DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Methow River Valley GWMA Aquifer Test Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Methow River Valley GWMA Aquifer Test Report ,\ q'lf-1 oo2o~ I I ,. I ·~ • I I I•" UPPER METHOW RIVER VALLEY I GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT AREA I AQUIFER TEST REPORT I I Prepared for Okanogan County Public Works I February 5, 1992 I I I I Prepared by I EMCON Northwest, Inc. 506 Royal Street West P.O. Box Drawer 8 I Kelso, Washington 98626 I Project 88902.08 I I I . r-.._, . - I . l'lloPl!JR'l'Y O.F STA.T,m O.F WAS!iJNGTON" ' - . DEPAET.ME.NT OF ECOLOGy Ll:B.R.Aay I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,. ,, I I I· Emcon J . Northwest, Inc. J . -~~ .... I . • . ' • ¢· -·~ -·. .·I' I I I CONTENTS I I TABLES AND FIGURES ................................. iv 1 INTRODUCTION . 1 I 1.1 Purpose...................................... 1 1.2 Pumping Test Background . 3 I 1.3 Relationship to Other Activities . 5 2 AQUIFER CONCEPTUAL MODEL . 7 2.1 Geology . 7 I 2.1. 1 Regional . 7 2.1.2 Methow Valley . 8 2.1.3 Mazama Bridge Area . 9 I 2.2 Ground Water Hydrology . 12 2.2.1 Recharge . 12 2.2.2 Low Flow . 13 I 2.2.3 Hydrologic Assumptions . 14 2.3 Ground and Surface Water Interactions . 15 I 3 AQUIFER TEST DESCRIPTION . 19 3.1 Department of Ecology Guidelines . 19 3.2 Test Site Description ......... ; . 19 I 3.2. 1 Pumping and Observation Well Network . 20 3.2.2 Pumping Well Design and Installation . 24 3.2.3 Deep Test Boring/Observation Well Installation . 26 I 3.2.4 Monitoring Well Construction . 28 3.3 Aquifer Test #1 . 29 I 3.3.1 Test #1 Specifications . 29 3.3.3 Test Completion . 32 3.3.4 Recommended Additional Testing . 38 I 3.4 Aquifer Test #2 . 43 3.4.1 Test #2 Specifications . 43 3.4.2 Aquifer Test #2 Completion . 45 I 3.5 Water Quality Sampling Analyses . 50 3.5.1 Sampling . 50 I 3.5.2 Analytical Results . 52 KC/METHOW·R.210fbg:11 Rev.0,02/10/92 I 589-01.08 ii I I I I CONTENTS (Continued) I 4 PUMPING TESTS INTERPRETATION . 56 4.1 General Observations . 58 I 4.1.1 Methow River Fluctuations . 58 4.1.2 Pre-pumping Conditions . 60 4.1.3 Pumping Conditions . 66 I 4.1.4 Post Pumping Water Level Conditions . 71 4.1.5 Summary . 73 I 4.2 Analytical Methods . 74 4.2.1 Theis Non-Steady State Method . 75 4.2.2 Jacob Non-Steady State Method . 81 I 4.2.3 Jacob Distance-Drawdown Method . 84 4.2.4 Hantush Partial Penetration Method . 86 4.2.5 Stallman Unear Recharge Source Method . 87 I 4.2.6 Summary . 89 4.3 Numerical Computer Model . 91 4.3.1 Model Design and Assumptions . 94 I 4.3.2 Model Runs . 99 4.3.3 Interpretations of Model Runs . 105 I 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 114 5.1 Umitations of Characterization . 114 5.2 Aquifer Characterization/Conclusions . 115 I 5.3 Recommendations . 117 I REFERENCES ..................................... 120 I I I I KC/METHOW-R.210jbg: 11 Rev. 0. 02/10/92 I 889-01.08 iii I I I I TABLES AND FIGURES I I Tables Table 3-1 - Summary of Observation Well Construction Depths ................................ 22 I Table 3-2 - Summary of Field Water Quality Measurements Pumping Test #1 ..........................37 Table 3-3 Laboratory Water Quality Data- Pumping Test #1 I Indicator Parameters ........................39 Table 3-36 - Laboratory Water Quality Data - Pumping Test #1 Total Metals ..............................40 I Table 3-3C - Laboratory Water Quality Data - Pumping Test #1 · Anion/Cation Balance ...................... .41 Table 3-4 Laboratory Water Quality Data - I Pumping Test #2 ..........................51 Table 4-1 - Mazama Pumping Tests Analyses Summary- I Transmissivity . 76 Table 4-2 - Mazama Pumping Tests Analyses Summary- Storativity I Values ................................. 77 Table 4-3 - FLOW3D Model Setup - 3-Day Pumping Test Simulation . 101 I Table 4-4 - FLOW3D Model Setup - 13-Day Pumping Test I Simulation . 103 I Figures Figure 1-1 Aquifer Test Location Map . 2 I Figure 2-1 Stratigraphic Cross-Section . 11 Figure 3-1 Pumping and Observation Well Location Map . 21 I Figure 3-2 Monitoring Network Schematic . 25 Figure 3-3 Pumping Well Construction Details . 30 I KC/METHOW·R.210/bg: 11 Rev. 0, 02/10/92 I S89-01.08 iv I I I I TABLE AND FIGURES (Continued) I Figure 4-1 Pre-Pumping Period Hydrograph of MW-9 and Methow I River ................................. 62 Figure 4-2 Pumping Period Hydrograph of MW-9 and Methow River . 68 I Figure 4-3 Pressure Reponse in MW-8 During Pumping . 69 Figure 4-4 Post-Pumping Period Hydrograph of MW-9 and Methow River . 72 I Figure 4-5 Logarithmic Plot of Time-Drawdown Data MW-8 . 79 Figure 4-6 Jacob Time-Drawdown Data Plot MW-8 . 83 Figure 4-7 Jacob Distance-Drawdown Plot . 85 I Figure 4-8 Numerical Simulation Area . 95 Figure 4-9 FLOW3D Finite Element Grid . 97 Figure 4-10 Flownet Cross-Section, Run #1 .............. 106 I Figure 4-11 Flownet Cross-Section, Run #2 .............. 107 Figure 4-12 Flownet Cross-Section, Observed . 111 I I I I I I I I KC/METHOW-R.210/bg: 11 Rev. 0, 02/10/92 I 889-01.08 v I I I I 1 INTRODUCTION I I 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to document the aquifer test set up, I procedures, and findings from two aquifer pumping tests performed on a I 12-inch aquifer pumping test well in the Mazama Bridge area of the Methow I River valley (see Figure 1-1). The pumping tests were performed to determine hydrologic parameters for the upper Methow River Valley aquifer, I and, to the extent possible, to draw preliminary conclusions regarding I aquifer behavior in response to pumping stress in this area. The test design and data evaluation procedures were also established in order to I identify general relationships between the aquifer and the Methow River. I The pumping test was not designed, nor is this report intended, to provide a detailed hydrogeologic evaluation of the shallow aquifer underlying the I upper Methow River Valley. Conclusions are limited to technical aspects of I the pumping test, limitations on interpretation, and additional data needs necessary for further interpretation. I I I KC/METHOW-R.210/bg: 11 Rev. o. 02/10/92 I 589-01.08 1 I I 111246 I I I I I I I I 4ooo "'0 I g MAiAMA") / EXPLANATION I I ___ / I I -- 1 I ,... - - Approximate Boundary of Val ley AI luvium I ---~/ ,' I Perenial Stream Ephemeral Stream \ / I \ \ Elevation Contours / -4000-- \ / \ / ... ----r A ~- / I Cross-section Location I '""Vo / 1 I \ / ' I Monitoring Wei I Location Cluster \ / ---- t.m-6, 7 • I I with Well Designations - / / Sandy Note: Map modified from USGS Butte ~ I X - Mazama quadrangle. I I ~I 6000 12,000 I SCALE IN FEET I I I DATI 2/92 Rgure 1-1 DWN. MMM METHOW VALLEY GWMA Sweet-Edwards APPR •. __ EM CON IIIRVIS. __ I PROJECT NO. AQUIFER TEST LOCATION MAP 58901.08 I I I 1.2 Pumping Test Background Ecology guidelines for GWMA monitoring wells (Ecology, 1988) requires that I aquifer testing be completed for a minimum of 24 hours. Prior to initiation I of the monitoring well construction phase of the Methow Valley GWMA project, it was determined, based on a review of historic hydrologic data, I domestic supply well drillers' logs, and surficial observations of aquifer I materials that 2-inch diameter monitoring wells would not provide for adequate hydraulic aquifer testing. Ecology concurred with this conclusion. I I Although monitoring wells were to be distributed throughout the upper Methow River Valley (from Wolf Creek to above the confluence of the I Methow River and Lost River), the primary purpose of the monitoring wells I is to provide water quality data for characterization and long term I monitoring. It was intended that the hydrologic and physical characteristics of the aquifer would be determined for the intensely monitored area at I Mazama and applied, as appropriate, to the remainder of the valley. I Topographic and anticipated hydrostratigraphic conditions were expected to be the most nearly representative of the Methow Valley at this location, I and proposed development density is greatest in the area immediately I upstream from Mazama. I I KC/METHOW·R.210fbg:11 Rev. o. 02/10/92 I 589-01.08 3 I I I At Mazama, shallow and intermediate depth monitoring well pairs were constructed near the center and towards both sides of the valley, I perpendicular to the trend of the valley. Well placement was intended to I provide long term data on ground water quality below areas of potential development and surface water /ground water interaction. The six wells I were constructed using 4-inch diameter casing and screen to allow for I installation of submersible pumps that would provide for pumping capacities of up to approximately 50 gpm. It was anticipated that pumping tests I completed on each of the six wells would provide data that could be applied I to hydrologic conditions observed at the remainder of the monitoring well sites. I I During well development and preliminary aquifer testing, it was found that pumping rates approaching 50 gpm had essentially no effect on the water I levels in the pumping wells. The limited drawdown that was observed in the I pumped wells was likely due to well effects rather than aquifer effects. I Consequently, it was proposed to the County and Ecology that a high capacity well be constructed to allow aquifer tests to be conducted that I would provide the required hydrologic data.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment
    The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate ........................................................................................................ A report by The Climate Impacts Group University of Washington Climate Science June 2009 in the Public Interest Recommended citation: Climate Impacts Group, 2009. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, M. McGuire Elsner, J. Littell, and L Whitely Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Available at: http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciareport681.pdf Front cover satellite image credit: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?vev1id=4786 NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Visible Earth: A catalog of NASA images and animations of our home planet Provided by the SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and ORBIMAGE The Pacific Northwest is cloud-free in this SeaWiFS image. Multihued phytoplankton blooms are visible off of Washington's Olympic coast. Also visible in this image are: Fraser River outflow, snowcapped peaks of Mt. Olympus, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Adams, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, the Three Sisters, the North Cascades, and the Columbia and Snake River watersheds. Metadata * Sensor OrbView-2/SeaWiFS * Visualization Date 2000-09-26 * The Visible Earth is part of the EOS Project Science Office located at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Small images credits: Wheat: © 2009 www.photos.com Coast; Seattle skyline: © J. Martin Grassley McNary Dam: courtesy Bonneville Power Administration Salmon: courtesy University of Washington News and Information Forest: courtesy Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington Report design: Beth Tully, Edit-Design Center, University of Washington The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal to Purchase Land Along the Methow River Would Protect Fish
    Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Fact Sheet BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Habitat ConseRvation – PubliC NotiCe february 2011 Conservancy will own and manage the land. A conservation Proposal to purchase land easement will be placed on the property to permanently along the Methow River protect the land for conservation values. BPA would have Fact Sheet rights of enforcement to the easement. would protect fish habitat Land management: The Methow Conservancy in Okanogan County will lead the development of a baseline assessment and management plan to guide the protection of the land and Location: Winthrop, Okanogan County, Wash. enhancement of the riparian habitat for fish. The management plan will be updated periodically to account 1 Acres: for changes on the property and consider the best Fact Sheet available science. Partners: The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Methow Conservancy For more information Purpose: The Bonneville Power Administration is Bonneville Power AdministrAtion: proposing to fund the purchase of land in the Methow Jay Marcotte, project manager, 800-622-4519 or River watershed in north-central Washington to protect 503-230-3943, [email protected] fish habitat. This property was chosen to ensure the ongoingFact success of existing riparianSheet protection projects in ConfederAted triBes And BAnds of the Cedarosa area. The Methow Conservancy already has the YAkAmA Nation: conservation easements on 20 nearby properties. The Brandon Rogers, tribal biologist, 509-949-4109, Methow River watershed is important for fish conservation [email protected] because it supports populations of Upper Columbia spring the methow ConservAncy: chinook salmon, Upper Columbia steelhead, and Jeanne White, conservation project manager, Columbia River bull trout, which are all listed as threatened 1-509-996-2870, [email protected] or endangeredFact under the Endangered Sheet Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wild Cascades
    THE WILD CASCADES Fall, 1984 2 The Wild Cascades PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ONCE THE LINES ARE DRAWN, THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER The North Cascades Conservation Council has developed a reputation for consistent, hard-hitting, responsible action to protect wildland resources in the Washington Cascades. It is perhaps best known for leading the fight to preserve and protect the North Cascades in the North Cascades National Park, the Pasayten and Glacier Peak Wilderness Areas, and the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas. Despite the recent passage of the Washington Wilderness Act, many areas which deserve and require wilderness designation remain unprotected. One of the goals of the N3C must be to assure protection for these areas. In this issue of the Wild Cascades we have analyzed the Washington Wilderness Act to see what we won and what still hangs in the balance (page ). The N3C will continue to fight to establish new wilderness areas, but there is also a new challenge. Our expertise is increasingly being sought by government agencies to assist in developing appropriate management plans and to support them against attempts to undermine such plans. The invitation to participate more fully in management activities will require considerable effort, but it represents a challenge and an opportunity that cannot be ignored. If we are to meet this challenge we will need members who are either knowledgable or willing to learn about an issue and to guide the Board in its actions. The Spring issue of the Wild Cascades carried a center section with two requests: 1) volunteers to assist and guide the organization on various issues; and 2) payment of dues.
    [Show full text]
  • Okanagan Ecoregional Assessment  Volume 1  Report
    VOLUME Okanagan 1 Ecoregional Assessment REPORT October 2006 OKANAGAN ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT VOLUME 1 REPORT Okanagan Ecoregional Assessment October 2006 Prepared by Nature Conservancy of Canada The Nature Conservancy of Washington and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife OKANAGAN ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT VOLUME 1 REPORT Okanagan Ecoregional Assessment Volume 1 – Report Citation: Pryce, B., P. Iachetti, G. Wilhere, K. Ciruna, J. Floberg, R. Crawford, R. Dye, M. Fairbarns, S. Farone, S. Ford, M. Goering, M. Heiner, G. Kittel, J. Lewis, D. Nicolson, and N. Warner. 2006. Okanagan Ecoregional Assessment, Volume 1 – Report. Prepared by Nature Conservancy of Canada, The Nature Conservancy of Washington, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife with support from the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre, Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program, and NatureServe. Nature Conservancy of Canada, Victoria, British Columbia. Cover Design: Paul Mazzucca Copyright © 2006 Nature Conservancy of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia Issued by: The Nature Conservancy of Canada Cover Photo Credits: #300 – 1205 Broad Street Methow Valley, Robin Dye; Western screech owl, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 2A4 A.M. Bezener/One Wild Earth Photography; Great Email: [email protected] basin spadefoot toad, A.M. Bezener/One Wild Earth Photography; Seton Lake, Ian Routley; Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data: Townsends big-eared bat, Harry van Oort; Mormon metalmark, Orville Dyer; East Chopaka, ISBN 1-897386-00-1 Barbara Pryce; Mountain bluebird, Ian Routley; 1. Biological inventory and assessment – Sockeye salmon, Kristy Ciruna; Badgers, Philippe Okanagan. Verkerk; Lynx, Grant Merrill; Mountain lady’s I. Nature Conservancy of Canada. slipper, George Thornton; Long-billed curlew, Ian II.
    [Show full text]
  • Chelan and Methow River Basins Washington
    Wm. A. l $. DEPABTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DiBECTOB WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 376 PROFILE SURVEYS IN CHELAN AND METHOW RIVER BASINS WASHINGTON PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. B. MARSHALL, CHIEF GEOGEAPHEE Prepared In cooperation with THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON GOVEENMENT FEINTING OFFICE 1915 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 376 PROFILE SURVEYS IN CHELAN AND METHOW RIVER BASINS WASHINGTON PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. B. MARSHALL, CHIEF GEOGRAPHER c!> Prepared in cooperation with O^4>^ THE STATE OP WASHINGTON *& " WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Introduction.............................................................. 5 Chelan River basin, Washington............................................. 5 General features....................................................... 5 Gaging stations......................................................... 6 Methow River basin, Washington........................................... 6 General features..................................^.................... 6 Gaging stations........................................................ 7 Publications.............................................................. 7 ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES I-III. Plan and profile of Stehekin River below Bridge Creek, Rail­ road Creek near Lucerne, and Chelan River from lake to mouth, Wash. (3 sheets, A-C)................. At end of volume. IV-V. Plan and profile of Methow River from Pateros
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State's Scenic Byways & Road Trips
    waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS inSide: Road Maps & Scenic drives planning tips points of interest 2 taBLe of contentS waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS introduction 3 Washington State’s Scenic Byways & Road Trips guide has been made possible State Map overview of Scenic Byways 4 through funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s National Scenic Byways Program, Washington State Department of Transportation and aLL aMeRican RoadS Washington State Tourism. waShington State depaRtMent of coMMeRce Chinook Pass Scenic Byway 9 director, Rogers Weed International Selkirk Loop 15 waShington State touRiSM executive director, Marsha Massey nationaL Scenic BywayS Marketing Manager, Betsy Gabel product development Manager, Michelle Campbell Coulee Corridor 21 waShington State depaRtMent of tRanSpoRtation Mountains to Sound Greenway 25 Secretary of transportation, Paula Hammond director, highways and Local programs, Kathleen Davis Stevens Pass Greenway 29 Scenic Byways coordinator, Ed Spilker Strait of Juan de Fuca - Highway 112 33 Byway leaders and an interagency advisory group with representatives from the White Pass Scenic Byway 37 Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Washington State Tourism, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and State Scenic BywayS Audubon Washington were also instrumental in the creation of this guide. Cape Flattery Tribal Scenic Byway 40 puBLiShing SeRviceS pRovided By deStination
    [Show full text]
  • Methow Headwaters Minneral Withdrawal Environmental
    United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of the Interior 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Forest Service Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest August 2018 For More Information Contact: Jason Peterson Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Wenatchee, WA 97504 Phone: 509-664-9395 Email: jnpeterson.fs.fed.us In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at Filing a Program Discrimination Complaint with USDA and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Methow River Reach Assessment December 2015 UPPER METHOW RIVER REACH ASSESSMENT
    Appendix D Historical Conditions and Human Disturbance History Upper Methow River Reach Assessment December 2015 UPPER METHOW RIVER REACH ASSESSMENT Contents 1 Native Americans .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Explorers, Fur Trappers, Traders and Miners ....................................................................................... 2 3 Timber Harvest, Livestock Grazing, and Other Land Use .................................................................... 12 4 References .......................................................................................................................................... 19 D‐i UPPER METHOW RIVER REACH ASSESSMENT 1 Native Americans Native Americans first arrived in the region 8,000 – 10,000 years ago, and originally stayed in the Methow Valley year‐round. Early documents reveal inhabitants were members of three major bands of the Sinkaietk people (or Northern Okanagans). The territory of the Methow encompassed most of the drainage of the Methow River, though they moved throughout the valley during the seasons as they hunted, fished, and gathered (USBR 2008). During the extreme winters, they sheltered in large pit houses dug down several feet into the ground. Figure 1. Dwellings made of poles, rush mats and canvas were used by members of the Methow tribe. A photograph taken near Lake Wenatchee shows an example of similar styles of houses. Photo courtesy of Richard Hart and the Confederated Colville
    [Show full text]
  • Forest and Water Climate Adaptation: a Plan for Whatcom County
    Forest and Water Climate Adaptation: A Plan for Whatcom County, WA Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Model Forest Policy Program Cumberland River Compact FOREWORD In 2010, the Model Forest Policy Program (MFPP), the Cumberland River Compact, and the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) came together to create a climate adaptation plan for the community of Whatcom County, Washington. It came about because MFPP recognized the critical need for local community resilience against the impacts of climate change by protecting forest and water resources. This climate adap- tation plan for Whatcom County, WA presents the results of a year of community team effort, deep and broad information gathering, critical analysis and thoughtful planning. NSEA took the local leadership role to engage with the Climate Solutions University: Forest and Water Strategies program (CSU) and lead their community toward climate resilience with an adaptation plan that addresses their local climate risks and fi ts their local conditions and culture. This achievement was made possible by the guidance and coaching of the Climate Solutions University: Forest and Water Strategies program (CSU) created by the Model Forest Policy Program in partnership with the Cumberland River Compact. The goal of CSU is to empower rural, underserved com- munities to become leaders in climate resilience using a cost effective distance learning program. The result of this collaborative effort is a powerful climate adaptation plan that the community can support and implement in coming years. The outcome will be a community that can better withstand impacts of climate upon their natural resources, economy and social structure in the decades to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Catch Record Cards & Codes
    Catch Record Cards Catch Record Card Codes The Catch Record Card is an important management tool for estimating the recreational catch of PUGET SOUND REGION sturgeon, steelhead, salmon, halibut, and Puget Sound Dungeness crab. A catch record card must be REMINDER! 824 Baker River 724 Dakota Creek (Whatcom Co.) 770 McAllister Creek (Thurston Co.) 814 Salt Creek (Clallam Co.) 874 Stillaguamish River, South Fork in your possession to fish for these species. Washington Administrative Code (WAC 220-56-175, WAC 825 Baker Lake 726 Deep Creek (Clallam Co.) 778 Minter Creek (Pierce/Kitsap Co.) 816 Samish River 832 Suiattle River 220-69-236) requires all kept sturgeon, steelhead, salmon, halibut, and Puget Sound Dungeness Return your Catch Record Cards 784 Berry Creek 728 Deschutes River 782 Morse Creek (Clallam Co.) 828 Sauk River 854 Sultan River crab to be recorded on your Catch Record Card, and requires all anglers to return their fish Catch by the date printed on the card 812 Big Quilcene River 732 Dewatto River 786 Nisqually River 818 Sekiu River 878 Tahuya River Record Card by April 30, or for Dungeness crab by the date indicated on the card, even if nothing “With or Without Catch” 748 Big Soos Creek 734 Dosewallips River 794 Nooksack River (below North Fork) 830 Skagit River 856 Tokul Creek is caught or you did not fish. Please use the instruction sheet issued with your card. Please return 708 Burley Creek (Kitsap Co.) 736 Duckabush River 790 Nooksack River, North Fork 834 Skokomish River (Mason Co.) 858 Tolt River Catch Record Cards to: WDFW CRC Unit, PO Box 43142, Olympia WA 98504-3142.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum of Agreement Between Trout Unlimited’S Washington Water Project and Methow Valley Irrigation District
    MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN TROUT UNLIMITED’S WASHINGTON WATER PROJECT AND METHOW VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT I. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT AND STATEMENT OF INTENT The purpose of this MOA is to set forth the terms, obligations, and responsibilities by which TROUT UNLIMITED’S WASHINGTON WATER PROJECT (TU) and METHOW VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MVID) will work together to accomplish planning, design, and construction of an alternative delivery system for it’s members on the West Canal and lay the ground work for future upgrades to the East Canal. TU has applied for funding for the West Canal project. If for some reason that funding is not available then this agreement is void. II. PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT This MOA is between the Trout Unlimited’s Washington Water Project, a non-profit corporation at 103 Palouse, Suite 14, WA 98801 and the Methow Valley Irrigation District, formed pursuant to chapter 87.03 RCW at PO Box 860, Twisp, WA 98856. The laws of the State of Washington govern the MOA. In consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein, TU and MVID agree as stated in this document. III. RECITALS 1. MVID is an irrigation district operating an irrigation system including a West Canal with a diversion from the Twisp River and an East Canal with a diversion from the Methow River. 2. MVID holds Surface Water Right Claim No. 003935, filed with Ecology on April 1, 1971. This claim has a priority date preceding the enactment of the surface water code in 1917. The claim is for the right to divert 120 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Twisp River, for the irrigation of 705 acres of land within the MVID, lying west of the Methow River.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges, Assets, and Opportunities in the Columbia River Basin
    Challenges, Assets, and Opportunities in the Columbia River Basin Stephen M. Waste, Director Columbia River Research Laboratory Western Fisheries Research Center U.S. Geological Survey Part I. Challenges Still the Balkans, after all these years! ► Legacy – Fragmentation, stove piping, turf battles, litigation and treaties ► Today – complex, societal scale issues, will affect multiple species and habitats ► Tomorrow – How do we address scientific uncertainty? . End the battle of the “experts” in protracted litigation . Break circularity perpetuated by lack of agreement on facts . By determining the facts, fundamental science can shrink the uncertainty surrounding management options Key driver in Columbia River Basin: Endangered Species Act ►Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy (All H Approach) – Federal Caucus ►ESA Recovery Plans and FCRPS BiOp Implementation Plans – NMFS ►Large scale monitoring for forest health (AREMP, PiBo) – USFS Is the CR Federal Caucus addressing landscape scale issues? ►Action Agencies = ACOE, BOR, and the Bonneville Power Administration ►Regulatory Agencies = National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service ►Unaligned agencies = USGS, EPA, NPS, NRCS Regional dynamics ► Money – Status Quo Maintenance, Washington a beneficiary of differential tariff rates ► Politics – Neighbors but not friends, Oregon v. Washington, divergent politics/economics ► Planning – BPA Fish Accords with CRITFC, why did this happen? NPCC ► Science – Loss of state agency research capacities in Oregon, Washington, and California
    [Show full text]