Yikes! Where to begin? How about CFM’s question: “Well what's the mater WDFW-NMFS, does the cat have their agencies spokesmen holding their tongues again?” Actually, no, and I’m no spokesman, but I have been very busy and finally took 3 days off to go trout fishing. I do check this board often, but I also have other interests.

This issue is complex, perhaps too much so to cover on the BB. CFM seems to feel that Tacoma is getting off too easy in its FERC license. Maybe. The law, as supplemented by FERC’s own ruling, is that the utility should provide “. . . mitigation proportionate to project impacts.” Unsurprisingly, not everyone interprets this to mean the same thing, so different parties set out to achieve different outcomes with the Cowlitz license.

I take it to mean that Tacoma should provide mitigation such that there are as many fish in the Cowlitz River in the future as there would be if there were no Tacoma (or in this case also Lewis Co. PUD) dams on the river. Fortunately, there are state records either enumerating or estimating the numbers of salmon and steelhead in the Cowlitz River just prior to and at the time the dams were being constructed. There is an appendix to the Settlement Agreement that defines these numbers, based on real data, and describes how they are to be measured during the term of the new license.

The SA doesn’t say how many hatchery or how many wild fish Tacoma must produce. Just that the combination of hatchery and wild fish must add up to the numbers present during the pre-project period. Some people find this unsatisfactory. I don’t. I feel that Tacoma is required to comply with a law that makes sense. Just as if the fish were a privately owned resource, Tacoma could not destroy them without making things whole for the owner. In this case the public is the owner, and the SA requires Tacoma to “make whole” the fishery resource. What more could the public legitimately ask for, let alone require?

CFM said: “There is just no good reason on earth that we could not have had both hatchery and "natural" production both going on in the upper Cowlitz basin! I defy any board member or WDFW staff to prove otherwise! The nightmare on the Cowlitz can be credited to three groups in my opinion. First and foremost is Tacoma Power. Second is the NMFS. Third, is the WDFW!”

It appears that requiring a energy utility to mitigate its project impacts, no more, no less, results in a nightmare. Fine; I understand that is your opinion. The law may not agree with you.

True, you might have both hatchery and natural production in the upper Cowlitz basin. However, that’s not the same as quantifying Tacoma’s mitigation responsibility, which is what the SA is about. In addition, another law applies, the Endangered Species Act, which wasn’t much of a player when the Cowlitz reintroduction plan was originally being developed. As a result, NMFS prohibits the transport or migration of Chambers Creek and Skamania steelhead to the upper Cowlitz. So even if there were a fish ladder in place today, all adult fish would still be stopped at the Cowlitz salmon hatchery, with only the fish with the proper “credentials” being allowed upstream.

CFM occasionally substitutes his opinion for facts: “Tacoma spent way over 12 million dollars to assure that fish ladders would not be installed for at least the first 15 years, and that the future hatchery production would be cut back so that wild fish would become the highest priority and goal .” Tacoma spent $12KK on relicensing the hydro project, but it’s a stretch to say they spent that much trying to delay constructing a fish ladder.

“NMFS assisted Tacoma by not demanding "volitional" fish passage at both Dams (fish ladder at Mayfield and a "tram" system at Mossyrock). That way, both hatchery fish and "natural fish" could both utilize over 240 miles to spawn and produce whatever the water shed was capable of supporting. Since All STOCKS of fish that where to be used were from the same current hatchery stocks, it would have made no difference in the first place! And even "IF" one of the species was not 100% from the Cowlitz, what difference would it really make? I would like to see how NMFS could defend its position on this issue.”

This has been through the ringer here before, but once again, NMFS accepts WDFW’s assessment of the genetic background of the various Cowlitz stocks as reasonable. Steelhead may have come from several hatchery sources, but the primary source of winter steelhead in western Washington is Chambers Creek/South Tacoma and Skamania for summer steelhead. The late winter hatchery stock is probably not pure Cowlitz, but it is probably the closest living relative to pure Cowlitz steelhead. As such, it is a logical, if not the only, choice for the reintroduction. Personally, I think the Skamania are close enough geographically to also be suitable, but so far WDFW has decided against their use. Perhaps that will change in the future, as Skamania are under consideration for Lewis River reintroductions. The defense is pretty simple. The best available science suggests that native, near adjacent, and locally-adapted stocks have the best chance of surviving as naturally producing fish. That can include locally-adapted hatchery stocks, but they are not the first choice.

“Finally, but certainly not last, is our own WDFW. They had the power and the trusted responsibility to demand fish passage that would have allowed both natural and hatchery fish to co-exist together and once again produce naturally produced fish that would once again make the Cowlitz the mighty river that she once was!” WDFW doesn’t have the authority to demand fish passage at federally licensed hydro dams. That is the jurisdiction of the federal agencies, which both did prescribe fish passage facilities for the Cowlitz project. As far as “. . . the mighty river that she once was!”, that’s hyperbole, and it would be pointless for me to respond.

“Personally, I think that both WDFW and NMFS needs to explain their actions and reasoning for what they have now done to the Cowlitz River fishery. I am looking forward to debating this issue so that the entire board can see just how screwed the fishermen really got on the Cowlitz River Settlement.”

I’m not going to debate this here. I really don’t have the time, and I doubt it would be beneficial to the outcome. NMFS actions were twofold: under the Federal Power Act, NMFS attempts to secure mitigation of project impacts to public trust fishery resources. WDFW has a similar obligation. Under the ESA, NMFS evaluates project impacts on listed species and may impose conditions to aid the survival and recovery of the listed fish species.

“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.”

One of the facts of federal dam licensing is that the SA and license conditions do not become enforceable until the license takes effect. The license does not take effect until the appeals process is exhausted. CFM’s organization is one that is appealing the license, thereby contributing to delay of license implementation. NMFS also appealed, requesting that the license not take effect until FERC completes consultation for the Cowlitz license under ESA.

“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?”

CFM, you couldn’t be more wrong. They’re both going to pay, and plenty. That’s the easy part. The really hard part, as mentioned in one of Smalma’s posts, is developing a highly effective juvenile fish collection and passage system. It hasn’t been invented yet, but we are working our tails off on it.

For what it’s worth, I’ll respond to Skydriftin’s post also. He said: “All that aside, there is no realistic way any native steelhead still swimming up the cowlitz. And we have zero luck introducing steelhead with the intention of them sustaining a wild population. I say keep the cowlitz the hatchery fish machine it is. I hate to agree with CFM, but I think think the power company [Bleeeeep!] us on this one. I don't think they give a damn about wild fish, only saving $ on the production of hatchery fish.”

It depends. WDFW believes the late winter hatchery steelhead stock is native to the Cowlitz. That would make them native, but not wild. Fry from those hatchery fish have been released into the upper Cowlitz for several years now. So from hatchery stock of native origin, we have again a stock of native origin and natural, or wild, production. Same with coho and, to a lesser extent, chinook. Why do you think the power company [Bleeeeep!] you? Tacoma has agreed to provide the same number of fish to the Cowlitz as there were pre-project. I think this is a first in a Settlement Agreement and mitigation condition in a FERC license. FYI, Tacoma believes it would be cheaper to continue to provide all the fisheries mitigation via the hatcheries. They think it will cost more to produce the wild fish due to the expense of upstream, and especially downstream, fish passage facilities.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.