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