Oh great one of knowledge. Did you read the tacoma paper today? What's going on with the cowlitz. Cutting back on hatchery fish. That will really put a cramp in the guides that fish for keepers. I'm sure a select few will still like to fish in catch and release waters, but I don't think they are the majority. At least the people I've ran across.

Just curious what your thoughts are. Being how you are the COWLITZFISHERMAN!!!!

Glowball

I didn't get to read the article that you are talking about so maybe you can feel us all in on the details!

For over 2 years now, I have been telling this board that we are going to get screwed on our hatchery fish production in the Cowlitz. Almost 100% of the early returning winter run (nov-Jan) steelhead will be cut because of the Settlement Agreement that WDFW, NMFS, Tacoma, American Rivers and TU signed on August 2000.

Yep! American Rivers and TU took real good care of the sport fishermen on the Cowlitz. You can thank both of those groups for the huge cutbacks that are coming soon!

Like they say; you ain't seen nothing yet!

I had begged people to get involved and try to overturn this dooms day agreement, but it all fell onto deaf ears!

Ps; my thoughts are............. it really sucks!

Cowlitzfisherman

Glowball

I found the story that you were talking about, so I will post it for every one to read:

"Changing face of the Cowlitz

BOB MOTTRAM; The News Tribune

Some big changes are in store for anglers on the popular Cowlitz River in southwestern Washington, where fish managers are shifting from production of hatchery fish to production of wild fish.

It probably will mean less time on the river for anglers. But it won't happen soon.

"A lot of people don't realize how complicated fishery projects are on the Cowlitz," said Mark LaRiviere, senior fisheries biologist for Tacoma Power.

"You're dealing with four dams in the midbasin area, and populations of anadromous fish above and below the dams," he said. "The upper dam (Cowlitz Falls) belongs to the Lewis County Public Utility District. The three lower dams - Mayfield, Mossyrock and the barrier dam - belong to Tacoma Power."

All of the structures except the barrier dam, which prevents migrating fish from swimming upstream past the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery, produce hydroelectric power.

In exchange for the privilege of producing that power, the utilities must mitigate for damage their dams have caused to fish and wildlife.

As a part of the mitigation program, the utilities truck more adult fish around dams than does any other transportation program in the state.

The efforts of Tacoma Power and the Lewis County PUD are "additive," LaRiviere said. Their goal is to restore naturally spawning stocks of anadromous fish to the 240 miles of spawning habitat available in the upper Cowlitz River Basin, which includes all waters upstream of Mayfield Dam.

Aiding that effort is the fact that most of the fish already in the basin derived originally from local stocks, and only such fish are trucked above the dams.

When outmigrating smolts produced by those adults move toward the sea, workers capture them at two collection sites, one at Cowlitz Falls, a few miles above Riffe Lake, and the other at Mayfield Dam, at the lower end of Mayfield Lake.

Mayfield primarily collects smolts coming out of the Tilton drainage, which joins the Cowlitz near the upper end of Mayfield Lake, and Cowlitz Falls collects those from the Cowlitz drainage above Riffe Lake. Tacoma Power transports them downstream past the barrier dam to "stress-relief" ponds at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery.

The PUD is trying to improve the efficiency of its collection facility at Cowlitz Falls, said Mike Kohn, a biologist who works for the utility and for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The BPA built the facility under an agreement with Lewis County at a cost of $18 million, completing it in 1997.

"A lot of the smolts we don't collect go through the turbines and end up in Riffe Lake and (become) landlocked," he said. "Our highest collection was 434,000 (of all species), in 2001. Had we collected 100 percent, it would have been over a million fish."

The utilities mark some of the outmigrating juveniles so when they return as adults, managers can determine whether they are hatchery fish and what to do with them.

"At the barrier dam, all returning adults are routed up the ladder into the (hatchery) separator," LaRiviere said. "Every single returning adult has to be examined and a decision has to be made what to do with that individual fish."

Each fish is returned to its area of origin.

"It's a huge amount of work," LaRiviere said, "in a year like last year, when we had a 125,000-fish return."

Tacoma Power began federal relicensing efforts in the mid-1990s, and reached a settlement agreement in 2000 with Lewis County, state and federal fisheries agencies, private fish-conservation groups and the Yakama Indian Tribe. The agreement wrought some fundamental goal shifts.

"The settlement agreement recognizes harvest as an important component on the Cowlitz," LaRiviere said. "It's just not the major goal. And therein lies the challenge for the future, because it's such a change from the past."

Formerly, production was primarily for harvest.

The agreement also establishes other goals, such as habitat and wildlife protection and a flow regime that accommodates recreational boaters, although those are not stated as explicitly as the goals of fish restoration and harvest, LaRiviere said.

As a part of an evolving fish-management philosophy, Tacoma Power plans to honor "the spirit of reform" in Washington hatchery management, he said, by incorporating new rearing methods for a part of its production. Those will include lower densities of fish in the hatcheries and efforts to mimic the size and timing of naturally produced smolts.

The utilities also intend to foster what LaRiviere calls "volitional passage" of fish upstream and down.

The licensing agreement requires Tacoma Power to determine whether fish can "self-sort" correctly to the Cowlitz, to the Tilton and to the hatchery for spawning.

If they can, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will decide at year 14 of the license whether to require the utility to spend the $15 million it was required to set aside for enhancing fish passage at the barrier dam and Mayfield Dam.

Enhancements would consist of constructing a fish ladder at Mayfield and building a fish ladder at the barrier dam or removing the barrier dam. Fish would be able to swim upstream unassisted as far as Mossyrock Dam, which would continue to be impassable.

"This would allow fish to pass the hatcheries, pass over Mayfield and go up the Tilton if they chose," LaRiviere said. "If they chose not to, they would go up the Cowlitz arm and end up at the base of Mossyrock Dam. There's no way to construct a way over that. So it would be a repeat of the upstream transportation program for fish headed for the upper basin" of the Cowlitz.

The result?

"All this work is hopefully going to increase the naturally produced fish in the Cowlitz River," LaRiviere said. "Concurrent with that, there will be a reduction in fish produced out of the hatcheries.

"The goal would be no net reduction in total numbers of fish," he said, "but we recognize they would be a different kind of fish. If we're producing natural or wild fish out of the Cowlitz River Basin, those fish won't be available for harvest. So that's where lies a very large change."

Selective fishing for hatchery fish would allow some angling, LaRiviere said, and if managers can develop a strong enough run of natural fish, some of those also could be harvested.

"But in order to get to that point it might take some pretty severe harvest restrictions," he said".

______________________________________


Like I had said earlier; you ain't seen nothing yet! Now maybe our board will listen when I tell them the facts about the Cowlitz!

Two groups signed away your future fishery and you have American Rivers and TU to thank for that!

Salmo G. may like the Settlement Agreement, but sport fishermen will not!

Salmo also told you that it "would be different" but this artical tells you just "how different" the future will really be.

Not a pretty story, but its a true one.


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM, Does the Cowlitz stil have a genetically pure native run like say the Skagit does?? If the Cow stil had native fish i could see them making changes like this, but if its all hatchery stock then i call b.s also...

Boy im glad I didnt buy that new jet outboard for my boat. Sounds like fishing the cow is going to get nothing but worse.

Bank Walker

Here's the story on that!

The WDFW makes claim that their "late winter run steelhead" run is still the same genetic steelhead that the Cowlitz has always had historically. Logic and the logistics, plus common sense tell us otherwise.

One really needs to be an expert on the history of the Cowlitz to fully understand what has actually occurred. After 18 years of intense research and participation in countless meetings and pubic record searches, I consider myself to be an "expert" on the Cowlitz River Fishery. I do not hold a degree, but I do hold a tremendous amount of information, plus countless hours of researching her history.

To believe for one second that the Cowlitz still maintains a "pure genetic" run is just plain asinine! First, since day one, the WDFW had brought in steelhead from almost every other basin in the state and released them into the Cowlitz. That is documented and I have personally seen those records. After all the previous stockings from other river basins, the Dams and the Cowlitz hatcheries were also built. The steelhead hatchery went into production around 1969. They had no Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGPM) at that time. They just took the brood from whatever came into ladder at the Barrier Dam/ hatchery at the time. They used whatever "genetics" mixes that the "hatchery manager" thought would produce a large size steelhead that sport fishers would like. It was all done by timing, and size only!

From the early 1980's the average total run size of all steelhead for major stocks in the low Columbia River was approximately 150,000 winter steelhead and 80,000 summer steelhead. Approximately 75% of the total run (summer and winter combined) were thought to be of hatchery origin! A large portion of these fish (around 20,000) were from the Cowlitz.

Over 1,115,000 summer and "early winter run steelhead" smolts were released yearly into the Cowlitz since the early 1980's. None of those fish were marked to show if they were of hatchery or of wild origin.

It would defy both common sense and science to think that these late Cowlitz winter runs would have not been heavily inter mixed or interbreed in over 30 years of almost 100% hatchery production. You got to remember, you are talking about hunders of thousands of unmarked fish that were being selected at random to be used for brood stock. In my opinion, it would be next to impossible for the Cowlitz to have maintained a "pure" genetic stock of steelhead in the Cowlitz.

WDFW has claimed that these late winters are "similar" to what the Cowlitz once had, but are unable to bring ANY "genetic proof" that these fish were actually from the Cowlitz. Instead, they have singled out "one genetic group" because it is slightly different then all the other steelhead that are combined in the same ESU. There is absolutely no proof that these fish are truly the original Cowlitz stock of steelhead. They (WDFW) have chosen to use these stocks of fish only because they were "similar in run and spawning time" and abundance.

These are the real "facts" about the Cowlitz Native Winter Run Steelhead: Winter steelhead were history abundant in the Cowlitz River. The earliest production estimates was 22,000 fish (Meigs, no date).Thomson and Ruthfus (1969) counted steelhead passing Mayfield Dam from 1961 to 1966 which averaged 11, 087 fish.

Winter steelhead passage BEGAN in mid-November, peaked in early April and indeed in June. In 1950, Chamber Creek smolts were planted into the Cowlitz. Around 50% of the original winter genetic stock of Cowlitz steelhead returned by early February.

Do you still think that these are truly "native" genetic Cowlitz stocks? Well if you do, then try this one on for size! This is partial reply from WDFW to questions that I and my associate had asked the WDFW to answer back in November of 1995. It took the WDFW over 8 months to return their answers to our 26 question.

Once you have read their reply, you should be outraged that these new "wild" fish protections are now being imposed on the Cowlitz and its fishery!

WDFW answer June 12, 1996; "Wild winter steelhead in the Lower Columbia River tributaries are spring spawners (Lucas 1986 and WDFW unpublished data), with peak spawning from Mid March to June. Kray (1957) found that peak spawning in the Tilton River, a Cowlitz River tributary, occurred in May. These dates are supported by Mayfield run timing data which shows peak passage in April and it is 'likely' that peak spawning would occur within a month.

Therefore, the most suitable stock for steelhead reintroduction would be a winter steelhead that enters primarily between March and June, and spawns between April and June. This leads us to either 'Cowlitz Hatchery' or wild steelhead.

STOCK SELECTION--WDFW would have preferred to use local stocks because of survival and adaptation advantages over hatchery fish in the natural environment. However, there are few wild steelhead left in the Cowlitz River and most are offspring from hatchery fish (Tipping 1984). Adjacent river basins are not making their escapements goals, leaving few fish available for Cowlitz reintroduction. Therefore, local Cowlitz stocks were examined as the most viable option."


So what it all boiled down to is that WDFW had drummed up a way to create a "similar" genetic stock to now create a "wild" species of Cowlitz River steelhead that will now be protected!

Fishermen should be outraged!!

But yet they have set here and let it happen!

And some members wonder why I am always getting down on our WDFW.


Cowlitzfisherman

At the risk of getting my head handed to me, I'll wade into this discussion with a different take on the settlement and the Cowlitz Rv.

I agree that the steelhead on the Cowlitz are probably nowhere near the native stock that existed prior to Mossyrock/Mayfield. The true native stock of steelhead are probably long gone. The best thing WDFW can do is estimate what was there 100 years ago and do the best they can with the stock they have now.

But my main point is that the number of steelhead produced on the Cowlitz in the future is not expected to change. What's going to change is the ratio of hatchery fish vs. wild (non-hatchery) fish. If the plan goes as expected, the number of wild fish will increase. If an angler is fortunate enough to catch an unclipped (wild) steelhead on the Cowlitz, returning it to the river is likely to be required. The end result should be more wild steelhead. What's wrong with that? The effort to get away from hatchery fish and produce more wild fish is not confined to the Cowlitz Rv. or Washington or the Pacific Northwest. It is going on all across the country. Don't be surprised if this change in stocking policy will eventually hit most rivers in Washington, including my favorites, the Kalama and the Lewis.

But CFM raises a very interesting point. Most anglers believe that more wild steelhead is a good thing. But what if the price of more wild steelhead is fewer hatchery steelhead; and therefore, fewer opportunities to put a steelhead in the freezer? Would the angling public (us) still support wild steelhead, to the degree they do now, if it means fewer hatchery steelhead and fewer opportunities for harvest (but the same fishing opportunity)?

Personally, I would still strongly support wild steelhead even if it means fewer hatchery steelhead. Would CFM? I don't know but I will let him answer that. What do other folks think?

I believe that not all anglers on the Cowlitz Rv. are focusing on providing meat for the freezer; but rather, the opportunity to catch (and release) a wild steelhead. But then again, I don't spend alot of time at Blue Creek.......

Cohoangler

I will attempt to answer your question that you given to me.

First, you asked me; "Personally, I would still strongly support wild steelhead even if it means fewer hatchery steelhead. Would CFM? I don't know but I will let him answer that."

My answer is; why would you want to replace a "mitigation responsibility" that produces harvestable stocks of steelhead with a program that only produces "wild" fish that can not be harvested? Am I for that? Absolutely not!

The original "restoration program" was started back in 1991 (I was part of the settlement that triggered it) and it was never intended to be a "replacement" for our hatchery programs (which at the time, I was the FOC's "legal representative" for the group). It was developed through a "Settlement Agreement" with the Friends of the Cowlitz and BPA.

The original "intent" was to "Reestablish-self-sustaining natural populations of anadromous in BALANCE WITH THE EXISTING NATURAL AND HATCHERY POPULATIONS and habitat available in the Cowlitz above Cowlitz Falls Dam and to provide harvest opportunity for anadromous adult's salmonids in the upper watershed."

The key word here is "Balance"! But what does WDFW know about "balance" anyway?

Several public meetings were held, and that is what was promised to us by the WDFW (I still have the document). Now they (WDFW) have signed a "private Settlement Agreement" that will change all of what was originally promised to us earlier!

Finally, you said: " I believe that not all anglers on the Cowlitz Rv. are focusing on providing meat for the freezer; but rather, the opportunity to catch (and release) a wild steelhead." I do know where you came up with that crook of $hit, "Not all", but 99999.9 % of the anglers who fish the Cowlitz keep what they catch! And I am NOT TALKING ABOUT just the BLUE CR. area!

I guess that most anglers don't mind catching and releasing those "wild unmarked hatchery fish" as long as they are being allowed to continue to catch good numbers of "legal" hatchery fish. But once they find that almost 90% of the fish that they are now going to be catching must be "release" so that Tacoma will not have to pay for those "hatchery costs"..........well that's another whole different story!

Since ALL "hatchery fish" WILL BE DENIED any access to the spawning grounds of these "wild" fish, why not have the bests of both worlds? Lots of hatchery fish for harvest, and 240 miles of some of the best spawning habitat that is left in Washington State for them to spawn and rear in!


Was that enough? If not, I have lots more to say!

Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz my friend, this isn't an attack on you so don't worry. If you take a second and re-read the quote from yourself above, I think you'll begin to understand just a little bit how these board squabbles (which I've definitely been involved in) tend to get started in the first place.

I know this is a passionate issue for you, and you see it in black and white. All I'm saying is to take a minute and realize that NOT EVERYONE see's it exactly like you do.

4Salt

If Cohoangler is offended by my commits, or remarks, we will work that one out! We do not need you in the middle to be the "stirrer" of a pot! Good try though!

I did not say, nor did I insinuate that "Cohoangler" was a crook of $hit! I think he knows a lot about fishing polices because he is a Fishery Biologist and may even work for or with the state. With that being said, I have followed my commitment to my signing onto our board. If you believed that what I have written violates that, then please state the violation. Fair enough?

If Bob, or Jerry or any other of Bob's moderators wants to agree with you, knowing full well that you have always wanted to pick a fight with whatever I have to say, well that is life. 4Salt, your own words are your own worse enemy!

posted by 4Saly on 5-29-2003 AM:

"You ain't gettin' off that easy Cowlitz. You gotta know that I'm a gonna post some know-it-all sh!t! ESPECIALLY if it's a topic YOU started!!!

And again:

Posted by 4 Salt:
Ahhh Cowlitz,So many insults, so little time...

Attack mode? What the hell do you think you just did to Rob Allen? Nevermind I'll forgo the typical Cowlitz justification. I'd be glad to be the Phil Donahue of the board: "Is the caller there? Seein's how I don't know $hit, I guess it's a damn good thing we got you."

4Salt, I do believe that Bob, Jerry, and the rest of the board will all be able to see through your endless attempts to discredit me.

Do you need more salt ? 4Salt? Or are you into the "pepper mode now?

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

This sucks. I know we have butted heads a little over the last coupel of months. This isn't right. This is letting the utilities off easy. This is screwing the recreational fisherman to the max. The Cowlitz is a prime example of how some rivers should be managed for harvest.

Is there anything that can be done at this point? Or is it all a done deal.

What a joke them saying that there is a wild run left with all that evidence.

JJ

My vote would be for more hatchery fish and no wild fish, the wild ones aren't native anyways so why would I want to protect them? I'm going out there to bring something home so I never want to see an unclipped fish on the end of my line. Besides, if you really want to protect wild fish you wouldn't be trying to catch them. HOORAY FOR HATCHERIES!!!!!

JJ

So true, so true!

Both the friends of the Cowlitz and my group, CPR-Fish are appealing the license with FERC. It's hard to fight a utility that just spent well over 12 million dollars on getting these jokers to sign the Settlement Agreement and we are working for free! As sick as that may sound, we still have some members that believe that sport fishermen got a "good deal" on the Cowlitz Settlement. I truly believe that they are confused about wild fish, fish, and sport fishermen.

I truly do not know if we can overturn the "Settlement Agreement" or not, but I can tell this; I will give it my last breath trying to do so!

Cowlitzfisherman

Maybe if we didnt have so many special interest groups, we might get something done in the steelhead world. The cowlitz thing does sound like a crock of crap though... It would be tough to turn a whack em' stack em' river to a 90% CNR river. WDFW needs to figure out a way to 100% seperate hatchery and native steelhead so both can prosper and sportsman can have harvest and #'s (natives).

test reply

Cowlitz- Now how did I just KNOW that you'd be unable to comprehend the meaning and intent of my post...

4Salt

I think more people then you may have realize comprehended exactly what you were up to!

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM -
While I would in no way attempt to debate you on your extensive knowledge of the Cowlitz and its fisheries or its fish I do have a couple observations.

The run timing and spawning timing of the native Cowlitz steelhead you report were surprising similar to that of the Skagit fish. Could it be because of similar spring/summer hydrographs?

Because of this unusual late spawn timing it is certainly possible that there may be little interaction between the late spawning native stocks and the earlier hatchery stocks. A review of WDFW's 2003 hatchery escapement reports shows that the Cowlitz winter hatchery steelhead egg take (521,154 eggs) was completed by the end of Janaury. The egg take of the "late" Cowlitz winter steelhead began in early April and was complete about mid-may with 876,694 eggs taken.

With 60 days between the end of the hatchery spawning and the beginning of spawning of the "late" fish it would seem to my simple mind that some uniquness of the "late" stock could have been maintained.

With nearly 1.4 million eggs taken it doesn't look like much of a reduction in the total hatchery production of winter steelhead.

It is also interesting to note that on a board that has many members who champion "wild steelhead" that there would be such support to maintain hatchery production at all costs and little support to enhancing the wild production of steelhead.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

I really enjoy it (like a snake bite) when you ask me questions because you really make me think before I answer! Obviously you have a lot more access to information then most people do and also know how to get more when you need it! That gives you an unfair advantage, but we all must put up or shut up!

Ok, with that being said, I will give you my "best laymen's" answer to some of the "tuff technical questions" that you are always so good at imposing onto us.

You asked;" The run timing and spawning timing of the native Cowlitz steelhead you report were surprising similar to that of the Skagit fish. Could it be because of similar spring/summer hydrographs?"

The answer to that question is, yes that could be one of the answers, or it could just be part of the answer. But there is another possibility that we must first considered before one could draw that conclusion. Since 1938, the Cowlitz received numerous plants of steelhead from just about every major river system in the state! They could have just as easily been the "genetic prodigy" from plants from the Skagit River or a combination of several plants from multiple rivers. I do not know if that is what's has happen, but it would have had made sense, at the time, for WDW to do something like this, especially because of the similarities of the Cowlitz and the Skagit run timing.

Since it's been about ten years ago since I had last seen that data, I do not recall if Skagit stocks had been used in the earlier plants of the Cowlitz or not. I do recall that the Cowlitz did get lots of plants from outside of its own basin. I do know that they "consistently used" chamber creek stocks from about 1951 to 1967. Each year from 51-67 they planted an average of about 41,661 steelhead smolts @ 2.5-13/lb into the Cowlitz.

You say; "With 60 days between the end of the hatchery spawning and the beginning of spawning of the "late" fish it would seem to my simple mind that some uniquness of the "late" stock could have been maintained."

That may have been true for the egg take years in 2002, but I do not believe that was the case, or the policy of WDW during the 60's, 70's and 80's. Not all eggs that have been taken from the Cowlitz have been programmed or used in the Cowlitz either! The Cowlitz Trout Hatchery had been used to "playing god" with their run timing and the fish sizes (2's&3's). They have a long standing record of selecting brood stocks for programs during the late 60 through the 70 and 80's time period. Here are just a few examples of the percentage of eggs that WDW took for hatchery production of the "late winter steelhead" on the Cowlitz.

In the year 1968, they only took eggs from these months for the winter runs:
Dec-0.0%
Jan - 0.0%
Feb-5.4%
Mar-32.9%
Apr-61.7%
May-0.0%

Year 1975 they took eggs from these months only for winter runs:
Dec-2.5%
Jan-58.4%
Feb-37.0%
Mar-0.0%
Apr-2.2%
May-0.0%

In 1983 they took eggs from these moths only:
Dec- 41.5%
Jan - 51.4%
Feb- 3.6%
Mar-0.0%
Apr-1.7%
May-1.7%

From 1974-1979, almost no eggs were taken to support the March - May timing of the steelhead run!

Do you still believe that this "special unique" supper stock of genetically selected steelhead could have stayed unmixed and separate after 35 years of genetic mixing like this has occurred?

It's my opinion the "reason" that these "special" genetic stocks were developed, or "remarkably discovered" by the WDFW were because of the "Wild Salmonid Policy"!
It was quickly starting to have a huge "conflict" with the reintroduction program, and the commercial fisheries on the Lower Columbia River.

Obviously, WDF could not be promoting both a restoration program and commencing a massive commercial gill net fishery at the same time they were claiming to be "restoring wild steelhead". It doesn't take a scientist, or a biologist to figure this one out!

Washington State law prohibited them from "intentional" or commercially taking of steelhead (both wild and sport). In 1994, a decision was made by WDFW to develop a plan that would allow WDFW to continue both the "Restoration Programs" and the Columbia Commercial Gill Net Fishery to co-exist.

Historically the "native run" of Cowlitz Winter steelhead started entering the Lower Columbia River in early to mid-November. The commercial gill net fishery for coho would be going into full swing by that same time period. Cowlitz coho (late stock) peak in late November-early December and continue to come in until February. Since coho and steelhead are almost the same in size, the coho nets would not be able to let these steelhead pass through their net fishery without taking a heavey toll. So how could WDFW allow a massive coho fishery to continue on the Lower Columbia, and at the same time claim to be participating in a recovery/restoration program for "wild steelhead" that are being nailed in big numbers during the coho net fishery?

Presto! The answer was a simple one; WDFW decided to develop/create one specially unique returned timed stock of steelhead that would "not be returning at the same time" that the Columbia River coho gill net fishery was occurring! That way, NMFS would not be force legally by law or some outside group to "shut down" the commercial coho fishery when to many "wild steelhead" from the restoration program were being caught and counted in the NMFS "incidental take allotment"!

Because of the conflict between the coho commercial fishery and the return timing of the native stocks of Cowlitz Winter run steelhead almost 4 months, or one half of the original native run timing has now been totally eliminated! Biology and science at its best!

Smalma,
The "original Cowlitz Falls Restoration Management Plan" called for a "balance between wild, native and hatchery fish populations. This newer "self declared" version that WDFW has now created does not represent the original restoration Plan or its goals. It's really hard to image or believe that after 35+ years of hatchery interbreeding/mixing, plus WDFW own admission in 1984 that only 1.6% of all the "natural production" in the Cowlitz was likely that of hatchery stocks and not that of native genetic stocks should tell the "rest of the story"!

Finally, your last statement was; "It is also interesting to note that on a board that has many members who champion "wild steelhead" that there would be such support to maintain hatchery production at all costs and little support to enhancing the wild production of steelhead."

Maybe fishermen like what they have been doing on the Cowlitz for last 35+ years and do not want to "create" a wild fish run that will prohibit their last chance or opportunities to enjoy a harvest!

Well Smalma, that's about the best that this here laymen can do to answer your questions! I hope that you can understand what I have wrote, and understand the amount time and work that it takes to give you an answer that will meet your high criteria standards.

If I have failed, well through me another one, and let's see if I can handle it too!

You are one tuff person to reply to!

Cowlitzfisherman

Thats why you da man.

i bet this decrease in hatchery fish and increase in unretainable fake wild fish is just gonna make the river worse than it has been in the last few years

guess my kids may never know about how great the cowlitz was in the 80's and early 90's, i caught my first steelie from blue creek when i was 6.

the cowlitz should be managed as more of a meat run, when compared to a river like the nisqually which used to have a lot of wild fish until the indians did them in

CFM -
Regarding the later spwning timing of Skagit and other stocks - Here in the North Sound area I have noticed that the timing of wild steelhead spawning is such that the fry will emerge from the gravel after the high flows of the spring run subsides. Systems like the Skagit that have a large and prolong snow-melt driven run-offs that last to late July or early August have much later spawning. In the Skagit case the peak spawning is the middle part of May with that the fry emerging about August first. Based on your earlier cites it appears to me that the Tilton must have substantial snow-melt run-off normally lasting well into July.

To my knowledge the only extensive culture of Skgit wild steelhead stocks have been confined to that basin. It is unlikely that the Cowlitz has recieved plants of wild Skagit origin.

The salmonid stocks in the Pacific Northwest developed in very dynamic river systems that were constantly changing. As a result the fish developed the ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions (as a result their behaviors, life histories and even genetics were constantly undergoing subtle changes). If they could not they were toast. As a result given a change in a new environment they evolve quickly to be successful in that environment.

While we will likely never know what the genetic profiles of the historical wild stocks of the Cowlitz were (need samples from those fish prior to any hatchery/wild interactions and about the only likely hope would be some archived scale samples collected a half a century ago). It would appear to me that the current "late" Cowlitz stock with their late spawning would have a chance to successful adapt places like the Tilton. To my mind these fish would not necessarily be native but would be wild fish and if they are productive that is good enough for me. As Cohoangler mentioned this is the future of fish recovery with less worry or focus on the genetic purity of the fish and more on restoring functioning habitats and populating them with successfully adapted wild stocks that are as productive as possible (this Cowlitz discussion seems simlar to what is occurring on the East Coast with Atlantic salmon).

I did find it interesting that they are talking about getting fish back into 240 miles of habitat (that is more habitat than all the winter steehead habitat in the Snohomish basin). Also ladderng the lower dam and giving the fish access to and from Tilton would seem to be a huge "win" to me. Of course it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully done. That doesn't mean that they should not try.

I'm not sure that your statement sport fisherman will not like the agreement is true. Certainly there are many who do not or will not like giving up any of those hatchery fish to harvest. However just as surely there are many who would feel giving the fish a chance to develop a viable wild populatin is a good thing and worth the sacrifice. For me issues like this is less about my needs today and more about preserving options for future generations.

On contentious issues like this there will not be agreement among all us diverse users. Rather they will be a wide range of opinions with facts and/or data of little concern on those from either pole of the issue. Let's agree to attempt to provide the best information available to us for those in the middle so that they can make an informed decision whether that be fore or against our own personal positon.

You mentioned the state "Wild Salmonid Policy" and how it was providing direction for the decision makers. That is precisely why such policies are needed. If you don't like the decisions that are being made based on the policies it may be more productive to work on changing the policies.

Just one question - Do you feel that attempting to establish wild salmon populations in upstream areas just as mis-guided as with steelhead?

Tight lines
Smalma

I don't like the netting on the Nasty any more than anyone else. But that is not what happened to the steelhead there.

Bill Herzog can tell you all about it. And it was not the indians.

Smalma

You have asked me; "Do you feel that attempting to establish wild salmon populations in upstream areas just as mis-guided as with steelhead?

Smalma, I am not against nor am I opposed to either establishing salmon or steelhead to any "upstream" area for the purpose of natural production. When I was the President of the Friends of the Cowlitz (FOC), we the FOC, was the original group that triggered the upper River restoration program for both Salmon and Steelhead!

During the first 3 years (1991-1993) BPA, FOC, NMFS. USFWS, WDF, WDFW, and USFS all developed a restoration plan called the "Cowlitz Falls Project Fisheries Management Plan" or the (CFPFMP). Have you ever had the opportunity yet to read the "original "CFPFMP" before the new combined wildlife and fishery agencies were cloned together and change it?

The plan took over 3 years to develop and refine, and addressed the restoration of both salmon and steelhead in the upper Cowlitz River, and to lesser degree, the Tilton drainage. Tacoma put up a fit when we originally included that area, because it was "above" the area that BPA was responsible for in the Settlement Agreement with the FOC.

The CFPFMP was and still is a dynamic one that both wild fish avocates and harvest people could both live with. It addresses both "wild", "Natural", and hatchery production. When the final plan came out, the new WDFW got all excited because it was named the "Cowlitz Falls Fish Prtoject Management Plan". The magic word that got them peeing in their shorts was "Management Plan"! They couldn't handle a plan that involved these words unless it was the new WDFW's own "Management" plan, even those many of the people in both agencies fully participated in developing this plan.

The plan was so simple and workable that the WDFW just couldn't stand or handle it, and in June of 1996 had to make up their own version which they now refer to as the;" Cowlitz Falls Anadromous Reintroduction" plan. But like almost everything else that they (WDFW) gets their hands on, they really screwed it up!

The original CFPFMP was workable because it made a "BALANCE" between hatchery fish and wild or natural fish. It allowed them to co exist and still have a fishery for sport fishermen. There was, and still is not any reason in the would that both hatchery stocks and natural stocks could not both share and utilize over 240 miles of the best habitat that is left in our state! That's right, over 240 miles of virgin habitat that is not being used, and they are worried about intermixing the gene pools of "hatchery fish" vs "wild fish".... What joke!

It was all about the hatcheries being cut back and nothing else!

What would they do if the water shed starts pumping out hundreds of thousands of fat health smolts from hatchery shocks? What would they say to all the other BS programs that they have established and are promoting when all these fish can be produced for nothing by nature?

With well over 240 miles of natural habitat, there is no reason in the world why we can't have both hatchery and native fish coming out in large numbers from this area!

I challenge any member on our board or for that matter, WDFW to show us the proof that this would not work!

It's the same old story.....sorry, but its only aout WDFW people loosing their jobs!

Hell, WDF even charged the BPA over $18,000 for them to participate in the CFPFMP. I do not know what WDW charged the BPA, but I would imagine it was close to the same amount!

So when you said; "You mentioned the state "Wild Salmonid Policy" and how it was providing direction for the decision makers. That is precisely why such policies are needed. If you don't like the decisions that are being made based on the policies it may be more productive to work on changing the policies."

Well that is exactly what I am doing now! We had a great CFPFMP that everyone could have lived with and then the WDFW changed "the plan" to meet and support their own internal needs.

Smalma, I have 2 more replys and then I let you off the hook.

1) You said;" Also ladderng the lower dam and giving the fish access to and from Tilton would seem to be a huge "win" to me. Of course it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully done. That doesn't mean that they should not try."

To bad that the great Director of WDFW (Jeff Koenings) doesn't feel the same way as you do! He went out of his way to assure in the Settlement Agreement that fish ladders would not be readily available for Mayfield Dam. There were no engineering problems with making a workable ladder over Mayfield because it falls within the 140' levels that are very workable for fish. The BIG POROBLEM was that Jeff wanted 15 million dollars of insurance for his hatcheries if within 15 years the bench marks (Which is had personally set) were not met! The ladder issue was a cake walk at Mayfield, but that 15 million dollars that WDFW wants to have will never allow that to happen!


So look at what the WDFW "rats" have done; "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.

Here's the nail in the coffin!; "h) If within 14 years of license issuance the criteria for volitional upstream passage facilities, described in b), c) and g) above, have not been met and it is determined by the FTC or agencies, and affected Tribes, with the concurrence of NMFS and USFWS, that measures in addition to those provided for in the August 2000 Settlement Agreement are necessary to restore self-sustaining, natural production of ESA-listed stocks in the Cowlitz River basin, and that expenditure of the escrow fund on such additional measures in lieu of volitional upstream facilities is necessary and appropriate to achieve natural stock restoration, consistent with the express purpose of the license and the Settlement Agreement, and with applicable recovery plans for the listed Cowlitz River stocks, the Licensee shall submit to the Commission a plan to abandon volitional upstream passage and expend the funds in the escrow account for the purposes of protecting and promoting restoration and recovery of listed Cowlitz River stocks. The draft plan shall be submitted to the FTC or agencies for 30-day review and comment period"

Now Smalma, what do you think will happen?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And finally, you say:" I'm not sure that your statement sport fisherman will not like the agreement is true. Certainly there are many who do not or will not like giving up any of those hatchery fish to harvest."

2) Well there is one way to find out that answer for sure! Have you ever wondered why our WDFW has never proposed to put that same question on our voting ballots? Then, you and I would all have the same chance to vote on this issue and live with the results of the many! Sounds more then fare to me. . . how about you?


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman-
In response to your questions
1) the escrow account - not knowing what paragraphes B, C & G require the PUD's to do I have no way of answering your question. However have an applicant putting funds in an escrow account to be used if they don't meet thier obligations seems purdent to me.

2) Having the anglers vote on issues. That would be a very cumbersome. There have been various angler preferences conducted over the years and not unexpectly anglers never unamiously agree on anything. Which is exactly my point - we anglers represent a wide range of opinions and ideas and rarely speak with a single voice. Perhaps the close there is to agreement is that WDFW doesn't have a clue but I'll bet there are even some WDFW supportors.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

You said; "2) Having the anglers vote on issues. That would be a very cumbersome. There have been various angler preferences conducted over the years and not unexpectly anglers never unamiously agree on anything. Which is exactly my point - we anglers represent a wide range of opinions and ideas and rarely speak with a single voice. Perhaps the close there is to agreement is that WDFW doesn't have a clue but I'll bet there are even some WDFW supportors."

That's funny! "Not unexpectly anglers never unamiously agree on anything".

Well, that sounds just like our entire voting system doesn't it? Win some, loose some!

I agree with you about having just the "anglers" only vote! But since almost all of our funds that are used to run or support the fish and wildlife agencies come out of our states "general funds", it would be both fair and appropriate for the "general public" to have a vote on any such issues!


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman -
I don't know where the myth comes from that WDFW is supported mostly by general fund $$. In quick visit to WDFW's web sit I found that for the 1997/98 budget 31% of their funds came from the general fund and for 1998/99 it was 33%. The rest came from user fees, mitigation monies, and other federal, state and local funds. With the continued cuts in state general funds I suspect the % of general funds has fallen lower.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

That would certainly explain why WDFW chose to have that 15 million dollars put into a special account instead of spending that money now to build those worthless fish ladders! I guess you could say that the 15 million dollars is WDFW' "rainy day fun"!

I never even thought of it that way before, but it sure makes a lot of sense now.

Thanks

Cowlitzfisherman

Isn't that special the fish and game only get 33 cents on the dollar from all the money we spend on licenses. Oh how special that is. Or did I misunderstand.

Glowball -
Actually what I said was that about 1/3 of WDFW's budget came from the State's general fund. To get at the root of your question I re-visisted WDFW's web site and checked the 1999-2001 biennial report. There I found that the total budget for the agency for those 2 years was nearly $275 million dollars. Of that nearly $93 million came from the general fund.

Deeper in the report I found that the total license sales for that biennium was $62,945,960 ($33,739,828 from fishing, 26,687,242 from hunting, and 2,518,885 from commerical). Of the total license sales $44,412,606 went to the wildlife fund the rest to the State's general fund.

Hope that helps. If you have addition questions suggest you visit WDFW's web site (www.wa.gov/wdfw), click on "who we are" (first line in the green section on the left) and you should find the last biennial report.

Cowlitzfisherman -
Is there anything where you don't find conspiracies?

Tight lines
Smalma

I've been fishing the Cowlitz for 20 years this November. That may not be as long as some have been on her banks, but it's longer than others have even been fishin'. Yet what I envision to be "the good ol' days" on this river is a time I've never seen, although I dream of it every time I fish it.

I'm sure without looking up any stats to drop that the Cowlitz was once one of the greatest native steelhead runs on our planet, not to mention her salmon and cutts. Along it's hundreds of miles of premier habitat, millions of natural, wild steelhead emerged from the gravel destined to become one of the alpha races of summer and winter run Columbia trib fish, the likes of which people today pay through the nose to fish in yet unadulterated regions of British Columbia. The Toutle, and it's legendary summer runs are actually Cowlitz tributary fish. Resilient enough to bounce back from St.Helens, but one dam would eliminate them.

I can only imagine a fall day floating the upper reaches in what I consider to be the glory days of the Cowlitz - the days when she flourished as one of the mighty wild steelhead rivers of the world.

Then came the dams, and hatcheries, sleds and super-efficient means of harvesting mass-produced fish in the name of sport, and somehow this became "the good old days". These upper reaches are now under impoundment lakes behind mammoth dams and pumped with everything from sockeye to tiger muskie in the name of sport.

I guess glory is in the eye of the beholder.

.02

Juro

Smalma

You of all people!

You said; "Is there anything where you don't find conspiracies? Those are 100% your words, not mind! All I have done is state the facts and the facts only. If my facts are wrong then say so and support them with your facts. Apparently you have gotten your hair up because the facts that I have posted appear to make the WDFW look pretty bad!

Well, the old saying is "If the shoe fits . . . then ware it! This shoe is almost getting to be glove to our WDFW.

Like I said, I am sorry to have offended you, but what I have written can be backed 100% by documentation! (Well, everything except the "look at what the "rats" have done" statement) That was really just my own opine!

Why is it the WDFW supporters always have to come back with this "conspiracies" reply whenever there is "facts" that they can not counter?


Cowlitzfisherman

Juro, A good, insightful perspective.

AuntyM says Right on! That is the smartest thing said in the long list of diatribe here.
Why ruin a perfectly good hatchery river that has and will continue to have (probably) dams on it that all the special interest groups claim is what killed off the wild fish in the first place?? I mean, does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the dams did the fish in for the most part, then restoring a wild run is probably not going to work? Big waste of money just so a few flyfisherman can get a stiffy releasing a fish with an adipose fin....
Improving and maintaining a natural (native) run in a river like the Wind, Klickitat, Quinault, etc. is a good thing. Trying to do so on a dammed river that is and has been a hatchery river for decades is a joke........

MC

Mastercaster, PS: I know just as many gear fisherman who get a stiffy releasing a fish with adipose fin, so be careful who you stereotype here. It's too easy just to give up, maybe it is too late for rivers like the Cowlitz, but maybe the past should be a BIG lessons learned so we don't repeat and ALLOW the same mistakes on other rivers that are hanging on(Bearly)

Yes DoubleHaul..... I get a stiffy catching ANY fish...... BUT....... I do not use all my resources to affect areas I fish to suit only my desires, and although I love to Flyfish, I GENERALLY do not hang with that crowd as I have found them GENERALLY an elitist group that thinks that anyone with a spinning rod and bait should be burned at the stake..... Again, I can only GENERALIZE and I will say that some of the best friends I have had in my life were Flyfishers..... Some elitist, others not...... I do believe, and the gist of my comments, were pointing to the fact that WT (with a majority as Flyfishers) probably had the more to do with the Cowlitz decision than any other group.

MC

MC- I used to gear fish, still do sometimes and some of my best friends are gear fisherman, who cares? No need to explain your opinion to me, everyone has an opinion and I will save everyone the pain of mine. Do the topic a favor and don't off track or divide it by laying down the flyfisher card. Thanks for your consideration.

Aunty

You are right!

I don't think a lot of fishermen realize just how many people fished the Cowlitz. For years now, the Cowlitz was the number one winter run steelhead fishery in the State. Each month from late November to January, thousands of fishermen hammered the Cowlitz on a "weekly" basis. It was not uncommon to have over 100 boats a day at Blue cr during Nov-Jan alone. Now where do you think that all those fishermen and boats will be heading for, since they have decided to eliminate that Nov-Jan run of hatchery fish? I bet you that 90% of the total winter run steelhead that were harvested on the Cowlitz were harvested during that same time periods.

Just think about it, all of those people from Boeing that used to come down to the Cowlitz during Nov-Jan will now be looking at and fishing in the rivers and streams that they had never had to before!

You can also bet that all those guides who everyone gets so mad at will also all be looking for the best rivers to take their clients, and it surly won't be the Cowlitz during Nov-Jan anymore. For sure, there will be a lot more people fishing rivers that never had much pressure on them before. And they will wonder where all that new pressure has come from?

But then again, some one will undoubtedly accuse me of drumming up another one those "conspiracies" theories again. . . . but this time I will be the one who is left chuckling!


Cowlitzfisherman

MasterCaster, and Double Hual

It was not the Fly fishers who screwed up the Cowlitz! It was the clever Utility company named Tacoma Power. Yes their was some involvement by fly fishers "IF" you consider American Rivers and Trout Unlimited to be only Fly fishers.

But you got to remember who invited them to participate and paid them to do it. It was Tacoma Power! Tacoma Power knew that these grops were heavily into wild fish and that is why they brought them aboard. It only makes sense, if you were a Power hungry utility like Tacoma, you would be doing the same thing. They knew that if they could get the Cowlitz "programmed" to favor wild fish production instead of "hatchery production", they could save millions of dollars each and every year! Do the math on their 35 years license (a million and a half for hatcheriers each year = $52 Million dollars!) and that's not even including the cost savings of another $15+ million dollars for the fish ladders that they got out of installing of in the Settlement Agreement.

There is just no good reason on earth that we could not have had both hatchery and "natural" production both going on in the upper Cowlitz basin! I defy any board member or WDFW staff to prove otherwise! The nightmare on the Cowlitz can be credited to three groups in my opinion. First and foremost is Tacoma Power. Second is the NMFS. Third, is the WDFW!

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 .

NMFS assisted Tacoma by not demanding "volitional" fish passage at both Dams (fish ladder at Mayfield and a "tram" system at Mossyrock). That way, both hatchery fish and "natural fish" could both utilize over 240 miles to spawn and produce whatever the water shed was capable of supporting. Since All STOCKS of fish that where to be used were from the same current hatchery stocks, it would have made no difference in the first place! And even "IF" one of the species was not 100% from the Cowlitz, what difference would it really make? I would like to see how NMFS could defend its position on this issue.

Finally, but certainly not last, is our own WDFW. They had the power and the trusted responsibility to demand fish passage that would have allowed both natural and hatchery fish to co-exist together and once again produce naturally produced fish that would once again make the Cowlitz the mighty river that she once was!

But instead, Tacoma held out that $15 million dollar "golden ring" for our WDFW, until WDFW reached out and grabed onto it tightly! It was pretty obvious that WDFW wanted only to depend on "hatchery production" instead of letting the same "hatchery" fish do it for nothing!

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.

I already know what Tacoma Power would say, so let's hear what explanations WDFW and NMFS can come up with!

Let's not blame each other now for things what our state and federal agencies have done to us on the Cowlitz River. It was their agenda not ours! Why else did they sign the agreement without first going public for ALL fishermen to review it first (you already know the answer to that one)?

They had all the time in the world to do so if they had really wanted you to make any commits!

It's time to change the "old ways", and make it a state mandate that any "Settlement Agreements" that WDFW makes, must first go through a public review period for commit before we are force to spend more of our own money to fight ourselves in court. Because whenever we take the "state" to court, we are just paying to fight against ourselves. What's wrong with that picture?

Cowlitzfisherman

Well what's the mater WDFW-NMFS, does the cat have their agencies spokesmen holding their tongues again?

I am still waiting for any of them (the agency spokesmen) to rely!

Maybe the same "old" way of thinking will work again (or at least one more time anyway)! If you don't answer, maybe he will go away!

This may be one of the reasons why our fisheries are always so screwed up! These guys (agencies) have been "put on the spot" again and they need some time to figure out how, and where, to make wiggle! It's really a shame that these agencies can't make a come back without first having a major plow-wow before giving any answers to our board. They do read it . . . and read it often!

So when can we expect to hear their reply?

Wait.....I can hear it coming now! We are so bussy that we don't have time to answer. We are over worked and way under paid.

Well maybe, but I will wait to bebate that issue until "after" I get their replies.....well maybe that is just wishfull thinking too!


Cowlitzfisherman

You betcha I fish to get a stiffy!

Why else?

But I really don't get a stiffy over the adipose fin, it's what's attached to it - and not in terms of weight, length, or condition of meat but the mind-blowing fact that in this day and age something as pure as a native steelhead could be held by the wrist of the tail in the water for a minute before it's allowed to swim free. Wow. Beyond the fight, the fun and the filet - is the idea, the notion, the concept... of steelhead. Given a choice between bonking a hatchery fish or release a native, I get far more satisfaction from #2 and thats what I fish for - satisfaction, stiffies! Few things in my sporting life do it for me like native steel.

BOING! Whoops, dere it is!

Peace

Smalma,

I known that you like to "see the facts" before you take anyone's word for it. So I have been doing my "homework" for you. Your position is a good position to take, so I dug out my old retired computer, and pulled up my old "Settlement" emails from June 14, 2000 (just shortly before the Settlement was accepted) that our attorney had sent to the AG's office. I do believe that this will satisfy your needs. These are our comments that were made by our attorney to the AG's office, which was representing the WDFW, and the AG's reply back to our attorney.

This board should find them to be extremely interesting!

It's all public record now, so read them and tell me again about how you see me viewing this issue. Do you remember saying this to me? ; "Is there anything where you don't find conspiracies?" The answer is; yes, but not totally on this issue! If I don't tell the real story . . . who will. . . .WDFW?

I think that these guys still want to keep their jobs until they retire!

You stated this to me:

"Also ladderng the lower dam and giving the fish access to and from Tilton would seem to be a huge "win" to me. Of course it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully done. That doesn't mean that they should not try."

And my reply to you was this:

"To bad that the great Director of WDFW (Jeff Koenings) doesn't feel the same way as you do! He went out of his way to assure in the Settlement Agreement that fish ladders would not be readily available for Mayfield Dam. There were no engineering problems with making a workable ladder over Mayfield because it falls within the 140' levels that are very workable for fish. The BIG POROBLEM was that Jeff wanted 15 million dollars of insurance for his hatcheries if within 15 years the bench marks (Which he had personally set) were not met! The ladder issue was a cake walk at Mayfield, but that 15 million dollars that WDFW wants to have will never allow that to happen!"


So look at what the WDFW "rats" have done; "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?. "


So this is how it all went down!!!!

"Neil," (Attorney General Rep.)

"Regarding your report that Director Koeings "felt there was not sufficient biological justification for lowering the fish passage standard," my clients have some questions: Would you please identify what the WDFW considers its "biological justification" for the higher passage standard? In what way was this brought out at the Fish Technical Committee meetings? My clients do not believe that it ever was. How does a higher passage standard promote the Department's statutory mandate to "preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage" the state's fisheries resources? What would the Director deem to constitute biological justification for lowering the fish passage standard as advocated by the Conservation Caucus?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Regards...."

The AG's answer (This should make a blind man see the light) was:

We had a two hour meeting with Jeff Koenings last night regarding aproposed change in the upstream fish passage triggers (changing fromself-sustaining levels of coho and either spring chinook or late winter steelhead to at least one indigenous anadromous fish stock). I explained the settlement framework and the posture and interests of the various
parties, then the technical staff discussed the biological issues with the Director. After long discussions and Q&A, the Director decided he could not accept the proposed change, primarily because he felt there was not sufficient biological justification for lowering the fish passage standard.

We did discuss some possible alternative language, such as focusing on the upper basin steelhead and chinook instead of the Tilton coho, or some combination with a higher productivity level. Hal Beecher and I will work on the alternatives, and try to have some language out for review by the end of today.

If anyone has specific questions, I will try to answer them, to the extent I understand the technical details. I will be in meetings most of the day, but hopefully we can connect."

The "Settlement Agreement" was accepted by WDFW within hours of this email!


Now Smalma, do you still think that WDFW is so pure? There are good people in WDFW (like you) and there are some really big FAT RATS!!!!

Sorry to put you back onto the hot spot, because you had nothing to do with this issue! But you need to know what really goes on behind closed doors, before you make "statements" about me thinking everything is a "conspiracy"! Maybe Aunty was right. . . it's not "conspiracy" it's "stupidly".

Show me the "science" that the Director of WDFW used, and I will be the first one to say that I was wrong!

Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman -
I sorry but doubt that I can answer your questions to your satisfaction. It requires some detail knowledge of the settlement, the negotations, and fishries details of the basin. This is especially true in something as unfathomable as the FERC licensing process. I have little direct knoweldge of mititation issues; my knowledge tends to be limited to fish/fishries biology, behavior, managment, and North Puget Sound issues.

From your comments the establishment of self-sustaing anadromous populations in upper basins seem to hinge on upstream passage. You seem particularly concern that Koeings did not accept a lowering of the passage success criteria -

"We had a two hour meeting with Jeff Koenings last night regarding aproposed change in the upstream fish passage triggers (changing fromself-sustaining levels of coho and either spring chinook or late winter steelhead to at least one indigenous anadromous fish stock). " quote from the AG email you posted.

With the limited information you have provided it appears to me that Koeings rejected using have one anadromous species at self-sustianing levels as a trigger for success to have both a fall migrating (coho) and a spring migrating species (either spring chinook or late steelhead) doing well. Implicit in that position is that upstream passage facilities is "working" under both fall and spring river conditions. I for one would also be more comfortable that the declaration of success is dependent on multiple species success rather than just one. If both coho and late steelhead or spring chinook are making it then other species should also have a chance at self-sufficiency.

While I appreciate and respect your deep dedication on this and other issues, your willingness to share your observations and opinions and detailed information that you continue to provide I'm not sure that the story as filtered through your eyes is always the "real story". Your position helps to clarify the issues and helps with each of us deciding for ourselves the "real story".

I will choose to ignore your "rat" editorial comments/question.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,
Like I have said many times before, I highly respect your knowledge of fish and their biology. I also have a pretty good knowledge of fish and especially the Cowlitz stock of fish. I have extensive knowledge of the "mitigation" issues and agreements on the Cowlitz because I was very involved within that process.

So this question may be more of a political question to you, but deals with the biology issues also. What possible "biological" justification could the WDFW have used for not just using a "single" specie as a "trigger for upstream volitional passage" at Mayfield Dam?

You said;" You seem particularly concern that Koenig's did not accept a lowering of the passage success criteria – "

You have totally misunderstood what I had stated! It was not that Koening's wouldn't accept a "lowering of the criteria"; it is a documented fact that Koening's "raised the fish passage criteria"!

Don't just take my world for this one, experts like Salmo G also know what went down! He knows exactly what WDFW (Koening's) did to "raise the criteria". Salmo was also totally involved in the "settlement Agreement" discussions.

To show you just how screwed up the top management in the WDFW really is, all you would have to do is to read what the mandate of RCW 77.04.012 is;

The Mandate of department and commission both state that; Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters…"

Did you notice that it does not say that each species of fish must be locked into, or linked together with the survival of other specie of salmonid? You don't need an attorney to tell you that it's asinine for the "Department" or the "Director" to make up such fish passage "conditions" or "criteria". Besides being asinine, it's goes 100% against the mandate of our own state laws! You had question me why I had used the word "Rats" when I had referred to the Koening's and his gang of cronies. Well, if you go by what Webster says; "[Slang] a sneaky, contemptible person" in my opinion, Koening's falls within that definition.

Here's why I feel that way!

RCW 77.55.060 states:
"Fishways required in dams, obstructions -- Penalties, remedies for failure.
A dam or other obstruction across or in a stream shall be provided with a durable and efficient fishway approved by the director. Plans and specifications shall be provided to the department prior to the director's approval. The fishway shall be maintained in an effective condition and continuously supplied with sufficient water to freely pass fish."

WDFW does not define "Fishways" as truck and haul! So how did Koeings and the gang of cronies get around demanding fish passage at Mayfield and Mossyrock Dams? The answer was simple, the AG found the "loop hole" in; "RCW 77.55.080 If fishway is impractical, fish hatchery or cultural facility may be provided in lieu.

Before a person commences construction on a dam or other hydraulic project for which the director determines that a fishway is impractical, the person shall at the option of the director:

(1) Convey to the state a fish cultural facility on a site satisfactory to the director and constructed according to plans and specifications approved by the director, and enter into an agreement with the director secured by sufficient bond, to furnish water and electricity, without expense, and funds necessary to operate and maintain the facilities; or
(2) Enter into an agreement with the director secured by sufficient bond to make payments to the state as the director determines are necessary to expand, maintain, and operate additional facilities at existing hatcheries within a reasonable distance of the dam or other hydraulic work to compensate for the damages caused by the dam or other hydraulic work…

Koenings gang knew that WDFW would be loosing 10's of million of "dollars" if they where to loose their funding contract with Tacoma to operate the Cowlitz hatcheries. So now you can see why Koenings set the passage criteria so darn high. It simply guarantees that WDFW will continue to maintain receiving millions of dollars of funding for running the hatcheries until at least year 2008.

This is what WDFW had agreed to in the Settlement; "At a minimum, WDFW will be the primary contractor for the operation of the hatchery complex through the year 2008 and could continue as such through the term of the license, based upon the results of the annual reviews. Annual reviews of contract operations will include criteria for success including, but not limited to, fish health, operational efficiency, collaborative relationships, mutual expectations, effective implementation of the Fisheries and Hatcheries Management Plan, and public relations. At any time after 2008, WDFW may be contracted to operate the fish counting and fish separation activities in connection with the operation of the hatchery separator facility."

So do you really think or believe that WDFW will EVER allow these fish to meet Koenings preset high criteria?

If people would just do their homework and research, they would quickly find that when Mayfield Dam was first built, it had a very effective fish ladder/tram system that passed all species of salmonids over Mayfield Dam extremely successfully. Because Tacoma had designed and placed the "flume" from the ladder on the wrong side of the dam along a rock slide prone area, rocks slides eventually damage it. So they decided that it would be cheaper to build a hatchery and a barrier dam, and use "truck and haul" for passing fish above the dams. This alone saved Tacoma tens of millions of dollars at that time, and that was over 40 years ago!

So there is really "no biological reasons" why the WDFW did not demand fish passage over Mayfield Dam for coho or steelhead. The only reason was the fact that WDFW would be loosing 10's of millions of dollars in operational funding that it gets from Tacoma to operate the Cowlitz hatcheries.

If these additional facts are not enough to convince you, then I don't know what will! Just remember, I am not saying that all WDFW employees are bad, but I will call a spade a spade (Koening is an Ace of spades!)! It's really sad that people like yourself are not the ones who are calling the shots to " preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters". If you were in Koenings position, we would probably have a fish ladder over Mayfield Dam by now!

PS; very few "spring chinook" historically spawned in the Tilton River. Almost all springers spawned above the Cowlitz Falls Dam area. In 1964, helicopter flights over the entire Tilton River were made during the "peak" of the "fall chinook" spawning and only six redds were counted. "This confirmed other observations that only a minor run of chinook existed in the Tilton River". So why did WDFW use chinook as a trigger "criteria" for the Mayfield fish passage?

Cowlitzfisherman

NO ONE on this board has a deeper appreciation for wild steelhead than I do. My wife considers herself a Feb-May widow. I not only have a driftboat, I have 2. One for the pen, one for the S rivers. I have 10 acres on the pen, gloomis rods out the yang, tackle boxes overflowing with the most expensive gear money buys. All this to pursue wild steelhead. All that aside, there is no realistic way any native steelhead still swimming up the cowlitz. And we have zero luck introducing steelhead with the intention of them sustaining a wild population. I say keep the cowlitz the hatchery fish machine it is. I hate to agree with CFM, but I think think the power company [Bleeeeep!] us on this one. I don't think they give a damn about wild fish, only saving $ on the production of hatchery fish.

Cowlitzfisherman-
Not tired of this discussion yet?

In your latest post you said quote -

"So there is really "no biological reasons" why the WDFW did not demand fish passage over Mayfield Dam for coho or steelhead. The only reason was the fact that WDFW would be loosing 10's of millions of dollars in operational funding that it gets from Tacoma to operate the Cowlitz hatcheries."

I seem to remember (read or heard) that the settlement called for fish passage (fish ladder/tram?) to be provided at Mayfield Dam very similar to what was there 40 years ago. If my memory is correct you seem to be getting what you want - what is the problem? Is it not occurring fast enough?

Trap and Haul facilities seem to have long been an acceptable alternative in those situation where ladders were not feasible. It seems to have fallen in the area were approval is at the Director's discretion. A number of trap and haul alternatives have been approved over the decades (a couple of examples - Baker, White River, NF Lewis). Is Koeings responsible for those as well?

So far you have focused on upstream passage but the establishment of self-sustaing populations requires both successful upstream and downstream passage. While standing at the base of dam intuitively it would seem the largest problem is to get the adults upstream. However that has not proven to be case. Getting the juveniles/smolts safely downstream through the reservoirs and pass the turbines and other problems has proved to the Achilles Heel to a successful passage program. I would be very surprised that the downstream passage questions were much more difficult then the upstream ones to deal with in your discussion and ultimately may prove to be more expensive for the utility. Because each of the various species behave differently durinng their downstream migration (different sizes, timing, and movement patterns) having a successful program will call for looking at each species responses to the measures being taken and may regard a give and take between them.


Regarding RCW 77.04.012 - WDFW's mandate- You seem to be suggestion that the preserving, protecting and perpetuating can be accomplished with a single species. Are you really suggesting that on at the State level just preserving, protecting, etc just a handful of speices -for example whitefish (game fish), rock sole (food fish), robbins (wildlife) and butter clams (shellfish) would satisfiy the mandate? Or for a river ecosystem taking care of single species (for example coho) is satisfactory for all other species found in the system?

My read is that it calls for much more than that. If you are looking for RCW 77.04.012 guidance on this issue I would suggest that it argues strongly for a multiple species approach rather than a single species.

Skydrifting-
While I'm not a fan of using hatchery fish to replace wild fish hatchery fish have been used successfully to establish wild populations. You have to look no further than your namesake system.

On the South Fork Skykomish river hatchery summers have successfully established a wild population. Several interesting aspects to that population - 1) over the last decade or so they have been more successful than the native winter steelhead found downstream in the main "Sky". For the last 5 years the winters have been returing less than 1/2 a fish for each spawner while the summers above Sunset have been holding their own or even increasing in numbers with recent numbers often in the 1,000 adult range. 2) They seem to be adapting to the local enviromental conditions - the donor stocks were January/February spawner the established wild fish have had their spawning timing moved much later in the spring with current timing of mid-March to mid-May similar to the native stocks in the region. 3) The donor stocks returned as mostly 2 and 3 salt adults. The retruning established wild fish are becoming young with ever generation seemingly hae more and more 1 salt fish - again like the native summer fish of the region.

Bottom line given a chance (without continous input of hatchery spawners) the local environment will rapidly select of traits and behaviors that are most successful and the fish quickly look and behave similarly to the native stocks.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,

Why are we so far apart on our communications? It simply must be because you thing like the agency does and I think like a laymen. Let's try one more time to bridge the gap.

Tired, yet? Not me! I am just getting my second win!

You have said; "I seem to remember (read or heard) that the settlement called for fish passage (fish ladder/tram?) to be provided at Mayfield Dam very similar to what was there 40 years ago."

You did hear that right, but you apparently did not hear what I had said about Koenings demanding higher "triggers" then any one else did, except Tacoma. Since I have given you factual information showing you that both spring chinook and falls did not utilizes the area (Tilton) to any large degree. Why in the devil would our department want to tie in fish passage to the Tilton with fish passage to the upper Cowlitz River area above Cowlitz Falls if they were really concerned about using whatever habitat was available for "natural production? How could WDFW possibly suggest that fish can possibly be raised more cheaply or better then that of what nature does for nothing?

You asked me;" If my memory is correct you seem to be getting what you want - what is the problem? Is it not occurring fast enough?"

No Smalma, over 50 years of truck and hauling was more then enough time to prove to most reasonable minded people, that truck and haul, has been a total failure on the Cowlitz. You need to ask the fish if it is "fast enough", not me! You know how the agency has screwed with the fish before, so what possibly makes you think that they won't keep screwing with them again and again?

Smalma, I do not understand your position on this issue. Now you say; "Trap and Haul facilities seem to have long been an acceptable alternative in those situation where ladders were not feasible." As a biologist, you should have figured that one out. Can you give us any other "acceptable alternative" that could have been used at that time to get fish over the highest dam in the state? I don't think so! Can you please name one or two other ways that the department has used to "pass" fish over dams?

Since the NMFS representative who pushed for the truck and haul on the Cowlitz also worked on developing the truck and haul for Baker, I am not impressed one little bit with your statement. If you were to read the "Draft Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facilities Guidelines and Criteria" that was developed by the NMFS in North Region, Portland, Oregon, I do believe that you would not be stuck in that 1960 mentality way of thinking. Times have change, and truck and haul is on its way out (thank god!)!

Enough for upstream passage!

Let's go onto your suggestion and discuss how we are getting screwed on the down stream issue. Why do you suppose that Koenings kept his mouth shut on this issue in the "Settlement Agreement"? If it was so important as you have claimed it to be, where was he on this issue? I can tell you where he was…I think it's like his head was up his . . .!

You talk about BS and jokes, that is what our WDFW and NMFS has become on the Cowlitz settlement. You need to read the Settlement Agreement for your self, and then try to defend WDFW position. NNFS was supposed to see that Tacoma would work collaboratively with BPA to assure that downstream trapping success was successful and met NFMS standards. What a joke that one is! Two and one half years later after the "settlement" was signed and 29 monthly reports later to FERC, nothing has yet to happen, or has been done to assure that the smolts will be captured at Cowlitz falls as NMFS had required Tacoma to do in the settlement agreement.

There is no question in my mind, Friends of the Cowlitz, Steelhead Trout Club of Washington, or CPR-Fish's minds that somebody is doing nothing "as usual". Smalma, the money issue is a JOKE! Tacoma makes at "least 17" million dollars a year off the Cowlitz River Project.

The only thing that is "difficult" to answer about the "downstream" fish collection facilities on the Cowlitz right now is who is going to pay for them! Is it Tacoma or BPA?

Finally, concerning RCW 77.04.012, it is reasonable to expect the director to assure that "each specie on the Cowlitz" has passage over the dames. That includes eels, white fish, suckers, and all the other species of anadromous fish. I really don't have any idea why you brought up "rock sole (food fish), robbins (wildlife) and butter clams". I guess we tend to bring things up when we are reaching for examples, but that reach was way too far for me.

This is what Tacoma was required to do; Article 1. Downstream Fish Passage: Riffe Lake and Cowlitz Falls Collection and Passage.

a) Within six (6) months of license issuance, Licensee shall develop and submit a plan for downstream fish passage and collection at Riffe Lake and Cowlitz Falls. The Licensee shall prepare the plan in collaboration with, and subject to approval by, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The plan shall include: 1) a report on the results of negotiations among the Licensee, Lewis County Public Utility District (licensee for the Cowlitz Falls Project, FERC No. 2833) and the Bonneville Power Administration regarding shared funding of cooperative efforts to improve downstream passage and collection effectiveness at or near Cowlitz Falls; 2) proposed facilities and measures most likely to achieve the goal of 95% Fish Passage Survival (“FPS”), as defined in the August 2000 Settlement Agreement, to be funded by the Licensee to contribute to effective downstream passage and collection at or near Cowlitz Falls and/or to be constructed by the Licensee downstream of Cowlitz Falls Dam at Riffe Lake; 3) plans to support the on-going operation and maintenance of facilities and measures for downstream passage and collection at or near Cowlitz Falls and/or at Riffe Lake each year for the term of the license; 4) plans for monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness, including determination of the combined FPS of the existing, proposed new and/or improved facilities at or near Cowlitz Falls and/or Riffe Lake; and 5) a construction and implementation timeline not to exceed 12 months from plan approval by the Commission, unless the Licensee can establish good cause for additional time and implementation timeline not to exceed 12 months from plan approval by the Commission, unless the Licensee can establish good cause for additional time".

This has about as much strength as wet toilet paper, and smells just about the same! You say: "My read is that it calls for much more than that. If you are looking for RCW 77.04.012"

Well maybe you better have your eyes checked soon. I hope that you check the NMFS passage criteria and come back and tell me that you just may have been wrong. Why is it that most all WDFW and a few NMFS people believe that fish belong in trucks?

Sorry for sounding a "little mad", but I always have to say what I feel!

Nothing intended personal against you Smalma. It's all aimed at your so-called "agency leaders".


Cowlitzfisherman

Yikes! Where to begin? How about CFM’s question: “Well what's the mater WDFW-NMFS, does the cat have their agencies spokesmen holding their tongues again?” Actually, no, and I’m no spokesman, but I have been very busy and finally took 3 days off to go trout fishing. I do check this board often, but I also have other interests.

This issue is complex, perhaps too much so to cover on the BB. CFM seems to feel that Tacoma is getting off too easy in its FERC license. Maybe. The law, as supplemented by FERC’s own ruling, is that the utility should provide “. . . mitigation proportionate to project impacts.” Unsurprisingly, not everyone interprets this to mean the same thing, so different parties set out to achieve different outcomes with the Cowlitz license.

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. 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. There is an appendix to the Settlement Agreement that defines these numbers, based on real data, and describes how they are to be measured during the term of the new license.

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. I feel that Tacoma is required to comply with a law that makes sense. Just as if the fish were a privately owned resource, Tacoma could not destroy them without making things whole for the owner. In this case the public is the owner, and the SA requires Tacoma to “make whole” the fishery resource. What more could the public legitimately ask for, let alone require?

CFM said: “There is just no good reason on earth that we could not have had both hatchery and "natural" production both going on in the upper Cowlitz basin! I defy any board member or WDFW staff to prove otherwise! The nightmare on the Cowlitz can be credited to three groups in my opinion. First and foremost is Tacoma Power. Second is the NMFS. Third, is the WDFW!”

It appears that requiring a energy utility to mitigate its project impacts, no more, no less, results in a nightmare. Fine; I understand that is your opinion. The law may not agree with you.

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.

CFM occasionally substitutes his opinion for facts: “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 .” Tacoma spent $12KK on relicensing the hydro project, but it’s a stretch to say they spent that much trying to delay constructing a fish ladder.

“NMFS assisted Tacoma by not demanding "volitional" fish passage at both Dams (fish ladder at Mayfield and a "tram" system at Mossyrock). That way, both hatchery fish and "natural fish" could both utilize over 240 miles to spawn and produce whatever the water shed was capable of supporting. Since All STOCKS of fish that where to be used were from the same current hatchery stocks, it would have made no difference in the first place! And even "IF" one of the species was not 100% from the Cowlitz, what difference would it really make? I would like to see how NMFS could defend its position on this issue.”

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. Steelhead may have come from several hatchery sources, but the primary source of winter steelhead in western Washington is Chambers Creek/South Tacoma and Skamania for summer steelhead. The late winter hatchery stock is probably not pure Cowlitz, but it is probably the closest living relative to pure Cowlitz steelhead. 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. Perhaps that will change in the future, as Skamania are under consideration for Lewis River reintroductions. The defense is pretty simple. The best available science suggests that native, near adjacent, and locally-adapted stocks have the best chance of surviving as naturally producing fish. That can include locally-adapted hatchery stocks, but they are not the first choice.

“Finally, but certainly not last, is our own WDFW. They had the power and the trusted responsibility to demand fish passage that would have allowed both natural and hatchery fish to co-exist together and once again produce naturally produced fish that would once again make the Cowlitz the mighty river that she once was!” WDFW doesn’t have the authority to demand fish passage at federally licensed hydro dams. That is the jurisdiction of the federal agencies, which both did prescribe fish passage facilities for the Cowlitz project. As far as “. . . the mighty river that she once was!”, that’s hyperbole, and it would be pointless for me to respond.

“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.”

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. NMFS actions were twofold: under the Federal Power Act, NMFS attempts to secure mitigation of project impacts to public trust fishery resources. WDFW has a similar obligation. Under the ESA, NMFS evaluates project impacts on listed species and may impose conditions to aid the survival and recovery of the listed fish species.

“NNFS was supposed to see that Tacoma would work collaboratively with BPA to assure that downstream trapping success was successful and met NFMS standards. What a joke that one is! Two and one half years later after the "settlement" was signed and 29 monthly reports later to FERC, nothing has yet to happen, or has been done to assure that the smolts will be captured at Cowlitz falls as NMFS had required Tacoma to do in the settlement agreement.”

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.

“The only thing that is "difficult" to answer about the "downstream" fish collection facilities on the Cowlitz right now is who is going to pay for them! Is it Tacoma or BPA?”

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.

For what it’s worth, I’ll respond to Skydriftin’s post also. He said: “All that aside, there is no realistic way any native steelhead still swimming up the cowlitz. And we have zero luck introducing steelhead with the intention of them sustaining a wild population. I say keep the cowlitz the hatchery fish machine it is. I hate to agree with CFM, but I think think the power company [Bleeeeep!] us on this one. I don't think they give a damn about wild fish, only saving $ on the production of hatchery fish.”

It depends. WDFW believes the late winter hatchery steelhead stock is native to the Cowlitz. That would make them native, but not wild. Fry from those hatchery fish have been released into the upper Cowlitz for several years now. So from hatchery stock of native origin, we have again a stock of native origin and natural, or wild, production. Same with coho and, to a lesser extent, chinook. Why do you think the power company [Bleeeeep!] you? Tacoma has agreed to provide the same number of fish to the Cowlitz as there were pre-project. I think this is a first in a Settlement Agreement and mitigation condition in a FERC license. FYI, Tacoma believes it would be cheaper to continue to provide all the fisheries mitigation via the hatcheries. They think it will cost more to produce the wild fish due to the expense of upstream, and especially downstream, fish passage facilities.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Not to discredit you in anyway but that is one very very bold statement to make!!

One's appreciation for wild steelhead should not be based upon how many driftboats one owns, or Loomis rods in their rod rack or how much expensive tackle they buy etc. etc.!

Cowlitzfisherman -
I believe our basic disagreement is that I feel we should try to maintian or in this case establish wild fish populations wherever possible while providing hatchery opportunities where compatible with wild fish production. While in the case of the Cowlitz your position seems to be maintain all hatchery production possible while providing wild production that is compatible with that hatchery production. While those may do seem too dissimilar in reality they can be in serious conflict.

In addition you seem to feel that I take part in this discussion board primarily to defend WDFW. I'm not here to defend WDFW, any other agency or organization, or any individual. Rather I'm here as a private individual who is a life long fisher that is extremely interested in the conservation of our wild salmonid resources and the ecosystems in which they live. I have long felt that the long term persistence of that resource is dependent on there being dedicated and educated users willing to lobby for that resource and be willing to put aside there own needs if needed. Rightly or wrongly I thought that bring insights and observations from my somewhat unique background to this group of obvious dediate anglers would be a step in meeting that goal.

Tilton Spring Chinook
You seem to want to make an issue of this. I previously ignored your "facts" as being irrelevant, but here are my thoughts. You stated: "Since I have given you factual information showing you that both spring chinook and falls did not utilizes the area (Tilton) to any large degree".

1) For spring chinook to move from or to the upper basin the chinook they must get pass Mayfield Dam. So fish passage is key regardless where the fish are going to the Tilton or above Cowlitz Falls.

2) Typically spring chinook and fall chinook populations are characterized by different spawning times. In the NW spring chinook typically spawn from late July to late September while fall chinook typicall spwan from late September to mid-December. In a review of the hatchery escapement reports for 2002 and 2001 on WDFW's web site I found that at the Cowlitz hatchery spring chinook spawn from mid-August to late September while the fall fish spawn from late September/early October to early November. In most of western Washington redds are visible from the air for about 3 weeks (21 days from Smith and Castle). As a consequence a spawning flight at the time of the peak fall spawning (3rd week of October?) would be after the time that the spring chinook redds would still be visible during the flight. So in fact you have not supplied any factual proof that spring chinook don't use the Tilton. Now they may not use the Tilton but you have not made your case.

3) The fact that only a few redds were seen I my mind does not mean that efforts could not or should be made to allow the chinook (be they fall or spring stock or both) to estalbish wild production. For me clearly chinook have used the area and they need to included.

Passage criteria -
I agree with you the criteria pushed by WDFW (Koeings) isn't the most desirable. The success of the program should have considered coho and spring chinook and winter steelhead and fall chinook and summer steelhead.

I think that we need to agree that we have differrent priorities and move on. Clearly you spend considerable time and effort working for you beliefs. I applaud that effort. In my book you have earned the right to complain about the process and air your gripes however that doesn't mean I have to buy into your position.

I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to debate other issues.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma wrote: "I have long felt that the long term persistence of that resource is dependent on there being dedicated and educated users willing to lobby for that resource and be willing to put aside there own needs if needed. Rightly or wrongly I thought that bring insights and observations from my somewhat unique background to this group of obvious dediate anglers would be a step in meeting that goal. "

Thanks for your participation Smalma, I believe you hit the nail on the head.

Smalma

These are the "facts" that I have used to support my statements. I hope that you will find that they do support what I have said. There may be more information out there to support what I have stated, but this is all that I can find in my library of information.

1) Spawning surveys (Woods, et al., 1981) of the entire Tilton revealed that there were only 23.5 of spawning habitat available.


2) Another report by Thomson and Ruthfus in March of 1969 revealed that that "spring chinook" spawning commences in mid-August in the upper Cowlitz. This is almost a full month later than you time frame that you had earlier had suggested. Spring Chinook redds should still be quite visible during stream surveys in mid October.


3) "The "principle" areas of spawning for spring chinook included the main Cowlitz River from a few miles below Packwood to Ohanapecosh River, the Ohanapecosh River, and the Cispus River, ******head (now Yellow jacket) Creek and the North Fork of the Cispus tributaries… Some spring chinook were "reported" in the Tilton River system in 1945; however, no spawning has been observed in recent years." (Lloyd and Rothfus 1969).

4) Fall chinook distribution studies indicated that approximately 28% of the total fall chinook spawning area above Mayfield area was inundated by both Mayfield and Mossyrock Dams. 10% of all fall chinooks that passed over Mayfield spawned above Packwood. In 1951 escapements of spring chinook for the Tilton was only estimated to be 200 adults (Cowlitz River Sub Basin Plan-1990).

In addition, on October 16-20 of 1936, spawning surveys were done on the Tilton by Baltzo and Jobes (Bryant -Special Scientific Report 62). They had noted that the river was heavy used by coho and also had a fairly large numbers of steelhead. They recorded 407 coho being counted on the spawning redds. In addition, a small run of fall chinook was also observed (212 spawners) and no spring chinook redds were observed.

You said; "As a consequence a spawning flight at the time of the peak fall spawning (3rd week of October?) would be after the time that the spring chinook redds would still be visible during the flight. So in fact you have not supplied any factual proof that spring chinook don't use the Tilton. Now they may not use the Tilton but you have not made your case"

These are the "facts" that I have used to support my "case". These facts strongly indicate that a few adult "fall chinook" occasionally utilized the Tilton for spawning and that almost no "spring chinook" spawning occurred in the Tilton River

Now have I made "my case" yet?

Thanks again for your candid replies to my statements. I always attempt to back them up with factual information. I guess we can both agree that we may interpret studies and their data differently.

I hope that this information will convince you of my stated facts. Now I must move on and answer Salmo's 24 page reply to this thread. He always good at coming in at the last moment and attempting to do his damage control stuff. Lets see if I can answer his question as well.


It is always a pleasure to debate fishery issues with you. You do make people think before they reply. . . I know I do!

Cowlitzfisherman

Smalma & CFM,

This is in regards to spring chinook and the Tilton River. Smalma, if you were to examine the Tilton R. today, with your background, you would understand that it is not suitable spring chinook habitat. Historically, it's upper reaches may have supported some springers, in the way that the upper Chehalis and Newaukum Rivers do. Low elevation headwaters, no snowpack, and extremely low summer flows with warm water temperatures during the spawning period.

Today, there is a low flow barrier on the lower Tilton a short distance upstream of its confluence with Mayfield reservoir. If chinook are going to be restored to the Tilton, there are two ways:
1) adult chinook bound for the Tilton (how would we know which fish these are?) could be trucked from the lower river and off-loaded upstream of the barrier, which has been done the last couple years.
2) fall chinook with a late enough spawn timing to migrate past the barrier after fall rains make it passable could do the migration job themselves with passage over Mayfield Dam and Barrier Dam.

Spring chinook have a good chance at recovery in the upper Cowlitz and Cispus Rivers upstream of Cowlitz Falls Dam, provided that effective downstream juvenile passage can be developed.

I realize that this discussion precipitated from CFM's comments about Koening's faltering on fish passage facilities in the Settlement Agreement, but that should be a separate topic unto itself. Succinctly put, Jeff was between a rock and a hard place.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

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

Salmo G.
Thanks very much for the clarification.

It will interesting to see if a fall chinook population develops in the Tilton, especially above the flow barrier as they are given access and the opportunity.

Tight lines
Smalma

CFM,

I’ll answer what I can.

1) NMFS requires effective upstream and downstream passage for both Mayfield and Mossyrock Dams. Volitional passage isn’t a requirement of the law. Given the physical attributes of the hydroelectric complex on the Cowlitz River, the only volitional fish passage alternative that would be effective is the dam decommissioning and removal option. None of the fisheries agencies have the authority to impose that option.

2) The state Supreme Court is irrelevant in a federal dam licensing decision. Conditions in the old license expire with the old license. Blocking fish access to the upper river is a major project impact, and that is why effective fish passage is required in the prospective new license. It doesn’t have to be the alternative you prefer in order to comply with the law. It has to meet certain criteria established by fisheries agencies.

3) Past damages are not part of a relicense with agencies. That may not seem fair, but that’s the way it is. You’re entitled to try to change it. Downstream effects are addressed with instream flow requirements, ramping rates, and other restrictions. No one that I’m aware of has been able to separate the impacts on the downstream fish population of the lower Cowlitz from Tacoma’s project effects and the effects of WDFW harvest management, although there are undoubtably in my mind effects from both. The flow regime doesn’t have to be natural in order to be highly productive for fisheries. I’d refer you to the Skagit, which has a flow agreement in its license, and where chinook, chum, and pink salmon are doing much better in the project-affected river reach than they are in the remainder of the river basin.

4) No estimate of fish production in the lower Cowlitz is necessary. The relicensing intent is to establish aquatic habitat conditions that are as productive as the without project alternative.

5) Yes, I’ve forgotten about that meeting and hundreds of others I attend on a regular basis. I don’t recall WDFW’s numbers, except that they were probably double or more than the pre-project numbers indicated. And I don’t recall anyone jumping, but that could be old timer’s disease. The mitigation numbers were established by averaging however many years of population enumerations or estimates there were and setting them as benchmark values that Tacoma is responsible for. This is pretty common practice for establishing value and compensation. Just because one or more partys to a proceeding introduces higher values doesn’t establish any legal right to obtain them. Tacoma knew its liability and wasn’t willing to move much above it, although they did give some.

6) First, there may be 240 miles of habitat in the upper Cowlitz (about half that potentially accessible to anadromous fish if I recall), but it’s anything but virgin. The vast majority is just like the rest of the rivers in Washington State. Developed with towns, roads, farms, and extensive clear-cut logging. The river and tributaries are in comparable shape to other river basins that have been severely compromised in terms of potential productivity and capacity to produce anadromous fish. However, I have no direct issue with that; I just want the BB to have another perception of this virgin habitat.

Again, NMFS job in this relicensing is to secure mitigation for project impacts and impose license conditions that aid the recovery of ESA listed species. Most agencies don’t get to decide what to do. The law tells them what they must do. Like it or not, Chambers Creek and Skamania hatchery steelhead are not ESA listed, and their production in the upper watershed can only be allowed to occur to the extent that it does not interfere with the recovery of listed Cowlitz steelhead. Now I will agree with you that it might seem crazy that late winter steelhead from the Cowlitz hatchery, of apparent native strain, can be stocked in the upper river, and when they return and spawn and create naturally produced, now wild steelhead, then those descendents of hatchery steelhead become native, wild, Cowlitz steelhead, listed as part of the threatened Lower Columbia River Evolutionarily Significant Unit under the ESA. CFM, it’s the law. No biologist at NMFS, USFWS, WDFW, or any agency has any choice but to work with it. You’ve heard it before: don’t like the law? Change it. You know that I can’t.

The reason fish are being listed is because populations of genetically distinct wild salmon and steelhead have become so low that they are threatened with extinction, and many populations are already extinct. Fish are not being listed because abundant hatchery fish are being prohibited from passage into a river basin.

Really, I’m not too worried about the restriction on which steelhead are allowed in the upper river. The environment there will do all that is necessary to select what run timing is most successful in that environment under present conditions. Historic timing isn’t that significant since we don’t have a historic watershed up there anymore. When late-timed steelhead runs have been allowed to recover in other river basins, one of the first effects is an expansion of run timing, especially on the early side. BTW, it was WDFW who selected the late timed Cowlitz steelhead for reintroduction, not NMFS. Call me for additional details if you need them.

I assume you use “stupidly” in association with NMFS because you don’t understand what NMFS or other agencies are required by law to do. Strange as it may seem, agencies are not required to do it your way. Agencies are responsible to a vast public constituency, including those who do not even fish, or even live in Washington State. The law influences regulations which influence policy. Last I heard NMFS fishery priorities in this region are: 1) recovery of ESA listed species; 2) treaty right fisheries; 3) recreational and commercial fisheries under the Magnuson/Stevens Act.

7) No apology forthcoming. You said Tacoma spent over $12KK to delay installing fish ladders. That’s nonsense; not a fact. That’s what Tacoma spent on the entire relicensing proceeding, which mostly included stuff unrelated to delaying the installation of a fish ladder. Heck, most all that money was long spent before the subject of fish ladder delay ever came up.

8) No. I haven’t read the HGMP. That is the jurisdiction of others, and I have no role in it.

What’s to eat. I indicated above that NMFS didn’t specify the steelhead broodstock. Just because the HGMP says NMFS identified them as appropriate for recovery doesn’t mean that NMFS decided that late winters, and only late winters could be used. Also, you know better than to believe everything you read. And you already know how believeable you’ve decided I am.

9) C shasta is a significant concern. This is why I’ve stressed that the Cowlitz upstream of the dams is likely the only habitat capable of recovering wild steelhead and chinook (ESA listed or not) in the basin. Late winters are vulnerable in the hatchery environment, but those stocked to the upper river basin seem to be doing quite well. For the umpteenth time, NMFS accepted WDFW’s decision to use late winter for the reintroduction. I did speak up about allowing unmarked summer runs. WDFW said no. Just as not everything goes your way; not everything goes my way, either. There are other influences in this world.

10) I’m not going to debate you here because it takes up too much time, and I’m assigned to do other work, and fun as this is, I’m only going to spend a limited amount of my personal time trying to inform people about this and other fish topics I’m familiar with. As far as influencing the outcome, we’ve already been influencial, but our debate here isn’t likely to change the final outcome. What I can do to have a real influence is to work with engineers and help design better fish passage systems.

11) I don’t know why Tacoma is making these monthly reports. Who cares? I care about when the license is final and they begin making major investments in improving fish passage systems and rebuilding the salmon hatchery and the things that make a real difference to the fishery. I couldn’t care less about useless monthly reports of inactivity. When the stay expires, and FERC gives the license the final stamp of approval AND Tacoma accepts it, then the clock starts running and they have to begin complying with the terms and conditions of the new license.

12) Regarding fish passage designs and excluding chinook, I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. We ought to get together over a beer and sort through some details. The connection between chinook passage at Cowlitz Falls and a ladder at Mayfield is that if juvenile chinook are not collected at Cowlitz Falls or Riffe, then there will be no adult chinook available to use a ladder at Mayfield. In my opinion, the Mayfield ladder is irrelevant to chinook passage. The only need (not preference) I see for a Mayfield ladder is so that returning adults can self-select whether they want to go to Mayfield or Riffe, thereby eliminating the need to mark all the smolts collected at the Mayfield fish counting house to tell them apart from those that need to go upstream of Cowlitz Falls.

13) We agree that there is no remaining native, wild, Cowlitz steelhead population, excepting some relics here and there in the basin. Major tributaries may still have some, however. Yet ther can again be wild (as in naturally produced instead of hatchery produced), native (contain Cowlitz genes, and possibly a few others picked up along the way) steelhead returning to the upper Cowlitz River. There have been 2 or 3 hundred or so each of the last couple seasons. When some serious money gets spent on fish passage, I’m confident those numbers will increase significantly.

And this was a lot to reply to, as well.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I'll make this as short as possible! And just give a reply to each number that warrant rebuttal to your answers.

1) You are 100% wrong! Effective fish passage is practical for dams that fall within the Mayfield range! Let the "facts" speak for themselves! Mayfield fish ladder Pros:

• Permits volitional passage of adults migrants around Mayfield Dam.
• The Clackamas ladder in western Oregon is a perfect example of just such a ladder system that has successfully passed adults salmon and steelhead for decades can work.
• It is can easily be adapted to the existing old fish ladder system that was originally used.
• It can easily incorporate the ability to use trap and haul if the ladder needs repair or maintenance.
• Construction, and operation and maintenance of the fish ladder will have minimal impacts on existing Project operations
• It can incorporate the ability to trap and haul at the bottom of the ladder to provide "flexible operation" and a degree of uninterrupted adult fish passage.
• It can also allow NMFS or WDFW the ability to "sort out different species" if need be.

I am sure that you will be able to dig up just as many "con points" that a person who is opposed to volitional passage at the Cowlitz always seems to do. So do it on your dime!

2) You said; "Blocking fish access to the upper river is a major project impact, and that is why effective fish passage is required in the prospective new license."

That's exactly what I had said before! You (NMFS) did not "require" fish passage; instead all you did was just to put a bunch of impossible "triggers" that can't possibly be met for at least 15 years from now! There is a world of difference between "triggers" and "requiring" and "proscribing" fish passage. Fact: You guys set the "triggers" for fish passage at Mayfield Dam for a single specie, and that was the right thing to do.

But then you guys turned around and tied it into having an additional "different specie" achieving self sustaining return numbers to occur at the same time for a different spices above the Cowlitz Falls Dam. This one should have been a "no brainier" (even for NMFS), and you can not put a spin on that fact! WDFW intentionally used those 2 different species of salmonids as an "additional requirement" for up stream passage, and NMFS went along with them. Why?

NMFS "agreed" to use the "late" winter steelhead and/or chinook for the second "trigger" specie. You (NMFS) already knew that the trapping success for chinook smolts is almost "0" at Cowlitz Falls . . . . so. . da!

If you can't' even catch the downstream smolts, you will never be able to reach or meet self-sustaining numbers of adults that are needed to qualify "the triggers" for upstream passage. Shame on NMFS for even being part of such a scheme!

Your next specie of choice was WDFW's newly created "late" winter steelhead stock. MNFS knew that it was the highest risk of all the species acceptable to contacting the deadly fish killing disease called C-shasta. NMFS should have known through the relicensing studies that the "late" genetically timed winters had been proven to be the most acceptable of all the specie to contracting C-shasta. NMFS also knew that direct or indirect mortality from C. shasta is a function of genetic make–up, fish heath, exposure time, and water temperatures, and that these are all elements that make the "late" winter steelhead the highest at risk. C-shasta has killed millions of the Cowlitz River smolts in past years and there has not been a cure developed to shop it its deadly effects to steelhead or chinook.

NMFS also knew that these "smolts" will be exposed to this disease in upper Cowlitz because the Harza studies had found that it was present there. MNFS knew that almost 100% of the fish that leave the Salmon hatchery are exposed to this disease and the tolls that it takes on them. And yet NMFS chose to approve the use these species for a "trigger" for up stream passage! Please do us all a big favor in the future, and ask NMFS to "pass" on setting fish passage trigger criteria!

3) You say; "Downstream effects are addressed with instream flow requirements, ramping rates, and other restrictions. No one that I’m aware of has been able to separate the impacts on the downstream fish population of the lower Cowlitz from Tacoma’s project effects and the effects of WDFW harvest management, although there are undoubtably in my mind effects from both"

We tried to get you guys to address this early in settlement discussions, but you guys refused to listen to our requests! We brought this issue up time after time, but WDFW and NMFS had nothing but deft ears to our requests! Why? It is a high probability that C-shasta remains strong in the Cowlitz because of those "special" unnatural flows that you guys have set in the Settlement Agreement. C-shasta seems to thrive when water flows do not represent the natural hydraulics of a river. The only thing that the settlement agreement offers is small "flushing" flows to help move fish down river.

Oh, I forgot, you guys are going to "correct" all these "screw ups" in your new elite adaptive management group/plan . . . right?

4) This is not worth debating anymore because you ain't going to change your mind!

5) You say" Yes, I’ve forgotten about that meeting and hundreds of others I attend on a regular basis. I don’t recall WDFW’s numbers, except that they were probably double or more than the pre-project numbers indicated"

Well Salmo, we didn't forget what went down at that meeting when "Wolf" proposed the WDFW numbers for production. Have you forgotten already that we always "recorded" all of those hundreds of meeting? Our recorder has never forgotten a single thing yet! As I recall, Tacoma, NMFS, and TU, were all sitting at the front tables in the USFWS main meeting room with Tacoma's "mediator" when you guys all made a pretty big deal when the WDFW (Wolf) proposed their hatchery numbers. If need be, I'll can get John to dig out the old tapes to refresh history!

6) You are wrong!
You said;" First, there may be 240 miles of habitat in the upper Cowlitz (about half that potentially accessible to anadromous fish if I recall), but it’s anything but virgin"

Old age must be taking its toll on you Salmo, or you have been to one to many meetings! According to Tacoma's DEA there is still over 249 miles of salmonid spawning habitat left above Mayfield (DEA-P3-41) It may not all be "Virgin", but it's still great spawning habitat for salmonids.

7) You said;" No apology forthcoming. You said Tacoma spent over $12KK to delay installing fish ladders. That’s nonsense; not a fact" (I never said it was a fact). "That’s what Tacoma spent on the entire relicensing proceeding, which mostly included stuff unrelated to delaying the installation of a fish ladder. Heck, most all that money was long spent before the subject of fish ladder delay ever came up."

Salmo, if not fish passage, and the "hatcheries" what in the devil to you think the relicensing was all about? Every thing else was just "spending money" which contributed to Tacoma's overall goal and strategy. Those two items alone are probably 90% of Tacoma's "expenses" to operate their dams. It's not only my opinion; it’s a lot of others peoples too!

The rest of that 12 KK was all spent on pretty much bull $hit, like the EDT process, Martha and the rest of the Whores (consultants) that Tacoma had hired to assure that tuck and haul would remain the main means of fish passage! It was all done to discredit the need for volitional fish passage. I don't care what "spin" you try to use or put onto it, the end game was all about avoiding the cost of volitional fish passage and to a lesser degree, eliminating the 2-3 million dollars that they spend each year to run the hatcheries.

8) You should have read the HGMP! It's free to read at; http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/lwrcol/subsum/CowlitzAppE.pdf/

You said;" Also, you know better than to believe everything you read."

I think that NMFS should walk the talk and not believe everything they read either! If they had, they wouldn't of used just the "late" timed winter steelhead!

9) You can read what I have to say about C-shasta in answer #2

10) You said;" I’m not going to debate you here because it takes up too much time, and I’m assigned to do other work, and fun as this is, I’m only going to spend a limited amount of my personal time trying to inform people about this and other fish topics I’m familiar with. As far as influencing the outcome, we’ve already been influencial, but our debate here isn’t likely to change the final outcome."

Well Salmon don't feel to bad, because 100% of my time and research that I have spent here, and at those 5 years of attending Cowlitz relicensing meetings have always been on my "own time"!

I do believe if enough fishermen can read what you claim to be "facts" and what I claim to be the "facts", that they will be able to make up their own minds on what are "the real facts". If, and when that happens, NMFS could expect a huge rebellion against their policies, and you of all people know what that could mean.

You said; "What I can do to have a real influence is to work with engineers and help design better fish passage systems." Salmo, forget the beers; I'll say what's on my mind right now and here! You were very heavily involved in the downstream design for the Cowlitz Fall Fish Collection Facilities in its early design stages. We (you, Dave, and I) all attended the engineering design and Technical meetings with NMFS, WDF, WDW, USFWS and the BPA. Just because you were wearing another hat at that time doesn't mean that your ears had forgotten that both Dave and I had requested the agency engineers to include and incorporate "chinook" into the fish collection facilities design. Obviously, it now appears that they had their hats over their ears too!

I can still hear what your guys reply was now! It's has been stuck in my mind for a decade! You guys all said (paraphrased); "lets not worry to much about chinook at this time because it will just "complicate" things way too much. The design should work, so lets just keep it as simple as possible" And if you are having a problem remembering that being said, just go back to your files and pull out the letter that WDF sent to BPA on 1- 14-92. And I quote "We would not recommend the use of fall chinook at first due to the logistical considerations and an attempt to keep the initial programs as uncomplicated as possible."

So it would appear that both the State and Federal agencies are partly responsible for the current failures of collecting efficiencies for chinook at the Cowlitz Fall Fish Collection Facilities.

11) I think that FERC may have made a ruling on both NMFS and CPR-Fish's appeals yesterday! As of yet, it has not yet been posted on the FERC public web site for review.

12) Look at my reply to you on # 10!

13) Last but not least! You have agreed that "We agree that there is no remaining native, wild, Cowlitz steelhead population, excepting some relics here and there in the basin. Major tributaries may still have some, however."

Then why in the hell are we getting ourselves into this one-way tunnel in the upper Cowlitz? If those fish are not there, why did NMFS come in and list them as threatened or endangered? What was NMFS thinking of?

Salmon, people that do not know you or me may think that we may not like each other at times. Nothing could be further from the truth! We both have extremely strong opinions about our fishery and its resources. There does exist one huge difference between us. You and your opinion are sometimes tied to the bureaucratic system that you must make your living from. I am not! When I debate these issues with you, it is with NMFS or its policy and not you personally. We do need to get together soon and have that long over due beer. . . . or two!


Cowlitzfisherman