The suit, Klamath Riverkeeper v. California Department of Fish and Game, seeks to halt the implementation of a permitting program that is a part of DFG’s Coho salmon recovery plan, which utilizes Incidental Take Permits to allow the accidental “taking” of Coho salmon during normal operations and the 1602 streambed alteration agreements, which require notification of certain stream alterations for water diversion purposes.

The riverkeeper and other petitioners allege in their suit that the DFG and the Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) of Siskiyou and Shasta violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in a number of ways in the evaluation and adoption of the watershed-wide permitting programs, including a failure to respond to comments and a failure to consider and discuss cumulative impacts, among others.

The RCDs and DFG have since countered with a request to dismiss, alleging that the petitioners in the suit failed to join the Siskiyou RCD as a party within the time frame set forth in CEQA guidelines.

“Klamath, however, did not name Siskiyou as a party to any claims in this action until May 26, 2010, and did not serve Siskiyou with the Petition until June 18, 2010, more than seven months after the limitations period,” the motion reads.

The motion to dismiss argument also hinges on the declaration that the Siskiyou RCD is a necessary party to the action as a body responsible for the administration of the watershed-wide permitting program. If the court finds the RCD to be a necessary party to the suit, the motion argues, and that it cannot be joined because of a failure by the petitioners to notice properly, it must dismiss the causes for action because it cannot issue a decision that would affect the RCD without the RCD being a party to the suit.

The hearing for the motion to dismiss is set for Dec. 1 in the Superior Court of San Francisco, where the original suit was filed.

The group Save Our Shasta and Scott Valleys (SOSS) recently voted to help reimburse the legal costs incurred by the RCD being named in the suit,  which has been estimated at $15,000 to cover the period of time from the naming of the RCD through the Dec. 1 hearing.