Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Our Klamath Basin
Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
|
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD In the Matter of: ) ) LONG-TERM MODIFICATION AND INTERIM ) OPERATION OF THE KLAMATH ) HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, AND CONTINUED) LONG-TERM OPERATION OF ALL OR PART ) OF THE KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC ) PROJECT, TO MEET CONDITIONS OF WATER) QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND TO ) CONFORM WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS) ____________________________________) SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST 1330 BAYSHORE WAY EUREKA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008 1:30 P.M. REPORTED BY: DEBORAH BAKER PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii 1 APPEARANCES 2 Gita Kapahi, Facilitator State Water Resources Control Board 3 Marianna Aue, Staff Counsel 4 State Water Resources Control Board 5 Jennifer Watts, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist State Water Resources Control Board 6 Daniel R. Tormey, Ph.D., 7 Entrix, Inc. 8 9 PUBLIC SPEAKERS 10 Jim Clark 11 Charles Edwards, Native Springs Foundation 12 Michael McLaughlin 13 Sam King 14 Adriana Guzman 15 Josh Brown 16 Dave Bitts, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations 17 Jay Wright 18 Dania R. Colegrove 19 Ali Freedlund 20 Greg King, Northcoast Environmental Center 21 Ken Miller 22 Vivian Helliwell, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 23 Assocations, Institute for Fisheries Resources 24 Thomas Dunklin 25 Craig Tucker, Karuk Tribe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii 1 APPEARANCES (Continued) 2 Frances Ferguson 3 Shaye Harty 4 Larry Hourany 5 Geronimo Garcia 6 Will Newman 7 Joyce King 8 Marlon Sherman 9 Jeremy Mills 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv 1 I N D E X 2 Page 3 Introduction by Ms. Kapahi 1 4 Presentation by Dr. Tormey 3 5 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS 7 Jim Clark 17 8 Charles Edwards 18 9 Michael McLaughlin 21, 66 10 Sam King 24 11 Adriana Guzman 24 12 Josh Brown 25 13 Dave Bitts 27, 69 14 Jay Wright 31 15 Dania R. Colegrove 33 16 Ali Freedlund 34, 67 17 Greg King 35 18 Ken Miller 39 19 Vivian Helliwell 40, 65 20 Thomas Dunklin 43 21 Craig Tucker 46 22 Frances Ferguson 51 23 Shaye Harty 52 24 Larry Hourany 54 25 Geronimo Garcia 55 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v 1 I N D E X (Continued) 2 Page 3 Will Newman 56 4 Joyce King 58 5 Marlon Sherman 61 6 Jeremy Mills 63 7 8 Adjournment 70 9 Certificate of Reporter 71 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Okay. Good afternoon. 3 Welcome. This is the first of four CEQA scoping meetings 4 for the Klamath Hydroelectric Project 401 Water Quality 5 Certification. 6 Sorry? I'm not mic-ed? Okay. I'm sorry. Is 7 that better? You know what, I'll hold it. Is that 8 better? Okay. Sorry about that. I'm very short, and 9 it's not reaching me. Okay. 10 My name is Gita Kapahi. I am the ombudsman for 11 the State Water Resources Control Board. I am the 12 facilitator for the meeting this afternoon. I will be 13 directing traffic, giving you some of the logistics. And 14 because of the number of people here and the limited time, 15 we do have to vacate the room approximately 3:30, so I'm 16 trying to keep us on task here. 17 We have a presentation. We will be allowing 18 questions after that or comments and questions after that 19 presentation, but we do need to be out of here 20 approximately two hours from now, so about 3:40 We have 21 to reassemble the room and get on to the next scoping 22 meeting. There is a meeting this evening at 6:00 p.m. 23 Let me see. If you could, please, if you have 24 not already done so, sign in on the sign-in sheet. Check 25 the speaker box if you would like to speak. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 I will reserve the right to limit the comment 2 time, depending on how much time we have and how many 3 people wish to speak, just because of, you know, the large 4 number of people here and the limited time that we have. 5 Please speak into the microphones so that your comments 6 may be correctly transcribed. Please identify yourself 7 and spell your name for the courtesy of the court reporter 8 that we have here. And if you have a card, please give it 9 to her. Written comments will also be accepted. They 10 will be accepted until November the 17th. 11 Bathrooms are located just outside to the left of 12 the main doors. There are emergency exits; one at the 13 back and one to my right. If you do leave out of the back 14 door, you can't get back in that door. So in case of 15 emergency, come back in through the front. 16 With us today we have Dr. Dan Tormey, the project 17 manager for Entrix, the contractor working for the State 18 Board. He is a geologist, a geochemist and a civil 19 engineer. We have Dr. Jennifer Watts, who is our 20 environmental scientist in the Division of Water Rights, 21 Water Quality Certification Unit and the project lead for 22 the Klamath project. And Marianna Aue, the staff counsel 23 for the State Water Board. 24 Ground rules: Please turn off all your cell 25 phones. Recognize that we have a short time to receive a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 lot of information. The time will be limited, depending 2 on the number of people who want to speak. In the event 3 that not everyone can speak at this meeting, there will be 4 an opportunity to provide written feedback or participate 5 in another meeting. As I had mentioned, there are four 6 meetings. There are -- the information for those meetings 7 is contained in the packet that's on the table. 8 Okay. Only one person can speak at a time. 9 Please respect the speaker and their views, even if you do 10 not agree with them. Keep it professional; focus on 11 issues and not on people. Be concise. And threats or 12 acts of violence or derogatory conduct will not be 13 tolerated. 14 So with those ground rules, I turn it over to 15 Dan. And I will be moderating and keeping the meeting on 16 task on and on time. So go ahead. 17 DR. TORMEY: Can people hear me out without the 18 other microphone? No. Okay. 19 I usually like to move around more and not stand 20 behind the podium, but I'll bow to your wishes here. 21 Okay. So today's meeting is about the State 22 Water Resources Control Board. We're initiating an 23 Environmental Impact Report, an environmental review of 24 the operations of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project. And 25 PacifiCorp owns and operates that. And the kind of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 grayed-out portions of the facility, the East Side, West 2 Side, Keno, J.C. Boyle, those are located in Oregon; and 3 so although our review will encompass those, our focus 4 will be on the dams that are in California, Copco 1 and 2, 5 Iron Gate and Fall Creek. 6 In November of 2007, for those of you who have 7 been following this process through the years, the FERC, 8 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, completed their 9 Environmental Impact Statement, a process similar to this 10 one but the federal version. And the State conducts their 11 own Environmental Impact Report before they can issue any 12 sorts of decisions on a project. And the stage it's now 13 in is the project is now awaiting the water quality 14 certification. That's part of the Clean Water Act; it's 15 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. And both the State of 16 Oregon and the State of Washington, their water boards 17 need to make the appropriate review before rendering a 18 decision. And the Act, CEQA, is the act under which our 19 environmental review is conducted. 20 Okay. This is just a location map. Here's the 21 California border. And you can see Copco 1 and 2, Fall 22 Creek and Iron Gate. The scope of our review is going to 23 encompass the down-river stretches. 24 As I told you, I like to move around, it's 25 difficult to nail me. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 Next slide. 2 So our objectives for today are really to solicit 3 your input on the scope and the level of effort of our 4 environmental review. So as part of the presentation 5 portion of today's meeting, I'll briefly describe the 6 process that we're going to be conducting and identify 7 specifically where there's opportunities for public input, 8 this being the first of those. 9 And then either through your comments presented 10 publicly here or presented in written form or both, we 11 would specifically like to ask you your opinion on the 12 adequacy of FERC's -- of the FERC's Environmental Impact 13 Statement, the range of alternatives that you hear that we 14 will describe today that will be part of our review. 15 These are also in the Notice of Preparation as well that's 16 up at the front desk. 17 Any impacts that you thought were not addressed 18 in the Environmental Impact Statement that the FERC did 19 but should have been, we'd be interested in hearing about 20 that. Any potential mitigation measures, measures that 21 would improve the environmental conditions that were not 22 brought up in the previous FERC process, we'd like to hear 23 about that. 24 And in addition to the longer-term measures that 25 were part of the alternatives both in the previous PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 environmental review that the FERC did and the one that 2 we're doing, those are fairly long-term, and we're 3 proposing some interim measures in the shorter term or at 4 least evaluating them. And so any suggestions about that 5 is something that we would also be seeking your input on. 6 Okay. The next two slides briefly display the 7 California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA process that 8 we'll be doing. The first step is the applicant files 9 their application with the State Board. And the most 10 recent one was September 26th, 2008; so that formally 11 starts our process. 12 Now we're in the second box, that's where we are 13 today. We've issued our Notice of Preparation, and we're 14 now conducting the scoping meetings. And this is public 15 input, as I've described at the early stages, when we sort 16 of tell you what we're doing, and then you tell us if 17 we're missing something so that we can incorporate it in 18 our review. 19 Then after this step we'll conduct our 20 environmental analysis and we'll prepare what's called a 21 Draft Environmental Impact Report, a DEIR. And that will 22 be issued for public comment. And so that's the next 23 significant opportunity for your input. In that case, 24 it's going to be a little different. 25 There we will have issued a document that you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 will have the opportunity to review before we come talk to 2 you about it. And so you'll have an opportunity to 3 specifically look at how well we responded to the issues 4 that you brought up during the scoping process. And so at 5 that point of public input, we're asking you how well did 6 we do, because we've got one more chance to adequately 7 describe the impacts or the measures that you would like 8 reviewed. 9 And then once we get your comments, after that 10 public -- series of public meetings, we'll prepare what's 11 called the Final Environmental Impact Report, and that 12 will be presented to the State Water Resources Control 13 Board, and they will use it in guiding their decision 14 whether to issue a water quality certification for the 15 project or not. 16 It's a really significant point that the 17 environmental review that we're doing now and that will go 18 to the Board to help them in their decision is not -- our 19 document won't say, you know, yes, no, this is the way it 20 should be; our document is what's called a disclosure 21 document. So the Environmental Impact Report does its job 22 when it presents the environmental impacts that would 23 occur as a result of the project or a series of 24 alternatives that we'll look at, and then we'll need to 25 disclose the range of views that are there. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 And in controversial projects there can be kind 2 of a disappointment if the document doesn't say, okay, 3 this side wins, that side doesn't. If there's a 4 disagreement among experts, it's the job of the 5 Environmental Impact Report to fully disclose that, fully 6 disclose the basis for each side. And then when the State 7 Board makes their decision, it will be informed by that 8 document. So that's one of the most significant things to 9 realize in this process that we're going through and in 10 the document that we're preparing. 11 Okay. This is the last of these little bubble 12 slides. And this one is meant to illustrate how our 13 process that we're embarked on now fits within the larger 14 relicensing of all of the dams, both in Oregon and in 15 California, that the application to the FERC initiated. 16 So in the first bubble, that describes that the applicant 17 applied to the FERC for their new license and they applied 18 to the states for water quality certification. 19 The second bubble represents the review that the 20 FERC conducted that culminated in their November 2007 21 Environmental Impact Statement. In the third bubble, the 22 Environmental Impact Statement that the FERC issued and 23 their relicensing review was specific to the jurisdiction 24 of the FERC, that is, the operation and maintenance of the 25 dams. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 Other resource agencies, National Marine Fishery 2 Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, 3 California Department of Fish and Game, et cetera, have 4 their own independent permitting authority, and some of 5 those processes are ongoing, some of them have been 6 completed. Specifically, the federal agencies, National 7 Marine Fishery Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau 8 of Land Management, issued their permits and included what 9 are called mandatory conditions on those permits. And 10 that occurred after the FERC completed their review. 11 So now that we're taking up our process, we've 12 got what the FERC reviewed and what the FERC recommended 13 plus what these other agencies that have their own 14 permitting authority, what conditions they placed upon it, 15 now we're starting. So that's kind of where we come in. 16 And we're in that fourth bullet where we're evaluating the 17 401. And then the final bubble, I'm sorry, on the top is 18 the point where we issue our decision. 19 And if Oregon and California both issue water 20 quality certifications for the project, then the FERC 21 would issue a long-term license to the facility. So the 22 FERC's final approval is pending the actions that are 23 going on now in Oregon and in California. 24 Okay. So I'm mindful that you guys want to talk 25 too, and so I think the most important thing for me to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 tell you is what the process is and where we are in that 2 process. 3 And so the next slides are summarizing what the 4 project is that we have before us, what the alternatives 5 are that we are currently considering, and briefly what 6 issues we see as the ones that will be the primary 7 component of our document. And so I'll try to go through 8 these a little quickly so that you guys will have more 9 time to talk. 10 The Notice of Preparation will be -- describes 11 what I have here too; so if you didn't hear something or 12 didn't quite understand something, you can see it in 13 writing in the Notice of Preparation. And if you didn't 14 pick up a copy, I encourage you to. There's one at the 15 front. 16 So our project is the long-term operation and 17 modifications as the FERC and the permitting agencies 18 required and interim operation of the Klamath 19 Hydroelectric Project to meet the conditions of the water 20 quality certification and to conform with water quality 21 standards. So that in a nutshell is the project. 22 And then the objectives frame what alternatives 23 we will consider. So in order to be a valid alternative, 24 it must substantially meet these project objectives. The 25 first objective is to continue to generate power from a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 renewable resource to serve the applicant's customers as 2 compatible with water quality standards and mandatory 3 conditions established as part of the FERC licensing 4 process, which includes the actions of these other 5 agencies like National Marine Fisheries and the Bureau of 6 Reclamation. 7 The second objective is to modify the Klamath 8 Hydroelectric Project so as to comply with the water 9 quality standards. 10 Okay. So if you do read our Draft Environmental 11 Impact Report when it comes out, the first part is a 12 description of the existing environment. And even though 13 we're very early in our process, there's been enough 14 information generated during the previous process that we 15 know that there are impaired water quality conditions in 16 the Klamath River right now, specifically temperature, 17 nutrients, dissolved oxygen and microcystin toxins. 18 We know that fish populations have declined, that 19 National Marine Fishery Service has listed the Coho is 20 threatened, and those are connected, that the water 21 quality impairments lead to the -- are connected to the 22 reduced fish populations, and those are connected to 23 impacts to the tribes, to local communities, and to 24 commercial, recreational, and subsistence level fishing. 25 Okay. So the next part of the Environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 Impact Report will be an analysis of the impacts of the 2 continued operation of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project 3 as modified by the FERC review and the mandatory 4 conditions. Our approach is to take the FERC EIS as our 5 starting point. They did an extensive process, a document 6 that in general adequately describes the impacts, 7 according to our initial review, but our Environmental 8 Impact Report has to differ from that in several 9 substantial ways. 10 One is that it clearly has to reflect our 11 independent judgment, that of the State Water Resources 12 Control Board. There's ongoing processes that have led to 13 additional information that was not available to the FERC 14 when they conducted their review, and it's possible during 15 this meeting you'll tell us about other things. 16 Let's see. The CEQA requires us to look at some 17 additional environmental resource categories that weren't 18 addressed by the FERC. And then the range of conditions, 19 the range of alternatives is going to be a little 20 different; and I'll explain that a little later on in the 21 presentation. And then we'll be looking at the downstream 22 effects. CEQA requires a more cumulative review than 23 simply the effects of the project itself. It needs to be 24 considered within the totality of other projects and other 25 actions that are going on within the project area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 Okay. So the color scheme here is that the 2 darker colors were the alternatives that were considered 3 in the FERC's Environmental Impact Statement. And the 4 green are new alternatives that are going to be considered 5 as part of our Environmental Impact Report. 6 So the first one, the NEPA, no action doesn't 7 have relevance. It's framed differently than the CEQA no 8 project, which we'll be considering. 9 MS. AUE: Dan? 10 DR. TORMEY: Yeah. 11 MS. AUE: Can you all tell the different colors 12 on this projection, or should I get up and point that out? 13 (Conversation among the audience.) 14 MS. AUE: So the NEPA no action alternative, 15 PacifiCorp's proposal for how to run the dams, the FERC 16 staff alternative, these are all things -- these are all 17 things that the -- the NEPA document looked at that our 18 document won't. Those are actually faded out in gray. 19 The green I think shows up well. Those are things we're 20 adding in the CEQA document. 21 And then the dark black, the FERC staff 22 alternative, the retirement of Copco 1 and Iron Gate and 23 the four dam removal alternative -- oh, I'm sorry, the 24 four dam removal alternative we are not going to look at 25 being it's outside of our authority. These two are things PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 that the FERC looked at and that we'll look at. 2 Sorry to jump in. 3 DR. TORMEY: No, that's good. Thank you; 4 appreciate that. I don't always see the color quite so 5 well. 6 (Conversation among the audience.) 7 DR. TORMEY: That's sort of the last one where 8 color is an important part of it. 9 Okay. So, you know, the main idea is that as a 10 result of the process that occurred with the FERC and the 11 subsequent actions by the other permitting agencies, some 12 alternatives that were analyzed before are no longer 13 relevant, and as part of our review we have added two. 14 Okay. And then I mentioned that also we would be 15 considering implementing some nearer-term actions that 16 might be put in place before some of the longer-term ones. 17 For example, some of the mandatory conditions require fish 18 passage facilities to be installed, and those take several 19 years to actually be installed. And so based on our 20 review, we're thinking that the interim actions might be a 21 recommended thing to do. 22 So we're going to look at PacifiCorp's original 23 proposal that went to the FERC that had a number of 24 short-term actions that could form the basis of interim 25 actions. The FERC staff alternative took those 41 things PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 that PacifiCorp had recommended and added 25 to them; so 2 we'll be looking at that for potential interim actions. 3 And then there are settlement negotiations that 4 are going on within the basin that could turn up 5 additional interim actions. 6 So this shows the environmental categories that 7 were looked at by the FERC -- and again, this is in your 8 Notice of Preparation -- and then this, those additional 9 ones that are required to be looked at by CEQA that were 10 not addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. 11 Okay. So now we're coming to the point where 12 I'll sit down and you guys can start talking. And we 13 are -- I don't want to make light of the fact, actually, 14 that your input at this part of the process is essential 15 to the process working the way it should. If we hear 16 concerns now, then we have the entire period under which 17 we're conducting our environmental review to address them. 18 If you wait until the Draft Environmental Impact Report is 19 put out to have substantive comments, then you've really 20 limited our ability to address them adequately. 21 And so just to summarize what I had said earlier, 22 we're interested in hearing what you have to say as part 23 of our environmental review. There are some specific 24 questions that if they could be framed in this way, it 25 would fit easier in our process. And the first is, you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 know, does the Environmental Impact Statement address 2 comments that you might have had on the draft? So as part 3 of that process, did you feel that your voice was not 4 adequately heard? The next thing is the range of 5 alternatives; I briefly described them. 6 If you would like to submit written comments and 7 perhaps think about it some more beyond what we have timed 8 for today, that would be great. Written comments are 9 actually even easier for us to handle, but we give equal 10 weight to spoken comments. 11 Impacts not addressed in the Environmental Impact 12 Statement, mitigation measures, and again, these other 13 interim measures are all things that we would really find 14 very helpful to hear from you about today. 15 And for written comments, that is the address to 16 send them to. You can either send them by email or by 17 letter, by post; and that, again, is in the Notice of 18 Preparation. 19 Thank you. 20 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: For those of you that may 21 have come in a little bit late, please make sure that you 22 are signed up on our sign-up sheets at the front of the 23 room. 24 Of all the folks that have signed up, I have 25 about 17 that have indicated they wish to speak. If you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 did not indicate on the -- maybe I could take a show of 2 hands. If you wish to speak today, please raise your 3 hand. 4 Can somebody count for me? 5 Still about 17. Okay. Given the time that we 6 have left, I will allow five minutes per speaker. At the 7 end of the speakers, I will -- if there are members of the 8 audience that have questions for -- regarding the 9 presentation, you can ask those at that time, and then 10 we'll do a short wrap-up. 11 And then if someone speaks and you haven't said 12 that you wish to speak, there may be a little bit of 13 wiggle room where you can still get an opportunity. 14 So with that, I will call you up in order of sign 15 in. And if you could please speak into the microphone, 16 identify yourself by spelling your name for the purposes 17 of our court reporter. 18 And with that, I call up -- and I apologize in 19 advance if I botch your name -- Jim Clark, please. 20 Yes, if you could all come up to the podium, we 21 do need to get you to speak into this microphone. The 22 other one has to be a few feet away for the purpose of the 23 court reporter. So here you go. 24 MR. CLARK: Thank you. My name is Jim Clark. 25 I've been a resident of Eureka and Elk River Watershed for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 28 years. And during that time I worked for Humboldt 2 County to protect water quality by regulating on-site 3 sewer disposal systems and underground storage tanks, 4 including the tanks that have leaked. 5 Can you hear me now? Thank you. 6 I've worked for 28 years for Humboldt County to 7 protect water quality by regulating underground tanks and 8 on-site sewage disposal systems. And my concern is with 9 the interim operational objectives, because right now the 10 clock is ticking on the Klamath, and we don't have years 11 to correct what is now an impaired water body. 12 In the local oversight project that I worked in, 13 which corrects leaks from underground storage tanks, there 14 is an interim remedial action alternative which is done 15 when there is a severe problem that can be taken care of 16 quickly or needs to be taken care of to protect water 17 quality. And I would really urge that we set water 18 quality objectives for the Klamath and institute measures 19 to take care of them as soon as possible in any interim 20 operational plan. 21 Thank you. 22 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Okay. The next speaker will 23 be Mr. Charles Edwards, followed by Michael McLaughlin, 24 followed by Sam King. 25 MR. EDWARDS: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 and guests here today, folks and citizens of Humboldt 2 County, my name is Charles Edwards, and I'm the public 3 information officer for the Native Springs Foundation, a 4 nonprofit organization whose sole express goal is to raise 5 public awareness surrounding the Klamath River and the 6 negative impact of PacifiCorp dams they have had and 7 continue to have in the regions of the indigenous fishes. 8 We oppose the relicensing of the dam. Even 9 though we have -- there have been efforts to truck 10 spawning fish around the dams, this practice has not 11 proven effective in maintaining fish populations necessary 12 to ensure propagation. Moreover, the quality of the river 13 itself has been and continues to be seriously damaged from 14 the growth of blue-green algae as a result of low water 15 levels of the dams. What was once a mighty flowing river 16 has now become nothing more than a cesspool, and we 17 encourage the Board to consider the following facts as you 18 deliberate whether or not to grant PacifiCorp a new 19 license. 20 Before the dams, the Klamath River was the third 21 largest producer of salmon and steelhead on the west 22 coast. Now this natural salmon nursery has become a grave 23 site. Today the Klamath River salmon are on the brink of 24 extinction and victims of a century of mismanagement and 25 abuse. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 Before the dams, the river, the Klamath River was 2 the third largest producer of salmon in the continental 3 United States closely behind the Colombia and Sacramento 4 rivers. Today Coho salmon in the Klamath River are 5 federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. The 6 largest west coast fish kill of over 70,000 adult salmon 7 returning to the Klamath River to spawn died in this river 8 in September of 2002. Low flows drove salmon to cluster 9 together in a few spots where tributaries brought cold 10 water, and the salmon fell prey to pathogens that rapidly 11 swept through their numbers. 12 The river flows were largely the result of dams 13 on the river and upstream diversions of water to the 14 corporate farmers on the Klamath valley. In subsequent 15 years, commercial fish seasons have been canceled, and 16 fish counts continue to be extremely low, reported to be 17 as much as 75 percent what they once were before. At 18 least 80 percent of the historic Klamath basin wetlands, 19 nearly 280,000 acres have been lost. 20 The Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge in the 21 upper Klamath basin are still home to millions of 22 migratory water fowl, though only a small fraction of what 23 once inhabited the upper basin. These refuges have lost 24 90 percent of all their migratory birds that use the 25 Pacific flyway. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 The Klamath River is vital to Native Americans in 2 the region, the Klamath, the Karuk, and Yurok down river, 3 the Hoopa tribes in the Klamath basin have cultures that 4 are deeply connected to the land, and today these tribes 5 and other nature-dependent people in the region are 6 suffering from the loss of land and the fisheries and the 7 loss of traditional diet, which also affects the cultural 8 activities. 9 Moreover, the United States government signed a 10 treaty with the various Klamath River coastal tribes in 11 1864 guaranteeing in perpetuity access to the Klamath 12 basin fish forever. In 1864 the treaty provided that the 13 tribes would have secured to them the exclusive right of 14 taking fish for the river, streams and lakes, including 15 the said reservation on the gathering of edible roots, 16 seeds and berries within its limits. 17 We oppose the relicensing of the dam, and we 18 thank you for the opportunity to address this today and 19 that you deny PacifiCorp's application for licensing and, 20 moreover, ensure the sufficient water flow to sustain life 21 on the mighty Klamath River. 22 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Okay. Mr. Michael 23 McLaughlin followed by Sam King followed by Adriana 24 Guzman. 25 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Thank you. My name is Michael PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 McLaughlin. That's M-c L-a-u-g-h-l-i-n. I'm a resident of 2 Eureka. And I first want to thank the Water Resources 3 Control Board for their ongoing work on California water 4 quality. 5 And here we go. This impairment of the Klamath 6 is clearly the result of the multiple empowerments. While 7 some of the sources are outside of California, Water 8 Resources Control Board cannot issue a 401 permit until 9 water quality successfully improved California standards, 10 whether PacifiCorp impairs outside or inside the State's 11 territory. Now, since the impaired water quality is 12 precipitating an extinction event, and make no mistake, 13 it's a multiple extinction event and has a profound 14 economic effect, as the former speaker has pointed out, 15 that is not strongly enough addressed and stressed in the 16 former Environmental Impact Statement. CWRCB should not 17 allow interim permissions but must use its regulatory 18 powers to reverse the process of this extinction event and 19 the massive economic fallout that results. 20 Now, previous studies, of course, have shown that 21 fish ladders are inadequate mitigation. They often -- 22 they don't work. Air bubblers don't address the thermal 23 pollution. And I'm not certain that they would address 24 the toxic algae situation to a sufficient extent either, 25 but I'm not a scientist and I don't know of any previous PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 studies on that. The mitigations offered, however, 2 outside dam removal itself, are scientifically unsound and 3 insufficient, and we all can see that. 4 Well, the Water Resources Control Board has 5 studied the science, the evidence of the oxygen effects, 6 whether anoxia or too high in nutrient load toxins 7 produced by algae, thermal pollution, and the river 8 blockage itself causing extinction of anadromous fish and 9 other organisms. And as you know, ecologically, the 10 extinction event will cascade, a domino effect of 11 extinctions and ecological change, swift and catastrophic 12 occurrence. And this is a huge proportion of their ranges 13 that we're concerned with. 14 We know, some of us know, the tribes know the 15 dire economic effects which extend beyond the watershed to 16 the Pacific fisheries, and the fishermen know this from 17 Morro Bay to Colombia, the poisoning of the water, the 18 effects on the entire ecosystem, the food webs essential 19 to humans and other organisms. You know of the violations 20 of treaty agreements now, the continuance of this 21 unbelievable injustice to Native Americans. You perhaps 22 cannot yourselves comprehend the extent of the tragic loss 23 to these families and the world, and the world which fails 24 yet to understand and value the lives of these people 25 where there's a culture and as individuals. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 PacifiCorp has not, will not, cannot successfully 2 mitigate the ongoing environmental and economic 3 catastrophe of these dams. These dams have been a massive 4 crime for 90 years poisoning ecosystems and lives, and we 5 really ask you to deny the 401 permit. 6 Thank you. 7 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Thank you. Sam King 8 followed by Adriana Guzman, Josh Brown, Dave Bitts. 9 MR. KING: Well, mine's going to be very brief 10 today. I'm going to endorse and advance Greg King's 11 comments from the National -- you can't hear me? Sorry. 12 I'm going to endorse and advance Greg King's 13 comments from -- that will be made later from the North 14 Coast Environmental Center on this issue. 15 I'd like to see all the dams removed, the Klamath 16 brought back to its healthy state. It will provide fish 17 for the Indian populations upstream or downstream of the 18 dams and also restore the commercial fisheries downstream. 19 Thank you. 20 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Adriana Guzman. 21 MS. GUZMAN: Hello. Can you hear me okay? Speak 22 up? Okay. How's that? 23 Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Adriana Guzman, 24 A-d-r-i-a-n-a G-u-z-m-a-n, and I'm a graduate student at 25 Humboldt State University. I've lived in Eureka for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 about -- over eight years. And I'm just speaking as a 2 concerned citizen. 3 I feel that the State Board should really look at 4 the impacts that this -- the dams are causing to the 5 river. It's obvious from the amount of studies out there, 6 the low salmon numbers, the health effects, definitely the 7 toxic algae. I don't see how a clean water permit could 8 be issued with the dams still standing. I just don't see 9 that happening. And so I hope that, you know, what they 10 come up with will -- that they'll be able to see that. 11 And I just feel that it's going to, you know, impact just 12 the people that use the river, the tribes, the 13 recreationists that are out there, the people using the 14 water. And I just feel that there definitely needs to 15 be -- it needs to be looked at closely. 16 And so I would support a -- the alternative to 17 remove the dams. And that's the only way that I can see 18 that the water would be of good quality. 19 Thank you very much. 20 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Josh Brown followed by Dave 21 Bitts and Jay Wright. 22 MR. BROWN: I too will keep it brief. My name is 23 Josh Brown, J-o-s-h B-r-o-w-n. I live in Arcata, and I'm 24 a 13-year resident of Humboldt County. 25 I'm here today to urge you, the State Water PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 Resources Board, to please deny PacifiCorp a renewal of 2 their Section 401 permit that is needed to continue the 3 operation of their four Klamath -- lower Klamath River 4 dams. I guess it's three that's in your jurisdiction. So 5 I definitely support the three dam removal alternative 6 that you guys are looking at. 7 You know, I've spent a lot of time on the 8 Klamath. And one of the things a lot of us on the coast 9 here do in the summertime is we go to the rivers to go 10 swimming. That's really my connection. Occasionally I've 11 gone rafting. But, you know, obviously the Klamath is the 12 one place that is avoided at all cost. People just don't 13 go in that river spring, summer, especially in the fall 14 because of the water quality. And just as a 15 recreationist, that's my one relationship; but obviously 16 there are native peoples there who have been on that river 17 for time untold who have a very special relationship with 18 the river and the salmon and the sustenance it's provided. 19 And that's an amazing thing; and, really, we'd like to see 20 that relationship continue. 21 Yeah, I could go on and on, but bottom line is it 22 seems like the evidence is overwhelming that only dam 23 removal will restore water quality at the Klamath River. 24 And again, I urge you to do that, take the strong stand 25 and make it happen. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 Thank you. 2 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Let's see, Jay Wright 3 followed by Dania Colegrove. 4 Did I skip one? I'm sorry. Dave Bitts. Sorry 5 about that. I got ahead of myself. 6 And for those of you who are sitting, I do 7 apologize, I do thank the forest service for the room, I 8 realize that we've got a capacity crowd here. There are a 9 couple of empty seats, I believe they've been vacated. 10 There's three up front. And I would offer that one there 11 as well. 12 Anyways, with that, Mr. Bitts. Sorry. 13 MR. BITTS: No harm. 14 My name is Dave Bitts. That's B-i-t-t-s. Can 15 you hear me? Okay. I'm a salmon -- commercial salmon and 16 crab fisherman based in Eureka, live in McKinleyville. 17 Been fishing for over 30 years. I'm also the president of 18 the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, 19 which represents salmon fishermen all along the California 20 coast down as far as Santa Barbara. 21 PCFFA has been participating in the settlement 22 talks, the 28 party settlement talks that have gone on for 23 a couple of years. We support that settlement process, 24 and we are strongly hoping that we'll be able to sign on 25 soon to a final agreement that includes an agreement to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 remove the four dams up to and including J.C. Boyle. 2 As salmon fishermen we know that most of the fish 3 we catch come not from the Klamath but from the Sacramento 4 River. That's true throughout California and Oregon and 5 even up to Washington to some extent. However, our access 6 to those usually abundant -- not this year -- but usually 7 abundant Sacramento fish is constrained by the abundance 8 of Klamath fish. 9 If the Klamath is producing well, we actually 10 have an opportunity to catch a substantial amount of those 11 Sacramento fish and it's okay; it's not wonderful, but 12 it's okay. If the Klamath is not producing well, we can 13 be shut down all the way from Cape Falcon in Oregon, which 14 is just below the Colombia River, all the way down to 15 Point Sur, California. And if it's somewhere in between, 16 we get to fish in the outer portions of that range closer 17 to Cape Falcon and Point Sur, but not so much in the 18 middle. So we totally depend on consistent, abundant 19 stocks of Klamath fish in the ocean in order to go catch 20 the Sacramento fish that are our bread and butter. 21 The dams present -- I'm going to talk about two 22 problems that the dams present in the context of the 23 scoping that's going on here today. There are more, but 24 I'm just going to talk about two of them. 25 And the first one is the effect of the dams on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 the water quality in the Klamath. And as you know, that 2 water comes into that reservoir with a very high nutrient 3 load, and the company claims that they don't pollute 4 because they don't add anything to the water. Well, by 5 stopping the water in those high desert reservoirs, they 6 do add heat and light to nutrient-laden water, and the 7 result is on display in a five-gallon jug over here. 8 Somebody brought that jug. And I hope that whoever 9 brought it is going to -- are you going to talk about it, 10 Dania? Can you put it up here when you do so people can 11 see it? Great. I'll let you do that. 12 Anyway, Dania's going to show you the results of 13 adding heat and light to nutrient-rich water. It's not 14 pretty. 15 The second problem is one that I haven't seen get 16 a lot of attention, and that is that a properly 17 functioning river during the high flows in the river 18 carries quite a bit of gravel and sand and sediment with 19 it downstream and all that rock in various sizes scours 20 the river bottom, cleans it right up. Well, when you put 21 this series of reservoirs and the water stops in the 22 reservoir, all that stuff falls out. And the water coming 23 out of Iron Gate dam doesn't have its proper scouring 24 agents. 25 Oh, I just had an image of the little scrubbing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 bubbles in my head. That's not what they are. 2 But anyways, it doesn't have those, and it can't 3 do the job it needs to do in scouring the algae from the 4 river bottom. And that's of critical importance because 5 the algae, which grows very abundantly on the bottom of 6 the Klamath River and doesn't get scoured, is home to the 7 little worm in which -- the little worm is the co-host for 8 the parasite, which when it isn't in the worm, it's out in 9 the river looking for salmon to infect and kill. And in 10 four of the last six years that parasite, Ceratomyxa 11 shasta has killed up to 90 percent of the juvenile salmon 12 trying to get out of the Klamath River down to the ocean 13 so they can grow big and fat and I can catch them and you 14 can catch them when they come back to the river. If they 15 don't live to get out of the river, they ain't gonna come 16 back big and fat. 17 So I hope the Water Board will be able to 18 consider the role of the dams in impeding and interrupting 19 the proper scouring action of the river, which there may 20 be an interim solution involving human importation of 21 gravel to the river, I don't know, I'd like to see that 22 idea examined, but it's outside probably the purview of 23 the Water Board. So that's it. 24 I don't see how we can possibly have adequate 25 water quality, proper scouring of the river, consistent, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 abundant production. We know that river is still capable 2 of producing robust runs of salmon if everything works 3 right; in abundant water years we have a chance. That's 4 not good enough, because that's maybe one year out of 5 three or four or five. We need consistent production of 6 salmon for all fisheries, and dam removal is the way to 7 get there. 8 Thank you. 9 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Jay Wright followed by 10 Dania, followed by Ali Freedlund and Greg King. 11 MR. WRIGHT: Hi. My name is Jay Wright, 12 W-r-i-g-h-t. I'm a resident of Arcata. I'm not a water 13 quality expert. I'd like to comment on the vision of a 14 six year old. 15 A six year old, you can take him up in an 16 airplane and fly them over a clear-cut, and they will 17 intuitively know that something is wrong. You can do the 18 same thing with the reservoirs and the Klamath. You can 19 fly them overhead, and they can look down, and they will 20 intuitively know that something is wrong. You could do 21 the same thing. You could take them swimming in the 22 reservoirs -- I wouldn't recommend that -- they would feel 23 how warm the water is and how polluted it is, and they 24 would intuitively know something is wrong. 25 I've been up to the reservoirs in the summer. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 Although I live in the lower basin, I wanted to take a 2 trip to see what the situation was firsthand. I've heard 3 it described locally as a pea soup. Wouldn't agree with 4 that; it looks more like radiator water to me. 5 PacifiCorp in their application for 6 certification, their position is that the Klamath hydro 7 project actually improves water quality by slowing down 8 the transit time and allowing the water to settle and 9 clarify. I think that stands logic completely on its head 10 and the Water Board should reject that position. 11 When I went up to the reservoirs, noticed that 12 Jenny Creek, a tributary above Iron Gate, has clean, 13 clear, cold water. That water would be flowing in and 14 providing cold water refugia for fish migration in the 15 event that the dam's removed. 16 Furthermore, the FERC has shown a complete 17 inability to act in the public trust in dam relicensings. 18 It's up to the Water Board to act in the public trust. 19 This is an easy task in my opinion because all they have 20 to do is listen to the vision of a six year old who would 21 intuitively know what to do in this situation. I urge the 22 Water Board to deny the water quality certification for 23 PacifiCorp. 24 Regarding the comment on interim measures, I 25 recommend that the certification is for operation of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 hydro project in a run-of-the-river condition until the 2 dams are removed. Other interim measures, PacifiCorp has 3 put in their request that they would put gravel in the 4 first several miles below Iron Gate to improve habitat. 5 That is such a ridiculously small concession for them to 6 make as a corporation; to put a few miles of gravel is a 7 slap in the face. I urge you to reject that and put dam 8 removal firmly on the table. 9 The only other interim measure I can think of is 10 to divert their power and refrigerate the water to a 11 temperature that's adequate for salmon health. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. COLEGROVE: Hello. My name is Dania 14 Colegrove from -- I'm a tribal member from the Hoopa 15 Valley Tribe, but I'm actually Yurok too. 16 This is what I got yesterday from the Iron Gate 17 dam, went to visit. This is the big sign. I just wanted 18 to make the Water Board aware of what's really going on. 19 I wonder if any of you guys ever visited there. How long 20 are you guys going to let this go on? That's my -- that's 21 what I want to know. We can't swim in it; we can't eat 22 it; can't drink it. 23 You guys got to do something. You guys have the 24 ability to make the change, the change for good for 25 everybody here, for the west coast. You guys got to think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 about that, not only the energy that somebody else is 2 paying for. You got to think about the livelihood of the 3 whole west coast, not only the Indian but the white man 4 too. That's about all I have to say. 5 MS. FREEDLUND: Thank you. My name is Ali 6 Freedlund, F-r-e-e-d-l-u-n-d. 7 What did the salmon say when it hit a cement 8 wall? Dam. 9 I'm a resident of both the Mattole watershed and 10 the City of Arcata. I've work for the Mattole Restoration 11 Council for over 12 years working for salmonid recovery 12 and forest land protection. My comments here today are my 13 own. 14 I'm here to urge you to deny the 401 permit or 15 licensing for the PacifiCorp dams along the Klamath River. 16 There is ample scientific research that shows the dams are 17 helping to exterminate populations of salmon in this 18 critically important watershed. Time after time state and 19 federal agencies have not acted quickly enough or 20 decisively enough for the protections needed for our 21 imperiled salmon on the north coast. We have lost our 22 commercial fishery, and many watersheds have completely 23 lost their salmon runs. Please, move forward to protect 24 the runs on the Klamath by denying these permits. 25 In addition, I urge you to use your authority PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 under the Clean Water Act to demand that the Iron Gate, 2 Copco 1 and 2 dams be removed as quickly as is safe. This 3 is your opportunity to give the fish a chance, so please 4 take it. Removing the dams will help the salmon, the 5 tribes, the commercial salmon fishery, and, therefore, our 6 economy. There is never a more important time to make the 7 changes necessary to support sustainable livelihoods by 8 protecting our salmon so that generations into the future 9 we can honor them and eat them and in that process become 10 again a vibrant part of the cycle of where we live. 11 Thank you all, everybody who's already talked. 12 And thank you for my opportunity to give you my comments. 13 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Okay. Greg King followed by 14 Ken Miller, Vivian Helliwell, Thomas Dunklin. 15 MR. KING: Thank you. One of the videographers 16 just asked me to stall so he could change the tapes, so I 17 thought I'd sing a little bit. 18 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Let me take that. 19 MR. KING: You don't want me to sing? 20 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: No, no, you can sing if 21 you'd like. I just wanted to point out I was looking at 22 the sheets and some of you have asked to be put on our 23 mailing list, but it's hard to read your names or your 24 email addresses. If you could, please double check to 25 make sure they're legible so we can get information to you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 or put you on our mailing lists. Thank you. 2 MR. KING: Thank you very much. A lot of people 3 have said pretty much what I have in my legal comments 4 here. I will read some of them. I also have some photos, 5 which I wish that I'd had them blown up, but you can 6 probably see from the back of the room how green the water 7 is. That is not a joke in that jug there. And that was 8 in September of this year. And it's ugly, but it's really 9 ugly chemically too. 4,000 times higher, the Microcystis 10 levels in these reservoirs, than the World Health 11 Organization considers to be a moderate health risk. 12 4,000 times higher. Water like this cannot be allowed to 13 stand, if you will. 14 I want to thank the Water Resources Control Board 15 for taking kind of a firm role with PacifiCorp in 16 insisting that the 401 application be resubmitted. 17 PacifiCorp is playing some pretty severe games with the 18 life of one of the world's greatest rivers, and that 19 cannot be allowed to stand. We know that PacifiCorp has 20 attempted to extort a terrible amount of money out of a 21 settlement group recently, a little over a year ago, for 22 these dams. Huge amount of money. I'm bound by a 23 confidentiality agreement that I cannot tell you how much 24 it was, but they would hold this river hostage and the 25 life of the salmon hostage, and this cannot be allowed to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 stand. 2 We have a moment in time here where we can save a 3 species, not just any species, but the salmon on the 4 Klamath River. Chum salmon and pink salmon are already 5 extinct on the Salmon River. Coho salmon runs are at two 6 percent of what they once were on the Salmon River. 7 They're very close to extinction. 8 A wealthy man like Warren Buffet, who now owns 9 PacifiCorp and these dams, could snap his fingers and get 10 these dams out. And that really is the only solution, 11 it's the only legal solution as my comments point out and 12 so many others point out, and it's the only moral 13 solution. How can we as a people allow this to happen? 14 It's the only choice we have is to remove these dams. 15 4,000 times higher than the World Health 16 Organization considers a moderate health risk. And they 17 say that they have no impact on water quality, that they 18 clean water quality; this is hubris. Eli Asarian and 19 Patrick Higgins of Kier Associates -- and I'm glad to see 20 Bill Kier here tonight -- today, excuse me, who knows what 21 time of day it is in this room -- in their May 30th, 2007, 22 memorandum report, "Comments on Klamath River Nutrient, 23 Dissolved Oxygen, and Temperature TMDL Implementation Plan 24 Workplan Outline for California," blah, blah, blah, says, 25 "The evidence showing links between Klamath hydro power PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 project reservoirs and incidence of fish disease 2 epidemics, toxic algae blooms and nutrient pollution is 3 very substantial." And they cite three recent studies 4 that show this. 5 The State of California has a legal obligation to 6 insist that these dams be removed, a legal obligation to 7 the people of California whom the State represents. The 8 State also needs to address J.C. Boyle dam and the impacts 9 to water quality that occur in California due to this 10 Oregon-based dam. That cannot be overlooked. It should 11 be a four-dam option. Frankly, you could go all the way 12 up to Keno, which is anoxic six to eight weeks out of the 13 year and has fish kills every year, and Keno affects water 14 quality in California. That should be on the table as 15 well. 16 So I thank you very much for holding these 17 hearings. I hope to see you at at least a couple of them, 18 and I hope to see you all in the audience there too, if 19 you can. And many thanks. And we'll keep up the fight 20 for the Klamath River. 21 I forgot to identify myself. I'm the Executive 22 Director of the Northcoast Environmental Center. I'm also 23 a property owner on the Klamath. 24 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Ken Miller, you indicated if 25 time. Would you like to speak? We do have time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 Vivian Helliwell, Thomas Dunklin, Margaret Diane 2 I believe it is, and Angela Panaccione. 3 MR. MILLER: Thank you. I want to -- my name is 4 Ken Miller, K-e-n M-i-l-l-e-r. 5 One thing I want to point out in the handout from 6 your Board is that you've said here that based on a belief 7 that the no project alternative basically is the same as 8 NEPA and wouldn't have any short-term impacts. And I want 9 to encourage people not to take that seriously. This 10 belief by the State Water Board should be held in a very 11 cynical fashion, because if this EIR comes out as it 12 should, we will gain a lot of leverage. And part of that 13 leverage ought to be that the State Water Board has a lot 14 of other tools here as well. 15 In terms of this permit, it's hard to imagine any 16 beneficial use that is not adversely influenced by these 17 dams. I'm sure that people will try to parse it out and 18 say, well, this is influenced by this, and this is -- you 19 know, there's urban development, there's this and this; 20 but the dams, although they're not 100 percent of the 21 cause, they're 100 percent influential in every 22 degradation. I also understand that the beneficial uses 23 protect all resident fish, all the native populations, not 24 just the ones that are threatened. And that needs to be 25 seriously considered. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 The dams are not clean by any standard. We've 2 already heard many -- one of them is the greenhouse gas 3 that they tout, it's free of greenhouse gas production. 4 That's just not true. Having lived through the headwaters 5 deal and the aftermath of that, we came to realize that 6 sometimes there's only one sort of immediate fix. The 7 State Water Board and the regional board spent a lot of 8 money coming to this determination. No matter how many 9 mistakes you've made in the past, sometimes you come down 10 and there's only one immediate fix. And that immediate 11 fix, of course, is removing the dams. 12 Thank you very much for the opportunity. 13 MS. HELLIWELL: Hi. I'm Vivian Helliwell, 14 Watershed Conservation Director of the Pacific Coast 15 Federation of Fishermen's Associations and Institute for 16 Fisheries Resources. My name is spelled V-i-v-i-a-n 17 H-e-l-l-i-w-e-l-l. 18 And it's our understanding that the State cannot 19 issue a Section 401 certificate because the Klamath 20 Hydroelectric Project has demonstrated it cannot operate 21 in a manner that protects the most sensitive beneficial 22 use, which, of course, is the Klamath River salmon. 23 That said, the State Water Resource Control Board 24 EIR should capture the excellent information contained in 25 the North Coast Regional Water Control Board's emerging PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 mainstem Klamath River TMDL. And inasmuch as PacifiCorp 2 has steadfastly refused to address the without project 3 alternative, and FERC did not do so in its EIS. This 401 4 EIR must address a without project alternative of dam 5 removal. 6 And we also want to ask that the baseline for 7 analysis should be pre-dam conditions, not current 8 conditions. So it seems the operation cannot meet 9 conditions of water quality or conform to water quality 10 standards for the State. We support the comments of Greg 11 King and the Northcoast Environment Center as well. 12 I want to read a statement from my husband, David 13 Helliwell, who is working at the King Salmon Power Plant. 14 "Dear Water Board, I have been and continue 15 to be a commercial salmon fisherman for 40 years. 16 I'm glad you're meeting in Eureka about Klamath 17 water quality and dam removal issues that have 18 profoundly affected this area for 30 years. 19 Unfortunately, an afternoon meeting time has been 20 chosen precluding attendance by many interested 21 parties who work during the day. 22 "In addition to the abundance of water 23 quality and fish habitat reasons for dam removal, 24 I would like to offer the following for your 25 consideration: The fish ladders required for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 continued operation of the dams are estimated to 2 cost $240 million. The current power production 3 of the dams on a good day is 160 megawatts. A 4 brand new 166 megawatt dual fuel Wartsila Power 5 Plant installed, ready to generate, costs $250 6 million. This is the cost and production 7 capability of the plant in the process of being 8 installed here in Eureka to replace the 9 50-year-old worn-out power plant at King Salmon 10 that uses sea water to cool it. 11 "The obvious conclusion is that for the cost 12 of one component, $240 million fish ladders 13 required for continued operation of these 14 inefficient, fish-killing, water-polluting dams, 15 a water and watershed neutral alternative exists 16 that is reliable and more productive. 17 "Thank you, David Helliwell, Fishing Vessel 18 Corregidor." 19 And so we urge you to, the Water Board, to please 20 consider dam removal as the only alternative that will 21 improve water quality and restore these fish runs that our 22 coastal fisheries and communities rely on. 23 Thank you. 24 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Okay. Thomas Dunklin, 25 Margaret Draper I believe it is, I can't read it, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 Angela. 2 MR. DUNKLIN: All right. My name is Thomas 3 Dunklin. I'm a 22-year resident of Humboldt County. I 4 have over 19 years of experience in watershed restoration 5 starting in the Mattole Rivers going to the Klamath River, 6 going to the Smith River. What my work has brought me to 7 do is go diving in the rivers to film under water to show 8 the conditions of salmon, to show the conditions of water 9 clarity. As an underwater videographer, water clarity is 10 everything. 11 In the Klamath I cannot film; and the times that 12 I have filmed, I have come away with severe ear 13 infections. So I want to get up here and not only remind 14 people that this health advisory is real, but just to 15 testify that I have been personally injured by the 16 Klamath. 17 These signs go all the way from Copco all the way 18 down to the mouth of the river. The fact that they are at 19 the mouth of the river should be a shocking wake-up call 20 for everybody, but I want to remind people that the water 21 coming out of the Copco dam, the water coming out of the 22 Iron Gate dam that is neon green, that green toxic algae, 23 it flows out of the top of the dam, it's a top spill 24 release. That just channels all of that water down into 25 the lower mainstem. At some times in July and in August, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 the whole lower mainstem is neon green. Okay. So that is 2 a water quality issue. 3 We have a 12,000 square mile basin that's blocked 4 by dams 6,000 square miles up. More than half of the 5 Klamath River is blocked by dams. So there's a whole slew 6 of issues surrounding these dams that have to do with fish 7 passage, that have to do with economics, that have to do 8 with energy; but you're faced with a water quality issue. 9 And from my experience with my own ear infection, the 10 Klamath River is not fishable and swimable, which is a 11 requirement under the Clean Water Act. 12 If we do not follow our simple laws and our 13 simple rules, we will be plagued by toxic algaes, by 14 disease, by health conditions that are bad for fish, that 15 are bad for native people, especially because native 16 people are reliant on these fish more than we are. You 17 know, we have a lot of different options. But if you go 18 to the Yurok reservation, the Hoopa reservation or into 19 Karuk lands, you don't see a lot of options for people. 20 So the water quality situation is your 21 responsibility now. When I hear about what your 22 objectives are, the objectives to continue to generate -- 23 the objectives of the EIR to continue to generate power 24 from a renewable resource to serve applicant's customers, 25 that should not be the objective of this EIR. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 objective of this EIR is to determine if the dams are 2 responsible for the water quality impairments and if 3 something can be done about them. There's no question. 4 Part of my video work over the last three years 5 has been to interview experts on water quality, interview 6 experts on geomorphology, on dams, on energy policy. I 7 interviewed Dr. Bob Gearhart from HSU. He's a 8 world-renowned water quality expert. He refers to these 9 dams, and this is a great buzz word, as nutrient reactors. 10 Okay? They are like a nuclear reactor, but they're 11 nutrient reactors. They take the nutrient-rich water 12 coming from multiple sources upstream and they run it 13 through one cycle of algaefication, through a second cycle 14 of algaefication, through a third cycle and move it all 15 downstream. So without the reservoirs, we don't have 16 those bioreactors. Okay. 17 It's simple. It's very, very, very simple. 18 We're in a complex context with PacifiCorp, giant power 19 structure, able to drive the boat. The boat FERC is 20 riding on is driven by PacifiCorp and by corporate 21 interests. We know that. Please don't be part of that 22 because we need your help. We need the truth to come out, 23 we need the water quality issues to be dealt with in a 24 real way. Okay. 25 So please reevaluate this objective. Maybe I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 don't understand the CEQA process well enough to know that 2 that's how these objectives need to be written, but the 3 objective should be determine the impacts of the Klamath 4 dams on water quality all the way from Copco to the mouth, 5 the lips. 6 I wish to thank you, thank you for this 7 opportunity, and, please, step up. 8 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Margaret -- is it Draper? 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think she left. 10 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Okay. Angela Panoccione, 11 Craig Tucker, Frances Ferguson and Shaye Harty. That's 12 the order. So next would be Craig. 13 MR. TUCKER: Hi. I won't threaten you with my 14 singing like Greg did either. My name is Craig Tucker. 15 I'm the Klamath coordinator for the Karuk tribe, and I do 16 appreciate this opportunity. 17 I do think it's worth pointing out that it did 18 take a lot of initiative from the staff and the folks of 19 the Water Board to get here because PacifiCorp has really 20 been fighting this process getting started. They applied 21 for a clean water permit and withdrawn it at least twice, 22 and the last time was sort of at the 11th hour on a Friday 23 afternoon in an attempt to delay this process. 24 And I think the Water Board really went to the 25 limits of its authority to force this process forward and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 give us this opportunity, and I'm very appreciative of the 2 Water Board for doing that. And I do want to suggest or 3 encourage folks to really give these guys what they need, 4 because I think if the Water Board is really going to be 5 able to enforce the Clean Water Act, they need our help in 6 identifying the problems with the application and the 7 shortcomings of the FERC EIS. 8 And so I just want to go through some bullet 9 points. And we'll have very detailed comments filed, 10 written, but I want to go through some of the bullet 11 points. I know there's a lot of expertise in this room on 12 some of these issues, and I hope folks will take time to 13 write comments to address some of these issues. 14 But the biggest I think shortcoming of the FERC 15 EIS was how it described the environmental justice impacts 16 of the project. I know the Karuk tribe and the other 17 tribes in the basin, their most important ceremonies, 18 world renewal ceremonies are going on usually in 19 September, and that's when the algae bloom is at its 20 zenith. You know, and you have medicine men, to fulfill 21 their religious obligations, bathing in a river next to 22 these signs of don't touch the water because it's toxic. 23 So it's really denied access to religion. And a better 24 understanding of that and a better description of that in 25 the EJ section of the EIR would be great. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 Also, I know there's basket weavers in the room 2 here, and there will be basket weavers at the meetings 3 tonight and Orleans tomorrow, but I've seen basket makers 4 pull willows out of the sand bar and use their teeth to 5 strip the bark. So there should be an evaluation. Are 6 those folks at a different risk, a different health risk 7 for exposure to microcystin toxin because to practice 8 their craft they actually have to put these young shoots 9 of willow in their mouths next to a river that's green and 10 toxic? 11 I think the Klamath basin is a very unique place 12 in terms of the amount of subsistence fishing and 13 gathering that's going on. I think there needs to be a 14 full evaluation on the people who live on the river. 15 Putting food on the table, if you're a Karuk tribal member 16 living in Orleans, can sometimes mean did you catch fish 17 today. And that really needs to be evaluated. The 18 socioeconomic impacts of access to subsistence fish is 19 really important. 20 And then the last piece is power. They built 21 these dams to generate electricity. Well, who got the 22 native impacts? The downstream tribes and the upstream 23 tribes. Who doesn't have electricity, the Yurok 24 reservation. I mean Pekwan doesn't have electricity. 25 There are communities in the upper Salmon River that don't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 have electricity. So, you know, you put the impact and 2 the burden on a group of people and provide them none of 3 the benefits. And I don't know if that's -- what else can 4 you say about it; that's an environmental injustice, 5 that's pretty much the textbook definition. 6 There needs to be a thorough evaluation of the 7 relationships between fish diseases and the dams. If you 8 look where the hot spots for these disease-causing 9 parasites are, it's between Iron Gate dam and the Shasta 10 River. So to me that suggests the hypothesis that the 11 dams have a fundamental relationship with fish disease. 12 As you establish the baseline conditions for the 13 analysis, we need to make sure that we acknowledge and 14 clearly articulate that in our current conditions they do 15 not comply with clean water standards in California for 16 temperature dissolved oxygen nutrients or the new listing 17 for toxic algae. 18 I would encourage you guys to consider having 19 scoping meetings and meetings from the EIR further. As 20 Bitts described, Dave Bitts described, there are fishing 21 communities from Point Sur into Oregon that are affected 22 by the Klamath River's fish runs and the Klamath River's 23 water quality. And so folks in San Francisco and 24 Mendocino County and these other fishing communities need 25 to have a good opportunity to make comments as well. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 And I want to speak up for the species in the 2 river that don't always get enough attention: muscles, 3 lamprey and sturgeon. Fresh water muscles are a 4 traditional food source for the tribes in the basin, and 5 we're now starting to show that this microcystin toxin is 6 concentrating in muscles. So what does that mean? And 7 how does that relate to the dams? 8 Lamprey doesn't get a lot of face time. I mean, 9 lamprey doesn't really qualify as charismatic mega-fawna; 10 they're kind of like blood suckers. But lamprey are very 11 important for native people, and I'd say, and I think some 12 people would even say just as important as salmon. I 13 mean, Karuk people harvest lamprey and smoke them just 14 like they do salmon. So what are the impacts of the 15 project on lamprey? And finally, what are the impacts on 16 sturgeon whose numbers are also in decline? 17 And in the final comment I'd make, maybe it's a 18 question, but can we do this process in such a manner that 19 when the decision to remove all four dams is made we don't 20 have to go through another CEQA 401 process? Can we have 21 a full panel of alternatives analyzed in such a manner 22 that once the action is decided, the -- you know, the 23 hay's in the barn or the salmon's in the smoke house would 24 probably be a better way of putting that. So I don't know 25 the answer to that. But it's something I'd like to talk PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 to you guys more about because, you know, if we're going 2 to spend a couple of years probably going through this 3 process, if we make the decision to remove those dams, all 4 four dams, will there have to be another 401 permitting 5 process before they go forward, because it would be nice 6 to find at least one shortcut in all this. 7 And besides that, I really appreciate the 8 opportunity to address you guys. 9 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Frances Ferguson and 10 Shaye Harty. 11 MS. FERGUSON: Hello. My name is Frances 12 Ferguson. Am I holding this correctly? The name is 13 spelled F-e-r-g-u-s-o-n. The California north coast has 14 been my home for about 40 years, and I appreciate this 15 opportunity to speak. 16 I urge you to deny a 401 clean water 17 certification to PacifiCorp. Levels of toxic blue-green 18 algae in the warm, shallow reservoirs behind the Klamath 19 dams have been documented at 4,000 times higher than 20 levels considered by the World Health Organization to be 21 moderate -- a moderate risk to human health. Scientific 22 studies have linked the toxic algae blooms with fish 23 epidemics and the decline of salmon. 24 By creating toxic conditions, the dams have 25 imperiled the health of children who play in Klamath PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 waters, the survival of anadromous fish, the health of 2 north coast fisheries, and the continuation of 3 salmon-based Indian cultures in the Klamath watershed. I 4 submit that all of these are far more important than any 5 PacifiCorp profits. 6 My message is simple; it is time to tear down the 7 dams. 8 Thank you. 9 MS. HARTY: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is 10 Shaye Harty, it's S-h-a-y-e H-a-r-t-y, Humboldt County 11 resident and also part of the County Council of the 12 Humboldt Green Party. I'm not necessarily speaking on 13 behalf of them officially, but as part of the green party, 14 this is something that we and myself need to speak out 15 about. 16 Please, Water Board, do not relicense 17 PacifiCorp's grip on the Klamath River. These dams are 18 exactly that, they are damaging. It should be a 19 no-brainer. We shouldn't ask for current conditions to be 20 met once they're taken down, these should be pre-dam 21 conditions. It's their fault that we put these dams up. 22 And we talk about hydroelectric; it's renewable, 23 right? Is it really renewable when our water looks like 24 that jug? I guess it's green. Bad joke, I know, but 25 that's what we're dealing with. What is green? I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 confused. I thought green was supposed to be good. I'm 2 part of the green party, but that is not good. 3 There's so many things that are happening to our 4 water, and it just -- the point I really wanted to make to 5 the Water Board, you guys, about water quality, well, 6 water is a precious resource, and they turned that into 7 sludge. So many people are suffering because of it. And 8 I highly urge you not to go with the capitalist corporate 9 grip that they're holding on us. Warren Buffet said he's 10 going to keep investing in the stock market. All right. 11 Well, let him make more profits so we can take down the 12 dams. 13 Really, that was the points that I really wanted 14 to make, that water is a precious resource, and when you 15 dam it, there's so many damaging effects. 16 We heard from all of you wonderful people out 17 here, thank you for coming out. This is just an amazing 18 uplifting of what we need to do as our local government, 19 as our local community to speak out and do what we need to 20 do as citizens. 21 So, Water Board, please hear our words and take 22 into account what we have to say. 23 Thank you. 24 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Larry Hourany followed by 25 Geronimo Garcia and Will Newman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 And if anyone else wants to add their name to the 2 list, if they could please see us up at the front. Thank 3 you. 4 MR. HOURANY: My name's Larry Hourany, 5 H-o-u-r-a-n-y, and I'm -- I come a little late to this 6 issue, so I apologize for my ignorance, but there is 7 something that bothers me as a scientist, that we have an 8 expert who changed the model that he used, which he 9 considered too conservative, and now has turned from being 10 against some of the concerns that would bring down the dam 11 to saying that, well, the flows are adequate. 12 Well, two things about the flows really bother 13 me. One is they're not consistent, they're averaged; so 14 that if at a given time the flow happens to be low for a 15 given hatchling group, that hatchling group is gone. We 16 are now getting closer and closer to five percent. 17 Anything under five percent, and somebody said today that 18 we're already at two percent at times, that is an 19 unsustainable level for species. And that means that that 20 species is on the verge of disappearing. 21 And this is all compounded by the fact that at 22 this point, according to a newspaper article just a month 23 or two ago, we've reached a 30-year low in flow. So you 24 combine all these issues, we are already at a point where 25 it may be too late. Three or four years of this level of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 flow would mean the demise of at least one or two species 2 that are already at that level. And I think those dams 3 need to come down. 4 MR. GARCIA: Thank you. My name is Geronimo 5 Garcia, and I come from Arcata. I first came to Arcata in 6 1982 as a Humboldt State student of environmental studies. 7 After the orientation I road my bike up the coast, the 8 inland, up to the Umpqua River and came back down, but I 9 did see the Klamath River. I passed through Hoopa and 10 Weitchpec, and I haven't back there all these years since 11 1982. 12 So and then whenever I'm downtown -- I'm a 13 houseless person, but Arcata is my home, I'm just an 14 outdoors more person -- and whenever I see people flicking 15 cigarette butts and they land on the sidewalk and down 16 into the gutters or if I look under a car, you know, where 17 the car's parked and there's a big oil spot in the litter, 18 and I think, well, it's affecting the fish. 19 The other day I was at the -- over here in 20 Eureka, and I saw all these birds. They must have been 21 Cormorants. And they're all flying back and forth along 22 the bay eating fish, and they looked so happy. And I 23 became happy. And a lot of times I try to begin my 24 stories with what happened here, over here, you know, when 25 they had the massacre; and a lot of people say, oh, well, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 forget that, don't talk about that. But back then the 2 people had a lot of abundance, and ever since then it's 3 been degrading. And since I've come back here a lot of 4 animal species have been a reduction in numbers. 5 So if I can just -- if Warren Buffet's going to 6 hear any of this, or if yourself is going to communicate 7 to Warren Buffet, as a houseless person who considers my 8 local environment my home, please tell him that it's not 9 worth it. There's nothing worth the destruction of all 10 these animal species that are dependent on the healthy 11 rivers. So please remove the dams. 12 And there's going to be a lot of jobs to remove 13 the dams. A lot of truck drivers are going to be hauling 14 a lot of cement back down the hill. 15 Thank you. 16 MR. NEWMAN: Hi. My name's Will. And I don't 17 know what I get to say to get you to take the dams down. 18 I think that I -- I feel like there must be some kind of a 19 problem that the people on the Board have that they 20 already haven't made the decision to take them down 21 because it would seem like it would be a no-brainer to do 22 that; but I'm sure that when you go to places where people 23 get the water, they're all wanting the water, so I guess 24 you have to deal with that. But I would hope that you'd 25 have the deep ecology perspective that everybody on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 earth should have about the relative value of something 2 like the fish. 3 And I think about how when I was young I was 4 lucky enough to see on twilight on all the waters that 5 there would be a lot of little circles at the surface of 6 the water where the fish would be feeding on bugs, and 7 they'd be jumping out of the water. And it was fairly 8 thick with that. And, you know, what are my daughters now 9 going to see? You know, it's like I've spent a lot of 10 time on the south fork of the Eel where they told us five 11 years ago you can't even bring your kids or your dogs down 12 to the water's edge. And I own land in the south fork of 13 the Trinity; it's a little bit nicer there. It would be 14 nice to see if the dam would come down. 15 I feel like the comments thing, you know, it's 16 like one comment that I always really liked, the written 17 comment, was when Henry Hudson wrote in his journal in 18 1609 after he went into -- sail his little boat, the Half 19 Moon, into New York Harbor, he wrote in his journal that 20 all they had to do was throw a bucket over the side and 21 pull it back up and it was filled with fish. And, of 22 course, that's the same everywhere else. 23 The only thing, I really think that there -- 24 you've got to think of it like your mother just got hit by 25 a school bus and you're standing there and it's like she PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 might live actually, she's still alive, and you'd be 2 wanting the ambulance to show up like right away, you 3 know. And you'd be thinking, at least in the back of our 4 mind, she'd be going to the emergency room, you know. And 5 so it's like that, you know, for the fish. 6 You have to do everything in your power. You 7 know, I think that, you know, if you people have some 8 power, if you're not using every bit of your power to do 9 every conceivable thing to help the fish and considering 10 like water rights for farming to be a very, very distant 11 second or not even in the picture, you guys are criminals, 12 you know, you're doing like criminal negligence, you know, 13 because there's not going to be any fish in the future if 14 you guys don't take some rapid emergency action right now. 15 Thank you. 16 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Is there anyone else in the 17 audience that wishes to speak today? Please identify 18 yourself. 19 MS. KING: Hi. My name is Joyce King, and I'm 20 from McKinleyville. I was hoping I wouldn't have to speak 21 today. With all these people in the audience, I thought 22 there would be more than enough people to fill all this 23 time. 24 Just out of curiosity, how many are hoping that 25 the dams will go? Oh, good. Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 (Conversation among the audience members.) 2 MS. KING: I'm not going to go through all the 3 things here that I had to say because a lot of it's -- 4 most of it's been said already. 5 Of the 22 existing beneficial uses identified for 6 the Klamath River that this Board is supposed to protect, 7 I think agriculture, hydropower, and possibly industrial 8 service supply are the only ones that would benefit from 9 the dams staying. And the rest I believe are all impacted 10 adversely. 11 And just to name a few, and I know a lot of them 12 have already been named, municipal water supply; contact 13 and non-contact water recreation; commercial and sport 14 fishing; warm and cold water fish habitat; wildlife 15 habitat; rare, threatened or endangered species; marine 16 habitat; migration of aquatic organisms; spawning, 17 reproduction and development; shellfish harvesting; 18 estuarian habitat; agriculture; and Native American 19 cultures. There are others than those, but I thought I 20 would pick out the ones that seemed the most important. 21 And then I haven't had a chance to look further 22 at the FERC EIS, but during the draft process, they -- the 23 DEIS recognized that the flows from Iron Gate Reservoir 24 and others were warmer in the fall and cooler in the 25 spring than normal conditions and both alterations had PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 harmful effects on salmon. The DEIS acknowledged that 2 high nutrient levels, temperatures, et cetera, algae, were 3 having adverse effects. And the DEIS admitted that the 4 reservoir removal would decrease the incidence of disease 5 in the lower Klamath salmon by improving water quality and 6 reducing the algae, reducing epidemics suspected of 7 killing more than half of each year's Klamath River 8 juvenile salmon crop. 9 Another thing I'm not sure has been brought up -- 10 I'm sorry, I came in a little late -- is that Iron Gate 11 Fish Hatchery has also an adverse effect on salmon 12 exceeding levels -- and this is from a Riverkeeper lawsuit 13 against PacifiCorp -- exceeding levels for total suspended 14 solids, pH, polluting from drugs and disinfectants, and 15 that there was a lack of monitoring for other types of 16 pollution from that hatchery. 17 Anyway, there are others things, but I hope that 18 this is not going to be another politically-motivated 19 decision to put immediate vested economic interests ahead 20 of the long-term good of the resources our future 21 generations are depending on. 22 Thank you. 23 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Okay. We did pretty well in 24 terms of time. Is there anybody else that wishes to 25 speak? Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 Come on up. And then following your comment, we 2 do have a few more minutes. And I offer that if any of 3 you have questions, you may come up and ask them. 4 If you could identify yourself, please, sir. 5 Thank you. 6 MR. SHERMAN: Marlon Sherman, M-a-r-l-o-n 7 S-h-e-r-m-a-n. I am a Native American studies professor 8 at Humboldt State. I hadn't intended to talk today, I 9 wanted to kind of listen to some comments and see what 10 happened, but since there's time, I was looking at some of 11 these criteria that the Board is going to be looking at. 12 Among them are things like geology and soils, 13 water resources, aquatic resources, you know; and it's 14 very obvious that the water's -- a green Klamath is not a 15 healthy Klamath, it's very obvious. And there's a lot of 16 science that says that that's a sick river. 17 There's also -- there also have been a lot of 18 testimony about the economic impacts on the fisheries and 19 the down-river economies and in comparing them with the 20 upper-river economies. 21 I think what the Board -- this is a suggestion 22 obviously -- there's some mention as to the socioeconomic 23 impacts and the cultural impacts of the project. And 24 culture is such an innocuous word. It doesn't take into 25 account the strong -- not just the beliefs, the connection PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 that indigenous peoples on these rivers have with the 2 salmon and with the water. If the salmon die, so do the 3 people. It's that strong a connection. 4 This will be -- if the salmon die, it will be 5 exactly like the United Nations characterized a genocide. 6 The Yurok, the Karuk and the Hoopa peoples will cease to 7 exist as a culture, that innocuous little word, they will 8 cease to exist. This will be a cultural genocide. And in 9 time it might even become a physical genocide as well, 10 because without the salmon, the people get sick. It's 11 been proven in the past. 12 Some studies have been done by the Karuk tribe 13 and is currently being done by the Yurok tribes on the 14 river. Salmon and health go hand in hand with the native 15 peoples. Our DNA, our genetic makeup is not friendly 16 toward things like wheat and pork and beef. 17 So I'm urging the Board to look at something a 18 little bit deeper because there are only a couple of laws, 19 and they're very, very weak laws, they don't have any 20 teeth, federal laws that cover Native Americans' 21 spirituality that protect native spiritual practices. And 22 so I'm hoping that the Board can -- can maybe look -- put 23 a little bit more emphasis on the spiritual or the 24 innocuous word, the cultural impacts of losing the salmon, 25 of the toxicity of the river, so that they don't become PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 participants to another genocide here in the 2 United States. 3 Thank you very much. 4 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Thank you. With that, if 5 anyone has any questions of the Water Board folks or the 6 contractor, I'll ask that you come up to the microphone 7 one at a time. Thank you. And please identify yourself 8 for the purposes of the court reporter. 9 MR. MILLS: Good afternoon. My name is Jeremy 10 Mills. I'm curious about the relationship between the 11 Water Board and the neighboring entities, how the Water 12 Board is going to interact with the Department of Water 13 Quality on the Oregon side of the border and also how the 14 Water Board is going to act with tribes. I believe some 15 of the tribes in this watershed have delegated 16 responsibility under Clean Water Act. And how it's going 17 to interact with the tribes. So the certification also 18 deals with tribal issues. And I'm curious about how the 19 Water Board's not going to look at just the Clean Water 20 Act but also the Porter-Cologne Act and how the 21 interaction between those two laws will be looked at. 22 Thank you. 23 MS. AUE: Hi. I'm Marianna Aue. I'm staff 24 counsel at the State Water Resources Control Board. And 25 you just lobbed a bunch of the questions that I spend most PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 of my day thinking about. 2 So in terms of interaction with other agencies in 3 the state and the federal system, we consult with other 4 agencies throughout our process. We are, you know, going 5 to them as well in these scoping sessions as well as to 6 the general public. And we, you know, definitely read the 7 comments that they send, we read the comments that 8 throughout the participation in the larger FERC 9 relicensing process, we keep in touch with both public 10 comments from that and the comments from other agencies. 11 In terms of the federal agencies with mandatory 12 conditioning authority, we are assuming that those 13 mandatory conditions will be part of the project. And 14 that's something that's new in this CEQA document. The 15 FERC environmental document did not in their staff 16 recommendation see those as mandatory. We're taking that 17 into account starting from our project definition. 18 So in terms of meeting tribal water quality 19 standards, as a state agency with 401 water quality 20 certification authority, we are required to meet the water 21 quality standards for all downstream authorities that have 22 401 water quality certification authority as well, and 23 that includes the Hoopa tribe whose water quality 24 standards were recently approved, an updated version of 25 the standard was recently approved by the U.S. EPA and has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 gone into effect. 2 So as was up here on some of the slides, I'm not 3 sure that we read over it today, but one of the purposes 4 of our CEQA document is to examine the different 5 alternatives in terms of their impact on waters in terms 6 of meeting tribal water quality standards as well. 7 And I think there were a few other questions in 8 there as well that I have forgotten. 9 Porter-Cologne Act. So these -- the water 10 quality standards for the State are what we need to be 11 able to certify the project as meeting in order to issue a 12 401 water quality certification. Those water quality 13 standards are set under the Clean Water Act and under the 14 Porter-Cologne Act. And so that is the body of standards 15 out there that we will be looking at and applying as we 16 evaluate PacifiCorp's application. 17 MS. HELLIWELL: Will the Water Quality Board be 18 addressing the water quality effects of Keno dam 19 separately or in relation to this permitting process? 20 And while I'm up here, I notice there's a big box 21 of tissues here. This is for all the tears for how sad it 22 is if we lose the fishing, the fish, the tribal health and 23 the health of the river and these salmon species because 24 it would be very sad for the future. 25 DR. TORMEY: Yeah, as part of the environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 review that we're conducting, even though the jurisdiction 2 is over California, the review is required to consider 3 what's known as a cumulative impact analysis. So as part 4 of that, the operations of the dams in Oregon as well as 5 other projects within the analysis area have to be -- have 6 to be considered. 7 MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have a question on the interim 8 permitting process. It may be a question for the legal 9 department. 10 But we know that you issue interim permissions. 11 But under what circumstances would you be required to 12 refuse interim permissions, and if any. And I'll leave it 13 at that for this question. 14 MS. AUE: So we actually do not have any interim 15 authority over the dams. FERC, the Federal Environmental 16 Regulatory Commission, issues annual licenses. 17 (Conversation among the audience members.) 18 MS. AUE: I'm sorry. Freudian slip there. 19 So FERC issues annual licenses after the 20 expiration of a hydroelectric power's long-term license. 21 The 401 water quality certification process, which is the 22 process in which we're currently engaged, does not apply 23 to annually licensed, you know, the short-term licenses. 24 That was something that was litigated several years ago. 25 And so the State Board does not have interim authority, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 only have authority in relationship to the long-term 2 license. 3 The reason our -- you may have been confused 4 somewhat because our CEQA document breaks down interim 5 conditions and long-term modifications. This is because 6 the only alternatives that the State Board is considering 7 require large infrastructural changes. And for those to 8 happen, the dams will be in place and will be operating 9 without those modifications for a certain period of time. 10 In order to have more flexibility in our 11 alternatives, we took a slightly different tack than FERC 12 did in their environmental document, and we've separated 13 out what are the types of things that could happen in an 14 interim period, in the next five years, in the next ten 15 years to deal with some of the more immediate impacts as 16 some of these longer-term modifications are ongoing. 17 MS. FREEDLUND: So stay up here. Let me get this 18 straight. Doesn't the State Water Board have the 19 authority under the Clean Water Act to absolutely say that 20 the dams should come out? 21 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: I'm sorry, could you please 22 identify yourself again for the record. 23 MS. FREEDLUND: Sure. Ali Freedlund, 24 F-r-e-e-d-l-u-n-d. 25 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Thanks. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 MS. AUE: The State Water Board's authority over 2 FERC-licensed hydropower projects is extremely limited. 3 So -- sorry, I'm trying to figure out how to not launch 4 into a long, legal discussion that will put everyone here 5 to sleep. 6 But the Federal Power Act gives to FERC authority 7 over all of the operations of federally-licensed 8 hydropower projects except at the time of relicensing, 9 initial licensing, or a significant license alteration. 10 At that point Section 401 of the Clean Water Act says that 11 the State can certify that the project meets water quality 12 standards. And if the State does not certify that the 13 project can meet water quality standards, then the project 14 cannot get a long-term license. 15 So the State Water Board also has -- you're 16 shaking your head, I'm clearly not -- I'm talking like a 17 lawyer. Okay. This is why usually I don't stand up here 18 with the microphone. 19 So at 401 certification, if the State Board 20 denies water quality certification, then FERC may not 21 issue a long-term license for the project. The State 22 Water Board also has the authority to condition 23 certification on a great number of things and including, 24 it is our belief, dam removal, although I -- that is not 25 something that has been tested thus far in the courts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: I'm sorry, this will have to 2 be the last question, because then we'll do a wrap-up and 3 we need to put the room back together and get to our next 4 meeting. Thank you. 5 MR. BITTS: Thank you. Dave Bitts from PCFFA. 6 So I just -- I want to get the clearest possible 7 explanation. You were very clear on the long-term 8 relicensing; but do I correctly understand that if the 9 State Water Board were to deny the 401 certification, that 10 PacifiCorp could continue to get one-year license 11 extensions from FERC indefinitely? 12 Thank you. 13 MS. AUE: I actually artfully dodged that 14 question up here earlier. 15 So the project can continue to run under annual 16 licenses after -- if the State Board were to deny 17 certification, it could continue to run under annual 18 licenses after that. The length of time under which it 19 could continue to run under annual licenses is unclear. 20 There's never been a decision that clarifies this 21 particular aspect and it's not addressed in statute. 22 (Unidentified person speaking beyond the range of 23 the microphone.) 24 MS. AUE: I'm sorry, we can't hear this for the 25 record, so -- and we have a time limit. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 But I can quickly say that during that time 2 period, during any time period in which FERC is issuing 3 annual licenses, the State does not have authority over 4 the hydroelectric projects. 5 FACILITATOR KAPAHI: Okay. I thank you all for 6 coming today. I thank Fish and Wildlife Service for the 7 room. 8 This is, once again, the first of four scoping 9 meetings. The second one will be this evening at six 10 o'clock. The location is in the NOP. 11 Written comments, if you wish to submit them, are 12 due November the 17th. Information as to where you can 13 submit those are in that document as well. 14 I thank you all for coming. 15 (Thereupon, the October 20, 2008, 16 California State Water Resources Control Board 17 Public Scoping Meeting 18 was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.) 19 --oOo-- 20 ********** 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I, DEBORAH BAKER, an Electronic Reporter, do hereby certify that I am a disinterested person herein; that I recorded the foregoing California State Water Resources Control Board Public Scoping Meeting; that thereafter the recording was transcribed. I further certify that I am not counsel or attorney for any of the parties to said Public Scoping Meeting, or in any way interested in the outcome of said Public Scoping Meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 3rd day of November, 2008. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 |
Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:14 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2009, All Rights Reserved