Recently, WDFW, NMFS, USFWS, all signed a "Settlement Agreement" with Tacoma Power. The Agreement, among other things put a new lower ceiling on how many fish will be raised and produced at the Cowlitz Hatcheries. The "Agreement" has many fatal flaws built into it and this is a perfect example of one. The "Agreement" in its master wisdom, states that the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery will be remolded to produce a "high quality" and "healthier" Smolt. That in its self is a great ideal. The problem is that WDFW will be cutting way back on its normal production levels while this massive remolding is going on (could be years.

You would have thought that even WDFW would have had the intelligence to plan ahead and make the critical arrangements so that our hatchery production would not be effected during this critical recovery process. Apparently that is not the case. The "Agreement" also calls for three (3) additional off-site rearing facilities in the upper Cowlitz to be built for the rearing of salmon and steelhead. Wouldn't you think that WDFW would be smart enough to demand that these sites be built prior to the remolding of the Cowlitz Hatcheries? To the best of my knowledge, that has not occurred. Maybe its time that we bring private enterprise back (fish farmers) into the picture and take over the entire hatchery production of the Cowlitz. Both WDFW and NMFS have failed miserably and continue to through the blame onto each other at the cost of our Cowlitz fish!

As it stands right now, we must now depend on an elite group who accepted and signed onto Tacoma's "Agreement". They (the elite) now have total control over how this process will proceed. They call themselves the Fishery Technical Team (FTC). Only those who signed onto Tacoma's Agreement (Yakama tribes, WDFW, USFWS, NMFS, WDOE, Tacoma Power and Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, and Sport Fishing Guides of Washington) are allowed to take part or participate in this secret private process. Even those Sport Fishing Guides who signed the agreement were not allowed to participate in these secret meeting process. Sounds pretty spooky to me! The FTC will have total control over what our sport fishing future will be on the Cowlitz for the next 35 years. We have fought to see that other parties like FOC, CPR-Fish and others be allowed to participate in the FTC but to date have been unsuccessful.

To back up my concerns about the power the FTC now has, I will give you a first hand look at a portion of their secret December 12, 2000 meeting notes. This most likely will be the only chance that I will get to show you what the FTC and Tacoma really think about public participation in the FTC. This should make you quiver and your hair stand up! This is just part of the secret meetings notes before they started covering their rears.

"Finalize FTC Conventions and Protocol
Public Participation: The FTC continued the discussion of allowing public attendance and participation at FTC meetings. It was acknowledged that this issue has not been resolved by the FTC and remains an open issue. No consensus has been reached.

The FTC reviewed the requirement necessary to be a member of the FTC, which is to be a signatory to the SA. Tacoma has received a request for a non-signatory to attend the FTC meetings (a Northwest Marine Trade Association representative), and the Cowlitz Tribe has petitioned FERC to join the FTC. No FTC member was aware of any other requests for public participation. Members will check with their agencies for such requests." (Big joke and big lie!)

"Several models of public participation in FTC meetings were proposed: equal participation of all individuals in attendance; FTC members only discussion with public observation and a limited period at the end for public statements; and no public presence. Steve offered that he is not in favor of public attendance at FTC meetings because "observers may not just observe". Mark proposed that the public be excluded from the meetings, however, public involvement should be solicited by the agencies through the individual FTC members, by the opening of web mailboxes on Tacoma's and WDFW's web sites to take comments from the public, by comments from the public during the 30 day review period of FTC draft plans, and by the FTC hosting one or two public meetings (public forums) each year separate from regular FTC meetings. George offered Toppenish as a meeting location for the public forums

Date: December 12, 2000 - 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM
Location: NMFS office, Lacey, WA

Attendees:
FTC members: Craig Burley, WDFW
Brad Caldwell, WDOE
Steve Fransen, NMFS
Mark LaRiviere, Tacoma Power
George Lee, Yakama Nation
Bill Robinson, Trout Unlimited
Gene Stagner, USFWS"

Do you really think that the FTC will bring back the Cowlitz fishery that we love and cherish? Please give me your thoughts on how we can fix this mess. Do you think that these people have forgotten whom they work for or represents?

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the string of the hook????

Cowfisher what can we do??? Time to get some people together and protest?? FTC seems to speak with a forked tongue. Whos eyes do we open to this unfairness or should I say stupidity. You seem to be on top of this let us know how we can help.

Cowfish, after reading the Settlement Agreement's 'Biological Assessment' (see Cowfish's "Tacoma .. Biological Assessment .. finally released" thread), paid for by Tacoma City Light, in the FERC p-2016 documents I find it difficult to understand why all those entities belonging to the FTC have signed it! That BA confirmed the adverse affects to salmon and steelhead that will occur from the Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project after relicensing Tacoma. Whazzup with these signees? It seemingly must be a case of the lesser of several inevitable fish adverse scenarios. Particularly for the short run. If they can meet the long term improvements promised that would be one thing, but what are the chances for that to become a reality with so much money on the line? Likely not good.

RT

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: RT 1 ]

C'mon guys, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that wherever there is a power company involved, the bottom line will always be money. I know it's hard to prove,but it is my opinion that all the entities involved in the "settlement" are all sleeping with Tacoma City Light. That's the only reason why everybody would agree to such a screwed up deal. I know I can't possibly prove it, but I just don't these power guys.

Cowlitzfisherman (CFM) and others,

I don't think griping on this BB about the Cowlitz project is the best way to influence the outcome. FERC will issue a draft EIS on the Cowlitz license in the coming months. When they do, that is the public opportunity to comment. What is it, specifically, that you want out of this that isn't included in the settlement agreement and probably new license?

If you just want to gripe and ***** at Tacoma and the agencies, well, that's your perogotive, but it won't do much to change the outcome. Further, the Federal Power Act doesn't require that Tacoma give us a fishery that we feel good about. It does require that Tacoma provide full mitigation for the adverse effects of the impacts of its hydro project.

If everything goes perfect (which I doubt), there will be restored wild runs passing above the dams and hatchery runs that provide us with harvestable fish every year and especially when the wild ones don't. Under the worst case scenario, the settlement has a contingency for the restoration being a complete failure. In that case, the renovated hatchery is planned and programmed to provide as many or more salmon and steelhead as there would be as if Tacoma's dams did not exist on the Cowlitz River. While money is certainly the bottom line for Tacoma, my read is that they are on the hook to make good on the Cowlitz fishery. The new license is going to cost them tens of millions of dollars. There is no incentive that I can see for them to not make fish restoration happen. In fact, if it doesn't happen, Tacoma has to keep spending and spending on fish passage either until it works or the agencies give up on it.
In which case, it's back to the hatchery-only based program.

It's probably easiest to be an arm chair critic of the agencies, but you might be part of the solution. Again, what is it, that you're entitled to under the applicable laws, that the new license won't give you? I'll get any reasonable and solid responses to people who have a chance to influence the license. Whether they can or will may be another matter, but I'll do what I can, even if I disagree with you.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Fair enough Salmo G.

First off Salmo, I disagree with you about gripping on this BB. Isn't this the best way to inform fishermen (the people who really care and fish the Cowlitz) what's really happening behind closed doors? To many people, for way to long, have been left standing on the sidelines having no ideal what so ever what the hell was going on in the Cowlitz relicensing process. As you know, many BB readers assumed that the FOC and other groups like CPR-Fish would have had some say in the final settlement agreement. As you well know, that was not the outcome. You also know about the slime that was brought forth by the Tacoma's mediator against CPR-Fish so that they would be eliminated from the game in the final ending.

To not allow the uninformed public to see just how screwed-up this settlement really is would be is unconscionable to me. With that being said, I will attempt to answer your questions. Your first question to me was" What is it specifically that you want out of this that isn't included in the settlement agreement and probably new license?" Salmo G., It's not what "I" want out of this settlement agreement and new license, it's what the other hundreds of thousands of fishermen in Washington want! Why not ask this forum what they want? Government employees just can't say in tune with us common folks, can they? The picture is much bigger then just you or I. That is why the public must know what is going down before it has already gone down!

You say that it won't do any good to "grip at the agencies and Tacoma". In my opinion, you are dead wrong! The last time I checked our system of government, that's the only way we get and make changes in our country. You say that the federal Power Act requires Tacoma to provide full mitigation for adverse effects of the impacts of its hydro project. Well before I answer that question, what section in the FPA are you specific referring to? You then state "If everything goes perfect that (which I doubt), there will be restored wild runs passing above the dams and hatchery runs will provide us with harvestable fish every year and especially when the wild ones don't." I don't follow you on that one because you have already stated on this BB how you felt about that issue when you stated; "Personally, I think the fishery became doomed when the wild runs were wiped out by the dams in the late 60s and early 70s". So how are these new drummed up, doomed "wild runs" going to save our sport fishery now?

Salmo G, you say that Tacoma is on "hook". The only problem with that is that the hook is "barb-less"! What is there to stop Tacoma from walking away from this settlement when they become unhappy with it…FERC? What action has FERC ever taken against Tacoma in the last 30 years?

How did NMFS and USFWS address the 14,000 fall adult chinook that used to spawn above the Dams in this settlement agreement? Did NMSF or USFW service ask for, or demand-trapping facilities that would collect fall chinook migrants above the dams? I think not! You knew that they were listed as "threatened species". Did NMFS or USFWS ask for or demand that the "early coho" stocks that originally spawned above the dams be addressed in the settlement agreement…I think not!

It's a little late to be asking us now "what is it" you want! I ask you Salmo G., why didn't NMFS and USFWS list the upper Cowlitz as "critical habitat" for fall chinook when they knew that at least 14,000 adults used to use that area for natural spawning and production? The settlement agreement doesn't even address that issue because it will cost Tacoma big bucks and you know it! Why was this issue not addressed in the settlement negotiations?

The more this BB can see and read, the more questions the agencies will have to give us answers. to! Salmo G, you have the ability to make changes to the settlement agreement in you Biological Assessment of Tacoma's BA.
Take the giant step forward and make the difference. And yes, after all this is over, I will still consider you a friend. We just have different opinions on how to restore the Cowlitz River fishery.

Cowlitzfisherman,


Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

The time to act has come and gone I posted the meetings and ask people here to write letters befour this was signed that was then and this is now there will still be fish in the COW The reson for the new hactherys is to incress the survial rate if that works we may have even more fish in year to come I don't agere with the settlement but at this point we don't have much choice things may get bad for some time but may be a good thing it will stop some of the over crowding sothose of us that stick with it can have more room to fish

CFM,

Sorry. I should have been more clear. I meant griping that lacks a specific complaint or suggestion. The BB is a great place to exchange information, but it is also a repository of reams of pointless complaining as well. I like it for the positive things it can do, like providing accurate information about fishery issues.

The settlement agreement contains important requirements, although it reads like a piece of crap. Since it was designed by a committee, that’s pretty much an inevitable outcome. I think you under-estimate the influence FOC and CPR-Fish had on the settlement. You guys advance arguments that were taken up by others, like American Rivers, TU, NMFS, and USFWS. Absent those contributions, I’m not sure Tacoma would have been so receptive to the Mayfield fish ladder. And they may have held to the size fish hatchery they proposed in the draft license. Those were changes I didn’t expect Tacoma to go for, partly on principle and especially because of the money involved.

I think you’re right that the agency folks “. . . can’t stay in tune with us common folks . . .”, particularly those who live on or near the Cowlitz and fish it most often. This is because the state and federal agencies are required to represent all citizens, including those who live far away from the Cowlitz, including those who never have nor never will fish there, including those who want only wild fish, including those who only want a mega hatchery run of harvestable fish. The agencies are in the impossible position of representing all segments of society with diverse, and often conflicting, interests. And then they have certain legal mandates for fisheries conservation, just to spice up the mix, since conservation means different things to different people. The upshot is that agencies can not possibly fully satisfy any one interest, except at the expense of another interest. Not everybody wants want you want or what I want. OK, didn’t mean to defend the government, but I think you get the picture.

As for the requirements of the Federal Power Act, section 10(j) provides for state and federal agencies to recommend terms and conditions for the “protection, mitigation, and enhancement” of fish and wildlife, and section 18 provides for USFWS and NMFS to prescribe fish passage facilities. The full mitigation standard I referred to was contained in an appeal decision by FERC, known as the Mead Decision, 1996, where FERC spelled out that “mitigation proportionate to project impacts” is the appropriate amount of mitigation. That could be appealed further by the energy industry, but it would be defended by state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, and FERC would have to defend it too, since their lawyers crafted the decision.

That’s correct, I said I thought the Cowlitz runs were doomed when Tacoma first constructed their dams on the river. I meant the original native wild salmon and steelhead runs became doomed. History indicates that was the case. All Cowlitz salmon and steelhead have subsequently come to depend on the success of hatchery production at the Cowlitz salmon and trout hatcheries. Any natural production, even in the lower river has been managed as coincidental, and was not the product of design. With new fish passage systems to collect juvenile fish produced in the upper river, restoration and recovery of both ESA listed and unlisted fish has a serious shot at success. We have learned enough about fish passage systems to know better than to expect perfect operational success. It doesn’t happen anywhere, and it’s not projected to happen with state of the art facilities. But it appears reasonable to expect a high enough success rate in fish collection and passage to restore salmon and steelhead to the upper basin. Natural production from the upper basin will provide harvestable fish. I feel confident about that.

Less certain is where those fish will be harvested. As most of us have come to know, the largest share of Cowlitz salmon are harvested in the ocean fishery, and for coho especially, the lower Columbia River gillnet fishery. Whether there will be wild salmon and steelhead available for harvest in the Cowlitz River depends mostly on the management plan adopted by WDFW. And WDFW seems desperately to be hanging onto the past, even though it has little or no place in the future. I am equally confident of that. The future consists of diminished natural habitat and an ever expanding human population. Natural production of salmon and steelhead cannot possibly satisfy the insatiable demands of commercial and recreational fishing. The management and allocation of any harvestable amount of wild, naturally produced salmon and steelhead will be like threading a small needle while blindfolded. I expect screw-ups.

Sustaining harvestable salmon and steelhead will continue to be the job of the Cowlitz hatcheries, and new facilities should improve the quality and quantity of product. If WDFW does quality and performance assessement and goes where the truth leads them. I see a long term need for FOC, because the hatchery will need to be bird-dogged forever, in my opinion.

Tacoma is on a barbless hook? I like that one. You’re right. If Tacoma breaches its commitments, it will be necessary for the parties to the settlement to enforce the terms. That means going to court, if necessary. That is the only big stick or big gun that our system of justice provides. I’m not counting on FERC. If Tacoma falls off the wagon, I figure you’ll be leading the charge to prod the agencies into legal action.

I think the upper Cowlitz is listed as critical habitat for chinook, with no designation for spring or fall run timing. Why springers and not falls in the upper river? We both know that’s WDFW’s preference. I got the same story from NMFS in Portland. They are more concerned with the recovery of the Cowlitz springers because they are more genetically unique. The Cowlitz falls are “just another run of tules,” and are a lower priority. Please, don’t shoot me; I’m just the messenger. I think it will cost Tacoma just as much for facilities for springers as for falls. More springers are likely to migrate from the upper river as sub-yearlings than as yearlings - I think, so the fish passage requirements are essentially the same. As for the coho stocks, that is a management issue, under the control of WDFW. Techincally, early coho/late coho is not a FERC or Cowlitz relicensing issue. And unless they are listed under ESA, I don’t think NMFS has any influence with WDFW on management emphasis.

Thanks for believing that I can make a difference. Hang in there CFM, I’ll be doing what I can.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

River Rat,

The time has not come and gone! Yes there was a settlement agreement between Tacoma and the agencies but that does not mean that FERC has accepted the agreement yet. Until FERC accepts and applies the settlement agreement to Tacoma's new license there is still some time to make changes. If enough people make enough noise, before it happens, FERC will have to listen. FERC can make whatever changes it chooses to the settlement agreement. Will that happen …maybe not, but time will tell! There will be NO "new hatcheries", only remodeled ones. But at some point in time there may be 3 small rearing sites constructed above the dams, but they really won't be "hatcheries". These sites will probably be more like rearing ponds to imprint fish to the upper Cowlitz. Ask Salmo G about them. To seat back and except this agreement as written is dead wrong! Its not over tell the fat lady has song. Right now she is only humming.

If this deal was so great, why do you thing that the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) decided not to sign onto Tacoma's agreement?

The LCFRB publicly stated that they felt that they were being blackmailed into signing the settlement agreement. To dam bad our agencies didn't have the guts to take the same stand that the LCFRB did and refusing to sign the agreement!

It's not to late to force FERC into making or adding changes into the settlement agreement, but if we sit back in the shadows and do nothing it will never happen. Tacoma Power is banking on that to happen. The settlement has some good things in it, but it also has some real bad things that need to be corrected (like the FTC). Ask Salmo G what the production numbers in the new settlement agreement are projected to produce in the form of returning adults of summer and winter run steelhead. Ask him what numbers of historic early run coho adults will be expect back. Ask what the projected number of retuning sea-run cutthroat will be. Ask what mitigation Tacoma is doing to offset the fish production that was lost in the lower river do Tacoma's project operations. Ask what the settlement agreement does for the mitigating of the 14,000 fall-chinook that used to spawn above the project. These are now listed stocks, so why aren't they fully addressed in the settlement agreement?

I have a lot more question you can ask, but lets see what the answers are to these first. I think you will not be as so optimistic about the future of the Cowlitz River fishery when you see what the returning adult number are projected to be even after all the remolding. They have pretty much been kept a secret though-out the entire settlement agreement because they knew that people would get pretty *****-off.


Cowlitzfisherman

______________________________________


Is the taste of the bait worth the string of the hook????

Glad to see that you agree Salmo G that the "settlement Agreement" reads like a "piece of crap". There is a reason why it reads like that…it because it is "a piece of crap"! You say that we got Tacoma to be "receptive" to a proposed fish ladder over Mayfield. Lets spend a little time on this issue. The settlement Agreement defines the requirements for a fish ladder over Mayfield dam. Lets see if the readers on this BB think that they will ever see a fish ladder over Mayfield in their lifetime. These are the requirements that must first be met before Tacoma will fund any ladder over Mayfield Dam.

A) adult fish in Mayfield Lake are able to choose their tributary of origin and survive Mayfield Lake transit at rates determined by NMFS and USFWS, in consultation with the FTC or agencies, to be sufficient to achieve effective upstream passage through volitional facilities; and B) as determined based on the above-described tables with respect to: (i) the number of pre-spawners arriving at the Barrier Dam, in at least 3 of 5 consecutive brood years measured, and based on the 5-year rolling average, exceeds an abundance level which indicates natural recruitment above Mayfield Dam has achieved self-sustaining levels, as determined by the National Marine Fisheries Service in consultation with the FTC or agencies; (ii) the productivity level in 3 of 5 years and the 5-year rolling average, as measured at the Barrier Dam or other Cowlitz River fish counting facilities by the recruit/pre-spawner ratio, exceeds 1.0; and (iii) the disease management plan required by Article 8 has been implemented.

B) c) For any annual report filed within 12 years of license issuance in which the results of the studies indicate that, within the next three years or less, the above criteria for volitional upstream passage will be met with respect to any salmonid species originating in the Tilton basin and with respect to either spring chinook salmon or late winter steelhead originating above Mossyrock Dam, (remember, the only restoration of spring chinook or "late winter" steelhead are above the Cowlitz falls Dam project. The trapping success has been a total failure for chinook and very little success on steelhead at Cowlitz falls Dam.) The Licensee shall also include proposed preliminary designs and schedules for the construction of upstream passage systems for the Project. In the case of Barrier Dam, the proposed modifications shall provide for breaching the Barrier Dam. In lieu of breaching, a fish ladder may be constructed only if NMFS and USFWS determine, in consultation with the FTC or agencies, that a ladder is more appropriate than breaching for effective upstream passage. The proposed modifications for the Barrier Dam shall also include steps to disable the electrical field in the event of fish ladder construction or breaching the dam. In the case of Mayfield Dam, the upstream passage system proposed shall be a ladder with sorting facilities, unless prior to filing the report the NMFS and USFWS determine that a tram is more appropriate than a ladder for effective upstream passage, in which case the system proposed shall be a tram with sorting facilities. In the case of Mossyrock Dam, the passage system proposed shall be an adult trap and haul facility to facilitate adult transit above Cowlitz Falls Dam to be built before or concurrently with the upstream passage system at Mayfield Dam, unless prior to filing the report the USFWS and NMFS determine that a comparably-priced tram is more appropriate than a trap and haul facility based on studies that show fish are able to migrate through Riffe Lake, and it has also been determined that an adult upstream passage facility will be developed at Cowlitz Falls Dam. A draft report shall be provided to the FTC or agencies for review and comment. The Licensee shall include with the report documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the report, and specific descriptions of how the FTC's and agencies' comments are accommodated by the report. The Licensee shall submit the final report to the NMFS and USFWS for approval prior to filing with the Commission. Upon approval by NMFS and USFWS and filing with the Commission, the Licensee shall implement the proposals in the report.

d) Upon meeting the criteria above for the construction of volitional upstream passage systems, the Licensee shall proceed expeditiously to complete the final design, permitting and construction of upstream passage systems. The final design shall be subject to the same review and approval process described in paragraph c) above. Once the report containing the final design and implementation schedule for the construction of upstream fish passage systems is approved by NMFS and USFWS and filed with the Commission, volitional upstream passage facilities shall be completed and made operational within one (1) year of meeting the criteria or approval of the final design, whichever is later, unless there is good cause for extending the period beyond one year.

e) Within five years of license issuance, the Licensee shall establish an interest-bearing escrow account in the amount of $15 million to contribute to the total cost of constructing volitional upstream fish passage facilities. To minimize administrative cost and allow conservative growth, said escrow account may be held by the Licensee as a separate account (with Licensee being obligated to treat said account substantially similar to an escrow account), and said account may be invested, consistent with investment limitations on public agencies within the State of Washington. f) If at any time the Licensee files a report indicating that the above criteria are not likely to be met within 15 years following license issuance with respect to listed chinook salmon or steelhead originating above Mayfield Dam, the Licensee shall consult with the FTC or agencies, using the best available data at the time, regarding factors that may be contributing to the failure to meet such criteria, and the likelihood or not that such criteria will be met for the listed stocks in the foreseeable future.
g) If preliminary or final upstream volitional fish passage design plans and implementation schedules have not been approved and filed with the Commission at the end of year 12, the Licensee must prepare and submit preliminary design plans and schedules in accordance with paragraphs c) and d) if the volitional upstream passage criteria set forth in paragraphs b) and c) have been met or are likely to be met for any salmonid species in the Tilton by year 15.

All this must happen before any fish ladder will be built over Mayfield Dam!

Salmo G, with survival rates the way they are now, and what they have been in the past, do you really think that we will ever see this criteria being met with the added "spring chinook and late winter steelhead criteria " added to the triggers for Mayfield passage? Why on earth did NMFS allow this requirement to be added into the settlement agreement? Why was the Mayfield passage issue tied directly to the species of stocks that are only being reintroduced and restored above Cowlitz falls project? Why didn't NMFS under their section 18 authorities insist on installing a fish ladder over Mayfield now for the fish that will be passing and spawning in the Tilton River and Winston Cr sub-basins? Why did NMFS or USFWS allow Tacoma or WDFW to add these almost impossible criteria to the agreement?

Please don't tell me that the old "truck and hall story" was the reason. BB readers will have a hard time buying that one! It looks to me like NMSF and USFWS caved into Tacoma's same old story about "to much money". That the same reason that we are now seeing so many species being listed.

You said that you think that the upper Cowlitz is listed as "critical habitat" with no designation for spring or fall timing chinook stocks. It sounds to me that Tacoma may think different then you or the NMFS. On page 43 of Tacoma's BA, they state this: "The national Marine Fishery Services (NMFS) included naturally spawned Cowlitz River chinook stocks up to Mayfield Dam in their final listing under the ESA, but did not include Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery spring chinook stocks. NMFS considers the hatchery spring chinook stock as essential for the recovery of the ESU, but found that current management and conservation strategies are sufficient to protect the stocks." It sounds to me that Tacoma does not consider the area above Mayfield Dam as "critical Habitat' under ESA for chinook.

I hope that this information will help the readers of this BB better understand what is about to happen to the Cowlitz River fishery. I believe that it's not to late to do a better job then what has been proposed.

Cowlitzfisherman,
_________________________________________

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????
didn't