Click here to go Home

January 28, 1997 Part 1 Part 2

14   HELD AT:
19 TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997
19 9:00 A.M.
24 Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE
25 CSR NO. 1564
08     COUNSEL:
09       DAN FRINK, ESQ.
13       DAVID F. ALLEN
17       400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor
18       Sacramento, California 95814
19                      and  
19            JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ.
01                           APPEARANCES
04       33 New Montgomery, 17th Floor
04       San Francisco, California 94105
05       BY:  JACK GIPSMAN, ESQ.
08       785 North Main Street, Suite E
09       Bishop, California 93514
09       BY:  TERRY L. RUSSI
12       P.O. Box 217
13       Lee Vining, California 93541
15       DeCUIR & SOMACH
15       400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900
16       Sacramento, California 95814
19       1 Park Plaza, Suite 500
19       Irvine, California 92610
24       114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200
24       San Francisco, California 94104
01                           APPEARANCES
03       555 Capitol Mall, Ninth Floor
04       Sacramento, California 95814
06       1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor
06       Sacramento, California 95814
10       1300 I Street
10       Sacramento, California 95814
14       425 Market Street
15       San Francisco, California 94105
15       BY:  F. BRUCE DODGE, ESQ.
17       GREG REISE
17       PETER VORSTER    
19                            ­­­oOo­­­
01                              INDEX     
02                                                     PAGE
05            BY MR. BIRMINGHAM                     44, 125
07            BY MS. BELLOMO                             94
07            BY MR. ROOS­COLLINS                   98, 148
08            BY MR. DODGE                              188
08            BY MS. CAHILL                             256
09            BY MS. SCOONOVER                          302
09            BY BOARD STAFF                            321
10                            ­­­oOo­­­
11       AFTERNOON SESSION                              120
12       EVENING SESSION                                233
01                      SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
02                    TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997
03                            ­­­oOo­­­
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Good morning and welcome to this
05  hearing regarding restoration plans required by Mono Lake
06  Decision 1631.  My name is John Caffrey.  I am Chairman of
07  the State Water Resources Control Board, and I will be
08  presiding in this hearing.
09       Let the record show that the full Board is present.   By
10  way of introduction, to my very far left is Board Member
11  Marc Del Piero, who I am sure many of you may recognize. 
12  Mr. Del Piero served as hearing officer in the original Mono
13  Lake decision. 
14       Thank you, again, Mr. Del Piero.
15       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Between Mr. Del Piero and myself is
17  Board Member Mary Jane Forster.  To my immediate right is
18  Board Member James Stubchaer, and to Mr. Stubchaer's right
19  is our Board's Vice Chair, John Brown.
20       I am going to read a somewhat lengthy statement into
21  the record for starters, but I think it may serve to answer
22  some questions that you may have, and then we can get to 
23  some opening questions after I read the statement, if there
24  is any need for clarification.
25       This is the time and place for the hearing on the
01  Stream and Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plans submitted by
02  the City of Los Angeles as required by Water Right Decision
03  1631.  Decision 1631 amended the City of Los Angeles' water
04  right licenses which authorized diversion of water from four
05  streams tributary to Mono Lake. 
06       This hearing is being heard in accordance with the
07  Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 1996, and the Supplemental 
08  Hearing Notices dated August 12th and December 20th, 1996.
09       The Board will be assisted in this proceeding by the
10  following staff members: 
11       Jerry Johns, Assistant Division Chief of the Division
12  of Water Rights.  Jim Canaday, Environmental Specialist,
13  and Dan Frink, Staff Counsel.
14       Many of the parties here this morning participated in
15  the Board's hearing, leading to adoption of Water Rights
16  Decision 1631.  Decision 1631 amended water licenses 10191
17  and 10192 to establish instream flow requirements for
18  protection of fish and water diversion criteria which are
19  intended to result in a higher water elevation at Mono Lake
20  in order to protect public trust resources. 
21       Decision 1631 also directed the City of Los Angeles to
22  prepare and submit a plan for restoration of the four
23  streams from which it diverts water in the Mono Basin and
24  the plan for restoration of a portion of the waterfowl
25  habitat, which was lost as a result the City's prior water
01  diversions.  The decision directs the City to seek input
02  from the California Department of Fish and Game, the State
03  Lands Commission, the California Department of Parks and
04  Recreation, and the United States Forest Service, the
05  National Audubon Society, the Mono Lake Committee, and
06  California Trout, Incorporated.
07       The decision also directed the City to make the draft
08  restoration plans available to those designated parties for
09  review and comment prior to making any revisions and
10  submitting the final plans for the Board.
11       Following time extensions at the request of various
12  parties, the City of Los Angeles submitted the final
13  restoration plans to the Board in February 1996.  The Board
14  requested and received written comments on the plans from
15  interested parties. 
16       This hearing on the Restoration Plans was originally
17  scheduled for July 29th and 30th, 1996, but the Board has
18  twice granted requests to continue the hearing in order to
19  provide an opportunity for parties to negotiation and
20  resolve their differences concerning the plans.  The purpose
21  of the present hearing is to provide Los Angeles and other
22  parties an opportunity to present information to assist the
23  Board in determining if the proposed restoration plans meet
24  the requirements of the Decision 1631.
25       The Board recognized that the preparation of these
01  plans has been a lengthy process, involving input from many
02  individuals and organizations.  We certainly appreciate all
03  the work and cooperation that has gone into that process. 
04  We also appreciate that some issues concerning the plans
05  involve extensive technical information, which many of you
06  have submitted in the form of written testimony and exhibits
07  prior to the hearing.
08       As explained in the hearing notices, parties will have
09  the opportunity to present a brief oral summary of their
10  previously submitted information.  However, parties are not
11  expected to make a detailed oral presentation of all matters
12  covered in the written testimony and exhibits.  Evidence
13  presented in the written testimony and exhibits will receive
14  equal consideration to oral testimony.  The Board requests
15  that the City of Los Angeles limit its oral presentation
16  regarding the proposed restoration plans to no more than two
17  hours.  In view of the number of parties commenting on the
18  plans, the Board requests that each of other parties limit
19  their oral presentations to no more than one hour per
20  party.  Each witness should limit the oral summary of their
21  written testimony to 20 minutes or less.
22       Parties will be allowed the opportunity to cross exam
23  witnesses.  In most cases it will be most efficient if a
24  party's witnesses are made available for cross­examination
25  as a panel.  The hearing notice states that each party's
01  cross­examination of other party witnesses normally will be
02  limited to one hour.  The Board will be monitoring the time
03  limits for direct testimony and cross­examination.  Upon a
04  showing of good cause, we may allow some additional time for
05  cross­examination.  All participants are encouraged to be as
06  succinct as possible. 
07       Following completion of the direct testimony and
08  cross­examination of all the parties' witnesses, the Board
09  will provide an opportunity for rebuttal testimony, if
10  desired.  In the interest of time, we will ask that parties
11  who have opening statements make those statements at the
12  beginning of their evidentiary presentations and within the
13  one hour time allotted to each party.
14       The procedures established in the hearing notice
15  required each party, who intends to participate in the
16  evidentiary hearing, to submit a written Notice of Intent to
17  Appear.  We have received Notice of Intent to Appear from 12
18  parties.  Typically, the Board receives all of one party's
19  testimony or comments before moving to the text party.  In
20  this instance, the Board received a request from the people
21  for Mono Basin Preservation to organize the testimony by
22  topic.  We have considered this request, but believe that it
23  will be most expeditious to proceed in our normal fashion
24  and allow each party to complete the entire presentation
25  before moving to the next party.
01       At this time, I would like to invite appearances from
02  the parties.  I will call on each party in the suggested
03  order in which the Board will hear your presentations.  We
04  believe the announced order will be most efficient, and it
05  should allow some parties to avoid having to stay for the
06  entire hearing.
07       When I call the name of each party, will the party's
08  representative please stand and give your name and address
09  for the record.
10       City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power.
11       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of
12  the Board.  Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard by Thomas
13  Birmingham and Janet Goldsmith appearing on behalf of the
14  Department of Water and Power for the City of Los Angeles.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you.
16       U.S. Forest Service.
17       MR. GIPSMAN:  Jack Gipsman, Office of General Counsel,
18  U.S. Department of Agricultural, 33 New Montgomery,
19  Seventeenth Floor, San Francisco 94105.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Bureau of Land Management.          
21       MR. RUSSI:  Terry Russi with the Bureau of Land
22  Management, Bishop Resource Area, Bishop, California.  The
23  address is 785 North Main Street, Suite E.
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Trust for Public Land.
25       Is there a representative here from the Trust for
01  Public Land? 
02       People for the Preservation of the Mono Basin.
03       MS. BELLOMO:  My name is Kathleen Maloney Bellomo, and
04  I am here as a representative of the group, along with
05  Joseph Bellomo.  At this time, it might be appropriate for
06  me to state for the record that I am an attorney licensed to 
07  practice in the State of California, but I am not
08  representing the People for Mono Basin Preservation as their
09  attorney of record.  I am here a representative of the
10  group.  I am not here in my capacity as counsel for that
11  group.
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you.
13       MS. BELLOMO:  Our address is P.O. Box 217, Lee Vining,
14  California 93541. 
15       Thank you.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you.
17       Arnold Beckman.
18       MR. MOONEY:  Donald Mooney with DeCuir & Somach, 400
19  Capitol Mall, Suite 1900, Sacramento.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Arcularius Ranch.
21       MR. HASELTON:  Frank Haselton, LSA, 1 Park Plaza, Suite
22  500, Irvine, 92610.
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Richard Ridenhour.
24       Is Mr. Ridenhour or his representative here?
25       MR. JOHNS:  He will be here later today.
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  One has to wonder if the weather
02  has had some influence on people's ability to travel.  We
03  certainly hope it hasn't been an impediment.
04       California Trout, Inc.
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of
06  the Board.  I am Richard Roos­Collins appearing on behalf of
07  California Trout.  My address is Natural Heritage Institute,
08  114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, 94104.
09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir.      
10       Department of Fish and Game.
11       MS. CAHILL:  Virginia Cahill, McDonough Holland &
12  Allen, 555 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, 95814, representing the
13  Department, and also Nancee Murray. 
14       MS. MURRAY:  Staff counsel with the Department of Fish
15  and Game, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, 95814.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  California State Lands Commission
17  and the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
18       MS. SCOONOVER:  Morning.  I am Mary Scoonover
19  representing the State Lands Commission and the Department
20  of Parks and Recreation.  With me is Michael Valentine
21  representing the States Lands Commission.  My address is 
22  1300 I Street, Sacramento, 95814.
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  And the National Audubon Society
24  and Mono Lake Committee.
25       MR. DODGE:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
01  Board.  I am Bruce Dodge.  My address it 425 Market Street,
02  San Francisco, California.  I have with me two people that
03  you have not met before.  Heide Hopkins and and Greg Reise 
04  of the Mono Lake Committee based in the Lee Vining, and I
05  have with me one person who I am tempted to say you have met
06  before and never wanted to see again.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is never the case, Mr. Dodge.
08       MR. DODGE:  Peter Vorster.
09       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Oh, oh, wait a minute.
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I will not be speaking for Mr. Del
11  Piero.
12       MR. DODGE:  Redoubtable hydrologist.
13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you all very much.   Welcome to
14  all of you.  It is good to see you all.
15       I will then proceed with the further reading of the
16  statement.
17       If there are any interested persons present who did not
18  submit a Notice of Intent to Appear, but who wish to present
19  a brief nonevidentiary policy statement regarding the
20  proposed restoration plans, please fill out one of the cards
21  available at the front table and return to the Board staff. 
22  They will be over on the table to my far left. 
23       At this time, I do not have any cards for policy
24  statements.
25       If there are not too many persons who wish to make
01  policy statements, we will schedule you to speak in just a
02  few minutes, prior to beginning the evidentiary
03  presentations.  Persons who wish to make brief
04  nonevidentiary policy statements are requested to limit
05  their statements to five minutes.  Parties who have returned
06  Notices of Intent to Appear and who intend to present
07  evidence and recommendations on policy matters should save
08  their comments or recommendations on policy matters until
09  the time of their evidentiary presentations.     
10       After reviewing the written testimony, there is one
11  procedural issue that we want to address before beginning
12  the parties' presentations.  That issue concerns the 
13  relationship between the waterfowl habitat restoration
14  proposal for Mill Creek and the City of Los Angeles' water
15  right application to divert water to Wilson Creek for use in
16  Mill Creek.  Parties may wish to address the general concept
17  of the proposed water diversion and waterfowl habitat
18  restoration proposal for Mill Creek in this hearing. 
19  However, under the Water Code, the pending right application
20  and any petitions to change the use of water diverted under
21  existing rights are subject to a separate review process
22  before this Board may approve those proposals.  Issues
23  regarding the details of Mill Creek restoration proposals
24  can be addressed in the context of processing that
25  application and any related change petitions.
01       Therefore, we would ask that parties limit their
02  cross­examination concerning the technical details of the
03  Mill Creek Restoration Plans.  In the current proceeding the
04  Board will be careful not to prejudice the outcome of
05  pending water right applications or petitions that may come
06  before the Board in the future.
07       That completes the opening statement, and I have a few
08  notes here that I would like to talk about a little bit.  We
09  will be providing you with some assistance on the time
10  keeping.  This somewhat limited device, in terms of its size
11  that I have in my hand, on here is a little light
12  arrangement.
13       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  That is a laser, right?
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  No, it is not a laser.  
15       You will see a green light throughout the course of
16  your presentation.  When there is five minutes left in your
17  allotted time, there will be a yellow light.  And then when
18  you see a red light, your time is up.  I will also give you
19  a verbal warning when there is one minute left in any
20  presentation.
21       That will just kind of help us all to keep our thoughts
22  and to stay organized.  Mr. Stubchaer will be our very able
23  timekeeper.  If you see him prodding me from time to time,
24  that will be Mr. Stubchaer reminding me of where we are in
25  the process.
01       Also, with regard to the amount of time we have for
02  these proceedings, as you all know, we have scheduled three
03  days, and it is our hopeful intent to be able to complete
04  within that period of time.  The Board would like, for its
05  own selfish reason and for all of you, to try and avoid
06  night sessions because that tends to be laborious.  So, we
07  will attempt to do that, but if we get behind and what
08  appears to be any reasonable ability to finish in three
09  days, we may have to consider a night session or a couple of
10  night sessions somewhere along the way. 
11       Having said that and seeing Mr. Dodge rising on the
12  occasion, I was going to open it up for any questions. 
13       Mr. Dodge.
14       MR. DODGE:  On January 13th, we received a totally
15  revised Stream Monitoring Plan from Los Angeles.  And we are
16  looking at and we have an expert looking at it.  But it is
17  extremely complicated.  I would request a couple of weeks
18  for our expert to digest it and come back and testify on
19  that subject.  It just physically cannot be done by this
20  Thursday.  If any of you have had a chance to review the
21  Stream Monitoring Plan, you will see that it is extremely
22  complicated and very hard to understand.
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  So, what you are asking for, Mr.
24  Dodge, if I understand you correctly, is to proceed as far
25  as we go, but leave that one subject area open to come back
01  for yet a fourth day and have what is tantamount to a
02  separate proceeding with direct, cross, redirect, all that?
03       MR. DODGE:  I am prepared to try to go to the
04  cross­examination today, if that is your preference.  I am
05  just saying that my expert can't physically be ready by this
06  week.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  What I would really like to do in
08  the interest of ­­ but I would defer to my fellow Board
09  Members.  In the interest of getting this done for this
10  very, very important restoration, I would like to do
11  everything we possibly can to keep this within the three
12  days of scheduled hearings.  And it is my understanding ­­
13  is it, Mr. Frink, have the parties had this information for
14  a couple of weeks now? 
15       MR. FRINK:  Most of the parties received it, I think,
16  on the 13th of January.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Then we are all laboring under that
18  same restriction.  I would be inclined at this point to deny
19  your request and to just see what we can do to get through
20  the process in three days.
21       MR. DODGE:  With all due respect, sir, we all received
22  it on the 13th, we're laboring.  But Los Angeles has
23  presumably had it for some time. 
24       MR. FRINK:  Mr. Caffrey, if I might.
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Frink.
01       MR. FRINK:  As I understand the revised reports on
02  monitoring that the City of Los Angeles has submitted, they
03  were an attempt to address some of the comments that the
04  City had received on its plans.  The City intends to present
05  its plans initially, I believe.  Then we will hear comments
06  from other parties.  Had the City wanted, it could have
07  waited to introduce the revised monitoring proposals until
08  after the parties had commented on it. 
09       My understanding was that they attempted to get it out
10  even before their other exhibits in order that the parties
11  would have longer.  The City had a number of other exhibits
12  it has to go over that it received from the other parties. 
13  Whereas, a majority of the information the City provided,
14  its plans has been out there for nine months or more.
15       BOARD MEMBER STUBCHAER:  Mr. Chairman.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Stubchaer.
17       BOARD MEMBER STUBCHAER:  Perhaps one solution to this
18  problem would be to allow written comments for a week, or
19  two weeks, or a month after the close of the hearing.  Mr.
20  Dodge said he is willing to proceed with cross­examination
21  today.  That way we can conclude this proceeding.
22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I think that is an appropriate
23  suggestion, Mr. Stubchaer, and I was going to ask Mr. Frink
24  if ­­ at least my inclination was, at the end of this
25  proceeding to see if there was a desire on the part of the
01  parties to have any open period for written comments.        
02       Perhaps that would accommodate your needs, Mr. Dodge. 
03  It wouldn't necessarily allow for any further examination,
04  but it would certainly allow you to comment.  We could keep
05  the record open for that period of time.  I think that is
06  the best that we can do under the circumstances. 
07       MR. DODGE:  I appreciate the opportunity to comment
08  after the hearing is closed.  I think that we did that
09  previously, and it worked out well, I think.  As I recall,
10  we had simultaneous opening briefs and simultaneous closing
11  briefs.  I thought that was a good process.  That is fine.
12       My point is that I have a witness who wants to talk
13  about monitoring, and I would like this Board, or at least
14  the hearing officer of this Board, to hear him.  And I don't
15  know that that is physically possible by Thursday.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, in that event then ­­ Mr.
17  Stubchaer, were you going to comment?
18       BOARD MEMBER STUBCHAER:  Mr. Chairman, I was going to
19  restate what you said in your opening statement, that the
20  written evidence has just as much weight as the oral
21  summary.  And it seems to me that it is not absolutely
22  necessary to have the oral summaries.
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is quite true, Mr.
24  Stubchaer.  I really don't want to get into a discussion of
25  the weight of evidence.  I would just remind the parties
01  that the summary is just that; it is a summary, and the
02  testimony and exhibits have already been presented.  This is
03  a full­time Board.  We fully intend, and always do, to look
04  over everything and to read it. 
05       So, with great respect, Mr. Dodge, it is the ruling
06  that we will stay within the process that we have outlined,
07  but we will have some additional time when we close the
08  proceedings, the actual hearing portion, to keep the record
09  open and allow you to submit further statements.
10       MR. DODGE:  Thank you.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir. 
12       Do any of the other parties wish to be recognized?  
13       Ms. Scoonover.
14       MS. SCOONOVER:  Thank you, Mr. Caffrey.   I have a
15  question about the Board's discussion of Mill Creek with
16  respect to the Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plan.  I just
17  want to be certain that I understand the points that you
18  made previously. 
19       It is our understanding that the application from the
20  Department of Water and Power for winter water rights on
21  Mill Creek will be heard at a later time, but that this
22  Board is planning to go forward with its Waterfowl Habitat
23  Restoration Plan during the course of these hearings.  Is
24  that correct?
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is correct, yes.
01       MS. SCOONOVER:  It will be ­­ since the Mill Creek
02  restoration is, in many ways, the cornerstone of the
03  scientists' recommendations for the Waterfowl Restoration
04  Plan, it will be difficult, at times, for at least my expert
05  witnesses, and I assume other parties' expert witnesses, to
06  keep a clear line of demarcation between the two.  We will
07  make every effort, but when you talk about the Mill Creek
08  system, I think it is necessary to talk about all of the 
09  flows in the Mill Creek system, and I want to make sure that
10  that is acceptable to the Board, that that is understandable.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I guess the way I would deal with it
12  is that, certainly, the situation on the streams is
13  pertinent to the whole Mono Lake question, the lake levels,
14  and while I was ­­ and perhaps this is a little gray, and
15  maybe we feel our way through it as we go along, but it was
16  my hope that we didn't get into a very detailed, technical
17  situation, especially in the cross­examination, that would
18  be very time consuming, and then that we would again repeat
19  in a later public process on the application.  But at the
20  same time, I don't want to stifle or fetter the parties. 
21  So, we will ­­ when we get into that, let's do the best we
22  can and see where it takes us.
23       Just be mindful ­­ try not to get too technical.   Stay
24  more conceptual, but go where you have to go to try to make
25  your point.  When we get into it, we will just see if there
01  are objections, or we will see if Mr. Frink has a problem of
02  where we are, and do the best we can.
03       MS. SCOONOVER:  Thank you.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Frink, do you wish to add
05  anything to that?
06       MR. FRINK:  No, Mr. Chairman.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Correct me in any way?
08       MR. FRINK:  No.  I think we will do the best we can on
09  that subject.
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Are there other questions?   Please
11  feel free.  This is your time. 
12       Mr. Birmingham.
13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Chairman, you indicated earlier,
14  the parties would have an opportunity to make a policy
15  statement.  Caroline Green, who is the president of the
16  Board of Water and Power Commissioners for the City of Los
17  Angeles, would like to appear before the Board to make a
18  very brief, less than two­minute, policy statement. 
19  Unfortunately, she is not available today, and we would like
20  to ask the Board's leave to permit her to appear tomorrow to
21  make a very brief policy statement.
22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I certainly don't have any objection
23  to that.  Does anybody have a problem with that? 
24       We would certainly accommodate her.  We would most
25  likely be resuming at 9:00 a.m., unless we were going late
01  tonight and as a group that would be too early.  But I would
02  say a good benchmark is 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.          
03       Could she be here by then? 
04       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Yes, she can.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham, we can start off
06  with her policy presentation.
07       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  While I am here, I would like to take
08  the opportunity to introduce to the Board three gentlemen,
09  two of whom the Board has met before.  Jim Wickser, who is
10  the Assistant General Manager in charge of the water
11  division of the Department of Water and Power, is here.
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Wickser.
13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Jerry Gewe, who is a senior engineer
14  with the Department of Water and Power, very high executive
15  within the Department, is also here, and Ed Schlotman, who
16  has ­­ I don't think anyone can ever replace Ken Downey, but
17  Ed Schlotman, who is an assistant city attorney, with the
18  City Attorney's Office, has assumed responsibility for this
19  matter upon Mr. Downey's retirement.  He's also here today.
20       Thank you.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Welcome gentlemen. 
22       Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 
23       While we are on the subject, Mr. Birmingham and Mr.
24  Dodge have both taken the time, and we appreciate it, to
25  introduce some newer faces and some faces that we are
01  already familiar with. 
02       Do any of the other parties wish to make any 
03  introductions while we are at this stage?  Please feel
04  free.
05       Thank you.
06       Mr. Dodge.
07       MR. DODGE:  I have one procedural point that I would
08  like to raise, and given my poor track record on procedural
09  points with this Board, I am probably not going to tell you
10  what my position is.  But one thought is that there are
11  several proposals for the use of Mill Creek water that are
12  floating around in the testimony.  Three are to keep it just
13  the way it is, send the water down to Wilson Creek.  The
14  second one is the Los Angeles proposal to dedicate 1 cfs and
15  to apply for winter water rights.  And the third,
16  recommended by the waterfowl scientists, is to basically
17  return as much water as you can to Mill Creek.  And then
18  there is environmental considerations raised by the Bellomos
19  and others about doing that. 
20       It's occurred to me that nothing on any of these
21  proposals is going to be done without environmental
22  review.  And one approach to this problem would be to,
23  basically, sever the waterfowl aspects of this proceeding
24  and proceed with an environmental review of all these
25  various proposals for what is naturally Mill Creek
01  water, and, basically, not to hear testimony at this time. 
02  Because, presumably, the environmental review would consider
03  all of the issues, waterfowl issues, trout issues, green
04  land issues, and the flows raised.  A lot of those issues
05  would have to be considered. 
06       That is just something that has been rattling around in
07  my brain, and I think it is an option you have.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I must say it rattled around in our
09  brains, too, Mr. Dodge, because we did give that some
10  thought.  We came down on the side that to not consider it,
11  at least on the conceptual level, might be problematic in
12  terms of the overall picture of the lake level, et cetera. 
13       I see Mr. Frink is leaning towards his mike and may
14  have some thoughts on this or some further explanations.    
15      Mr. Frink.
16       MR. FRINK:  No.  Actually, I misunderstood you.  I
17  thought you were going to state that the Board had decided
18  not to consider, and, in fact, the Board is, as I understand
19  it, based on the letter dated December 31st.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is right.  That is what I
21  thought I said.  If I didn't say that, I apologize.
22       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Chairman, may I address that?
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham.
24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Thank you.
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am sorry, Mr. Dodge, had you
01  completed?
02       MR. DODGE:  I had completed.
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir.
04       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  The notice that went out from this
05  Board, the initial notice concerning this hearing, raised
06  three issues.  And, actually, there was a subset within the
07  issues that was contained in that notice.  I believe, that
08  notice was sent out in June of 1996.
09       The issues were:  Does the Stream and Stream
10  Restoration Plan submitted by the Department of Water and
11  Power comply with the terms of D­1631 and, if not, how
12  should it been amended?  The second issue was:  Does the
13  Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plan comply with D­1631, and,
14  if not, how should it be amended?   The third issue was: 
15  Does the Grant Lake Operations and Management Plan comply
16  with D­1631, and, if not, how should it been amended?
17       Before these plans are implemented, it will be
18  necessary for the Department to conduct environmental review
19  in many settings.  Before the Stream Restoration Plan can be
20  implemented, it will be necessary for the Department of
21  Water and Power to obtain permits from many agencies, State
22  agencies as well as Federal agencies.
23       In order to implement the Waterfowl Habitat Restoration
24  Plan, it will be necessary to obtain a permit from this
25  Board.  But in order to address the issues that were
01  identified in the original notice, it is not necessary for
02  the Board to reach a decision concerning the availability of
03  water for appropriation from Wilson Creek.  The simple
04  question is:  Does the plan comply with D­1631?       
05       If it turns out that no water is available for
06  appropriation or the Board, in connection with DWP's water
07  right application concludes that because of the
08  environmental impacts associated with appropriating 16 cfs
09  from Wilson Creek, during the period of appropriation, that
10  it is not going to approve the permit, it may be necessary
11  for the Department to come back to the Board and supplement
12  or amend the Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plan, if it is
13  approved.  But the same thing is true with respect to
14  implementing the Stream Habitat Restoration Plan. 
15       For instance, the Department of Water and Power
16  proposes doing restoration work on Forest Service land.  The
17  Forest Service has said, "It will be necessary for you to
18  comply with ­­ for us to comply with NEPA, and for you to
19  obtain the appropriate permits."  If the Forest Service
20  says, "No way," we are going to have to come back before the
21  Board and say we may need to modify the plan.  But the Board
22  can address the issue, decide the issue, that was presented
23  in the notice, based upon the evidence that is before the
24  Board today.
25       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Question, Mr. Chairman.
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero.
02       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  On behalf of the Los Angeles
03  Department of Water and Power, Mr. Birmingham, are you then
04  acknowledging that this Board has the authority and L.A. is
05  willing to agree to revisiting the Waterfowl Restoration
06  Plan in the event that subsequent water rights hearing
07  determines inadequate water supplies to service anything
08  that this Board might consider today?
09       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  This Board has continuing jurisdiction
10  over every aspect of the license.
11       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  I am more interested in the
12  other half of the question, whether or not L.A.
13  acknowledges, at this point, that they will return here, in
14  terms of revisiting the waterfowl plan in the event water is
15  not made available as part of the subsequent water rights
16  hearing?
17       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Yes, Mr. Del Piero.  The Department of
18  Water and Power recognizes that if, for some reason, it
19  cannot implement any aspect of a plan that is approved by
20  this Board, if it is a major aspect of this plan, certainly
21  rewatering Mill Creek is, as Ms. Scoonover indicated, a
22  major element of implementing the Waterfowl Habitat
23  Restoration Plan, if we can't do that because we can't
24  obtain the appropriate permits, then we will have to come
25  back to this Board.
01       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  I guess the reason I am asking
02  the question is because I remember once in a water rights
03  order, the water rights order directs the Los Angeles
04  Department of Water and Power to return here with a plan for
05  the Board's subsequent approval.  It doesn't talk about
06  subsequent events beyond that.  In terms of implementation
07  of the plan, the order presumes that the plan to be
08  approved as part of these hearings will be the final
09  document.
10       So, the issue that you are raising about some
11  subsequent hearing that might necessitate modification of
12  the plan in the event that water is not available, raises an
13  issue that is simply not spoken to in the water rights order.
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let me ask ­­ excuse me for
15  interrupting.
16       Can the people in the back or the room hear us?        
17       Thank you.
18       MEMBER DEL PIERO:  They turned it down on purpose.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Anything else, Mr. Birmingham?
20       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  No, I don't think so.   But I am not
21  sure that I've addressed Mr. Del Piero's concern.  It is our
22  ­­ just so we are very specific.  We understand that if, for
23  some reason, we cannot implement the Waterfowl Habitat
24  Restoration Plan because there is no water available for
25  appropriation or because for other reasons the Board
01  determines not to grant that application, then I expect we
02  will have to submit a modified restoration plan to the
03  Board.  I hope it doesn't result in an evidentiary hearing
04  of the type that we are about to initiate, but there will
05  have to be some modification.
06       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  I appreciate you making that
07  comment, Mr. Birmingham.  Because, given the way this is
08  proceeding and given the respective proposals in terms of 
09  Mill Creek, there are clearly significant CEQA issues that
10  can only be answered by an environmental impact.  And until
11  that document is completed, I wouldn't want anyone thinking
12  that we are attempting to prejudge water rights hearing.
13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is what we said in the opening
14  statement so carefully, we thought and we hoped.
15       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I appreciate that statement, because
16  we don't want this to become a water rights hearing.  We are
17  not prepared for that.  There is testimony, particularly
18  from Mr. Beckman, that goes right to the heart of the water
19  rights issue.  And, in fact, when that testimony is
20  presented, we are going to object to it because it is beyond
21  the scope of the noticed hearing. 
22       But D­1631 contained very specific guidelines which
23  were to be used by the Department of Water and Power in
24  developing its restoration plan, and the issue that is
25  before the Board today, are the plans that are submitted
01  consistent with those guidelines.  If not, how should they
02  be modified?
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Birmingham.  
04       Any others? 
05       Ms. Bellomo.
06       MS. BELLOMO:  Please, by the way, if I mispronounce or
07  have mispronounced anybody's name, please, correct me
08  immediately. 
09       Good morning, welcome.
10       MS. BELLOMO:  You pronounced it correctly.
11       Mr. Dodge's proposals came as a surprise to me this
12  morning, first that we heard of it.  I would certainly say
13  that we welcome what sounds like some recognition that there
14  are some serious environmental questions raised by the
15  various proposals to rewater Mill Creek.
16       I am responding completely spontaneously because I
17  haven't heard of this until five minutes ago.  My concern,
18  if we don't go forward whatsoever with the waterfowl habitat
19  restoration part of this proceeding is that the parties
20  won't have any sort of guidance in terms of any inclination
21  that the Board has, and we are back to the drawing board. 
22  And I really don't know what will come out of it. 
23       The local community is very cognizant of the importance
24  of getting some waterfowl habitat restoration under way, not
25  just because of the effects that the lower lake levels have
01  on waterfowl habitat.  There is another very serious issue,
02  which is Dechambeau Ranch caused the county's pond problem. 
03  And so the Forest Service needs some guidance, as well,
04  because they're in the process of deciding whether they are
05  going to do drilling, or try to find artesian wells, or are
06  they gong to rely on surface groundwater. 
07       So, I think that this group of people that are convened
08  here today needs some sort of guidance on direction to go.
09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I appreciate that, Ms. Bellomo.  My
10  asking earlier if there were any questions actually was a
11  question directed more at procedure and a little concerned
12  now that we are getting into an opening statement kind of a
13  situation.
14       I don't want to stifle anybody and disallow them the 
15  opportunity to come up here, but this the kind of thing that
16  we certainly want to hear from you when you are giving us
17  your direct, and you can weave in your cross­examination. 
18  But at the moment, we do need to proceed.  We'd like to keep
19  the commentary now with regard to processing as best we can.
20       MS. BELLOMO:  I was attempting to address the process
21  which was Mr. Dodge's suggestion that you not hear any
22  testimony in this proceeding about waterfowl habitat
23  restoration.  That was my understanding.
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We already decided that we were
25  going to proceed as we had noticed.  So, I believe that
01  would be to your satisfaction.
02       MS. BELLOMO:  Yes, that will.
03       Thank you.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Ms. Bellomo.     
05       MR. DODGE:  I have just one more procedural matter. 
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Excuse me, go ahead.
07       MR. DODGE:  I didn't think about it.
08       MR. MOONEY:  I'm Don Mooney, representing Mr.
09  Beckman.  Maybe, just briefly, in response to Mr. Birmingham
10  with regards to the water rights issues for Mill Creek.  I
11  thought the Board's response to Ms. Scoonover provided a lot
12  of clarification in terms of how to proceed.  However, Mr.
13  Birmingham's comments did raise a little bit of concern.  It
14  is not out intention to put on water rights testimony.  In
15  fact, in very limited nature.  But to the extent there is an
16  enormous, not enormous, but there is discussion within the
17  testimony about the Mill Creek water rights and Mill Creek
18  decree, we feel, on Mr. Beckman's behalf, there is need, at
19  least, to address that to some extent.  We'd be more than
20  willing ­­ as Mr. Birmingham said he would object to Mr.
21  Beckman's testimony, we would more than willing to withdraw
22  that testimony if all references to the Mill Creek water
23  rights, as mentioned in the water rights, are removed from
24  the testimony.  But since so much of this is based upon the
25  discussion of Mill Creek water rights, irrigation season and
01  those types of issues, we feel that there is a need to
02  address that somewhat, although it will not be a technical
03  discussion of Mr. Beckman's water rights.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let the record show that you have
05  stated in response to Mr. Birmingham, that you will object
06  to his objection.  Let me say we don't follow the strict
07  rules of evidence here in the hearing room.  It is my
08  intention, although sometimes I may sound a little
09  disstructured, it is my intention to provide ­­ my most
10  important goal in life as a hearing officer is to provide
11  the most fairness that I possibly can.  In that regard, I
12  would generally tend to lean towards allowing evidence in,
13  rather than leaving it out, especially when we have a record
14  as broad as we do already, with regard to Mono Lake
15  proceedings, and which, I believe, Mr. Frink will probably
16  offer into evidence in this proceeding in a moment. 
17       I appreciate your comment. 
18       Thank you.
19       MR. MOONEY:  Thank you.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Dodge, one more time?
21       MR. DODGE:  Yes.  I was somewhat surprised to see that
22  my clients had slipped to last in terms of presenting
23  evidence.  But I do understand the reason for that in terms
24  of perhaps other people being able to leave after they have
25  presented their evidence.
01       I would urge the Board, however, that I retain my spot
02  of cross examining L.A.'s witnesses early on in the
03  proceeding rather than late.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  So you would like a change in the
05  order, if I understand you correctly, in the order that we
06  cross­examine?  Is that what you are saying?
07       MR. DODGE:  In terms of cross­examination, I would urge
08  to go back to the system we had before, which, as I recall,
09  provided that Fish and Game and myself cross­examined
10  first.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I just don't know that I have
12  reaction to that other than just the standard reaction of
13  trying to keep order and stay with what we have already
14  announced we are going to do.
15       Mr. Frink, do you have any guidance?  Would it be
16  valuable to turn the list upside­down when it comes to
17  cross­examination?
18       MR. FRINK:  I don't know if it would be or not.  I
19  think in cross­examination, as well as with presentations of
20  direct evidence, that there are going to be a number of
21  people who don't have a lot of material that they want to
22  get in.  They may have a few questions that they want to ask
23  a party, and then they may leave and not return to the
24  hearing, or they may return at a later date. 
25       Mr. Dodge, generally, has extensive cross­examination,
01  and if we had all the parties who have extensive
02  cross­examination at the beginning, it means that the
03  parties who just have a few questions have to stay
04  throughout, and they may not desire to. 
05       I would suggest staying with the order that you
06  originally described.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I think Mr. Frink makes an important
08  point.  Please bear with us, Mr. Dodge, and please don't
09  think that there is going to be a diminishment of interest
10  on the part of the Board Members because of your place in
11  the list.  I think we should stay with the existing list
12  just to try and accommodate as many people who have, really,
13  less input in the proceedings as we. 
14       Thank you, sir.
15       Anything else? 
16       Mr. Roos­Collins.
17       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Those of you who weren't present for
18  the 43 days of hearing in 1993 and 1994 may now understand
19  why 43 days were necessary.  I do have a request for
20  clarification.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please, sir.
22       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  You said that each party would be
23  limited to one hour of cross­examination.
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That's correct.  I thought I was
25  anticipating you.  I thought you were going to talk about
01  direct.
02       Continue.
03       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Is that cross­examination of all
04  parties' witnesses or of each other parties' witnesses?
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  No, that is cross­examination by
06  each party of each set of witnesses.
07       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Not to encourage you to go beyond
09  that, but I fully recognize that cross­examination is
10  something much different than direct.  When you had the
11  situation of being able to submit your direct testimony in
12  advance and you are being limited to a synopsis there.  I
13  realize that is something else.
14       We are setting up the hour for the maximum on the
15  cross­examination as a guideline.  If you need more time
16  than that, as we stated in the opening statement, please
17  give us a showing that you do.  We do not want to deny due
18  process when somebody is doing their cross­examination and
19  is making an important point or getting to an important
20  point, just because the clock says so.  But still, having
21  said, please try as best you can to stay within the
22  guideline, because what we are about today is so very
23  important, and completion of what we do is so very
24  important. 
25       I appreciate your clarifying question, sir.   Thank you.
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you.
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Anybody else? 
03       All right. 
04       Thank you very much.  Then we will ask our staff, Mr.
05  Frink, if he has staff exhibits to introduce.  And, Mr.
06  Frink, please interrupt me at any point during the
07  proceeding if I overlook anything important. 
08       Go ahead, Mr. Frink.
09       MR. FRINK:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  The staff exhibits for
10  this hearing are identified as Staff Exhibits 1 through 4 in
11  the June 18, 1996 hearing notice.  The hearing notice also
12  indicated that the record preceding entry of Decision 1631
13  would be considered as part of the record and present
14  hearing. 
15       If there are no objections, I would ask for acceptance
16  of the Staff Exhibits as identified in the hearing notice at
17  this time.
18       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Frink.  
19       If there is no objection, the exhibits are accepted
20  into the record.
21       MR. DODGE:  Would Mr. Frink refresh our recollection as
22  to what they are?
23       MR. FRINK:  Sure.  The exhibits as identified in the
24  hearing notice: 
25       Exhibit Number 1 was Division of Water Right file on
01  water right applications 8042, 8043, 531, and 570.
02       Staff Exhibit 2, Division of Water File 0.5O, Special
03  Studies of the Mono Lake Basin.
04       Staff Exhibit 3, the draft and final Environmental
05  Impact Report for the review of Mono Basin Water Rights for
06  the City of Los Angeles certified by the State Water
07  Resources Control Board on September 28, 1994.
08       Staff Exhibit 4, cultural resources inventory of four
09  tributaries to Mono Lake and an evaluation plan for the Mono
10  Stream Restoration Project.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Frink.
12       MR. FRINK:  Are the exhibits accepted into evidence?
13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes, I did accept them already, the
14  time that Mr. Dodge was asking his question.  They are
15  accepted.  I did not note any objection when I asked for
16  it.  Hope you all heard me.
17       MR. FRINK:  I do have one other matter.
18       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right, Mr. Frink, please go
19  ahead. 
20       MR. FRINK:  The Board has received a letter dated
21  January 22, 1997, from Mr. Farnetti, Mr. Chairman, of the
22  Mono County Board of Supervisors.  The letter expresses
23  opposition to the plan's ceased irrigation of the Thompson
24  Meadow in conjunction with the Waterfowl Habitat Restoration
25  Plan.  And Mr. Farnetti, on behalf of the Board of
01  Supervisors, has asked that the letter be included in the
02  record of this proceeding. 
03       I would suggest that the Board include the letter as a 
04  policy statement, written policy statement.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is there any necessity to read the
06  letter in its entirety into the record?
07       MR. FRINK:   I don't believe so, in keeping with the
08  procedures that apply to.
09       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Policy statement?
10       MR. FRINK:  He is not appearing as a witness.   He is
11  making statement on a matter of policy.  If he were here, he
12  could state it orally.  I think we can include it in the
13  record.
14       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Do we have that?
15       MR. FRINK:  Yes, we do.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We have the letter?
17       MR. FRINK:  Yes, we do.     
18       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I wonder if the parties could be given
19  a copy of the letter.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Could we provide the parties with
21  copies of the letter sometime during the course of the
22  proceeding? 
23       MR. FRINK:  Yes.
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We will do that.
25       Thank you.
01       I saw it last night.  It came in last night.   Mr. Del
02  Piero was asking if I had seen the letter.  I told him that
03  I did see it briefly last night when it came in. 
04       That is the same letter we received last night?
05       MR. FRINK:  Yes, it is.  We will have copies available
06  after the first break.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Frink.
08       I will call one more time to make sure there are no
09  policy statements.  No one has responded with the exception
10  of the one letter that Mr. Frink just referred to.  So, no
11  one wishing to make a policy statement, then we will proceed
12  onward.
13       It is now time to administer the oath.  All those here
14  today, all those parties intending to offer direct
15  testimony, please rise and raise your right land.
16            (Oath administered by Chairman Caffrey.)
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you all very much.   Please be
18  seated.  I'm never quite sure how to ­­ Mr. Brown thought
19  there were some weak ones there.  Probably is more to do
20  with the somewhat nonassertive application of the question.
21       All right.  Thank you all.  You are now sworn in, so to
22  speak. 
23       And let me just say before we go to direct testimony
24  from the City of Los Angeles, that we will be taking breaks
25  from time to time, and Mr. Birmingham, with your indulgence,
01  if you intend to take the two full hours we have allotted
02  you, we will probably be taking a break somewhere in the
03  middle of your presentation or during your presentation, and
04  we will try not to be too disruptive about it. 
05       Also, when we are timing you, if a question is asked or
06  if there is an objection to your testimony, or if a Board
07  Member just cannot stand it anymore and has to ask a
08  question outside of the normal time that we go to the Board
09  for questions, we will not penalize you for that.  We will
10  stop the clock in fairness to all, since we will be on your
11  time if we didn't stop the clock.
12       With that, then, unless there are any further
13  questions, it is time to proceed with direct from the City
14  of Los Angeles. 
15       Mr. Birmingham, good morning again, sir, and welcome.
16       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Thank you.
17       At this time, the Department of Water and Power would
18  like to call Robert L. Beschta, Ph.D.; J. Boone Kauffman,
19  Ph.D.; Peter Kavounas; William S. Platts, Ph.D.; and Brian
20  Tillemans. 
21       I should also observe that when Platts agreed to come
22  out of retirement to testify here, I promised him that we
23  would not have an argument at the beginning of this hearing. 
24  He apparently has left as a result of my having failed to
25  keep that promise.
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I thought that was a colloquy. 
02       Gentlemen, please come to the table and use the mikes. 
03  Our sound system here could be a little bit better.  So you
04  may be asked, from time to time, to pull the mikes a little
05  bit closer.  It probably won't pick you up where they are
06  situated right now.  As each of you speak, you will have to
07  pull it forward.
08       The Court Reporter ­­ standard practice, when you bring
09  your panels up to all parties, I presume you are going to go
10  through an introduction and full information about each
11  witness. 
12       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Yes, I am.
13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please bear that in mind, everybody.
14  I know you normally do that anyway, but just as a reminder.  
15                            ­­­oOo­­­
16                        DIRECT EXAMINATION
18                        BY MR. BIRMINGHAM
19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Kavounas, good morning.   Would you
20  please state and spell your full name.
21       MR. KAVOUNAS:  My name is Peter Kavounas.   Spelled
22  K­a­v­o­u­n­a­s.
23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Kavounas, when the Department
24  submitted a Notice of Intent to Appear, you provided me with
25  a copy of your resume; is that correct? 
01       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct. 
02       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  This is submitted as R­DWP Exhibit 1;
03  is that correct? 
04       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct.
05       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I would like to refer you to R­DWP­24.
06  Is that direct testimony that you prepared for submission to
07  the Board?
08       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct.
09       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Would you, please, take a few moments
10  and state for the Board your background and qualifications.
11       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board,
12  thank you for the opportunity to be here.  My name is Peter
13  Kavounas.  I am a civil engineering associate for the
14  Department of Water and Power.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Excuse me, Mr. Kavounas.
16       Can you hear the gentlemen in the back of the room?     
17       You need to pull the mike around.  Maybe you need to
18  turn it up a little more, Mr. Anton, or whoever normally
19  does. 
20       Thank you, Mr. Johns.
21                  (Discussion held off record.)         
22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please proceed, sir.
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am a civil engineer by education.  I
24  work for the Department of Water and Power as a civil
25  engineering associate.  My role in this has been to
01  coordinate the preparation of the plans for Department.  I
02  am not going to take much time from this panel.  The process
03  that we followed and the assumptions that the Department
04  made are all explained in my written testimony.  I'll let
05  that stand as is, and I will be available for
06  cross­examination.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir.
08       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Before I move on to other members of
09  the panel, Mr. Kavounas, the Department submitted a number
10  of exhibits:  R­DWP­15, which is an executive summary; 
11  R­DWP­16, which is a stream, a Stream Channel Restoration
12  Plan; R­DWP­17, which is an appendix to the stream and
13  Stream Channel Restoration Plan; R­DWP­18, which is a Grant
14  Lake Operation Management Plan;  R­DWP­19, which is an
15  appendix to the Grant Lake Operation Management Plan;
16  R­DWP­20, which is a Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Plan;
17  R­DWP­21, which is comment in response to comments on the
18  draft Stream Restoration Plan and Waterfowl Habitat
19  Restoration Plan; R­DWP­22, which is a plan for monitoring
20  the recovery of the Mono Basin streams, White Book;
21  R­DWP­23, which is a plan for monitoring the recovery of the
22  Mono Basin streams, Blue Book.
23       Are those the plans which are the subject of the
24  hearing before the Board today? 
25       MR. KAVOUNAS: To my knowledge, yes.
01       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Next, I would like to move to Brian
02  Tillemans. 
03       Mr. Tillemans, would you briefly state your background
04  and then provide a brief oral summary of the written
05  testimony which has been submitted.
06       MR. TILLEMANS:  Good morning.  My name is Brian
07  Tillemans.  I have been a biologist with the Department of
08  Water and Power for approximately 15 years, since 1981.  I
09  have been living entirely in the northern district.  DWP
10  owns approximately 300,000 acres of watershed in both the
11  Owens River Watersheds and the Mono Basin.  With that I have
12  dealt with a multitude of fishery and wildlife and water
13  resource issues, during the course of my career. 
14       I am currently closely involved with several stream
15  enhancement projects designed to improve riparian fishery
16  habitats in our lands, and I have been involved with the
17  Mono Basin restoration efforts since the very beginning, and
18  I have spent a lot of time on the creeks, probably as much
19  as anyone, if not more, in Mono Basin tributaries.
20       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Exhibit R­DWP­25 is a document
21  entitled Direct Testimony of Brian Tillemans on Mono Basin
22  Stream and Stream Channel Restoration Plan. 
23       Is that document the written direct testimony which you
24  prepared concerning the stream and Stream Channel
25  Restoration Plan?
01       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes.
02       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Would you briefly summarize that
03  testimony?
04       MR. TILLEMANS:  I assisted Peter Kavounas in the
05  coordination and development of LADWP's Stream Restoration
06  Plans.  Our goal is to restore, preserve and protect the
07  fisheries in Rush, Lee Vining, Parker, and Walker Creeks, as
08  well at fulfill our obligations under Decision 1631.
09       My written testimony stands as is.  In addition to my
10  involvement with Mono Basin restoration efforts since day
11  one, I am currently involved with several ongoing stream
12  enhancement projects within the Eastern Sierra region and
13  outside the Mono Basin.  LADWP's philosophy in each of those
14  projects begins with sound flow and land management
15  practices, similar to the Department's Mono Basin's plans.
16       This provides nature with the best feasible tools to
17  facilitate natural recovery processes.  LADWP has already
18  produced excellent habitat improvements with the Long Valley
19  riparian livestock programs in Long Valley, on McGee,
20  Convict, and Mammoth Creeks.  And DWP has just initiated a
21  similar project on the Upper Owens River.  All these streams
22  are tributary to Crowley Lake. 
23       Sound flow management practices utilized in the old
24  Owens Gorge River rewatering project have resulted in 
25  explosion of riparian growth and establishment of productive
01  fishery in just a very short time frame.
02       In the southern Owens Valley, DWP plans to implement an
03  Owens River project that is based on holistic management,
04  and founded on proper flow and land management.  Because the
05  positive and successful results have been observed in the
06  many  projects within the Owens River shed and because of
07  the tremendous recovery I have observed on the Mono Basin
08  tributaries to date, I am confident that our restoration
09  plans, utilizing the same basic philosophies of the other
10  projects, will produce quality streams and an overall
11  fishery that will be better than pre­DWP fisheries.       
12  LADWP plans to facilitate naturally recovery processes,
13  resulting in resilient, high quality streams, that man
14  cannot duplicate with artificial measures.
15       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Tillemans, the Department of Water
16  and Power has submitted a number of photographs or collages
17  that have been identified as R­DWP­37 through R­DWP­54.      
18       Are those photos of Rush Creek?
19       MR. TILLEMANS:  Rush, yes, they are.
20       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Were those photos taken by you?
21       MR. TILLEMANS:   Yes, they were.
22       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Can you tell us when you took these
23  photographs?
24       MR. TILLEMANS:  Those photographs were taken June of
25  this past summer, June 1996.
01       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  There are a series of photographs that
02  are identified as R­DWP­55 through R­DWP­62.  Are those
03  photos of Lee Vining Creek, which you took?
04       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, they are.
05       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Were they taken approximately the same
06  time that the photos of Rush Creek?
07       MR. TILLEMANS:  That's correct.
08       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  And R­DWP­63 are photos of Rush Creek
09  at the fish hatchery site; is that correct?
10       MR. TILLEMANS:  That's correct.
11       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  You are familiar with the fish
12  hatchery site?
13       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes. 
14       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  The photos that are contained in
15  R­DWP­63, are those representatives of the condition of the
16  stream at the fish hatchery site on the dates indicated in
17  those photos?
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes they are.
19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Next, I would introduce to the Board,
20  or reintroduce to the Board, Robert Beschta.  Dr. Beschta is
21  a professor from Oregon. 
22       And Dr. Beschta ­­
23       MR. TILLEMANS:  Excuse me, I was going to do the
24  pictorial exhibits now for my part. 
25       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me.  I am sorry that I
01  interrupted.  Please go ahead.
02       MR. TILLEMANS:  Some of you may not have had an
03  opportunity to see the creeks as of late.  There are a lot
04  of things that happened out there.  So, as part of my
05  pictorial exhibit, I wanted to attempt to bring the creeks
06  to the Board.  It is also intended to use as a complimentary
07  to the other panel members' testimony.  I think the most
08  important thing here is to observe the natural recovery that
09  is occurring out there and a very positive trend that these
10  systems are showing, as we speak. 
11       My first, R­DWP­63, is a sequel taken at Rush Creek at
12  the fishing hatchery site, in the lower portion of Rush
13  Creek.  The reason why I brought these photos in was that
14  the series of photos from 1986 showing a very blown out
15  stream, very poor condition, little vegetation, and it shows
16  a series of what has happened since '86 to October 1991 to
17  September 1993.  And this is a shot taken in August of
18  1995.
19       And, basically, I would like to put this up to
20  demonstrate how vegetation has come back within Rush Creek. 
21  In 1991 the Department of Water and Power instituted a
22  grazing moratorium on Rush Creek.  This allowed the younger
23  plants to establish.  They are very palatable and edible to
24  the sheep that occupied the floodplain.  They eat those very
25  quick.
01       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me, Brian.
02       Are members of the Board able to see those photographs?
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We can see then, and we have the
04  smaller copies, as well.
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  The important aspect is that this is
06  ­­ basically, these photos here are from the same photo
07  site, and it depicts the vegetation has come back within the
08  site here.  Again, this is when we initiated the grazing
09  moratorium, and you can see the abundant vegetation that has
10  come in here.  Notice this band of willows that started in
11  1991 and notice the progression of how that band of willows
12  has grown and begun to mature.
13       This is a picture taken in August '95, a little bit
14  different lens on this site here, but a close­up of this
15  area, and it shows really how well the streams are coming
16  back, and the potential the streams have to revegetate on
17  their own. 
18       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Mr. Chairman.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero.
20       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Was that part of an
21  affirmative revegetation effort by LADWP?
22       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, it is in terms of passive
23  restoration measures.  We have taken one of the dominant
24  treatments that we have applied.  The treatments have been
25  removal of grazing that has brought about the change.
01       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Were there plantings of
02  willows that took place ­­
03       MR. TILLEMANS:  No, no artificial measures whatsoever.
04       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  What is the balance of the
05  vegetation beyond the willows in front of the line ­­
06       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Del Piero, Dr. Kauffman, who is
07  the witness that will testify on the recovery of riparian
08  vegetation, can offer some very specific information in
09  response to that question.
10       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Thank you.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  This is not directed at Mr. Del
12  Piero.  I know he is very expert on this, just presents an
13  opportunity.  We, as Board Members, should probably try to
14  hold our questions.  We will have a questioning period for
15  the Board Members.  I may not have been very clear on that. 
16  I don't think I mentioned it at all, frankly.  I apologize
17  for to my fellow Board Members for that.   
18       Please, proceed, sir.
19       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is my next exhibit, R­DWP­46, and
20  this is a ­­ I purposely took sequels so that I could show
21  you more of a panoramic what was going on within a reach,
22  rather than an isolated snapshot, and, basically, this is
23  here in the bottomlands of Rush Creek.  It is in area of
24  what we would call the 4Bii complex.  And the important
25  thing to note here is if you notice this sagebrush and 
01  rabbitbrush, which is a xeric, desert­type vegetation
02  community that previously exists on the Rush Creek
03  bottomland.  It is now dying off and is being replaced by
04  more wetland obligate­type plants, plants that are dependent
05  on the presence of a high water table. 
06       The importance of this is it shows a very positive
07  indicator of what is occurring out there, that what we were
08  doing in terms of rewatering and our land management is
09  bringing a rise in the water table and sending this towards
10  the transition of riparian vegetation. 
11       Again, down in here, you see the rabbitbrush and the
12  sage, what­have­you, the side out being replaced by sedges. 
13  In some cases we even have horsetail, which is a plant very
14  dependent on water.  Also, large sediment deposition has
15  flowed within this reach.  These, here, are seeds that have
16  occurred.  I was trying to show the seeds in the air at this
17  point, but the camera didn't bring it out.  The important
18  thing is a lot of sediment deposition and a lot of good
19  areas for potential riparian recruitment.
20       This next reach here is, basically, a little above the
21  4Bii complex.
22       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me, Mr. Tillemans.   "This reach
23  here" doesn't tell us what you are referring to.  Could you
24  refer to it by an exhibit number?
25       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is R­DWP­45, and this is a little
01  bit above the 4Bii complex, taken from the east side of the
02  rough.  You notice the riparian area here, a highly diverse
03  vegetation occurring within the flood plan.  The cottonwood
04  has really taken off and shows tremendous growth rates in
05  this reach.  Continuous quarter, very wide wetland,
06  floodplain vegetation occurring. 
07       Again, witness the xeric plants that are being forced
08  out; more and more water dependent plants are occurring. 
09  This is in a site where we plan on doing some rewatering. 
10  Prior to going out there, there was already water flowing in
11  this reach.  In fact, there was a strand of fish in this one
12  little section.  This channel was flowing in '95, as well as
13  '96.
14       MEMBER BROWN:  That is the main channel?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is not the main channel.   This is
16  the secondary channel off the main.
17       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me, Mr. Tillemans.   The channel
18  that you just referred to, is that a channel which has been
19  described as a secondary, overflow channel that historically
20  existed?
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, it is.
22       This section here is down by where we would call the
23  only site that has been treated in the bottomland of Rush
24  Creek.
25       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Chairman, I don't know what exhibit he
01  is referring to.
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please denote your exhibit as you
03  change sheets there.
04       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is R­DWP­47.
05       And this is a picture that is taken in the Channel 10
06  vicinity above what the only treated site in Rush Creek
07  bottomlands that we call the Harden Oxbow.  Basically, what
08  I wanted to know here in the depressional areas, you do have
09  wetland, dependent vegetation coming on.  That is because
10  the water table is rising.  You have xeric vegetation being
11  forced out, again.  You have tremendous ­­ as the channels
12  gain sinuosity, you are now replacing those inner banks with
13  riparian vegetation and deplacing xeric vegetation or dryer
14  vegetation over here.
15       And all the old oxbows have come back with tremendous
16  explosion of willows and little pockets of wetland.  So,
17  some very positive things happening out there.
18       Okay.  This is R­DWP­42.  Moving up the stream and
19  still in Rush Creek bottomland, this is in the vicinity of
20  ­­ I'm a little bit confused on how to call this channel. 
21  This is either Channel 4A or 1A.  It is the first channel
22  that is intended to be rewatered that was identified in
23  Ridenhour, Trush's and Hunter's plan.  This, as you see
24  here, is flowing the type of hyper flows.  Tremendous
25  wetlands were coming in within here. 
01       This bottom panoramic depicts the view of riparian
02  floodplain that occurs in the bottomlands.  The best habitat
03  already that I know of in the Eastern Sierra on our lands,
04  anywhere really.
05       This right here is a picture of the main channel.   This
06  is in a section that, in my opinion, is almost fully
07  recovered, has mature trees.  Kind of hung in there from the
08  beginning, even during the dewatering process.  If you
09  notice, this picture here depicts a very dynamic system. 
10  Because as we were out there, not only was that channel I
11  showed in the previous exhibit going dry, but the main
12  channel almost dewatered temporarily.  There was a large
13  cottonwood and a debris jam that fell in the water up above
14  here, and the flood was moving around.  So, these are very
15  dynamic systems, and pools and the canopies are closing in,
16  pools are forming.  A lot of great things are occurring out
17  in this floodplain.
18       Okay.  Now we move ­­ this is R­DWP­39.   We move above
19  Highway 395.  This is in Reach 3A, 3B, this vicinity.  I
20  wanted to move up the creek and show you the positive trends
21  are occurring not only in the bottomlands, but above, as
22  well.  Again, up here, you see this is the level that is
23  called the A ditch, declivity.  You have a tremendous growth
24  that has occurred on the vegetation, tremendous  
25  recruitment of riparian meadows.  You notice the signature,
01  obligate wetland species dependent on the high water table,
02  is really prevalent in this section.  Again, it is showing
03  some very positive trends and the potential natural
04  recovery.  I guess the important point here, too, is it is
05  very hard to duplicate this.  And nature has a tremendous
06  ability to produce a very high diversity, something that is
07  very relished by wildlife, as well.  That is the important
08  thing.
09       Rather than going out and trying to duplicate this with
10  some artificial measures, if you give nature the tools to
11  work with, this is the type of great products you can
12  produce.  That is why I brought this in. 
13       Again, this was flowing in '95 and in '96.  I flew
14  these creeks, during the high flows in a helicopter.  This
15  is an area that was intended for rewatering or removal of a
16  berm up above.  These were flowing, and almost down to the
17  point where we have another channel intended to be water,
18  which was in Reach 3B section. 
19       Again, the important point is now a trend towards
20  species that are dependent upon high water table and some
21  high diversity and very positive trend occurring out there.
22       This type of phenomenon is ­­ this is R­DWP Exhibit
23  55, and this type of phenomenon is not isolated to Rush and
24  Lee Vining Creeks.  But this is a type of situation that is
25  occurring on Lee Vining Creek, as well.  It may be a little
01  bit slow in coming, but it is really starting to take off. 
02  The last time I testified at these hearings, we were coming
03  out of a domination of a seven­year drought, basically.  I
04  think it was highly underestimated, the potential for these
05  creeks to come back.  Now that we have had an opportunity to
06  have a couple of above normal years, and with good land
07  management and sheep not being on the floodplains, we've had
08  tremendous recruitment of depressional wetlands coming in. 
09  It looks like the water table is rising, based on the
10  occurrence of vegetation. 
11       We have taken the limiter logs off the previously side 
12  channels.  This is basically a limiter log on the A1
13  channel, and it limited the flow into the secondary channel
14  off the main channel. 
15       Now that we have those off, there is no limitation of
16  flows coming down areas that are off in little side
17  channels, can now be rewatered.  It took off within a very
18  short period, and you have some great riparian recruitment
19  and wetlands coming in.  That has been a very positive
20  benefit to these creeks. 
21       Lee Vining Creek here, if you notice these influvial
22  areas, a couple years ago I can tell you, when you walked
23  out here, it was dominated by sage, grayish and like desert
24  vegetation.  If you walk through this area now in shorts,
25  you get scratched because of wild rose and many of the
01  plants coming in that are more indicators of this water
02  table that is rising. 
03       This is in the section up in here A2, A3, A4 sections. 
04  This is below the town of Lee Vining, but in the upper
05  section of previously degraded Lee Vining Creek.
06       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Tillemans, you referred a moment
07  ago to a limiter log.  Was the limiter log a log that
08  occurred there naturally? 
09       MR. TILLEMANS:  No.  It was placed there by previous
10  restoration efforts.
11       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is R­DWP­60.  This is moving down
12  Lee Vining Creek.  I have tried to pick some of my more
13  representative sites so, in the interest of time, but this
14  is in section 3B, a little bit lower down Lee Vining Creek. 
15  You notice here the tremendous cottonwoods are coming in, 
16  very good growth rates that we've witnessed here out on
17  streams. 
18       This, here, is an untreated channel.  There has been
19  extensive, artificial measures occurring on lower Lee Vining
20  Creek already to date.  This was untreated channel called
21  the B2 channel.  We had to fight for this channel to leave
22  it untreated to show that the control, what nature can do. 
23  It is a very complex channel, secondary channel off the main
24  channel.  You see here the wetlands coming in, the dominance
25  of riparian and wetland obligate vegetation, and there's
01  really tremendous value to wildlife, as well as, probably,
02  juvenile fish.
03       Again, down here on the bottom, this is basically a
04  panoramic within this reach.  What it shows is, again,
05  previously this area was dominated by xeric and dry 
06  vegetation.  You can still see remnants of sagebrush and
07  other dry dominated plants on higher terraces up here.  You
08  can see off the main channel, within the depressional areas,
09  now there is a transition to roses and wetland vegetation,
10  and a very positive indicator that, although this may be a
11  little slow in coming, you do have a rising water table and
12  vegetation responding accordingly, and things are coming
13  along quite well on Lee Vining Creek. 
14       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Does that conclude your testimony?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes.
16       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Thank you, Mr. Tillemans.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero.
18       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Mr. Birmingham, who is going
19  to speak to the sustainment? 
20       MR. BIRMINGHAM: There are a number of witnesses that
21  can speak to that.  Dr. Kauffman can speak to it.  Dr.
22  Beschta can speak to it.
23       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Are they going to address it
24  in this part of the testimony?
25       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Yes.
01       MR. DODGE:  I did not hear.
02       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  I asked who was going to speak
03  to the issue of sustainment. 
04       MR. DODGE:  Thank you.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Johns, is there a way with our
06  audio system to turn up the mikes at the dais? 
07       MR. JOHNS:  No, not a simple way.  We can ­­
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You might hike it up a little bit
09  more.  I do suspect Mr. Birmingham is not being picked up
10  very well in the back of the room.
11       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am confident no one in the back of
12  the room is interested in what I have to say.
13       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  That is only true of me, Mr.
14  Birmingham, not you.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please proceed, Mr. Birmingham.  Do
16  the best we can here.
17       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I was going to observe earlier.  I
18  would gladly trade Mr. Dodge all of my procedural victories
19  for the substantive victories that ­­  I will stipulate to
20  all those procedural victories.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham, while I have you
22  between witnesses, we have been at it an hour and a half. 
23  What do you think about taking a break now?
24       MR. BIRMINGHAM: That would be fine.
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let's take about a five minute
01  break, and then we will come back and proceed with your
02  next witness.
03                          (Break taken.)
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham, are you ready to
05  resume? 
06       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right, sir, please proceed.
08       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  The next witness I would like to
09  introduce to the Board, or reintroduce, is Robert Beschta.  
10       Dr. Beschta, you've provided us with a copy of your
11  Curriculum Vitae; is that correct? 
12       DR. BESCHTA:  Previously I have, yes.
13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  That was submitted to the Board as
14  R­DWP­4; is that correct? 
15       DR. BESCHTA:  I suspect it is.  I don't have the
16  number.
17       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Would you briefly, very briefly,
18  describe your background and then summarize the written
19  testimony that was submitted by the Department of Water and
20  Power as Exhibit Number R­DWP­27?
21       DR. BESCHTA:  Yes, I will.  My background is that of a
22  professor of forest hydrology.  I am at Oregon State
23  University, and have been there for about the last 20
24  years.  My position there in involves teaching, research,
25  and extension activities.  Teaching involves courses such as
01  watershed management, watershed processes, snow hydrology,
02  watershed analysis.  I am involved in other types of courses
03  and workshops from wetland hydrology to erosion and
04  sedimentation.
05       I have been involved in a wide number of research
06  projects in both arid land conditions and in forest
07  settings, working on such aspects as stream temperature,
08  water quality, channel morphology, sediment transport, 
09  riparian vegetation, effects of management activities; and I
10  have been involved with the Mono Basin Stream since about
11  1991.        
12       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Would you go ahead and summarize your
13  direct testimony, which as I say, was submitted to the Board
14  as R­DWP­27.
15       DR. BESCHTA:  Before I start, one very brief  
16  correction, and it is to the title of Table 2, which is on
17  Page 5, and that is a table which is looking at peak flows,
18  yet the title talks about base flows.  That word has to be
19  changed in the title.
20       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Thank you.
21       DR. BESCHTA:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board,
22  before discussing several technical issues related to my
23  testimony, I would like to present a few overview comments.
24       Most importantly, I would like to refirm my general
25  support of the philosophy and approaches that LADWP has 
01  pursued in developing a Stream Channel Restoration Plan for
02  Mono Basin Streams.  This philosophy is based on sound
03  ecological principles and, generally, represents the intent
04  of term "restoration" as defined by the National Research
05  Council in 1992.
06       In that definition, the NRC indicated that restoration
07  is "a reestablishment of predisturbance of aquatic functions
08  and related physical, chemical, and biological
09  characteristics.  It is a holistic process, not achieved by
10  the isolated manipulation of any individual elements."
11       With this working definition, the reestablishment of a
12  flow regime that mimics the hydrologic characteristics of
13  Eastern Sierra streams and the long­term exclusion of
14  grazing are a fundamental importance.  These two features
15  alone provide for the reestablishment of a dynamic flow
16  regime and maximize the interactions between flow,
17  vegetation, and sediment transport to develop self­sustained
18  stream systems with healthy riparian plant communities and
19  high quality fisheries habitat.
20       I would like to just briefly hit upon several technical
21  issues with regard to my testimony, in four general areas. 
22  One is with regard to flow regimes. 
23       To specify a flow regime, one must normally worry about
24  the magnitude, duration, frequency, timing of flows.  In
25  this case I've compared the historical impaired base flows
01  for Rush Creek above Grant Lake with those that LADWP
02  proposes to release into Rush Creek below Grant Lake.  Based
03  on my analysis, the proposed base flow releases will be
04  approximately 4 cfs with a long­term average of 53 cfs. 
05  Those results are in Table 1 of my written testimony. 
06       With regard to flows needed to support riparian plant
07  communities and channel morphology, I also undertook a brief
08  analysis of the flows proposed by LADWP.  In that analysis,
09  I simply compared the proposed peak flows with the long­term
10  frequency distribution of impaired peak flows over the
11  period 1941 to 1990, roughly a half century.
12       Results are in Table 2 and Figure 1 of my written
13  testimony.  For the dry, dry­normal, and extreme wet year
14  types, the peak flows proposed by LADWP are less than the
15  unimpaired flows.  However, for the normal one, normal two,
16  wet­normal, and wet year types, the proposed peak flows are
17  greater than the unimpaired flows.
18       When the full distribution of peak flows is considered,
19  the peak flows proposed by LADWP are, on average, one
20  percent higher than the unimpaired peak flows.  Thus, it is
21  my opinion that the overall flow regime of base flows and
22  peak flows, as proposed by LADWP in February of '96, are
23  capable of restoring, preserving, and protecting streams,
24  riparian vegetation, and fisheries of the Mono Basin
25  Streams.
01       The second item I would like to briefly mention is that
02  of rewatering of other channels.  The diversion of water
03  from the main channel will likely increase the total area in
04  riparian vegetation.  This may have significant effects and
05  benefits to riparian wildlife, but may do little to improve
06  instream habitat for fish. 
07       I would suggest, however, that there is one important
08  exception to this generalization, and it involves the large
09  meander near the Rush Creek ford.  The historical channel
10  comprising the "old meander" became disconnected from Rush
11  Creek sometime after 1940.  Diverting water into the old
12  meander channel, which is in excess of 1,300 feet, and
13  perhaps represents the longest dewatered historical channel
14  present today, would be a significant addition to the
15  riparian and fisheries resources of Rush Creek.
16       The third topic is that of sediment bypass.   My written
17  testimony in this hearing, and previously, has been in
18  support of developing a system to bypass sediment at the Lee
19  Vining, Walker, and Parker Creek diversion structures.  I am
20  still supportive of that goal.  However, I also realize that
21  bypassing sediment involves a host of ecological and
22  engineering issues.  Thus, I am not yet sure, in my mind, as
23  to the appropriate technical solution for passing sediment
24  at each of the three diversions. 
25       I've heard various alternatives, and right at this
01  point in time, I don't have an opinion as what is the right
02  way to go.
03       The fourth topic is one which I have generalized as
04  calling it human interventions in the restoration process. 
05  A wide variety of human intervention and activities have
06  been either been proposed, have been initiated, or in some
07  cases completed with the hope of restoring some aspect of
08  the aquatic or riparian system associated with the Mono
09  Basin Streams.  These interventions include such activities
10  as installing limiter logs, which you have seen a picture
11  of, adding spawning gravel, constructing bar channels,
12  removing sod, excavating sediment from channels,
13  constructing mainstream and side channel pools, irrigating
14  uplands and distributaries in an attempt to increase the
15  flow of water to springs, adding large amounts of organic,
16  of large woody debris, planting vegetation or limiting high
17  flows.
18       Some of the practices were proposed whereas others
19  were widely implemented.  Nevertheless, essentially, all of
20  these practices have or would likely have a little to no
21  ecological benefits to the riparian aquatic system in the
22  Mono Basin Streams.  In fact, many of the interventions that
23  have taken place were actually detrimental to the
24  establishment of vegetation and to the improvement of
25  channel morphology. 
01       Even the practice of rewatering side channels, because 
02  it usually involves significant disruption of vegetation in
03  existing channels, has likely had little or not positive
04  effects on instream fisheries habitat. 
05       In conclusion, at this point in time, I guess, I hope
06  and trust that the era of trying to accomplish ecological
07  restoration, using only engineering insights and heavy
08  equipment, will have a declining emphasis in the Mono Basin. 
09  The important focus, with regard to restoring the Mono Basin
10  Streams and the riparian areas, is not the number of
11  projects we can create, but whether we have reestablished
12  the appropriate disturbance regime for streams and the
13  riparian systems and whether we have removed those land
14  uses or human activities that significantly impede
15  recovery.
16       Two essential elements, the establishment of flows and
17  the removal of grazing, not only are the foundation of the
18  LADWP plan, but will provide the greatest long­term benefits
19  to the fishery resources of the Mono Basin Streams.
20       I would like to very briefly show a couple of poster
21  boards and that would conclude my testimony.                
22       What we have here is labeled as Exhibit Number 43,
23  R­DWP­43.  This is a series of photographs that was taken in
24  the springs area of Rush Creek.  It is below the Narrows. 
25  It is an area where ­­ it is really a panorama.  The
01  pictures are separate, but you can look in the upper series
02  of photos, there is a panorama across.  The middle series is
03  a panorama, and the third series is also.  They could all be
04  joined together. 
05       They basically show the streams area, and you can
06  notice that there is a relatively significant amount of
07  lush, green vegetation.  There are places where sagebrush is
08  dying out.  We have obligate, wetland plants growing
09  throughout this area, and there was flowing water in the
10  middle of June of 1996.  And I was on the site on the day
11  that Brian took these particular pictures.  So, I had a
12  chance to see this particular ­­ this is important because
13  of the rewatering of the stream systems that is occurring. 
14  We are getting natural flow in many of the spring systems
15  that we formerly thought were shut off and never see water
16  again.  We are beginning to see water.  This is probably one
17  of the most dramatic examples.  What is also showing up are
18  the toe slopes along the Rush Creek bottomlands.
19       The next exhibit that I have here is Exhibit R­DWP­48,
20  and it just represents an example of some vegetation channel
21  responses that are occurring in the system.  My background
22  is in hydrology/geomorphology.  I am interested in what
23  riparian vegetation does to stream. 
24       Here we have an area; we are in the bottomland.   We
25  have willows coming in on both sides of the channel.  We
01  have willows being established in the middle of the channel. 
02  It is already trapping floatable organic debris.  It will
03  build a mid­channel bar at some point.  This is how channels
04  can be narrowed.  This vegetation plays a very important
05  role in also building pools in the system. 
06       The picture in the middle, here in the lower left,
07  shows extensive seed production taking place.  One of the
08  concerns very early on was that there was not enough
09  opportunity for natural seeding.  There is plenty of seed in
10  the system.  This shows a bit of canopy overstoring into the
11  channel.  We have undercut banks occurring over here on the
12  very right­hand side.  There are ravels that are very
13  apparent.
14       So, there is a diversity of things going on here, and
15  it involves the interaction of flows and vegetation and
16  sediment and transport.
17       Just one more exhibit, and this one is R­DWP­41.   The
18  upper three pictures are taken from the Narrows, looking to
19  the left.  Here I am looking downstream into the
20  bottomlands.  One can see the cottonwood and willow
21  establishment throughout.  To the right is looking up
22  channel.  Again, you can see a gallery forest of cottonwoods
23  very pronounced along here.  And one of the diversions,
24  proposed diversion channels, is in this area upstream of the
25  Narrows.
01       The middle three pictures here are, again, down into
02  the bottomlands.  They are looking at an area near the
03  vicinity or upstream of the hard meander, which most people
04  know where that's at.  We have here willow vegetation, again
05  coming in.  You can see here a bar which is unvegetated, but
06  accumulating floatable debris.  We can see accumulating 
07  floatable debris over here. 
08       The point is, and one of the reasons I have been
09  emphasizing the role of riparian vegetation for the last
10  five years since I have been here, is that this is the key
11  to what makes these channels work.  This is where leaf 
12  litter comes in.  It is organic matter for invertebrates in
13  streams.  This is where floatable, woody material comes in,
14  which is incredibly important in regard to channel
15  morphology process.  It's the vegetation that is providing
16  root strength to hold these channel banks and beds together,
17  in some cases, and it is the way we get undercut banks.  It
18  is the way we get shade.  So, there is a multitude of things
19  going on in these three pictures that we can spend a lot of
20  time on.
21       My very last picture on this particular exhibit, on 41
22  here, reinforces the idea of the springs.  One of the
23  concerns throughout here is that you have to rewater
24  everything to get water someplace else.  This is a meadow
25  system which was at one time occupied extensively by
01  rabbitbrush and sagebrush, which is an arid land species in
02  the great basin.  It is being replaced by obligate wetland
03  plants.  We have willows and we have sedges in here. 
04       This last overlay here is downstream of these middle
05  series of pictures here.  Again, it demonstrates that there
06  is a subsurface activity taking place here, which we thought
07  would occur through time, and is now beginning to
08  demonstrate itself throughout many of the areas in both Rush
09  and Lee Vining Creeks.  It is one example.  We can look at a
10  lot more.  I have chosen these to kind of illustrate and  be
11  representative of some principles and processes taking
12  place.
13       That concludes my testimony.
14       MS. GOLDSMITH:  Thank you, Dr. Beschta.
15       For our next witness, Department of Water and Power
16  calls Dr. Boone Kauffman. 
17       Dr. Kauffman, would you please spell your name for the
18  reporter? 
19       DR. KAUFFMAN:  It is K­a­u­f­f­m­a­n.  
20       MS. GOLDSMITH:  Thank you.
21       Exhibit 5, in the list of exhibits, is a statement of
22  your qualification; is that correct?
23       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I suspect so. 
24       MS. GOLDSMITH:  Would you give us a little background
25  to introduce yourself? 
01       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Currently I am an Associate Professor of
02  Ecology in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at
03  Oregon State University, and I have been a professor for
04  almost 11 years.  I got my Ph.D. in wild land resource
05  science at University of California at Berkeley. 
06       At Oregon State, I currently teach graduate and
07  undergraduate courses in preparing ecology and management,
08  wetland ecology, and in fisheries and wildlife
09  conservation.  My research includes 19 years of riparian
10  ecology and restoration research.  My studies have been
11  conducted principally in Oregon, but also Idaho, Utah,
12  California, as well as in some of the tropical rivering
13  systems of Mexico and the Amazon Basin. 
14       I have been involved with the Mono Basin restoration
15  since 1991, and currently we looking at an analysis ­­ some
16  of our research is an analysis of vegetation change through
17  time on Rush Creek, and on this subject I have authored well
18  over 100 papers.
19       MS. GOLDSMITH:  Thank you.
20       Dr. Kauffman, is Exhibit R­DWP­28 an accurate
21  presentation of your testimony?
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, it is.
23       MS. GOLDSMITH:  Would you please summarize it for us?
24       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Sure.  And, generally, I would just like
25  to voice that I support the tone of the LADWP restoration
01  plan.  I would like to cover four points that are
02  particularly important in my testimony. 
03       The first one is the adequacy of flows for vegetation
04  recovery, the revegetation needs, artificial revegetation
05  needs, the need and the ecology of large woody debris, and
06  the possible negative influences if an ecological approach
07  is not taken.  And this, unfortunately, has been the case,
08  particularly for some of the instream enhancements and
09  channel rewatering projects in the past.
10       I think that ­­ I do applaud L.A. Water and Power's
11  overall goal to develop functional and self­sustaining
12  stream ecosystem with healthy riparian ecosystem
13  components.  Clearly, the most important steps have been the
14  implementation of adequate flows and flow regimes and the
15  cessation of livestock grazing.  These restoration
16  approaches have resulted in dramatic increases in both the
17  biological and structural diversity of the Mono Basin
18  riparian ecosystems, similar.  And I think that is similar
19  to what the National Research Council talks about goals to
20  riparian restoration. 
21       These actions do embody the accepted scientific
22  definition of restoration, such as natural dynamic ecosystem
23  processes are again operating efficiently so the ecosystem
24  structure and functions can be recovered. 
25       The natural areas of reestablishment of willows and
01  cottonwood and riparian obligate vegetation, whether they be
02  meadows, wetlands, along the Mono Basin tributaries is among
03  the highest that I have seen on any riparian ecosystem in
04  the Western United States.  It really is quite phenomenal.  
05       So we can ask ourselves:  Is artificial revegetation
06  needed on this creek?  And I give resounding no.  And I say
07  this for a variety of reasons.  One is the natural
08  revegetation rate is recurring at a far greater diversity
09  and density than we could ever artificially revegetate a
10  site. 
11       Second of all is the probability of failure of
12  artificial revegetation has all but certainly would be a
13  failure, would see very high rates of mortality, very slow
14  growth rates, malformation of the vegetative species, and
15  they're simply not self­perpetuating or sustainable.
16       I would also look at the caused by damage machine
17  planting, likely causes more damage to the ecosystem than it
18  would ameliorate if it were successful.  Then, even so, if
19  it were successful, their influence on the riparian zone
20  recovery is negligible, given this recovery. 
21       If I could, I would like to just show you a brief ­­ if
22  I could look at the overhead, can I show you an overhead
23  real quickly of just what we mean. 
24       MS. GOLDSMITH:  Mr. Caffrey, can we have a brief period
25  while we set up the equipment. 
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  By all means.
02       DR. KAUFFMAN:  What we have here is based on low level
03  aerial photography analysis and intensive ground proofing 
04  ­­ we literally visited every stand of vegetation on Rush
05  Creek greater than one meter in diameter over the last
06  summer ­­ and plotted this on GIS and looked at the changes
07  of vegetation since 1987.  And what I would like to do is,
08  very briefly, give you an idea of what the ecosystem looked
09  like in 1987, where the vast majority of the area was
10  dominated by under­vegetated, unconsolidated alluvium and
11  upland species, sagebrush, bitterbrush, et cetera, and
12  approximately 18 percent of the bottomlands of the entire
13  riparian zone was in willow and cottonwood. 
14       Just by comparison sake, we can look at the recovery in
15  1996.  One can see that the unconsolidated alluvium now is
16  less than half, about 15 percent, where it was 31 percent of
17  the entire area.  We see the increase in aerial extent of
18  willow and cottonwoods; willows with a 50 percent increase
19  through time, now occupying almost 30 percent of the area. 
20  Less xeric upland species than what occurred.  Again, a
21  greater increase in riparian wetland communities, as well.  
22       When Brian, when Bob talks about the increases and what
23  their observed increases, clearly that bears itself out, and
24  our analysis of vegetation change through time, as well. 
25  What we do see is in this last ten years with the rewatering
01  and the vegetation, grazing cessation, we are seeing a
02  pretty rapid and remarkable recovery.
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Dr. Kauffman, is there an exhibit
04  number for this? 
05       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No, there is not.
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  This has not been previously
07  submitted? 
08       DR. KAUFFMAN:  The data, the 1996 data, are in the
09  testimony, the 1987. 
10       MR. DODGE:  I believe this exhibit goes beyond his
11  direct testimony. 
12       MR. KAUFFMAN:  I'm sorry, this thing is on fire. 
13       The 1996 ­­
14       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  We will get those after the
15  microphone, right?
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Frink, were you about to say
17  something? 
18       MR. FRINK:  Well, yes, I was, but I may be wrong.  One
19  of the pie charts, at least, is included in Exhibit 28 that
20  the Department of Water and Power submitted.  I am not
21  certain about the second one.
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  1987 is not. 
23       MS. GOLDSMITH:  I have copies for all parties and the
24  Board.  I would like to introduce them as part of Dr.
25  Kauffman's testimony.  If it is necessary, I suppose we can
01  wait until rebuttal.
02       MR. JOHNS:  We have to mark them now.   They have been
03  talked about.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Do you have copies for everybody?
05       MS. GOLDSMITH:  I have copies for everybody.   1996
06  doesn't need to be marked because it was in the direct
07  testimony; is that right, Dr. Kauffman, the 1996 was already
08  in your testimony?
09       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, it was.  There is some modification
10  because the stuff in the book does not include the surface
11  water as part of the percentage.  We have added the surface
12  water, so that does change the percentile of the total area
13  occupied by the various vegetation communities.
14       MS. GOLDSMITH:  Can we consider the slide and
15  reproduction here as a correction to your testimony?
16       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, I would.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let's pass these out.   Let's assign
18  a number tentatively, pass them out for people to look at
19  them, and if there is a problem, they can raise it later
20  on.
21       MR. DODGE:  Am I to understand I am going to get a
22  color copy of both of these?
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Hopefully. 
24       MS. SCOONOVER:  Mr. Caffrey.
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Ms. Scoonover.
01       MS. SCOONOVER:  If we can mark the 1996 with a separate
02  exhibit number since it does differ from the testimony that
03  is contained or the exhibit that is Dr. Kauffman's
04  testimony, to avoid confusion.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  It is a slightly different medium,
06  so to speak, of data that is already in there.  That might
07  not be a bad idea.      
08       MS. GOLDSMITH:  I would suggest then that we mark it
09  R­DWP­28­A.  The second one is the 1987.  The 1987 pie chart
10  would be R­DWP­66.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is staff with us on the numbering?
12       MR. CANADAY:  Yes.
13       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Copies for Board Members?     
14       MS. GOLDSMITH:  There should be one for each of the
15  Board Members.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  They are on their way here.
17       Let me say, just also say, to all the parties and the
18  witnesses that are going to be appearing, to the extent that
19  you have additional information that is not already in the
20  record, that's problematic because we have to make copies,
21  pass it out to everybody else, and then we have to go
22  through and exercise to see if there are objections, because
23  this information is being presented after the date for
24  exhibit submittal.
25       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Excuse me, what are the
01  evidentiary reference numbers on this?
02       MR. CANADAY:  Mr. Del Piero, the ­­
03       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  The 87 is what?
04       MR. CANADAY.  The 1987, which is, in fact, a totally
05  new exhibit, is marked R­LADWP­66.
06       And the modified exhibit that is in Dr. Kauffman's
07  testimony is labeled R­LADWP­28A.
09       MR. CANADAY:  Yes, sir.
10       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Thank you, sir.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Everybody got that?
12       MS. GOLDSMITH:  The bar chart, which is labeled
13  Specific Area by Category from the Rush Creek Riparian Zone,
14  1987 to 1996, would be R­DWP­67. 
15       MS. SCOONOVER:  What bar chart?
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  What bar chart are we talking about? 
17  We don't have a bar chart here.
18       MR. VORSTER:  Someone gave me all these bar charts; I
19  was passing out ­­
20                (Discussion held off the record.)
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We have a bar chart, as well.
22       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Also new? 
23       MR. CANADAY:  Board Members, it should be marked
24  R­DWP­67.
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  The bar chart is 67; is that right?
01       MR. CANADAY:  Yes.
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let me say again what I started to
03  say a moment ago and then Mr. Del Piero interrupted me, not
04  with malice.  It was a proper interruption because he was
05  trying to figure out what we were doing, as was I. 
06       It is important that you keep some order around here to
07  the extent that you don't bring new information or
08  information that is already in the record but cast in a
09  different medium before us.  You can see the difficulty it
10  may present in terms of trying to get it into the record. 
11  What we are going to do this morning is let people mull over
12  this for a while, keep the issue open, and then maybe a
13  little later this after, or perhaps even tomorrow, we will
14  ask if there is any problem with accepting it into the
15  record.
16       Anybody want to give me any other legal advice, Mr.
17  Frink?
18       MR. FRINK:  I believe that is a proper procedure.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham, welcome back. Let
20  the record show you have returned.  What did I miss?
21       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I apologize for the interruption.
22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That's all right.   Please proceed.
23       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I can finish giving my verbal statement. 
24  I apologize for causing a commotion.  It was purely
25  ignorance on my part.
01       The last thing I would like to talk about is that in a
02  perfect world the rewatering of the old channel should have
03  habitat complexity, increase the extent of riparian
04  vegetation, enhance the linkages between the aquatic
05  ecosystem and the riparian zone.  However, many past actions
06  have actually severed the linkages between the aquatic
07  system and the associated riparian vegetation.  I think that
08  just for an example, 4Bii Channel 10 complex is a good
09  examining of the misinterpretation of ecosystem needs. 
10       Here we see, for example, severe mechanical compaction,
11  spoils from side sloping being deposited on sites that
12  historically were dominated by obligate riparian
13  vegetation.  Wetlands were destroyed.  Linkages, between
14  some of these riparian zones and aquatic ecosystems, were
15  severed and a wide channel was simply created. 
16       I can just show you real quickly what I mean by my
17  interpretation of this.  Again, this is Exhibit 49, 
18  R­DWP­49.  What one can see is that as you look at the
19  panorama in the central area, looking downstream, one sees,
20  again, what we are talking about then and what we have
21  analyzed through time.  It is a pretty dramatic increase in
22  the natural recovery of a variety, seven different species.
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Dr. Kauffman, you need to pick up
24  the mike and use it.
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  A variety of willow species.   You do see
01  a great deal of species and structural diversity coming on. 
02  Most of these tree willows and cottonwoods are still
03  small.  There is a long way to go for recovery, just through
04  the growth rate of these species.  In other words, things
05  are only going to get more structurally diverse until one
06  gets to an area of recent manipulation, and that is the
07  Channel 10 complex where, again, the spoils have been
08  deposited in the riparian zone, and we do see a much, much
09  more simplified ecosystem.  Again, what we do see ­­
10       Again, here is just a close­up view of this area where
11  spoils were deposited.  Again, we see this certainly is
12  going to limit the recovery of this site, and we do see the
13  stream channel here coming around and, again, beginning to
14  flood out these areas.  We see numerous areas flooding out
15  without this active vegetation and channel manipulation,
16  such as we have here as well.
17       Just other examples.  Again, some of the influences on
18  the channels.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  This is exhibit number?
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Excuse me.  R­DWP­52.   Again, the
21  Channel 10 complex.  Some of the areas is the steep flow,
22  again the high level from base flow, pretty high flows here,
23  actually, in June to the riparian zone because of the
24  deposition of the spoils will make this area certainly much,
25  much more xeric sight at this site than what would actually
01  occur.  Again, the steep slope, not being very conducive for
02  riparian vegetation, development, simple side channel
03  conducive to cat work within the stream.
04       And then finally, again, some of these, well, may look
05  good on paper and looks good from an engineering
06  perspective.  The destruction of jurisdictional wetlands
07  during the process of these restorations.  The excavation of
08  actual impact established willows to place in other areas. 
09  This is Exhibit 50, R­DWP­50.
10       It is clearly, while the intent of rewatering is a good
11  idea, we need to again take ­­ again I would look at, trying
12  to take an ecological approach, and that should be
13  undertaken to minimize the deleterious effects that have
14  occurred in the past, such as what I am telling you here.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Del Piero.
16       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  What is that? 
17       DR. KAUFFMAN:  The channel rewatering. 
18       What is this?
19       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  You are representing that to
20  be some kind of affirmative effort at restoration.  What is
21  it?  When and where?
22       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Tillemans, maybe you can respond
23  to that?
24       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is in the Channel 10 rewatering
25  project in the bottomland of Rush Creek, and this site here
01  was used where they took buckets of a loader or backhoe and
02  were taking the willows out of this wetland in here and then
03  placing them on the banks of that rewatered section.
04       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  What year? 
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  This was done, I think, in '95, October
06  1995 or ­­
07       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Was '95? 
08       MR. TILLEMANS:  Was it '96?  It was '95.
09       DR. KAUFFMAN:  These photos have been from ­­
10       MR. TILLEMANS:  There have been so many, it's kind of
11  hard to time frame.
12       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  What month in '96?
13       MR. TILLEMANS:  This is in early spring, early summer.
14       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  It was not a full­flooding
15  cycle then that took place between the time the excavation
16  took place and the time these pictures were taken?  Is that
17  correct? 
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  Could you say that again, please?
19       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  It was a dry season between
20  the time this excavation was done and the time these
21  pictures were taken?
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No.  There had been a winter season. 
23  This was ­­ the excavations occurred in October, and then
24  these photos were in May, following high water events.
25       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Did you have a melt by May,
01  or was it still ­­ it was dry?  It was a dry period?
02       DR. BESCHTA:  Winter basin.
03       MR. TILLEMANS:  I won't depict it as a dry period.
04       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  You aren't going to have the
05  flows in December that you have in July or August. 
06       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Chairman, I have an objection to
07  one statement in Dr. Kauffman's testimony.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please state your objection, Mr.
09  Roos­Collins. 
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Kauffman testified that
11  restoration treatments had destroyed jurisdictional
12  wetlands.  I understand that testimony to refer to wetlands
13  under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
14  Los Angeles has not laid a foundation in testimony that
15  jurisdictional wetlands so destroyed.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I hear your objection, although the
17  testimony is what it is.  I would think that would be
18  something that you could bring up in your
19  cross­examination. 
20       Mr. Frink.
21       MR. FRINK:  Well, yes.  I think Los Angeles would
22  probably stipulate that they did not intend to use the
23  jurisdictional wetlands to represent a legal conclusion by
24  Mr. Kauffman. 
25       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am not sure that we would represent
01  that.  Maybe I will ask Dr. Kauffman a few questions and
02  perhaps satisfy Mr. Roos­Collins' objection.
03       Dr. Kauffman, as part of your professional experience,
04  have you ever been involved in the delineation of a
05  jurisdictional wetlands? 
06       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, I have, and I also teach the course
07  in how to decline wetlands. 
08       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  And you have observed the site as
09  depicted in the photograph?
10       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, yes.  It would meet both the
11  adaptive for vegetation and the hydrological requirements
12  necessary for it to be classified as a wetland, as a legal
13  wetland.
14       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  When you are talking about a
15  jurisdictional wetland, you are talking about a wetland that
16  is within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers?
17       DR. KAUFFMAN:  That would fall under their management
18  scenario, were we to manipulate them in any form.
19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  By describing this is a jurisdictional
20  wetland, you are not implying necessarily that the Clean
21  Water Act was in any way violated?                 
22       DR. KAUFFMAN:  No.
23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Thank you.
24       Does that conclude your testimony?
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
01       MR. DODGE:  I do know that Reach 10 was rewatered in
02  October of '95.  I can testify to that.
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I am sure you could, sir, and you
04  just did. 
05       MR. Birmingham, please proceed.
06       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Did he take an oath?
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes, he did. 
08       Please proceed, Mr. Birmingham.
09       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Finally, I would like to introduce Dr.
10  William Platts.  I know he has appeared before the Board
11  previously.        
12       Dr. Platts, have you had an opportunity to review
13  Exhibit R­DWP­26, a document entitled Direct Testimony of
14  William S. Platts?  Dr. Platts, is that the direct testimony
15  that you prepared in anticipation of these proceedings?
16       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, I did.
17       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Would you take a few minutes, Dr.
18  Platts, and summarize the direct testimony that has been
19  submitted as R­DWP­26?
20       DR. PLATTS:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my
21  written testimony is limited to just three items.  The
22  adequacy of the DWP Stream Restoration Plan and Fishery and
23  Fish Passage on Walker and Parker Creeks. 
24       The restoration plan provides that total arrest of  
25  livestock grazing and the flow regimes necessary to build
01  and maintain healthy streams.  Future monitoring will allow
02  these flow regimes to be fine­tuned, to maintain the streams
03  in healthy condition.
04       Therefore, I find the plan generally adequate.   I do
05  not recommend fish screening for water diversions from
06  Walker and Parker Creeks at this time.  No water will be
07  diverted from Walker Creek, so that point is moot.  No 
08  water will be diverted from Parker Creek below the aqueduct. 
09  Only 17 to 22 percent of the Parker Creek flow will be
10  diverted.  This amount of diversion is insignificant in the
11  total restoric fishery perspective. 
12       In pre­1941 conditions, 45 percent of the total Rush
13  Creek flows were diverted.  About 85 percent of the Rush
14  Creek flows were diverted during most irrigation seasons. 
15  Some years total.
16       In pre­1941 conditions about 100 percent of the
17  Walker­Parker Creek flows were diverted during irrigation
18  season.  Rush Creek was supposedly a high quality fishery
19  under these extremely high diversion conditions.  Therefore,
20  the small amount of water being diverted from Parker Creek
21  is insignificant. 
22       I do not recommend fish bypass facilities on Walker and
23  Parker Creeks at this time.  Downstream fish passage is
24  available on these streams at this time.  I can find no 
25  reliable information that concluded that fish passage, under
01  present conditions, is a problem in Parker and Walker
02  Creeks. 
03       During pre­1941 conditions, there were numerous fish
04  passage blocks in Parker and Walker Creeks.  Still, the
05  Rush Creek fishery was supposedly of high quality at that
06  time.  Waters resulting from recent fish passage blocks
07  support most of the recreational fishing in lower Rush
08  Creek, Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker Creek drainages.      
09       And this concludes oral testimony.
10       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  At this time, I would conclude the
11  direct testimony of this panel, and I don't know, Mr.
12  Chairman, if the Board would like me to move for the
13  introduction of the exhibits identified by this panel.
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Our normal procedure is after we've
15  heard all.  If there is going to be cross, and I am sure
16  there is, and perhaps redirect, when we get through with the
17  panel, then we can do it at that time, Mr. Birmingham.
18       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Very good.  Thank you.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let me say again, before we move to
20  cross­examination, just remind all the witnesses, if you
21  have your data cast in a different medium than it might have
22  been presented as exhibits, in your attempt to assist the 
23  Board you may be, in effect, creating a little bit of a
24  problem.  If you haven't checked with your attorney, with
25  regard to what you may want to be presenting, you may want
01  to think about that. 
02       Mr. Del Piero.
03       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  One additional thing, just
04  housekeeping issue, Mr. Chairman.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please.
06       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Somebody maybe better order up
07  a new overhead in the event there are other presentations
08  that attempt to utilize that particular mechanism.
09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  It now has been turned into a hot
10  plate, if anybody wants one.  We apologize for that.  We
11  better get a new one in here.
12       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  We will trade you.             
13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Good point, Mr. Del Piero.  
14       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  In Dr. Kauffman's defense, Mr.
15  Chairman, he did check with me prior to introducing what has
16  been marked as R­DWP­28A, R­DWP­66, and R­DWP­67, and I
17  indicated to Dr. Kauffman that because these would only be
18  used to help explain his testimony, that there would not be
19  any problem in his introducing them at this point because
20  they are simply summaries or different representations of
21  information that is currently in the record as part of his
22  testimony.
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Birmingham.   We
24  understand your explanation. 
25       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Chairman, I ­­
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Dodge.
02       MR. DODGE:  Maybe I am confused, but I do not
03  understand that the information in Exhibit 66 is in the
04  record. 
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Nor do we.  That is why we are also
06  going to examine it, with all due deference to Mr.
07  Birmingham, that it is why I asked you all to take a look at
08  it.  We are not going to accept it in the record just yet,
09  until all have a chance to ruminate on it a little bit.
10       Shall we move to cross­examination? 
11       U.S. Forest Service wish to ask any questions of these
12  witnesses? 
13       MR. GIPSMAN:  No.
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Gipsman.
15       Bureau of Land Management?
16       MR. RUSSI:  No, Mr. Chairman.     
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Has anyone arrived from the Trust
18  for Public Land?
19       People for the Preservation of the Mono Basin, Ms.
20  Bellomo. 
21       Good morning again, welcome.
22       MS. BELLOMO:  Good morning, thank you.
23       I want to apologize for appearing to enter into
24  argument earlier, by the way.  I really didn't hear your
25  ruling; I am very sorry for that.
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is perfectly all right.  This
02  is a very important issue.  It is heartfelt among all the
03  parties.  No need to apologize.  We appreciate your ­­ we
04  appreciate it nonetheless. 
05       Please proceed.
06                            ­­­oOo­­­
07                        CROSS­EXAMINATION
09                          BY MS. BELLOMO
10       MS. BELLOMO:  I just have a couple of questions for Dr.
11  Kauffman. 
12       In listening to your testimony, you were referencing on
13  Rush Creek the growth rate of the willow, cottonwood,
14  riparian vegetation.  It sounded as if you were indicating
15  that it is possibly somewhat slow.  I wondered if you could
16  give us a sense of what the growth rate is for the willow
17  and cottonwood there. 
18       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I would say quite the opposite.   It is
19  quite rapid.  Both the establishment and the rate of growth
20  in that.  In many cases we have measured leader growth rates
21  or terminal growth rates of anywhere from 60 centimeters to
22  1.5 meters, which would be two to four feet a year, which in
23  again ­­ I am talking about the naturally established ones. 
24       MS. BELLOMO:  Ones that were already there?  
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes, yes.  That's been quite phenomenal. 
01  In contrast, much of the planted vegetation, again, are in
02  sites that aren't that suitable for vegetation to grow, in
03  harsh conditions, and, therefore, we are seeing a greatly
04  stunted growth.  Perhaps, 10 to 20 centimeters of growth in
05  a year, and, again, in the form which would be somewhat
06  different than what one would see from naturally established
07  plants.
08       MS. BELLOMO:  Is this growth rate for both the willow
09  and cottonwood, or do they have different growth rates?      
10       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes.  In general, the cottonwood and the
11  variety of willow species that I have seen planted, all have
12  much, much slower growth rates; they have been much slower
13  and, of course, the mortality is so high.  Again, the growth
14  rate would be much lower. 
15       MS. BELLOMO:  My last question, for clarification, 
16  with regard to why the ­­ I don't know how you would term it
17  ­­ the vegetation that you plant, the willows, the
18  cottonwood, what are the factors that cause that vegetation
19  to grow much more slowly than the natural vegetation?
20       DR. KAUFFMAN:  It would mostly be the soils and the
21  substrate that it is growing on.  The vegetation that is
22  occurring naturally is occurring just as it evolved in areas
23  of recent deposition, areas of a two­to­ten­year floodplain
24  event, where the roots can track the water table through its
25  first year of establishment.  Then it is in the water, where
01  it has access to water and nutrients that probably are
02  supplied by the hyporheic for subsurface or for surface
03  flows on an annual basis.
04       MS. BELLOMO:  The areas where you are planting, I know
05  you're generalizing, but are you saying that the soil 
06  changed because it wasn't watered for many years by water
07  from Rush Creek? 
08       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Well, there is a whole variety of
09  reasons, perhaps, they are not doing as well.  One, would be
10  soils, nutrients, microclimate, hydrological conditions.
11       MS. BELLOMO:  Thank you very much.
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Ms. Bellomo.
13       Mr. Mooney, do you wish to ask questions. 
14       MR. MOONEY:  No questions.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir. 
16       Mr. Haselton.
17       MR. HASELTON:  No, sir.
18       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Has Mr. Ridenhour arrived?  
19       He has not.
20       Mr. Roos­Collins. 
21       MR. FRINK:  Mr. Chairman, before we get into the
22  cross­examination, I have just have a point I want to
23  clarify.
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please, sir. 
25       MR. FRINK:  The way that it was announced in your
01  opening statement, a party will present all of their
02  witnesses before any of them are made available for
03  cross­examination.  In this instance, I presume the City of
04  Los Angeles intended to present a panel of witness it has on
05  stream restoration, first make them available for
06  cross­examination, and then move on to the panel of
07  witnesses that they have on waterfowl habitat restoration
08  and make that group available for cross­examination.  I
09  guess, we could seek some direction from you, however. 
10       Did you intend that the one­hour limit on
11  cross­examination were to apply to all of the witnesses that
12  the party presents, regardless if they make them available
13  in separate panels?
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You're politely reminding me that
15  maybe I should have both panels come up before we went to
16  any questions, Mr. Frink?
17       MR. FRINK:  No.  I'm really not reminding you of that.
18  I think this is probably ­­ I think this is an efficient way
19  to go.  I think it may be appropriate, though, to clarify
20  that the rules did not anticipate an hour for
21  cross­examination of each group of witnesses, but rather an
22  hour for ­­
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  In the totality?
24       MR. FRINK:  Right, for cross­examination of all
25  witnesses.
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I see these gentlemen rising to
02  question that. 
03       Mr. Dodge.
04       MR. DODGE:  I believe you stated quite clearly that we
05  have an hour per panel.
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I believe I did.  If that isn't too
07  strong of a deviation from our original set of instructions,
08  Mr. Frink, may I ask for your forgiveness? 
09       MR. FRINK:  Certainly you don't need my forgiveness. 
10  It may extend the hearing considerably.
11       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, certainly for an hour.
12       MR. FRINK:  By each party.
13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  At a minimum, perhaps.
14       Where were we?  I had called for Mr. Roos­Collins.
15       Please proceed, sir, when you are ready. 
16                             ­­­oOo­­­
17                        CROSS­EXAMINATION
18                       BY CALIFORNIA TROUT
19                       BY MR. ROOS­COLLINS
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Gentlemen, good morning.   Let me
21  begin with the Monitoring Plan contained within the Stream
22  Restoration Plan. 
23       Mr. Kavounas, my first issue is addressed to you.   On
24  January 13, Los Angeles distributed to the parties Exhibits
25  22 and 23.  Are those exhibits the Monitoring Plan offered
01  by Los Angeles in connection with the Stream Restoration
02  Plan?
03       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes, they are.
04       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Exhibit 16, the February 1996 Stream
05  Restoration Plan, includes a chapter proposing a monitoring
06  plan. 
07       Is that chapter withdrawn in its entirety?        
08       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes, it is.  It was our intention to
09  revise the Monitoring Plan to reflect what consultants had
10  indicated were needed refinements to the Monitoring Plan. 
11  So, our intention in issuing the Monitoring Plan on January
12  13th was to replace that. 
13       It might help this proceeding, though, if you could
14  wait with those questions.  We had intended to present a
15  panel on the Stream Monitoring Plan.  The panel would
16  include myself and the consultants that worked on it.
17       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Chairman, on the understanding
18  that the Monitoring Plan will be addressed by a subsequent
19  panel, I will now move to the Stream Restoration Plan
20  itself. 
21       On Page VI of that plan, as stated, the overall goal is
22  to develop functional and self­sustaining stream systems
23  with healthy riparian ecosystem components.
24       Now the Monitoring Plan, which we will address in  
25  subsequent panel, also describes the restoration goal. 
01  However, is this statement on Page VI of Los Angeles Exhibit
02  16 still an accurate statement of the restoration goal for
03  the plan as a whole?
04       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am not so sure I can answer that
05  without consulting someone with biological background. 
06  Perhaps Brian Tillemans can help me with that.
07       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, it is.  That is what we felt is
08  the best way to preserve and protect and restore the
09  fisheries in the creeks.
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Does that goal contain within it the
11  attributes of integrity, which are restated in Los Angeles
12  Exhibit 23 on Page 3?
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is the Blue Book?
14       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  That is the Blue Book.
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  Repeat that page. 
16       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Beschta, I refer you to Page 3
17  of Los Angeles Exhibit 3.
18       DR. BESCHTA:  Where on Page 3?  I am sorry.
19       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  At the top of the page it states    
20  Goals and Objectives, and then it states:
21            The following list identifies those physical
22            and biological attributes of alluvial river
23            ecosystems that promote, or are direct
24            results of, physical and biological
25            integrity.                     (Reading.)
01       DR. BESCHTA:  And your question is:  Is that statement
02  there essentially the same as what we have ­­
03       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  How do these attributes relate to
04  the restoration goals stated in the Restoration Plan?
05       DR. BESCHTA:  The overall goal provides an overview of
06  what is going on.  This here is an attempt to break out more
07  specific attributes.  When you are working with complicated
08  and dynamic ecosystems, you end up with a series, if you
09  will, of fuzzy statements that attempt to represent the
10  intent of what some of those components may look like. 
11       If you take this broader goal and then begin to list
12  out some attributes, these are some of the components that
13  may show up. 
14       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Tillemans, in your testimony,   
15  Los Angeles Exhibit 25, on Page 2, you state:
16            Los Angeles believes that its plan will
17            result in a better overall stream systems and
18            fisheries than those that existed prior to
19            LADWP diversions.           (Reading.)
20       Do you see that statement in your written testimony?
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes.  
22       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Does the restoration goal stated in
23  the Stream Restoration Plan include within it restoration of
24  conditions better than those that existed in 1941?
25       MR. TILLEMANS:  That statement there is put in because
01  in terms of the overall fisheries, in looking at these
02  streams as a continuum and looking at what potentially lies
03  there in terms of future fisheries and future habitats and
04  what­have­you, and taking into account that we will remove
05  the major disturbance regimes, such as drastic fluctuations
06  and flow due to irrigations and hydro operations and such as
07  excessive grazing that occurred prior to DWP times in terms
08  of 100 to 200,000 sheep that came into the Mono Basin on an
09  annual basis, I strongly believe that when you remove those
10  kinds of disturbance regimes that, given the conditions we
11  are going to present these streams with, that overall we
12  will have a better system. 
13       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Is that your belief or is it Los
14  Angeles' restoration goal?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  That is not only my belief, I think if
16  you read the testimony of Boone and Bob, that you will see
17  that is theirs, too. 
18       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  So, it is the goal of this
19  restoration plan to establish habitat conditions and
20  fisheries which are better than what existed in 1941?
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  No.  The goal is to restore, preserve,
22  and protect fisheries that are in Rush, Lee Vining, Parker,
23  and Walker.  And we just ­­ it just so happens that we feel
24  with our restoration plan that we feel firmly that we are
25  going to produce a better product, even that is obligated
01  under 1631. 
02       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask each of you to express
03  your level of confidence that the Restoration Plan before
04  this Board will establish conditions better than what
05  existed in 1941.  I understand Mr. Tillemans' prediction.  I
06  want to understand your level of confidence in the
07  prediction. 
08       Mr. Kavounas.
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Based on what consults of the Department
10  of Water and Power have told me, my confidence is very, very
11  high. 
12       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Kauffman.
13       DR. KAUFFMAN:  When one looks at, through time, the
14  rates of vegetation recovery within the next 20, 30 years,
15  that the structural diversity and, perhaps, the vegetation
16  interactions with the aquatic system will probably be
17  better.  I would feel confident that they would be better
18  than they were in 1941, if, indeed, the grazing impacts in
19  1941 and what they have been suggested to be.
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Beschta.
21       DR. BESCHTA:  As I look at the responses of the
22  vegetation, as I look at the channels as the change, as I
23  look at the channel morphology and their characteristics,
24  and what is happening to the rewetting of areas before they
25  were totally dry, I am highly confident that what you will
01  see is something better than 1941.
02       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Tillemans, you and I ­­ Mr.
03  Tillemans, you and I have discussed this issue. 
04       Dr. Platts.
05       DR. PLATTS:  Well, I have looked at heavily grazed
06  streams, heavily diverted streams, heavily drawn out for
07  irrigation over the Western United States, United States,
08  over Canada, over vast areas, for about 40 years.  So I
09  think I understand what Rush Creek was going through in 1941
10  very well.
11       I think it is a given that Rush Creek will be a better
12  stream 20, 25, 35 years down the road, providing monitoring,
13  devising information to tweak the system.  I think it's a
14  given that Rush Creek will be a better stream in the future
15  than it was in 1941.
16       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you.  Let me move to my second
17  issue, which is how long then to achieve your restoration
18  goal?  I have reviewed the Restoration Plan and respective
19  testimonies.  I did not locate any prediction as to when the
20  restoration goal will be achieved in any of the creeks
21  subject to D­1631.
22       I did locate in the testimony on the Monitoring Plan,  
23  Exhibit 31, Page 2, the following statement: 
24            With the lowering of Mono Lake and subsequent
25            incision of the stream channels, many impacts
01            to channel morphology are likely irreversible
02            unless a much longer temporal scale is
03            adopted.  For example, the restoration of
04            lost terrace complexity in lower Lee Vining
05            Creek will not be remedied any time soon.
06            (Reading.)
07       And it continues and concludes:
08            Therefore, by adopting an historical
09            perspective we expect some restoration
10            endpoints will not be realized in the near
11            future, certainly not by the time Mono Lake
12            water levels are reestablished.  (Reading.)
13       Assuming that this Board adopts the flow schedules
14  submitted in the Restoration Plan and continues the grazing
15  moratorium that Los Angeles has also proposed, when will the
16  restoration goal stated in the Restoration Plan be
17  achieved? 
18       Again, I would like to go through the entire panel,
19  beginning with Mr. Kavounas.
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is a very good question, and it is
21  one we pondered over quite a bit.  In working with the
22  scientists that you see on this panel, and also the
23  scientists you will see on the stream monitoring panel, I
24  was not able to get any one of them to tell me, you will
25  have that particular state at that particular time.  Again,
01  as you will hear in the Monitoring Plan, all we could commit
02  to was to monitor for a period of time and make adjustments
03  as necessary.  And at a later point in time, which, again,
04  is undefinable by these scientists, we would be able to make
05  some endpoint predictions as to what the streams, what the
06  systems would look like.
07       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Kauffman. 
08       DR. KAUFFMAN:  That is a very good question that you
09  ask, and it is very complex question.  I think on Page 2 of
10  my testimony, we try to define what we mean by ecological 
11  restoration, and, clearly, we cannot say ­­ it would be
12  ludicrous to suggest that a certain structure of the
13  landscape is exactly what we want because that is simply not
14  predictable.  What ecological restoration is defined as, as
15  the reestablishment predisturbance, riparian functions and
16  related chemical, biological, and hydrological
17  characteristics.
18       Are we removing those antipathogenic prohibitions that
19  are causing degradation or preventing recovery.  If that's 
20  the case, then we see recovery or restoration is on the way;
21  the system, once again, beginning to function.  We see that
22  through the reestablishment of riparian communities.  I
23  would say that we are restoring that ecosystem as we speak. 
24  That is because we are allowing these processes to occur. 
25  Through time, again, we are restoring the system.  I'd be 
01  very pleased with what one sees out there in terms of
02  recovery, but in 20 years you are going to have a 
03  dramatically greater amount of structural diversities,
04  species diversity out there than you do now.
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Kauffman, you answered a
06  different question than I asked.  I understand, and Cal
07  Trout agrees, that recovery is occurring now and will
08  continue.  I asked for your prediction when the restoration
09  goals stated in the Restoration Plan will be achieved.
10       DR. KAUFFMAN:  That was the self­sustaining stream
11  ecosystems, the healthy ­­ that is the goal you are asking,
12  develop functional and self­sustaining streams?
13       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  We have testimony that that is the
14  goal.
15       DR. KAUFFMAN:  That is the statement.  I was trying to
16  explain that statement is, again, that it is multi­faceted. 
17  It is not an easy ­­ it is not a yes or no, 1997, 1998,
18  1999.  It is an ongoing process that will occur through
19  time. 
20       I think that I we do have functional, self­sustaining
21  stream ecosystems right now out there as long as a
22  reasonably natural proximity of flow regimes are occurring.
23       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  So, is it your testimony that the
24  restoration goal has already been achieved?
25       DR. KAUFFMAN:  That is ­­ again, the fact ­­ I think it
01  is a fact that we have a functioning riparian ecosystem that
02  once again is recovering out there right now.
03       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Again, Dr. Kauffman, Cal Trout
04  agrees that recovery is occurring.  My questions are not
05  intended to challenge that statement in your testimony.  My
06  question is an attempt to define what Los Angeles means by
07  the restoration goals stated on Page VI of your plan. 
08       Do you mean the status quo, or do you mean some future
09  condition yet to be achieved and, if so, when will that
10  condition be achieved?
11                    (Reporter changes paper.)
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Dr. Kauffman, please answer the
13  question.
14       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Again, ecological restoration is not ­­
15  shouldn't be compared to building a building.  It is not
16  completed at any one point in time.  It is an ongoing
17  process.  Again, I think that this restoration plan sets the
18  ecosystem in the right trajectory for a goal of naturally
19  functioning ecosystem that would occur prior to, say,
20  predisturbance conditions, similar predisturbance
21  conditions.  Again, I can't give you a pinpoint because it
22  is not possible to do that in the restoration made of
23  ecosystems.
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask you one final question.
25  You are one of the authors of Exhibit 31, which explains the
01  Stream Monitoring Plan.  Page 2, which we previously
02  discussed, concludes that certain restoration endpoints will
03  not be established in the near future, certainly not by the
04  time Mono Lake water levels are reestablished. 
05       What does that statement mean to you?
06       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me.  Mr. Caffrey.  
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham.
08       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  We have not had the panel present
09  DWP­31 testimony yet, and Mr. Roos­Collins'
10  cross­examination relates to that testimony.  I wonder if I
11  could ask Mr. Roos­Collins to defer those questions until
12  that panel has had an opportunity to testify.  I think it
13  would be a more efficient use of time.
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Roos­Collins, Mr. Birmingham is
15  saying he has a more appropriate witness for these
16  questions.  What is your ­­ is that agreeable to you?
17       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Will Dr. Kauffman be on the
18  subsequent panel?
19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Yes, he will be.  Dr. Kauffman is
20  certainly qualified to answer theses questions.  But since
21  they do pertain to the testimony of a different panel, I
22  wonder if we shouldn't defer the question until that panel
23  has an opportunity to testify.
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I will agree to the request,
25  although I note my questions do not go to the goals of the
01  Monitoring Plan.  My questions go to the goal of the
02  Restoration Plan.  And I am simply using another exhibit to
03  help understand what this generally stated goal of the
04  Restoration Plan means. 
05       I do agree with MR. Birmingham's request for questions
06  regarding that exhibit until the subsequent panel. 
07       Dr. Beschta, do you recall the question which began
08  this discussion? 
09       DR. BESCHTA:  I think do, but why don't you go ahead
10  and restate it anyway.  I want to make sure I get it right
11  instead of going the wrong direction.
12       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  When will the goal of the Stream
13  Restoration Plan, as stated on RVI of Los Angeles Exhibit
14  16, be achieved?
15       DR. BESCHTA:  That goal is to develop functional and
16  self­sustaining stream systems with healthy riparian
17  ecosystem components.  We, indeed, have wrestled with that. 
18  We have a physical, biological system that operates out
19  there, and this system is operating in response to climatic
20  patterns, flow regimes, and things like that.
21       We are all very high pressed to ­­ we would love to
22  come up with a nice number that says, "Yes, at this point in
23  time, we can all go home and rest assured that that system
24  has attained exactly some specific endpoint."  Some portions
25  of the system are already doing so or getting very close.   
01       We've got canopy closure on some portions of that
02  stream system.  How much more canopy closure can I get
03  there?  I can't get any more.  So, I am already reaching it
04  there.  I've got undercut banks in some places.  I've got
05  deep pools in others.  There are pieces of it that are
06  coming back together. 
07       Is it there yet?  No.  Is it there yet?   No.  Will it
08  improve?  Yes.  How long?  It will continue to change and
09  evolve through time.  Some reaches will take much longer
10  than others.  But the point to keep in mind here, I guess,
11  is that the disturbance regime, which is the flow patterns,
12  are in place and, if they continue to be in place, you will
13  see recovery at some point in time.  I think everybody in
14  the room, by in large, will agree at some point.
15       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Tillemans.
16       MR. TILLEMANS:  First of all, I think Bob distinctly
17  shares my same opinion.  I think the assumption here that
18  creeks come back on a uniform type basis, and that is not
19  the case.  There are areas that respond quite rapidly, and
20  there are areas that are quite slower than others.  So, it
21  is not a point in time where you can pick in January of 2001
22  we are there, because there will be varying degrees of
23  recovery to that point. 
24       Again, we are looking towards restoring the functions
25  and getting towards the potential of these areas, based on
01  hydrology, based on geomorphology, and based on present
02  conditions that are out there.  And when we reach that
03  potential, varied depending on where you are talking about.
04       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Tillemans, my questions do not
05  contain the assumption that the streams will recover in a
06  uniform fashion or that reaches within a given stream will
07  recover in a uniform fashion.  My questions contain one
08  assumption, which is that the restoration goal is to be
09  achieved with a restoration plan, and I am asking for this
10  panel's prediction of when that will happen. 
11       Now, please answer the question with regard to each
12  stream or each reach within a stream if you can predict with
13  any confidence when the goal will be achieved.
14       MR. TILLEMANS:  I cannot give you exact times.
15       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Platts. 
16       DR. PLATTS:  I cannot answer your question with
17  confidence.  In my research efforts I have taken streams,
18  purposely applied stress to degrade them to follow the rate
19  that they would degrade over time.  I have also taken a
20  large number of streams and taken stress off and tracked the
21  ability of those streams to come back to meet a goal that
22  you are talking about. 
23       The thing I found in that research, and I don't know of
24  any other research that would add on to this, is that each
25  stream has its own potential.  And then reaches within the
01  stream have their own potential.  And so, right now we don't
02  have a research base.  We don't have an experience base, and
03  I could not tell you the exact time when we are going to
04  meet these goals.  I cannot answer that question.
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you.  I appreciate that is a
06  difficult issue and I assure you that Cal Trout has no easy
07  answer to that issue either. 
08       Let me turn to a related issue, adaptive management,
09  which unfortunately is addressed primarily in Los Angeles
10  Exhibit 31, and I have agreed not to exam with regard to
11  that exhibit at any length.  So, without regard to that
12  exhibit, let me ask you:  Is adaptive management contained
13  within the Restoration Plan Los Angeles has proposed? 
14       Mr. Kavounas.
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It is my recollection that adaptive
16  management, as I understand it, is mentioned and intended in
17  the Monitoring Plan.  The reason for that is because the
18  monitoring is what will lead us to adapt our suggested 
19  restoration treatments.
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me put the question
21  differently.  Is Los Angeles proposing that the Restoration
22  Plan, approved by this Board be subject to adaptation on the
23  basis of the monitoring results?
24       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes, Los Angeles is proposing that.
25       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Are you proposing that the flow
01  schedules be subject to such adaptation?
02       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes. 
03       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Also the restoration treatments?    
04       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Los Angeles Department of Water and
05  Power in its restoration plan proposes that after a few
06  years of monitoring and data collection, some endpoints will
07  be predicted, and, at the same time, the restoration
08  treatments, including the flow schedule, will need to be
09  reevaluated.  At that point in time, the panel that will be
10  doing the evaluation may or not recommend a change.  They
11  may recommend changes in the flows upward or lower.
12       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Given the confidence which all of
13  you expressed that this restoration plan or work to achieve
14  the stated goal, why is adaptive management necessary? 
15       Mr. Kavounas.
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I would like to ask some of the people
17  on this panel to address that question.  But my intuitive
18  answer would be something that I believe Dr. Beschta said,
19  is that you have different potentials at different sites.   
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Beschta.
21       DR. BESCHTA:  The restoration of stream ecosystems, as
22  Bill Platts has indicated, is not a science that we have a
23  lot of backlog of information and knowledge.  We are on a
24  learning curve here.
25       It may well be that somewhere down the road, and all
01  you have to do is go back into the record and look at the
02  various bits of testimony that have been in front of the
03  Board and recommendations that have been made with regard to
04  things that should and should not be done.  And, in fact,
05  now that we look back, were probably the wrong way to go.
06  We can point to a bunch, and I did in my testimony.  We are
07  always cognizant of the fact that we may not have it quite
08  entirely right. 
09       So, I guess, the option of having the ability to change
10  is certainly reasonable and part of where we are at. 
11  Although I still have a high level of confidence that we are
12  going in the right direction in regard to restoration. 
13  There is the possibility that something could be changed and
14  should be changed, so I am willing to acknowledge that.
15       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Any other panelists wish to answer
16  that question?
17       Let me move on then to my next issue, which is the
18  restoration goal specifically for fisheries.  In this line
19  of questioning I intend to draw a distinction between
20  fisheries' habitat and the fisheries themselves in light of
21  Decision 1631's mandate that the Restoration Plan will
22  restore both.
23       On Page VI of Exhibit 16, the fourth full paragraph,   
24  begins:
25            The foundation of the restoration program is
01            built on the philosophy that if you build it,
02            they will come.              (Reading.)
03       As a baseball fan, I understand the analogy.   But as
04  the attorney for Cal Trout, could you please explain what
05  "they" means in that sentence?  Are you referring to the
06  fisheries?
07       Mr. Kavounas.
08       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am not even a baseball fan, so I am
09  going to let Brian answer that.
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Tillemans.
11       MR. TILLEMANS:  If you recall, that statement was taken
12  out of the draft, Ridenhour, Trush and Hunter Restoration
13  Plan, and it does refer to fish and wildlife.
14       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Does Los Angeles Exhibit 16 state
15  what the fisheries in these creeks will look like once the
16  restoration goal has been accomplished?  Population? 
17  Distribution between ages?  Any other attribute you wish.
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  In all due respect, I think you are
19  getting into the monitoring panel.  They will address that.
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I understand that, but this is the
21  Restoration Plan, and I am attempting to define as carefully
22  as I can the restoration goal, which motivates all
23  components of this plan, including the Monitoring Plan. 
24       Is it correct that the Restoration Plan itself does not
25  contain a specific objective for the fisheries other than
01  the general goal we have already discussed?
02       MR. TILLEMANS:  I think that is correct, and I think
03  you will find elaboration on that in the Monitoring Plan, 
04  as to why that is so.
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Kavounas, I previously asked you
06  whether Chapter 7 of the Restoration Plan, the Monitoring
07  Plan, has been withdrawn, and you stated that it has been.
08       Let me, nonetheless, ask you about one statement in
09  that chapter.  I would like to know whether that statement
10  has also been withdrawn.  On Page 99 of the restoration      
11  plan, Los Angeles Exhibit 16, third full paragraph:
12            There may be concerns that failure of fish
13            populations to respond to developing habitat
14            features could indicate the developing
15            features are not conditions which would keep
16            fish in good condition.  This reflects a
17            fundamental assumption in fishery science
18            that good habitat equals good fisheries.  In
19            fact, this is one of the most untested
20            assumptions in biology.         (Reading.)
21       The exhibit then proceeds to challenge the assumption. 
22       Is this statement withdrawn?
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I can't answer that.  I would have to
24  refer to either Bill Platts or the stream monitoring panel,
25  Mr. Chris Hunter.
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I am not asking the question about
02  biology.  What I am asking goes to the status of Chapter 7
03  in Los Angeles Exhibit 16. 
04       Is that chapter withdrawn in its entirety?
05       MR. KAVOUNAS:  The chapter is. 
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Roos­Collins, excuse me for
07  interrupting you, sir.  I was just noticing that the noon
08  hour has arrived.  I was just curious how far along are you;
09  how much more time do you need?  We will try to gear our
10  lunch break as to not cause you too much of a problem. 
11       How much more time do you think you are going to need
12  for this panel?
13       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Another ten minutes, Mr. Chair,
14  although I would have welcomed the interruption.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You would welcome the interruption? 
16  Does that mean it will be ten minutes when we come back
17  after lunch, as well?
18       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  You caught me.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You can have the ten minutes now or
20  you can have the ten minutes after we come back.  Do you
21  want your ten minutes now or after you come back?
22       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Chair, I would like to reserve
23  the balance of my time until we return.
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  A couple quick learners.   I don't
25  know where that got us.  You have a balance of just about 30
01  minutes for this panel.
02       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  And I intend to conclude my
03  examination in about ten minutes or so, before or after the
04  break.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right, sir.  Let's then take a
06  lunch break.  Let's take an hour.  Let's try to all be back
07  promptly at 1:00.  I hope it is not too difficult finding a
08  place to break bread for some of you, but we try not to put
09  too much pressure on the local restaurants.  We will be back
10  here at 1:00 to resume. 
11       Thank you.
12                     (Luncheon break taken.)
13                            ­­­oOo­­­
01                        AFTERNOON SESSION  
02                            ­­­oOo­­­
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Ms. Forster is going to be joining
04  us in a moment. 
05       Before you continue with your questioning, Mr.
06  Roos­Collins, maybe I should start out with an
07  apology.  There has been a misunderstanding on the part of
08  some of the Board Members.  Let me start with a question of
09  Mr. Birmingham. 
10       Mr. Birmingham, how many panels do you actually plan to
11  present today?
12       MR. BIRMINGHAM;  All four.
13       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I was laboring with a
14  misunderstanding.  At least two, maybe three, of the Board
15  Members who are up here thought it was two.  We erred.  And
16  what I was going to suggest, also in deference to Mr.
17  Roos­Collins who was having some difficulty dividing up his
18  questions somewhat artificially because of the mix and match
19  of the panels. 
20       I was going to suggest that you just go your panels one
21  after the other, and then we will get back to the
22  cross­examination.  Now, I am also concerned about my
23  ruling, that in my ruling that there is going to be an hour
24  for each panel for cross­examination was based on my thought
25  that there was just two. 
01       So, as I stated earlier, I am not inclined to stifle
02  cross­examination, because I think that gets into a problem
03  of due process.  So, I would like you to still keep your
04  cross­examination to within an hour for each party, but I
05  did say panel earlier.  I do know.  But also, if you're on
06  point and you need more time, we'll give it to you.
07       So, with that, unless there is any concern on the part
08  of the Board Members, or anybody else for that matter, what
09  I would like to do is we could finish, probably finish this
10  panel on the ­­
11       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Caffrey, I have mentioned to Mr.
12  Roos­Collins before we resumed that it might be a good idea
13  to bring up Dr. Trush and Mr. Hunter, who are the two
14  members of our monitoring panel.  Dr. Kauffman and Dr.
15  Beschta are also members of that panel, and have them
16  testify, and then that would cover most of the fishery
17  issues. 
18       We also have a witness to testify about GLOMP.   It may
19  be appropriate to have him testify now, as well, and subject
20  that whole group to cross­examination. 
21         MR. DODGE:  I would object to that.  I prepared based
22  on the four different groups.  I don't think we can mix and
23  match at this point.
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Why don't we just go through the
25  four groups; then we will just go to general 
01  cross­examination of all the groups together. 
02       I apologize for the confusion.  I am not sure exactly
03  how it happened, but here we are. 
04       Mr. Dodge.
05       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Caffrey, we are going to proceed with
06  the cross­examination of this group. 
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Yes.
08       MR. DODGE:  Then bring on another group and
09  cross­examine them?
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  No. 
11       MR. DODGE:  No?
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  No.  What we are going to do is we
13  are going to proceed with the cross­examination of this
14  group.  Then we are going to bring up the remaining three
15  groups without cross­examining inbetween each of the three
16  groups.  That way you can go to your cross­examination for
17  those last three groups after we've heard from them all, so
18  that you are not in a position of having to divide up your
19  questions as Mr. Roos­Collins was a moment ago.  Also, in
20  the interest of hopefully saving a little bit of time. 
21       So, with that, Mr. Frink. 
22       MR. FRINK:  Yes, Mr. Caffrey.  If I understand
23  correctly the way that you are proposing to proceed, it will
24  still have cross­examination of two different groups of
25  witnesses, the first group that is up here now and then the
01  remaining three.  And I think that may be a reasonable way
02  to go, but if we are going to divide the cross­examination
03  up into two groups of witnesses, I think it may be better to
04  have all of the witnesses on fishery related things included
05  in the first group. 
06       So, that would include the panel that is up here now,
07  the monitoring panel, and the Grant Lake Operations'
08  witness, because Grant Lake Operation is tied into the
09  stream channel flows.  Do that as a panel and then the
10  second panel would be on the fairly distinct subject of
11  waterfowl habitat.
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Are you talking about for purposes
13  of direct or for purposes of cross­examination or for both? 
14       MR. FRINK:  Probably for both.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Are you suggesting that we bring a
16  couple of extra panels up here now and start over again?    
17       MR. FRINK:  Well, certainly we wouldn't repeat
18  everything that has been said, yes.  But before we proceed
19  further with cross­examination, if we are going to try and
20  avoid duplication, I think it would make sense to have all
21  the fishery related witnesses on a panel and their
22  testimony, and then, secondly, if you want to have
23  cross­examination of the second group of witnesses, break
24  out the waterfowl habitat witnesses.  They are on distinctly
25  different subject.
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Frink.  
02       Mr. Dodge.
03       MR. DODGE:  We were told to prepare, based on four
04  different panels, which we've done.  I would request that we
05  go forward on that basis.  I would like to cross­examine
06  this panel, bring on the next panel and cross­examine them
07  after the direct.  I think that makes it most intelligible
08  to the Board, to hear the direct and then the cross.
09       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Well, we may be confusing subject
10  areas with procedure. 
11       Mr. Frink, any words of wisdom?
12       MR. FRINK:  I don't believe that staff advised Mr.
13  Dodge that cross­examination would be four separate panels. 
14  So, I don't know who advised him of that, but we didn't
15  intend to.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I think I am inclined to go with the
17  advice of my counsel, and let's go back to presentation from
18  the two groups as Mr. Frink has suggested.  Then we will to
19  the waterfowl panel, separately, and get back to the
20  cross­examination. 
21       Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding between us
22  and the parties. 
23       Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Roos­Collins.
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you.
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please proceed, Mr. Birmingham, with
01  your other two panels.
02       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Could I ask Dr. Trush and Mr. Hunter
03  to come forward.  Everybody can stay right here.
04       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let me ask ­­ Mr. Birmingham, there
05  are 66 minutes left for your direct.  I presume that is
06  sufficient time for ­­
07       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  We will, within that 66 minutes,
08  complete both this group and the group on waterfowl habitat
09  restoration.
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir.   Appreciate that.   
11       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Sixty­six minutes is a lot of time.
12                            ­­­oOo­­­
13                    FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION
15                        BY MR. BIRMINGHAM
16       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Dr. Trush, you previously provided to
17  us a statement of your qualifications; is that correct?
18       DR. TRUSH:  Yes, I have. 
19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Hunter, have you previously
20  provided to us a statement of your qualifications; is that
21  right?
22       MR. HUNTER:  That's correct. 
23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Maybe I could ask Dr. Trush, and then
24  Mr. Hunter, to briefly state in very brief terms, your
25  background and experience.
01       DR. TRUSH:  I am an Adjunct Professor at Humboldt
02  State Fisheries Department, Director of the River Institute
03  at Humboldt State.  I have my own little company I just
04  started, called McBain and Rush.  I work ­­ I am sort of a
05  mishmash of riparian, hydrology, geomorphology.  I have
06  about 14 graduate students.  They sort of give me a title of
07  "River Nerd," and that is about what I am. 
08       So, I particularly focus on environmental impacts of
09  dams.  I will be speaking to United Nations in four weeks,
10  in India, regarding global effects of large dams on fluvial
11  rivers, which Lee Vining used to be fluvial.  So, I think
12  that puts it up in a nutshell. 
13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Hunter.
14       MR. HUNTER:  My name is Chris Hunter.  I am currently
15  Chief of Special Projects Bureau of the Fisheries Division
16  of Montana Fish and Wildlife Department where I have
17  responsibility for hydropower relicensing, native species
18  program, and our instream flow program.
19       Prior to working for the department, I worked in a
20  consulting firm in Helena, Montana, and during my tenure
21  there, I was approached by an organization called the
22  Montana Land Alliance to write a book on trout stream
23  restoration.  I told them they ought to talk to somebody
24  like Bill Platts, who knew something about that subject, but
25  they said they didn't have enough money to talk to Bill
01  Platts.  So they were going to talk to me.
02       In the course of doing the research on that book, I
03  became somewhat knowledgeable about the art, I guess, of
04  stream restoration.  The book was published by Highland
05  Press in '89 ­­ no, '91. 
06       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  I have to indicate for the
07  record, Mr. Chairman, I read his book.  It is on my desk, 
08  if you guys want to look at it. 
09       MR. HUNTER:  Thank you.
10       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  You're welcome.
11       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  His son, who is about to go to
12  college, appreciates that.
13       Mr. Kavounas, you submitted a document that has been
14  marked as Exhibit R­DWP­30, a document entitled "Direct
15  Testimony of Peter Kavounas on Preparation of the Stream
16  Monitoring Plan"; is that correct? 
17       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That's correct. 
18       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  This is a question that is addressed
19  to Drs. Beschta, Kauffman, and Mr. Hunter.  Submitted as
20  Exhibit R­DWP­31 is a document entitled "The Direct 
21  Testimony of Robert Beschta, Christopher Hunter, Boone
22  Kauffman, and William Trush on Stream Restoration
23  Monitoring. 
24       You did, each of you, participate in the preparation of
25  Exhibit R­DWP­31? 
01       DR. BESCHTA: I believe I have R­DWP­30. 
02       MR. HUNTER:  Yes. 
03       DR. BESCHTA:  I'm sorry.  You're right.   Thank you.    
04       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Could the record reflect each one of
05  the witnesses responded affirmatively to that question?
06       May the record reflect that Mr. Del Piero is nodding
07  his head affirmatively?
08       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  I heard them.   Sounded like
09  Bob Beschta to me. 
10       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Perhaps I could ask Dr. Trush to take
11  a few minutes and summarize the testimony that was submitted
12  as R­DWP­31 and ask the other members of the restoration
13  panel to comment where they deem it appropriate. 
14       Dr. Trush.
15       DR. TRUSH:  Just as a quick background, I was one of
16  the three RTC scientists, along with Chris and Rich
17  Ridenhour, who were brought in, I guess more than midway, on
18  the entire restoration stuff that has happened in and around
19  1994 ­­ 1993.
20       I was given sort of the first shot at developing the
21  Monitoring Plan.  Originally it was with Bill, who decided
22  to retire on us, sort of retire on us, and Chris was knee
23  deep in something, so I took the first shot on it.  That is
24  kind of why I am discussing the overall plan with you now.
25       It is hard to discuss the Monitoring Plan without
01  discussing some of the philosophy regarding restoration, but
02  I think you will probably get to that in cross­examination. 
03  Also, I am a witness for Bruce Dodge, too.  That is kind of
04  straddling fences. 
05       But I would like to say that the primary thing that we
06  are after in the restoration of these streams was creating
07  the flows that would produce the fluvial processes that
08  would help the stream restore itself.  I took that very
09  seriously in the Monitoring Plan to the point that I feel,
10  if those processes aren't analyzed and measured, there is no
11  adaptive manage.  It is in name only.
12       So, I would like to just get up on the drawing board
13  here for a second.  I can't talk without my hands drawing,
14  part of being a professor.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You will need to take a microphone
16  with you, sir.
17       DR. TRUSH:  What we are trying to do, and this pretty
18  much pertains to Lee Vining Creek, which is the most
19  impacted, the bottomlands of Lee Vining Creek.  Usually you
20  discuss Rush, but it is quite a bit farther along the way
21  than Lee Vining is. 
22       What we had was a loss of a lot of terraces that were
23  blown out.  When we look at the channel cross­section with
24  some terraces on it, and stream channel down here, we lost a
25  lot of this, subsequent to 41 ­­ after 41.  And so we are
01  left with a channel that is unconfined.  The word
02  "confinement" is key to this whole restoration, particularly
03  on lower Lee Vining, where what we need to be able to do is
04  not just narrow the channel width of Lee Vining, but rather
05  to increase the confinement.  In other words, the same
06  width, but a lot higher banks creates a very different
07  fluvial banks than the same widths and no banks. 
08       How do we build banks up on the stream channels?   It is
09  a very crucial part to restoring Lee Vining Creek.  There
10  are a couple lists of attributes that I originally provided. 
11  Forget in which exhibit.  Can spend five minutes figuring
12  out the number for it.  In there is a list of attributes
13  that address these fluvial processes.  What we did in the
14  Monitoring Plan is, we realized that we had a very difficult
15  time trying to come up with quantitative endpoints.  What is
16  the final width Lee Vining should be? 
17       As an RTC scientist, we requested that from the whole
18  set of consultants at that time.  We came back with
19  estimates of the channel width plus or minus the channel
20  width, at very, very wide intervals, which essentially
21  became nonfunctional to use them as endpoints.  So we
22  decided to replace the idea of an end product, an endpoint,
23  with a process, with the idea that the channel can be made
24  to react and function alluvially, that that was an important
25  objective.
01       True, we have a hard time, if not impossible time,
02  predicting how long it will take before we reach some sort
03  of equilibrium.  We all will hem and haw, and Chris and I
04  will hem and haw, too, at times.  We feel very confident
05  that if we can make the fluvial processes work and identify
06  them, that we are well on our way. 
07       So that is what the Monitoring Plan attempts to do, is
08  to look at how can we address concepts like confinement and
09  what flows would it take to do this, being the flow of a
10  major prescription here for restoration.  The monitoring
11  plan really has two basic humps to it.  The first is you are
12  more traditional plotting against time, the percent canopy
13  cover, changing width, and all those sorts of things, as a
14  function of time.  But if you take that X Axis and take away
15  time and instead put discharge on the X Axis, now we are
16  into something that is much more akin to adaptive
17  management.  How does channel width function as ­­ how does
18  channel width work with respect to discharge?  How does
19  meandering work?  How does confinement work?  How does
20  deposition work?  How does scour of the channel bed work
21  with respect to flow? 
22       What we are trying to do is identify those flows that
23  are going to do specific things.  Those are very important
24  objectives to the Monitoring Plan.  We have listed those,
25  and I am sure we will bring that up in the
01  cross­examination.
02       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Actually, Dr. Trush, if I may, I would
03  like to show you Page 3 on Exhibit R­DWP­23, which is
04  entitled Goals and Objective. 
05       Are those on the attributes you were referring to?
06       DR. TRUSH:  Yeah.  And they are listed again somewhere
07  else, too, I think in our testimony as well.  I think I
08  listed in two places. 
09       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Would you take a moment and explain
10  how those attributes relate to the processes that you were
11  just describing?
12       DR. TRUSH:  What we found since we had a very
13  unsatisfactory, at least as a RTC scientist now, a very
14  unsatisfactory of what the channels really did look like
15  back in pre­41, given all the arguing that went on about
16  it.  What we said to ourselves was that if these channels
17  were working alluvially ­­ and the definition of alluvial is
18  a channel that is free to form its bed and banks ­­ that we
19  would look at how alluvial channels worked today and ascribe
20  the same functions to these streams.
21       Saying that there is no reason why alluvial stream
22  channels should change from '41 to the present, that's how
23  we developed these guidelines, based on general alluvial
24  properties.  That is what this list is all about, 
25  particularly ones like Number 4, which is mobilization of
01  the dominant particle size of the bed.  We are not going to
02  get pools forming unless we mobilize the bed.  We are not
03  going to get confinement until we get deposition on top of
04  the floodplain to build the banks.  What flows do those
05  things?  That is an important part of the Monitoring Plan.
06       Really, the conceptual change here, which is not your
07  traditional monitoring plan, is taking away time on the X
08  Axis and replacing it with discharge, peak, duration, any
09  sort of aspect of flow.  And Boone and Bob and Chris, all
10  had their more specific things to address, particularly
11  Chris with fish, Boone with riparian, and Bob with sort of
12  another channel overall.  I will just stop right here.
13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  At this point I would like to ask Drs.
14  Kauffman and Beschta if you have anything to add, or Mr.
15  Hunter?
16       MR. HUNTER:  I was just waiting for my elders.         
17       MR. BESCHTA:  We are trying to be brief over here. 
18       MR. HUNTER:  You did a good job.
19       MR. BESCHTA:  We take better care of ourselves.    
20       MR. HUNTER:  I just like to reiterate what Bill just
21  said about the frustration that we had trying to come up
22  with ­­
23       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Excuse me, sir, could you get a
24  little closer to the mike?  That is better. 
25       Thank you.
01       MR. HUNTER:  Just like to reiterate the frustration
02  that Bill was talking about as far as coming up with
03  quantitative goals as part of the RTC.  We expended a lot of
04  time trying to do that, and it just didn't work out very
05  well.  There just wasn't the pre­41 data to give us anything
06  quantitative for restoration goals.  That is why we shifted
07  gears on this monitoring plan to monitor the processes that
08  actually are going to create the habitat that will be
09  utilized by fish. 
10       I think in the long run, this is probably a much better
11  approach, to make sure those processes are actually
12  happening that create fish habitat or create seabeds for the
13  riparian vegetation and all that.
14       Having said that, I spent a fair amount of time trying
15  to come up with a quantitative fish goal for this monitoring
16  plan.  Simply because there was so much interest, having
17  read the comments to the original restoration plan that was
18  submitted by DWP, there was so much interest in having a
19  quantitative fish goal.  I spent, as I said, a fair amount
20  of time trying to come up with something like that. 
21       I started with this publication, 1988 Density and  
22  Biomass of Trout and Char in Western Streams.  This was a
23  publication that was prepared by Dr. Platts and Michael
24  McHenry.  They looked at trout populations from a number of
25  geographic areas across the West and tried to determine if
01  there were average numbers of fish, average biomass of fish,
02  that you could apply geographically. 
03       They did find statistically that there were differences
04  between different geographic areas.  One of the areas that
05  they looked at was the Sierra Nevada.  They looked at about
06  62 streams, as I recall, in the Sierra Nevada, and came up
07  with an average number for biomass and for density.  In both
08  cases the standard deviation for that mean number was
09  basically the same as the mean number.  So that the biomass
10  was 8.2, I think, grams per meter squared, and the standard
11  deviation was over 7.  And it is because the data were so
12  skewed that you couldn't come up with a good standard
13  deviation. 
14       I thought that maybe if I found more data points, more
15  fish population data from the Sierras, that we could narrow
16  that standard deviation somewhat.  So I got a couple of
17  reports that were done in the '80s by Cal Game and Fish, and
18  I calculated mean and standard deviation of trout density
19  and biomass for 121 streams in the Eastern Sierra Nevada,
20  and I came up with exactly the same thing.
21       That is reflected in either the Blue Book or the White
22  Book, I don't recall.  It says .3 fish per meter squared
23  with a standard deviation of .24.  Basically, and at that
24  point, we decided that we would include in our goal a more
25  qualitative goal, simplify because we were not able to come
01  up with something quantitative. 
02       That is all I had to say.
03       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Thank you.
04       Our next witness is Mr. David F. Allen. 
05       Mr. Allen, you have previously submitted a statement of
06  your qualifications; is that correct? 
07       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, I believe so.
08       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  And I would like to refer you to
09  Exhibit R­DWP­29, which is a document entitled Direct
10  Testimony of David F. Allen. 
11       Is R­DWP­29 your written testimony, prepared in
12  connection with this hearing?
13       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, it is.
14       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Would you please take a few moments,
15  please, and state your background and then go ahead and
16  summarize very briefly your written testimony?
17       MR. ALLEN:  My name is David Allen.  I have been with
18  the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for about six
19  and a half years.  I am a registered civil engineer in the
20  State of California, and I have Bachelor's degree in civil
21  engineering and a Master of Science in water resources.
22       Last year I coordinated the development of the Grant
23  Lake Operations and Management Plan, which is submitted to
24  you and it was included in the entire document that we were
25  required to prepare to the State Board on Decision 1631.  My
01  testimony summarizes essentially the department of that
02  plan, and it also provides a brief summary of four
03  significant components of that plan. 
04       Those components include the Grant Lake reservoir
05  operations, Lee Vining conduit diversions, exports from the
06  Mono Basin, and stream flow releases to Rush Creek, Lee 
07  Vining Creek and Walker and Parker Creeks.  Rather than
08  going into those details of that plan, which are actually
09  summarized at the end of my testimony, I would just like to
10  briefly go over the actual development of a plan.
11       Part of Decision 1631 required LADWP to provide active 
12  input in the development of a plan, and we have done so.
13  First off, runoff in the Mono Basin is characterized by
14  snow melt runoff.  And this type of runoff results in high
15  springtime and summertime flows with low base flows during
16  the remainder of the year.  As such, there tends to be a
17  large variation between these peak flows and wintertime base
18  flows. 
19       Also on the creeks, particularly Rush Creek and Lee
20  Vining Creek, Southern California Edison operates several
21  reservoirs upstream of LADWP facilities.  Their operations
22  tend to redistribute the monthly distribution of flows on
23  those creeks.  In essence, what they do is dampen the 
24  summertime high peaks and augment the lower winter base
25  flows.
01       Decision 1631 established the minimum instream flow  
02  requirements, the channel maintenance requirements, and
03  ramping rates for the four creeks that LADWP diverts for
04  export.  And D­1631 also established the permissible export
05  based on the April 1 Mono Lake elevation.  These
06  requirements established the framework for developing of the
07  Grant Lake Management Plan.
08       On an average, the D­1631 instream flow releases
09  account for approximately 75 percent of the flow.  This
10  includes LADWP export.  The remaining water is what the 
11  plan commonly refers to as lake maintenance water, comprises
12  approximately 25 percent of the annual runoff, on average.
13       Now, since the flow requirements for the creeks and the
14  export is fixed, there is slight variation on the amount of
15  available excess Mono Lake maintenance water, depending on
16  the year types.  Those year types were defined in 1631.  In
17  any given year, the availability of this excess water
18  increases as the annual runoff increases.  And the Grant
19  Lake Management Plan attempts to resolve a fundamental
20  question ­ what is the best way to allocate this remaining
21  runoff water?
22       Several different flow regimes were considered in
23  developing the plan, and once again D­1631 provided the
24  framework for this plan.  In the draft plan, LADWP
25  considered three flow regimes proposals in detail.  The
01  first one was the work plan prepared by Dr. Ridenhour, Dr.
02  Trush, and Mr. Hunter.  The second flow plan, analyzed in
03  detail, was the Department of Fish and Game recommendations
04  provided in D­1631, and the final flow regime was that
05  proposed by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.  
06       The first flow plan, which was the Ridenhour Plan, I
07  will just simply refer to that as the Ridenhour Plan, was
08  characterized by high channel maintenance flows and low base
09  flows.  In contrast, the DF&G recommendations provided
10  greater variation with the base flows and didn't have as
11  high channel maintenance flows.
12       The DWP proposal was kind of a, I shouldn't say, a
13  hybrid of the two, but it was kind of a combination whereby
14  both the summer base flows were increased and the channel 
15  maintenance flows were also increased, but not to the extent
16  recommended by Department of Fish and Game and those
17  recommended in the Ridenhour work plan.
18       LADWP did not adopt the flows in the Ridenhour work
19  plan for two specific reasons.  The first one was that LADWP
20  facilities do not allow releases that high.  And the second
21  one was that if we did implement those flow regimes, then
22  they would result in reduced exports.  LADWP did not adopt
23  the DF&G recommendation since most of the parties involved
24  in the process expressed an interest in providing flows that
25  were closer to those recommended in the Ridenhour work
01  plan.
02       On January 9th, 1996, LADWP conducted a Technical
03  Advisory Group meeting to solicit comments on the draft of
04  the Grant Lake Operations and Management Plan and also the
05  Stream and Stream Channel Habitat Restoration Plan.  At that
06  meeting, most parties did not object to the flow proposals
07  presented for Lee Vining Creek, Walker Creek, and Parker
08  Creek.  However, there was some disagreement with the Rush
09  Creek flow regimes.  Specifically, the comment was that
10  LADWP flow regimes for Rush Creek were not compatible with
11  those recommended by the Ridenhour work plan.
12       In response to this agreement, an ad hoc committee was
13  formed to determine the appropriate flows for Rush Creek. 
14  The ad hoc committee investigated three differential
15  alternatives for increasing these flows.  The first one is
16  to increase the frequency of Grant Lake Reservoir spills. 
17  The second was modifying operations on SCE reservoirs
18  upstream to influence the flows at LADWP facilities, and
19  also to augment flows from Lee Vining Creek. 
20       As a part of their evaluation, the ad hoc flow
21  committee requested that I perform some spreadsheet model
22  runs for their analysis.  The Draft Grant Lake Management
23  Plan included proposal to spill Grant Lake Reservoir in 
24  extremely wet years.  And the ad hoc committee wanted to
25  look at increasing that frequency to also include the wet
01  years. 
02       During this analysis, it was found that spilling
03  reservoirs in the wetter years may or may not increase the
04  flows to the levels recommended by the ­­ as to those
05  recommended in the Ridenhour work plan.  In fact, in a
06  couple of instances the flows were actually less from the
07  spill than they could be achieved through operational
08  releases through existing facilities.
09       The second alternative was to modify SCE operations. 
10  What the ad hoc flow committee was interested in is that, if
11  they minimize their releases upstream to fill the
12  reservoirs, then when the peak flow would actually occur, it
13  would just spill through their facilities and continue
14  downstream.  Basically, what we found was that the flow
15  changes that would result from such a operation would not
16  increase the flows on Rush Creek on a reliable basis.        
17   The final alternative was looking at diverting water on Lee
18  Vining Creek and releasing directly into Rush Creek from the
19  Lee Vining Creek conduit.  Unlike the previous alternatives,
20  it doesn't rely on spills to achieve the higher channel
21  maintenance flows on Rush Creek.  In most wetter, years peak
22  flows in Rush Creek would be higher than those that would
23  naturally occur above Grant Lake Reservoir.
24       In addition, if a spill actually would occur in extreme
25  years, then the flows would actually exceed those flows that
01  were proposed in the Ridenhour work plan.  The ad hoc
02  committee provided LADWP with their recommendations after
03  investigating the three alternatives.  In that
04  recommendation, they recognized the Lee Vining Creek
05  augmentation as a viable alternative for providing Rush
06  Creek channel maintenance flows.
07       In addition, they also provided recommendations on Lee
08  Vining Creek channel maintenance flows.  LADWP could not
09  implement the recommendations for the channel maintenance
10  flows on Lee Vining Creek.  Specifically, our facilities are
11  limited at that location to the amount of inflow flowing
12  into facility.  We cannot release flows that are in excess
13  of what is coming in there.
14       And looking at historic records and comparing that with
15  the recommendations made by ad hoc committee, it was found
16  that in approximately 65 percent of the years their flow 
17  recommendations, both magnitude and duration, could not be
18  satisfied.  So rather than adopting their recommendations,
19  LADWP simply proposed to provide the flow through conditions
20  during these peak flow periods.
21       The Grant Lake Operations and Management Plan
22  incorporates the ad hoc committee's recommendations for Rush
23  Creek in the wetter year types.  Their drier years were
24  excluded since the proposal flows would reduce the amount of
25  export for Los Angeles or it would increase the annual
01  fluctuation of Grant Lake Reservoir. 
02       One of the main goals in developing the Grant Lake
03  Operations and Management Plan was to balance all the
04  releases to the lake and the exports to Los Angeles with the
05  total runoff that would normally occur in the stream
06  system.
07       In conclusion, Grant Lake Management Plan maximizes
08  channel maintenance flows to the extent feasible, given our
09  limitations on facilities.  This is accomplished on Lee
10  Vining Creek by providing flow through conditions during
11  peak flow events and then on Rush Creek by providing ­­
12  actually conducting augmentations from Lee Vining Creek.
13       In the end, numerous parties and agencies, scientific
14  experts and individuals participated in the development of
15  the plans, or the Grant Lake Management Plan. 
16       That concludes my summary.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir. 
18       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Mr. Allen, can you tell us who is on
19  the ad hoc committee that you referred to?
20       MR. ALLEN:  The ad hoc committee comprised of Dr.
21  Ridenhour, Dr. Trush, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Gary Smith of Fish
22  and Game, Department of Fish and Game, and Dr. Platts.
23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  You said that your facilities on Lee
24  Vining Creek would not permit you to release the flow 
25  recommendations made by the ad hoc committee for Lee Vining
01  Creek.  That is because you have no storage facilities on
02  Lee Vining Creek?
03       MR. ALLEN:  That's correct.
04       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I would now propose that the panel be
05  made available for cross­examination.
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, Mr. Birmingham.  
07       There will be one more panel after this, but we will
08  now go to cross­examination of these three panels.  Now, let
09  me just ask for just the information of the Board.  To those
10  parties that were ahead of Mr. Roos­Collins that did not opt
11  to cross­examine the first panel, now that we have added two
12  others, do any of you wish to question the three panels as a
13  group?
14       No one responding, then let me just ask ­­ Mr.
15  Ridenhour has arrived.  Sir.
16       DR. RIDENHOUR:  I pass.
17       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  All right.
18       DR. RIDENHOUR:  Thank you.
19       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Have to remember to swear you in at
20  time for direct. 
21       All right, then, we can return to Mr. Roos­Collins for
22  cross­examination.  Sir, thank you again for you indulgence.
23  Please come forward.  Resume. 
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Before Mr. Stubchaer's hand starts
25  the clock, I would like to address the procedural matter
01  which you decided prior to resumption of my
02  cross­examination.
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please do. 
04       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I understand your insistence on the
05  various schedules set out in the hearing notice to have
06  several purposes.  One of them is to assure that each party
07  ask questions on issues most important to it.  And I will
08  say, speaking only for myself, that I welcome the Chair's or
09  any other Board Member's instruction.  If a question, or for
10  that matter an answer, does not appear to add value to the
11  record on which you base your decision. 
12       As noted by someone who will remain unnamed, that I ask
13  questions directed to each panelist.  I do not intend to
14  adopt that as a practice.  I did it only because the issue,
15  how long it will take to restore these creeks, is one of the
16  most difficult issues you have to decide, and I believed the
17  panelists would have somewhat different perspectives on that
18  question. 
19       Nonetheless, I renew my request that this Board advise
20  me if any of my questions are not adding value to your
21  understanding of the record.
22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I thank you for you comment, Mr.
23  Roos­Collins.  I do not take umbrage with your questioning. 
24  I don't know who might have stated anything by way of
25  objection, for lack of a better term. 
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Nor do I take umbrage to the
02  comment.  I simply wish to underscore my request that the
03  Board instruct the attorneys, including me, whether our
04  questions add value to the record.  Having said that, let me
05  make one other point. 
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Please do.     
07       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  The Stream Restoration Plan, which
08  was the subject of the first panel, and the Monitoring Plan,
09  which is the subject of the second panel, are of central
10  importance to California Trout.  I asked questions during
11  the first cross­examination on the understanding that I had
12  one hour for the first panel.  I now have one­half hour to
13  complete examination of both panels.  In light of that, I
14  can tell you now that I will request an extension of my time
15  when I exhaust that half hour, and I will sweeten the
16  request by committing that my cross­examination of the
17  Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Trust for Public
18  Land, People for Mono Basin Preservation, Mr. Beckman, and
19  Arcularius Ranch will total less than one hour.  I am not
20  asking for a ruling on the request now.  I am simply letting
21  you know in advance that these panels are of central
22  importance to us, and I may run over the half hour
23  remaining. 
24       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  The timer is set one hour.   When we
25  get to the end of that period, we will certainly ask you how
01  much more time you need, Mr. Roos­Collins.  I will repeat
02  that cross­examination is obviously different than direct, 
03  especially the way we designed this situation, this
04  proceeding.  As long as the questions are pertinent and on
05  point, we are not going to stifle you. 
06       Again, in the interest of getting through to some
07  completion, we ask you to be as crisp and succinct as you
08  possibly can, recognizing a lot of your time is taken by the
09  answers, so you can't necessarily predetermine what they are
10  going to be.  Just do the best you can, and we understand
11  that it created a little bit of a defugalty, for lack of a
12  better term, when ­­
13       BOARD MEMBER FORSTER:  Defugalty?
14       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I wanted to see if you were
15  listening.  Defugalty is an old term we used to use in my
16  days with the Department of Finance when we couldn't think
17  of anything else to say. 
18       Do the best that you can, and when we get to the end of
19  the hour we will see what we have accomplished and how much
20  time, additional time, you need, sir. 
21       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you. 
22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you.
23                            ­­­oOo­­­
01                    FURTHER CROSS­EXAMINATION
02                       BY CALIFORNIA TROUT
03                       BY MR. ROOS­COLLINS
04       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me conclude my questions to the
05  original panel.  On Page 69 of Los Angeles Exhibit 16, the  
06  Stream Restoration Plan, Los Angeles states:
07            Once a particular area, or old channel,
08            has been rewatered, there will be no
09            future maintenance to sustain it by
10            performing annual cleaning of the
11            diversion channel.            (Reading.)
12       At several other points in the written testimony
13  submitted by the panelists, I understand this statement to
14  relate in part to the abandoned historic channels in the
15  Rush Creek bottomlands.  My first question is:  For those
16  channels in the Rush Creek bottomlands, which are reopened
17  with restoration treatments, is Los Angeles proposing not to
18  reopen them in the event, for whatever reason, they close?
19       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes. 
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Why?
21       DR. BESCHTA:  If you are living with a process­based
22  system in which processes can occur, one of the outcomes is
23  you have to let those processes operate.  All right.  The
24  idea of having a deterministic condition in which you can
25  identify a priority, certain channels should be opened or
01  whatever and then never allowed to change, is not the
02  condition or the kinds of restoration we are talking about. 
03       So, a channel is opened up and does then eventually
04  close, that is part of the system and that is the way it
05  will operate. 
06       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  What if, Dr. Beschta, you determined
07  that the channel closed as direct consequence of continuing
08  degradation upstream; for example unnatural load of sediment
09  or gravel or inadequate riparian vegetation.  Is your answer
10  the same?
11       DR. BESCHTA:  You are putting some values on what is
12  inadequate or what is excessive.  I don't know what exact
13  circumstances you are talking about there.
14       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  What if you determined that the
15  historic channel closes again as a result of degradation,
16  which you view as degradation caused by Los Angeles' past
17  operations of its water supply system? 
18       DR. BESCHTA:  Again, this is a dynamic system.   There
19  will be places where channels will not operate quite the way
20  they did prior to 1941, and it will take some time.  There
21  is the opportunity for bedload sediment to be moving through
22  that system in different rates. 
23       I am uncomfortable with the concept of degradation from
24  previous activities.  That whole system has been degraded
25  from previous activities.  It's coming from that state.  It
01  started from there, and it is moving in a different
02  direction now.
03       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Which historic channels in the Rush
04  Creek bottomland does Los Angeles propose to open?
05       MS. CAHILL:  Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Roos­Collins
06  indulgence, this is a matter that bears clarifying, and we
07  have prepared an exhibit, let them mark on it.  I think it
08  might be helpful to getting an answer to your question or do
09  you want in terms of numbers?
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I will defer or waive questioning on
11  this issue in deference to the Department of Fish and Game
12  which has prepared ­­
13       MS. CAHILL:  You are welcome to use the exhibit.  It is
14  directly out of something in the record.
15       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  This is an exhibit that has already
16  been or at least a blowup of an exhibit that has already
17  been presented. 
18       MS. CAHILL:  This is a blowup of a sketch from the
19  three scientists' report.  All parties have it.  It is in
20  the three scientists' report which is the first appendix to
21  the stream plan. 
22       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Chairman, in light of the
23  Department of Fish and Game's preparation to address this
24  issue, I pass on it.  I will move on.
25       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Thank you, sir.
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  My remaining questions have to do
02  with the Monitoring Plans submitted by Los Angeles.  I
03  understand that the plan was submitted in two parts: the
04  White Book, Los Angeles Exhibit 22; and the Blue Book, Los
05  Angeles Exhibit 23.
06       I understand that Los Angeles has submitted additional
07  written testimony, Exhibits 30 and 31. 
08       Mr. Kavounas, my first question goes to the status of
09  Exhibits 22 and 23.  What I want to get at is whether those
10  exhibits constitute the four corners of the Monitoring Plan
11  now submitted by Los Angeles to this Board?
12       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I object to the question on the
13  grounds it is vague and ambiguous.  I don't ­­ I am a
14  lawyer; I don't understand what four corners means.  Maybe
15  Mr. Roos­Collins does.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Roos­Collins, I must confess I
17  was trying to interrupt that myself.  Could you clarify your
18  question a little bit more?
19       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Is the Monitoring Plan submitted by
20  Los Angeles, Exhibits 22 and 23?
21       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes. 
22       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Does Los Angeles intend that any
23  other exhibit constitute part of that monitoring plan?
24       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No. 
25       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask you then about the
01  statement on the first page of Los Angeles Exhibit 30, your 
02  written testimony, Mr. Kavounas, where you state:
03            The new monitoring plan submitted to the 
04            State Water Board on January 13th, 1997 has
05            been changed as follows.         (Reading.)
06       And then you set out five bullets.  Do those bullets
07  constitute changes to Exhibits 22 and 23?
08       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Thank you for pointing that out.  What I
09  was trying to convey is that, as a result of the process
10  that we went through with the four consultants in refining
11  the Monitoring Plan, the White and Blue Book that constitute
12  the Department's monitoring plan, reflect these bulleted
13  changes to the Monitoring Plan that was submitted along with
14  the Restoration Plans.
15       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you for that clarification.
16  In Exhibit 31, Page 1, the authors state: 
17            It should be noted that each of us may differ
18            slightly on a specific protocol that could be
19            followed to monitor an element of the
20            recovery of the Mono Basin streams. 
21            However, each of us is in agreement
22            concerning the concept that served as the
23            foundation of the Monitoring Plann. 
24            (Reading.)
25       Does that mean that the panelists do disagree regarding
01  specific protocols contained in Los Angeles Exhibits 22 and
02  23?
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is that a general question to the
04  panel? 
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  General question to the panel.      
06       Actually, let me limit it to the authors of Exhibit 31,
07  which would exclude Mr. Allen.
08       DR. BESCHTA:  In a generic sense, and there may be
09  different answers here.  Because any time you put four
10  scientists together in the same room and ask them to move
11  towards a particular product on the other end, you always
12  get differences of opinion.  So, yes, there are differences 
13  at some level.  There will always be differences amongst the
14  group.  I think the general consensus is here we think that
15  this a reasonable or good monitoring plan to go forward on.
16       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me turn then to Paragraph 8 of
17  the Board order in Decision 1631 as the foundation for the
18  next area I will address.  Paragraph 8, Subparagraph d(4)
19  provides:
20            That the Restoration Plans shall include a
21            method for monitoring the results and
22            progress of proposed restoration projects. 
23            The monitoring proposal shall identify how
24            results of restoration activities will be
25            distinguished from naturally occurring
01            changes.                       (Reading.)
02       Where in the Monitoring Plan does Los Angeles propose a
03  method to distinguish the results of restoration activities
04  from naturally occurring changes? 
05       DR. TRUSH:  I will take initial crack at that.   There
06  is no difference.  When we started this out, we approached
07  the restoration, when we came on the RTC, as pools built and
08  all the various structures, well, the large floods have
09  taken care of that and shown how that is really going to
10  work in the future. 
11       So, the prescription now are the flows.  The flows
12  affect the entire channels.  So, to separate any sort of
13  natural effect from those induced by the flows, there is no
14  way we could, or would want to, or could separate out
15  natural from reinstigating flows.  We are proposing any more
16  built structures.  The only thing we get close to there are
17  side channels and whether to keep them open, as you had
18  mentioned earlier.
19       But other than that, we don't see a distinction, or at
20  least I don't.   We talked about that earlier; that is the
21  thing, I think, we came up with. 
22       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  As to my question, Dr. Trush, the
23  answer to my question is that the Monitoring Plan does not
24  include a method to distinguish the results of restoration
25  activities from naturally occurring changes based on the 
01  reason you just provided; is that correct? 
02       DR. TRUSH:  There might be an exception lurking
03  somewhere, but I have to say you are correct.
04       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me then ask about the remainder 
05  of that sentence. 
06            The monitoring proposal shall propose
07            criteria for determining when the monitoring
08            may be terminated.   (Reading.)
09       For the purpose of this cross­examination, I will use
10  shorthand.  I will refer to these criteria as termination
11  criteria. 
12       Where in the Monitoring Plan does Los Angeles propose
13  termination criteria?
14       DR. TRUSH:  I can't use the term "termination
15  criteria."  It is a term you use that I haven't agreed to,
16  for one thing.  Again, we are getting back to try to bring
17  the processes rather than an endpoint, as I said
18  earlier.  There are no termination criteria.  Now, whether
19  the text says there are criteria to establish when
20  restoration should end, I think we have all seen that no one
21  has answered that yet, as to when these streams will be
22  restored because we can't answer that.  If that is in the
23  text, then all I can say it is inaccurate.
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Trush, this is not my term. 
25  This is the requirement of Decision 1631.
01       DR. TRUSH:  The termination criteria? 
02       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I will read it again.  
03            The monitoring proposal shall propose
04            criteria for determining when monitoring may
05            be terminated.            (Reading.)
06       That is not Cal Trout's proposal; that is a requirement
07  of Paragraph 8(D)(4) in Decision 1631.  My question remains: 
08  Where in the Monitoring Plan do you propose such termination
09  criteria? 
10       DR. KAUFFMAN:  I can only say as one of the co­authors,
11  I was under the impression it would go until, I believe, the
12  year 2014, when the Board met again and would make a
13  decision based on it.
14       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  So, Dr. Kauffman, is your answer
15  that the proposal does not include termination criteria on
16  the assumption that this Board will revisit the Restoration
17  Plan in the year 2014?
18       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  He means this Board as an
19  institution.
20       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  Speak for yourself.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Speaking, hopefully, for the
22  younger members, Mr. Del Piero.  I apologize for
23  interrupting you, sir.  Please proceed. 
24       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Again, yes, that as restoration is
25  considered to be an ongoing process and that monitoring is
01  necessary to understand how the restoration activities, how
02  the recovery of that ecosystem is occurring, that the
03  philosophy we are operating under was that this would be an
04  ongoing ­­ monitoring would be an ongoing process until the
05  year 2014. 
06       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  So, the answer to my question is the
07  Monitoring Plan does not include the termination criteria I
08  just described; is that correct?
09       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Well, in that there is an inherent
10  disjunct in what we determined as there is no quantifiable
11  point to restoration.  Therefore, I guess, there is no
12  termination criteria that one could identify.
13       DR. BESCHTA.  If I could add, maybe I will confuse
14  things even more.  If we had a number of streams in the Mono
15  Basin that were "already in good restoration condition,"
16  naturally functioning, you know, good habitat, well­endowed
17  riparian systems that are doing everything, if we had those
18  reference points, we might feel a bit more comfortable
19  saying, "Okay.  This is where it might be."  We don't have
20  those. 
21       Where this stream is going, we don't have the
22  comparisons to line up to say, "We think it should be there. 
23  We think it should be there in X number of years."  The
24  restoration is a process.  It's happening; it is a dynamic
25  one.  And how long it takes may be ultimately a political
01  decision.  A group will have to sit down and say, "Okay. 
02  It's there.  That is where it is at."
03       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I understand, Dr. Beschta, that you
04  concur that the Monitoring Plan does not include termination
05  criteria on the ground that you just stated.  Is that
06  correct? 
07       DR. BESCHTA:  True.  And I was also on the assumption
08  that the topic would be revisited by some other group at
09  some point down the line, perhaps when the lake reached the
10  appropriate level.
11       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me now turn to the text of
12  Exhibits 22 and 23 on this general issue, namely how the
13  Monitoring Plan evaluates progress towards the restoration
14  goals stated in the Stream Restoration Plan.
15       When we begin with Exhibit 23, Page 4, towards the end 
16  of that paragraph:
17            As outlined in the Monitoring Plan, LADWP
18            intends to monitor the processes associated
19            with the recovering stream system.  Once
20            enough data is collected, then quantitative
21            objectives (endpoints) can be identified.
22            (Reading.)
23       At another point in these exhibits you also refer to
24  restoration endpoints.  What are the restoration endpoints
25  that you are describing on Page 4 of Los Angeles Exhibit 23?
01       DR. BESCHTA:  You are asking me? 
02       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I am asking the panel.
03       DR. TRUSH:  The ones that I mentioned so far were the
04  various alluvial attributes.  That is what we are trying to
05  achieve is mobility of channel bed, on the average once a
06  year; inundation of floodplain, on the average once a year; 
07  a significance scour of alluvial features, on the order of
08  three to five years.  With those processes, we feel
09  restoration will be achieved.  The riparian will respond and
10  cascade of all kinds of effects.  So those are endpoints. 
11  It is being satisfied that the flow regime is capable of
12  carrying those functions out.
13       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Trush, you are referring to the
14  attributes of integrity that are stated both in Exhibit 22
15  and also in Exhibit 31; is that correct?
16       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
17       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Those attributes are stated in
18  qualitative terms? 
19       DR. TRUSH:  There is nothing qualitative about them. 
20  When you say on the average once a year, mobilization of the
21  channel bed, we had in our monitoring plan defined what is
22  mobility by actually measuring mobility of the channel bed
23  and associating with those flows. 
24       So, it is uncomfortable that we can't say a channel has
25  to be this wide or this many pools or whatnot, but as
01  geomorphologist, very comfortable by saying that if we can
02  release a flow regime that on the average mobilizes the
03  channel bed once a year, because we have some years very low
04  flows, two flood peaks the next year, on the average may
05  sound a little squirrelly, but there is a statisticalness to
06  this whole thing that we can't predict in the future.
07       That is the way it has come out on healthy alluvial
08  rivers and other places in the West, on the average once a
09  year.  That is being very specific. 
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Trush, let me return to the     
11  statement in Exhibit 23, Page 4. 
12            Once enough data is collected then
13            quantitative objectives (endpoints) can be
14            identified.               (Reading.)
15       I understand that to mean that they are not yet
16  identified. 
17       DR. TRUSH:  That is correct.  As far as the flows that
18  we are prescribing capable of producing, that we want to be
19  able to make the judgment as to whether the flows can
20  accomplish those attributes.  We've guessed at what those
21  flows are right now.  We want to use the monitoring to
22  refine those guesses to make sure that we can achieve those
23  attributes.  That is where the quantification comes in, of
24  the discharges and the durations that are needed to achieve
25  those attributes.
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  What I am getting at is, how much of
02  the Monitoring Plan is fixed on paper and how much will be
03  developed as monitoring proceeds?  So let me ask you about
04  another passage in Exhibit 31, specifically on Page 9, just 
05  before the listing of attributes we have been discussing.
06            The following attributes of physical and
07            biological integrity for alluvial stream
08            ecosystems, incorporating the above processes
09            and responses, can guide selection of
10            appropriates restoration strategies and 
11            monitoring protocols for Lee Vining and Rush
12            Creek ecosystems.            (Reading.)
13       What does that statement mean?
14       DR. TRUSH:  I guess you can put it ­­ an example is why
15  would ­­ I am not being facetious here ­­ why would a bunch
16  of grown adults go out and paint a bunch of rocks and put it
17  in a stream channel and line the stream channel?  We had
18  very specific hypotheses, and so that is where we use the
19  alternatives, these attributes, for coming up with what is
20  important and how do we monitor it. 
21       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me put the question differently. 
22  I don't think I worded it so you understood my intention.   
23       The following attributes can guide selection of
24  monitoring protocols. 
25       Does that mean that the monitoring protocols are stated
01  in the Monitoring Plan or that the protocols will be
02  selected on the basis of monitoring of those attributes?
03       DR. TRUSH:  This is stated in the Restoration
04  Plan.  There is some room there, though, for
05  interpretation.  In other words, we said, yes, we want to
06  put in marked channel rock tracers for the surface and some
07  other things, very specific protocols there.  We also said
08  that one of the main problems in assigning flows or trying
09  to come up with flows that are going to make the stream work
10  is the problem of duration.  We can identify a flood that
11  will surpass a threshold of the riverbed, but how long
12  should that flow go?  Could the same thing be achieved in
13  two or ten days?   
14       The science isn't there yet to come up with a hard
15  methodology to assess that.  So, we have a little wiggle
16  room in that every few years to come up with a better way at
17  getting at duration.  That is one example that hasn't been
18  ironed out yet, but a number of them have.  They are
19  presented in the Monitoring Plan.  Monitoring protocols have
20  been ironed out. 
21       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask you then about several
22  specific attributes listed on Pages 9 and 10 of Los Angeles 
23  Exhibit 31.
24            Number 6, the channel will migrate at rates
25            and wave lengths consistent with other rivers
01            in watersheds with similar annual flow
02            regimes, valley slopes and confinement, and
03            sediment supply and caliber.   (Reading.)
04       Let's assume that this Board adopts this plan as
05  submitted without modification, and you are, therefore,
06  directed to implement it.  Which rivers would you pick for
07  the purpose of implementing attribute Number 6? 
08       DR. TRUSH:  I could not pick a river.  To establish
09  that I would have to use the channel itself, and that is
10  where we get back to the monitoring.  That is particularly a
11  tough one.  Where we would monitor the rate of channel
12  migration as a function of discharge, then take a look at
13  your typical two­year flood and average migration rate that
14  we would find on lower Rush Creek, use that as our
15  guideline.
16       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  So, Number 6 says you will look at
17  other rivers, but you, in fact, would not? 
18       DR. TRUSH:   The attributes are written on how you
19  evaluate rivers in general.  We are applying the list to
20  this ecosystem, and I am not sure if the text stayed in
21  there. 
22       Yes, later on, the next paragraph, it says not all of
23  these can be satisfied for any particular river.  No set of
24  guidelines is perfect for any single situation.  So, sure,
25  we would like to use regional rivers.  I always use them. 
01  When I came in this case, it is not there.  So, what you are
02  seeing is a general list of attributes for rivers, alluvial
03  rivers in general, and we are applying that as best we can
04  to Rush and Lee Vining Creek.
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask then about Number 8,
06  which refers to undisturbed rivers regionally for the
07  purpose of evaluation of riparian vegetation communities.   
08       Can you identify undisturbed rivers regionally which
09  you have used if this Board approved this plan as submitted
10  for the purpose of implementing attribute Number 8?
11       DR. TRUSH:  I will take that riparian.   One, we
12  probably can look at some stance, but certainly no river
13  regionally, again.  What we can, though, look at are the
14  processes that create riparian ecosystems, how often are the
15  ceilings scoured, the advancement of point bars.  There is a
16  variety of things, of ways alluvial forests or vegetation
17  responds to these channels that we can use.  But, again, it
18  is a general guideline and this is a tough one to apply all
19  those to, these streams. 
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  So the answer to my question is you
21  cannot today identify the rivers you would use for
22  implementation of this attribute? 
23       DR. TRUSH:  I won't even try.  They don't exist.       
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me turn to Page 2 of this same
25  exhibit, LADWP 31.  The section entitled Establishing
01  Restoration Expectations.
02       This is your term.  How do your expectations relate to
03  endpoints? 
04       DR. TRUSH:  Get the look again.  The expectation is a
05  softer way of allowing us to focus on processes rather than
06  endpoints.  Where an endpoint being a hard channel, final
07  channel width.  Whereas an expectation goes back to the
08  attribute, saying frequent scour on this sort of time
09  frame, on the average once a year.  That is an expectation. 
10  It is easier to call mobilizing the channel bed once a week
11  an expectation than it is an endpoint.
12       DR. BESCHTA:  I think you should realize that during
13  our discussions and during the process of putting this
14  together, the terminology "endpoint" was one that we had a
15  lot of discussions around.  Some of us feel very
16  uncomfortable with being able to define ecosystem endpoints
17  in the concept you've created an automobile; you are done,
18  and you can go drive off into the sunset. 
19       These systems continue to change.  The idea that
20  endpoint has very dynamic boundaries around it, and so it is
21  a terminology we wrestled with, a lot.  And I am not sure we
22  came to a real nice conclusion of how we would treat that
23  terminology.  Some of us are uncomfortable with an endpoint
24  criteria.
25       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me discuss one final endpoint or
01  expectation before I move on to other issues; that has to be
02  fish population.  In Exhibit 23, Page 14, we see the result,
03  I believe, of Mr. Hunter's agonizing.  You can read passage,
04  and then I will ask a question about it. 
05       The following qualitative objective was established.  A
06  self­sustaining population of brown and other trout,
07  typically eight to ten inches in length, which can be
08  harvested in moderate numbers.
09       Is Los Angeles recommending that as an endpoint to this
10  Board?
11       Let me withdraw that question, given your discomfort
12  with the term "endpoint."  Are you recommending to this
13  Board that the Monitoring Plan be tied in some fashion to
14  the accomplishment of that population objective?
15       MR. HUNTER:  I think that we say in here earlier that
16  the real goal here is, through the implementation of the
17  flow regime, that the habitat necessary for healthy trout
18  populations will be created.  That is going to be the focus
19  of this plan. 
20       But given the interest that various entities had in
21  trout, that there will be continuing monitoring efforts for
22  trout to determine whether or not they are responding.  But
23  there is not a endpoint, per se, for trout. 
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  What then is the consequence of our
25  not having such a population in one of these creeks at some
01  point in the future?  How does that affect Los Angeles'
02  evaluation, whether the overall restoration goal has been
03  achieved?
04       MR. HUNTER:  I guess I'm not sure.  We said earlier
05  today that if you build it, they will come.  We have a
06  historical example in these creeks where habitat was in
07  excellent condition and there were no fish in them.  If DWP,
08  through the implementation of this flow regime, creates
09  excellent, what we perceive to be excellent habitat, is that
10  the goal of this plan?  I guess I thought that it was. 
11       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask you again on the
12  understanding that you authored this sentence.  What did you
13  mean by the term "the following qualitative objective was
14  established"?
15       MR. HUNTER:  Just that.  That this ­­ because we could
16  not come up with a quantitative objective, as I explained
17  earlier, the DWP would adopt this as a qualitative
18  objective.  That we would, in fact, have a self­sustaining
19  population of brown trout that could be harvested in
20  moderate numbers. 
21       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  In the event that we can look so far
22  as the year 2014 and on that date Los Angeles reports to
23  this Board that habitat conditions meet the restoration
24  goal, but we have not met this fishery objective, what
25  follows, according to this monitoring plan?  What is the
01  consequence of not meeting this objective stated in the
02  Monitoring Plan?
03       DR. BESCHTA:  I think you have to assess that in the
04  context of what that stream system is like at that
05  particular point in time. 
06       Can I just maybe expand just a little bit?
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Identify the exhibit, sir.     
08       DR. BESCHTA:  Earlier, I had Exhibit R­DWP­63.  It is a
09  view of the fishery ­­ from the fish hatchery site.  Let's
10  suppose we met the fisheries goal in the very upper
11  left­hand picture in July of '86.  Let us suppose that
12  whatever the fish numbers are that we have proposed there
13  are already present in that stream.  The question then is:
14  Have we met the restoration goals of Rush and Lee Vining
15  Creek?  And my view is, no, we aren't even close.
16       We may have met that single component of having enough
17  fish in the system.  Does that mean we all go home?  I would
18  suggest not.  I would suggest that some of these other
19  things have to take place, and collectively will come
20  together.  The exact fishing numbers, I will let ­­ Chris
21  Hunter's testimony stands on its own.  The numbers that he
22  has provided are for numbers across the basins.  There are
23  such variance in those numbers.  It is really hard to pin
24  down exactly what should be there. 
25       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Beschta, you have answered a
01  different question than I asked.  I understand that you
02  would not be satisfied with a good fishery in habitat such
03  as shown in that exhibit in July of 1986.  I asked about a
04  different problem. 
05       Namely, the habitat meets the restoration goals stated
06  in the Restoration Plan, but the fishery does not meet the
07  objective which I just quoted.  Will Los Angeles say, on the
08  basis of the Monitoring Plan ­­ is it your intention, as
09  authors of the Monitoring Plan, that in that circumstance
10  the restoration goal will be satisfied?
11       DR. BESCHTA:  Let's suppose that the veg and the
12  channel are functioning and at least we can get collective
13  agreement that restoration has occurred in those features in
14  the system, by in large, through much of it and yet we have
15  not met the fish numbers as has been put on the table here
16  as a possibility. 
17       I guess the question I would have to ask is:   Are there
18  extenuating circumstances for that particular, for those
19  numbers to be low on that year or series of years?  So I
20  think you to have ask a context question, and we can't
21  answer it.  I can't answer that precisely whether it is a
22  yes­no answer.  Someone else will have to sit down and weigh
23  in context what those numbers mean.  Read Part 2