Photograph of the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery surface water intake site on Icicle Creek

 

Need some clarification?

Reclamation is interested in helping clarify your understanding of the SWISP Draft EIS. Most questions may be answered by reviewing the Frequently Asked Questions on this page. The public comment period for the SWISP EIS ended on January 4, 2021, and no further questions will be answered by Reclamation via this website. Ongoing information and updates on the project will be available at Reclamation's SWISP EIS website.

1. What is the proposed federal action?

The proposed federal action is to rehabilitate, replace and modernize the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LNFH) surface water intake and delivery system on Icicle Creek near Leavenworth, Washington. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) owns and operates LNFH. Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration fund operations and maintenance because this facility is mitigation for the construction of Grand Coulee Dam.

2. Why is the proposed federal action necessary?

The LNFH surface water intake facility on Icicle Creek that supplies fresh water to the Hatchery is deteriorating due to age and does not comply with the NMFS 2017 Biological Opinion regarding NMFS current fish screening and fish passage criteria. The surface water intake and delivery system must be rehabilitated, replaced, and modernized to comply with current fish screening and fish passage criteria, improve employee safety during operation and maintenance, and increase reliability and longevity of the system.

3. What are the benefits of the proposed federal action?

Rehabilitating, replacing and modernizing the LNFH surface water intake and delivery system would increase access to additional habitat for ESA–listed fish in Icicle Creek by improving upstream and downstream passage at the surface water intake facility. The SWISP Project would protect ESA–listed fish from being entrained or impinged at the surface water intake facility. It also would ensure safe, efficient, and reliable delivery of LNFH’s full surface water rights from Icicle Creek, and allow the Hatchery to continue to raise and release spring Chinook Salmon. The continued success of the Hatchery program provides for Tribal, sport and commercial fisheries in the Icicle Creek, Columbia River and Pacific Ocean.

4. How will you consider comments from the public?

Reclamation is committed to collecting comments from the public and interested parties. Comments received during the public scoping period were summarized in a Scoping Report that was made available to the public before the Draft EIS was released. The Reclamation team reviewed and considered every comment submitted and addressed them as appropriate. For the Draft EIS, Reclamation will consider and evaluate all comments received. Substantive comments received will be addressed in the Final EIS, to be completed in 2021. The comment submittals will be available for public review and may be published as part of the Final SWISP Project EIS.

5. How will Reclamation engage the public during the Draft EIS review and public comment period?

Reclamation is committed to an open and inclusive NEPA process. All comments will be carefully considered in our review and decision(s) on meeting the agency’s NEPA responsibilities and other applicable laws in this process.

The public participates in the NEPA process by helping to identify EIS issues and potential alternatives to the proposed action, and by evaluating the analysis of the proposed action and alternatives in the Draft EIS during the public review period for that document. All public comments received are considered.

On November 20, 2020, the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIS began with the document’s publication in the Federal Register. The public had the opportunity to provide input until January 4, 2021.

The Draft EIS is available for viewing on the Reclamation project website.

In addition to creating this web-based SWISP Virtual Public Meeting Room that was made available to the public for the entire duration of the public comment period, Reclamation hosted two virtual public meetings. The meetings included a presentation on the Draft EIS, an opportunity to ask questions of Reclamation staff, and an opportunity to provide oral public comment. More details are available here.

To ensure the public has an opportunity to review public meeting materials and have questions answered, this virtual public meeting room website was been developed. The public had the opportunity to submit comments through the Draft EIS virtual public meeting room website at any time during the 45 day comment period. Comments were accepted by close of business on January 4, 2021, in the web-based virtual meeting room and video teleconferences, by email, or by U.S. mail.

Information also is available on Reclamation’s SWISP EIS website.

6. How will Reclamation engage Native American tribes?

Reclamation has offered government-to-government consultation with the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation; to date, neither Tribe has requested government-to-government consultation. Fisheries biologists from both tribes are actively participating in ongoing project coordination and are offering professional expertise and tribal perspective. Both tribes have deep, cultural, and vested interests in the modernization of the water intake and delivery system. Concerns raised by the tribes to date have been addressed in the Draft EIS. Additionally, both Tribes have been invited to participate in the process as cooperating agencies.

7. Who are the cooperating agencies?

Reclamation is the lead federal agency under NEPA for development of the EIS. Reclamation requested federal, state, and local agencies and Native American Tribes to participate as cooperating agencies in the environmental analysis and preparation of the SWISP EIS. A cooperating agency is any federal, state, or local government agency or Native American Tribe that enters into a formal agreement—a memorandum of understanding—with the lead federal agency to help in the environmental analysis.

Cooperating agencies for the project are the USFWS and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Other participating agencies for the project are NMFS, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Yakama Nation Fisheries, the Colville Tribes Fish and Wildlife Department.and Chelan County.

8. Will the project affect access to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area?

Icicle Creek Road is the primary way to access the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area and the upper reaches and tributaries of Icicle Creek. Tens of thousands of residents and visitors recreate in the area annually. Construction traffic at key locations on Icicle Creek Road will temporarily disrupt resident and visitor access and parking. Reclamation is coordinating with Chelan County and the U.S. Forest Service to minimize potential disruptions during project construction.

9. How did Reclamation determine a reasonable range of alternatives to analyze in the Draft EIS?

NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives, including the no action alternative. To determine a reasonable range of alternatives, Reclamation engaged in intensive collaboration with cooperating and participating agencies, Native American Tribes, other interested stakeholders, and the general public. Collaboration included a cooperating agency scoping meeting, numerous project design meetings with the cooperating and participating agencies, public scoping, an alternatives screening criteria workshop, and an alternatives development workshop with the cooperating agencies. The description and outcomes of the alternatives development process are summarized in the Alternatives Compilation Report, which was published on Reclamation’s SWISP Project website in November 2020.

10. How will the preferred alternative minimize detrimental effects on the human environment?

NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their activities on the quality of the human environment, including natural resources, cultural resources, and social and economic considerations. The preferred alternative minimizes detrimental effects by minimizing the amount of ground disturbance and vegetation removal in the Icicle Creek riparian zone, as well as the duration of construction activities in Icicle Creek. Further, Reclamation would implement Best Management Practices to protect water quality and other resources, including, but not limited to, fisheries and aquatic resources, Tribal interests, public health and safety, and recreation, during Project construction and operations and maintenance. Reclamation would also obtain all required federal and state regulatory permit approvals before construction begins, and comply with all conditions of approval contained therein. Reclamation would also comply with all required measures and stipulations determined in consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and Yakama Nation and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Tribal Historic Preservation Officers under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

11. What are the main differences between the action alternatives?

Under all action alternatives, Reclamation would rehabilitate the LNFH surface water intake and delivery system on Icicle Creek, and construction would be done over three phases. Under Alternative B, the proposed action, construction of the surface water intake (Phase 1) would be completed over two in-water work seasons, from July 1 to November 15 each year, and construction activities would occur up to 24 hours per day, up to 7 days per week. Surface water intake facilities would be compliant with NMFS current screening and fish passage criteria for anadromous fish passage facilities by November 2023. Conveyance pipeline rehabilitation and replacement (Phase II) would include both CIPP lining and pipeline replacement, including in the Icicle Creek riparian zone.

Under Alternative C, Reclamation’s preferred alternative, Reclamation would line more of the conveyance pipeline with CIPP (as opposed to replacing), including in the Icicle Creek riparian zone, reducing detrimental effects on fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. Surface water intake facilities would be compliant with NMFS current screening and fish passage criteria for anadromous fish passage facilities by November 2023.  

Under Alternative D, Phase I construction would be limited to workday hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., up to 6 days per week, completed over four in-water work seasons, and the in-water work window would be limited to July 1 to October 31 each year. This would minimize the effects of 24 hours a day construction and reduce the risk to cofferdams from high flows in Icicle Creek. However, Alternative D would require 8 months of pumping surface water from the spillway pool 24 hours a day to meet the Hatchery’s water needs between the two in-water work seasons needed to complete the intake structure. Surface water intake facilities would be compliant with NMFS current screening and fish passage criteria for anadromous fish passage facilities by October 2025.

 

If you have more detailed questions about the SWISP EIS, you may reach us by email or phone via the contact information below.

 

For more information on the SWISP EIS, please contact Jason Sutter (208-378-5390, BOR-SHA-PNRLSWISP@usbr.gov).

To be added or removed from the mailing list, please contact Megan Stone (303-447-7160, megan.stone@empsi.com).