Covering that human-driven mess in 1800 words means taking a few shortcuts, but overall, I’m happy with the article, which each and every one of you should run out and buy this instant.

Outside of the check I received for writing CA Fly Fisher’s “The Good Fight” section, it’s clear I benefited from the article in other ways; Little M recently used a word that raised the L&T’s eyebrows, and I only escaped punishment through clever use of reasonable doubt:

“She must have learned it during my many discussions of Klamath “dam” removal. Yeah, that’s the ticket.”

See? Fly fishing’s not just good for your soul. It’s good for your health as well.

See you practicing not saying the wrong things, Tom Chandler

A recent video attacking Klamath River dam removal in Siskiyou County trotted out all the usual falsehoods (the dams protect salmon, the removal will “devastate” Siskiyou County ranchers, coho aren’t native to the Klamath, yadda yadda…).

Frankly, that’s about par for the course up here.

What is remarkable about the (professionally produced) video can be summed up in two bullet points:

• At one point, County Supervisor Grace Bennett actually invokes the United Nations (Agenda 21) as one of the reasons the government’s trying to remove the dams
• Oil billionaire money is now making an appearance in the Klamath dam removal fight

Big Money (And Black Helicopters) Come To Siskiyou County

You can’t help but notice this video was produced by Americans For Prosperity, which turns out not to be a grassroots organization, but a front group for the Koch Brothers.

If you don’t know who the Koch Brothers are, they’re oil company billionaires (Koch Industries is the second-largest privately owned company in the USA), and they’re slowly (and reluctantly) becoming famous for secretly funding disinformation campaigns about climate change. (The New Yorker published an excellent article on the Koch Brothers here.)

In thinly populated Siskiyou County — where campaign signs are often hand-stenciled affairs created in the candidate’s garage — it’s hard to fathom the impact of billionaire oil money on the fight to remove the Klamath Dams

The whole affair has already morphed from a decision about relicensing privately owned dams which will begin losing $20 million year and are extincting salmon populations into a fight against socialist government black helicopter oppression.

It would all make more sense if there wasn’t all this peer-reviewed science suggesting the dams do a lot of damage and very little actual good.

At several points in the video ranchers repeat the claim that they’re the best stewards of the river and the area, yet their plan for preventing coho salmon extinction is to pretend the coho don’t actually exist.

Stellar work, guys.

As a resident of Siskiyou County, I’ve grown used to watching the county drag itself into one bad fight after another while the supervisors generally act like fools, and I can say with some certainty the disinformation that characterizes this fight will flow as freely as before.

It’s just that suddenly, that disinformation is being funded by billionaires with a long history of doing exactly that sort of thing.

See you watching the game change seemingly overnight, Tom Chandler.

A lot of the commonly accepted “facts” in the bizarro world of Siskiyou County politics aren’t facts at all, but that hasn’t prevented their spread.

In the fight to remove the four lower Klamath River dams and restore the Klamath’s fast-dwindling coho salmon populations, we’ve been told that “dams are good for salmon.” It’s all the Native Americans’ fault. And that the UN wants to seize our lands and create a wildlife preserve.

Then there’s my personal favorite: the Klamath’s coho salmon are not native to the Klamath watershed, so their ESA listing is illegal — as is removing the Klamath River dams to protect them.

This, Undergrounders, should prove entertaining.

Your Junk Smells

It’s common for dam removal opponents to label any science supporting dam removal as “junk science,” despite the fact it’s peer reviewed(by several groups) and widely available for public scrutiny.

In other words, when a group like the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (SCWUA) files a petition to remove the Klamath coho salmon from the ESA endangered roster, they’re pretty clearly pushing a boulder uphill — unless they’re willing to manufacture evidence.

Which, it turns out, is what they did.

First Things First

Let’s look at one of the key bits of evidence supporting the “coho aren’t native to the Klamath River” claim: this apparently damming quote from a 1913 California Fish & Game commission report (screenshot taken from the SCWUA Petition):

Quote from SCWUA coho delisting petition

Using this quote as a foundation, a “Dr. Richard Gierak” (a chiropractor who is listed as “Science Advisor” on the SCWUA petition) had this to say in a blog post on the Defend Rural America website:

Coho were first planted in 1895 and according to a 1913 California Fish & Game Commission report it indicated there were no run of either kind of Salmon in the Trinity River even after Coho were planted in 1895 and 1899.

Unfortunately for the SCWUA and Dr. Gierak, I found a scanned copy of the 1913 Fish & Game Commission Report (you can find the book on Google books).

After reading it, I couldn’t find the quote.

Odd. Let’s see if the original quote was in another 1913 report, or if it could be found elsewhere.

Turns out I did find it.

Which is when the rain really started to fall.

Instead of coming from 1913 California Fish & Game Commission report, the quote is found in an 1895 U.S. Fish Commission Report (click here, look at pg 41 of the .pdf file).

And they didn’t just get the date and authorship wrong. The un-modified quote actually means the polar opposite of what the SCWUA petition says it does.

To refresh your memory, here’s the quote from the SCWUA delisting petition:

“Most of the salmon and steelhead eggs were taken at the [Redwood Creek] substation, as there was no run of either kind of Salmon in the Trinity River.”

Now here’s the original, unmodified wording (emphasis mine to note differences):

“Most of the salmon and steelhead eggs were taken at the [Redwood Creek] substation, as there was no run of either kind in the Trinity, all the fish having been taken at the cannery at the mouth of Klamath River.”

Night and day, Undergrounders. Night and day.

• The original quote wasn’t uttered by Shebley in 1913, but was found in an 1895 report
• Somebody (gasp) truncated the original quote to reverse its meaning
• The words “of Salmon” were added, apparently to mislead the reader (the quote was about Chinook salmon and steelhead)

Was the quote deliberately transplanted from 1895 to 1913 to give the 1895 plantings more impact, truncated to flip its meaning, and the words “of Salmon” added in an attempt to change its meaning?

Given the chain of alterations (one error is a mistake; several is likely a deception), I’d suggest the answer is “yes.”

As it stands, the quote confirms the presence of steelhead and Chinook salmon in the Trinity River, not their absence (which never made any sense; the existence of Chinook in the Klamath system has never been in question).

And while it doesn’t conclusively confirm the existence of coho salmon in the Trinity or Klamath Rivers, it certainly places the veracity of those making the claims (and presumably lying about the quote) in question.

While We’re On The Subject…

Further torpedoing the SCWUA’s assertion that the relatively small 1895 coho plant on the Trinity River is the genesis of all the coho salmon on the Trinity and Klamath is a Fish & Game report on the odds a single 1895 coho plant in the Trinity River could have populated the entire Klamath watershed.

Although it cannot be determined with absolute certainty that the 1895 stocking [*ED: on the Trinity, a tributary of the Klamath] did not result in a portion of the runs observed 15 years later in the Klamath River, this initial stocking was likely too small and in the wrong area to have had much chance of establishing a new, self-reproducing population in the upper Klamath River and tributaries. At least some portion of the eggs reared and released in the Trinity system in 1895 originated from Redwood Creek; a much smaller system. Redwood Creek coho salmon are specifically adapted to swimming relatively short distances (<60 miles) to reach their customary spawning areas. It seems unlikely these fish could have strayed the additional 150 river-miles necessary to reach the upper Klamath River to successfully establish a new run. Further, the eggs hatched and reared at Fort Gaston had opportunity to imprint to the Trinity River, and this also would have reduced the chances of straying to the upper portions of the Klamath. Finally, as reported by the Klamath River Basin Fishery Task Force (1991), Withler (1982) found that no introduction of Pacific anadromous salmonids using non-native broodstock has been successful in producing new, self-reproducing populations anywhere on the West Coast.

OK. History, science and common sense are not on the SCWUA’s side, but what about the actual numbers (at least those pertaining to the coho)?

The great majority of coho salmon returning to spawn are three-year-old fish (although a small portion of each brood year returns as two-year-old fish, these primarily consist of precocious males). Therefore, run size in any given year is strongly influenced by the number of fish produced three years prior. Hatchery records indicate both coho salmon fry and yearlings were planted in 1895. It is not clear from the records if the fry and yearlings originated from the same brood year or were from two separate brood years. Regardless, because of their three-year life cycle, coho salmon returns from the 1895 plant would have appeared at the Klamathon Racks in only one or two of every three consecutive years. Egg take records from the Klamathon Racks show that this is not the case: coho salmon eggs were taken in substantial numbers in consecutive years beginning with the 1912-1913 season ( Appendix Table D-1). This would not have been possible if all the adult fish had been descendants of fry and yearling plants made in 1895.

With the Coho’s three-year life cycle in mind, one wonders how the SCWUA document asserts:

“After each subsequent planting (Ed: coho plantings in the 60s and 70s) there was a rise in returning Coho for the following three years…”

Given the three-year life cycle of coho, there would only be a “rise in returning coho” for one of the three years.

Let’s Look At More

So we’ve established the “fact” the SCWUA petition contains at least one outright fabrication, and a couple of statements that defy logic. What’s still in store for us?

It isn’t pretty.

For example, the authors use a single, out-of-context passage from the minutes of a 2001 Karuk tribal meeting — not exactly a gathering of scientists nor a peer reviewed publication — as “proof” coho aren’t native to the Klamath.

They neglect to mention the Karuk language uses a separate word for coho salmon, and that it’s been in the lexicon for thousands of years:

The Karuk word for coho is achvuun. Coho appear in ancient Karuk stories and were managed for traditionally long before non-natives arrived.

Oops.

Other Amazing Facts

• Dams are good for salmon
• “There is no Salmon problem in the Pacific Northwest”
• There are no differences between hatchery and wild salmon
• Coho salmon don’t range south of Oregon (relying on that bastion of peer-reviewed science Wikipedia, which mistakenly relied only on a report written only about Canadian coho stocks.)
• A statement from California’s leading expert on salmonids (Dr. Peter Moyle) should be ignored because he “is not an expert on salmonids but is instead a freshwater species expert.”

It goes on.

Much of the document relates to Chinook salmon (who are not in question), or offers alternative reasons why coho salmon numbers are dwindling (ocean warming due to Pacific Rim volcanic activity is a favorite) — neither of which address the presence of coho salmon in the Klamath Watershed.

In fact, even a cursory glance at the rest of the SCWUA’s coho delisting petition reflects a level of “integrity” similar to that displayed with the “1913″ quote manipulation.

Now For Something Completely Sane

The coho myth last gained traction in Siskiyou County in 2001, and while it mercifully disappeared for a while, like a zombie, it has risen from the dead and in an attempt to eat the brains of the living.

Back then, California Fish & Game crafted a document (excerpted above, but also below) that scientifically, rationally and calmly makes the case that Coho are native to the Klamath watershed:

The fact that the upper Klamath River and tributaries are: 1) contiguous with documented historical coho salmon distribution in the lower reaches of the Klamath River system and historical coho salmon streams both north and south of the Klamath River; 2) contain no natural barriers that would prevent their migration into the upper reaches and tributaries such as the Scott and Shasta rivers; 3) have physical attributes that would have produced suitable coho salmon habitat in the past (e.g. gradient, morphology, and, in some cases like the Shasta River, spring sources that provide perennial flow); and 4) still contain suitable coho salmon habitat, provides substantial evidence that coho salmon likely inhabited the upper Klamath River and tributaries prior to hatchery stocking. It is evident from the coho salmon’s persistent presence, and field observations made by the Department and other biologists, that sufficient habitat still exists in the Shasta and Scott rivers to support sustainable populations of coho salmon.

…

Substantial coho salmon populations appear to have been present in the upper Klamath River in 1910 as evidenced by the egg collections made at the Klamathon racks during the initial year of operation. The relatively large number of females required to produce the number of eggs collected that year and in subsequent years suggests that native coho salmon were well established in the Klamath River upstream of Iron Gate Dam’s location. For the reasons described above, it is unlikely that these runs could have originated from the plants made in the Trinity River in 1895. Coho salmon were well documented in the Shasta and Scott rivers long before the construction of Iron Gate and Trinity River hatcheries and the subsequent introductions of large numbers of non-native coho salmon at the hatcheries. Based on the above discussions, the Department believes that coho salmon are native to the upper Klamath River system, including the Scott and Shasta Rivers, and historically occurred in these streams prior to any hatchery stocking.

Junk Is As Junk Does

In only one sense are dam removal opponents correct; a photograph of a coho salmon lying on top of a pre-1895 newspaper featuring the headline “I’m a native coho from the Klamath” does not exist.

Yet the Klamath offers excellent coho habitat (this is more important to coho than Chinook salmon; coho spend a year in freshwater before migrating to the ocean while Chinook do not), and coho are found in streams both to the north and south.

The lack of references prior to 1895 are easy to explain; the coho salmon runs were largely ignored or lumped in with Chinook salmon runs, which were larger and contained bigger fish, and were therefore more commercially interesting.

Simply put, every bit of “real” evidence says coho were extant in the Klamath watershed, yet like the birther and moon landing “conspiracies,” real evidence simply becomes proof a conspiracy exists (yes, a conspiracy is alleged by the SCWUA petition).

Simply by participating, Siskiyou County could have come out of the dam removal negotiations smelling like a rose. Instead, many in the county — including the Board of Supervisors — have chosen to try and force a private company to retain privately owned, salmon-eradicating dams that will lose $20 million annually if relicensed.

To do so, they’re relying increasingly on wacky “facts” that — in at least one case — appear to have been fabricated.

See you chipping away at the four Klamath River dams, Tom Chandler.

UPDATE: Amusingly, the “science advisor” for the discredited SCWUA petition to delist the salmon (Dr. Richard Gierak) apparently can’t tell the difference between a juvenile coho salmon and a yellow perch… seriously (read the editorial and the comments).

(click to see it online)

He tells us why few people fish it, why that’s a shame (hint: it’s great for swinging flies and two-handers), and how much better he thinks it could be — if we can get the Klamath River dams out.

It’s a short-but-interesting interview (he opened my eyes to a few things), and worth a few minutes.

If you don’t know why the Klamath River dams should come down, here’s a CalTrout article making a case for dam removal — and also a recent update on the status of dam removal (and the KBRA).

Despite the quality of the Klamath’s fishery — and its potential — the Klamath isn’t really on the radars of a lot of California and Oregon’s steelhead fishermen, but it probably should be.

It’s going to be a big year in California on so many fronts; the Klamath thing might be decided, we’ll see if moves to raise Shasta Dam acquire any momentum, we’re supposed to see good salmon returns, and, oh yeah — because of the drought, the water wars should prove especially interesting.

I still owe the Undergrounders a pair of posts about those wacky Sisikiyou Board of Supervisors, including a look at their attempts to “prove” the coho salmon isn’t native to the Klamath Watershed.

It’s like a satirical TV sitcom, only they mean it.

See you hammering the bad guys, Tom Chandler.

This would have greatly limited public access.

With your help, a group of locals and CalTrout turned that one back, but given the views of those populating the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, I warned you then it wasn’t over.

And it isn’t.

Powered By The Klamath River

With Klamath River Dam Removal issue as a backdrop, the question of public access to navigable rivers — the central theme of our prior fight — has popped up again in Siskiyou County.

At a recent meeting, County Sheriff (Jon Lopey) — apparently grandstanding in the hopes of furthering his political ambitions — decided to single-handedly redefine the legal standard of navigability (from the Two Rivers Tribune):

Murphy said he’d tried to research navigability but the results were inconclusive and asked Lopey for his opinion. Lopey answered, “It’s not navigable if you can’t put a boat on it,” and coached landowners that they have a right to file a complaint if people trespass.

Wow. The leading law enforcement official in the county doesn’t know the legal standard of navigability (hint: it involves prior use for purposes of commerce or recreation). Based on this faulty knowledge, he tells landowners they can charge the lawful members of the public with trespass?

Excellent! What could possibly go wrong?

Participants in the Land Use fight will likely recall Supervisor Jim Cook — who after receiving a couple hundred protest emails took to telling emailers they were “bizarre.” At the same meeting, Cook was quoted as saying:

Jim Cook, chair of the County Board of Supervisors, said the county government could declare whether a water course was navigable or not and suggested the county would take action.

Extreme Legal Scholar Cook might want to research that assertion. It’s not true.

Not even close.

Just The Facts… Not

Driving all this is the potential removal of the Klamath River Dams, which among the dam-hugger set is generating an astonishing number of “facts,” including:

• The water-heating, toxic-algae spawning dams actually protect salmon runs
• The government is trying to run Siskiyou County ranchers off their land to create a huge game preserve run by the UN
• Coho salmon aren’t native to the Klamath basin (despite being native everywhere else), so protecting them is actually illegal

None of the above comes within even artillery distance of the truth (I’ll debunk them for you if you really need it done), yet they’re widely accepted as fact in Siskiyou County.

In a recent newspaper editorial, an outdoor writer — who apparently dreams of black helicopters in his sleep — compared dam removal proponents to the 9/11 terrorists.

(Charmingly, he also compares opponents to “vermin” and “liars, cheats and thieves”.)

Welcome to Siskiyou County.

You’ll come for the fishing, but you’ll stay for the vicious, invective-ridden local politics.

This isn’t a call to action… yet.

Still, dam removal — and all the craziness that’s accompanying it — is gaining profile. And more crazy is sure to come.

This one’s going down to the wire, and mostly likely, you’ll be asked to contribute a minute or two of your time at a handful junctures along the way.

See you sharpening those pencils, Tom Chandler.

That’s the short version of this post.

The Longer Version

The four lower Klamath River dams (which are currently throttling the salmon and steelhead populations on what used to be the west coast’s third-most productive salmon fishery) are not only bad for fish, it turns out they’re bad for the economy.

The owner of the dams (PacifiCorp) is in the midst of a FERC relicensing, and if they were to update the dams with fish ladders (as would be required), they’d operate at a $20 million annual loss.

If taken out, they’d:

• Create 4600 jobs
• Provide an estimated 86% bump in Chinook salmon populations
• Open up an additional 300-400 miles of spawning habitat to salmon and steelhead
• Make my day

In literally thirty seconds, you can help us take them out. This isn’t some pie-in-the-sky thing — we’ve got a fair to good chance to make this happen, though it’s going to require putting pressure on legislators over the next couple years.

Still, you want to know how easy this comment will be?

Here’s a picture of the form (click it to go to the real form):

How hard could this be? (We even wrote the comment -- click image to go there now.)

And here’s your cut and paste comment:

Subject: Klamath Draft EIS/EIR: I support Alternative 2

Comment: I support Alternative 2 of the Klamath Draft EIS/EIR proposal (full removal of the Iron Gate, Copco1, Copco2, and J.C. Boyle dams).

• These dams are decimating one of the west’s most prolific salmon and steelhead fisheries and strangling the area’s economy
• Alternative 2 will help restore salmon runs (dramatically increasing steelhead populations), and ensure predictable water deliveries to irrigators
• The dams don’t make economic sense: if upgraded to modern standards they’ll actually operate at a $20 million annual loss
• Even the owner (PacifiCorp) wants these privately owned dams taken out

I support healthy fisheries and a healthy local economy (dam removal brings many jobs to the area) — and I support Alternative 2.

Thank you,
[your name]

****************************************

I try not to bombard you guys with a lot of “Save The World” stuff but the Klamath River dams issue is about to hit a series of critical moments.

At stake is the future of what used to be one of the west coast’s best salmon rivers (and let’s not forget the steelhead fishery, which is good, but could become stellar).

With a little more water and a little less dams, the Klamath could become a wholly kickass salmon and steelhead fishery (again).

Want More Information?

For an executive summary of the Klamath River dam removal Draft EIS/EIR, click here.

For more information about the Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and other Klamath Issues, click here.

Tell your senator that you support a healthy Klamath River, and want them to support legislation that restores the Klamath’s salmon and steelhead runs.

Now For The Backstory

The dam removal effort on the Klamath River is approaching crunch time, and you wouldn’t believe some of the stuff opponents are saying.

Most of the opposition is coming right from my troubled little county (Siskiyou County), and you’ll see wild claims posted on blogs and in newspaper opinion pieces that can only lead you to conclude the American Educational system is in serious trouble.

To whit:

• Coho salmon aren’t native to the Klamath River (huh??)
• Removing the dams will decimate the salmon population
• Salmon couldn’t surivive in the river without the dams
• Hatcheries and management have actually allowed salmon to thrive on the West Coast the last 30 years
• Fish & Game kills more salmon than the dams

Frankly, I could go on and on, but rather than spoil anyone’s appetite, I’ll just say it’s getting wild up here.

People keep screaming about private property rights, conveniently forgetting that the dams are privately owned (by PacifiCorp), and retrofitting (instead of removal) will cost more than 2x as much as removal — and then the things would run at a $20 million annual loss.

At some point in the near future I’ll wade into this giant pile of manure (waders suggested), but for now, click here, donate 20 seconds of your life to the Klamath, and be thankful you don’t have to read some of this insanity every day in the paper like I do.

See you signing a petition, Tom Chandler

Years ago I’d ride my road bike around Shasta Valley and take a break on this funky wooden bridge over the Shasta River; I’d watch these great big salmon sitting on redds, and that these fish had come so far and endured so much to end back where they started was pretty awe inspiring.

Take up the Nature Conservancy on their offer and for part of the time, you’ll be viewing these salmon from the same bridge (another example of life’s amusing circularity).

You can be sure we’re dragging Little M out there Saturday to infuse her with a little awe and wonder (never too early).

The living definition of awe-inspiring.

Here are the details:

Shasta Big Springs Ranch
Open House
Saturday, October 22, 2011

Come observe the annual run of Fall Chinook in the Shasta River. Watch female salmon guard and build nests and males compete with each other for spawning opportunities.

Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game will be available to answer questions and lead short walks to see spawning salmon.

Where: Parking near the Louie Road bridge over the Shasta River (4 miles east of I-5 on Louie Road)

See you there, Tom Chandler.

How to get there...

After retrofitting the aging dams, the CPUC noted they’d run at a $20 million annual net loss. (Details at the CalTrout site.)

I could go on and on about Siskiyou County’s willingness to hold its breath and stomp its feet over dam removal, but it’s a beautiful day outside (the first day of the year we’ve opened all the windows), and in that environment, political temper tantrums hold little allure.

They aren’t coming down anytime soon — and funding for the project is suddenly in question — but at least we’re heading in the right direction.

Save a Salmon. Eat a Dam.

Right now, the Klamath River is sick as hell. Every summer, the river below two of its reservoirs runs bright green with toxic algae, and while I could write a good fifteen paragraphs of text outlining the latest move on the part of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors  to keep it that way (Measure G), but rather than bore the Undergrounders as a whole (99% of whom won’t get to vote on this subject), let me just say this to my Siskiyou County readers:

Vote “Yes” on Measure G

Below is a letter to the editor I wrote (the local paper didn’t publish it). Just to be clear, a “No” vote means you don’t support dam removal, and the Supes are hoping to use an overwhelmingly “No” vote to springboard a later (and expensive) lawsuit.

Yes Vote on Measure G Means Jobs

With Siskiyou County’s economy faltering and unemployment near 20%, it’s hard to understand why the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors are so rabidly opposed to the recovery of Klamath River salmon and steelhead – especially given the huge economic stimulus that dam removal and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) would bring.

Independent economic analysis says dam removal and habitat improvement projects would lower unemployment, provide sustainable tourism-related jobs, and result in lower power rates (compared to retrofitting the dams to current standards).

Also, the KBRA’s adaptable flow regimes offer us water for salmon and water for farmers, who need some idea what they’re getting so they can plan ahead (many are also getting way-below-market-price power too).

Tellingly, the Board of Supervisors have repeatedly called for in-depth studies of the effects of dam removal, yet they’re now asking citizens to make up their mind before the asked-for studies have been completed.

Simply put, they’re hoping to use an overwhelming “No” vote to springboard this county into an expensive lawsuit which we can’t afford – and will delay the jobs this county so desperately needs.

Returning the Klamath to a healthy state delivers many economic benefits to Siskiyou County – including to our vital (and wholly sustainable) tourism industries. After all, once they stopped shipping all of Northern California’s water south out of the Trinity River, the steelhead and salmon runs came back strong, and on some weekends, you can’t find a place to park along the river.

Those who want you to vote “No” on Measure G will tell you the dams provide irrigation water and flood control, yet they don’t.

Instead, they offer us terrible water quality (the Klamath runs pea green with toxic algae every summer), and because they’d cost us power users $500 Million to retrofit yet only $200 Million to remove, we’re simply better off without them, and in almost every way possible.

Please vote “Yes” on Measure G. Our local economy will thank you for it.

Note to the Board Of Supervisors

Turns out salmon restoration – and a healthy river – actually creates jobs. To see how, watch the video below from Chelan County, WA.

And – Siskiyou County’s Board of Supervisors take note – the restoration actually helps the local economy.

Click here to view the embedded video.