Boldt-related ruling might result in broad habitat restoration

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Lugan, Apr 1, 2013.

  1. This article speculates that last week's federal court ruling that WA must spend big $ on repairing culverts in order to honor the old Boldt ruling setting aside fish for tribes may result in broader habitat restoration requirements:

    I'd be interested in hearing from some of the experts on Boldt and anadromous fish issues what your take is.
  2. This was an issue that came up 15 years ago or more, and a lot of culverts were replaced at that time, but the impetus waned and the recession cut funds for many projects.

    I think many of these will be good for anadromous fish and many will be on streams that have little fish spawning potential, but replacing culverts with bridges over at-grade streambeds is good for stream ecology, including for resident, non-anadromous fish, whether it helps salmon or not.

    dryflylarry likes this.
  3. Kinda hard to spawn here. camera 1 first try 101.JPG
  4. I think the next step is to have everyone remove their bulkheads along the shorelines! Maybe the tribes can pull that one off!
    Chris Johnson likes this.
  5. If I remember correctly, there are somewhere in the nieghborhood of 30,000 fish passage barriers idenified in WA. That's a lot of work
    Kent Lufkin likes this.
  6. I think the majority of the work is 'behind the lines, sorting it all out in the office(s) type stuff' as there are so many studies, agencies, and just your general bureaucratic jive to deal with. Add in sequestration, and unless someone is holding someone elses feet to the fire there is no government agency out there that is thinking," budget and staff cuts, no worries, lets knuckle down and get some culverts replaced."
  7. Shucks! They can take a pittance like that out of my social security. From what I read we're all over grossly compensated.
    Chris Johnson and Richard Torres like this.
  8. Sounds like shovel ready jobs to me...and probably something low risk prisoners would gladly do for free (or in trade for their cost to taxpayers) as opposed to living in a cell.
  9. You mean accountability? We as taxpayers want to get the best product and a good return for the money we put into it, right?

  10. No, I mean everything it's going to take to get the ball rolling.

    With a few exceptions (stuff under highways) the actual tasks of removing and replacing will be the easy part(s.)

Share This Page