New Page 4

From: Subject: New Page 4 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:41:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file://C:\Documents and Settings\User\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\FTY6D3D1\testimony fish managers.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 New Page 4

[This is from the transcript of testimony given at a public = meeting=20 before the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors at the Miner=92s = Inn=20 Convention Center on March 25, 2008. NOTE: Greg Hurner represents=20 California Fish and Game, David Diamond U.S. Fish and Wildlife and = Phil=20 Detrich representative of U.S. Fish and Wildlife ]

1 Phil Detrich, field supervisor for the U.S. Fish = and

2 Wildlife, and David Diamond, Special Assistant to = the

3 Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. = So

4 as far as we're concerned, we're here to hear = them.

5 Mr. Chair, if you're ready, they're ready.

6 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Okay. Why don't start.

7 I'm left-handed, I'll start on my left. Greg, if = you'd

8 like make some opening remarks, will you please do = so.

9 MR. HURNER: We were just debating over who got

10 to go first.

11 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: I took care of that.

12 MR. HURNER: Mr. Chairman, members of the

13 County Board of Supervisors, and residents = and

14 interested parties in Siskiyou County, it's a=20 pleasure

15 to be here. I very much appreciate the opportunity to=20 ,

16 speak before you and answer some of the = questlons

17 regarding the agreement. I've been involved for = just

18 about two years in this agreement, which is not as=20 long

19 as your County representatives. But it's been = an

20 interesting process. I know there's a lot of = concerns

21 in the community, a lot of questions. Unfortunately=20 we

22 didn't have the opportunity to do kind of a=20 pre-rollout

23 and help to alleviate some of those concerns before=20 it

24 hit the street. So that's certainly what we're = trying

25 to do here tonight. Hopefully we'll be able to = answer

1 everything, all the questions that you have. = I'm

2 willing to stay as late as necessary to try to = address

3 all your issues.

4 We believe from the State's perspective this is = a

5 very good agreement. It provides balance in what = we're

6 trying to achieve in the basin. It leaves members = and

7 parties that were not part of the agreement,=20 particularly

8 Scott and Shasta, allows us to continue our=20 cooperative

9 relationship with the Scott and Shasta Valley without

10 changing any conditions. And it doesn't affect rates=20 for

11 people outside of the agreement. There's nothing in=20 here

12 that affects the rates that people pay for=20 electricity.

13 There's no additional costs there. And we hope = to

14 continue to work on the agreement with PacifiCorp = and

15 hopefully we can reach an agreement with them and=20 make

16 sure interests are protected in that agreement as=20 well.

17 With that, I'll yield to the Federal

18 government.

19 MR. DIETRICH: Thank you. I'm Phil Dietrich,

20 Field Supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife=20 Service

21 here in Yreka and the Klamath issues coordinator for=20 the

22 Fish and Wildlife Service.

23 I've been in the this position seven years. I

24 came in just before the water shutoff in the upper=20 basin.

25 I've been involved with Klamath Task Force, member of=20 the

1 Shasta/Scott Recovery Team, I administered the=20 restoration

2 program that has brought millions of dollars in=20 habitat

3 improvement work into the county, work on = cooperative

4 agreement with the tribes, and also my staff wrote = the

5 prescriptions for the Federal Energy Regulatory=20 Commission

6 licensing. I've got a lot of depth and breadth in the=20 l

7 issues here that are being considered.

8 Fish and Wildlife

9 Interior are very concerned about the status quo = with

10 fisheries in the basin. With the ongoing atmosphere=20 of

11 litigation and with the fact that the management plan=20 of

12 the Klamath River is currently in the hands of the = courts.

13 In the last seven years, Federal government put out=20 $100

14 million in disaster relief money that went into the=20 basin

15 or the other. The Department of Interior assigned = my,

16 supervisor, the Regional Director of the Fish and=20 Wildlife

17 Service, to try to find local based solutions. And = so

18 we've been trying to work on that in a number of=20 venues.

19 Relicensing of the hydro project or the parties to=20 get

20 together, especially those involved in the litigation=20 and

21 the application of the ESA, to try to find = solutions.

22 I think five years ago if anyone had = suggested

23 that this group of parties could come up with = a

24 negotiated settlement, it would have been = thought

25 unthinkable. But here it is. We have a = fantastic

1 accomplishment among many of the interests in the=20 basin.

2 That's what's here for the review at this point. = That

3 accomplishment has now been brought out for = public

4 review. At this point it is open for public comment. = I

5 think this is one of the most important = discussions

6 that's been held in the Klamath Basin in a long = time.

7 How can we solve these longstanding water and = fish

8 issues.

9 I want to comment briefly on the role of Fish = and

10 Wildlife Service. We're not a lead agency in = this

11 proceeding. We provided technical assistance and=20 we've

12 negotiated in areas that are affecting our

13 responsibilities. When I think back over the last=20 three

14 years, most of the negotiation took place between=20 other

13 parties, between non-federal and non-governmental=20 parties

16 who had interests in water and fisheries issues. My=20 role

17 since the release of the document has been to = provide

18 information wherever I could, to whatever venue I=20 could

19 reach, because I know that we're all interested in=20 making

20 decisions based on the facts. That's what I've = been

21 trying to present.

22 So in some cases that's involved my = professional

24 the case.

25 I'll pass this over to my colleague, David

1 Diamond. Thank you for this opportunity. Appreciate = it

2 very much.

3 MR. DIAMOND: My name is David Diamond with the

4 u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service also here in Yreka. = My

5 expertise is in the dam side of this, the = relicensing.

6 Phil was just referring to the Klamath Basin=20 Restoration

7 Agreement, the document released for public review = in

>8 January. That agreement, that document, doesn't=20 include

9 in it treatment of the agreement with PacifiCorp. So = I

10 want to give you a little bit of background on = the

11 relicensing proceedings.

12 The Klamath River, like all navigable rivers = in

13 the United States, the use of it for production = of

14 hydropower is licensed by the Federal Energy=20 Regulatory

15 Commission. The last license for PacifiCorp's Klamath=20 dam

16 was issued in 1956 and expired in 2006. In = 2001,

17 PacifiCorp began the process of seeking a new=20 license.

18 They filed. their license application in 2004. Since=20 then,

19 FERC has been processing that application. = That's

20 included public meetings here in Yreka and a draft,=20 and

21 more recently a final Environmental Impact Statement=20 that

22 included evaluations of PacifiCorp's proposed project=20 and

23 other alternatives, including dam removal.

24 It is FERC that is charged with the overall

25 public determination in issuing hydropower = licenses.

1 Executive branch agencies do have authority to = require

2 inclusion of certain conditions in FERC licenses, and = 2006

3 the Fish and Wildlife Service jointly with NOAA = Fisheries,

4 prescribed fish passage, fish ladders, and screens = for

5 downstream passage.

6 In the project area, the fish way = prescriptions

7 would restore access to approximately 58 miles = of

8 habitat for chinook, eel head lamprey, and = improve

9 activity for red band trout. This includes

10 approximately 46 miles of habitat with threatened=20 coho

11 salmon. Fish passage would also create the=20 opportunity

12 for development and implementation of a=20 reintroduction

13 plan to return salmon steelhead lamprey to more = than

14 300 miles of historic habitat above the project. = The

15 exclusion of these fish from the upper basin began=20 with

16 the completion of the dam, the first dam, in = 1918.

17 Once Oregon and California, the two states, their

18 water quality surf line agencies provide certification of =

19 Clean Water Act, the final step in the relicensing is = for

20 the FERC commissioners to issue a new license. = It's

21 certain any new license will include new conditions=20 on

22 operations set by --required by FERC, required by=20 other

23 federal agencies, and by the State water = quality

24 certifiers, likely significan/tly raising the cost = of

25 generating power at these facilities.

1 In three of its other hydropower relicensing

2 proceedings, PacifiCorp decided not to accept new licenses =

3 and instead pursued a less costly approach = through

4 settlement negotiations with parties in the FERC=20 process.

5 PacifiCorp has not made such a decision in the

6 Klamath. There's no agreement with the company to=20 date.

7 That said, the government and other parties are=20 currently

8 involved in confidential ongoing discussions. I can=20 say

9 the Federal government hopes to arrive at an = agreement

10 that will work for basin communities and for fish and for =

11 the company as a business decision.

12 If an agreement is reached with PacifiCorp, = the

13 parties would need to offer the settlement to FERC=20 for

14 approval. FERC is the one that makes the public=20 interest

15 decision on the use of the waterway, and they would=20 then

16 begin an entirely new public proceeding to evaluate=20 the

17 settlement offer. All the work that FERC has done to date =

18 has been on the relicensing application that's=20 currently

19 pending.

20 I thank the commissioners for the opportunity to

21 be here this evening and look forward to hearing from = the

22 other panelists and the public, as well. Thank = you.

23 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Thank you gentlemen. And

24 since David has hogged the mike over there, Greg = and

25 Phil, will you drag yours back and forth. It appears we

1 need the mikes. Supervisor Kobseff, first question = is

2 yours.

3 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: Good evening. Thank you

4 for corning. I guess let's start with the basic=20 question

5 with regard to how were the representatives for = the

6 settlement group chosen and what authority do they=20 have?

7 MR. DIETRICH: The original group was invited

8 by PacifiCorp. And soon thereafter, we made some = --we

9 had some requests for participation including from = the

10 County, and that participation was granted by = the

11 consensus process of our group. In terms of

12 authorities, I guess I'd have to answer that that=20 varies

13 with the representatives. But most of the

14 representatives needed to return to some sort of = --

15 whether tribal councilor to county government or to = a

16 Board of Directors in order to get full approval of=20 the

17 agreement.

18 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: And was Siskiyou County

19 involved in the first meetings in that = settlement

20 agreement?

21 MR. DIETRICH: I'm not certain whether it was

22 the first or second meeting, but we were convened=20 very

23 early in 2005. And in March of 2005, the County = was

24 already in --I have records in my notes the County=20 was

25 involved at that point. I think it's important to=20 note

1 the document that was produced was primarily produced=20 in

2 2007 and late 2006. And the County was full = --full

3 participant throughout that whole period. And = the

4 ultimate goal of the settlement agreement is to=20 restore

5 fishes and maintain sustainable human = communities.

6 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Thank you. Let's move to

7 Supervisor Erickson. We'll come back to you, = Michael.

8 SUPERVISOR ERICKSON: I have a couple thank

9 yous. Thank you, gentlemen, for being so

10 straightforward with us. We'll expect that the rest=20 of

11 the night.

12 From what I understand, there's presently a

13 provision being discussed regarding a potential waiver of =

14 liabilities, or a hold harmless, for PacifiCorp. = My

15 question is, so who is the substitute security and how = did

16 you come up with that? What brought that = forward?

17 MR. DIAMOND: I hope this won't be interpreted

18 as not being straightforward. Discussions with = the

19 company are ongoing and there's not --we can't = really

20 discuss the substantive things that may be on the=20 table

21 or not on the table at this point.

22 SUPERVISOR ERICKSON: But you can if I asked = if

23 there's a potential waiver of liabilities being=20 talked

24 about.

25 MR. DIAMOND: I don't know really what that

1 might mean at this point.

2 SUPERVISOR ERICKSON: Thank you.

3 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: I believe the law requires

4 that any public agency has to put out an EIS and the=20 EIR

5 for a matter such as we're discussing here = tonight,

6 specifically dam removal. I have never heard = anything

7 about one being completed and never seen it. = And,

8 David, you said one had been done. When is that = going

9 to be to the public so we can look at it?

10 MR. DIAMOND: The FERC Environmental Impact

11 Statement for PacifiCorp's relicensing application=20 was

12 of 2007. And as I mentioned, there

13 were four alternatives that were evaluated in = that

14 document, and there was a two dam removal and full=20 dam

15 removal option included in the evaluation. But = your

16 initial point is spot on. Were there to be a=20 settlement

17 with PacifiCorp regarding a specific dam = removal

18 application, there would be again a new proceeding = at

19 FERC and a new evaluation of the specific = proposal.

20 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Supervisor Cook.

21 SUPERVISOR COOK: I'd like to follow up on

22 that. There's a section in the settlement document that

23 refers to the Department of Fish and Game as = finding

24 overriding concerns once the environmental document=20 for

25 the State is completed, which obviously would be=20 CEQA.

1 That indicates to me that irrespectful of whatever = is

2 discovered in the release to the public in the = CEQA

3 document, that the State has already made the=20 agreement

4 that they will find overrunning concerns for = dam

5 removal. Did I read that correctly?

6 MR. HURNER: I don't want to say no. But, no.

7 Actually that was worked out. Frank DeMarco did = an

8 excellent job in discussing the concerns of the=20 County,

9 and what he was trying to predict was the potential=20 for,

10 us to make a decision like that. So we were not=20 willing

11 to say that we would never utilize a decision = of

12 overriding concern, but we did commit that if we = were

13 going to --if we did make such a decision, that = we

14 would sit down with the County and try to find out = if

15 there's any way that we can address the issue = that's

16 being brought up. So it's --we're not trying = to

17 predict we're going to make that, because we're=20 trying

18 to not be in that position. But working with the=20 County

19 representative, we're making a commitment that if = we

20 found ourself in that situation and we did end up=20 going

21 that direction, that we would sit back down with = the

22 County to discuss it and talk about it.

23 SUPERVISOR COOK: That isn't the way I read = it.

24 The way I read it pretty clearly states that if that=20 was

25 found, there would be a finding of overriding=20 concerns

1 so that dams could be removed~

2 I'd like to ask a different question. Who

3 signed this agreement, and will your agencies sign it=20 or

4 not? What's your process in coming to a point where=20 you

5 can sign this agreement?

6 MR. HURNER: I'll speak on behalf of the State.

7 From Fish and Game, we have not --no party has = signed

8 the agreement as yet. This agreement is contingent = on

9 reaching an agreement with PacifiCorp for separate hydro

10 agreement. We're very supportive of this agreement=20 and

11 we would expect that if a suitable agreement is=20 reached

12 with the company, that we would execute this=20 agreement

13 and hydro agreement.

14 SUPERVISOR COOK: So your department will

15 actually sign the 16 understand that?

17 MR. HURNER: That's our intent at this time.

18 SUPERVISOR COOK: I have one more. The Fish

19 and Game as a department is in this agreement = saying

20 they would kindly ask the legislature for $20 = million

21 for the County. In this budget climate, I would = say

22 that's probably not going to be well received at = the

23 State right now. Would an agency or the = Governor's

24 office be more likely to actually ask the = legislature

25 for that $20 mil+ion? Do you think there's a ghost of=20 a

1 chance right now we could ever get our $20 = million?

2 MR. HURNER: There's actually nothing in the

3 agreement that commits funding to anyone.

4 SUPERVISOR COOK: No, it doesn't commit. What

5 it says, the Fish and Game will request from = the

6 legislature the --will ask the legislature for = the

7 $20 million. Just curious if you thought there was = any

8 ghost of a chance the County would actually ever=20 receive

9 that money? That money is supposed to make up for = tax

10 funds we wouldn't receive for the next 20 or 30=20 years.

11 MR. HURNER: Right. And what I'm saying is

12 that that's put the County in the same position as every =

13 other party to the agreement, that there's no=20 guarantee

14 to any party of funds in this agreement. So all = the

15 parties are going to have to work together to go = seek

16 funding for everyone of the programs, including = the

17 County program. The County is not any better or = worse

18 position than anybody else in the agreement in = that

19 regard.

20 SUPERVISOR COOK: You think there's a ghost of

21 a chance the State legislature would give us = $20

22 million?

23 MR. HURNER: Yes.

24 SUPERVISOR COOK: Okay.

25 MR. HURNER: I do. This is a negotiated

1 settlement, and you're looking at long-term=20 conservation

2 benefits and long-term benefits to many communities = in

3 the basin. And it's a package deal. If you have = this

4 many parties working together pulling for the = same

5 purpose, you have a much, much greater chance = of

6 fulfilling those commitments than you do = alone.

7 SUPERVISOR COOK: What happens if Siskiyou

8 County doesn't sign this agreement? In both = your

9 opinions, what happens --do we then get dropped out = of

10 everything? Do we get essentially ignored from now = on

11 if we --if tonight we said we're done, we're not=20 going

11 to sign this, what happens? In your opinion. = Because

13 obviously you're only agencies in big --

14 MR. DIETRICH: The current document set up a

15 system of advisory panels that would advise = funding

16 entities for the restoration program. The = current

17 documents establishes that it is signatory parties=20 who

18 are the members of the Klamath Basin = coordinating

19 council, that primary advisory body. So that as = it

20 stands now, the --if an entity chose not to sign,=20 they

21 would not be on the --at least on the = original

22 coordinating council. There is a line in the = document

23 that provides the coordinating council can = establish

24 p.rocedures to bring parties into the group.

25 SUPERVISOR COOK: Thank you.

1 You better go to somebody else.

2 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: I have never heard

3 Supervisor Armstrong to have a question in her life.=20 Do

4 you want me to pass you by, Marcia?

5 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: No. Thank you. I have

6 questions.

7 It was interesting to me it was commented that

8 one of the purposes of this was to have sustainable=20 human

9 communities. It's certainly not very sustainable to=20 the

10 people in Copco.

11 My question would be about this whole --

12 follow-up question to Jim's on the advisory council=20 and

13 how that's structured. The written replies we got to=20 some

14 of our questions seem to say no, what you're reading, and =

15 I'm reading something and says it's blue and you said no, =

16 it says it's red. The advisory council, from what I read =

17 in the document, the fish managers would come up with=20 a

18 plan during the first year of restoration plan, = fish

19 managers would include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife = Service,

20 NOAA Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game, and = the

21 tribes, and they would corne up with a plan. They=20 would

22 also come up with recommendations --you can tell me when =

23 I'm wrong --recommendations on what kind of=20 priorities

24 there should be for restoration projects. And then=20 this

25 committee you're setting up, this advisory = committee,

1 would make recommendations just like the Klamath=20 Rivers

2 Fishery Task Force did the to Federal and State=20 funding

3 agency for funding. That's what I'm assuming is correct.

4 What happens to the Scott and the Shasta? Are

5 they included in this? Is the money they normally = get

6 to apply for redirected? Because that's what = I'm

7 reading in the document. That it's redirected = --

8 current money is redirected to this committee to = be

9 reallocated to projects according to this pattern. = And

10 if Siskiyou County doesn't participate, none of = those

11 people in the Scott and the Shasta are involved in=20 any

12 way in the process, does it apply to them or do = they

13 have a separate funding stream they go = through?

14 MR. DIETRICH: I'll start by answering the

15 question if --there was a question there the = fish

16 managers in that first year. All of the parties who are

17 interested in restoring fish want to get this = process

18 moving. But if we are to wait for chartering under=20 the

19 Federal Advisory Committees Act, that's going to = take

20 some time. So we can convene a group legally of = the

21 feds, states, and tribes to get this thing = started.

I 22 That's what's called a fish managers. They would = be

23 writing a plan for restoration while the chartering=20 of

24 the larger group would be under way.

25 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: This plan would be for

1 the entire Klamath system up and down from head to=20 toe?

2 MR. DIETRICH: Yes. And I think it's fair to

3 say that all of the parties are very aware of = the

4 importance of the Shasta and the Scott rivers in = terms

5 of habitat improvement and the production of fish = for

6 this basin. So in any prioritization process, I = would

7 expect they would be considered.

8 In addition, the restoration plan would be

9 subject to public input. And it would certainly be = in

10 our interest to gather as much public info in that as we =

11 could. Also to get the plan moving as rapidly = as

12 possible.

13 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: And the advisory

14 committee on the funding stream, what about = that?

15 MR. HURNER: Since the funding for Scott and

16 Shasta has been coming through the Fisheries Restoration =

17 grant program through the Department of Fish and Game

-- 18 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: Some of it.

19 MR. HURNER: Well, let me speak to the part the

20 state is in control of. We very much and your

21 representatives around the table very much wanted = to

22 protect what we're doing in our cooperative programs=20 in

23 the Shasta and Scott. We don't want to change = those.

24 We view the agreement as bringing additional=20 resources.

25 We should be able to get additional money in the=20 fishery

1 restoration grant program that should allow us to = do

2 more restoration projects cooperatively with the RCDs=20 in

3 those two valleys.

4 The technical team, that's an advisory committee = too.

5 They're going to use our coho recovery plan which we=20 used

6 already to start establishing priorities in the=20 Klamath

7 Basin, including the Scott and Shasta. They'll = use

8 information that's developed since that time to look=20 at

9 restoration priorities, and they'll set out=20 restoration

10 priorities. That doesn't change Fish and = Game's

11 commitment to the Scott and Shasta or what we want to=20 do

12 in continuing to work with the agricultural communities=20 in

13 those two valleys. It's a technical team and=20 advisory.

14 We've made a commitment --

15 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: You mean fish managers.

16 The technical advisory team is upper basin.

17 MR. HURNER: That's advisory. We've made a

18 commitment to work with the RCDs and the ag community=20 in

19 those basins and we fully intend to fulfill = that

20 commitment.

21 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: As I understand it, and

22 as clarification, if no one from Siskiyou County =

23 participates, decides not to participate, no one = from

24 Siskiyou County, no one from the Scott and Shasta, = no

25 one from the Klamath River in Siskiyou County except=20 the

1 tribe would be involved in the restoration planning = or

2 the allocation of funding under the settlement

3 agreement, Is that correct?

4 MR. DETRICH: They would have public input into

5 that process and they would have --

6 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: That's correct. And

7 also as a follow-up to that, I've read that there was=20 a

8 preference to be given to the tribes on = funding

9 projects. Is that correct?

10 MR. DIETRICH: Actually, I saw that comment,

11 actually that question, and it was only a portion of=20 the

12 sentence was quoted there. It was under --the

13 beginning of the sentence says "under applicable=20 law."

14 So all of our allocations of funds will be = under

15 applicable law.

16 I would also like to note that with respect = to

17 your question about the allocation process. You need=20 to

18 remember that that process from the fish managers and then =

19 subsequently from the coordination council is = a

20 recommendation to the funding entities. So that = the

21 agencies who have been authorized through Congress=20 for

22 these expenditures retain the authority to make the = final

23 decision on those recommendations.

24 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: Thank you.

25 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Marcia, would you like to

1 start the second round of questioning? We have = eight

2 minutes left for this panel.

3 SUPERVISOR ARMSTRONG: Okay.

4 What studies have been done to support that = dam

5 removal results in a robust fishery, reduced = stream

6 temperature, decreases algae, and increases = dissolved

7 oxygen? And if there are such studies, who=20 commissioned

8 them, and what were the findings?

9 MR. DIETRICH: I'd like to start by noting one

10 really important fact. That is that this is not = the

11 dams out proposal. This is not --this proposal = is

12 about how the selling parties will interact with=20 respect

13 to water management if there is a dams out = agreement.

14 If there is a proceeding that would formally propose=20 to

15 remove dams, there would be a full evaluation = process

16 that would go into more detail in terms of = the

17 evaluation of the alternative.

18 Now, at this time we have preliminary = information

19 that has been a number of studies. I can't cite them=20 all

2Q here for you, Marcia. They are in the --they've = been

21 summarized in the EIS. And they conclude on those=20 matters

22 that the presence of the dams raises the temperature of

23 the river in the summer, that it reduces the=20 dissolved

24 oxygen in the river in the summer, and increases = the

25 nutrient loading in the river in the summer. Those=20 are

1 summarized in the FERC EIR.

2 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Supervisor Cook.

3 SUPERVISOR COOK: I'd like clarify who has

4 authority to sign. Little concerned about the

5 Department of Fish and Game signing and not the=20 resource

6 agency signing, which is part of them, and not = the

7 Governor signing. Little concerned about the Fish = and

8 Wildlife Service signing and not --I've lost track = of

9 who you're under. Department of Interior, right? Okay,

10 so I haven't lost track.

11 Why would it not be the Department of the

12 Interior? Why would it. not be the agency that's the=20 head

13 of the Fish and Game?

14 MR. DIAMOND: With respect to the Federal

15 government, as with the other parties, the agreement=20 is

16 under policy review. And it's not determined what=20 form

17 support if it's forthcoming would take on the agreement. =

18 MR. DIETRICH: In the end, the agencies could

19 not implement any part of it until we have authorization =

20 to do that from Congress with an appropriation. There's

21 minor parts we can carry out now under existing budgets.

22 In order to carry out most of it, we would = need

23 authorization and appropriations from = Congress.

24 SUPERVISOR COOK: So signing it is really not

25 something that your department is going to do?

1 MR. DIETRICH: Probably not in the same sense

2 that the other parties would. That's right.

3 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Greg, you have anything on

4 that, or can we move on?

5 MR. HURNER: I was going to say we're the

6 representative at the table, we're the ones that = have

7 regulatory responsibility and public trust

8 responsibility for fish and wildlife. That's why = we're

9 the ones that are signing it. That's how we've = done

10 other agreements that we've done such as the=20 relicensing

11 of Oroville and PG&E facilities.

I 12 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: I find it very = disturbing

13 that we're being told that if the County doesn't = sign

14 the agreement with which we may very well be = in

15 disagreement with, that we're g~ing to be removed=20 from

16 all future processing even though we are the = local

17 governing body, and this group of five at this table has =

18 a responsibility for the safety, the health, and = the

19 welfare of everybody in Siskiyou County. And I have=20 no

20 idea what legal authority you could exclude us from=20 any

21 further proceedings.

22 (Applause. )

23 MR. DIETRICH: Mr. Chairman, that comment is

24 noted. We have a draft document that's under review and

25 we appreciate the comment.

1 SUPERVISOR ERICKSON: I have one simple

2 question. It seems in this document that there = have

3 been an --I don't want to say perks --but there's = been

4 incentives given to certain people --ranchers,=20 farmers,

5 tribes --to actually enhance them to get them to = sign,

6 to bring them on board. So what have you done = for

7 Siskiyou? Where is our enhancement? What is it = you're

8 bringing forward? What are you chumming us = with?

9 MR. HURNER: The process for the County that's

10 proposed is outlined in the document which is that=20 the

11 County has estimated that it could be up to a

12 $20 million impact to the County from revenue lost.=20 The

13 proposal is we would work with the County and try = to

14 figure out what the actual revenue loss is going to=20 be,

15 and then we at Fish and Game would go to legislature=20 and

16 seek that amount of money. If the legislature failed to

17 appropriate the money, then the county would be free=20 to

18 oppose any type of surrender order or anything = before

19 FERC to try to prevent and to keep the dams from=20 coming

20 out.

21 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: The last question, and

22 then we have about two minutes. I'm sorry about = this,

23 but we have to keep this meeting moving so we can=20 hear

24 the other panelists.

25 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: Would you agree salmon

1 habitat and it's four to five year life cycle = covers

2 seven water regimes, mainly streams, rivers, the=20 ocean,

3 estuaries, reservoirs, lakes and the hatchery, yes = or

4 no? And I have a follow-up to that.

5 MR. DIETRICH: Without going back over the

6 list, it sounds right.

7 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: You'd all agree with that?

8 Pretty straightforward?

9 MR. HURNER: Talk to my technical people.

10 MR. DIETRICH: I guess with some

11 qualifications, some of those apply to most = fish.

12 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: And in that, streams,

13 rivers, the ocean, estuaries, reservoirs, lakes, and the =

14 hatcheries, to meet fisheries restoration, have = all

15 those water habitats been evaluated and determined as to

16 what is distressing the survival populations?

17 MR. DIETRICH: Well, to varying degrees.

18 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Thank you, gentlemen. We

19 are going to have to move along.

20 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: I'd appreciate an answer,

21 another answer, if the Chairman would just allow another

22 second.

23 MR. HURNER: I'm confused by you adding lakes

24 and stuff in there and referring to salmon. We = don't

25 have passage over the dams. So, I mean, as far as = the

1 impact of the reservoirs on water quality and

2 temperature and other things, absolutely. When we = did

>3 our coho recovery plan, it's very comprehensive in=20 ;

4 evaluating all the stressors on the fish. So my reply =

5 would be yes, that we've looked at all the stressors in=20

6 each of the life stages of salmon and have evaluated =

7 those.

8 MR. DIETRICH: Supervisor, I gave a qualified a

9 because we know less about the factors in the ocean than=20

10 the inland habitats. 1

11 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: Don't you feel that's ~

12 critical?

13 MR. DIETRICH: It is.

14 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: And it's probably part of =

15 the solution we're talking about if talking about fish=20 ~

16 restoration, wouldn't it be? ~

17 MR. DIETRICH: If we knew more about how to

18 manipulate conditions in the ocean.

19 SUPERVISOR KOBSEFF: I guess that's the basis,

20 if we knew more. The bottom line is if a plan was = put

21 on the table that didn't require dam removal, would=20 each

22 of you support it?

23 MR. HURNER: If a plan was --this is a

24 negotiated settlement that's out there. So you = cannot

25 just --like in this agreement, I cannot just = pullout

1 lone piece and say would you support that as = being

2 isolated from the rest of the agreement. So I = can't

3 tell you. What we do know is that darns out is the=20 best

4 for restoring fishery.

5 SUPERVISOR OVERMAN: Okay. We are going to

6 have to break this off here. If we can get the = second

7 panel up. Thank you very much,=20 = gentlemen.