#982909 - 12/27/17 09:07 PM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: milkBottleMikey]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 09/05/14
Posts: 195
Loc: Stanwood WA
|
The Mighty Cowlitz? Glad I cut my teeth on the Skagit and Sauk and those "crowds?" Are you serious?
Rather have a root canal without Novacaine than put up with that Sh..! Thanks Doc for sharing that vintage footage!
BTW SE AK numbers in from ADFG last night and looks like I'll be headed to Kodiak this year for Chinook! Chasing me further and further North each year :-/ Chile looks tempting these days too! How I long for the old days!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#982923 - 12/28/17 09:28 AM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: Brewer]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13394
|
The best thing that ever happened to the WDFG was the ESA. From the gubmits point of view.
Gave the WDFG the loophole to escape operating state hatcheries.
I knowTPL is thanking it's lucky star they nolonger have to keep the cowlitz full of steelhead 12 months of the year. Brewer, You completely misunderestimate WDFW's intentions. WDFW likes to operate hatcheries, and lots of them. With hatcheries comes something called FTEs (Full Time Equivalent jobs). The more FTEs, the more jobs with the Department. The more jobs, the bigger the Department's budget. Hatcheries are perfect for a government bureaucracy. As for Tacoma Power, it never did have ". . . to keep the Cowlitz full of steelhead 12 months of the year." Tacoma is required to provide fisheries mitigation as prescribed in its FERC license. However it appears that since the license went into effect in 2002, the FTC (fisheries technical committee) decided to reduce certain hatchery obligations that they think may favor recovery of ESA-listed species. Like it or not, they have the authority to make those recommendations, and if FERC approves, that becomes the operative mitigation requirements. Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#982924 - 12/28/17 09:43 AM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: milkBottleMikey]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
WDFW would like nothing more than to pump out hatchery fish. Whole lot easier to manage and. like Salmo says, it brings in lots and lots of money.
The desire to "restore" wild fish above the Cowlitz dams is entirely a response to ESA and the fear that more areas would be required. There is the belief that the existing habitat above the Cowlitz dams is the best available for recovery, especially Spring Chinook.
Asa long as they are working on the solution(s) they really don't actually have to do much. Cheaper to study than to implement.
One of the neater concepts of recovery is that the hatcheries there are mitigation for lost production above the dams. To pick a number, let's say that the mitigation is for a run of 10,000 springs, 10,000 steelhead, etc. If they install the necessary passage and they get those numbers back as wild fish then the hatcheries need no longer be funded by Tacoma because they have mitigated.
When I was involved, WDFW wanted Tacoma to keep funding the hatchery even if the wild production achieved mitigation.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#982929 - 12/28/17 10:08 AM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: milkBottleMikey]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13394
|
Carcassman,
To the best of my knowledge, restoring salmon and steelhead above the Cowlitz dams originated in the late 1980s with the group "Friends of the Cowlitz (FOC)." They got a local state legislator to require that then WDF and WDG study the feasibility of restoring anadromous fish to the upper Cowlitz basin. This appears to have been partly in response to the Lewis County PUD proposal to construct the Cowlitz Falls Dam. FOC also sued Bonneville Power - who provided the $$ for Lewis PUD - and obtained BPA's commitment to financially support this upriver restoration. FOC had in mind a combination of both hatchery and natural fish production for the upper basin in addition to the existing hatchery production downstream of the dams. At that time, FOC, like many others did, and some still do, thought that a fish is a fish, and that hatchery and wild fish are the same.
So after Cowlitz Falls Dam had already been designed, downstream passage fishways were appended as an afterthought. It didn't work very well.
Then came ESA listings in 1997-1998, during the relicensing of Tacoma's Cowlitz dams. It's an understatement to say that has complicated things a bit. Legally Tacoma had limited ESA obligations, so all the stakeholders tried to cobble together a license that included full mitigation of project impacts to fishery resources and still passed ESA muster, which remained vague at the time.
The license terms & conditions were written such that hatchery production could be reduced by one fish for each wild fish that returned to barrier dam. (I know because I wrote it.) I read some years ago now that the FTC modified that requirement so that each wild fish would account for 4 or 5 hatchery fish since wild fish are more productive than hatchery fish. More significantly, the mitigation obligation was modified from the metric of 5-year moving averages to mitigation benchmark values (measured as recruits) to set tonnages of smolt production, more like the old license, only lower. Whether this tilts mitigation requirements out of balance remains to be seen.
One might say that WDFW's major success in the Cowlitz license is that they still have the FTEs.
Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#982933 - 12/28/17 10:53 AM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
The first mitigation requirement was X fish to the dam. WDF (some would say conveniently) harvested those fish in the ocean. Tacoma complained but WDF liked how it was written...
The new license changed the parameters. One that got me was that permanent up and down passage above would need to be installed if Spring Chinook or Steelhead achieved self-sustaining status. As I recall, the first type of trap was approaching steelhead sustainability (which would trigger permanent passage) but was getting next to no springers. So, that trap was abandoned in search of a new one that would trap Springer smolts. It got more salmon, not enough for sustainability, but blew away any hopes for the steelhead. I think WDFW preferred either the Springers or overall failure............
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#982939 - 12/28/17 12:39 PM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: milkBottleMikey]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
I agree that WDFW was rather scattered in their desires. Obviously keep the FTEs. R5 really is all about having major fisheries. As I heard a Lummi say, "Wild fish are nice but the people gotta eat".
Personally, the whole idea of getting fish around dams seems a waste of time and certainly money. Concentrate on the streams undammed in the anadromous zone. No hatcheries there. As we develop new sources of power to replace hydro, take out the most downstream dam and work upstream.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#982955 - 12/28/17 05:32 PM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: milkBottleMikey]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
If we are going to mitigate, then let's really mitigate. For the ecosystem. Put half a million Chinook above Chief Joe. All we seem concerned about is mitigating the catch. Actually, the NI catch. The Mitchell Act hatcheries should have been above the dams to get fish to return there. Still, there is no way to mitigate for Columbia River salmon, through natural production, as long as the dams exist. The Columbia from Bonneville to the inlet to Roosevelt is no longer salmon habitat.
I don't think we have the money, or the will, to mitigate the ecological loss that the dams and agriculture have brought. Use hatchery fish there. Concentrate the damage and restore other watersheds. I would prefer to see the Columbia downstream of Bonneville and the OP north of GH to be exclusively wild salmonids that exist at ecosystem appropriate levels. Above the dams? Meet ecological needs with hatchery production and adults passed above all dams. No need for DS passage as the goal is to get the ecological function of spawning salmon returned.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#982961 - 12/28/17 07:58 PM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: milkBottleMikey]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
If the wild fish can make it, fine. But spend the money where it will get results.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#982971 - 12/29/17 09:28 AM
Re: Want solitude? Go to the Cowlitz...
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3310
|
If we are going to mitigate, then let's really mitigate. For the ecosystem. Put half a million Chinook above Chief Joe. All we seem concerned about is mitigating the catch. Actually, the NI catch. The Mitchell Act hatcheries should have been above the dams to get fish to return there. Still, there is no way to mitigate for Columbia River salmon, through natural production, as long as the dams exist. The Columbia from Bonneville to the inlet to Roosevelt is no longer salmon habitat.
I don't think we have the money, or the will, to mitigate the ecological loss that the dams and agriculture have brought. Use hatchery fish there. Concentrate the damage and restore other watersheds. I would prefer to see the Columbia downstream of Bonneville and the OP north of GH to be exclusively wild salmonids that exist at ecosystem appropriate levels. Above the dams? Meet ecological needs with hatchery production and adults passed above all dams. No need for DS passage as the goal is to get the ecological function of spawning salmon returned. Good stuff, in my opinion. A realistic approach is what is needed if we want both fish and fishing to live on. Can we go all wild in GH, while we're at it? I think it could do pretty darn well if given half a chance.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
807
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63786 Topics
645450 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|