Klickitat Hatchery Upgrades
The following comments were submitted in response to the open comment period described below.
Comments are numbered consecutively as they are received. Breaks in the number sequence result when comments are deleted because they
were submitted in error or have inappropriate content (such as SPAM). If you do not see your comment two business days after
you submit it, please contact (800) 622-4519.
BPA is accepting public comment on the scope of an environmental impact statement it will prepare as it analyzes the effects of the Yakama Nation’s proposed Klickitat Hatchery Upgrades Project east of the town of Glenwood in Klickitat County, Washington. The hatchery, which produces spring and fall Chinook and coho salmon, was built in 1954 and most of the facilities have not been renovated since then. The proposed upgrades would improve rearing conditions for spring Chinook and improve surface and groundwater intakes, discharge piping and pumps. The proposal also calls for rebuilding the pollution abatement system; updating sections of the hatchery building; and adding circular rearing tanks, a storage building, and possibly staff residences.
Hatchery production is funded by National Marine Fisheries Service under the Mitchell Act and is operated jointly by the Yakama Nation and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Upgrades to these facilities would help BPA meet its commitments under the Northwest Power Act as well as make good faith efforts towards evaluating proposed projects in the 2008 Fish Accord Memorandum of Agreement with the Yakama Nation. BPA is not proposing to fund fish production or to take over any Mitchell Act funding for the hatchery.
In addition to this online comment opportunity, BPA has scheduled a scoping open-house meeting to provide more information about the proposal, to answer questions, and to accept comments about the scope of the EIS. That meeting will be from 6-8 p.m., Oct. 25, at the Lyle Lions Community Center, Lyle, Washington. For more information, go to www.bpa.gov/goto/KlickitatHatcheryUpgrades, visit the web site listed below or call 800-622-4519.
For More Information:
https://www.bpa.gov/efw/Analysis/NEPADocuments/Pages/Klickitat-Hatchery-Upgrades-.aspx
Close of comment: 11/27/2017
- KlHat17170001 -
paceBPA funding is not supposed to be used to supplant that (or “in lieu of” that) of another entity--noaa--already authorized or required to undertake these activities under 16 usc 755 et seq.
- KlHat17170004 -
Bohrnsen/Clark Skamania FlyfishersPlease see attached.
View Attachment
- KlHat17170005 -
PaceThe 2008 MOA with the Yakama, which underlies this proposal is like building with rotten wood. Nothing good comes of it and it is unsuitable for anything going forward. The fact that BPA's fish and wildlife program (as it were) is based almost wholly on the extortion, bribery and misrepresentations should be troubling. Apparently that is not the case. Essentially, all the CRITFC tribes and CRITFC itself got paid to shut their biologists up. Not even a peep even though we have fish runs tanking and some of the worst returns on record and, the previous year, dying by the hundreds of thousands during upstream migration. Off-the-wall proposals--like using BPA ratepayers' funds to honor CRITFC tribes' agreement to be silent no matter what in exchange for a trunk load of frog skins is downright foolish. It would be better for the fish if the Secretary of DOD exercised his prerogative to exempt the FCRPS from ESA. This would cause the bribery, extortion and wrongdoing that has been the hallmark of BPA's monetization of its ESA responsibilities to disintegrate. We would, I suspect, discover exactly how little we love our precious fish.
- KlHat17170006 -
Starkin/Concerned citizen1) What is the status of the wild Spring Chinook in the Klickitat basis?
2) What are past wild Spring Chinook population estimates and have they shown any increase in population density since hatchery operations began?
3) State site specific examples of integrated wild Spring Chinook bloodstock programs that recovered wild populations and were then terminated due to their success upon which this program is based, if any?
4) What percentage (%) of the existing wild Spring Chinook will be used in the integrated program?
5) What are the probabilities’ that the wild Spring Chinook could go extinct because of implementing the proposed integrated program?
6) How would the wild Spring Chinook population respond if all hatchery plants of Spring Chinook were ceased?
7) Science reviews of past efforts using bloodstock recovery programs have shown negative impacts to native populations. How will this program be any different?
8) What are the effects that Spring Chinook hatchery smolts have on ESA listed wild Steelhead populations?
9) Are off site acclimation ponds being used and if so where will they be placed?
10) Is water quality effected where the acclimation sites are located?
11) Do these acclimation sites have any negative effects to wild fish populations where they are placed?
12) To what degree do sport, commercial and tribal fisheries impact wild Spring Chinook recovery?
13) What is the cost per Fall Chinook smolt before upgrade?
14) What is the cost per Fall Chinook smolt after the upgrade
- KlHat17170008 -
LewisPlease see attachment
View Attachment
- KlHat17170009 -
Peterson/U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyPlease see attached.
View Attachment
|
|
|
