Well, at least the taxpayers are willing to step up to the plate.

And, what the heck is the Wa State recreation and conservation orifice ?

“ Earlier this year, the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office found some salmon species in the state are "on the brink of extinction" because of the loss of natural habitat, climate change, other factors are to blame, The New York Times reported.

Salmon take a major role in the culture, economy, and environment of the Pacific Northwest, where at least 138 species, from insects to orcas, depend on the fish for the food they eat, the Times noted.

In addition, the salmon support an estimated 16,000 jobs in commercial and recreational fishing, while also attracting tourists.

The proposed $1 billion would be paid out over five years. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the program will be the first of its kind on a federal level and will open the salmon spawning habitat in her state.

"The infrastructure bill makes serious investments in some of our salmon recovery challenges," she said in a recent statement.

The federal infrastructure bill also includes other funding to benefit salmon, including $172 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, a grant program that helps states and tribes protect and restore salmon habitat. Another $132 million is included in the package for the National Estuary Program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will receive $400 million to restore fish passage if the bill is passed, with 15% being set aside for tribes and tribal partnerships.
“

Good news for those commercial mixed stock ocean fisheries.

Aren't those the only fisheries that really matter? If they don't exist there is no "salmon fishing". Or at least that is what enough believe to make it so.

I'm not into gambling, so I don't make bets. However I'll take a SWAG (scientific wild azz guess) that we can be sure the entire $400 million is spent. I'll take another SWAG that the resultant increase in naturally produced ESA Chinook and steelhead is not statistically different from zero.

Some of the reasons are that Chinook seldom spawn in stream reaches upstream from culvert locations because culverts are used on streams of a size smaller than generally used by Chinook. It is true, however, that juvenile Chinook may enter and use small streams for rearing and travel upstream of culvert locations, but we're talking about a very small proportion of the entire juvenile Chinook population. Improved passage at culvert sites may attract some spawning steelhead, however steelhead are not limited by spawning area. Freshwater carrying capacity is limited by juvenile rearing area, which could include stream reaches upstream from culvert locations, but these often include stream reaches that go dry in the summer and so account for a very small amount of the total juvenile rearing habitat.

To add to Salmo's comment, from what I saw was that when new habitat was opened by culvert replacement and such the escapement goal for the watershed remained the same. The actual goal, then, in terms of fish per unit of habitat, is reduced. Goals lowered.

The fish mismanagers also will allocate theoretical fish added by the restored habitat to their forecast, and then fish for them.

That was actually said to a landowner. He wanted to know how many more fish would he see on his property if he did a habitat project. He was told none, that any more fish produce would go to catch. So, he didn't do the projects.

Ah CM you remember John do you? Until harvest is addressed I would not recommend any property owner give up anything or do a bloody thing. Habitat restoration with out harvest reform is a foolish endeavor.

So true. One of the real problems in trying to do salmon ecosystem recovery is that there is no Silver Bullet. No one fix. We could close all fisheries, close all hatcheries, and still have significant issues with dams, lack of floodplains, and a myriad pf other issues. We could take out all the dams, and salmon still won't come back strong.

We know, with absolute certainty, what excellent salmonid ecosystems look like, from headwaters to ocean. It's called Kamchatka and we've seen it when it was working. On this side of the Pacific we just have to decide how closely we want to replicate Kamchatkan watersheds. We know what's needed, but we also know that there is zero chance that North America is willing to do it.

All the money will be spent on studies and very little will be allocated for actual recovery efforts....

I would take that money and apply it where it's actually going to be used by the majority of people. Dike what's left of the lower reaches of river and make more room for shopping, dining, and other development possibilities that involve and benefit more people. We are kidding ourselves with any salmon recovery, after the fact b.s. If you want intact environments and plentiful salmon then go to AK with everyone else!!

Stimulus money for those with the all access pass.

I'd be glad to be wrong.

Lots of this is true, and then there will be feel good projects with big ribbon cutting ceremonies, which will probably increase productivity of a given run by four fish, all of which will be caught in Alaska.

Fish on...

Todd

What I saw, but maybe it has changed, is that when barriers were removed the escapement goals remained the same. Essentially, putting less fish in a given reach of creek. Based on that management action, streams are currently over-escaped and need the additional room to lower densities to optimum.