STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC HEARING 1998 BAY-DELTA WATER RIGHTS HEARING HELD AT: BONDERSON BUILDING 901 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999 9:00 A.M. Reported by: ESTHER F. WIATRE CSR NO. 1564 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS: 2 JAMES STUBCHAER, COHEARING OFFICER 3 JOHN W. BROWN, COHEARING OFFICER MARY JANE FORSTER 4 MARC DEL PIERO 5 STAFF MEMBERS: 6 WALTER PETTIT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VICTORIA WHITNEY, CHIEF BAY-DELTA UNIT 7 THOMAS HOWARD, SUPERVISING ENGINEER 8 COUNSEL: 9 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, CHIEF COUNSEL BARBARA LEIDIGH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PRINCETON CODORA GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 3 FROST, DRUP & ATLAS 134 West Sycamore Street 4 Willows, California 95988 BY: J. MARK ATLAS, ESQ. 5 JOINT WATER DISTRICTS: 6 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON: 7 P.O. BOX 1679 Oroville, California 95965 8 BY: WILLIAM H. BABER III, ESQ. 9 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE: 10 ROBERT J. BAIOCCHI P.O. Box 357 11 Quincy, California 12 BELLA VISTA WATER DISTRICT: 13 BRUCE L. BELTON, ESQ. 2525 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 14 Redding, California 96001 15 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT: 16 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 17 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, ESQ. 18 and AMELIA MINABERRIGARAI, ESQ. 19 THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 20 GARY 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 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: 3 ROBERTA BORGONOVO 2480 Union Street 4 San Francisco, California 94123 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: 6 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 2800 Cottage Way, Room E1712 7 Sacramento, California 95825 BY: ALF W. BRANDT, ESQ. 8 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER AGENCIES: 9 BYRON M. BUCK 10 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705 Sacramento, California 95814 11 RANCHO MURIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: 12 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 13 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 14 BY: VIRGINIA A. CAHILL, ESQ. 15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: 16 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 1300 I Street, Suite 1101 17 Sacramento, California 95814 BY: MATTHEW CAMPBELL, ESQ. 18 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: 19 HAMILTON CANDEE, ESQ. 20 71 Stevenson Street San Francisco, California 94105 21 ARVIN-EDISON WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, et al.: 22 DOOLEY HERR & WILLIAMS 23 3500 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite C Visalia, California 93291 24 BY: DANIEL M. DOOLEY, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 3 LESLIE A. DUNSWORTH, ESQ. 6201 S Street 4 Sacramento, California 95817 5 SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 BRAY, GEIGER, RUDQUIST & NUSS 311 East Main Street, 4th Floor 7 Stockton, California 95202 BY: STEVEN P. EMRICK, ESQ. 8 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: 9 EBMUD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 10 375 Eleventh Street Oakland, California 94623 11 BY: FRED S. ETHERIDGE, ESQ. 12 GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY: 13 ARTHUR FEINSTEIN 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G 14 Berkeley, California 94702 15 CONAWAY CONSERVANCY GROUP: 16 UREMOVIC & FELGER P.O. Box 5654 17 Fresno, California 93755 BY: WARREN P. FELGER, ESQ. 18 THOMES CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION: 19 THOMES CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 20 P.O. Box 2365 Flournoy, California 96029 21 BY: LOIS FLYNNE 22 COURT APPOINTED REPS OF WESTLANDS WD AREA 1, et al.: 23 LAW OFFICES OF SMILAND & KHACHIGIAN 601 West Fifth Street, Seventh Floor 24 Los Angeles, California 90075 BY: CHRISTOPHER G. FOSTER, ESQ. 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94102 BY: DONN W. FURMAN, ESQ. 5 CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DANIEL F. GALLERY, ESQ. 7 926 J Street, Suite 505 Sacramento, California 95814 8 BOSTON RANCH COMPANY, et al.: 9 J.B. BOSWELL COMPANY 10 101 West Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91103 11 BY: EDWARD G. GIERMANN 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY, et al.: 13 GRIFFTH, MASUDA & GODWIN 517 East Olive Street 14 Turlock, California 95381 BY: ARTHUR F. GODWIN, ESQ. 15 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION: 16 RICHARD GOLB 17 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 Sacramento, California 95814 18 PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 20 400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 21 BY: JANET GOLDSMITH, ESQ. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: 23 DANIEL SUYEYASU, ESQ. and 24 THOMAS J. GRAFF, ESQ. 5655 College Avenue, Suite 304 25 Oakland, California 94618 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: 3 SIMON GRANVILLE P.O. Box 846 4 San Andreas, California 95249 5 CHOWCHILLA WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 GREEN, GREEN & RIGBY P.O. Box 1019 7 Madera, California 93639 BY: DENSLOW GREEN, ESQ. 8 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION: 9 DAVID J. GUY, ESQ. 10 2300 River Plaza Drive Sacramento, California 95833 11 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: 12 MORRISON & FORESTER 13 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94303 14 BY: KEVIN T. HAROFF, ESQ. 15 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE: 16 ALAN N. HARVEY P.O. Box 777 17 Shasta Lake, California 96019 18 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS: 19 MICHAEL G. HEATON, ESQ. 926 J Street 20 Sacramento, California 95814 21 GORRILL LAND COMPANY: 22 GORRILL LAND COMPANY P.O. Box 427 23 Durham, California 95938 BY: DON HEFFREN 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY: 3 JOHN HERRICK, ESQ. 3031 West March Lane, Suite 332 East 4 Stockton, California 95267 5 COUNTY OF GLENN: 6 NORMAN Y. HERRING 525 West Sycamore Street 7 Willows, California 95988 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES: 9 MICHAEL B. JACKSON, ESQ. 1020 Twelfth Street, Suite 400 10 Sacramento, California 95814 11 DEER CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: 12 JULIE KELLY P.O. Box 307 13 Vina, California 96092 14 DELTA TRIBUTARY AGENCIES COMMITTEE: 15 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT P.O. Box 4060 16 Modesto, California 95352 BY: BILL KETSCHER 17 SAVE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION: 18 SAVE THE BAY 19 1736 Franklin Street Oakland, California 94612 20 BY: CYNTHIA L. KOEHLER, ESQ. 21 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED LANDOWNERS: 22 BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVANCY P.O. Box 606 23 Manton, California 96059 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 BUTTE SINK WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION, et al.: 3 MARTHA H. LENNIHAN, ESQ. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 4 Sacramento, California 95814 5 CITY OF YUBA CITY: 6 WILLIAM P. LEWIS 1201 Civic Center Drive 7 Yuba City 95993 8 BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 9 BARTKEWICZ, KRONICK & SHANAHAN 1011 22nd Street, Suite 100 10 Sacramento, California 95816 BY: ALAN B. LILLY, ESQ. 11 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT: 12 BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON 13 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 325 Walnut Creek, California 94596 14 BY: ROBERT B. MADDOW, ESQ. 15 GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT: 16 DON MARCIOCHI 22759 South Mercey Springs Road 17 Los Banos, California 93635 18 SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY: 19 FLANNIGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS 3351 North M Street, Suite 100 20 Merced, California 95344 BY: MICHAEL L. MASON, ESQ. 21 STONY CREEK BUSINESS AND LAND OWNERS COALITION: 22 R.W. MCCOMAS 23 4150 County Road K Orland, California 95963 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY: 3 TUOLUMNE UTILITIES DISTRICT P.O. Box 3728 4 Sonora, California 95730 BY: TIM MCCULLOUGH 5 DELANO-EARLIMART IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 6 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 7 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95965 8 BY: JEFFREY A. MEITH, ESQ. 9 HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: 10 BRADLEY S. MILLER 1550 California Street, Suite 6 11 San Francisco, California 94109 12 CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 14 Oroville, California 95965 BY: PAUL R. MINASIAN, ESQ. 15 EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY: 16 DE CUIR & SOMACH 17 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 18 BY: DONALD B. MOONEY, ESQ. 19 GLENN COUNTY FARM BUREAU: 20 STEVE MORA 501 Walker Street 21 Orland, California 95963 22 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 23 JOEL MOSKOWITZ P.O. Box 4060 24 Modesto, California 95352 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 3 RICHARD H. MOSS, ESQ. P.O. Box 7442 4 San Francisco, California 94120 5 CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, et al.: 6 NOMELLINI, GRILLI & MCDANIEL P.O. Box 1461 7 Stockton, California 95201 BY: DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, ESQ. 8 and DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI, JR., ESQ. 9 TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE UNIT: 10 MICHAEL NORDSTROM 11 1100 Whitney Avenue Corcoran, California 93212 12 AKIN RANCH, et al.: 13 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER 14 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 15 BY: KEVIN M. O'BRIEN, ESQ. 16 OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 17 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS 870 Manzanita Court, Suite B 18 Chico, California 95926 BY: TIM O'LAUGHLIN, ESQ. 19 SIERRA CLUB: 20 JENNA OLSEN 21 85 Second Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, California 94105 22 YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 23 LYNNEL POLLOCK 24 625 Court Street Woodland, California 95695 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 PATRICK PORGANS AND ASSOCIATES: 3 PATRICK PORGANS P.O. Box 60940 4 Sacramento, California 95860 5 BROADVIEW WATER DISTRICT, et al.: 6 DIANE RATHMANN 7 FRIENDS OF THE RIVER: 8 BETSY REIFSNIDER 128 J Street, 2nd Floor 9 Sacramento, California 95814 10 MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 11 FLANAGAN, MASON, ROBBINS & GNASS P.O. Box 2067 12 Merced, California 95344 BY: KENNETH M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 13 CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 14 REID W. ROBERTS, ESQ. 15 311 East Main Street, Suite 202 Stockton, California 95202 16 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: 17 JAMES F. ROBERTS 18 P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, California 90054 19 SACRAMENTO AREA WATER FORUM: 20 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 21 980 9th Street, 10th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 22 BY: JOSEPH ROBINSON, ESQ. 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TUOLUMNE RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST: 3 NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 4 San Francisco, California 94194 BY: RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, ESQ. 5 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES: 6 DAVID SANDINO, ESQ. 7 CATHY CROTHERS, 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 Capitol 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 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION: 3 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON P.O. Box 1679 4 Oroville, California 95965 BY: M. ANTHONY SOARES, ESQ. 5 GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 6 DE CUIR & SOMACH 7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, California 95814 8 BY: STUART L. SOMACH, ESQ. 9 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 10 JAMES F. SORENSEN CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER, INC. 209 South Locust Street 11 Visalia, California 93279 BY: JAMES F. SORENSEN 12 PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 13 MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEITH, SOARES & SEXTON 14 P.O. Box 1679 Oroville, California 95695 15 BY: WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, ESQ. 16 COUNTY OF COLUSA: 17 DONALD F. STANTON, ESQ. 1213 Market Street 18 Colusa, California 95932 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY: 20 COUNTY OF TRINITY - NATURAL RESOURCES P.O. Box 156 21 Hayfork, California 96041 BY: TOM STOKELY 22 CITY OF REDDING: 23 JEFFERY J. SWANSON, ESQ. 24 2515 Park Marina Drive, Suite 102 Redding, California 96001 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 REPRESENTATIVES 2 TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 3 TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2 Sutter Street, Suite D 4 Red Bluff, California 96080 BY: ERNEST E. WHITE 5 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS: 6 BEST BEST & KREIGER 7 P.O. Box 1028 Riverside, California 92502 8 BY: ERIC GARNER, ESQ. 9 COUNTY OF TEHAMA, et al.: 10 COUNTY OF TEHAMA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: P.O. Box 250 11 Red Bluff, California 96080 BY: CHARLES H. WILLARD 12 MOUNTAIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: 13 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS 14 P.O. Box 667 San Andreas, California 95249 15 JACKSON VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT: 16 HENRY WILLY 17 6755 Lake Amador Drive Ione, California 95640 18 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.: 19 HERUM, CRABTREE, DYER, ZOLEZZI & TERPSTRA 20 2291 West March Lane, S.B.100 Stockton, California 95207 21 BY: JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI, ESQ. 22 ---oOo--- 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 RESUMPTION OF HEARING: 10644 4 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY: CHARLES HANSON 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION: BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 10644 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION: BY MR. JACKSON 10651 7 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 10681 BY MR. HERRICK 10690 8 BY MR. NOMELLINI 10705 BY BOARD MEMBERS 10723 9 10 ---oOo--- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 1 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 2 FEBRUARY 24, 1999 3 ---oOo--- 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will reconvene the Bay-Delta Water 5 Rights Hearing. 6 Mr. O'Laughlin. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I would like to call Dr. Charles 8 Hanson. 9 ---oOo--- 10 DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY REBUTTAL 12 BY MR. O'LAUGHLIN 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Morning, Mr. Hanson. 14 DR. HANSON: Morning. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: You've been sworn, is that correct? 16 DR. HANSON: I have been sworn. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Your Curriculum Vitae has previously 18 been admitted to the record; is that correct? 19 DR. HANSON: Yes, that's correct. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Dr. Hanson, will the San Joaquin River 21 Agreement and the VAMP alone double the natural production 22 of chinook salmon? 23 DR. HANSON: No, it won't. The VAMP program will 24 provide an incremental benefit to the survival of juvenile 25 salmon emigrating from the San Joaquin River as well as for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10644 1 other Delta fish. But alone it will not double anadromous 2 fish. 3 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: When putting together the San Joaquin 4 River Agreement and the VAMP, was it done in the context and 5 understanding that there were other programs that were 6 ongoing both on the federal level and the state level to 7 double the natural production of chinook salmon? 8 DR. HANSON: It was. During the development of VAMP, 9 we had a number of technical meetings that included 10 participants who were actively involved in the preparation 11 of those plans. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you -- you have prepared written 13 testimony for the Board here today; is that correct? 14 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And it has been marked as San Joaquin 16 River Group Authority Exhibit 32; is that correct? 17 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Can you briefly summarize the other 19 ongoing programs, both on the federal and state level, that 20 are set forth in your testimony that will go to the doubling 21 of the natural production of chinook salmon. 22 DR. HANSON: I will summarize those programs. They 23 include a variety of different programs that are designed to 24 provide benefits to the habitat, improve survival, reduce 25 mortality of various species of anadromous fish. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10645 1 They include the Central Valley Project Improvement 2 Act, know as the CVPIA, which addresses CVP related fishery 3 issues. 4 It includes as part of CVPIA the Anadromous Fish 5 Restoration Program, referred to as AFRP, which identifies 6 upstream and within Delta fisheries actions, including VAMP 7 as one of the AFRP actions. 8 It included consideration of the San Joaquin River 9 Management Program, also known as SJRMP, or "shrimp," which 10 includes coordination of activities on the San Joaquin River 11 drainage. 12 The Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement, 13 which is also referred as the Four-Pumps Agreement, an 14 agreement which was reached in 1986 between the Department 15 of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game to 16 provide for mitigation of direct losses associated with 17 state water project operations, direct entrainment at the 18 state facility, which includes a variety of actions 19 implemented to mitigate and offset those direct entrainment 20 losses. 21 There is also the CalFed Comprehensive Monitoring 22 Research and Assessment Program, referred CMRAP, which is a 23 program designed to monitor, scientifically evaluate, 24 collect data and evaluate the performance of various 25 restoration activities within the Delta. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10646 1 There is also the Tracy Fish Agreement, which is an 2 agreement between the California Department of Fish and Game 3 and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation regarding mitigation for 4 direct fisheries losses associated with operation of the 5 Tracy pumping facility. 6 There is the Commercial Salmon Stamp Program, which 7 provides for habitat restoration activity and a variety of 8 other activities, primarily focusing on chinook salmon. 9 There is the Sacramento River Refuge, also known as SB 10 1086 Program, which deals with Upper Sacramento River 11 riparian issues and stream corridor. 12 There is the CalFed Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan, 13 also known as the ERPP, which deals with a long-term, 14 multifaceted planning effort to improve habitat conditions 15 within the Bay-Delta system. 16 As part of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, there is the 17 Category III Program, which established the funding 18 mechanism for dealing with nonflow-related habitat 19 improvement measures to be implemented within the Bay-Delta 20 system. Such things as fish ladders, fish screens and 21 other habitat restoration programs. 22 These are some of the programs that we considered in 23 the context of developing the VAMP program. We wanted VAMP 24 to be compatible with these other state and federal 25 activities. We wanted the incremental increase in survival, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10647 1 that we thought would be attributable to VAMP, to be 2 additive and synergistic with the other programs and to 3 coordinate on a technical level as well as on a planning 4 level with the development of the VAMP program in context 5 with these other ongoing activities. 6 Together those activities all will benefit the 7 anadromous fish as well as the resident fist inhabiting the 8 Delta. These various programs have been described in a 9 variety of documents, technical reports which have been 10 prepared and submitted for peer review as part of planning 11 efforts. Those have been identified as part of the 12 testimony, or at least examples of many reports and 13 documents have been identified, as well as a tremendous 14 infusion of state, federal and private funding which has 15 also come into the Bay-Delta system since about the 1990s, 16 specifically designed to provide for the funding mechanism 17 to implement many of the habitat measures, to implement many 18 of the actions to improve fish passage, to reduce mortality 19 and other activities. Much of that funding has been 20 summarized as part of the testimony within SJRGA Exhibit 21 number 75. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Very briefly and in response to some 23 of the statements you made in your summary, if we were to 24 turn to your reports, SJRGA Exhibits 33 through SJRGA 25 Exhibit 88, those are the reports that you are relying upon CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10648 1 to support your summary that is included within your 2 narrative description; is that correct? 3 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Now, in regards to funding, SJRGA has 5 some funding summaries that you pulled down from various 6 sites that are set forth in your narrative. One is from the 7 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. One was from the CalFed 8 Bay-Delta website, and the last one was from the California 9 Water Plan Update Bulletin, and you took out specific pages 10 to just describe as an example the funding that is going on 11 in the state for various projects? 12 DR. HANSON: To illustrate the types of projects being 13 funded, the magnitude of funding that is being applied to 14 the restoration activities. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Will the San Joaquin River Agreement 16 in connection with all these other programs that are ongoing 17 guarantee that we double the natural production of chinook 18 salmon? 19 DR. HANSON: I've been a fisheries biologist too long 20 to guarantee the success of any of these programs. We feel 21 confident that these programs represent the best available 22 scientific information that we currently have available. 23 They represent major improvements from historical 24 conditions. We have every reason to believe that they will 25 significantly contribute to improved conditions within the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10649 1 Bay-Delta system for both anadromous as well as resident 2 fish. We cannot guarantee their success, however. 3 Part of our program, for example, the CMRAP and some of 4 the other monitoring programs, are specifically designed and 5 intended to provide the kind of biological monitoring 6 information that is necessary to evaluate the performance of 7 these programs since they are implemented to evaluate their 8 effectiveness in achieving that goal and as part of an 9 underlying adaptive management approach to provide 10 information that helps us refine, modify and improve the 11 program over the decades that it will be implemented. 12 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I have no further questions of Dr. 13 Hanson. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 15 Who wishes to cross-examine Dr. Hanson? 16 Mr. Birmingham, Mr. Nomellini, Mr. Jackson and Mr. 17 Herrick. 18 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Stubchaer, I have a 10:00 meeting. 19 It looks like you are going to be done by the time I get 20 back. Could I ask to go out of order and go first? 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: You want to go first? 22 MR. JACKSON: Sure. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: That is unusual. 24 Any objection to Mr. Jackson going first? 25 MEMBER FORSTER: Mr. Herrick might be slighted. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10650 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, I was going to invite you 2 to cut the cards, since you thought things were strange last 3 time. 4 You trust us to just shuffle them here? 5 MR. HERRICK: Certainly. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: After Mr. Jackson it will be Mr. 7 Birmingham, Mr. Herrick and Mr. Nomellini. 8 Morning, Mr. Jackson. 9 MR. JACKSON: Morning, sir. 10 ---oOo--- 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 12 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY REBUTTAL 13 BY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 14 BY MR. JACKSON 15 MR. JACKSON: Michael Jackson representing Regional 16 Council of Rural Counties. 17 Dr. Hanson, your testimony is essentially an overview 18 of the programs that are going on to take care of problems 19 in the regard to aquatic habitat in the Bay-Delta ecosystem? 20 DR. HANSON: That is correct; it is an overview. 21 MR. JACKSON: Do you -- I am going to read you 22 something from the EIR, the Draft EIR, that the Board 23 prepared for this hearing, and ask you whether you agree 24 that these are the main factors that cause significant 25 impacts to the estuary. It is from Page VI-20 in the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10651 1 Board's EIR, Reduced Delta Outflow. 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. We went through this 3 yesterday. The scope of this testimony was extremely 4 narrow. It's basically a very broad policy overview of the 5 programs that are ongoing in the state to double the 6 natural production of anadromous fish. 7 Mr. Hanson provided absolutely no testimony on any 8 particular facet of what would be needed in regards to the 9 doubling of anadromous fish, whether it's flow, entrainment, 10 pollution or ocean harbor. I object to the questions being 11 outside the scope of rebuttal. 12 I spent a lot of time last night making sure that I 13 crafted this testimony pretty narrowly so we didn't go off 14 on these sideshows like we did the other day. 15 MR. GARNER: I would join that objection because his 16 testimony was very narrow. 17 MR. JACKSON: First of all, Mr. Stubchaer, the 18 statement is not policy because he's here as a witness 19 subject to cross-examination. If they want to make it a 20 policy statement, they can do that. I didn't understand it 21 to be a policy statement. 22 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I agree with that, Mr. Jackson, I 23 misspoke. Basically, it is an overview of policies that are 24 in effect within the programs that are in effect within the 25 state to double anadromous fish. This is not being offered CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10652 1 as a policy statement. It is being offered as an 2 evidentiary statement. 3 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Stubchaer, the problem with this 4 policy statement is that it hangs out there. There is no 5 way to tell these policies are going to advance the cause of 6 doubling the salmonids according to the design of the 7 policies unless one asks which of these policies deals with 8 the identified problems. 9 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The witness has already testified that 10 none of these programs will, in and of themselves, double 11 anadromous fish, nor will he guarantee that any of these 12 programs will double anadromous fish. Then, I'd object that 13 it's been asked and answered. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 15 MR. NOMELLINI: Under cross-examination, he should be 16 able to pursue the reasoning behind the statement. The 17 testimony was that they should further it, but there 18 couldn't be a guarantee of absolute doubling. There has to 19 be some scope of cross-examination that is permissible of 20 this witness on this very broad topic. They brought up 21 every one of these plans. 22 I am not sure that I want to go into every one of 23 them. But they come forward with the Vernalis Adaptive 24 Management Plan, the CVPIA and all of those. And to the 25 extent that this man has testified that that relates to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10653 1 doubling of salmon, that we should be able to pursue the 2 reasoning and the validity of that conclusion. True, he 3 qualified it. He is just trying to tell us he thinks it is 4 going to do the job, but he can't guarantee it. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson, would you repeat the 6 question? 7 MR. JACKSON: The question was: Mr. Hanson, I am going 8 to ask you whether you agree with the identification of the 9 main factors that cause significant impacts to the estuary 10 from the Board's EIR at Page VI-20, and then I am going to 11 ask you some questions about these programs as they relate 12 to these problems identified. 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The scope of the rebuttal was really 14 limited to the natural production of chinook salmon. It 15 didn't address all the other issues that are brought up in 16 the State Water Resources Control Board Draft EIR. If Mr. 17 Jackson is going to limit it to that line of questioning, I 18 have no problem with the cross-examination. 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson, in this case, we do have 20 the written rebuttal testimony to guide us on the scope of 21 the rebuttal. 22 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And it's broad as anything 23 I've ever seen. It deals with every program that the State 24 of California and federal government are involved, as 25 identified here, in the 40 percent of California that is CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10654 1 within the Bay-Delta watershed. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: We are going to go off the record for 3 a moment. 4 (Discussion held off the record.) 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson, there is no reference we 6 can see in the rebuttal testimony to the EIR. The Board 7 prepared it. 8 MR. JACKSON: There certainly isn't, sir. Which is one 9 of my problems with this. It doesn't seem to relate to this 10 issue. But, basically, I am using the EIR only to give Dr. 11 Hanson something to respond to in regard to how these 12 various programs that he's indicated somewhat supplement the 13 VAMP affect these issues. I am only using the EIR only for 14 a moment to get his agreement that these are the issues. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will permit questioning on the 16 aspects of the rebuttal testimony, and you can probe into 17 the various measures that are mentioned in the rebuttal 18 testimony. Please don't go into the EIR since it is not 19 mentioned in the rebuttal testimony. 20 MR. JACKSON: All right. 21 Mr. Hanson, you have indicated that the VAMP is 22 intended to contribute an incremental increase in juvenile 23 chinook salmon smolt survival. 24 What do you mean by "incremental"? 25 DR. HANSON: The incremental increase refers to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10655 1 desired improvement in survival of San Joaquin River chinook 2 salmon as they migrate down through the Delta as influenced 3 by San Joaquin River flow and state and federal water 4 project exports. 5 If you look at the experimental design for the VAMP 6 program, it specifies different flow and exporters 7 conditions which we feel will benefit and form in terms of 8 improving salmon survival over what would have occurred 9 under historical conditions. 10 MR. JACKSON: What historical conditions are you 11 talking about? Unimpaired flows or two years ago? 12 DR. HANSON: Just the recent period. We were basing 13 our experimental design largely on the previous salmon smolt 14 survival studies that Dr. Kjelson and the U.S. Fish and 15 Wildlife Service had conducted on the San Joaquin River, 16 primarily during the late '80s and early 1990s. 17 MR. JACKSON: You identified two subset flow and 18 exports? 19 DR. HANSON: That's correct. 20 MR. JACKSON: Let me deal with the question of flow. 21 Is it your opinion that the flow in the VAMP experiment 22 during the pulse flow is higher than it would be under the 23 Water Quality Control Plan as adopted in 1995? 24 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I've got to object again. There was 25 no testimony -- all Dr. Hanson testified to was that the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10656 1 VAMP program was to provide an incremental benefit to 2 out-migrating chinook salmon, and that was the end of the 3 discussion. There was no talk about flow. There has been 4 no discussion about temperatures. There has been no 5 discussion about entrainment or anything else in regards to 6 the out-migrating salmon. 7 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson. 8 MR. JACKSON: I would respond that the words 9 "incremental increase of juvenile chinook salmon smolt 10 survival" are in the first paragraph of his testimony. I 11 asked him what he meant by incremental improvement, and he 12 talked about exports and flows. Now I would like to follow 13 up on his answer. Because otherwise it is going to be 14 completely impossible to understand what he means by 15 incremental flow. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Do you intend to do this with each of 17 the measures included in the rebuttal testimony? 18 MR. JACKSON: I certainly do. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I guess you are not going to make your 20 10:00 appointment. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: You may proceed, Mr. Jackson, but we 22 would request that you be concise and as brief as possible. 23 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. 24 Given the nature of the testimony, however, it will not 25 be -- it will be whatever you say it is. But it will be -- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10657 1 I mean, you should restrict me if you believe that I am 2 going past what you think is reasonable. 3 I believe the question in front of you before the 4 objection was to the effect that: Do you believe that the 5 VAMP experimental flows will be greater during the pulse 6 flow period than they would be if we simply followed the 7 Water Quality Control Plan adopted in 1995? 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object to the line of 9 questioning on the basis of Government Code Section 11513 10 (f), which provides that the Hearing Officer has the 11 discretion to exclude evidence if the probative value is 12 substantially outweighed by the probability that its 13 admission will necessitate the undue consumption of time. 14 Mr. Jackson has asked these same questions of this very 15 witness in other phases of this proceeding. He asked Dr. 16 Hanson questions about the cause of the degradation of the 17 fishery. He asked questions about whether or not the 18 Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan and the San Joaquin River 19 Agreement would lead to the doubling of fish. He asked the 20 same questions. And putting it in the record one more time 21 is not going to serve any purpose of the parties or, more 22 importantly, of the Board. 23 And I would ask that the Hearing Officer exercise his 24 discretion to exclude that. 25 MR. GARNER: I would just like to point out that Dr. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10658 1 Hanson was provided as a witness in Phase II in the case in 2 chief to discuss VAMP and was asked these same questions. 3 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Stubchaer, in that regard, the VAMP 4 testimony has been repeated here on rebuttal. I presume 5 because they weren't satisfied with Dr. Hanson's answers 6 during II. If we are going to exclude this line of 7 testimony, it should begin with the rebuttal testimony, 8 should be excluded as well. That will then save time. 9 There is no purpose for this document to be in evidence 10 other than to shore up the holes in their case in 11 alternative -- or in Phase II. 12 MR. GARNER: This is not a repeat of Dr. Hanson's 13 testimony. This simply relates to the anadromous fish 14 doubling issue. It certainly isn't a repeat of everything 15 that was addressed in Phase II in his original testimony. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Since I did this testimony, I can tell 18 you the reason why we did it. And I disagree with Mr. 19 Jackson's assertion. 20 Specifically in Phase II-A numerous parties raised the 21 question of whether or not the San Joaquin River Agreement 22 would double the natural production of chinook salmon. We 23 did not specifically address that issue in Phase II. What 24 we came back with is, in this brief little testimony that 25 you heard here today -- it is very short. It says, "No, the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10659 1 VAMP in and of itself will not do that. However, in 2 connection with other programs we believe it may." That is 3 the whole extent of the testimony. 4 It is only being offered in rebuttal because other 5 parties raised that issue that the San Joaquin River 6 Agreement was not doubling the natural production of chinook 7 salmon. The only reason. We have not reopened the San 8 Joaquin River Agreement. We are not -- he made no testimony 9 about how that came about, what it was done for and 10 everything else. And all this is is a rehash of Phase II. 11 We have been through that. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Jackson, I do recall extensive 13 questioning and answers on the Vernalis Adaptive Management 14 Plan under Phase II, and I think you were involved in some 15 of that. 16 Do you have any suggestion on how we can avoid this 17 repetition? 18 MR. JACKSON: First of all, I am not sure there is any 19 repetition. And it would take a review of the very old 20 hearing record for me to be able to determine that. All I 21 intend to do is to address the words in this testimony on 22 cross-examination the way the law entitles me to do. 23 The allegation that this is repetition is totally 24 unsupported by anything quoted by any of these attorneys. 25 They realize they made a terrible mistake in putting on such CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10660 1 a broad document and making such wild assertions, and now 2 they would like to limit the damage from that mistake. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Perhaps what Mr. Jackson could do to 4 avoid the repetition, Mr. Chairman, would be to make 5 reference to specific statements contained in the San 6 Joaquin River Agreement -- San Joaquin River Group Authority 7 Exhibit 32 in posing the questions. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Well, -- 9 MR. JACKSON: Let me go back and do just that because I 10 have asked essentially one question. It is from the fifth 11 -- the sixth sentence in the introduction. It is alleged by 12 this witness that VAMP is intended to contribute an 13 incremental increase in juvenile chinook salmon smolt 14 survival. I asked him, what increment. He talked to me 15 about export levels and flows, and I begin to ask him 16 questions about that. 17 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe that misstates the 18 testimony. Dr. Hanson's reference to flows and export 19 conditions was in regards to the experimental design that is 20 contained in the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan. I 21 believe he answered Mr. Jackson's question about the 22 incremental increase. 23 If he would like to ask about the experimental design, 24 I think that would be an appropriate follow-up question. 25 But Dr. Hanson's answer was not a broad description of all CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10661 1 of the conditions that have resulted in the degradation of 2 Delta fisheries. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Following your suggestion, Mr. 4 Birmingham, I think you could take any one of these 5 sentences and amplify it and get into great detail on any 6 aspect. So I am not sure that would shorten the 7 cross-examination. 8 I will allow you to proceed, Mr. Jackson. But, again, 9 ask you to focus on what is in the rebuttal testimony and be 10 as brief as possible. 11 MR. JACKSON: In regard to the VAMP program, what 12 additional increment of flow over and above the pulse flow 13 required in the 1995 Bay-Delta Water Quality Plan would the 14 VAMP provide? 15 DR. HANSON: The VAMP does not provide, and my 16 testimony does not address the issue of an incremental flow 17 increase above the established or above the proposed 18 standard. 19 The incremental increase that I referred to refers to 20 salmon smolt survival which is affected by a combination of 21 factors, including flow, exports and the proportion of flow 22 that passes the export facilities. So it is the incremental 23 increase in survival, not flow itself. 24 MR. JACKSON: The VAMP itself does not provide any 25 measurable amount of that incremental increase over what the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10662 1 Water Quality Control Plan will provide? 2 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to 3 increase, as to what. 4 MR. GARNER: Increase as to what? 5 MR. JACKSON: Increase as to what is required under -- 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Increase of what? 7 MR. JACKSON: Increase of flow over what is required in 8 the Water Quality Control Plan. 9 DR. HANSON: It does not. 10 MR. JACKSON: Does the VAMP provide a decrease over 11 exports over what would be required by the biological 12 opinion for smelt? 13 DR. HANSON: I don't specifically recall. 14 MR. JACKSON: You say in the -- you say in your 15 testimony that VAMP is designed to work with the Central 16 Valley Project Improvement Act; is that correct? 17 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 18 MR. JACKSON: What activities of the Central Valley 19 Project Improvement Act would assist the VAMP in addressing 20 the questions of the doubling of salmonids in the Bay-Delta 21 watershed? 22 DR. HANSON: One of the key elements of the CVPIA is 23 the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, the AFRP. Within 24 the context of AFRP, VAMP was identified as one of the eight 25 specified Delta actions that were being proposed as part of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10663 1 AFRP. 2 In addition, AFRP includes another action which is 3 complimentary to the VAMP program, which provides for a 4 ramping of exports at the completion of the VAMP test 5 period, from, say, May 15th to June 1st, to thereby avoid a 6 very rapid change in water project operations at completion 7 of the VAMP experiment. That type of synergism is what I am 8 referring to as the way some of these programs have been 9 coordinated to provide multiple and additive benefit. 10 MR. JACKSON: Does the VAMP have anything to do with 11 whether or not the government adopts the AFRP flows? 12 DR. HANSON: The VAMP is a separate experimental 13 approach. 14 MR. JACKSON: If the government adopts the AFRP flows, 15 the flows will be much higher at Vernalis than the VAMP 16 calls for, would they not? 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 18 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Calls for speculation. 19 Calls for legal conclusion and is vague and ambiguous as to, 20 quote-unquote, "the government." 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: If the witness can answer the 22 question, do so. If you can't, just say you can't. 23 DR. HANSON: I have not specifically looked at that. 24 MR. JACKSON: So, in your testimony, then, if you have 25 not looked at whether or not the VAMP would -- let me step CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10664 1 back. 2 Do you know whether or not the VAMP would lessen the 3 AFRP flows recommended at Vernalis? 4 DR. HANSON: I don't have that before me, but I don't 5 believe that they would. 6 MR. JACKSON: If, in fact, there were flows in the 7 tributaries that were more than -- that were larger than 8 what we presently experience, would the VAMP override those 9 AFRP flows? 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Compound. Vague and 11 ambiguous. He hasn't established what flows or where or if 12 it is an incomplete hypothetical or it calls for 13 speculation. 14 MR. GARNER: And calls for a legal conclusion. 15 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And assumes facts not in evidence, 16 that are flows in the river. 17 C.O. STUBCHAER: Aside from that? 18 MR. JACKSON: Aside from that, they have no objection. 19 Let me ask the question differently. 20 Do the VAMP flows, if VAMP is accepted, take into 21 account additional AFRP flows that may be in the Sacramento 22 River during the pulse flow period? 23 DR. HANSON: The focus of establishing the flows within 24 VAMP didn't specifically address Sacramento River flows. We 25 focused on San Joaquin. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10665 1 MR. JACKSON: It is your understanding that there are 2 no AFRP flows recommended on the San Joaquin side? 3 DR. HANSON: No. But your question had gone to the 4 Sacramento River. With respect to the San Joaquin River, we 5 certainly considered the various actions that were being 6 discussed and proposed, including discussions with respect 7 to flows at other locations within the drainage. 8 VAMP was not designed specifically to address those 9 issues. But we coordinated between the VAMP program and the 10 upstream so that there was a compatibility of flows within 11 the tributaries and then subsequently downstream at 12 Vernalis. 13 MR. JACKSON: Was that -- when you did this 14 coordination, was that with today's flows during the pulse 15 flow period or with the flows recommended in the AFRP? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to 17 "today's flows." Is he referring to 1995 Water Quality 18 Control Plan? 19 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 20 DR. HANSON: Our coordination activities specifically 21 focused on the flow conditions that we were including as 22 part of the experimental design within VAMP. 23 MR. JACKSON: So it did not take into account the flows 24 recommended on the San Joaquin for the pulse flow period at 25 Vernalis? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10666 1 DR. HANSON: Not specifically. 2 MR. JACKSON: Well, then, how does VAMP assist the AFRP 3 recommendations? 4 DR. HANSON: VAMP provides for a combination of not 5 only flows, but also the important combination with the 6 change in exports during that peak spring outmigration 7 period for San Joaquin River salmon. VAMP was intended to 8 provide for benefits designed to improve survival of fish as 9 they pass downstream from the tributaries through the Delta, 10 while also providing us the necessary scientific information 11 to further evaluate the influence of the flow and exports 12 that were being tested. 13 MR. JACKSON: Now, you indicated to me that you did not 14 -- the VAMP does not coordinate the flows at Vernalis during 15 the pulse flow period with those recommended by the AFRP? 16 DR. HANSON: This was coordination in terms of the 17 timing. There was coordination in terms of what we were 18 trying to accomplish. I was not part of the discussions 19 that said we will implement the AFRP flow through VAMP. We 20 established the VAMP experimental flows on a different 21 basis. 22 MR. JACKSON: If the recommended AFRP flows during the 23 pulse flow period at Vernalis are higher than those alloted 24 for the VAMP experiment, doesn't VAMP work against the 25 AFRP? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10667 1 DR. HANSON: I don't know whether or not under that 2 scenario that you put forward whether there would be a 3 controlling influence of the VAMP flows. What would very 4 likely occur under that scenario, and we have established a 5 format for dealing with this, is that the technical folks 6 that are working on the coordination of these various issues 7 would meet to review the experimental design and conditions, 8 both upstream and as well as within the VAMP experimental 9 design, and we may very well bring forward technical 10 recommendations for modifications based on changing 11 conditions. But I can't speculate as to what those would be 12 or how they would be dealt with. 13 MR. JACKSON: If, in fact, the Board adopted the VAMP 14 alternative and set your flows for the next 12 years in an 15 order, wouldn't that restrict the ability of AFRP to be 16 implemented? 17 DR. HANSON: I don't -- 18 MR. GARNER: Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion. 19 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: And calls for speculation. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think the question can be answered 21 if the witness knows the answer. 22 DR. HANSON: I don't know whether they would be or 23 not. 24 MR. JACKSON: Did the VAMP parties, to your knowledge, 25 discuss that circumstance? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10668 1 DR. HANSON: My discussions with the parties were 2 primarily at the scientific level and the technical level. 3 We discussed the need for coordination of flows upstream and 4 downstream. We discussed the need to provide the best 5 conditions for providing for juvenile outmigration, but we 6 did not discuss this specific issue or technical issue at 7 the technical level. 8 MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much. 9 Now, you list in your testimony, on Page 2 in regard to 10 your testimony on the Central Valley Project Improvement 11 Act, in the last paragraph some projects. Was your point 12 here that these projects are consistent with the VAMP? 13 DR. HANSON: These projects are consistent with 14 improving habitat conditions and reducing mortality for 15 chinook salmon, for example, throughout the Sacramento and 16 San Joaquin Rivers. It wasn't correct that these are 17 specifically, directly associated with VAMP. But they would 18 benefit the overall salmonid populations. 19 MR. JACKSON: The Shasta Dam temperature control device 20 will go in whether or not -- or did go in whether or not 21 there is a VAMP, correct? 22 DR. HANSON: Absolutely. 23 MR. JACKSON: It would have no affect in regard to 24 either flow -- in regard to flow at Vernalis, would it? 25 DR. HANSON: It would not. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10669 1 MR. JACKSON: The Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage 2 actions which you mentioned would have no effect whatsoever 3 on salmon emerging from the San Joaquin side, would it? 4 DR. HANSON: No direct effect, no. 5 MR. JACKSON: Do you know of any spawning gravel 6 restoration project on the San Joaquin? 7 DR. HANSON: There certainly are spawning gravel 8 restoration programs on the San Joaquin tributaries. How 9 much of those are being funded through CVPIA funds, I am not 10 sure. 11 MR. JACKSON: Are there spawning gravel restoration 12 projects on the San Joaquin working or is there gravel -- 13 are they working? 14 DR. HANSON: I think there are some projects that have 15 been implemented that are certainly being evaluated. There 16 are some that are just in the early phases of implementation 17 and have not yet been evaluated. It is too early to say 18 they are working and achieving the kind of performance and 19 level of production that we would like to see from those 20 restoration projects. 21 MR. JACKSON: Now, on Page 3 of 14 you talk about the 22 Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. You have already 23 answered the question as to whether or not those flows are 24 compatible with the VAMP. 25 How does the VAMP work with the Anadromous Fish CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10670 1 Restoration Program if you have not coordinated the flows 2 between the two programs? 3 DR. HANSON: Well, the flows -- 4 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I'm going to object that it has been 5 asked and answered. He's already stated that the connection 6 has been that one of the concepts is that after the 30-day 7 pulse flow period, that under the AFRP they will ramp down. 8 VAMP hasn't been identified as one of the eight Delta 9 actions. This question has already been gone over. We 10 should be moving on. 11 MR. JACKSON: I was actually giving them an opportunity 12 to find some other connection, if there was one, before I 13 left the subject. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: I will permit the question to be 15 answered. 16 DR. HANSON: Could you restate the question, please? 17 MR. JACKSON: Sure. We have talked about the 18 coordination or lack thereof the flows between VAMP and the 19 draft Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan. 20 Are there other things in the draft Anadromous Fish 21 Restoration Plan that are helped by the VAMP? 22 DR. HANSON: VAMP would provide for the installation of 23 the Head of Old River Barrier. I don't know that that is 24 identified specifically as an AFRP action, but it is 25 certainly compatible with the overall philosophy of trying CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10671 1 to improve salmon smolt survival on the San Joaquin River, 2 which is part of the AFRP program. 3 VAMP is also consistent with the basic approach that is 4 being used within the context of AFRP to establish programs 5 that are designed to improve conditions for various 6 anadromous fish followed by specific scientific evaluations 7 to determine the performance of various types of actions in 8 affecting salmon survival, for example. One of the AFRP 9 actions is to do a very similar type of a study during the 10 wintertime period, to evaluate the effects of exports 11 conditions on salmon smolt survival from the Sacramento 12 River system. 13 So the VAMP program is compatible and consistent, I 14 think, with the philosophies and general approach being 15 developed through AFRP. Many of the people involved in the 16 AFRP programs have been actively and intimately involved 17 with the development of VAMP. We are coordinating our 18 sampling activities. We are coordinating our management. I 19 work very closely with Pat Brandes and Marty Kjelson, who 20 are intimately involved with the AFRP implementation, in 21 making sure that that coordination, whether it be flows or 22 exports or other conditions, is a fundamental component of 23 how we implement VAMP. 24 MR. JACKSON: That coordination -- when you say you 25 work with, who are you working for at that point? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10672 1 DR. HANSON: I actually work for the State Water 2 Contractorss. I work as part of a VAMP technical team that 3 includes representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation, the 4 Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service, 5 operators, biologists, a whole group of us come together, 6 including representatives from DWR, to coordinate the 7 program implementation for a VAMP experiment in the coming 8 year, to review the information that was collected during 9 the previous year and to make sure that our program, for 10 example, the spring of 1999 is being coordinated within the 11 context of all of the other activities that are currently 12 ongoing within the Sacramento-San Joaquin system. 13 MR. JACKSON: Are you saying that you cannot go forward 14 with that coordination unless the VAMP is accepted as the 15 substitute for the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan 16 flows at Vernalis? 17 DR. HANSON: Much of that coordination is being 18 undertaken as part of a responsible way of approaching these 19 scientific investigations. 20 MR. JACKSON: You are doing it now, even though the 21 VAMP is not in effect? 22 DR. HANSON: We have been doing it for the past several 23 years. VAMP provides us another opportunity and a focal 24 point for those discussions. But they do occur in a variety 25 of venues, including CalFed OPS and others. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10673 1 MR. JACKSON: You have no reason to believe that that 2 would stop if the Board did not accept VAMP as the 3 equivalent to the Water Quality Control Plan flows? 4 DR. HANSON: If VAMP were not accepted and were not 5 implemented as part of the overall Bay-Delta program, then a 6 significant component of those discussions that specifically 7 examines the VAMP tests and puts those tests in a context 8 would stop. 9 Many of the other activities that are implemented, the 10 IVP project work teams that provide coordination for some of 11 the other elements would continue. 12 MR. JACKSON: Calling your attention to Page 4 of 14, 13 the Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement, commonly 14 known as the Four-Pumps Agreement, you indicate in your 15 testimony that this agreement is designed to mitigate for 16 the direct loss of fish at the intake of the California 17 Aqueduct; is that correct? 18 DR. HANSON: That's correct. 19 MR. JACKSON: In what way does the VAMP work with the 20 1986 Four-Pumps Agreement? 21 DR. HANSON: The Four-Pumps Agreement provides a 22 framework for calculating the direct entrainment loss of a 23 variety of species of fish that occur at the SWP salvage 24 facility. Juvenile chinook salmon are identified within the 25 Four-Pumps Agreement as one of target species, as are CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10674 1 striped bass and steelhead. 2 To the extent that VAMP provides protection for salmon 3 emigrating from the San Joaquin River during the springtime 4 period through reduced exports or through the closure of the 5 Head of Old River barrier, fewer of those salmon are likely 6 to be entrained into the State Water Project; and, 7 therefore, fewer fish would be required for the mitigation 8 under the Four-Pumps Agreement for that springtime period. 9 MR. JACKSON: Would there be any change in the 10 operation of the Four-Pumps Agreement caused by the Board's 11 acceptance of VAMP? 12 DR. HANSON: The Four-Pumps Agreement does not 13 specifically relate to operations of the State Water 14 Project. It relates to the mitigation for direct losses 15 resulting from whatever operations occurred. So I think the 16 answer would be no. 17 MR. JACKSON: No change? 18 DR. HANSON: I don't believe that there would be a 19 change under that agreement. 20 MR. JACKSON: In regard to the -- your testimony on 21 Page 5 indicates that in addition to the Four-Pumps Program, 22 DWR supports salmonid restoration, and it lists (a) through 23 (g). 24 Are any of these things listed in (a) through (g) 25 dependent upon the VAMP experiment? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10675 1 DR. HANSON: I don't believe that they are dependent 2 upon the VAMP experiment. Number (f) would assist VAMP in 3 terms of improving survival of fish that do show up in the 4 salvage facility, but I don't believe that they are 5 dependent upon VAMP. These were established even prior to 6 the development of VAMP. 7 MR. JACKSON: Certainly, and that is sort of the 8 question I'm asking. Let's deal with number five. 9 MR. GARNER: By "number five" you mean? 10 MR. JACKSON: Deal with Page 5 (f). 11 In what way would the VAMP improve salvage operations 12 at the intake to the California Aqueduct? 13 DR. HANSON: To the extent that during that spring 14 period of salmon outmigration there is reduced exporters 15 from the State Water Project, then you might reasonably 16 expect that there would be fewer fish coming into the 17 salvage operation to be handled. The efficiency of some of 18 the handling facilities may improve simply because of that 19 reduced number of fish coming into the project, and these 20 other changes that are being implemented at the salvage 21 facility are designed to improve the survival of those fish 22 that do show up at the salvage and are subsequently 23 transported back to the Delta. 24 MR. JACKSON: So, then, would your testimony be that 25 these improved fish salvage operations at the intake to the CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10676 1 California Aqueduct basically improve when there is less 2 diversion at the intake? 3 DR. HANSON: I think these improvements -- and I have 4 supported the implementation of these kind of improvements 5 for a variety of reasons and for a variety of species. What 6 I was addressing is the fact that the salvage is in part -- 7 the survival of fish that are salvaged is in part dependent 8 upon the number of fish that are required to be handled. 9 That has an affect on the density of fish within the holding 10 tanks. It has an affect on the density of fish within the 11 truck. 12 To the extent there are fewer fish to be handled, it is 13 my opinion that the survival of those fish that are salvaged 14 is likely to go up. 15 MR. JACKSON: So, in relation to flow, there is less of 16 the fish that need to be handled if there is less diversion? 17 DR. HANSON: Correct. 18 MR. JACKSON: Would the same be true of your mention on 19 Page 6 of the Tracy Fish Agreement? Are they essentially 20 the same kind of thing? 21 DR. HANSON: I think it is the same kind of thing. 22 Although the Head of Old River Barrier closure would also 23 have a bigger affect, I think, on the fish showing up at 24 Tracy than it would necessarily on the fish showing up at 25 the State Water Project. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10677 1 MR. JACKSON: Have you yourself done any study in 2 regard to whether or not there would actually be less fish 3 show up at the Delta exporters facilities if the Head of Old 4 River Barrier were established? 5 DR. HANSON: I reviewed data that has been collected 6 through studies by Marty Kjelson, Bill Laudermilk and 7 others, but I have not done any independent studies of that 8 affect. 9 MR. JACKSON: Is it possible that rediverting the fish 10 down to the Central Delta would simply transfer the number 11 of fish that were previously picked up at Tracy to the state 12 pumps at Clifton Court? 13 DR. HANSON: That has been a hypothesis that we will be 14 investigating through the period of the VAMP program. The 15 thought right now is that the farther down in the system 16 those fish are able to migrate under their own volition, 17 the more likelihood they have that they will successfully 18 migrate out of the Delta and not be influenced by that 19 hydraulic influence from the Central Delta portion that you 20 described. But that is still a hypothesis that's yet to be 21 tested. That has to do with salmon as well as concerns that 22 Fish and Wildlife Service has raised with respect to Delta 23 smelt. 24 MR. JACKSON: At the present time, as far as your 25 knowledge is, you couldn't indicate one way or the other? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10678 1 DR. HANSON: I don't have any specific or definitive 2 data to address that issue. 3 MR. JACKSON: You mentioned some other programs, and I 4 am going to try to get to my additional meeting, so we are 5 blessedly almost through here. The Commercial Salmon Stamp 6 Program, that was ongoing long before the VAMP? 7 DR. HANSON: That was. 8 MR. JACKSON: How does it work with the VAMP? 9 DR. HANSON: To the extent that the Commercial Salmon 10 Stamp generates funds, a portion of those funds are used to 11 improve habitat conditions for chinook salmon. Some of that 12 money may be used, for example, to provide for better 13 habitat condition within some of the tributaries for 14 spawning or other upstream activities. 15 MR. JACKSON: We are not allowed to talk about the 16 tributaries. 17 DR. HANSON: I understand. 18 MR. JACKSON: Although some day I would like to. 19 The Sacramento Refuge Program is clearly not dependent 20 upon the VAMP? 21 DR. HANSON: That is a Sacramento -- 22 MR. JACKSON: The Ecosystem Restoration Plan is a plan 23 that may or may not go forward depending on what happens to 24 CalFed in the future? 25 DR. HANSON: That's correct. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10679 1 MR. JACKSON: As of now, there is no -- it's not a -- 2 it's not dependent upon the VAMP? 3 DR. HANSON: It is not dependent upon the VAMP. 4 MR. JACKSON: Category II funding has been ongoing long 5 before the VAMP, correct? 6 DR. HANSON: Category II funding was initiated with the 7 adoption of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord. 8 MR. JACKSON: And it is not in any way dependent on the 9 VAMP? 10 DR. HANSON: It is not dependent upon the VAMP. To the 11 extent that any of the programs improve conditions for 12 salmonids, the VAMP may help that. But it is not dependent 13 upon VAMP. 14 MR. JACKSON: The VAMP can only help the parts of these 15 programs that are on the San Joaquin side? 16 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 17 MR. JACKSON: And Only help the problems on the San 18 Joaquin during the one month of the experiment each year? 19 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 20 MR. JACKSON: And have you yourself done any study to 21 indicate whether or not there is any, you used incremental 22 increase, any incremental decrease in juvenile chinook 23 salmon smolt survival caused by the reallocation of water 24 from later in the year to the spring pulse flow? 25 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10680 1 evidence, that there is a reallocation. 2 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sustained. 3 MR. JACKSON: No further questions. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 5 Mr. Birmingham. 6 ---oOo--- 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 8 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY REBUTTAL 9 BY SAN LUIS AND DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY AND 10 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 11 BY MR. BIRMINGHAM 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Good morning, Dr. Hanson. 13 DR. HANSON: Good morning. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I haven't had an opportunity yet to 15 read all of the San Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit 16 32. Do you mention the words the "Sacramento splittail"? 17 DR. HANSON: I do not. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Damn. 19 I have a few questions for you. 20 On Page 1 of the San Joaquin River Group Authority 21 Exhibit 32 you describe the Vernalis Adaptive Management 22 Plan as a 12-year program? 23 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 24 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And you state that the program meets 25 the requirements of the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10681 1 while allowing the collection of vital information related 2 to San Joaquin River flows, exporters pumping rates, the use 3 of the Barrier at the Head of Old River and outmigrating 4 chinook salmon smolt survival? 5 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 6 MR. BIRMINGHAM: The vital information that you are 7 referring to by that statement is the data that will allow 8 you and other biologists to analyze or evaluate the 9 influence of flows and exports on salmon smolt survival? 10 DR. HANSON: That is what VAMP is intended to provide, 11 yes. 12 MR. BIRMINGHAM: In the Vernalis Adaptive Management 13 Plan are there limitations on exports that are prescribed? 14 DR. HANSON: There are. 15 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Are those limitations on exports 16 related to flow levels measured at Vernalis? 17 DR. HANSON: They are identified in association with 18 specific flow levels that were identified in the 19 experimental design of VAMP. We have several flow levels 20 that are identified and several corresponding exporters 21 levels that we would like to test. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: How did you select the exporters 23 levels that you would like to test in designing the Vernalis 24 Adaptive Management Plan experiment? 25 DR. HANSON: We selected the export levels based on two CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10682 1 fundamental criteria. For the low end of the exporters 2 level, we utilized information that was provided to us by 3 DWR and USBR operators regarding the minimum levels of 4 exporters that would be needed to meet minimal facility 5 requirements and the contract demand for that time period. 6 And that established the lower end. The higher end was 7 established by utilizing the 35 percent, I believe the 35 8 percent, E/I ratio in combination with the expected flows. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let me ask you a question. If the 10 exports from the Tracy Pumping Plant or the State Water 11 Project plant at Banks were increased during the pulse flow 12 period, in order to provide the flows necessary to meet the 13 requirements of the experiment, how would that increase in 14 exports affect your ability to collect the data that you are 15 seeking to collect? 16 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I am going to object. This is outside 17 the scope of the direct examination, and it has nothing to 18 do with how the VAMP fits in with other programs that double 19 the natural production of chinook salmon. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: I don't completely understand the 21 question. You say the exports at Banks were increased to 22 fit the requirements of the -- 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Let me see if I can lay a better 24 foundation. 25 Again, I mean to address Mr. O'Laughlin's objection. I CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10683 1 think I have tied these questions or series of questions to 2 a specific statement contained in San Joaquin River Group 3 Authority Exhibit 32, where Dr. Hanson has talked about the 4 collection of data and the purpose for the collection of 5 data. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Try the question again. 7 Could you hear me, Mr. Birmingham? My mike wasn't on. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I'm thinking about how to rephrase the 9 question. 10 Thank you, Mr. Stubchaer. 11 Dr. Hanson, are you familiar with a proposal that has 12 been made to provide the flows required during a 31-day 13 pulse flow period with water recirculated through the 14 Delta-Mendota Canal released through the Newman Wasteway and 15 then into the San Joaquin River? 16 DR. HANSON: I have heard, generally, about that 17 proposal, but I don't know any of the details. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: If the recirculation proposal included 19 increasing exports above the limits prescribed by the 20 experimental design, would that affect your ability to 21 analyze the data collected during the 12-year experiment to 22 determine or evaluate the influence of flow and export on 23 salmon smolt survival? 24 DR. HANSON: It would. As part of our experimental 25 design, one of the problems that had occurred in earlier CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10684 1 experiments on the San Joaquin River in trying to evaluate 2 the effects of flow and exports on smolt survival had to do 3 with the variability that occurred in exports and flows 4 coincident with the period of those tests. That type of 5 variability made it extremely difficult to interpret the 6 data and to be able to evaluate the effects of flow versus 7 export or the combination of the two. Part of the 8 development of VAMP was to address that by establishing 9 specific flow and a range of specific export conditions that 10 would provide data points primarily at the extremes of the 11 range that gave us the best possible ability to detect 12 differences among those factors as they influence salmon 13 smolt survival. 14 Changes in that experimental design would have an 15 affect on our ability to make that detection of the affect 16 between those flow and export conditions. And that would be 17 even compounded further if any changes were made without 18 real detail consideration after the program had actually 19 been established and we had some initial data. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: After Mr. Jackson's cross-examination 21 of you I'm somewhat confused, which is my general state. 22 Let me see if I can understand the purpose of your rebuttal 23 testimony. 24 When you were preparing your rebuttal testimony, did 25 you have occasion to speak with Mr. O'Laughlin about why he CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10685 1 wanted you to be prepared? 2 DR. HANSON: I did. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: What did Mr. O'Laughlin say to you 4 about why he wanted you to prepare San Joaquin River Group 5 Authority Exhibit 32? 6 DR. HANSON: My understanding was that it had to do 7 with several issues. One is that there had been questions 8 about whether VAMP would, in fact, double or achieve the 9 goal of doubling anadromous salmonids. 10 The second is that VAMP was not designed in a vacuum. 11 VAMP was purposefully designed as one element of a much 12 larger, more multifaceted program of activities designed to 13 improve overall salmon smolt survival, as well as for other 14 anadromous fish. And in my discussions with Mr. O'Laughlin 15 the purpose of this testimony was to make several important 16 points. 17 One -- and we have made these already. One is that 18 VAMP alone will not double salmon production within the 19 Sacramento-San Joaquin River system for a variety of 20 reasons. VAMP will contribute to the overall goal of 21 doubling salmonids when taken in context with a variety of 22 other activities occurring on the Sacramento and San Joaquin 23 systems. 24 And the third is that neither I nor anyone else can 25 guarantee the performance of any of these programs, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10686 1 individually or collectively in achieving that goal because 2 there are variety of unknowns and a variety of other factors 3 that influence these populations. And it is only through 4 implementing these in a very rigorous and well-established 5 format, which we have tried to do with VAMP and the other 6 activities, will we be able to monitor and evaluate the 7 performance over time and determine how well they are 8 actually achieving that goal. 9 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Do you have a copy of the San Joaquin 10 River Agreement with you? And that is attached to San 11 Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit 2. 12 DR. HANSON: I don't. I have Appendix A. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I would ask you to look at Page 3 of 14 the San Joaquin River Agreement which is attached to San 15 Joaquin River Group Authority Exhibit 2. Do you have Page 3 16 in front of you? 17 DR. HANSON: Yes, I do. 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: This is a paragraph on Page 3 of the 19 Agreement, Paragraph 2.5.1. Could you take a moment and 20 read that to yourself, and when you are finished let me 21 know. 22 DR. HANSON: I have read that. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Dr. Hanson, would you agree that 24 Paragraph 2.5.1 acknowledges that the Vernalis Adaptive 25 Management Plan by itself will not achieve the doubling of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10687 1 natural salmon production? 2 DR. HANSON: I think it specifically states that. 3 MR. BIRMINGHAM: And it specifically states in order to 4 achieve a doubling of natural salmon production it will be 5 necessary to implement a number of measures within a 6 carefully designed program? 7 DR. HANSON: Yes, it does. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Now going back to San Joaquin River 9 Group Authority Exhibit 32, you have mentioned a number of 10 programs in addition to the Vernalis Adaptive Management 11 Plan. 12 DR. HANSON: I have. 13 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Those include the implementation of 14 the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the San Joaquin 15 River Group Management Program, the Delta Pumping Plant Fish 16 Protection Agreement, referred to as the Four-Pumps 17 Agreement, the Comprehensive Monitoring, Research and 18 Assessment Program, the Tracy Fish Agreement, the Commercial 19 Salmon Stamp Program, the Ecosystem Restoration Program 20 Plan, and Category II measures? 21 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Are these programs, other than the 23 Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan, the types of programs 24 that are described in Paragraph 2.5.1 that in conjunction 25 with VAMP will help to achieve a doubling of natural salmon CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10688 1 production? 2 DR. HANSON: These are specifically the types of non 3 VAMP programs that are complimentary to VAMP in achieving 4 that goal. 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: So your purpose in identifying these 6 programs was not to say that they depend on VAMP? 7 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Or that VAMP depends on the programs 9 that you have identified in your testimony, San Joaquin 10 River Group Authority Exhibit 32? 11 DR. HANSON: My testimony was not the dependency of the 12 programs, but rather the additive and synergistic benefit 13 among these programs. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It is your view that if we are going 15 to achieve a doubling of natural salmon production, it is 16 going to be necessary to implement the kind of synergistic, 17 complimentary programs that you've described in your 18 testimony? 19 DR. HANSON: I think all the scientists that I work 20 with feel that these types of multifaceted programs will be 21 needed to accomplish that goal. 22 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I have no further questions. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham. 24 Mr. Herrick. 25 ---oOo--- CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10689 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 2 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY REBUTTAL 3 BY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 4 BY MR. HERRICK 5 MR. HERRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board Members. 6 John Herrick for South Delta Water Agency. 7 Good morning, Dr. Hanson. 8 DR. HANSON: Good morning. 9 MR. HERRICK: I had some of the same questions that Mr. 10 Birmingham had, and I am still a little confused. 11 Mr. Hanson, what is it that somebody said in a direct 12 case that you think was wrong or incorrect? 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Objection. Mr. Hanson didn't make the 14 call on what was incorrect or wrong in a case. That is the 15 decision made by the attorney. He never said in his 16 rebuttal testimony that somebody said something wrong in 17 their direct cases. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 19 MR. HERRCIK: It is my understanding that the rebuttal 20 here is to address comments, testimony earlier on that said 21 VAMP won't meet the fish doubling standard, and Dr. Hanson 22 came here today and said that VAMP won't meet the doubling 23 standard. 24 I am not sure what this testimony is offered for. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10690 1 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I believe that San Francisco Save the 2 Bay offered specific testimony that VAMP would not achieve a 3 doubling of natural fish production. And although I was not 4 involved in the preparation of this testimony, I think that 5 Dr. Hanson's testimony rebuts at least the implication in 6 that testimony, Save the San Francisco Bay testimony, that 7 VAMP was intended to achieve a doubling of the natural fish 8 production. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. O'Laughlin. 10 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Mr. Herrick's characterization of it 11 is incorrect. Save the Bay, NHI and DEF, both in policy 12 statements as well as in testimony, and I have it here and I 13 offered this at the beginning and no objection was made to 14 the evidence being introduced, made specific statements that 15 the San Joaquin River Agreement will not meet the narrative 16 standard. Okay. 17 What we are putting on, by the implication is that that 18 agreement stands and falls by itself. What we are pointing 19 out is very consistent with the 1995 Water Quality Control 20 Plan, when the Board itself acknowledges that there may be 21 other actions that are ongoing in the Delta to double 22 chinook salmon. What the purpose of the testimony is, since 23 that plan was adopted in 1995, there have been a myriad of 24 programs. In fact, that is what the purpose of Dr. Hanson's 25 testimony is. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10691 1 He's offered some 50-odd exhibits that have taken place 2 since 1995, showing the ongoing effort within the State of 3 California to double chinook salmon production. 4 So, I think it is very relevant to how the standard is 5 being implemented and how the narrative standard is being 6 met. It goes back to specifically rebut testimony offered 7 by Save the Bay and DEF and NHI. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Garner, were you going to -- 9 MR. GARNER: No. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 11 MR. HERRICK: That is my point. It is very interesting 12 what other programs are going on, and it is very interesting 13 that Dr. Hanson believes that VAMP, in coordination with 14 other programs, may go a long way to meeting that standard. 15 But nobody said VAMP will meet the standard of doubling and, 16 hence, rebuttal that it won't. The parties that said it 17 won't meet the standard aren't being rebutted. 18 Dr. Hanson is not offering testimony that VAMP will 19 meet the standard. 20 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: If he wants to make this argument, he 21 can make this in a closing brief and bring this up. 22 Otherwise, he should ask questions of the witness. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick, I wanted to get back to 24 your question of Dr. Hanson, which I think was answered by a 25 couple of attorneys, perhaps. But would you repeat that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10692 1 question? 2 MR. HERRICK: My initial question was: What testimony 3 in this phase do you believe was wrong or incorrect that you 4 are here to rebut? 5 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I will object on the grounds the 6 question assumes a fact not in evidence. There has been no 7 testimony that Dr. Hanson has read all of the testimony 8 entered and introduced in this phase. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Also staying the objection, Mr. 10 Herrick, partly because I am not sure that Mr. Hanson is the 11 person to answer that question. 12 MR. HERRICK: I appreciate the ruling. I would like to 13 say this is the issue that we brought up before, and I don't 14 mean to beat a dead horse. This isn't rebuttal. This is 15 praise of the VAMP program, and it seems just a tad 16 inappropriate for it to be submitted like this. 17 MR. GARNER: Mr. Chairman. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Garner. 19 MR. GARNER: I was just going to say that this does 20 seem more appropriate as legal argument and not something to 21 try and make that point through Dr. Hanson, but rather in 22 closing legal argument, because it is legal argument. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: I think that is correct, Mr. Herrick. 24 The rebuttal testimony is what it is, and I am not going to 25 rule it as inappropriate. But you can make whatever CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10693 1 arguments you wish in your closing arguments. 2 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Hanson, you say in Page 1 of SJRGA 32 3 that VAMP is a 12-year program that meets the requirements 4 of the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. And it goes on to 5 other parts. 6 Is it your understanding that the flows that will be 7 provided under the VAMP program are the same flows that 8 will be provided under the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan? 9 DR. HANSON: No. This did not specifically relate to 10 just the flow component, but rather related to the component 11 of the survival of salmon under those conditions, which 12 included consideration not only of the flow, but also the 13 exports. 14 MR. HERRICK: Aren't the flows one of the requirements 15 under the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan? 16 DR. HANSON: The flows were identified. But there were 17 also identified a goal in terms of what salmon smolt 18 survival will be achieved through implementation of those 19 flows. VAMP suggests that that can be met through an 20 alternative mechanism that includes consideration of the 21 combination of flow and exports, rather than flow alone. 22 MR. HERRICK: I understand your answer to be that you 23 believe that VAMP will allow somebody to decide whether or 24 not different flows, in combination with other things, 25 provide adequate protection for salmon smolt; is that CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10694 1 correct? 2 DR. HANSON: That would be one of its goals and 3 objectives, yes. 4 MR. HERRICK: My question is: Do you believe that the 5 VAMP flows meet the requirement of flows in the 1995 Water 6 Quality Control Plan? 7 MR. GARNER: Asked and answered. 8 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Asked and answered. We have been 9 through this already in Phase II. We just talked about 10 beating a dead horse. We went through this for four or five 11 days when the biology panel was on. This is no different 12 than the other questions that he asked before. I don't know 13 why he keeps bringing it up. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 15 MR. HERRICK: If I can't cross-examine the witness on 16 his statement and his testimony, there is no purpose to 17 being here. 18 MR. GARNER: He can, but you just asked that question 19 two questions before and received a direct answer to it. 20 MR. HERRICK: If I may, the answer he gave was that he 21 believes that the VAMP program provides similar protections 22 than that 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. That is 23 different than his statement that it meets the requirements 24 of the plan. I what just exploring his answer. 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10695 1 MR. NOMELLINI: The testimony, San Joaquin River Group 2 Authority 32, at the bottom of Page 1, clearly contains the 3 testimony of Mr. Hanson that the Vernalis Adaptive 4 Management Plan is a 12-year program that meets the 5 requirements of the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan. 6 So that subject has been reintroduced here in the 7 rebuttal testimony, and whether it's been tested before or 8 not, that testimony has come in in rebuttal and this is 9 cross to test it again. This witness may have changed his 10 mind or testimony. 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I would like to note for the record I 12 find it extremely ironic. We submit some 30-odd pages of 13 testimony, and we submit all these exhibits. And yet the 14 other side focuses in on one line and wants to take that one 15 sentence and expands it into an overall reopening of what we 16 went through in Phase II-A in the prior testimony by the 17 biology panel which Chuck was but one component of that 18 panel. 19 I know that he says it is not fair and everything. I 20 think it's not fair to go back through all that testimony 21 again and do that. If you want, I will strike that one line 22 from that sentence and we can move on. 23 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Herrick. 24 MR. HERRICK: That doesn't need an answer, does it? 25 C.O. STUBCHAER: No. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10696 1 Let's take our morning break now. We will come back in 2 12 minutes. 3 (Break taken.) 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: We will come back to order. 5 We have an objection pending. 6 Mr. Herrick, I do think that the issue you are asking 7 about has been asked and answered at least closely, but I am 8 going to permit the question to be answered and you continue 9 with your examination. 10 MR. HERRICK: Then I will ask that one question, Mr. 11 Chairman, and move on. 12 Mr. Hanson, the question pending to you was: Do you 13 believe that the flows contained in the VAMP program meet 14 the required flows as set forth in the 1995 Water Quality 15 Control Plan? 16 DR. HANSON: Considering flow alone, they are not. 17 MR. HERRICK: Mr. Hanson, you have talked in your 18 various answers and your direct about the VAMP program. Are 19 you equating that with the San Joaquin River Agreement? 20 DR. HANSON: Yes. 21 MR. HERRCIK: Do you understand that the San Joaquin 22 River Agreement is -- do you understand there to be any 23 differences between the VAMP program and the San Joaquin 24 River Agreement? 25 DR. HANSON: I haven't really looked at the two CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10697 1 side-by-side in months, so I don't have a specific answer on 2 that comparison. 3 MR. HERRICK: On Page 2 of your testimony, I guess the 4 first full paragraph, you say: 5 The San Joaquin River Agreement, which 6 implements VAMP, also has additional benefits 7 for salmon. In addition to the pulse flows 8 provided under the VAMP, the SJRA provides 9 for fall attraction flows in October and for 10 additional water from Oakdale Irrigation 11 District for use by the Bureau of 12 Reclamation. (Reading.) 13 DR. HANSON: Yes. 14 MR. HERRICK: Is it your understanding -- doesn't the 15 1995 Water Quality Control Plan require October pulse flows 16 itself? 17 DR. HANSON: My recollection is that it does. 18 MR. HERRICK: I want to clarify. You are not saying 19 that the San Joaquin River Agreement does apply additional 20 flow in October that is not under the plan? 21 DR. HANSON: No. And I have not looked at the October 22 flows. 23 MR. HERRICK: On the same page, (f) under CVPIA, it is 24 listed as one of the general purposes of the statute. And 25 number (f) talks about achieving a reasonable balance among CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10698 1 competing demands. It does list various demands: fisheries, 2 ag. 3 Is it your opinion that the VAMP program, in 4 combination with the other programs you have listed -- is 5 there reasonable balance among those various demands? 6 DR. HANSON: I think the VAMP program is consistent 7 with that reasonable balancing approaching. Whether it 8 meets this specific objective under CVPIA, I don't have an 9 opinion. 10 MR. HERRICK: Have you done any study of any other 11 method of providing the requirements of the 1995 Water 12 Quality Control Plan that might be a more reasonable balance 13 of interest? 14 DR. HANSON: I have not. 15 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Hanson, one of the purposes of the 16 VAMP program was to maintain certain conditions or get a 17 hold of certain conditions so you can develop dependable 18 data; is that correct? 19 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 20 MR. HERRICK: You said on a earlier question that you 21 are not familiar with various requirements of CVPIA 22 regarding flows and other matters? 23 DR. HANSON: Not specifically. I didn't review those 24 in preparation for today. 25 MR. HERRICK: In your analysis describing that these CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10699 1 programs, the ones in your testimony here, together are a 2 method of trying to address the fish doubling standard; have 3 you examined how those various programs might be working 4 against each other? 5 DR. HANSON: We have had some discussions at a 6 technical level regarding potential conflicts. 7 MR. HERRICK: As I understand the VAMP program that you 8 coauthored is trying to determine the relationship between 9 flows at Vernalis with the Head of Old River Barrier in and 10 in relation to export levels; is that correct? 11 DR. HANSON: That is correct. 12 MR. HERRICK: But I believe you acknowledged in 13 previous phases that there are smolts that go out of the 14 system at other times other than that 30-day pulse flow; is 15 that correct? 16 DR. HANSON: There are fry that migrate down earlier. 17 There are smolts that migrate down earlier. There are some 18 smolts that migrate down later than the 30-day period. 19 MR. HERRICK: Would it be important to the success of 20 the VAMP program to know whether or not actions under these 21 programs might be improving the survivability of those 22 smolts outside the 31-day period? 23 DR. HANSON: That is one of the components that we are 24 looking at. Department of Fish and Game, for example, is 25 sampling at Mossdale to provide information on the seasonal CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10700 1 timing of outmigration that we can use to help evaluate what 2 proportion of the population migrates within the VAMP period 3 as well as on those two tails that you described. 4 MR. HERRICK: Is there some reason why the VAMP program 5 was not developed to develop data for that larger time 6 period of smolt outmigration? 7 DR. HANSON: We discussed the issue within the context 8 of VAMP of having the time period when VAMP was implemented 9 be somewhat flexible to take advantage of information on the 10 seasonal timing of when fish migrated downstream. But we 11 selected a 30-day period based on a variety of other 12 constraints. Not simply biological issues, water supply and 13 other issues. 14 MR. HERRICK: If, hypothetically, the additional flow 15 -- again, hypothetically. Let's say CVPIA is providing a 16 longer pulse flow and the South Delta tidal barriers are 17 providing some protection as the Head of Old River Barrier, 18 how will that affect the reliability of your VAMP data? 19 DR. HANSON: I think VAMP data, as long as the 20 conditions during the period of our experimental 21 investigations are maintained, our VAMP data will be solid. 22 Because what we are actually tracking during that period are 23 coded-wire tagged salmon released at specific times and 24 specific dates. And those are used in evaluating salmon 25 smolt survival. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10701 1 To the extent that there are changes within the system 2 that provide improved conditions for a longer time period, 3 they would compliment the benefits of VAMP, primarily as 4 they affect the survival of non VAMP coded-wire tagged 5 salmon, fish that are naturally coming out of the drainage. 6 It would not, I don't think in any way, adversely impact the 7 quality or reliability of data that we collected as part of 8 the VAMP experimental design. 9 MR. HERRICK: Would you have preferred developing some 10 sort of VAMP agreement that would provide additional 11 protections or data points for outmigrating smolts? 12 DR. HANSON: We certainly discussed that. And as part 13 of VAMP, it is the first phase to help us collect the 14 information that is necessary to help identify what some of 15 those other measures would be. 16 MR. HERRICK: Would some of those other measures be 17 improving the water quality above the confluence of the San 18 Joaquin and Merced? 19 DR. HANSON: The water quality as it pertains to salmon 20 smolt survival, other than temperature, was not specifically 21 considered as part of our discussions. But water quality, 22 in general, is an issue that is being addressed through the 23 CalFed program and through many of the other scientific 24 investigations, as are a variety of other sources of 25 mortality, other factors influencing habitat quality, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10702 1 predation, unscreened diversions and a variety of sources 2 are all part of what affects the survival of these fish. 3 MR. HERRICK: Do you believe you could have developed a 4 program that included a different method of supplying the 5 flows for the San Joaquin River at Vernalis? 6 DR. HANSON: I am sure there are alternative ways that 7 that might have been approached. I wasn't directly involved 8 with the component that implements VAMP or establishes how 9 the flows will be provided. 10 MR. HERRICK: You don't have any opinion as to whether 11 or not a different method of providing the VAMP flows would 12 be better than the San Joaquin River Agreement method? 13 DR. HANSON: I did not look at that. 14 MR. HERRICK: If the Board will bear with me one minute, 15 I think I am almost done. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: Sure. 17 MR. HERRICK: Dr. Hanson, I just want to make sure that 18 -- confirm the point that for the past three years we have 19 had high flows so you haven't -- is it true you haven't been 20 able to develop VAMP data points? 21 DR. HANSON: We have conducted pilot studies. There 22 have been releases of coded-wire tagged salmon. We have 23 evaluated salmon smolt survival, and some of those have been 24 valuable in the sense that it has been very high flow, very 25 low exports and gives us some very important and useful CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10703 1 information. But the conditions for VAMP, including the 2 installation of the Head of Old River Barrier, have not been 3 suitable in the last three years, and so a true VAMP data 4 point that meets the underlying experimental design 5 requirements has not yet been achieved. 6 MR. HERRICK: If the Board adopted a method of 7 implementing the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan that was 8 different from the San Joaquin River Agreement, do you think 9 you could adjust your test criteria in order to develop 10 valid data points henceforth? 11 DR. HANSON: It think it would depend in part on what 12 those conditions were. And in the absence of knowing what 13 kind of conditions they might be, it is difficult to say how 14 they would be adjusted or fit within the VAMP context. 15 MR. HERRICK: The point is, since we haven't been able 16 to install Head of Old River Barrier as desired these past 17 few years and we've had very high flows, you are not overly 18 concerned with changing the experiment in midstream? I'll 19 put it that way. 20 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Argumentative. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: I didn't think that was argumentative. 22 So you are not -- question may be answered. 23 DR. HANSON: We have not yet established our first data 24 point under the true VAMP experimental design. We are 25 trying to achieve continuity with earlier sampling programs CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10704 1 that were done by the Fish and Wildlife Service. That would 2 not preclude, within the context of VAMP, our first 3 sampling. 4 MR. HERRCIK: That is all I have. 5 Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Hanson. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Herrick. 7 Mr. Nomellini. 8 ---oOo--- 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 10 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY REBUTTAL 11 BY CENTRAL DELTA PARTIES 12 BY MR. NOMELLINI 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, 14 Dante John Nomellini for Central Delta Parties. 15 Dr. Hanson. 16 DR. HANSON: Morning. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Good to see you again. 18 The Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan referred to as 19 VAMP in your testimony, is that the same program that 20 originated as the Herbold-Hanson proposal? 21 DR. HANSON: The Herbold-Hanson proposal was the 22 origin of what ultimately became the Vernalis Adaptive 23 Management Plan. Through the process of what Bruce and I 24 did was develop a series of proposals that were each subject 25 to peer review by a variety of other scientists working on CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10705 1 Bay-Delta issues. And they contributed. The program got 2 better and better. It became a stronger program over time, 3 and ultimately it became a program that, I think, changed in 4 some context from what Bruce and I originally started with. 5 But fundamentally it is the same program. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Isn't it true that there was a VAMP 7 prior to any discussion of a San Joaquin River Agreement? 8 MR. GARNER: I am going to object. I am not quite sure 9 what this has to do with Dr. Hanson's rebuttal testimony. 10 MR. NOMELLINI: It is going to the definition of this 11 VAMP that he discusses in his testimony. I want to clarify 12 what it is. And there is also testimony in here as to the 13 relationship between the San Joaquin River Agreement and 14 VAMP, which is on Page 2 of the testimony, that I want to 15 cross-examine on. Page 2, the first full paragraph or the 16 second paragraph from the top of the page, San Joaquin River 17 Agreement which implements the VAMP. 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: What does the definition -- I mean, 19 the existence of a previous plan have to do with this 20 issue? 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Well, I wanted to find out whether or 22 not there is a 30s Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan with or 23 without the San Joaquin River Agreement. I think the fact 24 that it predated it, would lead to believe that the testing 25 program and the additional protection may very well be CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10706 1 provided by other mechanisms without a San Joaquin River 2 Agreement, which is the subject of Phase II and II-A. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: The question may be answered. 4 DR. HANSON: We did start originally with the 5 development of a scientific experimental design for 6 addressing the issue of effects of flow and exporters with 7 the combination of the Head of Old River on salmon smolt 8 survival. That program, as I mentioned then, evolved the 9 benefit of the peer review and the iterations. 10 When we got to a point where that experimental design 11 was sufficiently well-developed and had undergone sufficient 12 peer review that it was a reasonably solid program to 13 proceed, then the issue became how would it be implemented 14 and within what structure would these conditions be met, 15 and that is my understanding is what then led to the River 16 Agreement. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: So it is clear that the Vernalis 18 Adaptive Management Plan, although implemented by the San 19 Joaquin River Agreement, is a plan that could stand alone? 20 DR. HANSON: It could stand alone as an experimental 21 design. It would not necessarily stand alone as a program 22 that could be implemented. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: Is the Vernalis Adaptive Management 24 Plan, referred to as VAMP in your testimony, described in 25 any written document? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10707 1 DR. HANSON: It is described in Appendix A that was 2 attached to the San Joaquin River Agreement. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: That is Exhibit 2 of the San Joaquin 4 River Group Authority; is that what you are referring to? 5 DR. HANSON: I don't have it with me. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Let me show you -- I will represent to 7 you that this is Exhibit 2 of the San Joaquin River Group 8 Authority. 9 If you can verify whether or not the Appendix A 10 attached to that is the Appendix A you are referring to, 11 I'd appreciate that. 12 DR. HANSON: I do believe this is the Appendix A that I 13 was referring to, although it is a later date than that one 14 that I am actually using. I have a March 6th date. This is 15 a March 20th date. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: Which one should we assume to be the 17 VAMP referred to in your testimony? 18 DR. HANSON: You should assume the March 20th, 1998, 19 version, which is included as part of the materials you 20 provided to me, is the VAMP experimental design I am 21 referring to. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: Have there been any changes to VAMP 23 since March 20, 1998? 24 DR. HANSON: Not that I am aware of. 25 MR. NOMELLINI: Calling your attention to the first CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10708 1 page of San Joaquin River Group Authority Number 32, which 2 is your rebuttal testimony, in the third line, and actually 3 the first three lines, you describe the Vernalis Adaptive 4 Management Plan as being designed to provide protection for 5 juvenile chinook salmon emigrating from the San Joaquin 6 River system in addition to other Delta fish species. 7 What other Delta fish species are you referring to in 8 this testimony, this line of the testimony? 9 DR. HANSON: The Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan was 10 designed specifically for fall-run chinook salmon emigrating 11 from the San Joaquin River. To the extent that the 12 experimental design results in reductions in exports, during 13 the April 15th to May 15th time period, for example, that 14 would result in an indirect benefit to a variety of other 15 Delta species, including Delta smelt, that occur in the 16 system at that time of the year. But that is an incorrect 17 benefit of the program, and it is yet to be evaluated. 18 MR. NOMELLINI: Then it is true that the Vernalis 19 Adaptive Management Plan was not intended to provide 20 protection for steelhead? 21 DR. HANSON: It was not designed for that purpose, no. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the VAMP, I believe you 23 already testified, but I would like to verify it, that 24 regardless of whether or not there is a VAMP, the CVPIA, the 25 San Joaquin River Management Plan, the Delta Pumping Plan CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10709 1 Fish Protection Agreement, referred to as the Four-Pumps 2 Agreement, the Comprehensive Monitoring, Research and 3 Assessment Program, Tracy Fish Agreement, the Commercial 4 Salmon Stamp Program, Sacramento River Refuge, SB 1086, the 5 Ecosystem Restoration Plan, the Category III Program would 6 all exist. Is that correct? 7 DR. HANSON: They would all exist. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: And if we asked the same question with 9 regard to the absence of the San Joaquin River Agreement, 10 the answer would be the same, would it not, that all of 11 those programs would exist? 12 DR. HANSON: They would exist. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: I had asked you previously about 14 whether or not the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan could 15 be implemented. Let's put it this way: Would the Vernalis 16 Adaptive Management Plan exist if there was no San Joaquin 17 River Agreement? 18 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. Asked and answered. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: I didn't ask that exact question. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Permit the question to be answered. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: I am not going to spend a lot of time 22 on it. 23 DR. HANSON: Could I ask you to repeat it, please? 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Would the Vernalis Adaptive Management 25 Plan exist if there was no San Joaquin River Agreement? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10710 1 DR. HANSON: My opinion is that the plan would exist, 2 but would not be implemented. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: That is the same answer you got 4 before. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: It was a different question. I agree 6 it is the same answer, but it was a different question. 7 Now, with regard -- 8 MR. BIRMINGHAM: It would be like asking a question is 9 the sky blue and then asking the question is the sky the 10 same color as that sky blue car. 11 MR. NOMELLINI: Not a bad analogy. Unfair to this old 12 man. 13 With regard to implementation of the Vernalis Adaptive 14 Management Plan, VAMP, as described in your testimony or as 15 referenced in your testimony, would you agree that the 16 program could be implemented with flow obtained from Friant 17 or the San Luis Reservoir coupled with agreed upon 18 reductions in exports to correspond to those set forth in 19 the VAMP? 20 DR. HANSON: I am not really an operations expert. I 21 believe there are probably other mechanisms or alternatives 22 for implementing this, but I simply don't know. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: So you haven't analyzed anything to 24 determine how this program might be -- how VAMP would be 25 implemented without a San Joaquin River Agreement? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10711 1 DR. HANSON: No. Our role was to establish the types 2 of conditions that we would like to have at Vernalis and at 3 the export facilities. And it was the role of other 4 parties, including operators and folks knowledgeable about 5 the system and its hydrology, to establish the framework for 6 implementing it; and that is what originated in the San 7 Joaquin River Group Agreement. I was not a party to that 8 portion of the discussion. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: There are two parts to VAMP; is that 10 correct? 11 DR. HANSON: There are several parts to VAMP, yes. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: I thought I saw two. But there is a 13 testing program and then there is some protection being 14 provided to salmon smolt survival. 15 Are there other elements that are not embraced in those 16 two? 17 DR. HANSON: When you were speaking of elements, I was 18 thinking of flow and exporters and Head of Old River Barrier 19 as being elements of VAMP. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: In terms of objectives? 21 DR. HANSON: In terms of our objectives it was to 22 provide protection for the fish that were outmigrating front 23 the San Joaquin River while also providing the necessary 24 framework for collecting data to help us evaluate the affect 25 of flow and exports with the Head of Old River Barrier on CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10712 1 the survival of those fish. So it did have those two basic 2 objectives. 3 MR. NOMELLINI: Separating those two, the protection 4 objective of VAMP is provided by flow and reduction of 5 exports; is it not? 6 DR. HANSON: In combination with the installation of 7 the Head of Old River Barrier. 8 MR. NOMELLINI: If those three elements could be 9 provided in some other alternative, then that aspect of the 10 objective could be achieved? 11 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object on the grounds 12 that this line of questions is going beyond the scope of 13 rebuttal testimony. 14 MR. GARNER: I would join in that objection. 15 C.O. STUBCHAER: Could you point out, Mr. Nomellini, 16 where in the rebuttal testimony it is stated? 17 MR. NOMELLINI: Testimony on Page 2 it says: 18 The San Joaquin River Agreement which 19 implements the VAMP also has additional 20 benefits for salmon. (Reading.) 21 I am trying to discern which elements in the San 22 Joaquin River Agreement actually implement the VAMP, and I 23 think we've established so far that flow is one of those, 24 Head of Old River Barrier, and then the exporters 25 restriction. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10713 1 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Garner. 2 MR. GARNER: Once again, these are the sort of things 3 that Dr. Hanson was asked when he first appeared here. It 4 is not really the thrust of this rebuttal testimony. 5 C.O. STUBCHAER: I am going to sustain the objection. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: Okay. 7 With regard to the Head of Old River Barrier, do you 8 expect that the Head of Old River Barrier will be installed 9 this year? 10 DR. HANSON: I am somewhat out of date with the 11 hydrologic projections. The last meeting that I attended 12 that was a VAMP coordinating meeting had a presentation by 13 the Bureau of Reclamation and at that time they were 14 projecting that flow conditions on the San Joaquin River 15 would very likely be suitable for the installation of Head 16 of Old River Barrier. What kinds of precipitation and 17 hydrologic conditions, we've had several additional storms, 18 how that may have affected that prediction, I am not aware. 19 MR. NOMELLINI: When was that meeting? 20 DR. HANSON: That was, I believe, in December. 21 MR. NOMELLINI: Well before the February 1 forecast? 22 DR. HANSON: Yes. 23 MR. NOMELLINI: You have had no updates since that time? 24 DR. HANSON: There have been additional meetings of the 25 hydrology group that is looking at the conditions that would CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10714 1 affect the installation of that Head of Old River Barrier. 2 But because of my schedule and other conflicts, I haven't 3 been a party to those discussions. 4 MR. NOMELLINI: If the Head of Old River Barrier is not 5 installed, then how does that affect the test program 6 outlined in VAMP? 7 DR. HANSON: If we do have within VAMP some contingency 8 provisions for collecting data, much the way we did in 1998, 9 with the Head of Old River Barrier not being installed, but 10 if the Head of Old River Barrier is not installed where the 11 Vernalis flows or the exporters conditions don't meet the 12 requirements for a VAMP test, then it would not result in a 13 valid VAMP data point. It would still be a useful survival 14 study and would provide us information on the survival of 15 outmigrating fish, but it would not meet the specific 16 requirements for a VAMP data point. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: You had indicated in response to a 18 different question that the increased exports related to 19 recirculation would cause a problem for the test as it is 20 designed in VAMP? 21 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Objection. 22 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Birmingham. 23 MR. BIRMINGHAM: Mr. Nomellini is using his opportunity 24 to cross-examine this witness on direct in order to 25 cross-examine him on questions I asked of him on CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10715 1 cross-examination. My understanding is that is not 2 permissible. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Godwin. 4 MR. GODWIN: Same objection. 5 MR. GARNER: I would join in that as well. I think we 6 had a ruling on that. 7 MR. NOMELLINI: I agree that is not permissible. But 8 the subject matter is the test and how the test can be 9 achieved and whether or not increased -- I can go back 10 through the same questions that were asked previously: 11 Where did you get at 1500 at low end? Where did you get the 12 high end? And then what happens if we add to flows in 13 between? 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini, your questions 15 specifically pertain to an answer given under previous 16 cross-examination. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: That's true with regard to 18 short-circuiting the process. Therefore, you don't want it? 19 C.O. STUBCHAER: I am going to sustain the objection. 20 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to the testing program as 21 outlined in VAMP, how did you arrive at the limits on 22 exports? 23 MR. GARNER: I am sorry, I am going to object here. 24 Once again, this is going to the basic elements of VAMP, not 25 rebuttal testimony, which is how the actions under VAMP may CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10716 1 benefit or lead to the doubling of anadromous fish 2 populations. Mr. Nomellini is just going back to initial 3 VAMP issues that were raised in Phase II. 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Nomellini. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: The testimony clearly provides on Page 6 1 two parts for the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan. One 7 was the protection of juvenile chinook salmon emigrating 8 from the San Joaquin River in addition to other fish 9 species. We've talked a little bit about that. 10 The second part is while also providing an experimental 11 framework for investigating the effects of San Joaquin River 12 flow and State and Federal Water Projects exports on salmon 13 smolt survival. That is the second element that I am 14 questioning on. 15 MR. GODWIN: Mr. Garner is absolutely correct. We have 16 gone over this testimony in Phase II. We had extensive 17 testimony and extensive cross-examination on how these data 18 points were derived and how exporters limits were set, how 19 the flow limits were set. And we are just rehashing the 20 same old thing again. 21 C.O. STUBCHAER: And in a certain amount, rehashing 22 today, also. 23 MR. GODWIN: And we had some of that today. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Please repeat the question, Mr. 25 Nomellini. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10717 1 MR. NOMELLINI: How did you establish the exporters 2 limits in the VAMP, Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan? 3 DR. HANSON: The method or -- 4 C.O. STUBCHAER: That is all right. It is -- I agree 5 it is repetitious. We have gone down this path. 6 MR. NOMELLINI: I wasn't going to spend a lot time. I 7 want to get to the same point I was a little while ago. 8 C.O. STUBCHAER: You were talking over me. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: I'm so sorry. 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: But we will start over again for the 11 Court Reporter. I said I will permit the question to be 12 answered. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: Thank you. 14 DR. HANSON: The logic that we used for selecting 15 exporters rates is outlined on Page 3 of the Appendix A, 16 which is the VAMP experimental framework that we discussed 17 earlier in this cross-examination. And in that last 18 paragraph on Page 3 it states that the minimum exporters 19 rate of 1,500 cfs is based on the minimum pumping capacity 20 and likely drawdown rate from the canals during this 21 season. That is consistent with our discussions with the 22 Bureau operators, with DWR operators about how low an export 23 rate they could go during that time period and still meet 24 facility requirements and any contractual demand. 25 On Page 3, it goes on to state that given the minimum CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10718 1 exporters rate of 1,500 cfs, the chosen minimum flow rate 2 of 3,200 cfs is based on the intent of the U.S. Fish and 3 Wildlife Service Biological Opinion that exporters be less 4 than 50 percent of the Vernalis flow rate. Similarly, the 5 maximum exporters rate of 3,000 cfs is determined by the 6 maximum flow of 7,000 cfs and the intent of the biological 7 opinion to limit exports to less than half of the required 8 Vernalis flow standards. 9 In my earlier answer, we did discuss and we did 10 consider the E/I ratio. But in our final analysis it was 11 the biological opinion that was used as part of our 12 fundamental basis for establishing that exporters rate. 13 MR. NOMELLINI: To that extent your prior testimony was 14 incorrect? 15 DR. HANSON: It was incorrect and should be updated to 16 reflect what was actually in the final document. 17 MR. NOMELLINI: With regard to conducting the test, if 18 we used as the low end a minimum flow of 4,000 and a minimum 19 export rate of 2,000, would that invalidate the test as 20 outlined in the VAMP? 21 DR. HANSON: It would. 22 MR. NOMELLINI: How would that invalidate the test? 23 DR. HANSON: It would invalidate the test in two ways. 24 We established specific flow and exporters conditions as 25 outlined on Table 1 of Appendix A, the VAMP experimental CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10719 1 framework. That established the specific test conditions 2 under which the salmon smolt survival studies would be 3 conducted. 4 The scenario that you put forward as a hypothetical is 5 not included as part of our experimental design. Our 6 minimum flow is 3,200 cfs and an exporters rate of 1,500 7 cfs. On the other side of the ledger, our maximum condition 8 is a flow of 7,000 cfs with a maximum exporters rate of 9 3,000. 10 So, two important points. One is that your flow and 11 exporters conditions don't meet specific requirements as 12 outlined in the table. That would invalidate their use in 13 that regard. The second is that we had a lot of discussion 14 about our ability, being biologists and the variability 15 inherent in conducting salmon survival studies, to actually 16 be able to detect through our field investigations 17 differences in survival as a function of the relatively 18 narrow range of flow and exporters conditions that we had to 19 work with. And to maximize the power of our study we wanted 20 to preferentially have the data points as far of the 21 extremes of our flow and exporters conditions as we possibly 22 could. Anything that results in an increase in flow and an 23 increase correspondingly in exporters rates that would 24 diminish that ability to test at the two extremes would, we 25 think, adversely affect our ability to detect differences in CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10720 1 survival rate should they occur. 2 MR. NOMELLINI: The detection ability is based on the 3 spread of the extremes of the test? 4 DR. HANSON: Exactly, that is exactly it. 5 MR. NOMELLINI: Let's say we raise the low end and we 6 correspondingly raise the high end. Would we have the same 7 spread? 8 MR. GODWIN: Objection. Low end and high end, what is 9 he referring to? 10 C.O. STUBCHAER: Do you understand the question? 11 DR. HANSON: I do. 12 MR. GODWIN: Low end of exports or flows? 13 MR. NOMELLINI: The low end of the experiment. 14 MR. BIRMINGHAM: I am going to object on the grounds 15 that this goes beyond the scope of the direct, even goes 16 beyond the scope of my cross. He's talking now about how 17 can we redesign the experiment. 18 Even if he was permitted to cross on my cross, I didn't 19 ask any questions about how to redesign the experiment. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: There is no reference to your cross in 21 these questions. I am going to permit the question to be 22 answered. 23 DR. HANSON: The concern that we would have doesn't so 24 much pertain to the low end. It pertains to the higher flow 25 condition, and we were limited in developing the design for CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10721 1 VAMP to a flow of 7,000 cfs at Vernalis, because of 2 operating constraints on the Head of Old River Barrier. And 3 we were told by DWR and the Bureau operators that the 4 highest flow that we could incorporate in the VAMP program 5 and still accommodate the Head of Old River Barrier would be 6 the 7,000 cfs. That precluded our ability to then go over a 7 much wider range, which is one of the things that we might 8 have certainly considered at the time. 9 MR. NOMELLINI: So the spread is essential. Is that 10 what your testimony is to this test? 11 DR. HANSON: The spread is essential to this test. 12 MR. NOMELLINI: The upper limit you understand to be 13 fixed by operational conditions of the barrier? 14 DR. HANSON: Those were the conditions that we 15 developed the test. 16 MR. NOMELLINI: If the upper limit was not constrained 17 by the Head of Old River Barrier, would it be possible to 18 achieve a sufficient spread such that my hypothetical would 19 provide the test data sought by the VAMP testing? 20 DR. HANSON: Under that hypothetical, I think it would 21 be, although we didn't evaluate that and that wasn't subject 22 to any of our peer review or our development of the 23 program. 24 MR. NOMELLINI: Just give me a minute, Mr. Chairman. I 25 may no longer be an obstacle to an earlier recess. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10722 1 Okay. That is all I have. 2 Thank you very much. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Nomellini. 4 Staff have questions? 5 Board Members? 6 Ms. Forster. 7 ---oOo--- 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF 9 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GROUP AUTHORITY REBUTTAL 10 BY BOARD MEMBERS 11 MEMBER FORSTER: Mr. Hanson, a few days ago we had 12 someone here from, I think it was, Bureau of Reclamation, 13 Fish and Wildlife. During his testimony, he said that there 14 was no place where fish data was all accumulated and 15 collected in one area like a central place of knowledge. 16 Now, you, this morning, presented all of these programs that 17 are going on. 18 Are you aware of someplace where all of it is collected 19 together and analyzed to see if all the efforts that we're 20 putting into it and all the public dollars we are putting 21 into it are making a difference? Is there a czar of 22 performance of all these things? 23 DR. HANSON: The simple answer to that is no. There is 24 no central repository, no master database, no comprehensive 25 review or evaluation of all of the study data that is being CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10723 1 collected by the fishery resources within the system. 2 Having said that, there were efforts a number of years 3 ago to develop such a database, and it was being developed 4 by the Bureau of Reclamation in a storette format. That 5 database became very cumbersome. And with the advent of the 6 personal computers, most of the individual scientists 7 retained their data and do their own analyses. There are 8 some that are proactive and put their information into 9 publicly available databases on the Internet. They will 10 certainly provide it to other investigators upon request. 11 Some individuals like Sheila Green at the Department of 12 Water Resources compiled a great deal of this information, 13 but it is no way comprehensive. 14 MEMBER FORSTER: Would all the money being spent in 15 CalFed and the 204 moneys and all of that, hasn't anybody 16 come up with an RFP or proposal to do that? 17 DR. HANSON: There have certainly been discussions 18 about doing that. There are ongoing discussions about being 19 able to do that. There are some difficulties in a number of 20 camps. One of which is that many of the existing databases 21 are in different formats. Some have been documented. Some 22 have not. Some have been subject to quality control checks. 23 Some have not. 24 When we went into some of the databases early on as 25 part of an effort similar to this, we found that depending CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10724 1 on who the investigator was, whether it was the Bureau of 2 Reclamation or DWR, Fish and Game or Fish and Wildlife, or 3 U.C. Davis, there might be three or four different 4 identifications for same sampling location. Just a wide 5 variety of obstacles are currently in the way of actually 6 developing that kind of data effort. 7 I think, though, as we get more sophisticated in our 8 ability to use databases, and as the tools that we have 9 available, both mainframe and PC-driven tools become more 10 sophisticated and we have larger storage capacity, then some 11 of those obstacles will be eliminated. But right now that 12 is not the case. 13 The second issue is that as scientific investigators, 14 most individuals feel a strong bond with the data that they 15 collect. They want to be the ones to analyze it. They want 16 to be the ones to generate the report. And, quite frankly, 17 there is somewhat of a territorial nature among some of the 18 scientists and a reluctance to simply put everything they 19 collected out in a public forum. 20 C.O. STUBCHAER: Just like other animals, territorial. 21 DR. HANSON: Yes. So, there are technical obstacles to 22 overcome. There are institutional obstacles. There is a 23 tremendous mass of information backlogged that could not be 24 dealt with. And right now there is no concerted effort on a 25 broad scale to do all of that work. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10725 1 Some other areas, hydrology for example, some of that 2 information is more readily available than it is within the 3 biological field. So I would basically concur with the 4 comments I understand you received earlier. 5 MEMBER FORSTER: Then I have a follow-up question. It 6 is a bigger picture. When you look at different activities, 7 and just take the VAMP because you were talking about it 8 today, and you say it is a 12-year experiment, when you are 9 looking at performance and outputs and improvements, how 10 many years do you really have as a framework to decide if 11 what you are doing is making a difference? How long does it 12 take to say, "Look it, you know, in 1999 they decided to do 13 this, and we wouldn't have the real knowledge about this for 14 20 years, 30 years." Do you internally have time frames 15 that you know it will take to figure out if certain 16 activities show success? 17 DR. HANSON: To link your two questions somewhat, when 18 we developed the VAMP program, we felt it was very important 19 that we share publicly the information we are collecting and 20 that we do that on a very short time period so that people 21 have it and can use it. And in that context we established 22 a common database format. The sampling that I do is 23 coordinated with the sampling that Fish and Wildlife Service 24 does. We worked together on the database. And the 25 information that we collected last spring is now available CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10726 1 publicly in an electronic format for anyone to use. 2 And we have had technical meetings since then to review 3 that information. So, every year we will be gaining the 4 insight of the information that we collected that year to 5 make those decisions about whether the program is showing 6 promise. We won't have to wait for ten years to do a 7 retrospective examination. 8 Having said that, though, each year we in essence 9 generate one or two possible data points. And it takes a 10 certain number of data points over a certain range of flow 11 and exporters conditions before we would become comfortable 12 with even speculating on a general trend or a relationship. 13 And I can't tell you whether that is going to be five years 14 or six or seven, or how long, because in part it depends on 15 the hands that we're dealt each year. 16 If we get all of the great conditions and we have the 17 two extremes that we talked about in the previous testimony, 18 we got good data points at those two extremes and an 19 intermediate data point, we might be much more comfortable 20 after a three-year period to not give you final results, but 21 to be able to come back with some degree of comfort and say 22 at least it is showing promise. 23 If in fact, on the other hand, we get four consecutive 24 very wet years, such as we seem to be having, we're not 25 going to have that ability to give you that kind of a trend, CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10727 1 and we are going to be very reluctant to speculate as to 2 whether this program is providing the kind of results or 3 what those results are starting to show. 4 So, it is a very difficult question to answer as to 5 exactly how long it will take before we can start making 6 those judgments. But we are working cooperatively. 7 Everybody has the data. Anybody who wants to analyze it in 8 their own fashion can certainly do so. We have a forum for 9 bringing those analyses forward, so that we can discuss that 10 every year. And as we look at last year and we can say, 11 "What should we be doing this year to make that better." So 12 it is a combined effort. 13 MEMBER FORSTER: Is the forum that you are talking 14 about just applied to the activities on the San Joaquin 15 River, or do you have the same thing going on on the 16 Sacramento River and other tributaries of the Delta? 17 DR. HANSON: There are fundamentally similar programs 18 that are going on for each of the major areas within the 19 Sacramento-San Joaquin system, and most of those efforts are 20 being organized through the Interagency Ecological Program 21 in the form of what I referred to as project work teams. 22 There are project work teams for the San Joaquin 23 tributaries. There is a project work team for VAMP. There 24 is a broader umbrella salmon project work team that deals 25 with coordinating the efforts for the entire CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10728 1 drainage. There is a Delta salmon project team which deals 2 with the downstream issues. There are project work teams 3 dealing with Delta smelt and splittail and other native 4 species. There are a variety of these parallel efforts that 5 are underway. And part of the reason for the Assimilar 6 Conference each year is to bring all these investigators 7 together to be table to talk about that. 8 MEMBER FORSTER: You want to go now? 9 DR. HANSON: I will stay as long as you have 10 questions. 11 C.O. STUBCHAER: Mr. Brown. 12 Are you through? 13 MEMBER FORSTER: I am through. 14 Thank you. 15 C.O. BROWN: Dr. Hanson, what is the genesis of a VAMP 16 idea? 17 DR. HANSON: The genesis came about, as I understand 18 it, and quite frankly I wasn't there when it originated, 19 there were a series of discussions among environmental 20 interests, water users and a whole group of people talking 21 about the San Joaquin River issues and the salmon smolt 22 survival data and what we could do with it, from the 23 previous investigations. And there was some degree of 24 frustration and some degree of uncomfort about what we could 25 actually conclude from those previous studies. And that was CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10729 1 because of a number of underlying issues with regard to how 2 the environmental conditions had change during the period of 3 some of those studies and problems with temperature and 4 disease and a whole variety of issues. And my 5 understanding, secondhand, is that during that meeting it 6 was decided that it would be in everyone's best interest if 7 a framework were developed for actually, systematically 8 designing and conducting salmon smolt survivals on the San 9 Joaquin that brought the biologists and operators and all 10 the parties to the table. 11 Since neither Bruce or I was at that meeting, my 12 understanding is that we were delegated responsibility to 13 actually work together to pull an initial draft of that kind 14 of experimental program together. And Bruce brings to the 15 table great scientific expertise and significant linkage to 16 the federal and state resource agencies, regulatory agencies 17 and environmental community. I have worked for a number of 18 years with the water industry and with the exporters. 19 So having he and I come to together to coauthor the VAMP 20 was a partnership that brought a variety of perspectives to 21 the table, and, I think, quite frankly, brought a much 22 stronger flavor for how best to design this program. From 23 that genesis, sitting at his kitchen table in Dixon, we 24 developed what became the Herbold-Hanson Proposal. 25 C.O. BROWN: When was this? Approximately what year? CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10730 1 What date? 2 DR. HANSON: I believe it was in 1996. But I'm getting 3 old enough I kind of lose track of years. 4 C.O. BROWN: It preceded the San Joaquin River 5 Agreement concept? 6 DR. HANSON: It did. 7 C.O. BROWN: How did the two get together? 8 DR. HANSON: The two got together in the sense that the 9 broader group that was involved in exporter issues and San 10 Joaquin River issues at a policy level, in essence, had 11 delegated to Bruce and I this responsibility to develop a 12 scientific framework for conducting these experiments. 13 When Bruce and I had developed those initial 14 frameworks, which at that time were the Herbold-Hanson 15 Proposals, as they started to develop and to mature into a 16 truly scientific experiment, a framework that had received 17 peer review, something that met the needs of a variety of 18 investigators and had a variety of comments from Marty 19 Kjelson and others, we actually then developed what became 20 VAMP. And VAMP was and still is an experimental design for 21 accomplishing the objectives that we have talked about. 22 The difficulty then became in how we can actually 23 achieve the environmental conditions, the flows and exports, 24 how we pay for those things, how we deal with the scientific 25 studies, the participants in the various organizations and CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10731 1 how they contribute. And that became the issue that went 2 back to the policy group as to how, cooperatively, they 3 could collectively develop a framework or an agreement for 4 how they would implement the technical work that Bruce and I 5 had put forward. 6 C.O. BROWN: Your support or representation here today 7 is on behalf of State Water Contractors? 8 DR. HANSON: It is on behalf of State Water 9 Contractors. 10 C.O. BROWN: Have you had the opportunity to study the 11 alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Report? 12 DR. HANSON: I have looked at them very quickly. I 13 have, frankly, not spent any significant time studying or 14 analyzing those alternatives. 15 C.O. BROWN: Are you here today as an advocate for the 16 San Joaquin River Agreement alternative? 17 DR. HANSON: I would say from my perspective as a 18 scientist I would rather not be characterized as an advocate 19 for any type of a specific agreement or way of doing 20 something. What I am here is to describe the scientific 21 basis for how we developed this experimental design, how we 22 coordinated and considered other activities and the benefits 23 that I think derive from this. But I am not here on behalf 24 of or as an advocate of San Joaquin River Agreement. 25 Having said that, I am strongly in favor of the fact CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10732 1 that an agreement of this complexity has been worked out and 2 allows us to go forward with implementing the kind of 3 scientific investigation that we put forward. And from that 4 perspective I think it is a great stride forward in allowing 5 all of us to accomplishing some objectives that I think 6 otherwise either wouldn't have occurred or would have taken 7 a very, very long time to achieve. So in that context, I am 8 in favor of where we are today. 9 C.O. BROWN: As a scientist, the testing is, in your 10 opinion, a very much needed element in what we are doing 11 here? 12 DR. HANSON: In my opinion as a scientist it is a 13 critical element. We are continually being challenged with 14 providing information on competing demands for limiting 15 resources, whether they be flow or exporters or other 16 nonflow kinds of actions that will improve fisheries 17 resources. And to the extent that we as a scientific 18 community are not able to demonstrate the benefits and to 19 really critically examine what would be achieved through the 20 implementation of these programs, I think it is very 21 difficult for us to come forward and say this is 22 specifically what is required. This kind of program 23 provides multiple benefits and gives us the tools necessary 24 to be able to come to bodies like the State Board, as well 25 as to our own constituents, and say, "Here are the kinds of CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10733 1 benefits and kinds of constraints and limits that would be 2 achieved by these different actions." And the scientific 3 basis and the data we collect, I think, is the foundation 4 for making those decisions. 5 C.O. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Hanson, and thank you for 6 interrupting your schedule. 7 DR. HANSON: I am happy to. 8 C.O. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 10 Mr. Garner, Mr. O'Laughlin, do you have redirect? 11 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I have no redirect. 12 C.O. STUBCHAER: You wish to offer your exhibits? 13 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: The San Joaquin River Group Authority 14 has another panel tomorrow. My understanding was when all 15 the rebuttal was done, then I would offer my exhibits. 16 C.O. STUBCHAER: That is fine. 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Is that okay? 18 C.O. STUBCHAER: Yes. 19 I want to add my thanks to you, Dr. Hanson, for coming 20 up from Monterey to meet with us today, and also, Mr. 21 Garner, for helping make the arrangements. 22 DR. HANSON: Thank you. Actually, I was planning to be 23 at Cachuma today. 24 C.O. STUBCHAER: Is there any water in Cachuma? I 25 haven't been down there lately. CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10734 1 DR. HANSON: We are doing great things for fish down 2 there, too. 3 C.O. STUBCHAER: Okay. 4 Is there anything else before we adjourn for today? 5 Staff have any questions or comments? 6 We will hear your panel tomorrow, Mr. O'Laughlin. 7 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: I have one procedural question. 8 Seeing that we are coming to the close of Phase II-A, my 9 understanding on Phase V was that we were going to set a 10 briefing schedule once the Trinity County matter had been 11 resolved. I don't want to get backed up to where that gets 12 resolved in the next week or two and then I have two briefs 13 to do in 60 days. 14 C.O. STUBCHAER: Let's get a status report from Ms. 15 Leidigh or other staff members on the Trinity County issue. 16 Is that a redaction issue? 17 MR. O'LAUGHLIN: Yes. 18 MS. LEIDIGH: We have finally gotten something from 19 the parties who are working on redaction. They did not 20 fully agree on what should be redacted. So I do have a 21 letter from Ms. Miniberrigarai explaining what the areas of 22 agreement and disagreement are and showing on a transcript 23 where they have agreed to redact and where there is a lack 24 of agreement. 25 I need to take a look at those and make recommendations CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10735 1 to the Board, and I will do that as quickly as I can. Once 2 that is done and the Hearing Officer has made a ruling on 3 the redactions, then I think the transcript will be made 4 available to the parties and we can set the briefing 5 schedule for Phase V. 6 C.O. STUBCHAER: Thank you. 7 Any other questions? 8 If not we are adjourned until 9:00 tomorrow morning. 9 (Hearing adjourned at 11:45 a.m.) 10 ---oOo--- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITOL REPORTERS (916) 923-5447 10736 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 5 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 6 7 8 I, ESTHER F. WIATRE, certify that I was the 9 official Court Reporter for the proceedings named herein, 10 and that as such reporter, I reported in verbatim shorthand 11 writing those proceedings; 12 That I thereafter caused my shorthand writing to be 13 reduced to typewriting, and the pages numbered 10644 through 14 10736 herein constitute a complete, true and correct record 15 of the proceedings. 16 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed this certificate 18 at Sacramento, California, on this 6th day of March 1999. 19 20 21 22 23 ______________________________ ESTHER F. WIATRE 24 CSR NO. 1564 25