Bill Hinkley

The most glaring thing about your report on Bull Trout is the absolutely huge geographical area that is affected by this proposed action concerning critical habitat for Bull Trout, and the amount of control over the aspects of almost everyone who lives, works, and recreates in these designated areas. The other thing that is also apparent from this report is that there is absent, as in similar reports on salmon and spotted owls, an accountable end that is stated. In other words, these actions are here for perpetuity with no particular goals that will be met by applying these actions, and no stated time frame when all this gov't effort and government money will produce results that allow the easing of the pain to the citizens who suffer economically or lose control of their real properties by these proposed actions. These are issues that young newly hired FWS employees will be working on when they are hired, and also when that same employee retires. It makes me wonder, if there is this huge of an area that is indeed critical habitat for bull trout, that first, how could this survey have taken the time and associated effort to be accurate, and secondly, is there a certainty that these trout even need special protections. I have witnessed in the Methow Valley of Washington an entire watershed on the Chewuch burn out due to forest fires, choke the Chewuch and Methow Rivers with thick mud and silt during runoff or heavy rains, and I have not heard any disastrous reports on the negative consequences and survivability of salmon, trout, and steelhead due to these fires. Yet if some logging company would have wanted to log within a half mile of that same area they most likely would have been denied due to environmental concerns. I am against any removal or altering of the Columbia River dams under any circumstances, and especially as it relates to these types of environmental studies. I think that agencies such as FWS are well meaning, but politically motivated.