FH5,

I’ve written on this topic repeatedly and regularly get my clock cleaned by Cowlitz anglers who disagree with me or what TPU and the agencies have done or are planning to do. Consequently, I hesitate to bother entering this thread, but I like and have an interest in the Cowlitz, so I’ll toss a few lines in.

Personally, I enjoy summer steelheading on the Cowlitz more than any of the other fishing I do there. However, according to the state’s historic fishery records, summer steelhead were either a very minor component of the steelhead run or nearly non-existent on the Cowlitz. In that case, what is Tacoma’s mitigation responsibility for a fish run that didn’t exist at the time the dams were developed? You see, sometimes there is a difference between what we like or what we want and what the law requires. I like to fish for summer steelhead and sea-run cutthroat. But the Federal Power Act requires Tacoma to mitigate its project impacts.

Like any energy utility or company, Tacoma would like to minimize its expenses, and that includes project mitigation expenses. I don’t fault them for that. I’d expect you to do the same. At the time of relicensing, Tacoma indicated they would be happy to continue the existing hatchery program without the burden and cost of reintroducing anadromous fish upstream of its dams. The unified response of agencies, tribes, FOC, and CPRFish, and AR, and TU was to reintroduce anadromous fish into the usable upper Cowlitz watershed. Tacoma agreed to do this, however, they wanted to place the relicensing emphasis on fish recovery. The parties agreed, to varying degrees. Some were focused mainly on recovery. Some wanted it both ways: all the potential recovery of natural reproduction in the upper watershed along with the existing, or even increased, hatchery production.

Tacoma agreed to a method to estimate its fishery mitigation responsibility that was approved by state and federal agencies, the Yakima Tribe, and NGOs that signed a license settlement. That agreement spells out how many adult fish should be produced by the Cowlitz River system on average each year. The fish may result from natural and artificial production. For every fish that results from natural reproduction, that is one less fish that Tacoma is responsible for from hatchery production. The stipulated outcome is that there be as many, and usually more, salmon and steelhead produced by the Cowlitz River in the future as there would be if Tacoma had never built the dams. This is what the law permits, but hasn’t always required.

You are suggesting that sport fishers be outraged. If the Cowlitz receives steelhead runs that equal or exceed the size of the runs that would exist - and did exist before the dams - if the dams were not present, what is the logical basis for the outrage? Or is that outrage based on an emotional response, rather than a logical one?

What, exactly, is it that Tacoma should do, other than fully mitigate - by natural and hatchery production - its project impacts to publicly owned fishery resources?


RK43,

You allege in your post that, “. . . the Cow is now, and should forever be a hatchery river where sporsman can harvest fish for fun and consumtion.” (sic) What do you base your allegation on? I agree that the Cow has been a hatchery river since 1968, but it was a wild fish river before then. And now it’s a mix of hatchery and wild fish. And increasing numbers of wild, or natural produciton fish, if you prefer, are likely.

Just because a river has been one thing for 30 years or so doesn’t mean it has to, or even should, remain that way. If that is your attitude or logic, you should get along well with Tacoma regarding its Cushman project on the North Fork Skokomish River. The Cushman hydroelectric project destroyed the salmon and steelhead runs on that river in 1928. Since Tacoma has left the North Fork without stream flow or fish passage unmitigated, and they would like to keep it that way into the future. Would you agree to let it remain so simply because that has been the status quo for the past 76 years? My point is that things change and circumstances change, and we all could benefit by examining our reasons for wanting something to change or for keeping it the “same.”

Sincerely,

Salmo g.