[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SNOHOMISH COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT FISCAL YEAR 1980 Project Number: 306-12 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT COASTAL ZONE,PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRMI Project No. Washington 306-12 The preparation of this report was financially aided through a rant from the Washington State Department of Ecology with 9 CD funds obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and appropriated for Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1980 Fiscal Year Project Number 306-12 This project completion report sets forth Snohomish County's activities, during the 1980 fiscal year which fulfilled CZM contract obligations. Element I of the 1980 CZM Project Description related to- program and permit administration. Permit and program admin- istration activities. generally involved on-going maintenance functions, which included. processing of individual permits, public and agency contact, program interpretations, and en- forcement activities.. A specific delineation of these activ- ities contained within Exhibit A. Environmental analyses associated with these efforts were completed, but not charged to the CZM program.. Element 2 of Snohomish County's CZM Project Description (program refinement) entailed a review of the efficacy of program components vis-a-vis daily permit requests, parallel County regulatory tools,"the regulatory efforts of other jurisdictions,, and other land use d Code development and/or modifications, master program amendments (of both a textual and map nature), and County initiated efforts to implement comprehensive land use plans were among the techniques utilized to improve the CZM process. Exhibit B summarizes efforts specifically under- taken in this regard during the 1980 fiscal year. Element 3 of the 1980 contract involved floodway analysis and floodplain permit regulations procedure review. Preliminary floodway studies conducted by the Corps of Engineers or the Stillaguamish and Snohomish river systems were assessed, and modifications suggested in order to insure the compatibility of the studies with existing land uses and management programs. The Corps studies were utilized as the basis for building permit review and action within CZM jurisdictional areas. Examples of the County's activity under Element 3 are contained within Exhibit C. Element 4 of the CZM Project Description pertained to graphic activities which facilitated CZM program objectives. The major graphic element during the 1980 fiscal year involved the updating and redrawing of approximately 40 (of a total of 160) zoning base maps to delineate current land use information and CZM jurisdictional boundaries. This effort was initiated in the 1987 fiscal period, Examples of work undertaken as a part of Element 4 are appended as Exhibit D. E'd%'HIBIT A ELEMENT 1 Individual Permit Activity 1. Puget Sound.- review and evaluation of permit application for planned residential development of several hundred units at Norma Beach - EIS in preparatiop. 2. Puget Sound - Review and evaluation of permit application for sewage.treatment plant and outfall to serve future residential development at Kayak Point - EIS and amendment to Sewer District Comprehensive Plan in preparation.. 3. Puget Sound - permit issued to Department of Fisheries. for boat anglers' reef - Declaration of Non@Significpnce issued by Department of Fisheries. Z@. Puget Sound - permit issued to Chevron Oil, Inc.-for containment dikes around existing oil tank - Declaration' of Non-Significance issued. 5. Puget Sound - review and evaluation of permit appli'cation for pedestrian overpasA and park facility at Picnic-Point. 6. Puget Sound - review and evaluation of permit application for boathouse/bathhouse/greenhouse atop existing bulkhead hearing scheduled - Declaration of Non-Significance issued. 7. Puget Sound - review and evaluation of permit application for residential subdivision and beach access at Mission Head. 8. Puget Sound - permit issued for construction of tramway to provide beach access to single family residence on,.Port Susan - Declaration of Non-Significance issued. 9. Puget Sound - permit issued for construction of stormwater% outfall and water line at Picnic Point - Declaration of Non-Significance issued. 10. Snohomish Estuary - public hearings held on permit application for planned residential development on Quilceda Creek - EIS prepared - application withdrawn by applicant in face of permit denial. 11. Snohomish Estuary - permit issued for construction of office buildings on Smith Island - Declaration of Non-Significance issued. 12. Snohomish Estuary - permit issued for dredge spoils disposal and log storage on Smith Island - Declaration of Non-Significanc( issued. 13. Snohomish River - review and evaluation of permit application for landfill of wetlands on Smith Island SEPA determination pending receipt of additional information subject of enforce- ment action brought by County and Corps of Engineers. 14. Snohomish Estuary - permit revision approved for dry land marina on Smith. Island - Declaration of Non-Significance issued - EIS prepared for previously issued permit. 15. Snohomish River - review and evaluation of permit application for completion of dike - review and evaluation of NEPA EIS to determine adequacy according to SEPA requirements. 16. Snohomish River - permit issued for expansion of stove works - Declaration of Non-Significance issued. 17. Stillaguamish River permit issued for replacement of bridge and realignment of roadway at Hatt Slough - Declaration of Non-Significance issued. 13. Stillaguamish River review and evaluation of permit application for well and subdivision in floodplain. 19. Stillaguamish River public hearing held on permit application for campground in floodplain - Declaration of Non-Significance issued - final local'decision forthcoming. 20. Stillaguamish and Snohomish Rivers - review and evaluation of approximately 10 individual applications for renewal of permits for sand and gravel extraction (from pits and bars) - Declarations of Significance issued - EISs in various stages of progress - Final EISs issued and public hearings held on 2 applications. (I pit, 1 bar) - final local decisions forthcoming. Element I - Enforcement Actions 1. Puget Sound - Supervised removal of illegally constructed concrete boat ramp on Class I accretion beach at Kayak Point. 2. Puget Sound - Issued stop work order for illegal harvestirig of timber on shoreline of statewide significance. 3. Snohomish Estuary - field enfQrcement.hearinp-, 7;- 1 illegal land- fill and non-compliance with substant_ial d@@_velopment permit conditions by developers of dry I-a-nd marina on Smith Island. J 4. Snohomish Estuary Issued stop work order for illegal filling of wetlands on Smith Island - review and evaluation of permit application in process. 5. Snohomish Estuary - Reviewed and evaluated possible Section 4C violation pertaining to fillincy of %,,,etlands in Snohomish Estuar@ 6. Snohomish Estuary - Reviewed and evaluated federal permit violation pertaining to illegal filling of wetlands in Snohomish Estuary on Indian land. .7. Snohomish River Issued stop work order and initiated legal action to force removal 'of spoils from state highway project (for which shoreline permit was obtained) Which were illegally,deposited within the flood,way.' 8. Snohomish River - Assisted Department of Game in enforcement action to repair damages caused by violations of shoreline,. management permit issued in 1977 for gravel bar mining. EXHIBIT A (Sample Letter) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY ADMINISTHATION BUILDING*EVERETT WASHINGTON 98201*(206)259-9311 George F. Sherwin, Jr., Director July 2, 1979 Mr. Clemens H. Barnes Graham and Dunn 34th Floor-Rainier Bank Tower 1301 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Mr. Barnes: Re: Kayak Point-Repair of Concrete "Walkway" Our department has reviewed your June 22, 1979 correspondence and field investigated the recently constructed concrete "walkway" at Kayak Point. It is our opinion that the structure, regardless of its coset, materially interferes with the normal public use of the shore- lines of the state, and that the repair of the once gravel walkway goes beyond "normal maintenance." The structure is not exempt from the permit requirements of the Shorelines Management Act, and it will be necessaru for ARCO to either procure a substantial development permit or remove the concrete. A substantial development permit will be approved only if the project complies with the policies and regulations of the Shorelines Management Act and the County's Shoreline Master Plan. You should be aware that the present "walkway" is incomsistent with several of the requirements of our Shoreline Master Plan pertaining to development within Conser- vancy Environments. If the structure connot be modified to overcome the inconsistencies and allay environmental concerns, it is probable that a permit will be denied and the concrete ordered removed. We have enclosed a copy of the County's Shoreline Master Program regulations for development within Conservancy Environments, and a substantial development permit application. Should you have andy questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Shannon Hart Senior Planner SH: wm Enclosures EXHIBIT A (Sample Letter) GRAHAM & DUNN Attorneys AT Law BRYANT B. DUNN JAMES WM. JOHNSON FRANK T MO ENQUIST 34TH FLOOR CHARLES S MULLEN W. H. JAYNES,JR BEN J RAINIER BANK TOWER JAMES D BOLFF JOHN HALL JAON O STHOTHEW 1001 FIFTH AVENUE BRUCE M PYN CHARLES L SAYNE PHANE H MITCHELL SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 STEPHEN A G MICHAEL J SWOFFOMD FREDERICK O FREDERICK (206)624-8800 DWIGHT J DEAKE GERALD T PANES, JR. EDWARD W. PETTIONEW CLEMENS H BARNES HANS C.H. JENSEN JOHNSTON JOHN B. JOHN T. JOHN JOSEPH FINLEY JAN NANCY WHITTEN MICHAEL W. DAMIAN O SMITH N. HOLLIDAY dONALD G. GRAHAM,JR. A. GUS MORN PARTNER ON LEAVE COUNSEL July 12,1979 Ms. Shannon Hart Senior Planner Snohomish County Planning Department County Administration Building Everett, Washington 98201 Re: Kayak Point- Repair of Walkway-Shoreline Management Act ("Substantial Development") Permit Dear Ms. Hart: I have read your July 2 letter and reviewed it with represen- tatives of Arco. As I indicated in an earlier letter to Mr. Sherwin, although Arco was under the impression that a permit was not required, we will be guided by the Planning Department's interpretation of our responsibilities on this matter. Although your letter states the Department's opinion that Arco has the option to either seek a permit or remove the concrete, I gather it is the Department's preference that the concrete be removed. Accordingly, I am instructed by Arco to advise you that removal of the concrete-- I assume the long-standing gravel walkway is not involved--will be commenced, as soon as practicable, in such fashion as you may direct. If you do not care to supervise this removal, please let me know and I will advise Arco to accomplish the project according to its own best judgment. I would appreciate your letting me know wheter you wish to supervise this removal, or to submit standards for its accomplishment, or to otherwise become involved in the surgical details. In this regard, you may wish to communicate CiuAjiAm DUNN Ms. Shannon Hart July 12, 1979 Page Two directly with Jim Kernan, in Los Angeles (213-486-0614), whom I believe you have discussed this with. I look forward to hearing.from you in the near future on how you wish us to go about this removal project. Very truly yours, GRAHAM & DUNN Clemens H. Barnes CHB/ch CC: George Sherwin EXHIBIT A (Sample Letter) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WASHINGTON George Sharwin Jr.,Director July 12,1979 Mr. Jerry Keller Regulation Branch, Operations Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Marginal Way South Seattle,WA 98101 Dear Mr. Keller: We hereby request your assistance to deal with a situation occurring on the Tulalop Indian Reservation West of Marysville, Washington. The issure concerns a woodwaste/construction debris/solid waste landfilling operation which is underway on Indian land. This operation has encroached on what we would characterize as prime estuary habitat of the Quilceda Creek. debris placed on the site is actually up to the water line in one instance. There is no doubt, based on our interpretation, that this operation constitutes an activity subject to a Section 404 permit. Recognizing your authority in this matter, we request your determination. Based upon our inspection of the site and reference to recent aerial photo- graphs, the operator has covered a small tributary of the creek with twenty vertical feet of fill material. We believe this is an absolutely intolerable abuse of prime estuarine land. Even if the fill were allowed only up to the edge of the wetland area, we feel the damage to the wetland ecotone would be unacceptable for water quality and aescethic reasons. Because this regretable situation has occurred on Indian land, Snohomish County cannot the Shoreline Management Act nor other local land use authorities. this operation is continuing its encroachment daily, we request your immediate attention. We understand from the Snohomish Health Distruct that Corps personnel visited this site some time ago and staked the wetland peri- meter. We did not observe any stakes last week and suspect they too have been covered. Mr. Jerry Keller July 12, 1979 Page two I have enclosed materials for directions to the site. Someone from our stall will accompany you should you desire. Additionally, is you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me-259-9324 in Everett. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Stephen Rice, Section Head Resource Planning SR:aw cc: Rick Brunner, Snohomish County Health District Martin Kenney, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Enclosure EXHIBIT A (Sample Letter) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING EVERETT WASHINGTON 98701 (206) George F. Sharwin, Jr. Director September 20, 1979 Colonel Leon K, Moraski District Engineer Seattle District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box C-3755 Seattle, Washington 98124 Dear Colonel Moraski: Today our agency received a copy of a letter to you from Joseph Blum of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated September 10, 1979. The issue of this letter is also the topic of a letter I authored to Jerry Ketter of your organcization on July 12,1979, a copy of which is attached. The site in question is a perfect example of obviously poor judgment by those allowing the site to be used for landfill and construction debris, and were it not for the ownership status of the land, Snohomish County would have taken action under Shoreline Management jurisdiction some time ago. SNohomish County is presently seeking grant funds for a project to improve streamside conditions and conduct educational programs using the Quilceda Creek and its immediate drainage basin as a geographic focus. It is our hope that you will find it appropriate to require full mitigation under federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, we fully support the position taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service that you halt further filling, require removal of all fill materials on lands under Section 404 jurisdiction, and require stabilization of the front face of remaining fill. Given this site's proximity to the creek/wetland area, and the impace the fill has on the ecotone between this ara and adjacent uplands, the preferable environmental solution would be removal of all fill. Certain difficulties with this solution must be recognized, but at a minimum, we would recommend the following in addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service's recommendation if complete removal is not possible. Colonel Leon K. Moraski Page two *regrading of the site after removal of fill on Section 404 lands to achieve a moderate slope to the creek and wetlands *covering the surface with soil materails which would minimize infiltration and subseqent leachate production if it is determined that the fill is composed of materials capable of generating leachate *planting the resultant surface with the vegetation capable of fully mitigating erosion and sedimentation problems in the creek Finally, we note that the Fish and Wildlife Service response may have been prompted by "project no.071-04B-2-005380". If this means a Section 404 permit application is being reviewed,Snobomish County has not received a request for review. We trust you will give this matter appropriate attention. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Stephen Rice, Section Head Resource Planning SR:mat cc: Don Johnson, WDC, Seattle Larry McCallum, WDC, Olympia Dave Somers, Tulalip Tribe Joseph Blum, Fish & Wildlife Service, Olympia Martin Kenney, Fish & Wildlife Service, Olympia Rick Brunner, Snohomish Health District Encl: 1 EXHIBIT A (Sample Letter) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING*LVERETT WASHINGTON 98201-(206)2600313 George F Sherwin, Jr., Director February 6, 1980 Mr. Robert R. Spearman Seattle District, Corps of Engineers PO Box C-3755 Seattle, Washington 98124 Dear Mr. Spearman: Re: 071-OYB-2-005380-C Richard Grenier-Filling of Quilceda Creek Wetlands Our department has, on tow occasions, commented to the Corps on the illegal landfill on the Tulalip Indian Reservation (copies of previous correspondence enclosed). As we have previously stated, because of the ownership status of the land, Snohomish County Codes and the Shoreline Master Plan cna not be applied to this regretable situation. Were the property under the County's jurisdiction, we would have acted long ago to stop the filling and reclaim the affected wetland area. We commend the Corps for directing Mr. Grenier and Mr. Murphy to stop work. We recommend that the Corps now require full mitigation of the environmental damage which has occurred. The mitigative measures recommended in our September 20, 1979 correspondence should be implement- ed immediately. The contractor, Mr. Don Murphy, is responsible for a number of illegal landfills on the Tulalip Reservation, and has repeatedly and knowingly violated applicable governmental regulations. Our department would support any punitive action against Mr. Murphy which could be taken under federal regulations to insure that this sort of destruction not happen again. We trust you will give this matter appropriate attention. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Shannon Hart Senior Planner SH: win Enclosures EXHIBIT A (Sample Letter) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 3, 1980 Thorn Meats P.O> Box 424 Snohomish, Washington 98290 Dear Sirs: Re: Illegal landfill on assessor's parcel #052806-3-007 Our assessor's records indicate that you are the owner of the above referenced parcel. We have discovered that a substantial volume of spoils material has recently been deposited on you property, in flagrant violation of federal, state, and local laws. The enclosed maps indicate that the property which has been filled occurs totally within the designated hydraulic floodplain of the Pilchuck River and, partically within the floodway. The parcel, therefor, should not have been filled without a flood control permit from the Department of Ecology, shoreline manage- ment, grading, and conditional use permits from Snohomish County and, possibly, a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is unlikely that any of these permits would have been issued, had you made the proper applications, as the deposi- tion of fill within the floodplain is prohibited by the County's Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code, as well as by state and federal regulations for development within flood control zones. We hold you, as the owner of the parcel, responsible for the fil- ling which has illegally occurred, and request that you take im- mediate action to rectify this situation (e.g. by the removal of all of the recently deposited spoils to an approved and ap- propriate disposal site outside of the floodplain, or receipt of the proper permits). We also ask that you provide us the name of your contrctor (if other than yourself) so that we may contact him to advisehim of the proper areas, and permits required, for fil- ling. If, within thirty days of the date of this letter, you have not made a substantive effort to resolve this matter, we shall advise the Prosecuting Attorney's Office to initiate enforcement action. Thorp Meats March 3, 1980 Page 2 We look forward to hearing from you within the near future. Sincerely, SNOHIMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Shannon Hart Senior Planner SH:ds cc: Roy Bishop, Dept. of Ecology Bill Spurlock, Corps of Engineers Joe Robel, Dept. of Fisheries Bob Pfeifer, Dept. of Game Bob Terwilliger, Prosecutor's Office Lew Westcott, Dept. of Public Works Enclosure ,rl op or 'T Y 000, 0-11 000, $.N Q HO M 1,S- EXHIBIT A I (Sample Letter) a. C"Jq" I0qC) 4A8Y 6V J k, 61: q1 A, I \q1 0qP'd I 8q@@J PAR 2T 2M 8E 8KI 60k if qJ'C! ::0q1 61;1 Vail 1. April 10, 1980 Thorp Meats PO Box 424 Snohomish, Washington 98290 Dear Sirs: Re: Illegal landfill on Assessor's Parcel 052806-3-077 This letter is intended to follow up our correspondence of March 3, 1980 (copy enclosed). We find that you have taken no substantive action to comply with our request to remove the fill which was de- posited on your property in the floodplain, in violation of the County's Shoreline Master Plan, zoning, and grading laws, and the State's flood control laws. As you were previously advised, we are now turning this matter over to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for enforcement. In addition, we are asking the Department of Ecology and the County Building and Public Works department to take action to enforce the violations of their flood control and grading regulations. We expect that, once the illegally deposited fill is removed to an appropriate location outside of the floodplain, your site will be reseeded and restored to its pre-fill condition. Please feel free to contact me, if you have any questions. Sincerely, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Shannon Hart Senior Planner SH:wm cc: Roy Bishop, Department of Ecology Bill Spurlock, Corps of Engineers Bob Terwilliger, Prosecutor's Office Ken Engelbretson, Building Department Lew Westcott, Department of Public Works Enclosure EXHIBIT A 6N (Sample Letter) P JA @ *if 0C L8J 2N (.61IN 1), OkmVIIIAO; I IiA, 111 41 lit 11 I)IKII -I VI )0, 1 1, V'V k%!'I1IIAi4 ION!A1201. I I If T6N8O April 10, 1980 Mr. William Malloy Washington State Department of Transportation 6431 Corson Avenue South C-81410 Seattle, Washington 98108 Dear Mr. Malloy: Re: Disposal of spoils from the SR 2 project It has come to our attention that certain of the contractors associat- ed with the SR 2 project are illegally depositing spoils within the floodplain. Such a practice is in violation of the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act, Shoreline Master Program, Zoning Code, and State flood control laws. We are currently attempting to enforce the removal of a substantial volume of SR 2 spoils, which was allegedly deposited by Fiorito Brothers (according to the property owner), north of the Three Lakes Road (see enclosed correspondence). We feel that your department is partially responsible for the violation which has occurred, and should provide assistance in the removal of the fill to an appropriate, non-floodplain location. We also request that your department immediate- ly advise all contractors that spoils from the SR 2 project are to be deposited only in legitimate disposal areas, outside of the floodplain. We trust that there will be no more such violations associated with the SR 2 project, and look forward to working with your department to correct those violations which have already occurred. Sincerely, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Shannon Hart Senior Planner Enclosures EXHIBIT A (Sample Letter) STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON Office of District Engineer, D 1, 6431 Carson Ave So., C 81410, Seattle, Washaington 98108 Dixy Lee Ray Governor May 28, 1980 RECEIVED May 29 1980 CO. PLANNING OFFICE Snohomish County Planning Department County Administration Building Everett, Washington 98201 SR 2 Fobes Hill to Campbell Road L-3388 ATTENTION: Shannon Hart Dear Ms. Hart: We have received your April 10, 1980, letter regarding the disposal of spoils from the SR 2 project. Your concerns have been forwarded to the contractor (letter attached). We appreciate your interest in this highway project. Very truly yours, J.D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Administrator D.L. HOFFMAN, P.E. District Design Engineer WMM:jcw Attachment cc: J.J. Hansen L.S. Stanton Construction Administration EXHIBIT A (Sample Letter) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Engineer, 0 161 Carson Ave So. C #1410, Seattle, Washington 59198 Dixy Lee Ray Governor May 2, 1980 Fiorito Brothers 1100 N.W. Leary Way Seattle, WA 98107 SR-2 C.3. 3107 Fobes Hill to Sta. 312 Contract 1298 Gentlemen; We have been notified by the Snohomish County Planning Department that you may have wasted material on property owned by Thorp Meats illegally. The county alleges that the depositing of the material without obtaining a flood control permit from the Dept. of Ecology, Shoreline Management, grading and conditional use permits from Snohomish County, and possibly a Seciton 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constitutes an illegal act. The County is requesting that the material placed on the Thorp property be removed. We suggest that you contact the County and make whatever arrangements necessary to satisfy them. Very truly yours, Jack J. Hansen, P.E. Project Engineer 80 Columbia Ave, Dept of Highways D-1 Marysville, Wa. 98270 Recd May 5, 1980 JJH:meg cc: Const. Admin File EXHIBIT B ElemENt II - Program Refinements 1. Public hearings held on comprehensive land Use plan foR the SkYKOMISH RiVER VALLEY - FInAL Action foRTHCOMING. 2. Public hearings held ON, and adoption Of compreheNsive land USE PLAN FOR LOWER SNOHOMISH RIVERINE AND ESTUARINE AREAS. 3. County initiateD rezONING OF lower SnOhomish Riverine and estuarine areas to implement comprehensive land uSe PlAn. 4. Review and redrafting of TITLE 21 (thE CouNTy's ShoReline Management Ordinance) to conform with recent amendments to state law and expedite permit pr0ceSSING PROCEDures. 5. Review and evaluation of potential amendment to Shoreline Master PrOGRAM REGULations for subdIvision densities. 6. Review and evaluation with other agencies (concerned wIth fisheries resources and riveR hydraulics) of potential amendment to Shoreline Master Program regulation pROHibiting pit mining Within the hydraulic floodway. 7. Review of potential amendments to Title 18 (the County's Zoning Code) pertaining to development within floODplain areas. AREA G - COMMUNITIES ON THE SR-203 located on the western edge of the area. All SKYKOMISH RIVER LOW- of the uplands are designated Forestry with a LANDS AND ON HIGH small strip of lowland adjacent to SR-203, currently ROCKS (east of SR 203) in rural and industrial use, designated as Rural. The Forestry designation has been used primarily Area G is that portion of the planning area due to the inability of government to provide south of SR-2, west of Area F, and east of services for the area if it changes from its histori- SR-203 as is shown on Figure 13. Two differ- cal use of timber production to a residential use. ent terrain types are predominant: The Sewer and other urban services are difficult to Skykomish River and the High Rock uplands. provide for the area due to its remoteness. The Skykomish River lowlands consist of four community areas. Farming is the main activity SPECIAL CONCERNS of three of these communitites: One is located between SR-2 and the river, another around the Area G contains the Braided Channel of the west end of Ben Howard Road, and the third is Skykomish River which is recognized as south of Sultan. The fourth community, south- valuable to the County for recreation, flood east of Sultan is used primaily for recreation. control, natural resources of agriculture and Currently, these recreation uses include small forestry, and as fish and wildlife habitat. lot plats, a rental camp area and a state fishing It is in the public interest that Braided access to the river. This community is desig- Channel development be minimal because of its uated as Residential Estate, while the other flood control characteristics. The Shoreline farming communities are designated Agricultural. Management Maste Program dramatically reduces potential channel development through its The High Rock uplans are predominately in timber classification of much of the channel land in production with residential uses accessible from the Conservancy Environment. Public purchase of the Braided Channel should be considered to provide use of the channel area for recrea- tion and flood control purposes and to retain the public's right of access to the channel. Throughout the Skykomish floodplain, the plan has designated land not in current agricultural use as Forestry or Wetland with the intent to discourage channel development. Access to existing residential development and the recreation lakes located on the upland is provided by narrow roads inadequate to handle increased traffic. Until the road network can be improved, High Rock uplands should remain in timber production with continued limited outdoor recreation uses. At the present level of taxation and subsequent expenditures for countywide road work, Snohomish County is experiencing difficulty meeting road repair and improvement needs. Any major road improve- ment for the High Rock uplands would be in the distant future. Therefore, High Rock is designated for continued timber production. SNOHOMISH RIVER VALLEY All of the Snohomish River Valley is within the plain status reduces the danger of conversion a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designated 100 year great deal. However, there are other economic flood plain. Because of the high probability of factors which threaten farmlands. serious flooding in most of the valley, there is One of the more substantial costs of operation in a functional limit to the types of land use per- Snohomish Valley farming is maintaining adequate mitted in the flood plain. Any additional residen- drainage. Most of the land is diked to prevent tial, commercial, or industrial use should be inumdation and is channeled and pumped to control strictly regulated. The most suitable uses are ag- local runoff. As urban development increases on ricultural, recreation, and open space. the uplands surrounding the valley, so does the The "highest and best use" of a major portion of the storm water runoff. Increased runoff from the Snohomish Flood Plain is agriculture. The valley uplands increases the drainage problem and cost of contains some fo the most productive dairy farms in farming in the lowlands. This plan recommends Washington State if not the United States. These that the uplans property owners assume responsi- farms make a valuable economic and irreplaceable bility for aggravating drainage problems and help social contribution to this county and planning to pay for the solution. area. If the experience of other agricultural Another cost of farm operation is taxation. If valleys in Western Washington is repeated in this farmers were forced to pay taxes on the potential valley, these farms are in grave danger of conver- uses for their land, they would be forced off of tion to other more intensive land uses. Flood the land for agriculture, they may survive. The 132 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AWW7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7-r At- 17' -1 Lo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Lk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 --7 _71 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --f9vella OEM! FIGURE 40 SNOHOMISH RIVER VALLEY 133 agricultural open space tax dzsignation limits for use in the Snohomish Valley. the property tax assessment to- actual use rather than potential use. This plan recommends that Another major land use in the Snohomish Valley is @arm@ers on prime agricultural land be given ecologically important marsh and wetlands. In agricultural open -space tax designation on their 1978, the Corps of Engineers complet Ied a survey of land and farm buildings. Farm buildings are the Snohomish Estuary !@etlands This study estab- currently exempt from open space tax credit. and lishes boundaries of river influence and identifies farmers maintain that this is an inequitably .high valuable remaining mars' and swamps. The study tax burden. This plan recommends that the tax provides environmental base data for evaluating assessment of farm buildings be carefully reviewed a variety of Corps required hydrology permits. and considered for inclusion under open space The Corps wetlands study identifies many "are-as of taxation.- importance" which are uni-que to the functioning of Many County residents are advocating'a Purchase of, the Snohomish Estuary ecos-Ystem. The Corps will. Development Rights proposal to further assist not issue hydrology permits in these wetlands of County farmers. Essentially,, farmers would be importance unless the proposed project is, in the paid a lump sum equal to the difference in . the public interest with pr04 ect benefits outweighing value of their land as farmland and. its value@ as wetland damage. If the Corps actually reviews and acts on permit applications as this study suggests, residential land. After accepting the.development I rights payment, the land could be sold but only they will functionally create several wilderness for use as farmland. A purchase of development areas in the Snohomish Estuary. The implications rights program as well as other agricultural lands of the Corps study are considered in this compre- preser@.,ation programs should be carefully evaluated hensive plan. if-the Corps intends to preserve wetlands in the Seattle Fill rising steeply Snohomish Estuary, this should be reflected in the at the edge of the slowly meandering river. In Shoreline Management, Master Program and in this addition, portions of the Gap are highly valued comprehensive _-plan... Th-is comprehensive plan recom- fishing holes for local sports fishermen. Because mend that. those areas identif ied as wetlands of of its beauty and its role as vital havitat for importance" by the. Corps,of Engineers be preserved fish, this- plan recommends that Cathcart Gap as wilderness natural wetlands. These areas preserved in its natural state. The entire Gap should be zoned Wetlands, which would prohibit any from Thomas' Eddy to Highway 522 should be qoned human modification of them. In addition, this Wetlands designated as Natural or conservancy on plan recomends, that the Shoreline Management an amended shoreline Management Master Program Master Program (SMMP) be ammended so that Corps and actively considered for public acquisition. identified wetlands are- designated Conservancy or A third significant land use in the Snohomish Natural in. the SMMP. Since most of the wetlands Flood Plain is the industrial land at the mouth areas are privately owned and since county, state of the Estuary. Most of the existing land use and zoning on the land west of Interstate 5 is industrial. Scott Paper company has a large mill and federal regulations make development of wet- in this area. they use much of their land in the Estuary for log storage and waste treatment facili- lands extremely difficult, this plan.recommends ties. In addition to Scott Paper, there are a number of small manufacturers on Smith Island. that the Estuary wetlands be publically acquired. The Cathcart Gap is another' valuable: wetland area in the Snohomish. River Valley. Unlike the Estuary wetlands, the-Cathcart Gap is in the gravel bar braided channel section of the river. The Gap is an extremely scenic area with- Lord's Hill and Much of Smith Island provides access to deep draft, ocean going vessels. For these reasons, the portions of Smith Island west of Interstate 5 which are currently used for industy should continue to serve that purpose. No industiral use should encroach on the Corps of Engineers identified wetlands at the extreme west end of Smith Island or onto any wetland east of I-5. EXHIBIT B (Sample Letter) May 16, 1980 Roy Bishop State Department of Ecology 4350 150th Ave. NE Remond, Washington 98052 Dear Roy: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our mutual concerns regarding sand and gravel extraction (pit excavations) in the riverine environment. Our meeting of May 15, 1980 has been very beneficial in defining the type of information necessary for inclusion in Environmental Impact Statements for gravel mining proposals located in the floodplain. I will be transmitting a summary outline of that information to your office for additional comment in the near future. We intend to give full consideration to your expressed concerns relative to our current Shoreline Master Program prohibition of pit excavations in a designated floodway. In order to facilitate our prsent examination of this prohibition, we ask that your specific concerns be itemized and transmitted to our office in writing at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerly, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Gary Reiersgard Senior Planner GR:idn EXHIBIT B (Sample Letter) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C-3755 SEATTLE, WASHINTON 98124 NPSEN-PL-FP 12 June 1980 Mr. Gary Riersgard Snohomish County Planning County Administration Building Dear Mr. Riersgard: This is in response to your letter of 16 May 1980 requesting our comments realtive to Snohomish County's shoreline Management Master Program prohibition of pit excavations in a designated floodway. Our concern stems from the idea of the floodway being used for regulating an activity that is not in conflict with the floodway concept. A floodway is an instrument that was intended to be used for restricting development in the portion of the flood plain that is necessary to safely pass floodwaters. Generally, the floodway boundaries are determined by a hydraulic analysis that "squeezes" the 100-year flood until the depth increases one foot higher than natural flow conditions. According to this definition of a floodway, a pit excavation would have no harmful effect. We feel the use of floodway boundaries to control nonflood related activities will diminish the effecrtiveness of the floodway concept as a flood damage mitigation tool and tends to confuse the public. We realize that a pit excavation in a floodway/flood plain may create certain hydraulic problems, so we suggest careful consideration of the following items in evaluating proposed pits: a. Would pit allow or encourage the channel to shift and flow through the pit? b. Would pit act as a trap for sediment, debris, or fish? c. Would srtream degrade upstream riverbed and banks to refill pit? d. If pit acts as sediment trap, will "clear" water from pit degrade downstream riverbed and banks? e. Could degredation of upstream or downstream riverbed and/or banks endanger public or private facilities such as bridge piers, bank stabilization (e.g., riprap), buried pipelines at river crossings, and roads or other improve- ments located alongside the stream? NPSEN-PL-fP Mr. Gary Reiersgard f. Would berms, levees, material stockpiles, or processing plants increase local flow velocities or raise local flood levels? thank you for contacting the U.S. Corps of Engineers on this matter, and if, you have any further questions, please call us at 764-3660. Sincerely, GERALD M. GARDNER Acting Chief, Flood Plain Management Section EXHIBIT B (Sample Letter) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME 600 North Capital Way, CJ H Olympia, WA 98504 2067535700 Dixy Lee Ray Governor May 28, 1980 Ms. Shannon Hart Senior Planner Snohomish County Planning Department County Administration Building Everett, Washington 98201 RE: Gravel Pits in Hydraulic Floodway, Snohomish County Ms. Hart: Your attempts to involve our agency in the early stages of your shoreline planning process are appreciated. Our comments follow on gravel pits in the hydraulic floodway. We are concerned about potential impacts to fish and wildlife that might result from gravel pits. Strembed gravels are necessary for trout and sal- mon to spawn. If excessive mini mining, channel change or erosion occurs, spawn- ing beds could be depleted of gravel upstream or downstream from the site and fish production would be reduced. Pits left in the floodway would trap fish when floodwaters recede. Trout and salmon require high levels of dissolved oxygen and cool water to survive. Temperature of pits could rise above lethal limits and have too little dis- solved oxygen to support salmonids. Fish food production in ponds would also likely be insufficient to support trapped fishes. As with any development in the floodway, gravel operations hold potential for removing critical wildlife habitat provided by riparian vegetation and wetlands. Any mining or stockpiling in these critical areas would impact fish and wild- life. Because of our concerns, we support your prohibition on new gravel pits in the hydraulic floodway. If you would permit for pits in the floodway, we recommend it only be done with a conditional use permit and environmental impact statement. The proposal should be evaluated by an independent geohydrologist to determine the likelihood of channel change, excess gravel removal or increased erosion. Information would be necessary on plant life in the proposed area. This should include not only the areas where the gravel would be mined, but also the areas where gravel would be stockpiled. Other information on a plan to prevent strand- ing of fish or to return fish to the river should be provided. Page 2 May 28, 1980 Thank you for the opportunity to respond, If you have any questions, please call us at 753-3318, Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Bob Zeigler, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Habitat Management Division BZ:mjf cc Agencies Regional EXHIBIT B (Sample Letter) STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES WASHINTON Dixy Lee Ray Governor May 29, 1980 Snohomish County Planning Department County Administration Building Everett, Washington 98201 Attention Mr. Gary Reiersgard, Senior Planner Gentlemen: Snohomish County. Shoreline Master Program - Prohibition of Gravel Excavations Snohomish County WRIA A-05,07 We appreciated the opportunity to express our concerns regarding gravel excavations in Snohomish County and commend your effort to, obtain a wide range of opinions and ideas. A word or two regarding natural salmon production in Western Washington streams will serve to put our concerns in perspective. We consider a conservative approach to man-made environmental changes to be the most sound at it relates to our fishery management responsibilities. Under present geological, climate and biological conditions, we can expect a certain, and in some cases predictable,level of salmon production for, a particular river system. This level is that which the system will support and we ran depend on. This consis- tency as a basis for prediction or enhancement efforts. It follows then, that changes to the environment which will have art unpredictable impact on any facet of salmonid production will jeopardize our ability, to manage that resource. Our concerns with gravel pit excavations within the flood zone all involve the unpredictable riverine environment changes which could occur as a result of floods 1. Loss of spawning area. A net loss of gravel from the bedload into the open pits could alter upstream spawning areas and remove important replacement gravel to downstream salmonid spawning a areas. We would expect less effects the further pits are located from the river. 2. Channel changes. Gravel pits provide a low point in the floodway which encourages rerouting of floodwater. They have been responsible for channel changes in the Wynoochee River, for example. Rearing areas can be severely impacted in such cases. Also severe bank erosion can occur. Snohomish County 2 May 29, 1980 .Planning Department 3. Fish entrapment. Probably somewhat less of a concern that the other two because entrapment occurs under natural conditions to a certain extent. However, the presence of open pits may increase the chdnce of entrapment due to channel changes. Thank you for the chance to comment on your Shoreline Master Program Prohibition. Please contact Bill Young (753-25.46) of our Natural Production Division if you have further questions. Sincerely, W Ree Chief Fi,shuries Natural Pr uctio e @f- od EXHIBIT C (Sample Letter) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION George P. Sherwin Jr., Director June 21, 1980 Mr. William Spurlock Floodplain Management Department of the army Seattle distric, Corps of Engineers PO Box C-3755 Seattle, Washington 98124 Dear Mr. Spurlock: Our department has completely reviewed the Pilchuck River Study. We have found two locations in the study area where floodway boundary should be repositione, if possible The first location encompasses Lots 7 through 31, and Lots 34, 36, 38, 40, 44, 46, and 47 in the plat of Pilchuck Riviera, recorded on October 19, 1964. Most of this plat (including several of the lots which are presently within the designated floodway) has been developed. In recogniztion of the establishing development, we are requesting that you investigate the feasibility of reolcating the floodway boundry so thath it would occur exactly 60 feet from the edge of Pilchuck Way (see enclosed map). This alternative would provide a minimal building site, outside of the floodway, for the remaining undeveloped lots. The establishment of a floodway boundry at a fixed distance from an existing improvement would simplify floodplain permit administration. The second area of concern involves Lots 2 through 12 in the plat of Pilchuck 26 Tracts, recorded on September 9,1968. A similar situation exists within this area as to the extent of existing development. Likewise, we are requesting that you evaluate the implications of an alternative floodway boundary exactly 60 feet from the westerly edge of the access road (see attached map). We have enclosed maps of the affected areas and our suggested boundary adjustments. You will also find a copy of a letter from the County Council indicating their desire to investigate alternatives to the present floodway designation within the palt of Pilchuck Riviera. We are aware that there is a potentially confining steep bluff on the bank opposite Pilchuck Riveria, and that an alternative eequal conveyance floodway in this area may be problematic. Topography in the Pilchuck 26 Tracts vicinity is generally similar and predominantly level on both sides of the river. Mr. William Spurlock July 21, 1980 Page two Please evaluate the hydroloical implications of the two alternatives we have suggested, and advise us of the extent of downstream or upstream flood study adjustments which would be necessary to accommiodate our suggested modifications. Upon receipt of your analysis, we will present the alternatives to the County Council for their evaluation and action. Please feel free to give me a call, if I can assist you in any way. Sincerely, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Shannon Hart Senior Planner SH: wm Enclosures lu 29 -in L4 cc Do. oc it o V r cs 0 (MA W GI: it CD Cl. rn co _74 - '006 10 Q@@ Qzt 44b Scale 1 400 CI twl*l Additional Information Requested by Department of Ecology for period from October 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980 Approximate number of inquiries regarding CZM/SMA: 850 Approximate number of inquiries regarding shoreline substantial development permits: 450 Number of peroposals substantially modified to meet master program requirements-: 6 Number of federal permits reviewed to implement pro- visions of master programs which are exempt from a STMA permit: 1 Number of shoreline permits requested: 31 Number of shoreline permits issued: 20 Number of shoreline permits denied: 3 Number of'site inspections: 40 Number of shoreline violations: 10 Number of actions against violators (including injunctions, forced permit applications, stop work orders, and other actions): 10 Number of SILA/CZM educational programs conducted (i.e. displays, workshops, speeches, etc.): 0 9i ik 4' 0 Exhibit 02 D( )ikrilliviv STATEMENT OF COSTS AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY CLAIM HUMBER 4rantee's Name 4 Address Contract Nwaber Cast Period 4 Eloment'Complet*d' Element i Snohomish County Planning CZM Fy 1980 County Admin. Bldg. 4/l/80 through'6-/30/ao Evprett roject 4Mdile?p 4@deral 2 1 c.4k rt I f y-that costs" $ 9, 22A State have been, lncurr*d In -c" I h thl Total Budg-pt: for Greg Williams'. 319natur4 R Projeaj offl@1;1) Costs for ft TO .41 .. c9st. port Porlod ' - I @, Cost Categories Psr , - - (as approved In grant budget) Federal St4t4 Local. Category, 1. Salaries and Wages 4,573.00 1 14j, 21'- -5-,716.@26 2. Employee Benefits !* . L. @1, 3. Con5ultant 6 Contract 777,41 194', A) ) 1,76 Services 4. Consumable Supplies 5. Copying Service 6. Travel 1114.70 28, 6' 143-.37 7. Equipment 640.00 160.0( 8. Indirect Costs 800.00 457.30 114.31 571-63 A 2ency Totals this report 2 Total of Prior Claims -6,588.97 @,147.0220,735.09 T t@ Accumulated Project Totals !3, 150 78- 5.787.6328,938 11, r (Note: Snohomish County will on4l'y claim @Lmount budgeted by contract fo@, f Rev. 9/78 -24- '-il- kk - 4 A W i.-J lit "x I Exhibit #2 D( )i4fillm-111 (VI It STATEMENT OF COSTS AND (C FINANCIAL SUMMARY CLAIM NUMBER Grantee's Name Address Contract Number Cost Period Element Complotoil Snohomish County Planning CZM FY 1980 Element II County Admin. Bldg. 4/l/80 through"6-/30/80' Project Budget Federal 210@ I certify .that cos@s,J,Isted below State have been Incurred Wcoaforn*n@o, witirthis C;ontr4ct! Local Total Budget; 263S for Greg k!4111amq (Signature of Project 0!floliln Costs for Re"rt Period' Tqtel Cost Cost Categories PO r , (as approved in grant budget) Federal State Lacel+. Category 1. Salaries and Wages 695.89 173,:97': .-8,69.86-, 2. Employee benefits 118.30 29, 58 -147. 88 3. Consultant 6 Contract Service.% 4. Consumable Supplies 5. Copying Service 6. Travel 7. Equipment 8. Indirect Costs 69.59 17.40 86,99 Totals this report 883. 7� ? L1 r) LL'A Total of Prior Claims 1228. 2-6 i @QZ, Q6 1 13 a5 Accumulated Project Totals P112.-W 1 - 264LO 05 (Note: Snohomish County will.on@!y claim amount budgeted by, contract A f h* liment.) gr 3@_p,,% E 0 Rev. 9/78 -24- Exhibit #2 I k STATEMENT OF COSTS AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY CLAIM NUMBER 14 Grantee's Name G Address Contract Number cost Period& Elemnk Cow Snohomish.CQuntY Planning CZM FY 1980 Element III County Admin ]31 dg. 4/l/80 through@�ZMZRO Everett W4 989" Project Budget: Federal 1751 1 certify that costs'll*t*4 Opq have been Incurred in c"fanw-Ok state with thl's contracto' Local 438 Total Budget: 218c) @51 17 (Signature of Project -- Q -- a 'Wi, Ji" * r- i: e ams Costs for Reporot Ferlo Total Cost Cost Categories (as approved In grant budget) Federal State Local !Cot.9sory 1. Salaries and Wages 1501.25 375,31 1876.56. 2. Employee Benefits - 255.22 63.80 319,02 3. Consultant 6 Contract Services 4. Consumable Supplies 5. Copying Service 6. Travel 7. Equipment 8. Indirect Costs 150.13 37..53 187,66 Argenc,,, Totals this report 6 476,64 -39-1-24 Total of Prior Claims U72. 19 543.03 615-22 Accumulated Project Totals 078.79 0 298.46 F T (Note: Snohomish County will.only'' claim amount budgeted by contract. t3: 0 19 6:tj S MaLment. -) %al Rev. 9/78 -24- DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY STATEMENT OF COSTS AND Exhibit #2 FINANCIAL SUMMARY CLAIM NUMBER 4 Grantee's Name & Address Contract Number Cost Period & Element Completed Snohomish County Planning CZM - FY 1980 Element IV County Admin. Bldg. 4/1/80 through 6/30/80 Everett, WA 98201 Project Budget: Federal $2036 I certify that costs listed below State have been Incurred in conformance Local 577 with this contract. Total Budget: $2883 Signature of Project Official Cost Categories Costs for Report Period Total Cost (as approved in grant budget) Federal State Local per Category 1. Salaries and Wages 1099.12 274.78 1373.90 2. Employee Benefits 186.85 46.71 233.56 3. Consultant & Contract Services 4. Consumable Supplies 5. Copying Service 6. Travel 7. Equipment 8. Indirect Costs 109.91 27.48 137.39 Totals this report 1395.88 348.97 1744.85 Total of Prior Claims 3392.32 847.85 4240.39 Accumulated Project Totals 4788.20 196.82 5985.24 (Note: Snohomish County will only claim amount budgeted by contract for this element.) ECV 030-3-15(a) Rev. 9/78 -24- FORM STATE OF WASH114GTON A19 INVOICE VOUCHER REV 6-?? AGENCY NAME INUTRUCTIONS TO VKNUOR OR CLAIMANT S""" m TERIAI-5. M To CLAIM PAYMENT rOR MA LH@14@f,, ON, -LN4ICL!. SHOW COMPLETE DETAIL FOR EACH ITEM. Department of.Ecology AGENCYPIRI QAAUTHOHIZATIONNO.---;tiv(O)!C['/ I'SHER-cpfi Olympia, WA.- July 11, 1980 VENDOR'$ CER11FICATE. I Ht-ki.bY CERTIFY ijtjDfk ;'EIIAL[Y Of PEIIJURY THAT THE IILMS AND 10TA(S tISILD HEkElh AkE P@CfEk (HAkGE5'FC)W MATEMALS, MFRCHAfJl')ISE (DR SFRV]r-ES fUpr,jISi0*() TO THE STATE of WA@HINGRDt9, ANO IIIAI ALL GOODS AND/0w SEKVICES VENDOR OR CLAIMANT RENDERED HAVE BEEN PROVID1.0 :,WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION ON 'THE GkIOUN05 OF kACE, CkfEr). COLOW, NArfONAL ORIGIN, SEX,,Ok AGE. Snohomish County Planning. County Administration Bldg.' UY Everett, WA' 98201 SIGN WilliA@ IWS IN PIA IC, for Greg %..@@sistant pir'.'), ITITLEI UNIT FOR AGENCY IDESCRIPTION 1' QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT USE' 0-V 7/11/80 Salaries/Wa es (as t-e d. b Benefits (as limited Transportat on 14-3-i-47- 411.86 Indirect Costs (as 1-!Tni--t-ed -b - TOTAL EXPENSE___ 6819.59 less 20% match 1363.92 5455.67 - ------------- less 10% retainer 545.57 TOTAL CLAIM 4910. 10 VER) DOCUMENT 49 LIQUIDATION DATE out, F77.1 P.P. ILK. IRAIL I CARRIER COLL. I PPD- ING or PC 6 RECEI IVED BY DIV. OR UNIT RECEIVED FOR DIV. on UNIT RECKIVIED ey -J6.A@ Fjr,@@FRT. CHARGE ACCOUNT CODE AMOUNT FUND APPROP.1 PROGRAM OBJECT LIQUIDATION NET INVOICE RECEIVED BY TOTAL '@TE! CHECKED INV I ICE RQ@,@ INV. AMT. N IN NET INV. AMT@ VOUCHER No, WARRANT NO. FOR PAYMENT BY: AND APPROV I @CE 15ATE A *Note: Actual costs to Snohomish County were as reported on attached statements. We are charging, however, only that amount budgeted by contract. For Element I we are charging only $3342.75 for salaries, $542.88.for benefits, and $334.28 for indirect costs.- For Element 11 we are charging only $770.77 for salaries, $151.33 for benefits, and $77.58 for indirect costs. For Element III we are-transferring the unused monies we had-budgeted for transportation in Elements 1,11, and 111 ($456.63) to salaries and wages. For Element,IV we are transferring the unused monies we had budgeted for equipment in that Element ($200) to salaries and wages. The total amount*of monies transferred in less than 5% of the.contract amount. NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY I 1 3 6668 14112912 4 .