DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered Species Act Response Planning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Endangered Species Act Response Planning City of Snohomish Endangered Species Act Response Planning Prepared for: City of Snohomish 116 Union Avenue Snohomish, Washington 98290 Prepared by: Steward and Associates 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, Washington 98290 www.stewardandassociates.com May 2004 City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTACTS Client: City of Snohomish 116 Union Avenue Snohomish, WA 98290 Contact: Larry Bauman Telephone: (360) 568-3115 Email: [email protected] Preparer: Steward and Associates 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, WA 98390 Contact: John Lombard Telephone: (360) 862-1255 Email: [email protected] i City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS CONTACTS I CONTENTS II FIGURES V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Why an “Endangered Species Act” Strategy? 2 1.1.1 Providing Compliance with Multiple Environmental Laws 4 1.1.2 Meeting the City’s Vision 5 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 7 2.1 SNOHOMISH RIVER 7 2.1.1 Fish and Wildlife 9 2.1.2 Wetlands 9 2.1.3 Water Quality 11 2.1.4 Habitat Quality 11 2.2 PILCHUCK RIVER 12 2.2.1 Fish and Wildlife 14 2.2.2 Wetlands 14 2.2.3 Water Quality 14 2.2.4 Habitat Quality 15 2.3 CEMETERY CREEK 18 2.3.1 Fish and wildlife 18 2.3.2 Wetlands 22 2.3.3 Water Quality 22 2.3.4 Habitat Quality 26 2.3.5 Confluence Wetland 26 2.3.6 Harkins Fork 26 2.3.7 Myricks Fork 27 2.4 BUNK FOSS CREEK 27 2.4.1 Fish and wildlife 30 2.4.2 Wetlands 32 2.4.3 Water Quality 34 2.4.4 Habitat Quality 34 2.4.5 Fields Fork 35 2.4.6 Clarks Fork 35 2.5 BLACKMAN’S LAKE/SWIFTY CREEK 35 2.5.1 Fish and Wildlife 38 2.5.2 Wetlands 38 2.5.3 Water Quality 40 2.5.4 Habitat Quality 40 3 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY STUDY AREA 43 3.1 PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS ACROSS STUDY AREAS 43 3.2 SNOHOMISH RIVER 45 3.2.1 Programmatic Recommendations 45 3.2.2 Protection Priorities 45 3.2.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration 46 3.2.4 Vision for Future Conditions 49 3.3 PILCHUCK RIVER 49 3.3.1 Programmatic Recommendations 49 ii City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.2 Protection Priorities 50 3.3.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration 50 3.3.4 Vision for Future Conditions 53 3.4 CEMETERY CREEK 53 3.4.1 Programmatic 53 3.4.2 Protection Priorities 53 3.4.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration (see Figure III-4) 56 3.4.4 Fish Passage Restoration (see Figure III-4) 58 3.4.5 Vision for Future Conditions 61 3.5 BUNK FOSS CREEK 61 3.5.1 Programmatic 61 3.5.2 Protection Priorities (see Figure III-5) 61 3.5.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration (see Figure III-5) 62 3.5.4 Fish Passage Restoration 63 3.5.5 Vision for Future Conditions 66 3.6 SWIFTY CREEK/BLACKMAN’S LAKE 66 3.6.1 Programmatic 66 3.6.2 Protection Priorities (see Figure III-6) 66 3.6.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration (see Figure III-6) 67 3.6.4 Fish Passage Restoration (Not Recommended, Due to Costs) 67 3.6.5 Vision for Future Conditions 70 4 REVIEW OF CITY ACTIVITIES 71 4.1 CITY ACTIVITIES MOST AFFECTING CHINOOK SALMON 71 4.2 PRIORITY ACTIVITIES BASED ON CRITERIA OTHER THAN BENEFITS TO CHINOOK 72 4.3 DETAILED REVIEW OF CITY ACTIVITIES 73 4.3.1. Development Regulations: Buffers, Stormwater Standards, Other Issues 73 4.3.2 Habitat Acquisition and Restoration 81 4.3.3 Maintenance of Riverfront and Park Property 83 4.3.4 Stormwater Management 85 4.3.5 Pilchuck Dam Operations and Capital Improvements 90 4.3.6 Technical Assistance for Community-Based Stewardship 93 4.3.7 Road and Other Public Works Maintenance 94 5 RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN 96 5.1 OVERALL PRIORITIES 96 5.1.1 Highest Priorities for Protection 96 5.1.2 Highest Priorities for Restoration 97 5.2 STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS FUNDING CONSTRAINTS 98 5.3 MONITORING TO EVALUATE THE ESA STRATEGY 99 5.4 COORDINATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 100 6 EXPECTED RESULTS FROM ESA STRATEGY 103 6.1 BENEFITS TO SALMON 103 6.2 BENEFITS TO WILDLIFE 103 6.3 BENEFITS TO HUMANS 104 6.4 BENEFITS TO CITY GOVERNMENT 104 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 105 APPENDIX B CONTRACT SCOPE OF WORK 110 APPENDIX C SMC 14.51.070 128 APPENDIX D WAC 222-16-030 130 APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY SAMPLING REPORT 134 iii City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX F REPORT TO PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE 161 APPENDIX G HIATS, WITH EXPLANATION OF HABITAT QUALITY INDEX 171 APPENDIX H WRIA 7 SUB-BASIN STRATEGIES FOR LOWER SNOHOMISH 195 APPENDIX I TRI-COUNTY STORMWATER MAINTENANCE 203 iv City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ FIGURES FIGURE II-1 SNOHOMISH RIVER STUDY AREA: DESIGNATED LAND USE 8 FIGURE II-2 SNOHOMISH RIVER STUDY AREA: KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 10 FIGURE II-3 PILCHUCK RIVER STUDY AREA: DESIGNATED LAND USES 13 FIGURE II-4 PILCHUCK RIVER STUDY AREA (BUNK FOSS CONFLUENCE TO 6TH ST. BRIDGE): KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 16 FIGURE II-5 PILCHUCK RIVER STUDY AREA (6TH ST. BRIDGE TO MOUTH): KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 17 FIGURE II-6 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: DESIGNATED LAND USES 20 FIGURE II-7 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 21 FIGURE II-8 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY 24 FIGURE II-9 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: BPA WETLAND CHEMICAL AND NUTRIENT BARRIERS 25 FIGURE II-10 BUNK FOSS CREEK: DESIGNATED LAND USE 29 FIGURE II-11 BUNK FOSS CREEK BASIN: HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY 31 FIGURE II-12 BUNK FOSS CREEK BASIN: KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 33 FIGURE II-13 SWIFTY CREEK SUBBASIN: DESIGNATED LAND USES 37 FIGURE II-14 SWIFTY CREEK SUBBASIN: KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 39 FIGURE III-1 SNOHOMISH ESA STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 44 FIGURE III-2 SNOHOMISH RIVER STUDY AREA: RECOMMENDATIONS 48 FIGURE III-3 PILCHUCK RIVER STUDY AREA: RECOMMENDATIONS 52 FIGURE III-4 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: RECOMMENDATIONS 60 FIGURE III-5 BUNK FOSS CREEK BASIN: RECOMMENDATIONS 65 FIGURE III-6 SWIFTY CREEK SUBBASIN: RECOMMENDATIONS 69 E-I MONTHLY WATER QUALLITY MONITORING AND E.COLI SAMPLING LOCATIONS 156 F-I MACROINVERTEBRATE, NUTRIENT AND CONTAMINANT LOADING MONITORING SITES 166 v City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Endangered Species Act Strategy for the City of Snohomish identifies and prioritizes actions that the City can take to preserve and enhance its streams, wetlands and riverfront, while promoting rational development and other City goals. The Strategy’s recommendations, based primarily on the needs of salmon, provide an integrated approach to City activities to assure compliance not only with the Endangered Species Act but also with other federal and state environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Growth Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act. The recommendations are based on data best available science, including data collected specifically for this purpose, and have been developed in coordination with staff from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Thus, they can be used to guide the City’s future activities and protect fish and wildlife habitat within its Urban Growth Area. City of Snohomish officials, at their discretion, can use the Strategy to update critical area regulations and the city’s shoreline management plan, establish a stormwater management program for its NPDES Phase II municipal permit, and develop best management practices for maintenance of public works, parks and riverfront property. The Strategy also identifies and prioritizes habitat restoration projects, which could be implemented through grants and other partnerships, mitigation requirements for public and private projects, and a variety of City programs meant to further conservation goals. One of the original goals of the ESA Strategy in 2001-02 was to provide the City the potential basis for an exemption from “take” prohibitions for Puget Sound chinook salmon, which was listed as a threatened “Evolutionarily Significant Unit” under the ESA in March 1999 (64 FR 14308). Municipalities such as Snohomish face the risk of federal agency enforcement and citizen lawsuits when listed species are adversely affected by their actions or inactions. To reduce its liability, the City intended to seek approval for certain activities subsumed under one or more “limits” or exceptions to take prohibitions specified under Section 4(d) of the ESA. A 4(d) rule limit provides qualifying governments or individuals with a safe harbor from federal enforcement under the ESA, and greatly reduces the threat of litigation. As originally conceived, the Snohomish ESA Strategy was to be patterned after a similar effort then underway at the regional level. The “Tri-County” Salmon Conservation Coalition, which represented public and private interests across Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties, was seeking 4(d) rule exemptions for several county programs, including public water systems, road construction and maintenance, and stormwater management. By applying lessons learned in the Tri-County experience to the City of Snohomish’s specific needs, the ESA Strategy sought to provide protection for chinook salmon sufficient for NMFS approval, at a reduced cost to the City and its citizens. vi City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ The Tri-County coalition ultimately decided not to pursue 4(d) rule exemptions and, for now, it appears prudent for the City to do the same. The legal risks of liability for take appear relatively small due to the difficulty of proving that a program or suite of actions causes the take of individual fish.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2017-2018 Fishing in Washington Sport Fishing Rules Pamphlet
    Sport Fishing Rules Pamphlet Corrections and Updates July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 Last updated June 28, 2017. Marine Area Rules Page 98, LANDING A FISH - A club or dipnet (landing net) may be used to assist landing a legal fish taken by legal gear. A gaff may only be used to land a legally hooked LINGCOD (in Marine Areas 1-3 and 4 West of Bonilla-Tatoosh line), HALIBUT, TUNA, or DOGFISH SHARK that will be retained. HALIBUT may be shot or harpooned while landing. Photo By Scott Mayfield General Information Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Dr. Jim Unsworth, Director Ron Warren, Assistant Director, Fish Program Contents General Information General Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission GENERAL RULES & INFORMATION Dr. Bradley Smith, Chair, Bellingham Jay Kehne, Omak Contact Information ..................................2 Larry Carpenter, Vice Chair, Mount Vernon Miranda Wecker, Naselle Update From WDFW ................................3 Barbara Baker, Olympia Kim Thorburn, Spokane Statewide General Rules .........................4 Jay Holzmiller, Anatone David Graybill, Leavenworth Salmon and Trout Handling Rules ............5 Rules Robert “Bob” Kehoe, Seattle License Information ...............................6-7 Catch Record Cards .................................8 Freshwater Catch Record Card Codes .......................9 How to Use This Pamphlet Definitions ..........................................10-11 FRESHWATER GENERAL RULES This pamphlet is effective July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 Statewide Freshwater Rules..............13-15 and contains information you need to legally fish throughout RIVERS .............................................17-73 Washington State (see WAC summary information below). Special Rules Introduction ..................17 Puget Sound Puget Puget Sound and Coast Rivers - Rivers & Coast 1 Read the General Information Pages. Special Rules ...................................18-46 Read the Licensing and Catch Record Card information.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrative and Graphic Source Material
    Source descriptions for features in a geodatabase of Puget Sound’s pre-settlement river valley, estuary and nearshore habitats (September 14, 2008 version) Introduction This is a supplement to a Geographic Information System (GIS) geodatabase of the Puget Sound area’s riverine and nearshore environments as reconstructed for the pre- settlement (mid-19th century) era. It consists of descriptions of mapped features. The descriptions include source materials that were used, and discussion on how they were used. Features are primarily wetlands, channels, and landforms. Features are indexed by an identifying code that is linked to the geodatabase. The code consists of three letters that identify the river or oceanographic basin, followed by the township and range (all townships are North, and ranges are identified as East or West, by “E” or “W”) and a number given to features sequentially within each township. Some nearshore features are identified by a separate coding system consisting of a WRIA (Washington Water Resource Inventory Area) number and a unique number within the WRIA. Numerous excerpts from Public Land Survey (PLS) field notes are included; generally the notes’ idiosyncratic usage, grammar, and punctuation are preserved. At present this document contains source descriptions for aquatic habitats. With time descriptions will be added of additional features, or more information will be added for features already in the narrative (e.g., on the seasonal inundation characteristics of wetlands). Source descriptions will also be added for different types of features not included at this time (e.g., forest composition). How to cite this document: Collins, B. D. 2008. Source descriptions for features in a geodatabase of Puget Sound’s pre-settlement river valley, estuary and nearshore habitats (September 14, 2008 version).
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish River Tributaries Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load
    Snohomish River Tributaries Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Submittal Report June 2001 Publication Number 00-10-087 Snohomish River Tributaries Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Submittal Report by Robert J. Wright Randy Coots Robert F. Cusimano Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 June 2001 Publication Number 00-10-087 For additional copies of this document contact: Department of Ecology Publications Distribution Center P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Telephone: (360) 407-7472 If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in an alternative format, please call the secretary at (360) 407-6404. The TTY number is 711 or 1-800-833-6388 . Table of Contents List of Figures...................................................................................................................................ii List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................ii Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................................................2 Applicable Criteria ..........................................................................................................................6 Water Quality and Resource Impairments ...................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Pilchuck River Assessment Habitat Report
    MIDDLE PILCHUCK RIVER ASSESSMENT Habitat Report Prepared for Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board Prepared by Snohomish County Surface Water Management January 10, 2012 Acknowledgements Department of Public Works Steve Thomsen, P.E., Director Surface Water Management (SWM) Division Debbie Terwilleger, Director SWM Supervisors Kathy Thornburgh Karen Kerwin Mike McGuiness Gregg Farris John Engel Project Team Chris Nelson, Project Manager Cindy Flint Frank Leonetti Michael Rustay Bob Aldrich Dave Lucas Suzy Brunzell Report prepared by Frank Leonetti and Michael Rustay. Data sharing, field assistance and project planning were provided by Abby Hook (Tulalip Tribes), Anne Savery (Tulalip Tribes), Andy Haas, Brett Gaddis, Tong Tran, Chris Nelson, Michael Purser, Gi-Choul Ahn, Tim Walls, Peggy Walsh, Megan Morey, Kathryn Davis, Paul Fischer, Peter Verhey (WDFW), Tom Cox (WDFW), Paul DeVries (R2 Resources Inc.), City of Snohomish (for Pilchuck River access at Menzel Lake Road), and Bill Ward (Department of Ecology). Critical review and helpful improvements were provided by Cindy Flint, Gregg Farris, Kathy Thornburgh, Kevin Fetherston (R2 Resources Inc.), and Chris Nelson. The Middle Pilchuck River Assessment was funded through a Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant. Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretive Signage Themes/Content Prepared for Snohomish County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Contents
    FINAL 01/17/2020 SKYKOMISH & SNOHOMISH RIVERS Interpretive Signage Themes/Content Prepared for Snohomish County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Contents 1 Overview Background Goals Process Key Concepts and Ideas 3 Interpretive Themes Primary Theme: Rivers as Lifeways Sub-Theme: Rivers and Treaty Rights Cultural Heritage Interpretive Concepts Interpretive Symbol Lushootseed Names Traditional Stories Personal Views of the River 7 River Access Sites: Interpretive Ideas 13 Growing Interpretive Support and Community Connections 13 Interpretive Partners and Future Planning 13 Appendix Overview Background The Skykomish-Snohomish Rivers system is at the heart of the history, culture, and natural lifeways of Snohomish County. In 2015, the Skykomish-Snohomish Rivers Coalition (the Coalition) formed to address the growing recreational pressure on these rivers. A working group composed of “over 25 entities representing federal, tribal, state, and local governments and agencies, businesses, civic groups, non-profit organizations and residents” met regularly to develop a “shared vision and plan for coordinated, well-managed, sustainable recreation on the river system.” One result of the discussions that have been ongoing since 2015 is the Skykomish-Snohomish Rivers Recreation Concept Plan, with a working draft released in August of 2018. The concept plan included a series of visions and goals as well as key considerations for coordinated recreation management. The plan also provided general recommendations and proposed public river access sites accompanied by a detailed inventory of current landowner management. Among the major concerns expressed in the plan were safety on the rivers and protection of fish and habitat as recreational use increased. As part of ongoing efforts to address these issues, Snohomish County Parks, Recreation, and Tourism funded a project in 2018-2019 to develop and recommend a Wayfinding and Interpretive Signage Program for up to 11 access sites designated along the Skykomish-Snohomish River system.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Historical Populations of Steelhead Within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment Doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-128
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-128 Identifying Historical Populations of Steelhead within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-128 March 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series to issue scientific and technical publications. Manuscripts have been peer reviewed and edited. Documents published in this series can be cited in the scientific and technical literature. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series continues the NMFS- F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which subsequently was divided into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The latter center uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC series. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Reference this document as follows: Myers, J.M., J.J. Hard, E.J. Connor, R.A. Hayman, R.G. Kope, G. Lucchetti, A.R. Marshall, G.R. Pess, and B.E. Thompson. 2015. Identifying historical populations of steelhead within the Puget Sound distinct population segment. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-128. doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-128. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-128 Identifying Historical Populations of Steelhead within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-128 James M.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Appendix A)
    CITY OF SNOHOMISH SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Prepared for June 2010, updated May 2017 City of Snohomish City of Snohomish Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Prepared for June 2010, updated May 2017 City of Snohomish 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 www.adolfson.com Los Angeles Oakland Olympia Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Tampa Woodland Hills D209491.00 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. Shoreline Inventory and Characterization City of Snohomish TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Organization ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish County, Washington and Incorporated Areas
    VOLUME 1 OF 3 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER NUMBER ARLINGTON, CITY OF 530271 MILL CREEK, CITY OF 530330 BOTHELL, CITY OF 530075 MONROE, CITY OF 530169 BRIER, CITY OF 530276 MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, CITY OF 530170 DARRINGTON, TOWN OF 530233 MUKILTEO, CITY OF 530235 EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 SNOHOMISH, CITY OF 530171 EVERETT, CITY OF 530164 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, 535534 GOLD BAR, CITY OF 530285 UNINCORPORATED AREAS GRANITE FALLS, CITY OF 530287 STANWOOD, CITY OF 530172 INDEX, TOWN OF 530166 STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE 530238 LAKE STEVENS, CITY OF 530291 SULTAN, CITY OF 530173 LYNNWOOD, CITY OF 530167 TULALIP TRIBE 530225 MARYSVILLE, CITY OF 530168 WOODWAY, TOWN OF 530308 REVISED: JUNE 19, 2020 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 53061CV001B Version Number 2.3.2.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 7 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 17 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 17 2.2 Floodways 25 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 27 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 27 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 27 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 28 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 29 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 30 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 31 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 31 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ore Deposits of the Sultan Basin, Snohomish County, Washington
    State of Washington MON C. WALLGREN, Governor Department of Conservation and Development ART G ARTON, Director DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY SHELDON L . GLOVER, Supervisor Bulletin No. 36 Geology and Ore Deposits of the Sultan Basin, Snohomish County, Washington By WARD CARITHERS and A. K. GUARD O LYMPIA S TATE PRINTING PLANT 1945 Fo1· sale by Department of Conservation and Development, Olympia, Washingwn. Price 50 cen ts. CONTENTS Page Foreword . ... 5 Introduction . 7 Location and accessibility. 7 Field work and acknowledgments.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... 8 Scope of the report. 8 Source of map data. 8 Selected bibUography . 9 Physiography . 9 Topography . 9 Drainage . 10 Climate and vegetation . .. ..... ......... .......................... 10 Glaciation . 11 Geologic formations . 13 Bedded rocks ......... .. ..... ................ ........... ..... 14 Old metamorphic series. .. 14 Conglomerate-argillite series . 15 Quaternary deposits . 18 Igneous rocks . 18 Peridotite . 18 Quartz diorite .. ........... ... .... .. ... ............ 22 Dikes ..... .. .... .. .......... ... .. ... ... ...... .... ... .. 26 Ore deposits . 28 Lode deposits . 28 Origin ... .. .. .... .... ... .. ... ............... .. ...... 28 Structure . 28 Mineralogy . 29 Pa.ragenesis . 33 Stages of m ineralization .. ....... ..... ..... .... ..... ... .. 33 Magmatic segregations . 35 Replacement deposits ........ .... ..... ........................ 36 Placer deposits . 36 Mines and prospects. 36 History and production . 36 WilUamson Creek area .................
    [Show full text]
  • WSE Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling Report
    HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGIC MODELING IN THE SNOHOMISH WATERSHED Prepared for: Snohomish County Public Works Surface Water Management Division 3000 Rockefeller Ave, M/S 607 Everett, WA 98201 Prepared by: 506 2nd Ave, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98104 206-521-3000 April 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Purpose & Goal ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Project Area & Study Context ....................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Previous Hydraulic Analyses ......................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Hydrologic Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Data Sources ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Historical Hydrologic Analysis ....................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Balanced Hydrograph Development ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • For City of Granite Falls' Shoreline: South Fork Stillaguamish River and Pilchuck River
    FINAL CITY OF GRANITE FALLS GRANT NO. 1100006 S HORELINE A NALYSIS R E P O R T for City of Granite Falls’ Shoreline: South Fork Stillaguamish River and Pilchuck River Prepared for: City of Granite Falls 206 South Granite Avenue P.O. Box 1440 Granite Falls, WA 98252 Prepared by: 1904 3rd Avenue, Suite 725 Seattle, Washington 98101 This report was funded in part through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. January, 2011 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 100610 The Watershed Company Contact Person: Dan Nickel Printed on 30% recycled paper. Cite this document as: The Watershed Company and Makers. January 2011. FINAL Shoreline Analysis Report for the City of Granite Falls’ Shoreline: South Fork Stillaguamish River and Pilchuck River. Prepared for the City of Granite Falls, Granite Falls, WA. Printed on 30% recycled paper. TABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 2 2 Current Regulatory Framework Summary ................................... 3 2.1 City of Granite Falls ........................................................................................... 3 2.2 State and Federal Regulations .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Miller-Foss Watershed Analysis
    Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Miller-Foss Watershed Analysis Chapter 1 - Introduction..................................................................................................... i Purpose of the Analysis............................................................................................................. 1 Watershed Analysis Planning Basis ....................................................................................... 1 Analytical Process Used............................................................................................................ 2 Watershed Analysis Context................................................................................................... 3 Watershed Analysis Products and Outcomes ......................................................................... 4 Watershed Analysis Organization .......................................................................................... 4 Steps Utilized in Watershed Analysis..................................................................................... 4 Watershed Characterization.................................................................................................... 4 Management Direction ........................................................................................................... 6 Climate and Physiography.................................................................................................... 10 Watershed Resources...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]