Rockin' the Bogie' The Corps (Dikes 'R Us) strives to maintain its image by Steve Koehler, July 5, 2001 (Photo updates: July 25, 2001)

Read Eloise Kailin's Feb. 21, letter to the Corps

Federal listings of Puget Sound salmonid stocks as threatened or endangered have shown the value of viable habitats. With the benefit of hindsight, we see it makes sense to not repeat the same mistakes made in the Puget Sound basin. West-end rivers of the Olympic Peninsula are a case in point. Though not immune to pressures of industrialism and growth, these watersheds still support anadromous fish. At a time when we are spending tens of millions of dollars on the (in some cases dubious) proposition of restoring fish runs of the Puget Sound region, it would seem reasonable to avoid the same dilemmas on west-end rivers. Indeed, some say we should abandon seriously damaged streams such as the Dungeness, and concentrate our efforts on west-end streams. If we do not have the cultural or political will to take necessary steps to allow the Dungeness to restore itself, our time and money would be better spent preserving systems that are currently functioning.

This brings us to the question of why government agencies are engaging in repeating the same sort of expensive habitat debacles on the Bogachiel River, in western Clallam County, that have proven so destructive to fish habitat elsewhere. Let’s use the Dungeness River as a reference point. Habitat functions and values of the lower ten miles of the Dungeness, in more highly developed eastern Clallam County, have been seriously compromised due to loss of the river’s access to its flood plain and channel migration zone. A century of diking (much of it done with public monies) on the lower ten miles of the river have constricted the river. As a result, floodwaters are confined to a narrow channel resulting in greater flow velocities and erosive power. This power alternately excavates and buries salmonid eggs, as well as harms juvenile and adult fish and other aquatic life. Dike construction inevitably leads to riverbed aggradation; thereby exacerbating the very conditions that lead to the perceived need for a dike in the first place. This ensures that dikes eventually need to be lengthened and raised. Construction of a dike on one bank of a river inevitably creates the need to build a dike on the opposite side. This process of continuous one-ups-man-ship in "bank protection" and "flood control" is what led to the channelization of the lower Dungeness River with the resulting destruction of its fish habitat. Dikes interfere with essential riverine processes as surely as dams do.

Photo of continuous riprap revetment (surreal sky added) courtesy of Randy Johnson. Note presence of "large woody material" (LWM) as mitigation. Original WDFW specs called for logs of a minimum 30 ft. in length and 2 ft. in diameter.

Returning to our questions of activities on the west end, we see the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) diked 1800 ft. of Bogachiel River bank in Oct. 2000. Bank erosion and flooding along this stretch were perceived as a threat to State Route 110 and Old La Push Rd. as well as a water supply line for the town of La Push.

Approximate location of the project on the Bogachiel River is shown in red near the center of the map. The map is inaccurate--the river is actually closer to Old La Push Rd.

Clallam County recommended the use of a continuous riprap along a portion of the bank which Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) protested as too difficult to mitigate.

An alternative flood-proof route to the town of La Push exists. WDFW agents Dan Dafoe, Tim Rymer and Randy Johnson pointed out in a Sept. 1, 2000 memo that the Corps did not state its goals for the project before undertaking it. Nor did they provide any specifications for the project prior to beginning work. This practice allows contractors to "design as you go," and essentially do as they please during construction.

In February, 2000, it was discovered the private property owner on the site had illegally harvested riparian trees, changing the nature of the problem and increasing potential for erosion and flooding. Photo: 7/25/01

The most recent work on the site was begun on Oct. 7 and completed on Oct. 22, of 2000. Fish had already started moving upstream about a week earlier. It is quite likely that redds were destroyed by the construction. Salmon spawning in the affected reach of the river has virtually ceased since installation of these bank protections.

The work was done under "emergency exempt" status. This exemption seems to be a favorite ploy of Clallam County when it wishes to allow a particularly nefarious project (Haller Dike comes to mind) to escape the normal permit process. A file search by WDFW personnel showed that emergency permits have been issued on this stretch of the river for over twenty years. Flooding of SR 110 is practically an annual event. Under the state Shoreline Act, flooding and other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but are not imminent are not an emergency. (WAC 173-27-040 (2) (d). On 1/10/00, the Quileute Tribal Council signed a resolution asking for emergency exemptions from all involved government agencies. Further political pressure was placed on WDFW on 1/11/00 when 24th District Representatives Jim Buck and Lynn Kessler as well as State Senator Jim Hargrove signed a letter to WDFW Director Jeff Koenings requesting emergency exemptions to save the road and the water line. A multi-agency meeting was held at the Clallam County Courthouse on Feb. 9, 2000. On Sept 25, 2000, Clallam County Director of Community Development, Bob Martin issued an exemption for the project "from both the shoreline and critical area ordinances." Observers can only wonder: If there was an emergency, then why did it take more than eight months to declare it? There was no time to conduct a SEPA review process during that period? Interestingly, measures that are put in place under emergency circumstances are supposed to be removed after the immediate emergency situation subsides. Washington State Dept. of Ecology has given the Corps until Sept. 2003 to remove the dike. Ecology is asking for a comprehensive plan to address the situation.

"Setback berm"--winds along the river at varying distances from the bank. Photo: 5/25/01

The "setback berm" (which most English-speakers would call a "dike") presents potential new problems including back watering effects on upstream neighbors. In a Feb. 21, 2001 letter to the Corps, PPF President, Eloise Kailin, pointed this out to Bogachiel River Project Manager, Anna J. Campbell:

Back watering will cause sediments to deposit in the channel, leading to bed aggradation and increased potential for flooding upstream. Bed aggradation will lead to the need for dike lengthening and raising, thus compounding the impacts of the original diking project.
(Click this link for the full text of Eloise's letter.)

During flood flows the river presently overtops the bank upstream of the upper terminus of the dike. This could result in trapping river flows behind the dike, thereby exacerbating the very conditions the dike was built to alleviate. In the opening of her five-page letter Dr. Kailin quips that the story would make a great movie. The project raises concerns of government agencies avoiding application of state and county laws, harm to salmonids--including possibly an ESA listed stock--use of public funds to enable development of private property in a flood plain, and failure to consider alternatives which meet the real needs for road access to La Push without destroying river functions and salmon habitat. She concludes the letter stating:

So now we have a Tribe (and possibly the Corps?) stuck with any liability for consequences of dike blow out or avulsion, public funds for private development, destruction of salmon habitat, a scofflaw landowner, subversion of county and state laws, failure to follow a public process for shoreline, SEPA or Critical Areas Ordinances, false declaration of emergency status to justify skipping procedures. POPCORN ANYONE?

Once again, we are using public dollars to harm public resources.

Groins and riprap--looking upstream near lower end of the project. Photo: 5/25/01

Copyright © 2001, Steve Koehler