DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Pilchuck River Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Pilchuck River Assessment Lower Pilchuck River Assessment December 31, 2018 Prepared for Snohomish County Surface Water Management Lower Pilchuck River Assessment Contact Information Document Information Cardno Prepared for Snohomish County Surface Water 801 Second Avenue Management Division Suite 1150 3000 Rockefeller Avenue Seattle, WA, 98104, USA Everett, WA 98201 Telephone: +1.206.269.0104 www.cardno.com Project Name Lower Pilchuck River Assessment Date December 2018, Final December 2018, Final Cardno Document Information i Lower Pilchuck River Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank ii Document Information Cardno December 2018, Final Lower Pilchuck River Assessment Table of Contents 1 Background and Purpose .............................................................................................. 1-1 2 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Geologic Setting ............................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Prior Work ......................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Gravel Mining ................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.5 Fish Habitat ...................................................................................................................... 2-4 3 Restoration Planning and Prioritization ........................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Approach .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Reach-By-Reach Conditions and Potential Actions ......................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Reach 8 ............................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.3 Reach 7 ............................................................................................................. 3-5 3.2.4 Reach 6 ............................................................................................................. 3-7 3.2.5 Reach 5 ............................................................................................................. 3-9 3.2.6 Reach 4 ........................................................................................................... 3-12 3.2.7 Reach 3 ........................................................................................................... 3-14 3.2.8 Reach 2 ........................................................................................................... 3-17 3.2.9 Reach 1 ........................................................................................................... 3-19 4 Implications for Restoration .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Conditions of Geomorphic Process Functions and Fish Use in the Study Area .............. 4-1 4.2 Conceptual Restoration Project Types ............................................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 Riparian Enhancement ..................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 Floodplain and Off-Channel Habitat Reconnection .......................................... 4-4 4.2.4 Instream Structural Enhancement .................................................................... 4-4 4.3 Reach-Scale Priorities ...................................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 Summary of Restoration Needs and Opportunities .......................................................... 4-6 5 References ....................................................................................................................... 5-1 Appendices Appendix A Habitat Technical Report Appendix B Geomorphic Assessment of Lower Pilchuck River Appendix C Channel Profile of Lower Pilchuck River Appendix D Maps Appendix E Field and GIS Methods Appendix F Conceptual Project Designs December 2018, Final Cardno Table of Contents i Lower Pilchuck River Assessment Tables Table 2-1 Basic Reach Characteristics of the Lower Pilchuck River ............................................... 2-1 Table 2-2 Summary of Fish Habitat Data, Organized by Reach, from Data Collected 2016– 2018 (see Appendix A). ................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 4-1 Relative Condition of Geomorphic Process Functions in the Lower Pilchuck River, by Reach. ............................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2 Additional Factors to Prioritize Restoration Opportunities ............................................... 4-2 Table 4-3 Categories of Restoration Actions and Project Types1 .................................................... 4-2 Table 4-4 Summary of Recommended Priority Restoration Actions.............................................. 4-55 Figures Figure 1-1 The Lower Pilchuck River, constituting the Study Area for this report. ............................ 1-2 Figure 2-1 Mainstem Lower Pilchuck River temperatures for summer 2016.. .................................. 2-5 Figure 3-1 Reach 8 overview maps. .................................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-2 Representative view of the reach near the head of Reach 8 (looking downstream) ....... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Major cliff/gully system near the bottom of Reach 8 (looking downstream). ................... 3-4 Figure 3-4 Reach 7 overview maps. .................................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-5 View of relatively unconstrained, modern floodplain in the lower portion of Reach 7. ...................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-6 Reach 6 overview maps. .................................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-7 Area of relatively unconstrained active channel migration and gravel deposition, lower Reach 6 (looking upstream). .................................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-8 Reach 5 overview maps. .................................................................................................. 3-9 Figure 3-9 Downstream view of confined channel near head of Reach 5. ..................................... 3-10 Figure 3-10 Log accumulation near the lower end of Reach 5 in an area of relatively active meandering. ................................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-11 Reach 4 overview maps. ................................................................................................ 3-12 Figure 3-12 Reach 4 looking downstream toward the US Highway 2 crossing (just out of view). .............................................................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-13 Reach 3 overview maps. ................................................................................................ 3-14 Figure 3-14 Area of active channel migration in the upper part of Reach 3 (view downstream). ..... 3-15 Figure 3-15 US Highway 2 runoff entering the Lower Pilchuck River (foreground, flowing left to right) near the bottom of Reach 3. ............................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-16 Change in stage for a constant discharge range at USGS gage 12155300 (Three Lakes Road bridge). ....................................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-17 Reach 2 overview maps. ................................................................................................ 3-17 Figure 3-18 Downstream view in mid-Reach 2, with outcrop of the resistant terrace sediments confining the RB of the river in this area. ....................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-19 Limited area of channel migration and lateral bar development, in lower Reach 2 ....... 3-18 ii Table of Contents Cardno December 2018, Final Lower Pilchuck River Assessment Figure 3-20 Reach 1 overview maps. ................................................................................................ 3-19 Figure 3-21 Wood accumulation at the sharp bend in the river just downstream of the 2nd Street bridge. .................................................................................................................. 3-20 Figure 3-22 Armored, confined channel downstream of the Old Snohomish-Monroe Road crossing. ......................................................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 4-1 Bank protection under construction along Orchard Avenue, August 2018. ..................... 4-3 December 2018, Final Cardno Background and Purpose iii Lower Pilchuck River Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank iv Table of Contents Cardno December 2018, Final Lower Pilchuck River Assessment 1 Background and Purpose The Pilchuck River, a tributary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classifying Rivers - Three Stages of River Development
    Classifying Rivers - Three Stages of River Development River Characteristics - Sediment Transport - River Velocity - Terminology The illustrations below represent the 3 general classifications into which rivers are placed according to specific characteristics. These categories are: Youthful, Mature and Old Age. A Rejuvenated River, one with a gradient that is raised by the earth's movement, can be an old age river that returns to a Youthful State, and which repeats the cycle of stages once again. A brief overview of each stage of river development begins after the images. A list of pertinent vocabulary appears at the bottom of this document. You may wish to consult it so that you will be aware of terminology used in the descriptive text that follows. Characteristics found in the 3 Stages of River Development: L. Immoor 2006 Geoteach.com 1 Youthful River: Perhaps the most dynamic of all rivers is a Youthful River. Rafters seeking an exciting ride will surely gravitate towards a young river for their recreational thrills. Characteristically youthful rivers are found at higher elevations, in mountainous areas, where the slope of the land is steeper. Water that flows over such a landscape will flow very fast. Youthful rivers can be a tributary of a larger and older river, hundreds of miles away and, in fact, they may be close to the headwaters (the beginning) of that larger river. Upon observation of a Youthful River, here is what one might see: 1. The river flowing down a steep gradient (slope). 2. The channel is deeper than it is wide and V-shaped due to downcutting rather than lateral (side-to-side) erosion.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Channel and Vegetation Monitoring Reportreport,,,, 2005 Through 2008
    Resurrection Creek Stream and Riparian Restoration Project Stream Channel and Vegetation Monitoring ReportReport,,,, 2005 through 2008 USDA Forest Service Chugach National Forest January 2009 Resurrection Creek Restoration Monitoring Report January 2009 Resurrection Creek Stream and Riparian Restoration Project Stream Channel and Vegetation Monitoring Report 2005 through 2008 USDA Forest Service Chugach National Forest Seward Ranger District Bill MacFarlane, Chugach National Forest Hydrologist Rob DeVelice, Chugach National Forest Ecologist Dean Davidson, Chugach National Forest Soil Scientist (retired) January 2009 1 Resurrection Creek Restoration Monitoring Report January 2009 Summary______________________________________________________________ The Resurrection Creek Stream Restoration project was implemented in 2005 and 2006, with project area revegetation continuing through 2008. Stream channel morphology and vegetation have been monitored in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. This report compiles the 2008 data and summarizes the 4 years of monitoring data and the short-term response of the project area to the restoration. Each of the project objectives established prior to the implementation of this project were fully or partially accomplished. These included variables that quantify channel pattern, channel profile, side channels, aquatic habitat, and riparian vegetation. While the target values may not have been met in all cases, the intent of each objective was met through restoration. The response of the project area in the 3 years following restoration represents the short- term response to restoration. While numerous changes can occur in this period as the morphology and vegetation adjusts to the new conditions, no major channel changes have occurred on Resurrection Creek or its side channels, and vegetation growth in the riparian area has occurred as expected.
    [Show full text]
  • Johnson Creek Restoration Project Effectiveness Monitoring
    Bureau of Environmental Services • City of Portland Johnson Creek Restoration Projects Effectiveness Monitoring Reporting on data collected from 1997 through 2010 DECEMBER 2012 Dan Saltzman, Commissioner Dean Marriott, Director Dan Saltzman, Commissioner • Dean Marriott, Director Acknowledgements Implementation of the effectiveness monitoring program for restoration projects in the Johnson Creek Watershed has drawn on the expertise, support, and dedication of a number of individuals. We thank them for making this report possible. City of Portland, Environmental Services Staff Jennifer Antak, Johnson Creek Effectiveness Monitoring Program Lead Sean Bistoff Trevor Diemer Mathew Dorfman Steven Kass Theophilus Malone Chris Prescott Gregory Savage Wendy Sletten Maggie Skenderian Ali Young Supporting Organizations and Consultants Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Salmon River Engineering ‐ Janet Corsale, PE CPESC Portland State University ‐ Denisse Fisher Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Johnson Creek Overview ...................................................................................................1 Project Effectiveness Monitoring Program....................................................................12 Overview ........................................................................................................................12 Monitoring Methods.....................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Lateral Migration of the Red River, in the Vicinity of Grand Forks, North Dakota Dylan Babiracki
    University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Undergraduate Theses and Senior Projects Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects 2015 Lateral Migration of the Red River, in the Vicinity of Grand Forks, North Dakota Dylan Babiracki Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/senior-projects Recommended Citation Babiracki, Dylan, "Lateral Migration of the Red River, in the Vicinity of Grand Forks, North Dakota" (2015). Undergraduate Theses and Senior Projects. 114. https://commons.und.edu/senior-projects/114 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Theses and Senior Projects by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. | 1 Lateral migration of the Red River, in the vicinity of Grand Forks, North Dakota Dylan Babiracki Harold Hamm School of Geology and Geologic Engineering, University of North Dakota, 81 Cornell St., Grand Forks, ND 58202-8358 1. Abstract River channels are dynamic landforms that play an important role in understanding the alluvial changes occurring within this area. The evolution of the Red River of the North within the shallow alluvial valley was investigated within a 60 river mile area north and south of Grand Forks, North Dakota. Despite considerable research along the Red River of the North, near St. Jean Baptiste, Manitoba, little is known about the historical channel dynamics within the defined study area. A series of 31 measurements were taken using three separate methods to document the path of lateral channel migration along areas of this highly sinuous, low- gradient river.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-2018 Fishing in Washington Sport Fishing Rules Pamphlet
    Sport Fishing Rules Pamphlet Corrections and Updates July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 Last updated June 28, 2017. Marine Area Rules Page 98, LANDING A FISH - A club or dipnet (landing net) may be used to assist landing a legal fish taken by legal gear. A gaff may only be used to land a legally hooked LINGCOD (in Marine Areas 1-3 and 4 West of Bonilla-Tatoosh line), HALIBUT, TUNA, or DOGFISH SHARK that will be retained. HALIBUT may be shot or harpooned while landing. Photo By Scott Mayfield General Information Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Dr. Jim Unsworth, Director Ron Warren, Assistant Director, Fish Program Contents General Information General Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission GENERAL RULES & INFORMATION Dr. Bradley Smith, Chair, Bellingham Jay Kehne, Omak Contact Information ..................................2 Larry Carpenter, Vice Chair, Mount Vernon Miranda Wecker, Naselle Update From WDFW ................................3 Barbara Baker, Olympia Kim Thorburn, Spokane Statewide General Rules .........................4 Jay Holzmiller, Anatone David Graybill, Leavenworth Salmon and Trout Handling Rules ............5 Rules Robert “Bob” Kehoe, Seattle License Information ...............................6-7 Catch Record Cards .................................8 Freshwater Catch Record Card Codes .......................9 How to Use This Pamphlet Definitions ..........................................10-11 FRESHWATER GENERAL RULES This pamphlet is effective July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 Statewide Freshwater Rules..............13-15 and contains information you need to legally fish throughout RIVERS .............................................17-73 Washington State (see WAC summary information below). Special Rules Introduction ..................17 Puget Sound Puget Puget Sound and Coast Rivers - Rivers & Coast 1 Read the General Information Pages. Special Rules ...................................18-46 Read the Licensing and Catch Record Card information.
    [Show full text]
  • Ink Bayou Prospectus
    Prospectus for the ARDOT Ink Bayou Mitigation Bank Pulaski County, Arkansas Arkansas Department of Transportation January 2019 The Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT) proposes the establishment of a wetland mitigation bank in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The mitigation area is located just west of Interstate 440, southeast of Highway 161 and north of Interstate 40 near McAlmont, Arkansas (Figure 1). ARDOT’s Rixey Bayou Mitigation Area is located approximately 0.7 mile north of the proposed bank site. This 436.86-acre site includes portions of sections 14, 15, and 16, Township 2 North, Range 11 West (Figure 2). The property was purchased by ARDOT expressly to mitigate wetland impacts resulting from highway construction and maintenance activities. The property would be used for compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts resulting from ARDOT highway activities authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A. Management Goal and Objectives: The management goal for the mitigation bank is the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of wetlands and associated uplands. Objectives include the preservation of existing forested wetlands and the enhancement of existing wetlands through reforestation of agricultural land with bottomland hardwood tree species. The past, associated agricultural practices will be removed from the property. There is a total of 269.99 acres of wetlands on the proposed mitigation bank site. There is a 0.6-acre permittee responsible mitigation area that is not included as part of the mitigation bank acreage. Eligible acreage includes: 137.01 acres of wetland preservation, and 132.38 acres of wetland enhancement that will be reforested with bottomland hardwood trees (Figure 3).
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Millennial Record of Erosion and Fires in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains, USA
    Chapter 8 Multi-millennial Record of Erosion and Fires in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains, USA David S. Leigh Abstract Bottomland sediments from the southern Blue Ridge Mountains provide a coarse-resolution, multi-millennial stratigraphic record of past regional forest disturbance (soil erosion). This record is represented by 12 separate vertical accre- tion stratigraphic profi les that have been dated by radiocarbon, luminescence, cesium-137, and correlation methods continuously spanning the past 3,000 years of pre-settlement (pre-dating widespread European American settlement) and post- settlement strata. Post-settlement vertical accretion began in the late 1800s, appears to be about an order of magnitude faster than pre-settlement rates, and is attribut- able to widespread deforestation for timber harvest, farming, housing develop- ment, and other erosive activities of people. Natural, climate-driven, or non-anthropic forest disturbance is subtle and diffi cult to recognize in pre-settle- ment deposits. There is no indication that pre-settlement Mississippian and Cherokee agricultural activities accelerated erosion and sedimentation in the region. A continuous 11,244 years before present (BP) vertical accretion record from a meander scar in the Upper Little Tennessee River valley indicates abundant charcoal (prevalent fi res) at the very beginning of the Holocene (11,244–10,900 years BP). In contrast, moderate to very low levels of charcoal are apparent over the remaining Holocene until about 2,400 years BP when charcoal infl ux registers a pronounced increase. These data are consistent with the idea that Native Americans used fi re extensively to manage forests and to expanded agricultural activities during Woodland and later cultural periods over the past 3000 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Planning in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain
    Conservation Planning in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain Photo courtesy of Nancy Webb The Nature Conservancy 2002 Conservation Planning in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Ecoregion 42) The Nature Conservancy May, 2002 For questions or comments on this document contact The Nature Conservancy at P.O. Box 4125, Baton Rouge, LA, 70821. (225) 338-1040 ii Preface The information presented herein is the result of four years of conservation planning and represents two iterations of the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (MSRAP) ecoregional plan as developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and many partners. The bulk of the text describes the process the MSRAP team undertook to: • identify important biological species, communities, and ecological systems, commonly referred to as “conservation targets,” existing in the ecoregion; and • select priority sites, or conservation areas, for biodiversity conservation based on the perceived viability of those targets. It should be noted that a considerable amount of time was spent developing data as few Heritage data, the common building blocks of TNC’s ecoregional plans, were available for the ecoregion. Much of the emphasis on data collection was focused on terrestrial targets. The dearth of aquatics data required that the team rely heavily on the use of coarse filter, abiotic information to identify aquatic systems warranting further investigation. To help fill the gap in aquatics data and better inform MSRAP conservation planning, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation provided funding to TNC’s Southeast Conservation Science Center and Freshwater Initiative to assess freshwater biodiversity in several southeast ecoregions including the Mississippi Embayment Basin (MEB), of which MSRAP is a part.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrative and Graphic Source Material
    Source descriptions for features in a geodatabase of Puget Sound’s pre-settlement river valley, estuary and nearshore habitats (September 14, 2008 version) Introduction This is a supplement to a Geographic Information System (GIS) geodatabase of the Puget Sound area’s riverine and nearshore environments as reconstructed for the pre- settlement (mid-19th century) era. It consists of descriptions of mapped features. The descriptions include source materials that were used, and discussion on how they were used. Features are primarily wetlands, channels, and landforms. Features are indexed by an identifying code that is linked to the geodatabase. The code consists of three letters that identify the river or oceanographic basin, followed by the township and range (all townships are North, and ranges are identified as East or West, by “E” or “W”) and a number given to features sequentially within each township. Some nearshore features are identified by a separate coding system consisting of a WRIA (Washington Water Resource Inventory Area) number and a unique number within the WRIA. Numerous excerpts from Public Land Survey (PLS) field notes are included; generally the notes’ idiosyncratic usage, grammar, and punctuation are preserved. At present this document contains source descriptions for aquatic habitats. With time descriptions will be added of additional features, or more information will be added for features already in the narrative (e.g., on the seasonal inundation characteristics of wetlands). Source descriptions will also be added for different types of features not included at this time (e.g., forest composition). How to cite this document: Collins, B. D. 2008. Source descriptions for features in a geodatabase of Puget Sound’s pre-settlement river valley, estuary and nearshore habitats (September 14, 2008 version).
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish River Tributaries Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load
    Snohomish River Tributaries Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Submittal Report June 2001 Publication Number 00-10-087 Snohomish River Tributaries Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Submittal Report by Robert J. Wright Randy Coots Robert F. Cusimano Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 June 2001 Publication Number 00-10-087 For additional copies of this document contact: Department of Ecology Publications Distribution Center P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Telephone: (360) 407-7472 If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in an alternative format, please call the secretary at (360) 407-6404. The TTY number is 711 or 1-800-833-6388 . Table of Contents List of Figures...................................................................................................................................ii List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................ii Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................................................2 Applicable Criteria ..........................................................................................................................6 Water Quality and Resource Impairments ...................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Pilchuck River Assessment Habitat Report
    MIDDLE PILCHUCK RIVER ASSESSMENT Habitat Report Prepared for Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board Prepared by Snohomish County Surface Water Management January 10, 2012 Acknowledgements Department of Public Works Steve Thomsen, P.E., Director Surface Water Management (SWM) Division Debbie Terwilleger, Director SWM Supervisors Kathy Thornburgh Karen Kerwin Mike McGuiness Gregg Farris John Engel Project Team Chris Nelson, Project Manager Cindy Flint Frank Leonetti Michael Rustay Bob Aldrich Dave Lucas Suzy Brunzell Report prepared by Frank Leonetti and Michael Rustay. Data sharing, field assistance and project planning were provided by Abby Hook (Tulalip Tribes), Anne Savery (Tulalip Tribes), Andy Haas, Brett Gaddis, Tong Tran, Chris Nelson, Michael Purser, Gi-Choul Ahn, Tim Walls, Peggy Walsh, Megan Morey, Kathryn Davis, Paul Fischer, Peter Verhey (WDFW), Tom Cox (WDFW), Paul DeVries (R2 Resources Inc.), City of Snohomish (for Pilchuck River access at Menzel Lake Road), and Bill Ward (Department of Ecology). Critical review and helpful improvements were provided by Cindy Flint, Gregg Farris, Kathy Thornburgh, Kevin Fetherston (R2 Resources Inc.), and Chris Nelson. The Middle Pilchuck River Assessment was funded through a Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant. Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act Response Planning
    City of Snohomish Endangered Species Act Response Planning Prepared for: City of Snohomish 116 Union Avenue Snohomish, Washington 98290 Prepared by: Steward and Associates 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, Washington 98290 www.stewardandassociates.com May 2004 City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTACTS Client: City of Snohomish 116 Union Avenue Snohomish, WA 98290 Contact: Larry Bauman Telephone: (360) 568-3115 Email: [email protected] Preparer: Steward and Associates 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, WA 98390 Contact: John Lombard Telephone: (360) 862-1255 Email: [email protected] i City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS CONTACTS I CONTENTS II FIGURES V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Why an “Endangered Species Act” Strategy? 2 1.1.1 Providing Compliance with Multiple Environmental Laws 4 1.1.2 Meeting the City’s Vision 5 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 7 2.1 SNOHOMISH RIVER 7 2.1.1 Fish and Wildlife 9 2.1.2 Wetlands 9 2.1.3 Water Quality 11 2.1.4 Habitat Quality 11 2.2 PILCHUCK RIVER 12 2.2.1 Fish and Wildlife 14 2.2.2 Wetlands 14 2.2.3 Water Quality 14 2.2.4 Habitat Quality 15 2.3 CEMETERY CREEK 18 2.3.1 Fish and wildlife 18 2.3.2 Wetlands 22 2.3.3 Water Quality 22 2.3.4 Habitat Quality 26 2.3.5 Confluence Wetland 26 2.3.6 Harkins Fork 26 2.3.7 Myricks Fork 27 2.4 BUNK FOSS CREEK 27 2.4.1 Fish and wildlife 30 2.4.2 Wetlands
    [Show full text]