http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...almon-culverts/

Not quite sure what to think about this. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for restoring salmon habitat. But are they really going to swim up that new culvert and spawn in the middle of some subdivision? I think habitat needs to be addressed on a much grander scale. That and I don't trust Lorraine Loomis as far as I can throw her.

Being able to point at habitat will prevent harvest reductions, Further, there is the whole issue that the Tribes are owed dead fish in the boat. The state is going to end up paying for the lack of fish. Money, and probably the fish, too.

Of course, we could kill a few tens of thousands fewer fish in the open ocean, thereby assuring them plenty of fish and avoiding lawsuits against our state that we won't be able to pay for. We really could....

And therein lies the problem. If you insist on harvesting to the same or lesser numbers, year after year, that habitat restoration (while I believe there are plenty of good, non-fish reasons to restore the habitat) will amount to wasted money from a recovery perspective.

Washington State has a long standing tradition of losing.

This is an important legal case. If the State chooses, they might seek review by the Supreme Court. But the chances of being heard by the Supremes is quite low.

But this case might just get there. The issues raised extend far beyond Puget Sound, or the PNW. The biggest issue is whether the original Treaties with the Tribes intended to include the habitat necessary to support the fish and wildlife populations necessary to satisfy the treaty rights to harvest in their usual and accoustomed places. The Tribes have argued for decades that without fish and wildlife populations from which to harvest, the treaty right is meaningless. And they are correct. Accordingly to the Tribes, the Treaties require some amount of functional habitat to support harvestable number of fish and wildlife. Up to this point, the courts have agreed.

But, on the other hand, the purpose of the Treaties was to "settle" the territory and to eventually create administrative units (i.e., States). It is clear that some level of "development" was envisioned by the Treaties. Human development has long been known to destroy the habitat needed to support the f/w stocks required to support the Tribes treaty rights. So at what point does one section of the Treaty(s) become more important than another?

That potential conflict within the Treaties themselves might be enough for the Supreme Court to review this case. But no prediction is safe with this Supreme court. There is no telling how they might rule on that question.

In everything, time changes the reality in which we live. While the fishing and hunting rights may have diminished, the value of other rights has significantly increased. The tribes have whole heartedly exploited these other rights, the main ones being casinos and gas stations. But even in fishing, the emphasis has changed dramatically. While they mainly clammed, fished for salmon and steelhead and to a less degree bottom fish, they now take millions of revenue in crabs, whiting, sea urchins, geoducks, sea cucumbers and other sea life that was under or not utilized in the past. You can not look at the treaty rights as static, or then we could argue that none of the other rights were understood or expected at the time of the treaty and should not be extended now. Life at the time of the treaties was hardly fixed or static, nor could the tribes expect it to be.

All the tribes now have all the amenities that come with development, including the increased opportunities and revenue, but seem to think that everything else should stay the same. I remember by brother-in-law complaining that he could not make a living with the reduced fishing opportunities he was getting from the tribe. At the time, he had been working about 3 to 4 months a year fishing and making a good living. I remember thinking, well, if you get rid of your house, car, cable tv, electricity, and only eat fish and elk you could live real well. If you want what the rest of the world has, you might have to start living a little like the rest of the world.

It's funny, and sad, because it's true.

What if the state offers the tribes 2 billion for their fishing rights??
Let them fight over it. Problem solved....

Seems like a good time for the state to legalize gambling. Proceeds to culverts and McLeary. Tribes get their fish and schools get funded. Win/win.

What if the Tribes donate 2 billion to the Gov. to do their bidding....
oh wait, they already did that....

The truth of the matter is, we are living in a State where the Tribes are systematically running our government, either through expensive law suits or through political donations. Either way, they are masters at taking the mountain a pebble at a time...

Water rights are next on the agenda. After all, the fish need a certain amount of water to spawn, and private wells and public water systems are depleting the river and streams water levels, so....

Yes, exactly correct. The legal case involves habitat, and reaches to anything that falls under the State's jurisdiction, including water rights.

Salmon need water. Water withdrawals that are authorized by the State reduce salmon habitat very effectivily. Ditto for roads/highways, timber harvest, pipelines, residential development, mining, etc, etc.

Everyone should recognize the importance of this case since it will effect everyone in this State, and beyond. That's one reason why it might get appealed to the Supremes.

Until the Supremes weigh in, WA will continue to lose these battles. Even then, since money talks the politicians will continue to be bought.

Well when maximum sustainable harvest is not sustainable one has to increase the maximum and pretend that the new maximum harvest is sustainable.

Any way sports anglers can join this lawsuit?

And if the Fed's are going to sue the State over culverts shouldn't the state sue the Fed's over the vast majority of the fish being killed on the high seas?

With the state now out of the booze business, weed being legal and the state already in the Lotto game, I'd like to see this happen. I think the monopoly the tribes have on gaming in this state is unfair.

The tribes PR campaign against it would be worth a lot of laughs.
Gambling is bad and immoral....unless you do it at a tribal casino.
SF

Help me with something here... salmon in this region once migrated over some pretty formidable obstacles (Celilo Falls and the Elwha Canyon come to mind immediately). A culvert that blocks passage is a lot different than a culvert through which water flows "too fast." Weren't salmonids evolved to negotiate fast water? Does the notion that fast-flowing water through culverts is preventing fish passage smell like BS to anyone else? I should think the non-flowing culverts would be the bigger problem.

A little proof of concept seems appropriate here, especially considering the amount of public money being washed through a fast-flowing culvert here. A phased approach, allowing us to measure the impacts of a few, key repairs before requiring us to complete them all seems like a more prudent, reasonable path here.

Oh, well. Seeking reason from people trying to recover salmon without reducing harvest levels is a waste of breath on the best of days.

It is called "spawner survey". Also walking the stream. Fish below, none above is a blockage. Lots below, some above is a partial. Walk streams and you see these.

It gets more complicated, though. Had a culvert on an outlet to a lake that passed adults but not many juveniles. The juveniles couldn't access the lake to overwinter. That significantly lowers smolt production.

Had a fish ladder on the OP that passed steelhead but not coho in at least some years. Lower flows when coho were present prevented passage.

I do agree, though, that removing all the barriers will be of little help until the ecosystem-wide issue of excessive harvest is dealt with. And IT won't be because too many people need/want to eat fish and fish products.

FF2,

Impassible culverts is a real thing. I've seen them. There are two ways culverts block fish passage. One is when the slope of the culvert allows water to pass through faster than a salmon's fastest swimming speed, called "darting" speed that can be sustained for only a few seconds, a best effort sprinting speed, if you will. So how can the culvert pass water faster than the same slope that existed in the creek prior to culvert installation? Physics. A corrugated culvert is quite smooth compared to a rough stream bed, as measured by Manning's "N" the roughness coefficient.

The second way is that a culvert that is passable when first installed becomes impassible over time. It becomes "perched." That is, the water exiting the culvert pounds a hole in the stream bed on its downstream side and erodes the streambed for a distance downstream. Over time that streambed elevation gets lower, leaving the bottom of the culvert invert perched high enough over the downstream side of the creek that fish cannot jump into the culvert entrance, even though the speed of the water passing through the culvert remains passable.

Sg

Salmo g.:

Your 2 examples are good ones.....1st one was a perfect example of a culvert installed, normally at the cheapest rate, as fast as possible, to meet some kind of minimal standard, so a road could be built or divert water from a building site......I'm thinking that "fish" were way down the line as far as any consideration.

2nd one---Was fixable, at a cost MUCH lower than what is going to take to replace. Stream beds, needed to be re-built, replace materials before the stream bed got so bad.

I went to Olympia yesterday, there are 2 areas being worked on around McCleary, Wildcat Creek, at present time the East bound lines of the freeway is under construction. Construction will take at least 2 years, 4 culverts will be built, COST $10.7 million. Pay back period will be ?????, long after anyone reading this will be alive or may be never.

But the good news, project is on Schedule!!!!!