Salmo

I know that you said that you were done and won't be able to reply, but you left to many strings hanging, and you also have asked me several questions, so I am answering them now.

You made this statement;" Just because Tacoma is running the river differently today than historically doesn’t mean they are doing something wrong. I really don’t care. What I care about is whether Tacoma’s flow manipulation harms fish."

I made this statement;" Salmo, you said; "Just because Tacoma is running the river differently today than historically doesn’t mean they are doing something wrong. I really don’t care"

Then I made this statement; "That is pretty obvious!"

Now you're telling me;" Ouch! That’s foul taking my “I don’t care” comment out of context. Feels like a cheap political shot.

What did I take out context, or what was my cheap shot? What other context was I to take it as?

You asked me; "How is the lack of a BO “says it all”?"

Like I had said in my last post;"… your unwritten BO that is needed to support your agreeing to the terms, and conditions in the Settlement Agreement!" How was the public going to have an opportunity to challenge the actions that NMFS had taken if there was no BO?

NMFS must have and use sound biological information to support them when thay make the terms and conditions, so if you didn't do the BO, How would anyone know if you used sound biological information?

The reason for NMFS doing the BO first is to "justify "WHY" NMFS is "recommending or purposing" to take such actions. The BO is supposed to show the biological grounds and reasons why NMFS is making such recommendations! It was never meant to be done some 2 ½ years later after the actions were taken, and now will be written in such a way that it now covers up all the "loose ends" that were not biologically sound or justifiable at the time that NMFS took such actions! It's all out of the "legal sequence". It's like getting the carriage ahead of the horse!

It's not supposed to work that way! Better yet, its like building a house and starting from roof down in hopes that it all comes together when it meets the foundation!

You say:" The BO is but a small part of the license proceeding." Well it's big enough to stop Tacoma from receiving a new operating license for 2 ½ plus years! It's big enough that 1 of 3 of FERC Commissioners was so concerned that he wrote a descending opinion that spells out exactly how important a BO is! In fact, this is what he said;

Issued July 18, 2003: by FERC Commissioner Massey:

"As the order points out, the Commission's staff has submitted its biological assessment concluding that relicensing the project in accordance with the Settlement Agreement is "likely to adversely affect" chinook salmon, chum salmon, and steelhead trout, as well as their critical habitat. We can reasonably conclude that there will be some incidental taking. Thus, this case is distinguishable from Chelan County,1 where staff had concluded that the proposed action would not result in any incidental taking.

Although I am highly sympathetic with the majority's frustration that delay in receiving NMFS's biological opinion only delays implementation of a comprehensive settlement agreement designed to incrementally benefit the listed species in the longer term, the law is clear. The Commission is barred by law from proceeding with an action that results in incidental taking without written authorization in the form of an incidental take statement that is a part of a biological opinion. We have no such biological opinion here.

2-Under the Endangered Species Act, if the Commission proceeds with an action without the benefit of the biological opinion, and the action results in an unauthorized taking, the Commission, individual Commissioners, and staff members could be subject to civil penalties up to $25,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(a) and (b).

The majority's rationale for proceeding – that the public interest will be better served – has a lot of appeal. Nevertheless, despite our frustration and good intentions, the Commission does not have the legal authority to take this otherwise laudable action.

For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent. "

So the BO is "pretty darn important" and even FERC was very concerned about taking any action without one! It's the only tool that FERC can use to analyze whether or not the FERC license jeopardizes the survival and recovery of listed species."

You say; "All it will do is analyze whether the FERC license jeopardizes the survival and recovery of listed species."

That is true, but it will also draw the conclusion that the so called" Settlement Agreement" does not fully address or protect the "taking of endangered species". And that will lead to possible major changing of the terms and conditions in the agreement.

You also said;" The license does authorize actions that will cause incidental take of listed species. However, in this case, the benefits considerably outweigh the losses to listed fish. I think the BO is necessary to close the book on the license proceeding, but I don’t see how it will profoundly affect the outcome compared to the mitigation actions contained in the settlement agreement - EXCEPT - in one significant way. Issuance of the BO is likely to trigger the clock that causes Tacoma to open up their checkbook and begin spending the serious money that is required to get the new downstream fish passage facilities constructed and in operation. In what other way is the BO going to significantly affect the outcome on the Cowlitz?"

Well Salmo, this is what the "lack" of not having your BO has done, and this is only for the year 2003! A local fishery expert has summed it all up and I will just post his words. They have just been sent to NMFS;

"Michelle,
I see that you are on John Serl's email distribution list for the Cowlitz Falls Fish Facility Weekly Report. He sent the last report of the season out last week. I wanted to call attention to the low percentages of juvenile steelhead, coho and chinook caught by the facility. John reported, "Season mark-recapture FCE estimates (see table) for the 2003 season were improved for steelhead, typical for coho and poor for chinook. Steelhead averaged 68% and coho averaged 43%.

Chinook (mostly 0's) averaged only 13%. Hopefully the radio telemetry conducted by the USGS this year will explain why this average is so low." These collection efficiency estimates were empirically derived through mark-release studies. Any fish not bypassed and collected at Cowlitz Falls either go through the turbines (primarily) or over the spillway and into Riffe Lake.

Any juvenile steelhead and salmon entering Riffe Lake are exposed to significant mortality since Mossyrock Dam is not equipped with juvenile bypass facilities and has deep-drafting penstocks.

To get an idea of the magnitude of the mortality of listed species (juveniles) originating from the upper Cowlitz, John reported that 14,729 unmarked juvenile steelhead and 33,849 juvenile chinook were caught at Cowlitz Falls dam and transported to acclimation ponds at the Cowlitz fish hatchery before being released into the lower river. Applying the above FCE values for 2003, an estimated 6,931 of the 21,660 total unmarked steelhead and 226,527 of the 260,377 total juvenile chinook arriving at the dam were not collected and transported. No mention is made of steelhead kelts; however, the post-spawning mortality of these fish caused by the projects is probably significant.

Fish passage at the Cowlitz Falls and Mossyrock projects is a major problem that BPA, Lewis County PUD, and BPA do not appear likely to resolve in the near future, despite the adverse impacts they are causing. Is there something your agency can do to compel them to improve conditions and stop violating Section 9 take prohibitions?"

Salmo, these numbers certainly show just how large the "take issue" really is at Riffe Lake. And that means that Tacoma is doing the "taking of the endangered species".

Maybe you are right about me feeling wrong that "I" was getting "screwed" Clearly the number of endangered species that are being trapped or killed every year, are the ones that are really "getting screwed"!

Finally, you said;" If you or anyone had shown evidence that meets the best available science standard that the Cowlitz River would produce more salmon and steelhead, in a without dams condition, than provided for in the settlement, then I wouldn’t have settled for any lessor value."

With these kind of numbers of healthy natural raised fish that are being destroyed each year, one could certainly say that "the Settlement Agreement" is not doing what it was talked up to do. Maybe we could get more fish if we had no dams!

I hope now that I have answered your entire set of questions. I am sorry for getting on you personally, but you’re the only person that I know who works high enough up in NMFS to get any results. So don't take it personally when I tend to "jump" on you about these issues. As an old biologist once said;" We are both dedicated to the fishery resource, each in our own way."


Cowlitzfisherman