|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
475 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, Colorado 80202
303.893.3989
To: Jennifer Watts, Water Quality Specialist, Control
Board, Div. of Water Rights
Re: Submittal of Siskiyou County Comments on 401
Certification Scoping Notice
Date: November 14, 2008
Siskivou County Summary Comments on the
Notice of Preparation for a Clean Water Act Section 401
Water Quality Certification for the Klamath River
Hydroelectric Project
Brownfield Partners and e-PUR, LLC are submitting the
following comments on behalf of the County of Siskiyou,
California on the State of California's Notice of
Preparation on the
project, "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",
1. The scope of the alternatives to be evaluated under
CEQA is unclear. The Notice of Preparation describes
four alternatives with insufficient detail for the
reader to understand what is to be considered. It
appears that Alternatives 2 and 3 could be explicit as
to the anticipated fate of the J.C. Boyle Dam since it
is implicit in Alternative 1. Each of the alternatives
could be scoped as to anticipated modifications and
could be described as Alternative 2_A. and 2B and- so
forth with respect to the operation of the J.C. Boyle
Dam outside of California's jurisdiction.
2. It appears that the Alternative 4 is intended simply
as a placeholder to describe any
further scope modifications that might occur within a
Negotiated Settlement Agreement on the fate of the
Klamath Hydroelectric Project.
3. On page 6 of the Notice of Preparation the State of
California states it will
incorporate more recent information important to
environmental review. Given that
the FERC EIS was completed in November 2007 we wonder
what recent information
is being referred to? Siskiyou County has significant
concerns about the technical
analysis performed in support of the Basin Restoration
Agreement in 2006 and 2007.
This information was not sufficiently rigorous or
scientifically objective to be
incorporated into the EIR process. The existing sediment
transport and sediment
impact analyses, in particular, should not be utilized
in preparing the EIR. Our earlier public comments from
March 31, 2008 on these studies for Siskiyou County
inrelation to the Basin Restoration Agreement are
attached for your consideration. A summary of these
earlier comments would include: sediment quality for
dioxins must be addressed with further data collection
and evaluation of aquatic and terrestrial habitat
criteria: and, the anticipated process for prospective
dam removal and the sediment transport associated must
be substantively addressed using applicable and
appropriate sediment transport modeling.
4. On page 12 of the Notice of Preparation, mitigation
measures are to be analyzed , presumably for the impacts
of each alternative. Some of implicit and explicit
modifications to the KHP envisioned by the State of
California have impacts themselves that will presumably
be addressed under the EIR analysis of each alternatives
impacts. Siskiyou County would be pleased to provide
input on potential mitigation measures once the
alternative scoping is completed and work is underway on
the Draft EIR.
5. Previous comments regarding the FERC EIS from
Siskiyou County are attached as Attachment B for your
review. We summarize two of the main points therein.
a. Currently the whitewater recreation and
fishery below the JC Boyle dam
b. The potential impacts of dam removal and
the resulting potential sediment
6. Sediment quality in the reservoirs raises serious
concerns with respect to heavier molecular-weight
recalcitrant organic-chemicals. Six samples from the
reservoir sediments showed evidence of creosote
compounds (i.e. naphthalene and phenanthrene as examples
of P AHs in creosote) at low concentrations. The most
significant is that one sediment sample for each of
three reservoirs was analyzed for dioxins. Dioxins were
detected in all three samples in the range of 2.5 to 4.8
picograms per gram or parts per trillion (ppt) TEQ as
2,3,7,8- TCDD. The Canadian advisory for salmonid
habitat is 1 ppt TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD.\ The Oregon
residential soil screening level for human heath is 3.6
ppt 2,3,7,8- TCDD and the California residential soil
screening level for human heath is 4.6 ppt. Dioxins are
known human carcinogens and they are bioaccumulative
within the food chain. Furthermore, dioxin is a known
constituent in pentachlorophenol and there are known
pentachlorophenol usage and spill sites on the Upper
Klamath Lake so its presence is not arbitrary but
coincident with a probable source. More data on the
concentrations of dioxin in the reservoir sediments are
needed and a great deal more analysis of the potential
impacts from these dioxin affected sediments in the
reservoirs is warranted. There is both the issue of what
moves through the river system and redeposits if the
dams are removed, and there is the issue of sediment
residue left in the reservoir area if the dams are
removed. On that latter point, while the Klamath River
will quickly regain its original grade through some
portion of the sediments behind the dams if they are
removed, much of this potentially toxic sediment will
remain above the re-established Klamath River along the
shoreline for years if not decades. Removal of the
sediment by hydraulic management of the river or other
means may be necessary to restore good health to the
watershed or the sediment left behind will have to be
properly managed or mitigated in place.
Please feel free to contact the Office of County
Counsel, County of Siskiyou County,
California for clarifications, questions, or comments on
this document at (530) 842-8100 or by mail at Office of
County Counsel, P.O. Box 659, Yreka, CA 96097, Attn:
Thomas P.
Guarino.
Sincerely,
Brownfield Partners, LLC e-PUR', LLC
.
Stuart L. Miner John M. Lambie, PE
Partner Principal
Attachments:
Attachment A:
"Preliminary Review of Klamath River Dam and Sediment
Investigation",
Prepared by Brownfield Partners and e-pur for Siskiyou
County Counsel on March 31, 2008.
Attachment B: Comments of Siskiyou County on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement,
Prepared by Attorneys for Siskiyou County and submitted
December 1, 2006