CFM,

Sorry. I should have been more clear. I meant griping that lacks a specific complaint or suggestion. The BB is a great place to exchange information, but it is also a repository of reams of pointless complaining as well. I like it for the positive things it can do, like providing accurate information about fishery issues.

The settlement agreement contains important requirements, although it reads like a piece of crap. Since it was designed by a committee, that’s pretty much an inevitable outcome. I think you under-estimate the influence FOC and CPR-Fish had on the settlement. You guys advance arguments that were taken up by others, like American Rivers, TU, NMFS, and USFWS. Absent those contributions, I’m not sure Tacoma would have been so receptive to the Mayfield fish ladder. And they may have held to the size fish hatchery they proposed in the draft license. Those were changes I didn’t expect Tacoma to go for, partly on principle and especially because of the money involved.

I think you’re right that the agency folks “. . . can’t stay in tune with us common folks . . .”, particularly those who live on or near the Cowlitz and fish it most often. This is because the state and federal agencies are required to represent all citizens, including those who live far away from the Cowlitz, including those who never have nor never will fish there, including those who want only wild fish, including those who only want a mega hatchery run of harvestable fish. The agencies are in the impossible position of representing all segments of society with diverse, and often conflicting, interests. And then they have certain legal mandates for fisheries conservation, just to spice up the mix, since conservation means different things to different people. The upshot is that agencies can not possibly fully satisfy any one interest, except at the expense of another interest. Not everybody wants want you want or what I want. OK, didn’t mean to defend the government, but I think you get the picture.

As for the requirements of the Federal Power Act, section 10(j) provides for state and federal agencies to recommend terms and conditions for the “protection, mitigation, and enhancement” of fish and wildlife, and section 18 provides for USFWS and NMFS to prescribe fish passage facilities. The full mitigation standard I referred to was contained in an appeal decision by FERC, known as the Mead Decision, 1996, where FERC spelled out that “mitigation proportionate to project impacts” is the appropriate amount of mitigation. That could be appealed further by the energy industry, but it would be defended by state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, and FERC would have to defend it too, since their lawyers crafted the decision.

That’s correct, I said I thought the Cowlitz runs were doomed when Tacoma first constructed their dams on the river. I meant the original native wild salmon and steelhead runs became doomed. History indicates that was the case. All Cowlitz salmon and steelhead have subsequently come to depend on the success of hatchery production at the Cowlitz salmon and trout hatcheries. Any natural production, even in the lower river has been managed as coincidental, and was not the product of design. With new fish passage systems to collect juvenile fish produced in the upper river, restoration and recovery of both ESA listed and unlisted fish has a serious shot at success. We have learned enough about fish passage systems to know better than to expect perfect operational success. It doesn’t happen anywhere, and it’s not projected to happen with state of the art facilities. But it appears reasonable to expect a high enough success rate in fish collection and passage to restore salmon and steelhead to the upper basin. Natural production from the upper basin will provide harvestable fish. I feel confident about that.

Less certain is where those fish will be harvested. As most of us have come to know, the largest share of Cowlitz salmon are harvested in the ocean fishery, and for coho especially, the lower Columbia River gillnet fishery. Whether there will be wild salmon and steelhead available for harvest in the Cowlitz River depends mostly on the management plan adopted by WDFW. And WDFW seems desperately to be hanging onto the past, even though it has little or no place in the future. I am equally confident of that. The future consists of diminished natural habitat and an ever expanding human population. Natural production of salmon and steelhead cannot possibly satisfy the insatiable demands of commercial and recreational fishing. The management and allocation of any harvestable amount of wild, naturally produced salmon and steelhead will be like threading a small needle while blindfolded. I expect screw-ups.

Sustaining harvestable salmon and steelhead will continue to be the job of the Cowlitz hatcheries, and new facilities should improve the quality and quantity of product. If WDFW does quality and performance assessement and goes where the truth leads them. I see a long term need for FOC, because the hatchery will need to be bird-dogged forever, in my opinion.

Tacoma is on a barbless hook? I like that one. You’re right. If Tacoma breaches its commitments, it will be necessary for the parties to the settlement to enforce the terms. That means going to court, if necessary. That is the only big stick or big gun that our system of justice provides. I’m not counting on FERC. If Tacoma falls off the wagon, I figure you’ll be leading the charge to prod the agencies into legal action.

I think the upper Cowlitz is listed as critical habitat for chinook, with no designation for spring or fall run timing. Why springers and not falls in the upper river? We both know that’s WDFW’s preference. I got the same story from NMFS in Portland. They are more concerned with the recovery of the Cowlitz springers because they are more genetically unique. The Cowlitz falls are “just another run of tules,” and are a lower priority. Please, don’t shoot me; I’m just the messenger. I think it will cost Tacoma just as much for facilities for springers as for falls. More springers are likely to migrate from the upper river as sub-yearlings than as yearlings - I think, so the fish passage requirements are essentially the same. As for the coho stocks, that is a management issue, under the control of WDFW. Techincally, early coho/late coho is not a FERC or Cowlitz relicensing issue. And unless they are listed under ESA, I don’t think NMFS has any influence with WDFW on management emphasis.

Thanks for believing that I can make a difference. Hang in there CFM, I’ll be doing what I can.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.