Riverguy,

I saw that article regarding the culvert replacements. First, let me say that I favor fish habitat restoration. Second, like any structure, culverts have a limited useful life span and need to be replaced at some point. When that time comes, restoring fish passage is a good idea.

Now then, the culvert case between WA treaty tribes and WDFW/WA state was a simple case of low hanging fruit. We ain't supposed to block fish passage, but state and local governments have been permitting it for over a hundred years. So the case was a legal slam dunk, so to speak.

Nonetheless, I've been confused at how WA has been going about this. I thought habitat restoration for ESA species was the first priority. However, many of the culvert replacement projects are on waters where there are no ESA-listed species. Next, the projects were supposed to benefit Chinook salmon, but most of the culvert projects are on creeks not used by Chinook. Rather, they are coho and cutthroat trout streams, maybe steelhead in some cases as well. Lastly, the prospective benefits to fish populations are doubtful, or speculative, at best. The state and the tribes have indicated no intent to increase spawning escapement goals to take advantage of the restored access to habitat. And your point about the cost per additional salmon resulting from these projects is very likely spot on. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for each "new" salmon, in the odd case that any additional new salmon even happen, given that salmon management doesn't seem to be taking restored habitat into account. Maybe they actually know something about the probable increase to salmon populations.