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