Last update: October 30, 2001 by Roger Lowe, September 2001
The purpose of the Near Term Action Agenda, as proposed by County staff, is to cause flooding in the Snohomish, Skykomish and Snoqualmie river valleys. This will destroy farms, homes and businesses in our river valleys.
The Near Term Action Agenda, (NTAA) and supporting documents prepared under County direction, claim that the proposed actions are necessary to benefit fish. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim.
The NTAA is based on the recommendations of a Technical Committee. In their October 6, 1999 report, the Committee identified the highest priority problem for Chinook Salmon as: "Loss of channel area and complexity due to bank protection and diking of the river and major tributaries, cutting off the channel from its floodplain." (page ix of the Executive Summary.)
The Near Term Action Agenda says: "The Initial Technical Work Plan recommended that the flood control levees be removed to help restore salmon habitat within the flood plain." (page 9, last paragraph.) (emphasis added.)
The Snohomish River Forum is a quasi-governmental committee of public officials and concerned citizens formed to consider salmon recovery and related proposals in the Basin. According the NTAA, the Forum wanted to know what damage would be caused and how it would be dealt with. The reply in the NTAA is: "the likely impacts of these levee removals on public safety, homes, businesses, farmland, and infrastructure will need to be analyzed as part of developing or implementing a specific project proposal." (page 9, last line and page 10 top two lines.)
In other words, adopt the plan now and we will analyze flood damage later.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; "supports reconnection of rivers with their natural flood plains when possible. (email of May 8, 2001 from Lew Atkins, Assistant Director, Fish Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife).
I have written to Mr. Atkins and others asking him to identify the scientific reports on measured benefits of this policy. I have had replies, but no citations of data or reports that show measured benefits.
The second high priority problem identified by the Technical Committee and in the NTAA is: "Dearth of in-channel large woody debris."
Large woody debris, (LWD) includes stumps, the rootwads of trees and entire trees.
Snohomish County has spent over half a million dollars placing LWD in the Stilliquamish River. This supposedly benefits fish. (See the Snohomish County website.)
The NTAA comments: "the installation of large wood as a restoration tool is controversial, needs to be undertaken in consultation with other jurisdictions because of the potential to alter stream courses, and should be subject to careful monitoring to determine project effectiveness." (page 10, last four lines of 2nd paragraph.)
What is meant by effectiveness, ability to alter stream courses?
The Washington State Legislature was asked to provide liability immunity for deaths and flooding caused by LWD. Substitute House Bill 2719 was proposed in the 2000 regular legislative session and passed by the House. I paraphrase its language as follows: Landowners, sponsors or volunteers involved in the design or placement of large woody debris in rivers: "shall not be held liable for any personal injury, property damage, flooding erosion, damage to public improvements or other injuries or damages of an kind or character resulting from the placement of large woody debris." (emphasis added.)
(LWD is also well known for its ability to break down banks and divert streams and rivers. That is one of the main reasons that for many years it was removed from our rivers. This policy was reversed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the early 1970's.
I wrote asking the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for citations of scientific literature showing measured benefits to salmon of LWD. Mr. Lew Atkins, replied, named some related literature, but with respect to measurement of benefits stated: "it would be a daunting task, and I am unaware that such a study has been attempted." (emphasis added.)
Mr. Tom O'Keefe, a habitat biologist at the University of Washington writes: "he (Roger) does have a point in challenging the view that artificial wood placement leads to real improvement of salmon runs.", and, "my observation is that most of the scientists working in this area have come to the conclusion that artificial wood placement is not a sustainable way to effectively address habitat issues." (email from Thomas O'Keefe, August 10, 2001.)
Why should we proceed with the NTAA? Will Hall, Snohomish County Senior Planner, explained in the August 2 Forum meeting that: there are funding opportunities, a lot of them.
The NTAA discusses specific projects, and also proposes policies and guidelines that will have far reaching effects, including the removal of levees and bank protection, and adding LWD to our rivers.
The Forum has not approved the NTAA. We received it only a few days before our August 2nd meeting. We were asked for approval to submit it to the public for comment. There was strong argument and it was clear that approval would not be given.
Dave Somers, (Snohomish Co. Council and self appointed Co-chair of the Forum) proposed that the NTAA be distributed together with written statements to be prepared by Bob Heirman and I. We are both members of the Forum. The Forum agreed to publication of the NTAA together with both of our statements. Later, Dave Somers quashed distribution of both statements.
There are many ways to benefit fish and improve fish production that are not addressed by the NTAA. The most important is limiting harvest so that enough fish escape harvest and return to our rivers to spawn. The NTAA does not address this.
My statement is an Alternative to the NTAA. It includes a condensed explanation of the problems facing fish and describes alternatives that should constructively help fish. It does not require flooding, and should be much less costly than the proposals in the NTAA.
The projects and policies advocated in the NTAA will cause flooding, injury and death.
I urge that you carefully review the NTAA, the Technical Report, and the Alternative. Among the information sheets I have provided are addresses where you should send your written or email comments, and Internet locations where you can read the materials referred to.
Please inform yourselves and then send your written or email statements concerning the NTAA and the Alternative. When you write or email, please provide copies to me as well, so that I can be sure that the County fairly tallies your responses.
I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you.
Roger A. Lowe
WRITE OR EMAIL CONCENING: FLOODING THREATENED in the SNOHOMISH RIVER BASIN by the NEAR TERM ACTION AGENDA
to Snohomish County: Martha Neuman, Senior Planner
425-388-3464, ext. 4657
martha.neuman@co.snohomish.wa.us
PLEASE ALSO SEND COPIES
to Roger Lowe: rlowepe@main.net
13417, 133rd Ave. NE
Kirkland, WA 98034-5542
Recommended reading:
· Alternative Snohomish River Basin Chinook Salmon Near Term Action Agenda,
August 16, 2001 by Roger Lowe
· Genetic identity of wild and hatchery-bred salmon; by James E. Lannan,
Emeritus Professor of Fisheries, Oregon State University
· Saving Salmon or Seattle, by James Fallows, The Atlantic Monthly, October 2000
· The Great Salmon Hoax, by James W. Buchal, undated
· Environmental Disaster on the Green River; by Roger Lowe, March 2001
These and additional materials are available or links provided
at http://www.main.net/riversense.html
Snohomish County materials are available at http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us.