Wood Structures in Rivers: Should We Question These or Just Put Up With Them?
This article is meant to jump-start a discussion among our members and others about this issue. Will is interested in your comments, and will post again as information becomes available.
We've seen these as we paddle our favorite rivers - the Salmon, Sandy, Washougal, Coweeman, Cispus, and Toutle - logs placed purposefully into rivers primarily to enhance fish habitat.
Sometimes we paddle by them and are relieved that they aren't in play (e.g., Salmon River), and other times we must put in below them because they span the river (e.g., Coweeman River). Some are cabled and some are held in place by vertical logs stabbed deep into the ground. In general, they are strainers, and their degree of hazard for river runners depends on their design, the river level, how good a boater you are, and whether you are in your boat or swimming.
Why are they there? Why are they designed as they are, and does their purpose take precedence over our safety? Would an effort to push back on these structures to protect our sacrosanct, watery playgrounds put us at odds with the effort to improve salmon runs? Could we be accused of paddler privilege and virtue shamed by salmon advocates?
Where is the reasonable balance between our recreational use of rivers and furthering environmental goals such as re-establishing endangered fish populations? To answer this question, I asked kayaker and LCCC member Brent Haddaway to unravel the complex issues, regulations, and permit processes that have led to an increase in fish habitat structures in our rivers.
Brent is a partner with Cascade Environmental Group, a full-service environmental consulting and ecosystem restoration design company based in Portland. He has deep experience in this field and was happy to provide us guidance. Below I share Brent’s answers to my questions.
How do these wood structures enhance fish habitat and are they effective?
I think the first thing to recognize about wood structures, is that northwest rivers have historically been chock-full of large wood and fish evolved to live in those types of habitats. Wood provides cover, organic matter, and alters the rivers’ flow – causing scour, trapping sediment, creating pools and physically enlarging the river cross sections. Wood also captures more wood that is moving downstream, compounding those effects. A river choked with wood is a beautiful thing to a fish, and is capable of supporting a lot of them.
European colonizers removed wood from the rivers to make them more efficient for travel, for conveyance of timber, and in the 20th century, as poorly informed early fish enhancement practices. Rampant logging and development of the uplands around those rivers has removed sources for new wood. As a general rule, a piece of wood 1.5X the width of the river will become lodged into the bank and start recruiting more wood. When trees are harvested on a 40-year rotation, logs aren’t big enough to start wracking up on our large creeks or rivers if they fall into them before being harvested. If wood does make it into a river, it is likely to get removed by a maintenance department after wracking up onto a bridge pier.
So, the log structures you see on rivers today are engineered to stay in place to provide some of the functions wood has historically provided: hydraulic effects, cover (fish hiding places) and structure to provide habitat niches. They are used as both a “softer fix” for protecting eroding shorelines, as a more habitat friendly approach than riprap, or as stand-alone habitat improvement projects. Large wood structures have become the industry standard approach because rivers need wood, and it isn’t possible in today’s world to bring back the kind of wood that filled our rivers before European colonialists pulled it all out. I think like many tools, they are effective when applied appropriately – not all wood structures make sense.
Why have they been popping up in some of our favorite rivers and can we expect more of them to be installed? Do all these structures have to do with fish enhancement?
As the industry standard for both in-stream habitat improvements, and as the preferred method to protect shorelines or infrastructure, they are widely used. I think you will continue to see them be used in large part because there are so few other options for affecting in-stream habitat or hydraulics.
Have the design and anchoring methods changed over time to better address the needs of river runners? e.g., cabling giving way to vertical logs, other methods?
Caveat: I am only peripherally involved in design, but yes, designs have been changing to make structures more sound. Cables or chains are avoided when possible because they are both dangerous, and because once a log gets some wiggle room, it has a lot of leverage to work free of the chain. We see logs either anchored by boulders, by meeting the 1.5X the river width size criteria, or bolted together with counter-sunk nuts to avoid log shifting or loosening. However, given many structures are specifically intended to deflect a river’s flow, wood structures will always be hazardous to swimmers. Most structures use the exposed root ball as the outward facing structure to diffuse flow, which is not a good place for a swimmer to be.
Several agencies are involved in the permitting process for these structures. Are recreational uses considered during the permitting process? If so, how can these structures be allowed to encroach into the main flow, or even completely cross the river (e.g., at the Coweeman put-in as well as below the take out)?
Every agency imaginable gets involved in the permitting of these structures, particularly on larger creeks or rivers: Corps of Engineers, state water resource agencies (Oregon DSL and DEQ, Washington Dept of Ecology), state and federal fish and wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, Tribes, and local governments.
For both Washington and Oregon, there are public comment processes and requirements for the permit applicant (the wood structure proposer) to identify any recreational uses that could be affected by their wood placement project. The LCCC would have every right to comment during the public comment phase of a permit for wood structures, and it may very well have an effect for some projects. Public safety is a strong perspective for comments. Effective comments include:
Clearly state the issue: why is it dangerous (river spanning, in direct flow, etc) and HOW dangerous it could be.
Description of how many people are affected, what formal groups may oppose the project. Groups are more influential than random individuals.
Note lack of pre-coordination with boater community, and call out if the application does not address the recreational use if that is the case.
If possible, suggest how the project could be changed (rather than scrapped altogether) to address the safety issue.
I do think it’s important to remember that for the permit to be out for public comment, the wood project proponent has already invested a lot of resources in this project. The design and supporting studies are mostly complete. Most of these wood projects are also proposed with good intentions, and I would imagine many in the public would be genuinely surprised to learn where some people paddle. The applicant likely did not intend to put anyone in danger and has spent a lot of time and money, so I think it is very helpful to try and find ways adjustments could be made to still make the project happen while also keeping boaters safe.
In Oregon, you can request email notifications from DSL for all aquatic permit applications for a given county. However, the permits would likely be 95% shopping malls, road widening, or other projects that have nothing to do with structures being placed in rivers. For each application, you would want to look at Joint Permit Application Section 4. Project Description to read about what the proposed project is. Section 6 B is where the applicant describes navigation or recreation use of the waterbody. To get signed up, email jennifer.a.miller@dsl.oregon.gov with the following information:
First name
Last name
Mailing address
Phone number
Email address
County name that they want to be added to &
The name of the waterway(s) that you are interested in. (She says there is no guarantee they can filter for a specific waterway)
A contact in Washington for obtaining email notifications will be obtained and supplied at a later date.
How can the LCCC be more adept at providing comments on proposed structure installations?
In an ideal world, we would get out in front of the issue and make sure permit applicants know where people paddle. It’s tough to get in front of all large wood projects because they are proposed by quite a few different entities, but the club could likely make a few key contacts and provide some good information that could make a difference.
I think if paddlers were to support a data source showing the location of (nearly) all river runs in a format that can be queried, we could get this resource out to several important groups to encourage early collaboration on proposed wood projects. This seems like a relatively easy resource to identify; that information can then be disseminated to watershed councils, local governments, and permitting agencies to help keep an eye out for potentially dangerous wood projects where boaters play. In an ideal world, this would trigger early outreach where boaters can help inform wood project planning early in the process.
Alternatively, the club could just do outreach with some simple instructions for wood project planners to check American Whitewater’s website. It’s pretty user friendly, and I would be happy to reach out to the state permitting agencies. Club members can reach out to their local watershed councils right now to make them aware of the issue and where to learn if paddlers use a given river reach.
In your opinion, what is the reasonable balance between fish habitat enhancement and recreational use of rivers?
I don’t think I’m the right person to answer that question – I hardly paddle these days and rarely see the structures as an issue, and salmon recovery is complicated – and a long way off, sadly. I think communication is the best place to start so nobody is surprised either at the late stages of permit approvals or at the bottom of a rapid staring at a big pile of logs.
NOTE: I followed up this interview by having a discussion with Kevin Hercamp, the Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) coordinator. He completely agrees with Brent that it would be constructive to establish and provide a data base (e.g., AW river inventory) of recreational river use to agency personnel. Also, he recommends that we have input earlier in the permitting process. He reiterates that boating clubs should be in touch with local watershed councils, and possibly do presentations about our appreciation of and interest in preserving our local river runs. He also suggests that we establish relationships with regional ODFW fish biologists and make them aware of the AW river inventory as well as our concerns. I'll be taking these steps in the next few months. Additional articles about this will be posted to the LCCC blog.
