Click here to go Home

 

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

PUBLIC HEARING

 

---oOo---

REGARDING STREAM AND WATERFOWL HABITAT RESTORATION PLANS

AND GRANT LAKE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY

THE LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER PURSUANT TO

THE REQUIREMENTS OF WATER RIGHT DECISION 1631

 

                                          HELD AT:

 

                            STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

                                  PAUL BONDERSON BUILDING

                           901 P STREET, FIRST FLOOR HEARING ROOM

                                 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1997

                                          9:00 AM

                      REPORTED BY:  TERI L. VERES, CSR NO. 7522, RMR

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

 

         1                              APPEARANCES

 

         2                               ---oOo---

 

         3      BOARD MEMBERS:

 

         4            JOHN CAFFREY, CHAIRMAN

                      JOHN W. BROWN, VICE CHAIR

         5            JAMES STUBCHAER

                      MARY JANE FORSTER

         6

                STAFF MEMBERS:

         7

                      JAMES CANADAY, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST

         8            GERALD E. JOHNS, ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF

 

         9      COUNSEL:

 

        10            DAN FRINK, ESQ.

 

        11      NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY:

                MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:

        12

                      MORRISON & FOERSTER

        13            425 Market Street

                      San Francisco, California  94105

        14            BY:  F. BRUCE DODGE, ESQ.

 

        15            HEIDE HOPKINS

                      GREG REISE

        16            PETER VORSTER

 

        17            PANEL MEMBERS:

 

        18            Frederic A. Reid, M.S., Ph.D

                      W. David Shuford

        19            William J. Trush, Ph.D.

 

        20

                LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER:

        21

                      KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

        22            400

CAPITOL Mall, 27th Floor

                      Sacramento, California  95814

        23            BY:  THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ.

                                  and

        24                 JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ.

 

        25

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           846

         1                           APPEARANCES CONT'D

 

         2                               ---oOo---

 

         3      RICHARD L. RIDENHOUR:

 

         4            RICHARD L. RIDENHOUR, Ph.D.

 

         5      CALIFORNIA TROUT, INC.:

 

         6            NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE

                      114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200

         7            San Francisco, California  94104

                      BY:  RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ.

         8

                CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME:

         9

                      McDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN

        10            555

CAPITOL Mall, Ninth Floor

                      Sacramento, California  95814

        11            BY:  VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ.

 

        12            THE RESOURCES AGENCY

                      1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor

        13            Sacramento, California  95814

                      BY:  NANCEE MURRAY, ESQ.

        14

                CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION:

        15      CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION:

 

        16            DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                      MARY J. SCOONOVER, Deputy Attorney General

        17            1300 I Street

                      Sacramento, California  95814

        18

                      MICHAEL VALENTINE

        19

 

        20

 

        21                               ---oOo---

 

        22

 

        23

 

        24

 

        25

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           847

 

         1                                 INDEX

 

         2                               ---oOo---

 

         3                                                             PAGE

                NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:

         4      (PANEL OF FREDERIC A. REID, Ph.D. and W. DAVID SHUFORD)

 

         5            DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

         6                   BY MR. DODGE...............................857

 

         7            CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

         8                   BY MS. GOLDSMITH...........................873

                             (QUESTIONS ASKED BY MR. CANADAY FOR BLM)

         9                   BY MR. CANADAY.............................903

                             (QUESTIONS ASKED BY MR. JOHNS FOR BELLOMOS)

        10                   BY MR. JOHNS...............................906

                             BY MS. CAHILL..............................929

        11                   BY MS. SCOONOVER...........................945

                             BY MR. FRINK...............................961

        12                   BY MR. CANADAY.............................975

                             BY BOARD MEMBER BROWN......................990

        13

                      REDIRECT EXAMINATION

        14

                             BY MR. DODGE...............................992

        15

                      RECROSS-EXAMINATION

        16

                             BY MS. GOLDSMITH...........................1003

        17                   BY MS. SCOONOVER...........................1013

 

        18

                RICHARD L. RIDENHOUR

        19      (PRESENTING DIRECT TESTIMONY ON HIS OWN BEHALF)

 

        20            DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

        21                   BY DR. RIDENHOUR...........................1018

 

        22      CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

        23                   BY MS. GOLDSMITH...........................1024

                             BY MR. ROOS-COLLINS........................1025

        24                   BY MS. CAHILL..............................1031

                             BY MR. DODGE...............................1046

        25                   BY MR. CANADAY.............................1061

 

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           848

 

 

         1                              INDEX CONT'D

 

         2                               ---oOo---

 

         3      NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:

                (WILLIAM J. TRUSH, Ph.D.)

         4

                      DIRECT EXAMINATION

         5

                             BY MR. DODGE...............................1065

         6

                      CROSS-EXAMINATION

         7

                             BY MR. ROOS-COLLINS........................1069

         8                   BY MS. CAHILL..............................1083

                             BY MR. CANADAY.............................1094

         9

                      REDIRECT EXAMINATION

        10

                             BY MR. DODGE...............................1095

        11

                      RECROSS-EXAMINATION

        12

                             BY MR. BIRMINGHAM..........................1098

        13                   BY MR. JOHNS...............................1099

 

        14      AFTERNOON SESSION.......................................945

 

        15

 

        16

 

        17

                                         ---oOo---

        18

 

        19

 

        20

 

        21

 

        22

 

        23

 

        24

 

        25

 

                              

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           849

 

         1                         SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

 

         2                  TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1997, 9:08 AM

 

         3                               ---oOo---

 

         4            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Good morning and welcome back to

 

         5      the Mono Lake Restoration Plan proceeding.  In case there

 

         6      are any new faces in the audience, my name is John Caffrey.

 

         7      I'm the Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board

 

         8      and I am acting as Hearing Officer in this proceeding.

 

         9            With me today is our Board's Vice Chair, John Brown.

 

        10      Other Board Members may be joining us throughout the day.

 

        11      This is in keeping with what I had announced in a previous

 

        12      hearing.

 

        13            I'd also like to make an announcement about a dear

 

        14      friend and colleague, Marc Del Piero.  Some of you may not

 

        15      know this, but Marc about a week and a half ago, maybe two

 

        16      weeks ago sustained a very serious back injury.  He has

 

        17      undergone surgery last Wednesday, and I've been trying to

 

        18      get an update on what his current condition is.  As late as

 

        19      last Friday they were concerned about the outcome of the

 

        20      surgery and were considering the possibility of yet another

 

        21      surgery, but we hadn't heard yet.

 

        22            So, anyway, we'll try to keep you informed.  Marc has

 

        23      been an integral part of the Mono Lake process since its

 

        24      inception more or less publicly before this Board, and so

 

        25      we're very concerned.  It isn't anything that he's not going

 

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           850

 

         1      to recover from, but he's in a lot of pain and our thoughts

 

         2      are with him.

 

         3            He also wants you all to know that his interest in

 

         4      this proceeding, in the outcome of this proceeding remains

 

         5      very high and the record of these proceedings will be

 

         6      available to Marc at all times.  So knowing his level of

 

         7      dedication, I know that he will be -- continue to be very

 

         8      involved in this, but I wanted you all to know.

 

         9            With that, then, let the record also show that we have

 

        10      been joined by Mr. Stubchaer.  Good morning, Mr. Stubchaer.

 

        11            BOARD MEMBER STUBCHAER:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

 

        12            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  And when last we were convened we

 

        13      had gone through partial cross-examination of the Bureau of

 

        14      Land Management and then we had some discussion that we were

 

        15      going to move ahead with a slightly different schedule to

 

        16      accommodate certain witnesses and certain parties with the

 

        17      schedule that we had laid out for today and then three days

 

        18      next week.

 

        19            So I presume that everybody has had a copy -- received

 

        20      their copy of the new schedule such as it is and we will try

 

        21      to adhere to that as best we can.  The schedule I refer to

 

        22      is the one that went with the letter that I signed recently

 

        23      to the parties and we'll try to keep with that.  Whether or

 

        24      not we'll be able to stay with it in terms of finishing each

 

        25      day precisely with everything that we had hoped to cover,

 

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           851

 

         1      that will remain to be seen; but I would like to ask all of

 

         2      the attorneys representing the parties, as well as the

 

         3      witnesses representing the parties, to do the best you can

 

         4      to be succinct and crisp.

 

         5            We're not looking, especially from the witnesses, for

 

         6      dissertations in your answers.  We know that there's a great

 

         7      deal of expertise in the room, but we would prefer that you

 

         8      be very direct in your answer, very clear and make it as

 

         9      short as you can in the interest of getting through this

 

        10      proceeding in the time that remains so that we can get on

 

        11      with the development and adoption of an order by the Board

 

        12      so that we can get to the actual action of protecting the

 

        13      environs of the lake.

 

        14            With that, then, unless there is something from the

 

        15      other Board Members or anything I might have overlooked,

 

        16      Mr. Frink, may we proceed with the schedule as laid out?

 

        17            MR. FRINK:  Yes, Mr. Caffrey.  There was only one

 

        18      comment I had, and that was the schedule that was attached

 

        19      to your letter that went out last week listed a couple of

 

        20      panels of witnesses for today and it indicated that

 

        21      Dr. Ridenhour would be appearing on a panel with some other

 

        22      witnesses.

 

        23            My understanding is he would prefer to appear

 

        24      separately, and it looks like it would accommodate

 

        25      everybody's schedule and interest best if we completed the

 

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           852

 

         1      testimony of him before we got into the other witnesses on

 

         2      stream matters.  But that will come later in the day after

 

         3      the testimony on waterfowl matters by Mr. Reid and

 

         4      Mr. Shuford.

 

         5            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  But the concept is that we'll have

 

         6      Mr. Ridenhour presenting his direct separately and not a

 

         7      part of the kind of a mixed panel.

 

         8            MR. FRINK:  Yes, that's right.

 

         9            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right.  You'll please remind me

 

        10      of that if I forget when we get to Mr. Ridenhour.

 

        11            Good morning, Mr. Dodge, and welcome, sir.

 

        12            MR. DODGE:  Thank you, good morning.

 

        13            Mr. Johns had a suggestion that I was actually

 

        14      thinking about myself.  So I want to just sort of announce

 

        15      it so everyone's aware of it.

 

        16            I have very short testimony, which would be my Exhibit

 

        17      3 and 3A from Southern California Edison, and specifically

 

        18      from a gentleman named Ken Varnell, who I've never met.  The

 

        19      testimony relates to the present state of the return ditch

 

        20      that goes from below the Lundy Powerhouse back to Mill

 

        21      Creek.

 

        22            I anticipate -- I understand Mr. Varnell is on the

 

        23      eastern side representing SCE.  I would have a marginal

 

        24      preference that he be here and testify; but if people are

 

        25      willing to stipulate that the exhibits that I mentioned

 

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           853

 

         1      could go into evidence without him coming over here and

 

         2      testifying I'm prepared to do that, also.

 

         3            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  And you were -- when was he

 

         4      scheduled to appear?

 

         5            MR. DODGE:  He's not scheduled right now.

 

         6            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Oh, I see.  You just wish to bring

 

         7      him on as a witness and we don't have him anywhere in our

 

         8      schedule at the moment; is that right?

 

         9            MR. DODGE:  I believe that's correct.

 

        10            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Would the parties be willing to

 

        11      stipulate?  Is there any objection to what Mr. Dodge

 

        12      proposes?

 

        13            MS. GOLDSMITH:  DWP has no objection.

 

        14            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  There does not appear to be any

 

        15      objection, sir.  If you will offer that, then, at the

 

        16      time -- I presume you were going to offer that when you

 

        17      offer all of your exhibits into evidence and we will so

 

        18      stipulate.

 

        19            MR. DODGE:  Thank you.

 

        20            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Dodge.

 

        21            Let the record will show that we have been joined by

 

        22      Ms. Forster.

 

        23            BOARD MEMBER FORSTER:  Good morning.

 

        24            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right, then --

 

        25            MS. GOLDSMITH:  Mr. Chairman.

 

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           854

 

         1            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes.

 

         2            MS. GOLDSMITH:  I also have a housekeeping matter.

 

         3            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right, please.

 

         4            MS. GOLDSMITH:  Because Mr. Birmingham is unable to be

 

         5      here today and he has the primary responsibility for

 

         6      cross-examining Mr. Vorster, he'd like to defer his

 

         7      cross-examination until Mr. Vorster's next appearance which,

 

         8      I believe, is scheduled for next week.

 

         9            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  So that there would be no

 

        10      cross-examination from the City at all then of Mr. Vorster?

 

        11            MS. GOLDSMITH:  At this point.

 

        12            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  At this point.

 

        13            MS. GOLDSMITH:  It would be deferred and he would do

 

        14      that next week.

 

        15            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is there any objection?

 

        16            MR. DODGE:  We'd be happy to accommodate that.

 

        17            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right, that will be the order.

 

        18      We will allow that.

 

        19            MR. DODGE:  I assume the other parties will

 

        20      cross-examine Mr. Vorster.

 

        21            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I'm sorry, Mr. Dodge?

 

        22            MR. DODGE:  I assume the other parties who are here

 

        23      today will cross-examine Mr. Vorster.

 

        24            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I certainly would make that

 

        25      assumption.  I'm seeing nobody commenting to the contrary.

 

                              

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           855

 

         1      Mr. Vorster is here and I will certainly call on you all to

 

         2      cross-examine if you so desire.

 

         3            All right.  Then I believe, Mr. Dodge, you have a

 

         4      couple witnesses that you want to bring on as a panel.

 

         5            MR. DODGE:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I would

 

         6      like to call Dr. Frederic Reid and Mr. David Shuford.  If

 

         7      you could take a seat over there.

 

         8            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  And this is entirely for the

 

         9      purposes of the Waterfowl Plan; is that correct?

 

        10            MR. DODGE:  That is correct, sir.

 

        11            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I'm sorry, Mr. Canaday.

 

        12            MR. CANADAY:  Can we have the oath, Mr. Chairman.

 

        13            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Oh, thank you for reminding me.

 

        14      Gentlemen, I presume you were not here and we need for to

 

        15      you take the oath.

 

        16            Are there others who are going to appear today and

 

        17      offer testimony that have not taken the oath?  Please, if

 

        18      you will all stand.  Raise your right hand.

 

        19                (Oath administered by Chairman Caffrey.)

 

        20            CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you.  All right, please

 

        21      proceed, Mr. Dodge.

 

        22      ///

 

        23      ///

 

        24      ///

 

        25      ///

 

                             

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

                                                                           856

 

         1                               ---oOo---

2 DIRECT EXAMINATION

3 BY NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:

4 MR. DODGE: Yes. Good morning, gentlemen.

5 Dr. Reid, I would like you to identify Exhibit

6 R-NAS/MLC-2 as your direct testimony and then give us a

7 brief summary of that testimony. And then, Mr. Shuford, I

8 would like you to identify Exhibit R-NAS/MLC-4 as your

9 direct testimony and give us a brief oral summary of that

10 testimony. If we could start with, Dr. Reid.

11 DR. REID: Could you show me that, because I never got

12 the final copy.

13 MR. DODGE: You've been well trained.

14 DR. REID: This is my testimony except, as in the 1993

15 period, my name is misspelled in the front. I have no "k"

16 in "Frederic."

17 My name is Frederic A. Reid. I hold an M.S. and a

18 Ph.D. in Fisheries and Wildlife Ecology from the University

19 of Missouri. I've had the pleasure of speaking to this

20 Board on two other occasions, one on Mono Lake and one on

21 the Yuba River.

22 I have had occasion to work in wetlands across North

23 America over the last about 20 years. I have worked

24 extensively in the Midwest and the Western wetlands. My

25 role currently as Director of Conservation Planning for

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

857

1 Ducks Unlimited has me identify major wetland landscapes

2 across the Western United States where Ducks Unlimited and

3 other organizations work to preserve, restore and enhance

4 wetland habitats across the continent.

5 This past year our office here in Sacramento, which is

6 responsible for the ten western states in coordinating with

7 Canada and Mexico, delivered approximately 12 million

8 dollars of wetland restoration out of our office.

9 I have been associated with Mono Lake in relationship

10 to the restoration project at DeChambeau Ponds and beginning

11 in 1992 in relation to some of the hearings. I did testify

12 in 1993 in relation to some of the value of waterfowl

13 habitats in the lake where some of these historically

14 probably were and where they might be. I also then was part

15 of the three-man crew of scientists that was brought on by

16 LADWP to provide a plan to them which was listed as the

17 Appendix 1 in the plan that LADWP put forward which provided

18 ideas for waterfowl habitat restoration in the Basin.

19 Since that time I have continued to work in the west

20 and I've also been involved in several wetland restoration

21 projects in Eastern Europe currently working with the World

22 Bank and a number of projects that are related to Mono Lake

23 such as the Siivash Lagoons, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov,

24 Lake Sevard in the former Soviet Union that has similar

25 challenges to what we see in Mono Lake.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

858

1 I'd like to, if I may, just summarize briefly where

2 there may be some differences between what the three

3 scientists recommended and the LADWP plan.

4 As you look around the lake and you look at what the

5 scientists have recommended, there are some differences in

6 the plan. LADWP does agree with the scientists that a burn

7 procedure -- a plan and procedure to do a mosaic of burns

8 around the Simons Springs area is a good and viable means to

9 increase good quality waterfowl habitat. However, it's not

10 really spelled out in either plan how that is to be directly

11 implemented with the other players that are there, the

12 Forest Service and State Lands.

13 The LADWP plan does agree that jackpot burning is a

14 viable option in the Rush Creek bottoms, and they also agree

15 that some of the distributaries in the Rush Creek that we

16 recommended should also be reopened. These distributaries

17 are in accordance, also, with some of the recommendations by

18 the fisheries and stream groups who we discussed with

19 Dr. Ridenhour about some of those distributaries.

20 As you the continue around the lake, there is

21 restoration at suggested -- at the DeChambeau County

22 Ponds/Black Point area. In the LADWP plan they say that

23 that is feasible, although expensive, provided they can

24 receive some outside funding.

25 The estimates of funding have not changed other than

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

859

1 in my written testimony here I suggest that there is the

2 feasibility to line the County Ponds with a Bentonite, which

3 will take care of any water loss that might occur because of

4 soils. This will increase the cost of the project by

5 probably about somewhere between 40 to 60 thousand dollars,

6 but because of reduced charges in water and pumping that

7 will probably equalize.

8 The main differences that exist between the

9 scientists' report and LADWP is the proposals to restore

10 parts of -- to restore the Mill Creek system and in some of

11 the monitoring aspects. In relation to Mill Creek the

12 scientists suggest that as much water as possible be entered

13 into the system as high up as possible probably at the

14 return ditch system. We recognize that the return ditch

15 system will probably have to have major renovations in order

16 to take these larger flows. There was little discussion in

17 the LADWP plan in that aspect.

18 Looking further at some of the new information that's

19 been forwarded by Edison, it appears that that return ditch

20 may hold as little as a maximum of 12 cfs, where in our

21 report we suggested it was 16 cfs. Clearly, there needs to

22 be some improvement in that to take larger flows for the

23 spring and summer flows that are necessary in order to make

24 Mill Creek a viable habitat for waterfowl.

25 We further suggested that in addition to the perennial

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

860

1 flows that LADWP has proposed that there needs to be a

2 greater flow in the spring, summer and trying to reach 11 --

3 about 11.6 cfs during the fall period, which is trying to

4 mimic the fall flow in Mill Creek to provide as much

5 distributary habitat and as much spring flow in that region

6 during the fall period; and, finally, in relation to Mill

7 Creek we suggested that a number of distributaries, five,

8 could be reopened in Mill Creek to assist in forming some

9 shallow back water habitat in the bottomlands and in the

10 middle portions of Mill Creek.

11 The LADWP plan suggests that we should wait and see

12 how the stream recovers prior to opening some of those

13 distributaries. Actually, three of the five are fairly

14 simple to open and could be done immediately. Likewise, the

15 fifth one, the E Channel as described by Dr. Stine in the

16 appendix of the LADWP plan, could be reopened at this time

17 with an additional culvert under the road -- County Road

18 system. It would open up a much broader channel at the base

19 of the delta and enlarge the delta across two major

20 channels, which is fairly favorable in increasing the

21 quality of the riparian habitat in the Mill Creek bottoms.

22 In relation to the monitoring aspect, we recommended

23 that there be annual aerial photographs done and we suggest,

24 in fact, that it might be best to do two aerial annual

25 photographs, one done at peak flow and one done at the peak

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

861

1 timing of waterfowl migration in the fall, say sometime mid

2 October to early November. I believe that they knock down

3 that number. We suggest at least annually one time and two

4 would be better.

5 We, likewise, suggest that as a means to actually set

6 up an understanding for what is the regional waterfowl

7 response versus what is actually happening at Mono Lake that

8 in addition to taking fall population indices of the ducks

9 on Mono Lake, that you also count birds from aerial censuses

10 at Bridgeport and at Crowley because that will allow you a

11 ratio to look at: Are you actually increasing duck response

12 on Mono Lake? Or is it more that it's a relationship of low

13 or high duck population simply in the region? And so what

14 you should see is that if populations are increasing at Mono

15 Lake, then the ratio of birds at Mono comparing to

16 Bridgeport or Crowley should also raise, and we think that

17 that's an important contribution.

18 We are concerned that there is some long-term

19 monitoring evaluation in relation to potential invertebrate

20 prey. The LADWP plan does call for annual monitoring of the

21 shrimp. It does, however, back down on brine flies and we

22 suggest that monitoring the larvae and/or pupae of this

23 organism is extremely important in potential prey for these

24 birds.

25 If you look at a study by Boula and Jarvis, which was

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

862

1 published and I believe it's cited in our report, they did

2 research on northern shoveler food habits at Lake Abert,

3 which is a somewhat similar habitat type, and found in fact,

4 brine flies were present in food habitats of northern

5 shovelers. So it's clear that the shoveler will feed on

6 these organisms, and we believe that rather than sampling

7 one organism, the shrimp, and using that as a template to

8 describe how both organisms would respond, it's really most

9 viable to look at both organisms and track that out because

10 what we may very well see is we may very well see that given

11 recovery of restoration areas, given recovery of lake

12 levels, there may be a lag time in the way these

13 invertebrates respond and that may more dictate why ducks

14 respond to the lake.

15 If we do not start analyzing and evaluating in a --

16 MS. GOLDSMITH: Mr. Chairman, at this point I'd like

17 to object. Dr. Reid is going far beyond his written

18 testimony.

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Okay.

20 MR. DODGE: I disagree entirely. He's talking about

21 the reasons for his recommendation on monitoring brine fly,

22 which is part of his testimony.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Go ahead.

24 MS. GOLDSMITH: I defy Mr. Reid to point to his

25 written testimony and show me where it goes into these

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

863

1 specific reasons for the monitoring. I agree it does say

2 that the monitoring should be done.

3 MR. DODGE: He's just elaborating on his position,

4 Mr. Chairman.

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I understand both of your concerns.

6 Perhaps you could refer to your testimony a little bit,

7 Dr. Reid.

8 DR. REID: Sure.

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: It might help counsel keep track of

10 how this relates to your direct. It might help us all.

11 DR. REID: My written testimony says that, "I

12 emphasize that the potential prey of alkali flies and

13 brine" --

14 MS. GOLDSMITH: Excuse me, Dr. Reid. Could you give

15 me a page?

16 DR. REID: No, I don't have page numbers on this one.

17 It's the last page. It's where my signature is. It's the

18 page that starts, "The scientists presented a minimal level

19 of monitoring for the project." And it further states that,

20 "We believe that critical baseline information may have

21 already been lost because monitoring has not occurred. I

22 emphasize that the potential prey of alkali flies and brine

23 shrimp must be measured as a population index at least

24 annually." And that's what I refer to in my testimony in

25 relation to the monitoring and that's my point, that I

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

864

1 believe both species should be done on an annual basis.

2 MS. GOLDSMITH: That's the extent of it.

3 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. You may proceed with

4 your testimony, Dr. Reid.

5 MS. SCOONOVER: Excuse me, Chairman Caffrey.

6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, Ms. Scoonover.

7 MS. SCOONOVER: I also think it's important to point

8 out that Dr. Reid was one of the three authors of the

9 Waterfowl Plan that's been attached to the Department of

10 Water and Power's plan that did go into greater detail about

11 the necessity of monitoring. I think Dr. Reid's testimony

12 is entirely related to information that's already in the

13 record.

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you for your

15 comment. It is now in the record.

16 Would you please proceed.

17 DR. REID: Sure. Just to continue on with the

18 monitoring aspects in relation to what I said directly in my

19 written testimony, we further -- I further felt that it

20 would be important that a trust be set up so that

21 independent scientists, not those that received direct

22 funding from LADWP, could conduct this work and go into some

23 explanation in terms of why you don't want an agency who may

24 be interested in a specific answer to hold dollars over the

25 head of a specific scientist. And that was my testimony.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

865

1 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: That completes your direct, sir?

2 DR. REID: Yep.

3 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, thank you.

4 Mr. Dodge, do you wish to -- are we going to go

5 directly now to -- is it Mr. Shuford or --

6 MR. DODGE: Mr. Shuford I had planned to, yes.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right.

8 MR. DODGE: But I'll do it any way you want.

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: No, that's fine. I just didn't --

10 there was a pause and I wasn't sure who was going to speak

11 next. I'm just trying to --

12 MR. DODGE: Neither is Mr. Shuford. We haven't

13 rehearsed this.

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. This is more free form

15 than some of the other testimony, which is fine.

16 Go ahead, Mr. Shuford.

17 MR. SHUFORD: My name is David Shuford. I work for

18 Point Reyes Bird Observatory, which is a non-profit

19 organization dedicated to conducting ecological research and

20 providing a scientific basis for conservation of birds and

21 their habitats.

22 I've worked at Mono Lake for 14 years conducting

23 research and monitoring of the California gull population

24 and I've had the pleasure of testifying before the Board in

25 the water hearings regarding that issue.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

866

1 I also have extensive experience monitoring water

2 birds for the last 20 years and, in particular, shorebirds

3 based on, you know, a wide variety of methods from ground,

4 boat and aerial surveys. I'm quite familiar with techniques

5 for surveying and monitoring birds, the type that could be

6 used at Mono Lake for waterfowl.

7 One of my main comments about the Waterfowl Plan as

8 it's currently written is there aren't any really clear

9 criteria for measuring the effects of restoration, whether

10 these are effective; and I think if restoration is going to

11 proceed at Mono Lake and we are going to have an effective

12 plan we need some way to measure, whether it's objective or

13 subjective or otherwise, whether or not the actual plan and

14 the way it's carried out does restore waterfowl habitat and

15 waterfowl populations to Mono Lake.

16 In North America there's a plan called the "North

17 American Waterfowl Management Plan" that's sort of a

18 landmark effort to restore habitat for waterfowl continent

19 wide. And in that plan they do have objective criteria,

20 population criteria or habitat criteria for trying to figure

21 out if they are meeting their goals of waterfowl

22 restoration; and whether or not those exact criteria were to

23 apply to Mono Lake is uncertain, but it seems important that

24 the plan has some way of measuring whether the restoration

25 is effective or not.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

867

1 There are specific cases where I think the plan is

2 lacking. One Dr. Reid has already testified to. I think

3 it's highly important that the alkali fly populations be

4 monitored. There are only two major prey items at Mono Lake

5 and almost -- virtually all the birds there depend on both

6 of these species and there's reason to believe that the

7 alkali fly could be, you know, the more important of the two

8 prey items at Mono Lake. So I think it would be really

9 important if we did monitor that as well. They have very

10 different life histories. The alkali flies are found more

11 inshore, which would be a habitat where the waterfowl would

12 be more likely to be feeding.

13 Another issue that's been brought up is the GIS

14 mapping of wetland habitats around the lake, and this is not

15 in the current plan that was recommended by the waterfowl

16 scientist team. And the GIS mapping is currently the most

17 accurate and widely-used method for following habitat

18 changes, and Dr. Reid could testify extensively to this and

19 the use by his organization throughout California and the

20 west for mapping waterfowl habitat changes.

21 And the rest of my comments are largely based on the

22 monitoring efforts and the census scope and frequency that

23 seem important to have in place to come up with good data if

24 we are going to track the waterfowl populations and factors

25 that could affect the waterfowl and these trends.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

868

1 The current plan does not have in it annual surveys of

2 waterfowl. I think that's really crucial. There is a lot

3 of environmental variability in the Great Basin. We've

4 already seen some major changes at Mono Lake over a very

5 rapid period where we have not gathered data on the

6 waterfowl populations. So I think it's crucial we have a

7 continuous record of what's going on with waterfowl numbers.

8 Track record at Mono Lake is really clear on other research

9 that's monitored major populations of concern such as brine

10 shrimp or California gulls, et cetera. All these prior

11 efforts have been carried out on an annual basis.

12 And another point that Dr. Reid has already elaborated

13 on, that's the need for these surveys of waterfowl at both

14 Crowley Reservoir and Bridgeport Reservoir. And, again, the

15 major reason for doing that is so we have some comparative

16 measure. So if the populations were rising in all these

17 areas, we might assume that that's due to some outside

18 influence; but if waterfowl numbers decrease at Mono Lake

19 and are staying relatively stable at the other two sites, we

20 might assume from that that restoration efforts are being

21 effective. Without some comparative measure we're not going

22 to know. It would always be easy to say, but these

23 population changes we observe are because of other outside

24 influences.

25 I think the need for annual photography to document

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

869

1 the habitat changes is also crucial, too. We've seen some

2 rapid changes in the last few years as the lake has risen.

3 If we're doing this on a less frequent basis, we're going to

4 miss a lot of these changes.

5 One other item that hasn't been touched on too much in

6 the current proceedings I think is the hypopycnal

7 environment. In the previous Water Board hearings there was

8 extensive discussion about hypopycnal environment and its

9 importance to waterfowl at Mono Lake, but in the Waterfowl

10 Restoration Plan there's really no mention of this feature

11 of the habitat and whether it should be followed or not.

12 Personally I don't know if it's feasible to monitor that in

13 an easy way, but I think it should be addressed in the

14 Waterfowl Management Plan. Those are my comments.

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Shuford.

16 Mr. Dodge, are you with us and ready for

17 cross-examination?

18 MR. DODGE: Indeed, they are.

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right.

20 MR. DODGE: Vis-a-vis the preparation for today's

21 hearing I should tell the Board I got home yesterday early

22 in the afternoon and left a message for Mr. Shuford saying

23 that I would like him to summarize his testimony in about

24 five minutes tomorrow morning and he should call me if he

25 had any question or comment and I never heard from him. I

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

870

1 just saw him here this morning.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: We appreciate the brevity,

3 gentlemen. That helps moves things long. We'll follow the

4 order that we have been following with cross-examination.

5 So we'll ask Ms. Goldsmith if she wishes to question

6 these witnesses?

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: Yes, if I might have a few moments.

8 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, go ahead.

9 MS. SCOONOVER: Chairman Caffrey.

10 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, Ms. Scoonover.

11 MS. SCOONOVER: Perhaps now is an appropriate time to

12 inquire whether or not the People for the Preservation of

13 Mono Basin, the Bellomos, indeed, did submit written comment

14 or written question?

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you for reminding me. I

16 should have mentioned that earlier. We do have questions

17 submitted. I don't know if they're for every single panel,

18 but we do have some. We have anointed Mr. Johns to be the

19 questioner and he does have quite a list of questions.

20 I don't know if you have any for this panel. Do we,

21 Mr. Johns?

22 MR. JOHNS: Yes.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: We do have some for this panel.

24 The short answer is she did submit her questions.

25 Ms. Goldsmith, are you ready?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

871

1 MS. GOLDSMITH: Almost.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Okay.

3 MR. JOHNS: Mr. Chairman, I might add that we also

4 have questions from Mr. Russi from the BLM who would like to

5 ask questions as well and he faxed those to us and

6 Mr. Canaday will ask those questions.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, Mr. Canaday will be

8 asking questions for Mr. Russi.

9 MR. DODGE: Will the identity of the questioner be

10 forthcoming to all of us?

11 MR. JOHNS: Very much so, yes.

12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes.

13 MR. JOHNS: We remind the parties these are not our

14 questions. These are the parties' questions.

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: That's a good question right there

16 and we'll make it clear that -- who they're asking the

17 question for so that we don't get confused as to which are

18 the staff's direct questions.

19 MR. DODGE: Okay.

20 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Good morning, Ms. Goldsmith.

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: Good morning. For the record, since I

23 know that Mr. Del Piero will be reading it, I want to extend

24 my sympathies to you, Mr. Del Piero, at home for a speedy

25 recovery.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

872

1 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you. I know that that's what

2 he would say if he could.

3 ---oOo---

4 CROSS-EXAMINATION

5 BY LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER:

6 MS. GOLDSMITH: Now, Dr. Reid, you have described in

7 your testimony the process for preparing the consultants'

8 report, which is at Appendix I to the DWP Exhibit 20, the

9 Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plan; is that correct?

10 DR. REID: In my written testimony here, right,

11 correct.

12 MS. GOLDSMITH: Which you summarized for us today.

13 DR. REID: Right.

14 MS. GOLDSMITH: In preparing that report the

15 consultants were the contractors for DWP; is that right?

16 DR. REID: Absolutely, yes.

17 MS. GOLDSMITH: In pursuing that report did you

18 receive specific directions from DWP as to avenues which

19 should be pursued and avenues which should not be pursued?

20 DR. REID: In a broad sense they allowed us any

21 waterfowl related habitat to consider. They asked us not to

22 consider fisheries issues. They asked us to focus on the

23 waterfowl aspects.

24 MS. GOLDSMITH: And that, in fact, was consistent with

25 what they hired you to do, right?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

873

1 DR. REID: Yes, it was. And they further told us that

2 they would allow -- they would publish unedited our total

3 report, which they did in that appendix.

4 MS. GOLDSMITH: There was no editing?

5 DR. REID: In that appendix absolutely not.

6 MS. GOLDSMITH: You examined it and there was no --

7 DR. REID: Yes. I haven't find any.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: No redactions?

9 DR. REID: I haven't found any.

10 MS. GOLDSMITH: Now, did they prohibit you from

11 talking to anybody in particular?

12 DR. REID: No, no, they did not prohibit us --

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: I'll just pursue this and if you have

14 other things to add, perhaps Mr. Dodge can do it on

15 redirect.

16 DR. REID: Sure.

17 MS. GOLDSMITH: Did they refuse any information that

18 you requested as consultants?

19 DR. REID: None that I can remember, no.

20 MS. GOLDSMITH: Did they impose any restrictions on

21 publication?

22 DR. REID: No.

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: Now, the Chair of your group was

24 Dr. Rod Drewien; is that right?

25 DR. REID: Yes, that's correct.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

874

1 MS. GOLDSMITH: And are you aware that Brian Tillemans

2 on DWP's staff had sent Dr. Drewien a memorandum in May of

3 1995 providing the names of researchers who were familiar

4 and had experience in the Mono Basin with various scientific

5 areas of inquiry?

6 DR. REID: I am aware that he sent that. I don't

7 remember the document. I'm not sure that I ever saw the

8 document itself. I'm aware that he sent that, yes.

9 MS. GOLDSMITH: And would you be surprised if Dr. John

10 Melack's name was within that list?

11 DR. REID: I can't say. I don't know the man's name.

12 I don't remember.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: Would you be surprised if Dr. Joseph

14 Jehl's name was in that list?

15 DR. REID: No, I believe Dr. Jehl's name was in that

16 list.

17 MS. GOLDSMITH: However, the committee never contacted

18 Dr. Jehl, did it?

19 DR. REID: No, and, likewise, the other way as far as

20 I know. Dr. Jehl did contact Dr. Drewien at one time after

21 the document was complete.

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: That was within the last month or so;

23 isn't that right?

24 DR. REID: I can't say the time table. It was after

25 the document was complete.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

875

1 MS. GOLDSMITH: Right. But the committee never sought

2 Dr. Jehl's input or information that he may have had on

3 waterfowl?

4 DR. REID: No. Both Dr. Drewien and I are aware of

5 Dr. Jehl's background and he does not have a strong

6 waterfowl background.

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: But he has been at Mono Lake for more

8 than ten years; isn't that correct?

9 DR. REID: Absolutely, absolutely, you bet.

10 MS. GOLDSMITH: And are you fully aware of the tasks

11 that Dr. Jehl has been asked to pursue for DWP?

12 DR. REID: No, I'm not actually.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: So you really didn't know whether he

14 had or didn't have any pertinent information that might have

15 been of use to your committee at that time, did you?

16 DR. REID: Other than that we knew that there was

17 material in the EIR, which we cited quite a bit in our

18 report.

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: But beyond that you really didn't know

20 the scope of any information he might have?

21 DR. REID: No, no.

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: But you did consult with Mono Lake

23 Committee consultants; isn't that right?

24 DR. REID: Yes.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: In fact, they're the only ones you

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

876

1 consulted with other than public officials and the Forest

2 Service?

3 DR. REID: No, that's not true. We consulted with a

4 number of people that were in the Basin that were former --

5 that were hunters that had hunted on the area and had been

6 aware of habitats around the lake.

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: And were any of those witnesses for

8 the Mono Lake Committee at the prior hearings?

9 DR. REID: You know, I wasn't at those hearings so I

10 can't tell you exactly. I don't know. They were cited in

11 the EIR.

12 MS. GOLDSMITH: So, in any event, in your experience,

13 your own personal experience in working for DWP, there was

14 no institutional cleansing of data, was there?

15 DR. REID: I didn't feel there was. We were, we were,

16 asked to reduce the amount of monitoring we were asking from

17 our draft that was done at the TAG and, in fact, we did

18 and -- I disagreed with my co-authors, but we did reduce the

19 amount of aerial surveys of waterfowl from annually to

20 bi-annually. I disagreed with that, but I went along

21 because my two co-authors agreed in terms of trying to

22 reduce a cost that that might be a cost-saving event.

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: That's interesting because it brings

24 up another question. I noticed in your testimony that when

25 you discussed the monitoring issue you continue -- in fact,

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

877

1 generally when you referred to the differences you

2 continually used the pronoun "we." You said "we" recommend

3 aerial photographs annually.

4 So when you say "we," you're not speaking for the

5 other consultants. You're speaking for you and who else?

6 DR. REID: No, in that case I was. In talking with

7 Rod and Tom in the more recent past they agree that because

8 of the rapid change that we see in the lake level that an

9 annual survey is really probably required for waterfowl.

10 MS. GOLDSMITH: But none of them is here as a witness

11 changing the opinion?

12 DR. REID: No, no, and as far as I know they won't be.

13 Rod is in the Chihuahuan highlands of Mexico right now

14 surveying cranes.

15 MS. GOLDSMITH: So the last word that we have on their

16 position is the scientists' report that was submitted as

17 Appendix A?

18 DR. REID: Absolutely, absolutely.

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: I just derailed myself.

20 Now, in terms of the consultants' recommendations

21 contained in Exhibit I -- or Appendix I of Exhibit 20, your

22 testimony as stated at page nine is that, "Each of the

23 recommendations is feasible by engineering or legal means."

24 DR. REID: Uh-huh.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: And among those recommendations that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

878

1 are included -- by the way, "uh-huh" is a positive, right?

2 DR. REID: Well, I was going to start on that. What I

3 was referring to in my testimony was the specific

4 recommendations that we made in this document --

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: In Appendix I; is that right?

6 MR. DODGE: Mr. Chairman.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes.

8 MR. DODGE: Can I suggest that everyone be advised

9 that the witness should complete his answer and the witness

10 should not start his answer until the question's finished.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Please consider that an instruction

12 from your attorney, sir, and it's a good reminder.

13 DR. REID: Sure.

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let the question be asked and then

15 give as succinct an answer as you can. It's for a number of

16 reasons. One of the very practical ones is that the court

17 stenographer can't take two paths of testimony at the same

18 time at least to start.

19 Mr. Dodge.

20 MS. GOLDSMITH: Mr. Chair, I realize that works both

21 ways and I have a bad habit of interrupting. The latest one

22 I merely wanted to make sure that the reference in the

23 record was clear that you were referring to Appendix I. So

24 it's the recommendations in Appendix I that you're talking

25 about when you're referring to legal and --

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

879

1 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Goldsmith, I'm sorry to

2 interrupt you, but Mr. Dodge has risen and I think had a

3 question the same time you did.

4 MR. DODGE: If I didn't say so, what I meant to say,

5 also, was that the witness should be allowed to complete his

6 answer before a new question.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: As the tape went through I began to

8 understand the point of your concern, sir, and I share the

9 concern with regard to both the witness and the attorney.

10 So I think it was a timely raising of the concern.

11 So please proceed.

12 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

13 THE WITNESS: My answer --

14 MS. GOLDSMITH: Can I ask what question you're

15 responding to at this point?

16 DR. REID: Why don't you ask the question again and

17 then I'll respond.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: We're on the last page of your

19 testimony. You state that, "Each of the recommendations is

20 feasible by engineering or legal means." You're referring

21 to the mitigation measures, including monitoring, that are

22 presented in Appendix I to Exhibit 20; is that right?

23 DR. REID: Yes, insofar as we have specific

24 recommendations in the text and then in conclusion. We also

25 have -- we also go through a number of potential mitigation

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

880

1 restoration activities that we do not consider viable. So

2 insomuch as there are potential restoration activities such

3 as trying to restore the northern lagoons, which we felt

4 were not feasible.

5 But if your question is -- if I understand your

6 question, do we cite in here in our conclusions -- do I

7 consider those all financially and legally viable, yes.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: My question was really a lot more

9 simple than that. My question was: In the last sentence --

10 or in the sentence I read you from the report where you say,

11 "Each of the recommendations is feasible by engineering or

12 legal means," you're talking about the recommendations that

13 are contained in Appendix I?

14 DR. REID: You didn't understand my answer.

15 MS. GOLDSMITH: Are there recommendations that are not

16 in Appendix I that you consider feasible or that you are

17 recommending?

18 DR. REID: The recommendations that we have in

19 Appendix I we consider feasible and legal.

20 MS. GOLDSMITH: Are there recommendations in your

21 testimony that are not in Exhibit I that you consider

22 feasible by engineering or legal means?

23 DR. REID: Just the change that is in my testimony

24 which I acknowledge as a change in relation to -- this is on

25 the fourth to the last page beginning at "...waters at 6,392

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

881

1 feet..."

2 MS. GOLDSMITH: Why don't you take a moment and write

3 some page numbers on the bottom of your copy because it

4 would help, I think.

5 DR. REID: I believe it's page six.

6 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay.

7 DR. REID: It says "...waters at 6,392 feet.."

8 Is that right?

9 MS. GOLDSMITH: Yes.

10 DR. REID: Okay. So this paragraph -- the next

11 paragraph down says, "One change in the scientists'

12 recommendations that I now recommend is that the County

13 Ponds project should be conditional on the ability to obtain

14 artesian flows. The U.S. Forest Service is currently

15 investigating the potential to drill the DeChambeau well to

16 locate artesian flow. Likewise, Ducks Unlimited has lined

17 the DeChambeau Ponds with Bentonite to eliminate any ground

18 seepage and loss of surface water. Lining of the County

19 Ponds should be built into the design. Such action will

20 increase the cost 60 to 70 K, but eliminating the pump

21 facility will reduce the proposal by a similar amount."

22 That's the change that I think is feasible and legal,

23 and that's the change outside of what was in the report.

24 MS. GOLDSMITH: And as I read that paragraph, you are

25 also differing from the Appendix I recommendations in that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

882

1 you limit it to a situation in which artesian flow can be

2 found?

3 DR. REID: Yes, that's true.

4 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. Now, in -- could you give us

5 your definition of "feasible"?

6 DR. REID: That you -- that they can be done within a

7 reasonable time frame and within reasonable -- within viable

8 engineering and biological means that exist.

9 MS. GOLDSMITH: And there was no consideration -- or

10 very little consideration of whether it was economically

11 cost-effective to provide a particular -- to implement a

12 particular recommendation; isn't that right?

13 DR. REID: I can't guarantee that -- we were told by

14 LADWP that we were not to deal with economic feasibility,

15 that that was their charge in their plan. We simply brought

16 forward the various projects, talked about very specific

17 costs that the projects would cost.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. And you did not include as an

19 element of your recommendations a consideration of cost?

20 DR. REID: No, we were told not to do that.

21 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

22 I'd like to talk a little bit about alkali flies. You

23 mentioned a report or work done by Boula and Jarvis --

24 DR. REID: Uh-huh.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: -- which found brine flies in the diet

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

883

1 of the northern shoveler; is that right?

2 DR. REID: Correct.

3 MS. GOLDSMITH: Isn't it true that Boula and Jarvis'

4 work that you cited concluded that the northern shoveler is

5 an indiscriminate feeder that sieves the water at the

6 surface?

7 DR. REID: As I remember, that's what the report said.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: Do you disagree with that?

9 DR. REID: There are other studies which have found

10 that northern shovelers are a distinct carnivore. In Boula

11 and Jarvis they show that seeds made up, as I remember,

12 about 25 percent of the esophageal diet. That's far higher

13 than all the other studies would reveal; and if you relate

14 it to Mono Lake, I don't think you'd find seeds as a viable

15 component.

16 So I would say that they may be an indiscriminate

17 forager; but if the two dominant prey are, in fact, shrimp

18 and flies, then shrimp and flies is probably what should be

19 monitored.

20 MS. GOLDSMITH: And do you agree with Boula and

21 Jarvis' description of how they feed, that is, they sieve

22 the water at the surface?

23 DR. REID: They actually normally feed at the surface

24 and at the shoreline. They do, however, dive on occasion.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: On occasion?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

884

1 DR. REID: Yeah.

2 MS. GOLDSMITH: So if the brine shrimp pupae that are

3 being monitored are those that are attached to various --

4 DR. REID: The brine fly?

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: I'm sorry, brine fly, thank you.

6 The brine fly life stage that is being monitored is

7 that which is attached to submerged objects, that wouldn't

8 necessarily reflect the diet of brine flies that are

9 available to the shovelers; isn't that right?

10 DR. REID: It may not reflect what's available to the

11 diet, but it may serve as an indices to what could be

12 available to the birds.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: Do you know of any data that reflects

14 a correlation between the abundance of submerged attached

15 brine fly pupae to the availability of brine fly at the

16 surface?

17 DR. REID: No, I'm not aware of any such correlation.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

19 Now, turning to the scrapes that you testified about,

20 you must be familiar, aren't you, with scrapes that have

21 been done elsewhere in the west?

22 DR. REID: Yes.

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: In alkali environments?

24 DR. REID: Yes.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: One thing that I found curious. You

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

885

1 recommend very shallow, two to fifteen centimeter scrapes.

2 Now, is that a typo or is that really the depth that you're

3 recommending?

4 DR. REID: No, that's the depth we're recommending.

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: So we're talking one inch to five

6 inches depth?

7 DR. REID: Yes. Very, very shallow.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: And how are these -- what's the aerial

9 extent of these scrapes that you're recommending?

10 DR. REID: They could be done from anywhere from a

11 hundred feet to probably ten times that.

12 MS. GOLDSMITH: Are you envisioning that they would be

13 done by hand?

14 DR. REID: No, I'm envisioning they would be done by

15 relatively small mechanical mechanisms like a bobcat.

16 MS. GOLDSMITH: And did the committee of consultants

17 consider the feasibility of moving heavy equipment and

18 working in wetlands in making this recommendation?

19 DR. REID: Certainly all of us have had experience

20 working in wetland restoration activities. That's why we

21 were selected and that's a very common practice. You have

22 to get the equipment to the site.

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: And that can involve a great deal of

24 logistical difficulty; isn't that true?

25 DR. REID: A great deal of logistical difficulty?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

886

1 MS. GOLDSMITH: Well, for example, let's pick Simons

2 Springs.

3 DR. REID: Uh-huh.

4 MS. GOLDSMITH: Moving a bobcat to Simons Springs

5 might be fairly difficult; wouldn't you say?

6 DR. REID: Again, fairly difficult? I think it's

7 feasible. Would it require pre-site visit to look at how

8 you move the material in? Absolutely, that's what we do on

9 a normal basis.

10 MS. GOLDSMITH: And it's very sandy and shifting and

11 unstable soil between Simons Springs and the nearest road;

12 isn't that right?

13 DR. REID: Yes, that's true.

14 MS. GOLDSMITH: How long do you -- in your experience

15 do these scrapes last?

16 DR. REID: They're ephemeral in nature, especially as

17 we look -- we suggested in the scientists' report that if

18 one was to do this, that below where the lake level will

19 rise is where you want to try these so that they will serve

20 as an ephemeral habitat as the lake rises and it catches

21 both fresh water and later as the lake water advances.

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: So what period of time do you envision

23 these scrapes as being functional?

24 DR. REID: Well, depending on how fast the lake rises

25 we consider probably five to ten years.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

887

1 MS. GOLDSMITH: So you think that you could go in one

2 time with a dozer, do a scrape and it would last five years

3 as a functional wetland?

4 DR. REID: Yeah, we've seen it before.

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: Did your committee look into at all

6 the feasibility of obtaining permits for this type of work?

7 DR. REID: No. What we said was that the permits

8 would have to be obtained. We have -- again, especially Tom

9 Ratcliff and myself have worked on hundreds of projects

10 where permits have to be obtained from various agencies.

11 MS. GOLDSMITH: Turning to your discussion at Mill

12 Creek. You testify -- and I didn't write down the page so

13 I'll have to search for it, also.

14 DR. REID: Page four?

15 MS. GOLDSMITH: I have it on page six, which you may

16 have as page four. I'm not sure why our pagination is

17 different.

18 DR. REID: I wrote mine in.

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: So did I. I started at the front, you

20 started at the back. Maybe that's why. But it's the page

21 that starts at the top "...waters at 6,392 feet..."

22 DR. REID: Okay. That's my six, right.

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: That's my six, too. Interesting.

24 You state that, "...current Mill Creek flows, even

25 when LADWP and U.S. Forest Service free up their water

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

888

1 rights, are too low to provide important waterfowl habitat."

2 And I'd like some clarification on that sentence.

3 DR. REID: Where are you on this page?

4 MS. GOLDSMITH: It's the very bottom.

5 DR. REID: Okay.

6 MS. GOLDSMITH: It goes over to the next page.

7 They're too low to provide important waterfowl habitat.

8 You're not saying, are you, that no important benefits

9 could be achieved through rededication of the Forest Service

10 and DWP water rights?

11 DR. REID: No, absolutely not. As a matter of fact,

12 we state in the scientists' report that this is a great

13 first step that LADWP was willing to dedicate their water

14 right and we state that the Forest Service has said that

15 they would be willing to dedicate their water right and we

16 said these are great first steps in going forward.

17 My comment here is to state that without looking at

18 the Conway Ranch water rights, they're still gonna be too

19 low to provide some very important waterfowl habitat.

20 MS. GOLDSMITH: So what you're saying is that

21 additional benefits might be achieved with additional water;

22 is that right?

23 DR. REID: No, I was not saying that. I was saying

24 that to actually create predictable viable habitat in the

25 fall and flushing conditions that will produce good quality

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

889

1 riparian habitat you need more water.

2 MS. GOLDSMITH: So you are saying that the dedication

3 of DWP's water rights and the Forest Service water rights

4 will not provide any substantial benefit to the birds?

5 DR. REID: No, I'm saying that it's a good first step

6 and that --

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: It will provide benefits?

8 DR. REID: It will provide benefits, yeah, absolutely.

9 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you. I couldn't tell from your

10 last answer if that was your position, but that additional

11 benefits that you consider important would need additional

12 water?

13 DR. REID: That's true.

14 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. Did the consultants consider

15 the degree to which waterfowl benefits could be obtained at

16 various levels of water dedication?

17 DR. REID: No, we didn't do a -- say a chart or

18 anything on "this is this benefit, this is this benefit."

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: So that there was no quantification or

20 analysis that even attempted to describe benefits that would

21 accrue with the DWP and Forest Service water rights alone?

22 DR. REID: I don't believe so.

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. What is the basis, then, for

24 saying that the flows with DWP and Forest Service water

25 rights are too low to provide these additional benefits?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

890

1 DR. REID: The basis is looking at Peter Vorster's

2 water flows that -- and this is on page 96 of the

3 appendices. The page starts at, "In addition, LADWP and

4 other interested parties..."

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: That's your page 96?

6 DR. REID: Yeah. This may be repaginated as well. I

7 can read it to you. It states, "In addition, LADWP and

8 other interested parties should begin negotiations with

9 Conway Ranch and other entities to explore methods to obtain

10 water during the September-March period that currently flows

11 down Wilson Creek, contributing minimal benefits to

12 waterfowl habitat."

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: For the record, that's at page 98 of

14 Appendix I in what, I believe, is LADWP not 96.

15 I see that as the recommendation. What I'm trying to

16 get at is the basis for the conclusion that that is

17 necessary?

18 DR. REID: Looking at Peter Vorster's data on water,

19 it appears that even given LADWP's water right and the water

20 right of the Forest Service, which is junior, you will not

21 in many years have enough water to rewater the delta during

22 that critical time frame of waterfowl migration; and as is

23 recommended in the scientists' report, we were seeking to

24 replicate the natural flows of approximately 11.6 cfs during

25 that time period which would enhance the springs, enhance

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

891

1 that fresh water lens, enhance the delta and provide the

2 kind of habitat that those birds would seek.

3 MS. GOLDSMITH: But you did no quantitative analysis

4 even on a subjective qualitative level is what I understand

5 you to have testified.

6 MR. DODGE: Excuse me, objection. I think that's an

7 unintelligible question.

8 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let me ask the witness.

9 Do you understand the question?

10 DR. REID: No, I don't understand it.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Why don't you try it again,

12 Ms. Goldsmith.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: My understanding of your testimony is

14 that the scientists conducted no qualitative evaluation of

15 the level of benefits that would be provided by any

16 particular waterfowl; isn't that right?

17 DR. REID: No, I think I just said that what we sought

18 was to acquire a natural flow of 11.6. What we said was

19 that that would not be reached under many periods,

20 especially the critical time frame of the fall, given just

21 those water rights.

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: And my question and this whole series

23 of questions goes to trying to elicit from you the basis on

24 which you made your determination that the full flow of 11.6

25 rather than something less was necessary?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

892

1 DR. REID: The reason that we sought the full flow was

2 that that full fall flow is really minimal down in that

3 region to create back waters, et cetera, which are a

4 required habitat for those birds. So that we sought a

5 mimicking of those natural flows so that you would have

6 those habitat types. That's the basis of why we sought

7 the -- that water level.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: And in making that conclusion or in

9 reaching that conclusion you relied heavily on Dr. Stine's

10 report; isn't that right?

11 DR. REID: Dr. Stine and Peter Vorster's reports, yes.

12 MS. GOLDSMITH: And you have no independent expertise

13 in assessing whether or not those flows are required or some

14 other flows are required?

15 DR. REID: No, I'm basing my comments on those

16 reports; and if they're wrong, then what I'm saying may not

17 be right, absolutely.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: And, in fact, I'd like to read you a

19 sentence from page -- what I have as page 98 and I believe

20 it's your page 98 of Appendix I now, also.

21 Beginning about four lines down when the consultants

22 discuss reinstating base flows at Mill Creek and DWP's

23 dedication of its water to the Mill Creek corridor the

24 consultants state: "If this action is initiated, periodic

25 assessments should be conducted to determine the response of

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

893

1 wetland and riparian habitats to rewatering."

2 So that the consultants recommend that some kind of

3 analysis be done to determine what level of benefits is

4 provided by various levels of water flow; isn't that right?

5 DR. REID: Yeah, that's true.

6 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay.

7 A little bit about Wilson Creek I'd like to ask you.

8 DR. REID: Uh-huh.

9 MS. GOLDSMITH: You testified at page eight, "Wilson

10 Creek's channel is currently so incised, narrow and steep

11 that minimal waterfowl habitat exists." And further on that

12 it "...has limited value to waterfowl and little potential

13 for restoration."

14 Is that a correct reading or summary of your testimony

15 about Wilson Creek?

16 DR. REID: Yes.

17 MS. GOLDSMITH: But it's not your testimony, is it,

18 that Wilson Creek is steep, narrow and incised its full

19 length, is it?

20 DR. REID: No, that's coming toward the delta at the

21 bottom level of Wilson Creek.

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: It's just in that region that's

23 referred to as the "little Grand Canyon," correct?

24 DR. REID: And a little higher up.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: And are you aware that waterfowl

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

894

1 currently use the mouth of Wilson Creek?

2 DR. REID: Yes, small numbers do; but I disagree with

3 the statement that LADWP had in their plan which stated that

4 it was a very viable habitat for waterfowl. That was not

5 something that the scientists suggested either in oral or

6 written statements to them, and it was the one thing that

7 was quite surprising seeing in our plan.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: But you're aware that some scientists

9 are of the opinion that it's currently the best habitat in

10 the whole part of the lakeshore?

11 DR. REID: No, I'm not aware that any scientists have

12 said it's the best habitat.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you. And in terms of evaluating

14 what Mill Creek might provide, nobody that you have talked

15 to has seen Mill Creek in a viable, semi-natural condition;

16 isn't that true?

17 DR. REID: There's no one alive that's seen that.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: Right. So the evaluation of the

19 potential is based on an evaluation of a potential, not any

20 demonstrated habitat?

21 DR. REID: The evaluation is based on approximately

22 140 combined years of the three scientists and the two

23 scientists that we asked to look at our plan that are in our

24 Appendix A and B, and it's the recommendation by these

25 waterfowl scientists that this is probably the best habitat

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

895

1 that can be restored.

2 MS. GOLDSMITH: When you say 140 years, you mean 140

3 years combined experience?

4 DR. REID: Yes, of those five.

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you. I think we talked about

6 the annual aerial photographs. Your testimony says that

7 quote, "Annual aerial photos are critical to monitor

8 riparian, delta, and shoreline habitats."

9 Now, in the consultants' report the consultants

10 recommended aerial photographs every two years; isn't that

11 right?

12 DR. REID: Yes, I believe that's true.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: So -- and the other question I have

14 is: If we're talking about plants that aren't going to get

15 up and move anywhere, why is it critical? Why is

16 interpolation not a valuable cost-effective tool for

17 monitoring such riparian growth?

18 DR. REID: That's a good question. It's critical

19 because we see a rapid rise in the lake at this time and

20 there are massive changes going on in the formation of

21 lagoons and how various riparian areas might be flooded, et

22 cetera. So an annual survey is really recommended in terms

23 of trying to understand the changes that are occurring on

24 site.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: So you are concerned that areas that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

896

1 are riparian might be lost as the lake rises?

2 DR. REID: I'm concerned that there are changes in the

3 way waterfowl who are moving into a lake system would

4 respond to a habitat based on the structure of what's there.

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: You haven't convinced me, but I'm not

6 the one that you have to convince.

7 And the last series of questions I had for you, I

8 believe, is concerning your contention of lost baseline

9 data. You testified quote "We believe that critical

10 baseline data may have already been lost because monitoring

11 has not occurred." And is that "we" you or is it all three

12 consultants?

13 DR. REID: We had discussed, all three consultants,

14 that we were concerned that the lake was rising rapidly and

15 to our knowledge there was not a large number of baseline

16 data sets being collected as we had recommended.

17 MS. GOLDSMITH: You never asked DWP what monitoring

18 was being done, though, did you?

19 DR. REID: No, I'm not so sure that -- no, I can't say

20 that we never asked them. I think -- well, these comments

21 that were made were seen by LADWP and they didn't comment

22 that anything was wrong with them. So we assume, then,

23 that, in fact, there weren't monitoring aspects going on to

24 some of these levels.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: You're basically just not aware of any

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

897

1 level of monitoring that DWP has been engaged in?

2 DR. REID: Oh, no, no, no, that's not true. We say in

3 the document we're aware of limnological aspects that LADWP

4 is doing and we point out that they have a series of

5 long-term data sets which are real critical in continuing

6 some of this monitoring, but that there were specific ones

7 such as the ones you're talking about, aerial photography,

8 aerial waterfowl census.

9 There was -- we discussed the aspect of time, budget,

10 behavior of waterfowl in various habitats in the Basin and

11 all of these we felt were extremely important to look at at

12 the beginning of the water flow because we were afraid if

13 you lost some of that baseline information, you might look

14 at it, say, five years into lake rising and not recognize

15 what some of the changes were.

16 MS. GOLDSMITH: But you cannot sit here and testify

17 that that data has not been collected; isn't that right?

18 DR. REID: Oh, that's true, absolutely.

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

20 I have a question for you Dr. -- no, Mr. Shuford.

21 Hello again. It's been a long time.

22 MR. SHUFORD: Hello, Jan.

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: Are you aware of any correlation

24 between food available as alkali fly drift and submerged

25 pupae?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

898

1 MR. SHUFORD: I can't speak to that question directly.

2 I think Dr. David Herbst would be the one that could answer

3 that question because he's the one that's been monitoring

4 alkali flies at the lake.

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: Did you ask Dr. Herbst that question?

6 MR. SHUFORD: Not that specific question. I mean,

7 there is definitely a correlation between, you know -- I

8 mean, there's an apparent correlation, you know, between how

9 much is out there and how much birds are eating; but I don't

10 know of any direct correlation myself. You'd have to ask

11 Dr. Herbst that.

12 MS. GOLDSMITH: Were you present during the alkali fly

13 testimony that occurred at the State Board hearings on the

14 Mono Lake level?

15 MR. SHUFORD: Yes, I was.

16 MS. GOLDSMITH: And do you remember that there was --

17 that the modeling and the surveys showed very little impact

18 on flies at any of the lake levels that are being discussed?

19 MR. SHUFORD: How do you mean "impacts"?

20 MS. GOLDSMITH: An abundance of submerged flies.

21 MR. SHUFORD: Again, I'm not clear what you mean by

22 "impacts." Do you mean that they were depleted by birds or

23 what?

24 MS. GOLDSMITH: That their abundance was affected by

25 any of the lake levels that are being contemplated within

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

899

1 the ranges of the Board's Order 1631.

2 MR. SHUFORD: Yes, I think there were -- there was

3 discussion, you know, of the various lake levels that would

4 be good for alkali flies and, as I remember, some of the

5 levels we were talking about would be more beneficial to the

6 alkali fly.

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: Do you recall any testimony of a

8 threat to alkali fly abundance from higher lake levels or

9 lake levels within the range of 6377 and 6392.5?

10 MR. SHUFORD: I don't remember any threats, per se,

11 no. Just that, you know, as the lake rose and salinity

12 decreased and there was more substrate submerged and the

13 flies could attach to that the habitat would be better.

14 MS. GOLDSMITH: And would you agree with the

15 characterization of northern shoveler as a bird that feeds

16 on drift primarily?

17 MR. SHUFORD: I would agree it feeds by sieving.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: What is "sieving," sir?

19 MR. SHUFORD: Well, northern shovelers have a bill

20 that's specifically adept to sieve largely zooplankton, you

21 know, through water. They have lamellae, which are sort of

22 equivalent to what whales have -- balen whales have so that

23 they sieve out things that come in through the water column.

24 I've seen them forage a lot. They will forage just swimming

25 along with their bills underwater but they'll dabble like

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

900

1 most ducks which, you know, upturn and go down for things

2 that are down below the surface.

3 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

4 I have no further questions -- do I?

5 MR. KAVOUNAS: (Shaking of the head.)

6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you,

7 Ms. Goldsmith.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: And I didn't even have to ask for

9 extra time I'd like the record to show so when

10 Mr. Birmingham reads this he'll know.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I wasn't quite sure I caught all

12 that you said. You were within your time so --

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: By about 15 minutes. I can't

15 see -- we now have the staff keeping track of time. So I'm

16 relying on Mr. Johns to tell me what's going on. The only

17 way I can see what color the light is is to do this and I

18 see it's not on all. All right, I revealed one of our trade

19 secrets.

20 Why don't we -- before we get into further cross, if

21 there is any, why don't we just take about a 10-minute break

22 now, come back at 25 to and resume the cross. Thank you.

23 (Whereupon a recess was taken.)

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, we can resume. I'll go

25 down through the list just to see on the cross.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

901

1 I didn't see Mr. Gipsman this morning. Is he here?

2 No. He is representing the U.S. Forest Service. Is there

3 anybody here representing the U.S. Forest Service that

4 wishes to cross-examine? No one responding.

5 MS. SCOONOVER: Mr. Chairman.

6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I'm sorry.

7 MS. SCOONOVER: They're out in the hallway.

8 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Oh, they are here?

9 MS. SCOONOVER: There are Forest Service

10 representatives here today, Mr. Porter.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Oh, thank you.

12 MS. SCOONOVER: I don't know if they intend to

13 cross-examine.

14 MR. CANADAY: Mr. Chairman.

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Canaday.

16 MR. CANADAY: Shortly after the break started I did

17 ask the U.S. Forest Service representatives if they intended

18 to cross-examine and they said they did not.

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: They did not. All right, thank

20 you, sir.

21 Let's see, now I believe for Mr. Russi of the Bureau

22 of Land Management you have offered to ask his questions; is

23 that right, Mr. Canaday?

24 MR. CANADAY: Yes, sir.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Please proceed, sir.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

902

1 ---oOo---

2 CROSS-EXAMINATION

3 BY BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (AS ASKED BY MR. CANADAY)

4 MR. CANADAY: This is for Dr. Reid.

5 Are you aware of any physical measurements -- and I

6 think Mr. Russi is referring to any vertical or horizontal

7 profile -- that were made of Mill Creek bottomlands or other

8 locations in the Mill Creek drainage?

9 DR. REID: Can you state the beginning part of that

10 question?

11 MR. CANADAY: Are you aware or did the scientists in

12 their report take any physical measurements of vertical or

13 horizontal profiles in the Mill Creek bottomlands or other

14 locations in the Mill Creek drainage?

15 DR. REID: The only aspect of a map or a physical

16 description was that found in Stine's appendix, which was in

17 our report, but there's no vertical profile that was taken

18 to my knowledge.

19 MR. CANADAY: And so to continue that, to your

20 knowledge there is no data that was collected on relative

21 increments of flow to determine what would be sufficient or

22 insufficient to provide habitat and waterfowl habitat in

23 Mill Creek?

24 DR. REID: We did not supply a diagram or chart to

25 that degree, but we did walk down on several occasions with

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

903

1 Dr. Stine and one occasion with Mr. Vorster walk down the

2 profile of Mill Creek looking at various side channels and

3 potential distributary areas and talking about various flow

4 levels of where water would be under various flows.

5 We did not describe that in our documentation other

6 than it made -- in our description of where we thought

7 habitat would be, that's the basis of how we came up with

8 it.

9 MR. CANADAY: Do you feel it would be instructive to

10 conduct some of these cross-drainage measurements and flow

11 relationships as a good starting point to understand

12 efficient water use in Mill Creek and Wilson Creek?

13 DR. REID: Certainly and that would, of course, be

14 done if you were intending to go forward on restoration of

15 Mill Creek, that you would look at vertical profiles.

16 We were under a fairly sharp time line in order to get

17 this document done and there were certain aspects that we

18 didn't do because we needed to get this report to LADWP.

19 MR. CANADAY: In your testimony to quote it, and I

20 think it's on page nine, it says "The best use for waterfowl

21 of current Wilson Creek water is to return most of it to

22 Mill Creek as close to the headwaters as possible."

23 What do you mean by "most" of the current Wilson Creek

24 water?

25 DR. REID: Well, what we stated in the scientists'

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

904

1 report, that Wilson Creek should return to its historic

2 status as an ephemeral creek and we did not believe that you

3 should divert all water from Wilson Creek to Mill, but that

4 it should have a flow reflective of its historic basis.

5 MR. CANADAY: What physical measurements or other

6 assessments have you undertaken that brought you to the

7 conclusion that -- quoting part of your testimony --

8 "...minimal waterfowl habitat exists" on Wilson Creek?

9 DR. REID: The physical characteristics we observed

10 were in walking the length of Wilson Creek from below County

11 Ponds to the lake and from -- or below the County Road to

12 the lake and from the County Road upwards about 150 yards

13 and there were no physical characteristics that we measured,

14 per se, as looking at the incised characteristic of the

15 stream at that point and the lack of any true riparian

16 vegetation along that area.

17 MR. CANADAY: What time of the year was your survey

18 taken?

19 DR. REID: This was taken in summer/fall period.

20 MR. CANADAY: What is your specific knowledge of

21 the channel conditions on Wilson Creek between the point of

22 diversion near the Lundy Power Plant downstream to

23 Highway 167?

24 DR. REID: We walked that on one occasion -- the

25 scientists walked that on one occasion and simply a visual

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

905

1 observation, no direct measurements of flow or anything like

2 that.

3 MR. CANADAY: That's all.

4 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. That completes the

5 questions for Mr. Russi as asked by Mr. Canaday.

6 We will now go to questions that have been submitted

7 in writing by Ms. Bellomo and Mr. Johns will ask those

8 questions. Mr. Johns.

9 MR. JOHNS: I think it best to draw a distinction

10 between my questions that I might ask later and

11 Ms. Bellomo's questions I maybe do them at the podium

12 perhaps, if that's all right.

13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, if you wish to do so.

14 ---oOo---

15 CROSS-EXAMINATION

16 BY PEOPLE FOR MONO BASIN PRESERVATION - BELLOMOS

17 (AS ASKED BY MR. JOHNS):

18 MR. JOHNS: Good morning, Mr. Reid. These questions

19 are only for you, Dr. Reid, and I would like to re-emphasize

20 these are not my questions, but they were submitted to us by

21 Ms. Bellomo.

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: You did start the timer, did you

23 not, Mr. Johns?

24 MR. JOHNS: Yes, I did.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Keeping with your desire to be

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

906

1 distinct from your own and to be fair.

2 MR. JOHNS: Yes, and this may take a while.

3 You indicate that you and the other waterfowl

4 scientists toured the basin on three different periods.

5 Can you tell us what your tours included?

6 DR. REID: Our tours included for the scientists one

7 tour in which we visited all the major wetland areas that

8 are identified under the Dombrowski map. We did not at that

9 time go on the northern side -- the northern lagoon area.

10 On a subsequent trip we visited all sites around the

11 lake, including the lagoons, and completed going around the

12 lake and all the sites identified under the Dombrowski map,

13 including all of the major tributary areas.

14 And then on a subsequent trip we visited the Lundy

15 site, followed down to the highway. Then viewed Conway

16 Ranch tangentially. We then moved down two areas along the

17 western side of the lake and concentrated in areas of the

18 DeChambeau Ranch, the Wilson Creek/Mill Creek complex, Black

19 Point.

20 We also had a tour as a group with some of the members

21 of LADWP and Dr. Stine was with us in a helicopter --

22 LADWP's helicopter in which we visually observed the

23 lake-fringing wetlands from the helicopter and basically

24 went around the whole lake.

25 MR. JOHNS: How many days total do you think this

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

907

1 took?

2 DR. REID: We probably had 14 days at the Basin is my

3 guesstimate.

4 MR. JOHNS: Thank you. Did you do an inventory of

5 resources on the Thompson Meadows area and habitats?

6 DR. REID: No, we did not.

7 MR. JOHNS: Did you do an inventory of resources of

8 the Wilson Creek area?

9 DR. REID: From the County Road down to the lake, as I

10 mentioned earlier, we walked that and walked about a hundred

11 and fifty yards up from the County Road.

12 MR. JOHNS: Did you get a chance to look at the Mono

13 County Park area?

14 DR. REID: Yes.

15 MR. JOHNS: Did you do an inventory of habitat

16 resources in that area?

17 DR. REID: Again, we walked the area and walked all of

18 the lake shoreline of that area.

19 MR. JOHNS: Did you get a chance to take a tour of the

20 Mattly Meadow area?

21 DR. REID: Just seeing it tangentially.

22 MR. JOHNS: And did you do a resource and habitat

23 review of that area -- or survey of that area?

24 DR. REID: No.

25 MR. JOHNS: And you mentioned you did take a look at

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

908

1 the Conway Ranch area, correct?

2 DR. REID: We looked at the Conway Ranch on a

3 tangential basis. We flew over all of the areas that you

4 mentioned in a helicopter.

5 MR. JOHNS: Okay. Did you do an inventory resources

6 value and habitat typing of that area of Conway Ranch?

7 DR. REID: No, other than what we saw from the

8 helicopter and looking at it tangentially.

9 MR. JOHNS: Okay. You indicate that the scientists

10 gave second priority to rewatering Mill Creek and its

11 distributaries. Throughout your testimony you predict

12 certain outcomes will take place when Mill Creek is

13 restored.

14 Do you have as your assumption how much water would be

15 required to restore all of Mill Creek?

16 DR. REID: Those elements are discussed in the

17 scientists' report and, again, they're based on flow data

18 that we received from both Peter Vorster and from Scott

19 Stine.

20 I would like to make one point, however, that the

21 questions stated that our second priority was Mill Creek.

22 In fact, our first priority was to raise the lake level to

23 6392, which was what the Board has already suggested. So,

24 you know, in terms of change for waterfowl habitat that was

25 our first priority.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

909

1 MR. JOHNS: Thank you. In response to a question that

2 Jim just asked for BLM you talked about restoring flows to

3 historic levels in Mill Creek; is that correct?

4 DR. REID: Yes.

5 MR. JOHNS: Would "historic levels" mean all the water

6 back into Mill Creek?

7 DR. REID: Well, it was historic flows that were

8 documented under Stine's appendix that we have in our

9 report.

10 MR. JOHNS: So "historic" meaning how historic?

11 DR. REID: Well, historic prior to modifications of

12 Mill Creek both in terms of diversions for grazing and for

13 modifications relative to So. Cal Edison's plan.

14 MR. JOHNS: So that would be all the water, then, back

15 to Mill Creek?

16 DR. REID: (Nodding of the head.)

17 MR. JOHNS: Okay, thank you. You predict that

18 rewatering Mill Creek will result in creation of wet

19 meadows. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "wet

20 meadows" and where they will be created?

21 DR. REID: Wet meadow habitat is herbaceous habitat

22 that would exist in the floodplain of the stream system

23 itself. It would be prevalent where high water came through

24 in the spring, the water came down and then growth of

25 herbaceous plants occurred in that floodplain. So it would

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

910

1 be meadow habitat within the floodplain.

2 MR. JOHNS: Okay. How much acreage do you think would

3 be created?

4 DR. REID: I don't know. I'd have to go back and look

5 at that.

6 MR. JOHNS: How long -- if Mill Creek was rewatered,

7 how long do you estimate it would take for wet meadows to

8 form?

9 DR. REID: Well, wet meadows could form over the

10 course of several months depending on when the water came

11 on, then allowing the water to recede somewhat so that

12 grasses could -- and sedges could germinate. There could be

13 some meadow habitat beginning to form in as short as a few

14 months. In an annual cycle one would expect meadows to be

15 present.

16 MR. JOHNS: To be fair, let me drop down to some other

17 questions here and I'll come back to this in a minute, but

18 the questions specifically relate to the soil types in this

19 area.

20 Would you consider the Mill Creek area particularly

21 between Cemetery Road and Mono Lake to be rather rocky?

22 DR. REID: Yeah, it's somewhat rocky, sure.

23 MR. JOHNS: Gravelly type or cobbley do you think?

24 DR. REID: I don't know. I'd have to re-look at it.

25 MR. JOHNS: Do you believe that a change in soil type

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

911

1 in that area would be necessary in order for meadows or

2 marshes to form?

3 DR. REID: No, I believe that you can have marshes and

4 meadow habitat even under current situations. As you get

5 heavy flows in the spring and summer period, you're going to

6 get deposition of soils which will make quality meadows and

7 larger meadow habitats more prevalent; but even under

8 existing conditions you'll get grass growth in those

9 regions.

10 MR. JOHNS: To get back to the area that you would

11 envision would be a productive waterfowl habitat area, how

12 long do you think it would take for that soil transformation

13 to take place?

14 DR. REID: Could you repeat the question again?

15 MR. JOHNS: How long do you think it would take the

16 soil transformation process to take place to get these

17 meadows or wet meadow areas or marshes to reform to be what

18 you would consider to be highly productive waterfowl areas

19 that you would see at an advanced stage?

20 DR. REID: Highly productive waterfowl areas? What I

21 would expect to see in these meadow-type habitats is that

22 they're back water areas and areas which serve as resting

23 and foraging areas for species like mallards, some

24 shovelers, et cetera, and I would estimate that it's going

25 to take several years to be in a stage that you'd call a

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

912

1 climax meadow; but you're going to see immediate response,

2 as I mentioned, that may only take a couple months.

3 MR. JOHNS: Thank you. You indicate that the

4 DeChambeau Ponds and the County Ponds and the Black Point

5 Complex offers opportunities to develop shallow seasonal

6 wetlands. Can you please describe these and what do you

7 mean by "seasonal"?

8 DR. REID: "Seasonal wetlands" are those that may dry

9 up over the course of an annual period and that drying is a

10 very important process in how the long-term productivity of

11 those systems exist so that drying causes the release of

12 nutrients, new germination of vegetation, et cetera.

13 So the DeChambeau Complex, which is five ponds and a

14 meadow system, has in its management regime by the U.S.

15 Forest Service the ability to hold water some years in each

16 individual pond and the ability to let it dry in others.

17 The suggestion we had for the County Ponds was that

18 you could take the existing oval area and basically make it

19 two ponds and manage it in a similar fashion to County

20 Ponds. The Black Point scrape and the fifth pond at

21 DeChambeau are judged as seasonal in that they will take the

22 heavy flows in the spring and summer period and then dry up,

23 but during the course of that period they will be fairly

24 productive and then have vegetation in them as the area

25 dries.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

913

1 MR. JOHNS: Thank you. You mentioned artesian flows.

2 Do the three scientists advocate drilling at DeChambeau

3 branch to try to find artesian flows?

4 DR. REID: Yes, all three of us recommended that and

5 the U.S. Forest Service has suggested that they would search

6 funds out to try and attempt to do that.

7 MR. JOHNS: Have you performed any sort of analysis of

8 what affect, if any, drilling in other artesian wells would

9 have on existing artesian wells or local ground water?

10 DR. REID: No, absolutely not.

11 MR. JOHNS: Have you performed any analysis on what

12 affect an artesian well would have on lake-fringing wetlands

13 below the DeChambeau Ponds?

14 DR. REID: Below the DeChambeau Ponds, no.

15 MR. JOHNS: Is it possible that such a well could have

16 an adverse affect on the lake-fringing wetlands area?

17 DR. REID: We had our engineering staff look into the

18 potential of just such that situation and they deemed that

19 it was very unlikely that there would be a negative impact.

20 MR. JOHNS: You indicate that the County Ponds project

21 should be conditioned on the ability to obtain artesian

22 flows.

23 DR. REID: And that's -- my testimony differs from

24 what we had in our report.

25 MR. JOHNS: So you recognize the ability to get

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

914

1 artesian flow may not occur?

2 DR. REID: Correct.

3 MR. JOHNS: Why should the County Ponds project be

4 conditioned on the obtaining of artesian flows?

5 DR. REID: Because of the high cost potentially

6 associated with a second well, second pump and the long-term

7 maintenance that that might involve.

8 MR. JOHNS: Were you personally involved in DeChambeau

9 restoration project?

10 DR. REID: I was.

11 MR. JOHNS: And what role did you play?

12 DR. REID: I was a biological supervisor for the

13 project.

14 MR. JOHNS: Does Ducks Unlimited feel or do you --

15 pardon me. Do you feel that this project was a success?

16 DR. REID: The project is not completed. We ran into

17 a situation that we were very surprised at in that the water

18 would percolate down at a certain level. You could fill

19 ponds one and two and then as you went to fill pond three,

20 the water would stay at a certain level even though you

21 continued to introduce water into the site and then at a

22 certain point all the water would drop out; and this was a

23 very curious condition and one that we had not encountered

24 over several hundred projects in the west.

25 Our engineers who had done previous soil

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

915

1 investigations were confused in that this was good alluvium

2 soil. They had done solid soil tests on it and rather

3 suggested that the site probably sits on a perched water

4 table and that that was going to be problematic in terms of

5 holding water without a lot more water entering into the

6 system.

7 The options we had, which we always knew we had, was

8 to Bentonite or use an alluvium to seal the pond bottoms,

9 and that is what we have been doing this fall and winter.

10 We have completed pond two, which we used a water-soluble

11 solution while it was flooded to seal the pond bottom. We

12 have sealed pond three with alluvium and that appears to be

13 holding very well. We've completed about 60 to 75 percent

14 of pond four. That's the last remaining part of the project

15 that we have not completed and we anticipate doing that this

16 spring. Because we ran into problems with the

17 December/January storms we took our operator off the site.

18 MR. JOHNS: Okay, thank you. Are you aware of

19 concerns that have been expressed that if the County Ponds

20 are sealed with Bentonite and fed exclusively from well

21 water, that there would be a problem of buildup of natural

22 toxins in the water in the ponds?

23 DR. REID: No, I'm not aware of that. In fact, we had

24 done quite a bit of pre-evaluation of the water, both in the

25 well water and in the site that has the hot water coming

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

916

1 out, because we were concerned for that very fact, that we

2 did not want to produce a project that was going to cause

3 any problems with heavy metals or any other potential

4 contaminant.

5 There is fairly high levels of Boron in the hot water

6 source. However, with the mixture of water from the well

7 and the small amount of water that's entering from the hot

8 water, the Boron levels are not a problem at all

9 biologically.

10 MR. JOHNS: Okay. U.S. Forest Service surveys

11 indicate that 1996 was an excellent year for breeding

12 pintail ducks and diving ducks and that restoration efforts

13 are critical when populations are high.

14 Does it disturb you that this year the DeChambeau

15 Ponds did not provide significant waterfowl habitat for

16 ducks?

17 DR. REID: Let me correct you. It's the U.S. Fish and

18 Wildlife Service that did the surveys, not the Forest

19 Service.

20 MR. JOHNS: Thank you.

21 DR. REID: Yes, absolutely. We would have liked to

22 have the project totally on line to serve as quality fresh

23 water habitat.

24 MR. JOHNS: Has this been a problem in DeChambeau

25 Ponds the last several years?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

917

1 DR. REID: We've been working on the project. As I

2 said, we're not completed with the project because the

3 project hasn't had the Bentonite totally on it.

4 MR. JOHNS: Does it disturb you that it hasn't

5 happened for the last several years?

6 MR. DODGE: Objection, unintelligible.

7 MR. JOHNS: Does it disturb you that water habitat on

8 the DeChambeau Ponds has not occurred over the last several

9 years?

10 DR. REID: In that when we entered the site there was

11 high degradation of the levies and basically looking at it

12 from an engineering standpoint, no site on there would hold

13 water probably three years after entering the site. We

14 viewed that anything we did there was going to be positive

15 and, in fact, ponds one and two did hold water during that

16 time period which they probably would not have had we not

17 entered the site.

18 MR. JOHNS: You refer to when the U.S. Fish and

19 Wildlife Service frees up its water right on page six. Has

20 anyone at Fish and Wildlife Service told you they intend to

21 give up their water rights at Mill Creek?

22 DR. REID: That is an error in my abbreviations. It

23 should be U.S. Forest Service, not USFWS. So they asked the

24 question correctly. It was based on an inaccurate -- it's

25 U.S. Forest Service.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

918

1 MR. JOHNS: Got it, okay.

2 DR. REID: So can you state the question again?

3 MR. JOHNS: Okay. You refer to that when the U.S.

4 Forest Service frees up its water right in your testimony,

5 has anyone at the Forest Service told you that they intend

6 to give up their water right on Mill Creek?

7 DR. REID: No one has told me that they intend to give

8 up the water right. I have been told that they certainly

9 would consider it, and especially as it is in consideration

10 for good quality habitat restoration that's what they would

11 consider releasing the water right for.

12 MR. JOHNS: Okay. Do you recall who told you this and

13 when?

14 DR. REID: I don't recall when.

15 MR. JOHNS: Okay. Are you aware of the procedures

16 that might be necessary for the Forest Service to give up

17 their water rights?

18 DR. REID: Yes, I am.

19 MR. JOHNS: Okay. You state that the Conway Ranch

20 water rights are critical to the long-term recovery of Mill

21 Creek. Are you referring to both seasonal irrigation rights

22 or winter water or both?

23 DR. REID: Certainly winter water and non-irrigation

24 water, but I think there needs to be a discussion in

25 relation to the important high spring and summer flows to

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

919

1 look at the irrigation period as well.

2 Let me go back to your last question because I

3 remember that in a discussion with Tom Ratcliff, who is one

4 of the scientists and who is the chief biologist for the

5 Modoc Forest, Tom discussed a fact that it was very feasible

6 for the Forest Service to relinquish its water right given

7 biologic rationale.

8 MR. JOHNS: Thank you. This question has been asked a

9 couple times, but I'll ask it one more time here.

10 Are you proposing that no Mill Creek water would flow

11 under the Conway Ranch from the powerhouse tailrace at any

12 time, winter or summer?

13 DR. REID: Let me state that, as Dr. Stine has put in

14 his written testimony, much of the Conway is actually

15 watered from Virginia Creek, and to my knowledge the other

16 portions of the Conway would not then receive water from

17 Mill Creek in the proposal.

18 MR. JOHNS: So the answer to the question would be

19 "yes"? No Mill Creek water would be used?

20 DR. REID: The answer would be yes/no.

21 MR. JOHNS: I got it. You refer to the creation of

22 Mill Creek water courses with back waters in the bottomlands

23 if I got your testimony correct.

24 Approximately what location are you talking about and

25 do you have acreage estimates?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

920

1 DR. REID: The approximate locations are on the maps

2 that are listed in the appendices by Dr. Stine. These are

3 the potential back waters that we certainly saw. There are

4 other back waters in the delta area which would be created.

5 We did not list acreages in the document.

6 MR. JOHNS: Okay. What evidence do you have that back

7 waters existed historically in the past?

8 DR. REID: Based on the written material by Dr. Stine

9 in relation to both bottomland areas and back waters.

10 MR. JOHNS: And how long do you think it would take to

11 create these back water areas?

12 DR. REID: Well, back water areas will happen very

13 fast when you have enough water in slack water. Riparian

14 habitat will take longer.

15 MR. JOHNS: How much longer do you think?

16 DR. REID: Well, to acquire viable riparian habitat

17 it's going to be over the course of several years.

18 MR. JOHNS: Why did the scientists conclude that water

19 needed to enter Mill Creek should occur as high up as

20 possible?

21 DR. REID: We were referring to areas at the return

22 ditch so that as great a length of Mill Creek could be

23 rewatered for viable riparian and back water habitat and

24 that there would be minimal loss then of water to other

25 purposes such as irrigation, for grazing, et cetera. We

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

921

1 felt that the water would be better served for habitat in

2 the Mill Creek area.

3 MR. JOHNS: So you're looking principally at this

4 riparian habitat along the corridor and river itself in the

5 upper areas of Mill Creek?

6 DR. REID: Why we're putting in the top level?

7 MR. JOHNS: Right.

8 DR. REID: Well, that and to establish flows that --

9 the greatest amount of flow that you can within the stream

10 system both in repairing sediment that has been washed away

11 and in creating then flows that will reestablish springs in

12 the hypopycnal area at the lower regions.

13 We looked at -- and it's in the document from the

14 scientists' report -- alternative to take it down at a lower

15 level and we felt that there would be loss of water if that

16 was the strategy. So that the full extent of the stream

17 would be best in terms of putting water at the highest end.

18 MR. JOHNS: So would it be fair to say that your

19 concerns are principally waterfowl habitat issues or the

20 recovery of the stream itself?

21 DR. REID: They're not mutually exclusive. To have a

22 viable functioning stream, you will then produce the complex

23 of habitats which are critical for waterfowl in the riparian

24 zone, in the delta, in the meadows, in the back water, in

25 that hypopycnal fresh water zone and in the springs and it

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

922

1 is that complex that is really critical.

2 I think -- let me state that I think there's a

3 misconception here that one habitat type is missing in this

4 system and, in fact, what's missing is the juxtaposition of

5 habitats in locations that they actually serve to

6 accomplish.

7 MR. JOHNS: Okay, thank you. You say that the

8 restoration of Mill Creek would provide far better waterfowl

9 habitat than Wilson Creek at its mouth.

10 How long will it take to create this superior habitat?

11 DR. REID: Well, that's a good question. How long

12 will it take for Mill Creek to become superior to Wilson

13 Creek? My feeling is that if you are able to supply good

14 flows in the spring and summer period and replicate a flow

15 of, let's say, 11 cfs in the fall, that in that first year

16 you'll have far better habitat in Mill Creek than currently

17 exists at Wilson.

18 MR. JOHNS: And how much acreage do you think would

19 take place -- would be created in that first year?

20 DR. REID: I don't think we listed the acreage.

21 MR. JOHNS: So it's your testimony, then, within the

22 first year the quality of habitat on Mill Creek would be

23 better than the current habitat quality on Wilson Creek?

24 DR. REID: Yes, it is, given those flow levels.

25 MR. JOHNS: You refer to a mix of habitats that you

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

923

1 forecast would be developed in Mill Creek if it's restored.

2 Describe the plants and the types of mixed habitats

3 you expect would reestablish.

4 DR. REID: I'm going to find the place here in my

5 testimony which talks about that.

6 MR. JOHNS: Page eight.

7 DR. REID: So it refers to both the channels, et

8 cetera. Well, what I would envision you would see in the

9 length of the stream is a series of riparian habitats coming

10 down the stream which would be dominated by cottonwood and

11 willow. In association to those you would have meadow

12 habitats which would be dominated by grasses and sedges.

13 There is the potential to also have some water crest in some

14 of the spring-related areas along the side of the stream.

15 As you move down the stream into some more of the back

16 water habitat, I would suggest that you'll have slightly

17 more diverse grass and sedge habitats and then -- but there

18 will also be open water habitats in those areas and then as

19 you move to the delta itself, it will be more open water

20 habitat leading into the lake itself.

21 MR. JOHNS: This next question I think you've already

22 answered. You forecast that an expanded lake-fringing

23 wetland shoreline will be available. Can you explain how

24 rewatering Mill Creek will create this?

25 DR. REID: I said these conditions are essential to

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

924

1 provide deltaic riparian and lake-fringing habitat.

2 MR. JOHNS: Page eight, line 26. Should be towards

3 the bottom.

4 DR. REID: So this is -- it's the last sentence there,

5 "A rapid response by some birds is expected..." Is that

6 where you're seeing this?

7 MR. JOHNS: I don't have the testimony in front of me,

8 but I believe so.

9 DR. REID: Let me just read this so I know what I'm

10 saying.

11 It's referring to expanded lake-fringing wetland

12 habitat along the shoreline, and that is as new flows are

13 established you have a much broader area in which the delta

14 exists; and it is not only the delta habitat itself, but the

15 expanded hypopycnal region within that area. So it's

16 expanded lake-fringing wetland shoreline, which is both a

17 combination of the delta and hypopycnal area.

18 MR. JOHNS: So these are basically functions of the

19 volume of water that would be put into Mill Creek?

20 DR. REID: The volume of water then impacting the

21 existing habitat.

22 MR. JOHNS: As part of developing the scientists'

23 proposal to rewater Mill Creek did you investigate what

24 adverse environmental impacts might result if your proposal

25 was implemented?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

925

1 I'm going to list several categories here. Did you

2 consider the adverse effects that would result by LADWP

3 ceasing irrigation with this Mill Creek water?

4 DR. REID: Ceasing irrigation?

5 MR. JOHNS: Yes.

6 DR. REID: For Thompson and the meadow habitat or just

7 general irrigation?

8 MR. JOHNS: Just general irrigation. We'll get to the

9 others in a second.

10 DR. REID: No, we did not comment on that.

11 MR. JOHNS: Did you consider the adverse effects of

12 putting all the Wilson Creek flow back into Mill Creek?

13 DR. REID: Absolutely. But, again, all of our

14 considerations are relative to waterfowl habitat. That was

15 our charge in this document. We were not preparing an EIR.

16 We were preparing comments on how to produce the best

17 quality waterfowl habitat in the Mono Basin and we did look

18 at -- and I think it states in our document that -- this is

19 on page 99 of the appendices. "The best ecological use of

20 current Wilson Creek water is to return most of it to Mill

21 Creek as close to the headwaters as possible."

22 So we obviously considered what the impact would be of

23 taking it away and its best ecological use we felt was Mill

24 Creek.

25 MR. JOHNS: So you looked at the adverse effects that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

926

1 would occur to Mattly Meadow as an example of an adverse

2 effect that might occur?

3 DR. REID: We didn't look directly at Mattly Meadow.

4 We looked at the complex of habitats that existed and felt

5 that the loss of habitat in any other area where water might

6 be diverted from was not a consequence for waterfowl as

7 compared to what we could produce at Mill Creek.

8 MR. JOHNS: Do you believe that the waterfowl habitat

9 that's provided by Wilson Creek currently is useful

10 waterfowl habitat?

11 DR. REID: Again, that relates to another question I

12 was asked earlier. There is some waterfowl use of the delta

13 at Wilson Creek. However, if you restore viable flows on

14 Mill Creek, you'll have vastly superior habitat in that

15 complex.

16 MR. JOHNS: Are you aware of Ducks Unlimited being

17 involved in a project where wetlands were taken away to

18 create other wetlands at another location?

19 DR. REID: Yes, I'm aware of a project in Nevada

20 called Railroad Valley where the historic stream had been

21 diverted to irrigate pasture land. The area was purchased

22 by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Land

23 Management asked Ducks Unlimited to work with it to restore

24 the historic wetlands that existed in the Railroad Valley.

25 In order to do that we had to restructure the historic

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

927

1 flows out of an irrigated meadow back into the historic

2 seasonal wetlands. So the meadow was no longer irrigated

3 after our project.

4 MR. JOHNS: And the meadow provided the waterfowl

5 habitat?

6 DR. REID: Very minor waterfowl habitat. There were a

7 few geese there.

8 MR. JOHNS: Thank you. I think this last question's

9 already been answered. Thank you very much.

10 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, that completes the

11 questioning for Ms. Bellomo by Mr. Johns.

12 Is Mr. Haselton here for Arcularius Ranch?

13 Dr. Ridenhour, do you wish to ask questions?

14 DR. RIDENHOUR: No.

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Roos-Collins, do you have

16 questions.

17 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: No questions, Mr. Chairman.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, sir.

19 Ms. Cahill --

20 MS. CAHILL: Yes, thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: -- for the Department of Fish and

22 Game. Good morning.

23 MS. CAHILL: Good morning, Members of the Board and

24 Dr. Reid and Mr. Shuford. Almost all of these questions are

25 for Dr. Reid. So, Mr. Shuford, you can mostly relax.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

928

1 ---oOo---

2 CROSS-EXAMINATION

3 BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME:

4 MS. CAHILL: Dr. Reid, would you expect restoration

5 activities in the Mono Basin to benefit waterfowl?

6 DR. REID: Yes, I think we've documented in our

7 scientists' report that we expect there to be increased

8 usage by waterfowl in the Mono Basin.

9 MS. CAHILL: Could you explain somewhat the

10 relationship between Mono Basin restoration activities and

11 conditions in the flyway generally?

12 DR. REID: Certainly. We are currently in a wet cycle

13 within most of North America, but especially the Pacific

14 Flyway. There have been restored populations of birds in

15 the prairies of Canada, both because of climatic conditions,

16 but also because of extensive efforts to restore grassland

17 habitat.

18 For example, in Alberta the last three years there

19 have been projects to restore upwards of more than 200,000

20 acres of grassland and wetland habitat; and as you come down

21 the migration corridor there are countless examples in

22 Washington and Oregon, the Snake River, in Utah along the

23 Great Salt Lake, in Northern California the Klamath Basin,

24 in projects that are currently undergoing in Nevada. In a

25 number of projects in the Central Valley of California all

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

929

1 of these set to restore viable linkages for these migratory

2 birds.

3 Mono Basin has -- is in a situation -- which I

4 testified in 1993 to the Board is in a situation where it

5 right now may be part of a break of a chain in terms of the

6 migration corridor.

7 MS. CAHILL: So you would consider it to be a

8 potentially key link?

9 DR. REID: Yeah. As water levels rise and as

10 waterfowl habitats could be restored, it's going to be a

11 very important link. This next year is going to be a real

12 important time because right now we have very, very wet

13 conditions in Nevada and Nevada is predicting some of the

14 best breeding habitat that they've had in several years.

15 Likewise, the prairies of southeast Alberta and

16 southwest Saskatchewan have far more snow on them than

17 they've had for several years. So for the true prairie

18 species of pintail or shovelers, et cetera, this will be a

19 very critical spring coming up.

20 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. So it would be possible to

21 see increased numbers of birds in the Mono Basin in response

22 to habitat improvement during this time of increased numbers

23 in the flyway?

24 DR. REID: This is -- during increased populations

25 within the continent this is when we tend to see young birds

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

930

1 seeking out new areas. So to have restoration occurring now

2 is very critical because this is when birds are going to

3 move into areas and establish long-term traditions for

4 migration.

5 MS. CAHILL: Thank you. In the scientists' plan you

6 discuss the fact that there is no single form of habitat

7 that supplies all the needs of waterfowl, and you've just

8 now told us that there's a whole complex of habitat types

9 that are required; is that right?

10 DR. REID: That's correct.

11 MS. CAHILL: Is there -- is it true to say that the

12 minimal acreage of fresh and brackish open water wetlands is

13 one of the key types of habitat that is limiting in the

14 Basin at this time?

15 DR. REID: That's true.

16 MS. CAHILL: And so would -- do you see that in your

17 plan that would be one of the key types of habitat that

18 you'd need to recover?

19 DR. REID: Absolutely. That's why we think that the

20 burn schedule in a mosaic on the eastern side of the

21 lakeshore is extremely important, because that opens up

22 areas that are typically spring fed; but because fire has

23 been suppressed in this region for a long time period you

24 don't have those open areas that waterfowl will move into

25 readily, and that fire schedule and fire scenario is an

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

931

1 important one in establishing those kinds of habitats on the

2 east side.

3 On the west side, the DeChambeau County Ponds Complex

4 and the Black Point scrape, serve as a place for open water

5 habitat, fresh water habitat that the birds can move from

6 lakeshore, the lake environment, over to those sites to

7 bathe, to get a drink and then move back to the lake and

8 forage.

9 MS. CAHILL: In the scientists' plan on page 101 there

10 was a monitoring program that indicated several factors to

11 be monitored, and the first one listed is acres of wetland

12 habitats.

13 Do you believe it is important to monitor acres of

14 wetland habitats?

15 DR. REID: I think because you have such a dynamic

16 changing system going out there that this is an important

17 aspect to monitor. Whether it alone will allow you to judge

18 success I'm not going to argue, because I don't think alone

19 it's going to give you the kind of information you need; but

20 in conjunction with other factors which we list here I think

21 it's an important variable to look at.

22 MS. CAHILL: Would it be helpful to have an acreage

23 goal so that when that monitoring is done you can determine

24 whether or not you are achieving the increase in habitat

25 that you're looking for?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

932

1 DR. REID: The challenge with having an acreage goal

2 is you can be comparing apples and oranges, and this is a

3 fear that the scientists had in looking at goals and

4 objectives for this very aspect; and we were concerned that

5 one could look at existing vegetation on the east side of

6 the lake and say, "Well, we already have more wetland acres

7 than we need." And, in fact, that was not viable waterfowl

8 habitat even though in the jurisdictional wetland

9 description you might count that as wetland habitat.

10 In fact, what we felt was a better means to look at a

11 success in relation to these wetland habitats was to

12 describe the various restoration proposals we had and then

13 one could look at within system successes. So one could

14 look at the Mill Creek bottoms and look at changes in the

15 Mill Creek bottoms and look at changes there across time, or

16 one could look at the Simons Springs area, look at impact of

17 burn by the amount of the acreage of open area, the amount

18 of spring open area and that would be a means of measuring

19 success; but we felt that total acreage was not a value that

20 would be meaningful in terms of judging success in the

21 restoration.

22 MS. CAHILL: Let's take as an example the burns. The

23 scientists recommend burning approximately a thousand acres;

24 is that right?

25 DR. REID: Correct.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

933

1 MS. CAHILL: And with a burning of a thousand acres

2 approximately how many acres of open water habitat would you

3 expect to be created?

4 DR. REID: What we suggested there was it was a mosaic

5 burn so that you were burning 200 to 400 acres on an annual

6 basis and it was a patchwork of burns trying to replicate

7 what might have happened if you had -- lightening strikes,

8 burned an area, it went out on its own. A year or two goes,

9 another lightening strike hits another area. That way you

10 have a heterogeneic pattern out on the landscape so you have

11 some open areas and some closed areas.

12 MS. CAHILL: And how do you measure success, then? Is

13 the success simply that it has burned or is it only success

14 if it burns and creates a certain amount of a certain kind

15 of habitat?

16 DR. REID: I would judge -- there are different levels

17 of success. I would judge the fact that a burn was

18 attempted in the Basin as the first level of success, and

19 that's already happened. The other levels of success that I

20 think you should judge are the amount of acreage that is

21 burned, the amount of open water habitat that remains, and

22 then the final level of success is what residual habitats

23 remain over several years judging at how long these openings

24 remain before they are revegetated in.

25 MS. CAHILL: Right. But is there not some amount that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

934

1 you would want to have remain or that would be your goal to

2 have it remain?

3 DR. REID: I guess if we're looking at open water

4 habitat and trying to replicate what existed historically at

5 Mono Lake, you go back to the northern lagoon system and

6 recognize that there were some 200 acres of open water

7 habitat in those northern lagoons and it may be possible to

8 offer some of that open water habitat in the complex of the

9 Simons Springs area and one might consider looking at

10 acreages up to, say, 200 acres of open habitat in that

11 region.

12 MS. CAHILL: What was the value of the lagoon habitat?

13 DR. REID: Well, we know that from surveys from people

14 that hunted the area that they did hunt the northern lagoons

15 and it is assumed that part of the value of that area is

16 that it was slack water and when it was stormy out on the

17 lake that the birds would move to that slack water in the

18 north lagoons. So a similar situation would exist at Simons

19 Springs given very windy, wavy conditions on the lake.

20 MS. CAHILL: Okay. And in the event that the burn

21 program didn't result in some acceptable number of acres of

22 lasting open water habitat, would you then recommend that

23 other measures be implemented to provide that type of

24 habitat?

25 DR. REID: Potentially. We recommended here that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

935

1 there was the potential for scrape habitats in that area.

2 We recommend in this document -- and I think I mentioned it

3 in my testimony -- that what we suggest is that, first, a

4 scrape is initiated at Black Point and that is carefully

5 monitored. And given positive waterfowl response of that

6 scrape area then you consider it in the second phase as

7 potential of those other sites.

8 We further recognized that in the TAG meetings there

9 was not a lot of support by the State Lands for any

10 intrusion of materials on the state land areas, and we were

11 not suggesting that you force an agency to implement a

12 manipulative activity that may be against their long-term

13 strategies for ecological equality.

14 MS. CAHILL: I believe the Forest Service last week

15 testified there might be sites on Forest Service land.

16 Have you --

17 DR. REID: Then that's the Black Point site that is on

18 Forest Service land and we looked at some other sites. I

19 think it's especially desirable as you look from DeChambeau

20 Ponds around the Black Point because this is an area that's

21 had a lot of disturbance. It's not a pristine setting in

22 terms of physical manipulation of the ground.

23 Again, these are very, very subtle operations. I

24 mentioned in my testimony two to fifteen centimeters. And I

25 believe as you look at that Black Point site if there is

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

936

1 very positive response by these birds, then one might

2 consider more extensive activities.

3 MS. CAHILL: What is the nature of the disturbance at

4 Black Point?

5 DR. REID: Well, there currently exists an artesian

6 flow at that site from a well and what the -- what the

7 disturbance -- well, the disturbance was the fact that

8 they've been mining that cinder there.

9 MS. CAHILL: What standards would you use for

10 measuring the success of the strength of Black Point?

11 DR. REID: We would look -- I would look at bird

12 response to the site and I would look at bird response in

13 terms of total numbers across a daily period and I would

14 look at the kinds of activity the birds had in those sites.

15 If you had a fairly large number of birds that were

16 drinking, that were bathing, it may very well indicate that

17 you still have a paucity of those kinds of habitats in the

18 deltas of those streams and that those scrapes may serve as

19 a function for that bathing and drinking.

20 MS. CAHILL: So that if the Black Point scrape

21 indicated that waterfowl would use such a scrape, you would

22 then perhaps recommend other scrapes in the Basin?

23 DR. REID: I would.

24 MS. CAHILL: Assuming that the land management agency

25 consented?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

937

1 DR. REID: Right.

2 MS. CAHILL: What would be a reasonable acreage for

3 such additional scrapes?

4 DR. REID: I guess I wouldn't want to say until I saw

5 what kind of response you had at the Black Point site. I

6 would go very slowly into putting out more scrapes. I would

7 not -- if there was positive response on the Black Point

8 scrape, I would not immediately say, "Great, let's do 200

9 acres of scrapes around the lake." I would rather say,

10 "Let's look at two to three other scrapes in other areas and

11 see if we have similar response."

12 MS. CAHILL: Would you recommend, though, that at the

13 end of a particular period of time if all the scientists'

14 recommendations were carried out, that you would have some

15 sort of a yardstick to measure whether there has been

16 sufficient habitat created that the plan has succeeded?

17 DR. REID: My recommendation is that it should be a

18 very adaptive program and I would suggest -- and I believe

19 we do at the end of this document -- that there be an annual

20 meeting of the players involved perhaps taking the TAG and

21 continuing it in a meeting to look at what is the result in

22 terms of both lake rising, in terms of projects that are

23 going on. And I think this is very important not only in

24 viewing how birds are responding to the habitats, but what

25 is the progress of various projects.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

938

1 If a project gets hung up for two years in the permit

2 process, something is clearly going on there and I think it

3 would be unfortunate to wait until the year 2014 to say, you

4 know, "Well, you know, you should have gone to this office

5 rather than this office."

6 By having an annual meeting of all the concerned

7 parties, I think you can speed up the process of getting

8 habitat out on the landscape.

9 MS. CAHILL: Do you see provisions for adaptive

10 management in Los Angeles' waterfowl plan?

11 DR. REID: I do not see it. I think there's room for

12 it and I think there's the potential for it.

13 MS. CAHILL: And you would recommend it?

14 DR. REID: Absolutely.

15 MS. CAHILL: Back on the subject of burning. Your

16 testimony indicates that you thought that some jackpot burns

17 may have been completed by now.

18 Do you know whether they have been?

19 DR. REID: No, I don't.

20 MS. CAHILL: And can you tell me what you mean by

21 "jackpot burn"?

22 DR. REID: A "jackpot burn" is a forestry term in

23 which you're going -- in this case it's the Rush Creek

24 bottoms and you're going out into the Rush Creek bottoms and

25 burning very specific sites of dead, residual, woody

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

939

1 material and they're small sites. You go out in the winter

2 so you're not risking a major burn to burn out the whole

3 riparian area of Rush Creek, but the areas are about the

4 size of these tables right here connected. They're

5 relatively small. They may interconnect slightly larger

6 areas, maybe the size of this room. But they're relatively

7 small, patchwork burns in the bottoms.

8 MS. CAHILL: And the purpose is to accomplish what?

9 DR. REID: The purpose is to rid the area of the

10 large, dead, woody material and instead provide then the

11 substrate for new herbaceous growth or open water areas.

12 MS. CAHILL: And would this material be in stream

13 channels or is it on the uplands?

14 DR. REID: Some of it's on the edge of the floodplain.

15 Others of it might be in the stream itself, and what we

16 suggested was that the fishery scientists be consulted to

17 make sure that we weren't negatively impacting the

18 fisheries' habitat in this method.

19 MS. CAHILL: Okay. And you would recommend that that

20 be included in Los Angeles' plan as well, that fishery

21 interests be taken into account?

22 DR. REID: Absolutely. You know, we discussed some of

23 this plan with Dr. Ridenhour but, again, we were instructed

24 to keep it to a waterfowl plan. So we didn't mix some of

25 the fisheries issues.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

940

1 MS. CAHILL: Okay. With regard to the County Ponds

2 project, you recommend that it be carried out only if

3 artesian flow is available; is that right?

4 DR. REID: That's correct.

5 MS. CAHILL: And is that your recommendation or the

6 three scientists?

7 DR. REID: That's my recommendation.

8 MS. CAHILL: Okay. In the event that artesian flow is

9 not available, would you recommend that there be some other

10 measure implemented to provide an equivalent amount of

11 habitat?

12 DR. REID: I think at this time looking at the lake

13 that if one cannot get artesian flow -- and this goes after

14 the aspect of feasibility, cost, cost per acre, et cetera,

15 that the County Ponds project with a drilled well, a pump

16 system is very costly and it is costly not simply in the

17 original implementation, but it's far more costly in its

18 long-term O & M. In this case it's on Forest Service

19 ground.

20 So my recommendation is that you would shelve the

21 project at that time if you could not get artesian flow.

22 MS. CAHILL: Okay. You testified that the scientists'

23 plan is a package and not a shopping list or a grocery list;

24 is that right?

25 DR. REID: Yes, that's true.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

941

1 MS. CAHILL: Okay. So if it is a package and some of

2 the items can't be put in the shopping cart for one reason

3 or another, are we going to go hungry or are we going to

4 replace those items with some other items?

5 DR. REID: My feeling is that it's not an "A" through

6 "F" selection where if you remove one item you're just one

7 sixth less of the properties, because each of those elements

8 is replacing a real critical need in the Basin.

9 If you are unable through some mechanism not to

10 achieve or not to be able to do one or more of these

11 factors, I think it's directly going to influence the amount

12 of waterfowl recovery you're going to see.

13 We state in the document that we do not believe even

14 if you are able to instigate all of these items that you'll

15 return waterfowl numbers to historic levels. We do,

16 however, believe that if you are able to recover these

17 wetland habitats as we suggest, that you will see a recovery

18 of waterfowl.

19 MS. CAHILL: Okay. If you are not able to implement

20 one or more of the measures, though, then you would

21 recommend adaptive management --

22 DR. REID: Exactly.

23 MS. CAHILL: -- to consider what else might be done?

24 DR. REID: Correct.

25 MS. CAHILL: Thank you very much.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

942

1 No further questions.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Ms. Cahill.

3 Ms. Scoonover, do you have questions?

4 MS. SCOONOVER: I do, Mr. Caffrey. It will be longer

5 than 15 minutes. Would you like to begin or --

6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: You anticipated my question. Why

7 don't we take up your questions now and then we'll take a

8 break and come back for the staff after lunch.

9 DR. REID: Is she going to be fairly long, because I'd

10 like to take a two-minute break if she is.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Fifteen minutes.

12 MS. SCOONOVER: I'm sorry, Mr. Caffrey, I said I would

13 be longer than 15 minutes.

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Oh, you said you would be longer

15 than 15 minutes.

16 MS. SCOONOVER: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, let's see, we're going to

18 have to quit today about 4:30 at the latest for Board

19 Members' schedules, including my own.

20 I suppose we could take a lunch break now and come

21 back at a quarter to 1:00. Is that agreeable to everybody?

22 Let's start at a quarter to 1:00. Thank you.

23 MR. FRINK: Mr. Caffrey.

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Frink, before we all rush

25 out.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

943

1 MR. FRINK: Yeah, I just wanted to bring up again that

2 our understanding is that Dr. Ridenhour and Mr. Trush -- or

3 Dr. Trush will not be easily available after today.

4 So if we don't come back until after lunch and we

5 still have further cross-examination, redirect, perhaps some

6 recross, we're going to be running short of time to get

7 through those witnesses. I wonder if it's worth going as

8 far as we can for 30 minutes or so and seeing if we get done

9 with the party's cross-examination of these witnesses.

10 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, I think we have Board Members

11 here that have the same problems, perhaps that --

12 MR. FRINK: I didn't mean the two minutes.

13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Maybe the way we handle that, does

14 anybody think that an hour for lunch is too long?

15 All right. I could live with, say, half an hour. Do

16 you want to come back at 12:30, take 45 minutes? That will

17 give us a little more time. All right, let's do that.

18 We'll resume at 12:30. Thank you.

19 (Lunch recess taken.)

20 ---oOo---

21

22

23

24

25

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

944

1 AFTERNOON SESSION

2 ---oOo---

3 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, let's see, I think we

4 were about to hear from Ms. Scoonover for cross-examination.

5 Good afternoon and welcome.

6 MS. SCOONOVER: Thank you, Mr. Caffrey. Board

7 Members, Dr. Reid and Mr. Shuford.

8 ---oOo---

9 CROSS-EXAMINATION

10 BY CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION AND CALIFORNIA

11 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION:

12 MS. SCOONOVER: I'd like to start with you, Dr. Reid.

13 At the now numbered pages --

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Oh, excuse me, Ms. Scoonover. Some

15 people are gesturing that they can't hear and I noticed this

16 morning that that mike at the podium isn't picking up very

17 well. I think we may have had some problem hearing some of

18 your questions, too, Jerry. Maybe you could -- see if we

19 can make an adjustment back here if you'll bear with us for

20 a moment.

21 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Mr. Chairman.

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Roos-Collins.

23 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Mr. Johns has improved on the

24 timing procedure. The green light is still on.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I'm not sure we made that all that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

945

1 clear to Mr. Johns about not charging you for our time.

2 We'll start the clock again at 60 minutes.

3 That's better. Mr. Johns, we'll restart the clock.

4 All right, thank you.

5 MS. SCOONOVER: Dr. Reid, at the now numbered pages of

6 your testimony beginning on page four and going on to page

7 five, you summarized the three waterfowl scientists'

8 recommendations for waterfowl habitat restoration.

9 Are those actions -- are those the actions that the

10 scientists considered necessary to restore habitats?

11 DR. REID: Yes, that's true.

12 MS. SCOONOVER: And are you confident that the

13 recommendations made by the waterfowl scientists, you and

14 the other two, and summarized at pages four and five of your

15 testimony will actually restore waterfowl habitat at Mono

16 Lake?

17 DR. REID: These will restore waterfowl habitats at

18 Mono Lake. The degree to which they will recover

19 populations has yet to be shown.

20 MS. SCOONOVER: You noted some confusion in your

21 testimony over which portions of yours -- the scientists'

22 plan DWP was adopting.

23 If DWP were to adopt the actions described at pages

24 four and five, would you have a high level of confidence

25 that waterfowl habitat would be restored.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

946

1 DR. REID: Yes, I would.

2 MS. SCOONOVER: If DWP's plan was adopted without the

3 above clarification, the clarification at pages four and

4 five of your testimony, would you have a similar high level

5 of confidence that waterfowl habitat would be restored?

6 DR. REID: No, I think there's some confusing elements

7 there and I would just be uncertain as to the total plan

8 they had anticipated.

9 MS. SCOONOVER: At page four of your testimony, next

10 to raising the lake level the scientists identified

11 rewatering Mill Creek "...including important

12 distributaries, and raising the water table in the

13 floodplain to restore riparian, marsh, spring, wet meadow,

14 and open ponds and sloughs, and to recreate a hypopycnal

15 environment off the mouth of the stream" as your highest

16 restoration priority.

17 Are all of these habitat types important for

18 waterfowl?

19 DR. REID: Yes, and they're all important in relation

20 to a complex at the same place and that's why we believe

21 this is our number one priority.

22 MS. SCOONOVER: You identified Mill Creek restoration

23 as the most significant difference between your -- the

24 scientists' recommendations and DWP's recommendations.

25 With the DWP plan would it be possible to rewater the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

947

1 distributaries in the bottomlands?

2 DR. REID: Probably not because there's a low level of

3 water, especially during the fall period.

4 MS. SCOONOVER: Would it be possible to raise the

5 water table in the floodplain?

6 DR. REID: Probably not.

7 MS. SCOONOVER: Would it be possible to restore

8 riparian habitat?

9 DR. REID: Not to the extent possible that you have of

10 the full flow.

11 MS. SCOONOVER: Would it be possible to restore marsh

12 habitat?

13 DR. REID: Not flooded marsh habitat in the fall

14 period when the migrants come through.

15 MS. SCOONOVER: Would it be possible to restore spring

16 habitat?

17 DR. REID: Again --

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: Objection, ambiguous. Do you mean

19 spring as in "springs" or "springtime"?

20 MS. SCOONOVER: "Spring" as in listed at page four of

21 Dr. Reid's testimony that I just read rewatering Mill Creek

22 "...including..." and then he goes into a list of items.

23 DR. REID: The spring habitat I refer to there --

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Just a minute, Dr. Reid. Is

25 that -- (pause.)

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

948

1 Yeah, that's an appropriate reference. So if you can

2 explain your answer in relation to that definition of

3 "spring."

4 DR. REID: The "spring" definition I use on page four

5 is "spring" as in "bubbling spring" rather than a temporal

6 description.

7 Spring habitat, to my understanding, would be more

8 improved with a higher flow, especially in the fall period.

9 MS. SCOONOVER: Would it be possible under DWP's plan

10 to restore wet meadow habitat?

11 DR. REID: Not to the extent possible if you have 11

12 cfs in the fall, as we suggest.

13 MS. SCOONOVER: Under DWP's plan how about open water

14 ponds?

15 DR. REID: There would be some small amount of open

16 water in the channel during the spring and summer, but very

17 restrictive as compared to a higher flow.

18 MS. SCOONOVER: With DWP's plan would it be possible

19 to restore sloughs?

20 DR. REID: No, I don't believe that slough habitat

21 would be provided, especially in the fall habitat.

22 MS. SCOONOVER: With DWP's plan would it be possible

23 to restore hypopycnal -- or to create hypopycnal ria?

24 DR. REID: My understanding would be that it would be

25 greatly reduced in the fall period under those conditions.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

949

1 MS. SCOONOVER: And, finally, under DWP's plan would

2 it be possible to create a hypopycnal lense off the mouth of

3 the stream?

4 DR. REID: Certainly not to the extent that you'd have

5 under higher flow levels. Higher flow levels would give you

6 a much higher extent of that hypopycnal area.

7 MS. SCOONOVER: Would DWP's plan provide for high

8 flows throughout the spring and summer?

9 DR. REID: No, that's one of the things that we were

10 concerned about.

11 MS. SCOONOVER: Without these flows could the stream

12 maintain channel integrity?

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: Objection, I don't believe that

14 Dr. Reid is qualified to express an expert opinion on

15 channel integrity.

16 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Are you qualified to answer that

17 question, Dr. Reid?

18 MS. SCOONOVER: Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey, if I may,

19 Dr. Reid specifically mentions channel integrity in his

20 testimony at page seven as a reason for the high spring and

21 summer flows.

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I'll allow the question -- or I

23 should say I'll allow the answer.

24 MS. SCOONOVER: If you have problem with it, Dr. Reid,

25 we can move on.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

950

1 DR. REID: Why don't you move on.

2 MS. SCOONOVER: Without -- would DWP's plan allow for

3 the reestablishment of -- with DWP's plan where you've

4 already testified that spring and summer flows would be

5 below what the scientists believe is necessary, would DWP's

6 plan provide adequate flows to establish riparian

7 vegetation?

8 DR. REID: Some riparian vegetation may occur, but not

9 to the extent that would be extremely valuable to waterfowl

10 and not to the extent that higher flows would provide.

11 MS. SCOONOVER: Would their spring and summer flow

12 regime replenish ground water that could persist into the

13 fall and winter?

14 DR. REID: We do not believe that that would happen,

15 no.

16 MS. SCOONOVER: You also noted that DWP's plan will

17 not provide for adequate fall flows.

18 Why are fall flows important for waterfowl?

19 DR. REID: Fall flows are critical to waterfowl

20 because the fall flows will allow the birds to use that

21 important delta habitat. The fall flows will increase that

22 spring activity which goes into the lakeshore. The fall

23 flows will assist in increasing the size of the hypopycnal

24 zone, and the fall flows would flood both meadow and marsh

25 habitats and back water habitats. These are the habitats

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

951

1 that would be used by the migrant fall waterfowl.

2 MS. SCOONOVER: Dr. Reid, do you believe that the

3 bottomlands habitat created at Mill Creek would be similar

4 to the Rush or Lee Vining Creek bottomlands habitat that

5 existed pre-1940?

6 DR. REID: Yes, that's one of the reasons that we

7 think that this is such a high priority in restoration in

8 that you are allowing a system to recover and a system that

9 is representative of some lost habitat in other parts of the

10 lake.

11 MS. SCOONOVER: Dr. Reid, are you aware of testimony

12 given in this hearing previously regarding the quality of

13 habitat at Rush and Lee Vining Creek bottomlands in terms of

14 waterfowl?

15 DR. REID: During this period?

16 MS. SCOONOVER: In the previous hearings.

17 DR. REID: Yes, yes, in the previous hearings I am.

18 MS. SCOONOVER: And did you talk to locals who had

19 firsthand knowledge of the habitat at Rush and Lee Vining

20 Creek bottomlands pre-diversion?

21 DR. REID: Yes, we did and we looked at some written

22 testimony.

23 MS. SCOONOVER: And what did that testimony and those

24 conversations produce in your mind?

25 DR. REID: That led us to believe that the combination

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

952

1 of habitats at the deltas and up the stream in relation to

2 the shoreline lake habitat was really the critical link of

3 why birds use those habitats.

4 MS. SCOONOVER: Okay. Thank you, Dr. Reid. I'd like

5 to move to Wilson Creek now.

6 Is it your opinion that Wilson Creek provides minimal

7 waterfowl habitat presently?

8 DR. REID: Yes, that's my opinion.

9 MS. SCOONOVER: Are you aware of some habitat at the

10 mouth of Wilson Creek?

11 DR. REID: Yes.

12 MS. SCOONOVER: What attracts the ducks to the mouth

13 of Wilson Creek?

14 DR. REID: What attracts the ducks to the mouth of

15 Wilson Creek is the interaction of the fresh and saline

16 water. It will stir up materials and the fresh water

17 itself, which is a source of drink and bathing.

18 MS. SCOONOVER: Is this habitat likely to be lost if

19 Mill Creek were rewatered?

20 DR. REID: It may be diminished right at that

21 location, but it overall -- area for the west side of the

22 lake, the improved habitat at Mill Creek and existing

23 habitat that will remain at Wilson Creek with the minor flow

24 will be much greater.

25 MS. SCOONOVER: So if some of the habitat is likely to

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

953

1 move to Mill Creek, is it likely the ducks will follow?

2 DR. REID: Absolutely.

3 MS. SCOONOVER: Are you familiar with the marsh area

4 at the mouth of Wilson Creek?

5 DR. REID: Yes.

6 MS. SCOONOVER: And are you aware that the marsh was

7 formed as part of the Mill Creek delta marsh?

8 DR. REID: I believe I have heard that.

9 MS. SCOONOVER: Are you aware that sediment carried

10 down Wilson Creek is actually covering the marsh and is

11 destroying it?

12 DR. REID: Yes, I am aware of that.

13 MS. SCOONOVER: Have you witnessed that?

14 DR. REID: Yes.

15 MS. SCOONOVER: If you assume that this is the case

16 and if that's borne out by your experience, would that

17 strengthen your recommendations to return the Wilson Creek

18 flows to Mill Creek?

19 DR. REID: Yeah, that's one of the reasons we

20 recommended that the water be returned to Mill Creek because

21 we state -- and we were trying to be very succinct here. We

22 state that --

23 MS. SCOONOVER: Where's "here"?

24 DR. REID: This is in the appendix of the waterfowl

25 plan. This is written by the scientists and we state that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

954

1 the best use of current Wilson Creek water is to return most

2 of it to Mill Creek.

3 MS. SCOONOVER: Are you familiar with springs

4 occurring at the mouth of Wilson Creek?

5 DR. REID: At the mouth of Wilson Creek, yes.

6 MS. SCOONOVER: And are you aware of tufa that's also

7 located there?

8 DR. REID: Yes, I am.

9 MS. SCOONOVER: Are you aware of the age of that tufa?

10 DR. REID: No, I am not.

11 MS. SCOONOVER: Are you aware of the elevation of the

12 marsh that exists at Wilson Creek?

13 DR. REID: We discussed that while we were out on

14 site, but I can't tell you what that elevation is right now.

15 MS. SCOONOVER: Is it your understanding that some of

16 that marsh would be covered as the lake rises?

17 DR. REID: Yes, it was my understanding as much as a

18 half of that was going to be inundated by the rising water.

19 MS. SCOONOVER: If Mill Creek were rewatered as you

20 recommend, including reopening the distributary channels as

21 sufficient flows to meet all of the objectives you

22 identified, how soon would you expect to see a noticeable

23 difference in the habitat?

24 DR. REID: "Noticeable difference" is the key phrase

25 there. Given high flows in the spring and summer, I believe

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

955

1 that you would see noticeable change as early as that first

2 fall in terms of water flow, in terms of the extent of that

3 delta in the -- as it entered the lake. Not necessarily

4 vegetation response, but you would see change in the

5 morphology of the way the system flowed. I believe you

6 would see immediate response by waterfowl; but in terms of

7 general change in regards to vegetation, that may take a

8 couple years.

9 MS. SCOONOVER: So your testimony is that there would

10 be usable waterfowl habitat within the first season that

11 water is returned to Mill Creek in the manner you described?

12 DR. REID: Absolutely.

13 MS. SCOONOVER: Great. Thank you, Dr. Reid.

14 Mr. Shuford, you discuss at page two of your testimony

15 some studies at Abert Lake that showed northern shovelers'

16 diets included about 25 percent by weight of alkali flies.

17 Do you recall that testimony?

18 MR. SHUFORD: Yes, I do.

19 MS. SCOONOVER: How does 25 percent by weight

20 translate into nutritional value?

21 MR. SHUFORD: Well, the studies that have been done on

22 alkali flies indicate the nutritional value is measured by

23 caloric value and lipid or fat content indicate they're much

24 higher than brine shrimp.

25 MS. SCOONOVER: So various stages of alkali fly have a

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

956

1 high fat content?

2 MR. SHUFORD: That's correct.

3 MS. SCOONOVER: So how important is the alkali fly to

4 meeting the nutritional needs of northern shovelers?

5 MR. SHUFORD: I think it would be quite high. If you

6 look more carefully at those studies, one thing they do say

7 in there is the seeds, which are found in the diet there,

8 which I think, if I remember correctly was about 25 percent

9 of the diet, they thought those were taken incidentally to

10 other prey items they were actually looking for; and if you

11 look at the quality of those food items, both the seeds and

12 brine shrimp cysts which they took in, also have a lot of

13 undigestable material and fiber in kind. So they wouldn't

14 be as nutritionally valuable.

15 Also, at Abert Lake the brine shrimp there, the cysts

16 float to the top so they could be sieved out by the

17 shovelers. At Mono Lake those cysts would not be available

18 because they drop to the bottom of the lake.

19 MS. SCOONOVER: Are there any other differences

20 between the materials found in the ducks at Abert Lake and

21 the materials you would expect to be found at Mono Lake?

22 MR. SHUFORD: Well, another ten percent of diet at

23 Abert Lake was water fleas which wouldn't be an important

24 item at Mono Lake. So at Mono Lake you only really have two

25 main prey items, the alkali fly and brine shrimp, and of

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

957

1 those two the alkali fly would be considered more

2 nutritious.

3 MS. SCOONOVER: Has the diet of waterfowl ever been

4 studied at Mono Lake?

5 MR. SHUFORD: I don't think specifically. There are

6 some anecdotal accounts in the EIR that was presented to

7 this Board, and in there they talk about stomachs that were

8 examined by some people that shot waterfowl and they said

9 they were loaded with both pupae and larvae of brine fly --

10 or alkali flies.

11 MS. SCOONOVER: I'm trying to keep Mr. Frink's

12 admonition in mind in terms of my alkali fly questions. So

13 I'm trying to refocus a bit, excuse me.

14 So, to your knowledge, Dr. Shuford, there is no study

15 that's been conducted to determine whether or not food

16 availability at Mono Lake is a limiting factor for the

17 waterfowl?

18 MR. SHUFORD: No, I don't think any studies have been

19 done for any species at Mono Lake regarding limiting of food

20 availability.

21 MS. SCOONOVER: If we assume that you're correct that

22 brine shrimp and alkali flies would be the two sources of

23 food for the northern shoveler at Mono Lake, would the

24 decline in one population, say, for example, the shrimp

25 negatively affect the northern shoveler population at the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

958

1 lake?

2 MR. SHUFORD: Well, I couldn't answer that

3 specifically. I mean, it might. I mean, there's a question

4 whether or not food is currently limiting at the lake or

5 not. If it wasn't, then a decrease of either of those

6 things might not make a difference; but, again, it might.

7 MS. SCOONOVER: So what is the significance of not

8 monitoring a significant source of nutrition for waterfowl

9 at Mono Lake?

10 MR. SHUFORD: Well, I think we would want to, you

11 know, get all the various factors that are having a major

12 impact on the northern shoveler, which is the waterfowl

13 species that was most numerous at Mono Lake.

14 We want to be monitoring all those factors that could

15 influence them; and if we don't look at the alkali fly,

16 which may be the most important food item or surely equal to

17 the brine shrimp, we'd be missing out on some very important

18 data.

19 MS. SCOONOVER: Do alkali flies and brine shrimp

20 inhabit different habitat?

21 MR. SHUFORD: Oh, yes, they do. You can't find them

22 together, but they have very different life histories. The

23 inshore zone closer to the shore at Mono Lake where

24 waterfowl would be feeding would be the zone where you'd

25 have a lot more alkali flies.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

959

1 MS. SCOONOVER: Do alkali flies and brine shrimp have

2 different food requirements and developmental traits?

3 MR. SHUFORD: I understand they do. I obviously

4 haven't studied alkali flies.

5 MS. SCOONOVER: And different population demographics

6 as well?

7 MR. SHUFORD: That's what I understand.

8 MS. SCOONOVER: Are you familiar with the work that

9 Dr. Herbst has done at Mono Lake?

10 MR. SHUFORD: Yes, I am.

11 MS. SCOONOVER: And are you aware of whether or not

12 baseline population data for alkali flies from 1991 through

13 1995, including measurements of change and substrate area

14 coverage, densities on submerged vegetation and adult

15 emergent rates exist today?

16 MR. SHUFORD: Dr. Herbst has communicated that

17 information to me, that he does have good monitoring data

18 from 1991 to '95 on alkali flies.

19 MS. SCOONOVER: And is this material available?

20 MR. SHUFORD: It would be available from him. I don't

21 think it's published data at this point.

22 MS. SCOONOVER: Great, thank you. That's all.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you,

24 Ms. Scoonover. Cross-examination from the staff. Anything?

25 MR. FRINK: Yes, we do have some questions,

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

960

1 Mr. Chairman.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Frink.

3 ---oOo---

4 CROSS-EXAMINATION

5 BY STAFF:

6 MR. FRINK: I'll begin, Dr. Reid. I wonder if you

7 could explain what the role of Ducks Unlimited was in the

8 planning and construction of the DeChambeau project?

9 DR. REID: Right. We were originally asked by some

10 residents of the Basin and the Mono Lake Committee to come

11 over to the Basin and look if there was potential projects

12 that we saw that could be restored in the Mono Basin.

13 Don Banta was one of those individuals from the Basin

14 who had been a member of Ducks Unlimited for a long time and

15 was interested -- and he had hunted at DeChambeau Ponds for

16 many, many years and was interested in seeing that habitat

17 restored. So there were --

18 MR. FRINK: What year was that that you first --

19 DR. REID: DeChambeau Ponds --

20 MR. FRINK: Yes.

21 DR. REID: -- was the site that Don Banta had hunted

22 in.

23 MR. FRINK: Right. And when was Ducks Unlimited first

24 consulted regarding the possibility of restoring DeChambeau

25 Ponds?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

961

1 DR. REID: I'm thinking '92. I think that's the year.

2 MR. FRINK: Okay. And who did Ducks Unlimited work

3 with in the eventual construction of the project?

4 DR. REID: We worked with three other partners. The

5 Mono Lake Committee was responsible for discussing the

6 project in relation to the local community and helping

7 assist in permitting.

8 The Forest Service -- U.S. Forest Service owned and

9 maintained the land and their part of the partnership was to

10 do the long-term O & M on the project. They provided the

11 in-kind land value of the project that we put forward, and

12 the main funder of the project was the Transportation

13 Department, Caltrans, and then Ducks Unlimited directly with

14 direct funding.

15 MR. FRINK: Okay. How much was the funding that Ducks

16 Unlimited contributed?

17 DR. REID: Our funding -- I'm talking off the top of

18 my head here, but I'm thinking it was $40,000 directly up

19 front, some in kind, and then in relation to the placing of

20 the alluvium at the end, that will come out to about 60 to

21 75 K.

22 MR. FRINK: And when we hear the sum $430,000 as the

23 cost of constructing the project, does that include either

24 the in-kind work from Ducks Unlimited or from the Forest

25 Service?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

962

1 DR. REID: Yes.

2 MR. FRINK: It does?

3 DR. REID: Yes.

4 MR. FRINK: How much was the contribution of Caltrans

5 toward the project?

6 DR. REID: I believe it was 350.

7 MR. FRINK: Okay. Prior to undertaking the project,

8 the DeChambeau Ponds, did Ducks Unlimited undertake any sort

9 of baseline assessment of waterfowl habitat conditions in

10 the Mono Basin?

11 DR. REID: No, other than discussing with the

12 residents of the Basin where historic birds were found in

13 the Basin and we were more specifically interested in the

14 specific site of DeChambeau, what species of birds used the

15 habitat, what kind of densities were found in the area and

16 probably most important the timing of when the birds use the

17 habitat.

18 MR. FRINK: So the project was constructed without any

19 sort of overall assessment of waterfowl habitat in the

20 basin?

21 DR. REID: We went to the Department of Fish and Game

22 to seek out data on long-term trends, surveys, et cetera,

23 and they said that did not exist. And so we went to seek it

24 out but we couldn't find any, and it wasn't until after when

25 the EIR was being prepared that we found some of the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

963

1 additional data.

2 MR. FRINK: What type of monitoring and evaluation

3 program was developed as part of the DeChambeau Ponds

4 project?

5 DR. REID: There is a protocol for monitoring and

6 evaluation of the DeChambeau project. It was written up in

7 the original proposal. It's carried through as part of our

8 agreement with the Forest Service.

9 What it does is it asks for annual water usage, annual

10 water level relationships on the different ponds and it

11 seeks information on bird usage.

12 MR. FRINK: And who is responsible for collecting the

13 information on bird usage?

14 DR. REID: The Forest Service is with some assistance

15 by Ducks Unlimited where possible.

16 MR. FRINK: Do you evaluate -- or do you intend to

17 evaluate the success or the effect of the DeChambeau project

18 in regard to what else is going on in the Mono Basin?

19 DR. REID: Where possible. Unfortunately, we have a

20 really small staff that's responsible for delivering habitat

21 across the west and it's difficult for us to, you know, have

22 staff available on a weekly or bi-weekly basis up in the

23 Basin. We'll probably try to work with the Forest Service

24 to develop that protocol.

25 MR. FRINK: You mentioned the work of Ducks Unlimited

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

964

1 throughout the west. My understanding is you've been

2 involved literally in the restoration of millions of acres

3 of waterfowl habitat; is that correct?

4 DR. REID: That's correct.

5 MR. FRINK: And what sort of monitoring program is

6 normally included in those projects?

7 DR. REID: That's generally left to the managing

8 agency that's responsible. In most cases it's the US Fish

9 and Wildlife Service or a state Fish and Game and a protocol

10 is set up in terms of an evaluation of hydrology, how close

11 the project fits in terms of the desired hydrology.

12 Typically we're trying to mimic a regional hydrologic

13 cycle and we look at the hydrology to see how that's working

14 in relation to mimicking the regional hydrology. They

15 record the plant response on the different sites and we'll

16 evaluate that. Generally we do come in every three to five

17 years and evaluate whether there has been strong succession

18 in an area and perhaps if fire or a physical manipulation is

19 necessary to push some of the succession back in the

20 seasonally flooded areas to an earlier succession and then,

21 finally, the water bird surveys which are taken at very

22 different levels.

23 On some of our projects we have very specific

24 bi-weekly surveys in which birds are tracked, populations

25 are tracked and we have long-term data -- we have data back

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

965

1 to 1988 on some of our projects bi-weekly and the bird

2 response. The Cosumnes project down just south of town here

3 is one of those, or we have relationships with the agencies

4 where we have an agreed-upon one time period survey say in

5 December or January when they'll take those data.

6 MR. FRINK: How long do you continue that monitoring

7 in most instances?

8 DR. REID: In most instances we've done that since the

9 project was completed in our office. Our office opened in

10 '87. So we have data in some cases ten years old for some

11 of our projects. For our Canadian counterparts which began

12 in 1938, they have data on the waterfowl use in terms of

13 breeding and/or brood use in some cases back to the '40's.

14 MR. FRINK: Is the lining of the DeChambeau Ponds with

15 Bentonite expected to have any affect on the value of the

16 ponds for waterfowl habitat?

17 DR. REID: We think that it will increase the value

18 for waterfowl because it's going to hold water. Without the

19 Bentonite there was a high loss of water and it was very

20 frustrating for the Forest Service in terms of their ability

21 to put water on --

22 MR. FRINK: Excuse me, I guess I wasn't clear. I

23 assume it's important to retain water in the ponds to supply

24 habitat, but would Ducks Unlimited prefer from a habitat

25 standpoint to have the ponds lined or unlined?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

966

1 DR. REID: We would have preferred to have it unlined.

2 One for the additional cost, but two because of the impact.

3 What you have to do is we had to remove the topsoil from the

4 pond, put the Bentonite down and then return the topsoil

5 over the Bentonite so that our seed source and propagule

6 source was still available to germinate as those ponds

7 dried.

8 MR. FRINK: Okay. Page 85 of the waterfowl

9 scientists' report, do you have a copy of that that was

10 included with the Los Angeles plan?

11 DR. REID: No, I have the original copy, but I'll

12 follow you. Just tell me the paragraph you're looking at.

13 MR. FRINK: In my copy it's the page immediately

14 preceding the page labeled Figure 18. So it begins -- the

15 paragraph begins -- it's in the middle of the page, "In

16 addition to flooding the DeChambeau Ponds, it is possible to

17 extend the underground irrigation pipe to rewater the

18 adjacent ten acre riparian zone." Have you located that?

19 DR. REID: Yep, I've got that.

20 MR. FRINK: Okay. How was that zone of riparian

21 acreage originally watered?

22 DR. REID: It was originally watered from diversion of

23 water down Wilson Creek and then surface flowed across

24 there.

25 MR. FRINK: Okay. And when did that stop?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

967

1 DR. REID: Early '90's, I think. '90 or maybe '89.

2 MR. FRINK: Okay. And who owns the property at that

3 location?

4 DR. REID: U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest

5 Service has data on that. They could be consulted as to the

6 specific time of that.

7 MR. FRINK: Okay. Page 88 of the three scientists'

8 waterfowl habitat report, it's immediately after the

9 picture -- the large color photo that comes after Figure 18.

10 Have you located that in your copy?

11 DR. REID: Okay.

12 MR. FRINK: Okay. It refers to rewatering the County

13 Ponds area to flood about 20 acres and then in Table 7 on

14 the following page the cost estimate for this proposal, as I

15 understand it, is $638,000 -- or $638,437, excuse me.

16 Am I correct in assuming, then, that in terms of

17 dollars per acre the cost of the County Ponds project as

18 proposed in the three scientists' waterfowl habitat report

19 is about $31,900 per acre?

20 DR. REID: If that's 638,000 divided by 22, yes.

21 MR. FRINK: Are you familiar with the historical use

22 of the DeChambeau Ponds and County Ponds areas by waterfowl?

23 DR. REID: Yes, in talking with former duck hunters in

24 the Basin I am familiar with that.

25 MR. FRINK: Okay. Do the reports, both oral or

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

968

1 written, indicate that waterfowl use of that area was

2 extensive?

3 DR. REID: They indicate that probably the highest

4 diversity of waterfowl used those habitats on the lake. In

5 other words, the greatest number of species of waterfowl

6 used that DeChambeau/County Ponds complex.

7 MR. FRINK: And were there a lot of birds in that

8 area?

9 DR. REID: There were a lot of birds as well.

10 MR. FRINK: Are there a lot of birds in the portion of

11 the ponds that have been restored now?

12 DR. REID: Not to date.

13 MR. FRINK: How were the ponds supplied with water

14 historically?

15 DR. REID: Historically it was overflow water from

16 Wilson Creek.

17 MR. FRINK: Okay. In helping to prepare the three

18 scientists' waterfowl habitat restoration proposal were you

19 working as a consultant to the City of Los Angeles or as a

20 representative of Ducks Unlimited?

21 DR. REID: I was a representative of Ducks Unlimited

22 and the LADWP paid Ducks Unlimited for my time.

23 MR. FRINK: Is the report presented as a

24 recommendation of the three individual scientists or is it

25 also presented as a recommendation of the organizations from

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

969

1 which they came?

2 DR. REID: No, it's represented from the three

3 individual scientists because we wanted -- just as they

4 wanted there to be total freedom from all parties, we didn't

5 want any of the individuals, whether the Forest Service,

6 whether Ducks Unlimited or University of Idaho, to have any

7 influence other than what the scientists felt was the best

8 viable habitat restoration projects.

9 MR. FRINK: Okay. What was the cost of preparing the

10 three scientists' Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plan?

11 DR. REID: I don't know the total cost because I don't

12 know what Ratcliff or Drewien received in a charge. I

13 believe that the total available monies was about 100 K,

14 which included all the paperwork copy. It included all the

15 subcontractors who assisted in our preparation.

16 MR. FRINK: Okay. In response to a question earlier

17 from Ms. Goldsmith I believe you stated that the three

18 scientists did not consider cost as an element in developing

19 their recommendations.

20 Am I correct in understanding that normally Ducks

21 Unlimited has a reputation as a very practical-minded,

22 cost-effective promoter of waterfowl habitat restoration?

23 DR. REID: Absolutely.

24 MR. FRINK: So in the projects that Ducks Unlimited

25 itself proposes, I assume the cost would be a major

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

970

1 consideration?

2 DR. REID: Absolutely.

3 MR. FRINK: In your experience with Ducks Unlimited

4 have there been any projects that were rejected on the basis

5 of cost?

6 DR. REID: Absolutely.

7 MR. FRINK: Let's see, I have a question now that

8 refers back to the testimony you gave in 1993 and I'll give

9 you a copy of it.

10 DR. REID: Oh, man. Thank you.

11 MR. FRINK: Now, this is the transcript out of the

12 hearings conducted on December 14th, 1993. I call your

13 attention to page 27 of the hearing transcript -- or, excuse

14 me, page 26 of the hearing transcript. I'm going to read

15 you a portion of that. Beginning on line 12 there was a

16 question -- there was a panel that included yourself and

17 Dr. Stine and the question was:

18 "What was the cost per acre of the

19 DeChambeau project?" And this was the cost

20 estimated at that time.

21 You indicated: "I don't have my

22 calculator." Dr. Stine volunteered that it was

23 "Thirteen thousand dollars per acre, and at the

24 prices given by Dr. Reid."

25 And then you stated: "We typically don't

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

971

1 get involved in anything that costs over a

2 thousand dollars an acre. Most of our projects

3 are done for about $100 an acre and with our

4 investitures with partners, typically Ducks

5 Unlimited, paid about $33 dollars per acre."

6 Now, I want to call your attention, also, to your

7 testimony -- go over to page 34 of the same transcript and

8 there was a question asked you beginning on line 22 of page

9 34. The questioner, I believe it was Mr. Dodge, stated:

10 "The last line of questions is to Dr. Reid.

11 Now, you have told us that the DeChambeau

12 project that you are involved with which

13 preceded any argument about Mono Lake elevation,

14 the DeChambeau project is expensive?"

15 And the answer was: Yes, relatively

16 expensive for the kind of projects we do. There

17 are people out there, and mainly private

18 consultants, who would try and sell you

19 something for more, but what we do and try to do

20 is fairly inexpensive."

21 Now, my question -- I guess I'm somewhat confused. If

22 Los Angeles had asked the three scientists to consider

23 economic feasibility, would the three scientists'

24 recommendations on proposed waterfowl habitat restoration

25 programs have been different?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

972

1 DR. REID: Now, I'm going to talk -- you know, neither

2 Tom Ratcliff or Rod Drewien are here. So in many ways I'm

3 going to talk from my standpoint as one of the scientists.

4 We believed that the complex of wetlands that was

5 created through DeChambeau, through the riparian restoration

6 by DeChambeau, through the County Ponds and through the

7 Black Point Scrape would create one of the best habitats out

8 of the landscape; and when we had originally constructed

9 what we thought were the elements of the restorations

10 throughout the wetland basin, we asked two consultants to

11 come in. They were Dr. Lawrence Smith of Texas Tech and

12 Gary Zahm of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Both have

13 extensive experience in the Great Basin.

14 Showing them all the variety of potential restoration

15 projects that we saw, those two individuals agreed that this

16 would be one of the best restoration areas in the Basin and

17 we suggested that the cost would be very, very high; but

18 they suggested based on the fact that you have very few

19 options in the Basin, that its cost is worth the project and

20 our feelings fit the same mode.

21 The cost breaker -- the cost for the project is high,

22 but based on the fact that you have very few options in

23 relation to where you can put fresh water habitat out on the

24 landscape, we felt that it was a reasonable project.

25 MR. FRINK: Is there any indication that the amount of

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

973

1 waterfowl habitat right now at Mono Lake is a limiting

2 factor?

3 DR. REID: I would have to say "yes" because if you

4 look at what habitat existed in the late '40's -- or what

5 populations existed in the late '40's and compare that to

6 habitat loss and population levels in the Central Valley of

7 California, even though you've lost 96 percent of the

8 wetland habitat in California, you haven't seen the

9 precipitous dive in the population as you've seen in the

10 Mono Basin.

11 MR. FRINK: Is the habitat that currently exists in

12 the Mono Basin being overutilized by waterfowl?

13 DR. REID: Overutilized?

14 MR. FRINK: Yes.

15 DR. REID: How do you mean?

16 MR. FRINK: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but a few

17 year ago during the drought my understanding was that there

18 were a number of wildlife refuges that were short on water,

19 short on area. The birds were crammed in and there was a

20 real problem with disease amongst the birds.

21 Is that accurate?

22 DR. REID: There was real potential problem with

23 disease. There was some disease outbreak. It was amazingly

24 fortunate there wasn't a real cholera outbreak at the time,

25 that's correct.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

974

1 MR. FRINK: Are there any existing areas of the

2 waterfowl habitat in the Mono Basin that as a waterfowl

3 specialist you believe are overcrowded?

4 DR. REID: Currently?

5 MR. FRINK: Yes.

6 DR. REID: No.

7 MR. FRINK: That's all the questions I have.

8 Jerry?

9 MR. JOHNS: (Shaking of the head.)

10 MR. FRINK: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Canaday.

12 ---oOo---

13 CROSS-EXAMINATION

14 BY STAFF:

15 MR. CANADAY: Starting out with Dr. Reid, a little bit

16 about historic waterfowl numbers.

17 You're familiar with Mr. Dombrowski's waterfowl

18 counts?

19 DR. REID: Yes.

20 MR. CANADAY: Approximately what was the date or what

21 year those occurred?

22 DR. REID: I believe it was 1948.

23 MR. CANADAY: And Mr. Dombrowski found what area of

24 the lake or what area of the waterfowl habitat around Mono

25 Lake was the heaviliest used and concentrated the largest

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

975

1 number of waterfowl?

2 DR. REID: It was the areas in association to -- in

3 the lake in association to the deltas of the various streams

4 and in his map he shows Rush Creek having about 45 percent

5 of the waterfowl habitat and if you take Rush Creek to

6 DeChambeau, that area on the west side was about 75 percent

7 of the waterfowl that used the lake. The other important

8 area was the Simons Springs area.

9 MR. CANADAY: And in his assessment do you recall any

10 abundance numbers for the Mill Creek area?

11 DR. REID: They show around Mill Creek in that lower

12 area I think about five percent; but, again, Mill Creek at

13 that time in 1948 was fairly degraded because it had already

14 been degraded beginning at the turn of the century when

15 water was diverted for power and for grazing.

16 MR. CANADAY: So the Mill Creek complex at the time of

17 the City of Los Angeles' diversions was not an area heavily

18 used by waterfowl; is that correct?

19 DR. REID: It certainly was not used as much as the

20 other tributaries. I can't say that it wasn't used, but

21 certainly not to the level that the other tributaries were.

22 MR. CANADAY: The area around Rush Creek, which

23 according to Dombrowski had the largest concentration of

24 waterfowl, what was the complex there that you would, in

25 your opinion, attribute to that heavy use by waterfowl?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

976

1 DR. REID: I believe what you had there was you had a

2 very flat, deltaic system that allowed the birds to both

3 move into the delta itself, to gain water and then to move

4 back into the lake to forage. You had a very large

5 hypopycnal region that had the mix of the fresh water with

6 the saline habitat, and then you had the really excellent

7 bottomland component that rose up into -- the riparian

8 bottomland that rose up into the creek itself. Within the

9 bottomlands you had back waters, you had some meadow habitat

10 and that's the kinds of complexes that I think we want to

11 see today.

12 MR. CANADAY: Were there any manmade habitats in

13 the --

14 DR. REID: Yeah, Dombrowski had -- and apparently this

15 began in the late '40's. He had made some ponds that he had

16 and hunted for waterfowl. They were fairly small, though.

17 We have a map of those in the appendix document.

18 I can't remember the total acreage -- here we are

19 right here. He had two ponds that were 12 acres total in

20 size and then another pond that was 22 acres in size and a

21 third pond over to the right which he doesn't have an

22 acreage on.

23 MR. CANADAY: But isn't one of those ponds where he

24 did part of his ocular estimates of the numbers and that was

25 on those manmade ponds?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

977

1 DR. REID: Right, and that was mainly for the

2 breakdown of the species composition.

3 MR. CANADAY: And, again, the main species as far as

4 number of individuals of the population was northern

5 shoveler; is that correct?

6 DR. REID: Correct, with ruddy ducks being number two.

7 MR. CANADAY: In your expectation of the kind of use

8 that would occur in the Mill Creek -- at least in the

9 bottomlands and in the back waters in the marsh, would that

10 be primarily a northern shoveler habitat?

11 DR. REID: I believe that what you'd find in the delta

12 and in the mouth of the area would be primarily shovelers,

13 gadwall and ruddy ducks. As you move up into the creek

14 you're going to shift from those species. Shovelers will go

15 up a fair way, but you're going to shift as you get up into

16 that riparian zone of more green-winged teal and mallard.

17 MR. CANADAY: Are you familiar with a report -- oh,

18 you must be, you cited it as a document -- but a report done

19 by Stine in 1995 on historic and future waterfowl habitat at

20 Mono Lake?

21 DR. REID: I am.

22 MR. CANADAY: And what was Dr. Stine's conclusion

23 about current habitat and future habitat as far as the

24 different waterfowl habitat types?

25 DR. REID: One of his statements, I believe, was that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

978

1 he felt there was not an overabundance of open water habitat

2 and he saw the hypopycnal habitat as being really critical

3 and good quality hypopycnal, good quality springs as being

4 real critical for waterfowl habitat, the lack of stream

5 habitat as he described it.

6 MR. CANADAY: Uh-huh. And that habitat at Mill Creek

7 would be found where?

8 DR. REID: That would be on the outside of the delta,

9 that increased hypopycnal zone.

10 MR. CANADAY: Okay. Do you agree with the findings of

11 that report?

12 DR. REID: I agree to the extent that I believe

13 hypopycnal is an important component of why waterfowl are

14 going to use that habitat, but it's my assessment and that

15 assessment of the other two scientists in this report that

16 the critical element is the complex of habitats that are

17 available. In so improving the hypopycnal zone, you improve

18 the complex of the habitats. So we both come up with the

19 same result. We're arguing apples and oranges in terms of

20 what the birds are using.

21 MR. CANADAY: When you prepared your recommendation on

22 Mill Creek -- and I thought I heard you testify earlier that

23 your focus was strictly on waterfowl; is that correct?

24 DR. REID: Right.

25 MR. CANADAY: So you did not consider any of the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

979

1 habitat types that occur in Mill or Wilson Creek for other

2 wildlife species?

3 DR. REID: Correct.

4 MR. CANADAY: Okay. I'll ask you a hypothetical.

5 Your recommendation or your opinion on the success of the

6 rewatering of Mill Creek is based on -- and this is the

7 hypothetical -- that the Forest Service, in fact, donates

8 their right for the rewatering; is that correct?

9 DR. REID: Yes.

10 MR. CANADAY: What would your opinion be of the

11 waterfowl habitat that would accrue if, in fact, the Forest

12 Service decided for their own reasons not to dedicate that

13 water right to Mill Creek?

14 DR. REID: Then I'd have to do a real evaluation based

15 on what water was dedicated, whether it was just LADWP's or

16 extended water rights of the Conway Ranch in addition.

17 MR. CANADAY: So your assessment of the values that

18 may be obtained at Mill Creek could be considerably

19 different or possibly different?

20 DR. REID: Possibly different. I'd want to look at

21 the water rights and the availability of the water.

22 MR. CANADAY: I think you testified that we're having

23 some good water years for waterfowl, that's correct?

24 DR. REID: That's correct.

25 MR. CANADAY: Do you have any data to suggest that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

980

1 we're seeing increases currently at Bridgeport or Crowley

2 Reservoir of waterfowl use?

3 DR. REID: I did not personally survey either of those

4 locations, but I know someone who hunts Bridgeport that said

5 that populations were high this fall on the Bridgeport

6 Reservoir.

7 MR. CANADAY: Are you aware of any estimates of the

8 use on Mono Lake this fall?

9 DR. REID: I have heard from people that hunted at

10 Mono Lake that populations were down in areas at Mono Lake.

11 MR. CANADAY: Based on your testimony today, it's

12 still your recommendation that there are opportunities for

13 scrapes beyond the Black Point Scrape?

14 DR. REID: Yes, that's correct, provided that you

15 monitor the Black Point site and look at habitat use.

16 MR. CANADAY: And what you have suggested is these

17 potential scrapes at Simons Springs would be in areas that

18 ultimately would be inundated by the lake as it rises

19 according D-1631; is that correct?

20 DR. REID: Yes, that's what the scientists -- that's

21 what we as scientists have reported.

22 MR. CANADAY: So any disturbance that would be created

23 there because of the development of these would be ephemeral

24 in any case?

25 DR. REID: That's correct.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

981

1 MR. CANADAY: On to monitoring. You've recommended

2 that in the best case you would recommend two annual aerial

3 photographs or sessions or monitoring be undertaken, one

4 during the peak flow which would be approximately when, in

5 your opinion?

6 DR. REID: Would probably be July.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: And that would be looking at

8 numbers that would be nesting -- potential nesting birds,

9 then, rather than migrants?

10 DR. REID: No, my assessment of the aerial surveys is

11 for -- for the two I was discussing quality of habitat. So

12 to take the photographs. The surveys that I would suggest

13 for waterfowl would be once a year. That would take place

14 late October or early November.

15 MR. CANADAY: So potentially that second photograph

16 survey you could double up then?

17 DR. REID: Exactly, yeah.

18 MR. CANADAY: Okay.

19 DR. REID: Because I would recommend doing this all

20 elements of a fixed-wing aircraft.

21 MR. CANADAY: How much of a day do you think that

22 would take?

23 DR. REID: Well, I think you could do -- I think you

24 could count Crowley, Bridgeport, Mono Lake and take your

25 pictures and be under a full day.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

982

1 MR. CANADAY: Under a full day. So if you had a plane

2 and you were in the air anyway, you could do all three of

3 those within a day?

4 DR. REID: Absolutely.

5 MR. CANADAY: Okay. Would any of the pastures on

6 Conway, Thompson Ranch, upper/lower, do they provide

7 potential late winter/early spring forage for geese that

8 would be important?

9 DR. REID: They do, but in terms of a larger picture

10 for the potential of habitat that one could obtain at Mill

11 Creek, it's real minor usage.

12 MR. CANADAY: Well, I wasn't asking if it was relative

13 as trade-off but as far as habitat, that provides important

14 habitat for geese?

15 DR. REID: Could, yeah.

16 MR. CANADAY: Your recommendations on the reopening of

17 distributaries in Rush Creek, is it your opinion that LA has

18 adopted that in total?

19 DR. REID: Again, I was -- in the distributaries of?

20 MR. CANADAY: Rush Creek.

21 DR. REID: Rush Creek, yes, it is my understanding,

22 especially that a number of our distributaries were very

23 similar to the fisheries ones, and so it probably was

24 described in that plan.

25 MR. CANADAY: Okay. Well, there is a difference.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

983

1 What was recommended in the fisheries plan as far as

2 distributaries was different than -- as far as particular

3 distributaries was different than some that you had

4 suggested in your waterfowl plan, if my memory serves me

5 well.

6 DR. REID: That's true, but I think the additional

7 ones were listed in LADWP's plan.

8 MR. CANADAY: Getting back to the monitoring and the

9 aerial photographs either for vegetation or for waterfowl,

10 you certainly believe that it's important for annual

11 monitoring of waterfowl numbers, correct?

12 DR. REID: Yes I do.

13 MR. CANADAY: Is it absolutely necessary, in your

14 opinion, that you have annual documentation of vegetation

15 change through aerial photographs?

16 DR. REID: I think based on the tremendous rise in

17 lake levels over a short period where I think we're looking

18 now at 35 to 40 percent of the lake rising in this short

19 time frame, I think an annual photographic reference would

20 be really critical.

21 MR. CANADAY: If, in fact, the Mono Lake achieves its

22 typically annual high level in the fall, then if they were

23 going to do waterfowl counts by aerial photography then if

24 you doubled up, then you would get that by that one single

25 pass then, correct?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

984

1 DR. REID: Uh-huh.

2 MR. CANADAY: So you might possibly say that then the

3 peak flow might not be -- period might not be necessary

4 then?

5 DR. REID: I think at the time frame as the lake is

6 rising it's really worthwhile to gather those data sets in

7 that an evaluation of where this ephemeral wetlands exists

8 is important in trying to judge some kind of adaptive

9 management in terms of how these various areas are changing.

10 I would recommend until the lake reaches some kind of

11 stable condition that you probably want to take two flights.

12 MR. CANADAY: Okay.

13 DR. REID: And you'd only have to have a half a day

14 flight for the photography during the earlier period.

15 MR. CANADAY: Because you're just advocating Mono Lake

16 and not Bridgeport Reservoir?

17 DR. REID: Right, right. Yeah, I'm just advocating

18 taking the photographs at Mono.

19 MR. CANADAY: Mr. Shuford, earlier in your testimony

20 you stated -- or discussed about the Northern American

21 Waterfowl Management Plan and in that plan it has general

22 criteria that is to be used in -- kind of broad based in

23 that plan; is that correct?

24 MR. SHUFORD: That's correct. The Northern American

25 Waterfowl Management Plan is broken down into various joint

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

985

1 ventures, which are certain geographic areas which they

2 identify as being very important to waterfowl; and they've

3 come up with individual management plans for those joint

4 ventures, the Central Valley of California being one, and

5 within those they do, you know, set population or habitat

6 goals.

7 MR. CANADAY: Okay. Now, do you believe if the Board

8 was to direct the City to look within that plan, that they

9 could develop criteria that would be consistent with other

10 waterfowl management areas?

11 MR. SHUFORD: Well, it's on a very different scale. I

12 think they would want to talk to the people that have

13 developed these kind of plans and talk specifically about

14 Mono Lake. I don't think they'd just want to read one of

15 these reports and, you know, come up with criteria based on

16 those reports. I think they'd want to get expertise -- you

17 know, a different scale than was done at those joint

18 ventures.

19 MR. CANADAY: But you think that would be instructive,

20 though, to develop criteria specific for Mono Lake?

21 MR. SHUFORD: I think it would be definitely

22 constructive. You know, how easy it would be to -- you

23 know, very rigorous standards I don't know. I think there

24 could be, you know, room for some subjective criteria as

25 well, but it seems real crucial to have to measure the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

986

1 restoration effort against.

2 MR. CANADAY: Do you have any time frames of how --

3 I'd like an answer from both of you -- on the type of

4 monitoring -- one, let's talk about the aerial photography

5 for waterfowl numbers.

6 MR. SHUFORD: One point I need to clarify. I think

7 the aerial counts wouldn't be by photography. I think these

8 would be done -- you know, visual counts of what's out

9 there.

10 MR. CANADAY: Just ocular estimates?

11 MR. SHUFORD: Right, that's usually how those are done

12 and you definitely want to do it during the rise of the

13 lake. If there's a lag period between the time it takes,

14 you know, the birds to colonize the lake after the lake has

15 reached, you know, quote unquote "equilibrium," you would

16 want to continue after that to see if the birds are still

17 taking advantage of these newly restored wetlands.

18 MR. CANADAY: Dr. Reid?

19 DR. REID: The scientists' plan calls for taking the

20 waterfowl surveys and we call for bi-annual. As you can see

21 in my written testimony here I call for annual surveys, and

22 we recommended that it be taken to the point where the lake

23 reached its median lake level of 6392 and then 20 years

24 afterwards so that you go through a full cycle of

25 continental drought and the wet period. Continentally it's

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

987

1 about a 20-year cycle. So then you're looking at population

2 levels through that whole cycle period.

3 MR. CANADAY: And your recommendation for the

4 vegetation monitoring?

5 DR. REID: What I would call as vegetation/wetland

6 area monitoring, and that's with the photographs, and I

7 think it's necessary to take those through the time period

8 when you have the median lake level to 92 and then go beyond

9 that at least to some period to see, you know, how much

10 change you're incurring annually.

11 MR. CANADAY: Mr. Shuford, you talked about GIS

12 mapping of habitat.

13 MR. SHUFORD: Yes.

14 MR. CANADAY: Are you aware of any current GIS

15 database that already exists on the Mono Basin?

16 MR. SHUFORD: Not specifically on the Mono Basin. I

17 know the Inyo National Forest does have a GIS system, but

18 I'm not familiar with what kind of detail is available for

19 the Mono Basin.

20 MR. CANADAY: So you didn't have a particular existing

21 GIS that we could overlay new layers on?

22 MR. SHUFORD: Well, I mean, I didn't propose the GIS.

23 I mean, I just think it is a good thing to do. As I say,

24 I'm not really sure of the details of the Inyo National

25 Forest current GIS. I am familiar with some of their work

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

988

1 down in the Glass Mountain area because I've been working

2 with them and other people on a GIS system down there for a

3 totally different purpose.

4 MR. CANADAY: Dr. Reid, this is my final question.

5 You testified about the establishment of a trust. Could you

6 explain kind of how you would see that coming about and kind

7 of some detail of what you had in mind?

8 DR. REID: My feeling is there seems to be some level

9 of distrust among various parties in this whole effort to do

10 the restoration and to then monitor the restoration. I

11 think it would be worthwhile to have the Board set up a

12 trust in which there was a certain amount of money set aside

13 and interest from that money and maybe some principal was

14 used to fund the evaluation and monitoring.

15 I believe that a scientific committee could be set up

16 by the Board to figure out who is going to do the evaluation

17 monitoring of various aspects and make the stipulation that

18 nobody on that board can do that monitoring or evaluation so

19 you're not funding people to do their own work but, rather,

20 you find people with a background in wetlands and waterfowl,

21 in monitoring these kinds of elements and ask them to look

22 for the experts that are out there that can best do the job

23 at the most cost-effective fashion and that takes it out of

24 the hands of all parties in relation to who does the

25 monitoring.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

989

1 MR. CANADAY: Thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Canaday,

3 and the rest of the staff.

4 Let's see, are there questions from the Board Members?

5 Mr. Brown.

6 ---oOo---

7 CROSS-EXAMINATION

8 BY BOARD MEMBERS:

9 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Dr. Reid, did I understand you

10 correctly when you stated that the waterfowl habitat is not

11 crowded?

12 DR. REID: Right, the waterfowl habitat currently is

13 not crowded. If you look at where the birds are in the

14 Basin, there's very low populations and there's not huge

15 concentrations that exist at this time.

16 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Are the birds healthy?

17 DR. REID: I can't answer that question. I have

18 not -- I've never picked up a dead one.

19 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Do you have an estimate on what

20 the utilization of the habitat might be today?

21 DR. REID: The level of utilization?

22 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Right.

23 DR. REID: Well, it was estimated in the EIR that

24 there was somewhere between 10 to 15,000 total birds --

25 total waterfowl ducks that visited Mono Lake on an annual

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

990

1 basis. I have no reason to believe that that number has

2 increased beyond that and it might be a little bit less.

3 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Then the final question here: If

4 we build more habitat for the waterfowl, will more birds

5 come?

6 DR. REID: Well, I think the element is not will we

7 build more habitat, but will we build better habitat and

8 will we build the best habitat? And I think that's

9 illustrated in what you look at what some folks were calling

10 marsh habitat over at Simons Springs. That is not viable

11 waterfowl habitat in its current condition.

12 It's heavily vegetated. It may or may not show water

13 and, yet, at the same time if you set that area with a

14 sequential burn and open up some of those habitats, it may

15 be readily used. I believe that the projects that are

16 presented in the scientists' report give some quality

17 projects that can be done in the Basin.

18 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: I like your question better so

19 let me restate it. If we build better habitat, will more

20 birds come?

21 DR. REID: Yes, I believe they will.

22 BOARD MEMBER BROWN: Thank you.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right.

24 Any redirect, Mr. Dodge?

25 MR. DODGE: Oh, I just have a few I'm sure.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

991

1 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Could you perhaps give me an

2 estimate of how much time you think you need, sir, so that

3 way I can put an appropriate limitation on the recross so

4 we'll all be treated fairly.

5 MR. DODGE: I hope to finish in ten minutes.

6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Let's say ten minutes,

7 then, unless -- are you giving yourself enough time there,

8 Mr. Dodge?

9 MR. DODGE: I'm very bad at estimates. I don't have a

10 whole lot of questions.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Just to be safe, let's call it 15

12 and the same for recross if Mr. Johns will make note of

13 that.

14 MR. JOHNS: Done.

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, sir.

16 ---oOo---

17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

18 BY NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:

19 MR. DODGE: Dr. Reid, you had various questions about

20 the cost of counting ponds, and I understood in the end that

21 you testified that you felt the project was cost-effective,

22 correct?

23 DR. REID: That's correct, because I don't think there

24 are very many options out at the Basin.

25 MR. DODGE: Is the Mono Basin -- is it fair to say

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

992

1 that's part of the Great Basin?

2 DR. REID: Yes, that's true. It's managed -- in terms

3 of the flyway concept it's managed in that fashion.

4 MR. DODGE: And what experience do you have in terms

5 of restoration in the Great Basin?

6 DR. REID: I have fairly extensive experience from the

7 east to the west, projects in probably six of those states.

8 MR. DODGE: What comments can you make about typical

9 cost per acre on restoration projects in the Great Basin?

10 DR. REID: They tend to be more expensive than what

11 you find in the rest of the United States because you

12 typically are looking at artificial water sources. When you

13 look at pumping sources or ground water sources on any

14 project, that is going to be the most expensive project

15 you're gonna look at.

16 MR. DODGE: You told us about the five distributary

17 channels that could potentially be rewatered in Mill Creek.

18 Can you tell the Water Board the approximate length of

19 channel that would be rewatered?

20 DR. REID: I believe it's about 5300 linear feet.

21 MR. DODGE: Can you give the Board any estimate as to

22 how difficult it would be to rewater these five

23 distributaries?

24 DR. REID: We believe that three of them can be done

25 fairly simply. The last one, "E," we suggested you'll have

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

993

1 to put an additional culvert under County Ponds, but the

2 advantage there is then it flows into another channel. It

3 gives you a whole other channel down into the delta. So I

4 believe that all five of them can be done without too much

5 difficulty.

6 MR. DODGE: A question for both of you at the risk of

7 delving into this question of whether alkali fly should be

8 part of the waterfowl monitoring program. There seems to

9 have been a fair amount of dispute on that.

10 I would just ask each of you to tell me, you know,

11 what are we really fighting about? Are we talking about an

12 expensive item? Are we talking about doing original

13 research? Are we talking about something pretty simple?

14 What is it that each of you proposes?

15 MR. SHUFORD: I can't speak to the exact cost of this,

16 but I have talked to Dr. Herbst about it and the monitoring

17 that he would do is monitoring, you know, based on this 1991

18 to 1995, you know, setup or protocol that he has developed.

19 He said it will be a lot easier to do and a lot less costly

20 than the current brine shrimp monitoring that's going on,

21 but I don't have a dollar figure for you.

22 MR. DODGE: Dr. Reid?

23 DR. REID: As a scientist putting forward this

24 document, what we're calling for is evaluation of

25 monitoring. We're not calling for research. We hope that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

994

1 there will be a large number of research projects that will

2 be put forward by universities, et cetera, that will be paid

3 for outside of this whole process by other organizations and

4 institutions; but the brine fly sampling is an important

5 evaluation monitoring component for carnivores such as

6 northern shoveler in terms of looking at how they

7 potentially might use the Basin.

8 MR. DODGE: My question, sir, does not go to its

9 importance, because I do not want to get into this battle

10 with Dr. White.

11 My question to you simply is: How extensive a program

12 are we talking about? How much money a year?

13 DR. REID: It's not very extensive. My understanding

14 is it's going to be one or two sampling periods across the

15 entire year so -- and then, you know, you do an evaluation

16 in the laboratory, counts, a writeup. I don't know, ten,

17 fifteen thousand dollars. I don't know.

18 MR. DODGE: Now, there's been various questions to

19 you, sir, about Dr. Jehl and I have a couple, also.

20 Mr. Kavounas testified to certain conversations he had

21 with Dr. Jehl after receiving your draft report, and as a

22 result of those conversations with Dr. Jehl Mr. Kavounas

23 made certain assessments as to whether portions of your

24 report would be accepted or not accepted.

25 My question to you, sir, is: Did Dr. Jehl call you to

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

995

1 discuss aspects of your report during this time frame after

2 the report was submitted?

3 DR. REID: No, he did not.

4 MR. DODGE: You've testified that you changed your

5 proposal with respect to County Ponds to make it contingent

6 on artesian flow. Is that correct, sir?

7 DR. REID: That's correct.

8 MR. DODGE: Okay. Do you have an opinion as to

9 whether it's likely or unlikely that you can get artesian

10 flow for the County Ponds?

11 DR. REID: We believe that it's likely that you can

12 get artesian flow.

13 MR. DODGE: What is the basis of that opinion?

14 DR. REID: The basis is artesian flows that are

15 present at Black Point and an understanding of some of the

16 logs of other wells that have been drilled in the area and

17 that it may be a fairly deep well, but we believe that

18 artesian flow is possible.

19 MR. DODGE: Do you plan to make additional efforts to

20 get artesian flow at the DeChambeau project?

21 DR. REID: Yes. The U.S. Forest Service has discussed

22 with us the potential of taking the existing well that we

23 have about 300 feet already drilled and going further down

24 so you don't have to pay for the initial 300 feet and

25 looking for artesian flow there.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

996

1 Now, the disadvantage of this is that if you don't

2 find it you spent the money drilling the well and didn't get

3 anything, but the Forest Service is very interested in

4 seeing if artesian flow cannot be received.

5 MR. DODGE: Okay. I have a couple questions about

6 Wilson Creek. I'm limiting them to waterfowl potential.

7 Now, you talked about the so-called "Grand Canyon" and

8 as I understood your testimony it had little waterfowl

9 value. Let me go upstream a little bit with you to the

10 Conway Ranch. Do you have an opinion as to whether there is

11 potential waterfowl habitat at the Conway Ranch?

12 DR. REID: My experience on the Conway Ranch is

13 limited. It is reflective of one fixed wing flight and one

14 helicopter flight tangential view, but based on what we saw

15 from those aerial views and similar experience in the Great

16 Basin I do not believe that you will have exceedingly good

17 waterfowl habitat in the Conway Ranch.

18 MR. DODGE: Do you think that has much potential --

19 the Conway Ranch, that is, much potential for a restoration

20 program for waterfowl habitat?

21 DR. REID: One could create seasonal wetlands on the

22 Conway Ranch, but it would not be as valuable as either the

23 DeChambeau/County Ponds complex or the Mill Creek complex.

24 MR. DODGE: Now, going down to the hypopycnal layers,

25 right now as I understand it the water -- or the great bulk

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

997

1 of it is sent down Wilson Creek and presumably creates a

2 hypopycnal layer at the mouth of Wilson Creek, correct?

3 DR. REID: That's correct.

4 MR. DODGE: Okay. Now, under at least your proposal

5 the water would go down Mill Creek and would presumably

6 create a hypopycnal layer at Mill Creek, correct?

7 DR. REID: That's correct.

8 MR. DODGE: Do you have an opinion as to the

9 comparative waterfowl habitat values of those two hypopycnal

10 layers?

11 DR. REID: Yes, I believe especially as you reopen

12 that E Channel in Mill Creek you have a broader delta and I

13 believe you will have a broader hypopycnal zone created at

14 Mill Creek and that will provide better waterfowl habitat.

15 MR. DODGE: You were asked questions by one staff

16 member to assume hypothetically that the U.S. Forest Service

17 would not contribute its water right to Mill Creek, and I

18 want you to make that same assumption but assume that the

19 U.S. Forest Service water right only kicks in after 45 cfs

20 has been taken by others.

21 Under that assumption, do you have an opinion as to

22 whether restoration of Mill Creek without the U.S. Forest

23 Service right would create good waterfowl habitat?

24 DR. REID: Right. If you could obtain the full water

25 flow with a -- either overflow at Lundy or an improved

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

998

1 return ditch system which would allow you to have those kind

2 of flows in the spring and summer and then high flows up to

3 11 cfs in the fall, that would give you good quality

4 waterfowl habitat.

5 MR. DODGE: I'm assuming, sir, that the return ditch

6 has been upgraded so that it will take --

7 DR. REID: Yes.

8 MR. DODGE: Assume it will take the full 70 cfs that

9 comes out of Lundy Powerhouse essentially.

10 DR. REID: That I did.

11 MR. DODGE: But assume further that the U.S. Forest

12 Service has a water right. After the first 45 cfs has been

13 taken assume it refuses to send the water down to Mill

14 Creek.

15 DR. REID: Uh-huh.

16 MR. DODGE: How big a problem is that in terms of your

17 proposal for Mill Creek?

18 DR. REID: Well, you still have potentially with the

19 water right the fall water. What that potentially reduces

20 is a higher spring/summer flush, and so in that case it

21 reduces some of the value but it still has the high fall

22 value.

23 MR. DODGE: But the spring/summer flush, as you put

24 it, would be up to 45 cfs under my scenario, correct?

25 DR. REID: It would, it would, but it would not be

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

999

1 higher under your scenario.

2 MR. DODGE: Okay. But 45 cfs is substantially higher

3 than DWP proposes, isn't it?

4 DR. REID: That's correct.

5 MR. DODGE: And would that 45 cfs have value as

6 compared --

7 DR. REID: Absolutely.

8 MR. DODGE: Let me finish my question -- as compared

9 to DWP's proposal?

10 DR. REID: Yes.

11 MR. DODGE: Thank you. Now, you talked about scrapes

12 on the -- as I understood it on the east side at lake

13 elevations below 6392 feet and Mr. Canaday got you to agree

14 that once the lake rose those scrapes would be ephemeral in

15 terms of their effects.

16 Is there any potential on the east side for -- let me

17 back up. Assuming that the scrape is put in on a test basis

18 at Black Point and is effective or whatever the criteria for

19 effectiveness is, we don't have to worry about it. Assume

20 that everyone thinks it worked well. Are there potentials

21 on the east side for scrapes at lake elevations above 6392?

22 DR. REID: There is potential for scrapes on either

23 the east or west side above that elevation.

24 MR. DODGE: In your opinion, should that be

25 considered?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1000

1 DR. REID: If you've gone through the process of

2 evaluating the Black Point Scrape and it's very valuable, if

3 the parties agree that it's valuable and if the parties that

4 are responsible for that land agree that scrapes should take

5 place, yes, I do.

6 MR. DODGE: Thank you, and I have no further

7 questions.

8 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Dodge.

9 For your information, that took 12 minutes. So that was a

10 pretty good estimate on your part, sir.

11 MR. DODGE: If you're trying to corner me into making

12 estimates based on the fact I got one right --

13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I was just admiring your skill.

14 All right. Let's see, on recross, Ms. Goldsmith.

15 MS. GOLDSMITH: I believe that I could shorten this up

16 considerably if I could have five minutes to talk with my

17 staff here.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Five full minutes?

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: Yeah, probably.

20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Would that come out of your fifteen

21 so that you'll stay within ten?

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: Well, probably not, but I'll try.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Would there be any problem with

24 going on to the next -- Mr. Johns.

25 MR. JOHNS: I was going to say do you want to take a

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1001

1 break?

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let's see, when did we start? Did

3 we start at 12:30? It's probably just as good a time as any

4 to take a break.

5 MS. GOLDSMITH: And I'm happy if it's only five.

6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Pardon me?

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: I'd be happy if it were limited to

8 five minutes.

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let's take a 10-minute break. That

10 way you can have a five-minute break.

11 (Whereupon a recess was taken.)

12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Goldsmith.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: Hi.

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let me just say one thing very

15 briefly. We've got a bit of a scheduling problem for

16 Drs. Ridenhour and Trush. We had scheduled today with the

17 actual intent of getting to them today and their

18 availability after today is going to be limited in the sense

19 that it's going to be quite a while before they can get

20 back. So we'd really like to try and get through to them --

21 get finished with them today, which is maybe a tall order

22 seeing as how the Board Members have to leave at 4:30.

23 If need be, I could come back for a couple hours this

24 evening, say about 6:30 to 8:30. I'd like to -- I'm sure

25 we'd all like to avoid that if possible. Let's just see if

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1002

1 we can be really crisp in our redirect, our recross and even

2 our cross and we might get through it all by 4:30, which is

3 probably high hopes; but, anyway, just so you'll all be

4 mindful of that.

5 How much time are you going to need do you think?

6 MS. GOLDSMITH: Well, I hope I can do it in ten.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of

8 myself here. We already went through that. You're entitled

9 to fifteen minutes.

10 MS. GOLDSMITH: Yes, but I will try to keep it short.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Okay.

12 MS. GOLDSMITH: And I hope that the witnesses will

13 help me in keeping it short.

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes. The same admonition goes to

15 the witnesses, too, because it's important that people get a

16 chance to get up here and schedules are limited. So please

17 be very succinct. This is not a criticism. We know that

18 the witnesses are very knowledgeable, but please redouble

19 your efforts to give brief answers. Thank you.

20 ---oOo---

21 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

22 BY LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER:

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: First of all, I'd like to talk again

24 about aerial photographs.

25 As I understand it, you've proposed annual aerial

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1003

1 photographs. I'll try to say that ten times real fast.

2 DR. REID: Yes.

3 MS. GOLDSMITH: At two times during the year, once

4 during high flow periods and once during waterfowl migration

5 periods?

6 DR. REID: No. We have proposed the --

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: No, I mean what you have proposed

8 because, as I understand it, your proposal is not the same

9 as -- and I'm interrupting again and I apologize -- is not

10 the same as the three consultants have proposed.

11 What is it that you are proposing?

12 DR. REID: What we propose is that you have one annual

13 survey of waterfowl and two photographs of the areas. So

14 during the -- the aerial photographs, one during the high

15 flow and one during the waterfowl period.

16 MS. GOLDSMITH: And if I'm not mistaken, that's two

17 aerial photographs?

18 DR. REID: Correct.

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: And you want that every year?

20 DR. REID: Correct.

21 MS. GOLDSMITH: And the three consultants' report asks

22 for it every other year?

23 DR. REID: Correct.

24 MS. GOLDSMITH: Now, in making your own personal

25 recommendation what is the nature of the decisions that you

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1004

1 think that will be made with this expanded base of

2 photographs?

3 DR. REID: Because the value of these photographs are

4 very high, not simply at the time they're taken but in the

5 future as reference levels to where various habitats were

6 available in relation to how birds responded.

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: So you foresee them as basically a

8 background database from which you can make adaptive

9 management decisions in the future?

10 DR. REID: I think they can be excellent reference

11 data.

12 MS. GOLDSMITH: That's you, that's clear.

13 I have a question about the restoration of Channel E

14 on Mill Creek, and I have to confess to you that I'm not as

15 familiar with the various channels of Mill Creek as you

16 probably are. Have you visited Channel E personally?

17 DR. REID: Yes, I have.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: And are you aware that that's not a

19 natural channel of Mill Creek?

20 DR. REID: I don't remember that in our discussions.

21 MS. GOLDSMITH: Was it ever discussed with you that

22 there used to be a culvert under the County Road at that

23 point and during high flow events in 1969 the culvert in the

24 road was blown out and the new channel created?

25 DR. REID: I have to admit that I don't remember the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1005

1 full discussions of those points, no.

2 MS. GOLDSMITH: Do you have an estimate as to how much

3 water it would take to rewater Channel E?

4 DR. REID: No, we did not provide that here. I don't

5 provide that here, no.

6 MS. GOLDSMITH: Channel E is very wide; is it not?

7 DR. REID: That is wide, yes.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: And very cobbley?

9 DR. REID: I don't remember that part.

10 MS. GOLDSMITH: Did you take a look at the other

11 channel that occurs at that point, which I'll refer to as

12 the original channel?

13 DR. REID: Yes, we did.

14 MS. GOLDSMITH: And does that have the same

15 characteristics as Channel E?

16 DR. REID: As I remember, it was not the same width as

17 Channel E. Channel E was wider.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: Do you have an opinion as to whether

19 or not it would be a more efficient use of water to put it

20 down the original channel than the blowout channel in terms

21 of creating riparian vegetation?

22 DR. REID: We felt that if you expand both channels,

23 it gives you a broader delta as the stream enters the lake.

24 MS. GOLDSMITH: But it would be the same amount of

25 water; would it not?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1006

1 DR. REID: But it's entering at a broader area so that

2 the inner face of the stream and the lake is a greater area.

3 MS. GOLDSMITH: And do you have an opinion as to

4 whether or not it's the breadth of the hypopycnal layer or

5 the depth which is more important?

6 DR. REID: I would say it's the breadth more than the

7 depth.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: Now, to go on to the waterfowl

9 population this year at Mono Lake, you said that you have

10 not personally evaluated numbers of waterfowl at Mono Lake

11 this year as opposed to prior years; is that right?

12 DR. REID: That is correct.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: But that you've heard that it's down;

14 is that right?

15 DR. REID: I had one individual tell me that they had

16 hunted on Simons Springs in the past and the number of birds

17 at the Simons Springs site was lower this year than previous

18 years.

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: And how many times had he been hunting

20 at Simons Springs this year?

21 DR. REID: He didn't say.

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: Had he looked at the relative numbers

23 at other sites around the lake?

24 DR. REID: Absolutely not.

25 MS. GOLDSMITH: So as a scientist what level of

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1007

1 credence would you put in that report as to the waterfowl at

2 Mono Lake being down this year?

3 DR. REID: That's the only report that I heard. So

4 when asked do I have any information as to the populations

5 at Mono Lake, that's what I responded to. In terms of does

6 that represent a good sample of all the critical areas of

7 Mono Lake, absolutely not.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: Going -- turning now to the goals.

9 There's been some suggestions, particularly from

10 Mr. Shuford, that it would be useful to set goals for

11 waterfowl population at Mono Lake.

12 I'd like to ask you isn't it true that DWP

13 specifically asked the consultants to establish some goals

14 for waterfowl populations?

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Excuse me for interrupting,

16 Ms. Goldsmith, but was that -- are you in an area that is

17 outside of the redirect? I don't recall that --

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: It's possible.

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I don't recall any discussion of

20 these goals in the -- please, somebody correct me if I'm

21 wrong.

22 MR. DODGE: If you're referring to my redirect, that's

23 correct, Mr. Chairman.

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yeah. I want to remind all of the

25 attorneys and all of the parties that any questions in

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1008

1 recross have to be directly related to the line of

2 questioning in redirect and that is in our -- if it's not in

3 our instructions, I think it's certainly in our regulations

4 and that's something that I had pointed out earlier. I

5 don't want the scope of recross expanded beyond where we're

6 allowed to go. So please focus your questions on the

7 questions and answers that occurred in redirect.

8 MS. GOLDSMITH: I will try. I'm not sure I can do

9 that. I took notes throughout most of the parties'

10 cross-examination recognizing that most of the parties here

11 are on the opposite side from DWP and I count on Mr. Dodge

12 to leap up.

13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: And, please, by all means give me a

14 showing if there's a relationship that I've missed. I just

15 didn't see the relationship all that clear in my mind.

16 So please proceed.

17 MS. GOLDSMITH: Is there an objection to the question?

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: What was it again?

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: Didn't DWP ask the three consultants

20 to provide goals? If you want me to withdraw the question

21 as outside the scope, I will.

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, I think it's outside the

23 scope and I don't hear anybody making an argument to the

24 contrary and I just don't recall myself anything that could

25 be construed to be enough related. So why don't you drop

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1009

1 that question and proceed.

2 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. What about brine flies and

3 brine fly baseline data? I think that was covered in

4 redirect.

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yeah, there was some questions

6 about monitoring brine flies.

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay, and I will direct this primarily

8 to Mr. Shuford and this concerns the baseline data for brine

9 flies.

10 MR. DODGE: With all due respect, the only question I

11 asked about brine flies was the approximate cost.

12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: That is quite correct. There was

13 only a question as to the cost and Dr. Reid was the one, as

14 I recall, who answered it.

15 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. Dr. Reid, do you have any

16 particular basis for estimations of cost for the brine fly

17 sampling?

18 DR. REID: Just that in the past I have been involved

19 in aquatic invertebrate sampling and I am basing that on an

20 estimate of two days of field work, analysis in the lab and

21 then a writeup.

22 MS. GOLDSMITH: And what is your conception of brine

23 fly monitoring that would go into that cost estimate? What

24 kind of sampling?

25 DR. REID: It would be benthic sampling and sampling

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1010

1 both at locations along the shore, in the pelagic zone and

2 then in the lake area where birds are seen foraging.

3 MS. GOLDSMITH: Okay. I'd like to ask the staff

4 whether or not a letter dated April 5th, 1996, to Mr. Edward

5 Anton from David B. Herbst is part of the record?

6 MR. FRINK: I believe it is included in Exhibit 1

7 or 2, which was the files of the Board on this proceeding.

8 If it was directed to Mr. Anton, I assume we have it in our

9 files.

10 MS. GOLDSMITH: I'd like to ask Dr. Reid if he would

11 be surprised to find that Dr. Herbst had estimated the

12 annual cost of benthic ecosystem monitoring at $30,000,

13 approximately twice or three times what you had estimated?

14 DR. REID: No, I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a

15 field assistant that's assisting him in the fashion and

16 counting those floaters is pretty time-consuming. That's

17 possible.

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: Is it possible that you both might be

19 wrong?

20 DR. REID: It's possible I could be wrong, absolutely.

21 MS. GOLDSMITH: It would be faster just to ask the

22 questions. I have a question about the likelihood of

23 obtaining artesian flow on Wilson Creek. Are you ruling it

24 was within?

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Artesian flow was discussed.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1011

1 MS. GOLDSMITH: Do you believe it would be less

2 likely -- can you tell me whether you think it would be less

3 likely or more likely to get artesian flow for the County

4 Pond complex if Wilson Creek is dewatered?

5 DR. REID: No, I can't. I don't have that expertise.

6 MS. GOLDSMITH: Was there any evaluation made of that

7 issue?

8 DR. REID: No.

9 MS. GOLDSMITH: I believe that's all I have that was

10 within the scope of the redirect.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you very much,

12 Ms. Goldsmith.

13 Let me repeat that I'm not picking on Ms. Goldsmith.

14 It's just that we do need to stay within the scope of the

15 redirect during recross so that we can bring this thing to

16 fruition and completion and get on with the implementation

17 of a plan. So I just remind, again, the attorneys to bear

18 that in mind.

19 All right, that will then take us -- let's see, is

20 Mr. Gipsman or anybody here representing the U.S. Forest

21 Service wishing to recross?

22 All right. Let's see, Mr. Russi is not here.

23 Ms. Bellomo is not here. Is Mr. Haselton here for

24 Arcularius Ranch? No recross there.

25 Mr. Ridenhour, Dr. Ridenhour?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1012

1 DR. RIDENHOUR: No.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Nothing from you.

3 Mr. Roos-Collins, anything?

4 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: No questions, Mr. Chairman.

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Cahill?

6 MS. CAHILL: No recross.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Scoonover?

8 MS. SCOONOVER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.

9 ---oOo---

10 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

11 BY CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION AND CALIFORNIA

12 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION:

13 MS. SCOONOVER: Dr. Reid, Mr. Dodge asked a couple of

14 questions of you concerning rewatering various channels --

15 distributaries in Mill Creek and then asked some questions

16 also about the broadened delta and hypopycnal zone at the

17 mouth of Mill Creek and Ms. Goldsmith followed up with some

18 questions about Channel E. Do you recall those questions?

19 DR. REID: Yes.

20 MS. SCOONOVER: I'd like to show you a map --

21 DR. REID: I have it.

22 MS. SCOONOVER: -- the Stine map which is shown in the

23 DWP Mono Basin Waterfowl Habitat Plan, page seven of the

24 Stine report, which is Appendix F to the DWP plan.

25 Now, looking at the map which Stine has identified as

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1013

1 "Figure 1 Abandoned Channels of the Mill Creek Bottomlands,"

2 he depicts Channel E as being above the County Road; is that

3 correct?

4 DR. REID: Yes.

5 MS. SCOONOVER: And describes the diversions below

6 County Road as the western trench and the eastern trench; is

7 that correct?

8 DR. REID: Correct.

9 MS. SCOONOVER: If you turn the page to page ten,

10 Dr. Stine then gives a description of Channel E.

11 Could you read that paragraph please at the top of

12 page ten?

13 It states: "Channel E. This abandoned channel lies

14 west of, and runs parallel to, the modem channel complex.

15 It follows a course marked in places by large amounts of

16 dead and downed willow. It heads near a dead (but standing)

17 cottonwood tree. With a length of approximately 2600 feet,

18 this is by far the longest of the abandoned channels. It is

19 characterized by numerous small depressions, and one

20 extensive depression (the 'Big Hole', approximately 800 feet

21 upstream of the County Road) that would become ponds when

22 rewatered."

23 MS. SCOONOVER: Dr. Reid, do you believe that

24 Channel E was an artificial channel?

25 DR. REID: I don't remember any discussion of that to

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1014

1 tell you the truth.

2 MS. SCOONOVER: Okay. Continuing in Dr. Stine's

3 report then on page 11, the next page, there is a subheading

4 "Creation of the trenches." Could you read that paragraph

5 as well?

6 DR. REID: "Creation of the trenches. The

7 artifically-induced drop in the level of the Mono Lake since

8 1940 has caused the lake's main feeder streams to incise

9 their deltas. While Rush and Lee Vining creeks have each

10 cut a single trench, Mill Creek has cut two--an eastern one,

11 which has carried most of the flow of the stream, and a

12 western one, which was cut in 1969 when high flows plugged

13 the culvert under the county road and caused the stream to

14 avulse westward. Similar short-lived freshets, leading to

15 further deepening of the western trench, occurred in 1980

16 and 1986."

17 MS. SCOONOVER: So according to Dr. Stine's testimony

18 and the map that's attached to your waterfowl plan, he makes

19 a distinction Channel E exists above County Road and the

20 eastern and western trench exists below County Road.

21 Is that your understanding as well?

22 DR. REID: That's correct, yes.

23 MS. SCOONOVER: And your recommendations to rewater

24 Channel E and to allow water to flow into both the western

25 as well as eastern trench, therefore, would broaden the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1015

1 delta area and hypopycnal zone at the mouth of Mill Creek;

2 is that your testimony?

3 DR. REID: That's correct, that's what I said.

4 MS. SCOONOVER: Thank you, that's all.

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you very much.

6 Any recross from the staff?

7 MR. FRINK: No.

8 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Nothing from staff.

9 Any recross from the Board Members?

10 All right, that completes the recross.

11 Mr. Dodge, would you like to offer your exhibits at

12 this time?

13 MR. DODGE: I was just going to thank the witnesses,

14 Mr. Chairman. I'll offer them later.

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Oh, all right.

16 Thank you very much, gentlemen.

17 DR. REID: Thank you very much.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Appreciate your time.

19 MR. SHUFORD: Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: You're going to then offer your

21 exhibits at all once when you're done with all your

22 witnesses; is that right, Mr. Dodge?

23 MR. DODGE: Yes.

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir.

25 Then that would allow us then to move to the direct

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1016

1 testimony of Dr. Ridenhour.

2 Good afternoon, sir, and welcome.

3 DR. RIDENHOUR: Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I know you've probably taken the

5 oath at least twice so --

6 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, I've only been sworn in once; but

7 I suspect I'll be sworn at more than once.

8 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I don't know about that.

9 DR. RIDENHOUR: Okay. I'm not entirely sure of

10 procedure --

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Excuse me, Dr. Ridenhour. I think

12 Mr. Frink was about to say something.

13 MR. FRINK: Yes. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I just

14 wanted to mention that Dr. Ridenhour had also submitted some

15 written comments entitled "A Plan For Monitoring The

16 Recovery Of The Mono Basin Streams" and that is in addition

17 to the written statement -- or testimony that he submitted

18 earlier. I believe he distributed that to all the parties

19 on the mailing list.

20 DR. RIDENHOUR: I did. I think it was mailed, I

21 think, on the 3rd of February to all parties.

22 MR. FRINK: Okay. And so that our record is clear, I

23 will designate your original written testimony as Ridenhour

24 Exhibit 1 and your second submittal as Ridenhour Exhibit 2.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1017

1 Dr. Ridenhour, you may proceed, sir.

2 ---oOo---

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY RICHARD L. RIDENHOUR:

5 DR. RIDENHOUR: My name is Richard L. Ridenhour. My

6 address is 2736 Sunny Grove Avenue, McKinleyville,

7 California.

8 I am representing myself and no other person or party

9 at this hearing.

10 My background with regard to the Mono Lake streams

11 began when I became involved with the RTC, the Restoration

12 Technical Committee, as an independent scientist in the

13 summer of 1993. My services, along with two of -- the other

14 two independent scientists on the RTC, Dr. Trush and

15 Mr. Hunter, were contracted by the Los Angeles Department of

16 Water and Power to prepare a draft Stream Restoration Plan

17 as required by Decision 1631. I co-authored the draft

18 Stream Restoration Work Plan dated 4 October 1995 that was

19 submitted to the Department. I wish to emphasize that this

20 was a draft. A final copy was not requested by the

21 Department and was not prepared.

22 I have also reviewed the Grant Lake Operation

23 Management Plan and the Stream & Stream Channel Restoration

24 Plan submitted by the Board, and my comments on these plans

25 have been submitted to the Board by a memorandum to

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1018

1 Mr. Anton dated 22 March 1996.

2 My testimony will be an elaboration on some of those

3 comments made in my memorandum 22 March 1996 and a couple of

4 additional comments which were not included in that

5 memorandum and, also, I will add some comments concerning

6 the monitoring plan.

7 First of all, with regard to the maintenance flows, I

8 have two concerns. One concern is the maintenance flows

9 proposed for extreme wet runoff years in Rush Creek upstream

10 from the Narrows. Without maintenance flows of

11 approximately 600 cubic feet per second occurring in about

12 ten percent of the years in that portion of the stream, I

13 believe continued maintenance will be required and should be

14 outlined in the plan.

15 My other principal concern is the relatively low

16 maintenance flow proposed for dry-normal runoff years in

17 Rush Creek and the lack of maintenance flows proposed for

18 dry runoff years in all of the streams. Even in dry runoff

19 years, the natural hydrographs for these streams have higher

20 flows than the base flows for the snow melt period. I

21 believe some maintenance flows are necessary in even dry

22 runoff years to assure flows in the secondary channels and

23 thereby restoration of ground water levels.

24 I also wish to emphasize that I believe the flows

25 necessary to maintain the stream habitats before the surface

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1019

1 elevation of Mono Lake reaches 6392 feet are the same as

2 will be needed to maintain the stream habitats after Mono

3 Lake reaches 6392 feet.

4 I believe one of the goals for restoration of stream

5 habitat should be restoration of the pre-diversion length of

6 stream channels. The Stream & Stream Channel Restoration

7 Plan does not include the rewatering of Reach 1 of Rush

8 Creek immediately below Grant Lake Reservoir Dam. Thus, the

9 restoration of the pre-diversion length of the main channel

10 would be reduced by approximately 2,800 feet.

11 I have also expressed my concern about the

12 vulnerability of Mono Ditch. I believe providing water from

13 Grant Lake Reservoir directly to Reach 1 could be the best

14 means of providing a reliable source of water for both base

15 and maintenance flows to the rest of lower Rush Creek.

16 I do not feel the Department proposals to bypass

17 sediments at Lee Vining, Walker and Parker Creeks are

18 adequate. And, first of all, I want to make clear that as

19 far as I'm concerned sediments must be recognized as

20 including all bedload materials such as gravels and cobbles

21 as well as sands and fines.

22 I believe that bypass channels could be constructed

23 around the diversion facilities to allow high flows to carry

24 bedload materials that would bypass the diversion basins.

25 Such bypass channels, generally following the natural stream

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1020

1 gradients, could also serve to allow the natural movement of

2 fish upstream.

3 I consider the restoration of the forest that existed

4 across the valleys of the streams, primarily Lee Vining and

5 Rush Creeks, to be important to the restoration and

6 maintenance of the pre-diversion stream habitats. I believe

7 the revegetation of the interfluvial areas should be

8 augmented by plantings to restore mature forests within a

9 reasonable period of time such as 30 to 40 years.

10 There seems to be general agreement that woody debris

11 is an important and beneficial element of the stream

12 habitat. Large woody debris is naturally mobile and does

13 not remain fixed in the stream system. Thus, as items of

14 large woody debris move through the system, they should be

15 replaced to maintain conditions until the woody riparian

16 vegetation reaches a size that would provide a natural

17 source of large woody debris to the stream.

18 Now, jumping to the monitoring program. I am in

19 general support of the approach suggested by the monitoring

20 program. I agree that the focus should be on measurements

21 that will determine whether or not the streams are

22 accounting dynamically to restore and maintain increased

23 habitat diversity within both the streams and the riparian

24 communities. However, I do have two basic concerns.

25 First, the establishment of restoration goals for

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1021

1 which progress towards attainment can be quantitatively

2 measured is, I believe, an essential aspect of the

3 restoration program. I recommend that the monitoring plan

4 should include identification of the qualities for which

5 quantitative goals are to be established, and I recommend

6 that the monitoring plan include tentative quantitative

7 goals subject to modification through an appropriate

8 consultative process based on monitoring results.

9 Second, the proposed monitoring program appears to me

10 to lack a clear indication of how the results of the

11 monitoring will be used to adapt the restoration program to

12 achieve the restoration goals. I strongly recommend

13 development of clearly stated procedures for adaptive

14 management of the restoration program based on the results

15 of the monitoring program.

16 And then I will touch a few of the specifics. I will

17 read all of the ones in my statement.

18 First with regard to planmapping, I urge planmapping

19 of reaches in Walker and Parker Creeks to establish

20 information for those streams. I think it's important to

21 have that in case there are changes so that those changes

22 can be compared to the existing conditions.

23 The ground water surface elevation protocol on page 22

24 of the White Book where channels are to be rewatered, I

25 strongly recommend the installation of piezometers and the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1022

1 initial measurement of ground water levels prior to

2 rewatering.

3 With regard to the "Fish Population Surveys -

4 Protocol," it is not clear to me what determines quote "that

5 snorkeling is not working." This is on page 23 of the White

6 Book. In the Blue Book with regard to "Fish Population

7 Calibration," and on page 14 I expect the snorkeling to

8 provide indices of population characteristics. I cannot

9 predict whether or not the position of the indices will be

10 sufficient to detect significant changes -- excuse me, I

11 should change that to detect changes in population size or

12 structure as significant. I'm aware that some argue that

13 snorkeling will not provide sufficient precision which may

14 make electrofishing necessary.

15 And, finally, with regard to the section titled "Fish

16 Population Populations" also on page 14 of the Blue Book, if

17 the status of fish populations is to be used as a measure of

18 restoration progress, some sort of quantitative measure

19 needs to be established and quote "moderate numbers" end

20 quote is not sufficient as far as I am concerned for this

21 purpose.

22 This concludes my summary of my direct testimony,

23 thank you.

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you,

25 Dr. Ridenhour. Let's go to cross-examination.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1023

1 Ms. Goldsmith.

2 MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you, I just have a couple of

3 questions.

4 ---oOo---

5 CROSS-EXAMINATION

6 BY LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER:

7 MS. GOLDSMITH: First of all, you are a fishery

8 biologist?

9 DR. REID: Yes, I am.

10 MS. GOLDSMITH: By profession and training; is that

11 right?

12 DR. RIDENHOUR: Correct.

13 MS. GOLDSMITH: You are not a fluvial geomorphologist?

14 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, I'm not.

15 MS. GOLDSMITH: With respect to questions relating to

16 movement of bedload and flows needed to create channels and

17 that sort of thing, you'd rely on a fluvial geomorphologist;

18 would you not?

19 DR. RIDENHOUR: And some of my own observations, yes.

20 MS. GOLDSMITH: Have you made measurements of Rush

21 Creek at 600 cfs?

22 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, I have not.

23 MS. GOLDSMITH: Have you made measurements of Rush

24 Creek at 500 cfs?

25 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, I have not. The only thing I can

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1024

1 say there is I have observed the Rush Creek, for example,

2 before and after flows of 600 feet, but I did not observe

3 them at flows of 600 feet.

4 MS. GOLDSMITH: That's all the questions I have.

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you,

6 Ms. Goldsmith.

7 Is there anybody here from the U.S. Forest Service

8 that wishes to ask questions of this witness?

9 All right. Bureau of Land Management is not here.

10 Bellomo is not here. I guess Arcularius Ranch is not here

11 or is very silent today.

12 Mr. Roos-Collins?

13 Good afternoon, sir, welcome.

14 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Good afternoon.

15 ---oOo---

16 CROSS-EXAMINATION

17 BY CALIFORNIA TROUT, INC.:

18 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Good afternoon, Dr. Ridenhour.

19 DR. RIDENHOUR: Good afternoon.

20 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: I have two subjects to pursue with

21 you. The first is channel maintenance flows.

22 In your Exhibit 1 you express concerns about the

23 channel maintenance flows proposed by Los Angeles for

24 extreme wet and also for dry runoff years.

25 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, sir.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1025

1 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Now, Los Angeles' recommended flows

2 exceed the flows required by Decision 1631; is that correct?

3 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, sir.

4 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Is it your opinion that the channel

5 maintenance flows required by Decision 1631 will not be

6 adequate to achieve the restoration goal of that Decision?

7 DR. RIDENHOUR: That's my opinion, yes.

8 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Let me turn now to the second

9 subject. Namely, the monitoring plan submitted by Los

10 Angeles in January.

11 In your Exhibit 2, page one, second paragraph you

12 state that the establishment of restoration goals that can

13 be quantitatively measured is an essential aspect of the

14 restoration program.

15 DR. RIDENHOUR: I think it is.

16 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: By "essential" you mean necessary?

17 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

18 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Without such quantitative goals, in

19 your judgment the monitoring plan will be inadequate?

20 DR. RIDENHOUR: I feel that it is essential to have

21 quantitative goals so that you know where you are going in

22 terms of the restoration process and when you have gotten

23 there.

24 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Now, your Exhibit 2 does not state

25 such quantitative goals, does it?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1026

1 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, it does not.

2 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Do you have recommendations for

3 this Board for such quantitative goals?

4 DR. RIDENHOUR: Not that I could present here at this

5 time, no. I believe there are -- there is information

6 available in some of the reports that have been prepared on

7 historic conditions that can be utilized. For example,

8 reports prepared by Trihey and Associates, reports prepared

9 by Eric Larson and the like that could be utilized to come

10 up with some sort of estimates of what those goals might be.

11 I appreciate that it may be necessary and appropriate

12 to modify those goals as information is gathered and that

13 was part of my other concern is I think there needs to be a

14 mechanism for that type of process to take place.

15 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Assuming that this Board allows the

16 submittal of written rebuttal testimony and assuming further

17 that your schedule accommodates your submittal of such

18 testimony, are you willing to make recommendations to this

19 Board regarding quantitative goals for the monitoring plan?

20 DR. RIDENHOUR: I would be willing to do so.

21 MR. FRINK: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Frink.

23 MR. FRINK: Just for the record, I think some comments

24 from the Chair might be appropriate. I had a concern that

25 rebuttal testimony should be in response to something

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1027

1 someone else said; and if he is to submit quantitative goals

2 on what the monitoring program should determine and what the

3 restoration program should achieve, I'm not sure what that

4 is in rebuttal to.

5 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: It is specifically in rebuttal to

6 Los Angeles' Exhibits 21 and 22, the White and Blue Books,

7 and also Exhibit 31 in which Los Angeles indicates that it

8 is not possible to establish quantitative end points at this

9 time.

10 MR. FRINK: I withdraw my question.

11 MR. JOHNS: However, we didn't talk about the fact

12 that rebuttal testimony regarding the monitoring plan would

13 be appropriate to be submitted in advance and talked about

14 at this proceeding.

15 Mr. Ridenhour has taken advantage of that opportunity

16 and provided us written rebuttal evidence regarding the

17 monitoring plan. So now you're providing him a further

18 opportunity for rebuttal.

19 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Mr. Johns, I understand the

20 opportunity to provide testimony regarding the monitoring

21 plan to be a recognition that the parties did not previously

22 submit testimony regarding the monitoring which is now

23 before this Board. In other words, Los Angeles withdrew the

24 plan on which parties submitted direct testimony. I did not

25 understand that the February 10th notice required the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1028

1 submittal of all rebuttal testimony on the monitoring plan

2 to be done by February 14th.

3 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let me try it this way, Mr. Frink:

4 Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I thought I heard

5 Mr. Roos-Collins ask Dr. Ridenhour if he'd be willing to

6 give some information. Dr. Ridenhour answered that he

7 would. It doesn't mean that he would be so doing. He said

8 he'd be willing and that in my mind allows him the

9 opportunity. I didn't hear a commitment necessarily. Maybe

10 I, like I said, am splitting hairs.

11 But now that the cat is out of the bag anyway and we

12 now have a reference from Mr. Roos-Collins as to what such a

13 submittal would be in rebuttal to, I don't think we can stop

14 him from submitting that as rebuttal if he show wishes to.

15 Can he -- I mean, can we?

16 MR. FRINK: I think it's in the discretion of the

17 Chair.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I don't think I could stop that.

19 So as not to belabor it, why don't we proceed.

20 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Let me be clear, though. I am not

21 assuming that this Board has authorized subsequent submittal

22 of rebuttal testimony on this issue or any other. That is a

23 decision that you will make. If permission is granted,

24 Dr. Ridenhour has indicated his willingness to submit

25 quantitative goals in such testimony.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1029

1 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: And all I'm saying is that since we

2 now have in the record a reference which we have stipulated

3 to that you gave us as to what such rebuttal testimony would

4 be in response to, it's his call as to whether or not he

5 wants to submit it. So I agree with you.

6 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Than you, Mr. Chairman.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir. Please

8 proceed.

9 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: I note, by the way, my time has

10 continued to run during this discussion. I think I will,

11 however, be able to finish within my allotted time.

12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, sir.

13 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Dr. Ridenhour, the next paragraph

14 on page one of your Exhibit 2, third full paragraph on that

15 page concerns the absence of clear procedures for adaptive

16 management in Los Angeles' monitoring plan.

17 DR. RIDENHOUR: That's correct.

18 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: The criticism is clearly stated

19 here. Let me ask you do you have recommendations for such

20 procedures?

21 DR. RIDENHOUR: I do not have anything worked out or

22 specific, but I would suggest that I think it should include

23 some sort of a consultant process involving the various

24 interested parties.

25 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Let me turn, finally, to page three

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1030

1 of your Exhibit 2 where you discuss the monitoring of fish

2 population. You express a concern regarding the moderate

3 number objective stated in Los Angeles' monitoring plan.

4 Consistent with my previous questions to you, do you

5 have a recommendation for a fish population objective?

6 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, I do not.

7 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Thank you, Dr. Ridenhour.

8 No further questions.

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: And thank you, Mr. Roos-Collins.

10 Ms. Cahill?

11 ---oOo---

12 CROSS-EXAMINATION

13 BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME:

14 MS. CAHILL: Good afternoon, Dr. Ridenhour.

15 DR. RIDENHOUR: Good afternoon.

16 MS. CAHILL: We have had several references in this

17 hearing to the ad hoc committee letter and I'm trying to

18 find the date of it here.

19 DR. RIDENHOUR: There is some confusion on that.

20 MS. CAHILL: February 13th, 1996.

21 DR. RIDENHOUR: Correct.

22 MS. CAHILL: Were you the writer of that letter?

23 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, I was.

24 MS. CAHILL: And was it circulated to the other

25 members of the committee?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1031

1 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, it was.

2 MS. CAHILL: Who were the other members of the

3 committee?

4 DR. RIDENHOUR: The other official members of the

5 committee were Dr. Trush, Mr. Hunter, Dr. Platts and

6 Mr. Smith. There were two others who participated in -- let

7 me back up just a moment.

8 The meetings of the subcommittee were entirely by

9 conference call, and I forget if we had four or five

10 conference calls. After the first conference call Mr. Allen

11 of DWP and Mr. Vorster also participated, although they were

12 not considered, as you might say, voting members of the

13 committee.

14 MS. CAHILL: Okay. And is there anything in that

15 letter with which you no longer agree?

16 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Excuse me, Ms. Cahill.

17 Ms. Goldsmith

18 MS. GOLDSMITH: Mr. Chair, I don't believe this is

19 covered in his written testimony. Perhaps she could

20 identify where that reference is.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Could you identify for us,

22 Ms. Cahill, what portion of his testimony you're referring

23 to, although --

24 MR. DODGE: I believe the rules of this --

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: You are not limited precisely to

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1032

1 just that. I mean, you should stay related, but you are

2 allowed to make reference to other materials that may be in

3 the record.

4 MS. CAHILL: There is a reference in his testimony to

5 requiring certain flows.

6 MR. FRINK: Mr. Chair.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Frink.

8 MR. FRINK: Actually, up until now I think the rules

9 have been that cross-examination can be on any matter that

10 is within the witness' knowledge, expertise and relevant to

11 the proceedings.

12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: That's correct.

13 MR. FRINK: It's recross that is limited to the scope

14 of redirect. So I don't believe that Ms. Cahill is

15 prevented from asking a question even if the issue wasn't

16 addressed in the witness' testimony.

17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: That is my understanding as well.

18 Thank you, Mr. Frink.

19 MS. CAHILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

20 Dr. Ridenhour, you indicate in your testimony that one

21 concern you have is that maintenance flows proposed for

22 extreme wet runoff years in Rush Creek upstream of the

23 Narrows without maintenance flows of approximately 600 cfs,

24 in about ten percent of the years in that portion of the

25 stream you believe continuing maintenance will be required;

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1033

1 is that correct?

2 DR. RIDENHOUR: That's correct.

3 MS. CAHILL: Is that reflected in the ad hoc

4 committee's letter, the statement that those -- the flows

5 recommended by the ad hoc committee are not expected to be

6 adequate upstream of the Narrows?

7 DR. RIDENHOUR: There is an indication to that extent.

8 I would have to look for it but it's in there, yes.

9 MS. CAHILL: And do you still hold that opinion?

10 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, I do.

11 MS. CAHILL: Does the Los Angeles Stream Restoration

12 Plan restore Reach 1?

13 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, it does not.

14 MS. CAHILL: And in your opinion, without flows in

15 Reach 1 is Rush Creek as a whole restored?

16 DR. RIDENHOUR: It does not restore it to the pre-1941

17 condition, no.

18 MS. CAHILL: And are there advantages to the whole

19 stream -- in addition to restoring 2800 feet of streambed,

20 are there other advantages to the rest of Rush Creek in

21 restoring Reach 1?

22 DR. RIDENHOUR: As I've indicated, the concern that I

23 have with regard to the integrity of Mono Ditch in what is a

24 rather active seismic area is a problem to me and I would

25 think that if water were introduced directly into Reach 1

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1034

1 rather than into Rush Creek through Mono Ditch it would be a

2 more reliable system.

3 MS. CAHILL: From a fishery perspective do you have

4 any concern with what you understand to be what we call the

5 "Lee Vining augmentation proposal"?

6 DR. RIDENHOUR: I don't have any special concern. I

7 think the conditions imposed in terms of when the water is

8 to be taken from Lee Vining will not cause too much of a

9 problem on Lee Vining Creek. That would be the greatest

10 concern, that there would be a loss of the peak maintenance

11 flows from Lee Vining Creek; but I think the plan as it is

12 proposed takes care of that. So I'm not too awfully

13 concerned about that aspect, no.

14 MS. CAHILL: Okay. Just because I think it's not

15 clear I'd like to go over with you, as I attempted to do

16 with Dr. Beschta, the stream segments that are proposed for

17 rewatering.

18 Let me get DFG Exhibit 9. Can someone lend us a felt

19 tip pen that's not yellow?

20 DR. RIDENHOUR: I have a blue one here.

21 MS. CAHILL: That would be perfect. Blue is perfect

22 for water. I'm even going to let you cheat, Dr. Ridenhour.

23 I will give you the scientists' report.

24 Not all of Rush Creek is shown on this exhibit. Why

25 don't you sort of go down these in the order in which

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1035

1 they're found in the scientists' report and in each case

2 tell us what it is the scientists recommended and whether or

3 not you believe Los Angeles has incorporated this into its

4 plan.

5 DR. RIDENHOUR: It starts -- starting at the upstream

6 end -- I don't think I need that, thank you.

7 MS. CAHILL: Okay.

8 DR. RIDENHOUR: I know it fairly well.

9 Starting at the upstream end, there are two relatively

10 short segments in Reach 3A just below the boundary of

11 Reach 2 and Reach 3A. They would be on the west side of the

12 stream, two small loops that would be rewatered. It appears

13 that they have been blocked off from natural flow by

14 artificial means, that somebody has moved material to block

15 them off.

16 The next segment is at approximately the boundary

17 between Reach 3A and 3B very near the location where the

18 former B Channel that was diverted from the creek, the

19 B Ditch irrigation facility. And that would, again, flow to

20 the west side of the stream and I believe following the

21 former main channel alignment in that location and would

22 come back to the stream a short distance above the old

23 Highway 395 alignment.

24 MS. CAHILL: Dr. Ridenhour, in the scientists' report

25 in describing this stretch it says all flows shall be

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1036

1 diverted from the channel on the right side of the island at

2 elevation 6,881.

3 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

4 MS. CAHILL: Is it possible that that's an error and

5 it should, in fact, read the left side of the island?

6 DR. RIDENHOUR: It could be. I always, I have to

7 admit, keep getting myself confused whether I'm looking

8 upstream or downstream when I'm talking --

9 MS. CAHILL: In any event, on the west side?

10 DR. RIDENHOUR: West side. I think maybe I'm safer

11 there, thank you.

12 MS. CAHILL: Okay. And I don't know when we get onto

13 the chart.

14 DR. RIDENHOUR: Quite a ways yet.

15 MS. CAHILL: Okay.

16 DR. RIDENHOUR: The next channel that we propose to

17 rewater is downstream from the Marzano (phonetic) gravel

18 operation downstream from the confluence with Parker Creek

19 and it would go to the east side of the existing channel

20 following, as I understand it, the former main channel

21 alignment and would return to the existing main channel

22 immediately above the Narrows almost directly opposite the

23 mouth or confluence with Walker Creek.

24 The third segment -- excuse me.

25 MS. CAHILL: Let me ask you about that. It says --

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1037

1 the scientists' report says this channel should be restored

2 as the main channel and only five cfs designed to flow down

3 the present main channel when flows in Rush Creek are 47 cfs

4 below Grant Lake Dam.

5 DR. RIDENHOUR: That's correct.

6 MS. CAHILL: Is that the scientists' recommendation?

7 DR. RIDENHOUR: That's correct.

8 MS. CAHILL: And that continues to be your

9 recommendation?

10 DR. RIDENHOUR: That's correct.

11 MS. CAHILL: Thank you.

12 DR. RIDENHOUR: The only added comment I make there is

13 they may be difficult to do, because the existing channel is

14 essentially a straight shot and trying to divert the water

15 and allow some to go on down that channel and not have it

16 wash on out and go down that channel may be very difficult

17 to do.

18 The next channel is below the Narrows and would be on

19 the east side and is to restore water flow through a portion

20 of the old main channel. It is in the report from which

21 this map that you have presented here came, which is out of

22 a report prepared by Dr. Stine, Mr. English and -- I can't

23 say his name, with Trihey and Associates. There are three

24 authors of that on rewatering the lower Rush Creek channels,

25 something to that extent.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1038

1 Anyway, it would restore a flow to that old main

2 channel but would not propose to restore the main flow to

3 that old main channel.

4 Finally, we are down to the map and the next one is

5 what we call the 4Bi Channel. Basically following that

6 alignment taking off in the area by the 7, 7A, 7B area of

7 the existing main channel and flowing to the east side in a

8 fairly long, large loop and returning to the main channel

9 near what is numbered as the 9 Channel. This is designed or

10 proposed to have a flow of about ten cubic feet per second

11 when the flow into Rush Creek at -- below the dam is 47 cfs.

12 The next channel involved has already been rewatered

13 and that's the 10A, 10 Reach and that was rewatered in the

14 fall of 1995.

15 The last channel in the system takes off again to the

16 east side of the main channel just below the confluence of

17 this rewatered 10 sequence to the main channel, and in my

18 earlier communications I identified it as Channel 13. I

19 think Dr. Stine has pointed out and I have sent a letter

20 making a correction. It's actually in a sense Channel 14

21 and it is to get water back into what is called "big bend,"

22 which was a large loop in the stream on the east side

23 immediately above the ford on Rush Creek.

24 Because of the incision resulting from the lowering of

25 the lake level, it would not be possible or practical to get

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1039

1 water back into that loop. Rather, it would be more

2 practicable -- in fact, it appears to me it would be rather

3 easy to reintroduce the water upstream of that, as I

4 indicated, just below the restoration of Channel 10 into the

5 main stem and allow it to flow down through that big bend

6 area and come back out at the ford.

7 It will require a little additional work to block the

8 old upper upstream end of the big bend loop because,

9 otherwise, it is likely the water would flow back out that

10 and not continue around the big bend. So there will need to

11 be a block put on that -- what is now a dry channel.

12 MS. CAHILL: Dr. Ridenhour, have you read the

13 testimony which Dr. Stine has submitted in connection with

14 these hearings regarding what he calls the biggest bend?

15 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

16 MS. CAHILL: And are you in agreement with that

17 testimony of Dr. Stine's?

18 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

19 MS. CAHILL: Do you understand that all of these

20 reaches have been incorporated into Los Angeles' Stream

21 Restoration Plan?

22 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

23 MS. CAHILL: And you don't recommend any change from

24 the recommendations in the scientists' report?

25 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, I do not. The only concern that I

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1040

1 have expressed with regard to the Department's proposal to

2 rewater these channels is with regard to that last one, the

3 big bend area, because there is no indication in their plan

4 that the upper arm of the big bend had to be blocked to

5 prevent the water from circulating out. That needs to be a

6 part of the design for that rewatering.

7 MS. CAHILL: Dr. Ridenhour, with regard to the

8 monitoring plan, there's reference in that plan to

9 representative reaches.

10 Do you believe the reaches chosen are actually

11 representative reaches?

12 DR. RIDENHOUR: Reasonably enough. I have no

13 particular problem with those. The only point that I made

14 that sort of addresses that is that, as I recall, there was

15 a proposal to monitor closely the ground water in the two

16 downstream reaches and I would suggest that it might be

17 better to do one of the downstream reaches and do the

18 monitoring also in the reach immediately above old Highway

19 395 alignment -- highway alignment because two downstream

20 reaches, I think, are sufficiently similar in that they're

21 not going to show you that much difference, while that's a

22 very different area up above Highway 395, and so that was

23 the only change in that regard.

24 MS. CAHILL: Okay. I think I've maybe not understood

25 you. I thought you were telling me about where you wanted

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1041

1 ground water to be monitored; but were you, in fact, telling

2 me where you think some planmapping should be done?

3 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, the only point that I make is as I

4 recall the monitoring program that was outlined said that in

5 two of the planmapping reaches they were going to monitor

6 ground water and the two that were identified were the two

7 downstream reaches; and I would suggest that one of the

8 downstream reaches and one of the reaches, namely the one up

9 above old Highway 395 alignment, should be where they

10 monitor ground water as part of that planmapping program.

11 MS. CAHILL: Okay. Would there be any reaches that

12 you would suggest be added to the monitoring plan?

13 DR. RIDENHOUR: The only additions, as I've indicated

14 in my direct testimony, was I think that it would be very

15 desirable to establish reaches for planmapping. Maybe it

16 would only be once when they would be repeated I don't know,

17 but to do them for Walker and Parker so we had something in

18 hand as a basis of comparison if something were to develop

19 change and we want to know what's happened.

20 MS. CAHILL: Let me just briefly get back to the ad

21 hoc committee letter. Does it recommend channel maintenance

22 flows for Lee Vining Creek?

23 DR. RIDENHOUR: It did not really address that to any

24 great extent, as I recall. Let me please glance at that a

25 moment.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1042

1 MS. CAHILL: I think it's page four.

2 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, I see it. By the way, the

3 confusion about the date is that the date on the cover was

4 the 13th of February, which is the correct date, and then on

5 each of the pages I dated it the 12th of February.

6 Embarrassing, but that's the way it goes.

7 We did address that and, as I recall, without

8 comparing the data I don't -- or the numbers I can't

9 remember for sure, but I think the numbers that are shown

10 here are precisely the same numbers that had appeared in the

11 draft work plan that was prepared by the stream scientists.

12 The only sort of qualification that we made was to

13 recognize that in all years of a given particular runoff

14 category those flows might not be available because of

15 Southern Cal Edison operations or just the snow pack and

16 runoff characteristics in that year. Therefore, we wanted

17 to recognize that and to suggest that the maximum flow

18 should be allowed to go under those circumstances, that if

19 it was calling for 450 and a peak that was arrived at that

20 year was 375 so be it, 375 was adequate.

21 MS. CAHILL: All right. In fact, the minimum

22 stipulated flows or the available peak flow and the peak

23 flow was less?

24 DR. RIDENHOUR: Correct, correct, thank you.

25 MS. CAHILL: The ad hoc committee letter states that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1043

1 the flows necessary to maintain the stream habitats as

2 dynamic systems while the level of Mono Lake is being

3 restored do not differ from those needed after the level of

4 Mono Lake is restored.

5 DR. RIDENHOUR: That's correct, and I repeated that in

6 my direct testimony. I feel rather strongly that that is

7 the case, that if it's going to take a certain flow to

8 restore it and maintain it pre-Mono Lake being 6392, then

9 it's going to take those same flows afterwards.

10 MS. CAHILL: Do you have concerns with the method of

11 sediment bypass that's proposed in the Los Angeles plan?

12 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, I do.

13 MS. CAHILL: And from a fishery perspective can you

14 tell me what those concerns are?

15 DR. RIDENHOUR: I was concerned, particularly on Lee

16 Vining, with the proposal to move material and place it

17 during the winter low flow period downstream from the bypass

18 facility. This would be mainly fine materials, sands and

19 silts, and this is during a low flow period and the material

20 would very likely be deposited in the stream in such a way

21 to cause damage to the stream habitat.

22 Also, nothing was provided to bypass larger materials,

23 cobbles and gravels, and one of the concerns is to have a --

24 in a sense a regular, not every year necessarily, but a

25 consistent source of replenishment of spawning gravels and

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1044

1 that's where it comes from, this mobilization of the bedload

2 upstream; and in the plans as prepared by DWP this would not

3 occur as far as I can tell.

4 MS. CAHILL: Do you believe there's a role for

5 adaptive management in this -- in the process of restoring

6 these streams?

7 DR. RIDENHOUR: Absolutely.

8 MS. CAHILL: And how would that come about?

9 DR. RIDENHOUR: Well, that is a concern that I had.

10 As I indicated, the adaptive management would take place as

11 the monitoring results were reviewed and analyzed, and I did

12 not see clearly spelled out how the decision-making process

13 would occur in terms of modifying the management program,

14 whether it's the flow level at various times or whatever the

15 case may be; but I think that process needs to be spelled

16 out.

17 MS. CAHILL: Okay. Thank you very much.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Ms. Cahill.

19 Ms. Scoonover?

20 MS. SCOONOVER: I have no questions.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: No questions.

22 Mr. Dodge?

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1045

1 ---oOo---

2 CROSS-EXAMINATION

3 BY NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND MONO LAKE COMMITTEE

4 MR. DODGE: Good afternoon, Dr. Ridenhour.

5 DR. RIDENHOUR: Good afternoon.

6 MR. DODGE: Now, I understood your testimony that --

7 to be that you stood by the October 1995 recommendations of

8 600 cfs in extreme years in Rush Creek, correct?

9 DR. RIDENHOUR: Correct.

10 MR. DODGE: Okay. Now, if you are going to have a

11 restoration program that is solely based on high flows and

12 assuming that your estimate of 600 cfs is necessary,

13 assuming that to be accurate, do you have an opinion as to

14 whether there should be a bypass from Grant -- past Grant

15 Dam?

16 DR. RIDENHOUR: Well, of course, my judgment there is

17 based on the fact that I fully appreciate that existing

18 facilities will not provide 600 cfs unless there is a spill,

19 and at what time that spill would occur is of concern to me

20 and -- in other words, it is never a guarantee as to what

21 the level of flow is going to be in that situation.

22 MR. DODGE: You did look as to whether spills would

23 reliably provide the 600 cfs, didn't you?

24 DR. RIDENHOUR: We looked at that but we did not have

25 good information in that regard because what we looked at,

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1046

1 for example, was based upon going into a year at a certain

2 level in the reservoir and what we did not have an

3 opportunity to look at was a sequence of years. If there

4 were two or three dry years as opposed to two or three wet

5 years or two or three normal years, we did not really have a

6 chance to look at these alternative circumstances of

7 sequencing.

8 MR. DODGE: Did you address that subject matter as to

9 whether spills would reliably provide 600 cfs in the

10 February 13th memorandum?

11 DR. RIDENHOUR: We considered that and I think there

12 was -- I'm grasping, groping here. I think we felt that

13 there was not a very good reliability in terms of counting

14 on that.

15 MR. DODGE: So if you're right, in extreme years 600

16 cfs is necessary to restore Rush Creek above the Narrows,

17 that would necessitate a bypass of Grant Lake, correct?

18 DR. RIDENHOUR: Something of that sort, yes.

19 MR. DODGE: And absent such a bypass, you talked about

20 the sort of hands-on restoration program that would be

21 necessary in Rush Creek above the Narrows.

22 DR. RIDENHOUR: If the flows that were provided were

23 not adequate and assuming that 600 is what is necessary, I

24 think that the hands on would be required and I think it's

25 appropriate that what would be proposed to be done under

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1047

1 those circumstances needs to be spelled out.

2 MR. DODGE: Just to try to shortcut this, sir, at page

3 140 of your report you spell out the sorts of considerations

4 that should be addressed in a hands-on report -- hands-on

5 restoration program.

6 Would you stand by that language in your draft report?

7 DR. RIDENHOUR: I don't see it on page 104.

8 MR. DODGE: 140, sir.

9 DR. RIDENHOUR: Oh, 140, excuse me. Well, the

10 reference there was in the more general sense if you're

11 looking at the second paragraph where it says (reading) that

12 flows necessary for the stream to maintain itself are not

13 provided, a different plan than the one proposed must be

14 prepared. Alternative recommendations would identify

15 actions needed to create and maintain the stream habitat in

16 lieu of natural processes doing so, and I stand by that.

17 MR. DODGE: You stand by that. All right, thank you.

18 That's all I wanted to know.

19 Now, in terms of DWP's proposal to upgrade the return

20 ditch to 350 cfs and provide a Lee Vining Creek augmentation

21 of up to 150 cfs, I have a few questions on that for you,

22 sir.

23 Upgrading the return ditch to 150 cfs capacity, what

24 affect would that have on the existing fish habitat in the

25 ditch?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1048

1 DR. RIDENHOUR: It is my opinion that it would be very

2 poor habitat.

3 MR. DODGE: What sort of habitat is there today?

4 DR. RIDENHOUR: There is, of course, a fair amount --

5 not a lot, but there is some vegetation that has developed

6 in the marshes of the ditch. There have been some

7 improvements -- habitat improvements done by putting

8 boulders and so on in the ditch and gravels and the like to

9 try to make it better fish habitat.

10 My understanding of the process to increase its

11 capacity would be to remove vegetation, remove obstructions

12 that would affect the flow of water so that the flow could

13 be maximized in the sense that the ditch could operate most

14 efficiently in terms of carrying water and the habitat

15 complexity would be lost that would be desirable for fish.

16 MR. DODGE: All right. In response to one of

17 Ms. Cahill's questions you indicated that you weren't too

18 concerned about injuring Lee Vining Creek through the

19 augmentation. I won't ask you to repeat that, but would you

20 agree that the monitoring program should see how the

21 augmentation is affecting Lee Vining Creek?

22 DR. RIDENHOUR: Absolutely.

23 MR. DODGE: Assuming that there is augmentation going

24 on, Dr. Ridenhour, do you have an opinion as to whether

25 there should be -- augmentation in order to produce 500 cfs

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1049

1 under DWP's plan, do you have an opinion as to whether there

2 should be allowed irrigation from Parker and Walker Creek

3 during the 500 cfs channel maintenance flow?

4 DR. RIDENHOUR: My opinion there is that there should

5 not because one of the considerations that we discussed in

6 the subcommittee was that though we would not have 600 cfs

7 from Grant Lake Reservoir down to the Narrows, with the

8 augmentation of water from Lee Vining and the discharge of

9 water through the Mono Ditch -- improved capacity Mono Ditch

10 plus the water in Parker and Walker below the Narrows we

11 would have close to 600 cfs.

12 So if a substantial amount of that was being used for

13 irrigation, then that would be reduced and would have some

14 affect on the viability of the system below the Narrows as

15 far as I'm concerned, or at least it could have.

16 MR. DODGE: If the Water Board were to accept DWP's

17 proposed channel maintenance flows as minimums, would you

18 agree that it would be desirable to maximize the flows in

19 all year types?

20 DR. RIDENHOUR: Could you repeat that, please?

21 MR. DODGE: Assuming the Water Board were to accept

22 DWP's channel maintenance flows, would it -- as minimum

23 channel maintenance flows, would it be desirable in all year

24 types to maximize the flows, in other words, to get above

25 the Narrows?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1050

1 DR. RIDENHOUR: This is something that we have

2 discussed. I don't know if we discussed it in the

3 subcommittee. I know the three stream scientists discussed

4 this matter and, that is, the matter of whether these flows

5 when they're stipulated as minimums are interpreted as being

6 also maximums and we had indicated -- or our judgment was we

7 hoped not, that they were not maximums --

8 MR. DODGE: That were not minimums?

9 DR. RIDENHOUR: That the minimums were not the

10 maximum, that there would be times they would be exceeded

11 even in a given water year. If there is a stipulated

12 minimum maintenance flow, that it would be exceeded at

13 times.

14 MR. DODGE: Would that be desirable?

15 DR. RIDENHOUR: That would be fine. I don't think

16 there's any concern about that.

17 MR. DODGE: Okay. In terms of getting these

18 exceedances, would it be desirable to have coordination with

19 Southern California Edison?

20 DR. RIDENHOUR: I think generally speaking it would be

21 desirable to have coordination with Southern California

22 Edison, yes.

23 MR. DODGE: In wetter year types would it be desirable

24 for DWP to operate Grant Lake so as to encourage spills?

25 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, it would.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1051

1 MR. DODGE: Now, you told us about your concern over

2 the channel maintenance flow proposed by DWP in dry years

3 and I won't ask you to repeat that, but I want you to focus

4 specifically on dry-normal years and the lower echelon of

5 normal years.

6 Now, I ask you to assume that the scientists in their

7 October 1995 proposal in dry-normal years proposed 250 and

8 Los Angeles in its plan proposed a hundred. That's

9 hypothetical number one. Hypothetical number two, October

10 1995 the scientists in normal years proposed 400 and DWP in

11 its plan proposes 250, all right.

12 Do you have those numbers in mind, sir?

13 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

14 MR. DODGE: Do they cause you any concern as to the

15 adequacy of DWP's proposal?

16 DR. RIDENHOUR: The concern that I would have is that

17 I think fairly clearly the dynamics of the stream will be

18 substantially less at the lower flows, and the flows that we

19 had identified were with the intention or expectation that

20 certain types of physical activities would take place

21 relative to the stream in terms of movement of bedload and

22 erosion, cutting meanders, building point bars and so on;

23 and if the flows are less, I would be concerned that some of

24 those processes would not be taking place as we had

25 anticipated and intended they should.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1052

1 MR. DODGE: Going quickly to your comments on the

2 monitoring program, sir, you expressed a concern over who

3 quote "evaluates the results" of the monitoring program and

4 I think that's at page one of your testimony.

5 DR. RIDENHOUR: (Nodding of the head.)

6 MR. DODGE: Do you as you sit here today have an

7 opinion as to -- not what specific person but what

8 discipline, if you will, should evaluate the results?

9 DR. RIDENHOUR: Well, I think there was, I guess, two

10 aspects of that. Obviously somebody who is well versed in

11 stream morphology and the like as well as a fisheries

12 biologist, those two in particular. Whether you need

13 somebody who is well versed in the vegetative components or

14 not is maybe a little less of a concern, although -- well, I

15 shouldn't say that.

16 It would be a concern. It depends what aspect of the

17 monitoring program you're looking at. If you're looking at

18 vegetative response, then that's going to be a very

19 important part of it, but I think the other aspect in

20 addition to the expertise was, I think, that the parties who

21 have had a direct interest in the program ought to have some

22 role in this evaluation process.

23 MR. DODGE: But in the end do you agree with me that

24 independent scientists should quote "evaluate the results"?

25 DR. RIDENHOUR: I think that would be the best, yes.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1053

1 MR. DODGE: Okay. And then you went on to express a

2 concern about quote "who decides what adaptation should be

3 implemented" end quote. Do you recall that, sir?

4 DR. RIDENHOUR: Correct.

5 MR. DODGE: Do you have an opinion as you sit here

6 today as to who should decide?

7 DR. RIDENHOUR: Again, I think it should be the

8 parties that have been involved in this process.

9 MR. DODGE: Well, the parties who have been involved

10 in this process don't have a great history of agreement,

11 sir. On the off chance that there's disagreement, do you

12 have an opinion as to who should quote "decide what

13 adaptation should be implemented" end quote?

14 DR. RIDENHOUR: I can appreciate the comment about the

15 lack of agreement having been directly involved in that

16 process but --

17 MS. GOLDSMITH: Objection. I believe this is outside

18 the scope of the witness' expertise --

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: It probably is, isn't it,

20 Dr. Ridenhour?

21 MS. GOLDSMITH: -- especially in light of his most

22 recent response.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I'll sustain the objection.

24 MR. DODGE: Do you feel competent to answer that

25 question, Dr. Ridenhour? I took it right out of your

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1054

1 testimony. I assume you have some interest in this.

2 DR. RIDENHOUR: Well, I have an interest. I don't

3 know that I can directly answer the question. I was mainly

4 raising a concern that I had. I think that the question

5 needs to be answered. I don't know if I'm the proper one to

6 answer it to be frank.

7 MR. DODGE: All right. Now, someone asked you -- I

8 think it was Ms. Cahill asked you a question about the

9 rewatering of Channel 10 and you testified that that took

10 place in -- was it October of 1995, sir?

11 DR. RIDENHOUR: I believe it was October 1995.

12 MR. DODGE: All right. And did you have any role in

13 that?

14 DR. RIDENHOUR: During 1995 the three stream

15 scientists had a dual role, as a matter of fact. Our one

16 role was preparing the draft work plan -- Stream Restoration

17 Work Plan and the other was to oversee the completion of RTC

18 authorized projects, and one of those authorized projects

19 was the rewatering of Channel 10. So we did provide the

20 oversight for that project.

21 MR. DODGE: Okay. What did that oversight consist of?

22 DR. RIDENHOUR: Primarily it consisted of providing

23 the description of what the project should entail and some

24 of the criteria that should be met in terms of the flows and

25 location and the placement of piezometers and things of this

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1055

1 sort. The work in actuality was done under the field

2 supervision of Scott English, and I or none of the other

3 stream scientists ever were there in the field at the time

4 the work was done.

5 MR. DODGE: Can you describe for the Board the before

6 and after on Channel 10?

7 DR. RIDENHOUR: I can to some extent. I don't have

8 the report before me that Mr. English prepared and submitted

9 but this was, as indicated on the map that we were looking

10 at a few moments ago a double loop, as I recall, about a

11 total of 1200 feet long and, actually, the initial design of

12 the rewatering was only to rewater the downstream portion of

13 that loop, the Channel 10 portion.

14 Subsequently, Mr. Trihey, who had prepared the initial

15 design, suggested that it might be better -- he didn't like

16 the idea of trying to bring water in in the sense at a point

17 bar location because the loop of the stream was sort of away

18 from putting water into that area if you just followed

19 Channel 10 and he suggested that it be relocated upstream

20 and include Channel 10A which would provide a better, he

21 thought, configuration for getting water into the stream

22 channel system.

23 This was brought before the Stream Technical Advisory

24 Group meeting, TAG meeting, which had membership of

25 essentially all the RTC parties involved and they agreed

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1056

1 with this relocation.

2 So the procedure then was to go ahead and rewater it

3 from that upstream end and the breach was made. There was a

4 large amount of spoils. The plan was and to my knowledge --

5 although, as I said, I was not there and I have not visited

6 the site since -- the materials, the spoils, were to be put

7 on essentially barren areas of the interfluvial reach

8 between the rewatered channel and the existing channel, but

9 there was a lot of material and water was reintroduced.

10 My understanding further was that the design as it

11 ended up put more water than had been intended into the

12 channel and there was some subsequent work both to reduce

13 the flow into that channel and to do some revegetation and

14 armoring of the area which was cut to provide water into it.

15 There was only excavation to get water into the

16 system. There was no improvement of the channel downstream

17 once the water was into the system. Piezometers were placed

18 in two transects and within a week after water was

19 introduced the water level in the middle of the interfluvial

20 area and adjacent to the rewatered channel had increased 18

21 to 24 inches.

22 MR. DODGE: If I understand you correctly, the water

23 table was raised?

24 DR. RIDENHOUR: It was raised something in the

25 neighborhood of 18 to 24 inches and it took about a week for

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1057

1 that to occur. It took about a week for the water to get

2 through the system as I was told by Mr. English before water

3 started coming out at the downstream end. It took that long

4 for it to basically fill up that system.

5 MR. DODGE: Was the water table raised both at the top

6 of the stretch and the bottom of the stretch?

7 DR. RIDENHOUR: There were only two transects put in

8 and there was none put in in that lower loop. They were

9 both put in in the area of the upper loop. So I cannot

10 answer that for the lower loop.

11 MR. DODGE: Would you expect the water table to have

12 been raised in the lower loop?

13 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, I would have.

14 MR. DODGE: Okay, go ahead.

15 DR. RIDENHOUR: Well, that was --

16 MR. DODGE: Let me ask you a couple questions. You

17 indicated that the spoils at least as designed were to be

18 put on upland habitat, correct?

19 DR. RIDENHOUR: Well, the interfluvial area between --

20 excuse me, the terrace area between the rewatered channel

21 and the main channel, as far as putting it to the east of

22 the rewatered channel, that was not practicable because

23 that's a steep hillside. The water is flowing right against

24 that eastern hill.

25 MR. DODGE: But at least as designed the spoils were

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1058

1 not to be put on the stream bank, correct?

2 DR. RIDENHOUR: They were not to be put on the stream

3 bank.

4 MR. DODGE: They were not to be put on the riparian

5 zone, correct?

6 DR. RIDENHOUR: Well, it depends how you define

7 "riparian zone." They were relatively barren areas, some

8 relatively near the stream and in that sense could be

9 considered riparian.

10 MR. DODGE: But areas that were vegetated by sagebrush

11 and rabbitbrush, correct?

12 DR. RIDENHOUR: Or if anything, yes.

13 MR. DODGE: All right. Now, as designed would you

14 expect that the rewatering of Channel 10 would have created

15 wetlands?

16 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

17 MR. DODGE: Do you have any quantification of that?

18 DR. RIDENHOUR: I have no quantification. I have seen

19 pictures of the area and am satisfied there was a fairly

20 substantial amount -- I wouldn't say many acres of it, but

21 there was substantial ponding in there because this was an

22 area where there were existing old beaver dams and -- so

23 there was a substantial amount of ponding behind those old

24 beaver dams.

25 MR. DODGE: But was it part of the restoration of

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1059

1 Channel 10 that cottonwood and willows would be planted?

2 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

3 MR. DODGE: And Jeffrey pines?

4 DR. RIDENHOUR: I don't know that any Jeffrey pine

5 were to be planted in that area.

6 MR. DODGE: Do you have any knowledge as to how the

7 cottonwood and willows are doing.

8 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, I do not.

9 MR. DODGE: Okay. Was a Corps permit obtained for

10 this work?

11 DR. RIDENHOUR: The Corps was contacted. I don't

12 know -- I was not involved with the permit process. The

13 Department of Water and Power was the agency that took care

14 of the permitting process.

15 MR. DODGE: Are you satisfied that rewatering of

16 Channel 10 had beneficial effects?

17 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, I am.

18 MR. DODGE: Were you here when Dr. Kauffman testified?

19 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

20 MR. DODGE: Do you disagree with him?

21 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes, I do.

22 MR. DODGE: No further questions.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Dodge.

24 Dr. Ridenhour -- oh, excuse me, before I get ahead of myself

25 does staff have questions? Mr. Canaday.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1060

1 ---oOo---

2 CROSS-EXAMINATION

3 BY STAFF:

4 MR. CANADAY: In your testimony, Dr. Ridenhour, you

5 expressed some concern with particularly dry year channel

6 maintenance or the lack of them. In your February 13th memo

7 there are recommendations for dry year flows for Rush and

8 Lee Vining Creek.

9 Are those the flows that you would recommend?

10 DR. RIDENHOUR: Well, I have to admit that I would

11 back off in one respect. I don't know that in dry years,

12 for example, on Rush Creek that a hundred cfs is necessary;

13 but I do feel that something more than base flows would be

14 necessary and if I were really to come down to the bottom

15 line, I would say approximately 50 cfs would be sufficient,

16 again, in terms of the design that we had proposed for the

17 rewatered channels to put water in the channels.

18 They were designed to have essentially ten cfs at 50

19 cfs/47 cfs in Rush Creek and, therefore, they would get

20 watered and 100 cfs is not going to do much in terms of

21 dynamic processes in the stream, but getting water into

22 those secondary channels will be important as far as I'm

23 concerned to sustain the ground water.

24 MR. CANADAY: On Lee Vining Creek I believe your

25 recommendation was 75 cfs?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1061

1 DR. RIDENHOUR: And I think that could be reduced

2 proportionately.

3 MR. CANADAY: Okay. You talk about a planting of the

4 inter-fluves. What species of vegetation were you thinking

5 of when you made that recommendation?

6 DR. RIDENHOUR: Primarily Jeffrey pine and Black

7 cottonwood.

8 MR. CANADAY: And it's your belief that currently

9 there is a lack of this material -- at least of a size and

10 of an age to contribute large woody debris in those areas;

11 is that correct?

12 DR. RIDENHOUR: Correct.

13 MR. CANADAY: And that -- you believe the time for

14 that material to be contributing naturally is 30 to 40 years

15 out in the future?

16 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes. One time we were in the field

17 Dr. Trush and I counted some tree rings. We found some

18 stumps and counted some tree rings and in order to get a

19 tree in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 inches diameter it

20 seemed to take about that amount of time and that was what

21 we thought as a minimal size to start being suitable as

22 large woody debris.

23 MR. CANADAY: So your recommendation is to jump start

24 some of these areas?

25 DR. RIDENHOUR: Correct.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1062

1 MR. CANADAY: And that's with the knowledge that

2 you've seen with some of the ground water increases because

3 of the rewatering?

4 DR. RIDENHOUR: Yes.

5 MR. CANADAY: Thank you. That's all I have.

6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Canaday.

7 Anything else from staff?

8 MR. FRINK: No.

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. I'm told the Board

10 members do not have questions of this witness at this time.

11 Dr. Ridenhour, do you have any redirect?

12 DR. RIDENHOUR: No, sir, I do not.

13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: No redirect, all right. Therefore,

14 no recross. Thank you. I'm sure that that --

15 MR. DODGE: I'm not his lawyer but if you hadn't

16 advised him of that, I was going to.

17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I was going to remind him what that

18 would open up and I'm sure, as I said a moment ago,

19 Dr. Trush appreciates it.

20 Dr. Ridenhour, do you wish to offer -- I believe you

21 have two exhibits.

22 DR. RIDENHOUR: I have those two items and I don't

23 know the process, I have to admit, to enter them as

24 exhibits.

25 MR. DODGE: I would offer Ridenhour Exhibits 1 and 2

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1063

1 into evidence.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Dodge.

3 Mr. Johns or Mr. Frink?

4 MR. FRINK: Yes. Also, Dr. Ridenhour submitted his

5 statement of qualifications along with his Notice of Intent

6 to Appear and we'd suggest labeling that as Ridenhour

7 Exhibit 3.

8 DR. RIDENHOUR: Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Without objection, we will accept

10 those three exhibits into the record. All right. Thank you

11 very much, Dr. Ridenhour. Appreciate your being here and

12 your patience.

13 That will then take us to the direct testimony of

14 Dr. Trush; is that correct?

15 MR. DODGE: Yes, I would ask Dr. --

16 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Dodge, I see

17 that Mr. Roos-Collins has risen.

18 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, before we begin with

19 Dr. Trush, I made an error in a reference to Los Angeles'

20 exhibits during my discussion of Mr. Frink's objection. I

21 referred to White and Blue Books as Exhibits 21 and 22. For

22 clarity they are Exhibits 22 and 23.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, thank you for that

24 clarification, sir. We appreciate that.

25 THE REPORTER: I need to change my paper, one second.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1064

1 (Off the record.)

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let's try to complete by, say, 5:15

3 at the latest today. If we can't, we'll come back around

4 7:15, but I understand that you all have incentive to try to

5 complete by 5:15. Mr. Dodge, please, sir.

6 MR. DODGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

7 ---oOo---

8 DIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:

10 MR. DODGE: Dr. Trush, I would like you to confirm

11 that Exhibit R-NAS/MLC-6 is your written testimony on behalf

12 of the Mono Lake Committee and the National Audubon Society

13 and I'd like you to take just a few minutes and summarize

14 that testimony, please.

15 DR. TRUSH: Yes, it is my exhibit and I thank the

16 Board for letting me slip in here. I'm heading to

17 Bangladesh in about four days to chase river dolphins up the

18 Ganges and that's been planned for months. So I wanted to

19 make sure I could do that.

20 Also, a little comment. I knew this little guy who

21 had dollar bill sewed to the back of his hat and a Chinese

22 red star in front -- I'm testifying on both sides here --

23 and he would just turn the hat depending on who showed up

24 and this was after discussion with a lot of folks. So it

25 wasn't -- I'm straddling a fence with everybody's blessing

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1065

1 here.

2 MR. DODGE: Are you aware, Dr. Trush, that before

3 going over to the Dark Side that Darth Vader was a Jedi

4 Knight?

5 DR. TRUSH: Well, anyway, in case those are warnings,

6 just who is this guy up here? I don't know but, anyway, I'm

7 going to start off with a quote and get right -- just finish

8 very briefly.

9 E.E. Cummings came up with something "honor the past,

10 look forward to the future and dance your death at their

11 wedding." And when we started out as RTC scientists, what

12 we realized what we had to do in order to wed the past and

13 the future was to come up with present day fluvial processes

14 that honor the past.

15 You can add flows to any ditch and get a dynamic

16 stream ecosystem depending on how you want to define

17 "ecosystem dynamic," but we realized that was only part of

18 the goal when we started out as the RTC and that was that we

19 had to look at what the past channel morphology was and that

20 that was figuring in heavily into our restoration

21 prescription.

22 So that's how we honor the past is by looking at the

23 fluvial processes that create the channel at that time and

24 our mission was Decree '41. So our goal: A healthy river

25 ecosystem and trying to restore the morphology as best we

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1066

1 can the way it used to be, that combination.

2 Now, we agreed with both parties when we got started

3 on this that adding flow and a grazing moratorium were by

4 far the two major components. We also quickly agreed with

5 LA that the structural approach of creating pools and

6 ripples was seriously flawed and to us clearly doomed to

7 failure; and even if the flows could have been kept below

8 some sort of threshold for movement of the stream channel,

9 it was clear that when we looked in the past record that

10 there would be floods that LA and Edison had no control over

11 and that there would be periodic big floods that would wipe

12 out any sort of structural approach.

13 We disagreed completely with LA on the flows that

14 would be needed to bring back our objective. In other

15 words, the flows could not surpass a threshold for moving

16 the bed, for depositing on the terraces, and these were the

17 flows that eventually were put together before we showed up

18 in this in the summer of '93.

19 We also disagreed with Fish and Game's flows that were

20 marginally better and only marginally better. So we quickly

21 grouped and realized that the decision, the Mono Lake

22 Decision, the flows were inadequate to bring back these

23 stream ecosystems. Enough to create a stream ecosystem, but

24 not enough to bring back the one that was there, not a

25 glimmer of chance we thought of bringing back the ones that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1067

1 were there.

2 So where did this leave us? We, first of all, made a

3 determination that the lower channels, which were the most

4 sensitive, were alluvial, that they migrated, that they

5 scoured, that there were bars forming, that the riparian

6 vegetation relied on an active stream channel. Once we did

7 that, once we felt that the channel was alluvial, we then

8 took the unregulated flow regime and asked ourselves: What

9 aspects of the unregulated flow regime would accommodate the

10 processes -- the physical processes that we would expect

11 from a healthy stream ecosystem?

12 And that formed the basis of our restoration -- our

13 restoration recommendations in the draft scientists' report,

14 and I think I'll just leave it there. That summarizes what

15 I was trying to get at in my testimony.

16 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Dr. Trush.

17 Let's go through the list for cross-examination.

18 Ms. Goldsmith?

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: Good afternoon, Dr. Trush. I have no

20 questions.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, that's interesting, all

22 right.

23 No one here from the Forest Service I take it still.

24 Bureau of Land Management, Bellomos, Arcularius Ranch.

25 Is Dr. Ridenhour still here?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1068

1 MR. DODGE: No, he's long gone.

2 DR. RIDENHOUR: He's trying to beat the traffic back

3 to Arcata.

4 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Roos-Collins, do you have

5 questions?

6 ---oOo---

7 CROSS-EXAMINATION

8 BY CALIFORNIA TROUT, INC.:

9 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Good afternoon, Dr. Trush.

10 DR. TRUSH: Howdy.

11 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: You just recounted the history

12 really of the October 1995 Draft Stream Restoration Plan.

13 Let me ask you about one realization in that history. You

14 just said that you realized that channel maintenance flows

15 in D-1631 did not have a glimmer of a chance of bringing

16 back the pre-project streams?

17 DR. TRUSH: Especially -- oh, boy. I would definitely

18 say a glimmer of a chance on lower Lee Vining. Rush

19 Creek -- lower Rush Creek I'm not so sure about, but lower

20 Lee Vining with a hundred and fifty cfs max for one day no

21 way.

22 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Now, that was your opinion in the

23 course of the preparation of the October 1995 draft plan?

24 DR. TRUSH: Yeah.

25 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Is that your opinion today?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1069

1 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

2 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: On page two of your written

3 testimony you refer to "incipient mobility conditions."

4 Could you explain what that term means?

5 DR. TRUSH: Yes. It's what force is required to

6 entrain a particle off the channel bed. If we think about

7 an incline plain or -- the force that would move the rock is

8 the depth of the water and the slope of the water surface so

9 that the downstream component of the weight of the water is

10 what moves the rock, and you need a certain depth and slope

11 that will create a force that will eventually overcome

12 friction and mobilize the rock.

13 The reason why I can talk about the glimmer is when we

14 were out there watching Lee Vining Creek at 150 cfs, it was

15 running crystal clear. The bed was not moving and so

16 there's no way you can surpass a threshold either than

17 increasing the slope or increasing the depth via flows.

18 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Now, in the ad hoc subcommittee's

19 memorandum, which is Exhibit 1 to your written testimony on

20 behalf of the Mono Lake Committee, you describe the physical

21 processes which are caused by channel maintenance flows as

22 follows: "...bedload movement including scouring, bank

23 erosion, and deposition, interactions with the stream side,

24 floodplain, and interfluvial vegetation including

25 enhancement of germination, reduction of channel

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1070

1 encroachment, and recruitment of large woody debris..."

2 Does each of those physical processes have a different

3 incipient condition -- let me put that in terms that I can

4 understand.

5 Does each of those processes have a different

6 threshold of flow at which they begin to occur?

7 DR. TRUSH: You can group them. There are several

8 thresholds. I can't say that it each has a unique one, but

9 there are several thresholds and we tried to do that with

10 our report that Chris and I did in the monitoring plan to

11 show that we presented several attributes of alluvial

12 rivers, and in there we identified a couple of those

13 thresholds there.

14 One was the incipient motion of the bed. The other

15 was the mobilization of the bar features, sort of a less

16 frequent larger-scale process, and then another threshold

17 was the deposition of silt onto the floodplain to start

18 bringing back the confinement of the stream channel, which

19 was one of the main characteristics of the historic stream

20 channel. And the only way to get deposition onto a surface

21 is to have flow get onto the surface. Otherwise, there will

22 be no building of the banks.

23 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: For bedload movement what is your

24 estimate of the threshold flow necessary for Rush Creek?

25 DR. TRUSH: Well, Rush Creek we made estimates in two

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1071

1 ways. One was on the back of the envelope using a standard

2 shear stress equation where we take a pebble count. We

3 estimate the median particle size and then we ask ourselves:

4 How deep, given the present slope of the water surface

5 that's out there at high flow, given that slope how deep

6 would the water have to be to initiate movement? We then

7 take that depth and translate it into a flow and that was

8 our estimate.

9 We then took the historic channel, the one that was

10 left, sort of a remnant, and we looked at the slope. We did

11 a particle count and we estimated how deep that flow would

12 have to be in order to just mobilize the surface.

13 In alluvial stream channels we're finding that it's

14 around the one-and-a-half to the two-year annual maximum

15 flood that starts to move a significant part of the channel

16 bed. So we hypothesized that if we did this particle count,

17 the flow depth that we would estimate would be equivalent to

18 around a one-and-a-half to a two-year flood if the channel

19 was working alluvially, and that's what it came out to be.

20 So we felt pretty good about that.

21 On Lee Vining Creek --

22 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Excuse me, Dr. Trush. Before you

23 leave Rush Creek behind, what is that threshold flow in

24 cubic feet per second?

25 DR. TRUSH: Well, we're guesstimating -- and, again,

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1072

1 you can manipulate a variety of the equations with constants

2 in them of around 350. It could be as low as 300. It could

3 be up to 400, and what makes it particularly painful is it's

4 very close to the capacity of the dam, 380. So our

5 recommendation, our first shot at the mobility hovers right

6 around the operational capacity of the dam. If we're too

7 low, we're in error. If we're too high, it's a big stakes

8 thing and that's why we're not sure.

9 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: So your testimony is 300 to 400

10 cubic feet per second on Rush Creek creates the incipient

11 mobility condition for bedload movement?

12 DR. TRUSH: That's our first estimate.

13 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Okay. Now, proceed with Lee Vining

14 Creek.

15 DR. TRUSH: Lee Vining we put out -- in fact, I did

16 this with Fish and Game with Gary Smith. We spent some time

17 out there and we put out some marked rocks, painted them,

18 made them part of the bed and monitored it as well; and we

19 had a flow there of slightly over 400 cfs and we had

20 complete mobilization of the rocks.

21 When I went back and did my calculations again, given

22 that the channel's steeper, we needed a little less flow

23 but, again, in that 300 to 350 range is where my numbers

24 come out right now for incipient conditions in the

25 bottomland regions of Lee Vining.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1073

1 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Now, once the threshold flow has

2 been exceeded, what is the nature of the relationship

3 between flow and the physical process? Is it a linear

4 relationship?

5 DR. TRUSH: No, it's not linear.

6 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: What is it?

7 DR. TRUSH: You can get incrementally more scour with

8 a rather minor change in elevation of the bed. So you

9 can -- another additional foot of stage in the flood can

10 create some pretty tremendous forces on the bed partly

11 because it's not all uniformly applied across the channel.

12 On the outside of the bend it really picks up.

13 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: In Mono Lake Committee Exhibit 7,

14 which is Mr. Vorster's testimony, there's an Attachment 10

15 that compares the different channel maintenance schedules

16 which have been submitted to this Board over time.

17 Let me show you that table.

18 DR. TRUSH: Yeah, I looked at it.

19 MS. GOLDSMITH: Excuse me, what was the reference?

20 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Mono Lake Committee Exhibit 7.

21 Can you compare the channel maintenance work done as

22 you move from the right-hand side of that table, which is

23 Los Angeles' proposal in 1994 to the left, which is the

24 October 1995 draft plan?

25 DR. TRUSH: As we move from right to left they

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1074

1 increase in magnitude. Is that what you're asking?

2 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: The channel maintenance work

3 increases in magnitude?

4 DR. TRUSH: When you say "the work," I'm not quite

5 sure -- you mean as the recommended flows increase?

6 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: You have testified that the greater

7 the channel maintenance flows, the greater the work done by

8 the physical processes that maintain the channel; is that

9 correct?

10 DR. TRUSH: I'd rather not use the word "work." The

11 force of light of the bed because "work" is "Gee, I did that

12 lecture about four months ago and I forgot it now." It's a

13 rate -- I wouldn't use the word "work," but the amount of

14 force applied to the bed which can mobilize it goes up, yes.

15 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Let's focus, then, on one process,

16 for the sake of clarity bedload movement.

17 This Board will consider the alternative flow

18 schedules which are before it in many different respects,

19 including bedload movement. In terms of bedload movement,

20 are the alternatives before this Board significantly

21 different in the results that you anticipate will occur?

22 DR. TRUSH: Significantly different than -- maybe you

23 should say that again. You kind of lost me.

24 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Will the October 1995 draft plan

25 cause significantly more bedload movement than the 1994

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1075

1 proposal submitted by Los Angeles?

2 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

3 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Will it cause significantly more

4 bedload movement than the February 1996 schedule recommended

5 by the ad hoc subcommittee?

6 DR. TRUSH: It's unknown at this time because of

7 the -- we've looked at these as minimum flows with the

8 attempt of getting them higher. That's why we drop these --

9 which we've gone over this before -- why we dropped them

10 from the October '95 level to the February '96 document we

11 dropped them somewhat because we would be operating for

12 maximums in those water years.

13 So I can't say they're going to be better or not.

14 It's going to be how well we can maximize those flows, and

15 part of that we as scientists had to figure in our fudge

16 factor of this on-the-envelope calculation. So we got a

17 little more conservative with the idea that we would

18 maximize and we would be monitoring this in the future to

19 see if we were right or not.

20 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: On page two of your written

21 testimony you describe a "50 cubic feet per second margin of

22 error." Could you explain what this is?

23 DR. TRUSH: Well, that's on the incipient motion, I

24 believe. Well, one other way you can forego using

25 equations -- because I have very strong distrust of them

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1076

1 except when I really have nothing else and what I like to do

2 is provide some empirical evidence. So what we do is we go

3 out and we put in marked rocks, really highly technical.

4 You dig a hole and fill it up with marked rocks. You come

5 back and you see what's left, and we estimate what the slope

6 of the water surface was and high how it was during the

7 peak. And we essentially go after a variety of floods with

8 the idea that some small floods will not reach incipient

9 condition and big floods will take everything away.

10 So we come at it from two different directions. In

11 between we get partial movement of various grades up to

12 total movement. It's never simple. So we define a window

13 of where we hit when the bed just starts to move and when

14 it's totally mobile, and we take that bottom and that upper

15 point and I think we can get to within 50 below and 50 above

16 the median, in that range.

17 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Now, the channel maintenance

18 schedule consists of three elements: magnitude, duration

19 and frequency. Let me focus on the second.

20 In point four on page two of this same written

21 testimony you state, "Peak flow duration was an extreme

22 uncertainty." Does that mean that you are extremely

23 uncertain what duration is necessary to accomplish these

24 physical processes?

25 DR. TRUSH: Well, the physical process of initiating

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1077

1 the bed is theoretically a moment in time, but there's other

2 aspects of how far downstream does this initiated bedload

3 move? How long do you need high flows to undercut the

4 outside of a meander bend?

5 The duration is probably the biggest unknown in the

6 fluvial geomorphology and if we go from a two to a five-day

7 duration, we're talking huge amounts of acre-feet of water.

8 I'm working on the Trinity River BIS for the flows below the

9 Trinity and there we're talking 700,000 cfs and -- so the

10 duration is a key, and I don't know how to get at it.

11 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Would it be fair to characterize

12 whatever channel maintenance schedule this Board picks as an

13 experiment insofar as you cannot today predict with

14 certainty what that schedule will do?

15 DR. TRUSH: Yes. Surpassing the physical threshold is

16 less experimental, and I think in a few years we could nail

17 that down. The threshold of inundating terraces, we can get

18 that fairly quickly; but the duration is clearly in the

19 experimental range.

20 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Let me turn, finally, to the

21 monitoring plan which Los Angeles has submitted and which is

22 addressed on page three of your written testimony for the

23 Mono Lake Committee.

24 You recommend that the results of channel dynamics be

25 monitored at the end of five years to adjust, if needed, the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1078

1 recommended maintenance flow releases.

2 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

3 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: In that recommendation are you

4 referring to specific attributes of stream integrity about

5 which you previously testified?

6 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

7 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Which attributes?

8 DR. TRUSH: One, the mobility threshold. I forget

9 which number that is right now.

10 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Let me provide you with the Blue

11 Book, which is Los Angeles Exhibit 23, and ask you to refer

12 to page three where these attributes are listed.

13 DR. TRUSH: Okay. I'm still in bifocal denial.

14 No. 4, the dominant particle size. Again, this is a

15 threshold. We feel we can get a better handle, probably not

16 as good as we'd like, on No. 5, No. 6, a good handle on

17 No. 7. Beginning to piece the story on No. 8, which is on

18 the riparian. And the "9" I'm not so sure where that --

19 we're targeting that so much, but definitely "4" and "7" and

20 to some degree "5" and "6" by five years I think we can do

21 it.

22 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: In Point 4 on page three of your

23 written testimony for the Mono Lake Committee you also

24 recommend revisiting the duration of the channel maintenance

25 flow schedules at the end of five years in order to evaluate

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1079

1 the adequacy; is that correct?

2 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

3 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Which of the attributes would you

4 recommend be considered in that re-evaluation?

5 DR. TRUSH: Well, when we talk about No. 5, which is

6 the mobilization of these features, we might be able to

7 mobilize an entire point bar with a longer duration or

8 shorter duration relative to the magnitude. I think we're

9 just not sure, but I would look more towards adjusting the

10 duration on No. 5.

11 No. 4 still -- there's still a duration component

12 there in that once you initiate the particle, if you move

13 them off a ripple you definitely want the particles to make

14 it through a pool and down to the next ripple. Otherwise,

15 if it's just enough to initiate it off the ripple, it falls

16 into the pool, it doesn't come out of the pool.

17 So there's a duration aspect there that you just don't

18 know yet, whether that's going to be a day, three days, five

19 days. We took an arbitrary shot at about -- I think it was

20 a quarter of the natural duration for floods as a best

21 professional judgment to start with.

22 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Dr. Trush, let me turn finally to

23 page four of the Blue Book as it relates to the testimony

24 you have just given on behalf of the Mono Lake Committee.

25 On page four you recommend that the -- that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1080

1 quantitative objectives be developed after three to five

2 years on the basis of monitoring results.

3 Do you recall that testimony on behalf of Los Angeles?

4 DR. TRUSH: I said some unless it's -- if it sounds

5 all-inclusive, it's not meant to be because I don't think we

6 can. But I think we can get a better handle on some of

7 those and in that mind -- in my mind that does include

8 aspects of duration and magnitude. Those are very

9 quantifiable goals to me, which is embodied in this

10 restoration plan, which seems to have missed some folks in

11 that everyone wants to see a channel width at the end of the

12 rainbow here.

13 Again, I have a hard time coming up with that. If we

14 left it at 150 cfs, we could never use the historic work

15 because the channel would have to get even smaller to adjust

16 to 150 cfs for Lee Vining. So the attained as attributes

17 through the adaptive management monitoring are very

18 quantitative goals.

19 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Now, in the testimony he just gave

20 Dr. Ridenhour recommended that tentative measurable

21 objectives be established now subject to adjustment as time

22 goes by on the basis of monitoring results.

23 As applied to your attributes of stream integrity, do

24 you have an opinion about his recommendation?

25 DR. TRUSH: Well, I think that -- I usually agree with

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1081

1 Rich and, in fact, most of what he said I agree with. I

2 think Rich is coming from the perspective of keeping folks

3 who aren't into this process stuff happy and that if you

4 can't come up with some objectives in -- or now saying that

5 we want to create a certain wavelength and a certain width

6 folks will feel comfortable in that there's a completion to

7 this whole thing.

8 To say that we're just gonna create processes and let

9 it go is very uncomfortable. Remember, we are trying to

10 target the magnitude of these processes for the

11 pre-regulated ecosystem. So I don't agree that we need

12 those quantitative goals, as Rich says, to make this work.

13 Maybe politically we're still going to have to come up with

14 something, but as far as how I would manage it I don't need

15 them.

16 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Let's assume that this Board

17 directs you to convert your attributes of stream integrity

18 into quantitative objectives subject to adjustment on the

19 basis of monitoring results.

20 In your judgment, would those quantitative

21 objectives -- would the quantification of those objectives

22 have any value today in the direction of the restoration

23 program?

24 DR. TRUSH: Again, when you say "quantitative

25 objectives," I would come back with mobilization of the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1082

1 channel bed on the average once a year would be my

2 quantifiable objective. And if I could see that happening,

3 I'd be feeling pretty good.

4 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Thank you. No further questions.

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Roos-Collins.

6 Ms. Cahill?

7 ---oOo---

8 CROSS-EXAMINATION

9 BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME:

10 MS. CAHILL: Good afternoon, Dr. Trush. In the

11 beginning of your direct testimony you talked about creating

12 a healthy stream but also -- I can't remember how you put

13 it, reaching back to --

14 DR. TRUSH: About my E.E. Cummings book?

15 MS. CAHILL: The historic -- keeping in touch with the

16 historic river.

17 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

18 MS. CAHILL: Basically, the historic river channel was

19 prepared by -- or was the historic channel prepared by what

20 we would now refer to as the "unimpaired flows"?

21 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

22 MS. CAHILL: And so if we want to keep in touch with

23 that historic river, when you're doing your back of the

24 envelope calculations are you using unimpaired flows or

25 impaired flows?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1083

1 DR. TRUSH: What we did when we looked at the historic

2 channel on Rush Creek when we did our analysis, we estimated

3 what the discharge would be that would just mobilize the bar

4 that was still there; but then when we went to look up what

5 flow that meant on a flood frequency curve, we used the

6 unregulated one and we had the hypothesis that it would be

7 about the one-and-a-half-year flood the way alluvial

8 channels work and that's what we found.

9 MS. CAHILL: Okay. So your one-and-a-half to two-year

10 flood was based basically on the unimpaired flow of the

11 stream?

12 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

13 MS. CAHILL: And I think you testified it was -- you

14 found that to be between 350 and 400 cfs?

15 DR. TRUSH: Yeah. Again, on that -- on the

16 cross-section we did there we also looked at parts of the

17 present day Rush Creek and there it's a little wider ranging

18 than the three to four hundred; but when I looked at the

19 historic channel given how I would manipulate the mannings,

20 roughness and the other things, between 350 and 400.

21 MS. CAHILL: Okay. Would that be the same above the

22 Narrows as below the Narrows?

23 DR. TRUSH: Yeah, above the Narrows is a sticky one in

24 that it's steeper and the banks are nowhere near as

25 erodible, and so I have a harder time coming up with what I

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1084

1 think is important there.

2 When Rich discussed the need for greater than 600, we

3 as scientists based that -- and I'm uncomfortable with it --

4 in that there was a large hole that Woody had dug up there,

5 just a big hole in a flat reach, and by every intention that

6 thing should have filled right up with the high flow; and it

7 was still deep and I don't get it. I still don't get it.

8 It was the worst place for a pool. It should have

9 filled in and it didn't and so Rich was saying, "We need

10 higher flows." I'm not convinced that it needs higher

11 flows. I think we have to wait for adaptive management and

12 monitoring up there to say that, but it does leave me

13 scratching my head.

14 MS. CAHILL: Okay. But, in any case, the flows needed

15 upstream of the Narrows are not necessarily the same as

16 those needed downstream?

17 DR. TRUSH: My guess would be less rather than more.

18 MS. CAHILL: When we talk about the very high flows,

19 the 600 cfs that the scientists originally talked about and

20 the 500 out of the ad hoc committee, what is it that we

21 expect those very high flows to do in addition to what the

22 350 to 400 cfs does?

23 DR. TRUSH: That's where we get to mobilizing an

24 entire feature, jumping a channel, kicking the heck out of a

25 floodplain, creating that structural diversity. Whereas the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1085

1 lower flow is almost in the true essence the maintenance

2 flow, just mobilize the bed, transport it through the pools,

3 kind of keep the everyday affairs going; whereas the bigger

4 one resets it and creates the diversity.

5 MS. CAHILL: Okay. And then in trying to figure out

6 what's the appropriate bigger one, you would also tend to

7 take into account unimpaired flows?

8 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

9 MS. CAHILL: The Los Angeles plan differs from even

10 the ad hoc committee plan primarily in the recommendations

11 in dry and dry-normal years.

12 Are you comfortable that the flows recommended for the

13 dry normal years would be sufficient?

14 DR. TRUSH: Well, again, after that memo was put out

15 we did discuss again with LA. So it didn't come out totally

16 out of the blue; and Rich and Chris and I did drop a little

17 bit down again on those lower flows, particularly on the dry

18 years because, as Rich said, the hundred cfs we couldn't

19 come up with a function -- physical function for it, but we

20 did think it was important for sustaining ground water in

21 some way to the side channels.

22 But, again, if we stayed at the 200 to 250, I don't

23 think -- and I think the monitoring will show -- that we're

24 not surpassing the threshold and we do want to reach that

25 threshold once every -- on the average once a year or every

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1086

1 two years and that range is what we want; and if we can't do

2 that by managing for maximum flows in those dryer water

3 years, then I would be concerned.

4 MS. CAHILL: Okay. So you consider it at least

5 possible that if you go out and monitor property, you may

6 find that those flows in, let's say, dry-normal years will

7 prove to be inadequate?

8 DR. TRUSH: They could.

9 MS. CAHILL: In fact, would you expect that?

10 DR. TRUSH: Well, this is getting more towards the

11 dryer end of the normal year where, again, we're now still

12 in that one to two-year flood range and that's where it

13 worries me. Below that, the hundred cfs I have no

14 expectation of doing all the geomorphic work.

15 MS. CAHILL: All right. The 200 cfs -- 250 cfs isn't

16 adequate to actually monitor the --

17 DR. TRUSH: I'm sorry. I don't think so, but I'm not

18 positive. On Lee Vining Creek much more so confident than

19 on Rush Creek.

20 MS. CAHILL: Do you have any concern that the 250 cfs

21 flow will be inadequate to recharge the ground water in the

22 amount that it needs to be?

23 DR. TRUSH: Well, the need to be is still open and I

24 think one of the -- one goal that we would like to come up

25 with that we envision in the monitoring plan is by

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1087

1 increasing the flows I don't think there's that much change

2 in stage height between 200 and 250 cfs that's going to

3 affect the ground water very dramatically -- differently.

4 But how much does the water table have to be elevated before

5 the plants can take advantage of it? What's that threshold?

6 And that's where the piezometer monitoring will come

7 in, because the higher terraces used to get flooded more

8 often by the same flow because the channel was narrow; but

9 when there was the widespread erosion of the cross-section,

10 those higher terraces now require ungodly flows to ever

11 inundate them and they never will be inundated, whereas

12 before they would by the same -- by 500 flow or 800 flow now

13 you would need a 2,000 cfs event to inundate it.

14 So what we envisioned in our plan was by looking at

15 where plants were coming back and where they weren't we

16 could get a handle on how close does the ground water have

17 to be to initiate some change? And that's part of the

18 adaptive monitoring. Then we could say, "All right, here's

19 a terrace where no matter what, even in a high flow year the

20 ground water only gets to within five feet of the surface."

21 We found that that's not enough. We've done the best we

22 can. You can't do any more than that. So, therefore, we

23 have to make a decision for that terrace, whether to leave

24 it upland range or to maybe plant something like a Jeffrey

25 pine on it.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1088

1 MS. CAHILL: Okay. With regard to the monitoring

2 plan, basically I think you've already explained this once

3 what you meant by "representative reach." Could you --

4 DR. TRUSH: Gee, I wish I could remember that one

5 because I don't think I did a very good job. I think I said

6 what it wasn't rather than what it was.

7 We didn't have any specific criteria that we used. In

8 other words, we didn't like go every hundred feet and do an

9 inventory and then go back and look for kind of homogenous

10 reaches that represented it. We looked for areas that had

11 some good data in the past and access wasn't too much of an

12 issue.

13 We really just knew that the bottomlands since they

14 were the most sensitive needed the most sampling, and we

15 tried to get at least two complete meander wavelengths

16 inside each of the reaches and we tried to pick areas that

17 weren't as liable to the downcutting. We wanted to be sure

18 we were up rather than down of that. Other than that,

19 "representative" was our opinion of a reach that was a

20 reasonable facsimile of the entire stretch of river.

21 MS. CAHILL: It was a reasonable facsimile of the

22 entire stretch?

23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey. I'm going to

24 object to this question.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1089

1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If the Department of Fish and Game

2 and other parties wants to reopen their cross-examination of

3 Dr. Trush based upon the direct testimony he provided for

4 the Department of Water and Power in connection with the

5 monitoring plan, I think that they should be forced to make

6 a motion to reopen that cross-examination and make a showing

7 that the -- it's necessary to recross-examination on this

8 issue.

9 I understand the Hearing Officer's ruling with respect

10 to the Board's scope of cross-examination that it is not

11 limited to the matters which are contained in the direct

12 testimony; but, in fact, what's going on here is a

13 recross-examination of this witness on DWP's monitoring plan

14 on which he provided direct testimony.

15 MS. CAHILL: We are willing to limit the questioning

16 to today's testimony.

17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Well, then, perhaps

18 it's not necessary for me to make a ruling if you're willing

19 to do so. Why don't you proceed.

20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I don't know if there are any parties

21 that are going to attempt to do so. If they do, I'll stand

22 up and make the same objection.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: At that particular time maybe I'll

24 make a ruling.

25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Okay.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1090

1 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: But since we have agreement here at

2 least with regard to these particular questions, why don't

3 you proceed, Ms. Cahill.

4 MS. CAHILL: Dr. Trush, in the Department of Fish and

5 Game's general comments on the Habitat Restoration Plan we

6 had the following statement: The goal of the LADWP plan is

7 to develop functional and self-sustaining stream systems

8 with healthy riparian ecosystem components. This goal goes

9 only partway toward the necessary restoration because it

10 lacks the vital link with the pre-1941 conditions and the

11 potential of the streams. A very small stream might be

12 self-sustaining and have a healthy riparian ecosystem, but

13 it would not be what Rush and Lee Vining Creeks were prior

14 to diversion or have the potential to be given their natural

15 size. Would you agree with that statement?

16 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

17 MS. CAHILL: It's frequently said that in order to

18 restore a stream we need to mimic natural stream flows in

19 terms of timing, magnitude and duration.

20 I don't know if you've used that term, but if you have

21 can you define for me what "mimic" would mean in that case?

22 DR. TRUSH: It can get you in real big trouble. I

23 used that word on the Tuolumne and caught all kinds of heat.

24 We do try to reproduce the variability. We do try

25 to -- flows -- I'm not a real geomorphologist either when

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1091

1 you were asking about this. No one else asked me that.

2 When we talk about flows, we're talking about

3 thresholds. We're talking about lots of different

4 processes. The flow itself is important, but what it does

5 is probably even more important. So what we're trying to do

6 is try to mimic the processes rather than flows themselves,

7 but we've got to watch that when we're below the dam. We

8 can't entirely mimic everything for one because most dams

9 cut off the sediment supply. So if we advocate the historic

10 flood levels, then we're in big trouble because we have no

11 sediment supply. The Rush and Lee Vining was a lot easier

12 because there was always a lake on Rush Creek. So there

13 always was a sediment trap relative to upstream for the

14 course of material. So we didn't have to consider the

15 bedload budget.

16 We agreed in our plan and others that we need to make

17 sure that we have the sediment bypass to feed it. Other

18 than that, that's how this system worked. It got its

19 alluvium from its tribs and from reworking its alluvium as

20 it migrated. So we didn't have to worry about it.

21 On the Tuolumne when we said "mimic," folks were

22 going, "Whoa, 50,000 cfs is going to transport all the

23 bedload." We didn't mean that. We meant the processes, not

24 the actual magnitudes.

25 MS. CAHILL: And I think I heard you say earlier today

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1092

1 that it was your understanding that the flows in the Los

2 Angeles plan were minimums and there would be an attempt to

3 release more water than that if possible. Did you say that?

4 DR. TRUSH: Yes, and we did that because of the water

5 classification system. There's such a wide range in water

6 years within a water year type that if we came up with a

7 higher level, in many years we would be recommending a flow

8 that didn't even exist because it was too high. So that's

9 why we dropped it saying that in those years within the

10 water year class where it's feasible to go higher, we

11 expected the effort to be made to maximize it.

12 MS. CAHILL: Would you be concerned if those flows

13 were, in fact, treated as maximums?

14 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

15 MS. CAHILL: Okay, thank you. No further questions.

16 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Thank you, Ms. Cahill.

17 Ms. Scoonover?

18 MS. SCOONOVER: I have no questions.

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: No questions from Ms. Scoonover,

20 all right.

21 Staff, questions?

22 MR. CANADAY: Just one.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Canaday.

24 ///

25 ///

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1093

1 ---oOo---

2 CROSS-EXAMINATION

3 BY STAFF:

4 MR. CANADAY: On page three of your testimony you're

5 referring to Parker and Walker Creeks as far as their

6 bedload transport. I want to be sure I understand what your

7 recommendation is. What are you recommending here for --

8 DR. TRUSH: Bedload passage.

9 MR. CANADAY: So for not just sediment, but large

10 material as well?

11 DR. TRUSH: When I think of "sediment," I think more

12 so of the coarser bed material.

13 MR. CANADAY: Okay. And according to your testimony,

14 you don't think that assessment has been made yet?

15 DR. TRUSH: As to whether it can pass or not?

16 MR. CANADAY: Yeah.

17 DR. TRUSH: No, it hasn't.

18 MR. CANADAY: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Anything else from staff?

20 MR. FRINK: No.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I have no questions.

22 Redirect, Mr. Dodge?

23 MR. DODGE: Just one area, Mr. Chairman.

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, sir.

25 ///

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1094

1 ---oOo---

2 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

3 BY NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:

4 MR. DODGE: Dr. Trush, look at page three of your

5 testimony, paragraph seven.

6 DR. TRUSH: I don't have it here.

7 MR. DODGE: All right. I'll read you the part I'm

8 interested in. "I recommend the following with respect to

9 flow recommendations: 1. Procedural criteria need to be

10 drafted that direct LADWP to maximize flow releases within

11 each water year type."

12 Now, to what sorts of procedural criteria did you

13 refer, sir?

14 DR. TRUSH: Well, that given -- when you went back and

15 looked at what the flows were for that water year, that

16 there would be a definable chain of decisions that anyone

17 could follow that would say "yes" this was how it was done

18 and that this was the way we agreed to do it. It's far

19 easier for me to say that than to come up with them, but

20 that's what I envisioned.

21 MR. DODGE: Would my procedural criteria include

22 coordination with Southern California Edison?

23 DR. TRUSH: It could.

24 MR. DODGE: Would my procedural criteria include

25 maintenance of Grant Lake storage at high levels before the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1095

1 high runoff?

2 DR. TRUSH: A variety of methods, sure.

3 MR. DODGE: When DWP presented its channel maintenance

4 flow to you, were those presented to you as minimum flows?

5 DR. TRUSH: Which presented to us? I'm not sure what

6 you mean. After our February meeting --

7 MR. DODGE: Yes, sir.

8 DR. TRUSH: During that we all agreed that those were

9 minimums and we attempted to maximize them.

10 MR. DODGE: Were you told by Los Angeles

11 representatives that efforts would be made to maximize the

12 channel maintenance flows in each year type?

13 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

14 MR. DODGE: Were you told how they would do that?

15 DR. TRUSH: No, and they asked for suggestions and we

16 talked a little bit about it; but they're gonna be the ones

17 that are gonna have to come up with that.

18 MR. DODGE: Did you make any substantive suggestions?

19 DR. TRUSH: Not really.

20 MR. DODGE: If I may -- in an effort to avoid bringing

21 Dr. Trush back, if I may go for one minute into an area

22 that's technically rebuttal?

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: You're all looking at me.

24 Mr. Frink.

25 MR. FRINK: If everyone else is in agreement and could

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1096

1 save Dr. Trush a trip, I think it would be worthwhile.

2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: May I have a moment?

3 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, you may, Mr. Birmingham.

4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I've got no objection, but Mr. Dodge

5 has assured me it's only one question.

6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Is it a multi-part question?

7 MR. DODGE: Well, if I can get Dr. Trush to give me a

8 quick, direct answer here there will only be one question.

9 You've heard Dr. Boone Kauffman on Channel 10

10 rewatering. Do you recall that testimony?

11 DR. TRUSH: Oh, yes.

12 MR. DODGE: You heard Dr. Richard Ridenhour on

13 Channel 10?

14 DR. TRUSH: Yes.

15 MR. DODGE: Who do you agree with?

16 DR. TRUSH: Rich.

17 MR. DODGE: Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you for the succinct answer.

19 All right, where does that leave us?

20 MR. FRINK: Recross, if there is any.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right, let's go down the list.

22 Mr. Birmingham rises. Obviously he has questions.

23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have to earn my money today

24 somehow.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Glad to see you.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1097

1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Late as it is, you're here.

3 ---oOo---

4 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

5 BY LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER:

6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Trush, on redirect Mr. Dodge

7 asked you a couple questions about your first comment on

8 paragraph 7.1 on page three of your testimony which refers

9 to procedural criteria needed to maximize flow releases, and

10 he asked you if a coordination with Southern California

11 Edison was one of those potential criteria and if

12 maintenance of high lake levels in Grant Lake was another

13 potential criteria and you said they were; is that correct?

14 DR. TRUSH: Potential, yes.

15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: But you're not recommending those,

16 are you?

17 DR. TRUSH: No, I'm saying they're just a suite of

18 many that could be used.

19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: All right, thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I'm sorry, I lost my train of

21 thought here. Where are we?

22 DR. TRUSH: We're done.

23 MR. FRINK: We're almost done. There might be some

24 other parties who have recross-examination.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let's see, nobody's here from the

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1098

1 Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bellomos,

2 Arcularius Ranch. Dr. Ridenhour has left.

3 Mr. Roos-Collins, do you have --

4 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: No questions, Mr. Chairman.

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: No recross.

6 Ms. Cahill?

7 MS. CAHILL: No questions.

8 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Scoonover?

9 MS. SCOONOVER: No questions.

10 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: And Mr. Dodge is with us so there

11 we are. Staff has one.

12 ---oOo---

13 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

14 BY STAFF:

15 MR. JOHNS: We can't let you off too easily.

16 On this procedural criteria that we talked about,

17 you're fairly familiar with a lot of different watersheds in

18 the State of California. Have you been following at all

19 what's been going on in the Bay-Delta system and Bay-Delta

20 standards in the operation of this group?

21 DR. TRUSH: I've avoided that one.

22 MR. JOHNS: Good for you. Thank you very much.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I take it, Mr. Dodge, that you're

24 going to be submitting your exhibits all together at a later

25 date?

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1099

1 MR. DODGE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Okay. Before we adjourn for today

3 I think I need to ask, since we are running a little bit

4 behind, what's the availability of witnesses as we now have

5 them listed for the 24th?

6 I was -- did I hear earlier that Scott Stine is only

7 available on the 24th?

8 MS. SCOONOVER: The 24th and the 26th.

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: The 24th and the 26th.

10 MS. SCOONOVER: The 26th until about 1:00 PM.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Okay. Maybe rather than try to

12 figure this out here, I could ask Mr. Frink to take another

13 look at this and see if there's any further modification

14 that we might make to this list and get back to the parties

15 in a big hurry.

16 MR. FRINK: Actually, Mr. Johns has been very

17 efficient with that.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Oh, he's already done that? All

19 right, what is it? Anything you can share with us at this

20 point, gentlemen?

21 MR. JOHNS: Beyond a whip and a chair I would suggest

22 we try to get through as far as we can and if we can't get

23 Scott's testimony in on the 24th, that maybe we carry it

24 over until the 26th.

25 I know that Ms. Scoonover has expressed a concern that

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1100

1 her witnesses be crossed as a panel and it's possible that

2 we might have to interrupt cross-examination of that panel

3 and bring them back on the 26th or something, but that's

4 kind of up to you on how you want to handle that; but that

5 would accommodate at least Mr. Stine. I don't know about

6 the other parties.

7 MR. DODGE: How will we -- what will we do on the

8 morning of the 24th, which is about as far as I can plan?

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: On the morning of the 24th I was

10 planning just to resume where we left off, which would then

11 be Mr. Vorster with regard to the stream plan and then --

12 MR. JOHNS: What we might want to do in this case is

13 to have Cal Trout go first and let the Mono Lake Committee

14 finish with their witnesses and be done with it and then do

15 the cross of the parties that we talked about on the 24th

16 and Scott would be -- I mean, pardon me, Peter would be

17 testifying not only on the stream stuff, but also on the

18 waterfowl stuff.

19 MR. DODGE: On the 24th you want Peter to do

20 everything?

21 MR. JOHNS: Sure, why not. He's a multi-faceted

22 person. He can do it all.

23 MR. FRINK: He could hold his testimony on the stream

24 stuff until Cal Trout puts on its other witnesses. It's up

25 to you guys to arrange it how you'd like. He could either

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1101

1 go with the first panel or the second panel.

2 MR. JOHNS: Well, that's a good point.

3 MR. DODGE: Let me ask this: Who do I have to

4 coordinate with for the 24th? Is it just Mr. Roos-Collins

5 and I that have to coordinate?

6 MR. JOHNS: That's what it appears.

7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: That's what it looks like, yes.

8 MR. DODGE: All right, then we will do that.

9 MR. JOHNS: Okay. We'll just have to kind of play it

10 by ear and see how we go on the 24th, and if we have to we

11 might want to bring back Mr. Stine or some of the other

12 witnesses for the State Lands perhaps on the 26th if we

13 can't finish them on the 24th.

14 MR. DODGE: Mr. Roos-Collins and I will be in

15 Sacramento tomorrow. So we will coordinate at that time and

16 we will give everyone as much advance notice as we can as to

17 which witnesses they have to be ready to cross.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let me say that I appreciate the

19 fact that you've all made attempts to be as brief as we can.

20 I'm going to continue to try and avoid night sessions. If

21 we come to the completion of any given day of testimony and

22 it makes some sense to stay a little bit longer to get

23 somebody out, we'll certainly consider doing that; but as a

24 general rule we'll try to stay within getting out of here

25 by, say, 5:00 or 5:30 and hopefully that won't mean adding

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1102

1 days; but if we get down to the 26th and we're about done,

2 we can take that into a night session just to complete. So

3 that's how we'll proceed. Hopefully we won't have to add

4 any more days, but I'm not saying that we won't.

5 Anything else we need to discuss until we adjourn

6 until Monday? Mr. Roos-Collins.

7 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question

8 regarding rebuttal testimony --

9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes.

10 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: -- which was set for the 26th --

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Right.

12 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: -- in the February 10th notice.

13 That notice does not specify whether written rebuttal

14 testimony is expected.

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, you mean as an -- oh, you

16 don't mean as an alternative to --

17 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: No.

18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Mr. Frink, what were

19 your thoughts on that? I'm not sure what we want to do on

20 that.

21 MR. FRINK: Ordinarily the Board does not require that

22 the rebuttal be submitted in writing ahead of time and in

23 this instance, in fact, some of the direct examination will

24 be completed on the 25th. So it might be hard to complete

25 written rebuttal. So ordinarily we wouldn't require that.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1103

1 There's a possibility if there's a problem in getting a

2 particular witness here and everybody stipulates that they

3 could submit something in writing for rebuttal, perhaps in

4 that way we would look at it.

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let's try something else. Is there

6 anybody that would be interested in not having rebuttal?

7 MR. DODGE: Mr. Frink is the master of understatement

8 when he says there might be a problem to submit it in

9 writing by the 26th.

10 MR. JOHNS: The one area I might clarify is that we

11 did send a letter on February 10th where the Chairman talked

12 about comments on the monitoring plan. Probably in theory

13 that probably would be rebuttal. We have asked the parties

14 to go ahead and submit that as direct and submit it in

15 writing and treat it as direct testimony rather than

16 rebuttal.

17 So in that case we have asked the parties to try to

18 get that stuff in writing ahead of time and treat it as

19 direct testimony because of the delay in getting to the

20 parties for testimony.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I don't know that we've answered

22 the question.

23 MR. FRINK: Well, the short answer to the question is

24 we don't ordinarily require rebuttal testimony to be

25 submitted in writing.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1104

1 Is that what you were wondering, Richard?

2 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: I'm not asking about ordinary

3 procedure. I'm asking what your expectation is for February

4 26th?

5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Unless somebody has an argument to

6 make supporting the requirement of rebuttal testimony to be

7 submitted in writing, I don't feel the need to have it.

8 Mr. Frink, do you have an argument that --

9 MR. FRINK: No.

10 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: There's no reason to deviate from

11 the norm. So we won't require it.

12 Mr. Birmingham.

13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes. While we have a few minutes

14 this afternoon, Mr. Caffrey, I wonder if I could raise a

15 procedural issue so we'll avoid taking time at the beginning

16 of the next hearing.

17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Please.

18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The order of examination is that the

19 Department of Water and Power follows the direct by the

20 proponent of the witness. That puts the Department of Water

21 and Power at a slight disadvantage because, as you may have

22 gathered from the questioning, the Department of Water and

23 Power is aligned against most of the other parties, with a

24 few exceptions, and I wonder if with respect to those -- the

25 remaining parties we -- the Department of Water and Power

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1105

1 could follow or be the last party to cross-examine?

2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, actually, what I've been

3 doing, and I never thought about it in that context, but

4 what I've been doing is going to the top of the list in

5 every instance; but I understand what you're saying and I

6 understand your concern.

7 Another way to approach it would be just to pick up

8 with whoever is on in the order one through twelve

9 immediately after the direct as perhaps a compromise. I

10 don't know.

11 What do you think, Mr. Frink? Any thoughts?

12 MR. FRINK: I understand the point Mr. Birmingham is

13 making and it actually might expedite things if they didn't

14 have to envision what somebody else might be asking about on

15 cross-examination and ask their own questions accordingly if

16 they could just wait until the other party's

17 cross-examination is completed. So having them at the end

18 of cross-examination when we're dealing with witnesses the

19 City of Los Angeles may disagree with probably makes sense.

20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: So you think it would be fair to

21 let them ask questions at the very end of the order?

22 MR. FRINK: Yeah, just move their cross-examination to

23 the end of the order of the parties.

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Scoonover.

25 MS. SCOONOVER: Mr. Caffrey, I don't have a specific

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1106

1 problem with Mr. Birmingham's request. I do take issue a

2 little bit with his characterization that it's the

3 Department of Water and Power versus the other parties.

4 I think that the State Lands Commission and the

5 Department of Parks and Recreation have serious disagreement

6 with the Bellomos and the Bellomos' testimony and that there

7 are other aspects of the Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plan

8 in particular that are contentious among a number of

9 parties.

10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And that's why I was very careful to

11 not state it in categorical terms, but I said for the most

12 part. I think if we ask the reporter to read back my words,

13 those words or something like that was contained in my

14 statement. I will acknowledge that there are disagreements

15 between the State Lands Commission and People for Mono Basin

16 Preservation.

17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I appreciate everybody's effort to

18 be clear. From this point on we will -- when we get to

19 cross-examination we will allow you to go last then,

20 Mr. Birmingham.

21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All right. Is there anything else

23 in terms of housekeeping that we need to do today,

24 Mr. Frink?

25 MR. FRINK: I don't believe so.

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1107

1 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Cahill.

2 MS. CAHILL: In response to the Board's request that

3 the parties submit testimony on the monitoring plan as soon

4 as possible, we have prepared testimony by Gary Smith and I

5 will fax it to Los Angeles' attorney today and hand deliver

6 it to the Board tomorrow.

7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If she hand -- I'm not going to look

8 at it tonight. If you hand deliver it tomorrow, that will

9 be fine.

10 MS. CAHILL: Okay. We will either hand deliver or

11 mail it to the various parties tomorrow.

12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank for your willingness to

13 expedite matters, Ms. Cahill. We appreciate that.

14 All right, then. We'll see you all Monday morning

15 here at 9:00 AM. Thank you again.

16 (Whereupon the proceedings were adjourned at 4:40 PM.)

17 ---oOo---

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1108

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 ---oOo---

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss.

4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO )

5

6 I, TERI L. VERES, certify that I was the Official

7 Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, and that

8 as such reporter I reported in verbatim shorthand writing

9 those proceedings; that I thereafter caused my shorthand

10 writing to be reduced to typewriting, and the pages numbered

11 850 through 1108 herein constitute a complete, true and

12 correct record of the proceedings:

13 PRESIDING OFFICER: JAMES CAFFREY, Chairman CAUSE: Mono Basin

14 DATE OF PROCEEDINGS: Tuesday, February 18, 1997

15

16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this

17 certificate at Sacramento, California, on this 23rd day

18 of February, 1997.

19

20

21 ___________________________

22 TERI L. VERES, CSR NO. 7522

23

24

25

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447

1110

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