Tom Murdoch

Narrator: Tom Murdoch

Date: July 31, 2020

Interviewed by: Gary Smith

Place: Northwest Stream Center in Everett, WA

TRANSCRIPT:

Gary Smith: July 31 at Adopt A Stream Foundation in Everett, speaking with Tom Murdoch about Bear Creek.

Tom Murdoch: Nice little recorder.

GS: Yeah. I went ahead and bought it and I think I’ll give it to them afterwards. So Eastside Heritage Center is interested in this. Redmond Historical Society is interested. General stories with a view toward restoration work.

TM: Yeah.

GS: But I need to go back in time a little bit to set the scene. What’s your understanding of the headwaters and then at the other end, the confluence of Bear Creek with the Sammamish?

TM: Okay. I’m not quite sure what you mean by what is the relationship, ... seventy percent of the Bear Creek Watershed is, including its headwaters ,are located up in Snohomish County, uh, and, the majority of that area is relatively, is a relatively rural character. And then as the stream system gets closer, uh, to the Sammamish River it uh, reaches Redmond and its suburbs. So there’s a greater level of development down in that area. And then, to the east is Evans Creek which is part of the watershed, and uh, going down to like the Sammamish area, uh, has ... the confluence, south of Redmond proper, and then, and then all the ??? the Sammamish River.

GS: Right. And, to go back as far as we can, and this is second hand of course, a lot of it, uh, but, just to set the start/end point. A little more detail maybe on what you know about the headwaters. I know that it’s always hard to find the exact source, and there’s many, many sources really, particularly in lowland type creeks like these, and at the other end, which is a little more distinct, what you know about the history, far back as you can, about where the creek came in to the Sammamish River.

TM: Well, I mean, well it goes back ten thousand years.

GS: (laughs) Yeah right.

TM: So I mean it’s how far you want to go back. So like, before uh, before the non-Indians arrived on this, out here, uh, the entire watershed was undeveloped, and the forest canopy was old growth timber, what we now call old growth timber. I can go back to Ice Ages and all that too. But the ... I’m into the geologic history, but, the uh, when the non-Indians arrived here in the early 1800s, uh, one of the first things that happened was cutting down the old growth trees. And I can’t speak to specifically for Bear Creek as much as North Creek, but uh, it’s probably pretty much the same thing. Up in North Creek, which is a similar size watershed, and a little further to the west of Bear Creek, uh, the lower part of North Creek was channelized and uh, effectually became skid road for logs that were cut in the, up here where we are, in this part of the watershed, and then dragged down with horses, or mules, uh, into the lower part of the creek, and then to the Sammamish River, Lake Washington, to ??? lumber. I don’t know if that’s the same thing that occurred in Bear Creek or not, but, uh, I suspect it would be a little more difficult because the Bear Creek was further away, which is part of the reason why Bear Creek ecologically speaking is in better condition. Then uh, Little Bear Creek which is the next watershed to the uh, west, and North Creek and Swamp Creek, and then all the lower creeks drain direct into Puget Sound, uh, west of the Small Creek watershed, so it really uh, the Bear Creek, of the, of the streams that flow into the Sammamish River from Snohomish County, uh, Bear Creek is in a little bit better ecological order. However, because uh, uh, the County, Snohomish County, King County, City of Redmond, and those are the principal jurisdictions in the Bear Creek Watershed, uh, historically didn’t do a very good job of paying attention to science when it came to protecting our natural resources.

GS: I want to stay in the older history for awhile.

TM: Yeah.

GS: And ...

TM: So back in the day, uh, as I understand it, the uh, Bear Creek was one of the stream systems that was traditionally used as a hunting fishing area by the Muckleshoot tribe. And uh, and that’s, same is true of Little Bear Creek and ?? Creek, so all the streams that drain into Lake Washington were traditionally used by the Muckleshoot tribe. The lower part of Bear Creek was as I understand it, the tribal members would canoe pretty far upstream. And,

GS: From the confluence, maybe, I mean, possibly.

TM: Yeah, and they’d go past the confluence and up into probably what’s now the King Snohomish County line.

GS: Mm hmm.

TM: And then I’m certain that the basin discussions with some old timers like Davie and Elizabeth Lloyd who’s family owns the, the uh, the Lloyd property which is now evolved into the Paradise Valley Conservation Area, they said the native people would drift and hunt up in the area. That headwater area which includes the Paradise Valley Conservation area, now has cougars and bear and deer. The mammals that were traditionally hunted are there now. Uh, and then before the non Indians came in and, uh, converted much of Bear Creek into uh, small farms, and then, into small villages and now Redmond which is a big village.

GS: [laughs]

TM: There used to be abundant game throughout the whole water system.

GS: So undoubtedly seasonal camps for fishing and hunting.

TM: Yeah.

GS: Any recollection or knowledge of permanent structures or, you know, buildings?

TM: I’m not aware of any.

GS: Okay.

Time Stamp: 8’31” referring to possible midden at “Friendly Village site,” a project designed to benefit fisheries resources:  Chinook, coho, sockeye (introduced in 1930) and steelhead

TM: We are meeting with archeologists at the Friendly Village site on Monday and as I understand it, uh, there has been discovery of a fairly large midden, uh, very close by. So, we’re actually hoping we are not going to discover one. But, uh, we’re going to be doing some initial digging starting Monday in advance of where we plan on putting our large structures. Archeologists are going to be there during all the excavation work, so we may discover something at what’s now called the Friendly Village. And the work we’re doing there is designed to benefit the fishery’s resources. Historically, and now, uh, Bear Creek has uh, chinook salmon, silver or coho, and sockeye, although the sockeye are introduced, so they were, actually there in the old days, they were introduced in the thirties, and it was a successful introduction, and the steelhead, resident and sea going ??? trout, and less glamorous fish, skulpa, dayss, Brook lampray eel, and there are likely now unfortunately at the lower end probably bass that were introduced that weren’t there, and I understand there’s some northern pike that roaming around in Lake Washington, which is bad new. So the fishery resource has always been good there. I should say, has been really good there until probably the 60’s, then things began to deteriorate. There’s a ??? that you might want to take a look at it’s called the Puget Sound and Adjacent Water Study, published in 1970 it’s in our resource library. It has reference to Bear Creek with the cries of alarm from the fishery biologists of the day saying if new development comes in it’s going to cause problems for the stream.

GS: Who did this study?

TM: Uh, I’d have to take a look at the uh, it’s a consortium of parties put it together. It’s, it’s in our library.

GS: I’d like to see that.

TM: There’s also a 1970 something report came out called the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters with the University, what’s the other one, uh, River Basin Coordinating Committee Report, it’s called RUCO, it’s an acronym, and that was the Corps of Engineers report, and it’s got a lot of good watershed maps for Bear Creek, and it shows where uh, flooding problems existed at the time the report was done.

GS: So,

TM: And following that there’s another one ...

GS: Oh there’s going to be a million of them (laughs)

TM: Yeah.

GS: Before we get too close to the current day, I want to catch a little middle area between the uh, settlers and let’s say the post-war period. So, you’d already referred to clear cutting or at least logging on North Creek, and it occurred on Bear Creek. What’s your assessment of that in terms of the impact, obviously negative, not only from logging but from agriculture and other settler activities.

TM: Well, my response to that is more uh, directed to effects on fishery resources.

GS: Yes.

TM: But uh, yeah, now we’re competing with an airplane.

GS: Yeah, you might have to wait a second. I’m happy to stay on the fisheries, um, because that my initial and primary interest anyway. So take as much time as you want on that.

TM: Most, most people don’t know what a riparian zone is, so r-i-p-a-r-i-a-n is simply put is the area vegetation adjacent to an aquatic system that effects the ecological condition of that aquatic system. And, uh, I don’t recall the date, it’s probably twenty years ago, the uh, forest service asked the group of leading scientists including Dr. James Carr, who’s now professor emeritus at University of Washington, the question of how big of a riparian zone is needed for a health sustaining salmon run. And the forest service did not like the answer. The answer that they provided was a minimum of 300 feet of undisturbed riparian vegetation, both sides of a uh, stream system from headwaters to mouth. And I asked Tim this question, and I said, “So what was magic about 300 feet?” and he said, “well, the Douglas fir trees, which live up to 800 years, will grow to be 300 feet high, and a tree that’s 300 feet high, that’s 300 feet away from a stream, will cast shade 300 feet over to the creek.”

GS: There you go.

TM: If that tree gets to be 801 years and dies, and falls over, and the top of the tree will go into the stream, and that uh, organic matter will become a source of nutrients for micro organisms which become a source of nutrients for uh, a large variety of aquatic life collectively referred to as benthic macro invertebrates. Benthic means lives on the bottom, macro means you can see with the naked eye and invertebrate means a spine, so that reference included aquatic worms, cray fish, fresh water clams, fresh water mussels, and thousands of varieties of aquatic insects. Mayflies, stoneflies and the like.

GS: That’s exactly right on the impact of fisheries, but on particular with reference to some of these shellfish, um, what about pollution that came in that period from whatever activity you can imagine, or story you might of heard about, industrial activity on or near the creek, back in the early days. We know it’s bad now.

Time Stamp: 16’00” referring to “catastrophic” development, especially west of Bear Creek

TM: I’m not familiar with the industrial activities, personally along the creek. Most of my knowledge of activities on Bear Creek has to do with residential development activities, so um, fortunately in Bear Creek, uh, most of the development has not been as catastrophic as it has been in the watersheds to the east, and the  development has been less dense.

GS: Into the east, referring to ...

TM: I mean, I mean to the west.

GS: To the west. Yeah.

Time Stamp: 17’29” referring to the decline of freshwater mussels

TM: Most of the development in the timeframe you’re talking about was individuals owned five acre parcels or larger. So, you’re I’m sure familiar with the Growth Management Act, so it was 1970-- something or other, everything essentially uh, to the east of 522 is supposed to stay as rural configuration, but that’s all changing now, and at the time you weren’t allowed to have any lots uh, smaller than five acres. Now that’s ... a lot of that is changing, but, ... because of that, then, then there wasn’t the high density development, uh, that uh, less water run off, less pollutants than we’re seeing now. As far as the clams and mussels go, uh, all of the stream systems uh, in the state used to have abundant populations of fresh water clams and mussels, uh, and I’m more familiar with mussels than clams, but I believe it’s similar. That the, uh, freshwater mussels being much larger than clams, they’ll filter um, nine to thirteen gallons of water a day. And the, the mussels are very long lived, western pearl shell which are seem to be the mussels that most often found in Bear Creek will live to be well over 100 years. If they’re not subject to ???? in to the site a lot of polluted water. There was a study done by uh, a graduate student at the University of Washington, in the 1990s or so, there’s , I think it’s on the internet, I can’t remember her name, but she uh, she put in some baskets with mussels inside at different locations in the stream system to see if she could 10-20 potential sources of pollutants that might be causing a decline in the ..

GS: In Bear Creek?

TM: Yeah. Yeah.

GS: I’ll check on that.

Time Stamp: 19’32” referring again to the decline of freshwater mussels

TM: Yeah. And, but historically, the, the reason we lost a lot of mussels is the non-Indians, uh, in the 1700’s, keep in mind, this area here, uh, like Washington State, uh, originally was controlled by the Hudson Bay Company. In the, the late 1700’s, one of the things they did was try to exterminate all the beavers to, to dissuade the North American mountain men from coming in to beaver hunting. They figured, “well, if there’s no beavers here, why come?” There’s a great book that you can read that has, like, the history of what I’m talking about, called The Eager Beavers Matter. You might want to pick up. It’s actually fun to read.

GS: Yeah.

TM: But it will give you kind of a natural history of the, uh, of the beaver uh, traction, in the, in the, you know, cross the U.S. but also a little bit in Europe as well. There’s a different ... here we have, here our beavers are called castor canadensis, there’s a different species in Europe. Very, I couldn’t tell the difference from looking at them, the ones in Europe are bigger.

GS: Bigger.

TM: Yeah. Well, it’s Europe and Asia. Uh, so, uh, anyhow, digressing, so that the, uh, the development activities have had a really negative affect on, on the, on the uh, mussels. But originally back in the day when the mussels crossed the U.S., were decimated because of what you’re wearing on your shirt.

GS: Dye?

TM: Buttons.

GS: Oh, buttons.

TM: Buttons. So the mussels were being harvested to create buttons and particularly the pearl shell mussels. You’d take the shell of a pearl shell mussel, and take the pearl inside, and, uh the shell, to create buttons.

GS: Okay. So we’re in to the modern era now. We’ve got to keep moving on because I know you’re time is limited. Um, what, when would you date this, from you’re knowledge of the restoration work that’s been done, organized preservation and restoration efforts on Bear Creek?

Time Stamp: 22’08” describing Snohomish County projects in 1984-1987, including a few in Upper Bear Creek

TM: Well, the [?Downstream?] Foundation was founded in 1985, so, my actual underground restoration work goes back to that time period. Prior to that, 19 ... between, uh, 1984 and 1987, uh, I was then the Water Resource Supervisor for the County Public Works Department.

GS: In Snohomish?

TM: In Snohomish County. I hired a team of biologists and we launched doing stream restoration work between ’84 and ’87. Finished probably ten or fifteen, in that time frame. How many in Bear Creek, I don’t know.

GS: Separate projects?

TM: Well, yeah, yeah. They’re all individual projects. And a few of those took place in Bear Creek. The ... we, we didn’t, we’ve done a lot more in other watersheds, because there was more degradation in those water sheds. So Bear Creek hasn’t needed restoration as much, because it hasn’t been degraded as much. Sadly that’s changing. So, I can speak to, you know, I’m aware of some work that began in the 1980’s ...

GS: Okay.

TM: ...done by us. There were others doing ... Bear Creek Watertenders can speak to that more than me.

GS: Mm hm.

TM: Uh, some of the old timers were you know, at this, before the 80’s, probably in the late 70’s. I don’t know when they started.

GS: It grew up out of some development projects.

TM: When they were fighting developments.

GS: Right. But it also grew out of what they called the North Bear Creek Community District, or something, some title such as that. King County had created...

TM: I’m not familiar with that.

GS: We won’t go into, you know let’s stay with what you know, and just tell that story out of Snohomish County, and obviously it wasn’t just Bear Creek, but if you can focus on Bear Creek restoration work and, uh, your own efforts, not only as a participant, but seeing what was going on in the creek.

TM: Yeah. Well, most of my personal work on this had to deal with uh, trying to uh, secure what’s now the Paradise Valley Conservation Area.

GS: Hm. From the beginning? You were sort of looking that direction?

TM: Well, I, uh, I was one of the, I think may have broken [?]

tape stops and restarts.

GS: PVCA. You’re on tape again.

Time Stamp: 25’04” explaining acquisition of 600+ acres from David and Elizabeth Lloyd with the protection of natural resources built into the purchase and sales agreement

TM: So the Paradise Valley Conservation Area was at the time the County had already secured six hundred and some acres. And, from the Lloyd family they [?] and one of the conditions of the purchase and sales agreement was no activity should take place on that property that would lead to degradation of natural resources. Specifically, the erosion and sedimentation and that sort of thing that might affect the property. So when this thing was handed to me,

GS: You got a date, roughly?

TM: I’d have to look at the ...

GS: You talking ‘90s?

TM: Yeah.

GS: Okay.

TM: Yeah, it’s like the late, late,

GS: Late ‘90’s.

TM: Yeah, late ‘90’s early 2000’s. So I uh, I took a look at it and I had actually never visited the site, so I roamed around out there and steep trails coming down, uh, were evolving in to, gullies, because of erosion, and dirt coming down, and uh, mountain bikers, motorcyclists, ATV riders were all roaming around out here. Uh, and, David and Elizabeth Lloyd had sold the property to the County, with the understanding that this stuff wasn’t supposed to be happening, and the Parks Department, Parks Department was always on the short end of the budgetary totem pole.

GS: Hm

TM: And that’s universal. Uh, so they didn’t really have a lot of people to monitor what was going on, and so when this thing was handed to me, I looked first at the sales agreement then I met with the Parks Director, Rob Mulligan, and then another person who was supposed to be in charge at the time, who’s name was Debbie [?]and I said, “you guys can’t ... what’s going on is contrary to what is going on in the purchase sales agreement.” And then one of the folks who was there organizing the volunteers who really was tickled with himself, he got Parks to bring a truckload of gravel to fill this wet spot, and so people could walk across it. I said, “well, that wet spot is the wetlands. You can’t do that. Maybe build a bridge there.” “Well, that will cost them plenty.” So this did reach [?] Martin [?], and I said “you can’t do that.” But I was able to convince Parks Department to shut down public access to the Paradise Conservation Area for about two years. And in the interim, uh, was able to develop the Paradise Valley Conservation Area Adaptive Management Fund.

GS: That’s the document that I can find maybe from that gal ...

TM: Yeah. I have a copy upstairs.

GS: Well I don’t want to take yours, but uh,

TM: It should be available on the Parks Department website.

GS: Right.

TM: So, in that, uh, process,

GS: I’m sorry. PVCA ...?

TM: Paradise Valley Conservation Area Adaptive Management Plan.

GS: Okay. Thank you.

Time Stamp: 28’45” quote about “a great acquisition” for PVCA (Paradise Valley Conservation Area) with funding from SRFBoard (Salmon Recovery Funding Board)

TM: And this was the requirement, this management plan, by the way, was one of the requirements of the purchase and sales agreement. So if the County hadn’t prepared this, then it would’ve been this challenging thing, saying, “okay, we have to get the money back, or figure out something else.” And so this is all sort of follow up to the actual acquisition property. Which was a great acquisition. It was the first one.

GS: Yeah.

TM: Of the governor’s salmon recovery fund plan. First property acquisition

GS: Which ... Who’s salmon recovery plan?

TM: Well, the governor...

GS: Oh, the governor.

TM: The Governor’s Salmon Recovery Plan.

GS: Nothing to do with RYA aid?

TM: Oh, well, yeah, it’s in there

GS: uh huh

TM: You know, the uh, uh, the Salmon Recovery Funding Board commonly referred to as Surf Board, there the ones who made the ultimate decisions on funding for salmon recovery, and it’s in the, what’s now the Paradise Valley Conservation Area, the bulk of it was funded through the Salmon Recovery Funding for, from Surf Board.

GS: Okay.

TM: And uh, I’d have to look to see what date ...

GS: That’s fine. I can find that. I’ve got them.

Time Stamp: 30’46” about people fighting restrictions on PVCA access, especially the “Mud Mountain Bike Boys”

TM: Anyway, so Davie and Elizabeth were along one time, and I was able to sit down with them and talk to them about their perspective of the history of the site, so, Davie, actually had a train going out to uh, one of the things I wanted to share with you, wasn’t in the plan. I never wrote this stuff in there. My name’s not on the plan, by the way, (laughs). I wrote it though. I was trying to stay anonymous. For a reason of, every meeting, we had no fewer than three hundred people, and usually about seven o’clock, some of these folks were opposed to having one, the audacity of shutting down this place, and they didn’t want somebody closing trails down. There was one group that filed, that certified a lawsuit, the Mud Mountain Bike Boys.

GS: Yep.

TM: Yeah, and these guys would dress up with like, kamikaze-like, and Samurai warrior armor and just plow down steep slopes. Uh, you know, were in face masks, stuff to protect them. But they would just find the steepest slopes and just go down. Dangerous, but great fun, you know? And so I was shutting that down, and then, letters from uh, motorcycle sales places, and ATV sales places, and mountain bike sales places would going in to the Executive and say to their councilmembers, “you need to fire this guy, taking away ...

GS: ... our right

TM: ... our income

GS: Oh yeah, income in that case.

TM: Yeah, so, so one of these meetings were pretty uh, and I was sort of hosting these meetings, and getting comments from the public, right? So, the folks that were abusing the property out there were pretty adamant about wanting to continue to do so. But things started to even out a little bit, ‘cause I started recruiting people like the Bear Creek [?], and I said, “you know, you need to come to these meetings, get a little balance here.” It wasn’t going well. Then the equestrians, the horse people were also a big problem. So anyway, one thing for sure, we set up a plan, a trail system up there, that today is being respected pretty well. Uh, I’m not aware of any motorcycle or ATV use that, that, Mud Mountain Bike Boys are now longer plowing down the hills, and that’s largely because later on, um, myself and uh, another person were able to get the grants to uh, Diane Bailey was the other person, she’d be a great person to talk to too, she’s a retired property manager for Parks Department, and she and I teamed up and we got a very substantial grant and we purchased 120 acres from Davie and Elizabeth that is in the south, uh, hey Jim, it’s in the southwest part of the Conservation Area.

GS: Mm hm.

TM: And that area is set up not exclusively, but predominantly being used by mountain bikers, and it’s got uh, like, raised boardwalks, and jumps, and ...

GS: I’ve been there.

TM: ...that sort of stuff. So that was that kind of, and we got ‘em as far away from Bear Creek as possible.

GS: ... and also closing down some of those trails that had been...

TM: Yep. We shut those all down.

GS: Right.

TM: Yep. Shut them all down. So there’s some organized trails out there. Um, and for the most part people are staying on the trails. Still have issues, that people let their dogs loose, let their dogs run,

GS: Yeah.

TM: But I’m not actually involved in that site any more.

GS: No. But you set it in action.

Time Stamp: 35’38” about the railroad line that David Lloyd built and used to transport logs to sawmill

TM: I put together the Management Plan and along with Diane, we secured the, the final 120 acres, and then got kind of, you want to play around on your mountain bike, you go there. And do it at your own peril. In fact we had one death out there. Went off when of the jumps, broke his neck. There may have been more, but I’m only away of the one, thank God. Well that happens, you know. Davie and Elizabeth, you know, there’s one, one of the events of the conservation area, so on, on the eastern part of the site there’s a fairly substantial north/west trail that looks like it’s fairly wide. It used to be a railroad line.

GS: Oh, right.

TM: So, and, Davie was saying, “well, yeah. I used to sell timber. I cut trees down here with, and had this rail line that would take the trees down to Seattle.”

GS: Did he have a mill? Because there was a mill in Paradise Valley.

TM: Uh, may have been, but I just recall him telling me that ...

GS: He shipped them.

TM: He shipped trees...

GS: Okay.

TM: ... where the old railroad line’s at. And he also, he and Elizabeth also, they never went to the grocery stores. They grew their own food there. There were ponds on the property and ducks and stuff. So kind of a, that sounds like a kind of a nice existence.

GS: So you know the area well. How does that footprint, I guess it’s on the order of 160 acres, something like that?

TM: Paradise Valley Conservation Area ...

GS: Four hundred, maybe?

TM: No, it’s closer to, it’s just shy of seven hundred.

GS: Seven hundred.

TM: It’s a significant portion of the headwaters.

GS: Well that’s...

TM: ... [?] maps of the Bear Creek Watershed, if you want to see that.

GS: We can do that, and it’d be good, and maybe I could get a hold of one of those, because that’s where you see the extent of this, and just your judgment that it’s a significant portion of the entire, uh, Upper Bear Creek.

TM: Well it’s not, that’s a whole watershed ...

GS: No ...

TM: It’s a, it’s a, significant, uh, to the main stem of the creek.

GS: Which ... for instance, Paradise Lake is really one beginning of Bear Creek. I mean it goes through, the creek goes through the lake.

TM: Yeah, the creek goes, the creek starts way upstream above that.

GS: So that’s the question – above Paradise Lake ...

Time Stamp: 37’42” describing a road off Paradise Road that is closed to the public and a battle over pre-existing road crossings in PVCA

TM: And that flows, and Paradise Valley Conservation Area, uh, this Paradise Lake Road comes down ...

GS: Mmhmm.

TM: ... like this and the King County and Snohomish County line is my thumb.

GS: Mmhmm

TM: So ... Paradise Lake is like right in here. Paradise Valley Conservation Area uh, so got Paradise Lake road down here. Conservation Area is like, comes out just over here, and then the creek is over here and the Conservation Area extends over here, I think it’s 119th street? It’s a dirt road with uh, uh, five acre parcels on ...

GS: So it is on the east ...

TM: Well, it’s east of Paradise, yeah, so the main stem of the creek comes down here ...

GS: Right.

TM: ... so, the area right around the main stem of the Creek is all north of the conservation area ...

GS: Right.

TM: And one of the most controversial parts of the Conservation Plan, which I keep getting grief for, is this area here is closed to the public, now.

GS: Yes.

TM: Until a ecologically sounds means of allowing people in is possible, something like elevated boardwalks that we have here, and, and that’s uh, that’s in the plan. Now what’s happened on the ground, well you’ve got the people on five acre parcels and there’s was big battle over a, a couple pre-existing road crossings, and I kept fighting for uh, and not terribly successfully, about closing those roads. Because those people had no right to cross that road, or cross through those properties. It’s public property. They have means to go around it.

GS: They don’t have any easement at all?

TM: Uh, there were, one of the roads, uh, there was a, a, one could argue that they had a, they’d been there long enough, yes, for prescriptive rights.

GS: Uh huh.

TM: But it’s sort of like, well, you need to say no, otherwise you’re ...

GS: Right. You’re giving it away.

TM: You’re, you’re agreeing with ...

GS: Right.

TM: ... their, uh, their arguments.

GS: But that’s an open question...

TM: And, but we didn’t, I couldn’t get Ron and Martin and the, the attorneys to uh, do the right thing on that. And there’s another road that’s just, there’s two road crossing there, and uh, one of them, uh, was uh, a big battle because the road was made to run across the wooded property with no formal uh, arrangement with the Lloyds other than the guy who built the road said, “oh yeah, Davie said it was okay.”

GS: (laughs)

TM: And I said, “well, okay, but you have access to take the lake roads, and you could go a different way.” “Yeah, but it’s a lot more of a pain to drive (?) ...”

GS: Yeah. Right.

TM: “... and I built it and I maintain it, so, (?)”

GS: Yeah. Right.

TM: That guy is, his property has been sold now.

GS: Ahh.

TM: And ...

GS: They going to make claim, right?

TM: Should have been done ...

GS: Yeah.

TM: ... and isn’t. Is that that road should be dismantled. And there is a couple of uh, potential barriers to fish migration there too, so ...

GS: That’s in key, uh, because that’s where I’m interested. So this is north of Paradise Lake,

TM: Yeah.

GS: Bear Creek has a couple barriers that, because of these roads.

Time Stamp: 41’50” describing fish barriers in PVCA where a private road should be dismantled and referring to WDFW’s SalmonScape for details

TM: Which is, I mentioned to you on the phone, I think a database called Salmonscape.

GS: No, I’ll have to look for that.

TM: Salmonscape.

GS: Okay.

TM: And it’s maintained by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And, interactive mapping system which shows, uh, known locations of

GS: Right.

TM: ...  of barriers to fish migration.

GS: Okay. Yeah, I’ll look at that.

TM: And Bear Creek has been, and most of the other watersheds in the state. You’ll be amazed at how many thousands of man made barriers there are.

GS: And maybe one of those includes  ... okay, includes that Bear Creek crossing you’re talking about?

TM: It could. Yeah.

GS: I’ll look.

TM: But yeah, so anyway the Paradise Valley Conservation Area, it’s a, a small, geographically speaking, except for the acreage, which is really big as far as you and I are concerned, but as far as the headwaters of the system, it’s a, it’s a nice piece, but it’s not the ..

GS: It’s not a township. Well I guess it is a township.

TM: It’s not the whole headwater.

GS: Yeah.

TM: Yeah.

GS: So, uh, enlarge on that a little bit, because you’re the only one that’s really spoken up about Snohomish County. Um, I’ve heard about King County, and how it’s changed over the years. What would you say about Snohomish County and its approach to preservation and restoration, because its ...

TM: Well, prior to the 1980s, uh, there were no drainage regulations in Snohomish County. The first uh, formal drainage regulation was adopted by the County Council. I was the author of it. I wrote it. And that was adopted Christmas week of 1980. And I told the ...

GS: So that was before you were working there.

TM: No, no, no, no. I started working for Snohomish County in 1978.

GS: Oh, okay. You didn’t get in to the restoration work until later. Okay.

TM: Yeah.

GS: ’78, and then in ’80 you got the drainage...

TM: Well, in 1980, I started the Adopt-a-Stream program, a County program to get schools and communities and groups involved in their local creeks.

GS: Okay.

TM: I got an EPA grant which I turned around and gave out uh, to support school and community group efforts. Um, so that was sort of the genesis of the Adopt-a-Stream foundations back then.

GS: Okay. Okay.

TM: And then we got so many positive responses from that program that we decided to, I asked a bunch of folks if they wanted to get on a board of directors, and thus created a foundation.

GS: Yeah, talk about that.

TM: Geographic limitations.

GS: So you were still with Snohomish County ...

TM: Yeah.

GS: ... but you started ...

TM: If you go to the, as far as the history of the Downstream Foundation, we don’t have time on that, so ...

GS: Okay, okay.

TM: But it’s all written out on our website.

GS: Sure. Okay, I’ll do that.

TM: And it goes back to uh, those days.

GS: But then on the more general level, the County was, and largely from your efforts ...

Time Stamp: 44’41 referring to the introduction of drainage regulations in Snohomish County Public Works Department in 1980

TM: So from 1980 on there was no drainage regulations, so the Public Works Director at the time, a guy named Jerry Weed, and I’m thinking I wrote this thing, I was able to write into it that the County take extraordinary measures beyond what was written in the code to protect salmon streams. And there was a big fight over that because the Seattle Master Builders ...

GS: Oh yeah.

TM: ... and a bunch of other real estate crowd, they’re all on this, developers are all, you know it’s kind of like the Lone Ranger when it came to the environment stuff. But they also recognized that getting some kind of rules and regulations was probably not a bad thing, because [?] builds on top of the hill are [?]

GS: Yeah. Oh yeah.

Time Stamp: 45’57” describing the introduction of storm and surface water management regulations in Snohomish County

TM: Yeah, so there was some general agreement that something had to be done. Uh, so the drainage regulation was put into place, and then there was less uh, for us to do, that you wanted to do in places like Bear Creek. And the rest of the County as well. And then after that came uh, the formation of the Storm and Surface Water Management Utility. I wrote the [?] orders for that, another real popular thing. (laughs). I’m being rather facetious about that.

GS: Right.

TM: Because, you know, it was another form of taxing. But that’s uh, established funding to, what was supposed to be watershed management plans. And the original intent on that was to bring watershed management plans that would be uh, have equal weight or greater weight than comprehensive land use plans

GS: Uh huh.

TM: So, if you discover an area like headwaters of a creek you can say, this stays undeveloped forever.” And somebody else would say, “well, okay, we’ll buy it from them.” You know?

GS: Right.

TM: Or they can build but they have to build such a way that they don’t cause any negative affects.

GS: So that includes preservation as well as restoration.

TM: Yeah. Yeah. yeah. But again, politics being what they are, that, most of the surface water management plans in Snohomish County are more like uh, “how do we fix the problems we’ve caused, because of poorly planned development.”

GS: Yeah, and they’re underfunded too.

TM: King County is a little bit better in that regard.

GS: Yeah.

TM: ... but not much. But, yeah. It’s a, it’s kind of a reactive thing.

GS: What about City of Redmond? I mean it’s a lower level.

TM: Uh I’d talk to Tom Hardy and get his take on that.

GS: Okay, I will.

TM: I quite frankly haven’t, uh ...

GS: That’s fine.

TM: There’s so much stuff going on in cities and towns, I ...

GS: Yeah.

TM: ... the ones I’m more aware of than others are like upstream, almost in Everett, and Mill Creek and Bothell, because the creek that flows through here, the North Creek, and goes in to Snohomish County. You know, those are the four political jurisdictions that share that watershed.

GS: But stick with the focus on Bear Creek. I want to go back to a little reference, a passing reference you made to how it’s not, uh, the creek is not quite as, comparatively better off, and...

TM: Yeah the level of density is less in Bear Creek than it is ...

GS: Has always been. But I believe you said, made a reference that it’s not quite as, it’s not quite as protected as maybe it had been, or it still had some problems developing ...

TM: Well, there’s more development taking place.

GS: Right.

Time Stamp: 48’27” referring to increased population density enabled by expanded utilities, for example, by the Brightwater Sewage Treatment Plant right on the edge of the Growth Management Boundary

TM: I mean more people are wanting to move out to like, and now with this Covid thing people want to get the hell out of town. So I think there’s going to be much greater pressure for developing out there. And another problem that I see uh, is the Brightwater Sewer Treatment Plant.

GS: Okay.

TM: And I hope I’m wrong on this, but uh, Brightwater Sewer Treatment Plant was built right next to Little Bear Creek, and the outfall is, is salmon, right? And the whole idea of this was to take care of the excessive uh, sewage that comes down from Snohomish County and goes to the West Point Sewer Treatment Plant.

GS: In King County.

TM: In King County. And they were like, “well, we’ll put it here” and it’s, and I, King County folks came to me and said, “we want you to get behind this thing, and have Adopt-a-Stream join in a little bit in this whole thing. ” And I said, “well, can you tell me that when that is built where you’re planning to build it, that you’re not going to have tie ins coming into that sewer treatment plant from the east?”

GS: Tie in to, of other sewer plants?

TM: Sewer, yeah, because it’s right on the edge of the [?]  boundary. And I said, “seems to me if you’re wanting to collect the sewage from the western part of the county and the outfall is going to be where they might put wells, and you know, you’d be building your plant over there, in Woodway. [?] And if nothing else, it’s Newton’s Law, you know?” (both laugh). But they said, “no, we’re putting it out here.” And it’s ‘cause well, the property’s available and all that stuff. But yeah, you’re right on the edge of the growth national boundary. My undergrad degree is in political science, so [?] and knowing politics around here it’s kind of like, “okay, there’s the growth natural boundary, and everything over here is supposed to stay rural. And one of the things, ways we should do that is, is to control your utilities. Sewer treatment is one of them.” The day they turn the West Point Sewer Treatment Plant on, the underlevel properties in Little Bear Creek and North Creek and Fall Creek automatically got rezoned to R7200 because sewer connections were available.

GS: Oh I see.

TM: So the low, low density in here, just shot right up. And so is there going to be a connection in from Bear Creek into this plant? I don’t know. They tell me it’s not.

GS: You mean Bear Creek development area?

TM: Yeah. And Bear Creek watershed.

GS: Watershed. Yeah.

TM: And I suspect that they’ll be enough pressure born as the population increases that Bear Creek will um, get developed a lot more.

GS: So you identified development in general as a potential threat and Brightwater particular as part of that, what would you say on Bear Creek uh, in your experience, has been, maybe the best example of restoration work? Preservation and/or restoration work?

TM: As far as preservation goes I think, the [Paradise Valley Conservation area ?]is probably one of the best ones.

GS: Sure. UPCA

TM: There’s also in downstream, uh, in King County, what’s the name of it, uh, King County picked up a big piece of ground in the Bear Creek Watershed. Uh, several hundred acres.

GS: Up from Bear Creek or lower down?

TM: It’s upstream from Redmond, but it’s ..

GS: Uh huh.

TM: I’d have to look at a map.

GS: Okay.

TM: And they also, King County also picked up a couple other parcels that are, that are uh, owned by the King County Parks and Natural Resources Division, but they’re not developed Park properties, they’re just natural areas. You now, King County has done a good job, picking up pieces. they just pick them up, you know? And that ...

GS: So let’s get back a little bit again, pulling back, get at the bigger picture, um, we just talked a little about these areas um, and your focus has been on Upper Bear Creek, uh ...

Time Stamp: 53’33” referring to fish barriers identified on WDFW’s SalmonScape website and described in Seattle Times newspaper report

TM: Well, we actually, the Downstream Foundation also, thanks to funding from Fish and Wildlife, we conducted surveys of fish barriers, uh, in Bear and Evans Creek both, and there’s a little article in the Seattle Times about that. It’s actually linked to it from our website.

GS: And that would be lower down on Bear Creek? Some of those barriers?

TM: We did the, uh, top to bottom.

GS: Okay.

TM: Yeah, and we were just identifying barriers, man-made barriers to fish migration.

GS: Okay.

TM: And that information is in that Salmonscape.

GS: Oh, okay. Referencing your report?

TM: Yeah, should be.

GS: Okay. If I don’t see it I may come back to you. Um,

TM: I have the raw data in our library (laughs).

GS: I bet you do. Just generally in the big picture, we talked about the different, uh, the more intense development on Lower Bear Creek, uh, what about the riparian area, uh, work, in Lower Bear Creek, and I’ll start that at say Keller Farm, if you’re familiar, just below your Friendly Village Area.

TM: And I guess the city is, Redmond’s picking that up, right?

GS: Yes, so ...

TM: Yeah, yeah. Now one of the problems I have with that farm is it’s also becoming a mitigation bank.

GS: Yes.

TM: And mitigation banks don’t work.

GS: Okay, go ahead. I mean I ..

TM: They just don’t work. I mean there is somebody in North Creek uh, wants to fill a wetland and they’ll buy a section of Keller Farm which used to be a wetland.

GS: Yes. Of course. Sure.

TM: So, we’ll all, I’ll chip in some money so that can be enhanced. Well that’s great for from Keller Farm downstream. It has no affect upstream. And it does zip for North Creek.

GS: So that’s basically ...

TM: It’s, it’s like, mitigation banks only work ecologically uh, if they’re in the same watershed, and close to where the damage is going to occur.

GS: So basically, so that scenario, offsite mitigation

TM: Yeah. It’s, I find that farm uh, being used as a uh, mitigation bank, just an ecological sham.

GS: Well, on other areas. Obviously it’s going to improve Keller Farm, but ...

TM: Well, it will improve that Farm.

GS: Yep.

TM: And it will have a positive effect from the farm downstream.

GS: Right.

TM: It has nothing to do with takes place upstream, or any other watersheds, but that’s again, that’s a political thing, and ...

GS: Yeah.

TM: There’s the developers putting pressure, say, “Oh, we got a, we developed here and we don’t, we just don’t have a place onsite to mitigate for it, and we’ve got to do it anyway,” instead of the, you know the political will to say no, is not there, at the moment, hoping that change ...

GS: Say, by the way, Redmond City Council’s changed quite a bit in its makeup. It might be helpful in that way. So again, broad picture, how would you characterize Bear Creek as a salmon bearing stream, uh, and, and go even beyond the uh, creeks that are coming in to Puget Sound via the canal, the ship canal. Just a broad view of what you think that stream, what Bear Creek is like compared to other urban streams.

Time Stamp: 57’31” admitting Bear Creek is in better shape than most ecologically (Little Bear, North and Swamp) due to its cold water and riparian vegetation, but is still under continuing threat from development where people, including individual landowners, “love a stream to death.”

TM: Well its, because the, the, level of development is less than Little Bear Creek, North Creek and Fall Creek to the west, it’s in better shape ecologically.

GS: For the fish?

TM: Yep. Well, it’s got the uh, riparian zone’s in better condition, so you have less thermal pollution, than you do in say North Creek, but there’s still a lot of, a lot of people buy houses, and the first thing you do is cut down the trees so they can see the creek. And they love that creek. And they want to see it.

GS: Love it to death.

TM: Love it to death. So a lot of that’s happening. And that’s not just with the subdivisions, that’s individual land owners. Again, less than one percent that come to the Northwest Stream Center when asked, can answer the question: “what is a riparian zone?”

GS: That’s where we started, Tom.

TM: And uh, I mean, less than ten percent know what a watershed is.

GS: Yes. Yeah.

TM: I asked these two questions though to everyone who comes here, and I see. So, I say, “I’m going to make you, I’m going to make you part of the top ten percent. The watershed is the area of land around a stream that drains to it. And then, the riparian zone is that you know, vegetation that effects the ecological health of a creek.”

GS: So, last thing, beyond what I’ve said, is there anything you want to add in general about Bear Creek?

TM: No. I’d be happy to grab a map and show you, you know, because ...

GS: Okay.

TM: So you have maybe a better geographic grasp of it.

GS: Sure.

TM: You’ve probably seen all kinds of Bear Creek maps.

GS: Well, I haven’t seen as much as I need to see about the upper watershed and the headwater area. So we’re done, I think, Tom. Thank you.