1
1
2
3
EPA
PUBLIC
HEARING
4
5
6
7
8
PORTLAND,
OREGON
9
PROPOSED
FEDERAL
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
10
FOR
OREGON
11
12
13
______________________________________________

14
15
16
October
23,
2003
17
18
­
­
­

19
20
BE
IT
REMEMBERED
THAT,
pursuant
to
the
Oregon
Rules
21
of
Civil
Procedure,
the
testimony
was
taken
before
Marta
22
Charles,
a
Professional
Court
Reporter
and
a
Notary
23
Public
for
the
State
of
Oregon,
on
October
23,
2003,

24
commencing
at
the
hour
of
2:
00
P.
M.,
the
proceedings
25
being
reported
at
100
West
10th
Street,
Eugene,
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
ALAN
HENNING
2
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
3
1102
Lincoln
Street,
Suite
210
4
Eugene,
Oregon
97401
5
(
541)
686­
7838
6
.

7
.

8
.

9
.

10
.

11
.

12
.

13
.

14
.

15
.

16
.

17
.

18
.

19
.

20
.

21
.

22
.

23
.

24
.

25
.
4
1
MR.
FOX:
Hello,
everyone.
I'm
2
Jack
Fox.
I'm
Regional
Counsel
for
EPA
in
Seattle,

3
and
I'm
the
hearing
officer.
And
I
have
a
fairly
4
extensive
statement
to
read,
which
doesn't
seem
5
appropriate.
It's
so
formal
and
there's
so
few
of
us
6
here
but
it
is
necessary
for
the
record,
so
bare
with
7
me.
We
only
have
two
commenters,
so
if
anybody
wants
8
to
add
their
name,
fill
out
the
blue
form.
It
is
my
9
responsibility
to
ensure
that
this
hearing
is
run
10
properly
and
that
anybody
who
chooses
to
provide
11
testimony
this
evening
has
the
opportunity
to
do
so.

12
I
would
like
to
introduce
Marta
13
Charles,
who
is
the
court
reporter
for
this
evening's
14
hearing.
It
is
important
that
Marta
accurately
record
15
the
testimony
being
given,
so
if
you're
providing
16
testimony
this
evening,
please
speak
slowly
and
17
clearly
and
spell
your
last
name
for
her,
please.

18
This
hearing
is
being
held
on
19
Wednesday,
October
22nd
­­
or
it's
the
3rd,
right?

20
The
23rd
­­
2003
in
the
­­
Where
are
we?
The
21
library
in
Eugene,
Oregon.
The
purpose
of
the
22
hearing
is
to
receive
public
comments
on
EPA's
23
proposed
federal
water
quality
standards
for
Oregon.

24
Public
notice
of
this
hearing
was
published
in
the
25
Federal
Register
on
October
10,
2003.
Public
comment
5
1
period
began
on
October
10th
and
runs
until
November
2
10,
2003.

3
Before
we
begin,
I
will
describe
4
the
process
and
procedures
to
be
followed
this
evening
5
and
let
you
know
how
your
comments
will
be
handled.

6
This
public
hearing
has
been
called
with
two
goals
in
7
mind.
We
would
like
to
give
all
interested
parties
8
an
opportunity
to
express
their
views
on
the
proposed
9
water
quality
rules.
Oregon
and
we
are
interested
in
10
obtaining
as
much
relevant
information
as
possible
to
11
assist
in
affirming
or
modifying
the
rule
as
currently
12
proposed.

13
EPA
will
respond
to
all
comments
14
received
today
in
the
Written
Response
to
Comments
15
document
that
will
accompany
the
final
rule.
Copies
16
of
the
October
10,
2003,
proposal
and
a
fact
sheet
17
are
available
from
EPA.
This
information
is
also
18
information
available
on
the
Internet.
In
addition,

19
copies
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
and
fact
sheet
20
are
available
at
the
registration
table
this
evening.

21
If
we've
run
out
of
materials
and
you
want
a
copy,

22
please
speak
to
Judy
Smith,
the
EPA
representative
­­

23
It's
actually
Alan
Henning
right
now,
sitting
at
the
24
registration
table.

25
As
Judy
stated
earlier,
if
you
wish
6
1
to
provide
testimony
this
afternoon,
please
sign
up
at
2
the
registration
table.
Speakers
will
be
called
in
3
the
order
that
the
cards
are
turned
in.
The
only
4
exceptions
to
this
are
for
elected
public
officials,

5
who
will
be
allowed
to
speak
first,
and
government
6
representatives,
who
will
speak
second.
If
you
want
7
to
be
on
the
mailing
list
to
receive
information
8
about
the
final
action
taken
on
this
rule,
please
9
sign
up
at
the
appropriate
sign­
in
sheet
located
at
10
the
registration
table.
You
do
not
need
to
provide
11
testimony
this
afternoon
in
order
to
have
your
12
concerns
or
perspectives
considered.
Written
comments
13
are
given
equal
consideration
in
our
decision­
making.

14
So,
if
you
have
the
option
­­
You
have
the
option
of
15
providing
oral
testimony,
written
comments,
or
both.

16
If
you
choose
to
provide
written
17
comments,
you
need
to
mail
them
to
EPA
at
the
address
18
shown
in
the
Federal
Register.
If
you
are
providing
19
written
comments,
they
must
be
postmarked
no
later
20
than
November
10,
2003,
in
order
to
be
considered.

21
If
you
would
like
to
provide
written
comments
this
22
afternoon,
sign
the
blue
cards,
as
already
stated.

23
We
will
now
begin
taking
public
24
testimony.
I
would
like
to
re­
emphasize
that
the
25
purpose
of
the
public
hearing
is
to
receive
input
on
7
1
the
proposed
federal
water
quality
standards.
If
2
there's
anyone
who
wishes
to
testify,
but
hasn't
3
filled
out
a
blue
sheet,
please
sign
up
now
at
the
4
registration
table.

5
I
will
call
each
speaker
up
to
the
6
microphone.
Since
there
are
only
two,
we
don't
have
7
to
get
in
line
or
­­
And
we
don't
have
to
limit
your
8
comments.
So
I
think
we
can
get
started
now.
And
9
the
first
commenter
is
Nancy
Nichols.

10
MS.
NICHOLS:
Okay.
I'm
Nancy
11
Nichols
and
it's
spelled
N­
I­
C­
H­
O­
L­
S.
Like
many
12
people,
I've
wondered
why
the
Environmental
Protection
13
Agency
doesn't
do
all
it
can
to
protect
the
14
environment.
However,
I've
never
quite
known
how
to
15
make
my
concerns
known.
So
when
I
heard
about
this
16
I
thought,
"
Well,
I'll
just
come
down."

17
I
own
a
house
built
before
1978
18
that
I
rent
out.
Every
time
I
get
a
new
tenant,
by
19
law,
I
need
to
give
them
a
form
about
the
danger
of
20
the
possible
lead
in
the
paint.
Also,
I
can't
buy
21
that
paint
­­
the
lead­
based
paint
­­
to
use
in
the
22
house.
All
new
layers
of
paint
in
the
past
25
years
23
are
lead
free.

24
Clearly,
we've
known
for
many
years
25
that
lead
is
dangerous,
that
we
­­
Yet,
we
allow
8
1
fishermen
to
throw
tons
of
lead
into
our
river
every
2
year
in
the
form
of
lost
fishing
weights.
This
is
a
3
particular
danger
in
the
Sius
Law,
as
it
has
very
4
soft
water,
which
can
dissolve
lead.

5
It
seems
obvious
to
me
that
we
6
should
be
­
­
not
be
tossing
lead
into
our
rivers.

7
However,
it
isn't
obvious
to
everyone.
Perhaps
we
8
could,
at
least,
do
some
testing
to
establish
the
9
extent
of
the
problem.
How
much
lead
is
in
the
10
water?
What
creatures
are
affected
by
lead?
Lead
is
11
known
to
reduce
IQ.
Are,
perhaps,
salmon
not
doing
12
so
well
because
they
aren't
as
smart
as
they
used
to
13
be?

14
Please
put
water
testing
for
lead
15
on
the
Sius
Law
in
your
work
plan.
I
know
I'm
a
16
little
bit
off
topic.
But,
on
the
topic,
please
make
17
sure
you
have
the
watershed
assessment
for
the
Sius
18
Law
Watershed.
You
can
call
541­
268­
3044
to
get
a
19
copy
from
the
Sius
Law
Watershed
Council,
if
you
20
don't
already
have
one.
Thank
you.

21
MR.
FOX:
Next
speaker
is
Katherine
22
Koehn.

23
MS.
KOHEN:
Hello.
My
name
is
24
Kathy
or
Katherine
Koehn,
K­
O­
E­
H­
N.
It
looks
like
25
Coon.
And,
I'm
sorry,
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
9
1
review
the
maps
thoroughly,
but
I
appreciate
all
of
2
your
guy's
work
and
for
letting
us
make
public
3
comment.
I
will
be
making
formal
written
comment
4
after
I
take
a
look
at
the
maps
and
look
at
your
5
docket.

6
But
I
would
like
to
encourage
EPA
7
to
always
be
as
protective
as
possible
of
both
human
8
health
and
fish
health.
And
I
hope
that
you
can
9
appreciate
the
benefit
that
the
dwindling
fish
stocks
10
have,
in
as
much
as
offering
us
some
type
of
a
11
parameter
to
show
that
there
are
problems.
And
I
12
hope
that
as
you
are
addressing
these
things
that
you
13
look
at
not
how
much
the
fish
or
the
river
can
14
stand,
but
rather,
what
would
be
closest
to
natural
15
conditions.
And,
as
an
example,
thermal
plume
studies
16
­­
I
have
been
to
some
of
the
meetings
up
at
the
17
Willamette
Watershed
Council.
And,
in
looking
at
what
18
the
DEQ
is
positing
­­
If
I
understand
it
properly
­­

19
I
have
a
lot
of
problems
with
the
size
and
the
shape
20
and
the
impacts
that
they
assess
that
could
accrue
21
from
different
types
of
thermal
shock,
especially
22
versus
­­
chronic
versus
a
long­
term
type
of
impacts.

23
But
I
heard
a
young
man
giving
a
24
dissertation
at
OSU
about
the
impacts
­­
the
cellular
25
impacts
of
heat.
And,
basically,
it
sounded
to
me
10
1
like
a
fish
or
­­
fish
is
what
I
was
concerned
with
2
­­
but
other
things
in
the
water
too
can
be
gravely
3
affected
by
thermal
shock.
And,
basically,
it
causes
4
a
shutdown
on
a
cellular
level,
such
that
the
fish
or
5
whatever
type
of
life
form
could
basically
freeze
in
6
place
and
allow
itself
to
be
eaten
or
to
have
other
7
biologic
type
of
impacts.
So,
I'm
not
in
complete
8
agreement
with
what
they
say
will
be
the
thermal
9
impacts.
And
I
guess
it
will
depend
on
how
large
an
10
area
of
the
river
or
what
type
of
temperature
and
all
11
the
factors
that
go
into
those
things.

12
But,
that
brings
up
one
more
13
restraint
that
I
think
that
you're
laboring
under,

14
which
is
to
the
extent
that
you
can
use
models.

15
Because,
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
all
of
this
should
16
have
been
done
about
20
years
ago
and
everybody
17
started
bellyaching
and
it
became
apparent
the
fish
18
were
going
belly­
up
themselves.
But
now
we
have
to
19
rely
on
models.
And
so
I
hope
that
you're
using
20
really
good
models.
I
think
they're
a
work
in
21
progress.

22
And
also
about
your
­­
Somebody
23
made
a
comment
about
there
being
no
use
attainment
24
for
the
functionality
of
dams
per
se,
right
now.

25
And,
from
what
I
can
see,
it
looks
like
you're
mainly
11
1
emphasizing
on
hydraulic
modifications,
such
as
2
ladders,
I
suppose.
But
I
think
that
the
use
of
a
3
river
is
more
than
a
set
of
dams,
which
we
have
so
4
many
of
in
the
Willamette
Valley.
So,
I
think
the
5
cumulative
use
of
so
many
of
these
things
that
don't
6
have
any
particular
attainment,
being
set
for
them
is
7
very
troubling.

8
I
also
find
that
there
are
no
­­

9
very
few
specific
places
­­
Although
your
maps
are
10
wonderful
and
they
do
represent
a
quantum
leap
ahead
11
of
nothing,
which
the
State
was
doing
previous
to
12
this,
as
far
as
I
can
see.
But
anyhow,
you
still
13
are
emphasizing
watershed
scales.
And
the
problem
14
with
the
watershed
scale
is
the
same
problem
that
the
15
State
legislature
was
trying
to
grapple
with
for
the
16
last
year
about
how
do
you
require
farmers
to
report
17
in
particular
parts
of
the
watershed.
And
the
18
farmers
all
would
like
to
do
it
on
a
watershed
scale,

19
and
the
environmentalists
all
want
to
do
it
on
a
20
10­
foot
reach
type
of
thing.

21
So,
the
point
being,
that
you're
22
not
going
to
have
very
much
useful
data
if
you're
23
doing
it
on
a
watershed
scale
and,
in
this
instance,

24
where
fish
only
have
another
decade,
if
that,
to
live
25
through.
I
think
that
it
­­
That's
why
I
would
12
1
encourage
you
to
be
as
protective
as
possible
and
2
error
on
the
side
of
protecting
biologic
and
human
3
life.

4
And
an
example
of
this
would
be
5
the
problem
with
cold­
water
refugia,
because
if
you're
6
relying
on
the
DEQ
to
set
where
­­
or
the
ODFW
­­

7
and
to
set
where
these
particular
refugia
are
going
8
to
be,
I
don't
have
very
much
faith
in
that
being
9
successful
because
of
the
problems
they've
had
not
10
addressing
toxics
per
se.
And
I
think
these
cold­

11
water
refugia
are
very
important.

12
For
instance,
I
live
in
a
small
13
creek
called
Little
Fall
Creek.
And
we
have,
I
14
believe,
one
of
the
last
remaining
healthy
streams
in
15
the
entire
Willamette
as
far
as
I
can
tell
by
fish
16
surveys
that
the
ODFW
have
done.
And
yet
there's
no
17
particular
protection
afforded
to
my
stream,
even
18
though
a
qualitative
and
­­
quantitative
and
19
qualitative
setting,
our
stream
is
better
than
any
of
20
the
other
streams
that
ODFW
has
been
looking
at
for
21
fish
populations.
And
I
volunteered
as
part
of
a
22
group
to
check
on
that.
So
I
know
that
our
stream
23
is
very
important.
Yet,
what
I
consider
as
one
of
24
the
last
best
streams
in
the
entire
watershed
as
25
regards
to
purity
of
water
and
healthy
fish
13
1
populations,
it
doesn't
give
any
­­
Oh.
I
forget
­­

2
I
don't
expect
EPA
to
do
this
­­
But
there's
some
3
sort
of
State
mandate
to
have
­­
I
forget
what
it's
4
called,
but
it's
special
designated
uses.
That
means
5
it's
a
very
important
area
and
the
DEQ
is
supposed
to
6
have
said
­­
Ten
places
that
they
said
were
important
7
and
they
couldn't
agree
on
much
other
than
a
normal
8
lake,
I
think.
So,
the
more
specific
you
can
make
9
these
type
of
things,
then
the
better
chance
you'd
10
have
of
actually
improving
things.
And,
also,
you
11
need
a
specific
implementation
plan
with
schedules
and
12
results
as
to
what
will
happen
if
these
schedules
13
aren't
kept,
because
EPA
is
now
proving
water
quality
14
standards,
for
instance,
for
Oregon.
And
we're
like
15
15
years
behind.
And
only
by
a
Court
order
of
being
16
forced
are
we
on
to
any
sort
of
schedule.
So
we
17
should
­­
as
the
public,
would
like
to
be
able
to
18
find
out,
well,
who
is
responsible
for
implementing
19
these
things
and
how
is
it
going
to
be
done
and
20
where's
the
money
and
by
what
date?

21
And
an
example
of
a
problem
that
22
is
inherent
in
this
policy
is
the
TMDLs
that
have
23
been
put
together
are
not
addressing
toxics
in
any
24
depth.
And,
since
that's
one
of
the
number
one
­­

25
Water
quality
is
one
of
the
number
one
things
14
1
affecting
fish
populations,
I
think
even
though
that
2
isn't
exactly
pertinent
to
this
topic,
it's
an
example
3
of
how
basically,
when
agencies
are
dealing
with
other
4
agencies,
how
do
we,
as
the
public,
know
that
these
5
­­
the
final
result
of
this
paper
shuffling
is
6
actually
going
to
be
an
improvement
on
a
biologic
7
sense.

8
And,
for
instance,
since
toxics
can
9
affect
both
the
­­
all
of
the
reproductive
breeding
10
and
migratory
and
rearing
of
salmonids,
I
think
that
11
the
factors
that
you're
addressing,
like
thermal
12
plumes
and
things
like
so,
need
to
be
looked
at
in
a
13
cumulative
sense
because
you're
not
even
beginning
to
14
address
some
of
the
most
pertinent
points.

15
And
one
of
my
last
things
I
wanted
16
to
say
is
that
­­
You
talk
about
the
tribes.
Now,

17
you're
not
dealing
with
tribes,
here,
specifically,

18
but
we
all
live
downstream.
And
the
Columbia
River
19
tribes
are
the
only
people
that
have
any
comprehensive
20
data,
that
the
EPA
people
were
nice
enough
to
put
21
together
over
the
next
ten
years
­­
And
it
finally
22
popped
up
last
year
and
shows
that
Indian
children
23
are
­­
I
don't
know
­­
ten
times
more
likely
to
be
24
affected
by
cancer
­­
some
staggering
statistic
­­

25
because
of
their
predominance
of
eating
fish.
And
15
1
so,
what
it's
saying
is,
human
health
can
be
impacted
2
by
these
chemicals
as
well
as
fish.
So
the
fish
are
3
acting
like
a
canary
in
the
coal
mine.
But
we
have
4
responsibility
nation
to
nation
with
the
tribes.
And,

5
basically,
we
should
not
be
putting
water
quality
6
problems
on
them
and
we
should
not
accept
any
water
7
quality
problems
from
the
tribes.

8
So,
thank
you
very
much
for
9
accepting
my
comment.
And
I'll
be
turning
in
full
10
written
comments
during
your
time
period.
Thank
you.

11
MR.
FOX:
Does
anyone
else
wish
to
12
make
a
comment?
I
guess
the
comment
period
is
13
closed,
at
least
temporarily
until
someone
else
shows
14
up.

15
(
Whereupon,
the
public
hearing
was
16
concluded
at
6:
00
P.
M.)

17
.

18
.

19
.

20
.

21
.

22
.

23
.

24
.

25
.
