POTENTIAL QUSTIONS FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL STYLE HEARING OF THE SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON THE PROPOSED KLAMATH RESTORATION AGREEMENT/ DAM REMOVAL

TUESDAY, MARCH 25 at 6 p.m.
Best Western Miners Inn Convention Center, Yreka CA

CA RESOURCE AGENCY Greg Hurner, Senior Advisor to the Director, Resource Agency/Fish and Game:

1. What was the announced “Klamath Summit” ? Is it the same thing as the Restoration Agreement?
2. If they are the same, why didn’t the State of California secure a seat at the table for all parties, affected interests and communities on the Klamath River system to present their issues and act in their own interests? Who decided what parties would be included in negotiations? Why were so many environmental groups included? Why were only select parties included and significantly affected parties like the community of Copco excluded? Why did the State of California participate in such an exclusive effort? Why did the State of California allow provisions in the Agreement that clearly affected parties not included at the table? Why did the State of California allow provisions that clearly negatively and disproportionately impacted economically distressed communities in violation of the principles of Social and Environmental Justice?
3. What work has been done to support that dam removal will result in a robust fishery? What is the estimated number of additional salmon that can be expected solely on removal of the dams? Will that satisfy goals for a sustainable fishery?
4.  Have any impartial scientific studies been done to show that dam removal would significantly benefit anadromous fish, reduce stream temperature, reduce algae or increase dissolved oxygen? If so, by whom? Who hired or requested the studies? What are the findings of these studies? Didn’t PacifiCorp run models of the recovery response of the fisheries to dam breaching that showed no appreciable increase?
5. Is it correct that production from the fish hatchery on average comprises approximately 25% of the Klamath River run? Would the fish hatchery be operational after dam removal? If so, where would it obtain its water? Who would pay for its operation if PacifiCorp no longer contributes funding as a mitigation? If the hatchery production is lost, how long is it estimated to take for the fishery to recover with natural spawners? Will farmers in the Scott and Shasta be held harmless for decreases in population due to loss of the hatchery? Will this create conditions for Chinook where the Magnusson Stevens thresholds will not be met and the coastal fisheries shut down again?
6. Will the hatchery still be operational if fishways are installed? Will there be any anticipated increase in production from installing fishways over current hatchery production? Would that increase be any different than what is anticipated if dams are removed? If so, Why? 
7. The area from Copco to the border has already been officially designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as a Wild Trout Water to me managed exclusively for wild trout.  It is further categorized as a “fast Action water” for the speed in which one can catch one’s quota. How will dam decommissioning and introduction of anadromous fish affect this important fishery?
8. It appears that the “reintroduction” plans will include the entire Klamath River system and will include management of Chinook, coho, steelhead, Pacific lamprey where the species was historically present. Will areas below the Oregon border in Siskiyou County such as above Dwinnell dam be included? If reintroduction of coho causes new exposures to ESA/CESA will there be exemptions for landowners not previously subject to those laws?
9. How will the unique yellow perch fishery, the bass, catfish, and crappie dishery be affected? How will this impact the local tourist industry and recreational opportunities for local fishermen who come to fish for them?
10. It is rumored that bass and other fish in the reservoirs and rivers above will be destroyed before the water is drained. Is this correct, and if so, what will be done to destroy them? If it is not true, will the non-native and sports fish be released into the new river system and downstream?
11. It is alleged that certain ESA protected fish (such as Lost River suckers) may be in the areas behind the dams. Upon dam removal, they could be released downstream into the river and tributaries. What provisions will be made to exempt down river property owners from being affected by ESA provisions?
12. Please explain the mechanics of the preference interim fishery for the Klamath Tribe in the area from I-5 to Iron Gate. How will that work with the existing popular local sports fishery? How will local resorts such as the R Ranch and Blue Heron be reimbursed for any loss of fishing opportunities for their guests? How will Siskiyou County be reimbursed for impacts to the local economy from loss of recreational opportunities?
13. Have any impartial scientific studies been done to show the impact that sediment delivered at whatever amounts and intervals into the river by dam removal would have on anadromous fisheries, invertebrates, other fish and wildlife and their habitats? (Short term impacts? Long term impacts? How might the fisheries be impacted in the first, second, third, fourth year, etc.) If so, by whom? Who hired or requested the studies? What are the findings of these studies?
14. Will projected impacts on threatened coho species be acceptable under the ESA? As it will undoubtedly cause prohibited take, how will the take be fully mitigated? Will this create conditions for Chinook where the Magnusson Stevens thresholds will not be met and the coastal fisheries shut down again?
15. How can significant impacts to coho and steelhead year classes be avoided when they spend the full year in the river?
16. It appears from some of the literature that the breaching of the dam is planned for the precipitation season. This coincides with the spawning season. Won’t the sediment cement in the fry that has been deposited in the gravels? Won’t new sediment repeatedly be deposited at each precipitation event through run-off over the years killing subsequent yearly productions of salmon? 
17. If the release of sediment harms the downstream fishery, will farmers in the Scott and Shasta be held harmless for lower fish counts?
18.  Will the State of California ensure that a full-blown NEPA/CEQA analysis on dam removal is performed prior to a decision or  consideration of an Agreement for dam decommissioning? Will the State of California ensure that mitigations and securitization of implementation are included for all economic, social and physical impacts of dam removal including: (a) restoration of the lake bottoms; (b) physical damage to County infrastructure downstream of the dams and private property; (c) damages to businesses and investment-backed expectations; (d) repair and maintenance of roads and other infrastructure used in the decommissioning of dams; (d) mitigation for the  clean energy source lost – such as investment and location of alternative energy generation facilities in Siskiyou County; and (e) any potential damages to Yreka City water use rights, sources and water transportation infrastructure.
19. The release of sediment will likely make suction dredging very difficult and possibly release toxins into the river. Will the miners be compensated for the loss of the ability to work their gold claims? By whom? Who will be liable for any health impacts to miners from working in the sediment?
20. How will dam breaching and the delivery of a source of a huge amount (in excess of 20 million cubic yards) of sediment for the next several years comport with the Klamath TMDL, Cologne Porter Water Quality Act and new Sediment rules for the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Water Resources Control Board? How can actions to reduce sediment on Moffett Creek, etc. because they deliver sediment to the Klamath be justified if the State turns around and allows the potential release a huge sediment source directly into the Klamath? 
21. It is understood that the State of California may not be signatories to the Agreements. Is this true? If so, why not?
22. Will a CEQA analysis be done on the impact of the Settlement Agreement itself on land use, environment, social and economic impacts? Will there be agricultural land taken out of production in Siskiyou County and if so, how much? Is there a known estimate of the loss in property and crop value? Have any studies been done that compare relative benefits of decommissioning with retaining dams with required new conditions? If so, did that take into consideration the comparative values in re-licensing of retaining a California designated Wild Trout Area from Copco to the border, Wild and Scenic Rivers, a Class IV-V summer whitewater rafting run, a treasured competitive bass fishery, a valued perch fishery, valued lake ecosystems and recreational opportunities? If so, by whom?
23. How will the Restoration Agreement and planning by the “Fish Managers” affect existing restoration planning under the SSRT, RCDs and County- recognized Watershed Councils? How will possible disruptions in present working arrangements between the State of California and the property owners in the Shasta and Scott be avoided or eliminated?
24. How will the Restoration Agreement affect funding and distribution of funding available for restoration projects in the Scott and Shasta Valleys? Will existing funding streams be redirected to processes under the KBCC?
25. The Restoration Agreement appears to give the Tribes preference is receiving restoration funding for their projects. How can they also participate as “Fish Managers” in planning fish restoration without posing a conflict of interest?    
26. How do we assure those in the area of the Shasta and Scott are not adversely impacted by provisions in the Restoration Agreement and the Hydro Agreement such as governance provisions, when they are not a party to the Agreement or represented on the KBCC?
27. Please explain the provisions of the Restoration Agreement regarding the payment to Siskiyou County. The amount appears to be up to $20 million based on some sort of claim verification process by the DFG. Please explain. Is the full amount to go into the County’s discretionary General fund to reimburse for lost revenues or to some other fund intended for restoration projects or economic stimulus? Is it a lump some payment or meant to be allocated over a period of time? Who will be in control of its disbursement?  (Appendix A Proposed California Legislation – A.6,  Section 6 states “The Department shall allocate the interest earned from the funds allocated pursuant to Section 1 for restoration projects within the Klamath Basin.” It is implied that the approximately $20 million will not be fully allocated, but some part will remain with the state to garner interest.)   Were similar restrictions placed on Klamath County?
28. It appears the CDFG only promises to ask the California Legislature for the up to $20 million for Siskiyou County in the Settlement Agreement. It appears that if the promised CA legislation to offset Siskiyou County for its tax loss of up to $20 million does not materialize by the time the process has completed, the license surrendered and the dams are ready to be taken out, our remedy is to withdraw from the agreement or request the parties reconvene.  Is this correct - As this appears to result in a completely empty benefit to Siskiyou County
29. Is it true that any non-county recipients of these funds will have to waive their right to sue for any damages from dam removal? How would these recipients be allocated funds?
30. Appendix A Proposed California Legislation – A.6,  Section 6 states “The Department shall allocate the interest earned from the funds allocated pursuant to Section 1 for restoration projects within the Klamath Basin.” It is implied that the approximately $20 million will not be fully allocated, but some part will remain with the state to garner interest. Please explain. What form will this $20 million take? In what increments will it be allocated and who will be in control of its disbursement? 
31. Are Scott and Shasta Valleys included in the Drought Plan? If so, how? Are they bound to it without direct representation? Can such a drought plan take precedence over the Scott, Shasta, Seiad and other long-standing water use right adjudications under the Superior Court of Siskiyou County? (page 94  B iv. “Klamath Basin includes lands tributary to the Klamath River in California and Oregon.) 
32. What will happen to the water use rights reserved to the Shasta Valley from the Klamath River? Will these be lost or dedicated to instream flows without any compensation, reservation or mitigation?
33. It appears that the Scott and Shasta Valleys to be included in the Drought and the Climate Change Plans. If so, how? Can such  plans supersede the Scott, Shasta, Seiad and other long-standing water use right adjudications under the Superior Court of Siskiyou County? Can they be bound to the plan without direct representation under the Restoration Agreement?  
34.  How is the Drought Plan different from what is required by current law? If this is so, why? Is it intended to supersede applicable law?

 USFWS: David Diamond - Special Asst. to the Regional Director; Phil Detrich Field Supervisor

1.  These Agreements appear to provide for more than dam removal or compensation for dam removal and dam removal related activities. Is this so? What is extra and why has it been included?
2. It is understood that the federal government may not be a signatory to the Agreements. Is this true? If so, why not?
3. What is going to be done or is anticipated to be done to attempt to insure or incentivize PacifiCorp to settle?
4. There are a number of County issues of major concern which may be noted but not addressed in detail in the Restoration Agreement but we have been told that these matters will be addressed in the PacifiCorp Hydro Agreement. How do we guarantee that these subjects will be covered in the Hydro Agreement? How will these matters be paid for (who and how will payment be made?)
5. It is presently anticipated that the Restoration Agreement will be signed concurrently with the Hydro Agreement but the schedule now shows an agreement in principle with PacifiCorp, not a detailed legally binding agreement. How do we assure ourselves that we have an enforceable document to cover Siskiyou County’s concerns and that dam removal will not go forward until  executable agreements have been submitted for review for a reasonable period of time? 
6. There is presently a provision being discussed regarding potential waiver of liabilities/hold harmless for PacifiCorp. Who is the substitute security?
7. Can the Settlement Agreement negotiations be reopened and an effort made to seat representatives of the river communities with the most at stake for loss in this agreement? Will efforts be made to create a fair paying field for these Mid-Klamath interests?
8. The Restoration Agreement seems to require a waiver of rights to file for claims for damages resulting from dam removal and dam removal activities. Why?
9. How is it anticipated that if the County or any other party have/has not completed their public review/due diligence work that they will still be entitled to participate and exactly how will this be accomplished?
10. What will happen if Siskiyou County does not sign the agreement? Can the agreement go forward without us? Will the $20 million mitigation payment remain?
11. Appendix C.2. appears to exclude “other restoration entities and efforts existing within the Klamath Basin that are outside the Agreement” from governance. What parts of Siskiyou County will be excluded if the County chooses not to sign? 
12. What funds are budgeted for the first ten years of the Agreement(s); to who will they be paid and by whom?
13. What funds are going to be paid to Tribes or agricultural interests under this Agreement? By whom and why? 
14. There appear to be significant sums of money being paid to KWUA for the water resources program, losses under the Drought program, and possibly other programs. If this is true, please advise why and by who payments are to be made.
15. There appears to be no provision to pay for losses suffered by affected river property owners. Why isn’t a fund created to be used to provide compensation for property owners who can substantiate an economic loss as a result of dam removal or the dam removal process? Why are certain payments made to some and not to others?
16. There are special provisions for energy costs in the Restoration Agreement and they appear solely to assist communities in the Upper Klamath Basin. Is that true? Does this create a competitive advantage for those agriculture interests? Explain how this rate discount works: a) What is the special rate? b) Who gets to participate and how? c) Who pays for the discounted rate? d) Why isn’t it available to all?
17. Why wasn’t a full environmental impact analysis (CEQA/NEPA) done on the proposed Restoration Agreement in preparation for a decision to approve/disapprove by various government signatories? 
18. Will a full CEQA/NEPA analysis be completed prior to a decision to remove the dams?
19. How is the Settlement Group adhering to the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, ESA, NEPA/CEQA and the possibility of going forward if there are unmitigable impacts disclosed?
20.  Will there be any fair and impartial process at any time that provides a comparative analysis of dam removal with the loss of other values such as the potential loss of: a) a California designated Wild Trout Area from Copco to the border; b) a designated stretch of Wild and Scenic Rivers; c) a Class IV-V summer whitewater rafting run; d) a competitive bass and a valued perch fishery; e) valued lake ecosystems; and f) recreational opportunities?
21.  Will the dam removal agreement have assurances of mitigations for the economic, social and physical impacts of dam removal including: (a) restoration of the lake bottoms; (b) physical damage to County infrastructure downstream of the dams and private property; (c) damages to businesses and investment-backed expectations; (d) repair and maintenance of roads and other infrastructure used in the decommissioning of dams; (d) mitigation for the  clean energy source lost – such as investment and location of alternative energy generation facilities in Siskiyou County; and (e) any potential damages to Yreka City water use rights, sources and water transportation infrastructure.
22. Explain in detail what assurance Siskiyou County has that identifiable impacts will be fully compensated:  a) under the Hydro Agreement; b) under the Restoration Agreement; c) upon dam removal without such Agreements.
23. On Page 135 item 31, it states that if the CEQA/NEPA process fails to mitigate significant physical impacts to Siskiyou County and to fishing opportunities, then the CDFG will meet with County representatives to develop recommendations to address the impacts. Does this mean that there is a possibility that the serious and direct impacts previously identified under question have no certainty of being mitigated in the Restoration or Hydro Agreement?
24. What studies are currently being used to assess impacts of dam removal? Who commissioned these studies? Briefly, what are the findings of these studies? Will comprehensive, impartial, scientific public studies be funded and performed on the impacts of dam removal ? If not, why not?
25. It appears that the “reintroduction” plans will include the entire Klamath River system and will include management of Chinook, coho, steelhead, Pacific lamprey where the species was historically present. Will areas below the Oregon border in Siskiyou County such as above Dwinnell dam be included? If reintroduction of coho causes new exposures to ESA, will there be exemptions for landowners not previously subject to those laws?
26. It is rumored that bass and other fish in the reservoirs and rivers above will be destroyed before the water is drained. Is this correct, and if so, what will be done to destroy them? If it is not true, will the non-native and sports fish be released into the new river system and downstream?
27. It is alleged that certain ESA protected fish (such as Lost River suckers) may be in the areas behind the dams. Upon dam removal, they could be released downstream into the river and tributaries. What provisions will be made to exempt down river property owners from being affected by ESA provisions?
28. Have any impartial scientific studies been done to show the impact that sediment delivered at whatever amounts and intervals into the river by dam removal would have on anadromous fisheries, invertebrates, other fish and wildlife and their habitats? (Short term impacts? Long term impacts? How might the fisheries be impacted in the first, second, third, fourth year, etc.) If so, by whom? Who hired or requested the studies? What are the findings of these studies?
29. Will projected impacts on threatened coho species be acceptable under the ESA? As it will undoubtedly cause prohibited take, how will the take be fully mitigated? Will this create conditions for Chinook where the Magnusson Stevens thresholds will not be met and the coastal fisheries shut down again?
30. How can significant impacts to coho and steelhead year classes be avoided when they spend the full year in the river?
31. It appears from some of the literature that the breaching of the dam is planned for the precipitation season. This coincides with the spawning season. Won’t the sediment cement in the fry that has been deposited in the gravels? Won’t new sediment repeatedly be deposited at each precipitation event through run-off over the years killing subsequent yearly productions of salmon? 
32. If the release of sediment harms the downstream fishery, will farmers in the Scott and Shasta be held harmless for lower fish counts?
33.  Does the Restoration Agreement or any proposal in the Hydro Agreement impact the Shasta and the Scott?
34. It appears that the agreement proposes to expand marshland for additional water supply by 90,000 acres. As this storage is extremely shallow, won’t this accelerate evaporation and won’t the solar exposure heat the water far above temperatures lethal to anadromous fish? Won’t this create additional warming of the water coming from the Upper Klamath River Basin? Is that in compliance with the intent and spirit of the Clean Water Act and the ESA?
35. The Restoration Agreement states that “Parties shall support allocation and reprogramming of existing funds to implement this Agreement prior to enactment of Authorizing Legislation or Secretarial Funding.” Does this mean that existing funding streams available for the Scott and Shasta will be redirected to allocation under the Restoration Agreement?
36. If the agreement is signed, can the Shasta and Scott River Valleys (RCDs) continue to directly apply for and receive state and federal grants for projects, or will all future government funding be funneled through the new Restoration Agreement process?   
37. What will the process for funding of projects under the new Restoration Agreement process entail? Who will have the authority to make decisions or impose requirements on new restoration projects under the new process? How much will the agencies be entitled to take as a cut for administration, etc?
38. The Restoration Agreement indicates that the “Fish Managers” (Us Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries and the Tribes) will write Phase I of the Klamath River Fisheries Restoration Plan and that this plan will establish restoration priorities and criteria for selection of projects. What authority do the Fish Managers have on land and resource use planning and private land management?  Why aren’t the counties included in the planning process? If the tribes are a potential recipient of restoration funding, doesn’t this pose a potential economic conflict of interest?
39. Will this Klamath River Fisheries Restoration Plan be a voluntary plan? How will it relate to existing plans such as the SSRT, and county-accepted watershed plans?
40. The Restoration Agreement states that “the Tribes shall be priority recipients of federal grants and funds for Fisheries Program.” Does this mean that areas like the Scott and Shasta Rivers will have a subordinated position in their ability to receive restoration grants? Why is that?
41. What functions will the Governance structure perform? (e.g. Restoration planning? Ranking of restoration projects? Allocation of funding?) Does it intend to do anything other than implement the provisions of the Agreement? If so, how and why? 
42. How will the “governance structure” ensure a fair geographic balance in allocating redirected grant and other monies – particularly to the salmon spawning and rearing areas of the Scott and Shasta? Will the Counties have any control or first approval over which projects affecting the lands and resources within their geographical jurisdiction will come to the “governance body” for consideration? Or will the Fish Managers or the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council (KBCC) decide which projects are to be presented for funding consideration without vetting by the county?
43. Is it true that the Chartered Klamath Basin Coordinating Council (KBCC) is a FACA committee which makes recommendations to federal agencies such as the funding of restoration projects?
44. Who will pay for trips to participate in the governance body? Will these be open, noticed FACA meetings? Where will the meetings be held?
45. Is it correct that the make up of this Federal Advisory Committee (KBCC) will exclude representation from the (County recognized) Upper Mid-Klamath Watershed Council, Siskiyou RCD, Shasta RCD, Klamath River landowners and business interests but will include the On-Project water users, the Off-Project (Oregon) water users; commercial fishing industry; and conservation/restoration organizations? Why are these affected Siskiyou County interests excluded from the KBCC?
46. The Agreement states that the ”KBCC will function to link and coordinate…subbasin watershed organizations and resource conservation districts.” Currently, Siskiyou County has a process in place to recognize legitimate community watershed groups. It has recognized planning efforts from the Shasta CRMP, Scott Valley Watershed Group and the Upper Klamath River Watershed Council. They act as advisory bodies to the County, which has land use planning authority. Does the linkage of watershed groups under the KBCC create an unelected regional body implementing its planning decisions through these watershed groups - skirting County jurisdiction.
47. The Agreement states that the TAT (Technical Advisory Team) will make recommendations to the KBCC and “Lead Parties” on “management of resources” and “water operations that affect the Upper Klamath Lake and the lower Klamath River mainstem ecosystems in the period before, during and after dam removal.” Will this include the Scott and the Shasta Rivers and Valleys? What resources will be managed? How will the KBCC take into consideration County jurisdiction over land and resource use and private property rights
48. Under the Restoration Agreement, there is nothing about disposition of historic Shasta tribal village and burial sites. Will the land revert back to the Shasta Tribe? This includes  sites: # 62 Ko-soo'-rah located on the N. Side of the Klamath close to Copco Dam; # 69 Choo-pah'ch-took, now under Copco lake, located on the N. Side of the Klamath below " Ik-kweek"; # 70 Ik-kweek, now under water,  located on the N. Side of the Klamath below Ho-a'-te-took. Each Village site also had a burial ground located nearby, usually on a hill or slope.