STATE
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PUBLIC
HEARING
---oOo---
REGARDING STREAM AND
WATERFOWL HABITAT RESTORATION PLANS AND GRANT LAKE
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE LOS
ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF WATER
RIGHT DECISION 1631
HELD AT:
STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD
PAUL BONDERSON BUILDING
901 P STREET, FIRST FLOOR
HEARING ROOM
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29,
1997
9:00 AM
REPORTED BY: TERI L.
VERES, CSR NO. 7522, RMR
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
1 APPEARANCES
2 ---oOo---
3 BOARD MEMBERS:
4 JOHN CAFFREY, CHAIRMAN
JOHN W. BROWN, VICE CHAIR
5 JAMES STUBCHAER
MARY JANE FORSTER
6 MARC DEL PIERO
7 STAFF MEMBERS:
8 JAMES CANADAY,
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
GERALD E.
JOHNS, ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF
9 MELANIE COLLINS, STAFF
ENGINEER
10 COUNSEL:
11 DAN FRINK, ESQ.
12 LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT
OF WATER AND POWER:
13 PANEL MEMBERS:
14 PETER KAVOUNAS, M.E.,
M.S., P.E.
BRIAN TILLEMANS,
Biologist
15 DAVID F. ALLEN, M.S.,
P.E.
CHRISTOPHER J. HUNTER,
M.S.
16 WILLIAM S. PLATTS,
Ph.D.
ROBERT L. BESCHTA, Ph.D.
17 J. BOONE KAUFFMAN,
Ph.D.
WILLIAM J. TRUSH, Ph.D.
18
WATERFOWL HABITAT
RESTORATION PANEL MEMBERS:
19
PETER KAVOUNAS
20 JAMES R. PERRAULT,
P.E.
BRIAN B. TILLEMANS,
Biologist
21 BRIAN N. WHITE, Ph.D.
22 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN & GIRARD
400 Capitol Mall, 27th
Floor
23 Sacramento, California
95814
BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM,
ESQ.
24 and
JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ.
25
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
366
1 APPEARANCES CONT'D
2 ---oOo---
3 UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE:
4 UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
5 33 New Montgomery, 17th
Floor
San Francisco, California
94105
6 BY: JACK GIPSMAN, ESQ.
7 BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT:
8 UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
9 BISHOP RESOURCE AREA
785 North Main Street,
Suite E
10 Bishop, California
93514
BY: TERRY L. RUSSI
11
PEOPLE FOR MONO BASIN
PRESERVATION:
12
KATHLEEN MALONEY BELLOMO
13 JOSEPH BELLOMO
P.O. BOX 217
14 Lee Vining, California
93541
15 ARNOLD BECKMAN:
16 DeCUIR & SOMACH
400 Capitol Mall, Suite
1900
17 Sacramento, California
95814
BY: DONALD MOONEY, ESQ.
18
ARCULARIUS RANCH:
19
FRANK HASELTON, LSA
20 1 Park Plaza, Suite
500
Irvine, California 92610
21
RICHARD RIDENHOUR:
22
RICHARD RIDENHOUR
23
24
25
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
367
1 APPEARANCES CONT'D
2 ---oOo---
3 CALIFORNIA TROUT, INC.:
4 NATURAL HERITAGE
INSTITUTE
114 Sansome Street, Suite
1200
5 San Francisco,
California 94104
BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS,
ESQ.
6
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME: 7
McDONOUGH, HOLLAND &
ALLEN
8 555 Capitol Mall, Ninth
Floor
Sacramento,
California 95814
9 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL,
ESQ.
10 THE RESOURCES AGENCY
1416 Ninth
Street, 12th Floor
11 Sacramento, California
95814
BY: NANCEE
MURRAY, ESQ.
12
CALIFORNIA
STATE LANDS COMMISSION:
13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF PARKS AND RECREATION:
14 MARY J. SCOONOVER,
ESQ.
1300 I
Street
15 Sacramento, California
95814
16 MICHAEL VALENTINE
17 NATIONAL AUDUBON
SOCIETY:
MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:
18
MORRISON & FOERSTER
19 425 Market Street
San Francisco, California
94105
20 BY: F. BRUCE DODGE,
ESQ.
21 HEIDE HOPKINS
GREG REISE
22 PETER VORSTER
23
24 ---oOo---
25
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
368
1 INDEX
2 ---oOo---
3 PAGE
LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF
WATER AND POWER
4
CROSS-EXAMINATION
5
BY MR. DEL
PIERO...........................374 6
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
7
BY MR.
BIRMINGHAM..........................396 8
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
9
BY MR.
ROOS-COLLINS........................429 10 BY MR.
DODGE...............................431
BY MS.
CAHILL..............................451 11 BY MS.
SCOONOVER...........................460
BY MR.
CANADY..............................471 12
13 LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT
OF WATER AND POWER
(WATERFOWL HABITAT
RESTORATION PANEL)
14
DIRECT EXAMINATION
15
BY MR.
BIRMINGHAM..........................486
16
CROSS-EXAMINATION
17
BY MS.
BELLOMO.............................499
18 BY MR.
MOONEY..............................529
BY MS.
CAHILL..............................541
19 BY MS.
SCOONOVER...........................555
20
21 AFTERNOON
SESSION.......................................485
22
23
24
---oOo---
25
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
369
1 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
2 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29,
1997
3 ---oOo---
4 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Good
morning and welcome back. We
5 will pick up where we
left off yesterday and that was at the
6 point where we had
completed staff's cross-examination of
7 these three panels.
8 Mr. Birmingham, did you
have something you wish to add
9 to that or were you
just going to position yourself for the
10 next set of questions?
11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr.
Chairman, you may recall that
12 yesterday we asked for
leave of the Board to permit Carolyn
13 Green, the President
of the Board of Water and Power
14 Commissioners, to make
a policy statement this morning.
15 Ms. Green is present
and if we could start with that, we
16 would appreciate that
opportunity.
17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: We
will certainly do that. We
18 announced yesterday
that we would. Ms. Green is here.
19 Welcome. Please come
forward and address the Board.
20 MS. GREEN: Thank you
and good morning. As
21 Mr. Birmingham said, I
am Carolyn Green. I'm President of
22 the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power Commissioners
23 and I'm really happy
for the opportunity to address you
24 today.
25 Without going into all
of the background of why we're
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
370
1 here, you know that as
well or better than I do. I'd like
2 to get to the bottom
line. The Los Angeles Department of
3 Water and Power and the
City of Los Angeles are committed to
4 satisfying our
obligations under Decision 1631. We think
5 that the proposals that
are the subject of this hearing are
6 adequate to restore,
preserve and protect Rush, Walker,
7 Parker and Lee Vining
Creeks and the fisheries.
8 This process has been
the result of lengthy
9 discussions, joint
studies, negotiations between all of the
10 parties involved. We
think the plans are good plans and
11 that they will
accomplish the objectives of 1631. We commit
12 to today these plans
and a monitoring program that is
13 jointly agreed upon by
all the parties for a -- some sort of
14 date certain, and I
can't tell you what that is. I think
15 the scientists have to
tell us -- that says, "If what we are
16 doing is the not
adequate, the City of Los Angeles commits
17 to making whatever
additional changes are necessary to carry
18 out the purposes of
1631."
19 We face the reality
that our ratepayers are going to
20 bear the cost of
implementing all of the plans approved by
21 this Board, and we
have fiscal constraints. So in
22 developing our
restoration proposals we had to look at the
23 financial feasibility
of each of the restoration
24 alternatives and adopt
what we thought was the least costly
25 alternative that
satisfied the objectives of the Decision
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
371
1 and that really is our
bottom line, what will satisfy 1631.
2 Given the results of
the ecosystem restoration that
3 has occurred over the
last few years, we think that our plan
4 will facilitate natural
restoration without requiring
5 construction of costly
new facilities; but if it doesn't, we
6 commit now to doing
whatever is necessary in the minds of
7 the scientists to
making this decision work and I think -- I
8 can't say any more than
that, that we want to move forward
9 with all the parties,
including your Board, who has final
10 jurisdiction, in a
partnership fashion to make 1631 work.
11 Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:
Thank you very much.
13 BOARD MEMBER FORSTER:
I'm sorry I was late. I didn't
14 know you were going to
be on in the beginning.
15 MS. GREEN: I try to be
punctual.
16 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Are
there any questions of --
17 BOARD MEMBER FORSTER:
Me, too.
18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: In
fairness to Ms. Forster, she has
19 been here since much
earlier this morning and we were
20 working on an issue
together earlier and she was just
21 straightening that out
before she got here. So we
22 appreciate that.
23 Let me just say, Ms.
Green, that we very much
24 appreciate your
comments and the spirit in which they are
25 made. We certainly do
want to bring this to completion and
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
372
1 fruition for the
protection of the lake and its environment.
2 So thank you so much
for taking the time to be here.
3 We appreciate it.
4 MS. GREEN: And thank
you very much for allowing me to
5 speak.
6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All
right. We will return, then,
7 to the completion of
the cross-examination of these three
8 panels. We had
completed everything except Board Member
9 questions.
10 Do any of the Board
Members wish to -- do any of the
11 Board Members wish to
question these three panels?
12 Mr. Del Piero.
13 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
14 have not more than two
questions, although they might be
15 compound. So at least
I'm being honest, guys. I'm telling
16 you up front.
17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:
Start the clock please,
18 Mr. Stubchaer. Just
kidding, Mark.
19 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: That's okay.
20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: He's
bigger than me.
21 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: That's fine. I get the same
22 amount of time Ms.
Scoonover gets, right?
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
373
1 ---oOo---
2 CROSS-EXAMINATION
3 BY BOARD MEMBERS:
4 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Okay, Dr. Platts, help me to
5 understand about deep
scour in Lee Vining Creek and the
6 necessity given the
current condition of the creek of deep
7 scour.
8 DR. PLATTS: Why you
want deep scour --
9 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Yeah.
10 DR. PLATTS: -- or what
will cause deep scour?
11 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Why and what it's going to
12 achieve in Lee Vining
at this point.
13 DR. PLATTS: Well, deep
scour will achieve many
14 points. One is that it
will rebuild pools for Lee Vining
15 Creek. You have to
have scour in order to build pools. You
16 also have to have
scour in order to move sediment down the
17 channel, and you have
to have sediment going down the
18 channel in order to
move that sediment or vortex it over
19 into your floodplains
or even some of your lower terraces.
20 So scour needs to take
place first before a lot of the
21 rehab that we need
going on in Lee Vining Creek can take
22 place. If you didn't
have any scour and everything was just
23 sitting on site, you
wouldn't have any rebuilding going on.
24 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: And is scour a periodic
25 condition that's
necessary for the sustainment of the
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
374
1 relative health of the
stream?
2 DR. PLATTS: Yes.
3 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
It is, okay. Both you and
4 Dr. Beschta indicated,
I believe -- and I know for sure
5 Dr. Beschta indicated.
You'll forgive me if my notes are
6 not complete in terms
of whether or not you said it, but
7 we'll stick with you
for the time being -- that sediment
8 passage for Lee Vining
Creek was necessary; is that correct?
9 DR. PLATTS: I think in
the long term it will be, yes.
10 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: And, Dr. Beschta, you agree
11 with that?
12 DR. BESCHTA: Yes, I
agree for long term it's
13 important.
14 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay. And the sediment --
15 the impediment to
sediment passage on Lee Vining are the
16 diversions on Walker
and Parker? No? Yes? What's the --
17 DR. BESCHTA: The
impediment on Lee Vining?
18 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: I'm sorry, the impediment on
19 Lee Vining is what?
20 DR. BESCHTA: The
diversion structure.
21 DR. PLATTS: The
diversion structure
22 DR. BESCHTA: The pond
water upstream of the diversion
23 structure.
24 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay. How much debris is --
25 or, pardon me,
sediment is backed up in back of that? Have
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
375
1 we quantified it?
2 DR. PLATTS: I don't
know.
3 DR. BESCHTA: I was in
the field this summer and I
4 actually calculated a
volume, but I don't remember exactly
5 what those numbers are;
but, yes, it can be calculated and
6 that's part of trying
to figure out what should happen
7 there.
8 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Okay. Part of the proposed
9 schedule for Rush Creek
is to divert water from where, what
10 other stream? It's
okay whoever wants to answer.
11 MR. ALLEN: That would
be Lee Vining Creek.
12 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Lee Vining, okay. And that's
13 what, approximately a
hundred fifty cfs in -- is it wet
14 years or extreme
years?
15 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, the
amount of diversion would vary
16 depending on the year
type. Obviously the wetter years we
17 divert up to a hundred
fifty cfs and then as you move down
18 through the scale the
diversions would become less.
19 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Now, I guess back to
20 Dr. Beschta and to Dr.
Platts. Explain to me what happens
21 when you take the peak
off of those flows during those wet
22 and extreme years to
divert into Rush Creek in relationship
23 to the issue of
necessity for scour in Lee Vining.
24 DR. PLATTS: Sir, the
peak would not be taken off.
25 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay. It's seven days
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
376
1 afterwards, right, when
you start diverting?
2 DR. PLATTS: Yes.
3 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
And forgive me for misstating
4 it, but explain to me
what that 150 cfs seven days after the
5 peak is going to do in
terms of the ongoing changes that
6 take place in
relationship to scouring in Lee Vining.
7 DR. PLATTS: That would
be a better question for
8 Dr. Beschta.
9 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Okay.
10 DR. BESCHTA: The
sediment transport is occurring --
11 you're getting
sediment transport occurring during the
12 entire snow melt
hydrograph in general, okay, but it
13 increases in quantity,
if you will, as you increase the
14 amount of flow in the
system.
15 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Slow down because I want to
16 make sure I understand
exactly how this operates.
17 Of the sediment
transport taking place, how much of it
18 is impaired at the
diversion point as opposed to how much of
19 it gets past the
diversion point and is going down Lee
20 Vining? Have you been
able to quantify that at this time?
21 DR. BESCHTA: I don't
have any numbers on that. I'm
22 sure some gets past,
but I don't know how much.
23 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Not much, though?
24 DR. BESCHTA: Well, the
heavier stuff -- the larger
25 particles, the denser
particles would very quickly be
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
377
1 trapped there. But if
there is less dense sediment and
2 finer particles, they
may continue to move through there.
3 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
But in relationship to the
4 issue of scour, the
vast majority, if not all, of the
5 material necessary to
affect the scour condition on Lee
6 Vining is trapped in
back of that diversion facility?
7 DR. BESCHTA: No.
8 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
"No," okay.
9 DR. BESCHTA: Well, when
you say scour on the main
10 stream, I'm thinking
further on down the stream system.
11 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: That's what I am, too.
12 DR. BESCHTA: Okay.
13 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: So you explain it to me.
14 DR. BESCHTA: There are
all kinds of local sediment
15 sources alongside that
stream. There's the existing
16 floodplain. There's
the bed material. So scour can take
17 place -- and it's not
simply a physical process, too.
18 If we remove the
vegetation, we'd have a nice physical
19 system, okay. We'd
have sediment and water and it would be
20 a very simple system;
but when you start putting the veg and
21 you start putting the
root masses in there and the woody
22 debris that falls in
and the branches, that creates local
23 hydraulic conditions
which can create scour at flows that
24 are much different or
much smaller than what you would just
25 purely predict from
just physics.
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
378
1 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Is that your experience now
2 in Lee Vining?
3 DR. BESCHTA: Yes, the
vegetation is beginning to play
4 a role.
5 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
No, no, that's not what I
6 asked.
7 DR. BESCHTA: Okay.
8 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
The question I asked: Is
9 that scour taking place
now as a result of large woody
10 debris and extensive
vegetation line?
11 DR. BESCHTA: There is
scour beginning to take
12 place --
13 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Of substance?
14 DR. BESCHTA: Yes.
15 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay, where? Which portion
16 of the lower end of
Lee Vining is that taking place?
17 DR. BESCHTA: Above the
County Road.
18 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay. Let's add back in,
19 then, the necessity --
or Dr. Platts' suggestion that
20 there's a necessity
for amending either -- or diverting this
21 sediment into the
creek.
22 What's that going to
do to the system that you see
23 developing, Dr.
Beschta?
24 DR. BESCHTA: Well, we
-- the diversion becomes a
25 sediment trap, okay,
and if it's gonna be in position a long
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
379
1 time, which I'm
expecting that the City of Los Angeles is
2 going to want to divert
water for a long time --
3 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
I think the plan assumes
4 that.
5 DR. BESCHTA: Yes.
6 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
And let's assume that as a
7 given.
8 DR. BESCHTA: Yeah. So
given that assumption then,
9 you will be continually
removing sediment out of the stream
10 at a given location
and that is not something we would
11 encourage anyone to do
if you wanted to maintain the natural
12 processes that are
occurring in that system.
13 So the recommendation
would be to make sure that that
14 sediment gets past the
point of diversion and continues on
15 down the stream and
moving in a timing and a magnitude that
16 is typical and
representative for that stream.
17 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: And do you -- is there a way
18 of integrating that
sediment movement --
19 DR. BESCHTA: Uh-huh.
20 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: -- whether it be through a
21 ditch, some kind of
pipe passage or excavation with those
22 storm events that
resulted or -- that would result or
23 normally and typically
be expected to result in scour?
24 DR. BESCHTA: Well,
that would be the hope. I mean,
25 ideally it would be
nice to move the sediment through
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
380
1 exactly -- it comes
into the diversion at a point in time.
2 It would be nice to
allow it to continue right through at
3 that particular point
in time.
4 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Is it physically possible to
5 design something at
that diversion point to achieve that?
6 DR. BESCHTA: I don't
know what the answer is. Now
7 you're asking an
engineering structures question and I would
8 be glad to address that
--
9 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Does anyone on the panel know
10 that? Does anyone on
the panel know the answer to that
11 question?
12 Is it physically
possible at this point or has it been
13 discussed by the
Department of Water and Power in their
14 engineering staff that
you're aware of as to how to design
15 some kind of mechanism
to bypass the sediments in order to
16 achieve the sediment
transport to the lower end of Lee
17 Vining and at the same
time allow for scour to take place?
18 MR. KAVOUNAS: Mr. Del
Piero --
19 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Yes, sir.
20 MR. KAVOUNAS: -- I do
recall some of our engineering
21 staff making
suggestions that the Lee Vining diversion
22 facility could be
modified. However, I would like to add to
23 that that we've had no
input from the scientists as to
24 whether that would
transport the sediment as desired.
25 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: What was the modification
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
381
1 that the engineers were
discussing?
2 MR. KAVOUNAS: As I
recall -- and this is not a
3 hundred percent clear
recall -- but as I recall, it would
4 entail building some
kind of a wall that would bisect the
5 intake structure. And
what that would allow is for the most
6 part of the year the
flow to continue straight down Lee
7 Vining and it would
have some sort of a gate, perhaps on the
8 upstream end of it,
that would allow flow to be taken in to
9 the southern portion of
that pool that could then be
10 diverted into the
conduit and allow the Department of Water
11 and Power to conduct
either the augmentation or export
12 operations. If that's
not clear, I could try to sketch it.
13 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: No, that's clear.
14 MR. KAVOUNAS: Okay.
15 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: I understand that.
16 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:
Anything else, Mr. Del Piero?
17 MR. KAVOUNAS: May I
add to that?
18 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Sure.
19 MR. KAVOUNAS: I would
like to repeat what I said
20 yesterday in answer to
-- I believe it was Jim Canaday's
21 question. The concept
of the Iowa vanes that were brought
22 forth by a consultant
to the Mono Lake Committee is one that
23 we have not looked at.
24 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Don't feel bad. I'm the
25 lawyer and I didn't
understand it at all. That remains to
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
382
1 be seen.
2 MR. KAVOUNAS: But that
seems to be yet another way
3 that something could be
engineered to pass sediment.
4 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Okay. A couple other things
5 in terms of a question
for Dr. Beschta.
6 This is the second
question, Mr. Chairman.
7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: This
is the second one?
8 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
This is the second question.
9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Okay.
Sometimes I don't know how
10 they break down.
11 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: The first one was scour and
12 sediment on Lee
Vining. There is no method.
13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:
Please, Mr. Del Piero.
14 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay. I want to talk about
15 large woody debris,
Dr. Beschta.
16 DR. BESCHTA: Yes.
17 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: We heard a variety of
18 responses yesterday to
questions raised by Mr. Canaday and I
19 just want to -- he
asked virtually all the questions I was
20 interested in hearing
answered and so I'm not going to
21 belabor this, but I
wanted to ask you a couple questions
22 maybe for the record
and maybe for my own edification in
23 terms of understanding
how the system worked in Rush Creek
24 prior to 1941.
25 During the hearings
that took place in 1993 and 1994 a
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
383
1 number of exhibits were
demonstrative of the fact that in
2 the lower reaches of
Rush Creek there was a significant
3 presence of Jeffrey
pine and some of those remnants actually
4 still remain. Every
once in a while you'll see -- even in
5 the most recent
pictures that were demonstrated -- in fact,
6 there might be one or
two sticking up, I don't know, in the
7 background in some of
those pictures that were shown
8 yesterday.
9 Did the presence of
those pine trees that are
10 substantially larger
than the willows and the rest of the
11 normal riparian
vegetation that is predominant now or is
12 attempting to come
back now, did the presence of that -- of
13 that particular type
of pine tree lend itself to the large
14 woody debris that we
all seem to talk about in terms of
15 habitat?
16 DR. BESCHTA: The
Jeffrey pine, yes.
17 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: It did?
18 DR. BESCHTA: Yes.
19 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: I did not hear yesterday,
20 although we talked a
whole lot about rushes and willows and
21 the normal, typical
wetlands-type plant communities that
22 result through
application of water pretty immediately.
23 No one talked to me
about -- other than some kind of
24 mechanical and
artificial installation or opportunistic
25 installation, if you
will, of woody debris dependent upon
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
384
1 whether or not Caltrans
decided to cut a tree down
2 correctly, whether or
not there was any thought given by any
3 of the scientific
panels in terms of the ultimate
4 restoration of that
pine forest along particularly the lower
5 reaches of Rush Creek
in terms of ongoing contribution to
6 the ecosystem of large
woody debris and it was sort of -- I
7 couldn't figure out why
we talked about it. So that's why
8 I'm asking the
question.
9 Did anybody ever talk
about it in the last two and a
10 half years while we
were waiting for the weather?
11 DR. BESCHTA: Yes.
12 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: They did?
13 DR. BESCHTA: Yes,
there have been discussions.
14 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Do you want to share with me
15 what the current
thought is in terms of -- at least the Los
16 Angeles Department of
Water and Power in terms of
17 contributing large
woody debris to a system that everybody
18 agrees needs it?
19 DR. BESCHTA: Well, I
can give you my opinion and then
20 there probably will be
others.
21 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: I'll be happy to hear yours.
22 DR. BESCHTA: Large
woody debris has been an important
23 issue in stream
ecology at least for the last 15 or 20
24 years. The major
emphasis on that research has taken place
25 in the Pacific
Northwest. There are a lot of articles that
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
385
1 have been published in
that area, and that issue now is
2 becoming more widely
recognized in other places.
3 I think we have to be a
bit careful when we move over
4 into the more arid land
systems; and even though Jeffrey
5 pine was present, I'm
going to suggest that the timing is
6 different than what we
think about when we talk about
7 putting wood into the
system today. I would suggest that
8 Jeffrey pine played a
role ultimately in the ecology of
9 these stream systems;
but it was not a major player and it's
10 after the rest of the
pieces are in place that it becomes
11 important, not before
the rest of the pieces are in place.
12 So if you let me
recover the system the way I would
13 love to see Rush Creek
with Jeffrey pine forest come on
14 line, would be first
to get those species such as the
15 willows and the
cottonwoods, the ones that can occupy the
16 barren sites or
initiate their growth on these sites begin
17 to tie down that
channel and then ultimately grow the
18 Jeffrey pine and where
it falls into the stream it will
19 create some wonderful
habitat.
20 Now, if we reverse
that process, we load the stream
21 with large wood prior
to the recovery of the willows and the
22 cottonwoods, we've got
a different ball game. And I have
23 seen so many -- I've
seen lot of projects, as well as other
24 people sitting at this
table, of where we've attempted to do
25 that, where we've
loaded the stream with large wood prior to
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
386
1 the other vegetation
being in place and it's created --
2 ultimately it's created
major disaster.
3 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
I'm not advocating that.
4 DR. BESCHTA: Okay.
5 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
I'm trying to understand from
6 the standpoint of
long-term restoration of the ecosystem,
7 which was the charge
this Board gave to the Los Angeles
8 Department of Water and
Power, where the Jeffrey pine card
9 gets played in terms of
the process, because I've gone
10 through all this.
11 Can someone point out
to me the year when there's some
12 kind of affirmative
effort made to -- because that's not the
13 kind of thing that's
going to get transported necessarily by
14 high flows.
15 DR. BESCHTA: That's
right, that's right.
16 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: I mean, that's not how they
17 grow.
18 DR. BESCHTA: That card
is already being played,
19 though, because there
is establishment of Jeffrey pine and
20 Lodgepole out there.
And Dr. Kauffman can tell you perhaps
21 the number of plants
down to, you know, whatever but --
22 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Have we quantified or is
23 there an ongoing
effort in terms of Los Angeles Department
24 of Water and Power to
present evidence to this Board in
25 terms of
quantification of reproduction of that?
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
387
1 DR. BESCHTA: Left me
shift, if I can, the microphone.
2 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Okay.
3 DR. KAUFFMAN: If you
look on page six of my
4 testimony, the last
sentence -- page six of my testimony
5 in -- I don't know what
number, DWP-24 or 25.
6 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:
"28."
7 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Hold on for one second.
8 DR. KAUFFMAN: Yes.
9 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
That's the white book?
10 DR. KAUFFMAN: Yes --
no, no, it's the testimony on
11 the Restoration Plan
R-DWP-28.
12 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay.
13 DR. KAUFFMAN: And this
is based on my walking the
14 creek on several
occasions and basically looking for and
15 just acknowledging --
just to see what is the situation of
16 the recovery of the
conifer component on the ecosystem.
17 And basically I stated
that "Fortunately, naturally
18 established seedlings
of conifers are common..." both the
19 Lodgepole pine and
Jeffrey pine, it's not just Jeffrey pine
20 "...as are
tree-like willows."
21 Again, as one walks
the creek, you see that there
22 are -- it's safe to
say hundreds of small conifers that are
23 establishing within
the riparian zone today.
24 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Which reaches?
25 DR. KAUFFMAN: The
entire area from, I would say,
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
388
1 Reach 2 to the --
probably County Road.
2 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Reach 2?
3 DR. KAUFFMAN: From
beginning at Reach 2 high up and
4 through the County
Road.
5 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Where do the seedlings come
6 from up there?
7 DR. KAUFFMAN: There's a
large number of established
8 conifers at the high
end of Rush Creek in the canyon area
9 just above the --
10 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: What are we looking at here,
11 gentlemen?
12 DR. KAUFFMAN: This is
low.
13 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay. Let's go -- excuse me,
14 Mr. Chairman.
15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:
Would you use the mike, Mr. Del
16 Piero.
17 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Sure. You'll forgive me,
18 Mr. Chairman, but it's
an issue that -- he indicated there
19 was one sentence in
his presentation and I didn't find
20 anything else anywhere
else. So unless we're assuming that
21 someone's going to be
out there mutilating this system for
22 large woody debris
from now until my hairline comes back,
23 something else has to
happen. No conifers here.
24 DR. KAUFFMAN: No.
25 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay. Let me see the rest of
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
389
1 the reaches here. I'm
assuming that short of the presence
2 of a mature conifer you
aren't going to have an immature
3 conifer; is that
correct? Not likely anyway?
4 DR. KAUFFMAN: I'm
sorry?
5 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Short of the presence of a
6 pine tree that's going
to drop seeds you aren't going to
7 have a pine tree
growing out there; is that more or less
8 correct?
9 DR. KAUFFMAN: One of
the things that's apparent by
10 anybody walking the
creek is that there's a number of pine
11 cones that are
deposited by high water -- are transported by
12 high water carrying --
presumably carrying the seeds. I
13 don't think that seed
dispersal is a problem.
14 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: There's not a seed dispersal
15 problem if there's
seeds to disperse.
16 DR. KAUFFMAN: Exactly.
17 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Yeah.
18 DR. KAUFFMAN: And
there are seeds to disperse.
19 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Where?
20 DR. KAUFFMAN:
Beginning --
21 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Where?
22 DR. KAUFFMAN: Let me
show you -- I can show you on
23 the aerial photo where
we've mapped the Jeffrey pine.
24 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Okay.
25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY:
Could we have some clarification on
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
390
1 what it is we're doing?
That sort of developed into a
2 little side meeting.
Let's work through the Chair.
3 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
What I'm asking for,
4 Mr. Chairman, is
demonstration of the existence of whatever
5 remnant conifer forest
-- and I'm using that in the most
6 generous term because
there's never been a forest out there
7 as long as I've been
looking around. There's one or two
8 trees left over from
about 30 or 40 years ago that might
9 have been able to
survive. The vast majority of pine
10 forest -- Jeffrey and
Lodgepole, predominantly Jeffrey --
11 were wiped out when
these streams were dewatered.
12 DR. KAUFFMAN: Yes,
that would be correct, your
13 statement.
14 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: And they were -- based on
15 testimony given three
years ago -- and I assume nothing's
16 changed, the testimony
was given by both LADWP and the
17 National Audubon
Society, that was singularly the source of
18 large woody debris for
Rush Creek.
19 We've heard repeated
testimony on this, both written
20 and oral, about the
necessity of that and short of a
21 completely artificial
system where you have people hauling
22 woody debris in -- and
we've heard that hauling woody debris
23 in is a bad idea --
you have to get woody debris into the
24 system somehow and the
only way to do it is normally to grow
25 it naturally, and
other than one line there's no reference
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
391
1 to that in terms of the
Restoration Plan.
2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: So
the question is succinctly
3 where's the woody
debris gonna come from?
4 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Is
that what we're talking about
6 here? Is there an
answer to that?
7 DR. KAUFFMAN: Yeah.
Again, the sources of woody
8 debris would come from
those plants that can become -- that
9 can grow to a tree size
and there's four or five species out
10 there: Jeffrey pine,
Lodgepole pine, Black cottonwood and
11 Salix lucida, Yellow
willow.
12 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: I'm focusing just to Jeffrey
13 pine and Lodgepole.
14 DR. KAUFFMAN: Okay,
yeah, and as of 1996 it's been
15 based upon our math
and we see -- and the vast majority is
16 in the upper reaches
of Rush Creek. If you'll look --
17 again, it is in my
testimony that there are approximately
18 1,902 square meters of
area occupied by -- that would be
19 probably four acres --
of area occupied by -- no, excuse me,
20 not four acres. What
would that be? Point one nine --
21 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: How many square meters?
22 DR. KAUFFMAN: 1,902.
It's nineteen -- the "Riparian
23 Plant Communities on
Rush Creek 1996" this -- it's in my
24 testimony.
25 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: It's ten by a hundred foot --
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
392
1 pardon me, ten by a
hundred meter plot; is that correct?
2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let's
get as clear an answer as we
3 can here. The question
is: What's the source of the woody
4 debris with respect
particularly to Jeffrey pine; is that
5 right, Mr. Del Piero?
6 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Yes. I'll settle for
7 Lodgepole, too.
8 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Sure.
We just need a succinct
9 answer for the record
so we can go on.
10 DR. KAUFFMAN: Well,
the bottom line is my statement
11 was that there are
conifer seedlings established on the
12 riparian zone at
present and this is -- we're looking at in
13 the long term these
plants will grow up, die, fall into the
14 creek.
15 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Mr. Chairman --
16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr.
Chairman.
17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr.
Birmingham.
18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I hate
to interrupt Mr. Del Piero's
19 questions, but I'd
like to just take a moment and point out
20 that the Restoration
Plan proposed by DWP contains a
21 provision that on
areas that are not recovered naturally
22 Jeffrey pine will be
artificially planted.
23 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: When?
24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I
think, as Dr. Beschta indicated and
25 I believe Dr. Trush
may have a view on this as well, when we
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
393
1 are able to determine
where the areas that will not be
2 occupied by -- well, I
shouldn't testify. I'd ask them to
3 answer that question.
4 MR. KAVOUNAS: If I may
clarify --
5 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
I don't want to belabor the
6 point.
7 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I
don't believe Mr. Birmingham has
8 taken the oath.
9 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Hey, I have no reason to
10 question Mr.
Birmingham's ability and familiarity with
11 various of the
exhibits by any stretch of the imagination.
12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: By
the way, Mr. Birmingham, you're
13 welcome to take the
oath. I didn't mean to say that -- if
14 you wish to appear as
a witness, you're more than welcome.
15 MR. BIRMINGHAM:
Absolutely not.
16 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: If I can get an answer to the
17 question, Mr.
Chairman. I don't want to belabor it.
18 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Let
me remind the Board Members
19 that the answer is the
answer whether we like it or not.
20 The witnesses do the
best they can.
21 Is there an answer
specifically with regard to the
22 Jeffrey pine
"yes" or "no"? If there is, please
give it to
23 us.
24 MR. KAVOUNAS: Yes,
there is an answer. There's an
25 answer, as Dr.
Kauffman has stated, as to the existing
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
394
1 Jeffrey pine. And as
far as the planting that the
2 Department is proposing
in its plan, that's listed on page
3 74. And as far as the
schedule, the plan is fairly clear
4 the planting will begin
during the first full field season
5 after the State Board
approves this plan. That includes
6 planting of Jeffrey
pine.
7 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
I didn't find that, but I'll
8 look for it. Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All
right. Thank you, sir. Thank
10 you, Mr. Del Piero.
11 Any questions from the
other Board Members? All
12 right, nothing from
the Board Members.
13 That completes the
Board Member cross-examination of
14 this panel. Now we
will go to redirect, if any, and I
15 suspect there is some.
16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Well,
actually, there is a little.
17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Good
morning again, Mr. Birmingham.
18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Good
morning.
19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: You
may begin your redirect, sir.
20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Unlike
Mr. Dodge and unlike
21 Mr. Del Piero, I won't
misrepresent the number of questions
22 that I'm going to ask
you because I know it will change as I
23 ask it.
24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Do
you have an idea of how much
25 time you need, sir,
just so we can plan as we go here?
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
395
1 MR. BIRMINGHAM:
Forty-five minutes.
2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All
right.
3 ---oOo---
4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER
6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr.
Hunter and Dr. Trush, yesterday
7 Mr. Roos-Collins was
asking a series of questions concerning
8 when we would be able
to conclude that restoration was
9 completed, and at the
time he was asking those questions you
10 were not on the panel.
11 Do either of you have
an opinion as to whether or not
12 we can say with
certainty when restoration will have been
13 completed?
14 MR. HUNTER: I guess my
view on that is that when the
15 flows are implemented,
the flows that are in the plan, it is
16 our hope that those
flows will create the processes that
17 will start the
restoration of those streams. At that
18 immediate -- as to
when that -- when the restoration is
19 completed, I don't
have a view. These stream channels
20 naturally evolve,
change on an annual basis, and how you
21 determine when they've
reached restoration is beyond me.
22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr.
Trush, do you have a view on that
23 question?
24 DR. TRUSH: No, I don't
have a specific time. I guess
25 I would look at a
turning point is when we reach maturity of
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
396
1 cottonwoods on the
present day floodplain, say in the 20,
2 25-year category. We're
going to see a very -- a large
3 forest, something
that's going to be to a person traveling
4 along noticing a very
different kind of system if they were
5 there 25 years earlier
versus ten years from the -- over a
6 ten year we would
notice some green shrubs, but once you
7 reach the maturity of
the cottonwood forest I think you'll
8 start to reach some
kind of stability.
9 It will still keep
changing. We all talk about
10 fluctuation, but I
think the maturity of the cottonwoods
11 will be a mark in the
evolution of it; but I can't give an
12 exact date of when
we're going to hit an equilibrium stream
13 channel.
14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr.
Platts, yesterday you stated that
15 you would not
recommend that fish passage be created at
16 DWP's Walker, Parker
and Lee Vining Creek diversion
17 facilities; is that
correct?
18 DR. PLATTS: No, just
Walker and Parker.
19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In
your opinion, do the fish --
20 excuse me. Do the fish
passage barriers that are created at
21 Walker and Parker by
DWP's diversion facilities limit the
22 number of brown trout
in those streams?
23 DR. PLATTS: In my
opinion it does not.
24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And on
what do you base that opinion?
25 DR. PLATTS: I base it
on the fact that there are
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
397
1 spawning and rearing
areas both above and below these
2 diversions and also
looking at some of the data collected by
3 California Department
of Fish and Game, by Dr. Mesick,
4 looking at that
information above and below diversions to
5 see if I couldn't come
up with something that would show
6 that there was a
problem.
7 The database available
I could not show that there is
8 a problem -- the fish
passage blocks are causing a problem
9 with the fish
population.
10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr.
Hunter, do you have an opinion on
11 that subject?
12 MR. HUNTER: I would
agree with Dr. Platts.
13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That
the diversion facilities do not
14 create a limiting
factor for brown trout populations in the
15 streams?
16 MR. HUNTER: Correct.
17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr.
Trush, do you have a view on that
18 question?
19 DR. TRUSH: Yeah, Lee
Vining I question -- Lee Vining
20 I wouldn't be so sure
of as far as fish passage, but I have
21 no problems with
Parker and Walker and I spent a large
22 percent of my time up
in Arcata trying to get fish passage
23 culverts in the timber
industry. That's a big passion of
24 mine.
25 So for me to say fish
passage isn't that big a deal I
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
398
1 don't think on Parker
and Walker, I'm wondering what I'm
2 saying; but that's what
I would have to do as a scientist
3 from the evidence that
I've seen and the research that I've
4 seen.
5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: That
evidence would include the data
6 that Dr. Platts
referred to?
7 DR. TRUSH: Yes. In
fact, the two culverts I'd be
8 most worried about are
the ones under 395. They really
9 split up the main stem
of both creeks and if you're going to
10 have any significant
migration, I could see it happening at
11 those two. Those two
aren't very friendly to fish. The
12 baffled one is great
if you have adult steelhead going up,
13 but I'm not so sure
about smaller cutthroat.
14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr.
Del Piero, are you raising your
15 hand?
16 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Yes, I have a question.
17 I don't recall, is
there a recommendation in the
18 Restoration Plan that
this Board seek out assistance from
19 Caltrans in terms of
remedying that impediment?
20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: This
is a clarifying question.
21 Briefly, sir. We'll
delay the start once you get
22 back. Thank you for
reminding us.
23 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: Yes, Mr. Tillemans.
24 MR. TILLEMANS: Yes,
we've addressed this and I can
25 find the letter in my
pile over here; but we've called
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
399
1 Caltrans, written them
in a letter when they do their
2 highway widening
projects to take into consideration future
3 flows that will be
coming down from there and --
4 BOARD MEMBER DEL PIERO:
Mr. Canaday, do you have a
5 copy of the letter?
6 MR. CANADAY: I'm not
sure what letter he's referring
7 to, but I do know that
LADWP has made conversations with
8 Caltrans and informed
them of the need to take that into
9 consideration.
10 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: There's no reference to it in
11 the current document?
12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I
believe there is a copy of the
13 letter in the appendix
to the Restoration Plan.
14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All
right. Please proceed,
15 Mr. Birmingham, and
we'll delay the start of the clock.
16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Thank
you.
17 Dr. Platts, are you
familiar with the historic
18 conditions of Rush
Creek? And when I say "historic," I mean
19 the conditions of Rush
Creek prior to the diversions of
20 water for export by
the Department of Water and Power.
21 DR. PLATTS:
Personally, no. The only thing I can
22 draw on is what I've
read or what I've been told or what I
23 can deduct out of
things that went on at that time.
24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I
would like to read to you a passage
25 from NAS&MLC
Exhibit 1-Y, which is the testimony of E. Woody
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
400
1 Trihey regarding stream
restoration submitted by the Mono
2 Lake Committee and
National Audubon Society in the first set
3 of hearings related to
this matter, and I'd refer you to the
4 last page of the
photocopy that I've given you and this
5 testimony appears to
relate to the conditions of Rush Creek
6 historical; is that
correct?
7 DR. PLATTS: That's
correct.
8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Looking
at page 20, paragraph 24 from
9 NAS&MLC 1-Y it
states (reading) the mile long reach
10 immediately above this
canyon had been modified to function
11 as a supply channel
for irrigation ditches. It was a
12 long -- excuse me. It
was a low gradient engineered reach
13 generally devoid of
channel structure or instream objects
14 that would have
provided good cover for fish. However, it
15 was lined with dense
riparian vegetation. This channel
16 reach was replaced
with the Mono Ditch when Grant Lake Dam
17 was enlarged in
1939-40.
18 Is it your
understanding that that testimony refers to
19 what we have called in
these proceedings Reach 1 of Rush
20 Creek?
21 DR. PLATTS: Yes.
22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Is it
your understanding -- let me
23 restate the question.
From your review of the historical
24 information concerning
Rush Creek, do you agree with the
25 characterization
presented by Mr. Trihey in NAS&MLC 1-Y?
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
401
1 DR. PLATTS: Yes, I do.
2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Do you
have an opinion concerning
3 whether or not the
conditions that existed in Reach 1 would
4 have provided good
habitat for brown trout?
5 DR. PLATTS: It would
not have provided good habitat,
6 but there were brown
trout available that were occupying
7 that reach, but it
would not be good habitat.
8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Are you
familiar with the suggestion
9 by Dr. Platts -- excuse
me, by Dr. Beschta in his testimony
10 that Reach 1 could be
rewatered by diverting a few cfs from
11 the Mono Return Ditch
and allowing that water to back up
12 into Reach 1?
13 DR. PLATTS: Yes, I'm
familiar with that.
14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Would
that process recreate the
15 conditions that
existed in that reach of stream in 1941?
16 DR. PLATTS: Yes, they
would be similar.
17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In
connection with the hearings which
18 resulted in D-1631 you
submitted a testimony; is that
19 correct?
20 DR. PLATTS: Could you
clarify that?
21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Yes.
I'd like to show you what I
22 believe was testimony
that you submitted with Dr. Donald
23 Chapman concerning the
historical conditions of Rush Creek
24 that was presented
during the hearings which resulted in
25 D-1631. Do you recall
that?
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
402
1 DR. PLATTS: Yes, I do.
2 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now, in
the preparation of that
3 testimony you reviewed
all of the historical data that you
4 could find pertaining
to the conditions of Rush Creek; is
5 that correct?
6 DR. PLATTS: Yes, I did.
7 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What --
in 1941 prior to the
8 diversions by DWP how
would you describe the condition of
9 the stream between,
say, the point at which the A-Ditch
10 started and Highway
395?
11 DR. PLATTS: It was a
highly diverted stream. It was
12 heavily grazed by
livestock. For months on end the stream
13 would have zero flow
above 395. It was a highly stressed
14 stretch of stream. I
would say that the fish population in
15 that area was having a
hard time surviving. It wasn't -- it
16 was not good
conditions. I think that's typical of other
17 streams you see in the
Western United States that are
18 heavily grazed and
very heavily diverted.
19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In
fact, as part of your testimony
20 that was submitted in
1993 you had a Figure 6; is that
21 correct?
22 DR. PLATTS: Yes.
23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And
what was Figure 6?
24 DR. PLATTS: It's a
photograph of Rush Creek looking
25 upstream in the
vicinity of the old Highway 395. It was
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
403
1 taken in 1939.
2 MR. DODGE: Mr.
Chairman, I wonder --
3 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr.
Dodge.
4 MR. DODGE: -- what's
really the purpose of this
5 hearing to revisit all
of the work we did in 1993 on the
6 historic conditions
pre-diversions, which seems to me what
7 this testimony's all
about. Those matters have already been
8 resolved.
9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Indeed,
they have been resolved and
10 the relevance of this
question -- or line of questions will
11 become immediate -- or
known immediately with my next
12 question.
13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: All
right. Please proceed and get
14 to the point as
quickly as you can, Mr. Birmingham.
15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I
will, but before I do that I'd like
16 to pass this
photograph Figure 6 from the direct testimony
17 of Dr. Platts to the
Members of the Board.
18 Dr. Platts, have you
heard any of the parties to these
19 proceedings propose
that we restore the conditions of Rush
20 Creek that are
depicted in Figure 6?
21 DR. PLATTS: No.
22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'd
like to go back and talk a moment
23 about Reach 1, and I'd
like to ask this question of
24 Dr. Platts, Mr. Hunter
--
25 MS. CAHILL: Mr.
Birmingham, could we see Figure 6?
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
404
1 MR. BIRMINGHAM:
Certainly.
2 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Is
this the only copy we've got?
3 DR. BESCHTA: Here's a
loose one if I can get it back.
4 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr.
Platts, Mr. Hunter and Dr. Trush,
5 I'm going to ask you to
assume that in order to construct an
6 outlet facility from
Grant Lake Dam into Reach 1 it would
7 cost approximately 10.8
to 14 million dollars.
8 Do either of you have
an opinion concerning whether it
9 would be reasonable to
expend that money to construct an
10 outlet facility in
order to rewater Reach 1?
11 Dr. Platts, do you
have an opinion on that?
12 MR. DODGE: Objection,
it calls for an opinion on a
13 question of law. I
mean, that's really the ultimate
14 decision facing this
Board.
15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Help
me out with this, Mr. Frink.
16 MR. FRINK: I believe
any of the scientists could
17 offer an opinion, if
they have one, on how reasonable a
18 proposal it would be
from their standpoint as scientists.
19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: And,
of course, it goes to the
20 Board to give weight
of evidence.
21 Mr. Del Piero?
22 BOARD MEMBER DEL
PIERO: No comment, Mr. Chairman.
23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Go
ahead and answer the question.
24 DR. PLATTS: I would
consider it unreasonable if the
25 sole purpose was just
for rewatering Reach 1.
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
405
1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr.
Hunter, do you have an opinion on
2 that?
3 MR. HUNTER: If, as it
appears, the flows that we
4 think are required in
order to set restoration and progress
5 can be achieved without
spending that money, I would not
6 think it would be
necessary to spend that money.
7 DR. TRUSH: I agree with
Chris.
8 MR. BIRMINGHAM:
Yesterday Mr. Tillemans expressed an
9 opinion that at least
with respect to some reaches of Rush
10 Creek the restoration
proposal that's been made by the
11 Department of Water
and Power will result in a stream which
12 is in better condition
than existed in 1941 when DWP began
13 its diversions.
14 Mr. Hunter, do you
have an opinion concerning the
15 accuracy of that
statement?
16 MR. HUNTER: I'm really
not familiar with what the
17 condition of the creek
was pre '41. There are a lot of
18 streams in the Western
United States that are subjected to
19 heavy grazing and
heavy diversion this stream will be better
20 than -- these streams
will be better than.
21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr.
Trush, do you have an opinion on
22 that?
23 DR. TRUSH: Yes. Again,
for what reach are we talking
24 about?
25 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Well,
let's focus on the reach
CAPITOL REPORTERS (916)
923-5447
406
1 between the old A-Ditch
and Highway 3 |