DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Skykomish River Reach-Scale Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Skykomish River Reach-Scale Plan July 2017 Sustainable Lands Strategy Lower Skykomish River Reach-scale Plan Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management and the Executive Committee of the Sustainable Lands Strategy July 2017 Sustainable Lands Strategy Lower Skykomish River Reach-scale Plan Prepared for Prepared by Snohomish County Anchor QEA, LLC Department of Public Works 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Surface Water Management Seattle, Washington 98101 3000 Rockefeller Ave., M/S 607 Everett, Washington 98201 and The Executive Committee of the Sustainable Lands Strategy Recommended Citation Snohomish County Surface Water Management and the SLS Executive Committee, 2017. Lower Skykomish River Reach-scale Plan. Snohomish County Department of Public Works and the Executive Committee of the Sustainable Lands Strategy. Everett, Washington. Project Number: 160723-03.01 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Project Team Snohomish County Staff Consultants Steve Britsch Aaron Kopp Anchor QEA, LLC, Lynn Turner Zach Brown Frank Leonetti Carlstad Consulting, Cynthia Carlstad Ann Bylin Beth Liddell Dan Evans Consulting, Dan Evans Chien Chang Dave Lucas Donald “Kit” Crump Mike Rustay Brett Gaddis Erik Stockdale Jessica Hamill Lauren Tracy Mary Hurner David Wilson Linda Neunzig Reviewers The Nature Conservancy Tulalip Tribes Jenn Baker Julie Morse Kurt Nelson Morgan Ruff Heather Cole NOAA Restoration Center Snohomish Conservation District Paul Cereghino Cindy Dittbrenner Kate Riley Ducks Unlimited C.K. Eidem SLS Executive Committee Klesick Family Farm Ducks Unlimited Tristan Klesick, Co-Chair C.K. Eidem Tulalip Tribes Snohomish Conservation District Terry Williams, Co-Chair Monte Marte Pilchuck Audubon Society Lord Hill Farms Kristin Kelly, Secretary-Treasurer Dave Remlinger Cherry Lane Farms Stillaguamish Tribe Brian Bookey Shawn Yanity Cover photo courtesy of the Washington State Recreation & Conservation Office SLS Lower Skykomish River Reach-scale Plan i July 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ES-1 Purpose and Background ...................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Summary of Conditions in the Lower Skykomish River Reach ................................................................ ES-1 Concerns for Agriculture, Salmon Habitat, and Flood Damage Reduction ........................................ ES-2 F3 Multi-benefit Projects ........................................................................................................................................ ES-4 Collaboration in the Reach .................................................................................................................................... ES-5 Measuring Success and Next Steps ................................................................................................................... ES-5 1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Plan Focus .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Plan Purpose and Goals .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 How the Plan Will be Used .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Integrated, Multi-benefit Approach to Planning .................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Sustainable Lands Strategy .............................................................................................................. 5 1.4.2 Collaboration in the Reach .............................................................................................................. 6 1.4.3 Progress in the Reach ........................................................................................................................ 7 2 Conditions in the Lower Skykomish River Reach .............................................................. 9 2.1 Geographic Overview of the Reach ........................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 River Subreaches .............................................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Property Ownership and Land Use ............................................................................................................ 16 2.2.1 Zoning ................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.3 Land Cover Changes ....................................................................................................................... 21 2.3 Geomorphic Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.1 Channel Migration ........................................................................................................................... 24 2.3.2 Side Channels ..................................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.3 Avulsion Risks .................................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.4 Summary of Geomorphic Conditions and Future Assessment Needs ......................... 29 2.4 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Conditions and Flood Profile .................................................................. 29 2.4.1 Hydrologic Conditions .................................................................................................................... 30 2.4.2 Major Runoff Inputs and Controls ............................................................................................. 31 2.4.3 Historic Flood Events ....................................................................................................................... 35 2.4.4 Flood Studies...................................................................................................................................... 38 2.4.5 Expectations Associated with Climate Change ..................................................................... 40 SLS Lower Skykomish River Reach-scale Plan i July 2017 2.5 Water Quality Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 42 2.5.1 Washington State Water Quality Standards .......................................................................... 42 2.5.2 Existing Water Quality Impairments .......................................................................................... 42 2.5.3 Ecology’s River and Stream Water Quality Monitoring ..................................................... 44 2.5.4 Continuous Temperature Monitoring ...................................................................................... 45 2.5.5 Expectations Associated with Climate Change ..................................................................... 49 2.6 Habitat Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 52 2.6.1 Existing Habitat Conditions .......................................................................................................... 53 2.6.2 Expectations Associated with Climate Change ..................................................................... 55 3 Farm, Fish, and Flood Related Considerations ................................................................ 57 3.1 Considerations for Agriculture .................................................................................................................... 57 3.1.1 Current Agricultural Operations ................................................................................................. 57 3.1.2 Challenges for Current Agricultural Operators ..................................................................... 63 3.1.3 Opportunities to Strengthen and Support Agricultural Viability ................................... 69 3.2 Considerations for Salmon Habitat and Water Quality ..................................................................... 77 3.2.1 Opportunities for Habitat Improvement ................................................................................. 78 3.2.2 Opportunities for Restoration and Protection of Water Quality .................................... 81 3.3 Considerations for Flood Risk Reduction ................................................................................................ 82 3.3.1 Sultan to Monroe Flood Risk/Repetitive Loss Areas (Subreaches 2, 3, and 4) ......... 83 3.3.2 Tualco Valley Flood Risk/Repetitive Loss Areas (Subreach 1) ......................................... 84 3.3.3 Opportunities for Flood Risk Mitigation .................................................................................. 84 3.4 Actions
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]
  • The Wild Cascades
    THE WILD CASCADES April-May 1969 2 THE WILD CASCADES MORE (BUT NOT THE LAST) ABOUT ALPINE LAKES We recently carried in these pages an article by Brock Evans, Northwest Conservation Representative, on Alpine Lakes: Stepchild of the North Cascades. Mr. L. O. Barrett, Supervisor of Snoqualmie National Forest, feels the article contained "some rather significant misinterpretations" and has asked the opportunity to respond. Following are Mr. Barrett's comments on portions of Mr. Evans' article, together with Mr. Evans' rejoinders. Barrett: The Alpine Lakes Area is still wilderness quality in part because of the nature of the land, and in part because the Forest Service has managed it as wilderness type area since 1946. We will continue to protect it from timber harvesting, mining and excessive recreation use until Congress makes a decision about its suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Evans: The wilderness parts of the Alpine Lakes region that are being lost are those which the Forest Service has chosen not to manage as wilderness. The 1946 date referred to is the date of the establishment of the Alpine Lake Limited Area. This designation granted a measure of administrative protection to a substantial part of the region; but much was left out. The logging in the Miller River, Foss River, Deception Creek, Cooper Lake, and Eight Mile Creek valleys all took place in wilderness-type areas which we proposed for protection which were outside the limited area. The Forest Service cannot protect its lands from mineral prospecting or, ulti­ mately, from mining operations of some types — because of the mining laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Relations Plan
    Community Relations Plan Rainy, Sunset, and Kromona Mine and Mill Sites Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Clean-Up Project Prepared by: Curtis Spalding Environmental Coordinator Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and Rod Lentz On-Scene Coordinator Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Approved By: _____________________________ Date: _____________ Y. ROBERT IWAMOTO Forest Supervisor Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................4 Rainy Mine and Mill ...............................................................................................................4 Sunset Mine and Mill .............................................................................................................5 Kromona Mine and Mill ........................................................................................................6 SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................8 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY ..............................................................................................8 History of Community Involvement and Project Awareness .................................................8 Key Community Concerns .....................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Geologic Investigations Series I-1963, Pamphlet
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP I-1963 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SKYKOMISH RIVER 30- BY 60 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, WASHINGTON By R.W. Tabor, V.A. Frizzell, Jr., D.B. Booth, R.B. Waitt, J.T. Whetten, and R.E. Zartman INTRODUCTION From the eastern-most edges of suburban Seattle, the Skykomish River quadrangle stretches east across the low rolling hills and broad river valleys of the Puget Lowland, across the forested foothills of the North Cascades, and across high meadowlands to the bare rock peaks of the Cascade crest. The quadrangle straddles parts of two major river systems, the Skykomish and the Snoqualmie Rivers, which drain westward from the mountains to the lowlands (figs. 1 and 2). In the late 19th Century mineral deposits were discovered in the Monte Cristo, Silver Creek and the Index mining districts within the Skykomish River quadrangle. Soon after came the geologists: Spurr (1901) studied base- and precious- metal deposits in the Monte Cristo district and Weaver (1912a) and Smith (1915, 1916, 1917) in the Index district. General geologic mapping was begun by Oles (1956), Galster (1956), and Yeats (1958a) who mapped many of the essential features recognized today. Areas in which additional studies have been undertaken are shown on figure 3. Our work in the Skykomish River quadrangle, the northwest quadrant of the Wenatchee 1° by 2° quadrangle, began in 1975 and is part of a larger mapping project covering the Wenatchee quadrangle (fig. 1). Tabor, Frizzell, Whetten, and Booth have primary responsibility for bedrock mapping and compilation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sultan River Project Ferc No. 2157 Anadromws Fish
    SULTAN RIVER PROJECT FERC NO. 2157 ANADROMWS FISH MITIGATION STUDY PLANS (PROPOSED) JUNE, 1983 (Revised September. 1983) (Revised October, 1983) PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY EVERETT, WASHINGTON TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 11. Steelhead Fishability (Creel Census) 111. Sediment Analysis (Textural composition) Study IV. Gravel Quantity Study v. Ramping Rate Study VI . Fish Passage (Powerhouse Berm) Study VII. River Temperature Study VIII. Schedule IX. References Appendix A Agreement on Additional Sediment Sampling I. INTRODUCTION Thls document presents fish mi tigation study plans for agency and tribal review and comment so as to jointly develop studies of the effect of project operation on anadromous fishery resources of the Sultan River. When Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (District) applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for Stage I1 of the Sultan River Project (FERC No. 2157). several state and federal agencies and the Tulalip Tribes intervened over mitigation and enhancement issues concerning Sultan River aquatic resources. Subsequently, several 1icense articles addressed those issues in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order Amending License dated October 16, 1981. In accordance with Article 60 a document entitled "Uncontested Offer of Settlement - Joint Agencies" was executed in April, 1982. The Commission approved this settlement on February 9, 1983. It included the series of studies mentioned in the Settlement Agreement and are described more fully in the next sections. During subsequent implementing steps in the studies the Joint Agencies have requested participation. Specific activities anticipated include technical review of consultant/contractor study plans, periodic monitoring of work through a study committee, and appropriate participation in field studies as described later.
    [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]
  • Sultan River, Wa
    Hydropower Project Summary SULTAN RIVER, WA HENRY M JACKSON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2157) Photo Credit: Snohomish County Public Utility District This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Sultan River, Washington SULTAN RIVER, WA HENRY M JACKSON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2157) DESCRIPTION: The Jackson Project is located on the Sultan River in northwestern Washington. The project’s authorized capacity is 111.8 megawatts (MW). The project is located on the Sultan River, 20 miles east of the City of Everett, Washington, in Snohomish County. The project occupies 10.9 acres of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest administered by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). Downstream of the project’s Culmback dam at Spada Lake, the Sultan River flows through a deep forested gorge for nearly 14 miles. The project powerhouse is located near the downstream end of the gorge. The District (Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County) currently operates the project to satisfy the City of Everett’s municipal water supply needs, protect aquatic resources, maintain Spada lake levels for summer recreation, and generate electricity. The new license requires additional measures to protect and enhance water quality, fish, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources. The twelve signatories to the Settlement Agreement are the District, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Forest Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. National Park Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Washington DFW), Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Tulalip Tribes of Washington (Tulalip Tribes), Snohomish County, Washington; City of Everett; City of Sultan; and American Whitewater.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Conservatton Futures (Cft) 2016 Annual Collections Application for Funds
    K.C. Date Received li{¡ King County CONSERVATTON FUTURES (CFT) 2016 ANNUAL COLLECTIONS APPLICATION FOR FUNDS PROJECT NAME: South Fork Skvkomis h-Tve-tr'oss River Confl uence Aco uisition Annlicánt hrrisdictionlsl: Kins Countv DNRP Open Space System: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (Name of larger connected system, if any, such as Cedar River Creenway, Mountains to Sound, a Regional Trail, etc ) Acquisition Proiect Size:75.2 acres (3 parcels) CFT Application Amount: $ 540.500 (Size in acres and proposed number of parcel(s) if a multi-parcel proposal) (Dollar amount oJCFT grant requested) PrioriV P arcels: 3 12612-9026. 302612-903 l. 302612-9029 S e c o n d ary P ar c e I s : 3 126 12 -900 4 (24.09 ac), 3 026 12 -9 032 ( I 0 ac), 302612-9040 (5.04 ac), 302612-9041(6.58 ac), 122610-9010 (17.55 ac), 122610-9008 (8.27 ac) Tvne of Acouisitionls): E Fee Title tr fion Easemenf tr Ofher: CONTACT INFORMATION Contact Name: Perrv Falcone Phone: ).06-477-4689 Title: Proiect Prosram Manaser Fax:206-296-0192 Address: 201 South Jackson Street- Suite 600 Emai I : nern¡.falconeôkinpcountv. sov Seattle. V/A 98104 l)ate:3-18-15 PROJECT SUMMARY: The goal of this project is to acquire three parcels at the confluence of the South Fork Skykomish, Tye and Foss Rivers to protect salmon habitat and recreational river access. The priority parcels include 75.2 acres of undeveloped high quality salmon habitat at river mile 19.5 of the South Fork Skykomish River.
    [Show full text]
  • 20110209-5130 Ferc
    20110209-5130 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/9/2011 2:27:21 PM 20110209-5130 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/9/2011 2:27:21 PM 20110209-5130 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/9/2011 2:27:21 PM 20110209-5130 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/9/2011 2:27:21 PM Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation And Management Act Consultation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License to operate the Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157 Located on the Sultan River HUC 17100090402 Snohomish County, Washington Action Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Consultation Conducted by: National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region Hydropower Division NOAA Fisheries Log Number: F/NWR/2010/01972 Date: February 9, 2011 20110209-5130 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/9/2011 2:27:21 PM Jackson Hydroelectric Project Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 7 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Background and Consultation History
    [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]