Drops
Of
Water
Issue 37 February 2000
The first people to find errors in spelling or word structure receive a free map of the Chehalis watershed. Send us an e-mail note telling us about the error.
|
|
Welcome
to the
|
Issue 37 February 2000 |
This newsletter appears monthly in 45,000 households throughout the watershed. Printing is done by The Chronicle, and distribution is by the Chronicle, the Olympia Daily Olympian, the Tenino Independent, the Rochester Sun News and the Aberdeen Daily World. This is an early edition available only to WWW users. Please send us your Drops of Water feedback.
The first people to find errors in spelling or word structure receive a free map of the Chehalis watershed. Send us an e-mail note telling us about the error. |
Special Thanks
Drops of Water is funded by organizations interested in the watershed.
These editions are made possible by substantial grants from:
U.S. Fish and wildlife Service
Weyerhaeuser Company
- Washington State Department of Transportation
- Chehalis Basin Partnership
-
Inside this Issue
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
WEC Helps Win Legal Victories for Fish
by Tom Geiger , Washington Environmental Council
In the Fall of 1999, two important legal victories occurred for fish and WEC played a leading role in both. First, the settlement of a lawsuit filed by four conservation groups to require the issuing of a so-called 4 (d) rule by the a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for steelhead. A 4 (d) rule can give legal protections for the fish listed as threatened instead of endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Second, the decision by the US Forest Service (USFS) to list the Bull Trout along the Pacific Coast and Puget Sound as threatened under the ESA.
It is unfortunate that in many ways the battle to protect and restore species that are in trouble takes place in the courtroom. However, conservationists are often driven into the courtroom as a last ditch effort to force changes in the harmful actions causing decline of the fish and their habitat.
The story of the adding fish on to the ESA list usually overshadows the work to get those fish listed. It often takes years to get fish listed, and then many more to get real protections in place. Many years of harm continue to push the fish further toward extinction while government officials wait for the legal requirements which come with a listing instead of initiating efforts to prevent harm.
On October 19, 1999, after years of delay, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed to produce a draft plan to protect threatened steelhead. The legal settlement was a result of a lawsuit filed by Clark County Natural Resources Council, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, and Washington Environmental Council. The groups were represented by Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund and John Karpinski. This settlement also resolves a similar lawsuit filed by a coalition of environmental and fishing groups in California. The draft plan is required to be produced by December 15, 1999 and a final plan by June 2000.
The protective regulations, known under the Endangered Species Act as "4(d) rules," can provide important protections to threatened fish species from sprawl, excess water use, and water pollution and other human activities that have contributed to the decline of steelhead and salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.
"The victory we have secured commits the federal government to finishing the process in a specific amount of time," said John Karpinski, co-counsel with Clark County Natural Resources Council. "It does not assure protection. If the final rule fails to protect the fish, we will likely end up back in court."
The decision by the USFWS to list bull trout is perhaps even more important. On October 28th, USFWS decided to list Bull Trout along the Pacific Coast and Puget Sound. The survival and recovery of bull trout will be an important indicator as to whether or not the waters of the northwest are healthy for people and fish. The Associated Press story on October 29th that ran statewide quoted WEC as saying, "If the water is clean enough and cold enough for bull trout, it will be clean enough and cold enough for salmon."
Joan Crooks, WEC's Executive Director was quoted in an AP story in the Seattle Times earlier in the month when the letter of intent to sue was sent. She said, "This listing will shine the spotlight on habitat damage and water pollution as primary causes of our crashing fish populations. Because bull trout spend most of their life inland, we can't blame ocean harvest or terns or sea lions for their decline. Rather we have to take a hard look at sprawl, excess water use, and water pollution."
In June 1998, the USFWS decided to list Bull trout populations in eastern Washington, Idaho, and Montana, after years of advocacy by conservation groups in Montana. At that time, Bruce Babbitt declared that a decision on the Pacific Coast and Puget Sound bull trout would be made within twelve months. USFWS cited extensive information about the dire plight of the bull trout, and stated that protective measures were necessary to prevent their extinction. Despite these warnings, the federal agency unlawfully delayed listing the bull trout in western Washington. The summer of 1999 had come and gone and still no action. Four months after USFWS was legally required to make a decision of whether or not to list, they had still failed to make a decision. Having run out of patience and desiring to move things along, the following four conservation groups filed an intent to sue with the federal court in mid-October: Friends of the Earth, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Washington Environmental Council, and Washington Trout. They were represented by the Seattle office of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund.
WEC is committed to get the state on the road to recovering our wild fish. Through WEC's combined strategies of legal action, legislative advocacy, public education, and policy development, we will continue to be a leader pushing for needed actions. After all, if we in Washington State fail to save our most cherished of species, salmon, can there be hope that other species will not continue to be added to the extinction bin.
WEC can be contacted at 206-622-8103 or go to our website at www.greenwec.org.
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Wood and Sticks and Stuff
by Mike Kelly, USFWS
In general, messy creeks make better habitat.
Maybe I should define what I mean by a messy creek. I'm pretty much talking about wood. Lots of sticks and roots and logs and overhanging branches and all that kind of woody debris stuff make for good habitat. Basically, the more complex the mess in the stream, the more fish and other wildlife will use it. All other things being equal, you'll find more fish in a western Washington creek that contains, and is surrounded by, messy complexes of both living and dead wood.
Before I talk about how messes provide habitat for fish and wildlife in and around streams, I'll give an illustration using an example from our own habitat.
Your own degree of messiness largely determines how much wildlife shares your house with you.
I grew up in a very clean and tidy house. My Mom has a place for everything, and everything stays in its place. And there is no place for wildlife. Any vermin that wandered in soon found that there was no safe place to hide. No habitat here! Plus we always had wiener dogs to act as a backup system just in case some vermin did decide to stick around. Seriously, I can remember maybe three mice and a couple of dozen spiders in the house during my 18 years at home. (The most memorable mouse was the one we heard gnawing a hole into the living room from inside the wall. Me and the wiener dog stood guard at the spot, and I poked the mouse in the nose with a screwdriver as soon as it chewed through. The wiener dog was upset for not getting a shot at the mouse. But hey, I didn't want carnage, I just wanted to warn the mouse that it was entering hostile territory.)
Then I moved out. Maybe it was subconscious rebellion that caused it, but I kept a VERY messy house for the next few years. And talk about wildlife! A colony of bats found its way into a storage room that was piled high with boxes and stuff. They had plenty of nooks and crannies to hide in. They were fun except when one would fly out into the living room. Pack rats moved into one house I lived in and started stealing my stuff. (I coulda used a wiener dog right about then.) Then one day they disappeared - there was no sign of pack rats for several weeks. One day I finally got around to removing a pile of junk in the corner and found a big snake. Aha! Then there was the mass of spider webs that collapsed on me like a net in the shower one day . . . Well, I think I've said enough to make my point.
Now that I actually have a family and all that, we keep a fairly tidy place, and the household wildlife populations have crashed.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that the messy situation was the best habitat for animals.
Well guess what. We see the same situation out there in the creeks.
Now, I understand that some people don't like the looks of a messy creek. Many people prefer a park-like setting with the grass mowed down to the creek's edge, and maybe some lawn furniture and a horseshoe pit. There's certainly nothing wrong with having a barbeque and tossing a frisbee around out there by the creek. I'm not casting any aspersions here. Heck, if my Mom had a creek she'd probably be out there dusting and vacuuming it right now. It's just a matter of aesthetics. So if you find it aesthetically pleasing to have fish and wildlife down at the creek, let your creek get messy.
So, what does the mess do for the animals anyway? Probably the most obvious thing is that it gives them places to hide. Juvenile salmon, especially coho, just love hiding in woody cover. It protects them from predators, and it slows the current down so they don't have to waste a lot of energy holding their position in the stream. Not only are the complex masses of small sticks, shrubs, and roots great cover for fish and other animals, but they also catch leaf litter and salmon carcasses. OK, OK, so there's not much that even I find aesthetically pleasing about stinking salmon carcasses and rotting leaves, but they are important in the food web of our streams. The vegetation that grows on the bank also helps keep erosion at a natural level. Both accelerated erosion, and artificially controlled erosion can be bad for a stream's health.
Larger logs and log jams make pools, hold spawning gravel in place, and cause side channels to form. The logs also provide a surface for fungus, algae, certain bacteria, bugs, and all that other good stuff that is part of a healthy ecosystem. Large logs may cause some local scour on stream banks, but they provide overall stream channel stability. Typically, when the large wood is removed from a stream, the gravel will scour out and the stream bed will drop. The scouring of stream beds also leads to widespread bank erosion, especially in our low elevation Chehalis Basin streams. There are far too many streams out there with no wood, no gravel, a bedrock or boulder bottom, high eroding banks, and few fish.
Until fairly recently, many fish biologists believed that large logs and log jams were bad for salmon. They assumed that these debris jams blocked salmon passage to upstream spawning habitat, so they used to purposefully remove the wood. Boy, what a mistake that was. Sure, occasionally a log jam may block fish passage, but it is usually temporary and may only be a barrier during certain stream flows. The habitat value and stream stability functions of the large wood far outweigh the vast majority of salmon passage problems they might create.
Once upon a time there were HUGE natural log jams on the large mainstem rivers of western Washington. I mean HUGE! Some of them were miles long. Most were removed to free the rivers up for navigation well before the turn of the century. (Oops, I should specify the turn of the 19th to the 20th century.) Anyway, salmon seemed to deal with these jams just fine. I suspect that the giant jams were flanked by side channels that allowed salmon to pass easily around. Unfortunately, all of that structure and diversity is gone now. Those were some big trees that formed those big jams. If you want a little taste of what really large wood does in a river, there are some places in Olympic National Park you could visit. Try the Queets River, or if you like to hike, try the upper Elwha River. Impressive stuff.
So where can you go locally to watch wood in action? I like McLane Creek. There is a park and nature trail there just off of Delphi Road on the northeast side of Capitol Forest. (OK, so it's not in the Chehalis Basin, but I like it anyway.) The park is managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources, and they let the creek be nice and messy (but the trails are well maintained). It is close to my (neat and tidy) house, so the family gets out there quite often and we enjoy watching the creek change during the course of the year. During the little December 99 flood, a small log jam formed in one spot causing the main low-flow channel to shift over, leaving a beautiful little side channel - perfect coho habitat.
So, keep your house clean, and your creek messy.
Mike Kelly, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chehalis Fisheries Restoration Program, 360-753-9560, mike_kelly@fws.gov
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
New Shoreline Guidelines Proposed
WaDOE Press Release
Ecology issues new draft of proposed shoreline guidelines OLYMPIA - Local officials, legislators and other interested citizens are being invited to review a revised draft of proposed changes to the state's shoreline-management guidelines.
The new "working draft," developed by the state Department of Ecology (Ecology), responds to many of the 2,500 comments received earlier this year on a previous proposal. The new draft was mailed to many people around the state so they could begin reviewing the proposed changes. Officials with the agency also will discuss the draft with legislators during the 2000 legislative session to get their reaction.
"the working draft differs in many ways from a formal proposal that was circulated for public comment last spring and summer" |
Gordon White, who manages Ecology's shorelands program, said the working draft differs in many ways from a formal proposal that was circulated for public comment last spring and summer.
"People thought we were too vague in some areas and too specific in others," White said. "We tried to rewrite the draft in a way that provides the necessary environmental protection, but gives local governments more leeway in how they accomplish it." As part of the added leeway, the new draft deletes language that called for local governments to establish "vegetation management corridors" along all shorelines, equal to the maximum height that a tree potentially could grow at a particular site. Instead, the new draft calls for local officials to identify the "ecological functions" performed by their shorelines and protect them based on what the local environment needs. The rule would allow local governments to comply with this requirement through a variety of means.
Another key change should make farmers more comfortable with the draft guidelines, said White. Farmers wanted language in the guidelines expressly stating that the guidelines will not apply to existing and ongoing agricultural activities. "The new draft makes it clear that new shoreline regulations do not apply retroactively to existing agricultural uses," White said. "Changing from wheat to grapes won't trigger additional regulations -- a crop is a crop is a crop." Like the earlier proposal, the new draft would make it harder to install new bulkheads than under current regulations, requiring applicants to demonstrate that a bulkhead is truly needed. It also requires that all new and replacement bulkheads be designed to reduce harm to shorelines. "There are many environmentally friendly ways to stabilize shorelines without using bulkheads. Hardened walls reflect the energy from the waves instead of absorbing it, and that often increases erosion somewhere else," White said. "Natural solutions are kinder to your neighbors as well as to fish and wildlife." In comments on the earlier proposal, many property owners feared it would prevent them from repairing and maintaining existing bulkheads. White said the working draft clarifies that such repair and maintenance is allowed.
Responding to concerns from shoreline residents, Ecology's latest proposal does not require owners of single-family residences to demonstrate that a nearby dock is unavailable before getting permission to build a new pier or dock. The rule requires that all piers and docks be restricted to the minimum size needed for the proposed use. The rule also addresses the proliferation of individual piers and docks by encouraging joint use or community docks for new developments.
Under a state law adopted in 1995, Ecology has until July 23, 2000, to adopt the new shoreline management guidelines. The existing guidelines have not been updated in more than 27 years.
"We have learned a lot since the 1970s about how the natural environment functions and how to protect and restore it," White said. "We need to all get on the same page so we're being consistent about protecting people's lives and property from erosion and floods, as well as protecting salmon and other environmental resources that are central to our quality of life." He noted that Ecology is actively engaged in discussion with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to determine what needs to be in the state's shoreline guidelines in order to win "safe harbor" from penalties under the Endangered Species Act.
"Changing from wheat to grapes won't trigger additional regulations -- a crop is a crop is a crop." |
"We'd like to be able to tell local governments that if they adopt shoreline programs that are consistent with the new state guidelines, they won't be held liable for any listed salmon that are inadvertently harmed by shoreline development in their jurisdictions," White said. "Being able to deliver that promise would make it worth all our hard work to put these new guidelines in place." The Ecology Department will continue incorporating changes into the working draft over the next two months, based on feedback from legislators and interested citizens. In April 2000, the working draft will be turned into a formal proposal, and a formal public-comment period will be held beginning in May. The working draft is posted at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMA/guidelin/newguid.htm. Ecology is accepting comments on the draft until March 1, 2000.
DOE Press Release- Dec. 21, 1999, 99-269, Contact: Gordon White, Ecology's Shorelands Program, 360-407-6977
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Family Forest Conservation Project:
Steve Stinson, FCCP Project Coordinator
Family forest owners in western Washington and particulaly in Lewis County are facing a number of legal, environmental and development pressures. Family forests are extremely important to the Lewis County and led to development of this proposed Family Forest Conservation Project (FFCP). As the project develops there will be a need for public involvement, public meetings and public comment. Meanwhile here is an introduction to FCCP.
The HCP program has been quite successful for the large industrial foresters, and I believe this programmatic approach will make HCPs accessible to smaller, family foresters. .... I look forward to working with you in this effort. If you ever need any assistance, please feel free to contact me. Brian Baird Member of Congres |
Background:
Western Washington provides some of the most productive forests in the world. Non-industrial Private Forest (NIPF) landowners own approximately 18%, (3 million acres) of this forestland. In Lewis County, NIPF landowners represent approximately 25% (265,000 acres) of the forestland. Across the nation, NIPF landowners represent 59% of the available forestland. It is estimated that approximately 90% of currently endangered species depend on NIPF land for some of their habitat needs (National Academy of Sciences, 1998). Family owned forests have an importance to communities and ecosystems that over shadows their acreage alone. In many cases, these forests are the only buffers between local communities and large tracts of public and industrial forest lands, minimizing conflicts between urban uses and industrial forest land uses. Many of these families represent multi-generational residents of the community. These families support local schools and civic organizations. The revenue from tree farming families represents real income; i.e., goods are produced from a natural resource to provide a value added commodity, and, these profits stay in the community, providing for long-term economic viability and community health.
Over the past 25 years, forestland owners have seen incremental increases in forest practice regulations. Changing regulations often result in economic hardships for small forestland owners. Such regulatory uncertainty, in the face of skyrocketing western Washington real estate values, has caused many NIPF landowners to question the wisdom of keeping their lands in forest use. Over the last ten years, 36,500 acres/year of NIPF land in Washington State have been converted to residential and commercial use (WDNR, 1998). Today policy makers must balance important environmental issues such as protection of anadromous fish and water quality with the land use pressures brought on by rising population demands for development. Unless a mechanism is found to give NIPF landowners relief from the economic impacts of regulatory constraints, large areas of forestland will likely be lost to development in the future.
The Lewis County BOCC recognizes the need for, and fully supports the Family Forest Conservation Project. ... Family forests contribute to the local economy and support the rural life style valued by county residents. Board of County Commissioners Lewis County Washington |
The Issue:
Two major sources of regulatory uncertainty for the NIPF landowners are federal in origin: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (303(d) listings). Another source of regulatory uncertainty is the Washington State Forest Practices Act. Under the WA Forest Practices Act, major new rules were implemented in 1992 (to provide for additional protection for wetlands, riparian areas, and upland wildlife), 1996 (to provide for additional protection for the northern spotted owl), and in 1997 (to provide for additional protection for marbled murrelets). As a result of the recent federal listing of some salmonid species agencies and other stakeholders are embroiled in a new rule making process. These rules, which tend to be a broad brush, one size fits all regulatory approach, affect small landowners disproportionately relative to industrial or large public landowners. In the past, NIPFs have had to deal with regulatory agencies individually. This has been a frustrating and time-consuming endeavor for both agency personnel and land owners. One result of these past experiences is that agencies have realized that they do not have sufficient staff to deal with individual landowners. The landowners, on the other hand, realize that they do not have the time or financial resources to embark upon an open-ended habitat conservation negotiation with multiple federal agencies.
Lewis County has vital fish and wildlife habitat along with significant numbers of NIPFs and growing populations of urban and suburban residents. Without a resolution process for conflicts affecting NIPF land use planning, it is highly likely that much of the Lewis County lowland forest will be lost to urban development.
Proposed Solution:
In Lewis County, representatives of federal, state, and county government have come together with the help of academicians from the University of Washington and Washington State University to suggest that the development of a programmatic stewardship plan could provide a template for resolution of NIPF land use conflicts. Our committee has decided to entitle this undertaking the Family Forest Conservation Project: Lewis County Washington Pilot Project for Non-industrial Private Forests. A programmatic stewardship plan is a broad-based approach that develops, evaluates, and recommends various strategies, approaches or pathways that, when used individually or in combination, will allow a landowner to comply with applicable federal and state environmental protection laws. In this proposal, a team will develop a document that looks at different integrated approaches to meeting multiple federal and state requirements. This pilot plan would undergo environmental review and, upon successful completion, would be approved as a general Habitat Conservation Plan under which NIPF landowners could obtain incidental take permits from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and/or National Marine Fisheries Service in exchange for accepting responsibility for environmental protections. In addition to dealing with ESA issues, the pilot plan would also address Clean Water Act issues. By incorporating the Clean Water Act into the pilot process, NIPF landowners could negotiate Total Maximum Daily Load allocations from the Environmental Protection Agency.
A partner project has been undertaken to investigate the establishment of silviculture pathway agreements between NIPF landowners and state regulators that would result in the protection of valuable forest and water resources by ensuring the economic viability of NIPF operations. Ultimately, these two companion projects could be merged together, resulting in reduction of regulatory overlap and uncertainty for the NIPF while fostering a public/private partnership to ensure protection of forest environments.
The pilot plan will encompass approximately 100,000 acres of private forestland in central Lewis County. If successful, The Lewis County phase of the Family Forest Conservation Project could serve as a model to help resolve forestland conflicts in other threatened areas.
While adaptive management will be used in portions of this plan where significant uncertainty exists, the entire plan is a form of adaptive management. By only addressing a portion of the Lewis County non-industrial lands during the first phase, and by applying the pilot approach in one county on a trial basis, this plan represents an adaptive management approach on a state-wide and regional basis.
Process:
The pilot will have two major components: the draft general HCP, and the environmental documents necessary to approve the general HCP. These will be combined in a single document.
Developing the pilot plan will require cooperation from stakeholders representing: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Natural Resources, DNR Forest Stewardship Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Ecology, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Lewis County Farm Forestry Association, the Lewis County WSU Cooperative Extension and others.
Steps In Plan Development:
1. Development of the Programmatic HCP:
Assemble information and data on NIPF's in Lewis County and Establishment of Planning and Development Team
2. Development of environmental documents
Conduct public scoping sessions on the project, then prepare an EIS and supporting documentation and submit general HCP and environmental documents to public review
Modify documents as necessary from resulting public comments
3. USFWS, NMFS, and EPA approve pilot plan
Time Frames:
To prepare the pilot will take approximately 12 months. Production of the environmental documents necessary for approval will take approximately 4 months longer. The best estimate for completion of the pilot project (including public review and approval) is March 1, 2001.
Contact Information:
The FFCP team has developed an extensive question and answer document for this process that is available to forest landowners and other interested parties. To receive a copy of the Q and A document and or further information please contact:
Steve Stinson, FFCP Project Coordinator 360 NW N St. MS:AESO1, Chehalis WA, 98532 or e-mail at stinson@silvae.cfr.washington.edu A copy of the Q and A document is also available at: www.crcwater.org/ffcpqa.html
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Family Forest Conservation Project Participant List
Steering Committee
WSU - Lewis County Forestry Extension: Steve Webster
Washington DNR Forest Stewardship Program: Steve Gibbs
Family Forest Landowners: Tom Fox ,Bill Scheer Sr., Steve Stinson
HCP/NEPA Advisor to Steering Committee
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: William Vogel
Forest Practices and Alternate Plan Advisor to Steering Committee
WDNR:Catherine Elliott
Project Coordinator
WSU- Lewis County Forestry Extension: Steve Stinson
Planning and Development Team
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: William Vogel, Mark Ostwald, Ted Thomas
National Marine Fisheries Service: Matt Longenbaugh
WDNR: Steve Gibbs , Jim Bottorff
Lewis County Extension Service: Steve Webster, Steve Stinson
Natural Resource Conservation Service: Greg Fisher
WDFW: Tim Quinn
Lewis County Farm Forestry Association: Bill Scheer Sr.
Washington Farm Forestry Association: Tom Fox
WaDOE: Nora Jewitt
Chehalis Tribe: Mike McGinnis
Cowlitz Tribe: John Barnett
Audubon Society: Tim Cullinen
Washington Environmental Council: Jerry Gorsline
U.S. EPA: Anna-Maria Munoz
Support Team
Olympic Natural Resources Center: John Calhoun
University of Washington: Chad Oliver
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Did You Know???
It takes on average 39,090 gallons of water to manufacture a new car and its four tires.
62,600 gallons of water are needed to produce one ton of steel; 1,500 gallons to process one barrel of beer; and 9.3 gallons to process one can of fruit or vegetables.
On average, 50-70% of household water is used outdoors (watering lawns, washing cars).
The average American uses over 100 gallons of water per day; the average residence uses over 100,000 gallons during a year.
Americans drink more than 1 billion glasses of tap water per day.
EPA 810-F-99-020 December 1999
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Drinking Water Facts and Figures
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
U.S. EPA's Safe Drinking Water Goals for 2005
The Safe Drinking Water Act celebrated a quarter century of progress in 1999. Here are the goals for the 30th anniversary.
OVERALL GOAL : By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of population served by community water systems will receive water that meets health-based drinking water standards.
Watershed Goal s
By 2005, protect drinking water sources by increasing by 50% the waters that meet the drinking water use that States designate under the Clean Water Act.
By 2005, increase protection of ground water resources by managing all Class I, II, and III injection wells and by managing identified, high-risk Class V wells in 100% of high priority protection areas (e.g., wellhead, source water, sole source aquifer, etc.).
By 2005, protect drinking water sources by increasing by 50% the waters that meet the drinking water use that States designate under the Clean Water Act.
Treatment Goals
By 2003, provide a stronger scientific basis for future implementation of Safe Drinking Water Act.
By 2005, standards that establish protective levels for an additional 10 high-risk contaminants (disinfection by-products, arsenic, radon) will be issued.
User Goals
By 2001, every customer served by a community water system will have access to a consumer confidence report that contains information about the system's source water and the quality of the drinking water.
By 2005,
- the population served by community water systems providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards will increase to 95% from a baseline of 83% in 1994.
- 95% compliance will be achieved for any new standards within 5 years after the effective date of each rule.
EPA 810-F-99-016 December 1999
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
WATCHING WINTER
Janet Strong, Chehalis River Basin Land Trust
The bright lights of Christmas have been extinguished. Greetings to the New Millennium have subsided. The electricity is still on. Now the seemingly endless drops of water for which the Northwest is famous descend relentlessly day after day. A quieter, more introspective time of year has begun for all of us.
Perhaps you might enjoy participating in the annual ritual of winter-watching. Mostly this consists of observing the subdued activities of plants and animals trying to survive in the cold and the dark, biding their time until Spring arrives. But drama does unfold.
Have you noticed that those leaves you forgot to rake are disappearing anyway? First, they become riddled with holes as though run over by an army of paper punches. Then they are shredded into fragments and, finally, they are simply gone. While you have lingered comfortably indoors, massive colonies of bacteria, fungi and protozoa in concert with industrious earthworms, slugs, and millipedes have been reducing these tasty morsels to energy and compost.
Have you checked into the night life? Easy to do when we both leave for and return from work in the dark. A few moments' pause on either end of the day to feel and listen, before surrendering to human distractions, will reward you. You might catch the call of an owl as it seeks its mate. Owls nest early in the year so that, when the young predators are at their most voracious, parents can oblige with the bounty of spring prey. Coyotes, emboldened by the long period of darkness, may serenade you early in the evening. And on really gloomy afternoons howling sessions are not uncommon.
If you can screen out the noise of the wind and rain, you may be privy to the scurryings of all sorts of other nocturnal creatures. From mice to raccoons, night signals an emergence from their dens to forage, safer from predators. Bright-eyed faces can appear out of nowhere if you sit still long enough in frequented locations.
Most plants tend to keep a low profile in winter. There doesn't seem to be much point in activity when it is too cold to bloom and too dark to photosynthesize efficiently. Besides, few bees, flies, moths, ants and other pollinators are stirring. Our evergreens photosynthesize only slowly at this time. We can take advantage of this skeletal period in the life of plants.
We can probe the secrets of structures usually hidden under that smothering cloak of green - rotting logs, tree cavities, stems and twigs, rocky outcrops and old bird nests. Winter-exposed trails and tracks beckon us to wander on forever.
However, those sleepy plants frequently provide us with our most dramatic winter events. Everyone in our area remembers that Thursday night three years ago when the woods exploded with sounds like cannon fire all night long. The coming of daylight revealed, to our utter amazement, whole forests of ice-shrouded trees whose shattered tops had tumbled to the ground. Every physical object everywhere was encased in ice. On Sunday when the sun came out, the whole plant world was an ice castle sparkling with light so intense as to hurt the eyes. Glistening wraps individually covered everything from entire tree trunks to the tiniest thorn . Walking through an old field created a symphony of tinkling music as glassy shards cascaded from every leaf and stem. It was truly a magical kingdom that day.
Perhaps you can enjoy collecting your own vignettes of the secret soirees of nature in wintertime. To do so, you must be willing to venture beyond the circle of the porch light and out through the curtain of rain (or snow or fog) and be ready for some mini-adventures. Have a wonderful time!
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Annual Meeting Report of the CBEC
by David Spogen, CBEC
The Chehalis Basin Education Consortium (CBEC) held it's first annual membership meeting on December 7, 1999 with 60 people in attendance. Those in attendance learned more about the Chehalis River, heard about successful environmental education projects, ratified the consortium's orgranizational structure, and selected steering committee members.
WHO ATTENDED: Those in attendance represented a wide cross section of interest. Fifteen school districts, Centralia College, Grays Harbor Community College, and Educational Service District #113 represented the educational community. Natural Resource Professionals included U. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife; Lewis County Conservation District, Department of Ecology: Washington State Department of Fish and Wild Life; Department of Natural Resources, and the Governor's Council on Environmental Education. Stakeholders in attendance included persons in private business; property owners on the Chehalis River; Chehalis River Council Members; Friends of the Grays Harbor; and a representative from Grays Harbor County. (A stakeholder is a party having an interest in the river and could include private companies, environmental organizations, farms, ranchers, elected officials).
PRESENTERS WERE; Tom Hulst, Assistant Supt. ESD #113 served as Master of Ceremonies introducing Susie Vanderburg, the Keynote Speaker; Hannah Merrill, SWISH Project; Johnnie Garcia, Environmental Survey; and Marcia Wiley, Goals 2000 Grant. Marcia Wiley explained that the purpose of the Goals 2000 $100,000 Grant is to improve student learning in the region by linking Washington essential academic learning requirements and assessment tasks of environmental issues that are a part of this large watershed. A recent study has found that environmental education enhanced student interest in learning, strengthened critical thinking skills and improved student performance. Teacher Teams comprised of three from each of the twenty-three school districts will attend workshops on Dec. 11th and Feb. 3rd and 4th to become architects of curriculum.
Hannah Merrill presented a middle school program entitled SWISH (Students, Watershed, Invertebrates, Streams and Habitats. The goal for the SWISH program is to teach the positive values of a watershed with hands on experience in the areas of water quality testing, aquatic macroinvertebrate study to determine water quality, forest study, and fish tagging. Johnny Garcia presented a survey that was given to adults and students to determine their understanding of the Chehalis River Basin. The results of the survey will be published and used as a guide to disseminate knowledge about the basin and the environment.
WHAT DID THE MEMBERS APPROVE? The general membership approved the organizational structure of the consortium that included the following; (1) Purpose of the Organization; (2) Mission; (3) Objectives (4) Membership (5) General Membership Meeting (6) Steering Committee (7) Special Committees (8) Quorum (9) Leadership of Steering Committee and (10) Duties of Steering Committee.
The membership then elected persons to serve on the Steering Committee.
Seven members were elected for the K-20 Educator Component, seven for the Natural Resource Professions, and seven from the Stakeholders. The Steering Committee meets monthly and directs the organization.
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
STATS and NEWS
Acres of Wetlands in the lower 48 states
National Wildlife, Dec./Jan. 2000
NEW JERSEY: Decades of filling in wetlands and paving over open space caught up with the Garden State when heavy hurricane season rains inundated low-lying communities, causing more than $1 billion in flood-related damage.
Planet Watch, Popular Mechanics, February 2000
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council
