Klickitat Hatchery Spring Chinook Upgrades Project
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.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is requesting comments on the draft Environmental Assessment for the Klickitat Hatchery Spring Chinook Upgrades Project. BPA proposes to fund upgrades to the Klickitat Hatchery in the Klickitat River Basin in Klickitat County, Washington in partnership with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The proposal includes funding capital improvements to the Klickitat Hatchery facilities to support an increase in spring Chinook salmon production from 600,000 spring Chinook yearling smolts to 800,000 smolts, and a transition from a segregated to an integrated spring Chinook program that incorporates natural-origin fish in the broodstock.
For More Information:
https://www.bpa.gov/learn-and-participate/public-involvement-decisions/project-reviews/klickitat-hatchery-upgrades
Close of comment: 5/9/2023
- ECF-423 0001 -
pace1. Supporting the 2008 accords, as extended, is as big a farce as the USA clinging to its use of force authorization to continue undeclared wars abroad for decades. It will be interesting to see how long BPA and the tribal extortionists will be able to keep this charade going, i.e., monetizing BPA s statutory obligations under the Endangered Species Act by bribing tribes disguised as never-ending settlement discussions carried out under the continuing jurisdiction of the District Court of Oregon, which is neither a competent nor impartial jurisdiction, and laundered thru the Northwest Power Councils parasitic fish and wildlife program. I doubted this could be maintained for even one year, but I was not factoring in a crooked federal court. This wire job has been run on the ratepayers now for 15 years and it has become the permanent basis for pursuit of survival and recovery goals. Not surprisingly, under the 2008 Accords as extended, average 10-year fish returns have declined precipitously. This year and last, they absolutely plummeted. This sorry state of affairs is actually a very good thing. It means that the tribes can extort more money for rate payers in order to rescue the remnants of salmon and steelhead populations ... provided they go nowhere near operation of mainstem projects and, most especially, integration of wind generation by using the FCRPS as a battery backup. You want to keep the fish right on the brink of extinction. There is no other way to keep the money coming. 3. The EA says that residences are located on the south side of the
complex for hatchery personnel and their families. These average a modest 1,054 square feet each,
are one-story wood frame houses with an attached one-car garage built in the early 1950s. None of the residences comply with the ADA and have not been renovate since they were built in the 1950s. So nowadays ratepayers are on the hook via the Power Act to fund two new residences for politically aligned cronies, which will be constructed according to code related to ADA. This is another wholesale violation of statutory requirements, this time the violation is of the Power Acts in lieu prohibitions. Shut the front door! I can think of three parties who are responsible for funding these facilities. Ratepayers are not one of the parties. In fact, ratepayers are not even on the long list of responsible parties. That, of course, means absolutely nothing. This is essential to maintaining the shut the front door treaty tribes. As Judge Simon said, the bi-op is b--------, everybody knows it, and the only point is to keep the money coming.
- ECF-423 0002 -
SegoviaHello,
In the current environmental impact statement, it says that construction would have little impact of geology and soils. The creation of a pipeline for the new facility will cause erosion though will be mitigated. What isn’t stated is the possibility of sedimentation entering the waterways. Seeing that this is a fishery and water quality is paramount to it. What procedures are in place to mitigate this? Another aspect I noticed was the increase of chinook from current 600,000 to 800,000 goal with this facility. What is the historical average for the river? Will this increase have a detrimental effect on the rivers ecosystem?
Thank you for your time
- ECF-423 0003 -
Stevens
- ECF-423 0004 -
Good/EPA Region 10
- ECF-423 0005 -
Starkin/Concerned citizen1) What is the status of the wild Spring Chinook in the Klickitat basin?
2) What are past wild Spring Chinook population estimates and have they shown any increase in population density since hatchery operations began?
3) Are there 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 affected is and 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) During the construction phase, what efforts will be made to mitigate stormwater runoff? Are permits required?
14) Considering climate change, how will an increase hatchery production better survive and navigate increased water temperatures in the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean?
15) Has any thought been given to the food supply in the Pacific Ocean and is it ample to support this increase in production?
16) If this proposed action fails to increase native wild stocks are there any back-up plans?
I totally support tribal treaty fishing rights.
|
|
|
