Definition of Navigable Streams

[addicted1]

Reading BHA's BackCountry Journal I found out that for Washington, a stream must be able to float a bolt of shingles to be considered Navigable. I have always assumed if I could wade through one, without having to forge a path through fallen trees and such it was probably okay.

Just wondering if someone knows the dimension of a bolt of shingles? I can't find much with a quick search, but sounds like a block of wood that is used for making shingles?

[DOUBLELUNG]

I found a fascinating board on which knowledgeable folks were discussing shingle bolts, and one wrote: "Blocks or bolts?  To me and I think this is the consensus around here a bolt is the length of three shingle blocks. Before my time they used to cut cedar bolts and they were 4' long, 16" x 3. Once they arrived at the mill they were bucked to length for shingles.
 There is no such thing as a bolt cut anymore. Everything is made into blocks. Blocks are the proper length to go right to the saws."

If I read this correctly, you are looking for the ability to float 4'x16"x3" unimpeded.  Or is that 4'x3'x16"?  Now, what THOSE stream dimensions are ... is still up to interpretation.  And, the intent was for many shingle bolts to be floated during high water. 

When I worked for the state of Wyoming, navigable was considered anything that could be floated/paddled by canoe downstream without portaging or otherwise having to exit the canoe.

A couple of cool reads on shingle bolts:

   http://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/cedar-shake-bolts.123549/

http://www.monroehistoricalsociety.org/stories/memories-of-long-ago/8-the-shingle-bolt-wars/

[Sumpnneedskillin]

Never heard about the bolt of shingles.  Here's what Washington Administrative Code says which is very similar to the Federal definition.

"Navigability or navigable" means that a body of water is capable or susceptible of having been or being used for the transport of useful commerce. The state of Washington considers all bodies of water meandered by government surveyors as navigable unless otherwise declared by a court.

[Encore 280]

So do the Coast Guard International Rules of the Road apply or Inland Rules of the Road?

[Special T]

Coast guard and EPA have different definitions of navigable waters.   Coast guard it's all bays and river that flows into the sound. I'm pretty sure it only applies to the Columbia,&snake  but may include the rivers like the Yakima

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

Coast guard and EPA have different definitions of navigable waters.   Coast guard it's all bays and river that flows into the sound. I'm pretty sure it only applies to the Columbia,&snake  but may include the rivers like the Yakima

This is the Coast Guard definition:
(1) Territorial seas of the United States;
(2) Internal waters of the United States that are subject to tidal influence; and
(3) Internal waters of the United States not subject to tidal influence that:
(i) Are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage, or
(ii) A governmental or non-governmental body, having expertise in waterway improvement, determines to be capable of improvement at a reasonable cost (a favorable balance between cost and need) to provide, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce.

Attached are the 14  pages of rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. that the USCG and US Army Corps of Engineers considers to be navigable waters in WA: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/regulatory/permit%20guidebook/Navigable_Waters_of_the_US_in_WA_State.pdf

[fireweed]

here's how the DNR explains it.  http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/aqr_aquatic_land_boundaries.pdf

The "shake bolt" dimensions come from streams actually being used for commerce to move bolts in the past.  Many streams in W. Wa were used to move logs and bolts.  My great grandfather  cut shake bolts,  "branded" them with his mark, and slid them on wooden chutes to the side of the North Toutle River by Kid valley where he had a camp.   When the spring rains came, the bolts washed down to Castle Rock and the mill.  This history is proof  the N. Toutle is "navigable", even though on the DNR website the Toutle is only navigable to the forks.  Ultimately, if there is a question about navigability the courts decide on a river by river basis, based on the past or current use of the river, or its potential to be used for commerce. 

[addicted1]

Thanks for the info. Never know when you might need to use a stream to access an area, so this has cleared somethings uo for me.

[Bofire]

When I cut Cedar the bolts were 26 inch, as you had to get a minimum of a 24 inch shake out of them.
 
Carl

[Booman2]

Compounding the confusion, the bottom of streams is sometimes an issue. for example, on the East Fork, Lewis River and Kalama, some property owners claim the river bottom and will not allow anchoring. Their claim is that their survey shows ownership to the center of the river, or whatever. In the case of the Kalama, a sheriff once told me he didn't care, he would not enforce against anyone dropping anchor while fishing. On the East Fork, a landowner and fishing author Bill Stinson, asked me to pull my anchor since he "owned the bottom."
The Coast Guard district office in Seattle publishes a list of navigable waters within the district.
Regardless, locals sometimes try to exert pressure to prohibit access, even in cases where WDFW paid money for sport access - Greys River comes to mind.

[fireweed]

Just returned from Montana, and they have a "stream access law" that tackles the problem of some landowners claiming to own the bottom of the stream.  Their law says that recreational stream users (fishing/boating) can use any waterway capable of recreation if the public stays below the high water mark  REGARDLESS of ownership of the bottom.  The streams don't need to be navigable either.

[Sandberm]

Holy cow. The things Ive never thought of or encountered. Land owners just want it all I guess.

Question....Can I use the personal docks on the Pasco side of the Columbia river because they are sticking out permanantly into my river?

[addicted1]

Not sure about this state, but I know in some areas you can use docks. Colorado is crazy, if you float a river  you can't anchor, or pull to shore without trespassing. Unless you are on public land. I believe our state allows you to use the river bottom, but there are probably some special circumstances.

[dwils233]

For some reason I know that the Little Spokane River has some pretty unique access problems compared to most waterways in the state

[KFhunter]

Compounding the confusion, the bottom of streams is sometimes an issue. for example, on the East Fork, Lewis River and Kalama, some property owners claim the river bottom and will not allow anchoring. Their claim is that their survey shows ownership to the center of the river, or whatever. In the case of the Kalama, a sheriff once told me he didn't care, he would not enforce against anyone dropping anchor while fishing. On the East Fork, a landowner and fishing author Bill Stinson, asked me to pull my anchor since he "owned the bottom."
The Coast Guard district office in Seattle publishes a list of navigable waters within the district.
Regardless, locals sometimes try to exert pressure to prohibit access, even in cases where WDFW paid money for sport access - Greys River comes to mind.

My property deed says something like: "to the center line of the main channel of the river"   so technically if you're floating past the house on a tube and riding a bit too low and bounce your butt off the rocks you've trespassed 

Having said that, I don't know any law enforcement that would pursue that nor would I yell off my deck to get off my land    The old guy up the river did, he was a mean old codger.