Two more updates, well sorta. DW has stayed with the Wynoochee Mitigation issue and the 25 YEARS of failure of WDF&W to meet the legal requirements for mitigation fish. E mails to the Director and Commission almost monthly and I am sure all will be shocked and appalled to know that now nobody will respond to the simple question. What progress is staff making on the issue ? Dead silence again. You got to love these guys! The Director even told the Commission at a hearing he would report back for all to know MONTHS ago. F minus here Mr. Unsworth.

The other issue is not a barn burner but the USGS is doing some Spring Chinook Radio tracking and a report is supposed to be out and about some place. So I asked R-6 staff and they helped chase it down. This was forwarded to me.

The report went through the internal USGS review process and is now being finalized. I expect the final report to be available the beginning of August.[i][/i]

So we wait on this also but at least it appears to be crawling its way down the road.

Can anyone verify that the Wynoochee Mitigation fund still exists? The way they tap dance around that issue sure makes it seem likely the money was spent, possibly long ago, on something else.

Given the mindset of at least some WDFW bean counters you're probably right that the WM money is long gone.

Put in a dedicated account at signing by TCL and has been drawing interest since. 2 million plus now if I recall correctly.

its gone along time ago!!!

Nope that was the first dam mit monies that have been used up which are another story all together. These funds are the second which was about the modification for power generation. Two different monies.

Rivrguy is correct in regards to the Wynoochee mitigation money. Deposited in a bank in Aberdeen by Tacoma Power for WDFW and the fish committee to decide what to do with. There was a plan about 4 years ago approved by the committee excepting QIN, who apparently controls WDFW on this matter. However, legally it's up to the committee to make a recommendation to FERC for approval. It does not have to be unanimous, but WDFW won't move on it without the consent of QIN. Makes a person wonder.

Sg

Not really Salmo. The Tribes own WDFW. It's like the Tribes are the Mariners and WDFW is the Bellingham Baby M's.

Ah yes the Fish Committee, SG your correct as it is a element of the process seldom seen or known about really. That said read the agreement and it is stated flat out it is the signators City of Aberdeen QIN, WDF&W ( used to be both Game and Fisheries ), Chehalis Tribe, TCL have to sign off on any changes in the mitigation. The Fish Technical Committee has never really been involved SG just basically window dressing to rubber stamp things and cover the agencies ass.

Now for the record here CM and I sat through meetings at Bristol for many years and have the minutes. In fact it was in that process that two plans came together including the one previously mentioned. To be blunt it was Ron Warren who screwed up the first shot and Jim Scott the second but former Regional Director Sue Patnude's effort to hijack the money to do habitat restoration and call it mitigation is my all time favorite.

Rivrguy,

Are you saying that any one of the parties (QIN in this case) can veto a plan that has been approved by all the other parties? FERC typically does not require unanimous agreement, recognizing that there may be an outlier in any mulit-stakeholder group. Since this agreement falls under the umbrella of Tacoma's FERC license, that usually makes FERC the final voice of approval.

I'm just trying to understand why WDFW won't act when all parties except QIN have signed off, unless unanimous approval is necessary, or QIN (and tribes in general) own WDFW as Carcassman suggests.

Sg

SG here it is and forgive typos as I had to convert it off a old PDF. Keep in mind that the mitigation numbers of fish produced has never been a issue other than the agencies around Coho which nobody knows what they were.



October a, 1992

To: Jim Harp, Quinault Tribe
From:Dave Gufler, Wildlife --••••
Re: Attached Letter to Corps

As you recall we signed a mitigation agreement (attached) this winter with the Cities of Al:)erdeen and Tacoma for fish losses at wynoochee Dam . oue to circumstances beyond our control the "hatchery" oonoept has been modified to accommodate concerns by several groups (i.e.Wild Trout Alliance). They have opposed the hatchery alternative and maintained other mitigation alternatives must be addressed in the NEPA document which will be rewritten by the Corps.

The Cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma have requested the Corps seprate Title Transfer and Rule curve Change from Mitigation Alternatives in the revised NEPA document. We supported this concept to expedite the process. The attached letter to the Corps is needed to clarify the original intent of the mitigation agreement and allow the Corps to correctly address the agreement in their NEPA analysis.

Harry Hosey, consultant for Tacoma will be contacting you to explain the need for the letter and request your signature.
If you have questions feel free to contact Bill Freymond or
myself.


DG/dg
cc: Jim Deshazo
Bill Freymond

APR 03'03 10:54AM WDFW MONTESANO P.3



AGREEMENT FOR
MITIGATION AHD ENHANCEMENT
AT WYNOOCHEE DAM


THIS AGREEMENT i s made and entered into by and between the Cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma, herei n referred to as the Cities, and the Washington State Departments of Wi ldl ife and Fi sheries, the U.S.Fish and Wil dl i fe Service, the U .S.Forest Service , the Quinaul t Indian Nation, and the Confederated Chehal is Tri beJ herei n referred ta as the Agenci es.
WHEREAS, the Cities desi re to mi tigate for impacts associated with impl ementation of a new higher reservoir rul e curve (Exhi bit A); and
WHEREAS, the Cities desi re to vol untarily pursue resol ution of past mi tigation issues on the Wynoochee Project; and
WHEREAS, the Citi es desire to vol untar11y •enhance fisheri es and
wi ldl ife resources; and
WHEREAS. the Corps of Engineer previ ously mitigated for lost spawning areas withi n the enti re reservcir perimeter; and
WHEREAS, the Ci ties are pursui ng transfer of titl e from the Corps of Engi neers to the City of Aberdeen; and
WHEREAS, the Agencies desire to protect, preserve, and enhance fi sheries and wi ldl i fe resources.

NOW THER£FOREJ the parties hereto agree as foll ows :•

1. MITIGATION OF NEW RESERVOIR RULE CURVE
The Cities agree to repl ace in val ue, by payment of $6,000 to the U.S. Forest Service, the elk forage planted in the Wynoochee Reservoir.
The U .S.Forest Service shall be responsible for usi ng this money•to create additional el k forage . •

2. RESOLUTION OF PAST MITIGATION ISSUES ON THE WYNOOCHEE PROJECT The Cities agree to pursue through the ongoing title transfer
legislation, funds to construct and operate a hatchery as descri bed in
Exhi bit B. Should the titl e transfer effort fail or Congress not approve the method of fundi ng the hatchery, the Agencies wi l l pursue resol ut;on of past mitigation with the owner of Wynoochee Dam .



Page l of 4

APR 03 103 10:55AM WDFl,J MONTESANO P.4



The goal of the hatchery is to annual ly produce the fol l owing: 1) a total of 1209 adul t Coho Salmon, whi ch may requi re an annual rel ease of approxi mately 55,700 Coho Salmon yearl i ng smolts weighi ng 16 fish/pound; and 2)a total of 254 adul t steel head, whi ch may equi re an annual rel ease of approxi mately 25,000 steel head yearl ings wei ghi ng 5 to 6 fi sh/pound.
The Ci ties further agree to design and construct said hatchery wi th said funds since construction may be signi ficantly less expensi ve as a part cf the major contract for constructi on of the hydroel ectri c project. A separate opti onal bid wil l be incl uded 1n the contract to . permi t the Departments of Fi sheri es and Wi l dl ife the option to proceed wi th or be paid the avai l abl e funds and proceed on thei r own. It i s understood that when the bids are recei ved, there Wi l l only be a very shart time peri od ta make a decisi on and to enter i nto an agreement to impl ement an opti on .

3. ENHANCEMENT OF FISHERIES RESOURCES
The Cities agree to commence studi es withi n six months of title transfer to determi ne i f the spring refi l l ing fl ood control rule curve may be mod1f1 ed to al l ow earl i er refi l l i ng, thus maki ng more water avail abl e to improve passage condi tions through the Wynoochee Reservoir for out-mi grati ng fish duri ng the peri od of Apri l 15 to
June 30 of each year . Thi s action wi l l requi re approval of the Corps of Engi neers and they have i ndi cated studi es may take e1ght months and . envi ronmental eval uation another year . The Ci ties agree to pursue the issue as expediti ously as al lowed.
The Citi es agree to enter into a Water Rel ease Agreement wi th the Washi ngton State Departments of Wil dl ife and Fi sheries to improve passage conditions through the Wynoochee Reservoi r for•out-migrati ng fish duri ng the peri od of Apri l 15 to June 30 of each year (see Agreement for Water Rel ease at Wynoochee Dam). The initi al agreement shall be executed concurrently wi th thi s agreement and future
modifi cati ons are subject to condi tions as specifi ed in that agreement.

4. AGENCIES AGREEMENT
The Agenci es agree to support the establ i shment of a new reservoi r rule curve shown in Exhi bi t A (see.attached copy) and agree that no further studies or mi tigati on for the new rul e curve i s necessary based on the measures contai ned i n thi s agreement.
The Agenci es agree that. the future study for a refi l l f l ood control
•rule curve modifi eati on •wil l merely permi t enhancement of fi sheries and the resu1 ts of that study are not needed for proceeding with the hydroel ectric devel opment or fee titl e transfer .



Page 2 of 4

APR 03 '03 10:55AM WDFW MONTESANO P.5




The Agencies agree that the successful impl ementation of the elements identified in thi s agreement resolve all mitigation cl aims for past damages on the Wynoochee Project . The•agenci es may request addit1 onal mitigati on and/or enhancement when the Project is rel icensed with the Federal Energy Regul atory Commission (FERC).
The Agenci es agree that i f the total funding as specified in Exhi bit B
{see attached copy) is received by the Washi ngton State Departments of Fisheri es and Wi l dl ife, said amounts are sufficient to construct the desired hatchery and operate the hatchery through the licensed period
{September 9, 2037). The facil ity shal l be owned, operated, and mai ntai ned by the Washi ngton State Departments of Fisheries and Wi l dl ife until the end of the l icensed period . Therefore, the Agenci es hereby rel ease the Cities from al1 further obl igations rel ated to the fish hatchery, or its annua1 . juveni1 e producti on, or annual adult returns, as proposed, unti l the end of the l icensed period (September 9, 2037).

5. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
Any di spute among the Parties concerni ng compl i ance with this Settl ement Agreement shal 1 first be referred to the Wynoochee Fi s.hery Advisory Committee (WFAC )for consideration . The WFAC shall be composed of one representative from the City of Tacoma, the Ci ty of Aberdeen, the Washi ngton Department of Fi sheries, the Washington Department of Wildl ife, the Quinaul t Indian Nati on, and the Confederated Chehal is Tribe. The WFAC shall convene as soon as pract 1'cab1e fol1 owing a written request by any Party. All decisians of the WFAC must be by consensus of al l WFAC representatives. In the event the Comm1ttee cannot resolve the di spute withi n ninety (90)days after its first meeti ng on said dispute, the WFAC wil l give notice of
. its fail ure to resol ve the dispute to al l Parties. Upon receipt of such notice, the chief executive officer (CEO)for each party hereto shall meet and attempt to resolve the d1spute . If the CEOs cannot resolve the dispute within 30 days after their initial meeti ng, the isue i n dispute may be referred ta the FERC for resolution pursuant to the FERC 's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Upcn request by any Party, any dispute not resolved by consensus of the WFAC shall , prior to referral to.the FERC, be submitted to a mutually agreeabl e third party for decision, pursuant to procedures establ ished by the Parties. The arbitrator shall devel op a written record of the proceedings, including all submi ssions by the parties. The decision of the arbitrator shal l be nonbindi ng and subject to de novo FERC revi ew. The record of the arbitrati on proceedi ngs may be submitted to FERC by any Party u•n1 ess otherwise agreed. . •





Page :3 of 4







APR 03 '03 10:56AM WDFW MONTESANO P.6



Thi s agreement shall not be construed to supplant conditi ons of the FERC l icense, l imi t agenci es review of constructi on pl ans and mi ti gati on for constructi on i ssues, or l imi t revi ew and condi tions subsequent to ongoi ng surveys for the Spotted Owl and Bal d Eagl es.
Thi s agreement shal l have no effect on the exi sting col l ecti on and transportati on of fi sh in the watershed, management of el k miti gation l ands, or any exi sting operati ons prescri bed by the Corps of Engi neers .
Th i s agreement shal l be bi ndi ng on hei rs, successors, or assi gns.





STATE OF WASHINGTON
.DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE



NAME DATE '

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES






•CONFEDERATED CHEHALIS TRIBE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION








•cITY OF ABERDEEN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF TACOMA .
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
LIGHT DIVISION .









......
WYN•OOC HEE- RESERVOlR

What I remember about that process is that in the late 80s early 90s WDF had a plan for some rearing and release facility. Probably included egg-take too as I designed a constructed wetland for treatment of rearing wastewater. All I knew is we had a complete design and then NO GO.

Well here is NOAA on over fishing stocks. Washington coast in red. Not sure we wanted to be on this particular list.


NOAA Fisheries is pleased to present the 2015 Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries as managed under the science-based framework established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). 2016 marks the 40th anniversary of the MSA and the federal, state, and stakeholder partnership it established through eight fishery management councils to sustainably manage our nation’s marine fisheries. In 2015, two previously overfished stocks were rebuilt, and the number of stocks on the overfishing and overfished lists remains near all-time lows. Several stocks were assessed for the first time in 2015, which resulted in new information about the status of these stocks. Continuous monitoring and improvement of our knowledge about the status of these stocks is key under the MSA process for managing our fisheries to be sustainable.

Status Listings

Overfishing & Overfished Lists
Overfishing: 313 stocks with known status:

Overfished: 233 stocks with known status:

The Year in Review
At the end of 2015, 28 stocks were on the overfishing list and 38 stocks were on the overfished list. The number of stocks rebuilt since 2000 increased to 39. NOAA Fisheries tracks 473 stocks and stock complexes in 46 fishery management plans, or FMPs. Each year, assessments of various fish stocks and stock complexes are conducted to determine their status. These assessments include stocks of both known status and previously unknown status. Based on assessments conducted by the end of 2015, eight stocks were removed from the overfishing list and ten were added. Two stocks came off the
overfished list, and three were added. As required by the MSA management framework, all stocks added to the overfishing and overfished lists have management measures being implemented to end overfishing and rebuild. Specific changes to the status of stocks in 2015 include:

2015

Hogfish - Eastern Gulf of Mexico Puerto Rico Scups & Porgies Complex Puerto Rico Wrasses Complex
Thorny skate - Gulf of Maine Winter skate - Georges Bank/
Southern New England Windowpane - Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Greater amberjack - Gulf of Mexico
Gray triggerfish - Gulf of Mexico

Hogfish - Southeast Florida1
Chinook salmon - Columbia River Basin:
Upper River Summer Chinook salmon - Washington Coast:
Willapa Bay Fall Natural Chinook salmon - Washington Coast:
Grays Harbor Fall Coho salmon - Washington Coast: Hoh

Eastern Pacific2
Summer flounder
Yellowtail flounder - Southern New England/
Mid-Atlantic Winter flounder - Georges Bank Bigeye tuna - Atlantic

Blueline tilefish - South Atlantic Canary rockfish - Pacific Coast3

Hogfish - Southeast Florida1
Yellowtail Flounder - Southern New England/
Mid-Atlantic Winter Flounder - Georges Bank

Canary rockfish - Pacific Coast3 Petrale sole - Pacific Coast

1. Stock status was formerly listed as unknown
2. This stock was previously listed as a Pacific-wide stock, but was reported for the first time as separate Eastern Pacific and Western and Central North Pacific stocks.
3. This stock was removed from the overfished list and is now rebuilt.

QIN and WDFW need to hurry up and lower more goals.

Back in the 70s WDF published a small report, for the public, demonstrating that Puget Sound salmon management really was working. A number of streams, like the Green, were not achieving the goal because to do so would create huge hatchery surpluses (politically a VERY BAD thing). This was way before mass marking. The solution? Lower the goals to something the could hit. And they did. And called it successful management.

On another note, but still Chehalis related.

This is a rebuttal to QIN President Fawn Sharps editorial on the recently well publicized culvert case.

http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/letters...nd-conservation

This was sent to me read and weep and here's the latest brochure on over fishing. It includes a listing for Willapa Chinook. If you don't add the Columbia, it looks like Region 6 has half the stocks designated overfished in the Pacific region. If you include canary rockfish, surf perch, and the Columbia where they effect those fisheries, it 100% of all. Attached and the link is below.



http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_e...cks_updated.pdf

With 75% of the exploitation (overfishing) taking place BEFORE a single chinook swims past Westport or Tokeland, it's clear to me that our WDFW, WFWC, and PSC delegation need to seriously address northern intercepts of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay chinook BEFORE the next treaty is signed at PSC.

BC and Ak can argue that their harvests are incidental while harvests in WA are directed.

I agree with Doc that the marine fisheries to the north need reduction but it will be hard to argue that closing a fishery for a piddly amount of WA fish makes sense will be a hard sell. Especially since WA uses "its an incidental fishery" all the time to justify overharvest.

Having trouble with the word incidental I am. If I remember correctly Alaska's ocean Chinook harvest is around 95 to 97% BC or the three west coast states origin. Wait your right CM Alaska origin fish could be called incidental as they get mainly OTHERS fish. My bad.

All the AK fish stay in or are accessible only to AK. Which is why they can say **ck you to the rest of the coast because nobody can get their fish.

I doubt that the catch of Willapa Bay Natural Chinook dominates the catch. So, it is incidental to all the other harvestable stocks. A directed fishery on harvestable Chinook.

You are more familiar with the WB and GH numbers than I. IF there was no fishery in WA would the escapement goals be met? IF the fisheries were "properly" managed in season would the goals be met? If so, then both AK and BC could be justified in saying that the problem is with us down here; we can't manage the fishery.

Now, if goals are not being met and the only harvest is up north then we can argue with them. Just a bit of being Devil's Advocate here.....