STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999 9:00 A.M. Reported by: MARY GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 APPEARANCES ---oOo--- 2 3 BOARD MEMBERS: 4 JAMES STUBCHAER, CO-HEARING OFFICER JOHN W. BROWN, CO-HEARING OFFICER 5 MARC DEL PIERO MARY JANE FORSTER 6 7 STAFF MEMBERS: 8 THOMAS HOWARD - Supervising Engineer VICTORIA A. WHITNEY - Senior Engineer 9 10 COUNSEL: 11 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER - Chief Counsel WALTER PETTIT - Executive Director 12 BARBARA LEIDIGH - Senior Staff Counsel 13 ---oOo--- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9776 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 3 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 4 134 West Sycamore STreet Willows, California 95988 5 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 6 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER, III, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI 11 P.O. Box 357 Quincy, California 95971 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 14 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 Redding, California 96001 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 17 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. AMELIA MINABERRIGARAI, ESQ. 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 GRAY BOBKER 21 55 Shaver Street, Suite 330 San Rafael, California 94901 22 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.: 23 FREDERICK BOLD, JR., ESQ. 24 1201 California Street, Suite 1303 San Francisco, California 94109 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9777 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 3 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 4 2480 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 6 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 7 2800 Cottage Way, Roon E1712 Sacramento, California 95825 8 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 10 BYRON M. BUCK 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 11 Sacramento, California 95814 12 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 13 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 16 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 19 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 20 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 71 Stevenson Street 21 San Francisco, California 94105 22 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 23 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C 24 Visalia, California 93191 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9778 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 3 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 4 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95817 5 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 7 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor Stockton, California 95202 8 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 9 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 10 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 375 Eleventh Street 11 Oakland, California 94623 BY: FRED ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 14 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER 17 P.O. Box 5654 Fresno, California 93755 18 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 19 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 20 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 2365 21 Flournoy, California 96029 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 24 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor Los Angeles, California 90075 25 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9779 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 4 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102 5 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 6 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 926 J Street, Suite 505 8 Sacramento, California 95814 9 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 10 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 101 West Walnut Street 11 Pasadena, California 91103 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 13 GRIFFIN, MASUDA & GODWIN 14 517 East Olive Street Turlock, California 95381 15 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 16 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 17 RICHARD GOLB 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 18 Sacramento, California 95814 19 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 21 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 23 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 24 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 Oakland, California 94618 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9780 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 3 SIMON GRANVILLE 4 P.O. Box 846 San Andreas, California 95249 5 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY 7 P.O. Box 1019 Madera, California 93639 8 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 10 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 2300 River Plaza Drive 11 Sacramento, California 95833 12 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 13 MORRISON & FORESTER 755 Page Mill Road 14 Palo Alto, California 94303 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 16 ALAN N. HARVEY 17 P.O. Box 777 Shasta Lake, California 96019 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 20 926 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY 23 P.O. Box 427 Durham, California 95938 24 BY: DON HEFFREN 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9781 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 3 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 4 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East Stockton, California 95267 5 COUNTY OF GLENN: 6 NORMAN Y. HERRING 7 525 West Sycamore Street Willows, California 95988 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 9 MICHAEL B. JACKSON 10 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 12 JULIE KELLY 13 P.O. Box 307 Vina, California 96092 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 16 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 17 BY: BILL KETSCHER 18 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 19 SAVE THE BAY 1736 Franklin Street 20 Oakland, California 94612 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY 23 P.O. Box 606 Manton, California 96059 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9782 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 3 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 4 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 5 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 6 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 7 1201 Civic Center Drive Yuba City, California 95993 8 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGTAION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 BARTKIEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 10 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95816 11 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 12 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 14 Walnut Creek, California 94596 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 16 DON MARCIOCHI 17 22759 South Mercey Springs Road Los Banos, California 93635 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 19 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 20 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 Merced, California 95344 21 BY: MIICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 22 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 23 R.W. MCCOMAS 4150 County Road K 24 Orland, California 95963 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9783 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 3 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT 4 P.O. Box 3728 Sonora, California 95730 5 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 6 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 7 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 8 Oroville, California 95965 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 9 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER. 11 1550 California Street, Suite 6 San Francisco, California 94109 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 15 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 16 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 17 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 18 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 20 STEVE MORA 21 501 Walker Street Orland, California 95963 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ 24 P.O. Box 4060 Modesto, California 95352 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9784 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 3 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. 4 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 5 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 6 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL 7 P.O. Box 1461 Stockton, California 95201 8 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. and 9 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 10 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 11 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 1100 Whitney Avenue 12 Corcoran, California 93212 13 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 14 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 15 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 18 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B Chico, California 95926 19 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 20 SIERRA CLUB: 21 JENNA OLSEN 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor 22 San Francisco, California 94105 23 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 24 LYNNEL POLLOCK 625 Court Street 25 Woodland, California 95695 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9785 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PATRICK PORGENS & ASSOCIATES: 3 PATRICK PORGENS 4 P.O. Box 60940 Sacramento, California 95860 5 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DIANE RATHMANN 7 P.O. Box 156 Dos Palos, California 93620 8 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 9 BETSY REIFSNIDER 10 128 J Street, 2nd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 11 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 12 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 13 P.O. Box 2067 Merced, California 95344 14 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 15 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 16 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 17 Stockton, California 95202 18 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 19 JAMES F. ROBERTS P.O. Box 54153 20 Los Angeles, California 90054 21 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 22 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 980 9th Street, 10th Floor 23 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9786 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 3 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 4 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, California 94194 5 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 6 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 7 DAVID A. SANDINO, ESQ. P.O. Box 942836 8 Sacramento, California 94236 9 FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY: 10 GARY W. SAWYERS, ESQ. 575 East Alluvial, Suite 101 11 Fresno, California 93720 12 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 13 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Captiol Mall, 27th Floor 14 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: CLIFFORD W. SCHULZ, ESQ. 15 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS: 16 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 17 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 18 BY: MICHAEL V. SEXTON, ESQ. 19 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 20 NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE P.O. Box 20 21 Stockton, California 95203 BY: THOMAS J. SHEPHARD, SR., ESQ. 22 CITY OF STOCKTON: 23 DE CUIR & SOMACH 24 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 25 BY: PAUL S. SIMMONS, ESQ. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9787 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 3 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 4 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 5 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 6 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 7 DE CUIR & SOMACH 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 8 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 9 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC.: 11 209 South Locust Street Visalia, California 93279 12 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 13 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 14 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 15 Oroville, California 95965 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 18 1213 Market Street Colusa, California 95932 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES 21 P.O. Box 156 Hayfork, California 96041 22 BY: TOM STOKELY 23 CITY OF REDDING: 24 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 25 Redding, California 96001 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9788 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 TEHEMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4 2 Sutter Street, Suite D Red Bluff, California 96080 5 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 6 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 7 BEST BEST & KREIGER P.O. Box 1028 8 Riverside, California 92502 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 9 COUTNY OF TEHEMA, et al.: 10 COUNTY OF TEHEMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11 P.O. Box 250 Red Bluff, California 96080 12 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 13 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 14 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS P.O. Box 667 15 San Andreas, California 95249 16 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 HENRY WILLY 6755 Lake Amador Drive 18 Ione, California 95640 19 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 20 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 2291 West March Lane, S.B. 100 21 Stockton, California 95207 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 22 23 ---oOo--- 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9789 1 I N D E X 2 ---oOo--- 3 4 PAGE 5 OPENING OF HEARING 9791 6 AFTERNOON SESSION 9878 7 END OF PROCEEDINGS 9909 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 9 TIM O'LAUGHLIN 9791 10 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 9813 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY: 12 CYNTHIA KOEHLER 9847 13 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 14 DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 9858 TIM O'LAUGHLIN 9862 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 16 PANEL: 17 SPRECK ROSEKRANS 9879 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 19 TIM O'LAUGHLIN 9886 20 BY STAFF 9905 21 22 ---oOo--- 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9790 1 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999, 9:00 A.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good morning. We'll reconvene the 5 Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearing. My notes show that we were 6 in the middle of examination of Ms. Andrews by 7 Mr. O'Laughlin. 8 Do you wish to continue, or are you through? 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Oh, no. I'll continue. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good morning. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Good morning. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Are you ready, Ms. Andrews? 13 MS. ANDREWS: Yes, I think so. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. You might want to get the mic 15 over a little closer. 16 ---oOo--- 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION 18 BY SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 19 BY TIM O'LAUGHLIN 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Good morning, Ms. Andrews. Turning 21 to Page 4 of your testimony, on the third full paragraph, 22 have you done a survey of the San Joaquin River to see the 23 extent of the modification of the channels of the San 24 Joaquin River? 25 MS. ANDREWS: No, I have not. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9791 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Do you know how many miles of 2 levees are on the San Joaquin River? 3 MS. ANDREWS: No, I do not. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Have you looked at the impact 5 of agricultural development in the San Joaquin River basin 6 and its impacts on the San Joaquin River? 7 MS. ANDREWS: Not in any specificity, no. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. On the next paragraph down 9 you speak about a large scale ecosystem enhancement. Can 10 you describe for us what you mean by "a large scale 11 ecosystem enhancement"? 12 MS. ANDREWS: What I mean by that statement is an 13 effort to look at a system as a whole that would be 14 inclusive of the entire range of ecosystem functions that 15 would be part of the operation -- or the function of a 16 natural river system. And that would run from the head 17 waters down to the mouth of a river looking at all of the 18 elements associated with that. 19 It would include the active channel as well as the 20 flood plain and the interactions between those portions, 21 the relationship of natural flow hydrograph to the species 22 that the river is expected to support, the relationship of 23 the flow system and the morphology of the river to the 24 sediment being delivered to that system and to the 25 nutrients being exchanged in the overbank and channel area. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9792 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you use that phase "large scale 2 ecosystem enhancement," would you look at forestry 3 practices in the San Joaquin River basin? 4 MS. ANDREWS: Could you clarify that question, 5 please? 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. Would you look at logging 7 practices and their impacts on sediment loads in the upper 8 tributaries? 9 MS. ANDREWS: Looking at a practice and its impact is 10 more of an impact assessment. When you're looking at 11 enhancement you look at what might be necessary to restore 12 certain processes. So there may or may not be a 13 relationship there. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, would you agree, though, that 15 if you have forestry practices that that may cause sediment 16 loading, you may have impacts on gravels downstream for 17 spawning habitat for salmon? 18 MS. ANDREWS: Certainly in large scale. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So is forestry management 20 practices going to be one part of your large scale 21 ecosystem enhancement? 22 MS. ANDREWS: Ideally it would be. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, are you going -- what 24 would you do about farming practices that encroach upon the 25 shaded rivering aquatic habitat in your large scale CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9793 1 ecosystem enhancement? 2 MS. ANDREWS: I assume in any sort of effort to 3 establish large scale ecosystem enhancement that there 4 would be a continuing desire to balance some of the uses 5 within the basin. If one were managing only for ecosystem 6 processes one wouldn't need to consider agricultural, but I 7 assume there's an interest in maintaining both and you'd 8 have to look at a balance of those. 9 But there are probably particularly key portions 10 of the riparian vegetation which are important to ecosystem 11 function and would have to be protected against being 12 removed for agricultural land uses. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Have you identified key 14 species of habitat that needs to be protected along the San 15 Joaquin River? 16 MS. ANDREWS: No, I have not. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would you as part of a large scale 18 ecosystem enhancement also look at pollution within the San 19 Joaquin River basin? 20 MS. ANDREWS: That is potentially part of the answer, 21 yes. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Does recreating the natural 23 hydrograph in any way address the question of pollution 24 within the San Joaquin River basin? 25 MS. ANDREWS: Not specifically. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9794 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you were looking at the channel 2 and the changes, I'm somewhat confused. Are you looking at 3 a program specifically for alternative five, or are you 4 proposing a program that goes beyond alternative five? 5 MS. ANDREWS: What I had an opportunity to do in 6 preparing this testimony was to look at the alternatives 7 that had been examined in the Draft Environmental Impact 8 Report. Those are certainly not the only alternatives 9 possible, but in looking at those, of the five I found -- 10 excuse me, of the eight I found that only alternative five 11 had a characteristic which would be important in supporting 12 ecosystem function, and that was to require a flow 13 contribution that had some relationship to the natural 14 characteristics of the basins involved. 15 It would certainly be possible to come up with an 16 alternative that could do a better job of enhancing 17 ecosystem function than alternative five simply because it 18 was drawn fairly crudely. And I'm sure it would be 19 possible to refine that. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you -- I notice in your paper 21 you used the word "qualitative" quite a bit. Can you 22 quantify any discernible changes in channel geomorphology 23 anywhere within the San Joaquin River basin between 24 alternative eight and alternative five? 25 MS. ANDREWS: I haven't looked specifically at that. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9795 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, is there any way other than 2 qualitatively with your instincts telling you that 3 alternative five is better, that you can provide us some 4 factual data that says that you're going to get sediment 5 transport, changes in channel geomorphology, gravel 6 recruitment and all these things that you talk about with 7 alternative five as opposed to some other alternative? 8 MS. ANDREWS: My testimony was not based on my 9 instinct. My testimony was based on the fact that the 10 river ecosystems involved in a condition in which they were 11 responding to a particular set of conditions, a particular 12 sequence of flows through the course of a year, a 13 particular relationship between the river and its flood 14 plain. 15 And I did not have an opportunity to evaluate 16 specifically the advantages of particular aspects of the 17 individual alternatives one against the other. I merely 18 noted that alternative five had the quality that the flows 19 being required from the tributaries from the upper San 20 Joaquin were based on a contribution that would have 21 existed from those natural drainages in an undeveloped 22 condition through at a much reduced scale. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, let's take for example on Page 24 5 you make a statement in your testimony, 25 (Reading): CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9796 1 "Adding water to the river just above Vernalis 2 to meet the flow objective does 3 nothing to enhance hydrologic and geomorphic 4 conditions upstream or enable the system 5 wide transport of materials and nutrients that 6 is characteristic for a healthy river system." 7 Can you quantify for us what the impacts are on 8 nutrients with proposing alternative five as opposed to 9 proposing some other alternative? 10 MS. ANDREWS: What happens in alternative five is 11 that flows are increased on multiple rivers in the San 12 Joaquin River ecosystem with the exception of I believe the 13 Stanislaus River in a few months. With a greater amount of 14 flows coming down the river stream there's more opportunity 15 for overbank flows which creates a greater opportunity for 16 nutrient exchange between the river and the adjoining 17 vegetation. So you would get that flush of nutrients from 18 multiple river systems coming down through the San Joaquin. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Well, tell me how do you 20 derive at the point that you believe that there will be 21 overbank flows when you don't know the channel 22 cross-sections and whether or not the flow that is coming 23 down the various tributaries would remain within the 24 channel? 25 MS. ANDREWS: I cannot say that there would be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9797 1 overbank flows. What I have said is that there's more of 2 an opportunity for that to exist and I think that's an 3 important point to look at in evaluating the ability of any 4 of these alternatives to affect the river ecosystems. 5 It's important to know the relationship of the 6 flows being required to what's actually happening in the 7 channel to tell what kind of effect they might have on the 8 ecosystem. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, my question is: How do you 10 know there's more of an opportunity when you don't know the 11 desire -- I mean the queue that's going to be in any given 12 river in the channel cross-section to control that flow? 13 MS. ANDREWS: What I do know is that as you increase 14 flow in any given river channel you have a greater 15 opportunity to flood vegetation, whether it's bank side 16 vegetation, flood plant vegetation, it doesn't mean that it 17 necessarily will happen, but it's more likely to happen at 18 higher flows than it is at lower flows. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, how do you know under the 20 proposal of alternative five that that would occur in that 21 situation as opposed to alternative number eight? 22 MS. ANDREWS: What I have said before and I'll repeat 23 is that I didn't specifically look at individual 24 characteristics of the alternatives in terms of flow on a 25 specific river at a specific time. But I was looking more CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9798 1 at the overall way the alternative was formulated. 2 And I know that alternative five contributions are 3 coming down multiple rivers in relationship to the 4 topography of those river basins and that in alternative 5 eight the decision is being made about how much flow to 6 send down which river on the basis of where water is 7 available. And it may or may not have the ability to 8 create the same amount of nutrient transport, it's possible 9 that it would. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is it your understanding that really 11 the only difference between alternative five and 12 alternative eight where the water comes from is that the 13 upper San Joaquin River above Merced would not be 14 contributing water under alternative eight and it would be 15 under alternative five? 16 MS. ANDREWS: It's my understanding that that's one 17 aspect of the difference between the two, but also that the 18 amounts of water coming down the individual tributaries 19 would be different. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you tried to quantify those 21 individual amounts to the individual tributaries and the 22 difference? 23 MS. ANDREWS: No, I have not. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you proposing to the Board to 25 implement the working paper flows, or the flows in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9799 1 alternative number five? I'm confused about that. 2 MS. ANDREWS: What I have drafted as testimony, that 3 neither is in support of implementation of alternative five 4 nor is it opposed to implementation of alternative five. 5 It merely points out that given a goal of 6 restoration of river function on the San Joaquin basin, 7 that alternative five has characteristics about it that do 8 a better job than the others presented. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you tried to understand what 10 impacts would occur at the reservoirs on the San Joaquin 11 River if alternative five was adopted? 12 MS. ANDREWS: No, I have not. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you tried to understand the 14 relationship between spills and reservoir refill with 15 alternative five as opposed to some other alternative? 16 MS. ANDREWS: No, I have not looked at that 17 particular -- 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Would that have some bearing on your 19 opinion as to whether alternative five is the preferred 20 alternative if reservoir releases were actually decreased 21 in high flow events due to refill caused by alternative 22 five? 23 MS. ANDREWS: My examination of alternative five was 24 strictly in regard to its ability to meet ecosystem needs. 25 And whether or not the effect of a reservoir operation on CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9800 1 alternate flows in the system could have an influence there 2 or not, I don't know. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Have you looked at what 4 impacts there may be to the fishery caused by the draw down 5 of the reservoirs due to alternative number five? 6 MS. ANDREWS: No, I have not. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On Page 7, the first paragraph, 8 first sentence is it -- by this statement are you saying 9 that all the alternatives will not meet the necessary flow 10 to double the natural production of chinook salmon in the 11 San Joaquin River basin? 12 MS. ANDREWS: If one assumes that the 1995 working 13 paper flow recommendations represent what is necessary, 14 then clearly all of the alternatives fall short. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And that's the assumption that you 16 used? 17 MS. ANDREWS: That is the assumption that I used. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Did you look at whether or not a 19 combination of flow and nonflow factors could facilitate 20 the doubling of natural production of chinook salmon in the 21 San Joaquin River basin? 22 MS. ANDREWS: No, I did not. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have any viewpoints on 24 entrainment of salmon smolts at the export facilities in 25 the Delta? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9801 1 MS. ANDREWS: Could you clarify what you mean by 2 "viewpoints"? 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have an opinion? 4 MS. ANDREWS: It's my understanding, as a matter of 5 fact, that entrainment occurs. I don't have an opinion as 6 to how best to improve that circumstance. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Under alternative five do you 8 understand what the relationship is between San Joaquin 9 River flow and export pumping? 10 MS. ANDREWS: I haven't looked at that specifically, 11 though I have a general understanding of it. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Have you looked at 13 alternative number five flow in the implementation or 14 requirement of the Delta smelt biological opinion on export 15 pumping? 16 MS. ANDREWS: No, I have not. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Have you looked at the data 18 regarding the Head of Old River Barrier and its impacts on 19 salmon smolt outmigration from the San Joaquin River basin? 20 MS. ANDREWS: No, I have not. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have an opinion as to whether 22 or not the installation of the Head of Old River Barrier 23 would provide benefits to outmigrating salmon smolt from 24 the San Joaquin River basin? 25 MS. ANDREWS: No, I do not. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9802 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Does alternative five call for the 2 installation of an operable Head of Old River Barrier? 3 MS. ANDREWS: I don't recall. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you aware -- on Page 7, the 5 second paragraph, are you calling for a new standard then 6 in this paragraph for the San Joaquin River basin other 7 than the standard that has been adopted by the State Water 8 Resources Control Board? 9 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. Could the Board direct the 10 questioner to be more specific about which statement he's 11 referring to? 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: It is quite a long paragraph. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: And I appreciate the effort to try 15 not to repeat prior testimony, and that's why I didn't say 16 anything earlier. But if you could identify the sentence 17 from that paragraph, that would be helpful. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sure. We've got to make a leap 19 here. The second sentence says, 20 (Reading): 21 "Working paper recommendations themselves may 22 not be sufficient to meet the goal of doubling 23 of natural production of chinook salmon in the 24 San Joaquin River basin." 25 And then in the paragraph above since none of the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9803 1 other alternatives are at fault they all fall short of the 2 working paper. Is it your basic premise, then, that the 3 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, the standards and the 4 objectives that were adopted will not double the natural 5 production of chinook salmon? 6 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. Vague. The narrative 7 standard is a standard in the 1995 Water Quality Control 8 Plan. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. And what I'm saying is that 10 if the working paper doesn't meet it and since the working 11 paper isn't within any of the alternatives, then it's your 12 opinion that the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan as set 13 out, the standards and objectives will not meet the 14 doubling? 15 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. Once again, the doubling 16 standard is itself a standard. I believe the questioner is 17 trying to ask -- maybe we could get some clarification on 18 this -- whether the numeric standards in the plan will meet 19 the narrative standard which is also in the plan. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That's a better question. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I would agree with that. 23 MS. ANDREWS: Excuse me. Yes, it is my opinion that 24 that's the case. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So the numeric standards will CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9804 1 not meet the narrative standard. Do you know if Save San 2 Francisco Bay Association sued the State Water Resources 3 Control Board when they adopted the 1995 Water Quality 4 Control Plan? 5 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. Beyond the scope of this 6 witness' expertise and testimony. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: He asked if she knew. She can 8 answer if she knows. 9 MS. ANDREWS: No, I did not. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is there a reason why you did not 11 present this testimony three years ago to the State Water 12 Resources Control Board concerning the inadequacy of the 13 standards and objectives that have been adopted by the 14 Board? 15 MS. ANDREWS: I, or Save the Bay? Is that a question 16 for me? 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No, that's you. 18 MS. ANDREWS: I was not asked to prepare testimony at 19 that time. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On the second paragraph of that page 21 you point out two intrinsic weaknesses in regards to the 22 1995 working paper. First, they were developed with little 23 or no consideration of the effect of the resulting flow 24 regime or geomorphic processes. 25 Has the proposal that you made developed a flow CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9805 1 regime with a focus on the geomorphic process? 2 MS. ANDREWS: I have not proposed a flow regime. 3 What I proposed is an approach to developing a flow regime 4 that would take that into account. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So, then, really what you're 6 proposing is that -- if I can understand this -- is that 7 alt five is maybe a starting point, but you would ask the 8 Board to take further study of what flows would be 9 necessary to have a system-wide benefit for the San Joaquin 10 River basin? 11 MS. ANDREWS: I think that would be desirable. It's 12 not clear to me given the amount of water available for 13 ecosystem function if it truly could be system-wide or not. 14 But to the extent that there's an opportunity to look at 15 restoration of this large a portion of the basin is 16 possible, I think that would be highly desirable. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On Page 7 in the third paragraph, 18 first sentence, you state that, 19 (Reading): 20 "Despite the limitations in the 1995 working 21 paper comparisons the available evidence clearly 22 demonstrates that alt five provides a more 23 promising set of results." 24 Can you point me to what evidence you are relying 25 upon for that statement? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9806 1 MS. ANDREWS: Certainly, the phrasing of that was 2 perhaps not as clear as it could have been. What I was 3 attempting to point out is that while the working paper 4 recommendations may have their own flaws, that very clearly 5 alternative five does a better job of meeting those flow 6 objectives than any of the other alternatives. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So by -- and then to go logically 8 forward with that, since in your opinion the working paper 9 is the best evidence of what is needed to double salmon, 10 Then, therefore, alt five comes closest to meeting that? 11 MS. ANDREWS: Correct. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Did you have any 13 participation in drafting the 1995 working paper? 14 MS. ANDREWS: No, I did not. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On Page 9, do you know who arrives 16 at the -- or makes up the 60/20/20 index for the San 17 Joaquin River basin? 18 MS. ANDREWS: It's my understanding that it is 19 primarily developed within the Department of Water 20 Resources. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, are you aware that DWR 22 is also a -- signed the Letter of Intent for the San 23 Joaquin River Agreement? 24 MS. ANDREWS: I believe that's correct. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. My confusion here is why are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9807 1 you more interested in seeing DWR alone arrived at a 2 60/20/20 index rather than to have all interested parties 3 arrive at a base flow on the San Joaquin River? 4 MS. ANDREWS: The parties other than DWR that are 5 signatories are largely the agencies which manage and 6 operate the reservoirs on the San Joaquin system and are 7 more directly affected by the outcome of that forecast than 8 DWR would be. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So you don't think DWR would have 10 any impacts based on the San Joaquin River Agreement with 11 backstop or Delta outflow in regards to arriving at an 12 index? 13 MS. ANDREWS: Could you clarify your question? 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sure. Do you know if, in fact, the 15 Department of Water Resources has agreed to backstop the 16 San Joaquin River Agreement? 17 MS. ANDREWS: Could you explain "backstop"? 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No, that's fine. That response was 19 good enough for me. Do you know where DWR gets its 20 information to arrive at the 60/20/20 index for the San 21 Joaquin River basin? 22 MS. ANDREWS: The information is based on what they 23 get for gauge information and the way they attempt to back 24 out the influence of reservoir operations on that 25 information to reflect an unimpaired condition. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9808 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know if DWR relies on 2 information from the Merced Irrigation District in regards 3 to operations on the Merced River? 4 MS. ANDREWS: I'm sure that they do. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Do you know if DWR relies on 6 information from the City and County of San Francisco, 7 Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District 8 in regards to operations on the Tuolumne River? 9 MS. ANDREWS: I'm sure that they do. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Do you think DWR relies on 11 the United States Bureau of Reclamation for information 12 regarding operations on the Stanislaus River? 13 MS. ANDREWS: I'm sure that they do. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And actually those are all 15 the same parties that are part of the San Joaquin River 16 Agreement; is that correct? 17 MS. ANDREWS: I would have to check to confirm, but 18 that sounds about right. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know if the 60/20/20 is an 20 open process, or is a process that is done by staff 21 in-house by DWR? 22 MS. ANDREWS: I believe it's a staff process done 23 in-house in DWR. I would be surprised if they didn't share 24 their development of that openly. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: But you have no idea if they do or CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9809 1 not; is that correct? 2 MS. ANDREWS: That's correct. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you think your proposal is better 4 handled through a CalFed approach rather than a quasi 5 judicial action in front of the State Water Resources 6 Control Board? 7 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. The term "CalFed approach" 8 is not clear. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Could you define "CalFed approach"? 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Wow, I don't think they've done 11 that. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: In 20 words or less. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In 20 words or less? 14 MS. ANDREWS: You get a prize if you do. 15 MS. KOEHLER: The reason for my objection, 16 Mr. Chairman, is evident in the laughter in the room. 17 There are as many different views of what a CalFed approach 18 is I'm sure as there are people sitting here today. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, I distinguish the question as 20 the quasi judicial approach before this Board versus any 21 non quasi judicial approach, that's the way I interpret the 22 question. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. Is it your understanding 24 that CalFed is taking a broader view of other impacts to 25 the San Joaquin River basin and Bay-Delta than what is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9810 1 taking place in this process? 2 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. The question again is not 3 clear. We were talking about a standard for determining 4 what flow targets to be used in implementing this standard. 5 CalFed doesn't have the authority to implement -- to do a 6 water rights proceeding to implement the standards in the 7 Water Quality Control Plan. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: I'll allow the witness to answer to 9 the best of her ability. 10 MS. ANDREWS: I don't think my expertise is such that 11 I'm the best judge of where such an effort could be 12 undertaken. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Are you -- you're relying on 14 Mr. Keir for the fishery biology side of this presentation; 15 is that correct? You're not making any independent fishery 16 evaluation; is that correct? 17 MS. ANDREWS: That's correct. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And my understanding is based on the 19 testimony even though it hadn't happened yet it will happen 20 here in a few minutes, you're also relying on Mr. Rosekrans 21 for the hydrologic work that was done in regards to the 22 preparation of your testimony; is that correct? 23 MS. ANDREWS: What he has prepared are some 24 illustrations. I certainly have some independent knowledge 25 and some independent work in that arena, but he's prepared CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9811 1 some illustrations that are available to everyone in that 2 regard. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you very much. I have no 4 further questions. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 6 Does staff have questions of this witness? 7 MS. LEIDIGH: No. 8 MR. HOWARD: No. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Board Members? 10 C.O. BROWN: I have none. 11 MS. KOEHLER: Mr. Chairman? 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Koehler. 13 MS. KOEHLER: I believe Mr. Nomellini had some 14 questions for cross-examination. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Did I miss you, Mr. Nomellini? 16 MR. NOMELLINI: I don't believe that you'd miss me. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: I just didn't write your name down 18 here when we asked for who wished to cross-examine last 19 time. I'm sorry if I overlooked you. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. I have questions for 21 Mr. Keir as well, who was part of the panel and I don't 22 know what your plan is there. I don't know if Tim had 23 questions for -- did you finish with him? 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I'm done with him. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Ms. Koehler. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9812 1 MS. KOEHLER: I believe, Mr. Chairman, just to 2 clarify that everybody else who has wished to cross-examine 3 Mr. Keir has done so. I think it would certainly be 4 appropriate to rejoin Betty so Mr. Nomellini can do his 5 cross-examination at this point. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes, that's fine. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: If permissible. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can I ask a question? Is 9 Mr. Rosekrans going to come back in and provide direct 10 testimony today, too, as well as? 11 MS. KOEHLER: Mr. Chairman, we were requested to 12 produce Mr. Rosekrans today and we have done so. It's our 13 preference that since these folks -- that Mr. Keir and 14 Ms. Andrews are almost at the end of their testimony that 15 we finish with them before Mr. Rosekrans testifies, if 16 that's all right. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: That's my plan, too. 18 Okay. Please proceed, Mr. Nomellini. 19 ---oOo--- 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION 21 BY THE CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 22 BY DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 23 MR. NOMELLINI: For the record, Dante John Nomellini 24 for the Central Delta Parties. I'd like to start with Ms. 25 Andrews. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9813 1 On Page 2 of your testimony, second paragraph you 2 say, 3 (Reading): 4 "Nonetheless, I will argue that how the flow 5 objectives are met is intrinsic to their 6 effectiveness in providing ecosystem enhancement 7 for protection of fish, wildlife and other 8 public trust uses." 9 Now, are there fish species of concern with regard 10 to the San Joaquin River Agreement other than fall-run 11 chinook salmon? 12 MS. ANDREWS: I don't recall if there are other 13 species that are specified in the agreement. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you aware of the presence of 15 other species of fish on the Stanislaus River? 16 MS. ANDREWS: Certainly there are other species of 17 fish there. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there rainbow trout? 19 MS. ANDREWS: I believe that there are. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there steelhead on the 21 Stanislaus? 22 MS. ANDREWS: I believe that there are. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the Tuolumne, do you 24 know whether or not there are fish other than fall-run 25 chinook on the Tuolumne? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9814 1 MS. ANDREWS: I believe that there are also trout and 2 steelhead on that river system as well. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And with regard to the 4 Merced, are you aware whether or not there are fish species 5 other than fall-run chinook on that river? 6 MS. ANDREWS: I believe that river also has trout and 7 steelhead. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, with regard to 9 rainbow trout and steelhead, are they different? 10 MS. ANDREWS: I'm not a fisheries biologist, but it's 11 my understanding that the difference is that the steelhead 12 travel to the sea and rainbow trout do not, but genetically 13 they're indistinguishable. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And with regard to the 15 paragraph that I read to you, is it your testimony that the 16 impact on other fish species -- and I mean other than 17 fall-run chinook -- must be evaluated in determining how 18 flow objectives at Vernalis would be met? 19 MS. ANDREWS: I think given the underlying goal of 20 the flow objective it would be quite important to look at 21 those other species in assessing the appropriateness of the 22 alternatives used to meet that objective. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. In that same paragraph 24 you talk about "other public trust uses." Could you give 25 examples of what "other public trust uses" you think there CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9815 1 are on the Stanislaus, Merced and Tuolumne? 2 MS. ANDREWS: As I said the other day, I'm not an 3 attorney and I know that public trust uses has a very large 4 and significant legal meaning. I have used it in this 5 context to refer to the natural resources productivity of 6 the systems looking at not only the fish and wildlife 7 species that live there, but the habitat and food chain 8 that they are relying on to exist. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Is it your belief that 10 human uses of the waterway would not fall within the 11 category of public trust uses? 12 MS. ANDREWS: As I said, I'm not an attorney, but my 13 recollection is that human use is an aspect of public trust 14 and I'm not certain of what the parameters of that are. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Then you would not automatically 16 exclude river rafting or swimming from a public trust use, 17 would you? 18 MS. ANDREWS: I think you're getting a little deep 19 into the legal interpretation there for me. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. On the same page of your 21 testimony you talk about, 22 (Reading): 23 "The pattern of flow is magnitude timing and 24 variability is key to shaping the drainage 25 network in determining its ecological CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9816 1 productivity and habitat characteristics." 2 Now -- 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini, can you state the 4 page number, please. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: That was on Page 2 of her testimony, 6 Mr. Chairman, in the middle. 7 Is that testimony directed at mimicking the 8 natural hydrograph? 9 MS. ANDREWS: Yes, it is. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And you would recognize 11 that the river systems have been changed by construction of 12 dams and those kind of works, would you not? 13 MS. ANDREWS: Absolutely. I think we discussed the 14 last time I was here the enormous effect that reservoirs 15 have had on the San Joaquin basin. We briefly had a graph 16 up on the overhead showing that influence. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And is it your testimony 18 that in evaluating the merits of the San Joaquin River 19 Agreement that the effort should look at each of the river 20 systems involved, the species involved and the needs of 21 those species and the impact on those of the various 22 allocations of water from each of the particular 23 tributaries? 24 MS. ANDREWS: That would be one way to look at 25 creating a high degree of ecosystem restoration. Another CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9817 1 approach would be to look at the broad scale in terms of 2 restoring ecosystem functions. 3 You may not need to look at the particular flow 4 requirements at every life stage of every species of 5 concern, but instead look at, in general, the relationship 6 between flow and habitat and nutrient transfer at a broader 7 scale to affect a wider variety of species, that would be a 8 different approach. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And which approach are 10 you suggesting in your testimony, the broader approach? 11 MS. ANDREWS: The broader approach was the approach 12 that I took in looking at alternative five vis-a-vis the 13 other alternatives. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: So are you saying that we should look 15 at not only the Stanislaus, the Tuolumne and the Merced, 16 but also the main stem of the San Joaquin River upstream of 17 Merced and the Chowchilla River and the Fresno River and 18 Bear Creek and all those tributaries? 19 MS. ANDREWS: On the face of it there would be no 20 reason to distinguish between those rivers in terms of what 21 they could provide in terms of ecosystem function or 22 restoration. There may be scientific reasons to narrow the 23 point of view, but I don't believe that that assessment has 24 been done. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: And you're suggesting that that kind CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9818 1 of assessment would have to be done in order to judge the 2 impacts of the San Joaquin River Agreement? 3 MS. ANDREWS: What I'm proposing is that if the point 4 of a flow alternative, or the intention of the flow 5 objective at Vernalis is to provide ecosystem enhancement, 6 that the alternatives be developed and evaluated in regard 7 to that intention. The San Joaquin River Agreement is one 8 method that's been proposed for meeting that objective. 9 And it has not, to my knowledge, involved any 10 distinct examination of how it would support ecosystem 11 function other than the comparison of the working paper 12 flows that was done for all of the alternatives. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. And when you talk about the -- 14 I'm not sure I can point it out in your testimony -- but 15 the idea of having a flow requirement at Vernalis and no 16 requirement at the confluence of the Tuolumne and the San 17 Joaquin, or the Merced and the San Joaquin, is it your 18 testimony that it's important to look at the impact of 19 whatever the method of meeting the flow objective at 20 Vernalis is at each of those other points? 21 MS. ANDREWS: Well, if you think about it in terms of 22 the way the natural system worked, you'd have this whole 23 mix of the tributaries in the upper San Joaquin all 24 contributing on their own systems, they would pulse in that 25 April/May period, all of that would contribute to a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9819 1 combined cumulative pulse at Vernalis. 2 And if we want to look at recreating that kind of 3 system-wide transfer of nutrients sediment transport making 4 the whole system work together in that spring of pulse, we 5 would have to look at contributions from a larger network 6 in the San Joaquin than just one or perhaps two of the 7 tributaries. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, you talked about the 9 geomorphology or the morphology of particular streams as 10 being a factor that should be considered. Are you 11 concerned at all that 1500 cubic-feet per second flow in 12 the Stanislaus River, for example, might be damaging to the 13 natural morphology of that particular stream? 14 MS. ANDREWS: What geomorphology refers to is the 15 ability of the stream system to move sediment through its 16 ability to transport a certain sediment supply. And that's 17 what maintains the shape of the channel and the flood 18 plains. 19 Now, I've made no particular assessment of what 20 any particular flow regime would have on the morphology of 21 any system, but it would be important to do that. If we're 22 planning on a certain flow down a certain river of 23 maintaining the shape of that channel, there's no reason to 24 think that it will unless we particularly looked at that 25 aspect of river system function. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9820 1 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. If we compare a plan 2 which would put 1500 cubic-feet per second down the 3 Stanislaus for a given period of time and that period of 4 time exceeds what would have occurred under natural 5 conditions, is there a problem with flooding areas that 6 would not otherwise be flooded at a certain time of the 7 year and thereby altering the vegetation of the channel? 8 MS. ANDREWS: What would have happened -- let's see, 9 1500 cfs flow, I don't think is an extraordinary amount of 10 flow for the Stanislaus on an unimpaired condition. I have 11 no idea how it relates to the existing infrastructure of 12 the levee system or to the developments along the 13 Stanislaus at this point, but it certainly would be 14 important to understand that before it required that 15 without another flow down the river. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's focus on riparian habitat. 17 Let's take a hypothetical on the Stanislaus and let's 18 assume that in the month of -- let's make it an easy one -- 19 in the month of August under natural conditions there was 20 never more than about 500 cubic-feet per second. 21 And that we propose a plan to put 1500 cubic-feet 22 per second down the river during that same month. Is there 23 a problem in your mind that we should be addressing in 24 terms of the impact of such a change from the natural 25 sequence? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9821 1 MS. ANDREWS: The -- and transport doesn't care what 2 month it is. Sediment is going to move, if it's going to 3 move it doesn't care whether it's May or August certainly. 4 But in terms of the effect of having that amount of flow 5 coming down the river at that time of the year it could be 6 very much countered to the particular conditions that other 7 species have evolved in response to. 8 I mean there is -- I'm not an ecologist either 9 and there's a large body of science that's associated with 10 all of the relationships of all of the different species 11 and habitats within the river system. And I think in 12 general the rule of it does not mimic the kind of magnitude 13 variability and duration of flows to the natural flow 14 regime, chances are it will cause some problems for the 15 ecosystem. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. So when you talk about 17 morphology, you're talking solely about the movement of 18 sediments? 19 MS. ANDREWS: Yes. Morphology refers to the shape of 20 the channel. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Now, would that be the shape of the 22 wetted channel? 23 MS. ANDREWS: Well, the channel that most of us think 24 about is usually kind of the low-flow channel but, in fact, 25 the channel includes the area that is inundated on a CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9822 1 regular basis. So it includes more than what's usually 2 just wet. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: You would agree that vegetation would 4 affect morphology of a particular channel, would you not? 5 MS. ANDREWS: Oh, certainly. There's a lot of play 6 back and forth between the vegetation affecting the 7 morphology, the morphology affecting the vegetation. It's 8 a very interesting part of the science that there's really 9 some very interesting research being done in. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: So if we had a particular flow down a 11 channel which did not move sediment but caused particular 12 vegetation not to grow there could be a later event which 13 would result in the movement of sediment; is that correct? 14 MS. ANDREWS: Certainly. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. So on Page 4 when you say 16 about the interplay between flow regime, channel morphology 17 and habitat conditions are complex and constant, you're 18 trying to take those things into consideration in 19 suggesting that we should do that in terms of evaluating 20 how we meet the flow objective at Vernalis; isn't that 21 correct? 22 MS. ANDREWS: That's correct. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you know which of the tributaries 24 in terms of the Stanislaus, the Tuolumne and the Merced is 25 most important to fall-run chinook salmon? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9823 1 MS. ANDREWS: No, I do not. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Is there a distinction in 3 importance in your mind or in your opinion between hatchery 4 raised fall-run chinook and naturally propagated fall-run 5 chinook? 6 MS. ANDREWS: It's my opinion that certainly the 7 naturally raised fish have a closer relationship to the 8 basin health. And certainly have shown to have a greater 9 resilience than some of the hatchery fish, but it's really 10 going into fishery science which is outside my area of 11 expertise. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: On Page 5 you state at the bottom of 13 I guess the third paragraph, 14 (Reading): 15 "That the variability of unimpaired conditions 16 throughout the San Joaquin basin are more likely 17 to achieve broad ecosystem enhancement goals." 18 MS. ANDREWS: That's the last portion of the 19 sentence. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. Now, focusing in on that by 21 itself, do you believe that we should work with the 22 unimpaired conditions without giving full consideration to 23 the presence of dams and the non-natural location of fish 24 species? 25 MS. ANDREWS: Non-natural location of fish, I'm not CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9824 1 sure how to respond to that part of it. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Let me break it down. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: I didn't understand it either. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: It was not a good question. You 5 would agree, would you not, that dam construction on the 6 Stanislaus, for example, precludes anadromous fish from 7 moving up above the dams in their migration? 8 MS. ANDREWS: I don't believe we've gotten 9 sophisticated enough to build them a fish ladder that would 10 take them under that structure. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. So you would agree, then, 12 that they can't get back up above the dams the way they 13 could under unimpaired conditions? 14 MS. ANDREWS: I agree with that. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: And let's assume that we find that 16 these anadromous fish must rely on conditions below the dam 17 at locations that they would not otherwise use under 18 unimpaired conditions, can you follow that? 19 MS. ANDREWS: Yes. I'm not quite sure that I agree 20 with it. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Let's take an example 22 with a spring-run salmon that would move up -- and I 23 understand there may not be any on the San Joaquin -- but a 24 spring-run salmon that would normally spawn in an area 25 above the location of the lowest dam on the Stanislaus, for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9825 1 example, that salmon cannot go to its normal natural 2 spawning area and, therefore, must spawn, if it's going to 3 spawn, below the dam. 4 Let's assume that's the case for fall-run chinook 5 at least for a segment of the population. Shouldn't we 6 look at what we have and then allocate our resources based 7 on the conditions we have rather than an analysis of 8 unimpaired flow conditions? 9 MS. ANDREWS: Sort of yes and sort of not. What my 10 testimony said was we certainly can't replicate unimpaired 11 conditions anywhere in this basin unless we're all prepared 12 to leave California tomorrow, which I don't think is the 13 case. 14 But what we can do is look at the aspects of that 15 natural flow hydrograph that are key to driving essential 16 ecosystem functions and try to replicate that within what 17 is essentially a smaller river system. Once we started to 18 bring water out of a river basin the river will not be the 19 same as it was, but we could potentially create a 20 functional protective smaller river system in that basin if 21 it were managed to try to replicate some sort of natural 22 condition, just the natural condition of a smaller system. 23 And that's the step that we have not yet taken even in 24 terms of trying to restore rivers in California or, 25 frankly, anywhere else in the world. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9826 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. So when we talk about the 2 natural hydrograph, are you testifying that if under 3 natural conditions there was a higher flow in the spring 4 than, for example, in the summer, that we should be 5 attempting to mimic that hydrograph in that sense? 6 MS. ANDREWS: To the extent that we can understand 7 what role different parts of the hydrograph play we may or 8 may not -- we may have more flexibility than that. To the 9 extent that that spring flush is associated with providing 10 flood plain areas for young fish to feed in, it's not going 11 to help to have that area flooded in August. 12 They're expecting it in April and May, that's when 13 the smolts need it and that's when we would need to provide 14 it. But we would need to look at what the opportunities 15 were to provide that kind of habitat at that time of year 16 and look at the ability to mimic the variability in a 17 natural flow hydrograph through the course of a year. 18 It may or may not make much difference that our 19 summer flows are always probably going to be higher under 20 an agricultural diversion system than they were under 21 natural conditions. That's when the fields need water and 22 that's when we're going to have more water being delivered 23 to them. That may or may not be a problem ecologically. I 24 haven't seen any research indicating that it necessarily 25 is. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9827 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Have you heard the term "truck and 2 transport"? 3 MS. ANDREWS: Yes, I have. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: If faced with a limited supply of 5 water and an objective of perhaps maintaining temperature 6 for spawning fish below a dam, is it possible in your mind 7 that the best solution may not mimic the natural 8 hydrograph? 9 MS. ANDREWS: If one is in a situation where it is 10 simply not possible to create the temperature conditions to 11 benefit the particular species, and in this case you've 12 limited it to the one species that you're planning to 13 transport, that may be your only resort. It would be a 14 choice of last resort, I would think, because you're 15 basically writing off everything else within the system 16 that would also depend on those conditions. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. But given those 18 situations -- or that situation you would still say, would 19 you not, that we must look at the conditions in each of the 20 streams and then make the determination as to what is the 21 best way to meet the particular Vernalis objective if 22 that's the only one we have? 23 MS. ANDREWS: Yes, I would. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Thank you. I have a few 25 questions for Mr. Keir. As you can see we let the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9828 1 engineers testify and I'm going to ask you about 2 engineering. 3 MR. KEIR: Great. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Fair enough. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: At Page 3 of your testimony, second 6 paragraph from the bottom you talk about, 7 (Reading): 8 "We should be attempting to mimic the natural 9 hydrograph to support sustainable ecological 10 processes that will support salmon." 11 Do you see that, and I ignored the typo? 12 MR. KEIR: Thank you. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Could you explain, you heard the 14 questions and the answers about mimicking the natural 15 hydrograph, could you explain what you mean in terms of 16 mimicking the natural hydrograph to support the processes 17 that will support salmon in this state? 18 MR. KEIR: Certainly. I think that what I meant in 19 that sentence is consistent with the discussion I provided 20 before that. And that is that salmon outmigrate from the 21 San Joaquin River system over a six-month period, not a 22 four-week period. And that the Board has before it a 23 proposal to try to push fish out of the system with pulse 24 flows during roughly a four-week period which could be 25 flexed at either side, but again with only a specific CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9829 1 amount of water to enable it. 2 And I'm simply saying that we have to be mindful 3 of the fact that salmon outmigrate from the system over a 4 longer period of time, and as I testified earlier in my 5 presentation, they are subject to severe temperature 6 conditions in the lower river at Vernalis, a problem that 7 was brought to the Board's attention by the Department of 8 Fish and Game earlier. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Is it your testimony that 10 if we were given a limited amount of water that we might 11 want to release less during the 30-day pulse flow period 12 than otherwise planned and more during periods extending, 13 perhaps, over as long as a six-month period? 14 MR. KEIR: No, that was not my testimony. My 15 testimony was an attempt to bring to the Board's attention 16 this very real problem with temperature bottleneck in the 17 lower river and the need for that temperature bottleneck to 18 be addressed. I wasn't talking about the allocation of 19 water for pulse flows. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Is temperature in the lower river 21 affected in any way by the pulse flow? And I'm talking 22 about the 30-day pulse flow. 23 MR. KEIR: My testimony pointed out that when flows 24 were substantially below 5,000 cubic-feet per second, this 25 was based on Department of Fish and Game data that had been CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9830 1 earlier presented to the Board. When flows at Vernalis 2 were below 5,000 cubic-feet per second then temperatures 3 rose above 68 degrees, which is the stress level for 4 juvenile salmon. 5 And I suppose that you could have a pulse flow 6 that would relieve the 68-degree problem for a brief 7 period, but that would leave the rest of the outmigration 8 population unattended to and that was the problem that I 9 was trying to bring to the Board's attention. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Now, you referenced the 11 natural hydrograph, again I'm focusing on the same 12 sentence, is it your understanding that the natural 13 hydrograph would always produce adequate temperature for 14 salmon in the Lower San Joaquin River? 15 MR. KEIR: Well, the natural hydrograph is obviously 16 what the fish evolved in or with. And so -- or the natural 17 hydrograph to be available which is problematic, the fish 18 would be able to emigrate and immigrate, the E and I, up 19 and down the river with the flows in which they evolved. 20 That's all I meant to say by that sentence. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, your reference to 22 salmon in this sentence is that in any way -- strike that. 23 Are you recommending that we only look at salmon 24 in determining the impacts of the San Joaquin River 25 Agreement as opposed to other fish species? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9831 1 MR. KEIR: I have made no such recommendation. I'm 2 just recognizing the fact that the Board itself created as 3 a standard, a narrative standard of the San Joaquin River 4 system, the doubling of fall-run chinook salmon. As a 5 fishery biologist I would prefer that the Board can look at 6 other important species as well and make sure that those 7 species are addressed in its water allocation decisions. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Let's assume that the standard 9 is the standard and it relates to salmon. Would you agree 10 that in examining the impacts of any particular proposal to 11 meet the salmon flow objective that the impact on other 12 fish species should be considered? 13 MR. KEIR: Yes. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: And to your knowledge are there 15 rainbow trout on the Stanislaus River? 16 MR. KEIR: I believe so. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there rainbow trout on the 18 Tuolumne River? 19 MR. KEIR: Yes. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there rainbow trout on the 21 Merced? 22 MR. KEIR: Yes, there are. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there rainbow trout above -- on 24 the San Joaquin confluence above the confluence of the 25 Merced and the San Joaquin? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9832 1 MR. KEIR: I'm sorry. Say that again. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there rainbow trout on the San 3 Joaquin River system above the confluence of the Merced and 4 the San Joaquin? 5 MR. KEIR: I think the habitat has been degraded 6 there and there may not be rainbow trout in the system, in 7 the San Joaquin River above the Merced River. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you consider the portion of the 9 San Joaquin River above Friant Dam as being part of the San 10 Joaquin River system? 11 MR. KEIR: Oh, I'm sorry. Certainly. Certainly. 12 And, yes, if I can I want to get into this here, there are 13 trout there on the San Joaquin River system. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. You don't know whether or not 15 there are trout in the main stem of the San Joaquin between 16 Friant and the confluence of the Merced and the San 17 Joaquin? 18 MR. KEIR: I do not. I think that is a warm water 19 fishery. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, let's take 21 steelhead. Are there steelhead in the Stanislaus River? 22 MR. KEIR: As far as I know, yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there steelhead in the Tuolumne 24 River? 25 MR. KEIR: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9833 1 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there steelhead in the Merced 2 River? 3 MR. KEIR: Yes. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Are there steelhead in the main stem 5 of the San Joaquin River between Friant and the confluence 6 of the Merced and the San Joaquin? 7 MR. KEIR: I don't know, but I doubt that steelhead 8 are found in the San Joaquin River between the Merced River 9 and the Friant Dam. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Do you know whether or 11 not there are steelhead on the San Joaquin River above 12 Friant? 13 MR. KEIR: I doubt that there would be. It's been a 14 long time since they've been able to get to that country. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: It wouldn't have been too hard in 16 February of 1997, would it? 17 MR. KEIR: For steelhead to get over Friant Dam? 18 MR. NOMELLINI: No. To get in the stretch between 19 Friant and the confluence. Let me change that -- 20 MR. KEIR: Let me just say this, that steelhead are 21 extraordinarily good swimmers and that when water is 22 available they are opportunistic in that they'll go where 23 water is available. And so any of these rivers, including 24 the San Joaquin River below Friant, could contain steelhead 25 when flows allow them to reach these river sections. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9834 1 MR. NOMELLINI: That's a better answer than could 2 have possibly have been given to my question. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini, how much time do you 4 expect -- 5 MR. NOMELLINI: I've got about 15 minutes. Maybe we 6 should take our break, if that's convenient. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yeah, let's take about a 12-minute 8 break. 9 (Recess taken from 10:26 a.m. to 10:40 a.m) 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Come back to order, please. 11 Continuing with the examination of Mr. Keir by 12 Mr. Nomellini. 13 Proceed. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 Mr. Keir, are San Joaquin River fall-run salmon 16 more important from a fishery biology standpoint than 17 Central Valley steelhead? 18 MR. KEIR: Well, fall-run chinook salmon are the 19 mainstay of the sport and commercial ocean fisheries, so 20 they're important socially. Your question was important 21 from a standpoint of fishery biology -- I'm not sure I 22 understand the question. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, would a fishery biologist have 24 a preference of one species over another? 25 MR. KEIR: Oh, fishery biologists love all aquatic CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9835 1 species. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Even mitten crabs? 3 MR. KEIR: They're delicious. 4 C.O. BROWN: That was good. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Are you aware that the National 6 Marine Fishery Service has adopted a final rule listing 7 Central Valley steelhead as a threatened species? 8 MR. KEIR: Well, I wasn't aware of where the rule 9 making had gotten to, but I was aware that the National 10 Marine Fishery Service had proposed a listing of steelhead 11 including those in the San Joaquin River system. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Let me hand you what I've 13 marked as Central Delta Agency 28. I mailed that to all 14 parties. I provided 20 to your Board this morning. I have 15 extra copies available. And I had requested in my letter 16 to the Board that you judiciously notice it since it was a 17 public document. 18 MR. KEIR: Yes, I recall reviewing this federal 19 register notice. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. And calling your 21 attention on federal register page 13347, the center column 22 under the word "action" -- or next to the word "action," it 23 says "Final Rule, Notice of Determination." See that, 24 Mr. Keir? 25 MR. KEIR: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9836 1 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Is this the listing rule 2 that you had in mind? 3 MR. KEIR: Yes. Yes, this is the National Marine 4 Fishery Service's determination to list, among other 5 things, Central Valley steelhead. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, calling your 7 attention, again, to federal register Page 13347, down 8 there at the bottom, near the bottom of the page it says, 9 (Reading): 10 "Juveniles rear in freshwater from one to four 11 years then migrate to the ocean as smolts." 12 Do you see that? 13 MR. KEIR: I do. 14 MR. NOMELLINI: In your opinion, do water conditions 15 have to be satisfactory in the areas below the dams on the 16 Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced in order to allow these 17 juveniles to rear for a sufficient period of time to 18 migrate back to the ocean? 19 MR. KEIR: Certainly. And those conditions would 20 include temperature conditions like those required by 21 juvenile chinook salmon. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: So concerns with regard to 23 temperature effects on salmon during the outmigration do 24 not take into account the temperature requirements for the 25 propagation of the juveniles of the species in the various CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9837 1 tributaries, do they? 2 MR. KEIR: I don't think it's quite that simple, 3 which is to say that the Board is considering a treatment 4 of water requirements for juvenile chinook salmon that 5 involves pulse flows, I gather, through a rather restricted 6 period of time. Those would not take care of the 7 temperature requirements of outmigrating chinook salmon 8 through the outmigration period. That was the nature of my 9 testimony. Nor, I suspect, would they adequately address 10 the water quality temperature requirements of juvenile 11 steelhead rearing in the tributary streams. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. To put it more simply, 13 then: Is it not true that a pulse flow for a 30-day period 14 from about the middle of April to the middle of May would 15 not in and of itself take care of temperature requirements 16 year-round in the various tributaries upstream of that 17 particular point? 18 MR. KEIR: I'd agree with that statement. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, calling your 20 attention again, to the same page, 13347 of the federal 21 register, that third column under the title, "Species 22 Background," and in particular where it's stated that, 23 (Reading): 24 "Resident forms are usually referred to as 25 rainbow or red band trout while anadromous life CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9838 1 forms are termed steelhead." 2 Do you see that? 3 MR. KEIR: I do. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: Do you agree with that statement? 5 MR. KEIR: That's correct so far as I know. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. On Page 3 of your 7 testimony in the second paragraph -- excuse me, second 8 paragraph from the bottom, I couldn't find my quote, it 9 says, 10 (Reading): 11 "It does not serve the restoration of these fish 12 to focus unduly on one river reach or one 13 narrow period of time." 14 Do you see that? 15 MR. KEIR: Yes. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: And if we're talking about fall-run 17 chinook is it your testimony that we have to look at each 18 of the tributaries that have fall-run chinook and look at 19 the entire period of time that's important to the 20 propagation of that species? 21 MR. KEIR: Certainly that would be my hope that the 22 Board would look at all the important species including 23 chinook salmon and steelhead and their requirements in this 24 system. But I was specifically speaking here to the 25 Board's narrative standard of doubling salmon and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9839 1 suggesting that it doesn't serve the Board well to focus on 2 one specific point in the river and one period of time that 3 is too narrow from a standpoint of juvenile chinook salmon 4 outmigration. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. If we had a condition 6 where we had a limited amount of water available to sustain 7 fall-run chinook and we made a release during the 30-day 8 pulse flow period that would result in there being less 9 water flowing in the tributaries of the San Joaquin in the 10 month, for example, June, could that be a detrimental 11 thing, a detrimental action to fall-run chinook? 12 MR. KEIR: Well, if I understand the question, you're 13 suggesting a pulse flow followed by a period of very low 14 flows, that is compared to the natural hydrograph, my 15 answer would have to be, yes, because June is a period in 16 which juvenile salmon are still outmigrating from the San 17 Joaquin River basin. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Would there still be some juveniles 19 rearing in the tributary during the month of June? And I'm 20 talking about fall-run chinook. 21 MR. KEIR: There could be depending upon the 22 conditions that prevail in any given year. Fish -- colder 23 temperatures means it takes longer for fish -- for the 24 eggs to hatch and the juveniles to emerge from the gravel. 25 So in a year, say, like 1997 where we had high water -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9840 1 higher water than normal you could well have juvenile 2 salmon in the tributary streams of the San Joaquin River 3 system as late as the month of June. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, is it true that with 5 regard to steelhead that there would be steelhead in the 6 tributaries during the month of June? 7 MR. KEIR: Absolutely. Steelhead will remain in the 8 tributaries of the San Joaquin River for a period of up to 9 three or four years before they outmigrate. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: So a reduction in flow during June on 11 a particular tributary might not adversely affect fall-run 12 chinook, but could adversely affect steelhead depending 13 upon which species was present at a particular location; is 14 that correct? 15 MR. KEIR: I'm sorry, could you do the first of that 16 sentence again? 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Yeah. A reduction in June flow in 18 one of the tributaries might not adversely impact fall-run 19 chinook, but would impact steelhead present in that 20 particular tributary at that time? 21 MR. KEIR: Yes, I believe that would be the case. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Other than conditions at 23 Vernalis -- and I'm talking about a flow condition at 24 Vernalis -- what conditions -- well, strike that. 25 Is water quality important to fall-run chinook CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9841 1 salmon? 2 MR. KEIR: Yeah. That's the entire purpose of my 3 testimony was to bring to the attention of the Board a 4 water quality problem that has to be resolved if their 5 narrative standard is going to be achieved. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Is temperature, in your 7 opinion, a water quality parameter? 8 MR. KEIR: It's not just my opinion, temperature is a 9 water quality parameter. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Are there other aspects 11 of water quality besides temperature that are important to 12 fall-run chinook salmon? 13 MR. KEIR: Sure. Dissolved oxygen is a problem for 14 fall-run chinook salmon when it's too low. Turbidity can 15 be nice, it gives small salmon something to hide in. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: How about salinity? 17 MR. KEIR: Well, salinity is a situation that Mother 18 Nature has dealt with successfully in creating fish that 19 can make the transition from fresh to saline water, and 20 these anadromous fish do that. It works best where there's 21 a gradual gradient that the fish can move through and 22 adjust from fresh to salt. 23 Also, salinity as we know determines the presence 24 or absence of small creatures like cope pods upon which 25 juvenile salmons feed during their outmigration. So if CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9842 1 salinity is too high and cope pods are absent, why, 2 juvenile salmon wouldn't be able to feed and grow strong on 3 their way to the estuary and the ocean. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Let's take a wild 5 hypothetical and let's assume that we have all the flow 6 that we want in the San Joaquin between Friant and the 7 confluence of the Merced and the San Joaquin, but that the 8 water quality is such that it might be 8,000 parts per 9 million total dissolved solids. 10 Would a migrating salmon have any problem passing 11 through the upstream of the confluence of the Merced under 12 those hypothetical conditions? 13 MR. KEIR: Are you talking about an adult salmon or a 14 juvenile salmon? 15 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm talking about an adult salmon 16 going upstream. 17 MR. KEIR: I don't know how an adult salmon would 18 deal with 8 parts per thousand salinity below Friant Dam 19 between Friant Dam and the Merced. It's just hard for me 20 to imagine that condition. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Now, with regard to 22 conditions of importance in the river system to the 23 outmigration of fall-run chinook smolts, we have a flow 24 condition at Vernalis, are there other points on the river 25 system where there is a concern about the adequacy of flow? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9843 1 And I'm talking about the San Joaquin River system. 2 MR. KEIR: Well, as I understand it there is no 3 adequate provision for flow for juvenile chinook salmon in 4 the reach between Friant Dam and the Merced River. From 5 there on down there are certainly flow requirements and 6 water quality requirements that in a perfect world would be 7 applied to assure the successful rearing and outmigration 8 of juvenile salmon from the tributary streams and the main 9 stem of the San Joaquin River. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: So isn't it true that if we're 11 concerned about fall-run chinook salmon outmigration that 12 we should be concerned not only with flow at Vernalis but 13 flow at the confluence of the Tuolumne and the San Joaquin 14 River, flow at the confluence of the Merced and the San 15 Joaquin and all other points through which those fish must 16 pass; is that a better statement? 17 MR. KEIR: That's correct. My testimony focused on 18 the standard at Vernalis, because the Board has that before 19 it for consideration and because the Board has adopted a 20 narrative standard of doubling chinook salmon in the basin. 21 And that's why my testimony was focused on Vernalis, but 22 your statement is correct. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. 24 Thank you. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. Is there CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9844 1 anyone else that I overlooked in compiling my list of 2 examiners? Anyone else? 3 Staff. 4 MS. LEIDIGH: No. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Board? 6 C.O. BROWN: No. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Koehler, are you going to do 8 redirect now or combined? 9 MS. KOEHLER: I'm going to do Betty and then Bill. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: I'm sorry? 11 MS. KOEHLER: I'm first going to do redirect for 12 Betty and then Bill. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right, but not wait for 14 Mr. Rosekrans on that? 15 MS. KOEHLER: No. I think since their testimony is 16 separate, and he hasn't given his direct, I'd like to free 17 them up. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, on the recross it would be 19 nice to have them all together. 20 MS. KOEHLER: I'm sorry, the recross of 21 Mr. Rosekrans? 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. There could be recross of 23 Mr. Rosekrans, too, which means we go through several 24 sessions more of recross-examination. 25 Mr. O'Laughlin. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9845 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The only problem with that is that 2 if we bring Mr. Rosekrans up now, is that if she asks him 3 questions and if we put him in cross, then we're going to 4 be limited to the questions that were asked rather than on 5 a more open basis where he's brought in for direct and then 6 cross. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yeah. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So I would -- 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: You have a good point. Okay. 10 Go ahead. 11 MS. KOEHLER: So am I correct in understanding that 12 we're going to finish with Ms. Andrews and with Mr. Keir 13 and then do Mr. Rosekrans wholly and separately? 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Does staff have any comments on 15 that? 16 MS. LEIDIGH: I think given the stage where we are, I 17 would recommend that we finish with these two witnesses and 18 let them go before we start with Mr. Rosekrans. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Fine. It's the opinion of the Board 20 Members also. 21 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Please, proceed. 23 // 24 // 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9846 1 ---oOo--- 2 REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO 3 BAY ASSOCIATION 4 BY CYNTHIA KOEHLER 5 MS. KOEHLER: Beginning with Ms. Andrews, Betty, do 6 you recall a series of questions about your qualifications 7 to provide the testimony that you have? 8 MS. ANDREWS: Yes, I do. 9 MS. KOEHLER: And has this line of questioning 10 changed your view as to whether you are qualified to give 11 the testimony you have regarding the importance of 12 mimicking the natural hydrograph in achieving one of the 13 goals of the -- as stated in the Environmental Draft 14 Report? 15 MS. ANDREWS: Not at all. 16 MS. KOEHLER: Can you tell the Board why, since you 17 do not have all the experience outlined in those questions, 18 you believe you are still qualified to give this testimony? 19 MS. ANDREWS: The questions were addressing a number 20 of areas that the Board does need to consider in making its 21 final determination and I understand that. My testimony 22 was very focused on one particular aspect of the decision 23 before you and that is in regard to the Board's stated goal 24 in implementing the 1995 plan. 25 A key goal being, quote, "to provide comprehensive CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9847 1 multi species protection for the public trust resources of 2 the Bay-Delta estuary," and my testimony was specifically 3 in regard to that aspect of the decision before you. 4 MS. KOEHLER: So is it your view that the Board 5 should give your testimony weight? 6 MS. ANDREWS: Certainly to the extent that the Board 7 intends to make ecosystem restoration, comprehensive multi 8 species protection a key goal of the plan that you 9 ultimately adopt, the means for implementing the plan. The 10 testimony that I provided, I believe, does merit being 11 given great weight in that regard. 12 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. And do you recall that you 13 were asked a series of questions regarding the other 14 impacts of alternative five and whether you analyzed those 15 in preparing your testimony? 16 MS. ANDREWS: Yes. There were quite a few questions 17 in that regard. And, again, not to diminish the issues 18 that might have been raised by those questions, but my 19 testimony was quite focused on this particular point of how 20 implementing the flow objective at Vernalis really had 21 implications for that larger goal of the Board in 22 addressing the ecosystem conditions on the San Joaquin 23 basin. 24 The key point that I think is easily lost in this 25 day in which we pretty much turn on the tap and the rivers CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9848 1 perform as we wish is the fact that in a natural system, in 2 the system in which all of the species involved evolved on 3 this river system, that there was a contribution from all 4 of these tributaries into the San Joaquin. 5 And I do have an illustrative graph that I think 6 might be beneficial for the Members to take a look at that 7 simply illustrates in an unimpaired condition how the 8 different tributaries in the upper San Joaquin really 9 contributed to creating that high flow regime in the spring 10 period at Vernalis that I'd like to be able to pass out if 11 I could. 12 MS. KOEHLER: We could use a little guidance here. I 13 have marked this as Save the Bay Exhibit 9. I'm not sure 14 it's appropriate to introduce it now. And if it's not 15 appropriate to move it as evidence when that time comes, we 16 won't. But we would like to be able to provide this to the 17 Board for purposes of illustrating Ms. Andrews' testimony 18 at this point. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: You may introduce it. 20 MS. ANDREWS: And I have to apologize, due to my 21 brain fog because of my cold I left my overheads in the 22 car, so I only have paper copies, for which I apologize. I 23 don't think what's on here is any great news to those in 24 the audience that are familiar with the river system. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can I ask that we get a copy of it CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9849 1 before she testifies? 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: We'll take a moment off the record 3 while the copies are distributed. 4 (Off the record from 11:07 a.m. to 11:08 a.m.) 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Back on the record. Just for the 6 record, everyone who -- there is now a noncolored 7 transparency made from the colored copies that were just 8 distributed. 9 MS. ANDREWS: Again, I apologize for the oversight. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: It's all right. That turned out 11 actually quite well. Thank you, Ms. Whitney. 12 MS. ANDREWS: What this graph demonstrates, and this 13 is really merely to illustrate the system as a whole, is 14 how the different watersheds really contribute to that peak 15 at Vernalis. On this graph, this line which I'm pointing 16 out here with a pointer, shows the estimated unimpaired 17 flow at Vernalis. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: For the "pointed out with a pointer" 19 wouldn't show up on the record. Say the solid black line 20 below the top of the shaded portion. 21 MS. ANDREWS: Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. 22 MS. KOEHLER: Since we do have colored copies, I 23 think it may be useful for the record to refer to the 24 colors, I think that would help the audience out to follow 25 along as well. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9850 1 MS. ANDREWS: Okay. At the very bottom there is a 2 blue hydrograph shown and that is the hydrograph coming out 3 of the upper San Joaquin. I believe that's estimated at 4 Friant. These are basically the unimpaired flow 5 hydrographs estimated at the terminal reservoirs, the 6 foothill reservoirs on these systems. 7 Above that is a red slice showing the flow coming 8 in out of the Merced River. Above that the Tuolumne in 9 yellow. And then above that in green is the contribution 10 from the Stanislaus system. And then for completeness, 11 even though it comes in below Vernalis, I added the 12 Mokelumne in pink at the top just to really show the 13 totality of how that system, the San Joaquin system 14 contributes to the inflow to the Bay-Delta estuary, or how 15 it would contribute in an undeveloped condition. 16 And really what we're talking about doing in these 17 standards is trying to salvage some portion of that 18 function and the way in which we recreate that flow at 19 Vernalis. Shown here up in the neighborhood of nearly, I 20 believe it's about 24,000 cfs, we're talking about 21 something much lower, of course, but really the fashion in 22 which the -- in the undeveloped system it was really 23 created by all the rivers flowing into that point. 24 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. You were also asked some 25 questions regarding your conclusion that meeting the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9851 1 narrative standard would -- I'm sorry. That meeting the 2 numeric standards would not necessarily meet the narrative 3 standard in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. 4 Do you recall those questions? 5 MS. ANDREWS: Yes, I do. 6 MS. KOEHLER: What is your understanding, if you have 7 one, of the relationship between the narrative standard in 8 the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan and the numeric 9 standards in that same plan? 10 MS. ANDREWS: My understanding is that they are 11 separate standards which do nonetheless have some 12 relationship. Some of the effort made towards meeting one 13 might contribute towards meeting the other, but that they 14 are to be, in fact, independent standards associated with 15 the plan. 16 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. You were also pressed on 17 several occasions to make specific recommendations to the 18 Board about whether you were opposing the San Joaquin River 19 Agreement, or whether you were advocating alternative five. 20 And you didn't -- you weren't really willing to give a 21 direct answer to those questions. 22 Can you explain your reluctance in that regard to 23 the Board? 24 MS. ANDREWS: I did testify this morning: My 25 testimony neither supports nor opposes alternative five. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9852 1 And this is really not an attempt to be disingenuous, but 2 really my goal in preparing the testimony for the Board was 3 to assist you in considering the very particular aspect of 4 implementing the flow objective at Vernalis that had to do 5 with your goal for comprehensive multi species restoration. 6 And the many alternatives that you have before you 7 are different approaches to reaching that. And I 8 understand that you have a lot of factors that you need to 9 weigh and consider in regard to choosing any particular 10 alternative. And my testimony was not prepared in support 11 of a single alternative or in opposition to any particular 12 alternative, but really was to provide some background 13 information to the Board to help you in choosing an 14 approach that helped you meet your stated goal in 15 implementing the plan. 16 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. Finally, you were asked a 17 set of questions regarding your recommendation to use the 18 60/20/20 index versus the unique existing flow trigger 19 that's proposed in the San Joaquin River Agreement. 20 MR. SEXTON: Argumentative. She's posing a question 21 saying "unique" when referring to the San Joaquin River 22 Agreement, that is argumentative. 23 MS. KOEHLER: I disagree that it's not argumentative. 24 It's precisely how Ms. Andrews has characterized the 25 existing flow trigger in the agreement. And in any event, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9853 1 my cross-examination is to Ms. Andrews and not to the 2 attorneys to the San Joaquin River Group. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: It's redirect, it's not 4 cross-examination, but anyway, I will permit the question. 5 MS. ANDREWS: I believe the question was: Do I 6 recall that line of questioning, yes, I do. 7 MS. KOEHLER: What is your understanding of the 8 import of those questions? 9 MS. ANDREWS: I don't know that the questions have 10 great import, to be honest. I believe the line of 11 questioning was attempting to show that the same parties 12 would be responsible for either the unimpaired 60/20/20 13 index as would be responsible for the existing condition 14 flow forecast under the agreement. In fact, the two 15 circumstances are quite different. 16 Under the DWR development of the 60/20/20 index 17 what they're doing is estimating unimpaired flow above the 18 terminal reservoirs. And, yes, operation of reservoirs on 19 those systems is important to calculating that estimated 20 unimpaired flow, but it is not -- it is not a large -- it 21 doesn't have a large influence on the outcome, but really 22 they're looking above the terminal reservoirs that have the 23 biggest influence on the downstream flows. 24 And, in fact, 20 percent of the index relates to 25 the prior year's index and has nothing to do with the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9854 1 reservoirs. Just to restate, the index is a forecast of 2 the sum of unimpaired flow at Stanislaus River flow to New 3 Melones Reservoir, Tuolumne River inflow to Don Pedro 4 Reservoir, Merced River flow to Exchequer, San Joaquin 5 River to -- the flow to Millerton Lake. 6 So that's a very different circumstance than 7 what's being discussed in terms of forecasting existing 8 flow conditions downstream of those reservoirs in which the 9 interested parties are being asked to say: If you didn't 10 know that the agreement existed and that the VAMP 11 experiment was going to be in place, what would you have 12 released? 13 And my testimony simply pointed out that that is 14 very, very difficult for someone with a very strong 15 self-interest to answer a question about what they would 16 have done in a circumstance they know will not exist. And 17 I think the part of the questioning that related to the 18 openness of the process may point out another approach that 19 the Board could take in dealing with this problem in terms 20 of the self-interest of the parties' bias go to their 21 existing flow forecast, simply in that to the extent that 22 an outside party, a disinterested third party, perhaps the 23 Board itself, perhaps some members of the interested public 24 could be looking over the shoulder of the signatories of 25 the, I believe it's called the -- I can't recall the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9855 1 specific name, the hydrology group that's described in the 2 San Joaquin River Agreement, to the extent that others are 3 looking over their development of the existing flow 4 forecast, those biases may be less able to creep in and 5 influence the flow targets that are set as a result. 6 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. Ms. Andrews, I'm noticing a 7 description of the 60/20/20 index you were reading from a 8 document. Do you want to identify that document just so 9 it's clear for the record? 10 MS. ANDREWS: I was simply reading from Footnote 17 11 for Table 3 from the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. 12 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. That now completes my 13 redirect of Ms. Andrews, and I'll now turn to Mr. Keir. 14 Bill, at the time that you prepared your testimony 15 for this proceeding, did you review the Draft Environmental 16 Impact Report prepared by the Board staff? 17 MR. KEIR: I did. 18 MS. KOEHLER: And did you at that time review all of 19 the alternatives that are discussed in that document? 20 MR. KEIR: I did. That's what I did back in 21 September before the deadline for submitting testimony. 22 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. And was your conclusions 23 regarding alternative five based on a comparison of all of 24 the alternatives with alternative five on the issue that 25 your testimony concerns itself? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9856 1 MR. KEIR: Right. I reviewed all the alternatives, 2 and as I testified, alternative five I thought came the 3 closest to providing the kind of flows necessary to 4 accomplish the Board's doubling objective narrative 5 standard. 6 MS. KOEHLER: And since your direct testimony in this 7 case and your cross-examination have you had a chance to 8 refresh your memory with regard to the alternatives set 9 forth in the Draft Environmental Impact Report? 10 MR. KEIR: Yeah, I got out the draft and went through 11 it again. 12 MS. KOEHLER: And do you now stand by your conclusion 13 as set forth in your prepared testimony that alternative 14 five is the most likely of the alternatives in the Draft 15 EIR to produce the greatest improvement in environmental 16 conditions to support the narrative objective in the 1995 17 Water Quality Control Plan? 18 MR. KEIR: Yes. I stand by my testimony. And I seem 19 to recall there was something in the Draft EIR that 20 indicated as much as well. 21 MS. KOEHLER: And can you explain further for the 22 Board why you do continue to stand by that testimony -- 23 I'm sorry, let me ask that question more clearly. 24 Can you describe why alternative five, in your 25 opinion, is superior for the reasons that you've discussed CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9857 1 in your testimony to the other alternatives in the Draft 2 Environmental Impact Report? 3 MR. KEIR: Well, specifically, alternative five comes 4 the closest to providing flow levels similar to those 5 recommended in the Anadromous Fishery Restoration Plan's 6 working papers. And those were the -- that's where I went 7 to see what the best scientific knowledge had suggested 8 were the flow requirements. 9 So alternative five of the several alternatives 10 came in closest to those working paper flows. And I 11 believe there's actually information in the Draft EIR that 12 suggests that they could -- that alternative five would 13 provide the highest salmon survival index. 14 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. That concludes my redirect. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Koehler, I beg your pardon? 16 MS. KOEHLER: I thought you were asking me a 17 question. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Who wishes to recross? 19 Mr. Nomellini, Mr. O'Laughlin. We'll make this easy, heads 20 is Mr. Nomellini, and it's heads. 21 ---oOo--- 22 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION 23 BY THE CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 24 BY DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI 25 MR. NOMELLINI: If this overhead is Save the Bay CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9858 1 Number 9, referring to Save the Bay Number 9 in terms of 2 mimicking the natural hydrograph in April, for example, is 3 it important to have more flow from the Tuolumne than from 4 the Stanislaus, Ms. Andrews? 5 MS. ANDREWS: I had a feeling that question was 6 coming my way. I don't think that it's possible to 7 conclude that based on the information that I've looked at 8 what the answer to that question is, because it would 9 really depend on the particular conditions within that 10 particular system. 11 This graph simply shows that under undeveloped 12 conditions, or unimpaired conditions more specifically, 13 what the relationship between flow contributions in those 14 basins would be. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. Then mimicking the natural 16 hydrograph as you have used the term does not necessarily 17 include maintaining proportionate flows in the various 18 tributaries as reflected under unimpaired conditions, is 19 that what your testimony is? 20 MS. ANDREWS: Not necessarily. Under undeveloped 21 conditions the contributions you would have seen in each of 22 these watersheds would have been a reflection of the 23 physical conditions there. So it would be quite likely 24 that if you typically had a higher contribution on the 25 Tuolumne than the Stanislaus in a given month, it would be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9859 1 reflective of a similar flooding condition on that 2 watershed typically occurring in that month. With the 3 changes in each of those basins it's less clear what the 4 relationship might be today. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it important to have a 6 contribution from each of the river systems in terms of 7 mimicking the natural hydrograph as you have used the 8 terms? 9 MS. ANDREWS: Well, the difficulty in saying what it 10 means to mimic the natural hydrograph is that there are a 11 lot of parts to the role played by the hydrograph. And the 12 thing which this graphic illustrates and which is probably 13 the simplest thing to understand is simply that if you've 14 got more flow going down more rivers, you have more river 15 miles that have an opportunity to be enhanced by that flow. 16 I mean that's just pure and simple, if we're going 17 to provide enhancement flows we get to affect more river 18 miles. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, you would 19 assume you get more enhancement out of that. 20 The other part of mimicking the natural hydrograph 21 is much more subtle in terms of what part is played on each 22 of these basins by these flows. But, in general, if you're 23 getting high flow conditions down multiple river systems, 24 there's that much more in the way of nutrient transfer, 25 sediment transport occurring on all of those systems CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9860 1 feeding into the central point down below at Vernalis. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: Is it important to have a peak in the 3 flow of each river system, for example, in May as reflected 4 in the natural hydrograph for unimpaired flow? 5 MS. ANDREWS: The timing of peak flow is typically 6 very important to key species in the ecosystem. And I 7 certainly would defer to Bill Keir in saying exactly which 8 particular species might depend on a main peak. 9 But certainly having that high springtime flow is 10 very important to particular life cycles of a variety of 11 species. I know it's important to salmonids. It's also 12 important to creating the disturbance at the time of the 13 year when vegetation can be established and maintained into 14 the summer. 15 If you had that same peak flow in wintertime, 16 probably you wouldn't get a whole lot of cottonwoods 17 reestablishing along those disturbed riverbanks, for 18 example. So the timing of that peak flow is typically very 19 important in the ecosystem function. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. One question for 21 Mr. Keir. 22 If I understood the redirect correct, is it your 23 testimony that alternative five looked like the alternative 24 that came closest to meeting the narrative standard because 25 it provided the greatest amount of flow? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9861 1 MR. KEIR: My testimony was that alternative five 2 came the closest to the flows set out in the AFRP working 3 paper and, therefore, came the closest to flows that would 4 accomplish the Board's narrative standard. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Then you did not make any 6 judgment from a water rights standpoint as to who should 7 provide the water to provide that greater amount of flow? 8 MR. KEIR: No, I didn't get into water rights in my 9 testimony. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: All right. Thank you. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 12 Mr. O'Laughlin. 13 ---oOo--- 14 RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION 15 BY THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 16 BY TIM O'LAUGHLIN 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Keir, would you be supportive of 18 alternative five if the flows took place and yet there was 19 more entrainment at the pumps due to the export pumps not 20 operating at a reduced amount as they would under the San 21 Joaquin River Agreement? 22 MR. KEIR: Could you restate the question, please? 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Sure. If entrainment at the export 24 pumps increased under alternative five, would you still 25 support alternative number five? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9862 1 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. It's not clear that -- I'm 2 not sure there's any foundation for the assumption that 3 entrainment would increase -- 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: It's a hypothetical. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think that even as a hypothetical 6 you need to lay a little foundation. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Then let's assume that 8 alternative five flows are in place, the Head of Old River 9 Barrier is not in place, the tidal barriers are not in 10 place, the export pumping ratio to San Joaquin River flows 11 as stated in the State Water Resources Control Board 1995 12 Water Quality Control Plan, which is a one-to-one ratio and 13 assume that entrainment increases at the pumps of 14 outmigrating fall-run chinook salmon from the San Joaquin 15 River basin, would you still be supportive of alternative 16 number five in that scenario? 17 MR. KEIR: My support for alternative number five had 18 to do with water quality issues at Vernalis. And I didn't 19 take into consideration what might happen at the Delta 20 pumps, that's another matter. I would hope that we would 21 be moderating withdrawals in the Delta in such a way that 22 would impact outmigrating juvenile chinook salmon the 23 least. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, alternative five, though, 25 doesn't have reduced exports like the San Joaquin River CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9863 1 Agreement during the outmigration period, in the 31-day 2 pulse flow; is that correct? 3 MR. KEIR: I don't know if that's correct. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, how can you make 5 recommendations as a biologist if you don't look at the 6 interrelationship of other factors that may affect 7 outmigrating salmon smolt and yet arrive at the conclusion 8 that alternative five is the best? 9 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. Mr. Keir has answered this 10 question several times. He's not here advocating that the 11 Board adopt alternative five. He is putting before the 12 Board a factor to consider in its decision about which 13 alternative to adopt. We've been down this road before, 14 the attempt to put words in Mr. Keir's mouth has finally 15 come to a point where I think we have to object. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: My problem is this: He keeps saying 18 that he wants alternative five and temperature. And he 19 wants alternative five because that most closely resembles 20 the working paper and he wants flows at 5,000 cfs and 21 above. And I find it very hard to swallow the concept that 22 as a biologist that he would look at one factor and not 23 consider other factors in regards to whether or not they 24 would lead to the doubling of salmon in the San Joaquin 25 River basin. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9864 1 MS. KOEHLER: Mr. O'Laughlin is making my point. 2 Mr. Keir is not recommending that the Board adopt 3 alternative five. He's recommended that this Board 4 consider this factor which he considers to be 5 extraordinarily important. And he's qualified -- qualified 6 to hold that opinion in the Board's consideration of which 7 alternative to adopt. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. I'll withdraw the question 9 and ask it another way. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So then what you're asking the Board 12 to do is not look at any other factors in regards to salmon 13 smolt survival in the San Joaquin River basin except the 14 relationship of flow and temperature at Vernalis; is that 15 correct? 16 MR. KEIR: No. My hope is that the Board would 17 address all the legitimate concerns as far as achieving 18 their narrative standard of doubling salmon production in 19 the San Joaquin basin. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Am I to understand that the exhibit 21 that was prepared is a three-page exhibit, Ms. Andrews, 22 Exhibit Number 9? 23 MS. KOEHLER: I don't believe it was. I mean there 24 were some other things that Ms. Andrews prepared. If you 25 received a stapled copy, that was in error. We only passed CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9865 1 out this top exhibit that was displayed. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, for clarification, we did 3 receive three papers stapled together. You suggest we 4 should just separate the first page and discard the other 5 two? 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That's what I want to know. 7 MS. KOEHLER: I believe so, because Ms. Andrews did 8 not testify as to the other two. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Good, that makes that easy. 10 MS. KOEHLER: Although we do believe that the other 11 pages were quite nicely done. 12 MS. ANDREWS: I believe they've been submitted in 13 other forms. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I want to talk to you a little bit 15 about the implementation of alternative five and this 16 forecasting issue, Ms. Andrews. 17 Why don't you describe for me what your 18 understanding would be of how the State Water Resources 19 Control Board would implement deciding what tributaries 20 would make what amount of water available if the Board did 21 choose to decide to choose alternative number five. 22 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. Unclear. Vague. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, I think that's understandable. 24 Does the witness understand the question? 25 MS. ANDREWS: I think so. As I understood the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9866 1 question, he was saying what method the Board would use to 2 determine the flow allocation from each tributary under 3 alternative five. 4 I defer here completely to the Draft EIR's 5 description of alternative five, and I believe that it 6 suggests that the contributions would be made relative to 7 the estimated unimpaired flow on each tributary. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, how would -- what's 9 your understanding of how the Board would determine the 10 tributaries' monthly average unimpaired flow? 11 MS. ANDREWS: The questions that you're asking are 12 very specifically related to implementation of alternative 13 five -- 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. 15 MS. ANDREWS: -- and I think those are very 16 legitimate questions. They were not part of my testimony 17 and they weren't part of what I considered in preparing it. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, but unfortunately on redirect 19 you made statements regarding the implementation and the 20 60/20/20 index and why alternative five would be better 21 than other alternatives. So I want to explore with you 22 since you have this vast knowledge of why alternative five 23 -- 24 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. Argumentative. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sustained. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9867 1 MS. KOEHLER: Objection, further, that the question 2 is improper. Ms. Andrews' redirect testimony about the 3 60/20/20 index had nothing to do with alternative five, it 4 had to do with the criticism of the existing flow proposal 5 embodied within the San Joaquin River Agreement. Those are 6 separate parts of her testimony. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: That's not correct. Her testimony 8 specifically went and stated that alternative five was the 9 superior alternative because of how alternative five would 10 be implemented vis-a-vis and how the San Joaquin River 11 Agreement would be implemented. 12 So I think it's only fair on redirect that I get a 13 chance to explore with her how she knows that -- what 14 would be used to implement alternative number five, what 15 existing hydrology would be used, who would provide it, how 16 it would be used and how it would be implemented versus the 17 San Joaquin River Agreement. 18 MS. KOEHLER: Mr. O'Laughlin has misconstrued Ms. 19 Andrews' testimony. And I will be happy to ask the Court 20 Reporter to read back my redirect on the 60/20/20 index, 21 which was limited entirely to the comparison of the use of 22 that index to the proposal in the San Joaquin River 23 Agreement to use the existing flow methodology developed by 24 the proponents of that agreement. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. And I think it's only fair CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9868 1 to point out that that criticism vis-a-vis her proposal on 2 alternative five. 3 MS. KOEHLER: It's got nothing to do with her 4 proposal -- with her testimony on number five. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: But I have to confess, I remember 6 that, the testimony on how it's inappropriate to have the 7 fox guarding the hen house, so to speak, things like that, 8 but I don't recall the link between the 60/20/20 index and 9 the point that you just raised, Mr. O'Laughlin, when you 10 just questioned. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, the point is, and I'll bring 12 it out on redirect is: Who's guarding the hen house under 13 alternative number five? And I want to get to that and see 14 what her understanding of how that plan would be 15 implemented vis-a-vis the hydrology, the base flows, the 16 required flows, the required flows by the various 17 tributaries. And I think based on what was happening on 18 redirect I'm entitled to do that. 19 MS. KOEHLER: I disagree. Ms. Andrews' direct and 20 her redirect testimony was very specifically and very 21 clearly delineated. She was making two separate points. 22 What Mr. O'Laughlin is trying to do here is bootstrap his 23 way into a completely -- you know, to an area of testimony 24 Ms. Andrews never touched simply because she testified on 25 two unrelated points. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9869 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: We're going to go off the record for 2 a minute. 3 (Off the record from 11:38 a.m. to 11:40 a.m.) 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Perhaps, Ms. Andrews could summarize 5 the scope of her redirect testimony and then the question 6 could be re-asked. 7 Did you have your redirect testimony on notes? 8 MS. ANDREWS: No, I did not. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: So that's a tough call, but you can 10 probably remember better than the rest of us. So -- 11 MS. ANDREWS: Yes. My redirect on the 60/20/20 index 12 was specifically focused on its relationship to the 13 existing flow forecast under the San Joaquin River 14 Agreement arrangement for VAMP and had absolutely no 15 relationship to the implementation of alternative five. 16 And, in fact, none of my testimony addresses 17 really the logistics of trying to implement something like 18 alternative five. And as I stated previously, my testimony 19 also does not advocate the adoption of alternative five. 20 So I believe Mr. O'Laughlin's characterization of it was 21 incorrect. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, what I'm getting at is this, 24 is on redirect what she just said now, that the existing 25 flow for the San Joaquin River Agreement and defining what CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9870 1 the existing flow is not a proper methodology. 2 I'm going to use, as an example on redirect, 3 alternative five from the State Water Resources Control 4 Board Draft EIR to bring forth how flows are being 5 determined under various alternatives and highlight that 6 vis-a-vis the existing flow from the San Joaquin River 7 Agreement which is proper grounds, I think, for 8 recross-examination. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: That's a little different than your 10 previous question I believe. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yeah, but that was a foundational 12 question, which we'll get to the point of how existing 13 flows are going to be determined in alternative five then 14 how the water is going to be split up. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Koehler. 16 MS. KOEHLER: My objection stands. Ms. Andrews is 17 making a fairly limited point that has to do specifically 18 with the proposal that the San Joaquin River Agreement 19 proponents make in that agreement. It's limited to the way 20 -- the very unique way in which that agreement would 21 purport to establish a trigger for the flow requirements. 22 It just has nothing to do with how the Board 23 would, you know, in its Draft EIR or otherwise do something 24 completely different in connection with these other 25 alternatives. There just isn't a comparison there. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9871 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can I raise one point and then I'll 2 be quiet? I think the point is being made, what they keep 3 saying is this is unique, defining this existing flow is 4 unique. That, you know, you can't have these people doing 5 these things. 6 And what I want to point out using alternative 7 five is how flow is determined in alternative five, how 8 existing conditions are determined in alternative five and 9 who's doing that to juxtapose that against how the San 10 Joaquin River Agreement does it in determining existing 11 flow under the agreement. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think that's a fair line of 13 inquiry. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you. 15 MS. KOEHLER: My objection is to this entire line of 16 inquiry and I'd like that to be clear, otherwise I'd have 17 to make that objection to every single one of his 18 questions. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Your objection is noted. It's on 20 the record and it stands. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, do you have the State 22 Water Resources Control Board Draft EIR in front of you? 23 MS. ANDREWS: All but except for a few pages. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On Page 229 they give a definition 25 of the flow alternative number five. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9872 1 MS. ANDREWS: Is the question: Do I agree with that? 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. Do you have it? 3 MS. ANDREWS: Yes, I do. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. All right. Now, what is your 5 understanding of how the tributaries' monthly average 6 unimpaired flow will be determined for the April/May pulse 7 flow period? 8 MS. ANDREWS: Well, the reference here is to "monthly 9 average unimpaired flow." There's no distinction there as 10 to whether that's over -- an average over a specific 11 historic time period, year type. I'm not quite sure what 12 the intention of the authors of this document were in 13 defining that. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Do you know under alternative 15 five who would make the determination of the tributaries' 16 monthly average unimpaired flow? 17 MS. ANDREWS: I don't know for certain, but that type 18 of calculation is typically developed by the California 19 Department of Water Resources and might be relied on here. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. In regards to alternative 21 five, would you agree that prior to making water available 22 in the San Joaquin River water has to be released ahead of 23 time in order to meet the Vernalis criteria starting on 24 April 15th? In other words, it takes water a little time 25 to travel downstream to get to Vernalis, right? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9873 1 MS. ANDREWS: I would agree with the latter part of 2 the question. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, is it your understanding 4 that there would have to be forecasting done to understand 5 what amount of base flow would occur in the river in order 6 to understand the contributions by the relative 7 tributaries? 8 MS. ANDREWS: Certainly. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Do you know who would do that 10 forecasting? 11 MS. ANDREWS: No, I do not. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, do you know how the 13 State Water Resources Control Board Draft EIR would 14 establish a flow in the -- base flow in the San Joaquin 15 River at Vernalis and then divide the remaining amount of 16 water between the tributaries for the San Joaquin River 17 basin? 18 MS. ANDREWS: That's a higher level of specificity 19 and implementation of alternative five than I considered in 20 my review of the document. I don't know if it's addressed 21 in there or not. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you know -- and I'm moving on to 23 a couple questions now, I'm done with that one. Do you 24 know if Natural Heritage Institute helped or participated 25 in the drafting of the San Joaquin River Agreement? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9874 1 MS. KOEHLER: Objection. We are now so far afield of 2 the redirect that I can't even see it anymore. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No. I'll provide a link-up, because 4 in her redirect she talked about having parties present to 5 overlook and monitor how the forecasting was done. And 6 what I want to link up is the fact that parties were given 7 an opportunity to participate on the technical committee 8 that would arrive at these determinations of existing flow. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think that would be better done on 10 your rebuttal, because I think it is pretty far outside the 11 scope of your redirect. I know what you're referring to 12 and I think you can probably refer to it in the record from 13 the previous direct testimony, not by this witness but by 14 other witnesses. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Ms. Andrews, in regards to your 16 qualifications -- well, strike that. 17 I have no further questions. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. Staff have any redirect 19 questions? 20 MS. LEIDIGH: No. 21 MR. HOWARD: No. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Board Members? All right. Hold the 23 exhibits until after Mr. Rosekrans, Ms. Koehler. 24 MS. KOEHLER: I'm sorry? 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: We'll hold your exhibits until after CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9875 1 you completion of your examination of Mr. Rosekrans. 2 MS. KOEHLER: If that's what the Board would like us 3 to do, that's what I was expecting, yes. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. 5 Mr. Jackson? 6 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Stubchaer, for purposes of 7 scheduling for the rest of the week, is it the case that 8 after Mr. Rosekrans testifies that we're through for the 9 week? 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: We have NHI to go and there's the 11 issue of the availability of -- I forget his name. 12 MS. KOEHLER: Mr. Fullerton. 13 MS. LEIDIGH: Mr. Fullerton. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Fullerton with his back problem. 15 Do we know, yet, if he'll be able to come tomorrow? 16 MR. ROBERTS: He's here today. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Oh, he is here today. Is he 18 prepared to testify today? 19 MR. ROBERTS: I don't know that, but I know his back 20 was good enough for him to be here in Sacramento today. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: He will appreciate you telling us 22 that. Will anyone be in touch with him over the lunch hour 23 so we will know of his availability? 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: I can look for him. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: But anyway, Mr. Jackson, his direct CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9876 1 and examination is left to complete the direct portion of 2 Phase II-A and then rebuttal. If we complete that today or 3 tomorrow then rebuttal would begin next week. 4 And before we break for lunch I also wanted to 5 announce that on the table outside is notice of additional 6 hearing dates, if you haven't picked this up yet -- is this 7 also on the web? 8 MR. HOWARD: Yes, it is. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: And the notice of appearances for 10 rebuttal that we determined last week by shuffling the 11 cards is also on the web, I saw that. So let's take a 12 lunch break until ten minutes of 1:00. 13 (Luncheon recess.) 14 ---oOo--- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9877 1 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999, 12:51 P.M. 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Good afternoon, we'll reconvene the 5 hearing. A point of clarification before we begin, 6 Mr. Rosekrans' direct, that is that I spoke with Mr. Thomas 7 the witness is available, but it looks like that they would 8 have to leave by 3:00 or 3:30 today. 9 And given Mr. Rosekrans' direct and cross, I think 10 it's highly unlikely that we'll get to NHI today so we will 11 do it tomorrow. It will probably be the only order of 12 business tomorrow other than order of procedure. Any 13 comments? 14 Okay. Ms. Koehler. 15 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. Since Mr. Rosekrans began 16 his testimony last time I understand that was all stricken, 17 so I'm going to ask him to summarize the testimony of the 18 text we submitted in response to this Board's request. And 19 I just want to make sure that's the way of order that 20 that's the way you want me to proceed. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: That's fine. And just to get it on 22 the record, the revised testimony has been distributed to 23 all the parties -- 24 MS. KOEHLER: Yes. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: -- per our goal of what was last CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9878 1 Wednesday? 2 MS. KOEHLER: Yes, per the Board's request to us we 3 submitted the narrative text that you asked Mr. Rosekrans 4 to prepare, it was sent to all of the parties on the most 5 recent version of the Bay-Delta service list and we 6 provided 20 copies to the Board as well. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Very good. Does that testimony get 8 a different number? 9 MS. KOEHLER: We marked that as Save the Bay Exhibit 10 Number 8, just to save confusion. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Very good. All right. 12 Good afternoon, Mr. Rosekrans, welcome back. 13 MR. ROSEKRANS: Thank you. 14 MS. KOEHLER: And I believe he has been sworn. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think you took the oath the last 16 time, did you not? 17 MR. ROSEKRANS: I was actually sworn last summer, I 18 believe. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Way back when, still holds, 20 same hearing. 21 ---oOo--- 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION 23 OF SPRECK ROSEKRANS 24 BY CYNTHIA KOEHLER 25 MS. KOEHLER: So, Spreck, why don't you just go ahead CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9879 1 and summarize your newly prepared narrative text and your 2 summary -- of your testimony 3 MR. ROSEKRANS: Sure. I'll do that. I supplied six 4 different graphs labeled Save the Bay Exhibits 7A, B, C, D, 5 E and F in support of the testimony already heard by Betty 6 Andrews and Bill Keir. 7 The first four graphs are entitled "Outflow 8 Comparison" and compare unimpaired flow data for both the 9 Sacramento basin and San Joaquin basin with projections 10 under current conditions. And the last two exhibits, 11 Exhibits 7E and 7F, compare the pulse flow targets under 12 various criteria. I will now put the overheads on the 13 screen and briefly describe their contents. 14 Is that okay? 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Maybe you could push it up a little 16 more toward the top of the screen. Okay. 17 MR. ROSEKRANS: Is it okay if I stand and speak from 18 here? 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Everyone hear Mr. Rosekrans? 20 THE AUDIENCE: Yes. 21 MR. ROSEKRANS: The top graph shows projected flows 22 for above normal years in the San Joaquin basin. There are 23 two graphs, one entitled "Unimpaired Flows," supplied by 24 the Department of Water Resources, and the other entitled 25 "VAMP-May Pulse," and in parentheses, "VAMPVERN.WK4" which CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9880 1 was provided to me by a consultant with the San Joaquin 2 River Group. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Rosekrans, Ms. Koehler, I'm not 4 sure we've identified the exhibits that were handed out, 5 has A at the bottom and this one does not. So -- 6 MR. ROSEKRANS: This has "A" at the top. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Maybe I shouldn't have asked you to 8 push it up to the top. 9 MS. KOEHLER: Mr. Chairman, Spreck prepared these 10 overheads for the testimony he thought he was going to give 11 several weeks ago and so these are labeled 7A through F. 12 What has been given to the Board, just for ease of 13 reference, we have labeled -- because that exhibit is now 14 labeled Exhibit 8, the graphs are referred to there 8A 15 through F, but they're exactly the same. They haven't 16 changed. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. My point is that as we 18 refer to the graphs, for the written record we need to 19 identify what's on the screen and this has been done. 20 MR. ROSEKRANS: The flows in the San Joaquin basin 21 here are averaged for all the above normal years. Above 22 normal years are defined by the hydrologic index which we 23 call the 60/20/20 index. Down below we have a similar set 24 of graphs, again unimpaired flows were provided by DWR. 25 And in this case the projected flows are shown by the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9881 1 reference to DWRSIM Study 549 New. And, again, then this 2 is for above normal years. 3 I will point out that an above normal year in the 4 Sacramento basin is slightly differently defined than an 5 above normal year in the San Joaquin River basin. If you 6 look at the list of historic year types you'll find that 7 they match in most cases, but can be slightly different. 8 In this case, we see a substantially flatter 9 hydrograph for the existing flow projection on the San 10 Joaquin side and a flow on the Sacramento side that more 11 exactly, or more closely, mimics the natural hydrograph. 12 I will now direct your attention to a similar 13 graph, Save the Bay Exhibit 8B. And note that the only 14 difference between this and the proceeding graph is that 15 this is for below normal years, slightly lower flows on all 16 occasions. It may not be apparent from immediately looking 17 at the graph, because the scale on the left-hand side in 18 terms of cubic-feet per second changes, but the point is 19 the same. We have more of the natural hydrograph remaining 20 in the Sacramento River basin than on the San Joaquin -- 21 in the San Joaquin basin. 22 Similarly, Exhibit 8C has the same data. It shows 23 it for dry years. Once again we have a much smaller 24 percentage of the unimpaired peak obtained with the VAMP 25 May pulse in the San Joaquin basin than we do with CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9882 1 projected outflow in the Sacramento basin. 2 And, finally, the last of this series is the same 3 data shown for the critical years, the driest of the five 4 year types. And this is Save the Bay Exhibit 8D and again 5 shows a very flat projected hydrograph on the San Joaquin 6 basin and still something of a winter pulse on the 7 Sacramento side although obviously far less than the 8 unimpaired values. 9 And I now turn to Save the Bay Exhibit 8E, which 10 shows projected flows and flow recommendations for the San 11 Joaquin River at Vernalis. And in this case only -- the 12 values are shown only for the month of May. And in the 13 case of the San Joaquin River Agreement flows -- assumes 14 that that flow pulse would be released in May. 15 The highest bars shown in the darkest black are 16 directly from the AFRP working paper. And take -- those 17 are the flow targets at Vernalis for salmon only. AFRP has 18 other higher targets for other species, but these are the 19 salmon values. 20 The Water Quality Control Plan has two different 21 values that -- and which one would be used would depend on 22 the X2 location in a particular year. And those are shown 23 by the dark gray bar which looks pretty black on this graph 24 and the medium gray bar. 25 Then the light gray bar shows the pulse flows CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9883 1 which would occur in May under the San Joaquin River 2 Agreement. And the white bar shows the flows that would 3 occur in May without implementation of the San Joaquin 4 River Agreement. And that assumes that the interim flow 5 -- interim flow agreement on the Stanislaus would be in 6 place and that instream flows on the Merced and Tuolumne 7 would govern operations on those rivers. 8 MS. KOEHLER: I was just asked to clarify a question 9 about this graph. The no implementation bar, does that 10 assume neither the upper nor lower bound of the Water 11 Quality Control Plan would be in place? 12 MR. ROSEKRANS: That's correct. It assumes that no 13 further action is taken with regard to the objective at 14 Vernalis. 15 MS. KOEHLER: Okay. Can you tell us what it does 16 assume about the water quality standards that would be in 17 place, would that be D-1485, for example, or do you not 18 know? 19 MR. ROSEKRANS: I don't know. 20 MS. KOEHLER: Okay. 21 MR. ROSEKRANS: I will make one other point about 22 this chart. The first three bars, the AFRP working paper 23 and the Water Quality Control Plan values are defined by 24 year type. They specify a certain number of cfs by year 25 type. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9884 1 The two -- the light gray and white bars which 2 show the -- what we call no implementation and the flows 3 underneath the San Joaquin River Agreement are an average 4 of a bunch of different years that have different flow 5 targets. 6 And, finally, Save the Bay Exhibit 8F shows the 7 same five projected flows and flow recommendations summary 8 for the month of May, but this time for dry years and for 9 critical years. And it's -- everything else is exactly 10 the same. 11 I do note that because of the relaxation criteria 12 in the San Joaquin River Agreement for critical years 13 there's a comparatively larger gap between the lower value 14 for the Water Quality Control Plan and the value that would 15 occur under VAMP. 16 MS. KOEHLER: I believe that concludes Mr. Rosekrans' 17 direct testimony. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Who wishes to cross-examine 19 Mr. Rosekrans? Mr. O'Laughlin. 20 C.O. BROWN: Is that it? 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: I may have guessed wrong, 22 Mr. Thomas. 23 Mr. O'Laughlin. 24 // 25 // CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9885 1 ---oOo--- 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION 3 BY THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY 4 BY TIM O'LAUGHLIN 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: In your testimony you've relied on 6 several models, one of them is the DWRSIM Study 549 New. 7 Can you describe for me the assumptions that are in that 8 model that were used for those modeling runs? 9 MR. ROSEKRANS: Study 549 New was done by the 10 Department of Water Resources at the request of CalFed. It 11 reflects a 1995 level of development, implementation of the 12 Water Quality Control Plan standards for the Sacramento 13 basin as well as the AFRP upstream and in-delta actions 14 specified by the November 20th, 1997, decision by the 15 Department of the Interior. 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And in regards to the DWR 17 model for unimpaired flow, can you describe for us the 18 assumptions that were used in that model? 19 MR. ROSEKRANS: I don't know that I can. I've been 20 to one or two workshops where that material has been 21 presented to me, but I simply summarized the data provided 22 to me by the Department of Water Resources. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Can you describe for me 24 finally the assumptions that were used in VAMPVERN.WK4? 25 MR. ROSEKRANS: First of all, that data is -- was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9886 1 provided to me in a Lotus spreadsheet. And it's my 2 understanding that it's the result of iterations between 3 two models that were used by a consultant for the San 4 Joaquin River Group. 5 And those two models are the STANDMOD spreadsheet, 6 which has been used to evaluate flow criteria on the 7 Stanislaus River and the SANJASM Model which is a four tran 8 model similar to DWRSIM only used for the San Joaquin 9 basin. It's a standard node link model. 10 And that Mr. Steiner -- Mr. Steiner is the 11 consultant for the San Joaquin River Group that provided me 12 with this data. And that the flow targets at Vernalis were 13 set forth in accordance with the criteria in the San 14 Joaquin River Agreement that we've I think heard described 15 several times. 16 Mr. O'Laughlin, do you want me to describe to the 17 best of my ability the flow criteria for the San Joaquin 18 River Agreement? 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: No, that's already in the record, 20 that's fine. Thanks. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: I just have a question, 22 Mr. O'Laughlin, was that iteration or interpellation 23 between the two? 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: Iteration. I think -- let me, if I 25 can, get this right. When you run the SANJASM Model, the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9887 1 SANJASM Model has certain assumptions for the operation of 2 the Stanislaus. And the operation of the Stanislaus -- the 3 operational criteria for the Stanislaus cannot be easily 4 implemented into the SANJASM Model. 5 So I believe what Mr. Steiner did was run the 6 SANJASM Model, then change the flows on the Stanislaus 7 according to the STANDMOD spreadsheet. Then he re-ran the 8 SANJASM Model, and every time he does that it gets closer 9 and closer where he doesn't have to change very much. And 10 I truthfully don't recall how many iterations or where it 11 came to stop, but it seemed to be a plausible explanation 12 to me. 13 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 14 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On the third page of your testimony 15 you state under Footnote 3, 16 (Reading): 17 "It's my understanding that the data provided to 18 me are not exactly the same as the data provided 19 to the Board by the San Joaquin River Group's 20 consultants but are very similar." 21 When did you receive your information from 22 Mr. Steiner? 23 MR. ROSEKRANS: I don't recall. I'm guessing about a 24 year ago. It was -- I used it for comments about the San 25 Joaquin River Agreement in a letter to former Interior CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9888 1 Secretary Garamendi. I also used the same data in my 2 presentation in Phase II before this Board last summer. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. But you are aware of 4 different modeling runs that Mr. Steiner has made since the 5 time that he gave you this data; is that correct? 6 MR. ROSEKRANS: I did ask Mr. Steiner that question 7 at some point and his response was that something different 8 had been submitted to the Board but it was, in fact, very 9 similar. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Did you ever go back and 11 compare the information provided by the San Joaquin River 12 Group Authority through Mr. Steiner's testimony in Phase II 13 with the modeling that you were presented with 14 VAMPVERN.4K4? 15 MR. ROSEKRANS: I believe that I did. I seem to 16 recall downloading some data off the State Water Resources 17 Control Board web page and comparing that to the other data 18 Mr. Steiner had provided me and there did seem to be some 19 minor differences. I didn't know what the results were, 20 but it did seem to not materially affect any conclusion 21 that I might draw about the San Joaquin River Agreement. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. In regards to the modeling 23 that was done for the unimpaired flow for the San Joaquin 24 River, do you know where the unimpaired flow for the San 25 Joaquin River was being measured for those unimpaired runs, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9889 1 or how it was being arrived at? 2 MR. ROSEKRANS: Yeah. It would be incorrect to say 3 that unimpaired flow is measured. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. 5 MR. ROSEKRANS: There are obviously measurements in 6 place of stream flows and then I believe the different 7 projects were sort of backed out of these calculations. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So would that be inflow into the 9 tributary reservoirs? I'm familiar with the Stanislaus, 10 why don't we use that. 11 Does the modeling then take the numbers of the 12 inflow into New Melones and then calculate what that amount 13 of water -- what that amount of water would show up at 14 Vernalis? 15 MR. ROSEKRANS: Yes. The Vernalis flow is the sum of 16 the New Melones unimpaired flow, Exchequer unimpaired flow, 17 upper San Joaquin unimpaired flow, Merced unimpaired flow 18 and some other rivers, the Chowchilla, I believe, plus a 19 turn for the valley floor also some of it is described as 20 net accretions. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Does the unimpaired flow 22 shown on your Exhibit A include or exclude inflow above -- 23 on the San Joaquin River above Merced? 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: It includes it. 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: All the way up to Friant and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9890 1 Millerton? 2 MR. ROSEKRANS: Beyond, up to the Sierra crest is my 3 understanding. That's what unimpaired flow is. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, when DWR does this, in looking 5 at these calculations can you describe for me the 6 measurement error that would occur in any given reservoir 7 in describing the total amount of total inflow in a day to 8 that reservoir? 9 MR. ROSEKRANS: No. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now, do you have an idea how 11 the DWR modeled loses or gains in the main stem of the San 12 Joaquin River below Friant to Vernalis in their unimpaired 13 flow model? 14 MR. ROSEKRANS: No, I don't. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: On Page 1 of your testimony on the 16 second full paragraph I was confused about a point. It 17 says, 18 (Reading): 19 "The four graphs depicting the Sacramento River 20 system compared unimpaired flows with the flows 21 that are provided under current state and 22 federal water project operations." 23 When I looked at the label, is it your 24 understanding, then, that the 1995 Water Quality Control 25 Plan has been applied to only the federal and state CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9891 1 projects on the Sacramento River and not to the nonfederal 2 projects on the Sacramento River? 3 MR. ROSEKRANS: With respect to major flow releases, 4 yes. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So when we look at the graph 6 on Exhibit A we would not know whether or not the Yuba 7 River, what its contribution would be under the 1995 Water 8 Quality Control Plan DWRSIM Study 549 New; is that correct? 9 MR. ROSEKRANS: The flow from the Yuba River is 10 certainly included in that flow, because it's part of the 11 Sacramento basin. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Let me ask it another way: When I 13 look at 1995 Water Quality Control Plan DWRSIM Study 549 14 New, does it assume that the Yuba is operating under the 15 plan, or does it assume that the Yuba is operating under 16 current permits and license conditions? 17 MR. ROSEKRANS: It's my understanding that the Yuba 18 River project has no obligation to release water underneath 19 the plan. And, therefore, the two -- the two either/ors 20 that you gave me are the same. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When you look at the two river 22 systems, can you describe on a gross hydrologic basis the 23 difference in flow quantities between the Sacramento River 24 and the San Joaquin River? 25 MR. ROSEKRANS: The Sacramento River is a whole lot CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9892 1 wetter, maybe three or four times as much water overall. 2 It also has lower elevation runoff, tends to peak in the 3 winter whereas the San Joaquin tends to peak in the spring. 4 This is all under natural conditions. 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Can you put up exhibit -- do 6 you have the overheads still? 7 MR. ROSEKRANS: Yeah. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Exhibit A, please. Do you have a 9 pointer with you, Spreck? 10 MR. ROSEKRANS: Somebody has supplied me with a 11 pointer. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. On the top graph you have 13 unimpaired DWR flow and then you have the VAMP flow set 14 forth. Now, when you got the computer runs for 15 VAMPVERN.WK4, was that a run for the entire year, or was 16 that only a run for the May pulse flow period? 17 MR. ROSEKRANS: It was a run for the whole year. The 18 STANDMOD and the SANJASM models both provide data for the 19 whole year. Even though the target is May, the whole year 20 has got to be included so we know what the reservoir 21 carryover storage is and a number of other factors. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Do you know if in the VAMP 23 May pulse in the modeling that was done, whether it assumed 24 X2 was in or out? 25 MR. ROSEKRANS: I don't know whether Mr. Steiner CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9893 1 included any of the X2 criteria in his modeling. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Looking at Exhibit A it 3 appears that there's a little dot somewhat above 5,000 cfs 4 for the month of May. Do you see that on Exhibit A? 5 MR. ROSEKRANS: I do. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And that's on the top graph. 7 I'm going to read to you -- are you familiar with the 1995 8 Water Quality Control Plan? 9 MR. ROSEKRANS: Yes. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. I'm going to read to you for 11 the April 15th to May 15th pulse flow for an above normal 12 year it says that, 13 (Reading): 14 "The flow would be 5700 to 7,000, 7,020." 15 Can you point that out where that would be on the 16 graph that you set forth on Exhibit A? 17 MR. ROSEKRANS: Let's see here, can I go up to the 18 screen? 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yeah, do whatever you want. You 20 project pretty well. 21 MR. ROSEKRANS: I'm not too good with the pointer 22 here. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: So here's May and here is the 25 projection under VAMP which appears to be between 6,000 and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9894 1 7,000. And you're telling me the Water Quality Control 2 Plan is between -- 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 5730 and 7,020. 4 MR. ROSEKRANS: So one is slightly above this point 5 and one is slightly above. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Why don't we put up Exhibit 7 Number B, now, please. One of the questions I had -- I'm 8 assuming one of the difficulties in making this 9 presentation given the very great difference in flows on 10 the Sacramento and San Joaquin River was arriving at a 11 proper scale; is that correct? 12 MR. ROSEKRANS: The reason, perhaps -- well, no. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Why don't I ask another 14 question: Why is it you depicted two scales differently 15 for the San Joaquin River basin and the Sacramento River 16 basin? 17 MR. ROSEKRANS: My spreadsheet does that for me. And 18 if I don't need to change it, I normally don't. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Would you agree with me, 20 however, that if you were to take a similar scale for the 21 San Joaquin River basin and apply it to the Sacramento 22 River basin that those charts would look entirely 23 different? 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: They would be conveying the same 25 information, and I think that it would be harder to extract CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9895 1 that information. The purpose of that -- using all the 2 available space is so you can easily see the difference 3 between the two charts. The purpose here is to compare 4 projected versus unimpaired flows in the two different 5 basins, not to actually compare the basins themselves. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Did you try to breakdown the 7 differences in percentages between unimpaired flows and 8 flows that would be provided under the 1995 Water Quality 9 Control Plan for each river system? 10 MR. ROSEKRANS: I did not. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And the reason why is looking 12 at -- let's look at Exhibit B on the bottom one, the 13 Sacramento River basin right there. 14 I lined up the April periods and it appears that 15 in -- it might be a little bit difficult, that there's 16 about 47,500 cfs in the Sacramento River on unimpaired 17 flow. And then with the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan 18 there appears to be about 17,500 cfs ballpark, is that 19 about right? 20 MR. ROSEKRANS: Yes. 21 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. That's a difference of 30,000 22 cfs; is that correct? 23 MR. ROSEKRANS: That's correct. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, let's go up on the 25 Sacramento -- on the San Joaquin River. We have about -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9896 1 pretty close, let's call it 15,000 cfs in April. 2 MR. ROSEKRANS: Okay. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And then it appears that 4 we're about down to 3,000 in April. That's about a 5 difference of 12,000 cfs; is that correct? 6 MR. ROSEKRANS: That's correct. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: My question is: Are we truly 8 comparing apples to apples, or are we comparing apples and 9 oranges given the wide variation in the Sacramento River 10 system and the San Joaquin River system? 11 MR. ROSEKRANS: I think the comparison is valid and 12 it could be the subject of a lengthy discussion. I will 13 note, again, that the San Joaquin -- that the Sacramento 14 River is a winter peaking system, tends to have its highest 15 flows during rainy periods; whereas the San Joaquin often 16 has its highest flows in May. 17 We've seen that the highest projected flows are in 18 May. It doesn't for every year, but that's generally when 19 the San Joaquin River peaks. But I think that the graphs 20 do speak for themselves, with a little help from me I 21 guess, in saying that the Sacramento basin does have more 22 of the natural hydrologic shape than the San Joaquin basin 23 does. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Well, let's explore that a little 25 bit. Do you know in looking at that graph right there CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9897 1 that's on the bottom, the Sacramento River basin, comparing 2 unimpaired flow with the Water Quality Control Plan -- and 3 let's pick a month like February, February is a good month. 4 We've got unimpaired flows of about 45. And we've 5 got Water Quality Control Plan flows of 45,000 cfs. Do you 6 know if, in fact, the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan calls 7 for flows of 35,000 cfs on the Sacramento River? 8 MR. ROSEKRANS: I know for a fact that it doesn't. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Right. Now, my other question is: 10 Do you know in looking at that graph whether or not the 11 releases that make up, or the amount of flow that is set 12 forth as 1995 Water Quality Control Plan DWRSIM Study 549 13 New, are those releases from storage, or -- well, do you 14 know how much -- let me rephrase that. 15 Do you know how much of that is being released 16 from storage at either Shasta, Oroville or Folsom? 17 MR. ROSEKRANS: No. That data is available, but I 18 did not include it in the graph here. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: So you wouldn't know what impacts 20 that releases would have on storage in the Sacramento 21 River, that water could all come down from downstream 22 tributary flows on Battle Creek, Butte Creek, Deer Creek, 23 Middle Creek and all the rest of them, right? 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: Well, not all of it could, because 25 there are instream flow criteria in place below the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9898 1 reservoirs that you mentioned. But I did not evaluate how 2 much of these were reservoir releases in this graph. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You're a mathematician, aren't 4 you -- 5 MR. ROSEKRANS: I have a degree in math. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes, I remember that from your 7 review. I did some quick calculations and we did this 8 during the lunch break. And if you want you can probably 9 sit down and take a break. 10 Can you describe for us -- and I want to get to 11 percentages. You looked at this in total amounts of flow 12 and I'd like to look at it in percentages. 13 Can you describe the percentage of the Water 14 Quality Control Plan flows to the unimpaired flows in April 15 for both the Sacramento and the San Joaquin River? 16 Basically, what I did, Spreck, just to give you a 17 heads up. I looked at it and I figured that the San 18 Joaquin River is about 3 to 15, and the Sacramento River is 19 about 17 to 47. And they're both about 30 percent. 20 Would you agree with that on a percentage basis? 21 MR. ROSEKRANS: I'm sorry. We're talking about the 22 below normal chart before me? 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yeah, I think that's the one. 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: Below normal years? 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9899 1 MR. ROSEKRANS: And on an annual basis the total 2 volume of water? 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Just for April. 4 MR. ROSEKRANS: Just for April, I'm sorry, simpler 5 question. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Simpler question. 7 MR. ROSEKRANS: Simpler question. April, I think the 8 Sacramento is a little bit higher, but they're not that far 9 apart. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And that would probably be 11 the same percentage-wise with a little bit of a greater 12 difference for May as well; is that correct? May is 13 roughly 25 percent on the San Joaquin River and it's 14 roughly about 30 percent on the Sacramento River? 15 MR. ROSEKRANS: Well, the Sacramento it looks like 15 16 out of 38. And that's considerably above -- 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. 18 MR. ROSEKRANS: -- the 30 percent. That's probably 19 closer to 40 percent. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And now in these below normal 21 years -- 22 MR. ROSEKRANS: And on the -- 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I'm sorry. Go ahead. 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: On the San Joaquin basin it looks 25 like it's below 25 percent. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9900 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now I notice that on both these 2 charts that the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan and the 3 VAMP May pulse both have more water in the rivers in 4 August, September and October; is that correct? 5 MR. ROSEKRANS: Yes, I noticed that, too. 6 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And since we're on below normal 7 years, on the San Joaquin River the criteria is for 4,620 8 cfs, or 5,480 cfs. 9 If you have your pointer, or if you want to get up 10 and point to where those would be on your chart. 11 MR. ROSEKRANS: Is that here? 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yep, 4800 in -- 4654. 13 MR. ROSEKRANS: okay. So that's just below and just 14 above what's on the chart there. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Thank you very much. When 16 you -- I'm now turning to what is Exhibit E of your 17 testimony. When you did AFRP working paper, denoted under 18 that is "salmon only," do you see that? 19 MR. ROSEKRANS: I don't see it, but I remember it. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Do you have a copy? 21 MR. ROSEKRANS: I see it now. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Can you tell us how it is 23 that you -- did you -- within the working paper did they 24 have a flow for salmonids only? 25 MR. ROSEKRANS: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9901 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So you didn't include other 2 flows in these months in the May pulse flow period for the 3 above normal or below normal for other anadromous fish that 4 maybe had flow requirements under the working paper; is 5 that correct? 6 MR. ROSEKRANS: That's correct. The working paper 7 has a table of flow targets at Vernalis and it's got 8 several footnotes to it. And Footnote D, or whatever -- I 9 can get it out, I have it with me if you would like -- says 10 these flows include flows for, I believe, it's American 11 shad and green sturgeon, flows for salmon would be 12 such-and-such. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Why don't we take a second, 14 we're not -- I'm the only one and we're going to be done 15 early anyway and NHI is gone. 16 Can you pull that table out for me? 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Thomas is behind you. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Oh, he's still here? 19 MR. ROSEKRANS: And the data is in both Volumes I and 20 III. So depending on what you ask I may go through either 21 of the volumes. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I'm only interested on the 23 AFRP working paper, salmon only. The tables that you used 24 -- I'm assuming this is all at Vernalis, correct? 25 MR. ROSEKRANS: Yes. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9902 1 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Okay. And then what table 2 are you looking at in the working paper? 3 MR. ROSEKRANS: Let's see, the table does not have a 4 number. It's -- well, it doesn't say table number 5 such-and-such. It's under Number 3 on Page 1-4 -- Roman 6 4-50 in Volume I. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Say that again? 8 MR. ROSEKRANS: Under Lower San Joaquin River. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: 1- what? 10 MR. ROSEKRANS: Roman 4-50 and it's under number 11 three, "Implement the Vernalis Flow Schedule." 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. Now looking at that chart, 13 does that include just salmonids only or does it include 14 other anadromous fish as well? 15 MR. ROSEKRANS: The chart can't be -- the table of 16 values is part of Section 3, which includes footnotes. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. 18 MR. ROSEKRANS: The table itself includes other 19 species of fish. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. So how is it that you 21 extracted from that to get down to the salmonid flow only? 22 MR. ROSEKRANS: Footnote D. 23 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And what does Footnote D say? 24 MR. ROSEKRANS: It says in part, 25 (Reading): CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9903 1 "Flows needed for salmon in May are 18,600 cfs 2 in wet years; 13,700 cfs in above normal years; 3 10,200 cfs in below normal years; 7,400 cfs in 4 dry years; and 5,200 cfs in critical years." 5 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Okay. And so based on that footnote 6 and the table then you arrived at the numbers to put into 7 your charts for both E and F? 8 MR. ROSEKRANS: That's right. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, when you used the San Joaquin 10 River flows May pulse how is it -- or let me ask it a 11 different way. 12 Do you know if the modeling that was done put the 13 pulse flows all into May or all into April, or did the 14 models split the flows between April and May? 15 MR. ROSEKRANS: Mr. Steiner did two different runs, 16 one for a pulse flow in April, one for a pulse flow in May. 17 The character of these water models tends to be that they 18 use -- move a month's worth of water at a single time. 19 The DWRSIM Model has been modified to make special 20 account for a pulse flow period that would occur between 21 April 15th and May 15th, but Mr. Steiner handled that by 22 doing two different runs: One assuming the pulse flow in 23 April, one assuming the pulse flow in May. 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Thank you very much. I have no 25 further questions. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9904 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. O'Laughlin. 2 Staff have any questions? 3 Mr. Howard. 4 ---oOo--- 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION 6 BY STAFF 7 MR. HOWARD: I just had a quick question regarding -- 8 or a couple quick questions, perhaps, regarding your 9 Exhibits E and F. I'm just trying to clarify what these 10 bars actually represent. 11 It appears to me under Water Quality Control Plan 12 upper bound and lower bound what they represent are the 13 actual flow standards in the 1995 Water Quality Control 14 Plan at the two different X2 locations; is that true? 15 MR. ROSEKRANS: I'm sorry. X2 locations -- yes. 16 Yes. Yes, they are. 17 MR. HOWARD: But it appears to me that the San 18 Joaquin River Agreement flows are actually predicted flows 19 after application of the flow targets, not the flow targets 20 themselves; is that correct? 21 MR. ROSEKRANS: That's correct. And that's why I 22 labeled the chart "Projected Flows and Flow 23 Recommendations." The flow recommendation is -- would 24 character -- the flow recommendations are what I would 25 characterize the Water Quality Control Plan numbers as the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9905 1 San Joaquin River Agreement flows are projected flows. 2 MR. HOWARD: All right. Of course the projected 3 flows for the Water Quality Control Plan would be higher if 4 you have plotted projected flows for the Water Quality 5 Control Plan they'd be higher than these actual flows 6 because occasionally their standards are met without -- 7 MR. ROSEKRANS: That is a good point and I really 8 should have thought about that when I prepared my 9 testimony. That the -- yeah, the projected flows under 10 the Water Quality Control Plan would, in fact, be higher 11 and would exacerbate the vertical difference between those 12 bars. 13 MR. HOWARD: Yes, that would be my observation. 14 Thank you. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you Mr. Howard. 16 Board Members? 17 C.O. BROWN: I don't have any. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Any redirect? 19 MS. KOEHLER: I have no redirect. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. Exhibits? 21 MS. KOEHLER: We move that Save the Bay Exhibits 1 22 through 9 be moved into evidence. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: The numbers check, Ms. Whitney? 24 MS. WHITNEY: Yes. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objections to receiving -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9906 1 MR. GODWIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Arthur Godwin for 2 the Turlock Irrigation District and San Joaquin River 3 Group, I'm going to object to the introduction of Exhibit 4 Number 6, which is labeled "A Memorandum from George 5 Guinee. " 6 MS. KOEHLER: Mr. Stubchaer, I think -- 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just a moment while I get it out, 8 please. All right. This is the memo from Roger Guinee, is 9 that the exhibit? 10 MR. GODWIN: Yes. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. What's the basis for the 12 objection? 13 MR. GODWIN: If I may, the basis for the objection is 14 that first of all none of Ms. Koehler's witnesses have 15 testified about this memorandum. None of her witnesses 16 have even talked about the implementation of the CVPIA, 17 Section 3406(b)2. 18 None of her witnesses have even laid a foundation 19 for the introduction of this exhibit, nor have any of the 20 witnesses even authenticated the document. And, 21 furthermore, I think the whole issue of implementation of 22 CVPIA 3406(b)2 is irrelevant to this proceeding, this phase 23 and other phase of the Bay-Delta proceeding. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Ms. Koehler? 25 MS. KOEHLER: I can probably deal with this real CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9907 1 quickly. This was submitted in September when we thought 2 that, in fact, Mr. Keir was going to deal with the subject 3 matter in that exhibit. And then he decided not to provide 4 for reasons. 5 And so I'm actually happy to withdraw Exhibit 6 6 from our formal submittal we made. We reserve our right to 7 introduce it again on rebuttal if that's appropriate. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: All right. Well, that's easy, 9 Mr. Godwin. 10 MR. GODWIN: Okay. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: With the exception to Exhibit Number 12 6, is there any other objections? Hearing none, they are 13 accepted. 14 MS. KOEHLER: Thank you. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: And Mr. Nomellini. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: I would offer Central Delta Water 17 Agency Exhibit 28. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Any objection to receiving this into 19 the record? Hearing none, it is accepted. 20 That leaves -- I think that concludes business 21 for today. Staff have any announcement to the Chair that 22 they forgot about? 23 MS. LEIDIGH: No. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. We'll reconvene tomorrow at 25 9:00 a.m. and have the testimony of the National Heritage CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9908 1 Institute followed by the cross-examination. 2 We're adjourned for today. Thank you. 3 (The proceedings concluded at 1:44 p.m.) 4 ---oOo--- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9909 1 REPORTER'S_CERTIFICATE __________ ___________ 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 5 I, MARY R. GALLAGHER, certify that I was the 6 Official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 7 and that as such reporter I reported in verbatim shorthand 8 writing those proceedings; that I thereafter caused my 9 shorthand writing to be reduced to typewriting, and the 10 pages numbered 9791 through 9909 herein constitute a 11 complete, true and correct record of the proceedings. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this 13 certificate at Sacramento, California, on this 24th day of 14 February, 1999. 15 16 ________________________________ MARY R. GALLAGHER, CSR #10749 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 9910