Letters

Those who oppose building DUSEL in the Icicle, including many long-term valley residents, have consistently offered sound arguments centered around three key ideas: 1) That the Icicle Canyon has great esthetic and recreational value, and deserves protection from large-scale development, 2) that the lab could pose significant threats to our water supply, and 3) that more appropriate lab sites are available elsewhere.

In his May 24 editorial, Mr. Warner worried about upper valley residents' "built-in resistance to change." In a June 1 letter to the editor, Jan Carpenter asked, "...given that the Alaskan wilderness is now open to oil...do you think that all the kicking and screaming will stop an important project like this?"

The issue is not resistance to change, oil extraction from public wilderness, or the futility of opposing powerful corporate/government interests. The NSF wishes to provide physicists with the deep lab space required to do their experiments. We want to protect the Icicle watershed from unnecessary large-scale development. Selection of a non-Icicle site would satisfactorily resolve both issues.

If DUSEL is eventually built, it is critical that it be located where it can best fulfill its mission. While Mt. Cashmere may have looked promising 18 months ago, the playing field has changed dramatically since then. Seven other potential sites have emerged, all with strong local support, while opposition to the Icicle site has deepened. Yet UW proponents of Icicle/DUSEL stubbornly cling to their original proposal, backed by an outdated and factually inaccurate rationale which totally ignores new realities.

In the current (June 6) issue of Newsweek, Stanford's Gretchen Daily writes, "Ecosystem assets, like water and forests, are becoming scarce. ...we should view an ecosystem not as a vacant land for development, but as a capital asset that must not be squandered." The Icicle is just the kind of priceless "capital asset" Ms. Daily has in mind.

Bill Kampen
Leavenworth

---

DUSEL proponent's campaign of misinformation...

The editorial by Wick Haxton in the May 25 issue is another example of the UW DUSEL proponents “campaign of misinformation” to throw the phrase back at them. We’ll address the continuing misinformation below (all bold quotes are Haxton's from the editorial):

First, the “rational public policy for deciding the use of public lands,” in this case Icicle Canyon / Mt. Cashmere, has already been decided. The Wenatchee Forest Plan, which was almost ten years in the making and involved extensive public input, declared that Icicle Canyon and Mt. Cashmere would be managed primarily to maintain scenic and recreational qualities. The proposed tunnel portal area lies within a “Wild and Scenic River - Recreation” designation, and also a protected riparian zone. The DUSEL project would hardly be “consistent with the purposes for which public lands are preserved” in this case. It’s an outrage that such a project has even been proposed for the beautiful National Forest lands in Icicle Canyon, when excellent DUSEL sites exist on developed private mining lands elsewhere in the country.

A NEPA / SEPA analysis is not needed “to provide the public and the decision-making agencies with full and accurate information, so that wise decisions can be made.” Wise decisions can be made by simply reading the proponents “Pre-Proposal” document. It doesn’t take long to realize that the major impacts and risks of siting DUSEL here cannot be mitigated at all, despite their vague assurances. How can a massive industrial project in a scenic canyon surrounded by a wilderness area be “mitigated”? Or to quote from a letter signed by ten members of the DUSEL Citizens Advisory Committee: “We fail to see how the concerns we have raised can be adequately addressed later in the process. The lab is what it is; some of the problems it will create here simply can't be mitigated.”

The opposition group (which by the way is not just “30 or so people who live on Icicle Road,” to quote from the pre-proposal, but is actually hundreds, perhaps thousands by now, of regional citizens) has “conducted a campaign of misinformation and fear” and “their tactics have included threats and intimidation.” Say what? That’s a bunch of baloney. We’re part of that opposition, and we don’t think any of the school teachers, shopkeepers, community leaders or any of the other wide array of local and statewide folks who oppose DUSEL here are going around threatening and intimidating anyone. On the contrary, it is the proponents of the project who are threatening to destroy a national treasure that is Icicle Canyon, regardless of the position of an apparently vast majority of citizens that DUSEL should be sited elsewhere. So instead of doing the right thing, backing down, and putting DUSEL where it belongs (like Minnesota - at an existing DUSEL site or South Dakota - at an existing deep mine), they keep intimidating us with something that would destroy our quality of life, put our watershed at extreme risk of contamination, and bring an end to the peace and beauty that is the Icicle Valley.

As a federal employee who is familiar with the NEPA / SEPA process, I know that it’s usually true that “once the process begins, it [DUSEL] cannot be stopped.” So is it any wonder that the proponents are propagating misinformation to get themselves to that process? And then Haxton says, “really, there is no other issue.” Excuse me, we believe there’s a lot of serious issues. Such as ignoring widespread local opposition. And ignoring the fact that siting DUSEL here would not be the best and highest use of Icicle Canyon and Mt. Cashmere. Leaving it in its relatively pristine state and protecting our water supply is the best use.

And then there’s the inference that the most dangerous chemical to be used at the lab is helium, “the same gas that only makes childrens’ voices squeaky when they inhale it.” Let’s talk misinformation here. What about the long list of known carcinogens and flammable materials to be used at the lab and hauled through our town and up the canyon into our watershed? Check out the official DUSEL website at dusel.org for a list of hazardous and flammable materials to be used such as “xenon, acetone, lead, scintillator, radioactive sources, toxic and flammable liquids...”

And finally in the editorial... “I have no interest in putting the water supply or our [our?] quality of life at risk.” Excellent. If you truly believe that, then withdraw Icicle Canyon from the selection process right now, because the safety of our water cannot be guaranteed. And lastly... “this opportunity to improve the economic vitality of our [there’s that word again] mountain home.” Well, apparently our economic vitality is just fine, because no business owners spoke in support of DUSEL at the recent public hearing. They know it would destroy tourism for years, maybe permanently.

And by the way, yes you're right about one thing, "the ends [in this case saving Icicle Canyon, our water, and the quality of life in Leavenworth for future generations] justify the means.”

Dan O’Connor and Sandra Beardsley
Leavenworth, WA

---

May 20, 2005 - Wenatchee World

I had the opportunity to attend the DUSEL public meeting last Thursday evening. I just read The Wenatchee World’s article (see Recent News) and felt the obligation to let you know a few observations I made during the meeting. Living outside the city limits, I admit I don’t know who all the Leavenworth City Council members are or what they look like. I enjoyed learning their names and faces. Having no prior judgments, I decided to watch their faces as you listened to each community member speak.

Before the public had the chance to speak, it was stated that the council members had not yet taken a position on the matter and were waiting to hear what the community had to say. However, one council member in particular made it very clear that he had already made his decision. Rob Eaton’s facial expressions and body language were quite offensive. Almost every time someone spoke against the DUSEL proposal he would shake his head “no” and appear to mock the speaker while looking down at his papers. Time and time again, Mr. Eaton would do this while “listening” to arguments against DUSEL.

Being a public official requires maturity and responsibility to the community members and their needs, even if opinions differ. I was seriously disappointed to witness Mr. Eaton’s actions. He has taken away integrity from the entire council. The DUSEL proposal is a difficult issue for this community and it is the council’s responsibility to listen with an open mind and heart to residents who feel it is important to provide input on this matter.

AMBER ZIMMERMAN
Leavenworth

---

May 18, 2005 - Leavenworth Echo

The main reasons DUSEL should not be located in Icicle Canyon come from the National Science Foundation itself. In its May 2003 DUSEL Site Report, the NSF reviewed three potential sites. One of these like Icicle Canyon is an undeveloped site. The issues related to undeveloped sites are, surface access and activities, unknown groundwater characteristics, lack of infrastructure, high relative cost, schedule constraints and protracted environmental and permitting processes.

The NSF identified concerns as follows.

1.Surface access and activities can be restricted due to state, federal, wilderness or other land use classifications.

2. The groundwater characteristics are unknown. Disturbing fracture flow systems can impact the recharge to creeks, aquifers, springs. private wells and affect water quality.

3.An entire infrastructure has to be built which along with environmental constraints make the cost extremely high and will cause significant delays to lab operation.

4. The potential for protracted environmental and permitting processes makes undeveloped sites the least favored.

5. While developing a DUSEL from scratch was considered appealing from a purely scientific viewpoint, the consensus was that such a luxury was not defensible due to high relative cost, schedule constraints and critical data gaps.

6. The most suitable sites were those existing mines with existing infrastructure and permitting.

The National Science Foundation clearly understands what the best approach to DUSEL is from a cost and environmental standpoint and will likely do what is best for science, for the country, and for taxpayers. The University of Washington on the other hand is only interested in what is best and most convenient for the University of Washington.

After a year and a half of effort they have failed to garner even minimal local support and ignore the wide spread and growing opposition as if it doesn't exist. Their 15 page final proposal to the NSF is filled with glaring inaccuracies, misrepresentations and flawed assumptions. It's time for the UW to do the right thing and give up this fiasco.

Fred Carani
Leavenworth, WA

---

May 18, 2005 - Leavenworth Echo

The people of this state need your help in defeating the Dusel project. It would be a travesty to the natural beauty of your area. Please put your full efforts into putting down this hair-brained idea of a few citizens who have no respect for what’s left of our cherished places.

Glenn and Darlene Aistead
Puyallup, WA

---

I am opposed to the DUSEL Project without a doubt and would like to present just a fraction of the reasons for my opposition and many of these are unanswered Questions.

Will DUSEL be responsible for and make restitution for: Contami-nation of Icicle well water, Icicle River; Economic Disasters that result in case of failures; Restore and or maintain roads used by construc-tion equipment during and after construction period; Compensate ruined businesses and residences along Icicle Rd.; Contribute to the Tax base of County and City; Will DUSEL contribute to the “Bavarian Theme”; Will they pay their own way or will we; Will the tunnels in our mountains be the only ones or will this area in the future look like so many others around the world, like the Uranium digs in Thueringen Germany rammed through by the Communist regime behind the Iran Curtain - Useless for human habitation. That too was for the good of the people. Forming a coalition of various civic entities for the project is really counter productive since none of these have any money to begin with, as is evidenced by the backpedaling when confronted with living up to normal responsibilities as in maintain-ing roads, removing snow.

The various entities of such a coalition, to name some, would be Chambers of Commerce of Wenatchee, Leavenworth, Cashmere, Port of Chelan, City Governments, Univ. Wash., and Washington Society of Professional Engineers.

Note their budget woes result in a continuous run of whining, al-ways in the red, looking for that elusive windfall. Since lack of funds is a platform these entities share in common it is not likely that another project will suddenly inflict fiscal responsibility and solvency, nor is it likely that abilities to handle a project of this magnitude will sud-denly appear on the horizon. Millions of dollars taken in aniiually and mismanaged have fallen short of the stated goals as evidenced by the disrepair of roads etc. The list could be endless.

Karl Reuss
Leavenworth

---

May 18, 2005 - Leavenworth Echo

For the past 23 years as part-time residents of Leavenworth, we have treasured the beauty and serenity of the Icicle Canyon. We enjoy hikes along the river, camping in the forest and, most of all, the spectacular view from the valley of the peaks and ridges that line the canyon.

We are strong opponents of the DUSEL lab proposal for the Icicle Canyon. We believe that people who live in the valley should have the strongest voice in the future of the Icicle Canyon as we are the ones whose quality of life will be most affected, not the residents in Wenatchee or Ellensburg or researchers in Seattle.

The advancement of science is extremely important to society, but wilderness should not be compromised for its sake. The Icicle Canyon is one of Washington state’s most precious wilderness areas and also a popular recreation area essential to Leavenworth’s tour-ism industry. Other national sites for the proposed DUSEL lab are much better options for this project as they are less environmentally intrusive and already have some infrastructure in place.

It is critical that policy makers listen to Leavenworth residents and carefully weigh the risks. Once we change our wilderness ar-eas, we cannot return to them to what they were. As Edward Abbey once put it, “The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it onjy needs defenders.”

Linnea, Peter, Eva and Erika Westerlind
Leavenworth

---

Letter to the City Council

We are writing in opposition to the DUSEL project that is being considered here in our back yard. Through our many hiking, camping, eating, and shopping experiences in the Leavenworth Valley, we have met many people from all over the world. These various visiting people: hikers, climbers, bird watchers, kayakers, backpackers, ice climbers, environmentalists, tourists, and shoppers, have had the pleasure of enjoying a truly unique area. The Leavenworth and sur-rounding area includes the people and animals that have built their homes to enjoy such pristine water, valleys, meadows, mountains, glaciers, vegetation and habitat. To take this pristine valley and limit the access, widen the roads up Icicle, increase heavy traffic, etc. will have a significant environmental impact on streams, water, habitat, vegetation, and tourism. We believe that the DUSEL project will have significant, permanent and irreversible damage to the valley. A couple of us grew up in Leavenworth, and see the changes that have already taken place. We are not against growth for the valley, however, we believe with the DUSEL project we will see a significant decrease in people accessing the pristine Leavenworth Valley, which will then impact the economic and environmental livelihood, which Leavenworth depends on. Again, we strongly oppose the DUSEL project.

Your hiking and shopping friends,
The Hiker Sisters
Micha OlIerton, Corina Scroggie, Crystal Bragg, Gina Oliver
Chelan County residents

---

May 2005

Dear Chamber Board members,

This is the third request that the Icicle Valley Protection Alliance has made that you either retract your endorsement of DUSEL or poll your membership. To date we have recieved no response. The endorsement was made very early in the process when very little was known about DUSEL. The impacts and threats of this project are now more clearly understood. If Icicle Canyon becomes a heavy construction zone for 5-7 years, people will go elsewhere for their vacation and recreation opportunities. The various hazardous chemicals and possibly radioactive material to be used in experiments pose an unacceptable risk to Leavenworths water supply. These are the two main concerns of many too numerous to list.

There is overwhelming and growing opposition to DUSEL as more and more people realize it simply does not belong in Icicle Canyon. We have over 1,400 documented signatures on our mailing list who are opposed to DUSEL. Not one business person spoke in favor of DUSEL at the May 12 public hearing. Not one member of the Ports Citizen Advisory Committee spoke in favor either. We feel that the Chamber is on the wrong side of this issue and that it is completely unjustifiable to continue to endorse this project. We ask again that you as a board publicly retract the previous endorsement and conduct a poll of your membership.

Thank you,

Fred Carani

Cot Rice

Icicle Valley Protection Alliance

---

February 23

Proponents claim construction issues are not insurmountable...so why are they not being addressed; to make a statement like that a solution should be at hand. The concerns voiced at the various CAC meetings are real. The hot air we listen to is in reality the “Spin” avoiding the issue.

At whose expense will the issues be mitigated? Are the Taxpayers the ones to foot the bill? The UW doesn’t have the money to fund this. According to the Seattle P1 the grants are not there, in fact the whining continues in subsequent issues “the pool of money which provides the bulk of the UW’s research funding, has stopped growing for the first time in years.” Does that tell you something?

The Wenatchee Chapter of Washington Society of Professional Engineers and the science division of Wenatchee Valley College claim their members unanimously support the DUSEL project, hallo...They don’t live here. Proponents even claim to have the utmost confidence in the UW, I find this amusing since there is no evidence that any of them understand the word no or any of its parts. It seems that in light of the opposition the persistent phrase is “no, we don’t want it in our mountains.”

The Port Authority having too much money is proceeding to spend it on studying a project that we do not want in the Icicle Valley. They at least are looking for more information knowing that a good decision requires facts. But the support reported in the WW 2/17/ 05 issue sheds some light on the true issues driving the support, it is convenient for the Wenatchee Valley Chamber of Commerce, it doesn’t ruin their backyard, and they stand to increase revenue while the sham lasts without suffering the consequences, of course, when things fail, the Leavenworth City, COC, residents, visitors, business owners etc. will be left holding the “bag.”

Marilyn Cox states that the university wants to work in Partnership with the port and its citizens. Hallo...they want us to pay the fare. They also speak of long term that translates to less than 30 years, what then? Has anyone seen daylight lately?

So far none of the tough questions have been st answered, they have really been ignored, a rather rude approach to the effort that was put forward by so many (CAC) in order to take a rational approach to the proposals. But that is just the kind he of treatment we can expect from those who would push their agenda upon those whom it affects the most, Leavenworth residents. This is somewhat reminiscent of the feudal system throughout of Europe in days gone by. Then you also paid for someone else’s whims, wars, travel, expeditions, and extravagances, and you had nothing to say say about it. Is that what you want?

Responses to the assumptions have also been grossly ignored. The UW made many assumptions that CAC responded to but no one has addressed any of these issues, for that matter the permit process has not been entered into at any level, then why spend money on issues and studies that may not be necessary, since the permits may not be granted [I hope], now there is a thought for the UW’s financial problems, spend your money where it counts. What a concept.

Karl Reuss
Leavenworth

---

February 16

Traditionally, each generation likes to leave the area where they have lived, in better condition than when they arrived. I feel most of us share that phi-losophy and certainly our generation has reaped the benefit of the early settlers in our valley(s). I am talking about the water delivery systems these creative pioneers have left us. Think about the water systems we inherited and that which other areas are jealous of.

For example, Grand Coulee Dam, Wenatchee Reclamation District, Icicle Irrigation District, Cascade Orchard Irrigation, City of Leavenworth, National Fish Hatchery (salmon production, Federal mandated), and Chiwawa Irrigation in Plain. Think of what our valleys would be without water. Our early settlers recognized very quickly the value of water. Without it, no survival. Over the years, our present systems were built, until today we have some of the finest water delivery methods in the state. What a legacy to inherit! What does the future hold and what do we have to do?

Years ago, anytime ideas came up that might interfere with water delivery the people were ready to go to “War”. Water was sacred nothing was going to interfere with that which was theirs. As Mark Twain once said, “Water’s for fighting over, whiskey’s for drinking...”

Citizens of our watersheds: We are faced with a proposal for a huge development (DUSEL) up the Icicle Canyon. This project has all the earmarks to impact our water legacy. Are we going to sit back and let this happen? It is Important to recognize... not just the Icicle River could be impacted, but the whole lower Wenatchee watershed is at risk. Take the time to learn about this project, then ask yourself, are any unproven benefits that may accrue worth the risk?

If this development happens, what is to stop other developers from coming in to impact our water legacy? Do you know that the present forest plan did not take into account such a huge project? This project is like trying to fit a fully loaded logging truck into a standard garage!

DUSEL may or may not be a good idea, but not in our watershed! Think! There must be a legacy we can leave besides the potential for a compro-mised water system of which we may not have any control. Let’s look down the road. Is economic development such that we have to sacrifice over 100 years of constructive progress to satisfy a few scientists, possibly create a few jobs? How about an increase in taxes to fund this project? There is a great possibility we face the loss of jobs due; to reduction or interference of water (irrigation and domestic), as well as in orchards. How about recreation? Tourism? Sense of place?

Cot Rice
Leavenworth

---

As a resident of Chelan County, I urge you to consider the dire consequences of supporting a DUSEL project in the Wenatchee National Forest This pristine wilderness area is enjoyed by many not just in Chelan County, but all throughout the Pacific Northwest and much of the revenue that is produced here in the town of Leavenworth are from people who come to recreate and enjoy the beauty and tranquility of Icicle Valley. I have enjoyed the Icicle Valley for many years and recently moved to the area because of its wild and pristine beauty as well as its peaceful setting. I’d be saddened to see something so spectacular and appreciated by so many be gambled on what are suspect assur-ances of “discovery potential” and “boons to the local economy.” When examining similar DUSEL projects in Italy, Japan, and Russia, it is quite clear that there are no guarantees to maintaining the en-vironmental health and integrity that currently ex-ists in the Icicle Valley if a project were to be built there. I can guarantee one thing, however, if the DUSEL project is built and environmental impacts to land, water, fish, and wildlife do occur, many who come to climb, hike, kayak, ski, camp, and enjoy the valley now, may not do so in the future. I urge you to please support leaving our Wilderness Areas wild, intact, and free of such a threat.

Bao Le
Leavenworth

---

Opposition to the DUSEL Project is overwhelm-ing and 213 responses are being pushed aside in favor of one who is for as reported in the Feb. 2 issue of The Leavenworth Echo in an article by Betsy Steele.

Yet UW officials are not getting it, they continue to go forward with planning for funding and other preparations for the project. Mainly on the basis that they have the support of many who wouldn’t live in the area before or during or after the con-struction phase, because the images of huge gravel pits and the destroyed environment ruined water tables are very clear in their minds. This includes the proponents from UW.

There are no provisions for failure or cata-strophic events, for ruined businesses along the Icicle, unlivable homes, and traffic problems dur-ing and after construction. There is not even any guarantee that with the additional tax revenue Chelan County will maintain the current level of services on the Icicle. That is, recent cessation of snow removal end of ‘04 for the “old Icicle” is only an example of the attitudes that will be exhibited more frequently.

The city, Chamber of Commerce, county, Port Authority, UW, Forest Service and other entities will not look beyond a short-term windfall of income, once this piglet grows into a huge boar and requires more food and delivers only excrement. There will not be anyone there to clean it up, i.e., the aforementioned entities.

Karl Reuss
Leavenworth

---

DUSEL is "NO SELL" for the Icicle Canyon

After studying the DUSEL proposal for over five months as members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to the Port of Chelan County, many of us have concluded that it would be best if the lab were sited elsewhere. These were the reasons for our decision:

The tunnel boring and blasting has the potential to disturb subsurface water flows in Leavenworth's municipal watershed, and damage the ecosystem of the entire region. Such effects may not become apparent until after the project is well underway. Can we be sure that all such unanticipated problems will yield to engineering solutions?

Once the lab is built, huge quantities of toxic chemicals will be required for its neutrino detectors. For example, just one of the experiments planned for the lab requires 150,000 gallons of gasoline-like scintillator and tons of lead shielding, and even larger experiments are contemplated. What kind of "mitigation" can justify introducing these potential contaminants into our watershed, where the current risk is zero?

The construction of the staging area, twin 3-mile long tunnels and lab chambers under Mt. Cashmere would be very destructive to the land, while severely impacting local residents and visitors. Two of the most intractable problems this would create are the extensive rock hauling through residential areas on the Icicle Road and up Tumwater Canyon, and the costly, lengthy, and invasive infrastructure upgrades. How could three-plus years of intense construction activity not have a negative effect on Leavenworth's visitor-based economy?

The US Forest Service has determined that the Icicle's scenic beauty and recreational value are of primary importance. But DUSEL would severely impact recreational use of the Canyon during the lengthy construction period due to noise, heavy truck traffic, and restricted access to campgrounds and trails.

The future direction of such esoteric deep-lab research is difficult to predict. No one knows what kinds of experiments will find their way into the lab over time, what additional risks they might pose, or how open they will remain to public scrutiny. The proponents say that some experiments will relate directly to national defense, and this role may expand. Given the huge monetary investment, the importance of the research, and the ever-present threat of terrorism, the area surrounding the lab portal near Bridge Creek may need to be tightly secured. Would floodlights, chain-link fences, locked gates, and security checkpoints be compatible with a wilderness-recreational environment?

Is it in our best interests to become dependent on outside government agencies which may not share our local culture or values, and which may have economic and political agendas unaligned with ours? For the last forty years, the Icicle and Wenatchee Valleys have enjoyed local control of their tourist and small-business economy. We have all seen far too many examples of federal projects which have been misrepresented, poorly designed or implemented, mismanaged, under-funded, and in some cases even abandoned before completion, such as the Super-Collider project in Texas.

A number of environmental rules and regulations would have to be compromised in order to allow the lab chambers to be placed under a designated Wilderness Area, and to permit the portal within one-quarter mile of Icicle Creek. If loopholes in our environmental rules can be exploited to allow a project of this size in the Icicle, what precedents will this set for future large-scale developments in the Canyon, or for similar projects elsewhere?

There are other communities in the U.S. which are far better equipped to accommodate a project of this size and complexity, and are eager to do so.

Most of our concerns relate specifically to the Icicle site. At these other mine-based sites, environmental impacts have largely been mitigated, much of the infrastructure is already in place, economic impacts would be unambiguously positive, and fewer people would be adversely affected. In addition, the extra cost of building DUSEL here, the only from-scratch site still under consideration, is not a justified expenditure of U.S. taxpayer money, given these alternatives.

We believe the Icicle Canyon was a hasty and inappropriate choice as a DUSEL candidate. We fail to see how the concerns we have raised can be adequately addressed later in the process. The lab is what it is; some of the problems it will create here simply can't be mitigated.

There is a significant downside in continuing to promote DUSEL-Cascades in the face of stiff and growing local opposition. Most people who live here and those who use the Canyon for recreation understand that the Icicle is a special place, and believe in the importance of protecting it from large-scale development. We urge the NSF to have the wisdom and foresight to remove the Icicle Canyon/Mt. Cashmere site from further consideration.

Hank Drewniany
Pat Fromm
William Kampen
Ken Marson
Polly McIntire
Lee Milner
Alan Moen
Cot Rice
Dick Rieman
Craig Root

Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee
DUSEL-Cascades project

---

July 21

Some of the proponents of the National Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory proposed for the Icicle valley and below the Alpine Lakes Wilderness have apparently been giving the impression that major environmental groups support their effort. As far as the Alpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS,) is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. ALPS has members on both sides of the Cascades and has been working to protect the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and surrounding areas since 1968. We take that job seriously, and based on what we've seen so far, we believe the Icicle valley and the Alpine Lakes Wilderness is the wrong place for a major industrial facility such as DUSEL.

The DUSEL project would have many negative effects on the Icicle valley, and would set a terrible precedent for development in a protected Wilderness area. We believe the DUSEL proponents have been less than candid about the true scale of the impacts it would have, and also about the suitability of alternative sites in South Dakota and California. For these reasons, ALPS opposes DUSEL as currently proposed, and we urge the residents of Chelan county to take a long, hard look before signing on to

Donald Parks
ALPS President

---

July 19

One of the major concerns regarding the proposed Icicle DUSEL is the enormous amount of crushed rock which will be produced by the tunnel drilling, estimated in a UW report/faq released March 10 to be about 647,000 cubic meters (841,000 cubic yards).

According to project director Wick Haxton, the current plan is to remove this rock from the canyon at an average rate of 44 truckloads (round-trips) per day, with each truck pulling a 10-cubic-yard trailer (pup). If the trucks run seven days a week, Dr. Haxton calculates it will take 2.6 years to remove all the rock from the canyon (see page 10 of this report, available in local libraries, or click on faq’s 24 and 25 online at http://int.phys.washington.edu/NUSEL/faq,html ).

If the trucks began hauling at 7:00 a.m. and quit at 6:00 p.m. each day, and if you live along the hauling route, a truck with trailer will pass your house, on average, every 7 1/2 minutes during this eleven-hour period, for 2.6 years. If we assume instead a more normal five-day workweek, the hauling will take 3.7 years.

The constants here are the total amount of rock to be moved (841,000 cubic yards), and the capacity of the dump trucks and pups (10 cubic yards each). The variables are the number of trucks per day, the length of the workday, the number of hauling days per week, and the number of years the hauling will take. Any attempt to reduce one variable simply expands the others. Adverse road conditions in winter and spring and other unanticipated delays, for example, could easily push the hauling period to 4-5 years.

For Valley residents living near Icicle or East Leavenworth road, there are additional concerns. Road upgrades (including the burying of power lines and fiber-optic cables) will extend the work period by several additional months. Road repairs will also be needed more frequently due to the vastly increased heavy equipment traffic.

The huge drill assembly itself will have to be trucked to Bridge Creek in pieces and assembled on-site, with replacement parts brought up as needed. Since the six-miles of tunnel and the vast lab area must be lined with a concrete-like substance, these materials will also have to be trucked up. It is unclear how much additional traffic this will generate, but it should be substantial.

In addition, construction workers will need to drive to and from the portals every workday in their own rigs. Oil and Diesel fuel will have to be trucked to the Bridge Creek staging area, where at least some construction equipment will require pressure-cleaning, lubrication and refueling, perhaps raising watershed concerns.

Another problem, as yet unresolved, is where the 850,000 cubic yards of rock will be dumped. As anyone who has lived near an excavation project knows, dumping rock is very noisy, dusty business. Safety beepers blare and rocks crash against metal as dump trucks and front-end loaders maneuver the rock into place amid clouds of diesel fumes.

To the extent that the rock is dumped at the county borrow pit near the Icicle/East Leavenworth Road junction, those living close to the site will have a rough four years. If instead it is hauled to dumpsites along highway 2, people living along East Leavenworth Road and the Icicle all the way into (and possibly through) Leavenworth will be impacted by the truck traffic.

How will this affect residents and visitors who currently jog, walk, or bike along the Icicle and East Leavenworth roads? Will rock climbers, hikers, and campers want to return to the Icicle Canyon once they have experienced this?

While the rock-hauling is a major concern, there are many other lab-related issues that are equally problematic. Prominent among them are the lab’s impact on our local water supply, and the possibility of future lab expansion beyond the known construction period.

It is also worth noting that the lab will be federally-controlled, with its supposed long-term economic benefits dependent on notoriously unreliable federal funding. At least some of the government experiments conducted in the lab will be classified, making it impossible for us locally to assess any risks these experiments might pose.

We are hopeful that the Echo and Wenatchee World will provide more detailed, factual information on these issues soon. Clearly there are many public impacts related to this project which have not yet been fully addressed.

Bill Kampen
Leavenworth

---

July 22

The DUSEL project being proposed in Mt Cashmere will destroy Icicle Canyon as we know it. The proponents have been misinforming and distorting the real impacts of this project. They are only interested in presenting “facts” which support their proposal and claim that negative impacts can be mitigated. However, more and more people are realizing that they have been duped from the beginning by a slick marketing campaign that promises everything to everyone.

Icicle Canyon is one of the most popular and scenic recreation areas in the, state. It provides easy access to unique wilderness and natural areas for several hundred thousand people every year. Realistic estimates are of 4-5 years or longer of heavy construction and hauling activity. Besides the obvious environmental disruptions, this will have a negative affect on the local economy as recreationists and tourists will go elsewhere to spend their dollars.

Hazardous chemicals and possibly radioactive material will be transported into and out of the Canyon within Leavenworths’ watershed. They will be utilized less than five miles above the citys’ water intake. Any kind of spill or accident will put Leavenworths’ water supply at serious risk. I can’t imagine any city allowing this type of activity in its’ watershed.

There are alternatives. Yet the proponents stubbornly refuse to consider the use of existing mines like Homestake in South Dakota or elsewhere for various questionable reasons. The science and research are not the issue here. They can be done at other suitable locations. The issue is that Icicle Canyon is not the place for

Fred Carani
Leavenworth

Fred Carani
Leavenworth

---

The Leavenworth Echo, July 14, 2004 issue.

As most everyone now knows, the National Science Foundation (NSF) wants a deep underground science and engineering lab to be built somewhere in the U.S. during the next decade. The site search is being led by Wick Haxton, a physics professor at the University of Washington.

At the present time, the top two potential sites identified by Dr. Haxton are Cashmere Mountain in the Icicle Canyon and Big Devil Peak near Marblemount on the North Cascades highway. In a coincidence for the university, both are located within an easy drive of Seattle.

According to the UW's pre-proposal released last month, numerous concerns regarding the Icicle site have emerged. In respect to the multi-year construction period, the report lists the following potential impacts to our area [page B-4]:

"physical impact of coring on land surface; truck traffic; noise, dust and physical conflict on roadways; damage to the roadways; noise; conflicts with recreational community (campers, hikers, bikers and climbers); threatened and endangered species impacts; damage to recreational areas, particularly rock climbing areas by necessary road improvements and fiber optics installations; utilization of limited water resources within Wenatchee River watershed; discharge of storm and groundwater to surface waters; air emissions; impact to housing by construction workers; intrusion of tunnel under designated wilderness area; and construction site visual impacts."

Problems won't end with the completion of the lab. The following potential impacts will remain once the lab is operational (B-5 of the pre-proposal):

"economic stimulation with resulting growth impacts; decrease in regional affordable housing; noise; light; utilization of limited water resources within the Wenatchee watershed, discharge of groundwater to surface waters, air emissions; aesthetics of portal; intrusion of tunnel under wilderness area; management of hazardous substances; hazardous waste and solid waste; sewage disposal; and traffic and parking impacts."

All of these impacts related specifically to the Icicle site, due to its unique location in the heart of a scenic and popular semi-wilderness area. Given the valley's heavy recreational use, limited accessibility, and rural-residential character, the negative environmental and socio-economic impacts here would be far greater than at other potential DUSEL sites, including Big Devil Peak.

Many visitors to our area regard the Icicle Canyon as a very special place and strongly believe it should be left alone. This is even more true for those of us who live here, which is why local opposition to building the DUSEL in the Icicle is strong and growing.

The less controversial Big Devil Peak site is superior in many respects -- shorter tunnels, far less construction impact, adequate water supply -- and is perhaps evolving into the better overall choice. For those who wish to see the Icicle remain undisturbed, but also hope the U.S. DUSEL can be sited within Washington state, Big Devil Peak may provide the solution.

It is encouraging to remember that a number of other viable sites have also been identified by Dr. Haxton, should both Big Devil Peak and Cashmere Mountain be found unsuitable. Also, for reasons not explained in the U pre-proposal, Oregon, Idaho and Montana were excluded from the initial search, raising the possibility that the best DUSEL site may remain undiscovered.

More in depth information concerning the Icicle DUSEL and its potential impacts on our valley can be found at www.iciclevalley.org, a Web site run by local resident volunteers.

Bill Kampen
Leavenworth

---

The Leavenworth Echo, July 14, 2004 issue.

Publish DUSEL "facts"

To Bill Forhan regarding his editorial and coverage of DUSEL:

How can you take such an uninterested view of a project that will almost certainly destroy a large section of the beautiful Icicle River Canyon? You should be jumping up and down with indignation. You should have a secondary headline on every Echo giving the facts of the destruction caused by the tunnel project. You talk about people making decisions without facts. Why don’t you find and publish them on the front page of the Echo?

The Chamber of Commerce seems to have made a decision with out any facts.

The Leavenworth City Council seems to have given the decision away to the Port of Chelan.

The Port has given the decision to a “facilitator” who knows little about the project and is given a very selective list of names to contact. Talk about all these things and give the facts that seem to be missing. That’s news.

What is going to happen to the Canyon? What is Leavenworth going to have to put up with during the years of construction?

The voice of the residents of Leavenworth who live here because it is beautiful should be consulted, not just the people who don’t care as long as they make money. There are more people who live in Leavenworth for the beauty of the area than there are people who make money from Leavenworth. Give the majority of people who live in Leavenworth for the beauty a voice by letting them know what is going to happen to our wonderful city and incredible canyon.

This project is huge. Do some investigation about what is going to happen. That’s what a newspaper is for. Why do I have to get my information from letters to the editor?

I am unequivocally against the project that I see as being rammed down my throat. It will destroy the area I have retired in. Not even the so-called “Bavarian Science Fiesta” the chamber has suggested will change my mind.

I see only destruction – most of all to the rare and wonderful Icicle Canyon.

Albin Gerish
Leavenworth

---

June 28, 2004

As a resident of Leavenworth since 1980, moving here because of the clean, healthy, beautiful peaceful area, I have enjoyed the outdoors, nature, the wildlife, and the company of the residents here who are here for the same reason.

We have all watched the hard work that has gone into making Leavenworth and the surrounding areas what it is today. The tourists who visit here actually make me proud of where I live. It is wonderful to see children and elderly alike looking in awe at our beautiful area. Do we want to become what we were before our village flourished?

Everything in balance in our icicle valley will topple. The wildlife will crowd to other areas greatly upsetting the balance of nature. Our hiking and other outdoor activity will no longer be in the free nature that it is today. I cannot even find the proper words to describe my dismay over this. We winter in AZ and came back to signs in people's yards about NO TUNNEL. What a shock. Just goes to show that we cannot ever take anything for granted. What a sad sad day for Leavenworth if this is allowed to happen.

Thank you for listening.

Judy LaBree (formerly Riley)

---

June 12, 2004

Dear Editor and citizens of Leavenworth, Washington:

My husband grew up in Leavenworth and graduated from Leavenworth high school. His parents live in Leavenworth. I work at the University of Washington in Academia reconciling the budgets for 180 federal studies representing your tax dollars in the neighborhood of 15 million dollars in these times of high unemployment. There is an underground tunnel which connects my department to the Physics building, and I take walks by Wick Haxton's laboratory for exercise at my lunch breaks, I can go visit the lab anytime I want.

As a person who spends every Christmas in Leavenworth and who works with 50 illustrious Ph.D.s every day, please allow me to tell you what it will be like to have academia in your backyard.

In return for my sharing my knowledge with you, please share with me how the citizens of Leavenworth can allow outsiders to take one of the most beautiful spots in the state of Washington and allow it to be excavated ­ or altered in any way?

Why?

For money? If you want to make more money, then choose money over quality of life as most of us have done, and move to Seattle. But don¹t let people who are making over $10,000/month (paid by you) destroy the area for everyone else. It¹s not responsible to allow the area to be destroyed for everyone so that you can benefit personally. If you want more money, go to an area that has already been destroyed and get some.

For prestige? To be close to people who have "Ph.D." after their names? To feel powerful because you are hobnobbing with the rich, intelligent, and powerful? I work with 50 Ph.D.s everyday, and, believe me, the charm will wear off very quickly. These are people who are very focused on their own careers and projects and who have no interest in you, they live in their heads. When I got married, I did not receive one wedding card or gift from the faculty for whom I had done an excellent job working my tail off for four years, in addition to saving them hundreds of thousands of dollars (i.e., I had earned a moment of acknowledgement). I like the people I work with, so this was tough. It would have never happened in all other jobs I have had, to have a significant life event go unnoticed. In some ways the very educated can be the least observant. My husband said, "Don't take it personally. You're just a tool. You wouldn't give a card to your hammer."

In addition, I grew up in a very intelligent family of Ph.D.s. My father, one of the smartest people I have ever known, was a pedophile, and a priest, and had no clue about anything. I'm not saying that smart people are bad: I'm saying that smart people are smart. It's the heart that makes you who you are: the brain is a useful tool if guided by the heart. Don¹t be in awe of someone just because they are smart (or powerful or rich or understand neutrinos). When Mother Theresa looked into the face of a man covered with rats, she saw the face of Jesus. When Wick Haxton looks at Mt. Cashmere, he sees it as his own.

If you feel like you have the right to destroy the beauty for everyone and tear into God's beautiful mountain, then you can put "Ph.D." after your name, too. You, too, have a sense of entitlement which should not be there. When we can even consider such an action, a spiritual awakening is needed. We need an awareness of who we are and what we have the right to do.

Susie Hollingsworth

North Bend, Washington

---

June 9, 2004

Dear Editor,

We love you, we really do. The recreation opportunities in your valley are tremendous and we visit almost every weekend. Backpacking, climbing, biking, and swimming. You’ve got it all.

My friends and I are the 20 and 30-somethings who are coming to your valley in greater and greater numbers. We don’t necessarily come for the Bavarian festivals. We come for the incredible recreation opportunities. We do spend our money on food, drink, hotel rooms and supplies. In the future we plan on bringing our own children here to enjoy the wilderness, which you are so lucky to have. When we do, we will continue for decades to rent your hotel rooms, shop at your stores and encourage our friends to the same.

So help us out! Simply put, we are not going to come if you put a physics lab underneath Mt. Cashmere. We are not going to come if we have to worry about swimming in the Icicle and listen to drilling for the next seven years as we head out backpacking. Highway 20 and 1-90 are just as available and we won’t have to worry about being stuck behind a dump truck while we head out to our favorite trails.

Please, appreciate the spectacular area you have and realize that generations in the future are coming just as much for backpacking and climbing as they are for bratwurst and great music. Don’t sabotage your future by putting a lab under Mt. Cashmere.

Carrie Kingsley

Seattle

---

June 4, 2004

Regarding the excellent article by Betsy Steele in the Echo of 5/19/04. The Facilitator issue is a major one with the Icicle Valley Protection Alliance inasmuch as the general public will have little or no input in the process. We strongly feel it is unfair to the Leavenworth Citizenry to be shut out of the decision making for this large project and shunted to a few select persons since this affects all persons of the County and especially persons living in the general Leavenworth area.

Rob Eaton, City Councilman, now says he didn’t know comments on Dusel were to go through the Facilitator, yet he appeared at the Chelan Port Commission Meeting on 2/18/04 with Keith Goehner, our County Commissioner, creating Resolution 2004-3 to employ a Facilitator. He also attended the Port Meeting approving the role of the Facilitator. Scott Hugill, our City Administrator, was one of the interviewers on April 15th when the Facilitator was hired.

Another onerous fact is that this information gathering will be turned over to Wick Haxton at the University of Washington and not directly to the National Science Foundation. We may be helping solve his problems before he submits his final proposal with mitigations in place. This proposal will be submitted with little input from the Citizens of Leavenworth who have the most to lose if this project goes through.

The Port of Chelan says all meetings are public except Real Estate purchases and Personnel matters. I then ask why is this Agent of the Port’s function so shrouded in secrecy?. Why are people being interviewed in a private manner? Who is to be interviewed? Why not a public forum? Why such a select list of interviewees and not other citizens? Are these inquires directed to select participants in order to elicit mostly favorable responses since the Port Of Chelan has supplied the Facilitator with a suggested list of persons and agencies whose main interests are of an economic nature? Why not users of the Canyon such as rock climbers, campers, hikers, R.V. Users?. How will the Public have access to the Facilitator’s Report which will be submitted to the Port Commissioners and the University of Washington?

At the Chamber of Commerce Breakfast at the Red Lion Inn, Wenatchee a question was asked about jobs. Mr. Haxton said he gave a list of jobs to Councilman Rob Eaton. If you’re interested in this information, you can contact Mr Eaton through the Leavenworth City Hall.

Furthermore, if you wish to have a voice in this Proposal you may write to the Icicle Valley Protection Alliance at P.O. Box 264, Leavenworth, Wa. 98826 . You may contact the National Science Foundation directly by email at eloh@nsf.gov.

Hank Drewniany

---

June 2, 2004

Dear Editor,

We are not radical environmentalists. We are hard working citizens, who are very well informed. We care about the planet and the advancement of science. However, we are also citizens of Leavenworth and the Icicle Valley is our backyard.

We do not want the DUSEL project in the Icicle Canyon. This is a sacred place on the earth. It is a Mecca for outdoor living. This place is not only ours. It belongs to the world. Hiking, fishing, wildlife watching, rock climbing, and camping are just a few of the activities that take place here in all seasons. We spend hours on the rocks at the river’s edge, meditating and relaxing from the rigors of modern life. The Icicle River is our city’s water supply and the Irrigation District provides water for the orchards of the upper valley. You know all this.

We have investigated the National Science Web site and looked at all the information available. It does not satisfy us. All the jobs that may be created and the science obtained will not be worth it, if we lose the serenity of this wonderful place for two years or 40 years. We believe the construction alone will negatively affect our watershed. The traffic will cause noise pollution, perhaps as bad or worse than that of 1994, during the post fire salvage. The runoff from the trucks and construction equipment will end up in the downstream waters and you know it. After the project is completed, we believe the negative impacts will outweigh the positives by far.

The community is coming together because of this issue. We have joined the Icicle Valley Protection Alliance. We are petitioning our politicians and you need to know that we are determined, because of our great love of this unique place. Because we are fortunate to be able to live here, we feel it is our duty as citizens of the earth to protect the Icicle Canyon and River. Please know that we are very sincere and devoted, we beg you to encourage the abandonment of the proposal for this site and leave Mt. Cashmere to the people and creatures, that really care about the Icicle Canyon.

Charles J. and Mary Ellen McKinney

Leavenworth

---

May 30, 2004

Your recent article (in Wenatchee World) regarding the underground science lab proposal, stating that the site is geologically sound, seems misleading.

The report should have referred to pages 35 and 38 of the geologic study, which says a much higher level of confidence can be achieved with a further surface investigation and a phased program of coring to a 6,500-foot depth. There is reference to reorientation of the portal shapes using rock dowels (bolts) and shotcrete because of steepness of slopes. The new amount of rock is 647,000 cubic meters (not 300,000 as originally proposed) with a reduction of 6 percent for crushed rock to be used in tunnel road beds. Does this mean rock will be crushed on site or trucked away, crushed and then trucked back? Is a rock crusher operating in the Icicle canyon part of the plan for the duration of the construction?

The report states that the staging area for various needs, supplies, air compressors, machinery, etc., requires at least five acres. Figure 8B shows this area located right next to Icicle Creek. This obviously will need some logging. Another point was important, saying an area for aggregate, cement mixing and possibly fly ash and other material was needed since the tunnel will have concrete tracks and flooring.

How much concrete is needed in six to seven miles of tunnel and if not batched on site (which is very invasive to the environment), how many premix cement trucks will there be traveling back and forth on Icicle Road and possibly through Leavenworth?

Is this what we want for Mount Cashmere and the Icicle Canyon? A big open hole with bolts sticking out of its sides? I cannot believe a spokesperson for Trout Unlimited saying they support this project, knowing about the logging, dynamiting, cement mixing, possible rock crushing, truck maintenance and fueling next to this beautiful stream, which is also the source of water for Leavenworth. For that matter, I don’t see how anyone who loves this unique and beautiful area can see what these developers have planned and not become active in opposing this travesty.

Hank Drewniany
Leavenworth

---

May 9, 2004

The Icicle Valley area is much too beautiful to destroy all in the name of science and corporate America. I live in the congested city and have often found solace and balance as I hike,camp and snow ski throughout the Icicle Valley/Leavenworth and Stevens Pass area. It is a gorgeous place that I am drawn to and I have considered relocating to Leavenworth/Cashmere. I hope to in the near future. I strongly disagree with NUSELs choice of Mt. Cashmere for its devastating project. It will have a vast and negative impact on the mountain range and forests, the streams and rivers, the wildlife, and the community of Leavenworth. I feel that the massive wildfires there were damaging enough - the area is still trying to heal from those fires. There must be a better place to obliterate-maybe near the already environmentally destroyed area of Hanford/Tri-cities. The Icicle Valley is a peacefu, magnificent and sacred place that should not be tampered with and devastated by humans yet again. Please let this beautiful area remain Beautiful!

R. Ulrich

---

May 7, 2004

Dear Editor,

I am writing to say that I am totally against the NUSEL project in the Icicle Valley. I have been hiking, climbing and camping in that area all of my life and know first hand what a special place it is. The idea of the government digging out a tunnel under it is unthinkable. When I heard about it I couldn’t believe it. Is nothing sacred anymore? When will people get their priorities straight and learn that there are more important things in this world than the pursuit of power and money? Please do not allow them to destroy this too.

Victoria Nietfeld

Snohomish

---

May 7, 2004

Dear Editor,

My hope is that we never actually have to deal with the N.U.S.E.L. (D.U.S.E.L.) Project, here in Leavenworth.

I understand the importance of the research and increase in economy, but I feel the price is way too high to pay!!

The project would affect every person in this area. The traffic problems alone, that would occur, for many years would be more than inconvenient. And, any air, water or land pollution is undesirable!!

I just can't imagine allowing any distruction of our beautiful backyard, in the Icicle Canyon. And, I can't imagine why anyone could feel that it's okay to disrupt the wilderness where people love to hike, camp, climb & ski. Shouldn't we all be trying to preserve this pristine area we are so fortunate to live near?

I believe that each and every one of us needs to stand up and save Mt. Cashmere. I certainly vote against this government run N.U.S.E.L. project!! Because, who really does have our best interests in mind?

Sincerely,

Alyson Berman

---

Why on earth would the powers that be [or BE bizarre!] ever, ever choose this place that is so dear to us? Does everyone in this administration have a screw (and several bolts) loose?

This project could be located in any similar geologically-appropriate, yet isolated and resource-poor area, such as we find in Nevada, Utah, or other areas hostile to human habitation. That is where we have placed our other major strategic underground installations, for exactly the reasons that don't make sense for Icicle Valley. This is the equivalent of building the Bay Bridge over Icicle Creek, only underground. It's a huge mismatch that Leavenworth cannot manage, control, or influence once it begins. It will take over the area in every aspect, from housing to road use to workers who mostly likely have little environmental ethic, concern, or understanding.

As stated, you cannot believe those whose careers stand to gain from their vested interest in the project being realized, and who only see a small town of 'local folks' to win over, just as we have seen in other areas where big projects have ended up negatively impacting a community through toxic waste, exploitation of natural resources, and ruining the health of children and/or adults. Examples are close by: Hanford is one that falls into these categories.

As one man wrote on your website, the designers of this project need to experience Icicle Valley for its existing value to allow people to revel in it as Nature and Wilderness in freedom and solitude.

I can tell you after living in Seattle these past years, there is almost no public space left within the urban area. From the moment one leaves home, nearly every step one makes or drive one takes is on or near private land, and often you are under video surveillance of your behavior, from driving the roadways, to convenience and department stores, to pumping gas. Only in our national forests and state recreation areas can we be truly be left alone for some time to ourselves and the nature of our natural existence.

Isn't this alone of value, to be, as Leopold says in the quote on your website, in community with life? I know so, for it's effect on me was deep and profound and hugely spiritual. This is as close as many of us get to seeing and being truly part of God's work on Earth, and, for some, feeling His Presence.

A long road to healing and recovery of a damaged young life began in and above Icicle Valley, and I am eternally grateful for it. I have since lived a life in Africa and travelled the world and America, but this place, this Enchanted spot, has been held most fondly in my heart ever since. Back then, I didn't realize the importance of Judy Wagonner telling me when I left for Africa, "Bill, come back to God's Country." Thanks, Judy, it's the truth! Thanks to the Wagonners and the Starks and others who are some of the real caretakers of God's Country.

I only hope that the Icicle Valley and Leavenworth ever retain the spiritual qualities that gave faith and wonder back to a young man from Kansas, and gave him the time to re-charge his young life and set off on a life of helping others just like the folks in Leavenworth and Icicle Valley helped me.

May Peace and Sensibilities Prevail.

Bill Ferguson,
Proud to be a former orchard farmworker from the 70's
Proud Manager of the Leavenworth Ski Area for one season, 1973
Currently a Community College Instructor of English as a Second Language, Edmonds, WA

---

---

We are strongly opposed to the location of the NUSEL project near Leavenworth.

Leavenworth is a tourist destination and the nearby Icicle Canyon is the entrance to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, one of the most frequently visited wilderness areas in Washington State. The NUSEL project is totally incompatible with the beauty of Icicle Canyon.

Reasons for our opposition:

1. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness is a designated federal wilderness area. According to the Wilderness Act of 1964: "These lands shall be administered... in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness....."

2. The proposed use of the Icicle River water is of great concern as the Icicle is already oversubscribed. It is the potable water supply of the Leavenworth valley and also part of a statewide salmon recovery program. Use of the water by NUSEL, subsequent "treatment" and release back into the Icicle watershed clearly raises concerns over pollution and environmental accidents.

3. The clean environment of this mountain valley is one of its greatest assets. The many years of tunneling, heavy construction and trucking (8 hrs/day for 7 to 12 years estimated) will result in extremely negative impacts on the air, vegetation and wildlife and raise specific quality of life and health-issues for the local residents. A similar project in the Gran Sasso region of Italy is a prime example of the nightmarish scenario that could play out in our valley. In the Gran Sasso the tunneling led to the literal de-watering of local mountain lakes in the region, caused by leaks through fissures in the bedrock. The Gran Sasso project ultimately had to be closed down in 2002 after a chemical spill (trimethylbenzene) polluted the groundwater of the region, destroying the potable water supply.

4. The cost of road repair and rebuilding and the cost of additional infrastructure to support follow-on lab activities at the site will result in increased taxation of county residents. Chelan County will not receive any tax revenue from this project. The National Science Foundation, Univ. of Washington and NUSEL itself are all tax-exempt entities and will not add to the county tax base. Nor will the project add significantly to local employment, as most of the project support will be provided by university graduate students. County employment beyond the construction phase would be limited to a few non-family wage jobs of a secretarial or janitorial nature .

From a national perspective the cost of drilling new tunnels and lab facilities here, when facilities of a similar nature already exist in the Homestake Mine in South Dakota would seem ill-advised, especially in view of the fact that the project is sought after and lobbied for by that state. It should also be pointed out that the vertical nature of that mine has another advantage. Chemical spills are far more easily contained in a vertical mine which locates the lab far below the surface watershed.

5.Claims made by NUSEL team members that the surface of the wilderness area will not be disturbed are erroneous and shortsighted at best. The site of the two tunnel portals will require security fencing and a guard building, area lighting, electric power transformers, a tunnel-ventilation fan structure, a water and sewage treatment plant and pumphouse and on-site staff parking. During the 7 to 12 year construction period there will likely be a moving belt system loading rock onto diesel-powered. truck/trailers, leaving every 20 minutes or so and probably continuing, for 8 hours/day, as a minimum of 55,000 truckloads of rock, will have to be moved to some other location in the valley. Just imagine the noise, dust and fumes in the canyon. And this would just be the obvious beginning of the growth of the lab portal compound. A review of. development plans for Homestake leads to the conclusion that the underground lab areas required for projected programs at the Cashmere Mtn. site have been grossly and intentionally underestimated.

6. Site restoration? After the years of heavy construction and then 20 or more years of lab use, what is going to happen to this site when it is no longer "state of the art?" Is NUSEL or the NSF going to "restore" the wilderness or the quality of life we now enjoy in this valley? Once the initial investment is made, our guess is that the site will continue to be expanded rather than abandoned.

In conclusion, we emphatically reaffirm our opposition to the NUSEL team's recommendation of the Icicle Canyon site. The environmental destruction would be irreversible.

H. Einar Thor
Judith Moser
Leavenworth

TOP OF PAGE