Here are the public meeting dates for the Clark County zoning variance required for Storedahl/Daybreak Mine to take millions of cubic feet of gravel from the channel migration zone of the E.Fk. Lewis River.

It would be really good to have as many fishermen and fishing groups in attendance as possible...Fish First and Friends of the East Fork have been shouldering the load on this...let's all help them out.

*******************

Subject: Storedahl Hearing Dates

Three hearing dates have been set for Storedahl's Daybreak application.



The dates are April 29th, May 13th and June 1st. All of the hearings will be held on the 6th floor of the Public Service Center in the hearing room.



No public notice will be sent on the second and third hearings as the Hearing Examiner will announce the dates at the April 29th hearing. If you have any questions please let me know. Also, you can distribute this to anyone whom you think might be interested.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Josh

> >

> > Josh Warner

> > Planner II

> > =============

> > Clark County Community Development

> > Public Service Center

> > 1300 Franklin Street

> > P.O. Box 9810

> > Vancouver, WA 98666-9810

> >

> > Email: joshua.warner@clark.wa.gov

> > Phone: (360) 397-2375 ext. 4898

> > Fax: (360) 759-6390

****************

Josh Warner is the guy to contact with your requests that this variance NOT be given to the mining company. It looks like NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS may sign off on their HCP, against the recommendations of their own biologists, so this variance may be the last chance to stop the wide scale mine expansion.

Get on it!

Fish on...

Todd

Ok,

We all agree that habitat is an issue for wild fish...hatchery fish, too.

Some agree with it to the point that they think that hitting wild steelhead with rocks and sticks won't hurt the runs.

Well...here's a thread about habitat destruction...destruction that hasn't taken place yet, but will if it goes unchallenged.

Where the hell is everyone? Is it more fun to b!tch about WSR than do anything else?

This thread has been here for 24 hours, and NOT ONE SINGLE REPLY?

None of the stuff that affects wild steelhead is going to get done if no one does anything but piss and moan.

HERE"S A CHANCE TO HELP WILD STEELHEAD WITHOUT BLAMING FISHERMEN, OR BONKERS, OR INDIANS, ...

I just read the wild fish threads, and almost every anti-WSR guy is saying "It's the habitat..."

Fine. Where are you guys now? Where is anyone? Come on guys...do any of you really want to be part of the solution...at all?

Sorry for the rant, but nothing ever happens in this state for the fish by fishermen, except to complain about how it's everyone else's fault.

How about a few notes, e-mails, maybe a phone call...or take a little time and go to a hearing...

Todd

Been doing a few things.
This issue is only the start of things to come.
Many rivers are facing things like this, but this is over the TOP.
The damage this can cause, we don’t even know how much damage it will cause?
That’s the BIG question. When the Bio’s don’t like it, doesn’t that put up some RED flag’s?
I’ve already sent a letter in on this issue, which everyone should do. And go to this meeting.
It’s time to STOP the whining and HELP OUT!

"Sorry for the rant, but nothing ever happens in this state for the fish by fishermen, except to complain about how it's everyone else's fault.

How about a few notes, e-mails, maybe a phone call...or take a little time and go to a hearing..."

Todd I'm finding it harder and harder to take you seriously. Your trying to use this a pulpit for your WSR agenda and you don't even know who's sending emails, making phone calls or anything. You won't even answer a couple questions that I've posted. This issue will take a little researce because I'm surely not going to go by your word alone. You think we should all just blindly jump on your bandwagon? Some people have to pick and choose their battles carefully and not everyone has the time that you might have Todd. Of course I can see it coming now, next you will say something like this "Here we have this important issue and you guys didn't dive in full steam ahead, so what gives you the right to piss and moan about the statewide WSR ruling"...

Guilt trips don't always work in your favor Todd..

I pegged this to stay at the top because it is important------- You guys that hammer on the habitat issue need to get off your ass and do something instead of b!tching when somebody else does something.

Posted for a friend of mine:
-------------------

Todd

I have a friend that has a very well know environmental consulting service. Often he works with us on fishery issues. I asked him about the mining operation on Wednesday, and he told me that he didn't think that it was really that big of a deal at this time. He said that this mining operation was actually doing a HPC, and that 90% of all gravel pit operators have never even done this before. He said that the mining was going to happen in existing gravel pit(s) and that all the sediments were not going to be released back into the Lewis.


Was he wrong? He said that some people were worried about the possibility of major floods breaching the pits, and were concerned about sediments going into the East fork of the Lewis. Is that correct? What are the main problems that WSC is concerned about? Can you post some those concerns here? How does this project effect the relicensing of the upper projects on the mainstream Lewis?

What do the participants in that process think about the possible affects of this proposal, and how will it affect the relicensing process and the recovery of salmon and steelhead on the Lewis? Have you contacted the Cowlitz Tribe, or other tribes concerning this issue yet?

Question: Is this site location located in or near the lower end East fork of the Lewis? If so, how many of the wild steelhead spawn in this area? Or do the majority of them spawn above this proposed site area?
If so, what are their concerns?
-------------

I'm sorry Todd but for me, you bring zero credibility to this issue and I don't jump on issues until I feel comfortable knowing exactly what is going on.

Homer2handed-
Are you saying a professional agency biologist's recommendations are only valid if they argee with yours? Kind of like other folks opinions - if we agree with them great otherwise they must be wrong.

You said -"When the Bio’s don’t like it, doesn’t that put up some RED flag’s?" Your positions seems to be that the habitat abusers should be constrained by the professional biologist's recommendation while anglers certainly should not...

Todd -
You can't be surprised by the lack of interest in this and other habitat issues. We anglers have a long history of apathy. If catch allocation is not the issue then we don't have the time to get involved (even there we often rely on others to do the hard work). It is this very apathy that the competitors of the the resource's productivity (dams, development, water withdrawl, commerical fishing etc) count on. We are not likely to be effective in demanding change or resource protection.

Tight lines
S malma

Not a big deal???

Thats laughable no one familiar with the east lewis or familiar with what Stordahl has done there think's anything but a huge deal Including local WDFW bio's.

are you not aware that that the water raises 10 degrees from above the pit to below it? that would be in the summer from 65 -75 degrees creating a thermal barrier for both outmigrating and in migrating fish? the ponds that were created when the river blew through their levy are awsome pikeminnow habitat and lots and loys of wild salmonids meet there end there.


ahh ya know what nevermind some people just don't give a ****

Some people care more about discouting good people trying to do good things than they care about wild fish..

Bruce,

Reply to you and "your friend", also copied over from your website...

************************

Bruce,

"Your trying to use this a pulpit for your WSR agenda "

You're kidding, right? What I'm trying to do is get some of the passion that is apparent in the WSR issue in motion for something that we can all agree on, wsr or anti-wsr, and that is habitat destruction.

Here's some more information:

From Friends of the East Fork and FishFirst:



The East Fork of the Lewis River is our treasure, providing incredible scenic beauty, habitat, and a range of recreational activities. Unfortunately, the East Fork has also been stressed by population growth at the same time that it has been expected to provide profits for industrial interests. These pressures have pushed our river to the brink. In the past few years this precious resource, one of the last un-dammed rivers in the NW, was named one of the 13 most endangered rivers in America by American Rivers.



And, it could get MUCH worse.


Now the East Fork is further threatened by a proposed expansion of the Storedahl gravel mining operation at Daybreak, in the river’s floodplain. Storedahl’s current proposal would expand mining at Daybreak to include over 300 acres in the riverine (channel) migration zone. If this expansion is allowed scientists predict the East Fork will incur even more damage, including the high risk of:



-Reduced flow rates on the river, further endangering the three “Threatened” listed salmonid species

-Contamination and degradation of spawning beds with mining fines;

-Worsening erosion of the river’s banks and reducing our property rights & value;

-Destruction of riparian habitat & raising summer water temperatures to levels lethal to juvenile fish;

-Contamination of Troutdale Formation aquifer, it provides groundwater for Clark County and Portland.



Our best chance at stopping this threat to our river is coming up. On April 29th Clark County Hearings Examiner Dan Kearns will face two important decisions: Whether to allow rezoning, and whether the county can abandon its duty to conduct an independent Environmental Impact Statement by adopting a flawed EIS produced by Storedahl consultants for the federal government. The first hearing will be April 29, 7pm, at the Public Service Center, 6th floor hearing room, 1300 Franklin St., Vancouver. Comments must be submitted before 1pm, April 29th. The first date will probably involve the proponents case. On May 13th the 2nd part of the hearing will be time for public comment. There will likely be a 3rd hearing date for closing arguments. That date has not been set yet.



You can help save the East Fork by commenting to Clark County and relating to these key points.

It’s easy. Just send your comments—a letter, postcard, or e-mail— letting the County know that:

1. The proposed rezone is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and I oppose it. And,

2. The proposed change is not consistent with Plan policies and locational criteria and the purpose statement of the zoning district (i.e. Project supporters must show a substantial change in circumstance since the original zoning) and I oppose the rezone. And,

3. The proposed rezone will not further public health, safety, and welfare of the community

–and I oppose it.

4. “I oppose the Storedahl request to change zoning from agricultural to mining; and it will have an adverse impact that cannot be mitigated, and,

5. I support the County conducting their own Environmental Impact Study of the proposed mining expansion, to allow for the best and most comprehensive scientific information.”



Comments can be faxed to 360-397-2011. E-mail comments to: Susan Rice: susan.rice@clark.wa.gov, or Josh Warner: joshua.warner@clark.wa.gov. Mail comments to: Development Services Division, Clark County Community Development, 1300 Franklin St., PO Box 9810, Vancouver, WA 98666-9810.

Testimony must include name and address and must be received before 1pm the day of the hearing.



And, share this with friends and family. Every comment counts!


*******************************


Letter sent by Wild Steelhead Coalition:



TO: Josh Warner, Planner

joshua.warner@clark.wa.gov (transmitted electronically)

Clark County Planning Department

1300 Franklin Street, 3rd Floor

Vancouver, WA 98666



FROM: Todd Ripley, VP Political Affairs

Wild Steelhead Coalition

218 Main St., Suite 264

Kirkland, WA 98033



RE: Storedahl Habitat Conservation Plan





Dear Mr. Warner:



The Wild Steelhead Coalition (WSC) would like to take this opportunity to comment publicly on the proposed Storedahl Daybreak Mine expansion HCP. The WSC firmly requests that the proposed expansion of gravel mining on the East Fork of the Lewis River not be allowed to take place.



The proposal requires a full independent examination by Clark County, and full consideration must be given to all the environmental impacts that a project such as this will assuredly entail; to do less would put the NMFS and the USFWS in the position of making a decision on the sufficiency of the HCP without the benefit of all the necessary information to make such a determination.



The WSC submits that all impacts must be adequately mitigated to protect the wild fish runs that spawn and rear in the E. Fk. Lewis, and those that are non-mitigable must not be allowed to take place. The staff recommendations from WDFW that some of the impacts are indeed non-mitigable should be strongly considered, as should staff recommendations from the Washington Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources.



Credence should also be given to private organizations who have been working on protection and restoration of the Lewis River. Fish First and Friends of the East Fork have a restoration plan in progress on the E. Fk. Lewis River, and that environmentally friendly program will be compromised by such a large scale expansion of the Daybreak Mine.

The East Fork of the Lewis River a major tributary to the lower Columbia River, and its wild fish runs are very important to the protection and recovery of fish runs in the Columbia. It also is the largest free-flowing river, free of dams, in that region.



In spite of those things, American Rivers has found it to be one of the most “threatened” rivers in the

United States, and projects such as the Daybreak Mine expansion will push the river from “threatened” to a footnote in the story documenting the further demise of Lower Columbia anadromous fish runs.



The WSC respectfully submits that Clark County make an extensive and thorough investigation of all the impacts involved in the proposed expansion, and make use of the county, state, and federal agencies charged with protecting the public resources of our state. The WSC further requests that it be notified at the above address of the further opportunities to provide testimony, whether it be written or in person, with regards to this proposal.



Thank you very much for your time and consideration, it is much appreciated.



Sincerely,





Todd A. Ripley

Vice President of Political Affairs

Wild Steelhead Coalition

************


Here is an excerpt, memo from NOAA Fisheries to NMFS:

1. effects of the pits on groundwater quantity and quality. The East Fork Lewis River (EFLR)is temperature impaired during the summer. We don’t want in make it worse. All local groundwater flow paths end up in the EFLR at. some point along the river. A porous matrix of cobbles and gravels is always a better insulator of water than floodplain gravel pits open of solar radiation and evaporation. Biochemical mechanisms in the shallow alluvial aquifer and hyporheic zone add nutrients and food that increase the overall productivity of the foodweb. Groundwater seeps and upwelling zones likely provide thermal refugia throughout the year. Remove the matrix of alluvium and you remove these benefits.

2. will the pits affect groundwater flow paths? Are the conclusions in the HCP/BO valid? I believe the pits will affect flow paths, but didn't have enough time to go through all the groundwater information. However, I provided some insight into this question/issue in part 1.

3. will the new pits increase the risk of an avulsion? Yes. The new pits are within the alluvial, geomorphic, active (and any other terms that mean "the river left it there and will be back") floodplain and are subject to the fluvial action of the EFLR. Further, the mere presence of a floodplain gravel pit increases the likelihood of an avulsion to that area of the bottomland, especially when the base level of said gravel pits are tens of feet below the bed of the adjacent river channel.

4. Will recovery, after an avulsion, only take 5 years? No. I couldn't find this in any of the information you sent, but the answer is a resounding NO—more on the order of hundreds to thousands of years. Pits could only be considered recovered when the river replaces all of the removed material and the channel is brought back up to grade. Pit recovery requires a supply of sediments, and the watershed can only produce a relatively fixed amount every year. Unfortunately, the river can't wait hundreds of years to refill an unnatural sediment sink, so it satisfies its immediate appetite by cannibalizing sediments stored in the riverbed and in banks,.This action usually acts in motion a string of events that are usually significantly negative to the riverscape and its inhabitants

5. The HCP predicts that an avulsion, if it occurs, will only take out the existing Daybreak Ponds. The new pits are outside the 100-year floodplain (in dispute) and therefore, according to the HCP, not vulnerable to an avulsion. The EFLR didn’t wait to fill the Mile 9 pit captured in 1995 before taking out the Ridgefield Pits in 1996. The proposed expansion site is within the geomorphic floodplain of the EFLR and therefore "in play" during a "100-year" flood. How do the Daybreak Ponds differ from the Ridgefield Pits, and how would the proposed ponds differ from both of these. Ask Storedahl for a derailed topographic map of the valley floor from bluff to bluff upstream from RM 5 to RM 10. The ribbons of alluvium that formerly separated the Ridgefield ponds from one another are likely differ by only a few feet from the elevation of similar ridges of dirt at the Daybreak Ponds, and from the ground surface at the proposed site. Then consider that the EFLR can easily climb a few feet as it floods...

6. Will the reclamation of the ponds (in-filling with fines) affect the groundwater flow, and therefore the EFLR? Yes, from both a water quality and volumetric standpoint See part 1.

7. Will sediments, if flushed from the ponds, settle onto downstream spawning gravels? (HCP says no, the EFLR is not sediment limited.) Possibly. This depends on the size of the fine sediment particles, the magnitude of sediment discharge, the discharge in the EFLR, and, to some degree, the temperature of the water in the EFLR (viscosity is inversely related to temperate). Timing is important- sediment delivery out of phase with the natural hydrograph is a bad thing for fish and the aquatic foodweb, regardless of the substrate it settles into. Thanks for your time, and the opportunity to provide comments on this project.

**************************

Fish on...

Todd

Smalma
The way I used “Bio’s” was wrong. Sorry
But reading things like this (that where in that memo from NOAA Fishers), makes me think a little.

Todd -
I forgot but a tip of my hat to you and your efforts.

Hopefully the folks in Clark County get involved - on local issues input from the locals is always more effective.

Homer -
Actually your statements reflect pretty accurately how most folks think - it was just too easy of shot that I could not resist. No need to apologize - your habitat efforts have earned my respect and a free pass from me anytime!

Tight lines
S malma

Thanks, Smalma,

Have you heard anything else about the Dolly Varden/Bull Trout report from the Feds? That one really chapped my hide...besides being an indicator species for the health of the entire watershed, they're a pretty darn good gamefish themselves!

Fish on...

Todd

Smalma, I think a lot of it is also that your average angler just isn't aware of habitat issues and what all is involved in it. Many habitat issues are also in areas that don't affect them or they don't know that it affects them and if they do know then they don't know what to do about it. It seems out of their reach and overwhelming.

Now tell that same angler that their limit just went from 5 fish a year to zero and you'll likely get a very colorful response. Theres something they can relate to!

Its not always that they don't care. Often I'm sure its that they just don't have the information and are probably intimidated by entire habitat issue and they just don't know what to do about it, so they just keep fishing, hoping someone is fixing it. After all millions of their tax dollars are being spent so that the experts will address and hopefully fix the habitat problems. I also totally agree with you about local issues and input from the locals being more effective. Locals usually are more knowledgable about what is really going on. Its good to see some of the local groups down there on top of it.

Bruce -
Have to disagree - while the average angler maybe ignorant about some of the habitat issues the reader of this and other sites can hardly make that claim. These issues has been discussed at great length - it is just that they are not very sexy. You are correct in that it does take considerable work for an individual to successful in lobbying for changes or protection. That is one reason why discussions on various web sites can be so important.

Todd -
Have not heard or see anything new on the bull trout report - not that I really expect to hear new information.

Tight lines
S malma

I was referring to the average angler in this state and how the different issues affect them. I guess I did a poor job of making my point. People that post on this site make up a very small percentage of our states anglers.

I do see a lot of talk about habitat here (mostly arguing) but not really that much specific details regarding how to get involved, what area etc etc. I would like to see more of it though.

Bruce,

If you have seen the area in question from an arial view or by actually walking the disaster zone there would be ZERO question in your mind as to whether this is "no big deal". There IS a reason why the EFL made the top 10 most endangered rivers list. Had something to do with a gravel pit.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. One more way to tilt the system to their favor and 'we promise, IT won't happen again'. Promise.

William

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html

Heres a link to The State Dept. of Ecology watershed planning. It's not hard folks to find out what is happening in your area. Remember this is not near all the information out there for your local rivers, but take the time to look and you might find some useful information. It's about time that anglers as a group start taking an interest in our watersheds.
Thank you Todd for creating this thread and thanks passed-out-hippie-guy for marking this as an important topic.
your river

Thank you Todd

This is an extremely important issue not only for the East Lewis but for rivers all around the country. SO even if you never see the east fork this issue affects YOU as an angler because your river is likely to be next. currently there are many mining companies waiting to see how this turns out so that they can start similar operations in other areas.

In 1996 the East Lewis blew through the levy that separated the river from their abandoned mine pits. now the river flows through thoes pits. where the river was once 60 feet across is now several hundred yards across. The water temps raise about 10 degrees in this area in the summer months and become exceptional habitat for both native and non-native predatory species.
the lower portion of the river has been completely inundated with silt and spawning has plummeted in that area and spawning in other areas remains the same. This means that fish didn't simply move to other areas IT WIPED THEM OUT.. This includes the rivers run of Chum salmon.

Keep in mind that Stordahl "sold" this mine to another company that subsequently went filed for bankruptcy so no one was ever held responsible and the local fishermen of the area are the only ones working on cleaning it up. I have my differences with fish first but in regards to the east fork my hats off to them.

Now Stordahl wants to start minine a little upriver from his current site leaving his old pits the same way he left the old one. He also has manupulated government agencies who ARE NOT ENFORCING the enviromental regulations he is already breaking.
And by the way the river has changed course as it does OFTEN and is currently running against his access road which creates a levy exactly like the one that broke in 1996.
Stordalh is responsible for the destruction of the Lower East Fork and is doing the same exact things he was before. He has contempt for his neighbors, for the river and it's fish.

Now keep this in mind. When a miner begins to excavate a deposit of whatever he is mining, in this case gravel, he has the legal right to follow that deposit wherever it goes. That means he could force people off their land and homes to get at that gravel. He is already buying mineral rights. For thoes that know this area the deposit of rock he will be working extends from his current site to the daybreak bridge! Also he can take as long as he wants to mine this gravel and not start any restoration work until he is done.

This is a bad mining operation by what I would call an evil man who doesn't care about anything or anyone other than himself.

Also I'd add that Todd has more credibility than anyone else on this board ever even thought of having..

C'mon Rob... I think you are right up there in the credibility list...

:p

Mining is right down there with farming when it comes to the fish lovers in this world...

picture worth a thousand words

http://www.lewisriver.org/articles/Friends%20of%20the%20East%20Fork%20News%20Articles1.html

I don't know much about this issue, but after reviewing the Friends of the East Fork website and seeing that picture, I'm pretty sure of one thing, it doesn't look good. I'll be making a phone call and I'll try to get support on my site as well.

Hey Todd, How often do you fish the East Fork??

Another piece of proof that the WSC is working on other issues.

While I know its been said before. It is this type of habitat work that is the most cost effective. (IE preservation of existing habitat).
Its much cheaper to prevent habitat destruction before it happens rather than try to restore it after its be degraded.

Kudos to all who are working hard to prevent habitat degradation.

Good work Todd bringing this to the fore.

thanks passed-out-hippie-guy for marking this as an important topic.

Hey-------------- I was sleeping

Passed out hippie guy!

Party on dude!!

Where were you guy when we were fighting Tacoma power on the Cowlitz.Sitting on your hand going how good the summer run on the cow was last year. You Lewis guy make me sick.You come up here catch are fish but we go down there and you look at us like get out of my fishin hole.We need help up here to so lets all get off are buts and fight the good fight everybody.One for fishing all for fish.

Cowlitz kid

Do you want thier help or do you want to just whine??
I have found the best way to get people involved does not begin with me telling them how pathetic I think they are. Might try a little more sugar and a little less vinager. As for your last line "one for fishing and all for fish" I assume that means the lewis river anglers also, or am I mistaken?
By the way, I have never fished either river, so I have no vested intrest one way or the other. Just my $.02

Cowlitz kid

1. Cowlitz ateelhead runs are virtually all hatchery origin Whereas the Lewis still has a population of wild fish. Wild fish need protection hatchery fish just have to be manufacturerd.

2. Just because you live close to a river doesn't mean that that river belongs to you or that the fish in it are yours or only for the people of that area. Nor even primarily for those people. In fact people of washington state other than thoes who live on the cowlitz pay more for thoes fish than the people who do live closeby.

I not trying to get you guys mad at my.We just need to help all the fish in all the rivers.And I don't own the the river.

It has been a long time since I have posted here.

Just wanting to encourage anyone who has ever fished the EFL, fished the EFL or intends to fish the EFL or just cares about our fisheries in general to make your opinion known, just a reminder the deadline for coments is 1pm Thursday.

There are a lot of disturbing facets to this issue of mining the EFL and how Storedahls is going about getting their way.

Here is a copy of my letter concerning this matter . It lightly addresses a couple of points, concerns and thoughts not really covered in any of the above material.

----
Susan Rice
Josh Warner
Development Services Division
Clark County Community Development
Vancouver, WA

Dear Ms. Rice and Mr. Warner,

I am writing you today expressing concerns about the proposed gravel mining in the East Fork Lewis River basin by J.L. Storedahl and Sons Inc.

I address these concerns to you from several positions and perspectives, among them;

As a Clark Co. resident and property owner who has a small stream flowing across my property and the attendant duty to act in a responsible manner when considering activities which may affect the stream or riparian zone.

As a parent having young children and being charged with the responsibility to protect and preserve our resources for future generations pleasure and enjoyment.

As sportsman who enjoys the outdoor recreation and fishing opportunity the E.F. Lewis provides and who spends a considerable amount of money locally pursuing my enjoyment of the river.

As an individual who generates portions of my livelihood by guiding anglers on the E.F Lewis and again spends a considerable sum of money locally, both mine and clients while pursuing the recreational opportunities the river provides.

My concerns revolve around and deal with several issues. In no particular order they are - degradation of the environment and further damage to endangered fish species; an apparent failure of the agencies involved and Storedahl’s to consider a broader range of developmental alternatives than those listed in the final EIS and HCP; questions concerning the science used, included or excluded in the reports forwarded to and used by the reviewing/approving agencies and the politics of authors of these reports;

Degradation of the environment and further damage to endangered fish species:

Using just one example, the 1996 flood, we have evidence of severe and long lasting damage to the environment and damage to endangered fish species directly related to mining efforts. As you are probably aware the river flooded into gravel pits on both sides of the river. Several years later current WDFW surveys find virtually no spawning redds through this stretch of river where there historically were many.

An honest appraisal of our restoration and recovery efforts on a variety of watersheds and several species of fish have proven woefully inadequate. Despite our best efforts, we are losing the battle to preserve our wild anadromous fish. Though several groups are proposing plans intended to ‘restore’ the lower river there is contention on the viability of each plan with proponents and opponents arguing over who’s science or approach is best. The simple fact in all this is the river sustained great damage as a result of past gravel mining, that damage is still highly visible today and the success of recovery efforts yet remains to be seen. Further mining on the East Fork leaves us with the situation not of if, but when another catastrophic occurrence is going to happen. In short we are much better off preventing such an event than trying to recover from such an event.

Alternatives Analyzed:

It is my belief there been an apparent failure of the agencies involved and Storedahl’s to consider a broader range of development alternatives than the four listed in the EIS and HCP. The fact that only these four were included gives me grave concerns as to the intent on the part of Storedahl’s.

An implicit threat in a half page ad in the Sunday April 25th. 2004 Columbian placed by Storedahl’s does nothing to alleviate this concern of Storedahl's intent -

This appears to almost be surreptitious effort to blackmail the public with an either/or scenario of these options. Selecting the least worst of several bad options should not be our only option.

Just a couple quick questions for consideration, why not consider allowing a conservancy group to acquire the property instead of subdividing it; or why not consider granting Storedahl’s some tax or other incentive in exchange for the County acquiring the property. Clark County has a long history of providing tax incentives to industry for various reasons.

Questions concerning the science:

There appear to be questions about the science used, included and/or excluded in evaluating this proposal and whether politics have overridden science in evaluating this proposal. I am also disturbed by the comments of several agencies in stating that certain concerns are outside the scope of their agency or mandate. When several agencies involved in a complex project state that certain things area outside their scope, it would appear these same agencies are leaving some mighty large cracks for things to fall through.

Combine these questions with concerns of the validity of including past human activity in the region as determinants for establishing the historic channel and flood plain of the river, see WEST Consultants, Inc. own comments concerning this and one begins to question the whole process.

If only a cursory review of the EIS and HCP raised such concerns and questions, in view of the fact Clark Co. has been relying on the federal agencies review of the project, I feel it is the responsibility of Clark County to conduct their own EIS to determine the validity of the information included and forwarded to NOAA and U.S. F&W for review in approving this proposal before giving their own approval to this proposal.

I will be attending the April 29th, and May 13th. hearings. I would like to remain open minded in this matter and have the opportunity to learn more. However in the event the Thursday, April 29th, 1:00p.m. public comment deadline would preclude my ability to make a statement that would be included in the public record please consider this document as my

- opposition to rezoning the proposed site from agricultural to mining;

- opposition to altering the formal definition of the 100 year flood plain;

- opposition to the proposed plan for mining the East Fork Lewis river;

- opposition to Clark Co. relying on the EIS produced by Storedahl’s

- support of Clark Co. in performing their own EIS;

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

-----
For those of you who have taken time with this issue I thank you.

For those that haven't please consider beyond this issue with the EFL, we all have home waters that have some type of problem. It is only by getting involved and staying aware that we can hope affect the future of these watersheds and our fisheries.

I would urge you to take a few moments to make your opinions known.

Later
Wes

More
http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/steelheader/east_fork_report.pdf

Todd, or anyone else
Did you attend yesterdays meeting?

Yeah...there wasn't time for any public testimony (which was expected)...the county planner, Storedahl, and his lawyer pretty much read the HCP documents and stood in a circle patting each other on the back for three hours.

Got home at 1:15am last night...still tired...but managed to catch two native winter runs and a springer (BBQ style...no addi) on my way to the meeting.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, thanks for coming down. I was in Montana and could not make it. I can report that Clark-Skamania Flyfishers has sent about 25 letters in opposition to this project and plans to provide oral testimony from about 8 members who know the river well.
This is a terrible project by a company that has just about destroyed the lower river over the years. After their pits were washed out in the 1996 flood, Storedahl sold the property to a out-of-state company who filed Chapter 11 so Storedahl walked away free. Their asphalt road is now in the river and at least 4 houses are threatened by slides. Before the flood, about 60 pairs of steelhead spawned below Daybreak. In 2002 the number was zero. It is so bad down there that an aerial photo of the Storedahl operation was on the cover of a Hydrology magazine a couple years ago.
To quote the editor emeritus of the local paper, The Columbian, "The county would be the only known place in the nation where a river is traded for a gravel mine. What kind of legacy is that?"

My old man used to say alot of things but one I try to live by. Beleave none of what you hear & 1/2 of what you see!! I was raised on the north & south forks of the lewis. I caught my first wild fish on the east fork in 1977. my old man even then taught me to release wild fish to keep the (good gene) pool going.The strordal bros. were working the same pits back then !! the east fork of the lewis river is a classic fishery! If I wanted to wine !! I would be wine ing about the small land owners that buy a pcs. of land next to the river and log it for cash,only to silt up the beds and raiseing the water temps!!! That is way worce than pulling some gravel out of a hole 400 yards away from our rivers!!!!! winer

Umm.. well 400 yards from the river??? when was the last time you were there???

The river now flows directly through where they mind previously!! the separation between the pits and the river is exactly 0.

Also you should be aware that since the 96 floods which blew through the dike separating the river from the mine spawning below the mine which was once very productive in now extremely limited as the habitat has been wiped out..

I don't care how long you have lived there and fished the river. You should take the time to read what people who know more than you have to saw about this issue.. Why not call up the region 5 Bio's and ask their opinion?

I testified at the final hearng last night. I gave WDF&W numbers showing about 60 redds in the area prior to the flood and zero redds after the old Storedahl pits blew out. My report was 28 pages with enclosures. One of them was a color photo (one of 8) which I took on Februray 2, 1996, when I put my drift boat in the river on the morning after the peak of the flood and ran the river from Lewisville bridge to LaCenter. This photo shows the area just below the proposed mine under about 3 feet of water. I actually rowed my Don Hill boat up Hamm's driveway to the J.A. Moore road. But Storedahl says it's not in the flood plain.
However, that's not my point. With 4 species of ESA listed fish in this river, do we need a mine?
Last night closed oral comment on the issue and there were no speakers in favor of the mine. Comments by Storedahl's paid Ph.D. fish consultant were interesting, among them:
1. mine sediment in the river has not been proved to be all bad.
2. WDF&W redd surveys for steelhead could have been low because they couldn't see redds in the bottom of the old pits.
3. Recent water temperature increases could be the result of the Yacoult burn. (almost 100 years ago)
4. The fact that the East Fork wild fish are way below escapement (and going lower) while the Washougal and Kalama are greatly improving has nothing to do with the flood blowing out the ole mines.

Yah Clay.

On your way down to the Lewis this weekend, make sure to stop off at the East Fork to take a look and report back to tell us what you saw.

The way I've heard you talk about the E.Fork, I would have thought you would support the effort to prohibit Stohrdahl from further damaging a precious ecosystem.

My personal opinion is that ALL efforts should be brought to bear against this travesty. They do not care about anything except THEIR bottom line.

Let me know how you do this weekend!

Jim