Sequalitchew Old Switcheroo
ByOur friends at the Tacoma News Tribune ran a feature story today on the proposed Glacier Northwest mine expansion.
For those who may not know, Glacier NW has a nearly 400 acre gravel mine located along the Sequalitchew Creek. The proposed expansion would be a 50% increase of approximately 177 acres. The future for the mining site, once all of the gravel has been removed, is to build more houses and businesses (big surprise). That means the trees on the 564 acre parcel would have been mowed down anyway.
Trees aside, there are environmental concerns because the expansion will mine into the aquifer to get the gravel. This would require diverting the water to a man-made stream to feed into the existing Sequalitchew Creek. As expected, both proponents and opponents have made their case about the potential impact of this diversion.
The questions raised by the article run a bit deeper for me. I am a skeptic of the “plan” in our planned community. There is a tremendous amount of energy afoot to promote and preserve DuPont’s history. However, first settlements and ancient middens aside, DuPont was, is, and appears for the future to be, a company town. Whether the company is our name-bearer, or another interest is irrelevant. It is why we are here.
I have mixed feelings about the expansion. On one hand, it is only gravel and the environmental impact assessment and mitigation appears to be sound (at a glance). What I have misgivings about is the history of DuPont leadership capitulating to these businesses and their promises.
What has been conspicuously absent is the city’s cost benefit on the matter. What do we have to gain as taxpayers of this community if we go along with the expansion? How much revenue is lost if Glacier packs up and moves out to their current schedule? How many homes will be built on the reclaimed site and what is our tax base from it? Perhaps the city is putting their finger in the air and waiting to see the outcome from this week’s public meeting on the matter.
I will propose another alternative. Until we are given the confidence that the city can manage the resources and income they already have, how about no expansion and no future homes on the current site? I want a warm and fuzzy that one day the parks that sit behind chain link fences; the trails and greenbelts; and the vacancies along Wilmington, can all be managed effectively.
Until then, I can only see our master plan on paper and not in action.
I also have significant concerns over the proposed action to expand the mining activity by Glacier Northwest and its effect upon Sequalitchew creek, DuPont residents, and the natural areas that surround this artery of life. After reviewing the EIS of May 07 I am of the opinion that the current dewatering plan to create a Northern tributary and the associated slash and dig into the northern canyon wall will irreplaceably damage the visual and ecological continuity of one of the most beautiful stream and forest ecosystems in Pierce County.
Because of Sequalitchew’s private holding and restricted access this unknown treasure is de-valued and un-stewarded to the point where I fear that the proposed use could go ahead with minimal objection except by the few remaining mammals, birds and reptiles which inhabit its lush understory. I doubt that if such a proposal were set forth in the Chambers Creek watershed that it would be considered as a viable solution considering the impacts to an already well loved natural space. History reveals to me that similar irreplaceable treasures were previously lost from DuPont because of similar apathy and claims of progress. Within 15 feet of where the now absent Fort Nisqually originally stood stretch above ground electrical lines to power homes on Hoffman Hill. Water which once flowed ponderously through Edmonds marsh and then joyfully down Sequalitchew canyon… now diverted… cascades lifelessly near Solo Point because of the perception of uncontrolled flooding on Federal land. And now if approved as proposed, within a stones-throw of the Historic Methodist Mission site(1st Fourth of July Celebrated in the West) will be a 500+ acre depression devoid of life stretching down to the Puget Sound. This is just the beginning of adverse and far reaching effects identified in the study which far outweigh the purported good of Salmonoid species re-introduction.
At this point I feel compelled to say that I am not entirely against an expansion of the mining area. My position/aversion rests on: 1. The preservation of Sequalitchew Creek and Canyon as it currently exists in shape and form. 2. Larger setbacks and contiguous pieces of existing ecosystems which buffer and surround the canyon and mining rim (more than the token “fool’em strips” of trees or 20’ tall earthen berms ) which propose to mitigate the significant visual impacts, but ignore the environment holistically. 3. Consideration of future public enjoyment (see DuPont Parks & Rec. Master Plan) and access along a trail network next to which the upper portion Interpretive signs could read, “here lies the former Sequalitchew Creek riparian forest streambed and wetland”…the middle reads “to your right observe state of the art mining efforts” … and the bottom reads “Caution: Trail closed due to washout.”
I have considered my position carefully you see, as I live in one of the 5 closest houses in Edmonds village to the edge, and one might fully expect my concern to be increased traffic, or that incessant backup beeping I hear on overcast nights, or air quality standards, or the viability of the City well which provides my drinking water, along with groundwater quality, or visual impact from my upstairs. All of which I would prefer not to have to deal with, however I keep returning to that which I am not willing to concede or surrender in principle, because it cannot speak for itself, the irreplaceable Natural and Historic aspects of a canyon as of yet undiscovered by the majority of DuPont residents and visitors. Had I not taken that walk down Sequalitchew Creek that day with the folks from the City and MIG while working on the Parks Master Plan and been in awe at its beauty, and felt its shelter and protection, its lushness and renewal I doubt I would be such an advocate for such magnificent Creation, when such destruction awaits.
I am happy to discuss this issue with anyone who would have reason to give me audience and convince me otherwise due to my oversights of the technical document. I strongly recommend for the betterment of those who are not financial beneficiaries of the proposed action, who will still remain when the aggregate is long gone, add these adjustments to the project related conditions of approval.
1. Develop an alternate course of action to dewater (possibly through infiltration and provisions for overflow through the edge of the existing mined area straight out into the Sound) or as a last resort reject the cut and cover construction and mandate micro tunneling to preserve the original canyon wall from stream bed to crest line and vegetation on the northern buffer setback.
2. Evaluate the tenability of projected and worst case increased flows through the BNSF culvert at high tide causing possible backups/flooding through the side paired tunnels and associated impacts to the brackish marsh and existing/proposed trail and park improvements.
3. Increase the buffer setback for impact effects to Archaeological sites on the Methodist Episcopal Mission Monument from No effect: located outside but close to lease line…to No effect: located well outside lease line. I understand lease lines probably will not change, however the reality of mining activity occurring close to or well outside a historic viewpoint which people navigate to using a brown Historical Point of Interest sign on the I-5 interchange will be readily apparent.
4. Encourage a spirit of stewardship and partnership between the sponsor of the proposed action (Glacier Northwest) also the sole beneficiary, and everyone and everything else who have something to be lost from this proposal as written. An atmosphere of stewardship should include:
a. The items above.
b. Paving/completion of the trail network with benches and rest points down to the Sound, sooner rather than later, and an advocacy for public access.
c. Establishment of a saltwater frontage park, with a covered pavilion, park tables and other amenities.
d. A bridge of some sort (Suspension) to cross-connect Sequalitchew trail with future trail access coming from Hoffman Hill area across the golf course and Business technology park. This is a integral pathway which will encourage looped non-motorized traffic to the points of interest, instead of necessitating parking/origination at the new City Hall or Center drive
e. Interpretive signage which describes the Natural and Historic features mentioned in the proposal and description of the evidence of efforts underway to re-introduce Salmon species.
f. Benchmarks to measure success or areas requiring improvement for Salmon re-introduction, and monitoring of projected drawdown rates and their effect on area lakes and wetlands, with control measures to require periodic non-partial review if actual data differs from projections, and a solid plan to change course if necessary in order to minimize irreversible detriment.
g. Periodic updates through local media print or City updates to inform the public of work progress, so sudden changes don’t come as a surprise.
h. A long term commitment to working to re-establishing flows affected by drawdown in upper Sequalitchew creek and Edmonds marsh all the way to Sequalitchew Lake. A from “Sound to Source” management approach with layered government and business involvement.
i. Planning for camping sites along the upper north rim for use by citizens and organizations to camp in their own community and enjoy the outdoors.
j. Experiential education teaching materials for local Schools/ Clubs/ Organizations to facilitate Canyon and Sound self-guided or guided tours celebrating the triumph of good business practices and environmental stewardship.
k. Planning considerations for a future bluff overlook park with vehicular parking and ADA appropriate switchback trails for access to the Creek and Sound.
l. Future Wharf road development along the southern mining boundary to connect existing roads with the bluff overlook park for motorized and alternate access.
These are just a few of my thoughts, of which many are mirrored in the Parks Master Plan and could be clarified by that document or fellow members of that Agency. I think these and many other issues should be considered as mitigating measures. I hope that Glacier Northwest will not view them as requirements to which adherence is mandated in order to achieve their stated goal of gaining access to affordable quality aggregate, but as an opportunity to demonstrate tangible respect and stewardship through Respecting Resources.
I am sure I have omitted some issues for which I am thankful that other Citizens will remark, and I applaud them for their time and efforts. I hope that as the City and other decision makers consider this action that the items discussed above, a contemplative walk through the canyon, and the thoughts of present and future generations will weigh heavily on their decision which could literally re-write the course of Sequalitchew Creek.
Thank you for articulating your concerns. This issue has flown under the radar long enough.
Spread the word and let’s all be sure to attend the public meeting on Thursday. Andy – I’m concerned about the complacency you brought up. Is it the transitory nature of our many military families (God bless them) in town?