20191210
09505200
1.0
FALSE
CombinedScores
002
1327209.220825
1522462.512733
250728.045585
396249.522258
1
Projected
GCS_North_American_1983
Linear Unit: Foot_US (0.304801)
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
<ProjectedCoordinateSystem xsi:type='typens:ProjectedCoordinateSystem' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema' xmlns:typens='http://www.esri.com/schemas/ArcGIS/2.4.0'><WKT>PROJCS["NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet",GEOGCS["GCS_North_American_1983",DATUM["D_North_American_1983",SPHEROID["GRS_1980",6378137.0,298.257222101]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Lambert_Conformal_Conic"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",1640416.666666667],PARAMETER["False_Northing",0.0],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",-120.8333333333333],PARAMETER["Standard_Parallel_1",47.5],PARAMETER["Standard_Parallel_2",48.73333333333333],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",47.0],UNIT["Foot_US",0.3048006096012192],AUTHORITY["EPSG",2285]]</WKT><XOrigin>-117104300</XOrigin><YOrigin>-99539600</YOrigin><XYScale>3048.0060960121928</XYScale><ZOrigin>-100000</ZOrigin><ZScale>10000</ZScale><MOrigin>-100000</MOrigin><MScale>10000</MScale><XYTolerance>0.0032808333333333331</XYTolerance><ZTolerance>0.001</ZTolerance><MTolerance>0.001</MTolerance><HighPrecision>true</HighPrecision><WKID>102748</WKID><LatestWKID>2285</LatestWKID></ProjectedCoordinateSystem>
20200131
16155100
20200131
16155100
150000000
5000
Esri ArcGIS 12.4.2.19948
CombinedFPUScores
vector digital data
2019-12-10T00:00:00
2019-12-10T00:00:00
Michelle Totman
Tulalip Tribes
Natural Resources GIS Specialist
6406 Marine Drive
Tulalip
Washington
98271
mtotman@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov
360-716-4609
Michelle Totman
Brett Shattuck
Tulalip Tribes
Restoration Ecologist
6406 Marine Drive
Tulalip
Washington
98271
bshattuck@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov
360-716-4475
1
-122.114695
-121.312228
48.085285
47.680267
The bounding box represents the spatial area in which the data resides. The temporal instant extent represents the data on which this data was released in its current format.
2019-12-10T00:00:00
This layer contains all the input and calculation fields for determining the Snohomish Floodplain Acquisition priorities as well as weighted Base Scores, Conservation Scores, and Restoration Scores.
<DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN> Weighted Base Scores, Conservation Scores, and Restoration Scores were calculated using the Criterion Decision Plus 4 (CDP4) model weighting software by InfoHarvest Inc. These weights were imported into ArcMap using the Ecosystem Management Support (EMDS) environment. The metrics used in CDP4 to establish weighted scores are included in this data set as well as some additional information to assist in reviewing and better understanding the accuracy of the metrics themselves.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Brett Shattuck, Tulalip Tribes Restoration Ecologist
Michelle Totman, Tulalip Tribes Natural Resources GIS Specialist
Acquisition Strategy
Floodplain
Snohomish
Skykomish
Pilchuck
River
Tulalip Tribes
Base Score
Restoration Score
Conservation Score
<DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>This dataset has been developed as a communication tool. All lands within the Snohomish Floodplain are of highest importance for conservation and/or restoration. In a limited budget situation, these high priority areas need to be reviewed to further highlight the highest of the high. The intent of this dataset is to use quantitative values to provide a visual of the relative ease and benefit of conservation and restoration actions across portions of the Snohomish Floodplain. While this data helps us communicate the relative importance of each floodplain unit, it is imperative to remember that all lands within the floodplain need protecting and acquisition priorities are subject to change based on parameters both modeled and unmodeled.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
external
1a4b5e6542e8f1aea506d8879d37a7e94f9e11eb
Michelle Totman
Tulalip Tribes
Natural Resources GIS Specialist
6406 Marine Drive
Tulalip
Washington
98271
mtotman@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov
360-716-4609
True
Michelle Totman
external
f896ff30001ef29061a7f874be6d12ab8d6b4c1d
Brett Shattuck
Tulalip Tribes
Restoration Ecologist
6406 Marine Drive
Tulalip
Washington
98271
bshattuck@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov
360-716-4475
True
Brett Shattuck
File Geodatabase Feature Class
dataset
EPSG
5.3(9.0.0)
204
Simple
FALSE
204
TRUE
FALSE
CombinedScores
Feature Class
205
This layer contains all the metrics and final rankings of floodplain units (FPUs) relating to their priority level for conservation, restoration, or either (base score)
Tulalip Tribes
OBJECTID
OBJECTID
OID
4
0
0
Internal feature number.
Esri
Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.
acreage
acreage
Double
8
0
0
Total acreage of the Floodplain Unit
Determined using the Calculate Geometry capabilities in ArcGIS
Positive real numbers determined using the Calculate Geometry capabilities in ArcGIS.
5.0
1951.0
92.2
204.6
acre
FPU_Num
FPU_Num
String
5
0
0
Number associated with floodplain units. Becomes a unique identifier when combined with the 'Channel' field. FPUs with a number starting with 100 are located on the left bank when facing downstream. FPUs with a number starting with 200 are located on the right bank when facing downstream. FPUs starting with 300 are surrounded by braided channels; islands.
Tulalip Tribes - to permit distinguishing between floodplain units by a meaningful unique identifier
FPUs with a number starting with 100 are located on the left bank when facing downstream. FPUs with a number starting with 200 are located on the right bank when facing downstream. FPUs starting with 300 are surrounded by braided channels; islands.
Channel
Channel
String
10
0
0
Short-hand name of the channel adjoining the FPU. The channel from which the FPU number was assigned.
Channel names were obtained from the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Abbreviations were developed by the Tulalip Tribes to minimize the number of characters used in the unique identifier.
SKY
Skykomish River
Tulalip Tribes
BECK
Beckler River
Tulalip Tribes
ELW
Elwell Creek
Tulalip Tribes
OLNEY
Olney Creek
Tulalip Tribes
PIL
Pilchuck River
Tulalip Tribes
SKY_S
South Skykomish River
Tulalip Tribes
SNOHO
Snohomish River
Tulalip Tribes
SKY_N
North Skykomish River
Tulalip Tribes
SULTAN
Sultan River
Tulalip Tribes
MILLER
Miller River
Tulalip Tribes
WAL
Wallace River
Tulalip Tribes
BANK
BANK
String
10
0
0
The side or 'bank' of the river along which the floodplain unit (FPU) is located, defined in relation to the flow of water in the channel from the perspective of facing downstream.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
LEFT
The FPU is located on the left bank of its associated river
Tulalip Tribes
RIGHT
The FPU is located on the right bank of its associated river
Tulalip Tribes
MID
The FPU is located in the middle of its associated river; it is an island
Tulalip Tribes
FPU_name
FPU_name
String
10
0
0
A unique code assigned to each floodplain unit. It is a combination of the 'Channel' and 'FPU_Num' fields.
Tulalip Tribes
A meaningful unique identifier for each of the 205 floodplain units (FPUs).
Sin_2500_count
Sin_2500_count
SmallInteger
2
0
0
The number of 2,500 foot stream segments spaced 50 feet associated with a floodplain unit (FPU) for the sinuosity assessment. Each segment extends 1,250 feet upstream and 1,250 feet downstream of control points located on the stream centerline and adjacent to the FPU.
Tulalip Tribes
Larger values representing more sample points related to a given FPU.
11
652
92
204
none
Sin_2500_mean
Sin_2500_mean
Double
8
0
0
An estimate of the sinuosity of the floodplain unit river shoreline frontage. This is calculated by dividing the stream distance by the Euclidean (or straight) distance between a point 1,250 feet upstream and 1,250 feet downstream of a control point then averaging this ratio across all control points (spaced 50 feet apart) adjacent to the FPU.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
Lower values indicate less sinuous or straighter stretches of river.
1.00
1.72
1.18
0.14
none
Sin_2500_min
Sin_2500_min
Double
8
0
0
An estimate of the minimum sinuosity value calculated for a control point associated with the floodplain unit . This is calculated by dividing the stream distance by the Euclidean (or straight) distance between a point 1,250 feet upstream and 1,250 feet downstream of a control point then selecting the minimum value returned from all control points (spaced 50 feet apart) adjacent to the FPU.
Tulalip Tribes
1.00
1.54
1.07
0.09
none
Sin_2500_max
Sin_2500_max
Double
8
0
0
An estimate of the maximum sinuosity value calculated for a control point associated with the floodplain unit . This is calculated by dividing the stream distance by the Euclidean (or straight) distance between a point 1,250 feet upstream and 1,250 feet downstream of a control point then selecting the maximum value returned from all control points (spaced 50 feet apart) adjacent to the FPU.
Tulalip Tribes
1.00
2.63
1.40
0.31
none
Sin_2500_STD
Sin_2500_STD
Double
8
0
0
An estimate of the standard deviation of all sinuosity values calculated for a control points associated with the floodplain unit . This is calculated by dividing the stream distance by the Euclidean (or straight) distance between a point 1,250 feet upstream and 1,250 feet downstream of a control point then calculating the standard deviation for values returned from all control points (spaced 50 feet apart) adjacent to the FPU.
Tulalip Tribes
0
0.548
0.095
0.081
none
Armor_ft
Armor_ft
Double
8
0
0
A measurement of the length, in feet, of armoring between the river channel and the floodplain unit (FPU).
Tulalip Tribes
0
16332
877
1927
feet
Front_ft
Front_ft
Double
8
0
0
A measurement of the length, in feet, of the floodplain unit (FPU) river shoreline frontage.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
600
31585
4766
4371
feet
Armor_Pct
Armor_Pct
Double
8
0
0
A measurement of the percent, by length, of armoring between the river channel and the floodplain unit (FPU). Used as a Degradation metric for the Conservation and Restoration scores.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
0
1
15
23
Percent
SSG
Sub-basin Strategy Group
String
50
0
0
As a part of the process of developing the <i>Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan</i>, the 62 sub-basins of the Snohomish River basin were sorted into 12 sub-basin strategy groups (SSGs) based on three characteristics: location in the basin, use and potential use by Chinook and bull trout, and watershed process conditions (hydrology, riparian, and sediment). Only 5 of the 12 sub-basin strategy groups intersected with the floodplain units (FPUs). The sub-basin strategy groups were applied to FPUs based on which group polygon they fell within. For FPUs intersecting more than one strategy group, best professional judgment was used to decide which group the FPU should be assigned to.
Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum. June 2005. <i>Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan.</i> Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Everett, WA.
Headwaters - secondary protection
Headwaters with low salmonid use but well intact. Lands within this SSG need to be maintained in their current condition.
Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum. June 2005. <i>Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan</i> Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Everett, WA.
Headwaters - secondary restoration
Headwaters with low salmonid use and in need of moderate improvement. Lands within this SSG are of relatively lower importance for improvement relative to their current condition.
Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum. June 2005. <i>Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan</i> Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Everett, WA.
Mainstem - primary restoration
Mainstem habitat with high salmonid use and in a moderately degraded or degraded condition. Lands within this SSG need substantial improvement.
Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum. June 2005. <i>Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan</i> Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Everett, WA.
Mainstem - secondary restoration
Mainstem habitat with moderate salmonid use and moderately degraded condition. Lands within this SSG need moderate improvement.
Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum. June 2005. <i>Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan</i> Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Everett, WA.
Avg_Rel_El
Avg_Rel_El
Double
8
0
0
Average relative elevation, in feet, of the floodplain unit relative to the 100-year flood elevation. Used as an Importance metric for Base, Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
-17.93
4.3
-3.24
3.95
feet
Count_owners
Count_owners
Integer
4
0
0
The number of unrelated landowners holding land that comprises at least 1% of the FPU by area. Used as a Feasibility metric for Base, Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
1
162
15.6
27.6
count
LandUse_Score
LandUse_Score
Double
8
0
0
The numeric rating of how favorable each FPU is for either conservation or restoration relative to all others within the watershed, based upon the types of land uses found within the FPU and their relative proportion by area. Used as a Feasibility metric for Base, Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
Higher numbers reflect a greater proportion of land uses that are more favorable for either conservation or restoration, making the floodplain unit itself a more favorable candidate.
35
100
80.7
16.4
none
Channel_ft
Channel_ft
Double
8
0
0
Location of current or historical floodplain channels, avulsion potential paths, tributary streams, connected inundated wetlands, or apparent low laying areas which could provide fish habitat currently or following restoration/enhancement. These features may or may not be connected under current conditions, or during all times of the year.
Tulalip Tribes
These features were identified using LiDAR and aerial photography, and the existence of these features has not been confirmed, in most cases, on the ground.
0
866627
5987
11190
feet
Chan_Front_ft
Chan_Front_ft
Double
8
0
0
Length, in feet, of the FPU river shorline frontage ('Front_ft') plus length, in feet, of current or historical floodplain channels, avulsion potential paths, tributary streams, connected inundated wetlands, or apparent low laying areas which could provide fish habitat currently or following restoration/enhancement ('Channel_ft'). Used as an Importance metric for Base, Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
995
118257
10755
15125
feet
Chan_Front_Conc
Chan_Front_Conc
Double
8
0
0
Concentration of channels and channel frontage within the floodplain unit (FPU). Length, in feet, of channels inside the FPU from the 'Channel_ft' field plus length, in feet, of channel frontage of the FPU from the 'Chan_Front_ft' field divided by the area of the FPU from 'acres'.
Tulalip Tribes
46
708
210
107
feet per acre
PctProt
PctProt
Double
8
0
0
Percent of area covered by protected parcels. Protected parcels are those under a conservation easement, managed under State, Federal, or industrial forest rules, or otherwise owned by a governmental entity AND managed for natural resources protection and long term riverine/floodplain natural process function.
Tulalip Tribes
0
100
34
42
percent
SSG_Revised
SSG_Revised
SmallInteger
2
0
0
Whether a FPU is within a primary or secondary sub-basin strategy group for restoration/conservation. Used as an Importance metric for Base, Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Primary strategy groups (1) are more desirable than secondary (2)
1
Primary strategy group for restoration/conservation
Tulalip Tribes
2
Secondary strategy group for restoration/conservation
Tulalip Tribes
Tulalip Tribes
Flow_Importance
Flow_Importance
Double
8
0
0
An overlay of the FPUs with the Puget Sound Watershed Characterization (PSWC)'s of Overall Water Flow Importance by assessment unit. This metric is broken into three components: water delivery, movement (surface storage, recharge & discharge), and loss. Delivery is evaluated by the quantity and type of precipitation. Surface storage is a form of water movement estimated by the amount of potential landscape storage features such as hydric soils, low gradients, and identified floodplains. Recharge & Discharge are forms of water movement calculated from precipitation, soil texture, wetland slope, and alluvial floodplains. Loss refers to evapotranspiration. Used as an Importance metric for Base, Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Hume, C., S. Stanley, S. Grigsby. 2019. Version 2.0 of the Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Broad-Scale models: An Addendum to Volume 1, the Water Resources Assessments (Water Flow and Water Quality). Publication #11-06-016. Olympia, WA.
0.33
1.00
0.59
0.18
none
Higher values indicate the FPU is located within an assessment unit evaluated as being of greater importance for water flow processes.
Flow_Degredation
Flow_Degredation
Double
8
0
0
The degree to which the assessment unit is "altered: by human actions. This metric is broken into three components: water delivery, movement (surface storage, recharge & discharge), and loss. Assessment components include: rain-on-snow areas (impact the timing of delivery), percent of loss of storage areas (wetlands and floodplains), and loss of recharge and discharge areas from the increase of impervious cover, increase in roads, relative number of water wells, and loss of evapotranspiration through conversion of forest to urban surfaces. Used as a Degradation metric for Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Hume, C., S. Stanley, S. Grigsby. 2019. Version 2.0 of the Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Broad-Scale models: An Addendum to Volume 1, the Water Resources Assessments (Water Flow and Water Quality). Publication #11-06-016. Olympia, WA.
Higher values indicate more degradation.
0.00
1.00
0.24
0.24
none
Sinuosity
Sinuosity
Double
8
0
0
An estimate of the sinuosity of the floodplain unit river shoreline frontage. This is calculated by dividing the stream distance by the Euclidean (or straight) distance between a point 1,250 feet upstream and 1,250 feet downstream of a control point then averaging this ratio across all control points (spaced 50 feet apart) adjacent to the FPU. Used as a Degradation metric for Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
Lower values indicate less sinuous or straighter stretches of river.
1.00
1.72
1.19
0.14
none
Constriction
Constriction
Double
8
0
0
An estimate of the average degree of constriction of the river channel along the floodplain unit (FPU) shoreline frontage. This metric was calculated as the average of the ratios of the actual bank-full width divided by the "expected" bank-full width for a series of control points spaced 50 feet apart along the length of the river channel adjacent to the floodplain unit. The "expected" bank-full width of the river was estimated using a regression equation, assuming an exponential relationship between the area drained and the bank-full width of the river. Best professional judgment was used to select "unconstrained" locations along the river channels to develop the relationship between the two variables. Used as a Degradation metric for Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Christopher Walter, Jason Griffith, Richard Rogers, Scott Rockwell, Derek Marks. <i>Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action</i>. September 25, 2014.
Lower values indicate more constricted channels.
0.303
2.300
0.930
0.358
none
Density_owners
Density_owners
Double
8
0
0
The number of unrelated landowners holding land that comprises at least 1% of the FPU, from 'Count_owners' field, divided by the area of the FPU in acres, from 'acreage' field. Used as a Feasibility metric for Base, Conservation, and Restoration scores.
Tulalip Tribes
0.0
2.0
0.4
0.5
count/acre
Shape
Shape
Geometry
0
0
0
Feature geometry.
Esri
Coordinates defining the features.
Shape_Length
Shape_Length
Double
8
0
0
Length of feature in internal units.
Esri
Positive real numbers that are automatically generated.
2196
51869
9397
8202
feet
Shape_Area
Shape_Area
Double
8
0
0
Area of feature in internal units squared.
Esri
Positive real numbers that are automatically generated.
218066
84983121
4015593
8911106
square feet
BaseScore
BaseScore
Double
8
0
0
Base score of relative priority for floodplain units (FPUs) based solely on the Importance and Feasibility components of the acquisition strategy (Degradation not considered due to being inverse between Conservation and Restoration). This score is calculated using normalized values of the following metrics along with their respective score weight in parenthesis: 'Avg_Rel_El' (32.4%), 'Count_owners' (13.3%), 'Density_owners' (13.3%), 'LandUse_Score' (13.3%), 'Flow_Importance' (9.7%), 'Chan_Front_ft' (9.7%), 'SSG_Revised' (8.1%).
Tulalip Tribes
0.23
0.86
0.60
0.09
none
ConservationScore
ConservationScore
Double
8
0
0
Conservation score of relative priority for floodplain units (FPUs) based on the Importance and Feasibility and degree of Degradation (Greater degradation receives a lower score). This score is calculated using normalized values of the following metrics along with their respective score weight in parenthesis: 'Avg_Rel_El' (23.2%), 'Armor_Pct' (10.2%), 'Count_owners' (9.5%), 'Density_owners' (9.5%), 'LandUse_Score' (9.5%), 'Flow_Importance' (6.9%), 'Chan_Front_ft' (6.9%), 'SSG_Revised' (5.8%), 'Flow_Degredation' (5.1%), 'NatVegCover' (5.1%), 'Sinuosity' (5.1%), 'Constriction' (3.1%).
Tulalip Tribes
0.23
0.73
0.51
0.09
none
RestorationScore
RestorationScore
Double
8
0
0
Restoration score of relative priority for floodplain units (FPUs) based on the Importance and Feasibility and degree of Degradation (Greater degradation receives a higherscore). This score is calculated using normalized values of the following metrics along with their respective score weight in parenthesis: 'Avg_Rel_El' (23.2%), 'Armor_Pct' (10.2%), 'Count_owners' (9.5%), 'Density_owners' (9.5%), 'LandUse_Score' (9.5%), 'Flow_Importance' (6.9%), 'Chan_Front_Conc' (6.9%), 'SSG_Revised' (5.8%), 'Flow_Degredation' (5.1%), 'NatVegCover' (5.1%), 'Sinuosity' (5.1%), 'Constriction' (3.1%).
Tulalip Tribes
0.33
0.76
0.53
0.08
none
VegWater_Pct
VegWater_Pct
Double
8
0
0
20200131
external
1a4b5e6542e8f1aea506d8879d37a7e94f9e11eb
Michelle Totman
Tulalip Tribes
Natural Resources GIS Specialist
6406 Marine Drive
Tulalip
Washington
98271
mtotman@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov
360-716-4609
True
Michelle Totman
external
f896ff30001ef29061a7f874be6d12ab8d6b4c1d
Brett Shattuck
Tulalip Tribes
Restoration Ecologist
6406 Marine Drive
Tulalip
Washington
98271
bshattuck@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov
360-716-4475
True
Brett Shattuck
Peak Flows and Chinook Survival in the Stillaguamish Watershed: Spatial Prioritization for Conservation and Restoration Action
2014-09-25T00:00:00
Funded through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Puget Sound Protection and Restoration: Tribal Implementation Assistance Program
Christopher Walter
Forterra
Jason Griffith
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Richard Rogers
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Scott Rockwell
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Derek Marks
The Tulalip Tribes
Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan
2005-06-01T00:00:00
Snohomish County disclaims any warranty of merchantability or warranty of
fitness of the maps in the plan for any particular purpose, either expressed
or implied. No representation or warranty is made concerning the accuracy,
currency, completeness, or quality of data depicted on these maps. Any user of
these maps assumes all responsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to hold
Snohomish County harmless from and against any damage, loss, or liability
arising from any use of these maps.
Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum
Snohomish County Department of Public Works
3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S 607
Everett
Washington
98201
www.salmon.surfacewater.info
425-388-3464
425-388-6455
800-562-4367