-

• Waterway Weed Wisdom
• Do We Have A Problem?
• "Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning"
• Students to Monitor the Chehalis River
• The Chehalis River Surge Plain - A wild and beautiful place
• CBEC Community Resource Directory
• New Guidelines Adopted to Protect Beaches, Lakes and Streams
• Public invited
• The Initial Assessment of the Chehalis Basin Watershed

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

Where were we?

Drops of Water is a publication of the Chehalis River Council. The CRC depends upon grants and awards from corporations and agencies of government to underwrite the production costs. Neither the CRC or any of the CRC volunteers receives any money, all funds go to production and distribution.

Since the June 2000 issue we have been caught up in and administrative nightmare which strangled the flow of funds and brought production to a halt.

We publicly owe a debt of gratitude to The Chronicle for allowing us to produce the April, May and June issues while they waited for funds which did not arrive until September.

We are happy to be back!

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Waterway Weed Wisdom

By Nancy Ness, Grays Harbor County

Landowners whose property borders a stream or a river can make an investment with big payoffs for salmon, wildlife, flood retention, water quality and native plant diversity. Replanting or enhancing vegetation along water corridors can provide stability for the entire system.

No worthwhile endeavor seems to come without struggle however, and weeds (non-native aggressors) can complicate your efforts. Blackberries, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed or English ivy can prevent your newly planted native trees, shrubs, ferns, etc. from getting established.

Many planting guides will suggest the removal of existing weeds, and that, in itself, can cause a great deal of harm if undertaken too aggressively. The roots of undesirable plants are at least providing some soil stability.

Tilling and chemical control are generally not recommended near waterways. Mowing, weed whacking, scalping (removal of aboveground part), hand removal, and mulching are the best tools for weed control. Depending on the scope of your project, this may need to be done a section at a time. It may be several years before an acceptable level of weed control is achieved. Plans for a project should include continued maintenance for weed suppression until a native plant community is established.

Mulching is an important tool in controlling weeds, it also prevents erosion, conserves soil moisture, insulates roots in heat and cold, and slowly provides nutrients to the new plants. Straw, hay, bark, compost, sawdust, cardboard, and wood chips are excellent mulching materials. Fresh grass clippings are NOT recommended.

In providing the much needed canopy that cools the water system, shade also helps prevent new weed infestations from arriving via stream currents. The restored native vegetation will act as a living mulch, as well as home for birds, cover for wildlife, buffer for runoff and food for the terrestrial and aquatic food chain.

Where to go for more information? Contact your County Noxious Weed Control Board, Cooperative Extension Office, Conservation District (watch for native plant offerings) local Stream Team or Native Plant Salvage Group, Washington State Departments of: Fish & Wildlife, Natural Resources, Ecology, and the Washington Native Plant Society. Web: Info on weeds and native plants - http://graysharbor.wsu.edu "Identifying, Propagating, and Landscaping with Native Plants" - http://gardening.wsu.edu/text/nwnative.htm

Recommended reading: "Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest" by Russell Link.

"Gardening with Native Plants in the Pacific Northwest" by Arthur Kruckeburg.

Two important notes on the use of mulch: Pull back mulch 2 to 4 inches around trunks of tress and shrubs to prevent rot, insect or rodent damage; Hay and straw may be full of weed seeds. Use 3 to 4 inches or more to prevent seeds from growing.

Nancy Ness, Grays Harbor County Noxious Weed Control Board Coordinator

(360) 482-2265 e-mail: nessn@cooopext.cahe.wsu.edu

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Do We Have A Problem?

Judith Eklund Palmer

When a resident living in a flood plain sits with their recollections of "The Flood of 1996" fresh and large in their bank of memories, that same resident wonders what it will take to see actual preventative measures and methods implemented.

At a recent free public seminar sponsored by the Chehalis River Council and the Lewis County Flood Zone Citizen's Advisory Committee, Larry Kunzler spoke pointedly about "the historical, geological and flood history of Skagit County". By both the sharing of information and experiences and the clear depiction of what happens when man chooses to ignore the natural courses that rivers take within any given watershed, residents who attended Larry's seminar came away with specific recommendations relating to the Chehalis River Basin watershed.

With 94% of the Washington taxpayers supporting 6% of the people who live in a floodplain, citizens need to first of all decide, "Do we have a problem?" and if so, "What is the problem?"

Larry encouraged the Chehalis River Council and the Lewis County Flood Control Citizens Advisory Committee to get original survey maps of our Chehalis River system. Such maps will show old channels and wetlands before man made his impact. Aerial photos of our old river basin can be requested from the Core of Engineers.

Flood plain management is definitely a "land use" responsibility. By requesting PIE to perform a complete two-dimensional hydraulic analysis model of our Chehalis River Basin in Lewis County, such a study would show how our development will impact our basin.

By asking for the legal written opinion of our Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney regarding "overbank work", citizens will be informed about whether the County can be held libel for impacts to downriver people.

A strong emphasis of Larry's seminar was that it's important to "treat everyone equally and fairly where flooding is concerned". So, whether flowage easements are encouraged for farmers or those people are bought out (thus "taking care of people who are in harm's way"), provisions/considerations need to be made for all residents of our Chehalis River Basin.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

"Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning"

By D.R. Godschalk, T. Beatley, P. Berke, D.J. Brower & E.J. Kaiser

A review by Lois Lopez

This 550 page book provides the authors' assessments of the success of hazard mitigation as it is being employed now nationwide, primarily through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The authors have written many books on related subjects, and are known experts in the field of regional planning and disaster mitigation planning.

This book provides historical analysis of the development and progression of national mitigation policy, and details the research results of six case studies on various presidentially-declared disasters, three being floods. The target audience for this book is policymakers, politicians, planners, and other government officials. It provides an excellent examination of the results of FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, detailed state by state, and the results of these efforts.

Mitigation is the most cost-effective element of disaster recovery. However, it has not been until recent years that growing interest and support has been given mitigation. The authors warn that communities must appreciate the value that hazard mitigation planning can contribute to ensuring a community's sustainability. The strength of a community that has prepared for hazards cannot be underestimated. It has long been known that it is most often the same communities that endure disaster after disaster. I.e., Towns developed along the coastline or built in a floodplain. Each disaster places a heavy economic burden on these communities, making them less and less capable of recovering fully and stressing their limited resources each time a new disaster hits. The only way to manage this vicious cycle is in comprehensive hazard planning.

Local government decision makers must recognize that as disasters grow in severity and cost, policies and other measures have sought to focus on personal responsibility regarding natural hazards. Irresponsible planning by communities - putting people at risk by developing in inappropriate areas is increasingly being questioned by FEMA and other disaster-funding agencies.

The authors conclude, based on their research results, that while there have been successes in mitigation efforts across the United States, there is much greater potential that is yet to be achieved. There is a lack of focus and the spending on mitigation grant programs is scattered, and unfortunately, is able to only fix a portion of the mitigation needs. The authors write that many of these needs can be filled by the communities in working together in better planning efforts. This will allow the limited federal taxpayer dollars to go farther in implementing structural mitigation projects.

In the concluding chapter, the authors emphasize non-structural mitigation and mitigation planning. Hazard planning is by far the least costliest form of mitigation. However, community support for land use decisions that protect the public good is also necessary. Oftentime land use planning is perceived as infringing upon personal freedoms. The authors emphasize that the community must work to achieve the overall sentiment that public safety is the goal in land use planning. "Personal freedom, especially in the United States, is a prized value, and there is concern wherever government restrictions curtail these freedoms. In a host of ways, however, membership in society requires giving up certain personal freedoms in exchange for larger, collective benefits." [Of course, the public makes these personal sacrifices daily - such as obeying laws, paying taxes, etc.]

Originally, this book was obtained because the title (Natural Hazard Mitigation) implied to me that it would discuss floodplain restoration, and more discussions of land use planning. While these issues were discussed, what was validated in this book was the emphasis that communities that are prepared to withstand natural disasters ahead of time result in resilient and economically sustainable communities. Of course, a balance is needed; but public safety should be the paramount concern to public officials and government planners.

As a local lesson, the Chehalis River Basin must be examined in the light that the public good has the ultimate place of value in our river basin. In the Chehalis Basin, where 4 Presidentially-declared flood disasters has occurred in recent years, it is obvious that this watershed's public good is certainly public safety, as these authors write. We can only hope that our community decision makers and planners will grow to become ever more committed to protecting the public good - our public safety - in planning the future for the Chehalis Basin.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Students to Monitor the Chehalis River

This year's Chehalis Basin project kicked off on January 30th at the Log Pavilion in Aberdeen where teachers representing nine of thirteen participating school districts spent the day being trained in Project WET (Water Education for Teachers). This training provided them with creative lesson ideas for students to learn about watersheds and issues specific to the Chehalis River.

This spring, the project will focus on establishing a comprehensive student water quality monitoring program at several locations on the Chehalis River and its tributaries. Students will test the river for overall water quality, using a variety of chemical tests and biological indices during the week of March 19-23rd. Look for their findings in a special student issue of Drops of Water (April/May 2001)

With assistance from project partners*, the teachers will be trained according to the following schedule:

February 26 (Monday): Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring: What do Bugs tell Us? (Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen)

March 6 (Tuesday): Chemical Water Quality Monitoring & Probeware (Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen)

March 7 (Wednesday): NatureMapping (How to share & Input Data) (C.E.L.L. Center, Aberdeen)

In addition to training, CBEC teachers will receive:

Water quality testing kits or probes and materials to support benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring

Resource materials, curriculum expertise, and connections to field personnel as classroom experts/speakers through CBEC partner organizations.

The opportunity to attend additional GIS training this spring.

The opportunity to be assist with to be developed skill standards for water quality monitoring.

In exchange for these benefits, teachers make a commitment to do water testing with their students two times this spring and to post their data on a project WEB site. Project funding comes from Educational Service District 113, the WA State Department of Ecology, and the Weyerhaeuser Corporation.

Participating schools and teachers are:

Aberdeen High School: David Bruncke & Mike Machowek

Adna Elementary: Cheryl Gibson

Adna High School: Debbie Davis

Boistfort Elementary: Kasia Booth & Stephanie VanderMeer

Centralia High School: John Schultz, Teri Sardina, Kendra Meek, Mike

Stratton

Elma Elementary: Carole Boyer

Napavine Elementary: Marci Schueber

Napavine Middle/High School: Andy MacOmber & Doug Springer

North River: David Farnell & Roy Rasanen

Ocosta Elementary: Brian Ball

Ocosta Middle/High School: Gretchen Krema & Bruce Jones

Onalaska: Jan Lindsell & Johnny Garcia

PeEll High School: Ron Dorothy

Rochester Middle School: Kathy Jacobson

Tenino High School: Sue Nakao

Wishkah Valley: Janelle Corbett, Rob Ashler & Don Richardson

To learn more about the CBEC project or to join as a project teacher, please contact Tom Hulst at ESD 113 in Olympia at 360-586-2966.

*Partners include: Americorps, the Weyerhaeuser Corporation, the WA Department of Ecology, the WA Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Chehalis River Council, Grays Harbor College, Centralia Community College, the WA Department of Natural Resources, the C.E.L.L. Center, and the Governor's Council on Environmental Education.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

The Chehalis River Surge Plain - A wild and beautiful place

Roberta Davenport, Department of Natural Resources, Natural Areas Program

Near the mouth of the Chehalis River, the valley it occupies is wide and very flat. The river meets incoming Grays Harbor seawater in this area, and the fresh river water is pushed up and spills out over a vast wetland. Tidal movement has carved winding sloughs as large as small rivers lacing the entire wet plain. This unique and wild "swamp" is called the Chehalis River Surge Plain, and it shelters a surprising range of wild animals, birds and fishes.

The surge plain is mostly covered in open sitka spruce forests with a dense tangled understory of shrubs. Black bears roam here, browsing on berries, and eagles, osprey and herons build large stick nests in snags - probably trees that died when things got a bit too wet. Parts of the wetland are even wetter, with cattails, sedges, and other "emergent" plants forming open marshes or growing among willows. Dozens of bird species frequent the shrubby and open marshes. Many of them are migrants from tropical wintering grounds such as willow flycatchers and common yellow throat.

This is a huge wetland, about 5000 or more acres. A big portion is managed for wildlife by the Weyerhaeuser Company, and a large chunk of the landscape is managed by the Department of Natural Resources as a Natural Area Preserve. Fisherman ply the main stem of river in search of salmon and sturgeon, while gulls, terns, cormorants, and other waterfowl use the river as a east-west flyway.

The surge plain has been studied by Natural Heritage program scientists, who call it the largest, highest quality wetland ecosystem of this type in Washington. It supports habitat which is nearly gone in our state, because most of the estuaries have been converted for human use, or have other kinds of wetlands. Many of the plants and animals that were common when settlers arrived are only represented in a few places now, like the tiny Olympic mudminnow. The surge plain has lots of habitat likely to support mudminnows. These small fish prefer undisturbed wetlands and backwaters with muddy bottoms. The males develop bright iridescent markings during the breeding season. Most of us will never see a mudminnow. The species is only known to exist in a few places in the northwest, including the surge plain.

Some people will say at this point, "I still don't see what it's good for - what does it do for me?" My answer: this ENORMOUS sponge is like a safety valve for the river, and it's lower Chehalis human neighbors. When the torrential floods come, the water slows down as it reaches the surge plain, spreading through all the miles of side channels and acres of shrubs. Flood water harmlessly soaks the wetland plants, sediments settle, and the thick organic soil soaks up all it can. There aren't any dikes here, and the river is unconfined and free to spread out. It sure won't stop a flood, but it gives the water a place to go - especially when the tide is coming in!

The risks to this wonderful ecosystem are the same risks faced by the whole river system: water quality and quantity, aquatic weeds, and pollution, and it's nearly all upstream from the surge plain. As we think about how to care for the river, we shouldn't forget about this extraordinary place which sprawls out near the river's mouth.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

CBEC Community Resource Directory

The Chehalis Basin Education Consortium (CBEC) will be creating a community resource directory that helps teachers connect with community speakers and organizations. We are currently gathering names of individuals and groups who are willing to be listed in the resource guide.

Does your group do work that benefits the Chehalis River watershed? Are you an "old timer" who has stories to share about life along the Chehalis River and changes you have seen in your lifetime? Are you able to volunteer in accompanying students on field trips to test river water quality? Can your group provide informational materials or provide speakers to schools in the CBEC? Or would you simply like to make students aware of your work?

If you are interested in being included in the directory, please contact Marcia Wiley at 206-706-6051 or by e-mail at mwiley@igc.org.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

New Guidelines Adopted to Protect Beaches, Lakes and Streams

By Tom Geiger, WEC

On November 29th, the state adopted new guidelines for managing shoreline development all around Washington. This is a good step forward in the effort to better protect the beaches, lakes, streams, and wildlife of Washington.

Now the time comes for cities and counties to update local shoreline protection plans based on the new guidelines.

The new guidelines are an outcome of a five-year process with over 20 public hearings, thousands of public comments, and several draft proposals. The Washington Environmental Council has been working actively with our membership to push for the adoption of these guidelines.

However, the process is not yet over. The state legislature, which convened in early January, will have this issue on their agenda. Some legislators will argue that these rules go too far or did not go through enough process.

WEC disagrees with both points. Indeed, we feel that five years was too long and that the new guidelines, while they are a step forward, do have many weaknesses.

Why Updated Guidelines Were Needed

In 1972, the people of the State of Washington passed the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), an environmental milestone designed to recognize the public's right to use, enjoy and protect the state's streamsides, lakes and shorelines. As we face the unprecedented challenge of restoring water quality and recovering wild salmon, the SMA is even more important today.

Unfortunately, the guidelines, the key tool for implementing the SMA, have not been updated since 1972. Significant scientific knowledge has been gained over the last 30 years, 2 million more people call Washington home, and pressure for development along shorelines is high. Additionally, salmon, as well as other wildlife species, are at increasing risk of extinction partly caused by habitat destruction near shorelines.

What the Guidelines Do and Don't Do

Ecology's new regulations incorporate a "two path" approach, providing local governments with two distinct alternatives for SMA compliance. Path A contains almost no standards, and there is no assurance that local plans adopted will protect salmon. Path A also gives more flexibility to local governments that want to write their own plans. Path B is more specific and may offer local governments some protection from lawsuits based on the Endangered Species Act. WEC generally supports Path B and urges local governments to take this more protective direction.

One deficiency is the exemption of current or past agricultural practices that harm streamsides and shorelines. Ironically, some sectors of the farming community have been among the most vocal opponents of the new rule.

That said, other laws like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act do not exempt agriculture.

The SMA is set up as a partnership between state and local governments. The state establishes the guidelines and the local cities and counties use these guidelines to create local plans and regulations. The State then has the responsibility to review and approve the local plans. State oversight is crucial to this law working to protect the public's resources water, fish, submerged lands, etc. Without that state oversight, there would be a lack of accountability for local governments who fail to follow the law.

What Role Can the Legislature Play?

Time and money are the two main items that the legislature can deliver to help this process along and aide local governments as they work to implement the guidelines in the coming years. Current law requires that all local jurisdictions adopt new shoreline plans (so-called SMPs) within 24 months of the adoption of the guidelines. We feel that, in some circumstances, it may make sense to allow an extension of this clock for another year especially for areas with little development pressure. In addition, we support the effort to get the state to cover part of the costs of implementation.

However, we encourage this funding to be linked to the more protective Path B mentioned above.

In a time when our state is struggling to come up with real salmon recovery efforts, there is discussion about writing-off shorelines in urban areas and recovering salmon only in non-urban areas. WEC strongly disagrees with this point of view. We feel that recovery, if accomplished will only happen if done on a comprehensive level. That includes protecting and restoring both urban and rural shorelines.

Tom Geiger is Outreach Director for the Washington Environmental Council (WEC). WEC has worked since 1967 to protect, preserve and restore Washington's environment. It is one of the leading groups in Washington working on statewide environmental protection with 3,000 household members and 90 member organizations. Tom can be reached at 206-622-8103 or at tom@wecprotects.org

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

Public invited

The public is invited to comment on a newly revised Department of Ecology water cleanup plan for the Upper Chehalis watershed called the Upper Chehalis River Basin Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load.

The plan addresses both point (specific points of discharge such as the end of a pipe) and nonpoint (numerous and diffuse) sources of temperature pollution. It proposes that the primary nonpoint cause of the temperature problem is a decrease in shade due to inadequate streamside (riparian) vegetation. Agricultural activities, residential and urban development, and forest practices are also contributing to degraded riparian conditions. In addition, point sources from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems are contributing heat to the river system.

A water cleanup plan describes ways that the impaired water will attain water quality in order to protect beneficial uses of the water. It includes a technical study that assesses the water quality problems and the pollutant sources that cause the problem. It also determines the amount of a given pollutant a water body can assimilate and still support beneficial uses (called the “load”), and allocates the load among the various sources.

The Upper Chehalis River Basin Temperature TMDL was originally presented for public comment and submitted to EPA in 1999. Technical issues raised during review have resulted in changes to the original study and recommendations. The changes are substantial enough that we are asking for additional public comment. The primary revisions in the current version are:

Adjustments to the waste load allocations for point source discharges, resulting in more stringent requirements for municipalities and industries who discharge into the river, and

Changes in the Summary Implementation Strategy section to incorporate the new Washington State Forest Practice Regulations (referred to as the Fish and Forest agreement, or F&F).

These regulations, adopted by the Forest Practices Board in 2000, are designed to address impacts caused by forest harvesting activities on water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. F&F allows for the delay of some forest practices-based TMDLs. However, initial development of this TMDL predates F&F by several years and the allocations are necessary to address all the sources/causes of temperature problems in the Upper Chehalis River system. Consistent with the F&F agreement, implementation of the load allocations established in this TMDL for private and state forestlands will be accomplished via implementation of the revised forest practice regulations as they apply to stream buffers and harvest in the riparian area.

Upper Chehalis River Basis Temperature TMDL

Water temperatures in some areas of the Upper Chehalis River Watershed have become so warm during June and July that all the expected life-cycle stages of salmon, steelhead, and trout cannot be sustained. In some cases, temperatures are so warm that they can be lethal for these species.

Temperature problems have been documented in the Black River, the mainstem Chehalis, the south fork of the Chehalis, Dillenbaugh Creek, Lincoln Creek, Newaukum River, Salzer Creek, Scatter Creek and the Skookumchuck River.

Temperature data show a definite pattern of seasonal variation. Most of the year temperature water quality standards are met. The critical period for temperature in the Upper Chehalis River Basin is in the months of June and July, when flows are lowest.

Several point source discharges enter the river in areas routinely documented as too warm, especially during the critical summer low-flow period. Since we can't count on human actions to reduce the nonpoint effects on the river quickly enough, the cleanup plan proposes that these municipal and industrial discharges be reduced to zero during the critical low-flow period.

For nonpoint sources the study recommends that, first, the existing riparian vegetation must be maintained and allowed to reach old growth stage without replacement. In addition, some sort of restoration will be needed to achieve the required shade levels. Reaches that are now devoid of trees should be planted to help achieve the higher density for these lands. The predicted result of this passive restoration approach would be that all impaired areas of the streams meet temperature standards by the time existing vegetation reached old growth stage.

The Upper Chehalis River Basin TMDL addresses some fisheries concerns resulting from water temperature increases. The streams of the basin support bulltrout as well as substantial runs of anadromous fish and support commercial, sport, and tribal fisheries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified bulltrout as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Excessive summer water temperatures in several Upper Chehalis River Basin streams may in part be causing impairment of the beneficial uses of the bulltrout and other salmonids by reducing spawning and rearing habitat.

Public Comment Invited

You are invited to comment on the Upper Chehalis River Basin Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load through March 16, 2001. Please submit comments to Dave Rountry, Department of Ecology, PO Box 47775, Olympia WA 98504-7775. Or e-mail drou461@ecy.wa.gov

You can review the Upper Chehalis River Basin Temperature TMDL on the Internet at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/tmdls-review.html There are also hard copies available for review at the Centralia Timberland Library, 110 S. Silver Street, and at the Olympia Timberland Library, 313 8th Avenue SE.

For more information call Dave Rountry at (360) 407-6276.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

The Initial Assessment of the Chehalis Basin Watershed

by Joy P. Michaud, Envirovision Corporation

Overview

The 1998 Washington State legislative session established the Watershed Management Act (ESHB 2514) to address diminishing water availability and quality, and the loss of critical habitat for fish and wildlife in the state. The Act was designed to encourage collaboration among local citizens and governments, tribes, and state agencies to develop watershed management plans. These plans would focus on solving water-related issues, such as satisfying water supply needs for people, maintaining stream flows at a level to fully support fish use, and improving water quality. The Chehalis Basin was one of the first to begin this watershed planning process.

In December 2000, the first step in the planning process was accomplished. A team of scientists, lead by Envirovision Corporation, and supported by Technical and Citizen committees from the Basin, completed the Initial Watershed Assessment for the Chehalis Basin. The outcome of this effort is a report that is a tremendous source of information and analysis. However, it is 4 inches thick and over 350 pages long; a bit more than most people have time to read. This article provides a summary of the process that was used in developing this initial assessment and results of the assessment. The Initial Watershed Assessment report also has a Technical Summary chapter that provides a more detailed overview of results. Lee Hansmann, at Grays Harbor County, is the coordinator for the watershed planning process. She can be contacted to obtain a copy of this summary (360) 249-4222.

The first task for the project was to assemble available information on the Basin and begin creation of a permanent library and a master list of documents. Next, the consulting team conducted an all day workshop with technical experts, local agencies, and citizens to discuss issues and concerns pertaining to the Basin. The outcome of the workshop was development of a technical approach for conducting the Initial Watershed Assessment. This approach was approved by the Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP); a group of representatives from local and State agencies and citizens formed to oversee development of the Watershed Plan. As a consequence, from the very beginning of the process, information and opinions were collected from throughout the basin to provide direction for the assessment process.

Basin Description

The Chehalis Basin covers 2,520 square miles, and is second in size only to the Columbia Basin in the State of Washington. It is bound on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Deschutes River Basin, on the north by the Olympic Mountains, and on the south by the Willapa Hills and Cowlitz River. Given the size of the basin, it was more useful to divide it into smaller pieces for assessment. Therefore, the Basin was divided into 30 subbasins according to major tributaries. Most of the data accumulated during the study (precipitation, size, land use, water flows, water rights, etc.) is reported for each subbasin. In addition, 5 of the 30 subbasins were selected for more detailed analysis. These 5 subbasins were chosen to represent the diversity of natural and man-made conditions in the Chehalis Basin. Together, they represent a wide range in basin size, land use, climate, water use, and geology. A summary of key characteristics for the 5 subbasins is provided in Table 1.

The Chehalis Basin has several distinct geologic regions with unique geologic history. Thus, bedrock of volcanic and sedimentary origin are represented as well as glacial deposits and alluvial material. Much of the Basin possesses glacial deposits from at least four different glaciations. The complex geologic history dictates to a large degree the distribution, quantity, and movement of groundwater, adequacy of wells, connections between groundwater and surface water, and many other factors.

Subbasin	Size (mi2)	Geography	Annual Precip. (in)	Runoff (cfs per mi2)	Geology	Land Use % Forestry/ % Agriculture
Chehalis Headwaters	116	Mid-elevation Willapa Hills	89	5	basalt-upper, alluvium-lower	96/3.1
Newaukum	156	Cascade foothills	52	3-5	volcanic-upper; glacial outwash-lower	80.5/17.3
Cloquallum Creek	70.3	Low elevation	68	4	glacial till-headwaters; glacial & alluvial-lower	90.9/3.3
Lower Mainstem Chehalis	94	Valley floor	59	3-4	alluvial valley floor; side slopes sedimentary rock	78.9/4.9
Humptulips	244.3	Olympic Mountains, coastal	127	10	volcanic-headwaters, alluvial & glacial drift-lower	96.2/1.4

Table 1 Key Characteristics of the 5 subbasins chosen for detailed analysis

There is also a wide variation in precipitation levels throughout the Chehalis Basin. As shown in Table 1, precipitation in the 5 subbasins ranged from 52 inches per year in the Newaukum subbasin (near Chehalis) to more than twice that in the Humptulips subbasin. The amount of precipitation, along with soils and geology, influences how much of this water soaks into the land and how much leaves as surface water runoff. The estimated range in surface water runoff from the 5 subbasins was from 3 cubic feet per second/square mile (cfs/mi2) along the low lying valley bottom areas, to 10 cfs/mi2 in the upper watersheds draining the Olympic Mountains.

Another important factor contributing to surface water runoff is human development, which can cause huge changes in hydrology. Ditching, draining, diverting, damning, soil disturbance and loss, and increases in hard surfaces such as pavement and buildings, are a few of the activities that contribute to changing hydrology. These activities have occurred throughout the Chehalis Basin. In the Upper Basin (upstream of Montesano) these activities have been proliferated by urban development and agricultural activities, while in the Lower Basin (Grays Harbor area) forestry activity is probably the greater culprit.

Water Availability

Assessing the amount of water available in a river is like balancing a checkbook. First, it is necessary to know your beginning account balance. Then you must subtract the amount of money designated for checks that have not cleared, subtract for future savings, and then subtract the minimum balance that must be maintained in the account. The money remaining is what is available to spend or use. In this example, in terms of water availability, the beginning account balance can be represented by measured river flows. Uncleared checks can be represented by the amount of water allocated for human use via water rights and other permits. Future savings would be the amount of water that needs to be set aside to allow for future population growth. The minimum balance can be represented by the term "instream flow". Instream flows are set and regulated by the State and are a representation of the amount of water needed to support fish in all life stages. After allocated water, future needs, and instream flows are subtracted from measured flows, the amount remaining is what can be withdrawn from the system for other uses. All of this information was gathered, compared, and analyzed in the Initial Watershed Assessment.

Once all of the necessary information was gathered a graph depicting the water availability for the river was drawn. Figure 1 below portrays this information for the Upper Chehalis River as measured near the town of Porter. Monthly average river flows are shown in the figure by the red line with the crosses. The blue line with the diamonds shows the amount of water that has been allocated through water rights plus what has been set aside to protect fish habitat (i.e. instream flow). When the red line is greater than the blue line, there is water to spare. When the reverse is true, it indicates that water has been over-allocated. This graph demonstrates that the combination of instream flow and water allocation for human use exceeds the average monthly flows for the river from May through September. Unfortunately, this problem exists in much of the Chehalis Basin. This is why the issue of watershed planning and assessments is so important. The State Department of Ecology can not continue to approve new water rights when the river is already over-allocated.

Luckily, this over-allocation is to some extent a "paper problem". Obviously the river does not run dry from May through September each year. This is because the amount allocated for human use does not reflect the true amount being used. For example, there may be a water right for as much as 100 units of water, but the water right holder may only be using 1 unit of water. In the Chehalis as well as throughout the state, the amount allocated is not an accurate reflection of what is actually being used or needed. Preliminary estimates of actual water use were made for the Initial Watershed Assessment, more extensive estimates should be a priority for future work.

Water Quality

One of the preliminary steps of the water quality assessment was to get agreement from the CBP and others on which water quality parameters and locations would be the focus of the work. The parameters eventually agreed upon were selected because they are most closely linked to the objectives of watershed planning. They are either directly related to fish habitat and flow problems (dissolved oxygen and temperature), or are good indicators of water pollution (total phosphorus and total suspended solids), or important in the Basin since they are tied to a commercial industry (fecal coliform bacteria). This is not meant to imply that other pollutants, such as heavy metals or pesticides, are not a concern. These pollutants may be prioritized for analysis at a later date.

The selected parameters were assessed a number of ways. Monitoring results were compared to State water quality standards. Comparisons were also made between sites or locations, and over time, to look for obvious trends in the data. A pollutant load and yield analysis was also performed to enhance comparisons between watersheds.

Every two years the EPA provides a "List of Impaired Waterbodies" in the nation. This is referred to as the "303(d) list" because that is the subsection of the Clean Water Act that requires this listing. The most frequently used method for assessing whether a water body (a stream or stream segment) is impaired, is by comparison to water quality standards. Therefore, EPA's 303(d) list provides one method for summarizing the Basin condition in terms of water quality standards. Within the Chehalis Basin there are 25 segments of streams or rivers that are on the 303(d) list. These are listed due to violations of temperature, and/or dissolved oxygen concentrations, and/or fecal coliform bacteria. Of the 25 listings, 19 were due to elevated fecal coliform levels, 11 were due to low summer dissolved oxygen concentrations, and 9 were due to elevated summer temperatures. The majority of the listings are in the Upper Basin. The combination of generally higher temperatures and lower oxygen concentrations experienced in the Chehalis during late summer represents a critical set of conditions for fish.

Although it is informative to know whether water quality standards are being met, it is also interesting to know whether water quality has changed since monitoring began in the 1970's. Long-term trends were assessed for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform bacteria. On a seasonal average basis, no significant trends were noted in the mainstem of the Chehalis River, for these parameters. This tells us these problems do not appear to be either improving or deteriorating.

The pollutant loading analysis indicated that nonpoint sources of pollution were probably the most significant. (Nonpoint pollution sources are those not associated with a direct discharge such as from a wastewater treatment plant or industrial facility. The pollutant yield analysis indicated that suspended solids yields were notably higher than in subbasins with higher runoff and precipitation. However, the same trend was not apparent for other parameters.

Conditions of Fish Stocks and Fish Habitat

A total of two spring chinook stocks, seven fall chinook stocks, two chum stocks, seven coho stocks, two summer steelhead stocks, eight winter steelhead stocks, one bull trout/Dolly Varden stock and two coastal cutthroat stocks have been identified in the Chehalis Watershed. No pink salmon or sockeye salmon stocks have been identified in the area. Of the thirty-one stocks identified, twenty are classified as "healthy", four as "depressed", and seven as "unknown".

While the condition of habitat varies widely between subbasins, some basin-wide patterns are clear. As a result of past and present land use practices, stream channels in the Chehalis Basin show a consistent pattern of riparian vegetation removal, shade reduction, and reduction in streambank stability leading to bank erosion and elevated levels of instream sediments. Available information indicates that instream woody debris levels are either nonexistent or much lower than historic levels. While information about loss of side channel and wetlands habitats is more anecdotal, patterns of timber harvest and agricultural practices have left stream channels in a more simplified state than in pre-settlement periods. This has contributed to streambank instability, lower shading, and poor instream habitat. Although summer water temperatures in the basin may naturally be somewhat high due to relatively low elevations of many of the streams, riparian vegetation removal, lowered shading levels, and degradation of streambanks have most likely contributed to an increase in the magnitude and range of this problem. In a few subbasins, habitat conditions may be in partial recovery from past damages. This is most likely on forested lands managed under federal or state forest practices where protection of riparian corridors has become the rule during the last few decades.

Conclusion

In the next few years, difficult decisions will need to be made about how water is allocated and used in the Chehalis Basin. As documented in the Assessment report, besides being very large, the Chehalis Basin is also naturally more diverse and complex than other basins. The 30 subbasins identified, have different background conditions of geology, precipitation and topography. They have experienced a different set of historical uses, and currently have different land use and water use patterns. This diversity means that priorities and needs will be different between the subbasins. The consultant team has recommended that future assessment work be done on a subbasin scale to enhance its use for decision-making and eventual development of a Chehalis Basin Watershed Plan.

The Chehalis Basin Level 1 Assessment is a preliminary step in the planning process set up through the Watershed Management Act. It is a great first step in collecting and assessing information on the Basin, and reflects a tremendous amount of work by the consulting team, the citizens and scientists on the advisory committees, and the Chehalis Basin Partnership. However, the work has just begun. Although there is never a bad time to become involved in this process, right now is a particularly good time as we move into the next phase of planning. Lee Hansmann at Grays Harbor County is spearheading this process. She can provide information on who your local representative is, and also how to become involved. Lee can be reached at 360-249-4222.

Back to top

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council