DOCSLIB.ORG

Salmon Overlay to the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Salmon Overlay to the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan Salmon Overlay to the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan Prepared by: City of Everett and Pentec Environmental Salmon Overlay to the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan Prepared by: City of Everett Planning and Community Development 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 8-A Everett, WA 98201 and Pentec Environmental Project No. 253-002 120 Third Avenue S, Suite 110 Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 775-4682 March 12, 2001 Cover photo by OPP*TION PHOTO This document was funded in part through cooperative agreements with the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office (IAC Grant No. 99-1690 N) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Grant No. G0000100). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................1 1.1 Background..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Regulatory Setting/Relation to Other Plans.................................................................... 2 1.3 Objective of the Salmon Overlay ................................................................................... 2 1.4 Description of Document ............................................................................................... 4 2.0 Salmon Overlay Process and Methods ................................................................9 2.1 SSOTAC......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Description of Existing Resources ................................................................................. 9 2.3 SEWIP Tidal Habitat Model ........................................................................................ 11 2.4 Inventory and Description of Existing Conditions....................................................... 15 2.5 Hypothetical Development Scenario (HDS) ................................................................ 16 2.6 Compensation Process and Policies ............................................................................. 17 2.7 Management and Restoration Plan............................................................................... 18 2.7.1 Management of Development .......................................................................... 18 2.7.2 Restoration Potential ........................................................................................ 18 2.7.3 Restoration Plan ............................................................................................... 19 2.7.4 Implementation Plan......................................................................................... 19 3.0 Natural Resources of the Snohomish Estuary and Nearshore ........................21 3.1 Physical Environment................................................................................................... 21 3.1.1 Basin Characteristics ........................................................................................ 21 3.1.2 Historical Changes............................................................................................ 22 3.2 Ecological Management` Units .................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 EMU 1 – Fluvial Fresh Water (Forested Riverine/Tidal)................................. 24 3.2.2 EMU 2 – Fluvial Brackish Water (Emergent/Forested Transitional)............... 24 3.2.3 EMU 3 – River and Slough Mouths (Estuarine Emergent Marsh)................... 25 3.2.4 EMU 4 – Delta Sandflats.................................................................................. 26 3.2.5 EMU 5 – Lower Snohomish Channel .............................................................. 26 3.2.6 EMU 6 – Everett Harbor (East Waterway)....................................................... 27 3.2.7 EMU 7N, 7S – Port Gardner Nearshore, Tulalip Nearshore............................ 27 March 12, 2001 Table of Contents Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 3.3 Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 28 3.3.1 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 28 3.3.2 Salmonids ......................................................................................................... 30 3.3.3 Other Fish ......................................................................................................... 41 3.3.4 Invertebrates ..................................................................................................... 42 3.3.5 Other Wildlife................................................................................................... 43 4.0 Inventory and Description of Existing Conditions, Development Impacts, and Mitigation/Restoration Potential ..................................................................48 4.1 Overall Ranking of Assessment Units.......................................................................... 48 4.2 Ranking of Assessment Units by Ecological Management Unit.................................. 62 4.3 Salmonid Habitat Area and IVA-Acre Scores in the Snohomish River Estuary and UGA.......................................................................................................... 62 4.4 Ranking of AUs in the UGAs of Everett, Mukilteo, and Marysville ........................... 65 4.5 Hypothetical Development Scenario............................................................................ 65 4.6 Potential Development Impacts from the Hypothetical Development Scenario.......... 66 4.7 Potential Compensatory Mitigation/Restoration Opportunities in the Snohomish River Estuary............................................................................................. 81 4.7.1 Inside the UGA................................................................................................. 84 4.7.2 Outside the UGA .............................................................................................. 88 5.0 Compensatory Mitigation Policies and Process................................................91 5.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 91 5.2 Applicability................................................................................................................. 92 5.3 Focus of Compensatory Mitigation .............................................................................. 93 5.4 Constraints.................................................................................................................... 93 5.5 Compensatory Mitigation Policies ............................................................................... 94 5.6 Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Contingency Plans..................................... 110 5.6.1 Standards and Performance Criteria............................................................... 110 5.6.2 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements....................................................... 112 5.6.3 Adaptive Management.................................................................................... 112 March 12, 2001 Table of Contents Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 5.7 Compensatory Mitigation Balance ............................................................................. 114 6.0 Management and Restoration Plan...................................................................122 6.1 Overall Salmonid Habitat Management Goals for the Estuary .................................. 122 6.2 Habitat Recovery, Restoration, and Enhancement Goals........................................... 124 6.3 Role of the Technical Advisory Committee............................................................... 126 6.4 Overall Restoration/Enhancement Potential............................................................... 126 6.5 Possible Restoration Scenarios................................................................................... 129 6.6 Preliminary Estuarine Recovery Plan......................................................................... 138 7.0 Implementation of the SEWIP Salmon Overlay................................................140 7.1 Historical Perspective................................................................................................. 140 7.2 What the SEWIP Overlay Provides............................................................................ 140 7.3 Link with WRIA 7 Efforts.......................................................................................... 141 7.4 Implementation of the SEWIP Restoration Plan ........................................................ 142 7.5 Adopt or Incorporate SEWIP into the Regulatory Framework of State and Local Governments.............................................................................................. 143 7.6 SEWIP as a Part of Project Review............................................................................ 144 8.0 References ..........................................................................................................146 Tables Listed on page vi. Figures Listed on page viii. Acronyms Listed on page x. March 12, 2001 Table of Contents Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Appendices A—Tidal Habitat Model Rationale and Protocols
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan
    Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan April 1997 City of Everett Environmental Protection Agency Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Washington State Department of Ecology Snohomish Estuary Wetlands Integration Plan April 1997 Prepared by: City of Everett Department of Planning and Community Development Paul Roberts, Director Project Team City of Everett Department of Planning and Community Development Stephen Stanley, Project Manager Roland Behee, Geographic Information System Analyst Becky Herbig, Wildlife Biologist Dave Koenig, Manager, Long Range Planning and Community Development Bob Landles, Manager, Land Use Planning Jan Meston, Plan Production Washington State Department of Ecology Tom Hruby, Wetland Ecologist Rick Huey, Environmental Scientist Joanne Polayes-Wien, Environmental Scientist Gail Colburn, Environmental Scientist Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Duane Karna, Fisheries Biologist Linda Storm, Environmental Protection Specialist Funded by EPA Grant Agreement No. G9400112 Between the Washington State Department of Ecology and the City of Everett EPA Grant Agreement No. 05/94/PSEPA Between Department of Ecology and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Cover Photo: South Spencer Island - Joanne Polayes Wien Acknowledgments The development of the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan would not have been possible without an unusual level of support and cooperation between resource agencies and local governments. Due to the foresight of many individuals, this process became a partnership in which jurisdictional politics were set aside so that true land use planning based on the ecosystem rather than political boundaries could take place. We are grateful to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Ecology (DOE) and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority for funding this planning effort, and to Linda Storm of the EPA and Lynn Beaton (formerly of DOE) for their guidance and encouragement during the grant application process and development of the Wetland Integration Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Elkhorn Slough Estuary
    A RICH NATURAL RESOURCE YOU CAN HELP! Elkhorn Slough Estuary WATER QUALITY REPORT CARD Located on Monterey Bay, Elkhorn Slough and surround- There are several ways we can all help improve water 2015 ing wetlands comprise a network of estuarine habitats that quality in our communities: include salt and brackish marshes, mudflats, and tidal • Limit the use of fertilizers in your garden. channels. • Maintain septic systems to avoid leakages. • Dispose of pharmaceuticals properly, and prevent Estuarine wetlands harsh soaps and other contaminants from running are rare in California, into storm drains. and provide important • Buy produce from local farmers applying habitat for many spe- sustainable management practices. cies. Elkhorn Slough • Vote for the environment by supporting candidates provides special refuge and bills favoring clean water and habitat for a large number of restoration. sea otters, which rest, • Let your elected representatives and district forage and raise pups officials know you care about water quality in in the shallow waters, Elkhorn Slough and support efforts to reduce question: How is the water in Elkhorn Slough? and nap on the salt marshes. Migratory shorebirds by the polluted run-off and to restore wetlands. thousands stop here to rest and feed on tiny creatures in • Attend meetings of the Central Coast Regional answer: It could be a lot better… the mud. Leopard sharks by the hundreds come into the Water Quality Control Board to share your estuary to give birth. concerns and support for action. Elkhorn Slough estuary hosts diverse wetland habitats, wildlife and recreational activities. Such diversity depends Thousands of people come to Elkhorn Slough each year JOIN OUR EFFORT! to a great extent on the quality of the water.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware Bay Estuary Project Supporting the Conservation and Restoration Of
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Coastal Program Delaware Bay Estuary Project Supporting the conservation and restoration of the salt marshes of Delaware Bay People have altered the expansive salt marshes of Delaware Bay for centuries to farm salt hay, try to control mosquitoes, create channels for boats, to increase developable land, and other reasons all resulting in restricted tidal flow, disrupted sediment balances, or increasing erosion. Sea level rise and coastal storms threaten to further negatively impact the integrity of these salt marshes. As we alter or lose the marshes we lose the valuable habitats and ecological services they provide. tidal creek - Katherine Whittemore Addressing the all-important sediment balance of salt marshes is critical for preserving their resilience. A healthy resilient marsh may be able to keep pace with erosion and sea level rise through sediment accretion and growth Downe Twsp, NJ - Brian Marsh of vegetation. However, the delicate sediment balance of salt marshes is DBEP works to support efforts to learn more about the techniques often disrupted by barriers to tidal influence and altered drainage onto and to conserve and restore salt marshes and support the populations of fish and wildlife that rely on them. We support new and off the marsh resulting in sediment ongoing coastal resiliency initiatives and coastal planning as they starved systems, excessive mudflats, or pertain to habitat restoration and conservation. We are interested increased erosion. in finding effective tools and mechanisms for conserving and restoring salt marsh integrity on a meaningful scale and support efforts that bring partners together to approach this challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish River Watershed
    ARLINGTON Camano Sauk River Island Canyon Cr South Fork Stillaguamish River 5 9 WRIA 7 MARYSVILLE GRANITE FALLS S Freeway/Highway t Lake e S a Pilchuck River l Stevens m o r u b County Boundary 529 e g o v h i a R t LAKE Possession k WRIA 7 Boundary Whidbey h STEVENS c 2 g u Sound u h Island c o l i l P Spada Lake Incorporated Area S ey EVERETT Eb EVERETT r e Fall City Community v SNOHOMISH i R on alm Silver Cr n S C a r lt MUKILTEO u ykomis N S k h S S Ri ver k n MONROE r 9 o MILL o SULTAN F h GOLD BAR rth CREEK o o Trout Cr m 2 N 99 is mis h yko h R Sk iv Canyon Cr LYNNWOOD 527 er INDEX 1 2 3 4 5 0 EDMONDS 522 524 R Rapid River iv So e Proctor Cr u Barclay Cr BRIER r t Miles WOODWAY h BOTHELL F o Eagle Cr JohnsonSNOHOMISH Cr COUNTY rk MOUNTLAKE WOODINVILLE S C k KING COUNTY TERRACE h y e r olt River k SHORELINE h Fork T Beckler River r ry C rt Index Cr om KENMORE No ish Martin Cr DUVALL R. 522 KIRKLAND r Tolt-Seattle Water C SKYKOMISH Tye River olt 2 5 s Supply Reservoir T R i ive r Sou r Miller River t Foss River r h Money Cr a Fo REDMOND 203 rk SEATTLE H r Ames Cr e iv R 99 t l Deep Cr o er Puget Sound S T iv un R d CARNATION a Lennox Cr r y 520 Pat C ie C te r Lake Washington r m s n l o ffi a Elliott n i u S r Tokul Cr Hancock Cr n q Bay 405 G C o o Lake SAMMAMISH r q n File: 90 u S a BELLEVUE Sammamish ver lm k Ri 1703_8091L_W7mapLetterSize.ai r r i lo e o ay KCIT eGov Duwamish River Fall F T MERCER R i City v h ISLAND Coal Cr e t r r Note: mie Riv SEATTLE Snoqualmie o al e r The information included on this map N u r C SNOQUALMIE oq Falls d has been compiled from a variety of NEWCASTLE Sn r ISSAQUAH gf o k in sources and is subject to change r D o 509 without notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Estuarine Wetlands
    ESTUARINE WETLANDS • An estuary occurs where a river meets the sea. • Wetlands connected with this environment are known as estuarine wetlands. • The water has a mix of the saltwater tides coming in from the ocean and the freshwater from the river. • They include tidal marshes, salt marshes, mangrove swamps, river deltas and mudflats. • They are very important for birds, fish, crabs, mammals, insects. • They provide important nursery grounds, breeding habitat and a productive food supply. • They provide nursery habitat for many species of fish that are critical to Australia’s commercial and recreational fishing industries. • They provide summer habitat for migratory wading birds as they travel between the northern and southern hemispheres. Estuarine wetlands in Australia Did you know? Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory: Jabiru build large, two-metre wide • Kakadu has four large river systems, the platform nests high in trees. The East, West and South Alligator rivers nests are made up of sticks, branches and the Wildman river. Most of Kakadu’s and lined with rushes, water-plants wetlands are a freshwater system, but there and mud. are many estuarine wetlands around the mouths of these rivers and other seasonal creeks. Moreton Bay, Queensland: • Kakadu is famous for the large numbers of birds present in its wetlands in the dry • Moreton Bay has significant mangrove season. habitat. • Many wetlands in Kakadu have a large • The estuary supports fish, birds and other population of saltwater crocodiles. wildlife for feeding and breeding. • Seagrasses in Moreton Bay provide food and habitat for dugong, turtles, fish and crustaceans. www.environment.gov.au/wetlands Plants and animals • Saltwater crocodiles live in estuarine and • Dugongs, which are also known as sea freshwater wetlands of northern Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Estuary Bird Cards
    TEACHER MASTER Estuary Bird Cards Great Blue Heron Osprey Willet Roseate Spoonbill Great Egret Glossy Ibis Marsh Wren Tern Brown Pelican Whooping Crane Sandpiper Avocet Woodstork Snowy Egret Black Skimmer Crested Comorant Activity 9: Bountiful Birds 10 TEACHER MASTER Estuary Habitats Salt marsh Mangrove swamp Mudflats Lagoon low tide Seagrass beds Activity 9: Bountiful Birds 11 STUDENT MASTER Great Birds of the Estuaries Estuaries actually contain a number of different habitats, each better or worse suited for different species of birds, as well as other estuary animals and plants. Here are five of the main estuary habitats: 1. A lagoon is an area of shallow, open water, separated from the open ocean by some sort of barrier, such as a barrier island. The water in a lagoon can either be as salty as the ocean or brackish. 2. A salt marsh has non-tree plants (grasses, shrubs, etc.) whose roots grow in soil acted upon by tides, but the plants are mostly never submerged. 3. The woody trees that grow in a mangrove swamp grow in soil affected by tides. Mangrove trees only grow in estuaries that never freeze. 4. Seagrass beds are always submerged underwater. Seagrass is photosynthetic, so it grows in water that is shallow and clear enough for the grass to get sunlight. Seagrass is anchored to the muddy or sandy bottom. 5. Mudflats are sometimes also called tidal flats. They are broad, flat areas of extremely fine sediment (mud) that become exposed at low tide. There are other estuary habitats. A beach or rocky shore can be part of the estuary.
    [Show full text]
  • Hotel/Motel Grant Workshop
    Welcome! Snohomish County Hotel/Motel Small Fund Grant Workshop Greeting by ANNIQUE BENNETT, TOURISM DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST Snohomish County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Snohomish County Strategic Tourism Plan Overview Presented by RICH HUEBNER, TOURISM PROMOTION COORDINATOR Snohomish County Parks, Recreation and Tourism 2018 – 2022 Strategic Tourism Plan The 2018-2022 Strategic Tourism Plan establishes strategies to build on the strengths of Snohomish County and addresses its gaps and challenges. As a result of this multi‐tiered approach, Snohomish County will continue to grow as a highly functioning tourism system. • Regional Development focus • Connecting visitors with regions to extend overnights – 40% of visitors are day trippers! • Off set seasonality – we are booked in the high season • Connecting stakeholders with each other – regional partnerships collective impacts - we are better together! 2.1 Regional Destination Product Development, Marketing & Promotion The Snohomish County tourism industry should organize, coordinate and facilitate regional product development, planning and marketing, to organize resources around the greatest shared priorities and challenges in a region. Develop packages and itineraries of regional activities that link experiences to develop and promote extended stays, with special attention paid to linking region-specific experiences and routes with co-located attraction anchors both large and small. • Salish Sea Coastal Communities • Woodway, Edmonds, Mukilteo, Everett, Marysville, Tulalip and Stanwood/Camano
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Dead Zones: Causes, Impacts, Policy Challenges, and a Model of the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone S
    58 The Economics of Dead Zones: Causes, Impacts, Policy Challenges, and a Model of the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone S. S. Rabotyagov*, C. L. Klingy, P. W. Gassmanz, N. N. Rabalais§ ô and R. E. Turner Downloaded from Introduction The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 increased public awareness and http://reep.oxfordjournals.org/ concern about long-term damage to ecosystems, and casual readers of the news headlines may have concluded that the spill and its aftermath represented the most significant and enduring environmental threat to the region. However, the region faces other equally challenging threats including the large seasonal hypoxic, or “dead,” zone that occurs annually off the coast of Louisiana and Texas. Even more concerning is the fact that such dead zones have been appearing worldwide at proliferating rates (Conley et al. 2011; Diaz and Rosenberg 2008). Nutrient over- enrichment is the main cause of these dead zones, and nutrient-fed hypoxia is now widely at Iowa State University on January 27, 2014 considered an important threat to the health of aquatic ecosystems (Doney 2010). The rather alarming term dead zone is surprisingly appropriate: hypoxic regions exhibit oxygen levels that are too low to support many aquatic organisms including commercially desirable species. While some dead zones are naturally occurring, their number, size, and *School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; e-mail: [email protected] yCenter for Agricultural and Rural Development,
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0991001 Boeing Everett Cleanup Site May 11, 2015
    Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0991001 Boeing Everett Cleanup Site May 11, 2015 Purpose of this fact sheet This fact sheet explains and documents the decisions the Department of Ecology (Ecology) made in drafting the proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Boeing Everett, WA. This fact sheet complies with Section 173-220-060 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which requires Ecology to prepare a draft permit and accompanying fact sheet for public evaluation before issuing an NPDES permit. Ecology makes the draft permit and fact sheet available for public review and comment at least thirty (30) days before issuing the final permit. Copies of the fact sheet and draft permit for Boeing Everett (Boeing), NPDES permit WA0991001, are available for public review and comment from March 10 to April 10, 2015. For more details on preparing and filing comments about these documents, please see Appendix A – Public Involvement Information. Boeing has reviewed the draft permit and fact sheet for factual accuracy. Ecology corrected any errors or omissions regarding the facility’s location, history, discharges, or receiving water prior to publishing this draft fact sheet for public notice. After the public comment period closes, Ecology will summarize substantive comments and provide responses to them. No public comments were received during the public comment period for this permit. Summary Boeing is conducting a remedial cleanup of trichloroethylene (TCE) in groundwater to achieve hydraulic control of TCE in the plume, and to reduce to maximum extent practicable discharge to Powder Mill Creek. The remediation consists of extracting and treating contaminated groundwater through an air stripper treatment system.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Tidal Freshwater and Brackish Marsh Macrophytes to Pulses of Saline Water Simulating Sea Level Rise and Reduced Discharge
    Wetlands (2018) 38:885–891 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1037-2 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Responses of Tidal Freshwater and Brackish Marsh Macrophytes to Pulses of Saline Water Simulating Sea Level Rise and Reduced Discharge Fan Li1 & Steven C. Pennings1 Received: 7 June 2017 /Accepted: 16 April 2018 /Published online: 25 April 2018 # Society of Wetland Scientists 2018 Abstract Coastal low-salinity marshes are increasingly experiencing periodic to extended periods of elevated salinities due to the com- bined effects of sea level rise and altered hydrological and climatic conditions. However, we lack the ability to predict detailed vegetation responses, especially for saline pulses that are more realistic in nature than permanent saline presses. In this study, we exposed common freshwater and brackish plants to different durations (1–31 days per month for 3 months) of saline water (salinity of 5). We found that Zizaniopsis miliacea was more tolerant to salinity than the other two freshwater species, Polygonum hydropiperoides and Pontederia cordata. We also found that Zizaniopsis miliacea belowground and total biomass appeared to increase with salinity pulses up to 16 days in length, although this relationship was quite variable. Brackish plants, Spartina cynosuroides, Schoenoplectus americanus and Juncus roemerianus, were unaffected by the experimental treatments. Our ex- periment did not evaluate how competitive interactions would further affect responses to salinity but our results suggest the hypothesis that short pulses of saline water will increase the cover of Zizaniopsis miliacea and decrease the cover of Polygonum hydropiperoides and Pontederia cordata in tidal freshwater marshes, thereby reducing diversity without necessarily affecting total plant biomass.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Research 213 (2019) 219–225
    Fisheries Research 213 (2019) 219–225 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres Contrasting river migrations of Common Snook between two Florida rivers using acoustic telemetry T ⁎ R.E Bouceka, , A.A. Trotterb, D.A. Blewettc, J.L. Ritchb, R. Santosd, P.W. Stevensb, J.A. Massied, J. Rehaged a Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, Florida Keys Initiative Marathon Florida, 33050, United States b Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 100 8th Ave. Southeast, St Petersburg, FL, 33701, United States c Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Charlotte Harbor Field Laboratory, 585 Prineville Street, Port Charlotte, FL, 33954, United States d Earth and Environmental Sciences, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th street, AHC5 389, Miami, Florida, 33199, United States ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Handled by George A. Rose The widespread use of electronic tags allows us to ask new questions regarding how and why animal movements Keywords: vary across ecosystems. Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) is a tropical estuarine sportfish that have been Spawning migration well studied throughout the state of Florida, including multiple acoustic telemetry studies. Here, we ask; do the Common snook spawning behaviors of Common Snook vary across two Florida coastal rivers that differ considerably along a Everglades national park gradient of anthropogenic change? We tracked Common Snook migrations toward and away from spawning sites Caloosahatchee river using acoustic telemetry in the Shark River (U.S.), and compared those migrations with results from a previously Acoustic telemetry, published Common Snook tracking study in the Caloosahatchee River.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 83 Wednesday, No. 124 June 27, 2018 Pages 30031–30284
    Vol. 83 Wednesday, No. 124 June 27, 2018 Pages 30031–30284 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:16 Jun 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\27JNWS.LOC 27JNWS daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with FRONT MATTER WS II Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]