Salmo, you may not think of yourself as an agency "spokesman" but you are by de facto!

You are right about this being "complex" and that is why I am bringing it before this board. When it's all said and done, both members and the public will have a much better understanding of what has happen to the Cowlitz fishery. But this issue is NOT that complex that people can't understand what is really going on. Common sense mined people can, and will make up there minds after reading both your and my comments about this issue, so lets get down to where the difference are.

You say; "The law, as supplemented by FERC’s own ruling, is that the utility should provide ". . . mitigation proportionate to project impacts." That sounds fair, so why didn't NMSF demand volitional passage of both dams for the fish?

Tacoma built the dames with the complete understanding that both of their dams would have workable fish passage built on both of them, so why not require them to do what Tacoma originally has testified to do in the State Supreme Courts? Logic would make one think that if you built a dam and you had agreed to put fish passage structures on them originally then you're still obligated to do so now. A license to "operate a dam" should not remove the legal commitment that Tacoma had made in court to do. How could the lack of "fish passage" be considered to be anything else other than a "Project impact"?

Moving on-

You say;" I take it to mean that Tacoma should provide mitigation such that there are as many fish in the Cowlitz River in the future as there would be if there were no Tacoma (or in this case also Lewis Co. PUD) dams on the river" WHY didn't both WDFW and NMFS demand "mitigation measures" for what Tacoma has done to the lost of our fisheries in the "lower River" that were caused by the operation of their projects? Other then an unnatural flow regime that just happens to coincide with Tacoma's power needs. What mitigation did NMFS ask for?

You say;" Fortunately, there are state records either enumerating or estimating the numbers of salmon and steelhead in the Cowlitz River just prior to and at the time the dams were being constructed" What records were used for mitigating the other 49 miles of river below Tacoma's projects? Surly you would not expect anyone to believe that all the Cowlitz fish production was above Mayfield do you?

You say; "The SA doesn’t say how many hatchery or how many wild fish Tacoma must produce. Just that the combination of hatchery and wild fish must add up to the numbers present during the pre-project period. Some people find this unsatisfactory. I don’t."

Since it was the NMFS who helped pressured WDFW into lowering those numbers during relicensing process, I can see why you "don't" "feel" that way. Why don't you tell this board about the original numbers that WDFW had proposed and why you (NMFS), Tacoma, and TU jumped on them for introducing their numbers! Have you forgotten about that meeting already?

Salmo,

This next paragraph you wrote really sums it up why more and more people are now realizing just how in your own words "[Bleeeeep!]" the NMFS really is!;

"True, you might have both hatchery and natural production in the upper Cowlitz basin. However, that’s not the same as quantifying Tacoma’s mitigation responsibility, which is what the SA is about. In addition, another law applies, the Endangered Species Act, which wasn’t much of a player when the Cowlitz reintroduction plan was originally being developed. As a result, NMFS prohibits the transport or migration of Chambers Creek and Skamania steelhead to the upper Cowlitz. So even if there were a fish ladder in place today, all adult fish would still be stopped at the Cowlitz salmon hatchery, with only the fish with the proper “credentials” being allowed upstream."

So this is how NMFS safeguards our resources; we have 240 miles of almost virgin habitat that hasn't been used for decades sitting there with almost no fish. We had a golden opportunity to put anadromous fish back in that in all likelihood can produce more fish than the current hatcheries for almost nothing. We haven't had any true "wild" fish in the Cowlitz except fall chinook and a few coho, and 25% of the "natural" spawning falls are "strays" from the Lewis River, and now some jerk comes up with the idea to create a "wild" steelhead that now will stop all other fish from producing naturally because; "NMFS prohibits the transport or migration of Chambers Creek and Skamania steelhead to the upper Cowlitz." What a senseless waste of a fishery! And you wonder why fish are being listed.

And you wonder why I use the word "Stupidly" when I referr to agencies like MNFS.

Salmo, please don't confuse me with your own thoughts. You said;" CFM occasionally substitutes his opinion for facts: Your wrong and you owe me an apology Salmo. I reread your assertion and nowhere did I say that this was a "fact", all I said was;" Tacoma spent way over 12 million dollars to assure that fish ladders would not be installed for at least the first 15 years, and that the future hatchery production would be cut back so that wild fish would become the highest priority and goal."

You know me well enough by now, that when I say it's a "fact", I always state it as so! I did not state that it was a fact as you have insinuated. So who's incorrect?

Moving on-

You said; "This has been through the ringer here before, but once again, NMFS accepts WDFW’s assessment of the genetic background of the various Cowlitz stocks as reasonable." Obviously NMFS never does their "homework" do they? Have you even read the WDFW "Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan" (HGMP) for the "late" winter steelhead? Most likely not!

The one that I have seen was submitted on 4-04-01 and was never signed. . . I wonder why? The NMFS had apparently approved this or you (NMFS) wouldn't have signed the Settlement Agreement right?

HGMP Question: Current program performance, including estimated smolt-to-adult survival rates, adult production levels, and escapement levels. Indicate the source of these data.

Answer: No information exists specifically for "late" winter steelhead prior to 1996 release year. Smolt-to-adult survival information will be available after year 2000 adult returns.

HGMP Question: Past and proposed levels of natural fish in broodstock.

Answer: "Late" winter steelhead were native to the Cowlitz River and the original broodstock was comprised entirely of natives. By mid-1990's all hatchery steelhead were adipose-fin clipped which resulted in no natural fish being used for broodstock. Depending on the success of the program, WDFW may incorporate natural fish into the broodstock. If this occurs, WDFW will consult with NMFS.

HGMP Question: Genetic or ecological differences.

Answer: None apparent.

Now this is where it really gets good!

HGMP Question: Reason for choosing.
Answer: The "early" winter run hatchery steelhead were derived from Chambers Creek stock. "Late" winter hatchery steelhead are different from Chambers Creek and contain genetic legacy of Cowlitz River. NMFS has "identified" the stock as appropriate for recovery.

Well Salmo, I guess we all got to eat our words sometimes! According the WDFW HGMP, It was NMFS that has "identified" these late winter fish as being the stock of choice. Apparently someone forgot to mention, or put into the HGMP that the Cowlitz "late" run also an equal number of "early native run" returning too, and they sure weren't Chambers. . .were they! But what the hell are facts anyway! Facts only matter when you have the power!

Moving on-

Before the Settlement was ever signed, the NMFS knew of the deadly effects that Ceratomyxa shaha (C-shasta) has on steelhead, and especially the "late" returning native Cowlitz steelhead . . . right? So why did NMFS pick this timed specie for recovery or "triggers"? Since "late" timed steelhead are the most vulnerable to contacting the deadly C-shasta. Why in the world did they pick the "late timed" steelhead run? I think everyone will figure that one out even with your best "spin"!

You also said; "As such, it is a logical, if not the only, choice for the reintroduction. Personally, I think the Skamania are close enough geographically to also be suitable, but so far WDFW has decided against their use."

Well why then didn't NMFS speak up before NMFS signed that damned agreement! According to the "facts" in the "HGMP" this was NMFS preferred choice. NMFS could have easily changed the make up of species if they weren’t so blind to the obvious.

Moving on-

You said that I said; "Personally, I think that both WDFW and NMFS needs to explain their actions and reasoning for what they have now done to the Cowlitz River fishery. I am looking forward to debating this issue so that the entire board can see just how screwed the fishermen really got on the Cowlitz River Settlement." Your reply was; "I’m not going to debate this here. I really don’t have the time, and I doubt it would be beneficial to the outcome." Salmo, you are dead wrong! If not here where will the fishermen hear the real truth? The cards will fall where they fall!

You bring up this new issue; "One of the facts of federal dam licensing is that the SA and license conditions do not become enforceable until the license takes effect. The license does not take effect until the appeals process is exhausted. CFM’s organization is one that is appealing the license, thereby contributing to delay of license implementation. NMFS also appealed, requesting that the license not take effect until FERC completes consultation for the Cowlitz license under ESA."

Why then is Tacoma being required to make its monthly reports to both NMFS and USFS and FERC? If we have put everything on hold as you have claimed in the Settlement and license, why is Tacoma making these reports? Are you saying that it's the "good spirit" of Tacoma? Or are all of you just holding hands until this issues are over? The terms of the Settlement DO NOT become mandatory until Tacoma gets it final License approval! The last time I checked, it was on stay.

Finally,

You said; "CFM, you couldn’t be more wrong. They’re both going to pay, and plenty. That’s the easy part. The really hard part, as mentioned in one of Smalma’s posts, is developing a highly effective juvenile fish collection and passage system. It hasn’t been invented yet, but we are working our tails off on it."

You will not like what I am going to say Salmo on this issue, but again, these are the facts!

So far, 30 months later neither the BPA nor Tacoma has paid crap so far in this relicensing process! The BPA has only paid because a group of us took them to court! If you recall back in the very beginning, in the early 90's when we were at the early "engineering" design stages of the Cowlitz Falls Fish Collection Facilities, the agencies (and that included NMFS, WDF, WDW, USFWS) all knew that "all chinook species" were being excluded in the design of this facilities. Now, we are being told that upstream passage for Mayfield must be tied into the chinook passage at Cowlitz Falls! The current collection at Cowlitz Falls for all chinook is pretty close to 0! Steelhead is about at about 46%

What a bunch of crap!

I have the highest regard for what true runs of "wild" steelhead are still left, but to believe or except that the Cowlitz still has a "wild" run of steelhead is plain BULL $HIT . The "facts" will speak for themselves. If not maybe its time to head back to the courts again!

This was a lot to reply to, so if there are a few typos' so be it!


Cowlitzfisherman