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!!!!!

DW & I went by it on the way to the Doc yesterday and it is 14 million on the sign. The 10.7 came from staff when he inquired. Now this is the question that is puzzling. Why would you spend 14 M on those streams that have only a few miles of marginal habitat? In this state the Chehalis is in much better shape than most and harvest is mainly natural with healthy runs. There are many places 14M could have made a real difference for fish. This one is a bit of PC crap while marginally helping our fish here could have made a real difference in many places. In other words spend the funds where the greatest bang for the buck is rather than some DOT staffer drawing one out of the hat.

How about spending over a million to bridge a creek (removing a box culvert that was a block at almost all flows), opening 10 miles of stream to chum and coho and then proposing to significantly lower the chum EG?

Still have 13M to go. You gotta luv how we do EC's or not. Just depends on who is punching the donkey.

Well, yeah. But I million for 70 feet of bridge??

One thing about S/R data is that if you keep the data base short you don't see declines. Heck, WDFW and the Feds kept the data base short enough so they could say that fishing did not affect adult Chinook size. Chinooks were not getting smaller. Amazing what you can do if you properly select your data.

But, then, you folks in GH have never seen massaging like that. Right?

Thanks for the education, Sg. I hadn't considered the darting angle, nor the fact that culverts don't offer rest spots along the way, as most natural fast water does.

The project with which I'm most familiar is the Wildcat Creek project referenced above (I've enjoyed slow commuting past McCleary all year, with a lot more to come). I rode in a vanpool with a guy that lives above the "blockages" on Wildcat Creek, and he sees chum (granted, in pathetic numbers) in his backyard every fall, so if there is a blockage, it's not total. Enormous expense notwithstanding, however, it does seem this could improve passage, and it's probably the "right thing to do."

I think DOT may have opted for that project now because they are also doing a large paving project on Highway 8, between Oly and McCleary, and the efficiency potential was too good to pass up.

If chum can get past a blockage then it is not much of a block. They are generally considered the most inept of migrators and stop at the first chance.

And Chum on Wildcat are mostly from the fork that comes down from behind Simpson door plant and mostly on one guys property. By the way number is dependent on harvest which translated means they CANNOT take the harvest rate. Hell that is the case for Chum in the Chehalis ABOVE the Satsop. Not yipping here but rather this is something I objected to over the years. I am sure the agencies will parade something by if you ask. Chum / Wildcat Cr. they have a harvest problem plain and simple.

Nah, Rivrguy. Those chum, as are all WA salmon, managed to within a gnat's ass of perfection. Just some small tweaks, mostly habitat, and we will be up to our ears in salmon. Harvest has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of fish, the size of fish, the timing of fish, etc. It's almost all habitat with a some hydro and hatcheries thrown in for seasoning.

Back when these projects were being authorized there was a public comment opportunity. Below is the comment I submitted. I even got a nice thank you for my effort. Based on comments from WDFW at North of Falcon it was clear that there was no interest in adding anything to the escapement goals. (That would cut into harvest.) I did not follow up to see if my suggestion was implemented but would assume not.

Mr. Davis:

I enjoyed seeing your Habitat News letter and would like to make a suggestion that could improve the results for barrier removal and other enhancement projects.

My career was spent as a project engineer in a manufacturing plant and I would like to describe a private industry view of spending money on projects. Money was always a scarce resource and competing projects were expected to return a profit. That profit was usually measured in dollars or a rate of return. There was also an after the fact review and accountability for results.

As you embark on habitat improvement with millions of public dollars for projects I would like to suggest criteria for evaluation. Each project will most likely have a cost estimate and should also include an estimate of the number of incremental spawners that can be added to the escapement goal. The second part would require help from department biologists to generate a number based on good science. The project sorting criteria would be dollars expended per annual incremental spawner added to the escapement goal. The priority would be given to projects that cost the least per incremental spawner. There should also be a minimum return hurdle that will reject projects that are not productive.

At some point it should be possible to evaluate the success of failure of projects based on the original criteria. I would suggest something like an immediate review of the physical project followed by a five year review of the success in adding spawners to the escapement goal. This would be useful for optimizing future expenditures on successful habitat projects.

Sincerely:

John you did er right! Bravo!!!!!

I would suggest that the evaluation suggestion be sent to the Feds who often provide the grant funds for this. When a proposal comes in you can evaluate based on hw many fish per dollar you get. But, it would have to include a monitoring requirement. How often is a project done and then never followed up on to see if it delivered.

And, maybe, in an ideal world, there would be a penalty (money paid back) if the project's realized benefits were, say, 75% or less of what the project was sold on.

Carcassman looks to be getting cynical in his advanced years. >grin<

Just trying to catch Salmo

Is there a way the culverts with minor gradient issues, causing a flow issue, be modified? It seems that in some cases small humps or even boulders could be secured to the bottom of the culver to allow relief. I realize this may change the engineering and capacity, but is it even being looked at?

Unfortunately hatcheries have always been evaluated by how many smolts they release, and habitat work has been measured by how many trees they plant, or how many square feet of spawning habitat is made available, never mind you what the actual number of returning hatchery adults is or if there are actually any fish that use that new spawning habitat.

Then, of course, is the over all measure of success; Did you spend your entire budget?

Fish on...

Todd

If you lower the ability of the existing culvert to pass water then you will place the structure in danger from failure in flood. As with all things costing money we do the minimum necessary. If the stream flood is 10cfs then we size the culvert for 10. Reduce capacity and we can then replace it with a bridge when it blows out.

Alright now the fun stuff team.

Since there ain't gonna be no fish to catch...................Let's get busy populating this state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Saddle up Bitches!

Consider that WA has had listed salmonids since at least the 90s. At that point in time, close to 25 years ago, the cumulative human footprint was already excessive. And the population has not been holding stable since then. Given a choice between fishing, hunting, or increasing the population I think the "votes" are in!

In the case of perched culverts it is sometimes possible to make them passable to fish by constructing a small fish ladder on the downstream end. It's case specific; I've seen photos of a couple examples where this method has been used successfully. As Carcassman mentioned, adding flow velocity features inside culverts reduces their hydraulic capacity. Baffles have been used with some success when the culverts were sized large enough to allow the modifications. A glaring problem is that until the Timber, Fish, & Wildlife Act of 1988, DNR routinely permitted the installation of under-sized culverts simply because small culverts cost less. As one might expect, this led to many cases of culvert blowouts and road washouts and mass wasting during flood events. It was a big deal at the time for DNR to agree to require culverts large enough to pass expected flood flows, since it saves both money and the environment in the long term.

Sg

Gate the roads, remove the culverts, and let nature be nature.

Man just continues to encroach and then try to fool mother nature's common sense.

Man is the fool.

Maybe go back to railroad logging with trestles over the creeks. Narrower roadway, probably not as impervious as a road, and it will keep out vandals.

Ah your aware that the state bit is only for public rods? Gate HWY 8 05 12 or I 5?

Always a realist, think to much emphasis on replacement is taking place. I would think it might be smart to start off with a few years of trapping and transporting to see if the numbers coming to the trap justify removal. Then, in culverts with to much gradient, I would start out with some collapsible baffles, The baffles could be spring loaded to collapse when the PSI hits a certain level, there by reducing flood or high water capacity to a minimum. If the normal flow is low enough, you could even use break away baffles and replace after the storm. for small streams under highways this might save millions. Millions that could be better utilized else where in the system. I would even suggest that the overall judgment not be reduced, but the money moved to more productive areas in the watershed, with a better outcome for all. I have dealt with engineers before, and the most logical engineering solution is almost always suggested, regardless of cost or long term productivity. They often only seem to be able to come up with a myopic solution to the basic problem, without viewing the overall scope of the problem, the economics and the reasonableness of the solution. When told we want to get to the other side of the river, they automatically start designing bridges and dams, rather than ask why we need to get there, how often, and what we will be transporting. The solution may be very simply if those questions are asked, but they rarely seem to be.

Trap and haul costs would be a lot higher than you think. The efficacy of passage, though, does have to be evaluated by "will they even let fish escape the fishery to get there?"

You do hit a good point about some actual holistic planning, though. I have seen instances where the Forest Circus cleared barriers on its roads but the barriers on state and private land downstream remained in place. In another instance, WDFW wanted to remove a barrier that was actually preventing Brook Trout from invading a reach with (listed) Bull Trout "because we have the money in hand to do it."

I believe that the whole salmon recovery industry would benefit from triage and should be focused in areas where there is a committment to ensure long-term salmonid use of the watershed. Taking a culvert out in, say, urban King County may make you feel better but really won't add fish to the pot.

It's more than merely interesting that WDFW (both Game and Fisheries prior to 1990's) was in charge of HPA's that designed and approved culvert placement/construction/design permits by statute. And they had employees (biologists) who permitted these culverts back to the early 1970's! Were these culverts properly designed? If not, why not? That was these biologists job! WTF? Is anyone at WDFW EVER responsible for their actions, thru the courts.? Perhaps only the game wardens are the only ones ever held responsible! We need a total change of leadership and culture at WDFW!

There were many times when the field biologist opposed a project/culvert. They were over-ruled by higher-ups time and again. Some guys got demoted and re-assigned because they tried to protect the fish.

Ya think? Anyplace where politics and ethics collide is tough.

Long time ago WDFW issued an HPA for work along a creek in King County. One of the requirements was that the creek be fenced off and no humans allowed inside the fence.

Anyplace where politics and ethics align is exceedingly rare.

What a lot of folks don't, or refuse, (and this includes WDFW staff) to understand is that agencies make political decisions that may/will not be in the absolute best interest of "the fish", "the sporties", or "the commercials".

WDFW is not very good at, or perhaps even allowed to, fully explain the whys of some decisions. As voters and license buyers, I believe we need to know the full reasons for actions. Then, when all the options and impacts are laid out, we can can at least know why something was done.

I an sure that most of the culvert issues revolve around cost. There were these folks called "taxpayers" who wanted the roads built at the lowest cost possible; or preferably cheaper than that.

Regarding culverts, I thought I included in my earlier post that prior to the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife update to Washington's Forest Practices Act, DNR frequently, if not typically, permitted culverts sized for one-half the calculated flow to be installed simply because a full sized culvert was more than twice the cost. I seem to recall that it was a very big deal, a concession if you will, that under TFW, culverts sized for 100% of the calculated flow would be required going forward. Since under-sized culverts were frequently washed out, doing it right the first time is actually cheaper in the long run.

Not positive about this, but I think that even if the WDFW biologist recommended a larger sized culvert in those bygone days, it was DNR who had the regulatory authority if it was located on state or private forest land. There was a long history of WDFW recommendations for stream protection being over-ruled by either DNR, or until not so many years ago, DOE. It's been my observation that WA has been committed since its State Environmental Policy Act (circa 1973) to the highest quality lip service to environmental and fisheries resource protection, while at the same time allowing development of most types to proceed under the imperfect notion that we really can have it both ways: habitat protection and human development. Anybody who can do basic math knows that ain't true.

Everything SG said is pretty much spot on but in all things sometimes not. That said I did 2 years worth of GPS mapping of culverts and blockages. So here is the rub. Weyco went right at drainage on new and old roads but Green Diamond did mostly major haul roads and pretty much ignored older roads. Worked OK for both until Weyco got nailed for some very small run offs on main haul roads by WDF&W in high storm events which caused a disruption in the karma.

So this. TFW does not require prioritization just whatever you want to do first to meet the TFW requirements. The companies went from praising TFW to " the minimum required by law " and that is a quote from the manager in charge in my department and reflects the other companies also. Now this was driven by my employer and some newer WDF&W staff who .... ah .... maybe a bit out of their comfort zone. Don't believe me? How about being told to sand bag the East fork Satsop to make sure sediment did not get away. Sounds OK but this, I was working on flood damage fully permitted. Now sand bag the river? Sometimes our push for diversity vs the best qualified has consequences and usually bad from my experience.

So folks this subject will go all over the map if you get retired DNR, WDF&W, and forest product workers together. Now the worst environmental logging practices in so far as road construction and maintenance are in my view DNR, Port Blakely, Plum Cr., in that order. Green Diamond & Weyco struggle with the cost but have sorta got their arms around it but Weyco had to sell something for cash so the high risk environmental Hemlock ground ( Coastal ) went. Now the lands are owned by investor groups it is slowly headed back down environmentally.

"Highest quality lip service" is still the mantra. Not only for resource protection but for negotiant, season setting, etc.