[QUOTE]Originally posted by Salmo g.:
[QB]CFM,

As for the Cowlitz agreement, I don't think ESA matters much. Chinook and steelhead are listed as threatened species, but if they were unlisted Tacoma is still on the hook (no pun intended). The settlement agreement requires that for the period of the license, the Cowlitz River produce as many, or more, salmon and steelhead as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams in the first place.

On what page of the "Settlement Agree" is that stated?

"Salmo for president"…that's a good one, but before he gets my vote, I need to get a few more answers from him!

Isn't the entire "Agreement" based on recovery of list species? Under the Agreement; "(6.1.4) ESA constraints will be a factor in determining the upper bound of production at the remodeled hatchery complex. Hatchery production numbers are expected to be adjusted downward as wild stocks recover"

Why in earth would Tacoma want to be bound to any "Agreement" if it was to become "business as usual" (old mitigation)? Why would Tacoma, or for that matter, WDFW stay in a "Agreement" or a "contract" with Tacoma that would basically eliminate their jobs, their payroll, and their power to remain the "hatchery managers" after the year 2009? (conditions of Settlement Agreement, 6.1.5) Don't you think that WDFW would love to jump right back into the demands of the 1967 Agreement? What possibly could your agency do to prevent them form doing so if Cowlitz or Columbia River species on the ESA were delisted?

Do you really think that FERC would hold Tacoma to the "Agreement" under the conditions listed in 11.5? 11.5 clearly states "Withdrawal by Tacoma, or by NMFS, USFWS, or WDOE due to a change by FERC to a term or condition within their mandatory conditioning authority under the conditions described in Section 10.2.1 shall render this Agreement void".

When you read what is stated under 10.2.1; you may want to re-think your position! 10.2.1 states "The specific term of the new license for the Project is not an express condition of this Agreement, and the Parties may advocate for a term of at least 30 and not more than 50 years (consistent with Section 15(e) of the FPA) in comments submitted to the FERC, as described in Section 9, above, provided that such advocacy is not inconsistent with the other terms of this Agreement. The Parties agree that any license term of thirty-five to forty years will not constitute a material change allowing a Party to seek rehearing on that issue pursuant to this Section."

Moreover, It is very important for you to fully understand what is also stated in 10.2.2 of the "Agreement"; "10,2.2: In the event that FERC does not reverse the objectionable material change, condition, modification, or omission in an order on petition for rehearing filed as provided above or otherwise further modifies, changes, conditions or omits any provision contained herein, the objecting Party may seek judicial review. Upon final order by FERC or a reviewing court, or expiration of the period for judicial review, the Agreement shall be considered modified to conform to said order. Any Party to the Agreement, within thirty (30) days of such final order or expiration, may withdraw from the Agreement because of the modification, change, condition or omission after providing written notice to the other Parties. Upon such notification, the provisions of Section 11.5 of this Agreement shall apply. Upon withdrawal from this Agreement, a former Party is no longer bound by the Agreement and shall not have waived any rights or otherwise limited its ability to pursue available remedies by virtue of having previously been a Party to this Agreement.

So under 11.5, what makes you believe that your agency can force Tacoma to "produce as many, or more, salmon and steelhead as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams in the first place."?

Salmo, if Tacoma was to withdraw from the "Agreement", which is clearly stated that they can, what possible power would your agency possibly have to force Tacoma into staying bound to the conditions of the "August 2000 Settlement Agreement"? I don't really understand your statement; "…that for the period of the license, the Cowlitz River produce as many, or more, salmon and steelhead as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams in the first place."

Your agency didn't have the "power" during the original license to make Tacoma meet its mitigation, so what powers do you believe that you guys have now to do so? Wasn't ESA in effect during that time period? What powers or laws do you believe now allows your agency to be able to force Tacoma into producing mitigating production of salmon steelhead, and sea run cutthroat to the levels of fish that existed prior to Tacoma dams?

Sorry Salmo, no vote from me until I get all my answers. Maybe then I'll write your name in for "Vice President"…maybe!!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????