So talking to some folks in the know, I'm still surprised that Tacoma and FERC haven't been held to the fire about down stream passage. With all that habitat that is above the dams (quite a bit in the Rainier NP), why haven't conservation groups gotten on those agencies? Seriously, the Cowlitz gets a bad rap, but still 200+ miles of pretty good habitat is going to waste.

They're studying it.

They should have studied the dam before they built it!!!!!!!

The Cowlitz and Lewis system are good examples of habitat destruction via damming.
Many moons ago there was an article in STS that compared a similar sized, natural system in AK to the Cowlitz.
Healthy returns aside, one of the glaring differences was the native trout populations.
The AK system had normal populations while the barren (of salmon spawn and carcass) Cowlitz had scrawny, under populated reaches.

Dam in the way

What? How to delay it further?

2Many,

They studied both the dam and the fish populations before constructing the dams. That's why we have bonafide fish mitigation numbers on the Cowlitz. We know how many fish were lost as a result of the dams.

DD,

For the most part, comparing a river in AK with a river in WA is an apples and oranges, rather than direct comparison. So not much value in it.

RB3,

Ya' think?

Sg

I think what they were trying to show was that a river cut off from the sea is not just barren of salmon and steelhead.

Steve, I'm still trying to understand why no pressure has been applied by any particular groups. It seems that while it's a requirement, little to no progress has been made. It was mentioned to me that considering that FERC has not pushed TPU to comply that there may be some other legal mechanism to get this pushed through.

Let me get this straight.

There is no juvinile bypass system.
They transfer and wild or misclipped fish above the dams.
The last few wild fish left in the cowlitz are moved above the dam to propogate yet their offspring have very little chance of making it past the dam.

Who makes these hairbrained plans

The folks willing to sue over ESA.

Kingjamm,

Fish passage is a license requirement. Little progress has been made because NMFS hasn't leaned hard enough on TP. TP doesn't rush because the best alternative for fish is expensive for TP. There are other reasons, but they are minor compared to that.

Slab,

There has been an attempt at juvenile fish passage by BPA at Cowlitz Falls Dam, but it is less than 50% effective. The "wild" fish transferred upstream of the dams are the offspring of salmon and steelhead from the Cowlitz hatcheries. It's not like the last remaining wild Cowlitz fish are being sacrificed.

". . . Who makes these hairbrained plans . . ." Well, sport fishing organizations, NGOs, tribes, state, and federal fish and wildlife agencies, altho the "hairbrained" plans include a fully functional downstream juvenile fish passage facility. The problem is that it is yet to be designed, built, installed, and operated.

Sg

Sounds like Wild Salmon, WSC, CCA or any of the other groups have a free lunch legally then.....

Bottom line is they have totally succeeded in ruining an awesome valley and have been trying to get out of their mitigation agreements every sense they got the license to build the damn dams.
Of course the book smart folks can argue all day about how the valley is better but the bottom line is they treated the homesteaders just like the whites treated the indians. Sold them a bag of BS and once they were relocated they began to renig on their promises and they have been every sense. I wonder how much they actually cost my family considering they were the ones that homesteaded the town they flooded.
As far as I'm concerned they are all a bunch of two faced liars.........or politicians.
Did anyone here actually vist the town of Riffe or are we just going off the information that a bunch of never been theres are telling us??
My guess is what we hear is what the folks making the money want us to hear.
Bunch of lame liars supported by a following of paycheck collecting bottom feeders.

Part of what bothers me with the Cowlitz, and other dammed streams, is that passage has, to my knowledge, not really worked anywhere. That, and the complete loss of habitat in the reservoir.

Money should, in my view, be spent on the streams that are hydrologically intact. The dambuilders need to pay for onsite mitigation (hatcheries) and offsite habitat protection and restoration.

"The dambuilders need to pay for onsite mitigation (hatcheries) and offsite habitat protection and restoration."

That was the deal, but they would rather spend the money lobbying the wild fish groups who support their warped vision so they don't have to plant a bunch of hatchery fish. Remember even though they totally corked the drainage and the rivers wild fish.........wild fish are now good and hatchery fish are bad. A complete 180 degree turn around from the logic they used to sell the projects in the first place.
It only took 45 years to prove that they were complete liars.........or at least fools.
During those 45 years the hatchery planting worked great. Now it's about saving a wild fish and hatchery fish are.......you guessed it......counter productive to that goal.
My ooooooo my ........how convienent.

2Many,

Don't hold back. It's OK to tell us how you really feel.

Carcassman,

Fish passage isn't intended to replace all that was lost, not even close. The agencies and other stakeholders intend that the remaining aquatic habitat upstream of the dams that can produce anadromous fish should be used to do so. The role of the hatcheries is to make up the difference, which will still be the majority of lost production due to reservoir flooding of riverine habitat and because no fish passage system is 100% efficient.

Sg

Now WDFW is putting an end to the Friends of the Cowlitz planting their annual 180,000 +- summer run smolts in the river.

Unbelievable.

SG - Not sure I follow. At this point, It's not up to NMFS to determine when and which fish passage facilities are installed. If it's a requirement of the FERC license, it's FERC's job to enforce the license conditions. Although I admit that FERC is never enthusiastic about enforcing license conditions they might not have required (e.g., under Section 18).

Cohoangler,

Correct, FERC is responsible for enforcing its license conditions. However if no one complains to FERC, or leans on FERC, then FERC may not lean on TP. If NMFS BO found that passage is essential to recovery of LCR spring chinook or steelhead, then NMFS would have more "leaning" authority.

Sg