I swear, fishermen are worse than an old ladies gossip koffee klatch when it comes to rumors about fish. Cut the Cowlitz hatchery hysteria already! And stop making up stories, for criminny sakes, boys. I don’t know who from WDFW was speaking to the PSA chapter, but he didn’t have his Cowlitz facts straight. Settle down and ingest some straight forward information from sources at Tacoma, a consultant working on the project, and agency contacts.

Tacoma operates its Cowlitz River dams under a federal license. The original 50 year license expires next year. The federal power act requires that they obtain a new license. They are seeking a 40 year license in their recent application. (Relicenses can vary from 30 to 50 years.)

Those of you for whom the Cowlitz fish hatcheries are more near and dear than your women and children, please take heart. The hatcheries will not disappear. Hatcheries will be on the Cowlitz scene, if not forever, then, at least for the next 40 years. Recovery efforts of wild fish are being undertaken upstream of the dams as you read this. For ESA listed chinook and steelhead, this is mandatory, but coho are included in this plan, also. Again, the hatchery will not be closed. If it was, where would the fish come from for recovery? Remember, there are no wild salmon and steelhead left above the dams, until the last couple years, anyway. The hatcheries are absolutely essential for both recovery of listed and future wild stocks upstream of the dams and to continue to provide mitigation for the adverse impacts of the dams on fish, like flooding nearly 40 miles of river under the impoundments.

Yes, there will be changes at the hatcheries. Major ones at the salmon hatchery. According to some of the WDFW folks, the salmon hatchery has been a disease problem for many years. The renovation should allow the production of healthier smolts that might actually survive to return to the river, unlike the overwhelming majority of those presently produced. Most likely, hatchery production will have to be cut back during the remodel. This is common practice at other facilities during construction projects. But maintaining sufficient production to return broodstock requirements and the supplementation for the recovery program are high priorities. Less extensive work is planned down at the trout hatchery, but some salmon production may be moved there on a temporary basis. Some small satellite facilities may also be set up to relieve some of the pressure during construction. Those facilities will probably continue to be available after the remodel as well.

Hatchery production in the new license term will be reduced from present levels. I was given three reasons. 1) ESA restricts the release of hatchery fish that may interfere with recovery of listed fish; 2) the remodeled hatchery is expected to produce healthier smolts that will survive at a higher rate and sustain expected levels of adult returns; 3) the recovery of wild fish in the upper river will reduce Tacoma’s hatchery mitigation obligation (for every wild fish that returns, the hatchery obligation goes down by one).

The fishery of the future will be different. Wild fish will be present. The release of wild fish is likely to be required while runs are rebuilding and if the fishing pressure is likely to harvest more than the runs can withstand. Hmmm, that’s just like on other wild fish rivers. The early winter Chambers Creek hatchery steelhead program is likely (no decision yet) to be reduced or phased out. There is a potential conflict with the late winter native steelhead, which are ESA listed. So late winter steelhead production is being increased to assist the recovery. Hatchery summer run production may be reduced (again, no decision yet) but not eliminated. Coho will be reduced because the smolts eat wild chinook smolts, and there may not be sufficient fisheries in the future to harvest the potential production. There were 46,000 coho back to the hatchery last fall and winter. The big commercial fisheries seem to be a thing of the past, and the recreational fishery can only harvest so much. I think there will be an effort to restore wild fall chinook production in the lower main Cowlitz River, kind of like the N.F. Lewis River, but it needs more study and won’t be happening any time soon.

The point about guides moving to other rivers may be legitimate. They've been doing that already, whenever a Cowlitz run is in the doldrums. That's the nature of the guide business. I remember when lots of them used to be on the Skagit. They make their living from a public resource by providing service. In so doing, they accept whatever risks attend the fish runs they work. I doubt they will leave the Cowlitz for long. The intent of the new license is to improve the fish runs, not make them worse. And speaking of, except for coho, they can't get much worse than the last few years. I admit to not fishing there as much as I did 5 or more years ago.

So, enough of the hand wringing and hysteria about closing the hatcheries and a fishless desert in the Cowlitz River. Be advised that Tacoma remains on the hook. Tacoma will pay for all hatchery remodel work, the ongoing O&M of the hatcheries, upstream and downstream fish passage around the dams, the ESA recovery program, and recreational campgrounds, trails, and so forth. Tacoma’s expenses during the next license term are going to be higher than their present costs. So Koenings and the other directors didn’t give away the farm, hatchery, resource; well, you get the idea.

Sleep well. The Cowlitz will still be around.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

Thanks for the report. But why hasn't this been more publicized beforhand? I think what has everyone panicked is hearing about these dealings on here and in the media as though it's as good as done. By nature, WDFW's track record has not been a good one when it comes to being up front with the public about what they have on the table and this case is no different.

It's one thing to get this news from you but alot of fishermen would be relieved to hear these same facts from the department's web site or on tv. Hasn't happened.

Hate to lose those summer-runs!!!!!

I can not help the fact that I do not trust Tacoma City Light when it comes to the Cowlitz tehy have never lived up to there end of the deal on this one. And with no numbers as to what they can reduce production to we have no power to hold them to task. They don't even live up to the deal with the state about keeping the river at fishable levels on weekends look at last winter for a mouth the river was at 16,000

For along time they have trucked sockeye to above the Baker river dam on the Skagit. Every year bout the same number of fish, can we consider that run recovered now? Because we can truck some of the fish above the dam? Is that recovery? Didnt they just put an additional dam on the Cowlitz like 7 years ago? A dam that isnt running at full capacity because they cant sell the electricity? I guess WDFW got a good deal on some salmon busses. I am willing to try anything at this point and am certainly not in hysterics, just seems to a simple folk like me that to recover stocks you would remove dams instead of build them, if your true interest was recovery not tellin big brother that "hey look there's fish in there" C

Salmo G,
I always enjoy reading your dose of reality injected into this B.B. I do agree with Eric W that it would be good to hear this information from WDFW. The lack of creditable information released by WDFW on project such as this is the breeding ground for rumors and speculation.
On the hatchery vs wild fish debate I'm am getting a lot of conflicting information lately. On the one hand you have the school of thought that hatchery fish are detrimental to wild fish stocks and the only shure way to get healthy sustainable runs is with wild stocks in healthy rivers. This theory results in situations like the uproar over clubbing hatchery escapees in streams in Oregon. Now I see the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commision is sayiny they don't agree with NMFS concept of Evolutionarily Significant Units and conciders hatchery fish that spawn in the wild the same as wild fish. Under this theory no fin clipping is needed. They also want to expand the hatchery production. You would think the biologists could come to some concensus on what needs to be done. At any rate these are issues that I would like to be able to see the WDFW position on at their web site. It seems like WDFW is treating the public like so many children that can't handle contoversial information. I also know the WDFW gets the shaft by some of the public for a lot of fish related problems that they have no control over due to politics. I would like to see WDFW overhauled using ADF&G as the blueprint.

well here you all go. The following are web sites concerning the City of Tacoma and ways of contacting these folks who have the power and hopefully the intestional fortitude to do right for us who use the Cowlitz for sport and to make a living. Emailing letters to the city council, public utilities board and the press via letters to the editor and outdoor writter Bob Mottram we might get the "reel" story, and at best bring us out of the fog and shed light on the rumor mill.
To contact the PUD and see there propaganda page go to: www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/parks/default.htm
then click on Cowlitz Project
To get to the mayor and city council go to: www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/cityhall/default.htm
To contact the public utilities board go to: www.tacoma.wa.us/customer/m_board.htm
To contact The News Tribune go to: www.tribnet.com click on opinion then click on letters.
To contact outdoor writter Bob Mottram his email address is: rhm@p.tribnet.com
I still believe the pen or the computer is mighter than the sword. For one who lives in Tacoma I'm going to be looking for answers from these folks after all I can vote them out for the damage they could do to our Cowlitz River fisheries.

------------------

Hi again, folks. This isn’t to respond to my own post, but rather to some points several of you bring up. Eric, Tacoma publicizes the Cowlitz relicensing, but you have to get on their mailing list to receive the newsletter, which does exude a warm, fuzzy pro-Tacoma slant. But that’s OK. Reasonable people expect and see through that. I don’t know why WDFW doesn’t publicize it. Perhaps because it’s just one of many such actions that are going on all the time. It’s just that the Cowlitz is higher profile than a lot of the dams, or at least the resultant fisheries. Also, it seems common to not report half way stories. That is, nobody seems to know what the final outcome is going to be, since a lot of decisions are yet to be made. Reporting something now could cause problems later, if the story keeps changing every time. And the story probably would change every time because the outcome is still under development. I mean, look at the uproar on this BB over mostly rumor. Imagine the whining and wailing if every step of the decision process was reported each week in the paper. The people responsible for getting the job done couldn’t get around to it because they’d spend all their time responding to each week’s rumors and possible developments. I do agree that public input is an integral part of these decision processes. I assume that’s why Friends of the Cowlitz, Trout Unlimited, and American Rivers are at the table with Tacoma and the agencies as they develop an agreement. Remember, no agreement and FERC decides the whole shebang back in Washington D.C.

Chuck - you da’ man! I’m with you. Tacoma’s environmental report notes that the best alternative for wild fish recovery is dam removal. Naturally, that isn’t their proposal. So it comes down to working out the best alternative that could restore wild fish with the dams still in place. It means smaller wild runs than would be possible without the dams, but it will still be larger wild runs than at present. Remember, when they bagged fish passage in the early 70s, wild salmon and steelhead became extinct in the upper Cowlitz. The new passage facilities can partially (maybe I should note that PARTIALLY) restore wild spring chinook and steelhead. There is a new dam at Cowlitz Falls, and BPA spent millions adding fish guidance and collection facilities there. They are still working to make it work right, but wild, native steelhead have now returned there for the past three seasons. Over 160 wild steelhead this winter and spring. That ain’t recovery, but you gotta’ start somewhere. And, the wild steelhead survived at 3 times the rate that their hatchery counterparts did, and wild smolts are only half the size of the larger hatchery product. True, the hatchery run was larger than the wild run, but only because they released a zillion smolts. One of the biologists there thinks most of the hatchery smolts don’t even make it to the ocean alive because the hatchery is such a disease cesspool. So they haven’t got recovery. NMFS will have to do a recovery plan, not only for the Cowlitz, but all the listed stocks areas. Recovery won’t look like historic numbers, because historic habitat quantity and quality no longer exists, for one thing. Even without the dams.

As for the Baker sockeye, I don’t know if they consider them recovered or not. But they were a candidate for ESA listing a few years ago. And then year before last, NMFS took them off the list. I presume that’s because the run has been pretty consistently above the spawning escapement goal for the last few years. The WDFW even allowed limited fishing for them a year or so ago. So it should be getting better.

Neanderthal, I think the reason for the conflicting info on hatchery v. wild is at least twofold. First, there’s a lot that isn’t known, so the field is wide open to speculation, even among scientists. Second, among the things that are known, the results vary according to species, stock, etc. For example, hatchery coho from many stocks, at least here on the west side, seem perfectly able to reproduce in the wild along with, and probably mixing with, native wild stocks. There may be detrimental effects, but I don’t think anyone’s been able to measure them. Yet, Chambers Creek steelhead apparently don’t reproduce successfully in the wild. They’ve been bred to spawn so early that the fry come out at the wrong time. Hatchery summer runs spawn successfully and produce smolts, but according to an Oregon study, those smolts don’t survive to return as adults. It seems to me that we have to take it on a case by case basis. Broad, sweeping conclusions look like a sure way to be in error.

As for the Columbia tribes not agreeing with NMFS, that makes sense. First, NMFS will probably be wrong part of the time, just like anyone else. But since they’ve got the expert scientists, hopefully they will be wrong less often. Second, the tribes have been clear that they want to use hatchery supplementation of wild stocks to increase their harvest opportunity, not necessarily to restore wild stocks. From the limited information I have, I guess that sometimes counting a hatchery fish spawning in the wild will prove to be a good measure, and in other cases the wild run will continue to decline, no matter how many hatchery fish are allowed to spawn naturally. When a party, such as the tribes, choose a biological strategy to achieve a non-biological outcome (fishing harvest opportunity), it seems that there is a higher likelihood of being wrong.

I can understand why WDFW wouldn’t have a position on something like this, since there is a lot of scientific confusion, and different stocks perform differently. I don’t have the facts about this example, but let’s consider what I’ve heard about the Carson stock hatchery spring chinook this season. Apparently they are whacking them up on the Methow, where they don’t want them to interbreed with endangered native Methow springers. That might make sense if there are native Methow springers that can be used for the recovery program there. (According to a WDFW source, the Carson stock is a mongrel spring chinook stock that was created by randomly grabbing springers out of the Bonneville Dam fish ladder and taking them to Carson hatchery for fish culture.) Now, over on the Wenatchee, they are proposing to use the same Carson hatchery fish for a spring chinook recovery plan. The difference seems to be that there are no native springers left to use for recovery there. I can certainly see how folks over there could take the biological uncertainty, mix in a few half-truths, add east side politics, and end up with the intelectual [Bleeeeep!] fest they’re having over there this spring. I don’t know what the right course of action is, as if anyone does, but I would defer to the recommendations of the fishery biologists that are least likely to be under the pressure of political or special-interest hammers.

It isn’t right that WDFW would treat the public like simpletons who can’t handle controversial information, but I think I can understand why they might. There are a lot of simpletons out here in the public, and very influencial simpletons at that, who can make WDFW’s life very difficult. Naturally, I’m referring to our cretin legislators who never let their lack of intelligence get in the way of pursuing solutions sought by their handlers, managers, owners, etc. Oh, the current director of WDFW came from ADF&G, so stay tuned.

Salmo G,
I don't think I have read articles that make more sense or are more tuned into what is going on with salmon issues than yours anywhere. You should post on this site more often.

Hey Salmo G.,

It's always a pleasure to read your posts. You seem to be very connected to what's going on. One thing I wanted to mention about the hand wringing over this latest AIP is the claim from at least the Cowlitz Guide's Association that the agreement contains a lot of provisions that they say WDFW never mentioned in previous meetings and hearings as part of the plan for the Cowlitz future.

The guides I've talked to say the process was going along nicely till, in their opinion, this agreement came out of the blue. Maybe they got shafted by some of the more militant "wild" fish advocates. I have no idea. They just felt like they put a lot of work into the process only to feel like it was falling on deaf ears the entire time.

Like I said before, I kinda stumbled into this whole mess on accident. I'm no guide and I don't even fish the Cowlitz on a regular basis. Just adding my .02.

Bruce