Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Washington state loses big legal battle over salmon culverts

11K views 96 replies 37 participants last post by  Olive bugger 
#1 ·
#2 ·
well....it is after all, the 9th circus...I wonder what would happen if Inslee just told them to fuck off. What would they do, jail him for comtempt? On the other hand, Inslee in a striped suit?,,,,,,,,,,Hmmmmmmmmm

adding a good dose of reality, considering the state can't fully fund the McCleary decision, if you add this demand on top of everything else, where they gonna find the money? B&O tax increases? Catch card increases, or overall license fee increases? They sure as hell won't find it in an income tax-that wet dream was already shot down what-five or six times? It's all about the bucks, isn't it!
 
#4 ·
This is one of those things where I don't necessarily care about what effects this might have on our wallets and paychecks and licenses. If it takes the 9th circus to get the state to fix these culverts, so be it. If the state of WA had any kind of sense of responsibility, they'd have done it long ago. My only issue, and I'm not sure how much it bothers me as the years go on and fish continue to dwindle, is that there's going to be an increase in non-indigenous fishes in these re-culverted areas. But which would I rather have, fish that are not necessarily genetically native to a watershed, or no fish at all in the watershed?

Not just about the bucks. A lot of ethics involved in implementing a program that would have such wide-ranging effects.
 
#8 ·
We're at a time when every single fish that we can get back matters. There are many examples of smaller streams around the state that are under restoration, and have been for years, and some of these smaller waters are producing over a million juvenile salmonids every spring. In some cases the smaller streams, creeks and rivers, are producing more salmon, steelhead and trout than the big famous rivers. These impassable stream obstructions, failed culverts, etc., should have been repaired at the first sign of trouble. Now it has become a widespread problem, with terrible consequences. Do the right thing.
 
#11 ·
Nor do I disagree with the concept, but locations should be evaluated & prioritized. For the court to mandate that ALL must be done now is both fiscally irresponsible & ludicrous. As my old Boss & retired Master Chief once told me: "If you're worrying about everything, you'll do justice to nothing."
 
#16 ·
This is why we can't have nice things. While no one here would be likely to argue that removing salmon barriers is a bad thing, the discussion went from "here is some pertinent info" to Troll attacks in one reply, and downhill from there.

OK, it's a difficult question; how does the state comply? For those of you who might have read the article, it includes this statement,

Seattle U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez held that fish-blocking culverts contribute to diminished salmon runs by blocking access to miles of suitable streams. In 2013, he ordered the state to replace hundreds of the highest-priority culverts within 17 years.

It sounds to me like they are Not being required to go about this without planning and prioritization. Yes, it's a lot of money. Yes, there are many other challenges to bringing back healthy salmon runs. Yes, there is little doubt this could make a significant difference. I don't think Charlie the Sea Lion is the main culprit in the salmon population decline.
 
#17 ·
It would be interesting to see a map of where the streams are located and some details on what types of salmon use those streams.

I do agree there are a lot of factors limiting salmon returns, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. While fixing the culverts may help, it won't neccessily guarantee more fish will return. You have to have returning fish that will utilize the new habitat before you'll see results.

I guess the next question is will this really cost the "State of Washington" 2 billion?
It would seem to reason that the bill for this would be spread out based on whether the state, counties or cities are responsible for roads that require action.
SF
 
#18 ·
Not sure how it directly relates to the lawsuit, but there is some info here regarding locations.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/FishPassage/

We've had some recent projects along the Mount Baker Highway to improve fish passage to streams and another is being installed this summer. I think I saw somewhere that salmon fry were seen above one of the recently installed passages.
 
#23 ·
Glad this was posted Bajema.
WSDOT has also budgeted over $90M/ biennium over the next 20 years for fish passage projects. The projects have been prioritized based upon the anticipated benefit to the run/ potential run in each watershed. Of course, other highway projects underway can alter that prioritization to pick some off culvert replacements earlier than planned, which in turn shifts the sequencing of other projects on the list.
Spendy to be sure, but LONG overdue.
 
#25 ·
So out of curiousity, and a completely unbiased/undetermined opinion since I'm new to the state, what is the remedy for these culverts? It sounds like it's been done and proven to work in other places? Again, I'm just curious, not trying to say it's good/bad whatever is done.

Being an engineer and having to have a calculated approach to everything, is this the next step/highest priority/best return on investment to improve salmon numbers, or is there other cheaper alternatives/low hanging fruit that can be done first?

Just trying to get up to speed here.
 
#32 · (Edited)
Repairing blocked culverts to restore fish migration in these smaller watersheds might be one of the best buys in wild fish restoration.

This is but one of the many restoration programs being undertaken around the state. Look through the list of projects. I can show you small streams here that had no fish running in them for upwards of 15-20 years. Today, after restoration, there are many thousands of salmon spawning in these smaller waters. Look at the videos. Study the website: www.nosc.org
 
#29 ·
This is an example of why I get so frustrated when people pile on WDFW for "bad management". The culvert issues are real. They have gone on for a long time. They are not WDFW's fault.

As far as prioritizing culverts vs. sea lion or anything else, you are chasing a red herring. The courts rule on what is in front of them. They don't rule on sea lions through a culvert case. The tribes felt the need to litigate culverts, not predators. If you want to go after predators then go and do that. I respectfully propose you involve the tribes. There may be a shared interest.

Go Sox,
cds
 
#34 ·
One thing to remember is the 2 bill is over a period of years, many of which have been wasted fighting in court. I have seen on multiple occasions, pairs of Coho directly below impassible culverts. Those fish will repopulate, that is how salmon have survived the ecological upheaval of this area. There are 12 impassable culverts on the North Fork Nooksack below the falls, I'd like to see them fixed and would be glad to pay my share of it.
 
#35 ·
I'd gladly hand over my money too if I knew it would go DIRECTLY to restoring/preserving some form of natural habitat.

But like many others I've lost faith in the way governments (city, state and federal) operate and manage their money. I've worked for city and state level and it is mind boggling. A lot of good intentioned people work there, but the system in place is impossible to get anything done efficiently. Idk, maybe it's different here. But if this is the right and smart thing to do, I'm all for it.
 
#39 ·
I see the whole picture, but removing dams, locks, port cities, etc.(not to mention people) that have adverse impacts on anadromous fish is not without significant ramifications. Fixing culverts is a good thing, but must be first: started, and second: done in a fiscally-responsible (as in not bankrupting states or the residents thereof) and prioritized manner. Depredation by Sea Lions, Pelicans, Terns, etc. also should be addressed where massive congregations of said predators are creating significant impacts. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Adopting a "do nothing" stance toward any/all issues only serves to exacerbate the problems. I wish you well.
 
#40 ·
The Washington culvert case is a study in intelligent litigation. The treaty tribes wanted action from Phase II of the US v. WA decision to improve fish habitat. The court ruling was a general one because the case (US v. WA) was generic to environmental protection. Many meetings were held to discuss how to bring it about. Biologists recommended going after impassible culverts because each culvert is a distinct cause of habitat degradation with the observable effect of no salmon production upstream of that point. Rather than going after all impassible culverts, the tribes selected state-owned culverts. Federal culverts are not part of the case because the tribes rely on the the US federal government to help them prosecute cases, and it's difficult to impossible to get the federal government to sue itself. They chose not to go after privately owned culverts because the owners might not have the money to repair them, and private owners lack the taxing authority to produce the revenue to repair them, and also because corporate private owners might very well join together and throw more and more powerful law firms at the case than the tribes and feds jointly could. Naturally the state-owned culverts were the low hanging fruit, a slam-dunk case of the state degrading the habitat that produced the salmon the tribes depended on, and the state was the original defendant in all the US. v WA treaty right fishing cases. A perfect fit.

The problem is that the case is not a solution to the lack of salmon. The habitat upstream of impassible culverts is not pristine. It is degraded and can produce salmon generally at about the same number per unit area as the downstream areas, or less, due to higher gradient which typically correlates with lower unit area productivity for most species. The upshot is that the state could spend billions of dollars replacing those culverts and produce additional salmon worth less than a million or so dollars in ex-vessel commercial value, for perspective sake. But that's OK from a tribal perspective because they will catch and sell the fish, but they won't be the ones paying for the fixes. Again, a perfect fit for the tribes.

I'm not opposed to habitat restoration. In fact I'm in favor of it, especially when the return on investment is good. With some culvert replacements it will be, but with most it won't. I think the court ruling makes no distinction in this regard. If the ruling targeted the specific locations where the prospective productivity is high, I think it would be a lot more palatable to the taxpayers who ultimately will have to pay for them.

The lawsuit is not about sea lion predation on salmon or high seas fisheries, so those topic deflections don't add much to the discussion.

Sg
 
#42 ·
I found this line from the OP's article interesting: "...to spend millions of dollars on repairs that will have no immediate effect on salmon habitat." While Salmo makes the good point that the habitat above many of these culverts is not in good condition, if we targeted the culverts that are blocking passage to quality habitat, would that not be an immediate, positive effect on salmon habitat?
 
#47 ·
Looks like this is going to happen. Wanna do this so we not only get it done but it might also WORK? Write your state legislators and inform them that if we want a meaningful return on the investment, we'll have to increase the number of spawning fish using the restored habitat. Oh... and reducing sport opportunity further won't get it done.
 
#50 ·
Everyone wants habitat restoration. I just don't want money wasted on places that won't have fish again no matter what we do. We have done a ton of that already.

All species of animals that have healthy stable populations that are not in danger should have hunting seasons managed by the state.

What's wrong with defending our natural resources? We have pussy footed around the Chinese for too long. We should have ne fear if them whatsoever.
That's called being weak and it has lead to the worst disasters in the history of mankind.
 
#53 ·
What's wrong with defending our natural resources? We have pussy footed around the Chinese for too long. We should have no fear if them whatsoever.
That's called being weak and it has lead to the worst disasters in the history of mankind.
We should try to defend our resources diplomatically before launching torpedoes at factory ships. While it would be satisfying for a moment, I reckon that WWIII would do much more harm than good for our salmonid populations.
 
#54 ·
While restoring habitat is a good thing and clearly the protection of salmon habitat as the State permitted the various highway culverts was not given the sort of priority that many would think is covered by the State mandate there are some interesting twist to this story.

Looking at the maps provided by Bajema and review some of the streams that I'm familiar with it is clear that the salmon that will benefit most from restoring access to some of this habitat will be wild coho stocks. This is both a good news/bad news situation. The good news is that unlike the situation with Chinook there is little interception of Washington of coho in northern fisheries thus potentially there could be some increases in wild coho returning to local waters. This is balanced with the co-managers with strong support from the tribal community continued to manage wild coho as secondary stocks in for a variety of Puget Sound streams (all of South Sound as well as Nooksack). On those basins the goal is to fully utilize the returning hatchery fish and the wild stocks secondarily. Meaning that the priority is accessing the abundant hatchery fish with the wild stocks relegated and their escapement needs to secondary status.

An interesting strategy pushing for more habitat while the management paradigm places little value on using that habitat.

To the question as to what is next? It is hard to imagine that water and water rights not becoming a key issue. If so this will be much more far reaching (and expensive) than culvert replacement.

Curt
 
#57 ·
BaldBob,

Under the Forest and Fish Act, an update to WA's forest practices act, does have strict requirements, but I don't know that it requires retroactive repair of impassible culverts. I'd have to look that up. Many of the corporate forest owners do have Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) with NMFS and USFWS that include schedules for culvert repairs and road repairs and decommissioning. But F & F occurred after the culvert case was initially filed, so timing is possibly a factor.

Sg
 
#58 ·
To those heaping the blame on foreign high seas fleets fishing our salmon stocks in international waters, the evidence I have seen indicates that's a very small problem. The Coast Guard and a private coalition out of AK investigated this in detail in the 1990s because there was some significant take of certain AK fish stocks, but not much from WA or OR. Every now and again the CG will nail a foreign long liner with salmon, but it's small potatoes in terms of what's ailing our salmon stocks.

Sg
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top