Salmo
I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I am a little concerned with a few of your responses to MaxMad. You are right, about much of what you have said, but there is also much that is still wrong with what you have stated. I really appreciate it that you have the "gurnards" to put your neck out when all the "state jerks" lay low and continue to hide behind there own shallows
With that said, I question these statements below;
"The low-end 650,000 pound facility is considered large enough by anadromous fish hatchery experts at WDFW, NMFS, USFWS, and private consultants to produce enough hatchery smolts to fully replace all the spring chinook, fall chinook, coho salmon steelhead, and cutthroat trout that migrated upstream of the Mayfield Dam site prior to construction of any of the Cowlitz River dams"
Are you already forgetting that all the fishery agency people also said the same thing when the original license was granted to Tacoma? Don't you remember what was set forth under Opinion No. 221? Tacoma also proposed "extensive" fish hatcheries facilities, and also asserted that any lost spawning potential due the development of the project could be largely, if not completely, offset through the hatcheries (10 FPC 424, 429). The hatcheries were originally designed to meet the maximum number of pounds that it would take to produce the numbers of natural fish production that was blocked above due to Tacoma's Projects on the Cowlitz.
For over 30 years, Tacoma has depended on "there hatcheries production " for producing the total production of fish. There original hatcheries were designed and approved by the same fishery agencies that now have approved the new reduced number of 650,000 pounds of fish. Tacoma failed for over 30 years to produce these numbers of adults and they were using even greater numbers of pounds of fish production then what you have now accepted (650,000). Tacoma has continually failed to meet the migrated numbers of returning "adults" of at lease one salmon speices (Fall Chinook, Spring Chinook and Coho) every year since the hatcheries were built. And now you think just because the "remodeled hatcheries is supposed to be "better", and more efficient one, that we can cut now back on the "hatchery production". Can you explain how that logic is going to work?
Moreover, the poundage that was only being used to produce the pounds that were needed to cover the "production needs" of the "salmon", were only for "Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery", and as far as I can tell, had nothing to do with how much, or how many pounds of steelhead, and cutthroat fish were to be produced at the Cowlitz Trout hatchery! If I am wrong, can you please show me there that is stated in the new Settlement Agreement? Now, everything, including steelhead and cutthroat are all lumped up into the 650,000 "total Poundage".
Article 5; specifically states; "The principal stocks of fish to be produced are the indigenous stocks of spring chinook, fall chinook, coho, sea-run cutthroat trout, and late winter-run steelhead." Beside the "Salmon agreement", the original "steelhead and trout" agreement" also required Tacoma to produce another "191,100 pounds of steelhead and cutthroat" and 50,000 pounds of "resident" fish. The Salmon Hatchery mitigation agreement was a totally separate agreement. Am I missing something here, or was this just another one those "agencies screw ups"?
"CFM asked about the 12,000 steelhead I referred to in my post above, and it isn’t in either the Cramer report or the Settlement Agreement as near as I can tell. I thought it was and am apparently wrong. I only recall that Tacoma was agreeable to leaving steelhead at the previous value around 12,000."
Well, maybe you already have answered the above question!
"The FTC exists for the sole purpose of implementing the Settlement Agreement."
Tacoma and the "agencies had well over 3 long years to develop every single item that the "FTC" is now doing! But instead, they were too lazy and the agencies lacked the backbone to demand the development of these items BEFORE you signed an agreement that allowed Tacoma to get a new operating license. That was the number one reason why YOUR AGENCY was mandated to issue the Biological Opinion (BO) BEFORE you took any actions.
" The Fisheries Technical Committee meetings are limited to parties that signed the Settlement Agreement at Tacoma’s request mainly to limit meetings to two hours instead of taking all day, which is what was estimated if participation was unlimited and allowed opponents of the agreement.
"Mainly the FTC meets to plan and evaluate fisheries studies associated with the project’s FERC license. Most of the studies are about fish passage or hatchery production."
That's not completely true Salmo! The FCT will be making major recommendations that will have very long term affects on our sport fishery that would normally be made by both state and federal agencies and public impute. The only difference now is that you guys are making the recommendation to your self's, and your taking the public out of the picture until you "choose" to bring them in for public impute (if and when you guys feel that you legally need to do so). This allows the agencies and two other "special interest" groups to control what is recommended, and allows you guys to hide behind closed doors and make major fishery decision and recommendations without the public being able to hear, see, or make comments BEFORE you guys make up your minds. It's a violation of FACA, and you know it is!
I have talked to the "sport fishing" guides who had originally signed the "Settlement Agreement". They have told me that the only reason they removed their signature from the agreement was because they were promised by "Toby" (Tacoma's relicensing coordinator) that if they would sign the "agreement", they would be guaranteed a seat on the Fishery Technical Committee (FTC) and that they would have some opportunity to make recommendations as members of the FTC. I was also told that the reason why they removed their signature from the "Agreement" was because Tacoma reneged on their promise after they had signed the final agreement.
"There are smolt collection facilities at Cowlitz Falls Dam presently, but they only capture about half the coho and steelhead smolts, and even fewer chinook smolts."
"The license requires that Mayfield Dam achieve a 95% smolt passage survival, and studies there indicate that about 82% of coho smolts use the louver bypass, and 97% of the coho and steelhead actually survive passage through the OLD Mayfield turbines and 87% in the NEW turbine."
Maybe you can explain what the "real" survival rates are for both fall and spring "chinook" are at the Mayfield Project? If memory serves me right, Tacoma and WDF never could catch or trap enough of either of these two species in sufficient enough numbers at the Mayfield collection facilities, and that was one of the major reasons why MNFS, USFWS, WDF and Tacoma, all agreed to abandon the natural production in the Tilton Basin, and depend 100% on the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery production. What has now changed? They have always had fair collection on coho and steelhead at Mayfield, but never on chinook! So what's the deal now?
You also said;
[quote]"Therefore, it’s not true that juvenile fish cannot migrate downstream past the dams."
Can you tell us how many Spring Chinook or Fall Chinook successfully migrate through the traps or turbines at Cowlitz Falls, Mossyrock, or the Mayfield Dam now?
"The result is that wild coho are not “non-existant” in the Cowlitz River. Wild coho smolts numbering over a quarter million have been collected at Cowlitz Falls, and as many as 75,000 wild coho smolts have passed through the Mayfield counting house."
Not bad Salmo! It only took 15,814 adults coho in 2001 and another 22, 699 adult coho in 2002 (That’s over 38,513 adult coho) being released into Mayfield and the Tilton River to achieve natural production, and we only trapped or collected 75,000 wild coho smolts! Something doesn't add up Salmo! So if the trapping rates for Mayfield are so good, and 82% of coho smolts use the louver bypass, why are we only getting a mere 75,000 "wild" coho smolts? Since most coho leave as smolts, what's the deal?
The Settlement agreement that you guys signed defines a "Wild salmonid" or "wild, naturally spawning", as a stock of fish that is "sustained by natural spawning" and rearing in the natural habitat, regardless of parentage.
Since WDFW has planted millions upon millions of unmarked coho fry above Cowlitz Falls Dam up until 2 years ago, how could anyone really call those "quarter million" of coho smolts "wild coho"?
Many, if not all, of those 250,000 "wild coho" that have been collected are most likely the smolts that have come from the plants of millions of unmarked hatchery fry!
I guess it all depends on what your definition of is…. is!
If we go by your own agencies definition of what a wild fish is, you might want to rearrange your statement; "Wild coho smolts numbering over a quarter million have been collected at Cowlitz Falls.."
Most of them are not really "wild" but were raised naturally!
"What you may not like is that as the returns of wild fish increase, Tacoma is allowed to cut back on hatchery production proportionally, but not before. This is because Tacoma is not required to manufacture as many fish as possible. Tacoma is required to mitigate losses caused by its project."
Since survivals rates are highly affected by what happens out in the ocean, how in the world are you guys going to decide when its time to "cut" back on hatchery production for fall chinook, spring chinook, coho, steelhead, and sea run cutthroat? I really would like to hear your answer on this one! Since the "Agreement" does not cover this, as far as I can see, how is this going to be decided? Does someone just toss a coin? I read "Article 5 " (Fish Production and Hatcheries) and it appears that someone must have forgot to mention how this "mystery process" was going to work! Or maybe we should trust that Tacoma will do "the right thing"!
Finally you said;
"I don’t see how you could call the Cowlitz “toast” after consecutive years of record coho runs, and improved spring and fall chinook returns the last couple years. It’s only toast, if toast means whiners don’t get what they want. The Cowlitz continues to, and will continue to, be one of the most prolific salmon and steelhead rivers on the lower Columbia. How can that be “toast”?"
It's not only "toast"; it's now called "burnt toast"! When we could catch 17,270 winter runs and 6,313 summer runs for a total of 25,583 steelhead in the 86/87 sport fishery season, I think it's safe for MaxMad to say that it's now "toast"! If it took us 900,000 pounds of combined fish production to achieved those return numbers when ocean conditions were the best that they have been in decades! How in devil do you ever expect to see such returns again when you guys have now cut back 1/3 of the total fish production, and ocean conditions go back to what they had been before?
Max. I am afraid that you did "get it right"
Cowlitzfisherman
Previous Topic
Index
