FH5,

Define “they.” Tacoma doesn’t decide what to raise at the hatcheries it funds, nor does Tacoma plant fish. WDFW decides what fish to raise, and WDFW, or its delegate, plants fish in the Cowlitz River. WDFW decided to introduce Chambers Creek and Skamania steelhead into the Cowlitz River system.

I think the Todd you’re referring to is the energy generation manager for Tacoma Power. If so, he runs powerdams, not fish hatcheries. I think all but one of the employees at the Cowlitz hatcheries are employees of WDFW. I don’t know who the current hatchery manager is. Nonetheless, impressions are just that. I suppose some sportsmen do want the Cowlitz “turned back to wild fish.” However, I don’t know any that have such a limited preference.

Most that I know seem to want a mix of hatchery and wild (natural production for those who believe there can be no wild or native fish in the Cowlitz) salmon and steelhead. Some wanted a specified number of wild fish. I don’t support that because no one knows, or can know, how many wild fish the Cowlitz is capable of sustaining under present and prospective conditions. I support allowing the Cowlitz to produce as many wild salmon and steelhead as it is capable of producing under the future conditions it faces. I support making up the difference between that number of fish and Tacoma’s full mitigation responsibility with hatchery fish, with the added provision that hatchery fish should not be produced to such excess that they substantially interfere with the recovery of wild chinook and steelhead. Others have said they want hatchery fish produced at least at the numbers and pounds of recent years. Still others want even higher numbers of hatchery fish than were produced under the previous license. The driver should be the specifications for spring and fall chinook and coho in Tacoma’s new license. My understanding is that the intended steelhead mitigation number is 12,000 adults, but that number doesn’t appear in the settlement agreement. There is enough leeway in the hatchery production capacity, however, to achieve that number of adult steelhead along with the required salmon mitigation numbers as far as I know. As you may suspect, some folks think otherwise.

It’s one thing to be upset about change, as most of us are creatures of habit. And catching lots of fish is a habit many of us lust to acquire. It’s a different thing to insist that Tacoma is cheating the public out of its fishery resource. Unfortunately, that cannot be verified absolutely; it can only be estimated. I’ve seen the records of the numbers of spring and fall chinook, coho, and steelhead that passed the Mayfield damsite before the dam was constructed. I’ve seen the estimates, developed by Cramer and Associates, that account for Cowlitz salmon harvests in the lower Columbia River and Pacific Ocean in addition to the escapement counts at Mayfield. The combined values are set out as Tacoma’s mitigation responsibility in its new license. That will be the yardstick that measures whether Tacoma is meeting its fish mitigation responsibility to the public. The number of summer steelhead that returned this year and last year are not the yardstick, but if the total steelhead return (harvest plus escapement) averages less than 12,000 adult fish, then I think you’ve got something to beef about.

No, I didn’t know there were 4,900 live silvers in the NF last year, although I’m not surprised. As the instream flows have been increased in the NF Skok from zero to 30 cfs to 60 cfs, fish production has increased, with coho doing particularly well. Did you know that a few coho got upstream of the lower falls? But there are also chinook, chum, cutthroat, and some steelhead utilizing this little river now. Imagine that river with a four-fold increase in instream flow and passage around the dams. That’s what Tacoma’s FERC license requires, but they’re appealing and suing right now.

Perception is interesting. I observe hydropower projects throughout the northwest. Here at the PP BB I read about Tacoma’s deplorable behavior toward fisheries mitigation on the Cowlitz River, yet I find myself almost defending Tacoma because it’s perfectly obvious that they fund one of the largest fishery mitigation programs in the nation (which at least arguably fulfills their legal mitigation responsibility), and they do provide reasonably good instream flows downstream of that project, altho there is room enough to argue that streamflow should be a little higher or lower at certain seasons of the year. And Tacoma provides reasonably good streamflow conditions downstream of its Nisqually River hydro project. And then there is Cushman on the NF Skokomish. If you’re looking for scumbag behavior, look no further. Tacoma literally stole this river from the public and the Skokomish Tribe, having never properly licensed the project, providing NO water for streamflow for 50 years, or fish passage for 76 years, and counting. Tacoma’s total contribution to Skok mitigation is the provision of partial funding for the George Adams hatchery operations and maintenance. It seems to me that there is far more to be seething about on the Skok than the Cowlitz, at least in relative terms.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.