I don't know yet that this legislation to modify the Endangered species act will actually go anywhere, but I thought it would be interesting to see what peoples thoughts were on it. I have not completely thought over all the potential impacts and if/how much it would impact us.
www.house.gov/resources/press/2002/2002_1112ESA.htm

A brilliant Enron loving right wing republican idea to be sure. Let's take this little brainf@rt to it's logical conclusion, as the intent seems to be to place the burden of endangered species recovery on public properties. OK, so public roads comply with ESA, public irrigation and power systems, public water supplies, public ports and navigation channels and projects, public bridges and ferry systems, public forests and rangeland, public office buildings and capital campuses, public education facilities, and every inch of public bedlands and waters below the ordinary high water line. And these places will have to recover all the endangered species, as the rest of the privately and militarily held parts of the country won't. So take out all the dams and irrigation projects, take out all public transportation facilities, convert ports and navigation channels back to wetlands, take out the jetties, take all dikes and armoring off of rivers, take all the cows off public range land and take all the loggers out of national forests. Teach our children in private schools and universities as all public facilities will be growing trees. Ditto our legislature and government workers - they can rent private office space with your tax dollars. Yeah, now those endangered species will come back with a vengance, as we will have no transportation, power, water, or public services, ergo, no economy and no people. Yeah man, ram this one through that republican house and senate, the shrub will sign it

Spawnout,

Your analysis is brilliant beyond belief. I mean it, man. Why is it you see the light, and a congressman like Hansen, with all the resources available to him, can't see sh!t from apple butter?

So the ESA was only intended to protect animals like grizzlies and eagles. Let's see, wintering eagles eat salmon carcasses, and some salmon populations are ESA listed. Hmmm, all things are connected, ecologically, unless you're looking through dumb [Bleeeeep!] blind republican eyes, I guess. Sorry for that one, but it bugs me because I can remember when even republicans thought it might be a wise idea to have a clean environment, intact with the species of the realm. Makes me wonder what happened. I guess they got rich enough they can all afford bottled water.

Yeah, a few species here and there. Who's gonna' miss 'em?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

doesnt surprise me

seems as if the republicans these days all have underground bunkers or something...they all seem to want to "turn back time" on a lot of legislation like the Clean Air Act and the ESA...and of course, while we're at it for the "sake of national security" lets start tearing up the ANWR so we can get some more oil.

wait a minute...oh yeah, thats why we're trying to start a war with Iraq (dont take me the wrong way here fellas, I served also) so our government can get its sticky fingers into the 2nd largest reserve in the world.

---I love our country but fear our government---

Ya, screw that esa, it's cutting into corporate profits!
Click here to see bush policy at work.
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=13435

wow Keta...simply unbelievable

Salmo g - Nice to hear from you. Haven't heard from you in awhile. You've probably been spending all your time on the water.... Good to see you're still with us.

This bill will go nowhere since the 107th Congress is about to adjourn and all pending legislation will die a peaceful death, including this abomination.

However, this is a preview to the 108th Congress. With one party in control, you can bet there will be a lot of attacks on environmental legislation including opening the Arctic NWR to oil drilling, rewriting the ESA, the Clean Water Act, etc. The Dems can hold off the worst of the bunch but alot of bad stuff can happen in two years. It's our job to point out how these things can and will affect our quality of life. And the quality of our fishing.......

Really? Because I can't think of a one. (unless of course Salmo you happen to pre-date the Rockefellers, Carnagies, Vanderbilts, Morgans etc...)

Salmo g. & cohoangler & 4Salt…are you all truly showing your "political" spawning colors a little bit too much here!

As you very well know Salmo, just because one may not politically believe that it is needed to fun "people that do want to work" or "pay for others that suck our society dry", certainly does not make that person all that bad! It certainly does not make them all that "evil" either. With that being said, why are you guys bringing political parties into play when some one brings a issue up? You darn well knew from the beginning, that sooner or later the ESA would be changed sooner or later…didn't you?

Salmo, you know that I do not agree with either of the "political sides". Republican's and decorates both have major problems with fish issues, but some sides have "learned" how to "play" them better then others sides have.

Salmo, I told you over two years ago, that sooner or later, the ESA would be challenged…so what's new turkey?

Personally, I thing that many of you had already "blew it" when you made the "2000 Cowlitz River Settlement Agreement" with Tacoma Power on the Cowlitz River!

90% of that agreement was based on the "recovery of ESA listed stocks"…right Salmo?

So what the heck will NMFS, USFWS, and WDFW do if the ESA is revised? Are all these "new agreements" that you guys made going to be "grandfathered in"? I can see why some of you guys are so worried about this possibility now. This one probably won't make it, but sooner or later it will probably happen…then what?

If it does happen, what will happen to the "BS" settlement agreement on the Cowlitz? I can't wait to hear what your replies will be!!

Cowlitzfisherman

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

CFM,

The linked document is from a congressman. It's nigh on impossible to avoid politics in the subsequent discussion, but I'd rather have been more diplomatic since name-calling doesn't really bring out the best in me.

As for the Cowlitz agreement, I don't think ESA matters much. Chinook and steelhead are listed as threatened species, but if they were unlisted Tacoma is still on the hook (no pun intended). The settlement agreement requires that for the period of the license, the Cowlitz River produce as many, or more, salmon and steelhead as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams in the first place. The agreement allows and intends a mix of natural and hatchery produced fish, with an emphasis on restoring as much natural production as is reasonably possible. But if chinook and steelhead were delisted tomorrow, Tacoma's responsibility would in no way be diminished.

I'm not happy that anyone would lose their job, whether because of ESA or obsolesence - like buffalo hunters, buggy whip makers, and maybe soon, lower Columbia River gillnetters. But I accept that times change, and society's needs change, and some jobs no longer are a good fit in the marketplace. ESA may be a small culprit in that way, but not nearly to the extent as changes in technology or society's preferences cause job losses. Personally, I think job losses due to ESA, or environmental measures in general, are over-stated by interests that benefit economically (in the short term) from environmental degradation.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

CASTRO/MONDALE 2004!!!!

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Salmo g for pres.!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Salmo g.:
[QB]CFM,

As for the Cowlitz agreement, I don't think ESA matters much. Chinook and steelhead are listed as threatened species, but if they were unlisted Tacoma is still on the hook (no pun intended). The settlement agreement requires that for the period of the license, the Cowlitz River produce as many, or more, salmon and steelhead as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams in the first place.

On what page of the "Settlement Agree" is that stated?

"Salmo for president"…that's a good one, but before he gets my vote, I need to get a few more answers from him!

Isn't the entire "Agreement" based on recovery of list species? Under the Agreement; "(6.1.4) ESA constraints will be a factor in determining the upper bound of production at the remodeled hatchery complex. Hatchery production numbers are expected to be adjusted downward as wild stocks recover"

Why in earth would Tacoma want to be bound to any "Agreement" if it was to become "business as usual" (old mitigation)? Why would Tacoma, or for that matter, WDFW stay in a "Agreement" or a "contract" with Tacoma that would basically eliminate their jobs, their payroll, and their power to remain the "hatchery managers" after the year 2009? (conditions of Settlement Agreement, 6.1.5) Don't you think that WDFW would love to jump right back into the demands of the 1967 Agreement? What possibly could your agency do to prevent them form doing so if Cowlitz or Columbia River species on the ESA were delisted?

Do you really think that FERC would hold Tacoma to the "Agreement" under the conditions listed in 11.5? 11.5 clearly states "Withdrawal by Tacoma, or by NMFS, USFWS, or WDOE due to a change by FERC to a term or condition within their mandatory conditioning authority under the conditions described in Section 10.2.1 shall render this Agreement void".

When you read what is stated under 10.2.1; you may want to re-think your position! 10.2.1 states "The specific term of the new license for the Project is not an express condition of this Agreement, and the Parties may advocate for a term of at least 30 and not more than 50 years (consistent with Section 15(e) of the FPA) in comments submitted to the FERC, as described in Section 9, above, provided that such advocacy is not inconsistent with the other terms of this Agreement. The Parties agree that any license term of thirty-five to forty years will not constitute a material change allowing a Party to seek rehearing on that issue pursuant to this Section."

Moreover, It is very important for you to fully understand what is also stated in 10.2.2 of the "Agreement"; "10,2.2: In the event that FERC does not reverse the objectionable material change, condition, modification, or omission in an order on petition for rehearing filed as provided above or otherwise further modifies, changes, conditions or omits any provision contained herein, the objecting Party may seek judicial review. Upon final order by FERC or a reviewing court, or expiration of the period for judicial review, the Agreement shall be considered modified to conform to said order. Any Party to the Agreement, within thirty (30) days of such final order or expiration, may withdraw from the Agreement because of the modification, change, condition or omission after providing written notice to the other Parties. Upon such notification, the provisions of Section 11.5 of this Agreement shall apply. Upon withdrawal from this Agreement, a former Party is no longer bound by the Agreement and shall not have waived any rights or otherwise limited its ability to pursue available remedies by virtue of having previously been a Party to this Agreement.

So under 11.5, what makes you believe that your agency can force Tacoma to "produce as many, or more, salmon and steelhead as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams in the first place."?

Salmo, if Tacoma was to withdraw from the "Agreement", which is clearly stated that they can, what possible power would your agency possibly have to force Tacoma into staying bound to the conditions of the "August 2000 Settlement Agreement"? I don't really understand your statement; "…that for the period of the license, the Cowlitz River produce as many, or more, salmon and steelhead as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams in the first place."

Your agency didn't have the "power" during the original license to make Tacoma meet its mitigation, so what powers do you believe that you guys have now to do so? Wasn't ESA in effect during that time period? What powers or laws do you believe now allows your agency to be able to force Tacoma into producing mitigating production of salmon steelhead, and sea run cutthroat to the levels of fish that existed prior to Tacoma dams?

Sorry Salmo, no vote from me until I get all my answers. Maybe then I'll write your name in for "Vice President"…maybe!!

Cowlitzfisherman

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

CFM,

Reasonable people may disagree. Furthermore, I don't think a debate of the Cowlitz agreement merits the considerable space it would consume on this bulletin board. I'll respond to a few questions however.

Yes, any party, including Tacoma, may withdraw from the agreement. But Tacoma may not (legally) operate the project without a license. FERC licenses contain terms and conditions. The fish and wildlife agencies have authority to recommend and mandate terms and conditions. So even if Tacoma were to withdraw, I believe it would still end up with a license with roughly the same terms and conditions. That belief is based on the legal administrative record that has been developed and submitted to FERC that supports these terms and conditions.

Enforcement? Well, that has become a wing and a prayer. The appeals court has ruled that FERC has complete descretion to enforce license terms and conditions. It would probably take a major egregious case to overturn that ruling, one making a strong showing that FERC's failure to enforce severely damages the public interest. It may happen, but I won't hold my breath.

No single agreement article stipulates what I said regarding Tacoma's obligation to provide as many, or more, fish for the period of the license as there would be if the hydro project didn't exist. In a multi-party negotiated settlement it is usually difficult to impossible to get terms spelled out as clearly as that. In negotiations you seldom get it "your way." So the reasonable approach is to get it another way. I think that is the case with the Cowlitz settlement. It's in there, but it's all mixed up like spaghetti sauce.

Pay attention to the appendices, particularly the Cramer report. A benchmark number of chinook, coho, and steelhead are specified as the pre-dam average returns to the Cowlitz at Mayfield. Then escapement rates are estimated from total recruitment, based on the fish statistics from those years and the period immediately following. Ranges of marine surivival were calculated, and values closer to the upper end of the range were assigned to the benchmark runsizes. Tacoma's mitigation obligation is derived from a not-too-complex equation that uses 5 year rolling averages (if I recall correctly) and the latest data for chinook and coho marine survival rates.

So yes, hatchery production by Tacoma may decrease as natural production increases. Without that condition there would be no incentive for Tacoma to restore natural salmon and steelhead production in the upper river basin. But the combined total of natural and hatchery production must equal or exceed the benchmark values, that is as many chinook, coho, and steelhead as would exist if the project were not there. What more could anyone justifiably ask of Tacoma?

We might want Tacoma to provide more fish for our particular self-interest reasons (i.e. I like to fish for summer steelhead, for instance), and the Federal Power Act allows for fishery enhancement, but it doesn't require it. The weird thing in this instance is that the ESA has become a limiting factor in hatchery fishery enhancement in the Columbia River system, including the Cowlitz, because hatchery fish adversely affect wild fish production. I can accept that because I'd like to see native chinook and steelhead, along with the coho, restored to the upper Cowlitz River basin.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

P.S: I won't count on receiving your vote for anything tho.

Salmo

You have stated; "But Tacoma may not (legally) operate the project without a license. FERC licenses contain terms and conditions."

If what you say is true Salmo, how can Tacoma operate their Cowlitz Project currently? Is it not true that Tacoma's new license is still on hold pending their 401 Permit? Is it also not true that Tacoma can not be issued a license by FERC until they are issued the 401 Permit? Do they not operate their projects now on a temporary basis? Correct me if wrong, but isn't it true that FERC is authorized to issue "None Power Licenses"? Is it not also true that the Tacoma Cowlitz River Project could have been recommended to congress to issue a "Federal Government Takeover of the Project? At lease BPA attempts to restore fish in their projects!

One more issue that needs to be replied to; you said "So yes, hatchery production by Tacoma may decrease as natural production increases. Without that condition there would be no incentive for Tacoma to restore natural salmon and steelhead production in the upper river basin. But the combined total of natural and hatchery production must equal or exceed the benchmark values, that is as many chinook, coho, and steelhead as would exist if the project were not there. What more could anyone justifiably ask of Tacoma? That answer is pretty darn simple!! Like most things NMFS took the "Cramer report" at its face value.

Was it not Tacoma that paid Creamer to develop that report?

That report simply supported your own agency newest view about hatchery fish. My earlier conversations with WDFW staff accerted that the "Creamer report" was full of BS! Why those "staff members" never made their assertions public during the relicensing process still puzzles me. But nothing WDFW does anymore really surprises me.

I know that it is way above your agency to think of such a horrible thought, but why didn't they demand Tacoma to make up the 30 years of failing to meet thier fish migration in the 1967 Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery Agreement before your agency approved the issue of a new 35 year license? Yes I can hear your reply already… FERC will not allow us to ask for that. Tell us why your agency couldn't have asked Tacoma to do that during the 6years prior to relicensing! Remember, your agency knew about that agreement and gave their approval of it at the time!

Finally, you said; "P.S: I won't count on receiving your vote for anything tho."

Salmo, maybe my mind is failing me, but didn't I vote to have you chair the Fishery Technical Committee (FTC) during the entire relicensing process???

Cowlitzfisherman

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

CFM,

It must be raining too hard today for you to go fishing today too, huh?

Yeah, WDFW allegedly called Cramer's report BS. Yet they didn't even attempt to refute it, probably because they couldn't. Hmmm, maybe it wasn't Cramer who was full of it. Couldn't be our heros at WDFW could it?

You know I can sometimes influence what agencies do, but I don't have the clout to make the people in charge do what we might think they should do. I try to carefully choose my battles in hopes of winning certain outcomes. I know I ain't gonna' win em all. I try to put my energy where it's gonna' do the most good. You seem to have energy for every battle and skirmish, win or lose, and I applaud you for it. I've got too many irons in the fire for that to be a wise strategy for me.

Now I'm gonna' finish tossing my gear in the car and head for water running downhill somewhere.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Castro/Gore 2004 !!!

To say the ESA has not helped any species is absurd.

To say revamping it in the manner put forth in this bill will have no ill effects is beyond absurd.

This is a partison issue because a Republican submited the bill and the Republicans will support it more than the Dems, is my bet.

I am a frustrated Republican that registered as such 30 years ago when the Republican party and the Conservatives still understood that "conserve" is the root word of conservative...... those days are sadly long gone and it may be time change party affiliation.