community planning and economic development...po box 1228 elma wa 98541 c. point of contact: arlin...

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

John Hutchings District One Gary Edwards District Two Tye Menser District Three

Community Planning and Economic Development Creating Solutions for Our Future Joshua Cummings, Director

2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Olympia, Washington 98502 (360) 786-5490/FAX (360) 754-2939 TTY/TDD call 711 or 1-800-833-6388 Website: www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting

THURSTON COUNTY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

STAFF REPORT

HEARING EXAMINER HEARING

PROJECT NO:

June 09, 2020

2017103260, LDS Camp Nisqually Access Road & Stream Crossing

SEQUENCE NOs: 17 107851 XC – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: 17 107849 XI – Reasonable Use Exception

APPLICANT: Scott Robison

OWNER: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

REQUEST

The Applicant requests approval of a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) to build a new access road and stream / wetland crossing within a Rural Shoreline environment associated with the 100-year floodplain of the Nisqually River.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Applicant: Scott Robison 14517 SW Cornerstone Ln Sherwood OR 97140

B. Owner : Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints PO Box 1228 Elma WA 98541

C. Point of Contact: Arlin Burbidge PO Box 1228 Elma WA 98541 Ph. 360 701-7036; email – [email protected]

D. Location: 11600 Durgin Rd SE, Olympia Washington 98513

2017103260 LDS.Nisqually.Access 2

E. Legal Description: 16-18-1E COM W4 COR S87-21-19-E ALG SLN NW 447.14F TO DURGI N; known as tax parcel number 21816220500.

F. Area: 38.34 acre parcel PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP), Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) and Floodplain Permit to build a new access road and stream / wetland crossing within a Rural Shoreline environment associated with the 100-year floodplain of the Nisqually River. The crossing is over Medicine Creek AKA Hartman Creek and its associated wetlands. The purpose of the crossing is to access an existing church camp. Wetland filling is proposed as part of the project which crosses Medicine Creek and a 48” culvert is proposed as part of the crossing. The project SSDP shall act as the required Floodplain Permit for this application. On the project Master Application dated June 22, 2017 (Attachment c) the project is described in the following way: “Proposal to contruct [sic] a new 16 foot access road to the camp along the south property line from Durgin Rd SE to the existing gravel road within the existing camp. The access road will include a crossing over Hartman Creek in such a way as to not require any part of the creek to be filled in. A roadside swale is proposed stormwater to creek to match existing conditions.” Based upon this description staff was under the initial impression that a bridge was proposed as only a bridge would not require any filling of the creek. As currently proposed there would be fill material including ecology blocks and rip rap within the creek channel which would appear to be inconsistent with the above description. This description was confusing for both staff and neighboring property owners who also thought that a bridge was proposed. In fact the Notice of Application (Attachment h) describes the crossing as a bridge and this was not corrected by the applicant during or immediately after the comment period. The small scale of the site plans made it very difficult to determine that anything other than a bridge was proposed as the details were so difficult to see. Without clearly understandable plans and a conflicting project description, staff went on with the assumption that a bridge was proposed until much later in the review process. When larger scale site plans were submitted and it was found that a 30-inch culvert was proposed rather than a bridge, County staff were surprised to learn this. Staff were able to negotiate for a larger 48-inch culvert after much discussion with the applicant, but a bridge would seem to be more consistent with the project description on the Master Application (Attachment c) and may be more consistent with County Codes as discussed later in this report. BACKGROUND The subject property is located within the rural portion of Thurston County. The Comprehensive Plan designation is agricultural and the zoning district is the Long Term Agriculture (LTA) district. The parcel is 38.34 acres in size and contains an existing church camp. The camp has used another access road for vehicular access to the camp for many years (20 or more), however the church does not have a formal easement to use this road and it winds tightly through a residential area. Based upon the application materials and discussions with the applicants, larger buses and RVs have a very difficult time navigating this narrow access road. The church had meant to use the proposed access road for many years but had not obtained permits to do so. They are now seeking permits to build this road that will serve as the sole access for the church camp. Staff assumes that the existing access road could still be used for emergencies if need be.


NOTIFICATION

Written notice of the public hearing was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the site on May 22, 2020 and notice was published in The Olympian on May 29, 2020, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on June 6, 2019 with a 14 day comment period. The MDNS became final on June 27, 2019 and was not appealed.

DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

A. Underlying Property:

The underlying property is 38.34 acres and located at 11600 Durgin Road SE, OlympiaWA 98513. The parcel contains an existing church camp owned by the Corp. of LatterDay Saints. Per legal lot criteria of the Thurston County Platting and SubdivisionOrdinance (TCC 18.04.045) the parcel appears to be a legal lot which conforms tocurrent zoning (LTA) standards.

B. Shoreline Master Program:

The Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region (SMPTR) designates theshoreline jurisdiction on the subject property as Rural. The latest version of the SMPTRwas adopted on September 5, 1989 and became effective on May 15, 1990. The Ruralshoreline designation of the SMPTR requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feetand a minimum lot width of 100 feet, measured at both the ordinary high water mark andthe building setback line, (SMPTR Section Three, Chapter XVI, Part D.3). The subjectproperty conforms to these standards.

Review criteria for all development (WAC 173-27-140)

(1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall begranted by the local government unless upon review the use or development isdetermined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline ManagementAct and the master program.

Staff comments: Staff finds the project to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program.

(2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more thanthirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct theview of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines exceptwhere a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overridingconsiderations of the public interest will be served.

Staff comments: No part of the project will be more than 35-feet above average grade.


Review criteria for substantial development permits (WAC 173-27-150)

(1) A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with:

(a) The policies and procedures of the act; (b) The provisions of this regulation; and (c) The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Provided, that where no master program has been approved for an area, the development shall be reviewed for consistency with the provisions of chapter 173-26 WAC, and to the extent feasible, any draft or approved master program which can be reasonably ascertained as representing the policy of the local government. Staff comments: Staff finds the project to be consistent with the above criteria, the Shoreline Management Act and SMPTR. Consistency with applicable policies and guidelines is discussed below.

(2) Local government may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program.

Staff comments: Noted. Conditions are attached.

Access Road: Access roads in the floodplain are covered under the SMPTR in Section 3. Ch. IX. Landfilling (pg. 75), and SMPTR Section 3. Ch. XVII. Road and Railroad Design and Construction (pg. 109).

C. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: The Applicant has applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) for the proposed road, stream crossing and fill within the Nisqually River Floodplain. SMPTR Section 3. Ch. IX. Landfilling Policies:

1. Shoreline fills or cuts should be designed and located so that significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resources, or alteration of local currents will not occur which create a hazard or a risk of significant injury to life, adjacent property and natural resource systems. Staff comments: A mitigation plan (Attachment b-1) has been developed to address impacts to ecological values and natural resources. A wetland will be created on site to make up for the proposed wetland fill. Additionally, a zero rise analysis was done (Attachment k) in order to ensure that the project will not cause additional flooding over current conditions. A 48-inch culvert is proposed as part of the stream crossing. It is possible that a bridge would provide for less impacts. However, staff has no definitive information that this is the case.


2. All fills should be accomplished with suitable safeguards for erosion control.

Staff comments: Proper erosion control is required as the project is conditioned. A drainage and erosion control report must also be provided for the project which addresses erosion. A full drainage and erosion control plan has not yet been submitted but must be prior to issuance of a grading permit.

3. Fill material should be of such quality that it will not cause water quality degradation

beyond the limits of adopted water quality standards defined by the Department of Ecology.

Staff comments: As conditioned the project will comply with this standard.

4. Priority should be given to landfills for water-dependent uses.

Staff comments: The proposed use is for an upland access road. Although the fill is not for a water-dependent use this is not a requirement.

5. The size of landfills should be limited by the consideration of such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation restriction, impediment to water flow and circulation, reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat. Staff comments: The project will not impact navigation and won’t impede water flow and circulation based upon the project zero rise analysis (Attachment k). Some temporary water quality impacts may occur during construction although the work will be done when water is not flowing. There is a mitigation plan which will address habitat degradation (Attachment b-1). Total water surface may be reduced to some extent as a result of the fill.

General Regulations:

1. Disposal of solid wastes is not considered landfilling for the purposes of this section. Staff comments: There will be no solid waste involved in the project.

2. Landfills shall consist of clean materials including such earth materials as clay, sand, and gravel, and also may include oyster or clam shells. In addition, concrete may be included in fill material if it is not liable to pollute ground water and is approved by the Administrator. Organic debris, such as wood and other vegetative material shall not be used as fill material. Staff comments: Only clean fill materials will be used for the project.

3. Landfills, except for beach feeding, shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent, minimize and control all material movement, erosion, and sedimentation from the affected area. Staff comments: The project has been designed to meet these criteria.


4. Landfill areas shall be covered with sufficient earth material to support indigenous

vegetative ground cover and replanted with vegetation to blend with the surrounding environment. Staff comments: Although the landfill will not be covered with earth materials to support indigenous vegetative cover a mitigation plan that is located on site will mitigate these issues. Given the possible flows within Medicine Creek during flood events any earth materials would be washed away so it is not realistic to place soil over the proposed riprap and other materials.

5. Prior to issuance of any permit for landfilling in or along a stream, it must be demonstrated that the fill will not cause any detrimental change in flood elevations, or restrict stream flow or velocity. No fill which adversely affects the capability of a stream to carry 100-year flood flows will be allowed. Staff comments: It has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Thurston County CPED that there will be no detrimental change in flood elevations. A zero rise analysis was provided, reviewed and approved by Thurston County.

6. Artificial beach maintenance may be allowed by Substantial Development Permit in any environment, not withstanding other regulations of this section. Provided, such maintenance shall be by "beach feeding" only, with both the quality and quantity of material to be approved by the Administrator. Habitat protection is a primary concern for any beach feeding operation and must be a consideration in permit approval. Staff comments: Beach feeding is not proposed. This would typically be for marine projects.

7. Landfill which will interfere with public rights of navigation and rights corollary thereto shall not be permitted unless there is an overriding public interest.

Staff comments: There will be no impacts to navigation. Medicine Creek is not what

would be described as a navigable water. It is generally dry with the exception of related wetlands and during flooding.

8. Landfill placed for the purpose of providing land to ensure required distances for septic

tank drainfields is prohibited. Staff comments: No applicable.

9. Permits for landfilling shall be granted only if the project proposed is consistent with the zoning of the jurisdiction in which the operation would be located.

Staff comments: The landfilling is not inconsistent with zoning.


SMPTR Section 3. Ch. XVII. Road and Railroad Design and Construction (pg. 109)

Policies:

1. Major highways, freeways and railways should be located away from shorelands, except in port and industrial areas, so that shoreland roads may be reserved for slow-moving local or recreational traffic. Staff comments: The project is not for a major highway, freeway or railway.

2. Road and railroad locations should be planned to fit the topography and utilize existing corridors so that minimum alterations of natural conditions will be necessary. This is especially important on flood plains. Staff comments: The road has been designed to reduce environmental impacts including those related to the flood plain.

3. Roads and railroads should be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize erosion and to permit natural movement of ground water and flood waters to the extent practical. Staff comments: Staff believes that the project has been designed to meet these criteria. The proposed 48” culvert is significantly larger than the smaller 30” culvert which is immediately upstream of the proposed road crossing.

4. All debris, overburden, and other waste materials from construction should be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage, high water, or other means into any surface water body. Staff comments: As designed and conditioned, staff believes the project meets this standard.

5. Scenic corridors containing public roadways should have provision for safe pedestrian and other nonmotorized travel. Also, provisions should be made for viewpoints, rest areas, and picnic facilities in appropriate areas. Staff comments: This is a private road to access a private property. Not applicable.

6. Railroad beds should be screened with trees in scenic areas. Staff comments: Not applicable. This is not a railroad bed.

General Regulations:

1. Excess construction materials shall be removed from the shoreline area. Staff comments: As proposed and conditioned the project will meet this standard.


2. Major roads and railroads shall cross shoreline areas by the shortest, most direct route feasible, unless such route would cause significant environmental damage. Staff comments: Not applicable. This is not a major road or railroad.

3. Filling of tidelands, shorelands and marshes for road or railroad rights-of-way shall be prohibited unless no viable alternative exists. Staff comments: Some filling of the wetland is likely unavoidable given the nature of the defined access way. A bridge may involve less filling. However, the 48-inch culvert is substantially larger than the 30-inch culvert immediately upstream so it is not clear that a bridge is absolutely required. There has been no analysis of whether a bridge or culvert would be the best option.

4. All excavation materials and soils exposed to erosion by all phases of road, bridge and culvert work shall be stabilized and protected by seeding, mulching or other effective means, both during and after construction.

Staff comments: The project will meet this requirement and will comply with the

Thurston County Drainage and Erosion Control Manual. As stated earlier, an engineered drainage and erosion control plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a grading / construction permit for the road construction.

5. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from road and railroad construction, if

permitted on shorelines, shall be disposed of in such a way as to minimize their entry by erosion from drainage into any water body. Staff comments: As designed and conditioned this standard will be met.

6. Private roads shall follow natural contours where possible. Natural benches, ridge tops and flat slopes are preferred locations. Erodible cuts and filled slopes shall be protected by planting or seeding with appropriate ground cover or matting immediately following construction. Staff comments: The project has been designed to meet this standard. Additionally, there are no other options for the location of the proposed road based upon the applicant’s ownership and property layout.

7. Where permitted to parallel shorelines, roads or railroads shall be setback a sufficient distance from the ordinary high-water line to leave a usable shoreline area. Staff comments: The road is not parallel to a shoreline.

8. Storm water runoff shall be controlled to reduce suspended solids before entering any surface water body.

Staff comments: As previously noted an engineered drainage and erosion control

plan is required prior to any work beginning.


D. SMPTR Section Two, Chapter V. REGIONAL CRITERIA

The Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region contains regional criteria that apply to the proposal. All development within the jurisdiction of this Master Program shall demonstrate compliance with the following criteria: A. Public access to shorelines shall be permitted only in a manner which preserves or enhances the characteristics of the shoreline which existed prior to establishment of public access. Staff comments: The proposal is for a private access to an existing church camp. There is no public access proposed or required. B. Protection of water quality and aquatic habitat is recognized as a primary goal. All applications for development of shorelines and use of public waters shall be closely analyzed for their effect on the aquatic environment. Of particular concern will be the preservation of the larger ecological system when a change is proposed to a lesser part of the system, like a marshland or tideland. Staff comments: The Applicant will be required to comply with drainage and erosion control regulations. Significant negative impacts to water quality or the environment are not anticipated. C. Future water-dependent or water-related industrial uses shall be channeled into shoreline areas already so utilized or into those shoreline areas which lend themselves to suitable industrial development. Where industry is now located in shoreline areas that are more suited to other uses, it is the policy of this Master Program to minimize expansion of such industry. Staff comments: The proposal is not an industrial activity, as defined by the SMPTR. D. Residential development shall be undertaken in a manner that will maintain existing public access to the publicly-owned shorelines and not interfere with the public use of water areas fronting such shorelines, nor shall it adversely affect aquatic habitat. Staff comments: There is no existing public access to the shoreline via the subject property or near the property. There will no impact to public use or unmitigated adverse impact to aquatic habitat. E. Governmental units shall be bound by the same requirements as private interests. Staff comments: The above criterion is not applicable to this application. F. Applicants for permits shall have the burden of proving that a proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria which must be met before a Permit is granted. In any review of the granting or denial of an application for a permit as provided in RCW 90.58.18.180 (1), the person requesting the review shall have the burden of proof. Staff comments: This criterion is noted. Staff believes that the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable standards.


G. Shorelines of this Region which are notable for their aesthetic, scenic, historic or ecological qualities shall be preserved. Any private or public development which would degrade such shoreline qualities shall be discouraged. Inappropriate shoreline uses and poor quality shoreline conditions shall be eliminated when a new shoreline development or activity is authorized. Staff comments: There should not be any degradation of shoreline qualities and the use is appropriate in order to create an access to an existing church camp. A mitigation plan has been designed for the project to address negative environmental impacts. H. Protection of public health is recognized as a primary goal. All applications for development or use of shorelines shall be closely analyzed for their effect on the public health.

Staff comments: This application has been reviewed by the Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department for public health issues. No health issues have been identified by the County Health Department who recommends approval of the project (Attachment E-1).

E. Reasonable Use Exception: STAFF ANALYSIS

A. Zoning (TCC 20)

The RRR 1/5 zoning district (TCC 20.09A) allows certain primary uses (TCC 20.09A.020) and special uses (TCC 20.09A.025). Access roads are a permitted use within this zoning district.

TCC 14.38 – Development in Flood Hazard Areas TCC 14.38.050 (A.) …

5. Fill. Consistent with the Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance Title 24, Chapter 24.20 TCC. TCC Section 24.20.100 and Table 24.20.1 for restrictions of the use of fill in the special flood hazard area:

a. No fill is allowed within the special flood hazard area unless a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington and a qualified wildlife habitat biologist demonstrate that there is no other alternative method for constructing an approved use listed in Table 24.20-1 TCC or to provide access to essential public facilities and that such grading and filling will not block stream side channels, increase flood hazards, water velocity, or flood elevations, inhibit channel migration, or degrade important habitats (see Chapter 24.25 TCC) and the proposed cut and fill activity meets all other requirements of Chapter 14.38 TCC including, but not limited to, the zero rise and compensatory storage requirements stated below:

Staff Comments: The project meets the criteria with the exception of alternative methods. A bridge would possibly have less impact on critical areas and flood


plains than the proposed 48” culvert. A bridge may allow for additional flood capacity and flow of debris during flood events. The applicant has provided the following rationale for the proposed culvert vs. the construction of a bridge over the creek.

Hi Scott, here are some of the main reasons that we do not feel a bridge is a good option:

1. Yes, cost is a factor. In fact a bridge cost would be many times the cost of a

culvert and would make it an economical hardship to have access to the property. This is a non-profit organization that is trying to provide an outdoor program for youth to assist them in a well-rounded development. They would like to keep funds directed at the youth program rather than unnecessary infrastructure.

2. Appearance, the neighbors, the Westbergs, are hoping for as little impact on the area as possible, a driveway utilizing a culvert to cross the waterway best follows the existing ground contour and match what they have on their access road. A bridge with its associated abutment structures would be rather imposing right there in their back yard.

3. All surrounding properties are using existing culverts rather than bridges and is not necessary as we have shown using engineering analysis that a culvert will not negatively impact the floodway.

Scott let me know if anything else would be helpful or if you feel there is something we are missing that would help the Hearing Examiner in the decision process. Thank you, Landon C. Beyler | Principal

Staff comments continued: The primary issue is safety and impacts to this creek which acts as an overflow flood channel during flooding. Another issue is potential impacts to upstream property owners. The project Zero Rise Analysis addresses impacts to the broader Nisqually River floodplain. However, it is not staff’s understanding that this analysis pertains directly to this specific overflow channel / creek. While fill and a culvert may not impact the larger, overall floodplain, there may well be impacts to this specific overflow channel / creek that are not addressed in the Zero Rise Analysis.

b. No fill may be allowed which acting alone or in concert with other conditions may

increase flood hazards to other property, water velocities, flood elevations, or adversely impact floodplain functions. A certification by a registered professional engineer shall be provided demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the analysis will result in zero rise during the occurrence of the base flood discharge or event. The certification must include all calculations.

Staff Comments: The applicant has provided a zero rise analysis which meets the above standards.

c. In addition to meeting the requirements for zero rise, any permitted fill shall meet compensatory storage requirements to provide hydrologically equivalent compensatory storage within the one-hundred-year floodplain.


i. New excavated storage volume shall be equivalent to the flood storage capacity eliminated by filling or grading within the one-hundred-year floodplain.

ii. Equivalent shall mean that the storage removed shall be replaced by equal live storage volume between corresponding one-foot contour intervals that are hydraulically connected to the floodplain through their entire depth.

Staff Comments: The project does not propose balanced cut and fill per the above standards. However, the zero rise analysis does indicate no rise in flood elevations.

d. Applications for balanced cut and fill with compensatory flood storage shall include

a winter water study (refer to Chapter 24.20 TCC.)

Staff Comments: No winter water study was provided. However, there is no definition of a winter water study in the applicable codes and it is not clear what the purpose of the study would be for, how it would be done or what it would accomplish. Staff does not believe that a winter water study would provide any useful information. Neither is the project designed for balanced cut and fill.

e. Fill or other materials shall be protected against erosions by rip rap or vegetative cover.

Staff Comments: Rip rap is proposed around the wetland crossing to protect against erosion.

6. Review of Building Permits. Where base flood elevation data is not available either through the flood insurance study, FIRM, or from another authoritative source (Section 14.38.040(D)(2)), a Base Flood Elevation shall be established using FEMA approved techniques. Applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding, reflects the established base flood elevation and freeboard requirements, and complies with all applicable sections of Chapter 14.38.

Staff Comments: With regards to these requirements, the Thurston County Flood Plain Manager has reviewed and approved the project to ensure compliance with this standard.

Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO, TCC 24)

The primary reason for the requested Reasonable Use Exception is to allow for development within a floodplain and fill material to be placed within a riparian habitat area, wetland and 100 year floodplain.

TCC 24.01.035 General provisions – General requirements

A. Avoid Impacts. All uses and activities on sites containing critical areas and/or associated buffers or riparian or marine shoreline management zones shall be located, designed and constructed to avoid or, where that is not possible, minimize all adverse impacts to critical areas, associated buffers designed to protect the functions of critical areas, and management zones. The county shall not authorize impacts to critical areas or buffers unless the applicant demonstrates an inability to avoid impacts and that there will be no net loss of critical area functions as required in subsection (B). Impacts to critical areas and associated buffers that cannot be avoided shall be minimized by sensitive site


design and appropriate precautions during the permitted activity and as specifically provided for in this title.

Staff comments: The project has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the extent possible without the use of a bridge and using a culvert. The applicant has demonstrated that there are unavoidable impacts to critical areas due to the nature and location of the project. Impacts could possibly be minimized by use of a bridge rather than the proposed culvert. However, if a culvert is to be approved, 48 inches is the maximum size possible per communication with the project engineer. A six-foot culvert would have been preferable over a 48-inch culvert. However, per the project engineer this would not provide enough room for road fill on top of the culvert. Aside from the decision to use a culvert rather than a bridge, impacts have been minimized to the extent possible and impacts will be mitigated. The 48-inch culvert is substantially larger than the 30-inch culvert immediately upstream.

B. No Net Loss of Critical Area Functions. Uses and activities carried out pursuant to this

title shall result in equivalent or, if the applicant chooses, greater critical area functions. Impacts to critical areas, and associated buffers designed to protect the functions of critical areas, shall be repaired or mitigated through restoration, replacement, enhancement, or through purchase of credits at a mitigation bank consistent with the applicable provisions of this title.

Staff comments: The mitigation plan offers equivalent critical area function, although it will be located in another portion of the floodplain, but on the same parcel of land. In this case, the applicant has chosen to pursue restoration and replacement of wetland functions and values. There should be no net loss of critical area functions. A bridge rather than a culvert could potentially result in less impact to critical area functions though this has not been studied in any detail. However, the applicant has shown the project will not result in a rise in flood waters per their zero rise analysis.

C. Monitoring. In addition to the specific monitoring requirements in this title, the approval authority may require that permitted uses and mitigation projects be reviewed at appropriate intervals as necessary to ensure that they are functioning consistent with the project approval and applicable provisions of this title. The approval authority may require remedial action as warranted to correct problems identified during monitoring to avoid degradation of critical areas and associated buffers designed to protect the functions of critical areas, and to ensure that any required mitigation is successful.

Staff comments: A monitoring plan is proposed in conjunction with the mitigation plan. These requirements have been adequately addressed. A ten-year monitoring plan is proposed for the project which exceeds the three-year monitoring generally required by Thurston County for projects requiring mitigation.

TCC Ch. 24.20 – Frequently flooded areas 24.20.100 – Frequently flooded areas - Fill …

A. Floodplain. The approval authority may only approve balanced cut and fill with compensatory flood storage within the 100-year floodplain, landward of the floodway, to the minimum extent necessary for construction of an approved use listed in Table 24.20-1 or to provide access to essential public facilities, if a qualified professional


engineer licensed in the State of Washington and a qualified wildlife habitat biologist demonstrate that there is no other alternative method for constructing the proposed use and that such grading and filling will not block stream side channels, increase flood hazards, inhibit channel migration or degrade important habitats (see Chapter 24.25 TCC), and that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 14.38 TCC. Applications for balanced cut and fill with compensatory flood storage shall include a winter water study.

Staff comments: The proposal is not for balanced cut and fill so this standard is not met. However, the applicant has applied for a Reasonable Use Exception in order to address aspects of the proposal that do not strictly meet standards. The applicant has provided a zero rise analysis which addresses increased flood storage and found that the proposal does not impact flood storage or capacity. There is no alternative location for the proposed access road given where the church owns property and existing development adjacent to this strip of land owned by the church.

24.20.140 - Frequently flooded areas—Roads, bridges and culverts.

A. New roads, bridges, and culverts shall be designed to minimize interruption of the downstream movement of wood and gravel, minimize fill, and allow passage of one-hundred-year flood flows and associated debris. Bridge piers and abutments shall not be placed in either the floodway or between the stream's ordinary high water marks unless there is no alternative placement, the placement results in zero increase in the backwater elevation or increase in downstream hazards during the one-hundred-year flood, and the placement minimizes habitat degradation. (See Chapter 24.25 TCC regarding road alignments in riparian habitat areas.)

Staff comments: The project has been designed to meet most of these standards. A 48-inch culvert is proposed for the stream crossing which is larger than the existing up and down stream culverts. A bridge would possibly provide for additional capacity for flood waters and would not be placed within the stream’s ordinary high water marks. This may be a preferred alternative. However, the applicant has chosen to pursue a culvert rather than a bridge. The applicant has stated that a bridge is not feasible in this location. The culvert should allow for the movement of most debris during flooding and should not result in up or down stream impacts unless the culvert becomes blocked with flood debris in which case the road crossing could act as a dam. The project has been shown to have a zero rise to the flood plain. A zero rise analysis was provided and approved by the Thurston County flood plain manager.

TCC Ch. 24.25 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas:

24.25.280 - Roads/streets, railroads, and associated bridges and culverts—New and expanded.

Proposed road and railroad crossings of streams, riparian habitat areas, marine riparian habitat areas, riparian and marine management zones, and lake and pond buffers and other important habitats shall follow all applicable local, state, and federal laws and the requirements listed below. These requirements also apply to private access roads.

A. New road, railroad and bridge crossings of the habitats and buffers listed above shall be prohibited except where there is no alternative for an essential crossing (e.g., to


provide access to property where no other access is physically possible or available) with less impact on the important habitat area.

Where the approval authority determines that alternative access with less impact on the important habitat area is physically possible, prior to authorizing a new crossing, the applicant shall demonstrate that the necessary property or easement for the alternative access cannot be obtained at reasonable terms or that the alternative is otherwise cost prohibitive.

Staff comments: The strip of land that is to be used for the new access road is the only property available to the applicant on which to build their access road. Due to other existing development in the vicinity, alternative locations do not appear possible. There would not appear to be a feasible location with less environmental impact. The specific design using a culvert is not the only alternative access type. A bridge could be a better alternative in terms of fill, flood capacity and other environmental impacts. However, the applicant has chosen to use a culvert and has shown that there will be a zero rise in flood elevations as a result.

B. Alignment. Roads within habitat areas, where necessary, shall be aligned as follows:

1. Crossings shall occur, to the extent practical, where they would have the least adverse impact on important habitat. Proposed crossings that would degrade salmonid spawning or rearing areas, priority wildlife habitat, or stands of mature conifer trees (e.g., at least one hundred years old) in riparian areas, shall not be allowed unless the applicant demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that the crossing is essential and that no other crossing location would have less impact on habitat functions. Priority shall be given to protecting salmonid spawning and rearing areas from adverse impact. Crossings shall be located, to the greatest extent practical, to avoid fragmentation of priority habitats (e.g., prairie and oak woodlands).

Staff comments: Medicine Creek is not salmon spawning habitat according to communication with WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) habitat program staff. Because of this WDFW staff were accepting of a 30-inch culvert. However, Thurston County staff negotiated a larger 48-inch culvert to address CAO requirements for the movement of flood debris. There are many large trees within the strip of land where the stream crossing is to occur. However, staff does not believe there are any conifers over 100 years old. There are no stands of mature conifers within the work area, although there are individual large conifers.

2. Road alignments shall, to the extent possible and consistent with this section,

avoid bends in the stream, areas with highly erodible soils and landslide prone areas (see Chapter 24.15 TCC, Geologic Hazards), unless the approval authority determines that mitigation measures will allow the project to occur without a net loss of habitat functions or increased public safety risks. (See Chapter 24.20 TCC, Frequently Flooded Areas and Chapter 24.30 TCC, Wetlands).

Staff comments: Staff find that the project meets these standards.

3. New roads crossing riparian habitat areas or streams shall be aligned perpendicular to the channel where possible. If that is not possible, they shall be aligned as close as possible to perpendicular at an angle greater than sixty degrees to the centerline of the stream channel. The approval authority may allow


a deviation from this standard to avoid impacting high quality riparian habitat (e.g., mature conifers and wetlands associated with streams) or other critical areas if the net effect of the alternative alignment would reduce impact on the affected critical areas or if necessary to preserve public safety. Roads in riparian habitat areas shall not extend parallel to the stream.

Staff comments: The project meets these standards. The crossing is aligned perpendicular to the stream

4. The road alignment shall avoid, to the maximum extent practical, conifer trees

greater than twelve inches in diameter at four and one-half feet above the ground, measured on the uphill side of the tree and shall stay five feet outside of the dripline of oak trees.

Staff comments: Due to the alignment of the strip of land being used for the access road, it is not possible to avoid any of the trees growing within the strip of land. There are no oak trees within this strip of land.

The following sections (C and D) are not applicable as they refer to type S (shoreline streams and water bodies) and type F (fish bearing streams).

E. Minimize Crossing Width. Crossings of streams, riparian habitat areas, marine waters,

marine riparian habitat areas, and pond or lake buffers shall have the narrowest width possible, consistent with applicable county road standards and protection of public safety. Clearing to accommodate the road shall be minimized, consistent with the protection of the most important habitat, as determined by the approval authority.

Staff comments: The crossing width has been designed to be the minimum necessary to provide adequate site access by buses and RVs.

F. Bridge and Culvert Design. The design of stream crossings shall be consistent with the

WDFW Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 2003, as amended, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as amended. Bridges are preferred on Type S and F waters unless physically infeasible. Culverts approved to be installed on Type S and F streams shall be arch/bottomless or the equivalent that provides comparable fish protection, as determined by the approval authority in consultation with WDFW and others with expertise. Crossing in estuaries shall be designed to avoid interruption of tidal flows. The approval authority may require that crossings in estuaries be accomplished with a bridge rather than a culvert if it would significantly reduce habitat impacts.

Staff comments: The project has been reviewed and approved by WDFW and the project is under review by the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure compliance with ESA and NMFS guidelines.

G. Avoidance of Flood Hazards. See Chapter 24.20 TCC.

Staff comments: See response to these standards earlier in the report.

TCC Ch. 24.30 – Wetlands 24.30.280 - Wetlands—Roads/streets, railroads, bridges and culverts—New and expanded.


Proposed road and railroad crossings of wetlands and/or associated buffers shall be avoided unless the approval authority determines that it is not possible. Proposed road or railroad crossings of wetlands and buffers and expansion of existing roads exceeding the limitations of TCC Section 24.30.270 shall follow all applicable local, state, and federal laws and the applicable requirements listed below. These requirements also apply to private access roads and driveways. (Also see TCC Section 24.25.280).

A. Public Safety. Expansion of existing roads is allowed in all wetlands and buffers to the minimum extent necessary to protect public safety, consistent with subsection (D) below. This provision does not apply to expansion for capacity. Expansion for additional capacity shall comply with the criteria for new or expanded roads.

Staff Comments: Staff believes the project meets the above standards as applicable. The project proposed is for a new road rather than expansion of an existing road. Additionally, there is no alternative location for the proposed road crossing.

B. Criteria for Allowing Crossings. The approval authority may authorize new and expanded road crossings in wetlands and buffers as follows:

1. Category I and II Wetlands and Buffers. Category I and II wetlands shall not be crossed unless it is necessary to accommodate public safety improvements to an existing road. Category I and II wetlands and the inner seventy-five percent of their standard buffers may only be crossed by roads through a Reasonable Use Exception and by meeting all of the criteria in this section.

Staff Comments: The wetland is a category III. Not applicable.

2. Category III—IV Wetlands and Buffers. The most suitable type of new crossing shall be determined by the approval authority on a case-by-case basis. New and expanded roads are permitted in Category III and IV wetlands and their buffers that meet the criteria for replacement under TCC 24.30.090(C). New and expanded roads may be permitted in Category III-IV wetlands and buffers not meeting the criteria in TCC 24.30.090(C), if:

a. The wetland is not a functional part of a mosaic wetland (as described in Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington);

Staff Comments: Staff does not believe the wetland is a part of a mosaic wetland. The wetland is associated with Medicine Creek.

b. The road complies with subsection (D) below.

Staff Comments: Section D. will be discussed below. Section C. with regards to utility maintenance and agricultural access does not apply.

D. Road crossings, including private access roads, shall comply with all of the following requirements:

1. Wetlands not meeting TCC 24.30.090(C): New and expanded roads shall not be allowed in wetlands and/or buffers unless the applicant demonstrates to the approval authority that:

a. It is essential (e.g., to provide access to property where no other access is physically possible or available with less impact on the wetland), or in the case of a road expansion, is needed for public safety;


Staff Comments: The applicant has demonstrated that there is no other legal access to the property and that the existing access is not functioning as needed for access by buses and large RVs.

b. There is no alternative crossing location that would have less impact on wetland and buffer functions, dependent fish and wildlife, and sensitive wetland plant species documented by the DNR Natural Heritage Program. The applicant shall demonstrate that alternative access with less impact on the wetland and buffer is not physically possible, or that an easement allowing use of the alternative alignment cannot be obtained at reasonable terms as determined by the approval authority; and

Staff Comments: There is no alternative crossing location possible based upon review by staff and information provided by the applicant.

c. It meets the requirements for existing lots in Chapter 24.50 TCC.

Staff Comments: These requirements do not appear to apply.

2. Proposed crossings that would negatively impact Category I or II wetlands or associated buffers, or wetlands in riparian habitat areas shall not be allowed unless the applicant demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that the absence of the requested crossing would landlock the property and leave it with no economically viable use. The approval authority may require that crossings be accomplished with a bridge rather than a culvert if it would significantly reduce wetland impacts.

Staff Comments: The wetlands are category III per the Critical Areas Report for the project (Attachment b-1). The proposed access is the only legal access to the property as the camp does not have an easement to use the existing access. The wetland is within a riparian habitat area so a bridge may be required to reduce wetland impacts. This section does not require a bridge but suggests that it may be a preferred alternative. The applicant’s zero rise analysis (Attachment k) does indicate that the proposal will not result in an increase in flood elevation. However, it does not specifically address wetland filling alternatives between a culvert and a bridge.

3. If allowed pursuant to this section, new crossings and associated facilities shall:

a. Serve multiple properties and be designed to accommodate conduit for utility lines whenever possible. To the extent legally permissible, as part of the development approval process, the developer shall work with the county to provide for a street layout and wetland and buffer crossing location that will minimize the need for additional crossings in the future to serve surrounding property. The approval authority may waive this requirement if the additional road width required to serve multiple properties would be more detrimental to the wetland, associated buffer, or other critical area than individual access roads/driveways; and

Staff Comments: Based upon review of the information provided and site visits the project appears to meet this standard. The project is for access to a single property. There are no other properties that could be served by the proposed crossing based upon staff’s understanding of the project and area.

b. Have the narrowest width possible, consistent with applicable county road standards and protection of public safety. Clearing to accommodate the


crossing shall be minimized, consistent with the protection of the most important habitat, as determined by the approval authority.

Staff Comments: Staff believes the project meets this standard.

4. Crossings using culverts shall use superspan or oversize culverts sufficient to allow wildlife passage, consistent with Chapter 24.25 TCC.

Staff Comments: The proposed 48-inch culvert is larger than the originally proposed 30-inch culvert. The 48-inch culvert should allow for passage of wildlife. It is not clear to staff how large a superspan or oversize culvert would be. A six-foot culvert would have been preferred. However, according to the project engineer this would not be feasible given the need for a particular depth of fill above the culvert.

5. The design of crossings in wetlands associated with streams shall be consistent with the WDFW Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 2003, as amended, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as amended. Culverts installed on Type S and F streams shall be arch/bottomless or the equivalent that provides comparable fish protection, as determined by the approval authority in consultation with WDFW and others with expertise. Approved crossings in estuaries shall be designed to avoid interruption of tidal flows. The approval authority may require that crossings in estuaries be accomplished with a bridge rather than a culvert if it would significantly reduce habitat impacts.

Staff Comments: The proposed crossing is over neither a type S or F stream. WDFW has reviewed the project and found a 30-inch culvert acceptable due to lack of fish presence.

6. Bridges are preferred for spanning Category I and II wetlands.

Staff Comments: The project crosses a category III wetland. Section E. relates to logging roads which does not apply to the project.

Reasonable Use Exception standards: The CAO sets out the process and criteria for any property owner to apply for a Reasonable Use Exception to carry out a land use or activity that is prohibited by the Ordinance (TCC 24.45). The CAO states that, “along with a recommendation made by the department, the application shall be heard by the hearing examiner.” Chapter 24.45.030 provides eight criteria that must be met in order to approve a use within a critical area or its buffer. The eight criteria are listed below along with a staff analysis of each:

1. No other reasonable use of the property as a whole is permitted by this title.

Staff comments: This strip of land was created to provide future access to the

subject property. There would appear to be no other reasonable use of the property.

2. No reasonable use with less impact on the critical area or buffer is possible. At minimum, the alternatives reviewed shall include a change in use, reduction in the size of the use, a change in the timing of the activity, a revision in the project design.


Staff comments: The road has been designed to meet minimum roadway requirements per Thurston County Public Works approval of the project. No change in use or reduction in size is possible. Buses and RVs will be accessing the site which need a minimum road width to make the access road usable. Timing of work should occur when water is not flowing in the creek. One revision to the project would be to use a bridge rather than a culvert as it may provide additional flood capacity and allow for more debris flow during floods. A culvert could become plugged during floods resulting in damming of flood waters. However, the applicant has provided a zero rise analysis which indicates no increase in flood waters. This analysis was reviewed and approved by the Thurston County Flood Plain Manager.

3. The requested use or activity will not result in any damage to other property

and will not threaten the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site or increase public safety risks on or off the subject property.

Staff comments: As proposed and conditioned, staff does not believe the activity will result in damage to other properties and should not threaten the health, safety, or welfare on or off the site. The size of the proposed culvert has been increased from the originally proposed 30 inches to 48 inches to accommodate flood waters and flood debris. As stated earlier, a bridge may be a better choice in terms of public health, safety and welfare in terms of flooding hazards. A bridge may be less likely to become plugged than a culvert during flood events. However, as previously stated a zero rise analysis has been provided and approved for the project by the Thurston County Flood Plain Manager who is very familiar with the site and flood plain of the Nisqually River.

4. The proposed reasonable use is limited to the minimum encroachment into the critical area and/or buffer necessary to prevent the denial of all reasonable use of the property. Staff comments: The proposed roadway has been designed with the minimum encroachment into the critical area and buffer to make the project feasible.

5. The proposed reasonable use shall result in minimal alteration of the critical area including but not limited to impacts on vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, hydrological conditions, and geologic conditions. Staff comments: As conditioned, mitigation will provide wildlife habitat on the property. The wetland creation work will also help to address impacts to hydrological conditions by absorbing additional flood waters. No impacts to geologic conditions are expected.

6. A proposal for a reasonable use exception shall ensure no net loss of critical area functions and values. The proposal shall include a mitigation plan consistent with this title and best available science. Mitigation measures shall address unavoidable impacts and shall occur on-site first, or if necessary, off-site.

Staff comments: If mitigation provisions are implemented there should be no net loss of critical area functions and values. The mitigation appears to be consistent


with the best available science as staff understands it. There should be no unavoidable on or off-site impacts based upon the zero rise analysis. The zero rise analysis was done to ensure there will be no impacts with regards to flooding or increased risk as a result of the project.

7. The reasonable use shall not result in the unmitigated adverse impacts to species of concern. Staff comments: There will be no unmitigated adverse impacts to species of concern as laid out in the mitigation plan and habitat assessment for the project. The mitigation plan should fully address impacts to species of concern.

8. The location and scale of existing development on surrounding properties shall not be the sole basis for granting or determining a reasonable use exception. Staff comments: The development on surrounding properties was not the sole basis for recommending approval of the reasonable use exception.

E. Review Agency Comments:

Staff from the Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department submitted comments on this proposal (Attachment e-1). The Health Department recommends approval of the application. Thurston County Public Works Department staff reviewed and approved the project without comment. The Washington State Department of Ecology submitted comment letters (Attachments w & z). Staff believes the project addresses water quality and other comments from Ecology.

F. Public Comments:

Staff discussed the project with the neighboring, upstream property owner to the south who was concerned with flooding if the road crossing acted as a barrier to flood waters. It appears as if a bridge would be preferred by the neighbors over the proposed culvert. Letters were also received from the adjacent property owners (Attachments s and x). There were also concerns about the new road in relation to an existing agricultural building on the property. The road will be very close to this structure but will not impact it. The road will be narrowed adjacent to this existing agricultural building. Based upon this discussion there was some initial negotiations between the applicant and the neighbor regarding relocating this agricultural structure or demolishing it and rebuilding in a new location. However, due to the fact that the structure is within the 100-year floodplain it would be very challenging to rebuild in a new location and would require a Reasonable Use Exception. There were also concerns raised about the location of the new road relative to proximity to the neighboring home to the south. Staff recommends fencing or vegetative screening between the road and property to the south as a condition of approval. A comment email was also received from George Walter with the Nisqually Indian Tribe (Attachment t) regarding impacts the project could have to the floodplain as well as Hartman / Medicine Creek which acts as a flood overflow channel. Mr. Walter recommended a bridge rather than the proposed fill and culvert in order to address


flooding concerns.

G. Thurston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property is Rural Residential and the zoning is Rural Residential Resource 1/5 (RRR 1/5). Per TCC 20.09A.010 the purpose of this chapter is to encourage residential development that maintains the county's rural character; provides opportunities for compatible agricultural, forestry and other rural land uses; is sensitive to the site's physical characteristics; provides greater opportunities for protecting sensitive environmental areas and creating open space corridors; enables efficient road and utility systems; and does not create demands for urban level services.

Staff comments: As proposed and conditioned, the application for an access road is consistent with the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, the Community Planning and Economic Development Department recommend the following conditions if the requested Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Reasonable Use Exception to build a road and stream crossing within the 100 year flood plain of the Nisqually River are approved by the Hearing Examiner:

1. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or

construction. These control Measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into the lake. Sand, silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.

2. The Applicant shall stop work and contact the proper authorities, including Nisqually

Tribe Cultural Resources Preservation Officer, the Squaxin Tribe, Chehalis Tribe, Thurston County CPED and the WA State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) if during excavation there are discoveries of archaeological artifacts or human burials.

3. An irrevocable assignment of savings or bond in the amount of 125% of the fair market value of the mitigation and monitoring plan shall be submitted to CPED prior to a construction / grading permit being issued for the project. An irrevocable assignment of funds or bond is used to ensure that the mitigation plan is completed. Once the mitigation work has been completed the irrevocable assignment of funds or bond will be released except for funds related to project monitoring which will be released once the monitoring has been completed.

4. If contamination of soil or groundwater is revealed by testing, The Washington State

Department of Ecology must be notified (Contact the Environmental Report Tracking System Coordinator at the Southwest Regional Office at (360) 407-6300).

5. Fill material shall be of such quality that it will not cause water quality degradation

beyond the limits of adopted water quality standards defined by the Department of Ecology.


6. Excess construction materials shall be removed from the critical area and buffer.

7. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from road construction, if permitted on shorelines, shall be disposed of in such a way as to minimize their entry by erosion from drainage into any water body.

8. There will be significant new traffic in this area which is adjacent to an existing single-

family residence. Screening or fencing shall be provided between the proposed new access road and the neighboring property directly to the south.

9. Timing of work shall occur when water is not flowing in the creek.

10. Clearing limits shall be clearly marked by temporary construction fencing. Construction

fencing shall be reviewed and approved by staff in the field prior to the beginning of work.

11. Clearing and grading shall only occur between May 1 and September 30th (TCC

24.20.090.D.) unless otherwise approved by Thurston County CPED per this section.

12. The applicant shall remove all construction related debris to an approved site (landfill or recycling center) outside of shoreline jurisdiction.

13. The maximum impervious surface on the parcel shall not exceed 30%.

14. Prior to a construction / grading permit being issued by Public Works an engineered drainage

and erosion control plan must be submitted to Thurston County CPED.

15. The supplemental spill plan information dated February 12, 2020 should be incorporated into the Biological Evaluation or included as an attachment to ensure it is readily available.

16. A Construction Stormwater Permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology may

be required. Information about the permit and the application can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/permit.html. It is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain this permit if required.

Scott McCormick, MES Associate Planner \\apollo\apps\track\planning\amanda save file\reasonable use exception\staff reports\2017103260 lds.camp.nisqually.access.sm.doc


LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 Community Planning & Economic Development Staff Report including the

following attachments:

Attachment a Notice of Public Hearing

Attachment b Zoning/Site Map Attachment c Master Application received June 22, 2017

Attachment d JARPA Application received June 22, 2017 Attachment e Reasonable Use Exception Application, received June 22, 2017 Attachment f Narrative (undated) Attachment g Site plans received February 13, 2020 Attachment h Notice of Application dated October 12, 2017 with Adjacent

Property Owners list dated September 11, 2017 Attachment i Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance dated June 6, 2019

with Adjacent Property Owners list dated May 30, 2019 Attachment j SEPA Environmental Checklist received June 22, 2017 Attachment k Floodplain Zero-Rise Analysis dated June 12, 2018, updated

September 10, 2019 Attachment l Cultural Resources Report dated July 30, 2018 Attachment m Limited Subsurface Exploration and Preliminary Geotechnical

Engineering Report dated May 8, 2017 Attachment n Drainage Scoping Report received August 28, 2018 Attachment o Memo from Mark Maurer, P.E., R.L.A. with TC Water Resources

Div. dated September 26, 2018 with accompanying Memo from Arthur Saint, P.E. dated September 26, 2018

Attachment p LDS Nisqually Review Comment Response Letter from Beyler

Consulting dated August 28, 2018

Attachment q LDS Nisqually…Response to Thurston County by Envirovector dated June 14, 2019

Attachment r Response to public comment letters from Beyler Consulting dated

June 26, 2019


Attachment s Comment letter from Sharon Westberg dated June 18, 2019

Attachment t Comment email from George Walter with the Nisqually Indian Tribe’s Natural Resources Dept. dated June 19, 2019

Attachment u Comment letter from the Nisqually Tribe dated June 7, 2019 Attachment v Email from Landon Beyler to Scott McCormick dated May 9, 2019

with attached email from Kelly Still (WDFW) dated May 9, 2019 Attachment w Comment letter from the WA Dept. of Ecology dated November 1,

2017 Attachment x Comment letter from Sharon Westberg received October 23, 2017

with attached map Attachment y Comment letter from the Nisqually Indian Tribe dated October 17,

2017 Attachment z Comment letter from the WA Dept. of Ecology dated July 31, 2017 Attachment a-1 Email from Marisa Whisman TC Assoc. Planner to Scott

McCormick, TC Assoc. Planner dated July 26, 2017 Attachment b-1 Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan by Envirovector received

June 7, 2019

Attachment c-1 Biological Evaluation (BE) by Envirovector received June 7, 2019 Attachment d-1 Response to Thurston County received February 13, 2020 from

Envirovector (Spill Plan)

Attachment e-1 Approval memo from Thurston County Environmental Health dated February 26, 2020

Attachment f-1 11 x 17 inch site plans received Sept. 13, 2019 Attachment g-1 Email from Landon Beyler with Beyler Consulting, LLC dated

October 28,2019.

community planning and economic development...po box 1228 elma wa 98541 c. point of contact: arlin...

Documents