WABO-SEAW Snow Load White Paper

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12
At a glance
Powered by AI
The key takeaways are that the document discusses forming a joint committee between WABO and SEAW to increase consistency in snow load design and enforcement. It also discusses current regulations, related issues, and data from a storm damage survey.

The goals of the Ad Hoc Committee are to further regional understanding and consistency with respect to snow load design and enforcement practices on low-lying areas of the Puget Sound, and to document the results of the considerations in a White Paper which will be a resource tool available to members of the construction industry.

The issues currently affecting snow load design consistency according to the document include lack of specificity in the UBC, inherent lack of consistency between jurisdictions, varying design practices of engineers, and lack of communication between engineers and inspectors.

WABO - SEAW WHITE PAPER SNOW LOAD REGULATIONS AND ENGINEERING PRACTICES WASHINGTON STATE August 2000

BACKGROUND
In 1996, the Structural Engineers Association of Washington (SEAW) presented a seminar on snow load design at three locations in the State. The main purpose of the seminar was to introduce a new edition of the SEAW Snow Load Analysis for Washington to engineers and regulators. The first edition was published in 1975. At the late 1996 seminar in SeaTac, an ad-hoc committee of members of the Seattle Chapter of SEAW conducted a panel discussion of issues related to the seminar, including snow load regulation. Much of the discussion focused on the lower elevation regions of the Puget Sound area. As a result of the panel discussion, it was recommended that SEAW and the Washington Association of Building Officials (WABO) attempt to bring more consistency to the design and review process relating to snow loads. A joint WABO-SEAW Ad Hoc Snow Load Committee (see Appendix III) was subsequently formed to consider snow load issues and to facilitate consistency of design and enforcement.

GOALS OF THE SNOW LOAD AD HOC COMMITEE


The Goals of the Ad Hoc Committee are to further regional understanding and consistency with respect to snow load design and enforcement practices on low-lying areas of the Puget Sound, and to document the results of the considerations in a White Paper which will be a resource tool available to members of the construction industry. Although the potential exists to use the information generated to consider code changes, the immediate Goals of the Committee do not extend to considering changes to the State Building Code.

CURRENT REGULATIONS
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is the adopted model code in the State of Washington. In general, the provisions of the UBC (1994 Section 1605.4, 1997 Section 1614) require local jurisdictions to establish snow loads used in the design of structures constructed in the local community. The load that the UBC intends for local determination is a uniform load. In addition the UBC requires consideration of non-uniform accumulation due to potential drifting. This may appear non-specific, but the lack of data and numerous influencing variables, such as moisture, wind, elevation, temperature, geographic location, and proximity to large bodies of water, as well as variations in roof shapes and in the sizes and shapes of adjacent structures, together make state-wide adoption of specific loads and drift methodologies difficult. Lack of specificity of the Code helps cause an inherent lack of consistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as compared to more defined regulation. Furthermore, the design practices of private professional engineers vary considerably. Appendix 1634 of the UBC (Append. Chapter 16 Div. I 1997 UBC) provides methods for calculating loads due to drifting snow. Generally, Appendix Chapters of the UBC are not adopted by the state; rather, they are left available for local jurisdictions to adopt if desired. Appendix Chapters contain regulations that have not been developed sufficiently to gain the standing necessary for incorporation into the main body of the code. In some cases, individual jurisdictions have adopted ordinances that establish a specific local uniform snow load. In other cases, snow load requirements are developed by the local jurisdiction as written or unwritten policies.

OTHER RELATED ISSUES


For the construction of safe roof structures, other issues can be as important or more important than specificity in regulation. Examples include:

intent of the owner/developer - is the intent construction for a long-term capital investment, or is the focus minimum construction for immediate sale? technical capabilities of the design engineer, the local plan reviewer and the inspector - is the engineer practicing in an area of expertise? does the jurisdiction have licensed engineers and certified inspectors on staff? does the jurisdiction as well as the design engineer have a continuous education plan? lack of communication between the design engineer and those responsible for inspection regarding critical concerns - does the design engineer realize an inspectors time is limited? (10-15 inspections per day are common.) does the contract allow for field involvement by the design engineer? staffing level of the local regulator- does the jurisdiction have budget to hire engineering staff and sufficient inspection staff? contractor knowledge and understanding - does the contractor have a good line of communication with the engineer? does the contractor realize a seemingly small change in design or specification may not be equivalent but rather have long term impacts? financial and economic pressures - are the terms of the construction contract so tight as to drive consideration of less than what was specified? is competition between manufactured products driving designs to be marginalized? are assumptions being made regarding a level of independent inspection that does not exist? timely mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the regulator and the project designers - does time it takes obstruct getting the right answer and promote further gaps in communication? perceived relative importance between different sizes and occupancies of structures - is the position of some jurisdictions justified that small car ports and storage buildings, etc. have lower priority for regulatory structural involvement than other larger and more highly occupied buildings?

THE SEAW SNOW LOAD ANALYSIS FOR WASHINGTON


There have been several publications developed over the last 30 years that address the statistical determination of snow loads for the design of buildings. These publications include the 1970 National Building Code of Canada, and manuals by Structural Engineers Associations in Oregon, Colorado, Idaho, and Washington. The latest version of the SEAW Snow Load Analysis for Washington incorporates many concepts from these previous publications. Precipitation and snow depth data used in the SEAW Snow Load Analysis for Washington are based on measurements from the Soil Conservation Service and the National Weather Service. Density relationships have been developed in the various documents mentioned above. The Snow Load Analysis uses the Rocky Mountain Conversion Density relationship from a 1986 University of Idaho study. Basically, the relationship provides lower density at lesser snow depths and higher density at greater snow depths to account for accumulation effects. Snow depths are based on a Mean Recurrence Interval of 50 years with a Log Pearson Type III distribution. SEAWs Snow Load Analysis for Washington provides a method to calculate basic ground snow load throughout the state from mapped information and elevations. Using the ground snow load and formulas found in UBC Appendix Chapter 16, one can then calculate the roof snow load, which for most buildings is less than the ground snow load. The Snow Load Analysis also contains a table in Appendix A of that document that provides a recommended ground snow load for various jurisdictions (see Appendix I this document). These recommended loads are appropriately higher than what one could calculate from known elevations and the isolines. In the low-lying regions of Puget Sound, these recommended ground snow loads are commonly in the range of 15 to 25 psf. If one calculates roof snow loads by applying the UBC methodology (PgxIxCe) for common buildings, the associated roof snow loads would calculate to 10.5 to 17.5 psf. The Analysis also provides examples which calculate drifted snow load based on methods outlined in the UBC Appendix. The methods use the ground snow load as a basis to determine the drift loads.

While it should be recognized that the Snow Load Analysis is the best resource available to help both the designer and the local building official determine local snow load requirements, it is, by itself, not a legally enforceable document. It was written solely to provide information about snow load design.

ISSUES WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS


Because of the lack of specificity in the State adopted code, design engineers can experience difficulties identifying specific local requirements. Because engineers tend to design structures in many different jurisdictions, they must seek this information on a job to job basis. They must maintain contacts, and hope that those contacts can provide information sufficient to prevent costly revisions during the permit application review and inspection of the building. During the preliminary stages of project development, the structural engineer provides information for estimates upon which financial and contractural decisions are based. Subsequent changes made during the permit process not only upset these decisions, but also consume time and money during resolution. During a panel discussion at the SEAWs SeaTac seminar, the following issues were discussed, most of which relate to the low lying regions of Puget Sound: The confusion surrounding whether specified basic snow loads are ground snow or roof snow loads. The perception in some jurisdictions that the Snow Load Analysis is an enforceable document. A lack of clarity about which basic ground load source to use (the isoload maps or the various tables) and the limitations of each source as they relate to snow density. The variability of snow drift requirements between jurisdictions. At one end of the spectrum, drift considerations are not required by the local regulator, and are left to be determined by the design engineer. At the other end of the spectrum, drift considerations are required, including a multitude of calculations for different roof conditions and load cases. The variability of drift calculation assumptions (ground snow vs. roof snow, area of roof that accumulates snow, impact of adjacent structures, complex multiple roof shapes), which can result in widely varying loads and resulting roof structures. The discrepancies between the likelihood of significant drift conditions in low lying Puget Sound and the rationale providing the basis for drift recommendations found in the UBC and the Manual. The drift provisions of the UBC appear to be based on climates quite different than the low lying Puget Sound area. The primary difference is the amount of time the snow accumulates and drifts, which can be weeks to months in the central and eastern US and mountainous regions, but only several days in the Puget Sound area.

SURVEY OF CURRENT SNOW LOAD PROVISIONS


Prior to the SeaTac seminar, various building departments were surveyed informally over the phone, which helped generate some of the discussion at the seminar. While the decision to proceed with the WABO-SEAW Ad Hoc Committee occurred before the 1996 December/1997 January storm (the Holiday Storm), the storm caused the Committee to proceed with a more formal survey of all the building officials in the State. In the winter of 1997, this survey was sent to a total of 85 towns, 192 cities, and 39 counties, and response was received from 14 towns, 90 cities, and 27 counties. A copy of the survey results is found in the Appendix II of this paper. The survey asked jurisdictions questions relating to the uniform load used, drift enforcement practices, local amendments, and use of the SEAW Analysis. It is of note that most jurisdictions reported using at least 20 psf. With the bulk using 25-psf. uniform roof snow load.

FEMA/SEAW STORM DAMAGE EVALUATION RESULTS

The Holiday storm caused much damaged around Puget Sound as well as in regions beyond Puget Sound, particularly on the east side of the Cascade Mountain Range, and in the south central regions of the state. The Holiday storm injected a need for consideration well beyond this White Paper, and indeed, the Seattle Chapter of SEAW joined with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to write a report on the resulting damage in Washington. The report includes a description of the weather event, the general extent of damage, a survey of building departments, as well as case studies of various types of structures, which experienced failure. The report was published in June of 1998, titled An Analysis of Building Structural Failures Due to the Holiday SnowStorms. This document and this White Paper are obviously closely related, and reading SEAW/FEMAs Analysis is recommended reading.

REGIONS COVERED BY WHITE PAPER


The initial purpose of the Snow Load Ad Hoc Committee, was to consider problems relating to snow load regulation and design in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, and to develop a White Paper acceptable to both organizations, that may include recommendations for enforcement and design practices relating to snow loads. A great deal of Committee discussion occurred about the vertical and lateral boundaries of low lying Puget Sound. Greater boundaries provide more information to a larger area and therefore to more future construction projects. On the other hand, effects of local weather conditions such as the Fraser River Valley to the north in B.C., areas immediately east of the Olympic Range, and the Columbia River area to the south are not as well known or understood, particularly with respect to wind and density of the falling snow, and thus argue for limited boundaries. While limiting the boundaries simplifies recommendations, the Committee decided to expand the boundaries to include a wider region of the state west of the Cascades Range.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
After considering the information provided by the WABO survey, the FEMA/SEAW joint effort, and the experience of committee members, the Committee established the following findings: The climates are similar enough in the low-lying areas of western Washington that it is reasonable to establish a consistent specification, and consistency benefits, designers, building officials, as well as the forest product industry... The historic approach of uniform snow loads has provided acceptable performance. The historic uniform load approach keeps the design and review process straightforward. The drift provisions found in the reference documents were developed for significantly different climates and are questionable for the Puget Sound. Based on the SEAW/FEMA a joint effort, recent storm damage was not related to drifting. Consideration should be given for conditions resulting from a rain storm following a snow storm (rain on snow effect), on flat or near flat roofs- the UBC Appendix chapter suggests 5 psf. For roofs less that :12 slope.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In low lying areas between the Cascades and the coastal mountains of western Washington, it is recommended that all roof structures be designed for a minimum uniform roof snow load of 25 psf. However, this should not preclude certain jurisdictions from adopting a more conservative loading if historical data supports such, due to localized weather phenomenon or particular geographical features. For the purposes of the 25 psf recommendation and the effects of drift, low lying areas are defined areas in jurisdictions that have a recommended ground snow load of 25 psf or less in Appendix A of the 1996 SEAW Snow Load Analysis for Washington. (Note that this is typically conservative in comparison the method outlined in UBC Appendix and the SEAW Analysis where a 30% reduction is commonly applied to the ground snow load to determine roof snow load).

2.

3.

In low-lying areas of Puget Sound as described in item 2, there is not a significant enough concern about drift to warrant proactive regulatory enforcement by the local jurisdiction. In some unusual cases (such as buildings with a UBC Importance Factor greater than 1), it may be appropriate for the design engineer to consider the effects of drift and the possibility of snow sliding off steep, upper roofs onto lower ones. However, the method for considering drift (UBC Appendix or SEAW Snow Load Analysis for Washington) requires significant judgement which should generally fall within the realm of the design engineer, rather than become part of proactive jurisdiction enforcement. To account for the potential of rain on snow effects in low-lying area, it is recommended that an additional uniform load of 5 psf for roofs with a slope of less than 5 degrees be further studied. (Note: this was a topic where the Ad Hoc Committee did not gain consensus and therefore the further study recommendation; this should not be enforced by local jurisdictions based on this Paper unless specifically adopted under ordinance, with consensus on a regional basis with broad industry involvement). It is recommended that those jurisdictions in low-lying regions that do not have a specific written ordinance on snow loads adopt one.

4.

5.

APPENDIX I SEAW SNOW LOAD ANALYSIS - APPENDIX A


GROUND SNOW LOADS
COUNTY Elevation1 (FT) 1390 1038 1825 1024 Recommended Ground Snow Load2 (PSF) 20 17 18 15 COUNTY Elevation1 (FT) 1613 645

GROUND SNOW LOADS


Recommended Ground Snow Load2 (PSF) 25 15

City 1. ADAMS Lind Othello * Ritzville Washtucna 2. ASOTIN Anatone * Asotin Clarkston 3. BENTON Benton City Kennewick * Prosser Plymouth Richland 4. CHELAN Ardenvoir Blewett Chelan Entiat Holden Lake Wenatchee Leavenworth Peshastin Plain Stehekin Stevens Pass Ski Area * Wenatchee 5. CLALLAM Fairholm Forks La Push Neah Bay * Port Angeles Sekiu Sequim 6. CLARK Amboy Battle Ground Camas Orchards * Vancouver Washougal

City 7. COLUMBIA * Dayton Starbuck 8. COWLITZ Castle Rock Kalama * Kelso Longview Toutle 9. DOUGLAS Bridgeport East Wenatchee Mansfield Rock Island * Waterville 10. FERRY Curlew Inchelium Keller Laurier * Republic 11. FRANKLIN Connell Kahlotus * Pasco 12. GARFIELD * Pomeroy 13. GRANT Coulee City * Ephrata Grand Coulee Hartline Mattawa Moses Lake Quincy Soap Lake Warden

3570 770 820

120 22 20

50 210 80 21 492 3

19 24 18 18 34

494 400 665 289 359

15 15 15 15 15

829 800 2262 650 2622

36 22 57 25 88

1280 2320 3 1130 800 3224 1868 1180 1010 1870 1120 4060 3 780

81 95 45 40 221 160 120 55 122 165 400 22

1800 1560 1498 1645 3 2600

50 112 23 86 54

840 901 383

15 18 15

1855

28

600 3 300 10 20 32 80 183

53 36 30 15 20 40 20

400 295 150 230 150 65

25 16 20 20 20 20

1585 1250 1640 1905 778 1060 1295 1074 1305

24 24 18 29 15 15 34 20 18

GROUND SNOW LOADS


COUNTY Elevation1 (FT) Recommended Ground Snow Load2 (PSF) COUNTY

GROUND SNOW LOADS


Elevation1 (FT) Recommended Ground Snow Load2 (PSF)

City 14. GRAYS HARBOR Aberdeen Elma Hoquiam Humptulips McCleary * Montesano Oakville Ocean Shores Quinault Taholah Westport 15. ISLAND * Coupeville Freeland Oak Harbor 16. JEFFERSON Brinnon Leland * Port Townsend Queets Quilcene 17. KING Auburn Bellevue Bothell Black Diamond Carnation Duvall Enumclaw Fall City Humphrey Issaquah Kent Kirkland Lester North Bend Palmer Renton * Seattle Skykomish Stevens Pass Ski Area Vashon Island 18. KITSAP Bremerton * Port Orchard Poulsbo

City 19. KITTITAS Cle Elum Easton * Ellensburg Kittitas Lake CleElum Lake Kachess Lake Keechelus Liberty Roslyn Snoqualmie Pass Ski Area Vantage Wymer 20. KLICKITAT Appleton Bickleton Centerville Glenwood * Goldendale Klickitat Lyle Satus Pass Trout Lake White Salmon Wishram 21. LEWIS Centralia * Chehalis Mineral Morton Mossyrock Onalaska Packwood Pe Ell Randle Toledo Vader 22. LINCOLN * Davenport Harrington Odessa Reardan Sprague Wilbur

10 50 20 131 257 66 90 10 221 17 12

15 18 15 28 18 15 15 15 45 30 15

1905 2160 1540 1647 2223 2260 2517 2680 2280 3000 640 3 1300 3

88 150 34 37 188 227 320 92 130 433 18 29

80 110 120

17 15 17

77 200 3 120 30 20

30 30 20 30 25

85 100 90 650 75 140 720 90 1200 3 100 3 50 180 1620 442 880 3 15 350 931 4060 3 375

20 20 20 24 25 25 25 30 84 20 20 20 100 33 55 20 20 80 400 17

2308 3020 1605 1895 1633 447 140 3146 1900 640 180

104 31 41 108 20 45 45 120 166 52 36

189 226 1770 940 698 505 1051 412 880 110 175

20 20 88 57 34 25 100 34 78 19 19

2369 2140 1544 2496 1899 2163

56 41 23 37 34 32

100 140 15

15 15 18

GROUND SNOW LOADS


COUNTY Elevation1 (FT) 43 733 40 10 443 3 6 Recommended Ground Snow Load2 (PSF) 15 114 30 30 48 22 COUNTY

GROUND SNOW LOADS


Elevation1 (FT) 310 6385 380 Recommended Ground Snow Load2 (PSF) 18 760 21

City 23. MASON Belfair Lake Cushman Hoodsport Lilliwaup Matlock * Shelton 24. OKANOGAN Brewster Conconully Coulee Dam Mazama Methow Nespelem * Okanogan Omak Oroville Tonasket Twisp Winthrop 25. PACIFIC Ilwaco Lebam Long Beach Naselle Raymond * South Bend 26. PEND OREILLE Cusick Ione Metaline Falls * Newport 27. PIERCE Ashford Buckley Carbonado Chinook Pass Crystal Mountain Ski Area DuPont Eatonville Elbe Greenwater Kapowsin McMillin Reservoir Longmire Orting Paradise Puyallup

City 27. PIERCE (continued) Roy Sunrise * Tacoma 28. SAN JUAN Deer Harbor * Friday Harbor Lopez Olga Orcas Roche Harbor Rosario 29. SKAGIT Anacortes Blanchard Burlington Concrete La Conner Lyman Marblemount McMurray * Mount Vernon Rockport Sedro Woolley 30. SKAMANIA Carson North Bonneville Skamania Spirit Lake Stabler * Stevenson Willard 31. SNOHOMISH Arlington Darrington * Everett Index Granite Falls Marysville Monroe Monte Cristo Mountain Terrace Oso Silverton Stanwood Startup Sultan Verlot/Robe

820 2300 1145 2111 3 1153 1820 860 837 930 940 1614 1760

33 61 18 105 49 29 25 25 29 25 64 91

60 3 91 40 3 60 3 60 55 90

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

11 190 10 12 14 80

15 15 15 15 15 15

100 5 30 435 50 86 3 310 280 180 275 55

15 17 17 57 15 21 60 17 15 50 15

2050 2090 2100 2166

68 63 70 80

520 57 55 3198 947 103 1260

50 50 50 384 171 50 73

1770 726 1180 5432 3 4380 245 810 1211 1720 629 580 3 2757 215 5440 3 40

150 18 60 760 438 15 15 99 118 35 18 193 18 600 18

120 549 110 532 391 20 55 2756 3 440 200 3 1520 3 5 140 114 1000 3

17 110 15 37 18 16 19 220 20 20 114 15 18 18 60

GROUND SNOW LOADS


COUNTY Elevation1 (FT) Recommended Ground Snow Load2 (PSF) COUNTY

GROUND SNOW LOADS


Elevation1 (FT) Recommended Ground Snow Load2 (PSF)

City 32. SPOKANE Cheney Deer Park Medical Lake Mount Spokane Ski Area Bottom Top * Spokane Rockford 33. STEVENS Boundary Chewelah * Colville Hunters Kettle Falls Northport Springdale Wellpinit 34. THURSTON Littlerock * Olympia Rochester Tenino Tumwater Vail Yelm 35. WAHKIAKUM * Cathlamet Grays River Skamokawa 36. WALLA WALLA Attalia Waitsburg * Walla Walla

City 37. WHATCOM Acme * Bellingham Blaine Deming Diablo Ferndale Glacier Lawrence Lynden Maple Falls Mt. Baker Ski Area Newhalem Nooksack Sumas Wickersham 38. WHITMAN * Colfax Lacrosse Palouse Pullman Rosalia St. John Tekoa 39. YAKIMA American River Goose Prairie Grandview Naches Rimrock Lake Sunnyside Toppenish Wapato White Swan White Pass Ski Area * Yakima

2400 2130 2420 4600 3 5800 3 2000 2361

36 59 36 120 151 39 32

1400 3 1671 1610 3 1560 3 1625 1328 3 2070 2400

48 50 46 64 45 47 56 80

310 100 45 210 910 60 900 145 3 103 643 4200 3 510 84 36 310

22 15 16 24 100 20 74 24 24 77 588 129 24 24 28

150 130 60 290 220 464 3 340

15 15 15 15 15 22 18

1962 1481 2426 2400 2232 1980 3 2494

26 15 36 30 36 41 39

53 27 26

22 15 15

380 3 1260 1000

15 30 18

2800 3266 800 3 1470 2950 770 760 855 973 4720 1066

165 172 15 38 110 15 17 17 37 244 19

* Denotes County Seat


1

Source unless noted: U. S. Geological Survey, Geographic Names Information System, U.S.G.S. Earth Science Information Center, Spokane, WA. In no case should the roof design live load be less than the minimum as required by the 1994 Uniform Building Code Section 1605 nor less than required by the local Building Official. Source of elevation: U.S.G.S. map per U.S.G.S. Earth Science Information Center, Spokane, WA.

APPENDIX II- WABO STORM DAMAGE SURVEY1


Of statewide responses reporting a single snow load requirement including the county double count, the following is an approximate distribution of loads, psf: Snow load, psf No. Of jurisdictions 0 15 20 25 30 32 35 40 50 60 72 1 1 17 57 23 2 4 4 3 1 1

Of statewide responses reporting including county double count, the following relate to the drift related enforcement: no. perceiving drift as problem / total responding yes no yes no yes no 25 / 131 103 /131 15 / 131 111 /131 57 / 131 69 / 131

no. having drift operating policies / total responding

no. requiring drift considerations / total responding

Of the statewide responses reporting including county double count, the following relates to formal amendment and policies relating to specific snow load requirements: no. with local amend. specifying snow load / total resp. yes no yes no yes no yes no 15 /131 112/131 26 /131 92 / 131 53 /131 67/131 32 /131 67 /131

if no local amend., how many have handout / total resp.

no. using Manual as a resource document / total resp.

no. holding applicant accountable to Manual / total

Of the statewide responses including county double count, the following relate to local failures from the storm: no. of failures carports boat storage commercial prefabricated mobile home other other 498 51 230 109 136 525 350

Note that this was a statewide survey, and although it provides good information, it should not be considered professional. The term double count relates to the fact that the relationship between some counties and the included jurisdictions with respect to snow load regulation is not known.

Of the statewide responses including county double count, the following relate to building official perceptions of needed attention for improved building product relative to snow loads: no. perceive. drains as major contributor / total resp. yes no yes no 1 2 3 4 27/131 73/131 66/131 34/131

current status quo is OK, recent damage was due to unique storm

range of importance (0= not important - 4 = very important) potential improvements number of jurisdiction

better engineering is needed better construction is needed increased building to approved plans is needed improved technical knowledge better enforcement plan review inspection more regional enforcement uniformity increase the code standards

10 10 11 5 18 17 10 23

19 8 7 5 11 12 13 27

42 31 25 19 26 24 28 19

24 36 19 39 33 35 16 18

15 25 45 43 22 21 42 21

APPENDIX III SEAW / WABO AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Tom Kinsman ICBO Chuck Williams WABO Don Cole Cap Pearson Corey Schmidt Gregg Schrader David Shaver SEAW Terry Lundeen Jay Taylor John Alving Joe Gehlen Kris Hamilton Coughlin Porter Lundeen Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Engineers Northwest Kramer Gehlen Associates Geiger Engineers

Seattle

Kirkland Tacoma Skagit County Bellevue Vancouver

You might also like