#977152 - 05/24/17 11:23 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: DrifterWA]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
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.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977153 - 05/24/17 11:52 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
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?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977154 - 05/24/17 11:57 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Still have 13M to go. You gotta luv how we do EC's or not. Just depends on who is punching the donkey.
Edited by Rivrguy (05/24/17 11:59 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977163 - 05/24/17 03:35 PM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
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?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977164 - 05/24/17 04:39 PM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977165 - 05/24/17 05:08 PM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977173 - 05/25/17 04:57 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
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.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977175 - 05/25/17 07:19 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977178 - 05/25/17 08:05 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: Soft bite]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4393
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
John you did er right! Bravo!!!!!
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977179 - 05/25/17 08:21 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977183 - 05/25/17 09:40 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
|
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?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977184 - 05/25/17 09:43 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
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
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977189 - 05/25/17 12:41 PM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: Krijack]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977190 - 05/25/17 12:42 PM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
My Area code makes me cooler than you
Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
|
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!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977194 - 05/25/17 01:07 PM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
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!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977203 - 05/26/17 08:36 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: Krijack]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
|
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? 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
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#977206 - 05/26/17 10:56 AM
Re: Washington state loses legal battle over salmon
[Re: NickD90]
|
My Area code makes me cooler than you
Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
2 registered (stonefish, wolverine),
1049
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645297 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|