To add to what C'man posted, the WA treaty tribes brought the culvert case against the state as a follow up to US v WA or Boldt II, as it was sometimes called. Phase II of US v WA was about environmental damage to salmon runs caused by, or permitted by, the state. In order to have standing in a lawsuit you have to demonstrate how you are harmed, by how much, and by whom rather specifically. Since the decline of fish populations has been a death by a thousand cuts, the nitty gritty of proving direct cause and effect is pretty difficult. The tribes mulled this over for quite a while.

Then they found the "low hanging fruit," culverts. Impassible culverts block fish access to a measurable quantity of habitat. And there are useful models for estimating how much fish production is likely from a given amount of habitat. Bingo! This was a lawsuit the tribes couldn't lose if they tried. The state really had no viable defense, because damaging and destroying fish habitat wasn't really against the law until the latter 20th century, and even then - and now - you are allowed to damage fish habitat so long as you obtain the proper permits and follow their requirements. The tribes won the original case and the subsequent appeals. So that's how we got here.

This left the state on the financial hook to replace state owned culverts, although funding sources have included state and federal funds along with grants from several sources. An important thing to note however, is that a lot of culverts are owned by private parties, especially timber companies, public and private utilities, and counties. There was supposed to be a system to go about culvert replacement that used logic by first replacing the culverts that restored access to the most and best quality habitat and then working down the line. I don't know if that was immediately discarded or just shortly thereafter. Because why? Interest. So there's gotta' be replacements in each region, each county, each tribal U & A area, and so forth.

So the process is messed up. SURF Board money has been used even though it is supposed to be directed at ESA listed Chinook recovery. As C'man mentioned, Chinook use very few of the creeks where culverts are replaced. And often the work follows the money; as in, the state or feds or somebody has funding for a certain area, so let's replace a culvert there even if the benefits are low to non-existent.

To answere some of 28 gage's questions, I've described the plan. I expect that cutthroat trout, some steelhead, and even a few coho will likely benefit from all this work. It isn't and won't be measured meaningfully in terms of additional fish production above existing levels. Project people go survey upstream of the replaced culvert and when they find fish there, it is declared a successful project. Mostly taxpayers are paying for this, state and federal. Is anyone getting their money's worth from this? I'm going to go out on a very sound limb and answer a resounding "NO!" Unless each new fish is "priceless." Which happens to be the treaty tribal standard for this, I heard, just as treaty fishing rights are priceless.

Spawning escapement goals are not being raised to account for these incremental increases in habitat quantity. And any additional fish (salmon and steelhead) produced from this restored access habitat is assigned to harvest. Consequently I think cutthroat trout are the big winners here due to their having no significant commercial value.

Yea! for prime rib dinners. That's always a win in my book.