted and Historical Conductivity for LA Aqueduct Filtration Plant Inflow from 1940 to 1990 (55K)
Figure 3B-9 Predicted and Historical Chloride Concentrations for LA Aqueduct Filtration Plant Inflow from 1940 to 1990 (51K)
Figure 3B-10 Predicted and Historical Arsenic Concentrations for LA Aqueduct Filtration Plant Inflow from 1940 to 1990 (59K)
Figure 3B-11 Predicted and Historical Fluoride Concentrations for LA Aqueduct Filtration Plant Inflow from 1940 to 1990 (73K)
Figure 3B-12 Predicted and Historical Arsenic Concentrations for East Portal Outflow from 1940 to 1990 (58K)
Figure 3B-13 Predicted and Historical Arsenic Concentrations for Lake Crowley Reservoir Outflow from 1940 to 1990 (54K)
Figure 3B-14 Predicted and Historical Phosphate Concentrations for East Portal Outflow from 1940 to 1990 (56K)
Figure 3B-15 Predicted and Historical Phosphate Concentrations for Lake Crowley Reservoir Outflow from 1940 to 1990 (45K)

 
Chapter 3C Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Vegetation (246K)
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Impacts Common to Most Alternatives
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

 Table 3C-1 Summary of Results of Synoptic Flow Studies(4K)
Table 3C-2 Comparison of Point-of-Reference and Prediversion Riparian Vegetation Acreages on the Tributary Streams (4K)
Table 3C-3 Lake-Fringing Wetland Types(5K)
Table 3C-4 Aerial Extent of Prediversion and Point-of-Reference Lake-Fringing Wetlands (9K)
Table 3C-5 Extent of Prediversion and Point-of-Reference Woody Riparian Vegetation along the Upper Owens River (4K)
Table 3C-6a Potential Overflow Channel Inlet Data for Rush and Lee Vining Creeks (8K)
Table 3C-6b Potential Overflow Channel Inlet Data for Walker and Parker Creeks (6K)
Table 3C-7 Changes in Upper Owens River Streamflow during the Diversion Period (4K)
Table 3C-8 Prediversion and Point-of-Reference Upper Owens River Channel Attributes (4K)
Table 3C-9 Special-Status Plant Species of Mono Basin and Upper Long Valley (9K)
Table 3C-10 Summary Comparison of Effects: Tributary Riparian Vegetation (9K)
Table 3C-11 Frequency of Stream Releases During Growing Season Insufficient to Overcome Channel Losses (4K)
Table 3C-12 Relative Potential for Loss of Riparian Vegetation Resulting from Floodflow (5K)
Table 3C-13 Frequency of Seasonal Overflow Channel Wetting (4K)
Table 3C-14 Extent of Riparian and Wetland Vegetation for the Alternatives (9K)
Table 3C-15 Summary Comparison of Effects: Lake-Fringing Vegetation (6K)
Table 3C-16 Lake-Fringing Wetland Location, Type, and Extent (7K)
Table 3C-17 Summary Comparison of Effects: Upper Owens River Riparian and Wetland Vegetation (8K)
Table 3C-18 Upper Owens River Streamflow (4K)
Table 3C-19 Stage and Willow Productivity of Upper Owens River (4K)

 

 Figure 3C-1 Geomorphology of the Diverted Tributary Streams (126K)
Figure 3C-2 Lake-Fringing Wetlands under Prediversion Conditions (38K)
Figure 3C-3 Incision of the Rush Creek Bottomlands (21K)
Figure 3C-4 Areas Inundated during Channel Maintenance Flows - Parker, Walker, and Upper Rush Creeks (118K)
Figure 3C-5 Potential Overflow Channels - Parker, Walker, and Upper Rush Creeks (124K)
Figure 3C-6 Areas Inundated during Channel Maintenance Flows - Rush Creek Bottomlands (59K)
Figure 3C-7 Potential Overflow Channels - Rush Creek Bottomlands (63K)
Figure 3C-8 Areas Inundated during Channel Maintenance Flows - Lee Vining Creek (63K)
Figure 3C-9 Potential Overflow Channels - Lee Vining Creek (179K)
Figure 3C-10 Lake-Fringing Wetlands under Point-of-Reference Conditions (48K)
Figure 3C-11 Extent of Woody Riparian Vegetation along the Diverted Tributary Streams for the Alternatives (101K)

 
Chapter 3D Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Fishery Resources (295K)
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Consideration of Pre-1941 Fishery Standards Set by Court Order
  • Citations

 

 Table 3D-1 Fish Species Reported to Occur in Mono Basin (5K)
Table 3D-2 Fish Species Reported to Occur in the Owens River Basin (6K)
Table 3D-3 Habitat Impact Analysis Criteria for Parker and Walker Creeks Based on a Modified Tennant Method for Maintaining Various Levels of Habitat Conditions (6K)
 Table 3D-4 Principal Months for Evaluating Habitat Conditions for Different Fish Species and Life Stages in Rush Creek, Lee Vining Creek, the Upper Owens River, and Middle Owens River
Table 3D-5 Water Temperature Suitability Ranges for Brown Trout and Largemouth Bass Life Stages (4K)
Table 3D-6 Summary Comparison of Aquatic Resource Effects of the Alternatives: Mono Lake Tributary Streams (9K)
Table 3D-7 Summary Comparison of Aquatic Resource Effects of the Alternatives: Grant Lake Reservoir, Lake Crowley Reservoir, and Middle Owens River (9K)
Table 3D-8 Summary Comparison of Aquatic Resource Effects of the Alternatives: Upper Owens River (9K)
 Table 3D-9 Average Brown Trout Spawning Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-5) (57K)
Table 3D-10 Average Brown Trout Fry Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-6) (62K)
Table 3D-11 Average Brown Trout Juvenile Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-7) (43K)
Table 3D-12 Average Brown Trout Adult Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-8) (41K)
Table 3D-13 Average Brown Trout Spawning Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-9) (70K)
Table 3D-14 Average Brown Trout Fry Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-10) (33K)
Table 3D-15 Average Brown Trout Juvenile Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-11) (39K)
Table 3D-16 Average Brown Trout Adult Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-12) (50K)
Table 3D-17 Summary of Aquatic Habitat Conditions Using Impact Analyses Based on Tennant Method for Parker and Walker Creeks (4K)
Table 3D-18 Change in End of Month Elevation at Grant Lake Reservoir Under 20%, 50%, and 80% Hydrologic Conditions by Alternative (6K)
Table 3D-19 Grant Lake Reservoir Average Surface Area for Each Alternative and Percentage Difference Relative to Point of Reference (4K)
Table 3D-20 Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout Adult and Spawning Habitat in Upper Owens River for Dry (20%), Normal (50%), and Wet (80%) Hydrologic Conditions by Alternative (7K)
Table 3D-21 Lake Crowley Reservoir Average Surface Area for Each Alternative and Percentage Difference Relative to Point of Reference (4K)
Table 3D-22 Average Brown Trout Spawning Habitat in Segments 1-3 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-13) (56K)
Table 3D-23 Average Brown Trout Fry Habitat in Segments 1-3 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-14) (37K)
Table 3D-24 Average Brown Trout Juvenile Habitat in Segments 1-3 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-15) (46K)
Table 3D-25 Average Brown Trout Adult Habitat in Segments 1-3 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-16) (42K)
Table 3D-26 Average Brown Trout Spawning Habitat at Individual Spawning Transects in the Middle Owens River by Alternative (6K)
Table 3D-27 Average Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat in Segments 1-3 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-17) (43K)
Table 3D-28 Average Largemouth Bass Spawning Habitat in Segment 4 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-18) (47K)
Table 3D-29 Average Largemouth Bass Fry Habitat in Segment 4 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-19) (30K)
Table 3D-30 Average Largemouth Bass Juvenile Habitat in Segment 4 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-20) (30K)
Table 3D-31 Average Largemouth Bass Adult Habitat in Segment 4 of Middle Owens River by Alternative, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (see Figure 3D-21) (37K)
Table 3D-32 Summary of Simulated Daily Water Temperatures in April and June at Two Locations in the Middle Owens River for the Point of Reference and No-Diversion Alternative (8K)
Table 3D-33 Summary of Simulated Daily Water Temperatures in August and October at Two Locations in the Middle Owens River for the Point of Reference and the No-Diversion Alternative (8K)
Table 3D-34 Preliminary Minimum Monthly Streamflows (cfs) for Lee Vining, Walker, Parker, and Rush Creeks from DFG Stream Evaluation Reports (see Figure 3D-24) (44K)

 

 Figure 3D-1 Lee Vining Creek Study Segments (24K)
Figure 3D-2 Rush Creek Study Segments (26K)
Figure 3D-3 Upper Owens River Study Segments (36K)
Figure 3D-4 Middle Owens River IFIM Segmentation (22K)
Figure 3D-5 Simulated Brown Trout Spawning Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (57K)
Figure 3D-6 Simulated Brown Trout Fry Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (62K)
Figure 3D-7 Simulated Brown Trout Juvenile Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (43K)
Figure 3D-8 Simulated Brown Trout Adult Habitat in Segments 3, 5, and 6 of Rush Creek for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (41K)
Figure 3D-9 Simulated Brown Trout Spawning Habitat in Segments 2, 5, and 6 of Lee Vining Creek for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (70K)
Figure 3D-10 Simulated Brown Trout Fry Habitat in Segments 2, 5, and 6 of Lee Vining Creek for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (33K)
Figure 3D-11 Simulated Brown Trout Juvenile Habitat in Segments 2, 5, and 6 of Lee Vining Creek for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (39K)
Figure 3D-12 Simulated Brown Trout Adult Habitat in Segments 2, 5, and 6 of Lee Vining Creek for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (50K)
Figure 3D-13 Simulated Brown Trout Spawning Habitat in Segments 1-3 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (56K)
Figure 3D-14 Simulated Brown Trout Fry Habitat in Segments 1-3 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (37K)
Figure 3D-15 Simulated Brown Trout Juvenile Habitat in Segments 1-3 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (46K)
Figure 3D-16 Simulated Brown Trout Adult Habitat in Segments 1-3 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (42K)
Figure 3D-17 Simulated Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat in Segments 1-3 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (43K)
Figure 3D-18 Simulated Largemouth Bass Spawning Habitat in Segments 4 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (47K)
Figure 3D-19 Simulated Largemouth Bass Fry Habitat in Segments 4 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (30K)
Figure 3D-20 Simulated Largemouth Bass Juvenile Habitat in Segments 4 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (30K)
Figure 3D-21 Simulated Largemouth Bass Adult Habitat in Segments 4 of the Middle Owens River for the Alternatives, 1940-1989 Hydrologic Period (37K)
Figure 3D-22 Simulated Daily Water Temperatures in Middle Owens River at Five Bridges Road during August at the Dry-Year Threshold for the No-Diversion Alternative and Figure 3D-23 Simulated Daily Water Temperatures in Middle Owens River at River Mile 42 during August at the Dry-Year Threshold for the No-Diversion Alternative (39K)
Figure 3D-24 Simulated Lake Surface Elevation with Preliminary Minimum Monthly Streamflows from DFG Stream Evaluation Reports (44K)

 
Chapter 3E Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures - Aquatic Productivity of Mono Lake (134K)
  • General Description of the Mono Lake Aquatic Ecosystem
  • Prediversion Conditions
  • Environmental Setting
  • Impact Assessment Methodology
  • Summary Comparison of Impacts and Benefits of the Alternatives
  • Overview of Model Predictions
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Restriction Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,372-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,377-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,383.5-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,390-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the 6,410-ft Alternative
  • Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the No-Diversion Alternative
  • Cumulative Impacts of the Alternatives
  • Citations

 

 Table 3E-1 Glossary of Technical Terminology (8K)
Table 3E-2 Vertical Distribution of Hard Substrates in Mono Lake below 6,440 Feet (5K)
Table 3E-3 Densities of Mono Lake Alkali Fly on Hard and Soft Substrates (4K)
Table 3E-4 Point-of-Reference and Prediversion Values and No-Impact Ranges for Impact Analysis Variables (4K)
Table 3E-5 Results of Brine Shrimp Productivity Model 8-Year Simulation (4K)
Table 3E-6 Summary Comparison of Alkali Fly Effects Under the Alternatives (7K)
Table 3E-7 Summary Comparison of Brine Shrimp Effects Under the Alternatives(9K)
Table 3E-8 Alkali Fly Impact Assessment Results (5K)
Table 3E-9 Brine Shrimp Impact Assessment Results (6K)
Table 3E-10 Simulated Biomass, Production, and Cyst Production of Brine Shrimp as Affected by Salinity and Habitat Area Only (4K)

 

 Figure 3E-1 Meromixis of Mono Lake, 1983-1988 (49K)
Figure 3E-2 Annual Epilimnetic Temperature Variation in Mono Lake, 1982-1990 (32K)
Figure 3E-3 Life Cycle of the Mono Lake Alkali Fly (21K)
Figure 3E-4 Growth of the Mono Lake Alkali Fly at 20ºC and Figure 3E-5 Percent of Mono Lake Alkali Fly Adults Emerging Successfully from Pupal Stage at Different Experimental Temperatures (21K)
Figure 3E-6 Seasonal Variations in Biomass Abundance of the Mono Lake Alkali Fly, 1983 and 1984 (21K)
Figure 3E-7 Biomass of Mono Lake Alkali Fly, Larvae, and Pupae on Hard Substrates at Different Depths (18K)
Figure 3E-8 Substrates at Mono Lake (186K)
Figure 3E-9 Life Cycle of the Mono Lake Brine Shrimp (34K)
Figure 3E-10 Contours of Equal Ammonium Concentrations in Mono Lake, 1982-1990 (28K)
Figure 3E-11 Annual Variations in Chlorophyll a in the Mixed Pelagic Layer, 1982-1990 (34K)
Figure 3E-12 Peak Abundance of Adult Mono Lake Brine Shrimp, 1979-1990 (37K)
Figure 3E-13 Mono Lake Brine Shrimp Abundance in 1989 (20K)
Figure 3E-14 Mono Lake Brine Shrimp Abundance in 1988 (20K)
Figure 3E-15 Mono Lake Brine Shrimp Abundance in 1990 (20K)
Figure 3E-16 Schematic of Alkali Fly Productivity Model (31K)
Figure 3E-17 Substrates at Mono Lake and 1991 Littoral and Open Water Sampling for Alkali Flies (194K)
Figure 3E-18 Schematic of Brine Shrimp Nitrogen Submodel (27K)
Figure 3E-19 DYRESM Predictions of Meromictic Years (15K)
Figure 3E-20 Predicted Brine Shrimp Biomass (56K)
Figure 3E-21a Predicted Brine Shrimp Production, Areal Means and Figure 3E-21b Predicted Brine Shrimp Production, Lakewide Totals (76K)
Figure 3E-22a Predicted Brine Shrimp Cyst Production, Areal Means and Figure 3E-22b Predicted Brine Shrimp Cyst Production, Lakewide Totals (61K)
Figure 3E-23 Predicted Lakewide Production of Pupating Third Instar Alkali Fly Larvae (129K)
Figure 3E-24 Predicted Lakewide Production of Alkali Fly Drift (146K)
Figure 3E-25 Potential Growth of Algae in 1984 and 1990 when Controlled by Temperature, Nitrogen Concentration, or Light Level Alone (27K)

 

Search | Contents | Home
Copyright © 1999-2020, Mono Lake Committee.
Top of This Page