Feb. 24, 1997 Restoration Hearing

1110

01 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

03 PUBLIC HEARING

06 REGARDING STREAM AND WATERFOWL HABITAT RESTORATION PLANS

06 AND GRANT LAKE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY

07 THE LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER PURSUANT TO

07 THE REQUIREMENTS OF WATER RIGHT DECISION 1631

13 HELD AT:

14 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

14 PAUL BONDERSON BUILDING

15 901 P STREET, FIRST FLOOR HEARING ROOM

15 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

18 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1997

18 9:00 A.M.

24 Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE

25 CSR NO. 1564

1111

01 APPEARANCES

01 BOARD MEMBERS:

02 JOHN CAFFREY, CHAIRMAN

03 JOHN W. BROWN (A.M. ONLY)

03 MARY JANE FORSTER

04 STAFF MEMBERS:

05 JAMES CANADAY, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST

06 GERALD E. JOHNS, ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF

07 COUNSEL:

08 DAN FRINK

09 LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER:

10 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

10 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor

11 Sacramento, California 95814

11 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ.

12 and

12 JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ.

13 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT:

14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

15 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

15 BISHOP RESOURCE AREA

16 785 North Main Street, Suite E

16 Bishop, California 93514

17 BY: TERRY L. RUSSI

18 PEOPLE FOR MONO BASIN PRESERVATION:

19 KATHLEEN MALONEY BELLOMO

19 P.O. Box 201

20 Lee Vining, California 93541

21 ARCULARIUS RANCH:

22 FRANK HASELTON, LSA

22 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500

23 Irvine, California 92610

1112

01 APPEARANCES

02 CALIFORNIA TROUT, INC.:

03 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE

03 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200

04 San Francisco, California 94014

04 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ.

05 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME:

06 NANCEE MURRAY, ESQ.

07 1416 Ninth Street

07 Sacramento, California 95814

08 McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN

09 555 Capitol Mall, Ninth Floor

09 Sacramento, California 95814

10 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ.

11 CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION:

11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION:

12 MARY J. SCOONOVER, ESQ.

13 1300 I Street

13 Sacramento, California 95814

14 MICHAEL VALENTINE

15 NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY:

16 MONO LAKE COMMITTEE:

17 MORRISON & FORSTER

17 425 Market Street

18 San Francisco, California

18 BY: F. BRUCE DODGE, ESQ.

19 PANEL MEMBERS:

20 PETER VORSTER

21 LARRY L. HARRISON

21 SCOTT STINE

23 ---oOo---

1113

01 INDEX

02 PAGE

03 NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY/MONO LAKE COMMITTEE

04 DIRECT EXAMINATION

05 BY MR. DODGE 1117

06 CROSS-EXAMINATION

07 BY MR. RUSSI 1155

07 BY MS. BELLOMO 1169

08 BY MR. HASELTON 1219

08 BY MS. ROOS-COLLINS 1221

09 BY MS. CAHILL 1234

10 ---oOo---

11 AFTERNOON SESSION 1219

1114

01 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

02 FEBRUARY 24, 1997

03 ---oOo---

04 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Good morning and welcome back to all

05 the parties. Later in the day, we may be joined by Mr.

06 Stubchaer and Ms. Forster.

07 Let me also say before we get into today's proceeding

08 that some of you been inquiring as to the well-being of Mr.

09 Del Piero. I will just let you know that he has been

10 allowed to go home. He is home, resting. The last we heard

11 on Friday, they do not know yet if he is going to need a

12 second surgery. We will try to keep you posted as we find

13 more things out.

14 With that, I was going to ask Mr. Frink what the order

15 is now with regard to conveniencing the parties on their

16 direct and the cross-examination that we are going to

17 schedule for today.

18 Mr. Frink.

19 MR. FRINK: Mr. Caffrey, I believe Mr. Dodge has a

20 panel of three witnesses who we are going to lead off with

21 this morning.

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: That would then be Mr. Vorster, Mr.

23 Stine, and Mr. Harrison; is that -- do I have the right

24 group here?

25 MR. DODGE: Yes, you do.

1115

01 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: There had been some discussion

02 about, perhaps, Mr. Roos-Collins going first with Mr.

03 Vorster. I take it that you are going to do all your

04 witnesses together?

05 MR. DODGE: The way we left it last Friday, Mr.

06 Roos-Collins and I were to discuss the matter and reach

07 resolution, and we have. The resolution is that, on behalf

08 of Audubon and on the Mono Lake Committee, this panel of

09 three would go forward and be cross-examined and then be

10 finished. Then we would move on to the Cal Trout panel.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Dodge.

12 I always made, at the request of Mr. Birmingham, a

13 change in the order of the cross-examination, and there was

14 no objection last time, and we will take the City of Los

15 Angeles at the end of the grouping, as we go down through

16 the list.

17 Thank you all for your indulgence. Let me also repeat

18 something that I've said a number of times. First of all,

19 with all due deference, because it's clear to me that

20 everybody is making an attempt at brevity. This is a

21 complex subject, and sometimes that is not easy to do.

22 Nonetheless, I will repeat for those of you who have not

23 been with us. We are all here at different times as

24 different parties appear. It is essential that you be as

25 brief as you can. Not only to the witnesses in your

1116

01 testimony, but also to the attorneys in their questioning.

02 We do allow up to an hour for presentation of direct

03 testimony. It is obligatory. If you don't have an hour's

04 worth of information in summary form to give the Board, you

05 don't need to feel that you need to fill up the hour. I am

06 sure everybody would appreciate that.

07 If I may be so bold as to cite an example, I think the

08 Board appreciated Mr. Dodge's approach the other day, where

09 he brought up his expert witnesses, and they each took about

10 ten minutes to summarize. Then we could get to the meat of

11 things in the cross-examination and, of course, there is

12 always rebuttal to follow.

13 We noted that the witnesses have a lot of expertise.

14 So does the Board to some degree. We are full-time Board.

15 We read everything. Please be mindful of the fact that the

16 direct testimony is your opportunity to just summarize and

17 hit the high points. As I said earlier, it appears as

18 though that the panels up till now have been making a real

19 attempt to do that. It is appreciated, and please do

20 continue.

21 All right then. Is there anything I need to point

22 out? Let me ask, before we get to that, Mr. Frink, have all

23 of these witnesses taken the oath that are going to appear

24 today?

25 MR. FRINK: I don't believe so.

1117

01 (Oath administered by Chairman Caffrey.)

02 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you. Gentlemen, sit down.

03 Mr. Dodge, sir.

04 ---oOo---

05 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY

06 NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY/MONO LAKE COMMITTEE

07 BY MR. DODGE

08 MR. DODGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09 Mr. Vorster, I am going to ask you to confirm that

10 Exhibit R-NAS/MLC-7 is your written testimony and to

11 summarize it for the Board. And then I will ask Mr.

12 Harrison to confirm that Exhibit R-NAS/MLC-1 is your written

13 testimony and to summarize that. And finally, Dr. Stine, I

14 ask you to confirm that Exhibit R-NAS/MLC-5 is your written

15 testimony and summarize that. And we will start with Mr.

16 Vorster.

17 MR. VORSTER: Good morning, Mr. Caffrey, Mr. Brown, and

18 the assembled staff and others in this proceeding. My name

19 is Peter Vorster. I was extensively involved in the

20 preparation plan through the TAGs, the ad hoc flow

21 subcommittee, and the submittal of extensive written

22 comments. I appreciate that DWP, in particular Bill

23 Hazencamp, Steve McBain, Dave Allen, Jim Perralt, and Peter

24 Kavounas, conducted a process in an open and cooperative

25 manner.

1118

01 There are a couple of minor corrections in my

02 testimony, which I compiled in a sheet that is being handed

03 out currently. The most important is that Attachment 5A,

04 which should have been part of Attachment 5, was

05 inadvertently left out.

06 My testimony will cover the following subject matters.

07 First, water rights in the Mill-Wilson system, Mill-Wilson

08 hydrology and water management, water requirements for

09 Thompson and Conway Meadows, a comparison of the different

10 channel maintenance flow recommendations, the adequacy of

11 DWP channel maintenance flow recommendations, and the export

12 impact of the recommended flow regimes.

13 First, I want to quickly review the water rights of the

14 Mill-Wilson system. I have reviewed the November 30, 1914

15 Water Rights Decree for Mill Creek and subsequent

16 conveyances and compilations of the decree by the

17 Department of Water and Power and Southern California

18 Edison. I enlarged Attachment 6 from my testimony, which is

19 behind me here, which is a compilation of the water rights

20 with minor corrections noted in my written testimony. This

21 compilation was prepared by Scott Stine in Appendix F, as in

22 Frank, in the DWP's Waterfowl Plan.

23 The water rights to Mill Creek are held by four

24 entities: Conway Ranch, LADWP, U.S. Forest Service, and Jan

25 Simis who has a minor 1.0 cfs right. The Conway right

1119

01 consists of both the Conway land and the Mattly lands. The

02 Conway lands, as I am showing in R-SLC/DPR-424. The Conway

03 lands enclosed by this large figure and the Mattly lands

04 over here.

05 The Conway lands have a 14 cfs right, and the Mattly

06 lands a 4 cfs right.

07 Southern California Edison does not have a water right

08 to Mill Creek. It's obligated to convey the water to

09 downstream water right holders, although it does have a

10 right to store inflow above 70 cfs.

11 There is no right to flows in Wilson Creek itself.

12 Wilson Creek is a conduit for delivering water to irrigation

13 ditches on Conway and DeChambeau Ranch. And, in fact, it

14 was originally referred to as the DeChambeau Ditch.

15 In recent years, nearly all of the flow in Wilson Creek

16 through the Conway Ranch is water in excess of the demands

17 of the water right holders, since the Forest Service is

18 generally not using its right on DeChambeau Ranch, and the

19 Conway Ranch has no major diversions from Wilson Creek on

20 the ranch property itself.

21 What I mean is that -- this is Conway Ranch.

22 Diversions to the ranch historically occurred from the

23 Conway Ditch, the Upper Conway Ditch, the Lower Conway

24 Ditch, and there are actually two ditches that take water

25 from the south of we call Wilson Creek.

1120

01 Next I want to briefly describe the Mill-Wilson

02 hydrology and water management. I compiled a series of

03 spreadsheets which Mr. Riese will be flipping over. They

04 are just enlargements of the attachments. These

05 spreadsheets provide a snapshot of the historic actual flows

06 and diversions in the Mill-Wilson system in different year

07 types, and the flows that would be expected if LADWP's or

08 the Mono Lake Committee's proposal for providing instream

09 flows in Mill Creek is implemented.

10 DWP's proposal is to dedicate its Mill Creek water

11 rights and the dedication of other unappropriative water

12 that may be available during the fall and winter months to

13 accomplish the rewatering of Mill Creek.

14 The Mono Lake Committee proposal is to restore close to

15 the natural flows of Mill Creek, but impaired by Lundy

16 Reservoir, in order to restore the waterfowl habitat in Mill

17 Creek to the level recommended by the waterfowl restoration

18 scientists, and to restore a naturally functioning stream,

19 ecosystem, and bottomlands.

20 Mono Lake Committee proposes to return all of the water

21 to Mill Creek except that which is necessary to maintain

22 Wilson Creek riparian quarter through the Conway Ranch and

23 to maintain the Simis and Thompson Ranch Meadows and trees.

24 Mono Lake Committee proposes to accomplish this through the

25 purchase and dedication of the Conway Ranch water rights,

1121

01 the dedication of DWP's water rights to Mill Creek, to

02 instream flow, and to the modification of the Mill Creek

03 Return Ditch, if necessary, to transport the 70 second

04 peak.

05 The spreadsheets, which are behind me, show the mean

06 monthly flows in cubic feet per second for dry, normal, and

07 wet runoff year at the available measuring sites for key

08 points of demarcation in the Mill-Wilson system.

09 The meaning and derivation of every line in the

10 spreadsheets is explained in Attachment 5. Behind me is

11 actually a summary spreadsheet. The detailed spreadsheets

12 are contained in my testimony.

13 The spreadsheets allow the user to specify certain

14 variables in order to model alternative water management

15 scenarios, including the capacity of the Mill Creek Return

16 Ditch, the losses in terms of percentage of flow in the

17 return ditch, the amount of DWP's irrigation right required

18 to keep Thompson Ranch Meadow green in excess of 1.0 cfs,

19 and, fourth, the amount of water to maintain Wilson Creek

20 riparian quarter through the Conway Ranch. These are all

21 variables that can be specified by the user and changed in

22 order to model different scenarios.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Excuse me, Mr. Vorster.

24 Ms. Bellomo, did you rise for a purpose?

25 MS. BELLOMO: No, thank you, Chairman Caffrey. I am

1122

01 trying to look at the -- I am sorry.

02 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Don't be sorry. I just wasn't sure,

03 and that's perfectly all right.

04 Anybody who has trouble seeing this, if they want to

05 draw a little bit closer, please feel free.

06 Excuse me, Mr. Vorster. Go ahead.

07 MR. VORSTER: The scenarios are differentiated -- in my

08 testimony I provided three scenarios, and they are

09 differentiated by the assumed capacity of the return ditch

10 and the irrigation water for Thompson Ranch. Since my

11 testimony was prepared, we received the testimony from

12 Southern California Edison, which indicated that they

13 estimate the capacity of the return ditch is about 12 cfs,

14 as opposed to 16 cfs I assumed for the purpose of my

15 testimony.

16 As a consequence, I prepared a Scenario 4, which is

17 exactly the same as Scenario 1 except for the return ditch

18 capacity of 12 cfs. I do have that available and the

19 summary spreadsheet is actually up behind Scenario 1.

20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Caffrey.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham.

22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: We would have an objection to the

23 introduction of Scenario 4 inasmuch as it was not submitted

24 in the testimony on the date required by the State Board.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Is there anybody wishing to offer a

1123

01 showing as to why I should not sustain Mr. Birmingham's

02 concern?

03 MR. DODGE: We have always been under the assumption,

04 and have been told, that the capacity of the return ditch

05 was 16 cfs. And then after all the testimony comes, in SCE

06 comes with its testimony in response to my questions, and

07 they tell us it is now as low as 12. So, it is new

08 information to us, and we thought the Board ought to be made

09 aware of the implications of that. We can do it in

10 rebuttal, if you wish.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Bellomo.

12 MS. BELLOMO: Just ask for clarification, Chairman

13 Caffrey, I didn't understand Southern California Edison as

14 having provided testimony in this proceeding. I think we

15 should be referenced to the documents that is supposedly

16 testimony. I think I recall seeing a letter or memorandum

17 or something, but maybe there is testimony that I am not

18 aware of.

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I think the point here is, if I am

20 understanding your concern, Ms. Bellomo, is that the direct

21 testimony can, or rather presentation of direct testimony --

22 well, I am going to correct myself. I was confusing myself

23 with procedure for rebuttal from counsel, what I was about

24 say.

25 Mr. Frink, can you remind if and when we had anything

1124

01 in direct from Southern California Edison?

02 MR. FRINK: All I have seen on the subject is a letter

03 or memo from SCE responding to an inquiry from Mr. Dodge

04 regarding the capacity of the ditch.

05 I would say, though, that I don't believe that he

06 formally asked for that information until shortly before the

07 exhibits were due, and, certainly, we didn't have any

08 request to subpoena the information from SCE.

09 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Frink is absolutely correct. What

10 happened was Mr. Dodge made an inquiry of Southern

11 California Edison so that he could submit evidence

12 concerning the capacity of the return ditch in connection

13 with his case in chief. If he did not obtain that

14 information early enough to permit Mr. Vorster to conduct an

15 analysis, based upon that information, we should not be

16 prejudiced because of their failure to get the information

17 earlier.

18 What happened was Mr. Dodge got the information from

19 SCE. He submitted with his direct testimony and Mr.

20 Vorster's direct testimony, and based upon that new

21 information, Mr. Vorster apparently has conducted a

22 different analysis, which should have been presented with

23 the written testimony at the time Mr. Dodge submitted.

24 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Dodge, you had made an offering

25 a moment ago.

1125

01 MR. DODGE: Excuse me, Mr. Birmingham has misstated the

02 facts.

03 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Go ahead.

04 MR. DODGE: I did not get the testimony from SCE in a

05 timely matter, which is why I submitted my Exhibit 3, which

06 is just the questions I posed to them, and Exhibit 3-A,

07 which is when I got the answers, which was after Mr. Vorster

08 had finished his analysis. And I believe it was Exhibit 3-A

09 that was filed a couple days late for that very reason.

10 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In fact, Exhibit 3-A was filed late,

11 and I understand Mr. Dodge's difficulty in getting that

12 information from Southern California Edison. And so,

13 therefore, we do not object to his having filed that a

14 couple days late, because we have had plenty of time to

15 analyze it for purposes of examination. But Mr. Vorster,

16 based upon that, is now offering brand new evidence that we

17 have not had an opportunity to analyze, and under the

18 Board's previous rulings concerning the submission of

19 evidence for party's case in chief, this ought to be

20 excluded.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I am going to rule here in a second,

22 but I am going to give Mr. Dodge one more chance to --

23 Nothing else, Mr. Dodge?

24 MR. DODGE: Nothing.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Roos-Collins, do you have

1126

01 something you wanted to add?

02 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

03 If you sustain the objection, then one or several of us

04 may simply ask Mr. Vorster the same question on cross.

05 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, I was going to observe that,

06 and you also have rebuttal as an opportunity. I am going to

07 -- Ms. Scoonover, briefly.

08 MS. SCOONOVER: Chairman Caffrey, the only point I want

09 to make, was I believe that the Southern California Edison

10 testimony is in the record as it was stipulated to when we

11 met previously. So that shouldn't be an issue, whether it

12 is or is not.

13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I don't know that that is the issue.

14 The issue is, it is part of somebody's direct, per se, and

15 which you can deal with in cross-examination because it is

16 in the record, I would assume.

17 So, I am going to sustain the objection. I know that a

18 skilled attorney, such as Mr. Dodge, has perhaps other

19 avenues to bring his information into the hearing, and I

20 know --

21 MR. DODGE: Now you are putting me on the spot.

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I know a skilled attorney like Mr.

23 Birmingham has also the ability to object in the future.

24 We are going to sustain the objection as this point.

25 Please proceed.

1127

01 MR. VORSTER: Thank you.

02 The following observations about historic flows and

03 diversions in the Mill-Wilson system can be made. First,

04 the amount and seasonality of historic flows and diversions

05 shown in spreadsheets are consistent with the recent

06 measurements and observations, even though they show 1950,

07 '52 -- '51, '52 and 1960. Those years were just chosen as

08 representative hydrology of wet, normal, and dry year.

09 However, the way things -- the diversions and SCE's

10 operations are consistent with what is shown in the

11 spreadsheets.

12 The only exception to this is that in the last decade

13 the upper Thompson diversions for the irrigation of lands

14 south of Mill Creek, in particular for Simis Ranch, are

15 substantially less and have been entirely eliminated in the

16 past few years.

17 Secondly, the differences in the Mill Creek unimpaired

18 runoff between the different year types is most pronounced

19 in snow melt months of May through August. For example, the

20 mean monthly flow in July, the wet year, is nearly five

21 times greater than the mean monthly flow of July in dry

22 year. Contrast this to the less than 25 percent difference

23 in the flows in November.

24 Thirdly, Mill Creek gains an estimated average monthly

25 flow of 4 to 10 cfs downstream of Lundy Reservoir from a

1128

01 combination of factors. Lundy Reservoir would be off the

02 map here on Exhibit R-SLC/DPR-424 in the reach down to

03 approximately Highway 395. It gains flow from tributary

04 inflow and groundwater accretion. Below Highway 395 down

05 past the County Road, Mill Creek is a losing stream. And

06 then down near the shoreline of Mono Lake itself, down here,

07 springs would reemerge.

08 I assume, consistent with available but limited number

09 of measurements and estimates, the losses are equal to the

10 gains. In higher runoff months and higher runoff years,

11 losses probably have been slightly less than the gains.

12 I would note that if water is flowing consistently in

13 the multiple channels in the revegetated Mill Creek

14 bottomlands, the losses will increase in the future over

15 what I have shown in the spreadsheets.

16 Fourth, the diversion in the Thompson Ditches and

17 Conway and Mattly Ditches occurred on seasonal bases for

18 irrigation purposes. Thus, normally there were no

19 diversions between November and March, and in many years

20 there were no diversions between October and April.

21 Fifth, flows to start discharging from the power plant,

22 that are not diverted from the Conway and Mattly Ranch

23 Ditches, flow in Wilson Creek and provide a year-round flow

24 through the Conway Ranch in most occasions. A combination

25 of losses in and diversions from Wilson Creek cause it to

1129

01 periodically dry up downstream from the Conway Ranch.

02 So most of the time there is year-round flow from the

03 power plant through the Conway Ranch, but in this section

04 there is a losing stream and in the drier months, especially

05 dryer years, this is often totally dry of surface flow.

06 An exception to the normal year-round flow in Wilson

07 Creek occurred during the period 1962 to '68 when the

08 Lundy Power Plant was not in service, which meant

09 irrigation water for the Conway, Mattly, and DeChambeau

10 Ranches had to be diverted from Mill Creek, directly from

11 Mill Creek. More water was diverted from Mill Creek in the

12 late fall and winter from 1962 to '68. So Wilson Creek did

13 not have that supply from the power plant outflow.

14 I assume a small amount of accretion occurs in the

15 reach of Wilson Creek through Conway Ranch, but for most of

16 its length it stayed dry if there was no water being

17 discharged from the power plant.

18 The following observations can be made about the

19 expected flows in the Mill-Wilson system if Los Angeles

20 Department of Water and Power or Mono Lake Committee's

21 proposals are implemented. First, without the successful

22 appropriation of the October through April water from the

23 Wilson system, DWP's proposal to dedicate its existing water

24 rights result in little or no flow in Mill Creek below the

25 County Road in the late summer, fall, and winter.

1130

01 The County Road, again, being down near Mono Lake. So,

02 in this reach here, from the bottomlands down to Mono Lake,

03 that reach would be dry under DWP's proposal just dedicating

04 its irrigation water right.

05 The testimony of Scott Stine elaborates the implication

06 of DWP's proposals for flows and waterfowl habitat in Mill

07 Creek. Even if DWP is successful with the appropriation of

08 the unused water in the October through April period, the

09 flows in Mill Creek below the County Road are very, very low

10 in September, from 4 percent to 44 percent of the impaired

11 flow at Lundy Reservoir. September is a key month for

12 migratory waterfowl in the Mono Basin, according to the

13 testimony of Fritz Reid.

14 Because of the assumed limited capacity of the return

15 ditch and the Conway diversion right, DWP's proposals result

16 in snow melt season flows that are from one-quarter to

17 one-half of the available Mill Week runoff. Upgrading the

18 ditch, return ditch, allows for greater flows in the snow

19 melt season.

20 Flows, however, will always be considerably less than

21 what is available at the Lundy Reservoir because of the

22 assumed limitation that DWP cannot dedicate more than 38 cfs

23 to Mill Creek. As a result, the flow is insufficient for

24 rewatering of the bottomland channels as Dr. Stine's later

25 testimony will discuss.

1131

01 A restriction in the return ditch capacity to 12 cfs

02 will reduce the flows in Mill Creek with the DWP proposals

03 whenever the available runoff is greater than 12 cfs in the

04 October through April period, or 24 cfs in the May through

05 September period. As can be seen, if you compare Scenario 4

06 with Scenario 1. But I guess at this point Scenario 4 is

07 not -- I won't refer to it. I just would observe that in a

08 normal year this occurs in 7 out of 12 months of the year.

09 Next, I want to talk about the water requirements for

10 the Conway and Thompson Meadows. A very rough estimate of

11 the water requirements for the Conway Ranch and Thompson

12 Ranch Meadows. Again, Conway Ranch. I am referring to this

13 as the Conway Ranch Meadow, both north and south of Wilson

14 Creek. And I am going to draw -- this map did not

15 originally have Thompson Ranch on it, so I am going to draw

16 it in here. This County Road is actually the very old

17 County Road. The current County Road comes in about here,

18 and so, the Thompson Meadow -- I am just going to draw a

19 circle here to roughly represent Thompson.

20 So that rough estimate of the water requirement can be

21 made by multiplying the irrigated acreage times the

22 consumptive use of the meadow grass, which is approximately

23 two feet and by doubling that amount to take in account the

24 relative inefficiency of flood irrigation, you can come up

25 with a rough water requirement. For 350 acres of Conway

1132

01 Ranch, the calculation results in an average growing season

02 requirement of about 4.5 cfs. That requirement can be

03 entirely supplied by the diversions from Virginia Creek,

04 accretion in the drainage used by the Virginia Creek

05 diversion and natural spring flow and accretion on the

06 property, and occasional peak snow melt season supplied from

07 the ephemeral drainages that drain onto the ranch.

08 In other words, no Mill Creek water is needed. In

09 fact, the Conway Ranch Meadow north of Wilson Creek, which

10 represents 85 percent of the total meadow acreage, has not

11 had any Mill Creek water for the last decade, relying

12 entirely on the Virginia Creek diversion and natural sources

13 on the property.

14 A similar calculation for the hundred acres of Thompson

15 Ranch currently irrigated results in an average growing

16 season requirement of about 1.3 cfs, which can be supplied

17 from a combination of Mill Creek, springs and seepage on the

18 edge of the property and runoff from the DeChambeau

19 Creek. I want to emphasize these are both rough estimates

20 of the irrigation water requirements; the actual amount

21 depends on non climatic factors, such as topography and the

22 water delivery system to the meadows.

23 The main point to appreciate is that it takes very

24 little or no water from Mill Creek to maintain viable

25 pasture on the Conway and Thompson Meadows.

1133

01 Next, I want to turn to my stream testimony. And

02 first, I want to compare the channel maintenance flows that

03 have been recommended over the years, and Attachment 10,

04 which is a blowup from my testimony, compares the channel

05 maintenance flows. I would note that DWP's current

06 recommendations are far greater than their 1994

07 recommendations, which were based upon analysis by Dr.

08 Beschta.

09 DWP's current recommendations are still guided by a

10 philosophy as expressed by Dr. Beschta, that providing the

11 impaired flows is sufficient for restoration. That

12 contrasts with a philosophy held by others, including the

13 stream scientists, Dr. Trush and Dr. Ridenhour and Chris

14 Hunter, that indicates that the unimpaired flow should be

15 used as a guide since those are the flows that provide the

16 habitat that we are trying to restore, in which we see

17 evolving today because of high flows in 1995, for example.

18 I do want to emphasize, though, that the stream

19 scientists' recommendations are not the unimpaired flows.

20 They are, in fact, substantially less than the unimpaired

21 flows in Rush Creek, as can be seen in my Attachment 11.

22 On Lee Vining Creek, their recommendations are, by

23 definition, the specified flow or whatever the peak flows at

24 the DWP facility, which is impaired flow. The Southern

25 California Edison reservoirs on Lee Vining Creek do not

1134

01 impair the flows nearly as much as on Rush Creek. So, that

02 is why the steam scientists were comfortable in stating the

03 recommendations in those terms.

04 This then shows the different recommendations in

05 comparing the cfs magnitude recommendations with the

06 unimpaired peak flows in the different years types, as well

07 as the number of days in which flows exceeded the

08 recommendations. The number of days that are recommended

09 are shown in the light characters and the bold are what the

10 unimpaired regime would provide.

11 Next, I want to address the inadequacy of DWP's

12 recommended channel maintenance flows. The DWP flows are

13 inadequate both in wetter and drier years. In wetter years

14 the magnitude that is recommended is less than what would

15 mobilize the bed and inundate the low terraces in nearly

16 every single year. With the DWP flows, this 500 cfs or

17 greater flow requirement, as testified to by Dr. Trush, has

18 the opportunity to occur only about eight percent of the

19 years, or the extreme year category.

20 (Ms. Forster enters.)

21 MR. VORSTER: With unimpaired flows, flows of 500 cfs,

22 occurred in about half of the years. The second issue in

23 wetter years is that a delivery mechanism is highly

24 problematic. The augmentation of Rush from Lee Vining Creek

25 must occur in 40 percent of the years with DWP's flow

1135

01 regime. There are five major problems with it, as

02 experienced in 1996 highlights.

03 First, is questionable reliability. Even if DWP fixes

04 the gates, that makes the conduit overflow, there is still a

05 problem with the Lee Vining diversion facility. It is not

06 responsive to the flow fluctuations that occur upstream of

07 it, and we saw that in 1996 when Southern California Edison

08 had to suddenly reduce their flows by a hundred cfs and

09 DWP's facility did not respond. And thus there was a

10 violation of D-1631.

11 The second issue is that DWP's plan does not establish

12 criteria for determining peak flows and diversions. The

13 criteria that they provided in the May 1966 letter and

14 subsequent conference calls were subsequently violated

15 during the augmentation procedure. The criteria

16 transmitted orally included forecasting and backcasting

17 procedures which may result in the diversion of the actual

18 peak or waiting so long that the flows dropped to D-1631

19 minimums and considerably delayed Rush peaks after the

20 natural flows have peaked.

21 Third, it requires coordination with Southern

22 California Edison, which by the admission of both Southern

23 California Edison and DWP, they could have done a better job

24 of coordinating. And the telemetry system that DWP relies

25 upon for transmitting data about Lee Vining Creek releases

1136

01 and diversions, actually had a breakdown right at the point

02 in time when flows were decreasing on Lee Vining Creek and

03 diversions occurring.

04 Fourth, the delays in Rush Creek peak occur because of

05 the augmentation. And, for example, in 1996 the peak flow

06 in Rush Creek occurred three weeks after the natural peak,

07 as shown in Attachment 8.

08 This line, here on Attachment 8, shows the unimpaired

09 peak occurring in early June and the actual peak occurred

10 three weeks later in late June, as a result of the

11 augmentation.

12 Fifth, it dramatically reduces the backend of the peak

13 hydrograph on Lee Vining Creek because it shaves off 50

14 percent or more of the flow and can cause Lee Vining Creek

15 to be at the D-1631 minimum flow in an extreme year.

16 The augmentation procedure invites controversy and

17 potential problems for the restoration of both Rush and Lee

18 Vining Creek. I maintain that only the repair of all the

19 involved facilities, establishment of written operating

20 criteria, careful monitoring of the creeks and diversions

21 with real time and publicly accessible data, and the

22 establishment and enforcement of penalties for violations,

23 will ensure the proper operation of the augmentation

24 procedure.

25 A permanent outlet from Grant avoids these problems and

1137

01 is the only reliable way to provide the recommended flows in

02 60 percent of the years recommended by the stream

03 scientists.

04 In drier years, there are a number of problems with

05 DWP's recommendations. They do not provide restoration

06 rationale for reducing the recommendations made by the ad

07 hoc flow subcommittee in over half the years. The only

08 rationale they provided is fear of export reduction, which,

09 as we will see, is possibly unfounded.

10 In over half of the years, the magnitude of the DWP

11 flow is less than the peak flows that nature would provide

12 in every single year, and often provides several times a

13 year.

14 With the existing facility, only one peak will occur.

15 In 40 percent of the years with the DWP regime, it is

16 less than the impaired flows, as Dr. Beschta testified, and

17 dramatically less than the unimpaired flows as I show in

18 Attachment 11. In these same 40 percent of the years, the

19 recommended peak will be a hundred cfs or less, which Dr.

20 Trush stated is necessary to attainment -- excuse me. In

21 the same 40 percent of the years, the recommended peak flow

22 will be a hundred cfs or less, while Dr. Trush stated that,

23 to attain the attributes of incipient mobility and bankful

24 flows on average once a year, the flows should be in the

25 range of 350 to over 400 cfs.

1138

01 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey.

02 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Birmingham.

03 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I wonder if Mr. Vorster could be

04 asked to restrict his commentary to the written testimony

05 that was submitted, as opposed to the testimony that the

06 Board has heard since the beginning of the hearing.

07 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes. You make a good point. The

08 direct should be honed to -- the oral testimony should be

09 honed to what you submitted in written fashion, Mr.

10 Vorster. Going beyond that is something that is reserved

11 for cross-examination, if you will.

12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Well, in fact, sir, I think what he is

13 trying to do is rebut the testimony that has been submitted

14 by other witnesses during the oral presentation and their

15 cross-examination, and it is our perspective that that ought

16 to be reserved for rebuttal.

17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Vorster, please try to stay on

18 your --

19 MR. VORSTER: I will.

20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: -- actual, direct that you have

21 submitted. Your attorneys can get to the meat of some of

22 the other things through their techniques at a later time.

23 MR. VORSTER: I will not refer to Dr. Trush or Dr.

24 Beschta anymore in my direct testimony.

25 Lastly, I want to refer to export reduction that would

1139

01 occur with the different flow regime. In the transition

02 period, in particular, the ad hoc flow subcommittee flows

03 would cause Grant to drop slightly more in any one year,

04 approximately 2 to 4,000 acre-feet, but have no export

05 impact, according to the Grant Lake Operations and

06 Management Plan submitted by DWP.

07 With consecutive drier years, Grant would drop with

08 both the DWP flows and the ad hoc flows, but there would not

09 be any export reduction unless there was a minimum Grant

10 storage level, such as the D-1631 target minimum of 11 and a

11 half thousand acre-feet that needs to be maintained.

12 So, for example, if Grant started the 1987 to '92

13 drought sequence at its target operating level of 35,000

14 acre-feet, the ad hoc flows would maintain the Grant storage

15 above 11 and a half thousand acre-feet and, thus, would not

16 require an export reduction. A 1976-77 drought sequence

17 would cause Grant to drop slightly below the 11 and a half

18 thousand acre-feet level. So, an export reduction of about

19 a thousand acre-feet would be required to maintain Grant

20 above that level.

21 In the post transition period, the export reductions

22 with the stream scientists' October 1995 flows were

23 estimated using the Los Angeles Aqueduct Simulation Model,

24 or LAASM model, to be about 4 cfs or 3,000 acre-feet on an

25 average annual basis. I show those calculations in my

1140

01 comments that are provided on DWP's draft plan.

02 I estimate that with the ad hoc flows the export

03 reduction is on average of about 3 cfs per year, and even

04 with the current DWP flow recommendations, the export

05 reduction would be about 2 cfs on average per year.

06 That is it for my testimony.

07 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Vorster.

08 Who is next?

09 MR. DODGE: Mr. Harrison.

10 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Mr. Harrison, good morning, sir.

11 MR. HARRISON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My

12 name is Larry Harrison. I am a registered civil engineer in

13 the State of California, and I have been an independent,

14 consulting engineer since early in 1995 when I left

15 employment with PG&E.

16 Prior to becoming a consultant, I was employed by

17 Pacific and Gas Electric Company for a period of almost 32

18 years in various engineering capacities, including project

19 management, supervision, contract administration, field

20 engineering, siting settings, some design, licensing,

21 permits, and economic studies. The types of projects I've

22 worked on, all with PG&E, included hydroelectric, fossil

23 fuel, steam power plants, nuclear plants, liquefied natural

24 gas, and also sediment management, and erosion control

25 projects.

1141

01 I have authored more than a dozen papers on sediment

02 management, reservoir sediment management, and watershed

03 erosion control and watershed management.

04 My experience in Mono Basin is limited. I conducted

05 two field trips to the Mono Basin area to observe streams

06 and facilities. First trip in March of 1996, March 7th and

07 8th, and also again October 3rd and 4th in 1996.

08 While there, I observed tributaries to Mono Lake,

09 including Lee Vining Creek, Walker Creek, Parker Creek, Rush

10 Creek, Mill Creek, and Wilson Creek, and also various

11 structures of the L.A. Department of Water and Power and

12 Southern California Edison Company. I looked at the

13 diversion dams at Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker Creeks. I

14 looked at portions of the Lee Vining Conduit, Grant Dam, and

15 its appurtenances at Grant Lake, Mono Gate Return Ditch,

16 Lundy Power House and Tailrace Ditch, and also the Mill

17 Creek Return Ditch.

18 Also, on March 8, I participated in a field meeting

19 with Southern California Edison representatives, Messers

20 Bruce Almond and Joe Valoma [phon]. They told us about the

21 operations of the Lundy Power House and the Tailrace Ditch

22 and the flows, also, at the Mill Creek Return Ditch.

23 I have reviewed several DWP documents, including the

24 Mono Basin Stream and Stream Channel Restoration Plan, the

25 Grant Lake Operations and Management Plan, and the Mono Gate

1142

01 Number 1 Return Ditch Geotechnical Stability Evaluation.

02 I have been retained early in 1996 by the Mono Lake

03 Committee and California Trout, California Trout,

04 Incorporated, to do three specific tasks. And my

05 involvement in the program, Mono Lake, is limited to those

06 tasks.

07 One was to investigate options for providing 600 cfs

08 channel maintenance flows in Rush Creek. Second task would

09 be to investigate options for improving sediment passage at

10 Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker Diversion Dams. And the

11 third task area was to investigate options for increasing

12 flows in Lower Mill Creek by diverting up to 70 cubic feet

13 per second from Wilson Creek.

14 In regards to the first task, the Rush Creek channel

15 maintenance flows, I reviewed DWP's proposals for channel

16 maintenance flows, and I was also asked to recommend which

17 alternative would be the most reliable, and to estimate the

18 conceptual cost of the most reliable option.

19 DWP proposed four options. The first to install three

20 42-inch siphon pipes over the spillway or in the spillway at

21 Grant Dam. Pipes 2500 feet long with a capacity, total

22 capacity of 300 cfs.

23 I believe this option would be unlikely to pass mustard

24 before the Division of Safety of Dams in that it would block

25 the spillway. And there would be an alternative or burying

1143

01 the pipes in the spillway, but that is a tough job in the

02 type of terrain that is there and could jeopardize the

03 integrity of that spillway structure. So, I would not

04 recommend it.

05 Also, as an operating problem, there is very much

06 limited range of lake levels over which the siphon could be

07 operated. So it's problematic as to whether it would be

08 available when needed; and also siphons do have a notorious

09 reputation for not always working when you want them to

10 work.

11 The second proposal would be DWP was to install a 300

12 cfs pumping station in the lake, discharging through a

13 78-inch diameter pipeline, approximately 2,500 feet to Rush

14 Creek. This, I think, would be more reliable than the

15 siphons. It's direct. Looking at DWP's numbers, it is

16 extremely expensive, costing in excess of 14,000,000; and

17 that doesn't include operation and maintenance costs, nor

18 the cost to provide power to a large pump. There is not --

19 it appears there is not sufficient existing power at the dam

20 to power such a large machine.

21 Also, it does not -- same as the siphons; it does not

22 provide any water to Reach 1 of Rush Creek on a continuous

23 basis.

24 The third proposal of DWP was to construct a new outlet

25 tunnel at the dam, ten-foot diameter tunnel, approximately

1144

01 1,700 feet long. This, obviously, could meet a number of

02 requirements. It is very flexible. It could provide

03 continuous flows to Rush Creek in the Reach 1 year round,

04 be highly reliable due to its simplicity. It would just be

05 control of an outlet gate or outlet valve that would control

06 the flows. Flows up to 600 cfs could always be met at any

07 season or time of year, despite what runoffs or without

08 coordination with any other facilities.

09 I chose this option as the one I would recommend as

10 most reliable out of the lot. I estimated the cost, a

11 conserve estimate would be approximately 8.3 million,

12 including engineering and overheads. And if we added 30

13 percent contingency to that, my cost estimate is 10.8

14 million. I believe with good project management and good

15 design and competitive bidding, those costs could probably

16 be shaved considerably, also.

17 The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's

18 recommended proposal is to provide an upgrade of the Mono

19 Gate Return Ditch to capacity of 380 cfs and to supplement

20 those flows with releases from the Lee Vining Creek conduit

21 overflow structure. This, again, is more so than even the

22 -- proposals one and two would require close coordination of

23 operations of the Lee Vining conduit and I'll add the

24 additional factor of coordinating with high flows in Lee

25 Vining Creek. This option would not rewater Reach 1, and I

1145

01 think the reliability here is questionable.

02 Going to task two, which is sediment passage at Lee

03 Vining, Walker and Parker Creek Diversion Dams. DWP

04 proposes to draw down the water in the ponds during the

05 October through March season, which for the hydrology of

06 this watershed is the low flow season on these streams. And

07 then at three- to five-year intervals, to dredge the ponds

08 and place the sediment dredged on the stream banks

09 downstream of the ponds where it could be eroded by high

10 flows back into the stream, to be carried on down to provide

11 a continuum of sediment passage.

12 There is a flaw in this proposal, in that you don't

13 move much sediment low flows. There is very little sediment

14 comes into the ponds on low flows. I believe that such an

15 operation would cut a little ditch or gully through the

16 sediment in the ponds, and that is about all it would do.

17 It wouldn't really be very beneficial.

18 I have suggested three alternatives for improving upon

19 these plans. First alternative, simply take the basic

20 concept of drawdown flushing that DWP has proposed and

21 improve it to do the drawdowns during the high flow periods

22 on these streams in the spring, and drawdown only during the

23 period of time that the flows are very high. To accommodate

24 this, some new larger outlets may be needed at the dams. I

25 propose in doing some very rough backend of the envelope

1146

01 calculations; that's probably four 48-inch gates at sluice

02 gates at the Lee Vining Creek structure would be adequate to

03 carry, say, a five-year return flow through the sluice gates

04 and similarly at Walker and Parker, a 36-inch at Walker and

05 a 42-inch gate at Parker Creek would do the job.

06 I estimated the cost for these facilities to be

07 approximately $124,000 at Lee Vining Creek and 23,000 at

08 Walker Creek and $27,000 at Parker Creek. And, again, these

09 are very approximate back of the envelope-type

10 calculations.

11 A second alternative proposed would be the use of Iowa

12 vanes or similar things. The term "Iowa vane" is a patented

13 facility. There are other vanes that operate similarly that

14 have a little different shape. An Iowa vane is basically if

15 you can imagine one of the concrete barrier rails that the

16 highway department puts out in traffic, and they move them

17 around from one position to another, commonly called a

18 K-rail, is the highway terminology. But am Iowa vane is

19 something that looks similar to that. Maybe a little taller

20 and a little shorter in configuration. They are placed in

21 the stream and they create turbulences and vortices that,

22 basically, resuspend sediment and route sediment on through

23 channel sections, or particularly useful in front of intake

24 structures and such.

25 So, I guess, my testimony isn't here to give a lesson

1147

01 on Iowa vanes, but this is something to be investigating. I

02 have observed some interesting videos showing these vanes in

03 action, particularly in the modeling tests that were

04 conducted at Colorado State University for PG&E. I was

05 quite impressed with their efficiency in moving sediments

06 and extending flushing cones stream from reservoir outlets.

07 I think it is something that would be very economical to

08 install. If they are used, they would probably have a cost

09 in the order of 10,000 at the smaller ponds, and perhaps

10 $20,000 at the Lee Vining Creek ponds. They are -- I would

11 advise that an expert in this area, like Dr. Jacob Odgaard

12 from the Iowa Institute of Technology, be consulted on

13 something like this, to make recommendations.

14 A third alternative I looked at would be high flow

15 bypass channels. I put up a little cartoon here to look

16 at. Basically, route sediments around the ponds. Flow

17 being in this direction. This is the pond at the diversion

18 dam. You would have to install an upstream headworks, such

19 that it could divert high flows down that are diverted

20 around through the bypass channel, and perhaps this could be

21 adjusted through gates and weirs here that this structure,

22 to allow just the flows into the pond that are needed for

23 diversion to the Lee Vining Creek conduit.

24 So, basically, this is a scheme here for eliminating

25 -- looking at a cross section of pond, you see a level

1148

01 surface. Of course, the pond is what causes the sediment to

02 fall out and decrease the water velocity, the retention

03 time, the sediment can fall out, by putting the channel

04 around it.

05 The bottom dotted lines trace the profile of the

06 channel. What it's doing is just simply restoring the

07 gradient of the stream around the dam, bypassing the dam.

08 So whatever sediments are carried by the stream would simply

09 be carried through the channel on around the stream.

10 MR. FRINK: Mr. Harrison, so the record is clear, the

11 drawing that you are referring is Figure 1 to your --

12 MR. HARRISON: Figure 1 from my testimony.

13 MR. FRINK: Your testimony was Mono Lake Committee

14 Exhibit 1.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. HARRISON: Looking at the cost of these options,

17 we are looking at, for Walker Creek and Parker Creek, I

18 estimated approximately $50,000 for each channel; for Lee

19 Vining Creek would be on the order of $250,000. These were

20 based on my estimate for a 50-year return flow, which I

21 extracted from one of the charts in DWP's documents of 110

22 cfs at Walker and Parker and 680 cfs at Lee Vining Creek.

23 Of course, this channel, a big part of the cost is riprap or

24 other armoring of the channel to make sure it is a stable

25 channel that doesn't erode during these high flows.

1149

01 The third task I was asked to review, and that was how

02 to move 70 cfs from either the tailrace channel at -- put up

03 another diagram here.

04 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: While you are doing that, Mr.

05 Harrison, let me just remind you that there is an hour limit

06 on direct; and in this case, unless Mr. Dodge is going to

07 make a showing for more time, there is about 25 minutes

08 left. So you still have one more witness. I just want you

09 to be mindful of that.

10 MR. DODGE: I would advise Mr. Harrison that we are

11 fine.

12 MR. HARRISON: I will show this upper map here, which

13 is Figure 3 from my testimony, and showing an overview of

14 Conway. Some photographs I had that is not in the

15 testimony, just as a reference point, to help people orient

16 between the map and where things are actually at.

17 This is Highway 395 through the -- and this is the

18 Conway Ranch area. Lundy Powerhouse is over here. Mono

19 City is in this area right above the marker. Mill Creek is

20 right there on the other side of Mono City. Wilson Creek is

21 coming around this way. And, anyway, those are not nice

22 pictures; it doesn't tell a whole lot in detail.

23 But looking down on this area here, here is Mono City.

24 Lundy Powerhouse here. The upper blue is Wilson Creek

25 traced out, and the lower one is Mill Creek.

1150

01 I looked at two different alternatives for moving water

02 from this stream to this stream. I'm not arguing this is a

03 ditch or creek. This is definitely Tailrace Ditch down to

04 this point here from the powerhouse. I've eliminated the

05 idea of using improved ditches because of the porosity of

06 the soil in this region, excessive leakage. And I looked at

07 the pipelines, solicited prices on pipe -- plastic,

08 concrete, and steel pipe. Concrete pipe is much the

09 cheaper. From hydraulic calculations I calculated, I

10 estimated the size of pipe that was going to be needed to

11 carry from this point to this point; that is, from Wilson

12 Creek to Mill Creek. Also --

13 MR. DODGE: You said from Mill Creek to Mill Creek.

14 MR. HARRISON: I'm sorry.

15 MR. DODGE: You meant from --

16 MR. HARRISON: From Wilson Creek to Mill Creek.

17 MR. DODGE: From the Lundy Powerhouse to Mill Creek?

18 MR. HARRISON: From the Lundy Powerhouse to Tailrace

19 Ditch, to Mill Creek. And as an alternative, we looked at a

20 pipeline from east of Conway Ranch from Wilson Creek to

21 Mill Creek, at a point just to the east of Mono City. Mono

22 City being here.

23 Where this line here -- I looked at two different

24 options. One was to follow the existing ditch alignment

25 throughout, which included this little loop of green, back

1151

01 around; the ditch follows the contour over here. That was

02 about 6,000 feet long. That option would have cost

03 approximately $878,000, according to my estimate. And that

04 was a 42-inch reinforced concrete pipeline.

05 The other option was to cut off this loop by putting in

06 an inverted siphon across this swale here to Lundy Road.

07 That would reduce the length of pipeline to 3,800 feet. And

08 through that reduced length, we can also reduce the size to

09 36 inch. That option would cost on the order of $521,000.

10 The other two options over here -- well, I looked at

11 two over here. The B-1 and B-2. B-2 is shown. B-1 is this

12 little green line change. Instead of this direct route into

13 the Mill Creek, we would angle down slope, across slope

14 here, and deliver water to Mill Creek, perhaps, a couple

15 thousand feet upstream from where the other delivery point

16 would be. This route is 11,000 to 12,000 feet long.

17 Requires a 42-inch pipeline. And either of these options

18 would cost on the order of $2,000,000.

19 Obviously, if you are going to make a selection on the

20 basis of cost, option A-2, which is 3,800 feet of pipeline

21 here, is the choice.

22 I think that about summarizes my testimony.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Harrison.

24 Dr. Stine.

25 DR. STINE: Yes, thank you. You know who I am, and

1152

01 what my qualifications are. I will be very brief.

02 I have two points that were addressed in my direct

03 examination for Mono Lake/Audubon, and, as Mr. Dodge asked

04 me to do, I will confirm this is Exhibit 5. I really can

05 dispense with the first of these very, very quickly.

06 There was a nomenclature upheaval about what to call

07 the Rush Creek Reach immediately above Biggest Bend. There

08 was some confusion in there for a while. My understanding

09 now is that that confusion has been completely cleared up,

10 and that it seems everyone is on board to rewater this

11 particular reach immediately above Biggest Bend on Rush

12 Creek. That has become, then, a non problem.

13 The second point, almost equally as brief, regards

14 sediment passage on Parker and Walker Creeks. Larry

15 Harrison has just addressed this. My concern here is that

16 there seems to have been forgotten in all of these

17 discussions one of the conditions that benefited fishery on

18 Rush Creek, and that is the springs that existed immediately

19 below the Narrows on Rush Creek, on the west side of Rush

20 Creek, the so-called at Vestal Springs. They have provided

21 fish habitat. They were one of the elements that Elden

22 Vestal said contributed tremendously to the quality of the

23 fishery through the Rush Creek bottomland.

24 Peter Vorster and I did an analysis, a historical

25 analysis, a couple years back and produced a report on this.

1153

01 And our conclusion, I think quite clearly, was that the

02 springs, which are natural and which have been there for

03 many hundreds of years, were lost because the distributary

04 channels on the Parker and Walker Creek fans were dewatered

05 at the time that, or shortly after the Department of Water

06 and Power put in their diversion facilities on those two

07 streams.

08 Distributary channels on alluvial fans are common.

09 Like in a delta situation, a stream hits an alluvial fan and

10 it tends to break into several channels. There were two

11 channels on Parker Creek. There were three channels on

12 Walker Creek. In both cases, right up at the apex of the

13 fans on the two streams. I would argue simply that if we

14 are going to do a bypass channel similar to what Mr.

15 Harrison showed as his alternative three, I believe it was

16 for Parker and Walker Creeks, that it would be possible to

17 rewater some of these channels, really at the same time,

18 with little more effort.

19 The idea here would be to get water into these

20 distributary channels and lose it to the ground. They were

21 on the earliest maps from the 1880s and '90s, withering

22 streams. So, simply get water into those channels, lose it

23 to the ground. It then reappears down in the Rush Creek

24 bottomland.

25 And I think that concludes my testimony. Thank you.

1154

01 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Dr. Stine.

02 Anything else, Mr. Dodge, from this panel?

03 MR. DODGE: Nothing else.

04 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, sir.

05 We will then go to cross-examination, and we will begin

06 with U.S. Forest Service.

07 Is there anyone here for U.S. Forest Service that

08 wishes to cross-examine these witnesses?

09 No one responding --

10 MS. BELLOMO: Chairman Caffrey.

11 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, Ms. Bellomo.

12 MS. BELLOMO: Can we go off the record for a moment?

13 Mr. Bellomo wanted to make a statement. I think just speak

14 briefly and, perhaps, off the record in case any party had

15 any questions about it being proper to be in the record.

16 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have a question about it. I have a

17 question about Mr. Bellomo making a statement to the Board

18 at all. He is going to be a witness, and if he is going to

19 offer testimony, he can offer at that time.

20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Birmingham.

21 Let me say that we had an opportunity for policy

22 statements.

23 MS. BELLOMO: This wouldn't be a policy statement. This

24 is a factual statement, but we can wait. That is fine.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: That would be more appropriate than

1155

01 going on and off the record. I am not sure what the

02 justification for something like that to be. I would prefer

03 that we keep everything on the record.

04 Bureau of Land Management, anyone here representing the

05 Bureau?

06 Is that you, Mr. Russi?

07 MR. RUSSI: I made it.

08 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I know you were here earlier. You

09 look like a familiar face. Good to see you. Welcome back.

10 MR. RUSSI: Thank you. I just had a few questions here

11 this morning, Mr. Chairman.

12 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Please proceed. You are aware of

13 the rules on cross-examination?

14 MR. RUSSI: I will do my best.

15 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: In terms of time and scope of your

16 questioning? Quite a bit different than what is allowed in

17 recross.

18 ---oOo---

19 CROSS-EXAMINATION

20 BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

21 BY MR. RUSSI

22 MR. RUSSI: My first questions are to Mr.

23 Vorster. And I am going to ask that we refer to Mr.

24 Vorster's direct testimony, R-NSC/MLC-7, on Page 2. And I

25 am looking at the first full paragraph, and I am going to

1156

01 read a couple of sentences here, about the middle of the

02 paragraph.

03 And it begins:

04 The MLC proposal is to restore close to

05 natural flows in Mill Creek, impaired by

06 Lundy Reservoir, in order to restore the

07 waterfowl habitat in Mill Creek to the level

08 recommended by the waterfowl scientists and

09 to restore a naturally functioning stream

10 ecosystem and bottomlands. (Reading.)

11 Continuing:

12 MLC proposes to return all of the water to

13 Mill Creek, except that which is necessary to

14 maintain Wilson Creek riparian corridor

15 through Conway Ranch and to maintain the

16 Simis and Thompson Ranch meadows and trees.

17 (Reading.)

18 Mr. Vorster, how was it determined that all of the

19 water except for the small amounts you reference for Wilson

20 Creek and irrigation flows for Simis and Thompson Ranch

21 meadows and trees, how was it determined that all of the

22 water was necessary to restore the waterfowl habitat in the

23 stream ecosystem and bottomlands for Mill Creek.

24 MR. VORSTER: I am not a waterfowl scientist. As I

25 stated in my testimony, as you just read, I went by the

1157

01 recommendations of the waterfowl scientists, as stated in

02 the waterfowl plans, that said that all or close to all of

03 the water needed to be restored to Mill Creek in order to

04 restore the waterfowl habitat.

05 MR. RUSSI: If we can go to Page 3, please, part d, on

06 that page, and I will read the first two sentences. It

07 says:

08 A release of 2 cfs from April through

09 November to maintain Wilson Creek riparian

10 corridor through Conway Ranch. (Reading.)

11 Then it says:

12 Although the exact amount required is not

13 known, I have been advised by Diana Jacobs,

14 riparian specialist for the State Lands

15 Commission, that the release needs to be

16 enough to keep the root zone of the plants

17 moist. (Reading.)

18 In your discussions with Dr. Jacobs, what do you mean

19 by "root zone"?

20 MR. VORSTER: What I mean by "root zone," as was

21 advised to me by Diana Jacobs, and so I think that she would

22 be the best person to answer it, but the way I understand it

23 would be the area in the Wilson Creek bed itself, that the

24 roots have access to, would be kept moist.

25 MR. RUSSI: Have you or Dr. Jacobs measured the extent

1158

01 of the root zone in Wilson Creek?

02 MR. VORSTER: I have not measured the extent of the

03 root zone. I can't speak for Dr. Jacobs.

04 MR. RUSSI: I would like to continue down; the next

05 sentence says:

06 I believe that a release of 1 cfs would be

07 sufficient to keep the root zone moist

08 through the Conway Ranch because Wilson Creek

09 gains water as it flows east of Highway 395.

10 (Reading.)

11 How much water have you measured in Wilson Creek

12 gaining east of Highway 395?

13 MR. VORSTER: I myself have not made any measurement.

14 I would -- my observations are limited to just visual

15 observations and measurements that were taken by other

16 people, including yourself. And there were measurements

17 taken by EBASCO when they were doing investigation in that

18 area.

19 So, the amount of gain in the reach of Wilson Creek

20 below Highway 395 is -- I conservatively estimate it at 1

21 cfs. In the Conway Ranch Environmental Impact Report that

22 was issued in the late 1980s, there was also quite a

23 discussion of the gains in Wilson Creek. And in those

24 discussions, they indicated considerably more gain than I

25 estimated. I was being extremely conservative when I said 1

1159

01 cfs. I think in those reports they talked about 3 to 5 cfs.

02 MR. RUSSI: Are you aware of what time of year those

03 measurements were taken to establish 3 to 5 cfs gain?

04 MR. VORSTER: I can't remember off the top of my head,

05 but I think it was -- they did do a monthly water balance.

06 And I think they showed greater gains during the irrigation

07 season and smaller gains in the winter season. I would have

08 to refer to those documents to fully answer your question.

09 MR. RUSSI: Well, I guess I need to go back and ask you

10 then if there is apparently some uncertainty here about the

11 amount of water that is available east of Highway 395 in

12 Wilson Creek. And that the root zone itself, to your

13 knowledge, has not been measured, if I am stating this

14 correctly, how your statement that you believe that a

15 release of 1 cfs would be sufficient to keep the root zone

16 moist is within the context of known information.

17 MR. VORSTER: As I stated in my testimony, the exact

18 amount required is not known. There is a lot of uncertainty

19 associated here. What I was doing was using my professional

20 judgment, based upon my own observations and observations of

21 other people to make those estimates. There is a lot more

22 work that needs to be done. But I do believe that a small

23 amount of water is necessary to keep the root zone moist in

24 Wilson Creek.

25 MR. RUSSI: Do you believe it would be beneficial to

1160

01 understand the soil and water dynamics of Wilson Creek

02 Channel in order to come up with an appropriate flow in

03 Wilson Creek on an annual situation?

04 MR. VORSTER: Yes. More information is obviously

05 needed. What the exact information is, I would defer to

06 people like Dr. Jacobs and yourself and other specialists in

07 that field.

08 MR. RUSSI: I want to go to Page 4 right at the top, in

09 your testimony. In the very first complete sentence you

10 state:

11 Downstream of the highway, Mill Creek loses

12 water to the groundwater system down to the

13 stream reach just below County Road.

14 (Reading.)

15 How much water have you measured being lost?

16 MR. VORSTER: Again, I have not done any current

17 metering measurements myself. I have been in the area quite

18 a bit over the last 20 years, and recently in the last

19 couple years I have taken the effort to estimate flows above

20 395, estimate flows down at the County Road. Something I do

21 routinely. Plus in the Mill Creek -- in that stream

22 evaluation report that Department of Fish and Game released

23 in the past year has some measurements as well. Has some

24 measurements in that case.

25 There is also visual measurements -- visual

1161

01 observations that the Department of Water and Power has

02 taken at Mill Creek at the County Roads. So, there is quite

03 a bit of visual observations and a few stream flow

04 measurements that were taken to give us a feeling for what

05 the losses are, which are considerable.

06 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object and ask that the

07 answer be stricken on the grounds it is non responsive.

08 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I apologize to the parties. I was

09 distracted. Could somebody repeat what happened for me,

10 please?

11 MR. RUSSI: I asked the question: How much water is

12 lost in the reach of stream downstream of Highway 395 to the

13 County Road?

14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Actually, I would ask that the Court

15 Reporter go back and read the question that was asked.

16 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you.

17 Would you read the question?

18 (Record read as requested.)

19 MR. BIRMINGHAM: My objection is that Mr. Vorster did

20 not answer that question. He answered a completely

21 different question. I believe the answer to that question

22 is, "I haven't measured any." If that is his answer, that

23 is what he should state. And I ask that the remainder of

24 the answer to the non asked question be stricken.

25 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Please read the remainder of that.

1162

01 (Record read as requested.)

02 MR. DODGE: I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that all of

03 that answer is responsive to the general subject matter of

04 the question which was losses in a particular section of

05 stream.

06 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, sir.

07 Mr. Birmingham.

08 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The specific question was: How much

09 losses have you measured? And Mr. Vorster answered that in

10 "I have not measured any." That ought to be -- we are going

11 to be here for weeks if every witness responds to 14

12 different questions in an answer to a very specific

13 question.

14 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I wouldn't say weeks, but maybe an

15 extra couple of days, Mr. Birmingham, which is perfectly all

16 right with me.

17 Let me just say to you that I admonished the witnesses

18 earlier today, before we got started. I am going to do it

19 again. I am going to leave this statement in the record, so

20 will my admonition be in the record. I am going to tell Mr.

21 Vorster, and any other witnesses that are going to appear

22 today, that you need to be brief and crisp. And I wish that

23 you do not take license and dissertate on anything that

24 could be remotely related to the questions. So, please be

25 very precise.

1163

01 And please get on the questioning as briefly and

02 quickly as you can, sir.

03 MR. RUSSI: As a follow-up to your statement there in

04 that first complete sentence, have you measured loss in the

05 reach continuously, on an annual cycle, or do you know, does

06 the reach change in its loss of water over an annual cycle?

07 MR. VORSTER: As I stated before, my observations are

08 limited to visual observations, and not measurements. So,

09 if your specific question is measurements with the current

10 meter, I have not done that myself. I have visual

11 observations.

12 MR. RUSSI: Thank you.

13 Going down to the bottom of the page, on Page 4,

14 please, under part g, and I am going to refer to the second

15 sentence there. You state:

16 A combination of losses in and diversions

17 from Wilson Creek cause it to periodically to

18 dry up downstream from the Conway Ranch.

19 (Reading.)

20 Skipping down one full sentence, you continue:

21 No water was diverted from Mill Creek in the

22 late fall and winter from 1962 to 1968 so

23 Wilson Creek did not have a supply from the

24 power plant. (Reading.)

25 Continuing with the last sentence:

1164

01 A small amount of accretion occurs in the

02 reach of Wilson Creek through the Conway

03 Ranch, but for most of its length it stayed

04 dry. (Reading.)

05 What do you mean by "most of its length"?

06 MR. VORSTER: I am talking about Wilson Creek as we

07 now define it, from the power plant all the way down to Mono

08 Lake. We can get the map, but it's -- so if you take that

09 -- the dot here on Exhibit R-SLC/DPR-424 is the Lundy

10 Powerhouse. Wilson Creek travels through this whole reach,

11 as we now call it. When there is no water discharging from

12 the powerhouse it is my judgment that the accretion in this

13 reach might keep this wet, but clearly all of this would be

14 dry.

15 MR. DODGE: Can you spell out for the record what you

16 mean by "this"?

17 MR. VORSTER: I am sorry. The reach from approximately

18 the Conway Ranch boundary all the way down to Mono Lake.

19 So, looking at this map, I would say that, in terms of

20 stream mileage, is most of the length or a majority of the

21 length of Wilson Creek would be dry if there was no water

22 discharging from the power plant.

23 MR. RUSSI: Continuing with my question, then, from

24 1962 to 1968, you're stating that the stream would have been

25 dry. You're making this determination how?

1165

01 MR. VORSTER: Again, because there was no discharge

02 from the power plant, the only source of water for Wilson

03 Creek would be its natural runoff. As we have testimony

04 from a number of people, including Dr. Stine, that indicates

05 that Wilson Creek is an ephemeral stream and occasionally

06 would get runoff from its natural drainage. But that is a

07 very occasional event.

08 MR. RUSSI: Thank you.

09 I have one question for Mr. Harrison, please.

10 During your recent oral testimony here, Mr. Harrison,

11 you stated that there is excessive leakage. I think you

12 were referring to water loss in Wilson Creek when you were

13 discussing that drainage. And I would like you to tell us

14 how you determined that there was excessive leakage in

15 Wilson Creek?

16 MR. HARRISON: Well, two factors led me to the

17 conclusion that there was excessive leakage. In our

18 discussions in field we had in March with Southern

19 California Edison, Mr. Bellomo and Mr. Almond both, I think,

20 mentioned that the ditches lost a lot of water en route,

21 particularly what is now called Wilson Creek lost water and

22 also the Mill Creek Diversion Ditch. Also, my observations

23 of the character of the soils in the area are very coarse,

24 loose, open drained, pretty much lacking in fine materials.

25 Though, my experience is that with soils as these, they are

1166

01 very permeable soils. So a lot of water would percolate

02 into the soils unless it was a lined ditch with some

03 impermeable material.

04 MR. RUSSI: Did you walk the entire Wilson Creek from

05 its point of diversion down to Highway 167 at the time you

06 were down there?

07 MR. HARRISON: We didn't walk the entire length. We

08 did walk a length. Let me show you on the map, here.

09 Approximately this point here, we walked down to this

10 area and back up over, around here. Approximately to the

11 County Road, just short of the County Road. We walked and

12 then we accessed this area in here on the County Road.

13 MR. RUSSI: Did you observe Wilson Creek at all

14 upstream of the Conway Ranch property to its point of

15 diversion?

16 MR. HARRISON: Wilson Creek upstream of the -- what do

17 you call the point of diversion sir?

18 MR. RUSSI: Where the ditch of Wilson Creek comes off

19 the tailrace ditch of the power plant.

20 MR. VORSTER: I accompanied Mr. Harrison, so if I may

21 jump in.

22 MR. RUSSI: Go ahead.

23 MR. VORSTER: This is right here where we had -- the

24 junction of the return ditch with the tailrace is where we

25 had the meeting with Bert Almond and Joe Bellomo. I think

1167

01 we investigated Wilson Creek just downstream of that. And

02 the return ditch itself.

03 MR. HARRISON: Actually, I don't recall we looked at

04 this much at all, in this reach, from here to Conway Ranch.

05 We did -- we are standing here and visual observations, of

06 course, for several hundred feet from this point. We also

07 walked a short distance down the Mill Creek Diversion

08 Ditch.

09 MR. RUSSI: So, in your reference here, you are saying

10 that you were at the point of diversion of Wilson Creek with

11 the tailrace ditch from Lundy Power Plant, but apparently

12 you were not at any point along that stream down to the

13 Lundy Power Plant road and east of that point, across

14 Highway 395, to the Conway Ranch property; is that true?

15 MR. HARRISON: That is right.

16 MR. VORSTER: We just looked down here. We did look at

17 the return ditch around the Lundy Road. So, we looked at

18 that. But in terms of Wilson Creek, itself, I think we

19 didn't walk very far down it from the diversion point

20 there.

21 MR. HARRISON: Of course, I have crossed it on the

22 highway several times, looked up and down it also.

23 MR. RUSSI: Just for the record, and so I am clear on

24 this, your statement about the soil type and the loss of

25 water in the drainage is in reference to that portion of the

1168

01 drainage downstream from Conway property, primarily?

02 MR. HARRISON: No. I think my reference about soil

03 percolation and loss of water to the soils is also

04 applicable to the Mill Creek Diversion Ditch region, as well

05 as this area downstream of Conway Ranch.

06 MR. RUSSI: Thank you.

07 That's all. Thank you, Mr. Caffrey.

08 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. Russi.

09 Ms. Bellomo, do you have questions of these witnesses?

10 MS. BELLOMO: Yes, I do. Thank you.

11 MR. DODGE: Would this be a good time to take a morning

12 break?

13 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: If you will indulge me, Ms. Bellomo,

14 I think a good suggestion. Let's take about ten minutes.

15 Thank you.

16 (Break taken.)

17 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: On the record.

18 Ms. Bellomo, your turn to cross-examine the witnesses.

19 You're on Mr. Vorster.

20 MS. BELLOMO: Good morning.

21 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Welcome back.

22 MS. BELLOMO: Thank you.

23 ---oOo---

24 //

25 //

1169

01 CROSS-EXAMINATION

02 BY PEOPLE FOR MONO BASIN PRESERVATION

03 BY MS. BELLOMO

04 MS. BELLOMO: Good morning, gentlemen. I just have a

05 couple questions to start off for you, Mr. Harrison.

06 I understood from your testimony on cross-examination,

07 I believe that you have made only two trips to the Mono

08 Basin; is that correct?

09 MR. HARRISON: That is correct. There were other

10 personal trips. I have been through the area.

11 MS. BELLOMO: How long did you spend in the Mono Basin

12 on each of those trips that you made, related to your

13 testimony in this case?

14 MR. HARRISON: Better part of two days on each trip.

15 MS. BELLOMO: What locations did you visit on each

16 trip?

17 MR. HARRISON: I testified to the locations I visited.

18 I visited the diversion points at Lee Vining Creek, Walker

19 and Parker Creek, Rush Creek area of the Grant Dam and the

20 Mono Gate Return Ditch, and Mill Creek in the vicinity of

21 Lundy Powerhouse, and also Wilson Creek downstream of Conway

22 Ranch, and Mill Creek at other points where it crosses the

23 County Road and the highway.

24 MS. BELLOMO: Can you tell me when the visits were,

25 these two visits?

1170

01 MR. HARRISON: One was March 7th and 8th, 1996. The

02 other was October 3rd and 4th, 1996.

03 MS. BELLOMO: You described various methods of

04 returning the water to Mill Creek from the Lundy tailrace,

05 correct?

06 MR. HARRISON: Yes.

07 MS. BELLOMO: That includes siphoning and use of

08 pipelines, and were there other methods?

09 MR. HARRISON: Well, I lightly considered a ditch, but

10 considering what I was informed about the leakage, loss of

11 water in the various ditches, and what I observed in the

12 loss of water in Mill Creek downstream area, I discarded the

13 idea of using ditches and went to pipelines as being a sure

14 method of conveying water without loss.

15 MS. BELLOMO: So, am I correct, that you -- what you

16 were doing was an engineering analysis of what would it take

17 to to perform such a project?

18 MR. HARRISON: Yes.

19 MS. BELLOMO: Is it your understanding that the purpose

20 of this engineering project would be to return Mill Creek to

21 its natural condition?

22 MR. HARRISON: I can't really say -- nothing

23 considered whether it would return to a natural condition or

24 not. It would obviously approach more natural conditions

25 than are there now.

1171

01 MS. BELLOMO: You testified about meeting with Mr.

02 Bellomo and another representative of Southern California

03 Edison during one of your field trips, correct.

04 MR. HARRISON: Yes.

05 MS. BELLOMO: Did you meet with Mr. Bellomo on only one

06 occasion?

07 MR. HARRISON: Yes.

08 MS. BELLOMO: Am I correct that when you referred --

09 you referred in your testimony to walking on various areas

10 of Wilson and Mill Creek, that you were not referring to

11 being with Mr. Bellomo during those times?

12 MR. HARRISON: No. I was with Mr. Bellomo at the

13 Lundy Powerhouse tailrace area and the upstream portion of

14 the Mill Creek Diversion Ditch, or return ditch.

15 MS. BELLOMO: The return ditch.

16 Thank you. No more questions for you right now. Thank

17 you.

18 Mr. Vorster, turning to your testimony at Page 2. In

19 the first full paragraph, the middle of the paragraph, you

20 state:

21 The Mono Lake Committee proposal is to

22 restore close to natural flows. (Reading.)

23 You go on to describe the proposal. My question is:

24 Is that currently the Mono Lake Committee position?

25 MR. VORSTER: It is my understand that is their

1172

01 position, yes.

02 MS. BELLOMO: And you indicate in that second half of

03 that first full paragraph that your -- the Mono Lake

04 Committee proposal would provide -- let me rephrase this.

05 I will just quote from your testimony. You state:

06 The Mono Lake Committee proposes to return

07 all the water to Mill Creek except that which

08 is necessary to maintain the Wilson Creek

09 riparian corridor through Conway Ranch.

10 (Reading.)

11 Can you tell me how many cfs you are referring to

12 there?

13 MR. VORSTER: In the testimony that I provided I used

14 number of 2 CFS from April through November.

15 MS. BELLOMO: Are you proposing a dedicated water right

16 to Wilson Creek of that amount?

17 MR. VORSTER: Can you repeat the question again?

18 MS. BELLOMO: Are you proposing that there should be a

19 dedicated water right?

20 MR. VORSTER: I am not making that proposal right now.

21 You have to understand this is the Mono Lake Committee

22 proposal. I was doing what they told me to do, so I am not

23 making the proposal.

24 MS. BELLOMO: Is the Mono Lake Committee making such a

25 proposal?

1173

01 MR. VORSTER: I don't know.

02 MS. BELLOMO: From what you just said, I take it that

03 the Mono Lake Committee is not proposing a year-round flow

04 of 2 CPS in Wilson Creek; is that correct?

05 MR. VORSTER: At the current time, the Mono Lake

06 Committee proposal consists of making a release of 2 cfs

07 from April through November to maintain the Wilson Creek

08 riparian corridor. So I guess the answer to your question

09 is, no, it is not a year-round.

10 MS. BELLOMO: Would a 2 cfs flow in Wilson Creek from

11 April through November be sufficient to maintain the

12 self-sustaining wild brown trout fishery that is in Wilson

13 Creek?

14 MR. VORSTER: I don't know. I am not a fisheries

15 expert.

16 MS. BELLOMO: I have heard your testimony earlier

17 today, that, in your opinion, if there is no release from

18 the Lundy Powerhouse, then Wilson Creek dries up below

19 Conway Ranch; is that correct?

20 MR. VORSTER: That's correct. Through Conway Ranch

21 there is a gaining reach there so there would probably be a

22 little bit of water through there.

23 MS. BELLOMO: How much are you estimating would be in

24 Wilson Creek if no water was released from the powerhouse

25 source between -- well, after November and up to April?

1174

01 MR. VORSTER: Downstream of the tailrace through Conway

02 Ranch, it would be a small residual flow; you know, pools in

03 the Upper Reach, maybe, set up a little flow through Conway

04 Ranch, and then no surface flow below Conway Ranch.

05 MS. BELLOMO: Do you have an estimate of how much flow

06 this small amount would be in Conway Ranch.

07 MR. VORSTER: As I testified, I think it would be -- I

08 conservatively estimate through Conway ranch it could be 1

09 cfs, might be. I think Terry Russi made some measurements

10 this past fall that indicated the gain was about 2 cfs. So,

11 depending on the time of the year and the type of water

12 year, it would be a small amount of flow.

13 MS. BELLOMO: You didn't do any analysis to support

14 this opinion; is that correct?

15 MR. VORSTER: Other than what I testified to, looking

16 at available documents, including the Conway EIR, my own

17 visual observations, talking to Terry Russi, talking to

18 locals in the area.

19 MS. BELLOMO: What documents have you looked at that

20 would provide us with any insight into how much water would

21 be in Wilson Creek between November and April if you weren't

22 releasing any water from the powerhouse?

23 MR. VORSTER: There are no documents that go

24 specifically to that question.

25 MS. BELLOMO: You indicate on Page 2 that the Mono Lake

1175

01 Committee proposes to accomplish its plan through the

02 purchase and dedication of the Conway Ranch water right,

03 among other things.

04 Do you see where I am reading in your testimony?

05 MR. VORSTER: Yes.

06 MS. BELLOMO: My question is: Is it the Mono Lake

07 Committee's position that all of the Conway Ranch water

08 right should be dedicated to Mill Creek?

09 MR. VORSTER: I don't know. You have to ask the Mono

10 Lake Committee. I am taking their proposal as they gave it

11 to me and modeling it for the purpose of this testimony.

12 And my understanding is that it would be the purchase

13 and dedication of Conway Ranch water rights and, for the

14 purpose of the modeling, it was the entire amount.

15 MS. BELLOMO: Are you aware of any testimony that has

16 be presented by the Mono Lake Committee which would clarify

17 the question I just asked, as to whether the intention is to

18 dedicate all of the Conway water right to Mill Creek?

19 MR. VORSTER: I am not aware of any testimony in this

20 proceeding. The only testimony that Mono Lake Committee has

21 provided is what has been submitted by the panelists.

22 MS. BELLOMO: Mr. Harrison, you, and Mr. Stine?

23 MR. VORSTER: That's correct.

24 MS. BELLOMO: When you say the Mono Lake Committee

25 proposes to accomplish its goals through the purchase and

1176

01 dedication of the Conway Ranch water right, does the Mono

02 Lake Committee plan to purchase the Conway Ranch water right

03 itself?

04 MR. VORSTER: If I understand your question, do you

05 mean purchase the Conway Ranch water right separate from the

06 land; is that --

07 MS. BELLOMO: Well, let's start with that, then. Does

08 the Mono Lake Committee intend to purchase the Conway Ranch

09 with its water right?

10 MR. VORSTER: Actually, I don't know what the Mono Lake

11 Committee intends to do on any details or specifics on

12 that. Again, that is question for the Mono Lake Committee.

13 MS. BELLOMO: Does the Mono Lake Committee have any

14 position that they've communicated to you, as their expert

15 witness, regarding how they propose to have the Conway Ranch

16 water rights purchased?

17 MR. DODGE: Mr. Chairman, I would raise a question as

18 to the relevance of this line of questioning. I mean, the

19 proposal is the proposal.

20 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Ms. Bellomo.

21 MS. BELLOMO: I think it is entirely relevant to pursue

22 the feasibility of the proposal that is being put forth by

23 one of the parties here. And a major element of this

24 proposal is dedicating these water rights. I think I should

25 be allowed to probe whether the proponent of the proposal

1177

01 actually has any idea whether it is feasible or not.

02 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Well, the questions do seem somewhat

03 repetitious as what may be obvious from what is already in

04 the record and what is direct. But I am not going to make

05 that judgment. But I will observe that you're asking a

06 number of questions with regard to the intent of the Mono

07 Lake Committee, and Mr. Vorster has continuously, I think,

08 made it clear that he doesn't know how to answer specific

09 policy questions because he is just modeling what they asked

10 him to model. Maybe we can all stipulate to that.

11 Why don't you proceed and let's see where you are

12 taking us. We will hear a little bit more, if you've got

13 more.

14 MS. BELLOMO: The table that you provided in

15 Attachments 2a through 4f in your testimony set forth

16 historic data, which, as I recall, is from 1950s and 1960s;

17 is that correct?

18 MR. VORSTER: Yes. The dry year is 1960; the normal

19 year is 1951; and the wet year is 1952.

20 MS. BELLOMO: My first question for you is: Why did

21 you rely on data that is 30 and 40 years old?

22 MR. VORSTER: I relied on that data, not because it

23 was old, because I wanted to get represented hydrologies.

24 In other words, what was nature providing, what was the

25 runoff, and that was the main intent there. And also, to

1178

01 get what I consider representative years. One in ten dry

02 year, one in ten wet year, and a normal year. And those

03 years lent themselves to that representation.

04 In looking at what the flows and diversions in the

05 ditches were in those years and comparing it to what has

06 occurred recently, it was close enough that I felt, in terms

07 of diversions into the ditches, that it was fairly

08 representative.

09 Ideally, the next step would be to take some recent

10 years and do the same thing.

11 MS. BELLOMO: Can you tell me how you obtained such old

12 data?

13 MR. VORSTER: Yes. Data that I've had for 20 years

14 that was provided to me by combination of -- data that was

15 provided to me by the Department of Water and Power as well

16 as Southern California Edison. I document in my testimony

17 in Attachment 5 where all the data came from, where every

18 single line in these spreadsheets is documented as to what

19 it means and where the data is from.

20 MS. BELLOMO: Would you have any problem with sharing

21 that data with us on an informal basis, with the people from

22 Mono Basin Preservation?

23 MR. VORSTER: I would be more than happy to share all

24 data I have.

25 MS. BELLOMO: Thank you.

1179

01 You state on Page 4 that the Lundy Reservoir operations

02 under Edison's control are not significantly different than

03 what is shown for the years you have used prior to 1962.

04 My question is: What do you base this conclusion upon?

05 MR. VORSTER: That conclusion is based upon seeing how

06 the reservoir has been operated in the last ten years and

07 comparing it to how it was operated then.

08 I think today, currently, there may be a little bit

09 more reservoir control over the flows than what I showed in

10 my spreadsheet, but not significant at all.

11 MS. BELLOMO: Are you saying that the data you

12 obtained for the 1950s and 1960s, that based upon reviewing

13 that data you made assumptions about the reservoir

14 operations?

15 MR. VORSTER: No. The data is, again, on reservoir

16 impairment of the flow is what actually was done by -- at

17 the time it wasn't Southern California Edison. It was their

18 predecessor. And the impairment of the flows by the

19 reservoir and the diversions through the powerhouse, so on

20 and so forth, is very similar to how Edison today would

21 operate it. Again, there may be slightly more reservoir

22 control or more impairment today, but not significantly

23 different than what I show.

24 MS. BELLOMO: On Page 4, Point e, you state:

25 The historical use of the Mill Creek Return

1180

01 Ditch varied according to the need to

02 supplement the flows in Mill Creek for

03 diversion into the main Thompson Ditch.

04 Thus, the return ditch flows were greater in

05 dryer years when there was insufficient

06 natural Mill Creek flows to satisfy the main

07 Thompson diversion demands. (Reading.)

08 My question is: Did you get the information -- let me

09 back up.

10 The information that you relied upon for this

11 conclusion came from whom?

12 MR. VORSTER: That was records that I had originally

13 obtained from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

14 MS. BELLOMO: Do you know if that information was taken

15 from a gauging station?

16 MR. VORSTER: The information is taken from the current

17 meter site at the head of the return ditch.

18 MS. BELLOMO: Was the information for the time period

19 prior to 1962?

20 MR. VORSTER: Yes. I had information that goes back

21 to the '30s, all the way up to 1990s.

22 MS. BELLOMO: Again, on Page 4, Point g, you state

23 that:

24 Occasionally zero flow is discharged into

25 Wilson Creek because of unplanned

1181

01 interruptions in power plant operations.

02 (Reading.)

03 My question is: What is your source of information

04 about this?

05 MR. VORSTER: That is mainly talking to Southern

06 California Edison people over the years and looking at some

07 records that I have. So, it is a combination of both, very

08 occasional shutdowns.

09 MS. BELLOMO: Can you tell me when the last time that

10 has happened is?

11 MR. VORSTER: I can't recall the specific year. I

12 remember in talking to John Fredrickson, he was there and

13 observed what happened. I can't. It was some time, I

14 think, in the last ten years, 10 or 15 years.

15 MS. BELLOMO: Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt

16 you.

17 John Fredrickson is not an Edison employee, is he?

18 MR. VORSTER: No, he's not. I said it was in talking

19 to Edison employees and local residents.

20 MS. BELLOMO: Can you identify the Edison employee who

21 informed you that occasionally zero flow is discharged into

22 Wilson Creek because of unplanned interruptions?

23 MR. VORSTER: It probably was Bert Almond and his

24 predecessor whose name is escaping me. The hydrogapher,

25 chief hydrogapher, Dennis Osborn, who I initially had

1182

01 contact with. As I said, it was a very unusual

02 circumstance. Let's say there was a lightning strike and

03 there had to be -- the power plant had to shut down. Then

04 for a brief amount of time there could be no flow being

05 discharged from the power plant.

06 MS. BELLOMO: We are talking a very, very brief period

07 of time?

08 MR. VORSTER: Yes. I would -- a day or less.

09 MS. BELLOMO: As much as a full day is your testimony?

10 MR. VORSTER: I wouldn't want to testify to an exact

11 amount of time. It was a very brief time.

12 MS. BELLOMO: If I understood your testimony earlier,

13 if there was zero flow discharged into Wilson Creek, then

14 below Conway Ranch the creek would go dry, correct?

15 MR. VORSTER: That's correct.

16 MS. BELLOMO: If that were to occur, then the fish in

17 the creek, unfortunately, when it went dry, would die,

18 correct?

19 MR. VORSTER: If it was for a long enough period. If

20 it was a short enough period, there would be residual pools

21 that they would be able to survive in.

22 MS. BELLOMO: If they happen to be in pools at the time?

23 MR. VORSTER: Correct.

24 MS. BELLOMO: Are you aware of any Department of Fish

25 and Game investigation into these zero flow episodes?

1183

01 MR. VORSTER: On Wilson Creek?

02 MS. BELLOMO: Yes.

03 MR. VORSTER: I am not aware of.

04 MS. BELLOMO: On Page 5, you set forth what water

05 requirements for the Conway and Thompson Meadows and --

06 rather than me take the time to look through on Page 5, can

07 you refresh my recollection as to how much your water

08 requirement estimate is for the Thompson Meadow?

09 MR. VORSTER: Yeah. For the hundred acres that is

10 currently irrigated, is approximate acreage, the water

11 requirement is calculated by multiplying the acreage times

12 the consumptive use and doubling that, results in a gross

13 demand of 400 acre-feet, which apportioned over the five

14 month growing season, gives an average monthly application

15 of roughly 1.3 cfs.

16 MS. BELLOMO: So, is this a water requirement for both

17 Upper and Lower Thompson Meadows? And by Upper Thompson

18 Meadow I mean the portion of the meadow that is on the west

19 side of the highway, and by Lower Thompson Meadow I mean the

20 portion that is on the east side of the highway.

21 MR. VORSTER: No. This would be just for the Lower

22 Thompson Meadow, which is to the east of 395.

23 MS. BELLOMO: You don't provide for any water for

24 irrigation of Upper Thompson Meadow?

25 MR. VORSTER: That is correct.

1184

01 MS. BELLOMO: You did state on Page 2 that your

02 proposal is if there is sufficient irrigation water to

03 maintain the Simis and Thompson Rancho meadow and trees.

04 The Simis Meadow is adjacent to the Upper Thompson Meadow,

05 correct?

06 MR. VORSTER: Could you describe what you mean by

07 "adjacent"? I don't consider them -- they are close. They

08 are proximate, but they are not literally right next to each

09 other. They are very close to each other.

10 MS. BELLOMO: Well, you say that your proposal is for

11 sufficient water to maintain Simis and Thompson Ranch meadow

12 and trees. Are you referring to sufficient water to

13 maintain the Lower Thompson Meadow on the east side of the

14 highway, but not enough to maintain Thompson Meadow on the

15 west side of the highway?

16 MR. VORSTER: That is correct. Lower Thompson Ranch

17 is, by far, the larger, very visible meadow. The Upper

18 Thompson is much smaller and not visible from Highway 395,

19 or barely visible.

20 MS. BELLOMO: How large is the Simis Meadow?

21 MR. VORSTER: What I refer to as the Simis Meadow, let

22 me -- Simis Meadow, unfortunately, would be just off the

23 Exhibit R-SLC/DPR-424, would be just off the left-hand

24 margin where Upper Thompson and Lower Thompson Ditch coming

25 together. And it is -- the meadow itself is probably, if I

1185

01 remember correctly, I am going to say about 25 acres, and

02 that is based upon what Dave Marquart, who is the ranch

03 manager, told me. So, it is a very small meadow.

04 MS. BELLOMO: That property belongs to Jan Simis?

05 MR. VORSTER: That's correct.

06 MS. BELLOMO: I recall earlier in your testimony, I

07 think in your direct testimony, you stated that Jan Simis

08 has, in your words I think you said, has a minor 1 cfs water

09 right?

10 MR. VORSTER: 1.8 cfs.

11 MS. BELLOMO: So, Jan Simis has a 1.8 cfs water right?

12 MR. VORSTER: That's correct.

13 MS. BELLOMO: You would agree -- let me restate that.

14 Are you aware that Jan Simis' ranch is one of the

15 original historic ranches in the area?

16 MR. VORSTER: That is my understanding.

17 MS. BELLOMO: You characterize Jan Simis' water right

18 as being a minor water right, and you have testified that

19 she has 1.8 cfs. Would you consider that the 1.3 cfs, then,

20 that you would allocate to Thompson Meadows is also a minor

21 amount of water?

22 MR. VORSTER: Yes. Relative to the other water rights,

23 dWP, Conway, and Forest Service, the 1.8 cfs is a minor

24 amount.

25 MS. BELLOMO: On Page 6 you refer to infiltration

1186

01 losses from the main Thompson Ditch, and you propose using a

02 closed pipeline or, and I quote from you, "some other manner

03 to reduce those losses."

04 My question is: What are you referring to when you say

05 "some other manner to reduce infiltration losses"?

06 MR. VORSTER: You can line the ditches, for example,

07 keep it as an open ditch.

08 MS. BELLOMO: Did you measure infiltration losses?

09 MR. VORSTER: No. Again, I have not -- when you -- the

10 term "measurement" to me means I go out there with a current

11 meter. I observed them. I have observed losses in the

12 ditches in the north part of the Mono Basin. Looking at

13 what the water was at the head and at the downstream end,

14 and I have been able, through visual observations, to see

15 what the loss is. The losses are so high that you can tell

16 through visual observation how much loss there is.

17 MS. BELLOMO: Have you attempted to estimate the

18 amount of cfs that is lost?

19 MR. VORSTER: For example -- yes. I have estimated the

20 loss on the Mill Creek Return Ditch to be --

21 MS. BELLOMO: Excuse me, I'm asking about your

22 testimony about the Thompson, main Thompson Ditch.

23 MR. VORSTER: Yes. For example, in the past couple of

24 years, if I remember correctly, about 8 cfs was being

25 diverted into the main Thompson at Mill Creek. And by the

1187

01 time it was discharging into DeChambeau Creek, it was, I am

02 going to guess, about 5 cfs. I think there may be some

03 measurements of that in the Mill Creek Stream Evaluation

04 Report issued by the Department of Fish and Game.

05 MS. BELLOMO: Would you agree that those infiltration

06 losses help sustain riparian and meadow habitat, if there is

07 meadow, along the ditch in the area where there is

08 infiltration loss? Would you agree that the infiltration

09 losses help to sustain the riparian and meadow habitat?

10 MR. VORSTER: That could occur that the infiltration

11 -- along those ditches there is some riparian habitat.

12 MS. BELLOMO: Do you know if there are any Willow Fly

13 Catchers in the habitat along the main Thompson Ditch?

14 MS. BELLOMO: I am not aware.

15 MS. BELLOMO: You don't know?

16 MR. VORSTER: I don't know.

17 MS. BELLOMO: You would agree that wildlife can't drink

18 from a pipeline that is substituted for a ditch, wouldn't

19 you?

20 MR. VORSTER: I agree.

21 MS. BELLOMO: Have you reviewed any studies of wildlife

22 in the area of the main Thompson Ditch?

23 MR. VORSTER: No.

24 MS. BELLOMO: Do you know who has done the irrigation

25 on Thompson, the Upper and Lower Thompson Meadow in the past

1188

01 ten years?

02 MR. VORSTER: My understanding is that the current

03 operator, manager of the lease, is a gentleman named Paul

04 Anderson. I don't think he is the owner of the herd. Paul

05 Anderson is a name that has been given to me as someone who

06 has the keys, in fact, to the diversion ditches and, thus,

07 has some authority.

08 MS. BELLOMO: Is it your understanding that for, we

09 will say, the past ten years, the sheep company and their

10 employees that have the lease on Upper Thompson Lower Ranch

11 have been responsible for doing the irrigating?

12 MR. VORSTER: I think that is right, yes.

13 MS. BELLOMO: I assume you talked to Paul Anderson

14 about his irrigation techniques on the Thompson Meadows,

15 then?

16 MR. VORSTER: I pride myself on being able to talk to

17 everyone. I never talked to Paul Anderson, so I am

18 frustrated.

19 MR. DODGE: I think the record should reflect a

20 historic moment in the Mono Lake proceedings. Someone has

21 refused to talk to Mr. Vorster.

22 MR. VORSTER: I haven't tried to talk him.

23 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: And I might add, someone with a set

24 of keys. The sign of authority around the Water Board.

25 MR. DODGE: That seems to be getting to the water.

1189

01 MS. BELLOMO: I assume that you have talked to Candido

02 Caldedilla, who is an extremely friendly man, however, have

03 you not?

04 MR. VORSTER: I have not talked to -- I didn't catch

05 the name. No, I have not talked to any of the people who

06 have the leases on Thompson, the Thompson Meadow.

07 MS. BELLOMO: And you haven't talked to any of the men

08 who do irrigation out there?

09 MR. VORSTER: The only person I talked to who has done

10 irrigation would John Pelichowski.

11 MS. BELLOMO: We are talking about Thompson Meadows

12 right now.

13 MR. VORSTER: Right. John Pelichowski was the water

14 master, so when he was in the area, he actually diverted the

15 water from Mill Creek into the Thompson Ditches.

16 MS. BELLOMO: He did not do the irrigation on Thompson

17 Ranches?

18 MR. VORSTER: No, he did not.

19 MR. FRINK: Excuse me, I wonder if we could have the

20 spelling of both the names of the last individuals?

21 MS. BELLOMO: Mr. Vorster, are you familiar with the

22 Mattly Meadows, the site of the old Mattly Ranch, which lies

23 to the northeast of the Lundy Powerhouse and above 395?

24 MR. VORSTER: Yes.

25 MS. BELLOMO: Does the Mono Lake Committee proposal

1190

01 provide any water for irrigation to sustain this old ranch

02 meadow?

03 MR. VORSTER: As I currently understand the proposal,

04 no, it does not. However, I do think that the meadow would

05 stay green just from natural high water table in the area,

06 but does not receive any supplemental water for meadow

07 grass.

08 MS. BELLOMO: Your testimony is that the Mattly Meadow

09 is not irrigated?

10 MR. VORSTER: No. I said it would -- if it did not

11 receive any water whatsoever, there would be -- grass in the

12 area would remain. There would not be a conversion of the

13 entire area to sagebrush.

14 MS. BELLOMO: Have you done an analysis of the Mattly

15 Meadow soil types?

16 MR. VORSTER: I have not. There is historical evidence

17 that, I think, other people will testify to.

18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Caffrey.

19 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: Yes, Mr. Birmingham.

20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Vorster has been doing so well at

21 answering the questions. But the last --

22 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I am glad you approve.

23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: -- the last two questions he is

24 starting to revert to his habit of responding with more

25 information than is actually called for by the question.

1191

01 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: I will remind the witness again.

02 MR. VORSTER: I apologize. I strayed.

03 CHAIRMAN CAFFREY: No need to apologize. We understand

04 your expertise and your vast knowledge of the area, but we

05 do need to stay on point, if we can.

06 Thank you, sir.

07 MS. BELLOMO: On Page 6, in the top paragraph, you

08 refer to the meadow south of Wilson Creek as sitting in a,

09 you refer to as a, quote-unquote, bowl of high groundwater

10 levels.

11 And my first question is: What studies did you do to

12 verify this?