DOCSLIB.ORG

Fish Passage EA- Buckley Barrier

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fish Passage EA- Buckley Barrier Final Environmental Assessment for Mud Mountain Dam Upstream Fish Passage, Pierce County, Washington Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Seattle, Washington May 2015 Page left intentionally blank Final Environmental Assessment — May 2015 Mud Mountain Dam Upstream Fish Passage Executive Summary This document is an environmental assessment (EA) prepared by the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for construction and operation of Mud Mountain Dam Fish Passage Facilities on the White River near Buckley, Washington. The current facilities located at river mile (RM) 24.3 will be replaced with a new fish barrier structure at the same location and a fish trap-and-haul facility on the opposite bank from the existing fish trap. This EA is intended to satisfy public involvement and disclosure requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The document describes the project and likely effects on terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and effects on the human environment arising from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This document serves as the basis for the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The existing White River barrier structure is located at RM 24.3 on the White River, which is a tributary to the Puyallup River 10.4 miles above the Puyallup’s mouth at Puget Sound. The White River is a large, powerful stream fed in its headwaters by glaciers on Mount Rainier. The river’s name derives from its characteristically high turbidity, which gives its waters a milky color, and the river transports a great deal of sediment, especially at high flows. The existing barrier structure was constructed in 1912 to provide for water diversion to operate the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) White River Hydropower Project (WRHP). The Corps entered into an agreement with Puget Sound Energy in 1941 to construct a temporary fish trap and haul facility co-located at the then named White River Diversion Dam. With approval of the Chief of Engineers, on 2 February 1948, USACE utilized the authorization provided by the 1936 Flood Control Act to enter into an agreement to acquire an easement from PSE for use of the Buckley site as a permanent fish trap location. PSE subsequently transferred ownership of the facilities to Cascade Water Alliance (CWA), a municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply consortium of local cities and water utilities which took over ownership of the existing barrier structure and all related PSE facilities, including water rights, on December 18, 2009. The Corps and CWA executed an operating agreement in 2010 to continue on-going maintenance of the barrier structure for the purposes fish trap-and-haul operations. Summary of Impacts Environmental impacts from the proposed project include both short-term and long-term changes to the baseline condition. Short-term impacts are episodic and principally associated with construction of the replacement fish passage structure. They may include increased turbidity, and temporary and permanent wetland and riparian losses due to staging and associated construction of facilities. During construction there is also a potential for stress or injury to fish associated with altered flow patterns or encounters with temporary rock structures or other cofferdam types. Some temporary impediment of upstream and downstream migration of fish might occur since construction of the proposed project will occur over several years, with some work needing to be done outside of the established fish construction window. Despite appropriate containment and control measures (best management practices), there is always a remnant potential for leaks or spills of chemicals including fuels, lubricants, concrete materials, adhesives, and other chemicals. A bald eagle nest is located nearby the proposed project and will be monitored to assess potential Final Environmental Assessment — May 2015 i Mud Mountain Dam Upstream Fish Passage impacts due to construction and operation. During construction, the existing adult fish collection facility will remain operational; however, it is possible that trap efficiency may be temporarily reduced due to changing flow characteristics, nearby noise or other construction related activities. The project produces long term benefits. The new fish passage structure will collect and pass significantly more fish, it will provide better attraction flows to the right bank and better reliability, as well as better ability to pass sediment and other material through the new barrier structure. More fish will be able to access upstream spawning areas, potentially increasing salmonid populations in the watershed. Additionally there will be reduced potential for stranding of juveniles due to flow manipulation caused by the dam repairs. Alternatives Considered For the MMD fish passage facility, the right or left bank locations were evaluated by the H&H/Fish Biologist Working Group which determined that, strictly from the standpoint of fish attraction and minimizing the risk of not meeting the 95 percent attraction criteria, an entrance on the left bank was preferable to a right bank location. However, this group also noted that an entrance on the right bank could also meet the 95 percent attraction criteria. The right bank was also expected to have enough available area to collect, load and transport 60,000 fish in one day. The group concluded that additional information was needed to determine if there was enough available area for processing fish on the left bank. Given this uncertainty the decision was made to proceed with a design for the fish trap facility on the right bank. Final Environmental Assessment — May 2015 ii Mud Mountain Dam Upstream Fish Passage TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Authority ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Location ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Background ........................................................................................................ 2 2 ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Alternate Fish Trap Facility Locations .............................................................. 21 2.2 Alternatives Development at the Buckley Site.................................................. 23 2.3 Fishway Location (Left bank vs. Right bank).................................................... 24 2.4 Design Features ............................................................................................... 25 2.5 Design Considerations ..................................................................................... 36 2.6 Alternatives Considered at the Buckley Site but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation and Selection of the Preferred Alternative. ....................... 42 3 PROPOSED PLAN .................................................................................................. 42 3.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 42 3.2 Construction Considerations, Barrier Structure ................................................ 51 3.3 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fish Hatchery Accommodations, Issues, and Concerns ...................................................................................... 54 3.4 Cascade Water Alliance Accommodations, Issues, and Concerns .................. 56 3.5 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................. 58 3.6 Annual Requirements ...................................................................................... 58 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 61 4.1 Geology............................................................................................................ 61 4.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................... 62 4.3 Hydraulics and Hydrology ................................................................................ 67 4.4 Vegetation ........................................................................................................ 70 4.5 Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 71 4.6 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................... 71 4.7 Terrestrial Resources ....................................................................................... 81 4.8 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 82 4.9 Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species ................................... 84 4.10 Climate and Air Quality .................................................................................... 88 4.11 Noise and Traffic .............................................................................................. 89 4.12 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes .......................................................................... 90 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • W Hite R Iver B Asin P
    White River Basin Plan Draft Volume 2 – Appendices September 2012 Plan White River Basin TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT —WHITE RIVER BASIN PLAN White River Basin Plan Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS – VOLUME II APPENDIX A: White River and Lake Tapps Basin Plan Questionnaire APPENDIX B: Subbasin Delineation Method APPENDIX C: Method Used to Estimate Impervious Surfaces and Analyze Land Use and Zoning APPENDIX D: Lake Tapps Water Quality Monitoring Data APPENDIX E: Stream Survey Methods Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Method APPENDIX F: Stream Survey Results APPENDIX G: Tributary Stream Gauge Station Date and Tributary Water Quality Monitoring Data APPENDIX H: Pierce County Flood Risk Assessment – White River Basin APPENDIX I: Lake Water Quality Management Plan (White River Basin Plan) APPENDIX J: Lake Tapps Water Quality Monitoring Plan APPENDIX K: Capital Improvement Project Cost Estimate and Site Map APPENDIX L: Capital Improvement Project and Programmatic Measures Ranking Score Sheets APPENDIX M: Pollutant Source Identification and Monitoring Program Pierce County Public Works & Utilities TOC-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Appendix A White River and Lake Tapps Basin Plan Questionnaire THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. DRAFT Appendix A White River and Lake Tapps Basin Plan Questionnaire Pierce County Water Programs is preparing a surface water management plan for the White River Basin, including Lake Tapps. The plan will identify the actions necessary to provide safe storm drainage, reduce flooding, maintain water quality and protect natural streams and the fish and wildlife they support. Your completion of this questionnaire will help us make sure that the plan takes account of your views and any information you may have.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Kapowsin Biological Inventory
    Final Report Lake Kapowsin Biological Inventory Prepared for: Washington Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Reserves Program 1111 Washington Street SE, PO Box 47016 Olympia, WA 98504-7016 Prepared by: Hamer Environmental L.P. P.O. Box 2561 Mount Vernon, WA 97273 www.HamerEnvironmental.com 30 June 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The biological inventory of Lake Kapowsin was conducted with the goal of providing a baseline snapshot of lake conditions, and of the habitats and wildlife associated with the lake system. Lake Kapowsin is the first freshwater aquatic system to be considered for enrollment in the state Aquatic Reserves Program. The intent of this report is to provide baseline information on the lake to Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) for development of lake management and monitoring plans. Highlighted Findings Limnology: Physical habitat: The riparian canopy along the banks of Lake Kapowsin was varied, dominated by deciduous forest along the western shores and conifer or mixed forest along the eastern shores. Within the lake there was a large amount of tree stumps, floating logs and macrophytic vegetation. The littoral substrate cover at the physical habitat sampling stations was dominated by silt, clay or muck, followed by woody debris and organic material. Water chemistry: Preliminary data suggest that Lake Kapowsin is a mesotrophic to eutrophic lake system that thermally and chemically stratifies in the spring and summer potentially leading to anoxic and low pH conditions in the deeper portions of the lake. Additional sampling during summer and fall months is recommended to test these hypotheses. Macroinvertebrates: Twenty-seven unique invertebrate taxa in 7 orders were documented at Lake Kapowsin, including one non-native aquatic mollusk, the Chinese mystery snail (Cipangopaludina chinensis malleata).
    [Show full text]
  • Title 20 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT USE REGULATIONS CHAPTERS: 20.02 PURPOSE, TITLE, SCOPE, and APPLICABILITY. 20.04 DEFINITIONS. 20.06
    Title 20 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT USE REGULATIONS CHAPTERS: 20.02 PURPOSE, TITLE, SCOPE, AND APPLICABILITY. 20.04 DEFINITIONS. 20.06 INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTS. 20.08 THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT. 20.10 RURAL-RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT. 20.12 THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT. 20.14 THE CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT. 20.16 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 20.18 ENVIRONMENT WRITTEN DESCRIPTIONS. 20.20 INTRODUCTION TO USE ACTIVITY REGULATIONS. 20.22 AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES. 20.24 AQUACULTURAL PRACTICES. 20.26 BREAKWATERS. 20.28 BULKHEADS. 20.30 COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. 20.32 DREDGING. 20.34 EDUCATIONAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES. 20.36 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL. 20.38 FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. 20.40 HIGH RISE STRUCTURES. 20.42 JETTIES AND GROINS. 20.44 LANDFILL. 20.46 LAUNCHING RAMPS. 20.48 LOG STORAGE AND RAFTING. 20.50 MARINAS. 20.52 MINING. 20.54 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS. 20.56 PIERS AND DOCKS. 20.58 PORTS AND WATER RELATED INDUSTRY. 20.60 RECREATIONAL PRACTICES. 20.62 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 20.64 ROADS AND RAILROADS. 20.66 SHORELINE PROTECTION ACTIONS. 20.68 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. 20.70 UTILITIES. 20.72 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE PERMITS. 20.74 PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AND OFFICIAL CONTROLS. 20.76 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Chapter 20.02 PURPOSE, TITLE, SCOPE, AND APPLICABILITY Sections: 20.02.010 Purpose. 20.02.020 Title. 20.02.030 Scope. 20.02.040 Applicability. 20.02.010 Purpose. In order to implement the goals and
    [Show full text]
  • City of Puyallup Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis
    City of Puyallup Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis Puyallup Emergency Management Response Team March 2006 This Page intentionally left blank PAGE -II CITY OF PUYALLUP HIVA City of Puyallup Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis Published by Pierce County Department of Emergency Management 2501 South 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409 March 2006 PAGE -III CITY OF PUYALLUP HIVA This page intentionally left blank PAGE -IV CITY OF PUYALLUP HIVA TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents vi Introduction 1 Part I: Puyallup Profile 5 Geography 7 Geology 8 Climate 10 History 10 Demographic 13 Economy 13 Part II: Natural Hazards 19 Earthquakes 20 Flooding 27 Severe Storms 30 Volcanic Hazards 36 Wildland Fire Hazard 42 Part III: Technological and Social Hazards 43 Civil Disturbance 44 Dam Failure 48 Energy Emergency 53 Epidemic (Animal and Human) 57 Hazardous Materials 66 Pipelines 71 Terrorism 73 Transportation Accidents 78 PAGE -V CITY OF PUYALLUP HIVA This page intentionally left blank PAGE -VI CITY OF PUYALLUP HIVA Introduction Mission Statement The mission of the City of Puyallup Emergency Management Program is to protect lives and property through preparedness and mitigation activities, effective response to emergencies and disasters associated with natural, environmental and human-caused hazard, and coordination and participation in the recovery effort as a result of such events. Purpose and Scope The mission statement of the City of Puyallup Emergency Management Program states that the Department is to prepare the City for disaster. In order to prepare and plan for emergencies which might strike the City, it is necessary to understand hazards that potentially could impact it, what their history of activity is in relation to the City and how vulnerable the citizens are to those hazards.
    [Show full text]
  • Levee Setback Feasibility Analysis Puyallup River Watershed Pierce County, Washington June 19, 2008
    LEVEE SETBACK FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PUYALLUP RIVER WATERSHED PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON JUNE 19, 2008 FOR PIERCE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES File No. 2998-012-00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... ACK-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ ES-1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1 REPORT ORGANIZATION................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT PURPOSE................................................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT APPROACH ................................................................................................................................3 INITIAL APPROACH........................................................................................................................... 3 FINAL PROJECT APPROACH........................................................................................................... 4 PRODUCTS AND MAJOR DELIVERABLES.....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RLRC DEIS Appendix E
    APPENDIX E Cultural Resources CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE RHODES LAKE ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON BY JENNIFER CHAMBERS GLENN D. HARTMANN, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SUBMITTED TO: PARAMETRIX, INC. P.O. BOX 460 SUMNER, WASHINGTON 98390-1516 WESTERN SHORE HERITAGE SERVICES, INC. 8001 DAY ROAD WEST, SUITE B BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 TECHNICAL REPORT #272 August 28, 2006 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE RHODES LAKE ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON WESTERN SHORE HERITAGE SERVICES, INC. TECHNICAL REPORT #272 Author: Jennifer Chambers Date: August 28, 2006 Location: Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington USGS Quad: Sumner, WA (1993) and Orting, WA (1994) 7.5’ T, R, S: Township 19 North, Range 4 East, Section 12 and 13; Township 19 North, Range 5 East, Section 7 – 9, 17, 18, 20, 21, 28, 29. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Western Shore Heritage Services, Inc. (WSHS) conducted a cultural resources assessment for the Rhodes Lake Road Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The study area is located in Pierce County, Washington in and adjacent to the Puyallup River Valley on the Orting Plateau near the towns of Orting, McMillin and Alderton. This technical memorandum evaluates eight different alternative corridors through the study area. The eight alternatives are composed of a no build alternative (called Alternative A), four separate corridor alternatives and three alternatives that propose combinations of the four corridor alternatives. WSHS was requested to determine the archaeological probability for any of the eight alternatives to affect significant cultural resources by reviewing and identifying the environmental, cultural and archaeological setting of the study area. Background research suggests a moderate to low probability for precontact or ethnographic archaeological sites for all eight alternatives evaluated based on landforms, available resources and absence of previously recorded archaeological or ethnographic sites in the immediate vicinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Channel-Conveyance Capacity, Channel Change, and Sediment Transport in the Lower Puyallup, White, and Carbon Rivers, Western Washington
    Prepared in cooperation with Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, Surface Water Managment Channel-Conveyance Capacity, Channel Change, and Sediment Transport in the Lower Puyallup, White, and Carbon Rivers, Western Washington Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5240 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photograph showing view of Puyallup River from the Calistoga Road bridge looking upstream, with Mount Rainier in the distance, Orting, Washington. Photograph taken by Jonathan Czuba, U.S. Geological Survey, October 27, 2010. Channel-Conveyance Capacity, Channel Change, and Sediment Transport in the Lower Puyallup, White, and Carbon Rivers, Western Washington By Jonathan A. Czuba, Christiana R. Czuba, Christopher S. Magirl, and Frank D. Voss Prepared in cooperation with Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, Surface Water Management Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5240 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Bonney Lake City Council Agenda Bill (AB)
    Public Safety Committee City of Council Committees are primarily concerned with legislative/policy January 12 2021 matters. They formulate and convey 3:30 P.M. recommendations to the full council for action (BLMC 2.04.090). Agenda . Location: Due to the COVID-19 State of Emergency proclamation, the Public Safety Committee meeting will be virtual. Members of the public wanting to listen to the meeting may call in at (408) 419- 1715. The meeting ID is 368 333 599. This is not a toll-free number. Department Head Contact: Bryan Jeter, Police Chief Committee Liaison: Leslie Harris, Management Analyst / Executive Assistant Committee Clerk: Debbie McDonald, Administrative Specialist III Call to Order: Councilmember Terry Carter, Chair Roll Call: Councilmember Terry Carter, Councilmember Todd Dole, and Councilmember J. Kelly McClimans Reports/Presentations: p.3 1. East Pierce Fire & Rescue Monthly Report – Bud Backer, Fire Chief 2. Public Safety Monthly Report – Bryan Jeter, Police Chief Business/Action Items: p.11 1. AB21-16 Ordinance D21-16: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Bonney Lake, Pierce County, Washington, amending section 2.32.010 and chapter 2.34 of the Bonney Lake Municipal Code related to benefits for the assistant police chief position – Bryan Jeter, Police Chief p.17 2. AB21-10 Resolution 2897: Amendment to Agreement with the Criminal Justice Training Commission – Bryan Jeter, Police Chief p.21 3. AB21-06 Resolution 2894: Adopting the Region 5 All Hazard Mitigation Plan – 2020-2025 Edition and the City of Bonney Lake Addendum to the Region 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan – Woody Edvalson, Administrative Services Director p.227 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Pierce County Public Works and Utilities – Sewer Utility Unified Sewer Plan Update
    Appendix F Basin Review Committee Pierce County Public Works and Utilities – Sewer Utility Unified Sewer Plan Update Pierce Count y Public Works and Utilities Bria n J. Ziegier, P.E. Director 9850 64th Street West [email protected] s University Place, Washington 98467-1078 (253) 798-4050 Fa x (253) 798-4637 March 3, 2010 U-100023 Honorable Mayor Peter B. Lewis City of Aubum 25 West Main Stree t Aubum, WA 98001-499 8 RE: Reques t fo r Appointment to the Basin Plan Review Committee . Dear Honorable Mayor Peter B. Lewis: Pursuant to the provisions of Pierce County Code 2.84 and RCW36.94.050, Pierce County i s to maintain a Basin Review Committee whose fiinction i s to review sewerage and/or water general plans and subsequent amendments in accordance with the membership criteria contained i n those provisions. The committee's functio n i s to review sewerage and/or water general plans and subsequent amendments t o those plans and provide recommendations to the Pierce County Planning Commission, Council, and Executive. Under Pierce County Code 2.84.020(B), your jurisdiction i s provided representation unde r the followin g provision: One representative chosen at large by a majority vote of the executive officers o f the other cities or towns (less than J 0,000 population) withi n or adjoining the area; Recently i t has been found that many positions on the Basin Review Committee are vacant. Because th e Pierce County Unified Sewe r Plan Update will require committee review, we are asking that al l members and organizations select or confirm thei r representative.
    [Show full text]
  • Quality of Water in the White River and Lake Tapps, Pierce County, Washington, May–December 2010
    Prepared in cooperation with Cascade Water Alliance Quality of Water in the White River and Lake Tapps, Pierce County, Washington, May–December 2010 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5022 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photograph of Lake Tapps, Washington, with Mount Rainier in the background. (Photograph taken by Ryan Burge, private citizen, December 31, 2011.) Quality of Water in the White River and Lake Tapps, Pierce County, Washington, May–December 2010 By S.S. Embrey, R.J. Wagner, R.L. Huffman, A.M. Vanderpool-Kimura, and J.R. Foreman Prepared in cooperation with Cascade Water Alliance Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5022 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Embrey, S.S., Wagner, R.J., Huffman, R.L., Vanderpool-Kimura, A.M., and Foreman, J.R., 2012, Quality of water in the White River and Lake Tapps, Pierce County, Washington, May–December 2010: U.S.
    [Show full text]