[env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klama...
hooparivers at gmail.com
Sun Jun 16 11:04:24 PDT 2013
I just wanted to say this petition goes to PacifiCorp and is cced to the
water board. It says the KHSA supporters do not agree with the algaecides
either and are trying to stop it also. People or media with questions about
this have also been directed to supporters of the KHSA to show the effort
is from both supports and non-supports of the agreement. There has been no
insulting or exclusion of anyone.
This action has not gone through scientific or public analysis and urging
people not to comment is not responsible. Furthermore the 401 cert needs
to happen for dam removal to proceed regardless of how, and it is the only
Clean Water Act process we have around the dams and toxic algae. A 401 and
402 permit is required to remove dams (I have copies of other dams dam
removal 401 certs, if anyone wants to see them), takes along time to
process, will show dam removal is the only possible option to address Clean
Water Act violations in this case. The CEQA process can begin now
regardless of how the dams come down and needs to address alternatives.
As for the algaecide permit from the regional water board last year, the
board staff is the first to admit they had no time to provide real
comments, or try to change the action, and they were not notified of
timing. The coverage is not for this action but coverage under an outdated
general permit that is being updated currently to address the lack of
public involvement, and the water board was never sure should apply in this
case due to health concerns and uncertainty about the effect of killing the
algae on water quality. The permit and water quality standards were most
likely violated last year and the water board is considering blocking this
action so comments really help.
Personally, I have gone out of my way to show Clean Water action on this
issue helps all involved, and the conspiracy theories presented are not
truthful. The Clean Water Act and public health notifications are not
voluntary and should not be political.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:33 PM, <FISH1IFR at aol.com> wrote:
> Please do NOT repost the Hoopa Valley Tribe's anti-algaecide Petition
> below. Anyone considering signing it should read it *very carefully* and
> also understand that the Petition is to some degree merely a ruse
> perpetuated by an employee of the Hoopa Valley Tribe to gather opposition
> against the Klamath Settlement Agreements. In that respect, the Petition is
> somewhat of a Trojan Horse, cleverly riding the algaecide issue for very
> different purposes, and has drifted far from the point of opposing the use
> of algaecides in the river.
> *The Petition is, in fact, highly deceptive!*
> Unfortunately, the Petition is far more about the Hoopa Valley Tribe's
> efforts to gather support for its unique position *in opposition to the
> Klamath Settlement Agreements* than it is about the algaecide issue. The
> Petition insists, for instance, that it is "time for PacifiCorps to move
> forward with needed Clean Water Act certification" in its pending
> Application before the California State Water Board. What the Hoopa Valley
> Tribe does not tell you, though, is that the current Clean Water Act
> Section 401 Certification Application is NOT FOR DAM REMOVAL, it is for
> FULL DAM RELICENSING. And this Application has *nothing whatsoever* to do
> with the experimental use of algaecides -- which the Regional Water Board
> Moving even one more step forward toward Klamath dam relicensing makes
> no sense, given that PacifiCorp and nearly every other Klamath Basin major
> stakeholder (*except* the Hoopa Valley Tribe) is working diligently
> through the Klamath Settlement Agreements to remove these dams by 2020, not
> to relicense them! The pending 401 Relicensing Application process is
> suspended while Settlement Agreement efforts toward dam removal are being
> worked on. Forcing PacifiCorp and the Water Board to instead move forward
> with the current 401 Certification process for relicensing is merely a
> devious way to try to sabotage the KIamath Settlement Agreement, which the
> Hoopa Valley Tribe has short-sightedly pledge itself to doing. The end
> result of such a process will only be years of tangled and expensive
> litigation, *and may even be partial or total relicensing!*
> In short, this current Petition is *highly deceptive*, only peripherally
> about algaecides, is based on a number of *false assumptions*, and
> unfortunately has little to do, in the body of the Petition, with what it
> is purported to be all about.
> Most people in the basin, including myself, strongly oppose more use of
> algaecides in the river and would sign a Petition that was *only *about
> that issue in a heartbeat. But deceptively using this one "hot-button
> issue" as a ruse to sabotage a Settlement Agreement that the Yurok Tribe,
> Karuk Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Humboldt County and more than 40 other major
> Klamath Basin stakeholder groups have agreed to -- and which represents the
> most certain way to get these four dams down within the shortest period of
> time --* does everyone a great disservice! * Its authors should be
> ashamed of themselves!
> Glen H. Spain, NW Regional Director
> Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA)
> PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370
> O:(541)689-2000 -- Fax:(541)689-2500
> Email: fish1ifr at aol.com
> Home Page: www.pcffa.org
> In a message dated 6/14/2013 12:17:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> windhorse at jeffnet.org writes:
> *How about puting the petition on line?*
> *Lots more would sign!*
> Visit our Websites:
> www.CarpenterDesign.com <http://www.carpenterdesign.com/>
> www.BirdingandBoating.com <http://www.birdingandboating.com/>
> 541 885 5450
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net>
> *To:* env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:17 AM
> *Subject:* [env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes,Pacificorp at odds over
> algae in Klamath River
> Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klamath River
> - By Alayna Shulman <http://www.redding.com/staff/alayna-shulman/>
> - Posted June 12, 2013 at 6 p.m.
> [image: http://www.redding.com/photos/2013/jun/12/81352/]<http://www.redding.com/photos/2013/jun/12/81352/>
> AP PHOTO/JEFF BARNARD
> This Aug. 21, 2009, photo shows water trickling over an algae-covered
> spillway at Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River outside Hornbrook. Regional
> Indian tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae
> blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole other
> pollution problem in the Northern California waterway.
> Local tribes are at odds with PacifiCorp over a plan to kill toxic algae
> blooms in the Klamath River that critics say could cause a whole new
> pollution problem in the already-controversial waterway.
> A petition to stop the electricity giant’s plan to kill algae in the
> Siskiyou County river with hydrogen peroxide-based “GreenClean Liquid”
> picked up some 2,000 signatures in its first week, said Regina Chichizola,
> a Hoopa Valley tribe member who started the protest drive.
> Chichizola said she questions PacifiCorp’s study from its pilot run of the
> algae program that killing the blooms with the substance doesn’t produce
> harmful amounts of microcystin, a naturally occurring toxin.
> “I feel like this shouldn’t be done on an experimental level,” Chichizola
> Toxins in the river are problematic for both fishers and other recreation
> fans as well as local tribes, Chichizola said, since they use the waterway
> for sacred ceremonies.
> But PacifiCorp says it’s “inconceivable” the plan would cause any toxicity
> “We think it’s, frankly, irresponsible to be raising public health
> concerns over something that is inconceivable — that this would cause
> health problems down river, in the reservoir, anywhere,” said Bob Gravely,
> a spokesman for the company.
> Meanwhile, the Karuk Tribe has entered into a conflict resolution process
> with PacifiCorp over the plan, hoping to find a civil way to ease concerns
> it could prove toxic.
> “We feel confident we’re going to work through this with PacifiCorp,” said
> Craig Tucker, tribe spokesman.
> The Karuk Tribe even sent an in-depth letter to PacifiCorp rejecting some
> of the analysis from the 2012 study based on what time of day it occurred
> and the depth of the water, both of which can affect results, a water
> expert for the tribe said.
> While Tucker said the data from a pilot project last year is up for
> interpretation, it’s still concerning that the plan includes unnatural
> “It’s a tough pill for tribal communities to swallow because...chemicals
> are inconsistent with tribal cultural beliefs,” he said.
> Gravely pointed out that the 2012 study results indicated that microcystin
> wasn’t a problem. This year’s study would include a screen so that a more
> isolated pocket of water could be treated without being diluted, he said.
> Nonetheless, Clayton Creager, senior scientist for the North Coast
> Regional Water Quality Control Board, said the board has some worries as
> well and is examining the permit that allows PacifiCorp to use the
> “We’re evaluating the status of their current permit,” he said. “It’s
> because we have specific concerns and we’ve received lots of complaints.”
> The U.S. Department of the Interior recommended in April that four dams on
> the river be torn down to protect local tribes and fish species, and
> Chichizola said that’s a safe way to prevent algae, since much of it
> originates from the dams.
> In 2010, Indian tribes, farmers, salmon fishermen and conservation groups
> signed historic agreements calling for sharing water in dry years and the
> removal of the four dams to open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat
> shut off for a century. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, agreed to the
> removal rather than pay millions of dollars for fish ladders and other
> In addition to raising concerns over the algaecide plan, Chichizola
> blasted PacifiCorp for not soliciting public comment on the plan, despite
> its significance to the public.
> “We’re concerned mainly with the people who are using the river, and we’re
> concerned with the complete lawlessness around this action,” Chichizola
> said, saying the plan has turned the Klamath into a “corporately controlled
> But Gravely said his company notified Siskiyou County officials and also
> ran a notice in a local newspaper.
> “This has all been done as part of a very public process, and in
> accordance with every regulation that applies to it,” he said. “I don’t
> know exactly what they’re saying didn’t happen or wanted to happen...we
> made our required notices. We feel like we have a responsibility to address
> these issues.”
> env-trinity mailing list
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> env-trinity mailing list
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 103464 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20130616/673c9d65/attachment-0001.jpe
More information about the env-trinity