Drops
Of
Water
Issue 9 June 1997
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 9 June 1997 |
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 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. |
Stories of interest in this issue:
Local Calendar of Events
Estuaries and Responsible Development
On Borrowed Land - Public Policies for Floodplains
Safe Harbors for Salmon
South county meetings are insightful, helpful
RIVER EROSION, BANK STABILIZATION, AND FISH HABITAT
Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary Program
Youth Corner
New Vocabulary Words:
This is an early electronic copy of Drops of Water. Drops of Water is distributed monthly to newspaper receiving households throughout the basin. It goes to print mid-April and will be distributed during the following week. Watch for it in the Tenino Independent, the Rochester Sun News, The Olympian, The Chronicle and the The Daily World.
The newspaper insert is funded with a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This electronic edition is sponsored by the CRC.
Letters to the Editor, contributed articles and contributing partnerships are encouraged.
Comments via email to The Chehalis River Council
Back to CRC Home Page
Back to top or Back to home page
South County Water Focus Group
Thursday, June 5
*Indicates that registration is required:
In Lewis Co. call 740-1212
In Thurston Co. call 786-5445
Back to top or Back to home page
Friends of Grays Harbor (FOGH), an organization formed to foster and sustain the benefits of a healthy estuary through education, awareness and understanding, would like to express our thoughts on development in the greater Chehalis River Basin.
The Chehalis Basin is a complex interrelated waterway made up of streams, rivers, wetlands and an estuary. All of these functioning elements are required to provide the benefits that citizens need to work, play and prosper. In short, an abundant supply of clean, healthy water both in the ground and in our waterways.
Development is upon us and more is on the way. In order for the Basin to keep providing a healthy place to live and work, great caution is needed to expand carefully. At present, development is not happening in a way that we can sustain with an assurance that our children will inherit a community the way we know it today. Examples of what good planning should NOT be are: siting a prison on the edge of an already threatened estuary; granting fill permits in the flood plain experiencing historic floods yearly; building housing projects where aquifers are in serious decline and the list goes on and on. Why do we find ourselves in this situation?
FOGH feels that some of the problems come from the size of the Basin. With so many political jurisdictions (County, State, Federal and Tribal), each with it's own special needs, is it any wonder that prudent development is in disarray? Add to that the fact that the Chehalis River Basin has no informational system which is uniform across the whole population base. Each community has separate ways to get information to it's own citizens but not to its neighbors. With these conditions and the fact that water runs down hill, people have a flush mentality. The water gets flushed and forgotten.
Without a common informational system we never hear what the impacts are to our neighbors until it's a real problem. Fixing the broken always costs more than careful planning and in an era of tax reform, money is not always available for corrective action.
How do we fix these problems and begin making rational decisions on our watersheds? First and foremost, we have to care as citizens. If you are complacent you reward bad decisions by default. We must become politically and socially active (that means talking to your neighbors) to learn where the pressure points are so that we can relay our wishes to our decision makers. The people in our community that want to take advantage of the system for financial gain know this already and are at the decision makers doors daily.
Join a watershed group or start one with your neighbors. If you think that your local watershed has no problems you are truly blessed, but think hard, even a little problem has a multiplier effect on a stream or river. Think globally and act locally.
There are many water related groups out there that need your help and are focused on healthy water and natural resource conservation. They are there to field questions and provide information. To name a few; Chehalis River Council (360-273-6137), Friends of Grays Harbor (360-268-5518; 360-648-2254), Local Conservation Districts and The Willapa Alliance. Where there is a will there is a way and if we can harness thoughtful citizens with the resources already available, we can make the Chehalis Basin a better place to live. Submitted by Brady Engvall FOGH (Friends of Grays Harbor)
Back to top or Back to home page
The Great Flood of 1993 along the Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries was, like all floods, largely a product of weather and topography. But its human costs were very much the result of what people had put in the river's way. This report summarizes key points from a conference of policy experts and local elected officials held by the Lincoln Institute to draw land-related lessons from the disastrous experience of flooding.
Participants in the conference concluded that, although governments may not yet be able to manage the weather, they can improve the management of floodplains to reduce the damages caused by flooding. Many of these conclusions apply not only to floodplains but to land in other unstable natural environments-along earthquake faults, in the paths of hurricanes, or in fire-prone forests and grasslands.
Human uses of land increase flood risks in two ways. First, the filling of wetlands, dredging or channelizing of rivers, and urban development anywhere in a watershed increase the speed and force with which rainfall flows across the land and into rivers. Second, the intensive use of floodplains for agriculture, transportation, and residential development exposes more, and more valuable property to damage from flooding. Since virtually all of the earth's surface is in some watershed, all land use decisions have some potential impact on flooding.
One difficulty for policy makers is to demonstrate that those living upstream or uphill bear partial responsibility for the flooding of properties in other towns, counties, states or even countries downstream. Then the challenge is to distribute the costs of flood damages or their prevention among all these responsible parties. Past severe flooding produced calls for more protection of (usually) private property at (usually) public expense.
Yet levees, dams, and subsidized flood insurance have not effectively warned private landowners or governments to use floodplains wisely. Instead, protective measures have made floodplains appear "safe for development," ironically increasing the cost of damages from the next flood.
The very language we use to define floodplains illustrates these ironies. just because there was a so-called "50-year flood" last year does not mean there will not be another such flood for 49 more years. In addition, these probabilities should be, but seldom are, updated continuously to reflect land use changes. Land that was in a 50-year floodplain when only 10 percent of the watershed was urbanized may be in a 20-year floodplain when urban development covers 25 percent of the region.
How can local communities, states and the federal government foster less risky and more productive use of floodplains? In the first place, communities need to practice 'tough love": to educate themselves and their
citizens about the inevitable-and generally increasing- risk of flooding anywhere along rivers and streams. Those who live or work in a floodplain must bear part of that risk and should not be able to count on public funding to rebuild repeatedly. This stance will be tough not only on flood victims, but on their neighbors and elected representatives. All hearts go out to people standing on rooftops or being evacuated by helicopter, even if to some extent they 'brought it on themselves."
"The market is saying you're nuts to live in a floodplain, but the Federal government is saying it's not only OK, but we'll make it affordable." - Participant, Lincoln Institute Conference Some land uses, such as certain kinds of agriculture, railroads that must load and unload freight from barges, or water treatment plants, may always have to be located in floodplains. But governments should only ensure against flood damage those floodplain uses that are clearly in the broad public interest.
Structural protection against flooding still has an important role, but floodproofing and the financing of flood-control structures should not be allowed to produce a false sense of security that will encourage even more intensive land uses. Instead, these programs should be used as tools to educate citizens and governments about the continuing and often escalating risks of flooding.
Watershed-wide planning, or at least watershed-wide monitoring of land use changes, is critical to fairly sharing both the risks and responsibilities of floodplain management. Participants in the Lincoln Institute conference called for inverting the pyramid" of intergovernmental relations. Rather than spend national tax dollars on flood control structures and post-disaster aid, the federal government should provide continuously updated information about changing flood risks and land uses across whole watersheds.
"You wouldn't pitch your tent in the path of traffic on I-44, and you shouldn't build your house in the path of the river. [Flooding] is 100 percent man-made. There wouldn't be flood damage if people didn't build on the floodplain." -Downs, St. Louis, Journalism Review, no. 160 State governments should help local governments share this information effectively, and find ways to help those living upstream to take responsibility for the downstream effects of their land use decisions. Local governments should use federal and state support to educate their citizens about the ever-changing causes and risks of flooding, and to regulate or tax flood-prone lands appropriately.
One conference participant called the past system of floodplain management 11 the public subsidy of private folly." Inverting the pyramid so that land use decisions flow up from the bottom but information flows down from the top would allocate both the benefits and the costs of "borrowing land from the river"' more fairly and ensure more Sustainable land uses in the future.
Reprinted with permission from the publication "On Borrowed Land - Public Policies for Floodplains", written by Scott Faber (American Rivers) and produced by Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. This is a result of a conference attended by officials from 33 municipalities in nine upper Midwest states and is based on their firsthand experiences in the flood of 1993.
For more information or to order a copy of the complete report, call the Lincoln Institute at 800/526-3873 or write Ann LeRoyer, Managing Editor, 113 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-3400
Back to top or Back to home page
We know them as harbors and marina sites, boating areas and clamming grounds. But they are also estuaries--the places where rivers meet the sea and freshwater mingles with salt--and they are vital to the survival of our salmon runs.
From a fish's perspective, estuaries are a mosaic of habitats. At one time or another, a salmon may use saltmarshes, fresh water marshes further upstream, rocky areas, and eelgrass beds. The abundant food sources in these naturally productive areas, as well as the wealth of food produced in the mud flats, are critical to salmon as they build up strength before entering the ocean. The loss of any of these habitat types can severely degrade an estuary as a refuge or feeding grounds for salmon (not to mention many other estuarine inhabitants).
Not only do salmon use different parts of the estuary, but different species of salmon use estuaries in different ways. Pink salmon spawn in the lower reaches of rivers; the just-hatched young ("fry") move downstream immediately, often doing most of their growing in the estuary. In many river systems, chum salmon follow a similar pattern.
Both coho and chinook salmon arrive in the estuaries at a later point in their life cycles, having matured for a number of months (coastal chinook) or a year (coho and upper Columbia Basin chinook) in the stream. Chinook may remain in the estuary up to a half year, whereas coho usually spend only a few weeks. In either case, though, the feeding that the young fish (known at this stage as "smolts") do in the estuary is critical to their fitness to survive in the open ocean. Estuaries are also the places where the young salmon go through the internal transformation that enables them to switch from living in freshwater to living in full-strength seawater. Many salmon also pause in the estuaries on their return from the ocean as adults, to do their final feeding before pushing upriver.
Because estuaries are the lower-most point of rivers, they are affected by everything that happens upstream. Toxins and sewage in the water-- not only what may be dumped directly into the bay, but anything entering the river at any point in its length-- can adversely affect fish. Pollutants can come from sewage treatment plants, industrial sources, marinas, or run-off of chemicals and silt from homes, farms and forests. Removal of vegetation in a river's watershed, though timber-cutting, agricultural clearance, or development actions can greatly alter the duration and timing of peak water flows. This can disrupt the life cycles of creatures in the estuary and effect its overall productivity.
Perhaps most devastating is the loss of fringing marshes, which provide shelter and prey to young fish. More than 90% of California's coastal wetlands have been lost to development; coastal wetland loss in Oregon and Washington is estimated to be about 50-60%.
For more information on what you can do to help salmon recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest or to find contacts for groups in your area working to help restore salmon, please write the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 45 Se 82nd Dr., Suite 100, Gladstone, OR 97027-2522.
Back to top or Back to home page
In mid-April, residents of the Scatter Creek sub-basin (Tenino, Violet Prairie, Grand Mound, Rochester) gathered with the South Thurston County Water Focus Group and county staff in Swede Hall to discuss water issues in south Thurston County. The conversation flowed from flooding problems on the Chehalis River, to contaminated well water, a key concern for many residents.
"We need to limit the numbers of livestock appropriately," offered one woman, who was worried about manure contaminating drinking water. "We have limitations on septic systems and growth, yet we allow more cattle (to pollute) than people." Others added that any business that contributes to pollution should pay a tax to pay for clean-up and enforcement of pollution laws.
But several long-time residents disapproved of the idea, stating that farmers were raising livestock well before people chose to build in the rural area. "Don't penalize farmers. This is farm country," a resident replied.
The discussion offered a fascinating glimpse into the complexity of water issues in south Thurston County, where the wills of Mother Nature and mankind sometimes clash. Rural land that was dominated by agriculture 25 years ago is becoming more and more developed. Housing developments are springing up near farm lands, and homes are now standing in the path of water as it floods from nearby streams or creeks, or pools atop saturated soils. Government protection to some residents is over-regulation to others; one person's growth is another's encroachment.
Despite these challenges, Scatter Creek sub-basin residents offered solutions based on their personal knowledge of area. For example, long time cattle rancher Carl Nelson suggested the county get back in the river gravel business by developing a bar scalping program along the Chehalis near his property-- this would help clear the river channel and make money for the county. Focus Group member Greg Edwards pointed out that this approach could backfire creating more not less erosion.
This type of exchange of ideas was insightful and helpful -- the type of feedback Thurston County is seeking in a public-outreach effort that is now underway.
The outreach involves a series of meetings that are being hosted by the South Thurston County Water Focus Group, a panel of 21 local residents appointed by the county Board of Commissioners to assess people's views about water issues. Thurston County wants to hear which problems people feel the county should resolve, and how the county should pay for those actions. Upcoming meetings are scheduled for:
(At the time this publication went to press, the focus group was preparing for a May 15 meeting in Little Rock.)
The Focus Group will present its findings at regional town hall meetings scheduled in the late summer and fall, and then forward a final report to county commissioners. These events will offer residents who have missed earlier meetings another chance to share their views. Like water itself, solutions to water problems can be hard to grasp. What works in some areas won't in others, and what helps people upstream might harm others downstream. However, the focus group meetings are proving that residents who are faced with challenging problems respond with creative solutions.
Back to top or Back to home page
Riverbank erosion is a natural process. In fact, erosion is responsible for the creation of important habitat. When a river channel shifts, an oxbow lake, or side channel is often created. These areas are important rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and homes for a host of other species. Bank erosion is also responsible for providing the gravel that salmon use for spawning. Erosion undercuts roots, providing pockets of cover for fish, and ultimately the trees may fall into the stream to provide important cover and stream structure.
Some land use practices result in accelerated and unnatural rates of erosion. Trees and plants strengthen streambanks. Therefore, land use practices that reduce the number of trees along the stream can result in increased erosion. These increased erosion rates can degrade stream habitat. Erosion rates can also be accelerated by practices that take place away from the streambanks. Increased urbanization, and the loss of wetlands, forest cover and beaver ponds, cause increased direct runoff of storm water. This causes higher peak flood flows that, in turn, can result in accelerated erosion. Increased erosion causes spawning gravel to become silted, the loss of riparian vegetation, bank complexity that provides good habitat, and valuable private property.
Occasionally, if we can determine that an eroding bank is causing an immediate habitat problem, the Chehalis Fisheries Restoration Program will undertake a bank stabilization project. We try to use methods that allow banks to return to a more natural type of erosion. By protecting a bank with large wood and planted trees, we hope to create and protect habitat, as well as help to save valuable land. This technique is often called "bioengineering."
Currently, our office is undertaking a two-phase study to evaluate different bank stabilization techniques. Phase one, which is nearly complete, consisted of determining what bank stabilization techniques are most common in western Washington, and their relative success and failure rates. Phase two will consist of field work to determine which technique is most friendly to fish and wildlife. For phase two of our study we will evaluate the four most commonly used bank stabilization practices. These are rip-rap, which consists of rock that armors a bank; deflectors or barbs, which push the current away from the bank; woody debris that is used to armor a bank; and bioengineering.
There has been very little research on how well the different types of bank stabilization techniques provide fish habitat. We would like our research to give sound scientific evidence on which methods are best at providing habitat and protecting streambanks.
We are currently in the process of site selection for phase two of our study, and some of those sites will probably be in the Chehalis River Basin. Feel free to stop and talk with us about our findings if you see us out doing field work this summer.
Please contact Mike Kelly at 360-753-9560 for information about Chehalis habitat restoration, or Brian Missildine at 360-753-9561 for information on our bank stabilization study.
Back to top or Back to home page
Dear Readers - If you know of any teens who would be interested in spending a fun-filled, adventurous week exploring the natural resources found in Western Washington then read on.
The Natural Resources Youth Camp is a non-profit camp for teens between the ages of 13 and 16. The camp is held at the Cispus Learning Center in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Lewis County June 22-28th, 1997. The camp offers teens an opportunity for personal growth and hands on learning about our natural resources. Camp Instructors are professionals in fields such as forestry, wildlife biology and fisheries. Cooperating agencies, such as WSU support these professionals to teach during camp. The camp also offers many exciting activities such as hiking, crafts, acting, fishing, outdoor recreation and photography.
The cost of the camp is $300, however there are some full and partial scholarships available upon request. For application and scholarship information contact John Bergval at 902-1027.
Back to top or Back to home page
New Vocabulary Words:
|
water sources- bodies of water such as lakes, rivers,
reservoirs, and underground aquifers from which we draw water for
drinking.
treatment- a series of chemical and physical processes to remove dissolved and suspended solids from raw water to produce safe water to drink. contaminate- to make unsafe for drinking. pesticide- a chemical used to kill pests. hazardous- dangerous or harmful |
Most people in North America get their water from a public water utility. Public utilities are companies or government agencies that supply needs such as electricity, gas, or waterto the public. Water utilities get their water from rivers, lakes, reservoirs, or underground aquifers. Often, the water must be treated to make it safe to drink.
We reuse the same water over and over and it can become polluted by people and industry. Even deep underground aqifers can be polluted from the surface. For example, many household items, such as car wax, spot remover, or floor polish, should not be poured down the drain ar thrown out in the trash. Even lawn chemicals and other garden toxins used outdoors can contaminate water sources by running off the land into storm drains. And water can end up in lakes and rivers.
Let's Take care of our water resources:conserve water, protect it, and get involved.
| (circle each one) | |
| nature | recycle |
| drink | pesticide |
| toxic | oil |
| fertilizer | batteries |
| paint | contaminate |
| gasoline | hazardous |
| clean | wells |
| treatment | leaks |
| tap | pollute |
| protect | safe |
| water sources |
W E L L S D M P Q S V F L A B O T P O L L U T E H Z T R E A T M E N T R C P A E R I C B C U E T O Y P C R F E N L K D I N A H Y J S T M E H I L T E A C P Z O C A L C I A F Z L K T R U N T I Z M A A E D O P E R B T E I S R I X X N W G C S R N M D P A I N T S L E V A B O I L C F S M O P S T F U O D R I N K T E S E D S L M O H J L A M R P A T B A T T E R I E S G K U E F N A T U R E L |