The
Dungeness River:
Disappearing Habitat
by
Steve
Koehler for Protect the Peninsula's
Future
Jan. 30,
2004--This photo was taken
taken today. It documents another example of a costly but
inadequate Band-Aid. Recently the right bank of the river
upstream of Burlingame Bridge on Old Olympic Highway was
filled in and armored with rock, gravel, sand and small
woody debris. This once again demonstrates the County's 430
ft. bridge span is insufficient to accommodate the river's
channel migration zone. Citizens can only wonder why public
dollars are still being used to degrade salmon habitat, and
why the bridge replacement job was not done correctly in the
first place. Why were the concerns of Washington Department
of Wildlife agents and local citizens disregarded by County
bureaucrats and politicians? This is discouraging at a time
when our government is spending millions for alleged salmon
restoration. Are we really interested in restoring
anything--or are we interested in providing dollars to
contractors and agency budgets? The current environmental
restoration motto appears to be: "Look good, feel good,
spend money--but don't change anything!"
|
|
Jan. 20,
2001-- Washington Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Washington PEER)
filed an EMERGENCY PETITION TO PROTECT FISHERIES HABITAT on
behalf of area habitat biologists within WDFW, as well as
Washington Trout, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations, and the Institute for Fisheries Resources. The
petition cites agency neglect of its duty to protect fish
and their habitats. The petition specifically refers to the
Burlingame Bridge and Haller Dike projects as instances
where political interference overturned science-based permit
decisions.
|
|
Dec.
1999--The following was
posted in the fall of 1997. It remains FYI. (Well...at least
we tried!) The bridge replacement was completed in 1999.
Since then, I have noticed the entire channel under the
bridge flooded from toe to toe during and after rains. This
would indicate the new span is not adequate, and
constriction will continue to be a problem for river life
during high water events.
|
|
We have an opportunity now to
rectify past mistakes in several places on the river. Fifty
years from now, will folks look back and say we had a chance
to do the right thing, but didn't because of other
considerations and agendas? Let's take positive steps for
the future!
|
Burlingame Bridge
Haller
Dike
|
Burlingame Bridge
Clallam
County is planning to replace the Burlingame Bridge,
crossing the Dungeness on Old Olympic Highway northwest of
the town of Sequim, with an insufficient 430 ft. span that
"would continue to unnaturally restrict the Dungeness River,
albeit to a lesser degree than the existing structure,
resulting in continued instability of the bed and banks both
upstream and downstream. This instability will result in
harm to a number of salmon stocks which are already in
critical condition." (Zillges,
1997; emphasis added) During floods, bridge constrictions
can force water into too narrow a channel. The result is
that river bed gravel is actually scoured to a depth of as
much as 40 cm. When flood waters subside and the energy
dissipates, gravel fills back in. This process of gravel
depositing is called "aggradation." Aggradation also occurs
upstream of bridges a result of backwater movement due to
constriction of the river channel. (Orsborn
and Ralph, 1994.) The result of
this repeated scouring and subsequent aggradation is the
destruction of salmon redds (spawning "nests"). To alleviate
this problem, a span of at least 560 feet is needed at this
point in the river.
The effects described above,
combined with similar and other effects of dikes along the
river's banks, have rendered much of the lower 10 miles of
the Dungeness River a virtual moonscape as fish habitat. It
is no wonder Dungeness spring Chinook and Dungeness fall
(lower river) pink salmon, both of which are predominantly
main stem spawners, are on the brink of extinction. Building
structures should either span, or be sufficiently set back
from, the meander belt. The channel of the river changes
naturally in a serpentine pattern within this belt. The side
to side meanders migrate downstream "like a sidewinder
snake"--a process that is necessary to a healthy
fish-producing river.
Other bridge spans on the Dungeness
have proved insufficient, displaying scouring and upstream
gravel aggradation. Ward Bridge on Woodcock Rd. is a case in
point. It's 400 ft. span provides the longest unobstructed
meander width of all Dungeness bridge crossings. However the
County has been forced to continually spend dollars to
protect this structure and adjacent Ward Rd., building
dikes, groins and "gravel traps." Observe the tremendous
amount of aggradation immediately upstream of Ward Bridge.
It's quite obvious that 400 ft. is not enough. We can't
expect a span of 430 ft. at Burlingame Bridge, less than one
river mile upstream, to be adequate either. We will spend a
lot of tax money, and cause major disturbances to the river
and community during the construction process. There is no
question the bridge needs replacing--but let's do the job
right.
|
|
Haller
Dike
 Haller
Dike was built opposite the river's east bank in the 1950s
about two miles downstream from the Dungeness Fish Hatchery.
It was constructed more or less down the middle of the river
bed, reducing the bed's width from about 500 ft. to about
250 ft. In March '97, the dike failed, and the river
returned to a former channel behind the dike to the west.
One home owner found himself on an island during the height
of this flood. This past winter, Clallam County built a
replacement for the original privately constructed dike
somewhat landward of the original structure. This was done
to protect a property owner to whom the County foolishly
gave a building permit in 1991. The dike replacement was
funded with tax dollars. So one could guess the County
(hence our pockets) will be liable when the dike fails
again. Haller Dike artificially constricts the river channel
on the west, with the result of eroding property (some
private--see photo
below, some DNR School Trust timber land) on the east bank.
The dike also produces some of the problems of river bed
scouring and aggradation mentioned above in the
Burlingame
Bridge story. As a result, the
river bed in this reach is made up of large
cobble--unsuitable for salmon redds
 Any
dike at all on the Dungeness River represents, at best, a
compromise between what is better for property owners on one
hand, and for fish habitat on the other. State Fish and
Wildlife agents recommended that the dike be reconstructed
farther to the west to return much of the meander belt to
the river, while still protecting property owners. This
proposal was unacceptable to the property owners and their
friends in county and state government. Other alternatives
to reconcile the problems in this situation were not even
considered.
The Hydraulic Permit Application
was finally granted due to intense political pressure on the
agency in Olympia, despite recommendations of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife employees in the field. In
November '97, Bryan
Cowan, WDFW Regional Habitat
Program Manager presided at an HPA Informal Appeal by PPF.
He concluded his agency had erred in granting an HPA for the
project, but since the project was well underway by the time
of the appeal, the issue was moot. In his findings he
stated:
...there is substantial
evidence that the permit, as written will have an adverse
impact to fish life. The compromise location of the dike
is somewhat an improvement from the original, but still
constricts the channel and limits the river's access to
the floodplain. This has the effect of increasing flood
velocities, increasing scour and vertical and horizontal
instability. The final alignment of the dike also
bisected a stand of mature trees that may have otherwise
continued to provide habitat value to the river. It is
questionable as to whether any of the trees will survive
long-term given the new alignment.
He goes on to say:
...given the impacts to
two potentially listed species, the efforts of many other
entities to restore the Dungeness, the fact that once the
dike is in place there will be no realistic opportunity
to restore this reach of the river, and given that the
river had presented us with a clear opportunity to
provide these species another piece of the protection
they need, it is my opinion that the permit should not
have been issued as written.
Perhaps the most lamentable aspect
of the story is that after the installation of the hatchery
rack which prevented Chinook from spawning in the upper
Dungeness, the reach of the river where Haller Dike now
stands contained the most productive habitat for Chinook on
the Dungeness (Lichatowich,
1993; Goin,
1998). We had an opportunity to restore, or at least do less
damage to fish habitat. It is tragic we chose to do
otherwise.
|
|
References:
Cowan, Bryan.
1997. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife memo
regarding an informal appeal of the Haller Dike construction
on the Dungeness River. 12/9/97
Goin, Dick. 1998.
Personal communication during Dungeness River site visit
5/3/98.
Lichatowich,
Jim. 1993. Oral History of Dungeness River Salmon Part 1.
Alder Fork Consulting, Sequim WA.
Orsborn,
John F. and Ralph, Stephen C. 1994. An Aquatic Resource
Assessment of the Dungeness River System. Prepared for
the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Sequim WA and The Quilcene
Ranger District, Olympic National Forest,Quicene,
WA.
Zillges,
Gordon. 1997. HPA denial letter to Clallam County from
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife,
5/13/97.
|
Top of Page
PPF
Home