Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0068-0358
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-11-04T05:00Z

1
1
EPA
PUBLIC
HEARING
2
3
PORTLAND,
OREGON
4
PROPOSED
FEDERAL
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
5
FOR
OREGON
6
7
8
9
_____________________________________________

10
11
12
13
14
15
OCTOBER
22,
2003
16
17
­
­
­

18
19
BE
IT
REMEMBERED
THAT,
pursuant
to
the
Oregon
Rules
20
of
Civil
Procedure,
the
testimony
was
taken
before
Marta
21
Charles,
a
Professional
Court
Reporter
and
a
Notary
22
Public
for
the
State
of
Oregon,
on
October
22,
2003,

23
commencing
at
the
hour
of
5:
00
P.
M.,
the
proceedings
24
being
reported
at
800
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Portland,

25
Oregon.
2
1
APPEARANCES
2
JACKSON
FOX
3
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
4
1200
6th
Avenue
5
Seattle,
WA
98104
6
(
206)
553­
1073
7
.

8
JUDY
SMITH
9
MARY
LOU
SOSCIA
10
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
11
811
S.
W.
Sixth
Avenue
12
Portland,
OR
97204
13
(
503)
326­
3250
14
.

15
CARA
LALLEY
16
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
17
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.

18
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
19
(
202)
566­
0057
20
.

21
JEFF
LOCKWOOD
22
NOAA
Fisheries
23
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street
24
Portland,
OR
97232
25
(
503)
231­
2249
3
1
MR.
FOX:
Good
evening.
Let's
2
come
to
order,
please.
My
name
is
Jack
Fox.
I'm
3
the
Regional
Counsel
for
Region
Ten
in
Seattle.
I've
4
been
given
a
script,
so
I'm
going
to
have
to
stick
5
pretty
closely
to
it.
Maybe
they
were
worried
I
6
would
ad
lib
too
much.
I'm
the
hearing
officer
for
7
this
evening's
public
hearing.
It
is
my
8
responsibility
to
ensure
this
hearing
is
run
properly
9
and
that
anybody
who
chooses
to
provide
testimony
this
10
evening
has
the
opportunity
to
do
so.

11
I
would
like
to
introduce
Marta
12
Charles,
who
is
the
court
reporter
for
this
hearing.

13
It's
important
that
Marta
accurately
record
the
14
testimony
being
given.
So,
if
you
are
providing
15
testimony
this
evening,
please
speak
slowly
and
16
clearly.
And
Marta
has
requested
that
you
spell
your
17
last
name
for
the
record.

18
This
hearing
is
being
held
on
19
Wednesday,
October
22,
2003,
in
the
Oregon
State
20
Building
in
Portland,
Oregon.
The
purpose
of
this
21
public
hearing
is
to
receive
public
comments
on
EPA's
22
proposed
federal
water
quality
standards
for
Oregon.

23
Public
notice
of
this
hearing
was
published
in
the
24
Oregonian
newspaper
on
October
10,
2003.
The
public
25
comment
period
began
October
10th
and
runs
until
4
1
November
10,
2003.

2
Before
we
begin,
I
will
describe
3
the
process
and
procedures
to
be
followed
this
evening
4
and
let
you
know
how
your
comments
will
be
handled.

5
This
public
hearing
has
been
called
with
two
goals
in
6
mind.
We
would
like
to
give
all
interested
parties
7
an
opportunity
to
express
their
views
on
the
proposed
8
water
quality
rules.
Oregon
and
we
are
interested
in
9
obtaining
as
much
relevant
information
as
possible
to
10
assist
in
affirming
or
modifying
the
rule
as
currently
11
proposed.

12
EPA
will
respond
to
all
comments
13
received
tonight
in
the
Written
Response
to
Comments
14
document
that
will
accompany
the
final
rule.
Copies
15
of
the
October
10,
2003,
proposal
and
a
fact
sheet
16
are
available
from
EPA.
This
information
is
also
17
available
on
the
Internet.
In
addition,
copies
of
18
the
Federal
Register
notice
and
fact
sheet
are
19
available
at
the
registration
table
this
evening.
If
20
we
run
out
of
materials
and
you
want
a
copy,
please
21
speak
to
Judy
Smith,
the
EPA
representative
at
the
22
registration
table.

23
As
Judy
stated
earlier,
if
you
wish
24
to
provide
testimony
this
evening,
please
sign
up
at
25
the
registration
table.
Speakers
will
be
called
in
5
1
the
order
that
the
cards
are
turned
in.
The
only
2
exceptions
to
this
are
for
elected
public
officials,

3
who
will
be
allowed
to
speak
first
and
government
4
representatives,
who
will
speak
second.
If
you
want
5
to
be
on
a
mailing
list
to
receive
information
about
6
the
final
action
taken
on
this
rule,
please
sign
up
7
at
the
appropriate
sign­
in
sheet
located
at
the
8
registration
table.
You
do
not
need
to
provide
9
testimony
this
evening
in
order
to
have
your
concerns
10
or
perspectives
considered.
Written
comments
are
11
given
equal
consideration
in
our
decision­
making.
So
12
you
have
the
option
of
providing
oral
testimony,

13
written
comments,
or
both.

14
If
you
choose
to
provide
written
15
comments,
you
need
to
mail
them
to
EPA
at
the
address
16
shown
in
the
Federal
Register.
If
you
are
providing
17
written
comments,
they
must
be
postmarked
no
later
18
than
November
10,
2003,
to
be
considered.
If
you
19
would
like
to
provide
written
comments
this
evening,

20
we
do
have
comment
sheets
you
can
fill
out.
The
21
comment
sheets
are
available
at
the
registration
22
table.
When
you
have
completed
your
written
comments,

23
you
can
leave
them
with
one
of
the
EPA
24
representatives
at
the
registration
table
or
you
can
25
mail
them.
The
address
is
shown
on
the
comment
6
1
sheet.
Remember,
written
comments
should
be
sent
no
2
later
than
November
10th.

3
We
will
now
begin
taking
public
4
testimony.
I
would
like
to
re­
emphasize
that
the
5
purpose
of
the
public
hearings
is
to
receive
input
on
6
the
proposed
federal
water
quality
standards.
If
7
there's
anybody
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
testify,

8
but
is
not
yet
signed
up
to
do
so,
please
sign
up
9
now
at
the
registration
table.
I
will
call
each
10
speaker
up
to
the
microphone.
As
you
begin
your
11
testimony,
state
your
name
clearly
for
the
record
and
12
spell
your
last
name
and
include
the
organization
you
13
represent,
if
any.
To
ensure
that
everyone
has
an
14
opportunity
to
testify
­­
I
was
supposed
to
say,

15
"
limit
your
comments,"
but,
since
we
only
have
eight
16
so
far,
please
keep
within
a
reasonable
amount
of
17
time.
When
you
hear
your
name
called,
please
come
18
down
near
the
microphone
and
prepare
to
provide
your
19
testimony.
I
will
call
two
names
­­
the
speaker
and
20
the
next
in
the
batting
order.
So
the
next
should
21
come
down
and
sit
in
the
front
so
they
can
get
to
22
the
microphone
quickly.

23
Last,
I
suspect
there
are
many
24
different
points
of
view
about
the
issues
that
will
25
be
presented
and
discussed
tonight.
We
are
not
here
7
1
to
resolve
these
different
points
of
view,
but
rather
2
to
receive
input
on
this
important
matter.
I
hope
we
3
can
have
a
courteous
and
civil
proceeding
and
be
4
respectful
of
the
various
points
of
view
that
will
be
5
expressed
this
evening.

6
I
will
now
begin
calling
people
up
7
to
the
microphone
to
give
their
comments
in
the
order
8
they
signed
up.
The
first
speaker
is
Kaitlin
Lovell
9
­­
or
Lovell.
And
following
Kaitlin
will
be
Marty
10
Sherman.

11
MS.
LOVELL:
My
name
is
Kaitlin
12
Lovell,
L­
O
­­
V
as
in
Victor
­­
E­
L­
L.
And
I'm
13
here
representing
National
Trout
Unlimited
located
in
14
Portland,
Oregon.
I
have
two
very
brief
comments
to
15
make.

16
Trout
Unlimited
is
very
concerned
17
with
the
potential
that
this
proposed
rule
has
on
dam
18
operations
­­
federal
dam
operations
in
the
state
of
19
Oregon.
We
currently
have
­­
40
percent
of
this
20
country's
waters
are
neither
fishable
or
drinkable.

21
And
as
a
cold­
water
fishery
organization,
that
has
a
22
major
impact
on
our
recreational
activities.
Dams
are
23
a
huge
part
of
that
and
we
believe
that
they
should
24
be
equally
as
­­
as
responsible
to
the
Clean
Water
25
Act
as
any
other
user
of
the
water
system,
be
it
8
1
private,
State,
or
federal­
owned
facilities.

2
That
said,
I'd
like
to
focus
really
3
on
the
temperature
standards
for
spawning
steelhead
4
and
salmon.
In
particular,
I'm
a
little
bit
5
concerned
about
the
inability
to
identify
appropriate
6
standards
for
over­
wintering
habitats.
They're
not
7
clearly
identified.
In
part,
because
we
don't
know
8
what
those
standards
should
be.
There's
been
very
9
little
research,
very
little
understanding
of
what
10
temperatures
are
necessary
for
over­
wintering.
In
11
part,
because
it's
extremely
difficult
to
study.
All
12
we
know
is
their
potential
locations
of
where
redds
13
are
laid.
But
not
having
this
criteria
and
setting
14
the
spawning
and
rearing
standards
at
the
upper
limits
15
of
what
we
know
to
be
viable,
leads
to
a
potential
16
disaster.
Specifically,
actually,
is
the
seven­
day
17
average
daily
maximum.
It
takes
one
day
of
an
18
excedance
to
kill
a
stream
full
of
eggs.
And
it's
19
very
hard
to
be
able
to
identify
those
instances
20
because
you
can't
see
eggs,
you
can't
measure
when
21
that
fish
kill
occurs.

22
The
ESA
encourages
us
to
adopt
a
23
precautionary
principal,
as
does
the
basic
tenets
of
24
science.
I
don't
believe
that
is
represented
in
25
these
temperature
standards.
And
I
believe
that
there
9
1
should
be
more
­­
more
leniency
or
conservative
2
estimates
given
for
temperatures
specifically
as
they
3
apply
to
winter
temperature
standards.
And
those
4
winter
temperature
standards
should
not
be
subject
to
5
the
summer
temperature
standards.
Thank
you.

6
MR.
FOX:
The
next
speaker
is
7
Marty
Sherman.
On
deck
is
Brady
Bennon.

8
MR.
SHERMAN:
Hi.
My
name
is
9
Marty
Sherman.
Last
name
is
spelled
S­
H­
E­
R­
M­
A­
N.

10
And
I'm
here
representing
the
business
in
which
I'm
11
involved.

12
The
business
that
I
work
in
depends
13
very
heavily
on
high­
quality
water
standards
that
will
14
provide
an
abundance
of
salmon
and
steelhead
in
the
15
Northwest.
Without
high
water
quality,
I'm
basically
16
out
of
business
and
I'm
out
of
livelihood
­­
not
only
17
myself,
but
probably
30
or
40
other
people
that
are
18
involved
in
the
business
that
I'm
involved
in.

19
I'd
just
like
to
make
a
general
20
comment
to
encourage
the
EPA
to
adopt
higher
water
21
quality
standards,
rather
than
lower
water
quality
22
standards
to
ensure
that
we
do
have
fish
in
the
23
future.
And,
whichever
standards
are
adopted,
I
would
24
really
like
to
see
a
really
good
monitoring
system
25
for
those
water
temperatures.
Thank
you.
10
1
MR.
FOX:
Brady
Bennon,
followed
by
2
Erin
Barnes.

3
MR.
BENNON:
My
name
is
Brady
4
Bennon
and
I'll
be
reading
a
statement
from
Pat
Ford,

5
who
is
the
executive
director
of
the
Save
Our
Wild
6
Salmon
Coalition.

7
Good
evening.
My
name
is
Pat
Fort
8
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
Save
Our
Wild
9
Salmon
Coalition.
SOS
is
a
diverse
coalition
of
more
10
than
54
different
groups,
with
a
combined
membership
11
of
more
than
four
million
concerned
citizens
from
12
across
the
nation.
SOS
and
our
membership
are
13
dedicated
to
the
protection
and
restoration
of
salmon
14
and
steelhead
throughout
the
Northwest.

15
I
come
here
tonight
to
express
our
16
membership's
deep
concerns
for
the
rural
changes
EPA
17
has
proposed
for
Oregon's
water
quality
standards
and
18
we
strongly
urge
the
agency
to
reconsider
its
19
proposal.
As
the
agency
is
fully
aware,
salmon
and
20
steelhead
need
clear
cool
waters
to
survive.
These
21
fish
migrate
for
hundreds
and
sometimes
thousands
of
22
miles
and
make
their
journey
from
their
natal
streams
23
out
to
the
ocean
and
then
back
to
the
very
streams
24
from
which
they
were
born.
This
trip
is
long
and
25
treacherous,
filled
with
natural
and
induced
predators,
11
1
natural
and
induced
barriers,
and
natural
and
induced
2
reduction
of
water
quality.

3
Two
federal
laws
have
been
put
in
4
place
to
help
protect
these
species
and
eliminate
and
5
reduce
the
impact
of
those
introduced
­­
or
man­
made
6
hazards
­­
The
Clean
Water
Act
and
the
Endangered
7
Species
Act.
And,
yet,
today
I'm
here
to
ask
EPA
8
and
this
administration
to
reconsider
the
current
9
decision
to
role
back
these
types
of
protections
under
10
the
Clean
Water
Act.

11
EPA's
proposed
rule
change
would
12
amount
to
a
virtual
exemption
for
federal
dams
under
13
the
Clean
Water
Act.
EPA
is
suggesting
that
federal
14
dams
be
allowed
to
continue
to
pollute
our
waters
if
15
it
is
simply
too
hard
to
comply
with
the
standards
16
set
to
protect
the
imperiled
salmon
and
steelhead
of
17
the
Northwest.
What
this
rule
proposes
is
akin
to
18
asking
for
a
God
squad
under
the
Endangered
Species
19
Act.
And,
like
a
call
to
the
God
squad,
this
20
proposal
shows
the
failure
of
this
administration's
21
ability
to
comply
with
the
federal
laws
that
protect
22
our
environment
23
There's
a
physician
that
says,
"
We
24
are
willing
to
play
God
with
the
species
and
it
is
25
deciding
that
it
is
okay
to
let
them
go
extinct."
12
1
This
is
something
that
SOS
and
every
salmon­
loving
2
citizen
of
Oregon,
Pacific
Northwest,
and
the
nation
3
cannot
and
will
not
accept.

4
Additionally,
this
proposal
directly
5
counters
what
commerce
wanted
and
intended
when
it
6
introduced
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Congress
specifically
7
stated
­­
And
I
quote,
"
After
hearing
numerous
8
examples
of
flagrant
violations
of
pollution
controls,

9
that
it
is
determined
that
the
federal
facilities
10
shall
be
a
model
for
the
nation."
Congress
expected
11
and
was
indeed
determined
that
the
federal
agencies
12
set
the
example
for
water
quality
controls
in
the
13
nation,
not
that
the
federal
agencies
be
virtually
14
exempted
from
their
responsibilities
under
the
Clean
15
Water
Act.
This
proposal
would
directly
conflict
with
16
the
stated
goal
and
the
expectations
of
congress,
and
17
it
is
simply
unacceptable.
The
salmon
and
salmon­

18
dependent
communities
of
the
Northwest
demand
more.

19
In
closing,
let
me
add
that
our
20
coalition
has
worked
closely
with
EPA
and
its
21
employees
in
the
past
to
ensure
protections
for
salmon
22
and
steelhead
in
the
waters
of
the
region.
We
were
23
surprised
and
disappointed
by
the
current
proposal
and
24
it
pains
us
to
be
here
tonight
to
stand
in
opposition
25
of
the
EPA.
However,
we
cannot
stand
idly
by
and
13
1
watch
this
administration
role
back
yet
further
2
protections
for
the
remarkable
species
that
defines
3
our
region,
that
provide
food
and
jobs
for
our
4
communities,
and
that
are
essential
for
many
cultures
5
and
religions.

6
Again,
we
urge
the
agency
and
this
7
administration
to
withdraw
this
proposal
and
to
8
produce
a
rule
that
complies
with
both
the
letter
and
9
the
intent
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.

10
Thank
you,
again,
for
the
11
opportunity
to
make
this
statement.
And
we
will
be
12
providing
formal
comments
by
the
end
of
the
comment
13
period.

14
MR.
FOX:
Erin
Barnes,
followed
by
15
Tom
Wolf.

16
MS.
BARNES:
Hi.
My
name
is
Erin
17
Barnes,
B­
A­
R­
N­
E­
S.

18
I
would
like
EPA
to
withdraw
this
19
proposal.
I
feel
like,
as
a
citizen
of
Oregon,
I
20
don't
think
that
it's
appropriate
for
EPA
to
allow
21
federal
dams
to
take
over
its
rule
exemption
from
22
State
water
quality
standards.
I
know,
for
me,
cool,

23
free­
flowing
rivers
are
a
very
important
part
of
how
24
I
enjoy
Oregon.
And
I
know
that
maybe
.3
degrees
25
Celsius
doesn't
mean
a
whole
lot
to
me
on
a
daily
14
1
basis.
I
think
that
.3
degrees
Celsius
means
a
lot
2
to
a
salmon.

3
Oregon
knows
­­
or
Oregon
has
4
realized
that
there's
about
12,000
miles
of
rivers
5
impaired
by
high
water
quality
­­
high
water
6
temperatures.
And
I
think
that
the
last
thing
that
7
we
need
is
some
rule
that
has
a
loophole
that
would
8
make
water
temperatures
even
higher.
Thank
you.

9
MR.
FOX:
Next
is
Tom
Wolf.
On
10
deck
is
Greg
Geist.

11
MR.
WOLF:
My
name
is
Tom
Wolf.

12
I'm
­­
And
you
spell
it
just
like
the
animal,

13
W­
O­
L­
F.

14
I'm
the
chair
of
the
Oregon
Council
15
of
Trout
Unlimited.
I
represent
2,600
members
of
16
Trout
Unlimited
here
in
the
state.
I
have
many
17
concerns
about
the
proposed
EPA
rules.
I
feel
that
18
it
does
not
meet
current
water
quality
standards
that
19
should
be
met.
I
have
some
specific
standards
that
20
I'd
like
­­
points
I'd
like
to
raise
tonight
and
will
21
be
followed
up
by
written
comments
I
will
send
in
22
later.

23
Two
areas
of
concern
that
I
have
24
is
the
salmon
and
steelhead
core
juvenile
rearing.
I
25
feel
that
that
proposed
temperature
standard
is
too
15
1
high.
Another
one
is
the
salmon
and
trout
juvenile
2
rearing
migration,
especially
in
the
trout
rearing.
I
3
think
that
18
degrees
Celsius,
64
degrees
Fahrenheit
4
is
way
too
high.
I
think
that
you
need
to
lower
5
that
to
at
least
16
Cs.
And
I'm
also
concerned
that
6
in
mentioning
­­
In
this
document
it
mentions
rainbow
7
trout.
It
does
not
mention
coastal
cutthroat,
which
8
are
found
all
up
and
down
the
Coast
and
within
the
9
Willamette
Valley,
and
in
some
watersheds,
are
the
10
major
resident
trout.
So
I
think
that
this
needs
to
11
reflect
­­
This
document
needs
to
reflect
on
the
12
temperature
standards
for
coastal
cutthroats.

13
Finally,
I
would
like
to
state
my
14
concerns
about
the
salmon
to
steelhead
migration
15
proposal.
In
the
lower
Willamette
there
are
found
16
adfluvial
populations
of
coastal
cutthroats
that
come
17
out
of
various
Willamette
rivers
that
cruise
up
and
18
down,
through
the
midst
of
Portland
at
times,
using
19
that.
And
I
think
that
these
proposed
standards
of
20
20
degrees
centigrade
are
just
way
too
high.
I
think
21
it
needs
to
be
at
least
18
to
17
degrees
centigrade.

22
And
so
I
have
great
concerns
about
that
and
about
all
23
EPA
proposals.
And
I'd
like
to
close
this
time
at
24
this
time.
Thank
you.

25
MR.
FOX:
Greg
Geist.
He
went
16
1
home.
Mary
­­
I
can't
read
your
writing,
Mary.

2
S­
C­
U­
R­
B
­­
What?

3
MS.
SCURLOCK:
Scurlock.

4
MR.
FOX:
After
Mary,
is
Ryan
5
Hunter.

6
MS.
SCURLOCK:
My
name
is
Mary
7
Scurlock.
I'm
senior
policy
analyst
with
Pacific
8
River's
Council.
We
are
a
regional
and
national
9
conservation
organization
dedicated
to
the
protection
10
and
restoration
of
aquatic
ecosystems.
We
have
11
approximately
1,000
members
in
the
West;
many
in
12
Oregon
and
nationwide.

13
I'm
here
tonight
just
to
give
a
14
brief
overview
of
our
concerns
with
the
rules
and
to
15
say
that
we
will
be
participating
in
the
comments
in
16
a
written
form.

17
We
are
seriously
concerned
that
this
18
rule
starts
us
down
the
slippery
slope
to
making
it
19
easier
and
more
expeditious
to
start
moving
the
20
goalposts
at
a
time
in
the
implementation
of
the
21
Clean
Water
Act.
And
we
have
worked
extremely
hard
22
to
fully
understand
and
identify
the
extent
of
the
23
impairment
of
the
nation's
water
bodies.

24
Particularly
difficult
was
the
25
discovery,
of
course,
that
temperature
is
a
serious
17
1
problem
in
many
of
our
waters
and
threatens
many
of
2
our
precious
beneficial
uses,
such
as
our
fisheries.

3
It
would
seem
counterproductive,
then,
to
be
4
encouraging
an
expedited
process,
by
which
dams
would
5
become
exempt
from
existing
rules.
We
are
fearful
6
that
that
will
become
a
trend
in
other
uses.
While
7
we
are
cognizant
of
the
difficulties
with
dealing
with
8
those
­­
making
those
facilities
compliant,
we
think
9
that
as
we
get
to
a
difficult
point
in
10
implementation,
that
those
hard
choices
need
to
be
11
made.
And
we
need
to
look
most
­­
first,
at
how
to
12
attain
our
standards,
not
how
to
change
the
standards
13
or
lessen
them.
We
feel
that
would
be
short
sided.

14
And
I
think
that
we
all
know
how
hard
many
of
the
15
land
uses,
including
dams,
have
worked
to
try
to
16
attain
standards.
And
a
lot
has
been
invested
in
17
this
region
in
doing
that.
So,
we
don't
want
to
see
18
those
rules
start
to
move
and
we
will
oppose
such
19
proposals
as
they
­­
as
they
come
forward
at
the
20
national
level.

21
We're
also
concerned
about
the
22
extent
to
which
this
proposal
makes
it
more
­­
or
23
makes
it
difficult
or
impossible
for
states
to
impose
24
higher
standards
than
those
federally.
And
so,
we
25
will
submit
further
comments
on
the
details
of
the
18
1
rules
after
this
proceeding.

2
We
encourage
the
EPA
to
the
think
3
first
and
foremost
on
the
restoration
needs
and
to
4
move
away
from
the
approach
taken
in
these
rules.

5
Thank
you.

6
MR.
FOX:
Ryan
Hunter.
On
deck,

7
David
Moryc.

8
MR.
HUNTER:
My
name
is
Ryan
9
Hunter,
H­
U­
N­
T­
E­
R.
I'm
a
resident
of
Portland
­­

10
student
at
Portland
State
University
in
the
graduate
11
program
of
urban
planning.

12
I
only
learned
about
this
proposed
13
rule
change
recently,
so
my
analysis
may
not
be
as
14
sophisticated
as
some
of
the
others
here.
But,
as
I
15
understand
it,
the
situation
is
that
politicians
lack
16
the
political
will
to
enforce
the
Clean
Water
Act.

17
So,
rather
than
make
the
difficult
political
decisions
18
to
enforce
the
Clean
Water
Act,
they're
going
to
19
change
the
rules.
This
is,
of
course,
absurd
in
my
20
opinion.
This
weakens
one
of
the
most
important
21
environmental
laws
this
country
has.
And,
as
a
22
result,
the
salmon
runs
in
the
region
that
are
so
23
important
for
the
economy
in
the
region,
for
24
recreation
and
­­
that
serves
as
a
real
cultural
icon
25
for
the
region,
will
be
harmed
in
the
long
term
as
a
19
1
result
of
this
rule
change.

2
I
think
this
follows
a
trend
by
3
the
Bush
administration
to
change
rules
any
time
it
4
does
not
meet
its
political
objectives.
We've
seen
5
this
in
the
Roadless
rule
­­
changes.
And
I
think
6
this
is
one
more
example
of
that.
And,
as
I
7
understand
this
rule,
it's
going
to
transfer
authority
8
­­
review
authority
from
the
DEQ
to
EPA,
which
as
we
9
know,
will
only
serve
to
rubber
stamp
the
Bush
10
administration's
antienvironmental
policies.

11
So,
in
short,
I
guess
I'll
just
12
close
in
saying
that
I
oppose
the
rule
change
and
I
13
feel
that
the
Clean
Water
Act
should
be
fully
14
enforced
and
that
DEQ
should
refrain
from
giving
up
15
this
review
authority.
Thank
you.

16
MR.
FOX:
David
Moryc.
On
deck
is
17
Peter
Ovington.

18
MR.
MORYC:
Good
evening.
My
19
name's
David
Moryc,
here
representing
American
Rivers.

20
It's
a
national
river
conservation
organization
21
representing
over
40,000
members.

22
And,
although
I'm
not
looking
23
forward
to
submitting
my
more
substantive
comments
in
24
writing,
I
will
be,
over
the
next
couple
of
weeks.

25
And,
instead,
I'd
like
to
focus
on
three
specific
20
1
issues
in
general
that
all
deal
with
the
federal
dam
2
provision
related
to
use
attainability
analysis.

3
First
of
all,
I
feel
­­
We
feel
that
there's
no
4
reason
to
provide
a
special
roadmap
specifically
for
5
federal
dams
so
that
they
can
seek
an
exemption
from
6
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Non­
federal
dams
are
compliant
7
with
State
standards
on
a
regular
basis.
One
example
8
that
I
would
­­
I
would
give
would
be
PG
­­
a
series
9
of
PGE
dams
that
are
now
on
the
Deschutes.
Those
­­

10
The
lower
Deschutes
River
has
­­
is
on
303d
lists
and
11
it
came
up
with
­­
Oregon
came
up
with
water
quality
12
standard
to
be
met,
which
was
that
the
highest
­­
or
13
the
lowest
standard,
I
should
say,
for
bull
trout,
10
14
degrees
C.
The
petitioners
­­
the
agencies
came
up
15
with
a
series
of
changes
to
the
project
so
that
the
16
project
would
be
able
to
meet
potential
violations
in
17
dissolved
oxygen
for
a
spawning
and
rearing
habitat.

18
So,
I
feel
like
if
a
private
utility,
such
as
PGE,

19
can
meet
these
standards
then,
so
too
can
the
federal
20
government
and
federal
operators
of
federal
dams.

21
Second
of
all,
the
preamble
in
the
22
water
quality
standards
emphasizes
that
the
23
congressional
authorized
uses
of
those
dams
is
the
24
main
impediment
to
them
being
able
to
meet
standards.

25
I
think
this
is
a
fallacious
argument.
The
rule
21
1
states
that,
quote,
"
Designated
uses
should
be
deemed
2
feasible
if
they
can
be
implemented
by
a
dam
in
a
3
manner
that
allows
the
dam
to
perform
it's
authorized
4
purposes."
Clean
Water
Act
has
never
carved
out
such
5
an
exemption
for
federal
projects.

6
And,
finally,
following
up
on
7
questions
I
had
asked
earlier
about
use
attainability
8
analysis,
or
the
UAA
­­
and
it's
purpose
as
serving
9
as
a
clarification.
The
proposed
regulations
require
10
the
EPA
to
conduct
a
UAA
when
­­
Under
the
current
11
regulations
I'm
not
sure
that
there
has
been
a
12
petition
from
federal
agencies
to
the
state
of
Oregon.

13
So
the
real
motivation
for
this
change
is
based
on
14
political
considerations.
Under
EPA's
regulations
for
15
UAAs,
there's
no
requirement
for
a
state
to
undertake
16
a
UAA
upon
a
petition
to
change
the
designated
use.

17
The
reg's
require
the
state
to
undertake
a
UAA
before
18
downgrading
designated
use.
But
the
decision
to
19
attempt
to
downgrade
is
the
State's,
and
the
State's
20
alone.
This
is
certainly
a
departure
for
that
21
discretion.
And
we
would
urge
for
the
EPA
not
to
22
further
seek
this
departure.
Thank
you.

23
MR.
FOX:
You're
Peter?

24
MR.
OVINGTON:
Yes.

25
MR.
FOX:
Peter
Ovington,
followed
22
1
by
Zephyr
Moore.

2
MR.
OVINGTON:
Good
evening.
My
3
name
is
Peter
Ovington,
O­
V­
I­
N­
G­
T­
O­
N.
I
am
a
4
Portland
resident,
citizen
of
Oregon.

5
And
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
6
today
is
October
22nd.
And
on
the
22nd
of
June
in
7
1969
the
river
in
my
hometown,
Cleveland,
Ohio,
caught
8
on
fire.
And
one
reason
I
moved
to
the
West
and
to
9
Oregon,
particularly,
is
for
quality
of
life
and
for
10
opportunities
and
recreation
and
fishing
and
rivers
11
that
look
something
like
they
did
back
in
'
69,
just
a
12
year
before
I
was
born.

13
And
so,
I'd
like
to
ask
EPA
to
14
consider
not
adopting
this
proposal.
I'm
standing
in
15
the
back
looking
at
some
of
the
beautiful
maps
and
16
found
the
North
Fork
of
the
Salmon
Berry
river,
which
17
is
in
the
Nehalem
river
drainage
in
the
coast
range
18
in
the
Oregon
and
Clatsop
state
forests
and
I've
19
watched
steelhead
spawning
out
there
and
done
redd
20
surveys
and
watched
those
fish
also
jump
a
10­
to
21
15­
foot
waterfall.
And
I
feel
like
this
proposal
is
22
yet
another
hurdle
for
the
Oregon's
fish
to
be
23
jumping.

24
Finally,
I
missed
some
of
the
25
information
session.
But
even
if
I
had
been
here
on
23
1
time,
I
don't
think
I
could
have
absorbed
all
of
the
2
information.
And
I
want
to
point
out
that
I
feel
3
like
this
discussion
of
the
proposal
being
not
an
4
exemption,
but
a
process,
is
a
little
bit
disingenuous
5
and
more
a
matter
of
semantics
than
reality,
because
6
if
these
folks
apply
for
an
exemption
it's
entirely
7
possible
they'll
get
it,
especially
under
this
8
administration.

9
And,
finally,
I
would
just
like
to
10
stress
that,
as
someone
who
enjoys
outdoor
recreation,

11
who
enjoys
fishing
and
hiking
­­
I
trust
folks
closer
12
to
home
here
in
Oregon
to
take
care
of
my
water
13
quality.
I
trust
folks
at
DEQ
more
than
I
do
in
the
14
federal
government.
And
so
I'd
like
to
keep
that
15
control
local,
which
is
something
I
think
our
16
president
can
understand.
Thank
you.

17
MR.
FOX:
Zephyr
Moore,
followed
by
18
Peter
LaVigne.

19
MR.
MOORE:
Good
evening.
Is
this
20
on?
Am
I
on?

21
MR.
FOX:
Get
closer.

22
MR.
MOORE:
My
name
is
Zephyr
23
Moore
and
I'm
here
simply
for
the
salmon.

24
It's
sad
to
me,
in
Oregon,
that
25
we've
allowed
the
habitat
to
be
so
degraded,
that
24
1
salmon
are
nearing
extinction.
We
need
to
reprove
2
the
habitat
surrounding
the
streams
that
enter
into
3
the
reservoirs
of
our
dams.
And
we
need
to
allow
4
the
water
temperature
to
go
down,
not
up,
as
the
5
regulations
proposal
that
they're
talking
about
will
6
do.

7
Recently
­­
I
recently
held
a
8
salmon
carcass
in
my
hands.
It
was
disintegrating,

9
nearly
gone.
I
have
this
leaflet
that
you
can
get
10
at
my
e­
mail
address,
which
is
11
salmoneedshade@
hotmail.
com.
That's
12
salmoneedshade@
hotmail.
com.
And
I
realize
that
that
13
carcass
is
both
living
art
and
food
for
the
whole
14
planet.
We
can
and
must
preserve
their
masterpiece.

15
MR.
FOX:
Peter
LaVigne,
followed
16
by
Nina
Bell.

17
MR.
LaVIGNE:
My
name
is
Peter
18
LaVigne.
I'm
president
of
the
Rivers
Foundation
of
19
the
Americas.

20
I'm
here
to
urge
EPA
not
to
weaken
21
the
Clean
Water
Act
by
introducing
a
new
option
for
22
dams
to
be
exempted
from
the
water
quality
impacts
on
23
rivers
and
streams
in
Oregon.
Aside
from
the
details
24
of
the
proposed
Oregon
regulations,
this
new
exemption
25
approached
to
water
quality
standards
opens
a
25
1
Pandora's
Box
for
future
enforcement
of
the
Clean
2
Water
Act.

3
4
Providing
a
special
process
to
5
exempt
dams
from
the
positions
of
the
Act,
sets
a
6
dangerous
precedent
through
which
any
other
industry
7
or
sector
affected
by
the
provisions
of
the
Act
could
8
seemingly
justifiably
come
and
ask
for
similar
waivers
9
and
exemptions.
Federal
dams,
like
every
other
10
industry,
are
sector
polluting
the
waters
of
the
11
United
States,
must
be
subject
to
the
mitigating
and
12
preventative
measures
in
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Strong
13
enforcement
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
when
it
has
14
incurred,
is
one
of
the
clear
success
stories
of
the
15
past
30
years
in
the
United
States.
The
Act
has
led
16
to
a
stronger
economy,
better
quality
of
life
for
17
people,
and
it
has
helped
stem
the
erosion
of
18
freshwater
ecosystem
integrity
that
has
been
all
too
19
evident
from
the
effects
of
omnipresent
dams,

20
increasing
human
population,
development
sprawl
an
the
21
resulting
freshwater
and
riparian
habitat
losses.

22
For
just
a
few
of
the
many
23
references
to
these
problems,
I
would
refresh
EPA's
24
memory
to
look
at
the
National
Research
Council's
1992
25
book
Restoration
of
Aquatic
Ecosystems;
Tim
Palmer's
26
1
1994
book
Lifelines:
the
Case
for
River
Conservation
2
or
the
Heinze
Center's
report,
new
this
week,
Dam
3
Removal
Research:
Status
and
Prospects.
This
is
no
4
time
to
be
carving
out
new
exemptions
to
the
Clean
5
Water
Act.

6
I'm
also
deeply
concerned
about
7
reports
that
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
is
8
considering
a
national
watershed
rule
that
includes
9
many
of
the
same
rollbacks
included
in
the
Oregon
10
water
quality
standards
proposal.
While
Oregon's
11
proposed
rule
has
­­
or
the
EPA's
proposed
rule
for
12
Oregon
has
built
in
some
procedural
safeguards
and
13
high
standards
which
must
be
met
for
the
proposed
14
wagers
to
be
approved,
most
other
areas
of
the
U.
S.

15
will
not
have
Oregon's
listing
of
endangered
16
anadromous
fish
and
consequent
procedural
limitations
17
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.

18
We
should
be
looking
to
present
19
opportunities
to
strengthen
Clean
Water
Act
protections
20
and
not
be
providing
opportunities
for
eventual
21
wholesale
exemptions
from
the
Act's
provisions.
Thank
22
you
very
much.

23
MR.
FOX:
Nina
Bell.
Next
is
Liz
24
Hamilton.

25
MS.
BELL:
I'm
afraid
of
this
27
1
microphone.
My
name
is
a
Nina
Bell,
B­
E­
L­
L,

2
executive
director
of
Northwest
Environmental
Advocates.

3
And
I'm
just
going
to
make
a
few
4
brief
comments
because
I
will
be
submitting
extensive
5
written
comments.
I
think
the
first
thing
I
want
to
6
say
is
that,
as
the
plaintiff
in
the
litigation
that
7
led
to
this
rule,
I
actually
don't
trust
the
Oregon
8
environmental
­­
Department
of
Environment
Quality
to
9
protect
our
rivers
and
streams.
And,
unfortunately,

10
neither
do
I
rely
on
the
EPA
to
do
that
or
we
11
wouldn't
have
been
required
to
file
the
lawsuit
12
against
EPA
in
the
first
place.
But,
I
generally
13
feel
that
EPA's
oversight
is
extremely
important.

14
And,
in
this
particular
instance,
I
think
EPA's
15
promulgation
of
federal
replacement
standards
is
16
extremely
important.
But
the
problem
is,
frankly,
the
17
Bush
administration
giving
the
green
light
to
other
18
federal
agencies
coming
in
and
basically
stepping
in
19
and
telling
EPA
what
to
do
­­
And
I'm
relatively
20
certain
that
that's
what's
happened
here.
And
it
is
21
happening
on
other
national
issues.

22
But,
anyway,
mostly
what
I
wanted
23
to
comment
on
was
the
process.
I
was
extremely
24
disappointed
in
preparing
comments
for
DEQ's
proposed
25
rulemaking,
which
recently
closed
for
public
comment,
28
1
in
that,
there
were
no
materials
in
writing
other
2
than
the
rule
itself,
which
was
quite
lengthy,
that
3
explained
exactly
how
the
rule
was
supposed
to
work.

4
And
I
was
looking
forward
to
EPA
doing
a
better
job.

5
And
EPA
did
do
a
better
job
because
EPA
has
many
6
pages
of
preamble.
But,
even
with
the
preamble
and
7
the
record
put
together
­­
the
administrative
record
8
that's
available
­­
There
are
many
things
that
are
9
not
clear.
And
I
think
that
the
questions
in
the
10
question
and
answer
period
pointed
out
this
evening
11
that
there
are
many
ambiguities
in
the
proposed
rule
12
and
in
the
preamble
itself
so
that
we
don't
really
13
know,
as
citizens,
what
it
is
that
we're
commenting
14
on.
And
I
can't
complain
about
the
time
frame
for
15
commenting
because
I
was
part
of
agreeing
to
it.
In
16
fact,
pushing
it.
But,
under
that
­­
that
­­
those
17
constraints
that
we
have
as
citizens
is
particularly
18
difficult
when
we're
guessing
at
what
we
think
the
19
proposal
is.
So,
even
though
the
record
and
the
20
preamble
are
already
written
and
all
put
together,
I
21
would
really
encourage
EPA
to
be
more
clear
about
22
what
this
is
­­
this
proposal
is
in
the
areas
where
23
citizens
have
raised
questions
and
not
gotten
complete
24
answers.

25
A
second
area
that
falls
in
that
29
1
same
category
is
the
methodology
that
was
used
to
2
prepare
the
maps.
And,
you
know,
maybe
I'm
somewhat
3
incompetent
on
the
use
of
the
Internet,
but
I've
gone
4
on
the
ODF&
W
website
looking
for
information.
And
5
I've
sat
through
meetings
at
DEQ
where
the
interagency
6
process
was
described
and
there
is
­­
and
I've
read
7
the
preamble
numerous
times.
And
there
is
constantly
8
discussion
about
a
methodology,
but
it's
­­
but
then
9
we're
given
a
summary
of
the
methodology
in
the
10
preamble
and
were
never
really
given
anything
that's
11
called
"
the
methodology"
that
we
can
look
at.
We're
12
just
given
huge
amount
of
data
and
maps.
And
I
13
appreciate
that
maps.
I
appreciate
the
data.
But
14
there
something
missing
there
that
I
just
don't
think
15
is
clear.
And
I
don't
think
the
record
contains
16
anything
that
clarifies
that
aspect
of
it.

17
And
then
a
similar
area
is
that,

18
is
also,
as
far
as
I
know,
not
included
in
the
19
record
is
­­
with
this
­­
with
this
provision
on
20
dams,
which
is
very
much
a
divergence
from
the
21
regional
temperature
guidance
that
­­
that
has
­­
that
22
has
a
lot
of
data
and
a
lot
of
analysis
and
a
lot
23
of
reports
that
support
it,
that
we
could
all
go
to
24
in
the
record.
The
federal
dam
provision
has
very
25
little.
It
has,
as
far
as
I
can
see,
what's
in
the
30
1
preamble
so
that,
for
example,
members
of
the
public
2
can't
even
tell
how
federal
dams
in
Oregon
would
be
3
affected,
those
kinds
of
basic
things.
And,
of
4
course,
there
are
a
lot
of
ambiguities
that
I
think,

5
Mary
Lou,
you've
alluded
to,
and
John
as
well,
about
6
sort
of,
what
does
­­
What
does
it
mean
to
put
the
7
ESA
overlay?
What
is
an
existing
use?
What's
this
8
all
going
to
mean
when
it
tumbles
out?
But
I
don't
9
think
you
can
answer
those
questions
in
advance.
But
10
I
do
think
you
could
tell
citizens
which,
you
know
­­

11
which
federal
dams
or
approximately
how
many
in
Oregon
12
would
be
affected.
So,
those
kinds
of
things,
I
13
think,
would
be
helpful
as
far
as
helping
people
get
14
important
comments
put
together
in
a
short
time
frame.

15
Thank
you.

16
MR.
FOX:
Liz
Hamilton,
followed
by
17
Greg
Geist
if
he's
here
not.

18
MS.
HAMILTON:
Good
evening
and
19
thank
you
for
your
patience
and
time
tonight
listening
20
to
the
public.
For
the
record,
I'm
Liz
Hamilton
and
21
I
serve
as
the
executive
director
for
Northwest
Sport
22
Fishing
Industry
Association.

23
Our
membership
currently
exists
of
24
over
350
businesses
representing
36,000
jobs
in
the
25
Northwest
doing
about
3.6
billion
in
economic
activity
31
1
for
the
health
of
the
region.
I
won't
be
submitting
2
extensive
comments
afterwards.
I
don't
have
the
3
technical
ability
to
understand
the
administrative
rule
4
under
which
you
operate,
so
I'm
going
to
speak
more
5
to
things
that
I
do
know
about.

6
Foremost
is
that
the
cost
of
7
manufacturing
for
many
businesses
in
this
nation
is
8
environmental
protections.
Cars
have
to
have
9
catalytic
converters;
refrigerators
have
to
get
rid
of
10
Freon.
We've
had
to
sort
­­
to
make
all
sorts
of
11
moves
in
this
nation
to
manufacture
­­
to
take
care
12
of
the
environment,
and
the
protection
of
power
should
13
not
be
exempted
from
temperature
pollution.

14
What
I
can
talk
to
you
about
is
15
the
impacts
that
temperature
pollution
deliver
to
our
16
industry.
They
actually
deliver
a
triple
whammy
to
17
us.
And
how
this
impacts
our
jobs
is
in
three
ways
18
over
multiple
years.
When
you
have
high
temperatures
19
in
the
river,
you
stress
the
juveniles,
if
not
kill
20
the
juveniles.
When
you
have
high
temperatures
in
21
the
river,
you
stress
the
adults.
They
may
not
22
spawn.
They
may
not
survive
to
spawn.

23
And,
finally
­­
And
this
is
24
something
that
hits
us
directly
­­
You
can
have
a
25
year,
such
as
2001
when
we
had
record
numbers
of
32
1
adult
returns,
and
yet,
we
didn't
have
record
2
fisheries
because
the
temperatures
were
so
high
the
3
fish
are
stressed
and
they
don't
bite.
So,
you
can
4
have
a
boat
out
there
and
you
could
go
fishing
and
5
you
have
a
better
chance
of
a
fish
jumping
in
your
6
boat
than
you
would
of
hooking
one
and
catching
it.

7
And
pretty
soon
everyone
goes
home
and
they
don't
8
spend
money
in
tackle
stores.
They
cancel
their
9
trips
to
the
region.
They
cancel
Skamania
Lodge.

10
They
cancel
their
trips
to
buy
licenses.
We
don't
11
have
the
business
going
from
it.
So,
we
could
have,

12
conceivably,
runs
coming
in
that
are
healthy
and
can
13
support
a
huge
sport
fishing
industry,
and
instead,

14
everyone
spends
their
money
somewhere
else
fishing,

15
not
in
Oregon
and
not
in
Washington.

16
Most
people
have
talked
about
salmon
17
today.
The
other
species
that
we're
completely
18
ignoring
with
temperature
pollution
is
sturgeon.

19
Sturgeon
are
a
creature
that's
been
around
in
the
20
Columbia
basin
a
lot
longer
than
the
salmon
have.

21
And
yet,
they
have
all
been
in
the
same
conditions
22
with
the
same
needs.
And,
when
you
don't
have
23
appropriate
flows
and
temperatures,
sturgeon
don't
24
spawn.
They're
completely
sensitive
to
the
25
temperatures
in
the
river,
which
is
inversely
related
33
1
to
the
flows.
So,
we
have
another
magnificent
2
creature
that
is
dependent
on
the
correct
3
temperatures.
If
you
go
back
and
you
look
at
data
4
from
'
01
again,
when
we
had
high
temperatures
in
the
5
river
where
we
monitored
young
of
the
year,
there
6
were
no
young
of
the
year.
So,
these
will
reabsorb
7
their
eggs
and
not
reproduce
when
they
don't
get
8
appropriate
temperatures
either.

9
So,
I
can't
comment
on
the
10
technicalities
of
how
you
do
your
rules,
whether
it's
11
right
or
wrong.
But
I
can
tell
you
that
temperature
12
pollution
impacts
our
businesses
and
we
don't
believe
13
that
manufacturing
power
for
dams
should
be
exempted
14
from
environmental
protections.
And,
we
find
this
15
particularly
ironic,
when
the
federal
government
is
16
standing
in
front
of
Judge
Reddon
right
now,
trying
17
to
defend
a
salmon
plan,
when
the
foundation
of
the
18
salmon
plan
is
that
fish
need
cool
water.

19
So,
we're
going
to
ask
you
to
20
maintain
the
rules
that
protect
fish
from
temperature
21
pollution.
We're
human
beings.
We
can
figure
out
22
ways
to
manufacture
power
without
overheating
the
23
rivers
for
all
the
fish
and
wildlife
that
depend
on
24
cold
water.
Thank
you.

25
MR.
FOX:
Rick
Fabrini.
Is
Greg
34
1
here?

2
MR.
FABRINI:
Hi.
I'm
Rick.
I'm
3
from
Portland
here.

4
And
I,
too,
don't
know
much
about
5
the
technical
aspects
of
this.
I
don't
know
about
6
billions
of
dollars,
but
I
know
about
Klamath
basin.

7
I'm
from
Ashland.
Before
I
moved
to
Portland
and
­­

8
A
lot
more
money
could
be
made
on
sport
fishing
and
9
the
tourism
industry.
For
one
thing,
the
river
is
so
10
warm
that
algae
blooms
have
caused
­­
If
you
put
your
11
foot
in
there,
you'll
itch.
I
drove
along
it
this
12
summer
on
a
hot
day
and
I
didn't
see
anyone
in
the
13
river
because
you
get
itch.
Salmon
need
the
cool
14
water
to
live.
We
need
the
salmon.
The
forests
15
need
the
salmon.
The
four
Indian
tribes
need
the
16
salmon
more
than
we
need
French
fries.
That's
all
I
17
have
to
say.

18
MR.
FOX:
Is
there
anyone
else
who
19
wishes
to
testify?
If
not,
I'm
going
to
close
this
20
hearing
at
7:
12
p.
m.
It's
hereby
closed.

21
MR.
FOX:
The
next
commenter
is
22
Judith
Boothby.

23
MS.
BOOTHBY:
Thank
you.
I
would
24
like
for
you
to
tell
President
Bush
"
no"
to
his
25
administrative
efforts
to
exempt
federal
dams
from
35
1
having
to
comply
with
Oregon's
clean
water
standards.

2
This
could,
as
we
all
know
­­
could
seriously
harm
3
could
the
hours
and
hours
and
decades
and
decades
of
4
work
that
all
of
the
real
people
have
put
into
taking
5
care
of
the
water.
And
it's
very
important
that
we
6
do
not
degradate
the
current
clean
water
centers
we
7
have.
We
need
to
improve
upon
them
and
not
harm
8
them.
So,
for
this
reason,
I
have
come
over
here
9
through
the
cold
and
the
dark
and
showed
up
at
this
10
meeting
to
say
that.
Thank
you.

11
MS.
ROBINSON:
My
name
is
Dvora
12
Robinson
and
I
live
in
Portland,
Oregon.

13
And
I've
just
have
come
to
make
a
14
brief
comment
to
say
that
I'm
opposed
to
any
changes
15
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
that
would
lessen
the
16
protection
of
water
quality
in
Oregon
or
elsewhere
in
17
the
nation.
And
just
that
water
quality
is
very
18
important
to
us.
To
me,
as
a
person,
who
swims
in
19
rivers,
who
drinks
water,
who
wants
to
have
salmon,

20
not
just
on
street
post
signs
and
logos,
but
actually
21
want
wild
salmon
in
the
rivers.
And
I
go
rafting.

22
It's
very
important
for
me
to
keep
Oregon's
water
23
quality
as
the
highest
possible.
Thank
you.

24
MR.
GOLMAN­
ARMSTRONG:
My
name
is
25
Abram
Goldman­
Armstrong.
And
I'd
like
to
comment
on
36
1
the
new
water
quality
standards
that
are
being
2
proposed.

3
I'm
rather
concerned
that
the
4
federal
dams
will
not
be
held
accountable
for
their
5
huge
impact
on
our
rivers
and
I
want
to
make
sure
6
that
our
salmon,
which
are
a,
you
know
­­
a
major
7
part
of
both
our,
you
know,
culture,
our
identity,

8
and
our
economy,
are,
you
now,
taken
as
a
serious
9
contender
in
this
­­
in
these
standards
and
that
we
10
have
respect
for
the
salmon
when
we
go
about
making
11
these
standards.
And
we're
not
going
to
let
the
12
federal
government
get
away
with
anything,
you
know,

13
that's
going
to
damage
them.
The
federal
dams
are
14
such
huge
­­
have
had
such
a
huge
impact
on
salmon
15
and
still
continue
to
have
an
impact
on
salmon.
And
16
I
feel
that
allowing
any
kind
of
loophole
in
this
17
standard,
whether
or
not
they
have
to
undergo
a
18
process
or
not,
is
still
not
being
firm
enough
in
19
establishing
these
standards.
We
need
standards
that
20
are
going
to
preserve
salmon.
We
need
to,
you
know
21
­­
to
keep
this
amazing
animal,
which
has
been
a
part
22
of
our
heritage
here
in
the
Northwest
­­
I
mean,

23
before
people
were
here
­­
and
has
been
an
important
24
part
of
the
native
people's
livelihood
and
culture
and
25
religion
and
also
part
of,
you
know,
us
37
1
Euro­
Americans,
you
know
­­
Again,
part
of
our
culture
2
and
our
livelihood.
And
we
need
to
make
sure
that
3
those
salmon
remain
intact
and
we
should
not
be
4
allowing
any
way
for
the
federal
government
to
keep
5
these
dams,
you
know,
destroying
the
salmon
runs.

6
So,
yeah.
That's
about
all
the
comment
I
have.

7
Thanks.

8
(
Whereupon,
the
public
hearing
9
concluded
at
9:
00
P.
M.)

10
.

11
.

12
.

13
.

14
.

15
.

16
.

17
.

18
.

19
.

20
.

21
.

22
.

23
.

24
.

25
.