Click here to go Home

January 28, 1997 Part 1 Part 2

24  MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask a different question. 
25  Let's assume, as time goes by, that habitat conditions trend
0170
01  toward recovery.  If I may use as a verb, the noun that is
02  used throughout your testimony.  Let's assume that the fish
03  population does not trend towards that objective. 
04       Where in the Monitoring Plan do you have a protocol to
05  address that circumstance and to evaluate whether the
06  Restoration Plan is working as intended on the fishery?
07       MR. HUNTER:  I guess we don't.  I guess I have assumed
08  all along that if we got to that point, if it was 2014, and
09  ­­ first, let me say, that if this flow regime is
10  implemented and it does do what we expect it to do, I have a
11  hard time imagining the circumstances under which these fish
12  populations would not be met.  I just can't imagine that
13  situation. 
14       But if that did occur, then I assume when this Board
15  reconvened in 2014 that they would take an action to remedy
16  that situation. 
17       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me turn to a different issue,
18  namely the place of pre­1941 conditions in the Monitoring
19  Plan.  Let me draw your attention to Los Angeles Exhibit 31,
20  Page 3, end of the first full paragraph.  Most of the 18
21  characteristics, referring to the RTC characteristics, will
22  be monitored to follow future trends.  Which of those 18
23  characteristics will not be monitored under your monitoring
24  plan?
25       MR. HUNTER:  Invertebrates, for one. 
0171
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:   Are there others?
02       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Aquatic vegetation.
03       MR. HUNTER:  I don't believe there is monitoring on
04  spring flows.  I think those are the only three.
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Next issue, which is how this plan
06  proposes to take advantage of the monitoring data collected
07  by Los Angeles and also by the Restoration Technical
08  Committee through its consultant from 1987 to the present.
09       I preface my questions by saying I saw the term
10  "baseline" used in various places in different ways in the
11  Monitoring Plan.  So, I am uncertain whether you intend to
12  use any of the monitoring data collected during that period
13  for the purpose of assessing where we are in 1987, once this
14  Board approves the Monitoring Plan. 
15       So let me put the question to you.  How does this plan
16  propose to use that data for the purpose of evaluating
17  recovery of these streams?
18       DR. KAUFFMAN:  That would be all data collected since
19  1987?
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Yes.  I am referring specifically to
21  the data described on Page 3 of Los Angeles Exhibit 22,
22  where you state that one of your first tasks is to collect
23  the data previously collected by others.  I understand
24  that.  I don't understand what follows. 
25       How does this plan propose to use the data collected by
0172
01  Los Angeles and the restoration consultant prior to the
02  issuance of D­1631? 
03       DR. BESCHTA:  I think it would have to be on a
04  case­by­case basis.  For example, stream temperature data
05  could be used whenever it had been collected as a baseline
06  condition.  Let's suppose the stream temperature data did
07  not hit the warmest time of the year.  So we are trying to
08  figure out what is happening with regard to changes and
09  stream temperatures in recent times.  If we monitor
10  temperatures now on a more continuous basis, we will have a
11  more holistic view of what is going on.  We'll have to go
12  back and utilize that earlier data, but we have
13  qualifications on it.  I think that is probably true of
14  almost every data set that we may end up looking at, is that
15  it would have to looked at within the context of the
16  measurements that are going to take place.  It may be very
17  valuable and it may be less than very valuable. 
18       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Beschta, before I ask my next
19  question let me offer a very brief editorial comment. 
20       I appreciate the tremendous difficulty of the job which
21  this monitoring plan represents.  My questions are not
22  intended to suggest that it was an easy job.  What I am 
23  trying to get at is what Los Angeles has offered to this
24  Board for approval, leaving aside your opinion, how you
25  would treat temperature data in some future scenario?  What
0173
01  do Los Angeles Exhibits 22 and 23 say will be done with the
02  data collected prior to the adoption of Decision 1631?
03       DR. BESCHTA:  I guess someone else will have to
04  answer, 'cause I tried. 
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I am asking for a reference to a
06  page in Exhibits 22 and 23 to show the treatment of that
07  existing data.
08       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I don't believe you will find a
09  reference to a page because there is not reference to any
10  page.  The reason for that is exactly as Dr. Beschta
11  explained.  It depends on the data that you find.  If I can
12  use his term, the quality of the data, if it is usable. 
13  Then you would have to make an evaluation on the spot,
14  whether you can or can't use it on a case­by­case basis.     
15       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Kavounas, where in Exhibits 22
16  and 23 do you establish a protocol or method for evaluating
17  the usability of the data collected before the adoption of
18  Decision 1631? 
19       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It is, I guess, referred to on Page 3,
20  the very page you are looking at, on the first bullet, where
21  it says:
22            Purging most, but keeping organized the best
23            and most useful data.           (Reading.)
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  You understand the parties disagree
25  rather violently regarding what the best data may be?
0174
01       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I would hope not. 
02       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me move to a different issue, 
03  specifically, analysis of trends in recovery, Exhibit 31,
04  Page 5.
05       MR. HUNTER:  Can I ask a question, please?  
06       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  You may direct your question to the
07  Chair.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham, you have a witness
09  raising his hand over here.  I am not sure how we handle it.
10       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am confident it is a good
11  question.
12       MR. HUNTER:  I am sorry for being so stupid, but if you
13  could ­­ I think these are the Blue Book and White Book.  If
14  you could tell me what number is the White Book and what
15  number is the Blue Book, it would help us a lot. 
16       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  My apologies.  If it would be more
17  helpful, I will use the terminology White and Blue Book.    
18       DR. KAUFFMAN:  White is 22 and Blue is 23.   Direct
19  testimony is 31.
20       MR. HUNTER:  That is wonderful.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I like White and Blue myself.
22       Go ahead, Mr. Roos­Collins.
23       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Hunter, I assure you I had no
24  intentions ­­ usually attorney's numerology.  Let me ask you
25  about trend analysis. 
0175
01       Exhibit 31, which is your written testimony, Page 5,
02  includes a section entitled, Expected Trends for the
03  Monitoring/Evaluation Plan.
04       Does this plan monitor trends in the recovery of the
05  various attributes which we have already discussed?
06        DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
07        MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  On Page 9, in the third full       
08  paragraph, you state:
09            A significant difference between monitoring
10            trends and monitoring processes is the type
11            of independent variable plotted on the X Axis
12            in the analysis.   (Reading.)
13                  And you continue to explain that.
14            Both are needed in this monitoring plan.
15            (Reading.)
16       Does that mean that this plan monitors trends and
17  processes?
18       DR. TRUSH:   Yes. 
19       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  What is the difference?  
20       DR. TRUSH:  The trends are response to the process.  In
21  other words, if we tracked channel confinement or, if you
22  wanted to, width, what produced that change in width was not
23  just one simple thing.  It was interaction of vegetation and
24  the flows and everything else.  So that, if the attributes
25  are functioning the way we think they, and we are doing that
0176
01  in the Monitoring Plan, as well, getting right at the
02  process, the result of those working in a very complex way,
03  are these morphologic changes or changes in riparian
04  vegetation.  So, we are plotting those trends and assessing
05  attributes.
06       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me preface my next question by
07  reference to a memory shared with Dr. Beschta and Dr.
08  Kauffman, although not with the esteemed Members of this
09  Board, and that is the 1992 hearing before Judge Finney
10  regarding a monitoring plan then proposed by Los Angeles.
11       As I recall, there was considerable disagreement among
12  the experts what statistical protocols to use to monitor
13  various trends.  So, let me ask the question to you
14  directly. 
15       Where in the White and Blue Books do you state the
16  statistical or other analytical protocols you will use to
17  analyze the trends and the processes which we just
18  discussed?
19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Who is that question directed to? 
20  Dr. Kauffman or Dr. Beschta or Dr. Trush ­­
21       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Any member of this panel is free to
22  answer this question. 
23       DR. TRUSH:  We stated in the Monitoring Plan we are
24  using representative reaches for looking at various, and
25  what I am mostly working on, alluvial processes.  And there
0177
01  we've got it ­­ we aren't sampling.  We are taking
02  cross­sections in defined places with an intention in mind
03  of point bar, straight reach, and we are looking at percent
04  movement, say, of particle sizes.
05       Now, true, we can plot magnitude of flow on the X Axis
06  and the percent tracers moved on the Y.  There is going to 
07  scatter there.  We did not stipulate that we will use a
08  regression to determine a linear relationship.  That is not
09  in there. 
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Is this true of the other attributes
11  we have previously discussed? 
12       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
13       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me move on to site selection, 
14  Dr. Trush, since you raised that in anticipation of my next
15  line of questioning, as well as in answer to my question.   
16       On Page 7 of the White Book you state ­­ you refer to
17  representative reaches of Rush and Lee Vining Creeks.  You
18  refer in other places as well to those representative
19  reaches.  And in turn you identify what those reaches are in
20  Figure 1 on Page 8. 
21       Is that correct?
22       DR. TRUSH:   Yes. 
23       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  At least for Rush Creek.
24       With that as foundation, let me ask you to turn again
25  to your written testimony, Los Angeles 31, Pages 6 through
0178
01  7.  We begin with Page 6, where you discuss rationale for   
02  selective monitoring. 
03            The monitoring plan will rely mostly on
04            representative reaches.       (Reading.)
05       And then turn to Page 7, Point 3:
06            Sampling effort should be concentrated on
07            reaches with the greatest sensitivity to
08            geomorphic change and the clearest departures
09            from the pre­41 channel morphology. 
10            (Reading.)
11       Let me ask you to relate that sampling focus back to
12  the choice of representative reaches shown in the White Book
13  on Page 7. 
14       Is it your testimony that those reaches, so designated,
15  have the greatest sensitivity to geomorphic change and the
16  clearest departures from pre­41 channel morphology?
17       DR. TRUSH:  As back up, we should look at the riparian
18  site.  There are a number of statistical methods and all
19  that that Boone discusses later.  So, a lot of ­­ when we
20  talk about the sampling should occur in the representative
21  reach, we are really focusing a lot here on the fluvial
22  processes.  Because Boone's got some other things going on
23  with the riparian. 
24       Yes, those are, and the reason why we selected those
25  reaches is, for one, that we went for alluvial reaches in
0179
01  the stream channel.  Channels, when their bed and their
02  banks are adjustable, are most prone to the disturbance, and
03  most sensitive to flow changes.  Whereas, the farther
04  upstream you go above the 395 bridge, you wind up with
05  essentially nonerodable banks or fairly unerodable banks,
06  and their response is much less. 
07       So, we picked those lower reaches that would be the
08  most sensitive to flow changes, realizing that over the next
09  ten years or so, we want to be able to get at the important
10  flows as a prescription.  So, we picked those areas that
11  would give us the most information on it. 
12       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me then ask you specifically
13  about the representative reaches chosen within Reach 4, as
14  shown on Figure 1 of the White Book. 
15       Is it your testimony, Dr. Trush, that R­1 and R­2, as
16  so designated, have the greatest sensitivity to the change
17  you described and the greatest departure from pre­41
18  conditions?
19       DR. TRUSH:  The whole channel between R­1 and R­2 on
20  that figure, I can't say that this thousand feet is that
21  much more susceptible to the next thousand feet downstream. 
22  We picked those two because they had some interesting
23  features in them.  There were some nice point bars forming,
24  some primordial floodplains developing, and some constant
25  information that we are using.  Again, when we talked about
0180
01  how we are going to use that monitoring data, when you can
02  do a belly flop in any direction and be impinged on a rebar
03  out there, somewhere.  So we wanted to get rid of most of
04  the stuff that is useless.  It's been poorly documented, so
05  we can't use it.
06       We want to get the best cross­section.  We looked at
07  that and some of these reaches have some pretty good
08  documentation.  I can't say between R­1 and R­2 that that
09  reach is less sensitive than R­1 or R­2.  We had other
10  criteria in mind.  I can't say. 
11       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask you then about the
12  establishment of transects within each representative reach,
13  and here, frankly, the scientific jargon somewhat befuddles
14  me.
15       Are you proposing a specific distance between transects
16  in each representative reach for the purpose of monitoring
17  all trends, or does the transect site vary depending on what
18  you were monitoring?
19       DR. TRUSH:  It varies. 
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I believe that you monitor or rather
21  you propose to establish transects every eight feet on Rush
22  Creek for planned mapping?
23       DR. TRUSH:  No.  There are two separate things going on
24  here.  In the planned mapping, we propose putting in rebar
25  approximately every 200 meters or 200 feet, 200 feet, simply
0181
01  so we can locate ourselves.
02       The cross­sections that are selected for the plan maps
03  are based on the morphology of the channel out there.  We'd
04  like to put several outside the bends, several on the
05  straight reaches.  The data that you referring to, Bob could
06  address that.
07       DR. BESCHTA:  The data that is collected on eight­foot
08  separations, if you will, or every eight feet along the
09  channel is attempting to get thalweg, the deepest part of
10  channel, as well as wetted widths.  Essentially, it is a
11  complete inventory of fairly lengthy reaches.  Again,
12  looking at change through time.  One of the monitoring
13  variables is change through time.  This provides us a good
14  indication of the dynamics of the channel. 
15       For example, in the last two­and­a­half years pool
16  frequencies, pool depths, wetted depths have all increased
17  fairly significantly on the bottomlands of Rush Creek.  It
18  is through this kind of measurements ­­ now, we don't have
19  sampling statistics involved because, essentially, we are
20  measuring the bottom of that channel over a two­mile reach. 
21  So, we will know very precisely the kinds of changes that
22  are taking place.
23       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me move to my eighth and final
24  issue, which I will generally call adaptive management.
25       Mr. Kavounas, let me refer you to Page 127 of Los
0182
01  Angeles Exhibit 16, the Stream Restoration Plan.  This page,
02  I believe, is outside of Chapter 7, which you have
03  previously testified has been withdrawn.
04       Mr. Kavounas, on that page you state:
05            Results from the monitoring program will not
06            be included in these documents previously
07            described.   Instead monitoring data will be
08            provided as a separate data, separate
09            document within eight months after
10            collection.                   (Reading.)
11       Is that commitment still part of the Monitoring Plan
12  submitted to this Board?
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It's the Department of Water and Power's
14  intention to keep the State Board apprised of the progress
15  of restoration in the Mono Basin.  I can't tell you, and I
16  would have to ask the scientists, whether I will be able to
17  deliver, eight months after the data has been collected a
18  package to the State Board.  If they think that is doable,
19  then the commitment to the State Board still holds. 
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask a different question
21  then.    
22       Do the White and Blue Books set forth a different
23  reporting procedure for monitoring results?
24       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, they do not.  If there is to be a
25  change in that, we did not go as far as addressing that.  I
0183
01  guess I could ask the scientists at this point as any other
02  time. 
03       Could I report to the State Board eight months after
04  the data has been collected? 
05       DR. KAUFFMAN:  If that is in the contract.  
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Money becomes an issue.  I am told by
07  the scientists that, yes, that is possible.  And so I would
08  say the Department's commitment still holds, that it is
09  unchanged.
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  The record should reflect that Dr.
11  Kauffman's answer was, "Yes, eight months, if it is in the
12  contract." 
13       DR. KAUFFMAN:  If it was in the request for proposals
14  or for bids that that is what the requirements of L.A.
15  Department of Water and Power is data collection.  Then the
16  contractor, the person doing the analysis, would have to
17  produce or be in default. 
18       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me turn now to Los Angeles      
19  Exhibit 31, Page 9, second full paragraph:
20            Adaptive management is not possible if only
21            responses, primary and secondary, are
22            monitored.   There would be no timely response
23            to improve management prescriptions and few
24            quantitative recommendations for changing
25            management prescriptions.       (Reading.)
0184
01       Stated in affirmative, do the White and Blue Books
02  propose ­­ excuse me.  Withdraw that question. 
03       Stated in the affirmative, where do the White and Blue
04  Books describe the procedure for adaptive management based
05  on your monitoring results?
06       DR. TRUSH:  There is no procedure outlined.   There is
07  simply a monitoring plan collecting the data so it would
08  allow adaptive management to take place.  As a scientist, I
09  didn't worry about all the various bureaucratic ways that
10  decisions would be made.  Simply, the Monitoring Plan was
11  saying, "Look, these attributes are or are not being
12  satisfied.  You need to change the science.  It says you
13  need to change these flows to this in order to make
14  attribute Number 4 happen.  Now, what are you going to do
15  about it?" 
16       And as a scientist, here.
17       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Chair, I see my yellow light is
18  on.  I would like to conclude by making a brief comment to
19  this panel as a whole. 
20       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey.   Throughout
21  his examination, Mr. Roos­Collins has been stating the
22  position of Cal Trout.  I did not want to interfere with his
23  cross­examination.  But it many times took on the form of
24  argument. 
25       If Mr. Roos­Collins would like to make a statement to
0185
01  this panel, I am more than happy to make it available
02  outside of the hearing room.  But if he wants to make
03  argument, then I would propose that he make it at the time
04  he begins the presentation of his case.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  When you say a statement, Mr.
06  Roos­Collins, can you clarify?  Is this going to be
07  questions or what?
08       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  No, Mr. Chair.  I believe Mr.
09  Birmingham misconstrued my intention.  I merely wanted to
10  thank this panel for their very considerable efforts to
11  struggle with the very hard issues which have to be
12  addressed in the Monitoring Plan.
13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I would ask Mr. Roos­Collins to put
14  that in writing he supports DWP's request to the State Board
15  to approve these monitoring plans.
16       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:   I did not say the plan complied
17  with Decision 1631, but I greatly appreciate the efforts of
18  this panel and Los Angeles.
19       Thank you.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Roos­Collins, we appreciate your
21  deference and completing your questions in the time
22  allotted.  You do understand, had you needed more, we
23  certainly would have considered giving you more.
24       We appreciate your helping us stay on schedule.
25       Thank you, sir.
0186
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you, sir.
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let me just say then that we have
03  sent out a runner to make sure the cafeteria is going to
04  stay open till about 4:00. 
05       MR. FRINK:  Till 3:30. 
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Till 3:30.  We are going to break
07  now.  Let's make it about ten minutes, and then we will come
08  back and continue the cross­examination of this panel.  We
09  will also have a little information about what the schedule
10  looks like for tonight. 
11                          (Break taken.)
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We will resume.  We have one Board
13  Member taking care of other matters, who will be joining us
14  soon.  That is Ms. Forster. 
15       Let me introduce a staff person that I neglected to
16  introduce this morning.  Melanie Collins is at the front
17  table.  I apologize, Melanie.  I didn't know you were going
18  to be here, and you have been here all day.  Welcome.
19       Before we get back to the cross­examination, let's have
20  a little discussion about what the schedule is going to be
21  for tonight.  I have talked to my fellow Board Members and
22  staff and a couple of you all, and in the interest of trying
23  to get us out of here earlier in the evening than a somewhat
24  lengthy dinner break will afford, I think what we are going
25  to do is  at 4:30 we will take a half­hour break so that
0187
01  people can move their cars, and you will need quarters, and
02  they have them.  If you are going to park on the street, and
03  use the parking meters, you will need quarters till about
04  6:00. 
05       Is that correct, Mr. Johns?
06       MR. JOHNS:  That is correct.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  If you don't have quarters on you,
08  please feel free to go next door and get some change.  We
09  will, as I say, break at 4:30 and come back at 5:00 and then
10  go till sometime between 8:00 and 8:30, whatever constitutes
11  a reasonable break.  The alternative would have been to
12  break for dinner for an hour, an hour and a half, and come
13  back and go later.  And I think in the interest of what
14  people have requested and just getting out of here as early
15  as we can, let's go with that schedule. 
16       MR. JOHNS:  Might be good to know that the garage here,
17  if you parked here, actually closes at 7.  If your car is in
18  there at 7:00, you will not get it out tonight.  That is why
19  it is important to move your car.  So, if you are in here,
20  you need to move your car to the street.  Then you will be
21  okay, unless someone breaks into it.
22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  At 7:00 the attendant locks that
23  place up and he's gone, and you will have to come in the
24  morning to get your car.  So, I just want to make sure
25  everybody understands all that.
0188
01       All right.  That will be the procedure.   And let's go
02  to the Department of Fish and Game for cross­examination of
03  these three panels. 
04       MS. CAHILL:  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dodge asked if he could
05  switch with us.  We have no objection if the Board does
06  not.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is there ­­ what about Mary
08  Scoonover?  Do you have an objection?
09       MS. SCOONOVER:  No.
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Dodge would like to follow
11  California Trout.  Is that going to be a change in the
12  general procedure?
13       MR. DODGE:  I don't know if it is general, Mr.
14  Chairman.  It is just for this panel right now.  We thought
15  it made sense.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Without objection, we will do that.
17                             ­­­oOo­­
18                        CROSS­EXAMINATION
19  BY THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND THE MONO LAKE COMMITTEE
20                           BY MR. DODGE
21       MR. DODGE:  I will stay with monitoring, if I may. 
22       Dr. Trush, you talked about the process.  When did you
23  start drafting the revised monitoring plan?
24       DR. TRUSH:   I believe I first started it in June.  I
25  had a rough draft sometime in August. 
0189
01       MR. DODGE:  Final draft when? 
02       DR. TRUSH:  Final draft, that was definitely a
03  preliminary in August.  I guess final ­­ I am trying to
04  recall.  Mid fall.  And we still had changes after that.  We
05  had a bunch of comments and a lot of changes after that.
06       The very final one?
07       MR. DODGE:  Did you do a final draft before Dr.
08  Beschta and the others got involved?
09       DR. TRUSH:  Yes, a draft. 
10       MR. DODGE:  You did?
11       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
12       MR. DODGE:  My understanding of the purpose of a
13  monitoring plan, vis­a­vis a restoration plan, typically the
14  Monitoring Plann is used to determine whether you reached
15  your restoration goal. 
16       Is that typically true?
17       DR. TRUSH:  This is my first monitoring plan, so I
18  can't ­­ sounds evasive.  I would think that is common. 
19       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Hunter, would you agree?
20       MR. HUNTER:  When I was working on the book that I
21  mentioned earlier, I found that almost nobody did any
22  monitoring of stream restoration projects once the project
23  was completed.  There was neither the time nor the money to
24  do any monitoring, so that there is ­­ I suspect there has
25  been, actually, been very little monitoring in stream
0190
01  restoration plans. 
02       MR. DODGE:  When you did the October 1995 report, in
03  concept, you were talking about a monitoring program which
04  would determine whether you reached a restoration goal,
05  correct? 
06       MR. HUNTER:  Yes. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Correct, Dr. Trush. 
08       DR. TRUSH:  At the time, yes, we thought.
09       MR. DODGE:  The DWP monitoring program does not tell us
10  that, correct?
11       DR. TRUSH:  Yes, because we realized that many of the
12  endpoints weren't functional.  They wouldn't serve as
13  reasonable objectives.
14       MR. DODGE:  The second purpose of a monitoring program,
15  as I understand it, is to determine whether to adapt the
16  restoration program if the monitoring program shows you are
17  not being successful. 
18       Would you agree with that, Dr. Trush?
19       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
20       MR. DODGE:  Now, Dr. Trush, when you were doing the
21  October 1995 report, let me read you a section of that,      
22  Page 5.
23            We find the restoration objective, as stated
24            by the Superior Court, appropriate for
25            developing a restoration program and
0191
01            consistent with the requirement to "restore" 
02            as stated in D­1631.        (Reading.)
03       Do you recall that, sir? 
04       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
05       MR. DODGE:  So, basically, your goals in the October
06  '95 scientist report were consistent, you thought, with both
07  Judge Finney's goal of reestablishing conditions that
08  benefited the fishery prediversion and with 1631 goals?
09       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
10       MR. DODGE:  And I think you already testified that the
11  present monitoring program does not have that same goal,
12  correct?
13       DR. TRUSH:  No.  Again, when we look at the goal of
14  the healthy, happy, stream it's done in context of
15  past.  And that is how ­­ we incorporated the past channel
16  by looking at undisturbed flow regimes that created that
17  previous channel morphology.  So, we still have the same
18  objective.  It is just ­­ it's not as clear, I think,
19  because we found that a simple approach here, is your per
20  channel predisturbance is what we are going to shoot for,
21  wasn't available to us. 
22       MR. DODGE:  I am a little confused now.
23       DR. TRUSH:  I am, too. 
24       MR. DODGE:  Is it your testimony that the monitoring
25  program you are proposing will determine whether the
0192
01  restoration program has recreated or restored the conditions
02  that benefited the fisheries prediversions? 
03       DR. TRUSH:  What it is going to do is to, first, plot
04  trends, and there is no final endpoint to many of those
05  trends.  The second is to show that the primary
06  prescription, the flows, will create an alluvial stream
07  channel, which is what the channel was prior to the
08  disturbance. 
09       Is that ­­
10       MR. DODGE:  I don't think that answers my question.  If
11  that is the best you can do, I will move on.
12       DR. TRUSH:  If you want to give it to me again, I will
13  take another shot at it, if you like.
14       MR. DODGE:  Is the Los Angeles monitoring program 
15  designed to monitor whether the restoration program restores
16  the conditions that benefited fisheries prediversion?
17       DR. TRUSH:  I will yes, but you won't like.   Again, if
18  you can't ­­ we are basing it on processes.  If the
19  processes are there, we will create those conditions that
20  will be good for fish. 
21       MR. DODGE:  Do you regard the ­­ in your mind, Dr.
22  Trush, is the goal that we are seeking, is this a question
23  of science or a question of law, or do you have an opinion
24  on that?
25       DR. TRUSH:  I am in dangerous ground here.   I am a
0193
01  scientist.  I will fall back on that.
02       MR. DODGE:  Referring again to your October 1995
03  report, Dr. Trush, let me read from Page 11 of that.  You   
04  said there, and I quote:
05            Measurable goals are essential to evaluate
06            the progress of restoration and document
07            accomplishments of restoration.  (Reading.)
08       Did you regard then measurable goals to be essential?
09       DR. TRUSH:  Essential.  And that is why we have the
10  attributes and mobility that bed on the average once a year
11  and flooding of the floodplain.  Those are essential for us
12  to know whether the prescriptions that we do now will lead
13  to a restored, alluvial channel.
14       MR. DODGE:  When you were working in October of 1995,
15  your measurable goals, as listed on Page 12 of that report,
16  were totally different, weren't they? 
17       DR. TRUSH:   Yes ­­ well, they were included, I should
18  say.
19       MR. DODGE:  They included length of the main channel as
20  a measurable goal? 
21       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
22       MR. DODGE:  That is no longer a measurable goal? 
23       DR. TRUSH:  Got me on that one.  There are some that
24  are measurable.
25       MR. DODGE:  Sinuosity of the main channel, that is a
0194
01  measurable goal; isn't it? 
02       DR. TRUSH:  The length of the channel, sinuosity,
03  because we have such a poor estimate of what the sinuosity
04  is before and not something to pull off the aerial photo, we
05  have no endpoint sinuosity.  We can say it will increase, 
06  i.e., decrease slope.  I have a more technical way of
07  evaluating the change of meander wavelength than simply a
08  wavelength.  But you are right.
09       We did address ­­ we did compare pre­41 channel length
10  with the present plan. 
11       MR. DODGE:  That is no longer in the DWP Monitoring
12  Plan, is it?
13       DR. TRUSH:  I think it is.  It does say in the
14  Monitoring Plan, we will continue to monitor all those
15  attributes, as I recall. 
16       I won't be able to find it, but ­­
17       DR. BESCHTA:  If I could add in here, I guess, the
18  eight characteristics that are listed on Page 11 can all be
19  interpreted off of aerial photography, and we are, indeed,
20  proposing aerial photography.  So, at some level you can get
21  at all of those eight characteristics through time and keep
22  track of it.
23       MR. DODGE:  Does this monitoring plan attempt to
24  restore the prediversion conditions on those eight
25  characteristics?
0195
01       DR. BESCHTA:  We are restoring a process that will
02  allow those characteristics to express themselves. 
03       MR. DODGE:  Will the restoration program be deemed a
04  failure if these eight measurable goals are not met?
05       DR. BESCHTA:  They are not firm goals.   They are not a
06  quantitative target in the sense that if you don't hit one
07  of those, you are a failure.
08       MR. DODGE:  They are not a quantitative target. They
09  are looking at trends, right? 
10       DR. BESCHTA:  One aspect of understanding recovery
11  would be looking at trends.  So, if you plot a change, for
12  example, in a characteristic through time, that would be one
13  way of assessing or beginning to ask the question.  Bill has
14  indicated there are other ways of looking at the data where
15  you plot a feature against a flow and ask the same kind of a
16  question, but it is at a process level.  Both are legitimate
17  ways of asking recovery as to what is going on. 
18       MR. DODGE:  In October of 1995, Dr. Trush, it's true,
19  isn't it, that you were doing to measure success or failure
20  of the restoration program against achievement of these
21  eight measurable goals? 
22       DR. TRUSH:  Actually, we were going to look at ­­ we
23  tried to look at all of them.  Once we put out that sort of
24  charge as the RTC scientists to the rest of the consultants,
25  it soon became obvious that it wasn't going to work.  This
0196
01  is how we did start out.  We did think we could pull that
02  off, but we can't.
03       MR. DODGE:  Did your draft monitoring plan include
04  measurable goals? 
05       DR. TRUSH:  I think by then I started to see the
06  impossibility of it.  I have to go back and check for sure.
07       MR. DODGE:  Did you bring a copy of it?
08  Q.   DR. TRUSH:   No.  I've got the draft of our management
09  plan, but I got all 14 versions on my computer.  But I don't
10  have it here.
11       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Trush, looking at Pages 9 and 10 of
12  Exhibit 31, if that is the right number, you've got these
13  nine listed, as I understood your testimony, desirable
14  stream attributes; is that correct?
15       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
16       MR. DODGE:  Is the DWP flow regime that has been
17  recommended likely to achieve these, in your judgment?
18       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
19       MR. DODGE:  Didn't you, in October of 1995, recommend
20  higher flow regimes?
21       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
22       MR. DODGE:  At that time, you felt that those higher
23  flow regimes were necessary to achieve these attributes,
24  correct?
25       DR. TRUSH:  No.  And the reason why is that because we
0197
01  were locked into this categorical perspective of water years
02  ­­ we have dry, wet, medium.  When we selected a flow level
03  for a wet year, we went to the higher end as our estimate,
04  our first guess, say 500, 600 versus 500 cfs for mobilizing
05  the bed.  I ran a bunch of counts and depending on the
06  slight change in the slope and what­not, I could get 6 or I
07  could get 500 cfs as that measure. 
08       When we looked at all the water years, the specific
09  water years in a water category, many times there was not
10  enough flow to answer that, because each water year is so
11  different within a water year class.  So, we decided to drop
12  several of them, simply because we knew that they are 
13  impossible in a number of water year types, and we had a
14  poor idea whether it would be 6 or 500. 
15       I pictured myself standing, sitting here right now,
16  having someone go to me, "600 would mobilize an alluvial bar
17  but 550 wouldn't, Dr. Trush?  And I can't say that.  And so
18  I went to the limit of what I thought, 500. 
19       The second assurance that we had in our flow
20  negotiations was that these criteria, these flow levels that
21  we gave were minimums in those flow classes, in those water
22  year types, that there would be a protocol for showing how
23  those would be maximized in those water years.  That is kind
24  of a convoluted way of doing things.  But if we stay with a
25  water year classification way of dealing with prescribing
0198
01  flows, we are going to have those sorts of rat's nests.
02       MR. DODGE:  Would the protocol include encouraging
03  spills on Grant Lake? 
04       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
05       MR. DODGE:  That is one of your recommendations?
06       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
07       MR. DODGE:  We talked a little bit about adaptive
08  management.  In fact, in your April of 1996 comments, Dr.
09  Trush, you said this was the most important aspect of the 
10  monitoring program, correct?
11       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
12       MR. DODGE:  How monitoring program guides future
13  decisions is the ultimate factor in success or failure of
14  the program?
15       DR. TRUSH:   Yes.  The reason why I put that in there
16  is that as Mono Lake fills, we are going to ­­ when Mono
17  Lake fills, many of these trends that we are going to be
18  monitoring aren't going to be anywhere near completion.  It
19  is going to be adjusting width, much of the riparian aspect. 
20  It is not going to be set or in some kind of equilibrium,
21  whatever that word means, by the time the lake fills. 
22       Once the lake fills, there is going to have to be
23  decisions made, if we stick with 1631, of reducing the
24  flows.  And the urgency is to show before then, if the 1631
25  flows are inadequate for maintaining channel morphology. 
0199
01  Then we wanted to be sure that the monitoring data was there
02  to show why they were.  So a more informed decision could be
03  made. 
04       MR. DODGE:  You said that adaptive management is key to
05  the success of the program.  Do you regard it as a defect
06  that DWP's proposed monitoring program does not have the
07  specific procedure for adaptive management? 
08       DR. TRUSH:  I don't think that is part of the
09  monitoring program.  That is another concept to this whole
10  process.  I could call it an adaptive management plan and
11  conveniently by word separate that from monitoring plan and
12  feel comfortable with that.
13       MR. DODGE:  But that adaptive management plan would
14  have to be created, correct?
15       DR. TRUSH:  That is up for L.A. and everyone else to
16  decide.  I'm a scientist that says these are the flows that
17  do what, to create restoration in the stream channel.  I am
18  trying to keep myself in that slot.
19       MR. DODGE:  If the decision were yours, would you have
20  an adaptive management procedure?
21       DR. TRUSH:  Yeah.
22       MR. DODGE:  Suppose ­­ as you are aware, my clients,
23  in extreme years, think Rush Creek should have 600 cfs, and
24  the Los Angeles proposal is in extreme years, with the Lee
25  Vining Creek augmentation, give Rush Creek 500 cfs. 
0200
01       Do you recall that, basically?
02       DR. TRUSH:  Well, we can let David address that. 
03       MR. DODGE:  Assume that to be true. 
04       DR. TRUSH:  In some extreme years.  This year it might
05  be 800.  And other extreme years it could be 500 or 450. 
06  Again, because we are locked into these water year 
07  classifications, it is hard to come up with a single number
08  like 500.  That is what we came up with.
09       MR. DODGE:  We are talking minimum maintenance flows. 
10  DWP's proposal for wet years was 500 and your proposal last
11  October was 600, correct, minimum maintenance flows? 
12       DR. TRUSH:  Yes, but for the reasons I have already
13  given. 
14       MR. DODGE:  By the way, you say 1997 is going to be a
15  big year.  Would it be a smart thing to monitor at 500 cfs
16  and 600 cfs in Rush Creek and see how the creek does?
17       DR. TRUSH:  First of all, you won't be able to monitor
18  those two distinct flows.  I wouldn't want to wade it.  And
19  most of the equipment and whatnot is subsurface.  We just
20  tried doing it at Trinity, and at 30,000 we almost got
21  pulled off the bridge.  We had locked ­­ never mind.  I am
22  story telling.
23       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  It would have been a ­­
24       DR. TRUSH:  It was a wooden bridge and taking
25  everything with it, including our bed load sampler.          
0201
01       Personally, and, again, I don't make that decision.  
02  Whether L.A. would like me to do some monitoring or not, I
03  will be doing some monitoring out there. 
04       MR. DODGE:  My question is:  Would it be a smart thing
05  to see what is happening at 500 cfs versus what is happening
06  at 600 cfs? 
07       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.  But at discreet events.   So, in other
08  words, that is why the Monitoring Plan for the time frame
09  for looking at channel dynamics is, again, vague.  It says
10  not every year until the lake fills, but maybe eight or ten
11  years, so we can get a range of events to get a better
12  handle on what does what out there.
13       MR. DODGE:  Hypothetically, if this Board were to
14  determine that 500 cfs is the correct number in Rush Creek
15  in a wet year, whether that is the right number or the wrong
16  number, could be looked at in the monitoring program,
17  correct? 
18       DR. TRUSH:  It will provide an awful lot of ­­ yeah. 
19       MR. DODGE:  If an adaptive procedure is written up,
20  then that could provide for a change from 500 to 600,
21  depending on what the facts show, correct? 
22       DR. TRUSH:  The way I envisioned adaptive management,
23  yes. 
24       MR. DODGE:  That is all I have on monitoring.
25       Mr. Hunter, if you want to retreat to the back of ­­
0202
01       MR. HUNTER:  It is an option.  We thought you were
02  still shuffling your papers.
03       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Platts, we meet for the last time.    
04       DR. PLATTS:  Hopefully.  Getting your last shot. 
05       MR. DODGE:  Your testimony, do you have your testimony
06  in front of you, sir? 
07       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, I do.
08       MR. DODGE:  Page 1, you say:
09            No stream diversions for irrigation purposes
10            will be made below the LADWP conduit on
11            Parker and Walker Creeks and only three
12            diversions will function on Parker Creek
13            above the conduit.       (Reading.)
14       Sir, are you aware that there was irrigation in 1996
15  below Parker and Walker Creeks?
16       DR. PLATTS:  No.
17       MR. DODGE:  You weren't aware of that?
18       Let me show you a letter dated June 27, 1992, from Mr.
19  Kodama, which I believe is the last written matter I have
20  seen on that subject.  And I ask you to take a look at the
21  second page there.  Right in there, sir.
22       Does that letter indicate it is Los Angeles' policy to
23  irrigate in years where the runoff is 86 percent of normal
24  or above?
25       DR. PLATTS:  That is what it says. 
0203
01       MR. DODGE:  Do you know whether that policy has been
02  changed?
03       DR. PLATTS:  No, I do not. 
04       MR. DODGE:  Thank you, sir.
05       Page 3 of your testimony, Dr. Platts, let me read you a 
06  portion I am going to refer to at the top. 
07            Thus, only upstream passage of trout is in
08            issue.  If a sediment bypass system is
09            constructed that allows free flow channel
10            conditions by the aqueduct diversion
11            facility, there will be potential fish
12            passage during the sediment bypass period,
13            which includes most of the year.  (Reading.)
14       Did I read that correct? 
15       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, you did. 
16       MR. DODGE:  Do you recommend such a system for sediment
17  bypass?
18       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  I recommend sediment bypass.
19       MR. DODGE:  Recommend a channel?  Would that be a
20  preferred approach? 
21       DR. PLATTS:  I don't know preferred approach, but it
22  would be, probably be, my preferred approach. 
23       MR. DODGE:  Do you think that continuous passage of
24  sediment is preferable to hauling it out and putting it on
25  the stream bank every few years? 
0204
01       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, I do. 
02       MR. DODGE:  Why is that?
03       DR. PLATTS:  Because it fits the natural situation
04  better.  Your sediment would be transported mainly during
05  the high flow periods and during the intermediate and low
06  flow periods when you want less sediment being transported
07  down the channel because of spawning purposes or rearing the
08  food biomass or such.  It would just be more compatible with
09  the natural processes that are going on. 
10       MR. DODGE:  Also, if we were to haul out sediment by
11  truck and put it on the stream bank, that we have to hear
12  from Dr. Kauffman, won't we, about the riparian vegetation?
13       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  I don't condone that practice.
14       MR. DODGE:  Thank you.
15       Now, on this channel that you said you preferred, could
16  that always provide fish passage?
17       DR. PLATTS:  It could.
18       MR. DODGE:  Are you familiar with Dr. Stine's proposal
19  to reopen the distributaries on Parker and Walker Creeks?
20       DR. PLATTS:  No, I am not.
21       MR. DODGE:  Now, I hate to go so short with you, Dr.
22  Platts.  I have only one more question. 
23       DR. PLATTS:  We can even miss that one, if you want
24  to.
25       MR. DODGE:  Are you aware that DWP proposes certain
0205
01  flows up until Mono Lake reaches its maintenance level and
02  does not propose stream flows thereafter?
03       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  I think I have read that.
04       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree with me that the channel
05  maintenance flows set by this Board, whatever they maybe,
06  should continue after Mono Lake reaches it maintenance level?
07       DR. PLATTS:  There will need to be channel ­­ in answer
08  to your question, I do agree with you.  At that time,
09  though, there should be an evaluation on what the channel
10  flow should be from that time on.
11       MR. DODGE:  Basically, isn't it a fact, sir, that the
12  flows needed by the creek, the channel maintenance flows are
13  basically irrelevant to what the level of Mono Lake is?
14       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  That is ­­ I would state that is
15  right.  The flows are more relevant to what the conditions
16  are in the stream, rather than the lake.
17       MR. DODGE:  In fact ­­     
18       DR. PLATTS:  You were going to ask only one question. 
19       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  You got sucked in again,
20  didn't you? 
21       MR. DODGE:  In fact, the ad hoc subcommittee that has
22  been referred to, which you were a member, specifically      
23  said at Page 4 of the memo, February 13th:
24            The flows necessary to maintain the stream
25            habitat and its dynamic systems while the
0206
01            level of Mono Lake is being restored do not
02            differ from those needed after Mono Lake is
03            restored.                      (Reading.)
04       Do you remember that? 
05       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, I do.
06       MR. DODGE:  That was your opinion then, and that is
07  your opinion now?
08       DR. PLATTS:  It is not exactly my opinion.
09       MR. DODGE:  You were a member of the subcommittee?
10       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, but I didn't quite agree with
11  everything, as a scientist I always do.  My point on that
12  is, at that time it should be evaluated because the flows
13  needed to build the stream and conduct the processes, it
14  needs to build all these new terraces and floodplains, may
15  be a little different once the stream is already set and the
16  flows needed to maintain the habitat from that time on.  I
17  didn't want to be tied down that they would be exactly the
18  same flow, because I really don't think they are.
19       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Kavounas, Page 2 of your testimony,
20  you say ­­
21       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Which testimony?
22       MR. DODGE:  The Stream Restoration, sir.
23       I want to focus in, specifically, on this sentence:
24            LADWP did not adopt this plan, referring to
25            the Ridenhour plan, because it did not
0207
01            consider the restoration parameters
02            established by Decision 1631, and it would
03            have further reduced Mono Basin exports.
04            (Reading.)
05       Do you see that, sir? 
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes, I do.
07       MR. DODGE:  What restoration parameters did you have in
08  mind?
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I was referring to a passage that is in 
10  the October '95 Ridenhour Plan.  Page 161 says:
11            Our maintenance flow recommendations were 
12            drafted without consideration for, among
13            other things, provisions in State Board
14            Decision 1631.               (Reading.)
15       MR. DODGE:  Do you see anything in the Ridenhour Plan
16  that was inconsistent with D­1631?
17       MR. KAVOUNAS:  In my opinion, yes.
18       MR. DODGE:  What was that?
19       MR. KAVOUNAS:  In my opinion, the Ridenhour Plan would
20  not permit DWP to export as much as the decision allows it
21  to, and I feel that is inconsistent with the decision.
22       MR. DODGE:  Export then is the key point?  
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Primarily.  And I also refer to Mr.
24  Allen's testimony for the other two parameters that he
25  mentioned. 
0208
01       MR. DODGE:  Let's talk about the export issue, sir. 
02  Isn't it true that export is only an issue post­transition?
03  By that I mean after Mono Lake reaches 6391. 
04       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am sorry if I don't understand your
05  question as phrased.  Are you asking me if it is true? 
06       MR. DODGE:  Pretransition you could have the Ridenhour
07  flows and still have your exports; isn't that true?
08       MR. KAVOUNAS:  My understanding is that is not
09  necessarily true. 
10       MR. DODGE:  What is the basis of your understanding?   
11       MR. KAVOUNAS:  My understanding is that if you have a
12  succession of, perhaps, two years that are on the dryer
13  side, and I probably should let David Allen speak on that,
14  but my understanding is that you would be drawing from a
15  storage that would not perhaps allow you to export.  Excuse
16  me, allow the Department to export. 
17       MR. ALLEN:  That is a correct statement.   The Ridenhour
18  Plan presents problems for exports in dryer year types.  But
19  let me ­­ that is fine. 
20       MR. DODGE:  Peter Vorster has presented testimony that
21  the export issue is about 4 cfs or 3,000 acre­feet a year.  
22       Do you disagree with that? 
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I have no opinion on that.  
24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am going to object on the ground it
25  is vague. 
0209
01       Are you asking the witness, Mr. Dodge, if he agrees
02  with Mr. Vorster's submitted testimony on that subject or
03  are you asking him does he agree with the testimony?
04       MR. DODGE:  The latter. 
05       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Do I agree that Peter Vorster testified
06  to that? 
07       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Vorster has made a calculation that
08  suggest that if you use the Ridenhour flows, as opposed to
09  the DWP flows, that on average year DWP would be allowed to
10  export about 3,000 acre­feet less than it otherwise would
11  post­transition. 
12       Do you have any problems with Mr. Vorster's
13  calculations? 
14       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I have no opinion on his calculations.
15       MR. DODGE:  Do you have any problem?
16       MR. ALLEN:  Let me kind of expand on that a little bit. 
17  Peter Vorster did not present any testimony regarding
18  reduction of flows.  However, he did perform on his own some
19  calculations in which the median ­­ he showed that the
20  median reduction would be approximately 3,000 acre­feet. 
21  Let me keep in mind that the median tends to actually
22  underestimate the average because of the actual distribution
23  of data.
24       MR. DODGE:  Do you have any problem with his
25  calculations as to what the median figure is? 
0210
01       MR. ALLEN:  I cannot ascertain whether or not his
02  numbers are adequate because I did not review his
03  calculations.
04       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Kavounas, hypothetically, if the Water
05  Board were to reduce the base flows in the four tributary
06  streams, have you made any calculation as to whether the 
07  median loss of 3,000 acre­feet could be made up such that
08  you could have the Ridenhour maintenance flows and reduced
09  base flows with the same export?
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I have not done any such calculation. 
11  That would not be within my scope of work. 
12       MR. DODGE:  If that were possible, then the objection
13  to the Ridenhour flows as they reduced exports would be
14  solved, couldn't it? 
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I'd have to think about that.  
16       MR. DODGE:  Read you from the scientists' October 1995 
17  restoration proposal, Page 140: 
18            If flows necessary for the stream to maintain
19            itself are not provided, a different plan
20            than the one proposed must be prepared.
21            Alternative recommendations would identify
22            actions needed to create and maintain the
23            stream habitat in lieu of natural processes
24            doing so.  These alternative recommendations
25            would necessarily include constructing bars
0211
01            and pools, removing accumulated fines from
02            spawnable gravels, and mechanically control
03            encroaching vegetation.  Indefinite
04            maintenance would be required as identified
05            in a rigorous monitoring program. (Reading.)
06       Do you recall that language? 
07       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It sounds familiar.
08       MR. DODGE:  Did Los Angeles prepare such a different
09  plan as the Ridenhour memo states.
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No.
11       MR. DODGE:  Do you have any ideas, as you sit here
12  today, what the cost of such a plan would be?
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, I do not. 
14       MR. DODGE:  Based on your experience under the RTC, it
15  could be quite expensive, couldn't it? 
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am sorry, with all due respect, I have
17  no experience with the RTC.  I came on board 13 months ago.
18       MR. DODGE:  Have you reviewed Los Angeles' experience
19  with the RTC? 
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, I have not. 
21       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Platts, based on the experience with
22  the RTC, such a hands­on restoration program can be
23  expensive, can't it?
24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  We will stipulate that the Department
25  of Water and Power spent millions of dollars in restoring
0212
01  Lee Vining Creek under the auspices of the RTC, which have
02  now flushed out into Mono Lake as a result of high floods.
03       MR. DODGE:  You objected to speeches, and you make
04  one.
05       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  You are asking questions, and I am
06  stipulating to fact. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Yeah, yeah.  Right.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Gentlemen, let's proceed.
09       MR. DODGE:  Let me ask you to turn to Page 5 of your
10  testimony, Mr. Kavounas.
11       See the item on fish passage there?
12       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Item 8.a.7.  Yes, I do.
13       MR. DODGE:  Do you propose no fish passage on Parker
14  and Walker Creek?  Correct? 
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct.
16  MR. DODGE:  Reading to you from Page 45 of D­1631,          
17  Item 1:
18            A fish and sediment bypass system should be
19            constructed around the Walker Creek diversion
20            facility.                 (Reading.)
21       Do you recall that language? 
22       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.
23       MR. DODGE:  How do you reconcile your failure to have a
24  fish passage provision with that language?
25       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Well, Page 204, order of the decision,  
0213
01  says:
02            The Stream Restoration Plan shall make
03            recommendations on stream and stream channel
04            restoration, including but not limited to the
05            following.                  (Reading.)
06       Item 7 is construction of fish and sediment bypass
07  system.
08       MR. DODGE:  You would agree with me that the language
09  on Page 45 is pretty unambiguous?
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.
11       MR. DODGE:  Reading again on Lee Vining Creek from     
12  D­1631. 
13            A sediment bypass system should be
14            constructed at the Lee Vining Creek
15            diversion.            (Reading.)
16       Do you see that, sir?
17       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Excuse me, what page are you on?
18       MR. DODGE:  Thirty­seven.
19       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Right.
20       MR. DODGE:  You don't propose to construct anything at
21  Lee Vining, do you?
22       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That's correct.
23       MR. DODGE:  Do you recall that the Ridenhour Plan
24  makes a suggestion as to how to accomplish sediment bypass?
25       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I don't at this time. 
0214
01       MR. DODGE:  Take a look at Pages 200 to 202 of the
02  Ridenhour Plan, if you will, please.
03       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Page 201, Paragraph A:
04            Construction of a bypass to the left of Lee
05            Vining conduit diversion should be
06            practicable.            (Reading.)
07       MR. DODGE:   Referring to LV­5 on Page 200 and then W­4
08  on Page 201 and P­4 on Page 202.
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Okay.  I am there.
10       MR. DODGE:  Those are recommendations that talk
11  conceptually how you might accomplish sediment and fishing
12  bypass, correct? 
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Correct.
14       MR. DODGE:  Did Los Angeles hire someone to make an
15  analysis of this?  
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, we did not.  Because in the draft
17  plan that the Department issued on or around November 1, of
18  1995, the proposal for sediment passage was that we would
19  engage in a two year study.  At the TAG meeting we had in
20  Lake Tahoe, the parties seemed to ­­ it seemed to me,
21  anyway, that the parties over there were calling for more
22  action than that.  From January 9th, when we had that TAG
23  meeting, to the time that we had to publish a plan, it was
24  not a whole lot of time. 
25       So, we presented some action after consulting with Dr.
0215
01  Beschta.  We presented a plan that would provide some
02  sediment passage.  In my opinion, a sediment bypass system
03  is not necessarily a facility, doesn't have to be the most
04  expensive way.  And from geomorphic perspective, if you are
05  providing the sediments downstream, it doesn't matter how
06  they are going to pass the facility. 
07       MR. DODGE:  D­1631 came down when?  I can't remember.
08       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  October ­­
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  September 28, 1994.
10       MR. DODGE:  September of 1994.  As early as ­­ as late
11  as early 1996, 15 months later, your proposal for sediment
12  bypass was to study it, correct? 
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Correct.
14       MR. DODGE:  You didn't study it during that 15 months?
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That's correct.
16       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Tillemans, Page 5 of your testimony
17  talks about Parker plug.  You see that testimony?
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes. 
19       MR. DODGE:  You talk about the Parker plug being a
20  long­term source of gravels and fines for lower Rush Creek.
21       Does the Parker plug really provide fines?  Is that
22  your testimony?
23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I object to the question on the
24  grounds it is argument.  The testimony is the testimony.  If
25  Mr. Dodge doesn't agree with it, he doesn't agree with it. 
0216
01  That's an argumentative question.
02       MR. DODGE:  What is the basis of your testimony?
03       MR. TILLEMANS:  My testimony? 
04       MR. DODGE:  Yes.
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  In discussions with consultants.
06       MR. DODGE:  Whom?
07       MR. TILLEMANS:  Dr. Beschta.  I do believe it provides
08  source of fines and gravels that are present there.          
09       MR. DODGE:  I will get to gravels in a second.
10       Dr. Beschta, do you believe that Parker plug is a
11  source of fines?
12       DR. BESCHTA:  There is an erosion along the toe slopes
13  of the channel up there, so there are fines coming in on the
14  channel. 
15       MR. DODGE:  Be pretty insignificant, wouldn't it? 
16       DR. BESCHTA:  I am not claiming ­­ I've never claimed
17  that it was large, but there certainly are fines coming into
18  the system. 
19       MR. DODGE:  You will also say, Mr. Tillemans, it is a
20  source of gravel.  But the Rush Creek below the Parker plug
21  doesn't lack for gravel, does it? 
22       MR. TILLEMANS:  I don't know any places that makes
23  gravel.
24       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Kavounas, is Los Angeles' Stream and
25  Channel Restoration Plan still Exhibit 16?  Have there been
0217
01  any changes?
02       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Not that I know of.
03       MR. DODGE:  We have had Dr. Beschta and Dr. Kauffman
04  come and critique the plan and that is fine.  That testimony
05  has not changed the plan, has it?
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It is my understanding that Dr. Beschta
07  and Dr. Kauffman's critique was a positive one for the
08  Department's plan and, no, I guess we didn't change the
09  plans as a result of that.
10       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Tillemans, you showed us a bunch of
11  photos several hours ago of developing riparian vegetation. 
12  Would you you agree with me that a lot of that growth
13  resulted from reopening of channels and in a raised water
14  table?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  I cannot positively agree upon that
16  because I don't have all the water table data to conclude
17  that.
18       MR. DODGE:  Would that be your best guess?
19       MR. TILLEMANS:  I would say when I look upon streams,
20  I don't look upon it as one thing or one event.  I look at
21  upon it as a continuum of flows and a process that occurs to
22  not only in a certain reach but is influenced by what
23  happens above it. 
24       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree that the vegetation that
25  you showed us pictures was aided by the very high flows in
0218
01  1995 and 1996?
02       MR. TILLEMANS:  I think the majority of the vegetation
03  on the floodplains in those creeks were aided by the flows
04  we have recently seen.
05       MR. DODGE:  What was the high flow in Rush Creek in
06  1995?
07       MR. TILLEMANS: I would have to defer that question.  
08       MR. ALLEN:   The peak flow of 1995 on Lower Rush Creek
09  was 635 cfs.
10       MR. DODGE:  635 cfs? 
11       MR. ALLEN:  Yes.
12       MR. DODGE:  At least in 1995 Rush Creek was
13  experiencing 635 cfs, and that was positive, right, Mr. 
14  Tillemans?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes.
16       MR. DODGE:  Los Angeles' plan doesn't propose to
17  release as much as 635 for maintenance flows, does it?
18       MR. ALLEN:  I think the plan proposes to release 500
19  as a minimum in extremely wet year types.
20       MR. DODGE:  Could be more, right?
21       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, it could be.
22       MR. DODGE:  It could be just 500?
23       MR. ALLEN:  That would depend on hydrologic conditions.
24       MR. DODGE:  It could be as low as 500?
25       MR. ALLEN:  As a minimum in extreme years.
0219
01       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Tillemans, your testimony speaks on 
02  vegetation that has been slow to respond and planting in
03  those areas. 
04       Do you recall that testimony?
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, I do. 
06       MR. DODGE:  Do you have a map or something that tells
07  us exactly what those areas are?
08       MR. TILLEMANS:  I described them in my testimony, but
09  I don't have a map that shows those areas exactly.  I can
10  look at my testimony and discuss it.
11       MR. DODGE:  Is there a plan to create a specific
12  proposal of where you are going to plant vegetation?
13       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, there is.
14       MR. DODGE:  The question, sir, on the interfluves; do
15  you have specific areas and acreages identified for planting
16  on the interfluves?
17       MR. TILLEMANS:  Can I have some time to look up that
18  section. 
19       MR. DODGE:  Does it identify the specific areas on the
20  interfluves that you are going plant and the types of
21  vegetation that you are going to plant?
22       MR. TILLEMANS:  Not specifically, no.  It does state
23  ­­ addresses the interfluves areas, though.
24       MR. DODGE:  Presumably, in future there will be some
25  process to determine what areas are going to be planted and
0220
01  what species?
02       MR. TILLEMANS:  It says areas, and it is specific to
03  creeks.  It says areas targeted for planting will be 
04  suitable for regeneration based on Jeffrey pine species
05  requirements, and LADWP proposes to plant Jeffrey pines in
06  interfluves areas that are currently lacking big wood. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Let me see if I can cut to the chase. 
08  Would you contemplate that the identification of specific
09  areas to plant, either areas that are slow to recover or
10  areas on the interfluves, the identification of what areas
11  to plant or which species would be a joint process in which
12  all the parties participated?
13       MR. TILLEMANS:  I guess that would be based upon legal
14  requirement and what we are obligated to do under the
15  decision.
16       MR. DODGE:  Now, you're proposing in your plan, Mr.
17  Tillemans, to reopen certain Rush Creek channels, correct?
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  That's correct.
19       MR. DODGE:  That is as described in Exhibit 16,
20  correct?
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  That's correct. 
22       MR. DODGE:  Now, let me follow up on a line of
23  questions that Mr. Roos­Collins asked you.  Let's take 1938,
24  which I will warrant to you is a very high flow year. 
25  Okay.  And 1996 or 1995, also high flow years.  Okay.
0221
01       Now, would you agree with me that compared to the
02  reasonably unperturbed stream condition in 1938, and I will
03  ask you to assume it was reasonably unperturbed, that in
04  1995 and 1996 there is a lot of debris going down the
05  channels at high flows?
06       MR. TILLEMANS:  In which year?
07       MR. DODGE:  In 1996.  A lot more debris than in the
08  natural condition. 
09       MR. TILLEMANS:  How much debris goes down in the
10  natural condition?
11       MR. DODGE:  I am asking you to compare the two.  In one
12  you have a reasonably natural stream channel with riparian
13  vegetation on the banks, as compared to the present
14  situation.  Okay. 
15       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am going to object to the question 
16  on the grounds it is vague as the point.  Mr. Dodge asked,
17  told, Mr. Tillemans to compare 1938 to 1995 and then said
18  unperturbed condition.  I think Decision 1631 establishes in
19  1938, Rush Creek was extremely an perturbed, degraded
20  system. 
21       MR. DODGE:  There was specific evidence, Mr. Chairman,
22  that high flows came down Rush Creek in 1938 and didn't have
23  much of an adverse affect at all because the vegetation was
24  holding the stream together.  You heard about that at
25  length.
0222
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Who is the question directed to?
02       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Tillemans.
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Tillemans.  Mr. Tillemans, do
04  you feel qualified to answer the question?
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  Are you finished with your question?  I
06  need to ­­
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You need to restate the question
08  more succinctly.
09       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Trush ­­
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is succinct.
11       MR. DODGE:  Assume that in 1938 the vegetation was in
12  good condition on Rush Creek and very high flows came down
13  without causing any significant problem. 
14       Can you make that assumption with me?  Would you agree
15  that the same flows today, 1995­1996, existing conditions, a
16  lot more debris would come down that creek than happened in
17  1938?
18       DR. TRUSH:  No.  I have nothing to go on there.  You
19  can tell by an aerial photo, maybe not a lot happened on the
20  plan form of the river.  You didn't see major blow out
21  area.  All you need is two­foot cut on the outside bank and
22  trees drop in.  There you would have large trees dropping in
23  that would have a single much larger effect than a whole
24  pile of smaller stuff coming in in this past year.  So,
25  really, I can pretend, but I can't even do that.
0223
01       MR. DODGE:  You don't know?  You don't have to answer a
02  question you don't know the answer to.
03       DR. TRUSH:  No, can't answer. 
04       MR. DODGE:  I heard you testify, Mr. Tillemans, about
05  the values of the A­1 channel in Lee Vining Creek. 
06       Do you recall that testimony?
07       MR. TILLEMANS:  I think what I was ­­ I recall the 
08  testimony. 
09       MR. DODGE:  You did testify about the values of A­1
10  channel, correct?
11       MR. TILLEMANS:  I testified to what was occurring
12  within the vicinity of the A­1 channel.
13       MR. DODGE:  Do you think rewatering of the A­1 channel
14  was a valuable thing for Lee Vining Creek?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  Based on what I know from past, that
16  channel was already starting to rewater itself on its own,
17  and it was an addition.  Most of the rewatering was an
18  addition, an augmentation of water that was already starting
19  to appear.
20       MR DODGE:  Dr. Beschta, just a few questions for you.
21       Assuming you're standing at the Narrows, looking down
22  Rush Creek. 
23       DR. BESCHTA:  Okay.
24       MR. DODGE:  On the left­hand side of the stream there
25  is what has been referred to as the Vestal springs.  Are you
0224
01  aware of that? 
02       DR. BESCHTA:  I am aware of the springs and maybe the
03  attachment of vestals.  I wasn't sure that that was the
04  exact place.
05       MR. DODGE:  I think they are named after Elden Vestal
06  who testified at great length about that. 
07       DR. BESCHTA:  Okay.
08       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Vestal testified about how the springs
09  enhance the fishery.  Are you aware of that? 
10       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes, I am. 
11       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree with me that the source of
12  those springs had nothing to do with Rush Creek, but rather
13  came from water that flowed down Parker and Walker Creeks?
14       DR. BESCHTA:  In my mind, I don't know where the water
15  from the springs is coming from.  I haven't studied that.
16       MR. DODGE:  Assume, if you will, the water from the
17  springs comes from Parker and Walker Creek and percolation
18  from the distributaries of Parker and Walker.  Can you
19  assume that for me?
20        DR. BESCHTA:  As an assumption, sure.  
21        MR. DODGE:  Let's take a look at your testimony at
22  Page 16.  I am going to read you a portion of it. 
23            The concept of "irrigating the bottomland" in
24            attempts to recreate springs on the
25            bottomland is not a credible restoration
0225
01            practice.                  (Reading.)
02       Do you see that, sir? 
03       DR. BESCHTA:  That was a misreading.  The concept of
04  irrigating the uplands.
05       MR. DODGE:  Irrigating the uplands? 
06       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes.
07       MR. DODGE:  Now, hypothetically, if rewatering the
08  distributaries of Parker and Walker Creek that existed
09  naturally before diversions would recreate spring flows that
10  benefited the fishery, would you regard that as "credible
11  restoration practice"?
12       DR. BESCHTA:  Rewater ­­ they are watered now, so I am
13  not sure what the rewatering is doing.  There is water in
14  Parker/Walker. 
15       MR. DODGE:  Assuming that rewatering the distributaries
16  will add to the water in the springs, would you regard that
17  as a credible restoration practice? 
18       DR. BESCHTA:  I guess if it could be shown that on the
19  alluvial features up there that that stream normally had
20  distributaries and that water was spread out there naturally
21  and that water was connected to the springs, you make all
22  those ifs ands or buts, then maybe putting more water on the
23  alluvial fan would be a connection to the springs.  I can't
24  make that connection. 
25       MR. DODGE:  Hypothetically, it would be a credible
0226
01  restoration practice?
02       DR. BESCHTA:  If your goal was to rewater the springs
03  and bring them up to some level that you perceived was there
04  prior.  Whether that relates to the fisheries is a different
05  question. 
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Can I add to that answer, Mr. Dodge? 
07       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Birmingham will ask you questions on
08  cross­examination.  I have my time.
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Please excuse me. 
10       MR. DODGE:  Page 3, Dr. Beschta. 
11       DR. BESCHTA:  Where?
12       MR. DODGE:  Your testimony, stream restoration. 
13       DR. BESCHTA:  Okay. 
14       MR. DODGE:  You say under L.A.'s channel maintenance
15  flows, proposed peak flows for Rush Creek will be "slightly
16  greater than the historical impaired flows." 
17       Do you see that, sir? 
18       DR. BESCHTA:  I don't see that, but it sounds like it
19  should be there. 
20       MR. DODGE:  It is right here. 
21       DR. BESCHTA:  Okay.
22       MR. DODGE:  Do you see that.
23       DR. BESCHTA:  Got it.    
24       MR. DODGE:  That is your testimony? 
25       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes. 
0227
01       MR. DODGE:  You testified this morning about Table 2,
02  and I think you inadvertently referred to unimpaired flows. 
03  You meant impaired flows, didn't you?
04       DR. BESCHTA:  I may have gotten that mixed around.  I
05  apologize if I did.  I am working with impaired flows, yes.
06       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree with me that the
07  prediversion streams were, if you will, formed by the
08  unimpaired flows?
09       DR. BESCHTA:  Prior to Cal Edison, yes. 
10       MR. DODGE:  It would be desirable, wouldn't it, to
11  deliver the unimpaired flows to Rush Creek, wouldn't it?
12       DR. BESCHTA:  The easiest way to get unimpaired flows
13  would be to have Cal Edison change their policies.
14       MR. DODGE:  Are you aware that the three scientists in
15  their October 1995 recommendations based their maintenance
16  flows on unimpaired flows, correct?
17       DR. BESCHTA:  I understand they considered that, yes,
18  in their decision, but I was not part of their decision, so
19  I really don't know what or how they got there.
20       MR. DODGE:  Now, you say that ­­ you refer to slightly
21  greater than historical impaired flows.  But if you look at
22  Table 2, Dr. Beschta, you would agree with me, wouldn't you,
23  that DWP in dry, dry­normal and extreme wet provides
24  substantially less than the historical impaired flows?
25       DR. BESCHTA:  Less, yes.
0228
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Dodge, since you are between
02  questions I will interrupt you now.  There is about 20
03  seconds left.  How much more time?  I should say you are
04  within 20 seconds of cross­examining for an hour.  How much
05  time more do you think you are going to need?
06       MR. DODGE:  I would certainly hope to finish within
07  half an hour.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Another half hour.   Then why don't
09  we ­­ it is pretty close to 4:30.  Maybe we just break now,
10  or do you want to go for about seven or eight minutes and
11  then we will come back?  I don't want to get overly precise
12  here. 
13       MR. DODGE:  Let me see if I can finish with Dr.
14  Beschta.      
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  In about, say, six or seven minutes?
16       MR. DODGE:  I hope so.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right, sir.
18       DR. BESCHTA:  He told Bill Platts he only had one
19  left. 
20       MR. DODGE:  Page 7 of your testimony, sir?  
21       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes. 
22       MR. DODGE:  You say that the difference between a peak
23  flow of 500 cfs and 600 cfs in extreme year type would
24  result in imperceptible differences in the Rush Creek
25  channel. 
0229
01       Do up see that, sir?
02       DR BESCHTA:  Yes, I do; it's right at the top.
03       MR. DODGE:  Can you really testify to that with any
04  certainty? 
05       DR. BESCHTA:  You have to keep in mind in the context
06  of which I did the flow evaluation.  I was looking at this
07  flow distribution, and the extreme wet occurs less than or
08  approximately eight percent of the time.  And if we have all
09  the rest of the these flows occurring, as they are projected
10  to occur, and then during that one eight percent of the
11  time, we either have a 500 cfs or a 600 cfs event, I would
12  suggest that it may well be indetectable over the scheme of
13  things.
14       MR. DODGE:  It may well be detectable, too?  
15       DR. BESCHTA:  That is a possibility.   Hopefully, that
16  is what the Monitoring Plan would show. 
17       MR. DODGE:  Doesn't it make sense to you, sir, that at
18  600 cfs larger rocks are going to move than at 500 cfs? 
19       DR. BESCHTA:  Sure. 
20       MR. DODGE:  Isn't it also true that 600 cfs is going to
21  raise the water table higher than at 500 cfs? 
22       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes. 
23       MR. DODGE:  And you would think it was a good idea to
24  monitor these sorts of things and make a determination,
25  correct? 
0230
01       DR. BESCHTA:  I think monitoring the flows and
02  monitoring what happens in that system is incredibly
03  important, yes.
04       MR. DODGE:  Do you think sufficient monitoring has been
05  done to make determinations as to which flows should be?
06       DR. BESCHTA:  Not at this point.   Monitoring has not
07  initiated.
08       MR. DODGE:  Did you hear Mr. Platts' testimony on
09  sediment bypass when I asked him those questions? 
10       DR. BESCHTA:  I was listening.
11       MR. DODGE:  Do you basically agree with Dr. Platts? 
12       DR. BESCHTA:  I am not sure what part you want to
13  agree. You had quite a discussion going. 
14       MR. DODGE:  Anything that he said about sediment bypass
15  that you disagree with?
16       DR. BESCHTA:  I think both ­­ I shouldn't speak for
17  Bill.  I am certainly in favor of physically bypassing or
18  getting sediment past that system.  In fact, maybe I was the
19  first one to introduce the topic to the whole discussion
20  here a long time ago.
21       BOARD MEMBER STUBCHAER:  You were. 
22       DR. BESCHTA:  How you exactly do that is another
23  question, whether you reconstruct those channels or whether
24  you do something else, I guess, is a question.
25       MR. DODGE:  If I may look at my notes for a second, I
0231
01  may be just about finished with Dr. Beschta.
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right, Mr. Dodge.  
03       MR. DODGE:  This will be a good time too break.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you.  Let me just say before
05  we do that, assume that you will need a half hour, Mr.
06  Dodge, when we come back at 5:00.  We will give you another
07  half hour for cross­examination.  Then we will have
08  cross­examination from Ms. Cahill and Ms. Scoonover. 
09       Then we still have to hear direct from the waterfowl
10  panel.  And then or now, before we get to that, there is a
11  possibility of redirect and recross and then we go to the
12  waterfowl panel.
13       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  No possibility.
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Anybody planning on getting home in
15  time for the 7:30 version of Seinfeld is probably not going
16  to, likely.
17       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Chairman, you commented earlier on
18  the importance of cross­examination, how you recognized that
19  it is related to the right of due process.  I would like to
20  observe in hearings that I have appeared before Mr.
21  Stubchaer and Mr. Del Piero, they had no problem cutting
22  people off on cross­examination.
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  May be a sweeter guy than I am.
24       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  We all know that, Mr.
25  Chairman.
0232
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let's be back at close to 5:00 as we
02  can.  Then we can resume.
03                          (Break taken.)
04                            ­­­oOo­­­
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0233
01                         EVENING SESSION
02                            ­­­oOo­­­  
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Dodge, would you like to resume
04  your cross­examination of the three panels?  We will give
05  you up to half an hour.  Hopefully, you can be more brief
06  than that, in the interest of just moving this thing along.
07       MR. DODGE:  I will try to be to the point and get
08  there as soon as I can. 
09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We thank you for that, sir.   Please
10  proceed. 
11       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Allen, your planning for Rush Creek
12  high flows includes restoring to the return ditch to 350
13  cfs, correct?
14       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct. 
15       MR. DODGE:  Do you have a cost on that?
16       MR. ALLEN:   That, I believe, that cost is in the 
17  Stream Restoration Plan.  I don't know the exact numbers of
18  that. 
19       MR. DODGE:  Your plan calls for fish habitat at all
20  flows up to 350 cfs?
21       MR. ALLEN:  Are you referring to the stream plan or the
22  Grant Lake Management Plan?
23       MR. DODGE:  I am referring to your plan to upgrade the
24  Mono Basin Return Ditch to 350 cfs.  Does your plan provide
25  for fish habitat at all flows up to 350 cfs?
0234
01       MR. ALLEN:  To my knowledge, the design plans for
02  rehabilitating the ditch have not been finalized or
03  completed, so I cannot answer that question.
04       MR. DODGE:  Do you think it might be reasonably
05  expensive to design a ditch that had fish habitat at flows
06  up to 350 cfs? 
07       MR. ALLEN:  I really can't testify to the variables
08  that would be required to provide fish habitat in such a
09  design.
10       MR. DODGE:  But if, hypothetically, you were to bypass
11  Grant Lake by a tunnel that carried 600 cfs, you wouldn't
12  have to have a return ditch at all, would you?
13       MR. ALLEN:  Theoretically, if such an episode was
14  available, yes.
15       MR. DODGE:  The 350 cfs that you propose in the return
16  ditch will not, by itself, provide either the scientists'
17  maintenance flows or DWP's maintenance flows in a lot of
18  year types; isn't that correct?
19       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct.
20       MR. DODGE:  You propose to deal with that by Lee Vining
21  Creek augmentation, correct?
22       MR. ALLEN:  Yes.  The diversions from Lee Vining Creek
23  would augment channel maintenance flows. 
24       MR. DODGE:  As I understand your proposal, you propose
25  to augment with Lee Vining Creek water up to 150 cfs,
0235
01  correct?
02       MR. ALLEN:  That would depend on the year type.  So it
03  would be up to 350 for an extremely wet year.
04       MR. DODGE:  But as your testimony recognizes, even with
05  the Lee Vining Creek augmentation, you would not reliably
06  provide the scientists' recommended maintenance flows in
07  Rush Creek in extreme years? 
08       MR. ALLEN:  You are referring to the Ridenhour ­­
09       MR. DODGE:  Yes, sir.
10       MR. ALLEN:  Yes.
11       MR. DODGE:  That is correct?
12       MR. ALLEN:  On a reliable basis, no.  But if you look
13  at historical records you will see that in three or four
14  past extremely wet years, flows were in excess of ­­ would
15  have been excess of 600 cfs. 
16       MR. DODGE:  So, sometimes it will happen and sometimes
17  it won't?
18       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct. 
19       MR. DODGE:  Your testimony at Page 6 talks about the
20  Ridenhour flows, and you rejected them in part because of
21  what you call capacity limitations, correct?
22       MR. ALLEN:  This is correct.
23       MR. DODGE:  Buy capacity limitations, I take it you
24  mean that even with the return ditch carrying 350 cfs, there
25  is no reliable way to get 600 cfs down in wet years,
0236
01  correct? 
02       MR. ALLEN:  In the return ditch, no.
03       MR. DODGE:  Even with augmentation?
04       MR. ALLEN:  With augmentation spills and return ditch,
05  we can get flows that would be equivalent to two of those
06  recommended in the Ridenhour work plan.
07       MR. DODGE:  But just so we are clear, if there is no
08  spill, then you cannot get at 600 cfs down through the
09  combination of a return ditch and the augmentation? 
10       MR. ALLEN:  Without the spill, the flows in Rush Creek
11  would be 500 cfs.
12       MR. DODGE:  So, by capacity limitations, what you mean
13  is that, basically, you don't want to spend the money to
14  create a tunnel that bypasses Grant Lake; is that correct?  
15       MR. ALLEN:  I did not make that decision, no.   But
16  looking at given facilities and in the current
17  configuration, no, we cannot provide the flows in the
18  Ridenhour work plan. 
19       MR. DODGE:  But Grant Lake has a capacity for 47,000
20  acre­feet, correct?
21       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, that's correct.
22       MR. DODGE:  So, if you had a bypass facility, there 
23  would be plenty of water to provide 600 cfs, correct?        
24       MR. ALLEN:  That would depend on previous hydrologic
25  conditions. 
0237
01       MR. DODGE:  In an extreme year, which is what we are
02  talking about, there wouldn't be any problem providing 600
03  cfs, would there?
04       MR. ALLEN:  No. 
05       MR. DODGE:  Thank you.
06       Now, let's get to this augmentation, up to 150 cfs.  
07  Tell me what the criteria you propose for augmentation. 
08       MR. ALLEN:  Specifically which criteria are you ­­ 
09       MR. DODGE:  We are in a year where you are going to
10  augment Rush Creek flows by 150 cfs through using Lee Vining
11  Creek water. 
12       How are you going to decide when to deliver the Lee
13  Vining Creek water?
14       MR. ALLEN:  The first step in that process is the use
15  of regression equations which we would use to estimate the
16  expected peak flow for Lee Vining Creek.  This would be
17  based on the forecasted runoff.  And then, from that, we
18  would use that information and monitor the flows to get a
19  feel for when the actual peak passes.  And following that,
20  we would begin diversions for the Rush Creek augmentation. 
21       MR. DODGE:  You get a feel for when the peak passes; is
22  that your testimony?
23       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, that is correct.  You can review
24  historic data for specific year types, and there is
25  typically ranges of peak flows that correspond directly for
0238
01  that year type.  And using that information, along with the
02  regression equations, you can get a very, very good estimate
03  of the expected peak flows for that year. 
04       MR. DODGE:  So you have on day one, you've established
05  the peak flows.  When will you begin to divert Lee Vining
06  Creek water?
07       MR. ALLEN:  The plan calls for diversions to begin
08  seven days after the peak flow.
09       MR. DODGE:  Seven days after the peak flow.   Was that
10  done in 1996?
11       MR. ALLEN:  The 1996 operations were not the Lee
12  Vining Creek augmentations as proposed in the Grant Lake
13  Management Plan.
14       MR. DODGE:  Augmentation didn't work in 1996, did it?
15       MR. ALLEN:  As I said, the basis for the Lee Vining
16  Creek augmentation is contingent upon three things
17  happening.  Number one, the return ditch needs to be
18  rehabilitated.  Number two, the control gates at the end of
19  the conduit need to be repaired, and number three, the
20  conveyance facility from the conduit to Rush Creek needs
21  some work.  And I believe that all three of those aspects
22  were identified in the Stream Channel Restoration Plan.
23       MR. DODGE:  So, you need some changes in the facility
24  before it is going to work?
25       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct. 
0239
01       MR. DODGE:  Isn't it a fact, sir, in some years there
02  simply won't be 150 cfs of Lee Vining Creek water available? 
03  Isn't that possible?
04       MR. ALLEN:  Yes.  That possibility came up in
05  discussions with the ad hoc flow committee.
06       MR. DODGE:  In fact, your recognized that at Page 98
07  of your GLOMP plan, don't you?
08       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, that is correct.
09       MR. DODGE:  Now, if you begin diverting Lee Vining
10  Creek water too early, that is you missed the peak, then
11  this plan has the danger of, in effect, missing, cutting off
12  the primary peak; isn't that correct?
13       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct.  And I may add that
14  discussion came up in the ad hoc flow committee.
15       MR. DODGE:  And the Lee Vining Creek augmentation plan
16  also drastically reduces the declining peak on Lee Vining
17  Creek, correct?  As Lee Vining Creek comes down from its
18  peak, you are going to be drastically reducing that flow in
19  Lee Vining Creek? 
20       MR. ALLEN:  Drastically is kind of a relative term.  We
21  will ramp flows in accordance with D­1631. 
22       MR. DODGE:  It's possible, isn't it, that when you
23  start to augment with Lee Vining Creek seven days after when
24  you project its peak to be, it's possible that you won't
25  have enough water in Lee Vining Creek both to augment with
0240
01  150 cfs and to meet the Lee Vining Creek minimum flows?
02       MR. ALLEN:  Could you repeat that question again? 
03       MR. DODGE:  Is it possible, sir, based on your review
04  of the various years flows, is it possible that you cannot
05  both augment Rush Creek flows with 150 cfs with Lee Vining
06  Creek water and still meet the Lee Vining Creek minimum
07  flows?
08       MR. ALLEN:  There is that extreme possibility.  
09  However, the value for the 150 cfs diversion was selected on
10  the basis that there would be sufficient water above the
11  Decision 1631 minimum flows. 
12       MR. DODGE:  If the Water Board, hypothetically, were
13  to accept your maintenance flow in Rush Creek of 500 cfs in
14  extreme years, is DWP prepared to have that as part of a
15  license requirement?
16       MR. ALLEN:  I cannot answer that question.  
17       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Kavounas.  
18       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am not sure Mr. Kavounas is
19  qualified to answer that question.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Anyone qualified?   Anyone on the
21  panel qualified? 
22       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Can you repeat the question?
23       MR. DODGE:  If the Water Board were to accept your
24  channel maintenance flows in Rush Creek in extreme years of
25  500 cfs, is DWP prepared to have that as part of a Board
0241
01  order, a license requirement?
02       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Dodge is asking this panel for
03  the position of the Department of Water and Power, and no
04  one on this panel is in a position of the Department of
05  Water and Power to make that kind of decision.
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  It is perfectly all right to answer
07  the question in that regard so that we don't have to keep
08  interrupting you.  If you don't feel qualified enough ­­
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  My answer is, I couldn't answer it
10  without conference.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is a perfectly acceptable
12  answer, sir.  If that isn't clear to the panelists, please
13  feel free.  If you don't know or if you don't feel empowered
14  by virtue of your position within the organization, just say
15  so. 
16       MR. DODGE:  I totally agree with that, Mr. Chairman. 
17  But I would request that Mr. Birmingham not give him the
18  answer.  If he doesn't know the answer, he can so state.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I think it is appropriate for
20  counsel to assist his witnesses.  But your concern is duly
21  noted. 
22       Please proceed, gentlemen.
23       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Allen, would you turn to Page 9 of
24  your testimony?  Do you see Table B there, sir?
25       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, I do.
0242
01       MR. DODGE:  You testified earlier to an effort to see
02  if you could induce spills in wet years. 
03       Do you recall that testimony?
04       MR. ALLEN:  That was correct. 
05       MR. DODGE:  Does Table B relate to that effort?
06       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, it does. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Now let me ask you, sir, you assume 35,000
08  acre­feet storage in Grant Lake on April 1, correct?
09       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct. 
10       MR. DODGE:  Am I right that you would be more likely
11  to have spills if you instead assumed 40,000 acre­feet in
12  Grant Lake Reservoir on April 1?
13       MR. ALLEN:  Given the conditions that this table was
14  developed under, which was the wet year types, I don't ­­ it
15  is my judgment that the spills will occur ­­ within a wet
16  year type you can force the reservoir to spill at 35,000
17  acre­feet or from the 40,000 acre­feet.
18       MR. DODGE:  You could use 40,000 acre­feet, correct?
19       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, that is correct.
20       MR. DODGE:  That would make the spill more likely,
21  wouldn't it?
22       MR. ALLEN:  It wouldn't increase the probabilities that
23  significantly.  If you look earlier in the testimony, there
24  is actual percentages on how much water needs to flow down
25  the creeks to fill, not only Grant Lake Reservoir, but also
0243
01  the Southern Cal Edison reservoirs upstream. 
02       MR. DODGE:  Would having Grant Lake at 40,000 on April
03  1 increase the magnitude of the spill as compared to 35,000?
04       MR. ALLEN:  I cannot answer because I did not do that
05  analysis. 
06       MR. DODGE:  How about if we had Grant Lake at 45,000 on
07  April 1, would that increase either the likelihood or
08  magnitude of spills? 
09       MR. ALLEN:  Once again, I cannot answer that question.
10       MR. DODGE:  Turn, if you would, to Page 11 of your
11  testimony, sir.  At the bottom of Page 11, you do not follow
12  the scientists' maintenance flows for dry, dry­normal, and
13  the lower interval of normal years, correct?
14       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct.
15       MR. DODGE:  The reason for that, as you state, is
16  concern over export, correct?
17       MR. ALLEN:  That is one of the concerns.   The other
18  concern is, as I stated in my direct testimony, that the
19  Grant Lake Management Plan attempts to balance all the
20  leases to Mono Lake and export with the available runoff.
21       MR. DODGE:  You didn't have any restoration oriented
22  reason for rejecting the scientists' flows in those years;
23  isn't that correct? 
24       MR. ALLEN:  No, I did not.
25       MR. DODGE:  Final questions for you, sir.  
0244
01       Los Angeles's proposal does not provide post­transition
02  flows, correct?
03       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct.
04       MR. DODGE:  By post­transition I mean after Mono Lake
05  reached its transition level.
06       MR. ALLEN:  After it reaches the target elevation. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Is there anything in D­1631, any language
08  in D­1631, that Los Angeles relies on in not posing a
09  post­transition flow, to your knowledge?
10       MR. ALLEN:  Could you repeat the question?
11       MR. DODGE:  I mean, I've read D­1631 and it looks to me
12  like you're supposed to provide a GLOMP, period.  You
13  provided one that doesn't have post­transition flows.  I am
14  wondering whether there is any analysis, that you are aware
15  of, as to why that was done.
16       MR. ALLEN:  There was no analysis for what?
17       MR. DODGE:  As to why no post­transition flows are
18  proposed.
19       MR. ALLEN:  Because there are several factors involved
20  with that.  The first was the condition of the streams.  The
21  second factor, and probably the most important factor, is
22  that as the lake level reaches 6392, LADWP export criteria
23  change significantly.  And given the situation that we are
24  in today, which is commonly referred to as the transition
25  period, there are different water allocations for the
0245
01  transition period versus the post­transition period. 
02       So, the actual Grant Lake Management Plan provides a
03  mechanism to develop this post­transition plan, if you will,
04  after the Mono Lake level reaches a specified level.
05       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Kauffman, do you have your testimony
06  available?
07       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, sir. 
08       MR. DODGE:  On Page 2 of your testimony, you say:      
09            Ecological restoration attempts to return
10            riparian/streams zones as closely as possible
11            to predisturbance condition.    (Reading.)
12       Do you see that, sir?
13       DR. KAUFFMAN:  What paragraph?
14       MR. DODGE:  Page 2, the first full ­­ second full
15  paragraph under ecological restoration, third sentence.
16       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
17       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree with me that if you were
18  trying to apply ecological restoration, as you have defined
19  it, that you'd mimic the natural flows that formed the
20  channels?
21       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
22       MR. DODGE:  Those would be the unimpaired flows?
23       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
24       MR. DODGE:  Are you aware that the stream scientists'
25  plan attempts had to do that?
0246
01       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No ­­ I don't have any knowledge of
02  that, sir. 
03       MR. DODGE:  Page 9 of your testimony, sir, the first   
04  full paragraph toward the bottom:
05            Expansion of the area occupied by riparian
06            vegetation could most effectively be
07            accomplished through the continued rewatering
08            of secondary channels, backwaters, and
09            depressions via water release and limited
10            reopening of channels and a diligent
11            moratorium on livestock grazing, including 
12            trespass livestock on Parker and Walker
13            Creek.                     (Reading.)
14       Do you see that, sir?
15       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
16       MR. DODGE:  Again, would that best be accomplished by
17  the high natural flows unimpeded by the reservoirs?
18       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.  The secondary channel in the one
19  season clearly are flowing during the peak flows, and what
20  levels of peak flows they do flow, I don't know if the data
21  exists. 
22       MR. DODGE:  Let me turn quickly to Page 3 of your
23  testimony, down, the last full paragraph, sir.  I will  read
24  you the part I am interested in.
25            High flows are needed to create these
0247
01            conditions.   Seed dispersal and germination
02            are tied to coincide with late spring flows
03            when water tables are high and fresh alluvium
04            has been deposited.            (Reading.)
05       Do you see that, sir?
06       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
07       MR. DODGE:  As I understand that testimony, you were
08  recommending coincidence in time of seed dispersal and high
09  flows, correct? 
10       DR. KAUFFMAN:  That is how most of this vegetation has
11  evolved.  Typically you will see seed dispersal in June,
12  late May, through the month of June, when natural peak flows
13  did occur, and that is the mechanism of dispersal of these
14  plants. 
15       MR. DODGE:  How close in time of coincidence are you
16  looking for? 
17       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Well, the period of time of which ­­
18  seed dispersal occurs over a two­ to three­week period, 
19  late in the spring, late May through June, and that is when,
20  historically, one would have seen peak flows in these
21  areas. 
22       MR. DODGE:  If the peak flow in a regulated stream, if
23  the peak flow came three weeks after the national peak flow,
24  would that create a problem?
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, it would.  It most likely would. 
0248
01       MR. DODGE:  If DWP's augmentation proposal for Lee
02  Vining Creek, if it brought on the peak flows to Rush Creek
03  three weeks later than normally would happen, that would be
04  a problem, wouldn't it?
05       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.  In other words, if the peak flows
06  were shifted to later in the season and after the time when
07  the seed dispersal had occurred, yes, that would be a
08  problem.
09       MR. DODGE:  Going on to Page 4 of your testimony, you
10  talk about the falling limb.  As I understand the falling
11  limb refers to diminishment of the high spring runoff,
12  correct?
13       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
14       MR. DODGE:  You say:
15            Therefore, the rate of falling limb and the
16            level of base flows will influence the
17            structure of the riparian ecosystem.  In
18            order to establish and perpetuate a healthy
19             riparian/preecosystem, a natural variability
20            of stream flows is crucial.  (Reading.)
21       Do you see that testimony? 
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, do I.
23       MR. DODGE:  Now, if in fact, DWP proposed to augment
24  high flows in Rush Creek through taking up to 150 cfs from
25  Lee Vining Creek, that would not be a natural variability
0249
01  for Lee Vining Creek in wet years, correct? 
02       DR. KAUFFMAN:  How would it compare to the inherent
03  natural variability of the system?  Would it be a ­­ would
04  we never see the peak flows again?  Would there still be a
05  variability through decades of peak flows?  How would it
06  differ through time, through decadenal scales, say, of peak
07  flows?
08       In other words, what would be the vegetation?   A single
09  event may not be significant.  A complete change in the
10  hydrographic would be significant. 
11       MR. DODGE:  Taking up to 150 Cfs from Lee Vining Creek
12  in extreme and wet years, all of them, and moving it over to
13  Rush Creek, would not provide a natural variability for Lee
14  Vining Creek in wet years, would it?  Correct? 
15       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Again, what percent?  How would it alter
16  ­­ may I ask Bob Beschta or someone how would that alter the
17  hydrograph?  How would it change the peak flow of Lee Vining
18  Creek?  I am afraid to make an incorrect answer with the
19  amount of information I have.  I would be concerned, but I  
20  would feel unqualified to answer that question.              
21       MR. DODGE:  At Page 6 of your testimony, you say:
22            A gradual recession is optimal for vegetation
23            establishment as survival is dependent upon
24            root growth, maintaining connections with
25            adequate soil moisture.    (Reading.)
0250
01       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.   
02       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree with me that taking 150 cfs
03  from Lee Vining Creek is not a gradual recession?
04       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.  It comes back to the one table on
05  what is the rate of ­­ what is it called? ­­ the decreasing
06  ramping rates of 10 percent versus 15 percent versus 25
07  percent.  What are the natural rates of decreasing limb or
08  falling limb or the decreasing ramping rate.  If that were
09  to be 15, 25 percent, I would be concerned.  Ten percent or
10  less, perhaps, the seedling growth of the willows could keep
11  up with the decreasing water table.
12       MR. DODGE:  You were critical, Dr. Kauffman, of the
13  rewatering of Channel 10.  Do you recall that testimony?
14       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, I do.
15       MR. DODGE:  In fact, this is not the first time.  You
16  have been critical before of Rush restoration efforts in the
17  Mono Basin, correct? 
18       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I have been critical of those that have
19  not been done when I felt that the attempts at restoration
20  caused more ecological harm than good. 
21       MR. DODGE:  Let me ask you to look at a photograph that
22  Mr. Vorster is going to distribute. 
23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  May we see copies? 
24       MR. DODGE:  He is moving as fast as he can.  
25       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  This is already in the record.
0251
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is this an exhibit that is already
02  in the record?
03       MR. DODGE:  No, it is not in the record.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Don't we need to identity it?  I
05  think we do.  See if there is any objection. 
06       MR. DODGE:  I will identity this as Exhibit
07  R­NAS/MLC­8. 
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I'm assuming this comes under the
09  definition of cross­examination still, and not direct. 
10       MR. DODGE:  You betcha. 
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  And you're down to about two
12  minutes.  We do need to move on, Mr. Dodge. 
13       MR. DODGE:  I am moving as fast as I can.
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You have been up there an hour and a
15  half.  Two minutes within an hour and a half.  We do need to
16  get onto a lot of other parties.  Please proceed with all
17  dispatch. 
18       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Kauffman, do you recognize this as a
19  picture of creek, Rush Creek, that you saw in 1992?          
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
21       MR. DODGE:  Were you critical of this?
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, I suppose I was. 
23       MR. DODGE:  Do you recall what you said in that regard? 
24       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Exactly on this spot?
25       MR. DODGE:  Right. 
0252
01       DR. KAUFFMAN:  What point in time?
02       MR. DODGE:  What were you critical of?
03       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Mostly the deposition of the spoils onto
04  areas of mid channel bars and gravel bars. 
05       MR. DODGE:  Why were you critical of that?
06       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Because, again ­­ well, it is exactly ­­
07  I am having a hard time seeing your point.  Mostly, what I'd
08  say here would be the deposition of spoils onto the riparian
09  bank and stream.
10       MR. DODGE:  Would you point to me what riparian bank
11  you are concerned about? 
12       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Probably the one here in the foreground
13  in the lower corner.
14       MR. DODGE:  You are concerned about whether that would
15  revegetate? 
16       DR. KAUFFMAN.  I'd be concerned that it certainly would
17  be a different vegetation than what would be occurring under
18  natural conditions.
19       MR. DODGE:  Do you recall making a bet?   Do you recall
20  betting Scott Stine your paycheck this would never naturally
21  vegetate in your lifetime?
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I could probably believe that I would
23  make a bet with Dr. Stine similar to that.  Again, I
24  probably like to be on the spot with him before I pay him my
25  wager.
0253
01       MR. DODGE:  I am sorry ­­
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You need to answer the question,
03  sir. 
04       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I said I have no ­­ in reality, I have
05  no recollection of making a bet.
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  There is the answer; he doesn't
07  remember.
08       MR. DODGE:  Do you ­­ I will represent to you that the
09  next document which I am marking as R­NAS/MLC­9, the top
10  photograph shows the ­­ I will represent to you, sir, that
11  the top photograph shows the site in 1993 and the bottom
12  photograph shows on the site in 1995.
13       Would you agree with me, Dr. Kauffman, there has been
14  revegetation?
15       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Mostly chrysothmanus nauseosus and
16  viscidiflorus, which are species of upland disturbed
17  environments of the great basin.
18       MR. DODGE:  This was initially an upland basin, wasn't
19  it?
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No, it was not.  I would say this area
21  clearly should have at least be dominated by tramings
22  [phon]; historically, an area at the bottom of a toe slope
23  in the historical riparian zone most likely have riparian
24  vegetation.
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Dodge, how much more time do
0254
01  you think you need? 
02       MR. DODGE:  I need another ten minutes, but I will take
03  a couple.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You need another ten, but you are
05  going to take just a couple.  I am sure everybody will have
06  no objection. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Showing you the next document, sir, which
08  is R­NAS/MLC­10.  I will represent to you is a picture of
09  the site in 1995. 
10       Would you agree that riparian vegetation has returned
11  in your lifetime?
12       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me, I haven't had an
13  opportunity to see these photographs.  I wonder if I can
14  have an opportunity before he examines the witness on it.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Make sure everybody has copies.
16       MR. DODGE:  I am getting pressured from both ends.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes, you are.  We have a long way to
18  go.
19       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I am sorry, Mr. Dodge, but seems that
20  the picture where we see riparian vegetation down below
21  looks like it is just upstream of where the bulldozers are. 
22  There is no damage or destruction. 
23       Does that look right to you? 
24       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree with me that in 1995 that
25  riparian vegetation has returned to this site in your
0255
01  lifetime?
02       DR. KAUFFMAN:  The picture that I see on the bottom,
03  this one, it appears that it is not area that was destroyed
04  here.  This is picture we are looking upstream of the heavy
05  equipment. 
06       Can I refer to Brian to see if I am correct?
07       MR. TILLEMANS:  I remember this site really well.  If
08  you want to know what was there before and what is there now.
09       MR. DODGE:  I am running out of time.  I will pass.
10       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I did visit and vegetation map that
11  site.  I would be happy to provide you with the information
12  of what we classified it as.  That would have an idea of
13  what the dominance and subdominance are in that very site. 
14       MR. DODGE:  Thank you, sir.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Dodge.  
16       Let's go to Virginia Cahill, representing Department of
17  Fish and Game.
18       MS. CAHILL:  Because I switched with Mr. Dodge, I
19  didn't want to displace Ms. Scoonover.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I just was going to go back to the
21  regular order if there is no problem with that.
22       MS. CAHILL.  That is fine.
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is that all right with you, Ms.
24  Scoonover? 
25       MS. SCOONOVER:  I am used to batting cleanup.  
0256
01       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  She acknowledges this is one team
02  against another.
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Good evening.  We don't say that
04  too often. 
05                             ­­­oOo­­
06                        CROSS­EXAMINATION
07               BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
08                          BY MS. CAHILL
09       MS. CAHILL:  Good evening to the members of the panel,
10  as well. 
11       Mr. Kavounas, I remember Mr. Dodge asking you some
12  questions about whether or not you had rejected the
13  so­called Ridenhour Plan because you felt it was
14  inconsistent with Decision 1631. 
15       Do you remember that? 
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes, I do. 
17       MS. CAHILL:  And you felt it was inconsistent because,
18  in fact, it would reduce exports allowable to Los Angeles
19  under that Decision.  Is that right? 
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes. 
21       MS. CAHILL:  If the Monitoring Plan that is being
22  proposed now were to demonstrate that the restoration of
23  Rush Creek required the flows, recommended in the Ridenhour
24  Plan, would D­1631 then be implemented or violated if those
25  flows were imposed?
0257
01       MR. KAVOUNAS:  You seem to place an emphasis on the
02  Ridenhour Plan.  I would rather not.  Our intent here is to
03  have an adaptive management plan, and we are committed that
04  if that adaptive management plan, along with monitoring,
05  indicates that higher flows are necessary, the Department is
06  committed to implementing the higher flows.
07       MS. CAHILL:  Even if they reduce exports below the
08  numbers in 1631? 
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That's correct. 
10       MS. CAHILL:  So, you recognize, in fact, that D­1631
11  itself indicated that modification of restoration activities
12  may reduce the amount of water available for export?         
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Is that the famous paragraph 8(F)(8) of
14  the decision? 
15       MS. CAHILL:  8(F)(8), indeed it is.
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.
17       MS. CAHILL:  So you are familiar with it?  
18       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, I am. 
19       MS. CAHILL:  Thank you.
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I think no one questions the continued
21  jurisdictions set forth. 
22       MS. CAHILL:  Dr. Kauffman, could you read to us from
23  your testimony the definition of restoration that you are
24  using?
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Sure.  Ecologic ­­ this is from Page 2
0258
01  of my testimony.  It is the National Research Council on
02  Wetlands Restoration, 1992.  Ecological restoration of       
03  riparian ecosystems/riparian restoration is defined as:
04            The reestablishment, predisturbance riparian
05            function and related chemical, biological,
06            and hydrological characteristics.  It is the
07            process of repairing damage caused by humans
08            to the diversity and dynamics of indigenous
09            ecosystems.   Jackson, et al., 1995. 
10            (Reading.)
11       MS. CAHILL:  Do all members of the panel with expertise
12  in any area agree with that definition?
13       Do any of you disagree?
14       At least one of you I heard today say that each reach
15  has its own potential. 
16       Dr. Kauffman, do you agree with that?
17       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, I do. 
18       MS. CAHILL:  And do you, Dr. Beschta? 
19       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes. 
20       MS. CAHILL:  Is there anyone on the panel who disagrees
21  with that statement? 
22       Do you all agree that each stream has its own
23  potential? 
24       Does anyone disagree? 
25       DR. BESCHTA:  It has a range of potentials.  
0259
01       MS. CAHILL:  A range of potentials. 
02       Let's discuss, briefly, the pre­1941 condition in Reach
03  1 of Rush Creek.
04       Can one of you tell me how long Reach 1 was prior to
05  1941?  Or let me be more clear.  How much of the present day
06  Rush Creek in Reach 1 was watered prior to 1941?
07       MR. KAVOUNAS:  When you say watered, do you mean flow
08  through conditions?
09       MS. CAHILL:  Yes.
10       Is there now a 2800­foot stretch of Rush Creek that is
11  usually dry that usually carried water in predisturbance
12  conditions?
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  My understanding is that prediversion,
14  pre­LADWP diversion, Reach 1 was used by irrigators in the
15  area who had dams that would result in diversions, such as
16  the A ditch.  And it my understanding that what we refer
17  today as Reach 1 had water that resembled more standing
18  conditions than flow through conditions. 
19       MS. CAHILL:  Predisturbance, what would Reach 1 have
20  been?
21       If our definition of restoration is to go back to
22  predisturbance, what would we have had? 
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I can't answer that. 
24       DR. BESCHTA:  We would have had a stream which had been
25  fed by Grant Lake.  
0260
01       MS. CAHILL:  Prior to 1941, was there water at least in
02  that stretch?
03       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Again, my understanding is that water
04  was ponding up, so there was water in conditions that
05  resembled standing water conditions.
06       MS. CAHILL:  Is it your understanding that the entire
07  reach, that is now called Reach 1, was ponded was there
08  current in the upper end of it? 
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I don't know.
10       MS. CAHILL:  Were there fish in Reach 1 prior to 1941?
11  Any member of the panel.
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Anybody have an answer?
13       MS. CAHILL:  Does any member of the panel have reason
14  to believe there were not fish in Reach I prior to 1941?
15       Let the record reflect there seems to be no one who is
16  indicating that is positive response to that question.  No
17  one is indicating that they were aware that there was not
18  fish.
19       Dr. Kauffman, given what we do know about Reach 1
20  predisturbance, will the existing Los Angeles Water and
21  Power Stream Plan restore Reach 1; that is, will the
22  existing plan restore the predisturbance condition in the
23  way that you have defined restoration? 
24       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No. 
25       MS. CAHILL:  With adequate flows, could Reach 1 be
0261
01  restored, in your opinion, Dr. Kauffman?
02       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I would say I have ­­ I would say I
03  don't know because I don't know what the impact and the
04  geomorphology of that reach has been during the dam building
05  operations. 
06       MS. CAHILL:  Mr. Tillemans, you have shown us a number
07  of photographs today of various reaches of Rush Creek and
08  indicated what fantastic, phenomenal recovery is happening
09  on those reaches. 
10       Did any of your photographs cover Reach 1?
11       MR. TILLEMANS:  None in the exhibits. 
12       MS. CAHILL:  Are you all familiar with Department of
13  Fish and Game Exhibits R­DF&G­7A and 7B?  These are in the
14  record.  I have just one copy for the witness and one for
15  the Board, just to pass around?
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We will pass.  That's all right.
17       We will later lay a foundation for this, that it was
18  taken in 1994.
19       Dr. Kauffman, if you can have the chance to look at
20  either of these pictures, would this Reach 1 meet your
21  definition of restoration?
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No. 
23       MS. CAHILL:  Are you, Mr. Tillemans, familiar with
24  Reach 1 this past year? 
25       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, I am. 
0262
01       MS. CAHILL:  Would you consider that Reach 1 has been
02  restored at this time?
03       MR. TILLEMANS:  Restored to?
04       MS. CAHILL:  To predisturbance conditions.  
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  Not to predisturbance conditions.  Are
06  you talking preman or ­­
07       MS. CAHILL:  We can do it in two parts.   We can do
08  pre­any disturbance.  Has there been return to
09  predisturbance?
10       MR. TILLEMANS:  Prior to pre­Euro­American settlement. 
11  How's that?       
12       MS. CAHILL:  Or pre­1941, has it been returned to
13  pre­1941 conditions?
14       MR. TILLEMANS:  In the past year I have seen water in
15  this reach that's been flooded, and I have seen wetland
16  vegetation come up and above in response to the vegetation. 
17  But I am not sure if it is a hundred percent pre­41. 
18       MS. CAHILL.  Those indices that you have been speaking
19  of, the healthy dynamic stream system, those are not present
20  in Reach 1 at this time? 
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  No, they are not. 
22       MS. CAHILL:  Do any of you believe they are?   If you
23  look in the photograph, is there dead riparian vegetation
24  that is visible?
25       DR. BESCHTA:  Looks like there is dead woody species
0263
01  alongside. 
02       This was taken when?
03       MS. CAHILL:  1994. 
04       DR. BESCHTA:  When I was out there, I believe there was
05  water. 
06       DR. KAUFFMAN:  In that spot, yeah. 
07       MS. CAHILL.  There may be temporarily.   There is no
08  consistent flows through that reach; is that correct?
09       DR. BESCHTA:  No. 
10       MS. CAHILL:  Your plan does not provide for any
11  consistent flow in that reach, does it. 
12       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, it does not.
13       MS. CAHILL:  There is in testimony of, I think, Dr.
14  Beschta and maybe others of you, some suggestion of
15  releasing some flows from the return ditch.  That proposal
16  is not spelled out. 
17       Can you tell me what it is that you are proposing?
18       Was that in your testimony, Dr. Beschta? 
19       DR. BESCHTA:  That was in my testimony.   You want me to
20  tell you my testimony again?  When I saw it, there was water
21  in this channel.  My suggestion would be is that you rewater
22  it with flow from Mono ditch, take some water and put it
23  into there.  The alternative, as I indicated in my
24  testimony, it looks like it is a very expensive reach to
25  rewater.  If somebody wants to spend that money, that's an
0264
01  incredible amount of money for brown trout habitat.  I
02  guess, that is a choice someone else can make.
03       MS. CAHILL:  In your first proposal you indicate in the
04  testimony where that water could come off the return ditch,
05  where it exactly would go into Reach 1?
06       DR. BESCHTA:  It is a fairly easy movement to bring
07  water around the ditch and into this reach. 
08       MS. CAHILL.  At the base of the dam? 
09       DR. BESCHTA:  No, it would not come in at the base of
10  the dam.
11       MS. CAHILL:  So, you would not rewater the entire reach?
12       DR. BESCHTA:  It would be rewatered up to the base of
13  the dam, as I remember being out there.
14       MS. CAHILL:  Would this amount of water that you are
15  proposing restore the stream in terms of establishing the
16  processes that would restore its prediversion condition?
17       DR. BESCHTA:  Well, the prediversion condition, I
18  guess, it depends upon when you start the clock.  To be
19  quite honest, I have not focused a great deal.  I have to go
20  back and look at the photographs and things like, pre­1941, 
21  if that is the question you are asking.  What did it look
22  at, pre­41? 
23       The dam was moved, and I am not sure how far that was
24  moved down into that reach.  I would have to go look at
25  that.  If you wanted to maintain what I saw ­­ when I was
0265
01  out there, there was water in that system.  If you want to
02  maintain wetland conditions, you could do so relatively
03  easily by bringing water off the Mono Ditch.
04       MS. CAHILL:  What if you wanted to maintain fish
05  habitat equivalent to the fish habitat that was available
06  predisturbance?
07       DR. BESCHTA:  I have no know knowledge of fish habitat,
08  so I don't know ­­
09       MS. CAHILL:  Mr. Kavounas, this proposal to bring some
10  small amount of water, which I understand one cfs or two,
11  from the Mono Ditch to Reach 1, is that, in fact, now a part
12  of the Los Angeles plan?
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, it is not. 
14       MS. CAHILL:  So, the Los Angeles plan makes no attempts
15  to rewater Reach 1; isn't that correct?
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct.  That is because the
17  Department of Water and Power provided a hot creek for fish
18  hatchery for the Department of Fish and Game in lieu of the
19  fish that were in Reach 1. 
20       MS. CAHILL:  In lieu of fish passage, but that is a
21  legal issue that I will deal with separately.
22       With regard to the three scientists' report, their work
23  plan, did the three scientists recommend a new release
24  facility at Grant Dam that could release water into Reach 1?
25       DR. TRUSH:  I don't believe so.  Get nailed here.  I
0266
01  am trying to remember.  I don't think so. 
02       MS. CAHILL:  Did the three scientists recommend the
03  rewatering of Reach 1?
04       Let me find it and come back. 
05       DR. TRUSH:  I would have to look.
06       MR. HUNTER:  That is not my recollection either, but I
07  could be wrong. 
08       MS. CAHILL:  What about the ad hoc committee; what was
09  the ad hoc committee's recommended alternative?
10       DR. TRUSH:  What I remember, there was nothing about
11  Reach 1 in that ad hoc committee.
12       MS. CAHILL:  Let me refer you to the ad hoc committee'
13  letter, which is Appendix 7 to the Grant Lake Operations and
14  Management Plan.  If I could ask you, Dr. Trush, to read
15  what I have marked here on Page 2, toward the bottom.  And I
16  have extra copies of this.  This is already in evidence.  If
17  you can take some up to the Board. 
18       DR. TRUSH:  This very last paragraph? 
19       MS. CAHILL:  And the continuation on the next page.
20       DR. TRUSH:  Construction of new facility to
21            release water from Grant Lake Reservoir
22            directly into Rush Creek immediately below
23            the dam, either independent of or in
24            coordination with, use of Mono Ditch.  This
25            is the preferred alternative.  Would require
0267
01            the capability to release water directly from     
02            Grant Lake Reservoir, provide the flows           
03            recommended by the stream scientists in their     
04            draft restoration plan.  This alternative is      
05            considered to be the most reliable in terms of    
06            providing volumes, timing, magnitude, and
07            duration of water needed to mimic the hydrograph  
08            as originally recommended by the stream
09            scientists to restore and maintain stream habitat,
10            including Reach 1 of Rush Creek Lake Reservoir. 
11            (Reading.)
12       MS. CAHILL:  Do you now recall that language?
13       DR. TRUSH:  No, I still don't.  To be honest with you,
14  I just don't.  I am fairly, throughout the RTC, not
15  concerned with Reach 1.  It has been my stand all along, and
16  I really don't have any recollection of that paragraph. 
17       MS. CAHILL:  Perhaps I will ask Dr. Ridenhour when he
18  is on the stand. 
19       With regard to the Mono Gate Return Ditch, which of you
20  is most familiar with the design of the proposed
21  rehabilitation of the return ditch?  Would that be you, Mr.
22  Kavounas?
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No design has been completed at this
24  point in time. 
25       MS. CAHILL:  To the extent that rehabilitation of the
0268
01  return ditch is discussed in Appendix 3 to the stream plan,
02  isn't it true that it calls for removing boulders, large
03  debris, and aquatic growth along the channel walls to the
04  extent possible?
05       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That sounds familiar.
06       MS. CAHILL:  Riprap may be installed; is that true.
07       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Which appendix was that? 
08       MS. CAHILL:  Appendix 3 to the Grant Lake Plan, Page
09  4.
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  You are looking at which paragraph on
11  there?
12       MS. CAHILL:  Paragraph 1.  The ditch will be dredged to
13  its original depth, boulders, large debris, and aquatic
14  growth along the channel which inhibit or impair the flow in
15  the channel will be removed to the extent possible. 
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Okay. 
17       MS. CAHILL:  I am pretty sure somewhere it says riprap
18  may be installed.  Is that your memory of what the proposal
19  is in the appendix? 
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.  I see that next page, Page 5, the
21  second paragraph, Number 4, install riprap as necessary. 
22       MS. CAHILL:  And the channel will be straightened; is
23  that correct?
24       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I don't recall that as part of the
25  proposal.  I should point out I didn't write this.  So if
0269
01  you say that is in there, I will believe you.
02       MS. CAHILL:  Who did write this?
03       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That was written by, I believe, Mr. V.
04  Miller of our staff.
05       MS. CAHILL:  The ditch will be made a constant grade
06  throughout.  Do you believe that is part of this proposal?
07       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, I am sorry I don't recall that.
08       MS. CAHILL:  On Page 5, Paragraph 5, b, making the
09  ditch constant grade throughout.  In fact, that is where c
10  is also, straighten the channel bed to the degree possible. 
11       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Okay.  I am with you.  
12       MS. CAHILL:  Now, let me ask one of the fisheries' 
13  biologists.  Dr. Platts, do you believe when the channel is
14  straightened, made even, riprapped with its boulders
15  removed, the aquatic vegetation removed, it will be good
16  fish habitat?
17       DR. PLATTS:  Well, that is tough.  I doubt it, but I
18  can't be sure on that. 
19       MS. CAHILL.  If there were no vegetation on the banks,
20  is it likely to be good fish habitat?
21       DR. PLATTS:  Again, I don't know.  In Idaho or
22  Richfield Canal, there is tremendous fishing.  Whether this
23  turns to be one, I don't know.  All I can say is, I doubt it
24  would be real fish habitat.      
25       MS. CAHILL:  That ditch wouldn't have the sort of
0270
01  attributes that you are looking for in the natural stream
02  for restoration, would it?
03       DR. PLATTS:  That is right. 
04       MS. CAHILL:  Who talked about the attributes?  
05       Dr. Trush, would this ditch with that configuration, be
06  likely to have the attributes you are looking at in the regs
07  for Rush Creek in order to restore it? 
08       DR. TRUSH:  No.
09       MS. CAHILL.  Do you believe it would be good fish
10  habitat?
11       DR. TRUSH:  No.
12       MS. CAHILL.  Dr. Hunter?
13       MR. HUNTER:  I am not a doctor. 
14       With the exception of the riprap, it doesn't sound like
15  it would be very good habitat. 
16       MS. CAHILL:  Thank you.
17       Mr. Kavounas, who calculated the cost of the new Grant
18  Dam release facility that is found in your stream plan?
19       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Again, it was Mr. V. Miller of our
20  staff.          
21       MS. CAHILL:  He is not going to be a witness here
22  today, is he? 
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No.  We received no comments on the cost
24  estimates.  When comments were submitted to the State Board
25  on our final plans, with the exception of one, there were no
0271
01  comments on the cost estimates provided in the plan. 
02       MS. CAHILL:  I am quite sure the Department of Fish and 
03  Game commented that the cost estimates were in no way broken
04  down, and we wanted additional detail. 
05       MS. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.  You're correct.   Additional
06  detail, I believe, was provided. 
07       MS. CAHILL.  No, it was not.  Is there anything in the
08  record other than the simple number of 13­some­million
09  dollars that explains how that cost was arrived at?
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am under the impression that we
11  provided a detailed cost breakdown to State Water Board
12  staff.  And it is my understanding that that is available to
13  all to examine.  And I believe Mr. David Allen spent some
14  time compiling the cost estimates.
15       MS. CAHILL:  May I ask the Board staff if that is true?
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please do.
17       MR. CANADAY.  Yes.  I recall that the City did submit a
18  more detailed cost breakdown to the State Board, but I am
19  not aware of what the distribution was, other than we have a
20  copy of it. 
21       MS. CAHILL:  We have not seen it. 
22       MS. GOLDSMITH:  We have not seen it either.  
23       MS. CAHILL:  To the extent there is evidence in the
24  record that we have seen, the only thing we saw was the
25  ultimate conclusionary number.
0272
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Could we get copies for the
02  parties? 
03       MR. ALLEN:  Let me add on the same topic.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Before you do that, I have question
05  on the floor, sir.  I am asking my staff that question
06  here. 
07       MR. CANADAY:  I will have to go back to the record and
08  look for it. 
09       Do you know the proximate date, Mr. Kavounas?
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I would be guessing.  My guess would be
11  some time in mid to late March of 1996. 
12       MR. CANADAY:  A month is fine.  I will go back and I
13  will check to see if I can find it.
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Canaday.  
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  If not, we could help.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes, Mr. Del Piero.
17       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Mr. Chairman, it might be
18  easier for Los Angeles to provide it rather than have Mr.
19  Canaday look for it.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero suggests that it might
21  be easier for you to provide than have Mr. Canaday to spend
22  precisely half the night looking for it.
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  If I may clarify, I couldn't do that
24  tonight.  It is ­­ my correspondence files are still in my
25  office in Los Angeles. 
0273
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Canaday, see if you can come up
02  with it, then.  If that doesn't produce anything, then we
03  will have to try something else tomorrow. 
04       Mr. Birmingham.
05       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I understand the Fish and Game
06  interest in seeing the cost breakdown.  In fact, the Mono
07  Lake Committee and National Audubon Society have also 
08  submitted a cost estimate for construction of a
09  facility.  And I am not sure that, in terms of estimates,
10  there is that much of a difference between the two, the two
11  cost estimates. 
12       MS. CAHILL:  The difference is the National Audubon
13  Society broke it down into subcomponents so people could
14  assess whether it was reasonable.  All that we have seen
15  from Los Angeles is an end number, a total number.
16       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Chairman, I was trying to save Mr.
17  Canaday having to go through the file.
18       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Appreciate your effort there, Mr. 
19  Birmingham, but if they haven't seen, and they would like
20  to, I think it is appropriate that they do.
21       MS. CAHILL:  There is a difference of at least
22  $2,000,000 in the two estimates, also.  It is the final.
23       Mr. Kavounas, how long has Grant Dam been there?
24       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Since the new dam.  I believe it was put
25  in operation in 1941. 
0274
01       MS. CAHILL:  How long do you expect it to remain in
02  operation?
03       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I have no opinion on that.
04       MS. CAHILL.  Los Angeles isn't intending to abandon it
05  at any time in the next 50 years? 
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am not so sure about that.
07       MS. CAHILL:  If there were a new release facility
08  installed, what would be the useful life of that release
09  facility?
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I have no opinion on that.  
11       MS. CAHILL:  Let's assume that we installed a release
12  facility and it had a useful life of 50 years.  If the cost
13  was approximately $13,000,000, would you agree then that the
14  cost per year would be something like $260,000 a year?       
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Do you include depreciation in that?
16       MS. CAHILL:  No, just construction.
17       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Then I have no opinion on that.
18       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Excuse me.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero.
20       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  What governmental agency
21  depreciates its facilities?
22       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I don't know.
23       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Then what was the purpose of
24  the question?
25       MR. KAVOUNAS:  What I am saying is I don't know enough
0275
01  about how facilities are depreciated.  I am not so sure what
02  capital considerations go in an agency.  I am saying I don't
03  know.
04       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Okay. 
05       MS. CAHILL:  Is it true that the stream plan itself
06  indicated that the release facility option would result in
07  the greatest control and would minimize operation and
08  maintenance costs?
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  To my recollection, yes. 
10       MS. CAHILL:  If the release facility is built, is it 
11  your understanding that you would then be permitted to
12  abandon the return ditch entirely?
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I believe so, yes. 
14       MS. CAHILL:  And say ­­
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Excuse me.  Although I do believe in
16  order to construct an outlet from Grant Lake, we would also
17  have to rehabilitate the return ditch.
18       MS. CAHILL:  The ongoing return ditch maintenance could
19  be avoided?
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I believe you are correct.
21       MS. CAHILL:  Can you tell me who prepared the proposal
22  with regard to sediment bypass at Lee Vining Creek?
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I did.
24       MS. CAHILL:  Dr. Beschta, I recall, with regard to
25  sediment bypass, you indicated that at this point you are
0276
01  not certain in you own mind what the preferred method for
02  passing sediment is; is that correct?
03       DR. BESCHTA:  That is true.  In my mind there are still
04  unknowns as far as amounts of sediment moving at certain
05  times, how much you would have to pass on an annual basis, 
06  questions like that.  And, also, once you make that
07  decision, if you decide to go, there is an engineering
08  concern with regard to what to do. 
09       I am not a civil engineer.  I would not be ­­ I would
10  not want to provide testimony with regard to what kind of
11  structure you have to build. 
12       MS. CAHILL:  Dr. Platts, when Mr. Kavounas was
13  designing a sediment bypass facility, did he ask you whether
14  the proposal he was developing would possibly cause any harm
15  to the fishery?
16       DR. PLATTS:  No.
17       MS. CAHILL:  Do you have any opinion?   Have you
18  reviewed the sediment bypass proposal?
19       DR. PLATTS:  Only briefly.  I have looked at it, but
20  very briefly.
21       MS. CAHILL:  Do you have an opinion from the brief
22  review that you have done?
23       DR. PLATTS:  Yeah, I don't like it.
24       MS. CAHILL:  Mr. Hunter, have you reviewed the sediment
25  bypass proposal? 
0277
01       MR. HUNTER:  If I have, I don't recall what it was.
02       MS. CAHILL.  Dr. Platts, would you tell us what it is
03  you don't like about it?
04       DR. PLATTS:  I don't believe, in the long run, that it
05  will move sediments at the right time of the year.  I think
06  that it would cause some problems below the dam, and I don't
07  think it is going to do it in a natural enough way that it
08  would take care of the fish habitat needs immediately below
09  the dam.  And there is probably a better way to do it.       
10       MS. CAHILL:  With regard to woody debris, Mr.
11  Tillemans, I think your testimony is that you will place
12  woody debris that is currently stockpiled at Cain Ranch; is
13  that right?
14       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, that is correct. 
15       MS. CAHILL:  Are you also still intending to take woody
16  debris that is on the floodplain and put it in the channel
17  or has that proposal been abandoned?
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  No, it has not been abandoned.  
19  Although, based on the recent observations, kind of question
20  the necessity for it.
21       MS. CAHILL:  The woody debris that is on the floodplain
22  now, is it in some way serving as wildlife habitat where it
23  is? 
24       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes.
25       MS. CAHILL:  Just for everyone's information, there
0278
01  seems to be, Dr. Beschta, some areas in which you were 
02  varying from the stream plan with regard to watering certain
03  channels.  And I think it would just help us all to go
04  through and mark what the plan was, what your proposal was
05  and clarify with Mr. Kavounas whether your proposal is now
06  the plan or whether the plan is the plan. 
07       Does that make sense? 
08       MR. DODGE:  I would object to that line of
09  questioning.  It is asked and answered. 
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am sorry, I didn't hear the last
11  part of what you said, Mr. Dodge.
12       MR. DODGE:  The question has been asked and answered. 
13  I asked that question and he said the plan was in Exhibit
14  16.      
15       MS. CAHILL:  Let's see the first part.  I would like to
16  at least see what the plan proposed and what Dr. Beschta has
17  testified.
18       This is already in evidence in this exact form.   It is
19  Figure 34 of the stream scientists' report, which is an
20  appendix to one of these plans.  It is from Stine 1992, that
21  I suspect is also in evidence. 
22       Dr. Beschta, if I could ask you, this is only below the
23  Narrows.  Let's do it first.  If you could mark in yellow
24  those additional channels that the stream plan proposes
25  rewatering. 
0279
01       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Caffrey. 
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham.
03       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  While Dr. Beschta is marking that,
04  some of our witnesses who are going to be on the Waterfowl
05  Habitat Restoration Program and a number of parties ­­ I see
06  Mr. Mooney is here ­­ may not way to stay if it is not
07  likely we will get started with that testimony tonight.
08       I wonder if we can ­­
09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Take a little time to figure out
10  where we going tonight? 
11       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Yes.
12       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  You think they have something
13  better to do?
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I would like ­­ I want to hear from
15  the waterfowl panel this evening.  I don't know what you
16  have by way of redirect, if any, and what we have by way of
17  recross, so I wish I could tell you when we are going to get
18  there.  You have 24 minutes left, by the way, to present
19  that panel.  And, I wish I could tell you that I know when
20  we are going to get to it. 
21       Part of the reason that we are going into the night
22  sessions is that we are not moving among real fast, and I am
23  not sure that we could move any faster.  This is a complex
24  matter, but at the moment, I am trying to get to that part
25  of the process.
0280
01       MS. CAHILL:  Mr. Smith tells me the timer is not off.
02       BOARD MEMBER BROWN:  That was a check to see if you
03  were paying attention.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You're scaring me.   That means that
05  you are going to use the whole hour.  I apologize.  We
06  probably owe you about ­­ how long was I talking?
07       Mr. Del Piero has nowhere to go tonight, I take it.
08       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  You always talk longer.
09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You finally got me.   Thank you,
10  Marc. 
11       Let's go along a little bit here and see.  I am not at
12  the point where I am ready to say we can't get to the direct
13  on the waterfowl panel.  I am not there yet, sorry.
14       BOARD MEMBER BROWN:  The timer will cut you some slack
15  here, Ms. Cahill.
16       MS. CAHILL:  If this is a problem, it just seemed to me
17  to be the clearest, fastest way to clarify something, at
18  least to me, was not clear.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I don't have a problem with it. 
20       MS. CAHILL:  Dr. Beschta, have you work ­­
21       DR. BESCHTA:  Would you mind at all if Brian Tillemans
22  puts it on the map?  If I get it on the wrong spot ­­
23       MS. CAHILL:  That would be fine.   Actually, whoever
24  would like to. 
25       DR. BESCHTA:  Then I would be glad to provide any
0281
01  comments.
02       MS. CAHILL:  That would be great.
03       This is below the Narrows.  We will have to talk
04  upstream, too. 
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  May I clarify?  These channels that are
06  being proposed here in the context of what I used to say
07  which channels we were going to rewater?
08       MS. CAHILL:  Sure.  Whatever you need to explain.
09       MR. TILLEMANS:  It was the recommendations that were
10  proposed in draft Ridenhour, Trush and Hunter Restoration
11  Report. 
12       MS. CAHILL:  Was it your intent in doing the stream
13  plan to incorporate, without change, the scientists'
14  recommendations with regard to rewatering?
15       MR. TILLEMANS: I think when this plan was written,
16  yes. 
17       MS. CAHILL:  Because in some cases, for example, the
18  scientists recommending 10 cfs, but only when flows were 47. 
19  In your plan it was just carried over as 10 cfs. 
20       Would you have intended, had you thought about it, to
21  incorporate theirs as they were proposing it? 
22       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes.  I did intend to do that as they
23  requested at that time. 
24       MS. CAHILL:  Could you just then mark that, and with
25  that whatever explanation you feel you need to give.
0282
01       MR. TILLEMANS:  You want the bottomland channels now?
02       MS. CAHILL:  Whatever shows on that.
03       MR. TILLEMANS:  The abandoned east side 1­A channel in
04  Reach 4A, which would be this complex here. 
05       MS. CAHILL:  Go ahead and mark it with the yellow.
06       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is not exact because the entrances
07  haven't been determined yet, as in their plan as well.
08       Somewhere in vicinity.
09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I don't think anybody can see that. 
10       MS. CAHILL:  Once we have marked it, it will be unique,
11  so then I think it will be a new exhibit, and we will make
12  DFG next in order, which will be R­DFG­9. 
13       MR. TILLEMANS:  I am uncomfortable with the details on
14  this, but I will try to get it in the vicinity.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Tillemans, do you want to take
16  that mike.  You can actually slide that mike out of that. 
17  There you go.  You can hold it in one hand. 
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  Thank you.
19       The 4Bii complex. 
20       MS. CAHILL:  Has that one actually been done?  
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  This one has had flood water through it
22  already and has standing water, in fact, and fish.
23       And I am not quite sure how these channels go.   It
24  would be the 4Bii complex and, basically, rewatering because
25  open up an entrance.  It doesn't include channel works.  So
0283
01  whatever that entrance would entail as a stream. 
02       In Reach 4C, which was described by the Ridenhour,
03  Trush, and Hunter plan, near elevation 64A to 6451, I don't
04  think that exact entrance has been picked as yet.  We do
05  have some aerial videos that show some likely places to put
06  an entrance in.
07       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  That is not demonstrated on
08  this map.
09       MR. TILLEMANS:  That is the old meander bend.   It is
10  upstream of the ford.  I don't think it is on this map.  I
11  would defer to Trush and Hunter because it is the same
12  channel. 
13       DR. TRUSH:  Of the three RTC folks, Rich has the iron
14  memory on ­­ I don't know what the protocol is.  Rich might
15  help us out.  I am a blank on 4C.
16       MR. TILLEMANS:  It is not on this map. 
17       MS. CAHILL:  Okay.
18       So those are the only ones that are on that map?
19       DR. BESCHTA:  Just two.
20       MR. TILLEMANS:  I have to clarify.  The Channel 10
21  complex has already been completed. 
22       MS. CAHILL:  Dr. Beschta, the ones that you proposed
23  either not to do or to do in a different matter, which are
24  they?
25       DR. BESCHTA:  I would propose both of these are
0284
01  unnecessary.  They both, when I was in the field in June,
02  had water in them.  It was subsurface water.  It was
03  hyporheic water that was already coming from the channel, 
04  moving subsurface and showing up in the depression.  So,
05  they already had water in them.  I guess if you want flowing
06  water from the stream, that is a bit different, but you've
07  already got water moving through them right now. 
08       MS. CAHILL:  You might not in dry year; is that right?
09       DR. BESCHTA:  You might not in dry year.   I guess it is
10  a question of what you are trying to do in this system.  If
11  you are trying to spread water around, building multiple
12  channels is certainly a great way to do that. 
13       MS. CAHILL:  In addition to those two, are there some
14  that aren't shown on that map that are upstream of this area
15  that you propose changes?
16       DR. BESCHTA:  There is a section upstream of the
17  Narrows, which if it was diverted out there, would actually
18  improve the sinuosity of the stream.  That is a location. 
19  If you go above ­­
20       MS. CAHILL:  If that is one that is recommended?
21       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes.
22       MS. CAHILL:  You are agreeing with that
23  recommendation? 
24       DR. BESCHTA:  The one I feel most strongly about is the
25  one I talked about this morning.  These two, I think, are
0285
01  probably not ones that I would give a high priority at all. 
02  In fact, that would be the opposite.  I think it is probably
03  not the right thing to do.
04       Above the Narrows, the diversion there would improve
05  the sinuosity.  That would have a long­term plus.  If you go
06  above the highway, there is a proposal there to divert
07  water, also.  You will grow more riparian vegetation.  It is
08  a question of which channel do you want up there.  If you
09  are going to create a new channel, it will have essentially
10  the same length as the existing channel.  So, I don't see a
11  major gain there.
12       If you go up one more section into where the berms are
13  at, the removal of the berms may allow some overflow.  But
14  if one is not careful, it may actually capture the main
15  channel and actually decrease sinuosity. 
16       All these little things that one likes to talk about as
17  far as improving this and that when you rewater channel
18  doesn't always exist.  There are only a couple locations, I
19  think, you are actually going to end up with net
20  improvement.
21       MS. CAHILL:  Perhaps Mr. Dodge was right.   Perhaps,
22  maybe for clarity, let me come back to you, Mr. Kavounas.   
23       The plan, as it was submitted, is the plan and it has
24  not been modified ­­
25       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That's correct. 
0286
01       MS. CAHILL:  ­­ by Dr. Beschta's testimony?  
02       I apologize to everyone one for that long digression.  
03       Dr. Platts, let me just ask you some very brief
04  questions.
05       The stream plan currently says that Los Angeles will
06  consult with the Department of Fish and Game regarding fish
07  streams. 
08       Do you disagree with that?
09       DR. PLATTS:  No, I don't disagree with that.  
10       MS. CAHILL:  Are the Walker Creek of the Los Angeles
11  Walker Creek Diversion facilities a barrier to upstream
12  passage of fish? 
13       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, they are. 
14       MS. CAHILL:  Are the Parker Creek diversion facilities
15  a barrier to the upstream street passage of fish?
16       DR. PLATTS:  You are talking about the aqueduct
17  diversions? 
18       MS. CAHILL:  Yes.
19       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, they are.
20       MS. CAHILL:  Is the Lee Vining diversion dam a barrier
21  to the passage of fish?
22       DR. PLATTS:  Upstream? 
23       MS. CAHILL:  Yes. 
24       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, it is.
25       MS. CAHILL:  Mr. Allen, with regard to the Grant Lake
0287
01  Operations and Management Plan, are there any actual
02  operating criteria in the plan?
03       MR. ALLEN:  Specific operating criteria?   No.  The
04  plan contains operational guidelines.  It is difficult to
05  nail down exactly what we are going to do for every day or
06  every week or every year.  A perfect example of this is we
07  had extremely high flows on January 3rd of this year, where
08  we had to modify operations to accommodate these unforseen
09  circumstances. 
10       MS. CAHILL:  You've given some sample scenarios in the
11  plan.  How can the parties be assured that actual operations
12  will follow the same patterns that we see in those samples? 
13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am going to object on the grounds it
14  is an argumentative question. 
15       MS. CAHILL:  I can ask it another way.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Why don't you try another way. 
17       MS. CAHILL:  Is there any commitment by LADWP in the
18  plan to following the release patterns that are found in
19  some of the examples given?
20       MR. ALLEN:  That is the intent of the plan itself.
21       MS. CAHILL:  Given in D­1631 we have particular flow
22  criteria for particular months in particular years types, 
23  do we have that in the Grant Lake Operations and Management
24  Plan? 
25       MR. ALLEN:  D­1631 has specific flow requirements for
0288
01  specific year types.  However, it does not have specific
02  releases and ­­ well, it does.  It splits it up in a
03  biannual basis.  DWP plan follows that same type of logic
04  with some modifications.
05       MS. CAHILL:  Without any actual operating criteria, how
06  can the parties know how the facility will be operated in a
07  given year time?
08       MR. ALLEN:  Well, once again, I can't even say exactly
09  how the facility will be operated, given that there are
10  unforeseen circumstances and contingencies that have to be
11  reacted to. 
12       MS. CAHILL:  Barring a very unusual and unexpected 
13  circumstance, can we conclude that in all years where there
14  is what you call lake management water, it will be released
15  either to add to the peak flows or to the summer base
16  flows? 
17       MR. ALLEN:  Given an ideal situation, the answer would
18  be yes, because, once again, the goal of Grant Lake
19  Management Plan is to balance the exports with ­­ balance
20  exports and releases with the total runoff.  And with that
21  goal in mind, there may be slight variations to meet that
22  requirement.
23       MS. CAHILL:  In Figure 2­2 of your testimony, there are
24  bars that appear to indicate the sort of bracketed
25  quantities in a given year.  Like you have for each year
0289
01  type, you give the low end of the scale and the high end of
02  the scale. 
03       Is that the next?
04       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct. 
05       MS. CAHILL:  Is the upper ­­ it appears that in one of
06  your tables the upper limit of one year type shows more
07  water than that lower limit of the next higher year type. 
08       MR. ALLEN:  In which case would this be?  
09       MS. CAHILL:  I need to get my other copy.
10       Let me just go on.
11       Figure 2.2, what lake level was assumed when this
12  figure was put together? 
13       MR. ALLEN:  You are referring to my testimony, Figure 2?
14       MS. CAHILL:  Yes.
15       MR. ALLEN:  The assumption made here was that the lake
16  level is below the target elevation, which corresponds to
17  what we commonly refer to as the transition period. 
18       MS. CAHILL:  Even within the transition period, there
19  are different lake level triggers that allow different
20  levels of export. 
21       What level of export were you assuming here?
22       MR. ALLEN:  This level of export was between the lake
23  level of 6380 and 6392. 
24       MS. CAHILL:  Why is it that in the extreme year exports
25  appear to be larger than they do, for example, in the wet
0290
01  year?
02       MR. ALLEN:  This may take some clarification.   In the
03  Grant Lake Management Plan, DWP proposed to provide complete
04  flow conditions year round on Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker
05  Creeks.  And under 1631 the Department is permitted to
06  export 16,000 acre­feet.  In extremely wet years, this
07  entire export would come from Rush Creek.  And therefore,
08  you have the increase in export in the extreme years. 
09       MS. CAHILL:  Now that I have this in front of me, I can
10  make better sense of my earlier question. 
11       If you look at the ­­ I guess I understand it.   Never
12  mind.
13       On Page 11 of your testimony you state that the Grant
14  Lake plan does not incorporate the ad hoc committee flows in
15  their entirety. 
16       It is true, isn't it, they are not incorporated in dry,
17  dry­normal, and the lower part of the normal years? 
18       MR. ALLEN:  That is correct. 
19       MS. CAHILL:  Dr. Trush, do you have some opinion as to
20  whether leaving out those years will hinder achieving those
21  indices that you will be looking for in order to determine
22  whether the streams are being restored? 
23       DR. TRUSH:  We gave that a lot of thought.   After the
24  February 3rd or 13th, we had a memo regarding the ad hoc
25  committee.  We were contacted by L.A. a few times after the
0291
01  memo, and particularly with reference to the hundred cfs
02  during the dry year.  And we couldn't come up with a
03  geomorphic rationale for the hundred.
04       I suspect it's got its value, but we couldn't come up
05  with it.  And again, thinking about us sitting here, going,
06  "Why did you want a hundred?"  We couldn't come up with a
07  good one, a reason for it.  So we were willing to back off
08  on that, the idea that during the monitoring we could take a
09  closer look at some of these lower flows and what they might
10  do.  We just simply can't anticipate. 
11       I suspect there is an effect, but I really can't give
12  you one.  So, in other words, when L.A. reduced some of 
13  those flows from our earlier recommendation, we did have
14  some say in letting them do that.  They did contact us. 
15  That is to say, that was done.  I think I wrote that in my
16  testimony.  So, anyway, we had no good reason for that low
17  flow peak. 
18       MS. CAHILL:  Let me wade once again into monitoring,
19  see if I can understand what it is that you are proposing in
20  the Monitoring Plan.  The first book, which is White Book,
21  basically, is the scope of the data to be taken; is that
22  right?
23       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
24       MS. CAHILL:  It is intended to be almost in the level
25  of detail that Los Angeles could find a contractor and say,
0292
01  "Go do this for us"; is that us right?     
02       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes, that is correct. 
03       MS. CAHILL:  And then the Blue Book is an attempt, is
04  it, to make sense of the data that you are gathering in the
05  White Book.  Is that right?
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct. 
07       MS. CAHILL:  And some of the experiments with painted
08  rocks, Dr. Trush, could you explain what it is you hope to
09  learn from those measures? 
10       DR. TRUSH:  One of the attributes is that the channel
11  bed, the overall channel bed, in alluvial rivers in general
12  are mobilized on the average once a year, maybe every other
13  year on spring fed streams or snow melt streams like this, 
14  but certainly frequently.  So, in order to do that you can
15  whip out some equations, which I never trust, but always do
16  them.  And then I go and I put marked rocks in to see how
17  far off they are.
18       And what we do, we try to simulate the beds as best we
19  can by painting a series of rocks, putting them out there. 
20  Then afterwards we simply record how many moved downstream. 
21  Generally more than a meter downstream.  Sometimes a rock
22  can adjust a little bit and it is not true movement. 
23       We then try to narrow a window with enough floods.   We
24  create a graph where we've got ­­ on the Y Axis we have
25  percent rocks moved.  On the X Axis we have flood.  And we
0293
01  realize that at low flood peaks we have almost no rocks
02  moving, and after a certain real high flood peak everything
03  is down in China. 
04       And so, there is a window of flows there where we know
05  we are reaching incipient conditions.  I can then adjust the
06  equations so there is some constants in there to make a
07  better prediction of what stage height, given a certain
08  flow, will mobilize the channel bed surface.  We then can
09  convert that stage height into a discharge.  That is how we
10  make our recommendation for an incipient motion of the
11  channel bed, which is one of the tributes. 
12       MS. CAHILL:  So, there is some level of incipient
13  motion that is the desired level? 
14       DR. TRUSH:  No.  That is why we go in at it from both
15  sides, from no mobility and totality mobility.  There is a
16  scatter in there.  When we look at the force that moves a
17  rock in the bed, it is an average.  In fact, the shear
18  stress range almost two standard deviations, easily. 
19       MS. CAHILL:  My question, I guess, is what the linkage
20  is.  Once you've gone and you know what flows you had and 
21  you know what size of rock moved how far, then how do you
22  work back to determining what the flows are that you need to
23  get restoration?
24       DR. TRUSH:  Well, we want to be able to ­­ we define a
25  low and a high end flow that brackets incipient conditions. 
0294
01  So we are fairly sure that it is between this flow and this
02  flow.
03       BOARD MEMBER BROWN:  It is nonlinear or is it a linear?
04       DR. TRUSH:  It is nonlinear.  There is a standard track
05  of force equation.  I think I have it somewhere in the 
06  testimony.  There is a coefficient that you can adjust. 
07  Typically, we use .03 to .045.  In the simple experiments
08  that I did on the Lee Vining Creek, those numbers held
09  true. 
10       MS. CAHILL:  Simplify for me, once you ­­ let's say you
11  have a given number of years.  The plan says three to five
12  years.  Is three to five years, given a variety of year
13  types, long enough to make some meaningful conclusions or is
14  it going to be a longer time than that?
15       DR. TRUSH:  I would like around eight, but I think,
16  depending on a good selection of years, five could do it. 
17       MS. CAHILL:  So, in five to eight years, when you had a
18  variety of flows, you've done the marked rock experiment for
19  a number of years, you now have some flows that bracket the
20  upper and lower end of what you would like to see.  Then
21  what is the link back to ­­ when you bracket that, is the
22  low one one that you would expect to see in dry type years
23  and the high one one you would expect to see in wet years?  
24       Would you come up with some recommendations for flows
25  by year type? 
0295
01       What would be the practical way of taking that
02  knowledge and implementing it on the stream?
03       DR. TRUSH:  Depends on how narrow that window can be
04  defined.  I am doing it right now on several other streams
05  in the North Coast, and we are getting pretty narrow 
06  windows.  The median and the mean of the flows in that
07  aren't too far off from one another. 
08       My first shot at it would be taking the mean value
09  inside that window and saying that in alluvial stream
10  channels we generally reach that in peak conditions on the
11  average once a year.  That would be my flow that I would
12  target, on the average once a year.
13       Now, we did that analysis, talk about it here, on the
14  historic Rush Creek channel.  We went into a section of
15  channel that was bending.  We took the particle distribution
16  on bed and, using our tractive force equation, we predicted
17  how deep the flow would have to be to mobilize that bed. 
18  And when we did that and converted that to cfs, that depth,
19  it came out to just under the two­year flood predisturbance. 
20  That was wonderful connection that this stream was working
21  alluvially earlier on.  That gave us a lot of that ammo, in
22  our mind, the confidence to say that, yes, these criteria
23  make sense. 
24       So, I've got those calculations somewhere.  If we had
25  time or whatever, I could go through how we did that
0296
01  exactly. 
02       MS. CAHILL:  What I am trying to get at is the linkage
03  Mr. Roos­Collins was trying to get at it.  Once you have
04  this data, does this plan indicate how it gets translated
05  into flows up or down?  Mr. Kavounas has committed that if
06  there is evidence there, Los Angeles will do what it takes. 
07  But how do we tell them what it takes and how do the other
08  parties ­­ how are we assured that this happens? 
09       DR. TRUSH:  For example, if we are estimating that on
10  straighter reaches, in a two or three channel width long,
11  that reaching an incipient condition to meet a tribute 4 at
12  about 400, 420 cfs, based on our equation, we then go back
13  and find that between 350 and 400 we are getting 80 percent
14  of the incipient condition.  Then I would feel pretty good
15  about going down 50 or 80 cfs; that we would then make it.  
16       MS. CAHILL:  In all year types or in certain year
17  types?       
18       DR. TRUSH:  It is independent of year type.   We are
19  looking at the characteristic, the mobility of the bed, and
20  the flow that interacts with that.  We then go back to the
21  frequency and then identify those, in that we look for the
22  two­year, the one­and­a­half year flood.
23       And if it still jives, that is what we would recommend,
24  that we would go down.  If we estimated 420 at 50 percent
25  and more of rocks only started moving at 450 to 500, it goes
0297
01  up. 
02       MS. CAHILL:  You are not going to ask for this one
03  level in every year type, are you?  Aren't you still relying
04  on variability? 
05       DR. TRUSH:  That is because you, so far, only discussed
06  one of the attributes.  There are other attributes that have
07  other thresholds in them.  The channel bed doesn't work just
08  simply by mobilizing its surface every now and then.  You've
09  got to reshape bars, and you've got to build a floodplain. 
10  Those take other flows.  So, the Monitoring Plan would
11  identify those in a very similar way to the marked rock. 
12       So, we would be looking at what it takes to do a deep
13  scour and mobilization, which really rejuvenates the
14  riparian on point bars, those sorts of things, and the
15  inundation of the floodplain.  It would be other ones that
16  we would do. 
17       MS. CAHILL:  I just asked with regard to the White
18  Book, whether it would simply go out to a contractor in the
19  form it is?  Could the Blue Book go out to a contractor in
20  the form it's in, or would considerable, additional
21  direction be required?
22       DR. TRUSH:  I would say there is only a few folks that
23  I would trust doing it.  We just had it bid on another
24  project, and it is doing ­­ it would have to be a close
25  watch. 
0298
01       MS. CAHILL:  You indicated that the reaches that were
02  selected for sampling, you called them representative
03  reaches. 
04       Can you tell us what each one of them does represent, 
05  were they chosen to be representative of a particular type
06  of condition other than just the alluvial stream that you
07  mentioned?
08       DR. TRUSH:  The lower ones on Rush Creek, one was more
09  singular.  Another one was more of a dual channel.  There
10  wasn't a whole lot distinguishing them.  Other than we had a
11  past history of some good cross­sections we could take
12  advantage of.  What we realized, that that wouldn't be
13  satisfactory for everybody to look simply below the Narrows. 
14  So, we identified another reach higher up, above the 395. 
15  It is a very different channel morphology. 
16       MS. CAHILL:  Given that the original scientists' flows
17  are not proposed to be provided in the L.A. plan, would it
18  make sense to add an additional reach above the Narrows to,
19  in fact, determine what effect flows up there are having,
20  for example, between the Narrows and 395? 
21       DR. TRUSH:  I don't see it between the Narrows and
22  395.  If I would add another reach, I would identify
23  something above 395 where our recommend reach is.  From 395
24  down to where Parker comes in, it is a very nonerodable
25  bank, fairly steep, fairly stable channel.  You are not
0299
01  going to learn a whole lot from that. 
02       Again, what we are really after are those bottomlands
03  restoring.  That is why we focussed on that. 
04       MS. CAHILL:  I am not sure who this is for, the whole
05  concept of the fish sampling by snorkeling.  And there is
06  now the indication that you will calibrate by
07  electrofishing. 
08       Is that you, Mr. Hunter? 
09       MR. HUNTER:  I suppose. 
10       MS. CAHILL:  Why not simply do electrofishing in the 
11  place, first?
12       MR. HUNTER:  I think that the Department would prefer
13  to use snorkeling, given concerns about electrofishing
14  damage to trout.  It doesn't work.  We have response to
15  comments that we received.  We have included the
16  electrofishing if snorkeling doesn't work.
17       MS. CAHILL:  Let me just ask one quick question of Dr.
18  Kauffman. 
19       Those pie charts we saw today, what stretch of the
20  creek was covered?
21       DR. KAUFFMAN:  From the dam on Grant Lake to the mouth
22  of the Mono lake. 
23       MS. CAHILL:  The entire ­­
24       DR. KAUFFMAN:  The entire stream; that's correct.      
25       MS. CAHILL:  Thank you very much.
0300
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Ms. Cahill.
02                    (Reporter changes paper.)
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We are ready to resume.   Paper is
04  loaded.
05       Let's take a moment now to talk a little bit about what
06  we are going to do tonight.  I had a little consultation
07  with Mr. Frink, tried to do some time estimations.
08       Mr. Birmingham, I presume you are going to need some
09  time for redirect.
10       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Yes, I will.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Why don't you, then, let your
12  panelists who are here just waiting for the waterfowl panel
13  go, and we will get to them tomorrow. 
14       I am sorry.  Ms. Scoonover, were you ­­  
15       MS. SCOONOVER:  I want to remind you that I have a few
16  questions for cross­examination of this panel.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I have not overlooked you at all. 
18  We are still rolling along here.
19       In deference to those folks, I just wanted to say as
20  early as we could, in deference to those who are waiting, 
21  that it looks pretty much like an impossibility now that we
22  would get to them tonight.  I wanted to give Mr. Birmingham
23  the opportunity to relieve them for the night. 
24       You want to do that then?  Do you have something else,
25  Mr. Birmingham?
0301
01       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  The only other comment, I would like
02  to ­­
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am sorry, I can't hear Mr.
04  Birmingham.  Could you please hold it down in the audience?
05       I am sorry, sir.  Go ahead.
06       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  The only other point I would make is
07  that some members of this panel have teaching responsibility
08  tomorrow.  And if we can finish this panel tonight, that
09  would be very, very helpful.
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is what I am trying very much
11  to do, although that depends on how many questions you have
12  to ask them, as well.  We can reach a point up here at this
13  dais, and then all the parties, as well, get rummy.  It's
14  been a long day. 
15       I think that is an admirable goal.  I would sure like
16  to accomplish it tonight, if we can.  It depends on how many
17  questions people have, so let's get to it.
18       MR. MOONEY:  We were outside. 
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You didn't hear the announcement.  I
20  just was telling Mr. Birmingham that he could let the
21  panelists go who were going to be participating in the
22  waterfowl panel because we won't be getting to them until
23  tomorrow.  When you take a look at the fact that we still
24  have questions from staff, questions from the Board, and we
25  still, of course, have to hear cross­examination from Ms.
0302
01  Scoonover, and we have redirect and recross. 
02       So, we are going to try to get through all that
03  tonight.  I doubt that we will even have the slightly
04  plausibility of ever getting to the waterfowl folks.  We are
05  letting them go.
06       MR. MOONEY:  And then reconvene at 9:00 a.m.?
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We will reconvene at 9:00 a.m. 
08       I believe that gets us to you, finally, Ms. Scoonover.
09  Thank you so very much for your patience.
10       We are all ready. 
11       MS. SCOONOVER:  Thank you. 
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please proceed, Ms. Scoonover.      
13       MS. SCOONOVER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
14                            ­­­oOo­­­
15                        CROSS­EXAMINATION
16                  BY STATE LANDS COMMISSION AND
17                DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
18                         BY MS. SCOONOVER
19       MS. SCOONOVER:  I actually do not have questions on
20  stream monitoring.  So those of you who have stream
21  monitoring responsibilities, feel free.
22       Dr. Kauffman, in your written testimony and then your
23  summation earlier, you talked specifically about benefits to
24  riparian vegetation of both rewatering and eliminating
25  grazing?  
0303
01       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
02       MS. SCOONOVER:  Those, would you say, are two of the
03  most important factors for the restoration, the riparian
04  restoration, that we have seen along Rush and Lee Vining
05  Creeks? 
06       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Undoubtedly. 
07       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is it significant whether the water is
08  surface flow or groundwater?
09       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.  They are going to have different
10  influences.  Surface water, during peak flows, creating 
11  gravel bars, channel confinement similar to the processes
12  that Bill has outlined, is responsible for the creation of
13  gravel bars, new floodplain areas where cottonwwood, willows
14  establish. 
15       The surface, hyporheic flows is where we see the
16  reformation of wetland type communities, the Carex, the
17  sedge meadows, the wet meadow and dry meadow vegetation.
18       MS. SCOONOVER:  With the increase in groundwater
19  levels, you would expect to see also an increase in
20  vegetation dependent upon groundwater levels? 
21       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
22       MS. SCOONOVER:  So a succession from xeric to riparian
23  or wetland­type vegetation; is that correct?
24       MR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
25       MS. SCOONOVER:  I had a question about an exhibit.
0304
01       Mr. Tillemans, I believe the exhibits are yours, so I
02  will ask you identify it.  It is DWP Exhibit 42.  You
03  referred to it earlier.  I think Steve pulled it out of the
04  pile.
05       Specifically, on DWP Exhibit 42, specifically the
06  panoramic photo on the bottom, can you orient us, Mr.
07  Tillemans, what it is we are looking at?
08       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is taken on the east side of Rush
09  Creek on the bottomlands.  It is below the Narrows, and it
10  is a panoramic where I am attempting to get in the vicinity
11  of the Narrows, including all the way down to, probably, the
12  bottom end of Channel 10 where it presently comes in. 
13       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Kauffman, can you identify the type
14  of vegetation in the foreground, just predominant type of
15  vegetation?
16       DR. KAUFFMAN:  The vast majority is sagebrush and
17  bitterbrush.
18       MS. SCOONOVER:  Without some change in water
19  availability, either surface or groundwater, do you expect
20  that this vegetation pattern will change?
21       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No. 
22       MR. TILLEMANS:  If you take a look at this picture, I
23  am up on the bluff and way above the present water table. 
24  So that is why we have to clarify where the spot was taken
25  because you are talking several 10, 20 feet above the
0305
01  original creek bed. 
02       MS. SCOONOVER:  Thank you.
03       So, Dr. Kauffman, your testimony was that you don't
04  expect any significant change in either the nature or 
05  extent of vegetation without some drastic change in water
06  availability?
07       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Without some change in availability,
08  yeah, the upland vegetation would remain upland vegetation. 
09       MS. SCOONOVER:  I would like to move to DWP Exhibit
10  Number 51.  Part of the problem, Mr. Tillemans, and I
11  appreciate your indulgence, is that the copies we got are
12  very small.  It is difficult to orient and identify. 
13       Can you tell me, Mr. Tillemans, where these photos,
14  these series of photos, were taken?
15       MR. TILLEMANS: In the Channel 10 rewatering site.  
16       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Kauffman, the top three photos 
17  seem to indicate, or seem to show, a significant amount of
18  dead vegetation. 
19       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Uh­huh. 
20       MS. SCOONOVER:  Can you identify the type of
21  vegetation, or do you have a guess on what the kind of
22  vegetation was?  If not, that is all right, too.             
23       DR. KAUFFMAN:  The majority of it is dead willows.
24       MS. SCOONOVER:  Are you familiar with this stretch?    
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
0306
01       MS. SCOONOVER:  Have you seen this stretch?
02       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
03       MS. SCOONOVER:  Would you expect, if this section were
04  rewatered, that the willows, in fact, would regenerate here?
05       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Completely misstates the testimony. 
06  This section was rewatered; that is what Dr. Kauffman has
07  said resulted in this condition.  
08       MS. SCOONOVER:  I believe, with all due respect to Mr.
09  Birmingham, Dr. Kauffman has just testified that there are a
10  number of ­­ there is evidence of dead vegetation, dead
11  willows in the top three photographs. 
12       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, I did.  That was mostly ­­ a lot of
13  that is destroyed vegetation from the actual equipment and
14  rewatering of this area. 
15       MS. SCOONOVER:  And again, I ask the question:   If
16  water were returned to this area, where the dead vegetation
17  is, would you expect vegetation of this nature or similar
18  vegetation to be reestablished?
19       DR. KAUFFMAN:  May I go to one of examples that I
20  looked at this morning to answer your question?
21       MS. SCOONOVER:  Certainly. 
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  This is the site that we are referring
23  to from another angle.  This is Exhibit Number 49.  The area
24  that the ­­ the willows that are established there, that you
25  see in the photo, that you brought up, established prior to
0307
01  the act of restoration or the act of channel rewatering
02  process.  At that point in time, my contention is, that
03  through the digging of the new channel, we have lowered the
04  water table at this upper end. 
05       If you look at the lower end, where you are seeing more
06  water, you would see a wetter composition start to occur. 
07  But at this point, we are higher and dryer than probably we
08  were before the restoration or the act of manipulation, at
09  this point.
10       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Kauffman, using the previous
11  photos, that would be DWP Exhibit 51, for illustrative
12  purposes only, granting that your testimony this morning was
13  of a slightly different nature, the question I am asking is:
14  If there were adequate moisture return, either through
15  surface flows or combination of surface and groundwater,
16  would you expect riparian vegetation to become reestablished?
17       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.  However, it is impossible for that
18  site. 
19       MS. SCOONOVER:  Illustrative purposes only?        
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
21       MS. SCOONOVER:  You testified this morning there were
22  ample amounts of seed occurring in the area. 
23       On what do you base that conclusion?
24       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Personal observation. 
25       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is that perhaps because that
0308
01  historically these areas had riparian vegetation?  Is that
02  part of your personal observation?
03       DR. KAUFFMAN:  It is quite remarkable.   If you would
04  look at the previous work by Julia Stromberg and Duncan 
05  Patton in 1987, very good riparian ecologists, who did the
06  early vegetation maps of the site, one of the things they
07  spoke of is that there seemed to be a lack of vegetation
08  reproduction on this site.  And one of the hypotheses they
09  set forth is, we have no idea when reproduction will occur
10  again. 
11       I think it is a wonderful advancement on our
12  understanding of science that through rewatering we do see
13  really quite dramatic and remarkable rates of willow and
14  cottonwood reproduction this year. 
15       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is it primarily, Dr. Kauffman, because
16  rewatering is occurring and in an historic channel where
17  there is seed available because there were riparian plants
18  there previous?  Is the seed coming from some other area or
19  is the seed present? 
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  The seeds are coming from on­site.  We
21  certainly noticed a number of plants reproducing and
22  producing seed. 
23       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is that unusual for this portion of the
24  Eastern Sierra of the Mono Basin?
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Again, the best evidence that I have
0309
01  would be reading the data of Stromberg and Patton, and they
02  talk about a lack of it in 1987 and an abundance of it
03  today.  So, where one would have mature vegetation, one
04  would see the sort of seeding. 
05       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Kauffman, I would like to now look
06  at DWP Exhibit Number 63.
07       This is a series of photos showing Rush Creek beginning
08  in July of 1986 and concluding in August of 1995. 
09       Dr. Kauffman, you testified earlier that over this
10  nine­year period there was a marked and noticeable growth in
11  riparian vegetation.  Is that accurate?
12       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
13       MS. SCOONOVER:  That would be over a nine­year period,
14  correct?
15       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
16       MS. SCOONOVER:  Would you say that is apparent there is
17  a marked and noticeable growth in riparian vegetation in,
18  say, the first five years from July of '86 to October of
19  '91?
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  There is ­­ yes.  Well, yes.  You can
21  see there is a difference in this photo.
22       MS. SCOONOVER:  I assume then that your answer would be
23  the same for in seven years as well, the intermediate
24  picture, July 1986 to September 1993, a marked and
25  noticeable growth in riparian vegetation?
0310
01       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
02       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Beschta, you are familiar with the
03  Rush Creek bottomland area, aren't you?
04       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes.
05       MS. SCOONOVER:  You testified previously about historic
06  channels and changes in land forming in those historic
07  channels, have you not?
08       DR. BESCHTA:  I have had testimony regarding the
09  bottomland channels. 
10       MS. SCOONOVER:  Can you tell me what reach of the
11  bottomland channel these pictures are taken from? 
12       DR. BESCHTA:  The numbering system? 
13       MS. SCOONOVER:  Would be that Reach 5? 
14       DR. BESCHTA:  Let me pull a map.
15       It is below the ford and above the County Road.   It is
16  in Reach 5A, according to what I've got here.
17       MS. SCOONOVER:  Can you identify, Dr. Beschta, the land
18  form in the background of these photos, in any of these
19  photos?
20       DR. BESCHTA:  The land form up here?
21       MS. SCOONOVER:  Yes. 
22       DR. BESCHTA:  I believe that is deltaic deposit from
23  ancient Mono Lake system.  So, those are laid down gravels
24  from sometime ago. 
25       MS. SCOONOVER:  This is not, for example, a stranded
0311
01  stream channel or an example of an incision? 
02       DR. BESCHTA:  This is an example of an incision taking
03  place over geologic time, yes.  The bottomlands are now at a
04  much lower elevation than this previous surface. 
05       MS. SCOONOVER:   Five to twenty­eight feet lower, for
06  example?       
07       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes.
08       MS. SCOONOVER:  So, prediversion or preincision, Rush
09  Creek would have been on top of that plateau feature that
10  you indicated in Exhibit 63, then? 
11       DR. BESCHTA:  I don't believe so. 
12       MS. SCOONOVER:  Where would Rush Creek have flowed?
13       DR. BESCHTA:  I think Rush Creek, and I wasn't here,
14  but looking at aerial photographs, you have had incision
15  from the lake all the way up to the about the ford.  It
16  looks like it would probably be in the neighborhood of maybe
17  ten feet or something like that, maybe, depends on where you
18  are at.  Deeper as you got towards the lake, but up here, I
19  guess, you would probably not exceed ten feet of incision. 
20       MS. SCOONOVER:  In response to a question from Mr.
21  Roos­Collins, you described the entire Rush Creek system as
22  degraded. 
23       Is that accurate? 
24       DR. BESCHTA:  Historically, yes.  I mean, prior to
25  1986, let's say, '86, '87. 
0312
01       MS. SCOONOVER:  By degraded do you mean wider,
02  straight, steeper and generally less complex physically and
03  biologically? 
04       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Compound.  I will object as compound.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Want to break it down a little bit. 
06       MS. SCOONOVER:  Certainly.  I've got an hour.
07       BOARD MEMBER BROWN:  Forty­six minutes.
08       MS. SCOONOVER:  I will rephrase the question.  
09       And by degraded, Dr. Beschta, do you mean, for example,
10  that the channel is wider than historic? 
11       DR. BESCHTA:  That is one component of degradation. 
12       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is it straighter than historic? 
13       DR. BESCHTA:  It lost major sinuosity. 
14       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is it deeper than historic?  
15       DR. BESCHTA:  If you lose sinuosity over the same
16  elevation change, it now has a steeper gradient. 
17       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is it generally less physically
18  complex? 
19       DR. BESCHTA:  Physically less complex in some ways; 
20  that is, you would not have had well­defined channel.  You
21  might have had multiple channels pushing across the bottom. 
22       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is it less biologically complex?
23       DR. BESCHTA:  Under the degraded condition?   That is
24  the question?
25       MS. SCOONOVER:  That is the question.
0313
01       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes, it would have been biologically
02  complex.  That is a major component of the degradation.
03       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Beschta, with the drop of or
04  incision of the creek, would there also be a drop in the
05  groundwater levels associated with the creek?        
06       DR. BESCHTA:  You raise an interesting question.  It
07  would be interesting to see what ultimately the monitoring
08  data will tell us regarding groundwater.  As the system has
09  rewatered over the last ten years, or perhaps longer, it is
10  obviously, at least in my opinion, getting wetter.  You get
11  subsurface flows slowing up in various places.  Local
12  incision could lower the groundwater, but it may recover
13  through time, as you have water back in the system. 
14       It is not a two­dimensional channel, and it is not a
15  two­dimensional system with regard to where the water is 
16  coming in.  The water is coming from upgradient, and it
17  could be moving down through the alluvium and be showing up
18  in various ways. 
19       So, as the lake comes up, that will also change
20  groundwater conditions, at least closer to the lake.  So,
21  the groundwater dynamics would be a very interesting
22  component of what is going on. 
23       What I see is, I see more water in subsurface  
24  environment showing up and being expressed in vegetation. 
25       MS. SCOONOVER:  The stream channel that is shown in
0314
01  DWP Exhibit 63, would you say, Dr. Beschta, it is narrower
02  than historically?
03       DR. BESCHTA:  Is it narrower than in August of '95 than
04  it was historically, yes. 
05       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Beschta, I would like to show you
06  some photographs that were previously entered into the
07  record by the National Audubon Society and the Mono Lake
08  Committee, twice as a matter of fact.  They were entered as
09  exhibits, and accepted as exhibits, during the previous
10  hearing, and they are numbered NAS&MLC Exhibits 205 through
11  208. 
12       DR. BESCHTA:  Okay. 
13       MS. SCOONOVER:  In addition, it was entered into an
14  exhibit as part of a report, NAS&MLC Number 137.  Those are
15  the pictures that I will show you, Pages 7­24 and 7­26, 
16  showing historic comparisons, historic and current day
17  comparisons of Rush Creek in about this same vicinity.       
18       I would like you, Dr. Beschta, to describe the  
19  pictures, the historical pictures, shown both the two pages
20  that I have identified, those would be the top pictures in
21  NAS&MLC Exhibit 137.
22       DR. BESCHTA:  The top two pictures on both pages?
23       MS. SCOONOVER:  Yes.  What kind of habitat would you
24  say? 
25       DR. BESCHTA:  They are showing ponded habitat.   Looks
0315
01  like it could be ­­ the originals are much better than
02  these.  Looks like you've watercress or some aquatic
03  vegetation growing in the pond.  This is not a flowing
04  environment from the standpoint of a Rush Creek channel.  I
05  believe I know where these pictures are taken. 
06       MS. SCOONOVER:  Would that be in the Rush Creek Channel
07  5 area?
08       DR. BESCHTA:  It is immediately above the County Road. 
09  Let me make sure I tell you the right channel. 
10       Yes, it would be the in 5, Rush Creek Channel 5.  
11       MS. SCOONOVER:  Which is also the area we are looking
12  at in DWP Exhibit Number 63? 
13       DR. BESCHTA:  This is further upstream.   This is not
14  the same location. 
15       MS. SCOONOVER:  But they both are within Reach 5 of
16  Rush Creek?
17       DR. BESCHTA:  That doesn't mean they are close to
18  looking the same. 
19       MS. SCOONOVER:  Fine. 
20       I would direct your attention then to the lower
21  pictures. 
22       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes.
23       MS. SCOONOVER:  And ask you to describe what you see in
24  the lower pictures on both pages.
25       DR. BESCHTA:  The lower picture on the first page,
0316
01  which is Page 7­24, is a much more xeric site.  If this is
02  from the same location, you have lost the hard woods here
03  that are showing up, and the stream is some distance away
04  from this particular location.  It probably wasn't in 1934
05  also. 
06       With regard to the second page, again, the top picture
07  is of ponded water.  The bottom picture appears to be from a
08  similar orientation, based on the hills in the background,
09  but I am not familiar with this picture nor, necessarily,
10  have I been to this location. 
11       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Beschta, does it also exhibit a
12  drier habitat? 
13       DR. BESCHTA:  It is much drier today.   
14       MS. SCOONOVER:  There is no standing water?
15       DR. BESCHTA:  There is no standing water; that's
16  right.
17       MS. SCOONOVER:  Thank you.
18       Dr. Trush, are you familiar with the stretch of river
19  described in, or stretch of Rush Creek described in DWP
20  Exhibit 63?
21       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
22       MS. SCOONOVER:  Would you agree with Dr. Beschta that
23  the stream, that the feature in the far ground, identified
24  by Dr. Beschta, is a historic stream channel prior to
25  incision or some other feature? 
0317
01       DR. TRUSH:  Being familiar with the site and assessing
02  what it was historically, it is, really, two different
03  things.  But I have nothing to lead me to believe that it is
04  not. 
05       MS. SCOONOVER:  Do you, Dr. Trush, believe that, with
06  what you know of this stretch of creek, that there has been
07  a significant change in the habitat from this point, present
08  point, which would be the August 1995 picture in DWP Exhibit
09  63, and prediversion conditions?
10       DR. TRUSH:  So you're talking the '30s?
11       MS. SCOONOVER:  Correct.
12       DR. TRUSH:  It would be a hard call for me.   I can't
13  really say how much riparian was down along the edge there
14  at the time, but I would have to look.  I am not sure how
15  confined this part of the channel was in pre­41.
16       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Trush, if you assumed anywhere
17  from a 10 to 20 foot incision on this reach of the creek,
18  would you assume that that would have a significant and
19  noticeable impact on the environment? 
20       DR. TRUSH:  That would be my first hypothesis.
21       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is DWP Restoration Plan going to be
22  able to remedy or restore this stretch of stream to
23  prediversion quality, prediversion standard? 
24       DR. TRUSH:  My guess is not.  That with that amount of
25  incision you are going to strand the areas that used to be
0318
01  more riparian.  Very little chance of getting groundwater to
02  keep them going. 
03       I don't see a whole lot you can do about it, given the
04  depth of the incision.  With the rise of the lake, we are
05  going to start getting more adjustments.  There might be a
06  backwater, groundwater effect.  With that amount of incision
07  you are going to leave some areas in stress.
08       MS. SCOONOVER:  Is there anyone on the panel who 
09  disagrees with that point?  Is there anyone who believes
10  that the DWP plan will, indeed, restore this stretch of
11  Rush Creek to pre­41 condition?
12        DR. BESCHTA:  I think functionally it will restore it
13  to something better than you had in 1941.  They were
14  diverting water pre­1941 in this reach and creating those
15  off­channel ponds in those areas over there. 
16       So, that will not longer occur in the current plan, and
17  the recover of the riparian vegetation will give you plant
18  communities along this stream equivalent, as good as, or
19  better than what you had pre­1941.
20       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Beschta, would that be your
21  testimony if, indeed, the incision in this stretch was 15 to
22  28 feet? 
23       DR. BESCHTA:  If you are trying to recreate the
24  geomorphic surfaces, you can't put that back, and I agree
25  with Bill on that.  You cannot go back to that condition. 
0319
01  But you are asking, "Can we recover the channel and its
02  riparian communities to pre­1941 conditions," and I would
03  suggest, yes.  In fact, not suggest, I would come to the
04  conclusion, based on what I know, that you can recover this
05  system back to pre­1941 conditions, and better, from an
06  ecological standpoint. 
07       MS. SCOONOVER:  Of the same area? 
08       DR. BESCHTA:  Of the same reach, Reach 5.  
09       MS. SCOONOVER:  Would it be comparable, say, in terms
10  of acreage? 
11       DR. BESCHTA:  Probably not in terms of overall acreage
12  because, again, you have incised the system.  You may have
13  left terraces hanging up at higher surfaces, ten feet, five
14  whatever they are, which will not be rewatered under current
15  conditions. 
16       MS. SCOONOVER:  Dr. Kauffman, can you, under the DWP
17  plan, reestablish riparian vegetation on the stranded
18  terraces that Dr. Beschta described? 
19       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No.  Again, what one would look at in
20  terms of restoration is that, due to the extreme geomorphic
21  change, you have created a whole new ecosystem equilibrium, 
22  a whole new potential natural community.  We are not getting
23  back that terrace floodplain complex in 1941, in any time
24  soon.  Simply not a feasible human endeavor. 
25       We can recover the ecosystem based on the current
0320
01  geophysical, hydrological vegetation equilibrium.            
02       MS. SCOONOVER:  Thank you.
03       Dr. Platts, in your written testimony you stated that
04  the plan, the DWP plan, was generally consistent with
05  D­1631.  And in your oral comments this morning, you said
06  that this plan was generally adequate.  To my untrained ear,
07  this sounds like a less than resounding endorsement of the
08  DWP plan. 
09       My question for you is:  Is this just scientific
10  caution or do you have professional reservations concerning
11  either the plan or the Monitoring Plan that has been
12  proposed?
13       DR. PLATTS:  It is scientific caution because the
14  success of the rehab program is going to depend on the
15  monitoring program and the evaluation package put upon the
16  monitoring program. 
17       So, I use the term "general" because other things have
18  to come into play to make this a success.
19       MS. SCOONOVER:  Do I infer from that, Dr. Platts, the
20  plan and the Monitoring Plan, the Stream Restoration Plan,
21  including the Monitoring Plan, in your estimation is an
22  adequate plan and is consistent with the requirements of
23  stream restoration as they have been defined previously by
24  this panel?
25       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, the two of them together.
0321
01       MS. SCOONOVER:  That is all.
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Ms. Scoonover.  
03       That completes the cross­examination from the parties. 
04  We will now move to cross­examination from Board staff.
05       MR. JOHNS:  Just a very few questions.
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Johns.
07                             ­­­oOo­­
08                        CROSS­EXAMINATION
09                          BY BOARD STAFF
10       MR. JOHNS:  Referring specifically to the Monitoring
11  Plann.  Dr. Trush, I got the sense of what you are trying to
12  tell us, you were generally in agreement with the 
13  monitoring plan, as set forth in Exhibits 22 and 23, to stay
14  in place until you have data that indicated there was an
15  ecologic change. 
16       Is that a good summary of your testimony? 
17       DR. TRUSH:  Whether we would change the Monitoring
18  Plan?
19       MR. JOHNS:  Right.
20       DR. TRUSH:  As well as any sort of adaptive management.
21       Yeah, and that related to trying to get a handle on
22  duration effects, particularly.  In the next few years we
23  will have a better understanding of what we are dealing with
24  to come up with a hybrid plan for coming up with how to
25  measure. 
0322
01       MR. JOHNS:  The plan as set forth now would be
02  something we'd want to keep in place until we have data to
03  indicate we ought to change it. 
04       Is that a good summary? 
05       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
06       MR. JOHNS:  Now, Mr. Kavounas, do you agree with that,
07  we ought to the keep the Monitoring Plan in place until we
08  have data that would indicate that we ought to change the
09  plan? 
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yeah.  You know, these guys say so, then
11  I believe them. 
12       MR. JOHNS:  I am looking where L.A. is on the issue. 
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes. 
14       MR. JOHNS:  In terms of who ought to decide change and
15  the adaptive riparian aspects of it, would L.A. have a
16  problem if it is not just L.A. that makes the decision, but
17  it is the Board that makes that decision on how and when
18  that monitoring plan is changed?
19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Caffrey, again, this is a question
20  that I am not sure that the staff can answer.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I apologize because I didn't hear
22  it.  I was consulting. 
23       MR. JOHNS:  Withdraw the question.
24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I, on the other hand, will represent
25  that, as I did in response to Mr. Del Piero's question this
0323
01  morning, the Board has continuing jurisdiction.  And it is
02  DWP's expectation that, as this process evolves, despite 
03  everyone's best hope, we are going to be back before the
04  Board, if it is necessary to revise the plan or to revise
05  what is being done under the plan. 
06       I don't know if that is responsive.  I am not trying to
07  interfere with the question.
08       MR. JOHNS:  That is fine.  The adaptive management
09  aspects, you could hear in the cross­examination earlier was
10  giving several of the parties concern about who's going to
11  adapt what when.  And if it is your position that you don't
12  have a problem with Board being the one that helps decide
13  the adaptive management aspect, that is where my questions
14  were heading. 
15       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  It is our expectation that it would be
16  the Board to make those decisions with having provided all
17  the interested parties, those that are here and those that
18  may not be here, with an opportunity to comment on what DWP
19  or some of the parties ask the Board to do.
20       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Excuse me.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero, go ahead.
22       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Forgive me, Mr. Birmingham. 
23       I understood everything until the last statement.   Our
24  Board has neither the staff nor does the 1631 provide for
25  our staff to be out there monitoring the performance of the
0324
01  Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in terms of
02  this.  And I hope you aren't suggesting that somehow we are
03  going to delegate this responsibility to our staff, since
04  that is not what the decision anticipated in the first place.
05       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  No, absolutely not.   However, the
06  decision does require that the Department, on an annual
07  basis, submit information to the State Board staff.  And I
08  am confident that every interested party in this room will
09  obtain that information.  And based upon that information,
10  the State Board on its own initiative or DWP, based upon
11  what it is being told by its consultants, or some interested
12  party, thinks that what is happening isn't consistent with
13  D­1631 and the goals and objectives of restoring,
14  preserving, protecting the stream and fisheries, then we are
15  going to be back here.  It's unfortunate, but I'm confident
16  we will be back here.
17       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  I understand that, but that is
18  somewhat different than what the adaptive management issue
19  that Mr. Johns was phrasing. 
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am sorry, you will forgive me.  I
21  didn't hear your original question.
22       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I didn't either, Mr. Johns.     
23       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  It just strikes me, before
24  everybody starts committing this Board to doing certain
25  things or delegating certain responsibilities, I am more
0325
01  interested in hearing that the standards for performance in
02  terms of the Restoration Plan in D­1631 has specifically
03  been addressed before I start agreeing to delegate anything
04  to anybody.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Everything was just fine until you
06  asking questions, Jerry. 
07       MR. JOHNS:  My question related basically to  
08  monitoring program, and whether or not the monitoring
09  program should stay in place until it was changed.  And all
10  I got was, "Yeah."
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  For the record, I don't have any
12  problem with Mr. Birmingham's characterization of the ever
13  presence of the Board and all of us who have followed this
14  issue.  I mean, I take it in the most general context that I
15  believe you are making the statement.
16       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I believe that the question, the
17  question which Mr. Johns asked which caused me to rise, was
18  a question really that deals with legal issues concerning
19  the role of the Board as opposed to whether or not this
20  particular plan is consistent with D­1631.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir. 
22       Mr. Johns, please proceed in your usual style.
23       MR. JOHNS:  Just make sure I understand Dr. Trush's 
24  testimony in this other area, as well. 
25       I got the idea that you were saying that you thought
0326
01  perhaps within five to eight years you might have data on
02  the channel maintenance flows from the monitoring program to
03  give you some idea on how those flows were doing in terms of
04  maintaining stream morphology and such.
05       Is that right?
06       DR. TRUSH:   Yes.  It is more like a report card on our
07  best guess as of today. 
08       MR. JOHNS:  It is likely that within the time that the
09  lake might fill to, say, the target lake level, we should
10  have data on the processes going on whether or not that is
11  being successful. 
12       Would that be fair to say?
13       DR. TRUSH:  My personal number one regard.  
14       MR. JOHNS:  Thank you.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We are going to Mr. Canaday or Mr.
16  Frink? 
17       MR. FRINK:  I have a fee first and then Mr.
18  Canaday.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please proceed.
20       MR. FRINK:  I think mine are relatively easier, just a
21  matter of clearing up some loose ends.
22       Dr. Trush and Mr. Hunter, each of you served on the RTC
23  under the direction of the Superior Court; is that correct? 
24       MR. HUNTER:  Yes. 
25       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
0327
01       MR. FRINK:  Dr. Trush, could you very briefly summarize
02  how the approach toward restoration, which you currently
03  propose, differences from the stream restoration proposal
04  that was undertaken or the stream restoration work that was
05  undertaken at the direct of the court?
06       DR. TRUSH:  When we first came on as the RTC and we saw
07  what was being done at that time, we pretty much were
08  against any of the instream channel work.  We could see that
09  ­­ we received the report that the channel was not mobile at
10  1200 cfs.  I threw that in the waste paper basket; wish I
11  hadn't because I would like to reference.  It was clearly
12  the channel mobilized way below that.  You could just walk
13  out there and you could see it.
14       So we realized that we had a mobile channel on our
15  hands, and we had the opportunity to go after historic flows
16  and go after earlier channel conditions.
17       So, our strategy went right away to flows.   The other
18  thing that we were looking at is what alluvial surfaces,
19  particularly the middle and the higher terraces, had been
20  stranded and are most likely not to come back.  We see
21  evidence of riparian vegetation. 
22       There's a tricky area where, if is it not going to come
23  back and there was riparian, should L.A. be responsible for
24  planting something mesic there.  In that it was ­­ it was
25  not going to be, no matter what you do, unless you put
0328
01  sprinklers out there. 
02       So, we did look at that.  But we immediately honed in
03  on the flow prescriptions; spent most of our time on that. 
04       MR. FRINK:  One basic difference would be that the
05  current restoration proposals involve a great deal less
06  instream work than was previously undertaken. 
07       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.  In fact, I think back with Bruce
08  Dodge when we talked about, if these flows weren't attained,
09  we would go back to building things instream.  We recommend
10  that in our original ­­ in the Ridenhour report.  If we
11  keep, like, Lee Vining at no greater than 160 cfs, you are
12  not going to form any channel morphology at 160 cfs in the
13  lower Lee Vining Creek.
14       You can say, "Well, gee whiz, well maybe we should
15  start building pools then if we are in a static condition." 
16  Trouble is, L.A. ­­ it's clear, and Cal Edison can't control
17  the big floods anyway, even if they wanted to.  If you put
18  in structures, they would go away, anyway.  So even if you
19  provide an inadequate flow, which is, I think, what has been
20  ­­ which is what Lee Vining is under once the lake fills, I
21  still couldn't even recommend structures because it wouldn't
22  make any sense; they would go away.           
23       MR. FRINK:  Mr. Hunter, would you agree with that
24  assessment?
25       MR. HUNTER:  Yes.  Basically, the work has to be done
0329
01  to create the fish habitat.  You can either pay a consult to
02  go out and do an engineering study and build the habitat or
03  you can let the water do it. 
04       MR. FRINK:  Mr. Hunter, do you agree with Dr. Trush
05  that if you did attempt to construct the habitat, that the
06  conditions in the Mono Basin are such that a good deal of
07  the instream work is going to wash out anyway? 
08       MR. HUNTER:  The last couple of weeks have certainly
09  shown that. 
10       MR. FRINK:  Mr. Kavounas, I have just a point of
11  clarification. 
12       Mr. Dodge asked you if L.A. Exhibit 16 is still Los
13  Angeles's proposed restoration plan, and you said it is.
14       I assume that would mean, including the Blue and White
15  Books, DWP Exhibits 22 and 23? 
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct, yes. 
17       MR. FRINK:  Mr. Allen, on Page 5 of DWP Exhibit 29, you
18  state that the flows recommended in the draft Ridenhour work
19  plan were higher than the typical peak flows observed in the
20  streams above the DWP facilities.  That is near the bottom
21  of the page.
22       MR. ALLEN:  Yes. 
23       MR. FRINK:  Is that true for both Lee Vining and Rush
24  Creeks? 
25       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, it is.  Because of the fact that what
0330
01  we commonly refer to as flows that we experience at our
02  facility are termed impaired flows because these flows
03  include upstream influences of SCE operations.  The
04  Ridenhour work plan flows, however, were based on unimpaired
05  flows, which would be the flows if there were no upstream
06  influences.  So, in reference to that second statement, the
07  plans in the work plan were higher than the unimpaired flows
08  that we experienced. 
09       MR. FRINK:  I understand. 
10       So, if Los Angeles ceased its diversions in Mono Basin
11  entirely, removed all its diversion facilities and dams,
12  would the peak flows recommended in the Ridenhour Plan be
13  present in Rush and Lee Vining Creeks. 
14       MR. ALLEN:  If LADWP were absent the flows below the
15  facilities, would not be those recommended by the Ridenhour
16  ­­ those recommended in the Ridenhour work plan.  Rather,
17  they would be the impaired flows, which, for clarification,
18  are the influence of those upstream operations are greater
19  on Rush Creek than they are on Lee Vining Creek. 
20       But in answer to your question, if DWP were to abandon
21  its facilities, no, the flows that the creeks would
22  experience would not be the flows recommended in the
23  Ridenhour work plan. 
24       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Point of clarification, if I may.
25       Is that true for all year types David?
0331
01       MR. ALLEN:  No, not entirely.  There may be a situation
02  in the extremely wet year types where the Southern Cal
03  Edison facilities upstream, their reservoirs would be full
04  at the time the peak flows occurred, and in that unique
05  circumstance, then the peak flows downstream of our
06  facilities would experience unimpaired peak flows. 
07       MR. FRINK:  Dr. Platts, you mentioned the desirability
08  including sediment bypass channel at least on one of the
09  streams, I believe. 
10       What streams was that on?
11       DR. PLATTS:  That would be Walker­Parker.
12       MR. FRINK:  Approximately how many stream restoration
13  projects have you been involved with in your career, Dr.
14  Platts?
15       DR. PLATTS:  I couldn't even guess. 
16       MR. FRINK:  Over a hundred? 
17       DR. PLATTS:  Probably a hundred.
18       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  More than a few and at least a
19  lot. 
20       DR. PLATTS:  There you go. 
21       MR. FRINK:  Decision 1631, probably for lack of any
22  other alternative, did include some general criteria
23  indicating that the Board would evaluate proposed
24  restoration plans on the basis of reasonableness, economic
25  feasibility, and there were some other criteria stated. 
0332
01       I wonder, based on your experience of other streams
02  restoration proposals, how would you rate the overall
03  comprehensiveness and reasonableness of the Stream
04  Restoration Plan that are presented in this hearing?
05       DR. PLATTS:  I would rate it rather high, mainly
06  because two reasons.  One is that DWP is taking care of the
07  land management problem, totally.  And number two, they are
08  going to provide the flows that will allow these streams to
09  rehab. 
10       Now, the rest of it ­­ that is the ball game right
11  there.  The rest of it, rewatering a few channels, maybe
12  planting a little vegetation, some of that stuff is done to
13  make people feel good.  Not necessarily good to make the
14  fish population feel good.  With those two things taken 
15  care of, I really believe that the DWP plan, with the
16  adequate monitoring to go with it so that they get into the
17  adaptive management, I think that it is a given that those
18  streams are going to recover. 
19       MR. FRINK:  Would you include, though, that if it is
20  feasible, a sediment bypass channel should be provided at
21  the Parker and Walker Creek diversion facilities?
22       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  I think Parker and Walker should
23  have some type of a sediment bypass facility.  I do not see
24  Parker­Walker hurting in any way at this time because it is
25  not getting sediment.  I see no problem below, but I think
0333
01  it is just ­­ it would just be good in the future; make sure
02  that the sediment bypass facilities do work.  Just so we
03  don't get in any trouble. 
04       Right now there is no problem. 
05       MR. FRINK:  Thank you.  That is all the questions I
06  have.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Canaday.
08       MR. CANADAY:  Thank you.  First, just to clarify 
09  something for me, this is Exhibit DWP­67, Dr. Kauffman's. 
10  It is a bar graph, and at the bottom, it talks about
11  identification number.  And I am trying to understand what
12  that relates to. 
13       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Various plant community dominance of
14  which ­­ I didn't include that in my testimony this morning. 
15  Since it has been admitted to evidence, I would need to also
16  admit in evidence a legend so you could interpret the bar
17  graph of what the numbers mean.
18       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  That was going to be my
19  question, what is this thing?
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Each one.  For example, community one is
21  black cottonwood.  Community two is coyote willows, et
22  cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 
23       MR. CANADAY:  I will assume that under recross or
24  redirect that somehow that will get into evidence?
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  It is in here. 
0334
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  It is already in the record; is that
02  correct? 
03       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I would have to enter in some  
04  corrections, in that 24 ­­ there is a few others that aren't
05  in here, 22 and 23 and 24.
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham, you will take care
07  of that on redirect? 
08       Thank you, sir. 
09       Mr. Canaday. 
10       MR. CANADAY:  Thank you. 
11       Just so that I am clear in my own mind, there has been
12  a lot of testimony about the flows, the recommended flows
13  for this restoration plan.  And so that I am clear in my
14  mind of what is actually being proposed is, I am assuming, 
15  Table 1 and Table 2, Page X of the Mono Basin Grant Lake
16  Operations and Management Plans. 
17       And, I guess, to you, Mr. Kavounas, is that, first of
18  all, the flow proposal that is being made to the Board?
19       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Give me a second to find my plan. 
20       MR. CANADAY:  I will ask also the scientists if that is
21  their understanding of the flow regime that they are making
22  their recommendations on, as well. 
23       DR. BESCHTA:  Where are we at?
24       MR. CANADAY:  It's Page X, the Grant Lake Operations
25  Plan, Table 1 and Table 2.  It is in the main document. 
0335
01       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.  The flows that are indicated in
02  Tables 1 and 2 on Page X of the Grant Lake Operations Plan
03  are what DWP is proposing. 
04       I should point out that Table 2, Proposed Maintenance
05  Channel Flows, those are flows that we will try for with
06  intent of maximizing where possible, exceeding where 
07  possible. 
08       MR. CANADAY:  Let me ask you further questions about
09  this.  Table 1 represents the LADWP proposed base flow
10  release from Mono Basin; is that correct? 
11       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct.
12       MR. CANADAY:  And Table 2 is LADWP proposed channel
13  maintenance flow for the Mono Basin creeks; is that correct? 
14       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct. 
15       MR. CANADAY:  I believe I heard earlier today that
16  these are recognized as minimums and that they may be
17  exceeded at times, based on the range and these water year
18  types.  I think Mr. Allen ­­
19       Is that correct, Mr. Allen?
20       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, that is correct. 
21       MR. CANADAY:  I would like to hand this to the stream
22  scientists.  Dr. Beschta is looking at it.
23       Are these the flows that you are making your
24  recommendations on for the plan, Dr. Beschta? 
25       DR. BESCHTA:  These are, indeed, the flows that I
0336
01  looked at for my comparisons when I came to the conclusion
02  that they are within the realm.  They represent a close
03  approximation, let's say, of the unimpaired flows.  I was
04  basing them on these. 
05       I also looked at the Ridenhour flows, and agree with
06  David that, by in large, most the time they were above the
07  unimpaired flow levels. 
08       MR. CANADAY:  The purpose of my question to you all is
09  to make sure that when you all have been talking about
10  flows, that you think are going to be a part of this plan
11  that you intend to monitor, I want to sure what flows you're
12  talking about.          
13       So, my question now is to Dr. Platts, Mr. Hunter, and
14  Dr. Trush:  Is, in fact, Table 1 and Table 2, as it is
15  represented in that exhibit, are those the flows under which
16  you understand that you are going to be monitoring, and
17  which you are agreeing to, that this plan meets the
18  restoration requirement?
19       MR. HUNTER:  Yes. 
20       DR. PLATTS:  Yes. 
21       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
22       MR. CANADAY:  Thank you.     
23       I would like to refer to the, I guess we call it the,
24  ad hoc letter from the ad hoc committee, the February 13,
25  1996 letter to Mr. Kavounas from Dr. Ridenhour, which
0337
01  represents assumed findings and recommendations from the ad
02  hoc flow committee.
03       I would like to refer you to Page 3 of that letter,  
04  the second paragraph under Item Number 3.  It says:
05            This alternative...           (Reading.)
06       And it is referring to making releases from the Mono
07  ditch in concert with approximately 150 cfs from the Lee
08  Vining conduit or Sand trap Number 5 and possibly spills
09  from Grant Lake.
10       But it says:
11            This alternative could provide acceptable
12            stream habitat maintenance flows for Rush
13            Creek below the Narrows, but would not
14            provide acceptable restoration and 
15            maintenance flows above the Narrows.
16            (Reading.)
17       My question to you, Dr. Trush:  Do you now disagree
18  with that?
19       DR. TRUSH:  I think I disagreed with it when the letter
20  was there.  It is clear I don't remember. 
21       MR. HUNTER:  If you've ever read the number of memos
22  Rich passes by, a couple slip through. 
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I would be glad to take you to our file
24  room. 
25       DR. TRUSH:  What we based our question on above is,
0338
01  above 395 after we had the high flow and we saw the various
02  things that had happened downstream, below the Narrows, we
03  went up to a couple of excavated pools that were clearly
04  hydrologically going to fill in if bedload moved.  There is
05  no way those could survive if the bed moved.  We went there,
06  and they are still deep, which surprised us.
07       And that is our only evidence, really, of a question
08  mark as to why didn't those big pools fill in, because there
09  were gravel deposits.  Maybe it was transporting it
10  through, but I just don't see it.  It was just a big hole
11  with no slope.  Should have filled, but it didn't.  That was
12  what we based our concern over. 
13       But I can't say that 500 doesn't do it.  I really would
14  not agree with that.  The monitoring, I think, will slow
15  whether it does or not.  There is that nagging question, 
16  why didn't those holes fill? 
17       MR. CANADAY:  Your present testimony is that the flows
18  that are identified in Table 2, which is the proposed
19  channel maintenance flow by LADWP, that those flows above
20  the Narrows should be able to do the types of work and 
21  generate the fluvial processes that you intend to monitor
22  and you believe the plan will accomplish?  Is that correct? 
23       DR. TRUSH:  As your first guess, yes. 
24       MR. CANADAY:  The monitoring, then, will fine tune
25  that, that opinion? 
0339
01       DR. TRUSH:  That is our intention.
02       MR. CANADAY:  Mr. Hunter, you agree with that as well? 
03       MR. HUNTER:  Absolutely.      
04       MR. CANADAY:  Dr. Platts, you agree with that?
05       DR. PLATTS:  Absolutely.
06       MR. CANADAY:  Just to refer to a few sound bites that I
07  heard this morning about some perspectives of how long we
08  might have certain expectations for recovery. 
09       I believe it was Dr. Kauffman who said, "We have a long
10  way to go for recovery."  You didn't put a time limit on it,
11  but a long time. 
12       Isn't that correct, you made a statement like that?  
13       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Something like that.
14       MR. CANADAY:  By a long time, you are talking decades,
15  minimum?
16       DR. KAUFFMAN:  In terms of achieving the potential
17  vegetation structure, I would measure that more in decades. 
18  How long would it take a cottonwood to become mature would
19  be decades.  How long will it take the deltaic, the area of
20  incision, Reach 5, would be measured in geological time.    
21       MR. CANADAY:  I was talking more about some of the
22  processes you were hoping to achieve, the flow pattern.  And
23  so, we are talking in areas of decades at least for the
24  riparian recovery that you testified to?
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.
0340
01       MR. CANADAY:  I think, Dr. Platts, you testified that
02  one of the ideas of the monitoring was to provide
03  information to kind of tweak the system.  In other words,
04  provide what your best guess is for this recommendation, 
05  recollection flow, base flows and channel maintenance flows, 
06  and then monitor that, and look at the indices that you are
07  proposing in your plan to evaluate, and then make further
08  recommendations somewhere down the road. 
09       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  That is the only way it will work.  
10       MR. CANADAY:  I believe you said ­­ you gave numbers, 
11  I am not going to hold them to you, but in reference you
12  said 20 to 40 years, possibly, for some of these things that
13  you are looking at for restoration.
14       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  It depends where you are on the
15  system.  Different reaches, different habitat types are
16  going to respond at different times.  There are some areas
17  like Rush Creek, say, from Grant to 395 that are probably
18  better than pre­1941 conditions.  When you get below there,
19  it's going to take quite a while, a long time, for them to
20  get pre­1941 conditions. 
21       On Lee Vining Creek, if you are below the dam, down to
22  395, we probably got conditions just as good as they were
23  pre­1941.  From there on down, that is going to be a slow
24  process.  All you can do is set the stage in motion, knowing
25  that you are going to be successful.  And like we say, you
0341
01  build it, they will come.  It will happen.
02       MR. CANADAY:  Now that you mention, "you build it and
03  they will come," the "they" you are referring to is?
04       DR. PLATTS:  The fish population and the wildlife.
05       MR. CANADAY:  That leads me to the fisheries
06  monitoring.  The face plate or snorkeling survey that is
07  proposed in this particular plan, based on the technique
08  that you are proposing, will you be able to, or any
09  scientist can answer that, will you be able to determine
10  growth rates from the data which you intend to collect?
11       MR. HUNTER:  Because there will be validation with the
12  electrofishing and the intent is to weigh and measure the
13  fish that are collected when they do the electrofishing
14  validation.  Should be able to do that. 
15       MR. CANADAY:  Will not the electrofishing and the
16  validation, won't that be a one­time study?  Or how ­­ I can
17  get no idea out of the plan, how many times you intend to do
18  that?  So I am assuming it was a one­time validation study,
19  and from that one­time sample, you intend to look at age?   
20        MR. HUNTER:  I guess I didn't anticipate it being one
21  time.    
22       MR. CANADAY:  How often would you ­­
23       MR. HUNTER:  I would expect them to do it each time.   
24       MR. CANADAY:  Each time? 
25       MR. HUNTER:  Yes.
0342
01       MR. CANADAY:  Moving along to sediment bypass.   Again, 
02  I will ask that any of the fishery scientists to respond.   
03       What time of the year do brown trout spawn in Mono
04  Basin streams?
05       DR. PLATTS:  I haven't seen any spawn in the Basin,
06  but I would imagine November, December.  Again, November,
07  December would cover most of it. 
08       MR. CANADAY:  Are you aware that the sediment bypass
09  plans call for moving fines and sediment through the system
10  from the months starting in October through the winter
11  months?
12       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, I am. 
13       MR. CANADAY:  Is that one of the things you don't like
14  about the plan?
15       DR. PLATTS:  That is one of the major things.   That is
16  not the major thing.  It is one of the things that I don't
17  like about the plan.
18       MR. CANADAY:  By taking that activity wouldn't it, in
19  fact, have an impact on if there were brown trout spawning
20  in those streams below those release points?
21       DR. PLATTS:  It could, immediately below the dam, yes.
22       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  It might not be interested in
23  spawning if they were getting a face full of mud. 
24       MR. CANADAY:  Already have the eggs in the gravel.
25       DR. PLATTS:  They will spawn, regardless.  
0343
01       MR. CANADAY:  Dr. Trush, do you believe that your
02  monitoring plan for the various microhabitat conditions or
03  these channel conditions, do you think it is going to be
04  sensitive enough to be able to determine the differences of
05  these fluvial processes at 500 and 600 cfs, since there
06  seems to be an argument about how high it should be?
07       DR. TRUSH:  Based on the work I have done in other
08  streams, I have been able to narrow that window of mobility
09  to 50 cfs for higher discharge streams than this.  So I
10  think I could.  Not every attribute.  There is going to be
11  overlaps, 5 to 600 will be difficult.  But I think on
12  incipient conditions, yeah.
13       MR. CANADAY:  This is for Mr. Kavounas or Mr. Allen. 
14  In testimony we will hear later on, I am going to ask you
15  first have you read it, would be proposed testimony by Mr.
16  Harrison, I believe, of National Audubon/Mono Lake
17  Committee, referring to an Iowa vane as a way to construct
18  and in­pool device for moving sediment through the system,
19  particularly for Lee Vining.
20       Are you familiar with those systems at all, the Iowa
21  vane?
22       MR. ALLEN:  I myself am not, no.  I would have to do
23  some more research on that. 
24       MR. CANADAY:  Mr. Kavounas.
25       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Mr. Canaday, I read Mr. Harrison's
0344
01  testimony, and his concept of Iowa vanes intrigued me.  I am
02  not familiar with an Iowa vane system.  I asked people
03  throughout the Department that might have had some
04  experience.  Nobody seemed to know.  I placed a phone call
05  on Sunday night to Mr. Harrison to ask him specifically to
06  fax me any information he might have had, and I did not get
07  a response to the phone call.
08       MR. CANADAY:  That is information we need to evaluate? 
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I look forward to Mr. Harrison's 
10  testimony here; that concept intrigued me. 
11       MR. CANADAY:  Grazing, it is my understanding that the
12  LADWP plan proposes a ten­year moratorium. 
13       Is that correct, Mr. Kavounas?
14       MR. KAVOUNAS:  To my recollection, the plan proposes a
15  ten­year moratorium from the time the Board approves the
16  plan. 
17       MR. CANADAY:  Dr. Kauffman, isn't it your
18  recommendation in your testimony that the grazing plan be
19  indefinite?
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, it is. 
21       MR. CANADAY:  By that term, what kind of time frame are
22  you suggesting? 
23       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Indefinitely. 
24       MR. CANADAY:  Dr. Beschta, I believe you made a similar
25  recommendation? 
0345
01       DR. BESCHTA:  Yeah, I believe that the long­term
02  removal of grazing would be particularly important for this
03  system, on public lands certainly. 
04       MR. CANADAY:  Thank you.
05       Mr. Tillemans, one of the only of two several active,
06  restoration activities that is proposed in the LADWP plan,
07  and one of those is a limited vegetation planting program.  
08       Is that correct?
09       MR. TILLEMANS:  That is correct. 
10       MR. CANADAY:  It is primarily focused on conifer
11  species; is that correct?
12       MR. TILLEMANS:  In the interfluve sites.
13       MR. CANADAY:  Are you proposing any riparian planting,
14  as well?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  We proposed ­­ the sites we proposed
16  for riparian plants would be in the vicinity of Reach 3B by
17  old Highway 395 and possibly below the County Road on Lee
18  Vining Creek and near 3C, 3D. 
19       MR. CANADAY:  Those specific sites will be determined
20  in the field; is that correct?
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes.  Although I do agree with Boone's
22  recommendation that there is really no necessary
23  revegetation. 
24       MR. CANADAY:  Understood.
25       MR. TILLEMANS:  That was based on input from the
0346
01  parties. 
02       MR. CANADAY:  Part of either the actual labor and/or
03  funding is proposed in the plan to come from volunteers; is
04  that correct?
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  I think that is correct.  
06       MR. CANADAY:  If that volunteer activity is not
07  available, do you still intend to carry forward with the
08  plan?
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  In the absence of volunteer labor, the
10  Department will still conduct the work. 
11       MR. CANADAY:  Thank you.
12       BOARD MEMBER FORSTER:  I didn't hear the answer. 
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  My answer was, the Department would
14  carry on the work even in the absence of volunteer labor.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir. 
16       MR. CANADAY:  On proposal for large woody debris, which
17  is the other main channel restoration activity that is in
18  the LADWP plan, are there stream sections that, in fact, are
19  lands under the stewardship of U.S. Foresters? 
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I believe so.
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, that is true.
22       MR. CANADAY:  If the U.S. Forest Service recommendation
23  on their lands was to cable large woody debris, what would
24  you recommend?
25       MR. TILLEMANS:  Could you finish?
0347
01       MR. CANADAY:  If it is a permit condition of the U. S.
02  Forest Service on their lands to ­­
03       MR. TILLEMANS:  To anchor ­­
04       MR. CANADAY:  The large woody debris.
05       DR. PLATTS:  Use real small cables.
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  As you can tell from the panel, the
07  advice I have received is, that is a pointless exercise to
08  get into.  If it was a condition of the permit, we'd
09  probably call you for advice.
10       MR. CANADAY:  In reading your long, largely woody
11  debris program, I would typify it as something you intended
12  to do early on in the restoration process, and it would be
13  over a short period of years, but with no follow­up in the
14  future. 
15       Is that correct? 
16       MR. TILLEMANS:  That is correct. 
17       MR. CANADAY:  What would be the ­­ if you had initiated
18  a large woody debris program in November, where would that
19  debris be today in the streams and channel systems? 
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  In Lee Vining, it would probably be in
21  the lake. 
22       MR. CANADAY:  It would be driftwood? 
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.  In Rush Creek, it would probably
24  still be in place. 
25       I am sorry, can I retract my answer?  There are people
0348
01  here who are better qualified, please. 
02       DR. BESCHTA:  If the dimension of the piece is longer
03  than the width of the channel, they generally don't go very
04  far.  In fact, most pieces don't go very far in most
05  channels, the more complicated the channels become.  So
06  through time, the likelihood of wood moving through that
07  system very far gets less and less and less.     
08       It is one of these problematic things.  The hypo is now
09  yes, a fair amount of wood is now moving through the system.
10  In a few more years, less will be able to move very far at
11  all.  Through time, even less yet.  So, yes, wood does move,
12  but it will be on a decreasing curve.
13       MR. CANADAY:  That leads to the importance of using  ­­
14  the pieces that you do put in have to be that fairly large;
15  is that correct?
16       DR. BESCHTA:  That depends whether you think these
17  systems develop having large woody debris as a major and 
18  significant component.  My opinion would be that the willow
19  communities and the cottonwoods, as they exist, and the
20  roots and the stems that they have are much more important
21  than any large wood anybody will place in that system. 
22       So, in my view, if you're looking for roughness, and if
23  you are looking for scouring pools, and if you are looking
24  for undercut banks, you can put wood in there, but it is not
25  a necessary requirement to develop that system.  You can do
0349
01  it, but you don't need it. 
02       MR. CANADAY:  Dr. Trush, is there value to implementing
03  a large woody debris program in these streams? 
04       DR. TRUSH:  Well, originally how we came up with this,
05  we were going to dinner in Mammoth, and we saw them
06  cleaning, grading the new route parallel to 395.  They had
07  all this beautiful woody debris stacked up ready to burn it.
08  "Well, why don't we put it in the stream?"  And didn't know
09  this would generate.  And I think if I had to do it all over
10  again, I would say to the Forest Service or someone else,
11  "You guys take it and put it in a little stream somewhere
12  else, and we won't worry about it." 
13       I still think it is helpful.  I would put it in lower
14  Lee Vining Creek.  I think the larger stuff, larger pieces,
15  would strand, and that it would act as a benefit, not a
16  major benefit, to the channel, and that the program should
17  be purely opportunistic.        
18       It is unfortunate that we didn't get there in time
19  because the standard stuff, the Caltrans employees buck it
20  up, all the way up to the root ball.  So, you have bowling
21  balls.  If a little foresight could be out there, we'd keep
22  a ten foot stem on that root ball.  I would be very much in
23  favor of putting a few more of those in when the opportunity
24  arose.  But that would be the depth of a program; however I
25  would like that. 
0350
01       MR. CANADAY:  Questions about the Mono Gate Return
02  Ditch.  My recollection from the reading of your plan is
03  that it is the position of the Los Angeles Department of
04  Water and Power that return ditch is not to be used as a
05  surrogate for Reach 1. 
06       Is that correct, Mr. Kavounas? 
07       MR. KAVOUNAS:  As a surrogate for ­­
08       MR. CANADAY:  For fisheries habitat. 
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I can't answer that question.   It is not
10  my field of expertise.  I am not so sure ­­ I am not sure
11  what would be ­­
12       MR. CANADAY:  If I represent there was language such as
13  that in the plan, would you agree with that?
14       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.  But for clarification, maybe I can
15  turn it over to Brian.
16       MR. TILLEMANS:  I am not an expert on flow.   If you can
17  ­­ we will call it a surrogate.  But, as you know, it does
18  provide fish habitat.  We have many canals on our property
19  that are highly prized by DF&G in terms of fishery habitat,
20  and I will show you in temporarily cleaning this ditch, the
21  elodea, the aquatic vegetation that is persistent on the
22  bottom, quickly comes back.  In fact, that is why we have
23  maintenance programs on our canals in the Owens
24  Valley.  There are many fisheries' biologists within the
25  area that say that is why the brown trout really like those
0351
01  canals: because it is slow moving water, and they have that
02  cover of elodea to hide it.  So, it is a temporary setback
03  on cleaning, but there will definitely be fish habitat in
04  the ditch.
05       MR. CANADAY:  So, the design of the reclamation or
06  restoration of the Mono B Ditch could incorporate conditions
07  or design that would create fisheries' habitat, in this case
08  possibly for large adult fish. 
09       Is that correct?  That is what I am hearing from your
10  response.
11       MR. TILLEMANS:  If a canal ­­ if you are referring to a
12  canal design, like we have every place else where we have
13  fisheries in our canals, which is just, basically, constant
14  grading and flat. 
15       MR. CANADAY:  It is your experience that your canals do
16  support fish, catchable size? 
17       MR. TILLEMANS:  Most definitely.  And, in fact, the
18  Bishop Creek Canal, I can recall ten years ago or so, we had
19  discussions that Fish and Game wanted to include it in their
20  wild trout streams. 
21       MR. CANADAY:  Mr. Allen, question about the Upper Owens
22  River flows.  I refer you to the D­1631, which is on Pages
23  203 and 204, Item Number 7. 
24       To paraphrase Item Number 7, what it instructs the City
25  of Los Angeles is, that its discharge from East Portal shall
0352
01  not exceed the combined natural flow of the Owens River at
02  East Portal and whatever is released from East Portal up to
03  250, no greater than 250 cfs.
04       Is that correct?
05       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, that is correct.
06       MR. CANADAY:  It also instructs the licensee that any
07  releases made to Upper Owens River will be made at
08  relatively stable rates, constant with operations,
09  limitations, and water availability.
10       Is that, in fact, what will be incorporated into the
11  Grant Lake Operations Plan for LADWP exports, that they will
12  be ­­ they will not be pulsed over the year?
13       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, that is the intent of the plan. 
14  Comparing flows with the Upper Owens River in comparison to
15  the, say, the flows of the Mono Basin streams, what you find
16  is that there is less variation between, say, the summer
17  peak flows and the winter base flows.  So we commonly refer
18  to the Owens River as kind of a spring­fed system.  Although
19  some parties may not agree with that terminology, the main
20  point here is that there is a small variation between the
21  summer peak flows and ­­ well, there isn't as much variation
22  between the peak flows and the wintertime base flows as we
23  see on the Mono Basin creeks. 
24       In our plan, during the period while Mono Basin is
25  increasing from 6380 to 6392, the plan calls for a constant
0353
01  diversion of 22 cfs, with the exception of the upper bound
02  of the normal year types, in which we would gradually
03  decrease diversions in order to accommodate the channel
04  maintenance flow requirements of Rush Creek.  So, I believe
05  that the exports presented in our plan are consistent with
06  Item 7 of D­1631.
07       MR. CANADAY:  The capacity that has been identified is
08  for the upgrading and restoration of the Mono Gate Return
09  Ditch is 350 to 380 cfs.
10       Is that correct? 
11       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes. 
12       MR. CANADAY:  That amount is limited by the diversion
13  facility at Grant Lake.  What creates the limit of 350 to
14  380 cfs?
15       MR. ALLEN:  To my knowledge, that is the outlet total
16  capacity from Grant Lake.
17       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Total capacity?
18       MR. ALLEN:  Yes.
19       MR. CANADAY:  In your plan, you propose to monitor all
20  the diversion points and release points along the LADWP
21  project.  How much of those diversion structures are
22  telemetered, that recording date is telemetered?
23       MR. ALLEN:  On Walker­Parker Creeks and Lee Vining
24  Creek, those three facilities are telemetered.  In addition
25  to that, we also telemeter Grant Lake outflow and Grant Lake
0354
01  Reservoir elevation. 
02       MR. CANADAY:  By "outflow," it's the diversion tunnel,
03  then, that is telemetered?
04       MR. ALLEN:  Yes.  It's actually ­­ it's measured at the
05  outlet tower of Grant Lake Reservoir, so it's specifically
06  outflow from Grant Lake Reservoir. 
07       MR. CANADAY:  Is there a way to possibly telemeter the
08  ­­ as you telemeter the Mono Gate Ditch?
09       MR. ALLEN:  It is feasible to do that, yes.
10       MR. CANADAY:  Is it possible to telemeter the sand trap
11  where you propose to make releases of 150 cfs to meet your
12  bypass flows or channel maintenance flows?
13       MR. ALLEN:  It is possible.  However, I don't ­­ you
14  know, depending on the actual channel characteristics, it
15  may be difficult to actually predict what the flows are
16  directly at the release facility.  There may be a more
17  appropriate measurement facility that can be used for
18  determining those flows.  The release is specifically from
19  the conduit. 
20       MR. CANADAY:  So.  There is an ability to monitor and
21  measure that release being made and then, by having
22  knowledge of what release is being made from Mono Gate, you
23  would know when the flows are being introduced into the
24  lower part of Reach 1?
25       MR. DAVID:  Yes, that is correct.  Well, actually, the
0355
01  methodology that we were proposing to use was to ­­ at each
02  diversion facility, we measure the flow, both upstream and
03  downstream, of the diversion facility.  And so, with the sum
04  of the total diversions, in addition to the releases in the
05  Mono Ditch, we can calculate what the flows in Lower Rush
06  Creek are.  And this is a similar method which we use to
07  determine flows in Lower Rush Creek, say for example, when
08  Grant Lake Reservoir is spilling.  We use the spill in
09  combination without flow from the return ditch.
10       MR. CANADAY:  I am looking for ways that we can
11  possibly monitor or telemeter these diversions and release
12  points for real­time data.  So, that if parties were
13  interested in tracking the compliance with these conditions,
14  that they could be done, rather than relying on a month
15  later calculation from data that has been collected. 
16       Is that possible?
17       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, it is possible.   However, may I add,
18  specifically with the channels, going back to, say, the Mono
19  Return Ditch, one of the problems is that it is a ditch, and
20  the method for calculating flows ­­ there is actually a
21  couple of methods that you can use. 
22       One method would be to measure the stage of the flow
23  and estimate the flows using known hydrologic equations. 
24  The method that we use is that we take flows in the return
25  ditch as the difference between Grant Lake outflow and the
0356
01  flows that we measure at the East Portal, which go to Upper
02  Owens River.  And it is kind of a back calculation because
03  we have to subtract out the base flows that occur from the
04  Mono Tunnel.
05       MR. CANADAY:  But it is feasible to establish a
06  measurement in the monitoring program that one could get
07  real­time releases from these particular points; isn't it?  
08       MR. ALLEN:  I would question the accuracy of a
09  measuring device on the Mono Return Ditch.  And then, in
10  addition to that, I would also question ­­ well, I can't say
11  as to the adequacy of a measuring device on the return
12  channel without knowing what it is.  Not the return channel,
13  excuse me, but the conduit channel which would go from the
14  conduit to the confluence of Rush Creek. 
15       MR. CANADAY:  In the design of the Mono Gate Ditch,
16  which is being proposed by the City of Los Angeles, there is
17  an opportunity to look at a way of designing a section of
18  stream in which a stream flow could be measured and
19  telemetered because you can create a channel there or a
20  geometric design with which you can do that; is that correct?
21       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, that is correct.
22       MR. CANADAY:  Mr. Kavounas, I heard mentioned earlier
23  that the Restoration Plan or the Monitoring Plan would
24  possibly be let out to bid. 
25       Are you proposing any oversight by scientists that
0357
01  prepared this plan so that we have some sort of assurance
02  that, in fact, their intent is carried forward?
03       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Not specifically in the plan.   I expect
04  that what would happen procedurally, is that the Department
05  spec would have to come out and in doing so, I would
06  consider seeking advice from the scientists that prepared
07  it.              
08       MR. CANADAY:  I am more interested in their review of
09  the reports prepared by the contractor who physically did
10  the work and collected the data. 
11       MR. KAVOUNAS:  This is a little difficult for me to
12  answer.  I can't really commit to using the scientists
13  because that is committing my Board of Commissioners to
14  hiring a particular consultant.  I can certainly tell you
15  that they have highly relevant expertise.  And if they were
16  to submit a statement of qualifications, they would be
17  highly qualified.
18       MR. CANADAY:  Finally, Dr. Allen ­­ Mr. Allen, based on
19  the potential water year that we may have come this spring
20  runoff, given the existing condition of the Mono Gate Ditch,
21  is it likely that L.A. will be able to make a wet year or
22  extreme wet year release for channel maintenance flow this
23  year?
24       MR. ALLEN:  At this point, I really can't say exactly
25  what kind of flows we will expect.  One of the things is, we
0358
01  need to rehabilitate the return ditch.  At this point, I can
02  say that I believe the Grant Lake Reservoir has started to
03  spill already, due to the flows that we had earlier this
04  month, and that the operations for this year will likely
05  strictly flow through conditions on the reservoir. 
06  Essentially, we will plan to just flow through whatever
07  comes in above Grant Lake, believe pass through.             
08       MR. CANADAY:  The estimated time it will take for 
09  permitting, planning, and doing the physical work for the
10  Mono Gate Return Ditch is in your exhibit; approximately two
11  years.  Is that still ­­
12       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I believe so. 
13       MR. ALLEN:  That is from the data approval by this
14  agency.  Is that correct? 
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That may be optimistic.  I don't recall
16  if the CEQA process was included in that.
17       MR. CANADAY:  Thank you.  That is all I have.
18       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thanks to the staff for those
19  questions.  That now ­­ let me ask Esther. 
20                  (Discussion held off record.)
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We need to take a break before we
22  start redirect.
23       Mr. Birmingham, I thought you were rising to comment.
24       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Chairman, I thought we agreed that we
25  were going to stop at 8:00.
0359
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, I don't know that we agreed. 
02  You and I had a discussion that we were going to try and 
03  stop at that point.  But I think, in the interest in getting
04  this panel out of here and everybody is willing to go a
05  little further ­­
06       Let's ask Mr. Birmingham how much redirect he has.   We
07  don't put any pressure on you, Mr. Birmingham.  Five
08  minutes?  Ten minutes?
09       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  A minimum of a half an hour.
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I can do that.  I can certainly stay
11  that long.  I know we have two.  Mr. Del Piero and I can
12  stay that long.  We have a couple Board Members that have to
13  leave in about half hour. 
14       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Chairman, I am getting pretty tired,
15  and if you want to change to 8:30, I will hang on.  But I am
16  getting pretty tired.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, that's unfortunate because
18  there are a lot of folks here and we have limited time to do
19  this.  If perhaps you would want to go first, if it was
20  agreeable to the other parties, we would put you first for
21  recross.  That would be a possibility. 
22       Mr. Birmingham.
23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  May I inquire, Mr. Caffrey, of the
24  panel? 
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please.
0360
01       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  The panel has been on since 9:00 or
02  10:00 this morning?
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  They are a pretty tough bunch.  No
04  question about it.
05       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  We are going to lose them
06  tomorrow, right?
07       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  No.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I thought that was your point.
09       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  There is one member of the panel who
10  has a class tomorrow.  Dr. Kauffman has to leave to teach a
11  class at Oregon State tomorrow evening.  He can be back on
12  Thursday.  The remainder of the panel can be here in the
13  morning.  And, actually, I only have a few questions of Dr.
14  Kauffman on redirect.  And maybe what I would do, just to
15  save time, is to say I would bring him back on our rebuttal
16  case and to respond to those questions.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  So, you are suggesting, perhaps,
18  that we just adjourn now and then, if everybody is in
19  agreement, you would bring Dr. Kauffman back on Thursday.   
20       Is that what I hear?  I am sure that thrills Dr.
21  Kauffman.
22       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  This is a deal here, pal, so
23  you better make a commitment one way or the other.
24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Dr. Kauffman expressed to me his
25  availability to come back Thursday.  I will commit to bring
0361
01  him back.  A lot of people in the audience are nodding their
02  heads up and down, saying, yeah.  But it is the Board that
03  controls this decision.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I think we are a fairly resilient
05  Board, and we can go many, many hours.  We do this a lot.
06       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  One, two, three in the morning.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero and I have this thing,
08  we can go till 3:00 a.m., just to see who gets tired first. 
09  But, having said that ­­
10       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  That pepped you all up, didn't
11  it.
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I want you to understand, at least
13  the Chair, and I am sure the other Board Members, we want
14  very much to finish this in the three days allotted.  And we
15  are going to make another assessment tomorrow afternoon. 
16       If that means tomorrow afternoon at about 5:00 we take
17  a hour and a half break for dinner and then we go to
18  midnight, because that is what we are going to have to do to
19  finish it on the third day, that is what we are going to do.
20       I would just say to all of you, to be efficient and
21  crisp in your cross­examination because I will observe that
22  some are more crisp than others and still get it down.  So,
23  maybe that is a question of style, but it is something to
24  think about as we proceed through this. 
25       So, Dr. Kauffman ­­
0362
01       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I would very much prefer to complete my
02  testimony and my panel responsibilities this evening, if at
03  all possible.  It certainly would ­­
04       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  It is not possible, Dr. Kauffman.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I think it is becoming impossible. 
06  People are tired, and it's pretty tough to know how long the
07  cross­examination is going to take.  We could end up here
08  till midnight, if we go through with it. 
09       I think you are all going to be pretty exhausted.   You
10  might regret having asked for that a few hours from now.  I
11  know it is difficult for you to come back.  We appreciate
12  your attempt and your deference. 
13       With that, we are at the point now where we would go to
14  redirect.  I hear everybody saying they would like to call
15  it a night. 
16       We would be back here ­­ I am not coming back at 8:30,
17  as Mr. Dodge suggested.  We will back at ­­
18       Thank you, Mr. Dodge, for offering it. 
19       We will back at 9:00, and we will hit it as hard as we
20  can, and see where that takes us.
21       Mr. Roos­Collins, you were about to ask a question,
22  sir? 
23       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Is this room locked up at night?
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes.  If you want to leave your 
25  things here, we will make sure it is locked.
0363
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  This meeting is adjourned.  
02       See you 9:00 in the morning.
03                 (Hearing adjourned at 8:20 p.m.)
04                            ­­­oOo­­­
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0364
01                   REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
02
03
04  STATE OF CALIFORNIA   )
04                         )     ss.  
05  COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO  )
05
06
06
07       I, ESTHER F. WIATRE, certify that I was the
08  official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein,
09  and that as such reporter, I reported in verbatim shorthand
10  writing those proceedings;
11       That I thereafter caused my shorthand writing to be
12  reduced to typewriting, and the pages numbered 6 through 363
13  herein constitute a complete, true and correct record of the
14  proceedings.
15
16       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this
17  certificate at Sacramento, California, on this
18  6th day of February 1997.
19
20
21
22
22
23                          ______________________________  
23                          ESTHER F. WIATRE
24                          CSR NO. 1564
24
25

Search | Contents | Home
Copyright © 1999-2017, Mono Lake Committee.
Top of This Page