[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31814-31815]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13017]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 61

[Docket ID: FEMA-2011-0037]
RIN 1660-AA09 (Formerly 3067-AD02)

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Insurance Coverage and
Rates

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
a previously published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insurance premium rates for
structures that have suffered multiple flood losses. The proposed rule
would have required owners of such structures to pay a higher premium
for flood insurance if they declined an offer of funding to eliminate
or reduce future flood damage. FEMA is withdrawing the NPRM because it
has been superseded by legislation.

DATES: The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published on August 5, 1999
(64 FR 42632), is withdrawn as of May 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and this withdrawal notice
are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID
FEMA-2011-0037. Insert FEMA-2011-0037 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then
click ``Search.'' The Docket is also available for inspection or
copying at FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 840, Washington, DC 20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Hayes, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington,
VA 20598-3020. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
4001 et seq., authorizes FEMA to offer insurance against flood losses
through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP allows
FEMA to offer flood insurance at less-than-full-risk premium rates for
older structures. This is because Congress recognized that in
authorizing the NFIP there would be a trade-off: Participating local
governments would adopt and enforce flood mitigation standards that
make future construction resistant to future flood loss, but federally-
backed flood insurance would be available for older structures built
without the benefit of detailed flood risk information.
    To implement the NFIP, FEMA has worked with communities to develop
the kind of detailed flood risk information needed for flood mitigation
efforts. This information is reflected in a community's Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM). Many properties built before the publication of a
community's FIRM are at a greater risk of incurring flood loss because
they were constructed prior to the availability of full flood risk
information. These properties are discussed in FEMA's actuarial
studies, which show that the owners of buildings insured under the NFIP
that repetitively flood are not charged premiums that truly reflect the
risk.
    One of FEMA's highest priorities is to correct the problem of
multiple flood losses to older structures (target repetitive loss
buildings) insured under the NFIP. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) defined target repetitive loss buildings as those with four or
more losses, or with two or more flood losses cumulatively greater than
the building's value. The NPRM proposed to apply full-risk premiums for
flood insurance coverage to a target repetitive loss building, if an
owner declined an offer of mitigation funding authorized by FEMA. Under
the proposed rule, if the owner of a target repetitive flood loss
building declined an offer of mitigation funding to relocate, elevate,
or flood-proof the structure, then that owner would, upon the next
policy renewal, have to pay full-risk premiums for flood insurance
coverage under the NFIP.

II. Summary of Comments

    FEMA received seven comments on the NPRM from private parties and
interest groups. Generally, commenters supported the regulation. Some
had concerns that it needed to include greater detail on important
issues. Several commenters had reservations about the NPRM's possible
effects on the mortgage industry. Specifically, they discussed the
criteria banks use in issuing mortgages, such as a borrower's ability
to insure the building, which they stressed is the collateral for the
loan. If the insurance rate increases to the point where the borrower
can no longer afford insurance, the collateral for the mortgage is at
substantial risk and the mortgage is in jeopardy. This relationship to
the requirements of the NPRM caused concern that the NPRM could
destabilize the primary and secondary mortgage markets. Commenters also
expressed the opinion that public notice, or at least notice to the
mortgage holder, should be incorporated into the premium rate increase
process. Finally, one commenter was concerned that the NPRM would be
economically detrimental to homeowners who suffer from flood damages
through no fault of their own.

III. Reason for Withdrawal

    FEMA is withdrawing the NPRM because it has been superseded by the
Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (the
Act), Public Law 108-264, 118 Stat. 712, 42 U.S.C. 4001 note. The Act
amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 by authorizing
increases to the flood insurance premium rates for building owners of
repetitive loss who decline offers of mitigation funding (section 102
of the Act; 42 U.S.C. 4102a). FEMA promulgated a final rule
implementing this amendment at 44 CFR part 79 on September 16, 2009 (74
FR 47471). Therefore, this NPRM is no longer necessary.

IV. Conclusion

    FEMA is withdrawing the August 5, 1999 NPRM for the reasons stated
in this notice.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-13017 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34605-34607]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13721]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0407; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-22-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
CFM56-3 and CFM56-7B series turbofan engines with certain accessory
gearboxes (AGBs) not equipped with a handcranking pad ``oil dynamic
seal'' assembly. This proposed AD was prompted by 42 events of total
loss of engine oil from CFM56 series turbofan engines while in flight.
This proposed AD would require an independent inspection to verify re-
installation of the handcranking pad cover after removal of the pad
cover for maintenance until installation of a handcranking pad oil
dynamic seal assembly. This inspection requirement exceeds normal
maintenance and is necessary due to the design and location of the
handcranking pad cover on the accessory gear box. We are proposing this
AD to prevent loss of engine oil while in flight, which could result in
engine failure, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts,
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0407;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-22-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of 42 incidents of total loss of engine
oil from engines while in flight. Thirty-four incidents were single-
engine events and resulted in an in-flight shutdown of the engine or an
air turnback (ATB). Four incidents involved total loss of engine oil in
both engines installed on dual-engine airplanes, which caused an
immediate ATB of the airplane. The loss of engine oil was traced to the
AGB handcranking pad cover, which had not been reinstalled after
maintenance, for example, after a borescope inspection of the engine.
    This proposed AD would require an independent inspection of the AGB
handcranking pad cover to verify its re-installation after removal.
This inspection requirement exceeds normal maintenance and is necessary
due to the design and location of the handcranking pad on the AGB. If
an operator's approved maintenance program includes an independent
inspection of the AGB handcranking pad cover after removal then
compliance with those procedures will constitute compliance to the
inspection requirements of the AD. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in loss of engine oil in flight, which could lead to
engine failure, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require an independent inspection to verify
correct installation of the handcranking pad cover after removal of the
pad cover for maintenance. Introduction of a handcranking pad oil
dynamic seal is available as an optional terminating action to the
repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2,702 CFM56-3 and
CFM56-7B engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also
estimate that it would take about 1 hour to perform the independent
inspection required by this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour.
We estimate that normal maintenance will require the AGB handcranking
pad cover to be removed every 1,300 flights cycles. Based on an average
use of these model engines of approximately 6,000,000 flight cycles per
year, we estimate that an independent inspection would be required
approximately 4,615 times per year. Therefore, assuming that an
operator does not already have an independent inspection of the AGB
handcranking pad cover in its approved maintenance program, we estimate
the cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators to be $392,275.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This

proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

CFM International S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0407; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NE-22-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 9, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International S.A. CFM56-3 series and
CFM56-7B series turbofan engines equipped with the accessory gearbox
(AGB) part numbers (P/Ns) listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this
AD.

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CFM56-7B (except
                                  CFM56-7B27A, CFM56- CFM56-7B27A, CFM56-
             CFM56-3              7B27A/3, and CFM56- 7B27A/3, and CFM56-
                                        7B27AE)             7B27AE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
335-300-103-0...................       340-046-503-0       340-188-601-0
335-300-105-0...................       340-046-504-0       340-188-603-0
335-300-106-0...................       340-046-505-0  ..................
335-300-107-0...................  ..................  ..................
335-300-108-0...................  ..................  ..................
335-300-109-0...................  ..................  ..................
335-300-110-0...................  ..................  ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by 42 events of total loss of engine oil
while in flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of engine
oil while in flight, which could result in engine failure, loss of
thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following:

(f) Inspection of the AGB handcranking pad cover

    (1) Perform an independent inspection to verify re-installation
of the AGB handcranking pad cover after maintenance.
    (2) The presence of an independent inspection as a required
inspection item in the approved continuous airworthiness maintenance
program satisfies the requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Optional Terminating Action

    (1) As an optional terminating action to the inspection
requirement of paragraph (f) of this AD, do the following:
    (i) For CFM56-3 series engine models, modify the AGB
handcranking pad per Paragraph 3, ``Accomplishment Instructions'' in
CFM International Service Bulletin (SB) 72-1129, Revision 2, dated
November 16, 2012.
    (ii) For CFM56-7B series engine models, with the exception of
the models listed in paragraph (g)(2), modify the AGB handcranking
pad per Paragraph 3, ``Accomplishment Instructions'' in CFM
International SB 72-0564, Revision 3, dated May 25, 2011 or
Paragraph 3, ``Accomplishment Instructions'' in CFM International SB
72-0879, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2012.
    (2) No terminating action is available at this date for engine
models CFM56-7B27A, CFM56-7B27A/3, and CFM56-7B27AE, equipped with
AGB P/N 340-188-601-0 and AGB P/N 340-188-603-0.

(h) Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, an independent inspection means a
second inspection by a qualified individual who was not involved in
the original re-installation of the AGB handcranking pad cover
following maintenance to confirm that the cover is installed
correctly.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Antonio
Cancelliere, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-238-
7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1
Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; USA phone: 877-432-
3272; USA fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; International phone: 1-513-552-3272;
International fax: 1-513-552-3329; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or CFM
International SA, Customer Support Center, International phone: 33 1
64 14 88 66; fax: 33 1 64 79 85 55; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 24, 2013.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Directorate, Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-13721 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58768-58769]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23218]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review and
Soliciting Scoping Comments

FFP Missouri 5, LLC--Project No. 13757-002.
FFP Missouri 6, LLC--Project No. 13761-002.
Solia 6 Hydroelectric, LLC--Project No. 13768-002.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Applications: Original Major Licenses
    b. Project Nos.: 13757-002; 13761-002; 13768-002
    c. Dates Filed: March 14, 2014
    d. Applicants: FFP Missouri 5, LLC; FFP Missouri 6, LLC; Solia 6
Hydroelectric, LLC.
    e. Names of Projects: Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project,
13757-002; Emsworth Back Channel Hydroelectric Project, 13761-002;
Montgomery Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project, 13768-002.
    f. Locations: The proposed projects would be located at U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) dams on the Ohio River in Allegheny and
Beaver counties, Pennsylvania (see table below for specific locations).
The projects would occupy 16.95 acres of federal land managed by the
Corps.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal land
     Project No.                  Projects              County and State        City/town       used by  project
                                                                                (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13757..............  Emsworth Locks and Dam.......  Allegheny, PA......  Emsworth...........              9.58
P-13761..............  Emsworth Back Channel Dam....  Allegheny, PA......  Emsworth...........              2.26
P-13768..............  Montgomery Locks & Dam.......  Beaver, PA.........  Borough of Industry              5.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas Feldman, Rye Development, LLC, PO Box
390691 Cambridge, MA 02139; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Brandi Sangunett,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: November 10, 2014
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include the
docket number(s) for the project(s) (e.g., P-13757-002).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. The applications are not ready for environmental analysis at
this time.
    l. The proposed Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be the most upstream project at river mile (RM) 6.2 and would consist
of the following new facilities: (1) A 205-foot-long, 180-foot-wide
intake channel containing a

30-foot-long, 63.5-foot-high, 180-foot-wide intake structure with 5-
inch bar spacing trashracks; (2) a 180-foot-long, 77-foot-high, 180-
foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse on the south bank of the
river; (3) four turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 24
megawatts (MW); (4) a 380-foot-long, 280-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 50-
foot-long by 60-foot-wide substation; (6) a 1,893-foot-long, 69-
kilovolt (kV), overhead transmission line to connect the project
substation to an existing substation; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The average annual generation would be 101,300 megawatt-hours (MWh).
    The proposed Emsworth Back Channel Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at RM 6.8 and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
100-foot-long, 165-foot-wide intake channel containing a 32-foot-long,
63.5-foot-high, 90-foot-wide intake structure with 5-inch bar spacing
trashracks; (2) a 150-foot-long, 77-foot-high, 90-foot-wide reinforced
concrete powerhouse on the north bank of the river; (3) two turbine-
generator units with a combined capacity of 12.0 MW; (4) a 190-foot-
long, 105-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 50-foot-long by 60-foot-wide
substation; (6) a 3,758-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line to
connect the project substation to an existing substation; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be 53,500
MWh.
    The proposed Montgomery Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project would
be located at RM 31.7 and consist of the following new facilities: (1)
A 340-foot-long, 205-foot-wide intake channel containing a 150-foot-
long, 90-foot-high, 205-foot-wide intake structure with 5-inch bar
spacing trashracks; (2) a 315-foot-long, 105-foot-high, 205-foot-wide
reinforced concrete powerhouse on the north bank of the river; (3)
three turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 42 MW; (4) a
280-foot-long, 210-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a 50-foot-long by 60-foot-
wide substation; (6) a 392-foot-long, 69-kV, overhead transmission line
to connect the project substation to an existing distribution line; and
(7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be
194,370 MWh.
    The applicants propose to operate all three projects in a ``run-of-
river'' mode using flows made available by the Corps. The proposed
projects would not change existing flow releases or water surface
elevations upstream or downstream of the proposed projects.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
n. Scoping Process
    The Commission intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA)
on the projects in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
actions.

Scoping Meetings

    FERC staff will conduct one agency scoping meeting and one public
meeting. The agency scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and
non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the public scoping
meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the
meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the
environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and
locations of these meetings are as follows:

Public Scoping Meeting

Date: Thursday, October 9, 2014
Time: 7:00 p.m. (EDT)
Place: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Pittsburgh--Green Tree
Address: 500 Mansfield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15205
(412) 922-8400

Agency Scoping Meeting

Date: Friday, October 10, 2014
Time: 9:30 a.m. (EDT)
Place: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Pittsburgh--Green Tree
Address: 500 Mansfield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15205
(412) 922-8400

    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the
scoping meeting or may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).

Environmental Site Review

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct an Environmental Site
Review for each project. The times and locations of these meetings are
as follows:

Project: Montgomery Locks and Dam
Date: Thursday, October 9, 2014
Time: 9:00 a.m. (EDT)
Location: Corps' parking lot 100, Montgomery Dam Road, Monaca, PA
15061-2221
Project: Emsworth Locks and Dam and Emsworth Back Channel Dam
Date: Thursday, October 9, 2014
Time: 1:00 p.m. (EDT)
Location: Corps' parking lot 0, Western Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15202-
17085

    All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited
to attend. All participants should meet at the time and location
specified above. All participants are responsible for their own
transportation to the site. Anyone with questions about the
Environmental Site Review should contact Mr. Thomas Feldman of Rye
Development, LLC at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or before October 3, 2014.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2)
solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EA.

    Dated: September 22, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23218 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of
this section. For purposes of subpart SS any reference to the year 2010
in Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) shall mean 2011.
    (b) Ensure that all the quantities required by the equations of
this subpart have been measured using scales or flow meters that are
certified with an accuracy and precision to within one percent of the
true mass or weight or better, and is periodically recalibrated per the
manufacturer's specifications. Account for the tare weights of the
containers. Either measure new or residual gas (the amount of gas
remaining in returned cylinders) or have the gas supplier measure them.
If the gas supplier weighs the new or residual gas, obtain from the gas
supplier a detailed monthly accounting, within 1 percent, of new or
residual gas amounts in the cylinders returned to the gas supplier. You
remain responsible for the accuracy of these masses and weights under
this subpart.
    (c) For purposes of Equations SS-3 and SS-4 of this subpart, the
mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container
or flowmeter during the period p shall be estimated using measurements
and/or engineering assessments or calculations based on chemical
engineering principles or physical or chemical laws or properties. Such
assessments or calculations may be based on, as applicable, the
internal volume of hose or line that is open to the atmosphere during
coupling and decoupling activities, the internal pressure of the hose
or line, the time the hose or line is open to the atmosphere during
coupling and decoupling activities, the frequency with which the hose
or line is purged and the flow rate during purges. The estimated mass
of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container or
flowmeter during the period p shall include unexpected or accidental
losses.
    (d) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and combinations of
volumetric and density measures that are used to measure or calculate
quantities that are to be reported under this subpart prior to the
first year for which GHG emissions are reported under this part.
Calibrations performed prior to the effective date of this rule satisfy
this requirement. Recalibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and
combinations of volumetric and density measures at the minimum
frequency specified by the manufacturer. Use National Institute of
Standards and Technology-traceable standards and suitable methods
published by a consensus standards organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, ISO,
or others).
    (e) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed throughout the
year:
    (1) Ensure that procedures are in place and followed to track and
weigh all cylinders or other containers at the beginning and end of the
year.
    (2) Ensure all domestic electrical equipment manufacturing
locations have provided information to the manager compiling the
emissions report (if it is not already handled through an electronic
inventory system).
    (f) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods for reviewing
the completeness and accuracy of reporting:
    (1) Review inputs to Equation SS-1 of this subpart to ensure inputs
and outputs to the company's system are included.
    (2) Do not enter negative inputs and confirm that negative
emissions are not calculated. However, the decrease in SF6
inventory may be calculated as negative.
    (3) Ensure that beginning-of-year inventory matches end-of-year
inventory from the previous year.
    (4) Ensure that in addition to SF6 purchased from bulk
gas distributors, SF6 returned from equipment users with or
inside equipment and SF6 returned from off-site recycling
are also accounted for among the total additions.

Sec.  98.455  Procedures for estimating missing data.

    A complete record of all measured parameters used in the GHG
emissions calculations is required. Replace missing data, if needed,
based on data from similar manufacturing operations, and from similar
equipment testing and decommissioning activities for which data are
available.

Sec.  98.456  Data reporting requirements.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(c), each
annual report must contain the following information at each facility
level, by chemical:
    (a) SF6 and PFC sales and purchases.
    (b) SF6 and PFCs sent off site for destruction.
    (c) SF6 and PFCs sent off site to be recycled.
    (d) SF6 and PFCs returned from off site after recycling.
    (e) SF6 and PFCs returned by equipment users with or
inside equipment.
    (f) SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the beginning
and end of the year.
    (g) SF6 and PFCs inside equipment delivered to
customers.
    (h) SF6 and PFCs returned to suppliers.
    (i) The nameplate capacity of the equipment delivered to customers
with SF6 or PFCs inside, if different from the quantity in
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (j) A description of the engineering methods and calculations used
to determine emissions from hoses or other flow lines that connect the
container to the equipment that is being filled.
    (k) For any missing data, you must report the reason the data were
missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to
estimate emissions in their absence, and the quantity of emissions
thereby estimated.

Sec.  98.457  Records that must be retained.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(g), you must
retain the following records:
    (a) All information reported and listed in Sec.  98.456.
    (b) Accuracy certifications and calibration records for all scales
and monitoring equipment, including the method or manufacturer's
specification used for calibration.
    (c) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and procedures for cylinders.
    (d) Residual gas amounts in cylinders sent back to suppliers.
    (e) Invoices for gas purchases and sales.

Sec.  98.458  Definitions.

    All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the
Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.

[FR Doc. 2010-6768 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Control Measure:

This project covers the expansion of existing bicycle facilities and the
creation of entirely new facilities throughout the state.  This will
encourage bicycle use for work and other trip purposes, replacing some
motorized trips and leading to a reduction in emissions

Description:

Counties throughout the state of New Jersey have a number of programmed
(funded) and proposed bicycle facilities.  These new and expanded
facilities will help to attract shorter distant trips away from autos
and will have a corresponding reduction in emissions.  Both commuter
trips and recreational trips will be attracted to these new facilities.

Methodology:

The NJ-AQONE software package, specifically the “Bicycle
Improvements” project type, was used in the evaluation of the impact
of the proposed bike trails.  Separate runs were done for each county to
reflect local conditions.

One of the major inputs into the analysis was the length of the existing
bicycle facilities and the total length of new facilities to be created.
 The GIS based inventory data supplied with the NJDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian
Master Planning Phase Two CD ROM was used for this Information.  These
bicycle facility inventory databases contain the follow information for
both on and off road facilities:

A list of know, existing facilities

A list of programmed (funded) future facilities

A list of proposed (unfunded) future facilities

For the purposes of this analysis, the total amount of existing bike
trails was set equal to the total on-road and off-road recorded in the
database.  For the length of the future (2009) bicycle trails, all of
the programmed and 10% of the proposed trails were included.  The
service area captured by the proposed bike trails was assumed to be a 1
mile wide band along the total length of new the trails.

Inputs/Assumptions:

The length of the existing and future bicycle trails was obtained from
the NJDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 2 Facility Inventory and
is summarized in Table 1

Project impacts were estimated using the NJ-AQONE Bicycle Improvements
methodology.  This methodology estimates the total number of commuter
and recreational trips that the proposed facility would attract
currently using auto

The length of the additional trails was assumed to include all
programmed (funded) facilities and 10% of proposed facilities.  The
relatively low 10% figure was based on the assumption that most of the
proposed trails, if built at all, would not be completed within the next
4-5 year (the timeframe of the RACM analysis)

For the remaining inputs, the default values supplied by the NJAQONE
software were used

The service area (an input required by the software) was approximated by
multiplying the total length of the new facilities by 1 mile, yielding
an estimate of the total service area

Each county was analyzed separately and results totaled statewide and by
non-attainment area (both Ozone and PM 2.5).  Output from the software
is found at the end of this documentation.

Table 1: Inventory of Existing, Programmed and Proposed Bike Trails in
New Jersey

County	Existing (Miles)	Programmed (Miles)	Proposed (Miles)	10% of
Proposed (Miles)	Total Effective Future (Miles)	Estimated Service Area
(Miles)

Atlantic	38.78	14.90	191.44	19.14	34.05	36.05

Bergen	15.22	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	2.00

Burlington	88.95	0.00	158.00	15.80	15.80	17.80

Camden	26.66	10.14	35.94	3.59	13.73	15.73

Cape May	23.05	12.22	2.73	0.27	12.49	14.49

Cumberland	0.67	0.00	80.08	8.01	8.01	10.01

Essex	40.46	20.48	5.53	0.55	21.04	23.04

Gloucester	4.43	3.65	9.30	0.93	4.58	6.58

Hudson	3.22	2.68	2.31	0.23	2.92	4.92

Hunterdon	120.99	3.63	182.03	18.20	21.84	23.84

Mercer	78.34	2.21	3.68	0.37	2.58	4.58

Middlesex	30.81	21.47	205.09	20.51	41.98	43.98

Monmouth	118.82	8.62	33.36	3.34	11.95	13.95

Morris	292.95	6.52	263.95	26.39	32.92	34.92

Ocean	21.98	4.61	21.90	2.19	6.80	8.80

Passaic	40.16	11.14	1.76	0.18	11.32	13.32

Salem	8.04	0.00	105.71	10.57	10.57	12.57

Somerset	52.38	23.28	0.00	0.00	23.28	25.28

Sussex	64.87	5.70	41.35	4.13	9.84	11.84

Union	14.15	0.00	16.41	1.64	1.64	3.64

Warren	5.94	1.57	1.32	0.13	1.70	3.70

Results: Statewide Summer Day/Annual Benefits

Total VT Reduced = 992 trips/day Statewide

Total VMT Reduced = 2,591 miles/day Statewide

Emission Reductions (Statewide):

Pollutant

Type	Analysis Year 2009

	Tons/Day	Tons/Year

VOC	0.0027	-

NOx	0.0018	0.47

PM2.5	-	0.02

SO2	-	0.01

Ozone Analysis – Daily Benefits in New Jersey

Benefits (Reductions)	Ozone Non-Attainment Area

	New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island,

NY-NJ-CT	Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City

PA-NJ-MD-DE

VT	839	153

VMT	2,193	398

VOC (Tons/Day)	0.0023	0.0043

NOx (Tons/Day)	0.0015	0.00029

PM2.5 Analysis – Annual Benefits in New Jersey

Benefits (Reductions)	PM2.5 Non-Attainment Area

	New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT	Philadelphia-Wilmington

PA-NJ-DE

VT	204,500	534,000

VMT	19,500	50,750

NOx (Tons/Year)	0.38	0.041

PM2.5 (Tons/Year)	0.017	0.0016

SO2 (Tons/Year)	0.010	0.0010

Cost/Benefit Analysis

Total costs were estimated as follows:

For Off-Road Facilities:

Capital Cost: $150,000/Mile over 15 Years

Operating/Maintenance: $6,000/Mile/Year

Total Annual cost: $16,000/Mile/Year

For On-Road Facilities

$4,500/Mile over 5 years = $900/Mile/Year

Total cost for the various non-attainment areas are as follows:

County	Estimated Cost For Each AQ Region

	Ozone	PM 2.5

	NY-NJ-CT	PA-NJ-DE-MA	NY-NJ-CT	PA-NJ-DE

Atlantic	$0	$30,642	$0	$0

Bergen	$0	$0	$0	$0

Burlington	$0	$151,138	$0	$151,138

Camden	$0	$74,948	$0	$74,948

Cape May	$0	$148,908	$0	$0

Cumberland	$0	$24,809	$0	$0

Essex	$59,084	$0	$59,084	$0

Gloucester	$0	$49,182	$0	$49,182

Hudson	$2,624	$0	$2,624	$0

Hunterdon	$24,157	$0	$0	$0

Mercer	$0	$41,237	$41,237	$0

Middlesex	$348,920	$0	$348,920	$0

Monmouth	$111,905	$0	$111,905	$0

Morris	$432,186	$0	$432,186	$0

Ocean	$0	$103,530	$0	$0

Passaic	$104,893	$0	$104,893	$0

Salem	$0	$9,514	$0	$0

Somerset	$110,063	$0	$110,063	$0

Sussex	$145,873	$0	$0	$0

Union	$1,477	$0	$1,477	$0

Warren	$3,531	$0	$0	$0

Total	$1,344,712	$633,907	$1,212,388	$275,268

Cost/Benefit Results

Pollutant	Cost/Benefit for Each Pollutant

	Ozone*	PM 2.5

	NY-NJ-CT	PA-NJ-DE-MD	NY-NJ-CT	PA-NJ-DE

VOC ($/Ton/Day)	$2,345,969	$5,898,172	-	-

NOx ($/Ton/Day)	$3,485,440	$8,847,258	-	-

NOx ($/Ton/Year)	-	-	$3,190,496	$6,660,958

PM2.5 ($/Ton/Year)	-	-	$69,788,164	$171,040,616

SO2 ($/Ton/Year)	-	-	$116,387,456	$287,033,677

*Daily Costs used in calculation of cost/benefit ratio are Annual costs
divided by 250

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Statewide Expansion of Bicycle Facilities

RACM Analysis

Michael Baker Jr., Inc.		Page   PAGE  1


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 .