With regards to the previous post, isn't 22 years is long enough for this study?? I would think that the majority of the study involves the subject of sediment removal via natural water flow, and that can be simulated in the lab much easier than waiting 100 years for nature to do it. Why doesn't WDFW take on this river as an example of what can be done to resurrect a ruined waterway?

With regards to WDFW in general, have you ever noticed that they are forever doing these studies (which appear to us as rules or restrictions), but we, as the user or customer, never receive a report on it? Experimental efforts, be them in the lab or in the field, are supposed to have a hypothesis, an experiment, data discussion and dissemination, and, finally, a CONCLUSION!!!