Seal:  Thank you for the opportunity to appear here.  I am, as you mentioned several times, Ralph Seal.  I live at 16000 Wards Ferry Road about three and 8/10^th miles from Wards Ferry Bridge.  I am speaking because I represent the Tuolumne River almost exclusively; a few sections I had just one side of it in my district for 20 years on the Board of Supervisors.  When I became a board member, I attempted to evaluate the job that I had to do for the people that I represented and I decided that water was one of the most critical things that I should work on and with that in mind, I participated in the studies that brought about votes of 97 and vote on 169.  I worked with Assemblymen Waters when he was a supervisor on Mountain County Water Resources Association.  We are both…went through the chairs of that and worked for more than ten years with that group which was a ten mountain county group from Mariposa to Share County.  It was formed to protect and develop water for the areas that we represented.  These years have activity on water problems convinced me more than ever that water was one of the most critical problems that we had to deal with in Tuolumne County, and our sources, new and old, are very limited.  PG&E is limited both in the amount of water that it will…it has to work with and the area that which it is going to serve.  Hetchy project which furnishes a lot of water to the Groveland area is again limited as to the area that it will serve, so this leaves in three sources that are of any size at all, Malones, which is, of course, down in the very lower end of the count, one corner of the county, and because of that it will be deathly limited as to area it can serve.  Ground water, which those of us that have good wells are very lucky because not everyone does, is even more limited than that.  Leaving the Tuolumne River as the only major source that does transfix a county from its eastern boundary to its western boundary and a good third of the way into the county as it comes on down.  This county, Tuolumne County, cannot afford to have this important option taken from them.  I strongly urge that river not be classified at this time so as to leave all of the possible options that have do exist now and it would not exist in the event that the river is classified.  I may make one little comment because I didn’t find it in the study.  When you classify or reserve in a manner of certain natural resource to one people, you take something away from the other and I recognize that.  I’ve been down the river twice.  Once with Bob Hackamac who’s in the audience with a (___) (___) and I enjoyed that immensely.  The second time with a professional rafter and I was never more bored in my life, but still I can understand why it would be quite an experience to other people.  I walked the river, I punted the river, I even set fire to it once that is the boundary throwing bombs out of an airplane on a control burn, so I do have a great deal of experience with the river.  And the point that I wanted to make that I don’t find in here is that it is far from a wild river.  I have a son-in-law who was born in Jacksonville has never left the county lives here now.  He walks down to the river and fishes somewhere generally between Lumption Bridge and Cochran Road and there are a good many roads and trails that do come down to the river and he’s picked up there in a Jeep by my daughter, his wife.  And he walks all the way down there to find one of the trophy trout that are mentioned here and the seclusion that he loves born and raised there; and when he gets down there, his fishing is constantly disturbed by rafters coming down because he does this on the weekends well because he has a full-time job and generally with a beer can in one hand the other one waving at him saying, “How did you get down here?”  Well, his own little wild experience is drastically marred by the fact that we have this procession of rafters coming down.  I didn’t find that so I just thought I’d throw that in there for extra.  Thank you.

Jennings:  Thank you Mr. Seal.  After Mr. Lincoln, who now is going to be our speaker, Jerry Egger.

Samberg:  Ok I’m not Joe Lincoln, he couldn’t be here today, Bob Samberg, we’re both two employees, so I’m the ones free.  We’re from Tuolumne County Water District Number 1 in Twain Harte and our statement basically has been covered by both, Mr. Norm Waters and Bud Hatler.  I think to hold down and not take too much time then because I really wouldn’t be saying anything new that we do agree that Tuolumne County needs the ability to get more water.  Water is one of the most needed items that we have today and if we tie it up then we don’t have it.  We can’t get it any longer, so as they said that and the Tuolumne County gets its fair share of whatever is decided on the river.  Thank you.

Jennings:  Thank you Mr. Sanberg.  After Mr. Egger, Earnest Yettis.

Egger:  My name is Jerry Egger.   I’m a representative of Tuolumne County Water District Number 2.  Our office is in Sonora on 53 W. Bradford Street.  Both the Board of Supervisors of the county and the directors of Water District Number 2 have been active, I think, somewhat in this project since it first came to our attention a number of years ago.  I think we pretty much take the same stand and that is that the county right now cannot afford to lose its options to develop water in the county.  That’s been said a number of times but it can’t be over emphasized because we have some critical water needs in our county.  We have a number of sources, one of the primary one is the Tuolumne River, the middle fork that’s proposed for designation of the Wild and Scenic River and as such if that were to be…if any alternative other than Alternative E were to be considered and adopted, that would be preclude most any development of water for that river.  I’m going to make a few points here.  A couple first of all on the study itself and then I want to elaborate just a bit if I could on our support on Alternative E and why we’re doing that.  When first started to review the full report, we went through and naturally looked at who opted to report from how it was put together, what process it went through, and when you see four federal agencies; the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and then the Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service all having their input in this report, primary input in the report, short of the public hearings they’ve had, we begin to wonder right away if why, how much focus is really put on the individual needs of the people of Tuolumne County because it appeared to us that the report was written and even after finishing it, it still appears that the report was written in a very broad, national viewpoint without much emphasis on our local needs.  The study area, there was a statement made on page 26 of the report that says, “The primary emphasis on this report was placed up on the quality of the experience obtained and the overall impressions and perceptions of the public while using the river.”  I think that statement right there pretty much points out that what kind of subjective evaluation report were put to that they did overlook the local water needs and other benefits that could be accrued by our county and that it was primarily written around both recreational interest those now that used the river and those who are planning to use it for that purpose in the future.  So in the event that the river was not designated as a Wild and Scenic River and in the even it was developed or hydro-electric power or whatever other purpose there would be, we have to hold on to that water and the source of that water because we’re going to have some very critical water demands in the next five-twenty years.  In summary, Water District Number 2 prefers the selection of Alternative E just a I mentioned before that it would not close the door to all of our options, that we could secure a water supply, that if it was developed, that’s the way it turned out for hydro-electric power, that we definitely would have our fingers in the pie so we would see that county would see had some direct benefits from that.  The way we have done that is Water District 2 has filed a right to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and we have every intention of exercising that right if we have not received benefits of any proposed development that would meet our satisfaction and those of the Tuolumne Board of Supervisors.  So in summary again, we say that Alternative A really does not take into account the best interest of the local needs of the county.  At least Alternative E leaves us some flexibility and planning for water needs of the county in a world where conditions and restrictions change faster than we can ever react with solutions.  We need that…those options we left open to protect our Natural Resources of the County of Origin.  Thank you. 

Jennings:  Thank you Mr. Egger.  Mr. Gettis will be our next speaker and David Blau on-deck person.

Gettis:  Thank you Mr. Jennings.  Ladies and Gentlemen my name is Ernest Gettis.  I’m General Manager of Turlock Irrigation District, P.O. Box 949 Turlock.  In appearing on behalf of the Turlock Irrigation District today; we have a continued interest and vital interest in the Tuolumne River.  This river has played a major role in the development of the tremendous agricultural production of our Central Valley and we are desirous of it’s continue beneficial use to serve the greatest needs of our community, our state, and our nation.  Recognizing the many concerns that are raised by any proposal project, we have believed the Wild and Scenic River study would put these in proper perspective by objectively setting forth the alternative potential for this river.  The draft report issued after over three years of study is quite frankly disappointing.  It is my opinion that this is not what congress or the people envisioned as a document to fairly assess the river and its potential uses.  It appears a conclusion was reached by its authors and a report was prepared to justify it.  Starting with a cover that to me distorts the powerlines and reservoirs in some unexplained statistics at the end objectivity seems to be have thrown out the window.  Unless one is familiar with this area, a reading of these 117 pages would lead to one to many erroneous conclusions.  Of the 11 pages that address Alternative E, only a few lines discuss its benefit.  To mention a few examples of what I’m referring to, will be prepared to submit more for the record as the conclusion of the proceedings.  The report states, “The project would eliminate white water for 6,500 rafters and kayakers.”  When you listen to the Forest Service reports and discussion, they show that a maximum use of 3,500 for rafting and kayaking and that the projects would not eliminate all of the white water.  The text states that there are numerous archeological sites on the lower 18 miles of the river that would be affected by the Wards Ferry Reservoir and a table in the back shows that they will be antedated by the project. The study performed by San Francisco State or the study team for this report identifies no site that will be affected by the project.  The text states that the Clavey Trout Fishery will be adversely affected.  The present time of management study is being conducted by the Department of Fish and Game has been going on for a number of years.  Comments received in that study has shown that the project would improve the Trout Fishery on the Clavey.  The report mentions that under Alternative A Wild and Scenic Designation an immediate expenditure of some half million dollars will occur for recreation and an annual amount of $75,000-$100,000.  Yet these figures are not included in the statistical table in the back of the report while the productions of water and park figures are emphasized.  If designated a Wild and Scenic River then the water and PAR development will be stopped and these are mentioned: “An addition recreation development will also be stopped because any PAR project must include a recreation plan.”  In my opinion, the report totally ignores this benefit.  Because of this the district retained the consulting firm of (___) to address this important element.  As you will see by their comments which follow the figures and discussions of the recreation potential in this river by their report are willfully lacking and in many cases the statistics and the draft report are meaningless.  Comments are made in the report that the project would have an effect on fishery’s and that’s there’s no insurance of water for Tuolumne County.  These are issues that have been raised as the previous speakers have mentioned.  And one of the proper forms for those issues to be discussed which Tuolumne County Water District Number 2 and Tuolumne County have raised is before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the licensing procedure.  The preliminary permit was applied for over three years ago.  The interventions were filed and as of that state, that permit has not been issued.  The main reason for the delay has been because of objections raised by the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture.  If it were not for these objections, those two issues may well have been by now on their way to resolution and definitive answers reached. It doesn’t seem proper to me that the report should comment adversely on these issues when the very authors are the ones that have obstructed their reaching any resolutions.  I think it is important to remember as some of the other speakers have had much of the value and beauty of this river is because it has been put to use by man.  The roaring white waters so frequently mentioned is the result of upstream reservoirs which provide water, energy, and flood control.  It is a condition that exist because we are meeting our energy needs and it loses that character when we’re not an examples are at night and on weekends.  That regard I think it would be a fair statement under Alternative A if the river is designated as Wild and Scenic because of the white water, then they should (___) set hours on that designation that it’s Wild and Scenic when the PAR plants are operating.  At the end of the report, there’s a statement, “That none of the Alternatives are expected to cause a major redistribution of income among income classes.  However, benefits will be accrued primarily by people of middle or upper middle class income.”  I, for one, was not aware that water, energy, and recreation knew income differences.  These are needs of all and must be shared by all regardless of income.  While the president had not released his energy message at the time this report was written, the needs should’ve been evident.  I would therefore urge that before this report is submitted to the president to be carefully re-evaluated to the end of meeting the water, energy, and recreation needs for the greatest number of our citizens.  Thank you.

Jennings: Thank you Mr. (___).  Mr….I’m sorry Mr. Egger.  Mr. Blah will be our next speaker.  Mr. Hackamac are on-deck first.

Blau: My name is David Blau.  I’m a principal with the firm of Edall Incorporated, San Francisco Environmental Planning and Design Firm with a professional staff of about 120 people.  I’m a landscape architect and planner with 11 years experience in impact assessment and recreation planning.  While at Edall, I’ve been responsible for numerous water and energy resource projects including environmental studies of proposed hydro-electric projects on the North Forks Stanislaus, the Kings River, the South Fork American River, and Water Resource Management Planning for the Scott Smith Trinity Eel and Ventura River Basins.  The firm is planned and designed numerous water related recreation areas and have prepared several recreation plans which accompany applications for hydro-electric project licenses before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  As a result, Turlock Irrigation District asked us in June 1979 to examine the proposed Clavey/Wards Ferry Project and present the district with an objective and accurate assessment of the recreation potential offered by the project.  I would like to practice my remarks concerning our recreation analysis with several comments clarifying our position.   As a firm, we are not advocating full Wild and Scenic River Classification nor to no action alternative.  We are attempting to provide some of the information that will allow a more informed decision to be made.  Our study does not attempt to make comparative judgements between recreation opportunities and benefits with or without the project, but simply to illustrate the recreation potential that would exist should the project be built.  It is a federal mandate that a proposal for hydro-electric development include a recreation plan for full public utilization of project waters and adjacent plans. A number of factors are usually considered which can influence the ultimate design of the rec plan.  These include the operational characteristics of the project, the physical constraints and opportunities of the land base, and the demonstrated and anticipated recreation demand.  Each of these factors was analyzed using the following information sources.  We reviewed relevant studies including the Wild and Scenic River study report.  We reviewed the Hetch-Hetchy Water and Power Systems Stage 1 Additions, Appraisal Report by R.W. Beck and Associates which presents the preliminary engineering concepts for the Clavey/Wards Ferry Project.  We used areole and ground field reconnaissance and areole photo interpretation as well as consultation with agencies such as Stanislaus National Forest and the Don Pedro Recreation Agency.  The limited access to the Tuolumne River Valley between new lake Don Pedro and Hetch-Hetchy results in a dominate existing character of the area one of being remoteness and solitude.  This mood is heavily influenced by the flow and the characteristics of the water and the presence of water is a very strong element in the landscape.  The introduction of manmade lakes in this type of environment must be handled with extreme sensitivity respecting the integrity of the wilderness-like experience, but also offering an opportunity for a larger number of people to enjoy it.  The recreation concept must recognize, accept, and integrate both reservoir and river related activities into a comprehensive plan.  The project offers opportunities to increase the number of recreation users but it must be recognized that it must that the user will be of a different type.  It is proposed that points of vehicular access for water related recreation be limited to the existing road network and those roads constructed or improved in connection with the project, the hydro project.  The fact that the surrounding area is already plentifully supplied with opportunities for the more gregarious in nature to enjoy their leisure suggested that this river valley should be used by those seeking more independent and peaceful recreation activities such as hiking, fishing, canoeing, and wildlife observations.  The area would be particularly attractive for such activities in the spring and early summer when the rivers are full, temperatures are moderate, spring flowers are in bloom, and other similar recreation areas at higher altitudes are still snowed in.  Existing recreation use along the Tuolumne River itself is almost exclusively restricted to two activities; white water rafting and kayaking and fishing; both dependent upon river flow and vehicular access.  The white water run is considered to be one of the finest continuous runs in the state and in the nation.  The white water experience sought by existing users, however, is restricted to a relatively small but growing number of people with the experience necessary to navigate an extremely difficult river.  The diversion of river flow through the Hydro Project would have a significant adverse effect upon white water activities for the experienced user but could offer opportunities for less experienced river rafters.  The fishing use which is made of the Tuolumne and its tributaries is very strongly related to access ability.  The stretches of river close to vehicular access points are heavily fished while the remaining stretches are almost totally inaccessible.  By providing improved trail access, the fishermen would have a wider choice of potential fishing locations.  The hiker, who up until now, has had no real means of exploring the river could also benefit from an improved riverside trail way system.  Upon completion of the project, the dominate physical changes which would occur in the river environment would be the creation of three new reservoirs Clavey, Jawbone, and Wards Ferry.  Jawbone Reservoir will be relatively small and offer only minor opportunities for camping and trail head development.  The operation of Clavey Reservoir is expected to resolve in daily fluctuation which would render it unsafe and impractical for recreation development.  The Wards Ferry Reservoir, however, is significantly larger and consequently offers the greatest recreation opportunity.  This propose that no powerboats be permitted to use the reservoir and that only canoes, rowboats, and hardtop sailboats would be allowed in order to minimize increase noise levels and disruption.  The most unique feature of the recreation development as propose would be the siting of up to 20 floating cabins which would be permanently moored on the north shore waters of Wards Ferry Reservoir.  They’d be rental cabins accessed by small electric powerboats or managed ferry service and available for rent by those persons seeking the remoteness of the wilderness experience but who are either unable or unwilling to backpack into such an area.  Two boat-in campgrounds would also be provided along the south side of the reservoir.  A new trail system would be developed that would follow the Tuolumne River from Wards Ferry Bridge, the entire 37 miles up to Hetch-Hetchy in Yosemite enabling loop hikes to be made and linking trails to the rest of the Stanislaus National Forest.  Along the proposed trail system at convenient points would be walk-in campsites for use by hikers and fisherman.  In summary, the present study area as proposed…excuse me…the present study area contains 35 campground units accessible by car and approximately five miles and established trials.  The conceptual recreation plan includes an additional 32 units of car access campground, 58 units of walk-in boat-in campground, one group campground, 20 cabins, and 56 additional miles of trail.  More specific information regarding individual sites may be found on the display panels to my left which will be photo reduced and provided as supportive material to this testimony.  It should be emphasized that the Clavey/Wards Ferry Project is still at a very preliminary/engineering design stage.  Many suggestions raised as part of preforming this recreation study could influence the nature of the project features propose operational characteristics and plans stream flow releases.  Opportunities exist for further delineation in the recreation plan and its potential benefits as the project is further refined.  These additional exercises are necessary before a true comparative assessment can be made.  Thank you.

Jennings:  Thank you Mr. Blau.  After Mr. Hackamac, Milton Stroder will be our speaker. Mr…