Salmo you gotta be kidding me!!! Go to this WDFW site and look at the smolt plants for the Cowlitz River. Spring 2003.... 392,000 smolts released to return winter 2004-5 and 158,700 smolts released to return summer 2005 at Blue Creek. This compares to past years where close to 1 million winter-run and 500,000 summer-run have been released. Tacoma Light and WDFW have put this brain-child together because the large smolt release "may have an effect on the Chinook runs" but mostly will save Tacoma power a pile on money. Look forward to many years of poor fishing in the Cowlitz like this past winter and still the Chinook runs will be hammered by the tribal and commercial nets. Face it Salmo...WDFW's priorities are;
1. Tribal Fishing
2. Commercial Fishing
3. Going to conferences and talking about tribal and commercial fish management

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/harvest/03-04/smolts.htm

I just sent this email to Director Koenings and the Washington State Fish Commision.

Jeffrey Koenings and Commissioners,

I am writing this letter to you asking that you do not sign Tacoma’s final draft FHMP. The Cowlitz River has been a source of immense enjoyment fishing for winter and summer-run steelhead over the years for many people. Allowing Tacoma Light to get out of it’s mitigation responsibilities it agreed to when Mayfield Dam was erected will be yet another major blow to sports fishermen that often leaves us wondering if sport fishing opportunities are all that high a priority for our Washington State fish managers. Natural fish runs on the Cowlitz have been destroyed by the building of dams. The least that Tacoma Light can do is follow-through with their commitment to restoring/maintaining strong fish populations with hatchery programs that provide good fishing opportunity for sports fishers on the Cowlitz. We need 900,00 winter-run steelhead smolts and 500,00 summer-run steelhead smolts at a minimum released yearly in the Cowlitz in accordance with original agreements that would make up for the loss of wild steelhead and salmon opportunity. Now Tacoma Light wants to save a bundle of cash under the guise of “saving lower Columbia Chinook”. Don’t buy into this smokescreen. This is not a gain for sports fishing opportunity…this will be a major loss of opportunity and it has already begun with much lower smolt release counts on the Cowlitz in the past few years 2003/2004 with resulting poor fishing starting this winter. Summer 2005 we can expect 1/3 less summer-run steelhead returns to Blue Creek because smolt released in 2003 were only 158,000!!! That is a crying shame. Do the right thing, please demand that Tacoma Light modifies their Final Draft FHMP to agree to full fish mitigation not a half-hearted effort at mitigation. Restore our faith…make a stand for the sport-fishermen of Washington State.

Please help me here. I'm looking for the size of the run of Wild Steelhead expected return to the Cow. I've only been able to find catch stats that show about 100 being recorded in 2001(how many were unmarked Hatchery?) I want to know what figures the groups are going off of to think there is sufficient stock to repopulate the wild run. In the past I fished the Cow plenty and have never even heard of a wild fish being caught, I have seen plenty of unmarked hatchery fish, but not one wild fish.

I don't fish the Cow but I don't want all that do spilling onto systems that I fish. So please urge these groups to stop what they are doing and make Tacoma city power return the Cow to what it once was. like they are supposed to be doing.

Good job Ridgeway I'll do the same when I can gather enough facts

Jet jockey yes Friends of the Cowlitz is still alive and kickin and could use all the support it can get .

Skydriftin,

I’m calling BS on your assertion that “the Cowlitz should return to the hatchery fish factory it used to be.” Show me where it is written that the Cowlitz should be a hatchery fish factory. There simply is no law of nature that any river must be a hatchery fish factory. That is a fabrication of your mind based on three decades of operating the river system as a hatchery fish factory. Further, and more significantly, there is no law of the nation or state that declares any river, nor the Cowlitz specifically, must be a hatchery fish factory. Because something was one way for 30 years, do you automatically assume that the law of nature and the law of man have determined that was the way it was meant to be forevermore? If so, you need to check your assumption. It is flawed.

Where do you get the idea that Tacoma Power is getting by without mitigation? If you read Tacoma’s FERC license, and the Cramer appendix, you’ll see that the utility is required to provide fisheries mitigation equivalent to the average run sizes of spring and fall chinook and coho that existed at the time the first dam, Mayfield, was built. The parties also agreed to 12,000 steelhead, which was the average number returning when Mayfield was built, altho it isn’t specified in the license. Recent steelhead runs have been averaging well above the agreed number. How is Tacoma not meeting its mitigation obligation?

Yes, most of us love wild fish, and they are nearly non-existant in the Cowlitz. They are nearly non-existant because no one managed the fishery for the existence of wild fish. Now they are, at least sorta’. And that makes all the difference. What makes you think the Cowlitz isn’t itself? Recent returns of spring and fall chinook have been good. Coho returns have been at record levels. Summer steelhead returns have also set all time records. Now tell me again just what makes your complaint justified?

I do battle with power companies on behalf of fish all the time. However, I do so when and where necessary. It’s necessary when it makes sense. If Cowlitz returns in the 21st century are at the same levels they were at the middle of the 20th century, it hardly seems like the power company is failing its legal fishery mitigation obligations. What other rivers in this state are producing fish at the levels they did in 1960?

Dunkbait,

It’s true that much of the mainstem Cowlitz is covered by hydro reservoirs, but there remain between 150 to 200 miles of suitable salmon and steelhead habitat upstream of those dams. That habitat can, and now is, producing wild, or naturally rearing, coho and steelhead, along with a few chinook. As fish passage improvements continue, natural fish production will continue to increase.

The Cowlitz should a “hatchery machine.” Why? Because you and other avid fisherman like it that way? I’m trying to get you and others to think about what you’re saying and why you’re saying it. You think it should be a certain way because that’s how you’ve experienced it recently. But it hasn’t always been that way. And more importantly, there is no law of nature or man that dictates that it should be the way you seem to assume it ought to be.

You might think it’s a waste of money to try to bring wild fish back to rivers like the Cowlitz, but others think it’s a good investment. The WA state legislature directed WDFW to restore production to the upper river if it’s feasible. And federal laws like the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act and the Endangered Species Act direct federal agencies to do much the same. It looks like it is feasible with current advancements in fish passage technology.

The power companies are not using the wild fish policies to reduce their fish mitigation. They are using laws that have been available for many years to limit their mitigation obligations to approximately what their project impacts are, rather than what they agreed to in former settlement and mitigation agreements. And their mitigation expenses are not decreasing when they have to spend millions of dollars constructing new fishways. Growing the hatchery fish is usually cheaper.

Thanks for the link to Cowlitzfisherman’s post about changes in Tacoma’s fish program. CFM and I are friends, although we disagree about some of the Cowlitz fishery objectives. What he fails to do is tie his fish program objectives to Tacoma’s mitigation obligation as set by law and the Federal Power Act. The old mitigation agreement from the old license is no longer applicable. It simply doesn’t matter what it said because it is no longer relevant. Whether you like it or not, Tacoma cannot be compelled to manufacture more fish than were present when Tacoma first came to the Cowlitz to build its dams.

R. Ridgeway,

No, I’m not kidding you. The smolt numbers you mention are not relevant, except as they relate to the production of returning adult salmon and steelhead. As long as steelhead returns average 12,000 or more, Tacoma is fulfilling its mitigation obligation. What’s your beef?

Not to defend WDFW, but they have worked vehemently to try to sustain as much of the status quo as possible because they know they have a large constituency of people like you who prefer to keep the Cowlitz as it has been. However, they’re fighting a fight that isn’t supported by mitigation policies under the Federal Power Act, and are opposed by requirements under the ESA. Times are changing, and they have tried very hard to resist. You should thank them instead of condemning them. Further, what tribal fishery intercepts Cowlitz fish? Do you really know what you’re talking about? I do agree, however, that Region 5 of WDFW is overly partial to commercial gillnet fisheries that have become obsolete and no longer make sense.

BTW, I heard that WDFW did not sign the FHMP, so there’s some evidence that they’re on your side.

Fishinbrad,

I haven’t seen the latest figures, but about 300 wild steelhead have been counted at the barrier dam fish separater the last few years for transfer to Lake Scanewa, above Cowlitz Falls Dam. I expect that number to increase as improvements are made in juvenile fish collection. It should also increase as adults begin to return from fry plants to the Tilton system as well. The wild stock is being developed from fish at the Cowlitz salmon and steelhead hatcheries. No shortages have been identified.

I appreciate your reasons for wanting the Cowlitz to remain attractive to the angling masses, because I like to fish in solitude also. However, what we like and what we have an intrinsic right to aren’t always the same. I’m repeating here, but what makes you think Tacoma is supposed to be doing differently than they are? They have to comply with the terms of their license, and as far as I know, they are. Much as you and others wish, there is no “supposed to” requirement to supply a hatchery machine for your and others entertainment.

Folks,

There seems to be an assumption that the Cowlitz is “supposed to be a hatchery fish machine.” Because it has been for about 30 years. That assumption is faulty. Tacoma is only required by law to mitigate its project effects. Therefore, under its new FERC license, Tacoma is required to provide average fish runs equivalent to those that existed at the time Mayfield Dam was constructed. If you think about it, if Tacoma had never built any dams, the usual suspects of habitat degradation and overfishing would have turned the Cowlitz’s wild runs into shadowy rements of their former selves, just like has happened on every other river in that region. That would have been offset only if some other entity, such as WDFW, had chosen to build and operate hatcheries with their own funding, or Mitchell Act funds. I can hardly believe I’m saying this, but based on the performance of other SW WA rivers without dams or hatcheries, the Cowlitz has been highly productive precisely because Tacoma’s deep pocket allowed WDFW to produce hatchery fish almost beyond belief. Wild fish have disappeared throughout SW WA due to habitat degradation and fish harvest management. Do you actually believe the Cowlitz would have been immune to that fate?

I suppose many readers will think I’m an apologist for Tacoma. For that, I apologize to you because that isn’t my intent. My intent is to be objective. Objective in describing what the fish resource was before Tacoma arrived. What Tacoma is obligated to do by law. And what would have been if there had been no Tacoma dams. And estimating that Tacoma is complying with its mitigation obligation to maintain fish runs as large as existed at the time the dams were built.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

:rolleyes: There's a reason we have only one mouth and two ears.....

Salmo,
I for one would love to see wild fish return to the Cowlitz.

However, if the endeavor to save the wild fish that were native to this river were sincere, it would seem that removing the dams would be step number 1.

I would be surprised if there is a single, self sustaining, viable wild population of steelhead above any dam, let alone 3 or 4, that has the same number of returning adults today as they would have historically been. If there is such a case, could you please provide it to us skeptics?

Secondly, it is my understanding that the juvenile fish reared in the upper watershed are unable to make it back downstream, or make it in any sustainable numbers. Again, the dams are to blame. I would also suspect that the numbers of non-indiginous fish in Riffe, Mayfied, Scanewa, would also prey upon the smolts.

If I recall correctly, the number of sea-run cutthroat that historically returned numbered around 40,000. It is my understanding that the hatchery sea-run cutthroat will be phased out and I again would be surprised if the fish making it back to the spawning ground even today was half of that number. If my number of historical returns is incorrect, please correct me.

Again, if I recall correctly, according to the FHMP submitted by Tacoma P&L, once 500 wild steelhead are "sustaining" themselves, they will begin to dismantle the hatchery program for steelhead, claiming that a victory was won for wild fish. You claim that if Tacoma P&L reaches 12,000 returning adults, that it will be considered a success.

One thing that I noticed at the meeting held last winter/early spring, was that there was serious disagreement between the numbers that CFM submitted and those that Tacoma used as their baseline for historical averages. Does anyone know where the "real" technical data exists for the numbers of returning fish so that we can compare today's returns with their historical ones? All things considered, I'd not like to use the ones submitted by a large, energy company who would have a vested interest in smaller numbers.

So, is this a sincere move by Tacoma P&L to really save what the dams have ruined, or it is just a guise to get them from having to continue this costly program, knowing that if they push it through as they had hoped they would, they wouldn't have to deal with those repercussions until they were up for relicensing again.

Salmo,
I'm curious.Were those wild fish,REALLY, true wild fish? Or were they naturally spawned or raised fish.What I'm getting at is, are they actually fish that were born form hatchery fish that were naturally spawned after being transported above the dams,and now being called wild fish.Thus fitting some so called definition of wild fish.
Just curious if they really are a true native wild fish.From original Cowlitz stock.

salmo, tell em the the truth like CFM would, the truth is the mommy & daddy salomonoids can't make it back to the spawning grounds...
now can they?

not defending tpl....but if you check out the hatcheries...they load them adult fish up and truck them around the dams to the upper river and the tilton and cispus....otherwise you're right...they wouldn't be able to get there....they've really done it with coho for more years than steelies and cfm would argue that they were putting too many coho upstream etc...but it seems they've actually gotten a lot of natural coho smolt production from the upper previously unused river...so may work with steelies too..

they also trap the smolts at the dams and stuff and bring them down to the salmon hatchery and put them in acclimation ponds then release them..
i haven't checked the downstream smolt numbers in awhile but they were going up if i remember...
not saying whether this is a good idea or not....

Salmo.G Great writing and right on the money .Trucking fish to the upper watershed is working good.The people that live in Packwood and Randle now have a fishery up there. That has not been there for 30 year and they like it.Twig; Smolt from the upper river are tranported down river and released in to the lower river.And that FHMP of last winter was turn down by WDFW. And Friends of the Cowlitz and the Cowlitz tribe are still fighting with Tacoma City Light. So support your local fish.

Twig,

I don’t agree that this is a matter of sincerity. I think it’s more a matter of what society can do and is willing to do. If the intention is to restore natural fish production only, without any hatchery production, then yes, the only feasible way to do that is to remove the dams. Our society generally doesn’t want to remove dams, even those that are obsolete and have outlived their economic usefulness. The likelihood of removing dams that produce significant amounts of economical energy is extremely unlikely at this time.

I agree with you that no river upstream of any dam has steelhead returning in historic numbers. However, you need to also consider that no river that has no dams has steelhead returning in historic numbers, either. Rivers, with and without dams, continue to have habitat with a significant amount of fish productivity and capacity. The rivers above dams are and will be limited to lower productivity due to dams, however. That doesn’t mean we have to write off that additional increment of natural fish production that can be obtained by managing for it.

True, at the present time juvenile fish passage efficiency has only been about 40 to 50% for coho and steelhead. I don’t think that is enough to achieve sustainable runs that can allow some harvest. I think we need closer to 75%, on average, for that to occur. Chinook passage has been even lower than coho and steelhead. Tacoma is only in the beginning phase of making significant upgrades to the juvenile collection system. Their present license requires them to achieve a minimum of 75% at Riffe/Mossyrock, with 95% as the target. They are required by their license to achieve 95% at Mayfield, and it looks like that is happening now.

I don’t know what the historic sea-run cutthroat run size was, and I’m not sure there was anything better than an estimate. 40k might be as good a number as any; I don’t know. I also heard that the agencies are planning to discontinue the SRCT program, but I don’t know if that decision is final. From what I’ve heard, any decisions about the SRCT program have more to do with fish management and preferred fish culture alternatives by the fishery agencies - WDFW and USFWS in this case - than with Tacoma’s mitigation repsonsibilities. Also, while you’re doing your mitigation arithmetic, consider how many SRCT would return to the Cowlitz these days if no dams had ever been built, but all the other environmental degradation were present in the basin. I suppose it’s more convenient to hang one’s hat on historic fish run sizes and ignore the other environmental perturbations that reduce fish runs. Do you have the same concerns and issues for undammed rivers?

Tacoma is required to attain certain average run sizes, depending on species and stock. As natural production increases, then hatchery production may be reduced by a corresponding amount. For example, if about 300 wild steelhead have been returning recently, and do so for five consecutive years, then hatchery smolt production can be reduced by the amount necessary to produce those 300 adults. If the steelhead management goal is 12,000 returning adults, then the hatchery will have to continue to produce smolts to make up the other 11,700 adult steelhead, as an example. The hatchery program will not be shut down entirely because the requisite fish numbers could never be achieved without the hatcheries.

Yes, CFM is using a different baseline of numbers for calculating Tacoma’s mitigation. I don’t have that information at hand, and I don’t want to misrepresent CFM, so I’m not going to open that argument. The parties agreed to use average returns at Mayfield during the pre-dam sampling period conducted by WDFW during the 1960s for the settlement agreement. That information is available from WDFW, FWS, NMFS, Tacoma, and others, including CFM, I suspect. It’s not like Tacoma has control of the data to make smaller numbers of fish available to the public. A major difference is what Tacoma was willing to agree to in the 1960s compared to what they were willing to agree to in 2000. I don’t recall all the figures, but a good example is the spring chinook return. Tacoma agreed to use the single year high count of spring chinook as the mitigation figure. That is pretty much unheard of, but that is what Tacoma was willing to do at that time. In 2000, Tacoma was willing to agree to “average” run sizes that returned during the time period WDFW counted the runs. That resulted in a large decrease in the average number for spring chinook because the returns varied a lot during the baseline sampling years. The spread wasn’t quite so large for fall chinook or other species as best I recall.

Tacoma, like any public or private utility, is sincerely dedicated to producing or buying energy at the lowest possible cost. Utilities and companies don’t have a conscience. Sometimes they have conscientious people who decide if the company has an environmental conscience and how much of one. From an economic point of view, Tacoma was better off funding an all-hatchery fish mitigation program. Even with some hatchery production reductions, Tacoma will end up spending millions of dollars more to construct the fish passage and transport systems. This new operating license is not an economic bargain for them. But there wasn’t much choice in the matter. State and federal laws and regulations required the agencies to attempt the reintroduction of anadromous fish above the dams and to recover ESA species in the watershed. If that is any measure of sincerity, Tacoma is acting in behalf of this commitment.

Huntnfsh,

It depends on the definition of a “really true wild fish.” Anadromous fish were functionally extirpated from the Cowlitz basin upstream of Mayfield Dam. Restored runs are being “created” if you will from various transplants from the hatcheries. Fry of each species have been stocked. Some steelhead smolts have been stocked. And adult chinook and coho have been stocked to spawn naturally in the upper basin. Unmarked adult fish returning to the barrier dam fish separator are transferred to Lake Scanewa. I should mention that the Tilton fish get a separate mark as they pass through the Mayfield fish counting house so that Tilton fish can be transferred to above Mayfield instead of above Mossyrock when they return as adults. The fish being used are as native as the Cowlitz hatchery fish can be. Transfers into the Cowlitz hatcheries occurred at different times over the years, but the historic Cowlitz fish are believed by most of us to be the predominant stock. It doesn’t really matter from a functional perspective how pure these fish are. They are the best, locally adapted broodstock source.

Max,

If I get your point, CFM would point out that returning adults cannot volitionally migrate back to the upper basin of their own free will. And that is correct. But adult salmon and steelhead can, and do, make it back to their upper basin spawning grounds. They are collected at the barrier dam fish separator, sampled for marks, and depending on the mark, or lack thereof, the fish are either kept at the hatchery, trucked to the Mayfield/Tilton basin, or trucked to Lake Scanewa upstream of Cowlitz Falls Dam. Radio-tagging studies and spawning surveys indicate that the mommy and daddy salmonids are making it back to their spawning grounds. Was that your point?

Bodysurf,

During especially large coho returns, WDFW/Tacoma have hauled more than 70,000 adult coho to the upper basin. This is much more than necessary for satisfactory spawning escapment, but was decided to provide “marine derived nutrients” to the upper basin, and since most of the surplus was hatchery coho which may spawn less successfully than their wild counter-parts, the excess should have made up any slack.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.