Board approves study of Shasta Nation fish bypass proposal 

Yreka, Calif. — The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors has one proposal for an alternative to dam removal ready for submission, as the board accepted a locally-conducted study on the viability of a fish bypass that would connect the Klamath River below Iron Gate dam to the Copco Reservoir through a series of creeks and the use of a constructed canal.

As part of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), a number of studies are to be conducted as part of the analysis of whether or not four dams along the Klamath River will be removed as part of a plan to create anadromous, or ocean-going, fish passage beyond where the dams now sit and improve anadromous fish numbers.

Under the KHSA, environmental review will be undertaken as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act, review which must take into account possible alternatives to the proposed action.

The Shasta Nation Anadromous Fish Bypass is a proposed alternative that, according to the proposal, has three objectives, including “to provide fish passage around Irongate and Copco Dams; to test and increase the use of 64 miles of Klamath River habitat; and to prevent the destruction of the Shasta Nation’s aboriginal cultural, heritage sites under water behind the dams.”

Provided in the proposal is a brief historical account of the region, as well as a description of dams along the river and the Klamath Compact.

According to the proposal, the study was conducted by the Klamath River Advisory Council, consisting of individuals with backgrounds in academics, hydrology, aquatic biology, geology, survey engineering and Shasta Indians. Council members present at the meeting included Frank Tallerico, Bob Rice, Betty Hall, Leo Bergeron, Harry Lake and Jerry Bacigalupi.

The proposal states that the study team evaluated a number of criteria, including water quality, quantity and temperature in the proposed bypass route, availability of additional water, increased spawning areas, gradient, thermal refugia, genetic imprinting, potential environmental impacts and the cost-benefit ratio.

According to the proposal, the mainstem Klamath would be linked to the Copco Reservoir via a connection beginning with Bogus Creek. From Bogus, the bypass would connect to Cold Creek and connect to Little Deer Creek by a 3.20-mile constructed canal, ending in Mallard Cove in Copco Reservoir, with an estimated bypass length of 12.66 miles. Also proposed is the installing of a pipeline to recirculate water using a 1,500-horsepower pump.

Contained within the proposal are the various measurements obtained during the study, including water flows, water temperature and water quality.

Flows, according to the proposal, “ranged from 10 [cubic feet per second] at the western end to 2 cfs at the upper east end within the by-pass route.” The proposal notes that flows of 5 cfs to 8 cfs are recommended to provide adequate water for migration and spawning, depending on the depth of the streambed.

Water temperature readings and water samples were taken at a number of locations along the proposed route, according to the proposal, with temperatures ranging from 51 to 56 degrees Fahrenheit.

To test water quality, the proposal states that “Water samples taken from the stream by-pass were put in a gallon glass jug and it was clear enough to see images through the jug without much distortion.”

The study participants mixed equal parts of Klamath River water from Mallard Cove with water from the proposed bypass, estimating that the clarity of the water was 25 percent reduced from the bypass sample itself.

According to the 2009 CEQA guidelines, a range of “reasonable alternatives” must be considered for any project under environmental review, with reasonableness of a project taking into account the feasibility of accomplishing the same goals as the project it would replace.”

CEQA guidelines also state that an Environmental Impact Report “shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project,” possibly providing further analysis beyond that which was performed by the study’s participants.

During discussion of the proposal at the board meeting, supervisors Marcia Armstrong and Michael Kobseff suggested having the county pursue grant funding to begin the project on its own. However, County Counsel Thomas Guarino encouraged the board to consider approving the study and submitting it as part of the KHSA environmental review process.
Guarino also noted that the county would be required to conduct its own environmental review, at its own cost, in order to pursue the project on its own.