River's End or just the beginning?
More levees may be removed
The 24-year-old document is interesting when you consider what stated goals have been achieved since it was written. Even more interesting are the goals that haven’t been achieved… yet.
It’s a report on the lower 2.8 miles of the Dungeness River and the East Anderson Road bridge that crosses it, just west of the historic Dungeness Schoolhouse (thus the name “Schoolhouse Bridge”). The document appears to be from the early stages of what would eventually morph into the Towne Road Levee Setback and Lower Dungeness Floodplain Restoration projects.
According to the report, an unidentified party had asked the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a study that measured the impact of removing downstream levees.
“Reclamation has been asked to evaluate the hydraulic impacts of Schoolhouse Bridge and the levees located downstream of the bridge, and how those impacts would change if the bridge span were lengthened and the downstream levees removed. Schoolhouse Bridge is the only bridge to cross the river channel in the lower 2.8 river miles. Reclamation is concurrently working on a study for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe to evaluate the natural processes of the Dungeness River in the lower 10 miles, and how human intervention has impacted and altered these processes.”
There was worry that the river was flowing through a chokepoint under the bridge.
“…there is a concern that the bridge may be additionally constricting the river channel and causing a backwater effect upstream. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the hydraulic impacts of Schoolhouse Bridge and the levees located downstream of the bridge, and how those impacts would change if the bridge span were lengthened and the downstream levees removed.”
The downstream levees prevent floods from inundating the neighborhoods of 3 Crabs, Dungeness, and River’s End.
Even back in 2000, the report acknowledged that “It has been proposed that upstream of the Schoolhouse Bridge the Army Corps of Engineer’s (Corps) levee be laterally set back to the east farther away from the river channel.”
The proposed levee setback was finally completed this year when Towne Road was moved east. The report then addresses levees on the west side of the river.
“It has also been proposed that downstream of Schoolhouse Bridge, a levee along the west terrace of the river would be removed (River’s End levee). It has not been determined whether a private levee (Beebe’s levee) located on the west terrace upstream of Schoolhouse Bridge would be setback in conjunction with the Corps levee setback.”
Removing the River’s End levee is problematic — people live there.
The report doesn’t mention the words “home,” “house,” or “resident.” The only acknowledgment that flooding could disrupt the community is:
“Because of the extensive development downstream of the bridge, including the town of Dungeness, only the portion of the Corps levee upstream of Schoolhouse Bridge is being considered for setback, although the downstream portion could also be considered at a later time.”
The word “public” is mentioned only once in the document. It’s in the Bureau of Reclamation’s mission statement, which is “to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.”
However, the document appears to align more closely with the mission statement of the Bureau of Reclamation’s parent organization, the Department of the Interior, whose mission is “to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes.”
The report mentions a collaboration with one tribe in particular:
“Reclamation is concurrently working on a study for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe to evaluate the natural processes of the Dungeness River in the lower 10 miles, and how human intervention has impacted and altered these processes.”
The 31-page document explores lengthening the west side of the bridge by 200 feet to reduce flooding and flow velocity. However, that recommendation stipulates that the River’s End levee would need to be demolished. It also says the Corps levee protecting Dungeness on the east side of the river is not being considered for removal “at this time”:
“Lengthening the bridge and excavating the west terrace down to 1930's topography will likely cause velocities at the bridge site to reduce, but the current flooding can only be prevented if the downstream levee is also removed. Removal of the Corps levee in addition to or in place of the River’s End levee would also reduce flooding impacts at the bridge site but this is not being proposed at this time.”
Was it the Jamestown Tribe that requested the study? We could ask, but emails go unanswered. According to Hansi Hals, the Tribe’s Natural Resources Director, “Current work is our highest priority, and we’ll be unable to respond further.”
We could ask for public records, but as the Tribe’s Vice-Chair, Loni Greninger, emailed, “We do not take on these types of requests.”
Without transparency, we are left to speculate.
Another engineered catastrophe?
Various agencies have asked River’s End property owners to sell, and many have. A map shows a patchwork of parcels owned by Clallam County, WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), the Jamestown Tribe (shown in yellow below), and those unwilling to relocate.
If the Tribe wants River’s End, how will it achieve that goal if residents are unwilling to leave? We already know the Tribe is willing to breach a levee and expose an entire downriver community to the risk of flooding — they did it less than three years ago with the unexpected removal of the old 1963 Corps’ dike. The Tribe’s Habitat Program Manager wrote that if a levee holding back the river failed, “The level of devastation in downstream areas would likely warrant national news coverage. Loss of human life would be a very real possibility.”
If the Tribe wants property on River’s End Road, that would be consistent with their pattern of adding riverfront parcels to their property portfolio. A map of tribal properties (yellow and red) shows concentrations in Blyn and on both banks of the Dungeness River.
We also know from a 2021 workshop hosted by the Strait Ecosystem Recovery Network (SERN) and planned by the North Olympic Land Trust (NOLT) that "we might need to relocate homeowners out of harm's way."
SERN proposed a property "buy back" program to achieve this goal: "We need to make sure we're using taxpayer dollars wisely and not paying full price for parcels.” One way to ensure properties are devalued is to flood them.
The report states, “The height of the River’s End levee is significantly lower than the Corps levee.” In other words, the River’s End community would flood first — their levee is earthen and lower than the one across the river.
If the River’s End levee were overtopped, the water would likely reclaim an old river channel running through the neighborhood.
“The old 1855 channel is still visible in aerial photographs of the area and it is likely that overbank flows from the present channel could access this older channel if the present River’s End levee is removed.”
The SERN workshop concluded that property devaluation and confiscation would help the ecosystem become more resilient, and the North Olympic Development Council, headed by Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias, could assist in seizing property.
The Jamestown Tribe is the fiscal agent for SERN, the nongovernmental organization that held the workshop. NOLT, the nongovernmental organization that planned the workshop, is led by its former president (now vice president), Wendy Clark-Getzin, Transportation Manager for the Jamestown Tribe.
Meadowbrook Creek
Overtopping the River’s End levee would devalue downriver land west of the bridge, but what about parcels on the east side? The report said, “downstream of the bridge the Corps levee would remain in place along the east terrace to protect the town of Dungeness.”
The report included a map of the 1949 flood with high water marks. River’s End was submerged to the west, as was the area to the east (midway down 3 Crabs Road) and the historic town of Dungeness.
Since Dungeness and 3 Crabs are safely behind the lower portion of the 1963 Corps levee, how could those neighborhoods be devalued, their residents evicted, and a “buy back” program be instated?
From the report:
“Schoolhouse Bridge is located at a natural constriction of the Dungeness River where the channel passes between two low relief, topographic features. The west side of the river is bounded by the east end of a prominent sea cliff that is nearly 100 feet high near Dungeness Spit (about 2.5 miles west of the bridge). This sea cliff gradually slopes downward to the east and plunges beneath the ground surface at the bridge crossing. An erosional remnant of the sea cliff rises as a prominent knob on the east terrace of the river and bounds the Dungeness on the right side of the channel. This knob extends to the east for a distance of 1400 feet before plunging beneath the floodplain near Meadowbrook Creek.”
“At some point during isostatic rebound of the coast line, the Dungeness River became pinned between the two remnants of the glacial deposits, preventing the channel from moving across the extensive floodplain to the east toward Meadowbrook Creek.”
“Along all of the east floodplain from the upper end of the levee to Schoolhouse Bridge, higher volume flows would have easily crossed the floodplain and moved into the Meadowbrook Creek drainage to the east.”
Historically, when the river flooded to the east, water didn’t always return to the Dungeness River — it found its way to Meadowbrook Creek, a relatively short stream winding behind the levee that protects Dungeness and 3 Crabs.
The Jamestown Tribe featured the flooding of 3 Crabs in a 2013 “Climate Adaption Plan.” The Tribe’s report identifies homes along 3 Crabs Road as having “high property values.”
What’s next?
Those who know won’t say.
The plan for the Dungeness River and coastal areas is hidden behind the walls of sovereign nations and the nongovernmental organizations we fund. It’s a mystery why the Bureau of Reclamation, under the Department of the Interior, would prioritize the desires of a sovereign nation over public interests.
According to the Jamestown Tribe’s profile of its CEO, Ron Allen, he has served on the “Tribal Leaders Budget Advisory Council” for the Department of the Interior since 1996. He is also the Chairman of the “Tribal Legislative Drafting Committee” within the Department of the Interior.
Poll
254 subscribers voted in last week’s poll, and 96% believed losing the Hurricane Ridge Lodge has affected tourism in the Port Angeles area.
It is important to note that on the Elwha and Jimmycomelately, they don't need the east side (Right side) of a river estuary. An estuary is where the rivers meet the sea.. They are ready to rub out a community where they themselves developed property, in the name of estuary, salmon, watershed, and floodplain restoration.
The treaty was broken when the tribes went "global" and then took county money and grant funds to acquire "reparations' to heal broken relationships the last 14 years.
Between the federal grant fraud, broken treaty and the equal protection clause, their plan should be easy to stop.
Somebody with standing has to assemble the documents and take the county to court. Its actually the County doing the dirty work and they got the county tax payers to pay for it.
January 20, 2025 could not come soon enough.
Because no one will state a clear goal of what is going on I look to acts that have already taken place, online Sklallam documents, and the structure and policies of the DOI/BIA to form my logical conclusion.
When the Sklallam signed their treaty they refused to go to the reservation set aside for them. Instead they purchased land on the open market to stay where they had been living. Later they were one of the first tribes to get an exemption from the federal government, I think the term was self-sufficiency, but basically they would take care of themselves (medical, housing, financial) and not need direct support other than government policies.
Federal policies such as "land-in-trust" have (8) reasons why property can be removed from tax roles, and the last one has to do with activities that support the financial well-being of the tribe. It should come as no surprise that the golf course and Blyn campus are ripe for the clause.
Essentially all the above tells me that the Sklallam are well on their way to obtaining more property by leveraging other entities to meet that goal. I would guess that it has to do with their ability to get as much property back they would assert was once theirs.
So we have a quasi TV series "Yellowstone" environment going on here.
Interestingly enough a look at BIA and Sklallam documents around who can be considered a tribal member, and their population, leads me to think they're numbers are dwindling. Can they maintain sufficient percentage of blood lines that there's anyone left to be considered a member of the Sklallam that all this is for their survival?