Restoration
Chronology
Last Updated Spring 2002
This chronology does not detail
particular projects and actions that were taken on the ground; instead
it summarizes the political and hydrological events influencing the
restoration.
1982
Following the extremely wet 1982-83 winter season, high spring
run-off overflowed Grant Lake Reservoir and spilled over into the dry
streambed. Late in the 1982 season, there was still more runoff than
LADWP could divert through its aqueduct. This bounty led to year-round
flows in Rush Creek for the first time in many years, reestablishing
fish populations. Lee Vining Creek also spilled high flows during the
summer of 1983, but the flows were intermittent and fish did not get
established year-round. Mono Lake rose 9 feet by
mid-1984.
1983
The Public Trust Decision by the California Supreme Court declared
that the State Water Resources Control Board had failed to uphold its
public trust responsibilities when it granted the LADWP licenses to
export water from the Mono Basin. As with the 1982-83 winter season, the
1983-84 winter season also was wet, and Rush Creek received continuous
flows through a second winter.
1984
By spring, the streamflows had diminished to the point that the L.A.
aqueduct could once again hold all the water. Later that fall, LADWP
planned to “turn off” Rush Creek. California Trout initiated litigation,
arguing that the State Water Board-approved water diversion licenses
violated Fish & Game code section 5937, which requires water releases
below dams to protect fish. A court-ordered temporary injunction
resulted in minimum year-round flows in Rush Creek until the litigation
was concluded. (Similar court orders provided for minimum flows in Lee
Vining Creek in 1986 and for Walker and Parker creeks in 1990.)
Ultimately, these cases were coordinated with the Mono Lake public trust
litigation under the jurisdiction of the El Dorado Superior Court.
1990
The Third District Court of Appeals issued its decision on
litigation initiated by Caltrout, known as CalTrout II, which ordered
interim flows in all four of the diverted streams and ordered DWP “to
reestablish and maintain the fisheries which existed in [Rush and Lee
Vining creeks] prior to its diversion of water,” setting the stage for
restoration.
1990-1994
A subsequent El Dorado Superior Court order resulted in the creation
of a Restoration Technical Committee (RTC), comprised of those
actively engaged in the ongoing litigation, including LADWP. The task of
the RTC was to set restoration policy and authorize interim restoration
activities while the State Water Board completed the Mono Basin EIR and
reached its decision. Debate within the RTC focused on the degree and
type of intervention. Given the relatively low stream flows ordered by
the court, which did not provide sufficient energy for the stream to
recreate its former processes, the RTC eventually chose a mechanical
approach to restoration. Some of the work completed under the RTC washed
out or was subsequently modified by high flows in 1995 and 1997. The RTC
also oversaw development of reports that provided a strong base of
scientific information used subsequently by the State Water Board in its
deliberations on Mono Lake. The RTC disbanded when the State Water Board
issued its Mono Lake decision in 1994.
1994
The State Water Board’s Decision 1631 (D.1631) set a target
lake level for Mono Lake, established minimum flows and annual peak
flows for the creeks, and ordered DWP to develop restoration plans for
the streams and for waterfowl habitat.
1995
MLC began planting trees—1500 along Lee Vining Creek this year—and
reading piezometers. The first year of high flows unrestricted by DWP
gave the stream scientists evidence that mimicking natural flows would
restore the streams. Mono Lake began rising and rose
12 feet by mid-1999.
1996
DWP released its Mono Basin Restoration Plans for the restoration of (a)
the four streams historically diverted by DWP (Rush, Lee Vining, Walker
and Parker creeks) and (b) waterfowl habitat. These plans were based on
the work of independent scientists and incorporated most but not all of
the scientists’ recommendations. A number of parties argued that DWP’s
plans were inadequate to achieve the restoration called for by D.1631,
particularly (in the case of the stream plan) with regard to the peak
flows proposed and to “termination criteria,” the desired resource
condition against which to measure restoration progress.
1997
Even though the Mono Basin Restoration Plans were still pending
approval before the State Water Board, LADWP initiated baseline
restoration monitoring on the streams. In this first season, restoration
consultants hired by LADWP began mapping select reaches of Rush and Lee
Vining creeks and testing fish population monitoring techniques. In the
fall, waterfowl surveys around Mono Lake were undertaken as well.
1998
After hearings, which included examination of a Settlement Agreement
signed by most but not all parties, the State Water Board issued its
order on restoration at Mono Lake. Key features of the final Mono Basin
Restoration plans include: flow regimes on the streams that are based on
the natural hydrograph; a stream monitoring program that will be the
basis for adaptive management of stream work over time and the means of
measuring when restoration is complete; reopening of certain abandoned
secondary channels on Rush Creek; raising the lake to 6,392 feet for
waterfowl habitat; improving existing freshwater ponds for migrating
waterfowl; and annual aerial monitoring of waterfowl and waterfowl
habitat. LADWP’s restoration monitoring, initiated by restoration
consultants in 1997, continued.
1999-present
LADWP conducts annual monitoring of restoration progress and
hosts semi-annual restoration meetings attended by interested parties.
The monitoring includes:
-
Lake level measurements
-
Vegetation transects at key sites around the lake
-
Aerial photography of stream and lakeshore
changes
-
Geomorphic mapping of stream channel changes
-
Fish population studies
-
Waterfowl surveys
Political Chronology
Restoration Page
|
