DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Cultural Resources Assessment As Approved by FTA on March 31, 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Cultural Resources Assessment As Approved by FTA on March 31, 2016 Swift II Bus Rapid Transit Final Cultural Resources Assessment As approved by FTA on March 31, 2016 Prepared for Prepared by Environmental Science Associates Swift BRT II Cultural Resource Assessment Submitted to OTAK 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Prepared for Community Transit Prepared by Alicia B. Valentino, Ph.D. and Chanda Schneider This report is exempt from public distribution and disclosure (RCW 42.56.300) ESA Project Number 120361.02 Swift BRT II Cultural Resource Assessment ABSTRACT Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by OTAK on behalf of Community Transit to conduct a cultural resources survey for the Swift II Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) II project. Community Transit is preparing to construct approximately thirty-four (34) BRT stations along an approximate 12-mile corridor, which includes portions of SR 527, SR 96/132 nd Street SE, 128th Street SE/SW, Airport Road, and Seaway Boulevard. Many of the proposed stations are located either on existing paved sidewalks/roadways or on previously disturbed vegetated areas along the road corridor. The project will involve construction of an in-lane, concrete bus pad approximately 70 foot by 16 feet, and the station platform and sidewalk approach will be modified to meet surrounding site conditions such as abutting sidewalks, ADA ramps, street paving, landscaping, and curbs and gutters. ESA performed pedestrian survey, subsurface survey, and recorded historic properties in and adjacent to the Area of Potential Effect (APE). No National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties or archaeological sites were identified during the project. ESA recommends that site 45-KI-528, located approximately 300 feet to the east of the intersection of SR 527 and 196 th Street SE (where sidewalk improvements are proposed) is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The site does not retain integrity and is not eligible under any of the four National Register criteria for listing. If DAHP concurs with this recommendation, then sidewalk improvements proposed for the area east of the intersection of SR 527 and 196 th Street SE, would not have an effect to Historic Properties. While the potential for encountering archaeological resources is low throughout the APE, ESA recommends the development of an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that will outline protocols and procedures to be followed in the event of construction encountering cultural resources. ESA Page i March 31, 2016 Swift BRT II Cultural Resource Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. I 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 1 3.0 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 7 4.0 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................ 7 5.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................ 7 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................. 8 6.1 GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 8 6.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................................................... 8 6.3 FLORA AND FAUNA ............................................................................................................................... 8 7.0 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 9 7.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 9 7.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY ............................................................. 11 8.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 12 8.1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................... 12 9.0 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ................................................................... 14 9.1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS ....................................................................................... 14 9.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................. 16 9.2.1 45-SN-459: North Creek Johnson Dairy historic debris scatter and prehistoric lithic site 16 th 9.2.2 45-SN-528: 196 Street SE Corduroy Road ........................................................................ 17 9.3 HISTORIC RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY ....................................................................... 17 9.4 EXPECTATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 17 10.0 FIELD ASSESSMENT METHODS .......................................................................................... 17 10.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ............................................................................................................... 17 10.2 HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 18 11.0 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 18 11.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ............................................................................................................... 18 11.2 HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY .......................................................................................................... 21 11.2.1 19525 Bothell-Everett Highway, Bothell ............................................................................. 21 11.2.2 915 Elgin Way, Everett ........................................................................................................ 22 11.2.3 12724 East Gibson Road, Everett ........................................................................................ 23 th 11.2.4 101 128 Street SE, Everett 98208 ...................................................................................... 24 th 11.2.5 111 128 St SE, Everett 98208 ............................................................................................ 25 th 11.2.6 214 128 Street SW, Everett 98204 ..................................................................................... 26 12.0 INTERPRETATION & EVALUATION ................................................................................... 27 12.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 27 12.2 HISTORIC PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 28 13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 28 ESA Page iii March 31, 2016 Swift BRT II Cultural Resource Assessment BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Area of Potential Effect (APE) Vicinity Map, 1 of 4. ..................................................... 3 Figure 2. Area of Potential Effect (APE) Vicinity Map, 2 of 4. ..................................................... 4 Figure 3. Area of Potential Effect (APE) Vicinity Map, 3 of 4. ..................................................... 5 Figure 4. Area of Potential Effect (APE) Vicinity Map, 4 of 4. ..................................................... 6 Figure 5. 1874 General Land Office (GLO) map overlaid on modern street map, showing the location of the Old Military Road and proposed BRT stations (base map DAHP 2010). .... 13 Figure 6. SP-04, glacial at base of probe (81 cmbs). .................................................................... 19 Figure 7. Shovel probes locations for the Swift BRT Phase II Project. ........................................ 20 Figure 8. 19525 Bothell-Everett Highway, Bothell; looking northeast. ....................................... 21 Figure 9. 915 Elgin Way, Everett 98208; looking northeast. ....................................................... 22 Figure 10. 12724 East Gibson Road, Everett 98204; looking northwest...................................... 23 Figure 11. 101 128th Street SE, Everett 98208; looking northeast. ............................................. 24 Figure 12. 111 128th Street SE, Everett 98208; looking northeast. ............................................. 25 Figure 13. 214 128th Street SW, Everett 98204; looking south. .................................................. 26 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Recorded Place Names near the APE. ............................................................................ 11 Table 2. Previous cultural resources
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]
  • 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
    [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]