Icicle Creek Restoration

Icicle Creek starts high in the spectacular Stuart Range and Alpine Lakes Wilderness, ultimately joining the Wenatchee River near Leavenworth, Washington. It drains 216 square miles of alpine, forest, meadow, and scrub habitats, most of it National Forest land and much of that designated wilderness.  Icicle Creek has historically been a significant component of the vast anadromous fish network of the Columbia River watershed, gathering runs of spring, summer, and fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. The creek also supports wild native populations of resident rainbow and westslope-cutthroat trout, and resident and fluvial bull trout. Unfortunately, like too much of the Columbia River wild-fish ecosystem, Icicle Creek has suffered grave insults to its ecological integrity that have had severe impacts on its wild-fish populations, despite generally high-quality habitat conditions throughout most of the watershed. Like other fish in the upper Columbia Basin, native salmon and steelhead reared in Icicle Creek must negotiate a series of major hydroelectric projects on the mainstem Columbia on their trip to and from the Pacific Ocean. Few wild salmon and steelhead in the upper Columbia have been able to tolerate the assault. Upper Columbia coho are functionally extinct. Upper Columbia Chinook and Upper Columbia steelhead are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act while mid-Columbia bull trout are listed as threatened.

But Icicle Creek carries a special burden (though by no means unique) among tributaries in the upper Columbia. The Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LNFH) began operations a few miles above the mouth of Icicle Creek between 1938 and 1940, installing instream structures that diverted water and blocked passage for migratory fish. Since that time, wild salmon, trout, and char have been blocked from almost 30 miles of pristine aquatic and riparian habitats in the upper Icicle Basin, historically and potentially productive spawning, rearing, feeding, and refuge habitat for declining and listed populations of chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, charged with managing the conservation of many public natural resources, including resident rainbow, cutthroat, and ESA-listed bull trout, manages and operates the LNFH. 

When construction began on LNFH, wild spring, summer, and fall chinook salmon returned annually to Icicle Creek; so did coho salmon, summer steelhead, and fluvial bull trout migrating to and from the Wenatchee River. The hatchery was intended to mitigate for the loss of salmon somewhere else. The Grand Coulee Dam ended a 10,000 year history of wild-fish evolution in the upper Columbia River. Whole races of salmon and steelhead were lost when all migratory access for anadromous salmon and steelhead was cut off above the dam. With the Mitchell Act, Congress authorized the LNFH and other hatcheries throughout the Columbia Basin, intending to manufacture new salmon and steelhead to replace the runs lost above Grand Coulee.

Ironically, the Leavenworth Hatchery, intended to mitigate for Grand Coulee Dam, the largest fish-passage barrier in the Columbia Basin, wound up contributing to the problem, blocking wild fish from additional habitat. For almost 70 years the fish-passage barriers at LNFH, less than three miles from the mouth of Icicle Creek, have isolated wild salmon, steelhead, and bull trout from the largely pristine upper Icicle basin.

Around 1999, Wild Fish Conservancy (then Washington Trout) began working with the Icicle Creek Watershed Council and other members of the Leavenworth community to effect full, year-round wild-fish passage at the hatchery. For almost six years, we attempted to engage USFWS, urging them to make changes at LNFH that would contribute to the recovery of listed fish in Icicle Creek, and that would end violations of the ESA and Clean Water Act.

After years of delay and broken promises, we filed suit under the ESA in June 2005 to force USFWS to remove fish-passage barriers at LNFH (LNFH ESA Complaint). In July, we filed a second suit, this one against USFWS and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), alleging violations of the Clean Water Act at the LNFH (LNFH CWA Complaint).  Our goals were the restoration of fish passage and other ecological functions in the natural stream channel, and the end of illegal water diversions from, and effluent discharges into, Icicle Creek.

The “line in the sand” drawn by the lawsuits got the USFWS’s attention. Years of delay and dismissal were replaced in 2005-2006 by some concrete improvements in conditions on Icicle Creek. USFWS increased natural stream flow into a one-mile reach of the historical channel of Icicle Creek directly adjacent to the LNFH. The restored flow is triggering the restoration of habitats gone fallow from years of isolation, and facilitating partial fish-passage for the first time in almost 70 years. These are the first steps in the restoration of the ecology of the Icicle Creek basin. USFWS has expressed its intent to restore full, year-round passage as soon as possible (read more in the 2006 Washington Trout Report article).

In 2006 and 2007, we negotiated two settlements with USFWS and the US Environmental Protection Agency that will promote significant progress toward restoring fish-passage, improving water quality and habitat conditions in Icicle Creek, and ending illegal harm to threatened steelhead and bull trout at the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery.  The settlements also preserved Wild Fish Conservancy’s favorable position to influence changes to the operations at LNFH that will benefit wild fish in Icicle Creek.

First, the government agreed to issue a final wastewater discharge permit by November 30, 2006 (NDPES Comments).  EPA prepared a permit in November 2006, but before it can be finalized, the Washington Department of Ecology can impose “conditions” on the permit, outlining provisions for maintaining adequate fish passage, instream flows, and other state water-quality standards, a process called “Clean Water Act certification.”  EPA is still awaiting Ecology’s certification, and cannot finalize the Clean Water Act permit. We recommended to Ecology that LNFH submit a plan for achieving fish passage through the LNFH dams and establishing a more normative flow regime in the historical channel of Icicle Creek (Section 401 Comments). A new Clean Water Act permit, with conditions required by Ecology, should include deadlines for compliance, require LNFH to upgrade facilities, and to reduce pollutant discharges, all of which will promote restoration of the Icicle Creek ecosystem.

Second, in early 2007, we reached a favorable settlement over alleged violations of the ESA.  The USFWS agreed to monitor their water intake structure using a system designed by Wild Fish Conservancy. The terms of the settlement also allow Wild Fish Conservancy to amend its ESA complaint to allege that LNFH is illegally harming Upper Columbia bull trout, listed as threatened under the ESA. Our fundamental claim will remain before a federal court: LNFH’s operations are illegally harming federally-protected fish. This ESA complaint is based on a 2006 Biological Opinion that delineates the impacts to listed bull trout from operations at LNFH and provides a favorable position to influence changes to the operations at the hatchery that will benefit bull trout and all the wild fish of Icicle Creek.

The settlements generated an invitation for Wild Fish Conservancy to participate in a “Project Alternative Solution Study” of the infrastructure needs at LNFH and a stalled Icicle Creek Restoration Project. We believe the PASS process can provide a productive means for resolving some of the ecological and legal issues associated with LNFH.  These discussions continue.

Our advocacy efforts have opened the door to a research effort on Icicle Creek and we also work with local teachers on ecological education.  Read about Wild Fish Conservancy’s Icicle Creek Recolonization Study and our education efforts through the Icicle Creek Partnership.