[env-trinity] Redding.com: Tribes, Pacificorp at odds over algae in Klama...

FISH1IFR@aol.com FISH1IFR at aol.com
Sun Jun 16 14:28:00 PDT 2013

People should, of course, comment and complain, as loudly as  possible and 
in writing, about the potential use of algaecides in the Klamath  River -- 
directly to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control  Board, which is 
the agency that must soon issue (or deny) that Permit!  A  Petition solely 
for that purpose would be far more viable.  But the  original Hoopa Valley 
Tribe Petition remains incomplete and misleading, as  well as calling for 
actions well outside this issue.  It is disingenuous as  well as misleading and 
divisive to try to covertly ride this issue for  political purposes to oppose 
the Klamath Settlement Agreement, as that Petition  does in several places. 
 The KHSA neither requires nor condones the use of  algaecides in the 
river.  The idea is PacifiCorp's alone.  But the  Regional Water Board still has 
to approve.
None of the KHSA parties but PacifiCorp were in favor of the use of  these 
algaecides, and all these non-PacifiCorp Parties to the  KHSA 
unconditionally support four-dam removal under the KHSA to be  accomplished by 2020.  But 
it should be noted that the use of such  algaecides, along with purely 
mechanical mitigation structures like fish ladders  and trap-and-haul trucking of 
fish around the dams, plus mechanical oxygenation  machines, ARE consistent 
with or were actually recommended by FERC staff,  which also recommended 
full dam relicensing in the FERC Staff  Recommendations for relicensing issued 
in the FERC NEPA  analysis 2007. 
The KHSA exists in large part as the best alternative to assure  speedy 
four-dam removal and full river restoration largely because of the  very high 
risk that if this decision instead returns back to FERC,  that FERC will 
ultimately follow its own Staff  recommendations.  FERC would then order 
four-dam relicensing with  only a few "techno-fixes" like these -- potentially 
including the  perpetual use of algaecides.  Those who advocate for ditching the 
KHSA  and returning instead to the FERC process (in the hopes that FERC 
will,  for the first time in its history, order dams to be torn down  against 
the wishes of an Applicant for relicensing), should understand  this high 
risk that relying on FERC alone entails.  FERC Staff has already  recommended 
full dam relicensing with such "techno-fixes."  And under  FERC that may be 
all we ever get.  Understanding this risk simply makes the  assured four-dam 
removal and river restoration guarantees of the KHSA route  the much less 
risky option.  And while KHSA opponents may  disagree, the risk of the FERC 
process resulting in full or partial dam  relicensing is a hard fact which 
still remains.  People are entitled  to their own opinions -- but not to their 
own facts.
  -- Glen Spain, for PCFFA
In a message dated 6/16/2013 11:04:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
hooparivers at gmail.com writes:

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. 

Thank you, 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20130616/2a7a19e0/attachment-0001.html

More information about the env-trinity mailing list