DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Memorandum (Task 8B) Effects of Exempt Wells on Baseflows Washougal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Memorandum (Task 8B) Effects of Exempt Wells on Baseflows Washougal TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 11 (TASK 8B) WRIA 27/28 W ATERSHED PLAN EFFECT OF EXEMPT W ELLS ON BASEFLOW WASHOUGAL RIVER W ATERSHED PREPARED FOR: WRIA 27/28 PLANNING UNIT PREPARED BY: P ACIFIC GROUNDWATER GROUP LOWER COLUMBIA FISH RECOVERY BOARD DECEMBER 2003 FINAL JM0301.02 T ABLE O F C ONTENTS 1.0 Introduction And Purpose Of Study ........................................................................................................1 2.0 Summary Of Findings..................................................................................................................................1 3.0 Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................3 4.0 Data Sources....................................................................................................................................................3 5.0 Study Approach .............................................................................................................................................4 5.1 Conceptual Model of Capture of Surface Water by Groundwater Withdrawals ............................. 4 5.2 Methods........................................................................................................................................................ 5 6.0 Hydrogeology..................................................................................................................................................6 6.1 Geology........................................................................................................................................................ 6 6.1.1 Older Rocks............................................................................................................................................7 6.1.2 Troutdale Formation............................................................................................................................7 6.1.3 Boring Lava............................................................................................................................................8 6.1.4 Pleistocene Flood Deposits.................................................................................................................8 6.1.5 Recent Alluvial Deposits......................................................................................................................9 6.2 Principal Aquifers....................................................................................................................................... 9 7.0 Baseflow..........................................................................................................................................................10 7.1 Sub-Basin Delineations........................................................................................................................... 10 7.2 Unit-Area Baseflow................................................................................................................................. 10 8.0 Exempt Wells ................................................................................................................................................12 8.1 Number of Well Logs.............................................................................................................................. 12 8.2 Developed Parcels .................................................................................................................................... 12 8.3 Number Of Exempt Wells ....................................................................................................................... 13 9.0 Exempt Well Withdrawal, Consumptive Use, And Return Flow...................................................14 10.0 Capture Of Surface Water By Exempt Wells......................................................................................14 10.1 Streambed Elevations At Sub-Basin Outlets ....................................................................................... 14 10.2 Well Completion Elevation .................................................................................................................... 15 10.3 Identification Of Capture Basins For Exempt Wells .......................................................................... 15 10.3.1 Wells Withdrawing From Bedrock Aquifer...............................................................................15 10.3.2 Wells Withdrawing From Sedimentary Aquifers......................................................................15 10.4 Capture Estimates..................................................................................................................................... 16 11.0 References ......................................................................................................................................................18 12.0 Glossary..........................................................................................................................................................20 PAGE I WRIA 27/28 EXEMPT WELL STUDY DECEMBER 2003 L IST O F TABLES Table 1. Summary of Sub-Basin Names, Area, Low Baseflow, Mapped Wells, and Stream Capture Potential. Table 2. Comparison of Number of Well Logs and Developed Parcels By Sub-basin. Table 3. Summary of Sub-Basins, Outlet Elevations, and Downgradient Sub-Basins L IST O F FIGURES Figure 1. Washougal River Sub-basins and Number of Wells Figure 2. Surficial Geology Figure 3. Hydrogeologic Cross Section A-A’ Figure 4. Hydrogeologic Cross Section B-B’ Figure 5. Hydrogeologic Cross Section C-C’ Figure 6. Sub-Basin Outlets and Stream Gage Locations Figure 7. Estimated Lowest Mean Monthly Baseflow. Figure 8. Well Density and Depth Distribution. PAGE II WRIA 27/28 EXEMPT WELL STUDY DECEMBER 2003 SIGNATURE This report was prepared and reviewed by the undersigned and approved for release. Laura Strauss, LHG Staff Hydrogeologist Washington State Hydrogeologist No. 1002 Linton Wildrick, LHG Associate Hydrogeologist Washington State Hydrogeologist No. 321 PAGE III WRIA 27/28 EXEMPT WELL STUDY DECEMBER 2003 1.0 Introduction And Purpose Of Study The WRIA 27/28 Planning Unit is developing a watershed plan for Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 27 and 28 under the auspices of the Watershed Planning Act. This report de- scribes one of the investigations of the Washougal River basin. Specifically, the committee wishes to better understand the magnitude of exempt well effects on baseflow in the river and its tributaries. For the current study, the Lacamas Creek watershed was included as part of the Washougal sub-basin, although it was identified as a separate sub-basin by the Planning Unit. A well is considered to be “exempt” from the need for a permit if it provides stock water, irriga- tion of lawn or non-commercial garden not exceeding ½ acre, single or group domestic uses, or industrial uses, so long as the groundwater withdrawal does not exceed 5,000 gallons per day (gpd). An exempt well is, in effect, automatically awarded a water right with a priority date for the day that the well construction was completed. Exempt water use typically varies seasonally, with higher usage during the dry summer months for irrigation of lawns, gardens, and other cultivation. In areas where domestic wells are numer- ous, it is conceivable that the cumulative withdrawals of many exempt wells could capture a sig- nificant portion of baseflow1 during the dry season. For example, a large number of shallow wells withdrawing from an unconfined aquifer that discharges directly to a small stream could reduce the streamflow in a matter of hours or days. If the withdrawals peak during low flow pe- riods, when the flow is mostly or entirely baseflow, the combination of the greatest rate of cap- ture with the lowest streamflow could be detrimental to instream habitat. This report presents an examination of the potential effects of exempt wells in the Washougal River Watershed, Clark and Skamania Counties, Washington. 2.0 Summary Of Findings This report presents the most thorough study of the hydrologic effects of exempt wells for any area in Washington. The analysis used readily available geologic, topographic, hydrologic, and well construction data to estimate how much baseflow would be captured by exempt wells within the Washougal River Basin. Baseflow is streamflow that originates as groundwater discharge through springs and seeps. Wells are concentrated in some parts of the watershed and absent in others (Figure 1). Obvi- ously, some streams or reaches of streams could be affected much more than others. Therefore, we analyzed the effects by sub-watersheds, which we refer to as sub-basins (not be confused with the sub-basins delineated by the WRIA 27/28 Planning Unit). Geology often has a profound influence on baseflow. Therefore, starting with the sub-basin de- lineation by Clark County GIS for Clark County and Dept. of Natural Resources for Skamania § 1 See Glossary for definitions of technical terms. WRIA 27/28 EXEMPT WELL STUDY DECEMBER 2003 PAGE 1 County, we further sub-divided a couple more areas so that either bedrock or unlithified sedi- mentary units dominated the surficial geology (Figure 2). The lowest average monthly baseflow (i.e., lowest average for any month) for each sub-basin was estimated from data for three streamflow gages in the watershed. These estimates range from 0.4 to 11.8 cfs (Table 1). The number of exempt wells in each sub-basin was
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1998 WA State Scenic River Assessment
    ------------------- Washington· State Scenic River Assessment September 1988 SCBNIC RIVBR WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Edward T. Luders, Chair Queenie H. Allado Dick Dixon Glenna S. Hall Moyes Lucas John L. (Jack) Shreve Melvin D. Wortman Jan Tveten, Director T. J. France, Assistant Director, Resources Development Scenic Rivers Program Steven A. Starlund, Manager Committee of Participating Agencies: Jim Scott, Department of Ecology Lorinda Anderson, lnteragency Committee for Outdoor Recreation George Volker, Department of Wildlife Sam Wright, Department of Fisheries Jerry Probst, Department of Natural Resources Don Lund, Department of Transportation Doug Baker, Association of Washington Cities Tom Niemann, Represents Washington Association of Counties Melvin W. Oleson, Citizen Donn Charnley, Citizen ------------------- ------------------- Washington State Scenic River Assessment September 1988 Prepared by the Washington State Scenic Rivers Program Committee of Participating Agencies with the National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission ------------------- September 1988 Dear Citizen, The rivers of Washington are among the state's outstanding resources. We enjoy them in many ways, from the pleasures of their scenic beauty, natural quality, and evidence of history and prehistory to the more pragmatic benefits of their fisheries, power supply capabilities, and potential to supply water for irrigation, consumption, and recreation. As the population of our state grows, all of the emotional and physical demands we place on rivers will increase. While there are many state programs which allow or encourage the development of rivers to meet the pragmatic goals of power supply and irrigation, there were, until 1977, none that focussed solely on maintaining some of our rivers in their natural condition.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Scientific Investigations Map 3257
    (LACAMAS CREEK) U.S. Department of the Interior Scientific Investigations Map 3257 U.S. Geological Survey Pamphlet accompanies map 122o22'30" o (BOBS MOUNTAIN) 549000mE 550 551 1 530 000 FEET (OREG.) 20' 553 (LARCH MOUNTAIN) 554 555 17' 30" 556 557 1 550 000 FEET (WASH.) 558 C' 122 15' 45o37'30" 45o37'30" CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS deposition behind the immense Missoula flood bar extend- May locally include compositionally similar loess. Region- poorly known but probably ranges from middle Miocene basalt flows in the Columbia Basin. Nomenclature follows percent; as large as 7 mm across), olivine (9 percent; 1 to Ttfc Ttfc 3 20 Tbem Ta Tsr Tsr Ttfc Tt Qls Qa 19 Tt [Age of epoch boundaries from time scale of Ogg and others (2008). 40Ar/39Ar ages shown are from table 2] ing southwestward of Broughton Bluff (Evarts and ally correlative to Trimble’s (1963) Quaternary lacustrine to middle Pliocene; in Mount Norway area, well logs Swanson and others (1979) and Beeson and others (1985) 2 mm across; slightly altered to smectite), and augite (1–2 26 Qtdwu Qtdw 18 Ta u Qtdw Approximate Qa 1 Tbem Ta u O’Connor, 2008) that temporarily blocked the Sandy River deposits (Qlg), but he shows no such deposits in the map indicate unit underlies the conglomerate member of the percent; 0.5 to 1 mm across) in a coarse intergranular Ttfc Ttfc age in Ma SURFICIAL DEPOSITS Priest Rapids Member—Uppermost member of the Qa Qa Qls area Ttfc 0 at its confluence with the Columbia River. Equivalent to Troutdale Formation ( ) along a sharp, probably Wanapum Basalt (Swanson and others, 1979).
    [Show full text]
  • The 2005 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Symposium
    THE 2005 COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT SYMPOSIUM Status, Management, Biology, and Conservation Major support for the 2005 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Symposium was provided by Oregon Chapter of the Pacific States Marine U.S. Fish and Wildlife American Fisheries Society Fisheries Commission Service Additional support for the symposium and for publication of these proceedings was provided by North Pacific International Chapter AFS Humboldt Chapter AFS Alaska Chapter AFS American Fisheries Society South Sound Flyfishers Clark-Skamania Flyfishers Lower Columbia Flyfishers Washington Fly Fishing Club Port Townsend Chapter of Trout Unlimited Fine Art and Books for Raffle and Auction provided by Washington Trout G. Loomis Bruce Ferguson Les Johnson THE 2005 COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT SYMPOSIUM Status, Management, Biology, and Conservation Proceedings of a Workshop Fort Worden State Park Port Townsend, Washington September 29-October 1, 2005 Edited by Patrick J. Connolly, Thomas H. Williams, and Robert E. Gresswell Published by Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Portland, Oregon 2008 Suggested citation formats: Entire book Connolly, P. J., T. H. Williams, and R. E. Gresswell, editors. 2008. The 2005 coastal cutthroat trout symposium: status, management, biology, and conservation. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Portland. Article within book Anderson, J. D. 2008. Coastal cutthroat trout in Washington state: status and management. Pages 11-23 in P. J. Connolly, T. H. Williams, and R. E. Gresswell, editors. The 2005 coastal cutthroat
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Cutthroat Trout in Washington State: Status and Management
    Coastal Cutthroat Trout in Washington State: Status and Management Jon. D. Anderson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501- 1091 [email protected] Introduction The coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) inhabits a diverse and ecologically varied suite of habitats in Washington State. Cutthroat have responded to this variability, as evidenced by their exhibiting four basic life history forms (Wydoski and Whitney 2003), anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial and resident. A summary of the status of the anadromous form of coastal cutthroat trout in Washington State was published by Leider (1997). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) completed the salmonid stock inventory (SaSI) assessment process for coastal cutthroat trout (Blakley et al. 2000), which expanded upon the Washington Department of Game Sea-Run Cutthroat Status Report (DeShazo 1980). In the SaSI, the coastal cutthroat populations were described as “stock complexes”. These complexes were defined as a group of closely related stocks located within a single watershed or other relatively limited geographic area. The number of stocks within a stock complex may never be known with any confidence. The inventory identified 40 coastal cutthroat stock complexes and determined their status (healthy, depressed, critical, unknown or extinct), origin (native, non-native or unknown) and production type (wild, cultured or unknown). This paper is intended to provide updated information subsequent to that paper, and to document the response of the WDFW to the proposed listing of this population under the Endangered Species Act. In response to a petition to list coastal cutthroat trout as threatened or endangered under the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 15 Washougal River Subbasin
    Volume II, Chapter 15 Washougal River Subbasin TABLE OF CONTENTS 15.0 WASHOUGAL RIVER SUBBASIN ....................................................................... 15-1 15.1 Subbasin Description............................................................................................. 15-1 15.1.1 Topography & Geology ................................................................................... 15-1 15.1.2 Climate............................................................................................................. 15-1 15.1.3 Land Use/Land Cover...................................................................................... 15-1 15.2 Focal Fish Species ................................................................................................. 15-5 15.2.1 Fall Chinook—Washougal Subbasin............................................................... 15-5 15.2.2 Coho—Washougal Subbasin............................................................................ 15-8 15.2.3 Chum—Washougal Subbasin......................................................................... 15-11 15.2.4 Summer Steelhead—Washougal Subbasin..................................................... 15-13 15.2.5 Winter Steelhead—Washougal Subbasin....................................................... 15-15 15.2.6 Cutthroat Trout—Washougal River Subbasin ............................................... 15-18 15.3 Potentially Manageable Impacts.......................................................................... 15-20 15.4 Hatchery Programs
    [Show full text]
  • Church & Service Organization Directory
    CAMAS AND WASHOUGAL CHURCHES AND SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS SEPTEMBER 2019 DIRECTORY To get on line go to Http:www.cityofwashougal.us Click on community CAMAS CHURCHES Activate Church Camas United Methodist Church 3520 N E 3rd Ave 706 NE 14th Ave Camas, WA 98607 Camas, WA 98607 360-989-9414 360-834-2976 Sunday Service and Children’s Ministry Sun. Worship 10:00 am 9:00 am and 11:00 am Sunday School and Nursery: 11:00 am Wed.. Middle and High school 7:00 pm www.camaschurch.net www.activatechurch.org [email protected] Pastors: Isaac and Kari Maddox Pastor: Don Shipley Associates: Jared and Tasha Donald Business Administrator: Jan Carter Camas Bible Baptist Church Christian Life Church 3302 NE 242nd Ave 1303 NE Garfield Camas, WA 98607 Camas, WA 98607 360-253-6732 360-834-0935 360-834-4464 Sun. Family Worship 10:00 am Sunday school 9:45 am Sunday School 10:00 am Sun. Worship Service 11:00 am & 5:00 pm www.camaschristianlife.org Wed. evening—please call Senior Pastors: Ray & Lorene Woodson http:www.camasbiblechurch.com Pastors: Steven & Carol Smith Pastor: Victor Dudley Eastgate Pentecostal Church of Camas Church Of The Nazarene Camas/Washougal 2204 NE Birch 709 NW Greeley St. Camas, WA 98607 Camas, WA 98607 360-834-3433 1-360-286-4837 Sunday School 9:30 am www.eastgatepentecostal.org Sun. Worship 10:45 am Sun. Service 10:30 am Wed. 6:30 pm Small Groups for all ages Wed. Prayer 7:00 pm http;//www.camasnazarene.org Bible Study 7:30 pm Pastor: Joe Crosby Pastor: Steve Torres Camas Friends Church; A Quaker Meeting Fern Prairie United Methodist Church 1004 NE 4th Ave 26112 NE Brunner Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Washougal River Fish Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology and the Toe-Width Method for Wrias 25, 26, 28, and 29
    Open File Technical Report Washougal River Fish Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology and the Toe-Width Method for WRIAs 25, 26, 28, and 29 June 1999 Publication # 99-153 Open File Technical Report Washougal River Fish Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology and the Toe-Width Method for WRIAs 25, 26, 28, and 29 By Brad Caldwell Water Resources Program And Jim Shedd Environmental Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 And Hal Beecher Habitat Program Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 43200 Olympia, WA 98501-1091 June 1999 Publication # 99-153 Ecology is an equal-opportunity employer. If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in an alternative format, please contact Paula Smith at (360) 407-6607 (Voice) or (360) 407-6006 (TDD). ii SUMMARY The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) conducted an instream flow study on the Washougal River using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM). In addition, we collected Toe-Width information on 33 streams in WRIAs 25, 26, 28, and 29. These WRIAs are the Grays/Elochoman, the Cowlitz, the Salmon/Washougal, and the Wind/White Salmon, respectively. These studies provide information about the relationship between streamflows and fish habitat which can be used in developing minimum instream flow requirements for fish in the Washougal River and the 33 chosen streams in WRIAs 25, 26, 28, and 29. For the IFIM study on the Washougal River one site, composed of eight transects, was chosen. The site was located at approximate River Mile 3.5 at Hathaway Park.
    [Show full text]
  • WDFW 2000 Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory (SASSI)
    2000 WASHINGTON STATE SALMONID STOCK INVENTORY COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT Ann Blakley Bob Leland Jim Ames Editors WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE June 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................1 TRANSBOUNDARY COASTAL CUTTHROAT ...................................49 SUMAS ............................................................49 NORTH PUGET SOUND COASTAL CUTTHROAT ................................53 NORTH PUGET SOUND TRIBS .........................................53 NOOKSACK .........................................................57 WHATCOM CREEK ..................................................61 SAMISH ............................................................65 SKAGIT COASTAL CUTTHROAT .............................................69 SKAGIT ............................................................69 STILLAGUAMISH COASTAL CUTTHROAT .....................................73 STILLAGUAMISH ....................................................73 SNOHOMISH COASTAL CUTTHROAT .........................................79 SNOHOMISH ........................................................79 GREEN RIVER COASTAL CUTTHROAT .......................................85 DUWAMISH/GREEN ..................................................85 PUYALLUP COASTAL CUTTHROAT ..........................................91 PUYALLUP .........................................................91 NISQUALLY COASTAL CUTTHROAT ..........................................95
    [Show full text]
  • Urbanizing Flora of Portland, Oregon, 1806-2008
    URBANIZING FLORA OF PORTLAND, OREGON, 1806-2008 John A. Christy, Angela Kimpo, Vernon Marttala, Philip K. Gaddis, Nancy L. Christy Occasional Paper 3 of the Native Plant Society of Oregon 2009 Recommended citation: Christy, J.A., A. Kimpo, V. Marttala, P.K. Gaddis & N.L. Christy. 2009. Urbanizing flora of Portland, Oregon, 1806-2008. Native Plant Society of Oregon Occasional Paper 3: 1-319. © Native Plant Society of Oregon and John A. Christy Second printing with corrections and additions, December 2009 ISSN: 1523-8520 Design and layout: John A. Christy and Diane Bland. Printing by Lazerquick. Dedication This Occasional Paper is dedicated to the memory of Scott D. Sundberg, whose vision and perseverance in launching the Oregon Flora Project made our job immensely easier to complete. It is also dedicated to Martin W. Gorman, who compiled the first list of Portland's flora in 1916 and who inspired us to do it again 90 years later. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge all the botanists, past and present, who have collected in the Portland-Vancouver area and provided us the foundation for our study. We salute them and thank them for their efforts. We extend heartfelt thanks to the many people who helped make this project possible. Rhoda Love and the board of directors of the Native Plant Society of Oregon (NPSO) exhibited infinite patience over the 5-year life of this project. Rhoda Love (NPSO) secured the funds needed to print this Occasional Paper. Katy Weil (Metro) and Deborah Lev (City of Portland) obtained funding for a draft printing for their agencies in June 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Camas Quadrangle, Clark County, Washington, and Multnomah County, Oregon
    Geologic Map of the Camas Quadrangle, Clark County, Washington, and Multnomah County, Oregon By Russell C. Evarts and Jim E. O’Connor Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3017 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey INTRODUCTION (lahars) and river aggradation triggered by eruptions of Mount Hood, Columbia River floodplain aggradation GEOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC SETTING in response to post-glacial sea level rise, and deposition The Camas 7.5' quadrangle is located within of wind-blown sediment. the eastern Portland Basin near the mouth of the This map is a contribution to a program Columbia River Gorge, approximately 20 km east of designed to improve geologic knowledge of the downtown Portland, Oregon (fig. 1). The Columbia Portland Basin region of the Pacific Northwest urban River transects the map area and separates hilly terrain corridor, the densely populated Cascadia forearc region in Washington State to the north from low-relief terrain of western Washington and Oregon. Better and more to the south in Oregon. Almost all parts of the map area detailed information on the bedrock and surficial are rapidly urbanizing. In Oregon, the Sandy River at geology in this rapidly growing region of the basin and the east edge of the quadrangle forms the eastern limit its surrounding area will allow for refined assessments of the Portland metropolitan area urban growth of seismic risk (Yelin and Patton, 1991; Bott and boundary, and what were formerly areas of truck farms, Wong, 1993; Palmer and others, 2004), ground-failure nursery stock and pasture land have mostly converted hazards (Wegmann and Walsh, 2001), and resource to housing and light industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transportation Plan for Skamania County, Washington
    Regional Transportation Plan for Skamania County, Washington May 2014 Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Regional Transportation Plan for Skamania County, Washington Clark County Skamania County Skamania County, Washington Klickitat County City of Vancouver City of Camas City of Washougal Published: May2014 City of Battle Ground City of Ridgefield City of La Center Town of Yacolt City of Stevenson City of North Bonneville City of White Salmon City of Bingen City of Goldendale C-TRAN Washington DOT Port of Vancouver Port of Camas-Washougal Port of Ridgefield Port of Skamania County Port of Klickitat Metro Oregon DOT Southwest Washington 14th Legislative District Regional Transportation Council 17th Legislative District Street Address Mailing Address 18th Legislative District 1300 Franklin Street P.O. Box 1366 20th Legislative District Vancouver, WA 98660 Vancouver, WA 98666-1366 49th Legislative District Phone: 360-397-6067 Fax: 360-397-6132 http://www.rtc.wa.gov Introduction ii Preparation of this Report was funded by grants from the Washington State Department of Transportation and local funds from RTC member jurisdictions. Title VI Compliance The Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) assures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. RTC further assures that every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination in all of its programs and activities, whether or not those programs and activities are federally funded.
    [Show full text]
  • The Top Ten River Stewardship Issues of 2012
    Conservation • Access • Events • Adventure • Safety BY BOATERS FOR BOATERS Jan/Feb 2012 THE TOP TEN RIVER STEWARDSHIP ISSUES OF 2012 Plus... Keeping Salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon Father+Son+Tandem Canoe=Fun? Returning to Whitewater as a Parent A VOLUNTEER PUBLICATION PROMOTING RIVER CONSERVATION, ACCESS AND SAFETY American Whitewater Journal Jan/Feb 2012 – Volume 52 – Issue 1 COLUMNS 5 The Journey Ahead by Mark Singleton 43 News & Notes by Susan L. Taft and Bethany Overfield 51 Letter to the Editor by Chuck Koteen STEWARDSHIP 6 2012 Stewardship Top Ten by The Stewardship Team 14 Renovated Diversion Dam a Big Hit on Montana’s Big Hole River by John Amtmann 16 Keeping the Salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon by Kevin Colburn FEATURE ArtICLES Best Beginner Runs 21 Washougal River (WA) by Dick Sisson 23 The Lower Hood River by Zachary Collier Canoeing 25 Tandem Time by Matt Looze Humor 27 When The Rain Falls, the Mid-Atlantic Brings the Goods! by the Dogg Rivers of Nepal 32 Nepal’s Wild West by Stephen Cunliffe Mental Game 36 Can You Teach the Mental Aspects of Whitewater Kayaking? by Steve Dougherty 39 The Source of Light by Emily Nicole Zebel 41 Learning How to Paddle by Melissa Bertenthal Omar Jepperson and Laurel Hansen absorb the splendor of the Green River (UT). This multi-day wilderness trip—along with other recreational opportunities, endangered fish species, and downstream water users—is threatened by developer plans to remove massive quantities of water Publication Title: American Whitewater from the Green, making it one of Issue Date: Jan/Feb 2012 American Whitewater’s Top Ten River Statement of Frequency: Published Bimonthly Authorized Organization’s Name and Address: Stewardship Issues of 2012 (see pg.
    [Show full text]