I've copied this to this board as I think it's important. We can't let this happen!! We need to do some letter writing.

Fishhead5

Tacoma's "Final Draft FHMP STINKS"…of dead fish!!


I have just found out that Tacoma Power, Trout Unlimited (TU) and American Rivers (AR), are trying to convince the WDFW to start the downscaling of our great summer run steelhead fishery on the Cowlitz! When Tacoma made its first Draft Cowlitz River Fisheries and Hatchery Management (FHMP) public, it was reviled that Tacoma was hell bent to trying to wiggle its way out of its mitigation reasonability's in the name of saving "wild fish"!

It's gotten even worse in Tacoma's the final draft!

Since Tacoma has refused to post or make its "Final Draft FHMP" (FDFHMP) public, the public is totally unaware of how the FFHMP has degraded even worse then the first original Draft FHMP. The Final Draft to my knowledge, carries both Tacoma's and the WDFW's name as being the "coauthors of the document", but yet to my knowledge this document has not been made public, nor is likely to be, unless sport fishermen demand that it be published on both Tacoma's and WDFW's websites for public review and comments before it is submitted to FERC as part of the Settlement Agreement.

When the sport fishers reads what's Tacoma's "future fishery management plan" are for the managing the Cowlitz, and its fishery, I will guarantee you that they will become outraged to say the least! As just one example, Tacoma, along with TU and AR, keep demanding that WDFW keep cutting back the production of our fantastic runs of summer run steelhead to protect the listed lower river fall chinook runs. The recent returns of this year fantastic run of summer steelhead were from the plants of 550,000 smolts. Tacoma, TU, and AR newest plan is for cutting back this figure by 100,000 smolts or more. This reduction will in all likelihood reduce the numbers of returning adult summer run by the thousands (about 1900 adults).

What a crying shame!

Tacoma, TU, and AR newest excuses for cutting back the release of the 550,000 summer run smolts is that they (Tacoma, TU, AR) are all now claiming that summer run smolts "MAY BE" competing with listed lower river chinook populations. What a bunch BS! Competing where… and for what? Over 90% of the listed lower Columbia River Chinooks are all of hatchery origin, so why not simply make Tacoma produce more hatchery fall chinook if their numbers are too low? Instead, Tacoma has conned both TU, and AR who are all active members of the Fishery Technical Committee (FTC) into now proposing to cut back hatchery production of our fall chinook from 5,000,000 (62,500 lbs) back down to 400,000,000 smolts (50,000 lbs). That's a reduction of 1,000,000 fish! Folks! This is exactly what happens when you get a bunch of do-gooders Waco's like Trout Unlimited and American Rivers kissing up to Tacoma Power and making policy decisions along with a weak agency that doesn't know what the heck its doing or have the backbone to take them on.

Several times now I have personally given the WDFW extremely important mitigation documents that will support our existing mitigation numbers and they have either "lost them" or "misplaced" them, and had ask me for them several more times. Even after getting the information to them a second time, they have failed to use it! What the devil is wrong with our WDFW Managers…are they all incompetent?

What makes this even more madding is that Tacoma and gang has now stated that they intend to stop the recycling programs of all summer runs in the near future. The FDFHM states that they only need about 411 adults to produce the 450,000 summer run smolts. Tacoma and the FTC (TU, AR) have now proposed not to pass any "summer runs" above the Mayfield Dam! OK people, read between the line here! That means that once a summer runs gets by you, and enters either the Barrier Dam or the Cowlitz Trout Hatchery traps, and they get the 411 fish that are needed for the hatchery brood, all other retuning fish will either have to be DESTROYED-( SOLD to a processor)-or dumped into Riffe Lake!

If you can't recycle them for sport harvest in the lower river, and you can't use them for restoration or sport harvest above the dames (because of those make believe "wild native fish"), what else can they possibly do with them other then dump them into Riffe lake or sell them! Either way, they will be taken away from any sport fishing opportunity on the Cowlitz River! What a bunch of BS… AGAIN!

Sport fishers SHOULD BE OUTRAGED!!!

This season alone, Tacoma has recycled well over 3000 summer run steelhead. When we apply the price that these sport caught fish are worth and bring into our economy at the conservative low figure of only $180 a fish, this brings a loss to our economy of well over $540,000 each year. Yet Tacoma continues to raise its cost of selling us back power when they will be cutting back and saving millions each year from not raising or the recycling of these fish!

Sport fishers SHOULD BE OUTRAGED!!!

Think about it for a moment people, this will mean that you will NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY to catch 1900 summer run steelhead because of the 100,000 smolt reduction, and then you add to that about 3,000 or more fish that will not be recycled for harvest opportunity; you have now just lost 4183 summer run to catch each year on the Cowlitz! Thanks Tacoma…but NO THANKS!! That's adds up to about $752,940.00 hit to both the fish and our economy ON SUMMMER RUNS ALONE!

Yep….more "Power" to Tacoma!

Sport fishers SHOULD BE OUTRAGED!!!

The problem becomes doubled when you realize that Tacoma and gangs FDFHMP also proposes to do exactly the same thing with the "Early Winter Run Steelhead" program. Tacoma has made it clear, alone with the help of special interest groups (TU and AR) that they intend to cut our early "winter run" steelhead production from 300,000 smolts down to 200,000 smolts. That means that based on Tacoma's projected 1.9 survival rate, that about 1900 adult winter runs will no longer be coming back to our sport fishery in the early winter anymore. The 200,000 smolts are supposed to produce about 3,800 retuning adults. Last year, Tacoma recycled around 1900 winter runs. Remember, these fish will be coming back around late November- to- late January…the times that we always get our highest un-fishable flows and big floods. Again, these fish will shoot straight up to the Barrier Dam, and will not be recycled for sport fishing opportunities in the Cowlitz….Tacoma, and gang screws the sport fishermen again!

That's right people, we just lost another 1,900 returning adult winter steelhead and all the rest that manage to make it back to the Barrier Dam except for those 172 adults that will be needed for brood stock. The rest will be killed, berried, sold, or dumped into Riffe Lake or given to a food bank! That's some pretty damn expensive food or fertilizer at $180 plus worth a fish.

Again, the cutting back of over 100,000 of early winter runs steelhead smolts will mean a net lost of over 1900 adults to our fishery! Add the lost of another average of about 2000 recycled winter steelhead, and that's a total lost to our winter run sport fishery of some 3,900 addition fish that Tacoma, TU, and AR has taken away from you …in the very near future! Add that to the lost of the summer run fishery, and you now come up with about 8183 less adult steelhead that won't be harvestable! Thanks to Tacoma, TU and AR, these fish will not be there in the future for either you or you kids to catch or fish upon! And that only represents our "steelhead fishery".

What a terrible waste of our natural resources…all in the name of "power" and pure greed and control by special wild fish groups such as Tacoma, Trout Unlimited and American Rivers!!

"Tacoma's" and gangs new FHMP is already trying to get "credit" from WDFW for fish that are being produced in the upper Cowlitz above its project that are being captured by the BPA Cowlitz Falls Project, yet they (Tacoma) have not even began to pay our resource back for 40 years of robbing and rapping of our fish runs from it. What a joke!

While writing this article, I have just received a fax from the WDFW concerning my FOIA request to see the comment that WDFW has made to Tacoma's new Final Draft FHMP. Hopefully, someone in the FOC office will to able to find the time to rewrite them for your review in this news letter. One item that I did notice in a quick review was that WDFW is not insisting that Tacoma "recycle" fish when runs are good (who knows what that means?)

Instead, they (WDFW) have requested that Tacoma to: Quote; "The Department requests language be added that would allow recycling to provide additional harvest opportunity in years of low returns". Why on earth would one want "recycle" fish when the runs are low or poor? That makes NO SENSE at all to me! When you have thousands of extra fish that are not needed for either hatchery brood stock or restoration efforts, why on earth would you not give the sport fishermen the opportunity to catch them? Something really smells bad about this plan!

If Tacoma, TU, and AR get this new plan accepted, you will likely loose no less then 8183 adult steelhead to your sport fishery each year in the years to come.

Outrage doesn't really fit the word of how you must feel….and that's not even counting the reductions that these Waco's are planning for us on our salmon runs.

WDFW should NOT sign onto this Final FHMP! Please take the time and write the Director of WDFW and DEMAND that WDFW does not sign onto Tacoma Final Draft FHMP! Please send your letters or emails to both the "Commission" and the Director of WDFW to:

Mailing Address:

Jeffrey P. Koenings, Ph.D.
Director WDFW
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA USA 98501-1091
Or by Email to: 1. director@dfw.wa.gov)

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA USA 98501-1091

Or by Email to: commission@dfw.wa.gov)

Once again, please write or email both the Director of WDFW and the "Wildlife and Game Commission" and demand that they WDFW should "not accept" Tacoma's Final Draft FHMP. Remember, you will have no one else to blame but yourself when your kids can't enjoy the same kind of fishing that you have learned to love and enjoyed on the Cowlitz. If you don't take the time right now to change Tacoma's rotten game plan for both you and your kids future, it's all over for both! Please take the time and effort to send off those letters and/or emails to both the Commission and the Director today!

There will be more to come, but for now it's your turn to write those letters and emails and do what we can!

I will do my share to turn this nightmare around…how about you?

That's B.S. Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

This section worries me:
"Tacoma, TU, and AR newest excuses for cutting back the release of the 550,000 summer run smolts is that they (Tacoma, TU, AR) are all now claiming that summer run smolts "MAY BE" competing with listed lower river chinook populations. What a bunch BS! Competing where… and for what? Over 90% of the listed lower Columbia River Chinooks are all of hatchery origin, so why not simply make Tacoma produce more hatchery fall chinook if their numbers are too low?"

Hatchery Chinooks aren't listed as ESA stocks. So I don't know how you can say 90% of them are of hatchery origin. So that is misleading. The attitude that if there aren't fish just produce more in a hatchery is what has gotten us in a bad state in the first place. Could it be that all the hatchery fish that are pumped out while they are migrating out to sea are effecting other stocks while they are in the Columbia?

I couldn't support this with this arguement that is being made. I could support it for other reason as I think the sport fishing on the Cow is a good thing for anglers. But making the arguement that ESA listed fish are the same as hatchery fish goes against everything I believe.

Sorry just had to point that out. You can all flame me for being anti-hatchery and that is fine even though I think they have there place.

JJ

Thanks for posting this Doug...

I've sent in my emails and letters. We can't let them screw us out of another great fishery just so Tacoma Power can save some more money.

They have an obligation to the sportfisherpeople of this state because of what they did to a great river. We shouldn't let groups like TU and AR to speak for us, because they don't...

Come on people take a few minutes and let your voices be heard...

I am all for hatchery programs but if some cutback can be done to help improve the wild runs that is a good thing in my book.

Here is the worst part as far as I am concerned , besides the loss of harvest opprtunities.

THERE ARE NO MORE WILD STEELHEAD STOCKS LEFT ON THE COWLITZ!!!!

They have all been destroyed by the dams.

They will never be back. That gene pool is gone.

To use the "wild fish" as an excuse to cut back runs is a joke.

The Cow is now, and should forever be a hatchery river where sporsman can harvest fish for fun and consumtion.

I am OUTRAGED!!

It's about time this was posted and RK43 is right there are no wild fish in the Cow.So for sake of argument we will call them naturals.I have seen fall chinook spawning just above Blue Cr.But we will call them naturals to and so are the spring chinook that i saw this summmer swimming in a slough on the Cow.Tacoma city has stated that they are not in the fish business so what does that tell you fishermen that it's time to stand up and fight or we will not have as good of summer run as we are having right now.We used to have a good winter run but but tacoma screwed that up to.Lets get one thing straight fishhead5 that Cowlitz Falls is run buy Lewis county P.U.D and not B.P.A I live in Lewis county and I know how Tacoma is not doing what they said they would do for 40 years now and W.D.F.W is biggest pain in the but at not stop this this wrong doing. Look at the Noochie it's a tacoma river to and it has a strong winter run in it.so as I end here and I can go on for days on this subject Friend of the Cowlitz is just one group we can all support they have hired lawyers to fight all that Tacoma can put out.Poor Cow how I love her so.Thank you Kidd

That sucks a#$!

Same thing cowlitzefisherman was trying to tell us before he got the boot. They've a pretty good head start on you by now.

Kris

This is in article 5. Fish Production and Hatcheries in the new license.
1.a) The licensee shall be responsible for funding the operation and maintenance of the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery, the remodeled Cowlitz Trout Hatchery, and three satellite rearing facilities, for the duration of this license. 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.

Here is the Kicker!!!!!

Non-indigenous stocks, such as early winter and summer steelhead, MAY BE PRODUCED, provided that production shall emphasize the recovery of indigenous stocks.

We all know if given a choice, TCU will cut any and all programs.

Fishhead5

FH5,

I’ve written on this topic repeatedly and regularly get my clock cleaned by Cowlitz anglers who disagree with me or what TPU and the agencies have done or are planning to do. Consequently, I hesitate to bother entering this thread, but I like and have an interest in the Cowlitz, so I’ll toss a few lines in.

Personally, I enjoy summer steelheading on the Cowlitz more than any of the other fishing I do there. However, according to the state’s historic fishery records, summer steelhead were either a very minor component of the steelhead run or nearly non-existent on the Cowlitz. In that case, what is Tacoma’s mitigation responsibility for a fish run that didn’t exist at the time the dams were developed? You see, sometimes there is a difference between what we like or what we want and what the law requires. I like to fish for summer steelhead and sea-run cutthroat. But the Federal Power Act requires Tacoma to mitigate its project impacts.

Like any energy utility or company, Tacoma would like to minimize its expenses, and that includes project mitigation expenses. I don’t fault them for that. I’d expect you to do the same. At the time of relicensing, Tacoma indicated they would be happy to continue the existing hatchery program without the burden and cost of reintroducing anadromous fish upstream of its dams. The unified response of agencies, tribes, FOC, and CPRFish, and AR, and TU was to reintroduce anadromous fish into the usable upper Cowlitz watershed. Tacoma agreed to do this, however, they wanted to place the relicensing emphasis on fish recovery. The parties agreed, to varying degrees. Some were focused mainly on recovery. Some wanted it both ways: all the potential recovery of natural reproduction in the upper watershed along with the existing, or even increased, hatchery production.

Tacoma agreed to a method to estimate its fishery mitigation responsibility that was approved by state and federal agencies, the Yakima Tribe, and NGOs that signed a license settlement. That agreement spells out how many adult fish should be produced by the Cowlitz River system on average each year. The fish may result from natural and artificial production. For every fish that results from natural reproduction, that is one less fish that Tacoma is responsible for from hatchery production. The stipulated outcome is that there be as many, and usually more, salmon and steelhead produced by the Cowlitz River in the future as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams. This is what the law permits, but hasn’t always required.

You are suggesting that sport fishers be outraged. If the Cowlitz receives steelhead runs that equal or exceed the size of the runs that would exist - and did exist before the dams - if the dams were not present, what is the logical basis for the outrage? Or is that outrage based on an emotional response, rather than a logical one?

What, exactly, is it that Tacoma should do, other than fully mitigate - by natural and hatchery production - its project impacts to publicly owned fishery resources?


RK43,

You allege in your post that, “. . . the Cow is now, and should forever be a hatchery river where sporsman can harvest fish for fun and consumtion.” (sic) What do you base your allegation on? I agree that the Cow has been a hatchery river since 1968, but it was a wild fish river before then. And now it’s a mix of hatchery and wild fish. And increasing numbers of wild, or natural produciton fish, if you prefer, are likely.

Just because a river has been one thing for 30 years or so doesn’t mean it has to, or even should, remain that way. If that is your attitude or logic, you should get along well with Tacoma regarding its Cushman project on the North Fork Skokomish River. The Cushman hydroelectric project destroyed the salmon and steelhead runs on that river in 1928. Since Tacoma has left the North Fork without stream flow or fish passage unmitigated, and they would like to keep it that way into the future. Would you agree to let it remain so simply because that has been the status quo for the past 76 years? My point is that things change and circumstances change, and we all could benefit by examining our reasons for wanting something to change or for keeping it the “same.”

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,
Why have they been planting early winter and summer fish for all these years?

I talked to Todd who runs both Cushman and Wynoochee, He is under the impression that we the sport fisherman, want the Cowlitz turned back to wild fish.

Did you know there were 4900 live silvers in the NF of the Skok last year?

Fishhead5

Fishhead5

FH5,

Define “they.” Tacoma doesn’t decide what to raise at the hatcheries it funds, nor does Tacoma plant fish. WDFW decides what fish to raise, and WDFW, or its delegate, plants fish in the Cowlitz River. WDFW decided to introduce Chambers Creek and Skamania steelhead into the Cowlitz River system.

I think the Todd you’re referring to is the energy generation manager for Tacoma Power. If so, he runs powerdams, not fish hatcheries. I think all but one of the employees at the Cowlitz hatcheries are employees of WDFW. I don’t know who the current hatchery manager is. Nonetheless, impressions are just that. I suppose some sportsmen do want the Cowlitz “turned back to wild fish.” However, I don’t know any that have such a limited preference.

Most that I know seem to want a mix of hatchery and wild (natural production for those who believe there can be no wild or native fish in the Cowlitz) salmon and steelhead. Some wanted a specified number of wild fish. I don’t support that because no one knows, or can know, how many wild fish the Cowlitz is capable of sustaining under present and prospective conditions. I support allowing the Cowlitz to produce as many wild salmon and steelhead as it is capable of producing under the future conditions it faces. I support making up the difference between that number of fish and Tacoma’s full mitigation responsibility with hatchery fish, with the added provision that hatchery fish should not be produced to such excess that they substantially interfere with the recovery of wild chinook and steelhead. Others have said they want hatchery fish produced at least at the numbers and pounds of recent years. Still others want even higher numbers of hatchery fish than were produced under the previous license. The driver should be the specifications for spring and fall chinook and coho in Tacoma’s new license. My understanding is that the intended steelhead mitigation number is 12,000 adults, but that number doesn’t appear in the settlement agreement. There is enough leeway in the hatchery production capacity, however, to achieve that number of adult steelhead along with the required salmon mitigation numbers as far as I know. As you may suspect, some folks think otherwise.

It’s one thing to be upset about change, as most of us are creatures of habit. And catching lots of fish is a habit many of us lust to acquire. It’s a different thing to insist that Tacoma is cheating the public out of its fishery resource. Unfortunately, that cannot be verified absolutely; it can only be estimated. I’ve seen the records of the numbers of spring and fall chinook, coho, and steelhead that passed the Mayfield damsite before the dam was constructed. I’ve seen the estimates, developed by Cramer and Associates, that account for Cowlitz salmon harvests in the lower Columbia River and Pacific Ocean in addition to the escapement counts at Mayfield. The combined values are set out as Tacoma’s mitigation responsibility in its new license. That will be the yardstick that measures whether Tacoma is meeting its fish mitigation responsibility to the public. The number of summer steelhead that returned this year and last year are not the yardstick, but if the total steelhead return (harvest plus escapement) averages less than 12,000 adult fish, then I think you’ve got something to beef about.

No, I didn’t know there were 4,900 live silvers in the NF last year, although I’m not surprised. As the instream flows have been increased in the NF Skok from zero to 30 cfs to 60 cfs, fish production has increased, with coho doing particularly well. Did you know that a few coho got upstream of the lower falls? But there are also chinook, chum, cutthroat, and some steelhead utilizing this little river now. Imagine that river with a four-fold increase in instream flow and passage around the dams. That’s what Tacoma’s FERC license requires, but they’re appealing and suing right now.

Perception is interesting. I observe hydropower projects throughout the northwest. Here at the PP BB I read about Tacoma’s deplorable behavior toward fisheries mitigation on the Cowlitz River, yet I find myself almost defending Tacoma because it’s perfectly obvious that they fund one of the largest fishery mitigation programs in the nation (which at least arguably fulfills their legal mitigation responsibility), and they do provide reasonably good instream flows downstream of that project, altho there is room enough to argue that streamflow should be a little higher or lower at certain seasons of the year. And Tacoma provides reasonably good streamflow conditions downstream of its Nisqually River hydro project. And then there is Cushman on the NF Skokomish. If you’re looking for scumbag behavior, look no further. Tacoma literally stole this river from the public and the Skokomish Tribe, having never properly licensed the project, providing NO water for streamflow for 50 years, or fish passage for 76 years, and counting. Tacoma’s total contribution to Skok mitigation is the provision of partial funding for the George Adams hatchery operations and maintenance. It seems to me that there is far more to be seething about on the Skok than the Cowlitz, at least in relative terms.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Well what about the Chums and Sockeye Yes Chums and Sockeye do run up the Cow just look at the fish count at Barrier there has been one Chum and one sockeye.

CK,

Well, what about them? Why don't you tell us what it is that you'd like to know, instead of expecting me,or us, to second-guess what you're asking about?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Will they restore sockeye and chum to the river I think not.But give us your two scents salmo g.

CK,

No, Tacoma is not obligated to restore sockeye and chum salmon on the Cowlitz. The reason I am aware of is that Tacoma's project isn't the proximate cause of losses of Cowlitz sockeye and chum salmon. Let's take this stepwise.

Sockeye that occur in the Cowlitz are from three probable sources that I can think of. First, there may be an endemic run of Cowlitz sockeye, but there are no records of any persistant historic run that I am aware of. Second, sockeye in the Cowlitz might be strays from Columbia River tributaries that do support sockeye runs. Third, sockeye in the Cowlitz might be strays from Columbia River tributaries that are stocked with kokanee in their reservoirs that became anadromous and migrated to and returned from the ocean. In any of these cases, there is no project impact to a Cowlitz fishery resource that Tacoma would be required to mitigate.

Historically, some chum salmon apparently migrated and spawned upstream of Mayfield Dam, but the preponderance of the run spawned in the lower Cowlitz. The historic chum habitat upstream of Mayfield is now inundated by reservoirs and is no longer suitable for chum salmon for starters. Never mind that chum salmon are notoriously resistant to using fish ladders. The chum salmon that formerly spawned in the lower Cowlitz have more than likely been largely lost due to impacts other than Tacoma's project. The primary cause is loss of habitat due to diking the lower river, directly causing the loss of side channels, a habitat type that is preferred by chum. In my opinion, chum salmon recovery will be nearly impossible in the lower Cowlitz - and perhaps the lower Columbia River - as long as huge numbers of hatchery coho are released into the respective systems, unless hatchery coho are held until June 1 for release.

In north Puget Sound, chum production, and pink salmon for that matter, was inversely correlated to the numbers of hatchery coho released. Studies have shown that hatchery coho smolts, which are reared to a larger size than their wild brethren, prey on juvenile pink and chum salmon.

The vast majority of coho in the Columbia River system are of hatchery origin, and the development of those programs, along with the loss of the best chum habitats, roughly correlate with the decline of chum.

The upshot is that Tacoma shares some fraction of the responsibility for loss of Cowlitz coho, and perhaps moreso because the Cowlitz hatchery produces a large % of lower Columbia coho. Tacoma is obligated to acquire some lower Cowlitz side channel habitat for salmon recovery. That could include chum salmon habitat recovery if the fishery agencies so wish.

That's my two (s)cents.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Since you talked about both chums and sockeye, that doesn't mean I have to smell your post twice, does it?

Will once do?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Salmo...gonna be in Bremerton on the 28th?

salmo,

I guess it comes down to one thing for me. I like to catch a lot of fish. I like to bonk a fair share of those fish. I have property on the Cow, and use it most every weekend in the summer. Summer fish are some of the most exciting fish to catch, and some of the best eating fish around.

I am selfish. A precedent has been set, and I want it to stay that way.

The summer fishery puts a lot of money into the local economy, and I am sure they have a stake in it as well.

The Cow will never be the way it was before the damns. Why try and change it back. Mitigate the lost fish with a whole bunch of hatchery fish that everybody can go have fun with, summer and winter.

My selfish thoughts..........

I'm with you RK43, my family has property on the Cowlitz, has for over 100 years. There isn't going to be a big wild run on the Cowlitz unless the somehow build a crazy set of mile long fish ladders over the two big dams. This trucking fish upriver won't last long and I don't' believe it will work worth a crap. Keep the hatcheries going strong, to me a fish is a fish whether it has a fin or not. Hatchery fish fight just as hard, and why shouldn't they, they both grow up in the ocean eating the same grub. Thus they taste the same too, anyone who says otherwise is just twisting the truth to support their political argument.

Todd,

You only have to smell my post at all if it stinks.

Yeah, planning to make the show in Bremerton. Every bit of support helps.

RK43,

I don’t have a problem with you being selfish, as you describe it. You like to catch lots of fish and bonk many. I’m not going to judge that, but I’ll just remind you that it might be your problem and not necessarily Tacoma’s. Tacoma has a legal obligation to mitigate project impacts. They don’t have an obligation to satisfy your self-described selfishness. As I mentioned, I like to fish for summer runs also, and I like to BBQ them too.

You may want things to stay the way they are, and I might like the summer run program to continue, but we both know that doesn’t mean it will. Seems I’ve heard that the only constant is change; maybe that’s relevant here. Clearly, as our human population continues to grow, things are going to change, and many of those changes are going to affect fish and fishing.

I agree that the Cowlitz isn’t going to be the way it was before the dams, and I don’t think many people are expecting it to become that way, or are trying to make it that way. The reasons for the reintroduction of anadromous fish into the upper Cowlitz are twofold that I know of. First, local fishermen and the FOC initiated the interest and got fishery agencies involved. Then along came the ESA listings of lower Columbia River chinook and steelhead. Because of that, NMFS is required by law to try to recover wild (or natural production if you prefer) populations of those species in the Cowlitz if it’s feasible. It’s more feasible in the upper Cowlitz than in the lower Cowlitz, and particularly so if good downstream smolt passage efficiency is achieved. This results in a mix of wild and hatchery fish, not unlike what we have in numerous rivers in this state.

The Cowlitz hatchery system isn’t going away. I expect that it will continue to be the largest, or second largest, hatchery program in Washington state. I expect that fishing will remain good on the Cowlitz, and may improve in some respects. That is, it should become more diverse with the presence of wild fish, not all cookie cutters. Spring chinook and late winter steelhead fishing should be better, on average. The sea-run cutthroat program may go away, last I heard, tho. Too bad; I like to fly fish for ‘em.

An important point I never see mentioned in this topic is that there can be hatchery alternatives that do not involve Tacoma. For instance, if the Cowlitz historically did not host a summer steelhead run, and WDFW choose not to culture summer runs at the Tacoma hatchery complex, there is nothing preventing (with ESA as a possible exception) WDFW from initiating a summer steelhead enhancement program on the Cowlitz independently of Tacoma, just as WDFW does on many other rivers in this state. Tacoma may not have a legal obligation to mitigate for summer steelhead that were not impacted by the project, but that doesn't mean that such a program isn't socially or economically desirable. It simply means that Tacoma wouldn't be obligated to pay for it. I recall that WDFW didn't have a summer run program on the Sky or Snoqualmie all that long ago. And no power company came along to create those programs. WDFW developed them, like most of their fish culture programs, using state funds. If that's what the agency and the public want, they could do the same on the Cowlitz.

You said the summer fishery puts money into the local economy, and you’re sure “they” have a stake in it too. Do you mean Tacoma? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Tacoma is a public utility that describes its sole reason for existence as providing the least cost energy to its residents. Tacoma does pay some money into Lewis County, and they may pay some lip service to the local economy, apologies for political incorrectness, but I think the Lewis County economy is officially irrelevant to the City of Tacoma. How does Tacoma benefit from the Lewis County economy?

Just a last thought on selfish motives. When selfishness last rule the day under the federal power act, utilities stole public rivers, destroyed public fisheries and other public resources, and provided something between little or nothing in the way of mitigation. Personally, I think the present balance is a helluva’ improvement.

Luke,

Fish ladders are not the key to restoring wild fish runs on the Cowlitz. I don’t think there’s going to be a “mile long fish ladder” anyway. Downstream passage of juvenile fish is the key to whether restoration can be successful or not. You don’t have to believe that trucking fish upriver will work, but it has been successful on the White and Baker Rivers for about 50 years. Both of those river systems have had problems with fish production related to hydropower, but it wasn’t because trucking the fish around the dams doesn’t work, because it does.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

You all make go points so can we close this and all go fishing.

Salmo G,

I'll rephrase my question, why is WDFW changing what is being planted in the Cowlitz? I think it's because of 2 special interest groups that don't represent the majorty of the people that fish the Cowlitz. Do you think that it would have been changed if Friends of the Cowlitz were representing us, instead of Trouts unlimited or American Rivers?
We need rivers like the Cowlitz and Skagit for the masses of people to fish. It takes the strain of the crowds off the smaller rivers.
I love the summer runs, give me one fish to fish for, that would be it.
We need to let WDFW know what we want, not what TU and AR want.

Fishhead5

FH5,

I really don't know why WDFW is changing the Cowlitz stocking program. We should ask them. I think they are changing it to conform with some of the hatchery management principles set forth in license and settlement agreement, like fish rearing densities. I heard that WDFW rears some fish at higher than recommended densities in order to achieve higher production. I don't have the facts at hand and cannot verify that, but it's pretty standard hearsay. Another reason for changes is to better conform to ESA requirements that the hatchery be operated in ways that promote recovery of listed fish, rather than obstructing recovery.

I don't know how much TU and AM are influencing the revisions to the hatchery plan, but they are in a better position to exert direct influence than FOC. One of the things everyone should understand regarding FERC license settlement agreements is that only those who are parties to the agreement have a seat at the table during license implementation. The reason is that the sole reason post-licensing committee exist is to implement, or oversee the utility's implementation of, the license. The logical extension is that those who didn't sign the settlement agreement don't support the license. Therefore, those parties, such as FOC, cannot be expected to oversee implementation of the license as it was agreed to. Post-license committees do not exist to try to re-write the license.

As I recall, FOC and other parties that did not sign the settlement were unwilling to make any compromises. It seemed like it had to be "their way or no way at all." That's not the way the world works. No way is not one of the choices on the table. And their way is not one of the choices on the table. That is life as I know it under the federal power act. There will be energy generated, and there will be fish and wildlife and recreation mitigation and enhancement programs.

Those who participate have the most influence. Extended participation is attained by being part of the settlement, not outside it. Individuals and organization who are outside the settlement agreement and are not on license implementation committees still have a voice, although they are often not aware of it. And, arguably, it is a lesser voice. You can express your interests to WDFW - as you urged people to do in your opening post - and you can also communicate your concerns to U S Fish & Wildlife Service, NMFS, Tacoma, and other parties to the license settlement agreement.

It might seem like we "need" rivers like the Cowlitz and Skagit (I don't see the comparison) for the masses, but like the rest of real life, what we perceive as our need and what we get are not always the same, nor is always any direct relationship between the two. I could just as well say we need a Washington State with less than two million people, so that rivers wouldn't be crowded, and so that rivers would have good enough habitat to produce harvestable numbers of wild fish. I could say "we need" it, but you already know what we've got.

BTW, I agree; you need to let WDFW know what you want. The are a lot of choices that can be made. For example, why not raise fewer hatchery coho to feed a lower Columbia gillnet fishery that wipes out any chance of saving or recovering wild coho in lower Columbia tributaries. The saved space could be re-allocated to raising the summer steelhead you love. There could still be plenty of hatchery coho returning to satiate the river recreational fishery with almost no impact to recovering wild coho runs on the Cowlitz and elsewhere in the Columbia.

Consider the ecological and economic arguments that support that alternative. Why raise hatchery coho to end up in gillnets with any remaining wild coho when the ex-vessel price is $0.65 or less and the economic return to the state from recreationally caught coho and summer steelhead is so much greater? I know it seems like pushing a very big rock up a very high hill, but face it, society has to go there eventually. The status quo is not sustainable, and WDFW and intelligent gillnetters know it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Good post Salmo.

I meant Lewis county has a stake in the fishability of the Cow. From guides, to tackle, to food and gas. You name it.

Forgive me if this has been mentioned above (didn't read it all), but just because Tacoma doesn't have to, or isn't going to, fund the summer steelhead program, that doesn't mean that it won't happen.

WDFW could still fund it like they do most the other hatcheries in the state.

If that's what people want, then that's what people need to ask for...I for one, would love to keep a fishery on the Cowlitz that attracts a lot of fishermen for the relatively easy pickin's.

From what I know about the issue, it doesn't seem too fair to blame Tacoma for not wanting to spend money beyond that which they are legally bound to spend. I'd say the taxpayers of Tacoma could put a stop to that nearly instantaneously if they wanted to.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

I did mention that in my last windy post. WDFW could rear and release summer steelhead if they choose too. The practice, however, on Columbia tribs, is to spend other people's money because there is so much hydropower mitigation, mostly federal, some private.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.