<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16490"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Colleagues....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>People should, <U>of course</U>, comment and complain, as loudly as
possible and in writing, about the potential use of algaecides in the Klamath
River -- <U>directly</U> to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board, which is the agency that must soon issue (or deny) that Permit! A
Petition <U>solely</U> 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>None of the KHSA parties <U>but PacifiCorp</U> 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 <U>full dam relicensing</U> in the FERC Staff
Recommendations for relicensing issued in the FERC NEPA
analysis 2007. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The KHSA exists in large part as the best alternative to <U>assure</U>
speedy four-dam removal and full river restoration largely because of the
<U>very high risk</U> that if this decision instead returns back to FERC,
that FERC will ultimately <U>follow its own Staff
recommendations</U>. FERC would then order four-dam relicensing with
only a few "techno-fixes" like these -- <EM>potentially</EM> <EM>including the
perpetual use of algaecides.</EM> Those who advocate for ditching the KHSA
and returning instead to the FERC process (in the <EM>hopes</EM> that FERC will,
<EM>for the first time in its history</EM>, order dams to be torn down
<U>against the wishes of an Applicant for relicensing)</U>, 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
<EM><U>the much less risky option</U></EM>. 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> -- Glen Spain, for PCFFA</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/16/2013 11:04:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
hooparivers@gmail.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>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. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR> 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.
<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>Thank you, <BR></DIV>Regina
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>