By Gina McCoy
The agency entrusted to protect the state’s wildlife, lands and waters is abdicating its responsibilities in the Methow Valley. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has ceded control of its floodplain lands in the Methow Valley to fish recovery groups. Why is this bad? Because some of the salmon recovery projects — approved over objections of its own restoration experts — cause long-term harm to the river ecosystem.
I have been involved in the salmon recovery effort since its inception 20 years ago. For the first seven of those years I oversaw watershed and stream restoration projects across much of the Yakama Reservation. For the last 13 years — until I quit recently — I was a fluvial engineer working for WDFW. I have reviewed most of the fish habitat projects conducted in central Washington during that time and contributed to many. Quite a number of restoration attempts I considered benign but probably ineffective for the long term — restoration is complex and, honestly, we are not that good at it yet.
Beginning in 2008, salmon recovery funding for the upper Columbia rose dramatically. Where previously there had been a cottage industry involving smaller-scale projects, multi-million dollar, industrial-scale projects arose, absorbing much of the funding. These typically include massive, heavily engineered structures constructed in river channels. Such structures have the potential to limit river processes that create fish habitat.
Historically, naturally functioning streams and rivers yielded bountiful runs of salmon and steelhead. Where flooding and channel migration have been prevented to protect developed areas, riparian ecosystems and fish habitat can never again be as productive as in the past. This is why the remaining undeveloped floodplain areas are vital to the future health of fish populations, as well as to the many wildlife species dependent on riparian areas. Major engineered projects in sensitive river systems should be approached with great caution, even skepticism, by WDFW managers. But that’s not happening. Since 2010 WDFW has agreed to every project — good, bad and indifferent — proposed on its lands in the Methow.
Why? My guess is that management finds it politically expedient to embrace anything funded under the auspices of fish recovery. The first major project proposal came from the Yakama Nation Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Project. They planned to excavate rearing channels in the floodplain of the most natural reach of the Methow River. The initial design called for removal of some 60,000 cubic yards of material. This would have drained a high-value wetland and eliminated a significant amount of riparian forest. Also, to protect the project from flood damage, the river would have been prevented from re-occupying its former channel. WDFW’s wildlife area manager and I opposed measures to prevent natural river movement and proposed modifications to reduce disturbance to the wetland.
Then things got ugly. The dispute rose to upper management for resolution. The project was put on hold. Eventually it was scaled down and re-designed to avoid the wetland. That was the first and last time staff concerns made a significant difference to a project outcome. Following the controversy, we heard through the grapevine the agency director mandated that future recovery projects would be permitted.
The next major project established the pattern. Roughly halfway between Winthrop and Twisp, WDFW owns 46 acres of floodplain on the west side of the river. To the east is a high terrace which the river can neither erode nor flood. A multi-million-dollar project designed for the WDFW property by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was undertaken by the Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation. One component involved removing a rock dike from the west bank that prevented flooding and channel migration. That was good.
Also included were three engineered structures protruding 60 feet out of the west bank. Those now continue the work previously performed by the rock dike, locking the river against the terrace and preventing it from migrating across the undeveloped floodplain. This precludes natural habitat-forming processes without providing meaningful benefit. The rationale was that the river was overly wide — a problem that natural river migration would have solved.
Before the project was undertaken, gravel bars were building on the east side of the channel and flow was concentrating on the west; the river was trying to migrate. Simple removal of the dike and rock armor would have freed it to move away from the confining terrace. The bars would have developed into low floodplain dominated by cottonwoods — trees that the river system is starving for. As the new floodplain developed, the river would have naturally ‘right-sized’ its width.
Regional WDFW managers allowed the confining structures despite being alerted to their ecosystem effects.
The pattern continues today. After disagreeing with certain design elements proposed for the upcoming Silver Side Channel Project I was removed from my role as technical lead. It was time to quit. “Partners” and their consulting engineers now call the shots on WDFW lands.
Gina McCoy lives in Winthrop.
