Tag Archives: Culvert

Deadline to fix culverts that block salmon: 17 years

UPDATE, MAY 29, 2013
State officials have decided to appeal the Martinez decision, according to a statement from Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office. (See Associated Press story.)

“The state remains committed to doing more to address fish passage barriers and will continue to do so as resources permit,” Ferguson said in the statement. “The implications of the case, however, stretch beyond culverts. Issues of this magnitude deserve full and thoughtful appellate review.”
—–

The long-, long-, long-awaited court ruling in the so-called culvert case has finally been issued. The bottom line is that the Washington Department of Transportation has been given 17 years to upgrade all state culverts to accepted standards to allow fish passage.

That’s basically what 21 Western Washington tribes asked for when they proposed a court order three years ago. Actually, the tribes asked for 20 years, but Judge Ricardo Martinez subtracted the three years that they waited for a final decision in the case, first filed in 2001. See my latest story in Saturday’s Kitsap Sun, or review the history in an article published in January.

How much effect this case will have on the state budget is hard to say. The state will likely appeal, because there’s so much at stake — including the tribes’ authority to affect how the state spends its money. As I see it, under Martinez’ ruling, treaty obligations are not much different than the constitutional obligations the state has to provide “basic education.” And we all have seen how the governor and Legislature are looking under rocks to find money for that purpose.

One estimate of the cost of fixing all the culverts is $1.9 billion, but that’s assuming the state has a complete inventory. It could be more. Martinez wants to see a complete inventory within six months. People concerned about salmon will probably make sure their least-favorite state culverts are on the list.

The latest “Fish Passage Barrier Inventory” (PDF 5 mb), completed last July, identifies about 1,500 culverts that block significant upstream habitat. That inventory and other information can be found on WDOT’s website “Fish Passage.”

If you’d like to read Martinez’ ruling — which includes information on the treaties, salmon habitat needs and culvert history — download the decision (PDF 111 kb) here and the injunction (PDF 45 kb) here.

Through all these years, WDOT has not been ignoring the problem. As I have reported, the state has been upgrading culverts while doing major road repairs and also increasing the budget for stand-alone culvert replacement.

But at the current pace, it could take between 50 and 75 years to get all the work done, maybe more. These are just guesses provided to me, based on the average cost of repairs, but every culvert is different.

Near the upper end of the scale, replacement of a culvert that carries Chico Creek under Highway 3 is estimated to cost between $20 million and $30 million alone. The project will require several bridges for the four-lane freeway north of Bremerton plus on- and off- ramps in that location.

State officials are very aware of this Chico Creek culvert, which lies at the mouth of what has been called the Kitsap Peninsula’s most productive salmon stream. Salmon are getting through the culvert, but it’s a struggle. The culvert is considered a high priority by all, but replacement will probably take a special appropriation from Congress or the Legislature, or both.

As I watch our state highways deteriorate, I keep thinking back to the 1960s and early ‘70s when Washington had some of the best roads in the country. It was a pleasure to drive back then, if my memory isn’t faulty. Although money is needed to repair roads today, I think a good argument can be made that salmon were here first and should have been considered when the roads were built. Failing that, many people consider it essential to make things right now.

I should point out that the ruling does not immediately affect county roads or other projects that block the passage of salmon or affect salmon habitat. However, for better or worse, the legal principles established by the 1974 Boldt decision and reinforced by this culvert case could open the door to other types of court-ordered repairs to salmon habitat.

New bridge could improve salmon viewing

It was great to see more than 100 people turn out Satuday to remove weeds at Salmon Viewing Park on Chico Way. Check out my story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

Dan Mullen and his daughter Hailey, 7, remove brush last Saturday along Chico Creek. Kitsap Sun photo by Larry Steagall
Dan Mullen and his daughter Hailey, 7, remove brush last Saturday along Chico Creek in Salmon Viewing Park.
Kitsap Sun photo by Larry Steagall

Some people came out to do a little volunteer work and get some exercise. Others had a special connection to this undeveloped park property on Chico Creek. And others wanted to get in on the ground floor of an effort to transform this overgrown property into a splendid park.

It is too early to say how this park will look a few years from now, but most everyone wants to keep it natural. Trails, interpretive signs, a couple viewing platforms and some picnic tables are being considered. I discussed the plans briefly in a story on Jan. 27.

Did I mention that this park is one of the best places to view salmon on the Kitsap Peninsula? I list it prominently on my salmon-viewing map and encourage people to visit this spot throughout the salmon-spawning season.

The old culvert under Golf Club Road.
The old culvert under Golf Club Road.

One thing being discussed at Saturday’s outing was the likelihood that a corner of this park would be needed for a new bridge to replace a culvert under Golf Club Road. The culvert, which impedes the migration of adult salmon, serves the only road that goes up to Kitsap Golf and Country Club. The county will save money by building the new bridge before taking out the old culvert.

Planners tried hard to avoid construction of a bridge altogether. One idea was to build a road that connects with Chico Way on the south side of the Chico Way bridge. Such a road would eliminate the need for Golf Club Road and allow the culvert to be removed. But planners could not find a route for a new road that would work for local residents and not do extensive damage to wetlands in the creek’s floodplain.

The new bridge will cut off a corner of Salmon Viewing Park.
The new bridge will cut off a corner of Salmon Viewing Park.

Losing a portion of the park to build a new bridge sounded like a bad thing until I talked to Steve Heacock of the Kitsap County Department of Community Development. Steve told me that planners are working on a design that would allow a trail to be built from Salmon Viewing Park under the new bridge, providing access to a salmon viewing area on the north side.

Furthermore, the bridge itself could include a viewing platform to watch salmon from above.

To span the creek, designers have proposed an arch design using precast concrete pieces that span the creek with extra room for the stream to alter its channel and overflow into its floodplain, Steve told me. The arch design, called BEBO by the company that holds the trademark, is expected to keep the cost of the new bridge within reason. County officials are seeking grants to complete the design of the bridge and move on to construction.

The artist rendering below is just one idea provided by the engineers who did the preliminary design. The plan could be altered for a more natural look.

One possibility for the new bridge over Chico Creek on Golf Club Road.
One possibility for the new bridge over Chico Creek on Golf Club Road.

Culvert case could test extent of treaty rights

It’s been 12 years since we started talking about highway culverts and the potential for Indian treaties to significantly affect the state’s budget. It’s possible that the Legislature could soon face a new budget problem.

An old culvert on Johnson Creek carries water under Viking Way, a former state highway near Poulsbo.
An old culvert on Johnson Creek carries water under Viking Way, a former state highway near Poulsbo.
Kitsap Sun file photo

I revived the long-running court story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun, where I reported that a legal assistant in U.S. District Court suggested that the presiding judge could issue a ruling in the early part of this year.

If you’ve been around the Northwest for long, you probably know that the landmark Boldt decision upheld the right of tribal members to fish “in common with” other citizens of the region. Boldt’s decision, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the fairest way to share the limited fishery resource was to apportion the harvest equally between tribal and nontribal fishers.

The ruling was later extended to shellfish, so now state and tribal managers work in concert to establish seasons for fish and shellfish, as they have for years.

But Boldt said something else in his ruling that has far greater implications in today’s modern world. The federal judge said the state has a duty to protect the natural resources within its borders, so that fishing rights protected by the treaties would have true value for the future.

The extent to which treaties may be used to protect the environment has never been tested. But the so-called culvert case, filed in 2001, was a first step in this direction.

From the beginning, the importance of the culvert case was recognized by both sides. In a joint statement issued at the time of the legal filing, Gov. Gary Locke and Attorney General Chris Gregoire said the case could have impacts far beyond the issue of culverts:

“A favorable ruling for the tribes could impose a duty that may affect other public roadways, public facilities and lands, and even the regulation of land-use and water. We don’t believe the treaties were intended to displace the state’s authority to plan, schedule and carry out culvert repairs and replacements or any other such natural resource management or regulatory action.”

It’s interesting now to read a story I wrote in January of 2001 to see the fears expressed by state officials at that time.

The state eventually lost the case, and the feared “duty” was confirmed by U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez. He ruled that the treaties require the state to “refrain from building or operating culverts under state-maintained roads that hinder fish passage and thereby diminish the number of fish that would otherwise be available for tribal harvest.”

The state and tribes entered into negotiations, but they were unable to come to terms on a time schedule for fixing the culverts. Other issues surrounded construction standards to ensure that the culverts were of adequate size and design for the affected streams.

After two years, the tribes decided to give up on negotiations and go back to court so that the judge could impose deadlines for culvert replacement.

At that time, Jeff Koenings, former director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, testified that spending much more money on culverts could take away from more important restoration efforts. (Tim Klass, reporter for the Associated Press, covered the hearing while I was on vacation.)

The last oral arguments were heard in June of 2010, and no ruling has ever been issued.

I’ll post links to past stories and blog entries below if you’d like to review the history of the culvert case. But it’s important to consider that if the duty on the state is upheld, federal courts could order the state to spend millions of dollars more to address the culvert problem.

But why would things end there? The same duty would apply to culverts owned by city and county governments and probably private property owners. The same duty could have implications for all forms of development throughout salmon country.

I know that treaty rights do not sit well with some people. Every time I write anything about rights retained by the tribes for more than 150 years, my stories collect reader comments about how this treaty thing is unfair and does not comport with the American Way. I get the feeling that some people wish treaty rights would just go away or that somehow our state and local officials would simply ignore the tribes.

Well, I can’t say that such change is likely, given the position of our legal institutions, but there are two ways to make the issue go away. First, the courts could reverse their stance by placing certain limits on treaty rights.

Second, Congress could abrogate the treaties or simply pass new laws ignoring them. But throughout history such attempts have rarely been successful, because lawmakers are reminded that the treaties were signed with the full faith and obligation of the United States. Though the treaties were signed in another era, Congress has maintained its obligation to a greater or lesser extent through all these years.

Personally, I wish people would keep these issues in mind when they write their comments, for their words can be hurtful. After all, Native American people alive today are no more responsible for the agreements made long-ago than any of us. As with any group, some members have abused their rights and privileges — and we can discuss those issues. But tribal members as a whole should never be blamed for simply exercising their rights.

Previous stories regarding the culvert case:

Culvert case remains unresolved after three years, Jan. 5, 2013

Tribes Ask Judge to Speed Up Repair of State’s Culverts, AP, Oct. 13, 2009

Salmon and Culverts at Heart of Legal Battle Between Tribes, Washington State, March 21,2009

Salmon Ruling Has State Pondering Highway Culverts, Aug. 27, 2007

Tribes file lawsuit to force a culvert operation, Jan. 18, 2001

Watching Our Water Ways entries


Culvert case about treaty rights could be a new landmark,
Oct. 20, 2009

Fixing culverts is the next state-tribal legal battle, March 23, 2009