More Needless Tragedy Related To Klamath Dam Removal

Massive cracks in the dried clay lake bottom sediments have presented yet another new and deadly threat to wildlife and now, to privately owned livestock.

It is law and a published Siskiyou County policy that all unfenced lands are deemed ‘Open Range’ and livestock are legally able to graze on such lands, including privately owned lands such as the now exposed lake bottom lands.

It was well understood by all parties at the beginning of the Klamath Dam Removal Project by the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (‘KRRC’) and their contractors Resource Environmental Services (‘RES’) that the clay sediments that would be exposed upon the drawdown of the Copco and Iron Gate Lakes would expose hazardous “deadly” clay mud.

KRRC and RES recognized early on that their lucrative project posed risks to humans, wildlife, and livestock. To mitigate these dangers, they planned to fence the lake shorelines, preventing unnecessary deaths of animals that could become trapped in the sticky clay mud.

The fencing project was not completed as promised nor were alternative water sources provided (remains the case as the date of this article).

Then wildlife began to be needlessly killed by the newly exposed cold sticky mud. Numerous deer, elk and many other animals became mired and sunk into the deadly mud. A fraction of these horrific events were photographed and videoed.

During the January, February, March and April of 2024, numerous animals died slowly and painfully, stuck in the clay mud. Many animals sunk to their deaths and out of sight before they could be photographed. 

After these horrific images were made public across the news media, with many sent to Mark Bransom at KRRC and to Dave Coffman at RES, one might supposed that anyone with even a token amount of compassion and respect for wildlife and potentially humans “children” and other people’s pets and  livestock would cause one to act.  

Clearly these corporations knew this would happen, and merely relied upon their licensed ‘takings’ of wildlife during the dam removal project.

But that ‘takings’ of life did not and does not allow for any ‘takings’ of the pets or livestock owned by private parties.  These corporations are liable for the losses of any human life, as well as those of privately owned animals.

In early 2022, Siskiyou County ‘officially’ recognized the ownership of local herd of heritage horses by Michelle Gough, William Simpson and their all-volunteer nonprofit, Wild Horse Fire Brigade.

Michelle Gough, William Simpson and their nonprofit do have public benefit, Wild Horse Fire Brigade gives love and care-for their heritage herd of horses and spend tens of thousands annually caring for the herd. These horses are like extended family and with good reason… the special bonds that Michelle and William share with their horses is also based upon their mutual survival in the face of the ongoing threat of wildfire.

Heartbreaking discovery (July 14, 2024)

A sweet little colt that was very dear to Michelle and William was found dead yesterday. 

The little guy was with his mom doing what horses do, browsing the landscape. Like other wildlife and horses, the colt and his mom were legally out on the sediment beds grazing the new vegetation in an area of private property that was supposed to be fenced due to an agreement last year. 

There have been many conversations and writings regarding the required fencing and alternative water sources during the spring of 2023, including communications by Siskiyou County’s Board of Supervisors several months ago to KRRC through a LETTER send to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by the County’s attorney’s Nossaman, LLP.

That Letter of April 18, 2024, discusses  ‘Large-Scale Fencing’ on page 10, section 4.

letter at Siskiyou.News see letter below

However, much earlier, in May of 2023, William Simpson had a face to face meeting with Mr. Dave Coffman at the RES facility on Copco Road. Simpson expressed his concerns about the 78% clay sediments soon to be exposed upon the upcoming winter drawdown of the lakes in January of 2024. Coffman told Simpson that they intended to fence-off the shoreline and provide alternative water, and that he would arrange to meet with Simpson to identify areas best suited for water stations to serve livestock and wildlife (per Simpson). That meeting never took place and Mr. Coffman became unresponsive to requests to have the meeting.

Then the winter disaster unfolded with sediment related wildlife deaths. Even as those deaths were occurring, no effort was made to live up to the promise to fence the shoreline. Many of the deer killed were very dear to the residents around the lakes who knew them like family.

KRRC and RES did post ‘no trespassing’ signs along the shoreline of the drained Iron Gate Lake.  Obviously, deer and horses don’t read.

Fast forward to the last couple months (May & June 2024): A handful of people on social media started complaining that the horses were out on the dried, planted sediments browsing the vegetation. Here again, the animals were doing what they do, and doing so legally. KRRC and RES did nothing to limit access by wildlife and livestock to an area that as we (Jay Martin (myself), William and Michelle) have just now have learned, is very dangerous.

The dozens of people and contractors working for KRRC were all well aware of the wide and deep cracks in the clay sediments for the past months. Did anyone make any effort to warn Michelle, William or their organization? I asked them that question.

The answer was ‘no‘, nobody from KRRC or their numerous workers or contractors provided any warning of what their people saw who were working out on the hazardous clay sediment flats. Obviously, workers walking around out there would have noticed the foot-wide cracks that seem widespread. 

Now, we have what may be just one of many yet to be discovered deaths of private livestock that was totally preventable if KRRC and RES just did what they promised to do according to plan. This sad event has been heartbreaking for Michelle and William and even for me. I hard to imagine how William and Michelle feel seeing their baby horse dead like this.

April 18, 2024 Page 10 IV. Large-Scale Fencing In January 2024, the County was made aware of a proposal by Trout Unlimited in coordination with KRRC and Resource Environmental Solutions (RES, KRRC’s restoration contractor) to install a permanent large-scale (nearly 50-mile long) fence around both Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs. Trout Unlimited reached out to the County’s Public Works Department inquiring about an encroachment permit, as the proposed fence would intersect with County rights-of-way. KRRC and CDFW informed the County that the fence is indeed related to the Project and would be funded through a state grant or other funding source, not through the Project’s funds. The County was also informed that the fence’s purpose would be to stop ungulates from disturbing the planting and revegetation efforts within the reservoir footprints. The County expressed its concerns to both KRRC and CDFW that analysis of a largescale fence as part of the Project did not occur through either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or through the California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA). In both environmental documents (the Environmental Impact Study [EIS] – NEPA and the Environmental Impact Report [EIR] – CEQA) the only fencing that was analyzed as part of the Project was temporary in nature (removed after project implementation) and for contractor safety (i.e., placing fences around the project trailers and equipment), archaeological site treatment measures as a result of cultural resource monitoring, reservoir-independent wetland protection (a 20-foot buffer fence), smallscale wildlife construction entrapment protection, and small-scale fencing around riparian areas only. As stated in the FEIS, KRRC plans to “strategically place fencing around high-priority tributary restoration areas to prevent livestock grazing” (FEIS 2.1.2.11). In addition, the FEIS notes that the Reservoir Area Management Plan (RAMP 2022) “includes strategic use of temporary fencing to exclude livestock at priority tributary restoration sites to prevent browsing of newly planted vegetation. While fencing is constrained by construction access, flooding, and cost-effectiveness, exclusion zones would be created around each of the proposed restoration areas rather than protecting individual plants with tubes. Fencing of stream crossing areas would be minimized” (FEIS 2.1.2.11). The final RAMP confirms this statement, as any fencing related to ungulate management is specific to high priority tributary work areas and is classified as temporary. Temporary fencing is also noted as being an adaptive management practice for exclusion of deer, but only if KRRC “observes unacceptable levels of herbivory by deer” (RAMP 5.3.2.2.1). It is the County’s position that because the fencing project is connected to the Project, it is viewed through NEPA as a “connected action”, which are those that are so closely related to the proposed project such that they should be discussed in the same NEPA document.20 In this case, the large-scale permanent fence is considered a connected action through NEPA because the fencing project is “interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.”21 The fencing project would not be occurring if not for the larger dam removal project. Similarly, CEQA requires that the “whole of the action” be analyzed and the CEQA guidelines define a project under CEQA as “the whole of the action” that may result either directly or indirectly in physical changes to the environment. In addition, CEQA requires the analysis of a project through the lens of cumulative effects.22 20 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a). 21 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1). 22 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15378, 15355. Requests: The County makes the following requests to FERC related to the large-scale, permanent fencing:  Require that KRRC, RES, and Trout Unlimited follow the necessary NEPA and CEQA analysis and documentation and obtain required permitting if large-scale fencing occurs or other actions outside of the FERC Order are to occur.  Require that the fencing project consider public access and require KRRC to engage with the public and County departments (including County Administration, Planning, and Ag. Commissioner’s Office) about the Project.  If the fence is installed, require KRRC to provide alternative watering facilities for wildlife and livestock.

---

• Drug Bust on I-5 Yields 25 Pounds of Methamphetamine
• Siskiyou County Deputy Injured in Head-On Collision
• Growing News Coverage Across California’s Northern Giant: A Journey Through Siskiyou County
• Vacancy on the Happy Camp Community Services District
• Vacancy on the Happy Camp Fire Protection District