1st - thx for thre previous info. on uncut steelies

2nd - what's the deal this year on steel head? I've got 1 (yes 1) winter run steelie on the cowlitz this year. usually i fish from the bank but have drifted it in a boat also. where the heck are the fish? i was @ bc from noon till dark yesterday, fished below the point, saw nothing hooked. saw 1 chrome winter carried out that was hooked earlier in the am & 1 dark summer, that was it...

what's the deal??? ,, bc & jan 1 is supposed to = fish!!

ps: my 2 cents, i think (for no scientific reason) the problem is the poor visibilty, i've seldom had luck on the cowlitz when the water is not clear... i did see where you said the water fluctuations is causing some problems, is that becasuse the big shots of water discolor the river or something else? i'm thinking that the increase/decrease in water flow shouldn't be any worse than the way natural rain causes the river to fluctuate or maybe i'm all wet on that..

MaxMad

Let me give you my own "opinion" why the Cowlitz is not red hot for early winter steelhead.

It all goes back to the Settlement Agreement that WDFW signed with Tacoma!

Inserts from the August 2000 "Agreement":

"The emphasis of this Agreement is ecosystem integrity and the restoration and recovery of wild, indigenous salmonid runs, including ESA-listed and unlisted stocks, to harvestable levels"

Purpose of the Agreement
"It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall resolve, to the satisfaction of the Parties, all issues associated with issuance of a new license for the Project regarding fish passage, fish production, … This Agreement establishes Tacoma’s obligations for the protection, mitigation ......"

"Fisheries management and hatchery production will be consistent with the overall goal of restoring and recovering wild stocks in the Cowlitz River basin"

"Maintenance of a recreational fishery is important. Implementation of wild salmonid recovery measures shall allow for the continued support of a recreational fishery on the Cowlitz River, including the production of non-indigenous stocks, provided this is consistent with the priority objective to maximize the recovery of wild, indigenous salmonid stocks"

"“Wild salmonid” or “wild, naturally spawning”, for purposes of this Agreement, means a stock of fish that is sustained by natural spawning and rearing in the natural habitat, regardless of parentage"

"“Indigenous” means a stock of fish that has not been substantially affected by genetic interactions with non-native stocks of fish and is still present in all or part of its original range in the Cowlitz River basin."

"If hatchery production is decreased in conjunction with wild stock recovery, there will be excess capacity over time at the hatchery. Uses for this excess capacity will be, in order of priority: 1) to reduce rearing densities of listed indigenous stocks which have not yet recovered; 2) to reduce rearing densities of indigenous stocks which have not yet recovered; 3) to provide space for increasing the production of listed indigenous stocks which have not yet recovered; 4) to provide space for increasing the production of indigenous stocks which have not yet recovered; and 5) to produce fish unrelated to Tacoma’s protection, mitigation and enhancement responsibilities for the Project, pursuant to future agreements."

Remember, the agreement was signed in August of 2000 and measures have been taken to "cut back" on hatchery production at that time! You are now seeing the results!

As to the color of the Cowlitz, I agree with you. I have never had good fishing for steelhead on the Cowlitz when the water is as dirty as it is now. The bad new is; don't look for the water conditions to improve in the years to come!

When you consider that there is approximately one million cubic yards of sediment transported into Riffe Lake each year, you will begin to understand why Riffe Lake is becoming such a huge pond of sediment. That sediment has to settle, so you can imagine how much silt is lying at the bottom of Riffe Lake. In recent years, whenever Tacoma generates full power (around 14,000 cfs) it pulls huge amounts of sediment from it's deep turbine intakes. It is my opinion, this is the number one reason for the prolong periods of dirty water that we have been experiencing for last several years.

I hate to paint such a gloom picture for the years to come, but so far I have been right on the money. It appears that we will continue to have a fair run of summer run steelhead, a poor to miserable run of early winter run steelhead, and a mediocre run of "late" winter run steelhead. But the days when sport fishers could expect to catch 10,000 or more steelhead from November to January are gone forever on the Cowlitz.

And you can thank WDFW, Tacoma, NMFS, WDOE, Yakama Nation, Trout Unlimited, and American Rivers for all of this!

Cowlitzfisherman

HeyCFM...If you rtheories are true then shouldn't we be seeing a huge recovery of wild steelhead now that the hatcheries are cutting way back..That is what Rob Allen and WT say!!

This is the reality of wild recovery.

Grandpa

It's not my "theories"; it is a real "reality check"! I would love to say that I am wrong, but I am a realist!

If others think that I am wrong. . . . bring it on! . . . becuase I am all ears!

Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman is correct, I've read about it myself!

CFM -
You seem to be saying that the drop off in fishing in the Cowlitz this year is due to reduced hatchery plants. However when I looked at the smolts plants on WDFW's web site I see that 720,000 winter smolts were planted in 2002. While that is down some from the 10 year average of 790,000 smolts there has been a couple years in that period will lower plants.

I seem to recall you telling us last summer that the settlement agreement called for a reduction in the number of "early" fish planted. Does that mean that there has been an increase in the planting of "late" fish bring the numbers planted up to about the normal range? If so haven't we gotten a more consistent fishery in exchange for the 2 months of hot fishing that was the norm in the past? In addition there is a chance for some natural production and perhaps less stacking up of fish at the terminal hatchery areas. At least for the short term that appears to me what is occuring.

tight lines
Smalma

Smalma,

Tacoma's steelhead mitigation obligation remains the same in their new license as it was in their original license, 12,000 adult steelhead per year, measured on a rolling 5 year average. WDFW has increased the proportion of late winter run steelhead reared and released at the hatchery to help with the recovery of a native wild run component in the upper river above the dams. Tacoma is still on the hook for full mitigation of project impacts to steelhead, but the emphasis is being shifted to include the recovery of wild steelhead being naturally produced in the uper river basin.

Grandpa,

We are seeing some wild steelhead return to the Cowlitz as a result of the restoration program. No one I know of expects huge results anytime soon. Compared to hatchery returns, I don't expect that level of wild run ever. However, the few hundred returning now will increase to a few thousand when the downstream fish passage facilities are improved. But there will always be hatchery steelhead in the Cowlitz, as natural production is unlikely to ever reach pre-dam levels with the dams still in place. Nonetheless, Tacoma is on the hook to return the pre-dam equivalent of an average of 12,000 steelhead a year.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g

Unrelated to this thread, but since you are such a stickler for detail, shouldn't you change your handle to either Onchorhyncus m or O mykiss

Back to the topic... what does the 12,000 obligation really mean? 12,000 Cowlitz-bound steelhead swimming into the lower Columbia before the nets take their share? 12,000 steelhead entering the lower Cowlitz before the sports take theirs? 12,000 fish back to the hatchery?

Bottom line, at what point in the migration is this 12,000 fish obligation enumerated? And where do the unharvestable "wild" fish fit into that number, or are they even part of it?

FNP,

I’m stickin’ with Salmo g. because one of my coworkers thinks I’m older than dirt. Further, I’m not a supporter of the AFS decision to split rainbow and cutthroat off from the genus Salmo. Robert Bhenke, the leader of that charge, is a species splitter who would have nearly every major river drainage having its own species of trout. I’m somewhat more of a genetic clumper, ergo, I remain Salmo g.

The 12,000 adult steelhead are never really counted (as if they actually could be). I think for steelhead, it is a rolling 5 year average of the combined spawning escapement and harvest estimate. All steelhead returning to the trout hatchery, the salmon hatchery, or points upstream, and any recreational and commercial net harvest are counted as part of the 12,000, be they hatchery, wild, or indeterminate. Steelhead that return to the Coweeman, Toutle, or other Cowlitz tributaries, or the lower mainstem Cowlitz River are not included.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sounds like "fuzzy math" to me. Without clearcut guidelines for what constitiutes the entire count, how can they be held accountable?

There is a huge difference between total return, in-river return, and escapement. If fairness to all parties involved, in-river return to the mainstem Cowlitz seems the most logical number.

To all:

This is a little long winded, but please read it all the way through. You may learn something new!

Salmo

Please don't take what I have to say personally on the issues about the Fishery Technical Committee below. We both have very strong and different opinions on this issue, and it does not affect on our personal friendship.

You say;
Can you point that number out, and where that figure is stated in the "Settlement Agreement"?

The past agreements with Tacoma, required them to produce 191,100 pounds of healthy juveniles to achieve a return goal of 38, 600 adults (sea run cutthroat and steelhead combined). These figures were to be verified by punch card and creel check data. Can you tell us where these numbers are stated in the settlement agreement? What documents support your assertion that the Cowlitz Trout Hatchery is producing enough smolts to equal 12,000 retuning adult steelhead?


Smalma, you say the WDFW released;

What site did you find that information on, and is it available through the internet for us to review?


Salmo

I find it strange that you claim that the settlment agreement makes Tacoma committed to provide us with 12,000 steelhead. Are you including summer run with this figure, or are you just counting on late winter run steelhead?

In 2001 the combined production of salmon and steelhead was 748,045 pounds of fish. The new agreement that both WDFW and NMFS have signed on to now reduces the maximum numbers of pounds to 650,000 pounds per year! The agreement specifically states; "The total production level within the remodeled hatchery complex will not exceed 650,000 pounds per year for all stocks…"

That's a reduction of fish production of 98,045 pounds of fish That's a lot of fish that won't be coming back!

Since you are the "expert" and you are on the "secret" Fishery Technical Committee (s- FTC) who holds the "secret meetings" that are "intentionally being kelp private and closed to the public", you should be able to explain to this board exactly what species, and brood timing you guys are deciding to cut out! It's been three years now since our state and federal agencies had signed the "agreement" and they have had more then enough time to let this information out so that the public can see what the hell they are doing!

I have seen the new "Public Information Management Plan" (PIMP) that you guys have just created, and it is a fricten joke! The plan was only made to cover your guys rear from being in violation of both the Washington pubic meeting act, and the Federal Avvisory Committee Act- FACA. And your new "cover your a$$" PIMP plan isn't going to hold up in the courts!

Fishery decisions, polices and recommendation are being made by this Committee behind these closed doors and the public has not been afforded any opportunity to be present when you guys (the s- FCT) are developing "your own recommendations" on what "you guys" think is best for the public and the Cowlitz. Those meetings are being held against, and are in violation of the rules of the Washington's "public meetings rules" and can clearly be seen as such a violation under the "Open Records & Open meetings rules".

If you, or anyone else has any doubt whatsoever, about these meeting being illegal, you can go to; http://www.atg.wa.gov/records/chapter1.shtml#1.1
and make up our own mind!

I would find it hard to believe that there is a single member on this board (except maybe you Salmo) that would believe that these secret FTC meeting are being held legally once they have read what the Attorney General has to say about these kinds of meetings.

Besides the state and Tacoma being in violation, both NMFS and USFWS (federal agencies) are also in violation of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

As you know Salmo, we have always stated that the "FTC" was an illegal acting committee that was made by the signees in the Settlement, and it legality is now pending and awaiting a decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The simple rules listed below tell us that these "private/secret" FTC meetings must remain open to the public! http://www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org/legislation/faca3.html

FACA: Implementation/Procedures;

Committee Management and Operations
Open Process

One of the main goals of FACA was to give the public the opportunity to participate actively in the federal government's decision-making process. Allowing open meetings and input from the public is very important in furthering this goal. While actual membership on committees is limited, any member of the public is allowed to either speak to the committee or file a written statement with the committee. Most advisory committee meetings, even those held by telephone or by other electronic means, must be open to the public and scheduled at a reasonably accessible location and a convenient time.

Notice of meetings
In order to allow the public the time to attend meetings, adequate notice must be given. Advisory committees must publish notice of all committee meetings in the Federal Register at least 15 calendar days before the meeting occurs. The notice must include the time, date, place, and purpose of the meeting, a summary of the agenda, and the name and phone number of the agency contact person.

Record keeping
FACA requires detailed and thorough record keeping in order to keep the public informed and to allow for review of every committee's work. FACA committees must keep detailed minutes of each committee meeting, including any closed meetings, and copies of any documents it uses or issues. The public must have immediate access to all committee records without having to file requests for the documents.

FACA Charters

Creating Committees
Congress also wanted to limit the potential number of official advisory committees, so FACA committees can only be created by an agency when they are essential to the agency's performance of a legal duty or responsibility. Before committees can be set up, high-level officials within the sponsoring agency must review and approve the request, and the agency must consult with the General Services Administration (GSA), which has oversight of FACA advisory committees. This procedural requirement helps account for the substantial delays that may arise when it is determined that an advisory group must comply with FACA. Once a committee is approved, the sponsoring agency prepares a charter outlining the committee's mission and specific duties and forwards it to the GSA for final review. The committee cannot begin operation until the agency publishes notice of the committee in the Federal Register and files the approved charter with Congress.

Renewing Committees
The requirements for renewing an advisory committee after its scheduled termination are very similar to the requirements for creating an advisory committee.

Terminating Committees
An advisory committee usually automatically terminates two years after it is established, unless a statute authorizing the committee specifically provides for a different duration. In addition, the president or agency head can terminate the advisory committee earlier if he or she determines that the committee has fulfilled its purpose, it is no longer carrying out its purpose, or that the cost of operation is too much relative to the benefits of the committee.

Subcommittees and Contractors
Advisory committees can create subcommittees to assist them. These subcommittees can include individuals that are not members of the main committee, but the subcommittees must be approved by the agency that created the parent committee. Generally, subcommittees that report to a parent advisory committee are not subject to FACA rules unless they provide advice or recommendations directly to the federal agency. Agencies can also hire contractors to give them advice, and these contractors are not generally subject to FACA rules. For example, the U.S. Forest Service hired the Pinchot Institute for Conservation to coordinate multi-party monitoring of stewardship contracting pilot projects. The federal, regional, and local monitoring groups used in this process advise the contractor and the contractor advises the Forest Service -- all outside the constraints of FACA.

=======================================

There is no reasonable reason in the world for WDFW, NMSF, WDOE, Tacoma, USFWS, Trout Unlimited and American Rivers to hold these private secret FTC fishery meetings where major decisions and recommendation will be given that will have major effects on our fishery management, and the production of fish in the Cowlitz River.

The public and sport fishermen will not be allowed to see, hear, or make any comments until you guys have made all your "deals" and have covered "all of your rear ends" so that the public won't try to hang the whole group!

This is how the "FTC" will be controling the future of our fisheries on the Cowlitz River:

FTC:
To assist in the implementation of the terms of this Agreement, the Parties agree to create the Fisheries Technical Committee (“FTC”).

The FTC shall include one representative from each of the following Parties to this Agreement: Tacoma, NMFS, USFWS, WDFW, WDOE and the Yakama Nation; and one representative from the Parties included in the Conservation Groups ( American Rivers/ Trout Unlimited). Agency representatives will be aquatic scientists. The representatives of the Yakama Nation and the Conservation Groups will be either aquatic scientists or persons with extensive knowledge of the Cowlitz River basin.

Draft plans, reports and recommendations developed by the FTC shall be provided to all Parties for review and comment. Parties will also be provided with final products of the FTC.

The FTC shall meet as deemed necessary by its members, but at least annually (it's really every month). Tacoma shall be responsible for convening the FTC, including providing adequate notice to all FTC members and funding basic administrative services in support of the FTC’s efforts.

(Read this very closely )

The FTC shall be responsible for making recommendations on actions to maximize the effectiveness of fisheries mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures. Such recommendations will include, but are not limited to: the plan for phasing in the remodeled hatchery complex described in Article 7, the hatchery and fish management plan described in Article 6, the disease management plan described in Article 8, assessment of the progress towards upstream passage triggers as described in Article 3, assessment of progress toward reaching downstream passage objectives and measures as may be necessary to achieve such objectives as described in Articles 1 and 2, review of instream flows as described in Article 15, study protocols and goals in support of such plans and assessments, and such adaptive management recommendations as may be indicated by monitoring and evaluation measures. Recommendations of the FTC shall be in writing.

The FTC shall develop its own operating rules and procedures, emphasizing the importance of developing a consensus among FTC representatives on fishery measures. When making recommendations, the FTC will operate by consensus when possible or by majority vote.

Where an Agency has prescriptive and mandatory conditioning authority over fisheries or instream flow issues, the FTC will coordinate and convey information to the appropriate decision-making Agency. Where no Agency has prescriptive or mandatory conditioning authority, the FTC will make recommendations to Tacoma, who will convey a subsequent plan to FERC and provide a copy of such plan to the FTC.

For recommendations made directly to Tacoma, Tacoma shall follow the recommendations of the FTC unless it can establish good cause for rejecting or modifying such recommendations. Should Tacoma reject or modify such recommendations, it must notify the FTC in writing within 30 days of receiving the recommendations and state the reasons for rejecting or modifying such recommendations. If the dispute is not resolved, the positions of both the licensee and the FTC shall be provided as documentation of consultation in all FERC filings.

This committee (the FTC) clearly violates both state and federal laws by not making their meeting open to the public!

The public must be present to voice their concerns before these guys start cutting off our fishing, and future opportunities to catch fish on the Cowlitz. So far, for three years now, that has not occurred.

It will be interesting to see what the courts rule on the alleged violation of FACA and the Fishery Technical Committee that you are now a part of.


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM -
The recent smolt plant info came WDFW's web site (those from 1996 to 2002- 2000 was missing). The earlier plants came from the paper harvest/smolt plants reports that I have kept over the years.

I just used the smolt palnted in the Cowlitz itself - I did notice that for the last 3 years or so there also have been 20,000 smoltsor so planted in the Cispus. Is that an up river trib?
I didn't include those in the total.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

Thanks for your quick response! Yes, the Cispus is a main river of historical production of winter steelhead, but it is located above the Cowlitz Falls Dam. Trapping and capture success rates in 2002 were only 56% at best! Those fish are already included in your 720,000 winter smolts figure that were planted in 2002 and 3 previous years.

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM: thanks for the data: I think I got it now:
1. the hatcheries are cutting back the number of fish theyproduce in order to facilitate the return of the non-existing "wild" fish so ultimately they can go back to power producing only & get out of the expense of the fish making business
2. The technical committee is meeting in private & cooking up schemes w/o public input to help the power co. get back to solely producing power as fast they can
3. The massive amount of silt in Riffe impedes us from catching the "few" fish that are there

The part I still don't get is how do they (the tech committee & the other powers that be) think the fingerlings & smolts that are born and grow up ABOVE the Riffe Dam are going to get past the dams @ Riffe & Mayfield to get to the ocean. I saw on tv where at a dam on the Columbia they put a balloon on a smolt & sent him down through the dam to see if it lived. I don't think there's any way for the little ones to get past the Mayfield Dam. I went on a tour of the Mayfield Dam and didn't see any way for the little salmonids to get past the dam. If it's true that the little ones can't get past the dams, isn't it pretty stupid to think that putting adults above the dams will actually help restore the non-existant "wild" run?
As I see it, the power company is going to make less fish & the "wild" run will remain non-existant until there is a way for the fish to get past the dams (both coming back & going to) the ocean so the Cowlitz is basically toast, another victim of greed, "mis-management", and a lack of guts on our governments part. The will of the people is that they want their electricity no matter how its produced, tree huggers & fishermen be damned & the govt is either getting paid off, doesn't have the guts to face the power co. or most likely doesn't have the backing of the general population to force the power co. to produce the electricity in manner that is not so destructive to the ecology of the river...Max

Max,

I’m not sure you’ve “got it,” at all.

The Cowlitz salmon hatchery is planned for renovation because it is over 30 years old. The remodeled hatchery will have a planned capacity of 650,000 - 800,000 pounds. That doesn’t make it physically smaller than the existing facility because the existing hatchery produces over 900,000 pounds by over-loading ponds. The low-end 650,000 pound facility is considered large enough by anadromous fish hatchery experts at WDFW, NMFS, USFWS, and private consultants to produce enough hatchery smolts to fully replace all the spring chinook, fall chinook, coho salmon steelhead, and cutthroat trout that migrated upstream of the Mayfield Dam site prior to construction of any of the Cowlitz River dams, even if the reintroduction program in the upper Cowlitz River basin is a total failure. Tacoma in under no legal obligation to provide hatchery mitigation fish in numbers exceeding the impacts of their hydroelectric project. They are obligated only to mitigate for losses attributable to their project.

Tacoma’s mitigation responsibilities are spelled out in the July 2000 technical report by Cramer and Associates. The age 3 ocean recruit benchmark value for spring chinook is 106,134; for fall chinook is 71,735; for coho is 124,277. CFM asked about the 12,000 steelhead I referred to in my post above, and it isn’t in either the Cramer report or the Settlement Agreement as near as I can tell. I thought it was and am apparently wrong. I only recall that Tacoma was agreeable to leaving steelhead at the previous value around 12,000.

The Fisheries Technical Committee meetings are limited to parties that signed the Settlement Agreement at Tacoma’s request mainly to limit meetings to two hours instead of taking all day, which is what was estimated if participation was unlimited and allowed opponents of the agreement. The FTC exists for the sole purpose of implementing the Settlement Agreement. If the court rules that illegal, then things will change. Mainly the FTC meets to plan and evaluate fisheries studies associated with the project’s FERC license. Most of the studies are about fish passage or hatchery production.

The FTC plans to collect smolts produced in the upper Cowlitz basin at Cowlitz Falls Dam, Riffe Lake, and Mossyrock Dam and pass them to the lower Cowlitz River at Barrier Dam. There are smolt collection facilities at Cowlitz Falls Dam presently, but they only capture about half the coho and steelhead smolts, and even fewer chinook smolts. Improvements are being made at Cowlitz Falls, but I think additional facilities are required at Riffe in the near term. I no longer work on that project, so I may have no influence on what happens there. The license requires that Mayfield Dam achieve a 95% smolt passage survival, and studies there indicate that about 82% of coho smolts use the louver bypass, and 97% of the coho and steelhead actually survive passage through the OLD Mayfield turbines and 87% in the NEW turbine. The combination of louver and turbine passage satisfies the fish passage requirement. Your tour of Mayfield must have been incomplete or you weren’t paying attention. The result is that wild coho are not “non-existant” in the Cowlitz River. Wild coho smolts numbering over a quarter million have been collected at Cowlitz Falls, and as many as 75,000 wild coho smolts have passed through the Mayfield counting house. I haven’t heard the count on the number of wild coho that have returned to the barrier dam, but anglers have complained about catching unmarked adult coho that they were required to release, so there are some. There are also wild chinook and steelhead, altho much lower in number. However, those numbers will increase in response to improved juvenile fish passage facilities. Therefore, it’s not true that juvenile fish cannot migrate downstream past the dams.

What you may not like is that as the returns of wild fish increase, Tacoma is allowed to cut back on hatchery production proportionally, but not before. This is because Tacoma is not required to manufacture as many fish as possible. Tacoma is required to mitigate losses caused by its project.

I don’t see how you could call the Cowlitz “toast” after consecutive years of record coho runs, and improved spring and fall chinook returns the last couple years. It’s only toast, if toast means whiners don’t get what they want. The Cowlitz continues to, and will continue to, be one of the most prolific salmon and steelhead rivers on the lower Columbia. How can that be “toast”?

You are correct, however, that the Cowlitz is a victim of greed. People, in the form of our society, have decided to sacrifice salmon and steelhead for energy. Fortunately, society passed some laws requiring “mitigation proportionate to project impacts.” Otherwise, there’d be no fish on dammed rivers. Mis-management? According to whom? Some people want the dams removed. Some want the dams only without regard to fish and other impacts. Some want all wild fish. Some want all hatchery fish. Guess what? This ain’t Burger King. You can’t have it your way.

It looks like you think agencies that implement the laws that your representatives pass on your behalf are “gutless.” The agencies’ jobs do not include satisfying whiners. You get the law passed, and the agencies will implement it. That’s how it works. Oh, and you’re right that the government does get paid off. Only it’s not the agencies that get paid off. It’s your representatives. The United States has the best “government” that campaign and lobbying money can buy. You don’t like it? Buy yourself a Senator. That’s how it works.

The Cowlitz dams are inherently destructive of that part of the river ecology the dams and reservoirs occupy. There is no way around that. They also damage to some extent, the river reach downstream of the dams. Mitigating that defeats the purpose of the dams, and the law generally does not require it.

Now, perhaps you've "got it!"

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

hey salmo,
first: i said "I THINK" i got it, i'm trying to get current with the info that you & CFM know inside out but, I also find myself skimming the words from time to time so I could see how how you missed my disclaimer.

second: I was probably out line using the words "gutless" & "mis management", just as you were with the word whiner.

third: at least we both agreed that the will of the people is to have their power first, then all other considerations come after & that to get what you want from the legislation a donation is in order

fourth, as far the word toast goes, perhaps it was a little harsh, what i meant was that the last good run @ the barrier dam was the summer run the summer before last (which rumor has it was because of the efforts of friends of the cowlitz), since then the springer run was OK but that was about it for the Barrier Dam, the summer run this summer @ Blue Creek was OK to good as well, so by using the word toast i meant that from what little I know, the idea of converting the river back to wild & self sustaining seems like a long shot and nothing I've heard would lead me to believe the fishing will improve or even stay the same while the actual "conversion" process takes place. Based on the thumbnail data I've received on this COMPLEX issue, I am thinking/guessing out loud here that it will get worse before it gets better, thus, the word toast...

fifth, I realize that there are many other factors beyong the power company's control that affect the # of fish in the river (any river) & these factors may be playing a larger role in the returns than I understand

so, in spite of my poor choice of the words, and know that I am not whining, I am just trying to find out from people that know more about the Cowlitz than I do, if the prospects for fishing on the cowlitz are more likely to go up or down... Either way, it's unlikely to dramatically change my fishing habits, I'm still going to be making my 1,000 casts because I like the location(s) & it relaxs me...
Also, I would like thank the Power Co. for the access to the river @ the barrier dam & Blue Creek (you can ask the regulars there, I do not litter & try to take some trash out with me each time) and I appreciate the people at the power co who are really trying to make the best of the situation...

That said, I'm going to ask Salmo & CFM what I should have asked in the first place, which is:

Honestly (please don't just blow smoke), based on everyting you know about the Cowlitz, etc. do you believe that the fishing prospects on the cowlitz are more likely to get better or worse next year?

Lastly, what's the inside track on the PLAN/REQUIREMENTS/POSSIBILITIES on ways that are in place that truly work or are being done or are planned to allow the fish to get back & forth ?

Salmo



I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I am a little concerned with a few of your responses to MaxMad. You are right, about much of what you have said, but there is also much that is still wrong with what you have stated. I really appreciate it that you have the "gurnards" to put your neck out when all the "state jerks" lay low and continue to hide behind there own shallows

With that said, I question these statements below;

Are you already forgetting that all the fishery agency people also said the same thing when the original license was granted to Tacoma? Don't you remember what was set forth under Opinion No. 221? Tacoma also proposed "extensive" fish hatcheries facilities, and also asserted that any lost spawning potential due the development of the project could be largely, if not completely, offset through the hatcheries (10 FPC 424, 429). The hatcheries were originally designed to meet the maximum number of pounds that it would take to produce the numbers of natural fish production that was blocked above due to Tacoma's Projects on the Cowlitz.

For over 30 years, Tacoma has depended on "there hatcheries production " for producing the total production of fish. There original hatcheries were designed and approved by the same fishery agencies that now have approved the new reduced number of 650,000 pounds of fish. Tacoma failed for over 30 years to produce these numbers of adults and they were using even greater numbers of pounds of fish production then what you have now accepted (650,000). Tacoma has continually failed to meet the migrated numbers of returning "adults" of at lease one salmon speices (Fall Chinook, Spring Chinook and Coho) every year since the hatcheries were built. And now you think just because the "remodeled hatcheries is supposed to be "better", and more efficient one, that we can cut now back on the "hatchery production". Can you explain how that logic is going to work?

Moreover, the poundage that was only being used to produce the pounds that were needed to cover the "production needs" of the "salmon", were only for "Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery", and as far as I can tell, had nothing to do with how much, or how many pounds of steelhead, and cutthroat fish were to be produced at the Cowlitz Trout hatchery! If I am wrong, can you please show me there that is stated in the new Settlement Agreement? Now, everything, including steelhead and cutthroat are all lumped up into the 650,000 "total Poundage".

Article 5; specifically states; "The principal stocks of fish to be produced are the indigenous stocks of spring chinook, fall chinook, coho, sea-run cutthroat trout, and late winter-run steelhead." Beside the "Salmon agreement", the original "steelhead and trout" agreement" also required Tacoma to produce another "191,100 pounds of steelhead and cutthroat" and 50,000 pounds of "resident" fish. The Salmon Hatchery mitigation agreement was a totally separate agreement. Am I missing something here, or was this just another one those "agencies screw ups"?

Well, maybe you already have answered the above question!

Tacoma and the "agencies had well over 3 long years to develop every single item that the "FTC" is now doing! But instead, they were too lazy and the agencies lacked the backbone to demand the development of these items BEFORE you signed an agreement that allowed Tacoma to get a new operating license. That was the number one reason why YOUR AGENCY was mandated to issue the Biological Opinion (BO) BEFORE you took any actions.

That's not completely true Salmo! The FCT will be making major recommendations that will have very long term affects on our sport fishery that would normally be made by both state and federal agencies and public impute. The only difference now is that you guys are making the recommendation to your self's, and your taking the public out of the picture until you "choose" to bring them in for public impute (if and when you guys feel that you legally need to do so). This allows the agencies and two other "special interest" groups to control what is recommended, and allows you guys to hide behind closed doors and make major fishery decision and recommendations without the public being able to hear, see, or make comments BEFORE you guys make up your minds. It's a violation of FACA, and you know it is!

I have talked to the "sport fishing" guides who had originally signed the "Settlement Agreement". They have told me that the only reason they removed their signature from the agreement was because they were promised by "Toby" (Tacoma's relicensing coordinator) that if they would sign the "agreement", they would be guaranteed a seat on the Fishery Technical Committee (FTC) and that they would have some opportunity to make recommendations as members of the FTC. I was also told that the reason why they removed their signature from the "Agreement" was because Tacoma reneged on their promise after they had signed the final agreement.

Maybe you can explain what the "real" survival rates are for both fall and spring "chinook" are at the Mayfield Project? If memory serves me right, Tacoma and WDF never could catch or trap enough of either of these two species in sufficient enough numbers at the Mayfield collection facilities, and that was one of the major reasons why MNFS, USFWS, WDF and Tacoma, all agreed to abandon the natural production in the Tilton Basin, and depend 100% on the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery production. What has now changed? They have always had fair collection on coho and steelhead at Mayfield, but never on chinook! So what's the deal now?

You also said;
Can you tell us how many Spring Chinook or Fall Chinook successfully migrate through the traps or turbines at Cowlitz Falls, Mossyrock, or the Mayfield Dam now?

Not bad Salmo! It only took 15,814 adults coho in 2001 and another 22, 699 adult coho in 2002 (That’s over 38,513 adult coho) being released into Mayfield and the Tilton River to achieve natural production, and we only trapped or collected 75,000 wild coho smolts! Something doesn't add up Salmo! So if the trapping rates for Mayfield are so good, and 82% of coho smolts use the louver bypass, why are we only getting a mere 75,000 "wild" coho smolts? Since most coho leave as smolts, what's the deal?

The Settlement agreement that you guys signed defines a "Wild salmonid" or "wild, naturally spawning", as a stock of fish that is "sustained by natural spawning" and rearing in the natural habitat, regardless of parentage.

Since WDFW has planted millions upon millions of unmarked coho fry above Cowlitz Falls Dam up until 2 years ago, how could anyone really call those "quarter million" of coho smolts "wild coho"?

Many, if not all, of those 250,000 "wild coho" that have been collected are most likely the smolts that have come from the plants of millions of unmarked hatchery fry!

I guess it all depends on what your definition of is…. is!

If we go by your own agencies definition of what a wild fish is, you might want to rearrange your statement; "Wild coho smolts numbering over a quarter million have been collected at Cowlitz Falls.."

Most of them are not really "wild" but were raised naturally!

Since survivals rates are highly affected by what happens out in the ocean, how in the world are you guys going to decide when its time to "cut" back on hatchery production for fall chinook, spring chinook, coho, steelhead, and sea run cutthroat? I really would like to hear your answer on this one! Since the "Agreement" does not cover this, as far as I can see, how is this going to be decided? Does someone just toss a coin? I read "Article 5 " (Fish Production and Hatcheries) and it appears that someone must have forgot to mention how this "mystery process" was going to work! Or maybe we should trust that Tacoma will do "the right thing"!

Finally you said;

It's not only "toast"; it's now called "burnt toast"! When we could catch 17,270 winter runs and 6,313 summer runs for a total of 25,583 steelhead in the 86/87 sport fishery season, I think it's safe for MaxMad to say that it's now "toast"! If it took us 900,000 pounds of combined fish production to achieved those return numbers when ocean conditions were the best that they have been in decades! How in devil do you ever expect to see such returns again when you guys have now cut back 1/3 of the total fish production, and ocean conditions go back to what they had been before?


Max. I am afraid that you did "get it right"


Cowlitzfisherman

Salmo,
I second CFM's praise for your willingness to fight for the State's position and wait for your response. It's not looking good for your position however when some one who knows a lot more about this than down grades the status from toast to burnt toast....Max

CFM!
CFM!
CFM!
CFM!

Whoop whoop!

Max,

Perchance I owe you an apology. I’m not a patient person. I’m fairly tolerant, but even that tolerance wears thin eventually, and I react a bit, shall I say, forcefully to the uninformed attributes of “gutless” and “mismanagement.”

In answer to your question, I think the Cowlitz will, on average, not provide the kind of fishing it did during its hatchery heydays of extremely large numbers of smolt production combined with high ocean survival. I think that means the future of the Cowlitz is somewhere between toast and burnt toast, to use your and CFM’s terms. I do expect that the Cowlitz will, on average, return the number of salmon and steelhead that are expected to result from the new FERC license, which meets Tacoma’s mitigation requirements. That’s not great for me personally as a sport angler, but I’m OK with it as long as Tacoma fully mitigates its project impacts on the public fish resources. What some folks are really upset about is that Tacoma agreed to mitigation levels in its previous license that were higher than the estimated project impact (meaning Tacoma agreed to support coho and chinook runs that were higher than the average run sizes the dams wiped out). Tacoma saw that they are not required to support that level of mitigation and made it clear to us that they would not repeat such an agreement. Some parties seem to be upset that some of the agencies did not try to extract mitigation levels greater than what the law requires. The direction from my agency was to follow the Federal Power Act (as amended), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act, and maybe some I’m not recalling at the moment, but you get the idea. The upshot is that I was not directed to seek mitigation significantly greater than project impacts, and I was directed to attempt to recover species listed under the ESA.

The INSIDE TRACK. Well, personally, I don’t know. I no longer work on the Cowlitz project. I am working with an engineer and consultant to develop the next generation of juvenile fish attraction, collection, and passage facility for storage reservoirs behind high-head dams. As this facility concept develops, I’ll probably be recommending that my co-worker promote (through a legally mandated prescription) the same, or equivalent, facility for Riffe Lake, just downstream of Cowlitz Falls Dam. I don’t think the utilities will ever reach the FCE (fish collection efficiency) at Cowlitz Falls necessary to sustain large natural production populations of salmon and steelhead. Fortunately, turbine survival at Cowlitz Falls is high (>90%, Kaplan turbines), and these smolts can be collected at the upper end of Riffe Lake. My present schedule is to have the proto-type facility installed and running at another project in 2008. If it is even close to the expected performance, I would anticipate having one at Riffe within a year or two following. Or, maybe sooner.

The key to restoring natural anadromous fish production upstream of the dams is effective downstream juvenile passage. If that is not successful, nothing else about restoration is relevant. Upstream passage is presently done by trucking fish around the dams, and that will not change for a while. A fish ladder at Mayfield is planned up to 15 years out. A ladder was determined not technically feasible at Mossyrock, so trucking will be the long term method there. I’m not aware of any discussion about upstream passage in the last couple years.

There you have it, as much as I know about the inside track.

Oh, my position is quite different from the State’s position. The State’s position, as best I could understand it, appears to be: maximizing the transfer of revenue from Tacoma to WDFW, maximizing and maintaining FTEs (employee jobs) at the Cowlitz hatchery complex, maximizing hatchery production irrespective of hydro project impacts, maximizing harvest of salmon and steelhead, and lastly, restoring natural production of salmon and steelhead in the Cowlitz basin to the extent it doesn’t interfere with the preceeding objectives of money, jobs, production, and harvest. As you can see, my position is very different.

CFM,

Buddy, you wear me out. However, I’m here to serve, or at least try to. I have “gurnards” huh? That’s a good thing, right?

First, previous mitigation agreements and license obligation are obsolete, extinct, and irrelevant unless they are included in the new FERC license. You may cling to the old, but it has no legal effect on the future of the project.

The original hatchery facilities (salmon and trout) were not designed to produce 900,000+ pounds of fish. WDFW chose to overload them to achieve that level of production. Again, that is old news and not relevant here. So whether Tacoma met its former mitigation obligation is irrelevant here. The mitigation number for the new license are different and measured differently (except steelhead, I think) than before, and 650,000 pounds is anticipated to be adequate to satisfy the hatchery production need. What is relevant is that Tacoma satisfy its mitigation obligations under the new license. We won’t begin to know until after the salmon hatchery is renovated and begun production under new and improved conditions. BTW, the tonnage refers to the combined salmon and trout hatchery production for all salmon and steelhead. The 50,000 pound resident trout requirement is a temporary one in the new license, to be evaluated by the relevant fisheries management agencies and FTC, too, I think. As you know, resident trout were not my responsibility. Anyway, what you seem to be missing here is that you seem to be thinking that the previous agreements and obligations might still be in effect. Let me be perfectly clear: they are not in effect, and they are irrelevant from the new license date forward unless FERC or other parties modify the license.

The FTC may have had 3 long years to do the tasks spelled out in the Settlement Agreement, but as I’ve explained to you and others before, Tacoma was not required to do anything under the new agreement until the new license was in effect. Tacoma decided what to implement early, so most of the FTC tasks have not begun. The FTC just began meeting again a couple months ago according to my coworker who is on the committee.

My agency cannot issue BOs before signing settlement agreements. Settlement agreements are go into the creation of FERC’s proposed license orders. We consult on and write BOs for proposed federal actions. Until FERC has a final EA or EIS and a proposed license order, there is no proposed federal action to consult on and write a BO for. Because of this, we sign settlement agreements that include the potential to modify license conditions if necessary for ESA compliance. This is what the attorneys tell me, and I let the lawyers explain legalities to me.

“The FTC shall be responsible for making recommendations on actions to maximize the effectiveness of fisheries mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures.” The upshot is that instead of Tacoma and one, or maybe two, agencies deciding how to fulfill a particular license article, all the agencies that signed the SA, plus a tribal and a public representative on the FTC will be reviewing and approving. Plus, because of your input to FERC, Tacoma is required to add an additional public input process. Now this may not satisfy you, but I’ve worked on a lot of FERC licenses over the years, and this sets a new high for agency and public involvement in post-licensing implementation. I’m not judging it as good or bad; just saying that it is more than I’ve previously seen in any license.

The FTC makes recommendations to Tacoma, not to itself. I don’t know that the FTC violates FACA. I would expect my attorney to approve agreements that comply with all applicable laws, including FACA.

I don’t know what the survival rates are for spring or fall chinook at Mayfield. Since they are either smaller or up to about the same size as coho, I expect their turbine survival to be about the same as coho, 87 or 97%, depending on which turbine they go through. Louver survival should be high, but not as high as for coho because spring chinook smolts are more sensitive to screens and handling, etc. What is not clear at this time is the passage rate through Mayfield Lake. That has not been tested recently for any salmon.

The deal now is that spring chinook smolts from upstream of Cowlitz Falls Dam have been passing through those turbines into Riffe Lake, where large numbers have reared and passed through the Mossyrock turbines (and survived!) and migrated through Mayfield Lake, entered the Louver bypass and been censused at the Mayfield counting house. For two years, the number of spring chinook smolts passed at Mayfield has been greater than the number collected at Cowlitz Falls. This says more about the need for improvements at CF and Riffe than Mayfield, however. Nonetheless, there appears to be a future for chinook in the upper basin, but it’s too early to say what the most effective strategy or strategies will be.

It’s highly misleading to relate the large numbers of adult coho trucked to the upper basin to the numbers of coho smolts subsequently produced, collected, or passed downstream. I think you know that spawning escapement over and above that necessary to seed the habitat doesn’t result in any additional smolts being produced. The escapement of naturally produced coho to seed the upper basin is far less than the number hauled. Thousands of excess coho were trucked to the upper basin for at least 3 reasons:
1) to enhance recreational fishing in the upper river;
2) to provide nutrient enrichment for juvenile rearing;
3) surplus hatchery coho are not expected to know where to spawn in the natural environment. It doesn’t appear to hurt to have extra to help ensure that the combination of naturally produced and hatchery coho would penetrate and fully utilize all suitable coho spawning and rearing habitat. A much smaller number of “natural” coho could fully seed all suitable habitat, but then we’d forego the extra fishing and nutrient opportunities.

The 75,000 coho smolts collected at Mayfield, plus the uncounted ones passing through the turbines (16,463 * 97% = 15,969) yields 90,969 coho smolts from the Tilton basin, which just might be the production capacity of the Tilton. What’s so bad about that? That’s over 4,000 adult coho in an average year.

Terms like wild, native, natural production, and hatchery production are often misused, partly because not everyone agrees to the same meaning for each term. Me included. Yes, juvenile coho from hatchery fry outplants, naturally produced adults spawning naturally, hatchery produced adults spawning naturally, etc. all contribute to the coho smolt population resulting from natural rearing in the upper Cowlitz and Tilton basins. I erred in referring to the whole juvenile population as wild. Jeeze mineez, big deal. It’s technically incorrect, but the natural production of the upper basin is very significant, and when juvenile passage is improved, there’s gonna’ be a naturally self-sustaining run of coho and probably steelhead in the upper basin. And possibly spring chinook, too. Only you, good buddy, could find something to complain about that.

You’re probably right, tho. The Cowlitz is burnt toast. It’s a matter of perception. Each person’s perception equals his or her reality. Your reality is burnt toast. Mine is full mitigation of project impacts. The number of steelhead caught in 1986/87 is not relevant to my obligatory yardstick of mitigation proportionate to project impacts.

Sincerely,

your humble servant, Salmo g.

Thank you salmo & CFM:
Your guys input & knowledge is impressive & clears up many of my misconceptions.

I believe Salmo's last message is truthfull, clear, concise, & appears to me to be accurate. It really explains the obstacles in restoring the river & for the most part, how to overcome them. I'm pretty much a realist & don't pie in the sky too much but, it would be nice if a TV show (like the one they did on the Columbia with Alan Alda) could be made to show the people in WA the info in Salmo's last message, go the facilities & the mentioned rivers, film it, show the people the truth & how to improve the situation. I believe it would calm a lot people down as well as fire some people up to try implement the ideas in the message.

So, even though Salmo agreed that relative to the hatchery hay days, the Cowlitz could be considered toast, I will refrain from the negative characteriization of the river.

I believe it is safe to say that at the appropriate run times, if I fish the Cowlitz 2-3 times a week I should still be able to expect to bring home a good fish at least one of times & depending on ocean condition, Columbia river netting etc. perhaps limit from time to time. It could be a lot worse.

I love the Cowlitz, it's a great river. I really enjoy the no pay access @ Blue Creek & Barrier Dam and once you get to know the people & mind your own manners its pretty much a hassle free place to fish. So, free access, plenty of river to walk, close to home, with a fair to good possibility of getting fish = an OK to good deal to me.

So, Salmo keep trying to make sure the Power co. mitigates in accordance with the law & new license (it's what the majority of people wanted) & CFM please keep railing on 'em because as you know silence is consent and without your input & watchful eye it would surely get worse.

Thank you guys for your time & sharing with me your understanding of the Cowlitz, I definitely "got it" more so now than ever before. The Cowlitz is a great river that we need to take care of. Peace. Max

Thanks Max!

But even as both Salmo and I were writing, Tacoma and the FTC group that Salmo used to be on were up to doing more "no good" to the Cowlitz sport fishery. Tacoma has just released it's new Cowlitz River Fishery and Hatchery Management Plan (FHMP) you can read the document at;
http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/Power/parks/cowlitz/relicensing/FHMP_Draft_1_05_%202004.pdf

There is much "bad stuff" that this special secret little group is up to that it will make you puck!! Tacoma Power is running this group by the nose, and it is 100% about how Tacoma can save themselves tons of money! What a bunch of drones!!!!

One quick example; just look at the secret development on pages 124-125. This group of elites has developed a plan behind closed doors that will now totally eliminate the entire Cowlitz River sea run hatchery Cutthroat program!

The new plan reveals that this special private group WILL be making major changes not only in fish production, but also on how the sport fishers will be doing there harvest. The FTC was never supposed to be making those kinds of decisions! They were only supposed to be making recommendations on technical issues, and not on fish management! The new document clearly shows that this elite group is going way belong there authorization in the 2000 Settlement Agreement.

This group (FTC) must be eliminated before there will be no sport fishing left on the Cowlitz. Read it, and tell me if I am right or not!

Cowlitzfisherman

So how do you go about getting rid of these bozo's.
What is this a Tacoma thing? Is it in the water or something? Why is Tacoma local governement such a mix of enviro-Nazis, tree huggers, self appointed Kings/Queens?

What do yu suggest to oust this group, CFM?

I cant see where ANYONE has addressed CFM's point that there is NO PUBLC INPUT to these issues. It's being ram-rodded and shoved down our throats. Agreements are made but mean nothing as the next so called agreement superceeds the previous. The actual work of educating ourselves about our recourses is being done, but it's just window dressing. As the actual policy is predetermined by a few and the rest is show! The State does what it wants with NO oppisition, aside from the odd email written by someone here.

How many times have any of you planned a trip to the Cowlitz, only to be left high and dry by water levels and water clarity during peak fishing periods? When was the last time anyone threw the Cowlitz a bone? I believe the State has it in for sportsfisherman on the Cowlitz because of the oppisition groups that lobbied against thier policies in the past. There is NO SIGN of the efforts of those groups and the agreements made with them. They were playcated untill legal wrangling and secret meetings rendered thier agreements invalid. This isn't paranoia, it's history!

Talljeeper,

Which Bozos, and what makes you think that the next set of Bozos won’t do pretty much the same? Have you read this thread? Tacoma was issued an energy generation license, not a fish generation license. If you’ve been paying attention, you know that the new license is in and the old license is out, and the Cowlitz fisheries mitigation in the future is going to be different than it was in the past. I think this is a 35 year license. If you’re still around in 2037, you can help craft the next one.

Hairlipangler,

The primary source of public input is in the FERC relicensing stage, which occurred from 1995 to 2000. CFM was there, along with all the state and federal fisheries agencies. The Yakima and Cowlitz Indian Tribes also participated. Additional public interest participation was by representatives from CPR-Fish, Friends of the Cowlitz, Trout Unlimited, and American Rivers. CFM would attend FTC meetings if allowed, but as a practical matter, not all of the public can attend such meetings, and it would be an impossible way to get business done. However, the FTC can and will issue draft reports regarding management actions like this that affect public outcomes. The FTC isn’t as interested in secrecy as CFM appears to presume. They want to get the necessary work done as required by the federal license, and get the new fishery programs functioning and producing fish, including recovering ESA-listed fish. If you’ve got ideas that assist the FTC in getting the job done, I can put you in touch with them.

Regarding Cowlitz water levels and visibility, you can check before you go on the internet or by calling Tacoma’s hotline. I think that’s more than you can get on most rivers. As far as water levels during peak fishing periods, what do you call Tacoma’s action of lowering the river from 10,000 cfs to around 5,200 cfs for the two week period around Christmas and New Years when many people take time off to fish for winter steelhead? They didn’t do that to enhance power production and energy revenue.

And what are you whining about with throwing the Cowlitz a bone? Are you new here to Washington State sportfishing? The Cowlitz is the most hatchery-enhanced river in the northwest. Yes, there are dams. And yes, they wiped out viable native salmon and steelhead populations. But Tacoma was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court three times before they got their first license to build the dams. And Tacoma had to build and operate the second-largest hatchery system in the world to replace the lost salmon and steelhead resources. Where the hell have you been? Have you ever noticed that the owners of the Elwha dams, Cushman dams, White River hydro project, Condit Dam on the White Salmon, to name a few, never produced one single hatchery or other fish to mitigate the fish destruction and degradation caused by those projects? I never thought I’d come off sounding like a defender of Tacoma (I’m in litigation against them presently), but your and others’ comments are a work of art at times. If Tacoma and the fishery agencies have turned the Cowlitz into toast, or burnt toast, then why the hell are so many of you down there fishing it?

All,

This is a public review draft of the Cowlitz fishery and hatchery management plan. You are part of the public. How many of you are even going to read it, let alone send your comments to WDFW and Tacoma? Just for fun, I’ll check and see how many comments they get, and I’ll report back here on the results at a later date.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

This thread should be retitled "Typing 101".

You guys need to get out of the house and apply your wealth of Cowlitz knowledge with a fishing rod at your fingertips instead of a keyboard.

alot of us fast typists are also avid fishermen who are concerned enough to debate and work with fishing issues so we have a future to fish in.

I just want to thank you CFM and Salmo for making me more informed. I really don't know what else to say. I am both sickened and to tell you the truth upset. I take fishing very seriously and when I see something that is making the fishing worse it really bothers me even if it is in a river that I have fished only 2 times in my life. So Even though it upset me, thank you.

For the uninitiated, this is not a new issue. CFM and Salmo g. have been discussing the Cowlitz River Project relicensing issue for the past several years. It flares up every 6 - 8 months or so. Every time I read the discussion/argument, I come down squarely with Salmo g. (not that my opinion means much).

As a veteran of numerous relicensing battles, I know the difficulties of the process. It's a multi-party negotiation where the power company has a very strong negotiating position. If the power company decides to play hardball, progress can be difficult (e.g., Cushman). Abandoning the negotiation process and relying on the Feds (i.e., FERC) to make the licensing decision is likely to result in a worse decision for the fish, not better. As I see it, the new license is probably as good an agreement as possible given the realities that Mossyrock and Mayfield will likely remain in place for the foreseeable future (not so with Condit, Powerdale, Elwha, Glines Canyon, Marmot, etc.)

Will everyone be happy with the new license for the Cowlitz? No. But it would unrealistic to assume 100% satisfaction by all. Was there enough public input to the process? Probably not. But there was more than enough to satisfy what is required by law.

Rather than argue about whether the new license is sufficient, we should all recognize that the Cowlitz River fishery was undone by the construction of Mossyrock and Mayfield, not by NMFS, Friends of the Cowlitz, the FTC, or any other of the good folks working to restore whatever is left of the river. The Cowlitz ain't what it used to be but it's what we have. If you want to point fingers, point them at Tacoma Power.

Occupation: Fishery Biologist
I think maybe you're just slightly prejudice! Isn't that what all the "agencies" always do with each other?

I am not going to get into shouting match with you cohoangler, but there are several pending legal issues concerning Tacoma's License that you are not fully aware of. It may be over as you say, and then again, it may not be over. The courts will tell which one it is, so that is why you should not say;
These are just a few of the legal issues that are pending a decision from the Ninth Circuit Of Appeals that we filed on September 2003.
1) They address standards,-not in accordance with law, "arbitrary and capricious" unsupported by substantial evidence
2) Decisions challenged-NMFS and USACE as well as FERC
3) FACA
4) And a bunch of other issues to long to list

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM - Best of luck with your lawsuit. I really mean that. Having the ability to go to court is a huge advantage that most government agencies don't have. In the Federal government, Federal agencies can't go to court, only the Department of Justice can. If NMFS wants an agency decision reviewed (e.g., Army Corps of Engineers), it's done internally at CEQ or the Dept of Justice. With independent Federal agencies (e.g., FERC), the decision to challenge their decisions in court is made by the Dept of Justice (Solicitor General) in Washington DC. That doesn't happen very often. My point is that most agencies (State/Federal) don't have the option of going to court. They live and die by their ability to negotiate. And the power companies know that; which only increases the strength of their position at the negotiating table.

My position on this issue is not based on the fact that Salmo g. is a fish biologist or that she/he may work for some government agency. Far from it. It's based on my involvement in other relicensing efforts and what was negotiated in those agreements. These include North Umpqua, Pelton, Priest Rapids, Mid-Columbia HCP's, and numerous others (many of these cases are still pending). I wasn't involved in the Cowlitz Project but in my view, the new license is a reasonable outcome as compared to these other agreements. You probably disagree. Thus your lawsuit.

But if you can get a better deal thru the courts, go for it! Which will likely be when the springers arrive. But perhaps they're already there.......? That's a topic for another thread.

Salmo

I took your advice and I have been reading up on some of those FTC
meetings that are posted on Tacoma's web sit. . . boy did we ever get
screwed by you guys!

http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/Power/parks/FisheriesTechnicalCommittee/Default.htm

I find these quotes from this Fishery Technical Meeting very intresting!

http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/Power/parks/FisheriesTechnicalCommittee/meeting_may15_02.htm

Salmo, I don't know who this "Bill" guy is, but I can tell you, he sure
doesn't represent me, or any of the guys that I know who fish the
Cowlitz. Kind of sounds like he and his special interest group knows
what best for the Cowlitz, according to own statement.

But when I read down a little bit further on, it all became pretty
crystal clear to me!

Mr. "Bill" then says
What was MR. Bill afraid of? If he knew he hadn't put the screws to his
fellow fishermen in the settlement why would he be worried?

Then I read this
These minutes said that this Steve guy represents NMFS… Is this you
Salmo? If it is, its kind of like calling the kettle black if it is you.

Like I have stated earlier, "Agreements are made but mean nothing as the
next so called agreement supercedes the previous. The actual work of
educating ourselves about our recourses is being done, but it's just
window dressing. As the actual policy is predetermined by a few and the
rest is show! The State does what it wants with NO opposition, aside
from the odd email written by someone here."
Do you think that everyone is stuck thinking the same way that you state
and federal boys do? You all are quite good at talking out of the sides
of your mouths while you try to keep those straight faces when you're
doing it. I know, your asking yourself, "how can he say that to me! It
so simple that it almost doesn't need to be pointed out, but since were
there, I will show you!

You just stated this to us
As I read though the FTC minutes my eyes locked on to what this "Steve"
fellow from NMFS said about 7 months ago during the FTC meeting. He was
talking about how the public could make a difference by submitting there
comments. I'll let the members figure out what it means (I am pretty
sure now that this Steve guy from NMFS must be you) said
It's my understanding by reading those FTC minutes that this new FHMP
was a direct "product of the FTC" and it is also part of your so called
PIP. It also looks like you may have played large part in making it if
you are "steve" .

We Salmo, I hope that you can sallow your own words. . . our did I just
read the wrong FTC minutes? Maybe I already know what your answer will
be.

PS,
I see that "Mr. Bill" has also now left the FTC...I wonder why?

Maybe he left dodge before the big showdown occurs.


Hairlip

HLA,

So you believe you were screwed by the FTC because they were examining ideas to develop a public involvement process? That process was not originally in the settlement agreement, but it was added to the license. I would think you would deem that a good thing. I’m not sure I understand you. The PIP is a means of communicating with the public about the project’s license implementation. You can comment on the draft fishery and hatchery management plan. If your ideas are both good AND consistent with the license and represent a majority of public input, then your ideas have a good chance of being added to the plan. Isn’t that what you want? If you want to change the settlement agreement or the license articles, then you’re late. Those can only be over-turned by the legal action that CFM refers to in his post.

It appears you’re trying to identify a contradiction between the FTC minutes and my suggestion that you review and comment on the draft F&HMP. I don’t see the contradiction. Comments on this draft plan are a way for the public to influence future fish and hatchery management on the Cowlitz, BUT that influence is confined to operating within the terms and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement and license. Hence, you won’t be able to “sway” the settlement agreement or license, as it’s already finished. But many details of the fishery program remain to be worked out. And a good idea doesn't care who has it.

More to the point, what is it that you want that you are not getting, that Tacoma, or somebody, is required to give you? I’ve repeatedly indicated that Tacoma is not required to provide the kind of fishery that you might happen to desire. What they are required to do is covered by law. Independent from the relicensing, the ESA would have caused changes to the fisheries programs on the Cowlitz that most of us would not have anticipated. If you want more than that, or something different, well what can I say except, good luck?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

P.S: I heard Bill left the FTC because he no longer works for TU.

HLA…is that something that the FTC has developed as a plan? Can I
make a couple of comments on that one Steve?

Thanks Steve for your quick reply. That's something that most federal or
state employees usually don't do. Yes, you are right, unless something
has changed by the actions that CFM and the others have taken legally,
we are surely screwed as sport fishermen!

You say……

My question to you is….why didn't
you or your agency or any other state agency that was involved in this
process make damn sure that those kind of issues were addressed in the
final agreement? What was the failure there? It sounds like everybody
had years to make up their minds before they signed the agreement.

You said to me.....
You're correct, but it only appears to have happend because of a couple
of watch-dog groups like FOC and CPR, who have forced the "agencies" into
doing do it now! What is wrong with you guys not doing that your selves?
Why was it FOC or CPR? Boy, does that paint a beautiful picture for us
new guys when it comes to making public comment ! What the heck is wrong
with the agencies Steve? Are they really that incompetent that they
can't do what those watchdogs groups have done? Is this how all fishery
decisions are now being made?

You're now telling me that.....
What that tells the ordinary fishermen Steve is… if you agree with what
we have decided is best for you, and you accept all of our comments, and
you don't disagree with our self proclaimed plan…..your in! Am I reading
it wrong again?

I can't help myself Steve…. you say...
I still can't understand it Steve! Help me out here good buddy! If we
can't change what the agencies have already decided to do, are we
supposed to feel "good" as sportfishermen because we write a few
comments that go no where? Why would we even bother to comment? Does it
make us feel like we showed you guys who is the boss?

....I get it now! Maybe that was point in the first place.

Didn't Old Tricky Dick kind of have
the same mind set about Water Gate? Come to think of it….he was
the top of the line when it came to federal bureaucrats wasn't he?

I guess government people never ever learn do they?

That may apply to someone else, but
how does that apply to the person that can read English and comprehend
what was said in those FCT minutes?

Steve, your'e starting to make me laugh really hard now

Now didn't you just say…….
I repeat...you said….
Hello !!!!!!

Steve one more time
It's called the truth! The whole truth about how the agencies have tried
to pull the wool over the sportfishermens eye to say as "Mr.Bill said"
Steve, I am almost done. But I have one more for you!


In the legal system, we call it the "truth and nothing but the truth".
That's all we want to know. It appears that between you and CFM, it is
finally coming out….be it 3 or 4 years late.

Thanks Steve for putting up with so many of my questions and quotes. As
CFM has stated before, it was not you that signed the
settlement, it was the agency whom you represent.

I guess we can all understand why he no longer works there….it's called
"damage control" in most groups. I guess TU got what they paid for!

Hairlip

Salmo

I almost feel bad about Hairlip beating up on you, but you can't say that you didn't know that it wasn't going to happen sooner or later. I went back and reread those FTC minutes and HLP was right on. He did miss a few issues because he must not be as informed as I was, so I will address some of the items that he apparently doesn't know about or understand.

We need to set the "record" straight on a few issues here! First you said; Gee, the last time I checked the "official" Cowlitz River relicensing distribution list and the Resources Planning Group (RPG) I was still an official member of the FTC. Did I miss something here or were you just referring to "the new self created FTC"? You were right though about "if allowed", because the ONLY FTC meeting that I wasn't allowed to attend was one of the most important meetings that the FTC ever had held! It was the one that you elite FTC "agency folks" secretly held concerning fish ladders and passage over the dams….does that one "ring a bell" to you Salmo? Remember what I told you about how I felt about you guys for doing that? HLP hit that on the head. I know, it was just the good old "technical boys" that were doing what they knew was best for the fish and the public….right? How many donuts did we miss that day?

As you know that was, and still is CPR-Fish's number one priority (fish passage), and Tacoma, and the state agencies made it a point not to inform all the "official members of the FTC" of that meeting. And you wonder why we can not "trust" our agencies! Maybe we didn't have the expertise that you guys may of have had on fish passage, but that does that give you, Tacoma, or the state and federal agencies the right to eliminate other FTC members from being allowed to sit in and hear what hell was being said?

And now "you think" that the "public" can still be "informed" and participate….was joke! This public impute process is nothing more then a fricken JOKE to cover up the screw ups that were made in the Settlement Agreement… and you know it!

You say; That's another fricken joke too! For the first two years, we all participated intensely in relicensing process . . . doing all the "ground work" for the Settlement. The Cowlitz Tribe was there at every RPG meeting for the first two years, but Never once did the Yakima Indian Tribe attend one single meeting nor did they make any comment until the Cowlitz Tribe started demanding fish ladders over the dams. You know that "Tacoma Power" then arranged a special private meeting with the Yakima Tribes, and asked them to come aboard and get involved in "settlement" process two years after it was already into full swing! Tacoma knew that they could "cut a deal" with the Yakima tribes, and offset the Cowlitz Tribes interests, because they had not yet "officially" been recognized as a Federal Tribe. Neither Tacoma, or your agency had to deal the Cowlitz Tribe on a nation to nation basis at that time, so you guys went with the only "tribe" that would suck up to signing the stupid "Agreement"! Another joke that the public never knew about!

I could go on and on about more stuff then you would want to answer, so I will end this with one final question for you Salmo! The Cowlitz River Fisheries and Hatchery Management Plan (FHMP) is a huge document to go through and make comments to. The average Joe would not understand how you guys have jerked the Cowlitz fishery around to justify your actions in the Settlement Agreement.

Most guys, like me do not have great professional typing skills when it comes to typing, and it will take a ton of time to go through the FHMP and reference your comments to the pacific issues.

Every stinking one of you that signed the "Agreement" were furnished with an electronic copy to work with because it made it easy and simple for you to make your comments on the drafts. You would think that you and all the other state and federal agencies would extend that same courtesy to the people who they work for and pay there salaries. Instead you jokers have made a joint decision to only release a PDF version so that the public will have to struggle to make there written comments to the draft HFMP. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for agreeing to do that.

I called Pat McCarty from Tacoma yesterday and told him that it would really help the public if they would release an electronic version so that the public could have the same opportunity to write their comments to 175 page document that each one of you did.

His reply to my request was "We have ALL AGREEDED that we would not release any electronic copys of the HFMP to the public, and if they want to make copies of the document and write their comments on the document, then they can do that".

What is wrong with you agency people? So were supposed to print out a 175 page document or spend tons on copy fees and PAPER (more dead trees) when we could be doing it all electronically over email! What a bunch hypocrites! and you tell us that you want our comments….right, but you won't make it easy for Joe Blow to do it!

It's time to walk the talk Salmo! Show us that your agency really does care and truly wants our comments and make the electronic version available to the public now. If not, you're all a big bunch of hypocrites!! Prove me know Salmo, I will be the first to say that your agencies really does care about our comments.

Prove us wrong Salmo, and show that your better then Tacoma Power, and release that electronic version of the HFMP for us to comment on now

It' show time!!


Cowlitzfisherman