Please read the report below and if you are inclined to write in support or opposition to this project your letter must be received by January 25th. Comments may be emailed and with the short time remaining that is perhaps the best manner of submission. Emailed comments should be directed Anne Hessburg of the Chelan County Community Development Department at Anne.Hessburg@co.chelan.wa.us Regular mail comments should be addressed to Ms. Hessburg at Chelan County Community Planning Dept, 316 Washington Street, Suite 301, Wenatchee, WA 98801.
The Grant County PUD is proposing to build a fish acclimation facility on the White River near Lake Wenatchee. Purpose of the project is to attempt to revive the Spring Chinook run on the White River. A hearing on the application to Chelan County to construct the project was held before Hearing Examiner Andrew Kottcamp in Wenatchee on January 18th. The proposed site is a relatively pristine site on the North side of the White River as you begin to cross the river on the Little Wenatchee Road.
This proposal to restore the Spring Chinook fishery in the White River is part of the relicensing process for Grant County PUD’s Priest Rapids dam. The re-licensing process requires the PUD to mitigate for fish killed going though the dam. This project has the active support of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Federal Fisheries, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Salmon recovery boards and fish-advocate organizations.
At the hearing on January 18th Chelan County presented it’s staff report on the project and recommended approval of some portions of the application but recommended denial of several integral parts of the project. All elements of the application must be approved for the project to move forward. The Grant County PUD presented a phalanx of environmental specialists, fish biologists, engineers, fish advocates and, of course, attorneys who proclaimed the absolute need for this project to go forward. Ms. Debbie Knaub of Grant County PUD reiterated in her comments that the several federal agencies involved have made it quite clear to them that this project MUST go forward. The attorney appearing for Grant County PUD, Mr. Donald Dimmitt, urged the Hearing Examiner to over-ride the denial recommendations of the County and stated that should the Hearing Examiner fail to do that, his decision would be reversed on appeal. My take on that comment was that with their deep pockets Grant County PUD is prepared to litigate this issue until they get their way in a decision that rules that Federal regulatory law trumps any local controls. Thus our County agencies have no control.
Grant County first informed the public of it’s designs on the White River in about 2006, after they had already purchased the property on the White River. At the first public meeting, a representative of NOAA was asked if these public meetings and citizens comments really have any impact on the project and her response was quite succinct and brief- her words being words basically “We’ll have these meetings and you can make your comments but this project is going to be done”. Until yesterday I was ambivalent on this project- I’m not a “Not in my back yard” persons. Since that first meeting in 2006 many of us that live here have asked only one thing- show us that this project can be successful. Grant County PUD, NOAA, Washington Fish and Wildlife and other agencies involved have for 6 years resisted commissioning either an independent scientific review of this project or a predation study to determine if the fish released at the White River location could survive the journey through Lake Wenatchee. The lake has a bull trout population that gives that ESA –protected species predator status in that particular lake. Grant County did finally acquiesce and had a basic study done of survival rates of fish released in separate groups at the project site, below Lake Wenatchee and below the Wenatchee River confluence with the Chiwawa River. The study showed a kill rate of 90 % (a survival rate of only 10%) of fish released at the site, and a 45% to 55% rate of survival of fish released at the other sites. To me this suggests that the concerns expressed by many up here for years about the feasibility of this project are well founded. Yet, Grant County refuses to have a predation study done or to attempt to determine why the survival rate was so low. Their refusal to do that only re-enforces speculation that they feel the results would undercut their stated optimism of the chances of this project being successful. As a result of the study GCPUD now says that their plan is to acclimate the fish at the White River location and then truck them around Lake Wenatchee. That does not sound like a long-range, sustainable, successful program to me.
Other issues on this project: The application states that there will be almost 11,000 cubic yards of fill brought in to cover wetlands. That’s a lot of trucks moving around on our roads and I don’t believe the environmental impact of that traffic has been addressed in any way.
There will be man-made log jams placed in the river. This is an area used by many recreational kayakers and canoers and the dangers of log jams to those sports is well reported and frequently a factor in river drownings. Dealing with naturally-occurring log jams are part of being on the river but log jams made and placed by man are just that- man-made obstacles that present additional danger to river users.
I went to the Hearing Examiner proceeding not really set against this project but skeptical because of the intransience of the sponsors in addressing the feasibility issues. Watching the parade of engineers, fish experts, biologists and attorneys it occurred to me that if a citizen or owner of waterfront property wishes to build, remodel, add to or improve his property these days the constrictions of shoreline management pretty much preclude doing any small excavation, additions to buildings, tree removal, etc. No need to even mention dredging, placing large quantities of fill in the water and covering wetland with four feet of fill. Such actions would be refused in an instant and substantial fines and penalties imposed if they were done. This is sad- most citizens without big $$ would have to accept the initial decision of the County much less going through a Hearing Examiner process and bringing in, at great expense, their legions of lawyers and selected experts. Approval of this project I think would only re-enforce the perception that if you’ve got the big bucks you can overwhelm the process and then threaten to litigate it to death until you get your way.
Comments are welcome and encouraged. Please do submit your letters of support or opposition as above.
George Wilson
Lake Wenatchee
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
“We’ll have these meetings and you can make your comments but this project is going to be done”.
“The attorney appearing for Grant County PUD, Mr. Donald Dimmitt, urged the Hearing Examiner to over-ride the denial recommendations of the County and stated that should the Hearing Examiner fail to do that, his decision would be reversed on appeal.”
This is sabre rattling by the agency because they realize that they are on thin ice as far as the viability of their pet project is concerned. I have heard these statements from agency before and that is why I write this letter now.
It is important for people to ask questions concerning the environmental impact upon animals and habitat listed as Endangered.
Fish and Wildlife must give approval to the application to fill wetlands and there is a very deliberate process involved in granting approval. This is where RCW Title 34 Chapter 5 Administrative Procedure Act comes in to play. Any misstep by Fish and Wildlife in the Hydraulic Project Application approval process will sink the entire project. Fish and Wildlife is under-staffed and over budget routinely so they cut corners and rubber stamp things when they should not. This is where individuals concerned about protecting Lake Wenatchee may ask questions of Fish and Wildlife; DFW is bound by law to answer your request within 5 days or explain why your request cannot be answered. Asking too many questions is an excuse for the agency to delay response so ask one or two questions at a time. Explain to family and friends the opportunity available to learn how your government works by asking questions about your lake and how projects might impact the health of the lake or its residents.
Your request may reflect your concern for some aspect of the project or simply that you would like more information about the project. Perhaps you are concerned about dust from construction or the cumulative impacts of trucks transporting fish from one end of the lake to the other. Maybe you would like to know where the fill material will be sourced and if it contains asbestiform minerals.
Ask Fish and Wildlife. Then ask Grant County the same question. These agencies are bound by their answers and if you don’t ask then they are not bound to much of anything except their pet project.
Submitted by Ray Aspiri:
After review some of the hearing and comments on the project, I have concluded that this is not a feasible or sustainable project. It appears to be driven by the need to offset the requirements imposed by the re licensing of Priest Dam Project. It also appears that we have an offset requirement being imposed by NOOA at the expense to the White River and Lake Wenatchee.
The grant County study indicates that the fish releases at the project site show kill rates of 90% and 45%-55% at other sites. What did we learn from all of the dams built in the 1940′s to 1960′s? What was finally recognized was that only 20% of the fish get past the first dam and then only 20% of the 20% past the second dam. By the time you get to dam five there may be one or two fish getting upstream.
Sounds like a solution is being proposed that is not sustainable or meet the natural migration patterns of how fish live their life cycle. Sure we can truck them around Lake Wenatchee? I cannot believe that our State and Federal Agencies continue to provide proposals that cannot meet scientific scrutiny nor learn from the fatal mistakes we have made in the prior years in building dams and diking/dredging how rivers flow.
Please, take my comments as coming from an proactive citizen that has been committed to making a difference in the Lake Wenatchee Community.
Best regards and God Bless,
Ray Aspiri
Resident of Lake Wenatchee
Northshore Rd., Leavenworth, Wa.
To the Commission:
The Grant County PUD is proposing to build a fish acclimation facility on the White River near Lake Wenatchee. Purpose of the project is to attempt to revive the Spring Chinook run on the White River. A hearing on the application to Chelan County to construct the project was held before Hearing Examiner Andrew Kottcamp in Wenatchee on January 18th. The proposed site is a relatively pristine site on the North side of the White River as you begin to cross the river on the Little Wenatchee Road.
As a property owner on the North Shore of Lake Wenatchee, I have very strict county and state regulations I must follow in order to remodel, landscape, modify or change my property in or close to my property’s riparian zone by the lake. I have worked with the county in the past and respect the ideals of preserving natural flora along shores of our lake and local rivers. The regulations are strict and specific.
I strongly disagree that Grant County PUD should be granted permission to alter their riparian property along the White River. I do not understand how their destruction of wet lands by use of fill dirt, irretrievably altering acres of grasses, shrubs and other riverside indigenous flora can be permitted, when a small landholder such as myself would find it impossible to officially alter my property lakeside. Nor would I ethically desire to do so.
Your commission has a responsibility to the citizens of Chelan County and the State of Washington to demand a cease and desist order for this White River Project and force Grant County PUD to provide appropriate environmental impact statements on the this proposed project. Then they should have to apply for permits as do ordinary citizens of this county. It can then be approved or denied based on its merits as all other projects must be thru due process.
Thank you for your consideration and response.
Gerald Becker
North Shore Drive
Lake Wenatchee, Leavenworth, WA
5097630555
2064372318
Submitted by Christy Collins:
As a property owner bordering this proposed project, I have some particular concerns after reading the 108 pages describing the final proposal. Like most, I am certainly not opposed to the effort to return Spring Chinook to our waters but I have to recommend denial of this permit based on the following:
A) Contrary to the Applicant and County Staff’s concurrence that the granting of this permit would not constitute a “special privilege,” it most certainly would. In 2002 I had to fight the county with hydrologists, biologists and attorneys to acquire a residential building permit on my adjacent property to merely build in my limited upland area 4000’ from the river. Now I learn that the county is considering a large “high impact” commercial structure on the river bank? The private party from whom Applicant purchased the subject also applied for a residential permit and after a year of wrangling with the county over environmental restrictions, gave up. This is about the special privilege of money. Applicant seeks, by enlisting teams of hired guns to overwhelm the process. If Applicant succeeds, County may well set a precedent unwanted. I might re-consider what I might do in my own floodplain/wetland areas next door that thought were untouchable.
B) Applicant proposes to “fill” the sight with 11,000 cubic yards of material and claims that accompanying excavations will offset reduced floodplain. However, the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed excavation into the water table of a wetland will be dry at the time of flooding which means it would not offset flood volume and meet the requirement of the code.
C) Applicant proposes to alter the river bank to stop the rapid erosion that is occurring at the site with rip rap, armoring and artificial log jams, requiring excavation “into” the river. It is my understanding that the function of “natural” rivers is to meander and this natural process is healthiest to the ecology.
D) Applicant is careful not to refer to the project as an “aquaculture” which would be denied outright and instead call it an “acclimation” facility.
E) Applicant and County claim “hardship,” the right to “reasonable use,” and assert the hardship is “not a result of applicant’s own actions.” This is laughable. The applicant’s “action” was the purchase of the property with full knowledge of the regulatory restrictions on it, or certainly had the staff and knowledge to know better.
F) Applicant claims no harm to neighboring properties or property values such as to my property due to proposed nuisance control measures and placement of structures out of sight behind the county road. However, applicant proposes a roof peak height of 25.7 feet above current grade, which is roughly double the height of the road, so Applicant’s claim that view of the structure will be “screened” is false.
G) Applicant and County claim the project is consistent and compatible to nearby land use which is exclusively residential. This commercial project would be allowed under a very convoluted interpretation of what is allowed in residential zoning and lacks precedent .
H) Applicant claims that the subject 18 acres is “degraded” and Applicant will “enhance” it with the planting of native plants. However, this property has remained in its current state for several decades, has naturalized and measures to alter that now are suspect.
I) Applicant claims a general “public” benefit in more fish but not access to the subject property or its shoreline, access being one of the intents of the code in granting such use in residential zoning.
J) Applicant’s release of fish in 2011 from the temporary facility resulted in a 90% kill rate. It is not understood why the Applicant wishes to go forward with a permanent facility rather than continue release from the far less expensive and environmentally friendly temporary facility until such loss is understood.
K) Applicant is requesting relief and variance from not one regulatory code, but five: Shoreline Variance, Riparian Variance, Wetland Variance, Setback Variance, and Variance to Build a High Impact Facility in residential zoning. If the County acquiesces, there will be no doubt in the public eye that this is a granting of special privilege.
L) It is my opinion that this proposed site is “floodway” not “floodplain” and I’d like to see the independent survey that determines it is only floodplain. As we all know FEMA maps are not reliable in determining this. I’ve stood and watched the water run rapidly across this property on more than one flood occasion. My husband, Mark Lindstrom, the real estate broker who had the property listed for sale in 2004, attempted to deter the PUD from going forward with this project given his experience with it.
As stated, I agree with others that fish restoration is important so compromises to accommodate such a project ought to be considered. The breadth of the variances involved in this project, however, are excessive.
Respectfully,
Christy Collins
White River Road
You must log in to post a comment.