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