Will salmon cost the farm?

Snohomish, WA - 12/10/01 - No one loves a new roadmap outlining what can be done in the next few years to help save chinook salmon in the Snohomish River basin.

But a coalition of three dozen people representing diverse interests have decided they can live with it.

Some farmers in Snohomish County have responded with alarm, since the new plan calls for buying and flooding hundreds of acres of land by removing protective dikes.

"Basically what happened here is a bunch of scientists got together and said, 'If you could do anything what would you do?' without any practical restraints," said Jason Bartelheimer, a dairy farmer outside Snohomish who said one of the proposed projects could force him out of business.

But nearly everyone in a regional forum of cities, counties, anglers, tribes, boaters, businessmen, farmers and environmentalists agree the plan is a good first step in helping the threatened fish.

One person representing recreational interests refused to endorse it, partly because putting logs into streams to create fish habitat could threaten boaters.

The plan, finalized last week, includes a wish list of 40 projects in Snohomish and King counties to improve chinook salmon habitat.

They include buying riverfront property, putting woody debris -- which are used by fish for shelter and rest -- back into creeks and tearing out flood control dikes in the estuary.

They're just ideas at this point, and few projects have funding. None would be done against the will of private landowners whose property would be flooded or affected, forum members said.

The plan also offers guidelines that the Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum, made up of two dozen members from King and Snohomish counties, hopes cities and counties will incorporate into their laws.

Those recommendations include preventing new development in 150-foot wide buffers along streams with fish. But local jurisdictions can choose whether to follow those voluntary guidelines.

The measures are intended to be near-term steps while local interests come up with a comprehensive plan to restore chinook salmon, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1999. That could take another four years.

The plan identifies "focus areas" -- including the Snohomish River estuary near Everett and key stretches and tributaries of the Skykomish and Snoqualmie rivers -- where habitat restoration money could be put to best use in the meantime.

Nearly a third of the proposed projects in Snohomish County involve removing or altering dikes built to prevent flooding or turn marshes into dry, farmable land.

But those manmade barriers also prevent salmon and other fish from using side channels and wetlands where young fish grow bigger and stronger before braving the open ocean.

The forum plans to focus first on projects affecting land that's already publicly owned. Proposed projects that would flood private land won't move forward unless landowners are willing to sell their property, officials said.

"Nobody is intending to take people's property and flood it by removing dikes wholesale without permission," said Snohomish County Councilman Dave Somers and the forum's co-chairman. "But that is the forceful opinion of some people out there, so we have some work to do."

The plan also stipulates that projects can't endanger boaters, neighboring property owners or public resources such as roads or sewer plants.

But those assurances haven't placated some Snohomish County farmers.

"The people I've talked to think it's ludicrous," said Rich Wolfe, a Lake Stevens landscaper who grows nursery plants. "The scope of the whole thing is to take the valley back to pre-farming times."

Bartelheimer, whose family has been raising dairy cows along French Slough for 62 years, said one of the proposed projects could flood enough of his low-lying property to force him out of business.

The plan calls for reconnecting the slough and the Snohomish River, currently separated by a dike and a pumping station that controls water levels in the agricultural valley. That barrier also keeps many salmon from reaching the slough.

He said if the project goes through, part of his land may be underwater and unusable. He'd have to get rid of some of his cows, which means he could lose razor-thin profit margins.

Bartelheimer has no problem with flooding unproductive land to help salmon. But he thinks valleys that have dairy farmers, duck hunting farms, berry growers and pumpkin patches aren't the places to experiment.

"I don't know of anybody that's against reconnecting parts of Ebey and Smith Islands...because that doesn't affect a lot of people," he said. "But a lot of these other propositions are going to directly affect agricultural land owners."

Bill Knutsen, who represents King County farmers on the forum, said he ultimately endorsed the plan because changes are going to happen, one way or another.

The Endangered Species Act requires that steps be taken to help chinook salmon return to healthy levels. If local groups don't do anything, the federal government will.

Although he shares concerns about removing dikes, he said he'd seen the forum become much more sensitive to the needs of farmers over the last few years. They've come to believe that preserving farms and open space is an important part of the solution.

Knutsen, a retired dairy farmer from Carnation, said he didn't think anyone on the salmon forum wanted to see farmers go out of business.

"They are concerned," he said. "The preservation of agriculture -- for want of a better term -- is very much a part of the salmon recovery process."

You can call Herald Writer Jennifer Langston at 425-339-3452
or send e-mail to langston@heraldnet.com.