Guarino: Fresno water decision may back county position on Klamath issues 

Yreka, Calif. — An update on the state of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) had the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors looking ahead to the environmental review processes associated with the agreements.

The KHSA sets forth a plan to remove four dams along the Klamath River, with the KBRA setting the plan for basin-wide restoration of fisheries and fish habitat.

Tuesday, County Counsel Thomas Guarino gave the board an update on the county’s technical consultants and referenced a Fresno judge’s recent finding that may be applicable to the county’s stance regarding the scientific process and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.

Brownfield Partners and E-Pur – the consultant team providing support to the county with regard to studies of potential sediment, water quality, social and economic impacts as part of the determination process for possible dam removal – prepared a report for the county detailing recent developments in the agreement processes.

The consultants review the recent stakeholders’ meeting held in Mount Shasta and other updates on the science process. Noting that the NEPA environmental review process has been combined with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, the consultants recommend that the county clearly define its role in the process and seek additional grant funding to retain technical support.

Guarino noted at the meeting that the $20,000 awarded to the county for participation in the technical meetings is approximately half gone, with results of the analysis of sediment behind the dams delayed due to the need for some of the sampling to be redone.

The consultants conclude their report by stating, “We believe that the NEPA/CEQA process presents the greatest opportunity for the County to participate in the decision-making process regarding dam removal and try to affect the process to achieve” three goals. Those goals are defined as ensuring that “quality science” is employed in decision-making, requesting that a range of alternatives are considered in the decision of whether or not the dams will be removed and ensuring that mitigation measures are fully evaluated and impacts to the county are identified and mitigated.

The county’s pursuit of those goals may soon be aided by the court case referenced by Guarino at the meeting, a case referred to as “The Consolidated Salmonid Cases,” heard by Judge Oliver Wanger in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The consolidated cases are related to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2009 Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA), specifically with regard to recommended water pumping restrictions in the Central Valley in order to address faltering salmon numbers.

Wanger states in his conclusion that NEPA obligates federal agencies “to prepare an environmental impact statement (‘EIS’) for all ‘major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,’”  something advocated by the county as the dam agreement processes began.

In the past, the county has pushed for evaluation of the potential impacts dam removal might have on real estate values, recreation and agriculture in the EIS process under the KHSA.

In Wanger’s conclusion, he states, “NMFS and Reclamation, as the consulting and action agencies, must take the hard look under NEPA at the draconian consequences visited upon Plaintiffs, the water supply of California, the agricultural industry, and the residents and communities devastated by the water supply limitations imposed by the RPA Actions.”

Wanger also touches on the scientific support for the agencies’ proposed restriction, noting throughout his decision what he believes was a failure to properly identify the reasons for the flow restrictions in the RPA.

In his conclusion, Wanger states, “The exact restrictions imposed, which are inflicting material harm to humans and the human environment, are not supported by the record.

 

Rather, they are [the] product of guesstimations and attempts to try to achieve ‘equity,’ rendering it impossible to determine whether the RPA Actions are adequately protective, too protective, or not protective enough.”

Guarino suggested Thursday that the county may be sending a letter to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who will be responsible for the decision of whether or not the dams are removed, referencing the points Wanger makes in his ruling on the Consolidated Salmon Cases.

One final point from Wanger reads, “The stakes are high, the harms to the affected human communities great, and the injuries unacceptable if they can be mitigated. NMFS and Reclamation have not complied with NEPA.

“This prevented in-depth analysis of the potential RPA Actions through a properly focused study to identify and select alternative remedial measures that minimize jeopardy to affected humans and their communities, as well as protecting the threatened species.”