Jerry,

Thanks, but I don't do BB challenges, and CFM has more questions than I have time. And I did take a little trout fishing vacation.

I haven't seen the latest on the Lewis. As of 2 weeks ago, there was still no agreement. The approach is similar to the Cowlitz. That is: full mitigation for project effects. It's more difficult on the Lewis because there is only one data point regarding pre-dam run sizes, and only for coho. So the fish population sizes were estimated with a model, and people disagree roughly according to their pre-conceived notions about how many fish there were in the good old days.

Generally, the utilities (Pacificorp and Cowlitz Co. PUD) agree to the full mitigation concept, but they think stakeholders are trying to double and triple dip into their purse. What that means is some folks want it all: full hatchery production, fish passage at all the dams, and restoration of all the habitat. That may be well and good, but it isn't what the law provides for. Please refer to the Cowlitz thread where I described that.

Again, the utilities want to be able to deduct the natural production that results from reintroduction and fish passage facilities from their hatchery production responsibility. That does seem fair - not to mention legal - to me. They are only responsible for the fish that would be there if they hadn't built the dams, not twice as many.

Anyway, no agreement yet. I should get a report on what's happening by the end of this week.

Oh, and Fish First is on the front line there.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.