24  MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask a different question. 
25  Let's assume, as time goes by, that habitat conditions trend
0170
01  toward recovery.  If I may use as a verb, the noun that is
02  used throughout your testimony.  Let's assume that the fish
03  population does not trend towards that objective. 
04       Where in the Monitoring Plan do you have a protocol to
05  address that circumstance and to evaluate whether the
06  Restoration Plan is working as intended on the fishery?
07       MR. HUNTER:  I guess we don't.  I guess I have assumed
08  all along that if we got to that point, if it was 2014, and
09  ­­ first, let me say, that if this flow regime is
10  implemented and it does do what we expect it to do, I have a
11  hard time imagining the circumstances under which these fish
12  populations would not be met.  I just can't imagine that
13  situation. 
14       But if that did occur, then I assume when this Board
15  reconvened in 2014 that they would take an action to remedy
16  that situation. 
17       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me turn to a different issue,
18  namely the place of pre­1941 conditions in the Monitoring
19  Plan.  Let me draw your attention to Los Angeles Exhibit 31,
20  Page 3, end of the first full paragraph.  Most of the 18
21  characteristics, referring to the RTC characteristics, will
22  be monitored to follow future trends.  Which of those 18
23  characteristics will not be monitored under your monitoring
24  plan?
25       MR. HUNTER:  Invertebrates, for one. 
0171
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:   Are there others?
02       DR. KAUFFMAN:  Aquatic vegetation.
03       MR. HUNTER:  I don't believe there is monitoring on
04  spring flows.  I think those are the only three.
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Next issue, which is how this plan
06  proposes to take advantage of the monitoring data collected
07  by Los Angeles and also by the Restoration Technical
08  Committee through its consultant from 1987 to the present.
09       I preface my questions by saying I saw the term
10  "baseline" used in various places in different ways in the
11  Monitoring Plan.  So, I am uncertain whether you intend to
12  use any of the monitoring data collected during that period
13  for the purpose of assessing where we are in 1987, once this
14  Board approves the Monitoring Plan. 
15       So let me put the question to you.  How does this plan
16  propose to use that data for the purpose of evaluating
17  recovery of these streams?
18       DR. KAUFFMAN:  That would be all data collected since
19  1987?
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Yes.  I am referring specifically to
21  the data described on Page 3 of Los Angeles Exhibit 22,
22  where you state that one of your first tasks is to collect
23  the data previously collected by others.  I understand
24  that.  I don't understand what follows. 
25       How does this plan propose to use the data collected by
0172
01  Los Angeles and the restoration consultant prior to the
02  issuance of D­1631? 
03       DR. BESCHTA:  I think it would have to be on a
04  case­by­case basis.  For example, stream temperature data
05  could be used whenever it had been collected as a baseline
06  condition.  Let's suppose the stream temperature data did
07  not hit the warmest time of the year.  So we are trying to
08  figure out what is happening with regard to changes and
09  stream temperatures in recent times.  If we monitor
10  temperatures now on a more continuous basis, we will have a
11  more holistic view of what is going on.  We'll have to go
12  back and utilize that earlier data, but we have
13  qualifications on it.  I think that is probably true of
14  almost every data set that we may end up looking at, is that
15  it would have to looked at within the context of the
16  measurements that are going to take place.  It may be very
17  valuable and it may be less than very valuable. 
18       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Dr. Beschta, before I ask my next
19  question let me offer a very brief editorial comment. 
20       I appreciate the tremendous difficulty of the job which
21  this monitoring plan represents.  My questions are not
22  intended to suggest that it was an easy job.  What I am 
23  trying to get at is what Los Angeles has offered to this
24  Board for approval, leaving aside your opinion, how you
25  would treat temperature data in some future scenario?  What
0173
01  do Los Angeles Exhibits 22 and 23 say will be done with the
02  data collected prior to the adoption of Decision 1631?
03       DR. BESCHTA:  I guess someone else will have to
04  answer, 'cause I tried. 
05       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I am asking for a reference to a
06  page in Exhibits 22 and 23 to show the treatment of that
07  existing data.
08       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I don't believe you will find a
09  reference to a page because there is not reference to any
10  page.  The reason for that is exactly as Dr. Beschta
11  explained.  It depends on the data that you find.  If I can
12  use his term, the quality of the data, if it is usable. 
13  Then you would have to make an evaluation on the spot,
14  whether you can or can't use it on a case­by­case basis.     
15       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Kavounas, where in Exhibits 22
16  and 23 do you establish a protocol or method for evaluating
17  the usability of the data collected before the adoption of
18  Decision 1631? 
19       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It is, I guess, referred to on Page 3,
20  the very page you are looking at, on the first bullet, where
21  it says:
22            Purging most, but keeping organized the best
23            and most useful data.           (Reading.)
24       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  You understand the parties disagree
25  rather violently regarding what the best data may be?
0174
01       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I would hope not. 
02       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me move to a different issue, 
03  specifically, analysis of trends in recovery, Exhibit 31,
04  Page 5.
05       MR. HUNTER:  Can I ask a question, please?  
06       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  You may direct your question to the
07  Chair.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Birmingham, you have a witness
09  raising his hand over here.  I am not sure how we handle it.
10       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am confident it is a good
11  question.
12       MR. HUNTER:  I am sorry for being so stupid, but if you
13  could ­­ I think these are the Blue Book and White Book.  If
14  you could tell me what number is the White Book and what
15  number is the Blue Book, it would help us a lot. 
16       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  My apologies.  If it would be more
17  helpful, I will use the terminology White and Blue Book.    
18       DR. KAUFFMAN:  White is 22 and Blue is 23.   Direct
19  testimony is 31.
20       MR. HUNTER:  That is wonderful.
21       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  I like White and Blue myself.
22       Go ahead, Mr. Roos­Collins.
23       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Hunter, I assure you I had no
24  intentions ­­ usually attorney's numerology.  Let me ask you
25  about trend analysis. 
0175
01       Exhibit 31, which is your written testimony, Page 5,
02  includes a section entitled, Expected Trends for the
03  Monitoring/Evaluation Plan.
04       Does this plan monitor trends in the recovery of the
05  various attributes which we have already discussed?
06        DR. KAUFFMAN:  Yes. 
07        MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  On Page 9, in the third full       
08  paragraph, you state:
09            A significant difference between monitoring
10            trends and monitoring processes is the type
11            of independent variable plotted on the X Axis
12            in the analysis.   (Reading.)
13                  And you continue to explain that.
14            Both are needed in this monitoring plan.
15            (Reading.)
16       Does that mean that this plan monitors trends and
17  processes?
18       DR. TRUSH:   Yes. 
19       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  What is the difference?  
20       DR. TRUSH:  The trends are response to the process.  In
21  other words, if we tracked channel confinement or, if you
22  wanted to, width, what produced that change in width was not
23  just one simple thing.  It was interaction of vegetation and
24  the flows and everything else.  So that, if the attributes
25  are functioning the way we think they, and we are doing that
0176
01  in the Monitoring Plan, as well, getting right at the
02  process, the result of those working in a very complex way,
03  are these morphologic changes or changes in riparian
04  vegetation.  So, we are plotting those trends and assessing
05  attributes.
06       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me preface my next question by
07  reference to a memory shared with Dr. Beschta and Dr.
08  Kauffman, although not with the esteemed Members of this
09  Board, and that is the 1992 hearing before Judge Finney
10  regarding a monitoring plan then proposed by Los Angeles.
11       As I recall, there was considerable disagreement among
12  the experts what statistical protocols to use to monitor
13  various trends.  So, let me ask the question to you
14  directly. 
15       Where in the White and Blue Books do you state the
16  statistical or other analytical protocols you will use to
17  analyze the trends and the processes which we just
18  discussed?
19       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Who is that question directed to? 
20  Dr. Kauffman or Dr. Beschta or Dr. Trush ­­
21       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Any member of this panel is free to
22  answer this question. 
23       DR. TRUSH:  We stated in the Monitoring Plan we are
24  using representative reaches for looking at various, and
25  what I am mostly working on, alluvial processes.  And there
0177
01  we've got it ­­ we aren't sampling.  We are taking
02  cross­sections in defined places with an intention in mind
03  of point bar, straight reach, and we are looking at percent
04  movement, say, of particle sizes.
05       Now, true, we can plot magnitude of flow on the X Axis
06  and the percent tracers moved on the Y.  There is going to 
07  scatter there.  We did not stipulate that we will use a
08  regression to determine a linear relationship.  That is not
09  in there. 
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Is this true of the other attributes
11  we have previously discussed? 
12       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
13       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me move on to site selection, 
14  Dr. Trush, since you raised that in anticipation of my next
15  line of questioning, as well as in answer to my question.   
16       On Page 7 of the White Book you state ­­ you refer to
17  representative reaches of Rush and Lee Vining Creeks.  You
18  refer in other places as well to those representative
19  reaches.  And in turn you identify what those reaches are in
20  Figure 1 on Page 8. 
21       Is that correct?
22       DR. TRUSH:   Yes. 
23       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  At least for Rush Creek.
24       With that as foundation, let me ask you to turn again
25  to your written testimony, Los Angeles 31, Pages 6 through
0178
01  7.  We begin with Page 6, where you discuss rationale for   
02  selective monitoring. 
03            The monitoring plan will rely mostly on
04            representative reaches.       (Reading.)
05       And then turn to Page 7, Point 3:
06            Sampling effort should be concentrated on
07            reaches with the greatest sensitivity to
08            geomorphic change and the clearest departures
09            from the pre­41 channel morphology. 
10            (Reading.)
11       Let me ask you to relate that sampling focus back to
12  the choice of representative reaches shown in the White Book
13  on Page 7. 
14       Is it your testimony that those reaches, so designated,
15  have the greatest sensitivity to geomorphic change and the
16  clearest departures from pre­41 channel morphology?
17       DR. TRUSH:  As back up, we should look at the riparian
18  site.  There are a number of statistical methods and all
19  that that Boone discusses later.  So, a lot of ­­ when we
20  talk about the sampling should occur in the representative
21  reach, we are really focusing a lot here on the fluvial
22  processes.  Because Boone's got some other things going on
23  with the riparian. 
24       Yes, those are, and the reason why we selected those
25  reaches is, for one, that we went for alluvial reaches in
0179
01  the stream channel.  Channels, when their bed and their
02  banks are adjustable, are most prone to the disturbance, and
03  most sensitive to flow changes.  Whereas, the farther
04  upstream you go above the 395 bridge, you wind up with
05  essentially nonerodable banks or fairly unerodable banks,
06  and their response is much less. 
07       So, we picked those lower reaches that would be the
08  most sensitive to flow changes, realizing that over the next
09  ten years or so, we want to be able to get at the important
10  flows as a prescription.  So, we picked those areas that
11  would give us the most information on it. 
12       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me then ask you specifically
13  about the representative reaches chosen within Reach 4, as
14  shown on Figure 1 of the White Book. 
15       Is it your testimony, Dr. Trush, that R­1 and R­2, as
16  so designated, have the greatest sensitivity to the change
17  you described and the greatest departure from pre­41
18  conditions?
19       DR. TRUSH:  The whole channel between R­1 and R­2 on
20  that figure, I can't say that this thousand feet is that
21  much more susceptible to the next thousand feet downstream. 
22  We picked those two because they had some interesting
23  features in them.  There were some nice point bars forming,
24  some primordial floodplains developing, and some constant
25  information that we are using.  Again, when we talked about
0180
01  how we are going to use that monitoring data, when you can
02  do a belly flop in any direction and be impinged on a rebar
03  out there, somewhere.  So we wanted to get rid of most of
04  the stuff that is useless.  It's been poorly documented, so
05  we can't use it.
06       We want to get the best cross­section.  We looked at
07  that and some of these reaches have some pretty good
08  documentation.  I can't say between R­1 and R­2 that that
09  reach is less sensitive than R­1 or R­2.  We had other
10  criteria in mind.  I can't say. 
11       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask you then about the
12  establishment of transects within each representative reach,
13  and here, frankly, the scientific jargon somewhat befuddles
14  me.
15       Are you proposing a specific distance between transects
16  in each representative reach for the purpose of monitoring
17  all trends, or does the transect site vary depending on what
18  you were monitoring?
19       DR. TRUSH:  It varies. 
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  I believe that you monitor or rather
21  you propose to establish transects every eight feet on Rush
22  Creek for planned mapping?
23       DR. TRUSH:  No.  There are two separate things going on
24  here.  In the planned mapping, we propose putting in rebar
25  approximately every 200 meters or 200 feet, 200 feet, simply
0181
01  so we can locate ourselves.
02       The cross­sections that are selected for the plan maps
03  are based on the morphology of the channel out there.  We'd
04  like to put several outside the bends, several on the
05  straight reaches.  The data that you referring to, Bob could
06  address that.
07       DR. BESCHTA:  The data that is collected on eight­foot
08  separations, if you will, or every eight feet along the
09  channel is attempting to get thalweg, the deepest part of
10  channel, as well as wetted widths.  Essentially, it is a
11  complete inventory of fairly lengthy reaches.  Again,
12  looking at change through time.  One of the monitoring
13  variables is change through time.  This provides us a good
14  indication of the dynamics of the channel. 
15       For example, in the last two­and­a­half years pool
16  frequencies, pool depths, wetted depths have all increased
17  fairly significantly on the bottomlands of Rush Creek.  It
18  is through this kind of measurements ­­ now, we don't have
19  sampling statistics involved because, essentially, we are
20  measuring the bottom of that channel over a two­mile reach. 
21  So, we will know very precisely the kinds of changes that
22  are taking place.
23       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me move to my eighth and final
24  issue, which I will generally call adaptive management.
25       Mr. Kavounas, let me refer you to Page 127 of Los
0182
01  Angeles Exhibit 16, the Stream Restoration Plan.  This page,
02  I believe, is outside of Chapter 7, which you have
03  previously testified has been withdrawn.
04       Mr. Kavounas, on that page you state:
05            Results from the monitoring program will not
06            be included in these documents previously
07            described.   Instead monitoring data will be
08            provided as a separate data, separate
09            document within eight months after
10            collection.                   (Reading.)
11       Is that commitment still part of the Monitoring Plan
12  submitted to this Board?
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It's the Department of Water and Power's
14  intention to keep the State Board apprised of the progress
15  of restoration in the Mono Basin.  I can't tell you, and I
16  would have to ask the scientists, whether I will be able to
17  deliver, eight months after the data has been collected a
18  package to the State Board.  If they think that is doable,
19  then the commitment to the State Board still holds. 
20       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me ask a different question
21  then.    
22       Do the White and Blue Books set forth a different
23  reporting procedure for monitoring results?
24       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, they do not.  If there is to be a
25  change in that, we did not go as far as addressing that.  I
0183
01  guess I could ask the scientists at this point as any other
02  time. 
03       Could I report to the State Board eight months after
04  the data has been collected? 
05       DR. KAUFFMAN:  If that is in the contract.  
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Money becomes an issue.  I am told by
07  the scientists that, yes, that is possible.  And so I would
08  say the Department's commitment still holds, that it is
09  unchanged.
10       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  The record should reflect that Dr.
11  Kauffman's answer was, "Yes, eight months, if it is in the
12  contract." 
13       DR. KAUFFMAN:  If it was in the request for proposals
14  or for bids that that is what the requirements of L.A.
15  Department of Water and Power is data collection.  Then the
16  contractor, the person doing the analysis, would have to
17  produce or be in default. 
18       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Let me turn now to Los Angeles      
19  Exhibit 31, Page 9, second full paragraph:
20            Adaptive management is not possible if only
21            responses, primary and secondary, are
22            monitored.   There would be no timely response
23            to improve management prescriptions and few
24            quantitative recommendations for changing
25            management prescriptions.       (Reading.)
0184
01       Stated in affirmative, do the White and Blue Books
02  propose ­­ excuse me.  Withdraw that question. 
03       Stated in the affirmative, where do the White and Blue
04  Books describe the procedure for adaptive management based
05  on your monitoring results?
06       DR. TRUSH:  There is no procedure outlined.   There is
07  simply a monitoring plan collecting the data so it would
08  allow adaptive management to take place.  As a scientist, I
09  didn't worry about all the various bureaucratic ways that
10  decisions would be made.  Simply, the Monitoring Plan was
11  saying, "Look, these attributes are or are not being
12  satisfied.  You need to change the science.  It says you
13  need to change these flows to this in order to make
14  attribute Number 4 happen.  Now, what are you going to do
15  about it?" 
16       And as a scientist, here.
17       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Mr. Chair, I see my yellow light is
18  on.  I would like to conclude by making a brief comment to
19  this panel as a whole. 
20       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey.   Throughout
21  his examination, Mr. Roos­Collins has been stating the
22  position of Cal Trout.  I did not want to interfere with his
23  cross­examination.  But it many times took on the form of
24  argument. 
25       If Mr. Roos­Collins would like to make a statement to
0185
01  this panel, I am more than happy to make it available
02  outside of the hearing room.  But if he wants to make
03  argument, then I would propose that he make it at the time
04  he begins the presentation of his case.
05       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  When you say a statement, Mr.
06  Roos­Collins, can you clarify?  Is this going to be
07  questions or what?
08       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  No, Mr. Chair.  I believe Mr.
09  Birmingham misconstrued my intention.  I merely wanted to
10  thank this panel for their very considerable efforts to
11  struggle with the very hard issues which have to be
12  addressed in the Monitoring Plan.
13       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I would ask Mr. Roos­Collins to put
14  that in writing he supports DWP's request to the State Board
15  to approve these monitoring plans.
16       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:   I did not say the plan complied
17  with Decision 1631, but I greatly appreciate the efforts of
18  this panel and Los Angeles.
19       Thank you.
20       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Roos­Collins, we appreciate your
21  deference and completing your questions in the time
22  allotted.  You do understand, had you needed more, we
23  certainly would have considered giving you more.
24       We appreciate your helping us stay on schedule.
25       Thank you, sir.
0186
01       MR. ROOS­COLLINS:  Thank you, sir.
02       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Let me just say then that we have
03  sent out a runner to make sure the cafeteria is going to
04  stay open till about 4:00. 
05       MR. FRINK:  Till 3:30. 
06       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Till 3:30.  We are going to break
07  now.  Let's make it about ten minutes, and then we will come
08  back and continue the cross­examination of this panel.  We
09  will also have a little information about what the schedule
10  looks like for tonight. 
11                          (Break taken.)
12       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  We will resume.  We have one Board
13  Member taking care of other matters, who will be joining us
14  soon.  That is Ms. Forster. 
15       Let me introduce a staff person that I neglected to
16  introduce this morning.  Melanie Collins is at the front
17  table.  I apologize, Melanie.  I didn't know you were going
18  to be here, and you have been here all day.  Welcome.
19       Before we get back to the cross­examination, let's have
20  a little discussion about what the schedule is going to be
21  for tonight.  I have talked to my fellow Board Members and
22  staff and a couple of you all, and in the interest of trying
23  to get us out of here earlier in the evening than a somewhat
24  lengthy dinner break will afford, I think what we are going
25  to do is  at 4:30 we will take a half­hour break so that
0187
01  people can move their cars, and you will need quarters, and
02  they have them.  If you are going to park on the street, and
03  use the parking meters, you will need quarters till about
04  6:00. 
05       Is that correct, Mr. Johns?
06       MR. JOHNS:  That is correct.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  If you don't have quarters on you,
08  please feel free to go next door and get some change.  We
09  will, as I say, break at 4:30 and come back at 5:00 and then
10  go till sometime between 8:00 and 8:30, whatever constitutes
11  a reasonable break.  The alternative would have been to
12  break for dinner for an hour, an hour and a half, and come
13  back and go later.  And I think in the interest of what
14  people have requested and just getting out of here as early
15  as we can, let's go with that schedule. 
16       MR. JOHNS:  Might be good to know that the garage here,
17  if you parked here, actually closes at 7.  If your car is in
18  there at 7:00, you will not get it out tonight.  That is why
19  it is important to move your car.  So, if you are in here,
20  you need to move your car to the street.  Then you will be
21  okay, unless someone breaks into it.
22       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  At 7:00 the attendant locks that
23  place up and he's gone, and you will have to come in the
24  morning to get your car.  So, I just want to make sure
25  everybody understands all that.
0188
01       All right.  That will be the procedure.   And let's go
02  to the Department of Fish and Game for cross­examination of
03  these three panels. 
04       MS. CAHILL:  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dodge asked if he could
05  switch with us.  We have no objection if the Board does
06  not.
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Is there ­­ what about Mary
08  Scoonover?  Do you have an objection?
09       MS. SCOONOVER:  No.
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Dodge would like to follow
11  California Trout.  Is that going to be a change in the
12  general procedure?
13       MR. DODGE:  I don't know if it is general, Mr.
14  Chairman.  It is just for this panel right now.  We thought
15  it made sense.
16       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Without objection, we will do that.
17                             ­­­oOo­­
18                        CROSS­EXAMINATION
19  BY THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY AND THE MONO LAKE COMMITTEE
20                           BY MR. DODGE
21       MR. DODGE:  I will stay with monitoring, if I may. 
22       Dr. Trush, you talked about the process.  When did you
23  start drafting the revised monitoring plan?
24       DR. TRUSH:   I believe I first started it in June.  I
25  had a rough draft sometime in August. 
0189
01       MR. DODGE:  Final draft when? 
02       DR. TRUSH:  Final draft, that was definitely a
03  preliminary in August.  I guess final ­­ I am trying to
04  recall.  Mid fall.  And we still had changes after that.  We
05  had a bunch of comments and a lot of changes after that.
06       The very final one?
07       MR. DODGE:  Did you do a final draft before Dr.
08  Beschta and the others got involved?
09       DR. TRUSH:  Yes, a draft. 
10       MR. DODGE:  You did?
11       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
12       MR. DODGE:  My understanding of the purpose of a
13  monitoring plan, vis­a­vis a restoration plan, typically the
14  Monitoring Plann is used to determine whether you reached
15  your restoration goal. 
16       Is that typically true?
17       DR. TRUSH:  This is my first monitoring plan, so I
18  can't ­­ sounds evasive.  I would think that is common. 
19       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Hunter, would you agree?
20       MR. HUNTER:  When I was working on the book that I
21  mentioned earlier, I found that almost nobody did any
22  monitoring of stream restoration projects once the project
23  was completed.  There was neither the time nor the money to
24  do any monitoring, so that there is ­­ I suspect there has
25  been, actually, been very little monitoring in stream
0190
01  restoration plans. 
02       MR. DODGE:  When you did the October 1995 report, in
03  concept, you were talking about a monitoring program which
04  would determine whether you reached a restoration goal,
05  correct? 
06       MR. HUNTER:  Yes. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Correct, Dr. Trush. 
08       DR. TRUSH:  At the time, yes, we thought.
09       MR. DODGE:  The DWP monitoring program does not tell us
10  that, correct?
11       DR. TRUSH:  Yes, because we realized that many of the
12  endpoints weren't functional.  They wouldn't serve as
13  reasonable objectives.
14       MR. DODGE:  The second purpose of a monitoring program,
15  as I understand it, is to determine whether to adapt the
16  restoration program if the monitoring program shows you are
17  not being successful. 
18       Would you agree with that, Dr. Trush?
19       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
20       MR. DODGE:  Now, Dr. Trush, when you were doing the
21  October 1995 report, let me read you a section of that,      
22  Page 5.
23            We find the restoration objective, as stated
24            by the Superior Court, appropriate for
25            developing a restoration program and
0191
01            consistent with the requirement to "restore" 
02            as stated in D­1631.        (Reading.)
03       Do you recall that, sir? 
04       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
05       MR. DODGE:  So, basically, your goals in the October
06  '95 scientist report were consistent, you thought, with both
07  Judge Finney's goal of reestablishing conditions that
08  benefited the fishery prediversion and with 1631 goals?
09       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
10       MR. DODGE:  And I think you already testified that the
11  present monitoring program does not have that same goal,
12  correct?
13       DR. TRUSH:  No.  Again, when we look at the goal of
14  the healthy, happy, stream it's done in context of
15  past.  And that is how ­­ we incorporated the past channel
16  by looking at undisturbed flow regimes that created that
17  previous channel morphology.  So, we still have the same
18  objective.  It is just ­­ it's not as clear, I think,
19  because we found that a simple approach here, is your per
20  channel predisturbance is what we are going to shoot for,
21  wasn't available to us. 
22       MR. DODGE:  I am a little confused now.
23       DR. TRUSH:  I am, too. 
24       MR. DODGE:  Is it your testimony that the monitoring
25  program you are proposing will determine whether the
0192
01  restoration program has recreated or restored the conditions
02  that benefited the fisheries prediversions? 
03       DR. TRUSH:  What it is going to do is to, first, plot
04  trends, and there is no final endpoint to many of those
05  trends.  The second is to show that the primary
06  prescription, the flows, will create an alluvial stream
07  channel, which is what the channel was prior to the
08  disturbance. 
09       Is that ­­
10       MR. DODGE:  I don't think that answers my question.  If
11  that is the best you can do, I will move on.
12       DR. TRUSH:  If you want to give it to me again, I will
13  take another shot at it, if you like.
14       MR. DODGE:  Is the Los Angeles monitoring program 
15  designed to monitor whether the restoration program restores
16  the conditions that benefited fisheries prediversion?
17       DR. TRUSH:  I will yes, but you won't like.   Again, if
18  you can't ­­ we are basing it on processes.  If the
19  processes are there, we will create those conditions that
20  will be good for fish. 
21       MR. DODGE:  Do you regard the ­­ in your mind, Dr.
22  Trush, is the goal that we are seeking, is this a question
23  of science or a question of law, or do you have an opinion
24  on that?
25       DR. TRUSH:  I am in dangerous ground here.   I am a
0193
01  scientist.  I will fall back on that.
02       MR. DODGE:  Referring again to your October 1995
03  report, Dr. Trush, let me read from Page 11 of that.  You   
04  said there, and I quote:
05            Measurable goals are essential to evaluate
06            the progress of restoration and document
07            accomplishments of restoration.  (Reading.)
08       Did you regard then measurable goals to be essential?
09       DR. TRUSH:  Essential.  And that is why we have the
10  attributes and mobility that bed on the average once a year
11  and flooding of the floodplain.  Those are essential for us
12  to know whether the prescriptions that we do now will lead
13  to a restored, alluvial channel.
14       MR. DODGE:  When you were working in October of 1995,
15  your measurable goals, as listed on Page 12 of that report,
16  were totally different, weren't they? 
17       DR. TRUSH:   Yes ­­ well, they were included, I should
18  say.
19       MR. DODGE:  They included length of the main channel as
20  a measurable goal? 
21       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
22       MR. DODGE:  That is no longer a measurable goal? 
23       DR. TRUSH:  Got me on that one.  There are some that
24  are measurable.
25       MR. DODGE:  Sinuosity of the main channel, that is a
0194
01  measurable goal; isn't it? 
02       DR. TRUSH:  The length of the channel, sinuosity,
03  because we have such a poor estimate of what the sinuosity
04  is before and not something to pull off the aerial photo, we
05  have no endpoint sinuosity.  We can say it will increase, 
06  i.e., decrease slope.  I have a more technical way of
07  evaluating the change of meander wavelength than simply a
08  wavelength.  But you are right.
09       We did address ­­ we did compare pre­41 channel length
10  with the present plan. 
11       MR. DODGE:  That is no longer in the DWP Monitoring
12  Plan, is it?
13       DR. TRUSH:  I think it is.  It does say in the
14  Monitoring Plan, we will continue to monitor all those
15  attributes, as I recall. 
16       I won't be able to find it, but ­­
17       DR. BESCHTA:  If I could add in here, I guess, the
18  eight characteristics that are listed on Page 11 can all be
19  interpreted off of aerial photography, and we are, indeed,
20  proposing aerial photography.  So, at some level you can get
21  at all of those eight characteristics through time and keep
22  track of it.
23       MR. DODGE:  Does this monitoring plan attempt to
24  restore the prediversion conditions on those eight
25  characteristics?
0195
01       DR. BESCHTA:  We are restoring a process that will
02  allow those characteristics to express themselves. 
03       MR. DODGE:  Will the restoration program be deemed a
04  failure if these eight measurable goals are not met?
05       DR. BESCHTA:  They are not firm goals.   They are not a
06  quantitative target in the sense that if you don't hit one
07  of those, you are a failure.
08       MR. DODGE:  They are not a quantitative target. They
09  are looking at trends, right? 
10       DR. BESCHTA:  One aspect of understanding recovery
11  would be looking at trends.  So, if you plot a change, for
12  example, in a characteristic through time, that would be one
13  way of assessing or beginning to ask the question.  Bill has
14  indicated there are other ways of looking at the data where
15  you plot a feature against a flow and ask the same kind of a
16  question, but it is at a process level.  Both are legitimate
17  ways of asking recovery as to what is going on. 
18       MR. DODGE:  In October of 1995, Dr. Trush, it's true,
19  isn't it, that you were doing to measure success or failure
20  of the restoration program against achievement of these
21  eight measurable goals? 
22       DR. TRUSH:  Actually, we were going to look at ­­ we
23  tried to look at all of them.  Once we put out that sort of
24  charge as the RTC scientists to the rest of the consultants,
25  it soon became obvious that it wasn't going to work.  This
0196
01  is how we did start out.  We did think we could pull that
02  off, but we can't.
03       MR. DODGE:  Did your draft monitoring plan include
04  measurable goals? 
05       DR. TRUSH:  I think by then I started to see the
06  impossibility of it.  I have to go back and check for sure.
07       MR. DODGE:  Did you bring a copy of it?
08  Q.   DR. TRUSH:   No.  I've got the draft of our management
09  plan, but I got all 14 versions on my computer.  But I don't
10  have it here.
11       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Trush, looking at Pages 9 and 10 of
12  Exhibit 31, if that is the right number, you've got these
13  nine listed, as I understood your testimony, desirable
14  stream attributes; is that correct?
15       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
16       MR. DODGE:  Is the DWP flow regime that has been
17  recommended likely to achieve these, in your judgment?
18       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
19       MR. DODGE:  Didn't you, in October of 1995, recommend
20  higher flow regimes?
21       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
22       MR. DODGE:  At that time, you felt that those higher
23  flow regimes were necessary to achieve these attributes,
24  correct?
25       DR. TRUSH:  No.  And the reason why is that because we
0197
01  were locked into this categorical perspective of water years
02  ­­ we have dry, wet, medium.  When we selected a flow level
03  for a wet year, we went to the higher end as our estimate,
04  our first guess, say 500, 600 versus 500 cfs for mobilizing
05  the bed.  I ran a bunch of counts and depending on the
06  slight change in the slope and what­not, I could get 6 or I
07  could get 500 cfs as that measure. 
08       When we looked at all the water years, the specific
09  water years in a water category, many times there was not
10  enough flow to answer that, because each water year is so
11  different within a water year class.  So, we decided to drop
12  several of them, simply because we knew that they are 
13  impossible in a number of water year types, and we had a
14  poor idea whether it would be 6 or 500. 
15       I pictured myself standing, sitting here right now,
16  having someone go to me, "600 would mobilize an alluvial bar
17  but 550 wouldn't, Dr. Trush?  And I can't say that.  And so
18  I went to the limit of what I thought, 500. 
19       The second assurance that we had in our flow
20  negotiations was that these criteria, these flow levels that
21  we gave were minimums in those flow classes, in those water
22  year types, that there would be a protocol for showing how
23  those would be maximized in those water years.  That is kind
24  of a convoluted way of doing things.  But if we stay with a
25  water year classification way of dealing with prescribing
0198
01  flows, we are going to have those sorts of rat's nests.
02       MR. DODGE:  Would the protocol include encouraging
03  spills on Grant Lake? 
04       DR. TRUSH:  Yes. 
05       MR. DODGE:  That is one of your recommendations?
06       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
07       MR. DODGE:  We talked a little bit about adaptive
08  management.  In fact, in your April of 1996 comments, Dr.
09  Trush, you said this was the most important aspect of the 
10  monitoring program, correct?
11       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.
12       MR. DODGE:  How monitoring program guides future
13  decisions is the ultimate factor in success or failure of
14  the program?
15       DR. TRUSH:   Yes.  The reason why I put that in there
16  is that as Mono Lake fills, we are going to ­­ when Mono
17  Lake fills, many of these trends that we are going to be
18  monitoring aren't going to be anywhere near completion.  It
19  is going to be adjusting width, much of the riparian aspect. 
20  It is not going to be set or in some kind of equilibrium,
21  whatever that word means, by the time the lake fills. 
22       Once the lake fills, there is going to have to be
23  decisions made, if we stick with 1631, of reducing the
24  flows.  And the urgency is to show before then, if the 1631
25  flows are inadequate for maintaining channel morphology. 
0199
01  Then we wanted to be sure that the monitoring data was there
02  to show why they were.  So a more informed decision could be
03  made. 
04       MR. DODGE:  You said that adaptive management is key to
05  the success of the program.  Do you regard it as a defect
06  that DWP's proposed monitoring program does not have the
07  specific procedure for adaptive management? 
08       DR. TRUSH:  I don't think that is part of the
09  monitoring program.  That is another concept to this whole
10  process.  I could call it an adaptive management plan and
11  conveniently by word separate that from monitoring plan and
12  feel comfortable with that.
13       MR. DODGE:  But that adaptive management plan would
14  have to be created, correct?
15       DR. TRUSH:  That is up for L.A. and everyone else to
16  decide.  I'm a scientist that says these are the flows that
17  do what, to create restoration in the stream channel.  I am
18  trying to keep myself in that slot.
19       MR. DODGE:  If the decision were yours, would you have
20  an adaptive management procedure?
21       DR. TRUSH:  Yeah.
22       MR. DODGE:  Suppose ­­ as you are aware, my clients,
23  in extreme years, think Rush Creek should have 600 cfs, and
24  the Los Angeles proposal is in extreme years, with the Lee
25  Vining Creek augmentation, give Rush Creek 500 cfs. 
0200
01       Do you recall that, basically?
02       DR. TRUSH:  Well, we can let David address that. 
03       MR. DODGE:  Assume that to be true. 
04       DR. TRUSH:  In some extreme years.  This year it might
05  be 800.  And other extreme years it could be 500 or 450. 
06  Again, because we are locked into these water year 
07  classifications, it is hard to come up with a single number
08  like 500.  That is what we came up with.
09       MR. DODGE:  We are talking minimum maintenance flows. 
10  DWP's proposal for wet years was 500 and your proposal last
11  October was 600, correct, minimum maintenance flows? 
12       DR. TRUSH:  Yes, but for the reasons I have already
13  given. 
14       MR. DODGE:  By the way, you say 1997 is going to be a
15  big year.  Would it be a smart thing to monitor at 500 cfs
16  and 600 cfs in Rush Creek and see how the creek does?
17       DR. TRUSH:  First of all, you won't be able to monitor
18  those two distinct flows.  I wouldn't want to wade it.  And
19  most of the equipment and whatnot is subsurface.  We just
20  tried doing it at Trinity, and at 30,000 we almost got
21  pulled off the bridge.  We had locked ­­ never mind.  I am
22  story telling.
23       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  It would have been a ­­
24       DR. TRUSH:  It was a wooden bridge and taking
25  everything with it, including our bed load sampler.          
0201
01       Personally, and, again, I don't make that decision.  
02  Whether L.A. would like me to do some monitoring or not, I
03  will be doing some monitoring out there. 
04       MR. DODGE:  My question is:  Would it be a smart thing
05  to see what is happening at 500 cfs versus what is happening
06  at 600 cfs? 
07       DR. TRUSH:  Yes.  But at discreet events.   So, in other
08  words, that is why the Monitoring Plan for the time frame
09  for looking at channel dynamics is, again, vague.  It says
10  not every year until the lake fills, but maybe eight or ten
11  years, so we can get a range of events to get a better
12  handle on what does what out there.
13       MR. DODGE:  Hypothetically, if this Board were to
14  determine that 500 cfs is the correct number in Rush Creek
15  in a wet year, whether that is the right number or the wrong
16  number, could be looked at in the monitoring program,
17  correct? 
18       DR. TRUSH:  It will provide an awful lot of ­­ yeah. 
19       MR. DODGE:  If an adaptive procedure is written up,
20  then that could provide for a change from 500 to 600,
21  depending on what the facts show, correct? 
22       DR. TRUSH:  The way I envisioned adaptive management,
23  yes. 
24       MR. DODGE:  That is all I have on monitoring.
25       Mr. Hunter, if you want to retreat to the back of ­­
0202
01       MR. HUNTER:  It is an option.  We thought you were
02  still shuffling your papers.
03       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Platts, we meet for the last time.    
04       DR. PLATTS:  Hopefully.  Getting your last shot. 
05       MR. DODGE:  Your testimony, do you have your testimony
06  in front of you, sir? 
07       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, I do.
08       MR. DODGE:  Page 1, you say:
09            No stream diversions for irrigation purposes
10            will be made below the LADWP conduit on
11            Parker and Walker Creeks and only three
12            diversions will function on Parker Creek
13            above the conduit.       (Reading.)
14       Sir, are you aware that there was irrigation in 1996
15  below Parker and Walker Creeks?
16       DR. PLATTS:  No.
17       MR. DODGE:  You weren't aware of that?
18       Let me show you a letter dated June 27, 1992, from Mr.
19  Kodama, which I believe is the last written matter I have
20  seen on that subject.  And I ask you to take a look at the
21  second page there.  Right in there, sir.
22       Does that letter indicate it is Los Angeles' policy to
23  irrigate in years where the runoff is 86 percent of normal
24  or above?
25       DR. PLATTS:  That is what it says. 
0203
01       MR. DODGE:  Do you know whether that policy has been
02  changed?
03       DR. PLATTS:  No, I do not. 
04       MR. DODGE:  Thank you, sir.
05       Page 3 of your testimony, Dr. Platts, let me read you a 
06  portion I am going to refer to at the top. 
07            Thus, only upstream passage of trout is in
08            issue.  If a sediment bypass system is
09            constructed that allows free flow channel
10            conditions by the aqueduct diversion
11            facility, there will be potential fish
12            passage during the sediment bypass period,
13            which includes most of the year.  (Reading.)
14       Did I read that correct? 
15       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, you did. 
16       MR. DODGE:  Do you recommend such a system for sediment
17  bypass?
18       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  I recommend sediment bypass.
19       MR. DODGE:  Recommend a channel?  Would that be a
20  preferred approach? 
21       DR. PLATTS:  I don't know preferred approach, but it
22  would be, probably be, my preferred approach. 
23       MR. DODGE:  Do you think that continuous passage of
24  sediment is preferable to hauling it out and putting it on
25  the stream bank every few years? 
0204
01       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, I do. 
02       MR. DODGE:  Why is that?
03       DR. PLATTS:  Because it fits the natural situation
04  better.  Your sediment would be transported mainly during
05  the high flow periods and during the intermediate and low
06  flow periods when you want less sediment being transported
07  down the channel because of spawning purposes or rearing the
08  food biomass or such.  It would just be more compatible with
09  the natural processes that are going on. 
10       MR. DODGE:  Also, if we were to haul out sediment by
11  truck and put it on the stream bank, that we have to hear
12  from Dr. Kauffman, won't we, about the riparian vegetation?
13       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  I don't condone that practice.
14       MR. DODGE:  Thank you.
15       Now, on this channel that you said you preferred, could
16  that always provide fish passage?
17       DR. PLATTS:  It could.
18       MR. DODGE:  Are you familiar with Dr. Stine's proposal
19  to reopen the distributaries on Parker and Walker Creeks?
20       DR. PLATTS:  No, I am not.
21       MR. DODGE:  Now, I hate to go so short with you, Dr.
22  Platts.  I have only one more question. 
23       DR. PLATTS:  We can even miss that one, if you want
24  to.
25       MR. DODGE:  Are you aware that DWP proposes certain
0205
01  flows up until Mono Lake reaches its maintenance level and
02  does not propose stream flows thereafter?
03       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  I think I have read that.
04       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree with me that the channel
05  maintenance flows set by this Board, whatever they maybe,
06  should continue after Mono Lake reaches it maintenance level?
07       DR. PLATTS:  There will need to be channel ­­ in answer
08  to your question, I do agree with you.  At that time,
09  though, there should be an evaluation on what the channel
10  flow should be from that time on.
11       MR. DODGE:  Basically, isn't it a fact, sir, that the
12  flows needed by the creek, the channel maintenance flows are
13  basically irrelevant to what the level of Mono Lake is?
14       DR. PLATTS:  Yes.  That is ­­ I would state that is
15  right.  The flows are more relevant to what the conditions
16  are in the stream, rather than the lake.
17       MR. DODGE:  In fact ­­     
18       DR. PLATTS:  You were going to ask only one question. 
19       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  You got sucked in again,
20  didn't you? 
21       MR. DODGE:  In fact, the ad hoc subcommittee that has
22  been referred to, which you were a member, specifically      
23  said at Page 4 of the memo, February 13th:
24            The flows necessary to maintain the stream
25            habitat and its dynamic systems while the
0206
01            level of Mono Lake is being restored do not
02            differ from those needed after Mono Lake is
03            restored.                      (Reading.)
04       Do you remember that? 
05       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, I do.
06       MR. DODGE:  That was your opinion then, and that is
07  your opinion now?
08       DR. PLATTS:  It is not exactly my opinion.
09       MR. DODGE:  You were a member of the subcommittee?
10       DR. PLATTS:  Yes, but I didn't quite agree with
11  everything, as a scientist I always do.  My point on that
12  is, at that time it should be evaluated because the flows
13  needed to build the stream and conduct the processes, it
14  needs to build all these new terraces and floodplains, may
15  be a little different once the stream is already set and the
16  flows needed to maintain the habitat from that time on.  I
17  didn't want to be tied down that they would be exactly the
18  same flow, because I really don't think they are.
19       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Kavounas, Page 2 of your testimony,
20  you say ­­
21       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Which testimony?
22       MR. DODGE:  The Stream Restoration, sir.
23       I want to focus in, specifically, on this sentence:
24            LADWP did not adopt this plan, referring to
25            the Ridenhour plan, because it did not
0207
01            consider the restoration parameters
02            established by Decision 1631, and it would
03            have further reduced Mono Basin exports.
04            (Reading.)
05       Do you see that, sir? 
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes, I do.
07       MR. DODGE:  What restoration parameters did you have in
08  mind?
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I was referring to a passage that is in 
10  the October '95 Ridenhour Plan.  Page 161 says:
11            Our maintenance flow recommendations were 
12            drafted without consideration for, among
13            other things, provisions in State Board
14            Decision 1631.               (Reading.)
15       MR. DODGE:  Do you see anything in the Ridenhour Plan
16  that was inconsistent with D­1631?
17       MR. KAVOUNAS:  In my opinion, yes.
18       MR. DODGE:  What was that?
19       MR. KAVOUNAS:  In my opinion, the Ridenhour Plan would
20  not permit DWP to export as much as the decision allows it
21  to, and I feel that is inconsistent with the decision.
22       MR. DODGE:  Export then is the key point?  
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Primarily.  And I also refer to Mr.
24  Allen's testimony for the other two parameters that he
25  mentioned. 
0208
01       MR. DODGE:  Let's talk about the export issue, sir. 
02  Isn't it true that export is only an issue post­transition?
03  By that I mean after Mono Lake reaches 6391. 
04       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am sorry if I don't understand your
05  question as phrased.  Are you asking me if it is true? 
06       MR. DODGE:  Pretransition you could have the Ridenhour
07  flows and still have your exports; isn't that true?
08       MR. KAVOUNAS:  My understanding is that is not
09  necessarily true. 
10       MR. DODGE:  What is the basis of your understanding?   
11       MR. KAVOUNAS:  My understanding is that if you have a
12  succession of, perhaps, two years that are on the dryer
13  side, and I probably should let David Allen speak on that,
14  but my understanding is that you would be drawing from a
15  storage that would not perhaps allow you to export.  Excuse
16  me, allow the Department to export. 
17       MR. ALLEN:  That is a correct statement.   The Ridenhour
18  Plan presents problems for exports in dryer year types.  But
19  let me ­­ that is fine. 
20       MR. DODGE:  Peter Vorster has presented testimony that
21  the export issue is about 4 cfs or 3,000 acre­feet a year.  
22       Do you disagree with that? 
23       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I have no opinion on that.  
24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am going to object on the ground it
25  is vague. 
0209
01       Are you asking the witness, Mr. Dodge, if he agrees
02  with Mr. Vorster's submitted testimony on that subject or
03  are you asking him does he agree with the testimony?
04       MR. DODGE:  The latter. 
05       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Do I agree that Peter Vorster testified
06  to that? 
07       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Vorster has made a calculation that
08  suggest that if you use the Ridenhour flows, as opposed to
09  the DWP flows, that on average year DWP would be allowed to
10  export about 3,000 acre­feet less than it otherwise would
11  post­transition. 
12       Do you have any problems with Mr. Vorster's
13  calculations? 
14       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I have no opinion on his calculations.
15       MR. DODGE:  Do you have any problem?
16       MR. ALLEN:  Let me kind of expand on that a little bit. 
17  Peter Vorster did not present any testimony regarding
18  reduction of flows.  However, he did perform on his own some
19  calculations in which the median ­­ he showed that the
20  median reduction would be approximately 3,000 acre­feet. 
21  Let me keep in mind that the median tends to actually
22  underestimate the average because of the actual distribution
23  of data.
24       MR. DODGE:  Do you have any problem with his
25  calculations as to what the median figure is? 
0210
01       MR. ALLEN:  I cannot ascertain whether or not his
02  numbers are adequate because I did not review his
03  calculations.
04       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Kavounas, hypothetically, if the Water
05  Board were to reduce the base flows in the four tributary
06  streams, have you made any calculation as to whether the 
07  median loss of 3,000 acre­feet could be made up such that
08  you could have the Ridenhour maintenance flows and reduced
09  base flows with the same export?
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I have not done any such calculation. 
11  That would not be within my scope of work. 
12       MR. DODGE:  If that were possible, then the objection
13  to the Ridenhour flows as they reduced exports would be
14  solved, couldn't it? 
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I'd have to think about that.  
16       MR. DODGE:  Read you from the scientists' October 1995 
17  restoration proposal, Page 140: 
18            If flows necessary for the stream to maintain
19            itself are not provided, a different plan
20            than the one proposed must be prepared.
21            Alternative recommendations would identify
22            actions needed to create and maintain the
23            stream habitat in lieu of natural processes
24            doing so.  These alternative recommendations
25            would necessarily include constructing bars
0211
01            and pools, removing accumulated fines from
02            spawnable gravels, and mechanically control
03            encroaching vegetation.  Indefinite
04            maintenance would be required as identified
05            in a rigorous monitoring program. (Reading.)
06       Do you recall that language? 
07       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It sounds familiar.
08       MR. DODGE:  Did Los Angeles prepare such a different
09  plan as the Ridenhour memo states.
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No.
11       MR. DODGE:  Do you have any ideas, as you sit here
12  today, what the cost of such a plan would be?
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, I do not. 
14       MR. DODGE:  Based on your experience under the RTC, it
15  could be quite expensive, couldn't it? 
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I am sorry, with all due respect, I have
17  no experience with the RTC.  I came on board 13 months ago.
18       MR. DODGE:  Have you reviewed Los Angeles' experience
19  with the RTC? 
20       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, I have not. 
21       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Platts, based on the experience with
22  the RTC, such a hands­on restoration program can be
23  expensive, can't it?
24       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  We will stipulate that the Department
25  of Water and Power spent millions of dollars in restoring
0212
01  Lee Vining Creek under the auspices of the RTC, which have
02  now flushed out into Mono Lake as a result of high floods.
03       MR. DODGE:  You objected to speeches, and you make
04  one.
05       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  You are asking questions, and I am
06  stipulating to fact. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Yeah, yeah.  Right.
08       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Gentlemen, let's proceed.
09       MR. DODGE:  Let me ask you to turn to Page 5 of your
10  testimony, Mr. Kavounas.
11       See the item on fish passage there?
12       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Item 8.a.7.  Yes, I do.
13       MR. DODGE:  Do you propose no fish passage on Parker
14  and Walker Creek?  Correct? 
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That is correct.
16  MR. DODGE:  Reading to you from Page 45 of D­1631,          
17  Item 1:
18            A fish and sediment bypass system should be
19            constructed around the Walker Creek diversion
20            facility.                 (Reading.)
21       Do you recall that language? 
22       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.
23       MR. DODGE:  How do you reconcile your failure to have a
24  fish passage provision with that language?
25       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Well, Page 204, order of the decision,  
0213
01  says:
02            The Stream Restoration Plan shall make
03            recommendations on stream and stream channel
04            restoration, including but not limited to the
05            following.                  (Reading.)
06       Item 7 is construction of fish and sediment bypass
07  system.
08       MR. DODGE:  You would agree with me that the language
09  on Page 45 is pretty unambiguous?
10       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Yes.
11       MR. DODGE:  Reading again on Lee Vining Creek from     
12  D­1631. 
13            A sediment bypass system should be
14            constructed at the Lee Vining Creek
15            diversion.            (Reading.)
16       Do you see that, sir?
17       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Excuse me, what page are you on?
18       MR. DODGE:  Thirty­seven.
19       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Right.
20       MR. DODGE:  You don't propose to construct anything at
21  Lee Vining, do you?
22       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That's correct.
23       MR. DODGE:  Do you recall that the Ridenhour Plan
24  makes a suggestion as to how to accomplish sediment bypass?
25       MR. KAVOUNAS:  I don't at this time. 
0214
01       MR. DODGE:  Take a look at Pages 200 to 202 of the
02  Ridenhour Plan, if you will, please.
03       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Page 201, Paragraph A:
04            Construction of a bypass to the left of Lee
05            Vining conduit diversion should be
06            practicable.            (Reading.)
07       MR. DODGE:   Referring to LV­5 on Page 200 and then W­4
08  on Page 201 and P­4 on Page 202.
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Okay.  I am there.
10       MR. DODGE:  Those are recommendations that talk
11  conceptually how you might accomplish sediment and fishing
12  bypass, correct? 
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Correct.
14       MR. DODGE:  Did Los Angeles hire someone to make an
15  analysis of this?  
16       MR. KAVOUNAS:  No, we did not.  Because in the draft
17  plan that the Department issued on or around November 1, of
18  1995, the proposal for sediment passage was that we would
19  engage in a two year study.  At the TAG meeting we had in
20  Lake Tahoe, the parties seemed to ­­ it seemed to me,
21  anyway, that the parties over there were calling for more
22  action than that.  From January 9th, when we had that TAG
23  meeting, to the time that we had to publish a plan, it was
24  not a whole lot of time. 
25       So, we presented some action after consulting with Dr.
0215
01  Beschta.  We presented a plan that would provide some
02  sediment passage.  In my opinion, a sediment bypass system
03  is not necessarily a facility, doesn't have to be the most
04  expensive way.  And from geomorphic perspective, if you are
05  providing the sediments downstream, it doesn't matter how
06  they are going to pass the facility. 
07       MR. DODGE:  D­1631 came down when?  I can't remember.
08       BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:  October ­­
09       MR. KAVOUNAS:  September 28, 1994.
10       MR. DODGE:  September of 1994.  As early as ­­ as late
11  as early 1996, 15 months later, your proposal for sediment
12  bypass was to study it, correct? 
13       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Correct.
14       MR. DODGE:  You didn't study it during that 15 months?
15       MR. KAVOUNAS:  That's correct.
16       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Tillemans, Page 5 of your testimony
17  talks about Parker plug.  You see that testimony?
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes. 
19       MR. DODGE:  You talk about the Parker plug being a
20  long­term source of gravels and fines for lower Rush Creek.
21       Does the Parker plug really provide fines?  Is that
22  your testimony?
23       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I object to the question on the
24  grounds it is argument.  The testimony is the testimony.  If
25  Mr. Dodge doesn't agree with it, he doesn't agree with it. 
0216
01  That's an argumentative question.
02       MR. DODGE:  What is the basis of your testimony?
03       MR. TILLEMANS:  My testimony? 
04       MR. DODGE:  Yes.
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  In discussions with consultants.
06       MR. DODGE:  Whom?
07       MR. TILLEMANS:  Dr. Beschta.  I do believe it provides
08  source of fines and gravels that are present there.          
09       MR. DODGE:  I will get to gravels in a second.
10       Dr. Beschta, do you believe that Parker plug is a
11  source of fines?
12       DR. BESCHTA:  There is an erosion along the toe slopes
13  of the channel up there, so there are fines coming in on the
14  channel. 
15       MR. DODGE:  Be pretty insignificant, wouldn't it? 
16       DR. BESCHTA:  I am not claiming ­­ I've never claimed
17  that it was large, but there certainly are fines coming into
18  the system. 
19       MR. DODGE:  You will also say, Mr. Tillemans, it is a
20  source of gravel.  But the Rush Creek below the Parker plug
21  doesn't lack for gravel, does it? 
22       MR. TILLEMANS:  I don't know any places that makes
23  gravel.
24       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Kavounas, is Los Angeles' Stream and
25  Channel Restoration Plan still Exhibit 16?  Have there been
0217
01  any changes?
02       MR. KAVOUNAS:  Not that I know of.
03       MR. DODGE:  We have had Dr. Beschta and Dr. Kauffman
04  come and critique the plan and that is fine.  That testimony
05  has not changed the plan, has it?
06       MR. KAVOUNAS:  It is my understanding that Dr. Beschta
07  and Dr. Kauffman's critique was a positive one for the
08  Department's plan and, no, I guess we didn't change the
09  plans as a result of that.
10       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Tillemans, you showed us a bunch of
11  photos several hours ago of developing riparian vegetation. 
12  Would you you agree with me that a lot of that growth
13  resulted from reopening of channels and in a raised water
14  table?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  I cannot positively agree upon that
16  because I don't have all the water table data to conclude
17  that.
18       MR. DODGE:  Would that be your best guess?
19       MR. TILLEMANS:  I would say when I look upon streams,
20  I don't look upon it as one thing or one event.  I look at
21  upon it as a continuum of flows and a process that occurs to
22  not only in a certain reach but is influenced by what
23  happens above it. 
24       MR. DODGE:  Would you agree that the vegetation that
25  you showed us pictures was aided by the very high flows in
0218
01  1995 and 1996?
02       MR. TILLEMANS:  I think the majority of the vegetation
03  on the floodplains in those creeks were aided by the flows
04  we have recently seen.
05       MR. DODGE:  What was the high flow in Rush Creek in
06  1995?
07       MR. TILLEMANS: I would have to defer that question.  
08       MR. ALLEN:   The peak flow of 1995 on Lower Rush Creek
09  was 635 cfs.
10       MR. DODGE:  635 cfs? 
11       MR. ALLEN:  Yes.
12       MR. DODGE:  At least in 1995 Rush Creek was
13  experiencing 635 cfs, and that was positive, right, Mr. 
14  Tillemans?
15       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes.
16       MR. DODGE:  Los Angeles' plan doesn't propose to
17  release as much as 635 for maintenance flows, does it?
18       MR. ALLEN:  I think the plan proposes to release 500
19  as a minimum in extremely wet year types.
20       MR. DODGE:  Could be more, right?
21       MR. ALLEN:  Yes, it could be.
22       MR. DODGE:  It could be just 500?
23       MR. ALLEN:  That would depend on hydrologic conditions.
24       MR. DODGE:  It could be as low as 500?
25       MR. ALLEN:  As a minimum in extreme years.
0219
01       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Tillemans, your testimony speaks on 
02  vegetation that has been slow to respond and planting in
03  those areas. 
04       Do you recall that testimony?
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, I do. 
06       MR. DODGE:  Do you have a map or something that tells
07  us exactly what those areas are?
08       MR. TILLEMANS:  I described them in my testimony, but
09  I don't have a map that shows those areas exactly.  I can
10  look at my testimony and discuss it.
11       MR. DODGE:  Is there a plan to create a specific
12  proposal of where you are going to plant vegetation?
13       MR. TILLEMANS:  Yes, there is.
14       MR. DODGE:  The question, sir, on the interfluves; do
15  you have specific areas and acreages identified for planting
16  on the interfluves?
17       MR. TILLEMANS:  Can I have some time to look up that
18  section. 
19       MR. DODGE:  Does it identify the specific areas on the
20  interfluves that you are going plant and the types of
21  vegetation that you are going to plant?
22       MR. TILLEMANS:  Not specifically, no.  It does state
23  ­­ addresses the interfluves areas, though.
24       MR. DODGE:  Presumably, in future there will be some
25  process to determine what areas are going to be planted and
0220
01  what species?
02       MR. TILLEMANS:  It says areas, and it is specific to
03  creeks.  It says areas targeted for planting will be 
04  suitable for regeneration based on Jeffrey pine species
05  requirements, and LADWP proposes to plant Jeffrey pines in
06  interfluves areas that are currently lacking big wood. 
07       MR. DODGE:  Let me see if I can cut to the chase. 
08  Would you contemplate that the identification of specific
09  areas to plant, either areas that are slow to recover or
10  areas on the interfluves, the identification of what areas
11  to plant or which species would be a joint process in which
12  all the parties participated?
13       MR. TILLEMANS:  I guess that would be based upon legal
14  requirement and what we are obligated to do under the
15  decision.
16       MR. DODGE:  Now, you're proposing in your plan, Mr.
17  Tillemans, to reopen certain Rush Creek channels, correct?
18       MR. TILLEMANS:  That's correct.
19       MR. DODGE:  That is as described in Exhibit 16,
20  correct?
21       MR. TILLEMANS:  That's correct. 
22       MR. DODGE:  Now, let me follow up on a line of
23  questions that Mr. Roos­Collins asked you.  Let's take 1938,
24  which I will warrant to you is a very high flow year. 
25  Okay.  And 1996 or 1995, also high flow years.  Okay.
0221
01       Now, would you agree with me that compared to the
02  reasonably unperturbed stream condition in 1938, and I will
03  ask you to assume it was reasonably unperturbed, that in
04  1995 and 1996 there is a lot of debris going down the
05  channels at high flows?
06       MR. TILLEMANS:  In which year?
07       MR. DODGE:  In 1996.  A lot more debris than in the
08  natural condition. 
09       MR. TILLEMANS:  How much debris goes down in the
10  natural condition?
11       MR. DODGE:  I am asking you to compare the two.  In one
12  you have a reasonably natural stream channel with riparian
13  vegetation on the banks, as compared to the present
14  situation.  Okay. 
15       MR. BIRMINGHAM:  I am going to object to the question 
16  on the grounds it is vague as the point.  Mr. Dodge asked,
17  told, Mr. Tillemans to compare 1938 to 1995 and then said
18  unperturbed condition.  I think Decision 1631 establishes in
19  1938, Rush Creek was extremely an perturbed, degraded
20  system. 
21       MR. DODGE:  There was specific evidence, Mr. Chairman,
22  that high flows came down Rush Creek in 1938 and didn't have
23  much of an adverse affect at all because the vegetation was
24  holding the stream together.  You heard about that at
25  length.
0222
01       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Who is the question directed to?
02       MR. DODGE:  Mr. Tillemans.
03       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  Mr. Tillemans.  Mr. Tillemans, do
04  you feel qualified to answer the question?
05       MR. TILLEMANS:  Are you finished with your question?  I
06  need to ­­
07       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  You need to restate the question
08  more succinctly.
09       MR. DODGE:  Dr. Trush ­­
10       CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:  That is succinct.
11       MR. DODGE:  Assume that in 1938 the vegetation was in
12  good condition on Rush Creek and very high flows came down
13  without causing any significant problem. 
14       Can you make that assumption with me?  Would you agree
15  that the same flows today, 1995­1996, existing conditions, a
16  lot more debris would come down that creek than happened in
17  1938?
18       DR. TRUSH:  No.  I have nothing to go on there.  You
19  can tell by an aerial photo, maybe not a lot happened on the
20  plan form of the river.  You didn't see major blow out
21  area.  All you need is two­foot cut on the outside bank and
22  trees drop in.  There you would have large trees dropping in
23  that would have a single much larger effect than a whole
24  pile of smaller stuff coming in in this past year.  So,
25  really, I can pretend, but I can't even do that.
0223
01       MR. DODGE:  You don't know?  You don't have to answer a
02  question you don't know the answer to.
03       DR. TRUSH:  No, can't answer. 
04       MR. DODGE:  I heard you testify, Mr. Tillemans, about
05  the values of the A­1 channel in Lee Vining Creek. 
06       Do you recall that testimony?
07       MR. TILLEMANS:  I think what I was ­­ I recall the 
08  testimony. 
09