DOCSLIB.ORG

Tulalip Reservation Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tulalip Reservation Hazard Mitigation Plan Tulalip Reservation Hazard Mitigation Plan Tulalip eservation azard Mitigation Plan (THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK) Prepared by Glenn B. Coil University of Washington, Seattle In coordination and with the assistance of Tulalip Office of Neighborhoods Lynda Harvey Debra Muir November 1, 2004 (THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK) The Tulalip Tribes November 1, 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................1-1 1.1. Background......................................................................................................1-1 1.2. Purpose and Mission........................................................................................1-2 1.3. Policy Framework for Washington..................................................................1-2 1.4. Plan Criteria and Authority..............................................................................1-2 1.5. Document Overview ........................................................................................1-4 2. Community Profile...................................................................................................2-1 2.1. Tulalip Reservation History.............................................................................2-1 2.2. Geographic Setting...........................................................................................2-3 Lakes, Rivers and Streams.......................................................................................2-3 Hills and Mountains.................................................................................................2-4 Soils and Geology....................................................................................................2-4 Climate.....................................................................................................................2-7 2.3. Land Use and Future Development Trends .....................................................2-7 Zoning and Future Land Use ...................................................................................2-8 2.4. Demographics ................................................................................................2-17 2.5. Economy ........................................................................................................2-23 Development Trends..............................................................................................2-23 Industry ..................................................................................................................2-23 Occupation .............................................................................................................2-24 2.6. Laws and Ordinances Influencing this Plan...................................................2-26 Federal....................................................................................................................2-26 Tribal......................................................................................................................2-26 3. Planning Process ......................................................................................................3-1 3.1. Steering Committee .........................................................................................3-1 3.2. Stakeholder Group Members ...........................................................................3-1 3.3. Public Involvement ..........................................................................................3-4 3.4. Plan Preparation...............................................................................................3-4 4. Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................4-1 4.1. Methodology....................................................................................................4-2 Assess Hazard ..........................................................................................................4-2 Determine Exposure.................................................................................................4-2 Assess Vulnerability ................................................................................................4-2 Data Sources ............................................................................................................4-2 4.2. Presidential Declared Disasters........................................................................4-3 4.3. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................4-4 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................4-9 4.4. Earthquakes....................................................................................................4-11 Definitions..............................................................................................................4-11 General Background ..............................................................................................4-11 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................4-14 Secondary Hazards.................................................................................................4-22 Exposure Inventory................................................................................................4-23 Hazard Mitigation Plan i November 1, 2004 The Tulalip Tribes Vulnerability ..........................................................................................................4-26 Loss Estimation......................................................................................................4-26 4.5. Flood ..............................................................................................................4-33 Definitions..............................................................................................................4-33 General Background ..............................................................................................4-36 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................4-36 Exposure Inventory................................................................................................4-38 Vulnerability ..........................................................................................................4-40 Loss Estimation......................................................................................................4-40 4.6. Landslides ......................................................................................................4-47 Definitions..............................................................................................................4-47 General Background ..............................................................................................4-47 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................4-49 Secondary Hazards.................................................................................................4-52 Exposure ................................................................................................................4-53 Exposure Inventory................................................................................................4-53 Vulnerability ..........................................................................................................4-55 Loss Estimation......................................................................................................4-55 4.7. Severe Weather ..............................................................................................4-59 Definitions..............................................................................................................4-59 General Background ..............................................................................................4-60 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................4-61 Secondary Hazards.................................................................................................4-65 Exposure Inventory................................................................................................4-66 Vulnerability ..........................................................................................................4-66 Loss Estimation......................................................................................................4-66 4.8. Tsunami/Seiche..............................................................................................4-67 Definitions..............................................................................................................4-67 General Background ..............................................................................................4-67 Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................4-68 Secondary Hazards.................................................................................................4-71 Exposure Inventory................................................................................................4-71 Vulnerability ..........................................................................................................4-73
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparing a Surface Collection to an Excavated Collection in the Lower Skagit River Delta at 45SK51
    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses Summer 2017 Comparing a Surface Collection to an Excavated Collection in the Lower Skagit River Delta at 45SK51 Sherri M. Middleton Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Recommended Citation Middleton, Sherri M., "Comparing a Surface Collection to an Excavated Collection in the Lower Skagit River Delta at 45SK51" (2017). All Master's Theses. 711. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/711 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPARING A SURFACE COLLECTION TO AN EXCAVATED COLLECTION IN THE LOWER SKAGIT RIVER DELTA AT 45SK51 ________________________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ________________________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Cultural and Environmental Resource Management _______________________________________________________________________ by Sherri Michelle Middleton June 2017 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Modeling Tsunami Inundation for Hazard Mapping at Everett, Washington, from the Seattle Fault
    NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-147 doi:10.7289/V59Z92V0 MODELING TSUNAMI INUNDATION FOR HAZARD MAPPING AT EVERETT, WASHINGTON, FROM THE SEATTLE FAULT C. Chamberlin D. Arcas Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Seattle, WA August 2015 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND Office of Oceanic and ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Atmospheric Research NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-147 doi:10.7289/V59Z92V0 MODELING TSUNAMI INUNDATION FOR HAZARD MAPPING AT EVERETT, WASHINGTON, FROM THE SEATTLE FAULT C. Chamberlin1 and D. Arcas2,3 1 The Climate Corporation, Seattle, WA 2 Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO), University of Washington, Seattle, WA 3 NOAA Center for Tsunami Research (NCTR) / Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), Seattle, WA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory August 2015 UNITED STATES NATIONAL OCEANIC AND Office of Oceanic and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Atmospheric Research Penny Pritzker Kathryn Sullivan Craig McLean Secretary Under Secretary for Oceans Assistant Administrator and Atmosphere/Administrator NOTICE from NOAA Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by NOAA/ OAR. Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products or the tests of such products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Contribution No. 3625 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Contribution No. 1833 from Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) Also available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) (http://w w w.ntis.gov) TSUNAMI HAZARD MAPPING AT EVERETT, WASHINGTON iii Contents List of Figures v List of Tables v 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map GM-68, Geologic Map of the Camano 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Island County, Washington
    WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES GEOLOGIC MAP GM-68 Camano 7.5-minute Quadrangle February 2009 UTSALADY POINT FAUL T N O. 1 122°37¢30² 35¢ 32¢30² R 2 E 122°30¢00² 48°15¢00² 48°15¢00² U D MAJOR FINDINGS The Southern Whidbey Island fault zone traverses the southwestern map area (Johnson Qgics(f) Stratified, subglacial ice-contact deposits—Interbedded lodgment till, flow till, glaciomarine drift in adjoining Crescent Harbor 7.5-minute quadrangle (Dragovich Brocher, T. M.; Blakely, R. J.; Wells, R. E.; Sherrod, B. L.; Ramachandran, Kumar, 2005, The transition OAK HARBOR FAULT af U Qgtv Qgics D Qb and others 2000). The “Southern Whidbey Island Fault”, with possible Quaternary movement, f gravel, and sand, minor silt and clay beds; diverse; loose to compact; variably and others, 2005). Calculations based on amino-acid analyses of marine shells in between N-S and NE-SW directed crustal shortening in the central and northern Puget Qgtv Mapping of the quadrangle has resulted in the following improvements to and understanding Qgdm ? was first inferred by Gower (1980). Johnson and others (1996) characterized the “southern sorted, moderately to well stratified; medium to very thickly bedded; commonly the Oak Harbor 7.5-minute quadrangle (Dragovich and others, 2005) and elsewhere Lowland—New thoughts on the southern Whidbey Island fault [abstract]: Eos (American p of the geology of the area: Qgom Whidbey Island fault” as a long-lived transpressional zone that separates major crustal blocks. contains crossbeds, contorted beds, oversteepened beds, and small-scale shears, all in the northern Puget Lowland suggest a mean age of 80 ±22 ka (Blunt and others, Geophysical Union Transactions), v.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 180/Friday, September 16, 2016/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2016 / Notices 63795 Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, Native Hawaiian organization not Camano Island is located in Puget TN 37902–1401, telephone (865) 632– identified in this notice that wish to Sound between Whidbey Island and 7458, email [email protected], by claim these cultural items should mainland Washington State; the Cama October 17, 2016. After that date, if no submit a written request with Beach Shell Midden site is on the additional requestors have come information in support of the claim to western shores of the island. Saratoga forward, transfer of control of the the State Parks at the address in this Passage is a waterway between the two human remains and associated funerary notice by October 17, 2016. islands. Along Saratoga Passage, the objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe ADDRESSES: Alicia Woods, Washington shores of both islands are rich in of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal State Parks and Recreation Commission, prehistoric Native American seasonal Town, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, P.O. Box 42650, Olympia, WA 98504– resources sites. and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation may 2650, telephone (360) 902–0939, email Historical and anthropological proceed. [email protected]. sources indicate that the Kikiallus, TVA is responsible for notifying the Swinomish, Lower Skagit and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Notice is Stillaguamish peoples occupied and had (previously listed as the Alabama- here given in accordance with the village sites in the Penn Cove area of Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama- Native American Graves Protection and Whidbey Island and on the Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Island County 2% Committee (Joint Admin
    Minutes Island County 2% Committee (Joint Admin. Board) June 6, 2019 Freeland, China City The meeting was called to order at 11:05am by Chairman Quorum: Debra Bell x Comm. Jill Johnson x Pat Powell x Dianne Binder x Gregg Lanza x Frank Rose Stephanie Cook x Joanne Lechner x Chet Ross x Christine Cribb Jessica McCready X Sharon Sappington Lynda Eccles x Inge Morascini x Erica Wasinger Bruce Allen x Robyn Myers x OH Vacant In addition to the above members also in attendance this meeting were Sherrye Wyatt, Whidbey Camano Islands Tourism Coordinator, Jack Penland, Computer PIX LLC, Scott Rosenkranz, Rosenkranz Productions. Guests: 1) Brigid, Reynolds, City of Langley, Director of Community Planning 2) Owen Dennison, Town of Coupeville, Town Planner 3) Beckye Frey, Island County Long Range Planner 4) Jonathan Lang, Island County Long Range planner Information was provided by guests relating to short term rentals vs. vacation rentals and the impacts to the local community and tourism. Both Coupeville and Langley are working through formal processes within their governments. Island County Planning is gathering information related to this topic and reporting in the future. Adoption of the Agenda: Lynda Eccles motioned and Greg Lanza seconded the motion to approve the agenda. Motion passed. Minutes from August meeting were presented. JoAnne Lechner motioned and Greg Lanza seconded the minutes from May 2, 2019 be approved as presented. Motion passed. 1 Treasurer’s report and invoices were presented by Dianne Binder. Island County Joint Tourism
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington
    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulalip Tribes V. Suquamish Tribe
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TULALIP TRIBES, No. 13-35773 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. Nos. v. 2:05-sp-00004- RSM SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, 2:70-cv-09213- Defendant-Appellee, RSM and OPINION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMMUNITY; JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE; LOWER ELWHA BAND OF KLALLAMS; PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBE; NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE; SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE; UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE; LUMMI NATION; NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE; QUINAULT INDIAN NATION; STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE; PUYALLUP TRIBE; MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE; QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE, Real-parties-in-interest. 2 TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 8, 2014—Seattle, Washington Filed July 27, 2015 Before: Richard A. Paez, Jay S. Bybee, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Paez SUMMARY* Indian Law The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in a treaty fishing rights case in which the Tulalip Tribes sought a determination of the scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations. The Tulalip Tribes invoked the district court’s continuing jurisdiction as provided by a permanent injunction entered in 1974. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that certain contested areas were not excluded from the Suquamish Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations, as determined by the district court in 1975. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Evaluation
    Metro Everett Plan – Market Evaluation Date April 2016 To Paul Popelka, City of Everett From Leland Consulting Group Introduction The City of Everett’s Planning and Community Development Department engaged Leland Consulting Group (LCG) to conduct this market evaluation as part of the Everett Metro Center Plan and Brownfields Assessment efforts. The focus of LCG’s analysis, and this memorandum, has been to: Estimate a 10- and 20-year forecast of residential and commercial development; Identify metrics that suggest which properties and areas are likely to redevelop; Conduct a preliminary review of the zoning code within the Metro Center, and recommend zoning modifications that could encourage development; and, Provide “big ideas” that could assist with the ongoing success of the Metro Center. Economic Development Context This Metro Center planning effort takes place within the context of several national and international economic trends. The first is the exceptional ongoing strength of the Puget Sound economy; the second is the “downtown rebound” trend that has gained momentum in recent decades. Both are very beneficial to the Everett Metro Center. However, they do not guarantee success on all fronts, since the fortunes of the entire Puget Sound region do not necessarily translate directly to development in central Everett. One excellent source for national and regional perspective on current real estate trends is the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) annual Emerging Trends in Real Estate report. The 2016 report ranks the Seattle region as number four for development and investment prospects among 75 metropolitan markets nationwide—above San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Surf Smelt Fact Sheet
    WASHINGTON STATE SURF SMELT FACT SHEET NAME: Surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus (Girard 1855). GEOGRAPHIC RANGE: Long Beach, California to Chignik Lagoon, Alaska. The Asian subspecies, Hypomesus pretiosus japonicas, occurs in the northwest Pacific Ocean. RELATED SPECIES: Several members of the smelt family, Osmeridae, occur in Washington waters, including eulachon (Columbia River smelt, hooligan) Thaleichthys pacificus, longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys, whitebait smelt Allosmerus elongatus, and night smelt Spirinchus starksi. Unlike the other species, both eulachon and longfin smelt are anadromous, migrating into streams in the winter to spawn. Note: Columbia River smelt (eulachon) are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and recreational fishing for this species in Washington waters is limited to years in which the run size is exceptionally large. Be sure to check the recreational fishing regulations (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/) before attempting to fish for any smelt species. RECOGNITION: Characteristic dark stripe down the middle of the side of the body. Also notable for small mouth with maxillary (upper jaw bone) that does not extend past the midpoint of the pupil of the eye; dorsal fin begins in front of the pelvic fin; pelvic fins short; and small, curved adipose fin. Length up to eight inches. LOCAL DISTRIBUTION: Surf smelt occur abundantly throughout the nearshore marine waters of Washington, from the Columbia River to the Canadian border and into southernmost Puget Sound and Hood Canal. Genetic research suggests that, despite this broad distribution, surf smelt throughout Puget Sound represent a single stock. SPAWN TIMING: Surf smelt populations can generally be divided into summer spawners and fall/winter spawners, though year- round spawning has been documented in the Whidbey Basin, Port Susan, portions of the San Juan Islands, and central Puget Sound (Eagle Harbor and Sinclair Inlet).
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Assessment for Salt Marsh Restoration at Camano Island State
    FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FOR SALT MARSH RESTORATION AT CAMANO ISLAND STATE PARK, WHIDBEY BASIN Aundrea McBride and Eric Beamer Skagit River System Cooperative August 2010 Photo from Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Objectives............................................................................................................ 1 Potential Fish Use of a Restored Site.............................................................................................. 2 Fish Assemblage ......................................................................................................................... 3 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat Use and Origin..................................................................... 5 Restoration Potential....................................................................................................................... 7 Site Geomorphology and Hydrology.......................................................................................... 7 Possible Restorable Footprint ..................................................................................................... 8 Restoration Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 16 Tidal Inundation (Will the site get wet?) .................................................................................. 16 Inlet Sustainability (Will the channel stay open?) ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Rivas Family Mexico Café, Skagit County's First & Original by Dan Royal
    The Rivas Family Mexico Café, Skagit County’s First & Original By Dan Royal Skagit County’s first Mexican restaurant, the Mexico Café, was created mixed ingredients of events that took place in the early 1960’s The old home base in Denver Colorado was no longer an option for Mama Rivas. The previous few years had been the beginning of the oldest children leaving home. Daughter Helen had married. Frank, then Robert joined the Marines Corp. The youngest and final child of 12, a boy named Adolph was born to Jesse & Celia Riva at this time. A daughter by the name of Hope had died in infancy. A visit from Aunt Mary during that time encouraged the family to start doing more migrant work in the Toppenish, Washington area. Sons Phillip, Thomas, Ernie, Jesse Jr., and Steve were old enough to help in the fields, even young Mary and Debbie did their share. Plus Aunt Mary had her own Mexican restaurant called Adolph’s El Charrito which was doing well and she used Celia’s help in the kitchen. Thomas was very allergic to the chemicals in the fields so he worked in the restaurant as well. The family had actually done migrant work in the Yakima valley since the late 1930’s and 40’s but never in Skagit County until 1962. First came the asparagus and apples in Toppenish during springtime, then to Skagit during the summer. Strawberries, peas and cucumbers between Bill Fisher’s Sandy Ridge Farms in Bow where Phillip had been the first family member to work berries in the valley and Roger Knutzen’s farm on Avon-Allen Rd.
    [Show full text]