Smalma,

Why are we so far apart on our communications? It simply must be because you thing like the agency does and I think like a laymen. Let's try one more time to bridge the gap.

Tired, yet? Not me! I am just getting my second win!

You have said; "I seem to remember (read or heard) that the settlement called for fish passage (fish ladder/tram?) to be provided at Mayfield Dam very similar to what was there 40 years ago."

You did hear that right, but you apparently did not hear what I had said about Koenings demanding higher "triggers" then any one else did, except Tacoma. Since I have given you factual information showing you that both spring chinook and falls did not utilizes the area (Tilton) to any large degree. Why in the devil would our department want to tie in fish passage to the Tilton with fish passage to the upper Cowlitz River area above Cowlitz Falls if they were really concerned about using whatever habitat was available for "natural production? How could WDFW possibly suggest that fish can possibly be raised more cheaply or better then that of what nature does for nothing?

You asked me;" If my memory is correct you seem to be getting what you want - what is the problem? Is it not occurring fast enough?"

No Smalma, over 50 years of truck and hauling was more then enough time to prove to most reasonable minded people, that truck and haul, has been a total failure on the Cowlitz. You need to ask the fish if it is "fast enough", not me! You know how the agency has screwed with the fish before, so what possibly makes you think that they won't keep screwing with them again and again?

Smalma, I do not understand your position on this issue. Now you say; "Trap and Haul facilities seem to have long been an acceptable alternative in those situation where ladders were not feasible." As a biologist, you should have figured that one out. Can you give us any other "acceptable alternative" that could have been used at that time to get fish over the highest dam in the state? I don't think so! Can you please name one or two other ways that the department has used to "pass" fish over dams?

Since the NMFS representative who pushed for the truck and haul on the Cowlitz also worked on developing the truck and haul for Baker, I am not impressed one little bit with your statement. If you were to read the "Draft Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facilities Guidelines and Criteria" that was developed by the NMFS in North Region, Portland, Oregon, I do believe that you would not be stuck in that 1960 mentality way of thinking. Times have change, and truck and haul is on its way out (thank god!)!

Enough for upstream passage!

Let's go onto your suggestion and discuss how we are getting screwed on the down stream issue. Why do you suppose that Koenings kept his mouth shut on this issue in the "Settlement Agreement"? If it was so important as you have claimed it to be, where was he on this issue? I can tell you where he was…I think it's like his head was up his . . .!

You talk about BS and jokes, that is what our WDFW and NMFS has become on the Cowlitz settlement. You need to read the Settlement Agreement for your self, and then try to defend WDFW position. NNFS was supposed to see that Tacoma would work collaboratively with BPA to assure that downstream trapping success was successful and met NFMS standards. What a joke that one is! Two and one half years later after the "settlement" was signed and 29 monthly reports later to FERC, nothing has yet to happen, or has been done to assure that the smolts will be captured at Cowlitz falls as NMFS had required Tacoma to do in the settlement agreement.

There is no question in my mind, Friends of the Cowlitz, Steelhead Trout Club of Washington, or CPR-Fish's minds that somebody is doing nothing "as usual". Smalma, the money issue is a JOKE! Tacoma makes at "least 17" million dollars a year off the Cowlitz River Project.

The only thing that is "difficult" to answer about the "downstream" fish collection facilities on the Cowlitz right now is who is going to pay for them! Is it Tacoma or BPA?

Finally, concerning RCW 77.04.012, it is reasonable to expect the director to assure that "each specie on the Cowlitz" has passage over the dames. That includes eels, white fish, suckers, and all the other species of anadromous fish. I really don't have any idea why you brought up "rock sole (food fish), robbins (wildlife) and butter clams". I guess we tend to bring things up when we are reaching for examples, but that reach was way too far for me.

This is what Tacoma was required to do; Article 1. Downstream Fish Passage: Riffe Lake and Cowlitz Falls Collection and Passage.

a) Within six (6) months of license issuance, Licensee shall develop and submit a plan for downstream fish passage and collection at Riffe Lake and Cowlitz Falls. The Licensee shall prepare the plan in collaboration with, and subject to approval by, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The plan shall include: 1) a report on the results of negotiations among the Licensee, Lewis County Public Utility District (licensee for the Cowlitz Falls Project, FERC No. 2833) and the Bonneville Power Administration regarding shared funding of cooperative efforts to improve downstream passage and collection effectiveness at or near Cowlitz Falls; 2) proposed facilities and measures most likely to achieve the goal of 95% Fish Passage Survival (“FPS”), as defined in the August 2000 Settlement Agreement, to be funded by the Licensee to contribute to effective downstream passage and collection at or near Cowlitz Falls and/or to be constructed by the Licensee downstream of Cowlitz Falls Dam at Riffe Lake; 3) plans to support the on-going operation and maintenance of facilities and measures for downstream passage and collection at or near Cowlitz Falls and/or at Riffe Lake each year for the term of the license; 4) plans for monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness, including determination of the combined FPS of the existing, proposed new and/or improved facilities at or near Cowlitz Falls and/or Riffe Lake; and 5) a construction and implementation timeline not to exceed 12 months from plan approval by the Commission, unless the Licensee can establish good cause for additional time and implementation timeline not to exceed 12 months from plan approval by the Commission, unless the Licensee can establish good cause for additional time".

This has about as much strength as wet toilet paper, and smells just about the same! You say: "My read is that it calls for much more than that. If you are looking for RCW 77.04.012"

Well maybe you better have your eyes checked soon. I hope that you check the NMFS passage criteria and come back and tell me that you just may have been wrong. Why is it that most all WDFW and a few NMFS people believe that fish belong in trucks?

Sorry for sounding a "little mad", but I always have to say what I feel!

Nothing intended personal against you Smalma. It's all aimed at your so-called "agency leaders".


Cowlitzfisherman