[1]   (One home was lost to the flood rivers and another threatened over the past two years. What the grant application fails to state is that both could have been prevented; in the case of the lost home, the county would not allow the owner to protect his home with rock riprap; in the other instance, the channel to a creek was opened up, possibly through county work, which created the problem.)

[2] We hear a lot about this word “restore”.  What does it really mean?  We went to the U.S. Department of Commerce “Stream Corridor Restoration” site to find a definition.  Here are several: “Ecological restoration” -the process of returning an ecosystem as closely as possible to ‘predisturbance’ conditions and functions. [as in, before European settlers], as compared to “Rehabilitation” - making the land useful again after a disturbance. Involves establishing stable landscapes that support the ‘natural ecosystem’ mosaic’. (from the US Department of Commerce “Stream Corridor Restoration - principles, process, practices”. (www.ntis.gov/yellowbk/1nty82.1.htm) or “Reclamation” - implies the process of serving a “utilitarian human purpose”

[3] The grant states, “A study of the reach [each area of the Dungeness River is defined as ‘reaches’ – this one talks particularly about the ‘Kinkade Island Reach’] will help to determine specific river dynamics and what effect, if any, some actions (such as dike removal or bank protection) may have.”

[4] The grant includes “public participation” in the way of “periodic updates to the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT), as well as other public entities [various agencies of federal and state government].”  As anyone who has attended a DRMT meeting can attest, there is no “public participation” allowed – the “Team” consists primarily of agency people and one or two token citizens, and operates on a consensus-based method.  The “public” or “audience” is allowed only five minutes for comment before and after their meetings, held middays on a weekday. ( See See The DRMT – a citizen-based body?)

[5] DCD [Clallam County Department of Community Development] “Salmon Recovery Planner” Cathy Lear has been involved with other projects along the river, including the proposed buyout of property owners at River’s End, near the mouth of the Dungeness River, ex-officio member of the North Olympic Land Trust (NOLT), which entity buys up property and/or conservation easements along the river.

[6] The request letter was signed by Cathy Lear, Salmon Recovery Planner on DCD memorandum, entitled “Request for Proposal: Amendment to Dungeness River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan

[7] Under “Background”, Lear writes: “The 1990 “Dungeness River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan” concentrated primarily on protecting life and property from flood hazard in the 100-year flood plain as defined in the 1989 FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Clallam County.”  (Too many studies!)

[8] .  “Substantial changes in the river corridor since completion of the 1990 Plan include: new bridges at Highway 101 and Old Olympic Highway; extension of the Dungeness Meadows dike; reconstruction of a portion of the Haller dike; bank stabilization and channel protection downstream of Railroad Bridge and upstream of Schoolhouse Bridge; and various gravel trap and large woody debris modifications.” [Note that all of these mentioned have been accomplished by “man”.] 

[9] Included in these efforts, she mentions the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan of 1994, a state-funded pilot project for watershed planning.  (A “pilot” project is a test project, to see how something works before it’s pushed on the rest of the watersheds in the state.)  The results of the DQ Plan, according to Lear,  included

1.                   an interim agreement between the state Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife and the irrigation users associations to “protect” instream flows in low-flow season.  (Instream flow measuring methods use bunk science.) In April 1998, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the members of the Dungeness River Water Users Association formalized a memorandum creating a temporary trust water right under Chapter 90.42 RCW. This agreement describes the process of creating a permanent trust water right for future irrigation and instream flows and states that no more than 50% of the flow of the Dungeness River may be diverted. To assist the Dungeness River Water Users Association with the implementation of this agreement, Ecology has installed five flow monitoring stations on selected irrigation ditches (DOE Website - http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/18.html)

2.                   Formation of the DRMT “watershed council”

3.                   Dungeness River Restoration Work Group which wrote a “plan” to “restore” the Dungeness River, (which includes dike removal and buying out property owners along the river);

4.                   Hydrogeologic assessment and river seepage analyses conducted by USGS and DOE as phases of ground/surface water explorations; (The move here is to attempt to make a connection between the river and the area’s wells – which was rebutted by the local well drillers);

5.                   Development of a comprehensive water conservation plan for agricultural water use, a trust water right agreement, and major conservation projects to conserve irrigation diversions; (this includes enclosing irrigation ditches into piping, which will effectively reduce the water entering the aquifer – the result could be the return of the Dungeness Valley to the desert it was before the irrigation ditches were built.)

6.                   Salmonid recovery planning and projects resulting from ESA determinations and WA 2496 salmon recovery legislation

7.                   Studies involving the Bureau of Reclamation, USGS, and local and state entities of the potential for channel, dikes, and estuarine changes to improve flood protection, aquatic habit, river function, and appropriate land use regulations; and

8.                   Continued watershed planning under RCW 90.82 watershed planning legislation.

[10] The author has not been able to locate this report, but did find the “Vision Statement” for the Bureau of Reclamation, which reads: “ The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.” (http://www.usbr.gov/main/what/mission-vision.html)

[11] Also included in the program are a “review of chapter 8, Recommended Plan” to “provide details about recommendations…that are planned for implementation (notes recorded from presentation of implementation of river projects by Joel Freudenthal, former County Habitat Biologist…” (Freudenthal was demoted for his involvement in the loss of the home along the Dungeness River; is not a ‘biologist’, and now works as in Yakima County Public Works Department, Yakima, WA.)