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 pleasure

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

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 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 we

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

23 and help to alleviate some of those concerns before 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, particularly

8 Scott and Shasta, allows us to continue our cooperative

9 relationship with the Scott and Shasta Valley without

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

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

12 that affects the rates that people pay for 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 make

16 sure interests are protected in that agreement as 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 Service

21 here in Yreka and the Klamath issues coordinator for 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 basin.

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

1 Shasta/Scott Recovery Team, I administered the restoration

2 program that has brought millions of dollars in 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 Commission

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

11 litigation and with the fact that the management plan of

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

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

14 million in disaster relief money that went into the basin

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

16 supervisor, the Regional Director of the Fish and 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 venues.

19 Relicensing of the hydro project or the parties to get

20 together, especially those involved in the litigation 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 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 we've

12 negotiated in areas that are affecting our

13 responsibilities. When I think back over the last three

14 years, most of the negotiation took place between other

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

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

17 since the release of the document has been to provide

18 information wherever I could, to whatever venue I could

19 reach, because I know that we're all interested in 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 Restoration

7 Agreement, the document released for public review in

>8 January. That agreement, that document, doesn't 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 Regulatory

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

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

17 PacifiCorp began the process of seeking a new license.

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

19 FERC has been processing that application. That's

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

21 more recently a final Environmental Impact Statement that

22 included evaluations of PacifiCorp's proposed project 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 coho

11 salmon. Fish passage would also create the opportunity

12 for development and implementation of a 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 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 on

22 operations set by --required by FERC, required by 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 process.

5 PacifiCorp has not made such a decision in the

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

7 That said, the government and other parties are currently

8 involved in confidential ongoing discussions. I can 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 for

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

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

16 begin an entirely new public proceeding to evaluate the

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

18 has been on the relicensing application that's 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 question

5 with regard to how were the representatives for the

6 settlement group chosen and what authority do they 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 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 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 very

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

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

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

1 the document that was produced was primarily produced 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 dam

15 removal option included in the evaluation. But your

16 initial point is spot on. Were there to be a 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 for

25 the State is completed, which obviously would be 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 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 County,

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

10 us to make a decision like that. So we were not 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 trying

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

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

20 found ourself in that situation and we did end up 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 was

25 found, there would be a finding of overriding 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 or

4 not? What's your process in coming to a point where 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 and

11 we would expect that if a suitable agreement is reached

12 with the company, that we would execute this 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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. 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 human

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

10 people in Copco.

11 My question would be about this whole --

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

13 how that's structured. The written replies we got to 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 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 would

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

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

24 there should be for restoration projects. And then this

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

1 would make recommendations just like the Klamath Rivers

2 Fishery Task Force did the to Federal and State 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 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 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 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 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 in

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

24 We view the agreement as bringing additional resources.

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

1 restoration grant program that should allow us to do

2 more restoration projects cooperatively with the RCDs 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 used

6 already to start establishing priorities in the Klamath

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

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

9 restoration priorities, and they'll set out restoration

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

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

12 in continuing to work with the agricultural communities in

13 those two valleys. It's a technical team and 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 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 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 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 the

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

13 beginning of the sentence says "under applicable 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 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 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 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 respect

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

14 If there is a proceeding that would formally propose 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 all

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

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

22 that the presence of the dams raises the temperature of

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

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

25 nutrient loading in the river in the summer. Those 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 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 head

13 of the Fish and Game?

14 MR. DIAMOND: With respect to the Federal

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

16 under policy review. And it's not determined what 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 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 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 no

20 idea what legal authority you could exclude us from 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, 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 the

11 County has estimated that it could be up to a

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 oppose any type of surrender order or anything before

19 FERC to try to prevent and to keep the dams from 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 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 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 ;

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

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

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

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 ~

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 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 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