DOCSLIB.ORG

Clear Creek Estuary Restoration: Establishing an Ecological Monitoring Program and Baseline Conditions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clear Creek Estuary Restoration: Establishing an Ecological Monitoring Program and Baseline Conditions Portland State University PDXScholar Master of Environmental Management Project Reports Environmental Science and Management 6-2016 Clear Creek Estuary Restoration: Establishing an Ecological Monitoring Program and Baseline Conditions Christine Butler-Minor Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/mem_gradprojects Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Butler-Minor, Christine, "Clear Creek Estuary Restoration: Establishing an Ecological Monitoring Program and Baseline Conditions" (2016). Master of Environmental Management Project Reports. 52. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/mem_gradprojects/52 https://doi.org/10.15760/mem.54 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Environmental Management Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Clear Creek Estuary Restoration: Establishing an Ecological Monitoring Program and Baseline Conditions Christine Butler-Minor June 28, 2016 Masters of Environmental Management Project Monitoring habitat conditions in the Clear Creek Estuary before the completion of the Bucklin Hill Bridge Project is a critical part of this ecosystem restoration planning and execution. The Clear Creek Trail Alliance (CCTA) is working with local partners to monitor the effects of the estuary restoration. In a wider effort to characterize salmonid habitat suitability of the estuary prior to the bridge replacement, CCTA would like to gather data related to water quality, beach/bank elevations, vegetation in the vicinity, and invertebrate diversity in the estuary. The development and implementation of this Clear Creek Estuary monitoring project provides an opportunity for students and local citizens to expand their knowledge of salmon habitat needs and learn about the benefits to salmon afforded through estuary restorations. These reliable, verifiable, and accurate data will be contributed to the State’s Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program plus shared with citizens of Kitsap County and other parties interested in gaining knowledge concerning the effectiveness of the restoration project. Comparison of data collected prior to and then following construction will aid in understanding the successful restoration features of the project and assist in determining if adaptations are needed in the ongoing management of this revitalized ecosystem. Presented to: Joseph Maser, PhD. Eugene Foster, PhD. Mary Earl, Director of Clear Creek Trail Alliance 2 Clear Creek Estuary Restoration: Establishing a Monitoring Program and Baseline Conditions CBM 6/28/2016 Contents I. Introduction to the Current State ........................................................................................ 8 A. Project Vicinity Description ................................................................................. 10 B. Historical Conditions ........................................................................................... 11 1. Estuary ................................................................................................................. 11 2. Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 11 3. Industry ............................................................................................................... 12 C. Previous Studies and Contaminants of Concern ................................................. 13 D. Present Stream Monitoring ................................................................................. 16 E. Current Hydrological Conditions in the Estuary .................................................. 18 II. Bridge Project Site Description .......................................................................................... 19 III. Salmonids ........................................................................................................................... 21 A. Habitat Needs ...................................................................................................... 21 B. Historic Conditions .............................................................................................. 22 C. Current Conditions .............................................................................................. 23 IV. Monitoring Project Design ................................................................................................. 23 V. Community Partner Needs ................................................................................................ 23 VI. Goals of this Project ........................................................................................................... 24 VII. Methods ............................................................................................................................. 25 A. Training Data Collectors ...................................................................................... 26 B. Monitoring Site Descriptions............................................................................... 26 C. Parameters, Collection and Processing Procedures ........................................... 30 1. Water Quality Monitoring: ......................................................................................... 30 2. Sediment Characteristics and Profiles ........................................................................ 33 3. Vegetation Surveys ..................................................................................................... 34 4. Invertebrate Sampling ................................................................................................ 34 5. Beach Seining .............................................................................................................. 35 VIII. Results ................................................................................................................................ 35 1. Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 35 2. Flow ............................................................................................................................. 41 3. Invertebrates ............................................................................................................... 42 4. Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 43 5. Sediment Size Composition ........................................................................................ 44 6. Sediment Elevations.................................................................................................... 45 7. Beach Seines ............................................................................................................... 48 IX. Discussion........................................................................................................................... 49 X. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 53 The Need for Monitoring ............................................................................................ 53 The Need for Citizen Scientists ................................................................................... 54 Expected Results of the Restoration ........................................................................... 55 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 56 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 57 XI. References ......................................................................................................................... 58 3 Clear Creek Estuary Restoration: Establishing a Monitoring Program and Baseline Conditions CBM 6/28/2016 XII. Appendix A – WQM Data Sheet ......................................................................................... 65 XIII. Appendix B – Training Manual ........................................................................................... 69 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 70 Goals ........................................................................................................................... 70 Objectives.................................................................................................................... 71 Monitoring Site Selection ........................................................................................... 71 Monitoring Site Locations ........................................................................................... 71 Background of Monitoring Parameters ...................................................................... 72 6. Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 72 7. Invertebrates and other nearshore inhabitants ......................................................... 74 8. Flow: ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kitsap County Coordinated Water System Plan
    Kitsap County Coordinated Water System Plan Regional Supplement 2005 Revision Kitsap County May 9, 2005 Coordinated Water System Plan Regional Supplement 2005 Revision Acknowledgements An undertaking of this magnitude is not possible without the efforts of numerous individuals and groups. This plan is a project of extensive input and a compilation of the recommendations of numerous special studies and related planning efforts. Those of us at the Kitsap County Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) and Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) would like to pay particular tribute to those agencies and individuals listed below: Morgan Johnson, Chair Water Utility Coordinating Committee Members of the Kitsap County Water Utility Coordinating Committee Kitsap Public Utility District Staff, Bill Hahn coordinating Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager City of Bremerton Mike Means, Drinking Water Program Manager Kitsap County Health District Washington State Department of Health Staff z Denise Lahmann z Jim Rioux z Jared Davis z Karen Klocke Washington State Department of Ecology Staff Acknowledgements ii Kitsap County May 9, 2005 Coordinated Water System Plan Regional Supplement 2005 Revision Table of Contents Section Title Page Letter of Transmittal ........................................................................................................ Engineer's Certificate..................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Ferry Holding Lot Feasibility Study, Kingston, Kitsap County
    Cultural Resources Assessment Submitted to Port of Kingston December 19, 2019 Remote Ferry Holding Lot Feasibility Study, Kingston, Kitsap County CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION PERTEET.COM 505 FIFTH AVENUE S, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206.436.0515 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET I. Author: Emily Peterson Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Remote Ferry Holding Lot, Kingston, Kitsap County Date of Report: December 19, 2019 County(ies): Kitsap County Section: 26 Township: 27 North Range: 2 East Quad: Port Gamble Acres: 10.2 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: 45KP313 DECEMBER 19 2019 | CRA FOR THE KINGSTON FERRY HOLDING LOT FEASIBILITY STUDY CULTURAL RESOURCES SHORT REPORT A. INTRODUCTION 1. Proposed Project Activities and Elements: The Port of Kingston is conducting a feasibility study to determine if a remote ferry holding lot can be constructed on undeveloped land owned by the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT)at Lindvog Road NE and SR 104 (Figures 1 and 2). The lot is intended to ease traffic congestion in Kingston. The Port has contracted with Perteet to conduct a cultural resources assessment of the property as part of the feasibility study. Construction elements are expected to include grading, paving, stormwater management, and installation of signs and lighting. 2. Study Area Vertical and Horizontal Depth of Disturbance: At this stage the exact extent of disturbance is unknown but the proposed lot would occupy two parcels (1-033 and 1-030) totaling 10.2 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • Kingston Recycled Water Project Report
    Kingston Recycled Water Facility Plan Appendix A: Kingston Recycled Water Project Report A-1 Kingston Recycled Water Facility Plan KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kingston Recycled Water Project A preliminary investigation of recycled water opportunities in the Kingston area February 2016 In 2003, Kitsap County (County) initiated planning efforts in the Kingston, Washington, area to assess opportunities for using recycled water that could be produced at the Kingston Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Further study and planning over the past decade has helped the County understand a range of options for implementing a recycled water program to help meet long-term water quantity and quality goals shared by the County and Kingston area stakeholders. This report summarizes the County’s efforts and findings to date and includes a “baseline” option for implementation. The “baseline” option provides a basis for estimated project costs and platform for further discussion with stakeholders. The project options described in Section 4 will be refined through future detailed engineering analysis. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell Seattle, Washington 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary . 4 Section 1. Water Resource Challenges . 9 Kitsap County water quantity and quality . 10 Water as a Resource policy . 12 Section 2. Project Overview . .13 Project background . 14 Comparison of discharge options. .15 Baseline option . 16 Water balance model . 17 Section 3. Stakeholder Goals . 18 The Kingston project supports shared goals . .19 The Suquamish Tribe. .20 Puget Sound Partnership . 21 Kitsap Public Utilities District and Washington State Department of Health . 22 Washington State Department of Ecology . 23 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound Restoration Fund .
    [Show full text]
  • Sinclair and Dyes Inlets Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL Water
    Sinclair and Dyes Inlets Fecal Coliform Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load TMDL and Water Quality Implementation Plan Revised June 2012 Publication No. 11-10-051 Publication and Contact Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1110051.html For more information contact: Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office Water Quality Program 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Phone: 425-649-7105 Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov/ o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 Cover photo: Gorst Creek at head of Sinclair Inlet (Ecology Shoreline Aerial photo, 2006) Project Codes and 1996 303(d) Waterbody ID Numbers Data for this project are available at Ecology’s Environmental Information Management (EIM) website at www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/index.htm. Search User Study ID, ENVVEST. Activity Tracker Code (Environmental Assessment Program) is 03-055 TMDL Study Code (Water Quality Program) is SiDy15FC Waterbody Numbers: WA-15-0020 Dyes Inlet & Port Washington Narrows; WA-15-4000 Gorst Creek; WA-15-4200 Blackjack Creek; WA-15-4400 Annapolis Creek; WA-15-4900 Beaver Creek; WA-15-5000 Clear Creek; WA-15-5100 Barker Creek; WA-15-0040 Sinclair Inlet Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the author or the Department of Ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • 27000 Miller Bay Rd NE Kingston, Washington (Seattle MSA) TABLE of CONTENTS
    NET LEASE INVESTMENT OFFERING RITE AID (NEW LEASE EXTENSION) 27000 MIllER BAY RD NE KINGSTON, WASHINGTON (SEATTLE MSA) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Profile II. Location Overview III. Market & Tenant Overview Executive Summary Photographs Demographic Report Investment Highlights Aerial Market Overview Property Overview Site Plan Tenant Overview Map NET LEASE INVESTMENT OFFERING DISCLAIMER STATEMENT DISCLAIMER The information contained in the following Offering Memorandum is proprietary and strictly confidential. It STATEMENT: is intended to be reviewed only by the party receiving it from The Boulder Group and/or REF Advisory Inc., and should not be made available to any other person or entity without the written consent of The Boulder Group and REF Advisory Inc. This Offering Memorandum has been prepared to provide summary, unverified information to prospective purchasers, and to establish only a preliminary level of interest in the subject property. The information contained herein is not a substitute for a thorough due diligence investigation. The Boulder Group and REF Advisory Inc., have not made any investigation, and makes no warranty or representation. The information contained in this Offering Memorandum has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however, The Boulder Group and REF Advisory Inc., have not verified, and will not verify, any of the information contained herein, nor has The Boulder Group and REF Advisory Inc., conducted any investigation regarding these matters and make no warranty or representation whatsoever regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. All potential buyers must take appropriate measures to verify all of the information set forth herein.
    [Show full text]
  • TECHNICAL MEMO 1610I Draft
    TECHNICAL MEMO 1610I-1 DATE: November 28, 2016 TO: Robin Shoemaker Central Kitsap School District Capital Projects FROM: Margaret Berger, Principal Investigator/Project Archaeologist RE: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Central Kitsap High School and Middle School Replacement Project, Silverdale, Kitsap County, WA The attached short report form constitutes our final report for the above referenced project. No archaeological sites were identified in the project location. Five historic buildings were identified and recorded but all are recommended not eligible for historic registers. No further cultural resources investigations are recommended. Please contact our office should you have any questions about our findings and/or recommendations. BALLARD LABS 1416 NW 46TH STREET, SEATTLE, WA 98107 STE 105 PMB346 PHONE 206 855-9020 - [email protected] CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Margaret Berger and James McNett Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Central Kitsap High School and Middle School Replacement Project, Silverdale, Kitsap County, WA Date of Report: November 28, 2016 County(ies): Kitsap Section: 17 Township: 25 N Range: 1 E Quad: Poulsbo, WA Acres: ca. 59 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of PDFs is required. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file.
    [Show full text]
  • Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to the Washington
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to the Washington State Department of Transportation to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to Wingwalls Replacement Project at Bremerton Ferry Terminal, Washington, in 2014 February 2014 LEAD AGENCY: USDOC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 427-8401 LOCATION: Bremerton, Washington ABSTRACT: The National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to issue an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries Division (WSF) for the taking, by Level B harassment, of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to wingwalls replacement project at Bremerton Ferry Terminal in the State of Washington. The IHA would be valid from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND INITIALISMS ........................................................................... III CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION/DESCRIPTION OF ACTION AND BACKGROUND ...................................... 1 1.1 Introduction/Description of Action ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
    November 2013 City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis Prepared for City of Bremerton 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, Washington 98337 This report was funded in part through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Prepared by Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004-5571 T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363 www.parametrix.com November 2013 │ 553-1896-088 CITATION Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. 2012. Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis City of Bremerton TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 1-3 1.2 APPROACH .............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................... 1-5 1.3.1 Geology ............................................................................................................ 1-7 1.3.2 Topography, Bathymetry, and Geomorphology ............................................... 1-7 1.3.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3.4 Oceanographic Processes ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In Reply Refer To: 13410-2008-F-0160
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 In Reply Refer To: 13410-2008-F-0160 Mr. Daniel Mathis Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration - Washington Division 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza Olympia, Washington 98501-1284 Attn:Wendy McAbee Dear Mr. Mathis: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the proposed Manette Bridge Replacement Project, in Kitsap County, Washington, and its effects on the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your request for initiation of formal consultation, dated January 24, 2008, was received in our office on January 25, 2008. The request included information supporting a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for the marbled murrelet and a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for the bull trout. We concur with these effect determinations. We subsequently received additional information via submittals from your office on April 30, 2008, November 4, 2008, and April 13, 2009. At that point, we determined that the information required to initiate formal consultation on the project was adequate. On May 7, 2009, we sent your office a letter noting that we were initiating formal consultation as of April 13, 2009. The proposed project involves replacement of the structurally deficient, and functionally obsolete, Manette Bridge over the Port Washington Narrows in Bremerton.
    [Show full text]
  • Wastewater Reuse and Water Supply Project Applicant: Kitsap County, Washington Address: 614 Division Street, Port Orchard Washington 98366
    SF424- Cover Page Project Title: Wastewater Reuse and Water Supply Project Applicant: Kitsap County, Washington Address: 614 Division Street, Port Orchard Washington 98366 Contact Information: Project Manager: Barbara Zaroff, County Engineer Email: [email protected] Phone: (360) 981-1767 Funding Application for: US Bureau of Reclamation Funding Opportunity Announcement No. BOR-DO-17­ F003 WaterSMART: Development of Feasibility Studies under the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program for Fiscal Year 2017 1 | Page Table of Contents Mandatory Federal Forms . SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance . SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-construction Programs . SF-424B, Assurances—Non-construction Programs Technical proposal and evaluation criteria . Executive summary . Study description . Evaluation criteria Required permits or approvals Letters of project support Official resolution Study budget . Funding plan and letters of commitment . Budget proposal . Budget narrative Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM) . DUNS: 071855191 . CAGE: 1N3X4 2 | Page Technical Proposal and Evaluation Criteria The technical proposal (20 pages maximum) includes: (1) Executive summary (2) Study description (3) Evaluation criteria 1. Executive Summary Date: January 5, 2017 Applicant: Kitsap County, Washington Address: 614 Division Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 The feasibility study is for a comprehensive water reuse project at the Kitsap County (County) Kingston Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP). Funds will be used to accomplish the Study Description tasks described in Section 4.B of the Reclamation Feasibility Study D&S as summarized below. The feasibility study contributes to accomplishing the goals of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) by allowing the County to achieve a sustainable water strategy to meet its water needs, supplement water supplies and improve efficiency, providing flexibility during water short periods, and diversifying the water supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Instream Resources Protection Program
    W.W.I.R.P.P. SERIES-NO. 5 INSTREAM RESOURCES PROTECTION PROGRAM KITSAP WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 15 Including PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE RULES STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY JUNE 1981 INSTREAM RESOURCES PROTECTION PROGRAM KITSAP WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 15 including PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Prepared by Water Resources Policy Development Section Washington State Department of Ecology Project Planner, Jeanne Holloman (206) 753-6189 Washington State Department of Printing Olympia, Washington June 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 4 PROGRAM AREA DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 12 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 14 Streams and Lakes.......................................................................................................... 14 Ground Waters ............................................................................................................... 22 WATER USE..................................................................................................................... ........ 24 INSTREAM USES...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jackson Park Housing Complex (Jphc) Kitsap County, Washington Epa
    JACKSON PARK HOUSING COMPLEX (JPHC) KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON EPA FACILITY ID: WA3170090044 JULY 29, 2008 THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate. In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry.................................................... Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., Administrator Howard Frumkin, M.D., Dr.P.H., Director Division of Health Assessment and Consultation…. .....................................................................William Cibulas, Jr., Ph.D., Director Sharon Williams-Fleetwood, Ph.D., Deputy Director Cooperative Agreement and Program Evaluation Branch ....................................................................Richard E.
    [Show full text]