There is heated debate going on about how Tacoma City Light and WDFW are deep-sixing the cowlitz's sport fisheries.....namely early winter steelhead and summer-runs. This all coming into play under the new FERC licensing agreement. Makes me mad as the next guy to think we'd lose these fisheries. Primarily, because it would throw added pressure on other rivers.

Alas!

I was surfing through WDFW's web site this morning, looking at their press releases when I came across this breakdown of the agreement http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/do/newreal/aug1100b.htm

Doesn't sound all that bad to me! If you'll read carefully, you'll notice it includes continued production of early winters and summers.

The only question I have is they discuss production numbers (smolts) of 650,000 pounds annually. Is this concurent with historic hatchery production levels? Or is it actually a big reduction disguised behind a seemingly big number?

Comments?

Eric,

I was severely chastised the last time I entered a post about the Cowlitz, so whatever I say on that topic, and possibly any others, is suspect. With that forewarning, I'll offer the following facts and opinions.

The positions of Tacoma and WDFW, along with other agencies, are quite different. That is normal and expected, since they all have different responsibilities. But there is a logical reason for a settlement agreement among Tacoma and agencies. That reason is certainty.

Tacoma needs and wants a license. Federal law requires that they have one to operate the dams. The environmental and fish agencies want any new license to include sufficient mitigation. I'm sure that's no surprise. The parties could let the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, make the decision. But FERC has a long track record of short changing the public on fisheries and other mitigation. Even so, FERC has issued some licenses that utilities believed their project could not afford. So there is a strong incentive for all the parties to try for a settlement agreement.

The big question about mitigation inevitably is: how much mitigation is appropriate? The little bit of law I have read on this subject (yeah, I know, a little knowledge is dangerous) is in a 1996 court decision that said mitigation should be proportionate to the project impacts on the environment. That is so logical, I'm reluctant to believe it actually came from a court, but there you have it.

The Cowlitz settlement agreement seems complicated by two things at least. One, naturally, is the recent ESA listings of some of the fish stocks. The second seems to be the traditions that have evolved over the last 30 to 40 years of hatchery fish management on the Cowlitz that has included introducing steelhead stocks from other river systems.

No doubt about it, Tacoma's dams wiped out the native, wild, fish runs of the upper Cowlitz River. But efforts have been under way the last 5 years or so so restore some of the salmon and steelhead to the upper river. And now comes the ESA requirement to recover those populations that have been listed.

Regarding Tacoma's obligations under the law, refer to some of the above. The project did not extirpate Chambers Creek or Skamania steelhead, since these fish did not exist in the Cowlitz at the time the project was developed. Tacoma has agreed, however, to help restore the native Cowlitz species that have been reared at the hatcheries these last 40 years. I think this is where the disconnect is happening about the steelhead mitigation issues. Under the law, there is no connection between the impacts of Tacoma's project and steelhead stocks that are not native to the Cowlitz. So while Tacoma is required by law to provide fisheries mitigation, there is no logical requirement for them to mitigate fish that are not native to the system, unless the native stocks no longer exist or are not viable for restoration.

From what I understand, however, that is not the case. According to WDFW, the Cowlitz gene pool of native spring and fall chinook, coho, and late winter steelhead still exist at the Cowlitz hatcheries, and are considered viable for stock recovery and restoration. And these are the stocks that are or will be used for restoration.

As for the amount of production, it seems impossible to get the same answer from two people. Here is some of the background hearsay that I have heard; take it for what it's worth. The hatcheries were never built to replace the entire Cowlitz fish production, only the production eliminated by the flooding by the reservoirs. That is because fish passage was supposed to maintain natural production in the upper river. But passage for juvenile fish didn't work out, so the agencies and Tacoma agreed that the hatcheries could replace the entire salmon and steelhead runs. But the size of the hatcheries was not increased to accomodate the entire production when fish passage was abandoned. So WDFW has for years raised more fish at the hatcheries than they were actually designed for, and this has contributed to some of the disease problems that have plagued fish production there.

Future hatchery production is scheduled to be 650,000 pounds, down from over 900,000 pounds in recent years. In my opinion, that is not automatically a bad thing. If the hatchery raises fewer, or smaller, but healthier smolts that get a higher survival rate, then the number of returning adults may not change much at all. Conceivably, it could even increase. The other side of the coin, is that natural fish production is expected to increase as restoration proceeds.

Tacoma's job under the agreement is to return fish, both natural and hatchery. If more natural fish return, then their obligation of hatchery fish goes down. That makes sense. Tacoma is not obligated by the Federal Power Act to provide the fish you and I prefer or have become accustomed to. They are nowadays required to mitigate for the fish the project actually impacted. The agreement indicates that Tacoma will provide as many fish in mitigation as would exist if there were no Cowlitz River hydro project. What more could anyone legitimately want? This excludes the impacts of the Cowlitz Falls dam which is owned by Lewis County. And it excludes the environmental losses caused by the usual cast of suspects: logging, agriculture, dikes and levees, urban and rural development, roads and so on. Tacoma isn't responsible for the impacts of actions caused by others. I think that gets forgotten in this mix. Tacoma isn't the only culprit. If there were no dams on the Cowlitz River, there would still be fewer fish than there were in 1950; there are plenty of other causes of decining fish production.

One of the things that seems to be overlooked in the fray is that WDFW could rear and release early winter and summer steelhead on its own dime, same as it does on other rivers that don't have the deep pockets of a hydro dam. If Tacoma had never built its dams, it seems likely to me that the state would have eventually built one or more hatcheries on the Cowlitz like they have so many other places. The only difference is whose money they spend to build and operate it.

I agree that it would be an unfavorable outcome if these changes shifts fishing pressure to other rivers that don't need any increase. But I can't say that Tacoma or WDFW has any legal obligation to make the Cowlitz River a fishing mecca that attracts and sustains incredible fishing pressure. The Cowlitz fishery of the past 30 years or more has been an artificial creation, resulting from the world's largest hatchery operation. The fishery on the Cowlitz that we have come to know may have never been sustainable in the first place. No where else that I know of contains such a high density of hatchery fish. Perhaps the system was pushed beyond the breaking point, and it has broken. That's just my speculation. Since I mainly fish the Cowlitz for its summer runs, I too, will directly feel the result of any decrease in productivity of this stock. Notice I didn't say cutback in hatchery production. I still think releasing healthy smolts is more important than just releasing lots of them.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo:

I also subscribe to the "fewer, but larger healthier smolts nets a higher return" theory. But, the issue that had(has) me confused is the warning by other board readers about the ENTIRE elimination of early winters and summers as a result of this agreement.

If WDFW's news release is correct, then this doesn't appear to be the case.

So, who's correct?

Did others rush to judgement? I'm not sure. They must have had some reliable information to support their claim of early winters and summers being eliminated. I get the impression that there was confusion on WDFW's official stance or that false, misleading info. was given. Whatever it was, it's got alot of people upset.

The news release just struck me odd because it's points seem to go against much of what we have been warned about.

Just trying to figure out who to believe!

Here are the numbers I was Given
Current Current Proposed Proposed
Smolts Fry Smolts Fry
Spring
Nook 967,000 500,000 967,000 500,000
Late
Winter 285,000 4000,000 390,000 500,000
Fall
Nook 6,500,000 0 5,000,000 TBD
Coho 4,000,000 1,000,000 3,200,000 1,100,000
Cuts 230,000 0 160,000 100,000
Summer 662,700 0 550,000 0
Early
Winter 491,000 0 300,000 o

About 18% cut Hardest hit is Cutthroat than the bank fishing in the winter than comes Summer Run the fish may not be Cowlitz when they strated but what do you use to replace the Summer fish That were headed up the Cispus River And why a cut in fall Chinookis because they are not going to let us fish them anymore you tell me how this is good for fish or sportsmen

The frist two sets are the present the last two set are what they are going to cut back to would clean it up if I knew how but I was fishing when others were lreaning how to use these stupid boxes

[This message has been edited by River Rat (edited 08-14-2000).]

Sorry bud, but could you explain those numbers a little better, I don't understand.

Jake:

Took me a minute to figure it out too. Here's how it goes.....Each fish has 4 sets of numbers. The first 2 numbers are current production numbers of smolts and fry. The next 2 numbers are the proposed production number of smolts and fry.

This all brings me back to the original question. If riverrat's numbers are correct, early winter runs and summers are all but eliminated yet, WDFW's news release claims production of these fish will continue.

Where did you get your numbers riverrat?

[This message has been edited by EricW (edited 08-15-2000).]

Salmo,
An excellent breakdown of what is going on and what the agreement is all about. Based on the information I have this is the best we can get. I sincerely wish that somehow we could hold the fire to the old mitigated numbers but I guess we can't. Thanks again for the insightful, honest and straightforward information.

Lets go fishin sometime!

Jim

The numbers I have came from the meetting of the Friends of the Cowlitz. This is the breake down of how many fish per pound.


Spring Nook 5Per lb. 192,000lb.
Fall Nook 80Per lb. 62,500lb.
Coho 15Per lb. 213,333lb.
Cutts 3.5Per lb. 45,714lb.
Chum 500Per lb. 1,192lb.
Late Winter 4.8Per lb. 81,250lb.
Early 4.9Perlb. 61,224lb.
Summer 4.9Per lb. 114,28lb.
For of total of 771,500 this is for the 1st. 5 years then they can cut back more if stock show recovery These numbers are from WDFW except The Chum

Ok, I think I get it now, thanks for the info.

Howdy,
The other night, I saw something on the new's saying that Tacoma was going to open up 40 some mile of spawning grounds. What they didn't report is how? fish ladders? or just releasing adults above the dams? I'm curious.

Humpy,

I think the only thing Tacoma is opening up is its checkbook. I hear there are more than 150 miles of mainstem and tributaries upstream of the dams that could rear salmon and steelhead.

The agencies say getting the adults upstream is the easy part. Tacoma has traps and trucks at the hatchery, and they will build a new ladder at Mayfield Dam. The important part is that Tacoma will be spending millions on downstream passage. Getting smolts down to the lower river is the key to the restoration. It was the inability to pass the smolts that caused Tacoma and the agencies to abandon natural production from the upper river in the first place. The new agreement is pretty strong in its passage requirements. The laws that protect fish are stronger now than when Tacoma got its first license 50 years ago.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.