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.