DOCSLIB.ORG

TMDL for Total Dissolved Gas in the Mid-Columbia River and Lake

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TMDL for Total Dissolved Gas in the Mid-Columbia River and Lake Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Dissolved Gas in the Mid-Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt Submittal Report Washington State Spokane Tribe U. S. Environmental Department of of Indians Protection Agency Ecology June 2004 Prepared jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology in cooperation with the Spokane Tribe of Indians Publication Information U.S. EPA For a printed copy or a compact disk of this publication, contact: Helen Rueda U.S. EPA 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 326-3280 E-mail: [email protected] Washington State This report is available on the Washington State Department of Ecology Wide Web at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0403002.html. For a printed copy of this publication, contact: Jean Witt Department of Ecology Publications Distributions PO Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 Phone: (360) 407-7472 E-mail: [email protected] Refer to Ecology Publication Number 04-03-002 The Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. EPA are equal opportunity agencies and do not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran's status, Vietnam-era veteran's status, or sexual orientation. If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Joan LeTourneau, Ecology, at (360)-407-6764 (voice), or Helen Rueda, EPA TMDL Project Manager, at (503) 326-3280 (voice). Ecology's telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY) number is (360) 407-6006. EPA's telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY) number is (503) 229-6993. Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Dissolved Gas in the Mid-Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt Submittal Report by Paul J. Pickett1 Helen Rueda2 and Mike Herold3 1Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Assessment Program Olympia, WA 98504-7710 2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Oregon Operations Office Portland, OR 97204 3Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Olympia, WA 98504-7600 June 2004 Waterbody Numbers: WA-CR-1030, -1040, -1050, and -1060 Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 04-03-002 This page is purposely left blank for duplex printing. Table of Contents Page List of Tables and Figures.................................................................................................. iii Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ iv Abstract................................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... vii Description of Waterbody, Pollutant of Concern, and Pollutant Sources................... vii Description of the Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Target .......... viii Loading Capacity......................................................................................................... ix Pollutant Allocations.................................................................................................... ix Margin of Safety ............................................................................................................x Seasonal Variation .........................................................................................................x Monitoring Plan .............................................................................................................x Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................x Public Participation...................................................................................................... xi Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 Geographic Extent .........................................................................................................3 Clean Water Act Requirements .....................................................................................5 Coordination with Endangered Species Act ..................................................................6 Total Dissolved Gas Water Quality Standards ....................................................................9 State of Washington Standards ......................................................................................9 Colville Tribe Standards ..............................................................................................10 Spokane Tribe Standards .............................................................................................10 TMDL Targets .............................................................................................................10 Background........................................................................................................................13 Sources of TDG ...........................................................................................................13 Spill for Fish Passage...................................................................................................14 Involuntary Spill ..........................................................................................................14 Water Quality and Resource Impairments.........................................................................17 TDG Generation from Spills........................................................................................17 TDG Impacts on Aquatic Life .....................................................................................18 Monitoring of TDG......................................................................................................20 Analysis of Current Conditions .........................................................................................23 TDG Data Sources .......................................................................................................23 Lake Roosevelt TMDL Data........................................................................................23 Mid-Columbia TMDL Data.........................................................................................25 Identification of Sources....................................................................................................29 Lake Roosevelt.............................................................................................................30 1. Grand Coulee Dam .................................................................................................47 Page i 2. Chief Joseph Dam...................................................................................................50 3. Wells Dam ..............................................................................................................51 4. Rocky Reach Dam ..................................................................................................53 5. Rock Island Dam.....................................................................................................55 6. Wanapum Dam .......................................................................................................57 7. Priest Rapids Dam...................................................................................................59 Loading Capacity...............................................................................................................63 Linkage of TDG Loading to the Criteria .....................................................................63 Load Allocations................................................................................................................65 Long-term Attainment of Water Quality Standards.....................................................67 Monitoring of Attainment............................................................................................71 Margin of Safety ................................................................................................................73 Critical Conditions.......................................................................................................73 Criteria versus Site-specific Conditions.......................................................................73 Data Quality and Quantity ...........................................................................................73 Seasonal Variations............................................................................................................75 7Q10 Flows..................................................................................................................75 Summary of Public Involvement .......................................................................................77 Public Involvement Actions.........................................................................................77 References and Bibliography.............................................................................................79 Appendices: Appendix A. Summary Implementation Strategy Appendix B. Response to Public Comments Appendix C. Technical Analysis of TDG Processes Appendix D. Data Sets Used for the Lake Roosevelt Portion of the TMDL Appendix E. Color Photograph Figures On the Web,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BRIDGEPORT STATE PARK Chief Joseph Dam, Washington
    BRIDGEPORT STATE PARK Chief Joseph Dam, Washington Sun Shelter and Play Area Group Camp Fire Circle Bridgeport State Park, located on systems; landscaping; and the Columbia River at Chief Joseph sprinkler irrigation. Osborn Pacific Dam, was an existing development Group provided complete design composed of a boat launch, services followed by completion campground, temporary of bid documents for the park and administration area, and day-use recreation amenity features, and group-use areas. The park was buildings, landscape architecture, created subsequent to the Chief and sprinkler irrigation. Joseph Dam construction and was Subconsultants provided civil, Picnic Shelter built by the U.S. Army Corps of structural, mechanical, and Engineers. The park is maintained electrical engineering. Site: Approximately 400 acres of rolling and operated by Washington State arid topography on shore of Rufus Parks. Woods Lake. Approximately 30 acres Project: is developed. Osborn Pacific Group Inc. was Bridgeport State Park Services: Client: retained by the U.S. Army Corps of Final design, construction documents, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle and cost estimate of park and Engineers to provide design District recreation amenity features, buildings, services and prepared construction Location: landscape architecture, and sprinkler documents for a $1.4 million park Chief Joseph Dam, Columbia River, irrigation. Contract administration expansion project. Features Washington and coordination for civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical included: upgrading and expanding engineering. recreation vehicle campground area, day-use picnic area and swim beach development; group camp area development; pedestrian and handicapped access trails; ranger residence; maintenance building; restrooms and shelters; roads; water, sanitary, and electrical .
    [Show full text]
  • Kootenay System Operations
    Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Appendix C Kootenay System Operations Operation of the Kootenay River system is complicated as it is administered by several different jurisdictions and the hydroelectric facilities are owned by different agencies/companies. As shown in Figure 1, the Kootenay River originates in the Rocky Mountains not far from Field, BC. The river flows south, within a few km of the source of the Columbia River at Canal Flats, and then continues south into Koocanusa Reservoir, formed behind Libby Dam in Montana, United States. From Libby, the Kootenay River turns west and north, and re-enters British Columbia near the community of Creston, flowing into the south arm of Kootenay Lake. In the northern part of the Kootenay basin, the Duncan River is joined by the Lardeau River just downstream from Duncan Dam, and then flows into the north arm of Kootenay Lake. Water from the north and south arms of Kootenay Lake then flows through the west arm of the lake and past the Corra Linn Dam near Nelson (as well as other dams) en route to the Columbia–Kootenay confluence at Castlegar. The components of this system and various agreements/orders that regulate flows are described in this Appendix. November 29, 2013 1 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Figure 1: Kootenay and Columbia Region November 29, 2013 2 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies 1.0 Coordination of Libby Operations Background Under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty, Canada permitted the U.S. to build the Libby Dam on the Kootenai River (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Acoustic and PIT Tagged Juvenile Chinook, Steelhead and Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus, Spp.) Passing Dams on the Columbia River, USA
    Spedicato, M.T.; Lembo, G.; Marmulla, G. (eds.) 275 Aquatic telemetry: advances and applications. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry held in Europe. Ustica, Italy, 9-13 June 2003. Rome, FAO/COISPA. 2005. 295p. Comparison of acoustic and PIT tagged juvenile Chinook, Steelhead and Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus, spp.) passing dams on the Columbia River, USA T.W. Steig*1, J.R. Skalski2, and B.H. Ransom1 1Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. 715 N.E. Northlake Way, Seattle, WA 98105 U.S.A. Tel.: (206) 633-3383; Fax: (206) 633- 5912. *Correspondig Author, e-mail: [email protected] 2Columbia Basin Research, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington Seattle, WA, U.S.A. Key words: acoustic tags, PIT tags, fish behaviour, fish movement, salmon smolt survival. Abstract The purpose of the study was to compare migration behaviour and survival of acoustic and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged juvenile salmonids passing dams on the Columbia River, Washington State, USA. Downstream migrating yearling chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Walbaum 1792), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum 1792), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka Walbaum 1792), and sub-yearling chinook smolts were individually implanted with either acoustic or PIT tags and monitored at Rocky Reach and Rock Island dams dur- ing spring and summer 2002. Travel times and detection rates were compared for acoustic (“A” tag weight 1.0 g and “E” tag weight 1.5 g) and PIT (tag weight 0.06 g) tagged fish released upstream of Rocky Reach Dam and detected at a Surface Collector Bypass Channel and further downstream at the Rock Island Dam project.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River System Operation Review Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Columbia River System Operation Review Final Environmental Impact Statement AppendixL Soils, Geology and Groundwater 11""I ,11 ofus Engineers Armv Corps ".'1 North Pacific Division DOEIEIS-O I 70 November 1995 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE SOR PROCESS The Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, and Bonneville Power Administration wish to thank those who reviewed the Columbia River System Operation Review (SOR) Draft EIS and appendices for their comments. Your comments have provided valuable public, agency. and tribal input to the SOR NEPA process, Throughout the SOR. we have made a continuing effort to keep the public informed and involved. Fourteen public scoping meetings were held in 1990. A series of public roundtables was conducted in November 1991 to provide an update on the status of SOR studies. Tbe lead agencies went back 10 most of the 14 communities in 1992 with 10 initial system operating strategies developed from the screening process. From those meetings and other consultations, seven SOS alternatives (with options) were developed and subjected to full-scale analysis. The analysis results were presented in the Draft EIS released in July 1994. The lead agencies also developed alternatives for the other proposed SOR actions, including a Columbia River Regional Forum for assisting in the detennination of future sass, Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement alternatives for power coordination, and Canadian Entitlement Allocation Agreements alternatives. A series of nine public meetings was held in September and October 1994 to present the Draft EIS and appendices and solicit public input on the SOR. The lead agencies·received 282 fonnal written comments. Your comments have been used to revise and shape the alternatives presented in the Final EIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Coe Portland District (Nwp) Hydropower Projects
    Updated March 30, 2021. Use the appropriate district distribution list below when submitting a System Operational Request (SOR). COE PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS COE SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS Bonneville Dam & Lake on Columbia River Libby Dam & Lake Koocanusa on Kootenai River The Dalles Dam & Lake Celilo on Columbia River Hungry Horse Dam & Lake on South Fork Flathead River John Day Dam & Lake Umatilla on Columbia River Albeni Falls Dam & Pend Oreille Lake on Pend Oreille River Chief Joseph Dam and Rufus Woods Lake on Columbia River Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) TO: TO: BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander COL Alexander Bullock COE-NWS Commander COL Mike Helton COE-NWP Commander Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Lisa Wright COE-NWD-PDW-R Lisa Wright COE-NWD-PDW-R Jon Moen COE-NWS-ENH-W Tammy Mackey COE-NWP-OD Mary Karen Scullion COE-NWP-EC-HR Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director John Roache USBR-PN-6208 John Roache USBR-PN-6208 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 John Hairston BPA Administrator Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 John Hairston BPA Administrator Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Scott Bettin BPA-EWP-4 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Tribal Liaisons: Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • BCUC IR1 Response
    Diane Roy FortisBC Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 16705 Fraser Highway Surrey, B.C. V4N 0E8 Gas Regulatory Affairs Correspondence Tel: (604)576-7349 Email: [email protected] Cell: (604) 908-2790 Fax: (604) 576-7074 Electric Regulatory Affairs Correspondence www.fortisbc.com Email: [email protected] October 1, 2020 British Columbia Utilities Commission Suite 410, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2N3 Attention: Ms. Marija Tresoglavic, Acting Commission Secretary Dear Ms. Tresoglavic: Re: FortisBC Inc. (FBC) Project No. 1599119 Annual Review for 2020 and 2021 Rates (Application) Response to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Information Request (IR) No. 1 On August 19, 2020, FBC filed the Application referenced above. In accordance with BCUC Order G-211-20 setting out the Regulatory Timetable for the review of the Application, FBC respectfully submits the attached response to BCUC IR No. 1. If further information is required, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, FORTISBC INC. Original signed: Diane Roy Attachments cc (email only): Registered Parties FortisBC Inc. (FBC or the Company) Submission Date: Annual Reivew for 2020 and 2021 Rates ~ Project No. 1599119 (Application) October 1, 2020 Response to British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Information Request (IR) Page 1 No. 1 1 Table of Contents Page no. 2 A. LOAD FORECAST AND REVENUE AT EXISTING RATES ................................................. 2 3 B. OTHER REVENUE .............................................................................................................28
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Integrated Resource Plan
    DRAFT 2018 Integrated Resource Plan Public Utility District No. 1 of Benton County PREPARED IN COLLABORATION WITH Resolution No. XXXX Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 Obligations and Resources ........................................................................................................................ 1 Preferred Portfolio .................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: Load Forecast .............................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 3: Current Resources ....................................................................................................................... 7 Overview of Existing Long-term Purchased Power Agreements ............................................................... 7 Frederickson 1 Generating Station ........................................................................................................ 7 Nine Canyon Wind ................................................................................................................................. 7 White Creek Wind Generation Project .................................................................................................. 8 Packwood Lake Hydro Project ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Management's Discussion and Analysis
    2010 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS March 4, 2011 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) is designed to provide the reader with a greater understanding of the Company’s business, the Company’s business strategy and performance, the Company’s expectations of the future, and how the Company manages risk and capital resources. It is intended to enhance the understanding of the audited annual consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes, and should therefore be read in conjunction with these documents, and should also be read together with the text below on forward-looking statements. Reference in this MD&A to the “Company” or to “SNC-Lavalin” means, as the context may require, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and all or some of its subsidiaries or joint ventures, or SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries or joint ventures. Unless otherwise indicated, all financial information presented in this MD&A, including tabular amounts, is in Canadian dollars, and prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Statements made in this MD&A that describe the Company’s or management’s budgets, estimates, expectations, forecasts, objectives, predictions or projections of the future may be “forward-looking statements”, which can be identifi ed by the use of the conditional or forward-looking terminology such as “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “expects”, “may”, “plans”, “projects”, “should”, “will”, or the negative thereof or other variations thereon. The Company cautions that, by their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and that its actual actions and/or results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements, or could affect the extent to which a particular projection materializes.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Joseph Hatchery Program
    Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement DOE/EIS-0384 May 2007 Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Title of Proposed Project: Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Cooperating Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation State Involved: Washington Abstract: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes a Chinook salmon hatchery production program sponsored by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville Tribes). BPA proposes to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of the program to help mitigate for anadromous fish affected by the Federal Columbia River Power System dams on the Columbia River. The Colville Tribes want to produce adequate salmon to sustain tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries and enhance the potential for a recreational fishery for the general public. The DEIS discloses the environmental effects expected from facility construction and program operations and a No Action alternative. The Proposed Action is to build a hatchery near the base of Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River for incubation, rearing and release of summer/fall and spring Chinook. Along the Okanogan River, three existing irrigation ponds, one existing salmon acclimation pond, and two new acclimation ponds (to be built) would be used for final rearing, imprinting and volitional release of chinook smolts. The Chief Joseph Dam Hatchery Program Master Plan (Master Plan, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, May 2004) provides voluminous information on program features. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District, and others have cooperated on project design and siting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revelstoke Dam: a Case Study of the Selection, Licensing and Implementation of a Large Scale Hydroelectric Project in British Columbia
    THE REVELSTOKE DAM: A CASE STUDY OF THE SELECTION, LICENSING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A LARGE SCALE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA By HEIDI ERIKA MISSLER B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1984 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Geography) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1988 QHeidi Erika Missler, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DE-6G/81) ABSTRACT Procedures for the selection, licensing and implementation of large scale energy projects must evolve with the escalating complexity of such projects and. the changing public value system. Government appeared unresponsive to rapidly changing conditions in the 1960s and 1970s. Consequently, approval of major hydroelectric development projects in British Columbia under the Water Act became increasingly more contentious. This led, in 1980, to the introduction of new procedures—the Energy Project Review Process (EPRP)— under the B.C. Utilities Commission Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review 1 he Columbia River Treaty History of the Treaty T between the United States and The Columbia River, the fourth largest river on the continent as measured by average annual fl ow, Canada has served as a model of generates more power than any other river in North America. While its headwaters originate in British international cooperation since 1964, Columbia, only about 15 percent of the 259,500 square miles of the Columbia River Basin is actually bringing signifi cant fl ood control and located in Canada. Yet the Canadian waters account for about 38 percent of the average annual volume, power generation benefi ts to both and up to 50 percent of the peak fl ood waters, that fl ow by The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River countries. Either Canada or the United between Oregon and Washington. In the 1940s, offi cials from the United States and States can terminate most of the Canada began a long process to seek a joint solution to the fl ooding caused by the unregulated Columbia provisions of the Treaty any time on or River and to the postwar demand for greater energy resources. That effort culminated in the Columbia River after Sept.16, 2024, with a minimum Treaty, an international agreement between Canada and the United States for the cooperative development 10 years’ written advance notice. The of water resources regulation in the upper Columbia River U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Grant County Pud Under the Clean Water Act
    KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW BRIAN A. KNUTSEN Licensed in Oregon & Washington 503.841.6515 [email protected] September 19, 2018 Via CERTIFIED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested Re: NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE GRANT COUNTY PUD UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT Terry Brewer Dale Walker PUD Commissioner District 1 PUD Commissioner District 2 Grant County Public Utility District Grant County Public Utility District P.O. Box 878 P.O. Box 878 Ephrata, WA 98823 Ephrata, WA 98823 Larry Schaapman Tom Flint PUD Commissioner District 3 PUD Commissioner A-At Large Grant County Public Utility District Grant County Public Utility District P.O. Box 878 P.O. Box 878 Ephrata, WA 98823 Ephrata, WA 98823 Bob Bernd Managing Agent PUD Commissioner B-At Large Wanapum Dam Grant County Public Utility District Grant County Public Utility District P.O. Box 878 P.O. Box 878 Ephrata, WA 98823 Ephrata, WA 98823 Managing Agent Priest Rapids Dam Grant County Public Utility District P.O. Box 878 Ephrata, WA 98823 Dear Commissioners Terry Brewer, Dale Walker, Larry Schaapman, Tom Flint, and Bob Bernd, and Managing Agents for the Wanapum Dam and the Priest Rapids Dam: This letter is to provide you with sixty days notice of Columbia Riverkeeper’s (“Riverkeeper”) intent to file a citizen suit against the Grant County Public Utility District and Commissioners Terry Brewer, Dale Walker, Larry Schaapman, Tom Flint, and Bob Bernd, in their official capacity as the Commissioners of the Grant County Public Utility District (collectively, “PUD”) under section 505 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]