OPEN LETTER: ‘Fencing’ Attorney Letter + County Minutes from KRRC’s Public Presentation Feb. 13, 2024

On Livestock (the horses) Fencing and alternative water…

Excerpt from County Reporter’s Minutes of the Feb. 13th 2024 Public Meeting with KRRC presentations and misrepresentations:

“Ms. Brownell continued the powerpoint, advising that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expected the water quality to not adversely impact human health and summarized the current and anticipated restoration/revegetation activities (hand seeding and helicopter broadcasting) that would be conducted by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) on the land behind the dams following release of the water. Ms. Brownell additionally summarized the plans associated with fencing to minimize wildlife and livestock impacts and summarized the restoration portion of the drawdown and dam removal timeline.”

“Hornbrook resident William Simpson appeared before the Board and voiced concerns the possible high levels of various heavy metals, including Chromium, in the sediment left behind following water releases, possible negative impacts associated with livestock attempting to access the water left in the reservoirs and the need for alternative water sources for deer and livestock”

Full Document Here:

https://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_supervisors/meeting/30684/bos_20240213_minutes.pdf

Siskiyou County Letter (from their law firm ‘Nossaman’) to FERC addressing the Fencing Issue in April of 2024.

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. 

As we see, KRRC is and has been arguably ‘willfully negligent’ in failing to stay according to plan, and to their own detriment, and the loss of one my dear baby horses.

hope this helps you see the truth… Regards, William

---

• CALFIRE SISKIYOU UNIT HAND CREW SELECTED FOR BLUE RIBBON AWARD
• 10th DAA selects Kenny Elwood for 2026 Golden Pass
• FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT: Carson’s Window Coverings & More
• Traffic Stop in Siskiyou County Leads to $1.9 Million Cocaine Seizure, Driver Arrested
• F-35A Lightning II Jets from Luke AFB Arrive for Two-Week Training at Kingsley Field