I'll make this as short as possible! And just give a reply to each number that warrant rebuttal to your answers.

1) You are 100% wrong! Effective fish passage is practical for dams that fall within the Mayfield range! Let the "facts" speak for themselves! Mayfield fish ladder Pros:

• Permits volitional passage of adults migrants around Mayfield Dam.
• The Clackamas ladder in western Oregon is a perfect example of just such a ladder system that has successfully passed adults salmon and steelhead for decades can work.
• It is can easily be adapted to the existing old fish ladder system that was originally used.
• It can easily incorporate the ability to use trap and haul if the ladder needs repair or maintenance.
• Construction, and operation and maintenance of the fish ladder will have minimal impacts on existing Project operations
• It can incorporate the ability to trap and haul at the bottom of the ladder to provide "flexible operation" and a degree of uninterrupted adult fish passage.
• It can also allow NMFS or WDFW the ability to "sort out different species" if need be.

I am sure that you will be able to dig up just as many "con points" that a person who is opposed to volitional passage at the Cowlitz always seems to do. So do it on your dime!

2) You said; "Blocking fish access to the upper river is a major project impact, and that is why effective fish passage is required in the prospective new license."

That's exactly what I had said before! You (NMFS) did not "require" fish passage; instead all you did was just to put a bunch of impossible "triggers" that can't possibly be met for at least 15 years from now! There is a world of difference between "triggers" and "requiring" and "proscribing" fish passage. Fact: You guys set the "triggers" for fish passage at Mayfield Dam for a single specie, and that was the right thing to do.

But then you guys turned around and tied it into having an additional "different specie" achieving self sustaining return numbers to occur at the same time for a different spices above the Cowlitz Falls Dam. This one should have been a "no brainier" (even for NMFS), and you can not put a spin on that fact! WDFW intentionally used those 2 different species of salmonids as an "additional requirement" for up stream passage, and NMFS went along with them. Why?

NMFS "agreed" to use the "late" winter steelhead and/or chinook for the second "trigger" specie. You (NMFS) already knew that the trapping success for chinook smolts is almost "0" at Cowlitz Falls . . . . so. . da!

If you can't' even catch the downstream smolts, you will never be able to reach or meet self-sustaining numbers of adults that are needed to qualify "the triggers" for upstream passage. Shame on NMFS for even being part of such a scheme!

Your next specie of choice was WDFW's newly created "late" winter steelhead stock. MNFS knew that it was the highest risk of all the species acceptable to contacting the deadly fish killing disease called C-shasta. NMFS should have known through the relicensing studies that the "late" genetically timed winters had been proven to be the most acceptable of all the specie to contracting C-shasta. NMFS also knew that direct or indirect mortality from C. shasta is a function of genetic make–up, fish heath, exposure time, and water temperatures, and that these are all elements that make the "late" winter steelhead the highest at risk. C-shasta has killed millions of the Cowlitz River smolts in past years and there has not been a cure developed to shop it its deadly effects to steelhead or chinook.

NMFS also knew that these "smolts" will be exposed to this disease in upper Cowlitz because the Harza studies had found that it was present there. MNFS knew that almost 100% of the fish that leave the Salmon hatchery are exposed to this disease and the tolls that it takes on them. And yet NMFS chose to approve the use these species for a "trigger" for up stream passage! Please do us all a big favor in the future, and ask NMFS to "pass" on setting fish passage trigger criteria!

3) You say; "Downstream effects are addressed with instream flow requirements, ramping rates, and other restrictions. No one that I’m aware of has been able to separate the impacts on the downstream fish population of the lower Cowlitz from Tacoma’s project effects and the effects of WDFW harvest management, although there are undoubtably in my mind effects from both"

We tried to get you guys to address this early in settlement discussions, but you guys refused to listen to our requests! We brought this issue up time after time, but WDFW and NMFS had nothing but deft ears to our requests! Why? It is a high probability that C-shasta remains strong in the Cowlitz because of those "special" unnatural flows that you guys have set in the Settlement Agreement. C-shasta seems to thrive when water flows do not represent the natural hydraulics of a river. The only thing that the settlement agreement offers is small "flushing" flows to help move fish down river.

Oh, I forgot, you guys are going to "correct" all these "screw ups" in your new elite adaptive management group/plan . . . right?

4) This is not worth debating anymore because you ain't going to change your mind!

5) You say" Yes, I’ve forgotten about that meeting and hundreds of others I attend on a regular basis. I don’t recall WDFW’s numbers, except that they were probably double or more than the pre-project numbers indicated"

Well Salmo, we didn't forget what went down at that meeting when "Wolf" proposed the WDFW numbers for production. Have you forgotten already that we always "recorded" all of those hundreds of meeting? Our recorder has never forgotten a single thing yet! As I recall, Tacoma, NMFS, and TU, were all sitting at the front tables in the USFWS main meeting room with Tacoma's "mediator" when you guys all made a pretty big deal when the WDFW (Wolf) proposed their hatchery numbers. If need be, I'll can get John to dig out the old tapes to refresh history!

6) You are wrong!
You said;" First, there may be 240 miles of habitat in the upper Cowlitz (about half that potentially accessible to anadromous fish if I recall), but it’s anything but virgin"

Old age must be taking its toll on you Salmo, or you have been to one to many meetings! According to Tacoma's DEA there is still over 249 miles of salmonid spawning habitat left above Mayfield (DEA-P3-41) It may not all be "Virgin", but it's still great spawning habitat for salmonids.

7) You said;" No apology forthcoming. You said Tacoma spent over $12KK to delay installing fish ladders. That’s nonsense; not a fact" (I never said it was a fact). "That’s what Tacoma spent on the entire relicensing proceeding, which mostly included stuff unrelated to delaying the installation of a fish ladder. Heck, most all that money was long spent before the subject of fish ladder delay ever came up."

Salmo, if not fish passage, and the "hatcheries" what in the devil to you think the relicensing was all about? Every thing else was just "spending money" which contributed to Tacoma's overall goal and strategy. Those two items alone are probably 90% of Tacoma's "expenses" to operate their dams. It's not only my opinion; it’s a lot of others peoples too!

The rest of that 12 KK was all spent on pretty much bull $hit, like the EDT process, Martha and the rest of the Whores (consultants) that Tacoma had hired to assure that tuck and haul would remain the main means of fish passage! It was all done to discredit the need for volitional fish passage. I don't care what "spin" you try to use or put onto it, the end game was all about avoiding the cost of volitional fish passage and to a lesser degree, eliminating the 2-3 million dollars that they spend each year to run the hatcheries.

8) You should have read the HGMP! It's free to read at; http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/lwrcol/subsum/CowlitzAppE.pdf/

You said;" Also, you know better than to believe everything you read."

I think that NMFS should walk the talk and not believe everything they read either! If they had, they wouldn't of used just the "late" timed winter steelhead!

9) You can read what I have to say about C-shasta in answer #2

10) You said;" I’m not going to debate you here because it takes up too much time, and I’m assigned to do other work, and fun as this is, I’m only going to spend a limited amount of my personal time trying to inform people about this and other fish topics I’m familiar with. As far as influencing the outcome, we’ve already been influencial, but our debate here isn’t likely to change the final outcome."

Well Salmon don't feel to bad, because 100% of my time and research that I have spent here, and at those 5 years of attending Cowlitz relicensing meetings have always been on my "own time"!

I do believe if enough fishermen can read what you claim to be "facts" and what I claim to be the "facts", that they will be able to make up their own minds on what are "the real facts". If, and when that happens, NMFS could expect a huge rebellion against their policies, and you of all people know what that could mean.

You said; "What I can do to have a real influence is to work with engineers and help design better fish passage systems." Salmo, forget the beers; I'll say what's on my mind right now and here! You were very heavily involved in the downstream design for the Cowlitz Fall Fish Collection Facilities in its early design stages. We (you, Dave, and I) all attended the engineering design and Technical meetings with NMFS, WDF, WDW, USFWS and the BPA. Just because you were wearing another hat at that time doesn't mean that your ears had forgotten that both Dave and I had requested the agency engineers to include and incorporate "chinook" into the fish collection facilities design. Obviously, it now appears that they had their hats over their ears too!

I can still hear what your guys reply was now! It's has been stuck in my mind for a decade! You guys all said (paraphrased); "lets not worry to much about chinook at this time because it will just "complicate" things way too much. The design should work, so lets just keep it as simple as possible" And if you are having a problem remembering that being said, just go back to your files and pull out the letter that WDF sent to BPA on 1- 14-92. And I quote "We would not recommend the use of fall chinook at first due to the logistical considerations and an attempt to keep the initial programs as uncomplicated as possible."

So it would appear that both the State and Federal agencies are partly responsible for the current failures of collecting efficiencies for chinook at the Cowlitz Fall Fish Collection Facilities.

11) I think that FERC may have made a ruling on both NMFS and CPR-Fish's appeals yesterday! As of yet, it has not yet been posted on the FERC public web site for review.

12) Look at my reply to you on # 10!

13) Last but not least! You have agreed that "We agree that there is no remaining native, wild, Cowlitz steelhead population, excepting some relics here and there in the basin. Major tributaries may still have some, however."

Then why in the hell are we getting ourselves into this one-way tunnel in the upper Cowlitz? If those fish are not there, why did NMFS come in and list them as threatened or endangered? What was NMFS thinking of?

Salmon, people that do not know you or me may think that we may not like each other at times. Nothing could be further from the truth! We both have extremely strong opinions about our fishery and its resources. There does exist one huge difference between us. You and your opinion are sometimes tied to the bureaucratic system that you must make your living from. I am not! When I debate these issues with you, it is with NMFS or its policy and not you personally. We do need to get together soon and have that long over due beer. . . . or two!


Cowlitzfisherman