A longtime protector of Icicle Creek, the Wild Fish Conservancy, has taken the state Department of Ecology to task for issuing a 401 draft certification that is too vague, ill-defined, short-sighted and incomplete to fulfill the state’s legal requirements under the federal Clean Water Act.

In a scathing 19-page indictment, the WFC says the draft certification “fails to describe the water quality standards” for the Icicle, “fails to describe the project in sufficient detail to make clear” how the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery’s proposed project could “interfere with” water-quality standards, and fails to provide “measurable standards” for present and future hatchery operations as well as not explaining how standards that are set forth will enable the hatchery to operate within water-quality standards.

“In short, the certification does not describe what needs to be protected, namely the uses, nor does it analyze how the LNFH’s activities might impair those uses,” the WFC states. “This is arbitrary and capricious.”

Morever, the draft certification, by calling for a series of studies over 1 to 5 years, implies that not enough study has yet been done on the Icicle to adequately establish standards. Yet it offers no evidence to support the conclusion.

“Overall, (the Department of) Ecology has not met its responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and Washington State law,” the document states.

The WFC submitted its comments in response to a call for public response to the draft certification notice. DOE received about two dozen comments and plans to analyze them over the next two weeks on a fast track to submit final certification of Hatchery operations by mid-January.

Key elements of the Hatchery plan, including two dams on the Icicle, stand to kill endangered species of migratory fish on the Icicle, the WFC goes on to say. Finally, an aquatic workgroup stipulated by the draft certification needs to be far better defined in terms of skill sets, resources and personnel.

The WFC’s full comments are posted here.

If you or your group has submitted comments in response to the 401 draft certification, the Watchery is interested in reprinting them. Please contact us in the comments section. Thank you!

Note: The state Department of Ecology, which must certify a Clean Water Act permit for Leavenworth Fish Hatchery operation, recently asked for responses to its draft certification. The Watchery has asked key stakeholders, including the Hatchery itself and Bureau of Reclamation, for copies of their responses.

The founder of a key Leavenworth business, the Sleeping Lady Mountain Resort, has asked the state Department of Ecology for more specific direction in setting river flow and water quality standards for the hatchery.

“This is the chance to set real requirements to federal authorities now,” stated Harriet Bullitt, whose property adjoins the hatchery on Icicle Creek. “That would allow them to avoid the consequence later of having to negotiate for flexibility, expect variances or just ignore State law, leaving to citizens the expensive drudgery of resorting to the courts.”

The current 401 certification notice as drafted appears “to apply to present operations,” Bullitt said, and yet any new construction as planned under stimulus funding will change conditions dramatically in the river.

“All of us who live here want a win-win action, where the hatchery gets its water supply and so does the river,” Bullitt concluded.

The full text of her response, dated Dec. 19th, is here.

What’s the latest on the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery’s stimulus project? Behind-the-scenes discussions continue to look at alternatives to the official proposal unveiled in public meetings on December 1 in Leavenworth.

Response to the hatchery plan, which included a new pipeline, pump station, dams and “large roughened channel” on Icicle Creek, ranged from unhappiness to outrage. Hatchery officials have privately indicated that the project’s delayed unveiling with no public input was a public-relations fiasco. Especially damaging was failure to notify and invite participation from city of Leavenworth and Chelan County officials.

As a result, hatchery officials may be opening up the process.

Two stakeholder meetings with representatives of the Yakima nation, Icicle Creek Watershed Council and Cascade Irrigation District as well as hatchery officials have resulted in a potential rethinking of the project by Fish & Wildlife and Bureau of Reclamation officials, sources told the Watchery. While there’s nothing official yet, another meeting expected after the New Year may well yield something in the way of informal agreement on alternative paths.

The most dramatic proposal on the table would obviate the need for a new headgate dam on the Icicle by recirculating and purifying (with an ozone-based ionizing system) hatchery water. Purification would not only keep the water disease-free for fish rearing but would require far less draw-down from the Icicle. Recirculation or re-use (similar but not the same) systems are already under way at numerous hatcheries, notably the Chiwawa plant and Eastbank Hatchery just below Rocky Reach Dam north of Wenatchee. The White River Hatchery on the Connecticut River in Vermont also has installed re-use and recirculation. High-profile projects also are under way in Alaska.

The pumping station would be placed close to the hatchery spillway, a less invasive location that offers the added benefit of no new pipeline construction. And cost would be far less than the $14 million estimated for the Hatchery’s dam-and-pump station proposal.

Participants batted around the recirc/re-use approach at a four-hour meeting last Wednesday at the Sleeping Lady retreat center south of Leavenworth and adjacent to the Icicle. According to sources at the session, a turning point came when Ron Eggers, project manager for the BOR, signaled that the Hatchery may be open to new considerations.

“Ron had been saying, ‘We don’t have time to do this or that and still qualify for stimulus funding,” a source at the meeting told the Watchery. “But at one point he changed direction, indicating that it was more important to ‘do the right thing’ than rush into something just to qualify for funding.”

(The Watchery has not yet been able to obtain comment from Eggers.)

Stimulus projects must “break ground” by September 2010 to qualify for funding. While agencies consider the deadline do-or-die, history suggests that funding for viable projects will simply be extended — although there’s certainly no guarantee on that front given current economic conditions.

The hatchery’s draw from the Icicle is a key point in its future plans because of anticipated conflict over water rights and the impacts of global warming. The damming proposal would require a minimum flow of 42 cubic feet per second, a volume that during low-flow months already threatens to run the river completely dry, destroying plant and fish life.

Dick Rieman, a river activist who has been studying and documenting Iclcle flow levels, says decades-long trends are not encouraging.

“We’re beginning to see a water shortage for the hatchery in the not too distant future,” Rieman said. A recirculation system could get the flow requirement down to 15 cubic feet a second, Rieman noted.

Wild Fish Conservancy, an environmental group that has been involved in Icicle River protection for years, says scientific data indicate snow-pack levels by the end of the century will fall far short of supporting hatchery operations.

“The Bureau of Reclamation is well aware of climate-change impacts going on in the Northwest,” said Mark Hersh, a WFC water-quality specialist. “It is not a pretty picture at all.”

With recirculation, a smaller intake volume for the hatchery implies a healthier Icicle River as well as more available water for legacy irrigation, recreation and related local needs. And treatment of the water supply would solve the Hatchery’s ongoing phosphorous-level woes, a key issue in Clean Water Act certification by the state Department of Ecology.

While details ensuring future water supplies for all constituents still need to be worked out, a win-win solution that continues hatchery operation while satisfying other demands on the Icicle (including protection of endangered salmon, steelhead and bull trout species) now appears to be a unifying goal among engaged parties.

The Washington State Department of Ecology had received about two dozen comment letters responding to its draft 401 certification notice by last Friday’s deadline, according to Bob Barwin, the DOE’s water-resource manager in Yakima.

The department intends to analyze the comments with a fairly quick turnaround. Barwin said the aim is for final 401 certification by mid-January.

State certification for the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery is required by the federal Clean Water Act. The issue was raised by Icicle Creek river activists after discovering that the Hatchery had been operating without a Clean Water permit since 1979.

Issues raised by the certification process include adequate water flow to protect endangered fish species, as well as pollution and temperature factors. Of particular concern are hatchery-produced levels of phosphorous — related to fish feed and effluent — which lead to algae growth and oxygen deprivation for wild fish and native plant life in the Icicle.

Certification is a separate process legally from the Hatchery’s plans to spend $14 million in federal stimulus funds to put a new dam, pump station and water-intake facilities on the Icicle. But the two are from a practical standpoint inevitably intertwined because any new construction has impacts on the river’s water quality.

The Watchery will attempt to collect signature responses to the draft 401 certification and post them on this blog. Once final certification is issued, the order can be appealed within 30 days and subsequently enter a mediation process.

Following up on his compelling proposal for addressing Icicle Creek’s and the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery’s needs for a sustainable future, river-watcher Dick Rieman has put together a blueprint for saving the river within the terms of a state Department of Ecology draft permit.

Noting that Icicle flow levels have tapered downward since 1936, a trend that spells an ominous future for the traditionally thirsty hatchery, Rieman reiterates his position that the Hatchery must change its approach. Unless it does:

“Local citizens of the Leavenworth Valley could inherit new dams across Icicle Creek,” Rieman concluded. “They would have to accept legally established minimum Icicle flows that support the hatchery but do little for the aquatic life in the stream.”

And unless Hatchery operators, which include Fish & Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation officials, adopt more flexible thinking, it could be a long time before any construction can be done. The state’s 401 certification process, overseen by the Department of Ecology, calls for a negotiated set of recommendations “in collaboration with the needs of stakeholders and interested parties,” Rieman points out.

A key point of negotiations will be minimum stream flows. If the Hatchery insists on drawing down the Icicle to support its operation at traditional levels, it is bound to encounter stiff resistance from the public — resulting in a required arbitration process (a court judge) that could take months to years.

Rieman’s followup post also includes a helpful chronology of benchmarks for meeting stipulations of the 401 draft certification. Read his entire document via link below.

Icicle’s future analyzed

Seattle Times: “Declaring the federal government’s newest salmon recovery plan ‘a good piece of work,’ U.S. District Court Judge James Redden on Monday appeared eager to resolve a 15-year legal battle about how to restore threatened and endangered fish runs in the Columbia River basin.”

The Hatchery Watchery’s take: Although the settlement falls short of ideal restoration goals, the notion of restoring Columbia River salmon — as opposed to continuing down a hatchery-laden path of diminished fish production and elimination of endangered species — gets a big endorsement with Judge Redden’s decision.

The judge’s ruling could serve as both warning and bellwether for Icicle River deliberations over a project that aims to build new dams on the river. The court process was a long haul, consuming 15 years, and the article notes:

“Unlike a previous plan by the Bush administration, this restoration plan calls for a study on breaching four Snake River dams if runs go into sharp decline.”

If the same standard is put to Icicle River, and runs continued to decline in event of (God forbid) new construction, it would mean tearing back down a newly constructed dam built with $14 million of taxpayer dollars.

Not the ideal way to spend stimulus money that, President Obama made clear early in his announcement, is meant to support high-priority, sustainable infrastructural enhancement as opposed to make-work, pork-layered, wasteful government spending.

Just updating everyone … see our previous post on the problems of delaying information to the public on the Hatchery project.

Initially promised Nov. 9, then amended to “the week of” Nov. 9, and now updated to something resembling “Real Soon Now,” the release of an Environmental Assessment for the stimulus-funded Leavenworth Fish Hatchery project is becoming a bureaucratic production of “Waiting for Godot.”

With the countdown begun to a Dec. 1 set of public meetings on the project, the question must be raised: What constitutes due process for notifying citizens of a costly, complicated and far-reaching undertaking that could damage Icicle River and its fish and plant life for generations?

To say nothing of the fact that the project, to qualify for stimulus funding, was supposed to be “shovel-ready.” If an Environmental Assessment cannot be produced even describing the project, it’s safe to say that no shovel has been in danger of being disturbed.

It’s sad to say, but putting projects into public domain during the holiday season, when most of us are overwhelmed with family planning and travel, has become a standard governmental ploy. The idea is to reduce the numbers of public who can attend so 1) it makes things look like no one really cares, and 2) it marginalizes any criticisms as on the fringe and unrepresentative of a supposedly acquiescent citizenry at large.

Moreover, decisions can be made and announced throughout December with the confidence that most people will be distracted by holiday activities.

There now exist just 10 working days — 9 if you discount the Friday after Thanksgiving, when many people take the day off or put in only token appearance at the office — before the Dec. 1 public meetings.

Because the legality of the Hatchery’s plans is one of the questions that cannot be answered until the plans are actually made public, it is impossible to say whether a two-week notice of the project follows the rule of law.

What can be said is this: It isn’t fair. There’s too much at stake, and the details of the project are certain to be too intricate and technical, for the public to adequately comprehend and respond in a matter of just a few days, interrupted by a major holiday.

We sympathize with Hatchery officials who are undoubtedly grappling with the complexity of their plans. Perhaps it’s a sign the project simply doesn’t pass the sniff test. In any case, it would seem that a step back is in order, to allow proper input, consideration and coordination among all interested parties, including the public. Proceeding under these tight review deadlines inevitably invites suspicion and cynicism, and the perception that smoke and mirrors are overriding real citizen participation.

The Leavenworth Hatchery has issued an official notice of its public meetings scheduled Dec. 1 from 1 to 3 p.m. and 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. in the Enzian Inn at Leavenworth. The meetings “will provide an opportunity to inform neighbors, stakeholders and the community,” the notice reads.

Because sensitive environmental projects, especially ones that have not even been described in detail so far, often wind up in litigation these days, language is important. The language of the Hatchery notice avoids any mention of public ideas or criticisms having a role in the project.

We find this significant. What it means is that while those attending will have the opportunity to be informed, they will not have any input or impact on the planning of the project. This may partly be because the project is considered by hatchery officials to be a “done deal,” in the vernacular, and anything citizens have to say is irrelevant. It may also be because to suggest that the public has a say in the project would open the door to its review and reconsideration. The Hatchery, in its rush to get bulldozers on site, wants to avoid any public oversight.

This is not a public hearing, in other words, where testimony would carry legal weight and have to be not only included but responded to in the planning process.

Note some other turns of phrase:

“We encourage you to attend and hear from … ” officials.

“The format … will include an open audience informational question and answer session, as well as opportunities to talk with … ” officials.

In other words, communication at the meetings will be one-way. Top-down. Officials talk. The public listens. Not vice versa.

The notice as originally distributed in email also mentioned a PASS process by way of trying to make it sound like whatever the Hatchery is planning had some semblance of public review. PASS, standing for Project Alternatives Solution Study, met over a three-year period and “concluded their work in August 2009,” the statement notes.

In fact, the PASS process disintegrated quickly once stimulus funds were announced for the Hatchery. It ended in a bitter impasse, with at least one major “stakeholder,” the Wild Fish Conservancy, communicating frustration with the Hatchery’s lack of transparency and failure to address its operation’s threats to wild fish and water quality in Icicle River.

“After three years of discussions and some tentative agreements about infrastructure improvements, the process has broken down,” wrote Kurt Beardslee, WFC director, in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Perhaps the disintegration of the PASS process explains why it was excluded from the Web version of the Public Meetings announcement. In any case, the Web version rejiggers the Hatchery’s justification this way:

“The proposed project is the result of several years’ analysis of various alternatives for project designs through a coordinated process to develop alternatives. Through this process, the USFWS considered several intake alternatives. Each of the alternatives was assessed based upon the following evaluation criteria: water quality and quantity; system reliability; maintenance access; fish protection; long-term performance; efficient use of Hatchery water rights; construction, operation, and maintenance costs.”

Again, no mention whatsoever of public review or oversight. What exactly is a “coordinated process”? That would be our first question at the public meetings.

At a time when it could be reaching out to the Leavenworth community for ideas and suggestions, when it could be building support for a new, sustainable approach to fish and river management, the Hatchery is shutting the public out of meaningful participation. This hardly seems what President (and former community organizer) Barack Obama had in mind for “stimulus” funds — a project that the local community may not even support, rammed through without public input.

It’s time for the Hatchery and associated agencies to take a different path. Ask the public for input, then get together the vested parties — “stakeholders” in the current argot — and sit down with some creative alternatives to damming the Icicle.

That would truly represent Change We Can Believe In.

The Watchery has been a bit quiet the past couple of days, awaiting a draft Environmental Assessment from the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery that hopefully will shed light on specific details of its
plans for the Icicle River.

The Hatchery will set no records for punctuality, as it originally promised the document on Nov. 9, then said “the week of” Nov. 9, and as of yesterday was saying “Real Soon Now.”

Nothing has been posted as of this writing, near the close of the business day on Wednesday, Nov. 11, which it should be noted is a federal holiday.

An Environmental Assessment is typically issued in lieu of a full Environmental Impact Statement when the issuer believes the project will have “no significant impact.”

It’s hard to believe any construction on the Icicle will lack significant impact, but we await the Environmental Assessment (EA) before issuing a Watchery Assessment (WA).

The following statement by Margaret Atwood appeared on our “speak out against the cuts” page several weeks ago. Apologies if you have already seen it, but for those who haven’t, we’re re-running a few of the statements from prominent Canadians and British Columbians on our new blog. Margaret Atwood is the recipient of the Order of Canada and is author of many internationally-renowned books including The Handmaid’s Tale and Year of the Flood.

“Could it be true – as Denis Dutton argues in The Art Instinct – that art of all kinds, including narrative art, is an evolved adaptation that gave those that had it an edge over those that did not during the 80,000 generations we spent in the Pleistocene? Did their art unify groups, inspire them, teach them survival methods they needed to know, whether material or spiritual? If so, it’s not a question of whether people do art or don’t do it – they will anyway. It’s only a question of what kind of art they do, or whether someone else does it for them. Our stories are us, on a national and international level, as well as on a personal one.

Which sets the political hostility to the arts in a new light. What is it that power-hungry politicians want from artists? Control over the story through the annihilation of the former story-tellers? Is this the agenda behind the recent decapitation of arts funding in British Columbia, while mega-millions are poured into the Olympics? The BC arts community will retaliate, of course. Over the past 50 years they’ve put BC on the map, and now they’re being told that their sorts of contributions are without value. They’ve always been a scrappy lot: Watch that energy bite back at Mr. Campbell – that would be my guess.”

[Note: This entry is updated from a previous version which implied that 401 certification applied to yet-to-be-described plans for stimulus-funded projects in Icicle Creek.]

The state Department of Ecology issued its long-awaited 401 certification for the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery water quality.

Certification is required in order for the federal Environmental Protection Agency to issue a Clean Water Permit for the hatchery, which has been operating without legal permission since 1979. The hatchery is being sued on this point.

“It’s pretty bare-bones,” said Mark Hersh of the Wild Fish Conservancy, which is mulling its next step. The order has a a 45-day comment period running through December 18th.

The certification contains numerous specifications but puts the hatchery on a lenient timetable that would enable it to continue out of compliance for years. For examples:

“Within three (3) years of the issuance of this Order, Leavenworth NFH (hatchery) shall submit the Aquifer Recharge Plan and the Flood Control operating rules to Ecology for its review and approval.”

and

“Within two (2) years of the issuance of this Order, the Leavenworth NFH shall submit a Temperature Study Plan to evaluate measures to reduce temperatures in Icicle Creek.”

and

“The (hatchery) shall meet a discharge limit of 5.7ug/L total phosphorous within five (5) years of permit issuance.”

Well recharge (aquifers), temperature and phosphorous all are crucial to the survival of endangered fish runs in the Icicle, as well as the health and the overall environmental quality of the river. To permit the hatchery to run out the clock with far-into-the-future deadlines and studies that will facilitate further studies defies common sense, as well as running counter to any intent behind environmental standards and pollution regulations.

We’ll be dissecting the 401 certification in future posts as well as linking to analyses and public input. For now, the full text of the Ecology Department’s order is available in the links below.

Order

Attached Table

There is mounting evidence that an $18.1 million award in stimulus funds earlier this year led Leavenworth Fish Hatchery authorities to abandon good-faith negotiations to restore Icicle Creek.

If true, the action would represent serious misuse of stimulus funds, whose aim from the outset as described by President Obama was to support forward-looking, environmentally sensitive and “green” projects.

Documents provided to the Watchery make it clear that the Leavenworth Hatchery, operated by the Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation (which funds hatchery operations) quickly lost interest in discussions aimed at restoring the Icicle — discussions which they had specifically requested to avoid a 2005 lawsuit — once they had stimulus funding in hand.

“The passage of the Recovery Act has changed the pace of negotiations,” a briefing memo to Senator Maria Cantwell noted in September. “(The Bureau of) Reclamation has stepped outside the stakeholder discussions in order to fast-track the project.”

Not only were negotiations in jeopardy, the Hatchery and Bureau abruptly changed their focus from restoration to re-damming the river.

As a result of stimulus funding, officials “made significant changes to the restoration portion that will do little for ecosystem recovery and will instead continue to facilitate (blocking of) fish passage and restrict flows,” the briefing memo concluded.

The memo was prepared by the Icicle Creek Watershed Council and Wild Fish Conservancy, which have worked for two decades to restore the Icicle River after the Hatchery abandoned a number of damming structures there.

In 2005, the Conservancy sued the Hatchery for violating the Endangered Species Act by killing protected fish and for operating without a Clean Water Act permit, which had expired in 1979. Officials asked the Conservancy to withdraw its suit with the promise they would enter good-faith negotiations to restore the river.

The Conservancy, a non-profit organization with 20 staff scientists (mostly biologists), accepted with the understanding that the Hatchery, operated by the Fish & Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior, was “finally taking an honest look” at restoration, wrote Kurt Beardslee, Conservancy director, in an August (of this year) letter to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar.

Discussions began in 2006 and proceeded with some success — until stimulus funding changed the whole ballgame. By May, the month after stimulus funding was awarded, officials were backing off any commitment to restoration, the memo to Cantwell states.

As a result, the Conservancy and Harriet Bullitt, a longtime property owner along the Icicle who coordinated efforts to remove unused, blocking concrete structures from the river in 2003, filed suit in federal court this past July, reasserting the Hatchery’s lack of a Clean Water Permit.

Now the Conservancy and other Icicle defenders believe the Hatchery and related agencies will attempt to dodge a full legal review of their stimulus-funded plans. Officials say they will issue an Environmental Assessment of the stimulus project next week.

Officials “imply that a ‘Finding of No Significant Impact’ will result” from the Assessment, the memo to Cantwell declares. This despite the stimulus project being tied to a re-damming of the river, which will ensure the crippling and probable extinction of wild, endangered salmon, steelhead and bull trout runs on the Icicle.

“We do not believe that Recovery Act dollars, or any taxpayer dollars for that matter, should be spent on facilities that refuse to appreciably advance recovery of ESA-listed species,” Beardslee stated in his letter to Interior Secretary Salazar.

Links:

Briefing memo to Senator Maria Cantwell

Wild Fish Conservancy letter to Interior Secretary Salazar

It’s a simple question that we’ve been asking of government officials for the past two weeks. A simple question — seemingly without an answer.

We’ve asked because of three prominent aspects of the Icicle Creek dam project that seemingly put it at odds with stimulus goals.

In his support for stimulus funding, and in signing the Recovery Act in February, President Obama made three goals clear: Funded projects were to be “shovel-ready,” they were meant to buttress America’s crumbling infrastructure, and they hopefully aimed toward an alternative future, i.e., they would ideally be “green.”

Given a $1 billion chunk of stimulus cash, the Bureau of Reclamation put out the word to its field directors to compile lists of worthy projects. The scores of projects that were submitted then were subjected to prioritization based on specifications in the RA language. Ultimately the Leavenworth Hatchery was awarded $18.1 million.

But compared with the vast majority of stimulus projects, the Hatchery project is far from shovel-ready. Just getting a detailed description of the plan has been impossible so far (permit actions expected this week and next should address the situation). Asked for a copy of the project description as it existed when stimulus funding was announced for the hatchery on April 15, Sue Tholen, a program coordinator in the BOR’s Boise office, said a full description was not available because the project was “still in the planning stages.” A breakdown of costs for different elements of the project “may not exist yet,” Tholen added. (The 2010 BOR budget includes just $4 million for intake replacement, with no mention of related projects.) Nor has any job count been published.

The only official description of the project is a brief, general paragraph on the BOR’s Web site. All it mentions is replacement of “the failing water intake” (pipeline) and construction of a new “effluent pond” at Leavenworth.

Further casting doubt on readiness, a key federal step — a Clean Water Act permit from the Environmental Protection Agency — is just beginning public review. In order for the EPA to act, the State of Washington must issue a “401 certification,” named after the applicable section of the act. The state Department of Ecology plans to issue certification on Wednesday. A 45-day public comment period will extend to December 18.

Next week, the BOR plans to issue an “Environmental Assessment” (not the same as a far more rigorous Environmental Impact Statement) on the project. The agency along with the federal Fish & Wildlife Service will host two public meetings on Dec. 1 in Leavenworth.

Can a project really be “shovel-ready” when the public has not even seen a proposal? Or when it is months away from public action on the permitting process?

The BOR acknowledged that the hatchery project was “not shovel-ready,” in Tholen’s words, and as a result “got a lower ranking” than other projects under consideration. “But it did make the ‘cutoff’,” she added.

Stimulus projects stand the risk of losing funding if they do not break ground by September, 2010. Tholen said the hatchery project was “feasible” within the deadline. “We’re on schedule,” she said.

A second guideline for stimulus funding —to refurbish America’s crumbling infrastructure — is less starkly in conflict with the hatchery project. The intake pipeline for the hatchery is indeed crumbling. By all indications, however, the intake could be repaired or upgraded in a cheaper and more dollar-efficient manner than the Hatchery proposes.

Instead of simply fixing the existing structure, the Hatchery wants to move the intake, build a new pipeline, construct a pumping station (to take water from the river) and build a new dam with a two-foot weir. Colloquially put, it wants to “go big.” Why? From discussions with agencies, the only explanation that emerges is that stimulus funding enabled expansion of the project.

Had the expansion directed the Hatchery in the direction of “green” — a smaller carbon footprint, using less energy, improving wildlife habitat and restoring the balance of nature — to say nothing of less expense to taxpayers — it might mesh with stimulus goals. As it stands, the new construction planned by the Hatchery offers (at least in the discussions we have heard so far) virtually nothing in the way of energy efficiency or environmental restoration. Put simply, damming rivers that are on the way to free-flowing restoration is not a strategy one would classify under “green.”

Hatchery officials say the project qualified for stimulus money largely because of its urgency. The water supply pipeline is in dire straits.

But rather than put out the word to the Leavenworth community to assist with planning a forward-looking solution that protects everyone’s needs while ensuring the Icicle’s future, agencies met behind closed doors.

There is some remarkably creative thinking in the small burg of Leavenworth, particularly when it comes to environmental well-being. Hopefully as the Hatchery’s planning process gets “sunlit,” the public voice can contribute to a solution that not only meets but exceeds the worthy goals of stimulus funding.

Icicle River in mid-summer, 2009

Events are unfolding which over the next month will determine the future of Icicle Creek, a gleaming jewel of a river that flows from Josephine Lake in the north Cascades high country to the Wenatchee River at Leavenworth. At issue, put in its simplest terms, is whether to continue a decade-long effort to restore the river, or to re-dam it with a series of structures designed to regulate its flow (even to near-zero) under terms dictated by the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery.

In recent years, with the removal of legacy concrete dams and structures no longer used by the hatchery, the river has made a remarkable comeback. Once stagnant and marsh-like, it is on the way to resembling a natural river, hosting wild fish runs as well as returning hatchery salmon.

But its promising revival is on the verge of being dealt a crippling blow. For years the hatchery water intake pipeline, which supplies Icicle Creek water on a gravity feed, has been deteriorating. Nothing much has been done, however, because there was no funding.

In April, the situation changed. The hatchery was awarded $18.1 million in Recovery Act (stimulus package) funds. The award, in an announcement from Senator Patty Murray’s office, gave few details about how the money would be spent — which was curious, because stimulus projects are supposed to be “shovel ready,” i.e., all-systems-go for groundbreaking. There also has been no specification of how many jobs would be created, another priority for stimulus funding. There has not even been an official description of the Leavenworth Hatchery project available to the public. (A brief mention is made on the BOR Web site.)

That appears about to change. On Wednesday, state officials plan to issue what is called a “401 certification,” required in order for the federal Environmental Protection Agency to issue a Clean Water Act permit for hatchery operation. The following week of Nov. 9, the Bureau of Reclamation plans to issue a draft Environmental Assessment of hatchery plans. And on Dec. 1, two public meetings will be held in Leavenworth to discuss the project.

The 401 language, combined with terms outlined in the draft EA, should provide a detailed look at how the hatchery plans to proceed.

This all follows years of discussions between the Wild Fish Conservancy and hatchery-related agencies over the future of the Icicle aimed at continuing restoration of the river for the benefit of its own natural health as well as artificially raised hatchery fish. The hatchery raises the species gold standard, spring Chinook, and is adding Coho to its operation as well. But the river hosts natural runs of bull trout, steelhead and native spring Chinook — when it is free-flowing and healthy, that is.

Here’s the issue’s defining irony: The public, whose taxpayer dollars will be spent in the stimulus grant, and whose taxpayer dollars pay the salaries of agency decision-makers for the future of the Icicle, has so far been entirely cut out of the planning process.

After President Obama signed the Recovery Act in February, there was no effort to consult the public about how stimulus funds could best be spent on the Icicle.

After Murray announced stimulus funding on April 15 (appropriately, Taxpayer Day), no details were published or otherwise available on what the Leavenworth hatchery had in mind for the money.

After discussions between “stakeholders” — related agencies and the Wild Fish Conservancy (as well as Dick Rieman, a local river-watcher) — ended in an impasse in September, there still was no clearly stated plan on the table.

Today, by most accounts, the Hatchery stands on the verge of declaring “no significant impact” (from its plans) in its forthcoming Environmental Assessment. What are the plans? The assumption by agency-watchers is that the Hatchery will propose a new water supply line at a different down-river location, a pumping station (because the line will no longer be gravity-fed), a new dam replacing what is referred to as “Structure 2,” supposedly needed to maintain the hatchery’s water supply (this point is heatedly debated) and a two-foot weir for maintaining water levels during low-river periods.

All of this, with no public discussion of the project, let alone its impacts.

Bureau of Reclamation officials defend the process, saying it’s typical practice to “solidify” plans before making them public.

“Many times in these planning processes, considerable work gets done before they get taken to the public,” said Bob Hamilton, the BOR’s Boise-based activity manager for Leavenworth.

We think the policy is wrong. In an Obama presidency — in an American democracy —transparency, candor and public participation all should guide the planning process. The public should be consulted before and during planning as an equal stakeholder, not “informed” as an afterthought once all the chips are in place. The public’s voice should not be a bothersome appendage perfunctorily tacked onto the plan after it is formulated. The public view should be ingrained and reflected in the plan each step of the way.

It’s our hope with The Watchery to assist the public information process for the Icicle and Leavenworth Hatchery, with the aim of instilling a strong public role in the river’s future. Using the tools of the Internet, our goal is to create a digital sounding board to aid and inform government deliberations over the Icicle — a process Web visionary Tim O’Reilly calls “Government 2.0.”

Hi everyone, We’ve been following the developments on the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery for some time and decided it was time to start a blog dedicated to “sunlighting” this most mysterious of governmental enterprises.

What does the hatchery need? A watchery! We’ll be updating our findings on a regular basis, and welcome any tips, suggestions or comments from you, the public, since it is you, the public, who are usually the last to find out about anything your elected representatives promote, your taxpayer dollars fund, and your governmental employees plan and execute.

In response to growing public concerns over plans for the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery, the Bureau of Reclamation (which funds hatcheries) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (which operates hatcheries) have decided to hold public meetings December 1 from 1 to 3 p.m. and 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. in the Alpine Room of the Enzian Hotel at 590 Highway 2  in Leavenworth.

The Watchery has asked officials for details on the meeting, including any legal requirements it may fulfill in the permitting process for what they are calling the Water Delivery System Rehabilitation Project. We have also asked for a complete description of the project, said to involve the intake pipeline, pumping plant, fish screen and two-foot weir designed to provide a sustainable water supply for hatchery salmon.

A draft environmental assessment statement including a comprehensive description of the project will be issued on Nov. 9, hatchery officials say.

A stimulus grant of $18.1 million for the project was announced on April 15th by Senator Patty Murray. Despite the stipulation that stimulus projects be “shovel-ready,” almost nothing has been said publicly about the plan, which apparently has been drawn up in private meetings of federal agencies and the hatchery.

One of our goals at the Watchery is to rectify the secrecy surrounding the project. We promise to keep the public informed of what we find out, as we learn about it. For a previous overview, and the only real “coverage” of the hatchery’s plans since Murray’s announcement, see this Wenatchee World story.

By Stephanie Williams, MARC Public Affairs Specialist

On Feb. 28, 2001, I was sitting in an archaeology lecture on the third floor of Gowen Hall, an old, red-brick building on the University of Washington campus in Seattle. The room had an enormously high ceiling with lights like upside-down salad bowls suspended on the ends of long rods. There were perhaps 150 students sitting in the long rows of continuous, curving desks in the drab, theater-style room.

The ground started shaking around 11 a.m. It was gentle at first. Students around the room perked up, wide-eyed, assessing the severity of the situation. Then it got worse. The hanging lights began to swing back and forth several feet in each direction. The building swayed. Small pieces of ceiling tile rained down. We dived for cover underneath desks barely wide enough to cover us.

After 45 seconds, it was over. The Nisqually quake had a magnitude of 6.8, injured about 400 people, and caused damage to property and infrastructure across Western Washington. But it could have been so much worse.

This is why we need to care about the actions our governments are taking to protect people and structures from the consequences of natural disasters. That day in 2001 made me thankful for the codes that ensured most buildings were able to withstand the force of the quake. I’m glad that as a kid growing up in the Pacific Northwest, I had been taught what to do during an earthquake. These things made it possible for me to be here today.

Earthquakes may not be common in the Kansas City region, but floods, tornadoes and severe winter weather are. If you’ve taken shelter in a basement because of a tornado warning, or lost power because of a winter storm, you’ve been affected by a natural disaster.

Fortunately, the Federal Emergency Management Agency requires state and local governments to develop plans to help lessen the impact of potential natural hazards, and right now in Greater Kansas City, those plans are being updated. November is your chance to give feedback on the steps your community is taking to prepare; don’t wait until you’re caught in the middle of a natural disaster to care. Share your own disaster story or learn more about giving feedback on local plans.

I’ve been having a Facebook conversation with a colleague of mine, Erin Browning, regarding a recent post on this blog.

As our conversation has unfolded, it’s dawned on me that we seldom – if ever – directly reward stakeholders for being committed participants

Think about the typical public involvement for a typical infrastructure study, for example.

If you attend every public meeting, visit the project website regularly to stay updated, take all the surveys, go to outside information sources to learn more, what do you get?  Bupkis.

So now I’m wondering what would happen if we rewarded people for outstanding participation in a project or campaign?   Perhaps it could be something as simple – and powerful in terms of building an informed, engaged group of stakeholders – as detailing in advance a participation path along which you could promote yourself from the public to something more substantive like a topic advisory committee.

I realize I’m begging some really critical questions like how you’d measure the quantity and quality of involvement, but…..

An online public meeting strategy developed in partnership between the Missouri Dept. of Transportation and HNTB’s public involvement group was honored by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon on Oct. 15.

The Governor’s Award for Quality and Productivity recognizes State of Missouri teams that excel in the areas of excellence, efficiency, innovation, technology, process improvement, customer service and employee development.

MoDOT and its partner, HNTB Corp., an engineering firm, held Missouri’s first-ever electronic meeting to meaningfully and cost-effectively get input from the public on rebuilding Interstate 70 with lanes separating cars and trucks.  This innovative public involvement tool is believed to be only the second such online meeting in the country.  Due to this innovative approach, up to 10 times as many people attended the online public meeting than had attended previous face-to-face meetings.  MoDOT has since used virtual meetings for other projects as a way to broaden the agency’s outreach efforts and get more people involved in its decision-making process.

Representing HNTB at the award ceremony were Betty Burry and Michael DeMent, APR.

The online public meeting was honored earlier in the week as 2009’s best public involvement approach in the nation at the 2009 National Transportation Public Affairs Workshop. NTPAW is a national organization representing public affairs, public involvement and communications professionals at the nation’s departments of transportation.

By Stephanie Williams, MARC Public Affairs Specialist

What is the relationship between social research and public involvement? And are the two fields mutually exclusive? Not exactly.

For decades, social researchers have made careers and answered questions using quantitative and qualitative research methods. The designs are ideally carefully constructed to ensure that the results are representative of the population being studied and can be generalized to other areas or different circumstances.

Public involvement has long sought to link citizens to decision-making processes on a wide range of topics. Public involvement is many things — an exercise in community cohesiveness, an agent of cultural change, a way to break down barriers among stakeholders — but in and of itself, it is not social research.

But public involvement practitioners may benefit from looking at their methods through the lens of a social researcher. What population am I studying? How can I ensure the voices that need to be heard on this issue are included in the process? Can I make the assumption that people who are similar to my participants feel the same way about the topic we discussed? If the process intends to get a glimpse of a broader community’s feelings on an issue, calculated steps should be taken before the process begins to answer these questions.

By increasing their familiarity with social research practices, public involvement practitioners can broaden their scope of potential approaches to process development. The process itself will ultimately be cleaner and better planned. After all, sometimes when we need to do social research, we instead do public involvement, either because of limiting factors such as time or money, or because it’s what the client expects. As practitioners, we need to be clear enough on the relationship between these two fields to know what the project demands.

I am writing this while sitting in a cafe in the exhibition area at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. Such are the wonders of modern technology! Gordon Brown’s speech is over and the crowds have more or less dispersed. All the action has moved to nearby tv and radio studios where the debate will be neatly packaged and no doubt unpackaged through the evening.  A few conference stragglers are talking behind me while visiting the ‘Going Digital’ stand.

An MP posed a good question to me last week in the course of a meeting with a group of science organisations: ‘Why should Government get into the business of promoting public understanding and dialogue in science?’ he said.
It’s also a pertinent question at a time when the Government continues to consult on its ‘Science and Society strategy for the UK’ – now under the auspices of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.  More of that later.

Having pondered the question for the past week my feeling is that there is a spectrum of activity the Government has a responsibility to undertake under the ‘Science and Society’ banner – from educating the public about swine flu at one end I suppose, thru captivating the interest of young people about the wonders of science and what remains for them to explore as the scientists of the future, to making the case for science investment and why scientists use the methods they do.

As important as the agenda are the methods of engagement employed in their furtherance.  Partnership with others will be at their core. And often Government’s role should be as an enabler rather than as a doer.  After all, it is a  gargantuan canvas on which government can not possibly apply all the paint.

Nonetheless I have been struck by the frustration expressed by some of our members about where the Government has so far got to with ‘Science and Society.’  After last year’s fairly lengthy public consultation process it has now set up a number of expert groups to examine more closely some key themes that came out of that consultation.  They are:

I think the frustration of my colleagues is down to several issues: this is all taking a rather long time to put it mildly(some say the expert groups won’t report until well into next year); charity representation on the groups is minimal which is surprising given the third sector’s role in public education and engagement generally; public involvement is non-existent and, frankly; we could probably be learning and achieving just as much by ‘doing’ or learning on the job although I also think it is high time we did a proper critical appraisal of how much has gone into public engagement activities generally.  

By the way you can read the notes of the last ‘Science for All’ meeting here although it has cancelled its public meeting in London scheduled for next week.  When I read the posted comments on the interactive site I found myself agreeing with a lot of the criticisms.

Perhaps the problem is that Government is intuitively inclined to want to paint by numbers with each daub of paint carefully marked out by experts and it’s application precise, measured and measurable.  That and perhaps the fact that true engagement is about embracing challenging questions from the public rather than – as Government may wish – always putting out a certain line or message.

Anyway, I am conscious that I am beginning to sound like a ‘glass half-empty’ person when the fact is that I sincerely hope it will be a case of ‘all’s well that ends well’ when we look back in twelve months time.  But in the meantime, I am keeping my money on what our members are doing day in day out.

I’ve just read highlights of the last meeting of the Board of Prairie Land.  The Board has appointed three trustees as a committee with work with their Superintendent on a draft submission to the Government of Alberta about new school legislation.

Congratulations to Prairie Land!  If there is any way that we can help the committee, let us know.

Hopefully, you will post your submission to this blog.

Are there any other Boards that are starting to prepare a submission?  Does any Board have plans to involve the public in any way?