DOCSLIB.ORG

Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park Unit Management Plan Approved

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park Unit Management Plan Approved YELLOW RIVER MARSH PRESERVE STATE PARK UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Recreation and Parks JUNE 13, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PLAN .....................................................................................1 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW......................................................................5 Management Authority and Responsibility ......................................................................5 Park Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................6 Management Coordination ..................................................................................................9 Public Participation.............................................................................................................10 Other Designations..............................................................................................................10 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPONENT INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................11 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT.......................................................11 Natural Resources...............................................................................................................11 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................22 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................23 Special Management Considerations ...............................................................................23 Management Needs and Problems...................................................................................25 Management Objectives.....................................................................................................27 Management Measures For Natural Resources ..............................................................28 Management Measures For Cultural Resources .............................................................33 Research Needs....................................................................................................................34 Resource Management Schedule.......................................................................................35 Land Management Review ................................................................................................36 i LAND USE COMPONENT INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................37 EXTERNAL CONDITIONS................................................................................................37 Existing Use of Adjacent Lands.........................................................................................38 Planned Use of Adjacent Lands.........................................................................................38 PROPERTY ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................39 Recreation Resource Elements...........................................................................................39 Assessment of Use...............................................................................................................41 Existing Facilities.................................................................................................................41 CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN ...................................................................................43 Potential Uses and Proposed Facilities.............................................................................43 Facilities Development........................................................................................................45 Existing Use and Optimum Carrying Capacity ..............................................................46 Optimum Boundary............................................................................................................46 TABLE TABLE 1 - Existing Use and Optimum Carrying Capacity.............................................46 LIST OF ADDENDA ADDENDUM 1 Acquisition History and Advisory Group Staff Report...................................... A 1 - 1 ADDENDUM 2 References Cited ....................................................................................................... A 2 - 1 ADDENDUM 3 Soil Descriptions ....................................................................................................... A 3 - 1 ii ADDENDUM 4 Plant and Animal List .............................................................................................. A 4 - 1 ADDENDUM 5 Designated Species List ........................................................................................... A 5 - 1 ADDENDUM 6 Timber Assessment .................................................................................................. A 6 - 1 ADDENDUM 7 Priority Schedule and Cost Estimates.................................................................... A 7 - 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FNAI Descriptions of Natural Communities ....................................................................1 DHR Cultural Management Procedures............................................................................9 MAPS Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................................2 Reference Map..........................................................................................................................3 Topographic Map...................................................................................................................12 Soils Map.................................................................................................................................14 Natural Communities Map ..................................................................................................18 Burn Zones Map.....................................................................................................................30 Base Map .................................................................................................................................42 Conceptual Land Use Plan ...................................................................................................44 Optimum Boundary Map .....................................................................................................47 iii INTRODUCTION Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park (815.47 acres) is located in southern Santa Rosa County; approximately 10 miles south of Milton (see Vicinity Map). Access to the preserve is from Garcon Point Road (State Road 191) along Dickerson City Road (see Reference Map). Pensacola is the nearest metropolitan area and lies about 10 miles west of the preserve. The preserve is south of Interstate 10 situated on a peninsula known as the Garcon Peninsula, which extends into the Pensacola Bay system. When all acquisitions are completed, I-10 will border the preserve on the north and Escambia Bay on the west. Two major north-south roads originating in Milton traverse the preserve. Garcon Point Road (State Road 191) runs along the eastern portion of the peninsula and Avalon Boulevard (County Road 281) runs along the western portion. Mary Kitchens Road is a paved two-lane road running east-west and bordering several parcels of the preserve. The vicinity map also reflects significant land and water resources existing near the preserve. At Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park, public outdoor recreation and conservation is the designated single use of the property (see Addendum 1). There are no legislative or executive directives that constrain the use of this property. The preserve was acquired by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) beginning in 2000 as part of the Florida Forever Garcon Ecosystem project using funds from the Conservation and Recreational Lands Program (CARL). The purpose of acquisition is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive lands, rare and listed plant and animal species, maintain water quality in Pensacola Bay, and allow the public to learn about and enjoy this unique natural environment. The property was previously managed by the Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas as the Yellow River Marsh State Buffer Preserve. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE PLAN This plan serves as the basic statement of policy and direction for the management of Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park as a unit of Florida's state park system. It identifies the objectives, criteria and standards that guide each aspect of park administration, and sets forth the specific measures that will be implemented to meet management objectives. The plan is intended to meet the requirements of Sections 253.034 and 259.032, Florida Statutes, Chapter 18-2, Florida Administrative Code, and intended to be consistent with the State Lands Management Plan. This is the initial management plan for this park. All development and resource alteration encompassed in this plan is subject to the granting of appropriate permits; easements, licenses, and other required legal
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]
  • 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]
  • Principles of Underfit Streams
    Principles of Underfit Streams GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 452-A Principles of Underfit Streams By G. H. DURY GENERAL THEORY OF MEANDERING VALLEYS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 452-A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director First printing 1964 Second printing 1967 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Page Abstract.--_----_-__---_-_-_._____._.._______._____ Al Principles of underfit streams Continued Introduction --.--_.__.________,______._._____.__._. 1 Regional distribution and a regional hypothesis.___ A26 Acknowledgments__ _ _ _____________________________ 3 Climatic hypothesis and underfitness other than Perspective on terminology.-._-_---_______-__-_____- 4 manifest. ____________-_----_--_--__------ 29 Principles of underfit streams_______________________ 9 Meandering tendency of a drainage ditch __ 32 Diversion unnecessary__-_______________,________ 9 Creeks in Iowa------------------------- 33 Diversions other than capture the question of spill­ Humboldt River, Nev___________________ 35 ways --_--__-_____________--________________- 16 Shenandoah River, Va-__-----_-_-------- 36 Ozarks and Salt and Cuivre River basins, Wabash River, Ind., and glacial Lake Whittle- Missouri- _-_______-_---_--__---_----- 39 sey ---__..______-________..___.__-_._- 17 Rivers in New England________________ 47 Souris River at Minot, N. Dak...____________ 18 Canyons in Arizona.____________________ 55 Sheyenne River, N. Dak., and glacial Lake Problems of the influence of bedrock. _________ 59 Agassiz._________________________________ 18 Canyons as flumes._____________________ 63 Stratford Avon, England, and glacial Lake Summary __________________________________________ 65 Harrison __ _____________________________ 22 References cited---_-_-----__-----____-------------- 66 ILLUSTRATIONS Page PLATE 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Geography
    PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY EARTH SYSTEMS FLUVIAL SYSTEMS COASTAL SYSTEMS FLUVIAL SYSTEMS FLUVIAL SYSTEMS HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE • The global hydrological cycle is the movement of water between atmosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere • Evaporation is the change of water in the oceans and on the surface of the earth to water vapour • Evapotranspiration includes evaporation and the loss of water from plants by transpiration • Condensation is the change of water back to water droplets in the atmosphere which we see as clouds • Precipitation includes all the ways in which the water is returned to the surface of the earth (rain etc.) • When it reaches the earth water may soak in or ‘run off’ the surface in rivers to the oceans What are labels 1-5 on the diagram opposite? Name and explain each term in the spaces below: 1……………………………... ………………………………. ………………………………. 2……………………………... ………………………………. ………………………………. 3…………………………….. ………………………………. ………………………………. 4……………………………... ………………………………. ………………………………. 5……………………………... ………………………………. ………………………………. FLUVIAL SYSTEMS DRAINAGE BASIN • The Drainage Basin hydrological cycle is an open system with inputs and outputs of water • The input to the drainage basin system is precipitation (including rain, snow, hail, sleet and fog drip) • The outputs are evapotranspiration and channel runoff in the form of river discharge • Water can be intercepted by vegetation or stored on the surface, in the soil or underground • Water will flow down to the river by overland flow, throughflow (in the soil) and groundwater flow • The amount of infiltration/percolation
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Ecosystems of the Fleming Creek Valley, University of Michigan’S Matthaei Botanical Gardens
    Landscape Ecosystems of the Fleming Creek Valley, University of Michigan’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens Report submitted in completion of research conducted for the Sam Graham’s Trees Project By Alan J. Tepley March 9, 2001 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was made possible by funding from the Graham Foundation. This research was conducted to provide a sound ecological basis for the grove locations for an interpretive educational trail to honor Dr. Samuel A. Graham, a former professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment. Many individuals have contributed greatly to the success of this research. First, I would like to thank Dr. Burton V. Barnes for his guidance and support, and for his review of drafts of the report. I also would like to thank Dr. David Michener and Dr. Brian Klatt for their advice, encouragement, and for reviewing a draft of the report. Dr. Sylvia Taylor and the rest of the staff at the Matthaei Botanical Gardens also provided encouragement due to their interest in the research. The development of GIS maps would not have been possible without the help of the staff at the Environmental and Spatial Analysis (ESA) lab at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment. Ecosystems of the Fleming Creek Valley Page-i Ecosystems of the Fleming Creek Valley Page-ii Landscape Ecosystems of the Fleming Creek Valley, University of Michigan’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens ABSTRACT: A landscape ecosystem approach was applied to a 50-ha portion of the Fleming Creek valley at the University of Michigan’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens, Washtenaw County, Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • Floodplain Forest Communityfloodplain Abstract Forest, Page 1
    Floodplain Forest CommunityFloodplain Abstract Forest, Page 1 Community Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Overview: Floodplain forests occupy the low-lying forest in the Lake States (MI, WI, and MN) circa 1800, areas adjacent to streams and rivers which are third order just over 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) of unlogged or greater and subject to periodic over-the-bank flooding floodplain forest remain today. Only 29 hectares (72 and cycles of erosion and deposition. The floodplain acres) of unlogged floodplain forest are located in forest is a broadly defined community type, where species Michigan, which formerly supported approximately composition and community structure vary regionally 1.1 million hectares (2.7 million acres) of floodplain along with varying flooding frequency and duration.Acer forest circa 1800 (Frelich 1995). The damage caused saccharinum (silver maple) and Fraxinus pennsylvanica to floodplain forests during logging operations of the (red ash) are the major overstory dominants. These late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was not dynamic forested systems represent an interface between limited to the removal of overstory trees. Logs from terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. floodplains as well as adjacent upland forests were transported along rollways to rivers and streams where Global and state rank: G3?/S3 splash dams were used to transport the logs, altering stream flow and channel characteristics. In addition, Range: Floodplain forests dominated by silver maple and the clearing of floodplain forests was often followed red ash occur throughout the midwestern states, in much by cultivation, homesteading, or livestock grazing of the eastern U.S., and in southern Canada (Manitoba and (Malanson 1993, Verry and Dolloff 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Geomorphic Units in the Alluvial Valleys And
    In cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Characterization of Geomorphic Units in the Alluvial Valleys and Channels of Gulf Coastal Plain Rivers in Texas, with Examples from the Brazos, Sabine, and Trinity Rivers, 2010 95°34'30" 95°34'15" 95°34' 95°33'45" Flow direction 29°16' Oxbow lake 29°15'45" Tie channel 29°15'30" Brazos River 93°43' 93°42' Sand wedge 30°31'30" Flow direction BEAUREGARD PARISH NEWTON COUNTY Neck cutoff LOUISIANA 30°31' TEXAS Sab ine River Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5067 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover: Left, Example of an oxbow lake with a tie channel and sand wedge on the Brazos River near Otey, Texas. Right, Example of a neck cutoff at a meander on the Sabine River near Salem, Texas. Back cover: Top, Example of an unvegetated cutbank on the outside of a meander bend along the Trinity River near Massey Lake, Texas (photograph courtesy of Webster Mangham, Trinity River Authority, 2010). Middle, Example of a bank failure on the cutbank of the Trinity River near Massey Lake, Texas (photograph courtesy of Webster Mangham, Trinity River Authority, 2010). Bottom, Simplified representation of bench deposits and an erosional ledge in a river channel. Characterization of Geomorphic Units in the Alluvial Valleys and Channels of Gulf Coastal Plain Rivers in Texas, with Examples from the Brazos, Sabine, and Trinity Rivers, 2010 By David K. Coffman, Greg Malstaff, and Franklin T. Heitmuller In cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5067 U.S.
    [Show full text]