Challenges from Multijurisdictional Issues -
Although Triesh
Tideland is under direct jurisdiction of Stillaguamish Watershed (in
Snohomish County), it is also located the Skagit River marine estuary
(in Skagit County). However even though it is not under
jurisdiction of Island or Skagit Counties, it is subject to fluvial
influence from these surface/ground extraordinary primary contact
sources (i.e., agriculture, septic systems, etc.). To address this
issue we intend to start locally in Snohomish County, interacting with
pertinent watershed affiliates encompassing salmon recovery, agriculture,
forest harvest practices, water quality, etc., and move towards a more
global approach starting with the Snohomish County Clean Water District (CWD).
Since Triesch Tideland
resides within the marine floodplain at the terminus of the Stillaguamish
Watershed, it is uniquely suited to provide insight into the relative
success of upland restoration efforts, or failures from human induced
disturbances.
Upland activity has left an
indelible legacy of habitat injury in the watershed.
For nearly a century fill and
tidegates were placed for agriculture practices, the resulting
encroachment has converted a Dept of Natural Resources (DNR) navigable
waterway (the Old Stillaguamish River Channel (OSRC)) into a
vestige of
its former configuration. Forget about natural river functions, instream flow has been so compromised that pollutants from sources like
the City of Stanwood Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) outfall can't
disburse, now pollutant movement is largely dictated by storm events.
Considering that
Aquaculture has also been pulled under the mantle of
Agriculture, as yet no one has satisfactorily explained why it
appears these two activities are mutually exclusive. Indeed,
the way that normal functions of the watershed have been so
compromised in support of Agricultural pursuits (i.e. filling in
waterways and placing tidegates to increase farmland acreage, etc),
it is hard to believe that Agricultural interests ever
considered allowing Aquaculture activity to coexist, much less the
other essential aquatic functions necessary for salmon recovery.
Logging practices have resulted in
massive slides and soil wastage
Scarification from logging practices
and logging roads placed in areas of unstable soil conditions have
resulted in decade upon decade of chronic siltation. Siltation has
resulted in a significant increase in shoreline acreage in the lower
marine delta, but the increased habitat is of questionable value when
the salmon habitat is inundated by silt, and the silt overburden starts
to restrict streamflow until a storm or flood event moves the silt
burden dowhstream. In terms of aquaculture
opportunities, we are forced to accept the only opportunity that chronic
siltation allows.
A flood that occurred
over 60 years
ago resulted in the river changing course; instead of discharging into
Skagit Bay, the flooding forced a new course through Hatt Slough into
Port Susan. How much logging and agriculture practices contributed to
the river changing course no one knows (although rumor has it there was
some help from some strategically placed dynamite), however there is a
fairly simple remedy that would restore the OSRC instream flow, but at
this time the OSRC can't be restored because it would put the trespassing parties
at risk to flooding! Even though the OSRC has been classified by
WDNR as a navigable
waterway (the last tributary in northwest Snohomish County),
the only way to navigate it will only be navigable by tractor as long as
the
disregard for the effects to the rest of the watershed persists.
It is interesting to know that one
of the parties responsible for contributing to these natural resource
damages is also a victim, and a neighbor of Triesch Tidelad. Also,
even though these natural resource damages involve listed species under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
being done by the Aquatics Division of WDNR doesn't address this issue.
WDNR has an upland HCP plan to address their ESA liability but whether it
addresses these types of damages remains to be seen. It is
remarkable that WDNR is not involved with the efforts to restore the
watershed in a way that addresses the damages mentioned here. In
addition, after reviewing this one has to beg the question: "Why did
WDNR
decide to have two HCPs, one for the Uplands, and one for Aquatic
Lands?"
There have been massive
efforts from tribes and jurisdictions to restore the watershed, but real
progress can't be made if we can't tackle the source of the problem
without the responsible parties at the table. This is the reason
we wanted to have a tribe as partner to give our position more emphasis.
