For decades the fertile land of Skagit Valley and Fir Island have provided a bounty of agricultural products but that may soon change. These farmlands are very low in elevation and their flatness is made dry enough to plant with a system of man-made drainage ditches, the main drainages permanently dredged and the smaller branches dug and filled as necessary to drain and plant fields. The mouths of these ditches are regulated with one way gates which are pushed open by escaping water and forced closed by backflow when tide water attempts to enter.

A recent agreement between the three Skagit tribes and the WDFW proposes to utilize these ditches as estuarian habitat by removing the gates to allow the influx of salt water and this agreement has caused the State to order Skagit County to open or remove the gates and destroy nearly a hundred years of agricultural heritage.


Here's the story from the liberal Post Intelligencer viewpoint .


Farmers resist fish estuary plan, say salt in water table will ruin them
Meanwhile, tribes argue for salmon-saving measures

Story By Steven Friederich

FIR ISLAND -- A bald eagle sits on a nearby tree watching John Roozen dip his hands into rich soil. All around Roozen, thousands of vibrant, yellow daffodils dance in the wind as warm tulips sprout close by.

"This soil is in danger," Roozen says as tiny brown specks fall between the crevices of his worked-over fingers.

"If or when salt intrudes on this land, everything will die. And we will no longer produce the quality of bulbs and tulips this valley has become famous for," Roozen, owner of the multimillion dollar Washington Bulb Co., said later.

This weekend, tourists will begin their annual visits to Skagit Valley as the Skagit Valley Tulip Festival kicks off. Over a quarter-million bulbs burst with color each spring, but Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, warns this could be one of the last years the colorful display will be seen in its full glory if a plan to allow saltwater onto Skagit farmlands to increase salmon habitat is implemented.

Farmers want to maintain tide gates, which are basically one-way cork valves that keep the saltwater out of their fields. Those gates also cut off migrating salmon, which seek shelter to avoid predators and find new habitat.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has said the fish must be allowed into the gates, even if saltwater gets into the farm soil. Skagit Valley farmers have flocked to Olympia, urging lawmakers to block the plan and protect the dozens of crops they grow and the $275 million in annual revenue they yield.

Local Native American tribes -- who fish for salmon -- support the state's position. Skagit farmers face little to no regulation from a county that supports its agricultural activities and does very little to watch it, relying on state and federal regulation instead.

Skagit County is under state order to find new estuary land for chinook and other species of salmon, a compromise struck between the state and the Skagit system cooperative, a consortium of three tribes, including the upper Skagit, Swinomish and Sauk-Suiattle tribes. The Skagit River is the second-largest river in the state and has the second-largest number of wild salmon runs. The Columbia is the largest.

Haugen and other legislators have introduced legislation that would protect the farmers but would gut portions of the hydraulic code protecting fish that have been in existence since 1949.

With the aid of Republicans, her legislation has passed through the Senate, despite some contentious debate among her fellow Democrats.

Larry Wasserman, environmental services director for the consortium, believes the Legislature could overstep its bounds if it approves too many laws.

"If the Legislature passes these laws that prevent salmon recovery, it'll force the tribes to look for other legal mechanisms to ensure that they can continue to fish," Wasserman said. The tribes' salmon harvests have declined by 90 percent, he said.

The tribes both sell their harvests commercially and consume them on an-almost daily basis.

The bills would offer enormous protections to the farmers and limit the safety and protection of the fish. For instance, House Bill 1420 would allow farmers to repair their drainage systems on their own -- without permission from Fish and Wildlife. And Senate Bill 5345 would exempt those drainage ditches from becoming fish passages at all, killing the tribes' chance of creating new estuary land using farmers' land.

Also, Haugen's SB 5346 would require the state to pay farmers compensation if any of their lands were damaged by the draining system.

The state had started delegating new estuary land in Skagit Valley by pursuing fish passage into a complex network of drainage passages that had been dug deep and wide to allow farmers to keep their soil dry and above the salty water table. Huge dirt dikes block off waves of water, which would otherwise flood the fields.

Valvelike structures called tide gates prevent Fir Island from turning into a bulb-ridden sea. If there were no gates at all, said Bob Everitt, a Skagit County regional director for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, saltwater would flow inland as the river would change direction and the mouth of streams and rivers would rise. Salmon would then be able to actively use the grounds as new habitat.

Fish and Wildlife would like to see a compromise in a new tide gate that would be self-regulated. The new kind of gate allows fish passage, except it raises farmland's water tables causing possible salt intrusion into the fields of daffodils and tulips being grown nearby. Because the dirt is porous, the salt will hold and stay in the farm fields, preventing most crops from being grown.

Hmm. I am descended from farming stock, but if losing 100 years of farming heritage is what it takes to help restore our salmon runs I'm all for it.

What is 100 years of heritage compared to an irreplacable resource? It took salmon many thousands of years to adapt to our rivers.

I say given the millions of acres of farming overcapacity in this country, why not give up on a few thousand for the sake of fish.

I say good for the WDFW and the tribes .

Hmmm, what would I rather have more tulips and daffodils or more fish.

If you can't farm in an ecological responsible manner than you shouldn't be farming.

Its like the whole Klamath river thing. These guys are farming in the desert for gods sake. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense environmantally or fiscally to continue something just because they've been doing it for a long time.

Have to agree with the last two comments ... just because it's something lots of folks have done for a long time doesn't mean that it's the correct thing to do down the road. We learn more about our impacts all the time and it's often necessary to change our ways.

I know it'll be tough on some folks, but someti es we just gotta do what we gotta do!

I never thought of agricultural drainage ditches as prime fish habitat.

Stilly Bum, I am always surprised at what fish call and use for habitat.

I think this is a situation that calls for some smart people to figure out a way for the farmers and the fish people to compromise, like maybe expand the drainage canals and build some lagoons for additional habitat with compensation to the farmers in terms of buyouts or conservation easements for the lost utility of their land for agricultural use plus still allowing continued use of other portions for agriculture.

Marching in and demanding a different, non profitable use their land after 100 years of grandfathered farm use is not right, however restoration of prime estuary habitat is just what the doctor ordered for the Skagit. I say make an offer $$$$$$ that the landowners can't refuse. Make the Farmers want to do it.

What do you think Plunker? Flowers, fish or both?

AuntyM -
The "ditiches" would not be used as spawning habitat but rather for short term rearing in the estuary. A typical life history for Puget Sound chinook is for small fry (1.5 inches long) to drop down to the estuary and feed in the blind channels in the tidal marshes. They usually spend 4 to 6 weeks in those areas - typically until they grow to 2.5 to 3 inches in length. This not only increases the potential rearing habitats (capable of producing more fish) but the survival to adulthood of the larger fry is dramatically higher than if the smaller fish were to have gone directly to sea. This short term estuarian rearing is even more important when freshwater rearing habitats are limiting. Our alterations of our rivers have greatly reduced their capacity to support rearing juvenile salmon.

Beezer -
I agree that we as a society should probably help to reimburse the farmers. However I doubt that we collectively are willing to do so. If we as a society can take acres and acres of prime ag land in Skagit County and convert it to car lots, strip malls, housing developments, etc I feel we lose the argument that we can't afford to restore those historic lower estuary lands back to productive fish and wildlife habitats. At a bare minimum we should at least stop destroying what little remains.

Tight Lines
Smalma

if we dont find a way for farmers and fish to survie together we will be picking up the cost of the farmers, in unemployment and welfare checks for the whole area. 260 million dollar lost in a local econime is sure as hell going to coause a lot of pain and suffering from the farmer to the local stores to hotels to everyone that lives in the area. Some of you sure are willing to take away peoples livey hoods just for your recreation. not to mention the abuse the indains but to these fish. how many of you have complained about the tribes taking eggs only to thru the dead fish back in? may be the way to improve the fishing numbers is to stop all tribal fishing? or maybe spot all guides from operating, that would keep a lot of people from catching fish. I know ,, 10% of the fisher man catch 90% of the fish so we can just take away their tags, just becouse your father and grand father fished does not give you the right to fish....... The best way is to have both side work together to find a way to improve the habitat and keep the farming. lets not turn this into what happened at klamath. my 4cents( I talk longer) Tom

AuntyM -
To recreate much foraging habitat for the young salmon more than opening up access to the ditches and their tide gates would be needed. The farmers seem to have drawn the bay front and said no to any action that would affect their land. We as a society are asking the fishers to fish less (some want no fishing), the loggers to leave larger buffers along streams, that dams for water and/or power be operated in a more fish freindly mode, etc. If salmon recovery is to occur all of us will need to step up to the plate in some fashion; inlcuding the farmers. This will cost everyone - more for power, more for forest products, less fish for everyone, etc.

To restore much estuarian habitat for the fish what is really needed is the pulling back of dikes so that the low lands can flood on the high tide. This creates an productive environment for small bugs and shrimp like critters. As the tide recedes the fish collect in the "ditches" running through the flats and the fish feed on the food items as it is swept into the ditches. While restoration of such habitats is jsut starting and much of it is experimental any restoration is better than what exists. As with most such habitats what is really needed for full restoration is time for the various physical and biological processes to operate on the habitat to recreate what once was. The time frame is likely longer than us humans are used to dealing with. Just as it will take a century or more to restore the large trees along ripparian areas for needed wood debris it will likley take decades for restored areas to become fully functional.

It is much better and cheaper not to destroy what we still have rather than attempt to restore lost habitat. The first priority must be preservation of what habitat still is functioning.

As a whole I have found that we are not willing to pay the recovery costs needed. Recovery is great as long it is the other guy is paying. However we all are the other guy. For that reason I'm not hopefully that I'll live to see any meaniful recovery efforts. I have pretty much decided that all we can hope for is that through continued efforts to advance the conservation efforts the fish may hang on long enough that some future generation may value them enough to sacrifice to insure the fish's continued existence.

Tight lines
Smalma

smalma you said it alot better then I did. i really liked what you said about working more to keep what habitat we have now and a alittle less on the rehab. Rehab is great if we can make it work for everyone. I have found that the best way to get any one to do anything is to ask for their help not yell and threaten them. Works on kids and marines. trust me. Tom p.s. yelling works on marines as long as were not armed.

Like the bumper sticker says, "Save Skagit farmland. Pavement is forever." With the farmland we have, there is always an option to convert it to something else or return it to a somewhat natural state. It's pretty much gone once it's paved over.

Smalma,

I know that a year or 2 ago the Army Corp of Engineers blew some dikes in the lower Skagit delta and retuned some land to the estuary. I am wondering if you know how much area was given back? Also, do you have any estimate of how much land is going to be affected by the removal of the one way tide gates?

One more question a little off topic. Have you read Larry Kunzler's latest study on Skagit flooding? If so, what effects in the lower river do you think his study might have on dikes and tide gates if it is found as accurate?

KLS

There is a lot of misinformation in that article. I happen to know about this situation from the inside, and what WDFW is proposing is not to flood the land with saltwater and render it useless, it is to replace the existing and failing tide gates with tide gates that can be set to maintain the same water elevation that is in the existing ditches, they just remain open until this water elevation is reached so that juvenile salmon can enter the ditches on an incoming tide and use them for rearing. These self-regulating tide gates work pretty slick on the east coast where they have been used for years, it's just that not many people have seen them over here so they are afraid of them. That and farmers are afraid that if they let salmon in their ditches they are then going to be regulated as fish habitat. Well, their whole farm is already fish habitat, it was once an intertidal wetland after all before the dikes were built, and a strict interpretation of the law that requires fish passage would indeed result in their being totally returned to wetlands in order to be in compliance. This is NOT what WDFW is proposing, only to provide passage to existing habitat while allowing existing uses - it is a compromise position and entirely reasonable.

And the habitat in these ditches is indeed valuable to juvenile fish - it is protected, warmer than the open waters of the Sound in early spring when they need these sheltered, warm, and highly productive areas and the enourmous amounts of insects they provide. And a bunch of these insects are mosquitos that could potentially carry the West Nile virus, so it makes a lot of sense to let fish in there to eat them all. Also, daily influx of saltwater will kill off mosquito larvae, which require stagnant freshwater to breed, exactly like the conditions presently behind the dikes.

So please keep in mind that, in spite of the hue and cry to the contrary, WDFW is not proposing to take anybody's farm away. Done right, providing fish passage using SRTs will not affect farmland at all. These gates can be set to close at any elevation, and since fish passage only needs to be provided in the spring and early summer they can be set to close immediatly during winter high tides and high flows. They also are much more efficient at draining land during heavy runoff periods than the undersized and heavy flap gates presently in place. This new technology would actually keep the land drier.

You want to see some SRTs in action just visit Cosmopolis some time. The Corps installed the first SRTs in the state about 10 years ago to protect the city of Cosmoposis from flooding while still providing fish passage to Mill and Alder Creeks, and they work quite well. As you head across Hwy. 101 from Aberdeen look to your left. And bring some Skagit bulb farmers with you. Education is the best way to conquer fear.

Spawn out thanks for the info . it sounds as thu we can do two things at once. Kepp the farmers in busness and improve habitat. This is the type of thing i like to see. You can not total fault the farmers of being scared of being regulated out of land owner ship one step at a time. Some of the people on this board sound as thu they would be for confescation of land for improved fishing . Thanks again for the info. Tom

Irag embasseder to the u.n. in responce to the question "will you call for the surrender of the repuplicing guard?" " I have not seen a republican guard, have you seen a republican guard"

Kerry
The dikes that was blown was on WDFW lands- part of the Skagit wildlife recreation area. The area was the farmed island that was used of waterfowl hunting. Basically the land bought for waterfowl hunting was converted to fish habitiat. As I mentioned before salmon recovery will reguire all to contibute if there is to be success.

Have not seen the Kunzler's report.

Tight lines
Smalma

I guess its time to add a few thoughts to this subject.

I think it's important to know that only a very small portion of Skagit farm acreage is planted in flowers (tulips & daffodils). The bulk of the land is used to produce food and seeds for others to grow food.

It has been pointed out that farmland is too valuable to destroy by building housing, malls and parking lots. With the population exploding every acre we can preserve is important not just for growing food but also for any undeveloped and possible unforeseen future usage. For example, farmland may just be one of the most valuable assets we have for the future production of clean renewable energy.

It has also been pointed out that we might be wise to preserve any estuarial and freshwater salmonid habitat that we presently have and do what is possible to increase this habitat where we can.

The trick here is to try to accomplish both of these goals wisely and in ways compatible with each other when ever possible.

In the Skagit Valley there is considerable estuarial habit in the South Fork Delta lands and much effort is being made to preserve it and rectify some of the damage there that man has done in the past. As mentioned, some levees there are being breached and the "natural delta lands" are being expanded and made more accessible to the fish. The Deepwater Slough restoration project, completed in 2000, allows the slough to be used by the river as a distributary.


If substantial new habitat is truly needed then why not convert the farmland known as Fir Island to river delta. This would expand those "natural delta lands" to include the entire area between both forks of the river from the confluence below Mount Vernon for the entire distance to Skagit Bay.

All that would be required would be to remove about 16-20 miles of Levees and to breach another 10-12 miles worth and tear up maybe 20-25 miles of paved roads. The houses and other buildings could just be left to provide mixed habitat until nature reclaims their remains.

Doing so would reclaim about 7500 acres of potential estuary delta land. The cost to buy out the farmers might be somewhere from 21-75 million dollars depending upon the valuation of the land and the buildings there. That is probably a very small amount in comparison to the costs of removing the levees and pavement.

The problem here as I see it is that instead of actually undertaking a sincere and effective project such as outlined above the state has allowed a tribal activist spokesman to blackmail it into harassing the farmers in order to make a political statement.

Initially the farmers were pressured to give up 200-foot swaths of riparian buffers alongside of each so-called waterway on their land. These waterways are not rivers with salmon in them but instead include ditches temporarily dug for drainage each winter and spring and later filled before planting. Now, in response to the farmers outrage over this the activists seek to fill many of these ditches with salmon and salt water which will not only poison the soil but also prevent planting because of the salmon in the ditches. Perhaps then they can be pressured into giving up those 200-foot buffers along the ditches they dig.

If estuarine habitat is needed then create estuarine habitat! Don't punish the farmers.

I question the concept that "increased estuary is necessary to recover" salmon stocks in the Skagit River. The Skagit has the healthiest chinook salmon stocks in the entire Puget Sound region. And that is despite the fact that those stocks have been harvested with gill nets annually (contrary the tribal denials) until less than one salmon generation ago.

The Skagit chnook have done quite well when they have been allowed to pass upriver to spawn without commercial and tribal nets and traps blocking the way. The estuary in the South Fork was diked and farmed and contained roads and even railroads until somewhat recently. Some those channels and the main North Fork channel were also dredged to create shipping lanes until fairly recent times. Despite the lack of estuarial habitat back then the chinook salmon prospered.

The history of the Skagit River Chinook has been one of over harvest followed by recovery followed by over harvest followed by recovery followed by over harvest again. With less than a generation of recovery time behind the recent over harvest cycle it seems likely that these fish will rebound with or without more estuary. If the numbers of fish returning in recent years is an indication of their condition the trend today definitely seems to be an upward one.

The entrances to some local salmon streams are definitely impeded by "old style" tide gates and it only makes sense to examine and correct these problems on a case by case basis. On the other hand, the idea of raising the water table of agricultural land and allowing the intrusion of salt water into man made drainage ditches lacks merit. The benefits to salmon seem small and the costs large.

The only local experience with self-regulated tide gates has been the one on Edison Slough that was installed in 1999 or 2000. The self-regulating tide gate at Edison is considered a bad project by everyone but the proponents of SRT's say that project failed because there wasn't enough research done before the gate was installed, or monitoring after installation. Locally, nobody supports that installation anymore, and the county commissioners want to remove the gate. That gate has been blamed for raising the water table and has become a rallying point for farmers in the Skagit River delta.

What frightens farmers and drainage commissioners is the prospect that all the conventional tide gates in Skagit County could be replaced by self-regulating ones. Conventional tide gates perform three main functions, all of which are compromised by self-regulating tide gates.

Tide gates control the water table by allowing the water that flows onto and under the delta to flow out. If the water table were to rise, a typical rain could drown the crops in the field. Tide gates also keep salt water out of the fields. If salt water rises too high, it can get into the water table, killing the crops. Tide gates also provide a reservoir for water to accumulate between tides. That way, if heavy rain falls during high tide, the rainwater can drain into the ditches and sloughs and wait there until it's let out when the tide falls. By letting some water back into the sloughs, a self-regulating tide gate reduces that drainage capacity and makes low-lying farmland more vulnerable to flooding

Under the current law, any blockage of a stream, including a tide gate, must provide some system for fish passage. Enforcement only happens when a permit is issued for repair or replacement of a gate, according to Bob Everitt, regional director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Everitt recently said the controversy over tide gates in Skagit County had already prompted the department to consider a moratorium on installing new self-regulating tide gates. In the meantime, his department is proposing a Skagit Tide Gate Strategy, a review of existing gates aimed at determining where the benefits to salmon would be greatest. Once the review is complete, the department would look for landowners willing to sell or lease land to be converted into estuary habitat.

It would seem that the recent agreement between the Skagit Tribal Cooperative and the WDFW and the resulting orders to Skagit County might negate this bit of common sense management policy.

To me it makes better sense to concentrate our resources where they can do the most good rather than punishing farmers for speaking out against misdirection in management trends. Because farmland has been destroyed to build malls is not good reason to destroy more farmland to provide barely significant benefit for salmon. That makes about as much sense as destroying salmon habitat to provide malls because so much habitat has already been compromised for agriculture. The pressure by tribal activists to hinder agriculture seems more of a political statement and a display of power than it is a real attempt to provide benefit for the salmon. It is just one more thing to misdirect attention from what might make a real difference.

It makes about as much sense as limiting a rural resident's right to drill a well for drinking water that could filter through the water table to the river. No wonder the public was excluded, at the request of the tribal activist, from the recent policy negotiations about rural water rights also.

Seems like a pretty wide set of opinion on this issue. Does anyone know what happened with the area that has already been reclaimed? I've heard it is overgrown with cattails and is no better for salmon than before the dikes were removed. If the area is really managed for both salmon and other wild life that would be great but, if it is just a political manuver to hide a more serious problem to the fish recovery I say leave it alone. Someone earlier said we all have to contribute to the recovery effort, let's get the nets out first and see how that helps.

Blackbart -
Here is an update on the issue. As pointed out in the PI article there were legislators looking to give the farmers legal relief. As a result substitute house bill 1418 was past. 1418 provided changes to two exist state laws.

It added the following to RCW 77.55.060 (this requires that fish passage be provided dams and other obstructions). "For the purposes of this section, "other obstruction" does not inlcude tide gates, flodd gates, and associated man-made agricultural drainage facilities that were orgininally installed as part of an agricultural drainage system on or before the effective date of this section or the repari, replacement, or improvement of such tide gates or flood gates."

It also modified RCW 77.55.100 (the state hydraulic law) as follows - "The Department shall not require a fishway on a tide gate, flood gate, or other associated man-made agriculture drainage facilities as a condition of a hydraulic project approval if such fishway was not originally installed as part of an agricultural drainage system existing on or before the effective date of this section.

Any condition requiring a self-regulating tide gate to achieve fish passage in an existing hydraulic project approval under this section may not be enforced."

HB 1418 passed the House on 4/22/03 with 97 yeas and 0 nays.

It passed the Senate on 4/14/03 with 44 yeas and 4 nays.

Just one of several examples of our law makeres weaking environmental protection of our fisheries resources. It is clear that this State's decision makers consider salmon recovery means status quo for all but the various fish users. The prevailing attitude seems to be that if you and I would just quit fishing every other impacting activity on the salmon resource can continue and recovery will magically occur.

Tight lines
Smalma

Plunker salmon habitat is more important than farmland.. period end of story.. Farms have destroyed so much salmon habitat i have no problem at all if the opposite happens.