The state’s plan to rename Ebey Slough as Ebey Estuary seems unnecessary and erroneous. (March 29 article, “Five county sites may get new names.”) The region that would be called “estuary” under the “Ebey” heading is technically and functionally part of the larger Snohomish River Estuary.
The fresh waters that flow downstream from Monroe as the Snohomish River are the summation of lesser waterways upstream. Their final delivery to marine waters is again shared by several streams branching from the Snohomish River, beginning with Ebey Slough at the southeast end of Ebey Island. Together with Steamboat Slough, Union Slough and the lower Snohomish River channel, all these waterways are components of a single estuary that is tidal from Port Gardner Bay to Snohomish.
Together they form an utterly complex network of interrelated and interacting freshwater conveyance systems, complete with tidal convergence zones with marine water, and zones of freshwater exchange and convergence among themselves. The estuary can be likened to a spider’s web where touching at any point creates movement everywhere. Impacts such as major dredging at one point can initiate estuary responses miles away.
Because of the complex exchanges and interactions among the Snohomish Estuary channels, it would be erroneous to depict Ebey Slough as an independent estuary. To rename the other sloughs as estuaries would be doubly erroneous.
Since early settlement times, the banks of Ebey Slough have been home to residents who know this waterway best. It has been a frequent source of worry in flood season, of occasionally severe destruction of home and property, and rarely, the cause of devastating family membership losses. But its name has never been a problem for anyone. Nomenclature officials would be wise to leave it as it is and find other ways to spend taxpayers’ money.
Alex G. Alexander
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
