DOCSLIB.ORG

Snohomish County Shoreline Management Program: Shoreline Environment Designations, Policies and Regulations 3.2.5.3 Boating and Boat Mooring Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Snohomish County Shoreline Management Program: Shoreline Environment Designations, Policies and Regulations 3.2.5.3 Boating and Boat Mooring Facilities Snohomish County Shoreline Management Program: Shoreline Environment Designations, Policies and Regulations Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Adopted by Amended Ordinance No. 12-025 on June 6, 2012 Approved by Washington State Department of Ecology on July 13, 2012, Effective July 27, 2012 Amended by Ordinance No. 13-098 on December 11, 2013 Approved by Washington State Department of Ecology on May 12, 2014, Effective May 27, 2014 Last amended by Amended Ordinance No. 19-020 on July 3, 2019 Approved by Washington State Department of Ecology on September 30, 2019, Effective October 14, 2019 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 SNOHOMISH COUNTY’S SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Snohomish County Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................................................ 1 1.2.1.1 List of Shorelines in Snohomish County ........................................................................................ 2 1.2.2 Shorelines of Statewide Significance ........................................................................................ 5 1.2.2.1 Management Principles and Development Guidelines ................................................................ 6 1.2.3 Components of Snohomish County’s SMP .............................................................................. 7 1.2.4 SMP Elements ............................................................................................................................ 10 1.2.4.1 Conservation and Monitoring Element ......................................................................................... 10 1.2.4.2 Cultural, Archaeological and Historic Element ............................................................................ 12 1.2.5 SMP Updates and Amendments ............................................................................................. 13 2. DESIGNATION OF SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS ............................................................................ 14 2.1 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION PROCESS .................................................................................. 14 2.1.1 Inventory of Ecological Functions and Conditions ................................................................ 15 2.1.1.1 Restoration of Shoreline Ecological Functions ............................................................................ 16 2.1.2 Land Use Patterns ..................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 ENVIRONMENT-SPECIFIC POLICIES & DESIGNATION CRITERIA ................................................................. 18 2.2.1 Aquatic ........................................................................................................................................ 18 2.2.2 Natural ........................................................................................................................................ 19 2.2.3 Resource .................................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.4 Municipal Watershed Utility ..................................................................................................... 22 2.2.5 Rural Conservancy ................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.6 Urban Conservancy .................................................................................................................. 24 2.2.7 Urban .......................................................................................................................................... 25 2.3 ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION SYSTEM ............................................................................. 27 2.4 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION MAPS ..................................................................................... 29 2.5 TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION................................................................................................................ 29 3. SHORELINE GOALS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS...................................................................... 31 3.1 INTRODUCTION: STATE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................. 31 3.1.1 Shoreline Management Act and Guidelines ........................................................................... 31 3.1.2 Relationship Between the SMA and the GMA ....................................................................... 31 3.1.2.1 Requirements for Critical Area Protection ........................................................................................ 32 3.1.2.2 Application of the Shoreline Science ................................................................................................. 33 3.1.2.3 No Net Loss of Ecological Functions ................................................................................................ 36 3.1.2.4 Snohomish County’s Critical Area Regulations ............................................................................... 37 3.2 SHORELINE GOALS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.................................................................................... 38 3.2.1 Permit Procedures and Requirements .................................................................................... 38 3.2.1.1 Comply with SMA/SMP standards even when no permit required ........................................... 38 3.2.2 Relationship to other regulatory requirements ....................................................................... 38 3.2.2.1 Comply with Critical Area Regulations ......................................................................................... 38 3.2.2.2 Comply with other applicable regulations .................................................................................... 39 3.2.3 Shoreline Use Element ............................................................................................................. 39 3.2.3.1 Goals and Policies........................................................................................................................... 39 3.2.3.2 Use Regulations .............................................................................................................................. 41 3.2.3.3 Bulk Regulations .............................................................................................................................. 42 3.2.3.4 Non-conforming Uses ..................................................................................................................... 45 3.2.3.5 Signs ................................................................................................................................................. 45 3.2.4 Public Access Element .............................................................................................................. 46 3.2.5 Specific Shoreline Uses & Modifications ................................................................................ 48 3.2.5.1 Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................ 50 3.2.5.2 Aquaculture ...................................................................................................................................... 52 Snohomish County Shoreline Management Program: Shoreline Environment Designations, Policies and Regulations 3.2.5.3 Boating and Boat Mooring Facilities ............................................................................................. 54 3.2.5.4 Breakwaters, jetties, groins & other in-water structures ............................................................ 56 3.2.5.5 Commercial ...................................................................................................................................... 57 3.2.5.6 Dredging and dredge spoil disposal ............................................................................................. 58 3.2.5.7 Fill ...................................................................................................................................................... 59 3.2.5.8 Flood Protection Measures ............................................................................................................ 60 3.2.5.9 Forestry ............................................................................................................................................. 62 3.2.5.10 Industry and Ports ........................................................................................................................... 63 3.2.5.11 Institutional Uses ............................................................................................................................. 65 3.2.5.12 Mining ................................................................................................................................................ 66 3.2.5.13 Recreation .......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WDFW Wildlife Program Bi-Weekly Report August 1-15, 2020
    Wildlife Program – Bi-weekly Report August 1 to August 15, 2020 DIVERSITY DIVISION HERE’S WHAT WE’VE BEEN UP: 1) Managing Wildlife Populations Fishers: Fisher reintroduction project partners from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Park Service, Conservation Northwest, Calgary Zoo, and United States Forest Service recently initiated a genetic analysis of fishers to predict the effect of augmenting ten new fishers to Olympic National Park. One main goal of the analysis is to determine how the success of the augmentation could differ depending on whether the fishers came from British Columbia versus; two genetically different source-populations. Using existing genotypes from British Columbia and Alberta fishers, this analysis will provide insights into the best source population of fishers to use for the planned augmentation to the Olympic National Park, where 90 fishers from British Columbia were reintroduced from 2008 to 2010. A 2019 genetic analysis of fishers on the Olympic Peninsula (based on hair samples collected at baited hair-snare and camera stations from 2013-2016) indicated that genetic diversity of the Olympic fisher population had declined slightly and would be expected to decline further in the future, which could put that population at risk. An augmentation of new fishers could restore this genetic diversity and this new analysis of the effects of releasing more British Columbia versus Alberta fishers into this population will help us decide the best source population and the best implementation approach. 2) Providing Recreation Opportunities Nothing for this installment. 3) Providing Conflict Prevention and Education Nothing for this installment. 4) Conserving Natural Areas Nothing for this installment.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Petrology of the Deer Peaks Area Western North Cascades, Washington
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Winter 1986 Structure and Petrology of the Deer Peaks Area Western North Cascades, Washington Gregory Joseph Reller Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Reller, Gregory Joseph, "Structure and Petrology of the Deer Peaks Area Western North Cascades, Washington" (1986). WWU Graduate School Collection. 726. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/726 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STRUCTURE AMD PETROLOGY OF THE DEER PEAKS AREA iVESTERN NORTH CASCADES, WASHIMGTa^ by Gregory Joseph Re Her Accepted in Partial Completion of the Requiremerjts for the Degree Master of Science February, 1986 School Advisory Comiiattee STRUCTURE AiO PETROIDGY OF THE DEER PEAKS AREA WESTERN NORTIi CASCADES, VC'oHINGTON A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Western Washington University In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Gregory Joseph Re Her February, 1986 ABSTRACT Dominant bedrock mits of the Deer Peaks area, nortliv/estern Washington, include the Shiaksan Metamorphic Suite, the Deer Peaks unit, the Chuckanut Fontation, the Oso volcanic rocks and the Granite Lake Stock. Rocks of the Shuksan Metainorphic Suite (SMS) exhibit a stratigraphy of meta-basalt, iron/manganese schist, and carbonaceous phyllite. Tne shear sense of stretching lineations in the SMS indicates that dioring high pressure metamorphism ttie subduction zone dipped to the northeast relative to the present position of the rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Petrology of the Grandy Ridge-Lake Shannon Area, North Cascades, Washington Moira T
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Winter 1986 Structure and Petrology of the Grandy Ridge-Lake Shannon Area, North Cascades, Washington Moira T. (Moira Tracey) Smith Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Smith, Moira T. (Moira Tracey), "Structure and Petrology of the Grandy Ridge-Lake Shannon Area, North Cascades, Washington" (1986). WWU Graduate School Collection. 721. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/721 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MASTER'S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Western Washington University, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without my written permission . Bellin^hum, W'Mihington 9HZZS □ izoai aTG-3000 STRUCTURE AND PETROLOGY OF THE GRANDY RIDGE-LAKE SHANNON AREA, NORTH CASCADES, WASHINGTON By Moira T. Smith Accepted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science aduate School ADVISORY COMMITEE: Chairperson MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I grant to Western Washington University the non-exclusive royalty-free right to archive, reproduce, distribute, and display the thesis in any and all forms, including electronic format, via any digital library mechanisms maintained by WWU.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Abundance of Mountain Goats Within the Ross Lake Watershed, North Cascades National Park Service Complex
    ' I ; q£ 04. & 9) -~o3 Distribution and Abundance of Mountain Goats within the Ross Lake Watershed, North Cascades National Park Service Complex Final Report to Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission Sarah J. Welch Robert C. Kuntz II Ronald E. Holmes Roger G. Christophersen North Cascades National Park Service Complex 2105 State Route 20 Sedro-Woolley, Washington 98284-9314 December 1997 1997 SEC #10 . ' Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 2. Study Area 3. Methods 3 4. Results. 4 5. Discussion 5 6. Recommendations 6 7. Literature Cited 7 List of Figures 1. Figure 1: Mountain goat study area in Ross Lake watershed, North Cascades National Park Service Complex (1996-1997) 2 List of Tables 1. Table l: Mountain goat observations. 4 2. Table 2: Habitat characteristics where mountain goats were observed 5 Distribution and Abundance of Mountain Goats within the Ross Lake Watershed, North Cascades National Park Service Complex Introduction Mountain goats (Oreamnus americanus) are native to northwestern North America and can be found throughout the North Cascades National Park Service Complex (NOCA). Their habitat requirements are quite specific and suitable habitat is patchily distributed across the landscape. During a11 seasons, mountain goat habitat is characterized by steep, rocky terrain. Summer habitat is generally above 1525 m (5000 ft) elevation, and features rock outcrops in or near subalpine meadows and forest (Welch, 1991; Holmes, 1993; Schoen and Kirchoff, 1981; NCASI, 1989; Chadwick, 1983; Benzon and Rice, 1988). Many mountain goat populations in Washington have declined during the last 20 years. Although specific causes have not been identified, several factors may have contributed to the regional decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Redacted for Privacy Dr
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF PETER TREADWELL MILNES for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on October 22, 1976 Title: STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY AND METAMORPHIC PETROLOGY OF THE ILLABOT PEAKS AREA, SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Dr. Robert Lawrence The Illabot Peaks area is composed of several essentially homo- clinal eastward dipping thrust blocks of Shuksan Schist which are comprised of olivine-free calc-alkaline basalt that has been meta- morphosed under greenschist to blueschist facies conditions.The structurally lower portions of the Shuksan Schist are occupied by a soda amphibole-bearing rock that probably originated from intercala- tions of high Po and high ferric iron content.The blocks of Shuksan 2 Schist rest upon ductile mega-shear zones of lower greenschist facies quartz-muscovite-graphite phyllite that have been tentatively corre- lated with the Darrington Phyllite.The Shuksan Schist and Darrington Phyllite, forming the Shuksan metamorphic suite, were syntecton- ically metamorphosed in the late Permian to early Triassic.The primary foliation, the amphibole lineations, and the intrafolial F 1 folds were formed at this time. The blocks of Shuksan Schist were emplaced during the Middle to early Late Cretaceous by movements on the large displacement Shuksan thrust.The thrust system in the Illabot Peaks area dips in a concave upward manner tothe east, has a large westward displace- ment, and is highly imbricated.Small lenticular pods of brecciated blueschist fragments and meta-igneous basement rock slivershave been tectonically emplaced along the margins of the thrust.The blueschist pods, retrogressively metamorphosed, are possibleindi- cators of a rock unit at depth of a higher faciesthan the typical Shuksan Schist.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Robert D. Lawrence the Thesis Area Is Located in the Western Foothills of the North Three Major Rock Units Are Present and T
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF David Allen Jenne for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on March 15,1978 Title:STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY AND METAMORPHIC PETROLOGY OF THE GOLD MOUNTAIN AREA SNOHOMISH COUNTY WASHINGTON d' Abstract approved: Signature redacted for privacy. Dr. Robert D. Lawrence The thesis area is located in the western foothills of the North Cascade Mountains immediately east of Darrington, Washington. Three major rock units are present and these include, from west to east, the Darrington Phyllite, a sedimentary m1ange unit, and the Shuksan Schist.Each of these units is bounded by major faults.In the present thesis only the Darrington Phyllite and the melange unit were studied in detail. The Darrington Phyllite consists of phyllitic metapelites with very local interbedded graywacke, conglomerate, and greenschist. The phyllites contain alternating layers of quartz-albite and musco- vite-graphite.In some rocks, this compositional layering is equiva- lent to sedimentary bedding.However, in most locations,it has resulted from metamorphic processes involving the transposition of bedding and metamorphic differentiation during mimetic recrystal- lization. Greenschist is present as tectonically emplaced blocks and as very local interbeds in the phyllite.Along the western margin of the thesis area, greenschist and meta-igneous rocks have been faulted into place.These rocks probably are part of the Jumbo Mountain Complex. The interbedded greenschists contain lawsonite that has been altered to chlorite.This suggests that blueschist.-facies meta- morphism was followed by a temperature increase and greenschist- facies metamorphism. The mlange unit consists of blocks of sedimentary, meta- igneous, and metamorphic rocks in tectonic contact with a sheared pelitic matrix.
    [Show full text]
  • Intermediate-Climbs-Guide-1.Pdf
    Table of Conte TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface.......................................................................1 Triumph NE Ridge.....................................47 Privately Organized Intermediate Climbs ...................2 Vayu NW Ridge.........................................48 Intermediate Climbs List.............................................3 Vesper N Face..............................................49 Rock Climbs ..........................................................3 Wedge Mtn NW Rib ...................................50 Ice Climbs..............................................................4 Whitechuck SW Face.................................51 Mountaineering Climbs..........................................5 Intermediate Mountaineering Climbs........................52 Water Ice Climbs...................................................6 Brothers Brothers Traverse........................53 Intermediate Climbs Selected Season Windows........6 Dome Peak Dome Traverse.......................54 Guidelines for Low Impact Climbing...........................8 Glacier Peak Scimitar Gl..............................55 Intermediate Rock Climbs ..........................................9 Goode SW Couloir.......................................56 Argonaut NW Arete.....................................10 Kaleetan N Ridge .......................................57 Athelstan Moonraker Arete................11 Rainier Fuhrer Finger....................................58 Blackcomb Pk DOA Buttress.....................11 Rainier Gibralter Ledge.................................59
    [Show full text]
  • The Mountaineer 1978
    THE' MOUNTAINEER THE MOUNTAINEER 1978 Published July, 1979 Cover: Mountain Hemlock (Ramona Hammerly) 2 The Mountaineer (USPS 366-700) EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Mary Nysether, Managing Editor; Verna Ness, Production Editor; Christa Lewis, Assistant Editor; Herb Belanger, Don Brooks, Mary Leberg, Mariann Schmitt, Laura Swan, Cindy Vollmer, Mary Jane Ware. Writing, graphics and photographs should be submitted to the Editor, The Mountaineer, at the address below, before Janu­ ary 15, 1980 for consideration. Photographs should be black and white prints, at least 5x7 inches, with caption and photographer's name on back. Manuscripts should be typed double-spaced, with at least 1 Y2 inch margins, and include wri­ ter's name, address and phone number. Graphics should have caption and artist's name on back. Manuscripts cannot be re­ turned. Properly identified photographs and graphics will be returned about July. Copyright @1979 by The Mountaineers. Entered as second­ class matter April 8, 1922, at Post Office, Seattle, Washington, and additional offices under the act of March 3, 1879. Published monthly, except July, when semi­ monthly, by The Mountaineers, 719 Pike Street, Seattle, Washington 98101. 3 THE MOUNTAINEERS Purposes To explore and study the mountains, forests, and watercourses of the Northwest; To gather into permanent form the history and traditions of this region; To preserve by the encouragement of protective legislation or otherwise the natural beauty of Northwest America; Tomake expeditions into these regions in fulfillment of the above purposes; To encourage a spirit of good fellowship among all lovers of out­ door life. t � ----..:::::- -""°"'� ---������0wiw.=-- --- Firs at Excelsior Pass, North Cascades. Susan Marsh 4 Black-capped chickadee.
    [Show full text]
  • Open File Report 88-4. Seismic Hazards of Western
    WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Raymond LMrnaais, State o.ologlst SEISMIC HAZARDS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON AND SELECTED ADJACENT AREAS­ BIBUOGRAPHY AND INDEX 1855-JUNE 1988 compiled by CONNIE J. MANSON WASHINGTON DMSION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES OPEN FILE REPORT 88-4 September 1988 Prepared for the U. S. Geological Survey's Regional Eartbqtµike Hazards Aesasment of the Puget Sound-Portland Area program This report has not been edited or reviewed for conformity wi1h Division of Geology and Earth Resources standards and nomenclature llr!cBI lloy!e • Commlssioner of Public Lands -iiciiuii~Al1 Slaams • ~ CONTENTS Preface ........................... _. .........•................ v Author bibliography ......•.....•...•...••.• ~·~··············l Subject index ......•. ............................................. 263 ~' Subject index tenns •....•••....•...•.•..•.......•......... 996 ILLUSTRATION Map showing the study area for the bibliography of seismic hazards of western Washington and adjacent areas ...................................................... ,x PREFACE This bibliography and index of materials pertinent to the study of earthquake hazards in western Washington was prepared in support of the U.S. Geological Survey's Regional Earthquake Hazards Assessment of the Puget Sound-Portland Area program. Scope Geograehic:. The prpject's entral ge?graph~c foc~s is the Puget Lowland, primarily Whatcom, Skagit,7 Snohomish, King, K1tsap, Thurston, Pierce, Mason, Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor. and Island Counties, and the metropolitan
    [Show full text]
  • File Code: 1950-1 Date: March 14, 2008
    United States Forest Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 1405 Emens Street Department of Service National Forest Darrington, WA 98241 Agriculture Darrington Ranger District (360) 436-1155 File Code: 1950-1 Date: March 14, 2008 Dear National Forest User, The Forest Service plans to develop a Suiattle Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment for public review during the spring/summer of 2008. We are initiating a review of roads in the Suiattle River drainage to balance access needs with resource protection and budget. This effort will determine what roads to retain, and what roads are no longer needed, and will implement a variety of road treatments in the Suiattle River watershed in an effort to align the size of the Forest Service road system with projected road maintenance budgets. We invite your scoping comments on the proposed action outlined below for the Suiattle Access and Travel Management Project. The area under consideration includes the National Forest Lands in the Suiattle River watershed that are accessed via Roads 25, 26, 27, and associated spur roads. Recent History Much of the Suiattle road system has not been accessible by motorized vehicle since October 2003 when flood waters removed the fill from the south side of the Boundary Bridge (Road 25). Access over Rat Trap Pass was also eliminated by flood damage to Road 23 in the White Chuck drainage. The 2006 floods inflicted additional damage on Road 26 and 2660, and other impacts to roads are not known due to lack of access. Forest Plan Direction and Watershed Analysis The 1990 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan’s Record of Decision (ROD), provides management direction for the NFS lands within the analysis area.
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish County HMP Volume 2 20200605
    Snohomish County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2020 Update Volume II September 2020 Snohomish County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume II September 2020 Prepared for: 3000 Rockefeller Avenue Everett, WA 98201 Prepared by: Ecology & Environment, Inc. 333 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 608 Portland, OR 97204 View the Snohomish County Hazard Mitigation Plan online at: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/2429/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents 1 Planning Partner Participation ........................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Planning Partnership .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Initial Solicitation and Letters of Intent ................................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Planning Partner Expectations .............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Annex Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.3.1 Templates .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Workshops ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.3.3 Mitigation Action
    [Show full text]
  • Sauk River Comprehensive Flood/Erosion Control Management Plan
    Sauk River Comprehensive Flood/Erosion Control Management Plan Project Manager Bob Aldrich, Project Specialist Snohomish County Public Works Department Surface Water Management Division 3000 Rockefeller Ave., M/S 607, Everett, WA 98201 Phone: 425-388-6424 FAX: 425-388-6455 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County Executive Snohomish County Council John Koster, Councilmember, District 1 Brian Sullivan, Councilmember, District 2 Mike Cooper, Councilmember, District 3 Dave Gossett, Councilmember, District 4 Dave Somers, Councilmember, District 5 Snohomish County Public Works Department Steven Thomsen, P.E., Director Owen Carter, P.E., Surface Water Management (SWM) Interim Director Snohomish County Contributing Staff Karen Wood-McGuiness, Mary Hurner, John Engel, P.E., Suzy Brunzell, Allison Sanders, Laura Audette, Sheila Hagen, Chris Nelson, P.E., Mike Rustay, Frank Leonetti, Andy Haas, Brett Gaddes, Deb Harvey Skagit County Commissioner’s Office Ron Wesen, Commissioner, District 1 Ken Dahlstedt, Commissioner, District 2 Sharon Dillon, Commissioner, District 3 Special Acknowledgements The Sauk River Stakeholder Committee, and in particular David Like, Bob and Dianne Boyd (who also graciously arranged for the use of the amazing Darrington Community Center), Lori Kratzer, Jeff Kamps, Walt Dortch, Devin Smith, Larry Wasserman, Noel Gilbrough, P.E., Alex Uber, P.E., Greta Movassaghi, Peter Forbes, Brenda Jensen-White, Scott Morris, Jim Faucett, Holley P. Ross, Tom Sibley, Ric Boge, P.E., and Dana Exum, played a very important role in making the plan happen, as did others not mentioned. Contributing Consultants Paul DeVries, PhD, P.E. (R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.) played a pivotal role in the plan; Kurt Warber (Parametrix Inc.) and Joan Lee, P.E.
    [Show full text]