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