1 Aug 2017
The Icicle Work Group does not want to hold an official meeting in Seattle on its draft environmental impact statement.
At a July 27 meeting of the Icicle Work Group, it announced plans for the release of its draft impact statement, probably in early October. This impact statement covers the group’s proposals for dams or other structures on seven lakes and a tunnel or siphon to drain an eighth lake, all within the Icicle drainage of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. The work group said it will conduct an official public meeting in Leavenworth, but only an informal informational meeting in the Seattle area.
Environmentalists at the work group meeting complained that the Seattle-area meeting should be just as official as the Leavenworth meeting, announced the same way, and with public comments treated the same way. They noted that the federal lands belong to all citizens, and the Forest Service user visitation data shows the majority of visitors to the Icicle portion of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness come from the west side of the state. Three representatives from the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest present at the meeting did not dispute this.
Several work group members disagreed with the idea of an official Seattle meeting. A representative from the Icicle-Peshastin Irrigation District said the most important commenters are those whose “livelihood” is affected by the project, even though the project is mainly designed to supply more water to the city of Leavenworth. The State Dept. of Ecology representative from its Office of the Columbia River said it is “uncommon” to hold a public meeting outside the Icicle Basin “footprint” of the project.
This prompted environmentalists to respond that the public meeting cannot be held inside the Icicle portion of the Wilderness.
Aspect Consulting, which has been retained by the work group, said the west-side “voices” would be different than those in the Wenatchee valley, with different content. He seemed to suggest that the difference in those voices was somehow a reason to exclude them.
Initially, the work group planned to release its draft environmental impact statement in early August, but has pushed that date back “about 60 days,” which means early October.
The work group said it is leaning toward allowing a 60-day comment period. If release of the draft impact statement slides past mid-October, the comment deadline would land in the end-of-year holidays. The current draft of the impact statement is about 600-700 pages, not including appendices and other referenced documents. Environmentalists said a 90-day comment period would be better, both because of the holidays and the volume of new information to be released.