DOCSLIB.ORG

The Cities of Colfax, Palouse, Pullman and Tekoa; and the Towns of Albion, Malden and Rosalia Prepared For: Whitman County P.O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Cities of Colfax, Palouse, Pullman and Tekoa; and the Towns of Albion, Malden and Rosalia Prepared For: Whitman County P.O FINAL Shoreline Analysis Report for for Shorelines in Whitman County; the Cities of Colfax, Palouse, Pullman and Tekoa; and the Towns of Albion, Malden and Rosalia Prepared for: Whitman County P.O. Box 430 310 N. Main Street Colfax WA, 99111 August 2014 FINAL WHITMAN COUNTY GRANT NO. G1400494 S H O R E L I N E A N A L Y S I S R EPORT FOR SHORELINES IN WHITMAN COUNTY; THE CITIES OF COLFAX, PALOUSE, PULLMAN AND TEKOA; AND THE TOWNS OF ALBION, MALDEN AND ROSALIA Prepared for: Whitman County P.O. Box 430 310 N. Main Street Colfax WA, 99111 Prepared by: STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98121 August 12, 2014 The Watershed Company This report was funded in part Reference Number: through a grant from the 130736 Washington Department of Ecology. Cite this document as: The Watershed Company and BERK. August 2014. Final Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Whitman County; Cities of Colfax, Palouse, Pullman and Tekoa; and the Towns of Albion, Malden and Rosalia. Prepared for Whitman County. The Watershed Company Contact Person: Amy Summe / Clover Muters BERK Contact Person: Alex Cohen T A B L E O F C ONTENTS Page # 1 Introduction ............................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction .................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Shorelines of the State .................................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Shorelines of Statewide Significance ............................................................ 3 1.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 3 2 Summary of Current Regulatory Framework .......................... 4 2.1 Shoreline Management Act .......................................................................... 4 2.2 Local Regulations ......................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Whitman County .............................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 Town of Albion ................................................................................................. 6 2.2.3 City of Colfax .................................................................................................... 6 2.2.4 Town of Malden................................................................................................ 7 2.2.5 Town of Rosalia ............................................................................................... 7 2.2.6 City of Palouse ................................................................................................. 7 2.2.7 City of Pullman................................................................................................. 7 2.2.8 City of Tekoa .................................................................................................... 7 2.3 State Agencies and Regulations .................................................................. 8 2.4 Federal Regulations .................................................................................... 10 3 Summary of Ecosystem Conditions ...................................... 12 3.1 Palouse (WRIA 34) ...................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Geographic and Ecosystem Context ........................................................... 12 3.1.2 Topography, Geology, and Drainage Patterns ........................................... 13 3.1.3 Major Land Use Changes .............................................................................. 13 3.1.4 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................ 15 3.2 Middle Snake (WRIA 35) ............................................................................. 16 3.2.1 Geographic and Ecosystem Context ........................................................... 16 3.2.2 Topography, Geology, and Drainage Patterns ........................................... 17 3.2.3 Major Land Use Changes .............................................................................. 17 3.2.4 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................ 18 i 3.3 Hangman (Latah) Creek (WRIA 56) ............................................................ 19 3.3.1 Geographic and Ecosystem Context ........................................................... 19 3.3.2 Topography, Geology, and Drainage Patterns ........................................... 19 3.3.3 Major Land Use Changes .............................................................................. 19 3.3.4 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................ 20 4 Shoreline Inventory ................................................................. 20 4.1 Inventory Data Sources, Assumptions and Data Gaps ............................ 20 4.1.1 Ecological Characterization ......................................................................... 21 4.1.2 Land Use Characterization ........................................................................... 25 4.2 Reach Delineation ....................................................................................... 29 4.3 Summary of Shoreline Inventory Results .................................................. 32 5 Analysis of Ecological Functions .......................................... 32 5.1 Approach, Rationale and Limitations of Functional Analysis .................. 32 5.1.1 Functions and Impairments .......................................................................... 33 5.1.2 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 40 5.2 County Shoreline Results ........................................................................... 40 5.2.1 Lakes ............................................................................................................... 40 5.2.2 Palouse River ................................................................................................. 47 5.2.3 South Fork Palouse River ............................................................................. 50 5.2.4 Rock Creek ..................................................................................................... 52 5.2.5 Cottonwood Creek ......................................................................................... 54 5.2.6 Fourmile Creek............................................................................................... 56 5.2.7 Hangman Creek ............................................................................................. 58 5.2.8 Pine Creek ...................................................................................................... 60 5.2.9 Union Flat Creek ............................................................................................ 62 5.2.10 Snake River .................................................................................................... 64 5.3 City and Town Shoreline Results ............................................................... 68 5.3.1 Town of Albion ............................................................................................... 68 5.3.2 City of Colfax .................................................................................................. 72 5.3.3 Town of Malden.............................................................................................. 80 5.3.4 Town of Rosalia ............................................................................................. 82 5.3.5 City of Palouse ............................................................................................... 85 5.3.7 City of Pullman............................................................................................... 89 5.3.8 City of Tekoa .................................................................................................. 95 5.4 Restoration Opportunities .......................................................................... 99 ii 5.4.1 County- and City-wide ................................................................................... 99 5.4.2 City of Palouse ............................................................................................. 100 5.4.3 City of Pullman............................................................................................. 101 6 Land Use Analysis ................................................................ 102 6.1 County ....................................................................................................... 102 6.1.1 Lakes ............................................................................................................. 102 6.1.2 Palouse River ............................................................................................... 104 6.1.3 South Fork Palouse River ........................................................................... 108 6.1.4 Rock Creek ................................................................................................... 110 6.1.5 Hangman Creek ........................................................................................... 112 6.1.6 Pine Creek ...................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report
    RECONNAISSANCE SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING OF THE LATE CENOZOIC SEDIMENTS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN, WASHINGTON by James G. Rigby and Kurt Othberg with contributions from Newell Campbell Larry Hanson Eugene Kiver Dale Stradling Gary Webster Open File Report 79-3 September 1979 State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Olympia, Washington CONTENTS Introduction Objectives Study Area Regional Setting 1 Mapping Procedure 4 Sample Collection 8 Description of Map Units 8 Pre-Miocene Rocks 8 Columbia River Basalt, Yakima Basalt Subgroup 9 Ellensburg Formation 9 Gravels of the Ancestral Columbia River 13 Ringold Formation 15 Thorp Gravel 17 Gravel of Terrace Remnants 19 Tieton Andesite 23 Palouse Formation and Other Loess Deposits 23 Glacial Deposits 25 Catastrophic Flood Deposits 28 Background and previous work 30 Description and interpretation of flood deposits 35 Distinctive geomorphic features 38 Terraces and other features of undetermined origin 40 Post-Pleistocene Deposits 43 Landslide Deposits 44 Alluvium 45 Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Colluvium 46 Sand Dunes 46 Mirna Mounds and Other Periglacial(?) Patterned Ground 47 Structural Geology 48 Southwest Quadrant 48 Toppenish Ridge 49 Ah tanum Ridge 52 Horse Heaven Hills 52 East Selah Fault 53 Northern Saddle Mountains and Smyrna Bench 54 Selah Butte Area 57 Miscellaneous Areas 58 Northwest Quadrant 58 Kittitas Valley 58 Beebe Terrace Disturbance 59 Winesap Lineament 60 Northeast Quadrant 60 Southeast Quadrant 61 Recommendations 62 Stratigraphy 62 Structure 63 Summary 64 References Cited 66 Appendix A - Tephrochronology and identification of collected datable materials 82 Appendix B - Description of field mapping units 88 Northeast Quadrant 89 Northwest Quadrant 90 Southwest Quadrant 91 Southeast Quadrant 92 ii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL
    Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL Idaho Department of Environmental Quality January 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL January 2005 Prepared by: Robert D. Henderson Lewiston Regional Office Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 1118 F. Street Lewiston, ID 83501 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL January 2005 Acknowledgments Completing this Subbasin Assessment and TMDL would not have been possible without the support of the following individuals and organizations: • Mark Shumar • Alan Monek • Brock Morgan • Barbara Anderson • Dennis Meier • Palouse River Watershed Advisory Group • Tom Dechert • Cary Myler • Jason Fales • William Kelly • John Cardwell • Ken Clark • Bill Dansart • Richard Lee • John Gravelle • Marti Bridges • Daniel Stewart Thank you! Cover photo by Robert D. Henderson i Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL January 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. ii Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL January 2005 Table of Contents Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols .......................................................xiii Executive Summary........................................................................................xvii Subbasin at a Glance .................................................................................................xvii Key Findings .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Palouse River and Coulee City Rail Line
    Palouse River and Coulee City Rail Line Palouse River and Coulee City Rail Line For More Information: Mike Rowswell WSDOT State Rail and Marine Office [email protected] 360-705-7900 360-705-7930 www.wsdot.wa.gov/rail www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/rail/PCC_Acquisition/ WSDOT State Rail and Marine Office The Palouse River and Coulee PO Box 47407 City (PCC) rail line is the state’s Olympia, WA 98504-7407 longest short-line freight rail system and spans four counties in eastern Washington. In 2007, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) completed the purchase of this rail line to save it from abandonment. January 2008 Palouse River and Coulee City Rail Line What is the Palouse River and Coulee City deteriorated over time. After attempting to develop Who is going to operate these lines? (PCC) Rail Line? business for a number of years, Watco finally WSDOT is working with local governments to discuss considered abandoning the lines because they As part of the purchase agreement, Watco will formation of an intergovernmental entity to govern were not profitable. In making that determination, the three branches. When such an entity is formed, it The former Palouse River and Coulee City (PCC) continue to operate the PV Hooper Branch under a Watco cited the expensive maintenance conditions will assume responsibility for the former PCC system. rail line is a 300-mile short-line freight rail system lease signed with the state in November 2004 and mentioned above, increased competition from the WSDOT will continue to oversee rehabilitation work that provides direct rail service to shippers, modified in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis Appendix
    SNAKE RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District’s Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho February 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) 1427i A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with large drawdown of Reclamation reservoirs. 1427r A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with reservoir elevations maintained near current levels. BA Biological assessment BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) BETTER Box Exchange Transport Temperature Ecology Reservoir (a water quality model) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BID Burley Irrigation District BIOP Biological opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management B.P. Before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CES Conservation Extension Service cfs Cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRFMP Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) DREW Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP Effective Precipitation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRE Finance, investment, and real estate HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HUC Hydrologic unit code I.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Snake River Dams Stakeholder Engagement Report
    Lower Snake River Dams Stakeholder Engagement Report FINAL DRAFT March 6, 2020 Prepared by: Kramer Consulting Ross Strategic White Bluffs Consulting Contents Executive Summary .......................................................... 1 Opportunities to Increase Understanding .................................... 52 Background and Context ............................................................... 2 Public Comments Related to Agriculture ..................................... 52 Major Findings and Perspectives ................................................... 3 Section 7: Transportation .............................................. 53 Opportunities to Increase Understanding .................................... 12 Context ........................................................................................ 53 Moving Forward ........................................................................... 13 Perspectives ................................................................................ 60 Section 1: Purpose and Scope of Report ..................... 15 Opportunities to Increase Understanding .................................... 62 Background .................................................................................. 15 Public Comments Related to Transportation............................... 62 The Intent of the Report and Engagement Process .................... 15 Section 8: Recreation ..................................................... 64 Methodology................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Restoration Plan
    Whitman County Coalition Shoreline Restoration Plan available on the City’s website expands on the previous goal in the Environment element with the following vision statement: “Maintain a system of habitat, recreation lands, and facilities in Palouse that defines and enhances the built and natural environment. Support and nurture plant and wildlife habitat, offer a well-balanced range of recreation opportunities which enriches the lives of Palouse's citizens.” Policies and strategies designed to achieve this vision are included in the plan which would significantly improve ecological function in the City. EXISTING AND ONGOING PLANS AND PROGRAMS State, regional, and local agencies and organizations are actively involved in shoreline restoration, conservation, and protection in and around Whitman County. These partners and their local roles in shoreline protection and/or restoration are identified below. 4.1 Whitman County Comprehensive Plan The County’s Comprehensive Plan contains an Environmental Quality and Conservation Element providing policies related to conservation of natural resources. The County has developed guidelines for implementing Comprehensive Plan goals (See Section 3) related to natural resource protection. These focus on policies, regulations, and procedures governing critical and sensitive areas and include: Designating and mapping critical environmental sites and ceasing exemption of dwellings within designated areas from Environmental Impact Statement requirements when a Threshold Determination of Significance is reached. Incorporating goals and guidelines into Whitman County ordinance governing SEPA review. Use the removal of the exemption (above) as an opportunity to evaluate impacts of single-family homes, employ mitigation measures, preserve vegetative cover, and modify locations of buildings and roads. The Plan presents implementation guidelines that incorporate procedural and regulatory frameworks.
    [Show full text]
  • Miocene Evolution of the Moscow-Pullman Basin, Idaho and Washington
    Miocene Evolution of the Moscow-Pullman Basin, Idaho and Washington John H. Bush Pamela Dunlap Stephen P. Reidel Idaho Geological Survey University of Idaho Technical Report 18-3 Moscow, Idaho 83844-3014 December 2018 This Technical Report is a product of independent work from non-Idaho Geological Survey personnel. This report is published by the IGS to further future scientific studies. The IGS does not guarantee this report to be free of errors nor assume liability for interpretations made from this report, or decisions based thereon. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Stratigraphic Framework and Previous Work 4 History of Regional Stratigraphic Framework 11 Previous Work in the Moscow-Pullman Area 11 Well Chips and Columbia River Basalt Group Stratigraphy 11 Latah Formation 12 Structual Setting 14 Paleogeography 15 Introduction and Pre-basalt Topography 15 Grande Ronde Basalt R1 Interval 17 Grande Ronde Basalt N1 Interval 17 Grande Ronde Basalt R2 Interval 20 Grande Ronde Basalt N2 Interval 23 Vantage and Wanapum Intervals 25 Saddle Mountains Time 29 Summary and Conclusions 31 Acknowledgments 31 References Cited 32 Appendix A. Geochemical Identification of Flow Units in the Columbia River Basalt Group 37 Introduction 37 Oldest Flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group 37 Grande Ronde Basalt Members and Flows 37 Wanapum Basalt 38 References Cited 41 Appendix B Regional Rock Samples 42 Figures Figure 1. Map showing the areal extent of the Columbia River flood basalt province. 2 Figure 2 Map showing Moscow-Pullman Basin, wells,
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction .Of Washington Geographic Names, a Study
    NOTES ON EARLY SETTLEMENTS AND ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES OF EASTERN WASHINGTON Introduction The article which follows is a by-product of several mmor studies in the economic history of eastern Washington. Although not intended as such, it turns out to be, in some respects, an appen­ dix, or perhaps a series of footnotes, to Professor Meany's Origin . of Washington Geographic Names, a study published serially in this magazine and subsequently brought out as a volume by the Uni­ versity of Washington Press in 1923. The article contains some names not included in Professor Meany's study, elaborations of a few of his entries, and, in rare instances, slight corrections of his work. To facilitate comparison, frequent references are made to the above-mentioned volume. But the present article is conceived in a different spirit from that of Professor Meany's study. His interest centered in the origins of names; mine has consisted primarily in assembling data relating to early settlements in one area of Washington. Other entries in my article are incidental. By means of the data herein assembled the story of the occupation of the area north of the Snake River in eastern Washington during the seventies and the eighties can be traced in outline, and the principal factors which determined the sites of pioneer towns can be seen in operation. Not the least important of these factors was transportation. During the decade of the seventies the pioneers of eastern Washington were in large measure economically dependent on the Columbia River system. Down the Snake and Columbia rivers was shipped the produce of the "upper country," and up these rivers were transported immi­ grants and equipment needed for the economic development of the Palouse and Spokane countries.* And to some extent settlers south of the Snake River were dependent on the navigation of that stream.
    [Show full text]
  • SFTA Research Report #6
    An Assessment of the Current Situation of the Palouse River and Coulee City Railroad and the Future Role of the Port of Whitman County Kenneth L. Casavant SFTA Principal Investigator and Eric L. Jessup SFTA Co-Principal Investigator Joe Poire SFTA Research Report # 6 October 2003 An Assessment of the Current Situation of the Palouse River and Coulee City Railroad and the Future Role of the Port of Whitman County by Kenneth L. Casavant SFTA Principal Investigator Eric L. Jessup SFTA Co-Principal Investigator and Joe Poire SFTA Research Report #6 September 2003 Washington State University Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics 101 Hulbert Hall Pullman, Washington 99164-6210 SFTA Research Reports: Background and Purpose This is the sixth of a series of reports prepared from the Strategic Freight Transportation Analysis (SFTA) study. SFTA is a six year comprehensive research and implementation analysis that will provide information (data and direction) for local, state and national investments and decisions designed to achieve the goal of seamless transportation. The overall SFTA scope includes the following goals and objectives: • Improving knowledge about freight corridors. • Assessing the operations of roadways, rail systems, ports and barges – freight choke points. • Analyze modal cost structures and competitive mode shares. • Assess potential economic development opportunities. • Conduct case studies of public/private transportation costs. • Evaluate the opportunity for public/private partnerships. The five specific work tasks
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 12 Special Areas Or Sites
    Lewiston Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 12. SPECIAL AREAS OR SITES “An analysis of areas, sites or structures of historical, archaeological, architectural, ecological, wildlife, or scenic significance.” This section is in progress with topics as identified throughout the Plan. Chapter 12-1 Special Areas – Bryden Avenue (Ordinance 4360, September 27, 2004) Chapter 12-2 Special Areas – Normal Hill Special Planning Area (Resolution 2009-08, January 26, 2009) Chapter 12-3 Special Areas – Waterfront Planning Area (Resolution 2010-40, May 10, 2010) Please Note: Chapter 12-2 was originally the Waterfront Planning Area but, due to Special Areas – Normal Hill Special Planning Area being adopted prior to the Waterfront Planning Area, the numbers have been changed. Page 12 - 1 Chapter 12­1 Special Areas – Bryden Avenue Bryden Avenue Special Planning Area This area extends from approximately 5 th Street east to Thain Road along Bryden Avenue, and includes land situated between Linden Avenue on the north and Airway Avenue to the south. The Bryden Avenue area has seen substantial changes since annexation to the city. Commercial activity has always been focused on the avenue itself, and a shopping center with a grocery store anchor was constructed at Bryden and 7 th Avenue in the mid­to­late 1960’s. The center has seen varying levels of occupancy during the business cycles since. Currently, an insurance company occupies the largest building in the center. The center is nearly moribund, with occupancies of 50% or less. Other businesses have sprung up along Bryden, primarily small retail buildings and offices. These uses were allowed under special use permits no longer available in residential areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Palouse Subbasin Management Plan
    Palouse Subbasin Management Plan FINAL DRAFT ~ May 2004 Project Lead: Palouse-Rock Lake Conservation District Trevor Cook, Project Manager PO Box 438 St. John WA 99171 (509) 648-3680 Prepared by: Shelly Gilmore Resource Planning Unlimited, Inc. 1406 East F Street Moscow, ID 83843 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan FINAL DRAFT ~ May 2004 Project Lead: Palouse-Rock Lake Conservation District Trevor Cook, Project Manager PO Box 438 St. John WA 99171 (509) 648-3680 Prepared by: Shelly Gilmore Resource Planning Unlimited, Inc. 1406 East F Street Moscow, ID 83843 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan: Table of Contents i. Introduction i 1. Assessment 1.1 The Palouse Subbasin Of The Past 1-1 1.2 The Present Day Palouse Subbasin 1-2 1.2.1 General Description 1-2 1.2.2 Land Use and Land Ownership 1-3 1.2.3 Jurisdictional Authorities 1-4 1.2.4 Water Resources 1-7 1.2.5 Water Quality 1-9 1.3 Anthropogenic Disturbances 1-13 1.4 Wildlife and Fish Resources 1-14 1.4.1 Historic Habitats 1-14 1.4.2 Current Habitat Types 1-15 1.4.3 Wildlife Resources 1-30 1.4.4 Palouse Subbasin Fauna and Responses to Habitat Changes 1-43 1.4.5 Focal Species 1-50 1.4.6 Fish Resources 1-64 1.4.7 Fish Habitat 1-72 1.5 Limiting Factors 1-75 1.5.1 Agricultural Conversion 1-79 1.5.2 Exotic Vegetation Encroachment 1-86 1.5.3 Timber Harvest 1-88 1.5.4 Fire Suppression 1-88 1.5.5 Urban Development 1-89 1.5.6 Hydropower Development 1-92 1.5.7 Other Limiting Factors 1-92 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Palouse Subbasin Summary
    Draft Palouse Subbasin Summary February 23, 2001 Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council Subbasin Team Leader Trevor Cook Palouse-Rock Lake Conservation District Contributors (in alphabetical order): Paul Ashley, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Jody Brostrom, Idaho Department of Fish and Wildlife Rob Buchart, Palouse Conservation District Jerry Hickman, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Jim Johnson, Natural Resources Conservation Service Bob Peck, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Rich Riehle, Natural Resources Conservation Service Mimi Wainwright, Washington Department of Ecology John Whalen, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife DRAFT: This document has not yet been reviewed or approved by the Northwest Power Planning Council Palouse Subbasin Summary Palouse Subbasin Summary Table of Contents Palouse River Subbasin Description ..................................................................................... 3 General Location ............................................................................................................ 3 Fish and Wildlife Resources................................................................................................ 14 Fish and Wildlife Status ............................................................................................... 14 Habitat Areas and Quality ............................................................................................ 34 Watershed Assessment................................................................................................
    [Show full text]